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: OJsDad
« on: April 04, 2014, 06:08:31 PM »

Here is one...


Mine
Code: [Select]
Missile Size: 25 MSP  (1.25 HS)     Warhead: 0    Armour: 0.014     Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 0 km/s    Engine Endurance: 0 minutes   Range: 0.0m km
Active Sensor Strength: 0.5355   Sensitivity Modifier: 110%
Resolution: 100    Maximum Range vs 5000 ton object (or larger): 580,000 km
Cost Per Missile: 24.2635
Second Stage: Mine payload Type-IIc x4
Second Stage Separation Range: 150,000 km
Overall Endurance: 1 minutes   Overall Range: 2.0m km
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 0%   3k km/s 0%   5k km/s 0%   10k km/s 0%
Materials Required:    14.0035x Tritanium   0.5289x Boronide   0.8811x Uridium   8.85x Gallicite   Fuel x160

Payload
Code: [Select]
Missile Size: 6 MSP  (0.3 HS)     Warhead: 14    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 29500 km/s    Engine Endurance: 1 minutes   Range: 2.0m km
Thermal Sensor Strength: 0.0864    Detect Sig Strength 1000:  86,400 km
Cost Per Missile: 5.8508
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 295%   3k km/s 90%   5k km/s 59%   10k km/s 29.5%
Materials Required:    3.5x Tritanium   0.0519x Boronide   0.0864x Uridium   2.2125x Gallicite   Fuel x40

For some reason though I can't increase the separation range to above 150. Even if I change it in the design screen it is stuck on 150k km.

Thanks Jorgen
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: April 04, 2014, 01:46:40 AM »

Can you give me a good example of a mine design.   I'm not sure that I've seen one yet.

Thanks

Here is one...


Mine
Code: [Select]
Missile Size: 25 MSP  (1.25 HS)     Warhead: 0    Armour: 0.014     Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 0 km/s    Engine Endurance: 0 minutes   Range: 0.0m km
Active Sensor Strength: 0.5355   Sensitivity Modifier: 110%
Resolution: 100    Maximum Range vs 5000 ton object (or larger): 580,000 km
Cost Per Missile: 24.2635
Second Stage: Mine payload Type-IIc x4
Second Stage Separation Range: 150,000 km
Overall Endurance: 1 minutes   Overall Range: 2.0m km
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 0%   3k km/s 0%   5k km/s 0%   10k km/s 0%
Materials Required:    14.0035x Tritanium   0.5289x Boronide   0.8811x Uridium   8.85x Gallicite   Fuel x160

Payload
Code: [Select]
Missile Size: 6 MSP  (0.3 HS)     Warhead: 14    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 29500 km/s    Engine Endurance: 1 minutes   Range: 2.0m km
Thermal Sensor Strength: 0.0864    Detect Sig Strength 1000:  86,400 km
Cost Per Missile: 5.8508
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 295%   3k km/s 90%   5k km/s 59%   10k km/s 29.5%
Materials Required:    3.5x Tritanium   0.0519x Boronide   0.0864x Uridium   2.2125x Gallicite   Fuel x40

For some reason though I can't increase the separation range to above 150. Even if I change it in the design screen it is stuck on 150k km.
Posted by: sublight
« on: April 03, 2014, 09:48:35 PM »

Hello.   I'm still learning Aurora and have a question.   Whether you're using beam or missile units for JP defense, how do you deal with the crew morale and maintenance cycles.   Do you have mother ships that have the facilities on board that take care of these items, or do you have to collect them and take them back to a planet.

Thanks

I like use small beam task groups as pickets if I know an NPR is on the other side. Their primary purpose is to take out enemy jump scouts and gate construction ships that come my direction. I either use a single frigate, or a small squadron of 3-5 FAC. Ships I intend to use for picket duty have 12+ month deployment times, and 4+ year maintenance lives. Every year or so when they exceed deployment time I order the existing pickets back to the nearest colony for overhaul, and send fresh pickets forward.

In my last game I tried using carrier-deployed fighter pickets, but discovered that carriers make the crew moral situation worse if the carrier intended deployment time is shorter than the picket intended deployment time. In the end, my carriers ended up dropping off fresh fighters and then collected the previous bunch to take back to the nearest colony for rest and recreation.
Posted by: OJsDad
« on: April 03, 2014, 07:51:13 PM »

Quote from: Jorgen_CAB link=topic=6872. msg70967#msg70967 date=1396567014
All in all I only "guard" jump points temporarily with ships and only use mines for permanent defences of them.  The mines are not directly meant to stop an invasion but perhaps mainly to slow it down.

I don't find it worth while to have jump point guarded for long periods to be very productive in the long run.

But if you really want to build some sort of Monitor ship then make sure they have powerful beam weapons, a good high powered engine, good armour and a very long deployment/maintenance cycle.

Can you give me a good example of a mine design.   I'm not sure that I've seen one yet.

Thanks
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: April 03, 2014, 06:16:54 PM »

All in all I only "guard" jump points temporarily with ships and only use mines for permanent defences of them. The mines are not directly meant to stop an invasion but perhaps mainly to slow it down.

I don't find it worth while to have jump point guarded for long periods to be very productive in the long run.

But if you really want to build some sort of Monitor ship then make sure they have powerful beam weapons, a good high powered engine, good armour and a very long deployment/maintenance cycle.
Posted by: OJsDad
« on: April 03, 2014, 04:34:09 PM »

Hello.   I'm still learning Aurora and have a question.   Whether you're using beam or missile units for JP defense, how do you deal with the crew morale and maintenance cycles.   Do you have mother ships that have the facilities on board that take care of these items, or do you have to collect them and take them back to a planet.

Thanks
Posted by: Cripes Amighty
« on: March 18, 2014, 12:16:39 PM »

One thing to look into would be to stuffing your stations into a carrier and training them up. Makes a huge difference, if you have the time to invest.

You can even do this without carriers above your homeworld before you ship them off. When told to train, engine-less platforms will drop their speed from 1 to 0 and they don't move from orbit while training. I've actually used this to keep mobile ships stationary to reduce fuel usage. As long as they are in the same task group as a stationary platform, nobody moves anywhere yet they continue to gain training.
Posted by: Arwyn
« on: March 17, 2014, 03:34:41 PM »

One thing to look into would be to stuffing your stations into a carrier and training them up. Makes a huge difference, if you have the time to invest.

For my beam stations, I have to do that, or they are pretty poor in getting shots off. Which means they are ineffective if the bad guys move off the warp point before then.

For no time to train scenarios, I dump mines in groups around the warp point and cross my fingers.

As to the short range missiles question. I use them, I pack big warheads, super short range, and the biggest engine I can into them. Distance is short, but I can get a lot of bang for the buck into them. My favorite so far is thermal seekers. They dont trigger the NPRs to raise sensors like active sensor mines do, so I can usually count on a full strike going in initially.
Posted by: CharonJr
« on: March 17, 2014, 03:09:56 PM »

From what I have seen in the 3 JP engagements fought so far the enemy will recover from sensor blindness before my missiles are able to fire anyway (most likely due to my untrained crews), or could there be any other reason (except than no longer being blinded after the jump - via gate btw) for them to be moving right towards my sensor platforms?

And yes, since I am very short on research here as well I try to recycle as many parts as possible that I have already researched for my ships as well.

To me the range issue boils down to the question if I would be able to destroy the enemy ships before they are able to engage/destroy my platforms. And currently it looks to me like the risk is much higher at short ranges than longer ranges due to the enemies targeting problems vs. 500t platforms at longer ranges. But if the enemies movements right towards my sensor platforms (before my platforms are even able to fire) is no sign of them having recovered from sensor blindness I will surely reconsider shorter ranges.

This brings me to a question, I haven't had to fight any enemies right behind a JP for quite some time, are there different sensor blindnesses - one for scanners and one for fire controls? The more I think about it, the more I seem to remember something like this, I think I saw the enemy ships, but was not able to engage them the last time I suffered jump blindness.
Posted by: Tanj
« on: March 17, 2014, 01:16:49 PM »

For myself I was mostly using tech and equipment I already had in place, to speed up deployment, so I researched nothing new and went with existing missile stocks. An updated version would probably benefit from a shorter ranged missile, although I'd wouldn't go under 25mkm.

That said, the Tower class Monitor design I posted above are doing great! The spinal laser is crippling to 10-15k enemy ships at point blank range, which often seem to suffer massive engine damage. As it does decent damage even as they crawl away I've only had one in twenty enemy ships make it out of energy range.
Posted by: Erik L
« on: March 17, 2014, 01:03:44 PM »

Hmm, I am not sold on the concept of shorter missile ranges. At least I am using untrained crews here, so it is even fairly likely that the enemy will be able to recover from jump shock before my missiles are able to fire. And with low range it would be fairly easy for them to engage my platforms with AAMs and destroy them before my (likely slower) missiles can reach their targets. And with AAM sensors at close range they should easily be able to see the platforms and engage them.

At longer ranges it seems unlikely that enemy AAMs will be able to reach/see the platforms and while ASM (which might be faster than my own) have the range it seems doubtful that they have the sensors to target the 500t platforms.

Or is there any glaring mistake with my reasoning?

Long range has the potential for the enemy to recover from the sensor blindness. I'd suggest creating a short range, high speed ASM used just for JP defenses. You're trading endurance (fuel), for speed (engine). And if you have high enough reload tech, you can get more than one salvo on target.

Of course, there are always mines, but those need to be micromanaged fairly tightly.
Posted by: CharonJr
« on: March 17, 2014, 12:50:37 PM »

Hmm, I am not sold on the concept of shorter missile ranges. At least I am using untrained crews here, so it is even fairly likely that the enemy will be able to recover from jump shock before my missiles are able to fire. And with low range it would be fairly easy for them to engage my platforms with AAMs and destroy them before my (likely slower) missiles can reach their targets. And with AAM sensors at close range they should easily be able to see the platforms and engage them.

At longer ranges it seems unlikely that enemy AAMs will be able to reach/see the platforms and while ASM (which might be faster than my own) have the range it seems doubtful that they have the sensors to target the 500t platforms.

Or is there any glaring mistake with my reasoning?
Posted by: Bremen
« on: March 16, 2014, 02:15:36 PM »

In my experience if enemy missile ships jump through and see an armed defender, they'll immediately try to open the range. Enemy beam ships will close, but that doesn't buy you much. So I tend to favor the missile pod approach for stationary defenses; if I want beam based defenses I usually use high endurance meson FACs. For those who really like their big defense bases, some sort of fighter base might be worthwhile; meson fighters would have the speed to catch up and gut any ships that jump in.

As far as the missile pod designs in this thread, they look good but missile ranges seem too long. I'd suggest creating a missile with a high speed (to reach the enemy before they can get active defenses online) and large warhead, but <5 million km range.
Posted by: CharonJr
« on: March 13, 2014, 06:07:09 PM »

Finally managed to engage and destroy those 2 30k monsters, in the end each took about 100 WH9 missiles (hits that is, needed about 150 each due to PD/misses). And this battle did show another weakness of laser platforms (at least vs. higher tech NPRs), once they have recovered from jump shock it is pretty certain they will actually outrange the platforms (is the AI actually smart enough to try to move to max range/out of range of enemy fire?). But yup, I know what you mean about the missiles being very hard on the economy, those 300 missiles will take about 6 month to be replaced at full production.

In this particular case I think it wouldnt really have mattered if there were lasers or missiles on those platforms, those 30k monsters had 13 lasers and a couple of missiles each, were moving at 5.5k while having very good armor as well (no idea how many rows of armor a 30k ship would have, but based on the 900damage it took to take one of them down 10 does not seem unreasonable, the first flight of 50 missiles each didnt not even cause any loss of atmosphere).
Posted by: Arwyn
« on: March 13, 2014, 05:20:44 PM »

No argument that the range for beams isn't fantastic. NPR's do tend to be stupidly aggressive, so if you do have a station illuminating the warp point with active sensors, you will often see them bracket the active sensor target and charge it. Unarmed scouts tend to immediately run the other direction, which can also be helpful.

I built a battery of fighter sized beam bases, then bracketed a problematic warp point with four groups of them set up on the corners of a imaginary square with the warp point in the center. The bases were located at just under max weapon range from the warp point. In this case, 100,000km. Admittedly not very long range. Active sensor platforms were set up further behind the beam bases in four groups of two, only 1 station in each group active at a time. Max observed speed of the NPR was 2250 k/ms to 2750 k/ms.

The result worked moderately well. Not perfect, but it was doing a decent job killing scouts, and smaller warships. Bigger fleets would push through, but take damage doing so. 4 groups of sixteen of these were pretty effective. In all the encounters, I believe I only had one occasion where two groups ever engaged a group at the same time, with pretty poor hit results.

On more than one occasion, I had enemy ships get blown to slag at point blank range as they jumped in on top or next to the beam group.

The whole point to these was to have some sort of defense that wasn't going to consume tons of missiles. The war with the NPR was killing me economically, missile consumption was so high that industry couldn't keep up, so I needed something cheap that wouldn't tie up shipyards or drain minerals at a disastrous rate. Since these got built as fighters, they were on a separate production track, and didn't interfere with warship production.

These little bases did the trick. Killed the leakers, killed the smaller warships groups, and mauled the bigger fleets when they blew past. As my economy recovered, I started emplacing groups of mines further back behind the beam bases, well back from the warp point. They were too far back to engage the warp point, but if a fleet pushed past the bases, one or more mine groups would launch. THAT did wonders against bigger fleets.

Biggest problem I had with these was the NPR anti-missile escorts, they would kill 2 to 3 of these stations every volley if I didn't kill them first. Still, at just under 90 bp, they were cheaper than the mineral costs of the minefields I had been using, and I had no wasted missiles.

Here are the bases in question, tech was mid-ion;
Code: [Select]
Punji class Beam Defence Base    478 tons     20 Crew     88.9 BP      TCS 9.55  TH 0  EM 0
1 km/s     Armour 1-5     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 4
Maint Life 6.43 Years     MSP 29    AFR 7%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 1    5YR 18    Max Repair 29 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 36 months    Spare Berths 1   


12cm C4 Near Ultraviolet Laser (1)    Range 120,000km     TS: 3000 km/s     Power 4-4     RM 3    ROF 5        4 4 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 1
Toller M64/3000 Fire Control (1)    Max Range: 128,000 km   TS: 3000 km/s     92 84 77 69 61 53 45 37 30 22
Powertek PR-1/4.5 Reactor (1)     Total Power Output 4.5    Armour 0    Exp 5%

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