Author Topic: Reducing a fleet's reliance on missiles.  (Read 5554 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jiduthie (OP)

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • j
  • Posts: 33
Reducing a fleet's reliance on missiles.
« on: August 29, 2011, 08:50:42 AM »
For production and logistical reasons I want to cut down on missile use.  The fleet is young with only a few missile cruisers plus escorts, but has been experimenting with missile-armed fighters.  While my best missile/kinetic scientist has just kicked the bucket, a decent energy weapons replacement has just appeared and I'm thinking now might be the time to branch out.

Would meson armed fighters or FACS provide a good complement? I've noticed a few older threads saying that beam armed fighters are "useless" "unsupported. " Does this still hold true? What kind of support would they need in order to be effective?
 

Offline Erik L

  • Administrator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 5654
  • Thanked: 366 times
  • Forum Admin
  • Discord Username: icehawke
  • 2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: Reducing a fleet's reliance on missiles.
« Reply #1 on: August 29, 2011, 09:01:01 AM »
For production and logistical reasons I want to cut down on missile use.  The fleet is young with only a few missile cruisers plus escorts, but has been experimenting with missile-armed fighters.  While my best missile/kinetic scientist has just kicked the bucket, a decent energy weapons replacement has just appeared and I'm thinking now might be the time to branch out.

Would meson armed fighters or FACS provide a good complement? I've noticed a few older threads saying that beam armed fighters are "useless" "unsupported. " Does this still hold true? What kind of support would they need in order to be effective?

You'll probably still want missiles to keep the OpFor busy while your fighters close. Beam armed fighters need to be VERY close to be effective, which is why most people prefer missile-armed.

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: Reducing a fleet's reliance on missiles.
« Reply #2 on: August 29, 2011, 09:03:41 AM »
In my own NATO vs Soviet Union campaign, the Soviet have been using railgun-armed FACs. These have proved effective in jump point defence and ideal for chasing down unarmed enemy ships, such as freighters or survey ships. They wouldn't fare very well though in deep space engagements against missile-armed opponents. My own experience suggests a mixed fleet with beam and missile capability is best as you run into so many different situations.

Steve
 

Offline jiduthie (OP)

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • j
  • Posts: 33
Re: Reducing a fleet's reliance on missiles.
« Reply #3 on: August 29, 2011, 09:20:48 AM »
Quote from: Steve Walmsley link=topic=4018. msg39040#msg39040 date=1314626621
In my own NATO vs Soviet Union campaign, the Soviet have been using railgun-armed FACs. .

Steve

I missed that! I've used the Trans-Newtonian Campaign and the NATO Starting Forces as inspiration when trying to design my own fleet, but I haven't read very far into the NATO-Soviet campaign.

But yeah, the idea isn't to replace the cruisers/missile fighters but just add another option which can kill things without placing further strain on ordinance production.  Covering the mesons with missile fire seemed like it might work but I guess it might be worth it just to try and find out.  I've been using hit and run tactics against my current(first) enemy because I'll destroy a bunch and then be out of ammo.  Then it's another year of ordinance production before I can make another attack.  It's slowly working, but I'm worried about what will happen when I run into something that can follow me through the jump point!
 

Offline deoved

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • d
  • Posts: 61
Re: Reducing a fleet's reliance on missiles.
« Reply #4 on: August 29, 2011, 10:44:58 AM »
Very fast gauss-cannon armed fighters prooved effective against Invaders in my last campaign.
 

Offline jiduthie (OP)

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • j
  • Posts: 33
Re: Reducing a fleet's reliance on missiles.
« Reply #5 on: August 29, 2011, 12:05:35 PM »
I considered gauss.  Did you reduce the size and take the hit to accuracy?
 

Offline deoved

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • d
  • Posts: 61
Re: Reducing a fleet's reliance on missiles.
« Reply #6 on: August 29, 2011, 12:57:50 PM »
I considered gauss.  Did you reduce the size and take the hit to accuracy?

Yes i heavely minimized its size, to achive very small but speedy, maneuverable fighters. I compensate to hit accuracy by sheer fighters numbers.
 

Offline Charlie Beeler

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1381
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: Reducing a fleet's reliance on missiles.
« Reply #7 on: August 29, 2011, 01:18:04 PM »
Offensive beam fighters have a huge handicap to overcome in Aurora, they have to be able to survive offensive and defensive fire to reach the short ranges dectated by the limited size of the weapsons they can carry. 

The maximum size for a fighter is 10 hull spaces.  This is a limitation for fighter factory production, anything larger requires a shipyard slip. 

Fighter engines are 1hs and your limited to only 1.

The smallest beam weapon, that is not reduced size, is 3hs.  Plus you need a powerplant, figure between .5hs to 2hs for this depending on capacitor in the beam and the cyclic rate you want.

Your also need a beam fire control, at least 1 command module, and some fuel. 

At this point the fighter is someplace north of 6hs with less than 20% hs in engine and this leads to fighters that are bearly faster than ships with 25%hs in engine even though fighter engines produce 3x more power per hs than miltary ship engines.  Yes, reduced size lasers exist in the game, but the recharge penalty means that thier effectiveness is greatly reduced.

Gauss Cannon have been mentioned.  They're extremely short range when compared to all other beam weapons and twice as massive.  The reduced size versions sacrifice accuracy to the point near uselessness.

The only offset to these handicaps is swarms of hundreds of beam fighters.  You have to provide more targets for the OPFOR to eliminate than they have to ability to deal with.  This presents it's own problem, hanger space so that the maintenance clock doesn't kill them.  For a planetary defense this can work, but offensively is segnificantly larger problem. 

Strategicly and Logisticly, beam fighters are a losing proposity in Aurora. 
Amateurs study tactics, Professionals study logistics - paraphrase attributed to Gen Omar Bradley
 

Offline Thiosk

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 784
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: Reducing a fleet's reliance on missiles.
« Reply #8 on: August 29, 2011, 01:21:51 PM »
Hm.  Fighter engine also provides reactor power?  Since the fighter engine only works on fighters, i don't see how it could unbalance anything.
 

Offline Charlie Beeler

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1381
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: Reducing a fleet's reliance on missiles.
« Reply #9 on: August 29, 2011, 02:23:37 PM »
Hm.  Fighter engine also provides reactor power?  Since the fighter engine only works on fighters, i don't see how it could unbalance anything.

????  Not sure where your getting this. 
Amateurs study tactics, Professionals study logistics - paraphrase attributed to Gen Omar Bradley
 

Offline Thiosk

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 784
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: Reducing a fleet's reliance on missiles.
« Reply #10 on: August 29, 2011, 03:34:18 PM »
????  Not sure where your getting this. 

<suggestion to make alleviate at least one problem with beam fighters, have them generate power on their own without need for reactors>
 

Offline jiduthie (OP)

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • j
  • Posts: 33
Re: Reducing a fleet's reliance on missiles.
« Reply #11 on: August 29, 2011, 04:31:16 PM »
Quote from: Charlie Beeler link=topic=4018. msg39058#msg39058 date=1314641884
Strategicly and Logisticly, beam fighters are a losing proposity in Aurora.  

Are beam FACs any better off? Fiddling with the class designer it seems like I can fit 4 or so armor on one while still keeping it's speed above 10000kps.  But at the point you're using FACs perhaps perhaps its just as well to build destroyer or cruiser sized beam ships.

I've seen it suggested elsewhere on the board about giving fighters an ability roughly analogous to agility on missiles that would allow them to evade incoming fire.  If improving fighters is on the agenda, about which I'm way too green to make a judgment, I'd like to see that ability being tied to pilot/commander skill in some way.  But, I'll admit to having a soft spot for that type of man management in games.
 

Offline deoved

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • d
  • Posts: 61
Re: Reducing a fleet's reliance on missiles.
« Reply #12 on: August 29, 2011, 04:39:29 PM »
Gauss do not need power plant. I used these against Invaders. 50-70 fighters on one carrier vessel.

Code: [Select]
A-660 Arrado G class Strikefighter    215 tons     6 Crew     68.1 BP      TCS 4.3  TH 24  EM 0
11162 km/s     Armour 1-3     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 1.5
Annual Failure Rate: 3%    IFR: 0.1%    Maint Capacity 20 MSP    Max Repair 38 MSP    Est Time: 4.85 Years

Henchel/50 Magneto-plasma Drive A0E6 (1)    Power 48    Fuel Use 6000%    Signature 24    Armour 0    Exp 25%
Fuel Capacity 5,000 Litres    Range 0.7 billion km   (17 hours at full power)

STURM (3/3/25) Fighter Gauss Cannon (1x3)    Range 30,000km     TS: 11162 km/s     Accuracy Modifier 25%     RM 3    ROF 5        1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ECHO/B (0/1.25/1) Fighter Fire Control (1)    Max Range: 80,000 km   TS: 20000 km/s     88 75 62 50 38 25 12 0 0 0

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

edit: corrected...
« Last Edit: August 29, 2011, 04:45:37 PM by deoved »
 

Offline Ashery

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • A
  • Posts: 91
Re: Reducing a fleet's reliance on missiles.
« Reply #13 on: August 29, 2011, 05:26:46 PM »
Gauss Cannon have been mentioned. The reduced size versions sacrifice accuracy to the point near uselessness.

I couldn't disagree more. Sure, in a one on one matchup the 5% to hit rating would be too low to rely on, but when a single hanger deck can hold eight low tech variants and ten high tech ones (nine if you adjust your BFC to track at your max speed, 200k/sec, heh), you'll never be in such a situation. You'll be looking at reduced overall firepower since a larger percentage of the tonnage of your fighter force will be engines/etc, but you'll gain a massive speed advantage.

Also, remember to take full advantage of the +power, -efficiency tech line for the fighter engines.
 

Offline Andrew

  • Registered
  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 667
  • Thanked: 112 times
Re: Reducing a fleet's reliance on missiles.
« Reply #14 on: August 29, 2011, 05:29:28 PM »
That looks like it will work against Invaders however they have relatively few weapon mounts and FC, other NPR's will do much better against these fighters having lots of AMM missiles , beam weapons and quite a few FC. It may work if the NPR AI limitations keep them targeting one fighter at a time which would make them even more effective vs Invaders , but to me that would feel like an exploit. As I know a similar fighter strike against one of my fleets would have serious problems due to the AMM launchers being able to engage multiple fighters and kill them before they reach gauss range.

When I want to reduce dependency on missiles I built larger ships with heavy beam weapons, although this works less well against Invaders as unless you have good engines closing on them with a heavy ship is hard. If you have good defense against missiles with turrets and AMM's you can even beat an NPR fleet with faster ships by advancing on their base world and killing them when they rearm or run out of missiles