Aurora 4x
VB6 Aurora => Advanced Tactical Command Academy => Topic started by: SwordLord10 on April 15, 2016, 02:02:56 PM
-
I was wondering how the professionals use carrier based fleets. Do you use 1 type of fighter per squadron, do you use multiple, do you bring heavier ships to accompany your carriers(like battlecruisers or battleships), or something else entirely? Posting designs for your ships would be useful, I'm a total nub.
-
I tend not to use carriers that much, but when I do, I definitely specialize. It's much better to offload active sensors and (sometimes) fuel for long-range missions onto specialized fighters, and you don't have to worry about shipyard tooling. Escorts are vital for missile defense, if nothing else, and I'd probably want some heavy firepower in case I can't keep the enemy at range.
-
I tend not to use carriers that much, but when I do, I definitely specialize. It's much better to offload active sensors and (sometimes) fuel for long-range missions onto specialized fighters, and you don't have to worry about shipyard tooling. Escorts are vital for missile defense, if nothing else, and I'd probably want some heavy firepower in case I can't keep the enemy at range.
Thanks for the advice. I can assume it is better for newbs to use non-carrier missile ships because of less micro-managment?
-
Thanks for the advice. I can assume it is better for newbs to use non-carrier missile ships because of less micro-managment?
For missile defense? Two reasons. First, you want a decent-sized radar, which you can't fit on a fighter. Second, you would otherwise have to build specialized missile-defense fighters, which you then can't deploy. And doing that is just wasteful if you use AMMs. I suppose if you rely on beam weapons, it might work, although there are scale issues there, too.
-
Effectively, you would use fighters mostly to deploy missiles at longer range. In case of small strike fighters then, you normally don't need to mix the squadron up with anything else, because even a sensor fighter might not be good enough to mirror the large missile ranges they sport. These then usually rely on the sensors of the central fleet or carrier to target their enemies.
As soon as you send escorts with them or use size-1 missile fighters, it is must to bring with you a sensor fighter who can spot missiles, since you will never be able to cover that with just a powerful central one in the main fleet. I have been separating into 150t active resolution-1 and 100t thermal sensor on a 500t fighter-scout. (you need thermal to spot missiles in advance, as Aurora does not properly interrupt when they fly into just the active sensor radius. Also helps while flying in silent running mode of course.)
Other than that you may design additional fighters for other purposes that can accompany a squad. I had one that was essentially just fuel tanks next to the standard engine for example, because adding one or two of those to a squadron of 10 standard fighters doubled their action radius, which is otherwise severely limited. I would just add them to a team when I needed a bit more range as the situation demanded it, and they also provided useful in retrieving life-pods or fueling up some distant flights that had gone a bit over their range. (..normally you can only retrieve those by flying the carrier himself over)
More dedicated scouts for ship- instead of missile-spotting may also find their use, though I personally never really needed them.
For the carrier fleet itself; I don't know whether you really need escorts or not. When I use them they are either huge (300kt+) and able to fight for themself, or they appear at TL6 when I can afford to have on them supreme stealth ability (for fun, because at that time you have won anyway), in which case they are as small as 25kt. The only escort the last one needed were fast and also cloaked sensor ships on the flanks that would illuminate the enemy for the fighters without giving away the slow carriers' position.
-
Effectively, you would use fighters mostly to deploy missiles at longer range. In case of small strike fighters then, you normally don't need to mix the squadron up with anything else, because even a sensor fighter might not be good enough to mirror the large missile ranges they sport. These then usually rely on the sensors of the central fleet or carrier to target their enemies.
As soon as you send escorts with them or use size-1 missile fighters, it is must to bring with you a sensor fighter who can spot missiles, since you will never be able to cover that with just a powerful central one in the main fleet. I have been separating into 150t active resolution-1 and 100t thermal sensor on a 500t fighter-scout. (you need thermal to spot missiles in advance, as Aurora does not properly interrupt when they fly into just the active sensor radius. Also helps while flying in silent running mode of course. )
Other than that you may design additional fighters for other purposes that can accompany a squad. I had one that was essentially just fuel tanks next to the standard engine for example, because adding one or two of those to a squadron of 10 standard fighters doubled their action radius, which is otherwise severely limited. I would just add them to a team when I needed a bit more range as the situation demanded it, and they also provided useful in retrieving life-pods or fueling up some distant flights that had gone a bit over their range. (. . normally you can only retrieve those by flying the carrier himself over)
More dedicated scouts for ship- instead of missile-spotting may also find their use, though I personally never really needed them.
For the carrier fleet itself; I don't know whether you really need escorts or not. When I use them they are either huge (300kt+) and able to fight for themself, or they appear at TL6 when I can afford to have on them supreme stealth ability (for fun, because at that time you have won anyway), in which case they are as small as 25kt. The only escort the last one needed were fast and also cloaked sensor ships on the flanks that would illuminate the enemy for the fighters without giving away the slow carriers' position.
Remember that I am a noob and will probably screw my tactics up and let my enemy close into missile range, in which case I would need escorts.
I might prefer to use a destroyer and cruiser based laser fleet anyways.
How is this for a fleet?
A few point defense frigates/corvettes, using Gauss rifles(double turrets), 4-5 destroyers also mainly employing Gauss rifles, but with a smaller spineback laser. 5-6 cruisers with one double turret Gauss, and a powerful spineback laser, 1 battlecruiser, armed with the largest possible spineback laser, a command cruiser with as good of sensors as I need, armed exclusively with AMM's and Gauss, and a couple escort carriers with laser and meson fighters.
-
I find having a couple of a Jump capable fighter on board my carriers is extremely useful during exploration and for checking suspected JP blockades.
Just a minimum size jump engine and a compact yet useful sensor, no need for any weapons on it.
-
Well, here are the current fleet components of my latest game - a heavily fighter-oriented game at that. Note that my designs may be slightly unconventional however.
Standard carrier, placed on mass production for several years:
C-1-M2 class Carrier 10 000 tons 125 Crew 868.6 BP TCS 200 TH 800 EM 0
4000 km/s Armour 1-41 Shields 0-0 Sensors 55/90/0/0 Damage Control Rating 3 PPV 0
Maint Life 0.84 Years MSP 163 AFR 266% IFR 3.7% 1YR 194 5YR 2908 Max Repair 90 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months Flight Crew Berths 27
Hangar Deck Capacity 3000 tons
C40-S50 Internal Fusion Drive (2) Power 400 Fuel Use 2.53% Signature 400 Exp 4%
Fuel Capacity 540 000 Litres Range 384.2 billion km (1111 days at full power)
Thermal Sensor TH5-55 (1) Sensitivity 55 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 55m km
EM Detection Sensor EM5-90 (1) Sensitivity 90 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 90m km
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
This has space for exactly 6x500 ton fighters, which is what I used for a "fighter wing". Current fighter designs:
Space Superiority Fighter:
SSF-3 class Fighter 497 tons 4 Crew 213.4 BP TCS 9.94 TH 300 EM 0
30181 km/s Armour 1-5 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 0 PPV 3
Maint Life 0 Years MSP 0 AFR 99% IFR 1.4% 1YR 17 5YR 259 Max Repair 37.5 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.1 months Spare Berths 0
F300-S1 Magnetic Fusion Drive (4) Power 75 Fuel Use 771.63% Signature 75 Exp 30%
Fuel Capacity 80 000 Litres Range 3.8 billion km (34 hours at full power)
Thermal Lance (1) Range 30 000km TS: 30181 km/s Power 3-3 RM 1 ROF 5 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FC-F48/20 (1) Max Range: 48 000 km TS: 20000 km/s 79 58 38 17 0 0 0 0 0 0
MagFusion Power Cell (1) Total Power Output 3 Armour 0 Exp 5%
M3 Compact Scanner (1) GPS 6 Range 1 000k km MCR 109k km Resolution 1
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and maintenance purposes
Microwave fighter-bomber:
EFB-2 class Fighter-bomber 497 tons 4 Crew 228.4 BP TCS 9.94 TH 300 EM 0
30181 km/s Armour 1-5 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 0 PPV 3
Maint Life 0 Years MSP 0 AFR 99% IFR 1.4% 1YR 18 5YR 268 Max Repair 37.5 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.1 months Spare Berths 0
F300-S1 Magnetic Fusion Drive (4) Power 75 Fuel Use 771.63% Signature 75 Exp 30%
Fuel Capacity 80 000 Litres Range 3.8 billion km (34 hours at full power)
EMP Emitter (1) Range 30 000km TS: 30181 km/s Power 3-3 RM 3 ROF 5 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FC-F48/20 (1) Max Range: 48 000 km TS: 20000 km/s 79 58 38 17 0 0 0 0 0 0
MagFusion Power Cell (1) Total Power Output 3 Armour 0 Exp 5%
M2 Compact Scanner (1) GPS 6 Range 780k km MCR 85k km Resolution 1
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and maintenance purposes
Recon/Scout Fighter:
RF-2 class Recon Fighter 497 tons 4 Crew 284.4 BP TCS 9.94 TH 300 EM 0
30181 km/s Armour 1-5 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 0 PPV 0
Maint Life 0 Years MSP 0 AFR 99% IFR 1.4% 1YR 31 5YR 465 Max Repair 56 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.1 months Spare Berths 0
F300-S1 Magnetic Fusion Drive (4) Power 75 Fuel Use 771.63% Signature 75 Exp 30%
Fuel Capacity 70 000 Litres Range 3.3 billion km (30 hours at full power)
AS-R100-S2 (1) GPS 5600 Range 78.4m km Resolution 100
AS-R1-S2 (1) GPS 56 Range 7.8m km MCR 854k km Resolution 1
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and maintenance purposes
And the update-pending missile bomber:
MFB-1 class Fighter-bomber 500 tons 3 Crew 156.6 BP TCS 10 TH 192 EM 0
19200 km/s Armour 1-5 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 0 PPV 3
Maint Life 0 Years MSP 0 AFR 100% IFR 1.4% 1YR 5 5YR 76 Max Repair 24 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.1 months Spare Berths 7
Magazine 20
F300-S1 Magneto-Plasma Drive (4) Power 48 Fuel Use 1080.28% Signature 48 Exp 30%
Fuel Capacity 65 000 Litres Range 2.2 billion km (31 hours at full power)
BL-1 (20) Missile Size 1 Hangar Reload 7.5 minutes MF Reload 1.2 hours
FC-M8/1 (1) Range 8.2m km Resolution 1
A-4 (20) Speed: 45 000 km/s End: 3.8m Range: 10.2m km WH: 4 Size: 1 TH: 240/144/72
M2 Compact Scanner (1) GPS 6 Range 780k km MCR 85k km Resolution 1
Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and maintenance purposes
Fighter wings are composed of one recon fighter and 5 of one of the other fighter types. A common tactic would be to use a wing of missile bombers to take out a target's shields, followed by a wing or two of microwave bombers to blind the enemy, at which point a final wing of the laser-armed fighters can take apart the enemies at leisure.
I also have this Experimental super-carrier design:
C-2 class Carrier 20 000 tons 255 Crew 2262.5 BP TCS 400 TH 1250 EM 0
3125 km/s Armour 1-65 Shields 0-0 Sensors 55/90/0/0 Damage Control Rating 6 PPV 0
Maint Life 1.07 Years MSP 424 AFR 533% IFR 7.4% 1YR 372 5YR 5580 Max Repair 156.25 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months Flight Crew Berths 367
Hangar Deck Capacity 10000 tons
C50-S50 Magnetic Fusion Drive (2) Power 625 Fuel Use 4.42% Signature 625 Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 1 895 000 Litres Range 385.9 billion km (1429 days at full power)
Thermal Sensor TH5-55 (1) Sensitivity 55 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 55m km
EM Detection Sensor EM5-90 (1) Sensitivity 90 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 90m km
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
And while it can hold a whole load of fighters, I have that space reserved for a 10kt destroyer at the moment.
I also have a few auxiliary ships like tankers, colliers, etc. but I'm trying to stick to just the carrier elements that are the topic of discussion.
So general fleet doctrine:
-ability to respond to threats anywhere in the known galaxy, hence the respectable range on the carrier;
-expendable fleet elements (ie fighters) tank the damage while non-expendable elements (the carriers) stay out of enemy engagement range, which allows me to use minimal armour and defenses on carriers;
-if a beam fighter engagement doesn't look like it will work, nuke them with size-1 missile spam - a single wing of bombers can output 5x20 missiles @ 4 damage a piece for a 400 damage alpha strike. Most of my current carrier groups have at least 3 wings of missile bombers which should be capable of dealing with most threats.
-
I have used carriers some. I play basically just like the US navy. The carrier and it's fighters do all the heavy lifting, with a few escorts to deal with anything that gets passed the fighter wings.
I go with 15k tons of hangar space, so I can have 30 fighters, consisting of 3 wings of 10 each. Each wing contains 9 combat fighters and one sensor fighter. The carrier carries two anti-fighter wings, and one anti-ship wing. The anti-fighter either get 1msp missiles, or beam weapons. The bombers have 5-6msp missiles. The carrier has enough magazine space to load each wing 3 times.
Fighter wings are composed of one recon fighter and 5 of one of the other fighter types. A common tactic would be to use a wing of missile bombers to take out a target's shields, followed by a wing or two of microwave bombers to blind the enemy, at which point a final wing of the laser-armed fighters can take apart the enemies at leisure.
You should lead with the microwave bombers, microwaves do bonus damage to shields.
-
Well, the bonus damage brings the total up to 3 per shot vs shields. If you think about it, that's equivalent to just a 10cm laser so you don't really gain anything by bringing in the microwaves just yet. It's when you can bypass armour and go straight for their vital electronics that microwaves really become useful.
-
I favour small-ish carriers with single-purpose fighter groups.
Single-shot missile fighters, 150t or so. Fairly slow (1 size-1 engine) and fragile, aim is to deliver their payload without being detected due to their small size, hope is to have enough simultaneous salvos that point defence will be overloaded despite the modest number of missiles.
Support variants as needed, with sensors or fuel tanks.
Ripple-fire missile fighters. 400-500t, fast, one small (but full-size) missile launcher launching high-yield missiles exactly as fast as the fighters themselves.
Since all missiles travel in one clump while split into 1-missile-salvos, enemy point defence will be largely ineffecive. Not always used for outright kills, this is useful as a screen for fast craft that aim to get close and personal... like the following.
Support (sensor, fuel, collier) versions as needed.
Boarding strike group. Microwave fighters for suppression, boarding shuttles delivering a Marine Company each. These often operate together with full-sized beam warships, I've moved away from offensive/PD-oriented beam fighters. High-performance carrier-bound beam ships (with 3 days of deployment time and endurance) aren't out of the question, but I haven't built any recently.
-
I am currently using a single type of fighter that is meant to play a role as a Anti-fighter for my large Ships to picket for enemy fighters and scout out areas. As for my carrier squadrons, I have two squadrons for each different role, two bomber squadrons and two Superiority in which i rotate to yield constant missile fire on ships or combine to overwhelm PD. The carriers themselves are large and have lots of hanger space and missile space since they are meant to avoid direct combat but still have their own PD systems to protect themselves in the event they are attacked. As for my Fighters, they are designed as either space superiority missile fighters, or anti-ship missile bombers, each having a guass cannon to defend themselves or be able to attack other ships after they fire their missiles.
-
I have some older fleet carriers (48kT with 20kT hangar space). These ships needed jump gates to get to the fight so I'm planning to phase them out. But they were great for bringing overwhelming combat power when I stormed an NPR's home system. They carried 2 squadrons each with:
1x Recon Fighter (active sensor, passive thermal)
1x Squadron Leader (missile director, 4x box launchers)
19-20x Strikefighters (5x box launchers)
I have much smaller Jump Carriers that lead my mixed Expeditionary Strike Groups. These carry a single small squadron of only:
1x Recon Fighter
1x Squadron Leader
4x Strikefighters
They were meant to soften up or chase down Precursor ships for boarding, but I just had a squadron shot up by AMMs at a longer range than I expected, so I need to make some new missiles with longer-ranged fighter-size missile directors. Once I get new engine tech I'm going to design a carrier halfway between these two: probably ~30kT with space for 2x 10-fighter squadrons. I've designed an interceptor/space superiority fighter but I have yet to need them, so I haven't built any.
-
I mix carrier types around, but I build my squadrons in similar fashion to modern fighter ops.
I usually run with 4x fighters, and 1x Command/Sensor ship per flight, 2x flights is a squadron. So, 8 fighters and 2 Command/Sensor fighters
I build my carriers around squadrons, like so;
CVE (Escort)
1-2 squadrons, escorts are generally older light carriers, or system defense carriers. They are cheap, slow, but can carry current fighters.
CVL (Light)
1-2 squadrons, these are modern and fast carriers, I use them to accompany scouting forces, cruiser squadrons, or kinetic battle squadrons
CVK (Scout)
1-2 squadrons, plus additional hanger space for other craft. I dont build many of these, if at all. They are specialized, and meant to go in with surveyors, and usually have marines and landing craft as well.
CV
2-4 squadrons, my stock carrier platform for battle squadrons, along with battleships, they tend to be big and expensive, so they tend to get refitted as long as practical, or scrapped.
CVA (Heavy)
4 to 8 squadrons, I only really build these for really big offensive operations, they are huge, and cost a fortune, and take forever to build, but can take a pile of abuse.
CVS (Strike)
4 to 8 squadrons, things are BAD if I am building these. They are carriers, but build like battleships, very tough, very heavy missile/fighter defense, and self defense. Cost a freaking fortune and take forever to build.
I usually build equal numbers of CVL/CV. I build CVE for areas that may get hostile traffic to supplement the FAC and frigate/destroyer squadrons I leave in important systems. The other types only get built on special circumstances or really heavy combat.
-
I tend to follow the modern approach as well, in my current campaign, as well as the material it was inspired by.
My carrier fleet usually operates very short range, is very fast, has good redundancy, and is only equipped with what it needs for it's mission. Usually this means 1x CV, 3x FF, 3x DE.
The fast frigates are mainly for point defense, the destroyers, especially with the lack of the G in there, do not use missiles, but instead rely on speed and bringing railgun hurt to the enemy, while outfitted with tons of armor. Literally.
It is kind of a wasteful approach, as I have to get the Destroyers back to home base to refit their armor, but it works out. The Destroyers as a group are faster than my fighters as a group, but when I separate the fighters, I got quite a few very fast ones, twice as fast as the Destroyers, but armed to the teeth.
My fighters usually, regardless of material, follow similar doctrine to how I build my carrier fleets. Strong armor, a bit slower speed, and they are usually outfitted for the missions they take part in. This means:
Long Range Scout: It is a fighter, <= 500 tons, that can operate on billion kilometer ranges, has a very small TCS and emits no EM radiation. It doubles as a spy, and when that is done, I usually put it on EMCON and run it a lot slower than it can go. It usually detects by passives, or a large active which I only turn on when in combat.
Chaser/Interceptor: A fighter, <= 500, equipped to go short ranges, very fast, hit hard and take names. It is the type of fighter I usually end up replacing because in the absence of other fighters to fight, I send it against Destroyers, and it can deal a lot of damage before it has to limp back home.
Brawler non-specialist: A FAC, <= 1000, usually 800 tons; Goes fast, has PD, has a big railgun/laser, equipped with all sorts of sensor equipment, very low range. These guys usually defend my Carriers when I have to send the Frigates forward. They can also take on a Destroyer, and when coordinated with the other types, they can even win that fight.
I know these types are a bit too ambiguous and general, but that is usually the thought process involved when I design my fleet. These are usually the three components that I need for successful carrier operations. Long Range Patrols, Fast Intercept and something that can brawl.
-
For the recon fighters, does it make sense to have a design for the active sensors and a separate scout fighter with the thermal sensors, in order to have more sensitive sensors that are still able to keep up with the squadron?
Also, do you have separate recon fighters with resolution 0 as well as for tracking the enemy fleet, say resolution 100 or so?
Fighters with resolution 0 sensors can be deployed forward to warn of incoming missile waves. If an enemy fires missiles on the presumption that their target will continue closing, they may fire at maximum range or close to it. If the target fleet has sufficient early warning, they can turn away, potentially causing entire volleys to be wasted, at the cost of some fuel and time.
-
Each of my recon fighters has a single sensor.
Small sensor footprint is a very useful asset.
-
Like I said before, my recon fighters rarely if ever have a sensor. If you have an active grav sensor, it has a passive receiving array. Which means, anything that has an active, and is within range to detect another ship, chances are, they detected you by your emissions, and will blow your smeg up. However, if it's early in the game and my resources are limited, I do put resolution 1 sensors on them, and thermal arrays, but I only turn those on, if I detect missiles coming at me, by their thermal emissions. But this is dangerous, and you need great thermal sensors to detect missiles before it's too late, plus you lose out on that initial bonus. Eventually I just figured, it's not worth it placing even anti missile sensors on fighters. But that is something you can only deal with once you have sufficient experience in situations like those.
For newbies, I would always recommend a sensor on the mothership that can cover the entire bingo operational range of your fighters (45% of your their range), and anti missile sensors on your fighters only IF you use gauss guns or railguns. Don't even bother if all you have is a single mason. You will not defeat missile waves with those.
Also, I never bother with missile fighters. Releasing one or two missiles is completely worthless compared to the space that needs to be dedicated to the carrier for the missile magazines to reload the fighters, the hangar deck, and any supply ships. I only use energy/projectile weapons on my fighters. It is better to dedicate that space and escort to PD.
As for larger sensors, once again, it is unnecessary. Your friendly capital-ship sensors should detect enemies, not your fighters. Any sensor you can put on a fighter is not really going to cut it for your operational requirements, unless they are for self defense, or detecting active emissions. Remember, the USAF Raptor is a stealth fighter as long as it doesn't turn on it's own radar.
-
It's more complicated than that.
The emissions of R1 Actives aren't generally a problem unless there are powerful DSTSs around. At equal EMSensitivityTech, it would take a size-10 EM sensor to detect its emissions at its maximum range, and the AI rarely builds large Passives.
However: emissions scale linearly with resolution, while range only scales with the square root. The emissions of an R100 Active can be detected by a size-1 EM sensor (again assuming equal EM sensitivity tech ) to its maximum range, and the active doesn't achieve its theoretical maximum range against small ships.
A tiny sensor fighter with a long-ranged coarse-grained sensor for better ship-to-ship range is quite visible... but still difficult to target. Adequate for painting something without getting shot at, but not for stealthy recon. If the goal is to detect ships without being observed, a larger sensor with single-digit resolution fits the bill better, but there's a limit to the capability you can cram into a fighter. May work against lower-tech NPRs, but if you can't outrange their anti-missile sensors, this isn't very useful.
If the capability to get an Active sensor lock without being seen is a priority against varied ships of similar tech level, we probably won't get around cloaked sensor ships with large R1 sensors, a considerable investment.
I disagree with single-missile fighters being worthless, and especially with comparing them to more PD... totally different capabilities. Carrier-bound missile fighters work nicely if you never expose the carriers to harm while striking out to a range that would be impractical for long-range missile cruisers, while avoiding enemy long-range missiles by not giving them ship-sized targets.As long as your fighter-bound missiles outrange their AMMs, you may never come under fire.
Whether the overhead in fire controls is a true drawback depends on doctrine and enemy... it's expensive, but large numbers of 1-missile salvos are harder to intercept than la few larger salvos.
-
Perhaps it's just a matter of fleet doctrine and their operational objective. A carrier task group focused on energy weapon fighters, will have microwaves, mesons, lasers, railguns fighters, and most of the escort will be pure PD. They will go fast, and the fighters will strike the enemy from invisibility due to not having sensors. A missile fighter group on the other hand, relies a lot on a lot of moving parts, and though I can see them defeating a few very large ships, they are completely defenseless against a very large swarm if they are forced to go back to the mothership to reload. Plus, let's not forget the bug with Fighter Operations doing the opposite of what it's supposed to.
From both a mechanical and a doctrinal standpoint, it is far more beneficial, in my opinion and experience, to field a fighter group that has infinite operational time as far as ammunition is concerned, even though they require a lot more fuel and engine power than a missile setup.
Maybe it's just one of those preference things.
-
I usually put at least 4 decent ASMs on my Missile Strike Fighters, and use FCs that allow them to target all enemy ships larger then FACs. They only need to out range the enemy AMMs, so it's normally not so demanding on their size.
Sometimes they get escorted by fighters with beams or AMMs/Anti-FAC Missiles, sometimes I run with 100% Strike Carriers and let the rest of the fleet deal with cleaning up enemy FACs and smaller ships.
Even beam fighters need their Carrier after all ( to refuel and jump if nothing else ) and the Strike Missile Fighters can take out their mothership while a force of beam fighters only will get slaughtered trying to approach into beam attack range of a CTF that has a good AMM umbrella and is of same tech / size theirs is.
-
I tend to run a more unconventional carrier fleet doctrine than others. I use mainly PD FACs on my carriers, they serve as the primary and only PD for my fleet. Each FAC mounts between 2-3 100mm railguns and 9-10 size 1 max power engine depending on tech. At equal tech level, nothing other than a size 1 box launcher swarm can penetrate them. Then again, nothing can really defend against a size 1 box launcher strat, plus the AI doesn't do that either.
For offense, I use 10,000 ton DDGs with short range ASM box launchers. I can fit about 100+ per ship. The missiles typically have 5-10m km range. Since I have superior PD, I can move my entire fleet within 5m km and shotgun blast them with box launchers to the face. If I run out of missiles, the PD FACs also serve as backup beam fighters. Each carrier worth of FACs can deliver between 80-120 damage per 5 seconds. They can rip up a bigger fleet than themselves, but at a very high cost due to how expensive the engines are.
The carriers themself are 20,000 tons with 10,000 hanger space. They'll be able to hold 10 PD FACs or re-arm a single DDG in the field.
-
I'm still not a professional, but has a fighter-oriented game, so let it be my little experience here too.
I has 3 types of carriers.
All of them have about 1/3 of mass for propulsion engines (balanced fuel use), no jump capability and no own weapon, sensor or shields.
Their ranges and deploy times was different, but all in obvious ordinary frame with their roles.
I. Strike Carriers
Void class, 20+kt (old), and Procyon class, 30+kt (new).
Both have magazines for 1 load of full fighter group with a little additional space for special ammo.
Procyon class have an armor (4-layer), ECM and small troop transport bay. Void class have no one of these features.
Served well as main strike force carriers against Precursors.
Have intention to use against NPR, but this operation is still at deploying stage.
II. Light Assault Carriers
Robber class, 3kt.
1 boat bay, 1 small troop transport bay and 1 cargo handling system.
Served well for boarding & landing actions against Precursors (after missile FG strikes; suitable to clear system, while Strike Carriers go home).
Has intention to use against NPR at frontier, but there was no NRP ships or planets spotted after first survey division there.
There was some superfluous bother with them, so I have a doubt about building any more, but maybe I'll design more suitable ones for this role.
III. Light Scout Carriers
Present - Oberon class 1kt corvettes, and there was several older similar designs.
1 boat bay and 1 small magazine for sensor buoys.
Served well deploying light scout boats for survey and recon expeditions. Cheap and very suitable.
Previous classes has no magazine for buoys, and it was my omission.
(Have to describe parasites too, but it will be tomorrouaaaaw...)
-
So, parasites.
Survey flight for Oberon class Scout Carriers:
1x Mab light buoy-laying recon boat
2x Titania light thermal-sensor recon boats
Strike fighter group for Void or Procyon class Strike Carriers:
50x Fury light missile fighters (1x 6-MS box launcher)
2x Piper missile targeting boats
2x Rustle high-res radar battle support boats
2x Pulse early warning radar battle support boats
2x Alert thermal sensor battle support boats
2x Envisage EM sensor battle support boats
4x Mustang fast fueller boats
Military operational support flight for Procyon class Strike Carriers:
1x Jumper fighter-rank jump tender
1x Mab light buoy-laying recon boat
1x Titania light thermal-sensor recon boat
1x Dart light assault shuttle
Dart light assault shuttles are the only light crafts in this set, that have mass over 220 tons with 2 forced and thermal-reduced engines - all other have masses in 75-137t range with 1 balanced engine without thermal reduction.
In addition, I have now some new designs, that wasn't tested in battle:
Scorpio 500-ton heavy interceptors (1x Gauss Auto Cannon and 5 forced engines)
Tormentor 1000-ton gunboats (1x Longrange Meson Cannon, 6 forced engines and 4-layer armour)
Helldiver 1000-ton heavy assault shuttles (6 forced thermal-reduced engines and 4-layer armour)
-
I prefer trading missiles from a distance, so I usually operate carriers with fast beam armed fighters as additional PD along with my escort ships, or send them mid-range to finish off a softened enemy.
If my missiles can't do the magic, I will usually withdraw if possible and return with more missiles, but if retreat isn't an option, I will use fighters as a close-range (cruiser beam range) screen to either annoy and poke the enemy while they keep shooting on my cruisers, or to draw fire from my most precious or vulnerable ships (whatever the AI decides).
I usually do not operate fighters as a main fleet body.
My carriers come in 2 flavors so far, the Odessa class Early Carrier (essentially a 8kT "barge" with 4kT hangar space, and terrible speed, now used mostly for defensive purposes, they have been built in 2030 and received little update in my currently 2060 game, but they saw extensive action against Precursors) and the Vivec class Escort Carrier (12kT fast, lightly armored carrier with 6kT hangar space and basic PD).
My only fighter design is the Vengeance MkIV beam fighter, essentially the same I was operating in 2030, with updated laser beam, engines and power plant.
They all sort of work as intended, so I'm not experimenting much in that sense.
-
I prefer trading missiles from a distance, so I usually operate carriers with fast beam armed fighters as additional PD along with my escort ships, or send them mid-range to finish off a softened enemy.
If my missiles can't do the magic, I will usually withdraw if possible and return with more missiles, but if retreat isn't an option, I will use fighters as a close-range (cruiser beam range) screen to either annoy and poke the enemy while they keep shooting on my cruisers, or to draw fire from my most precious or vulnerable ships (whatever the AI decides).
I usually do not operate fighters as a main fleet body.
My carriers come in 2 flavors so far, the Odessa class Early Carrier (essentially a 8kT "barge" with 4kT hangar space, and terrible speed, now used mostly for defensive purposes, they have been built in 2030 and received little update in my currently 2060 game, but they saw extensive action against Precursors) and the Vivec class Escort Carrier (12kT fast, lightly armored carrier with 6kT hangar space and basic PD).
My only fighter design is the Vengeance MkIV beam fighter, essentially the same I was operating in 2030, with updated laser beam, engines and power plant.
They all sort of work as intended, so I'm not experimenting much in that sense.
Interesting. Why do you choose 12kT escort carrier/fighters rather than, say, 2x6kT escort frigates with turrets? I would have thought the fighters are much more expensive in terms of fuel /losses/micro for no real advantage in PD terms?
-
Interesting. Why do you choose 12kT escort carrier/fighters rather than, say, 2x6kT escort frigates with turrets? I would have thought the fighters are much more expensive in terms of fuel /losses/micro for no real advantage in PD terms?
Response times, speed advantages, and area of coverage.
-
Interesting. Why do you choose 12kT escort carrier/fighters rather than, say, 2x6kT escort frigates with turrets? I would have thought the fighters are much more expensive in terms of fuel /losses/micro for no real advantage in PD terms?
Early game, railgun fighter/FAC are better than gauss turret escorts in every way. They won't reach parity until you get to Gauss rate of fire 6. They also serve as backup beam weapons when needed. The only downside to railgun fighter/FAC + carrier base doctrine is that each upgrade and/or rebuild will cost a massive amount of gallicite.
-
I don't think it's quite that straightforward.
Using 16k techs + Magneto Plasma drive, cheap and bulky ships aiming for 10000t, 3000km/s, 6 months deployment, 1 year maintenance life, 20m range.
Escort Carrier with 8 railgun fighters, 32 shots @20k: 2000BP
Gauss Corvette, 36 shots @20k: 1100 BP
Railgun Corvette, 96 shots @5k: 900 BP
Railgun Corvette, 96 shots @5k: 450 BP if we think we can get away with base-tech railguns (15s reload time, 10k maximum range rather than the usual 5s/30k )
The carrier seems rather expensive if we don't care about the tactical flexibility. If all I want is point defence, I'd rather have 4 of bottom-of-the-barrel railgun corvettes.
-
Early game, railgun fighter/FAC are better than gauss turret escorts in every way. They won't reach parity until you get to Gauss rate of fire 6. They also serve as backup beam weapons when needed. The only downside to railgun fighter/FAC + carrier base doctrine is that each upgrade and/or rebuild will cost a massive amount of gallicite.
Gauss vs Railguns will depend alot on the speed of your Point Defense screen. Since Gauss can be turreted it's advantage is that it's more suitable for bigger slower ships and can even be put in CIWS on Commercial ships ( to protect high value targets like tankers and troop transports ).
As you admit yourself the cost of the railgun fighter/FAC is it's speed / engines needed which will take both gallicite and tonnage away from you in a more dramatic way then the turret rotation of Gauss PDs will.
So in practice if you include these effects as well I would say that the actual breakeven happens earlier, around fire rate 4-5.
And nothing really prevents you from using Military gauss as backup beam weapons too as long as you put them in turrets.
-
To be honest... while rail guns can be effective the imbalance in resource distribution alone and problems with maintenance and retrofitting ships I stay clear of these weapons as dedicated PD besides low tech options.
I do agree though that Gauss are really only starting to be useful at around fire rate 3 and above.
My carrier doctrine are that reconaiscence are top priority. When I strike my carriers must be unknown to the enemy. At this point in the game I would have an all missile offensive fleet but I always keep beam weapons on ships since jump points is always a thing.
Overall, beam fighters are sort of a waste of sentient life so I stay clear of them for moral reason. I do however use super fast beam interceptor fighters to engage scouts, FAC and fighters.
-
To be honest... while rail guns can be effective the imbalance in resource distribution alone and problems with maintenance and retrofitting ships I stay clear of these weapons as dedicated PD besides low tech options.
I do agree though that Gauss are really only starting to be useful at around fire rate 3 and above.
My carrier doctrine are that reconaiscence are top priority. When I strike my carriers must be unknown to the enemy. At this point in the game I would have an all missile offensive fleet but I always keep beam weapons on ships since jump points is always a thing.
Overall, beam fighters are sort of a waste of sentient life so I stay clear of them for moral reason. I do however use super fast beam interceptor fighters to engage scouts, FAC and fighters.
Early game Railgun fighters out perform Gauss by far if both are limited to the same number of RPs. The lower the starting RP, the bigger the gap. Early Railguns tends to have 1-2 tiers of tech advantage over Gauss since railgun fighter related techs are cheaper. With fighter beam fire control, you can get much higher tracking than normal while spending less on research. Fighters also get 50%+ fighter combat bonus from their commanders, you really can't get any better PD early game than railgun fighters.
I augment my railgun fighter carrier fleet with a bunch of destroyers with size 6 box launchers. They are armed with fast short range missiles with a decent warhead. A single destroyer can carry 100+ missiles capable of dealing over 1000 damage in a single volley. Basically, my doctrine comes down to shoot down every single missiles the enemy is shoot at me, then close the entire fleet to ~5m range and launch hundreds of really power missiles at them all in a single volley. It doesn't involve the beam fighters actually fighting anything at close range.
-
Early then I agree railguns are the better option but it is normal in my games that gauss technology usually are prioriticed over railguns Tech so by the time an enemy is met Gauss are usually superior in general resources wise.
Fighters are primary missile launch plattforms while ships are mainly defensive in nature.
But I usually prioritise laser, gauss and missile techs. That is just what I prefer.
-
Is an issue of planning...
Do you spend research on and go for a concept that you know will become obsolete in one or two generations max, knowing full and well that you need to expend the same research again in another field to catch up and get ahead?
Or do you go for the option that's superior long term right away at the cost of a minor short term disadvantage, and in the long term earn extra RP to spend elsewhere instead of a technological dead end?
If you go for Railguns as your main beam weapon then sure railgun fighters might make sense, otherwise probably not IMO.
-
Railguns require literally zero investment for point defence, the base weapon has its own appeal because of it's low cost.
Cheap disposable semi-decoys. PD on fast ships. Dual-purpose weapons that don't suck in a brawl. Defence against multiple small salvos without ridiculous overhead on fire control.
10cm railguns can fill some niches even if you intend to switch to Gauss eventually, for little or no research investment.
I tend to not develop neither Gauss nor Railguns beyond 10cm for a long time... Gauss tech is expensive for a narrow benefit, larger railguns need capacitors well in advance of the weapons to shine.
-
I don't think that anyone denies that early Railguns are decent PD weapons.
Later on though they become less useful for other options. In some of my games where I have run several factions at the same time missiles are a bit more diverse in their capabilities which make lasers a good choice as primary PD as well.
The major drawback of using Railguns later on is the huge resource waste into powerful engines and you still need a good PD weapon on regular ships as well. If you use fighters as PD you still need the extra hangar space on your ships which is another overhead cost for them. There is nothing wrong in using your fighters as PD, I just would not use them as a primary source for PD.
I did some quick calculations on a Quad Gauss turret (fire-rate 3) with roughly equivalent PD capabilities with fighter crafts and the breaking point is at about fire-rate three for the Gauss weapon when you add in all the overhead in needing the hangar space for the fighters in BP cost. With about generation four technology you would need about 500BP for both systems, I did also include that fighters will usually get extra bonus for their officers. The major difference in resource cost is that the fighters and their mothership have a much higher cost in Gallicite, almost double the resource cost where the normal ship have a more even distribution of resource cost even if the total is more or less the same.
-
Interesting. Why do you choose 12kT escort carrier/fighters rather than, say, 2x6kT escort frigates with turrets? I would have thought the fighters are much more expensive in terms of fuel /losses/micro for no real advantage in PD terms?
Versatility, mostly. Speed is key to many things in Aurora, I have been recently surprised by a FAC-heavy spoiler race with overwhelming numbers and if I had slow-ish escort frigates I would have lost the entire fleet. Instead, I gave them some fighters to chase while running for the jump point, and it worked. I lost my fighters, but my fleet will fight another day.
Fighters are cheap to build and replace, can be built anywhere by throwing a bunch of factories on a planet, and their speed is a valuable asset.
I'm not saying I don't have escort frigates with turrets as dedicated PD, just that all my major fleets have a couple carriers as well.
-
Versatility, mostly. Speed is key to many things in Aurora, I have been recently surprised by a FAC-heavy spoiler race with overwhelming numbers and if I had slow-ish escort frigates I would have lost the entire fleet. Instead, I gave them some fighters to chase while running for the jump point, and it worked. I lost my fighters, but my fleet will fight another day.
Fighters are cheap to build and replace, can be built anywhere by throwing a bunch of factories on a planet, and their speed is a valuable asset.
I'm not saying I don't have escort frigates with turrets as dedicated PD, just that all my major fleets have a couple carriers as well.
Yes, this is the reason I always have some interceptor type fighters in a fleet. I usually only need a few of them since whatever they go up against are generally defenseless against them. A super fast fighter with a 15cm laser (usually reduced sized one) have the range and speed to stay at range and eat most FAC/fighter type crafts for breakfast for very few losses.