Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lord Shonus]

One mechanics question, and an advice question:

First, is there any way to refill box launchers without docking? I was considering a "VLS" type design (All box launchers, no magazines similar in concept to modern US missile cruisers) for a cruiser, but it didn't seem worthwhile on ships small enough to fit anywhere reasonable.

As for advice:

I'm about to restart again (after making yet another stupid mistake, this time with bad engine efficiency sucking down all my fuel), and wanted a bit of advice first. Previously, my missile size system was 1:3:5:10:25:50 (Light Fighter/antimissile:Frigate/Heavy fighter: Cruiser : Heavy Cruiser : Capital Ship : System Defense, with the latter two never getting introduced due to early failure). I also had a "torpedo" class that would have broken down 4:9:24, which were short-range heavy warhead weapons intended for use in mines (hence the smaller size, you'd simply wrap them in 1MSP of sensor and reactor, then fire them out of the next size tube. Only the smallest size was introduced, and only in the packaged mine form. I had plans to also include missile tubes sized for torpedos on some of my lighter ships in the same style as WWII destroyers and cruisers, and possibly dedicated "torpedo bombers".

A few specific questions:

Should I even bother with the size 3 tube? I can fit a size 5 in the same ships with only moderate levels of reduced size launcher, and once I get to box launchers, fighters can carry size 5 and even 10 missiles easily enough. It might be useful later on as a dedicated long-range intercept missile (against fighters or as an antimissile) size, but I'm more concerned with shipkillers at the moment (outside of the size 1 tube, which will have highly-manueverable antimissles or less agile missiles with larger warheads to hit fighters).

Similarly, are reduced-size launchers a viable choice for a main battery? You can get much heavier salvos off, but the reload penalty seems to be a serious handicap.

Finally, what's the ideal sensor on a missile? I assume that it doesn't need to be that powerful, since (as I understand it) it usually comes into play when an in-flight missile loses the target, so the range will be fairly short, but what's the most space-efficient?

[Gentlefish]

Apparently, square numbers make the best, most efficient missiles.

[Flying Dice]

Apparently, square numbers make the best, most efficient missiles.

Square-numbered warheads, because of how the damage model for missiles works. Everything else is basically "whatever is optimal for the size you want".

[Lord Shonus]

That's the warhead damage, not the size of the missile itself. Has to do with damage patterns.



Another thing. Is there a formula for missile speed? There's been a few times where I've gained access to an NPC missile design (via salvage or espionage) that I actually liked better than my own, but there was a technology disparity, making it hard to reverse-engineer the design (not only do I have a detailed missile name pattern that the NPC name doesn't fit into, the tech disparity was such that identical allocation would probably produce an even better weapon with my tech). The engine was the hard part, and duplicating the performance there would be easy with the final speed.

[MarcAFK]

Those huge missiles are going to be a problem to get through point defence/antimissiles, I wouldn't go above size 8 unless you can launch them in significant numbers.
About box launchers, the US navy realised long ago that it's pretty dangerous to resupply box launchers at sea and as far as I can tell they don't do it, but you can in aurora so take advantage of it if you don't see it as an exploit.
reduced size launchers are good because salvo size is more useful than reload speed for getting through defence, smaller missiles help too, and have faster reload also.
You also have more room for magazines with reduced size launchers if you choose.

[Dutchling]

You should always assume that the AI sucks at everything but anti-missile-missiles.

So, yeah, try to get a lot of missiles and make them fast.

[Lord Shonus]

To clarify, the biggest missiles are only for missile bases (50) and capital ships (BC, BB, DN, SDN). The size 10 "heavy cruiser" missile and size 5 "Cruiser" missile is intended to form the backbone of combat ops, as the larger units are going to be built in smaller numbers. I also prioritize missile speed, and use multistage missiles to make sure that they're fast at PD range. For example, my current early missiles have a speed of 12,000, while the second-stage high-impact missile is 15,000. (PD missiles are 19,800 with a flight time shorter than the cycle time of a size 1 launcher.)

[Pwnzerfaust]

Hey, Flying Dice, I followed the steps in your sig to get the game to work on a small screen, but now I've got an issue where menus are bugging out. Like, the checkboxes in them are missing. Especially bad on the system map screen, where the Minerals tab and Display tab aren't showing the check boxes. Any fix for this?

[Metalax]

Regarding reloading box launchers, you either need to dock them within a carrier or move them to a colony with maintenance facilities capable of supporting the size of ship they are mounted on.

Reduced size launchers are usually worth it for everything except anti-missile launchers. I normally use the 50% size for main armament on ships, with an equal number of box-launchers for an alpha strike capability. Salvo size greatly outweighs refire rate in most situations, excluding anti-missile work. I have on occasion utilized carriers along with small 5,000 ton frigates armed solely with box-launchers to help overwhelm the enemies anti-missile screen in an alpha strike.

Typically I use size 1:3:6:9 missiles for anti-missile:small craft/light ship:standard ship armament:heavy ship armament. I've found missiles larger than that rarely get through the enemies anti-missile screen in sufficient numbers to make them worthwhile.

Note that, square numbered warheads may no longer be the optimal size for a missile, since the introduction of shock damage. Square warheads do remain optimal for penetrating armour however.

[Flying Dice]

Hey, Flying Dice, I followed the steps in your sig to get the game to work on a small screen, but now I've got an issue where menus are bugging out. Like, the checkboxes in them are missing. Especially bad on the system map screen, where the Minerals tab and Display tab aren't showing the check boxes. Any fix for this?

The program is a pretty rough hacky way of dealing with the size issues and it tends to screw up the menus if you squish them too much. Pretty much the only way to deal is to close the window and open a new one, then try resizing it again until you strike a balance between visibility and being not-fucked up. Basically, find the point where things start disappearing from the windows, then open a new one and stop compressing just before that.

That said, just out of curiosity, what resolution are you running on? I never had a visibility problem with the system display window even on my 1080x768p craptop. o.0

[miauw62]

-nvm-

[MarcAFK]

Typically I use size 1:3:6:9 missiles for anti-missile:small craft/light ship:standard ship armament:heavy ship armament. I've found missiles larger than that rarely get through the enemies anti-missile screen in sufficient numbers to make them worthwhile.

This is a pretty good range of missiles, I end up with stupidly random missile sizes but should probably try to stick to something like that.

[varsovie]

I use 1-2-4-8-12(temporary)-16 missile sizes, with the special 32 and 64 (always multi-staged) and even bigger for PDU.
Tried 1-2-5-10-20 in a game, didn't like the flexibility, a multiple of 3 gives lot of flexibility also.

The most important for missiles is the size (damage) of the warhead that must always be a square number because of how the damage are distributed through armor.

Also since you can shoot any missiles in a bigger laugher, I like my big launchers for utility (radar and mine laying or long range multistage/planetary destroyer) and still can shoot the enemy in the 1st salvo of a real fight. In fact I often load a big warhead with same speed and containing a lower range version of a smaller warhead, so I can shoot e.g. my 4 with my 16 and know I'll get only same speed and same range "4" on the target.

I also love my very big and somewhat agile armored 16 in late game, to soak up AMM and lasers (it sux against meson).
The only drawback of multistage is the reload time, so abuse box launchers or FAC.

[gimlet]

I almost never make anything but size 1 AMM and the 1 size I pick for ASM, size 3-6 usually 4 at first hoping to be able to transition to size 3 eventually - I have come around firmly to "bigger volleys ftw".  Missile logistics are already such a ginormous pain that I try to keep 1 thing simple.  Sometimes I do make small-production-run variants of the ASM, like shorter range higher warhead, or armored warhead, but it's more because I can never stop tinkering with designs than from any compelling military need

[MarcAFK]

That's the main reason I dislike missiles. They're a bit of a logistical nightmare.

I only play Aurora for the logistical nightmares, and constant redundant redesign of everything.