Missile armed jump point picket ships are an interesting option also. They can swap some engine space for a jump drive and provide long range fire support to the rest of the fleet without needing to really keep pace with them. Keep them near the jump point and flee to the other side if the enemy gets too close and your main fleet isn't nearby.

It's worth noting that the classic jump warship is not a poor choice either. Logically, if you are going to build a jump ship anyways, there is an argument that the ship might as well be useful in combat in which case you can design a jump warship with a reduced weapons loadout or just a pure PD/AMM design without primary weapons. Notably such a ship can have the same speed as the rest of your fleet which is ideal for a rapid reaction force if towing a station or waiting for a slow commercial tender is too slow. It may also be possible, if you're clever with designs and bridging classes, to build these out of the same shipyard as a real warship which can be useful especially early on when you don't have several dozen shipyards available.

On the other hand, a barebones commercial tender (with a military jump drive) is probably cheaper, so if you build a fair amount of them the extra BPs can be used for a couple more real warships and as commercial ships they will save you maintenance and fuel costs. Like all things it is a question of tradeoffs.

So you can do squadron transits.  Jump tenders can only do standard transits, which are suicide if the jump is going to be contested at all.  You don't need one on every ship, but you do need them on some ships.  Probably 1 jump ship to every 3-5 other ships, depending on your squad jump tech.

Could a 100,000 ton ship be able to take on multiple roles effectively without much efficiency lost?

I like the idea of having 100,000 ton cruisers as 'pocket capitals' that can operate effectively alone or with a small escort and be able to deal with most threats so I can save my proper capital ships for decisive battles.

Basically I am envisioning a ship with beam weapons, hangar space for proper fighter squadrons (3000 tons at least) and good PD, perhaps even AMMs. Long-range is also a plus.

Think of ships like Halo's Pillar of Autumn which was massive and had all those capabilities.

A jump drive equipped missile combatant might be useful. I am experimenting with such designs but haven't yet reached any conclusive results. My theory is that a missile cruiser and jump cruiser share an overlapping combat niche in the form of jump point defense/picketing. A jump cruiser will often double as a jump picket (in my fleet doctrines) and in that role benefits from long range weapons, such as missiles, more than other ships. So combining some capabilities, those being jump drive and missile strike capabilities, makes some sense in this role.

For jump point assaults, beam combatants are probably still superior (and that is what I use to date). Instead of my experimental jump missile cruisers, you might find some use from a jump carrier armed with beam fighters and missile bombers. You could jump in, launch fighters, and then retreat until the fighters are almost dead or have defeated the enemy. I am not certain that parasites suffer from jump shock, in which case a jump carrier would be very useful.

Quote from: Jorgen_CAB on January 19, 2021, 02:20:44 PM

I would say a big fat NO to this... it is NOT true that specialised ship always are more efficient... that is only true in some situations. Putting beam weapon on all ships is a way to secure your ships for being singled out in a beam fight within a combined arms fleet. Sure, a fleet of 10 ship at a total weight of 200kt who all have beams as secondary weapons will loose big against a similar large fleet all armed with only beam weapons. But that is assuming the beam fleet can reach the combined arms fleet into beam combat without losses which is far from a given.

Specialised ships is good if the ships are small enough but as they grow bigger there really are very little reason to not include a bit of everything on a ship as you will likely need all those capabilities in your task-forces anyway.

If you rely solely on pure PD, AMM ships then single them out in a missile engagement can become catastrophic as for each escort destroyed the fleet looses allot of defensive power... if all ships in a task force have PD, AMM to some degree you have allot more hull and armour to degrade your defences.

I think I should clarify: I think having PD, AMM, both in addition to the main weapon are fine and do not make a ship "multi-role". As you say they are always necessary and a warship intended to operate alone simply must have these.

In my mind "multi-role" deals with the main weapon (including fighters) i.e. how is a ship expected to deal damage - a ship which mixes ASM, beam, fighters all together will not excel in any single capability which will render it exploitable by an opponent who does excel all things being roughly equal (admittedly, rarely if ever is this the case). There is a reason even the massive Nimitz class do not mount cruise missiles, and why the Iowas didn't have a flight deck and CSG apiece.

Quote

The same is true in a beam confrontation... If I have 30 lasers distributed on ten ship versus someone who has 40 lasers on three ships (assuming the other seven ships in that fleet are useless now) and the ships are otherwise roughly equal then the side with less lasers will still win as they have more armour and hull for each weapons destroyed.

I would argue that this is not a failure of specialization but rather fleet composition and/or tactical and operational execution. If one takes a fleet of ten ships and finds oneself in an action where seven of his ships are functionally useless (and not merely underperforming), something has gone wrong well outside of the actual ship design process. Though again, this is assuming that all vessels have at least rudimentary PD, thus dedicated PD ships are not the bulk of a fleet and even those present should be able to contribute - at least AMMs can provide screening fire although beam PD may not be able to close the range.

Notably an advantage of specialized ships is that fleet composition can be tailored for the mission theater easily. A fleet of multi-role ships requires that every fleet have multiple capabilities in proportions as-built, regardless of what is called for. Again if 70% of the fleet is useless in a battle this is a failure of scouting, mission planning, and/or tactics rather than ship design.

Quote

I also don't think 3000t hangar space is excessive... I think it is too small. A ship of this type need allot of scout crafts in their hangar and then you need strike crafts as well. This ship likely will want to stay out of harms way as much as possible as it's first line of defence.

I 100% agree on the need for scouting crafts, however the mix of strike crafts and beam primary armament is what I cannot get behind, and as Borealis did state a desire for fighter squadrons that is the paradigm I'm addressing. I would sooner have a class suited for fighters and another suited for beam brawling than a mixed class that excels at neither, and then mix and match those classes to achieve the fleet composition for the mission at hand. Same if we consider ASM vessels as well.

Ok... then I think we are speaking about the same thing. I do agree that all fleets need to have a primary means of how they plan to attack an opponent. It would not be useful to both consider strike-crafts and beam weapons as the primary way to engage the opponent. I still think it is a good idea to keep some beam weapons on such a cruiser as a secondary weapon and mostly be considered for self defence so it is not completely toothless in such a circumstance it ends up in close quarter combat.

When it comes to beam weapons, for example, I usually have some beam weapons on every capital ship, not because they are suppose to engage the enemy that way as a primary function, but as a fleet they can have that option and every ship in the fleet will be useful if the need is there, such as guarding a jump point or defending a world from invasion or if they can't outrun their opponent.

In this case using beam weapons is not the primary role for the fleet to operate but sometimes you will need that capability regardless.

If you build a ship to be mostly on it's own or in perhaps in pairs or small squadrons then you probably are well of by having some of everything but still specialise on something. In this specific case I would perhaps add a strike-wing of fighters as the primary weapon and keep the beam weapons as a secondary option. The reason is that strike-craft give the ship a much better chance to survive an encounter than having the speed to be sure to win a beam combat. Speed usually are a direct contradiction to endurance for the most part.

I would say a big fat NO to this... it is NOT true that specialised ship always are more efficient... that is only true in some situations. Putting beam weapon on all ships is a way to secure your ships for being singled out in a beam fight within a combined arms fleet. Sure, a fleet of 10 ship at a total weight of 200kt who all have beams as secondary weapons will loose big against a similar large fleet all armed with only beam weapons. But that is assuming the beam fleet can reach the combined arms fleet into beam combat without losses which is far from a given.

Specialised ships is good if the ships are small enough but as they grow bigger there really are very little reason to not include a bit of everything on a ship as you will likely need all those capabilities in your task-forces anyway.

If you rely solely on pure PD, AMM ships then single them out in a missile engagement can become catastrophic as for each escort destroyed the fleet looses allot of defensive power... if all ships in a task force have PD, AMM to some degree you have allot more hull and armour to degrade your defences.

I think I should clarify: I think having PD, AMM, both in addition to the main weapon are fine and do not make a ship "multi-role". As you say they are always necessary and a warship intended to operate alone simply must have these.

In my mind "multi-role" deals with the main weapon (including fighters) i.e. how is a ship expected to deal damage - a ship which mixes ASM, beam, fighters all together will not excel in any single capability which will render it exploitable by an opponent who does excel all things being roughly equal (admittedly, rarely if ever is this the case). There is a reason even the massive Nimitz class do not mount cruise missiles, and why the Iowas didn't have a flight deck and CSG apiece.

The same is true in a beam confrontation... If I have 30 lasers distributed on ten ship versus someone who has 40 lasers on three ships (assuming the other seven ships in that fleet are useless now) and the ships are otherwise roughly equal then the side with less lasers will still win as they have more armour and hull for each weapons destroyed.

I would argue that this is not a failure of specialization but rather fleet composition and/or tactical and operational execution. If one takes a fleet of ten ships and finds oneself in an action where seven of his ships are functionally useless (and not merely underperforming), something has gone wrong well outside of the actual ship design process. Though again, this is assuming that all vessels have at least rudimentary PD, thus dedicated PD ships are not the bulk of a fleet and even those present should be able to contribute - at least AMMs can provide screening fire although beam PD may not be able to close the range.

Notably an advantage of specialized ships is that fleet composition can be tailored for the mission theater easily. A fleet of multi-role ships requires that every fleet have multiple capabilities in proportions as-built, regardless of what is called for. Again if 70% of the fleet is useless in a battle this is a failure of scouting, mission planning, and/or tactics rather than ship design.

I also don't think 3000t hangar space is excessive... I think it is too small. A ship of this type need allot of scout crafts in their hangar and then you need strike crafts as well. This ship likely will want to stay out of harms way as much as possible as it's first line of defence.

I 100% agree on the need for scouting crafts, however the mix of strike crafts and beam primary armament is what I cannot get behind, and as Borealis did state a desire for fighter squadrons that is the paradigm I'm addressing. I would sooner have a class suited for fighters and another suited for beam brawling than a mixed class that excels at neither, and then mix and match those classes to achieve the fleet composition for the mission at hand. Same if we consider ASM vessels as well.

Could a 100,000 ton ship be able to take on multiple roles effectively without much efficiency lost?

I like the idea of having 100,000 ton cruisers as 'pocket capitals' that can operate effectively alone or with a small escort and be able to deal with most threats so I can save my proper capital ships for decisive battles.

Basically I am envisioning a ship with beam weapons, hangar space for proper fighter squadrons (3000 tons at least) and good PD, perhaps even AMMs. Long-range is also a plus.

Think of ships like Halo's Pillar of Autumn which was massive and had all those capabilities.

Is it possible? Yes. Is it ideal? Really not, although the ship you propose is mostly fine aside from maybe the hangar space is excessive.

As a rule, given similar tonnage a specialized ship will be more efficient than a multi-role ship and is preferable to the latter given the logistics to support it, i.e. the logistics to support a fleet of several specialized classes rather than one multi-role class I should say. If you try to build a ship e.g. for both ASM and beam weapon roles it will be inferior at each role to a dedicated missile or beam warship of the same size.

In the example you propose, a beam warship with beam PD and AMMs is probably okay. It will still lose to a dedicated beam warship (which relies on escorts for PD) but since PD and AMMs are both fleet roles you need anyways it will work okay. The main thing is the fighter bay which will require not only the 3000 tons for a hangar but also additional fuel, magazines, MSP for repairs, flight control, etc. to support the fighters... and for a 100 kT warship to deploy only 3000 tons of fighters, I don't see that as being able to make a difference in a fight against a comparable-size enemy fleet. You're probably better off with escorting it with light carriers or something if you really want fighter capability to get a better mass of fighters. IMO the only thing you really should be putting a hangar on a large warship for is a small group of reconnaissance craft, and fighters should have dedicated carriers that can properly support them.

The idea of an "independent" pocket battleship in Aurora really has to be limited to main armament plus adequate PD/AMM defenses to be effective. Even then it's a bit of a red herring as a concept due to the need for jump drives. For "independent" operation ships I would say it's better to build cruiser squadrons with similar capabilities but one cruiser can be dedicated to a jump drive instead of main armament, so the overall force will have a better payload than a single 100 kT supercruiser.