First questions

[waresky]

The REAL trouble and "tap" in "BigSize-Ships" are: benefit-costs of war (even LOSSES of 1 of them)

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.

[AtomikKrab]

true, but I found out you can make a 1.25 million ton ship that can move faster than 100k km/s I'm making a 2.5 million model for kicks now

[waresky]

Atomik.

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.

[Charlie Beeler]

true, but I found out you can make a 1.25 million ton ship that can move faster than 100k km/s 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.  

[AtomikKrab]

It's not that expensive I assure you, you can make one in the sol system easily

[waresky]

Atomik.
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.

[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.

[Hawkeye]

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  

[Steve Walmsley]

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.

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.

EDIT: I see you got there first this time

Steve

[sloanjh]

EDIT: I see you got there first this time :-)

John

[Anteep]

i feel like a right noob considering my first frigate is 11 490 tons and you guys are talking about 10 000 battleships

[Erik L]

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.

[plugger]

Goodaye,

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

[Hawkeye]

Well, my two cents.

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

[plugger]

Goodaye,

O.K, that makes sense. Fighters are essentially sneaky creepy stealth missile launch platforms. Thanks for the info.

Cheers,
Plugger