Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.
Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).
Oh noetry.
Very recently, I thought of a way of making a missile that can cloak itself in midflight. This trick requires a grand total of three wëap resources.
Weapon 1 This should be a normal homing weapon (guidance 1), except that it has a short lifespan and subs into weapon number two.
Weapon 2 Count: 31 (30 works too, but give it 31 just to be safe.) Guidance: 1 (Homing weapon) Sound: This weapon's sound should be the "cloak on" sound found in the Nova files. You'll have to duplicate it and change its ID to something in the 200-263 range (the range for weapon sounds). Falloff: 1 SubType: Weapon 3's ID
Weapon 3 JamVuln: 0 (All fields should be set to zero, as a cloaked missile cannot be effectively jammed. Alternatively, you can reserve one of the jamming types for cloaking missiles, i.e, a cloaked missile jammer.) "Can't be targeted by point-defense" flag should be set. (Obviously, point-defense systems aren't going to be able to target a cloaked missile.)
Weapon 3 should have an invisible sprite. (A less complicated way of doing this than having a transparent rle image with a normal mask is to check the "shots are translucent" flag and give the weapon a negative falloff value, causing the shot to be invisible, but still able to interact with the game.)
When the weapon is fired in-game, stringing all of the submunitions together, the effect should be quite cool. Here's what it'll look (and sound) like: a guided missile flys toward its target for a short time, and once it reaches a certain point, it fades out, playing a cool cloaking sound, and becomes completely invisible, unjammable, and untargetable.
The trick here is, of course, is falloff. Falloff is normally used for corona falloff in beam weapons, but when used with non-beam weapons, it causes the sprite to fade out over the last thirty frames of its life. Fade rate is proportional to the value entered (blah blah blah, most of you already know this).
So what do you think? I have not tested this myself (I should get on that), but I see no reason that it shouldn't work. What say you?
Oh, Im sure it'll work.
I think, however, I'd rather see a missile that can only remain cloaked for so long, then it decloaks, as it runs low on power. Makes the missile less powerful at longer ranges.
Or a perhaps a missile that can't be detected untill it's almost got you. Your sensors get a hint of where it is, but with only a second for PD to engage... might get one chance to hit it...
All these can be readily done.
However, I really don't see how cloaking should have any effect on jamming. Well, at least from a logical point of view. You can obviously design your universe to operate how ever you want, but that's not how jamming works in theory.
Usually, the jamming fields in Nova represent the targets ability to not be targeted well by the missile. This could be from actual jamming noise, or represent some kind of passive spoofing, or a natural advantage to certian detection methods. Though, these actually represent exact opposite techniques to defeat a missile.
In the real world, radar absorbing material could be represented by the jamming vulnerability field. So too could a unit that brodcasts high-powered RF noise. These are opposites. To the missile, radar absorbing is like a person hiding in the dark by wearing dark clothes. Jamming might be like that person trying to hide by shining a flashlight right at you. Jamming actually announces your presence, but tries to make it so you don't know exactly where in that bright spot you are.
Passive and natural advantages wouldn't be mitigated wheather the missile was cloaked or not.
Certian types of active jamming techniques could be reduced by not knowing where the incoming missile was, but only in a few select situations.
And that's only in the case where noise is sent down a specific bearing to try and confuse or damage a radar reciever. Which is guessed to be at a similar bearing to where the radar illumination source is coming from. (Though jamming noise is not always focussed at a particular point, nor are most truely omnidirectional.)
If the cloaked missile has a radar emmiter, then by definition, it's not cloaked anymore.
The only radar option for a cloaked missile is that similar to perhaps an AIM-7 Sparrow. The launching platform illuminates the target with a radar, and the missile homes in on the reflected signal, but having no radar emmiter of its own.
One behavior lacking in the Nova engine is for a missile to home in on the source of the jamming noise. Again, in the real world, some missile have this ability. A missile is flying towards a reflected radar signal. Suddenly, the reflected signal is overpowered by a flurry of extraneous RF noise. In this case, the missile actualy stops trying to find its specific radar code, and starts to track the jamming source itself.
True, true, all very true. Tou could set JamVuln to 10 or so to fix that. (Hey, I know pretty much squat about how this type of thing works in the real world.)
As for a missile that uncloaks as it comes very close to its target, I don't see the need other than to maintain balance. (If you're going to have a cloaking missile, why not have one that stays permanently cloaked.) And yes, it is entirely possible. Just give it a sizable ProxRadius and an uncloaked submunition.
As for a missile that doesn't stay cloaked permanently, well, cloaking missiles would only be used at long ranges, where enemy ships wouldn't be able to tell it was fired. (At close ranges, it would be able to see the uncloaked missile being launched, and later cloak. Although, it might not really matter in terms of stopping the missile.)
@lord-rama, on Mar 29 2006, 02:09 PM, said in Missiles that cloak in midflight.:
As for a missile that uncloaks as it comes very close to its target, I don't see the need other than to maintain balance. (If you're going to have a cloaking missile, why not have one that stays permanently cloaked.)
His point was that active scanners would stand a better chance of breaching the missile's stealth as it closed the distance. This would 'Reveal' (Decloak) the missile, so that Point Defenses could target and destroy it.
And to not frustrate the player out of the game.
This post has been edited by Eugene Chin : 29 March 2006 - 02:58 PM
The "not frustrate the player" bit is important. Remember, the computer-played ships don't really do anything about missiles unless they have point-defense systems. The player, however, typically has to do a great deal of missile evading, unless they're in a particularly beefy ship. Normally it's possible to dodge missiles by a) being faster, B) being more maneuverable, or c) having sufficient jamming. Case C still applies, but B doesn't and A does only in a limited sense. That is, if you know that the missiles have been fired, you can try jetting out of the combat arena as fast as you can, or you can hope your jamming works, but you can't effectively dodge. And if your efforts are insufficient, then you just find yourself taking random damage.
I'm all for limiting the player's time to react, because that doesn't leave the player helpless. But leaving the missiles cloaked just seems Not Fun to me. With that in mind, I'd suggest putting a proximity sensor on the missiles that causes them to submunition one more time as they get close to the player, as the missile decloaks (say, to divert power from the cloaking device to an EMP generator).
The other option for "cloaking", of course, is to just make the missiles very dark, but still slightly visible. Clavius for EVC did this with a couple of fightercraft; it worked out fairly well.
Edit: stupid emoticons messing with my lists...
This post has been edited by Derakon : 29 March 2006 - 04:15 PM
Another thing to try:
Use cloaking missiles to mask the position of the launching ship.
If the ship fires, even if it can fire while cloaked, you can get a good fix on where the ship is.
How about a missile that launches completely cloaked and stealthly. It flies out in a random direction (or just even 90 inaccuracy) after a bit it begins to decloak with falloff -1 and then track the target.
In this way, the missiles will appear to de-cloak from seemingly random locations. It also can mask the number of ships you're facing.
I tried this, and it's quite spooky.
Possibly, if the first stage is an unguided projectile, it won't trigger the AI response to being targeted until it switches into a guided projectile. But I have to test this.
There is even real world precedent for a similar tactic in submarine engagements. A wire-guided torpedo is launched at a bearing to put it in position to attack the target from a bearing not in line from the launcher. Or multiple torps are used to bracket a target. Than, at some point the torps turn, and begin a high-speed (and noiser) run at the target.
that just gave me an idea for use in the honor harrington universe: missiles coasting for extremely long-range encounters. in the honor harrington universe, most propulsion is generated by impeller wedges, which are gravitic stress bands which somehow impart amazing acceleration on the stuff inside them (theoretically unlimited, but they keep power down so their inertial compensators can keep up). impeller wedges are quite easy to detect, and can be detected instantaneously (as in, no light-speed delay for tracking at long range). on the other hand, because of the distances involved, it's almost impossible to directly detect ships (let alone missiles) at any respectable range. because of that, a ship with its wedge down is very hard to detect until you close the range quite a bit (realize that the maximum powered missile range is in the tens of millions of kilometers). in order to extend that range, missiles can be programmed to deactivate their drives when they're low on fuel, then reactivate for terminal maneuvers when they get close to their target. so what i'm thinking of, in terms of the nova engine, is this: when you buy a missile launcher, it also grants you a long-range missile launcher (described as a long-range fire mode, not a seperate launcher). the normal launcher fires a normal missile. the long-range launcher fires what looks like a normal missile, but which subs into an invisible missile after a certain distance. the invisible missile has the same max speed as the missile it came from, but can't turn. after a certain distance (or after it gets within a certain range of its target), the invisible missile subs into another missile which looks like the normal one, but which has a substantially shorter range.
Sounds cool, it be ideal for when one makes a Wing Commander TC, cause the Kylrathi(sp?) uses those cloaking missiles.
@nighthawk, on Mar 29 2006, 08:36 PM, said in Missiles that cloak in midflight.:
when you buy a missile launcher, it also grants you a long-range missile launcher (described as a long-range fire mode, not a seperate launcher). the normal launcher fires a normal missile. the long-range launcher fires what looks like a normal missile, but which subs into an invisible missile after a certain distance. the invisible missile has the same max speed as the missile it came from, but can't turn. after a certain distance (or after it gets within a certain range of its target), the invisible missile subs into another missile which looks like the normal one, but which has a substantially shorter range.
I'm doing something similar in a mini TC I'm working on...
There are a number of basic missiles, and a number of different launching systems. Forward, Turret, Rack (fires multiple missiles at once, long reload, slight spread via innacuracy) and Booster. Each missile normally has two stages, three if you include the launcher stage. So all the launchers do their individual thing before subing into the main missile stage.
Most launchers first eject the missile into space, then it shortly subs into the next stage which is the usual powered flight mode, after a time it will use up its fuel and sub again. (no particles, no turning, slightly slower)
The Booster type launcher imparts some extra thrust to the missile, and is used to extend the missile range for some of the less high-tech missiles. Instead of simply ejecting the missile into space, it flies out for a time with no turning, and isn't armed. Eventualy it will sub into the same second stage above, which fires the main missile motor.
@desprez, on Mar 30 2006, 03:48 PM, said in Missiles that cloak in midflight.:
I've had an idea for a TC for a while now, and it's sort of similar to your idea.
The missile rack would be a fighter missile launcher, and multiple racks would fire simultaneously. It would employ a side-firing technique (the first sub would be unguided with -90 inaccuracy, and the second would just be a normal guided missile; this gives the illusion that the missile "rolls" out of the side before the thrusters kick in), and it would be able to fire multiple types of ammo (conventional, flechette, nuclear-tipped, electric discharge). Each rack would only be able to store 25 missiles (and not 25 of each type, 25 period), to prevent fighters with nukes from being too powerful, and to keep it realistic.
Another type of missile would have both an unturreted launcher and a couple turreted variants. The missile itself would be cheap and easily jammable, and it wouldn't immediately track its target upon launch. It would go forward a short distace before subbing into its guided self and following stuff. The turret is pretty much the same, only turreted. Since the missiles are weak and puny, large capital ships would have an interesting variant which fires several of the missiles at a time, without the need for extra turrets.
All missiles and rockets in the TC, like in yours, would sub into an recursively submunitioning unguided version when they run out of fuel (which might make for interesting gameplay when combined with missile swarm turrets :laugh: ).
If it ever becomes finished at all...
This post has been edited by The CrimpMaster : 30 March 2006 - 10:16 PM
@lord-rama, on Mar 31 2006, 02:08 AM, said in Missiles that cloak in midflight.:
The missile rack would be a fighter missile launcher, and multiple racks would fire simultaneously. It would employ a side-firing technique (the first sub would be unguided with -90 inaccuracy, ... Each rack would only be able to store 25 missiles (and not 25 of each type, 25 period), ...
All missiles and rockets in the TC, like in yours, would sub into an recursively submunitioning unguided version when they run out of fuel
Hmm. We've both got similar stuff here.
I'm doing the missile racks for fighters, with the -90 inaccuracy, but I'm controling the missiles strictly by mass. Each rack can fire off two missiles quickly, then there is a burst reload.
Light Rack - 2 tons - Fires light, short range, fighter-to-fighter missiles. You get 2 missiles per ton. (uses ammo at the end of the burst reload)
Medium Rack - 2 tons - Fires medium or long range fighter-to-fighter, and medium range fighter-to-ship missiles. They weigh 1 to 2 tons apeice.
Heavy Rack - 3 tons - Fires larger, longer ranged fighter-to-ship missiles, or planetary bombs, weighing 3 tons apeice.
Launchers for larger ships weigh considerably more, 10-40 tons, and fire larger, heavier missiles. Generaly speaking, the ship class launchers can fire more before a burst reload, and fire more capabile missiles. (Damage, Range, Speed)
I'm not using a recursive submunition on the terminal phase, (I didn't want the thing to last forever...) but depending on the tech, some missiles retain some slight ammount of guidance.
It's important to note that you should probably sub to a guided missile type with 0 turning, as opposed to an unguided missile. The former can still be targeted by PD, whereas the later can't.
Also, if you're still using the multiple ammo trick, I'm unsure as to how you are keeping the limit at 25 missiles. You can't use the max ammo field as each launcher (for each ammo type) would still be able to hold 25 missiles each. The max number of outfits field wouldn't work either, because you have multiple outfits. I guess you could have the launcher grant 25 placeholder outfits, then have each missile type check to see if a placeholder is still left, and take one away for every missile purchased. If there are no placeholders, you can't buy a missile. But this makes reloading somewhat complicated... As you need an algorythm to count missiles in inventory, then grant placeholders for open slots.... ugh.
Or are you not allowing mixing of ammo? Can you clarify?
Well, this is all in my head, haven't actually done testing, but here goes.
The ammo outfits normally have a maximum of zero. Buying the rack grants you an invisible outfit that increases the max of all types of ammo outfits by 25. An ammo outfit not only adds one unit of ammo, but it decreases the maximum amount of all other types of ammunition by one. Example:
1 rack = 25/25/25/25
buy 25 missiles
1 rack (25 ammo) = 25-25/25-25/25-25/25-25 = 0/0/0/0
--------
2 racks = 50/50/50/50
buy 5 missiles
50-5/50-5/50-5/50-5
(5) 45/45/45/45
buy 5 nukes
(5/5) 40/40/40/40
So yeah, I'm pretty sure it'll work out.
Ah, I see. Clever.
@lord-rama, on Mar 30 2006, 08:48 PM, said in Missiles that cloak in midflight.:
An ammo outfit not only adds one unit of ammo, but it decreases the maximum amount...
How are you planning on doing that? Unless I've missed an undocumented feature, the "Increase Max" outfit type simply multiplies the maximum of the specified outfit by the number of maximum modifiers you have, with no way to do a negative multiplier (or even to do a specific number, i.e. +50, without using Increase Max outfits, although that wouldn't be a problem).
It should be possible to have each missile delete one "Increase Max" outfit when you purchase it, but then you'll need to implement a system to re-create the Increase Max outfits after you fire off some missiles. This has been done (I believe by Desprez, when he arrived here, although I can't find the thread. Perhaps it was part of the great "swappable fighters" set-up?), but it is nowhere near as elegant as the method you've outlined. In fact, I think that what he was doing with the re-creation of counters after firing off ammo was a method of placing a maximum combined ammo count for multiple weapons, similar to what you're doing here, although I could be mistaken. However, a combination of these two methods might be more efficient than the previous efforts.
Note that if you're using some method other than the "Increase Max" outfit type, my comments here may very well not apply.
Edwards
This post has been edited by Edwards : 31 March 2006 - 02:32 AM
@edwards, on Mar 31 2006, 06:13 AM, said in Missiles that cloak in midflight.:
It should be possible to have each missile delete one "Increase Max" outfit when you purchase it, but then you'll need to implement a system to re-create the Increase Max outfits after you fire off some missiles. This has been done (by Desprez, when he first arrived here), but it is nowhere near as elegant as the method you've outlined. In fact, I think that what he was doing with the re-creation of counters after firing off ammo was a method of placing a maximum combined ammo count for multiple weapons, similar to what you're doing here, although I could be mistaken. However, a combination of these two methods might be more efficient than the previous efforts.
Hmm. I think your correct. I forgot that it is a multiplier.
As far as what I had done before... if you're refering to the fighter bays thing, that didn't use ModMax but it was really a fundamentaly different problem, probably more complicated.
Mainly, because you can't have missiles outside of your ship, but still with you and able to come back. Nor can you pick up disabled missiles, like you can with fighters. So no, it wasn't very elagant, but I don't think it can be done any other way. (even had the ModMax worked like an incrementer)
Now, I'm going to have to go back to my original assesment -that you'd need a placeholder outfit, and have to delete one of those when adding ammo for a rack. (I guess you could use multiple ModMaxes too) The crons necessary to count and correct the number of placeholders vs missiles (after firing off a few) would bare some resembalance to the fighter bays problem. It would be simpler in that you don't have to worry about missiles in orbit, but you gain complexity in that you have to track all possible ammo for the launcher at once.
It could be done I think. But it would be clunky.
In that regard, it'd probably be much simpler to just stick with mass limitations, as opposed to an arbitrary ammount allowed per rack.
@desprez, on Mar 30 2006, 10:47 PM, said in Missiles that cloak in midflight.:
As far as what I had done before... if you're refering to the fighter bays thing...
Possibly. What I remember is a set-up where, when you land, the game deletes ammo/counter pairs, and adds a second counter type for each pair it deletes, doing this for each ammo type. Then it would delete the excess counters, and give you back your ammo based on the secondary counters. With two cröns and one counter outfit per ammo type, plus one global counter/crön pair (and a DatePostIncing mission that fires whenever you land, I think), it isn't exactly light-weight, but it would work. (The original may well have done something different in the "delete excess counters" step, but this method should work well for the Increase Max setup here.)
The question is how this compares to the existing maximum combined ammo count method in terms of resource use/ease-of-set-up/side effects, but it's too late here for me to check that.
@edwards, on Mar 31 2006, 07:09 AM, said in Missiles that cloak in midflight.:
Ah, I see what you're saying. That's not what's happening. First, nothing happens when you land. Second, when you enter the outfitter, you get an extra launcher for every fighter type, and when you take off those extra launchers are removed. No dateposting necessary. (there is a mission to counteract this if you go to the outfitter and then decide to buy a new ship) This is because each launcher has a max of 1 ammo (fighter) This prevents you from picking up extra disabled fighters. Unfortunately this also means you can't "buy" (swap) a fighter (ammo) for a weapon (bay) you don't currently have. So, there's the need to add and delete the bays.
Clearing out the bays that have lost a fighter, (equalizing weapons and ammo) is an user triggered action that runs a series of crons that takes 2 days. (The user purchases a "Clear Empty Bays" outfit.) I didn't want this to run automaticaly because it takes 2 days, and also, if there are any fighters that aren't docked, it will not clear out the bays. Also, this is concievably a major refit and shouldn't necessairly be done at just any old planet.
You can't purchase the clear bays outfit unless you swap your fighters to the default config. (saves resources) Then crons check for the presence of fighters via a contribute bit and iteratively changes them into a placeholder. Then if there are still any detected via Oxxx, it will branch into an error message (need to dock fighters first) and swap the placeholders back to fighters. If none were detected in orbit, then it will iteratively delete all bay types for every default bay you have. Then swaps the placeholders back in, while giving a bay to match. This will effectively equalize your bays and fighters (all default) and zero all of the other bay types (which have no fighters because they are all currently default) (in order to run this series though, the extra bays are removed, then given again when finished, as this takes place in the outfitter)
Yes, this is a bit hefty. You only need a single placeholder no matter the number of fighter types, though.
----- Now then, I haven't analyzed Guy's method extensively, but I'm tempted to say that you wouldn't need multiple placeholders to limit ammo. Also, as above, you would only need to run the equalizing when you actualy enter the outfitter.
Set it up so that: You get 25 outfit tokens when you buy a launcher. Any ammo type can only be purchased if a token is available. When you buy an ammo, it will delete a token. When you sell, it puts one back.
Now to equalize: When you enter the outfitter it will run a mission that sets a bit to run crons and dateposts. (this mission only runs if you have the launcher) The crons will clear out your tokens, then give you 25. Then, iteratively, they will move an ammo to a placeholder and delete a token. After that cron runs then you can put the ammo back, and move on to the next ammo type.
When all is done, you should have tokens equal to 25 minus the number current ammo.
Personally, I see this as a big bother, and don't see much benefit over tracking ammo by mass. Edit: I take that back. It has uses for simulating strict hard-points.
This post has been edited by Desprez : 31 March 2006 - 05:17 AM
Huh, well then I guess my idea wouldn't work. Well that's stupid, the way the Increas Max outfit works. Why can't the developer just define how much the maximum is increased by??
Phooey. Another idea shot down by stupid engine limitations.
It's still possible, you just have to do it the long way.
Nice pic, BTW.
@lord-rama, on Mar 31 2006, 04:15 AM, said in Missiles that cloak in midflight.:
Um, where would you like to be able to define the amount? You only get one modval and this is used to define which outfit you want to affect.