Missiles: Do they ever miss??? [Archive]

Phoenix-D

April 30th, 2001, 08:09 AM

Combat sensors, talismans and the like only affect direct-fire weaponry. So if you are making a missile ship, leave off the combat sensors.

As for the percentages:

They are somewhat accurate. Think of it this way: at max range you have a 1% chance to hit. This is because all your target has to do is move backwards *one square* and your missiles will expend themselves harmless (effectively a miss). Almost any ship can move one square, so you have the 1%. Closer, it becomes less likely that your target would be able to move out of range, hence the higher to-hit.

Besides, it wouldn't be fair on seekers if they could miss. After all, direct-fire weapons can't be outranged by backing up- if they fire, they miss or hit instantly, no manuvering dodging. And direct fire weapons cannot be shot down.

If they could miss, seekers would have to go through this sequence to kill a ship:
Outranged, shot down, miss, shields, armor, internals

Where direct-fires would have to go through this:
Miss, shields, armor, internals

See the problem?

Phoenix-D

capnq

April 30th, 2001, 05:30 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>For example, a missle with range 10 (CSM II, I believe has that range) is launched at a target eight squares away. The target moves three squares away (might work at two as well, never really sat and tested it), and stays there. The missile will appear to go right over the ship, and just disappear, without the explosion, no damage done. Move one more out of range and the missile disappears just before the target.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You're right; this is the behavior I was misinterpreting as a miss.

------------------
Cap'n Q

Suicide Junkie

April 30th, 2001, 06:16 PM

When the missile moves into its target which is 1 square out of range, the missile does 0 damage.

This is different from the missile not doing damage.

If you have "partial" damage to your hull, and have shields regenerated, that partial damage will come out of the hull and go into the shields.

nerfman

April 30th, 2001, 06:50 PM

"If you have "partial" damage to your hull, and have shields regenerated, that partial damage will come out of the hull and go into the shields."

Ouch, that is a little buggy, but understandable based on the other threads that address armor and damage in general. I always wondered why individual component damage wasn't tracked. It takes less memory to do it the current way (by assigning a pointer to the Last component damaged and recording the partial damage independent of the actual componenet), but sure does lead to some wierd game effects.

Personally, I think that missiles should have a % to hit (or miss). There should be components that give a negative percetage (like ECM), jammers if you will. The seeker itself would be rated by a percentage that reflects how good a terminal manuever and how hardened vs soft kill (jamming) the seeker is. All these things go into a modern missile engagement and could reasonably be modeled here (if missiles actually had to hit %'s).

As far as it not being "fair" to missile shooters, there are work arounds, namely increased salvo size. Ideally, if two forces were at roughly the same tech then the missiles would have say a 80% (or maybe higher) chance to hit each way. But if one team had much better jamming/ECM, then they would benefit from getting many more soft kills (missiles that miss due to jamming). I find it odd that electronic warfare in this game effects direct fire but not guided munitions when in real life the opposite is generally true. Bullets can't be jammed and ship mounted sensors are more powerful/agile/and backed by more powerful computers. They can be jammed, but jamming a tiny little missile seeker that is very close to you is a lot easier than jamming a whole ships sensor system when it is most likely much farther away.

Aussie Gamer

April 30th, 2001, 11:27 PM

To me if you have ECM pod on board it should effect all attacks to your ship.

It does seem even sillier to have it effect direct fire and not missile weapons, clearly that is not the way it works in real life.

Reading this thread, I am going to be rethinking my armoured missiles as they are now not going to be stopped by point def as easily.

I thought that the ECM would make the difference, a lass not the case.

This is a bug!

[This message has been edited by Aussie Gamer (edited 30 April 2001).]

Phoenix-D

April 30th, 2001, 11:37 PM

If they are working as intended, and I think they are, it's *not* a bug. It's a design decision you disagree with. There is a difference.

Phoenix-D

dmm

April 30th, 2001, 11:44 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Aussie Gamer:
Reading this thread, I am going to be rethinking my armoured missiles as they are now not going to be stopped by point def as easily.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't think you can armor missiles either. People were trying it, and thinking that it worked, but it actually wasn't working. At least that's how I remember the discussions. Search for past discussions using the keyword "missile."

Regarding missiles always hitting: that's an old discussion (and a heated one). FWIW, I agree with you. But I don't think MM is going to change it. He's certainly had many opportunities to at least make it moddable, and has chosen not to do it.

Marty Ward

April 30th, 2001, 11:46 PM

Everything should have a chance to miss!

[This message has been edited by Marty Ward (edited 30 April 2001).]

Suicide Junkie

May 1st, 2001, 01:01 AM

Hey, the perfect accuracy is what makes seekers different from other weapons. If they could miss, you'd have just another WMG that can be shot down!

BTW, it was neat in SE3, how seekers would continue beyond their launching range. CSMs would follow you till combat ended http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif, while plasma missiles would slowly decay until thier damage reached zero, then go 'poof'.

[This message has been edited by suicide_junkie (edited 01 May 2001).]

Aussie Gamer

May 1st, 2001, 02:30 AM

Yes you can armour missiles, you have to just make a new component.

I think that all weapons have a chance to miss or what is the point of ECM and combat sensor except for direct fire weapons.
I beleive that this makes missiles completely unrealistic.
It is a "bug" because it is not the way missiles and ECM work in real life.

Missiles have a longer range than direct fire weapons but can be shoot down by point defence. That is the give for the longer range that equals the range out.
Giving them "110%" accuracy is too much!

[This message has been edited by Aussie Gamer (edited 01 May 2001).]

Phoenix-D

May 1st, 2001, 04:48 AM

Bug: element of program that does not work as designed.

This ain't a bug (assuming they aren't supposed to miss).

SE4 isn't a real-life simulation. If it were, why does a missile launcher have unlimited ammo? For that matter, why is a bridge 10 kilotons? That's more than modern *ships*.

Besides, missile tech in SE4 could be substantially different from current missile tech.

Phoenix-D

nerfman

May 1st, 2001, 05:49 AM

pheonix - It is not a bug, just a big *** oversight. Maybe you care to "balance" the game by keeping the rules as such, but it shouldn't be hardcoded.

Once more, it is preposterous that a race with superior electronic warfare capablities not be given an advantage in a missile duel. Simply put, it is much easier to jam a missile guidance package than an entire ship's sensor system. This should at least be able to be modded into the game.

Aussie Gamer

May 1st, 2001, 07:48 AM

Isn't sci-fi based on real life but taken to the Nth degree.

It makes it more fun to play with things that are grounded in real life but are far advanced of our tech now.

I believe that ECM "Electronic Counter Measures!" would effect a missile more than a ship, as it does now in real life. If you fire a missile from a modern plane it is easier to deflect off target than a machine gun burst, missile v direct.

With advanced ECM you could stuff up an enemies targetting computer, eg B5 Humans V Mimbarie <most likely spelt wrong please excuse me>.

Missiles get the range bonus, so why give them the accuracy bonus as well.

Knowing this about needing Combat Sensors, I will be not bothering with it that much as I mainly use missiles in my ships early in the game.

A loss really to realism!!

Phoenix-D

May 1st, 2001, 08:02 AM

Nerfman: Yup. Just a pet peeve :-)

Phoenix-D

Suicide Junkie

May 1st, 2001, 06:31 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>'ve alway wanted to see missile and seekers moddable. I think they are pretty much all alike in most
respects. I thnk a few things should be changed.
They should be affected by ECM
They should have unlimited range
You should be able to change the damage that a missile can take before it is destroyed. As it is now I
think you can only change the damage rating of the component.
They should have a limited amount of shots per combat round
If some or all of these could be added I think I would use missiles. As it is now they are useless after
the first 50-100 turns because they are to easy to counter with PD.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

-ECM -> NO GO

-Unlimited range -> somebody said you can do this by giving them a "21st" damage number. The missiles then go forever.

-"Seeker Damage Resist" It's right there in the file!!! People have been making toughened missiles for ages. You just can't do it with a mount!

-Limited shots --> Just make them smaller, and reload of 30. Then you can put 5 of your 10kT missiles on and fire them whenever you want. You get 5 shots in 50kT.

Everything except the ECM thing has already been done!

Marty Ward

May 1st, 2001, 10:22 PM

ECM was designed specifically to counter electronic/electrical devices. It should definately effect seekers. Maybe seekers could be given an ECCM ability that changed as the level increased. I don't like sure things.
I don't know if adding the extra number to range works, I have read that it does and doesn't work in the forum.
Extending the reload time is not the same as limiting the shots. Extending the reload time is just how many evenly spaced times a combat it can fire. I was thinking of fast reloading, limited shot missile system. 5 shots with a reload time of 1 for example.
Forgot that both the seeker and component damage can be changed.

[This message has been edited by Marty Ward (edited 01 May 2001).]

Trachmyr

May 1st, 2001, 11:25 PM

Actually you can make "Anti-Missile ECM's"...

Make a new PD weapon that only works at range 1, has no "firing animation" and an "electronic scrambling" sound, make it smaller than normal PD BUT make it only good vs. Seekers and lower it's weapon modifier, but give it enough damage to kill any seeker. This will give you a missile jammer that can affect one missile per turn, lower accuraccy means that the ECM will miss (how often depends on bonus).

Problems: Only works vs. 1 missile per "Jammer", and targeting sensors improve your "jamming" chance.

DirectorTsaarx

May 1st, 2001, 11:32 PM

Star Fleet Battles had a means for jamming missile tracking systems; the "mod" below could be a way to emulate the effects, but may affect game balance. SFB also had a setup closer to SE3 in that a missile (well, drone was the SFB term, but I'll use missile to avoid confusion) had to be launched within a certain range, but the missile could continue following the ship for a much longer range (as long as the missile stayed within X distance of the ship).

Nitram Draw

May 2nd, 2001, 01:24 AM

I've alway wanted to see missile and seekers moddable. I think they are pretty much all alike in most respects. I thnk a few things should be changed.
They should be affected by ECM
They should have unlimited range
You should be able to change the damage that a missile can take before it is destroyed. As it is now I think you can only change the damage rating of the component.
They should have a limited amount of shots per combat round
If some or all of these could be added I think I would use missiles. As it is now they are useless after the first 50-100 turns because they are to easy to counter with PD.

Will

May 2nd, 2001, 01:57 AM

I don't think that the ECM as it is now in the game should affect seekers. As I imagine it now, ECM is basically a component that jams a ships scanners (like having a ground base jam the frequency used by enemy radar, making it fairly useless, and forcing fire by eye). The the analogy of a machine gun seems to be a favorite for having ECM affect seekers instead of direct-fire; my rebuttal is that this would be a machine gun firing at a moving target miles away, assisted by a tracking system.

Another thing is that missile jammers (at least currently) don't work that well, and have to work on one missile at a time. That said, the suggestion of Trachmyr is a realistic way to have "Anti-Missile ECM". Since all of you seem so hooked on realism (tell me, how realistic is it for people from a tiny world to move to a huge world, and NOT be crushed? or how one can make a RingWorld with only 20000kT of material? It's not realistic, could possibly be explained in terms of future technology if you streched it... the game isn't supposed to be real), how realistic is it for this missile jammer to effect 100 missiles the same as 1?

For all your complaints, there is a mod to be made to get around it. So quit complaining about how game coding should be changed, and mod the game to how you want it, or have someone else do it. Aaron's busy enough, and I don't think he's about to quit his day job (he does have a day job, if you all have forgotten).

Aussie Gamer

May 2nd, 2001, 02:29 AM

Well Will, That is an advanced tech for a Ring world, if you read the discription of the rind and Sphere worlds it says that they are the base structure for the worlds and the generator drags materials from in the system to make the world.

With direct fire you lead the shoots on to the target <machine gun>. True about the distance and thats why they are efected by ECM.

Quote-

As I imagine it now, ECM is basically a component that jams a ships scanners (like having a ground base jam the frequency used by enemy radar, making it fairly useless, and forcing fire by eye).

End Quote-

How do you think that the seeker is finding it's target?? Most likely either infra-red or by radar. Thus "jamming" by an ECM pod would effect it as well. If you know the missile type you can do a wide area burst to throw off all incominf missiles.

These chat area are for the discussion about the game and for players to view their opinions, if a lot of players like the idea then the author of the idea could send it off to MM for his consideration.

Your disapproval of the idea is noted, but it looks like more dislike the idea of 100% accuracy for missiles than find the idea OK.

I will be sending my opinion to MM asking him to change the coding if possible.

nerfman

May 2nd, 2001, 03:25 AM

Will:

"Another thing is that missile jammers (at least currently) don't work that well, and have to work on one missile at a time."

What missile jammer is that? Saying current ECM technology can only jam on missile at a time is pretty much dead wrong.

Seekers will home in four basic ways:
Passive Homing - Seeker listens for energy, like an IR signature and then follows it unitl it hits. These are best jammed w/ decoys like chaff or even turning your radar off/kicking freqs (if it is an ARM seeker).
Active Homing - each seeker has its own mini radar and finds the target by using it. Good except that if all the missiles are tuned to the same freq, their radars jam each other and they go splash. This can limit the number of missiles you can fire due to possible freq bandwidth limitations. These can be tough to jam for the same reason since you will need to radiate on different bands simultaniously.
Semi-Active Homing - A third party "paints" the target w/ energy like CW radar waves or laser and the seeker chases the energy reflected off the target. Hard to jam, but since all the missiles are looking for energy the same freq there is the chance to inact one counter measure against them all. Destructive interference or having a decoy re-emit the homing freq can be efective.
Command - The seeker is basically being remote controlled like a TOW missile or wire guided torpedo. Jam up the platform that is guiding and you jam the missile.

The above are simplified a bit, but are basically how modern seeker work.

Of course these can be mixed and matched. For instance, our Aegis ships fire SM-2's that are command guidance w/ terminal semi-active homing.

Different types of guidance are sometimes easier or harder to jam. There are ECM devices that can effect more than one seeker. The SRBOC/SLQ-32 offers soft kill protection for more than one missile at a time. An EA-6B can Jam many platforms at once.

BTW if you don't like our "complaints" then post on one of the Star Trek threads or something. We are simply trying to point out a few areas were the game design could be greatly enriched. And Last unless you are like an EWC in the navy or something, don't be trying to tell me what current electronic warfare capabilities are. Hope yall enjoyed the lecture. Later

[This message has been edited by nerfman (edited 02 May 2001).]

Marty Ward

May 2nd, 2001, 04:10 AM

If missiles were affected by the range (accuracy) modifier then you could tweak them to your liking. I don't know how hard it would be to change.

dmm

May 2nd, 2001, 04:54 PM

I would like to see missiles have a reasonable chance of missing (10%~20%) and be affected by ECM, BUT a missile that missed would keep trying until it ran out of fuel. So there would be an advantage to firing missiles from closer range. Also, maybe missile ECM should be different, forcing the defender to add yet another component to his ship.

However, having fooled with PDC for some time, I am not as unhappy with never-missing missiles as I once was.

Suicide Junkie

May 2nd, 2001, 06:54 PM

Since we are talking space combat distances here, and the distance from earth to moon is a half- light second and we see in SE4 that ships attack from at least that range, I see it this way.

Beams have to predict where their target will be one second from now. (150,000 KM at about range 4) If your enemy looks fuzzy due to ECM, you'll have a tougher time predicting which way he's facing and which way he'll go.

Seekers fly in the general direction of the enemy, so they can get hundreds of thousands of times closer than the ship's sensors before they have to make their final attack (at 1 KM from target) & explode.

At 100,000 times closer, your sensor power is up 10,000,000,000 times (r^2)
That's why missiles can see right through ECM & stealth.

dmm

May 2nd, 2001, 08:47 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by suicide_junkie:
At 100,000 times closer, your sensor power is up 10,000,000,000 times (r^2)
That's why missiles can see right through ECM & stealth.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Good argument. But won't the ECM power also be higher by the same factor?

Your point about homing in on a fuzzy target that keeps getting closer and closer, as opposed to shooting at a fuzzy target from a distance, is still a good one. You may convince me yet. However, shouldn't ECM lower the missile's effective range or effective speed? The ECM would cause it to follow a less-precise homing course.

Also, you're assuming that the ECM merely makes the target "fuzzy," as opposed to making "bogeys." Maybe there ought to be different kinds of ECM. Normal kinds would be the fuzzy variety and would not affect missiles. The more advanced kinds would be the bogey variety and would affect everything.

jc173

May 2nd, 2001, 11:11 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Will:
I don't think that the ECM as it is now in the game should affect seekers. As I imagine it now, ECM is basically a component that jams a ships scanners (like having a ground base jam the frequency used by enemy radar, making it fairly useless, and forcing fire by eye). The the analogy of a machine gun seems to be a favorite for having ECM affect seekers instead of direct-fire; my rebuttal is that this would be a machine gun firing at a moving target miles away, assisted by a tracking system.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with ECM jamming working on direct fire weapons because you're basically jamming what those weapons are using for targeting, but at the same time for a seeker to be able to seek something it has to use a sensor also, otherwise it would be pretty much the same as a dumb/no guidance rocket or a straight running torpedo.

Another thing is that missile jammers (at least currently) don't work that well, and have to work on one missile at a time. That said, the suggestion of Trachmyr is a realistic way to have "Anti-Missile ECM". Since all of you seem so hooked on realism (tell me, how realistic is it for people from a tiny world to move to a huge world, and NOT be crushed? or how one can make a RingWorld with only 20000kT of material? It's not realistic, could possibly be explained in terms of future technology if you streched it... the game isn't supposed to be real), how realistic is it for this missile jammer to effect 100 missiles the same as 1?

Depends on the jammer and seeker and which type of sensors and what modes they're operating in. But if the jammer is working on the basis of active range gate pull off or spurious target generation for radar jammers it should be jam affect most radar seekers that enter its effective cone.

jc173

May 2nd, 2001, 11:13 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by dmm:
Also, you're assuming that the ECM merely makes the target "fuzzy," as opposed to making "bogeys." Maybe there ought to be different kinds of ECM. Normal kinds would be the fuzzy variety and would not affect missiles. The more advanced kinds would be the bogey variety and would affect everything.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds sort of like the difference between a defenseive jammer and an offensive barrage jammer?

Aussie Gamer

May 2nd, 2001, 11:22 PM

I got a reply from God, Arron, and he says that it would be unfair to have ECM effect missiles as they are slow and can be dodge by ships.

If you are like me and think that this is wrong please e-mail Arron and ask him to have missiles effected by ECM and combat sensors.

If the change is effected we could have smart missiles, as the data allows for attack modifiers to be changed, with say a +30% chance to hit at higher tech levels.

One thing that I also thought about was that the defence modifier for the size of the ship/ fighter makes absolutely no difference to a missile, that seems a bit unfair as well.

Suicide Junkie

May 2nd, 2001, 11:48 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Good argument. But won't the ECM power also be higher by the same factor?7<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's only if the ECM works by "reaching out to touch someone"
If the ECM works by creating false bogeys, or masking the ship to look like background radiation, the effect would break down as you get close, and be better far away.

Cloaks can be detected during tactical, combat, when the ships are close.
So similarily, decoys could be seen through from close up.

The 10 billion times sensor boost of the missile more than makes up for the advanced sensors on any ship.

OTOH, if the ECM is reaching out to jam sensors with active interference, couldn't the missile be programmed to seek that source of interference?
Also, if the ship is sending out active ECM, there is a whole lotta garbage singnals coming in. There is also a very weak real signal from the ship. As your missile gets closer, the interference builds at the same rate as your sensor power, but so does the real ship's signal.
With the exact same software that is used to find the cloaked ship against the noisy background of space, you find the ship amidst the noisy background of interference.

Overall, consider the CSM. Unmodded, it claims to have a nuclear warhead. You don't need a direct hit with a nuke to hurt somebody http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

Marty Ward

May 2nd, 2001, 11:53 PM

At least we know the reason behind the design idea.

Aussie Gamer

May 2nd, 2001, 11:58 PM

Missiles brain would not be that powerful that they would be able to have several ways of detecting an enenmy ship.
If you look at missiles of today then the set and forget missiles lock on one thing such a the heat of the engines or even the radar signal being sent out by the enemy unit.
The Exocet missile worked in one war but now a ECM device has been devoloped to stop it from hitting the ship.
Chaff is used to stop radar using missiles.
Flares are used to stop Infra-red missiles.
A modern ECM pod senses to frequency of the incoming homing missile and sends a fake signal back to send it the wrong direction.

Missiles are very venerable to the ECM of the target.

Will

May 3rd, 2001, 12:49 AM

Hmmm... It seems I forgot to mention that missiles are too easy to beat now anyway, no sense weakening them any further.

As for the comment that basically said "I can complain if I want to", well, yes, you can. Just don't expect the complaining to get Aaron to go through the code and change something trivial instead of fixing any new bugs or adding features that still haven't been put in yet (Drones, for one). Especially when the game can already easily be modded to do basically the same thing that you want hard-coded.

And what I meant by "... missile jammers (at least currently) don't work that well ..." was the so-called "Star Wars" project. It doesn't work in practice.

Suicide Junkie

May 3rd, 2001, 12:57 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Missiles brain would not be that powerful that they would be able to have several ways of detecting an enenmy ship.
If you look at missiles of today then the set and forget missiles lock on one thing such a the heat of the engines or even the radar signal being sent out by the enemy unit.
The Exocet missile worked in one war but now a ECM device has been devoloped to stop it from hitting the ship.
Chaff is used to stop radar using missiles.
Flares are used to stop Infra-red missiles.
A modern ECM pod senses to frequency of the incoming homing missile and sends a fake signal back to send it the wrong direction.
Missiles are very venerable to the ECM of the target.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Chaff, Flares are countermeasures and not ECM. That's more PD than ECM.

Like I was saying, with the 10 billion times increase in sensor power, you can easily tell the difference between the real ship and the decoys.

These are not modern day dogfights. The distances involved change everything.
Try playing a FPS with 1000 lag, and you will see what ships at range 4 are dealing with while the missile is the guy with 5 ping, and deals with none of that.
Add in the fact that as the missile approaches, the image of the target literaly grows by 10 billion times! Even if the missile has only 1% of the ship's abilities, that leaves a hundred million times more detection power.

Marty Ward

May 3rd, 2001, 02:20 AM

That 10 billion increase in sensor power seems odd. It may be that the sensor power increases the closer the missile get to it's target but I don't think the increase is a simple multiplication process. If it's true that no wonder missiles don't miss, that's one big *** target! http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif
No matter what the sensor or ECM device is the time a missile takes to reach its target will have as big an effect, if not more, than the tracking device on how effective ECM is. If it takes 4 times as long for a missile to reach it's target compared to a beam then the target has an advantage, if only in maneuver.
I am glad Aaron gave his reason for the way it is. We all have an opinion on this, and on other things we would like to see done with the game, and maybe Aaron will read the threads and decide to change it. If not, I am sure other improvements will be made to make the game even better.

[This message has been edited by Marty Ward (edited 03 May 2001).]

Aussie Gamer

May 3rd, 2001, 02:20 AM

ECM is a cover for all counter mesures in this game as far as would understand any way.

For all attacks there is a defence.
So pumping out a signal 10 billions times stronger so the missiles can tell the difference between a ghost ship <decoy> and the real ship means that it would actually be easier to deflect the missile using counter measures as you could flood the area with its homing frequency and deflect it off.

My use of non- electroinc counter measures was just an indiaction of the ease that missiles can be stopped from hitting their target.

No matter how it senses the target you can make a defence against itit some way.

Thus ECM or counter measures should effect missiles as well as direct fire weapons. Also Combat sensors aid in their attack as well.
You state that distance makes a difference in combat today, well then why does it make a difference in space combat over greater distances?

I also think you are greatly increasing the power required for the "radar" systems required to detect over a distance.

nerfman

May 3rd, 2001, 02:53 AM

"Just don't expect the complaining to get Aaron to go through the code and change something trivial instead of fixing any new bugs or adding features that still haven't been put in yet (Drones, for one). Especially when the game can already easily be modded to do basically the same thing that you want hard-coded."

Just because you can't make the distinction and grasp the fundamentals of electronic warfeare doens't mean that game can already be modded. Using a range one PD mount with a new sound is pretty cheesy. Still, I am sure AARON is glad to have you here, as his personal St. Peter, guarding the pearly gates against us heathen
realists.

Ten billion is a bit crazy. At the most energy would fall off at something like the distance to the forth power, but that all depends of the detecting beams emission lobe. A very tight bean will not lose intensity as quick, so to say something like ten billion is really pointless.

Missiles are closer, so they do get some advantage there. Still an entire ship has a whole bank of generators, at least thousands (but not ten billion) of times more space for computers. On top of that, they have crew that can monitor the system to quickly change strategies if things seem to fail.

Once more I don't necesarily say that the current balance must be changed, but I think it should be changable.

There is a lot of people saying stuff like, "well if you jam me, then I will just loch unto your jammer." If we want to we could all just sit here naming measure and counter measure. Its much like a wrestling match where each move has a counter. Its not the counter itself that leads to victory, its the strength, speed, and endurance the wrestler uses to apply the move that determines victory. EW is much the same way except you can change out strength, etc. with factors like emitter energy, frequency agility, and control system/computer power.

Phoenix-D

May 3rd, 2001, 03:01 AM

A distinction also needs to be made between making this MODDABLE and putting it into the basic SE4 set. If at all, I'd say it should just be moddable, and not used in the basic set. It isn't fair simply because in real life you probably aren't going to OUTRUN a missile, which many SE4 ships can do.

Changing it to like that would take a very fine balance, as it could make missiles useless if done incorrectly.

Phoenix-D

nerfman

May 3rd, 2001, 03:37 AM

Damn that was a sweet post to get my comission with!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Modable is fine. Personally I don't like Star Trek. I don't freak about Star Trek stuff. I just don't put in my games. That is really all I would ever care for. Just give us a little more flexibility is all I am saying.

[This message has been edited by nerfman (edited 03 May 2001).]

Suicide Junkie

May 3rd, 2001, 05:38 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>That 10 billion increase in sensor power seems odd. It may be that the sensor power increases the closer the missile get to it's target but I don't think the increase is a simple multiplication process. If it's true that no wonder missiles don't miss, that's one big *** target! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Its only the image that gets bigger. Imagine looking at the surface of the moon from here. Now fly down to the moon and go into orbit. See how much bigger the moon looks now?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>No matter what the sensor or ECM device is the time a missile takes to reach its target will have as big an effect, if not more, than the tracking device on how effective ECM is. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Who cares how long it takes the missile to cruise over to where you are? Once it gets close (<1 square) is when the seeking really comes into play. The missile keeps adjusting its aim until it hits. So there is essentially zero time to target.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>If it takes 4 times as long for a missile to reach it's target compared to a beam then the target has an advantage, if only in maneuver.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Of course. But once the missile catches you, it hits.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Ten billion is a bit crazy. At the most energy would fall off at something like the distance to the forth power, but that all depends of the detecting beams emission lobe. A very tight bean will not lose intensity as quick, so to say something like ten billion is really pointless.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If energy fell off at r^4, then the power increase would be 100,000,000,000,000,000,000.
Energy falls off by the distance squared. Since the missile (@ 1km) is 100,000 times closer to the target than the ship (@ range 4, 100,000kM) its sensor strength is 100,000 ^2 times as strong.
Yes, a tight beam dosen't lose energy as quick, but unless the beam is smaller than the target, you still get 10 billion times the power when you're 100,000 times as close.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>There is a lot of people saying stuff like, "well if you jam me, then I will just loch unto your jammer."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think I was the only one who said that, and you're right, it dosen't really apply.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Missiles are closer, so they do get some advantage there. Still an entire ship has a whole bank of generators, at least thousands (but not ten billion) of times more space for computers. On top of that, they have crew that can monitor the system to quickly change strategies if things seem to fail.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, but not just someadvantage. The ship can't compensate for the 10 billion times greater resolution & power of the missile when its a few kilometers away from the target.
That's why we sent out the voyager space probes.

Jupiter is 600,000,000KM away at minimum.
When voyager 1 got to 700,000KM from jupiter (at closest approach), it was approximately 1000 times closer that we are.
It therefore got 1000^2 = 1 Million times the resolution from it's bity cameras than we would get from earth with the same camera.

A million friggin times, and it was just trying to fly by. The entire planet earth can't overcome the million times improvement of a bitty 722Kg spacecraft that was just flying by, most of a million kilometers away.
We'd have to have a thousand meter telescope in orbit to see what Voyager 1 saw. And better optics are not going to shrink a scope that size to reasonable proportions.

Thats why probes are used. Thats why missiles get incredible vision compared to the ships.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>A distinction also needs to be made between making this MODDABLE and putting it into the basic SE4 set<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree. The more moddability, the better.
I'm just trying to reason out the "Seekers always hit" idea.

[This message has been edited by suicide_junkie (edited 03 May 2001).]

Baron Munchausen

May 3rd, 2001, 06:22 AM

What would really help with missiles is if they had ECM themselves. Right now, fighters are many times harder to hit than missiles. They shouldn't be. A missile is a much harder target in RL than a fighter. At least a fast missile in combat. Cruise missiles are another matter but they have their own advantages.

Anyway, if your missiles were automatically given your best ECM value (like they are in MOO II) then the AI with a 'missile strategy' wouldn't necessarily be stymied by someone packing a few PDC into their ships. As it is now, the missile using races are pretty much helpless if the encounter someone with a lot of PDC.

nerfman

May 3rd, 2001, 06:41 AM

SJ - Tell me you weren't a math major because I don't even think Good Will Hunting could follow your math here. Missiles are currently suceptible to jamming. Current technology can confuse jammers. Its not that hard to understand. As a former surface qualified naval officer and physicist I can honestly say this is the way things really are right now.

Your ten billion doesn't make sense. If a ship is say 1 light minute away and a missile is say one light second (good space type distances), then the ship is 60 times farther away. It all depends on what two ranges you compare. The missiles proximity to the target helps it actually hit easier, but....

The missile is closer to the target. That means it is closer to the jammer!!!!!!!! Thats right, that is one of the reasons they are susceptible, because they are much closer. The jamming signals get stronger and the ability of the ECM to quickly respond to changes in the seekers emmissions gets lower as the missile gets closer.

Phoenix-D

May 3rd, 2001, 06:53 AM

He's not talking about *distance*, he's talking about image size.

OK, easy comparision. Put a quarter on the opposite side of the room. Now walk up to the quarter and hold it in front of your face. Looks a lot bigger, eh?

This is relevent because the smaller the target, the more precise the missile's sensors have to be to actually get a reading on it (assuming they are active). In one situation the missile needs to scan anywhere in a very small area, in the other it needs to scan anywhere in a much larger area.

Then again, missile from light-minutes out makes very little sense unless you have FTL sensors (which may or may not be affected by ECM the same way other types would be..) because the missile would actually have to GUESS where the target was going, since if it was using radar is would be working with a signal that was two minutes old (travel time to target + return time) if the signal even got back to the missile's sensor.

Phoenix-D

Aussie Gamer

May 3rd, 2001, 07:33 AM

I think that we have agreed to disagree about certain aspects of missiles and jammers.

But it looks like it would be OK if Aaron said yes to making missile system modifiable to allow those who want to, to turn on the ECM V missiles.

I agree though about making the missiles harder to hit than fighters, < a flak gun can kill a fighter easier than a sidewinder>.

This would by the way, then allow for the ECM and sensors to play apart in the game against them.

I think that missiles:
1. Should be effected by ECM and sensors,
2. Not be effected by distance <adjust as they go>,
3. Harder to hit than small fighters, and
4. Higher tech missiles have a bonus to hit.<new components>
5. Speed should be at least 10...

This would allow a realistic combat, make it hard for point def to shoot them down, they may still miss and are still make them a powerful weapon.

[This message has been edited by Aussie Gamer (edited 03 May 2001).]

dumbluck

May 3rd, 2001, 08:55 AM

Personally, I think you "reality" folks are a bit, um, shortsighted.

this is a GAME! therefore, to give more gameplay variety (read "make game more fun"), Aaron made a design decision to make missiles always hit. Otherwise, you just get a direct fire weapon that takes longer after being fired to actually cause it's damage.

_I_ think that PDC is an acceptable countermeasure for missles. It forces a player decision: "Should I guard against direct fire weapons (EMC), against missiles (PDC), or should I give up that third gun to make space for both?"

And if you want to argue "reality authenticity", then why not mention the fact that missile warheads are VASTLY underpowered in the game in comparison to real life missles. After all, if a fighter gets hit w/a missle....boom. If a capital ship gets hit with a missle, it is only seconds and a good captain away from sinking (ie destroyed).

That's right. if only one or two anti-ship missles hits a naval vessel, it has a big hole in it's side, despite all that armor and anti-missle weaponry. So why is it that if a missle hits in the game, the player says "oooooooh, look at the pretty lightshow on the shields! Oh, look, shields are still at 90%."

If you want to make missiles more "realistic", fine. Make emc work on them. Leave them targetable with PDC (which, by the way, don't always hit in real life, either). But make sure that if a missle DOES get thru all that defence, it will rock that ship to it's _core_! (ie "Captain! Missle impact on the Forward Bulkheads! Shields and armor are gone! Engines Offline! Forward Cannons Offline! Aft Cannons at 75%! Damage to the Crew Quarters!")(you get the general idea).

Ok. there's my 2 cents worth. Probably a bit overpriced, but that's life.

Atraikius

May 3rd, 2001, 12:38 PM

I agree with dumbluck on this one. I think a change to the missles like that would make them a lot more interesting, except I believe that the amount of supplies used by using missiles should be GREATLY increased. From my time on a sub, I know the one I was on had four tubes "i.e. missile components", but only carried 26 reloads for all of them. Having the big cost in supplies for missiles, and the missiles causing a large amount of damage when they hit would make missile ships very dangerous in a single fight, but without additional support from either supply ships, or additional supply storage, they would have a very limited tour before they would require going back for supplies. Plus it might help reduce the boring almost exclusive use of missile early in the game.

Suicide Junkie

May 3rd, 2001, 05:15 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>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.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
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.

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.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
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.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
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.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>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%<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
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

May 3rd, 2001, 06:37 PM

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

May 3rd, 2001, 06:47 PM

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

May 3rd, 2001, 10:11 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>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.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

May 3rd, 2001, 10:30 PM

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? http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif )

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

May 3rd, 2001, 10:35 PM

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

May 4th, 2001, 12:47 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>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??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
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.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
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

May 4th, 2001, 01:13 AM

"He's not talking about *distance*, he's talking about image size."

Actually, if that is what he means, then the technical term is solid angle, which is basically the two dimensional angular area that something occupies, kind of like the envelope of different angles that you can point and still hit. When something is real close, there are a lot of different angles you can point and still hit, but as it gets farther, you have to steady your aim because the image is smaller.

That will change like the difference in square distances. But two points here:

1) When talking about jamming - the energy it takes to detect or jam a target is more important which is why being CLOSER makes missiles easier to jam.

2) So what if the missiles sees the ship as "bigger." Real missiles don't do damage by pointing at ships like a gun. You are right in that missiles would have an easier time pointing at a target if they were closer, but who cares. Missiles do damage by getting close to a ship and then exploding. Most missiles today don't even point at the target while they fly. They point to where its going to be. They need sensors to tell them what the targets velocity and momentum are so they can predict where to meet the target. The sensors they use to do this are what is jammed.

And missiles wouldn't be anything different if this were enacted. They would be missiles. To me, the defining point is range and the ability to be outran or shot down. Based on current EW practices in the real world, it simply seems odd that a race w/ superior EW capability not be given an advatage in a missile duel.

I would like to see it modable thats all. With so much else that is modable, it is just surprising that such is not.

nerfman

May 4th, 2001, 01:17 AM

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

jc173

May 4th, 2001, 01:20 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>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.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
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.

Suicide Junkie

May 4th, 2001, 01:27 AM

Nerfman, WTF are you talking about???

I know you have a point about the missiles & ECM but I just don't get it.

Please don't give up on me. I'm just trying to tell you how I see these things.
If I've been kinda harsh, I'll pass the blame onto my boss, who has been agressive lately.

I was serious when I said I've got no military experience beyond playing videogames, and I've only taken a few physics courses in my life.

[This message has been edited by suicide_junkie (edited 04 May 2001).]

Nitram Draw

May 4th, 2001, 01:48 AM

If missile accuracy was moddable you would have more variety available, more fun/challange. Researching higher levels could give you more accurate missiles in addition or in place of higher damage, speed etc. There could even be 2 different tech trees for the same basic missile, one the was more accurate and one like it is now but none that does both.

Puke

May 4th, 2001, 02:02 AM

I think the Nerfman is right on the ball, technically. although i think everyone should take a deep breath before continuing the discussion. seekers, if anything like modern weapons, should probably be jamable. since most all sci-fi games are basically 1900-modern day naval combat in space, it stands to reason they should act like modern weapons.

on the other hand, it is kind of hard to predict how things will operate in the far future, and we have certainly seen several reversals in military paradigms through history.

as for Rock Paper Scisors, if ECM did affect seekers, it would make them pretty useless in the game. but who is to say the would not be useless anyway? maybe they become obsolete? but if they are being deployed, it stands to reason that those people deploying them found a way arround countermeasures.

in ww2, we were working on cat-bombs, or cat guided bombs which operated on the principal that a cat would always land on its feet and would avoid water, we thought it would be a good way to make sure our bombs hit ships in water. maybe in se4 they perfected a space-borne Version of this technology that lets seekers always hit a ship in space. (no, i did not just make that up)

[This message has been edited by Puke (edited 04 May 2001).]

Suicide Junkie

May 4th, 2001, 03:08 AM

I see that with active ECM, the jamming will rise at the same rate as the missile's sensors, ruining the missile's tracking system.
I currently think that passive ECM like decoys and stealth would me much easier to detect close up. Thus, effective ECM for ships would be in the active forms.

Despite any ECM;
I think CSMs could get the 100% accuracy without knowing where exactly the enemy ship is, by bLasting the entire tactical square.
Meanwhile, beams cut through only a tiny fraction of the square, and so have a decent chance of missing. Incinerator & Wave motion gun beams are really thick, so they get a big to-hit bonus since they cover more of the square as they go through.

jc173

May 4th, 2001, 03:08 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
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?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can depends on the missile's seeker/seekers though, you would have to make specfic provisions to have the sensors and processors that are necessary for it to work. But it doesn't necessarily always work out that well. I know we're trying to get away from real world analogies here, but most modern missiles are not equipped with this homing mode. Which is either a comment on the effectiveness of this homing mode, the cost, or the state of current technology, not sure which is the major factor personally. Anyhow not all jammers work on brute force power, many of them "seduce" the missile into seeking a false target. Some methods I've read about include messing with the active range gate, by returning radar/active pulses to the missile on the same freq as its seeker thereby confusing it by messing up its range calculations. So you would have a bearing on the target but you wouldn't have the range to it. I think some ECM has a mode to generate a lot of false returns so the missile does not which target is the true one. Therefore it may be getting closer to what it thinks is a target but what in actuality is just a sensor ghost.

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).

Should be the same deal.

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.

I'm not sure this works for a straight detonating nuke warhead. There's nothing in space which robs a nuke of a lot of its damage from the pressure of shockwaves. There's definately thermal bloom and EMP/radiation, but to get the most out of the bLast wouldn't it still have to almost directly hit the target, thereby reducing it to the same operating paramters as a direct fire kinetic/energy weapon? Granted it can make course corrections if it can find the correct target. Personally I got around that by changing the description and my frame of mind by changing the warhead on the CSM to be a nuclear pumped X-Ray laser warhead so its more like a guided round of buckshot.

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.

See above.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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.

Depends, not very many long range missiles that home in on manueving targets use passive sensors. There are ways to decoy or jam even those sensors, although some of them are questionable as to whether they would fall into the Category of PD or ECM in SEIV terms.

I'd honestly perfer to be able to make my own missiles have the launchers designed to fire missiles of a certain size, that way you could match different seekers, warheads, and propulsion systems together. There's a pretty good technical game based background on missiles in some of GDWs Traveller The New Era stuff, if you have a hankering to read about it. Some good items are in Fire Fusion and Steel and in Brilliant Lances.

[This message has been edited by jc173 (edited 04 May 2001).]

[This message has been edited by jc173 (edited 04 May 2001).]

Suicide Junkie

May 4th, 2001, 03:31 AM

Nerfman: thanks for the links... I'll take a look around there. I am already convinced that ECM would be effective against the targetting systems, but what do you think about the saturation attack to get 100% accuracy with reduced damage?

I apologise for any agressive Posts, this forum should be for gaining knowledge foremost.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I know we're trying to get away from real world analogies here, but most modern missiles are not equipped with this homing mode. Which is either a comment on the effectiveness of this homing mode, the cost, or the state of current technology, not sure which is the major factor personally. Anyhow not all jammers work on brute force power, many of them "seduce" the missile into seeking a false target. Some methods I've read about include messing with the active range gate, by returning radar/active pulses to the missile on the same freq as its seeker thereby confusing it by messing up its range calculations. So you would have a bearing on the target but you wouldn't have the range to it. I think some ECM has a mode to generate a lot of false returns so the missile does not which target is the true one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thanks. I still don't see how you could get a false ping appear to come from the side. That would leave a flickering line of sensor ghosts connecting you and the missile http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

What if your missile sends out random patterns of sensor pulses, then listens, and only follows the recieved signal that matches the timing and frequency spacing of the transmission.
To get an ECM sensor ghost of the right "color" you'd have to guess lucky and hit the missile with the correct pattern of sensor returns.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>There's nothing in space which robs a nuke of a lot of its damage from the pressure of shockwaves. There's definately thermal bloom and EMP/radiation, but to get the most out of the bLast wouldn't it still have to almost directly hit the target, thereby reducing it to the same operating paramters as a direct fire kinetic/energy weapon?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I figured that was why the CSM only does 75 damage. Most of the nuke is wasted. I was going to make CSMs not target planets, and have a specific nuke missile to hit planets with that would be more effective.
75 damage is only enough to destroy a missile launcher and an engine or two.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I'd honestly perfer to be able to make my own missiles have the launchers designed to fire missiles of a certain size, that way you could match different seekers, warheads, and propulsion systems together. There's a pretty good technical game based background on missiles in some of GDWs Traveller The New Era stuff, if you have a hankering to read about it. Some good items are in Fire Fusion and Steel and in Brilliant Lances. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sounds like you want drone launchers with kamikaze warheads aboard http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

[This message has been edited by suicide_junkie (edited 04 May 2001).]

nerfman

May 4th, 2001, 03:34 AM

Well, some are right in that this discussion is getting a little heated. Sorry myself to all for getting too worked up, but I do like a little argument now and then. For anyone who seriously would like to see some of the current systems in order to gain a little more understanding, check out the following

AN/SLQ-32 Overview, shipboard tacital ECM and ESM. Neat package and there is a lot of material http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/an-slq-32.htm

summary of all US Navy ship systems. Maybe this will inspire some new components http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/index.html

Same as above but for aircraft. Check out the list of countermeasures. There's a lot of good reading of you can handle the terse nature of some of the dsicussions. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/index.html

Once more, I'll try to be more informative and save the combat for the Rage and Phong. Hope somebody learned something. nerf

jc173

May 4th, 2001, 04:41 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by suicide_junkie:
Thanks. I still don't see how you could get a false ping appear to come from the side. That would leave a flickering line of sensor ghosts connecting you and the missile http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Got me, I'm pretty bad with EM physics, I've just read it's supposed to be possible, the actual methods used are probably classified. So I probably won't be telling you how anytime soon <G>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
What if your missile sends out random patterns of sensor pulses, then listens, and only follows the recieved signal that matches the timing and frequency spacing of the transmission.
To get an ECM sensor ghost of the right "color" you'd have to guess lucky and hit the missile with the correct pattern of sensor returns.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Probably possible although the return time will depend on the range to the target? But once you get an intial return the rest of the patern should follow at pretty much the same interval as you sent them out. Its likely you would have to some encode the patterns into all missiles in flight at once so their signals didn't mutually intefere with each other.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
I figured that was why the CSM only does 75 damage. Most of the nuke is wasted. I was going to make CSMs not target planets, and have a specific nuke missile to hit planets with that would be more effective.
75 damage is only enough to destroy a missile launcher and an engine or two.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
Sounds like you want drone launchers with kamikaze warheads aboard http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heh pretty much. I think that for the most part a lot of missile upgrades for ships etc don't require an entire overhaul of the launcher itself maybe some targetting system upgrades. Also I think that you should be somewhat limited in the number of missiles you can carry. Of course that would require that be treated like units or as a different type of supply so I'm not sure that it would work out all that well the way SE IV is currently set up. Might be too much detail for some people's tastes too.

DirectorTsaarx

May 4th, 2001, 02:52 PM

Glad to see we're back to getting along here. I've been on too many other message Boards that turned into constant flame wars to want to see that here.

Anyway, as for creating false images "to the side", that could probably be accomplished by altering the phase of the signal. And as for following a "line of false sensor images", well, what if the "real" image is in the middle of the line? The missile can't just be programmed to seek the Last image (assuming it could figure out that there were multiple images). So even a line of images may be sufficient...

I may have to just look up some of nerfman's links. Back in my college days, I got a scholarship from the "Association of Old Crows" (Army EW association, IIRC). I'm sure they'd be shocked to hear I haven't kept up with EW technology http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon12.gif .

Suicide Junkie

May 4th, 2001, 05:39 PM

What do you guys think about the missiles saturating the target square with damage? You get less damage but cover every possible position in the tactical square.
That could be why the CSM only does 75 damage with a nuclear warhead. (disables 4 components on an enemy ship)

nerfman

May 4th, 2001, 06:39 PM

I looked this up Last night in regards to "false images to the side." Deceiving a sensors angular return is harder, but done in two ways:

1) Side Lobe Exploitation: A radar reciever is basically a highly tuned directional antenna. Interfernce phenomena cause "Side Lobes" to be present in both transmitting and receieving. These side lobes are areas that aren't directly "ahead" where the system can register a return as well. Their specifics (angle, "width", sensitivity) are determined by the geometry and materials of the emitter and/or reciever. By carfully timing a deception "ping," you will be able to have a radar actually think a target is in front of it while in real life the thing is down one of its side lobes, and of course, the sensor system is usually designed to make that as hard as possible to do. I do not know if it is theoretically possible to design a radar w/out any side lobes, but even some of the most advanced radars today have them. In 1000 years? Who knows?

2) Some sensors localize by moving in a pattern and locking in on the target, like a conical scan. The radar moves in a circular fashion regularly and tracks the target's movement based on the feedback. Anyway, it is possible to use deceptive false pings to make make it think you are really not exactly where you are. They will still know pretty much where you are, but the targetting solution gets a little more "fuzzy." This type of measure will be designed to defeat a certain type of scan. So if one seeker scanned in a certain way and another came up another way, you would have to decieve each one differently. Possible to do w/ one system, but a lot harder.

That is the only two methods I could find. Also remember that the missile usually doesn't fly "at" the target, its flying towards where it is going to be. Even deception that only makes the target closer or farther is useful here. If the missile thinks the target is farther away it may not get close enough to execute its terminal manuever (attack) before it realizes it and not have enough fuel to come back. On the other hand, if it thinks it is closer, it may fly past and not be able to make its terminal manuever. If it flies "past" it might hit the target, but the chances of that are slim considering the volume of space considered. This all might not make sense if you consider trying to hit something coming right at you or standing still, but when you are trying to get close enough to cause damage against a real target moving through 3d space it is possible to be decieved until it is literally too late to do anything about it.

In fairness to SJ, many missiles now incorporate "Home on Jam" capbilities which can work. Of course new countermeasure make it harder for the mssiles to know it is being jammed. So its all like a big rat race with the only real winners being the defense contractors.

SJ - didn't see your Last post.
Can you elaborate? I don't really understand what you are getting at. Thanks

[This message has been edited by nerfman (edited 04 May 2001).]

[This message has been edited by nerfman (edited 04 May 2001).]

Puke

May 4th, 2001, 09:03 PM

in regards to 'tracking on the source of the countermeasures' (walking towards the flashlight) and the "side lobes" mentioned below, is this what is meant by "off-source jamming?" I always thought off-source ECM involved reflecting the signal off of something nearby. can anybody clarify how this stuff works? in the meantime, i will have to check out those links.

Nitram Draw

May 4th, 2001, 09:43 PM

SJ,
I think stauration or area damage would be a great idea if it could be added. If missiles could have two damage Ratings, one for a near miss and one for a direct hit then they would be more dangerous. A direct hit could do tremendous damage to armor and internals.
For a nuke warhead they do not do a lot of damage as you pointed out.
Unfortunately this would require missile accuracy to be added (i'm ducking now http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif) along with some other changes.

[This message has been edited by Nitram Draw (edited 04 May 2001).]

Suicide Junkie

May 5th, 2001, 12:29 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>SJ - didn't see your Last post.
Can you elaborate? I don't really understand what you are getting at. Thanks<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, any object in SE4 can determine any target's location down to a single combat square. (however large or small that might be).

For the nuclear warhead in the CSM & the antimatter in the Plasma missile, your attack could cover the entire square.
With the antimatter or fireball spread out over a large volume, you get less damage on average, but the sheer power of the weapon allows moderate damage to everything.

The nuclear CSM does only 75 - 200 damage or so. That's not much (a weapon & a few engines) destroyed for a close nuke strike or a splash of antimatter. But if the damage is spread out over the combat square, then the hit would be guaranteed.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>SJ,
I think stauration or area damage would be a great idea if it could be added. If missiles could have two damage Ratings, one for a near miss and one for a direct hit then they would be more dangerous. A direct hit could do tremendous damage to armor and internals.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh, yeah. I've been a long-time proponent of adding "splash" damage types.

type 1) Misses do 1/4 damage
type 2) every object within X squares takes decreasing amounts of damage

with a type two warhead, you could hurt multiple ships at once!

[This message has been edited by suicide_junkie (edited 04 May 2001).]

Dracus

May 5th, 2001, 01:15 AM

Just for kicks:

Maybe the missles don't home in on heat, transmissions, radio signals, or radar.
maybe they home in on the fat, lazy loudmouthed guy down in the engine room that keeps talking to everybody about how he would like to shag a waitress back planetside, that would never give him the time of day. Or maybe they home in on the uncleaned bathrooom down on deck 4.

[This message has been edited by Dracus (edited 05 May 2001).]

nerfman

May 5th, 2001, 02:00 AM

Snipes, I mean engineers loud mouthed and foul? What navy are you talking about.

SJ - So you mean like area effects, like able to damage a tight group of ships?

Along those lines, a missile that worked like a FASCAM round would be cool. You would target a space and it would fly there and discharge a cloud of mines all over the area. I don't know how realsitic it is, but it would be a cool tactic for a missile heavy fleet to delay a dirct fire fleet from closing. Of course I don't think you can target empty spaces right now, so.......

Suicide Junkie

May 5th, 2001, 02:22 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>SJ - So you mean like area effects, like able to damage a tight group of ships?

Along those lines, a missile that worked like a FASCAM round would be cool. You would target a space and it would fly there and discharge a cloud of mines all over the area. I don't know how realsitic it is, but it would be a cool tactic for a missile heavy fleet to delay a dirct fire fleet from closing. Of course I don't think you can target empty spaces right now, so.......<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, the Nuke could be an area effect weapon, and bLast an entire square, even if it can't precisely locate the target...
It would be a Type 1 splash damage weapon, that always misses, but always does some damage.

Like you said, a mine scattering missile could spray tiny mines out as it flies, so any ships in squares that the missile crosses take 10-20 damage. You just fire the missile at the farthest enemy ship, and a bunch of bystander ships inbetween you two get hurt. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif
This would be a form of Type 3 ("linear")splash damage

If you had some sort of really wide-acting weapon, you could damage all objects in the 8 squares around your target. It would probably have to be a really high tech weapon to have a bLast that large (size of a moon picture!)
This is Type 2 splash damage.

Type 1 splash damage is the "misses do damage" thing.

[This message has been edited by suicide_junkie (edited 05 May 2001).]