Posted by: Ostia
« on: May 29, 2016, 01:16:32 PM »Personally, I would add ECCM (at least on an Energy Fighter). Lack of it ruined my day against spoilers (I was using HPM Fighters at that point, to breach Shields)
Posted by: Iranon
« on: May 29, 2016, 05:25:40 AM »Well, this isn't a real life navy where there's a huge difference between ships and airplanes.
Fighters have no unique advantages in beam combat except reduced-size fire controls (going much above 4x tracking speed is rarely practical)... which is negated by typically only having space for one light beam weapon each, while one fire control on a full-size ship may be good for 10 weapons. Their smaller sensor footprint is of little consequence because anything will pick you up before beam combat range.
The main advantage of beam-armed space superiority fighters over full-size beam ships is logistics - they're serviced in a hangar, and a new variant can get built immediately without shipyard retooling. For me, that's usually not enough, I prefer full-size ships. But if you want beam-based space superiority fighters, they'll need to match their quarry in weaponry - a light "space superiority fighter" with light Gauss cannon armament may be crippled by the first laser shot of a fighter meant to go toe-to-toe with ships.
I think you really should decide whether you want to build efficient designs, or whether you want to build thematic equivalents from real life or other settings. There are many real-life analogues that work well (WW1 to cold war ships translate easily into the system, a dedicated nebula fleet may resemble an age-of-sail fleet). Other things don't work that well.
A Gauss turret on a bomber would not be very useful for fending off beam fighters, because the fighters would have longer weapon range. If the AI used fighters, which it doesn't.
If your bomber comes under fire from anti-ship missiles, why are you building a bomber instead of using more efficient full-sized ships?
If you want efficiency, identify needs, expected opposition, and a way to overcome it - inside Aurora mechanics, as other settings may work very differently.
Fighters have no unique advantages in beam combat except reduced-size fire controls (going much above 4x tracking speed is rarely practical)... which is negated by typically only having space for one light beam weapon each, while one fire control on a full-size ship may be good for 10 weapons. Their smaller sensor footprint is of little consequence because anything will pick you up before beam combat range.
The main advantage of beam-armed space superiority fighters over full-size beam ships is logistics - they're serviced in a hangar, and a new variant can get built immediately without shipyard retooling. For me, that's usually not enough, I prefer full-size ships. But if you want beam-based space superiority fighters, they'll need to match their quarry in weaponry - a light "space superiority fighter" with light Gauss cannon armament may be crippled by the first laser shot of a fighter meant to go toe-to-toe with ships.
I think you really should decide whether you want to build efficient designs, or whether you want to build thematic equivalents from real life or other settings. There are many real-life analogues that work well (WW1 to cold war ships translate easily into the system, a dedicated nebula fleet may resemble an age-of-sail fleet). Other things don't work that well.
A Gauss turret on a bomber would not be very useful for fending off beam fighters, because the fighters would have longer weapon range. If the AI used fighters, which it doesn't.
If your bomber comes under fire from anti-ship missiles, why are you building a bomber instead of using more efficient full-sized ships?
If you want efficiency, identify needs, expected opposition, and a way to overcome it - inside Aurora mechanics, as other settings may work very differently.
Posted by: Borealis4x
« on: May 29, 2016, 04:43:38 AM »Wait, are we talking about fighters that attack ships or fighters that attack other fighters. I was talking about the latter. Is it not efficient to rely on space superiority fighters and to instead just use your ship's point defenses to take out enemy light craft?
Also, for bombers (I call small craft dedicated to taking out larger ships bombers to differentiate them from fighters) would it be okay to add a turret made from the smallest gauss gun I can make? Maybe this is me applying the rule of cool again (I want my space B-17) but it seems like a good idea in theory to fend of fighters or if nothing else anti ship missiles.
Also, for bombers (I call small craft dedicated to taking out larger ships bombers to differentiate them from fighters) would it be okay to add a turret made from the smallest gauss gun I can make? Maybe this is me applying the rule of cool again (I want my space B-17) but it seems like a good idea in theory to fend of fighters or if nothing else anti ship missiles.
Posted by: Iranon
« on: May 29, 2016, 04:34:31 AM »Well, you can add minimal armament - a minimal fire control and a reduced-size Gauss cannon, and you have the capability of slowly destroying defenceless ships for 0.6 HS.
The question is whehter you need that capability, or whether you'd rely on a proper beam fighter to do this. I assume dropships in other settings are meant to provide supporting fire for the groundpounders, in Aurora boarding combat is separate from space combat.
It seems more sensible to not waste tonnage in a highly stressed design where every bit of weight is expensive in terms of much-meeded performance.
I could see light weaponry useful as secondary armament for a microwave fighter: The main weapon disables the target, but for a very modest tonnage investment we circumvent the need for another ship type to deliver the kill. Or even on some missile fighters, as long as you don't bank on it being a viable combat weapon: fine if all you want is the ability to whittle down civilians or spent missile ships if an opportunity presents itself... but again the question arises whether we aren't better off mixing in some proper beam fighters.
The question is whehter you need that capability, or whether you'd rely on a proper beam fighter to do this. I assume dropships in other settings are meant to provide supporting fire for the groundpounders, in Aurora boarding combat is separate from space combat.
It seems more sensible to not waste tonnage in a highly stressed design where every bit of weight is expensive in terms of much-meeded performance.
I could see light weaponry useful as secondary armament for a microwave fighter: The main weapon disables the target, but for a very modest tonnage investment we circumvent the need for another ship type to deliver the kill. Or even on some missile fighters, as long as you don't bank on it being a viable combat weapon: fine if all you want is the ability to whittle down civilians or spent missile ships if an opportunity presents itself... but again the question arises whether we aren't better off mixing in some proper beam fighters.
Posted by: Borealis4x
« on: May 29, 2016, 03:44:07 AM »From what has been said I feel like the existing weapon types do a poor job of representing fighter type ships. You can't make things like auto-cannons or gattling guns or other small fighter type armaments. Take the dropship, for instance, I wanted a sort of Halo Pelican-esque gunship type thing, but I'm being told that it needs to be unarmed to make it go faster. Granted, the Pelican didn't carry an entire company, but still... Disappointing.
Posted by: Iranon
« on: May 29, 2016, 03:35:34 AM »Very fast, otherwise you are bound to lose most of your marines before combat even starts. Can be absolutely barebones, just a drop module and enough of your most powrful engines to make up 50-60% of its size. You probably want reasonable armour, quarry suppression by microwave-equipped ships or both.
As a team shuttle, I'd use a dedicated craft - just a small low-power engine, the smallest engineering bay and a dash of fuel. These can spend 20 years in space, then be scrapped.
I have to admit, these days I don't really ferry teams manually... too much hassle without any interesting decisions.
As a team shuttle, I'd use a dedicated craft - just a small low-power engine, the smallest engineering bay and a dash of fuel. These can spend 20 years in space, then be scrapped.
I have to admit, these days I don't really ferry teams manually... too much hassle without any interesting decisions.
Posted by: Borealis4x
« on: May 29, 2016, 03:11:21 AM »Any rules of thumb for a marine company/science team dropship?
Posted by: Iranon
« on: May 29, 2016, 02:38:34 AM »Optimal weight depends on what you're trying to do.
Deliver missiles from outside enemy sensor range? As small as you can make them, your biggest asset is your small sensor footprint. If your weapon range exceeds that of enemy AMMs and you're too small for their anti-ship sensors/fire controls you should be perfectly safe and need neither speed nor armour.
Consider a single box launcher and offload sensors to dedicated spotters: splitting up the same capabilities over more numerous smaller fighters makes you harder to see, point defence is going to be restricted by number of fire controls so each salvo may as well consist of one decent-sized missile for better shock damag/penetration/fuel efficiency.
250t seems reasonable for this, smaller is definitely possible.
Beam fighters that use something other than reduced-size Gauss guns will have to be larger if you want decent speed (which you probably do).
Matching ship and fire control speed seems good practice. It's not set in stone, but you should have a good reason to do otherwise.
Deliver missiles from outside enemy sensor range? As small as you can make them, your biggest asset is your small sensor footprint. If your weapon range exceeds that of enemy AMMs and you're too small for their anti-ship sensors/fire controls you should be perfectly safe and need neither speed nor armour.
Consider a single box launcher and offload sensors to dedicated spotters: splitting up the same capabilities over more numerous smaller fighters makes you harder to see, point defence is going to be restricted by number of fire controls so each salvo may as well consist of one decent-sized missile for better shock damag/penetration/fuel efficiency.
250t seems reasonable for this, smaller is definitely possible.
Beam fighters that use something other than reduced-size Gauss guns will have to be larger if you want decent speed (which you probably do).
Matching ship and fire control speed seems good practice. It's not set in stone, but you should have a good reason to do otherwise.
Posted by: Borealis4x
« on: May 29, 2016, 02:08:10 AM »Wait, so by one weapon system you don't mean one weapon but one type of weapon?
And I'm guessing the optimal weight is 250 tons, yes? And it should go as fast as the tracking speed of its fire control, ideally?
Should turrets go on some of the larger 500 ton craft?
And I'm guessing that fighters can rely on their mothership's active sensors and EM. Still need a missile computer, though...
And I'm guessing the optimal weight is 250 tons, yes? And it should go as fast as the tracking speed of its fire control, ideally?
Should turrets go on some of the larger 500 ton craft?
And I'm guessing that fighters can rely on their mothership's active sensors and EM. Still need a missile computer, though...
Posted by: linkxsc
« on: May 28, 2016, 09:23:52 PM »Thoughts.
Fighters must be fast. Yours is a tad slow for the engine tech. Your fire control system has a tracking of 10,000km/s, that should be your minimum speed.
Fighters should rely on another craft lighting up targets with actives but a micro sensor isnt necessarily bad, and can often spot for a beam fighter itself.
1 weapons system or bust, at high techs you can get away with more, but not at low.
With missile fighters, you load them with shorter ranged but faster or harder hitting asms than normal, as they can approach closer.
With beam fighters, use a mix of weapons, lasers+hpm+mesons are a good combo (most in lasers).
Beam fighters are however often weak and have high losses. They are much better cleanup ships than initial strike.
Fighters must be fast. Yours is a tad slow for the engine tech. Your fire control system has a tracking of 10,000km/s, that should be your minimum speed.
Fighters should rely on another craft lighting up targets with actives but a micro sensor isnt necessarily bad, and can often spot for a beam fighter itself.
1 weapons system or bust, at high techs you can get away with more, but not at low.
With missile fighters, you load them with shorter ranged but faster or harder hitting asms than normal, as they can approach closer.
With beam fighters, use a mix of weapons, lasers+hpm+mesons are a good combo (most in lasers).
Beam fighters are however often weak and have high losses. They are much better cleanup ships than initial strike.
Posted by: Iranon
« on: May 28, 2016, 06:05:47 PM »Beam fighters tend to suffer considerable losses when used offensively, AI opponents like plentiful and long-ranged AMMs.
Microwaves for disabling, Railguns/reduced-Gauss for anti-missile work on the approach and cleanup would be my preferred approach.
I'd try to at least hit the speed of the slowest fighter fire control I can build for beam fighters, 10k in your case... but 20k certainly wouldn't be unreasonable if you have sufficient power multiplier tech.
Speed or may not matter for missile fighters, I've built plenty that were slower than my full-size warships.
Microwaves for disabling, Railguns/reduced-Gauss for anti-missile work on the approach and cleanup would be my preferred approach.
I'd try to at least hit the speed of the slowest fighter fire control I can build for beam fighters, 10k in your case... but 20k certainly wouldn't be unreasonable if you have sufficient power multiplier tech.
Speed or may not matter for missile fighters, I've built plenty that were slower than my full-size warships.
Posted by: Borealis4x
« on: May 28, 2016, 05:32:28 PM »I wanted the missiles to be anti-fighter, hence the small resolution.
What are the best non-missile weapons for fighters? And how fast should they be going at every engine level, generally?
What are the best non-missile weapons for fighters? And how fast should they be going at every engine level, generally?
Posted by: Andrew
« on: May 28, 2016, 05:15:00 PM »The missile fire control is also suicidally short ranged, you don't need resolution 1 and you are not going to be firing your missiles at other missiles so have a resolution for tracking 9,000 ton or larger vessels instead.
I second the far too slow and trying to do to many things on one hull. Build a gauss fighter, missile fighter and an assault shuttle not one hull for all three jobs
I second the far too slow and trying to do to many things on one hull. Build a gauss fighter, missile fighter and an assault shuttle not one hull for all three jobs
Posted by: Iranon
« on: May 28, 2016, 04:57:02 PM »Trying to do even more things, and is even worse at them.
With speed and armour that low, this is pretty much restricted to capturing commercial vessels.
There's considerable overhead for very limited weaponry.
With speed and armour that low, this is pretty much restricted to capturing commercial vessels.
There's considerable overhead for very limited weaponry.
Posted by: Borealis4x
« on: May 28, 2016, 04:21:24 PM »I also made this dropship that can double as a science team ferry. Plan to put ships like these on everything 60,000 tons and up.
Mako Drop Ship class Dropship 500 tons 8 Crew 139.6 BP TCS 10 TH 9.6 EM 0
4000 km/s Armour 1-5 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 0 PPV 3.8
Maint Life 3.47 Years MSP 17 AFR 20% IFR 0.3% 1YR 2 5YR 32 Max Repair 20 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 1 months Spare Berths 17
Drop Capacity: 1 Company Magazine 12
Sukhoi 20 EP Magneto-plasma Drive (2) Power 20 Fuel Use 86.47% Signature 4.8 Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 40,000 Litres Range 16.7 billion km (48 days at full power)
BAE Systems Fighter Gauss Cannon R4-8 (4x4) Range 40,000km TS: 5000 km/s Accuracy Modifier 8% RM 4 ROF 5 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Renraku Computer Systems Fighter Fire Control S00.1 24-2500 H30 (FTR) (1) Max Range: 48,000 km TS: 10000 km/s 79 58 38 17 0 0 0 0 0 0
Aegis Dynamics Size 6 Box Launcher (2) Missile Size 6 Hangar Reload 45 minutes MF Reload 7.5 hours
CACI Intenational Fighter Missile Fire Control FC1-R1 (30%) (1) Range 1.9m km Resolution 1
CACI Intenational Fighter Search Sensor MR0-R1 (30%) (1) GPS 4 Range 640k km MCR 70k km Resolution 1
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and maintenance purposes
Mako Drop Ship class Dropship 500 tons 8 Crew 139.6 BP TCS 10 TH 9.6 EM 0
4000 km/s Armour 1-5 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 0 PPV 3.8
Maint Life 3.47 Years MSP 17 AFR 20% IFR 0.3% 1YR 2 5YR 32 Max Repair 20 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 1 months Spare Berths 17
Drop Capacity: 1 Company Magazine 12
Sukhoi 20 EP Magneto-plasma Drive (2) Power 20 Fuel Use 86.47% Signature 4.8 Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 40,000 Litres Range 16.7 billion km (48 days at full power)
BAE Systems Fighter Gauss Cannon R4-8 (4x4) Range 40,000km TS: 5000 km/s Accuracy Modifier 8% RM 4 ROF 5 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Renraku Computer Systems Fighter Fire Control S00.1 24-2500 H30 (FTR) (1) Max Range: 48,000 km TS: 10000 km/s 79 58 38 17 0 0 0 0 0 0
Aegis Dynamics Size 6 Box Launcher (2) Missile Size 6 Hangar Reload 45 minutes MF Reload 7.5 hours
CACI Intenational Fighter Missile Fire Control FC1-R1 (30%) (1) Range 1.9m km Resolution 1
CACI Intenational Fighter Search Sensor MR0-R1 (30%) (1) GPS 4 Range 640k km MCR 70k km Resolution 1
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and maintenance purposes
