Why use missile reloads?

[Nolondil]

It has dawned on me that there is no practical reason to use missile reloads. You always want to launch as many missiles as possible, as quickly as possible. This means single-shot launchers. Being able to carry more shots into combat is useles if you don't get to fire them off, and most combats don't last more than two or three reloads of light missiles anyway. But more than that, the more missiles you fire first the more targets you destroy and the quicker you reduce the enemy's ability to damage your ships. And the more missiles in flight at once, the better your chanes of over-coming PD. With missiles, front loading is everything. Put it all up front and reloads are a waste of space and money.

Can anyone think of any situation where reloads could be more useful than firing everything up front? I think the design of the combat system makes single-shot the best in all circumstances. Now, if anyone can come up with possible tweaks of the combat system to make reloads useful sometimes that would be interesting...

[Beamup]

Reduction of overkill. If you have a choice between firing one volley of 100 missiles or two of 50 each, but 50 missiles will destroy the targeted TF, then the latter option lets you kill two TFs instead of one.

Of course, if this happens it's more an argument for more and smaller IF TFs than reloads...

I generally use 2 volleys so I can follow up on a different target, maybe it's not the best option but 1-shot launchers just grate on me... seems like an exploit so in general I don't do it.

[Skymage]

Originally posted by Nolondil
It has dawned on me that there is no practical reason to use missile reloads. You always want to launch as many missiles as possible, as quickly as possible. This means single-shot launchers. Being able to carry more shots into combat is useles if you don't get to fire them off, and most combats don't last more than two or three reloads of light missiles anyway. But more than that, the more missiles you fire first the more targets you destroy and the quicker you reduce the enemy's ability to damage your ships. And the more missiles in flight at once, the better your chanes of over-coming PD. With missiles, front loading is everything. Put it all up front and reloads are a waste of space and money.

Can anyone think of any situation where reloads could be more useful than firing everything up front? I think the design of the combat system makes single-shot the best in all circumstances. Now, if anyone can come up with possible tweaks of the combat system to make reloads useful sometimes that would be interesting...


When ther are more enemy targets (TFs + planets + defences) than you have TFs...... You'll lose that fight everytime


Just an example ;)

SkyMage

[Beamup]

Originally posted by Beamup
Of course, if this happens it's more an argument for more and smaller IF TFs than reloads...

Followup - just occured to me that this suggests one-shot is the way to go until you routinely start fielding 10-TF fleets, after which you may have better cause to use reloads to get more independent volleys.

[Blaze]

well i prefer 2 reloads, because they are a lot more versatile and robust. A single shot can bee all used up on incomming missile/fighters. atleast w/ 2 shots, you will definetly get a kill. besides, missiles are powerful enough to dish out a lot of punishment regardless (as they should seeing as how they have definate disadvantages over other wepons)

[Skymage]

Once I reach midgame I'll use 4 reloads, early on I'll use either 2 or 3.


SkyMage

[Blaze]

why so many reloads?

[visage]

There's one other reason to use reloads that comes to mind: combining IF with CV so that fighters keep PD occupied and your IF can go in "for free."

[herknav]

I use even more, but then I have more balanced TFs... I don't rely strictly on IF for offense. Early game, I use up to 6 reloads, later game, those get reduced as the size of the missile frames increase. Because larger missiles take longer to reload, less loads makes the most sense. With LFGs, missiles loose a lot of their punch.

[Bhruic]

Well, no one has mentioned the "space use" issue yet, so I will. Because the launchers take up 1 "rack space" amount, the more racks you have, the more efficient your space usage is.

For example, comparing two different loadouts, first with 1 missile with 6 racks vs 2 missiles with 3 racks. Same amount of missiles overall (6). The first one took up 231 space. The second took up 173.25 space. So with the same number of missiles, I was able to save 57.75 space. In fact, if you raise the number of racks to 4, you take up exactly 231 space - meaning that you can launch a total of 8 missiles for the same space as the single launcher can launch 6.

Bh

[hoof1]

IMO, visage's point is the #1 reason I go with multiple reloads. Not only do you get more missiles per ship (thus more damage potential), but the first missile volley usually gets the strongest PD deployed against them. Many times I've had battles won because the 3rd or 4th missile volley struck home unopposed.

The other problem with the 1-missile/rack theory is that you're pretty much forced to use armor/shields on those missiles (to maximize their survival). Again, this is because they get shot at undistracted PD defences, so need to be as tough as possible. If you use the missiles as support, to be used when the enemy is distracted by fighters or your taskforces, then an expensive missile with armor/shields is as effective as a cheap one with no armor/shields, same warhead and chassis. You can save 48 AU *per missile* by not using armor/shields. Early in the game when missiles are small, this adds up very quickly, and you can often halve the cost of your IF ships by not using armor/shields on the missiles (and thus have twice as many IF ships)

[hoof1]

BTW, the "defence" against the 1-shot missile rack taskforces is to equip your taskforces with a few fighters. You only need a few. When you target an enemy taskforce, that targetting sometimes seems to include the fighters launched. If the 1-shot missile ship's missiles choose to target those lonely fighters, an entire massive volley can be nullified.

I usually equip my recon ships with one laser interceptor with armor/shields. They get automatically launched at the start of combat and serve as an extended "scout" without the need for a dedicated taskforce. Many many times I've attacked a planet and watched as the planet's missiles chose to annihilate my scout fighters. That can sometimes make planetary assaults a little easier :)

[balragh]

Originally posted by Bhruic
For example, comparing two different loadouts, first with 1 missile with 6 racks vs 2 missiles with 3 racks. Same amount of missiles overall (6). The first one took up 231 space. The second took up 173.25 space. So with the same number of missiles, I was able to save 57.75 space. In fact, if you raise the number of racks to 4, you take up exactly 231 space - meaning that you can launch a total of 8 missiles for the same space as the single launcher can launch 6.

Bh

but for this to work you have to

a) live long enough to get of 4 shots
b) saturate the enemy pd with 2 instead of 6 missiles

i think there are situations where more missiles will win the fight (like artillery support fire) and maybe when you need as much missiles in a volley as you can get (i use "real" missiles and pd nukes in a one to five ratio). it's amazing how much lfg and improved normal mount phasers can shoot down if the TF cover each other...

[Blaze]

yeah, but whats the point of shooting more missiles if they all get shot down, I prefer the overwhelm the pd approach, but that's fairly obvious in my guide.

[herknav]

Originally posted by Blaze
yeah, but whats the point of shooting more missiles if they all get shot down, I prefer the overwhelm the pd approach, but that's fairly obvious in my guide.

But with 1 shot loadouts, you HAVE to overhwelm the PD, or you lose. That is a one trick tactic and is too inflexible for me. My TFs normally have a mix of fighters, missiles, and beams... none of them in and of themselves will destroy a TF in one shot, but taken together, it is too much for a TF to defend itself.

[hoof1]

Blaze, you're tactic is an all-or-nothing approach. Either the massive missile attack gets through and kills the TFs or you lose the fight.

If the enemy knows what you're doing, it's very easy to counter that tactic. Either send out distractions for your missiles (like my lone fighter scout tactic), or equip your ships with massive amounts of PD of varying ranges. The way the game balance works is that given equal tech and equal numbers of ships, if the enemy focuses primarily on anti-missile equipment, they will shoot down your missile strike leaving you with no alternative but to leave.

Fortunately for you the AI doesn't do this.

Having multiple missile volleys gives you flexibility. This means that if your initial missile volley fails, *and* you have non-IF taskforces available, you can still win, and can still benefit from those IF ships.

One of my favorite anti-guardian tactics early in the game is to use a few CV taskforces with missile taskforces. Even when you have insufficient tech to nail the Guardian with a 1-shot IF assault (with 180 IF ships), you might only need 2 IF armadas of the same tech with 3-4 reloads to take it down, *if* you can saturate the guardian with fighters. It's PD gets distracted by the fighters and cannot engage the inbound missiles, meaning you need far far fewer missiles. Fighters are usually a better choice than LR/SR taskforces as they tend to die much quicker vs the guardian.

The 1-shot missile tactic is a good one, but is way way too easy to counter, and really limits your tactical flexibility. Your fleets become a one-trick-pony and if the enemy realizes this and adjusts, you will lose. However, since the AI doens' t adapt in this way, it's a sure-fire way to win non-multiplayer games (if you feel you need that kind of edge to beat the AI, which IMO makes the game rather boring)

[herknav]

Originally posted by balragh
but for this to work you have to

a) live long enough to get of 4 shots
b) saturate the enemy pd with 2 instead of 6 missiles

i think there are situations where more missiles will win the fight (like artillery support fire) and maybe when you need as much missiles in a volley as you can get (i use "real" missiles and pd nukes in a one to five ratio). it's amazing how much lfg and improved normal mount phasers can shoot down if the TF cover each other...

You can accomplish #1 with good PD, (I go for PD overkill, can never have too much). #2 might not occur, but who cares? If you have relied on an IF only aproach, you are closer to loosing anyway. If I can tie up a TFs PD with my missiles, (whether they hit or not), that gives my fighters a free shot before they too are engaged. While this is going on, my TFs are closing and bringing the beams into play, (no PD can stop that). The follow-on missile and fighter waves will continue to split the PD and something will likely get through.

[Blaze]

@ hoof1, you don't know where I'm comming from, do you? If you do want to know, click on my links. I use PD missiles, they can easily overwhelm a pure PD DF battle group. PD missiles are so much smaller than PD DF wepons. I also don't use the 1 shot approach, it is too inflexable, i prefer the 2 shot (which can still easily overwhelm a pure PD DF battle (of same size). I also use LR TF's, so that they will auto fire on the enemies TF's instead of the flotsam (atleast in most cases, and usually atleast for the first volley). I also use my longest DF wepon w/ longest mount, to give me cosiderable starting distance from the enemy (wich might also lend to further scanning range, but needs more testing).

[hoof1]

How does that work on a good layered PD? I'm not talking about massed PD mounts, but guns that can engage from 10-20k away with increasing fire as the missiles close? Since you're using PD missiles, the best PD counter to that would be to use long-ranged heavy/standard mounted weapons with the lowest damage/hit (so you can fit more of them onboard) for about a third of the space, then a third with standard/light mounts of a similar weapon for another third, and PD (preferrably LFG) mounts for the last third.

The disadvantage to using the PD missile is that it has far fewer hit points than the rocket/light/heavy/torpedoe chassis. It also means that armor/shields become hideously expensive (the 25/33 au for shields/armor is per missile *regardless* of chassis type), meaning if you want many of these taskforces, you need either to pay through the nose, or not use armor/shields (meaning each missile is something like 2-3 hit points)

If the attacking IF fleet isn't numerically superior, the missiles should get all shot down, esp. if you start farther out giving the defenders time to turn turtle and move close to each other. Then you have the combined firepower of all taskforces, with complete crossfire coverage making things even more difficult.


When I get home I can do a more specific analysis. But basically the lowest common denominator is one of your IF taskforces vs one dedicated PD taskforce with a layerd defence. Then for each weapon group, it can do a certain maximum number of missiles shot down each firing time. The missile speed (how long the missiles take to go from max range for that weapon to impact) determines how often that defensive weapon can fire at the missiles. It's quite possible that an exclusively long-range most-shots-per-unit-space approach is better since the shorter-ranged weapons get fewer shot opportunities.

Rinse and repeat for the middle weapon group and the closest group. If that total number of missiles potentially shot down exceeds the max you can put into an IF taskforce, then the IF PD swarm tactic can be countered. If not, then the IF PD swarm tactic is probably unstoppable.

Obviously one could sway the results one way or the other by giving one side or the other more taskforces or bigger ships.

[Blaze]

1) layered appraoch isn't so hot.
2) you will only get about 1 shot per salve per DF wepon (missiles are fast)
3) don't forget about accuracy (missiles are locked into 95%), DF is lower.
4) yep I don't use armor or shields on missiles (said that in my guide) read it so you know where I'm coming from, most of your comments are already addressed in there)
5) if you have the cross fire of 5 DF TF's targeting 5 TF's worth of missiles, you still loose big time.
6) crossfire plays it's biggest roles on carrier defense, not so much in IF defense.
7) the layered approach was more inmportant when the PD bug was present.
8) on mostly DF ship design, I've been able to kill a 1/1 ratio when being outnumbered 2 to 1 (they have twice as many ships, i kill 1/2 of their ships and run away)
9) IMO the best short battle defensive wepon are PD nukes (they are so small and cheap that they can out swarm most incomming swarms of bigger missiles/fighters)

[hoof1]

Where in your guide is the IF missile boat tactic? I clicked on your link and saw the following four options:

Ultimate Bug Chart

Ultimate Beta Patch Bug Chart

Space Battle Guide

Bug Report Thread


Thinking it might be in the Space Battle Guide, I clicked that. In that link there is an exceptional description of the mechanics and details of Moo3 space combat. Kudos on that description.

However, I cannot find your IF PD missile boat tactic. I want to read it so that I can do my analysis in four hours correctly.

Ah, I see how it works. What I thought was a Moo3 how-does-combat-work page (the table with TF types and behaviors threw me off) is actually a how-to-win-with-IF-boats page. I'll use this as a guide when calculating the maximum missiles thrown at the enemy when doing my analysis.

That's why I missed it when I followed the link before. You might try relabelling that page :) Or better yet, put the how-does-it-work stuff on a separate page from the how-to-kill-effectively page :) You've got some excellent information on how Moo3's combat system works.

[hoof1]

BTW, have you recorded how fast missiles travel? That'll be step 1 for me when I do my analysis, since it dictates how many times a weapon can fire. Say you have a weapon with a range of 20,000 that can fire once every 2.5 seconds. Say the inbound missiles can travel 6000 units every 2.5 seconds. The defender should get 3 shots with that weapon against the inbound stream.

Also, your assumption about multifire might not apply in the way you think. Since fire vs individual ships is abstracted (your weapons fire at a task-force, not individual ships), it's entirely possible that one visual "firing" of an autofire weapon might hit two targets in that taskforce. If so, autofire could be murder on your missiles. The idea that autofire can only fire at one thing might apply to *taskforces* or fighter/missile swarms, not individual ships/missiles/fighters. Or it might mean that autofire means all extra hits are applied to the same ship, but not to the same missile.

The extreme effectiveness of LFGs vs fighters seems to imply that multifire *does* hit multiple targets in a particular group (at least in how fast it seems to clean out fighter swarms). It's not that particularly better a weapon otherwise vs fighters (5x36 per fighter is no better than 1x36 at LFG tech levels), so you'd think that an equal number of light mounts of a different weapon occupying the same space would be just as effective (say, light fusion cannon, which does sufficient damage per hit to kill a fighter).

I've definitely noticed that when my ships start to carry LFGs, they become an order of magnitude better at killing fighter swarms. However, almost always, whatever I was using before LFGs came in as many weapon mounts as the LFGs, so what could account for this perceived increase in fighter destruction (other than wishful thinking :) )?

It's too bad Moo3 doesn't have a custom battle generator. Otherwise you could set up scenarios and be absolutely sure about this stuff.

[Blaze]

thank you, It originally started out as a guide to missile only tactics, but has since covered most of the mechanics of space battle mechanics. A lot of info in there comes from many people, visage, GW, Da_Blade, and myself come to mind. AFAIK, it's all accurate and they agree on the mechanics aspects of it. They have helped point out mistakes in the past, and I am grateful for that. Also, missile boat tactics are good for onoly short battles, or hit and run manuvers. Granted that if you don't kill the enemy quick, you have to retreat or die. Missile tactics have drawbacks, but all tactics have drawbacks. I take it that you previous comment was a little spread out, and you found the part w/ the PD missile use described?

[hoof1]

Yes I did, thanks. I'll do the numerical analysis when I get home, then if I have time I'll try to find out what the story is for multifire vs missile strikes.

My main concern is that the IF PD missile swarm tactic might not have a counter, in which case multiplayer is doomed (since all you have to do is adopt that tactic and the enemy will either adopt the same tactic or die). For single-player, since the AI won't even attempt to counter the tactic, using it is like using missiles before the patch: you're making the game extra easy for yourself. Because of that, I refused to use any missiles at all pre-patch, except for missile bases and a single PD nuke per ship to counter the PD bug.

[Blaze]

i feel that missiles are the dominant wepon, but the counter is doable. I like using IF TF's w/ small PD nukes to handle the bigger PD missiles inbound. On a 1:1 kill ration, this leaves you w/ enough room to do what ever you want, be it missiles, fighters, DF wepons. Also Tom Hosinger had an interesting counter tactic. Send in smal groups of fighters first, to eat up the missile volleys, granted he did follow up w/ a missile swarm (though he tends towards a mixed missile cahssis aproach). I'm not sure how he gets positive results w/ a mixed chasis approach, seeing as how there is that missile reload bug (which is addressed in the final version of the patch).

[Nolondil]

A very interesting discussion. Of course I am not relying on IF alone to win battles. I use combined arms as much as possible, including LR and Carrier TFs at all times, and sometimes SR though they always seem to get chewed up before they get in range to use their own weapons...

So the type of situation I am talking about is attacking a planet with several TFs defending it. It's always best to throw as much at the enemy as quickly as possible. If you hit the planet, that's good. If the missiles run into a TF before they reach the planet, then the TF is toasted instead. The only disadvantage I've seen so far is what a couple others have pointed out, the limit on the number of targets you can engage, and that's addressable by making more and smaller TFs rather than adding reloads. Occasionally a group of missiles will go after a flight of fighters, but as I said, you need more than one IF TF, and you need combined arms. So some missiles can be wasted on fighters but generally 'baiting' with fighters is too difficult and unreliable to be a good counter-tactic.

I suspect that single-shot launchers would not work as well in defense as they do in offense. At least not vs. equal forces. If your missiles go off in some direction looking for enemies and the enemy attacks from a different direction they might not get back in time to rescue you. That might be a good reason for using reloads in defensive situations.

[Blaze]

well as far as making more, and smaller TF, you hit the 10 TF limit pretty quickly.

[hoof1]

I've completed my analysis of the PD vs IF boat situation. It turns out it *is* possible to make a nearly invulnerable taskforce to the IF boat tactic, but you have to use an extreme approach (as extreme as the IF boat concept is) and have miniaturized Hard beams available.

First I attempted to measure the speed of missiles. This is not easy, nor very accurate, but I have an approximate idea of how fast they go.

What I did was start a new game and move the initial scouts around until I found combat. Then I maneuvered my ship so that firing would commence along one of the grid axes. I repeated the test 3 times, and given the scout's laser range of 5733. Judging from the distance the scout opened up, the grid dimensions are around 4000 units on an edge.

The second part was to load up a later game, and get into combat with IF ships. I observed and timed with a stopwatch how long the missiles took to cross a "square". I'm making a huge assumption that all missiles travel at the same speed, but it appears that missiles take between a second and two seconds to traverse one square. I will use a transit time of 1.5 seconds for my analysis, which results in a distance travelled of about 2700 units/sec, giving a missile speed of 2700 units/sec.

Next I analyzed the weapon mounts to find the optimal mount size for anti-missile work. The bigger mounts enable greater ranges, but they have an even larger increase in space vs their range increase, thus making the Light mount the best anti-missile mount (I'm assuming the PD mount's auto-fire doesn't allow it to score more hits on different missiles than a light mount).

Next I pulled up the direct-fire spreadsheet file (WeaponsTable.txt) and found the direct-fire weapon with the best range per unit space. Since all weapons except the Mauler and the Stellar Converter fire at 2.5 seconds per shot, this gives a good approximation of which weapons will get the most hits per unit space on a missile. It turns out the Hard beam is the best, followed closely by the Phasor and the Ion Pulse Cannon.

The Hard beam, in light mount format, does 12 points of damage at point blank range and 6 points of damage at far range. Since we're shooting at unarmored PD missiles, and the biggest missile is the Omega missile with 3.5 hitpoints per missile, one hit equals one dead missile. The Hard beam has a max hit percentage of 0.7, meaning that at most, 70% of all shots fired will hit. Since I don't know how that accuracy drops off with distance, I will guess that 50% of all shots fired will hit the inbound missiles.

Given the light mount range of the Hard beam as 9067, the missiles will take 9067/2700=3.4 seconds to get from max range to impact. This allows the Hard Beams to fire twice before the missiles hit. Given the hard beam's estimated accuracy of 50%, this means one dead missile per hard beam mount.


Ok, now the specifics. I chose three representative tech levels, tech level 10, 20, and 30. I designed the best IF missile boat and the best Hard Beam PD boat I could.

It seems out that the best missile type to use is the latest tech for each class. The lower tech level missiles can get more missiles through, but do much less damage. A separate analysis could be done on this subject, but for this comparison, I'm using the best missile in PD form with 1 shot launchers

For Tech level 10:

IF boat:
Battlecruiser hull (574 base hp)
Sub light drives
Hydrogen Fuel Cells, speed 1
No shields
135 1-shot PD Anionic Missiles

PD boat:
Battlecruiser hull (574 base hp)
Sub light drives
Hydrogen Fuel Cells, speed 1
Standard Shields, class 2 (75 pnts, 54% damage blocked)
Medium Duranium armor (400 pnts, 6 deflection)
66 PD Hard Beams


For Tech level 20:

IF boat:
Battleship hull (814 base hp)
Fusion drives
Iridium Fuel Cells, speed 1
No shields
140 Hercular PD 1-shot missiles

PD boat:
Battleship hull (814 base hp)
Fusion drives
Iridium Fuel Cells, speed 1
Large class 4 shields (300 pnts, 62% damage blocked)
Heavy Titanium Armor (1600 pnts, 15 deflection)
134 PD Hard Beams (with miniaturization 1&2)


For Tech level 30:

IF boat:
Superdreadnaught hull (1634 base hp)
Ion drives
Uridium Fuel Cells, speed 1
no shields
231 1-shot PD Scatter-Pack missiles

PD boat:
Superdreadnaught hull (1634 base hp)
Ion drives
Uridium Fuel cells, speed 1
Class 6 large shields (788 pnts, 70% damage blocked)
Heavy Duranium Armor (3200 pnts, 21 deflection)
277 PD Hard Beams (with miniaturization 1&2)


Just looking at the designs, you can see that Tech level 20 and 30, there are almost as many Hard Beam mounts as attacking missiles. This is because the missile types take at least 4 units of space (2 for the missile, 2 for the mount), and the Hard beam with both miniaturizations takes 3.58 space (both techs are acquired before tech level 20). Even if you went to a lesser missile design, the armor deflection will ensure that little damage that gets through the shields will damage the ship. At tech level 20 and 30, I'd argue that the PD ships are immune to the missile boats, unless the PD doesn't engage for some reason.

So, at tech level 10, how do these two fare?

Lets see what each missile that gets through does to the ship.
For intact shields:
The anionic PD missile does a base of 21 points of damage. Class 2 shields will block 11 points of that. Duranium medium armor deflects 6 more points, leaving 4 points to pass through.

Now there's a discussion elsewhere on whether deflection matters once it's exceeded. For argument's sake, lets say that deflection doesn't matter after it's exceeded. Thus all 10 points get through.

Now if the shields are down, then 21 points get through and damages the armor/internals.

Say that all the damage is applied to internals. To blow the ship, 574 points of damage is needed. That's a minimum of 28 missiles that must hit the target, otherwise the ship lives for the next fight. Remember that the game distributes damage all over the taskforce, so we should be able to treat the one-IF vs one-PD situation as representative of equal taskforces fighting each other.

From the data above, 135 missiles are launched, and 66 will be shot down by the hard beams. The remaining 69 missiles far exceeds the 28 needed, if shields and armor is ignored. If full shields and armor are counted (as raw hitpoints), then the 1049hp total needs to be defeated, resulting in 50 missiles, less than 66 missiles.

However, if the accuracy is assumed to be 70% instead of 50% for the hard beams, then only 43 missiles get through. Throw in the fact that missiles are 95% accurate, then we have only 36 missiles get through. In this situation it's likely that the ship might survive.



Conclusion: At low tech levels, the IF boat system should be unstoppable, with this result being heavily dependant on the speed of the missiles and the accuracy of the hard beam. Once miniaturized hard beams are available, the PD IF 1-shot missile boat tactic can be completely nullified, given equal ship numbers and ship sizes.

[Blaze]

now what about 2 shot missile boats. something I haven't tested but need to, is are all DF shots for a given mount all used on one target, even if that target only needs 1/2 of them to be killed ( if this is the case, it could lead to an extreme amount of waste) but that's untested, and I need to very soon.

[hoof1]

Things get more complicated when you have multiple taskforces vs multiple task forces, since it depends on which taskforces the missiles shoot at and the arrangement of the PD taskforces. If you choose to shoot at a taskforce, and it turns out that your missiles have to fly through a gauntlet of other taskforces you didn't see at launch, then each light hard beam weapon can fire more than twice at the missiles skewing things in favor of the defender. However, if you can get your missiles to go after a lone TF or one that cannot get support from the entire defensive TF, then you should easily overwhelm that enemy TF and destroy it. However, that might be too slow a process to attrit the enemy enough to keep him from attacking your planets (and the missile boat tactic won't work for defence unless you can ensure the destruction of *all* the attackers)

And of course, if you have higher numbers than the enemy, it won't matter, he'll die (depending on the disparity in numbers). Conversely, if he has more ships than you (or larger hulls) and groups up in a good defensive formation, your missiles will probably all get shot down.

Multi TF vs Multi TF make the whole situation a lot more different.

To address your 2-shot missile boat question, my guess is that you should forget it if you're fighting a human that knows how to counter the massed PD missile offensive. Single shot missile boats can beat lower tech taskforces, and get beat by equal or better level 15 tech or higher dedicated task forces. If you use two shot missiles ships, you cut your initial volley by 1/3rd (each missile per volley takes 6 space units vs 4 for Hercular missiles, for example). It gives you more flexibility, but if he survives the first volley with minimal casualties, the second will get shot down as well. If you are able to damage the enemy with the first volley, then 1-shot launchers would probably have killed him.

IMO, if you don't want to go with 1-shot IF boats, I'd recommend a more "traditional" combined arms approach and tactics, and adjust to what you see the enemy use. If the enemy uses primarily missiles, build light Hard Beam boats. If he loves carriers, use Hard beams until you get LFG generators. If the enemy focuses on anti-missile weapondry, focus on long-range beam weapons instead, with fast ships (so you can clobber him from a distance and stay out of range of his firepower). If the enemy focuses on long-range beam weapons, use missile/fighters. It's kinda like rock/papers/scissors.

However, I'd recommend this tactic: Superior numbers, ship sizes, and technology :) That's the only way to be sure <G>

[visage]

a) Random note: deflection is a threshold, not a subtraction.

b) So you're seeing in real battles with the 1.2b patch DF weapons fire on missiles at long ranges? I ask because a week or so ago I went to test the weapon range at which PD will fire multiple times on inbound missiles, and found that regardless of the range available to the weapon, missiles weren't being fired on until they hit very short range (the same range band regardless of weapon range, really: 4-8k). This strikes me as a very odd result, so I'm very curious if people are finding battle behavior in 1.2 to actually bear any resemblance to that result.

c) Largely rrelevant to your point, but by my calculations, the light hard beam's max damage at long range is just under 11. That means it should be doing something like 3-11 damage per hit. (It might be 2-10; I haven't determined if damage is forced to be integral.)

[hoof1]

visage, do you have good numbers on the grid sizes and/or missile speeds? My analysis is heavily dependant on both factors.

That's interesting data about the engagement range for anti-missile work. I've definitely seen missile engagement from a long distance, however I cannot remember if that's pre 1.2 or if it's "ordered" fire (where you tell the task-force to shoot). However, 8k engagement range (2 squares away I think) would allow hard beams to fire twice.

I've heard that auto-fire puts all of it's extra shots on one ship. Do you know if that rule applies to missiles? In other words, will an autofire weapon be any more effective than an equal number of non-autofire mounts of the same type? (assuming unarmored/unshielded PD missiles)

If one could set up a controlled test, this should be easy enough to find out. Actually if one could set up that test, one could set up a test for IF 1-shot boat vs PD specialist defence ships (like the pure light Hard Beam mount ships)

Finally, the 4-8k engagement range might be a result of how IG fixed the PD bug. I'm wondering if the PD engages further out with every ship equipped with PD nukes like pre-patch.

[visage]

Originally posted by hoof1
visage, do you have good numbers on the grid sizes and/or missile speeds? My analysis is heavily dependant on both factors.

My best number for grid size is between 3750 and 4k. I haven't tried to determine missile speed; it was going to be part of that test last week.

That's interesting data about the engagement range for anti-missile work. I've definitely seen missile engagement from a long distance, however I cannot remember if that's pre 1.2 or if it's "ordered" fire (where you tell the task-force to shoot). However, 8k engagement range (2 squares away I think) would allow hard beams to fire twice.

Are you sure that missiles are shootable all the way until they're at 0 range? I wouldn't be surprised if there's some point at which missiles are considered to have impacted the TF for damage purposes that's greater than range 0.

I've heard that auto-fire puts all of it's extra shots on one ship. Do you know if that rule applies to missiles? In other words, will an autofire weapon be any more effective than an equal number of non-autofire mounts of the same type? (assuming unarmored/unshielded PD missiles)

AF all hits the same target, even when it's missiles. If you're worried about unarmored PD missiles, the AF weapon mods drop a lot in value as your weapon range increases.

Finally, the 4-8k engagement range might be a result of how IG fixed the PD bug.

That's a theory I've been thinking about, too. :)

[Blaze]

hmm i wonder if this could be the comeback of layered DF weapon ranges. I know that longer DF weapon range will make IF TF's shoot at targets further away, i wonder if this could make other DF wepons also fire at targets that are further away. I think I need to do some tests also, If i ever get the time.

[Beamup]

Originally posted by hoof1
(I'm assuming the PD mount's auto-fire doesn't allow it to score more hits on different missiles than a light mount)

The PD mount doesn't get a multifire bonus anymore (never did, but it's not even supposed to now). Now it gets a 50% accuracy bonus, which may well make it very good for this purpose.

Also, you should consider the following factors in your analysis:
- Other mods. Continuous and Autofire especially are very important in PD work. Improved on a PD mount would preserve one-hit kills, I expect (though it might not be needed).
- Just because you fire 10 times does not mean you fire at 10 missiles. Targets are randomly and independently assigned, it's possible (though highly unlikely) for an entire bank of 50 beams to fire on the same missile.
- Minimum accuracy is 60% of max accuracy.

[hoof1]

Some good points Beamup.

The reason why I picked light mounts as the best pd weapon mount was because the heavier mounts grow in size faster than they gain extra shot opportunities (for example, spinal mounts let you fire at twice the range, but fire once every 8 seconds or so, vs 2.0 seconds for the light mount, *and* they take up twice the space). Space unit for space unit, light mounts get the most shots per unit space for a given weapon type. Thus layered approach with longer-range weapons serves only to allow cross-fire from other taskforces, and to enable dual-use for the weapons (they are effective vs ships too).

Other mods like continuous and autofire don't help. Continuous adds a 50% accuracy bonus for a 25% increase in space. At a 70% base accuracy, you'll get an increase to 80% (a 50% accuracy bonus means you'll miss 33% less often, and 1.5 inverted is .66), but will only be able to equip 80% of the number of weapons, a net loss in potential hits. At a 50% base accuracy, you'll get bumped up to 66%, which will net you a slight increase, but those weapons with that accuracy aren't very good on the shots per unit space ratio anyway. Your statement of minimum accuracy being 60% of base accuracy might mean that continuous is a wash (even money) even for hard-beams (rather than being a detriment)

Autofire would be very good *if* each extra shot could target a different missile. Visage states that they don't, thus autofire is useless vs many easy-to-kill missiles. (however it makes it *very* useful against larger, armored/shielded missiles and fighters, not to mention other ships)

And with regards to the firing 10 times and hitting 10 missiles, that all depends on how they coded the firing algorithm in the game. One method is to go through each weapon. Select a target, shoot the weapon. This method *will* hit 10 missiles for 10 shots (assuming all 10 hit), because as each missile goes away, only the survivors are available to select for the next weapon. However, if the coder writing this algorithm decided to be fancy, they could have all weapons select a target, then fire, wasting any that double up. This is much more complicated to write up. But on the other hand, it looks like missiles use this exact approach. But conversely again, missiles all hit at once, vs DF weapons which appear to hit incrementally. It'd take experimentation to determine which way Moo3's system works.

One more point with the layered PD approach. The layered PD will be superior when all attacking missiles target one or two taskforces. This is because my above analysis assumes hard beams, which are the best for one IF 1-shot PD missile boat vs one target ship, or if 10 of the IF taskforces targetted a different enemy taskforce, and the enemy taskforce was in a line perpendicular to the incoming missile fire. However, their range is very short (9000 units, or slightly more than 2 squares), meaning they aren't very good for supportive fire, especially in a crowded 10-TF arrangement. Thus in this situation, a layered approach might work better. Even though the overall number of missiles they can shoot down is fewer, they are much more likely to keep the targetted taskforce(s) alive, and much more flexible in their ability to provide protection (especially if you get caught with one or two taskforces ahead of the others, a very likely situation in planetary defence).

[visage]

Originally posted by hoof1

And with regards to the firing 10 times and hitting 10 missiles, that all depends on how they coded the firing algorithm in the game.

Yeah, and we're letting you know the way they coded it: random assignment of targets before any damage resolution. :) *That's* the advantage of layering.

[Skymage]

Originally posted by Blaze
why so many reloads?


Ok, the number of reloads is part of my combat stratagy.

I run my TFs in groups (1 IF, 1 CV, 1 SR). Generally I'll do multiples of this (up to x3 with the 10th TF being Troop transport).

The reason for this is how the AI uses the TFs, as seen as follows:

1: I consider the SR TFs expendable, they carry the most weapontry, PD (in light mount form),armor,shielding and speed. The AI ALWAYS charges with them, and they will ALWAYS be the 1st target.

2: The IF and CV TFs work in unison, overwhelming the PD defense of an opponent.
2A: On the IFs I use 4 reloads (mid game) because I've found that the 1st wave gets all the PD, the 2nd wave arrives just after the fighter wave and generally will destroy a TF, the 3rd wave will hit another TF that has its PD tied up with the fighters, and the 4th wave is similar to the 3rd.
2B: on the CVs I get as many interceptors with an effective weapon as possible (early its lasers with autofire pod, mid-late its usually IPC dual pods). plenty of armor and shields to keep PD busy (my SDN CVs carry each in excess of 50 fighters with 10 CVs per TF)

That is why I use the number and type of reloads I do.
I generally find shoot-n-scoot cheesy (not because I don't like it, but because there is no in game defense to counter it).

in this configuration,with 10 TF against 10TF + planetary defenses + system ships, I'll generally lose 1 SR TF, maybe 2.


SkyMage

[Blaze]

sure you can counter shoot and scoot. Just load up on defensive role PD nukes. I do it all the time

P.S. Gateway103 did some testing, and has some #'s for missile speed. Missiles have a top speed of 5000 per second, and take 2 seconds to accelerate to top speed. This isn't exact, but fairly close (just to have nice round numbers)

[Beamup]

Originally posted by hoof1
Some good points Beamup.
<snip response>

You misunderstand how continuous works. If a weapon has a base 50% accuracy, a continuous mod will give it 50%*1.5 = 75% accuracy. So you do, in fact, get more hits per space (assuming you don't cross the 100% threshold).

The point to autofire can be illustrated by an example. Suppose you have 33% accuracy at the range the shot is being taken at. One non-auto mount has a 33% chance of scoring a hit. One auto mount has a 70% chance of scoring a hit. You will thus score more hits by using autofire. This is heavily dependent on the initial accuracy, but autofire is far from useless.

As for target selection, visage has done extensive testing on this, as he has noted above, so I defer on that respect.

I would VERY strongly suggest you read visage's SCMG before doing more analysis. It seems there are parts of the system you don't yet understand, and the analysis would be much better if you did.

[Azariel]

Well, since accuracy drops at higher ranges, i assume that continuous almost never hits the threshold.

What i intended to say: I've definitly sees TF's fire at long ranges, specifically, my LR TF's tend to fire their spinal mounts at incoming missiles and fighters if nothing else is in range *and* if i didn't give them any orders. I think that a LR TF will shoot at anything if it's orders are stop, preferrably at enemy fighters/missiles.
Second observations is for LR TF's equipped with PD missiles. Those will usually fire the first shot at enemy ships, since at that time nothing else is visibly, and the following shots will target approaching fighters/missiles.
Also, the one shot approach is couterable by two methods.
1) as stated before, PD missiles. As the attacking missiles will need some time to close in, the defending TF can fire several rounds of PD missiles (i see usually about three) thus take advantage from lesser space cost of multiple reload launchers. I'd use three shot TF's to defend against one shot TF's.
2) disposable carriers. If the number of TF's is the same, there are two possibilities. a) some missiles target fighters, thus some carriers survive, forcing the missile boats to retreat, or be destroyed. b) no missiles target fighters, thus leaving missiles boats defenseless against those fighters in the air, again, forcing a retreat. As it is very easy to get ten single carriers up, those missile boats won't be destryoed, but can't win either.

[Skymage]

Quote form Blaze
sure you can counter shoot and scoot. Just load up on defensive role PD nukes. I do it all the time
<snip>


Doesn't work very well for me, as a defender. The enemy usually warps out before my missiles hit him...and then after he's left his missiles hit me.


SkyMage

[Skymage]

@ beamup

I agree, autofire is the way to go.

a Light mount weapon that WILL kill a missile but only has a 50% accuracy will only kill 50 % of the time, while the same weapon with autofire (at +80% size) will kill 87% of the time.


I'll take the almost 50% reduction in number of weapons to get the almost certain kill.


SkyMage

[Blaze]

Originally posted by Skymage
Doesn't work very well for me, as a defender. The enemy usually warps out before my missiles hit him...and then after he's left his missiles hit me.


SkyMage
you're obviously not using them in a defensive role, since they are targeting teh enemy battle group, and not the flotsam. This is all in my guide, but I'll summerize. The startig distance between 2 battle groups is a function of max DF range of both groups. Build some IF TF's w/ only PD nukes, and include 1 instance of a DF weapon that has a slaightly lower range than the max DF range of your battle group. Since IF TF's fire at their individual max DF ranges, they will not initially target the enemy TF's, but will instead target the first things to enter into their targeting threashold, which will typically be missiles/fighters.

[Skymage]

Originally posted by Blaze
you're obviously not using them in a defensive role, since they are targeting teh enemy battle group, and not the flotsam. This is all in my guide, but I'll summerize. The startig distance between 2 battle groups is a function of max DF range of both groups. Build some IF TF's w/ only PD nukes, and include 1 instance of a DF weapon that has a slaightly lower range than the max DF range of your battle group. Since IF TF's fire at their individual max DF ranges, they will not initially target the enemy TF's, but will instead target the first things to enter into their targeting threashold, which will typically be missiles/fighters.


The starting distance between the 2 battle groups is always LARGER than 2x the MAX DF of either side (from observation) thus all the enemy needs (and usually has) is 1 Long range weapon in his entire battle group to ensure the enemy missiles never have the time to reach. Then it's just shoot-n-scoot.


Your statement also assumes that you 'see' your opponent. generally, I've found, if your defending a planet (IE chose 'defend planet') you will NOT see the enemy and your missiles will NOT go directly at them.


SkyMage

[Blaze]

Originally posted by Skymage
The starting distance between the 2 battle groups is always LARGER than 2x the MAX DF of either side (from observation) thus all the enemy needs (and usually has) is 1 Long range weapon in his entire battle group to ensure the enemy missiles never have the time to reach. Then it's just shoot-n-scoot.


Your statement also assumes that you 'see' your opponent. generally, I've found, if your defending a planet (IE chose 'defend planet') you will NOT see the enemy and your missiles will NOT go directly at them.


SkyMage
well the only thing that I'm assuming, is a controlled battle. Of course you have to see the enemy at some point, in oreder to target them. As far as the larger than 2x statement, not necesarily in early game, that's why I only say that it is a function of max DF range of BOTH battle groups. Your above statements only seem to apply for attacking a planet, and defending a planet. First, in up to midgame, your DF wepons don't have the range to keep you from getting hit by the first slavo of missiles from a planet and it's defending TF's (unless you play a very techy race). Secondly, if you intercept a fleet at one of your planets, and the enemy chooses to attack, you can see the enemy where ever he is placed. Third, I'm not sure what you mean by "missiles will not go directly to a target". Fourth, I don't use the shoot and scoot tactic (atleast not primarily), since developing a way to use missiles in a defensive manner, I usually try to duke it out, until it's apparent that I can't win.

btw, i think you were saying i was incorrect about something, but I can't find anything that you actually pointed out. Maybe I'm just taking it the wrong way, so could you clarify your point?

[visage]

Quick comment on that:

Max accuracy for plasma weapons is 0.8. Enveloping is * 1.5. The PD mount is * 1.5. The maximum effect of range is * 0.6. That means that the minimum accuracy for an Enveloping PD-mounted plasma weapon is 108%.

Before the PD-mount gave the 50% bonus to accuracy, there was no case in which enveloping didn't at least break even (25% space increase for a mod that at worst increased your accuracy by 25%). With the new PD mount, enveloping may often be superfluous.

@Azariel: Thanks for the info. (This is in 1.2, right?)

[Skymage]

@ Blaze


I was not saying your incorrect in you statements. I generally 'watch' my battles rather than 'control' them (this is mostly because in late games, turn 400+, I'll just get postcards from the front, not realtime battles (I've got a lousy on-board video card :( )). Thus I cannot control WHO the missiles target, which is generally the 1st enemy TF (not missile salvo) detected.


SkyMage

[Blaze]

Originally posted by Skymage
@ Blaze


I was not saying your incorrect in you statements. I generally 'watch' my battles rather than 'control' them (this is mostly because in late games, turn 400+, I'll just get postcards from the front, not realtime battles (I've got a lousy on-board video card :( )). Thus I cannot control WHO the missiles target, which is generally the 1st enemy TF (not missile salvo) detected.


SkyMage
Ahh, well, that's where my whole discussion should be discarded. I only care about controlled battles, because I can control the behavior. Fortunately, in controlled battles, a lot of behavior can be made automatic, depending on how you build your TF's.

[hoof1]

I have read visage's work several times, Beamup. I would recommend not taking everything he says as gospel :) He even says "If you find errors, let me know.". Why would he say that if there wasn't the possibilty of his work being wrong?

You've done great work visage, but anything short of the actual code in hand would and should be scrutinized and subject to question. For example, where does the idea that accuracy boost for Continuous is a straight multiplier? Do we have the source code to look at that? Has one of the programmers from QS suggested that? Has there been in-game tests to support that theory? (a great one would be taking a weapon, modded for continuous so that it's over 100% accuracy, and seeing if it ever misses)

Mathematically, if your base hit chance is 80% to hit, and you get a 50% boost to your accuracy, the correct answer should never exceed 100%. If it does, we're not talking about a 50% boost, but an infinite boost (you go from a 20% chance of missing to a zero% chance of missing, which is *not* a 50% increase in the hit percentile). Remember, a hit percentage can be expressed as a miss percentage, as can the modifiers (a 50% increase in hit probability can be seen as a 33% chance in miss probability, since 1.5 inverted is 0.666)

However, Moo3 might have been coded up as a straight percentage add-on. IMO, that would be foolish, because a 50% increase will mean a very different thing 49% vs if your base accuracy is 15%. If you truly want the accuracy increase to be consistent, you cannot simply add the two numbers together.

When a real world fire-control system gets an accuracy boost, the increase is *definitely* not a straight-up percentage increase.

To quote visage's post, which apparantly some people think I haven't read closely enough :)

Accuracy: The change to hit at or below the minimum range (AccDisSt) for a DF weapon is the listed maximum accuracy for that weapon. The chance to hit scales down linearly to 60% of the maximum value at the maximum range (AccDisEn); beyond this range the weapon will refuse to fire. So, a weapon with an accuracy of .7, or 70%, has a 42% chance of hitting at its maximum range. Some weapons (Stellar Converter, Mauler) have their minimum range set to just under their maximum range so as to produce an effect of no dropoff in accuracy. Having an accuracy of greater than one (once accounting for range dropoff) is treated like having an accuracy of 1.


Where does this come from? Is this an educated guess, or sourced from a QS programmer? I'm sorry that I have to question this, but when someone suggests that I didn't read something simply because I suggest an alternative view, I feel obligated to explain how the "existing" view might not be bulletproof. Visage, you have done excellent work. I've done similar type work on other games in the past, and have a unique understanding of how much work and effort you've put into it. I've also seen things from the other side (I'm a computer game programmer with several combat simulators under my belt), so I also have some idea of how things can look from the outside and how they can look from the coder's standpoint. One of the biggest challenges of combat simulators is determining a mathematical way of representing accuracy in a dynamic system, especially for automated systems like defensive guns.

I don't know for sure how the programmers at QS coded the weapon accuracy model. However, I know of several different possible methods (a couple of which I have actually used in making games), and they have various strengths and weaknesses. The simple adding up of percentiles is an easy method to code up, but has very extreme results (the benefit changes disproportionally with the base percentage, for a given boost, and can lead to the unrealistic possibility of a 100% chance of hitting). Another method is to have your accuracy boost actually reduce your chance of missing (as in a 50% increase translates into a 33% reduction in missing). This approach is much much more consistent in its effect on combat, but is much harder for the average player to understand when looking at the numbers (the classic "why is the effect only a 33% reduction in missing when the boost was supposed to be 50% increase in hit accuracy?" complaint).

All I'm asking is how do you know that the above quoted method is the way it works, visage? If it's from a QS programmer, then that'll be enough to resolve the issue. But with several different approaches to interpreting the numbers, with different advantages/disadvantages for each, I'm not willing to accept that answer just yet. And since the answer forms the crux of the IF PD missile boat tactic and whether it's possible to defend against it, we need to be absolutely 100% confident that we understand how it really works in Moo3.

[Ron_Lugge]

Continoius describes itself as giving a 50% increase in accuracy; in the spreadsheets its MaxAccry *= 1.5

This would seem to mean that you take MaxAccry and add half-again its base; IIRC all tests have confirmed this (and it makes sense, assuming a 100% cap)

[Beamup]

A few comments:

- QSI saying something about how it works is vastly less reliable than what visage has done, which is to perform controlled empirical tests. The most QSI can say is how it's supposed to work, testing is the ONLY way to see how it does work.

- Even scrutiny of the code will be far less reliable. If you're a programmer, you should be very familiar with the fact that often code looks like it does one thing, but due to something subtle it does something totally different. But, insofar as the code goes, the modifier is, as Ron points out, MaxAccry *= 1.5. Thus, a priori, the expectation would be very clear that MaxAccry would be increased by 50%.

- When there is a tested and generally accepted model of something, with both theoretical and experimental support, and you claim a model totally different, you MUST justify it in some way. You have not done this at all. Until conflicting evidence is presented, the presumption is and must be that the experiementally supported theory is correct. That is, until and unless you present empirical evidence contradicting it, the SCMG is presumed correct.

- Reducing miss chance by 33% and increasing accuracy by 50% are in no way the same thing, and aren't even similar. Miss chance and hit chance are not related in any sort of reciprocal fashion as you seem to believe. It is just mathematically wrong. It could be coded, but would make no sense whatsoever.

[visage]

Originally posted by hoof1

All I'm asking is how do you know that the above quoted method is the way it works, visage? If it's from a QS programmer, then that'll be enough to resolve the issue. But with several different approaches to interpreting the numbers, with different advantages/disadvantages for each, I'm not willing to accept that answer just yet. And since the answer forms the crux of the IF PD missile boat tactic and whether it's possible to defend against it, we need to be absolutely 100% confident that we understand how it really works in Moo3.


I say it works that way because I've tested various weapon accuracies at different ranges to arrive at the conclusion that weapon accuracy dropoff maxes at 0.6. I probably still have my notes around somewhere; the test for this one was taking weapons with different accuracies (and constant damage), putting a relatively large number of them on a ship and testing aggregate hit rates at different ranges.

Accuracies of 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.8, and 1 would have all had an accuracy of 60% of their maximum at their maximum ranges under what scheme other than the one I describe? (One answer: one with nonlinear dropoff but that still maxes out at 60%; as far as I can tell, this isn't the case, though it's obviously harder to test.)

Most of my interactions with QS have been of the form "were you aware that Foo works as follows?" "I just went and looked at the code, and you're right." I'd have to go look at my email history, but I don't think anything I say about game mechanics is received wisdom.

[damion]

This is one of those things where there are various ways of looking at it.

I don't think there is any reason to think things work other than visage claims.

What hoof is saying that you should have something like this.

If you shoot 100 times with 80% Accuracy,
you'll hit 80 times(Expected values here)

What does a 50% increase in accuracy mean?
You can't get 50% more hits. (80*150=120, more times than you shot!).
If you do it by miss percentage, you get 90 hits. (HitPercent+=(1-HitPercent)*50%)(I.e. half chance to miss)

Somewhat more correctly you could do
a 50% decrease in misses or

HitPercent+=(1-HitPercent)/1.5
Or 93 hits.

Basicly, it's a definitiion thing. Also it is arguable what is more realistic, esp in the case of something like MOO3. (We are talking about a game with routine genetic manipulation, FTL travel and stellar converters{why isn't it the planetary converter anyway :D } )

Over 100% accuracy may make sense if there are other factors than range that affect this. This makes MaxAccry not the true chance to hit, just base value.

Just a though

[Beamup]

A 50% decrease in misses actually makes no sense at all since it could readily result in an infinite percentage increase in hits. Additionally, it would be MUCH harder to code. Whereas going over 100% accuracy is perfectly reasonable and readily handled in-code.

[AlanC9]

Originally posted by Beamup
A 50% decrease in misses actually makes no sense at all since it could readily result in an infinite percentage increase in hits.

An infinite increase in hits sounds like a very cost-effective weapon mod. :D

[hoof1]

Gotcha visage, so the evidence supports the theory that accuracy degradation seems to be a percentage of a percentage (60% of whatever the original percentage was). Good to know.

Now the tests at 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.8, and 1, where they done by setting the weapon's base accuracy to that value then seeing the behavior in combat? Or did you take a weapon with a lower base percentage and give it an accuracy boost modifier?

Another analogy that came up while I was thinking of this discussion is throwing darts at a dartboard. Say you hit the bullseye 50% of the time. Now say that your overall accuracy goes up 50%. Do you now hit the bullseye 100% of the time, or some number between 50% and 100%?

[visage]

Originally posted by hoof1
Now the tests at 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.8, and 1, where they done by setting the weapon's base accuracy to that value then seeing the behavior in combat? Or did you take a weapon with a lower base percentage and give it an accuracy boost modifier?

These were modded weapons, not weapons with mods. :) I did some tests of continuous at some point to confirm how it worked, but I don't really remember what they were.

Another analogy that came up while I was thinking of this discussion is throwing darts at a dartboard. Say you hit the bullseye 50% of the time. Now say that your overall accuracy goes up 50%. Do you now hit the bullseye 100% of the time, or some number between 50% and 100%?

Sure, there are multiple things one can mean when one says "increases by 50%." But we've got
a) TechTables to look at, and
b) test results,
and they both support the same function.

[Azariel]

@hoof1
Well it could mean your number of hits +50%, that'd be 75. It could also mean your number of losses -50%. ('cause of you choice in variables it 75 too) Althoug i' tell this a 50% less miss chance. It's important to check exactly *what* chance it is you are modifing, as chance to hit and chance to miss are related (one being 1 - the other) but definitly not the same.
But the spreadsheets suggest it is the hit percentage +1,5 as the it tells MaxAcc*=1,5. So i can think of two possibilities, 1) that hit chance is capped at 1 and decreases to 60% at max range, 2) that it is not capped and decreases to 60% of max at highest range, but that every values above 100% is treated like 100%.
I don't know which version is appropriate, there'd some testing be needed, using a weapon with accuracy above 1 to check.

[hoof1]

I suspect you are right Azariel, that it is a raw add-on or multiplier, with the cap being applied as the last step.

Visage, again thanks for looking into this. It looks like I might be using continuous a lot more in my games as it should seriously boost long-range accuracy much more than I originally thought. It's too bad the Mass weapons don't have continuous, as they are very good for LR weapons due to the lack of damage drop-off, but suffer from accuracy issues.

[sirrogue2]

Originally posted by Nolondil
It has dawned on me that there is no practical reason to use missile reloads. You always want to launch as many missiles as possible, as quickly as possible. This means single-shot launchers. Being able to carry more shots into combat is useles if you don't get to fire them off, and most combats don't last more than two or three reloads of light missiles anyway. But more than that, the more missiles you fire first the more targets you destroy and the quicker you reduce the enemy's ability to damage your ships. And the more missiles in flight at once, the better your chanes of over-coming PD. With missiles, front loading is everything. Put it all up front and reloads are a waste of space and money.

Can anyone think of any situation where reloads could be more useful than firing everything up front? I think the design of the combat system makes single-shot the best in all circumstances. Now, if anyone can come up with possible tweaks of the combat system to make reloads useful sometimes that would be interesting...

1) Taking out those pesky carrier satellites the AI likes to put up around moons and planets.
2) Satellites in general. They're usually small (hard to spot) and carry a ton of weaponry for their size. Put enough engines in them and they can be as mobile as a system ship flotilla and just as deadly. The really slow ones can pump out missile volleys, fighters, or act as PD stations/gun platforms for your planets. (Good generals design them for all three.)
3) Ever fought the NO's? Nuff said.
4) With the new patch, PD weapons actually work... against fighters. :p
5) My TF's use their spinal mount weapons to take out missiles before they even reach PD ranges. It's safe to say the AI does the same thing.

Those are just a few reasons I can think of.

[AlanC9]

Originally posted by sirrogue2

5) My TF's use their spinal mount weapons to take out missiles before they even reach PD ranges. It's safe to say the AI does the same thing.

[/B]

Isn't that an argument for carrying few or no reloads? If someone's stopping your missiles with spinal mounts, you need to be firing more missiles in each salvo.

[sirrogue2]

Originally posted by AlanC9
Isn't that an argument for carrying few or no reloads? If someone's stopping your missiles with spinal mounts, you need to be firing more missiles in each salvo.

Not necessarily.
Take this next paragraph as an example.

In the game I'm currently playing (~turn 290, v1.2, no mods), I'm using 3 racks of x-ray rockets with missile shields and missile armor, 5 shots/rack, on all of my starships (battleships). A full armada will fire 54 rockets per salvo.

The reloads are there just in case the first salvo isn't fully effective, is shot down, or goes after fighters (WTF is up with that?!). Sure, you gotta wait for them to reload... but that's what your beam weapons are for. And if you tone down your ships' system speed and throw in some cloaking devices/ECM, you'll have more time to maneuver closer and reload without risking your ships.

Besides, if you use only one salvo of missiles and don't take out those planetary defenses, you have to worry about maneuvering into firing range while being attacked by fighters, missiles, and long range beam fire (ultra spinal mounts, IIRC). And that's just the planet...

[Norfleet]

Actually, I start out with 3-shot racks, and by the endgame, my ships are carrying 1-shot racks. Why? Because after your first volley, your opponent will have fled. That means you don't need to be firing any more missiles anyway. It takes a heavy missile rack 60 seconds to reload. Unfortunately, you have 15 seconds to kill as many enemies as you can before they run. That means it's already very dicey if your missiles can actually reach your opponent before he flees, and forget about reloads.

[Awsric Armitage]

Bump to the front page, Some tactical discussions.


BUMP.

[zesuila]

Very simple.

You build heavy numbers of recon ships that you put in front of your real taskforces. They will always be targeted first and that will use up the 1 shot missiles of the ennemy.

It also let you launch fighters and scram out if the fight is too intense.

Very useful against the ai. Not too sure if this is a good tactic against a human who targets a specific tf. But if you have cloaked tf, it may save your butt a lot of the time.

[ekanata]

Originally posted by zesuila
You build heavy numbers of recon ships that you put in front of your real taskforces. They will always be targeted first and that will use up the 1 shot missiles of the ennemy.

That plan only work if the enemy only have 1 IF TF. If they send, let's say 5 of their best IF armada (meaning 1 shot from each could kill a full TF), you'll have to sacrifice 5 TF since there will be 5 group of missile (first salvo from each IF TF) and when a group hit and destroy a TF, the remaining missiles group will pick another TF, and so on until the last group.

[mpotto]

I'm so dissapointed that I missed the golden age of this forum.

[Bolo Mark 33]

Eh, don't worry about it. You can still read over everything that was said. Plus, everyone who is left knows a lot about the game and you can generally get answers quickly without lots of speculation.

And the community is just as good, if not better. Just a little more sparse, that's all...

[Incubi]

There are a number of reasons to not use single shots. Ill list them in order of my reasons. It may differ from others.

1. All your missles will be wasted on enemy missles and fighters if they are not in sight. Now your just a sitting duck.
2. missles will destroy one target, wether it be a tf an orbital or a planet defence. The remaning missles do not fly off to another target.
3.the combat codeing in the game is pretty bad. that many missles at once could slow the battle to a crawl. I had hoped someone would clean this up but oh well.

I find that the classic 3 missles per launcher is best. You still benefit from largew amounts of missles, and with three shots your going to really make a difference in the battle. 2 is good but only if your lagging hardcore on tech. otherwise there are better designes you can use.

[Longspur]

Man, these guys really got into it.

[visage]

Pshaw. This thread's *nothing*. =)

[Da_Blade]

heya visage! welcome back. it's good to see I'm not the only oldie to stray back in after a long absence ;)

[Smithy64]

hmm, i got a question. on the first page of this thread, one of the posts mentions sticking a tiny interceptor fighter on your recon picket ships, and that fighter will auto-launch at the start of a battle to distract enemy IF. a) is it true that interceptors auto-launch? and b) does this tactic still work? :)

[Monkey Head]

when using the patrol command my missiles launch automatically at pretty much anything, and my fighters launch in a defensive screen to take out opposing missiles and fighters, or enemy TF's that are too close..... enemy missiles usually target my own fighter and missiles instead of my TF's....i play with tropical mind you.

[Chapter House]

a) is it true that interceptors auto-launch?

It depends. In the unmodded game, interceptors and missiles will "auto-launch" (that is, launch even without any targets "sighted") if you "Watch" combat. This can be really useful as long as giving up control doesn't cause problems. Fighters and missiles will not launch in "Control" combat until you have sighted enemies (including incoming missle and fighter waves), regardless of whether your ships are in Patrol or Attack mode.

John

[krpeters]

I'm amazed that this thread missed the biggest reason for using missle reloads:

Space

Installing a zero-shot launcher takes up one unit of space; a one shot launcher takes up two units, a two-shot takes up three units...

So my 5-shot launcher takes up as much space as 3 of your 1-shot launchers. Giving me a 5:3 advantage in total missiles. So it's a balance between total quantity available in the fight vs. getting them all out at once (and watching them hit missiles, fighters, etc.). PD 5-shot missles seem to have more than adequate quantity to overcome computer-enemy PD beams, and do plenty of damage besides. (I'd hate to see how huge a pack of PD 1-shot missiles would be... gah!)

[Monkey Head]

this, as most things, can be modded with a bhuric patch. i play with one shot missiles weighted to make them even more inefficient, and 3 shots the most efficient (and the default for the Autobuild routine)

[ArchmageJ]

b) does this tactic still work?

I think it does, its useful to have fighters scouting for you and they provide an extra target or two. Which would you rather see blown up by missles your 4 au fighter or your spify new battlecruser with a phased cloaking device? :D