Posted by: ExChairman
« on: May 22, 2016, 11:01:37 PM »Could I not rely on a collier vessel to store the reserve supply of AMM?
Yes you can, but I am pretty sure it takes more than 15 seconds to replace 8 missiles. Atleast i real life.
Yes you can, but I am pretty sure it takes more than 15 seconds to replace 8 missiles. Atleast i real life.
Posted by: TT
« on: May 22, 2016, 04:26:24 PM »hello Krummja,
A, couple of general observations. Your ships need more armor. Especially your beam ship. I think one of the other posters recommened 8 levels and that is good advice. Your AMM doesn't have a warhead, it will only work if it has a warhead.
8000 km/s if much faster than my fleet speed at your engine tech. That isn't necessarily a problem but each design choice you make has consequences. The more engine speed you have, the less space you have to dedicate to weapons, sensors and armor.
With that said, I'd make the beam shp faster. I usually aim for 10000 km/s for my beam ships.
If you are going to depend on aam for missle defense, you should improve your missle reload speed. You would benefit from having a 5 second reload rate for your size 1 launchers.
Otherwise a pretty good first set of ships.
A, couple of general observations. Your ships need more armor. Especially your beam ship. I think one of the other posters recommened 8 levels and that is good advice. Your AMM doesn't have a warhead, it will only work if it has a warhead.
8000 km/s if much faster than my fleet speed at your engine tech. That isn't necessarily a problem but each design choice you make has consequences. The more engine speed you have, the less space you have to dedicate to weapons, sensors and armor.
With that said, I'd make the beam shp faster. I usually aim for 10000 km/s for my beam ships.
If you are going to depend on aam for missle defense, you should improve your missle reload speed. You would benefit from having a 5 second reload rate for your size 1 launchers.
Otherwise a pretty good first set of ships.
Posted by: krummja
« on: May 22, 2016, 01:09:43 PM »Could I not rely on a collier vessel to store the reserve supply of AMM?
Posted by: ExChairman
« on: May 22, 2016, 12:59:05 PM »You want more AMMs, 200 is not enough, I would increase it to atleast 800. In your first real battle against a missile opponent 200 would probobly not help you much.
Posted by: krummja
« on: May 22, 2016, 12:00:31 PM »Haha, I appreciate the visuals. I've actually designed a couple other ships in the same general direction and I'd love to get some opinions on them - specifically if there's anything obvious I'm forgetting. I might try to expand them all but I kind of like the congruities in weight, speed, range, and maintenance life. They're admittedly lightly armored, I agree. As for berths, I can always have frigates do the clean-up, or even the supply vessels.
-----------------------------------------------
Mauna Kea class Missile Cruiser 12 500 tons 340 Crew 2292. 2 BP TCS 250 TH 2000 EM 0
8000 km/s Armour 3-47 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 37 PPV 30
Maint Life 1. 36 Years MSP 802 AFR 178% IFR 2. 5% 1YR 464 5YR 6966 Max Repair 500 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months Spare Berths 0
Magazine 222
1000 EP Internal Fusion Drive (2) Power 1000 Fuel Use 45% Signature 1000 Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 1 000 000 Litres Range 32. 0 billion km (46 days at full power)
Iron Hammer ASM Launcher (5) Missile Size 6 Rate of Fire 45
Iron Hammer ASM Fire Control (2) Range 108. 0m km Resolution 100
Missile Cruiser Active Search Sensor MR150 (1) GPS 30000 Range 150. 0m km Resolution 100
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
-----------------------------------------------
Yerevan class Missile Defense Cruiser 6 250 tons 146 Crew 1349. 6 BP TCS 125 TH 1000 EM 0
8000 km/s Armour 3-30 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 13 PPV 6
Maint Life 1. 31 Years MSP 405 AFR 104% IFR 1. 4% 1YR 250 5YR 3752 Max Repair 500 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months Spare Berths 0
Magazine 200
1000 EP Internal Fusion Drive (1) Power 1000 Fuel Use 45% Signature 1000 Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 500 000 Litres Range 32. 0 billion km (46 days at full power)
Iron Curtain AMM Launcher (8 ) Missile Size 1 Rate of Fire 15
Iron Curtain Missile Fire Control FC15-R1 (4) Range 15. 1m km Resolution 1
Iron Curtain AMM (200) Speed: 35 200 km/s End: 0. 6m Range: 1. 4m km WH: 0 Size: 1 TH: 258/154/77
AMM Active Search Sensor MR16-R1 (1) GPS 210 Range 16. 8m km MCR 1. 8m km Resolution 1
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
-----------------------------------------------
Mauna Kea class Missile Cruiser 12 500 tons 340 Crew 2292. 2 BP TCS 250 TH 2000 EM 0
8000 km/s Armour 3-47 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 37 PPV 30
Maint Life 1. 36 Years MSP 802 AFR 178% IFR 2. 5% 1YR 464 5YR 6966 Max Repair 500 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months Spare Berths 0
Magazine 222
1000 EP Internal Fusion Drive (2) Power 1000 Fuel Use 45% Signature 1000 Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 1 000 000 Litres Range 32. 0 billion km (46 days at full power)
Iron Hammer ASM Launcher (5) Missile Size 6 Rate of Fire 45
Iron Hammer ASM Fire Control (2) Range 108. 0m km Resolution 100
Missile Cruiser Active Search Sensor MR150 (1) GPS 30000 Range 150. 0m km Resolution 100
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
-----------------------------------------------
Yerevan class Missile Defense Cruiser 6 250 tons 146 Crew 1349. 6 BP TCS 125 TH 1000 EM 0
8000 km/s Armour 3-30 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 13 PPV 6
Maint Life 1. 31 Years MSP 405 AFR 104% IFR 1. 4% 1YR 250 5YR 3752 Max Repair 500 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months Spare Berths 0
Magazine 200
1000 EP Internal Fusion Drive (1) Power 1000 Fuel Use 45% Signature 1000 Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 500 000 Litres Range 32. 0 billion km (46 days at full power)
Iron Curtain AMM Launcher (8 ) Missile Size 1 Rate of Fire 15
Iron Curtain Missile Fire Control FC15-R1 (4) Range 15. 1m km Resolution 1
Iron Curtain AMM (200) Speed: 35 200 km/s End: 0. 6m Range: 1. 4m km WH: 0 Size: 1 TH: 258/154/77
AMM Active Search Sensor MR16-R1 (1) GPS 210 Range 16. 8m km MCR 1. 8m km Resolution 1
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
Posted by: Thanatos
« on: May 22, 2016, 11:20:30 AM »Now that's a sexy ship, about to put the fear of communism into central america.
I would still use the extra 500 tons you got to make it a nice round number, to put more armor on it. For ships that get close and personal, I heavily recommend 8 layers of armor. You might want to add 100 extra spare berths on the ship, in case you want to pick up survivors andinterrogate integrate them into your benevolent communist cigar factory country. But with those guns, it is hard to tell if you would be recovering burnt ashes or actual people, but nevertheless, everyone will know that Chile has the best football team in the world.
Cheers.
I would still use the extra 500 tons you got to make it a nice round number, to put more armor on it. For ships that get close and personal, I heavily recommend 8 layers of armor. You might want to add 100 extra spare berths on the ship, in case you want to pick up survivors and
Cheers.
Posted by: krummja
« on: May 22, 2016, 08:45:21 AM »Quote from: ExChairman link=topic=8665. msg91389#msg91389 date=1463897702
The Iron curtain has a warhead of zero?
That's odd, and I suspect a bug, since in the missile design it definitely has WH1.
To everyone else - thanks for the excellent advice. I'll take it all into consideration when tweaking the ship.
Edit: I went ahead and did some tweaking. I intend not to have PD on this ship as I will have other ships with dedicated PD/AMM. Because of this I swapped the AMM sensor for an EM sensor so I can keep my active sensor switched off until engagement. I made redundancies in the power plan system and tweaked the guns per recommendation. I kept the two 20cm guns (again just RP/RoC).
-----------------------------------------------
Chile class Heavy Cruiser 12 500 tons 368 Crew 2618 BP TCS 250 TH 2000 EM 0
8000 km/s Armour 3-47 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/64/0/0 Damage Control Rating 38 PPV 32
Maint Life 1. 79 Years MSP 1047 AFR 156% IFR 2. 2% 1YR 405 5YR 6071 Max Repair 500 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months Spare Berths 3
1000 EP Internal Fusion Drive (2) Power 1000 Fuel Use 45% Signature 1000 Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 1 000 000 Litres Range 32. 0 billion km (46 days at full power)
Battlecruiser Spinal Mount 25cm C4 Far Ultraviolet Laser (1) Range 320 000km TS: 8000 km/s Power 16-4 RM 5 ROF 20 16 16 16 16 16 13 11 10 8 8
15cm C3 Far Ultraviolet Laser (6) Range 300 000km TS: 8000 km/s Power 6-3 RM 5 ROF 10 6 6 6 6 6 5 4 3 3 3
Laser Fire Control S08 160-8000 (2) Max Range: 320 000 km TS: 8000 km/s 97 94 91 88 84 81 78 75 72 69
Magnetic Confinement Fusion Reactor Technology PB-1 (6) Total Power Output 60 Armour 0 Exp 5%
Battlecruiser Active Search Sensor MR84-R100 (1) GPS 10500 Range 84. 0m km Resolution 100
EM Detection Sensor EM8-64 (1) Sensitivity 64 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 64m km
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
Posted by: Thanatos
« on: May 22, 2016, 03:41:43 AM »It is strange to me that you would have a ship that is so fast, but have it's actual engagement and sensing range be so low. Your AMM missiles will also take 10 seconds to reach their target max range, and then they must recharge for 15 seconds, leaving a 450k km hole in your defense, for a missile or fighter to gain ground. And you only have two of those launchers, which means you can only knock out 2 missiles. Then, on top of that, your armor is too low. And your CIWS is too slow.
For missiles, the only reason to go into AMM territory is to engage and defeat missiles at long range. Thus you want to engage them at least at a million kilometer. At that point, you do not need many launchers, you just need a lot of missiles. I am sure the actual navy has a term for that, but I call it 'depth' missile defense. You defend by engaging the missiles in waves, far and safe from your own vessel. Furthermore, if your ship has 15k tons, and you can still go so fast, skip the middle man, and make full size Gauss Turrets without the 50% acc penalty. If you put 2 quad turrets, and you have 2 ships, that means you basically have 4 quad turrets defending your fleet. 4 * 6 = 24 and that is quite good to defeat a single salvo. Another ship, and you become extremely solid in AM ability.
So yeah, try and increase the range of your missiles to 2 million, and add more missile launchers, and you should be fine. You possibly won't even need the CIWS.
For missiles, the only reason to go into AMM territory is to engage and defeat missiles at long range. Thus you want to engage them at least at a million kilometer. At that point, you do not need many launchers, you just need a lot of missiles. I am sure the actual navy has a term for that, but I call it 'depth' missile defense. You defend by engaging the missiles in waves, far and safe from your own vessel. Furthermore, if your ship has 15k tons, and you can still go so fast, skip the middle man, and make full size Gauss Turrets without the 50% acc penalty. If you put 2 quad turrets, and you have 2 ships, that means you basically have 4 quad turrets defending your fleet. 4 * 6 = 24 and that is quite good to defeat a single salvo. Another ship, and you become extremely solid in AM ability.
So yeah, try and increase the range of your missiles to 2 million, and add more missile launchers, and you should be fine. You possibly won't even need the CIWS.
Posted by: Iranon
« on: May 22, 2016, 03:19:40 AM »A few more things:
I'd aim to match ship speed and fire control speed, in your case probably 6000km/s.
Capacitor-3 is enough for your 15cm lasers to fire every 10s.
Your propulsion plant is unnecessarily thirsty. Increase engine size to 50 (and reduce fuel accordingly) and you hit the most weight-efficient setup possible: max-size engines, 40% of engine tonnage in fuel. I'd consider 3 less stressed engines though, for a little increase in bulk, you can considerably lower fuel requirements.
I favour maintenance life slightly in excess of deployment time (by a factor of 1.2 to 1.5): having a safety margin is nice because component failure is less predictable, and it will be useful for combat repairs.
The sensor suite depends on design preferences. Yours is fine, if a concscious design goal is for ships this size to be totally self-sufficient.
For me, it would be enough if they can fight unassisted... and your R1 sensor has enough range for all your weapons. I'd leave long-range ship detectio to dedicated sensor boats, this also allows some form of emissions control.
R100 sensors are 100 times easier to detect by passives than R1 sensors of the same size. You may want to keep your R1 sensors on at all times, but switch R100 sensors on and off as needed; you can't currently do this if they are on the same ship.
I'd aim to match ship speed and fire control speed, in your case probably 6000km/s.
Capacitor-3 is enough for your 15cm lasers to fire every 10s.
Your propulsion plant is unnecessarily thirsty. Increase engine size to 50 (and reduce fuel accordingly) and you hit the most weight-efficient setup possible: max-size engines, 40% of engine tonnage in fuel. I'd consider 3 less stressed engines though, for a little increase in bulk, you can considerably lower fuel requirements.
I favour maintenance life slightly in excess of deployment time (by a factor of 1.2 to 1.5): having a safety margin is nice because component failure is less predictable, and it will be useful for combat repairs.
The sensor suite depends on design preferences. Yours is fine, if a concscious design goal is for ships this size to be totally self-sufficient.
For me, it would be enough if they can fight unassisted... and your R1 sensor has enough range for all your weapons. I'd leave long-range ship detectio to dedicated sensor boats, this also allows some form of emissions control.
R100 sensors are 100 times easier to detect by passives than R1 sensors of the same size. You may want to keep your R1 sensors on at all times, but switch R100 sensors on and off as needed; you can't currently do this if they are on the same ship.
Posted by: ExChairman
« on: May 22, 2016, 01:15:02 AM »The Iron curtain has a warhead of zero?
Posted by: krummja
« on: May 21, 2016, 10:16:50 PM »Great points. I'll definitely effect modifications with them in mind.
Posted by: Prince of Space
« on: May 21, 2016, 10:09:28 PM »Yeah, the AMM sensor will detect anything of 1 HS or larger at its maximum range, including ships. The ship sensor will detect anything of 100 HS or larger at its maximum range. For the purposes of beam combat, either is plenty and both is overkill. But not the fun explodey kind of overkill.
Rule of Cool or roleplay trumps efficient design in my book, just as long as you're making the decision deliberately, and not through an oversight.
Those laser turrets will be awful at anti-missile defense. They can roll the dice and try to hit, but don't rely on them. The low tracking speed on the turrets and FCs (4,000 km/s) means that any missile comically slow enough for them to reliably hit might actually be slow enough for this ship to outrun, with its 5,750 km/s speed. Incidentally, that's part of the problem with them in their anti-ship capacity. If this ship was firing on a copy of itself, the target would be faster than the tracking speed, imposing a penalty. The spinal laser would be better at hitting missiles, if it weren't for the slow speed of its FC bottlenecking it.
If the ship is operating as part of a fleet, you may be able to free up some space by droppping some fuel. My rule of thumb is to base my desired range off of the distance from the Sun to Pluto, which is roughly 6 billion km. That's 12 billion to get across the diameter of Pluto's orbit, or 24 billion km to make that a round trip. You have more than twice that. Putting more of that fuel on a commercial tanker that stays behind with the fleet's logistical supply train will free up tonnage for more dakka on your battlecruiser. Top off the tanks before going into battle, and then return to the tanker afterwards with 10% to 20% left.
Rule of Cool or roleplay trumps efficient design in my book, just as long as you're making the decision deliberately, and not through an oversight.
Those laser turrets will be awful at anti-missile defense. They can roll the dice and try to hit, but don't rely on them. The low tracking speed on the turrets and FCs (4,000 km/s) means that any missile comically slow enough for them to reliably hit might actually be slow enough for this ship to outrun, with its 5,750 km/s speed. Incidentally, that's part of the problem with them in their anti-ship capacity. If this ship was firing on a copy of itself, the target would be faster than the tracking speed, imposing a penalty. The spinal laser would be better at hitting missiles, if it weren't for the slow speed of its FC bottlenecking it.
If the ship is operating as part of a fleet, you may be able to free up some space by droppping some fuel. My rule of thumb is to base my desired range off of the distance from the Sun to Pluto, which is roughly 6 billion km. That's 12 billion to get across the diameter of Pluto's orbit, or 24 billion km to make that a round trip. You have more than twice that. Putting more of that fuel on a commercial tanker that stays behind with the fleet's logistical supply train will free up tonnage for more dakka on your battlecruiser. Top off the tanks before going into battle, and then return to the tanker afterwards with 10% to 20% left.
Posted by: krummja
« on: May 21, 2016, 09:48:10 PM »Interesting points. I actually didn't know the AMM Active Search Sensor could act in the same capacity as the Active Sensor at the relevant ranges vs. hull sizes. Is that what you're saying?
As for the turrets, I'm mainly going by the Rule Of Cool there, to be totally honest. In my mind mixed turret sizes for different engagement ranges references WWII battleships with their various turret sizes for main guns vs side-mounted guns.
I went ahead and stripped the CIWS and loaded up 8 total AMM launchers and a total of 4 AMM FCs. This ship is meant to be in a larger fleet that will have a mix of AMM and eventually Gauss so I'm not too concerned about that, plus the laser turrets can act as (admittedly poorer) anti-missile to my understanding.
Do these seem like decent improvements?
As for the turrets, I'm mainly going by the Rule Of Cool there, to be totally honest. In my mind mixed turret sizes for different engagement ranges references WWII battleships with their various turret sizes for main guns vs side-mounted guns.
I went ahead and stripped the CIWS and loaded up 8 total AMM launchers and a total of 4 AMM FCs. This ship is meant to be in a larger fleet that will have a mix of AMM and eventually Gauss so I'm not too concerned about that, plus the laser turrets can act as (admittedly poorer) anti-missile to my understanding.
Do these seem like decent improvements?
Posted by: Prince of Space
« on: May 21, 2016, 09:31:54 PM »The single AMM fire control makes that component of the missile defense vulnerable to a lucky hit. Or a HPM. I think you're right to be concerned that you included too little. By beefing up your supply of AMM launchers and fire controls, as one FC goes down you can reassign the launchers to the other FCs.
It's a military ship, therefore you could use gauss turrets instead of CIWS. CIWS only defend the ship they are mounted on, not adjacent ships. Turrets can do either. If this thing ever needed to operate with additional ships then gauss turrets would be preferable. I'd save CIWS for important commercial ships.
Your turretted lasers have slower tracking speeds than your hull mounted spinal laser. Take off the turrets and just mount the lasers on the hull. And swap out the laser FC for a slightly faster one to match the 5750 km/s weapon tracking speed.
Also, why have three different kinds of lasers? What does the 20 cm do that the 15 cm or 25 cm don't?
What do you imagine this ship doing for you? It has no offensive missiles, only lasers, so it closes to knife-fight range to blast the enemy, apparently. But it's a little thin skinnned to my eye. It'll have to run the gauntlet through enemy missiles (and survive) before it can fire its lasers. That big active sensor is probably overkill for that tactic, too. The missile sensor will give you firing solutions at more than enough range for a beam ship. If that's how you spot ships in the first place, maybe go with a passive thermal or EM instead of the active ship sensor.
It's a military ship, therefore you could use gauss turrets instead of CIWS. CIWS only defend the ship they are mounted on, not adjacent ships. Turrets can do either. If this thing ever needed to operate with additional ships then gauss turrets would be preferable. I'd save CIWS for important commercial ships.
Your turretted lasers have slower tracking speeds than your hull mounted spinal laser. Take off the turrets and just mount the lasers on the hull. And swap out the laser FC for a slightly faster one to match the 5750 km/s weapon tracking speed.
Also, why have three different kinds of lasers? What does the 20 cm do that the 15 cm or 25 cm don't?
What do you imagine this ship doing for you? It has no offensive missiles, only lasers, so it closes to knife-fight range to blast the enemy, apparently. But it's a little thin skinnned to my eye. It'll have to run the gauntlet through enemy missiles (and survive) before it can fire its lasers. That big active sensor is probably overkill for that tactic, too. The missile sensor will give you firing solutions at more than enough range for a beam ship. If that's how you spot ships in the first place, maybe go with a passive thermal or EM instead of the active ship sensor.
Posted by: krummja
« on: May 21, 2016, 09:27:06 PM »Doh! Regarding the power plant, I can't believe I missed that. Thanks for pointing it out.
