Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
@Michael Sandy

That information is about FCS configruation is helpful, thanks for that.


Wow, there are a lot of good suggestions here! Below is a more in-depth breakdown of the design philosophy; perhaps some of you could give me some more insights based on this information? With regards to doctrine, this a generalist cruiser, built for facing an unknown threats that could have any kind of capabilities. Role-Play wise, the Confederate-Class was engineered to counter as many different kinds of threats as could be thought up by the Confederate Intelligence Service within the confines of current Sidonian technology while maintaining the highest possible efficiency in dealing with the threats that it was supposed to counter. So, to put it another way, the ship was made to counter as many threats as possible at the highest efficiency possible to counter them. The vessel's mission profile could be considered, "attack the enemy, protect itself, protect the confederacy."

This class of cruiser isn't equipped with Commercial Engines, they are 2,500 Tonne Internal Confinement Fusion Drives w/ 50% Thermal Reduction, 0.75x Power and 0.5 litres per power hour of consumption. They are meant to be general purpose military engines, not too fast but not too thirsty either while also being modestly stealthy for their size and output. Two of these are equivalent in power to one and a half drives of comparable tonnage, while being more fuel efficient than one engine of comparable tonnage with a 1.50x power boost or two drives with a 1.0x power output. Their combined Thermal Signature is only two thirds of a pair of engines with 1.0x Power Output at the same tonnage, while being half the Thermal Signature of a single drive with 1.50x Power Output of the same tonnage.

They were built from the word go with a "middle of the road" approach, although I'm not sure how the speed stacks up at Internal Confinement Tech being only 6,000 km/s. As to the Beam FCS, I get what you are saying, and I hadn't really thought to arrange it that way. My layout was meant to be robust and multi-purpose; with all three of the ship's Fire Control Systems being able to stand in for one another, while the addition of a third FCS was to compensate for the lack of specialization with the ability to engage two salvos at once if needs be. The ECCM and ECM are there to help mitigate the speed disadvantage of the cruiser by affecting the enemy's range, thereby forcing them to close or else devote tonnage to offset the ECM. The ECCM would likewise help the generalist FCS units mitigate enemy shipboard or missile ECM, furthering the gap and forcing enemies to either close or devote tonnage to countering it.

That's where the shields come in, actually... With the generalist engines, the shields serve to force the enemy to divvy up their mission tonnage between having enough speed to close and enough firepower to overwhelm the cruiser's defenses. This is exasperated by the ECM / ECCM, of which a compact version is only 50 Tonnes or 1/3rd of a standard version as well as the range of the 15cm lasers. At closer ranges, the 10cms in their harder to knock out armored turrets serve to help out-shoot ships that try to close, while the Railguns can be divvied up into their own FCS group to focus on PD only. With the 240,000 km range on the 15cm lasers ands the added damage at 120,000 km, the cruiser can out range what it can't outrun and out shoot what it can't out range all while using the shields to effectively weather leakers in it's PD and the fire of smaller Beam Fighters and FACs. It's a generalist design, not particularly good at anything, but adequate at just about everything.
Aurora Bugs / Re: Official v7.10 Bugs Reporting Thread
« Last post by Marski on May 17, 2019, 03:45:59 PM »
I've also noticed that area-defence PD mode doesn't work, tested several times, same outcome; turrets won't engage incoming missiles unless manually given targets

Yeah. . .  Area Mode never worked well (some people would say 'at all') and from the beginning was almost always the tactically sub-optimal choice, so it kind of got ignored.  FDF and FDF(SO) got all the tinkering and fixing, as they were 99.99% of what players and NPRs used.
There's a problem with Final Defencive Fire too, I have two turrets for a beam firecontrol, but in the missile strike phase, only one of the turrets shoot
The requirements of a PD beam fire control and an anti-ship beam fire control are not identical.

Anti-ship, you want the maximum possible range.  But you only generally need as much tracking as your ship speed, especially if you have spinals.

PD, you do NOT need maximum possible range, but if you have turreted PD, you want the maximum possible tracking.  So if you have 5,000 km/s racial tracking, you will want 20,000 km/s beam fire control and turret tracking.

And 2x4 railguns with 5,000 km/s tracking, that shoots down maybe two missiles at 20,000 km/s, which is slow for magnetic plasma missiles.  The AI only very rarely fires volleys smaller than 3 missiles, but that would be out of character knowledge.  So this is information that you could use to inform your 2nd generation ships, after you see some combat with them.

Given that you have 5,000 km/s tracking, look into getting boosted engines and 10,000 km/s ship speed, and get x2 speed, x4 range beam fire control tech for your main guns.  The railgun FC only needs about x2 speed, x1 range, probably.

I have built commercial engined missile ships and carriers, but I would never do commercial engines for beam ships.  A missile duel, you can win if you have enough bulk slow moving point defense and carry enough missiles to kill the enemy.  Not having the ability to maintain a particular range isn't really fatal for them.  But a beam ship that can't close is nothing but an expensive to maintain target.

I agree there are always better ways to do things, the Rimward-Class Cryo Trays are quite sensibly designed as 30,000 Tonne engineless pods and are meant to be tugged. The Millennium-Class is designed to be a Jump Capable 300,000 Ton Hangar Deck, because why make sensible, boring ships when you can do things inefficiently with style. 8)

I just went for 750,000 Tonnes because my OCD demands nice looking numbers. ;D That, and there isn't really any good way to build a 300,000 Tonne Hangar Deck... le sigh

Interesting note, all of my commercial and military freighters, tankers, assault transports and troop ferries are 30,000 Tonnes and NOT Jump Capable. I don't have Jump Gates mostly for RP reasons which I'll flesh out at some point in the future, so the Millennium-Class serves as a Jump Ship for ten of these 30,000 Tonne beasts at a time.

And since there isn't any good way to make a 300,000 Tonne Hangar Deck in 7.2 Aurora in the first place, making that 300,000 Ton Hangar Deck Jump Capable is even harder. Yeah, there are a lot of better ways of accomplishing the tasks that a 300,000 Tonne Hangar Deck can, but none of them are a 300,000 Tonne Hangar Deck. And at the end of the day, the Millennium-Class is really about strapping a Jump Drive onto a 300,000 Tonne Hangar Deck! :D
@Michael Sandy

Those shields are generally more for flavor, yes, however they do a pretty good job protecting the ship against Fighters and FACs grossing up to 1,000 Tonnes as their complements are typically quite limited. Think of them less as shields and more as "Defensive Screens" that are there to take the edge off of bigger shots.

Also, I was under the impression that linking one 10cm Railgun and one 10cm Laser to each Beam FCS would allow me to use them to engage more than one salvo at a time in the PD Role? Am I mistaken?
I never understand why people always insist on splitting up the roles of ridiculous ships like this, like I am pretty sure Xenoscepter knows there are other ways to do the things this ship does, but they wanted to make a monstrosity and by god they went and did it, for this I salute them.
@Michael Sandy

It's just the engine I had lying around. I try to reuse stuff as much as possible.
LOL.  Thermal reduction on that thing?  Why?  It will be detected billions of km away by any thermal sensor anyway.  You would be better off splitting up its role and getting smaller ships with lower effective signature, and saving the massive gallicite expense of those engines.
Iranon, ECM and ECCM are more important for Beam ships because you CAN'T overbuild your fire controls like you can overbuild your missile fire controls.

The shields seem to be more for flavor than effectiveness.  I like shields in my kiting designs, because when facing off against equal beam fire controls I can potentially whittle them down by fighting at maximum range.  They also allow my beam capital ships to close to a nearly disabled ship to board it, hopefully taking all the damage on their shields.  My beam capital ships have a cryo drop module to take advantage of mostly disabled ships.  But to do that you have to have enough shields to take the full firepower of an enemy ship once, or the fire of a fleet at maximum range.

There is a bit of a mismatch in the crew endurance vs fuel endurance.  Basically, your crew starts getting really cranky on the return voyage.  Which isn't horrible, as you can go out to fight, and you will be at full morale at the fight, but you have no ability to stay on station at that range.  Be better to have less fuel, more crew endurance, and bring a commercial tanker or refuel from a forward depot if you need the range.

The mix of beam ranges is a bit awkward.  But I really don't think you have enough beam weapons to really justify that many fire controls. An anti-ship and a PD fire control, sure.  My fire plan for my capitals when I am shooting to disable is to stagger my beams, so the fire control fires a beam every 5 seconds. So if I have beams that fire every 20 seconds, I would have 4 per fire control.
@Michael Sandy

The power/propulsion tech is Tokomak Fusion w/ Internal Confinement Drive; using I believe 0.5 or 0.3 liters per power hour consumption tech and 50% Thermal Reduction Tech.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10