Posted by: Llamageddon
« on: October 18, 2020, 01:57:22 PM »Silly me, I misread it. Makes sense for missile defence then. I'm making some corvettes with AMMs I might put the 12cm ones on then, so they can do more damage to FACs that get in close.
Posted by: Barkhorn
« on: October 18, 2020, 01:26:58 PM »12cm have a WORSE rate of fire than 10cm, not better. The ROF number is how many seconds it takes to fire. ROF 5 can fire every increment. ROF 10 can fire every other increment.
Posted by: JustAnotherDude
« on: October 18, 2020, 01:09:45 PM »Early game 10cm rails are kind of great, absolutely go for it. I rarely regret using them.
Posted by: Llamageddon
« on: October 18, 2020, 01:02:05 PM »People have said that 10cm Railguns are great for point defence, should I drop the railguns on these down to 10cm as only 1 damage is needed or keep the 12cm for faster ROF, twice the damage and 1.5x the range, which I assume will be more useful if they get into range of an enemy FAC? Carrier tech is next on my list so I will be dropping the range way down.
Posted by: liveware
« on: October 18, 2020, 12:21:48 AM »I see your reasoning. What would you recommend I do with the research I've done into railguns to get the best use out of them? Now I realise they can't be turreted and my FACs are going to be pretty vulnerable I'm scratching my head thinking what they can be used for.
Nerf the range and launch them from carriers. They would make excellent fleet escorts/point defense craft.
Posted by: TheTalkingMeowth
« on: October 16, 2020, 05:51:17 PM »With capacitor three, a 10cm railgun is an excellent and incredibly cheap antimissile weapon. I forget how much tech you need to invest in gauss cannons and turret tracking before they can compete, but since you already HAVE the railgun tech, that is a nice usage. And if you put higher range mod on the 10cm rails, they are a decent secondary battery for proper energy armed warships. You can also use railgun FACs to escort your missile or laser or particle beam FACs; just don't expect them to kill anything except maybe another FAC.
And as DFNewb said, railguns themselves aren't bad weapons. They are just not great at low tech and are particularly ill-suited to FACs.
And as DFNewb said, railguns themselves aren't bad weapons. They are just not great at low tech and are particularly ill-suited to FACs.
Posted by: DFNewb
« on: October 16, 2020, 05:42:30 PM »The thing about Beam FAC's, and their biggest advantage in my opinion, is that it takes only 1 to destroy a ship with no weapons or ammo left.
I really wouldn't ever give them a range larger than 2 Billion km either cause 1 Billion km seems like more than a reasonable distance to start the engagement with the enemy.
Big railguns on big ships that move fast are more than fine. If your ships move as fast as the enemy ships you will never really have a reason for wanting turrets. Turrets are best for anti-missile duty. I find myself boosting my military ships up to 1.25 engine power a lot, very useful for non-turreted big weapons like railguns and particle beams to hit the target. Also for those spinal mount lasers.
Also you can making boarding party FAC's that work very well. They are pretty much missiles that capture the enemy ships.
I really wouldn't ever give them a range larger than 2 Billion km either cause 1 Billion km seems like more than a reasonable distance to start the engagement with the enemy.
Big railguns on big ships that move fast are more than fine. If your ships move as fast as the enemy ships you will never really have a reason for wanting turrets. Turrets are best for anti-missile duty. I find myself boosting my military ships up to 1.25 engine power a lot, very useful for non-turreted big weapons like railguns and particle beams to hit the target. Also for those spinal mount lasers.
Also you can making boarding party FAC's that work very well. They are pretty much missiles that capture the enemy ships.
Posted by: Llamageddon
« on: October 16, 2020, 05:34:58 PM »I see your reasoning. What would you recommend I do with the research I've done into railguns to get the best use out of them? Now I realise they can't be turreted and my FACs are going to be pretty vulnerable I'm scratching my head thinking what they can be used for.
Posted by: TheTalkingMeowth
« on: October 16, 2020, 05:25:40 PM »You cannot turret railguns.
Honestly, I don't really agree that railguns are a good early game offensive weapon. The range disadvantage versus lasers is just really painful at the low speeds achievable. And low amounts of armor mean you can't afford to take hits on the way in. At absolute minimum tech (this was VB6), I won a 2 to 1 tonnage victory playing against myself because one side had 10cm infrared lasers and the other had 10cm railguns with level 2 range.
FACs exacerbate all of those problems. Smaller ships aren't actually any easier to make fast than bigger ones (for a given range, they are actually HARDER to make fast). And they don't have the space for thick armor (which takes up a smaller fraction of a ship's space as the ship grows) or redundant components. So you have a ship that isn't actually fast and cannot afford to get hit, armed with a weapon that FORCES it to get hit. This...is a bad combination.
Higher tech levels mitigate some of the problems outlined, but don't necessarily solve them. FACs, as has been pointed out in this thread, are better armed with missiles and the like.
Think of it this way: FACs are fragile, so they don't want to sit there and trade shots with the enemy. That means they should be designed for alpha strike, not DPS. Railguns are DPS weapons, not alpha weapons.
Honestly, I don't really agree that railguns are a good early game offensive weapon. The range disadvantage versus lasers is just really painful at the low speeds achievable. And low amounts of armor mean you can't afford to take hits on the way in. At absolute minimum tech (this was VB6), I won a 2 to 1 tonnage victory playing against myself because one side had 10cm infrared lasers and the other had 10cm railguns with level 2 range.
FACs exacerbate all of those problems. Smaller ships aren't actually any easier to make fast than bigger ones (for a given range, they are actually HARDER to make fast). And they don't have the space for thick armor (which takes up a smaller fraction of a ship's space as the ship grows) or redundant components. So you have a ship that isn't actually fast and cannot afford to get hit, armed with a weapon that FORCES it to get hit. This...is a bad combination.
Higher tech levels mitigate some of the problems outlined, but don't necessarily solve them. FACs, as has been pointed out in this thread, are better armed with missiles and the like.
Think of it this way: FACs are fragile, so they don't want to sit there and trade shots with the enemy. That means they should be designed for alpha strike, not DPS. Railguns are DPS weapons, not alpha weapons.
Posted by: Llamageddon
« on: October 16, 2020, 05:16:29 PM »Interesting. I could always just give up on Railgun FAC at my tech level and put them on a bigger ship. There were some discussions that Railguns were a good early tech to use on ships and one of the best non-missile weapons to use on fighters so I thought I'd give it a go. I could vastle drop the range as I am about to get hangars at last. That might let me get them up to a better speed and maybe have some space for armour.
Do you think mounting some railguns on turrets and putting them on a much larger and more resistant vessel might be better use of this tech at my current level? These were originally built in a panic as I had no navy and had bumped into a NPR two systems from my homeworld.
Do you think mounting some railguns on turrets and putting them on a much larger and more resistant vessel might be better use of this tech at my current level? These were originally built in a panic as I had no navy and had bumped into a NPR two systems from my homeworld.
Posted by: SevenOfCarina
« on: October 16, 2020, 03:01:53 PM »That's kinda slow for a Magnetoplasma Drive FAC. It's not unusual to have mainline warships moving that fast around that tech level; I tend to opt for around 6,000 km/s. I would aim for >10,000 km/s, but you appear to have range constraints, so that might be problematic. Two layers of armour is also generally a good idea if the hostile forces have missiles, since the AI tends to opt for 5 or 6 strength warheads that manage two layers of penetration. Even if they don't, paper-thin armour is not conducive to getting within railgun range.
Honestly, if I were in your position, I'd opt for missile boats with box-launched ASMs and AMMs. If that's not to your taste, though, I'd recommend splitting the current design into an escort variant with a pair of 10cm railguns and a fast-tracking fire control, and an anti-ship variant with a strength-2 particle beam and a long-range fire control. You'll be able to engage at significantly greater range, and you won't need to sacrifice point-defence capability to do that either.
Honestly, if I were in your position, I'd opt for missile boats with box-launched ASMs and AMMs. If that's not to your taste, though, I'd recommend splitting the current design into an escort variant with a pair of 10cm railguns and a fast-tracking fire control, and an anti-ship variant with a strength-2 particle beam and a long-range fire control. You'll be able to engage at significantly greater range, and you won't need to sacrifice point-defence capability to do that either.
Posted by: Llamageddon
« on: October 16, 2020, 02:33:47 PM »Just posting an update, I think the Mk II ticks all the boxes. Traded armour for speed, extended the FC range for better accuracy and added enough MSP to repair engine in combat with some left over for firing (Not sure how big a effect that has on MSP use).
Code: [Select]
Barkhorn Mk II class Fast Attack Craft (P) 1,000 tons 40 Crew 148.8 BP TCS 20 TH 151 EM 0
7563 km/s Armour 1-8 Shields 0-0 HTK 7 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0 PPV 5
Maint Life 3.28 Years MSP 169 AFR 80% IFR 1.1% 1YR 24 5YR 356 Max Repair 75.60 MSP
Midshipman Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 1 months Morale Check Required
C6 P150 Magneto-P Drive EP151.20 (1) Power 151.2 Fuel Use 208.31% Signature 151.20 Explosion 15%
Fuel Capacity 110,000 Litres Range 9.5 billion km (14 days at full power)
12cm Railgun V20/C3 (1x4) Range 40,000km TS: 7,563 km/s Power 6-3 RM 20,000 km ROF 10
Beam Fire Control R64-TS7000 (1) Max Range: 64,000 km TS: 7,000 km/s 84 69 53 38 22 6 0 0 0 0
Stellarator Fusion Reactor R3 (1) Total Power Output 3 Exp 5%
Macroscope S12 E6 Active Search Sensor AS2-R1 (1) GPS 3 Range 2.1m km MCR 192.7k km Resolution 1
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposesPosted by: Desdinova
« on: October 14, 2020, 04:58:34 PM »Don't be afraid to go faster than your max fire control speed. For a FAC, speed is armor.
Posted by: Llamageddon
« on: October 14, 2020, 04:32:29 PM »Thanks for all your help
Unfortunately having a slightly higher FC range isn't viable with my current tech, even with no armour or MSP the extra 100 tons is too much for me to get the range to reach my neighbouring colonies. I decided to go with the extra armour rather than range for now but I'm sure there will be many iterations. 100 MSP was viable too so I can repair an engine damaged in battle, in theory... it sounds like firing my weapon will immediately not make that possible, I need to read up on this. I decided to go 1 HS higher with the search sensor as a 20,000 km/s missile could have crossed nearly all of the smaller ASS's range in 5 seconds, I hope this was the correct choice.
You saved me a lot of mistakes and head-scratching, thanks for your time. This is what I am putting into production for now if you are interested in the final prototype:
When I make a maintenance supply craft I think I will name it xenoscepter
.
Unfortunately having a slightly higher FC range isn't viable with my current tech, even with no armour or MSP the extra 100 tons is too much for me to get the range to reach my neighbouring colonies. I decided to go with the extra armour rather than range for now but I'm sure there will be many iterations. 100 MSP was viable too so I can repair an engine damaged in battle, in theory... it sounds like firing my weapon will immediately not make that possible, I need to read up on this. I decided to go 1 HS higher with the search sensor as a 20,000 km/s missile could have crossed nearly all of the smaller ASS's range in 5 seconds, I hope this was the correct choice.
You saved me a lot of mistakes and head-scratching, thanks for your time. This is what I am putting into production for now if you are interested in the final prototype:
Code: [Select]
Barkhorn class Fast Attack Craft (P) 1,000 tons 38 Crew 112 BP TCS 20 TH 100 EM 0
5002 km/s Armour 3-8 Shields 0-0 HTK 6 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0 PPV 5
Maint Life 2.22 Years MSP 100 AFR 200% IFR 2.8% 1YR 27 5YR 409 Max Repair 50.00 MSP
Midshipman Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 1 months Morale Check Required
Pragmatic C7 P125 Magneto-P Drive EP100.00 (1) Power 100.0 Fuel Use 172.94% Signature 100.00 Explosion 12%
Fuel Capacity 89,000 Litres Range 9.3 billion km (21 days at full power)
12cm Railgun V20/C1 (1x4) Range 40,000km TS: 5,002 km/s Power 6-1 RM 20,000 km ROF 30
Compromise R20 S12 Beam Fire Control R40-TS5000 (1) Max Range: 40,000 km TS: 5,000 km/s 75 50 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Stellarator Fusion Reactor R1 (1) Total Power Output 1 Exp 5%
Macroscope S12 E6 Active Search Sensor AS2-R1 (1) GPS 3 Range 2.1m km MCR 192.7k km Resolution 1
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposesWhen I make a maintenance supply craft I think I will name it xenoscepter
.Posted by: Barkhorn
« on: October 14, 2020, 03:34:43 PM »If your railgun range is 40,000km and your FC is 60,000km, you still can't fire past 40,000km. But you will have better accuracy than if you used a 40,000km FC.
