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: iceball3
« on: March 12, 2016, 05:11:34 PM »

Large missiles and beam weapons had a new change somewhat recently (in the currently released version of aurora, at least), called Shock Damage, which allows you to do damage straight through armor if the blast is big enough, even if it can't penetrate the sheer armor levels well enough.
http://aurorawiki.pentarch.org/index.php?title=Shock_Damage
Beyond that, warhead considerations are a better approach than just simple, size, specifically, certain values of warhead have differing degree of penetration through armor. Warhead up to 3 will not damage internals through any previously undamaged armor, due to the fact that it's penetration depth is exactly 1. From 4 up to 8, that's a penetration depth of 2, 9 to 15 is 3, etc. I believe that the math is that the penetration depth is the square root of the damage dealt, rounded down. Engineering your missiles to have somewhat more penetration than the armor level of a particular ship can be exceptionally valuable against, say, a very large ship with otherwise moderate armor. If you're doing damage above the penetration, assuming the ship has no shields, it'll mean you do internal damage on every hit, whereas going under penetration means that (excluding shock damage) means that you'll need to hit roughly the same spot twice in a row to start damaging internal stuff.
Posted by: Pixel1191
« on: March 11, 2016, 05:03:23 AM »

It depends on what you're shooting at.

They can be useful in singles against slow, undefended commercial ships, altho you might as well use energy weapons for those.

Against warships, you'd either have to volley the salvoes perfectly, so that the big ones arrive in time with smaller ones, or just use them against targets with no point or only little PD capability.
Posted by: Catman115
« on: March 11, 2016, 03:54:38 AM »

Well on the topic of extra helpings of missiles here is a good question(at least in my book). Are heavy missiles worth it? I dont mean like armored or whatever. Say i wanted three different sizes of missiles, an AMM, a size 6 ASM, and a missile that was probably larger than size 10 or so that dealt larger amounts of damage.

Would the third missile be a waste of resources or is it a good idea to have a missile like this?  ???
Posted by: Iranon
« on: March 09, 2016, 03:03:27 AM »

What range you should aim for isn't set in stone.

If designing in a vacuum, you may want to go for whatever you can build efficiently, which means working out ratios and tech priorities. Your last missiles look fine for that.

Against a known opponent, you may not really care about optimisations to eke out 3m more range while keeping the other metrics identical... you care about hitting a goalpost (well outside their ASM range/AMM range/beam range).

Implementation can still vary in detail. Let's say you decide on "forget defences, I don't plan to get shot at". You could rely on missiles with 500m range and sophisticated sensors/fire controls, possibly supported by electronic warfare. Or you could deliver medium-range missiles with 150t fighters that will hopefully not be detected at their engagement range. Some risk of exposing yourself to AMM fire, but your big ships can keep even farther away.

Either way, you have considerable overhead for standoff range, and have to throw expensive ordnance against minor threats. You may instead decide to focus on beam point defence to weather enemy missiles, then mop up defenceless opponents with faster/longer-ranged beam ships once they have expended their ordnance. Supported by limited short-range missile capability to take out anything you expect to give you trouble at beam range. The important part is to know how you expect to fight... and when to deviate from your initial plan because it doesn't work against the current opposition.
Posted by: Pixel1191
« on: March 09, 2016, 02:34:15 AM »

I really cant see how to balance this out without horrifically bloating the design size to some number that might as well make the thing a Battleship, as well as murdering speed, all i really want out on this set of frigate designs are scouts/escorts/skirmishers. I mean i could cut morale time by a bit but then the ship is good for less and less long distance travel. I really don't want to have to rebuild a fleet in EVERY system, i thought that was what PDCs were for? ???  ???

I don't see an issue with it. More fuel comes at a tonnage price and also increases demand für crew- and engineering spaces. It never ends. I think it's a decent ratio.


Ok first, what does DG stand for?

Probably DDG...guided missile destroyer. :P


Ok so what ARE these ranges i want to be fighting at? I mean i assume its max range for whatever weapons i manage to cobble together to prevent losses from the billions of missiles that will eventually be shot at me and such because from all of the chatter ive read about this game missiles are better than any of the laser weapons by a retarded margin and out of the laser weapons, the only good ones are the normal laser (best range and damage for that range) and the meson cannon (because it cheats and ignores armor/atmosphere making it amazing for killing SURPRISE ARMORED MISSILES!!, good for FAC bombers attacking huge ships with tons of armor, and as a PDC Point defense weapon). If this is the case why in the hell would i ever do anything but max range for the ALL THE MISSILES FOREVER combat? After all if i out-range my opponent, i can blow his fleet up and take no losses of my own, preserving fuel, combat experience on my boats, and resources that i DONT have to spend rebuilding those boats yes?

While yes, missiles are king...other weapons shouldn't be ignored. Energy platforms are useful not just as point defense, but also to kill merchant shipping, crippled enemies and almost more important than anything else: combat in a nebula, where missiles don't work.

As for the ranges: Design your missiles first. You can always scale the fire control via size, but with missiles you can't do that, assuming you want to stay at size 6, the minimum detection size. Once you have a satisfactory missile, design the fire control to go with it, plus some margin for missile range improvements. That will give you the most efficient results.

As for the other thing: you don't know if you WILL outrange your opponent until you actually face him. And if you're unlucky, you meet one of the spoilers. One of those will most assuredly outrange YOU by a fairly significant margin and the other might just completely negate your missile armament until it's much too late. Always keep a nice mix of armament in a fleet. If you realize you won't be able to bring your energy combatants to bear, you can still peel them off. But you can't just "magic" them in if they aren't there and you need them.

I will totally give you the CIWS on AMM boats thing, i do now realize that i will have to just COAT my sensor boats in the things OFC. Now how do Volley work in this game, is a volley whenever the FC i have my Missile Launchers slaved to tells them to open fire or what? So if the optimal number of AMM Launchers per Missile FC is 3-5, then how do i make it so that i can optimally slave 6-10 Missile Launchers to my fire controls? Also those Magazine numbers where do i see them at? What is the ingame difference between an offensive volley vs a defensive volley?

You don't really have to go HAM on the CIWS, one or two is enough. Your sensor boats should, theoretically, never need them. Assuming your actual area point defense holds. And if all the escorts are dead...well....the CIWS can buy you a few seconds until death, but no more than that. They're just for "leakers", really...single misisles, two a most, from a salvo that manage to squeeze through your PD.

Volleys. That simply refers to what you can fire at once, without reloads. It doesn't really matter how many launchers you slave to a FC. The point defense automatism will fire (or not fire) them as needed. The absolute optimum, of course, would be to match it to the enemy salvo size. But that varies dramatically, so it can't really be done, unless you have multiple FCs and lots of tubes so you can connect the launchers back and forth as needed. Lot's of micro and not really necessary, since the point defense will sort it out for you anyway, setting multiple FCs to target the same missile salvo if necessary.

There isn't really a difference between offensive and defensive, except of course, that defensive salvoes will be fired automatically, as much as needed for the detected threat.

The total magazine capacity is displayed in the ship design screen. The magazines themselves are counted, as well as each missile launcher (a size 6 launcher gives 6 points of magazine space, to fit a single size 6 missile, while a size 1 launcher only gives 1..and so on) You want to try and get it s that you have X number of full salvoes and don't end up with decreased loads. So if you have 10 size 1 launchers and a total mag capacity of 100, that's 10 full salvoes, assuming all launchers are fired. But if you have a magazine capacity of 95, that's 9 full salvoes and one weaker one at half strength. Each missile takes it's size in the magazines. So a size 6 missiles takes 6 points off the capacity, keep that in mind when designing magazines for ASM boats. With AMMs it's simpler, since they're size 1, making the storage calculation a lot simpler.
Posted by: Catman115
« on: March 09, 2016, 12:50:12 AM »

Alright sorry for taking so long to get back to this, ive had a frakking smegty couple of days and such. Now then questions.

Okay, first off, congrats, you've made it to the ball park, now we just refine.   :)
WHEW LADDIE YEAH!!!! ;D

Deployment:
Maint life: >3 years
Crew morale time: 15 months
Fuel capacity: 40 days

This is kinda odd to me, as personally I tend to try to keep these within an order of magnitude of each other.
Taking a slightly closer look, I can see that the MSP is about double the max repair, which is quite reasonable.  But I would still likely bulk them out to 5k tons with fuel just so that they don't need to be glued to a tanker (I really don't like micro management, so why am I playing this again? >. >). 
I really cant see how to balance this out without horrifically bloating the design size to some number that might as well make the thing a Battleship, as well as murdering speed, all i really want out on this set of frigate designs are scouts/escorts/skirmishers. I mean i could cut morale time by a bit but then the ship is good for less and less long distance travel. I really don't want to have to rebuild a fleet in EVERY system, i thought that was what PDCs were for? ???  ???

Sensors/Missile FC:
Your sensor resolution doesn't match your FC on the DG and the ranges are all over the place. 
Ok first, what does DG stand for?

One really useful quirk of MFCs is that they have exactly 3x the range of a same size sensor, meaning that you can make them 1/3 the size and get identical ranges.
Ok i will admit that IS very useful.

  Other useful formula for this:
Range reduction for small sized contacts is the square of the difference in size between sensor and contact.  (for res 60 contacts your DG's FC has an effective range
of ~12M km before reductions due to ECM)
Also useful, again my thanks.

My advice for this is to design your FC at the range you want to fight at and then design your standard combat sensors at 3x the size.  But I will say that personally I tend to use large thermal sensors for locating targets and only use actives for combat locks.
Ok so what ARE these ranges i want to be fighting at? I mean i assume its max range for whatever weapons i manage to cobble together to prevent losses from the billions of missiles that will eventually be shot at me and such because from all of the chatter ive read about this game missiles are better than any of the laser weapons by a retarded margin and out of the laser weapons, the only good ones are the normal laser (best range and damage for that range) and the meson cannon (because it cheats and ignores armor/atmosphere making it amazing for killing SURPRISE ARMORED MISSILES!!, good for FAC bombers attacking huge ships with tons of armor, and as a PDC Point defense weapon). If this is the case why in the hell would i ever do anything but max range for the ALL THE MISSILES FOREVER combat? After all if i out-range my opponent, i can blow his fleet up and take no losses of my own, preserving fuel, combat experience on my boats, and resources that i DONT have to spend rebuilding those boats yes?

General:
CIWS - I don't use them at all on AMM ships.  Most because the AI prioritises sensor ships and AMM ships have tiny sensor blips.
Magazines - 10. 75 offensive, 28 defensive volleys.  Slightly light on the offensive, I think.  In larger engagements you might find yourself running out of ammo, so be prepared to have colliers ready if you're going to do a major engagement with these.
Missile Volleys - Because no-one's mentioned this and in-case you haven't found this, the general rule-of-thumb is that the AI tends to use AMMs in multiples of 3 so volleys of 3x+1 are what I tend to aim for.  (I don't know if this is still accurate or anything, but it gives something to design around.  So, eh. )
I will totally give you the CIWS on AMM boats thing, i do now realize that i will have to just COAT my sensor boats in the things OFC. Now how do Volley work in this game, is a volley whenever the FC i have my Missile Launchers slaved to tells them to open fire or what? So if the optimal number of AMM Launchers per Missile FC is 3-5, then how do i make it so that i can optimally slave 6-10 Missile Launchers to my fire controls? Also those Magazine numbers where do i see them at? What is the ingame difference between an offensive volley vs a defensive volley?


And because I don't feel right saying this sorta stuff without opening myself to it, here's something from my all-tech screw-around game:

Code: [Select]
Horrifying rape beast that would break my sweet asshole in if i were to ever encounter it in my game.
Problems I immediately see:

Slow
ECCM on AMM firecontrols
Excessive turret speed
Stupidly expensive

Now i will assume that the whole slow and stupidly expensive thing go hand in hand so that is why you want to build specialized ships for specific roles, trying to build a ship that does everything makes a boat that is slow, VERY expensive and not amazing at any of the things you build onto it.
But why is ECCM on AMM FCs a bad thing? If the enemy missiles have ECM wont that make your AMM FCs not shoot them?

But no seriously thank you for the pointers and such.
Posted by: Shiwanabe
« on: March 03, 2016, 06:30:11 PM »

Okay, first off, congrats, you've made it to the ball park, now we just refine.   :)

Quote from: Catman115 link=topic=8331. msg87585#msg87585 date=1456999098
. . .
Snip
. . .

Now, there are still a few things that stand out to me.


Deployment:
Maint life: >3 years
Crew morale time: 15 months
Fuel capacity: 40 days

This is kinda odd to me, as personally I tend to try to keep these within an order of magnitude of each other.
Taking a slightly closer look, I can see that the MSP is about double the max repair, which is quite reasonable.  But I would still likely bulk them out to 5k tons with fuel just so that they don't need to be glued to a tanker (I really don't like micro management, so why am I playing this again? >. >). 


Sensors/Missile FC:
Your sensor resolution doesn't match your FC on the DG and the ranges are all over the place. 

One really useful quirk of MFCs is that they have exactly 3x the range of a same size sensor, meaning that you can make them 1/3 the size and get identical ranges.  Other useful formula for this:
Range reduction for small sized contacts is the square of the difference in size between sensor and contact.  (for res 60 contacts your DG's FC has an effective range
of ~12M km before reductions due to ECM)

My advice for this is to design your FC at the range you want to fight at and then design your standard combat sensors at 3x the size.  But I will say that personally I tend to use large thermal sensors for locating targets and only use actives for combat locks.


General:
CIWS - I don't use them at all on AMM ships.  Most because the AI prioritises sensor ships and AMM ships have tiny sensor blips.
Magazines - 10. 75 offensive, 28 defensive volleys.  Slightly light on the offensive, I think.  In larger engagements you might find yourself running out of ammo, so be prepared to have colliers ready if you're going to do a major engagement with these.
Missile Volleys - Because no-one's mentioned this and in-case you haven't found this, the general rule-of-thumb is that the AI tends to use AMMs in multiples of 3 so volleys of 3x+1 are what I tend to aim for.  (I don't know if this is still accurate or anything, but it gives something to design around.  So, eh. )


And because I don't feel right saying this sorta stuff without opening myself to it, here's something from my all-tech screw-around game:

Code: [Select]
Doberman class Patrol Cruiser    25,000 tons     523 Crew     22154.15 BP      TCS 500  TH 22  EM 18000
4400 km/s    JR 3-50     Armour 10-76     Shields 600-300     Sensors 75/75/0/0     Damage Control Rating 36     PPV 69.75
Maint Life 3.97 Years     MSP 9277    AFR 298%    IFR 4.1%    1YR 939    5YR 14091    Max Repair 4400 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 18 months    Spare Berths 1   
Magazine 885   

J25000(3-50) Military Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 25000 tons    Distance 50k km     Squadron Size 3
2200 EP Photonic Drive (1)    Power 2200    Fuel Use 10.15%    Signature 22    Exp 11%
Fuel Capacity 5,250,000 Litres    Range 372.4 billion km   (979 days at full power)
Omega R300/360 Shields (40)   Total Fuel Cost  600 Litres per hour  (14,400 per day)

Quad R18/C3 Meson Cannon Turret (2x4)    Range 180,000km     TS: 138900 km/s     Power 12-12     RM 18    ROF 5        1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fire Control S02 175-100000 (2)    Max Range: 350,000 km   TS: 100000 km/s     97 94 91 89 86 83 80 77 74 71
Vacuum Energy Power Plant Technology PB-1 (6)     Total Power Output 24    Armour 0    Exp 5%

Size 1 Missile Launcher (75% Reduction) (5)    Missile Size 1    Rate of Fire 5
Size 6 Missile Launcher (5)    Missile Size 6    Rate of Fire 15
Missile Fire Control FC162-R1 (5)     Range 162.0m km    Resolution 1
Missile Fire Control FC1984-R150 (1)     Range 1,984.1m km    Resolution 150
Aegis I-T (345)  Speed: 294,000 km/s   End: 0.5m    Range: 8.5m km   WH: 1    Size: 1    TH: 19306/11583/5791
Locust A-IX (20)  Speed: 60,000 km/s   End: 293.3m    Range: 1105.8m km   WH: 0    Size: 6    TH: 200/120/60
Cain CXXI - II (70)  Speed: 55,000 km/s   End: 45.8m    Range: 151.2m km   WH: 121    Size: 6    TH: 696/418/209

Active Search Sensor MR135-R1 (10%) (1)     GPS 180     Range 135.0m km    MCR 14.7m km    Resolution 1
Active Search Sensor MR1653-R150 (10%) (1)     GPS 27000     Range 1,653.4m km    Resolution 150
Thermal Sensor TH1-75 (10%) (1)     Sensitivity 75     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  75m km
EM Detection Sensor EM1-75 (10%) (1)     Sensitivity 75     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  75m km

Compact ECCM-10 (8)         ECM 100

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

Problems I immediately see:

Slow
ECCM on AMM firecontrols
Excessive turret speed
Stupidly expensive

And I'm sure there are others.  Lots of others.  And I'll stop rambling now.
Posted by: 83athom
« on: March 03, 2016, 07:29:00 AM »

Personally, I think the ships' ranges are too short. I believe that you will have a tanker with them but I usually design my ships so they can operate by themselves, when traveling from system to system, for at least 40b km.
For the AMM launchers, you probably want to hold off on them until you can fire them every 5 seconds. For the ASM, it may be worthwhile to do a reduced size launcher so you can fit more on the ship to get a denier salvo. For the numbers you could add to that size ship however, it wouldn't be a great improvement. But every missile counts as that one extra missile may be the one and only missile that makes it through in a salvo to hit an enemy ship.
Posted by: Pixel1191
« on: March 03, 2016, 07:17:54 AM »

 ;D

Now you went a bit too far the other way. The ideal situation would be, if the range of the fire control and the missile range match. Where before, your fire control could steer missiles with 6 times the range of the ones you have, you now have a missile that can fly 3 times further than the fire control can "see".

Try to match them. 34m km for an ASM is mighty short, in my opinion. The way to go is usually to design the missile first, and then follow up with the fire control in order to match the range. What you can do, is make a fire control with a bit more range than the missile (altho not 6 times as much  :P ) to account for advances in missile and engine technology without refitting a new fire control later.

So if your current missile is flying 110m klicks, you should either create a fire control with 110m km range, or go for one of about 150-200km for some margin of missile improvements. If your fire control is shorter ranged than the missile it's firing, you're giving away missile potential...and the further you can hold the range open, the better.
Posted by: Catman115
« on: March 03, 2016, 04:30:50 AM »

The escort is a bit light on maintenance life for what it is
smeg i forgot extra engineering spaces...alright fix'd.

and I still think the fire control for the ASMs is vastly oversized for the missiles it's controlling and its sensor range.
Right downsized.

Also, altho it is a valid design choice, I can't help but cringe at the paper-thin armor of the frigate, maybe consider scaling down the fire control a wee bit and add as much armor as possible?

Updated in the previous post.
Posted by: Pixel1191
« on: March 03, 2016, 04:20:37 AM »

The escort is a bit light on maintenance life for what it is and I still think the fire control for the ASMs is vastly oversized for the missiles it's controlling and its sensor range.

Also, altho it is a valid design choice, I can't help but cringe at the paper-thin armor of the frigate, maybe consider scaling down the fire control a wee bit and add as much armor as possible?
Posted by: Catman115
« on: March 03, 2016, 03:58:18 AM »

Aight redesigned the missile frigate and escort frigate.

Tomsk class Escort    4 700 tons     107 Crew     732.5 BP      TCS 94  TH 396  EM 0
4212 km/s     Armour 5-24     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 3     PPV 10
Maint Life 3.61 Years     MSP 292    AFR 58%    IFR 0.8%    1YR 35    5YR 518    Max Repair 99 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 15 months    Spare Berths 0   
Magazine 280   

State Engineering Commune Escort Class Ion Drive (2)    Power 198    Fuel Use 64.72%    Signature 198    Exp 11%
Fuel Capacity 250 000 Litres    Range 14.8 billion km   (40 days at full power)

State Engineering Commune CIWS-160 (1x6)    Range 1000 km     TS: 16000 km/s     ROF 5       Base 50% To Hit
State Engineering Commune Anti-Missile Missile Launcher (10)    Missile Size 1    Rate of Fire 10
State Engineering Commune PD Missile Fire Control (2)     Range 6.9m km    Resolution 1

State Engineering Commune Ship PD Sensor Suite (1)     GPS 42     Range 4.6m km    MCR 503k km    Resolution 1

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes


Baku class Missile Frigate    4 700 tons     140 Crew     861 BP      TCS 94  TH 396  EM 0
4212 km/s     Armour 5-24     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 3     PPV 24
Maint Life 3.68 Years     MSP 343    AFR 58%    IFR 0.8%    1YR 39    5YR 589    Max Repair 189 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 15 months    Spare Berths 1   
Magazine 114   

State Engineering Commune Escort Class Ion Drive (2)    Power 198    Fuel Use 64.72%    Signature 198    Exp 11%
Fuel Capacity 250 000 Litres    Range 14.8 billion km   (40 days at full power)

State Engineering Commune Size 6 Missile Launcher (4)    Missile Size 6    Rate of Fire 45
State Engineering Commune Ship Missile Fire Control (1)     Range 34.7m km    Resolution 100
Standard Missile Mk1 (33)  Speed: 24 000 km/s   End: 76.5m    Range: 110.2m km   WH: 9    Size: 6    TH: 128/76/38

State Engineering Commune Basic Ship Sensor Suite (1)     GPS 7560     Range 107.4m km    Resolution 60

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


What did i break by refitting their doctrines to defensive/needing a jump tender?

EDIT: Adjusted some stuff to reduce BP costs.
Posted by: drejr
« on: March 03, 2016, 02:37:32 AM »

Here's a quick example using fairly basic technology - the jump drive is efficiency 8, but a lower tech version could be accommodated for by dropping the speed.

Code: [Select]
Example class Escort    4 800 tons     127 Crew     728.6 BP      TCS 96  TH 384  EM 0
4000 km/s    JR 1-50     Armour 3-25     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 2     PPV 10
Maint Life 3.08 Years     MSP 237    AFR 73%    IFR 1%    1YR 37    5YR 561    Max Repair 105 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months    Spare Berths 2   
Magazine 170   

J4800(1-50) Military Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 4800 tons    Distance 50k km     Squadron Size 1
Farrell & Barlow 192 EP Ion Drive (2)    Power 192    Fuel Use 50.4%    Signature 192    Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 250 000 Litres    Range 18.6 billion km   (53 days at full power)

Traeger Techsystems Size 1 Missile Launcher (10)    Missile Size 1    Rate of Fire 10
Joyce Research Missile Fire Control FC13-R1 (2)     Range 13.9m km    Resolution 1

Joyce Research Active Search Sensor MR11-R1 (1)     GPS 105     Range 11.6m km    MCR 1.3m km    Resolution 1

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

The magazine is still a little too small (I would drop some launchers for more magazines, actually), and there's no redundancy, but it's a workable design. I really suspect your problem is the sensors/FC.
Posted by: Paul M
« on: March 03, 2016, 02:22:32 AM »

No ship is a "waste of time" if it useful to you and fits into your fleet structure in a sensible way...or put another way it can fulfill its mission objectives.  I can say that fitting lasers and counter missiles on a 4500 tonne ship proved to be problematic so I made two classes of heavy frigate sized "escorts" one with 6 counter missile tubes (Gargoyle class) and one with 2 laser turrets (Lake class).  I don't consider them a "waste of time" but they are substantially cheaper than your designs which cost closer to my CLs.

The Gargoyles are in general use all over the place as they are added to any squadron or group that needs area anti-missile support.  The Lakes are only used with heavy frigate squadrons at the moment but as the effectiveness of the DPPD array has increased I may start using them more and more.  As well, there is both the London class that is armed with anti-ship lasers and is intended for jump point defence, they are also the fastest ships in the NCN and the Virtue class monitors which are also for jump point defence but are basicaly barely mobile forts with a combination of anti-shipping lasers and DPPD arrays.

Designing a ship is more about determining its mission than what systems it has.  Once you have its mission clearly defined then what weapons and defences and speed and endurance and sensors etc falls into place.  Aurora complicates that by forcing you to build those systems as well, and you can only do a good job of that by essentially trial and error (experience playing the game) or reading what mistakes other people make. 

Believe me or not the design view populates itself once you have clear mission goals, a clear "strategic plan" and a good understanding of your constraints.  "Strategic Plan" is those decision you as a player have to make from time to time..."my ships will use this weapon and that weapon", "my ships will have an endurance of x months", "my ships will have so much armour", etc  These decisions influence strongly the design in a sense by setting up your boundry conditions.   Constraints are things like your tech level, your developed technology, your ship yard capacity, your current mineral state or any other consideration that impacts the design in a negative sense based on the current state of your empire.
Posted by: drejr
« on: March 03, 2016, 02:08:30 AM »

They're not necessarily a waste of time, but if I were to build a ship of this size and capability it would be roughly half the cost. I suspect your sensors are far larger than they should be unless the jump drive is very low tech. As it stands your ship is unable to engage missiles because the sensor resolution is too low, and even if it could it would have a very short life expectancy if it ever came under attack - it could deal with 10 smallish salvos then it would last about 5 seconds thanks to the armor. That's not a good use of so many BPs.