Author Topic: FAC Carrier Design Critique  (Read 2620 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline liveware (OP)

  • Bug Moderators
  • Commodore
  • ***
  • Posts: 742
  • Thanked: 88 times
Re: FAC Carrier Design Critique
« Reply #15 on: May 22, 2020, 04:19:33 PM »
I think I confused myself because I always try to design my reactors to provide the maximum amount of power my weapons can accept, without going over.
Open the pod-bay doors HAL...
 

Offline liveware (OP)

  • Bug Moderators
  • Commodore
  • ***
  • Posts: 742
  • Thanked: 88 times
Re: FAC Carrier Design Critique
« Reply #16 on: May 22, 2020, 04:22:02 PM »
After thinking more deeply about the utility of FACs, it occurred to me that I can dock larger ships than FACs in my carriers. I would still receive the benefit of not having to equip jump drives to all of my ships and might benefit from larger, longer range weapons and possibly faster ships with larger engines.

I might mess around with some larger ship designs and see if I can come up with anything useful.
Open the pod-bay doors HAL...
 

Offline Ulzgoroth

  • Captain
  • **********
  • U
  • Posts: 422
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: FAC Carrier Design Critique
« Reply #17 on: May 22, 2020, 04:30:45 PM »
After thinking more deeply about the utility of FACs, it occurred to me that I can dock larger ships than FACs in my carriers. I would still receive the benefit of not having to equip jump drives to all of my ships and might benefit from larger, longer range weapons and possibly faster ships with larger engines.

I might mess around with some larger ship designs and see if I can come up with anything useful.
...You're already not equipping your carrier with jump drives, so clearly you know that you don't have to equip jump drives to all of your ships...

Larger hangar-delivered 'battle-riders' could still benefit from using boosted engines and smaller fuel fractions because they don't need to cross long distances under their own power, or from skimping on crew quarters and engineering space because they spend most of their time being carried around. (I think the latter works for bigger ships the same as for fighters?)


The only benefit of hangars that relates to jump drives as far as I'm aware is that I believe a military-engine ship in a hangar on a commercial engine ship can be jumped using a commercial jump drive, and vice-versa. Maybe it also helps cram more bang into a squadron jump? IDK whether jumping in and immediately launching parasite craft works.
 

Offline liveware (OP)

  • Bug Moderators
  • Commodore
  • ***
  • Posts: 742
  • Thanked: 88 times
Re: FAC Carrier Design Critique
« Reply #18 on: May 22, 2020, 04:45:09 PM »
...You're already not equipping your carrier with jump drives, so clearly you know that you don't have to equip jump drives to all of your ships...

Yes, I understand that hangers are not necessarily required to jump ships, but one of my design goals is to reduce my jump-drive equipped ships to as few ships as possible. My original design concept for the original Columbus III was a single 50k ton jump carrier which used the largest military jump drive I possess. However, I was unable mount enough hangers on that design to make it useful. So instead I created the Lexington to work as a dedicated carrier escort for the Columbus III, with the idea that I would escort each Columbus with as many Lexingtons as the Columbus' jump drive could support. At my current tech, this results in jump squadrons of 3 Lexingtons for every 1 Columbus.

The only major reason the Columbus designs have hangers at all is to ferry the maintenance and fuel tanker ships. I don't like putting these ships on my combat carriers as they don't have a direct combat role.

Another major advantage that carriers seem to offer is that any ships docked in their hanger bays do not count up their maintenance clocks. They might even reduce them, I can't remember off the top of my head. I think docking also resets crew deployment clocks. So this makes logistics dramatically easier as carriers tend to serve as consolidated maintenance and fuel depots. For a larger fleet, keeping docked ship's maintenance clocks zeroed out will be very useful.

At some point I also want to explore using a commercial jump carrier as you described, however my understanding of the commercial hanger deck is that doesn't work quite the same as the military version. Something about the commercial hanger not reducing the maintenance clock or crew deployment time or something. Still seems useful but not perhaps quite as useful as the military version.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2020, 04:54:18 PM by liveware »
Open the pod-bay doors HAL...
 

Offline Ulzgoroth

  • Captain
  • **********
  • U
  • Posts: 422
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: FAC Carrier Design Critique
« Reply #19 on: May 22, 2020, 05:54:47 PM »
Yes, I understand that hangers are not necessarily required to jump ships, but one of my design goals is to reduce my jump-drive equipped ships to as few ships as possible. My original design concept for the original Columbus III was a single 50k ton jump carrier which used the largest military jump drive I possess. However, I was unable mount enough hangers on that design to make it useful. So instead I created the Lexington to work as a dedicated carrier escort for the Columbus III, with the idea that I would escort each Columbus with as many Lexingtons as the Columbus' jump drive could support. At my current tech, this results in jump squadrons of 3 Lexingtons for every 1 Columbus.
You don't have to have one jump ship for each #SquadronSize ships, though, except for when you're actually trying to make a squadron (combat) transit. If you use standard transits, I believe you can have one jump tender ferry an arbitrarily large number of non-jump ships through the point.

And for an assault jump, I would think you don't really want to be flying carriers rather than the toughest meanest brawler battleships you can muster.
At some point I also want to explore using a commercial jump carrier as you described, however my understanding of the commercial hanger deck is that doesn't work quite the same as the military version. Something about the commercial hanger not reducing the maintenance clock or crew deployment time or something. Still seems useful but not perhaps quite as useful as the military version.
Yeah, they seem to be more of a special-purpose component than the military hangar.
 

Offline liveware (OP)

  • Bug Moderators
  • Commodore
  • ***
  • Posts: 742
  • Thanked: 88 times
Re: FAC Carrier Design Critique
« Reply #20 on: May 22, 2020, 06:22:27 PM »
You don't have to have one jump ship for each #SquadronSize ships, though, except for when you're actually trying to make a squadron (combat) transit. If you use standard transits, I believe you can have one jump tender ferry an arbitrarily large number of non-jump ships through the point.

THAT I need to test. I was not aware of this particular quirk.
Open the pod-bay doors HAL...
 

Offline liveware (OP)

  • Bug Moderators
  • Commodore
  • ***
  • Posts: 742
  • Thanked: 88 times
Re: FAC Carrier Design Critique
« Reply #21 on: May 22, 2020, 06:24:22 PM »
And for an assault jump, I would think you don't really want to be flying carriers rather than the toughest meanest brawler battleships you can muster.

I would not use my carrier ships for a jump directly into combat range of a hostile fleet. I have scout ships and destroyer escorts for clearing the far side of jump points and establishing an initial sensor net. Once a jump point is clear, I would jump in my carriers to assist with planetary blockades and assaults.

I actually learned this exact lesson the hard way during my present campaign. I had been using jump carrier scouts (the Columbus II, from which the Columbus III was developed) to survey new systems and one got ambushed shortly after jumping through to a new system and was destroyed to the man. So now I use dedicated jump scouts with destroyer escorts to explore new systems.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2020, 06:31:46 PM by liveware »
Open the pod-bay doors HAL...