It appears that you have not registered with Aurora 4x. To register, please click here...
C# Aurora > C# Suggestions
Tentative Suggestions for Missile Rebalancing by Tweaking Launcher Size Rules
nuclearslurpee:
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:
--- Quote from: Ragnarsson on February 03, 2023, 09:04:27 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version