Author Topic: FAC Carrier Design Critique  (Read 2625 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline liveware (OP)

  • Bug Moderators
  • Commodore
  • ***
  • Posts: 742
  • Thanked: 88 times
FAC Carrier Design Critique
« on: May 21, 2020, 02:51:11 PM »
After stumbling on a hostile NPR, I've been developing a carrier task group to take them out. I came up with some FACs to launch from the carriers because fighters (at my existing tech level) seem too small and short ranged to be of any use. I'm wondering if anyone has any advice/feedback on my designs.

First, some basic explanation of how I want to use these ships. Each Columbus III jump tender is accompanied by 3x Lexington class escort carriers and carries 1x Fletcher supply craft and 1x Kentuck III tanker in onboard hangers. Each Lexington has 12000 hanger space and carries (nominally) 3x Perseus (armed with carronades), 3x Pericles (armed with particle beams), 3x Patroclus (armed with gauss cannons), 2x Artemis (armed with microwaves), and 1x Jackson II (armed with marine boarding parties). The idea is that each Columbus III jumps in with it's 3 escort Lexingtons and can operate somewhat independently, but can also be used in larger fleet formations. I currently have 8 fleets of these ships arranged as I've described here and plan on testing them soon.

I should note that I have been intentionally avoiding lasers, missiles, and railguns in this campaign. I wanted to try something less conventional so I decided to go with carronades and particle beams as my primary weapon systems. My intention is to use the Perseus (carronades) and Pericles (particle beams) as my primary offensive weapon platforms and support them with the Patroclus (gauss cannons) for anti-missile fire and the Artemis (microwaves) for messing with enemy electronics. If I am able to successfully disable any ships, I can send the Jackson II's in for hostile takeover purposes. The Fletchers and Kentuck II's ferry MSP and fuel around if necessary (surprisingly useful).

So, with that said, here are the designs:

Jump Tender
Code: [Select]
Columbus III class Jump Tender      50,000 tons       1,434 Crew       8,851.8 BP       TCS 1,000    TH 1,125    EM 0
2250 km/s    JR 4-100      Armour 3-120       Shields 0-0       HTK 367      Sensors 8/8/0/0      DCR 125      PPV 0
Maint Life 5.08 Years     MSP 20,763    AFR 173%    IFR 2.4%    1YR 1,341    5YR 20,116    Max Repair 3247.4 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 2,000 tons     
Commander    Control Rating 2   BRG   AUX   
Intended Deployment Time: 48 months    Flight Crew Berths 40    Morale Check Required   

Surrency & Weatherholtz J50100(4-100) Military Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 50100 tons    Distance 100k km     Squadron Size 4

Surrency & Weatherholtz Ion Drive  EP750.00 (3)    Power 2250    Fuel Use 28.58%    Signature 375.0    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 4,506,000 Litres    Range 56.8 billion km (291 days at full power)

Chamberlin Armaments CIWS-120 (24x6)    Range 1000 km     TS: 12,000 km/s     ROF 5       
Novick Warning & Control Active Search Sensor AS6-R1 (1)     GPS 16     Range 6.4m km    MCR 574.5k km    Resolution 1
Novick Warning & Control Thermal Sensor TH1.0-8.0 (1)     Sensitivity 8     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  22.4m km
Novick Warning & Control EM Sensor EM1.0-8.0 (1)     Sensitivity 8     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  22.4m km

ECM 10

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Escort Carrier
Code: [Select]
Lexington class Carrier - Escort      50,000 tons       998 Crew       6,746.5 BP       TCS 1,000    TH 1,125    EM 0
2250 km/s      Armour 5-120       Shields 0-0       HTK 292      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 69      PPV 0
Maint Life 5.29 Years     MSP 9,005    AFR 337%    IFR 4.7%    1YR 538    5YR 8,075    Max Repair 562.5 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 12,000 tons     
Commander    Control Rating 3   BRG   AUX   PFC   
Intended Deployment Time: 48 months    Flight Crew Berths 240    Morale Check Required   

Surrency & Weatherholtz Ion Drive  EP750.00 (3)    Power 2250    Fuel Use 28.58%    Signature 375.0    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 4,250,000 Litres    Range 53.5 billion km (275 days at full power)

Chamberlin Armaments CIWS-120 (24x6)    Range 1000 km     TS: 12,000 km/s     ROF 5       
Marrinan & Roma Active Search Sensor AS21-R1 (50%) (1)     GPS 240     Range 21.4m km    MCR 1.9m km    Resolution 1
Marrinan & Roma Active Search Sensor AS99-R100 (50%) (1)     GPS 24000     Range 99.4m km    Resolution 100

ECM 10

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Carronade FAC
Code: [Select]
Perseus class Fast Attack Craft - Plasma Carronade      1,000 tons       34 Crew       151.2 BP       TCS 20    TH 130    EM 0
6501 km/s      Armour 2-8       Shields 0-0       HTK 8      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 6
Maint Life 2.01 Years     MSP 49    AFR 80%    IFR 1.1%    1YR 16    5YR 243    Max Repair 45 MSP
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 2.1 days    Morale Check Required   

Surrency & Weatherholtz Ion Drive  EP65.00 (2)    Power 130    Fuel Use 213.27%    Signature 65    Explosion 13%
Fuel Capacity 3,000 Litres    Range 0.3 billion km (10 hours at full power)

Washington Armaments 20 cm C3 Plasma Carronade (1)    Range 72,000km     TS: 6,501 km/s     Power 10-3     RM 10,000 km    ROF 20       
Washington Armaments Beam Fire Control R72-TS10500 (50%) (1)     Max Range: 72,000 km   TS: 10,500 km/s     86 72 58 44 31 17 3 0 0 0
Twitchell Aeromarine Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor R3 (1)     Total Power Output 3    Exp 5%

Marrinan & Roma Active Search Sensor AS2-R1 (50%) (1)     GPS 2     Range 2m km    MCR 181.7k km    Resolution 1

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Particle Beam FAC
Code: [Select]
Pericles class Fast Attack Craft - Particle Beam      1,000 tons       40 Crew       166.8 BP       TCS 20    TH 130    EM 0
6501 km/s      Armour 2-8       Shields 0-0       HTK 8      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 6
Maint Life 1.79 Years     MSP 50    AFR 80%    IFR 1.1%    1YR 19    5YR 291    Max Repair 45 MSP
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 2.1 days    Morale Check Required   

Surrency & Weatherholtz Ion Drive  EP65.00 (2)    Power 130    Fuel Use 213.27%    Signature 65    Explosion 13%
Fuel Capacity 3,000 Litres    Range 0.3 billion km (10 hours at full power)

Washington Armaments Particle Beam-3 (1)    Range 72,000km     TS: 6,501 km/s     Power 7-3    ROF 15       
Washington Armaments Beam Fire Control R72-TS10500 (50%) (1)     Max Range: 72,000 km   TS: 10,500 km/s     86 72 58 44 31 17 3 0 0 0
Twitchell Aeromarine Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor R3 (1)     Total Power Output 3    Exp 5%

Marrinan & Roma Active Search Sensor AS2-R1 (50%) (1)     GPS 2     Range 2m km    MCR 181.7k km    Resolution 1

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Gauss FAC
Code: [Select]
Patroclus class Fast Attack Craft - Gauss      1,000 tons       31 Crew       172.4 BP       TCS 20    TH 130    EM 0
6501 km/s      Armour 2-8       Shields 0-0       HTK 8      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 6.69
Maint Life 1.60 Years     MSP 50    AFR 80%    IFR 1.1%    1YR 23    5YR 340    Max Repair 45 MSP
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 2.1 days    Morale Check Required   

Surrency & Weatherholtz Ion Drive  EP65.00 (2)    Power 130    Fuel Use 213.27%    Signature 65    Explosion 13%
Fuel Capacity 6,000 Litres    Range 0.5 billion km (21 hours at full power)

Washington Armaments Single Gauss Cannon R300-85.00 Turret (1x3)    Range 30,000km     TS: 11750 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 30,000 km    ROF 5       
Washington Armaments Beam Fire Control R72-TS10500 (50%) (1)     Max Range: 72,000 km   TS: 10,500 km/s     86 72 58 44 31 17 3 0 0 0

Marrinan & Roma Active Search Sensor AS2-R1 (50%) (1)     GPS 2     Range 2m km    MCR 181.7k km    Resolution 1

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Microwave FAC
Code: [Select]
Artemis class Fast Attack Craft - Microwave      936 tons       35 Crew       174.9 BP       TCS 19    TH 130    EM 0
6948 km/s      Armour 2-8       Shields 0-0       HTK 7      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 4
Maint Life 2.09 Years     MSP 51    AFR 70%    IFR 1.0%    1YR 16    5YR 235    Max Repair 45 MSP
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 2.1 days    Morale Check Required   

Surrency & Weatherholtz Ion Drive  EP65.00 (2)    Power 130    Fuel Use 213.27%    Signature 65    Explosion 13%
Fuel Capacity 3,000 Litres    Range 0.3 billion km (10 hours at full power)

Washington Armaments R40/C3 High Power Microwave (1)    Range 40,000km     TS: 6,948 km/s     Power 4-3    ROF 10       
Washington Armaments Beam Fire Control R72-TS10500 (50%) (1)     Max Range: 72,000 km   TS: 10,500 km/s     86 72 58 44 31 17 3 0 0 0
Twitchell Aeromarine Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor R3 (2)     Total Power Output 6    Exp 5%

Marrinan & Roma Active Search Sensor AS2-R1 (50%) (1)     GPS 2     Range 2m km    MCR 181.7k km    Resolution 1
Marrinan & Roma Thermal Sensor TH0.1-0.8 (50%) (1)     Sensitivity 0.8     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  7.1m km

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Boarding FAC
Code: [Select]
Jackson II class Fast Attack Craft - Boarding Transport      1,000 tons       25 Crew       98.7 BP       TCS 20    TH 100    EM 0
5003 km/s      Armour 2-8       Shields 0-0       HTK 6      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 0
Maint Life 8.12 Years     MSP 70    AFR 16%    IFR 0.2%    1YR 2    5YR 28    Max Repair 25 MSP
Troop Capacity 250 tons     Boarding Capable   
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 3.6 days    Morale Check Required   

Surrency & Weatherholtz Ion Drive  EP50.00 (2)    Power 100    Fuel Use 110.68%    Signature 50    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 13,000 Litres    Range 2.1 billion km (4 days at full power)

Marrinan & Roma Active Search Sensor AS2-R1 (50%) (1)     GPS 2     Range 2m km    MCR 181.7k km    Resolution 1
Marrinan & Roma EM Sensor EM0.1-0.8 (50%) (1)     Sensitivity 0.8     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  7.1m km
Marrinan & Roma Thermal Sensor TH0.1-0.8 (50%) (1)     Sensitivity 0.8     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  7.1m km

ECM 10

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Maintenance FAC
Code: [Select]
Fletcher class Fast Attack Craft - Maintenance      1,000 tons       33 Crew       92.9 BP       TCS 20    TH 50    EM 0
2502 km/s      Armour 1-8       Shields 0-0       HTK 6      Sensors 8/8/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 0
Maint Life 12.16 Years     MSP 491    AFR 40%    IFR 0.6%    1YR 6    5YR 92    Max Repair 25 MSP
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 days    Morale Check Required   

Surrency & Weatherholtz Ion Drive  EP50.00 (1)    Power 50    Fuel Use 110.68%    Signature 50    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 1,000 Litres    Range 0.2 billion km (18 hours at full power)

Ordnance Transfer Rate: 40 MSP per hour
Novick Warning & Control Active Search Sensor AS6-R1 (1)     GPS 16     Range 6.4m km    MCR 574.5k km    Resolution 1
Novick Warning & Control Thermal Sensor TH1.0-8.0 (1)     Sensitivity 8     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  22.4m km
Novick Warning & Control EM Sensor EM1.0-8.0 (1)     Sensitivity 8     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  22.4m km

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Tanker FAC
Code: [Select]
Kentuck II class Fast Attack Craft - Tanker      1,000 tons       32 Crew       81.9 BP       TCS 20    TH 50    EM 0
2502 km/s      Armour 1-8       Shields 0-0       HTK 7      Sensors 8/8/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 0
Maint Life 5.99 Years     MSP 90    AFR 40%    IFR 0.6%    1YR 4    5YR 64    Max Repair 25 MSP
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 days    Morale Check Required   

Surrency & Weatherholtz Ion Drive  EP50.00 (1)    Power 50    Fuel Use 110.68%    Signature 50    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 51,000 Litres    Range 8.3 billion km (38 days at full power)
Refuelling Capability: 50,000 litres per hour     Complete Refuel 1 hours

Novick Warning & Control Active Search Sensor AS6-R1 (1)     GPS 16     Range 6.4m km    MCR 574.5k km    Resolution 1
Novick Warning & Control Thermal Sensor TH1.0-8.0 (1)     Sensitivity 8     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  22.4m km
Novick Warning & Control EM Sensor EM1.0-8.0 (1)     Sensitivity 8     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  22.4m km

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Feedback is always appreciated :-)
Open the pod-bay doors HAL...
 

Offline Ulzgoroth

  • Captain
  • **********
  • U
  • Posts: 422
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: FAC Carrier Design Critique
« Reply #1 on: May 21, 2020, 03:19:13 PM »
It might be good to have a larger-resolution active sensor on some of the classes? 2m km is pretty weak for ship-detection, and probably not all your classes need to have missile-spotting capability?
 

Offline liveware (OP)

  • Bug Moderators
  • Commodore
  • ***
  • Posts: 742
  • Thanked: 88 times
Re: FAC Carrier Design Critique
« Reply #2 on: May 21, 2020, 03:35:08 PM »
Ah, I have a separate scout class with it's own jump drive that operates independently and drops a whole bunch of sensor buoys in the combat zone prior to jumping the main fleet in. The scout has much wider sensor coverage and assists the main fleet.

As for the missile detection, I'm still not sure I know what I'm doing when it comes to properly detecting missiles, so I probably do have some excessive thermal sensor coverage. However, most of those sensors are only about 5 tons, so removing them doesn't change much.

I did just notice that the Artemis has an extra reactor... that was a design oversight. I was messing around with a different size microwave cannon and forgot to remove the extra reactor when I was done.

Having now had the chance to stare at these designs for a while, I think that for the next design iteration I will try to include a larger long range active sensor on the Columbus or Lexington class which more closely matches the practical engagement range of the FACs.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2020, 03:41:00 PM by liveware »
Open the pod-bay doors HAL...
 

Offline Ulzgoroth

  • Captain
  • **********
  • U
  • Posts: 422
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: FAC Carrier Design Critique
« Reply #3 on: May 21, 2020, 03:42:51 PM »
Well, as far as shooting at the incoming missiles only the active sensors matter. What are you trying to get out of the tiny passives? I wouldn't expect those to spot anything the scout ship won't. (Though given how tiny they are you're probably right that it doesn't hurt any to include them even if they don't do anything.)
 

Offline liveware (OP)

  • Bug Moderators
  • Commodore
  • ***
  • Posts: 742
  • Thanked: 88 times
Re: FAC Carrier Design Critique
« Reply #4 on: May 21, 2020, 03:46:55 PM »
Mostly I just didn't want ships that were totally blind (maybe the scout gets ambushed and blown up? or something). 2m km isn't that much range, but it's better than being blind. Also, the sensors are tiny so I figured why not?

I am also relying heavily on sensor buoy coverage for the anticipated upcoming battle with the NPR. I have their system well covered with buoys.

For the gauss FACs at least I want them to be able to see their own targets. These ships will be used for missile defense purposes and need to be able to target missiles.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2020, 03:49:11 PM by liveware »
Open the pod-bay doors HAL...
 

Offline Iceranger

  • Registered
  • Commander
  • *********
  • I
  • Posts: 391
  • Thanked: 230 times
Re: FAC Carrier Design Critique
« Reply #5 on: May 21, 2020, 03:55:40 PM »
There are probably way too many CIWS on your carrier such that a 50kt slow carrier only has 12kt hanger space, which can only hold 12 of your FACs.

Your FACs are very slow for Ion tech, and their BFCs are way overengineered for their speed, perhaps except for the Gauss variant, whose turret speed is overengineered (it is easier to match turret speed to BFC speed than the other way around).

FACs tends to operate in swarms, so sensor on every one of them is kind of wasteful to me.

For small ships like FACs, I would not bother giving them 2 engines for redundancy. They got shot in the engine they are dead anyway. The smaller engine size definitely kills the fuel efficiency in C# much more than in VB6.
 

Offline liveware (OP)

  • Bug Moderators
  • Commodore
  • ***
  • Posts: 742
  • Thanked: 88 times
Re: FAC Carrier Design Critique
« Reply #6 on: May 21, 2020, 04:06:11 PM »
I was struggling with the BFCs due to I think technological limitations. If I go smaller, they are too short ranged/too slow for the particle beams and plasma carronades. The result shown is a compromise which is limited by ship speed and weapon range instead of BFC performance. I probably should redesign the BFCs again since I have better technology now.

Fair point about the engines. I'm still on the fence about single engine designs but I may be overly constraining myself. The FACs only have <10 HTK anyway, so you're probably right that if they get hit they are pretty much dead anyway. My fastest opponent is a 7k km/s scout ship and most opponents appear to operating at around 5k km/s, so that was my primary design goal for ship speed.

Fair point also about the CIWS on the carriers. I forgot to go back and reassess that trade off I think because I hadn't designed my gauss FAC yet. Now I should re-evaluate.

Total hull mass for all FAC sensors (thermals, EM, and active) are only 15 tons/FAC. I probably won't change this until I get the other component designs closer to a final design.

Open the pod-bay doors HAL...
 

Offline liveware (OP)

  • Bug Moderators
  • Commodore
  • ***
  • Posts: 742
  • Thanked: 88 times
Re: FAC Carrier Design Critique
« Reply #7 on: May 21, 2020, 08:00:15 PM »
Alright, so I designed some new versions of my ships using my latest tech based on the feedback provided. I think these are considerable improvements, but still far from ideal.

Jump Tender: This ship got improved engines at the cost of reduced range. This is probably ok but testing is required. I have also removed all CIWS as this ship should not be in targeting range of enemy ships. If it is targeted, I did something wrong (or need a larger ship).
Code: [Select]
Columbus IV class Jump Tender      50,100 tons       1,482 Crew       9,301.3 BP       TCS 1,002    TH 5,000    EM 0
4990 km/s    JR 4-100      Armour 2-121       Shields 0-0       HTK 310      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 124      PPV 0
Maint Life 5.50 Years     MSP 29,228    AFR 176%    IFR 2.4%    1YR 1,626    5YR 24,390    Max Repair 3247.4 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 2,000 tons     
Captain    Control Rating 3   BRG   AUX   ENG   
Intended Deployment Time: 48 months    Flight Crew Berths 40    Morale Check Required   

Surrency & Weatherholtz J50100(4-100) Military Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 50100 tons    Distance 100k km     Squadron Size 4

Aegis Ion Drive  EP2500.00 (2)    Power 5000.0    Fuel Use 107.33%    Signature 2500.00    Explosion 20%
Fuel Capacity 12,051,000 Litres    Range 40.3 billion km (93 days at full power)

Aegis Active Search Sensor AS2-R1 (50%) (1)     GPS 3     Range 2.7m km    MCR 244k km    Resolution 1
Aegis Active Search Sensor AS141-R50 (50%) (1)     GPS 21000     Range 141.3m km    Resolution 50

ECM 10

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Escort Carrier: The Lexington received the same treatment as the Columbus, receiving improved engines, worse range, and loss of all CIWS capability. Her gauss fighters are her sole protection.
Code: [Select]
Lexington II class Carrier - Escort      50,100 tons       1,234 Crew       7,249.1 BP       TCS 1,002    TH 5,000    EM 0
4990 km/s      Armour 3-121       Shields 0-0       HTK 296      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 114      PPV 0
Maint Life 6.23 Years     MSP 13,405    AFR 193%    IFR 2.7%    1YR 593    5YR 8,899    Max Repair 1250.00 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 12,000 tons     
Captain    Control Rating 6   BRG   AUX   ENG   CIC   FLG   PFC   
Intended Deployment Time: 48 months    Flight Crew Berths 240    Morale Check Required   

Aegis Ion Drive  EP2500.00 (2)    Power 5000.0    Fuel Use 107.33%    Signature 2500.00    Explosion 20%
Fuel Capacity 12,015,000 Litres    Range 40.2 billion km (93 days at full power)

Aegis Active Search Sensor AS141-R50 (50%) (1)     GPS 21000     Range 141.3m km    Resolution 50
Aegis Active Search Sensor AS2-R1 (50%) (1)     GPS 3     Range 2.7m km    MCR 244k km    Resolution 1

ECM 10

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Carronade FAC: The Perseus received several improvements. New engines have almost doubled her speed and a new BFC improves her targeting. She has a smaller weapon, but with her larger engines will hit enemies with greater reliability. She also boasts improved repair capabilities and significantly improved range.
Code: [Select]
Perseus II class Fast Attack Craft - Plasma Carronade      1,000 tons       38 Crew       279.3 BP       TCS 20    TH 72    EM 0
10319 km/s      Armour 2-8       Shields 0-0       HTK 8      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 1      PPV 4
Maint Life 10.26 Years     MSP 262    AFR 5%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 5    5YR 68    Max Repair 180.46875 MSP
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 1 days    Morale Check Required   

Aegis Ion Drive  EP206.25 (1)    Power 206.2    Fuel Use 209.83%    Signature 72.1875    Explosion 16%
Fuel Capacity 12,000 Litres    Range 1 billion km (27 hours at full power)

Aegis 15 cm C4 Plasma Carronade (1)    Range 60,000km     TS: 10,319 km/s     Power 6-4     RM 10,000 km    ROF 10        6 3 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
Aegis Beam Fire Control R64-TS10000 (50%) (1)     Max Range: 64,000 km   TS: 10,000 km/s     84 69 53 38 22 6 0 0 0 0
Aegis Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor R4-PB60 (1)     Total Power Output 4    Exp 30%

Aegis Active Search Sensor AS2-R1 (50%) (1)     GPS 3     Range 2.7m km    MCR 244k km    Resolution 1

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Particle Beam FAC: The Pericles received many of the same upgrades as the Perseus. In particular, an upgraded BFC and smaller particle beam allow for more consistent long-range attacks and improved speed and range allow for generally greater combat utility.
Code: [Select]
Pericles II class Fast Attack Craft - Particle Beam      1,000 tons       48 Crew       389.2 BP       TCS 20    TH 74    EM 0
10501 km/s      Armour 2-8       Shields 0-0       HTK 6      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 1      PPV 5
Maint Life 7.56 Years     MSP 243    AFR 8%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 7    5YR 112    Max Repair 183.7500 MSP
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 1 days    Morale Check Required   

Aegis Ion Drive  EP210.00 (1)    Power 210.0    Fuel Use 428.70%    Signature 73.5000    Explosion 21%
Fuel Capacity 23,000 Litres    Range 1 billion km (25 hours at full power)

Aegis Particle Beam-2 (1)    Range 192,000km     TS: 10,501 km/s     Power 5-4    ROF 10        2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Aegis Beam Fire Control R192-TS10000 (50%) (1)     Max Range: 192,000 km   TS: 10,000 km/s     95 90 84 79 74 69 64 58 53 48
Aegis Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor R4-PB60 (1)     Total Power Output 4    Exp 30%

Aegis Active Search Sensor AS2-R1 (50%) (1)     GPS 3     Range 2.7m km    MCR 244k km    Resolution 1

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Gauss FAC: The Patroclus has been improved in the same manner as the Perseus and the Pericles. In particular, the turret has been replaced by a more efficient conventionally mounted gauss cannon. This upgrade was facilitated by the substantial speed improvement provided by the new engine design.
Code: [Select]
Patroclus II class Fast Attack Craft - Gauss      1,000 tons       38 Crew       280.2 BP       TCS 20    TH 72    EM 0
10314 km/s      Armour 2-8       Shields 0-0       HTK 7      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 1      PPV 5
Maint Life 11.90 Years     MSP 306    AFR 5%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 4    5YR 60    Max Repair 180.46875 MSP
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 1 days    Morale Check Required   

Aegis Ion Drive  EP206.25 (1)    Power 206.2    Fuel Use 209.83%    Signature 72.1875    Explosion 16%
Fuel Capacity 13,000 Litres    Range 1.1 billion km (30 hours at full power)

Levenstein-Heling Gauss Cannon R300-85.00 (1x3)    Range 30,000km     TS: 10,314 km/s     Accuracy Modifier 85.00%     RM 30,000 km    ROF 5        1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Aegis Beam Fire Control R48-TS10000 (50%) (1)     Max Range: 48,000 km   TS: 10,000 km/s     79 58 38 17 0 0 0 0 0 0

Aegis Active Search Sensor AS2-R1 (50%) (1)     GPS 3     Range 2.7m km    MCR 244k km    Resolution 1

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Microwave FAC: The Artemis has received upgrades commensurate with the other new FAC designs. In particular, it's firing range has been substantially improved and it's new BFC is much more appropriate for this weapon platform.
Code: [Select]
Artemis II class Fast Attack Craft - Microwave      1,000 tons       48 Crew       387.7 BP       TCS 20    TH 73    EM 0
10413 km/s      Armour 2-8       Shields 0-0       HTK 8      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 1      PPV 4
Maint Life 13.95 Years     MSP 424    AFR 5%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 4    5YR 61    Max Repair 182.1050 MSP
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 1 days    Morale Check Required   

Aegis Ion Drive  EP208.12 (1)    Power 208.1    Fuel Use 294.41%    Signature 72.8420    Explosion 18%
Fuel Capacity 16,000 Litres    Range 1 billion km (26 hours at full power)

Aegis R120/C4 High Power Microwave (1)    Range 120,000km     TS: 10,413 km/s     Power 6-4    ROF 10        1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Aegis Beam Fire Control R120-TS10000 (50%) (1)     Max Range: 120,000 km   TS: 10,000 km/s     92 83 75 67 58 50 42 33 25 17
Aegis Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor R4-PB60 (1)     Total Power Output 4    Exp 30%

Aegis Active Search Sensor AS2-R1 (50%) (1)     GPS 3     Range 2.7m km    MCR 244k km    Resolution 1

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Boarding FAC: The new Jackson is an incremental improvement over the previous design, differing primarily in it's improved speed and range and lack of ECM.
Code: [Select]
Jackson III class Fast Attack Craft - Boarding Transport      1,000 tons       31 Crew       230.4 BP       TCS 20    TH 72    EM 0
10314 km/s      Armour 2-8       Shields 0-0       HTK 5      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 1      PPV 0
Maint Life 12.04 Years     MSP 266    AFR 4%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 3    5YR 51    Max Repair 180.46875 MSP
Troop Capacity 250 tons     Boarding Capable   
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 1 days    Morale Check Required   

Aegis Ion Drive  EP206.25 (1)    Power 206.2    Fuel Use 209.83%    Signature 72.1875    Explosion 16%
Fuel Capacity 14,000 Litres    Range 1.2 billion km (32 hours at full power)

Aegis Active Search Sensor AS2-R1 (50%) (1)     GPS 3     Range 2.7m km    MCR 244k km    Resolution 1

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Maintenance FAC: The new Fletcher is an incremental improvement on the previous design.
Code: [Select]
Fletcher II class Fast Attack Craft - Maintenance      1,000 tons       36 Crew       156.9 BP       TCS 20    TH 43    EM 0
6189 km/s      Armour 1-8       Shields 0-0       HTK 4      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 1      PPV 0
Maint Life 20.83 Years     MSP 658    AFR 8%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 3    5YR 43    Max Repair 108.28125 MSP
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 1 days    Morale Check Required   

Aegis Ion Drive  EP123.75 (1)    Power 123.8    Fuel Use 270.89%    Signature 43.3125    Explosion 16%
Fuel Capacity 17,000 Litres    Range 1.1 billion km (50 hours at full power)

Ordnance Transfer Rate: 40 MSP per hour
Aegis Active Search Sensor AS2-R1 (50%) (1)     GPS 3     Range 2.7m km    MCR 244k km    Resolution 1

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Tanker FAC: The new Kentuck is another incremental improvement.
Code: [Select]
Kentuck III class Fast Attack Craft - Tanker      1,000 tons       39 Crew       146.8 BP       TCS 20    TH 43    EM 0
6189 km/s      Armour 1-8       Shields 0-0       HTK 6      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 1      PPV 0
Maint Life 12.72 Years     MSP 146    AFR 5%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 2    5YR 25    Max Repair 108.28125 MSP
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 1 days    Morale Check Required   

Aegis Ion Drive  EP123.75 (1)    Power 123.8    Fuel Use 270.89%    Signature 43.3125    Explosion 16%
Fuel Capacity 62,000 Litres    Range 4.1 billion km (7 days at full power)
Refuelling Capability: 50,000 litres per hour     Complete Refuel 1 hours

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

These designs might actually be able to damage the NPR. Still paper armor, but they might be able to do some damage before they get destroyed.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2020, 08:04:46 PM by liveware »
Open the pod-bay doors HAL...
 

Offline Ulzgoroth

  • Captain
  • **********
  • U
  • Posts: 422
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: FAC Carrier Design Critique
« Reply #8 on: May 21, 2020, 08:12:31 PM »
Minor engineering nitpick: You've got a bunch of 5 and 6 power beam weapons designed with recharge rate 4. I believe you'll find that rolling back to recharge rate 3 would be an all-around improvement!
-Same rate of fire, because it's 10 seconds either way.
-Lower weapon cost.
-Lower power demand, so you could use a smaller cheaper reactor. (Probably negligible, for small reactors in small ships like this.)

Generally, you want to pick as low a recharge rate as possible for the desired rate of fire.
 
The following users thanked this post: skoormit

Offline liveware (OP)

  • Bug Moderators
  • Commodore
  • ***
  • Posts: 742
  • Thanked: 88 times
Re: FAC Carrier Design Critique
« Reply #9 on: May 21, 2020, 08:55:29 PM »
My understanding of energy weapons is that the indicated X-Y rating for a given weapon is X energy is required to fire and Y energy per second is required to charge. So a 5-3 rated energy weapon would require 5 energy total to fire and 3 energy per second to charge. So this hypothetical weapon would fire (alpha strike style) once every 10 seconds.
Open the pod-bay doors HAL...
 

Offline Ulzgoroth

  • Captain
  • **********
  • U
  • Posts: 422
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: FAC Carrier Design Critique
« Reply #10 on: May 21, 2020, 09:05:32 PM »
My understanding of energy weapons is that the indicated X-Y rating for a given weapon is X energy is required to fire and Y energy per second is required to charge. So a 5-3 rated energy weapon would require 5 energy total to fire and 3 energy per second to charge. So this hypothetical weapon would fire (alpha strike style) once every 10 seconds.
Per tick rather than per second (as you know) but yes, quite so.

My point was that that that 5-3 (or 6-3) gun performance is the same as the performance of the 5-4 (or 6-4) guns the designs use. But it's cheaper to construct, and only draws 3 power instead of 4 when recharging.
 

Offline liveware (OP)

  • Bug Moderators
  • Commodore
  • ***
  • Posts: 742
  • Thanked: 88 times
Re: FAC Carrier Design Critique
« Reply #11 on: May 21, 2020, 11:29:23 PM »
Ah, you are quite right. I perhaps had too much whiskey during my previous post. I should re-design with this in mind...

Furthermore, I designed new power 4 reactors with 30% explosion chance. If I had stuck instead with my previous power 3 reactors they would have had only 5% (or whatever the minimum is) explosion chance.

I think I was transposing X-Y in the power rating during design for some silly reason.

Actually I think the silly reason was that I was thinking that for whatever energy per second Y value the weapon required, I needed to provide a minimum of Y energy per second. That is not the case according to Mr Ulzgoroth? I only need to meet the energy / 5 second requirement?
« Last Edit: May 21, 2020, 11:38:00 PM by liveware »
Open the pod-bay doors HAL...
 

Offline Ulzgoroth

  • Captain
  • **********
  • U
  • Posts: 422
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: FAC Carrier Design Critique
« Reply #12 on: May 22, 2020, 01:11:59 AM »
I don't think the game has any 'and now you secretly need to multiply by 5' moments? (Multiply or divide by 50, sometimes...) Or any mechanics that work in seconds rather than 5-second ticks. You literally can't provide energy per second! If it helps, think of the total energy required as being in units of power point-ticks.

That, um, doesn't really change anything? If your weapon draws 4 power you need to give it 4 power, exactly the way you did in your designs. (The designer will give you a warning if you don't.) It's just that there's no incentive to make the weapon draw 4 power when that results in the same rate of fire as if it drew 3.
 

Offline liveware (OP)

  • Bug Moderators
  • Commodore
  • ***
  • Posts: 742
  • Thanked: 88 times
Re: FAC Carrier Design Critique
« Reply #13 on: May 22, 2020, 01:25:52 AM »
The 5 second thing throws me off at times.

So if I am understanding things correctly, again, using my hypothetical 5-3 weapon, I need a reactor with minimum of 3 power to charge the weapon, and that reactor will allow that 5-3 weapon to fire once every 10 seconds (assuming alpha strike calculations). By alpha strike calculation I mean that every calculation of weapon charging and/or firing period is based on the assumption that the weapon capacitor initially starts the time period with zero energy.

The paragraph above describes concisely my occasional foolishness regarding 'per second' or 'per increment' calculations. 1 Joule per 5 seconds is rather different than 1 Joule per month!
Open the pod-bay doors HAL...
 

Offline kks

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 131
  • Thanked: 13 times
Re: FAC Carrier Design Critique
« Reply #14 on: May 22, 2020, 01:04:35 PM »
You do not need an reactor providing 3 power. 3 is the maximum power the capacitator can accept in an 5s-intervall.

If you would provide only 1 power per tick, it would simply be slower to recharge(25s).
Which also means that a 5-4 weapon coupled with a power 3 reactor works the same as a 5-3 weapon.

It also means that if you have two energy weapons on a ship, eg. one PD railguns 3-3 and one 40cm x-3 railgun, you could theoretically have only one power 3 reactor if you do not need to charge both simultaniously. However, as reactor are cheap and small I don't think this would be worthwhile.

At least it did work like that in VB and afaik nothing did change here.