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.

Message icon:

Are you human?:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!

Topic Summary

Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: May 15, 2019, 04:05:08 PM »

Thanks for reminding me of the control stations:

1) Bridge is 1 HS and costs 20 BP. The required rank for the ship commander is the racial minimum.

2) Auxiliary control is 1 HS and 15 BP. Allows the assignment of an Executive Officer to the ship who will apply his full Crew Training Bonus. The required rank for the ship commander is one above the racial minimum.

3) Science Department is 2 HS and 50 BP. Allows the assignment of a Science Officer to the ship who will apply his full Survey Bonus. The required rank for the ship commander is one above the racial minimum.

4) Main Engineering is 3 HS and 75 BP. Allows the assignment of a Chief Engineer to the ship who will apply his Engineering Bonus to affect maintenance and damage control. The required rank for the ship commander is two above the racial minimum.

5) Combat Information Centre (CIC) is 3 HS and 75 BP. Allows the assignment of a Tactical Officer to the ship who will apply his Tactical Bonus to various combat-related function (TBD). The required rank for the ship commander is two above racial minimum.

Aux Control is only 50 tons so having that won't be a problem even for smaller ships but I would definitely agree on Main Engineering and CIC since combined they are 300 tons, though depending on what tonnage the DD/FF end up being, I might be able to squeeze them in.
Posted by: JustAnotherDude
« on: May 15, 2019, 02:04:21 PM »

The new officer stations encourage large ships, taking up less tonnage overall. The armor shock changes definitely do. Missile and shield sizes as well. I think that I might be missing something, but I'm not sure.
Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: May 15, 2019, 11:33:29 AM »

With the maintenance changes in C#, I realised that it should be quite possible to pit a faction with small specialist ships versus a faction with large generalist ships against each other, without making maintenance far more difficult for the latter from the get-go. They'll still have to build their shipyards larger but OTOH they will need less of them. So in my upcoming 1890 Aurora C# game, some of the Earth factions will go with destroyer/frigate flotillas of specialised designs, whereas others will go with cruisers/ships-of-the-line general designs. And some will try to do both as per my post above - probably UK and Germany.

Was there other changes in C# that would affect large-small ship balance aside from maintenance and sensor ranges?

Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: April 03, 2019, 11:40:36 AM »

This will be early- to mid-game tech levels in my Aurora 1890 game once C# hits. Destroyer squadrons will accompany the battle line once gun boats and torpedo boats make an appearance, whereas frigate flotillas will operate on their own as detached formations from fleets, at remote locations to cut down on supply/maintenance needs. This is just one doctrine - with the number of factions I have to RP, some will go with this, others will go with the light-heavy cruiser pair for independent operations.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: April 02, 2019, 04:34:22 PM »

Exactly how you designate the ships I think are mainly important for internal consistency. In real life navies often reclassified ships as naval warfare and new ships entered service and changed the nature of ships or how they operated.

For example you might use the cruiser designation for a ship who can act in all roles and are able to defend themselves against all types of threats. You might reserve the destroyer or DD designation for escorts able to keep up with capital ships during combat operations. You could then use the escort destroyer or DE for any ships with older engines or designed to be slower, their role would be to guard and escort your fleet supply ships. Frigates are smaller escort, scouts and/or patrol ships.

The actual size and role of ships might later on move ships into new classification categories. A ships that was a scout cruiser fifteen years ago might not be more than a destroyer escort now and you need to reclassify them as such.

I usually create whole new categories of ship types more suited for the space environment and I don't feel too rigid to follow the current wet navy classification codes. But it certainly is good to have both size and role somehow influencing the classification roles.

In my games ships just tend to get bigger and bigger due to technology and resource allocation allowing it. One of the biggest constraint, at least early on, are the jump engines. Jump engines make big ships rather prohibitive from a research perspective, at least if I intend to be able to make combat jumps with them. This usually means that I have to continually raise the level of classification on ships as time goes by since an early destroyer might be like 8.000t and closer to 20.000t in the mid game where a frigate probably are bigger by mid game than a destroyer was in the early game. With increase of size most ships would also become less specialised and more multi-faceted in their capabilities. For example a 20.000t destroyer are probably armed with both some beam weapon, offensive and defensive missiles and a small hangar for some scout or other utility crafts. A flotilla of these destroyers can probably act completely independently. An 8.000t destroyer are basically just an escort serving at best two different weapons systems.
Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: April 02, 2019, 12:17:56 PM »

Maybe I should drop the FF and DD from use completely and just use the variations. Thus they would all be frigates or destroyers, but their actual classification would depend on their speciality. Might make it easier for both myself and the eventual AAR reader, to keep track of what's going on. That still leaves me with plenty of variants for both classes.
Posted by: amram
« on: March 08, 2019, 06:33:53 PM »

The spruance class comes to mind as being armed with missiles, yet not receiving the DDG moniker, just DD.

What sets them apart is a lack of air defence as compared to their contemporaries.  They are barely able to defend themselves much less any other ships, whereas pretty much all the other USN destroyers could defend other ships as well.

Their intended role at design was for anti submarine duties as carrier escort, which would have put them under the defensive umbrella of long island, virginia, and/or ticonderoga class cruisers.

Even when refit with 24 mk-41 vls cells to replace their 8 cell armored box launcher, they didn't get the DDG moniker, because they only gained more tomahawk and ASROC.

As to rocket specific armaments, there are a couple, though pretty much all are either amphibs or inland patrol craft.  A notable exception are 4 project 206 torpedo boats, shtorm class, owned by egypt, which were refit with 40 round rocket launchers - though again, its intended role is shore bombardment.

Likewise, any ship with the italian Breda 105mm SCLAR is capable of launching barrage rockets having a range of 11,000m, though once again, the intended role is amphib support.  Its been carried by Argentinian Meko 360H2, German Brandenburg and westerwald classes, Italian Contedi cavour, horizon, soldati, Cdte. Cigala Fulgosi, Garibaldi, audace, maestrale, artigliere, alpino, sangeorgio, stromboli, and etna classes, Nigerian Aradu class, Peruvian lupo, and Venezuelan Lupo class.

Afaik, that's pretty much it though.  So no ships I am aware of in the modern era outright dedicated to the rocket attack role.  Its always secondary, supporting, and especially not anti-ship.  Though I suspect they'd effectively mess up smaller ships like project 206 missile/torpedo boats and various FAC.
Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: March 08, 2019, 05:16:44 PM »

Aurora does not model unguided missiles (ie rockets) at all, because all missiles have an associated fire control that guides them to the target OR at least it gives them initial targeting information. Unguided missile would be a rocket, ie you just roughly aim it at somewhere and start the engine, hoping for the best. Not sure if any real navy had rocket ships aside from the Landing Craft, Support (Rocket) that were used to increase the firepower of contested landings in WW2, but I guess the USN wanted to make sure that everyone knew their fancy new post-war ships weren't just randomly shooting rockets everywhere  :P
Posted by: amram
« on: March 08, 2019, 03:07:29 PM »

Not in the database.

For the USN, that is what it would be, yeah.  A DDG or CG are guided missile destroyer, or cruiser, respectively.

this will probably interest you in such case:
Posted by: ExChairman
« on: March 08, 2019, 02:43:46 PM »

Not a game breaker... Doesn't DDG stand for "Guided" missile destroyer?  ???

As a Star Fire fan I always thinks about the (G)un/missile launcher... ;)
Posted by: amram
« on: March 08, 2019, 01:10:28 PM »

missile frigateFFG
frigate leaderFFL
jump frigateJF
scout frigateSF
recon frigateRF
surveillance frigateSF
kinetic frigateFK
missile destroyerDDG
destroyer escortDE
destroyer leaderDL
jump destroyerJD
jump destroyer escortDEJ
scout destroyerDSC

I think that's all of them
Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: March 08, 2019, 12:36:58 PM »

I don't have access to the game at the moment, so off the top of my head I think the DB already has:

Frigate   FF
Missile Frigate   FFG
Destroyer   DD
Destroyer Escort   DE
Missile Destroyer   DDG
Jump Destroyer   DJ/JD/DDJ/JDD?
Destroyer Leader   DL

Have I forgotten something?
Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55