Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

SJ - Tell me you weren't a math major because I don't even think Good Will Hunting could follow your math here. Missiles are currently suceptible to jamming. Current technology can confuse jammers. Its not that hard to understand. As a former surface qualified naval officer and physicist I can honestly say this is the way things really are right now.

Your ten billion doesn't make sense. If a ship is say 1 light minute away and a missile is say one light second (good space type distances), then the ship is 60 times farther away. It all depends on what two ranges you compare. The missiles proximity to the target helps it actually hit easier, but....

The missile is closer to the target. That means it is closer to the jammer!!!!!!!! Thats right, that is one of the reasons they are susceptible, because they are much closer. The jamming signals get stronger and the ability of the ECM to quickly respond to changes in the seekers emmissions gets lower as the missile gets closer.

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

He's not talking about *distance*, he's talking about image size.

OK, easy comparision. Put a quarter on the opposite side of the room. Now walk up to the quarter and hold it in front of your face. Looks a lot bigger, eh?

This is relevent because the smaller the target, the more precise the missile's sensors have to be to actually get a reading on it (assuming they are active). In one situation the missile needs to scan anywhere in a very small area, in the other it needs to scan anywhere in a much larger area.

Then again, missile from light-minutes out makes very little sense unless you have FTL sensors (which may or may not be affected by ECM the same way other types would be..) because the missile would actually have to GUESS where the target was going, since if it was using radar is would be working with a signal that was two minutes old (travel time to target + return time) if the signal even got back to the missile's sensor.

Phoenix-D

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

I think that we have agreed to disagree about certain aspects of missiles and jammers.

But it looks like it would be OK if Aaron said yes to making missile system modifiable to allow those who want to, to turn on the ECM V missiles.

I agree though about making the missiles harder to hit than fighters, < a flak gun can kill a fighter easier than a sidewinder>.

This would by the way, then allow for the ECM and sensors to play apart in the game against them.

I think that missiles:
1. Should be effected by ECM and sensors,
2. Not be effected by distance <adjust as they go>,
3. Harder to hit than small fighters, and
4. Higher tech missiles have a bonus to hit.<new components>
5. Speed should be at least 10...

This would allow a realistic combat, make it hard for point def to shoot them down, they may still miss and are still make them a powerful weapon.

[This message has been edited by Aussie Gamer (edited 03 May 2001).]

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

Personally, I think you "reality" folks are a bit, um, shortsighted.

this is a GAME! therefore, to give more gameplay variety (read "make game more fun"), Aaron made a design decision to make missiles always hit. Otherwise, you just get a direct fire weapon that takes longer after being fired to actually cause it's damage.

_I_ think that PDC is an acceptable countermeasure for missles. It forces a player decision: "Should I guard against direct fire weapons (EMC), against missiles (PDC), or should I give up that third gun to make space for both?"

And if you want to argue "reality authenticity", then why not mention the fact that missile warheads are VASTLY underpowered in the game in comparison to real life missles. After all, if a fighter gets hit w/a missle....boom. If a capital ship gets hit with a missle, it is only seconds and a good captain away from sinking (ie destroyed).

That's right. if only one or two anti-ship missles hits a naval vessel, it has a big hole in it's side, despite all that armor and anti-missle weaponry. So why is it that if a missle hits in the game, the player says "oooooooh, look at the pretty lightshow on the shields! Oh, look, shields are still at 90%."

If you want to make missiles more "realistic", fine. Make emc work on them. Leave them targetable with PDC (which, by the way, don't always hit in real life, either). But make sure that if a missle DOES get thru all that defence, it will rock that ship to it's _core_! (ie "Captain! Missle impact on the Forward Bulkheads! Shields and armor are gone! Engines Offline! Forward Cannons Offline! Aft Cannons at 75%! Damage to the Crew Quarters!")(you get the general idea).

Ok. there's my 2 cents worth. Probably a bit overpriced, but that's life.

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

I agree with dumbluck on this one. I think a change to the missles like that would make them a lot more interesting, except I believe that the amount of supplies used by using missiles should be GREATLY increased. From my time on a sub, I know the one I was on had four tubes "i.e. missile components", but only carried 26 reloads for all of them. Having the big cost in supplies for missiles, and the missiles causing a large amount of damage when they hit would make missile ships very dangerous in a single fight, but without additional support from either supply ships, or additional supply storage, they would have a very limited tour before they would require going back for supplies. Plus it might help reduce the boring almost exclusive use of missile early in the game.

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>1) When talking about jamming - the energy it takes to detect or jam a target is more important which is why being CLOSER makes missiles easier to jam.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The sensor strength increases at the same rate as the "offensive" jamming strength. The "defensive" decoys & chaff & stuff are easier to ID and ignore with a better image.
So, at best, your defences keep pace, power wise. From close in, you might be able to shake off a missile with turns, but your spaceship can only accelerate one direction (on main engines), so it is quite obvious which way you're going to go.

[editnote]Problem here: missile sensors start out inferior to ship's sensors, and the jamming will keep them just as crappy as they get closer. Result: Missile fails to hit because it sees with a fraction of the ability the ship has.[/editnote]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
2) So what if the missiles sees the ship as "bigger." Real missiles don't do damage by pointing at ships like a gun. You are right in that missiles would have an easier time pointing at a target if they were closer, but who cares. Missiles do damage by getting close to a ship and then exploding. Most missiles today don't even point at the target while they fly. They point to where its going to be. They need sensors to tell them what the targets velocity and momentum are so they can predict where to meet the target. The sensors they use to do this are what is jammed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The more accurately the missile sees the ship, the better it can predict where it will go. It dosen't matter that the missile isn't pointing straight at the target, its the fact that the missile can see its target.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>And missiles wouldn't be anything different if this were enacted. They would be missiles. To me, the defining point is range and the ability to be outran or shot down. Based on current EW practices in the real world, it simply seems odd that a race w/ superior EW capability not be given an advantage in a missile duel.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No way. SE4's missiles are the Last resort of inferior technology species. If the Phong have DN's and insane ECM so I get 20% accuracy at point-blank range, the missiles give me a chance to do some damage.
Direct fire is blocked by ECM.
Missiles are blocked by PDCs.
ECM is partly overcome by really close range.
PDC is overcome by lots of missiles.

Two different defences for two different weapons, each with its own strengths & weaknesses.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>That's right. if only one or two anti-ship missles hits a naval vessel, it has a big hole in it's side, despite all that armor and anti-missle weaponry. So why is it that if a missle hits in the game, the player says "oooooooh, look at the pretty lightshow on the shields! Oh, look, shields are still at 90%<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Try giving CSM's Quad damage to shields instead of normal. The EMP burns out the shields quickly & the fireball melts armor at regular speed. It works quite well.
One missile can thus drain one PSG V, if it gets through the PD. And the missiles have always eaten good chunks out of unshielded ships. (20% of the hull gone w/ 1 hit)


[This message has been edited by suicide_junkie (edited 03 May 2001).]

[This message has been edited by suicide_junkie (edited 04 May 2001).]

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

SJ - You have a point. I think you should write to your congressman and him or her know that you have figured out single handedly that the entire concept of electronic warfare in tactical naval engagements is a farce and the the navy is just using this propganda to get more money for cheeseball projects like the SLQ-32 or Super RBOC launcher.

"The sensor strength increases at the same rate as the "offensive" jamming strength. The "defensive" decoys & chaff & stuff are easier to ID and ignore with a better image."

This logic may work if you ignore two things:
1) A missile seeker doesn't have the same power reserves as an entire ship with an huge power grid to draw off. A ship has a lot more energy availiable to jam incoming seekers with. Your resolsution may increase as you say, but the intensity of the jaming can still be more, and getting closer to this powerful jamming makes it worse. Just imagine trying to grab a fiends hat off his head in a dark room. Your eyes get adjusted then bam, your buddy shines a flashlight in your face from across the room in an attempt to jam you. Are you trying to tell me that as you walk closer to the light it will be easier to see your friend's hat behind it??

2) For an active seeker, the radiation must travel both ways, so the energy disapates at something like 2 times the distance while while point jamming only travels one leg, from the ship back to the missile.

Last, if you guys are happy with intergalactic rock, paper, scissors, then fine. If you like the trade-offs and design implcations of the current components then fine. I don't much care. If you say that making missile to-hit probablities moddable is wrong because of the implications of such to the game then that is your opinion. But most of the "technical" arguments below are sadly lacking. There is a rather exhasutive current knowledge that exists. You can ignore it if you want, as part of the tech paradigm of this ficticious universe, but some people sound a bit silly saying this and that can or can't happen when things like that already work today.

Make it moddable - I'll play my Honor Harrington/Starfire Version that makes sense to me, and you Star Trek panzies can take on the Borg with your Mesonic Dicumbobulators and Negatrino Torch cannons or whatever else you thinks sound cool and balances the game at the cost of sounding corny.


[This message has been edited by nerfman (edited 03 May 2001).]

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

I think this thread has gotten away from the fact that this is a game and is played for fun.
Part of the fun in playing a sci-fi game is no one knows what the future will be like so anything is possible.
I, personally, would like to see it moddable but it's no big deal if it isn't. Someone gave Aarons reason for the way it is and thats cool.
I have been learng a lot about electronics, sensors and all kinds of other stuff from the Posts, probably more than I should and I will no doubt stick my foot in my mouth someday because of it.
Later

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nerfman:
SJ - You have a point. I think you should write to your congressman and him or her know that you have figured out single handedly that the entire concept of electronic warfare in tactical naval engagements is a farce and the the navy is just using this propganda to get more money for cheeseball projects like the SLQ-32 or Super RBOC launcher.

Last, if you guys are happy with intergalactic rock, paper, scissors, then fine. If you like the trade-offs and design implcations of the current components then fine. I don't much care. If you say that making missile to-hit probablities moddable is wrong because of the implications of such to the game then that is your opinion. But most of the "technical" arguments below are sadly lacking. There is a rather exhasutive current knowledge that exists. You can ignore it if you want, as part of the tech paradigm of this ficticious universe, but some people sound a bit silly saying this and that can or can't happen when things like that already work today.

Make it moddable - I'll play my Honor Harrington/Starfire Version that makes sense to me, and you Star Trek panzies can take on the Borg with your Mesonic Dicumbobulators and Negatrino Torch cannons or whatever else you thinks sound cool and balances the game at the cost of sounding corny.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

nerfman - chill out. Most of the people on this board try to get along, but your personal attacks on people who disagree with you are weakening your arguments. I don't have the knowledge to argue about current EW capabilities, especially considering that you obviously work with current EW stuff. But quite honestly, the fact that you have to resort to name-calling and sarcastic remarks and generally nasty tones makes me want to disbelieve you, or at least disagree with your comments about the game.

And yes, "intergalactic rock-paper-scissors" is pretty much how most games work. Even Starfire works that way. A game without balance becomes unplayable; or, more specifically, turns into a race to see which player finds the ultimate weapon/ultimate defense first. As for sounding corny, yeah, parts of quantum physics sound strange. That doesn't mean quantum physics isn't real. Nor does it mean that quantum physicists are pansies. Or, as you so eloquently put it, "panzies".

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

Methinks nerfman is taking this stuff way to seriously (btw, not everyone here who doesn't agree with you is a Trekkie, so get over it, k? http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif )

If anyone wants it to be moddable, fine. All you have to do is write an e-mail to Aaron with the subject "SEIV Change Request", say you would like a switch somewhere that gives missiles a chance to miss, and throw in a bit of groveling.

Then, make one of the "cheesy" fixes you can already do (add range one PDC to the current ECM component, or a new one). Play the game like that for a while, and wait to see if Aaron will implement it. And keep remembering that he's a busy man, and could possibly go days without even touching anything SE related.

Finally, remember that this is a game, and that it is something real and tangible, which means it will never be perfect. You take what you have and work with it.

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

Sorry captain

I just argue strongly, no offense meant, and also get a little riled up when people try to BS me in an otherwise intellectual conversation. Its annoying at people who talk about Aaron this and Aaron that like they are are his mother or something. You can disagree with me and even trade barbs, that's no big. I also don't like Star Trek if you can't tell, but the panzie thing was just a poke. If I offended your any other future Star Fleet officers, please accept my humblest apologies. (Oh, and both my degrees are in physics, so you know I don't really think anything about Quantum is anything less than spectacular). Later

Sorry had to go out for a sec. Seriously, look at it from my point. I posted some pretty hefty Messages, not to sound great, but because I thought I could really contribute something. I actually looked up some stuff in some in old texts and tried to be informative, at first at least. Despite all this effort, a few people pull some agruments off the top of their head to rebuff this without even putting any effort into it. That gets me a little testy. Later

[This message has been edited by nerfman (edited 03 May 2001).]

[This message has been edited by nerfman (edited 03 May 2001).]

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>1) A missile seeker doesn't have the same power reserves as an entire ship with an huge power grid to draw off. A ship has a lot more energy availiable to jam incoming seekers with. Your resolsution may increase as you say, but the intensity of the jaming can still be more, and getting closer to this powerful jamming makes it worse. Just imagine trying to grab a fiends hat off his head in a dark room. Your eyes get adjusted then bam, your buddy shines a flashlight in your face from across the room in an attempt to jam you. Are you trying to tell me that as you walk closer to the light it will be easier to see your friend's hat behind it??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You don't need to see the hat anymore. You look left, dark. You look right, dark. You look ahead, bright. Run forward and slam the 'friend'. Now throw a nuclear CSM punch and blow a big hole in the evil alien hat and it's mind-controlled host.

I'm no military physisist, and that example didn't work for me. Why can't you track a big ECM source anyways?

BTW: MM's ECM stands for "Electromagnetic coutermeasures," according to the description, which may be different from what you were thinking "ECM" stands for (electronic CM, I believe).


Heres how I accept the 100% missile hitrate in SE4:
In tactical a ship can find even a cloaked ship.
In tactical a fighter can find even a cloaked ship.
So a missile (similar to a fighter in size) can find even a cloaked ship.

So, any vehicle/missile can locate any other to within 1 square at tactical combat distances. Your beams cut through that square, but are thin and sometimes miss. The CSM fills the entire square with a nuclear fireball and thus hits. The plasma missle spreads fiery plasma & antimatter throughout the square and thus hits.

An example of this is trying to shoot DU bullets at camoed people in a valley VS napalming the valley.

To change this example into SE4,
replace DU bullets with DUC
replace camo with ECM
replace napalm with nuclear CSM
replace valley with combat square.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>2) For an active seeker, the radiation must travel both ways, so the energy disapates at something like 2 times the distance while while point jamming only travels one leg, from the ship back to the missile.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Which provides a constant 4x bonus for ECM. Of, course, if the seeker is using passive sensors, then there's no bonus.


I am all for more moddability in SE, but I feel missiles are fine the way they are.


[This message has been edited by suicide_junkie (edited 03 May 2001).]

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

"He's not talking about *distance*, he's talking about image size."

Actually, if that is what he means, then the technical term is solid angle, which is basically the two dimensional angular area that something occupies, kind of like the envelope of different angles that you can point and still hit. When something is real close, there are a lot of different angles you can point and still hit, but as it gets farther, you have to steady your aim because the image is smaller.

That will change like the difference in square distances. But two points here:

1) When talking about jamming - the energy it takes to detect or jam a target is more important which is why being CLOSER makes missiles easier to jam.

2) So what if the missiles sees the ship as "bigger." Real missiles don't do damage by pointing at ships like a gun. You are right in that missiles would have an easier time pointing at a target if they were closer, but who cares. Missiles do damage by getting close to a ship and then exploding. Most missiles today don't even point at the target while they fly. They point to where its going to be. They need sensors to tell them what the targets velocity and momentum are so they can predict where to meet the target. The sensors they use to do this are what is jammed.

And missiles wouldn't be anything different if this were enacted. They would be missiles. To me, the defining point is range and the ability to be outran or shot down. Based on current EW practices in the real world, it simply seems odd that a race w/ superior EW capability not be given an advatage in a missile duel.

I would like to see it modable thats all. With so much else that is modable, it is just surprising that such is not.

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

You're right. I was stupid to even suggest such nonesense. Sorry to put my peice in on this discussion.

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nerfman:
"2) So what if the missiles sees the ship as "bigger." Real missiles don't do damage by pointing at ships like a gun. You are right in that missiles would have an easier time pointing at a target if they were closer, but who cares. Missiles do damage by getting close to a ship and then exploding. Most missiles today don't even point at the target while they fly. They point to where its going to be. They need sensors to tell them what the targets velocity and momentum are so they can predict where to meet the target. The sensors they use to do this are what is jammed.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
When Traveller updated to the New Era they changed the typical missiles from being armed with Nuke or HE warheads to warheads with nuclear pumped X-Ray laser warheads. They gave a pretty convincing explanation for the change, granted I'm not a physics expert. Part of the reason was that as a missile got closer to a ship it became a lot easier for PD and energy weapons to achieve a hard kill on the missile. So maybe a missile doesn't have to achieve the same proximity with that sort of warhead? Just a thought.

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

Nerfman, WTF are you talking about???

I know you have a point about the missiles & ECM but I just don't get it.

Please don't give up on me. I'm just trying to tell you how I see these things.
If I've been kinda harsh, I'll pass the blame onto my boss, who has been agressive lately.

I was serious when I said I've got no military experience beyond playing videogames, and I've only taken a few physics courses in my life.

[This message has been edited by suicide_junkie (edited 04 May 2001).]

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

If missile accuracy was moddable you would have more variety available, more fun/challange. Researching higher levels could give you more accurate missiles in addition or in place of higher damage, speed etc. There could even be 2 different tech trees for the same basic missile, one the was more accurate and one like it is now but none that does both.

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

I think the Nerfman is right on the ball, technically. although i think everyone should take a deep breath before continuing the discussion. seekers, if anything like modern weapons, should probably be jamable. since most all sci-fi games are basically 1900-modern day naval combat in space, it stands to reason they should act like modern weapons.

on the other hand, it is kind of hard to predict how things will operate in the far future, and we have certainly seen several reversals in military paradigms through history.

as for Rock Paper Scisors, if ECM did affect seekers, it would make them pretty useless in the game. but who is to say the would not be useless anyway? maybe they become obsolete? but if they are being deployed, it stands to reason that those people deploying them found a way arround countermeasures.

in ww2, we were working on cat-bombs, or cat guided bombs which operated on the principal that a cat would always land on its feet and would avoid water, we thought it would be a good way to make sure our bombs hit ships in water. maybe in se4 they perfected a space-borne Version of this technology that lets seekers always hit a ship in space. (no, i did not just make that up)

[This message has been edited by Puke (edited 04 May 2001).]

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

I see that with active ECM, the jamming will rise at the same rate as the missile's sensors, ruining the missile's tracking system.
I currently think that passive ECM like decoys and stealth would me much easier to detect close up. Thus, effective ECM for ships would be in the active forms.

Despite any ECM;
I think CSMs could get the 100% accuracy without knowing where exactly the enemy ship is, by bLasting the entire tactical square.
Meanwhile, beams cut through only a tiny fraction of the square, and so have a decent chance of missing. Incinerator & Wave motion gun beams are really thick, so they get a big to-hit bonus since they cover more of the square as they go through.

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
You don't need to see the hat anymore. You look left, dark. You look right, dark. You look ahead, bright. Run forward and slam the 'friend'. Now throw a nuclear CSM punch and blow a big hole in the evil alien hat and it's mind-controlled host.

I'm no military physisist, and that example didn't work for me. Why can't you track a big ECM source anyways?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can depends on the missile's seeker/seekers though, you would have to make specfic provisions to have the sensors and processors that are necessary for it to work. But it doesn't necessarily always work out that well. I know we're trying to get away from real world analogies here, but most modern missiles are not equipped with this homing mode. Which is either a comment on the effectiveness of this homing mode, the cost, or the state of current technology, not sure which is the major factor personally. Anyhow not all jammers work on brute force power, many of them "seduce" the missile into seeking a false target. Some methods I've read about include messing with the active range gate, by returning radar/active pulses to the missile on the same freq as its seeker thereby confusing it by messing up its range calculations. So you would have a bearing on the target but you wouldn't have the range to it. I think some ECM has a mode to generate a lot of false returns so the missile does not which target is the true one. Therefore it may be getting closer to what it thinks is a target but what in actuality is just a sensor ghost.


BTW: MM's ECM stands for "Electromagnetic coutermeasures," according to the description, which may be different from what you were thinking "ECM" stands for (electronic CM, I believe).

Should be the same deal.


Heres how I accept the 100% missile hitrate in SE4:
In tactical a ship can find even a cloaked ship.
In tactical a fighter can find even a cloaked ship.
So a missile (similar to a fighter in size) can find even a cloaked ship.

So, any vehicle/missile can locate any other to within 1 square at tactical combat distances. Your beams cut through that square, but are thin and sometimes miss. The CSM fills the entire square with a nuclear fireball and thus hits. The plasma missle spreads fiery plasma & antimatter throughout the square and thus hits.

I'm not sure this works for a straight detonating nuke warhead. There's nothing in space which robs a nuke of a lot of its damage from the pressure of shockwaves. There's definately thermal bloom and EMP/radiation, but to get the most out of the bLast wouldn't it still have to almost directly hit the target, thereby reducing it to the same operating paramters as a direct fire kinetic/energy weapon? Granted it can make course corrections if it can find the correct target. Personally I got around that by changing the description and my frame of mind by changing the warhead on the CSM to be a nuclear pumped X-Ray laser warhead so its more like a guided round of buckshot.

An example of this is trying to shoot DU bullets at camoed people in a valley VS napalming the valley.

To change this example into SE4,
replace DU bullets with DUC
replace camo with ECM
replace napalm with nuclear CSM
replace valley with combat square.


See above.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>2) For an active seeker, the radiation must travel both ways, so the energy disapates at something like 2 times the distance while while point jamming only travels one leg, from the ship back to the missile.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which provides a constant 4x bonus for ECM. Of, course, if the seeker is using passive sensors, then there's no bonus.

I am all for more moddability in SE, but I feel missiles are fine the way they are.


Depends, not very many long range missiles that home in on manueving targets use passive sensors. There are ways to decoy or jam even those sensors, although some of them are questionable as to whether they would fall into the Category of PD or ECM in SEIV terms.

I'd honestly perfer to be able to make my own missiles have the launchers designed to fire missiles of a certain size, that way you could match different seekers, warheads, and propulsion systems together. There's a pretty good technical game based background on missiles in some of GDWs Traveller The New Era stuff, if you have a hankering to read about it. Some good items are in Fire Fusion and Steel and in Brilliant Lances.


[This message has been edited by jc173 (edited 04 May 2001).]

[This message has been edited by jc173 (edited 04 May 2001).]

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

Nerfman: thanks for the links... I'll take a look around there. I am already convinced that ECM would be effective against the targetting systems, but what do you think about the saturation attack to get 100% accuracy with reduced damage?

I apologise for any agressive Posts, this forum should be for gaining knowledge foremost.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I know we're trying to get away from real world analogies here, but most modern missiles are not equipped with this homing mode. Which is either a comment on the effectiveness of this homing mode, the cost, or the state of current technology, not sure which is the major factor personally. Anyhow not all jammers work on brute force power, many of them "seduce" the missile into seeking a false target. Some methods I've read about include messing with the active range gate, by returning radar/active pulses to the missile on the same freq as its seeker thereby confusing it by messing up its range calculations. So you would have a bearing on the target but you wouldn't have the range to it. I think some ECM has a mode to generate a lot of false returns so the missile does not which target is the true one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thanks. I still don't see how you could get a false ping appear to come from the side. That would leave a flickering line of sensor ghosts connecting you and the missile http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

What if your missile sends out random patterns of sensor pulses, then listens, and only follows the recieved signal that matches the timing and frequency spacing of the transmission.
To get an ECM sensor ghost of the right "color" you'd have to guess lucky and hit the missile with the correct pattern of sensor returns.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>There's nothing in space which robs a nuke of a lot of its damage from the pressure of shockwaves. There's definately thermal bloom and EMP/radiation, but to get the most out of the bLast wouldn't it still have to almost directly hit the target, thereby reducing it to the same operating paramters as a direct fire kinetic/energy weapon?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I figured that was why the CSM only does 75 damage. Most of the nuke is wasted. I was going to make CSMs not target planets, and have a specific nuke missile to hit planets with that would be more effective.
75 damage is only enough to destroy a missile launcher and an engine or two.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I'd honestly perfer to be able to make my own missiles have the launchers designed to fire missiles of a certain size, that way you could match different seekers, warheads, and propulsion systems together. There's a pretty good technical game based background on missiles in some of GDWs Traveller The New Era stuff, if you have a hankering to read about it. Some good items are in Fire Fusion and Steel and in Brilliant Lances. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sounds like you want drone launchers with kamikaze warheads aboard http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

[This message has been edited by suicide_junkie (edited 04 May 2001).]

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

Well, some are right in that this discussion is getting a little heated. Sorry myself to all for getting too worked up, but I do like a little argument now and then. For anyone who seriously would like to see some of the current systems in order to gain a little more understanding, check out the following

AN/SLQ-32 Overview, shipboard tacital ECM and ESM. Neat package and there is a lot of material http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/s.../an-slq-32.htm

summary of all US Navy ship systems. Maybe this will inspire some new components http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/s...aps/index.html

Same as above but for aircraft. Check out the list of countermeasures. There's a lot of good reading of you can handle the terse nature of some of the dsicussions. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/index.html

Once more, I'll try to be more informative and save the combat for the Rage and Phong. Hope somebody learned something. nerf

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by suicide_junkie:
Thanks. I still don't see how you could get a false ping appear to come from the side. That would leave a flickering line of sensor ghosts connecting you and the missile http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Got me, I'm pretty bad with EM physics, I've just read it's supposed to be possible, the actual methods used are probably classified. So I probably won't be telling you how anytime soon &lt;G&gt;

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
What if your missile sends out random patterns of sensor pulses, then listens, and only follows the recieved signal that matches the timing and frequency spacing of the transmission.
To get an ECM sensor ghost of the right "color" you'd have to guess lucky and hit the missile with the correct pattern of sensor returns.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Probably possible although the return time will depend on the range to the target? But once you get an intial return the rest of the patern should follow at pretty much the same interval as you sent them out. Its likely you would have to some encode the patterns into all missiles in flight at once so their signals didn't mutually intefere with each other.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
I figured that was why the CSM only does 75 damage. Most of the nuke is wasted. I was going to make CSMs not target planets, and have a specific nuke missile to hit planets with that would be more effective.
75 damage is only enough to destroy a missile launcher and an engine or two.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Sounds like you want drone launchers with kamikaze warheads aboard http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heh pretty much. I think that for the most part a lot of missile upgrades for ships etc don't require an entire overhaul of the launcher itself maybe some targetting system upgrades. Also I think that you should be somewhat limited in the number of missiles you can carry. Of course that would require that be treated like units or as a different type of supply so I'm not sure that it would work out all that well the way SE IV is currently set up. Might be too much detail for some people's tastes too.

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

Glad to see we're back to getting along here. I've been on too many other message Boards that turned into constant flame wars to want to see that here.

Anyway, as for creating false images "to the side", that could probably be accomplished by altering the phase of the signal. And as for following a "line of false sensor images", well, what if the "real" image is in the middle of the line? The missile can't just be programmed to seek the Last image (assuming it could figure out that there were multiple images). So even a line of images may be sufficient...

I may have to just look up some of nerfman's links. Back in my college days, I got a scholarship from the "Association of Old Crows" (Army EW association, IIRC). I'm sure they'd be shocked to hear I haven't kept up with EW technology http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif .

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

What do you guys think about the missiles saturating the target square with damage? You get less damage but cover every possible position in the tactical square.
That could be why the CSM only does 75 damage with a nuclear warhead. (disables 4 components on an enemy ship)

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

I looked this up Last night in regards to "false images to the side." Deceiving a sensors angular return is harder, but done in two ways:

1) Side Lobe Exploitation: A radar reciever is basically a highly tuned directional antenna. Interfernce phenomena cause "Side Lobes" to be present in both transmitting and receieving. These side lobes are areas that aren't directly "ahead" where the system can register a return as well. Their specifics (angle, "width", sensitivity) are determined by the geometry and materials of the emitter and/or reciever. By carfully timing a deception "ping," you will be able to have a radar actually think a target is in front of it while in real life the thing is down one of its side lobes, and of course, the sensor system is usually designed to make that as hard as possible to do. I do not know if it is theoretically possible to design a radar w/out any side lobes, but even some of the most advanced radars today have them. In 1000 years? Who knows?

2) Some sensors localize by moving in a pattern and locking in on the target, like a conical scan. The radar moves in a circular fashion regularly and tracks the target's movement based on the feedback. Anyway, it is possible to use deceptive false pings to make make it think you are really not exactly where you are. They will still know pretty much where you are, but the targetting solution gets a little more "fuzzy." This type of measure will be designed to defeat a certain type of scan. So if one seeker scanned in a certain way and another came up another way, you would have to decieve each one differently. Possible to do w/ one system, but a lot harder.

That is the only two methods I could find. Also remember that the missile usually doesn't fly "at" the target, its flying towards where it is going to be. Even deception that only makes the target closer or farther is useful here. If the missile thinks the target is farther away it may not get close enough to execute its terminal manuever (attack) before it realizes it and not have enough fuel to come back. On the other hand, if it thinks it is closer, it may fly past and not be able to make its terminal manuever. If it flies "past" it might hit the target, but the chances of that are slim considering the volume of space considered. This all might not make sense if you consider trying to hit something coming right at you or standing still, but when you are trying to get close enough to cause damage against a real target moving through 3d space it is possible to be decieved until it is literally too late to do anything about it.

In fairness to SJ, many missiles now incorporate "Home on Jam" capbilities which can work. Of course new countermeasure make it harder for the mssiles to know it is being jammed. So its all like a big rat race with the only real winners being the defense contractors.

SJ - didn't see your Last post.
Can you elaborate? I don't really understand what you are getting at. Thanks

[This message has been edited by nerfman (edited 04 May 2001).]

[This message has been edited by nerfman (edited 04 May 2001).]

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

in regards to 'tracking on the source of the countermeasures' (walking towards the flashlight) and the "side lobes" mentioned below, is this what is meant by "off-source jamming?" I always thought off-source ECM involved reflecting the signal off of something nearby. can anybody clarify how this stuff works? in the meantime, i will have to check out those links.

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

SJ,
I think stauration or area damage would be a great idea if it could be added. If missiles could have two damage Ratings, one for a near miss and one for a direct hit then they would be more dangerous. A direct hit could do tremendous damage to armor and internals.
For a nuke warhead they do not do a lot of damage as you pointed out.
Unfortunately this would require missile accuracy to be added (i'm ducking now http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif) along with some other changes.

[This message has been edited by Nitram Draw (edited 04 May 2001).]

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>SJ - didn't see your Last post.
Can you elaborate? I don't really understand what you are getting at. Thanks<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, any object in SE4 can determine any target's location down to a single combat square. (however large or small that might be).

For the nuclear warhead in the CSM & the antimatter in the Plasma missile, your attack could cover the entire square.
With the antimatter or fireball spread out over a large volume, you get less damage on average, but the sheer power of the weapon allows moderate damage to everything.

The nuclear CSM does only 75 - 200 damage or so. That's not much (a weapon & a few engines) destroyed for a close nuke strike or a splash of antimatter. But if the damage is spread out over the combat square, then the hit would be guaranteed.


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>SJ,
I think stauration or area damage would be a great idea if it could be added. If missiles could have two damage Ratings, one for a near miss and one for a direct hit then they would be more dangerous. A direct hit could do tremendous damage to armor and internals.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh, yeah. I've been a long-time proponent of adding "splash" damage types.

type 1) Misses do 1/4 damage
type 2) every object within X squares takes decreasing amounts of damage

with a type two warhead, you could hurt multiple ships at once!

[This message has been edited by suicide_junkie (edited 04 May 2001).]

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

Just for kicks:

Maybe the missles don't home in on heat, transmissions, radio signals, or radar.
maybe they home in on the fat, lazy loudmouthed guy down in the engine room that keeps talking to everybody about how he would like to shag a waitress back planetside, that would never give him the time of day. Or maybe they home in on the uncleaned bathrooom down on deck 4.



[This message has been edited by Dracus (edited 05 May 2001).]

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

Snipes, I mean engineers loud mouthed and foul? What navy are you talking about.

SJ - So you mean like area effects, like able to damage a tight group of ships?

Along those lines, a missile that worked like a FASCAM round would be cool. You would target a space and it would fly there and discharge a cloud of mines all over the area. I don't know how realsitic it is, but it would be a cool tactic for a missile heavy fleet to delay a dirct fire fleet from closing. Of course I don't think you can target empty spaces right now, so.......

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>SJ - So you mean like area effects, like able to damage a tight group of ships?

Along those lines, a missile that worked like a FASCAM round would be cool. You would target a space and it would fly there and discharge a cloud of mines all over the area. I don't know how realsitic it is, but it would be a cool tactic for a missile heavy fleet to delay a dirct fire fleet from closing. Of course I don't think you can target empty spaces right now, so.......<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, the Nuke could be an area effect weapon, and bLast an entire square, even if it can't precisely locate the target...
It would be a Type 1 splash damage weapon, that always misses, but always does some damage.

Like you said, a mine scattering missile could spray tiny mines out as it flies, so any ships in squares that the missile crosses take 10-20 damage. You just fire the missile at the farthest enemy ship, and a bunch of bystander ships inbetween you two get hurt. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif
This would be a form of Type 3 ("linear")splash damage

If you had some sort of really wide-acting weapon, you could damage all objects in the 8 squares around your target. It would probably have to be a really high tech weapon to have a bLast that large (size of a moon picture!)
This is Type 2 splash damage.

Type 1 splash damage is the "misses do damage" thing.

[This message has been edited by suicide_junkie (edited 05 May 2001).]

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

Nuke AAA! Area damage should do great against fighters too. Lob one into a group of them and fighters in all adjacent squares could possibly take damage.