Author Topic: Vulcan Cannons GO!  (Read 3666 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline tryrar (OP)

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • t
  • Posts: 100
Vulcan Cannons GO!
« on: September 10, 2012, 01:00:33 AM »
Heh, just started a new game, went to check what tech I got, and WOW! my best tech(besides decent lasers) is gauss cannons, with gauss launch velocity 3 and rate of fire 4! ;D Heh, I'm thinking of a few FACs armed with size 2-3 gauss cannons PD would make for nice escorts, as well as hellacious combatants if they manage to close(and don't get me started on fighters armed with size 1s in a quad turret!)
 

Offline Marski

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 389
  • Thanked: 139 times
Re: Vulcan Cannons GO!
« Reply #1 on: September 10, 2012, 01:18:00 AM »
Gauss Cannon velocity can be researched up to 6, which provides max range of 60,000km.
They are good for providing massive point defense because they don't require power plants, quite good defensive weapon indeed.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2012, 02:03:00 AM by Marski »
 

Offline Charlie Beeler

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1381
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: Vulcan Cannons GO!
« Reply #2 on: September 10, 2012, 07:55:19 AM »
Heh, just started a new game, went to check what tech I got, and WOW! my best tech(besides decent lasers) is gauss cannons, with gauss launch velocity 3 and rate of fire 4! ;D Heh, I'm thinking of a few FACs armed with size 2-3 gauss cannons PD would make for nice escorts, as well as hellacious combatants if they manage to close(and don't get me started on fighters armed with size 1s in a quad turret!)
You do realize that size 1 GC's can't hit the broadside of a barn within arms reach...right?   Even at 10k/km you have less than 17% hit chance.  Why less?  Your fire control will not be at 100% even at 10k/km. 

Fighters armed with GC's just don't work in the current game.  With database access that is a different story. ;D
Amateurs study tactics, Professionals study logistics - paraphrase attributed to Gen Omar Bradley
 

Offline TheDeadlyShoe

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1264
  • Thanked: 58 times
  • Dance Commander
Re: Vulcan Cannons GO!
« Reply #3 on: September 10, 2012, 03:28:49 PM »
Well that's not true. You can make perfectly adequate gauss fighters.  Low hit percentage is compensated for by the high rate of fire.  The size 1 Tryrar mentions was in a quad mount, meaning 12-16 shots. Even at low accuracy you stand a reasonable chance of shooting down a missile or scoring several hits on a larger target.  Or you could do a size 3-4 GC and get 3-4 shots at higher accuracy.

I prefer miniaturized lasers myself, but *shrug*
 

Offline Charlie Beeler

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1381
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: Vulcan Cannons GO!
« Reply #4 on: September 11, 2012, 12:10:29 PM »
Well that's not true. You can make perfectly adequate gauss fighters.  Low hit percentage is compensated for by the high rate of fire.  The size 1 Tryrar mentions was in a quad mount, meaning 12-16 shots. Even at low accuracy you stand a reasonable chance of shooting down a missile or scoring several hits on a larger target.  Or you could do a size 3-4 GC and get 3-4 shots at higher accuracy.

I prefer miniaturized lasers myself, but *shrug*
We have very different ideas of "adequate". 

First problem, beam armed fighters have to get into extremely close range, in the case of GC armed platforms that is functionally pointblank.  This is very difficult since all defenses designed to engage missiles will see fighters at the same ranges and usually can engage said fighters well before they can return fire.  Not adequate in my book.

Second problem, whether you install  a size 1 quad  or  size 4 single turret the results are the same.  The accuracy penalty is linear.  The best that you can reasonably expect is a single hit against a missile salvo or a large ship.  Definitely not adequate in my book. 

Third problem, the turret in question is quite large for a fighter, 5.44hs for the quad size 1 and 5.6hs for the single size 4.  With fighters limited to a maximum of 10hs either system is over 50% of the available mass.  By the time you add a BFC, engine, fuel, and minimum armor your over 8hs's which means that the resulting fighter is slow.  Again, not adequate in my book.


Let's look at some actual numbers from the game.

For illustration purposes this is the tech available and that some other friendly source has the targets on active scan:

Nuclear Thermal Engine Technology - produces a ship speed of 2000kps for 25% hs expenditure for military engines
Power Efficiency -20%, Power Increase 10%, Exp 10% - above ship speed can change to 2,200kps
Fighter Engine (max one per ship) - (since we're discussing fighters) with power increase a 250ton(5hs) fighter has speed 5,280kps and a 500ton(10hs) fighter has speed 2,640kps.
High Density Duranium Armour - 8 points of protection hs used.
Beam Fire Control 50% Range 24,000 km - standard size BFC has a maximum range of 48,000km
Fire Control Speed Rating 3000 km/s - provides a tracking speed for one tech level above organic ship speed.
Max Tracking Time Bonus vs Missiles 20% - reasonable expenditure compared to other techs, next level is 3x more.
Turret Tracking Speed (10% Gear) 3000 km/s - need turrets to at least as fast as the fire control.
Gauss Cannon Rate of Fire 4 - since the ordinal post specified a ROF of 4 per 5 second impulse.

We can reasonably except to face missiles with a minimum speed of 30,000kps and ship speeds of 3,000kps(one engine tech level above ours)

From the tech above we need these components:
Fuel Storage - Tiny - .1hs - smallest ship mounted fuel cell (capacity 5,000 liters)
Command Module -.1hs - accommodations for up to 20 crew
fighter engine - 1 hs - producing 26.4 points for propulsion.
beam fire control(fighter) - 1hs - std size for tracking speed(fighter BFC's start at 4X tracking speed) and std size for range(needs to fit into fighter) giving a max range of 48,000km/tracking speed of 12,000kps.
quad Gauss Cannon Size vs Accuracy 1HS and 17% with turret gears for tracking speed of 12,000kps - 5.44hs
single Gauss Cannon Size vs Accuracy 4HS and 67% with turret gears for tracking speed of 12,000kps - 5.6hs

When assembled with the quad turret we get at a minimum an 8.47hs(423.5tons/1 layer armor for .83hs) fighter with speed 3,117kps that has 16 shots at a single target per 5 second impulse with a usable tracking speed of 12,000kps and a base fire control hit chance at 10,000km(minimum range) of 79%.  With the GC modifier that becomes 13.43% at 10k/km before tracking speed modifiers.  Since we looking at engaging speed 30k/kps missiles the penalty is a further 60% reduction to 5.372%.  If the full tracking bonus can be applied that is modified back to 8.058%  per shot.  Out of those 16 shots you can expect about 1.72 hits.  Against a large ship we don't do much better since the 13.43% hit chance still only generates an expected 2.15 hits from 16 shots.

When assembled with the single turret we get at a minimum an 8.65hs(432.5tons/1 layer armor for .85hs) fighter with speed 3,052kps that has 4 shots at a single target per 5 second impulse with a usable tracking speed of 12,000kps and a base fire control hit chance at 10,000km(minimum range) of 79%.  With the GC modifier that becomes 52.93% at 10k/km before tracking speed modifiers.  Since we looking at engaging speed 30k/kps missiles the penalty is a further 60% reduction to 21.172%.  If the full tracking bonus can be applied that is modified back to 31.758%  per shot.  Out of those 4 shots you can expect about 1.7 hits.  Against a large ship we don't do much better since the 52.93% hit chance still only generates an expected 2.12 hits from 4 shots.

Neither platform is adequate in my opinion for either missile defense or close attack. 
Amateurs study tactics, Professionals study logistics - paraphrase attributed to Gen Omar Bradley
 

Offline Redshirt

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • R
  • Posts: 121
Re: Vulcan Cannons GO!
« Reply #5 on: September 11, 2012, 01:41:12 PM »
On the other hand- consider that you rarely use just a single fighter at a time. You're more likely to use a few squadrons, or the entire carrier compliment. The sheer numbers significantly increase the hits and damage dealt.

And, versus lasers, gauss cannons can cause sustained, constant damage due to the high rate of fire. So you'll wear down shields in a few volleys, then armor, then destroy the ship, versus wearing down shields and having them recharge while you wait to fire again.

That's the theory, anyway. I think I'll play around with gauss fighters this game and see how well it works in practice.
Living up to my username. . .
 

Offline Bouchart

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • B
  • Posts: 23
Re: Vulcan Cannons GO!
« Reply #6 on: September 11, 2012, 04:49:14 PM »
I remember hearing that, say, 6 size 1 gauss cannons are better than 1 size 6 gauss cannon if crew grade is high.  Not sure on the details though.
 

Offline metalax

  • Commander
  • *********
  • m
  • Posts: 356
  • Thanked: 4 times
Re: Vulcan Cannons GO!
« Reply #7 on: October 08, 2012, 08:46:13 AM »
Multiple smaller cannon are more effective with a high crew grade bonus because there is no bonus from going over 100% chance to hit.

Crew grade bonus due to training caps out at 34% at 2000 grade points.

A full size cannon can expect to have a 95% or better hit chance in it's short effective range if you have reasonable firecontrol tech. Adding the crew grade bonus would then put your hit chance at around 129% but the extra 29% has no effect. Using two half size 50% accuracy cannons would give you twice the number of shots at about 48% base accuracy. Add the crew grade bonus gives you twice the shots at 82%. At a rate of fire of 4 you would expect 2-3 extra hits for the smaller cannons due to the crew grade bonus.
 

Offline Bremen

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 744
  • Thanked: 151 times
Re: Vulcan Cannons GO!
« Reply #8 on: October 08, 2012, 12:58:43 PM »
Is crew grade additive or multiplicative? Because I would think a 34% bonus to a 50% chance would give a 67% chance, not an 84% chance.

If it's additive then the smallest possible gauss cannon would be best, since you still get a (often large) crew grade bonus on top of the tiny base chance.
 

Offline Arwyn

  • Gold Supporter
  • Commander
  • *****
  • A
  • Posts: 338
  • Thanked: 40 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
Re: Vulcan Cannons GO!
« Reply #9 on: October 10, 2012, 01:49:10 AM »
I have gotten Gauss fighters to work, but they are VERY situational.

Don't bother with the turret. I agree with Charlie there, they are not worth the extra weight, Gauss fighters just are not a good solution for anti-missile work compared to a full size (or half size with crew bonus) on a regular escort. You would be better served using the weight spent on a turret to slap armor on them, even 1pt of additional armor makes them a lot more survivable unless your getting hit with lasers (which kill fighters fast).

What they ARE good for, is knocking a shield flat in seconds. Two games back, I used Gauss fighters as a jump point defense in conjunction with a close in defense base with active sensors, and missile mines.

I used these as attrition units to try and slow the NPR while I rebuilt my fleet that they mauled earlier. I would drop a base, a pile of mines, and two to four squadrons of attrition fighters on the base.

Average results from a jump point defense

The mines annihilated two enemy ships (usually massive overkill on one, then seeking missiles went for other targets), and then the fighters went storming in. Laser support from the base would follow in later impulses.

Point blank, the two squadrons of fighters savaged the NPR that jumped in. NPR fire was 20sec on beams, and 40 sec on missiles, no AMM's on the NPR ships (thankfully). The fighters were putting out 48 rounds per 5 sec, and I was hitting around 70% or so, with the 3HS Gauss (50% acc+crew). They were slapping down the shields and hitting armor on the first round, and then stripping armor and getting in next three impulses, all before they NPR fired once.

The beam armed NPR ships blasted away at my fighters, the missile boats shot at the defense base since it couldn't target the fighters.

I massacred the NPR, but I lost 60% of my fighters. Turreted lasers against fighters = dead fighters. If the turret can track missiles, it has no problem tracking fighters and hitting them.

So, you CAN use beam fighters against ships. IF you can get right on top of the bad guys, like at a jump point. AND the fighters have support. Beam fighters trying to close in open space are sitting ducks to ship based beam weapons, which are almost always longer ranged and more accurate.

On the economic plus side, you can crank out TONS of these fighters. They are dirt cheap compared to full size ships, and unlike mines, can target specific ships and split attacks.

The down side is mines are still a hell of a lot cheaper. In that game the fighters were 66.6 BP compared to a size 24 mine with 5 size three missiles that ran 22.375.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2012, 01:52:00 AM by Arwyn »
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11675
  • Thanked: 20461 times
Re: Vulcan Cannons GO!
« Reply #10 on: October 10, 2012, 04:36:21 AM »
I am going to be using gauss armed fighters in my current campaign as soon as I have the tech. I think I have worked out a doctrine for them to be effective but we'll see how it works in practice :)

Steve
 

Offline waresky

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1486
  • Thanked: 8 times
  • Alpine Mountaineer..ohh Yeah!
Re: Vulcan Cannons GO!
« Reply #11 on: October 10, 2012, 10:48:59 AM »
I am going to be using gauss armed fighters in my current campaign as soon as I have the tech. I think I have worked out a doctrine for them to be effective but we'll see how it works in practice :)

Steve
Well..am sittin down and waitn for report in:)..
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11675
  • Thanked: 20461 times
Re: Vulcan Cannons GO!
« Reply #12 on: October 11, 2012, 04:39:49 PM »
Working on part 3. Just haven't had chance to do any bug fixes or play this week. And X-com is out in 1 hour and 20 minutes :)

I promise I will get some bug fixes done this weekend and post part 3 of the campaign.

Steve
 

Offline TheDeadlyShoe

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1264
  • Thanked: 58 times
  • Dance Commander
Re: Vulcan Cannons GO!
« Reply #13 on: October 16, 2012, 07:35:35 AM »
Since a lot of time has passed, I'll just say that there's nothing wrong with expecting 1-2 anti-missile hits from a single fighter.  You use the things in squadrons after all.  Most of my projected gauss fighters were more like 1 hit, though they wern't the full size gauss mounts Tryrar was considering on the FACs.    Since Steve brought up doctrine... I'll just mention my planned doctrine for beam fighters (I haven't run any battles with them yet) is to use them essentially as detachable beam mounts.  They would stay in close formation with the fleet until range closes dramatically in anything resembling an even battle.  Long range strikes with beam fighters are all but futile against any but the most overmatched targets. 

 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11675
  • Thanked: 20461 times
Re: Vulcan Cannons GO!
« Reply #14 on: October 16, 2012, 05:24:24 PM »
Since a lot of time has passed, I'll just say that there's nothing wrong with expecting 1-2 anti-missile hits from a single fighter.  You use the things in squadrons after all.  Most of my projected gauss fighters were more like 1 hit, though they wern't the full size gauss mounts Tryrar was considering on the FACs.    Since Steve brought up doctrine... I'll just mention my planned doctrine for beam fighters (I haven't run any battles with them yet) is to use them essentially as detachable beam mounts.  They would stay in close formation with the fleet until range closes dramatically in anything resembling an even battle.  Long range strikes with beam fighters are all but futile against any but the most overmatched targets. 



Yes, that's very similar to what I am planning. I would deploy them as escorts to fend off missile attack but otherwise keep them on the Battlestars until I get within beam range. The Battlestars are well armoured and well armed so they should survive to get into range. The first gauss-armed fighter will be the Viper and I plan to have Battlestars that can carry at least 60 of them. We'll see how it goes :). This is a very RP campaign though so I plan to stick with them even if missile-armed fighters are generally more effective.

Viper class Fighter    200 tons     2 Crew     46 BP      TCS 4  TH 32  EM 0
8000 km/s     Armour 1-3     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 2
Maint Life 0 Years     MSP 0    AFR 40%    IFR 0.6%    1YR 3    5YR 40    Max Repair 16 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.1 months    Spare Berths 8   

Terradyne MPD-32 Fighter Engine (1)    Power 32    Fuel Use 336.02%    Signature 32    Exp 20%
Fuel Capacity 5,000 Litres    Range 1.3 billion km   (46 hours at full power)

Antimachus Kinetics AKG-1 Gauss Cannon (2x3)    Range 30,000km     TS: 8000 km/s     Accuracy Modifier 17%     RM 3    ROF 5        1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fighter Fire Control (1)    Max Range: 64,000 km   TS: 10000 km/s     84 69 53 38 22 6 0 0 0 0