Two Battleship Designs

[Andrew (OP)]

Two very similar battleship designs, I am curious as to which people prefer (feel free also to point out the hideous design flaws they have)

Code: [Select]

Victory class Battleship    21950 tons     2157 Crew     5119.4 BP      TCS 439  TH 1000  EM 1260
4555 km/s     Armour 10-69     Shields 42-300     Sensors 1/42/0/0     Damage Control Rating 20     PPV 131
Annual Failure Rate: 192%    IFR: 2.7%    Maint Capacity 2915 MSP    Max Repair 168 MSP    Est Time: 3.75 Years
Flag Bridge    Magazine 1175    

Internal Confinement Fusion Drive E6 (20)    Power 100    Fuel Use 60%    Signature 50    Armour 0    Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 750,000 Litres    Range 102.5 billion km   (260 days at full power)
Epsilon R300/18 Shields (14)   Total Fuel Cost  252 Litres per day

Single Gauss Cannon R3-100 Turret (4x4)    Range 30,000km     TS: 20000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 3    ROF 5        1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fire Control S04 32-16000 (1)    Max Range: 64,000 km   TS: 16000 km/s     84 69 53 37 22 6 0 0 0 0

Size 4 Missile Launcher (20)    Missile Size 4    Rate of Fire 25
Size 1 Missile Launcher (15)    Missile Size 1    Rate of Fire 10
Missile Fire Control FC235-R100 (1)     Range 235.2m km    Resolution 100
Missile Fire Control FC2-R1 (5)     Range 2.4m km    Resolution 1
Buckler 1 (375)  Speed: 56,500 km/s   End: 0.9m    Range: 3m km   WH: 1    Size: 1    TH: 640 / 384 / 192
Rapier 1 (200)  Speed: 40,000 km/s   End: 31.2m    Range: 75m km   WH: 8    Size: 4    TH: 200 / 120 / 60

Active Search Sensor MR235-R100 (1)     GPS 16800     Range 235.2m km    Resolution 100
Active Search Sensor MR2-R1 (1)     GPS 168     Range 2.4m km    Resolution 1
EM Detection Sensor EM3-42 (1)     Sensitivity 42     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  42m km

Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s

This design is classed as a military vessel for maintenance purposes


Code: [Select]

Victory S class Battleship    22000 tons     1279 Crew     4717.4 BP      TCS 440  TH 1000  EM 1260
4545 km/s     Armour 10-69     Shields 42-300     Sensors 1/42/0/0     Damage Control Rating 20     PPV 175.2
Annual Failure Rate: 193%    IFR: 2.7%    Maint Capacity 2680 MSP    Max Repair 168 MSP    Est Time: 3.56 Years
Flag Bridge    Magazine 1203    

Internal Confinement Fusion Drive E6 (20)    Power 100    Fuel Use 60%    Signature 50    Armour 0    Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 750,000 Litres    Range 102.3 billion km   (260 days at full power)
Epsilon R300/18 Shields (14)   Total Fuel Cost  252 Litres per day

Single Gauss Cannon R3-100 Turret (4x4)    Range 30,000km     TS: 20000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 3    ROF 5        1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fire Control S04 32-16000 (1)    Max Range: 64,000 km   TS: 16000 km/s     84 69 53 37 22 6 0 0 0 0

Size 4 Box Launcher (207)    Missile Size 4    Hangar Reload 30 minutes    MF Reload 5 hours
Size 1 Missile Launcher (15)    Missile Size 1    Rate of Fire 10
Missile Fire Control FC235-R100 (1)     Range 235.2m km    Resolution 100
Missile Fire Control FC2-R1 (5)     Range 2.4m km    Resolution 1
Buckler 1 (375)  Speed: 56,500 km/s   End: 0.9m    Range: 3m km   WH: 1    Size: 1    TH: 640 / 384 / 192
Rapier 1 (207)  Speed: 40,000 km/s   End: 31.2m    Range: 75m km   WH: 8    Size: 4    TH: 200 / 120 / 60

Active Search Sensor MR235-R100 (1)     GPS 16800     Range 235.2m km    Resolution 100
Active Search Sensor MR2-R1 (1)     GPS 168     Range 2.4m km    Resolution 1
EM Detection Sensor EM3-42 (1)     Sensitivity 42     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  42m km

Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s

This design is classed as a military vessel for maintenance purposes
I know that the speed on the FC for the Gauss cannon is very low, but I have very poor sensor research, and a lot of my tec was aquired from ruins so it is patchy in places

[jocan2003]

Well unless you got a ship with hanguar big enough or meant to be on a planet to defend the second one as its a good unloak smeg and come back design, the first one with a nice collier ship will be very usefull, but the second one, once it send its missiles well its basicly a hull in space nothing more.

Dont know for you but myself ive been unlucky all ennemy i found were MUCH faster than me good thing i have a good motto strengh in number, i ALWAYS outnumber them to at LEAST 2-1 so as i cant flee i can at least stand my ground and use system to my advantage ( LP and JP )

Sir MASSIVE missile salvo incoming we CANT survive it, just to many too fast,
Engage engine we use the LP

Once on the other side wait about 1 minute and come back.

Im only starting to catch-up on tech with all the wreck i found and ship i boarded ( God i love boarding you reopair using damage control if you can and what you cant once at base simply repair it and then scrap, whole lot of new component to make scitist happy )

[welchbloke]

I prefer the Victory over the Victory-S; although the throw weight of the Victory-S is massive the reload issues are significant.  If you can afford to keep them idle then a few Victory-S for fortress breaking would be handy. Also, both designs only have one long range MFC, so you can only target one ship at a time.  I see that as an issue particularly for the Victory-S with its 207 box launchers.  My £0.02.

[Charlie Beeler]

I also would prefer the Victory over the Victory-S.  For basicly the same reasons.

Why 4 single turrets instead of a quad?  Battle damage isolation?

I'd cut the AMM fire controls back the 3 v 5 for counter salvos of 5.

Add an additional offensive fire control for tactical flexability.

Magazine capacity is a bit light for my taste.  

If these are intended for independent operations they are not a bad compromise.  Add an active sensor with resolution 20 to detect gunboats 10 to 20 mkm away.

If part of an integrated fleet, either drop the AMM suite altogether or just 5 launchers and a single FC.  Increase magazine capacity to at least 30 salvos for offensive missiles and 90 for AMM if retained.  If ECM is available add it.

[Brian Neumann]

I to prefer the Victory over the Victory-S for the stated reasons.  

Another option for the -S version if you want to keep them around is instead of box launchers put in the smallest/slowest firing launchers and remove the size one missiles completely.  this would give you about the same offensive punch as your current design and let you reload in the field.  You will not be able to reload during combat as your reload time will be huge (2400seconds).  You will however be capable of reloading without going back to a planet.  If there is any space left after the redesign put in at least 1 if not two more fire controls.  This gives some redundancy and lets you target more than one ship at once.  I would actually prefer to have 5 fire controls for a salvo this size.  If you are pressed for space make a couple of them a smaller size and either shorten the range, or up the resolution to compensate.  Also you might consider having one fire control capable of targeting gunboats (20hs resolution) out to at least 30m km so they can not get into their own range without being fired on.  This is even if you do not put a sensor capable of detecting ships that small.  The extra fire control is backup for battle damage, and if you run into a higher tech enemy with some cloaking you have a chance of engaging them.

One other thing I would do is to redesign the rapier missiles to give it a warhead of 9.  A 8 point warhead only damages the first two levels of armour,  going up to 9 points lets you get 1 point of damage in on the third level.  While this does not sound like much it will help to penetrate the armour of your targets much faster.  

Regards
Brian

[Andrew (OP)]

The Victory S is the model I have gone with.
What I notice is that it has the same magazine capacity as the Victory. This means I can use it to fire salvo's of any size up to its maximum. The problem I encounter is that the salvo of 20 from the Victory can be swatted down by enemy point defense rendering the entire missile armement useless, with the Victory S if antimissile Fire looks heavy I can fire Bigger salvos up to the entire magazine capacity. I should have included a second missile FC , but as is it can fire salvo's at 5 second intervals at different targets which is a lot better than the basic Victory model. So far I have not needed the full salvo in this game.
Reloading is an issue but I tend to return to a fleet base between battles so it has not caused a problem yet.

The Rapier missile has a size 1 Warhead with *8 warhead tech , I had forgotten how much better a 9 pt warhead is, the Rapier 2 built with improved warheads has a 10pt warhead.
The Single Gauss Turrets are becasue I use the same weapon on smaller ships and having only 1 turret design is easier , AFAIK it is just as efficient.
The carry AMM's because I tend to put AMM's on all large ships so that a fleet has heavy AMM capacity , and I can use the large ships in small groups if I have too. The main battle fleet this ship is usually used in has 6 Victory S, 3 Jump capable Victories with less missiles, 3 Agincourts with missiles repalced by Railguns and 2 Ark Royal carriers with Gunboats onboard. Each of these ships has 15 AMM Launchers and some Gauss Turrets. This is a style thing I think it would probably be more efficient to build specialist designs , I do with smaller ships.
In most games I would have more magazine capacity at the expense of speed probably as these ships are faster than my normal designs but still too slow to outrun an equal tech NPR.

They do not have an antigunboat sensor which is a weakness but it is one I am aware of.

[Kurt]

The Victory S is the model I have gone with.
What I notice is that it has the same magazine capacity as the Victory. This means I can use it to fire salvo's of any size up to its maximum. The problem I encounter is that the salvo of 20 from the Victory can be swatted down by enemy point defense rendering the entire missile armement useless, with the Victory S if antimissile Fire looks heavy I can fire Bigger salvos up to the entire magazine capacity. I should have included a second missile FC , but as is it can fire salvo's at 5 second intervals at different targets which is a lot better than the basic Victory model. So far I have not needed the full salvo in this game.
Reloading is an issue but I tend to return to a fleet base between battles so it has not caused a problem yet.

The Rapier missile has a size 1 Warhead with *8 warhead tech , I had forgotten how much better a 9 pt warhead is, the Rapier 2 built with improved warheads has a 10pt warhead.
The Single Gauss Turrets are becasue I use the same weapon on smaller ships and having only 1 turret design is easier , AFAIK it is just as efficient.
The carry AMM's because I tend to put AMM's on all large ships so that a fleet has heavy AMM capacity , and I can use the large ships in small groups if I have too. The main battle fleet this ship is usually used in has 6 Victory S, 3 Jump capable Victories with less missiles, 3 Agincourts with missiles repalced by Railguns and 2 Ark Royal carriers with Gunboats onboard. Each of these ships has 15 AMM Launchers and some Gauss Turrets. This is a style thing I think it would probably be more efficient to build specialist designs , I do with smaller ships.
In most games I would have more magazine capacity at the expense of speed probably as these ships are faster than my normal designs but still too slow to outrun an equal tech NPR.

They do not have an antigunboat sensor which is a weakness but it is one I am aware of.

I have used both designs with normal missile launchers and box launchers.  Both have advantages.  One of the less-than-obvious disadvantages to box launchers is the difficulty I have had in judging the initial salvo size.  Since you can launch anything up to your maximum load, you have to judge how many you are going to launch against the enemy, and it may be an enemy you haven't encountered before, so you have no way to know how many missiles it will take to kill them.  If you don't launch enough, their point defenses will protect them and you wasted the missiles.  If you launch too many than you overkilled and wasted the excess.  This becomes critically important in some cases because the BB must return to base to reload.  

Kurt

[Andrew (OP)]

I carried out a combat test between two fleets each consisting of 6 Victroy Missile BB, 3 Resolution Jump BB and 3 Agincourt Beam BB. With one fleet Red using the Magazine fed launchers and Blue fleet using the salvo launchers
.
Blue fleet shot down all incoming missiles , a small number where shot down by the beam BB's rail guns , or the fleet Gauss cannon.
Red fleet was attacked twice with different salvo's (magically repairing between each attack). In the first attack the Blue ships targetted each red ship with a 75 missile salvo in 2 waves this resulted in 2 Victories and 1 Agincourt crippeld with minoe damage to 2 other ships.
The second attack was with salvo's of 104 and then 104 in 2 waves 5 seconds apart. This resulted in 4 Victroy class ships destroyed, 2 Agincourt crippled , another Victroy with minor internal damage and armour damage to a resolution and a the last victory.

To me this indicated that in the presence of reasonable antimissile defenses the magazine fed launchers are pointless as they won't score any hits , while the Box launchers may be difficult to relaod but at least they give a signifignat punch once

[Elouda]

This is more or less what I've concluded as well.

One thing I have considered however is compromising and using the next stage up from box launchers (the 25% size ones, vs the 15% of box launchers) to allow for a reload capability between battles. Of course, this reduces salvo size somewhat to 60% of a purely box launcher based approach.

Might be worthwhile mixing the two types, with the 25% launches being the main weapons used for all fights, and the box launchers to add throw weight for larger battles.

[Andrew (OP)]

In the past I have built ships with a main battery of normal launchers and a supplemental group of Box launchers but that effectively means that they only have 1 useful salvo and then are firing small and pointless salvo's.

[Charlie Beeler]

This is way I prefer carriers for my main long range punch.  The strikegroup that I can put aboard one can easily swamp the defenses of an equal displacement warship.  It does lead to a higher level of micro-management tacticly and a lot more attention of logistics stategicly.