Author Topic: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread  (Read 63652 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline kilo

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • k
  • Posts: 249
  • Thanked: 46 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #435 on: April 11, 2023, 12:57:15 AM »
Happy Easter,

I have recently read through the changes list for 2.2.0. What struck me were the proposed decoy missiles. These have a displacement of 200 tons/MSP and can be designed to be anywhere between 5 MSP to infinity in size. What struck me was this phrase:

The chance to hit the ship is equal to: Size Ship in Tons / (Ship Size in Tons + Total Signature of All Decoys).

What is the point of building and developing larger decoys if there is no gain in efficiency for them? They are probably more expensive to develop and harder to fit onto the ship. On top of that, you cannot adjust dosage easily. So why would you ever build a decoy that is larger than the minimum size?
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11664
  • Thanked: 20410 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #436 on: April 11, 2023, 02:09:59 AM »
What is the point of building and developing larger decoys if there is no gain in efficiency for them? They are probably more expensive to develop and harder to fit onto the ship. On top of that, you cannot adjust dosage easily. So why would you ever build a decoy that is larger than the minimum size?

If you use small decoys, what Decoy Threshold would you use?
 

Offline kilo

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • k
  • Posts: 249
  • Thanked: 46 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #437 on: April 11, 2023, 02:50:47 AM »
I have not played around with the threshold and I do not know how it works in detail. As far as I have understood it, a decoy will be launched if a certain tonnage of missiles survived the encounter with the PDCs. Meaning if x missiles of a displacement of y get through, the total amount is x*y in msp and if x*y > threshold, a decoy will be dropped automatically. If 2x missiles leak through, you could launch 2 decoys.
In this case, having smaller decoys would allow you to be more flexible without losing any efficiency. If you could only launch one decoy per increment though, it would be a tactical decision to bring either more smaller or fewer but more capable decoys.
Having a small and standardized decoy is also preferable when it comes to logistics, as every ship would carry these and the only difference between hulls would be the quantity of decoys and not the type they carry.


PS:

Maybe the total signature 2 decoys could not be 2 times the signature of a single decoy. Say, the best decoy counts for 100% of it's signature, the second for 90% and so on. From the 6th decoy onwards they only count for half their nominal value.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2023, 03:04:14 AM by kilo »
 

Offline Snoman314

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 127
  • Thanked: 39 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #438 on: April 11, 2023, 04:53:03 AM »
I have not played around with the threshold and I do not know how it works in detail. As far as I have understood it, a decoy will be launched if a certain tonnage of missiles survived the encounter with the PDCs. Meaning if x missiles of a displacement of y get through, the total amount is x*y in msp and if x*y > threshold, a decoy will be dropped automatically. If 2x missiles leak through, you could launch 2 decoys.
In this case, having smaller decoys would allow you to be more flexible without losing any efficiency. ...

The problem here is that this doesn't scale. If 1 small decoy reduces hit chance by only 1%, what's the point of launching just one? You'd need to always launch a bunch to get a significant effect. This means you'd have to set a very low MSP threshold to fire the decoys, and this means that you'd still be firing off a few even for small missile volleys that the ship probably doesn't need decoys to defeat.

You're better off having larger decoys, where deploying one decoy has a significant effect, and is only deployed when there's a large enough volley to justify expending it.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11664
  • Thanked: 20410 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #439 on: April 11, 2023, 05:45:29 AM »
I have not played around with the threshold and I do not know how it works in detail. As far as I have understood it, a decoy will be launched if a certain tonnage of missiles survived the encounter with the PDCs. Meaning if x missiles of a displacement of y get through, the total amount is x*y in msp and if x*y > threshold, a decoy will be dropped automatically. If 2x missiles leak through, you could launch 2 decoys.
In this case, having smaller decoys would allow you to be more flexible without losing any efficiency. ...

The problem here is that this doesn't scale. If 1 small decoy reduces hit chance by only 1%, what's the point of launching just one? You'd need to always launch a bunch to get a significant effect. This means you'd have to set a very low MSP threshold to fire the decoys, and this means that you'd still be firing off a few even for small missile volleys that the ship probably doesn't need decoys to defeat.

You're better off having larger decoys, where deploying one decoy has a significant effect, and is only deployed when there's a large enough volley to justify expending it.

Yes, that's correct.
 

Offline Bremen

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 744
  • Thanked: 151 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #440 on: April 11, 2023, 10:30:44 AM »
I have not played around with the threshold and I do not know how it works in detail. As far as I have understood it, a decoy will be launched if a certain tonnage of missiles survived the encounter with the PDCs. Meaning if x missiles of a displacement of y get through, the total amount is x*y in msp and if x*y > threshold, a decoy will be dropped automatically. If 2x missiles leak through, you could launch 2 decoys.
In this case, having smaller decoys would allow you to be more flexible without losing any efficiency. ...

The problem here is that this doesn't scale. If 1 small decoy reduces hit chance by only 1%, what's the point of launching just one? You'd need to always launch a bunch to get a significant effect. This means you'd have to set a very low MSP threshold to fire the decoys, and this means that you'd still be firing off a few even for small missile volleys that the ship probably doesn't need decoys to defeat.

You're better off having larger decoys, where deploying one decoy has a significant effect, and is only deployed when there's a large enough volley to justify expending it.

Worse, since the effectiveness of a decoy scales based on the number of missiles that hit that increment, firing off a small decoy against a small salvo becomes extremely inefficient. If each decoy is ~ 10% of a ship's signature, then firing 10 off against 100 incoming missiles means each decoy is stopping ~5 missiles, but firing 1 off against 10 incoming missiles is going to just divert ~.9 missiles on average. So even if the ship has no shields or CIWS to absorb smaller missile salvos smaller decoys risk becoming inefficient just because there's not much point in diverting a few % of small salvos. All the more reason to have decoys at least big enough that you won't fire them off at less than a medium sized salvo.

On the other hand, as long as decoys are in the general ballpark of the right size it doesn't make a huge difference, which is nice. It's enough I'll probably use a standard decoy size across all my ships instead of having battleship decoys, cruiser decoys, etc. I think that's a good balance point.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2023, 10:49:38 AM by Bremen »
 

Offline Marski

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 389
  • Thanked: 137 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #441 on: April 25, 2023, 02:28:34 PM »
Release when?
 

Offline TheBawkHawk

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • T
  • Posts: 81
  • Thanked: 43 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #442 on: April 25, 2023, 02:34:04 PM »
Release when?

From Steve on the discord -

"The next update will be a while. I've been ill recently so unable to do much programming (getting better now). In two weeks I start a three week motorhome trip, then back for a month, then another three week motorhome trip, then back for a month and then a third three-week motorhome trip, which takes me to  mid-September. Planning a fourth three week motorhome trip for around mid-October.

I can play a little while I am away, although I tend to be busy, but any serious programming and bug-fixing only tends to happen while I am at home.

TL:DR - probably months before next release."
 

Offline Nori

  • Bug Moderators
  • Lt. Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 234
  • Thanked: 42 times
  • Discord Username: Nori Silverrage
  • Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter : Support the forums with a Bronze subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #443 on: April 25, 2023, 02:51:40 PM »
Soo maybe Christmas.  :)
 

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2979
  • Thanked: 2241 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #444 on: April 25, 2023, 03:10:57 PM »
dammit marski you jinxed it   :P
 

Offline Agraelgrimm

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • A
  • Posts: 155
  • Thanked: 6 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #445 on: April 26, 2023, 07:57:14 PM »
Release when?

From Steve on the discord -

"The next update will be a while. I've been ill recently so unable to do much programming (getting better now). In two weeks I start a three week motorhome trip, then back for a month, then another three week motorhome trip, then back for a month and then a third three-week motorhome trip, which takes me to  mid-September. Planning a fourth three week motorhome trip for around mid-October.

I can play a little while I am away, although I tend to be busy, but any serious programming and bug-fixing only tends to happen while I am at home.

TL:DR - probably months before next release."

Well, the motorhome *is* home... So...
 

Online boolybooly

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 171
  • Thanked: 87 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #446 on: May 02, 2023, 03:51:31 AM »
I hope you have a nice trip in your motorhome Steve. Sounds fun. Certainly a lot more comfortable than hitching with a backpack and tent! Fun times, though long past.

It just occurred to me, since you were mulling over ideas about missiles and how to make them more useful compared to beam weapons, what about the missile sensor rules?

Currently all missiles in a salvo strike the target. What if missiles remaining after a target is destroyed are not wasted but can retarget if they have sensors?

Since this is cheesy as an imaginary scenario, as you would expect all missiles approaching a target to commit prior to the destruction of the target, what if this was reimagined as missile onboard targeting AI, requiring its own research? The idea being the AI research will  allow missiles with sensors not used in a salvo to be retargeted.

The AI research could have levels of tech to improve target acquisition, so start off with say a time penalty e.g. 25s to retarget during which the missile can be targeted by PD as though final defensive fire and ships can flee using up missile flight range. Reduce this time with research levels.

Another AI tech could improve the proportion of remaining missiles which are available to try again, so 50% > 100%.

Also what about a really scary AI tech, equvalent to particle lance, where tech 5 in both AI techs allows a new tech which enables missiles to target the same location in the armour of a ship, so drilling through the armour rather than making random divots and allowing missiles to enter the hull to wreak havoc with internal components much more efficiently ?

That could be refinable tech with a degree of spread factor.

Just thinking out loud, its better than cleaning the kitchen!
 

Offline Steve Zax

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • S
  • Posts: 28
  • Thanked: 7 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #447 on: May 02, 2023, 06:48:09 AM »
"Just thinking out loud, its better than cleaning the kitchen!"

I'm not going to be the one who says: "you can think while you clean!"
 

Online boolybooly

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 171
  • Thanked: 87 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #448 on: May 02, 2023, 04:13:29 PM »
"Just thinking out loud, its better than cleaning the kitchen!"

I'm not going to be the one who says: "you can think while you clean!"

but... you just said it...  :o
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11664
  • Thanked: 20410 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #449 on: May 28, 2023, 07:07:45 AM »
See below for the first in-game combat with the new missile rules. This is seen from the perspective of the Precursors defending against inbound missile waves.

Each individual AMM is assigned to an individual inbound missile - salvos sizes are no longer a factor. In this game, the Precursor AMMs are size 2 with ECCM-2 and dual warheads, so each AMM attacks its target missile twice. This could mean one warhead destroys a decoy and the second destroys the missile. The base 27% chance to hit is per warhead, so the chance to hit per missile is about 47%.

The inbounds are size 12 missiles with four decoys each and ECM-1, so the decoys are treated as 20% smaller than the parent missile due to the Precursor ECCM advantage.



« Last Edit: May 28, 2023, 07:41:04 AM by Steve Walmsley »
 
The following users thanked this post: Bremen, Neophyte, JacenHan, Akhillis, db48x, TheBawkHawk, boolybooly, GhostIsGone, lumporr