Comments on Armor and Gauss/rail guns

[Kurt (OP)]

I am most of the way through a battle where one side has heavy armor, gauss cannon turrets for point defense, and rail guns for main armament, and, to be honest, I thought they were doomed.  The other side out-ranged them badly with missiles against their gauss and rail guns.  

It didn't work out like I thought, though, which is almost always a pleasure.  The gauss guns worked about like I thought in point defense mode, which was okay but not great, but the rail guns, which were their main weapons and were pressed into anti-missile duty, did very well at intercepting incoming missiles.  

This is my first real battle using the new armor, and I was impressed.  I really liked looking at the armor and seeing deep penetrations here and there.  

This battle is going to give everyone in the campaign something to think about.  Me especially <G>.

Kurt

[Charlie Beeler]

Which gauss did you use?  How many per turret?  turret tracking speed?  Fire control range and tracking speed?  Did they have a rough idea of what incoming missiles speeds?  Which mode(s) did you use?  Etc Etc Etc.

I've play around with the gauss in point defense and found that effective mounts associated fire controls plus requisite active sensors are mass/volume intesive.  But are well worth it if facing a missile dominated strategy.  Against beam dominated strategies they are mostly a huge waste of tonnage.

[Kurt (OP)]

Which gauss did you use?  How many per turret?  turret tracking speed?  Fire control range and tracking speed?  Did they have a rough idea of what incoming missiles speeds?  Which mode(s) did you use?  Etc Etc Etc.

I've play around with the gauss in point defense and found that effective mounts associated fire controls plus requisite active sensors are mass/volume intesive.  But are well worth it if facing a missile dominated strategy.  Against beam dominated strategies they are mostly a huge waste of tonnage.

Okay - let's see:

Gauss Cannon:

Code: [Select]

Damage Output 1     Rate of Fire: 2 shots every 5 seconds     Range Modifier: 2
Max Range 20,000 km     Size: 1    HTK: 1
Cost: 4    Crew: 4
Materials Required: 4x Vendarite
This weapon has a penalty to accuracy. Chance to hit is multiplied by 0.17
Development Cost for Project: 40RP


They were mounted in twin turrets, and each ship mounted two twin turrets.  The turrets had the same tracking speed as the fire controls, which was 2,400 kps.  The missiles had a speed of 10,700 kps, and I used the "Final Defensive Fire 1" setting on the fire control.  

While doing an after-action analysis of the battle, I concluded that the gauss cannon weren't as effective as I originally thought.  They did okay, but in reality it was the combination of the gauss cannons, the targeted ship's heavy armor, and not-particularly-effective missiles that made them look good.  

Kurt

[Charlie Beeler]

Curious,  why so small?  The combination of small low rated cannon with slow tracking speed cripling against that missile speed.  


I'm the first to admit that my aproach to GC's in PD suites is VERY heavy handed.  

PD Turret

Code: [Select]

Damage Output 1x12      Rate of Fire: 5 seconds     Range Modifier: 3
Max Range 30,000 km    Turret Size: 1700 tons    Armour: 0    Turret HTK: 8
Cost: 194    Crew: 96
Maximum Tracking Speed: 16000km/s
Materials Required: 50x Duranium  144x Vendarite  

Development Cost for Project: 1940RP
Using this fire control

Code: [Select]

50% Accuracy at Range: 40,000 km     Tracking Speed: 16000 km/s
Size: 200 Tons    HTK: 1    Cost: 96    Crew: 20
Chance of destruction by electronic damage: 100%
Materials Required: 24x Duranium  72x Uridium

Development Cost for Project: 960RP
and this sensor suite so that missiles can be seen

Code: [Select]

Active Sensor Strength: 10
Sensor Size: 50 Tons    Sensor HTK: 1
Primary Mode:   Resolution: 1    Maximum Range: 100,000 km
Chance of destruction by electronic damage: 100%
Cost: 10    Crew: 5
Materials Required: 2.5x Duranium  7.5x Uridium

Development Cost for Project: 100RP

2 of these are mounted in my 12k ton warships.  I justify the mass expenditure since the primary offensive weapons are railguns facing a missile heavy fleet.
 
The game they are in is one I'm using as an adhoc designs test not a campaign, so the designs are fairly biased against each other.

[Kurt (OP)]

Curious,  why so small?  The combination of small low rated cannon with slow tracking speed cripling against that missile speed.  

To save room, of course.  This is a 6,000 ton ship with low tech equipment across the board, so they need to save as much space as they can.  In fact, while doing the after action analysis, I realized that they could save a lot of space by installing the basic gauss cannon, rather than gauss cannon turrets.  Afer all, the tracking speed is low enough that you don't need the turret to boost the weapon's tracking speed above the ship's speed, and getting rid of the turret in favor of the weapon will allow me to mount many more weapons.  

I'm the first to admit that my aproach to GC's in PD suites is VERY heavy handed.  

PD Turret

Code: [Select]

Damage Output 1x12      Rate of Fire: 5 seconds     Range Modifier: 3
Max Range 30,000 km    Turret Size: 1700 tons    Armour: 0    Turret HTK: 8
Cost: 194    Crew: 96
Maximum Tracking Speed: 16000km/s
Materials Required: 50x Duranium  144x Vendarite  

Development Cost for Project: 1940RP
Using this fire control

Code: [Select]

50% Accuracy at Range: 40,000 km     Tracking Speed: 16000 km/s
Size: 200 Tons    HTK: 1    Cost: 96    Crew: 20
Chance of destruction by electronic damage: 100%
Materials Required: 24x Duranium  72x Uridium

Development Cost for Project: 960RP
and this sensor suite so that missiles can be seen

Code: [Select]

Active Sensor Strength: 10
Sensor Size: 50 Tons    Sensor HTK: 1
Primary Mode:   Resolution: 1    Maximum Range: 100,000 km
Chance of destruction by electronic damage: 100%
Cost: 10    Crew: 5
Materials Required: 2.5x Duranium  7.5x Uridium

Development Cost for Project: 100RP
2 of these are mounted in my 12k ton warships.  I justify the mass expenditure since the primary offensive weapons are railguns facing a missile heavy fleet.
 
The game they are in is one I'm using as an adhoc designs test not a campaign, so the designs are fairly biased against each other.

My idea for the gauss cannons was to use their high rate of fire to balance their poor accuracy, and to counter the inevitable leakers with heavy armor.  

Kurt

[Charlie Beeler]

To save room, of course.  This is a 6,000 ton ship with low tech equipment across the board, so they need to save as much space as they can.  In fact, while doing the after action analysis, I realized that they could save a lot of space by installing the basic gauss cannon, rather than gauss cannon turrets.  Afer all, the tracking speed is low enough that you don't need the turret to boost the weapon's tracking speed above the ship's speed, and getting rid of the turret in favor of the weapon will allow me to mount many more weapons.

That's effectively the answer I was expecting.  And I agree, without the benefit of a higher tracking speed the turret is just wasted mass.

My idea for the gauss cannons was to use their high rate of fire to balance their poor accuracy, and to counter the inevitable leakers with heavy armor.

Actually,  mass for mass the railgun is a better choice for effective PD.  The gauss cannon only leaps ahead when used in a fast turret mount.  Since the smallest RG is 3 HS the comparison is against 3 1HS GC.  4 non-degraded shots vs 6 shots degraded to 17% effectiveness.  That of course is only baseline.  

Then again that really just demonstrates that I have a different bias as too what makes an effective and justifiable missile defense.

Looking forward to your next campaign writeup.

[ZimRathbone]

My idea for the gauss cannons was to use their high rate of fire to balance their poor accuracy, and to counter the inevitable leakers with heavy armor.

Actually,  mass for mass the railgun is a better choice for effective PD.  The gauss cannon only leaps ahead when used in a fast turret mount.  Since the smallest RG is 3 HS the comparison is against 3 1HS GC.  4 non-degraded shots vs 6 shots degraded to 17% effectiveness.  That of course is only baseline.  

Then again that really just demonstrates that I have a different bias as too what makes an effective and justifiable missile defense.

Looking forward to your next campaign writeup.

Nice comparative analysis guys - I hadn't really looked at the detail of GC vs RG before (although I realise that its required) mainly cause I'm still getting used to the basic concepts in Aurora.


Ta Muchly

Mike