Posted by: xenoscepter
« on: June 11, 2020, 04:07:03 AM »OH! You use an otherwise empty missile stage, then stuff the missiles into that... Nice!
I'm gonna do this now, that's awesome!
I'm gonna do this now, that's awesome!
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: June 11, 2020, 03:29:13 AM »I use alot of dedicated training fighters to raise my officers, and for them to have eng.spaces and smth like 18-24 months deployment time is a must, to make decent training trips without annoying problems (and only 18-24 months just to make it impossible to forget to return them and check the best of young officers for promotions).
UPD. I have no clue if it's effective ingame, or there is no difference in terms of commander training between active training trips and hangar rest time. It's just that I cannot make myself believing that fighter commanders can be truly trained while sitting in hangars.
The game already do simulate that ships train and perform manoeuvre over time by increasing crew grade and fleet training to some extent. So ships in a hangar don't just sit there... they will be performing some training and routine missions to keep their skills fresh.
When you add the ships to the training command they are doing allot more training and it will impact the ships overall performance but the crew gain fleet training allot faster. But I don't think that it effect either officers or crew grade in any way to keep ships under a training command.
Posted by: serger
« on: June 11, 2020, 12:55:56 AM »I use alot of dedicated training fighters to raise my officers, and for them to have eng.spaces and smth like 18-24 months deployment time is a must, to make decent training trips without annoying problems (and only 18-24 months just to make it impossible to forget to return them and check the best of young officers for promotions).
UPD. I have no clue if it's effective ingame, or there is no difference in terms of commander training between active training trips and hangar rest time. It's just that I cannot make myself believing that fighter commanders can be truly trained while sitting in hangars.
UPD. I have no clue if it's effective ingame, or there is no difference in terms of commander training between active training trips and hangar rest time. It's just that I cannot make myself believing that fighter commanders can be truly trained while sitting in hangars.
Posted by: liveware
« on: June 10, 2020, 04:38:05 PM »I think you will want to add some more MSP to prevent engine explosions on your interceptor ship.
The main reason to have any MSP on such interceptors is to prevent the box launcher from failing on launch and then explodes. Otherwise, since its operation time is less than 10 hours, an engine failure during such a short time is very unlikely.
Unlikely but still possible. To each their own I suppose but I always try to add at least enough MSP to cover a single max MSP repair. I often use 1x fighter/small sized maintenance storage module and 1x fighter sized engineering space and find that gives plenty of MSP for a fighter. The engineering space also drops the IFR to 0.1 for a typical small fighter, which helps to lower the operational cost of each fighter because they consume fewer MSP overall than without the engineering space.
That said, my current fighter designs only have 0.5b km range, so once I go through my next round of design revisionism and up the range to exceed max beam weapon range my design philosophy might change.
Fighters are docked in hangars most of the time, the cost saving is ignorable. When docked, their maintenance cost is only related to their total cost.
When there is a maintenance check, the failure chance for this design is 0.3%, and then it has to roll the engine (let's say 50% since the engine is almost half the ship), then the engine needs to roll the explosion chance (30%). This is a small enough chance that compared to the 1% failure chance of weapon firing.
On larger fighters, adding a fighter engineering space is not a big deal and I can see its value. But for small fighters at this size, every ton needs to be allocated to the most useful systems.
Then you have to factor in that the fighter are very unlikely to roll a maintenance roll at all since its deployment time is so low... it actually is very rare for a fighter of this type to ever roll a single maintenance test at all. So this really should not be much of a concern at all. There is only a maintenance check every five days a fighter is outside the hangar. When back the maintenance clock is re-winded.
Also, fighters don't pay any maintenance while in a hangar... all maintenance in hangars are free. That is why you always should station fighters and FAC in hangars as they tend to be allot more expensive than the hangar itself is in maintenance cost.
As said... a box launcher failing and exploding is the worst thing that can happen and is a MUCH larger threat.
I had incorrectly assumed that hangers worked like maintenance facilities and required upkeep. If what you say is true then I can certainly see an advantage for low MSP fighters. That is an interesting design consideration.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: June 10, 2020, 02:15:11 PM »I think you will want to add some more MSP to prevent engine explosions on your interceptor ship.
The main reason to have any MSP on such interceptors is to prevent the box launcher from failing on launch and then explodes. Otherwise, since its operation time is less than 10 hours, an engine failure during such a short time is very unlikely.
Unlikely but still possible. To each their own I suppose but I always try to add at least enough MSP to cover a single max MSP repair. I often use 1x fighter/small sized maintenance storage module and 1x fighter sized engineering space and find that gives plenty of MSP for a fighter. The engineering space also drops the IFR to 0.1 for a typical small fighter, which helps to lower the operational cost of each fighter because they consume fewer MSP overall than without the engineering space.
That said, my current fighter designs only have 0.5b km range, so once I go through my next round of design revisionism and up the range to exceed max beam weapon range my design philosophy might change.
Fighters are docked in hangars most of the time, the cost saving is ignorable. When docked, their maintenance cost is only related to their total cost.
When there is a maintenance check, the failure chance for this design is 0.3%, and then it has to roll the engine (let's say 50% since the engine is almost half the ship), then the engine needs to roll the explosion chance (30%). This is a small enough chance that compared to the 1% failure chance of weapon firing.
On larger fighters, adding a fighter engineering space is not a big deal and I can see its value. But for small fighters at this size, every ton needs to be allocated to the most useful systems.
Then you have to factor in that the fighter are very unlikely to roll a maintenance roll at all since its deployment time is so low... it actually is very rare for a fighter of this type to ever roll a single maintenance test at all. So this really should not be much of a concern at all. There is only a maintenance check every five days a fighter is outside the hangar. When back the maintenance clock is re-winded.
Also, fighters don't pay any maintenance while in a hangar... all maintenance in hangars are free. That is why you always should station fighters and FAC in hangars as they tend to be allot more expensive than the hangar itself is in maintenance cost.
As said... a box launcher failing and exploding is the worst thing that can happen and is a MUCH larger threat.
Posted by: Iceranger
« on: June 10, 2020, 01:18:39 PM »I think you will want to add some more MSP to prevent engine explosions on your interceptor ship.
The main reason to have any MSP on such interceptors is to prevent the box launcher from failing on launch and then explodes. Otherwise, since its operation time is less than 10 hours, an engine failure during such a short time is very unlikely.
Unlikely but still possible. To each their own I suppose but I always try to add at least enough MSP to cover a single max MSP repair. I often use 1x fighter/small sized maintenance storage module and 1x fighter sized engineering space and find that gives plenty of MSP for a fighter. The engineering space also drops the IFR to 0.1 for a typical small fighter, which helps to lower the operational cost of each fighter because they consume fewer MSP overall than without the engineering space.
That said, my current fighter designs only have 0.5b km range, so once I go through my next round of design revisionism and up the range to exceed max beam weapon range my design philosophy might change.
Fighters are docked in hangars most of the time, the cost saving is ignorable. When docked, their maintenance cost is only related to their total cost.
When there is a maintenance check, the failure chance for this design is 0.3%, and then it has to roll the engine (let's say 50% since the engine is almost half the ship), then the engine needs to roll the explosion chance (30%). This is a small enough chance that compared to the 1% failure chance of weapon firing.
On larger fighters, adding a fighter engineering space is not a big deal and I can see its value. But for small fighters at this size, every ton needs to be allocated to the most useful systems.
Posted by: liveware
« on: June 10, 2020, 12:58:49 PM »I think you will want to add some more MSP to prevent engine explosions on your interceptor ship.
The main reason to have any MSP on such interceptors is to prevent the box launcher from failing on launch and then explodes. Otherwise, since its operation time is less than 10 hours, an engine failure during such a short time is very unlikely.
Unlikely but still possible. To each their own I suppose but I always try to add at least enough MSP to cover a single max MSP repair. I often use 1x fighter/small sized maintenance storage module and 1x fighter sized engineering space and find that gives plenty of MSP for a fighter. The engineering space also drops the IFR to 0.1 for a typical small fighter, which helps to lower the operational cost of each fighter because they consume fewer MSP overall than without the engineering space.
That said, my current fighter designs only have 0.5b km range, so once I go through my next round of design revisionism and up the range to exceed max beam weapon range my design philosophy might change.
Posted by: Iceranger
« on: June 10, 2020, 12:25:06 PM »I think you will want to add some more MSP to prevent engine explosions on your interceptor ship.
The main reason to have any MSP on such interceptors is to prevent the box launcher from failing on launch and then explodes. Otherwise, since its operation time is less than 10 hours, an engine failure during such a short time is very unlikely.
Posted by: liveware
« on: June 10, 2020, 12:05:00 PM »I think you will want to add some more MSP to prevent engine explosions on your interceptor ship.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: June 10, 2020, 09:12:14 AM »How can it not be a bug that the first stage takes zero space and wrap up two size 3 for an overall size of 6?
It is just an abstraction and makes it easier to design such systems.
Multiple missiles in a MIRV missile don't take up additional space either as they probably should.
In my opinion an additional 5-10% space probably should be added to multiple missiles in one package or something. In that case you two missiles would instead be 2.72-2.85 in size. Could even be it's own technology branch to improve from say 12% down to 3% or something.
But that is not how the current system works.
Posted by: Iceranger
« on: June 10, 2020, 08:45:15 AM »How can it not be a bug that the first stage takes zero space and wrap up two size 3 for an overall size of 6?Duct tape takes up literally no space? XD
Posted by: vorpal+5
« on: June 10, 2020, 03:52:13 AM »How can it not be a bug that the first stage takes zero space and wrap up two size 3 for an overall size of 6?
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: June 10, 2020, 03:50:03 AM »Huh. Now why didn't I think of that?
You can't load two Size 3 Missiles into a Size 6 launcher and fire them simultaneously.
But if I were to, as you said, "duct tape" them together... I could set the separation range such that they split immediately.
Thus I could launch multiple missiles together... maybe.
The range might be weird... I'd have to test it out...
It should work just fine as long as the separation range is further than the range of the missiles themselves. Set it a fair bit further as sometimes you can fire at a target moving towards you at a longer range than the missiles max range.
Posted by: xenoscepter
« on: June 10, 2020, 03:47:31 AM »Huh. Now why didn't I think of that?
You can't load two Size 3 Missiles into a Size 6 launcher and fire them simultaneously.
But if I were to, as you said, "duct tape" them together... I could set the separation range such that they split immediately.
Thus I could launch multiple missiles together... maybe.
The range might be weird... I'd have to test it out...
You can't load two Size 3 Missiles into a Size 6 launcher and fire them simultaneously.
But if I were to, as you said, "duct tape" them together... I could set the separation range such that they split immediately.
Thus I could launch multiple missiles together... maybe.
The range might be weird... I'd have to test it out...
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: June 10, 2020, 02:34:20 AM »Yes... I think this is a pretty good design in general... at your tech you probably could get a AMM in there to and double them as missile protection as well. But a size six might be a bit too large as anti-fighter missiles tend to come in at rather small salvos in general.
I tend to have my small multi-role crafts carry size 4-6 launchers for the same purpose and that can give them all the roles in one.
I do have specialised small boats as well but a good mix is always useful, choice is a powerful tool.
I do the same with my destroyers as they often carry the same type of launchers and uses them for a mix of anti-ship or anti-fighter role. My destroyers usually take the role of dedicated escort and patrol ship with the purpose to engage and defend against small crafts on every form, I don't design them for direct anti-ship duties even if they can do that too if necessary.
This also make both fighters and ships able to carry and use much the same type of missiles.
It surprises me that a ‘2-staged’ missile with an empty stage even works. Although the game does not seem to like it and keeps throwing errors if I try to view it in the missile design window.
I think you should report it as a bug... this worked fine in VB6 as well and is suppose to work. I don't get any errors but it does not show the missile data correctly for me when I select such a missile. So something clearly is wrong.
There is nothing wrong with firing two size 3 missiles from a size 6 launcher, this is an intended feature as far as I know.
