Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Michael Sandy

Pages: [1]
Bureau of Ship Design / Re: My first original warship please review
« on: November 10, 2017, 05:14:27 PM »
Much improved... except for the engineering spaces.  As a rule of thumb, you want at least twice as much maintenance life as you have deployment time, because it takes twice as long to rewind maintenance time as deployment time.

You still have a small mismatch in the speed of your ship and the tracking on your fire control.

The rule of thumb I go with for magazine to launcher ratio is roughly equal HS for magazine and launcher, the faster the launcher, the more you should emphasize the magazine.  And that is regardless of whether you go with regular launchers, x.5, x.33 or x.25 launchers.  That goes for carrier ammo capacities as well, so plan for about 3 reloads for your fighter's box launchers.

For AMM capacity, my theory is that if I outnumber the enemy 2-1, I should be able to destroy them without taking casualties, at least not more than armor damage.  Therefore, the defensive fire of two of my ships should be able to neutralize the offensive power of one, or two of my squadrons should be able to handle the fire of one.

And while this isn't a problem with your ship, there is something you want to keep in mind with fuel tanks.  You never want a fuel tank hit to mission kill a capital warship.  While commercial ships will want the largest and cheapest fuel tanks possible, a military ship that expects to see combat can't afford to watch a million liters of fuel disappear with a single meson hit.  For military, front line ships, I recommend either standard 50,000 liter tanks or 250,000 liter tanks, rather than the very large 1,000,000 liter tanks.  The cost savings that comes with reduce HtK is not really worth it.

Because space on a military ship is at a premium, if you can have commercial tankers keep up or preposition fuel supplies when you have to move the fleet in a hurry, you will have a somewhat leaner and more efficient war fleet.

But that is something to do if you like micromanaging, if you want fleets that are much simpler to manage, or if you have a particular horror of your warfleet getting stranded without fuel, internal fuel supply is fine.

The following users thanked this post: totos_totidis

Bureau of Ship Design / Re: My first original warship please review
« on: November 09, 2017, 05:19:40 PM »
Pretty sure you would be able to beat Swarm with that ship, it just wouldn't be pretty or efficient.

You could sandpaper the LACs with your AMMs, and if you close to point blank ( <5 second flight time with the missiles), the Swarm Mommy wouldn't be able to use its Mesons to kill your big missiles.  And size 42 warheads will be able to knock the shields down.

I generally prefer x.33 or x.25 size launchers, sacrificing rate of fire for volley size.  Get enough so that even after point defense, they can blow the shields down in one hit.
The following users thanked this post: totos_totidis

Bureau of Ship Design / Re: My first original warship please review
« on: November 09, 2017, 05:02:15 PM »
Even if you have maintenance failures switched off, I wouldn't want to have a battleship with no self-repair ability.  If you have maintenance on, that ship would blow up in six months.

More importantly, you have a wonderfully long ranged beam and beam FC, but you aren't actually fast enough to kite the swarm ships.  Not sure if you have the sustained firepower to knock down a Swarm Mommy's shields.

The Swarm are ridiculously easy to take out with MagnetoPlasma level tech, let alone antimatter.

The 8k level Meson techs and fire controls get you a meson weapon of 200km range, and you can build a speedster of 12-15k with decent enough range.  Have some missile fighters prompt the Mommy ship to launch, kite the swarm LACs, and politely Meson the mommy to death from out of its range.

Keep in mind that shields and armor are pretty much irrelevant fighting Mesons, so having them just means your ships are useful against other foes.

ECCM is good to have in a kiting ship, where range is so damned important.
The following users thanked this post: totos_totidis

The Academy / Re: automate fuel transport from civilian harvesters
« on: October 21, 2017, 04:24:44 PM »
What I did was rename the task group of the first harvester to get their Civ Harvester Jupiter (or whatever planet it was at).  As later harvesters arrived, I had that harvester absorb the other harvesters.  I occasionally ordered the task group to Equalize Fuel.

Civilian harvesters seem designed to fill up in about 3/4 of a year at base fuel refining tech.

I used a fighter tanker since it was a real short haul and just ordered it to do a lot of round trips.  I suppose that when the fuel produced equals the amount of fuel one astrotanker can shuttle, I could put it on cycle orders until I put the astrotanker into a PDC carrier base to reset its maintenance.

There isn't a completely mindless option, like there is with mass driver, but a couple times a year for the whole harvesting group isn't a problem.
The following users thanked this post: Seolferwulf

Bureau of Ship Design / tractor abuse
« on: October 15, 2017, 03:38:30 AM »
There was a really distant binary that I wanted to explore, for completeness, and I came up with an abusive way to get there.

2 ships with 1 size 50 HS maximum boosted engine, tractor, large fuel tank, enough engineering systems to fix an engine mishap.
1 commercial ship with large fuel tank and tractor
1 carrier, large enough to hold the aforementioned tugs, no engines, lots of engineering systems, and a tractor
1 commercial jump drive ship, tractor, and lots of fuel tanks, big enough to jump the carrier.

I call it a push me-pull you.

One military tug is always in the carrier, not advancing its maintenance clock.  It tugs the commercial relay tug, so you have a tug pair of roughly 100 HS (80 HS military tug, 20 HS relay tug) setting the speed of the whole squadron.

I figure you could get this to about 15k with magnetoplasma, maybe a bit higher.  You could theoretically move a whole fleet of commercial engined or engineless ships this way, if every component has a tractor.  It is silly, and cheating, but I thought it was an amusing idea.
The following users thanked this post: Korsar13

The Academy / Re: Gauss cannons
« on: October 09, 2017, 12:50:47 PM »
As far as I can tell, accuracy goes does linearly with size, meaning that you get the same number of hits with 12 1/12 size gauss cannon as you do with one full size.  Which means you can put 1/12 sized quad turrets on a slow fighter.

Going with the reduced size also reduces the research cost, making it far more palatable to upgrade your turret designs every time you get a new gauss tech.

There are a lot of systems I have making the really big versions of, (like sensors), because the cumulative cost can end up more than simply researching the next tech advance in the tree.
The following users thanked this post: obsidian_green

Bureau of Ship Design / Re: Mission pods and their feasability.
« on: October 02, 2017, 07:22:05 PM »
Not just sensors and flag bridges, although those retain most of their functionality.

But you can turn a carrier into a collier if you have fighters that are nothing but magazine.  Or have fuel pods.

Makes it a little easier to have multi-role ships, when you can just switch out the fighter complement.

You can also have missile pods, ships with a missile FC, nothing but box launchers and no engine.  The missile pods are only going to be out of the parent carrier for long enough to launch and return to the carrier, so they won't be exposed to enemy fire.  That gives you almost the alpha strike that you would have if the carrier itself were a missile ship, but you can reload it much faster.
The following users thanked this post: obsidian_green

During my surveying phase, I built a lot of 15,000 ton commercial jump drive ships, 2 size 50 engines, the smallest commercial jump drive I could build, and a bunch of fuel tanks.  I called them mobile jump stations, and they would stay at a jump point until the survey was complete.

My first military ships were all commercial engined ships, so that they could make use of my existing jump drive capacity.  However, I also built a bunch of tugs and 15,000 ton carriers that had no engines.  So I could pair the carriers with the jump stations, if necessary, to get military drive ships around.

Also, they are useful for getting really high boost military ships around without exhausting my fuel.
The following users thanked this post: Arekonator

Haji's Fiction / Re: From the Ashes - part 32
« on: June 19, 2017, 12:33:30 AM »
I am just stunned at the scale of your campaign.  50 billion km, megatons of ships.  Years upon years of investment destroyed in a single battle.
The following users thanked this post: Haji

Bureau of Ship Design / Re: Buoys, Drones, and Mines
« on: May 27, 2017, 09:41:55 PM »
And sensor platforms seem to last indefinitely, but I was told a while ago that geo survey needs a drive.  Not necessarily a drive that can actually move the drone at 1km/s, but a drive.
The following users thanked this post: Barkhorn

Spoilers / I *believe* in scouting
« on: May 03, 2017, 08:24:50 PM »
It is my new religion.  Pinnace scouts WILL visit every planet BEFORE survey assets enter the system, OMFG.

K, 3 precursor systems, 2 found by scouts, with valuable information gained, 1 found by a blundering geosurvey ship, the only information discovered was that they had missiles.

And 1 system discovered with Swarm, this before I have ION drive.  Fortunately there is a loop of systems, so my fleeing survey ships won't lead it back to Earth, they are faster than the carriers and will eventually get out of range.

And miracle of miracles, while we lost a pinnace to ramming and the Grav Survey ship left on the Jump Point for the purpose of finding out IF the aliens did indeed know about Jump Points, and actually rescued life pods this time, with 2 days left on their life support.  Even better, the rescuing pinnace was my long endurance one, and actually has the life support to take the 32% survey commander and 13 crew to safety, with only mild strain on the life support.

Said commander is probably going to be renamed Mark Damon or Matt Watley. ;)  (Thanks to Drgong for THAT idea)
The following users thanked this post: Drgong

Aurora Chat / Re: What's going on in your empire/planet/battlefield?
« on: April 27, 2017, 12:50:45 AM »
So the pinnace Morituri, of the class, Expendable, equipped with a sensor named "What Killed Me?" has successfully visited the terraformable moons and the 5 wrecks in the system.

The Morituri was NOT expected to survive.  It was expected to return useful data, about anything scary in the system.  If I had bothered to give the Morituri a ship commander, that commander would have gotten a medal for it.  In the future, I may create the Morituri medal for a ship commander that does something particularly self-sacrificing.

Needless to say, when they get back to Sol, markets are going to be in turmoil.  The speculation bubble in missiles and launcher tech is going to crash for a while, and the colonization related markets will soar.  A lot of people won't think anything has really changed since before the wreck discovery, but the shipyard expansions have already happened.  The shipyards had been largely idle after the first surge supporting the Geo survey effort for Sol, but now there are so many new systems to survey.  All the old geo survey ships are being updated in a civilian shipyard dedicated to them.

One of my logistics guys just hit 40%, and we just finished ship to ship tractors and hangars, so life is good. :)
The following users thanked this post: Drgong

Telegraph class Recon Fighter    345 tons     10 Crew     44.12 BP      TCS 6.9  TH 13  EM 0
1884 km/s    JR 1-50     Armour 1-4     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/8/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 0
Maint Life 34.26 Years     MSP 40    AFR 1%    IFR 0%    1YR 0    5YR 1    Max Repair 10 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Spare Berths 0   

Pinnace Jump Drive J400(1-50) Military Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 400 tons    Distance 50k km     Squadron Size 1
NP fighter engine 12.8 EP Nuclear Pulse Engine (1)    Power 12.8    Fuel Use 44.88%    Signature 12.8    Exp 8%
Fuel Capacity 30 000 Litres    Range 34.9 billion km   (214 days at full power)

EM 8x1 EM Detection Sensor EM1-8 (1)     Sensitivity 8     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  8m km
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and maintenance purposes

On getting Jump Drive tech, I quickly researched a pinnace drive and a small sensor.  In retrospect, I should have gone with a size 2 sensor, it would have fit well with the size 400 Jump Drive.

Basically, the idea is to use fighter factories to be the first to exploit a new technology, and hopefully they would give information that informs the followup missions, prioritizing which systems will get surveyed first.

Also, the pinnaces will serve as communications relays.  I suppose I should have given them more crew endurance, mostly to avoid getting pinged with messages about crew whining.
The following users thanked this post: Drgong

Advanced Tactical Command Academy / Re: Forward jump point defense
« on: March 19, 2017, 04:22:17 PM »
I suppose it really is affected by the tech level.  Things like sensor ranges, the relative effectiveness of point defense, whether box launchers are available.  And whether the target is (spoilers) or another race.

Actually, Detros has a point.  If the defenders have enough point defense to withstand long ranged fire, even AMM fire, everything but point blank, within 5-second travel time fire, then a forward defense would force the attacker to close to effectively zero range to transit past them. Unlike a conventional defense, where the defenders would expect to be at some range from the attacker (depending on tech level), but certainly not 10,000 km where they could shred them in seconds.

The conventional jump point defense, a slow beam defense fleet might just not do enough defense before the attacker got out of range.  But a forward defense, as long as they can win the beam duel at any range, they have enough firepower to prevent a transit.
The following users thanked this post: Detros

The Academy / Re: FAQ
« on: January 11, 2017, 08:37:01 PM »
To disrupt a minefield, you could have your ships with sufficient stealth that the typically myopic sensors on the mines can't pick them up.  Or you could use a sacrificial ship to draw their fire, as typically all missile mines will fire at a target that is within range.

Otherwise, if the minefield is in open space, have good enough resolution 1 sensors to pick them up and destroy them, as they are large stationary missiles until you get in range.

Hangars can rearm anything that fits in the hangar.  If you have a 4000 ton capacity hangar, you can rearm the box launchers on your up to 4000 ton patrol ships.

As far as the sensors questions, I would like to know as well.
The following users thanked this post: Tor Cha

Pages: [1]