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: Garfunkel
« on: June 17, 2019, 11:32:53 AM »

Yeah they look good and those cruising ranges are far more reasonable.
Posted by: Iranon
« on: June 16, 2019, 06:19:23 PM »

Everything seems reasonable.
If you liked 18k ships with boosted engines, I'd consider them now with 3 engines each. Still less eggs in one basket, you gain some economies of scales, and I assume your shipyards are set up for it already. Default-power engines are a good fit for your speed target, better than 1.25 in my opinion.

Posted by: bankshot
« on: June 16, 2019, 05:19:39 PM »

When I designed my ships I decided I wanted 50HS engines to maximize fuel efficiency, and at least two of them to ensure some redundancy in the face of combat damage.  I also wanted 5,000 km/s speed to give me a better shot at controlling the range.  While I have 1.75x engine tech I could not make a design that looked good to me at that rate of fuel use, so I settled on 1.5x and 18,000 tons.  But as many here have pointed out my empire may not be able to sustain enough 1.5x fuel use ships to be effective.

So I went back to the drawing board and based a new set of 12,000 ton ships based on 1.0x engines, as I already had one of those researched.  I lack any Power/Propulsion scientists so I'd rather not take the time to make a 50HS 1.25x engine.  I'd consider these destroyers as they are individually much less capable than my cruiser designs, but I should be able to operate these without bankrupting my empire. As I am about halfway through the process of researching Stellerator tech I may not build these, but I thought I should share the designs for those who may be interested.

First up: the Memnon class PD destroyer.  I could not bring myself to go full railgun, so this is a hybrid railgun/Gauss design.  It also packs two lasers for finishing off cripples.

Code: [Select]
Memnon class Destroyer Escort    12,000 tons     316 Crew     1858 BP      TCS 240  TH 1200  EM 450
5000 km/s     Armour 4-46     Shields 15-300     Sensors 8/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 7     PPV 62.12
Maint Life 1.82 Years     MSP 677    AFR 164%    IFR 2.3%    1YR 256    5YR 3844    Max Repair 300 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 15 months    Spare Berths 0   

600 EP Ion Drive (2)    Power 600    Fuel Use 30%    Signature 600    Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 750,000 Litres    Range 37.5 billion km   (86 days at full power)
Delta R300/360 Shields (6)   Total Fuel Cost  90 Litres per hour  (2,160 per day)

20cm C4 UV Laser (1)    Range 256,000km     TS: 5000 km/s     Power 10-4     RM 4    ROF 15        10 10 10 10 8 6 5 5 4 4
25cm C4 Spinal UV Laser (1)    Range 256,000km     TS: 5000 km/s     Power 16-4     RM 4    ROF 20        16 16 16 16 12 10 9 8 7 6
Twin Gauss 16K R3-85 Turret (3x6)    Range 30,000km     TS: 16000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 3    ROF 5        1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10cm Railgun V3/C3 5s (3x4)    Range 30,000km     TS: 5000 km/s     Power 3-3     RM 3    ROF 5        1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PD Fire Control S03 48-16000 (1)    Max Range: 96,000 km   TS: 16000 km/s     90 79 69 58 48 38 27 17 6 0
Laser Fire Control S02.5 128-5000 (1)    Max Range: 256,000 km   TS: 5000 km/s     96 92 88 84 80 77 73 69 65 61
Gas-Cooled 1HS PB-1 (4)     Total Power Output 18    Armour 0    Exp 5%

Active Search MR1/191K R1 (1)     GPS 16     Range 1.8m km    MCR 192k km    Resolution 1
Thermal Sensor TH1-8 (1)     Sensitivity 8     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  8m km

ECM 10

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Next is the Penthesilea AMM destroyer.  I realized that going with reduced-size launchers on an AMM ship was a mistake - if you have enough range for follow-up shots volley size doesn't matter, sustained fire rate does. Search and fire control range vs. size 6 missiles is 1.15M 

Code: [Select]
Penthesilea class AMM Destroyer    12,000 tons     251 Crew     1715 BP      TCS 240  TH 1200  EM 360
5000 km/s     Armour 3-46     Shields 12-300     Sensors 8/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 7     PPV 15
Maint Life 1.69 Years     MSP 625    AFR 164%    IFR 2.3%    1YR 262    5YR 3923    Max Repair 300 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 16 months    Spare Berths 0   
Magazine 915   

600 EP Ion Drive (2)    Power 600    Fuel Use 30%    Signature 600    Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 750,000 Litres    Range 37.5 billion km   (86 days at full power)
Delta R300/360 Shields (5)   Total Fuel Cost  75 Litres per hour  (1,800 per day)

Size 1 ML (10s) (15)    Missile Size 1    Rate of Fire 10
Missile PD Fire Control FC10-R1 (3)     Range 10.6m km    Resolution 1

Active Search Sensor MR10-R1 (1)     GPS 96     Range 10.6m km    MCR 1.2m km    Resolution 1
Thermal Sensor TH1-8 (1)     Sensitivity 8     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  8m km

ECM 10

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

And finally the Aeneas Missile Destroyer.  Originally 20 launchers, but I had 4HS left over so I squeezed in another launcher and matching magazine space.

Code: [Select]
Aeneas class Missile Destroyer    12,000 tons     218 Crew     1702.14 BP      TCS 240  TH 1200  EM 360
5000 km/s     Armour 3-46     Shields 12-300     Sensors 8/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 7     PPV 27.72
Maint Life 1.75 Years     MSP 621    AFR 164%    IFR 2.3%    1YR 249    5YR 3735    Max Repair 300 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 16 months    Spare Berths 0   
Magazine 840   

600 EP Ion Drive (2)    Power 600    Fuel Use 30%    Signature 600    Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 750,000 Litres    Range 37.5 billion km   (86 days at full power)
Delta R300/360 Shields (5)   Total Fuel Cost  75 Litres per hour  (1,800 per day)

Size 4 Missile Launcher (33% 600s) (21)    Missile Size 4    Rate of Fire 600
Missile Fire Control FC118-R100 (1)     Range 118.8m km    Resolution 100

Active Search Sensor MR123-R100 (1)     GPS 11200     Range 123.2m km    Resolution 100
Thermal Sensor TH1-8 (1)     Sensitivity 8     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  8m km

ECM 10

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

I would probably deploy them as a flotilla with 3x Memnon, 2x Penthesilea and 4x Aeneas to cover my survey fleet when exploring a new jump point, so anticipated deployment times are month out, 6 months on station, and a month back to base.
Posted by: Jovus
« on: June 15, 2019, 02:20:33 PM »


. . . I wouldn't be surprised if over the length of a whole campaign I saved BP due to not losing ships.

But how many BP do you spend on missiles?

Very few. I prefer beam ships, for style.

At least, most of the time. There are those campaigns where I build 800bkm missiles for the hell of it.
Posted by: Father Tim
« on: June 15, 2019, 10:40:53 AM »


. . . I wouldn't be surprised if over the length of a whole campaign I saved BP due to not losing ships.

But how many BP do you spend on missiles?  I read the AARs posted here and sometimes see people firing off AMMs 5v1 against shipkillers that cost only 50% more than a single anti-missile.  If you have to expend two frigates' worth of minerals in order to not lose ships, are you really better off than someone who built the frigates and watched them blow up doing their job?
Posted by: Iranon
« on: June 15, 2019, 10:10:39 AM »

Fleet speed: When I field such flak barges, I typically have separate fast and slow fleets. Slow ones are built to deal with any expected missile threat, deliver one solid punch outside beam range, maybe a little cleanup capability (e.g. nebula-conscious designs with microwaves or large low-tech lasers). Fast ones are designed around dominating the opposition by being both faster and longer-ranged, with modest self-defence capability in case I need to deploy them into a messy situation.

Trade-offs regarding availability become tricky especially once we view the whole lifetime. An obsolescent battlecruiser, once the pride of your navy, may languish in a hangar because it's not worth the upkeep costs... but when the need arises, it can support a modern fleet without slowing it down or run down enemy assets where you don't want to risk your current ships. Ships that were bottom of the barrel even when new may be cheap enough to operate indefinitely, for PPV and as  a first line of defence.



Small missiles: These mostly suffer from poor fuel efficiency. This is not normally a problem for quite some time, because I'm stingy with power multiplier and agility tech (the latter means I'll use relatively large engines for the missile size). It may be different if you're willing to splurge on techs that will mostly affect your missiles.
I definitely prefer volume over armoured missiles, however splitting them up into single-missile salvos is often the most effective way to overcome point defence. Preferences may depend greatly on details: I generally like size 7 or above box launchers, size 1 full-size launchers, and reduced-size launchers for those in between.
Posted by: Jovus
« on: June 15, 2019, 09:40:35 AM »

(And, to be clear, none of our victories are bloodless.  In a *successful* war we expect to lose half our fleet.  It's not unusual to have 80% casualties in victory.)

This is a big difference. In a victorious campaign I expect to lose none of my ships (fighters don't count). As pointed out above my designs are a lot more fuel-heavy and probably BP-heavy than other designs here, but I wouldn't be surprised if over the length of a whole campaign I saved BP due to not losing ships.

We should figure out a way to test this. Something like two players with same production capacity and resources encountering the same enemy at the same time, and check how much is left at the end. Would be interesting.

Not that it much matters, since Aurora is flexible enough you can play how you want. Would just be cool
Posted by: Father Tim
« on: June 15, 2019, 09:18:05 AM »

As someone who also operates at the 'slow' tail, it's not as much of a problem as you might think.  Really, there are only two speeds: faster than your opponent, and *not* faster than you opponent.  My usual experience is my empire discovering their ships are slower than the enemy, and falling back more-or-less effectively in defense as we rapidly build basically the same ships with extra engines strapped on.  Eventually we roll out ships that are faster than the enemy, and can go on the offensive.

And sometimes we 'win' simply by outlasting the enemy's missile stocks.  Virtually every ship we kill has empty magazines at the time.

(And, to be clear, none of our victories are bloodless.  In a *successful* war we expect to lose half our fleet.  It's not unusual to have 80% casualties in victory.)
Posted by: misanthropope
« on: June 15, 2019, 08:46:45 AM »

penetrating PD may not be the only concern, but it *is* the only absolute requirement. 

iranon's sponges are so slow you run into certain inefficiencies that don't present from looking at the design in the viewer:  the chance of losing a war while the damn things *float* over to the front is non-trivial, or you have to own multiple ships to guarantee getting one to the point of contact in a reasonable time frame.

clearly that concern doesnt just go away at some magical speed threshold, but while serbeardian sets the standard for "speed to the exclusion of cost effectiveness", i think iranon is operating in the other tail.
Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: June 15, 2019, 05:16:13 AM »

Why micromanage the reassignment of the launchers?
Because he is using reduced size launchers so the reload rate is slow. The point is that in case of large salvos, he can utilize buttload of launchers to wipe them out and in case of multiple small salvos, he can micromanage them to get AMM launches every 5 seconds.

Why are so many people against size 4 missiles?
Because it is difficult to combine long range, powerful warhead, sufficient agility, and fast speed in a small missile, especially early game. Yes, your point about PD is valid, but it isn't the only concern. Especially since bigger missiles can more easily devote space for armour and/or ECM.
Posted by: Iranon
« on: June 14, 2019, 01:47:23 PM »

Ah, that would have been a purer example:

Code: [Select]
Just Shoot Me class Corvette    10 800 tons     321 Crew     481.8 BP      TCS     216  TH 480  EM 0
2222 km/s     Armour 1-43     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 3     PPV 81
Maint Life 1.04 Years     MSP 84    AFR 311%    IFR 4.3%    1YR 78    5YR 1166    Max Repair 48 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 11 months    Spare Berths 0   

240 EP Commercial Ion Drive (2)    Power 240    Fuel Use 4.05%    Signature 240    Exp 4%
Fuel Capacity 100 000 Litres    Range 41.1 billion km   (214 days at full power)

10cm Railgun V1/C1 (27x4)    Range 10 000km     TS: 4000 km/s     Power 3-1     RM 1    ROF 15        1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fire Control S00.7 24-4000 (2)    Max Range: 48 000 km   TS: 4000 km/s     79 58 38 17 0 0 0 0 0 0
Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor Technology PB-1 (6)     Total Power Output 27    Armour 0    Exp 5%

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

These pretty much build themselves. About 50% commercial engines, lots of base-tech railguns. Optional: anti-ship armament, Maintenance Storage Bay (because engineering bays add little MSP with such cheap systems), anti-missile sensor if you don't want a dedicated leader, second layer of armour. Weird tech priority: BFC tracking speed.
Posted by: Jovus
« on: June 14, 2019, 10:41:15 AM »

Hope my barging in isn't unwelcome: I'm fond of a similar type, except the "heavily armoured" bit. Cheap systems are cheaper per HTK than armour, and do something useful. Example with limited self-defence armament/ballistic diplomacy devices, expecting technologically superior foes:

I've been looking for your Just Shoot Me barge forever. Thanks for this.
Posted by: Father Tim
« on: June 14, 2019, 09:06:22 AM »

Care to provide an example?

I can't get VB6 Aurora to work on my current laptop, so no actual design, but the basics are one or two large, reduced-power (sometimes commercial) engines, two to four basic fire controls, and a whole lot of reduced-size (the smallest that still have 1 HTK) Gauss Cannon (unturreted) and thick armour.  Six to eight layers, or fifteen layers, or more.  It varies widely based on armour tech.

At some tech levels it takes three or five or six of them working together to be "cheaper to build than the missiles needed to destroy them."  And, of course, it is possible to build cheap(er) missiles as a counter.
Posted by: Iranon
« on: June 14, 2019, 12:19:39 AM »

Hope my barging in isn't unwelcome: I'm fond of a similar type, except the "heavily armoured" bit. Cheap systems are cheaper per HTK than armour, and do something useful. Example with limited self-defence armament/ballistic diplomacy devices, expecting technologically superior foes:

Code: [Select]
Your Mom class Recreational Ship    20 000 tons     367 Crew     705 BP      TCS 400  TH 800  EM 0
2000 km/s     Armour 2-65     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 5     PPV 105
Maint Life 4.84 Years     MSP 1110    AFR 640%    IFR 8.9%    1YR 78    5YR 1174    Max Repair 21 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months    Spare Berths 1   
Magazine 100   

160 EP Commercial Magneto-plasma Drive (5)    Power 160    Fuel Use 0.54%    Signature 160    Exp 2%
Fuel Capacity 15 000 Litres    Range 25.0 billion km   (144 days at full power)

10cm Railgun V1/C1 (30x4)    Range 10 000km     TS: 4000 km/s     Power 3-1     RM 1    ROF 15        1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fire Control S00.2 16-4000 (2)    Max Range: 32 000 km   TS: 4000 km/s     69 37 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Stellarator Fusion Reactor Technology PB-1 (10)     Total Power Output 30    Armour 0    Exp 5%

Size 20 Box Launcher (5)    Missile Size 20    Hangar Reload 150 minutes    MF Reload 25 hours
Missile Fire Control FC3-R20 (4)     Range 3.1m km    Resolution 20
Missile Fire Control FC20-R100 (1)     Range 20.8m km    Resolution 100
Size 20 Anti-ship Missile (5)  Speed: 32 000 km/s   End: 7m    Range: 13.5m km   WH: 36    Size: 20    TH: 202/121/60

Active Search Sensor MR2-R1 (1)     GPS 21     Range 2.3m km    MCR 252k km    Resolution 1

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: Cavgunner
« on: June 13, 2019, 10:14:16 PM »

I'll admit, my standard tactic is to use heavily-armoured PD (beam) ships that are cheaper to build than the missiles needed to destroy them.

Care to provide an example?