Posted by: Pedroig
« on: January 27, 2024, 08:24:48 PM »Great, now don't have to try testing it to see if that would have even worked...
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: January 26, 2024, 08:58:10 AM »You can't make a missile smaller than 1 MSP.
Posted by: Pedroig
« on: January 26, 2024, 08:42:43 AM »Yes you can, but magazines "spaces" can't go below 1 either. So there is not practical use in making a Missile smaller than one unless making a Multi-Head Missile, think a long range "FlaK missile" where one would put say 10 .5 missiles in the second stage of a size 10 missile.
Posted by: Ulzgoroth
« on: January 24, 2024, 10:43:37 AM »Can you not launch missiles from a launcher that's bigger than them? I guess I haven't tried, but that would make the thing where I carefully set fuel levels to bring the MSP to round numbers more important than I realized...I was talking about 1 MSP missiles, which I think is the usual expectation for small AMM?For a small AMM, ATG without very high tech is going to lower your chance to hit because .25 is too big a fraction of your missile. It might work out for, say, a 4 MSP ASM though.
This isn't really the case unless you're using sizes of ASMs smaller than 2 MSP.
(I wonder if <1 MSP AMMs to get more shots per magazine would work out at all, though?)
Can't make a launcher smaller than 1, so no.
Posted by: Pedroig
« on: January 22, 2024, 12:34:53 PM »I was talking about 1 MSP missiles, which I think is the usual expectation for small AMM?For a small AMM, ATG without very high tech is going to lower your chance to hit because .25 is too big a fraction of your missile. It might work out for, say, a 4 MSP ASM though.
This isn't really the case unless you're using sizes of ASMs smaller than 2 MSP.
(I wonder if <1 MSP AMMs to get more shots per magazine would work out at all, though?)
Can't make a launcher smaller than 1, so no.
Posted by: Ulzgoroth
« on: January 19, 2024, 08:13:29 PM »I was talking about 1 MSP missiles, which I think is the usual expectation for small AMM?For a small AMM, ATG without very high tech is going to lower your chance to hit because .25 is too big a fraction of your missile. It might work out for, say, a 4 MSP ASM though.
This isn't really the case unless you're using sizes of ASMs smaller than 2 MSP.
(I wonder if <1 MSP AMMs to get more shots per magazine would work out at all, though?)
Posted by: nuclearslurpee
« on: January 19, 2024, 08:07:33 PM »For a small AMM, ATG without very high tech is going to lower your chance to hit because .25 is too big a fraction of your missile. It might work out for, say, a 4 MSP ASM though.
This isn't really the case unless you're using sizes of ASMs smaller than 2 MSP. Considering a size 2 ASM, 1.0 MSP of engine plus 0.25 MSP of ATG is going to give you a slightly better hit rate than 1.25 MSP of engine, since the former has 80% as much speed as the latter but +25% from ATG gives a net 105% chance to hit relative to the latter engine-only missile.
The bigger issue is not hit rate but performance against point defense. To a rough estimate, 80% speed (relatively) implies up to 25% more losses to point defense (AMM and/or beams), possibly even more if the enemy uses retargeting AMMs which could get an additional chance to hit. This was true even before 2.2, where it was usually correct to sacrifice pure %chance to hit to add more speed (i.e., less agility) to avoid point defense.
Quote
Retargeting is a much harder sell for me. When it's good, it's really good. Mostly against singletons or small groups. You know, like if groups of 1-4 small fast ships are wandering around your systems blowing up your civilian shipping, hypothetically speaking. Then Retargeting can save you a lot of time and missiles. Against a decent sized fleet or slower/low-tech opponents you won't have much trouble hitting anyway, that space is probably better used elsewhere.It might also be great for missiles meant to kill fighter or FAC groups, which are unlikely to have strong missile defense but are relatively hard to hit.
Retargeting is good in pretty much any case that isn't trying to destroy large ships or fleets with significant point defenses. As long as they do not suffer high attrition from point defense fire they can use retargeting until the targets are hit. So the major use case is for AMMs but anti-fighter/FAC missiles are another key one. Maybe anti-commerce missiles as well but that's a really niche and specialized application.
Posted by: Ulzgoroth
« on: January 19, 2024, 07:40:51 PM »For a small AMM, ATG without very high tech is going to lower your chance to hit because .25 is too big a fraction of your missile. It might work out for, say, a 4 MSP ASM though.- 50% of mass as engine with significant boost, ECCM, at least 1-2 decoys, warhead strength should be X^2, where X is how many layers of armor the missile can penetrate.
-- Anything less than size 6 probably won't be able to fit all that.
-- Engine boost should be as high as possible while still maintaining desired range. Hostile missiles usually have at least 60 million km range in my experience, if not more.
-- If the missile is big enough (size 10 or more), you may also want to add retargeting and Terminal Guidance to improve hit chance.
This is all good advice, but I do think for the cost of 0.25 MSP Advanced Terminal Guidance (ATG) is pretty useful even on smaller missiles. I'm using size 6 and size 9 in my current game and over more than a dozen iterations, I have explicitly tested ATG vs 0.25 MSP of boosted engine and have yet to encounter a case where ATG was the wrong choice, even with my low-tech size 6 missiles. The base 20% boost to hit rate is probably already significant, unless the base hit rate is really bad---which is certainly possible if someone is trying to make a low tech, 60 million km, single stage missile with a big warhead---and it scales up pretty fast if you invest the tech points.
Now, it's true you might want that 0.25 MSP for something else, like a bigger warhead or more fuel or sensors, but I feel like it's always worth considering, even on a small missile. (Are we considering size 6 small now?)
It also usually will improve hit chance against ships less than ECCM, I think, so you need that first. And unlike speed, it doesn't make your missile more resistant to being shot down.
(Personally I'm building size 6 and size 4 ASM. Not yet actually using either, though I just queued up some missile fighters. And size 1 retargetting AMM, because it seems like my engines are so good I can get away with that.)
Retargeting is a much harder sell for me. When it's good, it's really good. Mostly against singletons or small groups. You know, like if groups of 1-4 small fast ships are wandering around your systems blowing up your civilian shipping, hypothetically speaking. Then Retargeting can save you a lot of time and missiles. Against a decent sized fleet or slower/low-tech opponents you won't have much trouble hitting anyway, that space is probably better used elsewhere.It might also be great for missiles meant to kill fighter or FAC groups, which are unlikely to have strong missile defense but are relatively hard to hit.
Posted by: rainyday
« on: January 19, 2024, 07:14:32 PM »- 50% of mass as engine with significant boost, ECCM, at least 1-2 decoys, warhead strength should be X^2, where X is how many layers of armor the missile can penetrate.
-- Anything less than size 6 probably won't be able to fit all that.
-- Engine boost should be as high as possible while still maintaining desired range. Hostile missiles usually have at least 60 million km range in my experience, if not more.
-- If the missile is big enough (size 10 or more), you may also want to add retargeting and Terminal Guidance to improve hit chance.
This is all good advice, but I do think for the cost of 0.25 MSP Advanced Terminal Guidance (ATG) is pretty useful even on smaller missiles. I'm using size 6 and size 9 in my current game and over more than a dozen iterations, I have explicitly tested ATG vs 0.25 MSP of boosted engine and have yet to encounter a case where ATG was the wrong choice, even with my low-tech size 6 missiles. The base 20% boost to hit rate is probably already significant, unless the base hit rate is really bad---which is certainly possible if someone is trying to make a low tech, 60 million km, single stage missile with a big warhead---and it scales up pretty fast if you invest the tech points.
Now, it's true you might want that 0.25 MSP for something else, like a bigger warhead or more fuel or sensors, but I feel like it's always worth considering, even on a small missile. (Are we considering size 6 small now?)
Retargeting is a much harder sell for me. When it's good, it's really good. Mostly against singletons or small groups. You know, like if groups of 1-4 small fast ships are wandering around your systems blowing up your civilian shipping, hypothetically speaking. Then Retargeting can save you a lot of time and missiles. Against a decent sized fleet or slower/low-tech opponents you won't have much trouble hitting anyway, that space is probably better used elsewhere.
One thing I've noticed in the latest patch is that I am stocking a larger variety of missiles and micromanaging my loadouts more. There were always fun design tradeoffs for missiles, but the fact that they aren't a solved problem at the moment, and I can't just punch some numbers into the optimizer is really encouraging me to experiment with different designs that I wouldn't have tried before.
Posted by: Ulzgoroth
« on: January 19, 2024, 05:51:40 PM »That’s a great start thank youYeah, don't pay much attention to the LP from 2.1, there's a huge change in missiles at 2.2. Missile agility being gone is part of it.
The LP I’m watching has missile agility (?) as a research area - I’m guessing that’s gone now because I can’t find it in my 2.5
But anything from 2.2 on should be the same except for bug-fixes AIUI.
So is a box launcher and a magazine 2 separate things is one a component of the otherI believe the only case of a component you design being part of another component is with turrets.
Posted by: captainwolfer
« on: January 19, 2024, 02:25:46 PM »Still new to the game and plodding onMy general rule of thumb for missiles is as follows:
I have been following a couple of let’s plays to get me used to the game but they’re far from 2.5 - 2.1 and 2.2 I think
I have absolutely nothing to go on in terms of missile design and wondered if there was a quick and dirty ‘here are some good missiles’ guides or advice anywhere
TIA
ASMs:
- 50% of mass as engine with significant boost, ECCM, at least 1-2 decoys, warhead strength should be X^2, where X is how many layers of armor the missile can penetrate.
-- Anything less than size 6 probably won't be able to fit all that.
-- Engine boost should be as high as possible while still maintaining desired range. Hostile missiles usually have at least 60 million km range in my experience, if not more.
-- If the missile is big enough (size 10 or more), you may also want to add retargeting and Terminal Guidance to improve hit chance.
-- For example, a medium range ASM at magneto-plasma engine tech with warhead strength per MSP of 5
Code: [Select]
Guisarme Anti-Ship Missile
Missile Size: 10.00 MSP (25.000 Tons) Warhead: 16.0 Radiation Damage: 16.0
Speed: 24,000 km/s Fuel: 750 Flight Time: 21 minutes Range: 30.43m km
Decoys: 2 ECM-2 ECCM-2 ATG: 25%
Cost Per Missile: 12.35 Development Cost: 555
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 300% 3k km/s 100% 5k km/s 60% 10k km/s 30%
-- If you want long range, consider making a 2 stage missile, IE this one has a cruise stage with a size 3.5 engine and 0.5 fuel, plus a size 6 "sprint" stageCode: [Select]
Katana ASM
Missile Size: 10.00 MSP (25.000 Tons) Warhead: 0 Radiation Damage: 0
Speed: 14,000 km/s Fuel: 1,500 1st Stage Flight Time: 120 minutes 1st Stage Range: 100.4m km
2nd Stage Flight Time: 2 minutes 2nd Stage Range: 3.73m km
Cost Per Missile: 12.41 Development Cost: 557
Second Stage: Katana ASM Stage 2 x1
Second Stage Separation Range: 2,000,000 km
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 140% 3k km/s 46.7% 5k km/s 28% 10k km/s 14%Code: [Select]
Katana ASM Stage 2
Missile Size: 6.00 MSP (15.000 Tons) Warhead: 9.0 Radiation Damage: 9.0
Speed: 30,400 km/s Fuel: 250 Flight Time: 2 minutes Range: 3.73m km
Decoys: 2 ECM-2 ECCM-2
Cost Per Missile: 8.91 Development Cost: 471
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 304% 3k km/s 101.3% 5k km/s 60.8% 10k km/s 30.4%
For AMMs, there are a few general approaches, but in general you want max engine power and at least 50% of mass as engine. Also, don't use terminal guidance unless the AMM is at least size 2
-- I prefer to use strength 0.5 warheads for AMMs. This means that any missile of size 10 or less has a 100% chance of being killed when hit, but the AMM can't damage armor
- Size 1 Dual Warhead (requires warhead strength per MSP of 5)
-- Hit chance vs 30,000 km/s missile: 2 warheads at 14.5%
-- Cost 1.44 per MSP
Code: [Select]
Javelin AMM Mk1
Missile Size: 1.00 MSP (2.500 Tons) Warhead: 1.0 (MW-2) Radiation Damage: 1.0
Speed: 43,600 km/s Fuel: 50 Flight Time: 50.2 seconds Range: 2,188,720 km
Cost Per Missile: 1.44 Development Cost: 189
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 436% 3k km/s 145.3% 5k km/s 87.2% 10k km/s 43.6%- Size 2 Retargeting AMM (Note: only works if the AMM is faster than the incoming missile, so generally wont work against enemy AMMs)-- Hit chance vs 30,000 km/s missile: 3-10 chances of 14.5%, depending on detection range. Somewhat more vulnerable to decoys since can only hit once per AMM
-- Cost 1.35 per MSP
Code: [Select]
Buckler AMM
Missile Size: 2.00 MSP (5.000 Tons) Warhead: 0.5 Radiation Damage: 0.5
Speed: 43,200 km/s Fuel: 125 Flight Time: 89.1 seconds Range: 3,849,120 km
Retarget Capable
Cost Per Missile: 2.785 Development Cost: 263
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 432% 3k km/s 144% 5k km/s 86.4% 10k km/s 43.2%- Size 3 25% ATG + multiple Warheads-- Hit chance vs 30,000 km/s missile: 6 warheads at 14.2%.
-- Cost 1.33 per MSP
Code: [Select]
Aegis Heavy AMM
Missile Size: 3.00 MSP (7.500 Tons) Warhead: 3.0 (MW-6) Radiation Damage: 3.0
Speed: 34,133 km/s Fuel: 125 Flight Time: 81.9 seconds Range: 2,795,517 km
ATG: 25%
Cost Per Missile: 4.06 Development Cost: 318
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 426.7% 3k km/s 142.2% 5k km/s 85.3% 10k km/s 42.7%Note that ATG becomes more efficient as the missile gets largerPosted by: Andrew
« on: January 19, 2024, 02:16:23 PM »A Box launcher is a one shot weapon and holds one missile. It can only be rearmed in a hanger or at a planet with maintenance facilities so if you have box launchers you probably do not want a magazine
Ordinary launchers including reduced size launchers also hold one missile and will reload from magazines so for them you want magazines based on how many salvo's you want to launch
Ordinary launchers including reduced size launchers also hold one missile and will reload from magazines so for them you want magazines based on how many salvo's you want to launch
Posted by: Zap0
« on: January 19, 2024, 01:21:44 PM »Separate. But a missile launcher (box or not) can always fit one missile of it's launch size in it.
Posted by: undercovergeek
« on: January 19, 2024, 01:01:31 PM »That’s a great start thank you
The LP I’m watching has missile agility (?) as a research area - I’m guessing that’s gone now because I can’t find it in my 2.5
So is a box launcher and a magazine 2 separate things is one a component of the other
The LP I’m watching has missile agility (?) as a research area - I’m guessing that’s gone now because I can’t find it in my 2.5
So is a box launcher and a magazine 2 separate things is one a component of the other
Posted by: Ulzgoroth
« on: January 19, 2024, 11:45:49 AM »Missiles in 2.2 are the same as 2.5 I believe, except that there are a couple unfixed bugs (ATG doesn't work and re-attacking can happen multiple times in one tick I think?). The game rather rushed through semi-major versions in there due to needing database changes for bug fixing.
Which kind of missiles are you looking for? There are at least two roles with very different concerns.
For offensive antiship missiles, you want: as much warhead as you can get away with, preferably in square numbers. ECCM, if the tech level isn't very low (which it might be for you. If you've got ECCM 2 and expect your enemies to have missile jammer 2, you definitely want it, at 1 it's still good but maybe something you don't have to do). As much range as you need (consider your launch platforms' fire control range and your sensors) and as much speed as you can get (speed determines chance to hit for and against your missile). Retargetting is iffy against point defense but maybe useful. Decoys seem a little marginal but may depend on missile size. Keep an eye on your hit chance against expected targets!
You can also put passive or active sensors on but I don't have a good handle on how that works to advise.
What size to go for is also a question. Size 6 is maybe a useful breakpoint because I think it's the size where going smaller doesn't make your missiles any harder to track with active sensors. But the smaller your missile the more missiles and launchers you can fit, so the harder it is for defenses to stop you. OTOH smaller missiles lose out in range and warhead penetration depth and spend more resources on duplicating things like ECCM. Against a defenseless target the best missile might be a giant torpedo that kills it in one shot, but defenseless targets aren't the ones you want missiles for.
Which kind of missiles are you looking for? There are at least two roles with very different concerns.
For offensive antiship missiles, you want: as much warhead as you can get away with, preferably in square numbers. ECCM, if the tech level isn't very low (which it might be for you. If you've got ECCM 2 and expect your enemies to have missile jammer 2, you definitely want it, at 1 it's still good but maybe something you don't have to do). As much range as you need (consider your launch platforms' fire control range and your sensors) and as much speed as you can get (speed determines chance to hit for and against your missile). Retargetting is iffy against point defense but maybe useful. Decoys seem a little marginal but may depend on missile size. Keep an eye on your hit chance against expected targets!
You can also put passive or active sensors on but I don't have a good handle on how that works to advise.
What size to go for is also a question. Size 6 is maybe a useful breakpoint because I think it's the size where going smaller doesn't make your missiles any harder to track with active sensors. But the smaller your missile the more missiles and launchers you can fit, so the harder it is for defenses to stop you. OTOH smaller missiles lose out in range and warhead penetration depth and spend more resources on duplicating things like ECCM. Against a defenseless target the best missile might be a giant torpedo that kills it in one shot, but defenseless targets aren't the ones you want missiles for.
