Post by: Della on January 18, 2010, 08:49:21 PM
1) lasers seem astonishingly useless. I've never once been able to even get remotely within range of anything, since all combat takes place at a range of tens of millions of kilometers due to missiles. But then, i see people posting around beam warship designs, so apparently lasers CAN be used. What am i doing wrong?
2) related, turreted point-blank defense lasers are just as useless. Sometimes, if the missile approaches fast enough, they don't even have time to open fire.Isn't it better to just ditch them completely and get more CIWS in their place?
Still, sometimes they DO hit something, and can target missiles not aimed at that ship, so i guess they're not nearly as useless as ship-to-ship lasers.
Post by: Kurt on January 18, 2010, 10:26:17 PM
Quote from: "Della"
OK, so. This is my first serious, large-scale combat, and i have some questions based on my impressions.
1) lasers seem astonishingly useless. I've never once been able to even get remotely within range of anything, since all combat takes place at a range of tens of millions of kilometers due to missiles. But then, i see people posting around beam warship designs, so apparently lasers CAN be used. What am i doing wrong?
2) related, turreted point-blank defense lasers are just as useless. Sometimes, if the missile approaches fast enough, they don't even have time to open fire.Isn't it better to just ditch them completely and get more CIWS in their place?
Still, sometimes they DO hit something, and can target missiles not aimed at that ship, so i guess they're not nearly as useless as ship-to-ship lasers.
1. Lasers abd other direct fire weapons are only useful in several specific circumstances. If combat begins at close range, like in orbit around a world with former friends or neutrals, or in a contested warp transit, then they are useful. Otherwise, missiles are the king of combat. Direct fire weapons only become useful in the above circumstances, or if you can survive the enemy's missile barrage and close with his ships to engage at close range.
2. CIWS are a relatively new development in Aurora. Before that, the only point defense was turreted weapons and rail guns. One important thing is that CIWS only defends the ship it's mounted on, meaning that an enemy can try to overwhelm each individual ship if you don't have any other defenses.
The best missile defense is a nested defense, with long range anti-missiles, short range turreted beam weapons, and point blank CIWS. You can get away with eliminating one of the above and still probably have a decent defense, though.
Kurt
Post by: Steve Walmsley on January 18, 2010, 11:49:35 PM
Quote from: "Della"
OK, so. This is my first serious, large-scale combat, and i have some questions based on my impressions.Combat in Aurora is a little like combat in the Honor Harrington series. Missiles have a huge range compared to beams (ten of millions of km vs hundreds of thousand of km) but beams can be devasting within their range. They are ideal for jump point defence but their primary advantage over missiles is logisitical. Missile warships can be very effective, as long as build enough missiles and get them to the ships. Otherwise they are just expensive targets. Beam warships never run out of ammunition. If you having trouble with beam turrets, make sure you have a fire control fast enough to track the missiles. Also, which automatic point defence mode are you using?
1) lasers seem astonishingly useless. I've never once been able to even get remotely within range of anything, since all combat takes place at a range of tens of millions of kilometers due to missiles. But then, i see people posting around beam warship designs, so apparently lasers CAN be used. What am i doing wrong?
2) related, turreted point-blank defense lasers are just as useless. Sometimes, if the missile approaches fast enough, they don't even have time to open fire.Isn't it better to just ditch them completely and get more CIWS in their place?
Still, sometimes they DO hit something, and can target missiles not aimed at that ship, so i guess they're not nearly as useless as ship-to-ship lasers.
Steve
Post by: Hawkeye on January 18, 2010, 11:54:20 PM
I don´t look at the defense capability of a single ship but at the capabilities of a squadron, as none of my warships will _ever_ travel on its own!
Imagine a battlegroup of, say 4 Missile cruisers, each mounting 1 or 2 CIWS, 4 Escort Cruisers, each mounting 8 AMM launchers and a tripple PD-Laser turret, 6 destroyers, armed with railguns, that also can help a bit in a counter missile role and 6 destroyer-escorts, each mounting 4 AMM launchers and a dual PD-Gauss turret.
Any hostile missile making it through the AMMs, has to face a total of 10 PD-turrets and the railguns of the DDs. The CIWS on the CGs only come into play, if anything still gets through and then targets the CGs specificly, but any reasonable salvo should never make it that far (until I run out of AMMs, that is)
Missiles are now a lot less deadly as they were some time ago, when you could amass a salvo numbering into the thousands at a waypoint and send them in in a huge, devastating wave (just a sidenote)
Post by: Father Tim on January 19, 2010, 02:27:04 AM
Quote from: "Kurt"
Quote from: "Della"OK, so. This is my first serious, large-scale combat, and i have some questions based on my impressions.
1) lasers seem astonishingly useless. I've never once been able to even get remotely within range of anything, since all combat takes place at a range of tens of millions of kilometers due to missiles. But then, i see people posting around beam warship designs, so apparently lasers CAN be used. What am i doing wrong?
2) related, turreted point-blank defense lasers are just as useless. Sometimes, if the missile approaches fast enough, they don't even have time to open fire.Isn't it better to just ditch them completely and get more CIWS in their place?
Still, sometimes they DO hit something, and can target missiles not aimed at that ship, so i guess they're not nearly as useless as ship-to-ship lasers.
1. Lasers and other direct fire weapons are only useful in several specific circumstances. If combat begins at close range, like in orbit around a world with former friends or neutrals, or in a contested warp transit, then they are useful. Otherwise, missiles are the king of combat. Direct fire weapons only become useful in the above circumstances, or if you can survive the enemy's missile barrage and close with his ships to engage at close range.
2. CIWS are a relatively new development in Aurora. Before that, the only point defense was turreted weapons and rail guns. One important thing is that CIWS only defends the ship it's mounted on, meaning that an enemy can try to overwhelm each individual ship if you don't have any other defenses.
The best missile defense is a nested defense, with long range anti-missiles, short range turreted beam weapons, and point blank CIWS. You can get away with eliminating one of the above and still probably have a decent defense, though.
Kurt
- Missiles are nigh-useless in warp point assaults, and mediocre in warp point defense.
- Point-defense is a maze of choices and theories, many of which do not mesh well together. One of the toughest things in Aurora is to design and build a good squadron point defense net.
- Virtually every new player to Aurora builds ships that are too big, too slow, and too lightly armoured.
- Tech differential and size-of-fleet differential is going to decide combat two times out of three, regardless of the weapons employed.
- NPR combat AI is (currently) far weaker than a good human player. Especially in the area of changing tactics that clearly aren't working.
- Missiles are hideously expensive in terms of minerals & manpower. It takes 50,000 people three months and twnty-two days to build a single SS-N-4 Shadow:
Code: [Select]
SS-N-4 Shadow
Missile Size: 4 MSP (0.2 HS) Warhead: 6 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 24000 km/s Endurance: 68 minutes Range: 97.5m km
Cost Per Missile: 3.1
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 240% 3k km/s 80% 5k km/s 48% 10k km/s 24%
Materials Required: 1.5x Tritanium 1.35x Gallicite Fuel x3250
Development Cost for Project: 310RPMost empires struggle to build enough missile to fill their fleets' magazines once. Any protracted war results in economic upheaval.Most Player vs Precursor combats go like this: A single ship encounters a precursor and is abruptly destroyed. Later, a massive player fleet arrives, blows up one at a time until the precursor runs out of ammunition, then whatever ships remain close and destroy the near-helpless precursor.
Oh, and missiles don't work in a Nebula. At all.
Post by: Della on January 19, 2010, 04:00:54 AM
Quote from: "Kurt"
1. Lasers abd other direct fire weapons are only useful in several specific circumstances. If combat begins at close range, like in orbit around a world with former friends or neutrals, or in a contested warp transit, then they are useful. Otherwise, missiles are the king of combat. Direct fire weapons only become useful in the above circumstances, or if you can survive the enemy's missile barrage and close with his ships to engage at close range.
So it would make sense to build a class of ship specialized in beam combat and use them to picket warp points?
Quote from: "Kurt"
2. CIWS are a relatively new development in Aurora. Before that, the only point defense was turreted weapons and rail guns. One important thing is that CIWS only defends the ship it's mounted on, meaning that an enemy can try to overwhelm each individual ship if you don't have any other defenses.
Yeah, i kinda noticed that with waves of 20+ missiles smacking around my destroyers one by one.
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Combat in Aurora is a little like combat in the Honor Harrington series. Missiles have a huge range compared to beams (ten of millions of km vs hundreds of thousand of km) but beams can be devasting within their range. They are ideal for jump point defence but their primary advantage over missiles is logisitical. Missile warships can be very effective, as long as build enough missiles and get them to the ships. Otherwise they are just expensive targets. Beam warships never run out of ammunition. If you having trouble with beam turrets, make sure you have a fire control fast enough to track the missiles. Also, which automatic point defence mode are you using?
I tried a bit all, but i don't really get what's the difference, i didn't find it explained anywhere
Quote from: "Hawkeye"
Imagine a battlegroup of, say 4 Missile cruisers, each mounting 1 or 2 CIWS, 4 Escort Cruisers, each mounting 8 AMM launchers and a tripple PD-Laser turret, 6 destroyers, armed with railguns, that also can help a bit in a counter missile role and 6 destroyer-escorts, each mounting 4 AMM launchers and a dual PD-Gauss turret.
Any hostile missile making it through the AMMs, has to face a total of 10 PD-turrets and the railguns of the DDs. The CIWS on the CGs only come into play, if anything still gets through and then targets the CGs specificly, but any reasonable salvo should never make it that far (until I run out of AMMs, that is)
Is it a standard approach to build escort-type ships focused on improving the anti-missile defence of the fleet?
Quote from: "Father Tim"
- Virtually every new player to Aurora builds ships that are too big, too slow, and too lightly armoured.
Up to now my usual design has been: 10000-ton battleship with armor 6, 8000-ton cruiser with armor 4 and 4000-ton destroyer with armor 2, with speeds in the 3200-4000 range.
Quote from: "Father Tim"
- Tech differential and size-of-fleet differential is going to decide combat two times out of three, regardless of the weapons employed.
Yeah, I realized this the hard way.
Quote from: "Father Tim"
Most Player vs Precursor combats go like this: A single ship encounters a precursor and is abruptly destroyed. Later, a massive player fleet arrives, blows up one at a time until the precursor runs out of ammunition, then whatever ships remain close and destroy the near-helpless precursor.
This too.
Quote from: "Father Tim"
Oh, and missiles don't work in a Nebula. At all.
Oh. Didn't know that.
Post by: Andrew on January 19, 2010, 04:15:45 AM
In the warp point defense role beam weapons are devestating two 6,300 ton precursor ships with 30cm x ray lasers killed a 40,000 ton battleship and crippeled another in 30 seconds
edit . I rarely use CIWS because it only protects one ship , I find the benefits of mutual defense outweigh the costs. CIWS only goes on ships which will not mount any other defensive weapons(Missile boats, troop transports etc)
Post by: Della on January 19, 2010, 06:16:20 AM
Post by: Andrew on January 19, 2010, 05:54:56 PM
Quote from: "Della"
Another question: would it be feasible to have a high-speed ship armed with beam weapons and loaded with anti-missile defences whose purpose is to survive enemy missile barrages and bring the fight up close and personal?Possibly.
It is something I am going to try , although I will probably build fast ships with beam weapons and a seperate escort class rather than trying to mount both on the same ship\
The big problem with this tactic is going to be if you are fighting someone with better engine technology, as thery will be able to build fast ships while still having more weapons than you. NPR's tend to build mixed fleets with at least some beam armed ships so you are going to have to be able to beat these as well.
Post by: Kurt on January 19, 2010, 06:15:11 PM
Quote from: "Della"
Another question: would it be feasible to have a high-speed ship armed with beam weapons and loaded with anti-missile defences whose purpose is to survive enemy missile barrages and bring the fight up close and personal?
Yes, very much so. However, having said that, unless you've encountered your enemy before you have no way of knowing what their maximum speed is, so there is no way to know if your high speed ship is faster than theirs. If it isn't faster then you'll never catch them, even if they don't destroy you first.
You do have a point, though. A big missile ship that has exhausted its missiles is just a big target, until it reloads.
Kurt
Post by: Rathos on January 19, 2010, 08:00:27 PM
Quote from: "Della"
Up to now my usual design has been: 10000-ton battleship with armor 6, 8000-ton cruiser with armor 4 and 4000-ton destroyer with armor 2, with speeds in the 3200-4000 range.
Your battleship is the size of my patrol ship
Post by: Della on January 19, 2010, 08:59:44 PM
Quote from: "Rathos"
Quote from: "Della"Up to now my usual design has been: 10000-ton battleship with armor 6, 8000-ton cruiser with armor 4 and 4000-ton destroyer with armor 2, with speeds in the 3200-4000 range.
Your battleship is the size of my patrol ship :D
So, about lasers. Since laser range is almost universally far beyond fire control range, i'm thinking about dropping lasers. Up to now i've been using small lasers as point-defense and large lasers as anti-ship, but i realized that it would be better (although more expensive in terms of RP, maybe) to ise railguns as anti-ship weapons and gauss as point defence.
Post by: Erik L on January 19, 2010, 09:35:04 PM
Quote from: "Della"
I find that costs, to-build and to-refit time and annual failure rate increase far too steeply as ship size goes up, while at the same time speed plummets.
The fleet i'm developing now has :
15000-ton battleships (with anti-ship missiles, plus good CIWS as they are high-value targets)
10000-ton cruisers (with a mix of anti-ship and anti-miissile missiles, and a bit of token CIWS)
5000-ton destroyers (with anti-missile missiles and turreted gauss cannons for short-range missile defence)
This is about the sizes I use too.
4000-6000 destroyer
8000-12,000 cruiser
15,000-18,000 battlecruiser
Others as needed.
Fighters are designed like ships, except they are 500 tons or under, and require some special tech (fighter engines, command modules, couple others).
Post by: AtomikKrab on January 19, 2010, 09:53:36 PM
Quote from: "Della"
Another question: would it be feasible to have a high-speed ship armed with beam weapons and loaded with anti-missile defences whose purpose is to survive enemy missile barrages and bring the fight up close and personal?
Actually I'm going the otherway with an absolutely MASSIVE ship armed to the brim with beam weapons and just attempting to cleave through enemy missiles swarms with the fury of 1270 guns
Post by: sloanjh on January 19, 2010, 10:12:03 PM
Quote from: "Della"
*snip*... and annual failure rate increase far too steeply as ship size goes up, *snip*Just to be clear, the annual failure rate is supposed to be proportional to the mass - it's not a bad thing to have a large rate on a large ship since breakdown cost is constant and the maintenance spares should go up linearly too. The important quantity is
Code: [Select]
(total maintenance spares) / ((breakdown_rate/100)*max_breakdown_cost) = (earliest possible time in years to run out of spares)
I typically add engineering until this is about 5 years.
STEVE - A lot of people are confused about this - would it make sense to put in an additional "average time until spares are exhausted" on the class design page that divides total spares by product of the breakdown rate and the average (weighted by breakdown probability) breakdown cost?
Quote
I'm thinking about adding a 20000-ton carrier to the mix, but i'm having problems. (can someone explain me how to design a fighter? maybe I'm retarded, but i can't seem to find out)You need to research fighter engines and a fighter engine type - the fact that something's a fighter is controlled by it having a fighter engine. It also needs to be less than 500 tons (10 HS). Other than that, you design using the F5 screen just like a ship. Caveat: I can't remember actually ever having built a fighter, but I just re-read the fighter thread in mechanics last night (it's from a few years ago, so one needs to dig back a ways.
Quote
And i STILL feel that a 20000-ton ship is too big. Heck, my 15000-ton battleships feel too big to me :-)
John
Post by: AtomikKrab on January 19, 2010, 11:06:03 PM
Quote from: "AtomikKrab"
Quote from: "Della"Another question: would it be feasible to have a high-speed ship armed with beam weapons and loaded with anti-missile defences whose purpose is to survive enemy missile barrages and bring the fight up close and personal?
Actually I'm going the otherway with an absolutely MASSIVE ship armed to the brim with beam weapons and just attempting to cleave through enemy missiles swarms with the fury of 1270 guns
Incidently here is the most recent version of the ship in question, and thanks to upgrades in gauss tech, the 640 point defense guns have been replaced by CIWS saving space and reactor power needed to run it, which let me about quintuple it's speed from the previous version thanks to better reactors and engines as well.
Code: [Select]
Rockstar class Superdreadnought 1250000 tons 144584 Crew 1411807.5 BP TCS 25000 TH 126524 EM 0
5060 km/s JR 3-50 Armour 10-1033 Shields 0-0 Sensors 250/250/5/5 Damage Control Rating 1760 PPV 8170
Annual Failure Rate: 7103% IFR: 98.7% Maintenance Capacity 1250132 MSP Max Repair 250000 MSP
Flag Bridge
J1250000(3-50) Military Jump Drive Max Ship Size 1250000 tons Distance 50k km Squadron Size 3
Magnetic Confinement Fusion Drive E2 (673) Power 188 Fuel Use 20% Signature 188 Armour 0 Exp 35%
Fuel Capacity 60,810,000 Litres Range 437.7 billion km (1001 days at full power)
CIWS-1000 (640x20) Range 1000 km TS: 100000 km/s ROF 5 Base 50% To Hit
70cm Rockstar Plasma Carronade (20) Range 1,280,000km TS: 25000 km/s Power 128-25 RM 1 ROF 30 128 64 42 32 25 21 18 16 14 12
35cm Rockstar Plasma Carronade (320) Range 320,000km TS: 25000 km/s Power 32-16 RM 1 ROF 10 32 16 10 8 6 5 4 4 3 3
40cm Rockstar Plasma Carronade (160) Range 400,000km TS: 25000 km/s Power 40-20 RM 1 ROF 10 40 20 13 10 8 6 5 5 4 4
50cm Rockstar Plasma Carronade (80) Range 640,000km TS: 25000 km/s Power 64-25 RM 1 ROF 15 64 32 21 16 12 10 9 8 7 6
60cm Rockstar Plasma Carronade (40) Range 960,000km TS: 25000 km/s Power 96-25 RM 1 ROF 20 96 48 32 24 19 16 13 12 10 9
80cm Rockstar Plasma Carronade (10) Range 1,400,000km TS: 25000 km/s Power 168-25 RM 1 ROF 35 168 84 56 42 33 28 24 21 18 16
Fire Control S04 700-25000 (30) Max Range: 1,400,000 km TS: 25000 km/s 99 99 98 97 96 96 95 94 94 93
Fire Control S03 525-25000 (40) Max Range: 1,050,000 km TS: 25000 km/s 99 98 97 96 95 94 93 92 91 90
Fire Control S02 350-25000 (80) Max Range: 700,000 km TS: 25000 km/s 99 97 96 94 93 91 90 89 87 86
Fire Control S01.5 262.5-25000 (480) Max Range: 525,000 km TS: 25000 km/s 98 96 94 92 90 89 87 85 83 81
Magnetic Confinement Fusion Reactor Technology PB-1.5 AR-0 (27) Total Power Output 12150 Armour 0 Exp 35%
Active Search Sensor S59.4-R16 (40) GPS 950.4 Range 9.5m km Resolution 16
Active Search Sensor S59.4-R1 (320) GPS 59.4 Range 594k km Resolution 1
Active Search Sensor S59.4-R8 (80) GPS 475.2 Range 4.8m km Resolution 8
Active Search Sensor S59.4-R4 (160) GPS 237.6 Range 2.4m km Resolution 4
Active Search Sensor S59.4-R30 (20) GPS 1782 Range 17.8m km Resolution 30
Active Search Sensor S59.4-R65 (10) GPS 3861 Range 38.6m km Resolution 65
Thermal Sensor TH50-250 (1) Sensitivity 250 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 250m km
EM Detection Sensor EM50-250 (1) Sensitivity 250 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 250m km
Phased Gravitational Sensors (1) 5 Survey Points Per Hour
Phased Geological Sensors (1) 5 Survey Points Per Hour
This design is classed as a military vessel for maintenance purposes[quote="Sloanjh]I typically add engineering until this is about 5 years.
[/quote]
I find that's impossible to do with larger class jump capable ships (above 100,000 tons) because the cost of the jump drive skews the numbers heavily so it's impossible to get more than 1 year at average failure rate, so instead I go by # supplies = enough supplies to repair the jump drive 5 times. Since there is only one jump drive this in fact may be too much, since if the jump drive needs to be repaired once I am likely to cut orders to return home on the large ships.
Post by: Hawkeye on January 20, 2010, 01:12:33 AM
Quote from: "Della"
Is it a standard approach to build escort-type ships focused on improving the anti-missile defence of the fleet?
At least in my book
I encountered an NPR which fielded a dedicated Escort Cruiser (got the specs through interrogation)
Code: [Select]
Msl Sentinel #34912 class Escort Cruiser 15300 tons 1180 Crew 1979.4 BP TCS 306 TH 1320 EM 0
4313 km/s Armour 3-54 Shields 0-0 Sensors 12/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 8 PPV 28
Annual Failure Rate: 234% IFR: 3.3% Maintenance Capacity 647 MSP Max Repair 126 MSP
Magazine 1864
Ion Engine E8 (22) Power 60 Fuel Use 80% Signature 60 Armour 0 Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 300,000 Litres Range 44.1 billion km (118 days at full power)
Size 1 Missile Launcher (28) Missile Size 1 Rate of Fire 10
Missile Fire Control FC42-R1 (2) Range 1.3m km Resolution 1
Achilles Anti-missile Missile (1864) Speed: 25,900 km/s End: 1.4m Range: 2.3m km WH: 1 Size: 1 TH: 172 / 103 / 51
Active Search Sensor S126-R1 (1) GPS 126 Range 1.3m km Resolution 1
Thermal Sensor TH2-12 (1) Sensitivity 12 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 12m kmNote the enormous amount of AMMs this baby carries. When I encountered the main fleet with one of my battlefleets, there were 3 of those present, which rendered my missiles pretty much impotent. I had to retreat, assemble 3 fleets and go back. Only with that amount of firepower, I managed to make them run dry and finally get some hits in.
Post by: Hawkeye on January 20, 2010, 01:17:31 AM
Quote from: "AtomikKrab"
[code]Rockstar class Superdreadnought
Active Search Sensor S59.4-R16 (40) GPS 950.4 Range 9.5m km Resolution 16
Active Search Sensor S59.4-R1 (320) GPS 59.4 Range 594k km Resolution 1
Active Search Sensor S59.4-R8 (80) GPS 475.2 Range 4.8m km Resolution 8
Active Search Sensor S59.4-R4 (160) GPS 237.6 Range 2.4m km Resolution 4
Active Search Sensor S59.4-R30 (20) GPS 1782 Range 17.8m km Resolution 30
Active Search Sensor S59.4-R65 (10) GPS 3861 Range 38.6m km Resolution 65
Is there a specific reason you are mounting a seperate active sensor for every single weapon.
I mean, some redundancy is ok, but don´t you think this is a bit over the top?
Post by: Father Tim on January 20, 2010, 02:06:16 AM
Quote from: "Della"
Up to now my usual design has been: 10000-ton battleship with armor 6, 8000-ton cruiser with armor 4 and 4000-ton destroyer with armor 2, with speeds in the 3200-4000 range.
That's about the size I build, and the speed I aim for with my second-generation ships, though I have double the armour.
Post by: Della on January 20, 2010, 04:33:35 AM
Quote from: "sloanjh"
Just to be clear, the annual failure rate is supposed to be proportional to the mass - it's not a bad thing to have a large rate on a large ship since breakdown cost is constant and the maintenance spares should go up linearly too. The important quantity isCode: [Select](total maintenance spares) / ((breakdown_rate/100)*max_breakdown_cost) = (earliest possible time in years to run out of spares)
I typically add engineering until this is about 5 years.
STEVE - A lot of people are confused about this - would it make sense to put in an additional "average time until spares are exhausted" on the class design page that divides total spares by product of the breakdown rate and the average (weighted by breakdown probability) breakdown cost?
That sounds like a good idea, i keep seeing "yearly failure rate 7500%" and smeg my pants and add a metric frakkload of engineering.
Also, mildly related: how does damage control work? does it allow ships to repair damage over time, even maintenance failures, or is it exclusively for combat damage?
Quote from: "sloanjh"
You need to research fighter engines and a fighter engine type - the fact that something's a fighter is controlled by it having a fighter engine. It also needs to be less than 500 tons (10 HS). Other than that, you design using the F5 screen just like a ship. Caveat: I can't remember actually ever having built a fighter, but I just re-read the fighter thread in mechanics last night (it's from a few years ago, so one needs to dig back a ways.
It's what i did, but the resulting craft won't appear on the list of the fighters, neither when i try to build it, nor when i try to assign it as standard complement to be loaded on the carriers. I'm sure it has a fighter engine, but when i add a fighter-type beam fire control the error window says basically "you can't put that here, this is not a fighter".
Maybe there's some bug where the game doesn't recognize my fighter engine as a fighter engine.
Oh, also: what's the flag bridge for?
Post by: Hawkeye on January 20, 2010, 06:09:58 AM
The Flag Bridge lets you put a Task Force command (you start with the Fleet Headquarter on earth) on a starship. This is usefull, because any boni (is this bonus (plural) in english?) only work within a single system. If your main fleet is engaged elsewhere, it might be a good idea to have the commanding admiral and his staff along.
Be carefull, however, whenever you change a ship from one command to another, it´ll loose half its traning status. i.e. if a squadron was trained to 100% under the Fleet Headquarter, then form the 1st Battlefleet and change the squadron over to this command, the squadron will be only 50% trained now.
When you manually change the command, you receive a popup, warning you about this, but if you order a ship/squadron to join a fleet of another command, you won´t.
I hope I made this clear, feel free to ask again.
Post by: Charlie Beeler on January 20, 2010, 08:10:14 AM
Everything needs to be smaller to build an effective fighter.
Anything larger than a size 1 or 2 box launcher on a fighter is probably too big. Too be a functional missile fighter it has to be able to launch from the edge of the targets ability to see and engage, and then control the missiles from longer range. On average AMM ranges are from 1mkm to 3mkm. Also the salvo load must be sizable enough to keep the targets PD busy. This is a function both of the number of missiles the fighter mounts and the number of fighters in the strikegroup. If you can't swamp the defenses all your going to do is waste resources.
Here is an example of what I consider an effective missile fighter:
Code: [Select]
SF1-Strike Fighter class Strikefighter 248 tons 12 Crew 47.3 BP TCS 4.96 TH 14.7 EM 0
8467 km/s Armour 1-3 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 0 PPV 2.4
Annual Failure Rate: 49% IFR: 0.7% Maintenance Capacity 0 MSP Max Repair 12 MSP
Magazine 16
FTR Ion Engine E780 (1) Power 42 Fuel Use 7800% Signature 14.7 Armour 0 Exp 60%
Fuel Capacity 20,000 Litres Range 1.9 billion km (61 hours at full power)
Size 2 Box Launcher (8) Missile Size 2 Hangar Reload 15 minutes MF Reload 2.5 hours
Missile Fire Control FC6.93-R100 (1) Range 20.8m km Resolution 100
FM-2-1 (8) Speed: 21,400 km/s End: 1.2m Range: 1.5m km WH: 4 Size: 2 TH: 142 / 85 / 42
Active Search Sensor S6.93-R100 (1) GPS 693 Range 6.9m km Resolution 100
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
This design is classed as a fighter for production and combat purposesBeam weapons on a fighter are next to useless for anti-shipping since you would have to close to well within missile defense envelopes and fighters are a little easier to see than missiles. Beams on fighters do have a function, missile and smallcraft intercept. Missile intercept is a tricky task and usually isn't very successful. Smallcraft intercept is a whole different matter. Most attacking gunboats and fighters are set up for anti-shipping and have a hard time seeing another smallcraft. A single full size Gauss cannon with a minimum size fighter beam fire control and minimum size active sensor plus the fastest fighter engine, command module, and minimum fuel is really all you need. Keep in mind this is a very limited use fighter for the expense.
Another type of "fighter" is the scout. This is a really just a fighter that has swapped weapons for a sensor suite. This can be a dual role platform. If you have both active and passive systems the scout can "paint" the target the strikefighters as well as shadowing from outside detection ranges.
We have a new type of fighter coming onto the scene, jump fighters. We now have small single ship jump engine tech available. I'm experimenting with a modified version of the above fighter that is jump capable.
Code: [Select]
JF1-Jump Fighter class Jump Fighter 243 tons 16 Crew 40.7 BP TCS 4.86 TH 14.7 EM 0
8641 km/s JR 1-200 Armour 1-3 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 0 PPV 1.5
Annual Failure Rate: 48% IFR: 0.7% Maintenance Capacity 0 MSP Max Repair 12 MSP
Magazine 10
J250(1-200) Military Jump Drive Max Ship Size 250 tons Distance 200k km Squadron Size 1
FTR Ion Engine E780 (1) Power 42 Fuel Use 7800% Signature 14.7 Armour 0 Exp 60%
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres Range 0.9 billion km (30 hours at full power)
Size 2 Box Launcher (5) Missile Size 2 Hangar Reload 15 minutes MF Reload 2.5 hours
Missile Fire Control FC6.93-R100 (1) Range 20.8m km Resolution 100
FM-2-1 (5) Speed: 21,400 km/s End: 1.2m Range: 1.5m km WH: 4 Size: 2 TH: 142 / 85 / 42
Active Search Sensor S6.93-R100 (1) GPS 693 Range 6.9m km Resolution 100
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
This design is classed as a fighter for production and combat purposesThis disign is intended for assaulting contested jump points ahead of the primary fleet.
Of course fighters need a carrier. This is what I'm currently fielding:
Code: [Select]
Enterprise class Carrier 15950 tons 915 Crew 2601.6 BP TCS 319 TH 386.4 EM 960
3460 km/s Armour 4-56 Shields 32-240 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 16 PPV 0
Annual Failure Rate: 127% IFR: 1.8% Maintenance Capacity 1631 MSP Max Repair 150 MSP
Flag Bridge Hangar Deck Capacity 5000 tons Magazine 540
Ion Engine E7.8 (mil/cbt) (16) Power 69 Fuel Use 78% Signature 24.15 Armour 0 Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 800,000 Litres Range 115.7 billion km (387 days at full power)
Gamma R240/12 Shields (16) Total Fuel Cost 192 Litres per day
CIWS-160 (2x8) Range 1000 km TS: 16000 km/s ROF 5 Base 50% To Hit
FM-2-1 (270) Speed: 21,400 km/s End: 1.2m Range: 1.5m km WH: 4 Size: 2 TH: 142 / 85 / 42
ECM 10
Strike Group
20x SF1-Strike Fighter Strikefighter Speed: 8467 km/s Size: 4.96
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 purposesEach carrier is escorted by 2 of these:
Code: [Select]
Portland class Escort Cruiser 11000 tons 930 Crew 2171 BP TCS 220 TH 265.65 EM 660
3450 km/s Armour 3-44 Shields 22-240 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 21 PPV 15
Annual Failure Rate: 84% IFR: 1.2% Maintenance Capacity 1419 MSP Max Repair 315 MSP
Magazine 910
Ion Engine E7.8 (mil/cbt) (11) Power 69 Fuel Use 78% Signature 24.15 Armour 0 Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 600,000 Litres Range 125.9 billion km (422 days at full power)
Gamma R240/12 Shields (11) Total Fuel Cost 132 Litres per day
Quad Gauss Cannon RF4-R1-100 Turret (1x16) Range 10,000km TS: 16000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 1 ROF 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fire Control S04 16-16000 (1) Max Range: 32,000 km TS: 16000 km/s 69 37 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Counter Missile Launcher mk1 (10) Missile Size 1 Rate of Fire 10
Missile Fire Control FC105-R1 (2) Range 3.2m km Resolution 1
CM-1-1 (910) Speed: 24,000 km/s End: 2.1m Range: 3m km WH: 1 Size: 1 TH: 232 / 139 / 69
Active Search Sensor S315-R1 (1) GPS 315 Range 3.2m km Resolution 1
ECCM-1 (3) ECM 10
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
I've modified by database to be able to build the GC turret the way I did though. Turret tracking is faster and cannon size is much smaller. So don't expect to be able to match this design from the common database for the same mass of ship, it will be closer to the mass of the carrier.
For eyes, my carrier groups have 2 of these, eventually there will be 6 per battle group:
Code: [Select]
North Carolina class Fleet Scout 5000 tons 450 Crew 1029 BP TCS 100 TH 144.9 EM 0
4140 km/s JR 5-200 Armour 4-26 Shields 0-0 Sensors 55/55/0/0 Damage Control Rating 5 PPV 0
Annual Failure Rate: 40% IFR: 0.6% Maintenance Capacity 643 MSP Max Repair 210 MSP
J5000(5-200) Military Jump Drive Max Ship Size 5000 tons Distance 200k km Squadron Size 5
Ion Engine E7.8 (mil/cbt) (6) Power 69 Fuel Use 78% Signature 24.15 Armour 0 Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 250,000 Litres Range 115.4 billion km (322 days at full power)
Active Search Sensor S105-R100 (1) GPS 10500 Range 105.0m km Resolution 100
Thermal Sensor TH5-55 (1) Sensitivity 55 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 55m km
EM Detection Sensor EM5-55 (1) Sensitivity 55 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 55m km
This design is classed as a military vessel for maintenance purposesMy ships tend to be slower that others for the same engine tech, but I'm depending on the fighters for controlling the battle space. Is this the right way to do it? For me, yes. Your milage may vary.
Post by: waresky on January 20, 2010, 09:04:13 AM
Quote
Father Tim wrote:Oh, and missiles don't work in a Nebula. At all.
Oh. Didn't know that.
Yeah but USE "REAL STAR" u never see Nebula around within 1000 (1 THOUSANd) light years from Earth's Sol.
Post by: waresky on January 20, 2010, 09:05:40 AM
All that.
Post by: AtomikKrab on January 20, 2010, 10:52:24 AM
Quote from: "Hawkeye"
Quote from: "AtomikKrab"
[code]Rockstar class Superdreadnought
Active Search Sensor S59.4-R16 (40) GPS 950.4 Range 9.5m km Resolution 16
Active Search Sensor S59.4-R1 (320) GPS 59.4 Range 594k km Resolution 1
Active Search Sensor S59.4-R8 (80) GPS 475.2 Range 4.8m km Resolution 8
Active Search Sensor S59.4-R4 (160) GPS 237.6 Range 2.4m km Resolution 4
Active Search Sensor S59.4-R30 (20) GPS 1782 Range 17.8m km Resolution 30
Active Search Sensor S59.4-R65 (10) GPS 3861 Range 38.6m km Resolution 65
Is there a specific reason you are mounting a seperate active sensor for every single weapon.
I mean, some redundancy is ok, but don´t you think this is a bit over the top?
Well, Each sensor is .33 hs each, so that totals to 10395 tons for those sensors which is 0.008316% of the ship devoted to active sensors
Post by: Hawkeye on January 20, 2010, 01:20:37 PM
Quote from: "AtomikKrab"
Quote from: "Hawkeye"Quote from: "AtomikKrab"
[code]Rockstar class Superdreadnought
Active Search Sensor S59.4-R16 (40) GPS 950.4 Range 9.5m km Resolution 16
Active Search Sensor S59.4-R1 (320) GPS 59.4 Range 594k km Resolution 1
Active Search Sensor S59.4-R8 (80) GPS 475.2 Range 4.8m km Resolution 8
Active Search Sensor S59.4-R4 (160) GPS 237.6 Range 2.4m km Resolution 4
Active Search Sensor S59.4-R30 (20) GPS 1782 Range 17.8m km Resolution 30
Active Search Sensor S59.4-R65 (10) GPS 3861 Range 38.6m km Resolution 65
Is there a specific reason you are mounting a seperate active sensor for every single weapon.
I mean, some redundancy is ok, but don´t you think this is a bit over the top?
Well, Each sensor is .33 hs each, so that totals to 10395 tons for those sensors which is 0.008316% of the ship devoted to active sensors
Ok, I still would merge each type of sensor and build 2 to 4 much larger ones with an equal larger range. Look at it that way. Your res-4 sensor can see an enemy fighter out to 2.4 mkm. If I had my way, this ship would mount 2 res-4 sensors with the same mass/cost as all your res-4 sensors combined, that could see enemy fighters out to 192 mkm. Wouldn´t that be more useful?
Especially if your enemy devotes only a fraction of the resources this baby costs into fighters and the missiles to arm them
I can see it now:
The mighty superdreadnought INS Emperor plowes through space towards the homewold of the evil aliens´.
´Nothing can stand in our way!´ Admiral Tremain thought. The readout on his console told the tale, a mere 200 million klicks to go!
Suddenly an alarm goes off! A computervoice anounces: Proximity Alert! Proximity Alert! Enemy missiles inbound! Bearing Tripple-Zero relative, range Five-Zero-Zero-Kay, closing at One-Three-Eight-Tripple-Zero.
Admiral Tremain spun around, facing the readout. All color left his face. There it was, the death warrant for his ship and his men. 12.360 missiles at 138.000km/s meant, not even 5 seconds to impact. The main batteries went after them first, swatting some 220 out of space, then the automated point defense guns spun into action taking out almost half of them, but that still left more than 6000 missels for final approach.
The outcome was inevitable, a target so big could not be easily missed, even by crude missiles, and those were anything but crude ones. 5.800 fireballs, each unleashing 16 kt of energy, erupted, consuming the giant superdreadnought.
Note: I assumed 1545 fighters of 275t, mounting 8 missiles each --> total mass: A little less than 450.000t.
Not sure about the cost though, I have to admit
And you never even saw it coming :evil:
Post by: AtomikKrab on January 20, 2010, 02:10:09 PM
Post by: Charlie Beeler on January 20, 2010, 02:31:00 PM
Quote from: "AtomikKrab"
Overwhelming numbers are always that, overwhelming, but they would also need overwhelming tech to do more than sandpaper my armor with fighter size missiles of that quantity. Size 6 missiles right? because they can't be size 24 since 8 of those alone would weigh more than 500 tons. right, each size 24 missile is 1.2 hs or about 60 tons in weight so it's actually 480 tons just for 8 size 24 missiles.
Your armor is only 10, granted it's 1033 wide. Hawkeye's scenario of 5,800 wh16 missiles will still be more than enough to get the job done. 92,800 potential pts of damage against 10,330 points of protection...I call that a handy sandblaster turned on full.
By the same token, your not likely to see that kind of oposition from an NPR. Unless you started the game with some NPR's active.
Post by: Hawkeye on January 20, 2010, 02:47:44 PM
Quote from: "AtomikKrab"
Overwhelming numbers are always that, overwhelming, but they would also need overwhelming tech to do more than sandpaper my armor with fighter size missiles of that quantity. Size 6 missiles right? because they can't be size 24 since 8 of those alone would weigh more than 500 tons. right, each size 24 missile is 1.2 hs or about 60 tons in weight so it's actually 480 tons just for 8 size 24 missiles.
Warhead-16, so yes, no size 24 missiles probably not even a size 6 but a size 4. When the fighters can close to 5 mkm without being seen, you can save a lot of fuel and devote that mass to engine/warhead.
I was about to go with warhead 10 or 12, but then realized the "insane" techlevel you had in your ship and upped the numbers a teeniy-weeny bit ;)
Note: I have no idea if a missile with those specs is actually doable as I have never reacht those levels of tech. But looking at your ship, I think they are reasonable
Post by: AtomikKrab on January 20, 2010, 02:52:44 PM
Post by: waresky on January 21, 2010, 12:05:30 AM
Many of the "older" Commanders here know very well the incredible difficult to gatering ORE,mined them,transport them on a useful Colony with shipyard.
AGES.
So..when u loose an single "Big-Clip" (9 millions tons mass cost awesome onm ORE-maintenaince and crew) and ur MIning colony become cut-off for War troubles..ur Naval Design u see,take a a BIG re-planning in SIZE ship mass.
Sorry for my terrible english but this pst r first in "Strategic" considerations,not Fire-Power considerations.
Ive re-plann my whole Fleet,in small (8 Frigates-2 Cruiser-2 Tankers-2 Colliers-1 Maintenance Vessel-2 Early Warning Craft and some scout and others evenctually logistics ships) Squadroon-
Flexible,good stopping-power Missile Tech capability and FAST.
If am loose a single Squadroon are more less cost than loose a single 1 millions Dreadnought class.
More less ORE cost,economic and crew.AND Time.
Post by: AtomikKrab on January 21, 2010, 12:29:43 AM
Post by: waresky on January 21, 2010, 03:11:53 AM
BUt the overall cost for build up a "decent" 1millions-Tons Class ships Squadroons r absolutely impossible in the early Empire's stage.
Probably when ur Empire reach a good size on pop-ore and economic value.."probably" become interesting build a WAR ship so big.
In the XXII century even XXIII° become possible.But not sure r "strategical vantage" compare ORE costs.
Post by: Charlie Beeler on January 21, 2010, 07:41:58 AM
Quote from: "AtomikKrab"
true, but I found out you can make a 1.25 million ton ship that can move faster than 100k km/s :D I'm making a 2.5 million model for kicks now
Don't to confedent in that approach. If you can design a ship with that much engine, with a minor tweek to the database to allow launchers larger that 24msp, a missile can be designed to hit it 100% before ECM. Warhead is just a minor consideration, volume of fire makes up for absolute penetration.
That being said...
The real problem with mega ships is what Waresky pointed out. The shear volume of resources need to construct and then maintain is outside the scope of how Aurora is setup. Unless you majorly alter the minerals available, strip mining whole systems to build a single ship is prohibative. Not to mention the game time envolved in accumulating that resource volume.
The second problem has also been pointed out. While that mega ship is indeed impressive and overwelming...it can only be in one place at a time. The rest of your empire could be sacked by a race that spent segnificantly less effort on exponentially smaller but more numerous ships.
The only way I see a game functioning is if you don't start the game with any NPR's and you delete the one's that are created as you explore looking for the resources to build the mega ship. Once it is built, it then just steamrolls all who get in the way. That is not the game I find fun and challenging. Your mileage may vary.
Post by: AtomikKrab on January 21, 2010, 10:41:13 PM
Post by: waresky on January 22, 2010, 10:40:36 AM
ONE ships can't patrol whole Solar System,and the STEVE?s Solar System r the BIGGEST ever simulated in all the world..
REAL big.U can easy hidding thousands ships into only 1 of them,and this program can manage 100.000.000 easyly..So admit u can build and manage 100 Superdreadnought..u can become overwhelming if u encounter a vicious Empire with hundreds and hundreds ships.
The big ship r intriguing and remember us StarWars and some others Stars Empires...but am repeat: when ur Empire become VERY stronger probably u can build soma big Carrier or multipourpouse Big Ships.
But the real minerals cost,for me,are absurd compare the benefits in "scarse,rare" Wars.
Post by: mrwigggles on January 22, 2010, 07:41:22 PM
I get why meson, microwave and laser are poo at long ranges, they loose cohesion with distance. A rail and gauss shouldn't be loosing velocity, and the mathematical interception models shouldn't be to hard to do, especially if they can calculate them for missiles.
Post by: Hawkeye on January 23, 2010, 12:32:59 AM
Quote from: "mrwigggles"
What is the techno babble reason for rail guns and gauss weaponry to be poo?
I get why meson, microwave and laser are poo at long ranges, they loose cohesion with distance. A rail and gauss shouldn't be loosing velocity, and the mathematical interception models shouldn't be to hard to do, especially if they can calculate them for missiles.
I don´t realy know, but my guess would be: Effective range, not range per se (they don´t loose damage over distance, just have shorter range than lasers)
Both, gauss and railguns use a "bullet" which moves at less than lightspeed, so hitting a target over several lightseconds is just so much harder. Missiles, on the other hand, have their on-board-guidance. They follow the target like our fire-and-forget missiles today (think Hellfire or Harpoon) so they can compensate for the targets manouver during the flight.
Say, you are shooting at a target two lightseconds (600.000km) out.
Your target is a spherical spaceship 100m in diameter.
Your target can accelerate at 100g.
If you are using a laser, it takes the beam 2 seconds to reach the target.
After those 2 seconds, your target can be anywhere in a "circle" with a radius of 2000m, so a single shot has a chance to hit of 1 to (2000m / 100m)^2 = 1/400
If a railgun "bullet" moves at 50% lightspeed, the chance is only 1/4th of this.
Hm, thinking of this, realisticly, we probably shouldn´t be able to hit anything at 1+ lightsecond without internal guidance
Post by: Steve Walmsley on January 23, 2010, 03:28:17 AM
Quote from: "mrwigggles"
What is the techno babble reason for rail guns and gauss weaponry to be poo?It is a physics reason rather than a techno babble reason. If a target is at 300,000 kilometers then even if the projectile was moving at light speed it will still take 1 second to arrive at the target. If the target is moving at 3000 km/s then by the time the projectie arrives the target could be anywhere in a 6000 km diameter sphere. If anything, the current targeting is extremely generous. Missiles are using continuous semi-active radar homing and are capable of mid-course corrections.
I get why meson, microwave and laser are poo at long ranges, they loose cohesion with distance. A rail and gauss shouldn't be loosing velocity, and the mathematical interception models shouldn't be to hard to do, especially if they can calculate them for missiles.
EDIT: I see you got there first this time
Steve
Post by: sloanjh on January 23, 2010, 12:29:11 PM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
EDIT: I see you got there first this time :-)
John
Post by: Anteep on February 04, 2010, 01:12:56 PM
Post by: Erik L on February 04, 2010, 01:35:05 PM
Quote from: "Anteep"
i feel like a right noob considering my first frigate is 11 490 tons and you guys are talking about 10 000 battleships
It is all a matter of perspective. Some people call 12k tons a frigate. To me, that is a cruiser. A frigate is in the 4500 ton range. There is no "right" way to designate a specific tonnage to a ship class.
Post by: plugger on February 06, 2010, 04:38:59 PM
This is a very enlightening thread. Is somebody able to say a few words on where fighters fit into the combat matrix. Eg. In a missile dominanted combat environment why and where would I want fighters?
Cheers,
Plugger
Post by: Hawkeye on February 07, 2010, 12:47:45 AM
Fighters are _very_ small. This, in turn, means they are _very_ hard to detect at longer range. To see a 300t fighter at a distance of 25 million km, you need a 2.000t, res-6 active sensor (at sensor strength 10, about half that at sensor strength 21). Arming fighters with long range missiles is deadly to most opponents (they´ll never see it coming)
Fighters are build by your industry, freeing the shipyards for other ships
Fighters are easy to replace (you need a carrier to bring them to the front lines though)
While the fighters do battle, your carrier can sit at a safe distance instead of being in the thick of it an risk them being shot.
When they _do_ get shot at, they tend to die in droves
The salvo an individual fighter can launch is pathetic, so you have to have a lot of them.
Fighters usually use box launchers, therfore no staying power
In a prolonged war, fuel may become an issue
Post by: plugger on February 07, 2010, 02:30:50 AM
O.K, that makes sense. Fighters are essentially sneaky creepy stealth missile launch platforms. Thanks for the info.
Cheers,
Plugger
Post by: waresky on February 07, 2010, 05:21:53 AM
Code: [Select]
F-92 B class Fighter-bomber 380 tons 24 Crew 290.6 BP TCS 7.6 TH 36 EM 0
19736 km/s Armour 1-4 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 0 PPV 3.6
Annual Failure Rate: 11% IFR: 0.2% Maint Capacity 48 MSP Max Repair 180 MSP Est Time: 1.65 Years
Magazine 24
FTR Solid Core Anti-matter Drive E375 (1) Power 150 Fuel Use 3750% Signature 36 Armour 0 Exp 100%
Fuel Capacity 20,000 Litres Range 2.5 billion km (35 hours at full power)
FTR Sidewinder-2 WingBox (12) Missile Size 2 Hangar Reload 15 minutes MF Reload 2.5 hours
AS FTR Missile Fire Control FC120-R18 (50%) (1) Range 64.8m km Resolution 18
AS Sidewinder 2 T2 (12) Speed: 80,000 km/s End: 30m Range: 144m km WH: 8 Size: 2 TH: 533 / 320 / 160
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
This design is classed as a fighter for production and combat purposes
This dastardly swift silence boat r most deadly around into space ever see.
12 Sidewinder with Warhead 8 are a huge power in a single shot.And when u launch 30 fighters are very hard to beat'em.
Post by: Charlie Beeler on February 07, 2010, 09:13:11 AM
This design is from the game I'm currently working up.
Code: [Select]
F1 class Strikefighter 213 tons 16 Crew 42.9 BP TCS 4.26 TH 15.05 EM 0
10093 km/s Armour 1-3 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 0 PPV 1.8
Annual Failure Rate: 3% IFR: 0.1% Maint Capacity 13 MSP Max Repair 12 MSP Est Time: 7.23 Years
Magazine 12
FTR Ion Engine E840 (1) Power 43 Fuel Use 8400% Signature 15.05 Armour 0 Exp 80%
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres Range 1.0 billion km (27 hours at full power)
Size 2 Box Launcher (6) Missile Size 2 Hangar Reload 15 minutes MF Reload 2.5 hours
Missile Fire Control FC6.93-R100 (1) Range 20.8m km Resolution 100
FM-2-1 (6) Speed: 18,000 km/s End: 2.8m Range: 3m km WH: 5 Size: 2 TH: 114 / 68 / 34
Active Search Sensor S6.93-R100 (1) GPS 693 Range 6.9m km Resolution 100
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
This design is classed as a fighter for production and combat purposesMost of the tech is 3rd level of research only.
The design concept was to be able to launch missiles from the expected outer edge of missile intercept (3mkm). Other requirements: speed of at least 10k/kps, basic load of maint supplies for pick duty, organic active sensors for independent sorties/pick duty, engage 5k ton or greater ships from 3mkm.
The small TCS means that most active sensors will not see then at thier intended engagement range and the reduced TM means that even large Thermal sensors will have a tuff time with detection.
By no means is this a perfect design. A defense optimized to counter smallcraft swarms will eat these for lunch. They are next to useless in nebula's, etc.
In an environment that leans towards cruiser v cruiser missile duals these can tip the balance.
Post by: waresky on February 07, 2010, 10:16:05 AM
Just because r from many battle experience: speed-sensors are main weapon in Missiles tactic.
And sure are from 90 years in campaign.
Post by: Erik L on February 07, 2010, 12:25:14 PM
Code: [Select]
FA-1 Lancer class Fighter 430 tons 44 Crew 120 BP TCS 8.6 TH 27 EM 0
4186 km/s Armour 1-5 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 1 PPV 3
Annual Failure Rate: 1% IFR: 0% Maint Capacity 174 MSP Max Repair 35 MSP Est Time: 25.43 Years
FTR Ion Engine E700 (1) Power 36 Fuel Use 7000% Signature 27 Armour 0 Exp 25%
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres Range 0.6 billion km (39 hours at full power)
Gauss Cannon R3-50 (1x3) Range 30,000km TS: 4186 km/s Accuracy Modifier 50% RM 3 ROF 5 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fire Control S01 32-4000 H70 (FTR) (1) Max Range: 64,000 km TS: 16000 km/s 84 69 53 37 22 6 0 0 0 0
Active Search Sensor S28-R85 (70%) (1) GPS 2380 Range 23.8m km Resolution 85
This design is classed as a military vessel for maintenance purposes
This design is classed as a fighter for production and combat purposes
The Lancer is a CAP/PD design.Code: [Select]
FB-1 Shrike class Fighter 499 tons 38 Crew 131.1 BP TCS 9.98 TH 27 EM 0
3607 km/s Armour 1-5 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 1 PPV 4.95
Annual Failure Rate: 1% IFR: 0% Maint Capacity 164 MSP Max Repair 35 MSP Est Time: 21.19 Years
Magazine 15
FTR Ion Engine E700 (1) Power 36 Fuel Use 7000% Signature 27 Armour 0 Exp 25%
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres Range 0.5 billion km (39 hours at full power)
SF-5 Launcher (3) Missile Size 5 Rate of Fire 600
Missile Fire Control FC9.24-R85 (70%) (1) Range 23.6m km Resolution 85
SS-5-B Wight (3) Speed: 36,000 km/s End: 8.3m Range: 18m km WH: 7 Size: 5 TH: 120 / 72 / 36
Active Search Sensor S28-R85 (70%) (1) GPS 2380 Range 23.8m km Resolution 85
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
This design is classed as a fighter for production and combat purposes
The Shrike is "bomber", meant to perform in an anti-ship role.
Post by: Venec on February 11, 2010, 05:14:19 AM
I've been browsing forum for quite some time, found most answers I've been looking for, but just one thing bugs me: can you spy on precursors? So far my attemps with espionage teams on their listening posts have proven ineffective. Do espionage require population present on the colony?
Great game btw, thumbs up Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on February 13, 2010, 04:47:06 PM
Quote from: "Venec"
Hello everyone!If a population is less than ten million, the number of espionage points is modified by the size of the population/10. For a zero population that means no espionage points, so you are correct that you can't spy on precursors.
I've been browsing forum for quite some time, found most answers I've been looking for, but just one thing bugs me: can you spy on precursors? So far my attemps with espionage teams on their listening posts have proven ineffective. Do espionage require population present on the colony?
Great game btw, thumbs up Steve
Steve