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: Father Tim
« on: May 07, 2010, 08:54:08 PM »

Quote from: "Caesar"
That's better too, I guess.

Which makes me wonder..

If you'd have two reactors both producing ten energy per five seconds, and two weapons using ten energy per five seconds, and one of the reactors is destroyed, will the recharge rate double, or will some weapons be unable to fire at all?


The rate of fire would be cut in half, and all weapons would take twice as long to charge.  Alternative suggestions are frequently made, but Steve is resistant to any sort of 'Energy Allocation' which would slow down fleet battles.  We might get him to implement some sort of 'Empire Doctrine' - have the player pick the rule by which automated EA would occur, such as:

1.  Charge all weapons equally  (the current behaviour)
2.  Charge biggest weapons fully  (would favour anti-ship weapons)
2.  Charge smallest weapons fully  (would favour point-defense weapons)
Posted by: Caesar
« on: May 07, 2010, 05:10:36 PM »

I could decrease the Calibre, but that would mean that I not only decrease the range, but the damage as well.
Normally I prefer Rate of Fire, but decreasing the range and the damage in favor of the rate of fire would be a waste, I think. I'll probably get better capacitors instead.
Posted by: Beersatron
« on: May 07, 2010, 04:31:16 PM »

The Mark2 looks a lot more lethal, the one thing that pops out to me is the 'ROF 25'. You pack a punch, but it's a very slow left hook!

Since you now have a good speed, what would a Carronade design with the same capacitor of 8 but a shorter range do? i.e. could you get 2/3 in which have a shorter range but a faster ROF?
Posted by: Caesar
« on: May 07, 2010, 02:38:48 PM »

Zero. I did a conventional start and I am now one-hundred years further in time.
Never bothered to build anything aggressive.
Posted by: Charlie Beeler
« on: May 07, 2010, 02:31:52 PM »

In my opinion, better.  Your lighter than the orginal but definetly faster.  Speed can be life in this game.

Compressed Carbon?  ICF engines? etc?  How many research points did you start with?
Posted by: Caesar
« on: May 07, 2010, 02:05:33 PM »

Code: [Select]
Troll MK II class Destroyer    5200 tons     604 Crew     2525.5 BP      TCS 104  TH 210  EM 0
8413 km/s     Armour 4-26     Shields 0-0     Sensors 36/36/0/0     Damage Control Rating 40     PPV 12
Annual Failure Rate: 21%    IFR: 0.3%    Maint Capacity 3035 MSP    Max Repair 720 MSP    Est Time: 5.75 Years

ICF Military Drive E7.5 (7)    Power 125    Fuel Use 75%    Signature 30    Armour 0    Exp 20%
Fuel Capacity 300,000 Litres    Range 138.5 billion km   (190 days at full power)

CIWS-320 (1x6)    Range 1000 km     TS: 32000 km/s     ROF 5       Base 50% To Hit
Devastator MK I Plasma Carronade (1)    Range 400,000km     TS: 8413 km/s     Power 40-8     RM 1    ROF 25        40 20 13 10 8 6 5 5 4 4
Devastator Fire Control MK I (1)    Max Range: 480,000 km   TS: 10000 km/s     98 96 94 92 90 88 85 83 81 79
Devastator MK I PP PB-0.85 AR-0 (2)     Total Power Output 17    Armour 0    Exp 2%

Active Search Sensor MR86-R100 (40%) (1)     GPS 4800     Range 86.4m km    Resolution 100
Thermal Sensor TH2-36 (50%) (1)     Sensitivity 36     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  36m km
EM Detection Sensor EM2-36 (50%) (1)     Sensitivity 36     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  36m km

ECCM-4 (1)         ECM 40

This design is classed as a military vessel for maintenance purposes
I've updated the design and created the Troll MK II.

Oh, and the armor level is four, with 'Compressed Carbon Armour' as underlying technology. The Troll MK 1 had armor level seven, same armor technology.
Posted by: UnLimiTeD
« on: May 07, 2010, 01:40:04 PM »

Small list of suggestions for the current design:

Double the Engines, a design of up to 10k tons is reasonable, and it will be a lot faster.
If you intend them to actually charge an enemy now and then, I would use some additional space to exchange the CIWS for a Gauss turret and firecontrol, and use them in packages, to defend each other.
Posted by: Charlie Beeler
« on: May 07, 2010, 12:54:02 PM »

Quote from: "Caesar"
Code: [Select]
Troll MK I class Destroyer    8250 tons     828 Crew     2619.4 BP      TCS 165  TH 165  EM 0
2000 km/s     Armour 7-36     Shields 0-0     Sensors 36/36/0/0     Damage Control Rating 47     PPV 36
Annual Failure Rate: 32%    IFR: 0.4%    Maint Capacity 6374 MSP    Max Repair 720 MSP    Est Time: 6.95 Years

Internal Confinement Fusion Drive E6 ARM-1 (3)    Power 110    Fuel Use 60%    Signature 55    Armour 1    Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 120,000 Litres    Range 43.6 billion km   (252 days at full power)

CIWS-320 (1x6)    Range 1000 km     TS: 32000 km/s     ROF 5       Base 50% To Hit
Devastator MK I Plasma Carronade (3)    Range 400,000km     TS: 8000 km/s     Power 40-8     RM 1    ROF 25        40 20 13 10 8 6 5 5 4 4
Devastator Fire Control MK I (1)    Max Range: 480,000 km   TS: 10000 km/s     98 96 94 92 90 88 85 83 81 79
MCFR HS5 PB-1 AR-2 Power Plant (1)     Total Power Output 50    Armour 2    Exp 5%

Active Search Sensor MR86-R100 (40%) (1)     GPS 4800     Range 86.4m km    Resolution 100
Active Search Sensor MR0-R1 (40%) (1)     GPS 48     Range 864k km    Resolution 1
Thermal Sensor TH2-36 (50%) (1)     Sensitivity 36     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  36m km
EM Detection Sensor EM2-36 (50%) (1)     Sensitivity 36     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  36m km

ECCM-4 (1)         ECM 40

This design is classed as a military vessel for maintenance purposes

It's the first Troll design, the later version probably having shields as well (along with longer ranged weaponry).

I know that they're slow, but what do you all think of it?

Edit: I forgot to add engineering spaces/Maintenance storage.


What mission is this design intended to fulfill?  Speed and firepower suggests relatively static defense. Fuel and supplies suggest independent patrol.  And the statement "Their main purpose is to draw fire" implies fleet screening.  


My comments are based on a mix of independent patrol and fleet screening. (traditional mixed destroyer role in my fleets):

For a warship with ICF engines available it is slow.  For a beam ship it is way too slow, they must be able to dictate tactical tempo.  A rule of thumb that I use is to have 1 engine for every 10k ton bracket for fleet ships and at least 1.25 per 10k for ships intended for screening roles.  (ie for an 8-9k warship 9 engines are minimum for my designs)  I'd also drop the engine armor.  It's of some use for engines in larger ships, but for light units the mass is better spent elsewhere.

With my engine choice your light on fuel.  1 50k liter tank per 10k of ship (same ratio as base fleet ships above) will give your DD good mission enurance.

Your maintanence supply is also high.  Again, I use 1 per 10k as a baseline and no additional storage.  The additional storage is for fleet train units not combat units in my opinion.  An absolute minimum is enough engineer sections to provide supply for your max repair item.

Your carronades are devistating.  3x40 at point blank range!!  With the capacitor 8's you've got a usable recycle rate.  At this weight class 3 of them are overkill.  You could probably cut back to 1 and use the freed mass for engines.  

As others have pointed out your power plant is way too big and a potential Achilles heel.  I use powerplants that are intended to supply individual weapons.  In this case I'd use 3 that only supply 8pts,  Losing 1 doesn't disable all weapons fire, it just slows the cyclic rate.  If you cut back to a single mount then use smaller powerplants (4 x 2pt?) so that a single plant hit doesn't disable an otherwise intact weapon.  Again, lose the internal armor.

Your fire control is actually a very good match to the weapon system.  

Since the CIWS has an intigral active sensor the MR0-R1 is redundent and using mass better spent elsewhere.

Your armor is also be bit heavy for a light combatant.  Unless your armor tech is higher then I think it is.
Posted by: Andrew
« on: May 07, 2010, 12:49:09 PM »

Quote from: "Caesar"
So this ship would function best as either close quarters fleet defense, or jump point protection.
For both roles quite some changes would be necessary.

Am I right?
Yes
Although for Jumppoint protection higher speed is useful so that you can make sure you stay within beam range, particualrly with plasma cannon which lose lethality quickly with range
Posted by: Cassaralla
« on: May 07, 2010, 12:40:46 PM »

Good question.  I can't remember if power is distributed evenly or taken up by the first system on the list to demand it.
Posted by: Caesar
« on: May 07, 2010, 12:37:23 PM »

That's better too, I guess.

Which makes me wonder..

If you'd have two reactors both producing ten energy per five seconds, and two weapons using ten energy per five seconds, and one of the reactors is destroyed, will the recharge rate double, or will some weapons be unable to fire at all?
Posted by: Cassaralla
« on: May 07, 2010, 12:33:12 PM »

I much prefer using several small reactors rather than 1 large one.  Better for battle damage survival and closer matching of the power you need to each individual design.
Posted by: Caesar
« on: May 07, 2010, 11:42:17 AM »

So this ship would function best as either close quarters fleet defense, or jump point protection.
For both roles quite some changes would be necessary.

Am I right?
Posted by: Maltay
« on: May 07, 2010, 11:39:46 AM »

Quote from: "Caesar"
I'm sure that the power plants delivers enough power.

Would it be viable to not only armor the power plants, but also put two (smaller ones) on the ship? One would serve for backup, so that any opponent would need TWO lucky hits to cripple the Troll.

Aye, I corrected myself.  I typed that backwards.
Posted by: Caesar
« on: May 07, 2010, 11:38:26 AM »

Quote from: "Maltay"
Quote from: "Caesar"
Code: [Select]
Troll MK I class Destroyer    8250 tons     828 Crew     2619.4 BP      TCS 165  TH 165  EM 0
2000 km/s     Armour 7-36     Shields 0-0     Sensors 36/36/0/0     Damage Control Rating 47     PPV 36
Annual Failure Rate: 32%    IFR: 0.4%    Maint Capacity 6374 MSP    Max Repair 720 MSP    Est Time: 6.95 Years

Internal Confinement Fusion Drive E6 ARM-1 (3)    Power 110    Fuel Use 60%    Signature 55    Armour 1    Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 120,000 Litres    Range 43.6 billion km   (252 days at full power)

CIWS-320 (1x6)    Range 1000 km     TS: 32000 km/s     ROF 5       Base 50% To Hit
Devastator MK I Plasma Carronade (3)    Range 400,000km     TS: 8000 km/s     Power 40-8     RM 1    ROF 25        40 20 13 10 8 6 5 5 4 4
Devastator Fire Control MK I (1)    Max Range: 480,000 km   TS: 10000 km/s     98 96 94 92 90 88 85 83 81 79
MCFR HS5 PB-1 AR-2 Power Plant (1)     Total Power Output 50    Armour 2    Exp 5%

Active Search Sensor MR86-R100 (40%) (1)     GPS 4800     Range 86.4m km    Resolution 100
Active Search Sensor MR0-R1 (40%) (1)     GPS 48     Range 864k km    Resolution 1
Thermal Sensor TH2-36 (50%) (1)     Sensitivity 36     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  36m km
EM Detection Sensor EM2-36 (50%) (1)     Sensitivity 36     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  36m km

ECCM-4 (1)         ECM 40

This design is classed as a military vessel for maintenance purposes

It's the first Troll design, the later version probably having shields as well (along with longer ranged weaponry).

I know that they're slow, but what do you all think of it?

Edit: I forgot to add engineering spaces/Maintenance storage.

As the primary weapons are Plasma Carronades and it is relatively slow, I imagine this design is intended for close range defense of jump points.  If that is the case, then I postulate that this design will probably be operated in a single solar system within relatively short range of adequate planetary maintenance facilities.  As such, you probably do not need much fuel, many engineering spaces, or much maintenance storage.  It would probably be easier to abstain from adding engineering spaces or maintenance storage and simply rotate a few vessels between your defended jump points and your planetary maintenance facilities.

In that vein, if this design is intended for close range defense of jump points, then you probably do not need extensive active sensors,EM sensors, or thermal sensors beyond what is necessary for detection and targeting of other vessels at close range.  In fact, if my assumptions are correct, then you could easily remove the EM sensors and thermal sensors and instead keep the active sensors continually active.  I also do not see your low speed as an issue unless something makes it past you and opens the range to something beyond the range of your Plasma Carronades.  In which case, you would need to chase the vessel down and probably fail if they have decent missiles.  Of course, a strong enough picket obviates that concern and may be cheaper than designing and building something faster.

The fact that you use CIWS and ECCM for missile defense suggests you plan to deploy this design independently.  If you ever deploy this design in groups, then you should revisit your missile defense doctrine to provide a better missile defense by using weapons that allow your vessels to assist one another.  For example, anti-missile missiles and anti-missile lasers in addition to CIWS and ECCM.  Once again, if my assumptions about the purpose of this design are correct, then additional armor may help you more than shields.  I imagine any fight in defense of a jump point would be short range, brief, and vicious.  Shields would probably not have enough time to recharge and prove an effective defense.  Also, instead of going for longer range weaponry, you would really only need to cover the radius within which a vessel might appear when coming through a jump point.  Provided you have that range covered, I would instead suggest investing in more, or better, Plasma Carronades to pack a heavier punch.

Finally, I may be reading this incorrectly, but you may have far too much power for the Plasma Carronades.  Also, as the power plant is critical to your design, you may want to put heavier armor on the power plant.  This is especially true if you deploy this design in a group, where vessels can rely upon one another for redundant active sensors.  They cannot do that for power plants.  A good laser hit to your power plant would cripple the entire design given its total reliance upon beam weapons.

I'm sure that the power plants delivers enough power.

Would it be viable to not only armor the power plants, but also put two (smaller ones) on the ship? One would serve for backup, so that any opponent would need TWO lucky hits to cripple the Troll.