Missiles: Do they ever miss???

[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.

[nerfman]

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).]

[Suicide Junkie]

quote:

---

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??

---

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

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).]

[nerfman]

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