Series 1 Destroyers

[Borealis4x (OP)]

Using the same technology I used in a previous thread to make a frigate, I made a series of Destroyers meant to work together in squads of 5. There would be 1 leader, 1 PD, and 3 regular DDs. What is just as important as their stats is the ability for them all to be made in the same shipyard. Therefor, they are all basically the same design except with different load-outs of weapons/sensors. 

Base Destroyer

Code: [Select]

Belisarius class Destroyer      29,996 tons       768 Crew       5,789.7 BP       TCS 600    TH 1,050    EM 0
5000 km/s      Armour 4-85       Shields 0-0       HTK 167      Sensors 11/11/0/0      DCR 40      PPV 168.32
Maint Life 6.89 Years     MSP 5,545    AFR 180%    IFR 2.5%    1YR 204    5YR 3,054    Max Repair 437.5 MSP
Magazine 474   
Captain    Control Rating 4   BRG   AUX   ENG   CIC   
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months    Morale Check Required   

Rolls-Royce Intergalactic Ion Drive M.HS20 EP500.00 (6)    Power 3000    Fuel Use 200%    Signature 175.00    Explosion 20%
Fuel Capacity 8,000,000 Litres    Range 24 billion km (55 days at full power)

Ares Macrotechnology 25.00cm C4 Ultraviolet Laser (1)    Range 320,000km     TS: 5,000 km/s     Power 16-4     RM 40,000 km    ROF 20       
BEA Systems, Inc Gauss Cannon R300-100 Turret (8x3)    Range 30,000km     TS: 12000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 30,000 km    ROF 5       
Wuxing Incorporated Beam Fire Control R320-TS5000 (70%) (1)     Max Range: 320,000 km   TS: 5,000 km/s     97 94 91 88 84 81 78 75 72 69
Wuxing Incorporated Point Defense Fire Control R40-TS12000 (70%) (2)     Max Range: 40,000 km   TS: 12,000 km/s     75 50 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Saeder-Krupp Heavy Industries Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor R17-PB20 (1)     Total Power Output 17    Exp 10%

Size 6.00 Missile Launcher (60.0% Reduction) (28)     Missile Size: 6    Rate of Fire 95
Renraku Computer Systems Intermediat Missile Fire Control FC104-R80 (70%) (1)     Range 104.5m km    Resolution 80
Gladius Anti-Ship Missile (79)    Speed: 18,733 km/s    End: 139.8m     Range: 157.1m km    WH: 9    Size: 6    TH: 99/59/29

International Electronics Corporation Capital Search Sensor AS104-R80 (70%) (1)     GPS 13440     Range 104.5m km    Resolution 80
International Electronics Corporation Point Search Sensor AS24-R1 (70%) (1)     GPS 168     Range 24.3m km    MCR 2.2m km    Resolution 1
Raytheon Technologies EM Sensor EM1.0-11.0 (1)     Sensitivity 11     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  26.2m km
Raytheon Technologies Thermal Sensor TH1.0-11.0 (1)     Sensitivity 11     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  26.2m 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
Point Defense variant

Code: [Select]

Pyrrhus class Destroyer Escort      29,965 tons       938 Crew       5,803.9 BP       TCS 599    TH 1,050    EM 0
5005 km/s      Armour 4-85       Shields 0-0       HTK 240      Sensors 11/11/0/0      DCR 40      PPV 161.52
Maint Life 7.02 Years     MSP 5,562    AFR 180%    IFR 2.5%    1YR 198    5YR 2,967    Max Repair 437.5 MSP
Magazine 400   
Captain    Control Rating 4   BRG   AUX   ENG   CIC   
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months    Morale Check Required   

Rolls-Royce Intergalactic Ion Drive M.HS20 EP500.00 (6)    Power 3000    Fuel Use 200%    Signature 175.00    Explosion 20%
Fuel Capacity 8,000,000 Litres    Range 24 billion km (55 days at full power)

Ares Macrotechnology 25.00cm C4 Ultraviolet Laser (1)    Range 320,000km     TS: 5,005 km/s     Power 16-4     RM 40,000 km    ROF 20       
BEA Systems, Inc Gauss Cannon R300-100 Turret (8x3)    Range 30,000km     TS: 12000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 30,000 km    ROF 5       
Wuxing Incorporated Beam Fire Control R320-TS5000 (70%) (1)     Max Range: 320,000 km   TS: 5,000 km/s     97 94 91 88 84 81 78 75 72 69
Wuxing Incorporated Point Defense Fire Control R40-TS12000 (70%) (2)     Max Range: 40,000 km   TS: 12,000 km/s     75 50 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Saeder-Krupp Heavy Industries Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor R17-PB20 (1)     Total Power Output 17    Exp 10%

Size 1 Missile Launcher (94)     Missile Size: 1    Rate of Fire 10
Renraku Computer Systems Point Defense Missile Fire Control FC24-R1 (70%) (1)     Range 24.3m km    Resolution 1
Foil Anti-Missile Missile (400)    Speed: 37,600 km/s    End: 0.9m     Range: 2.1m km    WH: 1    Size: 1    TH: 263/157/78

International Electronics Corporation Capital Search Sensor AS104-R80 (70%) (1)     GPS 13440     Range 104.5m km    Resolution 80
International Electronics Corporation Point Search Sensor AS24-R1 (70%) (1)     GPS 168     Range 24.3m km    MCR 2.2m km    Resolution 1
Raytheon Technologies EM Sensor EM1.0-11.0 (1)     Sensitivity 11     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  26.2m km
Raytheon Technologies Thermal Sensor TH1.0-11.0 (1)     Sensitivity 11     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  26.2m 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
Destroyer Leader variant

Code: [Select]

Nelson class Destroyer Leader (P)      29,981 tons       860 Crew       7,765.6 BP       TCS 600    TH 1,050    EM 0
5003 km/s      Armour 4-85       Shields 0-0       HTK 146      Sensors 280/280/0/0      DCR 38      PPV 89.12
Maint Life 4.48 Years     MSP 6,952    AFR 187%    IFR 2.6%    1YR 561    5YR 8,410    Max Repair 1890.0 MSP
Magazine 138   
Captain    Control Rating 5   BRG   AUX   ENG   CIC   FLG   
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months    Morale Check Required   

Rolls-Royce Intergalactic Ion Drive M.HS20 EP500.00 (6)    Power 3000    Fuel Use 200%    Signature 175.00    Explosion 20%
Fuel Capacity 8,000,000 Litres    Range 24 billion km (55 days at full power)

Ares Macrotechnology 25.00cm C4 Ultraviolet Laser (1)    Range 320,000km     TS: 5,003 km/s     Power 16-4     RM 40,000 km    ROF 20       
BEA Systems, Inc Gauss Cannon R300-100 Turret (8x3)    Range 30,000km     TS: 12000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 30,000 km    ROF 5       
Wuxing Incorporated Beam Fire Control R320-TS5000 (70%) (1)     Max Range: 320,000 km   TS: 5,000 km/s     97 94 91 88 84 81 78 75 72 69
Wuxing Incorporated Point Defense Fire Control R40-TS12000 (70%) (2)     Max Range: 40,000 km   TS: 12,000 km/s     75 50 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Saeder-Krupp Heavy Industries Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor R17-PB20 (1)     Total Power Output 17    Exp 10%

Size 6.00 Missile Launcher (60.0% Reduction) (6)     Missile Size: 6    Rate of Fire 95
Renraku Computer Systems Intermediat Missile Fire Control FC104-R80 (70%) (1)     Range 104.5m km    Resolution 80
Gladius Anti-Ship Missile (23)    Speed: 18,733 km/s    End: 139.8m     Range: 157.1m km    WH: 9    Size: 6    TH: 99/59/29

International Electronics Corporation Point Search Sensor AS24-R1 (70%) (1)     GPS 168     Range 24.3m km    MCR 2.2m km    Resolution 1
Active Search Sensor AS340-R80 (30%) (1)     GPS 112000     Range 340.3m km    Resolution 80
Raytheon Technologies EM Sensor EM1.0-11.0 (1)     Sensitivity 11     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  26.2m km
Raytheon Technologies Thermal Sensor TH1.0-11.0 (1)     Sensitivity 11     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  26.2m km
EM Sensor EM20-280 (30%) (1)     Sensitivity 280     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  132.3m km
Thermal Sensor TH20-280 (30%) (1)     Sensitivity 280     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  132.3m 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

[Ulzgoroth]

I realize it's a negligible amount of gear, but did you intend to keep the tiny Raytheon Technologies passive sensors on the Destroyer Leader alongside the super-sized models?

[Borealis4x (OP)]

I realize it's a negligible amount of gear, but did you intend to keep the tiny Raytheon Technologies passive sensors on the Destroyer Leader alongside the super-sized models?

No I did not...

Thanks for catching that!

[Jorgen_CAB]

In general I see no direct wrong with these ships but there are a few design choices that I would have done differently.

1. The maintenance life is really high for a ship that only have a deployment rate of 6 months. You could have some very good reasons for this so I just point that out. In my experience it is enough with a maintenance life that is roughly about 2-3 times a ships deployment rate for most capital ships.

2. There is really not much reason why you would not put the AMM and ASM capabilities in the same ship at this size... this give you way more flexibility in if you want to have a balanced load of missiles, defensive or offensive and you can decide that with the amount of AMM versus ASM you carry. Now you will lock yourself into how many ships you have from each class available. If you have both then these parameters can be switched with just having a collier present.

3.  You only have ONE anti-missile fire control for 94 AMM launchers, this is not very good from a game play perspective. If you are attacked by say a fighter group that fire 50 salvos each of 4 missiles then your AMM ship can only launch AMM against one of those four missile salvos in every 10 seconds and will overwhelm your missile defences that way. You generally want about 1 MFC for each 5 AMM launchers that you have. Having 94 launchers is rather excessive as you can usually fire fast enough anyway... you are probably better of building a more powerful anti-missile sensor to detect the missiles earlier instead or use picket scouts to do so.

4.  I also hope you have a really good fuel industry if you plan to operate these ships very often or mainly used as long range strike crafts...   
You probably could build the ships with slightly bigger engines and reduce the amount of fuel needed and still retain the speed of the ships. I have not made the math here but I'm pretty certain you could.

[Borealis4x (OP)]

In general I see no direct wrong with these ships but there are a few design choices that I would have done differently.

1. The maintenance life is really high for a ship that only have a deployment rate of 6 months. You could have some very good reasons for this so I just point that out. In my experience it is enough with a maintenance life that is roughly about 2-3 times a ships deployment rate for most capital ships.

2. There is really not much reason why you would not put the AMM and ASM capabilities in the same ship at this size... this give you way more flexibility in if you want to have a balanced load of missiles, defensive or offensive and you can decide that with the amount of AMM versus ASM you carry. Now you will lock yourself into how many ships you have from each class available. If you have both then these parameters can be switched with just having a collier present.

3.  You only have ONE anti-missile fire control for 94 AMM launchers, this is not very good from a game play perspective. If you are attacked by say a fighter group that fire 50 salvos each of 4 missiles then your AMM ship can only launch AMM against one of those four missile salvos in every 10 seconds and will overwhelm your missile defences that way. You generally want about 1 MFC for each 5 AMM launchers that you have. Having 94 launchers is rather excessive as you can usually fire fast enough anyway... you are probably better of building a more powerful anti-missile sensor to detect the missiles earlier instead or use picket scouts to do so.

My original design had the AMMs and ASMs combined into one ship, thing it was 20 ASMs and 40 AMMs. But people always say you should specialize your ships so I figured making a dedicated AMM ship that can use the same shipyard would be better.

[Jorgen_CAB]

[My original design had the AMMs and ASMs combined into one ship, thing it was 20 ASMs and 40 AMMs. But people always say you should specialize your ships so I figured making a dedicated AMM ship that can use the same shipyard would be better.

No... that is just pure wrong... it may look as if you save a TINY fraction of efficiency that way but in the end you don't even do that when you look at upgrade and retooling costs as well. If you have many less costly system in a ship it is less costly to upgrade as you usually do that in stages and retooling is way less costly with only one class instead of two. When the ship is this size there are very little reason to specialise as you do with smaller ships.

Then there is the more dynamic practical use of the ships that is worth EVEN more. People are always looking at these things from a theoretical perspective and not practical one. The same goes for weapons system and components in general. If you can distribute the use of minerals more evenly you also make better use of your mining industry, in fact you can practically double your mining efficiency by thinking about how the different minerals are used across your entire empire and avoid the worst mineral shortages early.

How can you NOT appreciate the fact that you can have a 2/3 load of AMM versus ASM for patrol and maybe 1/3 for strike missions using the SAME ships... you can even decide this in the field if you bring a collier with you. If you are scouting an enemy system and don't know what you face you are likely to want to use more defensive systems rather than offensive as it is better to be able to retreat back home and come back in stronger numbers than having your ships overwhelmed by an enemy missile attack... but on the other hand the same ships can just reload their missile storage for a strong ASM attack if they find a lighter opposition than expected.

For beam defences then none specialisation is VERY efficient if you mainly use beam weapons in self defence or for taking and holding points in space. If you spread your beam weapons among ALL ships the enemy can't just focus fire a few ships to make your whole fleet inert in a beam combat. It is way better to have 8 lasers on 8 ships than 5 lasers each on two ships any day of the week even of you have less lasers overall than the opponent. It does not mean that it sometimes make sense that you do have specialised beam ships because it does that too... but not for an entire fleet it usually does not.

The same thing also goes for missile ships... en enemy can't just focus on destroying your pure AMM ships so following salvos of missiles become that more effective, the same is true about knocking out your offensive capacity too. Two roughly equal sides then the more distributed will most often win as one can concentrate on the others specialised part and render that part ineffective. There can be a very few instances where that very small efficiency can be a deciding factor but that is so small that it might as well not be considered at all in most circumstances.

It is surely useful to specialise smaller ships as you can only fit so many weapon system on them before fire-controls simply become too much of a cost burden.

[Ulzgoroth]

[My original design had the AMMs and ASMs combined into one ship, thing it was 20 ASMs and 40 AMMs. But people always say you should specialize your ships so I figured making a dedicated AMM ship that can use the same shipyard would be better.

No... that is just pure wrong... it may look as if you save a TINY fraction of efficiency that way but in the end you don't even do that when you look at upgrade and retooling costs as well. If you have many less costly system in a ship it is less costly to upgrade as you usually do that in stages and retooling is way less costly with only one class instead of two. When the ship is this size there are very little reason to specialise as you do with smaller ships.

I can't guarantee it would work, but BasileusMaximos clearly stated that the designs were arranged so that they'd all be able to come out of the same yard. I assumed that meant without retooling, which is possible if they're similar enough...

[Jorgen_CAB]

[My original design had the AMMs and ASMs combined into one ship, thing it was 20 ASMs and 40 AMMs. But people always say you should specialize your ships so I figured making a dedicated AMM ship that can use the same shipyard would be better.

No... that is just pure wrong... it may look as if you save a TINY fraction of efficiency that way but in the end you don't even do that when you look at upgrade and retooling costs as well. If you have many less costly system in a ship it is less costly to upgrade as you usually do that in stages and retooling is way less costly with only one class instead of two. When the ship is this size there are very little reason to specialise as you do with smaller ships.

I can't guarantee it would work, but BasileusMaximos clearly stated that the designs were arranged so that they'd all be able to come out of the same yard. I assumed that meant without retooling, which is possible if they're similar enough...

Yes... that is a possibility to save some on the retooling cost... but ships of this size will not really save anything in efficiency anyway. You still have to decide how many you want to build of each class and it is much more difficult to experiment with load out based on the missions... it also make you more susceptible to losses where it hurt the most etc...

[Ulzgoroth]

[My original design had the AMMs and ASMs combined into one ship, thing it was 20 ASMs and 40 AMMs. But people always say you should specialize your ships so I figured making a dedicated AMM ship that can use the same shipyard would be better.

No... that is just pure wrong... it may look as if you save a TINY fraction of efficiency that way but in the end you don't even do that when you look at upgrade and retooling costs as well. If you have many less costly system in a ship it is less costly to upgrade as you usually do that in stages and retooling is way less costly with only one class instead of two. When the ship is this size there are very little reason to specialise as you do with smaller ships.

I can't guarantee it would work, but BasileusMaximos clearly stated that the designs were arranged so that they'd all be able to come out of the same yard. I assumed that meant without retooling, which is possible if they're similar enough...

Yes... that is a possibility to save some on the retooling cost... but ships of this size will not really save anything in efficiency anyway. You still have to decide how many you want to build of each class and it is much more difficult to experiment with load out based on the missions... it also make you more susceptible to losses where it hurt the most etc...

Notice how the destroyer leader version has to pull out 3/4ths of the missile battery to fit in the monster sensor suite. Not sure how you intend to avoid specialization there without giving up those capabilities.

I don't know how big the missile fire controls are, which is the 'efficiency' factor on splitting the AMM and ASM hulls. Probably not huge though.

If you've got a large enough fleet you could vary your loadout with specialist craft by switching which ships are sent out and which stay at base. Whereas with non-specialist craft you have no way to alter the balance of missile launchers, only the balance of ammunition carried. I have trouble imagining having a surplus of ships this size though.

[Borealis4x (OP)]

[My original design had the AMMs and ASMs combined into one ship, thing it was 20 ASMs and 40 AMMs. But people always say you should specialize your ships so I figured making a dedicated AMM ship that can use the same shipyard would be better.

No... that is just pure wrong... it may look as if you save a TINY fraction of efficiency that way but in the end you don't even do that when you look at upgrade and retooling costs as well. If you have many less costly system in a ship it is less costly to upgrade as you usually do that in stages and retooling is way less costly with only one class instead of two. When the ship is this size there are very little reason to specialise as you do with smaller ships.

I can't guarantee it would work, but BasileusMaximos clearly stated that the designs were arranged so that they'd all be able to come out of the same yard. I assumed that meant without retooling, which is possible if they're similar enough...

Yes... that is a possibility to save some on the retooling cost... but ships of this size will not really save anything in efficiency anyway. You still have to decide how many you want to build of each class and it is much more difficult to experiment with load out based on the missions... it also make you more susceptible to losses where it hurt the most etc...

Notice how the destroyer leader version has to pull out 3/4ths of the missile battery to fit in the monster sensor suite. Not sure how you intend to avoid specialization there without giving up those capabilities.

I don't know how big the missile fire controls are, which is the 'efficiency' factor on splitting the AMM and ASM hulls. Probably not huge though.

If you've got a large enough fleet you could vary your loadout with specialist craft by switching which ships are sent out and which stay at base. Whereas with non-specialist craft you have no way to alter the balance of missile launchers, only the balance of ammunition carried. I have trouble imagining having a surplus of ships this size though.

The Active Sensor is probably far too big, even for a squadron leader. Ideally, DDs would be part of a larger fleet with a flagship that is big enough to afford the biggest sensors without as much impact on its abilities.

[Jorgen_CAB]

[My original design had the AMMs and ASMs combined into one ship, thing it was 20 ASMs and 40 AMMs. But people always say you should specialize your ships so I figured making a dedicated AMM ship that can use the same shipyard would be better.

No... that is just pure wrong... it may look as if you save a TINY fraction of efficiency that way but in the end you don't even do that when you look at upgrade and retooling costs as well. If you have many less costly system in a ship it is less costly to upgrade as you usually do that in stages and retooling is way less costly with only one class instead of two. When the ship is this size there are very little reason to specialise as you do with smaller ships.

I can't guarantee it would work, but BasileusMaximos clearly stated that the designs were arranged so that they'd all be able to come out of the same yard. I assumed that meant without retooling, which is possible if they're similar enough...

Yes... that is a possibility to save some on the retooling cost... but ships of this size will not really save anything in efficiency anyway. You still have to decide how many you want to build of each class and it is much more difficult to experiment with load out based on the missions... it also make you more susceptible to losses where it hurt the most etc...

Notice how the destroyer leader version has to pull out 3/4ths of the missile battery to fit in the monster sensor suite. Not sure how you intend to avoid specialization there without giving up those capabilities.

I don't know how big the missile fire controls are, which is the 'efficiency' factor on splitting the AMM and ASM hulls. Probably not huge though.

If you've got a large enough fleet you could vary your loadout with specialist craft by switching which ships are sent out and which stay at base. Whereas with non-specialist craft you have no way to alter the balance of missile launchers, only the balance of ammunition carried. I have trouble imagining having a surplus of ships this size though.

The sensor are easily replaced with small sensor scouts if each ship have say a 1000t hangar for example... it can even be smaller... but at this size it should be at least 1000t for a host of different sensor scouts in a combined fleet... or just some dedicated smaller much cheaper scout ships. A few much smaller scout frigates would probably do a much better job and be far stealthier as well if you don't want to use fighter scouts and find that is to much micro management (I wish Steve would add the escort mechanic back soon to fix this).

In C# it is far cheaper and even fun in my opinion to run small sensor scouts to do the heavy lifting in that area.

These are just my opinion and not fact.. but I'm very convinced you are far better of with very little specialisation with ships at this size. I don't say it is the only way to go. But when people say it is better to use specialisation I would say that it depends and in some situation it certainly is not... I would say that specialisation start to clinging off at around 10.000t when it starts to pay off to make ships less and less specialised.

Regarding MFC you probably would like to have at least some backup as well in any case... for the anti-missile FC you would need at least one per 5-10 launcher, roughly speaking.

[Borealis4x (OP)]

Might my ship-sizes be too big?

I like to make every class 3 times as big as the previous class.

So a frigate is 10,000 tons, a destroyers 30,000, a cruiser 90,000 and a battleship/carrier 210,000 or just an even 200,000. I also plan to make three types of mil engines, one for fighters, one for escorts (frigates and DDs) and one for capital ships (cruisers and battleships/carriers)

I don't think anyone else makes mil ships this size.

It is surely useful to specialise smaller ships as you can only fit so many weapon system on them before fire-controls simply become too much of a cost burden.

I'm glad to hear that generalizing is a good option. I also think its more efficient for a logistics standpoint to have ships capable of doing things on their own.

[Ulzgoroth]

I'm pretty sure I've never built a cruiser that was more than 10000 tons, but I run small and also early-game. 30kt destroyers do sound off the wall to me, but it doesn't matter that much what you call them.

[Borealis4x (OP)]

I'm pretty sure I've never built a cruiser that was more than 10000 tons, but I run small and also early-game. 30kt destroyers do sound off the wall to me, but it doesn't matter that much what you call them.

Yeah, it might be a bit much. Especially if I want DDs to be the fleet 'workhorses'.

Perhaps teir things down to have 3000-6000 ton frigates that fullfill just 1 roll (Single Spinal beam, a couple rocket launchers, or a handful of AMM) and then 10000 - 20000 DDs that can defend themselves while packing a punch.

[Zincat]

I'll be honest, this is the thing that has always bothered me the most of Aurora. EVER. Ships are tiny!
We are in space damnit. I want at LEAST sizes comparable to Star Wars ships

I'm not exactly sure if this is the case, but since tons were linearly linked to hull size in vb aurora, I would assume that a "ton" is basically a ton of displacement, as seen in modern wet navies. So, more or less one cubic meter.

Assuming for simplicity's sake a parallelepiped with proportions of 5 length, 2 width and 1 height, a 10000 tons ship is
50mx20mx10m. That's... barely a corvette. Barely.

IIrc, from all the models I remember, a star wars cruiser is at least 500m long. With those proportions, 500x200x100m = 10millions. So a cruiser in Aurora should be at LEAST 10 millions tons.

Battleships eh, let's assume 800m long... 800x320x160= 40.96 million tons at a very bare minimum.

Sooooo frustrating XD Are we flying around in banged up trashcans?

I roleplay things in my mind to be at least 10x times as big as the game tells me they are XD
And let's not go into warhammer 40k, where battleships are at least approximately 7km long (other sources say 9km), and about 3 km tall and 2 km wide.....