Multi-Warhead Missiles


Surely I’m not the only one when I say these are ridiculously imba?

They can not be point-defensed, burst-scrambled (It’s the Swarm antimissile thing… pretty useless) or guidance scrambled in a 1:1 ratio… that is, a multi-warhead missile module occupies a guidance scrambler fully, and can not be scrambled at all within a certain range.

They also do ridiculous damage to shields and armor alike, and have no minimum range. Even reflective shields take damage from them, and they chew through armor just as readily.
This is why you often see ‘missile-spam’ fleets consisting of only multi-warhead cruisers - they are the one-stop counter to everything except opposing multi-warhead-missile fleets.

Proposed change: give one of the missiles in the group a special sprite/model (dunno how GSB rendering works) and designate it the ‘root missile’ of the bunch - if it gets guidance scrambled, point defensed or otherwise destroyed, all the other missiles in the group do too. Obviously, a point defense or guidance scrambler module would need to be paired with that one ‘decoy identifier’ module which already exists, to correctly identify the ‘root missile’. In addition, give the multi warhead missiles a minimum range of 250 to avoid ‘shotgunning’ the full 44-per-salvo damage into the opposing ship, with no chance of them being scrambled.

This would make it possible to defend against multi-warhead-missile spam effectively.


Forgot to mention: longest range of any weapon in the game.


You’d be surprised at how effective a few scramblers can be at defusing the MWM spam tactic. I’ll let the more tactics-savvy posters give the details (hopefully at least one of them is listening?) but there is a definite rock-paper-scissors mechanic going on with GSB fleets - two of the options are missile spam and rush, if memory serves. There are ways of beating the bejeezus out of a MWM fleet, just like any other tactic.


There are a lot of ways to face a missile spam man, i have two favorites, one cruiser equiped with many Guidance Scramblers in the front at the formation (if there are not close combat cruisers in the other side) or rushing fleets with close combat weapons and one GSB in each one, protecting them from the waves of missiles until they are too close to be effective, in that moment, close combat is already started.

My point, there is no needing to nerf MWM.


Uh, I’ve tried putting two GSBs on each of my cruisers with Cruiser Lasers as their primaries - they still get instagibbed by MWMs.


Try having a fleet with speed higher than 0.05.


All my heavy cruisers (long range usually) have around .16 moving speed, my light cruisers (rushing or close combat ones) always have .20 or higher.


My rushing fleet goes at 0.27. It has nothing to do with inadequacies on my side - MWM is just ridiculous.


Hello, Xodolash, and welcome aboard the GSB forums!

What the heck is an imba??? O.o

It’s supposed to be a fearsome weapon. But it is cursed with only 0.60 tracking, which means that unless you’re being spammed to high heaven by these things, your defensive arrangements are somewhat below par. I think your personal definition of “ridiculous” might differ from that of other folks’ here.

Sure, the MWM is annoying when its spammed, but I’d hardly panic over 41 armor penetration. That’s not the threat; the stupid persistence of player spam attacks is the threat. :confused: We must make do with second-best defenses against it. To me, it sounds as if you’re not making full (or any?) use of decoy ships ahead of your main formation to lure the enemy’s long-ranged fire away from your actual fighting cruisers. That can really go a long way towards lessening the sting of a MWM barrage, or other time-wasting forms of spam attacks.

Same thing for making use of traditional Point Defense systems, which (while admittedly flawed) do have a trait that Guidance Scramblers seem to lack: the ability to re-target and re-engage an incoming missile. GS systems look like they try hacking each inbound bogey just one single time before moving on to the next bogey in range. This can be problematic when considering the GS’ rearming interval is at least 420 milliseconds. PD systems will make more than one try per bogey. They may not succeed, but that effort can sometimes really add up in your favor.

Perhaps better still, the different rearming rates of the 3 cruiser PD systems can perhaps be exploited by including one of each kind, so that your rearming cycles are staggered instead of concentrated. It stinks when a big blob of missiles are ringing your doorbell, but all of your PD systems are busy recharging at the same moment. :stuck_out_tongue:

Guidance Scramblers are also stuck with fairly poor tracking (2.2), which is significantly inferior to that of PD systems (3.0-3.2). Sure, the GS is blessed with longer range, and the PD guns have a slower rearming cycle, but that lack of accuracy makes any over-reliance on GS systems and total absence of PD systems into a potentially serious hole in your strategy.

Add it to the GS’ inability to take more than one shot at the same inbound missile and, well…you wind up where you are now. [-shrug-]

Advice: when outfitting your actual combat ships in the pre-game screens, don’t bother with more than one GS per ship. When knowing (or suspecting) that a MWM steamroller is in your next battle, add 1 or 2 PD systems to the GS aboard each cruiser. Try that while playing the battle at a slow speed so you can judge for yourself the effectiveness of a two-tiered missile interdiction plan.

It’s probably of little value, but you could also try squeezing some extra performance out of your defense by using Point Defense Scanner booster modules.

While somewhat wasteful in terms of overall money spent, the use of a dedicated space-defense cruiser design may help pull your mainline combat cruisers’ bacon out of the fire. Several of these, carefully placed, will give your fleet more longevity - at the cost of you having to bring fewer anti-ship weapons to bash the enemy with.

Hate to break the news to you but MWMs do indeed have a minimum firing range, and it’s [size=125]500[/size]:

[config] unlockcost = 3220 lockable = 1 armour_penetration = 41 category = "WEAPONS" classname = "SIM_MissileModule" cost = 136 crew_required = 14 damage = 11 decoy_release_range = 450 description = "Missiles with decoys are all fun and giggles, but a missile with multiple live warheads is even more fun. Of course, more warheads means less damage per impact..." fire_interval = 1950 flareuvid = 2 fuel = 1700 guiname = "Multiple Warhead Missiles" has_decoys = 1 has_flare = 1 hitpoints = 103 icon = turret min_range = 500 max_range = 1160 missilelength = 4.0 missilespeed = 0.19 missilewidth = 2.0 name = "cruiser missile multiple" powerconsumed = 2.5 shield_penetration = 50 size = "CRUISER" sound = data/sounds/missile_launch.ogg soundvolume = 1.0 submunitionslive = 1 tracking_speed = 0.6 trail_fade_time = 900 turnspeed = 0.5 turret_sprite = "turret_miss_v1" turretsize = 12.0 warhead = EXPLOSIVE weight = 128 slot_type = TURRET uisortpos = 1150
While you’re busy being barbecued by the MWM-armed enemy cruisers, where the heck are your EMP Missile-armed escort frigates? You did bring a big bunch of them, didn’t you? If not, that may explain some of your opinions here. Stun-locking the MWM ships is an important part of the overall plan of eliminating them. And mass numbers of frigates so armed are ideal for shutting the damned things down before you can kill the ships carrying them. They’re also extremely useful in a general sense on the battlefield; make a habit of buying some in most of your battles.

So? Plasmas do all of the above, also. Should we be mounting a campaign against those, too?

What’s your core argument here – nerf everything that can possibly pierce a shield or leave a scratch on the armor??? :wink: OK, OK, I joke – but your chances of getting Cliffski to allocate the time away from a paying project in order to alter the MWM’s stats after this game’s been out for 26 months is of a very low order indeed. That’s what you’re up against, I’m afraid.

This debate is purely academic, anyhow – Cliffski is now mentally waaaaay off in the land of Positech, busily coding his next amazing game (Gratuitous Tank Battles), therefore this game is not on his radar screen. Because of that (Positech IS a one-man studio), none of the issues you’ve recently raised here are terribly likely to ever be officially changed.

If all else fails, it’s trivially easy to mod yourself more than one kind of cure for what ails you. Or fly the Parasite ships with their hilarious Missile Revenge Scramblers! :smiley:


And THAT was another epically nice point by Astro, and i forgot to tell that i allways use support frigates with many EMPs onboard to backup rushing cruisers (or any other thing, lol)

I really like mixed tactics, one of the most succesful ones that i tend to use when fighting against unknown fleets by first time is:
Rushing Cruisers (as main attack)+ EMP Support (frigates) + Anti Fighter Support (frigates) + Some Long range Support (cruiser)+ Rocket fighters (to obliterate frigates)

I’m not a fan of those epically armoured Tank Cruisers, but i have to sat that sometimes i use them since they are the perfect way to obliterate the majority of long range based fleets.


Wrong. Nomad Fast missiles have the same range, and Cruiser Missiles have a longer range (1140 v 1200)

My missile formations tend to favor fast missiles, and survive QUITE well against MWM spams. The best tactic i can give you is to give up weapons on 5-9+ ships, and just focus on def’s. (i think i run 3GSB per defensive ship, and DON’T have them hold agro. That way they’re not being shot at, they’re being shot PAST)