Posted by: Andrew
« on: August 23, 2010, 05:45:23 PM »I have never had a ship hit with a a microwave beam so I consider Electronic hardening entirely useless. Total waste of space
Posted by: Brian Neumann
« on: August 23, 2010, 04:53:53 PM »If you are using 5.2 the new sensor rules make the smaller resolutions go farther than they used to go. I would put a very small active sensor that is good for about double the range of the beam weapons you are mounting on your fighters. This is so that even if they lose the long range scout fighter they are still combat capable. I have vectored beam armed fighters in on several of my games using just passives from my main scout ship in the fleet. When the fighters get in close they can activate their built in short range sensors and see their targets. Without 1 active sensor detecting the target they can not fire at it.
The resolution should be one that lets you see missiles at point blank range so you can use the fighters fire control to shoot at missiles if they are not shooting at anything else.
I would not bother with hardening the sensors at all on fighters, it is just to expensive, and you will have a lot of those short range sensors around to help you target your fire control. As long as one of the fighters has their active sensors going, then all of them will be able to see what they need to shoot, even if it is different targets, just so long as they are grouped together.
Brian
The resolution should be one that lets you see missiles at point blank range so you can use the fighters fire control to shoot at missiles if they are not shooting at anything else.
I would not bother with hardening the sensors at all on fighters, it is just to expensive, and you will have a lot of those short range sensors around to help you target your fire control. As long as one of the fighters has their active sensors going, then all of them will be able to see what they need to shoot, even if it is different targets, just so long as they are grouped together.
Brian
Posted by: UnLimiTeD
« on: August 23, 2010, 02:13:05 PM »Also true.
To feel save, give your Beam armed Fighters a backup sensor, it's ok if it has a range of 100k agaisnt 500 ton targets or bigger.
Once they've found the enemy, you don't need the long range.
So, in your case, use an R5 to R10, reduce the size by as much as possible, and get rid of the Electronic hardening, you might notice your fighters cost more than a low tech frigate.
To feel save, give your Beam armed Fighters a backup sensor, it's ok if it has a range of 100k agaisnt 500 ton targets or bigger.
Once they've found the enemy, you don't need the long range.
So, in your case, use an R5 to R10, reduce the size by as much as possible, and get rid of the Electronic hardening, you might notice your fighters cost more than a low tech frigate.
Posted by: Deutschbag
« on: August 23, 2010, 12:35:27 PM »I'd recommend not sticking active sensors on either your bomber or fighter. Instead, design a dedicated sensor platform fighter that launches with the squadron and provides sensor support. I'm not at home so I don't have any examples of my own to show you, but for the purposes of providing an example, I'll copy and paste Steve's R-26 Krait from the NATO/Soviets campaign.
It's a pretty effective strategy. The downside is that losing your control fighter means you lose active sensor support, but I feel that the benefit of having a dedicated platform with greater sensor range than would be possible in a mixed-class fighter outweighs it.
Code: [Select]
R-26A Krait class Recon Fighter 250 tons 23 Crew 83.2 BP TCS 5 TH 36 EM 0
7200 km/s Armour 1-3 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 0 PPV 0
Annual Failure Rate: 50% IFR: 0.7% Maint Capacity 0 MSP Max Repair 63 MSP Est Time: 0 Years
Pratt & Whitney F150 Ion Engine (1) Power 36 Fuel Use 7000% Signature 36 Armour 0 Exp 25%
Fuel Capacity 20,000 Litres Range 2.1 billion km (3 days at full power)
SN/APS-3 Active Search Sensor (1) GPS 6300 Range 69.3m km Resolution 100It's a pretty effective strategy. The downside is that losing your control fighter means you lose active sensor support, but I feel that the benefit of having a dedicated platform with greater sensor range than would be possible in a mixed-class fighter outweighs it.
Posted by: welchbloke
« on: July 13, 2010, 05:52:21 AM »Also, do you intend for the fighters to operate in an anti missile role? If not the Resolution could be dropped to optimized for 500 tonnes. That might save you some room/weight.
Posted by: UnLimiTeD
« on: July 13, 2010, 02:52:17 AM »Shouldn't that also reduce the size?
Also, with a lot of fighters, I don't think you need your ASS to have heavy electronic hardening, 50% would already be pushing it.
You could save massive in production cost.
Also, with a lot of fighters, I don't think you need your ASS to have heavy electronic hardening, 50% would already be pushing it.
You could save massive in production cost.
Posted by: Starkiller
« on: July 12, 2010, 10:31:36 PM »I never even noted that. 
That should pretty much do it.
Eric
Code: [Select]
Viper class Fighter 495 tons 71 Crew 1303.8 BP TCS 9.9 TH 7.2 EM 0
36363 km/s Armour 2-5 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 1 PPV 3
Annual Failure Rate: 1% IFR: 0% Maint Capacity 1646 MSP Max Repair 788 MSP Est Time: 14.1 Years
FTR Beam Core Anti-matter Drive E250 (1) Power 360 Fuel Use 2500% Signature 7.2 Armour 0 Exp 175%
Fuel Capacity 20,000 Litres Range 2.9 billion km (22 hours at full power)
R16.5/C3 Meson Cannon (1) Range 165,000km TS: 36363 km/s Power 3-3 RM 16.5 ROF 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fire Control S01 175-10000 H10 (FTR) (1) Max Range: 350,000 km TS: 40000 km/s 97 94 91 89 86 83 80 77 74 71
Beam Core Anti-matter Power Plant Technology PB-1 AR-0 (1) Total Power Output 3.2 Armour 0 Exp 5%
Active Search Sensor MR0-R1 (10%) (1) GPS 13.5 Range 810k km Resolution 1
Small Craft ECCM-4 (1) ECM 40
This design is classed as a military vessel for maintenance purposes
This design is classed as a fighter for production and combat purposes
That should pretty much do it.
Eric
Posted by: Brian Neumann
« on: July 12, 2010, 06:56:26 PM »For beam weapons there is a special entry for fighter fire control. Look for it at the bottom of the design screen. It automatically gives a x4 tracking speed mod without any jump in cost or size.
Brian
Brian
Posted by: Starkiller
« on: July 12, 2010, 05:16:09 PM »Here's the revamped Viper fighter and Anaconda bomber.
Code: [Select]
Anaconda class Bomber 500 tons 40 Crew 643.2 BP TCS 10 TH 7.2 EM 0
36000 km/s Armour 7-5 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 1 PPV 2.4
Annual Failure Rate: 2% IFR: 0% Maint Capacity 804 MSP Max Repair 225 MSP Est Time: 18.4 Years
Magazine 16
FTR Beam Core Anti-matter Drive E250 (1) Power 360 Fuel Use 2500% Signature 7.2 Armour 0 Exp 175%
Fuel Capacity 20,000 Litres Range 2.9 billion km (22 hours at full power)
Size 4 Box Launcher (4) Missile Size 4 Hangar Reload 30 minutes MF Reload 5 hours
Missile Fire Control FC117-R100 (10%) (1) Range 117.6m km Resolution 100
Size 4 Anti-ship Missile mkII (4) Speed: 100,000 km/s End: 12.6m Range: 75.6m km WH: 49 Size: 4 TH: 2300 / 1380 / 690
Active Search Sensor MR117-R145 (10%) (1) GPS 1957.5 Range 117.5m km Resolution 145
Small Craft ECCM-4 (1) ECM 40
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
This design is classed as a fighter for production and combat purposes
Code: [Select]
Viper class Fighter 495 tons 71 Crew 1040.8 BP TCS 9.9 TH 7.2 EM 0
36363 km/s Armour 2-5 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 1 PPV 3
Annual Failure Rate: 1% IFR: 0% Maint Capacity 1314 MSP Max Repair 525 MSP Est Time: 15.48 Years
FTR Beam Core Anti-matter Drive E250 (1) Power 360 Fuel Use 2500% Signature 7.2 Armour 0 Exp 175%
Fuel Capacity 20,000 Litres Range 2.9 billion km (22 hours at full power)
R16.5/C3 Meson Cannon (1) Range 165,000km TS: 36363 km/s Power 3-3 RM 16.5 ROF 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fire Control S01 175-20000 (1) Max Range: 350,000 km TS: 20000 km/s 97 94 91 89 86 83 80 77 74 71
Beam Core Anti-matter Power Plant Technology PB-1 AR-0 (1) Total Power Output 3.2 Armour 0 Exp 5%
Active Search Sensor MR0-R1 (10%) (1) GPS 13.5 Range 810k km Resolution 1
Small Craft ECCM-4 (1) ECM 40
This design is classed as a military vessel for maintenance purposes
This design is classed as a fighter for production and combat purposes
Posted by: Starkiller
« on: July 12, 2010, 05:07:26 PM »It does give me a better idea of the advantages/disadvantages of each system. As for fighters, you're both right. If the meson ignores the ship's passive defences, then it is FAR superior to the laser as a fighter weapon. Back to the drawing board.
Eric
Eric
Posted by: Brian Neumann
« on: July 12, 2010, 04:58:20 PM »The main difference between lasers and mesons is that the meson ignores all armour and shields. This means that every time you hit you will do internal damage. The downside to this is that mesons only do 1 point of damage and if you hit a system that has a higher hits to kill number then the chance of destroying the system is the ratio between the two.
Example A 5 HTK system takes 1 point of damage(from any source) the chance it will be destroyed is 1/5 or 20%.
A 2 HTK system takes 1 point of damage and its chance is 1/2 or 50%.
A good example of this is a large turret (20cm quad lasers) which has a HTK of 12. A meson does not have a good chance to kill this with one shot. Most systems however are not this large, and almost all of the electronic/fire control ecm ect have a htk of 1 so they can be easily killed. Magazines will have a varying htk based on their design and weapons in general have a low htk untill you get to the largest sizes.
Basic shorthand of beam weapons
Lasers Long range and good damage can be mounted on turrets for point defense work
Mesons Short range, 1 point damage but ignore all shields/armour can be mounted on turrets
Particle beams Long range, low damage size of weapon not a factor in range, not turret mountable
Railguns Short range, high damage but shallow armour penetration for thier size, not turret mountable
Plasma Carronade Short range high damage low cost, not turret mountable
With the exeption of the Particle beam (used to be called torpedo's not to confuse with plasma torpedo), all weapons have thier range based in part on the initial damage and the damage dropping off with range. This results in larger caliber weapons having a longer range. With particle beams it is a fixed range based on tech and the weapon does the same damage over its entire range.
Plasma carronade has the same damage output of a matching laser, but is significantly cheaper as there is no range enhancing tech to factor into its cost. Also a 15cm mount costs the same as a 10cm laser so they tend to cost 1/2 or less of the lasers cost.
Hope this helps you understand all of the beam weapons not just the mesons.
Brian
Example A 5 HTK system takes 1 point of damage(from any source) the chance it will be destroyed is 1/5 or 20%.
A 2 HTK system takes 1 point of damage and its chance is 1/2 or 50%.
A good example of this is a large turret (20cm quad lasers) which has a HTK of 12. A meson does not have a good chance to kill this with one shot. Most systems however are not this large, and almost all of the electronic/fire control ecm ect have a htk of 1 so they can be easily killed. Magazines will have a varying htk based on their design and weapons in general have a low htk untill you get to the largest sizes.
Basic shorthand of beam weapons
Lasers Long range and good damage can be mounted on turrets for point defense work
Mesons Short range, 1 point damage but ignore all shields/armour can be mounted on turrets
Particle beams Long range, low damage size of weapon not a factor in range, not turret mountable
Railguns Short range, high damage but shallow armour penetration for thier size, not turret mountable
Plasma Carronade Short range high damage low cost, not turret mountable
With the exeption of the Particle beam (used to be called torpedo's not to confuse with plasma torpedo), all weapons have thier range based in part on the initial damage and the damage dropping off with range. This results in larger caliber weapons having a longer range. With particle beams it is a fixed range based on tech and the weapon does the same damage over its entire range.
Plasma carronade has the same damage output of a matching laser, but is significantly cheaper as there is no range enhancing tech to factor into its cost. Also a 15cm mount costs the same as a 10cm laser so they tend to cost 1/2 or less of the lasers cost.
Hope this helps you understand all of the beam weapons not just the mesons.
Brian
Posted by: UnLimiTeD
« on: July 12, 2010, 04:45:12 PM »Meson weapons ignore armor and shields.
Given a fighter can only have so much firepower, and an enemy battleship might have more rows of armor than you have fighters, and given you'll use them in numbers, they might actually hit something critical faster than a regular weapon will breach the enemy hull.
Also, they obviously have no damage drop off.
Given a fighter can only have so much firepower, and an enemy battleship might have more rows of armor than you have fighters, and given you'll use them in numbers, they might actually hit something critical faster than a regular weapon will breach the enemy hull.
Also, they obviously have no damage drop off.
Posted by: Starkiller
« on: July 12, 2010, 04:14:08 PM »I don't know. In the design stage, I didn't see a size reduction for the meson cannon, and in it's 10 cm form, it as big as the 10cm laser WITHOUT reduction. I'd need 150 tons worth of space to squeeze it in. I'd need to remove the laser, and it still might not fit. I'm kinda reluctant to remove the laser as the meson cannon seems a rather piddling weapon to me, unless I'm missing something. The laser does 3 damage to the meson cannon's 1 damage, plus has a greater range. What IS it that makes people mention the meson weapon as a good fighter choice over a downsized laser. Just curious as I've heard it mentioned before.
Eric
Eric
Posted by: UnLimiTeD
« on: July 12, 2010, 03:16:15 PM »Getting seriously useable.
However, with that small fighter, maybe try to somehow squeeze a meson in?
However, with that small fighter, maybe try to somehow squeeze a meson in?
Posted by: Starkiller
« on: July 12, 2010, 12:13:23 PM »Code: [Select]
Viper class Fighter 450 tons 56 Crew 1222.4 BP TCS 9 TH 7.2 EM 0
40000 km/s Armour 3-5 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 1 PPV 2
Annual Failure Rate: 1% IFR: 0% Maint Capacity 1698 MSP Max Repair 525 MSP Est Time: 19.48 Years
FTR Beam Core Anti-matter Drive E250 (1) Power 360 Fuel Use 2500% Signature 7.2 Armour 0 Exp 175%
Fuel Capacity 20,000 Litres Range 3.2 billion km (22 hours at full power)
10cm C3 Far Gamma Ray Laser [.75 size] (1) Range 350,000km TS: 40000 km/s Power 3-3 RM 12 ROF 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Fire Control S01 175-20000 (1) Max Range: 350,000 km TS: 20000 km/s 97 94 91 89 86 83 80 77 74 71
Beam Core Anti-matter Power Plant Technology PB-1 AR-0 (1) Total Power Output 3.2 Armour 0 Exp 5%
Active Search Sensor MR0-R1 (10%) (1) GPS 13.5 Range 810k km Resolution 1
Small Craft ECCM-4 (1) ECM 40
This design is classed as a military vessel for maintenance purposes
This design is classed as a fighter for production and combat purposes
How's this? Enough fuel for 22 hours of operation, armour at 3, ecm-4 added, and a top speed of 40000 km/s, and still under 500 tons.
Now the Anaconda's turn. ^_-Eric
