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: June 02, 2020, 06:20:12 PM »

Quote from: Ulzgoroth on June 02, 2020, 06:17:12 PM
Quote from: liveware on June 02, 2020, 06:14:49 PM
Quote from: BasileusMaximos on June 02, 2020, 04:38:24 AM
Is it beneficial in any way to have Marines board via dropship rather than from the carrier itself? I can't imagine ever boarding a ship that was still moving nor could I imagine doing it while combat was still going on. Probably more straightforward to just have all the Marines in one troop bay.

It is beneficial if you want the marines to actually survive boarding action and be able to attempt combat against the enemy crew. The boarding action mechanic is something like troop survival chance = boarding ship speed / target ship speed, so assuming your boarding craft are faster than the ship they are deployed from, there is a potential advantage to using boarding craft instead of your larger slower carrier.
If you never board a ship that's still moving, though, the carrier will be fast enough to get 100% safe landings.

That is true. But boring. Boarding whilst dodging incoming flak and beams is much more entertaining. In my opinion. Especially if friendly ships are providing cover fire.
Posted by: Ulzgoroth
« on: June 02, 2020, 06:17:12 PM »

Quote from: liveware on June 02, 2020, 06:14:49 PM
Quote from: BasileusMaximos on June 02, 2020, 04:38:24 AM
Is it beneficial in any way to have Marines board via dropship rather than from the carrier itself? I can't imagine ever boarding a ship that was still moving nor could I imagine doing it while combat was still going on. Probably more straightforward to just have all the Marines in one troop bay.

It is beneficial if you want the marines to actually survive boarding action and be able to attempt combat against the enemy crew. The boarding action mechanic is something like troop survival chance = boarding ship speed / target ship speed, so assuming your boarding craft are faster than the ship they are deployed from, there is a potential advantage to using boarding craft instead of your larger slower carrier.
If you never board a ship that's still moving, though, the carrier will be fast enough to get 100% safe landings.
Posted by: liveware
« on: June 02, 2020, 06:14:49 PM »

Quote from: BasileusMaximos on June 02, 2020, 04:38:24 AM
Is it beneficial in any way to have Marines board via dropship rather than from the carrier itself? I can't imagine ever boarding a ship that was still moving nor could I imagine doing it while combat was still going on. Probably more straightforward to just have all the Marines in one troop bay.

It is beneficial if you want the marines to actually survive boarding action and be able to attempt combat against the enemy crew. The boarding action mechanic is something like troop survival chance = boarding ship speed / target ship speed, so assuming your boarding craft are faster than the ship they are deployed from, there is a potential advantage to using boarding craft instead of your larger slower carrier.

I should also note that by 'dropship' I assume you mean 'boarding' craft, because drop pods are a different technology than boarding pods and they each should be used for their intended purposes for maximum effect.
Posted by: Borealis4x
« on: June 02, 2020, 02:27:30 PM »

OK, hows this then?
Code: [Select]
Manila Bay class Escort Carrier (P)      10,427 tons       207 Crew       2,085.5 BP       TCS 209    TH 313    EM 0
1498 km/s      Armour 4-42       Shields 0-0       HTK 71      Sensors 24/24/0/0      DCR 33      PPV 30.16
Maint Life 1.33 Years     MSP 375    AFR 290%    IFR 4.0%    1YR 225    5YR 3,371    Max Repair 192 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 4,000 tons     Magazine 187   
Captain    Control Rating 5   BRG   AUX   ENG   CIC   PFC   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Flight Crew Berths 80    Morale Check Required   

Rolls-Royce Intergalactic Small Magnetic Fusion Drive  C.HS25 EP312.50 (1)    Power 312.5    Fuel Use 3.35%    Signature 312.5    Explosion 5%
Fuel Capacity 250,000 Litres    Range 128.6 billion km (993 days at full power)

Quad Rheinmetall AG Gauss Cannon A Mk.1 (4x20)    Range 50,000km     TS: 32000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 50,000 km    ROF 5       
Wuxing Incorporated Point Defense Fire Control R60-TS32000 (1)     Max Range: 60,000 km   TS: 32,000 km/s     83 67 50 33 17 0 0 0 0 0

Raytheon Capital DRADIS AS125-R100 (10%) (1)     GPS 9600     Range 125.7m km    Resolution 100
Raytheon Point DRADIS AS19-R1 (10%) (1)     GPS 48     Range 19.1m km    MCR 1.7m km    Resolution 1
Boglin Fields, Inc. MilSpec Standard EM Sensor Mk1. (1)     Sensitivity 24     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  38.7m km
Boglin Fields, Inc. MilSpec Standard Thermal Sensor Mk.1 (1)     Sensitivity 24     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  38.7m km

ECM 50

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
Posted by: Ulzgoroth
« on: June 02, 2020, 11:24:53 AM »

Quote from: BasileusMaximos on June 02, 2020, 03:33:34 AM
Quote from: Ulzgoroth on June 02, 2020, 03:26:38 AM
I think you've designed a 'low-cost' carrier that, per ton of hangar, costs nearly as much as the fleet carrier and masses significantly more.

Though to be fair it does have a much higher deployment time, higher fuel economy, and lower maintenance failure rate. So it should be at a significant advantage on maintenance costs...

Well its still a carrier. Just not one meant to be the centerpiece in a straight-up fight.

And I made it that size cuz it can use my Destroyer slipways. Might as well take advantage and make it the same full size.
I can't see the mass breakdown, but I suspect you've got at least four times as much tonnage of Gauss turrets as of hangars. I'd barely call that a carrier, let alone a light carrier - more of a FDF warship with a generous oat bay.
Quote from: BasileusMaximos on June 02, 2020, 04:38:24 AM
Is it beneficial in any way to have Marines board via dropship rather than from the carrier itself? I can't imagine ever boarding a ship that was still moving nor could I imagine doing it while combat was still going on. Probably more straightforward to just have all the Marines in one troop bay.
If you don't board ships until the area is sanitized enough to put your carrier in it, and they've lost all mobility, the only advantage of having small-craft dropships is that (if they're under 500 tons) they should be able to land the troops on planets as well as on enemy ships.
Posted by: DFNewb
« on: June 02, 2020, 08:37:01 AM »

Quote from: BasileusMaximos on June 02, 2020, 03:33:34 AM
Quote from: Ulzgoroth on June 02, 2020, 03:26:38 AM
I think you've designed a 'low-cost' carrier that, per ton of hangar, costs nearly as much as the fleet carrier and masses significantly more.

Though to be fair it does have a much higher deployment time, higher fuel economy, and lower maintenance failure rate. So it should be at a significant advantage on maintenance costs...

Well its still a carrier. Just not one meant to be the centerpiece in a straight-up fight.

And I made it that size cuz it can use my Destroyer slipways. Might as well take advantage and make it the same full size.

Personally I like to put 1 big gun and then just hangars on my Carriers and give them an escort fleet of destroyers with Gauss and cruisers with more and multiple big guns.

For example if I have lasers or particle lances I will put a spinal mount on the Carrier and then load it with fighters that can do whatever I want them to do. My carriers are also usually the ships holding the Jump drive cause my whole idea of the carrier is something that sits on the other side of a jump point and launches fighters that I can warp through the jump point in order to strike and return without ever having to move the actual fleet away from containment or into danger.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: June 02, 2020, 05:53:05 AM »

Quote from: BasileusMaximos on June 02, 2020, 03:33:34 AM
Quote from: Ulzgoroth on June 02, 2020, 03:26:38 AM
I think you've designed a 'low-cost' carrier that, per ton of hangar, costs nearly as much as the fleet carrier and masses significantly more.

Though to be fair it does have a much higher deployment time, higher fuel economy, and lower maintenance failure rate. So it should be at a significant advantage on maintenance costs...

Well its still a carrier. Just not one meant to be the centerpiece in a straight-up fight.

And I made it that size cuz it can use my Destroyer slipways. Might as well take advantage and make it the same full size.

I agree with the above comments... in my "opinion" it is more like a flak Destroyer with some oversized hangar capacity and not a light carrier. If it was a light carrier it would have allot more hangar space and much less flak capacity.

Most of my Destroyers of this size all have half the hangar space as this "carrier" does used mainly for scouting crafts.

My light carriers are roughly the same type of design as this but with just some rudimentary flak capacity and allot more hangar space to use for patrol, scouting or supporting planetary invasions with fighters. They then mostly get assigned older destroyers or purpose built frigates as escort.
Posted by: Borealis4x
« on: June 02, 2020, 04:38:24 AM »

Is it beneficial in any way to have Marines board via dropship rather than from the carrier itself? I can't imagine ever boarding a ship that was still moving nor could I imagine doing it while combat was still going on. Probably more straightforward to just have all the Marines in one troop bay.
Posted by: Borealis4x
« on: June 02, 2020, 03:33:34 AM »

Quote from: Ulzgoroth on June 02, 2020, 03:26:38 AM
I think you've designed a 'low-cost' carrier that, per ton of hangar, costs nearly as much as the fleet carrier and masses significantly more.

Though to be fair it does have a much higher deployment time, higher fuel economy, and lower maintenance failure rate. So it should be at a significant advantage on maintenance costs...

Well its still a carrier. Just not one meant to be the centerpiece in a straight-up fight.

And I made it that size cuz it can use my Destroyer slipways. Might as well take advantage and make it the same full size.
Posted by: Ulzgoroth
« on: June 02, 2020, 03:26:38 AM »

I think you've designed a 'low-cost' carrier that, per ton of hangar, costs nearly as much as the fleet carrier and masses significantly more.

Though to be fair it does have a much higher deployment time, higher fuel economy, and lower maintenance failure rate. So it should be at a significant advantage on maintenance costs...
Posted by: Borealis4x
« on: June 02, 2020, 02:33:16 AM »

Quote from: liveware on June 02, 2020, 02:24:00 AM
Quote from: BasileusMaximos on June 02, 2020, 02:04:37 AM
Quote from: liveware on June 02, 2020, 01:44:34 AM
Sounds like you need more Gauss cannons... Or railguns. Supposedly railguns make for reasonable antimissile defense weapons. I've been researching Gauss cannons personally.

Nah, my Gauss cannons worked fine when the whole fleet was in one place. Problem was when my beam frigates or bombers got too close; my bombers don't have any PD and my frigates only have 2, which is enough at every range except at about 1m km when they unleash a constant stream of size 1 missiles at me.

So it sounds like you need more gauss cannons 🙂

Or at least more frigates...

Anyways, what do you people think of this escort carrier I made? Its supposed to be an easy, low-cost way to get military-grade hangars to places where proper carriers aren't necessary, like porviding fighter cover for invasions or sending scouts into enemy territory.

Code: [Select]
Manila Bay class Escort Carrier      15,000 tons       297 Crew       2,598.7 BP       TCS 300    TH 1,250    EM 0
4166 km/s      Armour 4-54       Shields 0-0       HTK 95      Sensors 24/24/0/0      DCR 40      PPV 60.32
Maint Life 4.22 Years     MSP 3,082    AFR 180%    IFR 2.5%    1YR 277    5YR 4,162    Max Repair 312.5 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 2,000 tons     Magazine 376   
Captain    Control Rating 5   BRG   AUX   ENG   CIC   PFC   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Flight Crew Berths 40    Morale Check Required   

EADS Medium Magnetic Fusion Drive C.HS100 EP1250.00 (1)    Power 1250    Fuel Use 1.68%    Signature 1250    Explosion 5%
Fuel Capacity 256,000 Litres    Range 183.1 billion km (508 days at full power)

Quad Rheinmetall AG Gauss Cannon A Mk.1 (8x20)    Range 50,000km     TS: 32000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 50,000 km    ROF 5       
Wuxing Incorporated Point Defense Fire Control R60-TS32000 (1)     Max Range: 60,000 km   TS: 32,000 km/s     83 67 50 33 17 0 0 0 0 0

Raytheon Capital DRADIS AS125-R100 (10%) (1)     GPS 9600     Range 125.7m km    Resolution 100
Raytheon Point DRADIS AS19-R1 (10%) (1)     GPS 48     Range 19.1m km    MCR 1.7m km    Resolution 1
Boglin Fields, Inc. MilSpec Standard EM Sensor Mk1. (1)     Sensitivity 24     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  38.7m km
Boglin Fields, Inc. MilSpec Standard Thermal Sensor Mk.1 (1)     Sensitivity 24     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  38.7m km

ECM 50

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
Posted by: liveware
« on: June 02, 2020, 02:24:00 AM »

Quote from: BasileusMaximos on June 02, 2020, 02:04:37 AM
Quote from: liveware on June 02, 2020, 01:44:34 AM
Sounds like you need more Gauss cannons... Or railguns. Supposedly railguns make for reasonable antimissile defense weapons. I've been researching Gauss cannons personally.

Nah, my Gauss cannons worked fine when the whole fleet was in one place. Problem was when my beam frigates or bombers got too close; my bombers don't have any PD and my frigates only have 2, which is enough at every range except at about 1m km when they unleash a constant stream of size 1 missiles at me.

So it sounds like you need more gauss cannons 🙂
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: June 02, 2020, 02:07:52 AM »

I would seriously consider making that ship use a few smaller engines. What you gain in fuel efficiency you will loose on engineering sections and paying allot more in MSP. Having an engine that expensive and a single one can mean the ship have a mission kill even before it start combat. It also will never be able to repair the engine if it is lost to shock damage or some unlucky hot getting through its armour.

To be honest I think that engine on the carrier is a huge liability... but it is your decision.  :)


In terms of fighters... if you want to get really close to the enemy you will need a screen of interceptors to accompany the bombers. You can have a layered defence of gauss/railgun fighters and AMM/anti-craft multi role fighters.

Although I generally think it is too dangerous to get too close to enemy ships, even with fighters. I tend to want them shooting from a more safer distance. I also want the fire control to be at an even greater distance so they can dart into range and shoot their missiles and start moving away as soon as they released their missiles.

I also tend to use dedicated sensor scouts so I usually paint he target from someplace else but I do keep a dedicated sensor scout in the strike force as a backup too. A 500t high resolution sensor scout can paint the target for the time the missile need into impact from a safe distance and then turn off their sensor and move away unharmed.

Keeping the actual strike group hidden for as long as possible is generally very important.

Now... NPRs are perhaps not famous for very reliant anti-fighter capabilities... perhaps Steve will give them more options in that regard in the future with more dedicated anti-fighter/FAC ships sporting more resolution 5 sensors and smaller lower yield fast and agile missiles.

In my own multi-faction games though using fighters is allot riskier as the opponent will adapt and defend effectively against such tactics.

Personally i tend to design all my ships as if my opponent could effectively defend against them even if I know the NPR might not have that capability.
Posted by: Borealis4x
« on: June 02, 2020, 02:04:37 AM »

Quote from: liveware on June 02, 2020, 01:44:34 AM
Sounds like you need more Gauss cannons... Or railguns. Supposedly railguns make for reasonable antimissile defense weapons. I've been researching Gauss cannons personally.

Nah, my Gauss cannons worked fine when the whole fleet was in one place. Problem was when my beam frigates or bombers got too close; my bombers don't have any PD and my frigates only have 2, which is enough at every range except at about 1m km when they unleash a constant stream of size 1 missiles at me.
Posted by: liveware
« on: June 02, 2020, 01:44:34 AM »

Sounds like you need more Gauss cannons... Or railguns. Supposedly railguns make for reasonable antimissile defense weapons. I've been researching Gauss cannons personally.