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: Iceranger
« on: July 18, 2020, 09:53:59 AM »

Quote from: xenoscepter on July 18, 2020, 01:52:49 AM
Iceranger:
Quote
ECM 1 might not be so valuable against AMMs for fighters. If the accuracy of the missile is high enough, the ECM can be negated. For example, if your fighter is 20kkm/s, against a AMM that has 100% chance to hit a 22kkm/s target. Then this missile will have 110% hit rate against this fighter, or 100% when it has ECM1.

Also, due to the shock damage change, even AMMs now have a chance to induce shock damage on fighters. So armor on fighters is much less valuable than before.

 - I'm not entirely convinced that the ECM 1 is less valuable after building the above examples, but that's not the point of this reply. I feel the point about shock damage is misleading, and so in the spirit of the thread I'll chime in. The value of armor isn't against shock damage, it's against sandblasting. The Escort invests 25 Tons for it's ECM 1,and while the Example AMM could and would spam it to oblivion and then some, BasileusMaximos is doing something very wrong to get within 766,000 km of the enemy in a bomber to start with. The Armored Escort on the other hand, even at Composite Armor Tech, invests a mere 35 tons t literally double the amount of armor that the Example AMM must grind through. The Fast Escort is simply faster than 20,000 km/s so the ECM 1 is still valuable even against the Example AMM.

 - Armor is probably a lot less valuable than it was in VB6, but I feel like you might be devaluing it a bit overtly. Shock Damage is inherently RNG, while sandblasting the armor is not. 35 Tons for double the endurance is a tremendous return on investment, and cheaper than shields to boot. ECM 1 is a nice to have, but ECM 2 or 3 would certainly be much better. I think a lot of it comes down to design, but this thread is called "PD Fighter Analysis" so I felt compelled to chime in... even if I'm splitting hairs. I did learn something though! I learned that AMMs scale way harder than I previously thought. >.>; @BasileusMaximos - I would encourage you to make a new thread about this, so we could better help you. :) The range of your bombers, ASMs, the range of the enemy AMMs, their tech level, your tech level... these things matter a lot. We'd need that to give you a good solution.

The point of armor is never to protect against shock damage, it is never the way how armor works anyway. In VB6 armored fighters allow you to defend against sandblasting without worrying about the probability of shock damage. That's why I say armor now is less valuable than before (in VB6). Not sure how that is over devaluing it.
Posted by: xenoscepter
« on: July 18, 2020, 03:20:37 AM »

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg111676#msg111676

Well then, a warhead of 1 versus a 500 Ton (10HS) hull would have a 10% chance of doing shock damage. That would mean 1 in 10 AMMs would go through, so the Armored Escort could take the 9 hits and maybe see 1 Shock Damage, 2 at most before the armor gave out given how Aurora calculates RNG. So that armor is even more effective than I thought! :D The shock damage would be up to 2 points though if it did hit, but honestly that's not a big deal overall as by the time such an AMM managed to inflict shock damage the armor is almost gone anyway... so whats the extra point of damage really worth at that rate?
Posted by: hubgbf
« on: July 18, 2020, 02:31:13 AM »

Shock damage is additionnal damage whose probability depends on the damage and the total HS.

cf : http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg111676#msg111676
Posted by: xenoscepter
« on: July 18, 2020, 01:55:36 AM »

Shock Damage is damage that goes through the armor. That is to say Shock Damage is applied directly the internal structure, i.e. Crew Quarters, Engines, Weapons Systems, Fuel Tanks, and so on. HtK, which stands for, "Hit to Kill" is a measure of your ship's overall toughness, it's basically your Hit Points. I don't know if HtK takes armor into account or not.
Posted by: xenoscepter
« on: July 18, 2020, 01:52:49 AM »

Iceranger:
Quote
ECM 1 might not be so valuable against AMMs for fighters. If the accuracy of the missile is high enough, the ECM can be negated. For example, if your fighter is 20kkm/s, against a AMM that has 100% chance to hit a 22kkm/s target. Then this missile will have 110% hit rate against this fighter, or 100% when it has ECM1.

Also, due to the shock damage change, even AMMs now have a chance to induce shock damage on fighters. So armor on fighters is much less valuable than before.

Example AMM:
Code: [Select]
Missile Size: 1.00 MSP  (2.500 Tons)     Warhead: 1    Radiation Damage: 1    Manoeuvre Rating: 40
Speed: 52,800 km/s     Fuel: 50     Flight Time: 14.5 seconds     Range: 765,600 km
Cost Per Missile: 2.167     Development Cost: 217
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 2112.0%   3k km/s 704.0%   5k km/s 422.4%   10k km/s 211.2%

Materials Required
Tritanium  0.255
Gallicite  1.912
Fuel:  50
Railgun Figher
Code: [Select]
New Class class Escort      500 tons       27 Crew       189.1 BP       TCS 10    TH 204    EM 0
20439 km/s      Armour 1-5       Shields 0-0       HTK 4      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 3
Maint Life 8.46 Years     MSP 127    AFR 10%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 3    5YR 47    Max Repair 102.00 MSP
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 0.1 days    Morale Check Required   

Internal Fusion Drive  EP204.00 (1)    Power 204.0    Fuel Use 1336.70%    Signature 204.00    Explosion 30%
Fuel Capacity 9,000 Litres    Range 0.2 billion km (3 hours at full power)

10cm Railgun V20/C3 (1x4)    Range 20,000km     TS: 20,439 km/s     Power 3-3     RM 20,000 km    ROF 5        1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Beam Fire Control R40-TS20000 (1)     Max Range: 40,000 km   TS: 20,000 km/s     25 17 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tokamak Fusion Reactor R3 (1)     Total Power Output 3    Exp 5%

Active Search Sensor AS1-R1 (1)     GPS 2     Range 1.8m km    MCR 160.6k km    Resolution 1

ECM 10

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction
Armored Escort
Code: [Select]
New Class - Copy class Escort      500 tons       24 Crew       177.7 BP       TCS 10    TH 204    EM 0
20438 km/s      Armour 2-5       Shields 0-0       HTK 3      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 3
Maint Life 1.64 Years     MSP 80    AFR 100%    IFR 1.4%    1YR 35    5YR 526    Max Repair 102.00 MSP
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 0.1 days    Morale Check Required   

Internal Fusion Drive  EP204.00 (1)    Power 204.0    Fuel Use 1336.70%    Signature 204.00    Explosion 30%
Fuel Capacity 9,000 Litres    Range 0.2 billion km (3 hours at full power)

10cm Railgun V20/C3 (1x4)    Range 20,000km     TS: 20,438 km/s     Power 3-3     RM 20,000 km    ROF 5        1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Beam Fire Control R40-TS20000 (1)     Max Range: 40,000 km   TS: 20,000 km/s     25 17 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tokamak Fusion Reactor R3 (1)     Total Power Output 3    Exp 5%

Active Search Sensor AS1-R1 (1)     GPS 2     Range 1.8m km    MCR 160.6k km    Resolution 1

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction
Fast Escort:
Code: [Select]
New Class - Copy class Escort      500 tons       26 Crew       197.6 BP       TCS 10    TH 222    EM 0
22243 km/s      Armour 1-5       Shields 0-0       HTK 3      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 3
Maint Life 1.53 Years     MSP 80    AFR 100%    IFR 1.4%    1YR 39    5YR 583    Max Repair 111.00 MSP
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 0.1 days    Morale Check Required   

Internal Fusion Drive  EP222.00 (1)    Power 222.0    Fuel Use 1281.36%    Signature 222.00    Explosion 30%
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres    Range 0.3 billion km (3 hours at full power)

10cm Railgun V20/C3 (1x4)    Range 20,000km     TS: 22,243 km/s     Power 3-3     RM 20,000 km    ROF 5        1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Beam Fire Control R40-TS21875 (1)     Max Range: 40,000 km   TS: 21,875 km/s     27 18 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tokamak Fusion Reactor R3 (1)     Total Power Output 3    Exp 5%

Active Search Sensor AS1-R1 (1)     GPS 2     Range 1.8m km    MCR 160.6k km    Resolution 1

ECM 10

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction
 - I'm not entirely convinced that the ECM 1 is less valuable after building the above examples, but that's not the point of this reply. I feel the point about shock damage is misleading, and so in the spirit of the thread I'll chime in. The value of armor isn't against shock damage, it's against sandblasting. The Escort invests 25 Tons for it's ECM 1,and while the Example AMM could and would spam it to oblivion and then some, BasileusMaximos is doing something very wrong to get within 766,000 km of the enemy in a bomber to start with. The Armored Escort on the other hand, even at Composite Armor Tech, invests a mere 35 tons t literally double the amount of armor that the Example AMM must grind through. The Fast Escort is simply faster than 20,000 km/s so the ECM 1 is still valuable even against the Example AMM.

 - Armor is probably a lot less valuable than it was in VB6, but I feel like you might be devaluing it a bit overtly. Shock Damage is inherently RNG, while sandblasting the armor is not. 35 Tons for double the endurance is a tremendous return on investment, and cheaper than shields to boot. ECM 1 is a nice to have, but ECM 2 or 3 would certainly be much better. I think a lot of it comes down to design, but this thread is called "PD Fighter Analysis" so I felt compelled to chime in... even if I'm splitting hairs. I did learn something though! I learned that AMMs scale way harder than I previously thought. >.>; @BasileusMaximos - I would encourage you to make a new thread about this, so we could better help you. :) The range of your bombers, ASMs, the range of the enemy AMMs, their tech level, your tech level... these things matter a lot. We'd need that to give you a good solution.
Posted by: Droll
« on: July 17, 2020, 11:44:16 PM »

Quote from: Iceranger on July 17, 2020, 11:38:11 PM
Quote from: xenoscepter on July 17, 2020, 11:06:18 PM
Railgun Fighters do well against those, give 'em 10cm Railguns with Capacitor 3, Railgun Launch Velocity 20,000 km or better and pair them with an FCS that has at least 20,000 km range... and that is the bare minimum.

30,000 km Launch Velocity and 60,000 km FCS Max Range is much more comfortable, while 20,000 km Launch Velocity and 40,000 km FCS Max Range is cost-effective. Make sure that the FCS tracking speed is matched to the fighter's own top speed if that speed exceeds your base FCS Tracking Speed, i.e. the Tracking Speed that your Beam FCS has before changing the Tracking Speed in the Component Design window.

Also, make sure all of your PD Fighters have at least a small Res 1 Active Sensor. An additional fighter dedicated to sensors is very helpful, but it is wise to ensure that it's destruction does not result in a mission kill for the entire escort formation. Of note, you could also create a bomber with AMM "Canisters" by adding some extra Box Launchers dedicated to holding a missile stage comprised of nothing but AMMs set to deploy immediately upon launch. A 20 Ton Res 1 Active Sensor and a 5 Ton Res 1 Missile FCS make a good pairing for each bomber, so when you detect the missiles, you can launch the AMMs.

Consider using 2-3 layers of armor, depending on your tech; it makes them that much harder to shoot down. A Small Craft ECM 1 module is nice to have as well, gives you a 10% evasion against missiles that lack ECCM, which is a common trait of typical AMMs as they tend to work best as cheap, high speed, high agility spam missiles.

ECM 1 might not be so valuable against AMMs for fighters. If the accuracy of the missile is high enough, the ECM can be negated. For example, if your fighter is 20kkm/s, against a AMM that has 100% chance to hit a 22kkm/s target. Then this missile will have 110% hit rate against this fighter, or 100% when it has ECM1.

Also, due to the shock damage change, even AMMs now have a chance to induce shock damage on fighters. So armor on fighters is much less valuable than before.

What is shock damage?
Posted by: Iceranger
« on: July 17, 2020, 11:38:11 PM »

Quote from: xenoscepter on July 17, 2020, 11:06:18 PM
Railgun Fighters do well against those, give 'em 10cm Railguns with Capacitor 3, Railgun Launch Velocity 20,000 km or better and pair them with an FCS that has at least 20,000 km range... and that is the bare minimum.

30,000 km Launch Velocity and 60,000 km FCS Max Range is much more comfortable, while 20,000 km Launch Velocity and 40,000 km FCS Max Range is cost-effective. Make sure that the FCS tracking speed is matched to the fighter's own top speed if that speed exceeds your base FCS Tracking Speed, i.e. the Tracking Speed that your Beam FCS has before changing the Tracking Speed in the Component Design window.

Also, make sure all of your PD Fighters have at least a small Res 1 Active Sensor. An additional fighter dedicated to sensors is very helpful, but it is wise to ensure that it's destruction does not result in a mission kill for the entire escort formation. Of note, you could also create a bomber with AMM "Canisters" by adding some extra Box Launchers dedicated to holding a missile stage comprised of nothing but AMMs set to deploy immediately upon launch. A 20 Ton Res 1 Active Sensor and a 5 Ton Res 1 Missile FCS make a good pairing for each bomber, so when you detect the missiles, you can launch the AMMs.

Consider using 2-3 layers of armor, depending on your tech; it makes them that much harder to shoot down. A Small Craft ECM 1 module is nice to have as well, gives you a 10% evasion against missiles that lack ECCM, which is a common trait of typical AMMs as they tend to work best as cheap, high speed, high agility spam missiles.

ECM 1 might not be so valuable against AMMs for fighters. If the accuracy of the missile is high enough, the ECM can be negated. For example, if your fighter is 20kkm/s, against a AMM that has 100% chance to hit a 22kkm/s target. Then this missile will have 110% hit rate against this fighter, or 100% when it has ECM1.

Also, due to the shock damage change, even AMMs now have a chance to induce shock damage on fighters. So armor on fighters is much less valuable than before.
Posted by: xenoscepter
« on: July 17, 2020, 11:06:18 PM »

Railgun Fighters do well against those, give 'em 10cm Railguns with Capacitor 3, Railgun Launch Velocity 20,000 km or better and pair them with an FCS that has at least 20,000 km range... and that is the bare minimum.

30,000 km Launch Velocity and 60,000 km FCS Max Range is much more comfortable, while 20,000 km Launch Velocity and 40,000 km FCS Max Range is cost-effective. Make sure that the FCS tracking speed is matched to the fighter's own top speed if that speed exceeds your base FCS Tracking Speed, i.e. the Tracking Speed that your Beam FCS has before changing the Tracking Speed in the Component Design window.

Also, make sure all of your PD Fighters have at least a small Res 1 Active Sensor. An additional fighter dedicated to sensors is very helpful, but it is wise to ensure that it's destruction does not result in a mission kill for the entire escort formation. Of note, you could also create a bomber with AMM "Canisters" by adding some extra Box Launchers dedicated to holding a missile stage comprised of nothing but AMMs set to deploy immediately upon launch. A 20 Ton Res 1 Active Sensor and a 5 Ton Res 1 Missile FCS make a good pairing for each bomber, so when you detect the missiles, you can launch the AMMs.

Consider using 2-3 layers of armor, depending on your tech; it makes them that much harder to shoot down. A Small Craft ECM 1 module is nice to have as well, gives you a 10% evasion against missiles that lack ECCM, which is a common trait of typical AMMs as they tend to work best as cheap, high speed, high agility spam missiles.
Posted by: Borealis4x
« on: July 17, 2020, 10:45:17 PM »

Hijacking this thread to ask whether escort PD fighters do any good against size 1 AMMs that keep getting spammed at my bombers whenever they get in close.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: July 17, 2020, 06:24:18 PM »

CIWS is actually mainly intended as a defensive weapon for commercial designs as CIWS is not a military component.

The only really positive effect of CIWS on a military vessel are breaching ships during a jump point attack and ships that often act on their own.

Other than that then regular Gauss turrets are always going to be preferable as you rarely move fleets with only one ship.

If you want to militarise your survey ships then adding some CIWS and box launched AMM can actually save them from being destroyed. Although, from a resource perspective it probably is more expensive to do that than have the occasional surveyor destroyed, but Aurora is not about min/max in that sense my opinion. YOU decide what is acceptable and how important the lives of the crew and officers are valued in your society.
Posted by: Froggiest1982
« on: July 15, 2020, 08:23:56 PM »

Quote from: rainyday on June 12, 2020, 04:06:36 PM
You can calculate the efficiency of your point defense like this. First get the base accuracy of your fire control at 10k km against the missiles using the box on the right hand side of the ship design window. For example you could set this 35000 km/s to see the fire control accuracy against missiles traveling that speed. These are the numbers beside your fire control.

Then you can figure it out like this:

Railgun = 4 shots @ 87% accuracy = 4 * 0.87 = 3.48 expected hits

Gauss Turrets = 48 shots (3x16) @ 8% of 87% accuracy = 48 * 0.87 * 0.08 = 3.34 expected hits

So in this case even if your turret tracking speed was the same as the fighter speed the rail gun would still be better. I suspect that's because you're wasting some tonnage on turret mounts. At RoF8 Railguns and Gauss should have the same performance per HS.

U know I am really glad I am rereading this post, I never really quite understood/used that box on the right.

I knew it would need at something otherwise Steve would have not placed it there, but let's be honest: how many things are there but we still confortably using calculators or spread sheets?
Posted by: Landris
« on: June 17, 2020, 05:27:03 PM »

Jump shock is another situation where CIWS is valuable, since I think it is unaffected (correct me if I'm wrong, haven't tried it myself).
Posted by: liveware
« on: June 17, 2020, 04:27:28 PM »

Quote from: Zincat on June 17, 2020, 11:28:48 AM
Quote from: Droll on June 17, 2020, 11:07:30 AM
Quote from: liveware on June 16, 2020, 01:12:08 PM
I figured out my problem with some help from others in another thread. In my case I had CIWS and gauss on the same ship. CIWS ALWAYS FIRES FIRST! My CIWS was so effective that my gauss turrets never needed to fire.

To add to this, the point defence weapons on the targetted ships also fire before the other ships in the fleet. If the target of the missiles can fend for itself completely then the rest of the fleet wont get to shoot. If it can't then a random friendly ship with gauss weapons are picked and only when that ship runs out of weapons does the next ship in the fleet come in to assist.

Also I find CIWS and gauss co-existing on the same ship an interesting choice. What is the benefit of the mix?

Gauss cannons are always better in any fleet situation. Period. Because all the gauss cannons of the fleet will defend the targeted ships, and their number adds up.

There is no benefit in normal situations IF the ship already has sensors and fire controls anyway.
A CIWS is literally a gauss cannon with self contained sensor and BFC. As such, if you already have a sensor in the fleet and a BFC on the ship, there's no reason to put CIWS.

And yes, the targeting rules of for incoming missile volleys have changed, but that does not even matter. Assuming you have multiple ships with PD anyway, say 3 ships with 600 tons each, 600 tons of CIWS will always be inferior to 1800 tons of gauss across the three ships.

Of course you can use CIWS for RP, but that's an entirely different matter. CIWS in a fleet have no mathematical justification. And the more ships you have, the more having CIWS on multiple ships will be a waste. After all CIWS can only defend their own ship, and the enemy will not target all the ships at once, so a lot of the CIWS will end up unused. Space which you could have used for more gauss cannons.
CIWS make sense for lone ships or civilians or orbital platforms.

EDIT: to clarify, I use CIWS on important capital ships because I am an RP guy. To me RP stands above all. But if the question is: Does it make mathematical sense in a fleet. Then the answer is no.

I believe there is an argument to be made for sticking a CIWS on a commercial ship as a commercial ship cannot mount a gauss turret. So in this edge case CIWS is the superiors system because there is no viable alternative. However, I don't ever do this because I try avoid situations where my commercial ships would be fired upon at all.
Posted by: liveware
« on: June 17, 2020, 04:24:02 PM »

Quote from: Droll on June 17, 2020, 11:07:30 AM
Quote from: liveware on June 16, 2020, 01:12:08 PM
I figured out my problem with some help from others in another thread. In my case I had CIWS and gauss on the same ship. CIWS ALWAYS FIRES FIRST! My CIWS was so effective that my gauss turrets never needed to fire.

To add to this, the point defence weapons on the targetted ships also fire before the other ships in the fleet. If the target of the missiles can fend for itself completely then the rest of the fleet wont get to shoot. If it can't then a random friendly ship with gauss weapons are picked and only when that ship runs out of weapons does the next ship in the fleet come in to assist.

Also I find CIWS and gauss co-existing on the same ship an interesting choice. What is the benefit of the mix?

It was an experiment to determine the relative effectiveness of each system. Unfortunately I got the firing sequence backwards so my gauss turrets remain untested and the experiment did not quite work as planned.
Posted by: Zincat
« on: June 17, 2020, 11:28:48 AM »

Quote from: Droll on June 17, 2020, 11:07:30 AM
Quote from: liveware on June 16, 2020, 01:12:08 PM
I figured out my problem with some help from others in another thread. In my case I had CIWS and gauss on the same ship. CIWS ALWAYS FIRES FIRST! My CIWS was so effective that my gauss turrets never needed to fire.

To add to this, the point defence weapons on the targetted ships also fire before the other ships in the fleet. If the target of the missiles can fend for itself completely then the rest of the fleet wont get to shoot. If it can't then a random friendly ship with gauss weapons are picked and only when that ship runs out of weapons does the next ship in the fleet come in to assist.

Also I find CIWS and gauss co-existing on the same ship an interesting choice. What is the benefit of the mix?

Gauss cannons are always better in any fleet situation. Period. Because all the gauss cannons of the fleet will defend the targeted ships, and their number adds up.

There is no benefit in normal situations IF the ship already has sensors and fire controls anyway.
A CIWS is literally a gauss cannon with self contained sensor and BFC. As such, if you already have a sensor in the fleet and a BFC on the ship, there's no reason to put CIWS.

And yes, the targeting rules of for incoming missile volleys have changed, but that does not even matter. Assuming you have multiple ships with PD anyway, say 3 ships with 600 tons each, 600 tons of CIWS will always be inferior to 1800 tons of gauss across the three ships.

Of course you can use CIWS for RP, but that's an entirely different matter. CIWS in a fleet have no mathematical justification. And the more ships you have, the more having CIWS on multiple ships will be a waste. After all CIWS can only defend their own ship, and the enemy will not target all the ships at once, so a lot of the CIWS will end up unused. Space which you could have used for more gauss cannons.
CIWS make sense for lone ships or civilians or orbital platforms.

EDIT: to clarify, I use CIWS on important capital ships because I am an RP guy. To me RP stands above all. But if the question is: Does it make mathematical sense in a fleet. Then the answer is no.