More experimental missile behaviour

[maik]

Does that apply to standard missiles or to hard heads? Standard missiles are too cheap in my opinion to have this advanced capability, it should be an extra feature of hard heads.

[Eric Walch]

Does that apply to standard missiles or to hard heads? Standard missiles are too cheap in my opinion to have this advanced capability, it should be an extra feature of hard heads.

My intention was to do it only for hardheads. Normal missiles are easy to kill by just ecm, so there is no need for a anti-stealth technology.
But, for the ease of evaluating the behaviour, I added this new behaviour in trunk to both variants. After a few weeks testing period we can see what should stay in as standard. (If desired, t can always be re-added to oxp missile behaviour at a appropriate price).

[SandJ]

Now, when the target cloaks, it remembers the target's identity and heads toward the last known position of the target. Then it explodes there, in the hope the target did not move.

Ooh, nasty. But sensible. In reality, missiles must lose 'sight' of their target frequently anyway and have to relocate it. Continuing on their previous course until the target reappears makes sense. I like that.

Next logical thought: ought it not remember the target's heading and velocity and head for where it should intercept the target, rather than its last known position?

[Cody]

Next logical thought: ought it not remember the target's heading and velocity and head for where it should intercept the target, rather than its last known position?

If you're flying straight (and at a constant velocity) when in combat, I'd be very surprised, and say you need to change your tactics!

[Eric Walch]

Next logical thought: ought it not remember the target's heading and velocity and head for where it should intercept the target, rather than its last known position?

That is already in the code since a few years. At least when an accuracy > 0 is defined for the missile. None of the internal missiles uses it, and I think that only the nukes.oxp uses missiles with accuracy defined for the anti-balistik missiles. It are the only missiles I normally carry and I only uses it against hardheads. Against fast missiles this accuracy helps.

[SandJ]

If you're flying straight (and at a constant velocity) when in combat, I'd be very surprised, and say you need to change your tactics!

Running away as fast as I can in a straight line and pointing my mining laser at them in an aggressive manner IS my tactic.

[Cody]

If you're flying straight (and at a constant velocity) when in combat, I'd be very surprised, and say you need to change your tactics!

Running away as fast as I can in a straight line and pointing my mining laser at them in an aggressive manner IS my tactic.

<chortles>

[Disembodied]

Does that apply to standard missiles or to hard heads? Standard missiles are too cheap in my opinion to have this advanced capability, it should be an extra feature of hard heads.

I think normal missiles shouldn't just explode when their target cloaks: I think they should remain on the same heading and go BANG if they hit something (or when they run out of fuel) – essentially they should just become simple non-homing projectiles. This would stop the cloak being used as a quick on-and-off ECM, at least without also requiring the player to do a bit of ducking and weaving too. Especially if the missile was heading down their throats or up their tails!

[maik]

Does that apply to standard missiles or to hard heads? Standard missiles are too cheap in my opinion to have this advanced capability, it should be an extra feature of hard heads.

I think normal missiles shouldn't just explode when their target cloaks: I think they should remain on the same heading and go BANG if they hit something (or when they run out of fuel) – essentially they should just become simple non-homing projectiles. This would stop the cloak being used as a quick on-and-off ECM, at least without also requiring the player to do a bit of ducking and weaving too. Especially if the missile was heading down their throats or up their tails!

Yep, sounds reasonable!

[Switeck]

I think normal missiles shouldn't just explode when their target cloaks: I think they should remain on the same heading and go BANG if they hit something (or when they run out of fuel) – essentially they should just become simple non-homing projectiles.

A side-issue, but something that bugs me...if a missile runs into something other than its designated target, it tends to do trivial damage since it doesn't explode.

[SandJ]

A side-issue, but something that bugs me...if a missile runs into something other than its designated target, it tends to do trivial damage since it doesn't explode.

Maybe that's because they are missiles, not hittiles.

[Switeck]

I know why, I even know how.
But it bugs me because it helps make missiles a waste of credits.

[Eric Walch]

I know why, I even know how.
But it bugs me because it helps make missiles a waste of credits.

You could also trigger a detonation on collision
With 1.76 that would always be fatal at that range. But with the current energy distribution by cim, the damage would be comparable with a normal explosion.

Having sayd that, I remember that that only works if the missile survives the collision, otherwise the collision does not trigger. And that won't happen with a missile collision.

[Commander McLane]

A side-issue, but something that bugs me...if a missile runs into something other than its designated target, it tends to do trivial damage since it doesn't explode.

Maybe that's because they are missiles, not hittiles.

<grammar nazi mode>Which is of course bad etymology.

"Missile"—as surely everybody knows—has nothing at all to do with "to miss". It comes from latin "mittere", which means "to send". (Another word derived from the same root is "mission".)</grammar nazi mode>

(I apologize if the correct explanation was given on the linked page. I can't open it.)

[Eric Walch]

<grammar nazi mode>Which is of course bad etymology.

"Missile"—as surely everybody knows—has nothing at all to do with "to miss". It comes from latin "mittere", which means "to send". (Another word derived from the same root is "mission".)</grammar nazi mode>

Interesting. I miss the step from mittere -> missilis. that I found on myEtymology
There I read that the latin word 'missus' means messenger or shooting. So, missus-non-missus probably means: Don't shoot the messenger.

(And I can't open that previous link either)