Missiles
Missiles are projectiles containing both a propulsion system, a guidance system and some explosive materials. While they inflict quite a lot of damage, missiles are usually bulky, and they can be stopped using appropriate countermeasures.
Some missiles exist in different variants, depending on their guidance and propulsion systems. This is not the case for all missiles, as some of them really require advanced automation or powerful engines, while others are really too basic to be worth an upgrade.
The type of guidance system can be either automaton (A), which is the most basic, intelligent (I), where the missile uses artificial intelligence up to a “human” cognition level, or Hyperturing (H), where the missile is actually much more intelligent than you.
Propulsion systems for missiles include chemical propulsion (C), which is the most basic, ion drive (D) and graviton drive (G).
| Cluster missiles | A+C |
| Devastator missiles | A+C / A+D |
| Tactical nuclear missiles | A+C / A+D |
| Annihilator missiles | I+C / I+D |
| Anti-matter torpedoes | I+D / I+G |
| Quantum torpedoes | I+G / H+G |
| Subspace torpedoes | H+G |
Do you have other ideas of missiles?
Do you have other ideas of missile guidance systems? Do you have other ideas of missile propulsion systems?
Cyliis:
As you said, they are bulky. Do they take up hull space? And are these the only sort of weapons available?
February 17, 2008, 1:13 pmTSeeker:
@Cyliis,
1) Everything takes up hull space on a ship design.
2) Nope, there are 36 “standard” weapons divided between missile, beam weapons and mass drivers, plus a few special ones. These are only the normal missile types.
February 17, 2008, 1:19 pmCyliis:
ok, I understood that about that sort of hull space. I guess I was thinking of cargo space (as “hull space” is in Beta 5) when I said that.
Also, in the chart shown, what is the “D”? And the how are there two different sets of requirements for some missile types?
February 17, 2008, 2:11 pmTSeeker:
Haul space is something different, which is provided by “hangar bays” (yet another piece of ship).
Regarding the chart, that’s a bit of a mistake, “D” is for “ion Drive” (because it was confusing since I is also for “Intelligent”).
February 17, 2008, 2:14 pmBuiltom:
Ok, the Hull Space is how many extra things you can add to the ship without it breaking. Will there need to be specific areas added to modify how liberal the ships are with their ammo? Such as.. An ammo depository, where the ammo is stored. More of these, the more confident the gunners are and so they fire more: this doesn’t mean they hit any faster, just means they are unloading more ammo, and in the case of the second and third types of missiles, that should mean they are blowing more things up.
Also, will ammo/missiles require production seperatly from the ships/parts? So that ships don’t just get fitted with weapons, and suddenly find they have an unlimited amount of ammo. Would also add in another aspect: before you get some form of teleport technology and add it to your ships, you’ll have to return the fleet after every battle to maintain ammo levels. This could, of course, be done manually.. But would be more fun if they have to manually do it, so you can add the tactic of draining their ammo while they’re offline (causing yourself damage).
February 17, 2008, 2:23 pmTSeeker:
@Builtom
“Ok, the Hull Space is how many extra things you can add to the ship without it breaking.” -> Not just extra things. Engines and generators take space too. In addition, components use power so you need generators.
Ammo will not be accounted for, this would mean too much data for just that. “Missiles” actually stand for missile launchers, you don’t have to manage them.
February 17, 2008, 2:26 pmju:
Just consider we have replicators like in star trek :p And the ammo issue is solved :p
February 17, 2008, 2:29 pmLemorsa:
I have another idea. What about an I.P.B.M. (Inter Planetary Ballistic Missile). Basically, what it could be is a nuke that you can build to send at other planets close by, like within the same system. Then as research increases, you target specific things on the planets, such as military, population, and industrial. This could play into the good and bad factor as well. For example if you target civilian, its bad, but if you target military, its just a factor of war.
Also as research continues, and navigation increases, one could reach planets a little farther away.
To counteract these nukes, one could build interceptors, and as research continues and amount of interceptors increase, the chances of stopping a nuke increases. Maybe, at the top research of interceptors, one could even catch a nuke and send it back at the planet of which it came.
Just an idea that i think would add in an interesting factor.
February 17, 2008, 4:36 pmju:
This idea of IPBM is interesting but it needs more thinking.
February 17, 2008, 4:48 pmOne major drawback I see is that the defender might be completely helpless against it. Counter measures are never perfect and people usually don’t like having a weapon of mass destruction reaching their planets without knowing about it and without being able to do anything about it. Moreover defense has always been a huge balancing issue in Beta 5. We’re trying to think the design of Beta 6 so that defense becomes possible while still leaving a possibility for successful attacks. In such a context I’m not sure adding that type of overpowering weapon for attackers is a good idea.
It required to be carefully weighted in the Beta 6 context in order to assess what it could bring to game play and so on.
Builtom:
IPBM’s are a tricky subject. You don’t want it where you can kill a player with them, but you also don’t want them to be useless. It will require a fine balance.
Now, onto the actual IPBM’s. They are effectively giant missiles designed to carry a payload (Usually a Nuke) to another destination, then to collide with the target causing damage where it is needed. Whether this be attacks upon their military sectors to reduce their building abilities, the population upon the planet to.. kill the population, or just as a form of diversion.
IPBM’s, as I see them, would have to be a mix of the technology lines (So that one person couldn’t find it on their own. They could build the rocket but not the payload, for example) and would have a moderate cost. They would also probably require a specific building for either IPBM’s or interceptor missiles to try to hit the IPBM’s before they arrive. At a rough guess I’d say make 2-4 interceptor missiles per IPBM, space wise, inside the building (That is to say, interceptor missiles are smaller, they just need to hit the target. IPBM’s need to hit the target as well as blow it up).
Several stages to IPBM’s. I’ll give how I think it would work:
1. Build the Missile Silo
2. Build a blueprint of the rocket you want to send. This is much like making a blueprint for a ship, except this is for a rocket, so some of the pieces are different. The payload would be up to you: send a nuke for maximum damage, or send a poisonous gas to infect their watersupply, effectively stopping population growth for a time, lowering factory output, etc.
3. Wait for the missile(s) to finish building.
4. Select the target you want to send the missile towards. Beyond a certain distance the missile will require a hyperspace engine.
5. Launch the missile.
Once you pass stage 5, the attacker can do little to aid the missile now, it’s all up to the defender to determine what damage the missile will do. If you are the defender, the missile will have to pass several “zones” before hitting the planet. The further the missile gets, the different effects will happen.
1. Interceptor missiles with hyperdrives attempt to detonate the payload in hyperspace
2. Any fleet in orbit with point defense that is higher than the level of the IPBM will attempt to shoot it down. Larger ships have a higher chance.*
3. Interceptor missiles without hyperdrives attempt to detonate the payload before it reaches the atmosphere
4. The planetary defenses attempt to shoot the missile inside the atmosphere
5. The IPBM, if it survives, strikes the allocated target.
*Note: starbases in orbit around the planet with point defense will also participate in this.
February 17, 2008, 6:06 pmju:
While quite interesting and informative, I think one single issue is being left aside which is quite important from my point of view: the detection of the arriving missile. Without detection you can’t do much and we also have to think of this topic. How far can it be detected? With what kind of devices (buildings? sensors on space stations?)?
February 17, 2008, 6:11 pmBuiltom:
Ah yes.. Forgot to add that ^_^;
As I don’t have an in depth knowledge of how the map will look in B6, I will make a few assumptions.
The missiles in the planning stage can be given a jammer/cloak/something to hide them from sensors for a period of time. Effectively, what is added to the missile, and the technology on the planet, fleet above the planet, and planets around the target planet, will all effect when it is detected.
Also, you could add either an add-on to a starbase or make a sensors array a starbase, and this would attempt to detect missiles and fleets flying around in the surrounding area. Any jamming devices in those fleets/missiles would attempt to counter this, and would increase the time before being detected.
February 17, 2008, 6:16 pmBuiltom:
Just to add on to my last post, it would have a minimum time of 1-2? hours, below which it can’t be lowered as the missile will have to drop out of hyperspace to actually decend upon the planet, during which it can be spotted by telescopes/sensors/astronomers, etc.
February 17, 2008, 6:18 pmTSeeker:
That would actually be similar to detecting just about anything - we already have detection and cloaking technologies planned, why not use them for ICBMs as well? However, it seems important to me to mention that ICBMs should be relatively easy to detect as well - that is, easier than fleets heading for a system you own or passing by it.
February 17, 2008, 6:18 pmBuiltom:
Well i would assume the simplest way to limit how close they can get to a planet would be to limit what they can fit on the missile, have the initial missile able to hold a basic engine, small payload and that’s it. As larger missile types are discovered, they can add more. Also note, the payload will take up considerable space (To stop it blowing up on launch), and there will be different sized payloads. Of course, with the larger missiles, you’ll want to get your moneys worth, and you’ll be caught in a difficult situation:
Get a large payload, increasing the damage (And with the large ones, alot of damage) while sacrificing detection time/speed, or go faster, undetected for longer, but deliver a smaller blow?
Add to that that the missiles could get quite costly, and that they’re one use items, and it wouldn’t, most likely, end up being a rarely used, but effective, weapon that could be used alongside a fleet attack to break a tough-nut. Then again, it may just waste your resources, get your fleet killed and just make them smile.
It’d be a double-edged sword.
February 17, 2008, 6:33 pmLemorsa:
So realistically, they would provide a powerful hit, if of course it hits. With the increase of radar and interceptors through research, even hitting the planet would be tough enough. Not only that, but it could take about the same amount of research to even develop the IPBM as it would to develop a respectable interceptor. It would really equal each other out.
All together, it would create a whole new aspect to battles within the same system or nearby systems, other than just sending your fleets at one another’s.
I wouldn’t think that these could be sent through out all of space, simply because as distance continues, control would decrease. The reason you don’t have trouble with ships, is simply because you actually have men inside those ships controlling them. Unless, of course there was a way for a man to be inside the nuke piloting it for a huge decrease in moral stature.
February 17, 2008, 6:45 pmTSeeker:
So far I love the whole idea, details will need to be figured out later against the rest of the game’s rules, but yeah… Beta 6 will have IPBMs :p
February 17, 2008, 6:49 pmBuiltom:
In response to the not able to be sent everywhere, the way I was thinking it would be you target it, give it the coordinates to land, what to target, fire, and then all you can do is watch. Control wouldn’t be a factor. Although, the further away it is, the lower the chance you’ll get a report saying whether it suceeded or not. In other words, further away it is from a fleet you/your allies control/planet you/your allies control the lower the chance of getting confirmation about what stage it blew up in. If it arrived while there was a fight going on over the planet, if a fleet controlled by your allies/you/your alliance is nearby/in the fight, you’ll have a pretty high change of finding out what happened to your IPBM. Alternatively, you could just send a probe/scout/spy after the missile, to follow it and report back on its results.
February 17, 2008, 8:05 pmLemorsa:
I’m not sure, because if you think about it, realistically, we can very precisely guide our missiles as we are in this day of age, now. For them to be in a futuristic world, i would think that it could be guided at least to an extent, depending on how far the signal could be carried. So maybe, It could be guided within close range, but the farther away the target, the less control you have over it. Maybe after a certain point, they can’t be controlled, Unless they have a sentient life form within them. Fuel for the missile would also have to play a factor as to how far they could be launched.
February 17, 2008, 11:48 pmRendesh:
I know its not directly related to missle but will there be the possibility of setting up minefields in the game, and having a layer of mines which can be positioned on an unoccupied space to hinder anyone who wants to say sit out in a nebula.
February 17, 2008, 11:59 pmLemorsa:
Or simply around your planet… that would be interesting… it could create a better chance for loss of your own ships around that planet as well.
February 18, 2008, 5:21 amCyliis:
I love the idea of IPBMs, but the idea does need to be further refined, especially concerning detection and response to it.
What I’ve read so far from the given ideas implies that at different ranges you can intercept the IPBM. The problem is is what if the missile was launched from the planet right next door? In B5, this time travel is only 12 minutes. What sort of response does this allow for? These missiles definitely need to be looked at in terms of restricting their power, or at least making them extremely expensive.
February 18, 2008, 5:54 amCyliis:
Also, regarding Rendesh’s comment about minefields, I do believe that it would be intelligent, though I believe a chance to injure your own fleets on your own minefield should be possible. Otherwise, you would find people just mass producing them all throughout space where ever they go (if it were possible). I know setting up minefields on nearby nebulas is something that I would do if I had the opportunity.
February 18, 2008, 5:56 amju:
IPBM -> idea to be further refined but OK.
My last “restriction” might be that it might not be so useful if we consider empire sizes. When the IPBM technology gets available we might already be in a setting where only a few players occupy a layer and there are high chances they will belong to the same alliance, for safety reasons. If the weapon can only travel on the same layer it is useless since they won’t attack their buddies nor get rid of enemies who might have taken one of their planets with that kind of stuff.
Mine fields -> something already being thought about in beta 6 context, as planetary defenses produced by orbiting space stations along with decoys.
February 18, 2008, 9:38 amLemorsa:
IPBM ->
ju has a good point, although, will it really be that easy to hold a whole galaxy, especially with all the wars going on? I just worry that if a whole galaxy does get taken over by an alliance, that one galaxy could just build a ton of IPBM’s and just shoot them at another galaxy. I think that limiting their distance also limits their power, making them not such an annihilating weapon, but one still of good use.
Also, about the research of them, maybe they shouldn’t be so far down the chain of studies. If you think about it, they are kind of a basic weapon, even in todays world. I would still keep them rather expensive though.
February 18, 2008, 5:11 pmCyliis:
Well, when we’re looking at layers, from what I understand we’re not talking about galaxies, but rather star clusters within a galaxy. Also, IPBMs wouldn’t necessarily have to be able to shoot through supergates. Maybe the only way to use them against another layer would be to use the drilling technology that ju mentioned in one of her responses in “A reshaped universe”. This way, while the missiles could be highly effective within a layer, it would require very high cost and technology level to use them against another layer. A tactic that could be used when attacking a neighboring layer is to take the first few planets around a supergate within the enemy’s layer, build IPBM silos, and then to use the planets as strike centers on the enemy’s planets.
February 18, 2008, 5:42 pmLemorsa:
thats kinda what I’m thinking, plus, realistically, it would be too dangerous to send an IPBM through a super gate itself…
February 18, 2008, 5:55 pmju:
The thing is, space drilling technologies implies… creating a black hole which eats up a whole system in the source layer to generate enough energy to send fleets to the other layer. You won’t do that to send a missile through…
February 18, 2008, 9:33 pmwiles9:
I like the idea of IPBM, its realistic, as wars develop, less troops get involved. So why not on a grand scale in the future??
I agree with ” It’d be a double-edged sword. ” I think that once the missile is sent, nothing can be done. Its locked on and WILL reach the target if not intercepted.
Technologies to stop this should exist as they already do. But they are expensive to run, as are missiles expensive to build.
if I am being defensive, i run lots of missile defenses everywhere, i suffer cause i dont make much money. Hence open myself to fleet attacks. You see where that leads. Its a balance for the player to decide..
If in attacking mind, I build lots of missiles, and they all fail.. im screwed after spending all my money on it. Or I get lucky, and I strike cause the fool didnt have ANY missile defenses muhahaa, then its worth the money.
If all players develop at the same level this is good. But if a player is new, then we come to a problem. Only way I can see this being fixed is if they join alliances, and ask for missile defenses to be built for them. But this requires players to get involved and be active. Sometimes this doesnt happen… then people complain they get bashed.
My two cents. Just more ideas to add to the pile. No major solutions though sorry ^^
March 13, 2008, 12:30 pmTSeeker:
@Wiles
March 13, 2008, 12:48 pmRegarding development levels, the possibility of attacking weaker, defenseless players with IPBMs is severely limited by two things: the fact that it’s impossible to send IPBMs to different layers (hence their usefulness being mostly limited to “killing the bastard who’s just started invading the layer”) and the fact that protection zones should segregate players with similar abilities together. When protection finally drops, most relatively active players (i.e. guys who play for, say, 30 minutes a day) should have at least basic protection against IPBMs (if they worked on it a bit, anyways).
wiles9:
cool thanks, i get ya now. I should have remembered about the protection
March 13, 2008, 12:58 pmYuckwitte:
Just a comment on real life missile defence systems… They don’t work!
/me looks at the billions of dollars the USA has spent trying to create one that works…
I mean, when creating these technologies/facilities, it might be more realistic (However, not nessiserily better) to delay them for a bit, so that people have had IPBMs for a while before anything is proven to work against them
May 7, 2008, 6:58 amYuckwitte:
Oh, and I like the reference to Hyperturing (Being greater then that of Alan Turing’s defintion of intelligent…)
May 7, 2008, 7:00 amYuckwitte:
(or so I think… I dont really know :P)
May 7, 2008, 7:51 amTSeeker:
@Yuckwitte,
May 7, 2008, 7:58 amI believe that, as soon as an empire starts working on the weapon and sees their prototype’s results, they’ll go “Ack! We need to protect ourselves against this in case the neighbour gets it!”. So yeah, you would definitely get a very basic version of the weapon itself before getting something to protect you specifically from it, although some of your existing technologies might be enough to stop it anyways.
Yuckwitte:
The main point I was getting at was: It doesnt matter if they go “Ack! We need to protect ourselves” the technology never works and should be delayed past (and a considerable amount) the tech level of the agressive technology. I mean, Anti Missile Systems dont work nowadays but maybe after a considerable amount of time has past, why should they work sooner, later
May 7, 2008, 8:10 am