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: TheDeadlyShoe
« on: February 27, 2016, 11:33:56 AM »

Railguns are great if you work to their strengths, namely high ship speed.  A railgun is already almost as good as a turreted laser at PD, but when you increase ship speeds they rapidly become superior - without having too worry as much about 4x tracking speed.  Additionally, higher speeds work to offset their range disadvantage.

10cm railguns are a little exploitable too, you can make truckloads of them for very low cost while still being effective point defense. YMMV, of course. 
Posted by: Iranon
« on: February 27, 2016, 10:44:08 AM »

The secondary point defence use has some merit... but I still think railguns over 10cm have little use on account of being limited by capacitors.
2 10cm/C3 lasers are a very good substitute for a 15cm/C5 railgun on a much lower RP budget.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: February 27, 2016, 09:16:43 AM »

Quote from: Mor on February 27, 2016, 09:01:06 AM
I am not sure why would anyone invest in Railguns, instead of focusing on lasers making use of the same tech to create large\small variants, for example

Because railguns can function as both anti-ship and anti-missile using the same fire control, plus they out-damage lasers at closer ranges. Also, you may have a kinetic scientist but not an energy one.
Posted by: Mor
« on: February 27, 2016, 09:01:06 AM »

So basically you are saying its a cheap, early tech PD ? Other than that, my understanding comes down to:

* Gauss is short range, low damage weapon, but eventually it offers highest rate of fire and hit chance (can be turreted). You can also trade accuracy for size for fighters (although the suggestion that small gauss can be deadly with good officers, seems silly to me due to fighter officer life span)

* Railguns are longer range, higher damage variant of that niche, that cannot be turreted. ( I am not sure why would anyone invest in Railguns, instead of focusing on lasers making use of the same tech to create large\small variants, for example)
Posted by: Iranon
« on: February 26, 2016, 07:15:51 PM »

Depends on details. I'm of the minority who far prefers railguns for PD.
Fast ships: When twice as fast as the basic fire control rating, you'd need RoF 5 for Gauss turrets to be ahead for point defence.
Slow ships: Commercial engines and base-tech railguns make a cheap disposable package.
Railguns give me options that suit me just fine for very little research investment compared to practical Gauss weapons.

Gauss turrets are the way to go when you don't get considerable bonuses from tracking speed anyway, and aren't pinching pennies.
Posted by: Mor
« on: February 26, 2016, 06:33:53 PM »

Quote from: non sequitur on December 09, 2015, 03:05:26 PM
1.  What weapon systems do you mainly use? Looking around the forums it seems like most people have missile dominated navies.  Is a beam only fleet even feasible (missiles used for point defense not withstanding)?

Missiles are generally the easiest to use, especially against the AI. Although, I doubt that would be the case against a human player over a long campaign.

As for Beam weapons, they are more specialized types of weapons, unfortunately  I don't understand what are the most effective ways to utilize each type. For example, in the tutorial I read, Railguns are mostly dismissed as early tech PD, while some people praise them as the best option at higher techs with good pilots.
Posted by: Iranon
« on: February 24, 2016, 10:19:21 AM »

I strongly disagree with most of this.
Beams are my preferred choice by far, with missiles playing more of a supporting role and I often don't use them at all for some time.
Also, without the threat of missiles, beam combat may become rather boring - aim to outrange and outspeed your opponent, win unopposed.
Posted by: SteelChicken
« on: February 24, 2016, 09:02:22 AM »

I wish there was someway to disable all missile tech when you started a game, because the fun is designing beam ship based fleets and getting into slugfests...but the fact is missile based doctrine is almost always superior and most battles are fought and won ten or hundreds of million klicks away.



Posted by: Iranon
« on: February 14, 2016, 01:27:44 PM »

My fleet doctrine tens to evolve over time. Not always the same way, but a typical progression would be

Stage 1: "All I can build is cannon fodder, so I'll design them to be efficient cannon fodder".
Low-power engines, low-tech railguns, slow and only moderately armoured. Cheap to build, cheap to run, useful against higher-tech enemies by literally being cheaper than the missiles needed to shoot them down.

Stage 2: "I need any edge I can get to overwhelm my enemy".
Trying to win before the opponent can shoot back. Overwhelming salvos from reduced-size launchers, fighter strikes hopefully delivered from outside their range, various dirty tricks to get through point defence that would otherwise be troublesome.

Stage 3: "OK, I'm confident I can win. Time to make the victories cheaper/more decisive"
Specialised solutions tailored to current or likely threats. Often features fast beam combatants that aim to outrange and outrun their equivalents with enough PD to deal with missile boats, and boarding specialists. Remnants from stage 1 and 2 may form the core of separate fleets. Some low-tech (cheap to operate, able to project power with minimal logistics dragin), some high-tech (fast, hopefully able to control the engagement and score flawless or nearflawless victories)

Stage 4: "Economies of scale"
As I can build larger ships without sacrificing too much tactical flexibility, optional systems like ECM and passive protection, especially shields, become more attractive. May be split into two stages - fast battlecruisers that can outrun what they don't outgun transitioning into true capital ships that don't intend to run from anyone.
Posted by: Gabethebaldandbold
« on: February 14, 2016, 11:48:33 AM »

I have been rolling around with these guys
Broadsword - MKV class Command Cruiser    25 200 tons     605 Crew     5735. 52 BP      TCS 504  TH 1500  EM 3000
2976 km/s    JR 5-50     Armour 6-76     Shields 100-375     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 14     PPV 24
Maint Life 2. 3 Years     MSP 5991    AFR 362%    IFR 5%    1YR 1538    5YR 23072    Max Repair 1400 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 18 months    Spare Berths 1   
Magazine 884   

J25200(5-50) Military Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 25200 tons    Distance 50k km     Squadron Size 5
750 EP Magnetic Fusion Drive (2)    Power 750    Fuel Use 21%    Signature 750    Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 2 150 000 Litres    Range 73. 1 billion km   (284 days at full power)
Delta R375/300 Shields (40)   Total Fuel Cost  500 Litres per hour  (12 000 per day)

Size 1 Missile Launcher (24)    Missile Size 1    Rate of Fire 10
Missile Fire Control FC36-R1 (70%) (1)     Range 37. 0m km    Resolution 1
AMM-2 (460)  Speed: 30 100 km/s   End: 2. 4m    Range: 4. 3m km   WH: 1    Size: 1    TH: 311/186/93

Active Search Sensor MR61-R1 (70%) (1)     GPS 560     Range 61. 6m km    MCR 6. 7m km    Resolution 1
Active Search Sensor MR1030-R70 (70%) (1)     GPS 78400     Range 1 030. 8m km    Resolution 70

ECCM-1 (4)         Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Invincible - MKV class Cruiser    25 100 tons     599 Crew     4393. 52 BP      TCS 502  TH 1500  EM 1500
2988 km/s     Armour 8-76     Shields 50-375     Sensors 110/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 20     PPV 164. 4
Maint Life 2. 72 Years     MSP 3094    AFR 504%    IFR 7%    1YR 598    5YR 8976    Max Repair 450 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 18 months    Spare Berths 0   
Magazine 944    Cryogenic Berths 200   

750 EP Magnetic Fusion Drive (2)    Power 750    Fuel Use 21%    Signature 750    Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 2 100 000 Litres    Range 71. 7 billion km   (277 days at full power)
Delta R375/300 Shields (20)   Total Fuel Cost  250 Litres per hour  (6 000 per day)

Quad 10cm C3 Ultraviolet Laser Turret (2x4)    Range 120 000km     TS: 40000 km/s     Power 12-12     RM 4    ROF 5        3 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1
Quad Gauss Cannon R2-100 Turret (1x8)    Range 20 000km     TS: 35000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 2    ROF 5        1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fire Control S02 40-20000 H70 (1)    Max Range: 80 000 km   TS: 20000 km/s     88 75 62 50 38 25 12 0 0 0
Fire Control S06 120-20000 H70 (1)    Max Range: 240 000 km   TS: 20000 km/s     96 92 88 83 79 75 71 67 62 58
Magnetic Confinement Fusion Reactor S3 (1)     Total Power Output 30    Armour 0    Exp 5%

Size 6 Missile Launcher (14)    Missile Size 6    Rate of Fire 60
Missile Fire Control FC115-R80 (70%) (1)     Range 115. 7m km    Resolution 80
ASM6-3 (157)  Speed: 24 000 km/s   End: 46. 7m    Range: 67. 2m km   WH: 9    Size: 6    TH: 224/134/67

Thermal Sensor TH10-110 (1)     Sensitivity 110     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  110m km

Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
I usually set them in "packs" with one Broadsword and 4 Invincibles, as I am also a new guy, I would like to know how hard would it be for a NPR or spoiler race to obliterate my 2 pack exploration group
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: December 12, 2015, 02:51:35 PM »

You can make a size six missile with one point of Armour and slower which will make the missile roughly as durable against AMM and Point Defense but substantially cheaper in resources.

In regard to naval doctrine I really think it all come down to what rules you impose on yourself on the game as a whole. If you just go at what is most efficient from a game mechanic side there are a few obvious ways you would design your ships and missiles.

I have played in several multi-national campaigns where I have simultaneously controlled several human factions. One thing that this has taught me is that you need the ships now and not later which always means you need to compromise on efficiency and quantity all the time. There are no such thing as a perfect ship class or even size of ship, everyone are constantly evolving and on varying stages of modernizing and building and/or expanding their navies. Even spending a few months extra to develop that new sensor type can and will affect the overall power balance.

You should also find that naval doctrines will change over time as new technologies shift the usage of different types of weapons and ships.

Also remember that using a wide variety of weapon types will make you use more and different resources and thus use your mining output more efficiently. If you build large naval forces of only a certain type of weapons you will tend to overuse a certain type of resource and have overly large stacks of other resources.

When it comes to engine size I have found that large military engines are very expensive to research so most factions tend to research overall fuel efficiency rather than very large engines. The smaller engines also fit into more numerous ship sizes and types and it is easier to develop different types of engines to suit the need of the ships.
Posted by: doulos05
« on: December 12, 2015, 12:16:23 AM »

The range seems a bit short. My shortest ones are 87.5 million kilometers, and that's too short. You really want to be into the hundreds of millions of kilometers of you can. And size 8 will give your enemies more time to detect and shoot down your missiles, which could be a problem.
Posted by: Sematary
« on: December 11, 2015, 11:37:11 PM »

MarcAKF and I have pretty much the exact same philosophy when it comes to making ASMs. I do pretty much the exact same thing he just described but I do a lot of fiddling around with agility vs engine size, especially at lower levels because once you have the speed in the ballpark you want it to be in you will find that trading agility and speed back and forth on a 0.1 MSP basis you will find the best to hit range. If you want some numbers to play around with for a size four missile what I would suggest is put either 1 MSP into warhead or enough warhead to make 4 damage whichever is greater, then put 1.8 MSP into engines, look at fuel range and going off MarcAFK's suggestion of seeing a range of just over 10% of the max range of your fire control, put the rest into agility. Then in 0.1 MSP increments trade engines for agility and look at your to hit chance, if it goes up keep going until you hit the point where it starts going down, if it goes down then start trading agility for engines which should make it go up and then keep doing that until either you can't anymore or until it starts going down. That should give you a decent ASM.
Posted by: MarcAFK
« on: December 11, 2015, 09:29:29 PM »

The easiest way of getting a nicely balanced missile without complicated formula and analysis is the method I use.
Design a max power multiplier .1 size engine.
Decide how big to make the missile, just go with 4-6 for a basic ASM.
Add 50% engines, 50% warhead.
Incrementally add to agility untill it's as you want, keep in mind that you'll be losing warhead or speed as you increase agility. At low techs I usually increase it to 11 or 12 then stop.
Now incrementally tweak fuel untill it's about a tenth the range you want, why a tenth ?
Because Size 3 or more engines are around 10 times more fuel efficient as those .1 you started designing the missile with.  Range usually should be limited by the fire control or sensor range you have available , add a little extra so the missile doesn't run out if you fire at max range at fleeing enemies.
Now pare down either warhead, engine or both untill the missile is back at the desired size.
You'll find agility and range have gone up slightly too, you could then lower those and cram in more engine if desired. Depending on how OCD you are.
Now this is very important, screenshot your design so you don't forget it, you can't make the missile untill the engine is ready to go.
Finally design a missile engine the same size as your final engine quantity and research it.
Then go back to missile design and add everything again with the new engine. If you're satisfied research it and go blow up some NPRs.

Or to simplify it further just design a max power engine 50% the size of your missile, add warhead untill you can't fit anymore, then put the rest of the size into fuel and agility.
Posted by: sublight
« on: December 11, 2015, 06:30:22 PM »

Ignore change-to-hit for the moment. That is only critical when designing an anti-missile missile or anti-fighter missile. An anti-ship missile with zero agility, while not optimal, is certainly viable. Some players here will even argue that maximizing Anti-Ship-Missile speed is more important than hitting some particular accuracy level.

If you still want a number? Try for whatever gives you 100% hit-rate against your own ship designs. If your ships move at 3000 km/s then 100% at 3k km/s is all you need. Just remember, hitting twice as hard at 75% accuracy is an improvement and that any missile shot down is as good as a miss.

Me? I like to first design a 0.1 MSP placeholder engine with the same fuel economy as a maximum power missile would have if it was half the size of the intended missile. Next I use multiples of the placeholder engine to figure out what agility:engine ratio will maximize my chance-to-hit with the intended payload and range. Finally I only use half of that agility and put everything left into the final engine. Tip: pay attention to agility->Maneuver rounding. That can save you a little extra space for more fuel or a bigger engine.