Tentative Suggestions for Missile Rebalancing by Tweaking Launcher Size Rules

[nuclearslurpee (OP)]

I try to avoid starting threads in the Suggestions and Bug Reports boards, there are too many as it is, but this is an idea which I don't really have fleshed out and I think would benefit from discussion.

When it comes to missile combat, generally the sense seems to be that missiles are not as good as beam weapons overall, with the possible exception of box launcher spam which many regard as an exploit (although in multiple-player-race games it can be countered with dedicated tactics). There are a few reasons for this:

• Strategic costs: missiles take a lot of time and resources to produce, and a more involved logistics train to supply to the front lines. Beam weapons basically require nothing but a little MSP once built.
• With non-box launchers, it is very challenging to build up a sufficient salvo size to penetrate modern point defenses. Even the 30% size option, which is nominally twice the size as a box launcher and therefore in principle should be able to manage 1/2 the salvo size, in practice will only manage closer to 25% or 30% as large of a salvo, because of the need to also mount magazines with reloads (otherwise, there is no reason not to use box launchers). Full-size launchers are just a joke for anything except rapid-firing AMMs.
• Point defenses are very powerful beyond the early tech levels. On one hand, AMMs beyond the early techs are quite efficient and with 3:1 or 4:1 AMM-to-ASM interception ratios will tend to come out ahead in resource use - destroying a size-4 ASM for every three size-1 AMMs fired is a good deal. On the other hand, beam PD seems to have gotten more sophisticated since the VB6 days, which seems to be as much players figuring out the game (i.e., laser turrets are not very good as PD) as anything else.
• Beam weapons are cooler. There is nothing to be done on this point.

The big challenge with trying to buff missiles is how to do so without making the box launcher tactic significantly stronger. This means we can't really buff missiles by changing the missiles themselves (if anything, a small nerf is needed to the Agility techs to make AMMs less dominant, but that's another discussion entirely). Given this, my idea is to look at changing how missile launchers work, and along these lines I have two main ideas but I'm not sure yet if all the potential balance problems are worked out.

1. Change missile launcher size scaling. For example, if missile launchers scaled as SQRT(missile_size) instead of the current linear scaling, larger missiles would be more viable and the choice of ASM size more interesting. Currently, due to efficient point defenses and the dominant need to produce an overwhelming salvo size, smaller launchers are preferable. It is true that larger missiles can have larger warheads, but since point defense works on a per-missile basis, independent of missile size, each larger missile destroyed is a greater proportion of damage lost from a salvo compared to loss of smaller missiles.

For a simple example, consider three prototype ASMs: Size-4 with WH:4, Size-6 with WH:6, and Size-8 with WH:9 (let's assume we get the extra warhead space due to tonnage efficiency, for the sake or argument). For simplicity we'll consider all three to have similar speed, range, agility, etc.

Currently, a fleet capable of launching 200 size-4 missiles could launch 150 size-6 or 100 size-8 missiles. If the enemy fleet PD can destroy 50 missiles on approach:

• Against 200 size-4 ASMs, 150 survive and deliver up to 600 damage (depending on hit rates).
• Against 150 size-6 ASMs, 100 survive and deliver up to 600 damage.
• Against 100 size-8 ASMs, 50 survive and deliver only up to 450 damage.

If the enemy fleet PD can destroy 100 missiles on approach:

• Against 200 size-4 ASMs, 100 survive and deliver up to 400 damage.
• Against 150 size-6 ASMs, 50 survive and deliver up to 300 damage.
• Against 100 size-8 ASMs, none survive.

If the enemy fleet PD can destroy 150 missiles on approach:

• Against 200 size-4 ASMs, 50 survive and deliver up to 200 damage.
• Against 150 size-6 ASMs, none survive.
• Against 100 size-8 ASMs, none survive.

At any rate, there is not really any reason to prefer using larger missiles. This is before we even think about the longer detection range against size > 6 missiles which could give the enemy more time to launch AMMs, or better tracking bonuses for beam fire.

By contrast, if missile launcher size scales as SQRT(missile_size), a fleet capable of launching 200 size-4 missiles could launch roughly 160 size-6 missiles or 140 size-8 missiles. In this case: if the enemy fleet PD can destroy 50 missiles on approach:

• Against 200 size-4 ASMs, 150 survive and deliver up to 600 damage (depending on hit rates).
• Against 160 size-6 ASMs, 110 survive and deliver up to 660 damage.
• Against 140 size-8 ASMs, 90 survive and deliver only up to 810 damage.

If the enemy fleet PD can destroy 100 missiles on approach:

• Against 200 size-4 ASMs, 100 survive and deliver up to 400 damage.
• Against 160 size-6 ASMs, 60 survive and deliver up to 360 damage.
• Against 140 size-8 ASMs, 40 survive and deliver up to 360 damage.

If the enemy fleet PD can destroy 150 missiles on approach:

• Against 200 size-4 ASMs, 50 survive and deliver up to 200 damage.
• Against 160 size-6 ASMs, 10 survive and deliver up to 60 damage.
• Against 140 size-8 ASMs, none survive.

I think this makes for a more interesting decision, don't you? 

However, this introduces a couple of caveats:

• Eventually, launcher sizes would be smaller than their missiles (note: 1 HS = 20 MSP). This isn't likely to be a problem for the full-size launchers (the crossover is at size 400, which is not even possible right now), but for the smallest reduced-size launchers would be silly (size 9 for current box launchers, size 36 for the 30%-size launchers). This could be addressed simply by switching from SQRT to linear dependence at that breakpoint - you can't have a launcher smaller than your missile, so this makes sense easily for the player.
• Box launchers get even more ridiculous, doubling or tripling their salvo sizes for most typical missile sizes.

So we need to propose another change to make box launchers make sense.

2. Make box launchers the same size as the reloadable launchers, but make them cheaper. For the sake of example, consider if box launchers are 50% of the cost for the same size of reloadable launcher, and let's also say we eliminate the lowest launcher size (15%) so the smallest launchers are 30% of the full size. Box launchers, in addition to being cheaper per ton with this change, still generate a larger salvo size but only by a factor of around 1.5x or 2x - the larger salvo results from the absence of magazines rather than the small size of the launcher.

For a point of comparison: I usually like to use size-4 missiles for my missile-armed carrier-based fighters (4x4 on a 250-ton frame). With the two changes I'm proposing here, that form factor would not change at all except for getting slightly cheaper (since the smallest launcher size is 30% of full size, but the size-4 launcher is only 100 tons at full size with SQRT scaling; currently, a box launcher for a size-4 missile takes up 30 tons). Therefore I would say that this second change keeps box launchers in roughly the same place they are now, so overall game balance around box launchers should not change too much; however, reloadable launchers are now a lot more competitive tactically relative to box launchers.

I will note that while this change would conceivably allow for using "full-size box launchers", there's not really any reason to do that. We could keep box launchers as the last option in the drop-down (simply changing their size reduction to match the lowest 30% size), or reintroduce the missile launcher size reduction tech line from VB6. I don't care one way or the other here.

Other points. I haven't fully refined this idea so it may be worth discussion to revise some finer details. Some thoughts:

• Adding a fixed multiplier to the missile launcher size calculation would shift the 'fulcrum' for this change. For example, if we also decide to multiply the launcher size by a factor of two, size-4 launchers will remain the same size as they are now, whereas with no multiplier it is the size-1 launcher which would remain the same size. I don't know if this is needed, but it is a knob we can tweak if we are scared of large missiles being too good (or want to nerf AMM spam a bit? This could make box launcher spam stronger though...).
• I am certainly not married to SQRT scaling, some other fractional power like size^(2/3) or size^(3/4) might also be reasonable. However, the reload rate varies with SQRT, if I recall correctly, so we might just as well keep the change consistent with this other mechanic.

Comments welcome, let's hope this thread doesn't inexplicably become the ground combat mechanics discussion thread somehow. 

[Snoman314]

Overall, I like the sound of this. I do wonder however about changes that happened in years past, before I started playing - Didn't large missiles used to be a problem, and a bunch of changes get made to encourage smaller missiles? Is the current situation WAI, or has there been an over-correction?

I agree that some more interesting decisions around missile size would be nice.

Some thoughts on what you've said:

• I was going to say 'Is it such a bad thing if some launchers are smaller than the missile?', until I realised then you'd be getting mass for free, as missile load mass is not counted. But having minimum launcher mass be equal to missile mass, means that at some point different reload rates would give the same size launcher.
• One interesting tweak could be to apply the reload size multiplier to the missile size, and _then_ apply the square root. So something like HS=(MSP*0.3)^(1/2), instead of HS = 0.3*(MSP^(1/2)), for a 30% size launcher. Doing it this way, box launchers become _bigger_ than they currently are for small missiles. The break-even point is about size 7 ish for box launchers, and size 2.5 for a 40% size launcher.

[Ragnarsson]

I heartily agree with the overall premise that missiles aren't in a great place currently, aside from box launchers. I don't think I have much to add to what's already been said, but I would like to toss an idea on the pile to be ripped to shreds.

Missile Durability (or missile armor). This might be something innate to larger size missiles, with larger missiles being increasingly armored, requiring more hits from PD to destroy. Or this might be another selection, like agility or fuel, that the player could adjust and spend missile size points on. This isn't a fleshed-out idea like those above, simply an idea that might make larger missiles more attractive.

[Jorgen_CAB]

Overall I really like this... although beam weapons would still be too good against full size launchers, that would not have changed at all. Otherwise I like the overall idea that larger missiles launchers are more space efficient than smaller ones. This would also make AMM missiles less efficient which is not a bad things either. I fully agree with the Agility... I always normalize agility between around 80-140 in my games anyway. That way it will have an impact but not run away on efficiency.

One thing I might be a bit worry about it fitting missiles to fighters. A 500t fighter might at most be able to carry one perhaps two size 4 missiles at best.

In the game currently, full size launchers are just terrible as you can easily match them at equivalent tech level with relatively cheap beam PD and shields for the occasional leakers. The only way to use missiles currently is to reduce the size of the launcher so you can fit more of them.

With this change larger missiles would also be more attractive as box or reduced size launched variants.

The benefit of larger missiles are ECM/ECCM, range and bigger warhead so it dig deeper into the opposing armour. So, we should obviously not just count damage as the important factor of a missile.

[Jorgen_CAB]

I heartily agree with the overall premise that missiles aren't in a great place currently, aside from box launchers. I don't think I have much to add to what's already been said, but I would like to toss an idea on the pile to be ripped to shreds.

Missile Durability (or missile armor). This might be something innate to larger size missiles, with larger missiles being increasingly armored, requiring more hits from PD to destroy. Or this might be another selection, like agility or fuel, that the player could adjust and spend missile size points on. This isn't a fleshed-out idea like those above, simply an idea that might make larger missiles more attractive.

Missiles used to have armour before and was one way to make bigger missiles better.

Missile durability might be better than changing the size of launchers... but the changes to box launched missiles still could be implemented in some form. Currently the box launched launcher are so much more powerful than anything else as long as you can reload them properly somehow. I always have to put restriction on their use or else things will devolve fast. I always imagine that ships need a certain amount of tonnage for internal components and structural integrity so I can't mount too much weapons on the outer hull... the bigger the ship the less outer hull space they have or place for spinal mounted items which box launchers could be on a fighter craft for example so part of the hull integrity.

[nuclearslurpee (OP)]

• I was going to say 'Is it such a bad thing if some launchers are smaller than the missile?', until I realised then you'd be getting mass for free, as missile load mass is not counted. But having minimum launcher mass be equal to missile mass, means that at some point different reload rates would give the same size launcher.

I think it would not be difficult to couple reload rate to missile size instead of launcher size, if this isn't already how it is done under the hood.

• One interesting tweak could be to apply the reload size multiplier to the missile size, and _then_ apply the square root. So something like HS=(MSP*0.3)^(1/2), instead of HS = 0.3*(MSP^(1/2)), for a 30% size launcher. Doing it this way, box launchers become _bigger_ than they currently are for small missiles. The break-even point is about size 7 ish for box launchers, and size 2.5 for a 40% size launcher.

I think it is better to keep the linear scaling of the size multiplier, otherwise the different sizes will not be very much differentiated in practice.

Missile Durability (or missile armor).

Missiles used to have armour before and was one way to make bigger missiles better.

If I recall correctly, Steve removed missile armor on purpose as it made point defense much more difficult in a way that pushed a narrow gameplay direction to counteract. Specifically, any way you implement it basically makes Gauss/Railguns markedly inferior to laser turrets and requires multi-point damage AMMs. That being said, I don't know too well the actual balance in those cases, so it could be worth considering but my gut instinct is that if Steve took it out on purpose he won't want to put it back in.

One thing I might be a bit worry about it fitting missiles to fighters. A 500t fighter might at most be able to carry one perhaps two size 4 missiles at best.

I may not have written it clearly, but the way I wrote the proposed changes would mean a 250-ton fighter can still mount four size-4 box launchers just like we can currently, and heavier launchers would be a bit more efficient. Fighters should overall not be affected too much, mainly I want to make the larger launchers more viable relative to box launchers.

In the game currently, full size launchers are just terrible as you can easily match them at equivalent tech level with relatively cheap beam PD and shields for the occasional leakers. The only way to use missiles currently is to reduce the size of the launcher so you can fit more of them.

I have pretty much given up on full-size launchers for general ASM work, even with these changes the mechanics simply require a massive salvo size to beat PD in any case... I think that is realistic, but it does mean not every launcher size marking is equally viable. Full-size launchers are still probably ideal for AMMs if you have sufficient reload tech, and I think the intermediate sizes between 100% and 30% have niche applications (e.g., anti-FAC/fighter missile defenses especially against beam-armed opponents).

[M_Gargantua]

Real fire control's have a limit to the number of missiles that can be guided at once. You could use a similar mechanism to limit the upper bound of box launcher spam, as you'd either need more fire controls, adding tonnage to the ship, or sensors on the missiles, adding tonnage to the missile.

I do like the sqrt change to launcher size making larger missiles more viable for damage on target per salvo. Maybe in addition to a logistical buff which could be made so that larger missiles are also more mineral efficient to produce?

[Snoman314]

Edit2: I found an old post that may have some historical relevance to this discussion: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg103096#msg103096

I think it would not be difficult to couple reload rate to missile size instead of launcher size, if this isn't already how it is done under the hood.

Isn't that the same problem I pointed out? If I understand you correctly, you're saying the launcher would reload at the same rate, whether or not you get a full size one, or a reduced-size launcher?

• One interesting tweak could be to apply the reload size multiplier to the missile size, and _then_ apply the square root. So something like HS=(MSP*0.3)^(1/2), instead of HS = 0.3*(MSP^(1/2)), for a 30% size launcher. Doing it this way, box launchers become _bigger_ than they currently are for small missiles. The break-even point is about size 7 ish for box launchers, and size 2.5 for a 40% size launcher.

I think it is better to keep the linear scaling of the size multiplier, otherwise the different sizes will not be very much differentiated in practice.

I'm not sure if I'm not understanding you, or you're not understanding me. Under the tweak I'm suggesting, sizes would still very much be differentiated. I'll link a couple of plots to show what I mean, as I'm not sure I'm explaining myself well.

https://i.imgur.com/bXHvZnI.png
https://i.imgur.com/xDaToLg.png
https://i.imgur.com/BGsDc3h.png
Edit: Oops! All Titles should say Launcher Size (in HS)

For the last plot, the yellow and blue lines are exactly equal, showing that for standard size launchers my suggestion makes no difference in that case.

Note that it results in less size reduction overall for box launchers, addressing one of your original points.

[Jorgen_CAB]

One thing I might be a bit worry about it fitting missiles to fighters. A 500t fighter might at most be able to carry one perhaps two size 4 missiles at best.

I may not have written it clearly, but the way I wrote the proposed changes would mean a 250-ton fighter can still mount four size-4 box launchers just like we can currently, and heavier launchers would be a bit more efficient. Fighters should overall not be affected too much, mainly I want to make the larger launchers more viable relative to box launchers.

Ok... so if I understand correctly you mean that box launchers would have the same size as the smallest reloadable version of the normal launcher?

So in this case it would be 30% of the normal launcher down to a minimum amount based on the size of the missile it is designed for.

[nuclearslurpee (OP)]

Real fire control's have a limit to the number of missiles that can be guided at once. You could use a similar mechanism to limit the upper bound of box launcher spam, as you'd either need more fire controls, adding tonnage to the ship, or sensors on the missiles, adding tonnage to the missile.

I have thought about this, but the goal is mainly to buff missiles generally, not to nerf box launchers overly much. Box launchers remain roughly the same overall if we combine these two changes.

Isn't that the same problem I pointed out? If I understand you correctly, you're saying the launcher would reload at the same rate, whether or not you get a full size one, or a reduced-size launcher?

What I am trying to say is that the reload rates will remain exactly as they are now relative to the missile size and the reduced-size selection. The only thing changing is the physical size of the launcher relative to missile size. For example: a size-4 launcher will have size = SQRT(4) = 2 HS with the proposed changes, but will still have a reload rate of 60 divided by the reload rate tech as it does now. If you drop to 20% size, the launcher will have size = 0.6 HS (30 tons) but the reload rate will remain 6000 divided by the tech level, as it does now. The only change is to the physical size of the launcher; both launcher size and reload rate are tied only to the missile size (by a SQRT proportion, but this coincidental) and the size-reduction option, but not directly to each other.

I'm not sure if I'm not understanding you, or you're not understanding me. Under the tweak I'm suggesting, sizes would still very much be differentiated. I'll link a couple of plots to show what I mean, as I'm not sure I'm explaining myself well.

To clarify, I'm not opposed to your suggestion in principle, I just think it is better (all things being equal) to keep things simple for players to understand the mechanics as easily as possible. If I select "30% size launcher" and the actual size I get is 55% of the full-size one, I'm going to be confused.

Put another way, there is no difference between SQRT(0.3 * MSP), (SQRT(MSP) * SQRT(0.3)), or SQRT(MSP) * 0.55 (replace 0.3/0.55 with any size modifier you like), so if we really feel a need to change how the size reduction multiplier works why not just change the values directly in the DB instead of complicating the mechanic?

Ok... so if I understand correctly you mean that box launchers would have the same size as the smallest reloadable version of the normal launcher?

Yes. Which, in combination with the reduction of size across the board for larger launchers would tend to keep box launchers similar to how they are now, getting a bit better for larger missiles but the balance would not change much. The difference is that they are cheaper rather than smaller compared to the reloadable launcher, so they maintain their niche but the increase in salvo size relative to reloadable launchers is only around 2x instead of 3x or 4x like currently.

Basically, the goal is to buff reloading launchers and larger missiles while keeping box launchers relatively unchanged. I think current AMM and beam PD is good enough that overall balance should still be good, just with missiles as actually viable options in a beam weapon-based galaxy.

[Jorgen_CAB]

The more I think about this idea the better is seem to me... we definitely need to make larger missiles more of an attractive option. It would make the decisions we have to make in the design are allot more interesting and dynamic. There would then be a more well defined pro and con for choosing between missile and launcher sizes.

I really like the idea that box launchers are the same size as the smallest reloadable launcher. This would only give roughly a 50-100% advantage in salvo size if you want to keep two to three salvos in the magazines or no advantage if you just want the ability to reload them in space for a higher build cost.

I do think that box launchers probably should be quite considerably cheaper... I also think that reduced launchers probably should be as expensive as normal launchers. So, the same total tonnage of maximum reduced launchers would be more expensive than full size launchers, they will cost the same amount per tube and not size. The reduction in cost of box launchers will need to be so much less expensive that it will be worth loosing the ability to reload them in space.

[xenoscepter]

 --- As a fighter centric player I vehemently disagree with box launchers being the same size as 30% launchers. Unless a Fighter Only Box Launcher was implemented.

 --- That said I would prefer that Box Launchers simply used the linear scaling rather that the square root scaling.

[papent]

How will this effect ground combat fire support?

Agree that box launchers should follow linear scaling and remain the cheapest option.

Missile armor as previously implemented would need a full reworking before resurrection.

Overall intriguing and please don't get sidetracked trying to balance this or that.

[Snoman314]

What I am trying to say is that the reload rates will remain exactly as they are now relative to the missile size and the reduced-size selection. The only thing changing is the physical size of the launcher relative to missile size. For example: a size-4 launcher will have size = SQRT(4) = 2 HS with the proposed changes, but will still have a reload rate of 60 divided by the reload rate tech as it does now. If you drop to 20% size, the launcher will have size = 0.6 HS (30 tons) but the reload rate will remain 6000 divided by the tech level, as it does now. The only change is to the physical size of the launcher; both launcher size and reload rate are tied only to the missile size (by a SQRT proportion, but this coincidental) and the size-reduction option, but not directly to each other.

Ah, I think I see where we've talked past each other. I was referring to the thing where you pointed out that at some point launchers would mass less than the missiles they launch, and you suggested they could be capped to have a minimum mass equal to the missile they fire.

Take your theoretical 400 MSP missile launcher. By your calculations you say a standard size launcher would mass the same as the missile. Assuming launchers' minimum mass is equal to minimum mass, then the 'reduced size' launchers would also have the same mass as the standard size launcher. This was the issue I was trying to point out.

However I've since run the numbers myself and realised that with the max size of 99 MSP, this is a non issue, as only box launchers would hit this crossover point (at 60 MSP)

To clarify, I'm not opposed to your suggestion in principle, I just think it is better (all things being equal) to keep things simple for players to understand the mechanics as easily as possible. If I select "30% size launcher" and the actual size I get is 55% of the full-size one, I'm going to be confused.

Put another way, there is no difference between SQRT(0.3 * MSP), (SQRT(MSP) * SQRT(0.3)), or SQRT(MSP) * 0.55 (replace 0.3/0.55 with any size modifier you like), so if we really feel a need to change how the size reduction multiplier works why not just change the values directly in the DB instead of complicating the mechanic?

Yeah I see your point. If they were still named with their size reduction, instead of the reduced reload rate, this would be confusing.

--- As a fighter centric player I vehemently disagree with box launchers being the same size as 30% launchers. Unless a Fighter Only Box Launcher was implemented.

 --- That said I would prefer that Box Launchers simply used the linear scaling rather that the square root scaling.

I think perhaps you're not getting what nuclearslurpee is trying to say here:

Ok... so if I understand correctly you mean that box launchers would have the same size as the smallest reloadable version of the normal launcher?

Yes. Which, in combination with the reduction of size across the board for larger launchers would tend to keep box launchers similar to how they are now, getting a bit better for larger missiles but the balance would not change much. The difference is that they are cheaper rather than smaller compared to the reloadable launcher, so they maintain their niche but the increase in salvo size relative to reloadable launchers is only around 2x instead of 3x or 4x like currently.

Basically, the goal is to buff reloading launchers and larger missiles while keeping box launchers relatively unchanged. I think current AMM and beam PD is good enough that overall balance should still be good, just with missiles as actually viable options in a beam weapon-based galaxy.

Here's a plot of the proposed box launcher sizes (assuming I've understood nuclearslurpee correctly): https://i.imgur.com/kFAnjwL.png

As a fellow fighter-centric player, I'm all for this proposed change. Only box launchers for missile sizes 1, 2 or 3 would be larger, and I've never mounted AMMs on my fighters. I usually go for size-6 ASMs on my fighters, and now the launchers would be smaller.

[Steve Walmsley]

Interesting proposal. My first impression is that it is probably a good idea. I think I have already unconsciously accepted the underlying premise of the proposal based on the fact that I have gravitated toward beam-only fleets with the exception of box-launcher-armed small craft.

First though, I've created a table based on my understanding of the above to just check this is what you mean in terms of size. Cost for box launchers, as proposed, would be half the cost of the 30% launcher.

The tables on the right show how many launchers you could fit in 12 HS (600 tons) based on current and proposed mechanics.