Missiles: Do they ever miss???

[nerfman]

"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]

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]

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]

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".