Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Iranon

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 31
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« on: September 19, 2017, 06:42:11 AM »
With the planned shift to the maintenance system, maintenance-exempt PDCs that can house hangars are problematic.

However, I feel like many of the planned changes for C# add complexity while possibly reducing depth, with reasonably complex but not open-ended system (like Titans, which could have been modeled like ships are, preferably with some overlap in systems) and logistics challenges that beg to be played around instead of meeting them straight-on.

It's plausible for a superior opponent to quickly eliminate one's powerful and highly visible assets (titans, PDCs) while lacking the capability to take out one's dispersed ground units without massive bombardment, so I don't have a problem with different time scales.

If we want to introduce beams from orbit I'd tie it to the intelligence system (fire control would be a trivial problem against ground targets, knowing what to hit would be the challenge). But I'd be for keeping things separate... large assets like PDC and titans can grind through large forces of regular ground units, but are vulnerable to direct strikes from similar or orbital assets, and largely useless for police duties.

Bureau of Ship Design / Re: First game; third generation warships.
« on: September 13, 2017, 08:41:51 AM »
The designs are a little thirsty for my liking, especially with such generous mission lives. I'd use more engines with lower power multipliers, and less fuel.

Maintenance life is also much higher than deployment time. Whether that is ok depends on your use... if they are expected to do some R&R around outer colonies much more often than they will see servicing, it's perfectly fine. If they're expected to remain at base and do long sorties into uncolonies space, this is not ideal.

I wonder whether the carrier needs its speed and defenses. I don't typically expect to expose my carriers to anything unpleasant. My long-ranged missile ships usually don't tangle with beam opponents, so 3 different standards of defenses/speed are plausible to avoid excessive and expensive performance on ships that don't need it. 3 difference performance groups may be overdoing it though.

Your missile armament won't necessarily outrange AMMs (the AI likes to use relatively long-ranged models, and uses it for offense quite liberally).

I prefer small fighters carrying a single missile, to confound defenses with more salvos or get a little more efficiency and shock damage from larger missiles. At the ranges you design for, overhead for one fire control per missile is far from excessive.

Rather like the frigates.

Bureau of Ship Design / Re: Mission pods and their feasability.
« on: September 09, 2017, 02:51:45 PM »
Jump issues wasn't what stood out in my memory, I don't actually recall them. Maintenance failures causing interrupts and breaking tractor chains was the major annoyance.

Bureau of Ship Design / Re: Mission pods and their feasability.
« on: September 07, 2017, 11:58:50 PM »
No problem with docking. Being engineless just restricts you to a speed of 1 km/s, no special restrictions. I don't really see how a minimal engine would help.

No considerations or major headaches I can think of, very much unlike tractored pods.

Aurora Chat / Re: Good ASM using Mesons/railguns/gauss
« on: August 27, 2017, 06:02:56 PM »
I like 10cm railguns best. Base-tech on the flak barges lennson mentioned, respectable versions for fast ships.
Gauss weapons can be situationally better, but require some research investment and it's rare that I care for tonnage-efficiency over cost-efficiency on slow ships.
Either will typically be used in final defensive fire.

Dedicated area defence weapons aren't necessary. They will be less effective, often costly, and require even more costly fire controls... not attractive if your offense relies on missiles.
There's something to be said for making your offensive beam weapons dual-purpose though, with modest calibres and possibly turret mounts.

While not as flavourful, I think you'd be better off with 15cm lasers, which are a perfect match for your capacitor tech. I'd also run a single ECCM system, it's rare that you need ECCM and split fire. Generally, you have a lot of overhead in electronics.

Aurora Suggestions / Re: Him Vs Her
« on: July 02, 2017, 02:12:58 AM »
If we go through all this trouble, a percentage selection similar to secondary themes would be more appropriate.

Bureau of Ship Design / Re: Trying for PD missile ship
« on: June 28, 2017, 01:56:04 PM »
I tend to calculate the agility tonnage I need to push MR up, then use the excess for fuel. If that results in excessive range, I consider my engine too small.
0.7 agility for a size-2 missile would be too much for me.. I prefer larger engines even if that results in very slightly lower accuracy: agility is expensive, larger engine slightly improves fuel efficiency, higher speed has soft benefits.

Size in itself has nothing to do with that.

At comparable tech level and expenditure on my navy, I've mass-produced cheap 100.000t designs in one game and fielded fewer 12000t-designs with a higher unit cost and far greater logistics burden in another.
And I was equally satisfied with either.

My engines should be only modestly boosted, I certainly didn't go over 1.5; I read somewhere around here that x1.00 engines were inefficient and EP should be either above or below that (hope the extra 0.5 isn't overboard).

That might have been me, and stems from engine costs scaling: quadratically below 1.0, linear above. If 1.0 is reasonable for our speed/range requirement, 0.85 or 0.9 often saves fuel and BP; ship slightly larger for the same capability, but cheaper.

That is a very local phenomenon though. The numbers put your engines at 50Hs and 1.6 power. That is rather stressed. Using 30% of your engine weight in fuel as in your cruisers is about the most performance you can cram into a given tonnage (theoretical optimum is 40%, for almost no measurable increase), with no consideration of fuel efficiency.
While it would result in individually less capable ships at 20000t, I'd probably be happier with 4x 0.8 power engines and building more of them.

Bureau of Ship Design / Re: Trying for PD missile ship
« on: June 23, 2017, 12:33:37 AM »
I'd probably go for longer range, sensors/FC being more important than the missiles themselves.

Twice the engagement envelope is almost as good as twice the number of launchers and fire controls.

Aurora Chat / Re: PDC defences
« on: June 20, 2017, 01:18:51 PM »
Very basic meson PDCs, mostly for the PPV.
Later on, hangar PDCs to mothball ships no longer fit for fleet use but too valuable to scrap.

Either type tends to be on major colonies; I usually prefer building up my fleet to scattering immobile assets all over the place.

C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: June 15, 2017, 05:02:38 AM »
The only good beer is German beer, and all other nations should be annexed and forced to brew it. Our purity laws say so.

It may be good practice to give major warships enough sensors to be tactically self-sufficient... a size-1 resolution-1 active for most, coarser resolution for primary missile attackers.
Sometimes I didn't even do that, and put various size-1 sensors on a civilian auxiliary ship along with some fuel, cryogenic transport etc, or rely on long-endurance scout fighters which have some advantages (less likely to be shot at, can do some scouting without annoying the neighbours too much).

Tbh, none of this matters much for a small navy. But as you field more ships, it pays to formulate a design doctrine that gives you the flexibility and redundancy you want without undue cost/duplication.

Bureau of Ship Design / Re: Your original designs
« on: June 14, 2017, 07:54:50 AM »
Yes, much too thirsty.

Take the Jumper Stealth:
4x 0.8 power engines and 100HS fuel fits on the same tonnage, has the same speed, uses 18% as much fuel, and has several times the range.

4x1.2 power engines and 100HS fuel has slightly more range than the original, uses 49% as much fuel, and is 50% faster.

Overstressed engines compensated by excessive fuel load is the easiest way to ruin a design. Even if you want the design to refuel others, it's too much.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 31