Missile Costing - An ammendment needed?
- Lord_Montague
- Posts: 913
- Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:39 pm
Missile Costing - An ammendment needed?
Only just read the new costing of cruise missiles. I have no problems with costing cruise missiles in the form of the Tomahawk etc but the way the costing is set out I have problems with and think it should be changed. Supersonic long range cruise missiles are a rarity and I'd have them higher than their current rating. Harpoon missiles are the staple weapon of many navies though and I don't think they should be costed at all honestly. It needs a rethink I reckon.
In Battle; Unbeatable.
In Victory; Unbearable.
In Victory; Unbearable.
-
- Posts: 5024
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:34 pm
- Location: Novatainia
- Contact:
Re: A Brief History of Anunia ... and a new direction
Well I went with what was discussed and my limited knowledge of them from Wikipedia. You're welcome to propose an alteration.
Andreas
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
-
- Posts: 482
- Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 10:44 pm
Re: A Brief History of Anunia ... and a new direction
The cost of cruise missiles is definitely considerable, I'm not sure what you talking about; one costs fewer than 1 Million dollars in real life, so their price in points is relative.
-
- Posts: 5024
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:34 pm
- Location: Novatainia
- Contact:
Re: A Brief History of Anunia ... and a new direction
Their price in points is entirely relative to their strength, not to their cost in real life. The way these missiles are used, they kill at least 6 soldiers. So units start with a complement included in their points already, and then cost extra ones separately.
Eg An ICBM sub would start with 15 ICBMs, and would be able to to, at an increase of only 150 points, double that complement. 30 ICBMs should be enough for anyone ...
People would already add a hundred or the like to their cost to represent more missiles. This just quantifies it clearly. It may be the exact numbers need to be played around with a little more (perhaps troops get 10% of their points in missiles) but I think the principle is sound.
If costing missiles sounds odd, then tell me - in a single attack, what does more damage? A helicopter, or 10 ICBMs?
Eg An ICBM sub would start with 15 ICBMs, and would be able to to, at an increase of only 150 points, double that complement. 30 ICBMs should be enough for anyone ...
People would already add a hundred or the like to their cost to represent more missiles. This just quantifies it clearly. It may be the exact numbers need to be played around with a little more (perhaps troops get 10% of their points in missiles) but I think the principle is sound.
If costing missiles sounds odd, then tell me - in a single attack, what does more damage? A helicopter, or 10 ICBMs?
Andreas
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
- chrimigules
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:04 am
Re: A Brief History of Anunia ... and a new direction
I think you mean cruise missile rather than ICBM. We shouldn't have ICBMs being used at all, frankly.
Also, a helicopter actually has quite a variable damage capacity depending on what it's loaded with. It could have missile racks. It could have torpedoes. It can carry troops. It can extend a unit's viewing radius. It's refuelable, repairable, reusable.
A cruise missile has only one ability, and it is single use.
Question: What about variable-use missiles, like the Standard Missile? It's designed and typically used as a defensive missile, but it has been successfully tested as an anti-ship missile as well. I suppose just about any defensive missile could be made into an offensive one, just by pointing it in the right direction.
Also, a helicopter actually has quite a variable damage capacity depending on what it's loaded with. It could have missile racks. It could have torpedoes. It can carry troops. It can extend a unit's viewing radius. It's refuelable, repairable, reusable.
A cruise missile has only one ability, and it is single use.
Question: What about variable-use missiles, like the Standard Missile? It's designed and typically used as a defensive missile, but it has been successfully tested as an anti-ship missile as well. I suppose just about any defensive missile could be made into an offensive one, just by pointing it in the right direction.
Коля лает «гав-гав».
-
- Posts: 5024
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:34 pm
- Location: Novatainia
- Contact:
Re: A Brief History of Anunia ... and a new direction
The point is, missiles capable of doing a large amount of damage should be costed separately to the units themselves. It's like, as you were saying in the war, Chrimigules, people need to keep track of how many missiles they have. This clearly enforces it.
For multi-use ... I think recwar would be so much easier if people just used units for their standard uses ... but if other people have different opinions, feel free to discuss it further.
For multi-use ... I think recwar would be so much easier if people just used units for their standard uses ... but if other people have different opinions, feel free to discuss it further.
Andreas
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
- Lord_Montague
- Posts: 913
- Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:39 pm
Re: A Brief History of Anunia ... and a new direction
In regards to multi-use, I think we've discussed this sort of thing before i.e AA guns being used against an infantry attack. Personally I think it should be at the judge's discretion if a complaint is made. If not, carry on as normal.
As for the 10% thing Andreas suggested, the troops will need a firing system too which should account for a large amount of cost also. Under the list, it would probably fall under armoured artillery if self propelled but the missile and launcher would cost considerably more than standard armoured artillery.
As for the 10% thing Andreas suggested, the troops will need a firing system too which should account for a large amount of cost also. Under the list, it would probably fall under armoured artillery if self propelled but the missile and launcher would cost considerably more than standard armoured artillery.
In Battle; Unbeatable.
In Victory; Unbearable.
In Victory; Unbearable.
- chrimigules
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:04 am
Re: A Brief History of Anunia ... and a new direction
Multi-use, just use the standard use? There are plenty of things that are designed for multiple uses. There is no standard use. For utility helicopters, they are designed to do multiple things. That's why they're called utility helicopters. They have utility. As for missiles, the Standard Missile, the original ones, were designed for defense purposes only, but they are very usable as offensive weapons. It's like in WWII, the German FlaK guns were very good anti-tank guns. What you're proposing, essentially, is that we ignore utility and just use the original purpose for everything. Can soldiers use their rifles for clubs? Or do they need a separate weapon for that?
My complaint about missiles was based solely on Montague's OrBat not listing any support ships. If anything, we should be required to include support units or assume they don't exist.
In addition, reloading and refueling from support ships should require a naval unit to stop and dedicate itself to underway replenishment, and that action should be disruptable by hit-and-run attacks forcing that unit into a defensive rather than a replenishing stance.
That was my complaint. I was complaining that Montague was using more missiles without specifically posting that he had his missile tubes reloaded, and without mentioning any mechanism for that reloading. NOT that missiles should be counted. If we go along that logic, we might as well start counting guns and bullets.
My complaint about missiles was based solely on Montague's OrBat not listing any support ships. If anything, we should be required to include support units or assume they don't exist.
In addition, reloading and refueling from support ships should require a naval unit to stop and dedicate itself to underway replenishment, and that action should be disruptable by hit-and-run attacks forcing that unit into a defensive rather than a replenishing stance.
That was my complaint. I was complaining that Montague was using more missiles without specifically posting that he had his missile tubes reloaded, and without mentioning any mechanism for that reloading. NOT that missiles should be counted. If we go along that logic, we might as well start counting guns and bullets.
Коля лает «гав-гав».
-
- Posts: 5024
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:34 pm
- Location: Novatainia
- Contact:
Re: A Brief History of Anunia ... and a new direction
*sigh* This is starting to sound like the original discussion repeating itself ...
EDIT: Ok, proper response.
The reasons that motivated me to put the missile costing in as it currently is in the charter are as follows:
Cruise Missiles (and remember its only cruise missiles costed in the charter) represent considerable strength. A cruise missile is much stronger and does a lot more damage than a single bullet, or a bomb, or the like. When you fire a couple missiles at an army, if you expect your opponents to recognise it as doing much damage you need to appropriately cost them. When someone fires a bullet, they don't expect it to kill more than a single person (if they're lucky - I'm sure the ratios of bullets that actually kill people to total number fired is very small). When someone fires an anti-tank missile, they don't expect it to kill more than a single tank (again, if they're lucky and it hits). But if you fire a cruise missile at a ground force, for example, you'd expect it to have a better than 50% chance of hitting, and doing 80-100 points of damage.
Eg. Near the end of the last war Extreme fired 30 missiles at Prodigy in Nova Kajar. Even with some being shot down, he expected damage of 20% of total troops. Prodigy had ~13000 troops there. On average, that means 87 points of damage per missile (and, of course, some didn't hit so the actual damage per missile that hit was probably 100 points). All those missiles were fired off one 1000/1200 submarine. A 1000/1200 point unit doing 2600 points of damage, then. If you're expecting one of those missiles to do 100 points of damage, costing it at 6 or 10 seems most reasonable.
The one time a nuclear missile has been costed in a recwar (a nuclear missile such as the one dropped on Hiroshima) it was costed at ~25 000 points. Considering that, 10 for a cruise missile seems rather small. It basically recognises that a cruise missile is a mini-unit in itself and requires it to be costed as such. One use, but maybe 100 points damage with that one use ... So that's why cruise missiles are costed and not bullets or bombs.
The second issue was the sheer number of missiles fired. A 1600 point submarine firing ... I think it was 160 missiles. And that was without restocking. Since the submarine can also defend itself with conventional weapons etc, something's wrong with that sort of capability. Consider it instead a 1100 point submarine (5 missiles included) with a further 500 points of missiles, for a total of 55 long range missiles. That sounds far more reasonable. [Yes, ICBM subs should probably be reduced in points cost now the points no longer need to take into account the missiles they launch].
Now, I'll admit I used wikipedia heavily, and might have got the numbers and names wrong. Perhaps it's missiles over a certain range (like, say, over 100 km) that should be costed, and under that range they should be free. Perhaps long range missile costs should be lower than 10, or short range costs lower than 6. Perhaps the allocation included in the unit's base cost should be increased (5% was a rather arbitary formula - alternatively, reduce the cost of all missile capable units to not include some of the cost of missiles as they originally did). In short, playing with the numbers might be needed. I'm quite happy for someone who knows more about this than I to do that. But I think the basic principle of costing these powerful missiles is sound.
Chrimigules, I'm loathe to go down the path of detailed supply chains because Anunia was originally designed to be simple + extensions for those interested (not difficulty forced on everyone), and forcing everyone to account for their supply chains, even if just at first for missiles, sounds far too complicated. So I went for the alternative path of costing major missiles. I think, with the strength difference, I've sufficiently established why this path won't need to also lead to bullets and bombs being costed.
But the alternative of a generic "resupply" could work. We already have planes need to be near bases, to go back to and resupply. Forcing ships to declare their number of cruise missiles in the orbat, and then needing them to resupply (either at one of their nation's ports or via a non-costed supply ship - since that section was added to the charter - that they merely have to explain moving from a home port to the navy) could work. But I still think their needs to be some costing for these powerful missiles, even if its less than I've put in.
For those unhappy with costing missiles at all, are you happy with this scenario which would have been perfectly legal in the Jasonian War but is now impossible. A Tokian starts in Hamuji with a fleet of 15 ICBM capable submarines, that then deploy into the Sea of Hamuji (the inland sea in the middle of Toketi). In their national defence Tokians have the entire river leading to that sea (at least, all the bits under their control) mined heavily, so ships can't get to them. If planes attempt to attack them, they merely go to the bottom of the inland sea. And every turn that's not a danger, they fire a barrage of long range cruise missiles (shall we say 16 each, so 240 a day) at different cities on Micras, and then go back to Hamuji and resupply the next day, and repeat that. Personally, I think that that is dodgy, a total misuse of missiles and shouldn't be possible. But under the charter before costing missiles (or even with a one day enforced ressuply action), that is entirely plausible. If, instead, you forced them to cost missiles, they might instead have 10 ICBM capable subs, and ... well, even costing them they could still have 900 long range missiles (perhaps the cost should be increased?) but that at least would only last them a week, and not be possible to do such a barrage every day (or every second day) of the war.
As a minor point, individual cruise missiles cost between 500 000 to over a million $ for a single one. While Anunia worries about strength, not cost, those interested in a greater degree of realism should appreciate some limit being placed on this matter and not assuming nations have an unlimited pocket.
Unrelated to missiles - on the topic of multiuse in general, dedicated multi-use is fine. I just have problems with people using units in ways that aren't at all standard or obvious, because that's an advantage they only have because they have considerable military knowledge, and discriminates against the average recwarrer. And Anunia is trying to cater for average recwarrers. So an attack helicopter being used to transport small amounts of troops or scout, sure, that's fairly obvious. A dedicated defensive missile being used for offence isn't.
EDIT: Ok, proper response.
The reasons that motivated me to put the missile costing in as it currently is in the charter are as follows:
Cruise Missiles (and remember its only cruise missiles costed in the charter) represent considerable strength. A cruise missile is much stronger and does a lot more damage than a single bullet, or a bomb, or the like. When you fire a couple missiles at an army, if you expect your opponents to recognise it as doing much damage you need to appropriately cost them. When someone fires a bullet, they don't expect it to kill more than a single person (if they're lucky - I'm sure the ratios of bullets that actually kill people to total number fired is very small). When someone fires an anti-tank missile, they don't expect it to kill more than a single tank (again, if they're lucky and it hits). But if you fire a cruise missile at a ground force, for example, you'd expect it to have a better than 50% chance of hitting, and doing 80-100 points of damage.
Eg. Near the end of the last war Extreme fired 30 missiles at Prodigy in Nova Kajar. Even with some being shot down, he expected damage of 20% of total troops. Prodigy had ~13000 troops there. On average, that means 87 points of damage per missile (and, of course, some didn't hit so the actual damage per missile that hit was probably 100 points). All those missiles were fired off one 1000/1200 submarine. A 1000/1200 point unit doing 2600 points of damage, then. If you're expecting one of those missiles to do 100 points of damage, costing it at 6 or 10 seems most reasonable.
The one time a nuclear missile has been costed in a recwar (a nuclear missile such as the one dropped on Hiroshima) it was costed at ~25 000 points. Considering that, 10 for a cruise missile seems rather small. It basically recognises that a cruise missile is a mini-unit in itself and requires it to be costed as such. One use, but maybe 100 points damage with that one use ... So that's why cruise missiles are costed and not bullets or bombs.
The second issue was the sheer number of missiles fired. A 1600 point submarine firing ... I think it was 160 missiles. And that was without restocking. Since the submarine can also defend itself with conventional weapons etc, something's wrong with that sort of capability. Consider it instead a 1100 point submarine (5 missiles included) with a further 500 points of missiles, for a total of 55 long range missiles. That sounds far more reasonable. [Yes, ICBM subs should probably be reduced in points cost now the points no longer need to take into account the missiles they launch].
Now, I'll admit I used wikipedia heavily, and might have got the numbers and names wrong. Perhaps it's missiles over a certain range (like, say, over 100 km) that should be costed, and under that range they should be free. Perhaps long range missile costs should be lower than 10, or short range costs lower than 6. Perhaps the allocation included in the unit's base cost should be increased (5% was a rather arbitary formula - alternatively, reduce the cost of all missile capable units to not include some of the cost of missiles as they originally did). In short, playing with the numbers might be needed. I'm quite happy for someone who knows more about this than I to do that. But I think the basic principle of costing these powerful missiles is sound.
Chrimigules, I'm loathe to go down the path of detailed supply chains because Anunia was originally designed to be simple + extensions for those interested (not difficulty forced on everyone), and forcing everyone to account for their supply chains, even if just at first for missiles, sounds far too complicated. So I went for the alternative path of costing major missiles. I think, with the strength difference, I've sufficiently established why this path won't need to also lead to bullets and bombs being costed.
But the alternative of a generic "resupply" could work. We already have planes need to be near bases, to go back to and resupply. Forcing ships to declare their number of cruise missiles in the orbat, and then needing them to resupply (either at one of their nation's ports or via a non-costed supply ship - since that section was added to the charter - that they merely have to explain moving from a home port to the navy) could work. But I still think their needs to be some costing for these powerful missiles, even if its less than I've put in.
For those unhappy with costing missiles at all, are you happy with this scenario which would have been perfectly legal in the Jasonian War but is now impossible. A Tokian starts in Hamuji with a fleet of 15 ICBM capable submarines, that then deploy into the Sea of Hamuji (the inland sea in the middle of Toketi). In their national defence Tokians have the entire river leading to that sea (at least, all the bits under their control) mined heavily, so ships can't get to them. If planes attempt to attack them, they merely go to the bottom of the inland sea. And every turn that's not a danger, they fire a barrage of long range cruise missiles (shall we say 16 each, so 240 a day) at different cities on Micras, and then go back to Hamuji and resupply the next day, and repeat that. Personally, I think that that is dodgy, a total misuse of missiles and shouldn't be possible. But under the charter before costing missiles (or even with a one day enforced ressuply action), that is entirely plausible. If, instead, you forced them to cost missiles, they might instead have 10 ICBM capable subs, and ... well, even costing them they could still have 900 long range missiles (perhaps the cost should be increased?) but that at least would only last them a week, and not be possible to do such a barrage every day (or every second day) of the war.
As a minor point, individual cruise missiles cost between 500 000 to over a million $ for a single one. While Anunia worries about strength, not cost, those interested in a greater degree of realism should appreciate some limit being placed on this matter and not assuming nations have an unlimited pocket.
Unrelated to missiles - on the topic of multiuse in general, dedicated multi-use is fine. I just have problems with people using units in ways that aren't at all standard or obvious, because that's an advantage they only have because they have considerable military knowledge, and discriminates against the average recwarrer. And Anunia is trying to cater for average recwarrers. So an attack helicopter being used to transport small amounts of troops or scout, sure, that's fairly obvious. A dedicated defensive missile being used for offence isn't.
Andreas
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
- Lord_Montague
- Posts: 913
- Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:39 pm
Re: Missile Costing - An ammendment needed?
With regards to Cruise Missiles were veering off course somewhat. Andreas has hit the nail firmly on its head when he says its just Cruise Missiles that are being costed. I don't think any of us have a huge problem with that considering the misuse of missiles we've all seen and most of us have participated in. Yet, its what's been classed as a Cruise Missile that I have a problem with. Anything with a range beyond standard radar range of a ship (around 400km?) should be classed as a cruise missile in my book.
In regards to Multi-use, I think the average user argument falls somewhat because the average user would clearly see that a defensive missile fired at a lightly armoured APC would still make a 'kill' just as much as an offensive missile. Yet, you wouldn't find me doing it unless in dire straits and you certainly wouldn't see me firing Air to Air missiles are ships, even though if a jet was sea skimming and fired its AAMs randomly at a ship, they'd probably hit.
In regards to Multi-use, I think the average user argument falls somewhat because the average user would clearly see that a defensive missile fired at a lightly armoured APC would still make a 'kill' just as much as an offensive missile. Yet, you wouldn't find me doing it unless in dire straits and you certainly wouldn't see me firing Air to Air missiles are ships, even though if a jet was sea skimming and fired its AAMs randomly at a ship, they'd probably hit.
In Battle; Unbeatable.
In Victory; Unbearable.
In Victory; Unbearable.
-
- Posts: 537
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:26 pm
Re: A Brief History of Anunia ... and a new direction
Yes, there's something wrong. But it lies in your assumption that these 160 missiles are in complementary to other conventional weapons on board. That's not the case. If a submarine fits itself with 160 missiles, then there's no room for anything else. Unless, if you have a bigger submarine with more room in it. Thus, if say this 1600-point submarine fires its 160 missiles, then you can take a few torpedoes and destroy it easily. In fact, you could probably sail alongside it and have no fear at all from it. The only 'attacking' weapon left with this submarine would be simply ramming the opposition boat. They could probably dodge a few torpedoes based on skills and counter-measures, but again, these are limited in numbers.A 1600 point submarine firing ... I think it was 160 missiles. And that was without restocking. Since the submarine can also defend itself with conventional weapons etc, something's wrong with that sort of capability.
let's use the submarine with 160 missiles as an example. If we do cost these missiles, then what happens when the submarine runs out of them? Can it rearm itself by going out to some safe region in the waters? It should be able to. If its unable to rearm, then even soldiers shouldn't be able to fire anything more than 3 or 4 cartridges worth of ammo.
That is why ICBMs were never allowed previously. I am not sure when these got back into recwar's available weapon list. ICBM should be banned. And cruise missiles are not ICBMs (imo).For those unhappy with costing missiles at all, are you happy with this scenario which would have been perfectly legal in the Jasonian War but is now impossible. A Tokian starts in Hamuji with a fleet of 15 ICBM capable submarines, that then deploy into the Sea of Hamuji (the inland sea in the middle of Toketi). In their national defence Tokians have the entire river leading to that sea (at least, all the bits under their control) mined heavily, so ships can't get to them. If planes attempt to attack them, they merely go to the bottom of the inland sea. And every turn that's not a danger, they fire a barrage of long range cruise missiles (shall we say 16 each, so 240 a day) at different cities on Micras, and then go back to Hamuji and resupply the next day, and repeat that. Personally, I think that that is dodgy, a total misuse of missiles and shouldn't be possible. But under the charter before costing missiles (or even with a one day enforced ressuply action), that is entirely plausible. If, instead, you forced them to cost missiles, they might instead have 10 ICBM capable subs, and ... well, even costing them they could still have 900 long range missiles (perhaps the cost should be increased?) but that at least would only last them a week, and not be possible to do such a barrage every day (or every second day) of the war.
These costs are time-dependent. Ask a nation in the 1920s to make 1000 aircrafts and they'd have a much harder time filling that order than the same nation for same number of same type aircraft in today's day and age.As a minor point, individual cruise missiles cost between 500 000 to over a million $ for a single one. While Anunia worries about strength, not cost, those interested in a greater degree of realism should appreciate some limit being placed on this matter and not assuming nations have an unlimited pocket.
If for this weapon (whose name is provided by the participant), there exists a description of its capability, both defensive and offensive, on wikipedia, then it should be perfectly allowed. It would be the responsibility of the opponent to do his research about the enemy.Unrelated to missiles - on the topic of multiuse in general, dedicated multi-use is fine. I just have problems with people using units in ways that aren't at all standard or obvious, because that's an advantage they only have because they have considerable military knowledge, and discriminates against the average recwarrer. And Anunia is trying to cater for average recwarrers. So an attack helicopter being used to transport small amounts of troops or scout, sure, that's fairly obvious. A dedicated defensive missile being used for offence isn't.
Now, you might say that the average recwarrer doesn't want to go wiking everything. But then Anunia is just making these average recwarrers more dumb and not improving the standards at all.
-
- Posts: 5024
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:34 pm
- Location: Novatainia
- Contact:
Re: Missile Costing - An ammendment needed?
Extreme - that first submarine wasn't a hypothetical, that was on you used .... and you said it also had a few torpedoes ...
@Monty - I just went with the word 'cruise missile', wikied it, and put what was there as 'cruise missiles' as cruise missiles.
@Monty - I just went with the word 'cruise missile', wikied it, and put what was there as 'cruise missiles' as cruise missiles.
Andreas
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
- chrimigules
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:04 am
Re: A Brief History of Anunia ... and a new direction
That's a bit of a sampling error.Andreas wrote:But if you fire a cruise missile at a ground force, for example, you'd expect it to have a better than 50% chance of hitting, and doing 80-100 points of damage. Eg. Near the end of the last war Extreme fired 30 missiles at Prodigy in Nova Kajar. Even with some being shot down, he expected damage of 20% of total troops. Prodigy had ~13000 troops there. On average, that means 87 points of damage per missile (and, of course, some didn't hit so the actual damage per missile that hit was probably 100 points).
Did Prodigy's unit have any anti-aircraft capabilities?
In the Jasonian War, Montague fired multiple missiles at the Anticans on Airosamente. The ships off the coast were able to shoot some down, but most of the rest were shot down because the Antican land unit bothered to include some Self Propelled Anti-aircraft Guns. Only a few actually did any damage.
If you're not going to bother planning for such contingencies, of course you're going to get heavy losses when it comes to pass. It's like (I hate to say it, but it's the only example I can think of right now) when a Fire Pokemon attacks a Plant Pokemon. It's going to do more damage than if the Fire Pokemon attacked a Stone Pokemon.
Well, first off, that shouldn't have been allowed. Secondly, a 25,000pt value was obviously to severely dissuade its use. Thirdly, a nuke does a lot more than go boom. It has area denial capabilities, and would progressively weaken units not directly damaged but exposed to the radiation. A cruise missile doesn't do any of that.Andreas wrote:The one time a nuclear missile has been costed in a recwar (a nuclear missile such as the one dropped on Hiroshima) it was costed at ~25 000 points. Considering that, 10 for a cruise missile seems rather small.
Hence my complaint about people firing more missiles than the design of the ship can carry without a stated reloading mechanism.Andreas wrote:The second issue was the sheer number of missiles fired. A 1600 point submarine firing ... I think it was 160 missiles. And that was without restocking.
But even just applying the officially listed multiple uses ought to be fine.Andreas wrote:Unrelated to missiles - on the topic of multiuse in general, dedicated multi-use is fine. I just have problems with people using units in ways that aren't at all standard or obvious, because that's an advantage they only have because they have considerable military knowledge, and discriminates against the average recwarrer.
Well, said attack helicopter better be capable of transporting troops, because only ones specially designed for both transport and attack purposes would make sense. Most attack helicopters actually can't.Andreas wrote:So an attack helicopter being used to transport small amounts of troops or scout, sure, that's fairly obvious. A dedicated defensive missile being used for offence isn't.
A missile, no matter its purpose, should be able to go from launchpad to target no matter the target. It really just matters what they're designed to do. A defensive missile being used offensively would do better against AA defenses because of the necessary agility, but will have less of a range and a smaller warhead. A cruise missile has a large warhead and long range, but are relatively crappy as agility.
Коля лает «гав-гав».
Re: A Brief History of Anunia ... and a new direction
It's not even remotely like a paper-rock-scissors type of event. Missiles fired do damage with absolutely no risk to the unit firing the missiles. Land units need to attack head on and aircraft need to risk anti-air fire or enemy jets, but missiles, none of that. You can fire a 1000 missiles, and if the enemy shoots down 990 of them, who cares? You didn't risk your unit at all in firing that barrage and all your misses were entirely free and being restocked by invisible undetectable unsinkable implied supply ships. Just wait five minutes and fire again. Oh, did I mention I'm firing from an undisclosed location that it's completely unpinpointable? So don't bother trying to retaliate. Pew pew more missiles!chrimigules wrote:If you're not going to bother planning for such contingencies, of course you're going to get heavy losses when it comes to pass. It's like (I hate to say it, but it's the only example I can think of right now) when a Fire Pokemon attacks a Plant Pokemon. It's going to do more damage than if the Fire Pokemon attacked a Stone Pokemon.
Yeah, that's some high-quality recwaring right there. Can't you people that get your jollies from that sort of thing go play a naval sim or something?
If it were up to me, I'd say banning all types of missiles entirely, and force ships to engage with only their main cannons or onboard aircraft. Then they might have to actually *gasp* weigh the costs and benefits of an attack rather than just shooting wildly at their enemies indefinitely. I'm sure the missile spammers are probably glad it's not up to me, thus the compromise of costing them. But it seems even that isn't good enough.
In any event, it barely matters to me anymore. I won't be using Anunia again in the future, or at least not without some fairly significant modifications of my own. While I don't regret anything in particular about the Jasonian War, it's taught me that this recwarring society is irrevocably divided on what people enjoy doing for fun in recwars, and the two camps are totally incompatible. My next recwar will have some fairly clear ground rules on what is acceptable conduct and not.
- chrimigules
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:04 am
Re: Missile Costing - An ammendment needed?
The undisclosed location issue is a different matter, in which I do agree with you. However, missiles are a basic piece of weaponry.
I think Montague's idea for classifying a cruise missile in Anunia as a missile with a range of over 400 kilometers. That ought to satisfy the concerns that people have that some players are showering missiles down upon others from a safe distance. Have it cost for a naval unit that wants to strike outside of its inherent radar range, but not by penalizing a naval unit locked in battle with another one nearby.
Ban missiles and only allow ships to gun battle? What, we're limiting ourselves to technology available at the onset of World War II? And you're the one telling people to go off if they want to participate in a naval sim? You might as well suggest we include a rule that says that naval units can only attack naval units and not land units, and that air units may only dogfight with other air units.
Cruise missiles should actually be not that hard to shoot down, especially since they're designed for long range rather than speed or agility, akin to trying to shoot down a subsonic low-flying aircraft. A land unit that has no anti-air defenses is just as susceptible to those. A naval unit needs anti-air defenses in the same way. I think my description, of what you call a rock-paper-scissors situation, does fit. If you don't plan to defend yourself from air attack and you're attacked from the air, then you should suffer for it.
I would agree that a unit should not be able to fire a thousand missiles in one go, and that's for two technical reasons and those alone. Firstly, most warships with VLS missile tubes don't have more than 80 of them, and those are for housing defensive as well as offensive missiles. If somebody has a sufficient number of ships to have a thousand VLS tubes, then that means once they have fired them all, they are defenseless until they can withdraw to reload which, as I recommended, should cost them time and reduce their defensive capability. In general, people need to stop going nuts with their missile massacres. Even a spread of 200 missiles is excessively large.
And just to elaborate on how missiles are not all that wholly different, there is an example of a naval unit bombarding a land unit, one which shows a basic trade off between missiles and artillery. An artillery bombardment can't be easily shot out of the sky and gun magazines are essentially unlimited, but the range is more limited, forcing the naval unit closer. A missile bombardment has a longer range, but has a much more limited firing capacity (the Arleigh Burke destroyers have 80 VLS tubes and then it's out of missile ammunition), and the missiles can be shot down. Really, how many examples have their been in the Jasonian War where missiles were shot down? It's not hard.
And if you're a land unit, you're not all that indefensible either. Put some SPAAGs in your unit, and you'll be able to defend yourself against both missiles and aircraft.
In addition, I'm not sure how you could say that there are two distinct camps and they are totally incompatible. What are they? People who actually bother to develop military strategy and those who don't? Because there are people on both sides of the missile issue guilty of that.
I mean really, your hatred of the missile's destructive ability smells of Giulio Douhet's post WWI prediction that bomber aircraft were becoming so powerful that the next war would be decided solely upon them, that they would be literally unstoppable, and that they would be so destructive as to bring about the end of civilization.
I think Montague's idea for classifying a cruise missile in Anunia as a missile with a range of over 400 kilometers. That ought to satisfy the concerns that people have that some players are showering missiles down upon others from a safe distance. Have it cost for a naval unit that wants to strike outside of its inherent radar range, but not by penalizing a naval unit locked in battle with another one nearby.
Ban missiles and only allow ships to gun battle? What, we're limiting ourselves to technology available at the onset of World War II? And you're the one telling people to go off if they want to participate in a naval sim? You might as well suggest we include a rule that says that naval units can only attack naval units and not land units, and that air units may only dogfight with other air units.
Cruise missiles should actually be not that hard to shoot down, especially since they're designed for long range rather than speed or agility, akin to trying to shoot down a subsonic low-flying aircraft. A land unit that has no anti-air defenses is just as susceptible to those. A naval unit needs anti-air defenses in the same way. I think my description, of what you call a rock-paper-scissors situation, does fit. If you don't plan to defend yourself from air attack and you're attacked from the air, then you should suffer for it.
I would agree that a unit should not be able to fire a thousand missiles in one go, and that's for two technical reasons and those alone. Firstly, most warships with VLS missile tubes don't have more than 80 of them, and those are for housing defensive as well as offensive missiles. If somebody has a sufficient number of ships to have a thousand VLS tubes, then that means once they have fired them all, they are defenseless until they can withdraw to reload which, as I recommended, should cost them time and reduce their defensive capability. In general, people need to stop going nuts with their missile massacres. Even a spread of 200 missiles is excessively large.
And just to elaborate on how missiles are not all that wholly different, there is an example of a naval unit bombarding a land unit, one which shows a basic trade off between missiles and artillery. An artillery bombardment can't be easily shot out of the sky and gun magazines are essentially unlimited, but the range is more limited, forcing the naval unit closer. A missile bombardment has a longer range, but has a much more limited firing capacity (the Arleigh Burke destroyers have 80 VLS tubes and then it's out of missile ammunition), and the missiles can be shot down. Really, how many examples have their been in the Jasonian War where missiles were shot down? It's not hard.
And if you're a land unit, you're not all that indefensible either. Put some SPAAGs in your unit, and you'll be able to defend yourself against both missiles and aircraft.
In addition, I'm not sure how you could say that there are two distinct camps and they are totally incompatible. What are they? People who actually bother to develop military strategy and those who don't? Because there are people on both sides of the missile issue guilty of that.
I mean really, your hatred of the missile's destructive ability smells of Giulio Douhet's post WWI prediction that bomber aircraft were becoming so powerful that the next war would be decided solely upon them, that they would be literally unstoppable, and that they would be so destructive as to bring about the end of civilization.
Коля лает «гав-гав».