Author Topic: Carrier fleet doctrine questions?  (Read 2506 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 667
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Carrier fleet doctrine questions?
« Reply #30 on: November 07, 2016, 06:56:25 AM »
To be honest... while rail guns can be effective the imbalance in resource distribution alone and problems with maintenance and retrofitting ships I stay clear of these weapons as dedicated PD besides low tech options.

I do agree though that Gauss are really only starting to be useful at around fire rate 3 and above.

My carrier doctrine are that reconaiscence are top priority. When I strike my carriers must be unknown to the enemy. At this point in the game I would have an all missile offensive fleet but I always keep beam weapons on ships since jump points is always a thing.
Overall, beam fighters are sort of a waste of sentient life so I stay clear of them for moral reason. I do however use super fast beam interceptor fighters to engage scouts, FAC and fighters.
 

Offline baconholic

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • Posts: 59
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Carrier fleet doctrine questions?
« Reply #31 on: November 07, 2016, 11:22:06 AM »
To be honest... while rail guns can be effective the imbalance in resource distribution alone and problems with maintenance and retrofitting ships I stay clear of these weapons as dedicated PD besides low tech options.

I do agree though that Gauss are really only starting to be useful at around fire rate 3 and above.

My carrier doctrine are that reconaiscence are top priority. When I strike my carriers must be unknown to the enemy. At this point in the game I would have an all missile offensive fleet but I always keep beam weapons on ships since jump points is always a thing.
Overall, beam fighters are sort of a waste of sentient life so I stay clear of them for moral reason. I do however use super fast beam interceptor fighters to engage scouts, FAC and fighters.

Early game Railgun fighters out perform Gauss by far if both are limited to the same number of RPs. The lower the starting RP, the bigger the gap. Early Railguns tends to have 1-2 tiers of tech advantage over Gauss since railgun fighter related techs are cheaper. With fighter beam fire control, you can get much higher tracking than normal while spending less on research. Fighters also get 50%+ fighter combat bonus from their commanders, you really can't get any better PD early game than railgun fighters.

I augment my railgun fighter carrier fleet with a bunch of destroyers with size 6 box launchers. They are armed with fast short range missiles with a decent warhead. A single destroyer can carry 100+ missiles capable of dealing over 1000 damage in a single volley. Basically, my doctrine comes down to shoot down every single missiles the enemy is shoot at me, then close the entire fleet to ~5m range and launch hundreds of really power missiles at them all in a single volley. It doesn't involve the beam fighters actually fighting anything at close range.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 667
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Carrier fleet doctrine questions?
« Reply #32 on: November 07, 2016, 11:47:55 AM »
Early then I agree railguns are the better option but it is normal in my games that gauss technology usually are prioriticed over railguns Tech so by the time an enemy is met Gauss are usually superior in general resources wise.

Fighters are primary missile launch plattforms while ships are mainly defensive in nature.

But I usually prioritise laser, gauss and missile techs.  That is just what I prefer.
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 765
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
Re: Carrier fleet doctrine questions?
« Reply #33 on: November 07, 2016, 04:10:13 PM »
Is an issue of planning...

Do you spend research on and go for a concept that you know will become obsolete in one or two generations max, knowing full and well that you need to expend the same research again in another field to catch up and get ahead?

Or do you go for the option that's superior long term right away at the cost of a minor short term disadvantage, and in the long term earn extra RP to spend elsewhere instead of a technological dead end?

If you go for Railguns as your main beam weapon then sure railgun fighters might make sense, otherwise probably not IMO.
 

Online Iranon

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 399
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
Re: Carrier fleet doctrine questions?
« Reply #34 on: November 07, 2016, 05:50:03 PM »
Railguns require literally zero investment for point defence, the base weapon has its own appeal because of it's low cost.

Cheap disposable semi-decoys. PD on fast ships. Dual-purpose weapons that don't suck in a brawl. Defence against multiple small salvos without ridiculous overhead on fire control.
10cm railguns can fill some niches even if you intend to switch to Gauss eventually, for little or no research investment.

I tend to not develop neither Gauss nor Railguns beyond 10cm for a long time... Gauss tech is expensive for a narrow benefit, larger railguns need capacitors well in advance of the weapons to shine.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 667
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Carrier fleet doctrine questions?
« Reply #35 on: November 08, 2016, 08:30:53 AM »
I don't think that anyone denies that early Railguns are decent PD weapons.

Later on though they become less useful for other options. In some of my games where I have run several factions at the same time missiles are a bit more diverse in their capabilities which make lasers a good choice as primary PD as well.

The major drawback of using Railguns later on is the huge resource waste into powerful engines and you still need a good PD weapon on regular ships as well. If you use fighters as PD you still need the extra hangar space on your ships which is another overhead cost for them. There is nothing wrong in using your fighters as PD, I just would not use them as a primary source for PD.

I did some quick calculations on a Quad Gauss turret (fire-rate 3) with roughly equivalent PD capabilities with fighter crafts and the breaking point is at about fire-rate three for the Gauss weapon when you add in all the overhead in needing the hangar space for the fighters in BP cost. With about generation four technology you would need about 500BP for both systems, I did also include that fighters will usually get extra bonus for their officers. The major difference in resource cost is that the fighters and their mothership have a much higher cost in Gallicite, almost double the resource cost where the normal ship have a more even distribution of resource cost even if the total is more or less the same.
 

Offline ryuga81

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • Posts: 35
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Carrier fleet doctrine questions?
« Reply #36 on: November 09, 2016, 09:44:40 AM »
Quote from: TCD link=topic=8556. msg98264#msg98264 date=1477325614
Interesting.  Why do you choose 12kT escort carrier/fighters rather than, say, 2x6kT escort frigates with turrets? I would have thought the fighters are much more expensive in terms of fuel /losses/micro for no real advantage in PD terms?

Versatility, mostly.  Speed is key to many things in Aurora, I have been recently surprised by a FAC-heavy spoiler race with overwhelming numbers and if I had slow-ish escort frigates I would have lost the entire fleet.  Instead, I gave them some fighters to chase while running for the jump point, and it worked.  I lost my fighters, but my fleet will fight another day.

Fighters are cheap to build and replace, can be built anywhere by throwing a bunch of factories on a planet, and their speed is a valuable asset.

I'm not saying I don't have escort frigates with turrets as dedicated PD, just that all my major fleets have a couple carriers as well.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 667
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Carrier fleet doctrine questions?
« Reply #37 on: November 09, 2016, 12:03:03 PM »
Versatility, mostly.  Speed is key to many things in Aurora, I have been recently surprised by a FAC-heavy spoiler race with overwhelming numbers and if I had slow-ish escort frigates I would have lost the entire fleet.  Instead, I gave them some fighters to chase while running for the jump point, and it worked.  I lost my fighters, but my fleet will fight another day.

Fighters are cheap to build and replace, can be built anywhere by throwing a bunch of factories on a planet, and their speed is a valuable asset.

I'm not saying I don't have escort frigates with turrets as dedicated PD, just that all my major fleets have a couple carriers as well.

Yes, this is the reason I always have some interceptor type fighters in a fleet. I usually only need a few of them since whatever they go up against are generally defenseless against them. A super fast fighter with a 15cm laser (usually reduced sized one) have the range and speed to stay at range and eat most FAC/fighter type crafts for breakfast for very few losses.
 

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51