Author Topic: Wait, that's not a fighter - Parasite Warships  (Read 7670 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Vandermeer

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 961
  • Thanked: 128 times
Re: Wait, that's not a fighter - Parasite Warships
« Reply #15 on: January 12, 2016, 03:05:47 PM »
It's an old thread, but thanks to sneer, at least you can't blame the necromancy on me.
Well, 500,000 tons of weapons and defenses. Or you could have a 1m ton carrier with 500kton of hangar space and a 1m ton warship with 500ktons of weapons and defenses, which would mean thicker armor since it wasn't spread over a larger hull.
I never get tired of refuting the from presumptions about large ships: Large ships actually have more armor than smaller ones (or lighter on same thickness), so the total inverse to the statement is true here, and a quick (hopefully) enlightening explanation to why that is can be found by looking at the first graphic here:http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=7719.msg79299#msg79299
(more explanation in the text though)
playing Aurora as swarm fleet: Zen Nomadic Hive Fantasy
 

Offline Bremen (OP)

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 743
  • Thanked: 150 times
Re: Wait, that's not a fighter - Parasite Warships
« Reply #16 on: January 15, 2016, 10:00:35 AM »
It's an old thread, but thanks to sneer, at least you can't blame the necromancy on me.I never get tired of refuting the from presumptions about large ships: Large ships actually have more armor than smaller ones (or lighter on same thickness), so the total inverse to the statement is true here, and a quick (hopefully) enlightening explanation to why that is can be found by looking at the first graphic here:http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=7719.msg79299#msg79299
(more explanation in the text though)

This is incorrect. 1000 tons of armor gives the same total amount of armor on a 10,000 ton ship as a 20,000 ton ship, and on the 10,000 ton ship it will be thicker. Just not twice as thick.

Your numbers are correct for the same percentage of armor on a larger ship (which will result in thicker armor), but not for this subject (that taking the hangers and some engines off of a battle carrier but leaving other systems intact results in thicker, more durable armor).
« Last Edit: January 15, 2016, 10:03:31 AM by Bremen »
 

Iranon

  • Guest
Re: Wait, that's not a fighter - Parasite Warships
« Reply #17 on: January 24, 2016, 03:56:18 PM »
It's not the size that matters, it's how you use it!

Say you consider replacing a design with one that fills the same role but is twice as big.
If it's twice as capable and you'd build half as many,  armour becomes more efficient - you save weight, or you gain thickness.
If it isn't any more capable and you'd build the same number (commercial engines, many but low-tech weapons etc),  armour becomes less efficient - you need more of it, or you lose thickness.

For capital ships, one gigantic battlestar makes better use of a given amount of armour armour than 1 beam battleship and 1 heavily armoured carrier of similar combined capability.
However, one beam battleship and one unarmoured carrier make even better use of the same armour tonnage, if you can get away with it.