Author Topic: Stationary Jump Point Defence  (Read 3574 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Seolferwulf (OP)

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • S
  • Posts: 73
  • Thanked: 11 times
Stationary Jump Point Defence
« on: June 21, 2020, 08:30:40 AM »
Sol's population is getting annoying with its demand for more military protection, so I've been thinking about a solution that's easy on my MSP stockpiles.
Plus I want something to defend my jump points against unwelcome visitors.

With this as context what do you think about the following design?
Code: [Select]
Talos class Defense Platform (P)      500 tons       25 Crew       100,9 BP       TCS 10    TH 0    EM 0
1 km/s      Armour 1-5       Shields 0-0       HTK 5      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 1      PPV 3,48
Maint Life 40,89 Years     MSP 177    AFR 2%    IFR 0,0%    1YR 0    5YR 3    Max Repair 30,10 MSP
Fiend    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 411 months    Morale Check Required   


Single R60/C4 Meson Cannon Turret (1x1)    Range 60.000km     TS: 2000 km/s     Power 3-4     RM 60.000 km    ROF 5       
Beam Fire Control R64-TS2000 (1)     Max Range: 64.000 km   TS: 2.000 km/s     42 34 27 19 11 3 0 0 0 0
Stellarator Fusion Reactor R3-PB60 (1)     Total Power Output 3    Exp 30%

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction

The plan is to place them together with ASS buoys at whatever I want to protect.
First time I'm messing with turrets, so maybe it still has some problems plus it's pretty low tech (research rate is at 5%).
 
The following users thanked this post: Cinnius

Offline Droll

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • D
  • Posts: 1703
  • Thanked: 599 times
Re: Stationary Jump Point Defence
« Reply #1 on: June 21, 2020, 09:50:15 AM »
As long as the ASSes are plentiful it seems quite ok.

However in terms of pure PPV generation I find that gauss PD platforms work better. I think its because gauss weapons can get quite small so you have moar dakka.

As an example of PPV generation I make these 400 ton satellites with nothing but 8 size 1 box launchers. Each generated 8 PPV. The problem with fighter sized PPV solutions is that you need loads of them. This means that you create tons of command positions for LCRs, which is a problem because command positions are always prioritized ahead of any bridge crew slots regardless of what priority you set so say good bye to the bridge crew of any ship that does not have "senior crew" checked.

For this reason I use 10k tons defence platforms. A beam and a PD gauss.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2822
  • Thanked: 673 times
Re: Stationary Jump Point Defence
« Reply #2 on: June 21, 2020, 10:23:21 AM »
In general I rarely find it useful to "protect" jump point directly unless there is an actual war and there is a strategical advantage in protecting a specific jump point.

As pointed above, you should consider using much larger platforms for defensive purposes as you will run out of commanders very fast when using huge numbers of small platforms. There also is a problem with small platforms being weak and much easier to knock out and generally much more expensive per tonnage. I always try to make my ships and platforms as big as I can make them so I can benefit from good commanders.

If I need a patrol force to guard a populated system I build ships suited for that role. For guarding systems then having weapons rather than defences on the ships are important and the use the planets themselves as the protective shell. That is why fast attack ships are so effective in protecting systems as they can run out and deal damage then run back under the protective umbrella of the planetary PD and AMM missile bases.

I try to restrict smaller fighters for offensive purposes where stealth is more important, planetary strike forces usually can do well with much larger platforms from 1000-8000t or so. For defensive stations I make them as big as I need them to be... so it depends on the size of the colony that I need to protect.
 

Offline Ulzgoroth

  • Captain
  • **********
  • U
  • Posts: 414
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: Stationary Jump Point Defence
« Reply #3 on: June 21, 2020, 10:24:11 AM »
It looks like you're trying to minimize MSP costs by minimizing failure rate?

For a garrison ship, that's not going to really work. All military ships cost you 1/4 their BP cost per year in MSP to maintain - either continuously while idling at a maintenance location and keeping the maintenance clock frozen, or in chunks when overhauled. If your ship never actually fights and never deploys long enough to actually suffer a maintenance failure, that will be the only MSP expenditure. And by that metric these ships aren't particularly economical.


Also, you could cut out the turret mounting, it's not doing anything for you. If your ship is slower than your base fire control tracking speed, non-turreted weapons get the base tracking speed rather than the ship's speed. Or so I've read.


EDIT: Sorry, I see you're actually planning to dump these out at a jump point for defensive purposes. For that, huge engineering and crew quarters do make sense. I hope you've got a carrier to haul them back to the barn for upkeep, since moving them by tug would be a huge waste.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2020, 10:27:18 AM by Ulzgoroth »
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2822
  • Thanked: 673 times
Re: Stationary Jump Point Defence
« Reply #4 on: June 21, 2020, 10:30:14 AM »
I also should point out that you get 1 PPV for every 1HS or 50 tons of weapons you have on any space structure, so smaller Gauss cannons is not better at PPV than any other weapons.
 

Offline Droll

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • D
  • Posts: 1703
  • Thanked: 599 times
Re: Stationary Jump Point Defence
« Reply #5 on: June 21, 2020, 11:06:24 AM »
I also should point out that you get 1 PPV for every 1HS or 50 tons of weapons you have on any space structure, so smaller Gauss cannons is not better at PPV than any other weapons.

Although true gauss weapons require less in terms of supporting components such as powerplants or FCs. I found that if you are trying to keep to a certain tonnage like 10k that you can fit more gauss as opposed to beamy bois, which leads to bigger PP.
 

Offline Zincat

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Z
  • Posts: 566
  • Thanked: 111 times
Re: Stationary Jump Point Defence
« Reply #6 on: June 21, 2020, 11:13:41 AM »
Well, I would not use gauss stations to protect jump points. Enemy ships would leave weapon range super quickly anyway.

If you want immobile stations, they would be better off being either missile stations or carrier stations with beam-fighters. Alternatively, you can use mobile beam warships.

Personally, I just dump super long maintenace, super small sensor stations on jump points I want to monitor.. Yes I know I could use buoys, I don't like them though. Only during wartime I sometimes do blockades.

I would certainly suggest large stations anyway. The large usage of command positions might be a problem otherwise, as many already posted.
 

Offline Droll

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • D
  • Posts: 1703
  • Thanked: 599 times
Re: Stationary Jump Point Defence
« Reply #7 on: June 21, 2020, 11:23:11 AM »
Well, I would not use gauss stations to protect jump points. Enemy ships would leave weapon range super quickly anyway.

If you want immobile stations, they would be better off being either missile stations or carrier stations with beam-fighters. Alternatively, you can use mobile beam warships.

Personally, I just dump super long maintenace, super small sensor stations on jump points I want to monitor.. Yes I know I could use buoys, I don't like them though. Only during wartime I sometimes do blockades.

I would certainly suggest large stations anyway. The large usage of command positions might be a problem otherwise, as many already posted.

I was replying to a post in the context of PPV, my use case is as planetary outposts which is why they have a deployment setting of 3 days - not exactly useful for jump point defence.

I think if you want a permanent presence over a jump point do everything you said except crank the deployment to 0.1 and instead tug a no-armour recreation module there. Bonus points if you tug a maintenance facility for the tonnage you want to actually keep there. Even more bonus points if you have a fuel depot and massive magazine. When I encountered my first NPR this is what I did - though I recommend using big boy tugs or make your magazines, fuel depots and maintenance facilities smaller than mine (500kt is hard to tug at speed, rec facility at 100kt is actually not bad).

A border checkpoint might as well double up as a staging post.
 

Offline Seolferwulf (OP)

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • S
  • Posts: 73
  • Thanked: 11 times
Re: Stationary Jump Point Defence
« Reply #8 on: June 21, 2020, 11:49:31 AM »
I already make extensive use of carriers and fighters so I should probably economize on my human resource.
Too bad, I kind of liked the idea of a swarm of mesons lying in wait for trespassers.

In general, is it possible to decrease MSP usage of a ship below what it would usually cost when parked in orbit?
Hangars are probably an option but they cost maintenance themselves, too.
Would something expensive like a maximum size ASS still be usable while in a hangar?
 

Offline skoormit

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 764
  • Thanked: 310 times
Re: Stationary Jump Point Defence
« Reply #9 on: June 21, 2020, 01:09:40 PM »
In general, is it possible to decrease MSP usage of a ship below what it would usually cost when parked in orbit?
Hangars are probably an option but they cost maintenance themselves, too.

The thing is, hangars are much cheaper than the ships that fit inside them, especially after you are a few levels deep into weapons tech.
So long as the carrier cost is mostly hangars, the MSP cost of the carrier should be much less than the MSP cost of the ships it carries.
 

Offline liveware

  • Bug Moderators
  • Commodore
  • ***
  • Posts: 742
  • Thanked: 88 times
Re: Stationary Jump Point Defence
« Reply #10 on: June 21, 2020, 01:42:13 PM »
In general, is it possible to decrease MSP usage of a ship below what it would usually cost when parked in orbit?
Hangars are probably an option but they cost maintenance themselves, too.

The thing is, hangars are much cheaper than the ships that fit inside them, especially after you are a few levels deep into weapons tech.
So long as the carrier cost is mostly hangars, the MSP cost of the carrier should be much less than the MSP cost of the ships it carries.

+1 for this. I have started doing this for all of my military fleets out of necessity. MSP costs get huge with large numbers of military ships.
Open the pod-bay doors HAL...
 

Offline Ulzgoroth

  • Captain
  • **********
  • U
  • Posts: 414
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: Stationary Jump Point Defence
« Reply #11 on: June 21, 2020, 02:06:20 PM »
I did that for my filler missile fighters but I don't think the balance worked out well. The carrier station cost nearly as much per ton of hangar space as the fighters do.

If I was stuffing it with high-end beam ships rather than box launcher fighters it would work better. Or if I'd cut extra features and made it a military-in-name-only dock rather than mounting defenses and AMMs.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2822
  • Thanked: 673 times
Re: Stationary Jump Point Defence
« Reply #12 on: June 21, 2020, 02:10:59 PM »
In general, is it possible to decrease MSP usage of a ship below what it would usually cost when parked in orbit?
Hangars are probably an option but they cost maintenance themselves, too.

The thing is, hangars are much cheaper than the ships that fit inside them, especially after you are a few levels deep into weapons tech.
So long as the carrier cost is mostly hangars, the MSP cost of the carrier should be much less than the MSP cost of the ships it carries.

This is something I have pointed out to Steve before as I think ships should have to be maintained even inside a hangar, carriers already are a powerful tool. It does not need to make maintenance cheaper too.
 

Offline skoormit

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 764
  • Thanked: 310 times
Re: Stationary Jump Point Defence
« Reply #13 on: June 21, 2020, 02:27:35 PM »
In general, is it possible to decrease MSP usage of a ship below what it would usually cost when parked in orbit?
Hangars are probably an option but they cost maintenance themselves, too.

The thing is, hangars are much cheaper than the ships that fit inside them, especially after you are a few levels deep into weapons tech.
So long as the carrier cost is mostly hangars, the MSP cost of the carrier should be much less than the MSP cost of the ships it carries.

This is something I have pointed out to Steve before as I think ships should have to be maintained even inside a hangar, carriers already are a powerful tool. It does not need to make maintenance cheaper too.

I mean, the up-front cost is not trivial.
For every 10kt of hangared ships, you have to pay 1000 BP for the hangars, plus pay for the engines, etc, to move the hangars around.
It saves MSP over time, but you don't get that for free. It does require an investment.
 
The following users thanked this post: SpikeTheHobbitMage

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2822
  • Thanked: 673 times
Re: Stationary Jump Point Defence
« Reply #14 on: June 21, 2020, 02:30:36 PM »
I did that for my filler missile fighters but I don't think the balance worked out well. The carrier station cost nearly as much per ton of hangar space as the fighters do.

If I was stuffing it with high-end beam ships rather than box launcher fighters it would work better. Or if I'd cut extra features and made it a military-in-name-only dock rather than mounting defenses and AMMs.

As you progress through the tech tree then even the engines will make missile fighters more expensive as well, but missile fighters generally are less expensive than most other type of fighters.

There is also the fact that Hangars use a resource that is not use for much except Hangars, at some point it make very good sense to store even normal ships in hangars rather than maintain them the normal way because of this. These large hangars will only have an upfront cost in Ventarite and you will not really need to upgrade/scrap or do any of that sort of thing once they are built.

I mainly view it as game mechanic exploit so I avoid doing for that reason, but carriers become more and more economically viable as time goes on.
 
The following users thanked this post: skoormit