Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 4.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Missile overhaul: gauge, stronger missiles, penetrators
Yesterday, 04:18 PM
Post: #141
RE: Missile overhaul: gauge, stronger missiles, penetrators
Draba?

A suggestion about missiles and decoys, I don't know if its possible, but if you could do so it would be awesome,
make Large missiles be less affected to decoys than small ones are (mainly because planes)
As I noticed then testing large and medium missiles against the SS raptor, that its decoys completely threw of the aim of the large missiles, and the M missiles still being able to hit because superior maneuverability,
It would make sense that a big missile can have enough electronics to make it harder to confuse or Jam, so if its possible I think it would be a nice addition

There is always a weak-spot if you search Hard enough.

If you fire enough AP at that shield, at some point you're going to come through.

There is no "best" I wouldn't even say there is anything universally good, Good is subjective, I find everything bad even if it's in theory good against this or that.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Yesterday, 04:51 PM
Post: #142
RE: Missile overhaul: gauge, stronger missiles, penetrators
(Yesterday 04:18 PM)Skyer Wrote:  Draba?

A suggestion about missiles and decoys, I don't know if its possible, but if you could do so it would be awesome,
make Large missiles be less affected to decoys than small ones are (mainly because planes)
As I noticed then testing large and medium missiles against the SS raptor, that its decoys completely threw of the aim of the large missiles, and the M missiles still being able to hit because superior maneuverability,
It would make sense that a big missile can have enough electronics to make it harder to confuse or Jam, so if its possible I think it would be a nice addition

Very good idea.

In addition, a new component could be added to reduce the chances to be affected by radar or sonar buoys.
After all, there's already one such component against the flares.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Yesterday, 07:53 PM (This post was last modified: Yesterday 07:58 PM by draba.)
Post: #143
RE: Missile overhaul: gauge, stronger missiles, penetrators
What about this system for countermeasures:
  • Sonar/radar buoys and flares on the same missile stack, S/M/L are progressively stronger(distance also matters)
  • IR/radar/sonar missiles can change targets on each relock tick, but only towards a stronger signature within their field of detection
  • Universal component: target analyzer. It reduces countermeasure signature by a constant multiplier(maybe 5x).
  • Analyzer also sets a threshold below which missile will completely ignore the countermeasure(progressively higher for S/M/L)
  • Analyzer has CoM/random block options(adding new components is too much of a hassle, but there could be specific ones for all 3 relevant types)
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Yesterday, 08:22 PM
Post: #144
RE: Missile overhaul: gauge, stronger missiles, penetrators
(Yesterday 07:53 PM)draba Wrote:  What about this system for countermeasures:
  • Sonar/radar buoys and flares on the same missile stack, S/M/L are progressively stronger(distance also matters)
That sounds good.
Initially I thought about making it increase more and more with each new component, in order to give the incentive to use several of them (but less payload...). But I'm not sure if it's good or not.


(Yesterday 07:53 PM)draba Wrote:  
  • IR/radar/sonar missiles can change targets on each relock tick, but only towards a stronger signature within their field of detection
I like it.
How often are the relock ticks? I think that there's no need to do it more than once a second.
And I advise to use a threshold about the strength of the signature, so it would need a signature of at least Strength * MinCoef in order to change target.


(Yesterday 07:53 PM)draba Wrote:  
  • Universal component: target analyzer. It reduces countermeasure signature by a constant multiplier(maybe 5x).
  • Analyzer also sets a threshold below which missile will completely ignore the countermeasure(progressively higher for S/M/L)
I'm not sure I understand well here.
Do you mean that with enough target analyzers it will ignore any countermeasure, even with 20 flares stacked?
If it's that, I don't think it's a good idea.


(Yesterday 07:53 PM)draba Wrote:  
  • Analyzer has CoM/random block options(adding new components is too much of a hassle, but there could be specific ones for all 3 relevant types)
That's a good idea.

And about the fact that it's not that simple to add a new component, I understand perfectly that you will not add any.
But if you do it once, that's the same as doing it 10 times (minus a few copy/paste/bugs of course...).



To that list, I'd add something else, a way for a missile to attract missiles / LAMS / CIWS.
Basically, it's an anti-flare.
Think about it as a Electronic Warfare component that emits a lot of electronic noise in order to be seen from the moon, so that all radars will lock on it and ignore the nearby missiles.
So, if you have a few of them, with only bodies and EW components, no payload; then you will greatly increase the chances of the other missiles (with payloads) to hit.

Note that may be possible to do it without a specific component.
If placing an anti-radar component on all the missiles with payload and none on the bodies-only missiles works the same, then don't bother creating a new component, it would be useless.
It's just that I like the idea of having a few missiles 'protecting' the others (maybe I read too much Honor Harrington books... Wink).
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Yesterday, 09:14 PM (This post was last modified: Today 09:47 AM by draba.)
Post: #145
RE: Missile overhaul: gauge, stronger missiles, penetrators
(Yesterday 08:22 PM)Gladyon Wrote:  And about the fact that it's not that simple to add a new component, I understand perfectly that you will not add any.
But if you do it once, that's the same as doing it 10 times (minus a few copy/paste/bugs of course...).

Every new component I add is an old one repurposed(cable drum => penetrator, regulator => remote guidance).
Some of the stuff is hardcoded pretty deep, didn't have the patience to dig it out so just doing the easy parts for now Smile

(Yesterday 08:22 PM)Gladyon Wrote:  To that list, I'd add something else, a way for a missile to attract missiles / LAMS / CIWS.
Basically, it's an anti-flare.

That's doable, but getting creative with those would dick over CIWS targeting something fierce. It's already a nightmare keeping them focused Smile
Also: as you already mentioned, for the initial cost of a launchpad you can get 3 gantries.
You'd almost always be better off with some extra bodies to increase the durability of your actual missiles, +maybe a fin or warhead.


Edit, missed this one:
(Yesterday 08:22 PM)Gladyon Wrote:  
(Yesterday 07:53 PM)draba Wrote:  
  • Universal component: target analyzer. It reduces countermeasure signature by a constant multiplier(maybe 5x).
  • Analyzer also sets a threshold below which missile will completely ignore the countermeasure(progressively higher for S/M/L)
I'm not sure I understand well here.
Do you mean that with enough target analyzers it will ignore any countermeasure, even with 20 flares stacked?
If it's that, I don't think it's a good idea.

Analyzers would be limited to 1/missile, just a repurposed IR camera. Threshold is just there to give a boost to larger missiles(to justify spending an L component on it).
Plan is giving spammed S a higher total output for the same cost, but M can ignore the weaker ones and L all of them.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: IonShield, 3 Guest(s)