February Update - Missile Effectiveness

[Nerhesi]

This topic to discuss what seems to be the massive effect of missiles:

Rather than looking at missile types, missiles seems to do massive damage now due the sheer number. After some running of numbers, it seems that Point Defense is simply not enough due to hardpoint limitations and so on.

While we dont want to make missiles non-viable, I think we need to increase defense ever so slightly... so, options?

examples:
Apply Fire control bonuses to PD turrets and batteries?
Scale up EW more somehow?
Ideas?

 

[Chas]

Very fine line. Make PD too good and torpedoes get tossed altogether.

Looking at the paradigms I'm happy with the damage missiles do.

If we drop the weight of PD so these are more viable to implement we get:

PD destroying 10 missiles a round / hard point, that's 3x more than a missile hardpoint, so you've got a straight advantage there.
Your bays are putting out 12 for a hard point for a small bay, 24 for a large.
The PD hard point is effectively nullifying the small bay, for massive difference in weight, it's taking out a big chunk of the medium bay for an unbearable weight difference, it can't be considered I believe.

So we can't make this like a turret, then missiles aren't usable against another equivalent ship.

But what happens if PD gets so good missiles can't hit big ships? Missiles are still needed to fight fighters. They don't become redundant. Not the end of the world, you'd still carry them and PD, as should be. The trouble is you also likely destroy torps as an effective weapon, which we don't want.

Drop the weight to 10 tons? Keep the armored torp option to help? Needs to be worked through...

 

[PsiTraveller]

The +1 to attack roll results in massive chances to Hit if you launch a larger salvo. Then that effect is the multiplier for the 4D damage.

if the target is Tl 15 and has 15 armour it is possible that it will take no damage on an average roll (0 times anything is still 0).

More likely you will have the damage being multiplied by anything from 5 to 100 times. This could cause massive damage to a ship.

All the defensive EW, dodgine, Evade software pales in +100 salvo attack roll.

So EW has to handle anything from a single triple turret to a 250 000 ship full of large bays. Maybe a percentage of missiles per roll instead of the Effect number, or the Effect number X 10 as the percentage of missiles.

Or the same percentage roll for PD instead. Or are we in the Honorverse with massive salvos deciding battles? Bring on the missile pods towed behind the ships to add throw weight. (David Weber is the author)

 

[phavoc]

Once you get defenses to anything, it takes more to get through them. I much rather PD be more formulaic. Roll on the chart. PD just whacked X%. Or on a per TL basis, a PD turret removes X number of missiles. Sure, if you want to load up all your hard points with PD you would be pretty strong against missiles. But you will have zippo firepower to defeat the other guy. Missiles are the longest-ranged attack weapon there is. PD gets only a single opportunity to take them out right before they strike.

IF they can get through your defenses, you should have an ouchie. No armor should be able to shrug them off completely, though stronger factors should be able to blunt them. That's reasonable.

And torps will remain effective because of their damage ratio. Not to mention that you can arm small craft with them so they remain viable weapon platforms.

 

[Nerhesi]

Given that we've just discussed the ability to have firmpoints turrets improve defenses - I think we're much closer now. We have flirted with one other minor addition to address this issue.

We don't even need a new text box to add this, it can go under the incoming missiles insert. A simple:

"Turrets on PD may choose to engage salvos that are further from immediate impact. Apply DM -4 to PD attempts against missiles launched from Long/Very Long while they are in flight". (so no other modifiers)

What do you gents think? You don't need any extra tracking as you're tracking turns to impact anyways for a salvo. Missiles launched from medium range are immediate impact as per normal. This allows ships more defense while adding the valid tactic of closer-missile launches.

It also makes sense as we're shooting 10-ton fighters at long-range without issue...

Been thinking about this a lot actually and think for such a simple addition it is pretty effective. Gents?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

It doesn't matter much?

The first few salvoes will be blunted by multiple PD, after that PD will concentrate on the next salvo to impact. You will need a little more ammo. It will be a little easier to close in.

 

[Nerhesi]

Partially true - I think we want to make things a little easier rather than a lot easier. We won't want an option where missiles are simply crap or 80% destroyed.

This also opens up the potential for some very cheap, very effective picket ships. That's 3+ turns of reduction of salvos at very long range.

I think we're looking at dual approach. Slightly defense increase and strategic value to not just sit back...

Any other ideas?

 

[Nerhesi]

Another straightforward option we didn't implement earlier - is applying the weapon bonuses to PD.

Beam +4
Pulse +2

 

[Chas]

Up the effectiveness and weight of PD so they are more like the bays of defence. Then design it so turret lasers have a balance vs turret missiles. Put in a bay equivalent of PD and that will give you a match vs a bay of missiles. That way it's:
a lot easier to balance
gives you a clear choice - make your craft effectively immune to missiles, but don't have offensive capability and leave your self open to fighter attack or otherwise, or go all out offense, or look for a balance (which most will do).

As long as none of the individual factors dominant another, we won't go too far wrong.

Will need to watched through the TLs though.

 

[Nerhesi]

That is another option. Add 1D to each of the current PD Batteries basically? So it's 2/3/4 dice of PD?

That would have a good effect without nerfing missiles into oblivion.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

1) If you go all out for PDBattaries as is, say use 75% of your hardpoints, you are already immune to missiles (at TL14+).

2) The TL difference between PDBatteries are to large, nothing else have that dramatic differences. PD turrets are basically unchanged from TL9. Alternatively, everyting else have to few TL advantages...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

As is, missiles stand on a knife edge. With really good PD you are immune, with mediocre PD it is devastating.

The salvo system was chosen explicitly for adventure class ships, knowing it would break down for large warships. Now that we are considering large warships we need a different system, and a salvo system for energy weapons.

 

[Nerhesi]

As is, missiles stand on a knife edge. With really good PD you are immune, with mediocre PD it is devastating.

The salvo system was chosen explicitly for adventure class ships, knowing it would break down for large warships. Now that we are considering large warships we need a different system, and a salvo system for energy weapons.

I agree. Perhaps we should wait to see that before improving other things then.. the mechanics behind what is the new "barrage system" for MGT2

 

[MongooseMatt]

One other factor to consider for missiles is the cost. They can rapidly turn into a rich man's game, where a single round of PD can wipe out a few million credits worth of missile or torp...

That _is_ significant. In terms of game balance , your players may come up with their dream missile ship and wipe out a far larger target - but they will do it _once_, then realise that they will be working for the next few years to pay for that one salvo.

Depends on the nature of your campaign, of course, but this will sort out 99% of issues that actually arise in a game.

 

[Chas]

One other factor to consider for missiles is the cost. They can rapidly turn into a rich man's game, where a single round of PD can wipe out a few million credits worth of missile or torp...

That _is_ significant. In terms of game balance , your players may come up with their dream missile ship and wipe out a far larger target - but they will do it _once_, then realise that they will be working for the next few years to pay for that one salvo.

Depends on the nature of your campaign, of course, but this will sort out 99% of issues that actually arise in a game.

In a space battle campaign when your ship can be destroyed in a couple of combat turns, it is all about the best bang though. Even you can argue not to bother with wasting on spare ammo... use the weight for more weapons, for the ammo the chances are you'll never get to use it. You either hit as hard as you can as soon as you can, or you run away... :lol:

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I've tried to build a somewhat balanced 200 kT BB (J3,9G,Prot15) with a max PA spinal, 1000 secondary turrets, and 700 PDBatteries. It comes out at ~140 GCr with budget drives.

If I replace the spinal with 350 upteched 70t medium missile bays the cost of the ship goes up to ~150 GCr and a full load of 100 000 missiles cost another 35 - 45 GCr. If I add a missile collier with a full reload, the cost of the missiles are almost as much as the BB, meaning I only get 1/2 missile BB for each spinal BB, ouch...

Missile cost is very significant.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Note that this example BB can launch 8400 missiles and PD kill 7350 missiles per round. Even if all the remaining 1000 missiles hit it cannot quite kill itself with only 12 rounds worth of ammo, much less 2 spinal BBs.

 

[Nerhesi]

Is that max PD missiles killed or avg? The 7000 number?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

700 PDBatteries ≈ 7000 average PD kills.

 

[Nerhesi]

700 PDBatteries ≈ 7000 average PD kills.

Ah cool. I guess you used small bays because they're similar in size rather than medium bays. Makes sense