Decoying PD

Vilemare · #1 December 11th, 2000, 01:40 PM

I hope this is a fresh idea. Anyway:

Automatic PD fire makes it easy to implement a decoy missile component. Make it cheaper, and smaller than real missile comp and it should be worth taking onboard (...well maybe only against a human opponents). The def-fighter/troop design is a kind of decoying tactic anyway so why not make it also available for missiles - only better.

Argument for: Missile component fires one BIG missile. There should be a decoy and pen-aid variant also available.

Argument against: Missile components is large one because it represents a salvo with decoys and pen-aids included. The BIG missile is called DRONE and will be available later. No decoy components should be allowed and PD-MSL balance is ok now by default.

Opinions?

Lerchey · #2 December 11th, 2000, 06:20 PM

Decoys are an interesting idea, and others have brought them up before. Here are some thoughts on the matter, not saying for or against, but things to consider.

When comparing missiles and PD, one thing to remember is that (at least in every game I've played) the PD cannons don't ever seem to "miss". It's only a question of whether they do enough damage to take out enough missiles.

This would lead me to think that maybe one way to augment things in the missile's favor, would be to allow for some higher tech missiles. Perhaps after you reach level 5 in CSM, the addition of ECM levels could allow for "smart missiles". Smart missiles would act like CSMs except that there would be significant "-to hit" percentages. Thus, the SCSM 1 would be a CSM 5 with a 20% defense bonus. The SCSM 2 would be a CSM 5 with a 40% defense bonus, etc.

Another thought would be to add "decoy missiles" as a tech, linked to missile technology, and again. maybe to ECM. To make them effective, they would need two things (potentially).

1) Better speed than the normal CSM of the same level. Maybe +1 across the board.

2) Either make them a smaller component, or increase the rate of fire.

Since they won't cause damage, you don't want them to cost as much resource and space wise, as a normal missile. Otherwise, why not just use more missiles? The reason for the greater speed is so that they will soak off the PDC fire BEFORE the real (warheaded) missiles come through the zone.

I think that either implementation would be a neat addition to the game, but it's not so critical that I'd ask Malfador to delay work on the AI in order to do it.

John

Taqwus · #3 December 11th, 2000, 07:07 PM

Hmmm. The latter (cheap, low/no-damage, small faster missiles) could be done now, methinks -- seeker speed is a field specified w/ the missile launcher. However, I don't recall seeing any example of a seeker with abilities such as a defense bonus, so the former might be impossible for now.

A pair ofdecoy-armed ships might perform well in conjunction with, say, a carrier loaded with twin-rocket-pod heavy fighters. Fighters can be much faster than missiles or any ship, can be launched en masse, and do up to 200 pts each...

------------------
-- The thing that goes bump in the night

James Sterrett · #4 December 11th, 2000, 07:18 PM

Arguably the balance is correct as it stands now.

When small numbers of CSMs are involved, then small numbers od PD will suffice to deal with the threat.

As the number of CSMs grows, the amount of PD needed to defeat them also grows.

The breakpoint at which the number of PDs is most effective is hard to judge. I suspect almost everyone will design ships with one or two PD just to be safe. However, this won't help when you're faced with a true massed wave of CSMs (a massed planetary defence launch, for example). When faced by this threat, you need much heavier point defence.

The downside of putting lots of PD on your ships is the loss of space available to everything else. You can get around PD with tactics - sometimes. We all know how to duck and weave and decoy around computer CSM weapon platforms. CSM ships can give you a lot of trouble if you haven't sufficient mass of PD.

PD is also useful against fighters, which increases the value of having them around. IMO, if the balance needed changing, I'd assume the decoys are already in the model and up the CSM warhead sizes by ?15%? and speeds by +1 instead, to make the CSM threat more deadly, forcing the defending player to make more difficult choices about the balance between offensive weapons and PD, and more difficult tactical choices on the duck/weave/decoy of CSMs at the edge of their range envelope.

Psitticine · #5 December 11th, 2000, 08:37 PM

I also think the balance is OK as it is but I've thought about adding small missiles tomy own Version. They'd do proportionately less damage for their size than their big brothers but you can put more of them into the air (err, the vaccuum) at once and have a much better chance of overwhelming PD.

Seawolf · #6 December 11th, 2000, 09:23 PM

Ok,

IMHO Decoy missiles would not be very useful. The reason is that then you get into the tech difference issue. Would a level 3 PD be fooled by a level 2 decoy? Also if you create smaller misslies to release more numbers why can't the PD shoot "weaker" shots more frequently? I see a cycle that really has impact on the basics of the game.

Also consider if missle smaller is should have a smaller engine which makes the missile moves slower. Giving the PD more time to shoot at it and washing out the benefit.

------------------
Seawolf on the prowl

Baron Munchausen · #7 December 11th, 2000, 09:47 PM

I use mounts for smaller seekers. Yes, mounts work for seekers!

You just have to install them. I have a "Reduced Seeker" mount that makes 1/2 size missile components firing 1/2 damage missiles. This is indeed useful for over-whelming enemy defenses. But, for all the ranting about the AI being stupid it's at least smart enough to use a mount whenever it can! It can be a real problem to wade through the clouds of WP fired missiles when you want to take out an AI defended planet. But, most will think that's a good thing.

Psitticine · #8 December 12th, 2000, 05:53 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Seawolf:
Also consider if missle smaller is should have a smaller engine which makes the missile moves slower. Giving the PD more time to shoot at it and washing out the benefit.

Hmm, if the rest of the missile is smaller too, a smaller engine would be balanced out by a smaller total mass!

Vilemare · #9 December 12th, 2000, 12:16 PM

Recap. Conclusion.

Current PD-saturation based missile envelope does not need decoys. Missile variant requiring combat support tech and having higher damage tolerance (high ECM) might be cool but not really needed. Smaller or larger missiles have the same feeling - it might be nice to have some, but are they really needed. A salvo of missiles is a saturation weapon anyway - quantity over quality in the SE4 universe.

Or so I gather ... thanks for the input.