|
Post by vegetal on Feb 10, 2017 23:26:08 GMT
Found this on an earlier post I made. This is an older version which is obsolete, my current version of this missile is around 400kg (and change), a lot cheaper and with the already mentioned 5kg flak payload. It also has less armor (which, on this missile, is the most expensive part). Try making something similar, you will see it's very effective. childrenofadeadearth.boards.net/attachment/download/562
|
|
|
Post by lieste on Feb 10, 2017 23:32:14 GMT
Why make such large missiles?.. it complicates attaining decent delta-v, makes armouring much harder to accomplish and makes them far more vulnerable to gunfire (and to a lesser but still significant degree to targeted laser fires). It also has a serious penalty on combat persistence and capital ship minimum size and maximum performance - as each round of ammunition occupies the volume and mass that could be dedicated to dozens (at least) of more moderate designs.
There is no direct enhancement of immediate combat performance unlike with gundrones or laser drones which can benefit from standoff to a significant degree.
|
|
|
Post by ross128 on Feb 11, 2017 0:22:39 GMT
Another problem with huge IPBMs is they increase the weight of the launcher, since the game pretty much treats the launcher as a solid chunk of iron large enough to fit the missile inside.
Of course, using micromissiles effectively depends on whether you have a computer strong enough to render a sufficient number of missiles, so they may not be practical for some people. But that's why I've tried to harden them against lasers to get the average volley size down to more reasonable levels. Kinetics already aren't a problem for micromissiles because the targeting algorithm won't switch targets fast enough to swat them all, even if they do die from a single hit.
|
|
|
Post by vegetal on Feb 11, 2017 1:47:36 GMT
Well, my latest missile type is 65kg, which is quite micro in my own view of things. I still send a 20 salvo to defeat a lone laser platform, so my computer still doesn't melt with it.
Having in mind I can carry thousands of them into battle, I think it's good enough for now.
|
|
|
Post by darthroach on Feb 11, 2017 1:54:03 GMT
Why make such large missiles?.. Don't know about the reasoning of the poster you were replying to, but I was replaying Surface of Giants today, and found that a carrier with a small number of high-delta-v high-MT missiles was a pretty good way of doing the mission with minimal delta-v requirements for the manned ship.
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Feb 11, 2017 6:25:52 GMT
After rolling around the game, I deleted all of my railguns and most of my few coilguns (except a flare coilgun and a rocket-launching one), and developed a 500 mg needle gun firing at 37.2 km/s (this field is new to me, so I'll need some guidance). Lasers are good at disarming ships, but missiles are good against other missiles (they are equipped with aramid fiber). The needle gun is mostly there for fun, as their impacts do not really do things because they are so lightweight.
|
|
|
Post by thebenn on Feb 11, 2017 16:59:41 GMT
This is my best fleet killer to date. Out of 10 missiles, even against 10 10GW lasers (with 413GW at 1000km each) at least 2 or 3 get through. Now trying to get them faster. The other problem is that against strong kinetic weapons, they are easily destroyed. Don't you get stupendous performance loss from hiding a nuke behind all that aerogel?
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Feb 12, 2017 1:16:47 GMT
Why make such large missiles?.. it complicates attaining decent delta-v, makes armouring much harder to accomplish and makes them far more vulnerable to gunfire (and to a lesser but still significant degree to targeted laser fires). It also has a serious penalty on combat persistence and capital ship minimum size and maximum performance - as each round of ammunition occupies the volume and mass that could be dedicated to dozens (at least) of more moderate designs. There is no direct enhancement of immediate combat performance unlike with gundrones or laser drones which can benefit from standoff to a significant degree. Why such large missiles? 1. Larger missiles means a larger payload per missile is possible. (10Mt meganukes) 2. Larger missiles means more armor can be carried by each missile. 3. Larger missiles can mean more overall deltaV depending on design. The idea is instead of hundreds of small missiles in swarms, 50 or less of much larger missiles that are as heavily armored and as powerful as possible. Is this the best way to go? Against lasers I think yes. Who knows. I think there are two ways to get your missiles past good strong enemy point defense. 1. Either send so many missiles (100 plus), that due to either targeting speed of the computer program (one at a time) or lack of speed of turrets (slow to move to next target), the enemy can quickly destroy them, but some make it through. If the target uses decoys well, and it is heavily armored enough, the few missiles that get through might not do much or any useful damage. 2. Send fewer missiles, that are so powerful and well armored, that almost all get to the target. Even if decoys are used, if the missile explodes even in the vicinity, flash damage will still severely damage exposed parts like radiators, engines, etc. It is possible if the design could be perfected, that so much armor would be needed to protect against them, that the ship would be so slow, that more armor would hurt more than it helps. Just one approach.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Feb 12, 2017 1:26:36 GMT
This is my best fleet killer to date. Out of 10 missiles, even against 10 10GW lasers (with 413GW at 1000km each) at least 2 or 3 get through. Now trying to get them faster. The other problem is that against strong kinetic weapons, they are easily destroyed. Don't you get stupendous performance loss from hiding a nuke behind all that aerogel? I don't think so, but who knows?
|
|
|
Post by lieste on Feb 12, 2017 1:47:27 GMT
I had more trouble dealing with 'dead' gundrones (which convert to KKV if their gun is damaged) at a 2.06m^2 size range than I did with multi-megaton nukes. They seldom hit, but do pass through the formation space, unlike the 'dead' nukes.
These missiles have some resistance to lasers, but almost none against kinetics of modest performance. However the sheer size makes the armour mass very high for the protection it offers and worse makes engagement ranges and ranges at which lasers start to be able to focus fires consistently (and thus boil off propellants) much greater than even the worst of the stock missiles. The very slight improvement in protection and redundancy does little to make these overly large examples a threat.
I would expect much better results from a small(ish) form factor missile with a pointed spacer, an inert nose block and a minimal warhead, fuel & motor - this makes frontal laser fire less effective, and kinetics short ranged, reducing their engagement window significantly. Add a pair of small drop tanks if needed to increase delta-v while keeping cross section down. Use ablation resistant armour in the cm range and a high lasing threshold 'gloss' over the top. This makes the weapon more survivable, increases combat persistence of the carrier, while permitting smaller size and from my experience is a more difficult type of missile to deal with.
Bear in mind that a decent PD class railgun will have the reach to hit the 40m^2 class missiles from ~36km @13mw, but only 13km against a 1m^2 example, or 143km/57km for a 110MW Anti-drone gun.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Feb 15, 2017 2:09:32 GMT
I think the question has been more or less settled for now, according to Member votes, lasers are the most versatile ship to ship weapon. Until the next update that is.....
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Feb 15, 2017 4:51:51 GMT
A laser can shoot a ship or a missile or a drone, a coilgun can launch nukes or flak or even a 24kg mass of Nickle Iron Molydeum, they can blast sand/needles/flects at varying speeds, lasers do One thing well, coilguns can do many things well
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Feb 15, 2017 5:32:02 GMT
A laser can shoot a ship or a missile or a drone, a coilgun can launch nukes or flak or even a 24kg mass of Nickle Iron Molydeum, they can blast sand/needles/flects at varying speeds, lasers do One thing well, coilguns can do many things well I'm with you, I voted for coilguns...
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Feb 15, 2017 13:01:07 GMT
A laser can shoot a ship or a missile or a drone, a coilgun can launch nukes or flak or even a 24kg mass of Nickle Iron Molydeum, they can blast sand/needles/flects at varying speeds, lasers do One thing well, coilguns can do many things well I'm with you, I voted for coilguns... Like you said, until the next update... The minute we can leverage the (essentially) unlimited range of kinetic weapons, I think we'll see dents in the laser dominance.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Feb 15, 2017 13:21:41 GMT
I think one thing that was forgotten in the Kinetic range disccusion was the Orion drive video in the general disccusions thread, I don't have to fill space untill I reach a point where its practical
|
|