Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

I have been a lot of looking at missiles lately, designing new types etc, and I don't think that they miss EVER!!!
Even at 1%
Can anyone else confirm or refute this.

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

I'm pretty sure I've seen seekers miss in Tactical, but it doesn't happen often, even with my Tictsin's Pathetic Aggressiveness.

------------------
Cap'n Q

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

Seekers should never miss. The 1% to-hit number doesn't really mean anything. If the number is from 1 to 100, you can launch, if it's 0, you're out of range.

Seekers can, however, "drop off". For example, a missle with range 10 (CSM II, I believe has that range) is launched at a target eight squares away. The target moves three squares away (might work at two as well, never really sat and tested it), and stays there. The missile will appear to go right over the ship, and just disappear, without the explosion, no damage done. Move one more out of range and the missile disappears just before the target.

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

I designed a concussion missile which could target fighter Groups. They get a huge minus to hit them but every one of my missiles hit the Groups during the combat.
I think that the target system would be thew same for ship to ship so this is why I have asked about missiles missing.
Seekers are just missiles so should act the same as the normal missiles.

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

Seekers always hit. It has been that way forever (SE3 at least).

the % shown in tactical over the weapon pic is the chance your aim is true. With a seeker, it will correct as it flies, therefore hitting.

The only time a seeker will not do damage is:
-the enemy ship moves out of range of the seeker.
-PD shoots it down.
-the seeker has a "shields only" warhead, and there are no shields left.

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

You learn something new every day, that's mine, so I'm off home....

Still does not explain the capital missile (concussion) missiles hitting always.

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

Err, why not?

Captial Missile = seeker.

Phoenix-D

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by suicide_junkie:
Seekers always hit. It has been that way forever (SE3 at least).

the % shown in tactical over the weapon pic is the chance your aim is true. With a seeker, it will correct as it flies, therefore hitting.

The only time a seeker will not do damage is:
-the enemy ship moves out of range of the seeker.
-PD shoots it down.
-the seeker has a "shields only" warhead, and there are no shields left.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, oh, oh, I know this is pedantic of me, but I'm going to add another instance...

-the seeker is an Ionic Pulse Missile, which does damage to engines only, and the target has no engines left http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

SLAP SLAP! Oh yer that's right!
That's what you said about seekers, stupid me!

Does that means if you have a minus of 10% per square, you actually increase the range by putting in a combat sensor of say 25%?

I thought that it was to increase the chance to hit? If you always hit with seekers then why put a combat sensor on board???

This looks like a bug to me!

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

Combat sensors, talismans and the like only affect direct-fire weaponry. So if you are making a missile ship, leave off the combat sensors.

As for the percentages:

They are somewhat accurate. Think of it this way: at max range you have a 1% chance to hit. This is because all your target has to do is move backwards *one square* and your missiles will expend themselves harmless (effectively a miss). Almost any ship can move one square, so you have the 1%. Closer, it becomes less likely that your target would be able to move out of range, hence the higher to-hit.

Besides, it wouldn't be fair on seekers if they could miss. After all, direct-fire weapons can't be outranged by backing up- if they fire, they miss or hit instantly, no manuvering dodging. And direct fire weapons cannot be shot down.

If they could miss, seekers would have to go through this sequence to kill a ship:
Outranged, shot down, miss, shields, armor, internals

Where direct-fires would have to go through this:
Miss, shields, armor, internals

See the problem?

Phoenix-D

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>For example, a missle with range 10 (CSM II, I believe has that range) is launched at a target eight squares away. The target moves three squares away (might work at two as well, never really sat and tested it), and stays there. The missile will appear to go right over the ship, and just disappear, without the explosion, no damage done. Move one more out of range and the missile disappears just before the target.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You're right; this is the behavior I was misinterpreting as a miss.


------------------
Cap'n Q

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

When the missile moves into its target which is 1 square out of range, the missile does 0 damage.

This is different from the missile not doing damage.

If you have "partial" damage to your hull, and have shields regenerated, that partial damage will come out of the hull and go into the shields.

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

"If you have "partial" damage to your hull, and have shields regenerated, that partial damage will come out of the hull and go into the shields."

Ouch, that is a little buggy, but understandable based on the other threads that address armor and damage in general. I always wondered why individual component damage wasn't tracked. It takes less memory to do it the current way (by assigning a pointer to the Last component damaged and recording the partial damage independent of the actual componenet), but sure does lead to some wierd game effects.

Personally, I think that missiles should have a % to hit (or miss). There should be components that give a negative percetage (like ECM), jammers if you will. The seeker itself would be rated by a percentage that reflects how good a terminal manuever and how hardened vs soft kill (jamming) the seeker is. All these things go into a modern missile engagement and could reasonably be modeled here (if missiles actually had to hit %'s).

As far as it not being "fair" to missile shooters, there are work arounds, namely increased salvo size. Ideally, if two forces were at roughly the same tech then the missiles would have say a 80% (or maybe higher) chance to hit each way. But if one team had much better jamming/ECM, then they would benefit from getting many more soft kills (missiles that miss due to jamming). I find it odd that electronic warfare in this game effects direct fire but not guided munitions when in real life the opposite is generally true. Bullets can't be jammed and ship mounted sensors are more powerful/agile/and backed by more powerful computers. They can be jammed, but jamming a tiny little missile seeker that is very close to you is a lot easier than jamming a whole ships sensor system when it is most likely much farther away.

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

To me if you have ECM pod on board it should effect all attacks to your ship.

It does seem even sillier to have it effect direct fire and not missile weapons, clearly that is not the way it works in real life.

Reading this thread, I am going to be rethinking my armoured missiles as they are now not going to be stopped by point def as easily.

I thought that the ECM would make the difference, a lass not the case.

This is a bug!

[This message has been edited by Aussie Gamer (edited 30 April 2001).]

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

If they are working as intended, and I think they are, it's *not* a bug. It's a design decision you disagree with. There is a difference.

Phoenix-D

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aussie Gamer:
Reading this thread, I am going to be rethinking my armoured missiles as they are now not going to be stopped by point def as easily.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't think you can armor missiles either. People were trying it, and thinking that it worked, but it actually wasn't working. At least that's how I remember the discussions. Search for past discussions using the keyword "missile."

Regarding missiles always hitting: that's an old discussion (and a heated one). FWIW, I agree with you. But I don't think MM is going to change it. He's certainly had many opportunities to at least make it moddable, and has chosen not to do it.

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

Everything should have a chance to miss!


[This message has been edited by Marty Ward (edited 30 April 2001).]

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

Hey, the perfect accuracy is what makes seekers different from other weapons. If they could miss, you'd have just another WMG that can be shot down!

BTW, it was neat in SE3, how seekers would continue beyond their launching range. CSMs would follow you till combat ended http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif, while plasma missiles would slowly decay until thier damage reached zero, then go 'poof'.

[This message has been edited by suicide_junkie (edited 01 May 2001).]

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

Yes you can armour missiles, you have to just make a new component.

I think that all weapons have a chance to miss or what is the point of ECM and combat sensor except for direct fire weapons.
I beleive that this makes missiles completely unrealistic.
It is a "bug" because it is not the way missiles and ECM work in real life.

Missiles have a longer range than direct fire weapons but can be shoot down by point defence. That is the give for the longer range that equals the range out.
Giving them "110%" accuracy is too much!

[This message has been edited by Aussie Gamer (edited 01 May 2001).]

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

Bug: element of program that does not work as designed.

This ain't a bug (assuming they aren't supposed to miss).

SE4 isn't a real-life simulation. If it were, why does a missile launcher have unlimited ammo? For that matter, why is a bridge 10 kilotons? That's more than modern *ships*.

Besides, missile tech in SE4 could be substantially different from current missile tech.

Phoenix-D

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

pheonix - It is not a bug, just a big *** oversight. Maybe you care to "balance" the game by keeping the rules as such, but it shouldn't be hardcoded.

Once more, it is preposterous that a race with superior electronic warfare capablities not be given an advantage in a missile duel. Simply put, it is much easier to jam a missile guidance package than an entire ship's sensor system. This should at least be able to be modded into the game.

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

Isn't sci-fi based on real life but taken to the Nth degree.

It makes it more fun to play with things that are grounded in real life but are far advanced of our tech now.

I believe that ECM "Electronic Counter Measures!" would effect a missile more than a ship, as it does now in real life. If you fire a missile from a modern plane it is easier to deflect off target than a machine gun burst, missile v direct.

With advanced ECM you could stuff up an enemies targetting computer, eg B5 Humans V Mimbarie &lt;most likely spelt wrong please excuse me&gt;.

Missiles get the range bonus, so why give them the accuracy bonus as well.

Knowing this about needing Combat Sensors, I will be not bothering with it that much as I mainly use missiles in my ships early in the game.

A loss really to realism!!

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

Nerfman: Yup. Just a pet peeve :-)

Phoenix-D

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>'ve alway wanted to see missile and seekers moddable. I think they are pretty much all alike in most
respects. I thnk a few things should be changed.
They should be affected by ECM
They should have unlimited range
You should be able to change the damage that a missile can take before it is destroyed. As it is now I
think you can only change the damage rating of the component.
They should have a limited amount of shots per combat round
If some or all of these could be added I think I would use missiles. As it is now they are useless after
the first 50-100 turns because they are to easy to counter with PD.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

-ECM -&gt; NO GO

-Unlimited range -&gt; somebody said you can do this by giving them a "21st" damage number. The missiles then go forever.

-"Seeker Damage Resist" It's right there in the file!!! People have been making toughened missiles for ages. You just can't do it with a mount!

-Limited shots --&gt; Just make them smaller, and reload of 30. Then you can put 5 of your 10kT missiles on and fire them whenever you want. You get 5 shots in 50kT.

Everything except the ECM thing has already been done!

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

ECM was designed specifically to counter electronic/electrical devices. It should definately effect seekers. Maybe seekers could be given an ECCM ability that changed as the level increased. I don't like sure things.
I don't know if adding the extra number to range works, I have read that it does and doesn't work in the forum.
Extending the reload time is not the same as limiting the shots. Extending the reload time is just how many evenly spaced times a combat it can fire. I was thinking of fast reloading, limited shot missile system. 5 shots with a reload time of 1 for example.
Forgot that both the seeker and component damage can be changed.

[This message has been edited by Marty Ward (edited 01 May 2001).]

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

Actually you can make "Anti-Missile ECM's"...

Make a new PD weapon that only works at range 1, has no "firing animation" and an "electronic scrambling" sound, make it smaller than normal PD BUT make it only good vs. Seekers and lower it's weapon modifier, but give it enough damage to kill any seeker. This will give you a missile jammer that can affect one missile per turn, lower accuraccy means that the ECM will miss (how often depends on bonus).

Problems: Only works vs. 1 missile per "Jammer", and targeting sensors improve your "jamming" chance.

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

Star Fleet Battles had a means for jamming missile tracking systems; the "mod" below could be a way to emulate the effects, but may affect game balance. SFB also had a setup closer to SE3 in that a missile (well, drone was the SFB term, but I'll use missile to avoid confusion) had to be launched within a certain range, but the missile could continue following the ship for a much longer range (as long as the missile stayed within X distance of the ship).

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

I've alway wanted to see missile and seekers moddable. I think they are pretty much all alike in most respects. I thnk a few things should be changed.
They should be affected by ECM
They should have unlimited range
You should be able to change the damage that a missile can take before it is destroyed. As it is now I think you can only change the damage rating of the component.
They should have a limited amount of shots per combat round
If some or all of these could be added I think I would use missiles. As it is now they are useless after the first 50-100 turns because they are to easy to counter with PD.

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

I don't think that the ECM as it is now in the game should affect seekers. As I imagine it now, ECM is basically a component that jams a ships scanners (like having a ground base jam the frequency used by enemy radar, making it fairly useless, and forcing fire by eye). The the analogy of a machine gun seems to be a favorite for having ECM affect seekers instead of direct-fire; my rebuttal is that this would be a machine gun firing at a moving target miles away, assisted by a tracking system.

Another thing is that missile jammers (at least currently) don't work that well, and have to work on one missile at a time. That said, the suggestion of Trachmyr is a realistic way to have "Anti-Missile ECM". Since all of you seem so hooked on realism (tell me, how realistic is it for people from a tiny world to move to a huge world, and NOT be crushed? or how one can make a RingWorld with only 20000kT of material? It's not realistic, could possibly be explained in terms of future technology if you streched it... the game isn't supposed to be real), how realistic is it for this missile jammer to effect 100 missiles the same as 1?

For all your complaints, there is a mod to be made to get around it. So quit complaining about how game coding should be changed, and mod the game to how you want it, or have someone else do it. Aaron's busy enough, and I don't think he's about to quit his day job (he does have a day job, if you all have forgotten).

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

Well Will, That is an advanced tech for a Ring world, if you read the discription of the rind and Sphere worlds it says that they are the base structure for the worlds and the generator drags materials from in the system to make the world.

With direct fire you lead the shoots on to the target &lt;machine gun&gt;. True about the distance and thats why they are efected by ECM.

Quote-

As I imagine it now, ECM is basically a component that jams a ships scanners (like having a ground base jam the frequency used by enemy radar, making it fairly useless, and forcing fire by eye).

End Quote-

How do you think that the seeker is finding it's target?? Most likely either infra-red or by radar. Thus "jamming" by an ECM pod would effect it as well. If you know the missile type you can do a wide area burst to throw off all incominf missiles.

These chat area are for the discussion about the game and for players to view their opinions, if a lot of players like the idea then the author of the idea could send it off to MM for his consideration.

Your disapproval of the idea is noted, but it looks like more dislike the idea of 100% accuracy for missiles than find the idea OK.

I will be sending my opinion to MM asking him to change the coding if possible.

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

Will:

"Another thing is that missile jammers (at least currently) don't work that well, and have to work on one missile at a time."

What missile jammer is that? Saying current ECM technology can only jam on missile at a time is pretty much dead wrong.

Seekers will home in four basic ways:
Passive Homing - Seeker listens for energy, like an IR signature and then follows it unitl it hits. These are best jammed w/ decoys like chaff or even turning your radar off/kicking freqs (if it is an ARM seeker).
Active Homing - each seeker has its own mini radar and finds the target by using it. Good except that if all the missiles are tuned to the same freq, their radars jam each other and they go splash. This can limit the number of missiles you can fire due to possible freq bandwidth limitations. These can be tough to jam for the same reason since you will need to radiate on different bands simultaniously.
Semi-Active Homing - A third party "paints" the target w/ energy like CW radar waves or laser and the seeker chases the energy reflected off the target. Hard to jam, but since all the missiles are looking for energy the same freq there is the chance to inact one counter measure against them all. Destructive interference or having a decoy re-emit the homing freq can be efective.
Command - The seeker is basically being remote controlled like a TOW missile or wire guided torpedo. Jam up the platform that is guiding and you jam the missile.

The above are simplified a bit, but are basically how modern seeker work.

Of course these can be mixed and matched. For instance, our Aegis ships fire SM-2's that are command guidance w/ terminal semi-active homing.

Different types of guidance are sometimes easier or harder to jam. There are ECM devices that can effect more than one seeker. The SRBOC/SLQ-32 offers soft kill protection for more than one missile at a time. An EA-6B can Jam many platforms at once.

BTW if you don't like our "complaints" then post on one of the Star Trek threads or something. We are simply trying to point out a few areas were the game design could be greatly enriched. And Last unless you are like an EWC in the navy or something, don't be trying to tell me what current electronic warfare capabilities are. Hope yall enjoyed the lecture. Later

[This message has been edited by nerfman (edited 02 May 2001).]

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

If missiles were affected by the range (accuracy) modifier then you could tweak them to your liking. I don't know how hard it would be to change.

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

I would like to see missiles have a reasonable chance of missing (10%~20%) and be affected by ECM, BUT a missile that missed would keep trying until it ran out of fuel. So there would be an advantage to firing missiles from closer range. Also, maybe missile ECM should be different, forcing the defender to add yet another component to his ship.

However, having fooled with PDC for some time, I am not as unhappy with never-missing missiles as I once was.

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

Since we are talking space combat distances here, and the distance from earth to moon is a half- light second and we see in SE4 that ships attack from at least that range, I see it this way.

Beams have to predict where their target will be one second from now. (150,000 KM at about range 4) If your enemy looks fuzzy due to ECM, you'll have a tougher time predicting which way he's facing and which way he'll go.

Seekers fly in the general direction of the enemy, so they can get hundreds of thousands of times closer than the ship's sensors before they have to make their final attack (at 1 KM from target) & explode.

At 100,000 times closer, your sensor power is up 10,000,000,000 times (r^2)
That's why missiles can see right through ECM & stealth.

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by suicide_junkie:
At 100,000 times closer, your sensor power is up 10,000,000,000 times (r^2)
That's why missiles can see right through ECM & stealth.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Good argument. But won't the ECM power also be higher by the same factor?

Your point about homing in on a fuzzy target that keeps getting closer and closer, as opposed to shooting at a fuzzy target from a distance, is still a good one. You may convince me yet. However, shouldn't ECM lower the missile's effective range or effective speed? The ECM would cause it to follow a less-precise homing course.

Also, you're assuming that the ECM merely makes the target "fuzzy," as opposed to making "bogeys." Maybe there ought to be different kinds of ECM. Normal kinds would be the fuzzy variety and would not affect missiles. The more advanced kinds would be the bogey variety and would affect everything.

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Will:
I don't think that the ECM as it is now in the game should affect seekers. As I imagine it now, ECM is basically a component that jams a ships scanners (like having a ground base jam the frequency used by enemy radar, making it fairly useless, and forcing fire by eye). The the analogy of a machine gun seems to be a favorite for having ECM affect seekers instead of direct-fire; my rebuttal is that this would be a machine gun firing at a moving target miles away, assisted by a tracking system.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with ECM jamming working on direct fire weapons because you're basically jamming what those weapons are using for targeting, but at the same time for a seeker to be able to seek something it has to use a sensor also, otherwise it would be pretty much the same as a dumb/no guidance rocket or a straight running torpedo.


Another thing is that missile jammers (at least currently) don't work that well, and have to work on one missile at a time. That said, the suggestion of Trachmyr is a realistic way to have "Anti-Missile ECM". Since all of you seem so hooked on realism (tell me, how realistic is it for people from a tiny world to move to a huge world, and NOT be crushed? or how one can make a RingWorld with only 20000kT of material? It's not realistic, could possibly be explained in terms of future technology if you streched it... the game isn't supposed to be real), how realistic is it for this missile jammer to effect 100 missiles the same as 1?


Depends on the jammer and seeker and which type of sensors and what modes they're operating in. But if the jammer is working on the basis of active range gate pull off or spurious target generation for radar jammers it should be jam affect most radar seekers that enter its effective cone.

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dmm:
Also, you're assuming that the ECM merely makes the target "fuzzy," as opposed to making "bogeys." Maybe there ought to be different kinds of ECM. Normal kinds would be the fuzzy variety and would not affect missiles. The more advanced kinds would be the bogey variety and would affect everything.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds sort of like the difference between a defenseive jammer and an offensive barrage jammer?

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

I got a reply from God, Arron, and he says that it would be unfair to have ECM effect missiles as they are slow and can be dodge by ships.

If you are like me and think that this is wrong please e-mail Arron and ask him to have missiles effected by ECM and combat sensors.

If the change is effected we could have smart missiles, as the data allows for attack modifiers to be changed, with say a +30% chance to hit at higher tech levels.

One thing that I also thought about was that the defence modifier for the size of the ship/ fighter makes absolutely no difference to a missile, that seems a bit unfair as well.

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Good argument. But won't the ECM power also be higher by the same factor?7<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's only if the ECM works by "reaching out to touch someone"
If the ECM works by creating false bogeys, or masking the ship to look like background radiation, the effect would break down as you get close, and be better far away.

Cloaks can be detected during tactical, combat, when the ships are close.
So similarily, decoys could be seen through from close up.

The 10 billion times sensor boost of the missile more than makes up for the advanced sensors on any ship.

OTOH, if the ECM is reaching out to jam sensors with active interference, couldn't the missile be programmed to seek that source of interference?
Also, if the ship is sending out active ECM, there is a whole lotta garbage singnals coming in. There is also a very weak real signal from the ship. As your missile gets closer, the interference builds at the same rate as your sensor power, but so does the real ship's signal.
With the exact same software that is used to find the cloaked ship against the noisy background of space, you find the ship amidst the noisy background of interference.


Overall, consider the CSM. Unmodded, it claims to have a nuclear warhead. You don't need a direct hit with a nuke to hurt somebody http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

At least we know the reason behind the design idea.

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

Missiles brain would not be that powerful that they would be able to have several ways of detecting an enenmy ship.
If you look at missiles of today then the set and forget missiles lock on one thing such a the heat of the engines or even the radar signal being sent out by the enemy unit.
The Exocet missile worked in one war but now a ECM device has been devoloped to stop it from hitting the ship.
Chaff is used to stop radar using missiles.
Flares are used to stop Infra-red missiles.
A modern ECM pod senses to frequency of the incoming homing missile and sends a fake signal back to send it the wrong direction.

Missiles are very venerable to the ECM of the target.

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

Hmmm... It seems I forgot to mention that missiles are too easy to beat now anyway, no sense weakening them any further.

As for the comment that basically said "I can complain if I want to", well, yes, you can. Just don't expect the complaining to get Aaron to go through the code and change something trivial instead of fixing any new bugs or adding features that still haven't been put in yet (Drones, for one). Especially when the game can already easily be modded to do basically the same thing that you want hard-coded.

And what I meant by "... missile jammers (at least currently) don't work that well ..." was the so-called "Star Wars" project. It doesn't work in practice.

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Missiles brain would not be that powerful that they would be able to have several ways of detecting an enenmy ship.
If you look at missiles of today then the set and forget missiles lock on one thing such a the heat of the engines or even the radar signal being sent out by the enemy unit.
The Exocet missile worked in one war but now a ECM device has been devoloped to stop it from hitting the ship.
Chaff is used to stop radar using missiles.
Flares are used to stop Infra-red missiles.
A modern ECM pod senses to frequency of the incoming homing missile and sends a fake signal back to send it the wrong direction.
Missiles are very venerable to the ECM of the target.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Chaff, Flares are countermeasures and not ECM. That's more PD than ECM.

Like I was saying, with the 10 billion times increase in sensor power, you can easily tell the difference between the real ship and the decoys.

These are not modern day dogfights. The distances involved change everything.
Try playing a FPS with 1000 lag, and you will see what ships at range 4 are dealing with while the missile is the guy with 5 ping, and deals with none of that.
Add in the fact that as the missile approaches, the image of the target literaly grows by 10 billion times! Even if the missile has only 1% of the ship's abilities, that leaves a hundred million times more detection power.

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

That 10 billion increase in sensor power seems odd. It may be that the sensor power increases the closer the missile get to it's target but I don't think the increase is a simple multiplication process. If it's true that no wonder missiles don't miss, that's one big *** target! http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif
No matter what the sensor or ECM device is the time a missile takes to reach its target will have as big an effect, if not more, than the tracking device on how effective ECM is. If it takes 4 times as long for a missile to reach it's target compared to a beam then the target has an advantage, if only in maneuver.
I am glad Aaron gave his reason for the way it is. We all have an opinion on this, and on other things we would like to see done with the game, and maybe Aaron will read the threads and decide to change it. If not, I am sure other improvements will be made to make the game even better.

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

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

ECM is a cover for all counter mesures in this game as far as would understand any way.

For all attacks there is a defence.
So pumping out a signal 10 billions times stronger so the missiles can tell the difference between a ghost ship &lt;decoy&gt; and the real ship means that it would actually be easier to deflect the missile using counter measures as you could flood the area with its homing frequency and deflect it off.

My use of non- electroinc counter measures was just an indiaction of the ease that missiles can be stopped from hitting their target.

No matter how it senses the target you can make a defence against itit some way.

Thus ECM or counter measures should effect missiles as well as direct fire weapons. Also Combat sensors aid in their attack as well.
You state that distance makes a difference in combat today, well then why does it make a difference in space combat over greater distances?

I also think you are greatly increasing the power required for the "radar" systems required to detect over a distance.

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

"Just don't expect the complaining to get Aaron to go through the code and change something trivial instead of fixing any new bugs or adding features that still haven't been put in yet (Drones, for one). Especially when the game can already easily be modded to do basically the same thing that you want hard-coded."

Just because you can't make the distinction and grasp the fundamentals of electronic warfeare doens't mean that game can already be modded. Using a range one PD mount with a new sound is pretty cheesy. Still, I am sure AARON is glad to have you here, as his personal St. Peter, guarding the pearly gates against us heathen
realists.

Ten billion is a bit crazy. At the most energy would fall off at something like the distance to the forth power, but that all depends of the detecting beams emission lobe. A very tight bean will not lose intensity as quick, so to say something like ten billion is really pointless.

Missiles are closer, so they do get some advantage there. Still an entire ship has a whole bank of generators, at least thousands (but not ten billion) of times more space for computers. On top of that, they have crew that can monitor the system to quickly change strategies if things seem to fail.

Once more I don't necesarily say that the current balance must be changed, but I think it should be changable.

There is a lot of people saying stuff like, "well if you jam me, then I will just loch unto your jammer." If we want to we could all just sit here naming measure and counter measure. Its much like a wrestling match where each move has a counter. Its not the counter itself that leads to victory, its the strength, speed, and endurance the wrestler uses to apply the move that determines victory. EW is much the same way except you can change out strength, etc. with factors like emitter energy, frequency agility, and control system/computer power.

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

A distinction also needs to be made between making this MODDABLE and putting it into the basic SE4 set. If at all, I'd say it should just be moddable, and not used in the basic set. It isn't fair simply because in real life you probably aren't going to OUTRUN a missile, which many SE4 ships can do.

Changing it to like that would take a very fine balance, as it could make missiles useless if done incorrectly.

Phoenix-D

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

Damn that was a sweet post to get my comission with!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Modable is fine. Personally I don't like Star Trek. I don't freak about Star Trek stuff. I just don't put in my games. That is really all I would ever care for. Just give us a little more flexibility is all I am saying.

[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>That 10 billion increase in sensor power seems odd. It may be that the sensor power increases the closer the missile get to it's target but I don't think the increase is a simple multiplication process. If it's true that no wonder missiles don't miss, that's one big *** target! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Its only the image that gets bigger. Imagine looking at the surface of the moon from here. Now fly down to the moon and go into orbit. See how much bigger the moon looks now?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>No matter what the sensor or ECM device is the time a missile takes to reach its target will have as big an effect, if not more, than the tracking device on how effective ECM is. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Who cares how long it takes the missile to cruise over to where you are? Once it gets close (&lt;1 square) is when the seeking really comes into play. The missile keeps adjusting its aim until it hits. So there is essentially zero time to target.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>If it takes 4 times as long for a missile to reach it's target compared to a beam then the target has an advantage, if only in maneuver.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Of course. But once the missile catches you, it hits.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Ten billion is a bit crazy. At the most energy would fall off at something like the distance to the forth power, but that all depends of the detecting beams emission lobe. A very tight bean will not lose intensity as quick, so to say something like ten billion is really pointless.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If energy fell off at r^4, then the power increase would be 100,000,000,000,000,000,000.
Energy falls off by the distance squared. Since the missile (@ 1km) is 100,000 times closer to the target than the ship (@ range 4, 100,000kM) its sensor strength is 100,000 ^2 times as strong.
Yes, a tight beam dosen't lose energy as quick, but unless the beam is smaller than the target, you still get 10 billion times the power when you're 100,000 times as close.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>There is a lot of people saying stuff like, "well if you jam me, then I will just loch unto your jammer."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think I was the only one who said that, and you're right, it dosen't really apply.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Missiles are closer, so they do get some advantage there. Still an entire ship has a whole bank of generators, at least thousands (but not ten billion) of times more space for computers. On top of that, they have crew that can monitor the system to quickly change strategies if things seem to fail.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, but not just someadvantage. The ship can't compensate for the 10 billion times greater resolution & power of the missile when its a few kilometers away from the target.
That's why we sent out the voyager space probes.

Jupiter is 600,000,000KM away at minimum.
When voyager 1 got to 700,000KM from jupiter (at closest approach), it was approximately 1000 times closer that we are.
It therefore got 1000^2 = 1 Million times the resolution from it's bity cameras than we would get from earth with the same camera.

A million friggin times, and it was just trying to fly by. The entire planet earth can't overcome the million times improvement of a bitty 722Kg spacecraft that was just flying by, most of a million kilometers away.
We'd have to have a thousand meter telescope in orbit to see what Voyager 1 saw. And better optics are not going to shrink a scope that size to reasonable proportions.

Thats why probes are used. Thats why missiles get incredible vision compared to the ships.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>A distinction also needs to be made between making this MODDABLE and putting it into the basic SE4 set<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree. The more moddability, the better.
I'm just trying to reason out the "Seekers always hit" idea.

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

Re: Missiles: Do they ever miss???
 

What would really help with missiles is if they had ECM themselves. Right now, fighters are many times harder to hit than missiles. They shouldn't be. A missile is a much harder target in RL than a fighter. At least a fast missile in combat. Cruise missiles are another matter but they have their own advantages.

Anyway, if your missiles were automatically given your best ECM value (like they are in MOO II) then the AI with a 'missile strategy' wouldn't necessarily be stymied by someone packing a few PDC into their ships. As it is now, the missile using races are pretty much helpless if the encounter someone with a lot of PDC.