Trento Class Light Cruiser - 16 for 1 against the AI so far

[undercovergeek (OP)]

She was originally designed to patrol Alpha Centauri and keep down unrest but some unruly neighbours took out my destroyers and killed 20 million miners by destroying Ark habitats above Venus (undefended, i know, i know)

But having been dispatched to Sol to help out theyve taken down 16 7500 Zanzibar class baddies and some 750 tonne weird ones that dont seem to fire much - apart from some weirdness not firing missiles until very very late and only 3 of the 4 beams firing shes doing alright - the one was lost because she got to Venus first on her own amongst the 16

Enemy so far is only using energy weapons so i hoped to take advantage of the huge range difference

Trento class Light Cruiser      21,693 tons       485 Crew       3,959.2 BP       TCS 434    TH 2,880    EM 0
6638 km/s      Armour 5-69       Shields 0-0       HTK 98      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 2-0      PPV 99
Maint Life 0.06 Years     MSP 228    AFR 1882%    IFR 26.1%    1YR 3,936    5YR 59,037    Max Repair 607.2 MSP
Magazine 791 / 0   
Commander    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Morale Check Required   

Macrinus Aeromarine Magneto-plasma Drive  EP960.00 (3)    Power 2880    Fuel Use 82.67%    Signature 960    Explosion 15%
Fuel Capacity 5,000,000 Litres    Range 50.2 billion km (87 days at full power)

Pertinax Armaments Particle Beam-3 (4)    Range 100,000km     TS: 6,638 km/s     Power 7-1    ROF 35       
Grizmund & Ardias Beam Fire Control R128-TS2000 (1)     Max Range: 128,000 km   TS: 2,000 km/s    ECCM-0     46 42 38 34 30 27 23 19 15 11
Agna-Verus Marine Stellarator Fusion Reactor R202 (2)     Total Power Output 404.8    Exp 5%

Damiel Precision Arms Size 10 Missile Launcher (50.0% Reduction) (15)     Missile Size: 10    Rate of Fire 255
Saphrax Sensor Systems Missile Fire Control FC21-R120 (1)     Range 21.1m km    Resolution 120
Salvin Armaments Sidewinder Anti-ship Missile (79)    Speed: 33,769 km/s    End: 23.1m     Range: 46.9m km    WH: 10    Size: 9.95    TH: 112/67/33

Vitellus-Baelanos Warning & Control Active Search Sensor AS44-R120 (1)     GPS 3840     Range 44.5m km    Resolution 120

and the missile

Missile Size: 9.95 MSP  (24.875 Tons)     Warhead: 10    Radiation Damage: 10
Speed: 33,769 km/s     Fuel: 7,500     Flight Time: 23 minutes     Range: 46.89m km
ATG: 25%     Retarget Capable
Cost Per Missile: 11.65     Development Cost: 539
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 422.1%   3k km/s 140.7%   5k km/s 84.4%   10k km/s 42.2%

ive read about the 3:1 ratio for fuel but i dont understand what parameters i should be looking at for 3 and for 1 - this seems a bit fuel heavy to me

[Andrew]

You seem to have fairly advanced technology but then have Capacitor 1 particle beams. Giving you a tremendously slow rate of fire. If you want decent beam weapons get your capacitor tech up.

[undercovergeek (OP)]

Thank you - the beams were an afterthought because the ships were pretty much useless after the missiles ran out and if they were chased home they had no plan b

I know there will be other enemies but for now this one has no missile tech so I hadn’t concentrated on an energy alternative - I hadn’t drawn the link between capacitor and fire rate - that’s next round of research then

[Ulzgoroth]

The beam fire control with a tracking speed of 'dead snail' is also going to be a problem if you ever try to use those weapons against anything but a hulk, planet, or space station.

The missiles seem to have more range than they can use with more than double the MFC range. Might be worth trading fuel for engine and/or increasing boost?


Not necessarily combat-relevant, but I have a dread of flying around without a fine-resolution sensor. Your ship should have a lot of difficulty detecting those 750 ton targets, I think, or anything smaller like missiles, since they're 1/8th the size the sensor is made for. And you have no on-board passives to even partially cover the gap. This can, of course, be covered by a separate ship instead of adding hardware to the one you have. (And for system defense, shipboard passives might be redundant to a strong colony sensor setup.)

ive read about the 3:1 ratio for fuel but i dont understand what parameters i should be looking at for 3 and for 1 - this seems a bit fuel heavy to me

Size: 3 ton engine to 1 ton fuel.

It assumes you can and will use engine boost if needed to get your range to the range you want. Also, the originator tends to note that having more engine is defensible - doing so makes your ship not as high performance as it could be for its size, but reduces fuel usage. Having more fuel than the ratio calls for, OTOH, is wasteful compared to using reduced-power engines. (Unless you're a tanker planning to treat that fuel as payload, presumably.)

Also that ratio might not be correct for missiles in the upper boost range? I'm not sure, the fuel economy formula is different (when boost is above your boost tech) and I didn't see a treatment (or attempt my own).

[Droll]

What is with the reactor set up? You only need 4 power to fully power all your beam weapons (more if you upgrade the capacitors like already suggested) but you've got reactors that are putting out 404.8 (!) power.

I would downsize that, not just because it saves space but because it also makes any potential secondary reactor explosions less devastating as well.

Also, and I realise this was designed as a patrol ship, but even then your maintenance life is awful, this thing will constantly experience failures the moment it leaves port. Add some engineering, it'll also help with damage control for when you get hit. It's also worth noting that your deployment time is very close to your ships fuel endurance. Usually I like to have the deployment noticeably higher so that the ship can actually afford to hold position at it's destination if need be, though you might also choose to reduce the range to save space, though with some breathing room if this is going to be patrolling around.

The missiles firing very late doesn't surprise me, they've got 40+ million km of range but their FC can only lock targets at 21 million km. For those 750 ton baddies it's even worse since the FC has a resolution of 120 HS - 120 HS x 50 tons = 6000 tons. Things that are smaller than the resolution of your sensor will be detected at exponentially closer ranges than the stated distance. That is why your missiles were only firing at very close range. I like to add a res 1 active sensor to every warship for this reason, as that allows them to deal with fighter/FAC sized craft like those 750 ton "weird ones". I realise this has already been pointed out but I hope the extra context helps.

[undercovergeek (OP)]

The beam fire control with a tracking speed of 'dead snail' is also going to be a problem if you ever try to use those weapons against anything but a hulk, planet, or space station.

The missiles seem to have more range than they can use with more than double the MFC range. Might be worth trading fuel for engine and/or increasing boost?


Not necessarily combat-relevant, but I have a dread of flying around without a fine-resolution sensor. Your ship should have a lot of difficulty detecting those 750 ton targets, I think, or anything smaller like missiles, since they're 1/8th the size the sensor is made for. And you have no on-board passives to even partially cover the gap. This can, of course, be covered by a separate ship instead of adding hardware to the one you have. (And for system defense, shipboard passives might be redundant to a strong colony sensor setup.

All down to inexperience with energy weapons and sensors - thank you for the advice

[undercovergeek (OP)]

What is with the reactor set up? You only need 4 power to fully power all your beam weapons (more if you upgrade the capacitors like already suggested) but you've got reactors that are putting out 404.8 (!) power.

I would downsize that, not just because it saves space but because it also makes any potential secondary reactor explosions less devastating as well.

Also, and I realise this was designed as a patrol ship, but even then your maintenance life is awful, this thing will constantly experience failures the moment it leaves port. Add some engineering, it'll also help with damage control for when you get hit. It's also worth noting that your deployment time is very close to your ships fuel endurance. Usually I like to have the deployment noticeably higher so that the ship can actually afford to hold position at it's destination if need be, though you might also choose to reduce the range to save space, though with some breathing room if this is going to be patrolling around.

The missiles firing very late doesn't surprise me, they've got 40+ million km of range but their FC  :)can only lock targets at 21 million km. For those 750 ton baddies it's even worse since the FC has a resolution of 120 HS - 120 HS x 50 tons = 6000 tons. Things that are smaller than the resolution of your sensor will be detected at exponentially closer ranges than the stated distance. That is why your missiles were only firing at very close range. I like to add a res 1 active sensor to every warship for this reason, as that allows them to deal with fighter/FAC sized craft like those 750 ton "weird ones". I realise this has already been pointed out but I hope the extra context helps.

Thank you - I have little to no experience with energy weapons and am unaware of the connection between capacitors reactors and tracking speed - thanks to your advice and ulzgoroth I can tweak them a bit - which I suppose was the point of the post

[Pedroig]

Just a nudge of a suggestion: 

Redunancy is your friend. 

With engines on a military ship I'd call them a must for anything bigger than a LAC, maybe a DD if one has high risk tolerance (and yes, you have three on this ship, which is good).  For sensors, they do not take up much space, and having multiple sensors and FC's (missile and beam) ensure that a "lucky crit" doesn't mission kill the platform.  (About the only exception I use is a single BFC for Spinal Mount Weapons).  Fuel tanks, engineering, reactors, shields, and weapons (except spinal mount) should at least be done in pairs.  Having a single 500 ton fuel tank versus two 250 ton fuel tanks has such a minor hit on performance/repairs/deployment/crew that the "ease of mind" that a single hit won't mission kill the ship is well worth it, same with most of the above.

Fleet Doctrine 0:  Better to have it and not need it, rather than need it and not have it (as budget allows).

[Ulzgoroth]

I don't agree with some of those points about compartmentalization - reactors and shields have significant scaling factors (though in this case the reactor needed is so small doubling it is no concern) and for weapons you'll mount how many you can make fit in your design, which may be one and if it is it is. (If it's one quad turret, consider at least giving it turret armor though.) Depending on your reactor design, it also may be a deadly explosion risk that you're better off minimizing the chances of setting off, though just not using reactor boost in capital ships goes a long way to mitigate that.

Main fire controls and sensors can be very expensive and of significant size. Redundancy there is attractive but not necessarily affordable.

(I do give most warships an extra fighter-sized active sensor - 10 tons for mine - because I have those designs for my fighters and at actual fighting ranges they're more than sufficient. This also lets me cover the fine-resolution gap. Thanks to the way range scales, a resolution 1 10 ton sensor can easily still achieve a range of millions of kilometers. Not good for actually spotting the enemy or launching long-range missiles strikes but more than enough to ensure you've got an active lock at beam weapon ranges plus a hope to see missiles before they hit you.)

Fuel tanks and engineering, yes. It's definitely preferable to be able to take a hit or two there without losing all function and it costs very little.

Engines...yeah, you probably don't want a large ship with only one, even though you do get a useful efficiency benefit from making them bigger, because dropping to zero mobility is very deadly. (Also, gigantic unitary engines make it really hard to do damage control.)