Author Topic: Beam Defence Base Fighter  (Read 1881 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Detros (OP)

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 389
  • Thanked: 26 times
Beam Defence Base Fighter
« on: February 10, 2017, 05:06:37 PM »
Low tech beam PDC.   When I have found I can combine bonuses for PDC and for fighters, I went on and designed this little thing. 
Code: [Select]
Hrothgar class Beam Defence Base Fighter    500 tons     5 Crew     33.4 BP      TCS 10  TH 0  EM 0
Armour 5-5     Sensors 1/10     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 6
Intended Deployment Time: 0.1 months    Spare Berths 5   

Osullivan-John International 10cm C1 Infrared Laser (2)    Range 30 000km     TS: 1250 km/s     Power 3-1     RM 1    ROF 15        3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Taylor & Sharp PDC Fire Control S01 60-625 (FTR) (1)    Max Range: 120 000 km   TS: 2500 km/s     92 83 75 67 58 50 42 33 25 17
Rhodes-Chambers Pebble Bed Reactor Technology PB-1 P3 (1)     Total Power Output 3    Armour 0    Exp 5%

Flynn & Wilkinson Active Search Sensor MR6-R100 (1)     GPS 1000     Range 6,0m km    Resolution 100
I guess the active sensor should have much lower resolution.  .  .   for now i tossed in the basic version.   At least it should be able to shoot by itself now, and more sensors will be provided in other installations. 

Any tips to get it more functional? With the lowest techs you can find as I have just only got to 12cm lasers. 

EDIT:
Is this a more proper active search sensor for these lasers? What does MCR stand for?
Code: [Select]
Morrison-Newton Active Search Sensor MR0-R1 ASS7.2 (1)     GPS 8     Range 430k km    MCR 47k km    Resolution 1
« Last Edit: February 10, 2017, 05:34:24 PM by Detros »
 

Offline MarcAFK

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2005
  • Thanked: 134 times
  • ...it's so simple an idiot could have devised it..
Re: Beam Defence Base Fighter
« Reply #1 on: February 10, 2017, 07:42:58 PM »
I make use of similar designs, however I give them engines to save needing to use carriers to shuttle them around, the extra fire control mass isn't so bad compared to the minimum 50 tons of engine needed, plus fuel.
MCR is your missile detection range, I think that's for a size 6 missile?
" Why is this godforsaken hellhole worth dying for? "
". . .  We know nothing about them, their language, their history or what they look like.  But we can assume this.  They stand for everything we don't stand for.  Also they told me you guys look like dorks. "
"Stop exploding, you cowards.  "
 

Offline Detros (OP)

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 389
  • Thanked: 26 times
Re: Beam Defence Base Fighter
« Reply #2 on: February 11, 2017, 12:51:16 AM »
Quote from: MarcAFK link=topic=9384. msg101152#msg101152 date=1486777378
MCR is your missile detection range, I think that's for a size 6 missile?
Oh right.  That sensor was listed as 46k-something km against missile size 6 or smaller on the Design Tech screen, the rounding got me confused.

Quote from: MarcAFK link=topic=9384. msg101152#msg101152 date=1486777378
I make use of similar designs, however I give them engines to save needing to use carriers to shuttle them around, the extra fire control mass isn't so bad compared to the minimum 50 tons of engine needed, plus fuel.
It is a PDC.  You can't give it engines.  But do you mean you use similar design for your Beam Fighters?
The title may be misleading.  It is not "(Beam Defence Base) (Fighter)", Figher of Beam Defence Base, but rather "Beam (Defence Base / Fighter)"
 

Offline MarcAFK

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2005
  • Thanked: 134 times
  • ...it's so simple an idiot could have devised it..
Re: Beam Defence Base Fighter
« Reply #3 on: February 11, 2017, 01:43:46 AM »
Yes, my designs are basically the same as yours but don't get the bonus for using PDC specialized equipment. So they aren't as efficient but can slowly move themself places where they work as stationary weapons platforms. Though I imagine the tiny engine does give them a slight dodge factor.
" Why is this godforsaken hellhole worth dying for? "
". . .  We know nothing about them, their language, their history or what they look like.  But we can assume this.  They stand for everything we don't stand for.  Also they told me you guys look like dorks. "
"Stop exploding, you cowards.  "
 

Offline Michael Sandy

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • M
  • Posts: 771
  • Thanked: 83 times
Re: Beam Defence Base Fighter
« Reply #4 on: February 11, 2017, 04:31:17 AM »
A thought, have separate bases for the sensors as for the weapons.  That way you can cram more weapon or armor on to your PD bases while still falling under 500 tons.  Unlike ships in space, your PDCs simply aren't going to be independently deployed, ever.

And multiple sensor bases, so if one is destroyed, you just have another go active.

I also recommend using a weapon that isn't affected by atmosphere, like mesons.

From an RP perspective, some people avoid putting bases on the planets because they do not want planets targeted with missiles.  Others go the poison pill technique, of making planets too expensive to attack, with no reward for the attacker other than a radioactive wasteland.

Others powers have the philosophy of not putting comprehensive fixed defenses on colony planets, because they want the colonies dependent on the navy for security, and therefore willing to pay taxes and minerals to support the navy.

(by comprehensive fixed defenses, I mean they might have point defense, but not long range missiles perhaps, and therefore would depend on the Fleet for that, or otherwise have a range bracket they are ineffective at without Naval support)
 

Offline Detros (OP)

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 389
  • Thanked: 26 times
Re: Beam Defence Base Fighter
« Reply #5 on: February 11, 2017, 04:44:37 AM »
Quote from: Michael Sandy link=topic=9384. msg101156#msg101156 date=1486809077
A thought, have separate bases for the sensors as for the weapons.   That way you can cram more weapon or armor on to your PD bases while still falling under 500 tons.   Unlike ships in space, your PDCs simply aren't going to be independently deployed, ever.
But one active sensor needs to be in the ship/PDC that is firing, doesn't it?

Quote from: Michael Sandy link=topic=9384. msg101156#msg101156 date=1486809077
I also recommend using a weapon that isn't affected by atmosphere, like mesons.
Is anywhere in game visible the effect of current atmospheric situation on damage for non-messon weapons?
 

Iranon

  • Guest
Re: Beam Defence Base Fighter
« Reply #6 on: February 11, 2017, 05:14:53 AM »
Fire controls need to be on the firing ship, the active sensor can be anywhere as long as it picks up the target.

Seconding Meson bases. Meson weapons are dirt cheap; bulk and crew requirement means there are other associated cost in spaceships but neither matters much for PDCs. Personally, I don't use fighter-sized one because even with the cost reduction I find it leads to excessive expenditure in fire controls.
That said, part of this consideration is that I build Meson PDCS largely to make the yokels feel safe (which only depends on volume of weapons, not how sophisticated they are - tracking gear and fancy fire controls don't count) in a way that actually does something when attacked.
 

Offline TheDeadlyShoe

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1264
  • Thanked: 58 times
  • Dance Commander
Re: Beam Defence Base Fighter
« Reply #7 on: February 11, 2017, 11:18:14 AM »
Is anywhere in game visible the effect of current atmospheric situation on damage for non-messon weapons?
iirc, it is a percentage reduction scaling from 0-1 atmosphere. Any world with 1 atmosphere or greater is immune to energy bombardment except from mesons. 

It doesn't matter too much since even natively habitable worlds typically spawn with <1 atmo. 
 
The following users thanked this post: Detros

Offline Detros (OP)

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 389
  • Thanked: 26 times
Re: Beam Defence Base Fighter
« Reply #8 on: February 11, 2017, 11:28:24 AM »
iirc, it is a percentage reduction scaling from 0-1 atmosphere. Any world with 1 atmosphere or greater is immune to energy bombardment except from mesons. 

It doesn't matter too much since even natively habitable worlds typically spawn with <1 atmo.
Thanks. Though currently I am more interested in shooting up then down. I guess the reduction is the same in such case.
 

Offline TheDeadlyShoe

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1264
  • Thanked: 58 times
  • Dance Commander
Re: Beam Defence Base Fighter
« Reply #9 on: February 11, 2017, 11:38:57 AM »
Yes.  It should be noted that CIWS ignores this rule.

The scaling nature of the reduction means that some weapons can be effective point defense even on a planet with some atmosphere, up to a point depending on their damage potential. Large beam weapons with long ranges can still often use those ranges as well, just with reduced damage.   

I don't know (slash dont remember) how the rounding is done specifically.