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: Makir
« on: October 10, 2016, 09:59:57 AM »

Code: [Select]
Raggio (WIP) class Cruiser    5,050 tons     169 Crew     751.4 BP      TCS 101  TH 416  EM 0
4118 km/s    JR 3-50     Armour 1-26     Shields 0-0     Sensors 6/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 2     PPV 18
Maint Life 2.13 Years     MSP 186    AFR 102%    IFR 1.4%    1YR 55    5YR 823    Max Repair 104 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 10 months    Spare Berths 0   

J7500(3-50) Military Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 7500 tons    Distance 50k km     Squadron Size 3
208 EP Magneto-plasma Drive (2)    Power 208    Fuel Use 52.2%    Signature 208    Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 420,000 Litres    Range 28.7 billion km   (80 days at full power)

10cm C3 Ultraviolet Laser (2)    Range 120,000km     TS: 4118 km/s     Power 3-3     RM 4    ROF 5        3 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1
Calì & Candido 20cm Ultraviolet Laser (2)    Range 192,000km     TS: 4118 km/s     Power 10-3     RM 4    ROF 20        10 10 10 10 8 6 5 5 4 4
Fire Control S02 96-3000 (1)    Max Range: 192,000 km   TS: 3000 km/s     95 90 84 79 74 69 64 58 53 48
Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor Technology PB-1 (7)     Total Power Output 31.5    Armour 0    Exp 5%

Thermal Sensor TH1-6 (1)     Sensitivity 6     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  6m km

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Some small changes
Posted by: 83athom
« on: October 10, 2016, 09:39:25 AM »

My suggestions;
1) Increase it so engines(+ fuel) are between 25% and 40% of the ship mass (view-able in the component window).
2) MSP should be at minimum the largest repair cost + 50% (about 300 in this case).
3)Armor should be improved to at least 4 layers thick.
4)There is a "power required" box on the left hand side of the window, match that number with several smaller reactors.
5 (Optional))Add some sensors. I like to put some on every military ships, even if I have dedicated sensor ships elsewhere.
Posted by: Iranon
« on: October 10, 2016, 08:08:08 AM »

Not too bad for an early attempt!


1) Excessive deployment time, maintenance life is going to be the limiting factor. You may want to add engineering spaces, see 3).

2) Thin-skinned. Not necessarily wrong, it seems you're hoping to snipe things that can't fire back... but then, I'd prefer more speed to control the range.

3) not enough MSP to repair the bigger component if something malfunctions.

4) Does it need a jump drive? Generally, I prefer to put those on Commercial support vessels.

5) Inefficient propulsion configuration. Engines too small and too stressed, too much fuel. You could get slightly better performance and much lower running costs on the same tonnage.

6) Excessive power plant output that goes to waste.

The offensive setup looks quite good. I'd probably prefer 15cm lasers over 20cm with your capacitor tech (twice the fire rate).
Posted by: Makir
« on: October 10, 2016, 07:37:35 AM »

Quick update for anyone who still cares about this, I made a new ship design that is Laser-based, I will post the design right here, i still think I am missing something, and no, I didn't actually create the ship, I wanted to post this so I could improve the design
Code: [Select]
Raggio (WIP) class Cruiser    5,200 tons     168 Crew     855.4 BP      TCS 104  TH 216  EM 0
2076 km/s    JR 3-50     Armour 1-26     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 18
Maint Life 0.87 Years     MSP 103    AFR 216%    IFR 3%    1YR 118    5YR 1766    Max Repair 216 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 30 months    Spare Berths 0   

J7500(3-50) Military Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 7500 tons    Distance 50k km     Squadron Size 3
108 EP Ion Drive (2)    Power 108    Fuel Use 72.8%    Signature 108    Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 560,000 Litres    Range 26.6 billion km   (148 days at full power)

10cm C3 Ultraviolet Laser (2)    Range 120,000km     TS: 3000 km/s     Power 3-3     RM 4    ROF 5        3 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1
Calì & Candido 20cm Ultraviolet Laser (2)    Range 192,000km     TS: 3000 km/s     Power 10-3     RM 4    ROF 20        10 10 10 10 8 6 5 5 4 4
Fire Control S02 96-3000 (1)    Max Range: 192,000 km   TS: 3000 km/s     95 90 84 79 74 69 64 58 53 48
Stellator Corporation Stellarator Fusion Reactor Technology  (1)     Total Power Output 72    Armour 0    Exp 5%
Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor Technology PB-1 (2)     Total Power Output 9    Armour 0    Exp 5%

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
Posted by: Iranon
« on: October 09, 2016, 12:39:47 PM »

Power plants, or they'll only fire a single shot.
Posted by: Makir
« on: October 09, 2016, 12:01:11 PM »

Okay, got it, however I have one last question before I dissapear for a while, Lasers need a Beam Fire Control, correct? And nothing else other than the laser itself and the BFC?
Posted by: Iranon
« on: October 09, 2016, 11:55:57 AM »

Rate of fire is measured in seconds between shots, so a high number is bad.

A spinal mount is bigger than lasers you could normally build, but a ship may have only one and it can't be turretet.
I rarely use them as I normally prefer midsized fast-firing lasers to slower-firing large ones, but they have their uses and can be quite impressive.
Posted by: Makir
« on: October 09, 2016, 11:13:55 AM »

Update, since I posted this, I made a bit of progress, such as making a Jump Drive Survey Ship, and make it go around, started working on Laser research, and see where it'll lead me, my questions are, is a big numbered Fire Rate good or bad? And is a Spinal Mount any good?

I also made a Mass Driver and put it on Luna, to make you understand how without knowledge I am, I ddin't even know how Mass Driver worked up untill now
Posted by: Makir
« on: October 08, 2016, 01:22:32 PM »

Again, made in five minutes with nothing in mind other "Let's hope this stop the Luna stress", building this PDC was probably the most stupid thing I had done yet
Posted by: Iranon
« on: October 08, 2016, 01:17:31 PM »

Mixed batteries can be sound (different missile sizes are always different salvos, so if the missiles have the same speed it's a method to make the job harder for enemy point defence).

I can't find a good rationale for your choices though.

Why a box launcher? I'd either use full-size launchers for a decent rate, or lots and lots of box launchers and nothing else ("either I can fend off a threat without expending missiles, or it's one massive alpha strike").

why does it have fuel?

Why sensors? Especially the passive ones, Deep Space Tracking Stations do a far better job of that.
An active to paint the target is good, but I would put that into a separate tiny PDC with nothing else... keeps you from wasting resources if you want 30 missiles PDCs and a handful of sensors for some redundancy.

Why a beam fire control but no beam weapons?

Do you actually need the troop capacity?

*

I'd recommend something far more simple: base-tech mesons, one beam fire control (defaults will do), enough power for the guns.
Not fancy, not actually that good... but it'll do something against missiles and make people feel safe for cheap when your fleet is away.
I'd rather build the cheapest thing that works, because the money is better spent on a fleet.
Posted by: Makir
« on: October 08, 2016, 12:51:16 PM »

Here's the crappy PDC that I made in 5 minutes

Code: [Select]
New Class class Planetary Defence Centre 5200 tons     106 Crew     795.2 BP      TCS 104  TH 0  EM 0
Armour 5-26     Shields 0-0     Sensors 12/12/0/0     Damage Control 1     PPV 8.45
Annual Failure Rate: 916%    IFR: 12.7%    Maintenance Capacity 0 MSP
Troop Capacity: 1 Battalions    Magazine 11   Spare Berths 6   

Fuel Capacity 250,000 Litres    Range 0.0 billion km   (0 days at full power)
Fire Control S02 24-12000 (2)    Max Range: 48,000 km   TS: 12000 km/s     79 58 38 17 0 0 0 0 0 0

Size 5 Missile Launcher (1)    Missile Size 5    Rate of Fire 50
Size 3 Box Launcher (1)    Missile Size 3    Hangar Reload 22.5 minutes    MF Reload 3.7 hours
Size 3 Missile Launcher (1)    Missile Size 3    Rate of Fire 30
Missile Fire Control FC64-R73 (1)     Range 64.6m km    Resolution 73

Thermal Sensor TH2-12 (1)     Sensitivity 12     Detect Signature 1000: 12m km
Active Search Sensor MR236-R73 (1)     GPS 33726     Range 236.8m km     Resolution 73
EM Detection Sensor EM2-12 (1)     Sensitivity 12     Detect Strength 1000: 12m km

This ship is classed as a Planetary Defence Centre
Posted by: Mastik
« on: October 08, 2016, 12:21:14 PM »

Missile design confused the hell out of me too.  Now i love tinkering with them.
Posted by: Iranon
« on: October 08, 2016, 11:49:35 AM »

If you use a beam-centric fleet, you will need sufficient point defence to avoid most missile damage. Many small railguns are the easiest, and often the most effective, way of doing this.

In beam v beam combat, if one side has superior range and superior speed, it wins flawless victories. So if you're happy with your anti-missile capabilities, you may want to field some lasers or particle beams with long-ranged fire controls (large railguns imo require too much research investment to be actually good).
If you don't want to do this, you could stick with railguns and give your ships the speed to close the range to a fleeing enemy and the toughness to shrug off a few hits from longer-ranged weapons.
Posted by: Havear
« on: October 08, 2016, 11:28:07 AM »

On weapons: Railguns I agree are probably the simplest to not mess up, and double as PD weapons so you don't have to worry overmuch. Lasers aren't a huge step from there, and give you a lot of customization options. You will want to experiment with missiles sooner rather than later, as even fair missiles tend to dominate combat (due largely to range differences). I'm applying broad strokes here, though I will elaborate that regardless of your weapon choice or setup, ship speed is probably the single most important factor.
Posted by: sublight
« on: October 08, 2016, 10:47:28 AM »

That reminds me, putting railguns on a PDC on a planet with an atmosphere is one of the very few ways to mess up railgun deployment (only missiles and meson cannons can shoot through an atmosphere 1.0 or thicker).

Why don't you post your PDC design? If 0% ammunition is the only problem then that can be fixed by building missiles with ordinance factories and reloading from the planetary stockpile.