Gauss Cannon Fighters vs Guass Turrets vs CIWS

[Ulzgoroth]

That seems to be applicable to FDF mode only. I was hoping to use my gauss fighters in an area defense mode, which by my understanding also results in a somewhat longer engagement range than FDF. I believe FDF is limited to 10km max range?

*Edit: I should also note that the principle advantage that I see using gauss vs CIWS is that gauss can target missiles which are targeting ships other than the ship upon which the gauss is mounted. CIWS can only defend it's host ship.

FDF (unless you choose the self-only option) can be used to protect other ships. In most cases area defense isn't very practical, and FDF is the name of the game.

Long-ranged beam craft that are positioned between the launcher and the target of the missiles might be able to make use of area defense productively? But that'd most likely be with lasers or similar, not Gauss.

[liveware (OP)]

I stand enlightened, many thanks for all replies.

[liveware (OP)]

One fire-control is enough to guide an unlimited number of Gauss guns or turrets as they can target multiple salvos. Although one gun or turret is needed at minimum per salvo... this make smaller Gauss guns more effective in general as they overkill incoming salvos much less then the larger Gauss cannons do.

On ships the most effective Gauss are the 17% reduced size one as it has 1 HTK so use that in a single turret or a a few mounted on a fighter hull. Larger guns might be somewhat better if you face huge salvos but their inefficiency against smaller salvos is so bad you generally don't want them outside role-playing reasons.

If you intend your PD fighters to do multiple jobs and their fleet PD role is one of them then build them, but you still should have dedicated fleet Gauss turrets as they are much cheaper and need far less fire-controls when mounted on capital ships or escorts.

So it seems that you are advocating for small single gauss turrets with reduced accuracy guns as more cost effective than larger, higher accuracy guns mounted on fighters because the higher accuracy guns find tend to overkill their targets and effectively waste their accurate shots. So even though the lower accuracy guns hit their targets less often on a per gun basis, because it is practical to field more of the low accuracy guns it becomes more effective to utilize several smaller, low accuracy guns than a single large, high accuracy gun. In general terms anyway, I'm sure there is a closet case for the large accurate gun, possibly as part of a more comprehensive and layered anti missile defensive system.

I'm not quite ready to abandon the PD gauss fighter concept just yet however, even though it seems that conventional wisdom is that gauss turrets are superior on a (mineral?) cost basis.

From a research standpoint, I am currently limited more severely by my BFC tracking speed than my engine power. For example, I can build a 20k km/s gauss cannon fighter but I can only build a 16k km/s BFC to target it. One obvious conclusion is that I neglected BFC tracking speed too much and now I am paying the price for my poor strategic research decision, so I will consider that for my next campaign. However for now, I'm stuck with this situation so it occupies my thoughts.

Perhaps I can build another fighter with a better BFC that can spot targets for the gauss fighters? Perhaps then I could improve my tracking speed sufficiently to allow my fighters to benefit from improved engines. Of course then I would also need to reevaluate the merits of a larger escort ship with a turret.

Decisions decisions...

[Jorgen_CAB]

One fire-control is enough to guide an unlimited number of Gauss guns or turrets as they can target multiple salvos. Although one gun or turret is needed at minimum per salvo... this make smaller Gauss guns more effective in general as they overkill incoming salvos much less then the larger Gauss cannons do.

On ships the most effective Gauss are the 17% reduced size one as it has 1 HTK so use that in a single turret or a a few mounted on a fighter hull. Larger guns might be somewhat better if you face huge salvos but their inefficiency against smaller salvos is so bad you generally don't want them outside role-playing reasons.

If you intend your PD fighters to do multiple jobs and their fleet PD role is one of them then build them, but you still should have dedicated fleet Gauss turrets as they are much cheaper and need far less fire-controls when mounted on capital ships or escorts.

So it seems that you are advocating for small single gauss turrets with reduced accuracy guns as more cost effective than larger, higher accuracy guns mounted on fighters because the higher accuracy guns find tend to overkill their targets and effectively waste their accurate shots. So even though the lower accuracy guns hit their targets less often on a per gun basis, because it is practical to field more of the low accuracy guns it becomes more effective to utilize several smaller, low accuracy guns than a single large, high accuracy gun. In general terms anyway, I'm sure there is a closet case for the large accurate gun, possibly as part of a more comprehensive and layered anti missile defensive system.

I'm not quite ready to abandon the PD gauss fighter concept just yet however, even though it seems that conventional wisdom is that gauss turrets are superior on a (mineral?) cost basis.

From a research standpoint, I am currently limited more severely by my BFC tracking speed than my engine power. For example, I can build a 20k km/s gauss cannon fighter but I can only build a 16k km/s BFC to target it. One obvious conclusion is that I neglected BFC tracking speed too much and now I am paying the price for my poor strategic research decision, so I will consider that for my next campaign. However for now, I'm stuck with this situation so it occupies my thoughts.

Perhaps I can build another fighter with a better BFC that can spot targets for the gauss fighters? Perhaps then I could improve my tracking speed sufficiently to allow my fighters to benefit from improved engines. Of course then I would also need to reevaluate the merits of a larger escort ship with a turret.

Decisions decisions...

You can find my tool here that you can test your theories and how they work out...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hbvbnqj77jrkl4r/TestPDlLeaker.exe?dl=0

The larger gun will shoot down more missiles if they come in very few very large salvos, but as son as you face more and smaller salvos they become allot more wasteful. It is way better to miss a few missiles in a large salvo than several dozen if you face the same amount in many smaller salvos.

This is becasue Aurora pick ONE salvo and fire guns at it until that salvo is destroyed... this can mean that it uses one entire gun to kill one last missile in that salvo. You  want every gun to kill at most one missile effectively everytime they shoot two if you are lucky. That is how the game work. The reason why I say 17% is because it is the smallest gun that have 1 HTK (hit to kill), anything smaller are destroyed the damage transfer to the next system might destroy that too.

With this said there is NOTHING wrong with using PD fighter... but I would say you should not contemplate using them as your main PD for ships but for defending other fighters, scouts or what have you. Using them to defend ships should be a secondary but useful tools to have in addition to other jobs.

In regards to fire-controls... your are right that you need one fire-control per salvo or target if you fire in area-defence mode... but you will never be able to use Gauss in that mode... you are most likely to never be able to fire at all as the enemy missile are likely to travel past the Gauss envelope in one full 5 second turn.

Lasers work much better in the area role... but lasers in that role is meant to be multi-purpose guns that are useful both in PD and in ship to ship combat and pays for that in being overall less efficient at both jobs. But there is still a case to be made for them being useful in that dual role though.

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

One fire-control is enough to guide an unlimited number of Gauss guns or turrets as they can target multiple salvos. Although one gun or turret is needed at minimum per salvo... this make smaller Gauss guns more effective in general as they overkill incoming salvos much less then the larger Gauss cannons do.

On ships the most effective Gauss are the 17% reduced size one as it has 1 HTK so use that in a single turret or a a few mounted on a fighter hull. Larger guns might be somewhat better if you face huge salvos but their inefficiency against smaller salvos is so bad you generally don't want them outside role-playing reasons.

If you intend your PD fighters to do multiple jobs and their fleet PD role is one of them then build them, but you still should have dedicated fleet Gauss turrets as they are much cheaper and need far less fire-controls when mounted on capital ships or escorts.

So it seems that you are advocating for small single gauss turrets with reduced accuracy guns as more cost effective than larger, higher accuracy guns mounted on fighters because the higher accuracy guns find tend to overkill their targets and effectively waste their accurate shots. So even though the lower accuracy guns hit their targets less often on a per gun basis, because it is practical to field more of the low accuracy guns it becomes more effective to utilize several smaller, low accuracy guns than a single large, high accuracy gun. In general terms anyway, I'm sure there is a closet case for the large accurate gun, possibly as part of a more comprehensive and layered anti missile defensive system.

I'm not quite ready to abandon the PD gauss fighter concept just yet however, even though it seems that conventional wisdom is that gauss turrets are superior on a (mineral?) cost basis.

From a research standpoint, I am currently limited more severely by my BFC tracking speed than my engine power. For example, I can build a 20k km/s gauss cannon fighter but I can only build a 16k km/s BFC to target it. One obvious conclusion is that I neglected BFC tracking speed too much and now I am paying the price for my poor strategic research decision, so I will consider that for my next campaign. However for now, I'm stuck with this situation so it occupies my thoughts.

Perhaps I can build another fighter with a better BFC that can spot targets for the gauss fighters? Perhaps then I could improve my tracking speed sufficiently to allow my fighters to benefit from improved engines. Of course then I would also need to reevaluate the merits of a larger escort ship with a turret.

Decisions decisions...

A BFC must be on the same ship as the weapon it is aiming.  It can't spot for others and it requires an active sensor to spot for it.  The active sensor can be on a different ship.

1R/3C Railguns are superior to fixed Gauss at PD until Gauss 8, and are still cheaper even then.  Gauss 8 only wins on size due to not needing a reactor.
Gauss turrets are superior to all other turrets at FDF, even at Gauss 2.  Railguns aren't turretable or else they would be the best until Gauss 8.
Gauss turrets vs Railgun fighters is an old argument and tends to be situational.  Recent BFC changes nerfed PD fighters hard.

There is a very old argument about whether smaller Gauss or larger is better for PD.  Jorgen has long advocated for smaller turrets.  I'm in the bigger turrets camp.

That the rules change every time Steve fixes something only adds to the fire. 

[liveware (OP)]

Hah, I have stumbled on an interesting design decision in that case. Further research is certainly warranted.

[Jorgen_CAB]

One fire-control is enough to guide an unlimited number of Gauss guns or turrets as they can target multiple salvos. Although one gun or turret is needed at minimum per salvo... this make smaller Gauss guns more effective in general as they overkill incoming salvos much less then the larger Gauss cannons do.

On ships the most effective Gauss are the 17% reduced size one as it has 1 HTK so use that in a single turret or a a few mounted on a fighter hull. Larger guns might be somewhat better if you face huge salvos but their inefficiency against smaller salvos is so bad you generally don't want them outside role-playing reasons.

If you intend your PD fighters to do multiple jobs and their fleet PD role is one of them then build them, but you still should have dedicated fleet Gauss turrets as they are much cheaper and need far less fire-controls when mounted on capital ships or escorts.

So it seems that you are advocating for small single gauss turrets with reduced accuracy guns as more cost effective than larger, higher accuracy guns mounted on fighters because the higher accuracy guns find tend to overkill their targets and effectively waste their accurate shots. So even though the lower accuracy guns hit their targets less often on a per gun basis, because it is practical to field more of the low accuracy guns it becomes more effective to utilize several smaller, low accuracy guns than a single large, high accuracy gun. In general terms anyway, I'm sure there is a closet case for the large accurate gun, possibly as part of a more comprehensive and layered anti missile defensive system.

I'm not quite ready to abandon the PD gauss fighter concept just yet however, even though it seems that conventional wisdom is that gauss turrets are superior on a (mineral?) cost basis.

From a research standpoint, I am currently limited more severely by my BFC tracking speed than my engine power. For example, I can build a 20k km/s gauss cannon fighter but I can only build a 16k km/s BFC to target it. One obvious conclusion is that I neglected BFC tracking speed too much and now I am paying the price for my poor strategic research decision, so I will consider that for my next campaign. However for now, I'm stuck with this situation so it occupies my thoughts.

Perhaps I can build another fighter with a better BFC that can spot targets for the gauss fighters? Perhaps then I could improve my tracking speed sufficiently to allow my fighters to benefit from improved engines. Of course then I would also need to reevaluate the merits of a larger escort ship with a turret.

Decisions decisions...

A BFC must be on the same ship as the weapon it is aiming.  It can't spot for others and it requires an active sensor to spot for it.  The active sensor can be on a different ship.

1R/3C Railguns are superior to fixed Gauss at PD until Gauss 8, and are still cheaper even then.  Gauss 8 only wins on size due to not needing a reactor.
Gauss turrets are superior to all other turrets at FDF, even at Gauss 2.  Railguns aren't turretable or else they would be the best until Gauss 8.
Gauss turrets vs Railgun fighters is an old argument and tends to be situational.  Recent BFC changes nerfed PD fighters hard.

There is a very old argument about whether smaller Gauss or larger is better for PD.  Jorgen has long advocated for smaller turrets.  I'm in the bigger turrets camp.

That the rules change every time Steve fixes something only adds to the fire. 

personally I actually like the bigger guns better and I want to turret them with more cannons in one turret too, perhaps even give them some armour. Even if I know it is not the most efficient thing I can do...

But small flak cannons can be cool too... I usually get the picture from Battlestar Galactica with all its small flak cannons firing huge volumes of fire.

me advocating smaller turrets comes from the math and how the game works more that a personal taste for how to actually design things in the game which might differ allot from what is the best to do in any specific scenario.

I think that you should always do what feels cool and not what is necessarily the most effective... but it is still good to know how and why things work in a certain way. Knowledge is always good...