Ahh! Aliens are real! And hostile! (Help!)

[UnLimiTeD]

Teiwaz, search your log.
Did you detect a sizeable thermal or EM signature from their planet?
Did that planet have atmosphere?
If not, it might be a base with guard ships, which means they likely outtech you beyond your imagination, but are very unlikely to follow you.
Given their capabilities and force composition, do you think they actually have jump drives? If so, could they jump their entire force through at once, or in small groups?
Further, it seems AI is always fireing on the ship best visible, be it the biggest or the one with the highest emissions.
You could make this your advantage by building a big ship with good armor, and plaster it with Gauss turrets and CIWS to soak missiles while you dis integrate their origin.

[sloanjh]

For radar this is so because every ship is data linked to all the others, but fire control is linked to the weapons, it a part of the weapons in other words. Again it doesn't matter where the weapons are, they always take the same tonnage. The disadvantages could be found elsewhere,

1. for instance that the bigger the ship, the more space a single point of armor will cost. If you have offense and defense on the same ship, it tends to be big, so more tonnage is needed for a given armor thickness. On the other hand, the bigger ship's armor will be tougher because of the larger target area.

2. or it's the engine performance. A little test with level 6 tech (inertial confinement):
*SNIP*

You're correct that the specialization benefit isn't pronounced for weapons systems, i.e. anti-missile escort vs. beam vs. anti-ship missile are all stuck with the mass.  (Although salvo size is important in anti-ship missile combat, so sticking 20 launchers on 1 ship makes it easier to maintain a concentrated punch than 2 launchers on 10 ships.)

The real specialization benefit comes from all the other stuff: jump drives, geo/grav survey, active and passive sensors (NOT fire control).  The point is that these payloads are used in different locations, so if you stick more than one of them on a single ship, one of them will be working at any given time, while the others will be sitting around doing nothing.  This is also the case with missile vs. beam warships to a certain extent - they tend to have different tactical requirements, so trying to have a dual-purpose combatant leads to conflicting requirements on the platform (e.g. armor, speed).

You're correct that armor becomes more efficient for larger ships.  In fact, this was one of the original design drivers Steve had for Aurora - he wanted to avoid the "swarms of small ships" strategy of StarFire and encourage the production of large ships.  On the other hand (as I think you pointed out), Jump drive expense grows quickly with ship size.

As for engines, there's no efficiencies of scale - it's purely power/mass ratio that determines speed.  If you double the size of the ship and double the number of engines (so both designs have the same hull percentage devoted to engines), then both designs will have the same speed.

John

[Shadow]

From what I can observe, while it becomes more mass-efficient for larger ships, armour also becomes more expensive due to the larger surface it has to cover.

[sloanjh]

From what I can observe, while it becomes more mass-efficient for larger ships, armour also becomes more expensive due to the larger surface it has to cover.

If you compare 2 10,000 ton armor-5 ships to a single 20,000 ton armor-5 ship, you'll find that the armor is actually cheaper, and that the total surface area is smaller.  The surface-to-volume ratio goes down for bigger ships.

In general this (equating total tonnage) is a good way to think about design comparisons in Aurora.  The mechanics are mostly set up so that if you fuse two identical ships into a single ship with twice as many of every system, then the costs, capabilities etc. will be the same.  The notable exceptions to this that I can think of are armor (merged design is better), bridge (ditto, for ships greater than 1 kton), jump engines (smaller ships preferred), SY capacity (ditto), SY build rate (bigger ships preferred - they get a bulk discount ), and sensor signature (bigger is worse, because TG signatures don't add)

John

[Sheb]

And Sensor as well.

[Giggle]

What do you think is a good passive strength for fleet scouts which fly the perimeter?

I don't know, I put active Res 100 on my fleet Early Warning Crafts.
But it worth be tried, since they often get spoted and shot down.
I would take the thermal signature of one of my small frigates and take it as a basis for designing the passive thermal and I would design an EM passive sensor of the same size than the thermal one.
I started a new campaign, without no EWC for the moment, but I will do it if I go for this option.

I don't think so. For radar this is so because every ship is data linked to all the others, but fire control is linked to the weapons, it a part of the weapons in other words. Again it doesn't matter where the weapons are, they always take the same tonnage. The disadvantages could be found elsewhere,

In fact no : if you put all the launchers of one category in one ship (ie you specialize) you only have to build one Fire Control because, as you said, it's part of the weapon.

You build two ships, same size, and your FC systems take 5HS :
first option : One ship for the big missiles, one ship for the small missiles. You have to build and install one and only one fire control per ship. FC size per ship = 5
Second option : Each ship can fire small AND big missiles; You have to build and install Two fire control per ship. FC size per ship = 10

So specialization can save up space in your ship, or allow you to put more launchers, or allow you to put more armor, or go faster or do anything you want with this empty space. 

The matter is not to build big ships or small ships. The specialization is efficient in your case A and in your case B.
In fact, I would say the smaller the ship, the higher the specialisation, since specialization saves space.

In my last campaign my AMM frigates were 3900 tons only, with one missile FC and no radar. Principe Class.
I had another 3900t frigate class for gauss gun final defense, with one beam FC and no radar. Hastati  Class.
I had a third 3900t class for active detection of missiles and jump drive, weaponless. Tertiari Class.
If I had wished to make a mutlipurpose frigate, it would have been impossible to put everything (missile fire control, Beam fire control, Res 1 radar, Jump drive) in a 3900t ship and still be efficient in combat.

[Narmio]

It's a bit more complicated than that.  Say for example you put one fire control per eight offensive weapons and one per four defensive weapons. You can then essentially say that an offensive 'module' is eight launchers/beams + an FC and a 'defensive' module is four launchers/beams + and FC. If you only ever put weapons on ships in multiples of those modules, you will never have any wasted tonnage. 

However, say you want an offensive ship to have some limited defensive capability but don't have space for a full four weapons.  Now you've wasted space, because you've got one FC for, say, two weapons. So between two of these ships you've got wasted space equal to one defensive FC.

So, assuming sensors are located elsewhere or otherwise standardised, the truth lies somewhere between what Giggle said and what Rastaman said.

[Giggle]

It's a bit more complicated than that.  Say for example you put one fire control per eight offensive weapons and one per four defensive weapons. You can then essentially say that an offensive 'module' is eight launchers/beams + an FC and a 'defensive' module is four launchers/beams + and FC. If you only ever put weapons on ships in multiples of those modules, you will never have any wasted tonnage. 

Yup, assuming your FC and launchers are dimensioned to be effective for a standardized FC/launcher ratio, that's ok.
Being a "small ship" fanboy myself, like Rastaman, I don't do such calculation, except for mu occasional battleships : I always go for, 1FC per ship.

[chrislocke2000]

On a more practical point I've never mixed pd missiles with offensive missiles on the basis that I want to retain manual control of my anti ship missiles whilst leaving my amms on auto fire. As far as I can see you can only set auto fire per ship, not per fire control. Am I missing something here?

[Charlie Beeler]

On a more practical point I've never mixed pd missiles with offensive missiles on the basis that I want to retain manual control of my anti ship missiles whilst leaving my amms on auto fire. As far as I can see you can only set auto fire per ship, not per fire control. Am I missing something here?

You don't need autofire for that.

Assign the FC/launcher/missile combination you desire for missile defense.  Set the PD mode to that suite and it will function without further input.  This only works for missile defense though.

Personally I don't use autofire since I have no control over the targeting decisions.

[Giggle]

In fact, I had cases where auto-fire will cancell your PD settings.
I use to have problems with my AMM and I had to manualy target incoming salvoes.
The basic thing I do for good AMM setting is as follow :
-you select your defense fire control in battle control window
-you select a PD mode and save your choice
-you NEVER select auto fire for your ship or for your fleet, it is only open fire or cease fire, nothing else.

Your AMM launchers will lauch automatically on incoming salvoes.

This way, you can have another fire control on your ship and it can be intended for anti-ship fire, the AMM FC will not conflict with the ASM FC.

That beeing said, I personaly agree with your habit of putting different Fire control systems on different ship.

[Shadow]

Why do so many people bother with AMMs? They seem so wasteful and finite compared to Gauss turrets.

Is it just for flavour or do you guys use them as an extra challenge?

[chrislocke2000]

Ah thanks very much, still going to stick to my specialised ships though!

[Narmio]

Why do so many people bother with AMMs? They seem so wasteful and finite compared to Gauss turrets.

Is it just for flavour or do you guys use them as an extra challenge?

Actually I don't dare send out a fleet without both, and even then the shields and armour can take quite a beating.  The key with AMMs is that you can get several attempts at intercepting each missile while it crosses your AMM range, while gauss turrets only get to snap off one volley at the last instant.  So AMMs handle large volleys of missiles much better, while gauss handles a constant stream of small volleys.

[Charlie Beeler]

Why do so many people bother with AMMs? They seem so wasteful and finite compared to Gauss turrets.

Is it just for flavour or do you guys use them as an extra challenge?

Because beam fire control tracking speed cannot keep up with missile speed.  Yes you can build turrets that can keep up, but they soon get incredibly large in the mass/hs department. 

With a layered defense of AMM/CM thinning salvos then CIWS and PD turrets have a chance at the leakers.  Good armor and shields are your last line of defense.


The real challenge is to start the game without a massive tech advantage.  When your facing incoming missile speeds of 30-40k kps and your best AMM is only 24k kps you learn a lot about integrated defense.