Something for the advanced tutorial that you might not have come across: Cluster Interceptors. Take a Large or Huge Missile that only consists of a Cluster Controller and a Cluster Extension or two, and fill it with Interceptors that start launching 1-2s after launch. Launch it using ejectors, so it doesn't even need a thruster. Advantage: You can hide the majority of your missile system in a nice armoured compartment, because ***cluster missiles work through transmitters***, and you can massively reduce the amount of deck/hull space your launch tubes take up. Plus it's just fun to throw a barrel of missile interceptors into the air and have them do their thing, and the "Barrel" can sometimes distract enemy missile interception. I've also experimented with making the barrel have flares on it, as an all-in-one option. Disadvantage: Your interceptors need to be one block longer, so they can take a Cluster Ejector. 2m Smalls and 3m Mediums are annoying. --- Second thing: Have you got any data on putting flares on interceptors?
Good idea! I forgot that cluster missiles existed. XD You certainly can put flares on interceptors, and it can work quite well. I generally prefer to keep them separate to maximize signal strength of the former and cost efficiency of the latter, though.
@@BorderWise12 Something I really wish worked is Harpoon flares. Unfortunately IFFs stop that working at all as a damage method, and I'm not sure the missile keeps existing after the harpoon "sticks".
one thing that idk if it changed, but in one of lathland videos he show how if you wire the mothership missile the firerate of the ejected missiles can be as long as you still have missiles to be cluster ejected
I find a small missile interceptor turret that has 4-6 rail small missile launchers(so 16 to 24 interceptors total) very cost effective for durability with small ships like frigates and corvettes.
For boats (doesn't work as well for aircraft or submarines, due to waterline) It is possible to use VLS Interceptors as a point-blank 'screen'. You need the CWIS controller to override to allow selective launch from localized launchers, this was added with the CWIS controller update. To get this effect, I'd recommend the below setup: - They have a 30m radius for damage so 10-20m spacing for each Interceptor cluster (2-4 small missile launchers) - Wirelessly connect all screen interceptors to the same CIWS controlled missile controller - Set the interceptor head to use CWIS targeting - Use reverse launchers with delayed thrust and turning thrusters with 50% fuel use on the interceptors to get zero speed flips - Set the CWIS targeting to range, cluster size and fired projectiles, limit the fire rate to slower than the stagger (e.g. 0.02 stagger) It dose however take fine-tuning the delays on the interceptors to shorten the turn (thrust cancellation) height. due to torps being slower, reverse launch torpedos don't offer many advantages in my experience. Deck mount missile interceptor turrets are far easier and can look nicer. Medium interceptors aren't more efficient in general, however, campaign craft utilize them to reduce the lag from interceptor spam. In general, the updated controllers using rules have been a fantastic buff to CWIS arrays and timed flak/HE CWIS as the guns are aware of what each other have fired at, what each are targeting, and can prioritize based on how many other missiles are near the target.
So you complained about interceptors not being very smart, you can use CIWS controllers to launch them now, even if they aren't on a turret. Limiting how many shots you fire at any one missile can make them MUCH more efficient, in my experience.
I prefer super long vertical launch small missiles where I cram in a bunch of turning thrusters and fuel. They have a sub 2 second turning time and can fly for about 30 seconds. They might miss the first cram shell, but they'd never hit it anyways. With their long flight time and the fact that they can pull MULTIPLE U turns they can just about hit every other target.
Might want to double check something there. Last time I tried, HE warheads on interceptors did nothing. Even if they do work now, you need a lot of them to match the 30m range on the interceptor itself. Probably a lot cheaper to just use more interceptors.
@@lillysmith6123 Proportional to each other. Whether they are small interceptors or mediums, their damage is x1, x2, x3, and x4 against small, medium, large, or huge missiles.
Small is more space efficient and has more missiles, medium is less expensive in the initial cost and has less missiles. I don't have the numbers for the maintaining cost.
@@nullpoint3346 I mean, if you want to get into the numbers, it's basic math and all the numbers appear in the video. Disregarding the space and cost needed for connectors that is common to both smalls and mediums: 1000 mats for minimum size medium interceptors, 3 volume, 2500 damage per 14.1 seconds, or about 177 DPS/59 DPS per volume/0.177 DPS per mat. 800 mats for minimum size small interceptors, 1 volume, 1400 damage per 10 seconds, or 140 DPS/140 DPS per volume/0.175 DPS per mat. Because damage scales the same way against larger missiles regardless of being small or mediums, there's nothing beyond these numbers in favour of smalls or mediums vs larger missiles. These are constant. HOWEVER! There's a few things to think about: - Overkilling an incoming missile leads to wasted DPS, this can't realistically be mathed out but this is +1 for smalls - Reload time may not matter in reality since missiles used to attack are just about always longer and so take longer to reload than interceptors which is +1 for mediums - Depending on how you set up your interceptors, you might be more concerned about the surface area rather than overall volume, in which case mediums also out-DPS smalls - If you consider the running costs, smalls cost 0.4 mat/s to run vs 0.57 for mediums which is almost 50% more expensive, but they only have about 26% more DPS which is +1 for smalls
@@OhmIsFutile Am I wrong in napkining the math if I say that making them cluster-deployed brings the costs closer together? Both would need one extra gantry, and small cost would double, medium cost would x0.5, so 0.8 to 0.9 for cost per second, and 1000 to 1200 for cost of blocks. Which removes the surface area consideration, and flipps the DPS/mat running cost. I might have to switch my interceptor buckets to using mediums... Need to math out the cost of the bucket. A 2m Large bucket can carry 15 (and a bit - it's not quite 16) small missiles if they're 2m long. Not sure on the 3m Huge bucket, I haven't used one of those - always assumed medium interceptors were a waste. The point is obviously to minimise surface area. Long lines of interceptors always feel vulnerable to me.
Hi people. how can i prevent my missile interceptors also target torps? i tried ignoring below 20 m but interceptors still starts diving if enemy sends missiles and torps together.
There's an option in the missile UI that makes interceptors prioritize what the CIWS controller does, even when the initial target is destroyed. Try that?
@@BorderWise12 it says(not recommenden) beside explanation isn't it? ok i'll try that. i even tried putting missile launcher on a spin block and fix it to70 degree elevation for hoping interceptor head doesn't see torps but no avail :D
2 things: - Large missiles can be seen from a very long distance, thank goodness. - There's a passive radar on the fortress that can spot radar-guided missiles at a much greater distance than munition warners. Very useful thing to have!
Something for the advanced tutorial that you might not have come across: Cluster Interceptors.
Take a Large or Huge Missile that only consists of a Cluster Controller and a Cluster Extension or two, and fill it with Interceptors that start launching 1-2s after launch. Launch it using ejectors, so it doesn't even need a thruster.
Advantage: You can hide the majority of your missile system in a nice armoured compartment, because ***cluster missiles work through transmitters***, and you can massively reduce the amount of deck/hull space your launch tubes take up. Plus it's just fun to throw a barrel of missile interceptors into the air and have them do their thing, and the "Barrel" can sometimes distract enemy missile interception. I've also experimented with making the barrel have flares on it, as an all-in-one option.
Disadvantage: Your interceptors need to be one block longer, so they can take a Cluster Ejector. 2m Smalls and 3m Mediums are annoying.
---
Second thing: Have you got any data on putting flares on interceptors?
second thing: looks cool
@@rikopals Looks cool - Most important thing. :D
Good idea! I forgot that cluster missiles existed. XD
You certainly can put flares on interceptors, and it can work quite well. I generally prefer to keep them separate to maximize signal strength of the former and cost efficiency of the latter, though.
@@BorderWise12 Something I really wish worked is Harpoon flares.
Unfortunately IFFs stop that working at all as a damage method, and I'm not sure the missile keeps existing after the harpoon "sticks".
one thing that idk if it changed, but in one of lathland videos he show how if you wire the mothership missile the firerate of the ejected missiles can be as long as you still have missiles to be cluster ejected
I find a small missile interceptor turret that has 4-6 rail small missile launchers(so 16 to 24 interceptors total) very cost effective for durability with small ships like frigates and corvettes.
For boats (doesn't work as well for aircraft or submarines, due to waterline)
It is possible to use VLS Interceptors as a point-blank 'screen'. You need the CWIS controller to override to allow selective launch from localized launchers, this was added with the CWIS controller update.
To get this effect, I'd recommend the below setup:
- They have a 30m radius for damage so 10-20m spacing for each Interceptor cluster (2-4 small missile launchers)
- Wirelessly connect all screen interceptors to the same CIWS controlled missile controller
- Set the interceptor head to use CWIS targeting
- Use reverse launchers with delayed thrust and turning thrusters with 50% fuel use on the interceptors to get zero speed flips
- Set the CWIS targeting to range, cluster size and fired projectiles, limit the fire rate to slower than the stagger (e.g. 0.02 stagger)
It dose however take fine-tuning the delays on the interceptors to shorten the turn (thrust cancellation) height.
due to torps being slower, reverse launch torpedos don't offer many advantages in my experience.
Deck mount missile interceptor turrets are far easier and can look nicer.
Medium interceptors aren't more efficient in general, however, campaign craft utilize them to reduce the lag from interceptor spam.
In general, the updated controllers using rules have been a fantastic buff to CWIS arrays and timed flak/HE CWIS as the guns are aware of what each other have fired at, what each are targeting, and can prioritize based on how many other missiles are near the target.
So you complained about interceptors not being very smart, you can use CIWS controllers to launch them now, even if they aren't on a turret. Limiting how many shots you fire at any one missile can make them MUCH more efficient, in my experience.
Very true. I didn't want to extend the video by another 30 minutes talking about CIWS setup, though. 😅
Rest in peace large-huge interceptors
I prefer super long vertical launch small missiles where I cram in a bunch of turning thrusters and fuel. They have a sub 2 second turning time and can fly for about 30 seconds. They might miss the first cram shell, but they'd never hit it anyways. With their long flight time and the fact that they can pull MULTIPLE U turns they can just about hit every other target.
Might want to double check something there. Last time I tried, HE warheads on interceptors did nothing. Even if they do work now, you need a lot of them to match the 30m range on the interceptor itself. Probably a lot cheaper to just use more interceptors.
Wow, really? I knew that they were pretty useless, but I didn't know they were COMPLETELY useless. 😅
Nice :D Didnt know APN guidance would make them better
BW and math :P mediums aren't really more "efficient" against bigger missiles, their DPS scales proportionally...
Proportional to what though? Cost, space, somthing else?
@@lillysmith6123 Proportional to each other. Whether they are small interceptors or mediums, their damage is x1, x2, x3, and x4 against small, medium, large, or huge missiles.
Small is more space efficient and has more missiles, medium is less expensive in the initial cost and has less missiles.
I don't have the numbers for the maintaining cost.
@@nullpoint3346 I mean, if you want to get into the numbers, it's basic math and all the numbers appear in the video. Disregarding the space and cost needed for connectors that is common to both smalls and mediums:
1000 mats for minimum size medium interceptors, 3 volume, 2500 damage per 14.1 seconds, or about 177 DPS/59 DPS per volume/0.177 DPS per mat.
800 mats for minimum size small interceptors, 1 volume, 1400 damage per 10 seconds, or 140 DPS/140 DPS per volume/0.175 DPS per mat.
Because damage scales the same way against larger missiles regardless of being small or mediums, there's nothing beyond these numbers in favour of smalls or mediums vs larger missiles. These are constant.
HOWEVER! There's a few things to think about:
- Overkilling an incoming missile leads to wasted DPS, this can't realistically be mathed out but this is +1 for smalls
- Reload time may not matter in reality since missiles used to attack are just about always longer and so take longer to reload than interceptors which is +1 for mediums
- Depending on how you set up your interceptors, you might be more concerned about the surface area rather than overall volume, in which case mediums also out-DPS smalls
- If you consider the running costs, smalls cost 0.4 mat/s to run vs 0.57 for mediums which is almost 50% more expensive, but they only have about 26% more DPS which is +1 for smalls
@@OhmIsFutile Am I wrong in napkining the math if I say that making them cluster-deployed brings the costs closer together?
Both would need one extra gantry, and small cost would double, medium cost would x0.5, so 0.8 to 0.9 for cost per second, and 1000 to 1200 for cost of blocks.
Which removes the surface area consideration, and flipps the DPS/mat running cost.
I might have to switch my interceptor buckets to using mediums... Need to math out the cost of the bucket. A 2m Large bucket can carry 15 (and a bit - it's not quite 16) small missiles if they're 2m long. Not sure on the 3m Huge bucket, I haven't used one of those - always assumed medium interceptors were a waste.
The point is obviously to minimise surface area. Long lines of interceptors always feel vulnerable to me.
Thank you very helpful much yes.
Man why do warheads not work on them
Hi people. how can i prevent my missile interceptors also target torps? i tried ignoring below 20 m but interceptors still starts diving if enemy sends missiles and torps together.
There's an option in the missile UI that makes interceptors prioritize what the CIWS controller does, even when the initial target is destroyed. Try that?
@@BorderWise12 it says(not recommenden) beside explanation isn't it? ok i'll try that. i even tried putting missile launcher on a spin block and fix it to70 degree elevation for hoping interceptor head doesn't see torps but no avail :D
Want to counter large missiles, move really fast and erratically
how do you have such good detection range?
2 things:
- Large missiles can be seen from a very long distance, thank goodness.
- There's a passive radar on the fortress that can spot radar-guided missiles at a much greater distance than munition warners. Very useful thing to have!
@@BorderWise12 thanks, quick response too!
@@BorderWise12 also, which are better: passive or active radars?
How do you name things?
Shift + n. 👍
@@BorderWise12 thank you again
The person who tried to be 3rd
2nd
3rd person to be 1st.
FIRST HAHA!