Missiles

Talk and Learn about the military aspects of the game.

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22083
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Post by Balthagor »

Well, a "MIRVed missile" just means a larger "Ground Attack" range would be the right deffinition. Also, the Peacemaker is an ICBM unit, not a missile unit. The trident will have a version in each list. The ICBM version for silo launch and the missile version for SSBNs. So let's just stick with the missile units for now. I'll get to the ICBMs when we get them working. Are there any other missile units that should be MIRVed other than the ICBMs?
Juergen
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 709
Joined: Jul 05 2002

Post by Juergen »

"Are there any other missile units that should be MIRVed other than the ICBMs"

All SLBMs.

The SS-N-20 Sturgeon and the SS-N-23 Skiff for example are MIRVed,so they too like the Trident should have a larger Ground Attack Range.
SLBMs are not much different from ICBM,they only happen to be launched from a submarine.
------------------------------------------
And while Im talking about SLBMs these ones are quite important in RL and should be included:

France
M-4/M45
M-5/M51

-------------------------------------------
Im not sure in how far this is interface or game mechanics related problem but...

By reading the manual (and assuming its up to date) and having noticed nothing proving the opposite I noticed that the game (at least the interface)still treats ICBMs and SLBMs (along with the other missiles) differently.

At the very least ICBMs and SLBMs have a different launch screen.
Is this correct?

But basically there is no difference between ICBMs and SLBMs (the other is named "missile" the other "balistic missile")
in terms of gameplay expect the launcher ,right?
So why not put them into the same launch screen,it would make everything easier,as I have mentioned before these missiles do have the same kind of purpose and about the same capabilities.
--------------------------------------------
And now for an easier question:
What is this "Launch Code" the manual keeps talking about :grin:?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Juergen on 2003-12-19 07:28 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Juergen on 2003-12-19 07:29 ]</font>
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22083
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Post by Balthagor »

I think we are now dealing with all of these missiles the same. It's all a matter of how they launch. Either from a unit or a silo. If it's MIRVed, we'll be sure that it is reflected in the area of effect. If the missile can be launched both ways, then we put an entry in each list. I'll update the missiles you mention, thanks.

As for the launch code panel, that one's gonna stay a secret a little while longer. Gotta have something to bring you back for the open beta :wink:
User avatar
George Geczy
General
Posts: 2688
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Location: BattleGoat Studios
Contact:

Post by George Geczy »

In the end there may actually be some game-engine issues that require sub-launched and land-launched ballistic missiles to be treated differently. The SLBM should use the same interface as the Silo's do, but this is just not possible due to the game design and the fact that one is launched from a unit while the other one isn't; it means that SLBM's may end up being treated as 'Tactical Missiles' (build in the same queue as Tomahawks, Exocets etc).

It wouldn't effect their range or damage etc, it would just effect how they are built, deployed and launched. Not a perfect solution, but one that would work for most cases.

-- George.
Juergen
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 709
Joined: Jul 05 2002

Post by Juergen »

Oh well,its hard to get a perfect solution for anything.

But as you just said,as long as ICBMs and SLBMs are treated alike in terms of range, damage,speed and other combat statistics it wont be that bad.
Unless Im mistaken it would even be still allowed to "macro manage" them like the ICBMs,right?

However I do find it important to point out that the World Market and other consequences (like "Domestic Approval") should take into account that an attack with an SLBMs is still in any regard a "strategical" attack eventhough the missile may be officially "tactical".
The consequences for using an ICBM or SLBM must be the same or there will likely be an abuse since launching a certain kind of missile isnt "punished" so hard while still giving you the same firepower.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Juergen on 2003-12-20 05:08 ]</font>
User avatar
George Geczy
General
Posts: 2688
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Location: BattleGoat Studios
Contact:

Post by George Geczy »

However I do find it important to point out that the World Market and other consequences (like "Domestic Approval") should take into account that an attack with an SLBMs is still in any regard a "strategical" attack eventhough the missile may be officially "tactical".
The consequences for using an ICBM or SLBM must be the same or there will likely be an abuse since launching a certain kind of missile isnt "punished" so hard while still giving you the same firepower.
Good point - the intention is to have the same effects all around, including the consequences.

Which of course raises the question, "should a low-yield ICBM result in the same consequences as a similar-yield tactical battlefield weapon"? I guess the point of using an ICBM is to try to maximize your possible yield, otherwise you'd use a Tomahawk or whatever; but this isn't a hard-and-fast rule. I would think that the consequences are most heavily based on how big the nuke is and what you target (civilian versus military), regardless of launch method.

-- George.
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22083
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Post by Balthagor »

On a different missile topic, how many Anti Ship missiles should it take to sink different sizes of ships?

Patrol (think Russain Osa Class)
Frigate (O.H. Perry Class)
Destroyer (Arleigh Burke)
Carrier (Enterprise)

Now I know people are going to talk about some of these ships being able to shoot down the missiles, but at the moment that's not what I'm trying to balance. When they DO get through and manage to hit the ship, how many are needed for the kill?
Juergen
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 709
Joined: Jul 05 2002

Post by Juergen »

I think simulations try their best to reflect reality so I took the sub simulation "Sub Command" as reference.

A patrol boat (I have tried Osa and Nanuchka)
seems to be fragile and only 1 Harpoon missile is needed to sink it.

A frigate (exactly the one you suggested) needs roughly 4 Harpoons or 2 TASMs (Tomahawk ship attack missile) to be destroyed.

The Arleigh Burke seemed to take as much missiles as the frigate,so also 4 Harpoons or 2 TASMs.
This is a bit strange since this ship has about twice the displacement as the Perry Class.

The carrier (Nimitz) sank after I put 3 TASMs or 6 Harpoons into the hull.
Juergen
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 709
Joined: Jul 05 2002

Post by Juergen »

Next set of estimates:
Source: "Harpoon"

"Harpoon" agrees with "Sub Command" when it commes to patrol craft like the Osa: they cant take the heat,any anti-ship missile will sink them.

The values for the frigate OH Perry are also roughly the same: 3 Harpoons (max 4) or 2 TASMs (altough the ship would be 90% damaged and on fire after one hit).

"Harpoon" seems to disagree with the sub simualtion when it comes to the "Arleigh Burke".
According to this game system the ship can take as much as 5 Harpoons or 3 TASMs.

And now comes the carrier...this game vastly disagrees with "Sub Command".
A carrier can take 30 Harpoon missiles or 15 TASMs.
Juergen
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 709
Joined: Jul 05 2002

Post by Juergen »

Quite a revival but I found this post in the LOS thread and I consider it quite a change.

" If you're talking long ranges, you likely are using ICBMs which are not going to be shown on the map in flight, only in the last 2-3 hex of the target to simulate the ballistic nature of them"

So the latest plan is to let all balistic missiles (SLBMs,IRBMs,Scuds) "dissapear" for a while and only when the missile are close to their target.

I have been thinking about that...and there could be a problem.
In RL balstic missiles are quite visble on the radar since they are flying quite high.
But in SR 2010 this would no longer be the case if they are temporarily removed from the map.

Unless you are constantly watching your enemy his missiles might suddenly be knocking at your door,with hardly a warning.
ardem
Lieutenant
Posts: 52
Joined: Jan 21 2004
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by ardem »

Talking about ships and missles, the best analysis we got is on a single exocet missile that struck the british ships. Here are some news footage.

-----------------

HMS Coventry managed to destroy two Argentine Skyhawk planes with Sea Dart missiles. Another wave of Skyhawks hit her four times with 1,000 bombs. She capsized, losing 21 of her crew.

An explosion and a fireball swept through the operations room. The ship listed to port and the crew and wounded made their way to the upper decks from where they were rescued.


--------------------------


It is thought the Atlantic Conveyor, owned by Cunard, was mistaken for the aircraft carrier HMS Hermes.

She was attacked by two Super Etendards which fired French-built Exocets like the ones that sunk the Coventry's sister ship HMS Sheffield on 4 May.

Two Exocets were fired at the Atlantic Conveyor. Only one struck home but it was enough to damage the ship seriously.

----------------------------

The British ship HMS Sheffield has been hit by an Argentine missile fired from a fighter bomber.

The ship caught fire when a French-made Exocet missile penetrated deep into HMS Sheffield's control room. The blaze caused a poisonous smoke and most of the crew abandoned ship.

----------------------------

As you can see one one missile if not clearly destroying the ship enough to render it useless to continue fighting.

I think the only ships capable of more then one missilse would be heavy cruisers and aircraft carriers that make take 2-3 but I would say thats about it.
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22083
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Post by Balthagor »

One problem to that type of thing is that it could easily make navies in the game useless. you can produce SO many antiship missiles so quickly and boats take so long, no one would ever have a navy. Also, some of the "hits" can be considered to be taking out systems on the ship since at 60% health, it fires at 60% strength. We've done a lot of balancing already and will probably do a lot more.

Feel free to document some controlled tests; 3 missiles against various ships, against AA ships, against cargo ships...

Be sure to make note of the ship you fired on before too many missiles hit ;) Let us know how it's working...
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
ardem
Lieutenant
Posts: 52
Joined: Jan 21 2004
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by ardem »

Yeah I understand that but was just giving real life accounts, but the argentines had to fire a fair few missiles till it hit its target. There was a lot of unsuccessful engagements.
Post Reply

Return to “Military - Defense and Operations Departments”