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: L0ckAndL0ad
« on: November 05, 2020, 02:28:42 AM »

I know we keep harping on this, but just to confirm: you are aware that CIWS have 50% base accuracy while being about the same size as an equivalent shots/tracking full accuracy gauss turret?

You have 4 CIWS, which is the equivalent of 2 gauss turrets (actually slightly worse in practice b/c of higher variance...). Is it really less tonnage than 2 turrets+1 fire control+last-ditch antimissile sensor (this can be tiny)?

The CIWS might have more redundancy, I guess. But if space really is at such a premium....
My current Twin Gauss PD Turret Mk 45 is based on 50% accuracy Gauss Cannon, so it weights about the same as CIWS (because CIWS = twin 50% GC + electronics, but more space efficient). I used Twin 67% GCs in my VB6 Aurora campaign, but now wanted to use even smaller one, because this decreases the price per unit and thus less MSP spent when they fail. Well, that's not entirely true because they need to shoot more to shoot down the same amount of missiles, but yeah, basically, I opted for smaller units and more shots, allowing better usage of commander's skills, TAC officer and tracking bonus.

Actually, something has to be said about officers. Initially I went full on "CIC for every DDG", and then found myself not able to man all the C&C stations across my small fleet. I looked up the way RL navies (and USN in particular) allocates officers across ships and went with more realistic approach with my 2nd Generation ships. Except for the carrier, which is lead by Commodore, a move I made intentionally and may reverse later to make the carriers require a Captain as CO.

I'm using modified USN rank strucutre where Rear Admiral (lower half) is renamed Commodore and upper half RADM is just Rear Admiral. Not liking the naming based on what part of the list you're on, and it's simply too long and inconvenient to use.

I wanted the fleet to be commanded by Rear Admiral from the flag bridge on the carrier, so I had to make carrier require Commodore as CO. You can assign whatever rank above lowest required for admin commands but have to use a specific one for the flag bridge officer (1 above CO of the ship).

But for my cruiser/destroyer groups, Commodore would be required to command from the CG's flag bridge. I can have all flag bridges manned at the same time and the command would shift naturally if/when I decide to detach the cruiser from the group for some reason.
Posted by: TheTalkingMeowth
« on: November 04, 2020, 12:37:23 PM »

Re: CIWS on carriers

Space is premium when carriers are concerned. You have to balance literally every module and ton very carefully. I did switch to using dedicated GC PD turrets instead of mixing them with CIWS on all fleet combat ships already, but for carriers I will not do that. Not just for redundancy, but mainly to save as much space as possible for other things.

I know we keep harping on this, but just to confirm: you are aware that CIWS have 50% base accuracy while being about the same size as an equivalent shots/tracking full accuracy gauss turret?

You have 4 CIWS, which is the equivalent of 2 gauss turrets (actually slightly worse in practice b/c of higher variance...). Is it really less tonnage than 2 turrets+1 fire control+last-ditch antimissile sensor (this can be tiny)?

The CIWS might have more redundancy, I guess. But if space really is at such a premium....
Posted by: L0ckAndL0ad
« on: November 04, 2020, 10:46:34 AM »

Re: shields and armor

None of the ships above (except fighters) are expected to move towards the enemy into firing range. They would turn around upon contact to avoid direct combat. They can fight if needed, but only if a) they outmatch the enemy decisively or b) have no other choice. And even then, their task is to protect the carrier and let it go to base safely. Their survival is secondary.

At the same time, I prefer active defenses and attack capabilities to passive defenses. I disliked shields in VB6 Aurora, but the new C# ones are better and I WILL use them for offense-oriented ships when I decide to build them. Armor is great to have, but it costs BPs/MSPs to maintain, and I wanted to cram more weaponry and other stuff instead in the designs. I did spend literally many days working on these designs and that's what I ended up finding acceptable.

Re: fighters for PD & GC/R armament

I employed carrier groups and railgun fighters (R-fighters) in my VB6 campaign (in two conflicts: against superior/faster spoiler and slower/inferior NPR) and R-fighters worked absolutely great both for PD (successfully escorting bomber formations on their attack runs) and to finish off stragglers. I lost just a few of them in the process. I am yet to face enemy's own fighters or FACs yet thought, but I'm quite well comfortable in carrier warfare in general.

I also did test GC variant and it worked okay as a cheap and small fighter. GC-fighters are okay when employed against inferior enemy. But I now realize I should probably stick to R-fighters. They are much more reliable and space efficient. They are larger per unit but offer more reliable number of hits vs missiles per carrier's hangar tonnage.

I already researched range 3 for the railguns, and will build Railgun models exclusively for now.

Re: CIWS on carriers

Space is premium when carriers are concerned. You have to balance literally every module and ton very carefully. I did switch to using dedicated GC PD turrets instead of mixing them with CIWS on all fleet combat ships already, but for carriers I will not do that. Not just for redundancy, but mainly to save as much space as possible for other things.
Posted by: Droll
« on: November 03, 2020, 05:52:18 PM »

I notice that your carrier has CIWS instead of gauss. Do you intend to have the carrier operate without an escort? If so then CIWS is fine albeit unescorted carrier doctrine would be a novelty. If you intend to operate the carrier in a fleet you should just replace the CIWS with gauss.
Posted by: TheTalkingMeowth
« on: November 03, 2020, 04:43:10 PM »

I think the railgun fighters are better than the gauss fighters for PD, actually. Looks like the gauss fighter has 1/3 accuracy and the same # of shots, so the railgun fighter will be a lot more effective against missiles.

The gauss fighters have 3x the attack range, though, so probably better vs. enemy fighters.

Frankly, though, I like the railgun fighters a lot more than the gauss ones. Faster, longer endurance, and only a little more expensive. Drop a few research points to get R2 or R3 railguns, and it's just no contest.

I agree that 3 armor and no shields is asking for trouble.

The dedicated ships thing is, technically, accurate, but the advantage isn't that big. It's pretty much just saving on number of fire controls. It'd be a bigger deal if he was using hull-mounted railguns, since there would be an argument that dedicated PD ships with higher hull speed than the main fleet would help. But since he's using turrets, it really doesn't matter if he builds 1x missile cruiser and 1x PD cruiser, or 2 half and half ships.
Posted by: Ektor
« on: November 03, 2020, 04:20:54 PM »

I really like the combat ships, but I'd do them a bit differently. First, they have very little armour and no shields, which is bound to become a problem in a prolonged duel, second, I find it more efficient tonnage-wise to have separate ships dedicated to point defense, it frees up more tons on the missile ships for missiles and on the PD ships for PD.

I really like the setup you have with the fighters, as well. I'm a bit unsure of using fighters for PD, though. I like the idea, but I've never seen it be discussed before. I'm also not so sure about the railgun fighter. Has your enemy shown that it uses fighters? If not, I'd keep only a few of them on the carrier, as otherwise they're wasted tonnage.
Posted by: L0ckAndL0ad
« on: November 03, 2020, 02:42:35 PM »

Second generation designs

Combat ships
I intend on using up to 3 different types of combat groups - Carrier Groups, Cruiser/Destroyer Groups, Combat Support Groups. Carrier Groups will feature: 1 CV 1-2 CG 6-8 DDG. CruDes Group: 1 CG 2-4 DDG. Combat Support: 2 FFG + 2-4 Auxiliaries.

Carrier Groups intended as a main strike force, with cruisers and destroyers being mostly focused on defense of the HVUs (carrier & any attached mission critical ships). Destroyers should be able to detach from the group if there's a need for layered screen for additional protection - early detection and better missile tracking bonus.

CruDes Groups may be required to fill in any gaps where carriers aren't needed or too risky to expose, including JP assault (should be avoided as much as possible).

FFGs feature Jump Drives to allow escorting fleet auxiliaries without having to involve fleet cruisers. May act as scouts if needed.

Code: [Select]
Constellation class Carrier      100 000 tons       2 023 Crew       17 086 BP       TCS 2 000    TH 2 352    EM 0
3360 km/s    JR 3-50      Armour 3-191       Shields 0-0       HTK 488      Sensors 110/110/0/0      DCR 106      PPV 0
Maint Life 1.59 Years     MSP 10 711    AFR 833%    IFR 11.6%    1YR 4 924    5YR 73 863    Max Repair 3465.7 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 33 000 tons     Magazine 2 824   
Commodore    Control Rating 5   BRG   AUX   ENG   FLG   PFC   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Flight Crew Berths 660    Morale Check Required   

J100K(3-50-E10) Military Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 100000 tons    Distance 50k km     Squadron Size 3

Magneto-plasma Drive  EP960.00 (100/0.5/TR35%) (7)    Power 6720    Fuel Use 20.41%    Signature 336.00    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 10 000 000 Litres    Range 88.2 billion km (303 days at full power)

CIWS-200 Mk 45 (4x8)    Range 1000 km     TS: 20 000 km/s     ROF 5       
ASM-42B Spade (600)    Speed: 42 650 km/s    End: 19.8m     Range: 50.6m km    WH: 4    Size: 4    TH: 170/102/51
AMM-12C Master (424)    Speed: 44 200 km/s    End: 0.4m     Range: 1.1m km    WH: 1    Size: 1    TH: 559/335/167

EM Sensor EM10-110 (1)     Sensitivity 110     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  82.9m km
Thermal Sensor TH10-110 (1)     Sensitivity 110     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  82.9m km

ECM 20

Strike Group
36x A-2 Anaconda Light Attack Craft   Speed: 9910 km/s    Size: 9.69
18x F-2G Mosquito Fighter   Speed: 14838 km/s    Size: 6.47
12x F-2R Mosquito Fighter   Speed: 14977 km/s    Size: 9.61
8x  P-1A Horizon Patrol Craft   Speed: 7526 km/s    Size: 7.65
2x H-1 Dodger Rescue Shuttle   Speed: 13199 km/s    Size: 3.88
2x JS-2 Torchbearer Jump Scout   Speed: 8141 km/s    Size: 4.91
Code: [Select]
Anzio class Missile Cruiser      19 987 tons       477 Crew       3 357.6 BP       TCS 400    TH 1 344    EM 0
3362 km/s    JR 5-1000      Armour 3-65       Shields 0-0       HTK 96      Sensors 55/11/0/0      DCR 21      PPV 120.9
Maint Life 2.20 Years     MSP 1 354    AFR 291%    IFR 4.0%    1YR 377    5YR 5 658    Max Repair 396.8 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 500 tons     Magazine 610    Cryogenic Berths 200   
Captain    Control Rating 5   BRG   AUX   ENG   CIC   FLG   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Flight Crew Berths 40    Morale Check Required   

J20K(5-1000-E10) Military Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 20000 tons    Distance 1000k km     Squadron Size 5

Magneto-plasma Drive  EP448.00 (100/0.5) (3)    Power 1344    Fuel Use 29.88%    Signature 448    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 800 000 Litres    Range 24.1 billion km (83 days at full power)

Twin Gauss PD Turret Mk 45 (4x8)    Range 30 000km     TS: 20000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 30 000 km    ROF 5       
PD Gunnery FCS 80/20K (1)     Max Range: 80 000 km   TS: 20 000 km/s     88 75 62 50 38 25 12 0 0 0

MSL-1 BX F3 (450)     Missile Size: 1    Hangar Reload 50 minutes    MF Reload 8 hours
MSL-4 BX F3 (40)     Missile Size: 4    Hangar Reload 100 minutes    MF Reload 16 hours
MFCS AMM 1/12M (3)     Range 12.1m km    Resolution 1
MFCS 500t/52M (2)     Range 52.3m km    Resolution 10
ASM-42B Spade (40)    Speed: 42 650 km/s    End: 19.8m     Range: 50.6m km    WH: 4    Size: 4    TH: 170/102/51
AMM-12C Master (450)    Speed: 44 200 km/s    End: 0.4m     Range: 1.1m km    WH: 1    Size: 1    TH: 559/335/167

RAD MD 1/12M (1)     GPS 42     Range 12.1m km    MCR 1.1m km    Resolution 1
RAD 500t/52M (1)     GPS 1680     Range 52.3m km    Resolution 10
Thermal Sensor TH5-55 (1)     Sensitivity 55     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  58.6m km
ELINT Module (1)     Sensitivity 11     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  26.2m km

ECCM-2 (2)         ECM 20

Strike Group
2x JS-2 Torchbearer Jump Scout   Speed: 8141 km/s    Size: 4.91
Code: [Select]
Adams class Missile Destroyer      7 888 tons       138 Crew       1 205 BP       TCS 158    TH 640    EM 0
4056 km/s      Armour 3-35       Shields 0-0       HTK 36      Sensors 11/11/0/0      DCR 12      PPV 71.7
Maint Life 2.50 Years     MSP 590    AFR 249%    IFR 3.5%    1YR 131    5YR 1 965    Max Repair 160 MSP
Magazine 380    Cryogenic Berths 200   
Commander    Control Rating 2   BRG   AUX   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Morale Check Required   

Magneto-plasma Drive  EP320.00 (100/0.5) (2)    Power 640    Fuel Use 35.36%    Signature 320    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 350 000 Litres    Range 22.6 billion km (64 days at full power)

Twin Gauss PD Turret Mk 45 (2x8)    Range 30 000km     TS: 20000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 30 000 km    ROF 5       
PD Gunnery FCS 80/20K (1)     Max Range: 80 000 km   TS: 20 000 km/s     88 75 62 50 38 25 12 0 0 0

MSL-1 BX F3 (300)     Missile Size: 1    Hangar Reload 50 minutes    MF Reload 8 hours
MSL-4 BX F3 (20)     Missile Size: 4    Hangar Reload 100 minutes    MF Reload 16 hours
MFCS AMM 1/12M (2)     Range 12.1m km    Resolution 1
MFCS 500t/52M (1)     Range 52.3m km    Resolution 10
AMM-12C Master (300)    Speed: 44 200 km/s    End: 0.4m     Range: 1.1m km    WH: 1    Size: 1    TH: 559/335/167
ASM-42B Spade (20)    Speed: 42 650 km/s    End: 19.8m     Range: 50.6m km    WH: 4    Size: 4    TH: 170/102/51

RAD MD 1/12M (1)     GPS 42     Range 12.1m km    MCR 1.1m km    Resolution 1
RAD 5Kt/50M (1)     GPS 3360     Range 50.3m km    Resolution 100
EM Sensor EM1.0-11.0 (1)     Sensitivity 11     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  26.2m km
Thermal Sensor TH1.0-11.0 (1)     Sensitivity 11     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  26.2m km

ECCM-2 (1)         ECM 20
Code: [Select]
John Paul Jones class Missile Frigate      4 991 tons       130 Crew       756.1 BP       TCS 100    TH 392    EM 0
3927 km/s    JR 3-50      Armour 2-26       Shields 0-0       HTK 38      Sensors 11/11/0/0      DCR 3      PPV 14.35
Maint Life 6.12 Years     MSP 684    AFR 66%    IFR 0.9%    1YR 31    5YR 469    Max Repair 98 MSP
Magazine 277   
Commander    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 36 months    Morale Check Required   

J5K(3-50-E10) Military Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 5000 tons    Distance 50k km     Squadron Size 3

Magneto-plasma Drive  EP196.00 (100/0.5) (2)    Power 392    Fuel Use 45.18%    Signature 196    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 500 000 Litres    Range 39.9 billion km (117 days at full power)

Twin Gauss PD Turret Mk 45 (1x8)    Range 30 000km     TS: 20000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 30 000 km    ROF 5       
PD Gunnery FCS 56/20K (1)     Max Range: 56 000 km   TS: 20 000 km/s     82 64 46 29 11 0 0 0 0 0

MSL-1 5s (7)     Missile Size: 1    Rate of Fire 5
MFCS AMM 1/12M (1)     Range 12.1m km    Resolution 1
AMM-12C Master (277)    Speed: 44 200 km/s    End: 0.4m     Range: 1.1m km    WH: 1    Size: 1    TH: 559/335/167

RAD MD 1/12M (1)     GPS 42     Range 12.1m km    MCR 1.1m km    Resolution 1
EM Sensor EM1.0-11.0 (1)     Sensitivity 11     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  26.2m km
Thermal Sensor TH1.0-11.0 (1)     Sensitivity 11     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  26.2m km

ECM 20

Small craft

I'm not particularly impressed with fighters' range, but it'll have to do for now. GC and Railgun fighters are intended as escorts for LACs and anti-fighter duty. LACs feature 8x size 4 launchers each, allowing 36 strong LAC group (from one carrier) to send up to 288 missiles downrange per strike. Rest is self-explanatory.

Code: [Select]
F-2G Mosquito class Fighter      324 tons       15 Crew       120.2 BP       TCS 6    TH 96    EM 0
14838 km/s      Armour 1-4       Shields 0-0       HTK 3      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 2
Maint Life 4.76 Years     MSP 23    AFR 8%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 2    5YR 25    Max Repair 48 MSP
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 4.2 days    Morale Check Required   

Magneto-plasma Drive  EP96.00 (300/0.5) (1)    Power 96    Fuel Use 1742.84%    Signature 96    Explosion 30%
Fuel Capacity 32 000 Litres    Range 1.02 billion km (19 hours at full power)

Gauss Cannon R300-33.00 (1x4)    Range 30 000km     TS: 14 838 km/s     Accuracy Modifier 33.00%     RM 30 000 km    ROF 5       
Gunnery FCS 56/15K (1)     Max Range: 56 000 km   TS: 15 000 km/s     82 64 46 29 11 0 0 0 0 0

RAD MD 345k/3.8M (1)     GPS 5     Range 3.8m km    MCR 345.1k km    Resolution 1

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction
Code: [Select]
F-2R Mosquito class Fighter      481 tons       24 Crew       143.9 BP       TCS 10    TH 144    EM 0
14977 km/s      Armour 1-5       Shields 0-0       HTK 4      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 3
Maint Life 2.36 Years     MSP 18    AFR 18%    IFR 0.3%    1YR 4    5YR 66    Max Repair 72.00 MSP
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 4.2 days    Morale Check Required   

Magneto-plasma Drive  EP144.00 (300/0.5) (1)    Power 144.0    Fuel Use 1423.02%    Signature 144.00    Explosion 30%
Fuel Capacity 50 000 Litres    Range 1.32 billion km (24 hours at full power)

10cm Railgun V10/C3 (1x4)    Range 10 000km     TS: 14 977 km/s     Power 3-3     RM 10 000 km    ROF 5       
Gunnery FCS 56/15K (1)     Max Range: 56 000 km   TS: 15 000 km/s     82 64 46 29 11 0 0 0 0 0
Stellarator Fusion Reactor R3 (1)     Total Power Output 3    Exp 5%

RAD MD 345k/3.8M (1)     GPS 5     Range 3.8m km    MCR 345.1k km    Resolution 1

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction
Code: [Select]
A-2 Anaconda class Light Attack Craft      485 tons       9 Crew       102.6 BP       TCS 10    TH 96    EM 0
9910 km/s      Armour 1-5       Shields 0-0       HTK 2      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 4.8
Maint Life 6.83 Years     MSP 53    AFR 19%    IFR 0.3%    1YR 2    5YR 30    Max Repair 48 MSP
Magazine 32   
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 4.2 days    Morale Check Required   

Magneto-plasma Drive  EP96.00 (300/0.5) (1)    Power 96    Fuel Use 1742.84%    Signature 96    Explosion 30%
Fuel Capacity 50 000 Litres    Range 1.07 billion km (29 hours at full power)

MSL-4 BX F3 (8)     Missile Size: 4    Hangar Reload 100 minutes    MF Reload 16 hours
MFCS 5Kt/56M (1)     Range 56.3m km    Resolution 100
ASM-42B Spade (8)    Speed: 42 650 km/s    End: 19.8m     Range: 50.6m km    WH: 4    Size: 4    TH: 170/102/51

RAD 5Kt/33M (1)     GPS 1470     Range 33.3m km    Resolution 100

Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction
Code: [Select]
P-1A Horizon class Patrol Craft      383 tons       10 Crew       85.8 BP       TCS 8    TH 58    EM 0
7526 km/s      Armour 1-4       Shields 0-0       HTK 4      Sensors 0/11/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 0
Maint Life 7.85 Years     MSP 54    AFR 12%    IFR 0.2%    1YR 2    5YR 23    Max Repair 33.6 MSP
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Morale Check Required   

Magneto-plasma Drive  EP57.60 (120/0.5) (1)    Power 57.6    Fuel Use 144.00%    Signature 57.60    Explosion 12%
Fuel Capacity 62 000 Litres    Range 20.3 billion km (31 days at full power)

RAD 5Kt/50M (1)     GPS 3360     Range 50.3m km    Resolution 100
EM Sensor EM1.0-11.0 (1)     Sensitivity 11     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  26.2m km

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction
Code: [Select]
JS-2 Torchbearer class Jump Scout      246 tons       8 Crew       63.4 BP       TCS 5    TH 40    EM 0
8141 km/s    JR 1-1000      Armour 1-3       Shields 0-0       HTK 3      Sensors 0/11/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 0
Maint Life 8.34 Years     MSP 16    AFR 5%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 0    5YR 6    Max Repair 20.00 MSP
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 days    Morale Check Required   

J500(1-1000-E10) Military Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 500 tons    Distance 1000k km     Squadron Size 1

Magneto-plasma Drive  EP40.00 (250/0.5) (1)    Power 40.0    Fuel Use 1562.50%    Signature 40.00    Explosion 25%
Fuel Capacity 30 000 Litres    Range 1.41 billion km (47 hours at full power)

RAD 5Kt/33M (1)     GPS 1470     Range 33.3m km    Resolution 100
EM Sensor EM1.0-11.0 (1)     Sensitivity 11     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  26.2m km

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction
Code: [Select]
H-1 Dodger class Rescue Shuttle      194 tons       4 Crew       37.5 BP       TCS 4    TH 51    EM 0
13199 km/s      Armour 1-2       Shields 0-0       HTK 2      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 0
Maint Life 19.77 Years     MSP 52    AFR 3%    IFR 0.0%    1YR 0    5YR 4    Max Repair 25.60 MSP
Cryogenic Berths 200   
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 1 months    Morale Check Required   

Magneto-plasma Drive  EP51.20 (160/0.5) (1)    Power 51.2    Fuel Use 362.04%    Signature 51.20    Explosion 16%
Fuel Capacity 20 000 Litres    Range 5.1 billion km (4 days at full power)

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction

Fleet Auxiliaries
I'm torn between using AKE+AO vs 2x AOEs, so I've made all of them. AKE provides MSP and missiles, AO fuel and some MSP, and AOE provides a bit of everything. All are as fast as my fleet carriers so can travel with them!

Code: [Select]
Alan Shepard class Ammunition and Supply Ship      47 833 tons       421 Crew       2 341.6 BP       TCS 957    TH 3 200    EM 0
3344 km/s    JR 2-25(C)      Armour 3-117       Shields 0-0       HTK 113      Sensors 0/11/0/0      DCR 11      PPV 0
MSP 6 030    Max Repair 100 MSP
Magazine 3 000    Cargo Shuttle Multiplier 2   
Commander    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 36 months   

JC50K Commercial Jump Drive (E10)     Max Ship Size 50500 tons    Distance 25k km     Squadron Size 2

Commercial Magneto-plasma Drive  EP320.00 (10)    Power 3200    Fuel Use 4.42%    Signature 320    Explosion 5%
Fuel Capacity 600 000 Litres    Range 51.1 billion km (176 days at full power)

CIWS-200 Mk 45 (2x8)    Range 1000 km     TS: 20 000 km/s     ROF 5       
ASM-42B Spade (600)    Speed: 42 650 km/s    End: 19.8m     Range: 50.6m km    WH: 4    Size: 4    TH: 170/102/51
AMM-12C Master (600)    Speed: 44 200 km/s    End: 0.4m     Range: 1.1m km    WH: 1    Size: 1    TH: 559/335/167
Ordnance Transfer Rate: 100 MSP per hour     Complete Transfer 30 hours

EM Sensor EM1.0-11.0 (1)     Sensitivity 11     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  26.2m km

Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s

This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes
Code: [Select]
Ananke class Combat Support Ship      47 610 tons       377 Crew       2 044.5 BP       TCS 952    TH 3 200    EM 0
3360 km/s    JR 2-25(C)      Armour 3-117       Shields 0-0       HTK 106      Sensors 0/11/0/0      DCR 11      PPV 0
MSP 2 266    Max Repair 100 MSP
Magazine 1 500    Cargo Shuttle Multiplier 2   
Commander    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 36 months   

JC50K Commercial Jump Drive (E10)     Max Ship Size 50500 tons    Distance 25k km     Squadron Size 2

Commercial Magneto-plasma Drive  EP320.00 (10)    Power 3200    Fuel Use 4.42%    Signature 320    Explosion 5%
Fuel Capacity 8 000 000 Litres    Range 684.3 billion km (2357 days at full power)
Refuelling Capability: 100 000 litres per hour     Complete Refuel 80 hours

CIWS-200 Mk 45 (2x8)    Range 1000 km     TS: 20 000 km/s     ROF 5       
ASM-42B Spade (300)    Speed: 42 650 km/s    End: 19.8m     Range: 50.6m km    WH: 4    Size: 4    TH: 170/102/51
AMM-12C Master (300)    Speed: 44 200 km/s    End: 0.4m     Range: 1.1m km    WH: 1    Size: 1    TH: 559/335/167
Ordnance Transfer Rate: 100 MSP per hour     Complete Transfer 15 hours

EM Sensor EM1.0-11.0 (1)     Sensitivity 11     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  26.2m km

Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s

This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes
Code: [Select]
Uranus class Fleet Replenishment Oiler      47 574 tons       299 Crew       1 685.4 BP       TCS 951    TH 3 200    EM 0
3363 km/s    JR 2-25(C)      Armour 3-116       Shields 0-0       HTK 98      Sensors 0/11/0/0      DCR 11      PPV 0
MSP 4 022    Max Repair 80 MSP
Cargo Shuttle Multiplier 2   
Commander    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 36 months   

JC50K Commercial Jump Drive (E10)     Max Ship Size 50500 tons    Distance 25k km     Squadron Size 2

Commercial Magneto-plasma Drive  EP320.00 (10)    Power 3200    Fuel Use 4.42%    Signature 320    Explosion 5%
Fuel Capacity 16 000 000 Litres    Range 1 369.7 billion km (4714 days at full power)
Refuelling Capability: 100 000 litres per hour     Complete Refuel 160 hours

CIWS-200 Mk 45 (2x8)    Range 1000 km     TS: 20 000 km/s     ROF 5       
EM Sensor EM1.0-11.0 (1)     Sensitivity 11     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  26.2m km

This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes
Posted by: Black
« on: November 02, 2020, 12:37:06 PM »

1 HS single gauss turrets are the most effective for their weight. I honestly never use CIWS, I just don't see the point when gauss turrets are available.

They are more a role play option in my opinion. Some of my commercial designs, like troop transports and replenishment ships have them. But I never send them in when there is risk of missile fire.

I suppose there was some use in VB6 when you could face planetary based missile launchers and you needed to land invasion army without nuking the planet.
Posted by: Ektor
« on: November 02, 2020, 12:18:55 PM »

1 HS single gauss turrets are the most effective for their weight. I honestly never use CIWS, I just don't see the point when gauss turrets are available.
Posted by: Black
« on: November 02, 2020, 09:30:12 AM »

In my curent game I abandoned ciws even for my carriers. I can choose to instal 1 and 1/2 ciws or two twin turrets with 25% size gauss cannons and fire control and sensor. I think that choice is clear.
Posted by: Michael Sandy
« on: November 01, 2020, 08:45:31 PM »

On the subject of CIWS, the problem is that shipyards work best producing a series of ships, not titanic one-offs.  When you have a series of ships, you generally operate them together, and so they should reinforce each other.  If there were a way of building one-off supercapital ships, where those solitary supercapitals would be the core of a sector defense escorted by lesser ships, then CIWS would make sense because that supercapital would always be receiving fire if anybody was.

Posted by: TheTalkingMeowth
« on: November 01, 2020, 06:51:49 PM »

One of the reasons behind building multi-role ships is being able to use them in various situations. Having more flexibility. It's wasteful, yes, but that's a part of the overall doctrine.

That's fair. I do go in for multi-role ships, but I also design my fleets as if I'm expecting to fight a human. Hence the emphasis on surviving focus fire, which CIWS are simply incapable of doing. Like, it would be NICE to have CIWS for JP assaults...but it's impossible to put enough CIWS on a ship to handle a focused salvo, and even spending the tonnage to handle a reasonable 10 missile salvo is prohibitive (my ships are small).
Posted by: L0ckAndL0ad
« on: November 01, 2020, 02:20:58 PM »

Here's the draft for the next generation missile ships. I worked on these for several days now and still not finished. ;D I'm not entirely sure if I want to invest so much into their armor (currently 3 and 4 for DDG and CG accordingly) and if they need to have laser weapons as a backup. These are tiny bits of BP/mineral/MSP costs that are not significant in small numbers but will add up quickly when building a larger navy.

I intend to use these ships as escorts with large carrier (50-100k tons), which would allow rearming in situ. But, generally, these are meant to defend the carrier and do some light recon missions. And JP assault if REALLY pressed (like being blocked from returning to base). I expect to field 6-8 DDGs and 1-2 CGs per 1 fleet carrier. Alternatively, a fleet of 1 CG 4 DDG can be fielded for various tasks - recon, small strike, escort etc.

They can travel all together (the carrier will have large passive arrays) but 4-5 DDGs can deploy in a circle around the carrier to provide screening. A couple of destroyers can be detached to move 1m km away from the main body to increase tracking time for incoming missiles and provide additional layer of defense.

With that in mind, I wonder if I should actually put 120mm lasers on some of the ships for area PD. I can currently get 120mm FUV lasers with 5s recharge that can reach up to 200k km, creating a 400k area pd bubble when forward deployed, which should help conserve AMMs as well. Not to mention an offensive punch lasers can provide. But not sure yet.

Next gen missiles are not ready yet but are just around the corner, and will be 1m km ranged AMM and 50m km range size 4 ASM (WH4 probably). Hangars on CG are meant for small jump scouts.

Work-in-progress

Off-Topic: show
Adams class Missile Destroyer (P)      7 888 tons       138 Crew       1 205 BP       TCS 158    TH 640    EM 0
4056 km/s      Armour 3-35       Shields 0-0       HTK 36      Sensors 11/11/0/0      DCR 12      PPV 71.7
Maint Life 2.50 Years     MSP 590    AFR 249%    IFR 3.5%    1YR 131    5YR 1 965    Max Repair 160 MSP
Magazine 380    Cryogenic Berths 200   
Commander    Control Rating 2   BRG   AUX   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Morale Check Required   

Magneto-plasma Drive  EP320.00 (100/0.5) (2)    Power 640    Fuel Use 35.36%    Signature 320    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 350 000 Litres    Range 22.6 billion km (64 days at full power)

Twin Gauss PD Turret Mk 45 (2x8)    Range 30 000km     TS: 20000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 30 000 km    ROF 5       
PD Gunnery FCS 80/20K (1)     Max Range: 80 000 km   TS: 20 000 km/s     75 50 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MSL-1 BX F3 (300)     Missile Size: 1    Hangar Reload 50 minutes    MF Reload 8 hours
MSL-4 BX F3 (20)     Missile Size: 4    Hangar Reload 100 minutes    MF Reload 16 hours
MFCS AMM 1/12M (2)     Range 12.1m km    Resolution 1
MFCS 500t/52M (1)     Range 52.3m km    Resolution 10

RAD MD 1/12M (1)     GPS 42     Range 12.1m km    MCR 1.1m km    Resolution 1
RAD 5Kt/50M (1)     GPS 3360     Range 50.3m km    Resolution 100
EM Sensor EM1.0-11.0 (1)     Sensitivity 11     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  26.2m km
Thermal Sensor TH1.0-11.0 (1)     Sensitivity 11     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  26.2m km

ECCM-2 (1)         ECM 20

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anzio class Missile Cruiser (P)      19 995 tons       467 Crew       3 398.3 BP       TCS 400    TH 1 344    EM 0
3360 km/s    JR 5-1000      Armour 4-65       Shields 0-0       HTK 94      Sensors 55/11/0/0      DCR 21      PPV 120.9
Maint Life 2.27 Years     MSP 1 448    AFR 291%    IFR 4.0%    1YR 381    5YR 5 715    Max Repair 396.8 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 500 tons     Magazine 610    Cryogenic Berths 200   
Captain    Control Rating 5   BRG   AUX   ENG   CIC   FLG   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Flight Crew Berths 40    Morale Check Required   

J20K(5-1000-E10) Military Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 20000 tons    Distance 1000k km     Squadron Size 5

Magneto-plasma Drive  EP448.00 (100/0.5) (3)    Power 1344    Fuel Use 29.88%    Signature 448    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 750 000 Litres    Range 22.6 billion km (77 days at full power)

Twin Gauss PD Turret Mk 45 (4x8)    Range 30 000km     TS: 20000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 30 000 km    ROF 5       
PD Gunnery FCS 80/20K (1)     Max Range: 80 000 km   TS: 20 000 km/s     75 50 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MSL-1 BX F3 (450)     Missile Size: 1    Hangar Reload 50 minutes    MF Reload 8 hours
MSL-4 BX F3 (40)     Missile Size: 4    Hangar Reload 100 minutes    MF Reload 16 hours
MFCS AMM 1/12M (3)     Range 12.1m km    Resolution 1
MFCS 500t/52M (2)     Range 52.3m km    Resolution 10

RAD MD 1/12M (1)     GPS 42     Range 12.1m km    MCR 1.1m km    Resolution 1
RAD 500t/52M (1)     GPS 1680     Range 52.3m km    Resolution 10
Thermal Sensor TH5-55 (1)     Sensitivity 55     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  58.6m km
ELINT Module (1)     Sensitivity 11     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  26.2m km

ECCM-2 (1)         ECM 20

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
Posted by: L0ckAndL0ad
« on: November 01, 2020, 12:08:32 PM »

-snip-
So we see that, until both ships lose their electronics, double gauss is strictly better. In larger fleets, the gauss advantage only grows. This is even more true if your ships have redundant fire controls (i.e. beam ships that can repurpose offensive controls, even at reduced effectiveness), since all ships have to lose their active sensors before that matters at all.

Finally, in the scenario where all of your ships have lost electronics...half a gauss cannon is not going to save you. But an extra 1.5 gauss cannons might have prevented you from getting in this position in the first place.
You are right of course, except for one minor point. It all really depends on enemy targeting: if enemy spreads missile fire evenly between the fleet (which is the way current Auto-MFC does if I understand it correctly, although I'm yet to have a major war in C# Aurora yet so cannot comment on how true that really is). Then CIWS is as good (unless you build 100% accurate GCs, which I do not) AND it's cheaper and smaller than an ordinary GC PD turrets + electronics.

But yes, obviously, a fleet as a whole does not really need CIWS. Except for Jump Point Assaults. And, actually, I'm currently designing my new ships with this in mind. My new DDGs and CGs will most likely feature box launchers. In current drafts, 300 size 1 AMMs and 20 size 4 ASMs per DDG and something similar but maybe larger on CGs - probably 400 AMM/40 ASM or something like that.

CG will feature a Jump Drive with 1M km jump radius and size 5 squadron (for now that's the best I can do). The idea is that 1 CG 4 DDG send a jump scout in first, then go jump in themselves if they think they can handle the enemy on the other side. They jump in and have to survive for ~30 seconds before being able to fire. Depending on the range, that's at least one volley of enemy missile fire. After that they may be able to unleash all their box launchers (~1500 AMMs and 120 ASMs). That's per one task group. Do I want to have CIWS on them? Yes I do!

But I generally do not want to engage in Jump Point assaults in the first place. But being able to when pressed... is a nice tool to have up the sleeve. Even a single CIWS on each ship (my current tech allows 20k km/s 8-shot CIWS modules) would help immensely in such a scenario.

One of the reasons behind building multi-role ships is being able to use them in various situations. Having more flexibility. It's wasteful, yes, but that's a part of the overall doctrine.
Posted by: TheTalkingMeowth
« on: November 01, 2020, 09:33:54 AM »

I've already explained my position on CIWS, but I'll say it again - CIWS are awesome. They provide redundancy and economy of self-oriented PD solution. You are right when you know that the ship in question will not be left alone. Or won't be doing Jump Point Assault. For those situations CIWS is crucial, IMO.

I'm almost done with my next generation designs and I think I'm gonna omit the usage of CIWS for now, but I still do see a great value in such system and will most likely return them to service if I may end up designing ships for Jump Point Assaults. Or get swayed by my own combat experience. We'll see.

I've never used CIWS for jump point assault PD...you may have a point there. But as general purpose PD, I'm not convinced by the redundancy argument UNLESS the ships are expected to operate solo.

My understanding of your position (correct me if I'm wrong) is that adding CIWS means that even if the ship loses its fire control or sensor, it still has some PD capacity. The thing is, if you have two ships in company with 2 gauss cannons, 1 sensor, and 1 fire control each, the scenarios are as follows:

No damage, all ships get x4 gauss protection

1 ship loses active, all ships get x4 gauss protection

both ships lose active, all ships get no protection

1 ship loses fire control, all ships get x2 gauss

both ships lose fire control, all ships get no protection

Contrast this with the 1 gauss, 1 pd setup:

No damage, all ships get 2.5 gauss protection

1 ship loses active, all ships get 2.5 gauss protection

both ships lose active, all ships get .5 gauss protection

1 ship loses fire control, it gets .5 gauss the other gets 1.5

both ships lose fire control, both get .5 gauss

So we see that, until both ships lose their electronics, double gauss is strictly better. In larger fleets, the gauss advantage only grows. This is even more true if your ships have redundant fire controls (i.e. beam ships that can repurpose offensive controls, even at reduced effectiveness), since all ships have to lose their active sensors before that matters at all.

Finally, in the scenario where all of your ships have lost electronics...half a gauss cannon is not going to save you. But an extra 1.5 gauss cannons might have prevented you from getting in this position in the first place.