Space Combat - Did I miss something?

[J. L. Brown]

Torpedoes are losers vs point-defense.

A Small Missile Bay launches 12 missiles (1 dTon) per shot; a Small Torpedo Bay launches 3 torpedoes (1 dTon) per shot.
For standard missiles, that is 150 KCr for 12x 4D of damage, and 12 points of Point Defense to shoot them all down.
For standard torpedoes, that is 450 KCr for 3x 6D of damage, and 6 points of Point Defense to shoot them all down.

For Multi-Warhead munitions:
Standard MW-missiles cost 750 KCr for 12x 3x 3D of damage, and 36 points of Point Defense to shoot them all down.
Standard MW-torpedoes cost 1200 KCr for 3x 3x 3D of damage, and 18 points of Point Defense to shoot them all down.

Plus, as you point out, each Anti-Torpedo Missiles destroys 'Effect' of Torpedoes, while Fragmentation Missiles each destroy only one incoming missile. There are no Anti-Torpedo nor Anti-Missile torpedoes at all. Missiles can be fired without penalty at all targets; torpedoes have a -2 vs targets below 2000 dTons.

EW rules also favor missiles; and do not get me started on 'Barbettes'.

It looks like the only advantages that torpedoes have are:
1} that they do not suffer losses after 5 full turns of flight -- which is only a factor (for standard missiles) at ranges beyond 'Very Long'. Even then, halving the number of missiles in flight once only puts missiles at parity with (not a disadvantage to) torpedoes.
2} they do more damage per (non-nuclear) individual, which gives them an advantage vs targets with (especially heavy, about 13+) armor.

 

[Condottiere]

Torpedoes are tougher to shoot down.

 

[J. L. Brown]

Torpedoes are tougher to shoot down.

Please read my post. That is already accounted for.

 

[rinku]

There may be other factors when you look at the variant ordnance, especially a torpedo that is particularly hard to kill or splits into several missiles. Dunno, I'm not invested enough to check.

It does occur to me, though, that a drone designed to be fired from a standard missile or torpedo launcher might be worth looking at. A torp sized one that maneuvers to (or is launched at) close range and starts shooting a laser or does something else fancy.

 

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

There may be other factors when you look at the variant ordnance, especially a torpedo that is particularly hard to kill or splits into several missiles. Dunno, I'm not invested enough to check.

It does occur to me, though, that a drone designed to be fired from a standard missile or torpedo launcher might be worth looking at. A torp sized one that maneuvers to (or is launched at) close range and starts shooting a laser or does something else fancy.

These exist.
Multi-warheads and bomb-pumped.

 

[J. L. Brown]

These exist.
Multi-warheads and bomb-pumped.

My original post compared Standard Missiles vs Standard Torpedos. Torpedoes were worse. It also compared Multi-Warhead Standard Missiles against Multi-Warhead Standard Torpedoes. Torpedoes were worse.

There are no Multi-Warhead Nuclear Missiles; but Nuclear Missiles are vastly superior to the Multi-Warhead Nuclear Torpedo sub-munitions -- and you get more Nuclear Missile warheads, cheaper, per dTon (12 for 450 KCr) than you get Nuclear sub-munitions in a dTon (9 for 1800 KCr) of Multi-Warhead Nuclear Torpedoes. I also pointed this out in my post.

There are Advanced, Antimatter, Antimatter Bomb-Pumped, Anti-radiation, Bomb-Pumped, Ion, Multi-Warhead Antimatter, Multi-Warhead Standard, Multi-Warhead Nuclear, Nuclear, Ortillery, Plasma, and Standard Torpedoes. Anti-Matter based torps are not available at the usual Technology Levels that the game is played at, so 'Stupid Torpedo Tricks' that missiles cannot duplicate are confined to: Anti-radiation, Bomb-Pumped, Multi-Warhead Nuclear, and Plasma Torpedoes.

Anti-Radiation Torpedoes are (more expensive, higher TL) standard Torpedoes, which get a +6 to hit if the target used EW & auto-miss otherwise. Note that Anti-Radiation Torpedoes are not immune to EW or other counter-measures. This is absolutely not worth it.

Bomb-pumped are interesting, but the in-game mechanical effect is that one additional Torpedo survives Point Defense -- which the does the same amount of damage as a Standard Missile. It is not worth the extra cost, and 'Decoy Missiles' do something very similar.

Multi-Warhead Nuclear are awful; they are not destructive. They are essentially standard torpedoes with the 'Radiation' trait. Not worth it.

Plasma Torpedoes are 1DD and AP 10. This is essentially (but worse than) 1D+1 & Destructive. Again, not worth it compared to Missiles.

On the other hand, 'Stupid Missile Tricks' that Torpedoes cannot duplicate (in High Guard Update) are Anti-Torpedo, Decoy, Fragmentation, Jump-breaker, and Shockwave. Add Dogfight and Interceptor missiles from the Companion. This means that:
Missiles can shoot down Torpedoes and Missiles; Torpedoes cannot.
Missiles can (with a single salvo) attack up to four targets within adjacent range to each other; Torpedoes cannot.
Missiles can seriously disrupt attempts to Jump away; Torpedoes cannot.
Missiles can negate sand for defense; Torpedoes cannot.

Torpedoes are a seriously terrible choice, compared to Missiles. And they are slower. Best-case, they are highly situational -- the target has maximum armor, and the attacker cannot use Nuclear (or Anti-Matter) weapons.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

My original post compared Standard Missiles vs Standard Torpedos. Torpedoes were worse. It also compared Multi-Warhead Standard Missiles against Multi-Warhead Standard Torpedoes. Torpedoes were worse.

You are making it too simple. Compare ships, not individual systems.


Missiles has Fixed Mounts, torpedo bays are cheaper. I haven't done the maths for HG'22, but in HG'16 a torpedo ship is slightly cheaper, so you get slightly more launchers and slightly more hull points per Cr. And a salvo of nuke torpedoes is much cheaper than a salvo of nuke missiles.


Salvo size of missiles are halved every five rounds, torpedoes unaffected. At Distant range only 25% of missiles reach to attack, but 100% of torpedoes.


A nuke missile does 1DD damage (average 35 damage or 10 damage vs armour 30).
A nuke torpedo does 2DD damage (average 70 damage or 40 damage vs armour 30).
Only twice the damage before armour, much more after armour.


EW obliterates a salvo of 100 (at Distant range), but is just a nuisance against a salvo of 1000. Size of platform matters for both missiles and torpedoes. Torpedoes are for battleship-sized platforms.


And, of course, the Anti-Torpedo Missile destroys any hope of doing damage with torpedoes.

 

[J. L. Brown]

You are making it too simple. Compare ships, not individual systems.

When I am constructing a ship, I evaluate each system on its' own merits. Torpedoes lose.

Missiles has Fixed Mounts, torpedo bays are cheaper. I haven't done the maths for HG'22, but in HG'16 a torpedo ship is slightly cheaper, so you get slightly more launchers and slightly more hull points per Cr.

A Large Torpedo Bay is 15 MCr cheaper than a Large Missile Bay, which is peanuts. This price difference is cancelled out after 75 dTons of Standard ammunition (250 KCr per dTon for Missiles, 450 KCr per dTon for Torpedoes). Likewise 'saving 10 points of Power' on a Large Weapon Bay is fairly insignificant.

And a salvo of nuke torpedoes is much cheaper than a salvo of nuke missiles.

No, a dTon of twelve Nuclear Missiles is 450 KCr -- which is the size (and price) of a salvo from a Small Bay. A Medium Bay launches a salvo of 2 dTons (900 KCr), and a Large Bay a salvo of 10 dTons (4.5 MCr).

A dTon of three Nuclear Torpedoes is 675 KCr -- which is the size (and price) of a salvo from a Small Bay. A Medium Bay launches a salvo of 2 dTons (1350 KCr), and a Large Bay a salvo of 10 dTons (6.75 MCr).

Salvo size of missiles are halved every five rounds, torpedoes unaffected. At Distant range only 25% of missiles reach to attack, but 100% of torpedoes.

True but silly. I have already noted this, and pointed it out. Combat also happens at ranges which are shorter than 'Distant' -- and at all ranges less than 'the last range band' Missiles are far better. Unless you are using exclusively 'Advanced' Torpedoes, they will take 10 rounds to close from Distant range; but a Missile user had a choice of munitions (Advanced, Anti-matter, Anti-Torpedo, Decoy, Fragmentation, Ion, and Long-Range) which move faster than 10G & those will arrive in 7 to 9 rounds (only one halving).

And, since each bay launch is four times as many Missiles, halving the number of missiles in a salvo only gets Missiles down to parity with Topedoes.

A nuke missile does 1DD damage (average 35 damage or 10 damage vs armour 30).
A nuke torpedo does 2DD damage (average 70 damage or 40 damage vs armour 30).
Only twice the damage before armour, much more after armour.

Again you identify a niche case that I have already discussed as if it is something new. The number of published ships with 30 armor is a tiny fraction (in High Guard Update, only the Hadrian Battle-Rider does so).

But just for fun, lets compare a salvo of Nuclear Missiles vs a salvo of Nuclear Torpedoes:

Nuclear Missiles	vs Armor 5	vs Armor 10	vs Armor 15	vs Armor 20	vs Armor 25	vs Armor 30
Small Bay: 12x 1DD	Min: 60 Avg: 360 Max: 660	Min: 0 Avg: 300 Max: 600	Min: 0 Avg: 240 Max: 540	Min: 0 Avg: 180 Max: 480	Min: 0 Avg: 120 Max: 420	Min: 0 Avg: 60 Max: 360
Medium Bay: 24x 1DD	Min: 120 Avg: 720 Max: 1320	Min: 0 Avg: 600 Max: 1200	Min: 0 Avg: 480 Max: 1080	Min: 0 Avg: 360 Max: 960	Min: 0 Avg: 240 Max: 840	Min: 0 Avg: 120 Max: 720
Large Bay: 120x 1DD	Min: 600 Avg: 3600 Max: 6600	Min: 0 Avg: 3000 Max: 6000	Min: 0 Avg: 2400 Max: 5400	Min: 0 Avg: 1800 Max: 4800	Min: 0 Avg: 1200 Max: 4200	Min: 0 Avg: 600 Max: 3600

Nuclear Torpedoes	vs Armor 5	vs Armor 10	vs Armor 15	vs Armor 20	vs Armor 25	vs Armor 30
Small Bay: 3x 2DD	Min: 45 Avg: 195 Max: 345	Min: 30 Avg: 180 Max: 330	Min: 15 Avg: 165 Max: 315	Min: 0 Avg: 150 Max: 300	Min: 0 Avg: 135 Max: 285	Min: 0 Avg: 120 Max: 270
Medium Bay: 6x 2DD	Min: 90 Avg: 390 Max: 690	Min: 60 Avg: 360 Max: 660	Min: 45 Avg: 330 Max: 630	Min: 0 Avg: 300 Max: 600	Min: 0 Avg: 270 Max: 570	Min: 0 Avg: 240 Max: 540
Large Bay: 30x 2DD	Min: 450 Avg: 1950 Max: 3450	Min: 300 Avg: 1800 Max: 3300	Min: 45 Avg: 1650 Max: 3150	Min: 0 Avg: 1500 Max: 3000	Min: 0 Avg: 1350 Max: 2850	Min: 0 Avg: 1200 Max: 2700

Nuclear Missiles do better average (and maximum) through armor up to around rating 23. Considering the prevalence of warship designs with less than 23 armor, Nuclear Missiles are a better bet a vast majority of the time.

EW obliterates a salvo of 100 (at Distant range), but is just a nuisance against a salvo of 1000. Size of platform matters for both missiles and torpedoes. Torpedoes are for battleship-sized platforms.


And, of course, the Anti-Torpedo Missile destroys any hope of doing damage with torpedoes.

EW favors missiles as well. Torpedoes are twice as hard to negate, but there are four times fewer of them -- so EW knocks down a larger fraction of incoming Torpedoes. Once again, at ranges beyond 'Very Long' Torpedoes catch up a little.

Battleships should absolutely be launching & defending vs missiles. Any non-Armor defense vs missiles is as effective or better vs Torpedoes, and high armor involves large trade-offs in performance.

 

[Condottiere]

Unlike our reality, missiles and torpedoes are secondary weapon systems, in regard to space battles.

So, it's more a question of resources available during the conception, design, and construction phases, in view of expected targets, and their capabilities.

Drinax permits installation of torpedo launchers in fixed mounts, though it appears they require half a tonne physicality.

The Confederation could, in theory, exchange four combined missile/torpedo launchers in place of missile launchers in quad turrets, for plus four tonnes, and extra expense.

Their expected targets are between two and a hundred kilotonnes, or so the doctrine I came up with, dictates.

In the long run, missiles and torpedoes are going to cost more than installing energy weapon systems.

Assuming such weapon systems are allowed to operate that long.

 

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

My original post compared Standard Missiles vs Standard Torpedos. Torpedoes were worse. It also compared Multi-Warhead Standard Missiles against Multi-Warhead Standard Torpedoes. Torpedoes were worse.

There are no Multi-Warhead Nuclear Missiles; but Nuclear Missiles are vastly superior to the Multi-Warhead Nuclear Torpedo sub-munitions -- and you get more Nuclear Missile warheads, cheaper, per dTon (12 for 450 KCr) than you get Nuclear sub-munitions in a dTon (9 for 1800 KCr) of Multi-Warhead Nuclear Torpedoes. I also pointed this out in my post.

There are Advanced, Antimatter, Antimatter Bomb-Pumped, Anti-radiation, Bomb-Pumped, Ion, Multi-Warhead Antimatter, Multi-Warhead Standard, Multi-Warhead Nuclear, Nuclear, Ortillery, Plasma, and Standard Torpedoes. Anti-Matter based torps are not available at the usual Technology Levels that the game is played at, so 'Stupid Torpedo Tricks' that missiles cannot duplicate are confined to: Anti-radiation, Bomb-Pumped, Multi-Warhead Nuclear, and Plasma Torpedoes.

Anti-Radiation Torpedoes are (more expensive, higher TL) standard Torpedoes, which get a +6 to hit if the target used EW & auto-miss otherwise. Note that Anti-Radiation Torpedoes are not immune to EW or other counter-measures. This is absolutely not worth it.

Bomb-pumped are interesting, but the in-game mechanical effect is that one additional Torpedo survives Point Defense -- which the does the same amount of damage as a Standard Missile. It is not worth the extra cost, and 'Decoy Missiles' do something very similar.

Multi-Warhead Nuclear are awful; they are not destructive. They are essentially standard torpedoes with the 'Radiation' trait. Not worth it.

Plasma Torpedoes are 1DD and AP 10. This is essentially (but worse than) 1D+1 & Destructive. Again, not worth it compared to Missiles.

On the other hand, 'Stupid Missile Tricks' that Torpedoes cannot duplicate are Anti-Torpedo, Decoy, Fragmentation, Jump-breaker, and Shockwave. This means that:
Missiles can shoot down Torpedoes and Missiles; Torpedoes cannot.
Missiles can (with a single salvo) attack up to four targets within adjacent range to each other; Torpedoes cannot.
Missiles can seriously disrupt attempts to Jump away; Torpedoes cannot.
Missiles can negate sand for defense; Torpedoes cannot.

Torpedoes are a seriously terrible choice, compared to Missiles. And they are slower. Best-case, they are highly situational -- the target has maximum armor, and the attacker cannot use Nuclear (or Anti-Matter) weapons.

Ok. I didn't read the whole thread (mea culpa- too much gluhwein). I was to excited to jump into a conversation with one of the most prolific TAS creators out there, and fumbled.

I agree- standard CSC missiles far outweigh standard fare CSC torpedoes.

Between Special Supplement 3 and the Robot Handbook, (and maybe even Star Trek VI) I started playing with missiles and torpedoes. Replacing warheads, upgrading the brains, etc. Based on this one statement from SS3: "..a typical missile is a 5G5 limited burn, radio sensing, proximity detonator, high explosive warhead missile (all produced at their standard tech level) costing Cr16,200 and massing 50 kg."

 

[AnotherDilbert]

When I am constructing a ship, I evaluate each system on its' own merits. Torpedoes lose.

You can't really compare missile bays against torpedo bays directly. Build a missile BB and a Torpedo BB and fight them for a fair comparison.

A Large Torpedo Bay is 15 MCr cheaper than a Large Missile Bay, which is peanuts.

Yes, I said slight, but noticeable difference when you have 100 tech upgraded bays.

This price difference is cancelled out after 75 dTons of Standard ammunition (250 KCr per dTon for Missiles, 450 KCr per dTon for Torpedoes).

A Dton of nuke missiles is kCr450 (HG'22, p36), a Dton of nuke torpedoes is kCr225 (HG'22, p39).

A full load of torpedoes for a bay is half the price of the full load of a missile bay. A slight cost compared to the BB, but still.

A dTon of three Nuclear Torpedoes is 675 KCr -- which is the size (and price) of a salvo from a Small Bay. A Medium Bay launches a salvo of 2 dTons (1350 KCr), and a Large Bay a salvo of 10 dTons (6.75 MCr).

HG'22, p39 seems to disagree:

True but silly. I have already noted this, and pointed it out.

Still a severe problem for missiles...

Combat also happens at ranges which are shorter than 'Distant' --

Yes, at least if you can close the range. If a torpedo-heavy fleet meets a missile-heavy fleet, how will the missile fleet close the range, short of Referee fiat?

and at all ranges less than 'the last range band' Missiles are far better. Unless you are using exclusively 'Advanced' Torpedoes, they will take 10 rounds to close from Distant range; but a Missile user had a choice of munitions (Advanced, Anti-matter, Anti-Torpedo, Decoy, Fragmentation, Ion, and Long-Range) which move faster than 10G & those will arrive in 7 to 9 rounds (only one halving).

Sure, but they will not penetrate heavy armour. Nukes penetrates anything, with some margin.
Advanced missiles are fast (great!) but struggle to penetrate armour 15.

And, since each bay launch is four times as many Missiles, halving the number of missiles in a salvo only gets Missiles down to parity with Topedoes.

Yes, but torpedoes do more damage and are more difficult to PD, so more of them will hit.
An equal amount of missiles and torpedoes reaching the target is a clear win for torpedoes.

Again you identify a niche case that I have already discussed as if it is something new. The number of published ships with 30 armor is a tiny fraction (in High Guard Update, only the Hadrian Battle-Rider does so).

Given that you could not have armour 30 at TL-15 in HG'16, that is hardly surprising.
Only the new ship in HG'22 has it, the old ships copied from ineffective designs in CT FS does not.

But just for fun, lets compare a salvo of Nuclear Missiles vs a salvo of Nuclear Torpedoes:

Median isn't average for a non-symmetric distribution, which is good for your argument.
A nuke missile does an average of 10 damage through armour 30, even if the median is 5.

A full half of all nuke missile salvoes does no damage at all, half of all damage comes from the lucky rolls of 6.


A nuke torpedo does four times as much average damage through armour 30 and three times through armour 20. With the distance effect torpedo salvoes does something like four times the damage at Distant range, depending on the defences used.

If we don't want to use nukes, the plasma torpedo offers decent armour penetration, unlike any other missile.

Nuclear Missiles do better average (and maximum) through armor up to around rating 23. Considering the prevalence of warship designs with less than 23 armor, Nuclear Missiles are a better bet a vast majority of the time.

Unless we are at Distant range, where combat begins...
At Distant range most missiles get lost and the same number of missiles and torpedoes arrive, before EW and PD.
With each torpedo doing a lot more damage, the salvo does a lot more damage.

EW favors missiles as well.

Quite, by a lot. But for battleship-sized salvoes it isn't all that significant, as you can only target a salvo once per round.

Salvoes of less than a few hundred missiles or torpedoes will be completely countered by EW at Distant range, or less than say one hundred missiles/torpedoes at VLong.



All of this is of course purely academic as torpedoes are completely nerfed by anti-torpedo missiles, and missiles are severely limited in HG'22 compared to HG'16, or possibly nerfed by PD missiles. Particle and meson bays are the new hotness...

Battleships should absolutely be launching & defending vs missiles. Any non-Armor defense vs missiles is as effective or better vs Torpedoes, and high armor involves large trade-offs in performance.

Battleships has to defend against many different attack vectors, missiles are just one of them.
Armour is very expensive, but protects against everything but mesons.

If we are only considering missiles and torpedoes, active defences would be much cheaper, but when even bays can reach Distant range that is a bit risky.


At Very Long range direct fire bays will do more damage than missiles immediately rather than four rounds from now...

Even at Distant a large particle bay can do something like 1000 damage through heavy armour, or 4000 damage against no armour. More than a torpedo bay, much more than a missile bay, and immediately.

 

[J. L. Brown]

You can't really compare missile bays against torpedo bays directly. Build a missile BB and a Torpedo BB and fight them for a fair comparison.

Yes, I said slight, but noticeable difference when you have 100 tech upgraded bays.

A viable warship whose primary armament is Torpedo bays can usually be fairly compared to the exact same design with Missile bays. I am sure folks who enjoy doing ship design will have no trouble coming up with several examples.

A Dton of nuke missiles is kCr450 (HG'22, p36), a Dton of nuke torpedoes is kCr225 (HG'22, p39).

A full load of torpedoes for a bay is half the price of the full load of a missile bay. A slight cost compared to the BB, but still.

HG'22, p39 seems to disagree:
View attachment 6939

It seems there has been an Errata that I missed; thank you! Now I have to get a replacement for my HGU 2022. Here is what I have (please excuse the 'Night Mode'), note the 'Cost per Torpedo':

Still a severe problem for missiles...

Yes, at least if you can close the range. If a torpedo-heavy fleet meets a missile-heavy fleet, how will the missile fleet close the range, short of Referee fiat?

Anti-Torpedo, Interceptor, or Dogfight Missiles. Plus, perhaps, some Point Defense Batteries -- although if we are putting those into the mix, then combat with Missiles and Torpedoes rapidly becomes pointless. Ditto for Large Particle Beam Bays, which averages (70-Armor) x 100 damage for every one of the ten rounds it takes for the Torpedoes to close.

Sure, but they will not penetrate heavy armour. Nukes penetrates anything, with some margin.
Advanced missiles are fast (great!) but struggle to penetrate armour 15.

Yes, but torpedoes do more damage and are more difficult to PD, so more of them will hit.
An equal amount of missiles and torpedoes reaching the target is a clear win for torpedoes.

Advanced missiles average 17.5 damage x# of Missiles; they routinely penetrate armor 15. And sure, and 'equal number of Torpedoes reaching the target' is a win for Torpedoes -- but since that never happens, it really is not relevant. At the very least, this is the point you are trying to prove, so sneaking it in as a given is not constructive.

Given that you could not have armour 30 at TL-15 in HG'16, that is hardly surprising.
Only the new ship in HG'22 has it, the old ships copied from ineffective designs in CT FS does not.

Median isn't average for a non-symmetric distribution, which is good for your argument.
A nuke missile does an average of 10 damage through armour 30, even if the median is 5.
View attachment 6940
A full half of all nuke missile salvoes does no damage at all, half of all damage comes from the lucky rolls of 6.

72 salvos means 720 points of damage -- before multiple. Missiles start with a multiple (and to-hit bonus) four times higher than Torpedoes.

A nuke torpedo does four times as much average damage through armour 30 and three times through armour 20. With the distance effect torpedo salvoes does something like four times the damage at Distant range, depending on the defences used.

If we don't want to use nukes, the plasma torpedo offers decent armour penetration, unlike any other missile.

Again, I made a couple tables that covered this -- they are in the post to which you are replying. Above armor 23, Nuclear Torpedoes have the edge. Why do you think I will be surprised by this? Carrying Armor 30 requires 1} TL-15, 2} Military Hull, 3} Bonded SuperDense Armor, and 4} 24% of the volume of the ship. This is an extreme expense, in credits, in dTons, and in opportunity cost for lost capability. I will concede that in a Large-Ship universe (where Battleships are hundreds of thousands or millions of dTons, and money is ignored) these requirements are less important.

Unless we are at Distant range, where combat begins...
At Distant range most missiles get lost and the same number of missiles and torpedoes arrive, before EW and PD.
With each torpedo doing a lot more damage, the salvo does a lot more damage.

There is not a single ship in the game with a Spinal-Mount Weapon that relies on conducting combat at 'Distant' range. Your obsession with 'Distant' is a little weird, and seems to be dominating how you think about combat. HGU 2022, p 115 says this:

Most encounters start at Very Long or Distant ranges,
when the combatants first detect one another. However,
actual combat starts when one of the fleets moves into
range of their opponents’ weapons, typically Long range.

And the Core rules also talk about encounters often beginning at Very Long range -- with some starting much closer.

Quite, by a lot. But for battleship-sized salvoes it isn't all that significant, as you can only target a salvo once per round.

Salvoes of less than a few hundred missiles or torpedoes will be completely countered by EW at Distant range, or less than say one hundred missiles/torpedoes at VLong.

All of this is of course purely academic as torpedoes are completely nerfed by anti-torpedo missiles, and missiles are severely limited in HG'22 compared to HG'16, or possibly nerfed by PD missiles. Particle and meson bays are the new hotness...

Battleships has to defend against many different attack vectors, missiles are just one of them.
Armour is very expensive, but protects against everything but mesons.

If we are only considering missiles and torpedoes, active defences would be much cheaper, but when even bays can reach Distant range that is a bit risky.

At Very Long range direct fire bays will do more damage than missiles immediately rather than four rounds from now...

Even at Distant a large particle bay can do something like 1000 damage through heavy armour, or 4000 damage against no armour. More than a torpedo bay, much more than a missile bay, and immediately.

I think we agree on much of this. My own point of view is probably influenced by my preference for Small-Ship universes, where the upper limit on (the very largest, and eye-wateringly expensive) ships is below 50000 dTons, and most Naval assets are ~5000 dTons. Your point about Large Bays is well taken.