NPR Behaviour

[Beersatron]

Using your existing tech I came up with this Battlecruiser

Code: [Select]

Emperor class Battlecruiser    30000 tons     3142 Crew     8846.5 BP      TCS 600  TH 900  EM 0
6250 km/s     Armour 20-86     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 40     PPV 188
Annual Failure Rate: 180%    IFR: 2.5%    Maint Capacity 7372 MSP    Max Repair 620 MSP    Est Time: 3.15 Years
Flag Bridge    Magazine 1000    

Naval Magnetic Confinement Fusion Drive  (30)    Power 125    Fuel Use 40%    Signature 30    Armour 0    Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 700,000 Litres    Range 105.0 billion km   (194 days at full power)

Quad Naval 25cm Soft X-ray Laser Turret (2x4)    Range 240,000km     TS: 12500 km/s     Power 64-20     RM 6    ROF 20        16 16 16 16 16 16 13 12 10 9
Beam Fire Control Mk2  (1)    Max Range: 240,000 km   TS: 7500 km/s     96 92 88 83 79 75 71 67 62 58
Tokamak Fusion Reactor  (5)     Total Power Output 40    Armour 0    Exp 5%

Baracuda Missile Launcher (10)    Missile Size 10    Rate of Fire 150
Baracuda Missile Fire Control  (1)     Range 31.7m km    Resolution 55
Baracuda Mk2 Anti-ship Missile (100)  Speed: 30,000 km/s   End: 20m    Range: 36m km   WH: 10    Size: 10    TH: 420 / 252 / 126

Basic Active Search Sensor  (1)     GPS 8000     Range 48.0m km    Resolution 100

ECCM-3 (2)         ECM 30

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

I see you have already made a mk3 Beam Fire Control which is what I was going to suggest.

Not sure you need to put in the Gauss Cannons, but you should maybe try and see if you can get a newer CIWS and put that in as integrated Anti-Missile.

I also upped the speed and decreased the armor.

The blurp I would give for the above would be:

A Battlecruiser designed for mid to short range combat, on initial approach it flushes it's missiles and then closes to knife range to engage with powerful lasers. It is designed to be escorted by dedicated Anti-Missile destroyers.

Just my own preferences

[laz (OP)]

Well using some new tech i developed after uploading the database I had a look at your design, adding the new CIWS seems to have made it more heavy/slower but it is roughly along the same lines.

Ah I guess what doesn't help is the newer power plants are internally armoured

Code: [Select]

Emperor class Battlecruiser    31750 tons     3248 Crew     9599 BP      TCS 635  TH 900  EM 0
5905 km/s     Armour 20-89     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 67     PPV 188
Annual Failure Rate: 171%    IFR: 2.4%    Maint Capacity 8881 MSP    Max Repair 620 MSP    Est Time: 3.59 Years
Flag Bridge    Magazine 1000    

Naval Magnetic Confinement Fusion Drive  (30)    Power 125    Fuel Use 40%    Signature 30    Armour 0    Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 750,000 Litres    Range 106.3 billion km   (208 days at full power)

Quad Naval 25cm Soft X-ray Laser Turret (2x4)    Range 360,000km     TS: 12500 km/s     Power 64-20     RM 6    ROF 20        16 16 16 16 16 16 13 12 10 9
CIWS Mk2 (1x10)    Range 1000 km     TS: 32000 km/s     ROF 5       Base 50% To Hit
Beam Fire Control Mk3 (1)    Max Range: 360,000 km   TS: 10000 km/s     97 94 92 89 86 83 81 78 75 72
Standard Magnetic Confinement Fusion Reactor  (4)     Total Power Output 40    Armour 2    Exp 5%

Baracuda Missile Launcher Mk2 (10)    Missile Size 10    Rate of Fire 60
Baracuda Mk2 Fire Control  (1)     Range 58.3m km    Resolution 60
Baracuda Mk3 Anti-Ship Missile (100)  Speed: 37,500 km/s   End: 20m    Range: 45m km   WH: 16    Size: 10    TH: 525 / 315 / 157

Basic Active Search Sensor  (1)     GPS 8000     Range 48.0m km    Resolution 100

ECCM-3 (2)         ECM 30

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


[Beersatron]

It looks good, you could maybe save some space by creating a new missile fire control and new active search sensor that are both the same resolution and have the same range as your missiles. i.e. if you have increased your grav sensor tech since creating the basic search sensor then you should be able to create a new sensor with same range but in a smaller body.

[laz (OP)]

Good point. I'll make that modification

[UnLimiTeD]

May I ask why exactly a Missile cruiser needs a Flag Bridge?
I mean, I suppose you will use multiple ships of that class.
Also, maybe use backup sensors, and get a heavily armored sensor ship for the actual spotting?
If you use multiple ships, single Gauss turrets, used in cohesion, might actually do a better job than CIWS, which to my knowledge only defend the ship they are mounted on.

[Beersatron]

May I ask why exactly a Missile cruiser needs a Flag Bridge?
I mean, I suppose you will use multiple ships of that class.
Also, maybe use backup sensors, and get a heavily armored sensor ship for the actual spotting?
If you use multiple ships, single Gauss turrets, used in cohesion, might actually do a better job than CIWS, which to my knowledge only defend the ship they are mounted on.

The original design was for a Battleship so I guess it made sense to have the Flag Bridge in that case. Even still, a Flag Bridge on a Battlecruiser still seems within the realm of possibility if it is one of the largest designs you are fielding at the time.

I would tend to agree with backup sensors and FCs, but at the same time it has 20 armor so can take a beating before taking internal damage and for me and my OCD I like have 'rounded' numbers for HS and speed

I like having one dedicated onboard CIWS for larger ships and then have dedicated escorts with the primary Anti-Missile defenses.

All personal preferences ofcourse!

[welchbloke]

The original design was for a Battleship so I guess it made sense to have the Flag Bridge in that case. Even still, a Flag Bridge on a Battlecruiser still seems within the realm of possibility if it is one of the largest designs you are fielding at the time.

Also depends whether your race likes multiple available flag bridges (and TG commanders)  and there is something to be said about your admiral flying their lights from a ship that cannot easily be identified.

I would tend to agree with backup sensors and FCs, but at the same time it has 20 armor so can take a beating before taking internal damage and for me and my OCD I like have 'rounded' numbers for HS and speed

I like having one dedicated onboard CIWS for larger ships and then have dedicated escorts with the primary Anti-Missile defenses.

All personal preferences ofcourse!

For me the jury is still out regarding CIWS; my design philosophy is similar to your with my larger ships mounting CIWS.  I haven't fought enough battles with these design to decide if it is a good idea yet.  All of my recent combat has been against beam armed Precursors and Star Swarm, neither of which have a weapon that requires CIWS  

[Brian Neumann]

For me the jury is still out regarding CIWS; my design philosophy is similar to your with my larger ships mounting CIWS.  I haven't fought enough battles with these design to decide if it is a good idea yet.  All of my recent combat has been against beam armed Precursors and Star Swarm, neither of which have a weapon that requires CIWS  

I have had about 8-10 fleet battles where I had ships mounting CIWS and enemy missile ships attacking.  I like them on large missile combatants.  On a ship that already has beam weapons they are actually a disadvantage if there are more than a few of them in a fleet.  This is because the mass used for the CIWS could have been used for 1 more beam weapon on each ship.  After about 5-6 ships the combined firepower is pretty close to what the CIWS gave in the first place.  If one of my ships without CIWS was the target then all that extra beam weapons would still be available to defend the target.  If you can put more than 3 CIWS on a ship then I would look at putting a 10cm double or tripple turret and its fire control instead.  It will give you more offensive punch at close range, not as much pd for the single ship, but in a fleet there will probably be more total pd with this design strategy.  

The other place that I like them is on commercial ships that I intend to have near the front lines.  Tankers, Troop Transports ect.  As the CIWS can be put on a commercial design without making it a military design this gives them some point defense.  

Just my two cents worth.

Brian

[welchbloke]

I have had about 8-10 fleet battles wheIre I had ships mounting CIWS and enemy missile ships attacking.  I like them on large missile combatants.  On a ship that already has beam weapons they are actually a disadvantage if there are more than a few of them in a fleet.  This is because the mass used for the CIWS could have been used for 1 more beam weapon on each ship.  After about 5-6 ships the combined firepower is pretty close to what the CIWS gave in the first place.  If one of my ships without CIWS was the target then all that extra beam weapons would still be available to defend the target.  If you can put more than 3 CIWS on a ship then I would look at putting a 10cm double or tripple turret and its fire control instead.  It will give you more offensive punch at close range, not as much pd for the single ship, but in a fleet there will probably be more total pd with this design strategy.  

I might include a few designs with beam turrets in my next round of upgrades and see how things pan out.

The other place that I like them is on commercial ships that I intend to have near the front lines.  Tankers, Troop Transports ect.  As the CIWS can be put on a commercial design without making it a military design this gives them some point defense.  

This is something I do as well.  All of my fleet support ships have some CIWS fitted.

[Steve Walmsley]

Hopefully Steve sees this thread and grabs the database, not sure he has ever progressed it to the point were there are this many NPRs and so many known systems.

It will be useful to take a look, although I go back to Vegas on Wednesday and won't be able to do anything with Aurora until I get back on July 2nd. If I remember I will grab it then. I won't have a laptop this time so I will be reduced to browsing via iPhone . If anyone needs to contact me via email, I use my google mail account on the phone, which is stevewalmsley007. This is a trip with male friends rather than with my wife so I am available for wild parties, etc.

Steve

[laz (OP)]

*bump*

If your back from vegas steve