Author Topic: Thoughts on specialized missile/beam ships vs hybrid ships?  (Read 1321 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline lennson (OP)

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • l
  • Posts: 76
  • Thanked: 10 times
Thoughts on specialized missile/beam ships vs hybrid ships?
« on: January 12, 2017, 06:33:03 PM »
It seems that in most of the designs I see on this forum people design ships to be specialized to be either beam armed or missile armed. However, I was wondering if hybrid ships would actually be more effective in a close battle.

The reasoning is that once a missile ship is out of missiles it is effectively useless and any armor it has doesn't help in beam combat because it isn't a threat any more. In contrast, a hybrid ship would still be a threat in beam combat and can't be ignored even after its missiles have been used up. Because of this it seems like it would be a good idea to mount at least some basic beam weapons on any ship that has a significant amount of armor.

Of course, the difference probably would almost never matter since most battles are very one sided but I was wonder what other people think regarding specialized missile/beam ships vs hybrid ships.

 

Offline TheDeadlyShoe

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1264
  • Thanked: 58 times
  • Dance Commander
Re: Thoughts on specialized missile/beam ships vs hybrid ships?
« Reply #1 on: January 12, 2017, 06:49:02 PM »
Hybrid ships are perfectly viable, but they can't be as small as specialized ships.  The size requirement scales with the weapons loadout - you can think of an effective-efficient cluster of weapons as a weapons module, and as  long as you have enough payload tonnage to fit two independently viable weapons modules on your ship, it is perfectly acceptable.  The trick is making sure that your weapons modules are actually viable/effective.  The stumbling block is often active sensors, or extremely expensive active sensors/fire controls.

Code: [Select]
Canberra class Destroyer Escort    6 000 tons     163 Crew     1121.86 BP      TCS 120  TH 675  EM 0
5625 km/s     Armour 5-29     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/11/0/0     Damage Control Rating 4     PPV 16
Maint Life 5.49 Years     MSP 467    AFR 72%    IFR 1%    1YR 26    5YR 391    Max Repair 84 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months    Spare Berths 15   
Magazine 152   

Falcon-75 Active Dynamo (9)    Power 75    Fuel Use 116.17%    Signature 75    Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 540 000 Litres    Range 13.9 billion km   (28 days at full power)

Ballista Spinal Laser (1)    Range 192 000km     TS: 5625 km/s     Power 16-4     RM 4    ROF 20        16 16 16 16 12 10 9 8 7 6
VA-2/5 Distant Target Lock (1)    Max Range: 192 000 km   TS: 4500 km/s     95 90 84 79 74 69 64 58 53 48
Thorium Pile (1)     Total Power Output 4.5    Armour 0    Exp 5%

GARDIAN Launch System (8)    Missile Size 1    Rate of Fire 10
MFC-63 Reflex (1)     Range 20.8m km    Resolution 1
GARDIAN Salvator (152)  Speed: 21 800 km/s   End: 3.6m    Range: 4.8m km   WH: 1    Size: 1    TH: 152/91/45

GS/TA-100 Sentry (1)     GPS 84     Range 9.2m km    MCR 1.0m km    Resolution 1
BROADCOM Suite (1)     Sensitivity 11     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  11m km

Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

This is a multirole escort ship that I phased out.  It worked for what I wanted it to do - fast beam combat screener for larger vessels, plus AMM payload to screen against box launchers - but i ended up fighting all non-box launcher enemies and it didn't carry enough AMMs to counter the AI's love of deep magazines.  It was also designed to work in concert with a larger command vessel to provide longer-ranged Res1 sensors, but the command cruisers proved too vulnerable.  The single spinal laser (size 8 ) plus medium FC (size 3) plus power plant (size 1) equated to a reasonably sized weapons module that gave me a useful grade of firepower in beam combat for relatively low weight - although sheer firepower would be lacking in comparison to a beam combatant.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2017, 06:52:24 PM by TheDeadlyShoe »
 

Offline 83athom

  • Big Ship Commander
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1261
  • Thanked: 86 times
Re: Thoughts on specialized missile/beam ships vs hybrid ships?
« Reply #2 on: January 12, 2017, 09:33:04 PM »
Pretty much all of my warships are hybrid designs nowadays. When making them, you want 1) a main beam weapon (few turrets, or a number of casemates), 2) reduced size launchers, and 3)some kind of secondary and/or AMM-defenses (can be either small missiles or small beams).
Code: [Select]
Fury class Destroyer    17 500 tons     434 Crew     4066.62 BP      TCS 350  TH 1875  EM 0
7142 km/s     Armour 6-60     Shields 0-0     Sensors 8/8/0/0     Damage Control Rating 8     PPV 92.6
Maint Life 2.38 Years     MSP 2162    AFR 306%    IFR 4.3%    1YR 522    5YR 7833    Max Repair 390.625 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Flight Crew Berths 2   
Hangar Deck Capacity 500 tons     Magazine 144   

Williamson Manufacturing 625-25 ICFD (4)    Power 625    Fuel Use 78.61%    Signature 468.75    Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 1 750 000 Litres    Range 22.9 billion km   (37 days at full power)

CPDD 9-240 (4)    Range 240 000km     TS: 10000 km/s     Power 22-5    ROF 25        9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
ARC-4/85 Turret (2x4)    Range 40 000km     TS: 20000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 4    ROF 5        1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Twin ARC-4/33 Turret (4x8)    Range 40 000km     TS: 20000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 4    ROF 5        1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Carey-Leonard Space & Security Fire Control S01 48-20000 (2)    Max Range: 96 000 km   TS: 20000 km/s     90 79 69 58 48 38 27 17 6 0
Carey-Leonard Space & Security Fire Control S01 192-5000 (1)    Max Range: 384 000 km   TS: 5000 km/s     97 95 92 90 87 84 82 79 77 74
TFR-PPS-4 (1)     Total Power Output 32    Armour 0    Exp 5%

S6-MLR-3 50% (6)    Missile Size 6    Rate of Fire 300
Fowler-Hussain Systems GP-MFC47/R50 (1)     Range 47.5m km    Resolution 50
ASM-26-SS (24)  Speed: 32 000 km/s   End: 18.4m    Range: 35.4m km   WH: 16    Size: 6    TH: 117/70/35

Mitchell-Newton AGP-FSS MR3-R1 (1)     GPS 40     Range 3.1m km    MCR 341k km    Resolution 1
Carey-Leonard Space & Security AGP-SS MR54/R150 (1)     GPS 8400     Range 54.9m km    Resolution 150
THS-1/8 (1)     Sensitivity 8     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  8m km
EMDS-1/8 (1)     Sensitivity 8     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  8m km

ECCM-1 (2)         ECM 10

Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Something I built a few months ago but is just now seeing major combat because I took a break from Aurora. Yes I know there are visible problems with it, but those are because of some RP I have going on in that game (need oversized reactors for "exotic" weapons, various different gauss sizes, etc).
Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life.
 

Offline bitbucket

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • b
  • Posts: 44
  • Thanked: 7 times
Re: Thoughts on specialized missile/beam ships vs hybrid ships?
« Reply #3 on: January 12, 2017, 10:27:13 PM »
It's hard to make reasonably sized general-purpose ships at low or even middling tech levels.

I rolled out this monster lately. Homegrown invader-level tech went into it and I couldn't make it fit a 60k ton package with anything less. Of course it doesn't operate alone, but with support ships providing heavy point defense. I still think it's a fairly well-rounded capital ship though.

Code: [Select]
Excelsior class Battleship    60,000 tons     1876 Crew     37492.27 BP      TCS 1200  TH 18000  EM 12000
15000 km/s    JR 3-50     Armour 11-136     Shields 500-375     Sensors 80/80/0/0     Damage Control Rating 132     PPV 242.97
Maint Life 3.47 Years     MSP 29215    AFR 398%    IFR 5.5%    1YR 3699    5YR 55484    Max Repair 6750 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Spare Berths 8   
Magazine 2280   

DriveCorp G8-J60K(3-50) Military Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 60300 tons    Distance 50k km     Squadron Size 3
Blackstone Aeromarine 50×150% 3000 EP Solid Core AM Drive (6)    Power 3000    Fuel Use 27.56%    Signature 3000    Exp 15%
Fuel Capacity 5,800,000 Litres    Range 63.1 billion km   (48 days at full power)
Coates Dynamics Tau-R375/480 Shields (50)   Total Fuel Cost  1,000 Litres per hour  (24,000 per day)

Twin 20cm C10/A2/50k Far X-Ray Laser Turret (1x2)    Range 800,000km     TS: 50000 km/s     Power 20-20     RM 8    ROF 5        10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 8 8
Akhtar-Morgan S-60cm C16 Far X-Ray Laser (1)    Range 800,000km     TS: 15000 km/s     Power 94-16     RM 8    ROF 30        94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 83 75
Quad Gauss Cannon R5-100/A2/50k Turret (2x24)    Range 50,000km     TS: 50000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 5    ROF 5        1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Hilton Precision Arms CIWS-500 (2x12)    Range 1000 km     TS: 50000 km/s     ROF 5       Base 50% To Hit
Chadwick Electronics Fire Control S03 400-18750 H25 (1)    Max Range: 800,000 km   TS: 18750 km/s     99 98 96 95 94 92 91 90 89 88
Sun Electronic Systems Fire Control S08 400-50000 H25 (1)    Max Range: 800,000 km   TS: 50000 km/s     99 98 96 95 94 92 91 90 89 88
Turner Electronic Systems Backup Gauss Fire Control S00.5 25-50000 H25 (2)    Max Range: 50,000 km   TS: 50000 km/s     80 60 40 20 0 0 0 0 0 0
Shizuma-Maehata Gauss Fire Control S02 100-50000 H25 (2)    Max Range: 200,000 km   TS: 50000 km/s     95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50
Atkins Energistics 6GW Gas-core Antimatter Reactor (6)     Total Power Output 36    Armour 0    Exp 5%

Savage Armaments Size 6 Missile Launcher (75% Size) (30)    Missile Size 6    Rate of Fire 40
Palantir Systems Missile Fire Control FC515-R20 (25%) (3)     Range 515.2m km    Resolution 20
Hellbore ASM V6 (80)  Speed: 93,600 km/s   End: 21.4m    Range: 120m km   WH: 40    Size: 6    TH: 1404/842/421
Longshot ASM V2 (300)  Speed: 64,700 km/s   End: 128.8m    Range: 500m km   WH: 18    Size: 6    TH: 1488/892/446

Palantir Systems Active Search Sensor MR121-R10 (25%) (1)     GPS 1200     Range 121.4m km    Resolution 10
Palantir Systems Active Search Sensor MR543-R50 (25%) (1)     GPS 12000     Range 543.1m km    Resolution 50
Palantir Systems Active Search Sensor MR96-R1 (25%) (1)     GPS 300     Range 96.0m km    MCR 10.5m km    Resolution 1
Palantir Systems Thermal Sensor TH2.5-80 (25%) (1)     Sensitivity 80     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  80m km
Palantir Systems EM Detection Sensor EM2.5-80 (25%) (1)     Sensitivity 80     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  80m km

ECCM-6 (6)         ECM 60

Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s
« Last Edit: January 12, 2017, 10:57:25 PM by bitbucket »
 

Offline Michael Sandy

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • M
  • Posts: 771
  • Thanked: 83 times
Re: Thoughts on specialized missile/beam ships vs hybrid ships?
« Reply #4 on: January 13, 2017, 02:42:54 AM »
Some types of hybrids make sense.

A hybrid point defense and beam weapon ship makes sense.  You already have the reactors, so having a variety of beam fire controls and sensors works.

Hybrid AMM and missile ships can work, as you have flexibility in the ratio of AMM to ASM loadout, and you can get a little more AMM fire by using your anti-ship launchers.

Sticking a 1000-2000 ton hangar on a missile ship can work too, you can load with point defense fighters, fighters to run down cripples and kill them cheaply with beam weapons, you can have boarding pods for capturing slowed ships.  They can scout, or pursue trap enemy fighters after those fighters have shot their box launcher load, and being a missile ship you already have magazines.  Might need a larger fuel tank to support them, of course.

Another strategy is to have the philosophy that if a ship loses its weapons or has no effective weapons, you pull it back.  In war games, players will commit their HQ battalions to all or nothing attacks, even when what that describes is committing the cooks and the corpsmen and the clerks ... to day to day fights.

It is worth considering what your "general purposes" are.  You can have fuel efficient patrol ships that have a lot of maintenance supplies, whose role is to detect incursions and be able to wave the flag and shoot at unarmed survey ships or freighters, but are not expected to serve in the battle line.

You can have fuel guzzling ships with minimal crew space which park in orbit of a maintenance base until needed.  They are NOT the ship that goes out to investigate contacts.  They are the ones that surge out in response to KNOWN threats.

You could have your patrol ships have large magazines loaded with mines so they can fort up behind a warp point, and just give up any idea of them winning serious fight in open space.

Write down a list of the various purposes that you wish to have ships capable of doing, and just make sure that you have some ships for each category, or figure out how to avoid having that need.

If you have a ship capable of doing everything, it isn't going to be efficient at anything, and it will be too expensive to do everything everyWHERE.
 

Iranon

  • Guest
Re: Thoughts on specialized missile/beam ships vs hybrid ships?
« Reply #5 on: January 13, 2017, 09:55:51 AM »
I only consider hybrids when a beam and a missile role have similar basic requirement.

My missile ships tend to be rather unglamorous - essentially delivery vans. Not terribly fast, not terribly robust, they're supposed to haul ordnance for cheap.
The same may apply to beam PD ships - also built with low operating cost in mind rather than performance.
I usually still use separate designs. Part is habit, but there's a tangible reason: box launcher ships can be built with long mission lives for little additional cost, while cheap railgun ships are very manpower-intensive and get limited deployment times.

Some beam attackers may want much higher speed to control the range, even if supposed to outrun and outgun the opposition it may want decent armour to maintain performance in a nebula. I usually don't feel like wasting money and fuel on excessive speed that I won't need for missile cruisers.

If I build fast missile ships, they tend to be even faster than above beam attackers (able to keep up with slow high-yield missiles to get multiple simultaneous  salvos from a single fire control). These may or may not double as very-high-performance beam attackers if I need those... usually not.
 

Offline SgtVennamo

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • S
  • Posts: 11
Re: Thoughts on specialized missile/beam ships vs hybrid ships?
« Reply #6 on: January 25, 2017, 10:43:53 AM »
For me, earlier tech levels are for highly specialized designs due to bulkier technology (especially for sensors) and limited shipyard size.  Approaching mid-game I start to incorporate light/simple beam systems to missile combatants, which enable them to operate longer in combat and serve a function in longer deployments far from ordnance stockpiles.  I also rarely build bigger than 60t combat ships, preferring larger fleets made up of smaller squadrons capable of independent operations.