First Battle Group - Jump Point Explorers

[Windfury (OP)]

I just started playing this game, coming in the wave of people who heard about it from Quill.

This is my first attempt at a battle fleet, right now I use it to explore new unexplored Jump points, only opened 4 so far and no aliens yet, keep wondering how badly I'm going to get toasted when that happens.

I would definitely appreciate some pointers.

A battle fleet for me has:
1x Perry Class JDE
2x River Class DE
3x Newcastle Class DD

The Class Designs are below.  Let me know if there is anything else I need to attach to give a full view of my fleet.

Perry Class Jump Destroyer Escort

Code: [Select]

Perry class Jump Destroyer Escort    10 200 tons     222 Crew     2166.6 BP      TCS 204  TH 300  EM 0
2941 km/s    JR 6-50     Armour 10-41     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 6     PPV 0
Maint Life 2.52 Years     MSP 1863    AFR 128%    IFR 1.8%    1YR 407    5YR 6111    Max Repair 656 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 24 months    Spare Berths 3   

J10200(6-50) Military Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 10200 tons    Distance 50k km     Squadron Size 6
600 EP Internal Fusion Drive (1)    Power 600    Fuel Use 110.23%    Signature 300    Exp 15%
Fuel Capacity 2 000 000 Litres    Range 32.0 billion km   (125 days at full power)

CIWS-160 (2x4)    Range 1000 km     TS: 16000 km/s     ROF 5       Base 50% To Hit
Active Ship Sensor MR408-R50 (70%) (1)     GPS 26250     Range 408.4m km    Resolution 50

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

River Class Destroyer Escort

Code: [Select]

River class Destroyer Escort    10 000 tons     247 Crew     3037.6 BP      TCS 200  TH 300  EM 0
3000 km/s     Armour 5-41     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 9     PPV 4
Maint Life 2.8 Years     MSP 2709    AFR 88%    IFR 1.2%    1YR 502    5YR 7523    Max Repair 1312 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 24 months    Spare Berths 0   
Magazine 185   

600 EP Internal Fusion Drive (1)    Power 600    Fuel Use 110.23%    Signature 300    Exp 15%
Fuel Capacity 2 000 000 Litres    Range 32.7 billion km   (125 days at full power)

CIWS-160 (1x4)    Range 1000 km     TS: 16000 km/s     ROF 5       Base 50% To Hit
Size 1 Missile Launcher (4)    Missile Size 1    Rate of Fire 5
AM Missile Fire Control FC138-R1 (70%) (1)     Range 138.6m km    Resolution 1
AMM S1D1 R113 35kkms (185)  Speed: 35 000 km/s   End: 53.8m    Range: 113.1m km   WH: 1    Size: 1    TH: 268/161/80

Active Missile Sensor MR115-R1 (70%) Mk.2 (1)     GPS 1050     Range 115.5m km    MCR 12.6m 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 Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Newcastle Class Destroyer

Code: [Select]

Newcastle class Destroyer    10 000 tons     203 Crew     1945.4 BP      TCS 200  TH 300  EM 150
3000 km/s     Armour 8-41     Shields 5-300     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 8     PPV 24
Maint Life 4.07 Years     MSP 1973    AFR 100%    IFR 1.4%    1YR 190    5YR 2853    Max Repair 450 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 24 months    Spare Berths 1   
Magazine 567   

600 EP Internal Fusion Drive (1)    Power 600    Fuel Use 110.23%    Signature 300    Exp 15%
Fuel Capacity 2 000 000 Litres    Range 32.7 billion km   (125 days at full power)
Delta R300/300 Shields (2)   Total Fuel Cost  25 Litres per hour  (600 per day)

CIWS-160 (2x4)    Range 1000 km     TS: 16000 km/s     ROF 5       Base 50% To Hit
Size 6 Missile Launcher (4)    Missile Size 6    Rate of Fire 30
AS Missile Fire Control FC490-R50 (70%) (1)     Range 490.0m km    Resolution 50
ASM S6D16 R308 20kkms (94)  Speed: 20 000 km/s   End: 257.3m    Range: 308.8m km   WH: 16    Size: 6    TH: 120/72/36

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 Military Vessel for maintenance purposes


[Prince of Space]

The single engine on each design is a gamble. If you had multiple engines, losing one would allow the ship to still limp around. On the other hand an exploratory force might benefit more from the better fuel efficiency of a single larger engine. Neither choice is wrong, but be aware that your design has placed you one one side of a design debate, and each side entails its own tradeoffs.

You used CIWS, which only defend the ship they are on. If you had used that space for gauss or laser or meson anti-missile turrets, your ships could defend each other if they were in the same space. I've never understood the appeal of CIWS on military ships, but some people claim to use it as part of a layered missile defense: AMM -> anti-missile turret -> CIWS. If you buy into that approach, then your designs have skipped the middle layer.

You claim these are for exploration. With no passive sensors, they can't spot trouble without firing up their active sensors, which gives away their position on enemy passive EM sensors. So they aren't built for cruising through the system listening for signs of alien activity. Instead they stand on a soap box, hollering and banging a frying pan, in the hopes that they can blast the bejeezus out of anything that comes close to investigate. That's... an interesting approach to making first contact.

Your ships are moving at ion drive speeds with internal fusion engines. Speed is a really valuable asset. It allows you to be better at running from a losing fight, chasing a fleeing enemy, maintaining or closing engagement distance to your liking rather than your enemy's, and dodging weapons fire.

In my experience, deep magazines for few launchers (like on the Newcastle) are a recipe for sadness. Your task group will trickle out a group of 12 ASMs once every 30 seconds. You will watch a conga line of salvos stretch out toward your approaching enemy, only to be chewed up by a sustained fire of anti-missile armament, like the first waves of enemies in a tower defense game. It happened to me that way. If it were me, I would drop some magazines to add more launchers, and possibly use half size launchers to squeeze in twice as many on top of that.

If you are intending these guys as bait for hostile aliens, they really only need to prepare for one fight: they draw out the alien menace, defend themselves, shoot back, and the noncombatant surveyors were never put in danger. Depending on your game settings, actual combat for these guys will be rare enough to warrant stepping back and evaluating each instance, once the afterimages of the initial blasts fade from your crews retinas.

You've got the basics down, though. You added more than the default single layer of armor. Your max repair is less than your MSP. Maintenance life and intended deployment time are roughly matched, with some extra wiggle room on maintenance life. (Newcastle is a little high on maintenance life though. Maybe drop some engineering spaces for more launchers.) Your task group has roughly matched speeds so they can move as a group, which seems appropriate for the tactics I'm inferring.

[Mastik]

  With apologies to my survey crews, i would rather sacrifice a single survey ship than a few combat ships.  But, my goal is to try and establish diplomatic relations, not start wars. 

  I have been watching the quill videos too, he simply doesn't understand what CIWS is and its capabilities.  His viewers are falling into the same trap.  If i have some extra space i have no problems adding 1 or 2.

  Until you have seen missiles fired at your ships, it is tough to grasp what you need for ship designs.  Don't get caught up in "well that looks like enough" because it probably isn't 

  In addition to what Prince has said, i would cut your sensor and fire control ranges, and use the extra space for some mid ranged AMM/ASM capabilities.   

[Zincat]

I agree with the two previous posts. Their suggestions are spot on, and you will profit from listening

Regarding CIWS, as said don't fall into the trap of considering them proper anti-missile measures for FLEET use. I'd like you to understand this well, because it can be crucial.

A numerical example will help. Let us consider a group of 6 warships. CIWS as said ONLY defend the ship they're on. Let's suppose 2 variants. Ship A has 4 CIWS. Ship B has 4 gauss turrets (but it could be lasers, or railguns).
- Squadron of 6 ships Variant-A. Each ship is defended by 4 CIWS
- Squadron of 6 ships Variant-B. Each ships is defended by the whole 24 turrets of the squadron.
I am sure you can see how case B is better Turrets are much better in a FLEET operation scenario.

So, what are CIWS good for? They do have a few advantages, that is:
- they don't require sensors
- they don't require power generators
- they can be mounted on civilian ships, unlike other missile defense systems.

Thus, CIWS are good in the following scenarios:
- on civilian ships, if you want the ship defended. Rare, but could be. Maybe on your geosurvey ships or something
- on LONE military ships. Say a military ship operates alone, for whatever reason. Maybe it's a tanker which is usually parked somewhere waiting for other ships to refuel. Maybe it's a carrier who operates alone from great distance. Depends on what you want your military ships to do. In these cases CIWS are good.
- Or finally, as a filler. If your 12000 ton warship has a little space left, and you really don't know what to fill it with, you can use CIWS. They are compact and don't require dedicated sensors or power plants. However, from personal experience, it's rather rare that you don't know what to fill space with


More useful information here
http://aurorawiki.pentarch.org/index.php?title=Point_Defense

And a final consideration. Turrets (especially lasers and mesons) can also serve as an anti-fighter weapon. And in a close range combat, anti-ship weapon. CIWS cannot. Thus turrets are also a lot more versatile, depending on your playstyle.

[Windfury (OP)]

Thank you all for the responses.

Most of that I had not even thought of, the points on Passive Sensors and the multiple engines especially, and I have taken your points on Turrets vs CIWS fully on board.

I just want to be clear, to use the turrets, I'd need a matching Beam Fire Control system as well correct?

Also 1 more Question,

Prince mentioned the Ships were moving at "ion drive speeds with internal fusion engines" can someone point me to a resource that states roughly how fast my ships should be moving for a given Engine tech level?

I'll have an updated fleet design up later this weekend with what I hope are better designs.  I can only imagine that they will be bigger ships as well, as I tried to stuff as much as I could into the existing Tonnage range for the Jump Point Engine.

[Sematary]

I mostly agree with whats been said, but there is one point I greatly disagree on. The maintenance life on most of my ships are a lot higher than the intended deployment. I don't want my ships to be going in for overhauls every time they have to refuel/have shore leave. Shore leave generally only takes a couple of weeks, a month at the longest, while overhauls easily take 3+ months. It also allows me to not have to put maintenance facilities on every forward base I have. Just personal preference though, if you decide to go with shore leave and overhauls being close to the same length there is nothing wrong with that.

[Sematary]

Thank you all for the responses.

Most of that I had not even thought of, the points on Passive Sensors and the multiple engines especially, and I have taken your points on Turrets vs CIWS fully on board.

Passive sensors are always a good idea, and the multiple engines pretty much comes down to fuel efficiency vs how often you think you will be in combat. If you think combat is rare and/or you are short on fuel without a clear source of Sorium then the single large engine is the way to go, since each HS of engine adds 1% of fuel efficiency. On the other hand if you think you will be in combat a lot its simple math, if you have one engine and you lose one engine you will lose 100% of your speed, if you have three engines losing one only gives you a 33% reduction.

I just want to be clear, to use the turrets, I'd need a matching Beam Fire Control system as well correct?

You will need a beam fire control yes, and it is better to have one that matches with your turrets and is dedicated to either one turret per BFC or all turrets for one BFC.

Also 1 more Question,

Prince mentioned the Ships were moving at "ion drive speeds with internal fusion engines" can someone point me to a resource that states roughly how fast my ships should be moving for a given Engine tech level?

As far as I know there really isn't a resource that states that. You will hear rules of thumb being thrown out in which people swear by anywhere from 25% to 60% of your total tonnage dedicated to engines but its a personal preference that comes with experience. I don't really go by a certain percent of the total I go more by how fast the ship goes and by internal fusion my ships are generally going around 6,000-7,000 kps.

I'll have an updated fleet design up later this weekend with what I hope are better designs.  I can only imagine that they will be bigger ships as well, as I tried to stuff as much as I could into the existing Tonnage range for the Jump Point Engine.

I can't wait to see it.

[Zincat]

Yes, you also need a fire control, as Sematary said. Sorry, when I say "sensors" regarding weapons I also mean "seansors + fire control". Basically anything that is needed in order to shoot.

Regarding engines. The problem is that these ships are, for you "armed explorers". It's not a very efficient approach because you need speed and range. Which means you have an enormous amount of fuel as well. But it's a matter of playstyle and disregarding that, as Sematary said, internal fusion is generally 6000-7000kps.

What most players do for warships is the following: have about 30% or so of the ship in engines, at x1 engine power multiplier. Could be 25%, cold be 35%. For different kind of ships (like fighters) the percentage can of course vary. In this specific case, 10000 ton ships, you could be wanting to do something like this:
30% of 10000 tons is 3000 tons. Say, as suggested before, that you want more than one engine. 3 1000 tons engines (size 20, ep 400 each). This example would give you speed 6000kps.

But yes, these are just general guidelines and often followed practices. At the end of the day it all boils down to playstyle and what you want to do.

P.S. There are also other ways to "explore". You could, for example, use cheap, easily replaceable unarmed small scouts. Aurora is a sandbox game, so it really boils down to what you want to do. For example, I often roleplay the fact that my nations are paranoid because of hints of a great Alien Threat, and so extremely cautions

[Zincat]

Another thing you may find of use. As you progress in the game, you will face the fact that you have to decide how much you want your ships to be "specialized".

On one side you have a completely "generalist" ship. This ship can do a lot of things, it's very versatile, has more than one weapon system. However, because of that, it has low firepower considering its tonnage. This problem is very severe for small ships.

On the other side you have a completely specialized ships. It does ONE thing, is not versatile, can only operate in fleets because it needs other ships to complement for its shortcomings. However, it will give you maximum firepower for its tonnage.

In between there are of course endless possible compromises. And let me be clear, no style is clearly superior to each other. once again, it's a matter of preference and Aurora is beautiful because you can do what YOU want. The thing you want is to have fun

A practical example. Let's say you decide on one ship with 2 weapon types. Missiles for long range, laser turrets for short range and point defense. All good yes? But you'll need a missile fire control, a beam fire control, 2 different sensors, power plants. And if you also want passive sensors, an em and a thermal sensor. This ship will be very very versatile, but the space available for weapons will be small because all those systems I listed will take up space and so you'll have little space left for weapons. As said, this problem is more severe for small ships.

Alternatively, you can build 2 ships and send them around together, one for lasers, the other for missiles. Because they don't have 2 of everything, they will have more space for weapons. However, they will be much less useful and much more vulnerable by themselves.

Both approaches can work, but they have different weaknesses and strengths. Experiment and decide what you prefer

[Prince of Space]

I mostly agree with whats been said, but there is one point I greatly disagree on. The maintenance life on most of my ships are a lot higher than the intended deployment. I don't want my ships to be going in for overhauls every time they have to refuel/have shore leave. Shore leave generally only takes a couple of weeks, a month at the longest, while overhauls easily take 3+ months. It also allows me to not have to put maintenance facilities on every forward base I have. Just personal preference though, if you decide to go with shore leave and overhauls being close to the same length there is nothing wrong with that.

Sematary has not swayed me to his point of view, but I acknowledge that it's reasonable to do things his way as well. If you have a strategic/logistical vision for your empire, wherein the ships in question can stop off at nearby populations for some quick carousing and drinking, but those populations wouldn't be equipped with maintenance facilities of sufficient size for the ship, then yes, you can puddlejump from one space brothel to another in between overhauls. And your ships' maintenance life/intended deployment time should reflect that arrangement. You could save space on crew quarters with a shorter deployment time and still make it work.

The advantage to matching them up, however, is that both overhauls and shore leave are mechanics based around rewinding their respective clocks. They take time to complete, unlike refueling or loading ordnance into magazines, which are instantaneous. While the ship is having the space barnacles scraped off, the crew can get in their annual allotment of fornicating and pill popping. Plus, completing shore leave doesn't interrupt autoturns, so you'll have to watch for that event if you separate out shore leave from overhauls.

[Iranon]

I generally prefer higher maintenance lives too - not only does overhaul take more time, additional engineering bays will come in useful when the ship takes battle damage.
It can also make economic sense to go completely overboard, giving some ships a maintenance life in the decades and never overhaul them at all.