Aurora 4x
VB6 Aurora => Bureau of Ship Design => Topic started by: smoelf on December 19, 2016, 12:11:42 PM
-
I have been experimenting with fighters and FAC's in my current game, but the limited space of fighters are proving to be a struggle. I have tried to design a few fighters with rail guns, but I am forced to make a decision in favor of either speed of hit chance on the fire control, and I don't know which is better. I was hoping you might offer an opinion on the two designs and if perhaps I would be better of using gauss cannons, as that would free up the space for the reactor. Also, if I remember correctly, I am defending against AMM's at about 24.000 km/s.
Here are the designs:
Number 1
Eland II class Fighter 482 tons 4 Crew 118 BP TCS 9.64 TH 128 EM 0
13278 km/s Armour 1-5 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 0 PPV 3
Maint Life 2.1 Years MSP 15 AFR 18% IFR 0.3% 1YR 5 5YR 68 Max Repair 64 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.1 months Spare Berths 0
128 EP Magneto-plasma Drive (1) Power 128 Fuel Use 325.84% Signature 128 Exp 20%
Fuel Capacity 10 000 Litres Range 1.1 billion km (23 hours at full power)
10cm Railgun V2/C3 (1x4) Range 20 000km TS: 13278 km/s Power 3-3 RM 2 ROF 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fire Control S01.1 36-4500 (FTR) (1) Max Range: 72 000 km TS: 18000 km/s 86 72 58 44 31 17 3 0 0 0
Stellarator Fusion Reactor Technology PB-1 (1) Total Power Output 3 Armour 0 Exp 5%
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and maintenance purposes
Number 2
Eland II - Copy class Fighter 487 tons 4 Crew 120 BP TCS 9.74 TH 160 EM 0
16427 km/s Armour 1-5 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 0 PPV 3
Maint Life 1.73 Years MSP 15 AFR 18% IFR 0.3% 1YR 6 5YR 91 Max Repair 80 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.1 months Spare Berths 0
160 EP Magneto-plasma Drive (1) Power 160 Fuel Use 322.44% Signature 160 Exp 20%
Fuel Capacity 10 000 Litres Range 1.1 billion km (19 hours at full power)
10cm Railgun V2/C3 (1x4) Range 20 000km TS: 16427 km/s Power 3-3 RM 2 ROF 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fire Control S00.2 16-4000 (FTR) (1) Max Range: 32 000 km TS: 16000 km/s 69 37 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Stellarator Fusion Reactor Technology PB-1 (1) Total Power Output 3 Armour 0 Exp 5%
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and maintenance purposes
-
well, the easiest way to rate defence potential is rating it in hit potential - essentially, by tracking speed of missiles destroyed per shot.
so for these fighters, the first one fires 4 shots at 13,278 km/s with a fire control accuracy of 86% this gives it 4*13,278*0.86 = 45,676 km/s of incoming missiles destroyed per salvo - against AMMs traveling at 24,000 km/s that's about two missiles destroyed per fighter. The second fighter fires 4 shots at 16,427 km/s with an accuracy of 69%, for 4*16,000*0.69 = 44,160 km/s of incoming missiles destroyed per salvo. The two designs are extremely similar in their performance with a slight advantage to the 'base' version. Since speed is an advantage itself - especially for beam warships - I would recommend the second design.
I would prioritize getting your railgun velocity up to 3, though. As it stands, a ship traveling at as little as 4500 km/s is immune to your fighters if it has the initiative advantage. (It can travel 22,500 km in a 5 second increment, enabling it to always stay outside your fighters 20,000 km maximum range.) Though, to be fair, the second designs less-capable fire control is incapable of effectively combatting anything at that range...
I would also recommend removing the maintenance section and replacing it with a minimum-sized active sensor. You probably won't be able to fit a sensor that can detect missiles, but an active sensor would enable your fighters to operate independently and remain combat-viable if their supporting vessels are destroyed or crippled.
-
Huh, I had no idea it was that easy to calculate the effectiveness of point defence. That's awesome, thanks :)