Author Topic: Range finding Question (Or how do i increase the range on my Beam firing control  (Read 17466 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Catman115 (OP)

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • C
  • Posts: 47
Ok so after doing a LOT of research into techs and such im finally building a bunch of military things.  Here is my first design for a PDC:
Kuznetsov class Planetary Defence Centre    82 500 tons     1371 Crew     15785. 5 BP      TCS 1650  TH 0  EM 0
Armour 24-168     Sensors 48/1080     Damage Control Rating 60     PPV 274. 02
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Flight Crew Berths 1   
Hangar Deck Capacity 5000 tons     Troop Capacity: 10 Battalions    Magazine 8610   

Fuel Capacity 1 000 000 Litres    Range N/A
State Engineering Commune R84/C12 Twin Meson Cannon Turret (3x2)    Range 200 000km     TS: 10000 km/s     Power 48-24     RM 84    ROF 10        1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
State Engineering Commune R84/C12 Meson Cannon (2)    Range 200 000km     TS: 5000 km/s     Power 24-12     RM 84    ROF 10        1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
State Engineering Commune Beam Fire Control (2)    Max Range: 200 000 km   TS: 5000 km/s     95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50
State Engineering Commune Solid-core Anti-matter Power Plant Technology  (PDC) (2)     Total Power Output 640    Armour 0    Exp 5%

State Engineering Commune PDC Size 10 Missile Launcher (15)    Missile Size 10    Rate of Fire 25
State Engineering Commune Missile Fire Control FC756-R100 (30%) (2)     Range 756. 0m km    Resolution 100
Size 10 Anti-ship Missile (PDC only) (861)  Speed: 72 000 km/s   End: 53. 3m    Range: 230. 4m km   WH: 40    Size: 10    TH: 552/331/165

State Engineering Commune Missile Sensor Suite (Size 5) (1)     GPS 180     Range 25. 2m km    MCR 2. 7m km    Resolution 1
State Engineering Commune PDC Sensor Suite (Size 30) (1)     GPS 108000     Range 1 512. 0m km    Resolution 100
State Engineering Commune Thermal Sensor Suite (Size 2) (1)     Sensitivity 48     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  48m km

ECCM-3 (2)         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 Planetary Defense Center and can be pre-fabricated in 33 sections

Now im having a problem with the Bolded bits.  My current cost in RP for the next level of Beam Fire Controls is 5,000,000.  My next level of Increased range in Mesons (From what ive been led to believe is the shortest range EW in the game) is a mere 1,200,000.  Ive been led to believe that having guns that can outstrip the range of the fire controls for them is a VERY BAD thing.  But how do i stop the inevitable bloat of Weapon Range increases vs Beam Fire Control Increases?
 

Offline Rich.h

  • Captain
  • **********
  • R
  • Posts: 555
  • Thanked: 55 times
Do you mean you are trying to make sure that the weapons you design do not shoot further than you can target with a FC? If that is the case then simply just play around with things like the focusing tech, or velocity etc. I believe that all beam weapons have a tech part that effects their range, in the case of mesons both parts do this as they have no damage tech. So in that situation there is likely never any need for a 50cm meson gun if your FC only shoot out to 200k.
 

Offline Catman115 (OP)

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • C
  • Posts: 47
Well i was told that having weapons that shoot farther than than fire controls could see for them was a bad thing.  What i want to know, is there a point where researching more Weapon range tech is a bad thing?
 

Offline jem

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • j
  • Posts: 50
  • Thanked: 4 times
If your fc range is higher then your weapons then you are more likely to hit at the weapons max range. If you weapon range is longer then the fc's then you do more damage at max range (assuming you use a weapon were damage decreases by range). All in all, slightly suboptimal but nothing to lose sleep over and, at least in the case of lasers, unavoidable.

And just to check, you do know that you can increase the range of your fc by upping its size right?
 
The following users thanked this post: Catman115

Offline Catman115 (OP)

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • C
  • Posts: 47
Quote from: jem link=topic=8331. msg86370#msg86370 date=1455272535
If your fc range is higher then your weapons then you are more likely to hit at the weapons max range.  If you weapon range is longer then the fc's then you do more damage at max range (assuming you use a weapon were damage decreases by range).  All in all, slightly suboptimal but nothing to lose sleep over and, at least in the case of lasers, unavoidable.

And just to check, you do know that you can increase the range of your fc by upping its size right?

No i did not know about that.  Thank you.  But what would be a decent size for a FC that does slow the ship down too much. . . .  hmmm.
 

Offline Rich.h

  • Captain
  • **********
  • R
  • Posts: 555
  • Thanked: 55 times
No i did not know about that.  Thank you.  But what would be a decent size for a FC that does slow the ship down too much. . . .  hmmm.

Fire controls do not take up much space in regards to ships or a PDC of the sort of size you have shown in your example. You can up the range by 4x for a 4x increase in size, when you are playing around with 80k tons craft you may as well just use the 4x FC.
 

Offline jem

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • j
  • Posts: 50
  • Thanked: 4 times
A couple of other things. First, you can do the same to tracking speed and a tracking speed of 5k is inadequate for anything at your techlevel. Tracking speed is the highest target speed that it can shoot at wo penalty, and it will use the lowest of your fc and your weapon. This means that your turrets tracking speed is wasted if you do not have a fc capable of the same speed. Now if we take you missile as an example, it has a speed of 72k. If you try to shoot at it with your weapons it means that at point blank range you will have a penalty of a lot (I cant find the formula right now, but lets just say a big lot............). You want tracking speed to be around the target you want to hit. If you don't really have a good benchmark, use your own fleet's speed and aim for that.

Secondly, your weapons draw around 100 energy each round. You supply 600+. You could remove a reactor and/or making the other one smaller.
 
The following users thanked this post: Catman115

Offline Catman115 (OP)

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • C
  • Posts: 47
Quote from: jem link=topic=8331. msg86382#msg86382 date=1455284000
A couple of other things.  First, you can do the same to tracking speed and a tracking speed of 5k is inadequate for anything at your techlevel.  Tracking speed is the highest target speed that it can shoot at wo penalty, and it will use the lowest of your fc and your weapon.  This means that your turrets tracking speed is wasted if you do not have a fc capable of the same speed.  Now if we take you missile as an example, it has a speed of 72k.  If you try to shoot at it with your weapons it means that at point blank range you will have a penalty of a lot (I cant find the formula right now, but lets just say a big lot. . . . . . . . . . . . ).  You want tracking speed to be around the target you want to hit.  If you don't really have a good benchmark, use your own fleet's speed and aim for that.
Thanks for this.  I am incredibly new to this game and am still trying to figure out how to git-gud/etc.  Im still trying to figure out what tech levels i should be actually building ships at and/or just researching my way past.  Also i had no idea that my TS was THAT godsawful comparatively.  I mean i know im probably not helping myself by turning off all of the external threats in my current game but i cant even design a defensible bucket of bolts, as is clearly seen here.  Much less fight an interstellar war.  Any pointers would be wonderful.

Quote from: jem link=topic=8331. msg86382#msg86382 date=1455284000
Secondly, your weapons draw around 100 energy each round.  You supply 600+.  You could remove a reactor and/or making the other one smaller.
So having a backup reactor just incase one explodes/gets disrupted is actually a bad idea in this game?  ???
 

Offline iceball3

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 454
  • Thanked: 47 times
Thanks for this.  I am incredibly new to this game and am still trying to figure out how to git-gud/etc.  Im still trying to figure out what tech levels i should be actually building ships at and/or just researching my way past.  Also i had no idea that my TS was THAT godsawful comparatively.  I mean i know im probably not helping myself by turning off all of the external threats in my current game but i cant even design a defensible bucket of bolts, as is clearly seen here.  Much less fight an interstellar war.  Any pointers would be wonderful.
So having a backup reactor just incase one explodes/gets disrupted is actually a bad idea in this game?  ???
You'd figure that a lot of that power-tonnage could've been used for more armor, more weapons. Having a bit of extra redundancy is good for not dying to mesons, but you're emphasizing redundancy on the most explody part of your PDC. And by the look of your tech level, it seems like the entire thing is going to get LIT when one of those power cores go off. If you really want redundancy, try seeing if Damage Control tech is available for PDCs, if so, then just stack a bunch on it as tonnage isn't a concern for PDCs ussually. Less likely to make your PDC go up in a catastrophic gamma flare if it's power is knocked, as less hullspace to explody bits is less DAC chance to get hit, and less explodings when you do get hit anyway.

Also, while not necessarily the most useful thing against AI, i personally stick some sort of PDC barracks on every PDC of importance to me, as the resistance to boarding is enough role play value to keep in.
That and it also accommodates a decent amount of DAC on it's own as well.
 
The following users thanked this post: Catman115

Offline jem

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • j
  • Posts: 50
  • Thanked: 4 times
So having a backup reactor just incase one explodes/gets disrupted is actually a bad idea in this game?  ???

No, redundancy is good. It is just that you need a battery and you have a nuclear power plant enough for a city. In other words, you generate 6 times the energy you need. Personally I design my reactors to be of size one and then just put enough in to cower the energy cost, maybe slightly more if I am worried about taking damage.  Like 10% more, not 6 times more.

As for learning, I recommend quill18 (https://www.youtube.com/user/quill18/videos) or serbeardian (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoAVdKITZ8x8rLVCG6SOaLA). Quill is more entertaining, beard knows more, and goes over a lot of stuff a lot quicker then quill...........
 
The following users thanked this post: Catman115

Offline Catman115 (OP)

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • C
  • Posts: 47
Quote from: jem link=topic=8331. msg86401#msg86401 date=1455325601
No, redundancy is good.  It is just that you need a battery and you have a nuclear power plant enough for a city.  In other words, you generate 6 times the energy you need.  Personally I design my reactors to be of size one and then just put enough in to cower the energy cost, maybe slightly more if I am worried about taking damage.   Like 10% more, not 6 times more.
Well yes i guess i didn't read the description thing the whole way through.  My bad.   :-[

Quote from: jem link=topic=8331. msg86401#msg86401 date=1455325601
As for learning, I recommend quill18 (https://www. youtube. com/user/quill18/videos) or serbeardian (https://www. youtube. com/channel/UCoAVdKITZ8x8rLVCG6SOaLA).  Quill is more entertaining, beard knows more, and goes over a lot of stuff a lot quicker then quill. . . . . . . . . . .
I first tried to play this game like 2 years ago or so but i couldn't get it to download right, so i gave up after a while.  Seeing quill do his series actually brought me back here to try again, and Lo and Behold someone made an installer for idiots like myself.  Ive literally watched quill's vid on Missile design like 15 times at this point and read 3 to 5 different thread about the subject before i even got that far.  Im still trying to parse out how ship design works.  Will try beards vids though.  Thanks a bunch.
 

Offline Catman115 (OP)

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • C
  • Posts: 47
Quote from: iceball3 link=topic=8331. msg86400#msg86400 date=1455324837
You'd figure that a lot of that power-tonnage could've been used for more armor, more weapons.  Having a bit of extra redundancy is good for not dying to mesons, but you're emphasizing redundancy on the most explody part of your PDC.  And by the look of your tech level, it seems like the entire thing is going to get LIT when one of those power cores go off.  If you really want redundancy, try seeing if Damage Control tech is available for PDCs, if so, then just stack a bunch on it as tonnage isn't a concern for PDCs ussually.  Less likely to make your PDC go up in a catastrophic gamma flare if it's power is knocked, as less hullspace to explody bits is less DAC chance to get hit, and less explodings when you do get hit anyway.
Well that makes sense. . .  dammit.  What i want is a PDC that i can stash my Garrison Battalions into on my colonies to keep them safe from enemy Bombardment and that can act as a Ship repellent against enemies that jump into Sol itself (after my inevitable failed conquests happen ofc).  I mean having like 10 Missile Bases all around the Sol System SOUNDS good enough, but since i have literally 0 idea of how combat works in this game i have no idea if it is anywhere near enough. 


Quote from: iceball3 link=topic=8331. msg86400#msg86400 date=1455324837
Also, while not necessarily the most useful thing against AI, i personally stick some sort of PDC barracks on every PDC of importance to me, as the resistance to boarding is enough role play value to keep in.
That and it also accommodates a decent amount of DAC on it's own as well.

I keep at least two full PDC barracks on all of my PDCs just to make sure of this exact problem, as well as make my planets harder to take from me.
 

Offline Paul M

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • P
  • Posts: 1433
  • Thanked: 52 times
Another point...your beam turrets are there for point defence right?  So looking at your missile...it moves 360,000 km in 5s that means it jumps past your maximum range and hits you.  This means you only need 10,000 km range on the weapons.  If you want to defend your orbit I'd suggest 30K or maybe 60K but no more.  So you could easily produce many more higher targeting speed lower tech (hence cheaper) weapon systems to protect yourself from missiles then you have now.

The 200K range is only useful for shooting at ships.  If you want point defence you are going to be using "final fire" which engages at 10K anyway.  So 15K, 30K, 45K or 60K are reasonable ranges to have on the turrets...200K is a waste of your time if point defence is your goal.  You need more range than the missile can move in 5s for the range to matter.

Also ROF 5 is much better for missile intercept.  Your missile launcher cycle in 25s.  At this tech level most smaller missile launcher will be on extremely short cycle times. 

Last you have hanger space but no flight crew space.  Click "keep extra Q" and add whatever your planned for strike group needs...or a few hundred to cover eventualities.
 
The following users thanked this post: Catman115

Offline iceball3

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 454
  • Thanked: 47 times
Another point...your beam turrets are there for point defence right?  So looking at your missile...it moves 360,000 km in 5s that means it jumps past your maximum range and hits you.  This means you only need 10,000 km range on the weapons.  If you want to defend your orbit I'd suggest 30K or maybe 60K but no more.  So you could easily produce many more higher targeting speed lower tech (hence cheaper) weapon systems to protect yourself from missiles then you have now.

The 200K range is only useful for shooting at ships.  If you want point defence you are going to be using "final fire" which engages at 10K anyway.  So 15K, 30K, 45K or 60K are reasonable ranges to have on the turrets...200K is a waste of your time if point defence is your goal.  You need more range than the missile can move in 5s for the range to matter.

Also ROF 5 is much better for missile intercept.  Your missile launcher cycle in 25s.  At this tech level most smaller missile launcher will be on extremely short cycle times. 

Last you have hanger space but no flight crew space.  Click "keep extra Q" and add whatever your planned for strike group needs...or a few hundred to cover eventualities.
That said, it doesn't hurt to get some area-defense beam systems set up so that you can more or less protect your population against planetary bombardment from whatever leaks past your anti missile defenses. But it's probably a could idea to just use minimum-size beams specifically for final fire, and the long range beams for area defense, to save on resources and make sure that one system isn't overloaded trying to do the other's job.
 

Offline Paul M

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • P
  • Posts: 1433
  • Thanked: 52 times
That said, it doesn't hurt to get some area-defense beam systems set up so that you can more or less protect your population against planetary bombardment from whatever leaks past your anti missile defenses. But it's probably a could idea to just use minimum-size beams specifically for final fire, and the long range beams for area defense, to save on resources and make sure that one system isn't overloaded trying to do the other's job.

"final fire" will protect the planet as it is within 10K km of the PDC, unless I am mistaken.  There are 2 meson cannon's that aren't in turret mode that could be used for "area defence" fire while the turrets could be redesigned to be more effective as they need a higher rotation speed.   The trouble with "area defence" mode is that the missile has to stop within it.  So if you are lucky due to launch range and the missile stops somewhere between 15K and 200K from the planet then you can use "area defence" mode otherwise it does not fire.