Author Topic: Missile Cruiser Task Group -- Feedback wanted  (Read 663 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline captain_carrot

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • c
  • Posts: 12
Missile Cruiser Task Group -- Feedback wanted
« on: March 31, 2018, 08:10:33 PM »
Hey guys, this is my first real attempt at building a warship formation.    Please let me know any advice/suggestions you may have to improve upon them! (I haven't found any NPR's yet in my game, so I haven't had a chance to battle test them. . . )

Code: [Select]
Lugh Mk. II class Jump Cruiser    10000 tons     316 Crew     1246.96 BP      TCS 200  TH 240  EM 0
1200 km/s    JR 4-50     Armour 3-41     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/12/0/0     Damage Control Rating 4     PPV 48
Maint Life 1.93 Years     MSP 351    AFR 177%    IFR 2.5%    1YR 123    5YR 1840    Max Repair 166 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months    Spare Berths 0   
Magazine 414   

J10200(4-50) Military Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 10200 tons    Distance 50k km     Squadron Size 4
120 EP Ion Drive (2)    Power 120    Fuel Use 72%    Signature 120    Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 500000 Litres    Range 12.5 billion km   (120 days at full power)

CIWS-120 (1x4)    Range 1000 km     TS: 12000 km/s     ROF 5       Base 50% To Hit
Spear Size 8 Missile Launcher (6)    Missile Size 8    Rate of Fire 120
Gae Derg Missile Fire Control FC64-R80 (1)     Range 64.4m km    Resolution 80
Gae Derg Mk. II Anti-ship Missile (52)  Speed: 11200 km/s   End: 106.9m    Range: 71.9m km   WH: 20    Size: 8    TH: 37 / 22 / 11

Active Search Sensor MR96-R100 (1)     GPS 16000     Range 96.0m km    Resolution 100
EM Detection Sensor EM2-12 (1)     Sensitivity 12     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  12m km

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Code: [Select]
Scathach Mk. II class Cruiser    8000 tons     287 Crew     1053.64 BP      TCS 160  TH 180  EM 0
1125 km/s     Armour 3-35     Shields 0-0     Sensors 12/12/0/0     Damage Control Rating 5     PPV 64
Maint Life 3.95 Years     MSP 412    AFR 102%    IFR 1.4%    1YR 42    5YR 631    Max Repair 160 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 5 months    Spare Berths 5   
Magazine 308   

60 EP Ion Drive (3)    Power 60    Fuel Use 76%    Signature 60    Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 300000 Litres    Range 8.9 billion km   (91 days at full power)

CIWS-120 (1x4)    Range 1000 km     TS: 12000 km/s     ROF 5       Base 50% To Hit
Spear Size 8 Missile Launcher (8)    Missile Size 8    Rate of Fire 120
Gae Derg Missile Fire Control FC64-R80 (1)     Range 64.4m km    Resolution 80
Gae Derg Mk. I Anti-ship Missile (38)  Speed: 10000 km/s   End: 105.3m    Range: 63.2m km   WH: 12    Size: 8    TH: 33 / 20 / 10

Active Search Sensor MR96-R100 (1)     GPS 16000     Range 96.0m km    Resolution 100
Thermal Sensor TH2-12 (1)     Sensitivity 12     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  12m km
EM Detection Sensor EM2-12 (1)     Sensitivity 12     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  12m km

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Code: [Select]
Cu Sidhe class Escort    3000 tons     75 Crew     416.6 BP      TCS 60  TH 300  EM 0
5000 km/s     Armour 1-18     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 9
Maint Life 2.99 Years     MSP 87    AFR 72%    IFR 1%    1YR 15    5YR 219    Max Repair 30 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months    Spare Berths 2   

60 EP Ion Drive (5)    Power 60    Fuel Use 76%    Signature 60    Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 650000 Litres    Range 51.3 billion km   (118 days at full power)

Point Defense 10cm Railgun V3/C3 (3x4)    Range 30000km     TS: 5000 km/s     Power 3-3     RM 3    ROF 5        1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Point Defense Fire Control S02 32-6000 (1)    Max Range: 64000 km   TS: 6000 km/s     84 69 53 37 22 6 0 0 0 0
Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor Technology PB-1 (2)     Total Power Output 9    Armour 0    Exp 5%

Rail Gun Point Defense Active Search Sensor MR0-R1 (1)     GPS 8     Range 480k km    MCR 52k km    Resolution 1

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
« Last Edit: March 31, 2018, 08:13:41 PM by captain_carrot »
 

Offline Michael Sandy

  • Captain
  • **********
  • M
  • Posts: 545
  • Thanked: 24 times
Re: Missile Cruiser Task Group -- Feedback wanted
« Reply #1 on: March 31, 2018, 11:41:24 PM »
At least until Magneto-Plasma, you can build quite effective missile warships with commercial engines.  This saves a LOT on fuel and jump engines.  Assuming that your concern is strategic mobility, and not attempting a jump assault.  And at ion tech you probably aren't really ready for a jump assault.

You can have commercial engined ion warships that are considerably faster than 1200 km/s.  My theory is that if you can reach a desired speed with less than 60% mass commercial engines, you should definitely use commercial engines for that role.  Possibly as high as 70% engines, although the mass cost for a long crew and maintenance endurance can be an issue.

Commercial engines can soak an enormous amount of punishment for very few BP.

I would argue that military engines are preferably once you have at least 2 levels of engine boost available, and if you have a really good fuel situation.  If your empire is more limited by duranium than by gallicite, go for boost.

At TL 3, you should probably have at least the first 2 levels of engine boost for your missiles and launcher reduction should also be available.  If you have TL 3 warhead and agility tech, you should definitely have at least TL 2 launcher tech.

Those warhead 20s will make very nice holes in stuff, but I am concerned about their accuracy and vulnerability to point defense.  If you have reduced sized launchers, you fire larger volleys and fire in response to the effect your volleys have.

Also, this is probably the most common error I see in missile ship designs:  Not enough magazine space.    At 9 volleys, you shoot yourself dry in 8*120 or 960 seconds. At 1200 km/s, that is slightly over 1 million km, or under 2% of your missile range.

While it might be difficult if you haven't had a good defense scientist, as an RP matter, I think it is awkward if your own missiles always penetrate your armor on the first hit.  Unless your fleet has a serious focus on missile defense, that is a serious glass cannon.  You would need 4 armor to avoid taking system damage from a single one of your own missiles.

Railguns are a decent early PD.  If you are going for unarmored escorts anyway, consider using fighters.  You will have a huge savings on the fire controls.  The anti-missile sensor is quite good. Possibly a little excessive, but not by much.  Beam PD doesn't need quite as much lead detection as sensors for AMMs.  For AMMs, you want to intercept as far out as possible.

I think that the biggest problem I have with your fleet is that it is intended for force projection (it has jump engines), but is ridiculously short ranged.  And it isn't pushing a performance envelope with speed or armor such that you would need to cut down space so ruthlessly elsewhere.
 

Offline misanthropope

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • m
  • Posts: 16
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: Missile Cruiser Task Group -- Feedback wanted
« Reply #2 on: April 01, 2018, 08:45:38 AM »
Your fleet seems more good than bad.   It's tolerable, built on an economical research allotment.  I would bet that was the explicit original aim.

Point defense early in the game is hard.   you're going to take that AMM spam and your tracking speed isn't going to be able to cope, really.   Your fleet design matches the general consensus that active defense is better than passives, but a good chin is an important plan 'B' in the I(r)on Age.

I think the speed mismatch among classes is excessive, and I don't like the size 8 launchers at all.   If you aren't in the realm of doing and needing to do shock damage, a big warhead isn't worth sacrificing other performance, IMO.   Sanding everything to death with size one garbage missiles is a joy-sucking anti-game experience, i get it, but maybe size four, using whatever size reduction tech you have, would be a reasonable compromise?

Did you know that CIWS is actually pronounced "scuse"?  as in "scuse me while i kill all your friends".   they are decorations for vanity ships (a VALID USE, ok?  just not relevant here); they are really functional on JP assault ships, exploity fire-drawing missile sponges, and death stars (ie single ship fleets).   

I agree completely with what MS said about commercial engines, but that is critiquing your paradigm, not your designs.   I agree with what he said about fighters (the free 20%-ish accuracy bonus you get from fighter combat bonus is nice) but probably the R&D cost puts it out of consideration for the first generation of ships.   but you can always add a carrier after the fact; a small carrier for point defense duty is pretty worthy.
 

Offline Michael Sandy

  • Captain
  • **********
  • M
  • Posts: 545
  • Thanked: 24 times
Re: Missile Cruiser Task Group -- Feedback wanted
« Reply #3 on: April 01, 2018, 06:09:08 PM »
Depending on your fleet speed, you don't need carriers to have point defense fighters.  I like building heavily armored tanker/tug/jump tenders (CIWS optional) once I start building capital ships.  With small, (or tiny) engineering spaces, you can have effective point defense fighters that keep up with the fleet if you go with miniaturized gauss turrets.

Assuming you have at least something with a military jump engine in the fleet, every if is it your minimum sized jump engine for survey fleets.

Lacking a good P&P scientist sucks, but sometimes you just have to leverage the good scientists you have.  If you have a good defense scientist, you can build cheap ships that basically soak enemy missiles, and as long as you can get between them and their base where they can reload, you can seize the territory.  If you have a good MK scientist, going for gauss turrets is probably marginally better than railguns, because railguns depend so much more on engines to achieve accuracy.  Marginally because you have already invested in railguns.  If you have a good sensors scientist you can leverage that by building missile fire controls and sensors that allow you to shoot from beyond enemy range, either for single stage missiles for fighters and LACs, or 2-stage missiles for capital ships.

I think it is really fascinating seeing the adaptations people make to their fleet designs based on their scientists.  For example, I have had 15 years of crap C&P scientists, no sensors scientist (until recently), a +65 defense scientist a decent PP and MK and a +60 factory administrator.  That last makes fighter factories and ordnance factories MUCH more attractive, even with the crap sensors.
 

Offline Barkhorn

  • Captain
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 477
  • Thanked: 56 times
Re: Missile Cruiser Task Group -- Feedback wanted
« Reply #4 on: April 01, 2018, 06:59:58 PM »
Honestly pretty impressed with your fleet, considering it is your first ever.  Speeds mostly match, deployment times match, ranges are nice and long.

Only problem I can see is that you've got no good way to spot missiles or FAC's.  You need a res 1 active sensor.
 

Offline captain_carrot

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • c
  • Posts: 12
Re: Missile Cruiser Task Group -- Feedback wanted
« Reply #5 on: April 02, 2018, 10:27:21 AM »
Appreciate the feedback everyone!  I think part of my problem is getting too excited about building a war fleet without the tech/big enough shipyards to back it up. 

I think better sensors and smaller/more numerous missiles will help me out a lot.

I guess the last question is: Am I even in the right ballpark for including railgun escorts for point missile defense?  I guess I was more including them from an RP perspective as I really like the idea of railguns as a weapon, and the wiki says they make decent low-tech point defense (though I'm probably using them incorrectly haha).   The reason for the speed disparity is that I thought their tracking speed was limited by the speed of the ship, so I wanted to make sure they were fast enough. . .

Thanks again!
« Last Edit: April 02, 2018, 10:38:48 AM by captain_carrot »
 

Offline Barkhorn

  • Captain
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 477
  • Thanked: 56 times
Re: Missile Cruiser Task Group -- Feedback wanted
« Reply #6 on: April 02, 2018, 11:51:51 AM »
You're correct, tracking speed is either your ship's speed or the fire control's speed, whichever is lowest.  Railguns are the best point defense for your tech level.  Gauss doesn't really start to outperform railguns until you get to rate-of-fire 5.
 

Offline Gabethebaldandbold

  • last member of the noob swarm
  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • Posts: 85
  • Thanked: 6 times
Re: Missile Cruiser Task Group -- Feedback wanted
« Reply #7 on: April 03, 2018, 03:37:39 PM »
Appreciate the feedback everyone!  I think part of my problem is getting too excited about building a war fleet without the tech/big enough shipyards to back it up. 

I think better sensors and smaller/more numerous missiles will help me out a lot.

I guess the last question is: Am I even in the right ballpark for including railgun escorts for point missile defense?  I guess I was more including them from an RP perspective as I really like the idea of railguns as a weapon, and the wiki says they make decent low-tech point defense (though I'm probably using them incorrectly haha).   The reason for the speed disparity is that I thought their tracking speed was limited by the speed of the ship, so I wanted to make sure they were fast enough. . .

Thanks again!
Using them wrong?!  You did it perfectly, your fleet is good and as soon an I saw it I noticed you did your research. Now for the criticism.
Its much harder to get big ships to go fast than it is go make small ships go fast, so the most efficient way to do pd with railguns is fighters, although big ships have the bonus of being good beam warships overall.
Size 8 missiles are great, I love them and I use them, but the traditional missile war doctrine is to go for size 6 missiles so yeah people are going to talk about that.
You are still in ion engines era so you shouldn't really scour the galaxy trying to pick a fight with NPR's and Spoiler races, but if you find them, I dont think 68 million kilometers range will impress them, so unless you know they are going for beam weapons, prepare to endure some hardcore missile strikes.
I also see you are going for full size missile launchers, but the problem with tose is that unless you missiles are somewhat armoured or really really fast (like 40.000km/s fast) they can have problems piercing through some harder active defenses, while with reduced launchers you can usually get larger salvoes that are much better at overwhelming the enemy.
There is another thing we can improve with the design of your missiles. You see the missile will penetrate a number of layers equal to the square root of the total damage (9 damage goes through 3 layers 16, 4 layers and so on) and since you dont seem to be going for shock damage, it would be better if you toned down the raw damage on your missile to a solid 16 and worked on things like hit chance and such. You can probably make much faster and agile missiles than these. Its also generally a good idea to go for engine boost ic you are working with missiles since missile speed makes your missiles harder to hit, increases hit chance and shortens the window of time the enemy has to engage your missiles.
Try bringing a missile collier with this fleet, your magazines are not the most impressive and while they may be ok for some engagements, the bigger fate deciding battles will require way more volleys.
Having a dedicated sensor ship is also generally a good idea, it big passive sensors can usually spot the enemy from far away without denouncing your position, which by itself can be a huge tactical advantage.
As for your pd philosophy so far, it be stronk design. Gud design. Human design. Best design.
To beam, or not to beam.   That is the question
 

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53