Missiles: Do they ever miss???

[nerfman]

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.

[Phoenix-D]

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

[Aussie Gamer]

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).]

[dumbluck]

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.

[Atraikius]

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.

[Suicide Junkie]

quote:

---

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.

---

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]

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

quote:

---

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%

---

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).]

[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.

"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).]

[Nitram Draw]

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

[DirectorTsaarx]

quote:

---

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.

---

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".

[Will]

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? )

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.