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 22, 2020, 06:24:22 PM »

Quote from: Ulzgoroth on May 22, 2020, 05:54:47 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.
Posted by: liveware
« on: May 22, 2020, 06:22:27 PM »

Quote from: Ulzgoroth on May 22, 2020, 05:54:47 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.
Posted by: Ulzgoroth
« on: May 22, 2020, 05:54:47 PM »

Quote from: liveware on May 22, 2020, 04:45:09 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.
Quote from: liveware on May 22, 2020, 04:45:09 PM
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.
Posted by: liveware
« on: May 22, 2020, 04:45:09 PM »

Quote from: Ulzgoroth on May 22, 2020, 04:30:45 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.
Posted by: Ulzgoroth
« on: May 22, 2020, 04:30:45 PM »

Quote from: liveware 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.
...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.
Posted by: liveware
« 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.
Posted by: liveware
« 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.
Posted by: kks
« on: May 22, 2020, 01:04:35 PM »

You do not need an reactor providing 3 power. 3 is the maximum power the capacitator can accept in an 5s-intervall.

If you would provide only 1 power per tick, it would simply be slower to recharge(25s).
Which also means that a 5-4 weapon coupled with a power 3 reactor works the same as a 5-3 weapon.

It also means that if you have two energy weapons on a ship, eg. one PD railguns 3-3 and one 40cm x-3 railgun, you could theoretically have only one power 3 reactor if you do not need to charge both simultaniously. However, as reactor are cheap and small I don't think this would be worthwhile.

At least it did work like that in VB and afaik nothing did change here.
Posted by: liveware
« on: May 22, 2020, 01:25:52 AM »

The 5 second thing throws me off at times.

So if I am understanding things correctly, again, using my hypothetical 5-3 weapon, I need a reactor with minimum of 3 power to charge the weapon, and that reactor will allow that 5-3 weapon to fire once every 10 seconds (assuming alpha strike calculations). By alpha strike calculation I mean that every calculation of weapon charging and/or firing period is based on the assumption that the weapon capacitor initially starts the time period with zero energy.

The paragraph above describes concisely my occasional foolishness regarding 'per second' or 'per increment' calculations. 1 Joule per 5 seconds is rather different than 1 Joule per month!
Posted by: Ulzgoroth
« on: May 22, 2020, 01:11:59 AM »

I don't think the game has any 'and now you secretly need to multiply by 5' moments? (Multiply or divide by 50, sometimes...) Or any mechanics that work in seconds rather than 5-second ticks. You literally can't provide energy per second! If it helps, think of the total energy required as being in units of power point-ticks.

That, um, doesn't really change anything? If your weapon draws 4 power you need to give it 4 power, exactly the way you did in your designs. (The designer will give you a warning if you don't.) It's just that there's no incentive to make the weapon draw 4 power when that results in the same rate of fire as if it drew 3.
Posted by: liveware
« on: May 21, 2020, 11:29:23 PM »

Ah, you are quite right. I perhaps had too much whiskey during my previous post. I should re-design with this in mind...

Furthermore, I designed new power 4 reactors with 30% explosion chance. If I had stuck instead with my previous power 3 reactors they would have had only 5% (or whatever the minimum is) explosion chance.

I think I was transposing X-Y in the power rating during design for some silly reason.

Actually I think the silly reason was that I was thinking that for whatever energy per second Y value the weapon required, I needed to provide a minimum of Y energy per second. That is not the case according to Mr Ulzgoroth? I only need to meet the energy / 5 second requirement?
Posted by: Ulzgoroth
« on: May 21, 2020, 09:05:32 PM »

Quote from: liveware on May 21, 2020, 08:55:29 PM
My understanding of energy weapons is that the indicated X-Y rating for a given weapon is X energy is required to fire and Y energy per second is required to charge. So a 5-3 rated energy weapon would require 5 energy total to fire and 3 energy per second to charge. So this hypothetical weapon would fire (alpha strike style) once every 10 seconds.
Per tick rather than per second (as you know) but yes, quite so.

My point was that that that 5-3 (or 6-3) gun performance is the same as the performance of the 5-4 (or 6-4) guns the designs use. But it's cheaper to construct, and only draws 3 power instead of 4 when recharging.
Posted by: liveware
« on: May 21, 2020, 08:55:29 PM »

My understanding of energy weapons is that the indicated X-Y rating for a given weapon is X energy is required to fire and Y energy per second is required to charge. So a 5-3 rated energy weapon would require 5 energy total to fire and 3 energy per second to charge. So this hypothetical weapon would fire (alpha strike style) once every 10 seconds.
Posted by: Ulzgoroth
« on: May 21, 2020, 08:12:31 PM »

Minor engineering nitpick: You've got a bunch of 5 and 6 power beam weapons designed with recharge rate 4. I believe you'll find that rolling back to recharge rate 3 would be an all-around improvement!
-Same rate of fire, because it's 10 seconds either way.
-Lower weapon cost.
-Lower power demand, so you could use a smaller cheaper reactor. (Probably negligible, for small reactors in small ships like this.)

Generally, you want to pick as low a recharge rate as possible for the desired rate of fire.
Posted by: liveware
« on: May 21, 2020, 08:00:15 PM »

Alright, so I designed some new versions of my ships using my latest tech based on the feedback provided. I think these are considerable improvements, but still far from ideal.

Jump Tender: This ship got improved engines at the cost of reduced range. This is probably ok but testing is required. I have also removed all CIWS as this ship should not be in targeting range of enemy ships. If it is targeted, I did something wrong (or need a larger ship).
Code: [Select]
Columbus IV class Jump Tender      50,100 tons       1,482 Crew       9,301.3 BP       TCS 1,002    TH 5,000    EM 0
4990 km/s    JR 4-100      Armour 2-121       Shields 0-0       HTK 310      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 124      PPV 0
Maint Life 5.50 Years     MSP 29,228    AFR 176%    IFR 2.4%    1YR 1,626    5YR 24,390    Max Repair 3247.4 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 2,000 tons     
Captain    Control Rating 3   BRG   AUX   ENG   
Intended Deployment Time: 48 months    Flight Crew Berths 40    Morale Check Required   

Surrency & Weatherholtz J50100(4-100) Military Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 50100 tons    Distance 100k km     Squadron Size 4

Aegis Ion Drive  EP2500.00 (2)    Power 5000.0    Fuel Use 107.33%    Signature 2500.00    Explosion 20%
Fuel Capacity 12,051,000 Litres    Range 40.3 billion km (93 days at full power)

Aegis Active Search Sensor AS2-R1 (50%) (1)     GPS 3     Range 2.7m km    MCR 244k km    Resolution 1
Aegis Active Search Sensor AS141-R50 (50%) (1)     GPS 21000     Range 141.3m km    Resolution 50

ECM 10

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Escort Carrier: The Lexington received the same treatment as the Columbus, receiving improved engines, worse range, and loss of all CIWS capability. Her gauss fighters are her sole protection.
Code: [Select]
Lexington II class Carrier - Escort      50,100 tons       1,234 Crew       7,249.1 BP       TCS 1,002    TH 5,000    EM 0
4990 km/s      Armour 3-121       Shields 0-0       HTK 296      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 114      PPV 0
Maint Life 6.23 Years     MSP 13,405    AFR 193%    IFR 2.7%    1YR 593    5YR 8,899    Max Repair 1250.00 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 12,000 tons     
Captain    Control Rating 6   BRG   AUX   ENG   CIC   FLG   PFC   
Intended Deployment Time: 48 months    Flight Crew Berths 240    Morale Check Required   

Aegis Ion Drive  EP2500.00 (2)    Power 5000.0    Fuel Use 107.33%    Signature 2500.00    Explosion 20%
Fuel Capacity 12,015,000 Litres    Range 40.2 billion km (93 days at full power)

Aegis Active Search Sensor AS141-R50 (50%) (1)     GPS 21000     Range 141.3m km    Resolution 50
Aegis Active Search Sensor AS2-R1 (50%) (1)     GPS 3     Range 2.7m km    MCR 244k km    Resolution 1

ECM 10

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Carronade FAC: The Perseus received several improvements. New engines have almost doubled her speed and a new BFC improves her targeting. She has a smaller weapon, but with her larger engines will hit enemies with greater reliability. She also boasts improved repair capabilities and significantly improved range.
Code: [Select]
Perseus II class Fast Attack Craft - Plasma Carronade      1,000 tons       38 Crew       279.3 BP       TCS 20    TH 72    EM 0
10319 km/s      Armour 2-8       Shields 0-0       HTK 8      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 1      PPV 4
Maint Life 10.26 Years     MSP 262    AFR 5%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 5    5YR 68    Max Repair 180.46875 MSP
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 1 days    Morale Check Required   

Aegis Ion Drive  EP206.25 (1)    Power 206.2    Fuel Use 209.83%    Signature 72.1875    Explosion 16%
Fuel Capacity 12,000 Litres    Range 1 billion km (27 hours at full power)

Aegis 15 cm C4 Plasma Carronade (1)    Range 60,000km     TS: 10,319 km/s     Power 6-4     RM 10,000 km    ROF 10        6 3 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
Aegis Beam Fire Control R64-TS10000 (50%) (1)     Max Range: 64,000 km   TS: 10,000 km/s     84 69 53 38 22 6 0 0 0 0
Aegis Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor R4-PB60 (1)     Total Power Output 4    Exp 30%

Aegis Active Search Sensor AS2-R1 (50%) (1)     GPS 3     Range 2.7m km    MCR 244k km    Resolution 1

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Particle Beam FAC: The Pericles received many of the same upgrades as the Perseus. In particular, an upgraded BFC and smaller particle beam allow for more consistent long-range attacks and improved speed and range allow for generally greater combat utility.
Code: [Select]
Pericles II class Fast Attack Craft - Particle Beam      1,000 tons       48 Crew       389.2 BP       TCS 20    TH 74    EM 0
10501 km/s      Armour 2-8       Shields 0-0       HTK 6      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 1      PPV 5
Maint Life 7.56 Years     MSP 243    AFR 8%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 7    5YR 112    Max Repair 183.7500 MSP
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 1 days    Morale Check Required   

Aegis Ion Drive  EP210.00 (1)    Power 210.0    Fuel Use 428.70%    Signature 73.5000    Explosion 21%
Fuel Capacity 23,000 Litres    Range 1 billion km (25 hours at full power)

Aegis Particle Beam-2 (1)    Range 192,000km     TS: 10,501 km/s     Power 5-4    ROF 10        2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Aegis Beam Fire Control R192-TS10000 (50%) (1)     Max Range: 192,000 km   TS: 10,000 km/s     95 90 84 79 74 69 64 58 53 48
Aegis Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor R4-PB60 (1)     Total Power Output 4    Exp 30%

Aegis Active Search Sensor AS2-R1 (50%) (1)     GPS 3     Range 2.7m km    MCR 244k km    Resolution 1

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Gauss FAC: The Patroclus has been improved in the same manner as the Perseus and the Pericles. In particular, the turret has been replaced by a more efficient conventionally mounted gauss cannon. This upgrade was facilitated by the substantial speed improvement provided by the new engine design.
Code: [Select]
Patroclus II class Fast Attack Craft - Gauss      1,000 tons       38 Crew       280.2 BP       TCS 20    TH 72    EM 0
10314 km/s      Armour 2-8       Shields 0-0       HTK 7      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 1      PPV 5
Maint Life 11.90 Years     MSP 306    AFR 5%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 4    5YR 60    Max Repair 180.46875 MSP
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 1 days    Morale Check Required   

Aegis Ion Drive  EP206.25 (1)    Power 206.2    Fuel Use 209.83%    Signature 72.1875    Explosion 16%
Fuel Capacity 13,000 Litres    Range 1.1 billion km (30 hours at full power)

Levenstein-Heling Gauss Cannon R300-85.00 (1x3)    Range 30,000km     TS: 10,314 km/s     Accuracy Modifier 85.00%     RM 30,000 km    ROF 5        1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Aegis Beam Fire Control R48-TS10000 (50%) (1)     Max Range: 48,000 km   TS: 10,000 km/s     79 58 38 17 0 0 0 0 0 0

Aegis Active Search Sensor AS2-R1 (50%) (1)     GPS 3     Range 2.7m km    MCR 244k km    Resolution 1

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Microwave FAC: The Artemis has received upgrades commensurate with the other new FAC designs. In particular, it's firing range has been substantially improved and it's new BFC is much more appropriate for this weapon platform.
Code: [Select]
Artemis II class Fast Attack Craft - Microwave      1,000 tons       48 Crew       387.7 BP       TCS 20    TH 73    EM 0
10413 km/s      Armour 2-8       Shields 0-0       HTK 8      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 1      PPV 4
Maint Life 13.95 Years     MSP 424    AFR 5%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 4    5YR 61    Max Repair 182.1050 MSP
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 1 days    Morale Check Required   

Aegis Ion Drive  EP208.12 (1)    Power 208.1    Fuel Use 294.41%    Signature 72.8420    Explosion 18%
Fuel Capacity 16,000 Litres    Range 1 billion km (26 hours at full power)

Aegis R120/C4 High Power Microwave (1)    Range 120,000km     TS: 10,413 km/s     Power 6-4    ROF 10        1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Aegis Beam Fire Control R120-TS10000 (50%) (1)     Max Range: 120,000 km   TS: 10,000 km/s     92 83 75 67 58 50 42 33 25 17
Aegis Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor R4-PB60 (1)     Total Power Output 4    Exp 30%

Aegis Active Search Sensor AS2-R1 (50%) (1)     GPS 3     Range 2.7m km    MCR 244k km    Resolution 1

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Boarding FAC: The new Jackson is an incremental improvement over the previous design, differing primarily in it's improved speed and range and lack of ECM.
Code: [Select]
Jackson III class Fast Attack Craft - Boarding Transport      1,000 tons       31 Crew       230.4 BP       TCS 20    TH 72    EM 0
10314 km/s      Armour 2-8       Shields 0-0       HTK 5      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 1      PPV 0
Maint Life 12.04 Years     MSP 266    AFR 4%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 3    5YR 51    Max Repair 180.46875 MSP
Troop Capacity 250 tons     Boarding Capable   
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 1 days    Morale Check Required   

Aegis Ion Drive  EP206.25 (1)    Power 206.2    Fuel Use 209.83%    Signature 72.1875    Explosion 16%
Fuel Capacity 14,000 Litres    Range 1.2 billion km (32 hours at full power)

Aegis Active Search Sensor AS2-R1 (50%) (1)     GPS 3     Range 2.7m km    MCR 244k km    Resolution 1

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Maintenance FAC: The new Fletcher is an incremental improvement on the previous design.
Code: [Select]
Fletcher II class Fast Attack Craft - Maintenance      1,000 tons       36 Crew       156.9 BP       TCS 20    TH 43    EM 0
6189 km/s      Armour 1-8       Shields 0-0       HTK 4      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 1      PPV 0
Maint Life 20.83 Years     MSP 658    AFR 8%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 3    5YR 43    Max Repair 108.28125 MSP
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 1 days    Morale Check Required   

Aegis Ion Drive  EP123.75 (1)    Power 123.8    Fuel Use 270.89%    Signature 43.3125    Explosion 16%
Fuel Capacity 17,000 Litres    Range 1.1 billion km (50 hours at full power)

Ordnance Transfer Rate: 40 MSP per hour
Aegis Active Search Sensor AS2-R1 (50%) (1)     GPS 3     Range 2.7m km    MCR 244k km    Resolution 1

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Tanker FAC: The new Kentuck is another incremental improvement.
Code: [Select]
Kentuck III class Fast Attack Craft - Tanker      1,000 tons       39 Crew       146.8 BP       TCS 20    TH 43    EM 0
6189 km/s      Armour 1-8       Shields 0-0       HTK 6      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 1      PPV 0
Maint Life 12.72 Years     MSP 146    AFR 5%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 2    5YR 25    Max Repair 108.28125 MSP
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 1 days    Morale Check Required   

Aegis Ion Drive  EP123.75 (1)    Power 123.8    Fuel Use 270.89%    Signature 43.3125    Explosion 16%
Fuel Capacity 62,000 Litres    Range 4.1 billion km (7 days at full power)
Refuelling Capability: 50,000 litres per hour     Complete Refuel 1 hours

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

These designs might actually be able to damage the NPR. Still paper armor, but they might be able to do some damage before they get destroyed.