Missiles: Do they ever miss???

Aussie Gamer · #1 May 3rd, 2001, 07:33 AM

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 · #2 May 3rd, 2001, 08:55 AM

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 · #3 May 3rd, 2001, 12:38 PM

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.

nerfman · #4 May 4th, 2001, 01:13 AM

"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.

jc173 · #5 May 4th, 2001, 01:20 AM

quote:
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.

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.

Nitram Draw · #6 May 4th, 2001, 01:48 AM

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.

Suicide Junkie · #7 May 3rd, 2001, 05:15 PM

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).]