Posted by: sneer
« on: January 12, 2014, 04:27:32 PM »I went this way in my fleet and have very smilar , almost identical cruiser in line
Posted by: Bremen
« on: January 12, 2014, 03:41:29 PM »I decided to go with a scaled up missile cruiser, since I didn't see much gain to be had from fighters at the current point.
Essentially two Invincible class in one hull, the Napoleon makes use of new armor, heavier shielding, built in point defense, and a new armored magazine design to greatly increase survivability, at the cost of only slightly less firepower than two Invincibles. It also makes use of new advances in active sensors to have the potential for a longer range while being capable of locking onto targets with half the size; The Enemy has been known to infrequently employ fast attack craft that the current generation of sensors has trouble targeting.
Scientists are currently working on new missile designs that will take better advantage of the Napoleon's vast range, so while the sensors are overdesigned for the current missile generation it's viewed as future proofing rather than a flaw.
For now production of the Invincible will continue, to provide massed firepower.
Code: [Select]
Napoleon class Battlecruiser 36,000 tons 1088 Crew 8363 BP TCS 720 TH 5000 EM 9000
6944 km/s Armour 6-97 Shields 300-400 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 50 PPV 167.64
Maint Life 5.18 Years MSP 7260 AFR 207% IFR 2.9% 1YR 452 5YR 6780 Max Repair 625 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 24 months Spare Berths 0
Magazine 1260
Large Military Magnetic Fusion Drive (4) Power 1250 Fuel Use 20% Signature 1250 Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 2,050,000 Litres Range 51.2 billion km (85 days at full power)
Theta R400/384 Shields (75) Total Fuel Cost 1,200 Litres per hour (28,800 per day)
Quad Gauss Turret (2x16) Range 30,000km TS: 25000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 3 ROF 5 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Point Defense Fire Control (2) Max Range: 96,000 km TS: 25000 km/s 90 79 69 58 48 38 27 17 6 0
ASM Missile Tube II (30) Missile Size 6 Rate of Fire 75
Missile Fire Control FC803-R60 (2) Range 803.1m km Resolution 60
Javelin VI ASM6 (210) Speed: 50,000 km/s End: 97m Range: 291m km WH: 16 Size: 6 TH: 200/120/60
Active Search Sensor MR803-R60 (1) GPS 25920 Range 803.1m km Resolution 60
Backup PD Sensor II (1) GPS 48 Range 11.5m km MCR 1.3m km Resolution 1
ECCM-3 (1) ECM 30
Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/sEssentially two Invincible class in one hull, the Napoleon makes use of new armor, heavier shielding, built in point defense, and a new armored magazine design to greatly increase survivability, at the cost of only slightly less firepower than two Invincibles. It also makes use of new advances in active sensors to have the potential for a longer range while being capable of locking onto targets with half the size; The Enemy has been known to infrequently employ fast attack craft that the current generation of sensors has trouble targeting.
Scientists are currently working on new missile designs that will take better advantage of the Napoleon's vast range, so while the sensors are overdesigned for the current missile generation it's viewed as future proofing rather than a flaw.
For now production of the Invincible will continue, to provide massed firepower.
Posted by: sneer
« on: January 10, 2014, 02:03:40 PM »problem with shifting doctrine to fighters i that they will die unsupported and thay are not as cheap as people think
I think the bigger the better
there is always bigger chance to survive and accumulate experiance
I think the bigger the better
there is always bigger chance to survive and accumulate experiance
Posted by: Bremen
« on: January 10, 2014, 01:16:04 PM »The development of the navy has mostly been practical, starting from early on when I didn't even have the tech for turrets. Given the nature of the war I never saw the benefit of reduced thermal signatures, especially once I started running gallicite shortages.
I now have a new 36,000 ton shipyard ready, just the right size for a new 4 engine design, but I'm unsure what to use it for. I could go for a scaled up version of the invincible using new tech and incorporating some PD, but I'm not sure how much of an advantage it would have over just more Invincibles. I'm also considering a carrier but since all the enemy warships use strength 7 ECM I'm not sure how practical missile fighters would be; the alternative would be to shift the Illustrious PD role over to a new type of fast light railgun fighter.
I now have a new 36,000 ton shipyard ready, just the right size for a new 4 engine design, but I'm unsure what to use it for. I could go for a scaled up version of the invincible using new tech and incorporating some PD, but I'm not sure how much of an advantage it would have over just more Invincibles. I'm also considering a carrier but since all the enemy warships use strength 7 ECM I'm not sure how practical missile fighters would be; the alternative would be to shift the Illustrious PD role over to a new type of fast light railgun fighter.
Posted by: sneer
« on: January 10, 2014, 11:43:01 AM »you are right
he is already in savings mode
he is already in savings mode
Posted by: JacenHan
« on: January 10, 2014, 10:32:43 AM »As far as I can see, he isn't using thermal reduction.
One engine power is one thermal point, right?
One engine power is one thermal point, right?
Posted by: sneer
« on: January 10, 2014, 08:33:31 AM »if gallicite is a mineral bottleneck and hiding is not needed as enemy head directly to your planet consider using engines without thermal reduction - this alone will save you a lot of minerals
Posted by: Brian Neumann
« on: January 09, 2014, 03:28:51 PM »Currently according to Steve the plasma torpedo's don't work at all. They detonate when launched with a message about being out of fuel. He has not gotten around to fixing the problem yet.
With regards to The Enemy (fairly hefty spoilers) in the current version they don't use plasma torpedoes, so I can't salvage them. Instead they behave much more like a conventional NPR or precursors, with a mixture of missiles, beams, and AMM ships, just with spectacularly high tech.
Brian
Posted by: Bremen
« on: January 09, 2014, 03:04:30 PM »A few ideas that might help you:
- The Warden doesn't need a sensor that big. If you go for redundancy, give it one sufficient to go out to about 10 x the speed of the enemy missiles, which is definitely less than 3mkm. This could save you a few build points.
- One of the tactics I employed against the Invaders/The Enemy was to place missile pods on the jump points. You can put about 8 size 6 box launchers into a fighter-buildable design, plus a fire control (ten mkm should be sufficient) and maintenance life for about 25 years. It had cost of about 80-100BP, significantly cheaper than its actual missile load. Plus, can be reloaded with a carrier. Of course, that requires them to come through jump points, which might not be given from your description.
- If you're salvaging, do you have plasma torpedoes available? That would probably solve your ammunition problem.
- Lastly, you can build a different Ark Royal design: Use only box launchers. You should be able to fit about 50 box launchers plus a few fire controls in that, for more total firepower and a higher alpha-strike. If I remember correctly, Invaders have only beam PD plus absorption shields, meaning the difference between 10 x 10 missile salvoes and a 1 x 50 missile salvo may be (assuming four hits for PD defense) 60 vs 96 missiles hitting.
The Warden's sensor was just thrown on during the crash development process, but I think I'll keep it. Not only does it give more warning of incoming missiles but the increased time tracking them gives an accuracy bonus. And the sensor is a very small part of the platform's total cost, given its size.
I don't currently have box launcher tech, though its currently in development for fighter purposes. The idea of defense satellites for jump points is a good one, but I think I'm done with the Ark Royal design. A box launcher missile destroyer could be effective, but only once I can obtain range parity or better. Until then the Ark Royal just has a tendency to go boom before it can launch.
With regards to The Enemy (fairly hefty spoilers) in the current version they don't use plasma torpedoes, so I can't salvage them. Instead they behave much more like a conventional NPR or precursors, with a mixture of missiles, beams, and AMM ships, just with spectacularly high tech.
Posted by: 3_14159
« on: January 09, 2014, 02:39:00 PM »A few ideas that might help you:
- The Warden doesn't need a sensor that big. If you go for redundancy, give it one sufficient to go out to about 10 x the speed of the enemy missiles, which is definitely less than 3mkm. This could save you a few build points.
- One of the tactics I employed against the Invaders/The Enemy was to place missile pods on the jump points. You can put about 8 size 6 box launchers into a fighter-buildable design, plus a fire control (ten mkm should be sufficient) and maintenance life for about 25 years. It had cost of about 80-100BP, significantly cheaper than its actual missile load. Plus, can be reloaded with a carrier. Of course, that requires them to come through jump points, which might not be given from your description.
- If you're salvaging, do you have plasma torpedoes available? That would probably solve your ammunition problem.
- Lastly, you can build a different Ark Royal design: Use only box launchers. You should be able to fit about 50 box launchers plus a few fire controls in that, for more total firepower and a higher alpha-strike. If I remember correctly, Invaders have only beam PD plus absorption shields, meaning the difference between 10 x 10 missile salvoes and a 1 x 50 missile salvo may be (assuming four hits for PD defense) 60 vs 96 missiles hitting.
- The Warden doesn't need a sensor that big. If you go for redundancy, give it one sufficient to go out to about 10 x the speed of the enemy missiles, which is definitely less than 3mkm. This could save you a few build points.
- One of the tactics I employed against the Invaders/The Enemy was to place missile pods on the jump points. You can put about 8 size 6 box launchers into a fighter-buildable design, plus a fire control (ten mkm should be sufficient) and maintenance life for about 25 years. It had cost of about 80-100BP, significantly cheaper than its actual missile load. Plus, can be reloaded with a carrier. Of course, that requires them to come through jump points, which might not be given from your description.
- If you're salvaging, do you have plasma torpedoes available? That would probably solve your ammunition problem.
- Lastly, you can build a different Ark Royal design: Use only box launchers. You should be able to fit about 50 box launchers plus a few fire controls in that, for more total firepower and a higher alpha-strike. If I remember correctly, Invaders have only beam PD plus absorption shields, meaning the difference between 10 x 10 missile salvoes and a 1 x 50 missile salvo may be (assuming four hits for PD defense) 60 vs 96 missiles hitting.
Posted by: sneer
« on: January 09, 2014, 01:20:49 PM »see my designs from similar period and technology level
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,6539.0.html
I would forget about carrier but rest should work fine
it was built around 2 concepts
missile salvo size and PD
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,6539.0.html
I would forget about carrier but rest should work fine
it was built around 2 concepts
missile salvo size and PD
Posted by: Bremen
« on: January 09, 2014, 01:15:49 PM »Probably. That's one of the goals with the new Trafalgar class, but I should probably aim at still larger shipyards.
On the other hand, the recent Third Battle of Liverpool had The Enemy fielding three of a new class of 45,000 ton missile battleships that each hurled 40 size 6 missiles per salvo. I can't think of anything I could build that could survive 120 strength 27 missiles. So there's definitely still room for smaller support vessels in my fleet rather than trying to rely entirely on capital ships.
I'm actually considering a carrier design next, to try to gain a range advantage rather than having to close while getting hammered by missile fire.
On the other hand, the recent Third Battle of Liverpool had The Enemy fielding three of a new class of 45,000 ton missile battleships that each hurled 40 size 6 missiles per salvo. I can't think of anything I could build that could survive 120 strength 27 missiles. So there's definitely still room for smaller support vessels in my fleet rather than trying to rely entirely on capital ships.
I'm actually considering a carrier design next, to try to gain a range advantage rather than having to close while getting hammered by missile fire.
Posted by: sneer
« on: January 09, 2014, 01:02:14 PM »aren't bigger ships like 30-50k longer standing on battlefield in long run ?
Posted by: Bremen
« on: January 09, 2014, 12:50:27 PM »how do you keep up with minerals and ordnance production with battles of such intensity ?
p.s. I decided to add invaders in my game around 2070 and hit 2110 without seeing any
It's been a struggle, and I've run into some gallicite shortages (that was actually a second reason for transitioning from the Ark Royal to the Invincible, the slower cruiser uses less gallicite per equivalent fighting power). And of course I seldom have enough missiles to even keep my ships at 100% ammo. That's one reason I haven't been making use of AMM defenses.
Currently the Federation has populated colonies in 5 systems, and automated mines in two more, so they have a lot of income. Which is good, because most battles (like the one in the picture) are less victories and more just managing to have so many ships the enemy runs out first.
At this point I think half the federation's minerals come from the salvage ships.
Posted by: sneer
« on: January 09, 2014, 12:06:56 PM »how do you keep up with minerals and ordnance production with battles of such intensity ?
p.s. I decided to add invaders in my game around 2070 and hit 2110 without seeing any
p.s. I decided to add invaders in my game around 2070 and hit 2110 without seeing any
