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: papent
« on: January 30, 2021, 10:11:09 AM »

Quote from: Jorgen_CAB on January 30, 2021, 09:46:15 AM
It is perfectly fine to play the game on intuition... you don't really compete with anyone and most of us use heavy role-play anyway. I have MANY restrictions in my game that is not set by the rules system or the game itself. So I play pretty sub optimal in many regards.

This! I personally have never built a warship bigger than 20k, and in my current game 15k is going to be the hard limit for capitals.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: January 30, 2021, 09:46:15 AM »

It is perfectly fine to play the game on intuition... you don't really compete with anyone and most of us use heavy role-play anyway. I have MANY restrictions in my game that is not set by the rules system or the game itself. So I play pretty sub optimal in many regards.

Optimising every system is pretty expensive research wise so not always a good idea, optimising for speed efficiency also come at the expense of fuel consumption so there are different ways to optimise an engine.
Posted by: Droll
« on: January 30, 2021, 09:43:43 AM »

Yeah I don't like relying on external assistance as well. I only use aurora electrons with any regularity since that makes it easier to keep track of the whole empire
Posted by: Stormtrooper
« on: January 30, 2021, 09:29:58 AM »

I use only missile optimizer since it lets me tinker directly with the parameters I care about, removing the abstraction layer of choosing agility etc etc
But otherwise I'm not fond of switching to external programs constantly, especially that researching engines is expensive, so I'd rather have "a few sizes fit all" rather than trying to come up with new designs for every or at least almost every ship class.
Posted by: prophetical
« on: January 30, 2021, 08:23:16 AM »

Quote from: Stormtrooper on January 29, 2021, 03:36:54 PM
Last thing, engines. I have a hate-hate relationship with them. I don't rely on external calculations (so what if I lose efficiency, it's a game, not a job, I'm not computing stuff ;)),

You do you, but that a) isn't how the calculators work (you tell it your tech level and what size/speed you want and it tells you what to build and b) your intuition might be right, but I found that much of mine was not once I started seeing optimized designs.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: January 30, 2021, 07:26:34 AM »

Quote from: Squigles on January 29, 2021, 09:33:38 PM
Quote from: Jorgen_CAB on January 29, 2021, 07:26:14 PM

To be fair I never understood the problem with AMM spam against beam ships. I really never find myself in a situation this is a problem. As my fleets usually are designed to fight either box launched or reduced launcher attacks I tend to have enough PD to deal with AMM if I'm force into a close range situation.

Aside from that I always must prioritise AMM ship with ASM first as they are usually key to defend against mass missile attacks. So when it is time for close range attack most of the AMM ships should already have been disabled along with most beam ships.

If you have a beam only fleet than PD to deal with AMM should not really be much of a problem to begin with unless you charge a fleet that is much larger than yours. If you also is faster then them you should still be able to use your shields to tank AMM spam by taking some hits and retreat out of their range... is there much reason to charge them until they just spent all their AMM against your shields.

AMM should in most situation be a none issue.

In point of fact my current game, for my faction, is beam only. No missiles to be found. Current fleet consists of 45kt carriers loaded with 400t rail fighters and 12kt “destroyers” that are armed with particle beams. As it’s a 10% research game I don’t have a lot of excess RPs to splash about, and I roleplay a parliamentary system that, amongst other things, severely limits the tonnage of my military assets (although I have a VERY robust commercial side).

The practical effect is that I am almost always fighting a superior sized force tonnage wise, and have virtually no RP to splash on gauss technology. Rail fighters can take out enough incoming ordnance to protect me from ASM’s, but AMMs  can get through.

Since I don’t allow myself to respond to the glaringly obvious 5 second forced increment screaming “incoming AMM spam” until I actually see the missiles on scopes, and the AI is rarely stupid enough to launch at maximum range, I can’t bounce in and out of range to recharge shields. Since I have no missiles I can’t take those vessels out at range...I need to weather the storm instead. Hence armor over shields, because I need a win button for multiple potential engagements, not a win more button for beam engagements where I can crush the opfor with or without.

I “could” twiddle about for a couple centuries to get all the myriad techs, but since I have “spoilers” enabled and they couldn’t give a rats behind about tech speed settings...no dallying about.

Why not use small sensor scouts to fly under the resolution 1 radar... You can create a 5t engine and a 5t res 1 sensor to detect their missile quite far out so you don't have to weather them at close range... You could have the Destroyers fall back and recharge their shields as you can see the missile coming a mile away, you also increase the tracking bonus for the PD as well. You also could at least develop a rudimentary missile launcher and use probes to with a resolution 1 sensor as well and still stay in character with not using missiles.

Anyway.. you fight the AI so there are probably many ways to solve the problem without resorting to cheating which I don't like to do... It is odd though the AI don't just target your rail-gun fighters as that would be way smarter than your destroyers to start with, but that is AI for you...

You are just lucky you don't face large fighter or FAC launched swarms of missiles either then, that would force you to bring enough rail-gun fighters to easily deal with AMM. AI mostly use rather inefficient full size missile launchers on their designs which is to easy to defeat with the most rudimentary beam point-defence system.
Posted by: Squigles
« on: January 29, 2021, 09:33:38 PM »

Quote from: Jorgen_CAB on January 29, 2021, 07:26:14 PM

To be fair I never understood the problem with AMM spam against beam ships. I really never find myself in a situation this is a problem. As my fleets usually are designed to fight either box launched or reduced launcher attacks I tend to have enough PD to deal with AMM if I'm force into a close range situation.

Aside from that I always must prioritise AMM ship with ASM first as they are usually key to defend against mass missile attacks. So when it is time for close range attack most of the AMM ships should already have been disabled along with most beam ships.

If you have a beam only fleet than PD to deal with AMM should not really be much of a problem to begin with unless you charge a fleet that is much larger than yours. If you also is faster then them you should still be able to use your shields to tank AMM spam by taking some hits and retreat out of their range... is there much reason to charge them until they just spent all their AMM against your shields.

AMM should in most situation be a none issue.

In point of fact my current game, for my faction, is beam only. No missiles to be found. Current fleet consists of 45kt carriers loaded with 400t rail fighters and 12kt “destroyers” that are armed with particle beams. As it’s a 10% research game I don’t have a lot of excess RPs to splash about, and I roleplay a parliamentary system that, amongst other things, severely limits the tonnage of my military assets (although I have a VERY robust commercial side).

The practical effect is that I am almost always fighting a superior sized force tonnage wise, and have virtually no RP to splash on gauss technology. Rail fighters can take out enough incoming ordnance to protect me from ASM’s, but AMMs  can get through.

Since I don’t allow myself to respond to the glaringly obvious 5 second forced increment screaming “incoming AMM spam” until I actually see the missiles on scopes, and the AI is rarely stupid enough to launch at maximum range, I can’t bounce in and out of range to recharge shields. Since I have no missiles I can’t take those vessels out at range...I need to weather the storm instead. Hence armor over shields, because I need a win button for multiple potential engagements, not a win more button for beam engagements where I can crush the opfor with or without.

I “could” twiddle about for a couple centuries to get all the myriad techs, but since I have “spoilers” enabled and they couldn’t give a rats behind about tech speed settings...no dallying about.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: January 29, 2021, 07:26:14 PM »

Quote from: TheTalkingMeowth on January 29, 2021, 07:11:57 PM

I think the point was that, since PB+speed alone mean you're gonna win the pure beam combat even without shields, going for more armor and less shields is preferred for the scenario of AMM spam. Sure, it's suboptimal for pure beam combat. But it means they have a better chance in the case where they might otherwise lose.

Basically, shields are "win more" for pure beam combat, when all that matters is "win enough." And so they prefer to make defense decisions that hopefully let them "win enough" in a wider variety of scenarios.

To be fair I never understood the problem with AMM spam against beam ships. I really never find myself in a situation this is a problem. As my fleets usually are designed to fight either box launched or reduced launcher attacks I tend to have enough PD to deal with AMM if I'm force into a close range situation.

Aside from that I always must prioritise AMM ship with ASM first as they are usually key to defend against mass missile attacks. So when it is time for close range attack most of the AMM ships should already have been disabled along with most beam ships.

If you have a beam only fleet than PD to deal with AMM should not really be much of a problem to begin with unless you charge a fleet that is much larger than yours. If you also is faster then them you should still be able to use your shields to tank AMM spam by taking some hits and retreat out of their range... is there much reason to charge them until they just spent all their AMM against your shields.

AMM should in most situation be a none issue.
Posted by: TheTalkingMeowth
« on: January 29, 2021, 07:11:57 PM »

Quote from: Jorgen_CAB on January 29, 2021, 07:05:41 PM
Quote from: Squigles on January 29, 2021, 05:12:57 PM
Quote from: Jorgen_CAB on January 29, 2021, 04:02:13 PM

But shields are even BETTER if you can maintain range, especially if you use particle beams and have fast ships and can dictate the engagement.

Better against attenuated beams, yes. However, since particles rule the "I'm faster than you and can hold any range I want beam murder" bracket, I don't need the extra edge of shields to win.

Therefore I spec to deal with the threats I'm not guaranteed to crush as a matter of course, that being endless hordes of AMM's sleeting into me. In that case I really, really want the extra raw damage totals I can absorb with more armor, rather than my shields getting the long range railgun treatment and...you know...exploding.

But the shields are still better than getting hit in the armour, right?
You known that you can back off a ship and recharge the shield and then get back in to the fight?

In my multi-faction games during pure beam combat it is quite common to use shields and then withdraw ships to longer range to recharge the shield... make long range combat eat allot of MSP and eventually ending the fight. Even the slower side can do this as the faster side either have to chase after the ship disengaging and facing the other ships at a closer range or keep distance and let the ship recharge it's shields.

I know that it is allot easier against the AI that don't use advanced tactics or formations during beam combat and have all their ship in one big ball.

I think the point was that, since PB+speed alone mean you're gonna win the pure beam combat even without shields, going for more armor and less shields is preferred for the scenario of AMM spam. Sure, it's suboptimal for pure beam combat. But it means they have a better chance in the case where they might otherwise lose.

Basically, shields are "win more" for pure beam combat, when all that matters is "win enough." And so they prefer to make defense decisions that hopefully let them "win enough" in a wider variety of scenarios.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: January 29, 2021, 07:05:41 PM »

Quote from: Squigles on January 29, 2021, 05:12:57 PM
Quote from: Jorgen_CAB on January 29, 2021, 04:02:13 PM

But shields are even BETTER if you can maintain range, especially if you use particle beams and have fast ships and can dictate the engagement.

Better against attenuated beams, yes. However, since particles rule the "I'm faster than you and can hold any range I want beam murder" bracket, I don't need the extra edge of shields to win.

Therefore I spec to deal with the threats I'm not guaranteed to crush as a matter of course, that being endless hordes of AMM's sleeting into me. In that case I really, really want the extra raw damage totals I can absorb with more armor, rather than my shields getting the long range railgun treatment and...you know...exploding.

But the shields are still better than getting hit in the armour, right?
You known that you can back off a ship and recharge the shield and then get back in to the fight?

In my multi-faction games during pure beam combat it is quite common to use shields and then withdraw ships to longer range to recharge the shield... make long range combat eat allot of MSP and eventually ending the fight. Even the slower side can do this as the faster side either have to chase after the ship disengaging and facing the other ships at a closer range or keep distance and let the ship recharge it's shields.

I know that it is allot easier against the AI that don't use advanced tactics or formations during beam combat and have all their ship in one big ball.
Posted by: Squigles
« on: January 29, 2021, 05:12:57 PM »

Quote from: Jorgen_CAB on January 29, 2021, 04:02:13 PM

But shields are even BETTER if you can maintain range, especially if you use particle beams and have fast ships and can dictate the engagement.

Better against attenuated beams, yes. However, since particles rule the "I'm faster than you and can hold any range I want beam murder" bracket, I don't need the extra edge of shields to win.

Therefore I spec to deal with the threats I'm not guaranteed to crush as a matter of course, that being endless hordes of AMM's sleeting into me. In that case I really, really want the extra raw damage totals I can absorb with more armor, rather than my shields getting the long range railgun treatment and...you know...exploding.
Posted by: papent
« on: January 29, 2021, 04:47:02 PM »

here's some of my current campaign Frigates and other small ships all sub 5k.

I'm personally love small ships and throw packets and pickets any where and everywhere. escorting destroy groups, carrier task groups, orbital landing groups or cruiser squadrons. Small Warships gives a tactical flexibility you don't get with the large ones. i can upgrade these and build them constantly,  i can attach them to whatever capital group is ready for deployment or prepositioned as rapid force squadrons to reinforce system defense FAC groups.

Adm Farragut Series of Railgun Frigates general purpose light combatants
Code: [Select]
Admiral Farragut I class Frigate      3,469 tons       113 Crew       1,120.3 BP       TCS 69    TH 125    EM 270
3603 km/s      Armour 3-20       Shields 9-270       HTK 29      Sensors 14/14/0/0      DCR 2      PPV 14
Maint Life 4.91 Years     MSP 803    AFR 48%    IFR 0.7%    1YR 55    5YR 827    Max Repair 207.8 MSP
Commander    Control Rating 2   BRG   AUX   
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months    Morale Check Required   

Military - Patrol Service Ion Drive (1)    Power 250    Fuel Use 35.36%    Signature 125.0    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 300,000 Litres    Range 44 billion km (141 days at full power)
Gen 1 Delta Z05 - S09 / R270 Shields (1)     Recharge Time 270 seconds (0 per second)

Gen 1 20cm Railgun V50/C12 (2x4)    Range 200,000km     TS: 6,250 km/s     Power 12-12     RM 50,000 km    ROF 5       
Gen 1 Beam Fire Control R288-TS06250 (2)     Max Range: 288,000 km   TS: 6,250 km/s     97 93 90 86 83 79 76 72 69 65
Gen 1 Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor R024 (1)     Total Power Output 24.4    Exp 10%

G1 Active Search Sensor AS030-R020 COM (1)     GPS 560     Range 30.3m km    Resolution 20
G1 Active Search Sensor AS011-R001 COM (1)     GPS 28     Range 11.2m km    MCR 1m km    Resolution 1
G1 COM EM Sensor EM1.0-14.0 (1)     Sensitivity 14     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  29.6m km
G1 COM Thermal Sensor TH1.0-14.0 (1)     Sensitivity 14     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  29.6m km

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Code: [Select]
Admiral Farragut II class Frigate      3,427 tons       112 Crew       1,170.7 BP       TCS 69    TH 160    EM 270
4669 km/s      Armour 3-20       Shields 9-270       HTK 29      Sensors 14/14/0/0      DCR 2      PPV 14
Maint Life 4.68 Years     MSP 827    AFR 47%    IFR 0.7%    1YR 62    5YR 926    Max Repair 240 MSP
Commander    Control Rating 2   BRG   AUX   
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months    Morale Check Required   

Military - Patrol Magneto-plasma Drive (1)    Power 320    Fuel Use 35.36%    Signature 160.0    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 300,000 Litres    Range 44.6 billion km (110 days at full power)
Gen 1 Delta Z05 - S09 / R270 Shields (1)     Recharge Time 270 seconds (0 per second)

Gen 1 20cm Railgun V50/C12 (2x4)    Range 200,000km     TS: 6,250 km/s     Power 12-12     RM 50,000 km    ROF 5       
Gen 1 Beam Fire Control R288-TS06250 (2)     Max Range: 288,000 km   TS: 6,250 km/s     97 93 90 86 83 79 76 72 69 65
Gen-7 Tokamak Fusion Reactor R024 (1)     Total Power Output 24.2    Exp 10%

G1 Active Search Sensor AS030-R020 COM (1)     GPS 560     Range 30.3m km    Resolution 20
G1 Active Search Sensor AS011-R001 COM (1)     GPS 28     Range 11.2m km    MCR 1m km    Resolution 1
G1 COM EM Sensor EM1.0-14.0 (1)     Sensitivity 14     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  29.6m km
G1 COM Thermal Sensor TH1.0-14.0 (1)     Sensitivity 14     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  29.6m km

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Code: [Select]
Admiral Farragut III class Frigate      3,933 tons       130 Crew       1,495.3 BP       TCS 79    TH 500    EM 900
6357 km/s      Armour 3-22       Shields 30-360       HTK 33      Sensors 14/14/0/0      DCR 2      PPV 17.85
Maint Life 4.05 Years     MSP 875    AFR 62%    IFR 0.9%    1YR 85    5YR 1,277    Max Repair 250 MSP
Commander    Control Rating 2   BRG   AUX   
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months    Morale Check Required   

Military - Patrol Magnetic Fusion Drive (1)    Power 500    Fuel Use 28.28%    Signature 500    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 300,000 Litres    Range 48.5 billion km (88 days at full power)
Gen 2 Epsilon Z10 - S30 / R360 Shields (1)     Recharge Time 360 seconds (0.1 per second)

Gen 2 20cm Railgun V60/C12 (2x4)    Range 240,000km     TS: 6,357 km/s     Power 12-12     RM 60,000 km    ROF 5       
Gen 2 20cm Railgun V60/C06 Twin Bore (1x2)    Range 240,000km     TS: 6,357 km/s     Power 6-6     RM 60,000 km    ROF 5       
Gen 1 Beam Fire Control R288-TS06250 (2)     Max Range: 288,000 km   TS: 6,250 km/s     97 93 90 86 83 79 76 72 69 65
Gen-8 Magnetic Confinement Fusion Reactor R030 (1)     Total Power Output 30    Exp 7%

G1 Active Search Sensor AS011-R001 COM (1)     GPS 28     Range 11.2m km    MCR 1m km    Resolution 1
G1 Active Search Sensor AS042-R020 BAT (1)     GPS 1120     Range 42.9m km    Resolution 20
G1 COM EM Sensor EM1.0-14.0 (1)     Sensitivity 14     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  29.6m km
G1 COM Thermal Sensor TH1.0-14.0 (1)     Sensitivity 14     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  29.6m km

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Adm Wroth Class of K/Lance Frigates

Code: [Select]
Admiral Wroth I class Kinetic Frigate      3,145 tons       95 Crew       869.8 BP       TCS 63    TH 125    EM 270
3975 km/s      Armour 3-19       Shields 9-270       HTK 26      Sensors 14/14/0/0      DCR 2      PPV 10
Maint Life 5.21 Years     MSP 745    AFR 40%    IFR 0.5%    1YR 46    5YR 686    Max Repair 244.9 MSP
Commander    Control Rating 2   BRG   AUX   
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months    Morale Check Required   

Military - Patrol Service Ion Drive (1)    Power 250    Fuel Use 35.36%    Signature 125.0    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 300,000 Litres    Range 48.6 billion km (141 days at full power)
Gen 1 Delta Z05 - S09 / R270 Shields (1)     Recharge Time 270 seconds (0 per second)

Gen 1 Particle Beam-12 (1)    Range 200,000km     TS: 6,250 km/s     Power 30-10    ROF 15       
Gen 1 Beam Fire Control R288-TS06250 (1)     Max Range: 288,000 km   TS: 6,250 km/s     97 93 90 86 83 79 76 72 69 65
Gen 1 Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor R030 (1)     Total Power Output 30.2    Exp 20%

G1 Active Search Sensor AS030-R020 COM (1)     GPS 560     Range 30.3m km    Resolution 20
G1 Active Search Sensor AS011-R001 COM (1)     GPS 28     Range 11.2m km    MCR 1m km    Resolution 1
G1 COM EM Sensor EM1.0-14.0 (1)     Sensitivity 14     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  29.6m km
G1 COM Thermal Sensor TH1.0-14.0 (1)     Sensitivity 14     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  29.6m km

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Code: [Select]
Admiral Wroth II class Kinetic Frigate      3,113 tons       94 Crew       922.8 BP       TCS 62    TH 160    EM 270
5140 km/s      Armour 3-18       Shields 9-270       HTK 26      Sensors 14/14/0/0      DCR 2      PPV 10
Maint Life 4.98 Years     MSP 770    AFR 39%    IFR 0.5%    1YR 52    5YR 774    Max Repair 244.9 MSP
Commander    Control Rating 2   BRG   AUX   
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months    Morale Check Required   

Military - Patrol Magneto-plasma Drive (1)    Power 320    Fuel Use 35.36%    Signature 160.0    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 300,000 Litres    Range 49.1 billion km (110 days at full power)
Gen 1 Delta Z05 - S09 / R270 Shields (1)     Recharge Time 270 seconds (0 per second)

Gen 1 Particle Beam-12 (1)    Range 200,000km     TS: 6,250 km/s     Power 30-10    ROF 15       
Gen 1 Beam Fire Control R288-TS06250 (1)     Max Range: 288,000 km   TS: 6,250 km/s     97 93 90 86 83 79 76 72 69 65
Gen-7 Tokamak Fusion Reactor R030 (1)     Total Power Output 30.5    Exp 15%

G1 Active Search Sensor AS030-R020 COM (1)     GPS 560     Range 30.3m km    Resolution 20
G1 Active Search Sensor AS011-R001 COM (1)     GPS 28     Range 11.2m km    MCR 1m km    Resolution 1
G1 COM EM Sensor EM1.0-14.0 (1)     Sensitivity 14     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  29.6m km
G1 COM Thermal Sensor TH1.0-14.0 (1)     Sensitivity 14     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  29.6m km

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Code: [Select]
Admiral Wroth III class Lance Frigate      3,147 tons       99 Crew       1,132.4 BP       TCS 63    TH 500    EM 330
7945 km/s      Armour 3-19       Shields 11-264       HTK 27      Sensors 14/14/0/0      DCR 2      PPV 12
Maint Life 4.33 Years     MSP 849    AFR 40%    IFR 0.6%    1YR 73    5YR 1,092    Max Repair 466.5 MSP
Commander    Control Rating 2   BRG   AUX   
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months    Morale Check Required   

Military - Patrol Magnetic Fusion Drive (1)    Power 500    Fuel Use 28.28%    Signature 500    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 300,000 Litres    Range 60.7 billion km (88 days at full power)
Gen 2 Epsilon Z05 - S11 / R264 Shields (1)     Recharge Time 264 seconds (0 per second)

Gen 1 Particle Lance-06 (1)    Range 240,000km     TS: 7,945 km/s     Power 17-12    ROF 10       
Gen 1 Beam Fire Control R288-TS06250 (1)     Max Range: 288,000 km   TS: 6,250 km/s     97 93 90 86 83 79 76 72 69 65
Gen-8 Magnetic Confinement Fusion Reactor R021 (1)     Total Power Output 21.2    Exp 7%

G1 Active Search Sensor AS030-R020 COM (1)     GPS 560     Range 30.3m km    Resolution 20
G1 Active Search Sensor AS011-R001 COM (1)     GPS 28     Range 11.2m km    MCR 1m km    Resolution 1
G1 COM EM Sensor EM1.0-14.0 (1)     Sensitivity 14     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  29.6m km
G1 COM Thermal Sensor TH1.0-14.0 (1)     Sensitivity 14     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  29.6m km

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

COMD Dewey Gunship Series my PD escort class
Code: [Select]
Commodore Dewey III class Gunship      2,820 tons       69 Crew       707.2 BP       TCS 56    TH 200    EM 30
7094 km/s      Armour 2-17       Shields 1-150       HTK 23      Sensors 14/14/0/0      DCR 1      PPV 16.32
Maint Life 3.03 Years     MSP 556    AFR 64%    IFR 0.9%    1YR 91    5YR 1,362    Max Repair 240 MSP
Cryogenic Berths 200   
Commander    Control Rating 2   BRG   AUX   
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months    Morale Check Required   

Military - Vanguard Magnetic Fusion Drive (1)    Power 400    Fuel Use 16.19%    Signature 200.0    Explosion 8%
Fuel Capacity 200,000 Litres    Range 78.9 billion km (128 days at full power)
Gen 1 Gamma Z01 - S01 / R150 Shields (1)     Recharge Time 150 seconds (0 per second)

Gen 1 Gauss Cannon R500-100 Twin Turret (1x12)    Range 50,000km     TS: 25000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 50,000 km    ROF 5       
Gen 1 Beam Fire Control R096-TS25000 (1)     Max Range: 96,000 km   TS: 25,000 km/s     90 79 69 58 48 38 27 17 6 0

G1 Active Search Sensor AS011-R001 COM (1)     GPS 28     Range 11.2m km    MCR 1m km    Resolution 1
G1 COM EM Sensor EM1.0-14.0 (1)     Sensitivity 14     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  29.6m km
G1 COM Thermal Sensor TH1.0-14.0 (1)     Sensitivity 14     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  29.6m km

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

COMD Porter series of escort Area defense escorts
Code: [Select]
Commodore Porter III class Escort      3,021 tons       80 Crew       644.2 BP       TCS 60    TH 200    EM 30
6622 km/s      Armour 2-18       Shields 1-150       HTK 32      Sensors 14/14/0/0      DCR 1      PPV 10
Maint Life 3.42 Years     MSP 533    AFR 73%    IFR 1.0%    1YR 69    5YR 1,041    Max Repair 240 MSP
Magazine 180   
Commander    Control Rating 2   BRG   AUX   
Intended Deployment Time: 5 months    Morale Check Required   

Military - Vanguard Magnetic Fusion Drive (1)    Power 400    Fuel Use 16.19%    Signature 200.0    Explosion 8%
Fuel Capacity 200,000 Litres    Range 73.6 billion km (128 days at full power)
Gen 1 Gamma Z01 - S01 / R150 Shields (1)     Recharge Time 150 seconds (0 per second)

Gen 1 Size 1 Missile Launcher (10)     Missile Size: 1    Rate of Fire 5
G1 Missile Fire Control FC022-R001 Standard (3)     Range 22.3m km    Resolution 1
AMR G1 'Kongo' (180)    Speed: 49,600 km/s    End: 1.6m     Range: 4.7m km    WH: 1    Size: 1    TH: 281/168/84

G1 Active Search Sensor AS011-R001 COM (1)     GPS 28     Range 11.2m km    MCR 1m km    Resolution 1
G1 COM EM Sensor EM1.0-14.0 (1)     Sensitivity 14     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  29.6m km
G1 COM Thermal Sensor TH1.0-14.0 (1)     Sensitivity 14     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  29.6m km

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
Posted by: nuclearslurpee
« on: January 29, 2021, 04:06:10 PM »

Quote from: Stormtrooper on January 29, 2021, 03:36:54 PM
Last thing, engines. I have a hate-hate relationship with them. I don't rely on external calculations (so what if I lose efficiency, it's a game, not a job, I'm not computing stuff ;)), instead I just try to get some intuition as to how things work and after several battles already got to the level of having a grasp of what my ships can and can't reliably do and how to use them and what to improve and so on. But engines, oh damn, despite all that time I still feel blind and clueless as to how should I do it "intuitively" to be good enough.

You can get 95% of the way there on engines if you remember that 3:1 ratio of (total) engine to fuel mass gives optimal performance on a per-ton basis - and that a higher ratio is more fuel-efficient. If you find yourself erring on the side of a smaller ratio, like 2:1 engine to fuel, you're probably building a bad design because there's rarely any need to build such a small engine that drinks so much fuel (even on fighters this is pretty rare).

If you try to stick close to this ratio, or err on the heavier side for fuel efficiency, it's a good starting point to develop an intuition. Of course everyone does things differently, notably I believe Steve sticks to a 1.0x modifier pretty religiously and just builds engines big enough to get the speed he desires as he doesn't care for messing about with calculators and such. I do things differently in each campaign depending on my RP approach.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: January 29, 2021, 04:02:13 PM »

Quote from: Squigles on January 29, 2021, 03:25:20 PM
Quote from: nuclearslurpee on January 29, 2021, 03:15:03 PM
Shields are actually an ideal module to mount here instead of armor, because they blunt the penetration ability of lasers and in fact any other weapons that would overmatch armor. Of course the most firepower is gained from mounting no shields and 1 layer of armor, but if some protection is desired shields work quite well in the specific case OP is dealing with.

You’re probably not wrong here. I’m so used to either deploying with particle beams where incoming laser damage is attenuated to next to nothing, or I’m crashing the party with thick enough armor that a 40 point laser blast won’t pen. I forgot how much better shields are at dealing with point blank lasers if you’re not dedicating enough tonnage for armor thick enough to resist.

But shields are even BETTER if you can maintain range, especially if you use particle beams and have fast ships and can dictate the engagement.
Posted by: Squigles
« on: January 29, 2021, 03:57:10 PM »

Quote from: Stormtrooper on January 29, 2021, 03:44:01 PM

As for 4, "overturned" fire control range is there for accuracy...

Yup, and nothing wrong with that. The point being made was that with such short range guns and an overtuned BFC, your hit chances are already VERY high inside that range bracket. That being the case, you had very limited opportunity (if any, good crew could easily put you over 100% anyhow) for a tactical officer to improve your hit chances at all, and even if he could it would be a small amount. Given that fact it would give you more damage on target to mount an additional gun instead of a CIC.