[Spaceships] A reevaluation of missiles and point defense

[Ulzgoroth]

In light of the understanding that attacks are fully resolved one at a time, and the inference that point defense gunners can fire in sequence rather than in parallel, I've done some new missile combat numbers.

Calculations are based on TL9. TL 10 should benefit the defender significantly due to improved laser RoF. Higher TLs will benefit the attacker, but not much in the basic case as missiles are quite sufficiently accurate already. Everything uses 20-second turns, because longer ones don't make sense to me for gunnery. I believe they would usually harm missile-users, but 1-minute turns might benefit them.

Non-fragmenting missiles, including nukes, are poorly matched against PD. Even with only skill 12, a three-way split-fire from a VRF laser is expected to kill better than two missiles. With skill 14, splitting four ways brings this up to almost three. Nuke strikes are only viable against targets with extremely poor point defense. If a large vessel can't protect itself, SM+5 to +7 point defense drones/escorts can cover for it.

Proximity nukes are pointless. The only way you'd miss (outside 17-18) with a missile is if you were attacking a small target with ECM, in which case you shouldn't be using nukes in the first place.

Fragmenting missiles do better. With skill 14, it takes approximately one full point defense gun's fire, in two or three way split, to shoot down each missile's 10 fragments (all of which usually hit). They don't scale as well as beams, but pack a punch. Even at SM+15, each fragment of a tertiary missile hits almost as hard as a major beam (at higher TL, armor divisors may change this). Since point defense guns require power (making them 50% bulkier than missiles at TL9, 25% later), ships may have to rely on smaller craft to stop heavy missile volleys, and thick plating to keep out the common, PD-saturating 6dx8 16cm missile.

Small craft will need a different approach to missile survival. I suspect SM+5 units with ECM may be the solution, but have not done the math for them.

[SuedodeuS]

Actually, I think that a PD gun would end up shooting a proximity warhead before it exploded - otherwise, I'd expect for Spaceships to give an SM to the fragments (or at least a way of calculating them).


As for small craft, if technology permits, they might want to use automated gunner systems. On a SM+5 craft, a single medium battery can mount 3 VRF 30 kJ lasers at TL 9, and at TL10+ the VRF lasers can be improved for a further x2 RoF. The damage won't be much, but against missiles all you have to do is land a hit to destroy one. Heck, even without automation, having a single turret with a gunner wouldn't be unheard of - and would most certainly improve your survivability.

[Ulzgoroth]

A single turret? It's entirely likely for an SM+5 small craft to have upwards of 10 turrets, and I've made designs with more than 30. Automated gunnery preferred, but optional. That's not the problem with PD for small craft. You simply can't carry enough PD to stop 16cm missiles cold, because they're effectively more compact than the smallest PD guns, and you can't armor a small ship well enough to survive them.

If you're right about PD vs. prox warheads, then missiles are even weaker. I don't think you are though, although I don't think I've gotten an official clarification. Given how the combat system is put together, I don't think it would be possible to implement shooting down fragmentation missiles before they fragment.

My current theory is that conventional proximity warheads break into 10 independent, guided terminal attack units. My secondary theory, given that each fragment individually does the same damage as the entire missile would, is that they don't make sense.

[SuedodeuS]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

A single turret? It's entirely likely for an SM+5 small craft to have upwards of 10 turrets, and I've made designs with more than 30. Automated gunnery preferred, but optional. That's not the problem with PD for small craft. You simply can't carry enough PD to stop 16cm missiles cold, because they're effectively more compact than the smallest PD guns, and you can't armor a small ship well enough to survive them.

I really don't see a massive number of warheads being fired at an SM+5 craft - not when you're likely to have a large number of them present at a time, and particularly not when there are juicier targets (e.g. the carrier that launched them) available. Against a 16cm missile/shell you're suffering a -1 to hit, which really isn't that bad. Of course, ECM is still crucial, since you need it to make fewer attacks hit - and so you can dodge the ones that made it through your PD.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

If you're right about PD vs. prox warheads, then missiles are even weaker. I don't think you are though, although I don't think I've gotten an official clarification. Given how the combat system is put together, I don't think it would be possible to implement shooting down fragmentation missiles before they fragment.

My current theory is that conventional proximity warheads break into 10 independent, guided terminal attack units. My secondary theory, given that each fragment individually does the same damage as the entire missile would, is that they don't make sense.

The description of proximity warheads (p. 47) describes them as firing something like a "shotgun-like blast of high-velocity fragments." Additionally, the warheads are identical to impact warheads - you simply decide if they are proximity fused or not prior to firing, and I wouldn't expect for impact warheads to waste money having precision terminal attack units. I think the concept is that quite a few more than 10 fragments impact the hull, but for simplicity this is done as 10 "hits." As for damage, the fragments do essentially deal half damage, but only against armor. I certainly agree that a proximity warhead being able to deal more damage than an impactor doesn't make much sense. However, I think this can only occur for smaller vessels (since the heavier ones end up with very high DR), and that could be explained as the proximity warhead being more capable of shredding the small fighter.

As for how it works, I know that the damage rules (p. 60) state that each PD hit "kills one missile or shell." Personally, if I wanted the multiple hits of a proximity warhead to be fired upon seperately, I would have phrased it as something more along the lines of "negates one hit" - or, better yet, made a specific exception for proximity warheads. Of course, that's just how I would do it - it's entirely possible that the authors intended each fragment to be treated as a seperate shell.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by SuedodeuS

I really don't see a massive number of warheads being fired at an SM+5 craft - not when you're likely to have a large number of them present at a time, and particularly not when there are juicier targets (e.g. the carrier that launched them) available. Against a 16cm missile/shell you're suffering a -1 to hit, which really isn't that bad. Of course, ECM is still crucial, since you need it to make fewer attacks hit - and so you can dodge the ones that made it through your PD.

If the carrier that launched them is an available target, somebody is doing their job wrong. That aside, the reason you need that many mounts is that you can have that many mounts. If my 'fighter' has 4 medium batteries of missiles (in turrets), and you try to take it on with a fighter with one turret, my fighter probably kills 4-6 of yours in the first exchange of fire. Whether it survives the exercise depends on what you've got to throw back at it, but I'm pretty happy regardless...

If my mechanics are right, that is. But even if they're wrong, with that little point defense I can still overwhelm two or three.

Also, remember that at TL9, missiles are the only weapon effective at L range against maneuvering targets, for an SM+5 craft. Unless you're playing with hyper-powered drives, your enemy has plenty of time to engage you with missiles before you can reply with anything else.

Originally Posted by SuedodeuS

The description of proximity warheads (p. 47) describes them as firing something like a "shotgun-like blast of high-velocity fragments." Additionally, the warheads are identical to impact warheads - you simply decide if they are proximity fused or not prior to firing, and I wouldn't expect for impact warheads to waste money having precision terminal attack units. I think the concept is that quite a few more than 10 fragments impact the hull, but for simplicity this is done as 10 "hits." As for damage, the fragments do essentially deal half damage, but only against armor. I certainly agree that a proximity warhead being able to deal more damage than an impactor doesn't make much sense. However, I think this can only occur for smaller vessels (since the heavier ones end up with very high DR), and that could be explained as the proximity warhead being more capable of shredding the small fighter.

Large ships may be well armored, but they needn't be armored at all. And at TL9, it's pretty big indeed you'd need to be before I'd be confident about doing more damage with a non-proximity missile...if, for some insane reason, you were using non-hardened armor. Which only makes sense if you're completely unconcerned with beam attacks, or playing with heat rays...

Originally Posted by SuedodeuS

As for how it works, I know that the damage rules (p. 60) state that each PD hit "kills one missile or shell." Personally, if I wanted the multiple hits of a proximity warhead to be fired upon seperately, I would have phrased it as something more along the lines of "negates one hit" - or, better yet, made a specific exception for proximity warheads. Of course, that's just how I would do it - it's entirely possible that the authors intended each fragment to be treated as a seperate shell.

I would say that however it is intended, the writing is flawed. My objection to your take is not really that I don't think it agrees with what is written. Rather, I don't think it's possible.

Consider:
-Some idiot launches a fixed battery of missiles at your fighter, set for proximity detonation. Medium, secondary, or tertiary...
-Said shooter rolls the attack and determines 24 hits.
-You achieve 10 hits with your point defense.
-How many times are you hit?

[SuedodeuS]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

If the carrier that launched them is an available target, somebody is doing their job wrong. That aside, the reason you need that many mounts is that you can have that many mounts. If my 'fighter' has 4 medium batteries of missiles (in turrets), and you try to take it on with a fighter with one turret, my fighter probably kills 4-6 of yours in the first exchange of fire. Whether it survives the exercise depends on what you've got to throw back at it, but I'm pretty happy regardless...

If my mechanics are right, that is. But even if they're wrong, with that little point defense I can still overwhelm two or three.

Also, remember that at TL9, missiles are the only weapon effective at L range against maneuvering targets, for an SM+5 craft. Unless you're playing with hyper-powered drives, your enemy has plenty of time to engage you with missiles before you can reply with anything else.

If the setting you're working in is extremely missile-heavy, a single point-defense turret is going to be useless. In that case, I'd highly prefer a large number of automated turrets - and if automation isn't possible (for whatever reason - Butlerian Jihad, maybe?), I'd probably not bother fielding small fighters to start with. I should note, however, that a missile-based fighter would probably be easily overwhelmed by one with, say, half as many VRF PD-lasers as the missile-based fighter has launchers, and a single VRF gun.

EDIT: Suicide fighter craft like in Einhander might still exist, since a 30-launcher fighter could do some serious damage before it was hit - assuming it reached range L before its target was able to fire on it.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Large ships may be well armored, but they needn't be armored at all. And at TL9, it's pretty big indeed you'd need to be before I'd be confident about doing more damage with a non-proximity missile...if, for some insane reason, you were using non-hardened armor. Which only makes sense if you're completely unconcerned with beam attacks, or playing with heat rays...

I would say that however it is intended, the writing is flawed. My objection to your take is not really that I don't think it agrees with what is written. Rather, I don't think it's possible.

Yeah, there's definately some writing issues there. Because a special exception isn't stated for proximity missiles, however, I tend to think it's "1 shot destroys 1 missile - before detonation."

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Consider:
-Some idiot launches a fixed battery of missiles at your fighter, set for proximity detonation. Medium, secondary, or tertiary...
-Said shooter rolls the attack and determines 24 hits.
-You achieve 10 hits with your point defense.
-How many times are you hit?

Oof, now there's a tough one. I'd probably still work it as 14 hits, however. I think the distinction between how the PD works vs proximity warheads would really only apply in borderline cases. For example, take a case where the attacker determines 12 hits, and you achieve 10 with PD. In this case, I'd go back and calculate how many hits the attacker would have scored without the +4 for proximity detonation. If it's 10 or fewer, all hits are negated. If it's 11 or 12, then he scores 2 hits.