I was thinking of Number 1 for Pre-game....   and maybe even a place to actually select the type of vessel and let the computer put the approprate tech on.

Example:   I want a Missile Destroyer at 6500 tons  and the computer designs it after all of the tech has been developed...

    Because right now it designs quite a few vessels and I don't think you need all that is designed....
    I will soon submit some new vessel designs for review and comment.....

Free Willy....

OK, that sounds reasonable. The first part of what you after after can be done already on the New Game window by selecting tech development but not ship design. This will research suitable background tech. Then you want to specify a role and a hull size and let the program design both the various tech components required and then create an actual ship design, which you could modify if desired. Does that sound right?

Steve

Guys pls..
Can post SUGGESTIONS for NEXT NEW version?

r too many "suggestions" open,and am think Steve FOLLOW only the LATEST for the PROX version of game..
ty and apologize for my bad english

EDIT for Moderators: pls ERASE older Suggestion and pls take open the latest ty again

Personally, i wouldn't mind being able to tell the computer to make a tug/salvager/other specialized design for me once i've gone and developed the approtiate tech in-game.

Pls guys..

show WHAT r ULTIMATE suggestion's version:)))

4.3 are ELDER:

now we r on 4.61!!!

because 4.6 are out..obviously NEXT r 4.61:D

are TOO MANY TREAD.

Steve

This may hopefully be covered under the new components mechanism, but can you arrange so missiles or any ordnance can be transported from planet to planet by cargo holds rather than requiring magazines. The rational for this is if I want to resupply my missile ships in space I need an auxiliary and the magazines there to me represent specialist handling gear. While if I want to transfer bulk stocks between planets then a standard hold will do. I would like to see a separation of the two roles. Remember in WW2 if you crewed on a ship transporting munitions across the Atlantic in the convoys they were not specialist merchantmen, you even got a good night’s sleep, but perhaps you didn't wake up again!

Regards

GC fighters of the same build cost would overwhelm the CLE in short order.  The CLE is limited to 3 fire controls thus only 3 targets per 5 sec cycle.  

The designed CLE is only death to 3 missile salvos per 5 sec cycle.  Easily overwhelmed with multiple small salvos.  

I think I'd be willing to pit 2 of these 7500ton ships in a BPV battle.  Point blank.  (missile load cost 466.56)

Victory class Destroyer    7500 tons     789 Crew     1039.4 BP      TCS 150  TH 900  EM 0
6000 km/s     Armour 1-34     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 2     PPV 30
Annual Failure Rate: 225%    IFR: 3.1%    Maintenance Capacity 173 MSP    Max Repair 30 MSP
Magazine 480    

Ion Engine E6 (15)    Power 60    Efficiency 0.60    Signature 60    Armour 0    Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 150,000 Litres    Range 60.0 billion km   (115 days at full power)

Size 1 Missile Launcher (30)    Missile Size 1    Rate of Fire 10
Missile Fire Control FC10.5-R100 (10)     Range 31.5m km    Resolution 100
SS-1-2 (480)  Speed: 28,300 km/s   End: 1.8m    Range: 3m km   WH: 2    Size: 1    TH: 94 / 56 / 28

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
20 salvos of 3 every 10 seconds against 3 fire controls.  Unless I've been playing the fire controls wrong, the CLE will stop 9 missiles only.  Fire control saturation is the issue.  Ignore the incoming and get hammered, each missile that hits does internals.

Only chance is to disable both ships before their system come alive.  Which is why these should be brought in by a jumpship with at least a jump distance of 100 or better if a GC CLE is expected.  

Worse 3 of these for the same BPV

Agincourt class Cruiser    7450 tons     727 Crew     1073 BP      TCS 149  TH 600  EM 0
4026 km/s     Armour 6-33     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 4     PPV 36
Annual Failure Rate: 111%    IFR: 1.5%    Maintenance Capacity 360 MSP    Max Repair 154 MSP

Ion Engine E6 (10)    Power 60    Efficiency 0.60    Signature 60    Armour 0    Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 250,000 Litres    Range 100.7 billion km   (289 days at full power)

Quad 12cm C4 Infrared Laser Turret (2x4)    Range 40,000km     TS: 16000 km/s     Power 16-16     RM 1    ROF 5        4 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fire Control S08 64-16000 (1)    Max Range: 128,000 km   TS: 16000 km/s     92 84 77 69 61 53 45 37 30 22
Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor Technology PB-1 AR-1 (8)     Total Power Output 36    Armour 1    Exp 5%

Active Search Sensor S10.5-R100 (1)     GPS 1050     Range 10.5m km    Resolution 100

This design is classed as a military vessel for maintenance purposes
As I said, the smaller GC is not that overwhelming.  Armor is cheap.  Before the CLE can peel one of these enough to do internals it's taking internals.  Close and every hit starts punching through (lasers don't scour, they penetrate).  Keep the range open and this ship can step outside the GC range and still hit.  Scenarios can be gamed.  


Gunboats are worse still.

Ark Royal class Gunboat    1000 tons     75 Crew     150.4 BP      TCS 20  TH 120  EM 0
6000 km/s     Armour 3-8     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 2
Annual Failure Rate: 8%    IFR: 0.1%    Maintenance Capacity 94 MSP    Max Repair 30 MSP
Magazine 92    

GB Ion Engine E60 (1)    Power 120    Efficiency 6.00    Signature 120    Armour 0    Exp 15%
Fuel Capacity 50,000 Litres    Range 15.0 billion km   (28 days at full power)

Size 1 Missile Launcher (2)    Missile Size 1    Rate of Fire 10
Missile Fire Control FC10.5-R100 (1)     Range 31.5m km    Resolution 100
SS-1-2 (94)  Speed: 28,300 km/s   End: 1.8m    Range: 3m km   WH: 2    Size: 1    TH: 94 / 56 / 28

Active Search Sensor S10.5-R100 (1)     GPS 1050     Range 10.5m km    Resolution 100

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
13 of these (missile cost 91.368 each) will quickly overwhelm the lone CLE with salvos.


Yes, these are very beardy designs.  So is the CLE.  But they do demonstrate that the reduced scale GC is not overwhelming at point blank ranges against exist weapons systems.  And existing systems are actually cheaper for the slugging ranges than GC's.

Steve has made clear reasons for not adopting my suggestions.  As I said earlier, I can live with that.  

This was only intended to demonstrate that some of the objections did not take several things into consideration.  Part of the difference is that I've been playing with these changes for several months.  At first I thought as well that the reduced size coupled with the faster turrets was death on missiles.  The fire control is the primary fail point for that though.  Mass for mass and cost for cost missiles can overwhelm GC only defenses.  Used in conjunction with counter-missiles and then you start to really need beam sluggers.  If anything, the reduced size GC reduces the missiles dominance outside of nebulas.

Does the final defense setting on PD cover the whole fleet or just the ship that has the PD installation? I ask because of the relatively short GC distances involved and I have noticed before when using laser PD that area defense shoots after the missile has made it's move.

So, I guess what I am asking is does final defense fire before the missile gets it's move turn? And does it protect the whole fleet?

There are two settings for final defensive fire. One that covers any nearby ship and one that only covers the firing ship. The latter would probably only be used for a high value ship such as a carrier so that it wouldn't expend its shots saving an escort. Final defensive fire is different to area defence as it takes place during the missile's movement phase. Just as the missile salvo is about the hit the ship, the game pauses the missiles 10,000 km from the target, carries out the firing at 10,000 km for the target ship's weapons and perhaps further away if another ship is providing the defensive firepower, and then checks for missile hits after defensive fire is complete. That is why defensive fire is so effective as it is using the best possible chance to hit at the last possible moment. Area defence takes place during the fire phase after missiles have moved and will fire at any missiles within range.

Steve

GC beats missiles
Rails beats GC if ship faster
Laser beats Rails is ship faster
Missiles beat Rails at range
Missiles beat Laser at range

I think I introduced a red herring with my somewhat tongue-in-cheek comparison of anti-ship capability for the proposed mini-GC. The real problem is its anti-missile capability. With that 1/6th GC in the game you can pretty much forget using missiles. One single escort of the type I designed would be able to hold off an entire fleet of missile ships. Even the existing GC is very good against missiles - killing missiles is the whole point of the weapon. Making it six times better than the existing best anti-missile weapon would obviously cause some game balance problems

Steve