Largest Ships You've Used

[blue emu]

The big problem is the maintenance clock. Any idea how many Maintenance Facilities it takes to keep one of these million-ton puppies running?

Hint: Each Maintenance Facility can service 200 tons of warship.

Does 5,000 facilities sound about right? Hmmm... what's that in minerals and population?

[Girlinhat]

Hmm, you could build the megastation with its own maintenance modules!  This sounds totally reasonable to me =D

[blue emu]

Try a trial design. I suspect it would need to be MOSTLY maintenance modules.

[Girlinhat]

Can't be arsed to change my display resolution and wade neck-deep through error messages to find the module, how big is a maintenance module and how much does it support?

[blue emu]

Each module is 5000 tons, and supports 200 tons of ship. So no... it isn't possible for a ship to provide its own maintenance, even if it were composed of 100% maintenance modules.

[Girlinhat]

And a maintenance facility is the same 200?  This can't be improved by tech either, right?

[blue emu]

Correct, AFAIK.

[Brian Neumann]

200 tons per maintenance facility/module is correct.  While it can not be increased by tech, it also is not affected by the tech of the ships it is maintaining.  A high tech ship does not require any more facilities to keep time off of the maintenance clock than a very low tech design.  In this way you do get a benifit from higher tech ships.  They tend to cost more per hull space after all.

Brian

[Girlinhat]

It also seems that when people get higher tech they dump it into bigger ships.  Never -quite- understood that myself, I've always been a fan of small high tech ships.  I suppose it's mostly people trying to keep a certain speed, so as their engines get better they pack more hull and maintain that speed.  I guess I'm more likely to just include less engines and more equipment.

[blue emu]

There's a lot you can do with additional displacement, though.

I'm currently looking into a rather crack-pot design... a 20,000-ton Carrier with 7,000 tons of Hangar space, whose "strike group" consists of a single 7,000-ton ship, stuffed inside the Hangar.

 Why? Because Box Launchers can only be reloaded in a Hangar (or on the ground)... so this arrangement allows me to use... and reload, and re-use... a 7,000-ton, 85x Box Launcher equipped warship, in a general fleet action.

Can you say "massive salvo"? I knew you could...

[Girlinhat]

I've often dreamed up such massive salvos.  Abusing box launchers and supermassive hangar ships can allow for some positively monstrous salvos.  The idea of a "floating box" that's all hangar and one engine tacked on as an afterthought, has often intrigued me...

[Charlie Beeler]

Sorry, I prefer fighters for carrier operations.  Better tactical flexability and standoff capability. 

[Girlinhat]

That is, ultimately, the question.  Do you want 1 ship with 100 box launchers, or 100 ships with just 1?

[HaliRyan (OP)]

a 7,000-ton, 85x Box Launcher equipped warship, in a general fleet action.

I'm curious, what size missiles are you using? Doing a rough build with a standard size 4 launcher and 1 engine per 1k tons, I can pack on 150 box launchers. Your missiles must be huge!

I think though that as others have said you'd be better off with fighters. The extra speed and flexibility compared to toting around a single larger ship in your hold could be decisive, even if their range wouldn't be nearly as large as your single warship.

Carrier-based 1k ton FACs could also be an interesting option... *runs off to play with the class design screen*

[jseah]

I think though that as others have said you'd be better off with fighters. The extra speed and flexibility compared to toting around a single larger ship in your hold could be decisive, even if their range wouldn't be nearly as large as your single warship.

You mean their salvo size won't be as large. 

But yes, I have considered that but I think the reload time trade off is not worth it.  In fact, I don't generally use 25% size launchers because they take too long (although I ought to look at using size 3 missiles to cut that some more)