Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: liveware
« on: May 14, 2020, 12:56:39 AM »

Regarding your question about how to protect your missile bombers until they are in firing range, I offer the following suggestions:

1. Expendable missile spam. Launch a few hundred size 1 missiles along with your bombers and hide behind the missiles while approaching your target.

2. Beam fighters. Distract your target with a hundred or so close-range beam figheters and then unleash your missile bombers.

Expect combat losses. Such is the nature of combat.

Edit: Also, be wary of enemy fighters. Beam fighters don't need ammo and can cause serious attrition to both your bombers and your missile destroyers. I learned this lesson the hard way.
Posted by: Person012345
« on: May 11, 2020, 08:25:42 PM »

If the intended striking distance is 400m km you could probably afford to sacrifice some of the fuel on the strike craft because right now they have almost double what they'd need for a return journey at 400m km. Depends on what degree of flexibility from that role you're looking for though.
Posted by: Father Tim
« on: May 11, 2020, 03:17:01 PM »

You mean like not enough MSP to repair itself?  Nope.  Like forgetting to include active sensors?  Nope.  Like forgetting missile fire controls on a missile ship? Nope.  Like wildly mismatched weapon & fire control range?  Nope.

I would really appreciate if you could elaborate. Which ship should have more MSP points? Also what do you mean about missing active sensors (frigate leader has the large sensor right now and the carrier has smaller one as a backup)? And what ship is missing a missle control?

I was not being sarcastic.  I mean none of those things apply.

There are only about four or five actual glaring errors you can make with a ship.  Everything after that is stylistic choice.  How effective a ship / squadron will be is largely dictated by the enemy they fight.  There are basically only two speeds in Aurora: faster than your enemy, and not faster than your enemy.  Likewise, only two sensor profiles: detect the enemy first, or be detected first.  Et cetera.

Whether your missiles are long-ranged enough, or their warheads are large enough, or your strike groups are big enough (and the individual ships small enough, or fast enough, or whatever) all depends on the capabilities you face.

Most of the 'advice' you will get boils down to "make your ships more like my ships."

Advice that your anti-ship missiles should be size 4 or 6 or 8 isn't right or wrong; it's stylistic.  Likewise to use eight non-power-boosted engines, or four even-more-boosted engines.  To double your fuel storage or to add a dedicted fast tanker to the squadron.

What makes a design good is that you like it; what makes it bad is that it doesn't do what you want it to do.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: May 11, 2020, 02:55:54 PM »


One of the major benefit of carrier warfare is to have the carrier fleet stay hidden. As you have the main sensors on the frigates it will be very difficult to hide the fleet. I would replace the frigate leader large active sensor with sensor scouts to do the active scanning for the fleet... it will be cheap in many way... both economically and from a research perspective.

Does that add a lot of micromanagement to carrier ops? How do you constantly keep your scouts scouting around the fleet. At least with that big sensor I am sure that I will spot and can target the enemy within my striking distance. But yes, I am visible millions of kms away. Also that thermal signature on the carrier engines alone is why I thought it probably is not worth even trying to be stealthy with this fleet.

Some rudimentary sensor on the fighters is alright but they will take up too much space as it is now, especially on the bombers. I suppose you know that the launching platform don't need to provide the active sensor lock, just need a missile fire-control lock and can allow another ship to cover the target with active sensors.

Those are the smallest 0.1 HS sensors - 5 tons each. I know I probably dont need them - I added them just for role-play purposes. I cant imagine someone designing a 500 ton ship and not adding the very basic sensors to the design :)

Regarding the sensors I was not referring to the small passive ones but perhaps what I presume is a rather big active resolution 20 one. But if that is very small then no worries... ;)

Regarding scouts then to some degree yes it is more micromanagement... but that is how you can have the huge carrier cruise along at very low speeds and thus reduce its thermal output... you also can design the engines with thermal reduction so it can speed along quicker at lower thermal output.

I would usually have my carrier task-group cruise along at some ridiculously low speed... like 500-1000km/s and have my scouts doing all the work. Once I'm satisfied with the scouting and found whatever target I like I station the carrier force at strategic position and launch the strike package... the strike package then cruise to a place where they usually meet up with a small tanker to refuel (a small fast tanker launched from a fleet support vessel). The strike package then attack the target from a completely different vector so I don't reveal where possibly the carriers can be.
A perfect mission means the carrier is never seen by the enemy at all.

This was easier in VB6 as we had some escort mechanic... Steve are probably going to add this into the game later on... there are escort options for the map but they don't do anything for now. So it is a bit fiddly sight now but certainly doable mostly using way points for now.

But for me that is what the game is about... micromanagement to your heart content... at least it is very satisfying for me to to do this.

One other thing is that small sensors are now REALLY effective... a large resolution 200 sensors means you will probably be picked up in the entire system more or less when you turn it on.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: May 11, 2020, 02:42:12 PM »

@Jorgen_CAB

I believe the theory would be that the Strike Groups are launched first, and then the Polaris missiles are launched so their second stage activates in a manner that the Strike Group and the Missile Salvo enters AMM range in the same "tic", thus providing a "target rich environment" for the enemy MFC to have to select the "most dangerous" threat.  I do this, but with AMM's in a two stage design to create saturation issues with ASM salvos.  Which gets a 7:1 AMM/ASM ratio into enemy AMM/PD envelope, and with AMM's being faster after separation...

I'm not a huge fan of Aurora's definition of "salvo" since it counts each launcher/platform as a different salvo, when in reality, everything arriving within the same 5 second interval should be considered a salvo for saturation theory.

I agree with the salvo mechanic... I have complained and bitched about that several times. It "can" produce gamey behaviours in designing ship PD and AMM etc.. Fire-controls and electronics should be more integrated... so Fire-controls is about target acquisition or controlling actual missiles in flight. Even box launchers probably should have trouble all launching in one single 5 second interval if you have enough of them on one and the same platform. This would be through both mechanical and fire-control reasons. One thing that is very dangerous in real life missile combat is when missiles come in at many different vectors at the same time, this make tracking and weapons locks much more difficult. I think it would be cool if the game would simulate such things too.

In any way... it still think that the salvos you get from the frigates would do allot better if they came from a few additional bombers instead, would give a few more options in a target rich environment. It might work as you describe but to be honest I think it is an over complicated theoretical exercise as opposed to having the escort provide escort and the carrier be the strike force. Just stick some normal missile launchers on the frigates as self defence and cal it a day I say, but that is just me.

It is one thing if you have some older strike cruisers and you still want to use them for something rather than scrapping them.

I often have both weapons types too, but then that doctrine usually have the strike cruisers operate on their own... often because they are a legacy platform but they still can pack a serious punch so I still have them in the fleet and make them part of the doctrine. I usually turn them into advanced scouts and used as scouting in force patrols before I send in the cavalry anywhere. I probably would not integrate the two into one and the same doctrine developed at the same time.
Posted by: simast
« on: May 11, 2020, 02:34:13 PM »

Thank you guys for feedback. Some replies below.

You don't have much striking capacity with the bombers because you only have two volleys. This is ok if you plan on keeping a collier with your fleet though.

Yes, definitely need to add more magazine space. My thinking was to support two volleys right now and expand the capability with a refit when new tech is available (new armor and engine tech should free up more space on the carrier with time). How long do the carriers stay engaged in your games usually? The box launchers I think need 2 hours to reload, and you have the trip to/from the target, just curious how much opportunities do you get to strike from a carrier in the same battle?

I'm not sure what your fuel tech is, but 56% fuel usage is really high. Which is fine if you have lots of fuel sitting around. I'm at the same tech engine as you and have 16% usage. My 16kt destroyers have 22b range with 6250km/s speed.

I guess its a trade-off between making a larger engine and sacrificing other capacity on the ship. I have no real experience yet with fuel usage. I seem to have some sorium reserves yet, so have not yet thought too much about it. I did assign the carrier fleet to Training Admin command and was slightly worried about fuel usage tbh :)

Do you plan on having multiple of the frigate leaders to act has PD or do you have another PD option? Depending on the enemy you face I would argue you are a bit low on PD. I find it most helpful to have dedicated PD ships with either lots of AMM launchers or lots of gauss/railguns.

None of the ships right now are dedicated PD platforms - all of them carry at least one PD gauss turret. In total the fleet has 8 twin normal size gauss turrets and is also supported with AAM missiles. The idea was just to cover each other rather than use CIWS. But those turrets are heavy, I think ~900 tons each with beam fire control.

You mean like not enough MSP to repair itself?  Nope.  Like forgetting to include active sensors?  Nope.  Like forgetting missile fire controls on a missile ship? Nope.  Like wildly mismatched weapon & fire control range?  Nope.

I would really appreciate if you could elaborate. Which ship should have more MSP points? Also what do you mean about missing active sensors (frigate leader has the large sensor right now and the carrier has smaller one as a backup)? And what ship is missing a missle control?

My largest concern is that the Centurion needs a quarter of its tanks to fully refuel its strike group, and its range is only 43 days to start with.  Unless the CVBG's ops are in the home system, it's going to need a LOT of tanker support.

Yes, I agree the range could be better. The idea is to get better range with new tech. Curious, what range do you design your carrier military fleets for with similar tech level?

I think you might have a small identity crisis in what is suppose to be the striking arm of this battle group as you have both the Polaris and the fighter strike groups... I would choose one approach.

First though was to use missile frigates to mostly test enemy fleet defenses or deal with small targets I don't want to launch fighters at. But yes, I am not sure they are really useful in this fleet. They can only launch 15 missiles combined and have some fleet defense capabilities (AMM missiles and PD gauss turret),

The strike missiles from the fighters are way too short in my opinion... you are easily within AMM range at that point... a decent striking distance for fighters at this technology level is about 30-60mkm at least.

I see, as a player I would probably never design AAMs with that range, but I guess NPRs do go for such missile designs?

But I could see the usefulness for more than one type of strike missile, one with longer range and one with a shorter range. As the size of the missile is 6 you could even a size 6 that split into two 3 for shorter ranged fights. But your size 6 could also be fitted with ECM rather than an active sensor in my opinion. ECM actually make it harder for enemy AMM to hit them.

I would say I have no space at the moment to have two types of missiles for carrier bombers. Maybe when the tech is there and I can fit more magazines. I have just started researching Electronic Warfare tech tree, so need to get that tech up.

One of the major benefit of carrier warfare is to have the carrier fleet stay hidden. As you have the main sensors on the frigates it will be very difficult to hide the fleet. I would replace the frigate leader large active sensor with sensor scouts to do the active scanning for the fleet... it will be cheap in many way... both economically and from a research perspective.

Does that add a lot of micromanagement to carrier ops? How do you constantly keep your scouts scouting around the fleet. At least with that big sensor I am sure that I will spot and can target the enemy within my striking distance. But yes, I am visible millions of kms away. Also that thermal signature on the carrier engines alone is why I thought it probably is not worth even trying to be stealthy with this fleet.

Some rudimentary sensor on the fighters is alright but they will take up too much space as it is now, especially on the bombers. I suppose you know that the launching platform don't need to provide the active sensor lock, just need a missile fire-control lock and can allow another ship to cover the target with active sensors.

Those are the smallest 0.1 HS sensors - 5 tons each. I know I probably dont need them - I added them just for role-play purposes. I cant imagine someone designing a 500 ton ship and not adding the very basic sensors to the design :)
Posted by: Pedroig
« on: May 11, 2020, 01:47:40 PM »

@Jorgen_CAB

I believe the theory would be that the Strike Groups are launched first, and then the Polaris missiles are launched so their second stage activates in a manner that the Strike Group and the Missile Salvo enters AMM range in the same "tic", thus providing a "target rich environment" for the enemy MFC to have to select the "most dangerous" threat.  I do this, but with AMM's in a two stage design to create saturation issues with ASM salvos.  Which gets a 7:1 AMM/ASM ratio into enemy AMM/PD envelope, and with AMM's being faster after separation...

I'm not a huge fan of Aurora's definition of "salvo" since it counts each launcher/platform as a different salvo, when in reality, everything arriving within the same 5 second interval should be considered a salvo for saturation theory.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: May 11, 2020, 01:24:55 PM »

In general I think these designs are pretty good... here are some of my general thoughts.

I think you might have a small identity crisis in what is suppose to be the striking arm of this battle group as you have both the Polaris and the fighter strike groups... I would choose one approach. In this case you already have all the technology for effective carrier warfare so I would stay with that. When I arrive at the stage of effective carrier warfare I tend to only equip my escort with short to medium range missiles for last ditch defence or as a means to fight in skirmishes during scouting missions.

The strike missiles from the fighters are way too short in my opinion... you are easily within AMM range at that point... a decent striking distance for fighters at this technology level is about 30-60mkm at least. But I could see the usefulness for more than one type of strike missile, one with longer range and one with a shorter range. As the size of the missile is 6 you could even a size 6 that split into two 3 for shorter ranged fights. But your size 6 could also be fitted with ECM rather than an active sensor in my opinion. ECM actually make it harder for enemy AMM to hit them.

One of the major benefit of carrier warfare is to have the carrier fleet stay hidden. As you have the main sensors on the frigates it will be very difficult to hide the fleet. I would replace the frigate leader large active sensor with sensor scouts to do the active scanning for the fleet... it will be cheap in many way... both economically and from a research perspective.

Carrier operation is all about scouting and striking from a long distance. Scouting is important so you know if a strike is meaningful or not.

So my comments probably is more about doctrine than the particular design and I think that the doctrine seem to branch too much in different direction. You should either concentrate on a core of missile cruisers and escort or a carrier strike force with independent small scouts stationed at the hangar. The escort for the carrier should only be for self defence.

You probably could do alright as is... the designs are not bad even if you probably could nitpick on some details here and there. The only thing I would say about the design is on the fighters... give them smaller sensors and a few more dedicated scout platform to assist with active and passive sensor coverage. Some rudimentary sensor on the fighters is alright but they will take up too much space as it is now, especially on the bombers. I suppose you know that the launching platform don't need to provide the active sensor lock, just need a missile fire-control lock and can allow another ship to cover the target with active sensors.
Posted by: Father Tim
« on: May 11, 2020, 01:17:11 PM »

Are there any obvious flaws?

You mean like not enough MSP to repair itself?  Nope.  Like forgetting to include active sensors?  Nope.  Like forgetting missile fire controls on a missile ship? Nope.  Like wildly mismatched weapon & fire control range?  Nope.

My largest concern is that the Centurion needs a quarter of its tanks to fully refuel its strike group, and its range is only 43 days to start with.  Unless the CVBG's ops are in the home system, it's going to need a LOT of tanker support.
Posted by: Nori
« on: May 11, 2020, 01:12:27 PM »

Overall, pretty good. A few notes. You don't have much striking capacity with the bombers because you only have two volleys. This is ok if you plan on keeping a collier with your fleet though. Just keep in mind, most of the missiles you shoot will be shot down so volume is very important.

I'm not sure what your fuel tech is, but 56% fuel usage is really high. Which is fine if you have lots of fuel sitting around. I'm at the same tech engine as you and have 16% usage. My 16kt destroyers have 22b range with 6250km/s speed.

Do you plan on having multiple of the frigate leaders to act has PD or do you have another PD option? Depending on the enemy you face I would argue you are a bit low on PD. I find it most helpful to have dedicated PD ships with either lots of AMM launchers or lots of gauss/railguns.
Posted by: simast
« on: May 11, 2020, 11:32:04 AM »

Finally got this small carrier force designed and ready for ops:

Quote
1x Centurion [2096] class Carrier
1x Orion [2098] class Frigate Leader
3x Rama [2098] class Missile Frigate

Parasites:
24x Raptor [2096] class Bomber
12x Vulcan [2098] class Fighter
2x Dart [2100] class Assault Shuttle
1x Condor [2098] class Rescue Shuttle

Centurion [2096] class Carrier
Code: [Select]
Centurion [2096] class Carrier      49 833 tons       980 Crew       9 197.7 BP       TCS 997    TH 6 020    EM 0
6040 km/s      Armour 10-120       Shields 0-0       HTK 225      Sensors 110/110/0/0      DCR 42      PPV 61.52
Maint Life 2.47 Years     MSP 8 537    AFR 903%    IFR 12.5%    1YR 1 934    5YR 29 016    Max Repair 644 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 16 000 tons     Troop Capacity 500 tons     Magazine 544   
Rear Admiral (Lower Half)    Control Rating 6   BRG   AUX   ENG   CIC   FLG   PFC   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Flight Crew Berths 320    Morale Check Required   

P1204-F56 Internal Fusion Drive [2096] (5)    Power 6020    Fuel Use 55.92%    Signature 1204    Explosion 14%
Fuel Capacity 3 500 000 Litres    Range 22.6 billion km (43 days at full power)

Twin H100 Gauss Cannon Turret [2092] (4x8)    Range 40 000km     TS: 25000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 40 000 km    ROF 5       
TS25-R64 Beam Fire Control [2092] (4)     Max Range: 64 000 km   TS: 25 000 km/s   

Tornado Anti-Ship Missile [2097] (90)    Speed: 31 900 km/s    End: 10.5m     Range: 20m km    WH: 9    Size: 6    TH: 233/140/70

R100-S560 Active Search Sensor [2087] (1)     GPS 56000     Range 205.5m km    Resolution 100
R1-S56 Active Search Sensor [2089] (2)     GPS 56     Range 14m km    MCR 1.3m km    Resolution 1
S110 EM Sensor [2089] (1)     Sensitivity 110     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  82.9m km
S110 Thermal Sensor [2090] (1)     Sensitivity 110     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  82.9m km

Strike Group
12x Vulcan [2096] Fighter   Speed: 16021 km/s    Size: 4.99
24x Raptor [2096] Bomber   Speed: 16008 km/s    Size: 9.99
2x Dart [2100] Assault Shuttle   Speed: 16025 km/s    Size: 9.98

Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Orion [2098] class Frigate Leader
Code: [Select]
Orion [2098] class Frigate Leader      9 995 tons       266 Crew       3 180 BP       TCS 200    TH 1 200    EM 0
6003 km/s      Armour 7-41       Shields 0-0       HTK 46      Sensors 1/1/0/0      DCR 14      PPV 15.38
Maint Life 2.10 Years     MSP 3 595    AFR 200%    IFR 2.8%    1YR 1 088    5YR 16 323    Max Repair 1610 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 250 tons     Cryogenic Berths 1 000   
Captain    Control Rating 4   BRG   AUX   ENG   CIC   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Flight Crew Berths 20    Morale Check Required   

P600-F56 Internal Fusion Drive [2098] (2)    Power 1200    Fuel Use 56.38%    Signature 600    Explosion 12%
Fuel Capacity 700 000 Litres    Range 22.4 billion km (43 days at full power)

Twin H100 Gauss Cannon Turret [2092] (1x8)    Range 40 000km     TS: 25000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 40 000 km    ROF 5       
TS25-R64 Beam Fire Control [2092] (1)     Max Range: 64 000 km   TS: 25 000 km/s   

R1-S3 Active Search Sensor [2087] (1)     GPS 3     Range 3.1m km    MCR 281.8k km    Resolution 1
R200-S1400 Active Search Sensor [2087] (1)     GPS 280000     Range 409.4m km    Resolution 200
S1 Thermal Sensor [2090] (1)     Sensitivity 1.1     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  8.3m km
S1 EM Sensor [2087] (1)     Sensitivity 1.1     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  8.3m km

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Rama [2098] class Missile Frigate
Code: [Select]
Rama [2098] class Missile Frigate      9 937 tons       245 Crew       2 410.7 BP       TCS 199    TH 1 200    EM 0
6038 km/s      Armour 5-41       Shields 0-0       HTK 64      Sensors 1/1/0/0      DCR 15      PPV 40.38
Maint Life 3.44 Years     MSP 2 118    AFR 158%    IFR 2.2%    1YR 274    5YR 4 104    Max Repair 644 MSP
Magazine 455   
Captain    Control Rating 4   BRG   AUX   ENG   CIC   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Morale Check Required   

P600-F56 Internal Fusion Drive [2098] (2)    Power 1200    Fuel Use 56.38%    Signature 600    Explosion 12%
Fuel Capacity 700 000 Litres    Range 22.5 billion km (43 days at full power)

Twin H100 Gauss Cannon Turret [2092] (1x8)    Range 40 000km     TS: 25000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 40 000 km    ROF 5       
TS25-R64 Beam Fire Control [2092] (1)     Max Range: 64 000 km   TS: 25 000 km/s   

Size 1 Missile Launcher [2080] (5)     Missile Size: 1    Rate of Fire 10
Size 10 Missile Launcher [2085] (5)     Missile Size: 10    Rate of Fire 635
R100-S560 Missile Fire Control [2089] (1)     Range 411.1m km    Resolution 100
R1-S11 Missile Fire Control [2097] (1)     Range 12.5m km    Resolution 1
Polaris Anti-Ship Missile [2097] (35)    Speed: 15 000 km/s    End: 506.2m     Range: 466.2m km    WH: 0    Size: 10    TH: 50/30/15
Wasp Anti-Missle Missle [2097] (105)    Speed: 51 000 km/s    End: 0.3m     Range: 1.1m km    WH: 1    Size: 1    TH: 476/285/142

R1-S56 Active Search Sensor [2089] (1)     GPS 56     Range 14m km    MCR 1.3m km    Resolution 1
S1 Thermal Sensor [2090] (1)     Sensitivity 1.1     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  8.3m km
S1 EM Sensor [2087] (1)     Sensitivity 1.1     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  8.3m km

Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Raptor [2096] class Bomber
Code: [Select]
Raptor [2096] class Bomber      500 tons       10 Crew       205.8 BP       TCS 10    TH 38    EM 0
16008 km/s      Armour 2-5       Shields 0-0       HTK 2      Sensors 1/1/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 3.6
Maint Life 6.82 Years     MSP 105    AFR 20%    IFR 0.3%    1YR 4    5YR 59    Max Repair 80 MSP
Magazine 24   
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 2 days    Morale Check Required   

P80-F633-T Internal Fusion Drive [2096] (2)    Power 160    Fuel Use 632.46%    Signature 19.20    Explosion 20%
Fuel Capacity 26 000 Litres    Range 1.5 billion km (25 hours at full power)

Size 6 Box Launcher [2082] (4)     Missile Size: 6    Hangar Reload 122 minutes    MF Reload 20 hours
R20-S3 Missile Fire Control [2096] (1)     Range 17m km    Resolution 20
Tornado Anti-Ship Missile [2097] (4)    Speed: 31 900 km/s    End: 10.5m     Range: 20m km    WH: 9    Size: 6    TH: 233/140/70

R20-S8 Active Search Sensor [2093] (1)     GPS 168     Range 14.7m km    Resolution 20
S1 EM Sensor [2087] (1)     Sensitivity 1.1     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  8.3m km
S1 Thermal Sensor [2090] (1)     Sensitivity 1.1     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  8.3m km

Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction

Vulcan [2098] class Fighter
Code: [Select]
Vulcan [2098] class Fighter      250 tons       9 Crew       118.9 BP       TCS 5    TH 19    EM 0
16018 km/s      Armour 1-3       Shields 0-0       HTK 2      Sensors 1/1/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 1.5
Maint Life 16.07 Years     MSP 109    AFR 5%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 1    5YR 12    Max Repair 80 MSP
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 2 days    Morale Check Required   

P80-F633-T Internal Fusion Drive [2096] (1)    Power 80    Fuel Use 632.46%    Signature 19.20    Explosion 20%
Fuel Capacity 13 000 Litres    Range 1.5 billion km (25 hours at full power)

H25 Gauss Cannon [2090] (1x4)    Range 16 000km     TS: 16 018 km/s     Accuracy Modifier 25.00%     RM 40 000 km    ROF 5       
TS15-R16 Beam Fire Control [2092] (1)     Max Range: 16 000 km   TS: 15 000 km/s   

R1-S3 Active Search Sensor [2087] (1)     GPS 3     Range 3.1m km    MCR 281.8k km    Resolution 1
S1 Thermal Sensor [2090] (1)     Sensitivity 1.1     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  8.3m km
S1 EM Sensor [2087] (1)     Sensitivity 1.1     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  8.3m km

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction

Dart [2100] class Assault Shuttle
Code: [Select]
Dart [2100] class Assault Shuttle      500 tons       17 Crew       184.1 BP       TCS 10    TH 38    EM 0
16025 km/s      Armour 2-5       Shields 0-0       HTK 2      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 0
Maint Life 3.69 Years     MSP 43    AFR 20%    IFR 0.3%    1YR 5    5YR 74    Max Repair 80 MSP
Troop Capacity 200 tons     Boarding Capable   
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 2 days    Morale Check Required   

P80-F633-T Internal Fusion Drive [2096] (2)    Power 160    Fuel Use 632.46%    Signature 19.20    Explosion 20%
Fuel Capacity 23 000 Litres    Range 1.3 billion km (22 hours at full power)

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction

Condor [2098] class Rescue Shuttle
Code: [Select]
Condor [2098] class Rescue Shuttle      250 tons       5 Crew       97.8 BP       TCS 5    TH 19    EM 0
16018 km/s      Armour 1-3       Shields 0-0       HTK 3      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 0
Maint Life 14.99 Years     MSP 104    AFR 5%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 1    5YR 13    Max Repair 80 MSP
Cryogenic Berths 400   
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 2 days    Morale Check Required   

P80-F633-T Internal Fusion Drive [2096] (1)    Power 80    Fuel Use 632.46%    Signature 19.20    Explosion 20%
Fuel Capacity 18 000 Litres    Range 2.1 billion km (35 hours at full power)

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction

The fleet is designed to engage from 400m km range.

I am really curious what the veterans think as I am relatively new to Aurora and haven't seen much combat yet to be fair. Are there any obvious flaws? Too much armor? Are the Vulcan fighters useless and should be replaced with something else? Do the twin gauss cannons make sense or should be replaced with something else for PD?

The 24 Raptor bombers can deliver a total of 96 missiles in a salvo each with size 9 warhead.. If they can get to within ~10m km of the target that is.. How do you defend your fighters/bombers by the way? I used thermal reduction tech for all fighter engines expecting this could help with sneaking up - but they are still 500 ton ships, so probably active sensors can pick them quite far away.

The Polaris Anti-Ship Missile is a slow long-range and two stage missile (with the second stage being the reused Tornado missile). Here are my missile designs:

Wasp Anti-Missle Missle
Code: [Select]
Missile Size: 1.0000 MSP  (2.50000 Tons)     Warhead: 1    Radiation Damage: 1    Manoeuvre Rating: 28
Speed: 51 000 km/s     Fuel: 41     Flight Time: 20.9 seconds     Range: 1 065 900 km
Cost Per Missile: 1.88008     Development Cost: 188
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 1428%   3k km/s 476%   5k km/s 285.6%   10k km/s 142.8%

Tornado Anti-Ship Missile
Code: [Select]
Missile Size: 6.0000 MSP  (15.00000 Tons)     Warhead: 9    Radiation Damage: 9    Manoeuvre Rating: 22
Speed: 31 900 km/s     Fuel: 1 242     Flight Time: 10 minutes     Range: 20m km
Active Sensor Strength: 0.35   EM Sensitivity Modifier: 11
Resolution: 100    Maximum Range vs 5000 ton object (or larger): 5 138 325 km
Cost Per Missile: 8.970096     Development Cost: 897
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 701.8%   3k km/s 233.9%   5k km/s 140.4%   10k km/s 70.2%

Polaris Anti-Ship Missile
Code: [Select]
Missile Size: 10 MSP  (25.0 Tons)     Warhead: 0    Radiation Damage: 0    Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 15 000 km/s     Fuel: 3 742     1st Stage Flight Time: 8 hours    1st Stage Range: 446.2m km
2nd Stage Flight Time: 10 minutes    2nd Stage Range: 20m km
Cost Per Missile: 12.720096     Development Cost: 1 272
Second Stage: Tornado Anti-Ship Missile [2097] x1
Second Stage Separation Range: 10 000 000 km
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 150.0%   3k km/s 50.0%   5k km/s 30.0%   10k km/s 15.0%