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: Charlie Beeler
« on: April 11, 2011, 10:51:17 AM »

With the last active sensor changes (v5.0?) close assault fighters (beam and missile) have been rendered to a next to useless category against anyone with a amm/cm umbrella... unsupported. 

Posted by: Hawkeye
« on: April 11, 2011, 10:13:05 AM »

Would extremely small AMM missiles be viable on a beam fighter? You could get rather small ones if you sacrificed fuel/range to near point blank and research high warhead strength.

Minimum missile-size is 1.
Steve added this to counter some exploit using hundreds of 0.1 of even smaller submunitions to saturate enemy PD. (The AI is not able to cope with this, whereas a human would realize those to be harmless and ignore them)
Posted by: Narmio
« on: April 10, 2011, 11:54:15 PM »

Might be a better idea to have dedicated missile-interceptor fighters that could then escort your beam fighters.
Posted by: PandaQ
« on: April 10, 2011, 10:29:49 PM »

Would extremely small AMM missiles be viable on a beam fighter? You could get rather small ones if you sacrificed fuel/range to near point blank and research high warhead strength.
Posted by: Andrew
« on: April 10, 2011, 04:46:16 PM »

Heavy assault fighter with mesons may be worthwhile vs Invaders , and may be viable vs other npr's due to poor targeting of their antimissiles against multiple targets. However they are much less viable against manual controlled defenses as the antimissile capability of a fleet will shred them very fast , you would have to cover their attack with lots of missiles
Posted by: Andrew
« on: April 10, 2011, 04:43:33 PM »

ECM Definetly reduces beam accuracy by 10* per level so hitting high ECM ships with beams is hard if you do not have ECCM
Posted by: Shadow
« on: April 10, 2011, 03:56:33 PM »

As far as I know, ECM reduces hostile missile range and beam accuracy by 10% per level.

ECCM only offsets enemy ECM and has no further effect once the latter has been completely nullified.
Posted by: Rastaman
« on: April 10, 2011, 03:55:03 PM »

IIRC it is a percentage thing - ECM 1 = 10% reduction in range (assuming no corresponding ECCM to offset the ECM).  Hopefully, that explains why my ships have long range fire control compared to my missile range :)



ECM reduces range against missiles and reduces chance to hit against beams.
Steve
Posted by: welchbloke
« on: April 10, 2011, 03:46:01 PM »

How much does a point of ECM affect turrets? Is it simply ECM strength 1 = 10 less tracking?
IIRC it is a percentage thing - ECM 1 = 10% reduction in range (assuming no corresponding ECCM to offset the ECM).  Hopefully, that explains why my ships have long range fire control compared to my missile range :)
Posted by: Rastaman
« on: April 10, 2011, 03:39:35 PM »

How much does a point of ECM affect turrets? Is it simply ECM strength 1 = 10 less tracking?
Posted by: Shadow
« on: April 10, 2011, 03:24:36 PM »

Invader ECM spoiler In every game I've played since they were introduced, Invaders have had ECM and ECCM strength 6.

Good God.
Posted by: AirborneRifles
« on: April 10, 2011, 11:43:03 AM »

You're right, their ECM was a problem.   I had to employ waypoints and multiple squadrons to come to grips with their ships.   Based on my experience in the battle I'm starting to manufacture a B version with ECCM and a longer ranged fire control.   As for the reactor, it's as small as it can get so I guess I just have more than enough power.   I did always consider these to be a point blank weapons platform, though.
Posted by: welchbloke
« on: April 10, 2011, 11:28:20 AM »

Also, technically, the problem is that shipboard ECM could easily negate fighter fire (unless they closed in to basically point-blank range) if there's no compact ECCM modules on the small craft. Are you implying the invaders didn't have any ECM at all? Maybe Steve was merciful and didn't give them electronic warfare capabilities in light of their already nasty tech, like those absorption shields you mentioned.

Invader ECM spoiler In every game I've played since they were introduced, Invaders have had ECM and ECCM strength 6.
Posted by: Shadow
« on: April 10, 2011, 09:14:06 AM »

A-1 Razorback class Strikefighter    285 tons     11 Crew     130. 1 BP      TCS 5. 7  TH 115  EM 0
20175 km/s     Armour 1-3     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 3
Annual Failure Rate: 57%    IFR: 0. 8%    Maint Capacity 0 MSP    Max Repair 75 MSP    Est Time: 0 Years

F275 ICDF (1)    Power 115. 2    Fuel Use 5600%    Signature 115. 2    Armour 0    Exp 80%
Fuel Capacity 20,000 Litres    Range 2. 3 billion km   (31 hours at full power)

M130 Meson Cannon (1)    Range 75,000km     TS: 20175 km/s     Power 3-3     RM 7. 5    ROF 5        1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
AN/BPS-3 Razorback Fire Control (1)    Max Range: 100,000 km   TS: 40000 km/s     90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Raptor ICF Reactor (1)     Total Power Output 6    Armour 0    Exp 5%

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
This design is classed as a Fighter for production and combat purposes

There's some room for optimization there.

  • The fighter could do with half as much fuel stores.
  • The reactor could be half as large.

Also, technically, the problem is that shipboard ECM could easily negate fighter fire (unless they closed in to basically point-blank range) if there's no compact ECCM modules on the small craft. Are you implying the invaders didn't have any ECM at all? Maybe Steve was merciful and didn't give them electronic warfare capabilities in light of their already nasty tech, like those absorption shields you mentioned. But I know Precursors have such, and probably so would the average NPR.

Here's a prototype of mine. It would use gauss guns instead of mesons since those seem boring, easy and less unique. :P

Quote
X-Vanguard class Interceptor    330 tons     12 Crew     269.1 BP      TCS 6.6  TH 18  EM 0
22727 km/s     Armour 1-4     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 2
Annual Failure Rate: 8%    IFR: 0.1%    Maint Capacity 51 MSP    Max Repair 75 MSP    Est Time: 3.45 Years

TE-150F5 S-Type Anti-Matter Drive (1)    Power 150    Fuel Use 4500%    Signature 18    Armour 0    Exp 100%
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres    Range 1.2 billion km   (14 hours at full power)

Ares Arsenal G50-F Gauss Cannon (2x5)    Range 50,000km     TS: 22727 km/s     Accuracy Modifier 17%     RM 5    ROF 5        1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
G50-F Fire Control 60-8K (1)    Max Range: 120,000 km   TS: 32000 km/s     92 83 75 67 58 50 42 33 25 17

Compact ECCM-2 (1)         ECM 40

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and maintenance purposes

The Vanguard is heavier and slower than average for its tech level, but its compact ECM should theoretically do wonders to its survivability. Likely a lot more than the extra 4000 km/s would in its stead.
Posted by: AirborneRifles
« on: April 10, 2011, 08:47:52 AM »

Here is the design I used.   Only one layer of armor.

A-1 Razorback class Strikefighter    285 tons     11 Crew     130. 1 BP      TCS 5. 7  TH 115  EM 0
20175 km/s     Armour 1-3     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 3
Annual Failure Rate: 57%    IFR: 0. 8%    Maint Capacity 0 MSP    Max Repair 75 MSP    Est Time: 0 Years

F275 ICDF (1)    Power 115. 2    Fuel Use 5600%    Signature 115. 2    Armour 0    Exp 80%
Fuel Capacity 20,000 Litres    Range 2. 3 billion km   (31 hours at full power)

M130 Meson Cannon (1)    Range 75,000km     TS: 20175 km/s     Power 3-3     RM 7. 5    ROF 5        1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
AN/BPS-3 Razorback Fire Control (1)    Max Range: 100,000 km   TS: 40000 km/s     90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Raptor ICF Reactor (1)     Total Power Output 6    Armour 0    Exp 5%

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
This design is classed as a Fighter for production and combat purposes