The Titan Atlas and the Titan Regalia remade.

[xenoscepter (OP)]

Titan Atlas-Class:
---------------------

Code: [Select]

Titan Atlas class Missile Frigate    5,000 tons     80 Crew     574.2 BP      TCS 100  TH 180  EM 0
1800 km/s     Armour 6-26     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 14     PPV 9.9
Maint Life 13.48 Years     MSP 1287    AFR 50%    IFR 0.7%    1YR 13    5YR 198    Max Repair 45 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 8 months    Flight Crew Berths 12   
Hangar Deck Capacity 625 tons     Magazine 60   

Titan One Ion Drive (1)    Power 180    Fuel Use 6.19%    Signature 180    Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 190,000 Litres    Range 110.5 billion km   (710 days at full power)

Atlas Missile Launcher (3)    Missile Size 10    Rate of Fire 1200
Atlas Missile FCS (3)     Range 10.5m km    Resolution 100

Strike Group
1x Maiden Courier   Speed: 600 km/s    Size: 10
1x Hussar Scout   Speed: 5217 km/s    Size: 2.3

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Titan Regalia-Class:
------------------------

Code: [Select]

Titan Regalia class Surveillance Frigate    5,000 tons     114 Crew     489.4 BP      TCS 100  TH 180  EM 0
1800 km/s    JR 3-50     Armour 3-26     Shields 0-0     Sensors 16/16/0/0     Damage Control Rating 16     PPV 0
Maint Life 18.3 Years     MSP 1367    AFR 33%    IFR 0.5%    1YR 8    5YR 116    Max Repair 45 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 8 months    Flight Crew Berths 13   
Hangar Deck Capacity 750 tons     

Titan One Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 5000 tons    Distance 50k km     Squadron Size 3
Titan One Ion Drive (1)    Power 180    Fuel Use 6.19%    Signature 180    Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 230,000 Litres    Range 133.8 billion km   (860 days at full power)

Regalia TH Passive Sensor Unit (1)     Sensitivity 16     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  16m km
Regalia EM Passive Sensor Unit (1)     Sensitivity 16.25     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  16.25m km

Strike Group
2x Hussar Scout   Speed: 5217 km/s    Size: 2.3
4x Hussar II Light Fighter   Speed: 7200 km/s    Size: 2.5

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes[url][/url]

Designer's Blurb:
---------------------

--- These are revisions to my original Conventional Tech, or Tech Level Zero, warships; the Titan "Atlas" and the Titan "Regalia". These ships are designed to fire big missiles, long-range from stealth. They accomplish this by working as team where the "Regalia" identifies targets with it's passive sensors for the "Atlas" to engage. However, I learned that a Missile FCS cannot get lock from a passive sensor contact, so I incorporated Scouts to do the spotting. The Titan Atlas has one of her own, while Regalia carries tow Scouts and four relatively "Light Fighters" for Anti-Missile, Anti-Fighter and Decoy duty. Titan Regalia carries a Jump Drive capable of toting herself and three Titan Atlases into combat. I have yet to decide what missiles to put in the Titan Atlas, however with it's launchers, magazine and Maiden-Class Courier, the Titan Atlas can fire 3 salvos of missiles before requiring a full reload. This isn't too terrible when you consider it takes twenty freaking minutes to reload the darn things! These ships are meant to serve as stop gaps before I have a proper fleet. The 5,000 Ton Shipyards will be able to produce more useful ships later as I build up. However, currently I have plans to go exploring as soon as get Nuclear Pulse Drives, so having something to fight with is still better than having nothing to fight with once I get out into the greater inter-stellar community. Overall though, despite their stop gap nature, the Titans are great ambush attackers, and I expect they will provide fire support, jump gate security and surprise planetary bombardment as part of both my main fleet and reserves for years to come.


Hussar-Class:
-----------------

Code: [Select]

Hussar class Scout    115 tons     2 Crew     19 BP      TCS 2.3  TH 12  EM 0
5217 km/s     Armour 2-2     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 0
Maint Life 30.24 Years     MSP 10    AFR 1%    IFR 0%    1YR 0    5YR 0    Max Repair 8 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 1 months    Spare Berths 3   

Hussar Ion Drive (1)    Power 12    Fuel Use 49.5%    Signature 12    Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 5,000 Litres    Range 15.8 billion km   (35 days at full power)

Hussar Long Range Sensor (1)     GPS 600     Range 1.7m km    Resolution 300
Hussar Short Range Sensor (1)     GPS 200     Range 1,000k km    Resolution 100
Hussar Anti-Fighter Sensor (1)     GPS 10     Range 150k km    Resolution 10

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and maintenance purposes

Hussar II-Class Light Fighter:
-----------------------------------

Code: [Select]

Hussar II class Light Fighter    125 tons     2 Crew     20.4 BP      TCS 2.5  TH 18  EM 0
7200 km/s     Armour 1-2     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 0.5
Maint Life 27.79 Years     MSP 10    AFR 1%    IFR 0%    1YR 0    5YR 0    Max Repair 9 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.3 months    Spare Berths 5   

Hussar II Ion Drive (1)    Power 18    Fuel Use 272.81%    Signature 18    Exp 15%
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres    Range 5.3 billion km   (8 days at full power)

Hussar II Gauss Cannon (1)    Range 10,000km     TS: 25000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 1    ROF 5        1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hussar II Beam FCS (1)    Max Range: 10,000 km   TS: 2500 km/s     0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hussar II Anti-Missile Sensor (1)     GPS 1     Range 50k km    MCR 5k km    Resolution 1
Hussar II Anti-Fighter Sensor (1)     GPS 10     Range 150k km    Resolution 10

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and maintenance purposes

Designer's Blurb:
---------------------


--- The Hussar-Class ship is an extremely light scout, while it's derivative ship, the Hussar II is an extremely light fighter. The first Hussar IIs are probably going to be manufactured with the crappy FCS, which will gimp them, but won't require me to research beyond the basic techs to acquire. These are stop gap ships. i intend to phase these out later with the Chevalier Light Scouts and the Chevalier II Light Fighter for use with Boat Bays and Small Boat Bays as these designs have the capacity to go really fast with better engines, and still do decent in the Anti-Missile / Anti-Fighter Role. The new ones will have the benefit of better tech; however I may introduce a Hussar III with an upgraded FCS first, depends. Again, they are stop gaps so I want them up as early as possible so time is of the essence. Both ships are a pretty bog-standard affair, albeit with the caveat that they are tiny as all buggery. This is pretty good considering that a small TCS will keep them alive. The Hussar II has Fuel for eight days, and Life Support for nine; while the Hussar has a month's worth of Life Support and a month and five days' worth of Fuel. Both feature Fighter-Sized Engineering Bays both for longevity as well as RP reasons which will be fleshed out later in ARRs, time permitting.

--- Due to a clerical error when building the Hussar II, i.e. I completely overwrote the original Hussar before I realized what I had did, there is a minor change listed here. Both the Hussar-Class and the Hussar II-Class are fluffed in RP to have been derived from the same hull, and as such both sport a robust access system for repair and maintenance both while at berth and mid-voyage. In game-terms that is represented by them both having a Fighter-Sized Engineering Space and a Tiny-Sized Crew Quarters. This allows the Hussar to house a full one and half crew rotations, while the Hussar II can carry a full Away Team. Both craft sport a Gunner, Pilot and Engineer position, while crews are rigorously trained to be proficient and interchangeable in all three. Sorry about that mix up, cheers!


These ships make use of the following technologies:


- Composite Armor

- 0.5 Fuel Consumption

- Additional Maintenance Storage(Conventional Start Only)

- Fuel Storage - Tiny

- Fuel Storage - Small

- Ion Drives

- Jump Drive Efficiency - 10

- Missile Size 0.33x /Reload Rate x20

- Missile Size Reload Rate 5

- Damage Control

- Engineering Spaces - Fighter

- Engine Boost 1.50x

- Electronic Hardening 1

- Boat Bay

- Boat Bay - Small

[Father Tim]

The Titans can carry six Hussars, but six Hussars consume 1/7th or 1/3rd of a Titan's fuel reserves in a single load.

- - -

I've tried various 'zero-tech' starts and have almost always found that even with the small number of scientists (5-8, usually) available, all working on different projects, I still can't design and build more than one or two ship classes (plus freighters & colony ships) before some aspect of tech significantly advances.  Without using some sort of 'free racial tech designs' SM mode help, researching the next level of jump engine tech, or sensor strength, or whatever ends up being cheaper than researching a size-30 sensor or a 10,000 ton jump engine.

For these (and quite a few other reasons) I almost always let real-world, historical, or established fictional universe ship designs inspire my Aurora ships.  For example, when I decide to build a "28-gun frigate" I know I need to find some sort of gun that I can fit 28 of onto my ship.  If I differentiate further (16 'long nines' and 12 'eighteen-pounders'), now I have two different types of guns to play with (one-tenth-sized Gauss and one-sixth-sized Gauss, probably).  Two beam FCs to represent the 'port' and 'starboard' broadsides.  The best fuel efficiency (including reduced-power engines) I can manage to represent the long range though comparitively low speed of sailing vessels.  Etc.

[misanthropope]

jump efficiency 10 and fuel efficiency .5:  45000 RPs.  stellerator, magneto's plasma, boost 1.75 and boost 2.0:  44000 RPs. 

very few lines of research merit more than 1/10 the effort you put into the engine/ reactor line, imo.

[xenoscepter (OP)]

@misanthropope

Not sure what you are getting at with this one...

The difference is only 1,000 Research Points; and engine boost tech makes fast, gas guzzling engines not the fuel efficient ones I wanted to go with the compact Jump Drives.

I do need to address some issues with these though...

[chokuto]

At the same engine power a higher engine tech with reduced power percentage will be more efficient than a lower tech engine with better fuel consumption.

[xenoscepter (OP)]

@chokuto

A good point; and actually one I considered ahead of time. I learned a lot of lessons my Lancer-series and the Recon-Class vessels, thanks in no small part to helpful people like you. These ships, and others for a long time to come, will be using that 0.5 liters of consumption tech; so while I COULD simply invest in better engine tech, I fully intend to make use of Ion Drives until I have the 0.5 Liter Consumption Tech.

The main issue I noticed here was my stop gap ships are WAY too advanced in tech for their roles; in hindsight that should have been obvious. I will be redesigning these with basic tech Jump Drives and Nuclear Pulse Engines like my first exploration ships... maybe omitting the Jump Drives and consolidating them with my Jump Ship. I am probably going to omit the Hussars and Hussar IIs as well, replacing them with a purpose-built, Nuclear Pulse driven scout.

The whole idea is to get out and explore other systems as soon as possible, and have a response to any threats encountered. Even if that response is, less than adequate...

[Michael Sandy]

Tech advancement really affects early fleets.  So you either build fleets that are robust with respect to tech, or build fighters with the most up to date tech, or refit them a lot.

I found that retooling a multi-slip 1000 ton shipyard was a LOT faster than retooling a large shipyard.

Missile ships tend to be a bit more robust at low levels.  You can always put more modern missiles in them.  Beam ships that are slower or shorter ranged than their enemies are just expensive targets, but more missile ships means more penetration of enemy missile defenses.

Carriers also take longer to go obsolete.  Again, because volume is what matters most for Carriers, just like it does for missiles.

[Jorgen_CAB]

Tech advancement really affects early fleets.  So you either build fleets that are robust with respect to tech, or build fighters with the most up to date tech, or refit them a lot.

I found that retooling a multi-slip 1000 ton shipyard was a LOT faster than retooling a large shipyard.

Missile ships tend to be a bit more robust at low levels.  You can always put more modern missiles in them.  Beam ships that are slower or shorter ranged than their enemies are just expensive targets, but more missile ships means more penetration of enemy missile defenses.

Carriers also take longer to go obsolete.  Again, because volume is what matters most for Carriers, just like it does for missiles.

Yes... this is the reason for why I rarely see pure beam combat ships in my multi faction games and instead see most main combat ships having some rudimentary beam weapons to fend themselves in any potential beam combat. Also, spreading your beams out among many ship frames makes them less vulnerable to be singled out in combat. It is generally better to have 3 beams on 10 ships than 40 beams on 4 ships. In general I see a good mix of combat ship both with and without beam depending on the doctrine and environment they find themselves in.

I also concur that there are no point in making large ships at early tech levels, the components are just too expensive and the effort are better spent at advancing your technology level. This goes for anything like engines, jump engines, sensors and fire-controls etc.. Early tech ships are mostly very rudimentary and often actually beam ships. Missiles are so bad at low tech levels that investing in them early is not really all that useful if you are at risk of confrontation now rather than later. You then relegate these earlier ship to patrol duties and build newer missile ships once missile start to get worthwhile around Ion engine technology or so if you keep up engine power efficiency research with engine tech.

In general you are never going to be able to make a complex offensive low tech fleet... by the time you have such a fleet your technology level will have advanced way past that low tech level or you box yourself into a very slow development in technology for no good reason. This is rather evident if you play with several factions and one advance more intelligently and the other waste allot of effort on components rather than general advancement of technology and build simpler more robust platforms to fight today's wars and not tomorrow's wars.

[Michael Sandy]

One of the things that really affects the early tech fleets is that the techs you need to exploit victory, like Construction Brigades to investigate ruins, Salvage ships to take wrecks, boarding pods and marines to capture disabled ships cost significant research points compared to the techs needed to win in fleet combat.

Like there isn't a point to go for Jump Theory, in my opinion, before Nuclear Pulse engines, simply because of the relative cost of those techs. Similarly the techs needed to exploit extra solar resources shouldn't be sought while the C&P techs that would improve construction, research and mining are cheaper and yield more.  The prospect of a high availability source of a mineral that costs ships and cargo handling and cryo to exploit when you can get a +20% increase in mining on the home planet for less RP and less mineral and production costs should delay space exploitation techs a bit.