Posted by: BardicNerd
« on: January 04, 2024, 09:36:06 PM »Thanks for the comments -- definitely a decent bit of stuff I hadn't thought about there.
You are quite correct that I had focused primarily on having engines that are optimal in terms of space without thinking about potential cost or fuel efficiency. At the moment, fuel supplies are not particularly a concern, though once the bigger ships come into operation, this is not likely to remain the case. I will want to think about this for the future, though ultimately the answer is to simply increase fuel production (though eventually of course there is a limit to how much I can do that, in this game Sorium will not be a concern for a very long time, but pops to operate the refineries will be). But it would be wise not to be needlessly wasteful, and in any case I don't want to develop bad habits for future games.
I don't know if I need to be quite that fast, but I have found it useful. The enemy ships tend to run as soon as they detect my warships (at least, I assume this is what is making them turn around), and I found that even above 7k km/s I would struggle to intercept them before they got out of my planetary detection range -- I could chase them off, but it was a constant game of cat and mouse that I didn't find very fun. I've since increased Earth's detection range quite a bit, so that has helped (and I've newly improved the sensors on the ships, so they can get in their own sensor range quicker), still I think I really do want a speed of 8k km/s or so. The Fletcher is specifically intended to be extra-fast, but it could probably be reduced to only 9k km/s.
The choice of the RES-40 active sensor and the RES-20 MFC is due to the fact that the fleets I face usually include at least one ship sized optimally for that active sensor, but mostly ships sized optimally for the MFC. So this helps me keep track of the fleet at a greater range, though at a cost of efficiency. It would probably be better to simply field a separate dedicated sensor vessel, though. I tend to prefer this approach for overall doctrine, though, even if it's ultimately less efficient.
I have definitely not put as much priority into researching passive sensor techs as I really should.
You are probably correct about the reduced size missile launchers, and definitely correct about the CIWS being a waste. I'll be making changes to those for the next generation.
It probably would be better to switch the Fletchers to using Kestrels for their missiles, though the Asps are proportionally cheaper, so there are some tradeoffs. The range of the Asps is probably not as important for this particular use.
Given the tech level my passives are at, I don't think the Fletchers would really benefit from having passive sensors on them -- they're designed as low-endurance, quick-intercept ships that operate from a major base that would have large passive senor coverage of its own, so they'd rarely get to use them, on the occasions when they do end up chasing their target outside that sensor range, I generally expect their active sensors to outrange most sensibly sized passives I could currently put on them -- particularly as their targets do use thermal sig reduction, so don't actually have very strong signatures to detect.
I don't recall why I choose that tracking speed. It is certainly not optimal. I choose to research lasers at the start and haven't put much into other beam weapons, so I've defaulted to lasers for PD . . . though even at the tech levels I have, gauss would be a better choice, I think. I'm not sure about railguns, given that they can't be turreted, but they would output a lot more shots. Conceptually, I like having a dual-purpose battery that can be used both against missiles and against small ships, but I might change my mind about it once I see it in action, so we'll see.
Not sure why I didn't put passives on the bigger ships, it may have been an oversight, or I may have had a reason that I'm not recalling. I suspect it's because my active tech is better than my passive tech, and I looked at ranges and decided it was better to have a larger active than a passive that didn't see that far. EDIT: I did some calculations, and for the particular set of parameters I'm looking at -- 279 strength heat signatures on a 1k ton active signature or 558 strength heat signatures on a 2k ton active signature -- actives will always outrange passives of equal tech and size. I might be wrong, though. EDIT AGAIN: The formulas I found were incorrect, at my tech level actives are better for this use, but that may not always be the case. Passives are probably not going to be very much better than actives for this particular detection, though, and since I'll always want an active, it makes sense to just use actives rather than both an active an a passive.
The Arleigh Burke isn't really intended to escort the Alger, though I have considered it. I may design future generation with that in mind, I'm not sure. I'd also want to harmonize their deployment time if I do that.
I would definitely like to have more hanger space on the Alger class. I may have given it more ordinance storage than needed, I'm not really sure where the correct balance lies yet. I'm not very experienced in managing a logistics train yet, though, so I think erring on the side of easier logistics until then might be the better option.
There were some compromises involved in the fighter and FAC design, and it's entirely likely I didn't get the balance right.
Thank you again for your feedback, it is very helpful.
You are quite correct that I had focused primarily on having engines that are optimal in terms of space without thinking about potential cost or fuel efficiency. At the moment, fuel supplies are not particularly a concern, though once the bigger ships come into operation, this is not likely to remain the case. I will want to think about this for the future, though ultimately the answer is to simply increase fuel production (though eventually of course there is a limit to how much I can do that, in this game Sorium will not be a concern for a very long time, but pops to operate the refineries will be). But it would be wise not to be needlessly wasteful, and in any case I don't want to develop bad habits for future games.
I don't know if I need to be quite that fast, but I have found it useful. The enemy ships tend to run as soon as they detect my warships (at least, I assume this is what is making them turn around), and I found that even above 7k km/s I would struggle to intercept them before they got out of my planetary detection range -- I could chase them off, but it was a constant game of cat and mouse that I didn't find very fun. I've since increased Earth's detection range quite a bit, so that has helped (and I've newly improved the sensors on the ships, so they can get in their own sensor range quicker), still I think I really do want a speed of 8k km/s or so. The Fletcher is specifically intended to be extra-fast, but it could probably be reduced to only 9k km/s.
The choice of the RES-40 active sensor and the RES-20 MFC is due to the fact that the fleets I face usually include at least one ship sized optimally for that active sensor, but mostly ships sized optimally for the MFC. So this helps me keep track of the fleet at a greater range, though at a cost of efficiency. It would probably be better to simply field a separate dedicated sensor vessel, though. I tend to prefer this approach for overall doctrine, though, even if it's ultimately less efficient.
I have definitely not put as much priority into researching passive sensor techs as I really should.
You are probably correct about the reduced size missile launchers, and definitely correct about the CIWS being a waste. I'll be making changes to those for the next generation.
It probably would be better to switch the Fletchers to using Kestrels for their missiles, though the Asps are proportionally cheaper, so there are some tradeoffs. The range of the Asps is probably not as important for this particular use.
Given the tech level my passives are at, I don't think the Fletchers would really benefit from having passive sensors on them -- they're designed as low-endurance, quick-intercept ships that operate from a major base that would have large passive senor coverage of its own, so they'd rarely get to use them, on the occasions when they do end up chasing their target outside that sensor range, I generally expect their active sensors to outrange most sensibly sized passives I could currently put on them -- particularly as their targets do use thermal sig reduction, so don't actually have very strong signatures to detect.
I don't recall why I choose that tracking speed. It is certainly not optimal. I choose to research lasers at the start and haven't put much into other beam weapons, so I've defaulted to lasers for PD . . . though even at the tech levels I have, gauss would be a better choice, I think. I'm not sure about railguns, given that they can't be turreted, but they would output a lot more shots. Conceptually, I like having a dual-purpose battery that can be used both against missiles and against small ships, but I might change my mind about it once I see it in action, so we'll see.
Not sure why I didn't put passives on the bigger ships, it may have been an oversight, or I may have had a reason that I'm not recalling. I suspect it's because my active tech is better than my passive tech, and I looked at ranges and decided it was better to have a larger active than a passive that didn't see that far. EDIT: I did some calculations, and for the particular set of parameters I'm looking at -- 279 strength heat signatures on a 1k ton active signature or 558 strength heat signatures on a 2k ton active signature -- actives will always outrange passives of equal tech and size. I might be wrong, though. EDIT AGAIN: The formulas I found were incorrect, at my tech level actives are better for this use, but that may not always be the case. Passives are probably not going to be very much better than actives for this particular detection, though, and since I'll always want an active, it makes sense to just use actives rather than both an active an a passive.
The Arleigh Burke isn't really intended to escort the Alger, though I have considered it. I may design future generation with that in mind, I'm not sure. I'd also want to harmonize their deployment time if I do that.
I would definitely like to have more hanger space on the Alger class. I may have given it more ordinance storage than needed, I'm not really sure where the correct balance lies yet. I'm not very experienced in managing a logistics train yet, though, so I think erring on the side of easier logistics until then might be the better option.
There were some compromises involved in the fighter and FAC design, and it's entirely likely I didn't get the balance right.
Thank you again for your feedback, it is very helpful.