CSM vs Torpedos

Better damage, equal or better range, and (unless the mod you're using does something completely different) they cost fewer Research Points to achieve any given level (counting form the start, including any and all prerequisites).

If CSM's are cheaper and just as good as Torpedos, why bother with Torpedos?

Are they harder to shoot down? Do they travel faster? Or are they harder to hit with PD weapons?

"Do not be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed." - DVader

In stock:

CSMs are speed 0.04, turn at 0.01, have a 40 defense mod, and take 30 damage to kill (+2 per level).

Quantum Torps are speed .04, turn .01, 40 defend, 30 damage to kill (+2 per level).

AM torps are a bit better, as they turn instantly.

In stock missiles out perform torpedoes mostly the only noticeable advantage torpedoes have is that some of them are slightly smaller than Missiles. They can be modded to work very differently and give you valid tactical reasons for choosing one or the other both BM and IRM do this.

Kato you have the meat of it - as it stands, in stock ,there IS no real reason to mess with torpedoes or plasma missiles-
Ph. D's point about turning rates is correct - in theory-
but in practice, turning rates don't seem to be DOING anything, no one can recall seeing a seeker MISS.
A very SMART birdy told me that is currnetly broken, too.

There was a big discussion about whether or not ECM affected seekers - the answer appears to be NO.

Among the solutions I have heard or proposed, one that you might find interesting is -
particularly for the Plasma missile-

Have the other weapons get a different "damage type" - just for flavor and a touch of balance, that is, give them some small advantage that differentiates them from missiles and justifies the research cost.

Thanks, Badger. Right now, I've been modding the Balance Mod and I'm not sure what the Captain has done with torpedos. CSM's just seem so much cheaper - research-wise in the early game.

My impression of CSM's is that they are solid missiles similar to Tomahawks - moderate speed, long-range, guided, hard-to-hit, but wouldn't take much damage to knock down. As opposed to energy torpedos - blazing masses of energy guided by a small brain surrounded by an energy shield - very light and therefore very fast, guided, hard to hit, hard to knock down, moderate range but big warhead. Of course, you could variations on those parameters for the different torpedo types.

I don't know. I'll have to see what the good Captain has done with them before I tinker or not.

"Do not be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed." - DVader

Torpedoes travel faster and are harder to hit than missiles. For the most part, the later torpedoes also have better damage ratios. They also turn instantly, with the exception of the Quantum Torpedo which has a typo.

Plasma Missiles have superior range, damage, and damage resistance versus CSMs.

-----

Space Empires Depot | SE:V Balance Mod

good Kato:
I ahve had plenty to say on torpedoes and missiles - and would feel honored if you are curious enough to find those and see the feedback all that got.
Offhand, I know that kwok's missiles start at a lower range than stock - I'm not the only one that thinks you should have to research long range.
ironically, missiles in stock, & last time I checked, in balance, have a LOWER defense (and it doesn't improve with level) than fighters or drones, but are worth about 30kt (+2/TL) structure (compare to 5kt of armor's structure, tell me what YOU think of that)...
The way YOU describe torpedoes, I know FH has something like that - you have to research energy containment fields - i also am unclear on how/what The Good Captain's torpedoes represent
- i personally have a hard time with balls of energy being "driven" but that's me - you could always ask him. You can read the descriptions:)

But i just want to express my respect for your sentiment of TRYING his torpedoes before you change them.

BTW: Did you ever get the engines per move fixed so far as the AI recognizing it?

Silly question:

Why have torpedos in space anyway..? Think about it, a torpedo is designed for water and star trek. The concept for a torp and a missile are the same. The only real difference (was) size of warhead.

Thats not a silly question -
that was asked on my forum, too.

read kato's definition of Torpedo.

my difference was changing technologies - going from chemiacl rocketry to actual ion/antimatter/whatever drives

another possibility was using the term torpedo for short-range (fighter) weapons, more in line with the old naval torpedoes (shorter-range non seeker)

What are we trying to represent, becomes the question - so its not a silly one.
What would YOU use the term for? or would you just scrap it altogether?

now if we can just agree on what a torpedo IS we can agree to srgue about what they "should" do.

Oh, I have GREAT respect for the work the Captain's done. I've seen the extensive changes to the code tables and am WAY impressed. He's also modified the movement system in a very dynamic way - higher levels in each engine type generate more movement points and each hull type requires a certain number of movement points to move the ship 1 hex. Very nice! And very flexible!

As for missile / torpedo - different nuances of the same concept: a single-shot, fire-and-forget, guided weapon are what they have in common. Implementation of that concept is handled differenly by a missile vs torpedo.

Ever played Star Fleet Battles? Missiles are physically loaded on a mechanical, rotary rack and spat out through a launcher. Torpedos are generated in energy incubators over a period of time, stored in stassis and launched through a tube with a shielded guidance CPU. Torps also look neater! Remember the plasma torpedos in Star Trek?

"Do not be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed." - DVader

After reading Katos definition I have an idea of why to keep the two seperate branches of weapon systems seperate. But the question remands do we really need torps and missiles? I figure by the 25th century they will be one and the same. "Missiles".

Did you know the term torpedos (coined during the early 1700) was actually what we consider mines?

See the Wilk at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpedo

And when StarTrek was mentioned, their photon torpedoess is "coffin" with mass of quarter ton and 1.5 kg of antimatter inside. So StarTrek photon torpedo is normal missile with anti-matter warhead.

excuse my inexcusable failing in my white-and-nerdiness;
but my star trek tech knowledge is spotty

notice there are quantum and antimatter torps but not jacketed photon torps
anywya - i THOUGHT - THOUGHT
that like thses fine folks were saying, the photon torpedo somehow "became" a blazing bolt of ...
seeking energy?

no? (if not, thank the jabberschlocky!) - but i still have to stomach Plamsa Torpedoes chasing all about the map...

And that really irks me.
Its a missile, so it shouldn't have to put up with all this - whats a torpedo? shoddiness.

It's a missile - so i expect it to have the same range, not WORSE! - than some missile i didn't even have to research.

It's a missile - its got a warhead. So: I DO NOT want to see it degrade as if it were a beam weapon or a ballo' plasma torpedo... i want a nice, plasma, miniature SUN to go off RIGHT THERE.

I RESEARCHED THIS:
Therefore I want it to be an IMPROVEMENT over the missile I started with, NOT a step backwards.
What am I, an AI?
Don't give me this shoddy ***(*!!!

I want the Plasma missile,
I want it Done Right,
and i want it on my DEsk By TUESDAY MORNING You Got That?

Poor, poor, Badger.....

if the containment field is going to degenerate at range, thus losing reaction mass and damage potential, it needs to start with MUCH higher damage potential at close range

IF anti-matter torpedoes were faster and with significantly higher range than missiles, i could accept falling damage.
I can imagine that they can use their anti-matter for propulsion and rest of it as warhead.
But they should be MUCH better propulsion wise (speed and range) than normal missile.

OR they should be shorter ranged and slower, but MUCH more powerfull.

We really should tie all these torp . vs. anything threads into one sticky...

...and get accused of cross-threading and advertising again?

I'll let you send that suggestion:)

someone else just started a nEW forum where 1 of the 2 subjects (2 forums next time?) was all torpedoes coming at once - i thought they'd fixed that?
and the fellow saying, won't everyone just use the best one - when we all know the best one isn't a torpedo anyway

but yeah, some of the descriptions imply war head so if its not a bolt you wonder why it has dmg drop-off...

and no one ever claimed the torpedoes were balanced. Dam the torpedoes.

So - how could you make torpedoes worth researching?

MAKE THEM WITH A BIGGER WARHEAD.....

DROP THE TORPEDO TTHREAD IT HAS BEEN BEAT TO DEATH.....

WHERE IS MY PICTURE OF A GUY BEATING A DEAD HORSE...

OH LOOK ALL CAPS SORRY...LOL

-Damn the Torpedos

One thing has been overlooked:

COST.

The CSM costs around 5 times in minerals as a Quantum Torp, and has only a slight range advantage.

For the cost of one Destroyer with 5 CSM's, you could instead have 2 Destroyers with 5 Quantum torp's.

Good point..The we complete the circle my asking which is more effective...

And the wheels on the bus on round and round...

Does cost/damage ratio of CSM keeps same after it reach its max range? Or it gets worse?

If it gets worse, then it can be good NOT to research CSM further if you want to compare them to Torps.

Btw, interesting idea: Use multiple levels of CSM on ship (possible only on big ship, so in frigate war uselesss). And if possible, make low level fire first closely followed by higher levels. This way PD waste itself on much cheaper missiles.

ISTR in SEIV torps were direct-fire weapons, not seekers. And also not really worth taking, since they could only fire every other turn and were short ranged. Over the same time period, APBs were much better.

No point, just making conversation.

jumping in way late, ill add this. wether or not a weapon would be called a missle or a torpedo in the future space millitary would , it seems to me, be decided based on what branch of a planets millitary was used to take over and govern space millitary operations.

for example, if NASA was to ever evolve into an actual space millitary chances are it would use missles as weapons (since its biggest millitary partner by far is the Air Force), on the other hand should the USN/Marines become involved in runing a space millitary one would assume that their traditions would govern weapons types and we would then be using torpedos.

the basic difference between real world missles and torpedos is just in the fact that they operate in different enviroments as pikcachu20 has said. one is air and the other water. torpedos are normaly larger and slower but with much larger warheads (in relation of damage potential since water is a better medium for compounding explosive effects) used to take out large targets, where missles are smaller , much faster, with much greater range, but with smaller warheads used to generaly take out smaller targets.

there is yet again a 3rd class of weapons that is called a 'missle' in the real world but has a totaly different function. and that class is large missles like ICBM's and cruise missles. they actualy fill the roll of an airborn torpedo, large,(in relation to other missles) slow, with a huge punch to take out large targets, but due to the fact that the AirForce developed them they are called missles instead of the more proper torpedo tag.

if you were to translate real world into this game id say that fighters should use missles against other fighters, sats, ground support etc as well as the PD weapons being armed with missles. and torpedos should fill the roll of ship to ship combat, base destruction, and planetary bombardment. slower, shorter range, but with a much larger punch. of corse i have a Navy bias and thats just my opinion.

if i was to set out and design a weapons tree from scratch, id have missles at the base, being used to swarm kill things with their numbers. short range, low cost, small bang. but you can make them by the millions.

next would come torpedos, mid range, good power, average bang and cost. the 'stock' weapon for everyone and their sister.

the top would be heavy missles/torpedos (id call em torpedos but again thats my Navy bias) slow, long range, huge bang, costly to make, but due to their size they would almost be like a small cap ship at this point. they would have there own ECM and perhaps even a bit of PD ability. used to take out the really large targets like planets and stars and such. basicaly they would be drones. id call em heavy torpedos since the name sounds much better than drones, but they would in essence be the same thing.

anyhow the names for the weapons dont matter so much as what roll they fill does. and as ive said, i susspect that it would depend on what branch of the millitary took over space operations as to what their weapons would be called. something to think about , but if earth was ever to unite and Russia was to take the lead in space millitary operations, the weapons could be called neither missles or torpedos but rather rockets.

Another question related to this debate: should seeking weapons be affected by ECM? Presently, SE-V seeking weapons automatically hit their target if not shot down by PD weapons.

My take on this: ECM should reduce the chance of a seeking weapon scoring a hit. Although, higher level seeking weapons would be equipped with ECCM to counter a target's ECM. Higher level seeking weapons (whether they be torps or missiles) should have a higher probability of finding the target than lower level SW's.

Is it possible to implement this?

"Do not be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed." - DVader

well in the real world if it wasnt for ECM/decoys torpedos wouldnt ever miss. since its all but impossable for even a small ship to dodge a torpedo. even missles are subject to jaming or decoy's, actual point defence weapons are a last resort if all the tech wizards fail in their jobs. on the other hand, game wise, it just looks sexy to equip a ship with PD turrets rather than an ECM modual i susspect.

i think both ECM and ECCM are implimented more or less in the game, with ECCM mods being wraped up (or should be) in the targeting sensors. to my mind targeting sensors are all one package used to defeat any defences an enemy ship may have. and the highest tech level between targeting sensors and any ECM mod on the enemy ships (along with inate hull size defence boosts) should win.

there was a series of books called "the dread empire" that dealt with combat something like these kinds of games. the weapons of choice were only anti-mater torpedos,there were some laser type weapons also but they were more for close in work and PD since they werent strong enough to deal with actual AU distances. plus targeting was an issue when you were dealing with light hour distances. anyhow all the combat in the books basicaly boiled down to who could stuff the most missles into a given ship. missles were simply shot off in wave after wave at the enemy ships at distances of several light hours (sometimes light days) and the enemy used their own missles to both counter attack in waves and to also target and shoot down the incoming waves. an anti-mater explosion could clear whole tracts of space for light minuts across so they didnt actualy have to target and kill individual missles they just had to blanket the space around their fleets with constiant explosions to counter enemy waves. in the end who ever ran out of missles first generaly won.

the point being that anti-mater explosions are huge, the ships themselves had no hope of actualy surviving a close in explosion, it was like two eggs wacking at each other with sledge hammers. that was perhaps the most realistic space combat senario ive ever read about. when your dealing with nuclear and above class weapons there is almost no hope of actualy defending against them other than to either escape somehow from the blast zone, or to counter the weapons with your own weapons. this isnt really relivent to this game, but it might add some insight to how actual space combat with missles/torpedos could be expected to happen in atleast a semi-realistic frame. the weapons warheads and blast radius would be so large that they could in effect be expected to be used as an area of effect defence by simple blasting clear huge tracts of surrouding fleet space.

I'm not sure how the missiles are coded in terms of time to target and reload times. So maybe someone could explain if the time from launch till the time to target is variable. I also assume that missiles can be changed in terms of reload speed?

I have recommendations for missiles and torpedoes... Each could work for different ideas and concepts for how we view the weapons. Missiles would be torpedoes and vice versa, thinking outside the box. For example...

Think Star Trek TOS. (note this doesnt have to be a Trek mod, this is just an example of how differently we can use these two types of weapons and could apply to any mod) We have Romulan Plasma torps... These could be simulated by missiles because weapons fire reduces the warhead strength in TOS. So it'd have to be a missile if torps cant be affected by point defense weapons. Range to target would reduce the warhead strength as well because the romulan plasma shell disentigrates over time and loses cohesion and damage potential. So there's a torpedo that'd be coded as a missile.

Furthermore, if this can be done, Plasma torps come in 4 varieties. The F torp is the weakest and has the shortest range. It's tonnage requirement is smaller than the next larger and longer ranged G torp, followed by the S and R torps respectively each with longer range, more powerful warhead strengths, and tonnage requirements. In addition, the larger torps require larger hull sizes. Each torp has long reload times because they are very devastating weapons...

I'll have more in a bit... My apologies if this has been talked about already, I skipped a few posts Ill read soon.

Looks like we have another SFB fan here. Now if they could only figure out how in SE-V to implement shot-gun (multi-warhead) or enveloping (double damage to shields) plasma warheads, torpedoes would be truly vicious!!!

"Do not be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed." - DVader

you guys are arguing the wrong point. Who cares if they are called misslies or torpedoes. What we need is continous improvement in weapons as we move up the tech tree.

The Romulan suprise decloak fire an enveloping R type at point blank range. Liked that it was almost as much as forcing the target to do a HET to avoid a Psudo torp and saving the enveloper you had in the tube to shoot at them from the adjacent hex if they mucked it up with an enveloper.

Tractor him after he does his HET - no running away then!!!

Thats what you do if he makes the HET but its more to disapear and make him HET again with another Psudo because Warbirds are cheap and legendary officers are not. Trashing a Fed Dreadnought with a pair of them was always very funny for the Romulan player any way. I loved those mini campagns

ENOUGH ALREADY with the SFB!
miss ya'll - B

Badger you realy should take your medication regularly you know how bad it gets when you dont

Whats wrong about going OFF TOPIC! about SFB we have had enough going off topic on Starfire and I mentioned Traveler 2300 the other day realy Badger going off topic is as much part of this forum as discussing why Depleted uranium canon are the best weapons ever have to be the AI loves them.

What is SFB???

Star Fleet Battles sorry I forgot that there might be some one who hadent heard of it so intent was I on winding clockwork badgers up.

Well, it is easy to get a bit dizzy... I was trying to Know if a SFB is better than a CSM or worse than a DUC.

I dont think we are arguing the wrong point. My point is that you can use missiles as torpedoes and vice versa. Each weapon would have unique characteristics. Tech progressment would work just fine in this setup. If there'd be a plasma tech tree, you could have Plasma F torps at level 1, and go to level 2 with a G torp, level 3 with an S and lvl 4 with an R torp. There is even an X torp which does damage and slows down the target. I remember reading there's a weapon effect that does such a thing...

Aside from a new tech tree, you could have standard tech trees and using a combination of differing techs and levels to achieve the progression you need. Whatever.

As far as missiles go, there was the argument that one didnt want warhead reduction with range so let's take SFC (Starfleet Command/Orion Pirates for the PC) for example... Slow Missiles were available right off the bat or with lvl 1 missile tech. Later years saw faster missiles and the final years of SFC saw yet faster ones, but all did the same amount of warhead damage no matter the range. Tech level progression would change the range of the missile in SEV with the early (slow) missiles having short range to represent their slow speed and later tech levels increasing their range representing faster missiles able to reach their target at longer ranges quicker.

Can missiles be modded so their flight time from firing to the time they hit be made longer or shorter? For example lets say I want to mod a missile so that it takes 5 seconds travel time from when it's fired from the vessel till the time it takes to reach its target at maximum range if both the attacker and defender were stationary.

You can mod their speed, but NOT the time it takes them to impact. That's dependant on the missile speed vs's the target's speed and direction.

If they're both stationary..

.001 missile speed = 1 ship speed = ~10LS per second.

So if your missile has a max range of 200, and you want a 5 second launch-to-impact time:
d = VT
200 = V(5)
200/5 = V
40 = V

or a missile speed of 0.4.

Pretend I'm stupid (not hard to do) so you're saying that I get get the missile to cruise along at 5kms or slower than most ships go allowing a ship to possibly outrun the missile? And if I want I can make a missile so fast that it goes about the same speed as a beam weapon?

Beams are instant-hit regardless of their graphics, actuallly.

You can set any speed you want, from 0 (mines? missiles with REALLY bad engines?) to very high speeds.

Thats a good idea. combat mines. Something with HUGE range, but realy low speed, so you must drop it into enemy path (bad is, that you must chose target first, so if another ship goes through and target goes around, it will be miss).

Incidentally, I was wrong on the COST. Or, I should say, I was "righter" than I thought.

The CSM is almost 10 TIMES the cost of a Quantum torp.

For that 10x cost, you get around 25% greater value in range and basically the same damage. A CSM destroyer can cost almost FOUR times a Quantum torp destroyer.

I'd rather have 4 QT destroyers than 1 CSM destroyer...

Basically in stock Torpedoes and Missiles are a bit indistinct in concept and role but the nice thing about it is that you can or some one else can modify either to work more or less any way they want.

So you could define them in any of the above ways in the fighter Mod I was working on missiles would have been small anti fighter weapons used in long range dog fights devastating against other fighter sized units but pointless against ships. Torpedoes would be full sized missiles which a fighter would be able to fire once per combat at most. I have the reload time at six minutes.

I was still working out how to change the full size missiles and torpedoes on ships