Posted by: liveware
« on: June 16, 2020, 02:50:51 PM »That answers that question then. Spinal mounts are best on large ships.
Posted by: CharonJr
« on: June 16, 2020, 02:45:06 PM »The spinal weapon itself is actually a bit cheaper to research, but otherwise the costs are the same.
15cm Laser:
10cm Advanced Spinal:
15cm Laser:
Code: [Select]
Damage Output 6 Rate of Fire 10 seconds Range Modifier 40 000
Max Range 240 000 km Laser Size 5 HS (250 tons) Laser HTK 2
Power Requirement 6 Recharge Rate 5
Cost 49.0 Crew 15
Development Cost 1350 RP
Materials Required
Duranium 9.8
Boronide 9.8
Corundium 29.410cm Advanced Spinal:
Code: [Select]
Damage Output 6 Rate of Fire 10 seconds Range Modifier 40 000
Max Range 240 000 km Laser Size 5 HS (250 tons) Laser HTK 2
Power Requirement 6 Recharge Rate 5
Cost 49.0 Crew 15
Spinal Weapon Only
Development Cost 1200 RP
Materials Required
Duranium 9.8
Boronide 9.8
Corundium 29.4Posted by: Ulzgoroth
« on: June 16, 2020, 01:57:31 PM »If the final caliber is the same, AFAIK there is literally nothing but downsides to building a laser as a spinal weapon rather than not.
Posted by: liveware
« on: June 16, 2020, 12:48:09 PM »I am but haven't yet reached max laser tech or max engine tech so I'm not totally sure how that will balance out at max tech levels. It may be the case that a single large caliber laser is better than a similar spinal mount due to the fact that fighters are tiny and large caliber lasers are large. The spinal mount would then probably not be of too much use since instead of spinal mounting a small caliber laser I could just as easily use a standard larger caliber laser.
Posted by: Ulzgoroth
« on: June 16, 2020, 11:31:05 AM »As tech marches on, spinal beams on fighters will tend to become less feasible because your spinal beams get larger...
Unless you're not researching core laser techs I guess?
Unless you're not researching core laser techs I guess?
Posted by: liveware
« on: June 16, 2020, 10:47:26 AM »I suppose I should clarify that my attempts at creating a useful and cost effective spinal mounted laser fighter have failed. It is certainly possible but I am not sure it is worth the effort... though I have not yet abandoned hope that one day my engine tech will improve to the point where I can make this concept work.
Posted by: Ulzgoroth
« on: June 16, 2020, 10:43:49 AM »My own attempts at cramming a spinal laser onto a fighter have not been successful, basically because the spinal mounts are too large or I need to use a tiny caliber laser which reduces the effectiveness of the spinal mount. A FAC might be effective but I haven't messed around with that concept enough to say yay or nay.I mean, you certainly can put a spinal laser on a fighter easily. A spinal 12.5cm laser for instance. Which is exactly the same as a non-spinal 12cm laser, except you can't put it in a turret or mount more than one on a ship, and it requires more expensive and less useful technology.
Posted by: liveware
« on: June 16, 2020, 10:04:33 AM »My own attempts at cramming a spinal laser onto a fighter have not been successful, basically because the spinal mounts are too large or I need to use a tiny caliber laser which reduces the effectiveness of the spinal mount. A FAC might be effective but I haven't messed around with that concept enough to say yay or nay.
Posted by: CharonJr
« on: June 16, 2020, 12:21:15 AM »Unless you want to go with a fairly high reduction/low initial size a spinal laser will still be fairly large - too large for a fighter IMO since you need a decent BFC for those as well. Some examples for Ultraviolett and CRR5.
25cm Focus, 0.75 size, Advanced Spinal:
15cm Focus, 0.75 size, Advanced Spinal:
15cm Focus, 0.75 size, Spinal:
10cm Focus, 0.75 size, Advanced Spinal:
25cm Focus, 0.75 size, Advanced Spinal:
Code: [Select]
Damage Output 37 Rate of Fire 150 seconds Range Modifier 40 000
Max Range 1 480 000 km Laser Size 9 HS (450 tons) Laser HTK 4
Power Requirement 37 Recharge Rate 1.25
Cost 91.2 Crew 27
Spinal Weapon Only
Development Cost 1900 RP15cm Focus, 0.75 size, Advanced Spinal:
Code: [Select]
Damage Output 13 Rate of Fire 55 seconds Range Modifier 40 000
Max Range 520 000 km Laser Size 5 HS (250 tons) Laser HTK 2
Power Requirement 13 Recharge Rate 1.25
Cost 54.1 Crew 15
Spinal Weapon Only
Development Cost 1350 RP15cm Focus, 0.75 size, Spinal:
Code: [Select]
Damage Output 9 Rate of Fire 40 seconds Range Modifier 40 000
Max Range 360 000 km Laser Size 4 HS (200 tons) Laser HTK 2
Power Requirement 9 Recharge Rate 1.25
Cost 45.0 Crew 12
Spinal Weapon Only
Development Cost 1350 RP10cm Focus, 0.75 size, Advanced Spinal:
Code: [Select]
Damage Output 6 Rate of Fire 25 seconds Range Modifier 40 000
Max Range 240 000 km Laser Size 4 HS (200 tons) Laser HTK 2
Power Requirement 6 Recharge Rate 1.25
Cost 36.7 Crew 12
Spinal Weapon Only
Development Cost 1200 RPPosted by: Ulzgoroth
« on: June 16, 2020, 12:20:41 AM »My own objective is to mount a spinal mount reduced size beam on a fighter sized craft. This objective is primarily for RP purposes but it would but it would suit my overall fleet composition quite nicely, if it proves effective.Spinal and fighter don't really mix well.
While you could maybe get a tiny useful edge case or two out of some of the odd calibers spinal lasers can have, the core functionality is giving you limited access to higher laser calibers at a lower research cost than directly upgrading the laser caliber tech.
Which means they're big. Cramming a 31.25cm laser (25cm + basic spinal tech) half size at 250 tons into a fighter is going to be painful at best. A 37.5cm laser (30 cm + spinal or 25cm + advanced spinal) half-size at 300 tons is probably not going to work. The 45 centimeter monster I've got currently unused in my arms catalogue couldn't be packed smaller than 400 tons, which is right out for fighter carriage.
A miniaturized laser fighter might make sense - it's one of the use cases I originally suggested - but it is likely to have little or no reason to also use spinal tech rather than being designed at a caliber you can access for non-spinal weapons.
Posted by: liveware
« on: June 15, 2020, 11:47:24 PM »My own objective is to mount a spinal mount reduced size beam on a fighter sized craft. This objective is primarily for RP purposes but it would but it would suit my overall fleet composition quite nicely, if it proves effective.
Posted by: Ulzgoroth
« on: June 15, 2020, 06:47:23 PM »It's definitely possible, but if I'm mounting a spinal beam, I'd rather have one with the best possible rate of fire for its scale than save a couple hundred tons.
Posted by: xenoscepter
« on: June 15, 2020, 06:04:07 PM »@DFNewb
- Oh it's very possible.
- Oh it's very possible.
Posted by: DFNewb
« on: June 15, 2020, 05:37:31 PM »Is it possible to do a reduced size laser spinal mount? If so I see putting 1 of these on all your combat ships could do a lot.
Posted by: liveware
« on: June 15, 2020, 05:16:26 PM »I tend to assume that if non-trivial internal damage is happening my ship is fairly likely to become combat ineffective right away.
As best I can tell the lasers get HTK based on their tonnage, so in general you get the same total HTK of lasers either way. Spreading that out in smaller packets does probably increase the chances of graceful degradation though.
Also, it's not a matter of 'does not necessarily yield more firepower'. It necessarily yields much less firepower. 75% size lasers put out 1/3 as much damage per tick per ton, and 50% size lasers 1/10 as much. They get to front-load a big damage spike, but other than that their efficiency is horrendous.
I believe the advantage of the lower recharge weapons is that you get the same strike damage for a smaller hull size, so possibly you could field a large number of fighters/FACs/corvettes which, if used together, could alpha strike a single opponent more effectively than an equivalent number of larger higher recharge rate weapons could. In this case overall damage might be lower on a time interval basis, but on a per weapon strike basis it could be higher.
I imagine the reduced size configuration would be more useful in a hit-and-run ship configuration, wheras the conventional sized lasers would be more useful in a stay-and-fight ship configuration.
