Ship design rule of thumb?

[Mor (OP)]

I have looked through the bureau of ship design forum it has a lot of nice specific examples. But what I am looking for is run down of ship roles (military and civilian) and general design principles for said roles. Any thoughts ?

[Prince of Space]

Before I answer, let me point out that there is an entire thread dedicated to Odd Duck Designs, highlighting unusual but useful ship designs that people have come up with. That thread is evidence for the great flexibility you have as a designer in addressing your empire's need. So any answers you get will probably be more reflective of the designers posting them than of the principles underlying the game itself.

And also, when I was a new player, I benefitted from the advice of veteran players. Now that I'm a veteran player, I benefit from the creativity of new players. So don't go shortchanging me on new ideas. If I can't pilfer your designs for new strategies, where will I find them?

Rules of thumb:

For missile warships, large, infrequent salvos beats small, rapid fire salvos every time. Your enemies have a limited time to engage incoming missiles, so throw enough at them that some missiles will get to their targets without being engaged at all.

For civilian (and some military) designs, I try to get multiple designs built out of one shipyard, especially if I don't need many of one of the designs. How many jump gate constructors do I need? A dozen over the course of my empire's lifetime? I'll build them on a tanker chassis instead. Do I need a dedicated freighter shipyard? I'll just base it around my salvager.

Tugs need big fuel tanks, since they run many engines full throttle over an extended period. I mark mine as tankers as well, so they can zip out to thirsty ships and refuel them.

If a design does its work sitting in orbit (asteroid miners, orbital terraformers, sorium harvesters) they don't need many engines, if any. they spend most of their lives stationary, so I move them with tugs instead of under their own power.

Gravitational surveys compel the survey ships to take a tour of the star system, visiting a series of evenly spaced points in the system. I throw on some passive sensors to get a rough sense for whether or not the system has any activity in it.

[Bryan Swartz]

I agree with Prince of Space.  I thought a little yesterday about how I would answer this question, and soon realized that I couldn't give much more than my particular approach. 

Missile ships are a good example;  large salvos are indeed best but there can be RP reasons for not doing it that way.  I think most players use 25%-35% of space for engines on military ships and several layers of armor, but then there are those who depart from this.  There's very little that you can find where there aren't reasons to do it differently, depending on playstyle and so on. 

Really the most important thing I think is to understand the basic rules of how things work/interact.  This would be things like:

** Speed kills, since it increases your chances to dodge enemy fire
** Energy weapons need sufficient power via power plants
** Weapon and fire control ranges need to match up, no point in a laser than can shoot only a third as far as your overdesigned FC can guide it.
** Energy weapons can only track as fast as the turret or ship on which they are mounted can turn, so that has to be matched to the FC as well.
** Know what components are military and what ones are commercial to fit the ship properly. 

Once you have a handle on that kind of stuff, there are very few universals.  Some types of ships I make, like shuttles for example, a lot of players don't even use due to the micromanaging necessary to shuttle VIPs around all over the place and the 'assign anywhere' option is on.  Some players make sensor ships; some put small sensors/CIWS on all commercial ships while others don't;  etc.  Jump drives on every ship or just on 'jump tenders' once you get a sprawling set of systems, and even if you use tenders design of those will vary greatly -- there's just too much variance between players to really say  much useful other than basic general principles such as what's above. 

[AL]

There's something to be said for standardisation of parts/components for your ships, so that the same engines or whatever can be used across multiple designs without having to research a new set of components every time you design a new ship.

Don't just work with the tonnage displayed in the class summary, use the exact class size along the left side of the window as it has better precision. If you're building to a set size, eg 10 000 tons because that's what your jump engines can handle, check that exact class size readout when you finish designing. Often times the brief class summary will claim your ship is 10 000 tons while in the exact size you will see it is only 9 970 tons or something like that. I usually just fill the remaining space will small fuel tanks to squeeze out as much as possible in my size target.

I disagree somewhat with the statement "no point in an overengineered FC if your weapons can only shoot a third as far" - you get improved accuracy at max weapon range which can give a surprising boost to your damage output if you tend to try and kite enemies outside their own range like I do.

[Bryan Swartz]

Point taken, AL.  Another good example of how there is really very little that is universally applicable . 

[MagusXIX]

When designing a ship, I have a pretty simple process.  First I ask myself what the primary role of the ship should be.  Something specific. "Warship" isn't specific enough.  "Missile cruiser" is better.  "Point Defence Ship" is better.  Once I've got the primary role sorted out, then, before I design even a single component, I decide how much of the total size I want to dedicate to engines.  As a rule of thumb, I've found 20-25% is a good standard for reasonable speed.  So, for example, a 10,000 ton military ship would then have 2,500 (25%) tons to dedicate to engines.  Since redundancy is good for military ships, I'd probably break that down into either 2 size 25 engines (1,250 tonnes each) or 5 size 10 engines (500 tonnes each.)  You could do 3 size 16 or 4 size 12, but you wouldn't come out to exactly 25% engines that way (which could be fine, as long as you're close enough to your goal.)

Once engines are sorted out, then I tack on the one-off systems that I know I'll want on just about every ship.  Damage control and emergency cryo transports are the only "must-haves" on that list, anything else is up in the air.

Then I pack as many systems onto the ship as possible which fulfill its primary purpose.  For missile boats, that means launchers + magazines.  For point defence, that usually means turrets or AMM launchers + magazines.  Just pack as much on as you can without going over your target size.

Then, with whatever is left, I'll add defenses.  Armor and shields, until I get as close to the target size (without going over) as I possibly can.

Once all that's done, it's time to tweak.  The big things you'll be looking to tweak are maintenance (via engineering spaces), deployment time, and range (via adjusting fuel tanks.)  Remove whatever you think you can spare in order to ensure you've got the desired maintenance, deployment time, and range.

Once all that's done you should have a ship that has a clear purpose and everything it needs to accomplish its purpose.

[MagusXIX]

I think it's also worth pointing out that since engines max out at size 50, and having multiple engines gives diminishing returns on speed, there comes a tipping point with ship sizes.  For instance, a 50,000 tonne ship could have 5 size 50 engines in order to get 25% of its total size as engines.  That's already plenty of redundancy.  If you wanted to double the ship size to 100,000, that'd now require 10 size 50 engines to have the same 25% size/engine ratio! Since each additional engine add less than the previous one, you'll notice that as ship size goes up, speed goes down.  The theme here being that extremely large ships wind up either getting slower and slower or else needing to dedicate more and more of their total tonnage to engines.

If we could develop engines larger than size 50, this wouldn't be a thing.  Engine maximum size is ultimately the biggest factor on the effectiveness of extremely large ship designs.  So if you're planning on building supermassive ships, this is something to keep in mind.  Personally, I've found that supermassive ships can be great against the AI.  But against other players (or myself) an equivalent tonnage in multiple smaller ships will tear supermassive ships to pieces.

Personally, I try not to go much larger than 100,000 tonnes - and that's for only my biggest most unwieldy of battleships/carriers/flagships.  Average warship size for me is typically around 30,000 (3 size 50 engines.)  That's for my "cruisers."  I'll supplement with smaller frigates/destroyers/corvettes and fighters/FACs, too.  Anything approaching 50k is where I start to call things Battleships/Battlecruisers, because that's generally the tipping point where engine efficiency starts becoming problematic.

[MagusXIX]

Sorry for triple-posting on this, but one more afterthought on ship sizes.

I've also found that larger ships are actually *better* in defensive roles, particularly for picketing jump points.  Speed doesn't matter as much when you're a 60,000 tonne monstrosity brimming with plasma carronades sitting just off a jump point, and your only targets are temporarily disoriented.  This also tends to mean that the largest of ships are good in force-projection roles.  They can double as ammo-colliers and extra maintenance/fuel supply for their smaller, faster, more combat-capable comrades.  They're also good for planting gigantic size 50 sensors.  The capital ships can lag behind in a supporting role while the meaner, leaner ones go out and take care of business.

I've designed more than one capital ship that has basically just been giant sensors, extra supplies, hangars, and layer upon layer of armor/shielding.  Slow as hell, basically a giant carrier, but great to have in a defensive role.  Can also be supplemented by aforementioned close-range battleship for picket duty.  Forces can leap-frog from the capital ship's picket deeper into enemy territory.

[Mor (OP)]

For civilian (and some military) designs, I try to get multiple designs built out of one shipyard, especially if I don't need many of one of the designs. How many jump gate constructors do I need? A dozen over the course of my empire's lifetime? I'll build them on a tanker chassis instead. Do I need a dedicated freighter shipyard? I'll just base it around my salvager.

Tugs need big fuel tanks, since they run many engines full throttle over an extended period. I mark mine as tankers as well, so they can zip out to thirsty ships and refuel them.

Indeed standardization makes a lot of sense, considering that a lot of the commercial and logistical support vessels differ only in a single dedicated module. Like:

* Asteroid miners\Sorium harvesters
* Freighters\Tankers\colony\Medical ships\Salvager
* Survey\Exploration\terraformer

Indeed, the focus should be on deployment time\length, ships that are constantly on the move (like tankers) require big fuel tanks and as efficient engines as possible.

[..]There's very little that you can find where there aren't reasons to do it differently, depending on playstyle and so on.[..]There's just too much variance between players to really say  much useful other than basic general principles such as what's above.

Not necessarily, take real-world designations for example. Most countries has different ideas what Destroyers\Cruisers\Battleship\Carriers specs entails, with dedicated Odd Duck Designs of their own, but we still use those general designation which everyone understand.

Also to that effect, I recently encountered this post on Reddit:

Interstingly, traditionally classes are not so much size-based, but role-based.
* Frigates are generally small scout ships, and sometimes carry specialised weaponry like torpedoes. Speed and stealth are their primary roles, often more patrol ships for early warning than for within combat.
* Destroyers usually carry specialised weaponry to combat specific threats that are not main warships. (submarine-destroyers carry depth charges and torpedoes, aircraft-destroyers would have heavy AA, missile-destroyers would have lots of CIWS, etc.)
* Cruisers are long-range, often self-sustainable ships. Usually capable of conducting operations on their own.
* Battleships and Battlecruisers are main warships, usually the ones with the most guns and the most armor. The word Battleship comes from "Ship of the Battle-Line", back in ye-olde days when warships used to line up in straight lines and shoot cannonballs at each other.
* Battlecruiser is a relatively newer term and usually defines a heavily armed and armored (though not quite as much as a battleship) that's a bit more self-sustainable.
* Carriers are pretty straightforward, but for anyone who grew up in a hole, they carry fighters.

How would you say its applicable to Aurora's navies in space approach, or would you say that size-based designation make more sense per game mechanics?

[Bryan Swartz]

I would say there is much more 'commonality' or 'standardization' among real-world navies than there is in Aurora.  YMMV. 

How would you say its applicable to Aurora's navies in space approach, or would you say that size-based designation make more sense per game mechanics?

This has been much-discussed and at times debated round these here parts in the past.  My .02 is that role-based designation makes more sense than size, but both sides of the coin have their merits. 

[MagusXIX]

I find that size and role tend to go hand-in-hand.  Frigates, as scouts and early warning craft, are generally meant to be disposable which also typically means quite small.  Destroyers are built to destroy specific things which means that they really only need to be big enough for their weapons and the speed/range necessary to split off from a main force and make their catch.  This makes your typical DD a little bigger than a frigate, but because they don't generally need the range/self-reliance of a cruiser they're rarely as large.  Cruisers are just that - meant to cruise.  They're the patrol craft, meant to operate far, far away and generally be able to take care of any threats they may find.  Battleships are also pretty self explanatory - these are the guys you want to do the heavy lifting in any major battle.  Not to be confused with cruisers - battleships typically only need enough range to reach the battle, they're not meant to do much patrolling or operate far away from supporting ships/bases.  Carriers tend to have longer ranges, but that's more a side-effect of their use as a mobile base for fighters.

In old WW2 doctrines, navies would often pair Battleships with Destroyers and Carriers with Cruisers.  For important shipping/troop transportation, cruisers would often be used to escort due to having the range necessary to cross oceans but also break off from the transports if necessary in order to pursue fleeing enemies.  It was also common to bring destroyers that were specifically built to counter submarines on convoy escort duties, since convoys were the submariners prey of choice.

Speaking of submarines, if you haven't tried to build an Aurora equivalent of a WW2 attack sub, I highly recommend it.  Great fun, and you can *devastate* enemy shipping/static defenses, even with hostile fleets in system, without even being discovered.  Cloaking/thermal reduction ship with minimal engine power + lots of range and lots of hard-hitting self-guided missiles that you can launch at thermal signatures.  Don't even need active sensors.  Just lob the missiles which have their own sensors at choice thermal signatures.  And be careful when moving through jump points, the only time a "submarine" is in danger is if it jumps into an enemy picket.

[Iranon]

Aurora subtly encourages extreme designs far from any reasonable "rule of thumb".

Unlike wet navies, doubling engine power on the same hull size doubles speed, meaning you run into diminishing returns much later.
At balanced research, beam ships faster than the "standard speed" get a bonus to their tracking speed, slower ships don't get a penalty.
1.0 power engines are discouraged: faster ones increase linearly in cost, slower ones get a quadratic discount.
Missile interception can be hard limited by the defending ships ability to handle simultaneous "number of missiles" or "number of salvos"; design for one offensively.
Half-assing optional systems is somewhat discouraged: For example, unless you sink a lot of RP into ECCM, it's better to simply overengineer your fire controls.

My most successful designs are far from "respectable and balanced". Disposable weapon pods hauled around by commercial tugboats, FACS that can keep up with their own missiles to break number of simultaneous salvos, very fast long-ranged beam combatatns (flaweless victories if we outrange and outrun the opposition), low-tech bulky installations (cap1 range1 beams are dirt cheap), torpedo bombers firing a single oversized missile...

[Mor (OP)]

Every ship is defined by its offensive\defensive capabilities, as well as its speed\maneuverability and its supply situation. So even though some people favor extreme designs\sizes, I think the common Escorts vs Capital ships designation still applies here.

Capital ships are capable of long range independent operations, usually heavily armed\defended but not always.  Escorts are their smaller and cheaper counter parts that are geared toward a specific role sacrificing armor\sensors\speed and or supplies.

I find that size and role tend to go hand-in-hand.  Frigates, as scouts and early warning craft, are generally meant to be disposable which also typically means quite small.  Destroyers are built to destroy specific things which means that they really only need to be big enough for their weapons and the speed/range necessary to split off from a main force and make their catch.  This makes your typical DD a little bigger than a frigate, but because they don't generally need the range/self-reliance of a cruiser they're rarely as large.  Cruisers are just that - meant to cruise.  They're the patrol craft, meant to operate far, far away and generally be able to take care of any threats they may find.  Battleships are also pretty self explanatory - these are the guys you want to do the heavy lifting in any major battle.  Not to be confused with cruisers - battleships typically only need enough range to reach the battle, they're not meant to do much patrolling or operate far away from supporting ships/bases.  Carriers tend to have longer ranges, but that's more a side-effect of their use as a mobile base for fighters.

1. What ship type do you use for reconnaissance operations into enemy systems?
2. Would you say that destroyers(or fighters) are more capable of dealing with multiple fast enemies or a missile swarm. And how common AMM or point defense ships?

Concerning Cruiser range. With TN tech, in the vastness of space our visibility isn't hampered by topography and far less path of ingress. IMO speed and fast response fleets would be the most important factor.

[MagusXIX]

1. What ship type do you use for reconnaissance operations into enemy systems?
2. Would you say that destroyers(or fighters) are more capable of dealing with multiple fast enemies or a missile swarm. And how common AMM or point defense ships?

Concerning Cruiser range. With TN tech, in the vastness of space our visibility isn't hampered by topography and far less path of ingress. IMO speed and fast response fleets would be the most important factor.

1. Frigates. Cheap and disposable, usually I'll have a frigate launch from the nearest colony/base/capital ship for a foray through a few known hostile systems.  For this sort of scouting, I design a type of frigate that's expressly for this purpose.  Extra small, extra fast, with a little more range than usual.  Cloaks are optional.

2a. I tend to fight fighters with fighters, though it's also helpful to design some anti-fighter missiles if you plan on having combat task forces without carriers (which I often do!)  If I find myself up against a bunch of speedy frigate/destroyer sized ships, I find that they're usually no match for my cruisers/battleships.  I'll usually design my missiles and missile fire controls/sensors around the concept of needing to hit ships that are faster than my own if possible.  Same with beam fire controls.  At some point, no matter how good your designs are, it does come down to numbers though.

2b.  I never have a main battlegroup without some sort of point defense.  Usually I'll have about 1/4 of the ships in the group be dedicated point defense platforms (AMMs or gauss turrets are my preference.)  My point defense ships come in three general flavors.  The most common is the Destroyer type, which are part of main battleship task groups.  The second are a cruiser variant - essentially the same thing as the destroyer type but with enough range to be part of cruiser patrols.  And the third are orbital platforms, for colony defense, since gauss turrets don't really work from PDCs and you can more easily tug them to new colonies than building/transporting entire PDCs.

Regarding the use of cruiser/carrier task groups for patrolling purposes - I absolutely agree that local defense fleets (typically destroyer/battleship combinations, with fighter support from local PDCs) are much more important.  Especially when you're playing primarily against NPCs.  In multiplayer games, or games where you're playing against yourself, cruiser/carrier patrols become more important though still not as vital as short ranger, higher firepower fleets.

I use my patrol fleets to keep long-distance shipping lines safe, to escort troop transports or other vital shipping, and to patrol areas where I feel enemy traffic is likely.  In my experience this sort of thing isn't very important against the AI, but it is vital against human intelligence.

[Mor (OP)]

Any  objections with fleet roles added here.  Those should be both generic and familiar enough.

Edit: moved to Ships