United Nations of Earth

[Theodidactus (OP)]

Hello Everyone, I'm getting back into this game!
I've spend more time playing aurora than I'd like to admit, but I still don't think I've mastered ship design, especially with the new system. These fleets were prompted by several attacks at the edge of space by an unknown race, our military technology is likely incapable of dealing with the threat, but we feel we must try. Here is the latest proposal submitted to the United Nations, a primarily defensive fleet built around a capitol fleet and a support fleet:


Primary Offensive Cruiser: Pride of Bangalore
Role: Multi-role cruiser capable of both short and long-ranged combat and fleet support
Proposed Craft: 6, Pride of Bangalore, Compass Rose, Kuai liuxing, Jin Liming, Voyna Uuchuny, Thunder Child

Pride of Bangalore class Cruiser    15 000 tons     338 Crew     2412.84 BP      TCS 300  TH 900  EM 0
4000 km/s     Armour 5-54     Shields 0-0     Sensors 55/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 28     PPV 54.56
Maint Life 3.26 Years     MSP 804    AFR 225%    IFR 3.1%    1YR 114    5YR 1714    Max Repair 115 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Spare Berths 0    
Magazine 226    

Prestonworks Standard Naval Plasma Engine (12)    Power 100    Fuel Use 99.57%    Signature 75    Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 3 400 000 Litres    Range 41.0 billion km   (118 days at full power)

Twin 12 Cm. Tyler Labs Ultraviolet Laser Turret (3x2)    Range 160 000km     TS: 10000 km/s     Power 8-6     RM 4    ROF 10        4 4 4 4 3 2 2 2 1 1
CIWS-160 (1x2)    Range 1000 km     TS: 16000 km/s     ROF 5       Base 50% To Hit
Endhiran Energy Weapon Targeting System (1)    Max Range: 192 000 km   TS: 8000 km/s     95 90 84 79 74 69 64 58 53 48
Thiel Laboratories Fusion Coil (2)     Total Power Output 24    Armour 0    Exp 5%

Paladin Missile Launcher (2)    Missile Size 1    Rate of Fire 10
Patel-Brusilov Missile Launch System (4)    Missile Size 6    Rate of Fire 45
Paladin Antimissile System (1)     Range 5.0m km    Resolution 1
Missile Command Center (1)     Range 50.4m km    Resolution 100
Paladin Antimissile Missile (48)  Speed: 32 000 km/s   End: 2m    Range: 3.9m km   WH: 1    Size: 1    TH: 202/121/60
Claymore Mk. II Antiship Missile (20)  Speed: 26 700 km/s   End: 37.3m    Range: 59.7m km   WH: 16    Size: 6    TH: 115/69/34
Jaegar Mk. II Torpedo (8 )  Speed: 26 700 km/s   End: 4m    Range: 6.5m km   WH: 20    Size: 6    TH: 133/80/40

Bloomberg-Gavilon Long-Range Scanner (1)     GPS 10500     Range 84.0m km    Resolution 100
Parekh-Mihos Thermal Observatory (1)     Sensitivity 55     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  55m km

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

Command Cruiser: Continental
Role: unarmed command and fleet support  ship
Proposed Craft: 3, Eurasia, Africa, Americas

Continental class Command Ship    14 900 tons     247 Crew     1850.4 BP      TCS 298  TH 675  EM 0
3020 km/s    JR 3-50     Armour 5-53     Shields 0-0     Sensors 55/40/0/0     Damage Control Rating 24     PPV 0
Maint Life 3.03 Years     MSP 2310    AFR 444%    IFR 6.2%    1YR 377    5YR 5656    Max Repair 150 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Spare Berths 1    
Flag Bridge    

Macquerie-Adelson Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 15000 tons    Distance 50k km     Squadron Size 3
Prestonworks Standard Naval Plasma Engine (9)    Power 100    Fuel Use 99.57%    Signature 75    Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 5 000 000 Litres    Range 60.7 billion km   (232 days at full power)

CIWS-160 (3x2)    Range 1000 km     TS: 16000 km/s     ROF 5       Base 50% To Hit
Bloomberg-Gavilon Long-Range Scanner (1)     GPS 10500     Range 84.0m km    Resolution 100
Standard Naval Scanner (1)     GPS 21     Range 1.3m km    Resolution 1
Parekh-Mihos Thermal Observatory (1)     Sensitivity 55     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  55m km
Parekh Electromagnetic Sensor Suite (1)     Sensitivity 40     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  40m km

ECM 10

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Light Carrier: Archipelago
Role: Bare-Bones Light Carrier
Proposed Craft: 3, Maldives, Virgin Islands, Ryukyu

Archipeligo class Light Carrier    15 000 tons     211 Crew     1963.58 BP      TCS 300  TH 675  EM 0
3000 km/s     Armour 5-54     Shields 0-0     Sensors 11/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 31     PPV 0
Maint Life 3.94 Years     MSP 900    AFR 163%    IFR 2.3%    1YR 92    5YR 1382    Max Repair 62.5 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Flight Crew Berths 0    
Hangar Deck Capacity 5000 tons     Magazine 240    

Prestonworks Standard Naval Plasma Engine (9)    Power 100    Fuel Use 99.57%    Signature 75    Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 3 200 000 Litres    Range 38.6 billion km   (148 days at full power)

U.N. Standard Naval Scanner (1)     GPS 21     Range 1.7m km    Resolution 1
U.N. Standard Naval Sensor (1)     Sensitivity 11     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  11m km

Strike Group
2x Tirador Early Warning Craft   Speed: 5760 km/s    Size: 9.2
3x Ladron Fighter-bomber   Speed: 7142 km/s    Size: 9.8
3x Chupacabra Escort   Speed: 8139 km/s    Size: 8.6
2x Zorra Interceptor   Speed: 9617 km/s    Size: 9.15

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Missile Frigate: Sao Paulo
Role: Short-ranged anti-ship and antimissile torpedo frigate
Proposed Craft: 15, Sao Paulo, Melbourne, Buenos Aires, Cape Town, Daar Es Saalam, Kuala Lampur, Rio De Janiero, Mercury Bay, Hanoi, Sidney, Santiago De chile, Manila, Perth, Mambasa,  Jakarta

Sao Paulo class Missile Frigate    7 000 tons     158 Crew     1104.44 BP      TCS 140  TH 375  EM 0
3571 km/s     Armour 5-32     Shields 0-0     Sensors 11/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 24     PPV 26
Maint Life 3.89 Years     MSP 394    AFR 98%    IFR 1.4%    1YR 41    5YR 618    Max Repair 62.5 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Spare Berths 1    
Magazine 226    

Prestonworks Standard Naval Plasma Engine (5)    Power 100    Fuel Use 99.57%    Signature 75    Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 1 500 000 Litres    Range 38.7 billion km   (125 days at full power)

Paladin Missile Launcher (2)    Missile Size 1    Rate of Fire 10
Patel-Brusilov Missile Launch System (4)    Missile Size 6    Rate of Fire 45
Missile Command Center (1)     Range 50.4m km    Resolution 100
Paladin Antimissile System (1)     Range 5.0m km    Resolution 1
Paladin Antimissile Missile (34)  Speed: 32 000 km/s   End: 2m    Range: 3.9m km   WH: 1    Size: 1    TH: 202/121/60
Claymore Mk. II Antiship Missile (  Speed: 26 700 km/s   End: 37.3m    Range: 59.7m km   WH: 16    Size: 6    TH: 115/69/34
Jaegar Mk. II Torpedo (24)  Speed: 26 700 km/s   End: 4m    Range: 6.5m km   WH: 20    Size: 6    TH: 133/80/40

U.N. Standard Naval Scanner (1)     GPS 21     Range 1.7m km    Resolution 1
U.N. Standard Naval Sensor (1)     Sensitivity 11     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  11m km

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

Frigate: Manhattan
Role: Defensive Gunship
Proposed Craft: 15, Manhattan, London, Seoul, Shanghai, Uulan Baator, Santiago De Cuba, Taipei, Hong Kong, Seattle, Moscow, Belfast, Dublin, Madrid, Damascus, Cuidad-Juarez

Manhattan class Frigate    7 000 tons     163 Crew     1123.2 BP      TCS 140  TH 375  EM 0
3571 km/s     Armour 5-32     Shields 0-0     Sensors 11/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 24     PPV 24
Maint Life 3.89 Years     MSP 401    AFR 98%    IFR 1.4%    1YR 42    5YR 630    Max Repair 62.5 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Spare Berths 0    

Prestonworks Standard Naval Plasma Engine (5)    Power 100    Fuel Use 99.57%    Signature 75    Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 1 550 000 Litres    Range 40.0 billion km   (129 days at full power)

CIWS-160 (1x2)    Range 1000 km     TS: 16000 km/s     ROF 5       Base 50% To Hit
Vickers 15cm Railgun V3/C3 (4x4)    Range 90 000km     TS: 4000 km/s     Power 9-3     RM 3    ROF 15        3 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 0
Ecker Railgun Fire Control System (1)    Max Range: 96 000 km   TS: 5000 km/s     90 79 69 58 48 38 27 17 6 0
Thiel Laboratories Fusion Coil (2)     Total Power Output 24    Armour 0    Exp 5%

U.N. Standard Naval Scanner (1)     GPS 21     Range 1.7m km    Resolution 1
U.N. Standard Naval Sensor (1)     Sensitivity 11     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  11m km

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Patrol Ship:Apache
Role: First Response Ship,, Independent Scout Ship, Fighter Support Ship
Proposed Craft: 10, Apache, Mapuche, Rapanui, Boruca, Ojibwe, Xinca, Pottawattome, Tupanambra, Culchan, Eskimo

Apache class Patrol Craft    5 000 tons     100 Crew     807.5 BP      TCS 100  TH 450  EM 0
6000 km/s    JR 1-50     Armour 3-26     Shields 0-0     Sensors 55/40/0/0     Damage Control Rating 11     PPV 4.5
Maint Life 1.23 Years     MSP 101    AFR 200%    IFR 2.8%    1YR 69    5YR 1034    Max Repair 62.5 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Spare Berths 4    
Magazine 30    

Adelson-Macquerie Patrol Craft Jump Coil     Max Ship Size 5000 tons    Distance 50k km     Squadron Size 1
Prestonworks Standard Naval Plasma Engine (6)    Power 100    Fuel Use 99.57%    Signature 75    Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 1 100 000 Litres    Range 39.8 billion km   (76 days at full power)

Torpedo Hardpoint (2)    Missile Size 6    Hangar Reload 45 minutes    MF Reload 7.5 hours
Rocket Hardpoint (6)    Missile Size 3    Hangar Reload 22.5 minutes    MF Reload 3.7 hours
Gavilon H.U.D.  (1)     Range 5.0m km    Resolution 1
Gamma Rocket (6)  Speed: 32 000 km/s   End: 1.3m    Range: 2.6m km   WH: 4    Size: 3    TH: 213/128/64
Jaegar Mk. II Torpedo (2)  Speed: 26 700 km/s   End: 4m    Range: 6.5m km   WH: 20    Size: 6    TH: 133/80/40

U.N. Standard Naval Scanner (1)     GPS 21     Range 1.7m km    Resolution 1
Parekh-Mihos Thermal Observatory (1)     Sensitivity 55     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  55m km
Parekh Electromagnetic Sensor Suite (1)     Sensitivity 40     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  40m km

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

And fighters:

Chupacabra class Escort    430 tons     2 Crew     65.8 BP      TCS 8.6  TH 52.5  EM 0
8139 km/s     Armour 1-5     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 3
Maint Life 4.16 Years     MSP 10    AFR 14%    IFR 0.2%    1YR 1    5YR 14    Max Repair 11 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.01 months    Spare Berths 21    

Eka-Pulse Plasma Jet Engine (4)    Power 17.6    Fuel Use 75.38%    Signature 13.2    Exp 11%
Fuel Capacity 5 000 Litres    Range 2.8 billion km   (3 days at full power)

Vickers Gauss Cannon R1-50 (1)    Range 10 000km     TS: 8139 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 1    ROF 5        1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lugar H.U.D.  (1)    Max Range: 12 000 km   TS: 8000 km/s     17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

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

Ladron class Fighter-bomber    490 tons     2 Crew     99.6 BP      TCS 9.8  TH 52.5  EM 0
7142 km/s     Armour 1-5     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 3.6
Maint Life 3.94 Years     MSP 13    AFR 19%    IFR 0.3%    1YR 1    5YR 20    Max Repair 21 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.1 months    Spare Berths 8    
Magazine 24    

Eka-Pulse Plasma Jet Engine (4)    Power 17.6    Fuel Use 75.38%    Signature 13.2    Exp 11%
Fuel Capacity 5 000 Litres    Range 2.4 billion km   (3 days at full power)

Rocket Hardpoint (2)    Missile Size 3    Hangar Reload 22.5 minutes    MF Reload 3.7 hours
Torpedo Hardpoint (3)    Missile Size 6    Hangar Reload 45 minutes    MF Reload 7.5 hours
Gavilon H.U.D.  (1)     Range 5.0m km    Resolution 1
Gamma Rocket (2)  Speed: 32 000 km/s   End: 1.3m    Range: 2.6m km   WH: 4    Size: 3    TH: 213/128/64
Jaegar Mk. II Torpedo (3)  Speed: 26 700 km/s   End: 4m    Range: 6.5m km   WH: 20    Size: 6    TH: 133/80/40

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 Fighter for production, combat and maintenance purposes

Zorra class Interceptor    458 tons     2 Crew     99.5 BP      TCS 9.15  TH 66  EM 0
9617 km/s     Armour 1-5     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 1.8
Maint Life 11.71 Years     MSP 34    AFR 6%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 0    5YR 7    Max Repair 21 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.1 months    Spare Berths 8    
Magazine 12    

Eka-Pulse Plasma Jet Engine (5)    Power 17.6    Fuel Use 75.38%    Signature 13.2    Exp 11%
Fuel Capacity 5 000 Litres    Range 2.6 billion km   (3 days at full power)

Rocket Hardpoint (4)    Missile Size 3    Hangar Reload 22.5 minutes    MF Reload 3.7 hours
Gavilon H.U.D.  (1)     Range 5.0m km    Resolution 1
Gamma Rocket (4)  Speed: 32 000 km/s   End: 1.3m    Range: 2.6m km   WH: 4    Size: 3    TH: 213/128/64

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 Fighter for production, combat and maintenance purposes

Tirador class Early Warning Craft    460 tons     3 Crew     147.4 BP      TCS 9.2  TH 39.75  EM 0
5760 km/s     Armour 1-5     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 0
Maint Life 1.66 Years     MSP 20    AFR 16%    IFR 0.2%    1YR 9    5YR 129    Max Repair 105 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.01 months    Spare Berths 20    

Eka-Pulse Plasma Jet Engine (3)    Power 17.6    Fuel Use 75.38%    Signature 13.2    Exp 11%
Fuel Capacity 5 000 Litres    Range 2.6 billion km   (5 days at full power)

ESCUDO Active Search Sensor (1)     GPS 105     Range 8.4m km    Resolution 1

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

[davidb86]

Theodidactus,

It is good that this is a defensive fleet, as your Command Cruisers at 14,900 tons cannot open a jump gate for either your offensive cruisers or carriers.

The variety of speeds is unusual.  you can save space and increase speed on your fighters by removing the maintenance spaces, as they will spend most of their time in the hangers.  The 15 CM railguns on your defensive frigates have a lower ROF than the 10 CM.  If you are using them in the point defense role, you might want to go back to more 10's. Your Carrier has an alpha strike of 3 salvos of 3 missiles.  Even 3 carriers would only have 27 missiles that need to be fired at near pointblank range since your fire control only has a 5 mkm range.  Your own anti-missile sensors have the same range against fighters, and a single Size 1 missile would destroy each fighter.

[Hawkeye]

I haven´t gone over your designs in detail, but what catched my eye was the huge amount of fuel, your ships carry.
Your Pride of Bangalore carries 3,400 tons of fuel in order to achieve a range of 41 billion km. This is due to your high power but low efficiency engines.

I´d play around with engine designs a bit and I am pretty sure you could get to the same speed and range using somewhat less powerful but much more efficient engines, i.e. using 500 tons more on (more efficient) engines but save 1000 tons on fuel, resulting in a net gain.

Another simple way to achieve this could be to design a larger engine, as larger engines are more efficient than smaller ones.
Personally, I design a pretty large engine, two of which are put into a 6000 ton destroyer, 4 into a 12000 light cruiser and 6 into a 18000 ton heavy cruiser.
Using such a pattern, all ships in a TG move at the same speed and I still only have to design a single engine (though development of the larger engine is more expensive in RP) and fuel usage is reduced quite a bit.

Another thing I noticed is, that your magazine space is pretty limited and I am not entirely sold on the concept of two missiles of the same size, when the short-ranged one doesn´t have a significantly larger warhead.
My own rule-of-thumb: at least 10 salvos for AMS, at least 30 salvos for AMMs.

Oh, another thing. Your Pride of Bangalore doesn´t have any res-1 sensor for its AMMs/turrets and the ships that _have_ a res-1 sensor those have a pitiful range (remember, the 1.7m range is for 1HS targets, a missile of size-6 or smaller will be detected at much shorter range (at about 200,000km) reducing the usefulness of your AMMs enormously.

[MarcAFK]

What struck me was that your 5000ton 1800+bp patrol craft carries barely more armament than one of your 65 bp 490 ton fighters.
This seems seriously out of whack, while I realise that jump engines, armour, sensors and non fighter systems take up more room you might want to reconsider the patrol craft slightly. Personally i would use cheaper systems, less armour ,one large higher powered engine, significantly less fuel, if they're for short range interception you should have support vessels available to refuel them, and lower deployment and maintenance times.
You should be able to shave 1000 tons off the vessel and also save significantly on build cost.
In addition you could remove the jump engine and cram more weapons into the same hull size, then make a dedicated 4000 ton jump support craft for these ships which would allow more bang for your buck.

[Theodidactus (OP)]

It is good that this is a defensive fleet, as your Command Cruisers at 14,900 tons cannot open a jump gate for either your offensive cruisers or carriers.

Oversight! I made the command cruiser bigger.

Oh, another thing. Your Pride of Bangalore doesn´t have any res-1 sensor for its AMMs/turrets and the ships that _have_ a res-1 sensor those have a pitiful range (remember, the 1.7m range is for 1HS targets, a missile of size-6 or smaller will be detected at much shorter range (at about 200,000km) reducing the usefulness of your AMMs enormously.

Also oversight! though it was only supposed to carry one of those frankly "pitiful" sensors. This is a fundamental limit of our current technology, and later I intend to be sensor crazy, since it seems to be the kind of thing humanity would do. I planned to counteract our current limitations with the ESCUDO program mounted on those AWACs, which afford millions of high-resolution kilometers to react, or mounting some kind of "tactical scanner" on the command cruiser to make up for that 100 ton mass deficit I forgot was there.

I am not entirely sold on the concept of two missiles of the same size,

I am, but that's because it just seems like the kind of thing a space navy would have. Here it's admittedly a bit cosmetic unless you understand something I'm frankly embarassed to admit: I wanted to have short-ranged high maneuverability torpedos for anti-piracy operations, as they are a persistant problem in both the Epsilon Eradini and Tau Centi systems. Who's playing the pirates? Me.

I love your ship and component names. You did a really good job of making these feel like ships of the united nations

Thanks whoever 

This is due to your high power but low efficiency engines.

I was REALLY confused about this whole procedure. I'm not new to this game by any means, but I haven't played with the new engine rules and they threw me for a loop, particularly since the UN is so primitive right now. I have a good repertoire of fuel efficiency techs, and magneto-plasma engine tech is quite advanced itself, but I couldn't produce an engine that seemed in any way reasonably sized and in any way reasonably fuel efficient. I'm aware the amount of fuel these guys are carrying is stupid silly, enough to easily decrease my entire empire's fuel reserves by half....I think fundamentally what I'm up against is simply a low overall size constraint (15,000 tons). Our defense department is tentatively proposing a new "fusion fleet" in 2125 which will hopefully be much more advanced...and much bigger.


[/quote]What struck me was that your 5000ton 1800+bp patrol craft carries barely more armament than one of your 65 bp 490 ton fighters.  This seems seriously out of whack, while I realise that jump engines, armour, sensors and non fighter systems take up more room you might want to reconsider the patrol craft slightly. Personally i would use cheaper systems, less armour ,one large higher powered engine, significantly less fuel, if they're for short range interception you should have support vessels available to refuel them, and lower deployment and maintenance times.
You should be able to shave 1000 tons off the vessel and also save significantly on build cost.
In addition you could remove the jump engine and cram more weapons into the same hull size, then make a dedicated 4000 ton jump support craft for these ships which would allow more bang for your buck.[/quote]

The patrol craft was actually a good object lesson in the conflict between minmaxing and RPing.
most of my ships I make to have cool features. Obviously I want them to work for the purposes of the game but I tend toward impractical designs that do the things ships in my head do. You can see the fullest extent of that in my ambitious delayed project, the  Aurora Class Science Vessel which will be coming back in this campaign, in a few RL months.

This patrol craft was originally built to actually do something practical: rescue people who get blown up by aliens in deep space. Then I added feature after feature to make it "cooler" including the massive S+R sensors and the missile armament, cause, you know, patrol ships need weapons.



None of your advice was considered because I got impatient and made the fleet anyway. The UN thanks you for your service and we will include your guidelines-consult in our next generation of starships, which will also include the aurora. Hopefully by then we will have mastered efficient engine designes and also survived the coming fuel crisis.





 

[Akhillis]

Easiest way to improve your fuel efficiency is to use fewer, larger engines.  If you had six 200EP engines in your cruiser instead of twelve 100EP, you'd get substantially better range.

[Narmio]

The efficiency tradeoff of bigger engines continues right up to the "one engine per ship" point, or at least to 50HS engines (the max, IIRC).  I find, however, that a minimum of two or even three engines for military vessels provides something of a failsafe in case of damage - engine damage is very common, and if losing a single engine reduces your speed to 0km/s your whole fleet has a nasty decision to make.  If damaged ships can limp on at 1/2 or 2/3 speed you at least have some options.

[MarcAFK]

I used to design new custom engines for each ship, usually slightly differing tonnage and efficiency/multiplier, however I've been converted into a somewhat simplier and more realistic system, basically design one engine which i'll use multiples of depending on tonnage.
For example, I'll make one 600 ton engine, then use one per 3000 tons of ship.  For higher speed cruiser type ships I'll merely shave some tonnage off for a corvette or frigate, or pop in an extra engine if it's a cruiser/ battle cruiser. The efficiency starts to suffer when you get to 4 or more engines, so as my fleet starts creeping upwards in size I'll design new slightly larger engines, for 4kton or 5kton increments.
I'll still need to design engines for fighters and FAC's, but considering how small they are the research is pretty quick.

[Theodidactus (OP)]

The efficiency tradeoff of bigger engines continues right up to the "one engine per ship" point, or at least to 50HS engines (the max, IIRC).  I find, however, that a minimum of two or even three engines for military vessels provides something of a failsafe in case of damage - engine damage is very common, and if losing a single engine reduces your speed to 0km/s your whole fleet has a nasty decision to make.  If damaged ships can limp on at 1/2 or 2/3 speed you at least have some options.

my old designs had massive engines, one per ship,but with the advent of magneto plasma technology the UN shifted to a more standardized, smaller model. We regretted this decision immediately, however, I expect there would have been a fuel crisis regardless of how much efficiency we used, we're trying to field a fleet of 30-40 ships in the span of 5 years.

You can expect drawings of these ships later today. Does anyone else draw their ships?

[Jorgen_CAB]

Yep, I like to draw my ships... although I usually do it by hand on paper. I don't have a good application to use for that sort of thing. Do you have any good suggestion for a nice application to use for this that is easy to use for a novice?

When it comes to engines I like to design engines for each size class of ships, mainly to conserve the fuel efficiency even if it means more research efforts it really saves on the economy in the long run since I can save quite allot on the fuel consumption. I usually put between two-four engines on a ship, no less than two on a ship that is not a short range inter-system platform.

In my last game I also experimented with using a very low percentage of my main ships total tonnage (and better efficiencies) on engines with rather good results. Sure they tend to be slow in comparison with someone with equal technology, but with cloaking devices and/or smaller and faster scout reconnaissance vessels to back them up that is not really a big problem. So my main combat ships usually have about 1/3 to 1/5 the speed of contemporary technology. The more I advance in engine technology the less tonnage I now tend to use for engines. In my last game I started at Nuclear engine tech with 95% power efficiency and 25% engines weight per tonnage. I then reduce the power efficiency and tonnage by about 5% per tech level. Tonnage ratio will usually be no less than 10% now with sufficiently high technology, I simply don't like to invest too much resource into engine on my most expensive ships anymore.

[joeclark77]

Imagine... giving nuclear weapons to the UN!

[joeclark77]

Serious comment, though.  One thing I see immediately is that your ships have very few of each weapon.  The Pride of Bangalore is going to be firing volleys of 4x missiles.  This is just begging for the enemy to shoot them down with point defenses.  It's nice to have a large warhead, but you still have to be able to fire volleys of numerous missiles in order to get past those anti-missile defenses.  You could use 75% size launchers and fit eight of them on there.  Drop some of the other junk.  You don't need four weapon systems on one ship.  By the way, drop the CIWS and put in a normal turreted energy weapon... gausscannons, small lasers, or small mesons are good choices.  When you have more than one ship in a group, they'll cover each other.  CIWS only make sense for commercial ships or for ships that will be operating alone and cannot benefit from shared anti-missile defenses.

Some other notes: make sure your turrets match the speed of your turret fire controls.  Add an anti-FAC sensor (resolution 16 or 20), and an anti-FAC missile fire control.

[Theodidactus (OP)]

Yep, I like to draw my ships... although I usually do it by hand on paper. I don't have a good application to use for that sort of thing. Do you have any good suggestion for a nice application to use for this that is easy to use for a novice?

I wish.

I use Autocad to design the spacecraft and space stations that feature in my novel, but that's mostly because I want to have rooms and engineering spaces placed in perfect detail in order to better make realistic projections about the number of crewmen and how long they can last out there and stuff. It's worth the hours of time it takes because it makes the story more real for me...also I can theoretically print 3D action figures.

For something a bit more fanciful like aurora, you can't beat a pencil and paper, which is what I use too.

Imagine... giving nuclear weapons to the UN!

They have far from a monopoly. The China Sphere and Brazil both have extremely large fighter fleets, and NATO-russo has more than 50 missile bases. But yeah in my game the UN is just as idealistic and fraught with problems as in the modern world, so maybe giving them nukes was not such a good idea.

Update: This fleet is working better than I initially expected. We've tangled with our robot adversaries twice now, once to a decisive victory with no ships destroyed and once to a Pyrrhic victory...

Serious comment, though.  One thing I see immediately is that your ships have very few of each weapon.  The Pride of Bangalore is going to be firing volleys of 4x missiles.  This is just begging for the enemy to shoot them down with point defenses.  

while this oddly hasn't been that much of a problem yet, I do see your point.  

It's nice to have a large warhead, but you still have to be able to fire volleys of numerous missiles in order to get past those anti-missile defenses.  

Yes and no. If you look at some of my other ship designs from prior incarnations of this game you'll see that I don't actually go in for the whole "small missile" thing. It just doesn't feel right. I feel like a starcruiser should be firing six big missiles, rather than 60 small ones. I realize this is not actually good from a minmax perspective but I refuse to change it. It doesn't hobble me overmuch.

You don't need four weapon systems on one ship.

This too. For starcruisers designed to fly around the galaxy on great, independent adventures, I usually make them as flavorful and versatile as they can get. Multiple weapon systems and redundancy and all. Obviously this is impractical but I like the way it feels. Now, obviously, our tech level isn't there yet, because the "Pride" class can't jump independently, but I'm still using that design philosophy.

You could use 75% size launchers and fit eight of them on there.  Drop some of the other junk.  

The "Project triangle" is slated for construction beginning in 2120, about 9 years from now. It's a "supercruiser" platform for a missile and scanning system that can scan, track, and destroy targets up to 1AU away. It is going to have ten size 10 launchers that operate at 50% speed and two smaller "full speed" torpedo launchers. I like slower speed missile launchers for my super-long-ranged missiles. We have three ships planned: Altair, Deneb, and Vega

By the way, drop the CIWS and put in a normal turreted energy weapon... gausscannons, small lasers, or small mesons are good choices.  When you have more than one ship in a group, they'll cover each other.  CIWS only make sense for commercial ships or for ships that will be operating alone and cannot benefit from shared anti-missile defenses.

Fear has prevented me from doing this. I'm always worried something won't work in combat and feel the need to kit my ships out with PD even if they already have layers of weapons. Also, what's a meson? Like we here at the UN are aware that such a particle exists, but you're suggesting they can be used as weapons, how foolish. It would take decades of study to build a weapon like that and I very much doubt it would accomplish anything at all. I'm sure we have better things to research, especially at NATO-Russo's secret labs on Euphrates colony, which are definitely not studying anything like that at all. Nope, absolutely not. Nothing to see here, move on.

Some other notes: make sure your turrets match the speed of your turret fire controls.  Add an anti-FAC sensor (resolution 16 or 20), and an anti-FAC missile fire control.

Ordinarily I do this but our sensor technology is currently so bad that all possible designs were either laughably short ranged or comically big.

[Noble713]

Yes and no.  If you look at some of my other ship designs from prior incarnations of this game you'll see that I don't actually go in for the whole "small missile" thing.  It just doesn't feel right.  I feel like a starcruiser should be firing six big missiles, rather than 60 small ones.  I realize this is not actually good from a minmax perspective but I refuse to change it.  It doesn't hobble me overmuch. 

I'm curious what kind of fights you are getting into where 6 missiles are a sufficient salvo size.  I agree with you from a RP perspective as my Sino-Russian destroyers have size 7 missiles in an attempt to mimic the Soviet design philosophy of carrying a small number of gigantic carrier-killer missiles.  Besides the fact that not enough of them get through unless I'm box-launching salvos of 20, I also find that even warhead-12 missiles take numerous hits to disable/kill any vessel of significant size.

Trying to reproduce 20th/21st century naval warfare where a single anti-ship missile striking amidships is enough for a mission kill just doesn't seem feasible.

[Theodidactus (OP)]

I'm pretty early on in my game. It's been just over 100 years now, but I play SLOW and very heavy with the RP.

We've tangled with precursors and precursors only in this game, but in previous games I've played using the same philosophy and gotten pretty decent results. As you can see from my designs I usually run two types of missiles in my fleets:
an "antiship missile" which is very long ranged and can harry the enemy from across the map
a "torpedo" which is deployed over relatively short ranges, perhaps 10m K. A fleet of Sao Paulo's all firing all tubes will create a decent-sized bloom of 12 missiles any one of which will cripple a ship if it strikes. Supported by patrol ships and torpedos, I can alpha strike 32 Jaegar torpedoes.

The enemy is...dumb. It's hard, hard, hard to make the game challenging without deliberately hobbling yourself. I use all the following plausible hobbles:
- Communication between star systems is drone-based and not instantaneous. It can take days or weeks to learn what happened in a neighboring system
- It's very easy to "tack out" when orbiting a planet and shield oneself from a missile, ships orbiting a planet must either be totally ambushed or engaged with beams
- Large spacecraft must run size 5 or larger missiles if they're using missiles as offensive weapons