Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: SpikeTheHobbitMage
« on: August 05, 2019, 09:47:29 PM »

Quote from: Jorgen_CAB on August 04, 2019, 03:30:33 PM
Yes.. the dispersion is greater but the slightly higher percentage to weight ratio still in the example above make the 85% slightly better. This will obviously change a bit depending on the actual numbers to both worse and better. I ran about 1.000.000 calculation just to be sure of the result. The 85% destroyed an average of 4.114 missiles while the 100% destroyed an average of 4.107 missiles.

83% add up to 99.6 while 85% add up to 102% for the weight. This is obviously a conscious decision by Steve since the 17% canon also add up to 102% and is exactly five times smaller than the 85% cannon.

A twin 100% turret with a 4x tracking speed in my test have a weight of 15.56HS and a quad has 15.38HS which basically means the average to hit ration per tonnage are almost identical between a twin 100% and quad 50% gun with the number in my test above.

100%
4.107 missile hits with a turret size 15.56HS is 0.267 hits per HS.

50%
3.987 missile hits with a turret size of 15.38HS is  0.259 hits per HS

The difference are less than one percent in efficiency in this particular instance.

In C# the gearing bonus is suppose to be better so it might actually make it more effective with more smaller guns for that single reason.

At least in my opinion the differences are so minuscule that it really does not matter what you do and both have pros and cons.

The guns and turrets you choose to develop probably have more to do with research point and the general design parameters rather than the efficiency since the difference in efficiency is so small and might be way less important than the amount of RP and design choices different types of sizes of gun will give you.

Another very important part as discussed before is the fire controls because these are way more expensive than the turrets, small but expensive. If you expect incoming salvos to be around 8 missiles (or multiples of it) large then one quad 100% turret might not be enough but two is a great overkill so you opt to build two 85% turrets instead. One 100% turret will on average kill (if each barrel shoots 4 shots) 6.75 missiles while two will destroy on average 7.99 missiles. One 85% quad will kill on average 5.95 and two will kill 7.94 missiles. Even two 67% turrets might be acceptable per fire control with an average kill of 7.65 missiles per salvo since some leakers is acceptable if you have shields and good armour (which might be something you need no matter what). This is where design philosophy comes into the picture, perhaps a quad 67% turret also is small enough that some ship can mount one where two is too large which give you some design leverage to really large turrets of other designs.
I ran some numbers.  The 85 has a 2% weight advantage vs baseline, but to achieve 90% confidence vs leaks around a 22% penalty, increasing above 50% against smaller salvos.  At 90% confidence one in ten salvos will leak and there is a 1% chance of two salvos in a row leaking.

cth.py - a Python script to calculate shots needed to kill salvos of various sizes at any cth, to a specified confidence.
cth.dat shots per salvo for salvos from 1-100 at cth from 1-100 with 90% confidence.
85cth.png tonnage per target for 90% success
 X axis is number of missiles
 Y axis is relative tonnage per missile
 lower is better
 1.0 is equal to a gauss 100
 2.0 is double a gauss 100
The line is jagged because you can't fire a partial shot.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: August 05, 2019, 05:55:28 PM »

Quote from: Titanian on August 05, 2019, 04:49:48 PM
Quote from: Jorgen_CAB on August 04, 2019, 03:30:33 PM
Even two 67% turrets might be acceptable per fire control with an average kill of 7.65 missiles per salvo since some leakers is acceptable if you have shields and good armour
The problem with pd consistently leaving one missile in a salvo alive is that the next fire control will happily target this one missile instead of a fresh salvo, wasting most of its shots.

To be honest I don't remember exactly how the game target which salvo and in which order they engage.

In my opinion the game should make it so that the largest salvo is always targeted first with the biggest PD batteries even if one salvo have been engaged in order to make fire-controls more affordable. The fire controls are pretty much the most costly of all the components for point defence.

This way the odd laser batteries meant for anti-ship work will always fire last and hopefully targets salvos with only one or a few missiles left.
Posted by: Titanian
« on: August 05, 2019, 04:49:48 PM »

Quote from: Jorgen_CAB on August 04, 2019, 03:30:33 PM
Even two 67% turrets might be acceptable per fire control with an average kill of 7.65 missiles per salvo since some leakers is acceptable if you have shields and good armour
The problem with pd consistently leaving one missile in a salvo alive is that the next fire control will happily target this one missile instead of a fresh salvo, wasting most of its shots.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: August 04, 2019, 03:30:33 PM »

Quote from: SpikeTheHobbitMage on August 03, 2019, 11:14:11 PM
Quote from: Jorgen_CAB on August 03, 2019, 07:43:51 PM
Yes... 87% was wrong (brain fart)... it should be 85% and that is equal with 100% or actually slightly better than 100% in the above case.

As far as I know Steve said something about gearing weight for turrets. So the efficiency of shots per ton actually might be worth it in C# even if a 50% is slightly worse than a 100% gun. So we will have to wait for evidence of this before we know.

In VB6 Aurora there is according to my tests about a 1% difference in performance of the 100% and 50% gun in my test so the saving in weight from a twin to quad turret make that small performance boost extremely small or even no existent in a per tonnage perspective. I have not run the actual numbers on that though.
83% would have a rated average exactly equal to a 100%, so giving them 85% cth is arguably a bug.  They still leak more due to greater dispersion.
Gear size is: round(weapon size * weapon count) * (turret speed/turret speed tech) * weapon count factor / 10
WCF for single is 1.0, double is 0.95, triple is 0.925, and quad is 0.9
Rounding only applies to 10% and 8% gauss cannons.

I'll run the numbers later.

Yes.. the dispersion is greater but the slightly higher percentage to weight ratio still in the example above make the 85% slightly better. This will obviously change a bit depending on the actual numbers to both worse and better. I ran about 1.000.000 calculation just to be sure of the result. The 85% destroyed an average of 4.114 missiles while the 100% destroyed an average of 4.107 missiles.

83% add up to 99.6 while 85% add up to 102% for the weight. This is obviously a conscious decision by Steve since the 17% canon also add up to 102% and is exactly five times smaller than the 85% cannon.

A twin 100% turret with a 4x tracking speed in my test have a weight of 15.56HS and a quad has 15.38HS which basically means the average to hit ration per tonnage are almost identical between a twin 100% and quad 50% gun with the number in my test above.

100%
4.107 missile hits with a turret size 15.56HS is 0.267 hits per HS.

50%
3.987 missile hits with a turret size of 15.38HS is  0.259 hits per HS

The difference are less than one percent in efficiency in this particular instance.

In C# the gearing bonus is suppose to be better so it might actually make it more effective with more smaller guns for that single reason.

At least in my opinion the differences are so minuscule that it really does not matter what you do and both have pros and cons.

The guns and turrets you choose to develop probably have more to do with research point and the general design parameters rather than the efficiency since the difference in efficiency is so small and might be way less important than the amount of RP and design choices different types of sizes of gun will give you.

Another very important part as discussed before is the fire controls because these are way more expensive than the turrets, small but expensive. If you expect incoming salvos to be around 8 missiles (or multiples of it) large then one quad 100% turret might not be enough but two is a great overkill so you opt to build two 85% turrets instead. One 100% turret will on average kill (if each barrel shoots 4 shots) 6.75 missiles while two will destroy on average 7.99 missiles. One 85% quad will kill on average 5.95 and two will kill 7.94 missiles. Even two 67% turrets might be acceptable per fire control with an average kill of 7.65 missiles per salvo since some leakers is acceptable if you have shields and good armour (which might be something you need no matter what). This is where design philosophy comes into the picture, perhaps a quad 67% turret also is small enough that some ship can mount one where two is too large which give you some design leverage to really large turrets of other designs.
Posted by: SpikeTheHobbitMage
« on: August 03, 2019, 11:14:11 PM »

Quote from: Jorgen_CAB on August 03, 2019, 07:43:51 PM
Yes... 87% was wrong (brain fart)... it should be 85% and that is equal with 100% or actually slightly better than 100% in the above case.

As far as I know Steve said something about gearing weight for turrets. So the efficiency of shots per ton actually might be worth it in C# even if a 50% is slightly worse than a 100% gun. So we will have to wait for evidence of this before we know.

In VB6 Aurora there is according to my tests about a 1% difference in performance of the 100% and 50% gun in my test so the saving in weight from a twin to quad turret make that small performance boost extremely small or even no existent in a per tonnage perspective. I have not run the actual numbers on that though.
83% would have a rated average exactly equal to a 100%, so giving them 85% cth is arguably a bug.  They still leak more due to greater dispersion.
Gear size is: round(weapon size * weapon count) * (turret speed/turret speed tech) * weapon count factor / 10
WCF for single is 1.0, double is 0.95, triple is 0.925, and quad is 0.9
Rounding only applies to 10% and 8% gauss cannons.

I'll run the numbers later.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: August 03, 2019, 07:43:51 PM »

Quote from: SpikeTheHobbitMage on August 02, 2019, 09:15:59 AM
Quote from: misanthropope on July 27, 2019, 09:13:51 AM
spike. 

"Targets per FC is independent of the number of FCs by definition"

airball.  it's firing increments per expected hit that's the relevant parameter.  this parameter is not determined by the kind of cannon you use, but is *limited* by the size of the cannon and turrets. 

hypothetical 1500 ton quad-full-gauss turret can engage one salvo.  there is absolutely nothing you can do to improve this.  two 750 ton quad-50%-gauss turrets could, potentially, engage two.  therefore, there are scenarios, common and important scenarios, where two half-size turrets are _twice as good_ as one full size one.
It is hits per FC per increment per tonne.
You can only engage as many salvos per tick as you have PD FCs.  It also takes a minimum number of shots to kill a salvo.  Those are entirely independent questions.
A dual 100 is superior to a quad 50 unless your grade bonus is extremely high.  (100% bonus against same speed or slower, 200% against 2x speed missiles, etc)
A quad mount is superior to a pair of duals or four singles of the same hit rate that share the same fire control.

Quote from: Jorgen_CAB on July 27, 2019, 03:37:06 PM
Quote from: misanthropope on July 27, 2019, 01:36:14 PM
jorgen_cab

your claim is incorrect.  20 shots at .20 has a greater dispersion than 8 shots at .5.  i reckon that you correctly remembered but misconstrued the variance of the binomial-  misconstrued because in this case it is mu, not n that is being held constant.

Yes.. I constructed a program to do some actual statistical tests... since doing it in the game are a bit difficult. Lower size will get a small extra leaking except for the 87% size which actually seem to produce better result in most realistic instances than 100%

From my tests... for example...

Missile salvo size: 5
Missile salvos: 50.000
Missile Speed: 10000 km/s
PD tracking Speed: 5000 km/s
PD to hit modifier from fire-control: 0.9

Size 100, 10 shots, about 45% hit ratio : Average about 4.10 hits per salvo
Size 87, 12 shots, about 39% hit ratio : Average about 4.17 hits per salvo
Size 50, 20 shots, about 22.5% hit ratio : Average about 3.99 hits per salvo
Size 25, 40 shots, about 11.2% hit ratio : Average about 3.92 hits per salvo
Size 17, 60 shots, about 7.6% hit ratio : Average about 3.94 hits per salvo

So... the most effective gun seem to actually be 87% as far as I can tell from a leaking perspective in real terms. The 87% gun are weaker at around 75-100 tracking speed if grade bonus is 100. This interval will then change depending on grade bonus... so it depends... but differences is small and in general the 87% seem better since it get more benefits unless you are in a 25-30% interval.

You can change the numbers above of course but in general the same result will stand and the differences will diminish fast as salvo size go above the turret shot ratio. Although in realistic terms the differences in leaking from a 100% to a 17% gun are so small that other considerations such as fire controls, turret design versus ship design etc should be more important.

If you are often engaging rather small salvos of around 4-8 missiles then having a large 100% quad turret might not be that useful and too big for some ships. You might need more fire-controls and smaller turrets.

To put the above in more real terms... If you are engaging 100 incoming salvos each with 5 missiles the 100% size turret will miss 90 missiles out of 500 while the size 17% turret will miss 106 missiles.


If anyone want to do their own testing you can use this little .NET app if they wish... I provide no support.. ;)  https://www.dropbox.com/s/kj1kz6r9aemtpz7/Aurora_PDtest.exe?dl=0
Jorgen, check your numbers.  There is no Gauss-87.  There is a Gauss-85.

Yes... 87% was wrong (brain fart)... it should be 85% and that is equal with 100% or actually slightly better than 100% in the above case.

As far as I know Steve said something about gearing weight for turrets. So the efficiency of shots per ton actually might be worth it in C# even if a 50% is slightly worse than a 100% gun. So we will have to wait for evidence of this before we know.

In VB6 Aurora there is according to my tests about a 1% difference in performance of the 100% and 50% gun in my test so the saving in weight from a twin to quad turret make that small performance boost extremely small or even no existent in a per tonnage perspective. I have not run the actual numbers on that though.
Posted by: SpikeTheHobbitMage
« on: August 03, 2019, 01:12:40 PM »

Quote from: misanthropope on August 03, 2019, 12:30:43 PM
spike

are you under the impression that a second fire control will permit one turret to engage two salvos?
No, a turret can't be shared or split between controls.
Posted by: misanthropope
« on: August 03, 2019, 12:30:43 PM »

spike

are you under the impression that a second fire control will permit one turret to engage two salvos? 
Posted by: SpikeTheHobbitMage
« on: August 02, 2019, 09:15:59 AM »

Quote from: misanthropope on July 27, 2019, 09:13:51 AM
spike. 

"Targets per FC is independent of the number of FCs by definition"

airball.  it's firing increments per expected hit that's the relevant parameter.  this parameter is not determined by the kind of cannon you use, but is *limited* by the size of the cannon and turrets. 

hypothetical 1500 ton quad-full-gauss turret can engage one salvo.  there is absolutely nothing you can do to improve this.  two 750 ton quad-50%-gauss turrets could, potentially, engage two.  therefore, there are scenarios, common and important scenarios, where two half-size turrets are _twice as good_ as one full size one.
It is hits per FC per increment per tonne.
You can only engage as many salvos per tick as you have PD FCs.  It also takes a minimum number of shots to kill a salvo.  Those are entirely independent questions.
A dual 100 is superior to a quad 50 unless your grade bonus is extremely high.  (100% bonus against same speed or slower, 200% against 2x speed missiles, etc)
A quad mount is superior to a pair of duals or four singles of the same hit rate that share the same fire control.

Quote from: Jorgen_CAB on July 27, 2019, 03:37:06 PM
Quote from: misanthropope on July 27, 2019, 01:36:14 PM
jorgen_cab

your claim is incorrect.  20 shots at .20 has a greater dispersion than 8 shots at .5.  i reckon that you correctly remembered but misconstrued the variance of the binomial-  misconstrued because in this case it is mu, not n that is being held constant.

Yes.. I constructed a program to do some actual statistical tests... since doing it in the game are a bit difficult. Lower size will get a small extra leaking except for the 87% size which actually seem to produce better result in most realistic instances than 100%

From my tests... for example...

Missile salvo size: 5
Missile salvos: 50.000
Missile Speed: 10000 km/s
PD tracking Speed: 5000 km/s
PD to hit modifier from fire-control: 0.9

Size 100, 10 shots, about 45% hit ratio : Average about 4.10 hits per salvo
Size 87, 12 shots, about 39% hit ratio : Average about 4.17 hits per salvo
Size 50, 20 shots, about 22.5% hit ratio : Average about 3.99 hits per salvo
Size 25, 40 shots, about 11.2% hit ratio : Average about 3.92 hits per salvo
Size 17, 60 shots, about 7.6% hit ratio : Average about 3.94 hits per salvo

So... the most effective gun seem to actually be 87% as far as I can tell from a leaking perspective in real terms. The 87% gun are weaker at around 75-100 tracking speed if grade bonus is 100. This interval will then change depending on grade bonus... so it depends... but differences is small and in general the 87% seem better since it get more benefits unless you are in a 25-30% interval.

You can change the numbers above of course but in general the same result will stand and the differences will diminish fast as salvo size go above the turret shot ratio. Although in realistic terms the differences in leaking from a 100% to a 17% gun are so small that other considerations such as fire controls, turret design versus ship design etc should be more important.

If you are often engaging rather small salvos of around 4-8 missiles then having a large 100% quad turret might not be that useful and too big for some ships. You might need more fire-controls and smaller turrets.

To put the above in more real terms... If you are engaging 100 incoming salvos each with 5 missiles the 100% size turret will miss 90 missiles out of 500 while the size 17% turret will miss 106 missiles.


If anyone want to do their own testing you can use this little .NET app if they wish... I provide no support.. ;)  https://www.dropbox.com/s/kj1kz6r9aemtpz7/Aurora_PDtest.exe?dl=0
Jorgen, check your numbers.  There is no Gauss-87.  There is a Gauss-85.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: July 27, 2019, 03:37:06 PM »

Quote from: misanthropope on July 27, 2019, 01:36:14 PM
jorgen_cab

your claim is incorrect.  20 shots at .20 has a greater dispersion than 8 shots at .5.  i reckon that you correctly remembered but misconstrued the variance of the binomial-  misconstrued because in this case it is mu, not n that is being held constant.

Yes.. I constructed a program to do some actual statistical tests... since doing it in the game are a bit difficult. Lower size will get a small extra leaking except for the 87% size which actually seem to produce better result in most realistic instances than 100%

From my tests... for example...

Missile salvo size: 5
Missile salvos: 50.000
Missile Speed: 10000 km/s
PD tracking Speed: 5000 km/s
PD to hit modifier from fire-control: 0.9

Size 100, 10 shots, about 45% hit ratio : Average about 4.10 hits per salvo
Size 87, 12 shots, about 39% hit ratio : Average about 4.17 hits per salvo
Size 50, 20 shots, about 22.5% hit ratio : Average about 3.99 hits per salvo
Size 25, 40 shots, about 11.2% hit ratio : Average about 3.92 hits per salvo
Size 17, 60 shots, about 7.6% hit ratio : Average about 3.94 hits per salvo

So... the most effective gun seem to actually be 87% as far as I can tell from a leaking perspective in real terms. The 87% gun are weaker at around 75-100 tracking speed if grade bonus is 100. This interval will then change depending on grade bonus... so it depends... but differences is small and in general the 87% seem better since it get more benefits unless you are in a 25-30% interval.

You can change the numbers above of course but in general the same result will stand and the differences will diminish fast as salvo size go above the turret shot ratio. Although in realistic terms the differences in leaking from a 100% to a 17% gun are so small that other considerations such as fire controls, turret design versus ship design etc should be more important.

If you are often engaging rather small salvos of around 4-8 missiles then having a large 100% quad turret might not be that useful and too big for some ships. You might need more fire-controls and smaller turrets.

To put the above in more real terms... If you are engaging 100 incoming salvos each with 5 missiles the 100% size turret will miss 90 missiles out of 500 while the size 17% turret will miss 106 missiles.


If anyone want to do their own testing you can use this little .NET app if they wish... I provide no support.. ;)  https://www.dropbox.com/s/kj1kz6r9aemtpz7/Aurora_PDtest.exe?dl=0
Posted by: misanthropope
« on: July 27, 2019, 01:36:14 PM »

jorgen_cab

your claim is incorrect.  20 shots at .20 has a greater dispersion than 8 shots at .5.  i reckon that you correctly remembered but misconstrued the variance of the binomial-  misconstrued because in this case it is mu, not n that is being held constant.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: July 27, 2019, 10:57:23 AM »

Quote from: SpikeTheHobbitMage on July 27, 2019, 02:27:28 AM
Using your example, the 100% gun takes 3-4 shots to get a 90% cth one missile and 13-14 shots to have a 90% chance of killing 5 incoming missiles.  The 25% gun takes 16-17 shots for 90% cth against one and 59-60 shots for 90% cth 5.

As it says in the title, this thread was supposed to be a comparison of PD Gauss Turrets.  I apologize for getting snippy.

That is completely irrelevant in this context.

What I meant to prove is the mean distribution of results. the closer the to hit goes to either 0% or 100% the mean distribution of expected results is the same going from 50% if you add and remove dice accordingly.

We was talking about mean distribution not the chance of getting a certain specific number of hits, that is different.

shooting 8 shots at 50% will produce a far more diverse result than rolling 20 dice at 20% which will have roughly the same mean distribution as rolling 5 80% dice even if there is a potential of some results of 6 misses on the 20% dice, but those results become far less common the lower the percentage versus increase on dice. but the mean distribution are practically the same.

Fact is that a gun that fires at close to 50% to hit rate will produce the most leaking missiles as long as you add or remove shots linear to the to hit rate and do a comparison. You can test this if you want, it will be so...
Posted by: misanthropope
« on: July 27, 2019, 09:13:51 AM »

spike. 

"Targets per FC is independent of the number of FCs by definition"

airball.  it's firing increments per expected hit that's the relevant parameter.  this parameter is not determined by the kind of cannon you use, but is *limited* by the size of the cannon and turrets. 

hypothetical 1500 ton quad-full-gauss turret can engage one salvo.  there is absolutely nothing you can do to improve this.  two 750 ton quad-50%-gauss turrets could, potentially, engage two.  therefore, there are scenarios, common and important scenarios, where two half-size turrets are _twice as good_ as one full size one. 
Posted by: SpikeTheHobbitMage
« on: July 27, 2019, 02:27:28 AM »

Quote from: misanthropope on July 26, 2019, 06:28:05 PM
you've claimed to factor out fire control, but you can't, entirely.  any FC-per-expected-hit ratio that is achievable for full sized turrets is possible for smaller ones, but the reverse is not true.  if you come to the conclusion on the basis of mean and standard deviation that a 100% size 4-cannon turret is optimal, you're going to die like a dog to a many-small-salvos attack.  you've already asserted that dealing with omg box waves isn't in the GC's job description, so in that case in what sense is the 1500 ton turret even useful, let alone optimal?
Targets per FC is independent of the number of FCs by definition.  The data shows that accuracy per shot is more important than the number of shots fired to hit a given number of targets at minimum cost and that larger turrets are cheaper than the equivalent in smaller turrets, though the margins are admittedly small.

During my most recent engagement, the enemy was firing salvos of 9 with a 3x speed advantage.  Defending with Gauss-100s with 95% FCs and 35% crew grade gives 43% cth per shot.  It takes 4 shots to get a ~90% kill probability against one missile.  It takes 28 shots to get a ~90% kill probability against a full salvo of 9.  Pairing a quad with a triple would have been more efficient than two quads.  To do the same thing with -50s would take 60 shots per salvo.

Quote from: Jorgen_CAB on July 26, 2019, 07:24:05 PM
If the only thing you want to really say with the topic is that knocking out five missiles with five 100% shots is more optimal than ten 50% shots then I agree with your statement, but that is at least to me rudimentary maths not a revelation. Good to mention it if someone didn't know though. Fact is that 50% reduction of the weapons are basically as bad as it gets (if that is the to hit ratio you finally end up with), really small guns get so many shots that the mean distribution is very tight, to the point it becomes negligible at the very small guns. There might even be a slight case of making 17% reduced canons to be very effective since they also have a 2% higher average efficiency (per tonnage, the same as 85% reduced Gauss) and enough shots to lower the mean distribution to almost negligible.

Another point is actual numbers... the worst leaker is a gun that ends up at a 50% hit chance if I'm not mistaken. Anything below will basically reduce the spread of the mean distribution as will anything above. As you get closer to 0% and 100% you end up at absolutes. This can definitely mean that a large 100% gun can become less reliable after all calculations is done. It all depends on the tracking speed versus missile speed which one will leak more.

Example
A 100% gun with a tracking speed of say 16000km/s shooting at a missile doing 39000km/s have a base to hit ratio of 41%. Let't say you hit at 90% at 10.000km and have a grade bonus of +40% and end at around 51% final to hit. That is worse than four times the 25% reduced size Gauss weapons hitting at around 13% a piece. The 25% reduced sized weapon has less spread and produce less leakers and is more reliable.

In my opinion the above example is more of a realistic scenario... but the problem is that it could just be another missile with another speed making the dice roll different and skew the result in favour of the larger gun. This is the real problem you face in a real game. I do think that this is important to point out so people don't draw the wrong conclusions.

I also believe that having more weapons in a turrets will also have some improvements in C# as well. Having four 100% guns in one turret can in many scenarios be overkill, especially against fighter launched salvos.

To be honest I don't know exactly what the thread is about anymore... I just responded to the replies with information I thought might be interesting to the topic of comparing Gauss turrets and their effect on the game.   ;)

Using your example, the 100% gun takes 3-4 shots to get a 90% cth one missile and 13-14 shots to have a 90% chance of killing 5 incoming missiles.  The 25% gun takes 16-17 shots for 90% cth against one and 59-60 shots for 90% cth 5.

As it says in the title, this thread was supposed to be a comparison of PD Gauss Turrets.  I apologize for getting snippy.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: July 26, 2019, 07:24:05 PM »

Quote from: SpikeTheHobbitMage on July 26, 2019, 03:13:29 PM
Quote from: Jorgen_CAB on July 26, 2019, 06:29:41 AM
Quote from: SpikeTheHobbitMage on July 26, 2019, 03:21:44 AM
It is clear that you do not understand the math as well as you think you do.  The entire point of testing with equal shots per target is to eliminate such assumptions from the analysis.  This allows hit rates for any shots per target ratio to be calculated accurately and from that the minimum effective weapon tonnage per incoming missile.  The number of fire controls needed is also entirely unrelated to weapon effectiveness per tonne and thus was deliberately factored out so I wouldn't need to make any assumptions about it.

PD layout is complicated, but by breaking it up the problem becomes much easier to deal with.

In VB only x16 fighter-only FCs can match equal tech missile speeds.
When C# comes out I will be interested in analyzing the changes.

rol against each salvo. This is not in question... So... yes I understand the math just fine and have done the test myself several times before years ago... that is when I noticed that the tracking speed bonus did not work for example.

I just highlight that this comparison is not the whole picture... I got the feeling from the original post that you should use max size guns because they always are more effective unless you are close to the missile speed in tracking (which you rarely are in VB6). What I pointed out is that number of fire-controls salvos size and ratios do matter in this context in what cannons are more valuable per tonnage too. Leaving it out is not giving you a very good overview on what is most effective in practice given all the variable out there that actually matter.

So the basic maths of probabilities is not in question, just the overall evaluation of the importance of it in relation to how real practical examples can turn out. If you only look at part of a problem you don't get a very good conclusion to the whole problem.

Quote from: SpikeTheHobbitMage on July 26, 2019, 03:21:44 AM
Very wide box launcher salvos are best left to AMMs but it is possible to use very wide turret arrays, just very expensive.
Defending against beam attacks is entirely unrelated to PD Gauss Turret design.  Please stay on topic.

If you completely ignore that some component have other uses then you will assign them too much emphasis in that one calculation, that is just bad evaluation of how effective something really is. If a ship is going to have shields for other uses than for just leaking missiles they will be there no matter what so in that case you could include them for free as well as saying they are to weighty for their use.

I also think that only talking about tonnage as effective use of something is faulty to begin with... it is always a combination of cost, size and distribution of resource usage. If you use one resource too much you get an imbalance in your mining efforts and this is equally important in the entire context. On many occasion have some players complained at the lack of some specific resource only to see they are overly used in their designs over other resources, be it missiles, engines or some other components. I know it is not the topic... but again discussing one specific thing without context will often give the wrong impressions and conclusions.

If we only talk about weight to effective use in a very narrow spectrum then yes I agree that 100% size Gauss is more useful. But if you also add all other factors they do not have to be the best option.

I never claimed it was the 'whole picture', just that those elements can be factored out so that gun size can be meaningfully considered on its own.  As demonstrated, max size guns are always more effective unless your tracking speed is close to the target speed or you have an unrealistically high grade bonus.

Fire control ratio is a completely independent problem to the choice turret weapon, and therefore not relevant to that choice.  If you want to discuss other topics, start a new thread.

I am going to ask you one last time:  Stop derailing this thread.

If the only thing you want to really say with the topic is that knocking out five missiles with five 100% shots is more optimal than ten 50% shots then I agree with your statement, but that is at least to me rudimentary maths not a revelation. Good to mention it if someone didn't know though. Fact is that 50% reduction of the weapons are basically as bad as it gets (if that is the to hit ratio you finally end up with), really small guns get so many shots that the mean distribution is very tight, to the point it becomes negligible at the very small guns. There might even be a slight case of making 17% reduced canons to be very effective since they also have a 2% higher average efficiency (per tonnage, the same as 85% reduced Gauss) and enough shots to lower the mean distribution to almost negligible.

Another point is actual numbers... the worst leaker is a gun that ends up at a 50% hit chance if I'm not mistaken. Anything below will basically reduce the spread of the mean distribution as will anything above. As you get closer to 0% and 100% you end up at absolutes. This can definitely mean that a large 100% gun can become less reliable after all calculations is done. It all depends on the tracking speed versus missile speed which one will leak more.

Example
A 100% gun with a tracking speed of say 16000km/s shooting at a missile doing 39000km/s have a base to hit ratio of 41%. Let't say you hit at 90% at 10.000km and have a grade bonus of +40% and end at around 51% final to hit. That is worse than four times the 25% reduced size Gauss weapons hitting at around 13% a piece. The 25% reduced sized weapon has less spread and produce less leakers and is more reliable.

In my opinion the above example is more of a realistic scenario... but the problem is that it could just be another missile with another speed making the dice roll different and skew the result in favour of the larger gun. This is the real problem you face in a real game. I do think that this is important to point out so people don't draw the wrong conclusions.

I also believe that having more weapons in a turrets will also have some improvements in C# as well. Having four 100% guns in one turret can in many scenarios be overkill, especially against fighter launched salvos.

To be honest I don't know exactly what the thread is about anymore... I just responded to the replies with information I thought might be interesting to the topic of comparing Gauss turrets and their effect on the game.   ;)