Multiple Missile Salvoes Arriving Simultaneously

[AnotherDilbert]

Example: A few fighters are closing in towards a ship at 16G.
They reach Very Long on round 4, Long on round 5, and Short on round 6.
They launch Advanced missiles on round 4, arrives round 6.
They launch Nuclear missiles on round 5, arrives round 6.
They launch Ortillery missiles on round 6, arrives round 6.
Triple salvo, target dies.

But they do have to accept return fire from round 4.


Edit: Corrected rounds at which ranges are reached.

 

[-Daniel-]

Example: A few fighters are closing in towards a ship at 16G.
They reach Very Long on round 4, Long on round 3, and Short on round 4.
They launch Advanced missiles on round 4, arrives round 6.
They launch Nuclear missiles on round 5, arrives round 6.
They launch Ortillery missiles on round 6, arrives round 6.
Triple salvo, target dies.

But they do have to accept return fire from round 4.

So on round 4 they are in two places at once? I am confused.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

So on round 4 they are in two places at once? I am confused.

Sorry, that was completely wrong.

It should be:
They reach Very Long on round 4, Long on round 5, and Short on round 6.


Thanks for correcting my mistake.

 

[phavoc]

Normally I would agree with you, but I am desperately trying to save the concept of the capital ship.

Capital ships really don't need 'saving'. Consider that capital ships don't travel alone, they are the centerpiece of squadrons. As the British found with the ill-fated voyage of the Prince of Wales and Repulse, capital ships still need escorts from pesky lighter ships or aircraft. The idea translates well through the centuries, as we now have missile salvo's that a ship has to deal with.

Yes, but with double salvoes we can instantly kill ships, even if they have very good missile defences. We should give the defending ships a chance of surviving.

You can never eliminate the idea, except perhaps by trying to limit ships from doing it. If you have a ship with small craft and a heavy missile armament you can always do a double-salvo attack against a target. Two ships can do the same as well. Unless you try and put in artificial limitations, the ability to saturate and overwhelm a targets anti-missile defenses is the sole purpose of having missiles in the first place. If you look at Soviet naval tactics to take on carrier fleets, they used the same exact methods - combining surface ships, submarines and air-launched missiles. Each was timed to more or less arrive at the target at the same time. The defense was AEGIS, CIWS, ECM and, for a period, F-14's armed with Phoenix missiles.

One way to 'fix' this would be to adjust missile combat overall. First the ranges are ridiculously short for space attacks. Second there needs to be the anti-missile that can engage at longer ranges and thus knock down some of the incoming salvo's. You could have dedicated anti-missile launchers, which would soak up more of the hardpoints on capital ships, or you could have a ship select to fire offensively OR defensively from a missile turret/bay. Third the entire missile fire rate needs to be changed to allow for more missiles to be fired - all the fire rates are quite low for 6 minute turns, but especially for missiles. Fourth, allow small craft to trade out anti-ship armament for anti-missile missiles. This would have more people building escort-class carriers just for the extra missile defense against missile-armed players.

All of these could be done without nerfing missiles. Even if you dropped things like ROF or changing ranges, adding in the anti-missile defense would rebalance missile combat. Then you would need overwhelming missile salvos to penetrate a ship that has invested heavily in defenses.

 

[-Daniel-]

So on round 4 they are in two places at once? I am confused.

Sorry, that was completely wrong.

It should be:
They reach Very Long on round 4, Long on round 5, and Short on round 6.


Thanks for correcting my mistake.

Oh now I feel silly, I should have realized that was what you meant.

Back to the topic at hand. :mrgreen:

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Capital ships really don't need 'saving'. Consider that capital ships don't travel alone, they are the centerpiece of squadrons.

Classic battleships with spinals can only kill other large ships. There are more efficient ways to kill large ships, e.g. missiles, Ions in Fleet Combat, Large Bays (crits) in basic.

And that means there is no reason to build Capital ships. So I feel the need to save them.

One way to 'fix' this would be to adjust missile combat overall. First the ranges are ridiculously short for space attacks. Second there needs to be the anti-missile that can engage at longer ranges and thus knock down some of the incoming salvo's. You could have dedicated anti-missile launchers, which would soak up more of the hardpoints on capital ships, or you could have a ship select to fire offensively OR defensively from a missile turret/bay. Third the entire missile fire rate needs to be changed to allow for more missiles to be fired - all the fire rates are quite low for 6 minute turns, but especially for missiles. Fourth, allow small craft to trade out anti-ship armament for anti-missile missiles. This would have more people building escort-class carriers just for the extra missile defense against missile-armed players.

All of these could be done without nerfing missiles. Even if you dropped things like ROF or changing ranges, adding in the anti-missile defense would rebalance missile combat. Then you would need overwhelming missile salvos to penetrate a ship that has invested heavily in defenses.

Whether we like it or not, I don't think there will be any major changes to High Guard anymore.

There is a balance between Missile launchers and PD. By very heavy investment your squadron can become virtually immune to missiles from an equal cost squadron, so missiles are not invincible. But not against double salvoes, so they break the balance, and risk making missiles invincible.

I have tried escorting battleships with PD only small ships, it does not help, missiles win.
http://forum.mongoosepublishing.com/viewtopic.php?p=900312#p900312

The cheap missile drone will kill all ships, even if they have PB Batteries in every hardpoint:
http://forum.mongoosepublishing.com/viewtopic.php?p=900314#p900314
OK, if Distant range sniping is nerfed, they have to close in and take heavy casualties, but the ships will be destroyed and the drones are just drones, barely more expensive than the missiles they fire.


Nerhesi doesn't seems to think that this is a problem, so I guess we have to learn to love double salvoes.

 

[Nerhesi]

I do not think it is not a problem. It was one of 3 options because I like to hear differing opinions on things still open.

My default position, is that it is a problem, and thats why we need Distant range sniping fixing to at least force the enemy to take casualties if they want to just launch wave upon wave from beyond reach

In fact, that is the feedback I gave before even making that post. I just want to run it by you gents before I start really pushing for "half salvo strength" and realise perhaps it's been over nerfed.

But I think based on the data here thus far, "half salvos strength every 5 rounds" will at the very least force them to be a bit less crazy - but wont even remove missiles from their king of the hill position.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Improve point defence or bring back repulsors.

Borrowing from Striker for PD - a TL9 PD knocks out 2d warheads, increase number of dice by 2 per TL. Number of warheads knocked out by each die rolled is subject to a DM of TL difference.

Borrowing from GT:ISW a repulsor array modifies the to hit roll of 100 warheads by -15 (I would add the above TL difference DM too)

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Improve point defence or bring back repulsors.

If we just improve PD regular salvoes will be shrugged off, and the only way to do damage with missiles will be double salvoes. I don't think that is desirable...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

But I think based on the data here thus far, "half salvos strength every 5 rounds" will at the very least force them to be a bit less crazy - but wont even remove missiles from their king of the hill position.

Let's try:

Take 10 BC Particle (mod) (110 kT, GCr116)
Spinal Particle 7DD : 7 * 10000 / 10 = 7000 damage
500 Quad Pulse Laser turrets: Salvo Defence +500*(2+3) = +2500
400 PD Batteries: Salvo Defence +400*12 = +4800
Salvo Defence +2500 +4800 = 7300
250 Dampers: Screen Defence 250*5*2 = 2500

against 10 BC Missile (110 kT, GCr 119 + missiles GCr 10 - 50)
Launches 7905 missiles / attack
640 PD Batteries: Salvo Defence +640*12 = +7680
100 Dampers: Screen Defence 250*5*2 = 1000


10 * 7905 MW missiles launched in round 1 at Distant, arrives round 11 halved twice, 25% arrive = 1976.
10 * 7905 Long Range missiles launched in round 4 at Distant, arrives round 11, not halved since Long Range missiles.
PD kills 10 * 1976 MW missiles and 10 * ( 7300 - 1976/80% ) = 10 * 4830 Long Range missiles, 10 * 3075 Long Range missiles remains.
30750 Long Range missiles hit, doing 30750 * 5 / 10 = 15375 damage, killing 19% of the enemy force, round to 20% and 2 enemy ships for simplicity.

10 * 7905 MW missiles launched in round 2 at Distant, arrives round 12 halved twice, 25% arrive = 1976.
10 * 7905 Long Range missiles launched in round 5 at Distant, arrives round 12, not halved since Long Range missiles.
PD is reduced to 8 * 7300 = 58400. PD kills 10 * 1976 MW missiles and 58400 - 10 * 1976/80% = 33700 Long Range missiles, 45350 Long Range missiles remains.
45350 Long Range missiles hit, doing 45350 * 5 / 10 = 22675 damage, killing 28% of the original enemy force, say 2 enemy ships for simplicity.

10 * 7905 MW missiles launched in round 3 at Distant, arrives round 13 halved twice, 25% arrive = 1976.
10 * 7905 Long Range missiles launched in round 6 at Distant, arrives round 13, not halved since Long Range missiles.
PD is reduced to 6 * 7300 = 43800. PD kills 10 * 1976 MW missiles and 43800 - 10 * 1976/80% = 19100 Long Range missiles, 59950 Long Range missiles remains.
59950 Long Range missiles hit, doing 59950 * 5 / 10 = 29975 damage, killing 37% of the original enemy force, say 4 enemy ships for simplicity.

2 Particle ship remains against 10 missile ships after 3 salvoes. Missile ships win.

Conclusion: The Particle ships had too weak PD.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Rework the Particle ship with a smaller spinal and more PD Batteries:
Spinal Particle 6DD : 6 * 10000 / 10 = 6000 damage
130 Quad Pulse Laser turrets: Salvo Defence +130*(2+3) = +650
800 PD Batteries: Salvo Defence +800*12 = +9600
Salvo Defence + 650 + 9600 = 10250
200 Dampers: Screen Defence 200*5*2 = 2000
This is approaching max PD, we are running out of hardpoints for PD Batteries.


10 * 7905 MW missiles launched in round 1 at Distant, arrives round 11 halved twice, 25% arrive = 1976.
10 * 7905 Long Range missiles launched in round 4 at Distant, arrives round 11, not halved since Long Range missiles.
PD kills 10 * 1976 MW missiles and 10 * ( 10250 - 1976/80% ) = 10 * 7780 Long Range missiles, 10 * 125 Long Range missiles remains.
1250 Long Range missiles hit, doing 1250 * 5 / 10 = 625 damage, killing 0,8% of the enemy force, we do not have enough missiles... Particle ships win.


Note that the Particle ships committed nearly all their hardpoints to PD Batteries, so they have no secondary armament, hence they are defenceless against frigates and fighters.

Conclusion: With max enemy PD, missile ships need to close in.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Try the small missile drone:
Drone ( 3dT, MCr 3 + MCr 2 missiles + MCr 3 carrier ≈ MCr 10 )
M-6, R-16 (12 rounds)
Armour 15 + Reflec
Missile rack with 4 missiles .

Take 11500 drones against a single Particle ship:


11500 MW missiles launched in round 1 at Distant, arrives round 11 halved twice, 25% arrive = 2875.
11500 Long Range missiles launched in round 4 at Distant, arrives round 11, not halved since Long Range missiles.
PD kills 2875 MW missiles and ( 10250 - 2875/80% ) = 6656 Long Range missiles, 4844 Long Range missiles remains.
4844 Long Range missiles hit, doing 4844 * 5 / 10 = 2422 damage, killing 30% of the enemy ship, we do not have enough missiles... Particle ships win.

With a little magazine space the drones wins easily.

 

[Dracous]

Improve point defence or bring back repulsors.

If we just improve PD regular salvoes will be shrugged off, and the only way to do damage with missiles will be double salvoes. I don't think that is desirable...

I see double salvoes as a tactic being employed by an opposing naval commander to overwhelm defences. Why not just have it as an opposed tactics roll. Attacker wins, and the double salvo attack is made, defender wins, and the point defence can be applied to each salvo separately.

It represents the attacker trying to get the timing just right, while the defender is trying to position themselves to ensure the separation is just large enough that point defence gets a chance to reset.

 

[Nerhesi]

I dont think Repulsors made it back because as of T5 - they're not there all.

They've probably become the Tractors/Pressors - which are only available as of TL16+

 

[phavoc]

One thing might to be take out the multi-warhead missile. That should help some. And ortillery missiles are supposed to only essentially deadfall ordnance, so they should never be able to be used against a ship.

That leaves standard missiles (with various warheads), and torpedoes.

As far as missile drones go, seems only fair to have anti-missile drones.

Point defense could also be modified to creating a point defense gatling laser that can engage 4-6 missiles per turn (minimum 4, then roll D6 to see if you get lucky).

There are many ways to balance out missile attacks. But to do it without unfairly or unreasonably penalizing something else you need to look at combat holistically and determine just how fast or slow a ship is meant to die. A ships defenses should always have the potential to be overwhelmed, whether it be from missiles or energy weapons.

Plus, how are ships in the adventure-class range (under 2k dtons) handling the combat? Fleet combat should be deadly because we are talking about warships whose existence is to kill or be killed by another starship. That they can die quick and overwhelming deaths is the nature of warfare.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I see double salvoes as a tactic being employed by an opposing naval commander to overwhelm defences. Why not just have it as an opposed tactics roll. Attacker wins, and the double salvo attack is made, defender wins, and the point defence can be applied to each salvo separately.

I like it.

One thing might to be take out the multi-warhead missile. That should help some. And ortillery missiles are supposed to only essentially deadfall ordnance, so they should never be able to be used against a ship.

I like it.

Plus, how are ships in the adventure-class range (under 2k dtons) handling the combat? Fleet combat should be deadly because we are talking about warships whose existence is to kill or be killed by another starship. That they can die quick and overwhelming deaths is the nature of warfare.

http://forum.mongoosepublishing.com/viewtopic.php?p=900374#p900374
No defences, no armour + Multi-warhead missiles => Instant death.

 

[Nerhesi]

I see double salvoes as a tactic being employed by an opposing naval commander to overwhelm defences. Why not just have it as an opposed tactics roll. Attacker wins, and the double salvo attack is made, defender wins, and the point defence can be applied to each salvo separately.

I like it.

So now you're tracking to see which Salvos are from which ships and are hitting at the same turn?

So if a ship is being hit by 7 salvos during this turn, however 3 are from the same ship/squadron? So regardless of the turn they were launched in, those need to have opposed tactics rolls or else they deal with "fresh" PD? Even though PD is basically x-shot over Y-time, it magically overdrives during that turn?

I know we fudge things here and there, but this is a double scoop of chocolate.

One thing might to be take out the multi-warhead missile. That should help some. And ortillery missiles are supposed to only essentially deadfall ordnance, so they should never be able to be used against a ship.

I like it.

I actually dont mind removing multi-warhead missiles - or at the very least, pinning them at "3 warheads" rather than random 1D warheads

 

[phavoc]

Multi-warhead missiles are kind of too good to be true sort of thing. I still think that a dedicated PD turret as opposed to a PD system would help make ships hard to hit with missiles. If for every hard point you can destroy 4 missiles (up to 6 if you are lucky) means adventure class ships would mount 1-2 PD emplacements, but not too many as they would not be able to have much defensive firepower. And they would be useless against someone using beams.

Also anti-missile missiles would allow you to engage a salvo at farther range bands, thus someone would have to heavily invest in missiles in order to make them effective.

 

[Nerhesi]

Aren't we already past that kill / hardpoint phavoc?

A triple turret kills basically (crew skill + 2) in missiles.

A dedicated PD battery flat out kills 11 (or 12 based on fleet combat system) missiles per Hardpoint.

 

[Nerhesi]

This may not be universally accepted, but in the interest of... well tactics and making sense. I generally allow long distance shooting of missiles. Always have in MgT1 as well.

-2 to shoot missiles plus whatever range modifiers.
-4 to shoot or PD missiles with any other (non-laser) direct fire weapons (particle, fusion, plasma etc)

In fleet combat, I may just allow ships to use 20% of their salvo defense against salvos at a distance (forgoing their PD for that turn)