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: Jorgen_CAB
« on: June 18, 2020, 11:03:33 AM »

In regards to cannons I do think that all the cannon on one ship fires and then the next.... so the larger ones might fire first but only for that ship.

I think that in VB6 it was firing the guns on some sorted order based in the name of the guns or something, are you sure that is not what is going on? 

I have not tested this but I remember there was some specific way you could control this in VB6.


On regards to efficiency there is a pretty big gap in how efficient guns are between say a 17% and a 100% when dealing with many salvos but the difference in performance on large salvos for big guns are in general almost negligible in comparison. Personally I like larger guns as well as small ones for role-play so I use a combination quite often.

Based on this
Quote
When a missile reaches its target, a target ship will use its CIWS first. If that is insufficient, it will use any weapons linked to fire controls set to 'Final Defensive Fire' or 'Final Defensive Fire (Self Only)'. If that is still insufficient, ships or the same race or an allied race with fire controls set to 'Final Defensive Fire' will be checked in increasing order of distance from the target ship.

Each ship being attacked will fire their own weapons first, and only when that is not enough other ships in the fleet will fire to help.

Yes I know this... but I was talking more about which weapon on a ship fires first. There also is the issue of all weapons on one ship fire before any other ships fire as well... so you are not likelt to see all 100% Gauss in a fleet fire first and then all 50% gauss and then all your 11% gauss for example.

So mixing different sizes of Gauss will likely  have little no no real effect.
Posted by: Iceranger
« on: June 18, 2020, 09:11:15 AM »

In regards to cannons I do think that all the cannon on one ship fires and then the next.... so the larger ones might fire first but only for that ship.

I think that in VB6 it was firing the guns on some sorted order based in the name of the guns or something, are you sure that is not what is going on? 

I have not tested this but I remember there was some specific way you could control this in VB6.


On regards to efficiency there is a pretty big gap in how efficient guns are between say a 17% and a 100% when dealing with many salvos but the difference in performance on large salvos for big guns are in general almost negligible in comparison. Personally I like larger guns as well as small ones for role-play so I use a combination quite often.

Based on this
Quote
When a missile reaches its target, a target ship will use its CIWS first. If that is insufficient, it will use any weapons linked to fire controls set to 'Final Defensive Fire' or 'Final Defensive Fire (Self Only)'. If that is still insufficient, ships or the same race or an allied race with fire controls set to 'Final Defensive Fire' will be checked in increasing order of distance from the target ship.

Each ship being attacked will fire their own weapons first, and only when that is not enough other ships in the fleet will fire to help.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: June 18, 2020, 01:31:08 AM »

In regards to cannons I do think that all the cannon on one ship fires and then the next.... so the larger ones might fire first but only for that ship.

I think that in VB6 it was firing the guns on some sorted order based in the name of the guns or something, are you sure that is not what is going on? 

I have not tested this but I remember there was some specific way you could control this in VB6.


On regards to efficiency there is a pretty big gap in how efficient guns are between say a 17% and a 100% when dealing with many salvos but the difference in performance on large salvos for big guns are in general almost negligible in comparison. Personally I like larger guns as well as small ones for role-play so I use a combination quite often.
Posted by: liveware
« on: June 17, 2020, 09:38:25 PM »

I noticed that some of your designs use like 60 single gauss turrets (if i read the 60x6 correctly). At numbers like these you might consider to double, triple or even quadruple those turrets.

Larger turrets save space on crew and tracking gear all the while firing the same shots overall. The only disadvantage is that a single turret can only engage one salvo, so by no means completely replace your single turrets.

From a math perspective single turrets is way more effective than multi turrets for PD duty as the overkill of salvos waste allot more shots than you gain by having them in the same turrets. That is in addition to turrets being more expensive in terms of MSP loss from weapon failures.

Is there any sense in mixing quads/triples/doubles with singles? For example would it be useful to mount 2x quad turrets along with 4x single turrets?

Other than RP I do not think so unless you are trying to squezee in a smaller turret.

I forget where the post was but someone made an experiment with different sizes of gauss. Apparently the larger gauss turret sizes are slightly more efficient at handling fewer but larger salvos whereas the smaller ones are better at fighting more but smaller salvos.

Additionally, in my game I have noticed that my larger gauss turrets "which I call flak cannons" will always fire before the smaller ones - this is incredibly relevant because missile salvos move in descending order of size (largest first) so you could argue that there is a point to mixing different sizes of gauss weapons.

Interesting.

By larger cannons do you mean higher accuracy turrets? Or just larger low accuracy turrets?
Posted by: Droll
« on: June 17, 2020, 09:24:41 PM »

I noticed that some of your designs use like 60 single gauss turrets (if i read the 60x6 correctly). At numbers like these you might consider to double, triple or even quadruple those turrets.

Larger turrets save space on crew and tracking gear all the while firing the same shots overall. The only disadvantage is that a single turret can only engage one salvo, so by no means completely replace your single turrets.

From a math perspective single turrets is way more effective than multi turrets for PD duty as the overkill of salvos waste allot more shots than you gain by having them in the same turrets. That is in addition to turrets being more expensive in terms of MSP loss from weapon failures.

Is there any sense in mixing quads/triples/doubles with singles? For example would it be useful to mount 2x quad turrets along with 4x single turrets?

Other than RP I do not think so unless you are trying to squezee in a smaller turret.

I forget where the post was but someone made an experiment with different sizes of gauss. Apparently the larger gauss turret sizes are slightly more efficient at handling fewer but larger salvos whereas the smaller ones are better at fighting more but smaller salvos.

Additionally, in my game I have noticed that my larger gauss turrets "which I call flak cannons" will always fire before the smaller ones - this is incredibly relevant because missile salvos move in descending order of size (largest first) so you could argue that there is a point to mixing different sizes of gauss weapons.
Posted by: liveware
« on: June 17, 2020, 09:05:10 PM »

I noticed that some of your designs use like 60 single gauss turrets (if i read the 60x6 correctly). At numbers like these you might consider to double, triple or even quadruple those turrets.

Larger turrets save space on crew and tracking gear all the while firing the same shots overall. The only disadvantage is that a single turret can only engage one salvo, so by no means completely replace your single turrets.

From a math perspective single turrets is way more effective than multi turrets for PD duty as the overkill of salvos waste allot more shots than you gain by having them in the same turrets. That is in addition to turrets being more expensive in terms of MSP loss from weapon failures.

Is there any sense in mixing quads/triples/doubles with singles? For example would it be useful to mount 2x quad turrets along with 4x single turrets?
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: June 14, 2020, 05:13:49 AM »

I noticed that some of your designs use like 60 single gauss turrets (if i read the 60x6 correctly). At numbers like these you might consider to double, triple or even quadruple those turrets.

Larger turrets save space on crew and tracking gear all the while firing the same shots overall. The only disadvantage is that a single turret can only engage one salvo, so by no means completely replace your single turrets.

From a math perspective single turrets is way more effective than multi turrets for PD duty as the overkill of salvos waste allot more shots than you gain by having them in the same turrets. That is in addition to turrets being more expensive in terms of MSP loss from weapon failures.
Posted by: SpikeTheHobbitMage
« on: June 13, 2020, 08:41:20 PM »

I noticed that some of your designs use like 60 single gauss turrets (if i read the 60x6 correctly). At numbers like these you might consider to double, triple or even quadruple those turrets.

Larger turrets save space on crew and tracking gear all the while firing the same shots overall. The only disadvantage is that a single turret can only engage one salvo, so by no means completely replace your single turrets.
Turret MSP consumption is still bugged.  Quad turrets use four times the MSP while firing than four singles combined, rather than equal to the combined usage.
Posted by: Droll
« on: June 13, 2020, 08:11:08 PM »

I noticed that some of your designs use like 60 single gauss turrets (if i read the 60x6 correctly). At numbers like these you might consider to double, triple or even quadruple those turrets.

Larger turrets save space on crew and tracking gear all the while firing the same shots overall. The only disadvantage is that a single turret can only engage one salvo, so by no means completely replace your single turrets.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: June 09, 2020, 03:01:20 PM »

I guess it is more of a preference. I feel 10kt ships are still small ships and need specialization to be effective. In terms of ASM ships, I prefer large salvo size than the multi-role capability on ships smaller than 20kt. As for the large sensor, it is more for convenience rather than creating a tactical advantage. Although obvious in a fleet, its cloaking device should make it hard to be targeted by long-range missile fire. Each destroyer is fitted with a suitable active sensor for their own role, so in the worst case of the sensor ship is lost, the fleet keeps its fighting capability.

The heavy cruisers are more of an experimental to me as I don't build large military ships much in previous games. The designs are to show the effectiveness of the larger ships after the buffs for them implemented in C#. They are slower to build, but indeed more cost-effective compared to smaller destroyers. The destroyers still exist due to their flexibility to reinforce any fleet and their lower cost and build time, and the fact that I do have quite a few shipyards with many slipways dedicated to mass-produce them.

Something a human can do to target the sensor this is to simply use EM sensor on the missiles, so you fire the missile against something and when that thing is destroyed it will re-target into the strongest emission which is the sensor ship. Or even sneakier would be to turn of the targeting senor just before impact as the missile the re-target into the sensor ship.
But the AI obviously never would do any of that so why not... my idea of sensor scout is that it is much cheaper and way more flexible and make it actually possible to use to actively scan for enemy without revealing something critical as you entire fleets location.
But I look at this from a multi-faction earth start where you have needs to be efficient all the time and rarely have time to build anything truly unified. You need the ship yesterday not tomorrow kind of thing. So it is different for different conditions.

As for shipyards I can understand that you would like to continue using the yards that you have, I would still contemplate expanding them or find some other use for them and make all my capital ships larger. I have personally never seen any campaign where I could not overproduce ships in any category no matter what. There really are no way to replace those particular destroyers for a cruiser as you a NEVER deploying less than three destroyers anyplace anyway, so they are not cheaper in any way.

The only time I would feel a need to produce ships very fast would be in a defensive situation, then I would use my 1000t shipyards that each have ten slipways before anything else to produce things really fast... otherwise these shipyards are for refitting small crafts.

There is nothing wrong with using many smaller ships, I just would never do it if I have the components to build larger more potent ships. I would just expand my current yards to take full advantage of it and that is what I normally do. For me a 10.000t ship is a small ship... a capital ship that can't deploy on their own in some fashion is not really a useful ship. I always have to risk a large number of crafts for no good reason. If I want a powerful force I want it to be as survivable as possible, that means as large as my research can allow me to make them. Expanding the yards and slipways are generally much easier than doing the research... now with 20% research rate it is super easy to do that which changes the perspective allot to of course.

In the end... the size of ships in my campaigns depend almost entirely on my research capabilities and the outside pressure for an offensive fleet... defensive fleets are quite useful to build just very small highly specialised ships as they don't need support of a fleet structure or the deployment length to do what they need to do. Defensive ships I rarely make much larger than a few thousand tons, maybe as large as 5-6kt or so but even rarely that, FAC and up to 3-4kt max usually.

In my current Conventional game the first real capital ships I look at making right now would be around 10kt and that is with Thermal Nuclear Engines technology, so very early indeed. But I have no need for offensive military ships as I have just started to explore at this time. In another 10-20 years I will have the yards and components to likely support capital ships at 15-20kt most likely so they will be full fledged multi-purpose at that size.

I also would never field military ships without beam weapons... beam weapons is what infantry is for ground wars. Beam weapons make you hold key areas in space that does not move. Those are the areas that are why you build ships in the first place. That is colonies and jump-points. If you don't have enough beam weapons you will have to fall back after you launched all the missiles and in beam combat have some beam weapons on every ship makes you way more resilient and likely to win.

You then also have the issue of command staff, larger ships can get the best and most efficient command staff.. getting enough good captains for huge numbers of ships is quite difficult. This issue should also not be taken lightly and is a serious consideration everyone should make. It is good to weed out the good and less good captains by staffing the less experienced ones in your more defensive backwater defence fleet and the best one on your larger offensive capital ships.

I also know and fully acknowledge that there is not really any right or wrong in however you do it... ultimately I don't think it will matter all that much to be honest. The above is just my general thought process and why I tend to do something in a particular way... I tend to allow my fleets to evolve more organically and never really settle on any particular size or speed or whatever and let external pressure decide that for me.

A final note on a really long reply... I would try to find a good different use for my destroyers. I would make them perhaps slightly larger and mutli-purpose and turn them into forward scouts I can deploy with cruiser battle groups. Perhaps much better speed as extra defence. I could then deploy them as a screening force... say I have three or four cruisers and three to four destroyers... the destroyers can still add some punch to the battle group but also act alone or in small group and using their extra speed to scout and evade enemies. I just would make them clearly different with a different purpose... I would not get rid of them.
Posted by: Iceranger
« on: June 09, 2020, 10:25:50 AM »

I guess it is more of a preference. I feel 10kt ships are still small ships and need specialization to be effective. In terms of ASM ships, I prefer large salvo size than the multi-role capability on ships smaller than 20kt. As for the large sensor, it is more for convenience rather than creating a tactical advantage. Although obvious in a fleet, its cloaking device should make it hard to be targeted by long-range missile fire. Each destroyer is fitted with a suitable active sensor for their own role, so in the worst case of the sensor ship is lost, the fleet keeps its fighting capability.

The heavy cruisers are more of an experimental to me as I don't build large military ships much in previous games. The designs are to show the effectiveness of the larger ships after the buffs for them implemented in C#. They are slower to build, but indeed more cost-effective compared to smaller destroyers. The destroyers still exist due to their flexibility to reinforce any fleet and their lower cost and build time, and the fact that I do have quite a few shipyards with many slipways dedicated to mass-produce them.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: June 06, 2020, 02:49:41 PM »

I would agree with Father Tim on this one... unless the destroyer class is something left over from the past I don't see why you would ever use them and not the larger cruisers who are so much more capable ships in all areas except stealth, but I don't think either is particular good at that anyway.

Super specialist ships is a huge liability anyway as you can easily be deprived of an important ability even by pure chance and that is not a sound military doctrine in my opinion. In my opinion highly specialised ships should be built below 10.000t... after this ships are capable of multiple mission operations so you don't put all your eggs in one basket. Especially at this technology level you should be able to make better use for those destroyer yards, perhaps expand most of them to larger sizes or tow them to a planet with no population for safe keeping to use at a later date. You probably could build some scout or patrol version of the destroyer yards meant mostly for low level engagement.

I never understood why you wanted the same capabilities from multiple ship classes just with different sizes. You also could make much better use of those shields. Personally I would drop the huge sensor ship in favour of a jump command ship that essentially is a carrier that have all the scouts and interceptors. You don't need a vulnerable super sensor ship anyway... you are generally better of with sensor scouts. But this is of course a personal preference.
Posted by: Father Tim
« on: June 06, 2020, 11:42:52 AM »

I'm not sure why an empire would build all those destroyers when it could build Albany heavy cruisers instead.  The main drawback of the CAs is that they can't be in four places at once, but really neither can the DDs since they can't handle independent operations.

Personally, at your shield tech I'd drop the fifth layer of armour on those destroyer designs that mount it, and install equal displacement of shields instead.  Currently your shields are big EM-blinking-billboards that say "I'm valuable; shoot me!"  (Though, granted, they make killing the valuable targets much more difficult.)
Posted by: Iceranger
« on: May 26, 2020, 09:09:56 PM »

Updated the AFM destroyer so it has dedicated sensors and MFCs designed for her:
Code: [Select]
Summer class Destroyer      12,000 tons       277 Crew       5,293.7 BP       TCS 240    TH 3,840    EM 0
16000 km/s      Armour 5-46       Shields 0-0       HTK 117      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 12      PPV 38.4
Maint Life 4.20 Years     MSP 3,708    AFR 96%    IFR 1.3%    1YR 338    5YR 5,064    Max Repair 960 MSP
Magazine 776   
Captain    Control Rating 2   BRG   CIC   
Intended Deployment Time: 24 months    Morale Check Required   

Inertial Fusion Drive  EP1920.00 (2)    Power 3840    Fuel Use 34.45%    Signature 1920    Explosion 15%
Fuel Capacity 914,000 Litres    Range 39.8 billion km (28 days at full power)

Size 3.0 Missile Launcher (40.0% Reduction) (32)     Missile Size: 3    Rate of Fire 130
Missile Fire Control FC27-R2 (16)     Range 27.9m km    Resolution 2
AFM 3/9/57k/28 (258)    Speed: 56,933 km/s    End: 8.2m     Range: 28m km    WH: 9    Size: 3    TH: 1081/649/324

Active Search Sensor AS31-R2 (1)     GPS 120     Range 31.1m km    Resolution 2

Compact ECCM-5 (16)         ECM 60

I realized there isn't any ELINT modules in my fleet to gather enemy active sensor information. So I managed to squeeze them into the command ships, at the price of some PD or troop space:
Code: [Select]
Porter class Jump Destroyer Escort      12,000 tons       323 Crew       4,275.3 BP       TCS 240    TH 3,840    EM 3,630
16000 km/s    JR 3-50      Armour 10-46       Shields 121-378       HTK 85      Sensors 0/160/0/0      DCR 10      PPV 31.36
Maint Life 3.40 Years     MSP 3,426    AFR 115%    IFR 1.6%    1YR 451    5YR 6,764    Max Repair 960 MSP
Commander    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 24 months    Morale Check Required   

J12000(3-50) Military Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 12000 tons    Distance 50k km     Squadron Size 3

Inertial Fusion Drive  EP1920.00 (2)    Power 3840    Fuel Use 34.45%    Signature 1920    Explosion 15%
Fuel Capacity 910,000 Litres    Range 39.6 billion km (28 days at full power)
Omicron S121 / R378 Shields (1)     Recharge Time 378 seconds (0.3 per second)

Single Gauss Cannon R200-17.00 Turret (23x6)    Range 20,000km     TS: 40000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 20,000 km    ROF 5       
Gauss Cannon R200-17.00 (1x6)    Range 20,000km     TS: 16,000 km/s     Accuracy Modifier 17.00%     RM 20,000 km    ROF 5       
Beam Fire Control R150-TS40000 (1)     Max Range: 150,000 km   TS: 40,000 km/s     93 87 80 73 67 60 53 47 40 33

Active Search Sensor AS17-R1 (1)     GPS 30     Range 17.5m km    MCR 1.6m km    Resolution 1
EM Sensor EM5-160 (1)     Sensitivity 160     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  100m km
ELINT Module (1)     Sensitivity 14     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  29.6m km

ECCM-6 (1)         ECM 60

Code: [Select]
Aigaion class Command Cruiser      48,000 tons       1,434 Crew       17,800 BP       TCS 960    TH 15,360    EM 40,260
16000 km/s    JR 3-50      Armour 10-117       Shields 1342-671       HTK 304      Sensors 320/320/0/0      DCR 100      PPV 79.2
Maint Life 3.30 Years     MSP 19,384    AFR 263%    IFR 3.7%    1YR 2,693    5YR 40,399    Max Repair 2560 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 1,000 tons     Troop Capacity 500 tons     
Captain    Control Rating 5   BRG   AUX   ENG   CIC   FLG   
Intended Deployment Time: 24 months    Flight Crew Berths 20    Morale Check Required   

J48000(3-50) Military Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 48000 tons    Distance 50k km     Squadron Size 3

Inertial Fusion Drive  EP5120.00 (3)    Power 15360    Fuel Use 25.60%    Signature 5120    Explosion 16%
Fuel Capacity 3,948,000 Litres    Range 57.8 billion km (41 days at full power)
Omicron S671 / R671 Shields (2)     Recharge Time 671 seconds (2 per second)

Single Gauss Cannon R200-17.00 Turret (60x6)    Range 20,000km     TS: 40000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 20,000 km    ROF 5       
Beam Fire Control R150-TS40000 (2)     Max Range: 150,000 km   TS: 40,000 km/s     93 87 80 73 67 60 53 47 40 33

Active Search Sensor AS362-R100 (1)     GPS 60000     Range 362.9m km    Resolution 100
Active Search Sensor AS78-R1 (1)     GPS 600     Range 78.2m km    MCR 7m km    Resolution 1
Active Search Sensor AS168-R10 (1)     GPS 6000     Range 168.4m km    Resolution 10
EM Sensor EM10-320 (1)     Sensitivity 320     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  141.4m km
Thermal Sensor TH10-320 (1)     Sensitivity 320     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  141.4m km
ELINT Module (1)     Sensitivity 14     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  29.6m km

ECCM-6 (2)         ECM 60

Strike Group
8x Shadow Scout Fighter   Speed: 24070 km/s    Size: 2.39

And finally, a stealthy dedicated intelligence ship. I probably should put a CIWS somewhere on the ship, but I cannot squeeze it in...
Code: [Select]
Eve class Intelligence Ship      6,000 tons       169 Crew       3,186.7 BP       TCS 6    TH 115    EM 0
12000 km/s    JR 3-50      Armour 6-29       Shields 0-0       HTK 38      Sensors 160/160/0/0      DCR 7      PPV 0
Maint Life 5.13 Years     MSP 4,323    AFR 41%    IFR 0.6%    1YR 274    5YR 4,109    Max Repair 1980.0000 MSP
Commander    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 24 months    Morale Check Required   

J6000(3-50) Military Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 6000 tons    Distance 50k km     Squadron Size 3

Inertial Fusion Drive  EP1440.00 TM 8% (1)    Power 1440.0    Fuel Use 23.02%    Signature 115.2000    Explosion 12%
Fuel Capacity 464,000 Litres    Range 60.5 billion km (58 days at full power)

Filler (1)     Total Power Output 0    Exp 5%
Active Search Sensor AS17-R1 (1)     GPS 30     Range 17.5m km    MCR 1.6m km    Resolution 1
Thermal Sensor TH5-160 (1)     Sensitivity 160     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  100m km
EM Sensor EM5-160 (1)     Sensitivity 160     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  100m km
ELINT Module (1)     Sensitivity 14     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  29.6m km
Cloaking Device: Class cross-section reduced to 5.00% of normal

ECM 60
Posted by: Iceranger
« on: May 25, 2020, 10:56:02 PM »

Clearly you put a lot of work and thought into your designs, and they look pretty good.  A good combined unit with specialized ships and roles is a great way to go.   The only real issue I see is your reload time for your size 6 and size 3 launchers.   A reload time of 920 for your ASMs is over 15 minutes.   In a battle with 5 second increments, 15 minutes is an eternity!  Especially if you realize after launch (or impact) that you just fired your whole volley at a spoiler fuel harvester, not the missile cruiser you thought you had.   I can understand that reducing launcher size will give you more launchers for a better throw weight to your salvos, but the 15 minute reload means you wont likely get more than one off before the battle is over.    Your missiles are fast and short ranged too, so they will cover that range very quickly, leaving you with little to do other than absorb many, many volleys of incoming fire while you wait.   Same with your anti fighter missiles, the reload is over 2 minutes.   Fighter sized craft are FAST, (yours are 24k to 40k) and two minutes gives them time between volleys to move into or out of range with impunity.   Hopefully your first volley is effective, or your fighters can track them down while you wait for a reload.

I generally keep my ASM launchers around size 6 as well, but make sure that they can spew out a missile salvo every 20 to 30 seconds.   At your tech level, this should be no issue.   Smaller salvos in rapid succession can be very hard to defend against, particularly if you have a large number of ships (or fighters) to throw them with.   Consider using missile destroyers with 8 or 10 launchers in grouped in four or five per FC and enough magazine space for 8 or 10 salvos in rapid fire.   Try smaller missile warheads are of 9, 12 or 16 and as fast as you can manage them with a range of about 80 million kms or better, so you can hit them first and bugger off if need be, or at least have an opening range engagement.   Plus I find this gives me time and range for my bombers to launch close in, time on target attacks that will overwhelm any defenses.

Good luck!

Indeed 920 seconds is a lot in combat, but for missile ships, I feel this is workable. Especially when in VB6, such reload would be easily 40 mins. :)

I value salvo size much more than RoF when using missiles offensively, since the larger the salvo size, the smaller percentage can be shot down by PD. The fleet is designed to weather the incoming missile fire until I can get in my range. Kind of in between missile ships and beam ships. Thus the fleet is fast (in missile ship standard, and I'd say these ships are not slow in beam ship standard), and heavy defenses are put on high value targets (sensor platforms and jump ships).

The range of my short ranged ASMs is chosen on purpose to accomodate the firing rate. At 30mkm range, a 32kkm/s speed difference can cover this range in 930s. This mean if my fleet can try to keep the distance from the enemy fleet by moving away, my fleet can fire all their salvos. My DDs hold 9 salvos each, and my CAs hold 7 salvos each. Thus if the enemy's speed is below 21kkm/s, I have enough time to fire all 7 salvos, or if they are below 20kkm/s, I have time to fire all 9 salvos.

Similarly for the AFM. The missile itself was designed for the interceptor initially, so I adjusted my magazine depth and the firing rate so the AFM wielding ship can fire as many as possible in a single salvo, while having some reloading capabilities. The Summer class holds 8 salvos of missiles, needing 1050 seconds to empty its magazine. Assuming the missiles are fired starting from 25mkm range, the incoming (beam) fighters need to be about 23.8kkm/s faster than my fleet to reach my fleet within that time frame.