v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread

[Droll]

Will missile retargeting be fixed in v1.13?

What is the bug?

As it stands self-guided missile salvos that hit their target simultaneously will not avoid overkill like they used to in VB6. My understanding is that when a bunch of self-guided missiles destroy a target, any missiles that are still around should re-target another ship within their detection radius - this does not happen for any salvos that hit their target at the same time.

Re-targeting only works if the salvos are staggered where they arrive one-after-the-other. Thanks to how gauss PD works, this makes the main feature of self-guidance very bad against anything that has PD. This kind of makes self-guided incredibly weak compared to standard missiles, especially thanks to the changes to onboard sensor size. 

[Malorn]

As it stands self-guided missile salvos that hit their target simultaneously will not avoid overkill like they used to in VB6. My understanding is that when a bunch of self-guided missiles destroy a target, any missiles that are still around should re-target another ship within their detection radius - this does not happen for any salvos that hit their target at the same time.

Re-targeting only works if the salvos are staggered where they arrive one-after-the-other. Thanks to how gauss PD works, this makes the main feature of self-guidance very bad against anything that has PD. This kind of makes self-guided incredibly weak compared to standard missiles, especially thanks to the changes to onboard sensor size.

This might be a good piece of balancing behavior, as honestly re-targeting is insanely powerful, and with all missiles hitting at once, it would make sense they couldn't re-target. Massive salvos of missiles are already insanely powerful, and not terribly hard to achieve, this would at least mean the 'overkill' problem would that expensive in terms of missiles, and require more targeting spread to achieve multiple kills.

That said, I think the minimum size of missile sensors should be reduced slightly to compensate, then there are different advantages to both sorts of missiles.

[Jorgen_CAB]

As it stands self-guided missile salvos that hit their target simultaneously will not avoid overkill like they used to in VB6. My understanding is that when a bunch of self-guided missiles destroy a target, any missiles that are still around should re-target another ship within their detection radius - this does not happen for any salvos that hit their target at the same time.

Re-targeting only works if the salvos are staggered where they arrive one-after-the-other. Thanks to how gauss PD works, this makes the main feature of self-guidance very bad against anything that has PD. This kind of makes self-guided incredibly weak compared to standard missiles, especially thanks to the changes to onboard sensor size.

This might be a good piece of balancing behavior, as honestly re-targeting is insanely powerful, and with all missiles hitting at once, it would make sense they couldn't re-target. Massive salvos of missiles are already insanely powerful, and not terribly hard to achieve, this would at least mean the 'overkill' problem would that expensive in terms of missiles, and require more targeting spread to achieve multiple kills.

That said, I think the minimum size of missile sensors should be reduced slightly to compensate, then there are different advantages to both sorts of missiles.

I would agree, it also is way more efficient to spread your missile out on many ships as damaging ships are generally better as you then can pick of the straggler one by one and it lower their PD defences or offensive capabilities for the next strike.

You need to learn moderation to be effective in the first place...   

If your opponents capabilities are unknown just spread your first salvo among at least as many ships as you think is needed to get a good assessment of their capabilities. You then can adjust the ratio of missiles on each ships based on that Intel for consecutive strikes. First strike should generally target suspected escorts, that makes successive strikes that more effective.

[Droll]

I think I can appreciate the sentiment of the above two replies but with the new minimum on board sensor size requirements it does really make self-guided missiles more niche than I'd like. Ironically in VB6 if these missiles behaved like they do now I think it'd be much more balanced since the sensor would be much smaller anyways.

As it stands the only case where self-guided missiles are very useful is in a combat stealth ship context.

Edit: I would like to add that there are quite a few people who think that missile re-targeting is broken so Steve if you could clarify whether or not this is intended behavior that would be helpful. If it isn't a bug please consider reducing the minimum required sensor size.

[Jorgen_CAB]

I think I can appreciate the sentiment of the above two replies but with the new minimum on board sensor size requirements it does really make self-guided missiles more niche than I'd like. Ironically in VB6 if these missiles behaved like they do now I think it'd be much more balanced since the sensor would be much smaller anyways.

As it stands the only case where self-guided missiles are very useful is in a combat stealth ship context.

Edit: I would like to add that there are quite a few people who think that missile re-targeting is broken so Steve if you could clarify whether or not this is intended behavior that would be helpful. If it isn't a bug please consider reducing the minimum required sensor size.

I'm not sure if people have experimented enough with active sensor drones?

They can have pretty decent range for quite a small buoy attached to it. This is an excellent way to attack something using stealth as you don't have to reveal the striking ship... just have a fire-control large enough to track the target and missile with a range enough to attack so you remain hidden.

[Malorn]

I think I can appreciate the sentiment of the above two replies but with the new minimum on board sensor size requirements it does really make self-guided missiles more niche than I'd like. Ironically in VB6 if these missiles behaved like they do now I think it'd be much more balanced since the sensor would be much smaller anyways.

As it stands the only case where self-guided missiles are very useful is in a combat stealth ship context.

Edit: I would like to add that there are quite a few people who think that missile re-targeting is broken so Steve if you could clarify whether or not this is intended behavior that would be helpful. If it isn't a bug please consider reducing the minimum required sensor size.

Perhaps I am a bit confused, but I considered self-targeting missiles completely necessary, because otherwise when a ship is destroyed all missile salvos aimed at that ship are wasted, even if your ship remains present.

Perhaps my designs are different, but I generally engage at ranges where I can fire quite a few salvos before the first salvo arrives, and spreading out those missiles is less effective than focusing, at least in terms of many salvos.

[tornakrelic]

Sorry for the vague question on missiles, I was really busy all day and haven't been able to look at replies until now.

I think I can appreciate the sentiment of the above two replies but with the new minimum on board sensor size requirements it does really make self-guided missiles more niche than I'd like. Ironically in VB6 if these missiles behaved like they do now I think it'd be much more balanced since the sensor would be much smaller anyways.

As it stands the only case where self-guided missiles are very useful is in a combat stealth ship context.

Edit: I would like to add that there are quite a few people who think that missile re-targeting is broken so Steve if you could clarify whether or not this is intended behavior that would be helpful. If it isn't a bug please consider reducing the minimum required sensor size.

This. I'm under the impression that it is WAI, but I've read quite a few threads and have talked to a few people who believe that it is bugged. My question was more from a few of my friends asking if it was being "fixed" so I figured I would ask. I saw on the changelog that buoy's will remain in orbit now so it made me wonder if any other aspects of missiles had been looked at for 1.13.

[QuakeIV]

I believe at some point Steve mentioned that it was not yet finished.  He has left retargeting unimplemented for a while, and I assume he is pondering whether or not he should leave them that way.

The biggest potentially unintended side effect is that the change makes mines more or less useless.

[captainwolfer]

A way to have missile sensor retargeting not be overpowered could be to have missile sensors select targets in a manner similar to how the new "Fire at Will" command will work. That way, missiles won't be "wasted", but will still be less effective since damage will be spread across the entire enemy fleet instead of wrecking a few of the targets.

[Zincat]

Frankly speaking, I do not think that missiles within a single volley or simultaneous volleys should retarget. Impact is simultaneous and instantaneous
There is simply no way for them to retarget because they all detonate at the same instant.

It's not like missiles magically know, just before impact: "Oh look, only 12 of us will be enough, the others can all target someone else!!" I'll say it again, a volley all hit likely at the same second, so they should not retarget.

Subsequent volleys should instead retarget, and as far as I knows it happens.

I'd say this is working as intended, and also, it's working as it makes sense.

[brondi00]

It's not working for me. 

Mines and missiles with sensors are useless

[serger]

a volley all hit likely at the same second

At the same 5-second.
I think it's long enough for electronics to consider retargetting with some simple algorithm, using sensors at very close* range.
(*) close for this tech level

But I'm inclinig to agree, that ideal retargetting is quite boring. I'd prefer to see missiles targetting as v1.13's "Fire at Will" mode do, just to make escorts more important.

[Migi]

a volley all hit likely at the same second

At the same 5-second.
I think it's long enough for electronics to consider retargetting with some simple algorithm, using sensors at very close* range.
(*) close for this tech level

But I'm inclinig to agree, that ideal retargetting is quite boring. I'd prefer to see missiles targetting as v1.13's "Fire at Will" mode do, just to make escorts more important.

All the missiles need to penetrate the final fire PD in those same 5 seconds, and need to distinguish between a burning hulk and a functional warship, both of which are surrounded by the nuclear fireballs of missiles which have already impacted, then need to find a new target and change course to hit that other target.
So personally I disagree that re-targeting should be possible based on a realism argument, at best it should be highly improbable or require specialised designs.

As a possible compromise, missiles targeted at destroyed ships could have a chance of re-targeting, but instead of hitting in the same increment they fly past and make another 'attack run' in the next increment against a random target (or weighted random target based on size).
This would make missiles face the final fire PD again, giving the targets another chance to fight back and reducing the ability of a single overwhelming strike to take out multiple targets without risking overkill.

One way of making missile sensors more important would be to make the re-targeting chance based on the size of the on-board sensor.
Something like 1% per 0.01 MSP, reduced by ECM so that a missile with a 0.25 MSP minimal sensor gets a 25% chance of re-targeting, or 15% if opposed by ECM 1.
Alternatively you could make the missile Maneuver value the % chance of re-targeting, or a combination of both factors.

This would incentivise using specialised missiles with large sensors (or high maneuver value) if you want to use missile strikes which automatically re-target.

Another factor could be the presence of the original missile fire control, if no longer in range the chance to re-target is halved.

That would incentivise keeping the missile launch platform (relatively) nearby if you want to use this tactic.

now this post looks like it belongs in the suggestions thread...

[QuakeIV]

I personally am in favor of 'fire at will' style missile re-targeting.

Additionally, I think it would be perfectly reasonable for missiles to re-attack and be subject to defensive fire a second time.  Perhaps if the primary target is destroyed, remaining missiles will persist until the next 5 second tick before moving on to their next targets, organically giving defensive weapons a second chance to fire under the current game rules.  This would presume the missiles more or less blow past the remains of their original target and have to take a bit of time to re-engage, which I for one think makes sense.

I disagree with the idea of there only being a percent chance of re-targeting.  By all accounts TN sensors are all-aspect so there is no reason why they would lose the ability to see other targets and engage them unless they were destroyed.

Additionally, there is no requirement to presume that TN sensors are in any way subject to being dazzled by nuclear explosions, we could very reasonably say that they have a clear view for purposes of retargeting, and the missiles are staggered perhaps a millisecond or so apart each, which given TN tech (or even probably today's tech) would provide plenty of time to ponder whether to abort a run against the current target.

[nuclearslurpee]

Frankly speaking, I do not think that missiles within a single volley or simultaneous volleys should retarget. Impact is simultaneous and instantaneous
There is simply no way for them to retarget because they all detonate at the same instant.

It's not like missiles magically know, just before impact: "Oh look, only 12 of us will be enough, the others can all target someone else!!" I'll say it again, a volley all hit likely at the same second, so they should not retarget.

Subsequent volleys should instead retarget, and as far as I knows it happens.

I'd say this is working as intended, and also, it's working as it makes sense.

I would tend to agree with this assessment for a few reasons.

First, even though the increment is 5 seconds, this is purely a game mechanics decision, and nothing else in game suggests that missiles in a salvo are staggered more than milliseconds apart.

The other major consideration in my view is that when we look at how missiles and ship destruction actually work, it's really not feasible for missiles to even in five seconds assess that the target is destroyed and re-target. On one hand, missile damage is from a nuclear explosion and we can safely assume these are triggered at a certain set distance from the target, as trying to directly strike a target would be prohibitively difficult given the speeds involved, but also far more destructive than what actually happens in-game (the kinetic energy of a missile moving at ~0.1c far outweighs anything a nuclear explosion can output at the sizes we're playing with) - so we can safely assume direct impacts are not happening. Point being, missiles are exploding in close proximity to the target (or more likely in close proximity to the expected trajectory) and these explosions take some amount of time to actually reach and damage the target - the process is not instantaneous.

On the other hand, it would take even more time for damage to propagate through a ship and actually destroy it by causing secondary explosions etc. Perhaps not five seconds, at least not to be able to detect with certainty that the ship will imminently explode, but certainly it is also not instantaneous and missiles in a salvo milliseconds apart will not physically have the time before impact to assess this. Missiles in other salvos, I suppose it is reasonable enough given the limitations of a fixed minimum delta-t in-game.

Finally, in terms of gameplay I do note that a lack of salvo re-targeting if a partial salvo kills a ship maintains a certain amount of decision-making requirement in terms of allocating firepower to balance kill probability and use of limited ordnance. Additionally, this is a slight check against box launcher mega-salvos at least forcing box launcher ships to use many MFCs to avoid too much overkill...again, only a slight check given the small size of MFCs but still notable.