Beam Fighters

[liveware]

The 250-ton engine that I designed for my FACs was a bit much. But laser ships do need to go faster, so hey, why not?

From a reliability viewpoint, two engines is always better than one. With that in mind, I always use two or more engines on all designs, even if a single engine design is better on paper.

[DFNewb]

You'd be better off with one (33% I believe?) Gauss Cannon instead of 3x 8% gauss cannon. Sure, you think they're nice and small and perfect for a fighter, but that 8% chance to hit means that they'll generally miss hitting what they're shooting at.

Math says you are wrong. Also that's 6 gauss cannons not 3.

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=11325.0

17% are probably one of the better choices if you can fit it into the design... the main reason is that it is the smallest cannon at 50t that also have 1 HTK... it also have a slight edge in to-hit for its size... even it is a very small difference.

The main problem with PD fighters is that fighter no longer get advantage in the fire-controls anymore... so it will become very expansive to make PD fighters. I would still make them but I would make them relatively large and would also consider FAC sized PD versions even to protect bomber squadrons. Rail-guns can probably also be more efficient than Gauss in that role due to speed benefits.

You'd be better off with one (33% I believe?) Gauss Cannon instead of 3x 8% gauss cannon. Sure, you think they're nice and small and perfect for a fighter, but that 8% chance to hit means that they'll generally miss hitting what they're shooting at.

Some play testing has revealed the bigger gauss are better.

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

Also, what's this 20,000 km rule? Is that just five seconds times the presumed enemy speed of 4000 km/s, or is it a hard rule?

Because beam weapon accuracy actually ramps hyperbolicly to infinite at 0 km, the 'to hit' calculation treats all ranges of less than 10,000 km as 10,000 km.  This means if you have a fire control that can't reach 10,000 km (say, because they are low tech and you went for reduced range to get reduced size) it will never hit anything.

Where did you get that from?  BFCs start with 100% CTH at 0km and decrease linearly to 0% at their rated range.  This is why BFCs should have at least twice the rated range of their attached weapon.  Beam FDF mode is calculated at 10k because that is the base distance unit in Aurora.  As such a BFC with 10k km range has base a 0% CTH.  A BFC with a 20k km range paired with a Gauss cannon with a 10k km range will have a 50% CTH before speed penalty.

To illustrate, this BFC is rated exactly 100k km.  CTH numbers start at 10k and are in 10k increments.

Code: [Select]

Beam Fire Control R100-TS25000 (1)     Max Range: 100,000 km   TS: 25,000 km/s     90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Edit: Note that this is a change from VB Aurora where BFCs had a 50% CTH instead of 0% at their rated range.
Edit2: Scratch that. C# component design screen shows BFC stats at max range while VB component design shows stats at 1/2 range.  Aside from the name, the parts are identical.

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

You'd be better off with one (33% I believe?) Gauss Cannon instead of 3x 8% gauss cannon. Sure, you think they're nice and small and perfect for a fighter, but that 8% chance to hit means that they'll generally miss hitting what they're shooting at.

Math says you are wrong. Also that's 6 gauss cannons not 3.

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=11325.0

17% are probably one of the better choices if you can fit it into the design... the main reason is that it is the smallest cannon at 50t that also have 1 HTK... it also have a slight edge in to-hit for its size... even it is a very small difference.

The main problem with PD fighters is that fighter no longer get advantage in the fire-controls anymore... so it will become very expansive to make PD fighters. I would still make them but I would make them relatively large and would also consider FAC sized PD versions even to protect bomber squadrons. Rail-guns can probably also be more efficient than Gauss in that role due to speed benefits.

The changes to BFC made almost no differences. You can put them 0.25x range and then set the tracking speed equal to the fighters movement speed unless you are using turreted Gauss, and it's pretty much the same as in VB.

I don't consider a 4x size penalty 'almost no difference'.  Fighters are cramped as it is and a 4x speed/0.25x range BFC is still 10% of a max size fighter.  On top of that, for a 0.25x range BFC to have a 50% CTH at 10k km (ie: minimum range) requires a racial range of 80k km, which costs 30k RP with prereqs.  That makes beam fighters prohibitively expensive in the early game.

[DFNewb]

You'd be better off with one (33% I believe?) Gauss Cannon instead of 3x 8% gauss cannon. Sure, you think they're nice and small and perfect for a fighter, but that 8% chance to hit means that they'll generally miss hitting what they're shooting at.

Math says you are wrong. Also that's 6 gauss cannons not 3.

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=11325.0

17% are probably one of the better choices if you can fit it into the design... the main reason is that it is the smallest cannon at 50t that also have 1 HTK... it also have a slight edge in to-hit for its size... even it is a very small difference.

The main problem with PD fighters is that fighter no longer get advantage in the fire-controls anymore... so it will become very expansive to make PD fighters. I would still make them but I would make them relatively large and would also consider FAC sized PD versions even to protect bomber squadrons. Rail-guns can probably also be more efficient than Gauss in that role due to speed benefits.

The changes to BFC made almost no differences. You can put them 0.25x range and then set the tracking speed equal to the fighters movement speed unless you are using turreted Gauss, and it's pretty much the same as in VB.

I don't consider a 4x size penalty 'almost no difference'.  Fighters are cramped as it is and a 4x speed/0.25x range BFC is still 10% of a max size fighter.  On top of that, for a 0.25x range BFC to have a 50% CTH at 10k km (ie: minimum range) requires a racial range of 80k km, which costs 30k RP with prereqs.  That makes beam fighters prohibitively expensive in the early game.

it ends up being 13tons. That is much less than 10 percent.

[CharonJr]

Well, 25t actually and this one would need 1/2 range instead of the 1/4 I used, so 50t

Max Range 8 000 km     Tracking Speed 5 000 km/s
Size 0.50 HS  (25 tons)    HTK 0
Chance of destruction by electronic damage 100%
Cost 2.0    Crew 2

[DFNewb]

Well, 25t actually and this one would need 1/2 range instead of the 1/4 I used, so 50t

Max Range 8 000 km     Tracking Speed 5 000 km/s
Size 0.50 HS  (25 tons)    HTK 0
Chance of destruction by electronic damage 100%
Cost 2.0    Crew 2

These are my current fighter BFC's:

Code: [Select]

Beam Fire Control R22-TS10000
Max Range 21 760 km    Tracking Speed 10 000 km/s
Cost 10.9   Size 21 tons   Crew 2   HTK 0
Base Chance to hit 100%
Materials Required: Uridium  10.9 
I was using 13ton ones before.

[CharonJr]

Yup, but for "early/low-tech game" the weight is kinda prohibitive, later on I am using beam PD-fighters myself.

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

Well, 25t actually and this one would need 1/2 range instead of the 1/4 I used, so 50t

Max Range 8 000 km     Tracking Speed 5 000 km/s
Size 0.50 HS  (25 tons)    HTK 0
Chance of destruction by electronic damage 100%
Cost 2.0    Crew 2

This BFC has a 0% CTH at the 10k km minimum range.

[CharonJr]

Yup, that's why I mentioned that it needs to be twice as large (50t) - 16kkm range for still fairly bad chances to hit.

[DFNewb]

Well, 25t actually and this one would need 1/2 range instead of the 1/4 I used, so 50t

Max Range 8 000 km     Tracking Speed 5 000 km/s
Size 0.50 HS  (25 tons)    HTK 0
Chance of destruction by electronic damage 100%
Cost 2.0    Crew 2

This BFC has a 0% CTH at the 10k km minimum range.

From what I have seen in play testing it will only be 0 percent for missiles and will still be able to hit ships when they are right on top of them.

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

Yup, that's why I mentioned that it needs to be twice as large (50t) - 16kkm range for still fairly bad chances to hit.

Ah, sorry.  Reading comprehension FTW.  A 37.5% range factor is pretty bad, and the low speed doesn't exactly do it any favours, either.

Well, 25t actually and this one would need 1/2 range instead of the 1/4 I used, so 50t

Max Range 8 000 km     Tracking Speed 5 000 km/s
Size 0.50 HS  (25 tons)    HTK 0
Chance of destruction by electronic damage 100%
Cost 2.0    Crew 2

This BFC has a 0% CTH at the 10k km minimum range.

From what I have seen in play testing it will only be 0 percent for missiles and will still be able to hit ships when they are right on top of them.

Even if that is true it still means that fighter based PD simply isn't viable early game.  Cheers.

[DFNewb]

Yup, that's why I mentioned that it needs to be twice as large (50t) - 16kkm range for still fairly bad chances to hit.

Ah, sorry.  Reading comprehension FTW.  A 37.5% range factor is pretty bad, and the low speed doesn't exactly do it any favours, either.

Well, 25t actually and this one would need 1/2 range instead of the 1/4 I used, so 50t

Max Range 8 000 km     Tracking Speed 5 000 km/s
Size 0.50 HS  (25 tons)    HTK 0
Chance of destruction by electronic damage 100%
Cost 2.0    Crew 2

This BFC has a 0% CTH at the 10k km minimum range.

From what I have seen in play testing it will only be 0 percent for missiles and will still be able to hit ships when they are right on top of them.

Even if that is true it still means that fighter based PD simply isn't viable early game.  Cheers.

There is no reason to ever use fighters as PD except for rail gun high speed fighters anyways. 1 500 ton fighter can kill a 50000ton ship with no beam weapons tho.

Even fighters with max tracking speed with best possible PD will die to AAM's so thinking fighters are good for PD is a mistake cause they can't tank 1 damage hits effectively without giving up their speed thus their own to hit.

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

Yup, that's why I mentioned that it needs to be twice as large (50t) - 16kkm range for still fairly bad chances to hit.

Ah, sorry.  Reading comprehension FTW.  A 37.5% range factor is pretty bad, and the low speed doesn't exactly do it any favours, either.

Well, 25t actually and this one would need 1/2 range instead of the 1/4 I used, so 50t

Max Range 8 000 km     Tracking Speed 5 000 km/s
Size 0.50 HS  (25 tons)    HTK 0
Chance of destruction by electronic damage 100%
Cost 2.0    Crew 2

This BFC has a 0% CTH at the 10k km minimum range.

From what I have seen in play testing it will only be 0 percent for missiles and will still be able to hit ships when they are right on top of them.

Even if that is true it still means that fighter based PD simply isn't viable early game.  Cheers.

There is no reason to ever use fighters as PD except for rail gun high speed fighters anyways. 1 500 ton fighter can kill a 50000ton ship with no beam weapons tho.

Even fighters with max tracking speed with best possible PD will die to AAM's so thinking fighters are good for PD is a mistake cause they can't tank 1 damage hits effectively without giving up their speed thus their own to hit.

Nerfing fighter BFCs has effectively eliminated beam fighters, including railgun PD, as an early game option.

Ship-to-ship missile combat is normally at long range, well beyond where the enemy can detect PD fighters.

[CharonJr]

Lets agree that they are not very efective as PD, but I think that they have their uses at higher tech levels.

E.g.

Interceptor Mk2 class Interceptor      473 tons       22 Crew       195.4 BP       TCS 9    TH 225    EM 0
23808 km/s      Armour 1-5       Shields 0-0       HTK 6      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 5
Maint Life 6.37 Years     MSP 125    AFR 18%    IFR 0.2%    1YR 5    5YR 79    Max Repair 112.5 MSP
Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 days    Morale Check Required   

Boost 3 Magnetic Fusion Drive  EP225.00 (1)    Power 225    Fuel Use 1423.02%    Signature 225    Explosion 30%
Fuel Capacity 10 000 Litres    Range 0.3 billion km (3 hours at full power)

Gauss Cannon R400-17.00 (5x5)    Range 24 000km     TS: 23 808 km/s     Accuracy Modifier 17.00%     RM 40 000 km    ROF 5       
Beam Fire Control R24-TS20000 (1)     Max Range: 24 000 km   TS: 20 000 km/s     58 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction

The hit chance is actually a bit better than it should be. Decent PD per ton, but bad PD per BP in my opinion. But it has it uses when protecting a flight of missile bombers (fighters) which are very unlikely to be targeted by AMMs and as additional protection for carrier tasks groups when on the defense.

Edit: At current tech levels a better BFC should actually help, it should hit 1-2 missiles moving at 40kkm, equal tech railguns should perform pretty similar (with a even larger R96-TS20000 BFC).

Interceptor Mk2 class Interceptor      499 tons       24 Crew       219.5 BP       TCS 10    TH 225    EM 0
22583 km/s      Armour 1-5       Shields 0-0       HTK 7      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 5
Maint Life 5.90 Years     MSP 127    AFR 20%    IFR 0.3%    1YR 6    5YR 93    Max Repair 112.5 MSP
Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 days    Morale Check Required   

Boost 3 Magnetic Fusion Drive  EP225.00 (1)    Power 225    Fuel Use 1423.02%    Signature 225    Explosion 30%
Fuel Capacity 10 000 Litres    Range 0.3 billion km (3 hours at full power)

Gauss Cannon R400-17.00 (5x5)    Range 40 000km     TS: 22 583 km/s     Accuracy Modifier 17.00%     RM 40 000 km    ROF 5       
Beam Fire Control R48-TS20000 (1)     Max Range: 48 000 km   TS: 20 000 km/s     79 58 38 17 0 0 0 0 0 0

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction