Point Defense system

For those who played the beta, is there a point defense system like AEGIS, AMS, or CIWS ...etc... in the game?

I played many Space combat both simulation and RTS like, and now come to think of it I find it weird that there is one thing that missing from most game: missile battery. And in return it made a point defense system a mute point.


One of the few game ... actually the only game I can think of that come with a point defense system is Sword of The Stars, the missile battery and point defense system add a great deal of immersion in the game. Or for Homeworld 2 although it's a lacking feature in the vanila game, the feature is added through the PDS mod, which by far the most sophisticated mod for HW2 IMO, after playing I could not go back to the vanila homeworld anymore.



99,473 views 68 replies
Reply #1 Top
There is a very limited PDS in the game currently. However we have only had one faction to test and it is not the military oriented one; in fact out of the three it is the least war oriented as far as I can tell.
Reply #2 Top
whats PDS exactly? anti-missile systems and such? if i guessed correctly, why would it
add a great deal of immersion in the game
and what exactly do you mean by that?
Reply #3 Top
PDS = Point Defense system
it can shoot down missiles
Reply #4 Top

whats PDS exactly? anti-missile systems and such? if i guessed correctly, why would it
add a great deal of immersion in the game
and what exactly do you mean by that?


I think by immersion he means he would find it real cool.
Reply #5 Top
the problem with significant PDS is that it seriously taxes the system on even a few ships.

I really dont think its feasible for a game of several hundred, even several thousand ships.
Reply #6 Top
Point defense System: shooting down missile, torpedo, bomber ...etc... It's a legitimate defense on most capital ships (the carriers nowaday carry the AEGIS system).


The thing the bothers me is how often capitals ship missing out this feature in most game, and with it the lack of of missiles/torpedo battery. Not only it create a good realistic feel, the sound affect can add a great deal to the atmosphere if done right.

If anyone had played Swords of the Star, you will find that when you attack a planet with dozens of defense platforms , your ships have to punch through a screen of missiles to reach the target. Seeing/hearing the PDS firing to stop those missiles (and the explosion) can be quite pleasant, and sometime seeing all the PDS guns trying to stop a heavy torpedo can be intense.


It's not really taxing, Homeworld PDS handle big battle just fine. Remember that not all ships have or need PDS, only capital ships.
Reply #7 Top
It's not really taxing, Homeworld PDS handle big battle just fine

homeworld was a game of at complete max, 12 cap ships
SoaSE is a game of at least 50 cap ships if you are super conservative. there is a reason that SoaSE doesnt have dazzling graphics on the small scale, its because it cannot handle the load.

Reply #8 Top
Actually Space Empires V has PDS systems.
They are components that you can choose to add to ships.
Also Gal Civ 2 has limited PDS built into the game as an inherent feature after researching it.
Reply #9 Top
both of those are TB. those dont tax the system.

and things like SotS only allow a certain amount of ships into the battle at any one time, relieving pressure on the system.
Reply #11 Top
Hehe, Schem seems to be extremely concerned about system performance with SoaSE...could it be that he is still trying to play it on his laptop? Schem, instead of Ironclad reducing game features to make you happy, maybe you could buy a decent gaming rig instead.

I think Ironclad can get around any performance problems for slower machines by allowing a choice in the level of unit/effect detail and graphics performance in the game setup. There is no need for the whole game to be reduced in features and graphic quality just to satisfy Schem.
Reply #12 Top
moo3 also has pds although in the vanilla game it is cheaper to use the light weapons
Reply #13 Top
could it be that he is still trying to play it on his laptop?

its not a laptop. its a pile of oh-my-god-I-cant-believe-this-thing-still-works that is oozing over my desk.
Schem, instead of Ironclad reducing game features to make you happy, maybe you could buy a decent gaming rig instead.

I'm not just pointing out for my own sake, they dont want to reduce sales because people cant run it
sorry, but this just isnt going to happen.
besides, I highly doubt even some halfway decent rigs (not the best, f u kosc) could take the task of 50+ PDS ships active.
I think Ironclad can get around any performance problems for slower machines by allowing a choice in the level of unit/effect detail and graphics performance in the game setup

graphics detail is only a part of the load. a big part, but not all of it
the rest goes into calculating how things move, their position changes in midair, triggering explosions etc. a PDS makes massive amounts of those occur, its simply not feasible.

and getting beyond that; this game is not exactly good looking on the small scale anyhow (sorry IC...), if things get any worse, to quote kosc 'you can make them rusty square boxes'.
There is no need for the whole game to be reduced in features and graphic quality just to satisfy Schem.

I doubt you even know what you're talking about.

Reply #14 Top


I'm not just pointing out for my own sake, they dont want to reduce sales because people cant run it
sorry, but this just isnt going to happen.
besides, I highly doubt even some halfway decent rigs (not the best, f u kosc) could take the task of 50+ PDS ships active.
I think Ironclad can get around any performance problems for slower machines by allowing a choice in the level of unit/effect detail and graphics performance in the game setup

graphics detail is only a part of the load. a big part, but not all of it
the rest goes into calculating how things move, their position changes in midair, triggering explosions etc. a PDS makes massive amounts of those occur, its simply not feasible.

and getting beyond that; this game is not exactly good looking on the small scale anyhow (sorry IC...), if things get any worse, to quote kosc 'you can make them rusty square boxes'.



Not if Sins is built with a native multi cores supported. If the matter is about actual calculation it can be used on the second core. Supreme Commander did this, it used the second core to actually calculate all the physic behind the game.


I don't play the beta yet so I may be talking from the point of ignorant, from what I gather the common battles that people are fighting are not on the scale that you said so it seems you are presenting the top limit scenario. Which to me is not very feasiable. What is the scale of battle that players will find them fighting 80% of gaming time? Almost anygame, if pushing the engine to its max it will get to a crawl. Galciv2 playing with 8CPUs on gigantic map, if it's a draw out fight then it will get to a crawl at some points. Supreme Commander is smooth on the scale that I dare say most people usually play on, but sometime if you want to go on a parade and push the limit to 10000units/player then it certainly get to a crawls ...etc...


So it's just that, my question is the battle of that scale how feasible and frequently it happens? Is it something common or a once in a while kind of thing. Plus, nowaday it helps if a game can have a little future proof. And again, I'm not asking for an accesive amount of PDS, maybe it's a system that should be equipped on strategic ships and installation, "especially installation".



If it's done right, IMO it's a very neat feature to have and once that I find missing a lot without really taxing the system. Just don't blow it out of proportion. I'll try to get into beta 2 when it's released, but for now that's my take so if it has some ignorance then pardon me.




Reply #15 Top
Not if Sins is built with a native multi cores supported

sorry to give you a reality check, but most people do not have multicores, and I doubt IC will ruin 70% of their sales for the elitists.
Supreme Commander did this, it used the second core to actually calculate all the physic behind the game

and how many computers did it run on. perhaps the single biggest complaint about the game was its extravagant needs. does it even have PDS?
What is the scale of battle that players will find them fighting 80% of gaming time?

pretty
damn
big.
Supreme Commander is smooth on the scale that I dare say most people usually play on, but sometime if you want to go on a parade and push the limit to 10000units/player then it certainly get to a crawls ...etc...

again, said strategy would alienate a majority of the people who can play games. its a very very shitty marketing strategy for an element that most people would ignore given the scope of the game.
Is it something common or a once in a while kind of thing. Plus, nowaday it helps if a game can have a little future proof. And again, I'm not asking for an accesive amount of PDS, maybe it's a system that should be equipped on strategic ships and installation, "especially installation".

the thing with PDS is that it easily doubles the firing any one ship does. if its a rare and very expensive ship, yes, maybe it'll be feasible. but not if every other ship has the capability to shoot at missiles.
but for now that's my take so if it has some ignorance then pardon me.

when you get into beta 2, you'll see the scope you're dealing with.
Reply #16 Top
the flax frigate is a point defense ship it's primare mission is fighter/bomber destruction
Reply #17 Top
if there is a PDS system, I haven't noticed it. and I've watched the missiles go.
the flax frigate is a point defense ship it's primare mission is fighter/bomber destruction

PDS isn't fighter/bomber destruction. its the removal of inbound missiles.
Reply #18 Top
Daniel by primare you meant primary.
Reply #19 Top
yes sorry i don't spell very well

point defense can be the removal of missiles and fighters/bombers after all what is a fighter but a missile with a pilot. granted a reusable missile

again as in the other post i will say that for an ecm/eccm platform we already have the scout and that is what one of the missions of a scout is to provide ecm/eccm for the fleet
Reply #20 Top
point defense can be the removal of missiles and fighters/bombers after all what is a fighter but a missile with a pilot. granted a reusable missile

no philosophy. that definition is wrong.
point-defense is about protecting a singular target from missile and rocket strikes. not about shooting down aircraft that may be targeting one of many different ships.

anyway, wiki has some interesting "trivia" on CIW systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-in_weapon_system

Reply #21 Top
Ships like the Kol, Marza, and the carrier have autocannons Which can be used as a PDS. The trick is making them target incoming missiles. The cannons can target multiple ships during a fight so i dont think it should be that difficult to do. Perhaps its just as simple as an entry on the missile entity that the missile can be targeted. However if that is the case then all weapons may target the missile, and not just flaks, and autocannons.
Reply #22 Top
you are forgiven schem you looked up a weapon not a system

The name is sometimes spelled AEGIS, supposedly an acronym for phrases such as Advanced Electronic Guidance Information System. However, such attributions seem to be backronyms or fake etymologies. (It is also possible there has been some confusion with the EGIS software used by some AWACS aircraft.) The main manufacturer of the Aegis combat system, Lockheed Martin, makes no mention of it being an acronym.


Combat Information Center (CIC) consoles aboard USS Normandy, 1997.The heart of the system is an advanced, automatic detect-and-track, multi-function three-dimensional passive electronically scanned array radar, the AN/SPY-1. Known as "THE SHIELD OF THE FLEET", the Aegis high-powered (four megawatt) radar is able to perform search, tracking, and missile guidance functions simultaneously with a track capacity of over 100 targets at more than 100 nautical miles.[1] The first Engineering Development Model (EDM-1) was installed in the test ship, USS Norton Sound, in 1973. The Aegis system uses missile uplink using the AN/SPY-1 radar for midcourse guidance of Standard missiles during engagements, but still requires the AN/SPG-62 radar for terminal guidance. This means that with proper scheduling of intercepts, a large number of targets can be engaged simultaneously.

The computer-based command-and-decision element is the core of the Aegis combat system. This interface makes the Aegis combat system capable of simultaneous operation against a multi-mission threat: anti-air, anti-surface and anti-submarine warfare. The Aegis system is being enhanced to act in a Theater Missile Defense role, to counter short- and medium-range ballistic missiles of the variety typically employed by rogue states (see Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System).


Large screen displays on USS John S. McCain, circa 1997. Destroyers have two displays while cruisers have four.The Navy built the first Aegis-equipped cruisers using the hull and machinery designs of Spruance-class destroyers. The first cruiser of this class was the Ticonderoga, which uses two twin-armed Mark-26 missile launchers, fore and aft. The commissioning of the sixth ship of the class, the Bunker Hill opened a new era in surface warfare as the first Aegis ship outfitted with the Martin Marietta Mark-41 Vertical Launching System (VLS), allowing a wider missile selection, more firepower, and survivability. The improved AN/SPY-1B radar went to sea in the Princeton, ushering in another advance in Aegis capabilities. The Chosin introduced the AN/UYK-43/44 computers, which provide increased processing capabilities.

In 1980, a destroyer was designed using an improved sea-keeping hull form, reduced infrared, and radar cross-section and upgrades to the Aegis Combat System. The first ship of the Arleigh Burke class, the USS Arleigh Burke, was commissioned in 1991. Because the Aegis system dominates the ship's architecture, ships equipped with it are sometimes mistakenly called Aegis class ships.

Flight II of the Arleigh Burke class, introduced in 1992, incorporates improvements to the SPY radar, and to the Standard missile, active electronic countermeasures, and communications. Flight IIA, introduced in 2000, added a helicopter hangar with one anti-submarine helicopter and one armed attack helicopter. The Aegis program has also projected reducing the cost of each Flight IIA ship by at least $30 million.

i added the caps to draw your attention to the title





WWW Link
Reply #23 Top
However if that is the case then all weapons may target the missile, and not just flaks, and autocannons.



that is how the bizmark scored against one british fighter it used it's main gun and effectively splashed it out of the water


you see the british navy didnt trust aircraft at the time so the few carriers they had were using swordfish(biplane)

the aaa guns on the bizmark were built to fight modern fighters at the time

biplane=70-90mph
modern fighters= up to 600 miles an hour


so basically the biplane was flying to slow for the aaa to shoot them down



ok you guys tell me what a lier i am if you want but it isn't true
Reply #24 Top
you are forgiven schem you looked up a weapon not a system

no, I wasnt looking that up. thats just some interesting stuff I stumbled on.

look at the point-defense link if you want me to prove myself right. again.
and AEGIS is not a PDS. its a missile integration system, so that you dont have carriers shooting down allied missiles.
The name is sometimes spelled AEGIS, supposedly an acronym for phrases such as Advanced Electronic Guidance Information System. However, such attributions seem to be backronyms or fake etymologies. (It is also possible there has been some confusion with the EGIS software used by some AWACS aircraft.) The main manufacturer of the Aegis combat system, Lockheed Martin, makes no mention of it being an acronym.


Combat Information Center (CIC) consoles aboard USS Normandy, 1997.The heart of the system is an advanced, automatic detect-and-track, multi-function three-dimensional passive electronically scanned array radar, the AN/SPY-1. Known as "THE SHIELD OF THE FLEET", the Aegis high-powered (four megawatt) radar is able to perform search, tracking, and missile guidance functions simultaneously with a track capacity of over 100 targets at more than 100 nautical miles.[1] The first Engineering Development Model (EDM-1) was installed in the test ship, USS Norton Sound, in 1973. The Aegis system uses missile uplink using the AN/SPY-1 radar for midcourse guidance of Standard missiles during engagements, but still requires the AN/SPG-62 radar for terminal guidance. This means that with proper scheduling of intercepts, a large number of targets can be engaged simultaneously.

The computer-based command-and-decision element is the core of the Aegis combat system. This interface makes the Aegis combat system capable of simultaneous operation against a multi-mission threat: anti-air, anti-surface and anti-submarine warfare. The Aegis system is being enhanced to act in a Theater Missile Defense role, to counter short- and medium-range ballistic missiles of the variety typically employed by rogue states (see Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System).


Large screen displays on USS John S. McCain, circa 1997. Destroyers have two displays while cruisers have four.The Navy built the first Aegis-equipped cruisers using the hull and machinery designs of Spruance-class destroyers. The first cruiser of this class was the Ticonderoga, which uses two twin-armed Mark-26 missile launchers, fore and aft. The commissioning of the sixth ship of the class, the Bunker Hill opened a new era in surface warfare as the first Aegis ship outfitted with the Martin Marietta Mark-41 Vertical Launching System (VLS), allowing a wider missile selection, more firepower, and survivability. The improved AN/SPY-1B radar went to sea in the Princeton, ushering in another advance in Aegis capabilities. The Chosin introduced the AN/UYK-43/44 computers, which provide increased processing capabilities.

In 1980, a destroyer was designed using an improved sea-keeping hull form, reduced infrared, and radar cross-section and upgrades to the Aegis Combat System. The first ship of the Arleigh Burke class, the USS Arleigh Burke, was commissioned in 1991. Because the Aegis system dominates the ship's architecture, ships equipped with it are sometimes mistakenly called Aegis class ships.

Flight II of the Arleigh Burke class, introduced in 1992, incorporates improvements to the SPY radar, and to the Standard missile, active electronic countermeasures, and communications. Flight IIA, introduced in 2000, added a helicopter hangar with one anti-submarine helicopter and one armed attack helicopter. The Aegis program has also projected reducing the cost of each Flight IIA ship by at least $30 million.

and if you're gonna quote something, at least make sure people realize that you're quoting. it makes you seem like a transparent, cheap person trying to sound smart by cut and paste.

anyhow, this has almost nothing to do with PDS. its a facet for coordination of missile strikes.
Reply #25 Top

Not if Sins is built with a native multi cores supported

sorry to give you a reality check, but most people do not have multicores, and I doubt IC will ruin 70% of their sales for the elitists.


This post will have little to do with the topic but:


Sorry, but this is a point I would argue because your reality check fail, completely. Dual core processors have been standalizing for around a year already, right now it's at the point that the people who have dual core are no longer the elite, but the people who refuse to accept it are just playing refusal. Just like one gig of ram, or a 128MB Video card, 2 years ago those are stuffs of the elite, nowaday they're considered gaming standard.


Go to any gaming community, ask any game developer and I guarantee you that your opinion is in the minority. And this is coming from a person who had hold on to his old PC until the very last moment possible (to give you an example, I played Oblivion on an old single core AMD and an old 9600), I am not an elite, but I won't deny when the time to move on comes knocking at my door.



and how many computers did it run on. perhaps the single biggest complaint about the game was its extravagant needs. does it even have PDS?



How about ... a lot? The game can be played on a wide range of machine, either you play on a 5*5 map with 500 units/player, or you play on 40*40 map with 2000 units/players. And by your second question I would presume you haven't played Supreme Commander, it only have a limited PDS feature, however the feature that makes it CPU consuming is because the game use Newton physic for all of its projectile. Between that and PDS, well, like I said, don't blow the need out of proportion.