Roles for 3000-ton Frigates?

[brondi00]

I often build 3000t ships and call them planetary defense or local defense ships.  They are basically large fighters.  Range is limited and they are armed with one main weapon and one back up weapon that is mainly for PD. 

The main weapon is usually a railgun or laser, biggest I can fit in the size requirement, and the backup is rail, laser, or gauss depending on tech and how much missile fire I expect to combat. 

I often use the hull designation of corvette.  I can build dozens of them and scatter them about the empire for a quick defense.  They will make the enemy pay but they can't fend off a large organized attack.

[Jorgen_CAB]

I typical build 3K PD Escorts either equipped with AMM or Gauss Turrets.
in my current game i have about 40 of each. and attached to a combat group, Troop Landing Groups, Salvage Groups, any group likely to see missile attack, or orbiting the farthest stations of my empire.

in nearly every campaign i make sure it's an attritable design, they don't have jump drives and the lost of one doesn't instantly remove active defense capabilities of the battle group.

now, for actually combat frigates i typical stay in 4K range and recce or SPECWAR corvettes are usually in the 2K range.

Having small PD capable ships can be quite effective, especially against the AI that rarely use low resolution active or missile controls to effectively engage them.

[Jorgen_CAB]

I often build 3000t ships and call them planetary defense or local defense ships.  They are basically large fighters.  Range is limited and they are armed with one main weapon and one back up weapon that is mainly for PD. 

The main weapon is usually a railgun or laser, biggest I can fit in the size requirement, and the backup is rail, laser, or gauss depending on tech and how much missile fire I expect to combat. 

I often use the hull designation of corvette.  I can build dozens of them and scatter them about the empire for a quick defense.  They will make the enemy pay but they can't fend off a large organized attack.

I usually deploy patrol ships with Railguns as they are a perfect mix of PD and beam defence at the same time... usually they get as many 12-15cm Railguns as I can use. They are scattered around colonies and patrol systems and generally have a range of about 8-10b km and 3 month of deployment. I also distribute smaller FAC who act as missile attack boats to places of special interest.

[brondi00]

I often build 3000t ships and call them planetary defense or local defense ships.  They are basically large fighters.  Range is limited and they are armed with one main weapon and one back up weapon that is mainly for PD. 

The main weapon is usually a railgun or laser, biggest I can fit in the size requirement, and the backup is rail, laser, or gauss depending on tech and how much missile fire I expect to combat. 

I often use the hull designation of corvette.  I can build dozens of them and scatter them about the empire for a quick defense.  They will make the enemy pay but they can't fend off a large organized attack.

I usually deploy patrol ships with Railguns as they are a perfect mix of PD and beam defence at the same time... usually they get as many 12-15cm Railguns as I can use. They are scattered around colonies and patrol systems and generally have a range of about 8-10b km and 3 month of deployment. I also distribute smaller FAC who act as missile attack boats to places of special interest.

This is pretty much exactly what I do.  5-10bkm range.  Fast.  Many small weapons, sometimes one or two large weapons.  Sometimes lots o box launchers (but I tend to stay way from this since it's so OP).  Like a costal defense corvette for local security and quick reaction. 

[xenoscepter]

I often build 3000t ships and call them planetary defense or local defense ships.  They are basically large fighters.  Range is limited and they are armed with one main weapon and one back up weapon that is mainly for PD. 

The main weapon is usually a railgun or laser, biggest I can fit in the size requirement, and the backup is rail, laser, or gauss depending on tech and how much missile fire I expect to combat. 

I often use the hull designation of corvette.  I can build dozens of them and scatter them about the empire for a quick defense.  They will make the enemy pay but they can't fend off a large organized attack.

I usually deploy patrol ships with Railguns as they are a perfect mix of PD and beam defence at the same time... usually they get as many 12-15cm Railguns as I can use. They are scattered around colonies and patrol systems and generally have a range of about 8-10b km and 3 month of deployment. I also distribute smaller FAC who act as missile attack boats to places of special interest.

 - I typically aim for about a 20~ billion kilometer deployment, but this is pretty much my strategy with corvettes as well.

[Borealis4x (OP)]

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.

[Jorgen_CAB]

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.

As long as you don't intend to provide the ship with it's own jump drive (unless you have really high tech) it will be difficult. Otherwise really large ships are much more potent that what ten equal tonnage ship would be. The thing is having all the research necessary to build it and support it properly.

You would need extra hangar for scouting crafts in addition to attacking crafts. The fact the ship is so huge will mean it have a pretty large thermal radiation unless you have an even more expensive engine with high thermal reduction. This means it will usually have to compromise some striking capabilities. A pure carrier at 100kt would be more like a glass cannon with a high striking capability but such a ship usually don't operate on their own as that would leave them vulnerable to any type of attack.

[nuclearslurpee]

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.

[Jorgen_CAB]

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.

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.

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.

Ships being more multi-role or specialised both have their merits... I would say a combination of both in any fleet is the most efficient overall.

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.

[nuclearslurpee]

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.

[Borealis4x (OP)]

I have struggled with the idea of putting a spinal-mounted laser on all combat ships above 10,000 tons regardless of role. While I'd obviously try to keep my ships out of beam weapon range, if it does happen I'd like as many ships as possible to contribute to beam fire as possible. Just like how all ships can contribute to close-range PD since that all have some gauss turrets. Gonna try to keep the laser, FC, and power plant from weighing more than a combined 500 tons, which should be possible with the new dedicated fire controls introduced in 1.13.

[Jorgen_CAB]

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.

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.

[Jorgen_CAB]

I have struggled with the idea of putting a spinal-mounted laser on all combat ships above 10,000 tons regardless of role. While I'd obviously try to keep my ships out of beam weapon range, if it does happen I'd like as many ships as possible to contribute to beam fire as possible. Just like how all ships can contribute to close-range PD since that all have some gauss turrets. Gonna try to keep the laser, FC, and power plant from weighing more than a combined 500 tons, which should be possible with the new dedicated fire controls introduced in 1.13.

This is a strategical doctrine that actually work... it can actually deter beam oriented ships from closing in on a fleet. There are no single ship in the fleet that can be ignored. It will work even better in 1.13 where you can have a smaller cheaper fire-control for one large weapon.

There is nothing wrong with having some specialised ships as well, but in my opinion if all your ships are super specialised you are putting all your eggs in one basket and that is often not the best solution.

[liveware]

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.

[Borealis4x (OP)]

I hear a lot of people say that you should put jump-drives on your ships. Why?

Can't you just use a jump-tender? Seems like a waste of space in all but the biggest ships, and even then its probably better to just use a tender.