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: Marski
« on: December 05, 2012, 06:31:15 AM »

Quote from: Jorgen_CAB on December 05, 2012, 04:34:50 AM
The only thing you have to be careful with by reducing the deployment time on your fighter is that they get no direct shore leave on the carrier. A 0.1 month is 3 days which is their total deployment time until the carrier arrive at a place for shore leave. If the fighter spend all their 60 hours in space for a mission and back again they get at most two runs before they start getting serious morale penalties. At least that is how I understand it.

That's good to know too. Here's the fighters in action, intercepting alien fleet in Sol. Quoted from yesterday at another forum I post on.

Quote
Anyway, in one of my glorious Soviet games I attempted to establish a peaceful diplomatic relationship with alien empire known as "Pushkar Coalition", a race of floating jellyfishes. I sneaked a espionage team into their planet with a fast, low thermal shuttle. No data has been gained so far, but year after deploying the team the Pushkar Coalition declared war upon me.

Since I only had 10 corvettes, I had to tactical genius their fleets a lot. For 7 of their ships I only lost one corvette. But now for the first time, the aliens have breached Sol and I am experiencing my first use of fighters. Very cheap and mobile planetary defence I must say, I should make a habit of using them.







Pardon the rude name, but since there's about whopping 20 fighters in this squadron alone, I couldn't come up with a better name.

Nevertheless, its for the good of the Soviet Union.

There were several similiar attempts afterwards at invading my system with same results.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: December 05, 2012, 04:34:50 AM »

The only thing you have to be careful with by reducing the deployment time on your fighter is that they get no direct shore leave on the carrier. A 0.1 month is 3 days which is their total deployment time until the carrier arrive at a place for shore leave. If the fighter spend all their 60 hours in space for a mission and back again they get at most two runs before they start getting serious morale penalties. At least that is how I understand it.
Posted by: Marski
« on: December 05, 2012, 04:16:40 AM »

Quote from: Gyrfalcon on December 05, 2012, 04:07:33 AM
Is there a reason your small craft have a deployment time of 3 months? You can save a fair amount of crew requirement (and some space as well, I believe) setting the time to .1 months if they are only deployed for a few days at most. Given their flight times are all less then 72 hours, that should be safe, and it makes the fighter a 1 or 2 man crew instead of 10.

Oh thanks for pointing that out, I haven't noticed that.
Small crafts updated.

The courier is kept the same thought, I'm planning it to use in deploying teams and rescuing lifepods. A role which dropships have been so far been doing with good performance.
Posted by: Gyrfalcon
« on: December 05, 2012, 04:07:33 AM »

Is there a reason your small craft have a deployment time of 3 months? You can save a fair amount of crew requirement (and some space as well, I believe) setting the time to .1 months if they are only deployed for a few days at most. Given their flight times are all less then 72 hours, that should be safe, and it makes the fighter a 1 or 2 man crew instead of 10.
Posted by: Marski
« on: December 04, 2012, 04:07:59 PM »

In a strange coincidence, my Kirov design is only 800 tons heavier than real-life Kirov Battlecruiser. My design almost has the equal amount of weapons too, odd. Didn't even check the wikipedia article before designing the ship in Aurora.



I'd like to imagine this re-designed in space, not in the silly "naval ships in spaaace" fashion, but in somewhat realistic. Equal distritubion of weight, 4 quad 50mm turrets on top and bottom, same goes for missile tubes.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: December 04, 2012, 08:25:05 AM »

It's not actually the FC in the CIWS that increase the weight, it is the turret gear associated with that fire control speed that is increased. At least that is how I understand it.
Posted by: Marski
« on: December 04, 2012, 07:02:25 AM »

Whoops, my bad. I meant Firecontrol speed rating, that increases weight while the rest decreases it.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: December 04, 2012, 06:42:25 AM »

Ok, now I get it... you talk about HS and I talk about % size of a normal gauss cannon.

A 0.5HS Gauss cannon is 8% of a normal Gauss cannon which means it has a base efficiency hit rate at 8% while a normal Gauss cannon has 100% hit efficiency. You can put in twelve 8% cannon for each regular 6HS size Gauss cannon. Though if they both fire at a target the bigger cannon are more efficient at a lower number of targets (equal or lower than its number of shots) while many less efficient shots is better at wearing down income volumes that are greater then your fire rate.

I also checked that CIWS was reduced in size with better gearing and it is, so there is no bug there.
Posted by: Marski
« on: December 04, 2012, 06:31:34 AM »

Quote from: Jorgen_CAB on December 04, 2012, 06:19:09 AM
No, it should lower the weight of the CIWS system since the turret rotational gear should always match the fire control speed tech. At least according to this post by Steve...

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,1691.0.html

Well I am running version 6.1 so it must be a bug/glitch.


Quote from: Jorgen_CAB on December 04, 2012, 06:23:30 AM
On another note... are your Gauss cannon 50% size?
You have four turrets at 10 HS. A 50% gauss cannon is 3HS in size just by itself, so something seems odd to me?

I can't get the size of my turret down to more than slightly above 12 HS for a Quad cannon no matter what turret gear tech I put on it.

Yes the 50mm turrets are using size 0.50 gauss cannons, I named them like that because I like to imagine that 1HS = 100mm, and following that logic 0.50HS = 50mm
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: December 04, 2012, 06:23:30 AM »

On another note... are your Gauss cannon 50% size?
You have four turrets at 10 HS. A 50% gauss cannon is 3HS in size just by itself, so something seems odd to me?

I can't get the size of my turret down to more than slightly above 12 HS for a Quad cannon no matter what turret gear tech I put on it.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: December 04, 2012, 06:19:09 AM »

No, it should lower the weight of the CIWS system since the turret rotational gear should always match the fire control speed tech. At least according to this post by Steve...

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,1691.0.html
Posted by: Marski
« on: December 04, 2012, 06:14:31 AM »

Quote from: Jorgen_CAB on December 04, 2012, 06:04:58 AM
Well, I didn't actually doubt you... I just wondered how that is.  ;)

One thing that I have noticed when I create a CIWS system is that the "Turret tracking gear size" techs don't seem to effect the CIWS at all or it actually increase its weight. I'm inclined to believe there is a bug there or something. I think I'm going to experiment with that now and see why this is.

Logically the CIWS should scale with the turret technology in the same way a pure turret will.

I always assumed it was because of the increase of more sophisticated parts and gears for more precise movement of the CIWS.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: December 04, 2012, 06:04:58 AM »

Well, I didn't actually doubt you... I just wondered how that is.  ;)

One thing that I have noticed when I create a CIWS system is that the "Turret tracking gear size" techs don't seem to effect the CIWS at all or it actually increase its weight. I'm inclined to believe there is a bug there or something. I think I'm going to experiment with that now and see why this is.

Logically the CIWS should scale with the turret technology in the same way a pure turret will.
Posted by: Marski
« on: December 04, 2012, 05:45:38 AM »

See for yourself;



I think it's because the speed rating tech is at 10,000 km/s, which increases weight of CIWS
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: December 04, 2012, 05:31:46 AM »

Is that even possible to get that many quad turrets for just two CIWS systems?

They use the same tech for size reduction so it is kind of strange. In my game a CIWS system weighs in at 7.6HS a piece while a single Gauss turret with 50mm Gauss cannons weighs a whooping 15.24 HS not counting the FC at 4 HS. So four CIWS is 30.4 HS while two quad turrets and an FC is 34.48 HS.

When relying on the gauss PD then the speed of the missiles might actually be less of a problem than armour once you get your tracking bonus to 60% or 80%. If you can manage to track the missiles long enough that is.

Another bonus of the CIWS is that its fire-control is simplified and is always at 100%. At least I think I have read that some place here.