How is apparently everyone doing combat and winning with low tonnage ships?

[Stormtrooper (OP)]

Honestly this baffles me so much. I constantly see designs around 4k, 6k, 10k, a 20 k is already a "capital ship" in many cases. How do players manage to do that? Last time I tried hard, and the result is these 3 plasma-armed ships for wormhole defence:

Code: [Select]

Anarchy class Interceptor      4,657 tons       144 Crew       1,237.5 BP       TCS 93    TH 1,125    EM 1,200
12079 km/s    JR 1-50      Armour 4-24       Shields 40-300       HTK 27      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 1      PPV 12
Maint Life 2.57 Years     MSP 966    AFR 173%    IFR 2.4%    1YR 205    5YR 3,070    Max Repair 562.5 MSP
Captain    Control Rating 2   BRG   CIC   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Morale Check Required   

J6000(1-50) Military Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 6000 tons    Distance 50k km     Squadron Size 1

Magnetic Fusion Drive  EP1125.00 (1)    Power 1125    Fuel Use 381.84%    Signature 1125    Explosion 30%
Fuel Capacity 1,000,000 Litres    Range 10.1 billion km (9 days at full power)
Theta S40 / R300 Shields (1)     Recharge Time 300 seconds (0.1 per second)

15 cm C6 Plasma Carronade (3)    Range 60,000km     TS: 12,079 km/s     Power 6-6     RM 10,000 km    ROF 5       
Beam Fire Control R262-TS12000 (1)     Max Range: 262,500 km   TS: 12,000 km/s     96 92 89 85 81 77 73 70 66 62
Magnetic Confinement Fusion Reactor R18 (1)     Total Power Output 18.4    Exp 5%

Active Search Sensor AS3-R1 (50%) (1)     GPS 5     Range 3.5m km    MCR 314.7k km    Resolution 1

ECCM-3 (1)         This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Code: [Select]

Devastator class Interceptor      9,292 tons       286 Crew       3,224.9 BP       TCS 186    TH 2,250    EM 1,200
12108 km/s    JR 3-50      Armour 9-39       Shields 40-300       HTK 51      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 1      PPV 30
Maint Life 0.73 Years     MSP 1,016    AFR 691%    IFR 9.6%    1YR 1,393    5YR 20,895    Max Repair 636.9 MSP
Captain    Control Rating 2   BRG   CIC   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Morale Check Required   

J12000(3-50) Military Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 12000 tons    Distance 50k km     Squadron Size 3

Magnetic Fusion Drive  EP1125.00 (2)    Power 2250    Fuel Use 381.84%    Signature 1125    Explosion 30%
Fuel Capacity 2,000,000 Litres    Range 10.1 billion km (9 days at full power)
Theta S40 / R300 Shields (1)     Recharge Time 300 seconds (0.1 per second)

40 cm C8 Plasma Carronade (1)    Range 400,000km     TS: 12,108 km/s     Power 40-8     RM 10,000 km    ROF 25       
Particle Lance-18-2 (1)    Range 320,000km     TS: 12,108 km/s     Power 55-8    ROF 35       
Beam Fire Control R450-TS12000 (2)     Max Range: 450,000 km   TS: 12,000 km/s     98 96 93 91 89 87 84 82 80 78
Magnetic Confinement Fusion Reactor R18 (1)     Total Power Output 18.4    Exp 5%

Active Search Sensor AS3-R1 (50%) (1)     GPS 5     Range 3.5m km    MCR 314.7k km    Resolution 1

ECCM-3 (2)         This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Code: [Select]

Dragonbreath class Interceptor      9,289 tons       262 Crew       2,395.3 BP       TCS 186    TH 2,250    EM 1,200
12111 km/s    JR 3-50      Armour 9-39       Shields 40-300       HTK 50      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 1      PPV 36
Maint Life 1.01 Years     MSP 961    AFR 690%    IFR 9.6%    1YR 938    5YR 14,067    Max Repair 562.5 MSP
Captain    Control Rating 2   BRG   CIC   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Morale Check Required   

J12000(3-50) Military Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 12000 tons    Distance 50k km     Squadron Size 3

Magnetic Fusion Drive  EP1125.00 (2)    Power 2250    Fuel Use 381.84%    Signature 1125    Explosion 30%
Fuel Capacity 2,000,000 Litres    Range 10.1 billion km (9 days at full power)
Theta S40 / R300 Shields (1)     Recharge Time 300 seconds (0.1 per second)

40 cm C8 Plasma Carronade (3)    Range 400,000km     TS: 12,111 km/s     Power 40-8     RM 10,000 km    ROF 25       
Beam Fire Control R450-TS12000 (1)     Max Range: 450,000 km   TS: 12,000 km/s     98 96 93 91 89 87 84 82 80 78
Magnetic Confinement Fusion Reactor R24 (1)     Total Power Output 24.1    Exp 5%

Active Search Sensor AS3-R1 (50%) (1)     GPS 5     Range 3.5m km    MCR 314.7k km    Resolution 1

ECCM-3 (1)         This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
They had their first battle and first defeat. In comparsion, these are my pure anti-missile things:

Code: [Select]

Phalanx class Missile Destroyer      16,855 tons       375 Crew       4,134.7 BP       TCS 337    TH 630    EM 1,680
5339 km/s    JR 3-250      Armour 9-58       Shields 56-280       HTK 104      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 2      PPV 67.78
Maint Life 0.95 Years     MSP 4,706    AFR 1136%    IFR 15.8%    1YR 4,954    5YR 74,314    Max Repair 1575 MSP
Captain    Control Rating 3   BRG   ENG   CIC   
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months    Morale Check Required   

J17400(3-250) Military Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 17400 tons    Distance 250k km     Squadron Size 3

Internal Fusion Drive  EP1800.00 (1)    Power 1800    Fuel Use 33.75%    Signature 630.00    Explosion 15%
Fuel Capacity 2,000,000 Litres    Range 63.3 billion km (137 days at full power)
Beta S28 / R280 Shields (2)     Recharge Time 280 seconds (0.2 per second)

Quad Gauss Cannon R500-100 Turret (1x20)    Range 50,000km     TS: 25000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 50,000 km    ROF 5       
Gauss Cannon R500-100 (4x5)    Range 50,000km     TS: 8,000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 50,000 km    ROF 5       
Beam Fire Control R51-TS25000 (50%) (5)     Max Range: 51,200 km   TS: 25,000 km/s     80 61 41 22 2 0 0 0 0 0

Active Search Sensor AS23-R1 (50%) (1)     GPS 280     Range 23.1m km    MCR 2.1m km    Resolution 1

ECM 20

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Code: [Select]

Vanguard class Missile Destroyer      24,378 tons       634 Crew       7,483.5 BP       TCS 488    TH 1,260    EM 840
7383 km/s      Armour 5-74       Shields 28-280       HTK 114      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 5      PPV 168
Maint Life 1.06 Years     MSP 4,959    AFR 951%    IFR 13.2%    1YR 4,417    5YR 66,259    Max Repair 1575 MSP
Captain    Control Rating 3   BRG   ENG   CIC   
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months    Morale Check Required   

Internal Fusion Drive  EP1800.00 (2)    Power 3600    Fuel Use 33.75%    Signature 630.00    Explosion 15%
Fuel Capacity 3,000,000 Litres    Range 65.6 billion km (102 days at full power)
Beta S28 / R280 Shields (1)     Recharge Time 280 seconds (0.1 per second)

Single Gauss Cannon R500-100 Turret (20x5)    Range 50,000km     TS: 25000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 50,000 km    ROF 5       
Beam Fire Control R51-TS25000 (50%) (20)     Max Range: 51,200 km   TS: 25,000 km/s     80 61 41 22 2 0 0 0 0 0

Active Search Sensor AS23-R1 (50%) (1)     GPS 280     Range 23.1m km    MCR 2.1m km    Resolution 1

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Ships I consider "lightweight, small assault ships" are within 15-16k tons each (and I'm happy with them, they're battle-hardened, well established designs and perform well in combat), meanwhile my missile cruisers are around 40k, also performing well, overhwelming enemy with decoy missiles so that my hard-hitting 12 MSP ones can score devastating damage.

How do you do them, those 4k designs and keep them from dying instantly?

P.S this is my battle-tested beam assault squadron design I've mentioned:

Code: [Select]

Blade class Assault Ship      15,675 tons       465 Crew       5,179.6 BP       TCS 313    TH 1,260    EM 6,240
11483 km/s    JR 3-250      Armour 10-55       Shields 208-520       HTK 67      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 5      PPV 20
Maint Life 0.63 Years     MSP 1,832    AFR 393%    IFR 5.5%    1YR 2,904    5YR 43,562    Max Repair 1575 MSP
Captain    Control Rating 2   BRG   CIC   
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months    Morale Check Required   

J17400(3-250) Military Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 17400 tons    Distance 250k km     Squadron Size 3

Internal Fusion Drive  EP1800.00 (2)    Power 3600    Fuel Use 33.75%    Signature 630.00    Explosion 15%
Fuel Capacity 1,000,000 Litres    Range 34 billion km (34 days at full power)
Theta S208 / R520 Shields (1)     Recharge Time 520 seconds (0.4 per second)

R120/C4 Meson Cannon (5)    Range 120,000km     TS: 11,483 km/s     Power 6-4     RM 120,000 km    ROF 10       
CIWS-320 (2x10)    Range 1000 km     TS: 32,000 km/s     ROF 5       
Beam Fire Control R120-TS32000 (50%) (1)     Max Range: 120,000 km   TS: 32,000 km/s     92 83 75 67 58 50 42 33 25 17
Tokamak Fusion Reactor R23 (1)     Total Power Output 22.6    Exp 5%

Active Search Sensor AS3-R1 (50%) (4)     GPS 5     Range 3.5m km    MCR 314.7k km    Resolution 1

ECCM-1 (1)         ECM 30

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Code: [Select]

Pike class Assault Ship      16,370 tons       512 Crew       6,528 BP       TCS 327    TH 1,260    EM 6,240
10996 km/s      Armour 10-57       Shields 208-520       HTK 84      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 5      PPV 72
Maint Life 0.64 Years     MSP 2,046    AFR 429%    IFR 6.0%    1YR 3,204    5YR 48,054    Max Repair 1575 MSP
Captain    Control Rating 2   BRG   CIC   
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months    Morale Check Required   

Internal Fusion Drive  EP1800.00 (2)    Power 3600    Fuel Use 33.75%    Signature 630.00    Explosion 15%
Fuel Capacity 1,000,000 Litres    Range 32.6 billion km (34 days at full power)
Theta S208 / R520 Shields (1)     Recharge Time 520 seconds (0.4 per second)

Particle Lance-18 (2)    Range 320,000km     TS: 10,996 km/s     Power 55-4    ROF 70       
Particle Beam-9 (4)    Range 320,000km     TS: 10,996 km/s     Power 22-4    ROF 30       
CIWS-320 (1x10)    Range 1000 km     TS: 32,000 km/s     ROF 5       
Beam Fire Control R450-TS16000 (50%) (2)     Max Range: 450,000 km   TS: 16,000 km/s     98 96 93 91 89 87 84 82 80 78
Tokamak Fusion Reactor R23 (1)     Total Power Output 22.6    Exp 5%
Tokamak Fusion Reactor R5 (1)     Total Power Output 5.2    Exp 5%

Active Search Sensor AS3-R1 (50%) (4)     GPS 5     Range 3.5m km    MCR 314.7k km    Resolution 1

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Code: [Select]

Striker class Assault Ship      15,279 tons       441 Crew       5,620.9 BP       TCS 306    TH 1,260    EM 6,240
11781 km/s      Armour 10-54       Shields 208-520       HTK 74      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 5      PPV 50
Maint Life 0.68 Years     MSP 1,949    AFR 373%    IFR 5.2%    1YR 2,868    5YR 43,024    Max Repair 1575 MSP
Captain    Control Rating 2   BRG   CIC   
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months    Morale Check Required   

Internal Fusion Drive  EP1800.00 (2)    Power 3600    Fuel Use 33.75%    Signature 630.00    Explosion 15%
Fuel Capacity 1,000,000 Litres    Range 34.9 billion km (34 days at full power)
Theta S208 / R520 Shields (1)     Recharge Time 520 seconds (0.4 per second)

31.250cm C4 Soft X-ray Laser (5)    Range 450,000km     TS: 11,781 km/s     Power 26-4     RM 60,000 km    ROF 35       
CIWS-320 (2x10)    Range 1000 km     TS: 32,000 km/s     ROF 5       
Beam Fire Control R450-TS16000 (50%) (1)     Max Range: 450,000 km   TS: 16,000 km/s     98 96 93 91 89 87 84 82 80 78
Tokamak Fusion Reactor R23 (1)     Total Power Output 22.6    Exp 5%

Active Search Sensor AS3-R1 (50%) (4)     GPS 5     Range 3.5m km    MCR 314.7k km    Resolution 1

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

[nuclearslurpee]

Well, for starters, don't use plasma carronades. 

As a general rule, larger ships do tend to outperform smaller ships just due to the fact that they are more efficient - things like armor-per-ton, fraction of tonnage used for ancillary modules, utilization of top commanders, and so on all favor larger ships. However, smaller ships are quicker and cheaper to build, both directly and in terms of shipyard space, and players most often tend to post their designs from the start of their games when shipyard sizes are fairly small - we see a lot more NPE and Ion ships posted than even MP let alone antimatter drive ships. So there's a bias there to be aware of.

That said, smaller ships often have roles in a fleet even as ships grow larger over time, but to perform these roles they must be quite specialized. For example, looking at your 5k ton Anarchy class, you've massively overloaded it with armor, shields, and an oversized jump drive, leaving it with a grand total of three base-caliber plasma carronades (again, a very poor primary weapon). I notice you are also using 3.0x EP modifiers which will drive your fuel consumption through the roof - your 93 HS interceptor must dedicate a full 20 HS to fuel! Very inefficient! I do think that at MCF tech 12,000 km/s is excessive for a non-fighter/FAC ship, anywhere from 8,000 to 10,000 km/s is more reasonable depending on your fleet doctrine and opposition. Your larger ships are a similar story, you have a <10k ton class with only two weapons which is cripplingly poor. These ships also look exactly the same aside from the weapons, you've basically built three ships that fill the same role i.e. a primary beam combatant. This is acceptable for a small raiding squadron but not for a fully-equipped battle fleet.

Generally the smaller the ship, the more efficient and specialized the design must be or the ship will simply not be worth having. At 5k tons I would consider this a size for a dedicated PD escort or fully-kitted sensor frigate (like, 30 HS of sensors kind of fully-kitted, EM+TH+3xActives). 10k tons would be perhaps suitable for a destroyer or light attack cruiser intended to operate with escorts which mounts a full battery of primary armament whether heavy beam weapons or ASM. Only beyond 12k or 15k tons would I start considering things like secondary armament, hangar space for small scouts, and so on.

[Lord Solar]

Personally; It's hard make small ships durable for several reasons like shock damage; if you want small you are better off with fast ships with greater range than the enemy. Second; plasma is really not a very good weapon along with mesons and to a lesser extent particle beams

[Droll]

Personally; It's hard make small ships durable for several reasons like shock damage; if you want small you are better off with fast ships with greater range than the enemy. Second; plasma is really not a very good weapon along with mesons and to a lesser extent particle beams

Particle beams are pretty strong?
Especially Particle lances so idk why that is in the list of "weak" weapons

[Stormtrooper (OP)]

Well, for starters, don't use plasma carronades.

But plasma goes brrrrrrr! I mean, that sounded like an only reasonable choice for wormhole defence stuff... Anything else would inevitably make them heavier and I wanted a cheap "swarm of stuff".

you've massively overloaded it with armor, shields

doubt - it's meant to fight off invaders. Some of their ships have nasty lasers. And its armor is already weak.

your 93 HS interceptor must dedicate a full 20 HS to fuel! Very inefficient

actually that one I can explain, I didn't care about fuel since it'll be sitting at one place all the time, I just wanted more speed at less weight - it'll basically arrive at jp and sit there for the rest of eternity since distances travelled in CQB beam firefight are rather irrelevant for fuel consumption, meaning in practice it's a "one-time purchase" in terms of fuel for a rather long time. If I wanted this to be more versatile I'd approach it differently.

12,000 km/s is excessive

Invaders have over 11k ships, one class can even go 13, so that's why I set 12 as a must have. Again, a specialised task for a very concrete enemy force.

you've basically built three ships that fill the same role i.e. a primary beam combatant

Is it really that bad? I wanted to have the best plasma I could have, a swarm of stuff firing every 5 secs (hence Anarchy class) to keep firing without a break and eventually a support with particle lance to gain some range. So is it bad to have a squadron of 3 ships with one role, but slightly different "subroles"?

[brondi00]

What he said.  For small ships they need to specialize to be good at something.

Big ships are great and definitely better.  But early game harder as the yards aren't big enough and they're expensive.

Plus the advantage of smaller ships is that you can afford to lose them and it doesn't cripple you.  8 5000 ton ships are usually quicker to replace than 1 40000 ton ship.

But as was already said your designs are truly bad.  And I'm not trying to be offensive.  Just that you may be getting a worse appreciation for how effective they can still be.

I usually start with 5-10k ships with few 30k ships as leads and capitals.  But as time goes on the smallest ships are 10k and I regularly field 30-50k as my main force with a few 100k ships. 

[Stormtrooper (OP)]

getting a worse appreciation for how effective they can still be.

soooo... how effective they can still be?

[prophetical]

You are trying to have your ships do way too many things. Jump drives, sensors, not-optimized components.

If you are doing it for RP reasons, that's one thing. But you are jamming way too many components on a ship instead of making them more specialized.

[Jorgen_CAB]

Particle beam and plasma weapons are a decent combination for beam weapons at the higher end if you can afford the research for it and have Gauss or missile for PD.

But to reflect on the size thing... you should not underestimate the importance of production speed of smaller ships as one important metric. Though... it is mainly important if you are on the defensive (or loose allot of ships) not on the offensive if you are generally stronger or at least equal in strength with the opponent.

The main benefit of larger ships is as has been said efficiency, but that comes with a hefty price in research costs and lower production efficiency. This means it takes allot more time for larger ships to show their true colours or be there at all.

The main benefit with small ships is that they can be in many places at the same time, this is particularly important in scouting... you don't want to split up your main battle fleet as it is rather expensive to loose a 30kt cruisers rather than 5kt frigate in a scouting mission. The smaller the ship the more specialised it need to be... generally at 6kt or smaller it should only really be good at one thing.

Ship size should be something that grow over time as you get bigger and  bigger shipyards and you can afford to develop larger and larger main drive engines, jump engines, shields etc.. Your goal should always to build you ships as large as you can afford them if the intent is to be as combat efficient as possible.

Small ships are particularly important for scouting, raiding and system patrol/defence, it can also be good to have some small PD escort ships that are generally smaller than main active and missile control resolutions... generally 3-4000t or so. Anything below 10kt is good as a long range scout... although if the ship are larger than 4000kt you generally want some hangars in them to add some sensor scouts to them.

I generally play very slow games (tech progression at 10-20%) so I often start my main combat ship at around 8kt in size as I rarely can afford military jump drives bigger than that. Then I often have carriers at 16-24kt with commercial engines. I get slow (and cheap) but otherwise efficient carriers that also can jump without a stabilised jump point.

From there my main combat "capital" ships generally just grow dynamically in size depending on how large a jump drive I can afford to research. I usually still retain my smaller ships but often re-brand them into scouts, escorts or picket ships.

[Stormtrooper (OP)]

You are trying to have your ships do way too many things. Jump drives, sensors, not-optimized components.

If you are doing it for RP reasons, that's one thing. But you are jamming way too many components on a ship instead of making them more specialized.

How would you suggest to split it then? I don't feel as this is too much - weapon, sensors because they need to target something + FTL drive for independent and quick deployment. Don't see how this is "too many".

Although yeah, if not for RP I'd just produce more Blades, Pikes and Strikers and use those instead. Or even better, design mk2 of those since they're pretty old by now and give them better ECCM and speed to match invaders. And a particle lance, same damage but twice as fast recharging than what current Pikes have, new lance is already mounted on Devastators.

[davidb86]

How would you suggest to split it then? I don't feel as this is too much - weapon, sensors because they need to target something + FTL drive for independent and quick deployment. Don't see how this is "too many".

Small ships are not for independent use.  So instead of a small ship that has a jump drive and sensors and nearly no weapons, create multiple small ships:

• pure offensive weapon ship
• pure PD/beam weapon ship
• ship that replaces some or all of the weapons with sensors
• ship that has PD, passives, and the jump drive that can wait at the jump point while the scout, attack and pd versions take care of business.

  for any particular mission you can tailor the offensive-defensive ratio.  these also work well to add to a fleet of larger ships to increase the number of targets and add additional capabilities.

[prophetical]

How would you suggest to split it then? I don't feel as this is too much - weapon, sensors because they need to target something + FTL drive for independent and quick deployment. Don't see how this is "too many".

Although yeah, if not for RP I'd just produce more Blades, Pikes and Strikers and use those instead. Or even better, design mk2 of those since they're pretty old by now and give them better ECCM and speed to match invaders. And a particle lance, same damage but twice as fast recharging than what current Pikes have, new lance is already mounted on Devastators.

Well if you don't feel it is too much ...

The most efficient designs, which it seems like you are asking for here, focus on one thing. Davidb86 lays it out pretty well. If you want independent operations, then you need bigger ships, ethey simply don't have enough space to do a lot of things well. Drop the sensors and the jump drive and put them on one ship and you'll free up a lot of space. Slow down your engines (there are good calculators out there to optimize engine size) and you'll save space on fuel. That is my general impression of how people make viable smaller ships, that's how I do it.

[Jorgen_CAB]

Yes... small ships are really bad at close range beam combat due to needing too much space for thick armour and their armour belt also is allot smaller too.

You need bigger ships to make use of good close range beam confrontation.

If you have small ships you need to make sure your speed is equal or better and using particle beams to stay far away is optimal for them at that point. Giving them some shield also means you can potentially rotate them in and out to regenerate shield when hit. So weak armour and decent shields could work in that case.

[Jorgen_CAB]

How would you suggest to split it then? I don't feel as this is too much - weapon, sensors because they need to target something + FTL drive for independent and quick deployment. Don't see how this is "too many".

Although yeah, if not for RP I'd just produce more Blades, Pikes and Strikers and use those instead. Or even better, design mk2 of those since they're pretty old by now and give them better ECCM and speed to match invaders. And a particle lance, same damage but twice as fast recharging than what current Pikes have, new lance is already mounted on Devastators.

Well if you don't feel it is too much ...

The most efficient designs, which it seems like you are asking for here, focus on one thing. Davidb86 lays it out pretty well. If you want independent operations, then you need bigger ships, ethey simply don't have enough space to do a lot of things well. Drop the sensors and the jump drive and put them on one ship and you'll free up a lot of space. Slow down your engines (there are good calculators out there to optimize engine size) and you'll save space on fuel. That is my general impression of how people make viable smaller ships, that's how I do it.

Small ships are good for independent scouting missions, but not for combat missions... important to point out though.

[nuclearslurpee]

you've massively overloaded it with armor, shields

doubt - it's meant to fight off invaders. Some of their ships have nasty lasers. And its armor is already weak.

For wormhole defense, you're not relying on armor, you're relying on jump shock and putting out as much DPS as you can in the few increments you get before the enemy sensors come online. More to the point, you're certainly not relying on a jump drive to help you in any way (and even if this were a JP assault class, squadron jumps are a better approach).

Additionally, if the armor is already too weak, it's a serious question as to why bother with it anyways? What are you protecting your ship from? If anything it would make sense to have very light armor and put more HS into shield generators. In any case, trying to have both heavy armor and heavy shields on such a small class is more than it can reasonably manage.

Ultimately, for smaller ships you must give up something to specialize. This can and does even mean giving up armor to mount enough weapons to be effective.

your 93 HS interceptor must dedicate a full 20 HS to fuel! Very inefficient

actually that one I can explain, I didn't care about fuel since it'll be sitting at one place all the time, I just wanted more speed at less weight - it'll basically arrive at jp and sit there for the rest of eternity since distances travelled in CQB beam firefight are rather irrelevant for fuel consumption, meaning in practice it's a "one-time purchase" in terms of fuel for a rather long time. If I wanted this to be more versatile I'd approach it differently.

What you've done here is strictly suboptimal unless somehow the engine you've got here saves resources. The optimal point for propulsion design is a 3:1 engine to fuel mass ratio, although many players will design larger engines to conserve fuel. In fact, using this and running through a calculator after guesstimating your tech levels, you could achieve/exceed the same speed and range with a size 22 engine at 2.10x boost with only 6.7 HS of fuel, which conserves a large amount of space compared to your design (15 HS engine + 20 HS fuel).

you've basically built three ships that fill the same role i.e. a primary beam combatant

Is it really that bad? I wanted to have the best plasma I could have, a swarm of stuff firing every 5 secs (hence Anarchy class) to keep firing without a break and eventually a support with particle lance to gain some range. So is it bad to have a squadron of 3 ships with one role, but slightly different "subroles"?

I suppose in this specific case it makes some sense, though I wouldn't want to devote 2-3 shipyards (depending on if the latter two ships can be cross-built) just to a specialized JP squadron when I could just build one ship to do the job (and probably supplement with my main fleet to fill ancillary roles).

In any case, the major issue is that the ships need to be specialized much more efficiently than they are. Given the techs I can see here I would say to optimize the propulsion, nix the jump drives (use a tender class if you need the jump capability to get somewhere, one tender can transit an entire fleet if you're not doing squadron jumps), cut the armor to maybe 2-3 layers and use bigger shield generators instead as these will be more effective against lasers, most of all focus on getting as many guns as you can into the fight as ships with only 2-3 guns are not going to get the job done. As you have capacitor recharge 8 I would suggest using 25 cm carronades with 16-8 power and recharge, these will have ROF 10 but have much better DPS and penetration than 15 cm with 6-6. These will be 8 HS apiece which I think you can fit at least four onto a 100-HS ship (same size as 8x of the 15 cm but these are much stronger weapons) in addition to 28-30 HS of propulsion and however much for armor, shields, and basic sensors. For the 200-HS (10k ton) ships at least double that should be feasible, possibly plus an extra due to tonnage efficiency.

I would personally probably not use such a small class, and use a class closer to the 15,000 ton range at least for JP defense. This would be a good balance between having enough hull size to mount a good weapons battery with adequate protection, and small enough to produce at a reasonable clip out of my shipyards by this stage of the game. Of course if I were truly desperate I'd be building something cheap and spamable like unarmored plasma FACs, but I assume you're not under quite so much pressure here.

If you only make one change from the feedback in this thread, the #1 #2 and #3 change to make is to axe the jump drives and use a separate tender if you need jump capability. Unless you require a jump drive on every ship for RP reasons in which case - good luck, you'll need it!