Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: Nathan_
« on: December 02, 2012, 11:00:35 AM »

Quote from: Nathan_ on November 29, 2012, 01:35:19 PM
hmm, well I hope the fighter combat bonus works out then. should it be going as high as 1000%?

Update on this: nearly every fighter is hitting, so fighter combat bonuses are definitely going to be tweaked.
Posted by: Falcon
« on: November 29, 2012, 01:40:33 PM »

Making a cloak that will fit into a fighter requires a LOT of research. And even then they'll probably be detected before they get into firing range unless your opponents have truly crap sensors. (I think you'll still be treated as a size 6 missile for the purpose of detection, so any PD sensors are going to catch you whatever your cloaking strength is.) So you'll have so suffer all of the AMM hits your missiles would and then you'll have to stay in range while your fighters slowly (or not quite so slowly if you use mesons) destroy the enemy fleet, still taking both AMM and PD fire.  

Posted by: Nathan_
« on: November 29, 2012, 01:35:19 PM »

hmm, well I hope the fighter combat bonus works out then. should it be going as high as 1000%?
Posted by: Charlie Beeler
« on: November 29, 2012, 01:25:02 PM »

Quote from: Nathan_ on November 29, 2012, 01:14:42 PM
Are you sure? thats the 8% mod. the 3 is the velocity/ROF. In any event carriers can hold ridiculous gobs of them, hence swarming.

Very.  That is 8% of the 37% hit chance that the BFC has at 10k/km not a bonus.  The RM of 3 (ie 30,000km in this case) is doing you nothing because you've restricted to BFC to a max range of 16,000km.
Posted by: Nathan_
« on: November 29, 2012, 01:14:42 PM »

Are you sure? thats the 8% mod. the 3 is the velocity/ROF. In any event carriers can hold ridiculous gobs of them, hence swarming.
Posted by: Charlie Beeler
« on: November 29, 2012, 01:11:12 PM »

Just so that everyone understands, this fighter has less than a 3% hit chance per shot at point blank range before another modifier. 

Quote from: Nathan_ on November 29, 2012, 12:57:00 PM
Code: [Select]
Raptor I class Fighter    115 tons     4 Crew     40.4 BP      TCS 2.3  TH 30  EM 0
17391 km/s     Armour 1-2     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 0.5
Maint Life 27 Years     MSP 22    AFR 1%    IFR 0%    1YR 0    5YR 1    Max Repair 25 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 1 months    Spare Berths 1   

FTR 40 EP Magneto-plasma Drive (1)    Power 40    Fuel Use 684.83%    Signature 30    Exp 25%
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres    Range 2.3 billion km   (36 hours at full power)

FTR Gauss Cannon R3-8 (1x3)    Range 16,000km     TS: 17391 km/s     Accuracy Modifier 8%     RM 3    ROF 5        1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FTR Raptor I FC R8k TS16k km/s (1)    Max Range: 16,000 km   TS: 16000 km/s     37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

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


I'm going to try a swarm attack, but I don't think I'll do that often, dealing with wreckage and lifepods is a pain.

Good cloaking still won't let fighters get past the missile defense envelop, which will of course harm beam fighters in most cases.
Posted by: Charlie Beeler
« on: November 29, 2012, 01:06:18 PM »

Not really.  With fighters space is at a premium, they max out at 10 hull spaces(500ton).  

Cloak systems are as massive at jumpdrives and don't scaledown to fighters without a very hefty research investment.  

Smallcraft EW systems(both ECM and ECCM) are also handicapped.  They are always no better than half the effective level of the full size ship systems.

Reduced thermal drives are useful if the OPFOR is relying on that for long range detection.  But don't depend on that, active sensors consistently outrange passives for standoff detection.  

Even if you have invested enough to field a beam fighter that has the TCS and thermal signature of a missile, systems at the investment level designed to engage missiles will easily kill it from beyond it's range to reply in an open space battle.  The only hope is to be able to field them in quantities that exceed to OPFOR's ability to kill them before they can open fire.  
Quote from: draanyk on November 29, 2012, 12:34:07 PM
I haven't fielded any fighters yet, but what about if they have good cloaking, ecm, and low-thermal drives? Is it possible to make a stealth beam fighter that can engage without getting toasted by AMM and PD?
Posted by: Nathan_
« on: November 29, 2012, 12:57:00 PM »

Quote
Raptor I class Fighter    115 tons     4 Crew     40.4 BP      TCS 2.3  TH 30  EM 0
17391 km/s     Armour 1-2     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 0.5
Maint Life 27 Years     MSP 22    AFR 1%    IFR 0%    1YR 0    5YR 1    Max Repair 25 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 1 months    Spare Berths 1    

FTR 40 EP Magneto-plasma Drive (1)    Power 40    Fuel Use 684.83%    Signature 30    Exp 25%
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres    Range 2.3 billion km   (36 hours at full power)

FTR Gauss Cannon R3-8 (1x3)    Range 16,000km     TS: 17391 km/s     Accuracy Modifier 8%     RM 3    ROF 5        1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FTR Raptor I FC R8k TS16k km/s (1)    Max Range: 16,000 km   TS: 16000 km/s     37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

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

I'm going to try a swarm attack, but I don't think I'll do that often, dealing with wreckage and lifepods is a pain.

Good cloaking still won't let fighters get past the missile defense envelop, which will of course harm beam fighters in most cases.
Posted by: draanyk
« on: November 29, 2012, 12:34:07 PM »

Quote from: Charlie Beeler on November 29, 2012, 12:08:35 PM
The big Achilles heel to beam only fighter use is that they can and will be engaged at ranges will beyond their ability to reply.  your only hope is to have an overwhelming supply of fighters.  Much more expensive than the missiles stocks to kill them.  YMMV

I haven't fielded any fighters yet, but what about if they have good cloaking, ecm, and low-thermal drives? Is it possible to make a stealth beam fighter that can engage without getting toasted by AMM and PD?
Posted by: Charlie Beeler
« on: November 29, 2012, 12:08:35 PM »

The big Achilles heel to beam only fighter use is that they can and will be engaged at ranges will beyond their ability to reply.  your only hope is to have an overwhelming supply of fighters.  Much more expensive than the missiles stocks to kill them.  YMMV
Posted by: Paul Tankersley
« on: November 29, 2012, 11:56:00 AM »

Gentlemen! Well now, 2 upgrades in speed- which should get me a bit past the 19K speed I'm now looking at, and I think I'm away to the races- thanks to that completely overlooked "fighter only" choice in Beam FC.  So things continue apace and here is the preliminary design for my Arc Royal carrier.


Code: [Select]
Arc Royal class Carrier    54,550 tons     897 Crew     13550.6 BP      TCS 1091  TH 1440  EM 0
5499 km/s     Armour 10-128     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 105     PPV 0
Maint Life 3.82 Years     MSP 11091    AFR 366%    IFR 5.1%    1YR 1194    5YR 17904    Max Repair 2000 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 24 months    Flight Crew Berths 250   
Hangar Deck Capacity 19500 tons     

2000 EP Magnetic Fusion Drive (3)    Power 2000    Fuel Use 40.48%    Signature 480    Exp 16%
Fuel Capacity 13,750,000 Litres    Range 112.1 billion km   (235 days at full power)

Active Search Sensor MR43-R100 (1)     GPS 7200     Range 43.2m km    Resolution 100

ECM 40

Strike Group
50x Shrike Fighter   Speed: 19230 km/s    Size: 7.8

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes


Missing are: the triple gauss turrets I'm working up- bad guys I've run into seem to throw salvos of three. . . 
                   FC for same
                   Longer range search radar- ~150m km for initial search
                   some AMM Frigates
                   . . . and?

But, never having gone down this road before, is the premise flawed? I want to be able to find the enemy early, launch fighters and move in to localize and dispatch the target.  The fast meson carrier in sufficient numbers looks a plausible system because of the varied armour and shield configurations you get- plus no ordinance manufacturing etc.  This allows a shorter supply train and thus more flexibility in deployment. . .  so how am I going to get spanked here, other than the ENORMOUS UNENDING research I seem to have to be doing?
Posted by: Charlie Beeler
« on: November 29, 2012, 10:19:45 AM »

Brian is correct.  The BFC cap is a limiter.  doh!!

And I should have remembered that when writing.
Posted by: Brian Neumann
« on: November 29, 2012, 09:35:49 AM »

Quote from: Charlie Beeler on November 29, 2012, 07:46:54 AM
Paul,
the tracking speed actually used by your example fighter should be 18,292kps not the 1,500kps of the BFC.  In other words, you had it correct.
Not quite.  The tracking speed used when firing is the lower of the weapon tracking speed(turreted applies here) or the fire control tracking speed.  In this case the fire control tracking speed is a major limiter.  Granted he can change this pretty fast by desiging a purpose built fighter fire control (in the design screen the scroll box at the bottom labeled "Ship Type Limitations.  change to fighter only)  At the current tech of 4000km/s base tracking speed this would give him a 16,000km/s tracking speed or 8,000km/s for a half sized fire control unit.

Brian
Posted by: Charlie Beeler
« on: November 29, 2012, 07:46:54 AM »

Paul,

If I were to guess, it looks like techs used in this fighters BFC are:
  • Beam Fire Control 50% Range 24,000 km
  • Fire Control Speed Rating 3000 km/s
From there it looks like you used ship BFC instead of fighter BFC, 3X range and 50% tracking speed.  This should net a BFC that is 1.5hs has the characteristics posted.

Here are some things to keep in mind.  Tracking speed used is based on which is greater ship speed or BFC tracking speed.  BFC tracking speed is limited to base tech tracking speed for non-turreted weapons, with the exception that fighter BFC base tracking speed is 4X racial tracking speed.  If weapons are turreted, then BFC tracking speed would only be limited by turret tracking speed.

With that said, the tracking speed actually used by your example fighter should be 18,292kps not the 1,500kps of the BFC.  In other words, you had it correct.
Posted by: Conscript Gary
« on: November 29, 2012, 03:12:09 AM »

For beam fire controls, size modifiers map directly to either tracking speed or range. Half the size means halve one of those, halving size to halve both would get you a quarter-sized FC, and so on.
Judging from the TS of 1500 and that you're working on 4000, it's probably a half-sized for halved tracking.
It's a pretty straight tradeoff between space used and sensor capabilities.