Author Topic: Request for comments (various ships)  (Read 3904 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline AbuDhabi (OP)

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 104
  • Thanked: 2 times
Request for comments (various ships)
« on: October 28, 2016, 09:54:18 AM »
These are my ships from my latest game (the one broken by the ship armour limitation bug). I'd like to know what y'all think; maybe I'm missing something crucial in my designs, even if they seem to work OK.

Off-Topic: show
Colossus II class Terraforming Base    5 900 900 tons     21120 Crew     133188 BP      TCS 118018  TH 50000  EM 0
423 km/s     Armour 1-2908     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 0
MSP 14    Max Repair 500 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 240 months    Spare Berths -1   
Habitation Capacity 50 000   
Terraformer: 200 module(s) producing 0.9 atm per annum

250 EP Commercial Gas Core AM Drive (200)    Power 250    Fuel Use 0.02%    Signature 250    Exp 1%
Fuel Capacity 10 000 000 Litres    Range 1522.8 billion km   (41666 days at full power)

CIWS-500 (10x16)    Range 1000 km     TS: 50000 km/s     ROF 5       Base 50% To Hit
This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes
This design is classed as an Orbital Habitat for construction purposes


Off-Topic: show
Dauntless class Fighter    310 tons     13 Crew     370.5 BP      TCS 6.2  TH 128  EM 0
20645 km/s     Armour 2-4     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 2
Maint Life 6.88 Years     MSP 75    AFR 7%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 3    5YR 41    Max Repair 259 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 1 months    Spare Berths 2   

64 EP Inertial Fusion Drive (2)    Power 64    Fuel Use 112.01%    Signature 64    Exp 20%
Fuel Capacity 10 000 Litres    Range 5.2 billion km   (69 hours at full power)

Gauss Cannon R3-33 (1x6)    Range 30 000km     TS: 20645 km/s     Accuracy Modifier 33%     RM 3    ROF 5        1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fire Control S01 48-16000 H25 (FTR) (1)    Max Range: 96 000 km   TS: 64000 km/s     90 79 69 58 48 38 27 17 6 0

Active Search Sensor MR2-R10 (25%) (1)     GPS 36     Range 2.0m km    Resolution 10

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and maintenance purposes


Off-Topic: show
Defiant II class Geosurvey Ship    2 850 tons     32 Crew     603.75 BP      TCS 57  TH 625  EM 0
10964 km/s     Armour 1-17     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/5     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 0
MSP 132    Max Repair 300 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 240 months    Spare Berths 0   

625 EP Commercial Gas Core AM Drive (1)    Power 625    Fuel Use 1.66%    Signature 625    Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 1 000 000 Litres    Range 3804.4 billion km   (4016 days at full power)

Phased Geological Sensors (1)   5 Survey Points Per Hour

This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes


Off-Topic: show
Exorcist II class Gravsurvey Ship    8 000 tons     201 Crew     1651 BP      TCS 160  TH 800  EM 0
5000 km/s    JR 3-50     Armour 1-35     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/5/0     Damage Control Rating 15     PPV 0
Maint Life 9.23 Years     MSP 1935    AFR 34%    IFR 0.5%    1YR 41    5YR 613    Max Repair 405 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 240 months    Spare Berths 0   

J10200(3-50) Military Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 10200 tons    Distance 50k km     Squadron Size 3
800 EP Commercial Inertial Fusion Drive (1)    Power 800    Fuel Use 2.21%    Signature 800    Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 750 000 Litres    Range 763.6 billion km   (1767 days at full power)

CIWS-320 (1x12)    Range 1000 km     TS: 32000 km/s     ROF 5       Base 50% To Hit
Active Search Sensor MR204-R40 (25%) (1)     GPS 7200     Range 204.9m km    Resolution 40
Phased Gravitational Sensors (1)   5 Survey Points Per Hour

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes


Off-Topic: show
Gigantus class Freighter    4 845 000 tons     5120 Crew     28832 BP      TCS 96900  TH 200000  EM 0
2063 km/s     Armour 1-2550     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 0
MSP 4    Max Repair 500 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 240 months    Spare Berths 0   
Cargo 2500000    Habitation Capacity 50 000    Cargo Handling Multiplier 400   
Salvager: 5 module(s) capable of salvaging 12500 tons per day

250 EP Commercial Gas Core AM Drive (800)    Power 250    Fuel Use 0.02%    Signature 250    Exp 1%
Fuel Capacity 3 250 000 Litres    Range 603.4 billion km   (3385 days at full power)

CIWS-500 (10x16)    Range 1000 km     TS: 50000 km/s     ROF 5       Base 50% To Hit
This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes
This design is classed as an Orbital Habitat for construction purposes


Off-Topic: show
Hammer of Light II class Superfreighter    279 700 tons     346 Crew     3991.9 BP      TCS 5594  TH 10000  EM 0
1787 km/s     Armour 1-380     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 0
MSP 9    Max Repair 250 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 120 months    Spare Berths 0   
Cargo 250000    Cargo Handling Multiplier 40   

1000 EP Commercial Solid Core AM Drive (10)    Power 1000    Fuel Use 1.41%    Signature 1000    Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 1 000 000 Litres    Range 45.6 billion km   (295 days at full power)

CIWS-160 (2x8)    Range 1000 km     TS: 16000 km/s     ROF 5       Base 50% To Hit
This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes


Off-Topic: show
Hammer of Light II-S class Superfreighter    290 000 tons     426 Crew     4580.8 BP      TCS 5800  TH 10000  EM 0
1724 km/s     Armour 1-390     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 0
MSP 10    Max Repair 500 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 120 months    Spare Berths 0   
Cargo 250000    Cargo Handling Multiplier 40   
Salvager: 1 module(s) capable of salvaging 2500 tons per day

1000 EP Commercial Solid Core AM Drive (10)    Power 1000    Fuel Use 1.41%    Signature 1000    Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 1 000 000 Litres    Range 44.0 billion km   (295 days at full power)

CIWS-160 (2x8)    Range 1000 km     TS: 16000 km/s     ROF 5       Base 50% To Hit
This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes


Off-Topic: show
Harbringer class Cruiser    50 200 tons     1684 Crew     30708.7 BP      TCS 1004  TH 6000  EM 3600
5976 km/s     Armour 4-121     Shields 120-300     Sensors 25/25/0/0     Damage Control Rating 129     PPV 305.36
Maint Life 7.26 Years     MSP 49514    AFR 155%    IFR 2.2%    1YR 1645    5YR 24682    Max Repair 2074 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 60 months    Spare Berths 1   
Cryogenic Berths 200   

3000 EP Solid Core AM Drive (2)    Power 3000    Fuel Use 22.05%    Signature 3000    Exp 15%
Fuel Capacity 5 000 000 Litres    Range 81.3 billion km   (157 days at full power)
Omicron R300/230.4 Shields (20)   Total Fuel Cost  192 Litres per hour  (4 608 per day)

Quad 20cm C12 Near Gamma Ray Laser Turret (8x4)    Range 384 000km     TS: 40000 km/s     Power 40-48     RM 10    ROF 5        10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
CIWS-500 (12x16)    Range 1000 km     TS: 50000 km/s     ROF 5       Base 50% To Hit
Fire Control S08 192-32000 H25 (2)    Max Range: 384 000 km   TS: 32000 km/s     97 95 92 90 87 84 82 79 77 74
Gas-core Anti-matter Power Plant Technology PB-1 (2)     Total Power Output 1200    Armour 0    Exp 5%

Active Search Sensor MR204-R40 (25%) (2)     GPS 7200     Range 204.9m km    Resolution 40
Thermal Sensor TH5-25 (1)     Sensitivity 25     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  25m km
EM Detection Sensor EM5-25 (1)     Sensitivity 25     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  25m km

ECCM-7 (1)         ECM 60

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes


Off-Topic: show
Imperious Laser Site class Beam Defence Base    20 500 tons     679 Crew     16986.2 BP      TCS 410  TH 0  EM 0
Armour 5-66     Sensors 1/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 224.04
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Spare Berths 0   

Quad 60cm C10 Extreme X-ray Laser Turret (2x4)    Range 384 000km     TS: 40000 km/s     Power 376-40     RM 9    ROF 50        94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 84
CIWS-500 (10x16)    Range 1000 km     TS: 50000 km/s     ROF 5       Base 50% To Hit
Fire Control S08 192-32000 H25 (2)    Max Range: 384 000 km   TS: 32000 km/s     97 95 92 90 87 84 82 79 77 74
Gas-core Anti-matter Power Plant Technology PB-1 (2)     Total Power Output 1200    Armour 0    Exp 5%

Conventional ICBM (10)  Speed: 10 km/s   End: 16.7m    Range: 0.1m km   WH: 6    Size: 24    TH: 0/0/0

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 Planetary Defence Centre and can be pre-fabricated in 9 sections


Off-Topic: show
Incepteris II class Dropship    50 700 tons     1046 Crew     10358.2 BP      TCS 1014  TH 6000  EM 3600
5917 km/s     Armour 4-122     Shields 120-300     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 141     PPV 0
Maint Life 9.97 Years     MSP 18002    AFR 145%    IFR 2%    1YR 329    5YR 4938    Max Repair 1500 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 120 months    Spare Berths 0   
Cryo Drop Capacity: 25 Battalions    Cryogenic Berths 200    Cargo Handling Multiplier 40   

3000 EP Solid Core AM Drive (2)    Power 3000    Fuel Use 22.05%    Signature 3000    Exp 15%
Fuel Capacity 4 000 000 Litres    Range 64.4 billion km   (125 days at full power)
Omicron R300/230.4 Shields (20)   Total Fuel Cost  192 Litres per hour  (4 608 per day)

CIWS-500 (5x16)    Range 1000 km     TS: 50000 km/s     ROF 5       Base 50% To Hit
ECM 60

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes


Off-Topic: show
Nova class Carrier    50 950 tons     1161 Crew     10050 BP      TCS 1019  TH 1600  EM 240
1570 km/s     Armour 1-122     Shields 8-300     Sensors 25/25/0/0     Damage Control Rating 124     PPV 45.11
Maint Life 5.17 Years     MSP 15287    AFR 167%    IFR 2.3%    1YR 955    5YR 14328    Max Repair 2074 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 240 months    Flight Crew Berths -1   
Hangar Deck Capacity 10000 tons     

800 EP Commercial Inertial Fusion Drive (2)    Power 800    Fuel Use 2.21%    Signature 800    Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 10 000 000 Litres    Range 1598.4 billion km   (11783 days at full power)
Beta R300/144 Shields (5)   Total Fuel Cost  30 Litres per hour  (720 per day)

Quad 20cm C3 Far Ultraviolet Laser Turret (1x4)    Range 384 000km     TS: 40000 km/s     Power 40-12     RM 5    ROF 20        10 10 10 10 10 8 7 6 5 5
CIWS-320 (16x12)    Range 1000 km     TS: 32000 km/s     ROF 5       Base 50% To Hit
Fire Control S08 192-32000 H25 (1)    Max Range: 384 000 km   TS: 32000 km/s     97 95 92 90 87 84 82 79 77 74
Inertial Confinement Fusion Reactor Technology PB-1.25 (1)     Total Power Output 450    Armour 0    Exp 20%

Active Search Sensor MR204-R40 (25%) (1)     GPS 7200     Range 204.9m km    Resolution 40
Active Search Sensor MR2-R10 (25%) (1)     GPS 36     Range 2.0m km    Resolution 10
Thermal Sensor TH5-25 (1)     Sensitivity 25     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  25m km
EM Detection Sensor EM5-25 (1)     Sensitivity 25     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  25m km

ECCM-4 (1)         ECM 40

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes


Off-Topic: show
Oberon class Jump Tender    101 800 tons     924 Crew     9177.4 BP      TCS 2036  TH 8000  EM 0
3929 km/s    JR 3-50     Armour 1-194     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 0
MSP 56    Max Repair 2587 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 240 months    Spare Berths 1   
Jump Gate Construction Ship: 150 days

J102000(3-50) Military Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 102000 tons    Distance 50k km     Squadron Size 3
800 EP Commercial Inertial Fusion Drive (10)    Power 800    Fuel Use 2.21%    Signature 800    Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 1 250 000 Litres    Range 100.0 billion km   (294 days at full power)

CIWS-320 (28x12)    Range 1000 km     TS: 32000 km/s     ROF 5       Base 50% To Hit
This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes


Off-Topic: show
Resilience class Freighter    51 000 tons     65 Crew     428.5 BP      TCS 1020  TH 2500  EM 0
2450 km/s     Armour 1-122     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 0
MSP 5    Max Repair 25 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 240 months    Spare Berths 0   
Cargo 25000   

250 EP Commercial Gas Core AM Drive (10)    Power 250    Fuel Use 0.02%    Signature 250    Exp 1%
Fuel Capacity 250 000 Litres    Range 4410.0 billion km   (20833 days at full power)

This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes


Off-Topic: show
Sword of Orion II class Tug    272 300 tons     2520 Crew     35508 BP      TCS 5446  TH 125000  EM 0
22952 km/s     Armour 1-374     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 0
MSP 82    Max Repair 312.5 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 240 months    Spare Berths 0   
Tractor Beam     

1250 EP Commercial Gas Core AM Drive (100)    Power 1250    Fuel Use 1.11%    Signature 1250    Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 5 250 000 Litres    Range 312.6 billion km   (157 days at full power)

This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes


Off-Topic: show
Sword of Retribution II class Cruiser    51 000 tons     1668 Crew     25524.9 BP      TCS 1020  TH 6000  EM 0
5882 km/s     Armour 10-122     Shields 0-0     Sensors 25/25/0/0     Damage Control Rating 129     PPV 314.26
Maint Life 5.34 Years     MSP 40503    AFR 160%    IFR 2.2%    1YR 2375    5YR 35623    Max Repair 3971 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 60 months    Spare Berths -1   

3000 EP Solid Core AM Drive (2)    Power 3000    Fuel Use 22.05%    Signature 3000    Exp 15%
Fuel Capacity 5 000 000 Litres    Range 80.0 billion km   (157 days at full power)

Quad 20cm C3 Far Ultraviolet Laser Turret (2x4)    Range 384 000km     TS: 40000 km/s     Power 40-12     RM 5    ROF 20        10 10 10 10 10 8 7 6 5 5
Quad 60cm C10 Extreme X-ray Laser Turret (2x4)    Range 384 000km     TS: 40000 km/s     Power 376-40     RM 9    ROF 50        94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 84
CIWS-500 (12x16)    Range 1000 km     TS: 50000 km/s     ROF 5       Base 50% To Hit
Fire Control S08 192-32000 H25 (2)    Max Range: 384 000 km   TS: 32000 km/s     97 95 92 90 87 84 82 79 77 74
Gas-core Anti-matter Power Plant Technology PB-1 (2)     Total Power Output 1200    Armour 0    Exp 5%

Active Search Sensor MR204-R40 (25%) (2)     GPS 7200     Range 204.9m km    Resolution 40
Thermal Sensor TH5-25 (1)     Sensitivity 25     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  25m km
EM Detection Sensor EM5-25 (1)     Sensitivity 25     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  25m km

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes


Off-Topic: show
Tenax Propositi II class Freighter    32 350 tons     180 Crew     1781.1 BP      TCS 647  TH 4000  EM 0
6182 km/s     Armour 1-90     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 0
MSP 34    Max Repair 250 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 120 months    Spare Berths 0   
Troop Capacity: 5 Battalions    Cargo 5000    Cryogenic Berths 10000   

1000 EP Commercial Solid Core AM Drive (4)    Power 1000    Fuel Use 1.41%    Signature 1000    Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 750 000 Litres    Range 295.9 billion km   (554 days at full power)

CIWS-500 (1x16)    Range 1000 km     TS: 50000 km/s     ROF 5       Base 50% To Hit
This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes


Off-Topic: show
Urgent Fury class Tanker    21 050 tons     68 Crew     1223.4 BP      TCS 421  TH 1600  EM 0
3800 km/s     Armour 1-67     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 0
MSP 36    Max Repair 200 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 120 months    Spare Berths 0   

800 EP Commercial Inertial Fusion Drive (2)    Power 800    Fuel Use 2.21%    Signature 800    Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 15 000 000 Litres    Range 5803.2 billion km   (17675 days at full power)

CIWS-320 (1x12)    Range 1000 km     TS: 32000 km/s     ROF 5       Base 50% To Hit
This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes


Off-Topic: show
Warrior Knight class Dreadnought    100 000 tons     2559 Crew     58916.0001 BP      TCS 2000  TH 10000  EM 2400
5000 km/s     Armour 10-191     Shields 80-400     Sensors 160/200/0/0     Damage Control Rating 216     PPV 488.18
Maint Life 7.28 Years     MSP 79530    AFR 370%    IFR 5.1%    1YR 2631    5YR 39464    Max Repair 9000 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 120 months    Spare Berths 0   
Cryogenic Berths 1000   

1000 EP Commercial Solid Core AM Drive (10)    Power 1000    Fuel Use 1.41%    Signature 1000    Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 10 750 000 Litres    Range 1372.3 billion km   (3176 days at full power)
Sigma R400/240 Shields (10)   Total Fuel Cost  100 Litres per hour  (2 400 per day)

Single 60cm C10 Extreme X-ray Laser Turret (1x1)    Range 800 000km     TS: 40000 km/s     Power 94-10     RM 9    ROF 50        94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 84
Quad 20cm C12 Near Gamma Ray Laser Turret (12x4)    Range 800 000km     TS: 40000 km/s     Power 40-48     RM 10    ROF 5        10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
CIWS-500 (20x16)    Range 1000 km     TS: 50000 km/s     ROF 5       Base 50% To Hit
Fire Control S08 400-50000 H10 (2)    Max Range: 800 000 km   TS: 50000 km/s     99 98 96 95 94 92 91 90 89 88
Plasma-core Anti-matter Power Plant Technology PB-1 (4)     Total Power Output 960    Armour 0    Exp 5%

Active Search Sensor MR40-R1 (10%) (1)     GPS 100     Range 40.0m km    MCR 4.4m km    Resolution 1
Active Search Sensor MR1788-R20 (10%) (1)     GPS 20000     Range 1 788.9m km    Resolution 20
Thermal Sensor TH5-160 (1)     Sensitivity 160     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  160m km
EM Detection Sensor EM5-200 (10%) (1)     Sensitivity 200     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  200m km

ECCM-8 (2)         ECM 60

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
 

Offline 83athom

  • Big Ship Commander
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1261
  • Thanked: 86 times
Re: Request for comments (various ships)
« Reply #1 on: October 28, 2016, 10:45:07 AM »
Dauntless Fighter; Needs more firepower in form of wither more gauss-cannons or box launched missiles.

Harbringer Cruiser; Remove the second active search sensor of the same kind and add another one of a different resolution (either res 1, or 100+). Also, thermal reduction on the engines is a very good idea, even if the cost skyrockets. Also, you want a bigger fire control to make use of the long range of these high powered lasers.

Imperious; Don't know why you are storing missiles in a base without any launchers, or why you are using a pre-game conventional missile. Also I am assuming this is a PDC, so do know that lasers will not work in an atmosphere with a pressure of 1 or higher.

Nova carrier; I suggest armoring it somewhat (at least to 4 so armor strength will equal armor area), also add more shields. Change the reactor so it fits the weapons, as that one large reactor producing huge amounts of wasted power will go boom if its hit. Also, you need spare births for flight crew or else the fighter pilots will get hissy-fits.

Sword of Retribution II Cruiser;  Same as the Harbringer. Also, add some shielding.

Warrior Knight Dreadnought; More shielding, for something of this size you want 2x-x in the shielding at least (800-400 in this case). While it looks like you are RPing things with this, the design really needs militarization. You can bump the engines up in power (to like .7x to .8x) while still keeping them efficient. This keeps most of the range while increasing speed dramatically. I also question that res 20 sensor, but ok.
Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life.
 
The following users thanked this post: AbuDhabi

Offline AbuDhabi (OP)

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 104
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: Request for comments (various ships)
« Reply #2 on: October 28, 2016, 10:51:30 AM »
Quote
Imperious; Don't know why you are storing missiles in a base without any launchers, or why you are using a pre-game conventional missile. Also I am assuming this is a PDC, so do know that lasers will not work in an atmosphere with a pressure of 1 or higher.

How did that get there? I think I must have forgotten to take it off when I copied the Missile Complex design. This was a Conventional start.

It was a PDC. Curiously, them being deployed on Earth, the lasers still functioned in a 1 atm environment.

Quote
Also, thermal reduction on the engines is a very good idea, even if the cost skyrockets.

Why?

Quote
Also, you want a bigger fire control to make use of the long range of these high powered lasers.

Almost sure this was the largest fire control I could make. I can only make 4x/4x times normal.

Quote
More shielding, for something of this size you want 2x-x in the shielding at least (800-400 in this case).

What do the numbers mean?
 

Offline Zincat

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Z
  • Posts: 566
  • Thanked: 111 times
Re: Request for comments (various ships)
« Reply #3 on: October 28, 2016, 12:10:55 PM »
Ok, I have a lot to write about this. First thing I'll say is, all these civilian ships can work. Military ones, not so much but I'll get to it. Also, depending on whether you RP or not, they can be acceptable. I'm going to give you suggestions on efficiency instead. Plus some general suggestions for combat ships.

Please accept this post with the spirit of constructive criticism :)

First, the non-military ships. Generally, you want one ship for one function. Instead you have some hybrids here, which are less efficient. Let's see:

- The terraforming base is huge. Also, since terraforming bases generally move only once very long while,  it's more efficient to build them without engines, and then tug them around. You can change the tug, and then move the base faster because the tug is faster. It's also probably more efficient to buy more smaller bases, instead of a single base with 200 modules. But if you RP, that's fine. Going to take forever to build though....

- Gigantus class Freighter: As before, it's really huge. Going to be very slow to build. I'm just going to say it in case you don't know but... You don't need a 100 cargo holds ship if you want to move large installations. Installations can be broken down in parts. You can just ferry them around over multiple trips. Still it can work if you want it. Less understandable, frankly, are the salvaging modules. You generally want dedicated salvagers, because that way the salvage ships can do their things, and the frieghters carry around what they're supposed to do. Would be a real waste to send one of these monsters on a salvaging mission.

- The 2 superfreighters are more or less ok, I don't have much to say.  As before, are really big. They can work mind you, just saying that it takes a long while to build them. More concerning is the fact they're quite slow. While fuel is very costly, these ships are really slow when you consider how far they might have to travel. I think you are using too few engines here. You hsould dedicate a higher percentage of the ship to engines, so that the ship is faster. Less than 2000 km/sec in the solid core antimatter era.. is really slow.

- The Resilience freighter can work. Just as before, really slow. It obviously have maximum fuel efficiency, and huge range. However you probably don't need that much range, and you might need some faster cargo transfers. Using the best possible fuel efficiency is not always the best choice, unless you are truly starved for fuel. You want to strike a balance between range, fuel consumption and speed.

- The tug is ok, really big but ok. Just... you don't have a ship that big to carry around. Unless you want to use it to move the terraforming base? It's wasted for anything else, too big. It costs a lot of resources that can go elsewhere

- Tenax Propositi II class Freighter: Why cargo,  troop bays and cryogenic berths on the same ship? If you want to move people, you'll need something with a LOT more than 10000 berths, and the troop bays are useless. If you want to move troops... you don't need the cryogenic berths or cargo. If you want to move cargo, you don't care about the other 2. Specialized ships are generally more efficient.

- The tanker, gravsurvey and geosurvey ships are ok. I'd put a jump engine on the geosurvey ship, else you can't move it easily to other systems. It's better if it's an independent ship, considering what it does.

- Your jump tender is also your gate constructor. That's not optimal. But well, supposing you have enough of them it can work. Personally, I'd still separate them into different ships.


Now on to the military ships. Here there are problems in my opinion.

-Let's start with big problem n.1. I'm looking at the cruisers and dreadnaught ships.  These ships are SLOW. And I mean really slow. You have picked lasers as your weapon of choice, which means you HAVE to be faster than your opponent, or you will never be able to catch him and hit him. And preferrably, faster by a decent amount. For the solid core AM engine era, a beam warship should probably be moving at least at 15000 km/sec, that is triple of what you do now. According to my rough calculations, only about 10% of your ships is dedicated to engine space. That's way too low for a laser ship.
Generally, a good rule of thumb is between 25% and 40% of the ship dedicated to engines, depending on the ship mission. But 10% is way too low, and the speed shows it. The dreadnaught also uses commercial engines, which are a big no on military beam warships, for the aforementioned reason. Screw fuel efficiency, you need speed to catch your enemies, to close in fast to targets and kill them.

- Big problem n.2 is, your entire point defense is CIWS. That's really not good. First, CIWS ONLY shoot at missiles that target the ship they're on. If you have a fleet of 6 ships, then each ship will only be defended by its own CIWS. Second, CIWS do not shoot at fighters, small crafts or anything else. A much more effective PD for fleets is a layered approach, with laser and railgun turrets, and AMM. CIWS are much better left for civilian ships or ships who operate alone, away from your fleet. You may think that high armour and shields help with this, and it's true, but the fact remain you're using a lot more resources you should, in terms of minerals and build time. Also, neither shields nor armor can do anything against Mesons. So, if you face a meson equipped enemy, your only option is to kill it fast, and preferrably before it gets in close.

- Another not so small problem, you have a single reactor on those ships. That's a bad idea. If that huge reactor goes boom, so will your entire ship. The explosion damage from the reactor will destroy it. Even if it does not, a single meson hit will shut down your entire ship. It's more secure to have a number of smaller reactors, rather than a single one

- You have almost no anti-fighter defenses at all on those ships. Your radar, with resolution 40, will most likely see fighters only after they start shooting at you, or just before. And while your turreted lasers may be fast enough to hit them, if those fighters are numerous and/or mesons you are in a very bad situation. Plus, with only 2 fire controls you can only shoot at 2 fighters at a time anyway.

Won't comment much on fighters and carriers, as they are previous generation ships. The dropship is kind of slow and huge, but it can work. One thing for the PDC, it has lasers. Which will not really work if your planet has atmosphere. you need mesons for that.

I think these are the most important things. While the civilian ships quirks are workable, if not convenient, I feel that those military
ships are flawed. I've reread the whoel post and it seems full of critics. I hope you won't be offended, I'm just trying to write all the problems I can think of. If you have any questions, go ahead and ask :)
 
The following users thanked this post: AbuDhabi

Offline 83athom

  • Big Ship Commander
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1261
  • Thanked: 86 times
Re: Request for comments (various ships)
« Reply #4 on: October 28, 2016, 01:04:56 PM »
Why?
Because thermal reduction reduces your thermal signature. Your own sensors on the cruisers can detect a 1000 signature at 25m km.  That means a 6000 signature will be detected at 150m km. Using 50% thermal reduction, the 6000 is reduced to 3000, meaning it gets detected at 75m km. This is important if you want to get deep into enemy territory before you flip active sensors on so they are out of position.
Almost sure this was the largest fire control I could make. I can only make 4x/4x times normal.
You have a larger one on the Dreadnought. There shouldn't be a reason you can put it on that and not your cruisers.
What do the numbers mean?
Shield Strength - Recharge in seconds.
Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life.
 

Offline Thanatos

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • T
  • Posts: 97
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: Request for comments (various ships)
« Reply #5 on: October 28, 2016, 01:10:03 PM »
The biggest problem I see with those ships is that any decent shipyard will take at least 10 years to build most of your warships. Completely useless, considering I wouldn't put their lifespan at even 2 or 3 years, due to a mix of slow speed, CIWS, lack of redundancy, and just massive size.

In my opinion, you need to standardize the sizes so that they can be refitted into newer and better models, and make them much, much, much smaller. There are super large ships, but they are more like self sufficient planets with guns put on a bunch of rocket thrusters.

In addition, you would need so many maintenance facilities to supply those ships that any kind of FOB is but a dream. The only merit I see in the warships is that they will take so long to build that you'd be able to restock the massive amount of minerals it takes to make them.
 

Offline AbuDhabi (OP)

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 104
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: Request for comments (various ships)
« Reply #6 on: October 28, 2016, 01:24:27 PM »
Ok, I have a lot to write about this. First thing I'll say is, all these civilian ships can work. Military ones, not so much but I'll get to it. Also, depending on whether you RP or not, they can be acceptable. I'm going to give you suggestions on efficiency instead. Plus some general suggestions for combat ships.

Please accept this post with the spirit of constructive criticism :)

That's why I'm here.  :)

Quote
- The terraforming base is huge. Also, since terraforming bases generally move only once very long while,  it's more efficient to build them without engines, and then tug them around. You can change the tug, and then move the base faster because the tug is faster. It's also probably more efficient to buy more smaller bases, instead of a single base with 200 modules. But if you RP, that's fine. Going to take forever to build though....

Since they're built with industry (well, unless one is a masochist with a million-ton commercial shipyard), they build pretty fast, actually. I had a high population, lots of construction industry; I could well afford to make it, and it built quickly - a year at most, I believe.

I agree on the self-mobility. I usually build them just the way you said, but I experimented here with engines on huge things.

Quote
- Gigantus class Freighter: As before, it's really huge. Going to be very slow to build. I'm just going to say it in case you don't know but... You don't need a 100 cargo holds ship if you want to move large installations. Installations can be broken down in parts. You can just ferry them around over multiple trips. Still it can work if you want it. Less understandable, frankly, are the salvaging modules. You generally want dedicated salvagers, because that way the salvage ships can do their things, and the frieghters carry around what they're supposed to do. Would be a real waste to send one of these monsters on a salvaging mission.

Well, I used it like once, I think. In the home system. Salvaging one of those terraforming habitats after NPR forces shot it to bits. You've got a point about dedicated salvagers. If I put a salvager in a task group with freighters, they'll salvage to their cargo holds, right?

Quote
- The Resilience freighter can work. Just as before, really slow. It obviously have maximum fuel efficiency, and huge range. However you probably don't need that much range, and you might need some faster cargo transfers. Using the best possible fuel efficiency is not always the best choice, unless you are truly starved for fuel. You want to strike a balance between range, fuel consumption and speed.

If I recall correctly, I was using those to haul resources from my operation one hop away to my home system. I definitely wanted the best fuel efficiency, and did not need much speed, provided the minerals got there regularly.

Quote
- The tug is ok, really big but ok. Just... you don't have a ship that big to carry around. Unless you want to use it to move the terraforming base? It's wasted for anything else, too big. It costs a lot of resources that can go elsewhere

I don't really have a good benchmark for tugs. One thing I did was copy the intended victim for tugging, then add enough engines to make it go decently fast, then removed everything but what the tug needed. But that's cumbersome. Any good benchmarks for tugs?

Quote
- Tenax Propositi II class Freighter: Why cargo,  troop bays and cryogenic berths on the same ship? If you want to move people, you'll need something with a LOT more than 10000 berths, and the troop bays are useless. If you want to move troops... you don't need the cryogenic berths or cargo. If you want to move cargo, you don't care about the other 2. Specialized ships are generally more efficient.

Sure, I guess. Those are sorta my "starter pack" for getting colonization going. Dump a construction brigade, some minerals/infrastructure, and some colonists on promising bodies - and let civilians do the rest. I guess I could have just made three different types of ships and put them in the same task group, as you suggest.

Quote
- The tanker, gravsurvey and geosurvey ships are ok. I'd put a jump engine on the geosurvey ship, else you can't move it easily to other systems. It's better if it's an independent ship, considering what it does.

I've found I rarely require to know about minerals in places where civilians can't go.

Quote
- Your jump tender is also your gate constructor. That's not optimal. But well, supposing you have enough of them it can work. Personally, I'd still separate them into different ships.

The thing I was going for here was something that could tend jumps for large military ships. Since that's limited by the jump drive AND the overall size of the ship, I opted to put a jump drive on a gate builder, since that was already big. Two birds, one stone. (What does one put on jump tenders to pad them, anyway? Fuel? Entertainment modules?)

Quote
-Let's start with big problem n.1. I'm looking at the cruisers and dreadnaught ships.  These ships are SLOW. And I mean really slow. You have picked lasers as your weapon of choice, which means you HAVE to be faster than your opponent, or you will never be able to catch him and hit him. And preferrably, faster by a decent amount. For the solid core AM engine era, a beam warship should probably be moving at least at 15000 km/sec, that is triple of what you do now. According to my rough calculations, only about 10% of your ships is dedicated to engine space. That's way too low for a laser ship.
Generally, a good rule of thumb is between 25% and 40% of the ship dedicated to engines, depending on the ship mission. But 10% is way too low, and the speed shows it. The dreadnaught also uses commercial engines, which are a big no on military beam warships, for the aforementioned reason. Screw fuel efficiency, you need speed to catch your enemies, to close in fast to targets and kill them.

Well, they seemed OK for precursors and NPRs. I've not played with superspoilers yet. That said, understood.

Quote
- Big problem n.2 is, your entire point defense is CIWS. That's really not good. First, CIWS ONLY shoot at missiles that target the ship they're on. If you have a fleet of 6 ships, then each ship will only be defended by its own CIWS. Second, CIWS do not shoot at fighters, small crafts or anything else. A much more effective PD for fleets is a layered approach, with laser and railgun turrets, and AMM. CIWS are much better left for civilian ships or ships who operate alone, away from your fleet. You may think that high armour and shields help with this, and it's true, but the fact remain you're using a lot more resources you should, in terms of minerals and build time. Also, neither shields nor armor can do anything against Mesons. So, if you face a meson equipped enemy, your only option is to kill it fast, and preferrably before it gets in close.

I've not actually figured out how PD is set up. CIWS has the advantage of being fully automatic, where I don't know how to design and configure fleet-level PD.

Quote
- You have almost no anti-fighter defenses at all on those ships. Your radar, with resolution 40, will most likely see fighters only after they start shooting at you, or just before. And while your turreted lasers may be fast enough to hit them, if those fighters are numerous and/or mesons you are in a very bad situation. Plus, with only 2 fire controls you can only shoot at 2 fighters at a time anyway.

I've always wondered why one would put more than 1 + backup fire controls. Are you saying that if I put more fire controls on a ship, it'll target more targets simultaneously?

Quote
Won't comment much on fighters and carriers, as they are previous generation ships. The dropship is kind of slow and huge, but it can work. One thing for the PDC, it has lasers. Which will not really work if your planet has atmosphere. you need mesons for that.

Funnily enough, it *did* work on Earth. I think it might be <= 1 atm compatible.

 

Offline AbuDhabi (OP)

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 104
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: Request for comments (various ships)
« Reply #7 on: October 28, 2016, 01:27:59 PM »
Because thermal reduction reduces your thermal signature. Your own sensors on the cruisers can detect a 1000 signature at 25m km.  That means a 6000 signature will be detected at 150m km. Using 50% thermal reduction, the 6000 is reduced to 3000, meaning it gets detected at 75m km. This is important if you want to get deep into enemy territory before you flip active sensors on so they are out of position.You have a larger one on the Dreadnought. There shouldn't be a reason you can put it on that and not your cruisers.Shield Strength - Recharge in seconds.

Concerning that fire control - not all of those ships are the same generation. Pretty sure the Dreadnought has the latest and biggest fire controls. Other military ships might not.

The biggest problem I see with those ships is that any decent shipyard will take at least 10 years to build most of your warships. Completely useless, considering I wouldn't put their lifespan at even 2 or 3 years, due to a mix of slow speed, CIWS, lack of redundancy, and just massive size.

In my opinion, you need to standardize the sizes so that they can be refitted into newer and better models, and make them much, much, much smaller. There are super large ships, but they are more like self sufficient planets with guns put on a bunch of rocket thrusters.

In addition, you would need so many maintenance facilities to supply those ships that any kind of FOB is but a dream. The only merit I see in the warships is that they will take so long to build that you'd be able to restock the massive amount of minerals it takes to make them.

I actually don't think it took that long to build them. It was late game and shipbuilding tech was refined; while they didn't build as quick as I would have liked, they did not take a decade. A few years at most, I think.
 

Offline Zincat

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Z
  • Posts: 566
  • Thanked: 111 times
Re: Request for comments (various ships)
« Reply #8 on: October 28, 2016, 02:39:46 PM »
Ok, I see now that you still don't have that much combat experience. Especially against superior opponents, where things are different. With that in mind I can answer you better :)

Since they're built with industry (well, unless one is a masochist with a million-ton commercial shipyard), they build pretty fast, actually. I had a high population, lots of construction industry; I could well afford to make it, and it built quickly - a year at most, I believe.

I agree on the self-mobility. I usually build them just the way you said, but I experimented here with engines on huge things.

Large ships are a perfectly valid strategy, and there is nothing inherently wrong with them.  It is a matter of preference. However as said by me and others, they are slow to build. I consider one year quite slow to build. Think of it this way: you lost your terraformers, maybe in a war. Or, you need to terraform more than one place at a time. Or, your industrial capacity on the planet is needed for something else. If you terraformers are smaller you can replace/build them quickly and terraform more than one place at a time. With this monster station, not so much  :P
For example, my standard orbital terraformer has 4 modules. Relatively cheap to build and still significant.

Well, I used it like once, I think. In the home system. Salvaging one of those terraforming habitats after NPR forces shot it to bits. You've got a point about dedicated salvagers. If I put a salvager in a task group with freighters, they'll salvage to their cargo holds, right?

Yes it works. For example, A ship with 3-4 salvage modules paired with a freighter with 2-4 cargo holds work well. If you have to salvage really that much stuff, send a second freighter. It's flexible.


If I recall correctly, I was using those to haul resources from my operation one hop away to my home system. I definitely wanted the best fuel efficiency, and did not need much speed, provided the minerals got there regularly.

I do have freighters with max fuel efficiently, for normal duties. And then, I have one design named "fast cargo" with significantly faster speed, used when I need something delivered fast. Like during wars and such, when time is a luxury :)

I don't really have a good benchmark for tugs. One thing I did was copy the intended victim for tugging, then add enough engines to make it go decently fast, then removed everything but what the tug needed. But that's cumbersome. Any good benchmarks for tugs?

You can calculate a rough estimate. The speed of a ship depends upon 2 things. The power of the engines (EP) and the size of the ship. The tug is the only one with engines, so total engine power does not change. What change is the total size of ships moved. A numerical example will make it clear.

Let's say a 20000 tons tug, speed when not towing anything -> 10000 km/sec
If it carries a 20000 tons immobile ship, total size moved is 20000+20000 = 40000 tons, or double the tug size. Speed will be half of the original, 5000 km/sec
If it carries a 40000 tons immobile ship, total size moved is 20000+40000 = 60000 tons, or triple the tug size. Speed will be one third of the original, or 3333 km/sec
If it carries a 60000 tons immobile ship, total size moved is 20000+60000 = 80000 tons, or quadruple the tug size. Speed will be 2500 km/sec

And so on. So you can and should make a tug with the size of what you want to tow in mind.


I've found I rarely require to know about minerals in places where civilians can't go.

The point here is, planning. If your geosurvey ship can move to systems far away and prospect them, you can find where substantial mineral deposits are beforehand. Say that you are short on duranium. If you know that the system 2 jumps from home has large duranium deposits, you can start building gate towards that direction. Since you know beforehand, you don't waste time and the results are guaranteed. If you don't, you have to gate a system and then hope there's something useful for you inside it.

Well, they seemed OK for precursors and NPRs. I've not played with superspoilers yet. That said, understood.

Aurora generates new NPR as you play. They tend to be around your tech level if not above. Also, designs tend to be random. If you find something very fast, you have a problem, and that does not count the superspoilers indeed, which are bad.
Even against ships of similar tech, speed is important. If you are as fast as those carriers, they can move away from you and avoid you ever catching them, while sending fighters your way. Or if they are missile ships, use their entire missile cargo against you, then just escape to another system. You can't catch them.

I've not actually figured out how PD is set up. CIWS has the advantage of being fully automatic, where I don't know how to design and configure fleet-level PD.
CIWS is fully automatic, but as said it works only on missiles (not fighters) and is inferior when in fleets.

Say you have 6 ships in a small fleet.
If you have 5 CIWS on each, each incoming missile wave is targeted only by the CIWS on that ship, so 5 CIWS.
If instead you have 3 cheap laser turrets on each ship, each incoming missile wave is targeted by the whole 18 turrets of the entire fleet, no matter which ship is targeted. And also those 18 turrets can shoot at fighters, if there are any. Or, if the enemy comes closer, at the enemy itself (don't discount the damage even cheap lasers can do).

An excellent introductory article is here
http://aurorawiki.pentarch.org/index.php?title=Point_Defense
I also think there's some threads with many details on the forum

I've always wondered why one would put more than 1 + backup fire controls. Are you saying that if I put more fire controls on a ship, it'll target more targets simultaneously?

A fire control can target exactly one enemy. You can assign any number of weapons to it. If you have multiple fire controls, you can split your weapons on multiple targets. Example:
12 laser turrets
If you have one FC, you can only target one enemy with 12 lasers
With 2 FC, you can target one enemy with 12 turrets, or two with 6, or one enemy with 4 and another with 8, or any combination.
With 3 FC, you can target up to three enemy splitting the 12 turrets between them as you like
and so on.

An example, in my latest game I have a small escort frigate, primary duty is anti missile and anti fighter. It has 12 twin laser turrets and 5 fire controls. That way I can split those 12 turrets amongst up to 5 different missile waves or 5 fighters every round.
Or, if something bigger comes closer, just use all 12 to shoot at it.
 

Offline 83athom

  • Big Ship Commander
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1261
  • Thanked: 86 times
Re: Request for comments (various ships)
« Reply #9 on: October 28, 2016, 02:41:54 PM »
The biggest problem I see with those ships is that any decent shipyard will take at least 10 years to build most of your warships. Completely useless, considering I wouldn't put their lifespan at even 2 or 3 years, due to a mix of slow speed, CIWS, lack of redundancy, and just massive size.
Misconception many pople have who are used to the "standard" sizes of ships. These ships will take little over a year to build in relevant shipyards. Also, speed is all relative and ships of these speeds can still do well, CIWS is extremely useful (more than most give it credit for), and nothing is wrong with having fewer numbers of larger ships than massive numbers of smaller ships (especially when it will be more matched next update where the maintenance facility loophole/exploit is closed).
In my opinion, you need to standardize the sizes so that they can be refitted into newer and better models, and make them much, much, much smaller. There are super large ships, but they are more like self sufficient planets with guns put on a bunch of rocket thrusters.
Miscommunication. There are no "standard" sizes in this game. players can set their own standard sizes for ships, and nothing says one size is better than another. And these are not super big ships compared to other things around on the forums. And the entire point of ships in space is to be self sufficient enough to travel to hostile systems and do their things.
In addition, you would need so many maintenance facilities to supply those ships that any kind of FOB is but a dream. The only merit I see in the warships is that they will take so long to build that you'd be able to restock the massive amount of minerals it takes to make them.
Next update, you need the same amount of facilities to support these as equal tonnage of smaller ships. There are many more merits to build ships this large like, efficiency, toughness, and all-roundedness.
Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life.
 

Offline Zincat

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Z
  • Posts: 566
  • Thanked: 111 times
Re: Request for comments (various ships)
« Reply #10 on: October 28, 2016, 02:55:48 PM »
Also, speed is all relative and ships of these speeds can still do well, CIWS is extremely useful (more than most give it credit for), and nothing is wrong with having fewer numbers of larger ships than massive numbers of smaller ships .

I agree that large ships are viable and nothing is wrong with them. CIWS are also very useful and good against missiles, especially at high tech level. Perfect for lone ships, civilian ships or ships who operate in small groups.

However CIWS do not shoot at fighters, and 5 CIWS will not be the equivalent to the PD of a fleet. It really depends on usage and enemy composition, there are times where they can be better, and times where they are not. They ARE, however, less flexible than turrets which can shoot at missiles, fighters and ships.

I don't agree on speed though. It's true that speed is relative to the speed of the enemy. And that is the point. If you are using solid core antimatter, your likely enemies will move much faster than 5000 km/sec. So you need to move fast as well, especially with beam only warships. I had NPRs, in my last campaign, moving at 13600 km/sec. So yes, speed is necessary.

Next update, you need the same amount of facilities to support these as equal tonnage of smaller ships. There are many more merits to build ships this large like, efficiency, toughness, and all-roundedness.

Yes, that will be very good, it will make large ships more viable. Really looking forward to that.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2016, 02:57:21 PM by Zincat »
 

Offline 83athom

  • Big Ship Commander
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1261
  • Thanked: 86 times
Re: Request for comments (various ships)
« Reply #11 on: October 28, 2016, 03:03:14 PM »
However CIWS do not shoot at fighters, and 5 CIWS will not be the equivalent to the PD of a fleet. It really depends on usage and enemy composition, there are times where they can be better, and times where they are not. They ARE, however, less flexible than turrets which can shoot at missiles, fighters and ships.
Completely agree. That is why I always have a multiple layer PD system including a beam defense system (laser, rail, etc) and CIWS. In situation where my forces are split apart and my enemies have large numbers of smaller ships in the area, my beam PD wins me the day. In situation where there are so many missiles that they break through the outer layer of defenses or when I'm jumping into the face of a fleet, the CIWS saves the day.
Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life.
 

Offline Thanatos

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • T
  • Posts: 97
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: Request for comments (various ships)
« Reply #12 on: October 28, 2016, 03:52:55 PM »
Misconception many pople have who are used to the "standard" sizes of ships. These ships will take little over a year to build in relevant shipyards. Also, speed is all relative and ships of these speeds can still do well, CIWS is extremely useful (more than most give it credit for), and nothing is wrong with having fewer numbers of larger ships than massive numbers of smaller ships (especially when it will be more matched next update where the maintenance facility loophole/exploit is closed).Miscommunication. There are no "standard" sizes in this game. players can set their own standard sizes for ships, and nothing says one size is better than another. And these are not super big ships compared to other things around on the forums. And the entire point of ships in space is to be self sufficient enough to travel to hostile systems and do their things.Next update, you need the same amount of facilities to support these as equal tonnage of smaller ships. There are many more merits to build ships this large like, efficiency, toughness, and all-roundedness.

It is not misconception, it is truth. It is true that the larger the ship, the larger a modifier you receive to your ship building rate. There is a mathematical reason why 20kt ships are usually the 'norm'. Large ships become effectively made in no time if you get shipbuilding rate 6.2k+, which costs you just about a few million RPs- unattainable in a normal game that is not SM'd, not to mention the final level of 8k. The Dreadnaught has 100kt, and a BP of 25 thousand. At a generous ship building rate of 3k, and this is very generous, you are looking at a build rate based on the following formula:

base ship building rate x 1 + (((Hull Size / 100) - 1)/2))

Hull Size is 2000 for the Dreadnaught, so you are looking at rate x 1 + ((( 2000 / 100) - 1) / 2) OR 1 + 10.5 = 11.5

ABR is thus: 3000 * 11.5 == 34500

The Sword of Retribution II and Harbinger on the other hand are 50kt ships at 30k BPs. They will take much, much, much, longer to build. Freighters also count as only 25% of their size, so they too take 4 times longer to build and I saw a tug which looked like it would take a decade.

If we assume a reasonable investment of 2k build rate with these ships, let's do the math once more.

2000 * 1 + (((1000 / 100)+1)/2) == 2000 * 6.5 == 13000, or 3 years to build.

I'll admit I made a mistake originally, as I thought the cruisers were 25kt ships. Plus they are slow. You cannot put Cloak Engines on them, and Jump Drives just get more and more and more expensive. So do engines if you put thermal reduction on them and EM shielding. More does not always mean better.

15 - 20kt is usually accepted among most people that play Aurora 4x because it is a natural value people come up with due to cost reasons, not simply efficiency.

Also, CIWS is utter smeg.

When I say 'Standard' sizes, I do not mean 'Do as we do'. I mean 'set a standard for yourself, and build ALL your ships in that range'. There is no standard in Aurora 4x other than the mathematical likelihood that most ships will by average fall between 15k and 20k- No, by standard I mean internal standard, based on your race ideology (if you RP) or simply because you like the number 42. Set a standard, and do not deviate from it by too much, to keep ships within upgradeable range.

Maintenance points I will concede. You are right, next update, that extra layer of difficulty will be gone, but it is no excuse to build ships so large it requires a multi-billion population to support it, from mining, to shipyards, to maintenance, to fuel reserves. You want to talk efficiency? It is much more efficient to have a small population that does not spend 200 years building it's infrastructure to build huge ships that can be obliterated by measly microwaves and mesons.

They are tough, yes, but paper thin. Increasing the armor on large ships becomes supremely expensive to the point that some of the designs I saw would get penetrated by strength 9 lasers and hit internal components. Sure you can come up with a billion countermeasures for that happening, but it's a problem no matter how you look at it. Small ships do not have that disadvantage. Plus cloaking. Plus being invisible at decent ranges.

There is a reason why Battleships fell out of favor since WW2, and why 'do it all' ships never existed in any modern navy. Simple fact is, large ships lack the mobility and have too many jobs to accomplish all at once. Aurora sidesteps some of these issues, but it's not an issue of 'there is no better or more efficient'. There is. I can almost guarantee you that nearly every time, a 25000 BP ship will be destroyed by smaller ships, whose total is also 25k BP.

So yeah, in closing, big ships are tough against missiles. That's all they got going for them. I used to play WH40K themed games with mega ships even before the shipbuilding rate update- I know a lot that's to know about them, and since then have been playing smaller ships, even fighters, so it's not like I am talking out of my ass or making stuff up. They are good. But I personally prefer my fleets to be smaller, invisible and mobile.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2016, 03:54:50 PM by Thanatos »
 

Offline AbuDhabi (OP)

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 104
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: Request for comments (various ships)
« Reply #13 on: October 29, 2016, 12:39:29 AM »
Just for the record regarding how fast these things are produced:
 

Iranon

  • Guest
Re: Request for comments (various ships)
« Reply #14 on: October 29, 2016, 12:23:22 PM »
For a given total shipyard capacity, Shipbuilding rate for approaches half the build rate of that for 5000t ships as size approaches infinity; at 10000t you are already at 0.75.
That is a concern, but usually not dramatic.
For large ships, you may wish to rely heavily on prebuilt components - they build more slowly, and you can't make incremental upgrades as new tech becomes available if you build one huge ship instead of a series of small ones.

Large ships may also have certain other needs, like maintenance facilities or jump drives to support them. My preferred size depends to a large extent of the overhead:
A 5k ship may be fairly barebones and dependent on others. If I build it at all, I don't like the size.
A 10k ship may get enough sensors to be tactically self-sufficient.
A 20k ship may get an electronic warfare suite if I have the tech.
A 40k ship may get a full sensor suite for good situational awareness, beyond what it needs to shoot at things. I'll consider niceties like small cryogenic transport, boat bays, a flag bridge etc.
An 80k ship may get heavy shielding (hundreds of shields on one ship can weather many attacks; split over 10 ships they can get overwhelmed and armour may serve better)

*

Dauntless: R3 Gauss cannons are weak compared to your general tech level. A 10cm railgun would be mower powerful and smaller, and requires practically no research investment.

Harbinger, Sword of Retribution: Mismatched propulsion plant, too few engines and too much fuel. You'd get better range on the same space by halving your fuel load and using 3 default power engines, along with other benefits.
I'd also match fire control and turret tracking speed.

General: I don't like the heavy reliance on CIWS. You have decent dual purpose weapons in long-ranged fast-tracking 10cm laser turrets. You have a very high base fire control tech, railguns will be quite adequate for point defence and don't require much overhead in fire control. Regular Gauss turrets are another option.