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: Iranon
« on: July 05, 2016, 07:11:43 PM »

Consider the following, all 16k tech plus Magneto-Plasma drives:

Code: [Select]
Dodo class Fighter-bomber    300 tons     5 Crew     45.6 BP      TCS 6  TH 24  EM 0
4000 km/s     Armour 1-3     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 2.4
Maint Life 14.33 Years     MSP 19    AFR 3%    IFR 0%    1YR 0    5YR 3    Max Repair 14 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 24 months    Spare Berths 0   
Magazine 16   

12 EP Magneto-plasma Drive (2)    Power 12    Fuel Use 24.11%    Signature 12    Exp 7%
Fuel Capacity 10 000 Litres    Range 24.9 billion km   (72 days at full power)

Size 16 Box Launcher (1)    Missile Size 16    Hangar Reload 120 minutes    MF Reload 20 hours
Missile Fire Control FC58-R100 (1)     Range 58.8m km    Resolution 100
ASM-16a (1)  Speed: 25 000 km/s   End: 39.5m    Range: 59.3m km   WH: 49    Size: 16    TH: 166/100/50

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 Fighter for production, combat and maintenance purposes
It's slow tactically, it's fragile, it's not as small as I would like for its fire control range... but it costs only twice as much as the ordnance it carries, has a very acceptable mission life and strategic mobility (a tanker variant without weapons could carry over 15 times the fuel), and it shouldn't need servicing ever.

Just the hangar space to house it would cost 2/3 of the build points, and even a barebones carrier needs some basics (hull, bridge,  engines, engineering spaces and crew quarters including flight crew berths). Maybe armour and other silly defensive extravagances: hopefully useless as the carrier is not intended to get into harm's way, but you never know and it's still a big target that'd be embarrassing to lose.
Carriers are expensive because of the duplication of systems inherent to the approach. I see the benefits for parasites that become much more effective when too insanely overpowered to cover long distances themselves (boarding craft, stand-off beam vessels), but the effort seems wasted for strike groups that'd function just fine at modest speed.
Posted by: SteelChicken
« on: July 05, 2016, 11:05:49 AM »

Yes, depending on how you use them/set them up.  The model of a large carrier with massive sensors and having fighters without actives launching missiles works very well.   It's easy to build a massive sensor even at low tech, and just get the fighters close enough to launch and scoot without ever being seen.  The carrier stays out of missile range and stays safe.

Ive also experimented with meson or gauss armed fighters for fleet missile defense, also works very well.

I dont use FAC's as has been mentioned, not worth the micromanagement hassle.

When you begin to out-tech your opponents, the simplest solution logistically for me is just large missile armed ships with both ASM/AMM capabilities and sensors.   One type of ship for the entire fleet minus logistic support. 

Beam armed ships getting into knife fights are much more fun, but the truth is most battles are long range missile dominated affairs.  I would like to see an option for new games where missile tech isn't allowed...might be alot more exciting :)
Posted by: ChildServices
« on: July 05, 2016, 06:29:36 AM »

My whole fleet is meant to be modelled on Freespace at the moment. I decided to go for more roleplay this time and actually set guidelines for how I design ships and how I perform most of my fighting. These limitations mean that most of the combat ships I use are fighters and FAC bombers.
All of my offensive capital ships have one of three roles. They're either a carrier, a point defence ship (to protect carriers or support assets, not strike craft), or a beam assault ship (of which I don't have any yet because my "doctrine" hasn't progressed in-story yet). Some may be a hybrid of two of these roles (The Daedalus is part carrier part defence ship), but not all three.

I've tried to be as efficient as possible within these limitations. However, actually, I think FAC bombers could be better than multiple small ones.
Maintenance is kind of a non-point to me, since all ships are free when they're in hangars. As for the poorer stealth, I figure you can make up for it with layers of armour and the healthy application of combined arms with other escorting strike craft. Overall they'd also be cheaper, since you don't have to build as many fire controls (uridium shortages are absolutely f**king me atm) as if you had four size 250 fighters for every FAC bomber. You also have the potential of carrying even bigger bombs than you feasibly could with the smaller fighters. They'd also triumph over four of the smaller ships in raw firepower with the space potentially regained from lesser crew requirements (less fire controls), allowing them to probably mount maybe 1-3 more launchers depending on the size of your torpedoes, or another layer of armour.
The main downside with FACs for me is micromanagement stresses due to FACs not being able to use the fighter wings screen. Usually I actually don't even use FACs of any kind for this exact reason; because repetitive micromanagement isn't fun and if I can get away with not having to do it then I simply won't.

As for the Hector, well it's a "relic" of the early days when I just needed a wing of cheap ships to make my sol system colonies STFU. It was upgraded and then carried into the second generation fleet due to a concern over what to do if for some reason either
A) The Sky Marshal is an idiot and the Orion class destroyer (carrier) carrying the bulk of our killing power has no cruiser escort, or
B) Plans end up FUBAR and the Orion class destroyer (carrier) carrying the bulk of our killing power has no cruiser escort, or
C) The Sky Marshal did remember to assign an escort cruiser group to his flagship but it ran out of ammo due to an enemy NPR Macrossing them.
I've even stated before that its actual role is in some doubt, but the chassis is considered a "classic." Spoiler alert but I actually intend to replace it with beam interceptors after I finally finish this battle and post the next part of my story. My current Sky Marshal (and the predicted next one) aren't idiots and are fully aware of the fact that each Orion class destroyer basically has 4000 tonnes of scrap metal collecting dust in their hangars that would be better spent on other types strike craft.

The thing about carronades is really disappointing though. I wish they had something like the size reduction tech that lasers get, that might make them competitive again.
Posted by: Iranon
« on: July 05, 2016, 04:19:39 AM »

@ ChildServices: Are your considerations driven mostly by theme/style/roleyplay, or efficiency? If it's the latter, I have a few objections.


Quote from: ChildServices on July 04, 2016, 07:24:23 PM
These are bombers, not fighters. Think Freespace.

Imo the mechanics don't encourage FAC bombers unless you care about the ability to be serviced by maintenance facilities. The slight efficiency gain and corresponding increase of performance/payload/armour over 4 equivalent 250t missile fighters is minor compared to reduction of sensor footprint.

Quote
This one carries its own magazine and doesn't use box launchers. I was gonna go for boxes, but the hangar reload on size 1 box launchers is slower than the refire rate that I got out of shrinking the launchers a little. It doesn't need to be as fast as the Achilles since it doesn't actually have to go anywhere that isn't within 10000km of its carrier.
I'm not really sure how good they are though, since I haven't actually had to use them yet. I'm sure somebody'll be eager to tell me how effective they are. ;)

If they aren't intended to go anywhere beyond 10k of the carrier, you could put defensive equipment on the carrier itself and save a ton of overhead.
Barebones (unpowered, unarmoured) box launcher pods to circumvent the inability to reload may be worth considering, but again that's a lot of overhead and hoops to jump through for a marginal advantage over 0.25 sized launchers.
Off on a tangent: I may do this for different reasons. Box launcher pods can cheaply get 20+ years of mission life, and dumped wherever desired.

Quote
While we're talking about bombers, has anybody had any luck designing something Homeworld-style with carronades instead of missiles?
For a given calibre, carronades are just an overpriced infrared laser with a worse damage profile. (Advanced) spinal lasers allow us to match their calibre size on small craft.
I've played around with the concept a bit. Ton for ton, I find fast-firing weapons of moderate size preferable. The only implementation of large beams that I liked was low-tech ships able to deliver a devastating single volley for cheap. Not quite as efficient, but scaling this down to FAC/fighter size is possible and offers some advantages (good use of spinal lasers, easy logistics for FACs).
Posted by: ChildServices
« on: July 05, 2016, 12:39:47 AM »

Well if you can fit actual damaging warheads inside of size 1 missiles then bob's your uncle, you're practically unstoppable whether you decide to use bombers or if you just use big missile destroyers.
Posted by: Borealis4x
« on: July 04, 2016, 11:20:20 PM »

Quote from: ChildServices on July 04, 2016, 07:24:23 PM
These are bombers, not fighters. Think Freespace.

100 tonnes? Not until you're at higher tech levels. Engines can't be smaller than 50 tonnes, so that's already half of your space gone. From there the only box launchers that'll fit on it are between size 6 and size 1. Size 1 would be your best bet (since the size 6 is 45 tonnes), but only if you're at the tech level where you can fit damaging warheads inside of size 1 missiles. After that, you'll have to tailor make the bombs to whatever fire control will fit inside the bomber (as opposed to it being the other way around)

250 tonnes? I don't see why not. I'm pretty sure there's a whole thread where a guy shows us two fighter wings, and one of them was smaller or roughly around the size of this. They were more advanced than magneto plasma, though.
Well, my engine tech will be internal confinement and my missile tech cobalt warheads. I guess the missile doesn't matter as much since it can be replaced as tech gets better. And I was actually thinking about having small, fast bombers carrying a single missile, like an old WWII torpedo bomber.
Posted by: ChildServices
« on: July 04, 2016, 07:24:23 PM »

These are bombers, not fighters. Think Freespace.

100 tonnes? Not until you're at higher tech levels. Engines can't be smaller than 50 tonnes, so that's already half of your space gone. From there the only box launchers that'll fit on it are between size 6 and size 1. Size 1 would be your best bet (since the size 6 is 45 tonnes), but only if you're at the tech level where you can fit damaging warheads inside of size 1 missiles. After that, you'll have to tailor make the bombs to whatever fire control will fit inside the bomber (as opposed to it being the other way around)

250 tonnes? I don't see why not. I'm pretty sure there's a whole thread where a guy shows us two fighter wings, and one of them was smaller or roughly around the size of this. They were more advanced than magneto plasma, though.
Posted by: Borealis4x
« on: July 04, 2016, 02:29:30 PM »

Quote from: ChildServices on July 04, 2016, 04:48:44 AM
I posted them in the ships thread over in the bureau awhile ago but here it is:

Code: [Select]
Achilles II class Bomber    1,000 tons     3 Crew     396.4 BP      TCS 20  TH 69.12  EM 0
14400 km/s     Armour 4-8     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 12
Maint Life 0 Years     MSP 0    AFR 200%    IFR 2.8%    1YR 123    5YR 1842    Max Repair 288 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.05 months    Spare Berths 2   
Magazine 80   

Vishnevsky Space & Security 288 EP Magneto-plasma Drive (1)    Power 288    Fuel Use 293.06%    Signature 69.12    Exp 30%
Fuel Capacity 20,000 Litres    Range 1.2 billion km   (23 hours at full power)

Kurz & Wecker Size 8 Box Launcher (10)    Missile Size 8    Hangar Reload 60 minutes    MF Reload 10 hours
Stiletto Missile Fire Control FC86-R100 (50%) (1)     Range 86.4m km    Resolution 100
Stiletto Mk2 (10)  Speed: 54,000 km/s   End: 9.3m    Range: 30m km   WH: 25    Size: 8    TH: 630/378/189It also comes in a "squad leader" variant which carries one less bomb but holds this active sensor:
Code: [Select]
Stiletto Active Search Sensor MR86-R100 (50%) (1)     GPS 3600     Range 86.4m km    Resolution 100
For propulsion I use the maximum power multiplier available for every single one of my strike craft. In addition to doing that, you want box launchers. If you don't have box launchers, don't even bother designing a bomber. Bombers also don't need more than one fire control because, remember, you have multiple ships in a wing. If you need to split your fire, have each ship fire at a different target.

I also have, to match "Achilles", a ship called the Hector, which is an escort ship that each of my heavy carriers has four of. It's basically an AMM platform.
Code: [Select]
Hector III class Gunboat    1,000 tons     7 Crew     689 BP      TCS 20  TH 34.56  EM 0
7200 km/s     Armour 4-8     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 9
Maint Life 0 Years     MSP 0    AFR 200%    IFR 2.8%    1YR 123    5YR 1845    Max Repair 270 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.05 months    Spare Berths 6   
Magazine 54   

Vishnevsky Space & Security 144 EP Magneto-plasma Drive (1)    Power 144    Fuel Use 302.42%    Signature 34.56    Exp 30%
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres    Range 0.6 billion km   (22 hours at full power)

Kurz & Wecker Size 1 Missile Launcher (50% Reduction) (18)    Missile Size 1    Rate of Fire 20
AMM Missile Fire Control FC129-R1 (50%) (1)     Range 129.6m km    Resolution 1
Sandpaper Mk3 (54)  Speed: 72,000 km/s   End: 3.2m    Range: 14m km   WH: 1    Size: 1    TH: 792/475/237

Hector Active Search Sensor MR20-R1 (50%) (1)     GPS 84     Range 20.2m km    MCR 2.2m km    Resolution 1This one carries its own magazine and doesn't use box launchers. I was gonna go for boxes, but the hangar reload on size 1 box launchers is slower than the refire rate that I got out of shrinking the launchers a little. It doesn't need to be as fast as the Achilles since it doesn't actually have to go anywhere that isn't within 10000km of its carrier.
I'm not really sure how good they are though, since I haven't actually had to use them yet. I'm sure somebody'll be eager to tell me how effective they are. ;)

While we're talking about bombers, has anybody had any luck designing something Homeworld-style with carronades instead of missiles?
You think it would be possible to make a fighter effective at 250 tons or even 100 tons?
Posted by: lennson
« on: July 04, 2016, 11:53:59 AM »

It seems the most important thing a carrier does for a fleet from a firepower perspective is that it enables combat reloading of box missile launchers.

Typically, this is used only for the bombers that the carrier brings in to combat with it but as carriers get larger it can also be used to re-arm box missile launcher destroyers or cruisers escorting the carrier. This makes is so that a carrier group can have an absolutely massive alpha strike if needed (all fighters plus all escorts) and can do this multiple times by cycling ships through the carrier for another full fleet volley.

However, against the AI this is unlikely to ever be needed since their missile defenses tend to have issues just dealing with carrier bombers. This is more a tactic of interest when role playing conflicting sides and might help make carriers more useful in situations such as those that that Haji's fiction puts them in.
Posted by: Iranon
« on: July 04, 2016, 09:34:13 AM »

@ ChildServices: Probably not, if you want your strike craft to be hard to dect it's generally more efficient to just make them smaller, down to a signle box launcher if that's what you want. Stealth is more useful for capability that you can't split between multiple ships, e.g. that provided by a huge sensor.

*

General usefulness of carriers: Imo, what's useful is small missile platforms, because they are hard to detect. There's actually nothing in the mechanics that discourages small long-endurance fighters. Carriers can have their place, but they seem superfluous in many implementations.
Posted by: ChildServices
« on: July 04, 2016, 08:03:38 AM »

Would cloaked bombers be any good?
Posted by: Haji
« on: July 04, 2016, 07:52:50 AM »

Quote from: BasileusMaximos on July 03, 2016, 11:19:05 PM
So I was reading Vandermeer's informative guide on how to use carriers and it got me wondering as to whether all this extra effort was worth it in the end.

My initial thinking was that since carriers dominate today, they would also dominate in space, but then again we are in space using magic rocks that break the laws of physics.

So do carriers properly managed, built, and outfitted actually preform better than missile or beam fleets?

Yes and no. All my campaigns are role-playing ones, which means I play several nations at once and try to simulate them as real nations. I usually also have NPRs out there and here is a very simple rule that held true in all of my playthroughts so far - carriers absolutely wreck NPRs but are completely worthless against a player led empires.

The reason the carriers dominate against AI is that their parasites are usually impossible to detect, thanks to their small size, which coupled with rather bad anti-missile defenses of computer opponents means fighters can routinely wreck entire fleets for no loses.

Unfortunately when I play my own empires I routinely use box launchers on my ships and build anti-missile defenses that can stand up to it and in all my campaigns the result was the same - fighters simply could not get through a point defense of a properly designed player fleet. They simply don't have the numbers. Which should be expected. Large ships can carry missiles in box launchers, while carriers carry fighters which carry missiles. They can strike multiple times, sure, and avoid detection, but in most campaigns my way to deal with carriers was to survive the strikes, close in, and kill them.

I think I'll be giving carriers one last chance in the future but I may very well abandon them in my campaigns as simply unplayable against other player led empires. 
Posted by: ChildServices
« on: July 04, 2016, 04:48:44 AM »

I posted them in the ships thread over in the bureau awhile ago but here it is:

Code: [Select]
Achilles II class Bomber    1,000 tons     3 Crew     396.4 BP      TCS 20  TH 69.12  EM 0
14400 km/s     Armour 4-8     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 12
Maint Life 0 Years     MSP 0    AFR 200%    IFR 2.8%    1YR 123    5YR 1842    Max Repair 288 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.05 months    Spare Berths 2   
Magazine 80   

Vishnevsky Space & Security 288 EP Magneto-plasma Drive (1)    Power 288    Fuel Use 293.06%    Signature 69.12    Exp 30%
Fuel Capacity 20,000 Litres    Range 1.2 billion km   (23 hours at full power)

Kurz & Wecker Size 8 Box Launcher (10)    Missile Size 8    Hangar Reload 60 minutes    MF Reload 10 hours
Stiletto Missile Fire Control FC86-R100 (50%) (1)     Range 86.4m km    Resolution 100
Stiletto Mk2 (10)  Speed: 54,000 km/s   End: 9.3m    Range: 30m km   WH: 25    Size: 8    TH: 630/378/189It also comes in a "squad leader" variant which carries one less bomb but holds this active sensor:
Code: [Select]
Stiletto Active Search Sensor MR86-R100 (50%) (1)     GPS 3600     Range 86.4m km    Resolution 100
For propulsion I use the maximum power multiplier available for every single one of my strike craft. In addition to doing that, you want box launchers. If you don't have box launchers, don't even bother designing a bomber. Bombers also don't need more than one fire control because, remember, you have multiple ships in a wing. If you need to split your fire, have each ship fire at a different target.

I also have, to match "Achilles", a ship called the Hector, which is an escort ship that each of my heavy carriers has four of. It's basically an AMM platform.
Code: [Select]
Hector III class Gunboat    1,000 tons     7 Crew     689 BP      TCS 20  TH 34.56  EM 0
7200 km/s     Armour 4-8     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 9
Maint Life 0 Years     MSP 0    AFR 200%    IFR 2.8%    1YR 123    5YR 1845    Max Repair 270 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.05 months    Spare Berths 6   
Magazine 54   

Vishnevsky Space & Security 144 EP Magneto-plasma Drive (1)    Power 144    Fuel Use 302.42%    Signature 34.56    Exp 30%
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres    Range 0.6 billion km   (22 hours at full power)

Kurz & Wecker Size 1 Missile Launcher (50% Reduction) (18)    Missile Size 1    Rate of Fire 20
AMM Missile Fire Control FC129-R1 (50%) (1)     Range 129.6m km    Resolution 1
Sandpaper Mk3 (54)  Speed: 72,000 km/s   End: 3.2m    Range: 14m km   WH: 1    Size: 1    TH: 792/475/237

Hector Active Search Sensor MR20-R1 (50%) (1)     GPS 84     Range 20.2m km    MCR 2.2m km    Resolution 1This one carries its own magazine and doesn't use box launchers. I was gonna go for boxes, but the hangar reload on size 1 box launchers is slower than the refire rate that I got out of shrinking the launchers a little. It doesn't need to be as fast as the Achilles since it doesn't actually have to go anywhere that isn't within 10000km of its carrier.
I'm not really sure how good they are though, since I haven't actually had to use them yet. I'm sure somebody'll be eager to tell me how effective they are. ;)

While we're talking about bombers, has anybody had any luck designing something Homeworld-style with carronades instead of missiles?
Posted by: MarcAFK
« on: July 04, 2016, 12:44:43 AM »

I didn't say I use them exclusively. But small ships can generally sneak around hostile systems with impunity, as long as the enemy has actives off.
Posted by: Borealis4x
« on: July 04, 2016, 12:34:43 AM »

Quote from: MarcAFK on July 04, 2016, 12:13:10 AM
I'm a big proponent of small ships and frequently I'm amazed by what I can get away with using a kilotonner.

I don't see how you could get away with not having >1000 ton ships. I mean, you still need a carrier.