Beams only

[Stardust (OP)]

For 50 years, we've produced no scientists that excel in missile systems.  Expertise in energy weapons and defensive systems though has allowed us to confidently invest our resources in warships that must rely on close range engagements.

The Tennessee is designed to deploy to developed extrasolar colonies that have the necessary facilities to maintain these 15000 ton vessels.

Tennessee class Cruiser    15,000 tons     534 Crew     4340.3 BP      TCS 300  TH 180  EM 0
5000 km/s     Armour 16-54     Shields 0-0     Sensors 16/16/0/0     Damage Control Rating 4     PPV 112.44
Maint Life 0.89 Years     MSP 723    AFR 450%    IFR 6.2%    1YR 813    5YR 12188    Max Repair 625 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Spare Berths 3   

500 EP Magnetic Fusion Drive (3)    Power 500    Fuel Use 40%    Signature 60    Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 1,500,000 Litres    Range 45.0 billion km   (104 days at full power)

20cm C5 Ultraviolet Laser (5)    Range 192,000km     TS: 5000 km/s     Power 10-5     RM 4    ROF 10        10 10 10 10 8 6 5 5 4 4
Quad R9/C3/16 Meson Cannon Turret (4x4)    Range 90,000km     TS: 16000 km/s     Power 24-12     RM 9    ROF 10        1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
Beam Targeting Computer S03 96-4000 (2)    Max Range: 192,000 km   TS: 4000 km/s     38 36 33 31 29 27 25 23 21 19
Beam Targeting Computer S06 48-16000 (2)    Max Range: 96,000 km   TS: 16000 km/s     90 79 69 58 48 38 27 17 6 0
Magnetic Confinement Fusion Reactor S.5 (14)     Total Power Output 70    Armour 0    Exp 5%

Missile Detection Processor MR1-R5 (1)     GPS 40     Range 1.4m km    Resolution 5
Active Search Sensor MR25-R100 (1)     GPS 5000     Range 25.0m km    Resolution 100
Thermal Sensor TH2.75-16 (1)     Sensitivity 16     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  16m km
EM Detection Sensor EM2-16 (1)     Sensitivity 16     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  16m km

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

This is my first beam weapon based design and I found it to require quite a bit more work than the missile based designs of my first campaign.

What do you all think?

[Sematary]

It looks pretty good, just make sure that you keep your ships faster than any enemies you find.

[Zincat]

For a magnetoplasma beam ship, I would make it faster. I don't have the possibility to calculate here, but I do not think you're using a high multiplier on the engines, from memory.

You could increase the multiplier it in order to increase speed. 45 billion kilometers is wayyyyyy too much range for a serious battleship of this kind. I'd use tankers instead when needed, and ditch them when it's time to shoot.

As for maintenance life and deployment time, I suppose you intend this ship as a response vessel, basically intercepting hostiles that enter the system where it is deployed, right?

[Stardust (OP)]

Thanks.

Trevor Hoague (PP60%) is currently working on improving the fuel efficiency of our engines, but he's all about speed and is not a happy camper.  He's been told that as soon as he completes his current assignment to our satisfaction, he's free to hook us up with more powerful engines.  Trevor seems to have a substance abuse issue, so we're keeping a close eye on him.

Sometimes I wish that I had not quit my job as quantum laser engineer in hopes of ruling an interstellar empire.

[Stardust (OP)]

For a magnetoplasma beam ship, I would make it faster. I don't have the possibility to calculate here, but I do not think you're using a high multiplier on the engines, from memory.

You could increase the multiplier it in order to increase speed. 45 billion kilometers is wayyyyyy too much range for a serious battleship of this kind. I'd use tankers instead when needed, and ditch them when it's time to shoot.

As for maintenance life and deployment time, I suppose you intend this ship as a response vessel, basically intercepting hostiles that enter the system where it is deployed, right?

I haven't yet gotten comfortable with the new engine mechanics, but I'm getting there; so much fun.

Instead of focusing on range like I should have, I was focusing on fuel consumption. Noted.

Yes, the Tennessee will be exclusively reactionary and assigned to defend a specific star system.

[davidb86]

Missile Detection Processor MR1-R5 (1)     GPS 40     Range 1.4m km    Resolution 5

Three thoughts,

1. Speed, speed, speed.  As previously mentioned you cannot hit what you cannot catch.

2. Since your Missile Detection Processor has a resolution of 5, a Size 6 missile (0.33 HS) will only be detected at 6100 km, and you will never fire at it unless it's speed is less than 1000 km/s. 
Range for objects less than the sensor resolution = (target HS/Resolution)²
Detection has to occur at 6 seconds to allow the beam fire control to fire in the next 5 second impulse. 
For my beam armed ships I use a single active sensor, resolution 1 and range of 2mkm which lets me see everything I can take a shot at.  As a reaction ship I would strip off the passive sensors and use DSTS's at my colony, or a dedicated senor ship.

3. Your beam fire control for you 20cm lasers has really poor accuracy, you might be better off dropping one laser and having a fire control that has range and accuracy.

[SteelChicken]

Agree with the others on speed and the active sensor.  Res one, 2mkm is a good sensor for that ship.

I do disagree a bit with passives though.  Every single one of my military ships gets at least the smallest EM and TH sensor.  Wasted space? Maybe but it gives you some flexibility to move away from planets with ground tracking stations and not relying on scouts.  Without having a large powerful active scanner, passives are a must.

[Sematary]

Agree with the others on speed and the active sensor.  Res one, 2mkm is a good sensor for that ship.

I do disagree a bit with passives though.  Every single one of my military ships gets at least the smallest EM and TH sensor.  Wasted space? Maybe but it gives you some flexibility to move away from planets with ground tracking stations and not relying on scouts.  Without having a large powerful active scanner, passives are a must.

Thats my philosophy with passives. (Almost) every ship I have has at least one passive. A few who will always be a part of a battle fleet do not but the majority do. I find them just too useful to not have.

[Stardust (OP)]

Thank you for all your input.

I've engineered more powerful engines, but I'm not happy with the range.

Tennessee II class Cruiser    14,450 tons     554 Crew     5009.3 BP      TCS 289  TH 240  EM 0
6920 km/s     Armour 16-52     Shields 0-0     Sensors 16/16/0/0     Damage Control Rating 4     PPV 112.44
Maint Life 0.86 Years     MSP 867    AFR 417%    IFR 5.8%    1YR 1002    5YR 15037    Max Repair 1250 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Spare Berths 0   

1000 EP Magnetic Fusion Drive (2)    Power 1000    Fuel Use 226.28%    Signature 120    Exp 20%
Fuel Capacity 2,000,000 Litres    Range 11.0 billion km   (18 days at full power)

20cm C5 Ultraviolet Laser (5)    Range 192,000km     TS: 6920 km/s     Power 10-5     RM 4    ROF 10        10 10 10 10 8 6 5 5 4 4
Quad R9/C3/16 Meson Cannon Turret (4x4)    Range 90,000km     TS: 16000 km/s     Power 24-12     RM 9    ROF 10        1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
Beam Targeting Computer S03 96-4000 (2)    Max Range: 192,000 km   TS: 4000 km/s     95 90 84 79 74 69 64 58 53 48
Beam Targeting Computer S06 48-16000 (2)    Max Range: 96,000 km   TS: 16000 km/s     90 79 69 58 48 38 27 17 6 0
Magnetic Confinement Fusion Reactor S.5 (14)     Total Power Output 70    Armour 0    Exp 5%

Active Search Sensor MR25-R100 (1)     GPS 5000     Range 25.0m km    Resolution 100
Missile Detection Processor MR1-R5 (1)     GPS 40     Range 1.4m km    Resolution 5
Thermal Sensor TH2.75-16 (1)     Sensitivity 16     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  16m km
EM Detection Sensor EM2-16 (1)     Sensitivity 16     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  16m km

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Maybe three 750EP engines would do the trick.  I'm also working on a beam fire control for the 20cm lasers that have a tracking speed of 8000 km/s.  Next up is a Resolution 1 sensor to replace the inadequate Resolution 5 sensor.  This kind of oversight is not acceptable.

Maybe more armor would be a better use of space than the passives.

Almost there.

[MarcAFK]

Note that 3 750 power engines would be even more powerful and have significantly more fuel use than the 2 1000 EP ones. If that kind of thing floats your boat. Your maintenance life would go up though.

[Stardust (OP)]

Note that 3 750 power engines would be even more powerful and have significantly more fuel use than the 2 1000 EP ones. If that kind of thing floats your boat. Your maintenance life would go up though.

My initial design consisted of 3 500EP engines (no power modifier) resulting in a speed of 5000 km/s and fuel expenditure of 720 liters/hr.  A 50 day mission would expend 864000 liters of fuel.

The second consisted of 2 1000EP engines (x2 power modifier) resulting in a speed of 6667 km/s (assuming 15000 tons) and fuel expenditure of 3394 liters/hr.  A 50 day mission would expend over 4 million liters of fuel.

If I were to slap on 3 750EP engines (x1.5 power modifier), I would achieve a speed of 7500 km/s and fuel expenditure of 2480 liters/hr.  In this case, a 50 day mission would expend 3 million liters of fuel.

This all assumes that I'm understanding the new engine design rules correctly.

I'm also considering increasing the size of my engine design to improve efficiency.

[Iranon]

Don't assign more than 40% of your engine weight in fuel unless you want to reful other craft, or you have weird design constraints and know exactly what you are doing. Past this point, you typically waste performance as well as fuel. I use 30% as my aiming point for performance-critical craft, lower if efficiency matters.

Individual engine size, and hence number, is a judgment call. I like 2 for medium-sized warships as a single engine can cause undue maintenance concerns and is a single point of failure.

*

What is the reasoning behind your weapon choice? The way I see it, you have long-ranged weapons that will carve deep gashes into armour but aren't quite powerful enough to deliver devastating single hits. Your short-range weapons don't take advantage of damaged armour, and bringing them up to par in a point defense role was expensive (bulky turrets, sophisticated fire control).

[Panopticon]

my guess would be because it's neat, but also Mesons can start inflicting internal damage right away, reducing the amount of damage taken while the lasers beat down the armor, Mesons take to long to make kills against large targets anyway.

[Stardust (OP)]

What is the reasoning behind your weapon choice? The way I see it, you have long-ranged weapons that will carve deep gashes into armour but aren't quite powerful enough to deliver devastating single hits. Your short-range weapons don't take advantage of damaged armour, and bringing them up to par in a point defense role was expensive (bulky turrets, sophisticated fire control).

Very little.  I've not been able to advance my missile tech hardly at all due to lack of expertise.  We have significant expertise in energy weapons and defensive systems.  Our defensive systems experts are performing their research on a colony that boosts their skills by 60%.  So, at this point, my plan is to go exclusively with very well protected energy based warships.

The mesons are primarily meant for point defense, but are available to help out offensively.  Once I get to the point of expanding my navy, I hope to get very creative with tactics.  I'm thinking of eventually going on the offensive with large numbers of stealthy meson fighters.

[joeclark77]

My initial design consisted of 3 500EP engines (no power modifier) resulting in a speed of 5000 km/s and fuel expenditure of 720 liters/hr.  A 50 day mission would expend 864000 liters of fuel.

The second consisted of 2 1000EP engines (x2 power modifier) resulting in a speed of 6667 km/s (assuming 15000 tons) and fuel expenditure of 3394 liters/hr.  A 50 day mission would expend over 4 million liters of fuel.

If I were to slap on 3 750EP engines (x1.5 power modifier), I would achieve a speed of 7500 km/s and fuel expenditure of 2480 liters/hr.  In this case, a 50 day mission would expend 3 million liters of fuel.

This all assumes that I'm understanding the new engine design rules correctly.

I'm also considering increasing the size of my engine design to improve efficiency.
[/q]
If you can do one huge engine, you can get better fuel use for the same power modifiers.  It'll also be harder to blow up (more HTK) but of course it's really bad if it does.