Oh, the Humanity: Designs

[L0ckAndL0ad (OP)]

I've started a new campaign with C# Aurora 1.12.0. I oversee a race of ordinary humans, with the empire simply being called "Humanity". I'm not sure if I'd have time to make any sorts of AAR thread, but the designs I create and use I do in fact want to pass to the next generations. So..

Here are my starting designs. Mostly fighter sized craft so far.

Survey ships

Rust/Rust GR were used initially for in-system exploration of Sol. Don't see any use of them in the future - would probably require a lot of micro if combined with exploration carrier. Isaac Newton is a first generation general purpose exploration vessel. No active sensors, which made it to explode upon trying to survey Rakha's populated planet. Should probably install better sensors/defense systems maybe in the future versions.

Code: [Select]

Rust class Geological Survey Craft      500 tons       13 Crew       125.4 BP       TCS 10    TH 20    EM 0
2001 km/s      Armour 1-5       Shields 0-0       HTK 3      Sensors 0/0/0/1      DCR 0      PPV 0
Maint Life 2.67 Years     MSP 35    AFR 20%    IFR 0.3%    1YR 7    5YR 105    Max Repair 100 MSP
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Morale Check Required   

Ion Drive  EP20.00 (1)    Power 20    Fuel Use 76.80%    Signature 20    Explosion 8%
Fuel Capacity 77 000 Litres    Range 36.1 billion km (208 days at full power)

Geological Survey Sensors (1)   1 Survey Points Per Hour

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction

Code: [Select]

Rust-GR class Gravitational Survey Craft      500 tons       13 Crew       125.4 BP       TCS 10    TH 20    EM 0
2001 km/s      Armour 1-5       Shields 0-0       HTK 3      Sensors 0/0/1/0      DCR 0      PPV 0
Maint Life 2.67 Years     MSP 35    AFR 20%    IFR 0.3%    1YR 7    5YR 105    Max Repair 100 MSP
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Morale Check Required   

Ion Drive  EP20.00 (1)    Power 20    Fuel Use 76.80%    Signature 20    Explosion 8%
Fuel Capacity 77 000 Litres    Range 36.1 billion km (208 days at full power)

Gravitational Survey Sensors (1)   1 Survey Points Per Hour

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction

Code: [Select]

Isaac Newton class Exploration Ship      6 749 tons       102 Crew       558.9 BP       TCS 135    TH 313    EM 0
2315 km/s    JR 1-25(C)      Armour 1-31       Shields 0-0       HTK 32      Sensors 5/6/1/1      DCR 14      PPV 0
Maint Life 6.37 Years     MSP 607    AFR 91%    IFR 1.3%    1YR 26    5YR 386    Max Repair 100 MSP
Commander    Control Rating 2   BRG   SCI   
Intended Deployment Time: 60 months    Morale Check Required   

JC8K Commercial Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 7500 tons    Distance 25k km     Squadron Size 1

Commercial Ion Drive  EP156.25 (2)    Power 312.5    Fuel Use 6.71%    Signature 156.25    Explosion 5%
Fuel Capacity 500 000 Litres    Range 198.8 billion km (993 days at full power)

EM Sensor EM1.0-6.0 (1)     Sensitivity 6     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  19.4m km
Thermal Sensor TH1.0-5.0 (1)     Sensitivity 5     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  17.7m km
Geological Survey Sensors (1)   1 Survey Points Per Hour
Gravitational Survey Sensors (1)   1 Survey Points Per Hour

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
Military designs

Fighters only so far. Hornet is a small escort fighter.  Wasp is my standard attack craft. Vespa is an experimental model which saw limited production. Not combat tested yet. All fighters are stationed on Earth and thus intended for its defense. DSTS network is playing an Early Warning role within this strategy.

Code: [Select]

Hornet class Fighter      343 tons       14 Crew       62.6 BP       TCS 7    TH 63    EM 0
9131 km/s      Armour 1-4       Shields 0-0       HTK 3      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 2
Maint Life 4.15 Years     MSP 11    AFR 9%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 1    5YR 15    Max Repair 31.25 MSP
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 6 days    Morale Check Required   

Ion Drive  EP62.50 (1)    Power 62.5    Fuel Use 1325.83%    Signature 62.5    Explosion 25%
Fuel Capacity 40 000 Litres    Range 1.59 billion km (48 hours at full power)

Gauss Cannon R200-33.00 (1x3)    Range 16 000km     TS: 9 131 km/s     Accuracy Modifier 33.00%     RM 20 000 km    ROF 5       
Beam Fire Control R16-TS8000 (1)     Max Range: 16 000 km   TS: 8 000 km/s     38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Active Search Sensor AS2-R1 (1)     GPS 3     Range 2.1m km    MCR 192.7k km    Resolution 1

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction

Code: [Select]

Wasp class Strikefighter      470 tons       10 Crew       80.9 BP       TCS 9    TH 63    EM 0
6654 km/s      Armour 1-5       Shields 0-0       HTK 2      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 3.6
Maint Life 7.29 Years     MSP 50    AFR 18%    IFR 0.2%    1YR 2    5YR 25    Max Repair 31.25 MSP
Magazine 24   
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 2.1 days    Morale Check Required   

Ion Drive  EP62.50 (1)    Power 62.5    Fuel Use 1325.83%    Signature 62.5    Explosion 25%
Fuel Capacity 40 000 Litres    Range 1.16 billion km (48 hours at full power)

MSL-6 BX F1 (4)     Missile Size: 6    Hangar Reload 122 minutes    MF Reload 20 hours
Missile Fire Control FC36-R160 (1)     Range 36.8m km    Resolution 160
ASM-60 Shard (4)    Speed: 20 833 km/s    End: 25.2m     Range: 31.5m km    WH: 4    Size: 6    TH: 104/62/31

Active Search Sensor AS31-R160 (1)     GPS 2880     Range 31.8m km    Resolution 160

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 Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction

Code: [Select]

Vespa class Strikefighter      495 tons       14 Crew       85.2 BP       TCS 10    TH 63    EM 0
6315 km/s      Armour 1-5       Shields 0-0       HTK 2      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 3.3
Maint Life 7.07 Years     MSP 50    AFR 20%    IFR 0.3%    1YR 2    5YR 26    Max Repair 31.25 MSP
Magazine 18   
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 2.1 days    Morale Check Required   

Ion Drive  EP62.50 (1)    Power 62.5    Fuel Use 1325.83%    Signature 62.5    Explosion 25%
Fuel Capacity 40 000 Litres    Range 1.1 billion km (48 hours at full power)

Gauss Cannon R200-10.0 (1x2)    Range 12 800km     TS: 6 315 km/s     Accuracy Modifier 10.0%     RM 20 000 km    ROF 5       
Beam Fire Control R13-TS7000 (1)     Max Range: 12 800 km   TS: 7 000 km/s   

MSL-6 BX F1 (3)     Missile Size: 6    Hangar Reload 122 minutes    MF Reload 20 hours
Missile Fire Control FC36-R160 (1)     Range 36.8m km    Resolution 160
ASM-60 Shard (3)    Speed: 20 833 km/s    End: 25.2m     Range: 31.5m km    WH: 4    Size: 6    TH: 104/62/31

Active Search Sensor AS31-R160 (1)     GPS 2880     Range 31.8m km    Resolution 160

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 Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction

[L0ckAndL0ad (OP)]

First generation Missile Destroyer

Aaron Ward is a multi-role DDG. Quite pricey, but immensely versatile. It's capable to provide sustained AMM and PD support to the fleet, detect and engage fighters up to 12m km on its own, engage already detected (by other ships) fighters up to 55m km, and attack ships of equal size on its own for up to 55m km.

So, basically, it can attack almost anything it can see already detected by whatever radar is nearby within 55m km. I've decided to switch to Size 4 missiles instead of Size 6 I used previously in favor of larger volley size. Initially, I tried using larger battery of Size 4 box launchers, but that's less versatile and not sustainable (so far) solution.

This DDG would need a larger vessel to travel with (CG and later CV) with Jump Drive capability and additional sensor capabilities, but should be able to operate temporarily alone or in small groups if needed.

Code: [Select]

Aaron Ward class Missile Destroyer      7 979 tons       197 Crew       1 240.4 BP       TCS 160    TH 420    EM 0
2632 km/s      Armour 3-35       Shields 0-0       HTK 72      Sensors 8/8/0/0      DCR 12      PPV 37.64
Maint Life 2.36 Years     MSP 514    AFR 255%    IFR 3.5%    1YR 126    5YR 1 894    Max Repair 105 MSP
Magazine 556    Cryogenic Berths 200   
Captain    Control Rating 3   BRG   AUX   CIC   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Morale Check Required   

Ion Drive  EP210.00 (120/0.5) (2)    Power 420    Fuel Use 66.66%    Signature 210    Explosion 12%
Fuel Capacity 450 000 Litres    Range 15.2 billion km (66 days at full power)

Twin Gauss PD Turret (2x6)    Range 30 000km     TS: 12000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 30 000 km    ROF 5        1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CIWS-120 (1x6)    Range 1000 km     TS: 12 000 km/s     ROF 5       Base 50% to hit
Gunnery FCS R1T4 48K/12K (1)     Max Range: 48 000 km   TS: 12 000 km/s     79 58 38 17 0 0 0 0 0 0

MSL-1 10S (8)     Missile Size: 1    Rate of Fire 10
MSL-4 2000S (12)     Missile Size: 4    Rate of Fire 2000
MFCS AMM 1.1M/12.7M (2)     Range 12.8m km    Resolution 1
MFCS 500t 55M (1)     Range 55m km    Resolution 10
AMM-10B Macross (412)    Speed: 33 200 km/s    End: 0.7m     Range: 1.3m km    WH: 1    Size: 1.00    TH: 154/92/46
ASM-40B Splinter (36)    Speed: 18 300 km/s    End: 46.7m     Range: 51.3m km    WH: 4    Size: 4.000    TH: 73/43/21

RAD MD 1.1/12.7M (1)     GPS 64     Range 12.8m km    MCR 1.1m km    Resolution 1
RAD 8Kt 51M (1)     GPS 5760     Range 52m km    Resolution 160
Thermal Sensor TH1.0-8.0 (1)     Sensitivity 8     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  22.4m km
EM Sensor EM1.0-8.0 (1)     Sensitivity 8.0     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  22.4m km

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

[misanthropope]

I like the DDG, i'm going to bounce a couple differences of opinion off you

with 10 second reload time, you can split your launchers to 4 every increment, and get away with one FC.  every little bit helps?  with a million range, might even reduce launchers in favor of more magazine space.

res 10 for anti-fighter work is pretty likely to let you down.  i personally would use res4, but i recognize that's pretty conservative.  res6 might be sensible.

feel the CIWS and EM sensor are kind of expensive redundancy on a small hull that's trying to do a lot of things.

[L0ckAndL0ad (OP)]

I like the DDG, i'm going to bounce a couple differences of opinion off you

with 10 second reload time, you can split your launchers to 4 every increment, and get away with one FC.  every little bit helps?  with a million range, might even reduce launchers in favor of more magazine space.

Not sure what you mean by "split your launchers to 4 every increment". 2x FC 8x Launchers is 1 FC per 4 launchers already.

BUT I do like your idea about giving up 1 FC and some launchers! Here's a Flight 2 design of the same DDG.

Off-Topic: show

Aaron Ward F2 class Missile Destroyer      8 000 tons       187 Crew       1 226.9 BP       TCS 160    TH 420    EM 0
2625 km/s      Armour 3-35       Shields 0-0       HTK 71      Sensors 8/8/0/0      DCR 12      PPV 38.44
Maint Life 2.47 Years     MSP 551    AFR 256%    IFR 3.6%    1YR 125    5YR 1 877    Max Repair 105 MSP
Magazine 568    Cryogenic Berths 200   
Captain    Control Rating 3   BRG   AUX   CIC   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Morale Check Required   

Ion Drive  EP210.00 (120/0.5) (2)    Power 420    Fuel Use 66.66%    Signature 210    Explosion 12%
Fuel Capacity 500 000 Litres    Range 16.9 billion km (74 days at full power)

Twin Gauss PD Turret (2x6)    Range 30 000km     TS: 12000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 30 000 km    ROF 5       
CIWS-120 (1x6)    Range 1000 km     TS: 12 000 km/s     ROF 5       
Gunnery FCS R1T4 48K/12K (1)     Max Range: 48 000 km   TS: 12 000 km/s     79 58 38 17 0 0 0 0 0 0

MSL-1 10S (4)     Missile Size: 1    Rate of Fire 10
MSL-4 2000S (16)     Missile Size: 4    Rate of Fire 2000
MFCS AMM 1.1M/12.7M (1)     Range 12.8m km    Resolution 1
MFCS 500t 55M (1)     Range 55m km    Resolution 10
AMM-10B Macross (440)    Speed: 33 200 km/s    End: 0.7m     Range: 1.3m km    WH: 1    Size: 1    TH: 154/92/46
ASM-40B Splinter (32)    Speed: 18 300 km/s    End: 46.7m     Range: 51.3m km    WH: 4    Size: 4    TH: 73/43/21

RAD MD 1.1/12.7M (1)     GPS 64     Range 12.8m km    MCR 1.1m km    Resolution 1
RAD 8Kt 51M (1)     GPS 5760     Range 52m km    Resolution 160
Thermal Sensor TH1.0-8.0 (1)     Sensitivity 8     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  22.4m km
EM Sensor EM1.0-8.0 (1)     Sensitivity 8     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  22.4m km

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

res 10 for anti-fighter work is pretty likely to let you down.  i personally would use res4, but i recognize that's pretty conservative.  res6 might be sensible.

I played only VB6 Aurora seriously and yet to play any long campaigns in C#, and I'm yet to face ANY enemy fighters at all. So these are "just in case" designs. My own strike fighters are almost 500t for maximum payload. But even so, FCS in question is capable of attacking 250t targets at 13m km. Which is far more than enough for any beam fighter attack, and you need a great number of 250t missile fighters to make them threatening to a division of such destroyers. At which point a friendly carrier support with fighters is required to deal with the situation properly anyway. And I do intend to create carrier task forces in the future.

feel the CIWS and EM sensor are kind of expensive redundancy on a small hull that's trying to do a lot of things.

I do LOVE CIWS for redundancy and economy and they do fit into the layered defense strategy that I employ. Speaking of. A lone destroyer operating away from the rest of the task force needs all the sensors it can get, so EM/TH sensors are also must have.

[TheTalkingMeowth]

Could you drop the CIWS and add an extra Gauss turret? If yes, you should do so, because the Gauss turret is twice as effective AND can protect other ships traveling with you.

CIWS just don't belong on warships.

[Michael Sandy]

I have tried to build survey craft as fighters before, but I have never been satisfied with them.  I find around 800 tons I can get them much faster for only a little more cost, and much more endurance, which means less micro involved in returning them to base or a carrier.  Also, they can be upgraded that way, which preserves the benefit of any grade they might gain.  At 800 tons, you can afford to put a 1 HS sensor on them, so they can double as pickets.  They are never really going to be fast enough to serve as scouts, but if you are in an emergency it is better than no coverage at all.

While you can make them relatively short endurance as parasite craft, they just aren't going to be carried around all that much.  To be efficient, you want most of their time spent surveying, not being a passenger, not going back to base or carrier for endurance extension.

The big question for survey craft that small is whether you bother with single ship jump engines.  I find it cuts into their performance a lot, but the RP of an independent explorer is cool, not to mention the issue of not wanting to have to transit your larger carrier/tender to retrieve them.

I have long liked the concept of a survey tender/carrier/tanker supporting a survey flotilla that has jump scouts, jump point surveillance stations to drop off, it can be very modular and versatile and economical.

[L0ckAndL0ad (OP)]

Could you drop the CIWS and add an extra Gauss turret? If yes, you should do so, because the Gauss turret is twice as effective AND can protect other ships traveling with you.

CIWS just don't belong on warships.

I've already explained my position on CIWS, but I'll say it again - CIWS are awesome. They provide redundancy and economy of self-oriented PD solution. You are right when you know that the ship in question will not be left alone. Or won't be doing Jump Point Assault. For those situations CIWS is crucial, IMO.

I'm almost done with my next generation designs and I think I'm gonna omit the usage of CIWS for now, but I still do see a great value in such system and will most likely return them to service if I may end up designing ships for Jump Point Assaults. Or get swayed by my own combat experience. We'll see.

I have tried to build survey craft as fighters before, but I have never been satisfied with them.  I find around 800 tons I can get them much faster for only a little more cost, and much more endurance, which means less micro involved in returning them to base or a carrier.  Also, they can be upgraded that way, which preserves the benefit of any grade they might gain.  At 800 tons, you can afford to put a 1 HS sensor on them, so they can double as pickets.  They are never really going to be fast enough to serve as scouts, but if you are in an emergency it is better than no coverage at all.
-skip-

Yeah, I agree, the whole concept is cool, but it takes some additional effort to handle. Those above that I designed were made just for the initial Sol exploration and I cannot see myself using such approach to explore the entire galaxy. Too much micro. Current version of Aurora provides more automation for parasite craft operations, but I don't see a way to fully automate such a group of ships.

[TheTalkingMeowth]

I've already explained my position on CIWS, but I'll say it again - CIWS are awesome. They provide redundancy and economy of self-oriented PD solution. You are right when you know that the ship in question will not be left alone. Or won't be doing Jump Point Assault. For those situations CIWS is crucial, IMO.

I'm almost done with my next generation designs and I think I'm gonna omit the usage of CIWS for now, but I still do see a great value in such system and will most likely return them to service if I may end up designing ships for Jump Point Assaults. Or get swayed by my own combat experience. We'll see.

I've never used CIWS for jump point assault PD...you may have a point there. But as general purpose PD, I'm not convinced by the redundancy argument UNLESS the ships are expected to operate solo.

My understanding of your position (correct me if I'm wrong) is that adding CIWS means that even if the ship loses its fire control or sensor, it still has some PD capacity. The thing is, if you have two ships in company with 2 gauss cannons, 1 sensor, and 1 fire control each, the scenarios are as follows:

No damage, all ships get x4 gauss protection

1 ship loses active, all ships get x4 gauss protection

both ships lose active, all ships get no protection

1 ship loses fire control, all ships get x2 gauss

both ships lose fire control, all ships get no protection

Contrast this with the 1 gauss, 1 pd setup:

No damage, all ships get 2.5 gauss protection

1 ship loses active, all ships get 2.5 gauss protection

both ships lose active, all ships get .5 gauss protection

1 ship loses fire control, it gets .5 gauss the other gets 1.5

both ships lose fire control, both get .5 gauss

So we see that, until both ships lose their electronics, double gauss is strictly better. In larger fleets, the gauss advantage only grows. This is even more true if your ships have redundant fire controls (i.e. beam ships that can repurpose offensive controls, even at reduced effectiveness), since all ships have to lose their active sensors before that matters at all.

Finally, in the scenario where all of your ships have lost electronics...half a gauss cannon is not going to save you. But an extra 1.5 gauss cannons might have prevented you from getting in this position in the first place.

[L0ckAndL0ad (OP)]

-snip-
So we see that, until both ships lose their electronics, double gauss is strictly better. In larger fleets, the gauss advantage only grows. This is even more true if your ships have redundant fire controls (i.e. beam ships that can repurpose offensive controls, even at reduced effectiveness), since all ships have to lose their active sensors before that matters at all.

Finally, in the scenario where all of your ships have lost electronics...half a gauss cannon is not going to save you. But an extra 1.5 gauss cannons might have prevented you from getting in this position in the first place.

You are right of course, except for one minor point. It all really depends on enemy targeting: if enemy spreads missile fire evenly between the fleet (which is the way current Auto-MFC does if I understand it correctly, although I'm yet to have a major war in C# Aurora yet so cannot comment on how true that really is). Then CIWS is as good (unless you build 100% accurate GCs, which I do not) AND it's cheaper and smaller than an ordinary GC PD turrets + electronics.

But yes, obviously, a fleet as a whole does not really need CIWS. Except for Jump Point Assaults. And, actually, I'm currently designing my new ships with this in mind. My new DDGs and CGs will most likely feature box launchers. In current drafts, 300 size 1 AMMs and 20 size 4 ASMs per DDG and something similar but maybe larger on CGs - probably 400 AMM/40 ASM or something like that.

CG will feature a Jump Drive with 1M km jump radius and size 5 squadron (for now that's the best I can do). The idea is that 1 CG 4 DDG send a jump scout in first, then go jump in themselves if they think they can handle the enemy on the other side. They jump in and have to survive for ~30 seconds before being able to fire. Depending on the range, that's at least one volley of enemy missile fire. After that they may be able to unleash all their box launchers (~1500 AMMs and 120 ASMs). That's per one task group. Do I want to have CIWS on them? Yes I do!

But I generally do not want to engage in Jump Point assaults in the first place. But being able to when pressed... is a nice tool to have up the sleeve. Even a single CIWS on each ship (my current tech allows 20k km/s 8-shot CIWS modules) would help immensely in such a scenario.

One of the reasons behind building multi-role ships is being able to use them in various situations. Having more flexibility. It's wasteful, yes, but that's a part of the overall doctrine.

[L0ckAndL0ad (OP)]

Here's the draft for the next generation missile ships. I worked on these for several days now and still not finished. I'm not entirely sure if I want to invest so much into their armor (currently 3 and 4 for DDG and CG accordingly) and if they need to have laser weapons as a backup. These are tiny bits of BP/mineral/MSP costs that are not significant in small numbers but will add up quickly when building a larger navy.

I intend to use these ships as escorts with large carrier (50-100k tons), which would allow rearming in situ. But, generally, these are meant to defend the carrier and do some light recon missions. And JP assault if REALLY pressed (like being blocked from returning to base). I expect to field 6-8 DDGs and 1-2 CGs per 1 fleet carrier. Alternatively, a fleet of 1 CG 4 DDG can be fielded for various tasks - recon, small strike, escort etc.

They can travel all together (the carrier will have large passive arrays) but 4-5 DDGs can deploy in a circle around the carrier to provide screening. A couple of destroyers can be detached to move 1m km away from the main body to increase tracking time for incoming missiles and provide additional layer of defense.

With that in mind, I wonder if I should actually put 120mm lasers on some of the ships for area PD. I can currently get 120mm FUV lasers with 5s recharge that can reach up to 200k km, creating a 400k area pd bubble when forward deployed, which should help conserve AMMs as well. Not to mention an offensive punch lasers can provide. But not sure yet.

Next gen missiles are not ready yet but are just around the corner, and will be 1m km ranged AMM and 50m km range size 4 ASM (WH4 probably). Hangars on CG are meant for small jump scouts.

Work-in-progress

Off-Topic: show

Adams class Missile Destroyer (P)      7 888 tons       138 Crew       1 205 BP       TCS 158    TH 640    EM 0
4056 km/s      Armour 3-35       Shields 0-0       HTK 36      Sensors 11/11/0/0      DCR 12      PPV 71.7
Maint Life 2.50 Years     MSP 590    AFR 249%    IFR 3.5%    1YR 131    5YR 1 965    Max Repair 160 MSP
Magazine 380    Cryogenic Berths 200   
Commander    Control Rating 2   BRG   AUX   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Morale Check Required   

Magneto-plasma Drive  EP320.00 (100/0.5) (2)    Power 640    Fuel Use 35.36%    Signature 320    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 350 000 Litres    Range 22.6 billion km (64 days at full power)

Twin Gauss PD Turret Mk 45 (2x8)    Range 30 000km     TS: 20000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 30 000 km    ROF 5       
PD Gunnery FCS 80/20K (1)     Max Range: 80 000 km   TS: 20 000 km/s     75 50 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MSL-1 BX F3 (300)     Missile Size: 1    Hangar Reload 50 minutes    MF Reload 8 hours
MSL-4 BX F3 (20)     Missile Size: 4    Hangar Reload 100 minutes    MF Reload 16 hours
MFCS AMM 1/12M (2)     Range 12.1m km    Resolution 1
MFCS 500t/52M (1)     Range 52.3m km    Resolution 10

RAD MD 1/12M (1)     GPS 42     Range 12.1m km    MCR 1.1m km    Resolution 1
RAD 5Kt/50M (1)     GPS 3360     Range 50.3m km    Resolution 100
EM Sensor EM1.0-11.0 (1)     Sensitivity 11     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  26.2m km
Thermal Sensor TH1.0-11.0 (1)     Sensitivity 11     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  26.2m km

ECCM-2 (1)         ECM 20

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anzio class Missile Cruiser (P)      19 995 tons       467 Crew       3 398.3 BP       TCS 400    TH 1 344    EM 0
3360 km/s    JR 5-1000      Armour 4-65       Shields 0-0       HTK 94      Sensors 55/11/0/0      DCR 21      PPV 120.9
Maint Life 2.27 Years     MSP 1 448    AFR 291%    IFR 4.0%    1YR 381    5YR 5 715    Max Repair 396.8 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 500 tons     Magazine 610    Cryogenic Berths 200   
Captain    Control Rating 5   BRG   AUX   ENG   CIC   FLG   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Flight Crew Berths 40    Morale Check Required   

J20K(5-1000-E10) Military Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 20000 tons    Distance 1000k km     Squadron Size 5

Magneto-plasma Drive  EP448.00 (100/0.5) (3)    Power 1344    Fuel Use 29.88%    Signature 448    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 750 000 Litres    Range 22.6 billion km (77 days at full power)

Twin Gauss PD Turret Mk 45 (4x8)    Range 30 000km     TS: 20000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 30 000 km    ROF 5       
PD Gunnery FCS 80/20K (1)     Max Range: 80 000 km   TS: 20 000 km/s     75 50 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MSL-1 BX F3 (450)     Missile Size: 1    Hangar Reload 50 minutes    MF Reload 8 hours
MSL-4 BX F3 (40)     Missile Size: 4    Hangar Reload 100 minutes    MF Reload 16 hours
MFCS AMM 1/12M (3)     Range 12.1m km    Resolution 1
MFCS 500t/52M (2)     Range 52.3m km    Resolution 10

RAD MD 1/12M (1)     GPS 42     Range 12.1m km    MCR 1.1m km    Resolution 1
RAD 500t/52M (1)     GPS 1680     Range 52.3m km    Resolution 10
Thermal Sensor TH5-55 (1)     Sensitivity 55     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  58.6m km
ELINT Module (1)     Sensitivity 11     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  26.2m km

ECCM-2 (1)         ECM 20

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

[TheTalkingMeowth]

One of the reasons behind building multi-role ships is being able to use them in various situations. Having more flexibility. It's wasteful, yes, but that's a part of the overall doctrine.

That's fair. I do go in for multi-role ships, but I also design my fleets as if I'm expecting to fight a human. Hence the emphasis on surviving focus fire, which CIWS are simply incapable of doing. Like, it would be NICE to have CIWS for JP assaults...but it's impossible to put enough CIWS on a ship to handle a focused salvo, and even spending the tonnage to handle a reasonable 10 missile salvo is prohibitive (my ships are small).

[Michael Sandy]

On the subject of CIWS, the problem is that shipyards work best producing a series of ships, not titanic one-offs.  When you have a series of ships, you generally operate them together, and so they should reinforce each other.  If there were a way of building one-off supercapital ships, where those solitary supercapitals would be the core of a sector defense escorted by lesser ships, then CIWS would make sense because that supercapital would always be receiving fire if anybody was.

[Black]

In my curent game I abandoned ciws even for my carriers. I can choose to instal 1 and 1/2 ciws or two twin turrets with 25% size gauss cannons and fire control and sensor. I think that choice is clear.

[Ektor]

1 HS single gauss turrets are the most effective for their weight. I honestly never use CIWS, I just don't see the point when gauss turrets are available.

[Black]

1 HS single gauss turrets are the most effective for their weight. I honestly never use CIWS, I just don't see the point when gauss turrets are available.

They are more a role play option in my opinion. Some of my commercial designs, like troop transports and replenishment ships have them. But I never send them in when there is risk of missile fire.

I suppose there was some use in VB6 when you could face planetary based missile launchers and you needed to land invasion army without nuking the planet.