Recent versions of Aurora have revolutionised ship design. One feature that struck me is that ship size no longer determines the limit on maximum ship speed.
How ... interesting.
So, what happens when you
1. spend 1.25 million research points,
2. tech up to Magnetic Confinement Fusion, x3 max engine power, and other techs up to the 15000- or 30000-cost level, and
3. design a 20,000-ton capital ship that moves at almost fighter speed?
Aquila Roma class Cruiser 19,950 tons 157 Crew 8952.5 BP TCS 399 TH 9975 EM 3000
25000 km/s Armour 12-65 Shields 100-300 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 27 PPV 132
Maint Life 4.17 Years MSP 1963 AFR 454% IFR 6.3% 1YR 181 5YR 2708 Max Repair 270 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.1 months Spare Berths 15
Pyram Stellarum Minor (133) Power 75 Fuel Use 462.98% Signature 75 Exp 30% (included in the design shown)
OR
Pyram Stellarum (3) Power 3300 Fuel Use 261.89% Signature 3300 Exp 30% (plus adjustments to fuel and engineers)
Fuel Capacity 500,000 Litres Range 1.0 billion km (10 hours at full power) (NB: my empire's fuel efficiency tech is unecessarily high)
Hasta II (SS 4, 300s) (25) Total Fuel Cost 300 Litres per hour (7,200 per day)
Lux Ira (M, 5s, 45k) (4) Range 45,000km TS: 25000 km/s Power 3-4 RM 4.5 ROF 5 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fortis Bellator (4x1, 5s, 50k) (40x4) Range 50,000km TS: 25000 km/s Power 3-3 RM 5 ROF 5 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
ARGUS Minor (50%@24k, 12.5k km/s, EH50%) (4) Max Range: 48,000 km TS: 12500 km/s 79 58 38 17 0 0 0 0 0 0
ARGUS (50%@72k, 25 k km/s) (2) Max Range: 144,000 km TS: 25000 km/s 93 86 79 72 65 58 51 44 37 31
Tokamak II (14) Total Power Output 140 Armour 0 Exp 5%
Lynx (50ton@5m, missile@548k, EH2) (3) GPS 28 Range 5.0m km Resolution 1
Compact ECCM-1 (1) This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
(open image in new tab for original size. not sure why this forum is shrinking it)
I honestly thought this design had promise. You're looking at 12 layers of shielded armor that burn rubber at 25k and fires 160 shots every game tick! Good luck being cost-competitive with THIS, missile boys! This baby spends 37% of its total space on weapons and their power generators, 23% on armor, shields, and redundent sensors, 33.3% on engines, and 7.2% on everything else - fuel, engineers, crew spaces, primary sensors - everything! Not only is it a potent missile-killer, it's also not easy to kill with lasers, railguns, torpedos, or particle beams, and I have the support ships to give it sensor support, range, and cruising time on demand.
However, I now don't just think this design sucks, I KNOW it sucks because I've tested it. If you field ships that have to fight at beam weapon range, and your enemy isn't stupid, then you need to be able to cope with both Mesons and Microwaves. And this ship can't.
Let's take Mesons first. What happens when you bypass all those lovely armor plates and shields with Mesons? You get to see some pretty fireworks.
This ship has more than a 50% chance of insta-death if 11 points of damage penetrate to the components (as per the "Apply Damage" button that appears when in SM Mode, in the Individual Unit Details window, Damage Control tab).
Each engine has a 30% chance of explosion on death, and this ship has a LOT of engines. Explosions of 50-ton engines range anywhere from 2-12 extra damage, but the point to note is that the average is probably more than 4. So, as soon as one engine explodes, the explosion on average kills enough other engines in this design to cause a chain reaction. Ship dead. Larger engines cause much larger explosions (if one goes bang, the ship is *annihilated*) but their saving grace is that any given hit is less likely to cause an engine to be destroyed and run the risk of an explosion. So your ship will last a few game ticks longer.
Some conclusions:
1. If you want your ships to be survivable against Mesons, then they cannot use engines that are boosted very high.
2. Because Mesons are so important, and so easy to research and field, this really means that trying to make any ship that fights at beam weapon range go too fast is asking for trouble.
I personally think that last conclusion, if indeed true, is terribly disappointing. The combination of Fuel consumption, Gallicite expense, total build cost, space required for engines and fuel, and range ought to be enough balance for speed.
Now, let's consider Microwaves. This time, I actually did field trials of Eagles against each other. While the Railguns, as expected, merely sandblasted the armor, the far fewer microwaves very quickly wiped out the sensors - despite this design's multiply redundant, electronically hardened backups.
I have no clue how to protect a ship that has to get into beam weapon range from microwaves. Shields help, but because microwaves do 3x damge to shields, I'm not seeing them help enough. Microwaves are short-ranged, but this ship can, in a single game tick of five seconds, close from "far enough to make it difficult for any weapon and fire control to target" at this tech level to "close enough for any weapon", at the same tech level. The average design might take 10 or 15 seconds, but that's still not much. I do not know how to tell a ship to try to keep a specific distance from an enemy and automatically move as needed, and doubt that such a system would work anyway, given the low ratio of the speed of ships divided by the difference between far and near beam range.
So, we're renaming this bird the "Dies Horribly" ...
... and I come to you for help, because at least one of two things are true:
1. I need to eat humble pie and ask for advice from more experienced players, or
2. Steve needs to hear about this story and rethink engine explosions, the effect of microwaves, and/or speed versus weapon range.