Post reply

Topic Summary

Posted by: d.rodin

« on: May 27, 2020, 06:11:04 AM »

Insert Quote

Quote from: liveware on May 26, 2020, 11:25:35 PM

Quote from: d.rodin on May 26, 2020, 04:53:16 PM
Quote from: Cobaia on April 23, 2020, 11:35:34 AM
Hello,

This is my first carrier task force design. Would appreciate some feedback! Thank you in advance.

CARRIER x1
Code: [Select]
Imperious class Carrier 40.974 tons 948 Crew 9.744,9 BP TCS 819 TH 720 EM 0 3660 km/s Armour 8-105 Shields 0-0 HTK 369 Sensors 70/70/0/0 DCR 71 PPV 66,62 Maint Life 6,59 Years MSP 11.580 AFR 263% IFR 3,7% 1YR 461 5YR 6.916 Max Repair 547,4 MSP Hangar Deck Capacity 6.000 tons Magazine 802 Cryogenic Berths 1.000 Captain Control Rating 6 BRG AUX ENG CIC FLG PFC Intended Deployment Time: 12 months Flight Crew Berths 120 Morale Check Required Military Internal Fusion Drive EP500,00 (6) Power 3000 Fuel Use 37,06% Signature 120,00 Explosion 12% Fuel Capacity 5.000.000 Litres Range 59,3 billion km (187 days at full power) Twin Mitsubishi Heavy Industries 30cm C4 Soft X-ray Laser Turret (2x2) Range 384.000km TS: 10000 km/s Power 48-8 RM 60.000 km ROF 30 Phalanx CIWS (10x6) Range 1000 km TS: 25.000 km/s ROF 5 Twin Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Gauss Cannon R300-8,00 Turret (2x6) Range 30.000km TS: 10000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 30.000 km ROF 5 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Beam Fire Control R384-TS15000 (2) Max Range: 384.000 km TS: 15.000 km/s 97 95 92 90 87 84 82 79 77 74 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Magnetic Confinement Fusion Reactor R48 (1) Total Power Output 48,1 Exp 5% Mitsubishi Heavy Industries AMM Missile Launcher (2) Missile Size: 1 Rate of Fire 10 AMM Fire Control FC92-R1 (2) Range 92,1m km Resolution 1 Sea Sparrow AMM 1MSP (100) Speed: 26.400 km/s End: 15,2m Range: 24m km WH: 1 Size: 1 TH: 299/179/89 Martel ASM (702) Speed: 24.600 km/s End: 16,8m Range: 24,8m km WH: 3 Size: 1 TH: 180/108/54 Active Search Sensor I (1) GPS 11200 Range 103,7m km Resolution 100 Tracker EM Sensor EM5-70 (1) Sensitivity 70 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 66,1m km Seeker Thermal Sensor TH5-70 (1) Sensitivity 70 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 66,1m km ELINT Module (1) Sensitivity 6 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 19,4m km Strike Group 40x Incepteris Fighter Speed: 8725 km/s Size: 2,87

My Light Carrier with same hangar capacity

Code: [Select]
Admiral Nakhimov M7 class Light Carrier 24 948 tons 417 Crew 12 761.8 BP TCS 499 TH 250 EM 0 12526 km/s Armour 10-76 Shields 0-0 HTK 127 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 55 PPV 0 Maint Life 4.35 Years MSP 13 592 AFR 199% IFR 2.8% 1YR 1 158 5YR 17 368 Max Repair 2031.25 MSP Hangar Deck Capacity 6 000 tons Magazine 772 Cryogenic Berths 400 Captain Control Rating 4 BRG AUX ENG PFC Intended Deployment Time: 12 months Flight Crew Berths 120 Morale Check Required Gas Core AM Drive EP1250.00 (5) Power 6250 Fuel Use 7.91% Signature 50.00 Explosion 10% Fuel Capacity 5 000 000 Litres Range 456.3 billion km (421 days at full power) Medium ASM M6 (120) Speed: 67 200 km/s End: 5.4m Range: 21.8m km WH: 16 Size: 6 TH: 1366/819/409 ECM 70 Strike Group 2x Tu-142 M7 Fighter-Scout Speed: 51218 km/s Size: 8.79 10x Tu-22 M7 Fighter-bomber Speed: 45162 km/s Size: 9.96 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

Mr drodin, your engine tech exceeds my own by several orders of magnitude. However I note that your IFR is comparable to my own design targets, so perhaps I am not without hope.

Quote

Admiral Nakhimov M5 class Light Carrier 24 736 tons 375 Crew 7 936. 2 BP TCS 495 TH 320 EM 0
8085 km/s Armour 10-75 Shields 0-0 HTK 111 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 46 PPV 0
Maint Life 3. 39 Years MSP 8 008 AFR 306% IFR 4. 2% 1YR 1 060 5YR 15 900 Max Repair 1100 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 6 000 tons Magazine 772
Captain Control Rating 4 BRG AUX ENG PFC
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months Flight Crew Berths 120 Morale Check Required

Inertial Fusion Drive EP800. 00 (5) Power 4000 Fuel Use 12. 65% Signature 64. 00 Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 5 000 000 Litres Range 287. 6 billion km (411 days at full power)

Medium ASM M5 (128) Speed: 40 000 km/s End: 26. 4m Range: 63. 4m km WH: 25 Size: 6 TH: 533/320/160

ECM 60

Strike Group
2x Tu-142 M5 Fighter-Scout Speed: 37085 km/s Size: 7. 77
10x Tu-22 M5 Fighter-bomber Speed: 35235 km/s Size: 8. 17

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

Posted by: liveware

« on: May 26, 2020, 11:25:35 PM »

Insert Quote

Quote from: d.rodin on May 26, 2020, 04:53:16 PM

Quote from: Cobaia on April 23, 2020, 11:35:34 AM
Hello,

This is my first carrier task force design. Would appreciate some feedback! Thank you in advance.

CARRIER x1
Code: [Select]
Imperious class Carrier 40.974 tons 948 Crew 9.744,9 BP TCS 819 TH 720 EM 0 3660 km/s Armour 8-105 Shields 0-0 HTK 369 Sensors 70/70/0/0 DCR 71 PPV 66,62 Maint Life 6,59 Years MSP 11.580 AFR 263% IFR 3,7% 1YR 461 5YR 6.916 Max Repair 547,4 MSP Hangar Deck Capacity 6.000 tons Magazine 802 Cryogenic Berths 1.000 Captain Control Rating 6 BRG AUX ENG CIC FLG PFC Intended Deployment Time: 12 months Flight Crew Berths 120 Morale Check Required Military Internal Fusion Drive EP500,00 (6) Power 3000 Fuel Use 37,06% Signature 120,00 Explosion 12% Fuel Capacity 5.000.000 Litres Range 59,3 billion km (187 days at full power) Twin Mitsubishi Heavy Industries 30cm C4 Soft X-ray Laser Turret (2x2) Range 384.000km TS: 10000 km/s Power 48-8 RM 60.000 km ROF 30 Phalanx CIWS (10x6) Range 1000 km TS: 25.000 km/s ROF 5 Twin Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Gauss Cannon R300-8,00 Turret (2x6) Range 30.000km TS: 10000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 30.000 km ROF 5 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Beam Fire Control R384-TS15000 (2) Max Range: 384.000 km TS: 15.000 km/s 97 95 92 90 87 84 82 79 77 74 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Magnetic Confinement Fusion Reactor R48 (1) Total Power Output 48,1 Exp 5% Mitsubishi Heavy Industries AMM Missile Launcher (2) Missile Size: 1 Rate of Fire 10 AMM Fire Control FC92-R1 (2) Range 92,1m km Resolution 1 Sea Sparrow AMM 1MSP (100) Speed: 26.400 km/s End: 15,2m Range: 24m km WH: 1 Size: 1 TH: 299/179/89 Martel ASM (702) Speed: 24.600 km/s End: 16,8m Range: 24,8m km WH: 3 Size: 1 TH: 180/108/54 Active Search Sensor I (1) GPS 11200 Range 103,7m km Resolution 100 Tracker EM Sensor EM5-70 (1) Sensitivity 70 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 66,1m km Seeker Thermal Sensor TH5-70 (1) Sensitivity 70 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 66,1m km ELINT Module (1) Sensitivity 6 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 19,4m km Strike Group 40x Incepteris Fighter Speed: 8725 km/s Size: 2,87

My Light Carrier with same hangar capacity

Code: [Select]
Admiral Nakhimov M7 class Light Carrier 24 948 tons 417 Crew 12 761.8 BP TCS 499 TH 250 EM 0 12526 km/s Armour 10-76 Shields 0-0 HTK 127 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 55 PPV 0 Maint Life 4.35 Years MSP 13 592 AFR 199% IFR 2.8% 1YR 1 158 5YR 17 368 Max Repair 2031.25 MSP Hangar Deck Capacity 6 000 tons Magazine 772 Cryogenic Berths 400 Captain Control Rating 4 BRG AUX ENG PFC Intended Deployment Time: 12 months Flight Crew Berths 120 Morale Check Required Gas Core AM Drive EP1250.00 (5) Power 6250 Fuel Use 7.91% Signature 50.00 Explosion 10% Fuel Capacity 5 000 000 Litres Range 456.3 billion km (421 days at full power) Medium ASM M6 (120) Speed: 67 200 km/s End: 5.4m Range: 21.8m km WH: 16 Size: 6 TH: 1366/819/409 ECM 70 Strike Group 2x Tu-142 M7 Fighter-Scout Speed: 51218 km/s Size: 8.79 10x Tu-22 M7 Fighter-bomber Speed: 45162 km/s Size: 9.96 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

Mr drodin, your engine tech exceeds my own by several orders of magnitude. However I note that your IFR is comparable to my own design targets, so perhaps I am not without hope.

Posted by: skoormit

« on: May 26, 2020, 06:05:16 PM »

Insert Quote

Quote from: Polestar on May 26, 2020, 05:35:48 PM

Quote from: skoormit on May 26, 2020, 02:23:56 PM
This guy mathed out the optimal ratio as 3:1.
While I like the math, there are some additional considerations worth mentioning.

1. Space devoted to fuel can be handled by fuel tankers (with some cost to security and convenience). Space devoted to engines is less easy to offload (although carriers and tugs both work). This is the major reason why my own designs tend to carry less fuel than the above math suggests.
2. Engines of less than 100% fuel consumption are disproportionately less costly to research and field. This can only occasionally be taken advantage of with military designs, but is extremely important for civilian vessels.
3. Researching engines, especially big ones, can get costly. There is a significant price tag attached to per-design optimization. I tend to optimize for a fleet, using 2-3 types of engines, rather for each of perhaps 6-10 military ship classes.

Agreed on all counts.
I only wanted to note that your 5:2 "rule of thumb" could lead to slightly suboptimal designs.
I start my design process with a 3:1 ratio in mind. I deviate from that for reasons like the above, or when I have constraints other than maximizing available component space for a given speed and range.

Posted by: Polestar

« on: May 26, 2020, 05:35:48 PM »

Insert Quote

Quote from: skoormit on May 26, 2020, 02:23:56 PM

This guy mathed out the optimal ratio as 3:1.

While I like the math, there are some additional considerations worth mentioning.

1. Space devoted to fuel can be handled by fuel tankers (with some cost to security and convenience). Space devoted to engines is less easy to offload (although carriers and tugs both work). This is the major reason why my own designs tend to carry less fuel than the above math suggests.
2. Engines of less than 100% fuel consumption are disproportionately less costly to research and field. This can only occasionally be taken advantage of with military designs, but is extremely important for civilian vessels.
3. Researching engines, especially big ones, can get costly. There is a significant price tag attached to per-design optimization. I tend to optimize for a fleet, using 2-3 types of engines, rather for each of perhaps 6-10 military ship classes.

Posted by: d.rodin

« on: May 26, 2020, 04:53:16 PM »

Insert Quote

Quote from: Cobaia on April 23, 2020, 11:35:34 AM

Hello,

This is my first carrier task force design. Would appreciate some feedback! Thank you in advance.

CARRIER x1
Code: [Select]
Imperious class Carrier 40.974 tons 948 Crew 9.744,9 BP TCS 819 TH 720 EM 0 3660 km/s Armour 8-105 Shields 0-0 HTK 369 Sensors 70/70/0/0 DCR 71 PPV 66,62 Maint Life 6,59 Years MSP 11.580 AFR 263% IFR 3,7% 1YR 461 5YR 6.916 Max Repair 547,4 MSP Hangar Deck Capacity 6.000 tons Magazine 802 Cryogenic Berths 1.000 Captain Control Rating 6 BRG AUX ENG CIC FLG PFC Intended Deployment Time: 12 months Flight Crew Berths 120 Morale Check Required Military Internal Fusion Drive EP500,00 (6) Power 3000 Fuel Use 37,06% Signature 120,00 Explosion 12% Fuel Capacity 5.000.000 Litres Range 59,3 billion km (187 days at full power) Twin Mitsubishi Heavy Industries 30cm C4 Soft X-ray Laser Turret (2x2) Range 384.000km TS: 10000 km/s Power 48-8 RM 60.000 km ROF 30 Phalanx CIWS (10x6) Range 1000 km TS: 25.000 km/s ROF 5 Twin Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Gauss Cannon R300-8,00 Turret (2x6) Range 30.000km TS: 10000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 30.000 km ROF 5 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Beam Fire Control R384-TS15000 (2) Max Range: 384.000 km TS: 15.000 km/s 97 95 92 90 87 84 82 79 77 74 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Magnetic Confinement Fusion Reactor R48 (1) Total Power Output 48,1 Exp 5% Mitsubishi Heavy Industries AMM Missile Launcher (2) Missile Size: 1 Rate of Fire 10 AMM Fire Control FC92-R1 (2) Range 92,1m km Resolution 1 Sea Sparrow AMM 1MSP (100) Speed: 26.400 km/s End: 15,2m Range: 24m km WH: 1 Size: 1 TH: 299/179/89 Martel ASM (702) Speed: 24.600 km/s End: 16,8m Range: 24,8m km WH: 3 Size: 1 TH: 180/108/54 Active Search Sensor I (1) GPS 11200 Range 103,7m km Resolution 100 Tracker EM Sensor EM5-70 (1) Sensitivity 70 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 66,1m km Seeker Thermal Sensor TH5-70 (1) Sensitivity 70 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 66,1m km ELINT Module (1) Sensitivity 6 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 19,4m km Strike Group 40x Incepteris Fighter Speed: 8725 km/s Size: 2,87

My Light Carrier with same hangar capacity

Code: [Select]

Admiral Nakhimov M7 class Light Carrier      24 948 tons       417 Crew       12 761.8 BP       TCS 499    TH 250    EM 0
12526 km/s      Armour 10-76       Shields 0-0       HTK 127      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 55      PPV 0
Maint Life 4.35 Years     MSP 13 592    AFR 199%    IFR 2.8%    1YR 1 158    5YR 17 368    Max Repair 2031.25 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 6 000 tons     Magazine 772    Cryogenic Berths 400    
Captain    Control Rating 4   BRG   AUX   ENG   PFC   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Flight Crew Berths 120    Morale Check Required    

Gas Core AM Drive  EP1250.00 (5)    Power 6250    Fuel Use 7.91%    Signature 50.00    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 5 000 000 Litres    Range 456.3 billion km (421 days at full power)

Medium ASM M6 (120)    Speed: 67 200 km/s    End: 5.4m     Range: 21.8m km    WH: 16    Size: 6    TH: 1366/819/409

ECM 70

Strike Group
2x Tu-142 M7 Fighter-Scout   Speed: 51218 km/s    Size: 8.79
10x Tu-22 M7 Fighter-bomber   Speed: 45162 km/s    Size: 9.96

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

Posted by: liveware

« on: May 26, 2020, 03:52:59 PM »

Insert Quote

Quote from: Cobaia on April 23, 2020, 11:35:34 AM

CARRIER x1
Code: [Select]
Imperious class Carrier 40.974 tons 948 Crew 9.744,9 BP TCS 819 TH 720 EM 0 3660 km/s Armour 8-105 Shields 0-0 HTK 369 Sensors 70/70/0/0 DCR 71 PPV 66,62 Maint Life 6,59 Years MSP 11.580 AFR 263% IFR 3,7% 1YR 461 5YR 6.916 Max Repair 547,4 MSP Hangar Deck Capacity 6.000 tons Magazine 802 Cryogenic Berths 1.000 Captain Control Rating 6 BRG AUX ENG CIC FLG PFC Intended Deployment Time: 12 months Flight Crew Berths 120 Morale Check Required Military Internal Fusion Drive EP500,00 (6) Power 3000 Fuel Use 37,06% Signature 120,00 Explosion 12% Fuel Capacity 5.000.000 Litres Range 59,3 billion km (187 days at full power) Twin Mitsubishi Heavy Industries 30cm C4 Soft X-ray Laser Turret (2x2) Range 384.000km TS: 10000 km/s Power 48-8 RM 60.000 km ROF 30 Phalanx CIWS (10x6) Range 1000 km TS: 25.000 km/s ROF 5 Twin Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Gauss Cannon R300-8,00 Turret (2x6) Range 30.000km TS: 10000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 30.000 km ROF 5 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Beam Fire Control R384-TS15000 (2) Max Range: 384.000 km TS: 15.000 km/s 97 95 92 90 87 84 82 79 77 74 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Magnetic Confinement Fusion Reactor R48 (1) Total Power Output 48,1 Exp 5% Mitsubishi Heavy Industries AMM Missile Launcher (2) Missile Size: 1 Rate of Fire 10 AMM Fire Control FC92-R1 (2) Range 92,1m km Resolution 1 Sea Sparrow AMM 1MSP (100) Speed: 26.400 km/s End: 15,2m Range: 24m km WH: 1 Size: 1 TH: 299/179/89 Martel ASM (702) Speed: 24.600 km/s End: 16,8m Range: 24,8m km WH: 3 Size: 1 TH: 180/108/54 Active Search Sensor I (1) GPS 11200 Range 103,7m km Resolution 100 Tracker EM Sensor EM5-70 (1) Sensitivity 70 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 66,1m km Seeker Thermal Sensor TH5-70 (1) Sensitivity 70 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 66,1m km ELINT Module (1) Sensitivity 6 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 19,4m km Strike Group 40x Incepteris Fighter Speed: 8725 km/s Size: 2,87

I think your carrier is too small and too slow for your engine tech and it's intended role. Below is my ion drive tech carrier which is only 2/3 slower than your inertial fusion design (2 engine tech levels above me) and more than double the hangar capacity. I have made a design decision to completely omit any sort of defensive weapons on my carrier design, and instead relegate that task to dedicated support ships in order to allow for more efficient weapon designs on my smaller, faster support ships. I think your carrier would benefit from re-designing your engines to be maximum size for the largest ship you intend to mount them on. In that case you could mount one or two engines with higher fuel efficiency than your existing 6 engine design.

Code: [Select]

CV Lexington III 001  (Lexington III class Carrier)      50,100 tons       1,078 Crew       7,332.4 BP       TCS 1,002    TH 875    EM 0
2495 km/s      Armour 4-121       Shields 0-0       HTK 297      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 113      PPV 0
Maint Life 6.46 Years     MSP 13,476    AFR 194%    IFR 2.7%    1YR 557    5YR 8,356    Max Repair 2187.5 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 16,000 tons     
Captain    Control Rating 5   BRG   AUX   ENG   FLG   PFC   
Intended Deployment Time: 48 months    Flight Crew Berths 320    Morale Check Required    

Aegis Ion Drive  EP2500.00 (1)    Power 2500    Fuel Use 107.33%    Signature 875.00    Explosion 20%
Fuel Capacity 12,508,000 Litres    Range 41.9 billion km (194 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

Posted by: skoormit

« on: May 26, 2020, 02:23:56 PM »

Insert Quote

Quote from: Michael Sandy on May 24, 2020, 09:27:43 PM

...For most purposes, a ratio of 5 HS engine to 2 HS fuel gives maximum range....

This guy mathed out the optimal ratio as 3:1.

Posted by: spartacus

« on: May 24, 2020, 10:09:32 PM »

Insert Quote

If you called your Carrier a Battle Cruiser it would be great to RP the Orions from In Death Ground. They fell in love with the Strike Fighter when introduced to them and after that every Capital ship they designed had some hanger space on it.

Not the most efficient way to design your ships but potentially a lot of fun and a great story.

Posted by: Michael Sandy

« on: May 24, 2020, 09:35:48 PM »

Insert Quote

I would like it if the AI had more mixed designs. As is, you can run their missile ships out of ammo, then use short ranged missiles to nuke whatever long ranged beam ships they have, and politely kite the survivors to death with your superior beam ships. If they had a few long ranged beams on each of their missile ships, it would be a LOT harder to kite them to death.

Are the cryo for RP, or do they help in C#?

Also, is there an advantage in having larger carriers in C# because they can afford the space for refueling and ordnance handling systems?

Posted by: Michael Sandy

« on: May 24, 2020, 09:27:43 PM »

Insert Quote

Some rules of thumb for engine/fuel designs.

For most purposes, a ratio of 5 HS engine to 2 HS fuel gives maximum range. The only ships that should have a large fuel ratio are carriers and tankers. Short endurance ships/fighters optimized for performance, a 5:1 engine to fuel ratio is pretty good. If you have too small a fuel tank, then you probably had to cut back on engine power in order to have the range you wanted. You are better off with the higher power engine and more fuel consumption.

So your fighters with the 2,000 liter tanks, if you had a 10,000 liter tank, and much higher boost, you would be faster, only slightly bigger, and still have the range you want.

With regards to carrier operations in general, several games ago I decided that while my eventual goal was strikefighters, I wanted to make use of fighters long before I developed box launchers in order for it to be a natural evolution. I would be increasing my fighter factories all along, not spiking them once I got the critical technologies. So I started by developing fighter scouts of various kinds that would be incorporated into my fleets.

A full scout group would include a fighter with res 1 sensors, a fighter with res 100 sensors (or whatever res the known enemy combatants tended to be) an EM variant and a TH variant, as well as some expendable smaller scouts. So up to 2000 HS or so. Obviously, a solo carrier would have to strip that down a bit, but a multi-carrier group might only have a little over one full scout group.

I built scouts differently from combat fighters. About 50% engine instead of 40%, about 15-20% fuel, 15-20% for the sensor, and the rest is crew endurance and engineering to taste, as they also can do picket duty. So they are faster and longer ranged than the combat fighters, at the expense of having a small payload ratio, (their sensor).

In VB6, you also wanted fighter tankers, but that really isn't an option in C#, as you can't refuel on the fly with anything small enough to avoid detection. This means you can't get away with really short ranges on your fighters in C# as you can't as easily extend their ranges with tankers.

Missile fighters, you either want to be able to outrange enemy missiles entirely, or have integrated point defense that makes it less economical for the enemy to engage them with AMMs. So you can go either minimum cross section, and launch from outside of known enemy res 1 sensors, and be out of range of res 10 sensor and fire controls, or go a bit bigger, with a substantially larger fire control, and launch longer ranged missiles, and hope to be out of range of res 10 stuff because of the larger range. So if you are going the small fighter route, you absolute have to specialize. I appreciate the RP of having a minimal sized beam weapon for fighter dog fighting, and having beam fighters makes it a LOT cheaper to finish off cripples and unarmed ships without expending ammo.

This gets into what sorts of ranges you want on your strikefighters in general. Ideally, you want to be able to strike habitable planets by launching from the Jump Point. This may not always be possible, but gives you a good estimate of what kinds of ranges you will need. Another consideration is that as tech level increases, the range your carrier has to launch from to be out of detection and targeting range changes too. In VB6, antiship sensors could quickly get into the billions of KM of range. Not so much in C#. Which, again, means you want sensors with your strike force.

As you get more experienced, you will want to consider what the strategic aim of your fighters are. It is VERY expensive logistically to try and kill an entire enemy fleet just with missiles. But you could use fighters to determine where the enemy fleet is, and attack where they AREN'T, forcing them to come away from their fortifications and resupply. For that mission profile you want a lot more range and endurance and independent sensor capacity. Fighters would also be useful if you can identify enemy glass cannon designs, and take them out before they can engage your fleet.

Posted by: Jorgen_CAB

« on: April 25, 2020, 05:08:53 AM »

Insert Quote

It is just fine to put beam weapons on a carrier... just call it a Battle Carrier if that makes things easier for you...

It really have to do with your general doctrines. In many of my play-throughs I don't have any dedicated beam ships at all and instead expect EVERY ship to carry some Spinal and complimentary beam weapon for self defence. This actually is very effective as you spread them out on more ships and thus you gain way more HTK for the enemy too go through to eliminate you at beam combat range. It also give you option to not use missiles when you have overwhelming force against the enemy, it also may dissuade an enemy to close into beam combat in many scenarios too.

I also look at missiles ships to always fulfil both an ASM/AMM role... you already have the magazine so no point in not being able to choose how much offensive versus defensive ammunition you take on any mission, you even can change from say a defensive stance to offensive stance with just reloading the ship from a collier close by. Options is very powerful.

In terms of speed differences there can be many ways that speed can be used in the game and not every ship need to be super fast, some ships might be OK to be slower or faster. In general my escorting destroyers are slightly faster than my main cruiser and carriers as they are suppose to be able to detach an chase after a retreating opponent or act independently as scouts. Frigates are slower as their main job is to escort the supply/collier and tankers of the fleet and don't need the speed of the main combat ships.

Sensor coverage can also be done with small scouting craft quite effectively in C#... I would put decent sensors on the ships but with missile fire-controls that shoot a fair bit longer. I would then use boat bays on the escorts to deploy a flora of scouts crafts that can have a large variety passive and active sensor devices to support the fleet. Smaller sensors are allot more effective in C#.

Posted by: Agraelgrimm

« on: April 25, 2020, 02:44:37 AM »

Insert Quote

I think that your carrier needs better AMM defense. 4 box launchers aint going to cut it. I would suggest about 10 or 20.
Sure you can depend on the escort for that protection, but you will lose ships and the carrier needs to be able to defend itself in the worst case scenario. After all, your entire TF goes to protect it.
You could also lose the laser cannons. Unless it is for RP flavor, you wont be needing it. The carrier's main weapon is the fighters/FACS.
And to finish, if you really want your carrier to have offensive power, i would suggest missile launchers. You wont need much of them, but 2 fire controls for two groups of 4-6 launchers would be good.

PS: If you really want point defense, gauss cannons are the way to go. They are cheap, you can put them in small turrets and they wont cost a reactor and as far as i know, they wont have the 1% fail rate. (I can be wrong on this one)

Posted by: Father Tim

« on: April 23, 2020, 04:54:58 PM »

Insert Quote

I don't know why your carrier has the guns of a battleship (well, half of one) and 2,000 tons of empty hangar space, but both things historically happened so it's reasonable.

Posted by: Droll

« on: April 23, 2020, 03:43:55 PM »

Insert Quote

Quote from: Cobaia on April 23, 2020, 03:16:22 PM

Yep I'm getting the picture now. I think this is why you need to share the designs so you can discuss and learn.

Quote from: sneer link=topic=11044. msg127370#msg127370 date=1587666809
in 2013 I put same topic as You presenting my inertial fusion carrier TF and got really good advices however this is like 2 leves above your tech so numbers needs to be scaled down
hxxp: aurora2. pentarch. org/index. php?topic=6539. msg66845#msg66845

Thank you! This gave me a benchmark into future designs!

For reference I use a 16k hangar 40k carrier designed for 40 400 ton fighters. If your fighters have missiles when calculating how much magazine you want consider the fuel as well. How many full sorties do you need the strike group to do without resupply from a collier/tanker?

In C# for beam ships in particular the 1% fail rate on weapons becomes a substantial draw on MSP as well.

Posted by: Cobaia

« on: April 23, 2020, 03:16:22 PM »

Insert Quote

Yep I'm getting the picture now. I think this is why you need to share the designs so you can discuss and learn.

Quote from: sneer link=topic=11044. msg127370#msg127370 date=1587666809

in 2013 I put same topic as You presenting my inertial fusion carrier TF and got really good advices however this is like 2 leves above your tech so numbers needs to be scaled down
hxxp: aurora2. pentarch. org/index. php?topic=6539. msg66845#msg66845

Thank you! This gave me a benchmark into future designs!