Aurora 4x
C# Aurora => C# Bureau of Design => Topic started by: CharonJr on May 18, 2020, 03:42:38 PM
-
Hi,
this is the flagship of the Raummarine currently under design. Since this is the first shot at a pure railgun/beam design in C# I am wondering if the MSP is high enough for the expected repairs due to weapon fire.
The main purpose is to serve as a brawler and as missile defense (no Gauss due to RP reasons) and to try to draw enemy fire in order to enable less armored heavy hitters (Carronades - RP again ;) ) to get close to their targets more easily (after ASMs are dealt with).
Without turrets engaging missiles will not be easy, but the Bismarck should be able to soak AMMs and destroy at least some ASMs. Any other obvious weaknesses/enough MSP?
Bismarck class Battleship 72 000 tons 1 744 Crew 14 359.4 BP TCS 1 440 TH 8 640 EM 27 480
6000 km/s Armour 12-154 Shields 916-536 HTK 427 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 32 PPV 244
Maint Life 2.26 Years MSP 4 788 AFR 1296% IFR 18.0% 1YR 1 262 5YR 18 929 Max Repair 357 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 500 tons
Kapitan zur See Control Rating 5 BRG AUX ENG CIC FLG
Intended Deployment Time: 24 months Flight Crew Berths 40 Morale Check Required
Daimler Magneto-plasma Drive EP160.00 (54) Power 8640 Fuel Use 70.0% Signature 160 Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 10 094 000 Litres Range 36.1 billion km (69 days at full power)
Thyssen Theta S229 / R536 Shields (4) Recharge Time 536 seconds (1.7 per second)
Krupp 40cm Railgun V70/C6 (8x4) Range 320 000km TS: 6 000 km/s Power 36-6 Accuracy Modifier 100% RM 70 000 km ROF 30 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 10 9 8
Rheinmetall 12cm Railgun V70/C6 (12x4) Range 140 000km TS: 6 000 km/s Power 6-6 Accuracy Modifier 100% RM 70 000 km ROF 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
Rheinmetall 10cm Railgun V40/C3 (32x4) Range 40 000km TS: 6 000 km/s Power 3-3 Accuracy Modifier 100% RM 40 000 km ROF 5 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Siemens Beam Fire Control R320-TS6000 (3) Max Range: 320 000 km TS: 6 000 km/s 97 94 91 88 84 81 78 75 72 69
Siemens Beam Fire Control R80-TS6000 (3) Max Range: 80 000 km TS: 6 000 km/s 88 75 62 50 38 25 12 0 0 0
AEG Tokamak Fusion Reactor R6 (36) Total Power Output 216 Exp 5%
Mannesmann Active Search Sensor AS15-R1 (1) GPS 56 Range 15.8m km MCR 1.4m km Resolution 1
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
-
I would say MSP is a bit low, with that many energy weapons the 1% fail chance could add up very quickly. Other than that, as it's an energy ship, speed is always good.
-
Hi,
this is the flagship of the Raummarine currently under design. Since this is the first shot at a pure railgun/beam design in C# I am wondering if the MSP is high enough for the expected repairs due to weapon fire.
The main purpose is to serve as a brawler and as missile defense (no Gauss due to RP reasons) and to try to draw enemy fire in order to enable less armored heavy hitters (Carronades - RP again ;) ) to get close to their targets more easily (after ASMs are dealt with).
Without turrets engaging missiles will not be easy, but the Bismarck should be able to soak AMMs and destroy at least some ASMs. Any other obvious weaknesses/enough MSP?
Bismarck class Battleship 72 000 tons 1 744 Crew 14 359.4 BP TCS 1 440 TH 8 640 EM 27 480
6000 km/s Armour 12-154 Shields 916-536 HTK 427 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 32 PPV 244
Maint Life 2.26 Years MSP 4 788 AFR 1296% IFR 18.0% 1YR 1 262 5YR 18 929 Max Repair 357 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 500 tons
Kapitan zur See Control Rating 5 BRG AUX ENG CIC FLG
Intended Deployment Time: 24 months Flight Crew Berths 40 Morale Check Required
Daimler Magneto-plasma Drive EP160.00 (54) Power 8640 Fuel Use 70.0% Signature 160 Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 10 094 000 Litres Range 36.1 billion km (69 days at full power)
Thyssen Theta S229 / R536 Shields (4) Recharge Time 536 seconds (1.7 per second)
Krupp 40cm Railgun V70/C6 (8x4) Range 320 000km TS: 6 000 km/s Power 36-6 Accuracy Modifier 100% RM 70 000 km ROF 30 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 10 9 8
Rheinmetall 12cm Railgun V70/C6 (12x4) Range 140 000km TS: 6 000 km/s Power 6-6 Accuracy Modifier 100% RM 70 000 km ROF 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
Rheinmetall 10cm Railgun V40/C3 (32x4) Range 40 000km TS: 6 000 km/s Power 3-3 Accuracy Modifier 100% RM 40 000 km ROF 5 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Siemens Beam Fire Control R320-TS6000 (3) Max Range: 320 000 km TS: 6 000 km/s 97 94 91 88 84 81 78 75 72 69
Siemens Beam Fire Control R80-TS6000 (3) Max Range: 80 000 km TS: 6 000 km/s 88 75 62 50 38 25 12 0 0 0
AEG Tokamak Fusion Reactor R6 (36) Total Power Output 216 Exp 5%
Mannesmann Active Search Sensor AS15-R1 (1) GPS 56 Range 15.8m km MCR 1.4m km Resolution 1
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
It's very big, building must be taking a while..
You Have 3 main weapons but 2 MFC only. Now it's true you can use one FC for all your weapons but in this case you are limited to by the Range. I guess you using one for PD.
It's range is quite limited considering the fuel you are using, I guess it's because is so big.
It's there a reason to have an Hangar?
Back to your question: You need more engineering, your annual failure rate is 1200%. Your true lifespan will be
4788÷[(1296÷100)×357]=1,07. If you are lucky you can survive a year without taking into account the extra failure rate when you'll start firing.
Finally, considering the above combined with the mentioned fuel and range I would lower the deployment time to 3 months.
-
It has six fire controls, froggiest, so that's fine. As for size, I guess you use smallish ships? It's fine if the economy can support it.
Anyway, since it's an RP ship, I do not have anything to say about the weapons
However..
1) It's slow for magnetoplasma. Beam ships live by their speed, even more so if using not turreted weapons. I understand that you want to use it mostly as a missile soak, but keep in mind higher speed = higher tracking = better missile interception.
2) The annual failure rate is absurdly high. You need a LOT more engineering. More MSP would help too
3) A deployment time of two years is probably too long. Even more so with 70 days of fuel. Generalist high perfomance warships should not be in the field for more than a few months. I'd use 6 months. Keep in mind that overhaul in c# is a LOT more costly, you do not want your ships in the field for so long if you can avoid it.
The exception to this would be a fleet that HAS to be deployed for a long time, such as a jump point blockade. In that case, you need to juggle all the various needs to obtain something acceptable. Just keep in mind, it will be extremely costly to overhaul.
-
It's there a reason to have an Hangar?
its usefull for puting in scouts, maybe some boarding shuttles.
-
It's there a reason to have an Hangar?
its usefull for puting in scouts, maybe some boarding shuttles.
He just didnt have any? I guess he may load them later depending on situation.
It has six fire controls, froggiest, so that's fine.
Sorry haven't seen the (3) :-)
-
Looks fine to me, if anything I would put less MSP storage and more engineering spaces.
Pretty sure this ship could handle equivalent tonnage of spoiler ships, so it's more than fine.
I think the speed is fine too, given the range of the big cannon. 6km\s outspeeds spoilers.
-
It has six fire controls, froggiest, so that's fine. As for size, I guess you use smallish ships? It's fine if the economy can support it.
Anyway, since it's an RP ship, I do not have anything to say about the weapons
However..
1) It's slow for magnetoplasma. Beam ships live by their speed, even more so if using not turreted weapons. I understand that you want to use it mostly as a missile soak, but keep in mind higher speed = higher tracking = better missile interception.
2) The annual failure rate is absurdly high. You need a LOT more engineering. More MSP would help too
3) A deployment time of two years is probably too long. Even more so with 70 days of fuel. Generalist high perfomance warships should not be in the field for more than a few months. I'd use 6 months. Keep in mind that overhaul in c# is a LOT more costly, you do not want your ships in the field for so long if you can avoid it.
The exception to this would be a fleet that HAS to be deployed for a long time, such as a jump point blockade. In that case, you need to juggle all the various needs to obtain something acceptable. Just keep in mind, it will be extremely costly to overhaul.
By the numbers I'm seeing, overhaul is the same cost as staying in dockyard all along.
Overhaul uses MSP 4 times as fast as regular maintenance. However, overhaul time is 1/3 of the accrued clock time (assuming that's consistent from the VB section of the wiki). Meaning that if you spend 3x time on operations and 1x time overhauling, you spend the same amount of MSP as if you'd simply spent the entire 4x duration sitting in the dock.
Of course, any MSP actually used up to cover system failures are extra.
-
It has six fire controls, froggiest, so that's fine. As for size, I guess you use smallish ships? It's fine if the economy can support it.
Anyway, since it's an RP ship, I do not have anything to say about the weapons
However..
1) It's slow for magnetoplasma. Beam ships live by their speed, even more so if using not turreted weapons. I understand that you want to use it mostly as a missile soak, but keep in mind higher speed = higher tracking = better missile interception.
2) The annual failure rate is absurdly high. You need a LOT more engineering. More MSP would help too
3) A deployment time of two years is probably too long. Even more so with 70 days of fuel. Generalist high perfomance warships should not be in the field for more than a few months. I'd use 6 months. Keep in mind that overhaul in c# is a LOT more costly, you do not want your ships in the field for so long if you can avoid it.
The exception to this would be a fleet that HAS to be deployed for a long time, such as a jump point blockade. In that case, you need to juggle all the various needs to obtain something acceptable. Just keep in mind, it will be extremely costly to overhaul.
By the numbers I'm seeing, overhaul is the same cost as staying in dockyard all along.
Overhaul uses MSP 4 times as fast as regular maintenance. However, overhaul time is 1/3 of the accrued clock time (assuming that's consistent from the VB section of the wiki). Meaning that if you spend 3x time on operations and 1x time overhauling, you spend the same amount of MSP as if you'd simply spent the entire 4x duration sitting in the dock.
Of course, any MSP actually used up to cover system failures are extra.
In general yes... overhaul is over time the same as having them in dock all the time. The cost of deployment is the MSP you need for maintaining the ships system due to failures, which will happen. This is why it is important to use engineering sections rather than MSP storage. Engineering section will tend to be bigger and more expensive but you will save MSP in the long run... so it is important to weight the pros and cons.
In general I want to give all my capital ships maintenance section to cover its deployment time and then I add MSP storage to extend the maintenance life to about with an extra 50-150% maintenance life time. That will be a reasonable compromise between up front cost and cost over time and operational security.
Hi,
this is the flagship of the Raummarine currently under design. Since this is the first shot at a pure railgun/beam design in C# I am wondering if the MSP is high enough for the expected repairs due to weapon fire.
The main purpose is to serve as a brawler and as missile defense (no Gauss due to RP reasons) and to try to draw enemy fire in order to enable less armored heavy hitters (Carronades - RP again ;) ) to get close to their targets more easily (after ASMs are dealt with).
Without turrets engaging missiles will not be easy, but the Bismarck should be able to soak AMMs and destroy at least some ASMs. Any other obvious weaknesses/enough MSP?
As the others I think the only real issue with this ship is the lack of engineering section... try to use my rough outline above to rectify it.
Don't bother about remarks on fuel and deployment time... fuel is only important in regard to your operational range. You can easily refuel many times over a ships deployment term and using tankers should be quite natural as storing fuel on military ships is wasting space in too much quantities. You only want enough fuel for whatever tactical operations you designed the ship for.
Likewise speed is a relative thing, speed is entirely based on the context in which the ship is used. Although more speed also means easier to intercept AMM etc... but it also means more space dedicated to engines and/or less range due to less efficient engines. Everything is a trade off.
I would consider a lower deployment time unless there is a very big reason to have 24 months deployments... somewhere between 9-12 month is generally enough and also make maintenance requirement allot lower as well.
-
Thank you for the input, so the overall agreement is that the deployment time is too long, MSP is too low.
I am alerady using 38% of the weight for engines and 14% for fuel, due to using tankers I am actually tempted to remove some fuel, but try to aim for 30bn km with own fuel usually.
18% are used by armor and shields, 20% for weapons, reactors and fire controls.
The boat bay is a mix for RP reasons (having a marines on board when I get to build some alter on and a small rescue vessel for lifepods).
Concerning MSP storage vs. engineering I am already using 32 engineering sections and just 2 maintenance storage bays. I tried to cover the AFR x Max Repair MSP here. But a complete coverage of the intended deployment time by engineering and adding about 100% via storage sounds like a good idea.
But maybe I am miserading the information - does 1YR 1262 not mean that it is expected that 1262 MSP are used in the first year after an overhaul (which is fairly low due to the large number of engineering used)? This would mean that the current design has more than 3 times as much from engineering and another 800 from storage.
Lowering deployment to 12 month is a good idea as well, since it is a flagship and supposed to stay on station for some time in some scenarios I dislike going much lower, but will have to see where I end up, maybe 9 month might be an option as well.
I just reaslised that I am still using fairly old fuel inefficient engines on this one (70%, current tech is at 50% now) and with the number of research labs online now a larger engine might be very viable as well.
Revised design - mainly larger more efficient engines (6% of weight is fuel now at roughly the same range which is a huge saving), allowing for more engines (47%) and I went for one year of MSP by engineering and a bit more than a additional year of MSP from storage - if I understand the 1YR stat correctly. The added speed is nice for sure. Overall this would need about 3.5k additional research for the new parts which is not that bad.
Bismarck - Copy class Battleship (P) 72 000 tons 1 846 Crew 15 255.1 BP TCS 1 440 TH 10 800 EM 27 480
7500 km/s Armour 12-154 Shields 916-536 HTK 381 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 23 PPV 244
Maint Life 1.56 Years MSP 6 245 AFR 1803% IFR 25.0% 1YR 2 952 5YR 44 274 Max Repair 357 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 500 tons
Kapitan zur See Control Rating 5 BRG AUX ENG CIC FLG
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months Flight Crew Berths 40 Morale Check Required
Magneto-plasma Drive EP400.00 (27) Power 10800.0 Fuel Use 31.62% Signature 400.00 Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 4 206 000 Litres Range 33.3 billion km (51 days at full power)
Thyssen Theta S229 / R536 Shields (4) Recharge Time 536 seconds (1.7 per second)
Krupp 40cm Railgun V70/C6 (8x4) Range 320 000km TS: 7 500 km/s Power 36-6 Accuracy Modifier 100% RM 70 000 km ROF 30
Rheinmetall 12cm Railgun V70/C6 (12x4) Range 140 000km TS: 7 500 km/s Power 6-6 Accuracy Modifier 100% RM 70 000 km ROF 5
Rheinmetall 10cm Railgun V40/C3 (32x4) Range 40 000km TS: 7 500 km/s Power 3-3 Accuracy Modifier 100% RM 40 000 km ROF 5
Beam Fire Control R320-TS7500 (3) Max Range: 320 000 km TS: 7 500 km/s 97 94 91 88 84 81 78 75 72 69
Beam Fire Control R80-TS7500 (3) Max Range: 80 000 km TS: 7 500 km/s 88 75 62 50 38 25 12 0 0 0
AEG Tokamak Fusion Reactor R6 (36) Total Power Output 216 Exp 5%
Mannesmann Active Search Sensor AS15-R1 (1) GPS 56 Range 15.8m km MCR 1.4m km Resolution 1
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
What do you think?
-
One error - twice the one year expected MSP expenditure is not equal to the two-year maintenance expenditure. As you run up the clock failure rates snowball. Note that the 5 year projection is a lot more than 5 times the 1 year projection. I don't know exactly how that math runs though.
I tend to prefer using engineering spaces as much as possible to minimize MSP wastage due to peacetime breakdowns. But that may be a flawed approach for a warship that expects to actually wind up burning MSP in combat operations.
-
This ship looks allot better and the new engine is also way more efficient and lift its capabilities allot. The investment in research is probably worth it for these upgrades.
Regarding engineering sections and MSP storage... the thing is that using storage will be more space efficient and engineering section is more expensive so add a small maintenance cost long term and a larger upfront cost... BUT... it lowers the amount of MSP used in the field by ALLOT which will kill any maintenance you save in a few month of deployment, not to mention years of service in the field.
So... if you have a ship like a survey ship that is working more or less non stop outside overhaul then you want ONLY engineering sections for as many years you want maintenance to reduce MSP loss over time.
On a warship or especially system defence crafts you don't need much of any engineering as you rarely deploy more than a few days or weeks at most at a time even if deployment times can be up to six months perhaps. When they do deploy for longer you don't mind spending the extra MSP as it does not happen so often and saving space for more fuel, engines and weapons are also important.
For a capital ship you need to strike a balance and it depend on how often you will have your ships out of dock and in the field. If the ships spend allot more time docked at a planet with maintenance facilities you can skimp on engineering sections. But you will need to make these judgements in a case by case scenario.
It is also a good thing you have a main engineering section too, that will save you allot of maintenance on this ship.
We also have to expect that really large ships always have rather high AFR rates as that is natural for really large ships. if you instead had 10 7200t ships you would make 10 rolls every five days to see if something breaks so even if they have a smaller value there still is a much larger chance that something breaks on at least one of them. In a 72000t ship you only roll once... and bigger ships usually also have bigger more expensive components too which compound the costs even more.
It is also true that the clock will get worse over time... this is why you need to think about how many engineering section you want on the ship. How long is a normal deployment and how often will the ship use max deployment rates.
-
There is a way to improve further
instead of 27 relatively small engines go for 5-6 bigger ones
It will be safe enough and will offer fuel efficiency
-
I think the MSP should be OK now. While I designed for 12 month deployment time I expect most missions to be shorter than that, thus offering some buffer in MSP/repairs.
Actually I am using the largest engines I can produce now (25HS - I neglected the engine size tech), but you are right, once Internal Confinement Fusion Drives are completed I will research 1-2 levels of engine size before building a new engine.
edit: And something I forgot to mention before: Pre-building of some components via industry should help with the construction time which would be 3years+ otherwise.
-
Invoke imagery!
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/rx7cju5ow7ibpouxapba.png)
-
2 barrels for each turret for the Bismarck ;)
-
First, regarding my last night's post: sorry it was very late and I completely messed up 8)
What I meant to write was that you do not want long overhauls because keeping a ship fielded for a long time, and then making a long overhaul, means you spent a lot of MSP in field repairs also. My brain wasn't working well it seems, so I somehow wrote it as the overhaul being more costly by itself. Entirely my fault ;D
Now, the new design looks much better. Less fuel consumption, faster speed also means better tracking speed, more MSP.
I still don't like the annual failure rate if you plan for any extended deployment time. This ship will have an average of 18 failures every year...
I don't know, maybe it's just my personal preference. If you plan to only field it for short periods at a time, it's ok. It just feels very... prone to problems,unreliable, which is not something I personally want for a high investment ship of this size.
Also one more thing, a front line beam warship of this size with only 23 DCR is... not optimal. All warships in general, and beam warships even more so, HAVE to plan for the possibility of taking damage, so I prefer a much higher DCR for something of this size. Which is one good reason to add more engineering spaces anyway. Or a damage control module. Once again, my personal preference. But considering the investment needed for this ship, I feel it's warranted. I just can't see a ship like this as expendable...
-
One error - twice the one year expected MSP expenditure is not equal to the two-year maintenance expenditure. As you run up the clock failure rates snowball. Note that the 5 year projection is a lot more than 5 times the 1 year projection. I don't know exactly how that math runs though.
The AFR in year X is equal to X times the AFR in year 1.
Therefore, the estimated MSP usage through year X is equal to the MSP usage in year 1 times the sum of the integers from 1 to X.
For example, the MSP usage through year 5 =
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 = 15 times the MSP usage in year 1.
You can verify this relationship by observing the reported 1YR and 5YR MSP usage for any ship design.
Your battleships in this thread:
1YR 2 952 5YR 44 274
44,274 % 2,952 = 14.998.
1YR 1 262 5YR 18 929
18,929 % 1,262 = 14.999.
Keep in mind, these are only estimates.
They assume that your luck on the failure checks and on the DAC roll will be average.
-
Also one more thing, a front line beam warship of this size with only 23 DCR is... not optimal. All warships in general, and beam warships even more so, HAVE to plan for the possibility of taking damage, so I prefer a much higher DCR for something of this size. Which is one good reason to add more engineering spaces anyway. Or a damage control module. Once again, my personal preference. But considering the investment needed for this ship, I feel it's warranted. I just can't see a ship like this as expendable...
As I explained above you need to expect large ships to have a very high annual failure rate as they only roll once every five day cycle... if you instead have ten 7200t ships rather than one 72000t ship you will see that on average they fail roughly on equal terms... you just roll ten times with a smaller chance for the smaller ships. Smaller ships usually also have cheaper components so become cheaper to maintain because of that too too some degree.
-
Also one more thing, a front line beam warship of this size with only 23 DCR is... not optimal. All warships in general, and beam warships even more so, HAVE to plan for the possibility of taking damage, so I prefer a much higher DCR for something of this size. Which is one good reason to add more engineering spaces anyway. Or a damage control module. Once again, my personal preference. But considering the investment needed for this ship, I feel it's warranted. I just can't see a ship like this as expendable...
As I explained above you need to expect large ships to have a very high annual failure rate as they only roll once every five day cycle... if you instead have ten 7200t ships rather than one 72000t ship you will see that on average they fail roughly on equal terms... you just roll ten times with a smaller chance for the smaller ships. Smaller ships usually also have cheaper components so become cheaper to maintain because of that too too some degree.
Of course that's correct regarding AFR.
Maybe you quoted the wrong paragraph?
Regarding DCR, I was obviously talking of the repairs done after taking damage in a fight. 23 is really low, a good DCR might very well save a ships in a prolonged conflict. And for a ship of this size, you want to save it...
-
You can verify this relationship by observing the reported 1YR and 5YR MSP usage for any ship design.
Your battleships in this thread:
1YR 2 952 5YR 44 274
44,274 % 2,952 = 14.998.
1YR 1 262 5YR 18 929
18,929 % 1,262 = 14.999.
Keep in mind, these are only estimates.
They assume that your luck on the failure checks and on the DAC roll will be average.
These are the important numbers to watch out for... as the ship have a deployment rate of 12 month you will expect the ship to burn around 3000MSP during that time. That is roughly 9 month of regular maintenance if it does nothing at all. If you extend this and deploy the ship above 12 month the rate of failure will increase rapidly as the crew morale drops and the failure each cycle gets worse and worse as well.
You do have the main engineering though... so a good officer can significantly reduce the MSP consumption too.
-
Also one more thing, a front line beam warship of this size with only 23 DCR is... not optimal. All warships in general, and beam warships even more so, HAVE to plan for the possibility of taking damage, so I prefer a much higher DCR for something of this size. Which is one good reason to add more engineering spaces anyway. Or a damage control module. Once again, my personal preference. But considering the investment needed for this ship, I feel it's warranted. I just can't see a ship like this as expendable...
As I explained above you need to expect large ships to have a very high annual failure rate as they only roll once every five day cycle... if you instead have ten 7200t ships rather than one 72000t ship you will see that on average they fail roughly on equal terms... you just roll ten times with a smaller chance for the smaller ships. Smaller ships usually also have cheaper components so become cheaper to maintain because of that too too some degree.
Of course that's correct regarding AFR.
Maybe you quoted the wrong paragraph?
Regarding DCR, I was obviously talking of the repairs done after taking damage in a fight. 23 is really low, a good DCR might very well save a ships in a prolonged conflict. And for a ship of this size, you want to save it...
No... I just did not read it properly... you are right DC are important... I sort of immagined you talked about the AFR... :-[
I should have quoted the paragraph above... would have been more appropriate. :)
-
Update for the new engines (Internal Fusion Drive).
In addition to the engine swap I traded some deployment time, 1 layer of armor and 1 shield for ECM/ECCM for even more speed (10k instead of 9k otherwise) and added some Damage Control (good idea, thx).
The added speed should largely compensate for the lost passive defenses. Engines are 50% of the size and 43% of the cost now.
Bismarck Mk2 class Battleship 72 000 tons 1 946 Crew 16 910.2 BP TCS 1 440 TH 14 400 EM 20 610
10000 km/s Armour 11-154 Shields 687-536 HTK 354 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 56 PPV 244
Maint Life 1.36 Years MSP 7 416 AFR 1595% IFR 22.2% 1YR 4 306 5YR 64 591 Max Repair 400.00 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 500 tons
Kapitan zur See Control Rating 5 BRG AUX ENG CIC FLG
Intended Deployment Time: 9 months Flight Crew Berths 40 Morale Check Required
Daimler Internal Fusion Drive EP800.00 (18) Power 14400.0 Fuel Use 25.00% Signature 800.00 Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 3 018 000 Litres Range 30.2 billion km (34 days at full power)
Thyssen Theta S229 / R536 Shields (3) Recharge Time 536 seconds (1.3 per second)
Krupp 40cm Railgun V70/C6 (8x4) Range 384 000km TS: 10 000 km/s Power 36-6 Accuracy Modifier 100% RM 70 000 km ROF 30 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 10 9 8
Rheinmetall 12cm Railgun V70/C6 (12x4) Range 140 000km TS: 10 000 km/s Power 6-6 Accuracy Modifier 100% RM 70 000 km ROF 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
Rheinmetall 10cm Railgun V40/C3 (32x4) Range 40 000km TS: 10 000 km/s Power 3-3 Accuracy Modifier 100% RM 40 000 km ROF 5 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Siemens Beam Fire Control R384-TS10000 (3) Max Range: 384 000 km TS: 10 000 km/s 97 95 92 90 87 84 82 79 77 74
Siemens Beam Fire Control R96-TS10000 (2) Max Range: 96 000 km TS: 10 000 km/s 90 79 69 58 48 38 27 17 6 0
AEG Tokamak Fusion Reactor R6 (36) Total Power Output 216 Exp 5%
Mannesmann Active Search Sensor AS15-R1 (1) GPS 56 Range 15.8m km MCR 1.4m km Resolution 1
ECCM-2 (2) ECM 20
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
-
Just hope you don't run into a Gallacite crunch anytime soon if you plan on building lots of these ships. At least maintenance is a fixed Gallacite cost now so that is good.
If you build your entire fleet around that speed you might also plan for expanding your Gallacite extraction going forward allot.
-
IFR is huge for my taste. I'd definately add 20-30 more engineering to that. But after this put this baby to follow mode with 60-70k distance, it would decimate anything.
-
IFR on my ships is 5-8% max
also only 1 sensor for huge ship additional for redundancy is good idea
engines can be even twice bigger with bigger benefits
-
First battle, geez, those repair costs for failed weapons are huge (and it seems unmodified by ENG since the repair costs are the same for each different ship). The jump from 10cm to 12cm seems strange.
10cm Rail = 20.8
12cm Rail = 102.9
40cm Rail = 252 .0
And I mainly have Corundium shortages with a sprinkle of Neutronium and Corbomite in between ;)
Since the Bismarck serves as a flagship it will never/rarely operate by itself, due to this there is ample sensor coverage from other ships, but if I manage to free up some space from refits I will add a backup sensor, because in brawling range there will be significant less sensor coverage ;) Engine size is again limited by current tech levels.
And yes, the battle was very onesided, after the missiles have been dealt with the two Bismarcks and 2 Scharnhorst (40kt similar to the Bismarck but with 9x30cm Railguns instead of 8x40cm) moved in and wrecked havoc. In the end not even a scratch in their armor - finally a new source of minerals with the rest of Sol close to being mined out.
edit: It is a bit sad that they were this efficient, I would have loved to see those in action (carriers as backup to move them if needed, will transform them into carrier based during the next refit):
Seydlitz Mk2 class Frigate 3 999 tons 100 Crew 904.9 BP TCS 80 TH 800 EM 0
10002 km/s Armour 8-22 Shields 0-0 HTK 20 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 1 PPV 16
Maint Life 1.18 Years MSP 421 AFR 128% IFR 1.8% 1YR 309 5YR 4 630 Max Repair 400 MSP
Fregattankapitan Control Rating 1 BRG
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months Morale Check Required
Daimler Internal Fusion Drive EP800.00 (1) Power 800 Fuel Use 25.00% Signature 800 Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 79 000 Litres Range 14.2 billion km (16 days at full power)
Mauser 50 cm C6 Plasma Carronade (1) Range 384 000km TS: 10 002 km/s Power 64-6 RM 10 000 km ROF 55 64 32 21 16 12 10 9 8 7 6
Siemens Beam Fire Control R384-TS10000 (1) Max Range: 384 000 km TS: 10 000 km/s 97 95 92 90 87 84 82 79 77 74
AEG Tokamak Fusion Reactor R6 (1) Total Power Output 6 Exp 5%
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
-
Hi!
I have 3 BBs at the exact same size in my current game. You need much much much more MSP.
My design:
Monarch C class Battleship 72,000 tons 1,934 Crew 18,909.1 BP TCS 1,440 TH 8,294 EM 10,320
5760 km/s Armour 12-154 Shields 344-537 HTK 686 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 117 PPV 501.16
Maint Life 2.39 Years MSP 17,356 AFR 728% IFR 10.1% 1YR 4,174 5YR 62,603 Max Repair 1382.4 MSP
Magazine 1,160 Cryogenic Berths 200
Kommodore Control Rating 5 BRG AUX ENG CIC FLG
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months Morale Check Required
Magneto-plasma Drive EP2764.80 (3) Power 8294.4 Fuel Use 16.63% Signature 2764.8 Explosion 12%
Fuel Capacity 2,005,000 Litres Range 30.1 billion km (60 days at full power)
Epsilon S172 / R537 Shields (2) Recharge Time 537 seconds (0.6 per second)
Triple 30cm C6 Soft X-ray Laser Turret (2x3) Range 384,000km TS: 10000 km/s Power 72-18 RM 60,000 km ROF 20
Particle Lance-18 (5) Range 384,000km TS: 8,000 km/s Power 55-6 RM 400,000 km ROF 50
Quad 15.0cm Laser Turret "Xiphos" (3x4) Range 360,000km TS: 10000 km/s Power 24-24 RM 60,000 km ROF 5
Quad Gauss(0.17) Cannon Turret "Telamon-B" (21x20) Range 40,000km TS: 25000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 40,000 km ROF 5
Beam Fire Control R384-TS10000 (30%) (2) Max Range: 384,000 km TS: 10,000 km/s 97 95 92 90 87 84 82 79 77 74
Beam Fire Control R144-TS25000 (30%) (3) Max Range: 144,000 km TS: 25,000 km/s 93 86 79 72 65 58 51 44 38 31
Stellarator Fusion Reactor R26-PB30 (6) Total Power Output 157.2 Exp 15%
Size 8.00 Box Launcher (120) Missile Size: 8 Hangar Reload 141 minutes MF Reload 23 hours
Size 1 Missile Launcher (20) Missile Size: 1 Rate of Fire 5
Missile Fire Control FC20-R1 (30%) (5) Range 20.3m km Resolution 1
Missile Fire Control FC94-R100 (30%) (8) Range 94.3m km Resolution 100
ASM-8B " Granit" (120) Speed: 39,000 km/s End: 16.4m Range: 38.3m km WH: 16 Size: 8 TH: 234/140/70
AMM-1A "Sarissa" (200) Speed: 57,600 km/s End: 0.8m Range: 2.8m km WH: 1 Size: 1 TH: 614/368/184
Active Search Sensor AS210-R100 (30%) (1) GPS 36000 Range 210.8m km Resolution 100
Active Search Sensor AS55-R1 (30%) (1) GPS 540 Range 55.6m km MCR 5m km Resolution 1
ECCM-4 (5) ECM 40
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[/spoiler]
I have a bit more than 17000 MSP and its not enough. There was a huge battle in the Tirpitz system. After more than a week of fighting my fleet achieved victory but it was completly out of MSP and half the weapons were inoperable. The D version will have 20.000 MSP or more I recommend you put at least 15k in that ship. Each ship destroyed around a million ton of enemy shipping and altogether 7k missiles.
I admit it's rare to have such huge battles but when you do have to fight one you really need the MSP.
-
Hi!
I have 3 BBs at the exact same size in my current game. You need much much much more MSP.
My design:
Monarch C class Battleship 72,000 tons 1,934 Crew 18,909.1 BP TCS 1,440 TH 8,294 EM 10,320
5760 km/s Armour 12-154 Shields 344-537 HTK 686 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 117 PPV 501.16
Maint Life 2.39 Years MSP 17,356 AFR 728% IFR 10.1% 1YR 4,174 5YR 62,603 Max Repair 1382.4 MSP
Magazine 1,160 Cryogenic Berths 200
Kommodore Control Rating 5 BRG AUX ENG CIC FLG
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months Morale Check Required
Magneto-plasma Drive EP2764.80 (3) Power 8294.4 Fuel Use 16.63% Signature 2764.8 Explosion 12%
Fuel Capacity 2,005,000 Litres Range 30.1 billion km (60 days at full power)
Epsilon S172 / R537 Shields (2) Recharge Time 537 seconds (0.6 per second)
Triple 30cm C6 Soft X-ray Laser Turret (2x3) Range 384,000km TS: 10000 km/s Power 72-18 RM 60,000 km ROF 20
Particle Lance-18 (5) Range 384,000km TS: 8,000 km/s Power 55-6 RM 400,000 km ROF 50
Quad 15.0cm Laser Turret "Xiphos" (3x4) Range 360,000km TS: 10000 km/s Power 24-24 RM 60,000 km ROF 5
Quad Gauss(0.17) Cannon Turret "Telamon-B" (21x20) Range 40,000km TS: 25000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 40,000 km ROF 5
Beam Fire Control R384-TS10000 (30%) (2) Max Range: 384,000 km TS: 10,000 km/s 97 95 92 90 87 84 82 79 77 74
Beam Fire Control R144-TS25000 (30%) (3) Max Range: 144,000 km TS: 25,000 km/s 93 86 79 72 65 58 51 44 38 31
Stellarator Fusion Reactor R26-PB30 (6) Total Power Output 157.2 Exp 15%
Size 8.00 Box Launcher (120) Missile Size: 8 Hangar Reload 141 minutes MF Reload 23 hours
Size 1 Missile Launcher (20) Missile Size: 1 Rate of Fire 5
Missile Fire Control FC20-R1 (30%) (5) Range 20.3m km Resolution 1
Missile Fire Control FC94-R100 (30%) (8) Range 94.3m km Resolution 100
ASM-8B " Granit" (120) Speed: 39,000 km/s End: 16.4m Range: 38.3m km WH: 16 Size: 8 TH: 234/140/70
AMM-1A "Sarissa" (200) Speed: 57,600 km/s End: 0.8m Range: 2.8m km WH: 1 Size: 1 TH: 614/368/184
Active Search Sensor AS210-R100 (30%) (1) GPS 36000 Range 210.8m km Resolution 100
Active Search Sensor AS55-R1 (30%) (1) GPS 540 Range 55.6m km MCR 5m km Resolution 1
ECCM-4 (5) ECM 40
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[/spoiler]
I have a bit more than 17000 MSP and its not enough. There was a huge battle in the Tirpitz system. After more than a week of fighting my fleet achieved victory but it was completly out of MSP and half the weapons were inoperable. The D version will have 20.000 MSP or more I recommend you put at least 15k in that ship. Each ship destroyed around a million ton of enemy shipping and altogether 7k missiles.
I admit it's rare to have such huge battles but when you do have to fight one you really need the MSP.
Was that from actual space battles?!?
I have never seen space battles that need that much MSP for conclusions... at least not if you keep engaging from huge distances and you do death by a thousand cuts or something, or was it from bombardment of planets?
There also is an issue with turrets making MSP cost higher if I'm not mistaken... but I never investigated that claim though.
-
Hi!
I have 3 BBs at the exact same size in my current game. You need much much much more MSP.
Snipped
I have a bit more than 17000 MSP and its not enough. There was a huge battle in the Tirpitz system. After more than a week of fighting my fleet achieved victory but it was completly out of MSP and half the weapons were inoperable. The D version will have 20.000 MSP or more I recommend you put at least 15k in that ship. Each ship destroyed around a million ton of enemy shipping and altogether 7k missiles.
I admit it's rare to have such huge battles but when you do have to fight one you really need the MSP.
I would be interested in knowing more details about this. Also, I think it would be valuable for balance.
17k MPS consumed seems excessive to me. Might be worth to consider if the 1% failure chance is actually too much...
I don't know how many other people have been in a huge beam battle like you did.
-
I have done several battles and never even come close to having MSP problems at all.
The new rules in C# sort of makes it not worth trying to engage at extreme range where hitting is both hard and do very little damage. If that is the case here the rule is doing exactly what is is suppose to do which is making long range kiting either impossible or very costly.
If it is bombarding planets then it is also doing its job perfectly well.
If you engage en enemy an actually close in to a reasonably close range you should never have problem with MSP before the conclusion of any engagement.
If you add shields to with any decently large ships then long range battles will become nearly impossible due to the shield regenerating most of the damage done over time. Strong shields will force an enemy to either close in or disengage if they are faster or simply waste MSP.
A 1% failure rate means a weapon can shoot 100 times before it fail in general and that should be way more than you should need in almost any situation.
-
I have done several battles and never even come close to having MSP problems at all.
The new rules in C# sort of makes it not worth trying to engage at extreme range where hitting is both hard and do very little damage. If that is the case here the rule is doing exactly what is is suppose to do which is making long range kiting either impossible or very costly.
If it is bombarding planets then it is also doing its job perfectly well.
If you engage en enemy an actually close in to a reasonably close range you should never have problem with MSP before the conclusion of any engagement.
If you add shields to with any decently large ships then ling range battles will become nearly impossible due to the shield regenerating most of the damage done over time. Strong shields will force an enemy to either close in or disengage if they are faster or simply waste MSP.
A 1% failure rate means a weapon can shoot 100 times before it fail in general and that should be way more than you should need in almost any situation.
I do see that the combat has shifted to favor a more close combat engagement for beams.
However, I'm unfortunately very busy and so I have limited game time on c#aurora. A question then.
What about Particle lances? Do they have enough DPS to surpass the shields of a comparable tonnage and tech level warship? That seems to be an important consideration, because if the answer is no, then they do lose most of their value. After all, they require expensive tech reserch as it is...
-
I have done several battles and never even come close to having MSP problems at all.
The new rules in C# sort of makes it not worth trying to engage at extreme range where hitting is both hard and do very little damage. If that is the case here the rule is doing exactly what is is suppose to do which is making long range kiting either impossible or very costly.
If it is bombarding planets then it is also doing its job perfectly well.
If you engage en enemy an actually close in to a reasonably close range you should never have problem with MSP before the conclusion of any engagement.
If you add shields to with any decently large ships then ling range battles will become nearly impossible due to the shield regenerating most of the damage done over time. Strong shields will force an enemy to either close in or disengage if they are faster or simply waste MSP.
A 1% failure rate means a weapon can shoot 100 times before it fail in general and that should be way more than you should need in almost any situation.
I do see that the combat has shifted to favor a more close combat engagement for beams.
However, I'm unfortunately very busy and so I have limited game time on c#aurora. A question then.
What about Particle lances? Do they have enough DPS to surpass the shields of a comparable tonnage and tech level warship? That seems to be an important consideration, because if the answer is no, then they do lose most of their value. After all, they require expensive tech reserch as it is...
You could always take down their shields with missiles or fighters and than hit them with the lances. The lances are very strong in my opinion as they can easily penetrate armor at long range.
-
A 1% failure rate means a weapon can shoot 100 times before it fail in general and that should be way more than you should need in almost any situation.
Not precisely.
A weapon can expect to fail once for every 100 times it fires, in the long run.
But only about 37% will fire 100 times without encountering the first failure.
50% will fail by the 70th time.
Your point still stands. Engagements should be over well before that, unless your combat doctrine specifically calls for remaining at very long range.
-
So for 100 shots fired the Bismarck would consume about 4.000 MSP for 100 shots fired from each weapon.
8 x 252 = 2016
12 x 103 = 1236
32 x 21 = 671
I can see 100+ shots from the smaller calibers, but I can not envision many battles where the 40cm will fire 100 times each with a brawler like the Bismarck. But yeah, going for 150-200% additional MSP feels better than the 100% I am currently using. So something like 10-11k, but 17k does sound excessive to me as well.
7k missiles at 20% to hit / 4 projectiles per shot brings us to about 9k / 100 is about 100 (to keep it simple) divided by 2 or 3 ships => beloew 1k MSP from the missiles (unless Gauss/Turrets use more than the 21 MSP I saw for the 10cm Rails).
Lets say each ship takes down 100 enemies with 3 full salvos from the 12cm and 1 salvo from the 40cm on average for each enemy - and in my fight I needed way less than that. This would add another 7k MSP.
So about 7k-8k in total for a really large battle. Considering that most missiles in my setup are dealt with by the complete fleet and not just 2-3 brawlers even less than that.
Unless I miscalculated somewhere 10-11k still sounds OK for most encounters.
edit: Actually this raises an interesting point, is there any overview about MSP needed for weapon repairs. Maybe this is another paramter to consider when chossing weapons.
-
And the final member of the big battleship series, the Yamato - AFAIK there was/is no 19inch/50cm naval gun in use, correct?:
Yamato class Battleship 88 000 tons 2 381 Crew 25 392.5 BP TCS 1 760 TH 22 000 EM 36 000
12500 km/s Armour 12-176 Shields 1200-600 HTK 415 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 74 PPV 310
Maint Life 1.85 Years MSP 23 975 AFR 1408% IFR 19.6% 1YR 8 894 5YR 133 406 Max Repair 1000.00 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 500 tons
Kapitan zur See Control Rating 5 BRG AUX ENG CIC FLG
Intended Deployment Time: 9 months Flight Crew Berths 40 Morale Check Required
Daimler Magnetic Fusion Drive EP2000.00 (11) Power 22000.0 Fuel Use 14.14% Signature 2000.00 Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 2 400 000 Litres Range 34.7 billion km (32 days at full power)
Mannesmann Xi S400 / R600 Shields (3) Recharge Time 600 seconds (2 per second)
Krupp 45cm Railgun V80/C8 (9x4) Range 384 000km TS: 12 500 km/s Power 48-8 Accuracy Modifier 100% RM 80 000 km ROF 30 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 14 12
Rheinmetall 12cm Railgun V80/C6 (14x4) Range 160 000km TS: 12 500 km/s Power 6-6 Accuracy Modifier 100% RM 80 000 km ROF 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1
Rheinmetall 10cm Railgun V40/C3 (41x4) Range 40 000km TS: 12 500 km/s Power 3-3 Accuracy Modifier 100% RM 40 000 km ROF 5 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Siemens Beam Fire Control R384-TS12800 (3) Max Range: 384 000 km TS: 12 800 km/s 97 95 92 90 87 84 82 79 77 74
Siemens Beam Fire Control R96-TS12800 (2) Max Range: 96 000 km TS: 12 800 km/s 90 79 69 58 48 38 27 17 6 0
AEG Magnetic Confinement Fusion Reactor R52 (6) Total Power Output 312 Exp 5%
Mannesmann Active Search Sensor AS17-R1 (2) GPS 56 Range 17.9m km MCR 1.6m km Resolution 1
ECCM-3 (2) ECM 30
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
-
A 1% failure rate means a weapon can shoot 100 times before it fail in general and that should be way more than you should need in almost any situation.
Not precisely.
A weapon can expect to fail once for every 100 times it fires, in the long run.
But only about 37% will fire 100 times without encountering the first failure.
50% will fail by the 70th time.
Your point still stands. Engagements should be over well before that, unless your combat doctrine specifically calls for remaining at very long range.
Sure... what I meant to say was that if a weapon fire 100 times you have to expect it to fail on average once... but it is all semantics in my opinion. All you can do it calculate the average loss in cost for every weapon you have on a ship.
In my opinion a battle should never last so long that a ship with a reasonable storage of MSP would run dry unless you are extremely unlucky. Even when a ship have zero MSP if will still shoot with its weapon until it fail the next time.
The point is... if you engage are really long ranges and are not using things like particle weapons you should not expect to walk away without a huge cost, that is the whole point... don't do it. Just stop fire and ignore the enemy and have them shoot their weapons dry at your shields at that point.
-
So for 100 shots fired the Bismarck would consume about 4.000 MSP for 100 shots fired from each weapon.
8 x 252 = 2016
12 x 103 = 1236
32 x 21 = 671
I can see 100+ shots from the smaller calibers, but I can not envision many battles where the 40cm will fire 100 times each with a brawler like the Bismarck. But yeah, going for 150-200% additional MSP feels better than the 100% I am currently using. So something like 10-11k, but 17k does sound excessive to me as well.
7k missiles at 20% to hit / 4 projectiles per shot brings us to about 9k / 100 is about 100 (to keep it simple) divided by 2 or 3 ships => beloew 1k MSP from the missiles (unless Gauss/Turrets use more than the 21 MSP I saw for the 10cm Rails).
Lets say each ship takes down 100 enemies with 3 full salvos from the 12cm and 1 salvo from the 40cm on average for each enemy - and in my fight I needed way less than that. This would add another 7k MSP.
So about 7k-8k in total for a really large battle. Considering that most missiles in my setup are dealt with by the complete fleet and not just 2-3 brawlers even less than that.
Unless I miscalculated somewhere 10-11k still sounds OK for most encounters.
edit: Actually this raises an interesting point, is there any overview about MSP needed for weapon repairs. Maybe this is another parameter to consider when chossing weapons.
It is very unlikely it will ever happen that the ship spend that much MSP if the ship gets to use its short range Gauss as a beam fight will be over VERY quickly at such range.
So as you say it is unlikely it will every use that many shots with its heavier weapons before whatever fight they are in is over.
Gauss might cost you some in their PD role though... but it is probably very rare for all your Gauss to fire that much in PD duty... even against most AMM barrages. But it might mount up in a long fight.
In order to have a decent safety margin you should make sure you have some extra spare MSP on your capital ships for when the cold turn hot.
-
Keep researching engine size tech. The Bismarck only had twelve boilers, so you need to increase engine size to 1.5 times what you have now (EP1200 instead of EP 800).
Does she also disable her main active sensor when she fires her first main battery salvo?
-
Nah, we improved the design, so no sensor outages from firing the mains. We even removed the weakness at the rudder, but are still looking hard for any approaching old bi-plane torpedo-bombers for added security ;)
Overall I did try to stick close to the original design except for the caliber of the secondary guns. I just couldnt bring myself to lower the ROF down to 10 for the better fitting 15cm guns. Ignoring the 2cm FlaK should be somewhat compensated by using 10cm for the 16 3,7cm FlaKs as well.
Well, in my current slow research game (25%) I will try to see how a laser or maybe particle based battleship will look like - United Earth approach, giving access to additional designs.
-
(Sry for the late answer I got overwhelmed by work lately)
It was an absolutely huge battle (by my experience). I brought my strike fleet ( 384kT 3 BB and 7 cruiser in 3 different designs) for a quick 20 minute adventure into an enemy system which I assumed was lightly defended by technologically inferior enemy. You can imagine my surprise when they brought their best toys with them which were actually superior to mine. After days of on and of fighting my fleet shot down 35k missiles of different shapes and sizes. I had to use every weapon to defend against their missiles salvos. The problem was there was so many of them! My fleet destroyed roughly 2,1 mT of enemy military ships and around 5 million tons of commercial shipping in that one go. Also I destroyed a 500kT shipyard complex. As I said it was not a normal battle there was some MSP consumed for repairs too.
Also two of my ship got destroyed. One was struck by the concentrated firepower of the enemy STO-s and the in a JP ambush. Some ships also expended big amount of MSPs to repair after said 35k missiles.
I think part of the problem is that my energy armament was turreted so I had to repair the hole thing which is expensive. Also I was never closer to my enemy than 150k the only exception was when I wanted to close in to the shipyard (I couldn't see the STO-s then) and my cruiser was blown into pieces.
-
(Sry for the late answer I got overwhelmed by work lately)
It was an absolutely huge battle (by my experience). I brought my strike fleet ( 384kT 3 BB and 7 cruiser in 3 different designs) for a quick 20 minute adventure into an enemy system which I assumed was lightly defended by technologically inferior enemy. You can imagine my surprise when they brought their best toys with them which were actually superior to mine. After days of on and of fighting my fleet shot down 35k missiles of different shapes and sizes. I had to use every weapon to defend against their missiles salvos. The problem was there was so many of them! My fleet destroyed roughly 2,1 mT of enemy military ships and around 5 million tons of commercial shipping in that one go. Also I destroyed a 500kT shipyard complex. As I said it was not a normal battle there was some MSP consumed for repairs too.
Also two of my ship got destroyed. One was struck by the concentrated firepower of the enemy STO-s and the in a JP ambush. Some ships also expended big amount of MSPs to repair after said 35k missiles.
I think part of the problem is that my energy armament was turreted so I had to repair the hole thing which is expensive. Also I was never closer to my enemy than 150k the only exception was when I wanted to close in to the shipyard (I couldn't see the STO-s then) and my cruiser was blown into pieces.
That seem like an Epice battle to be sure.
But as far as I understand it was multiple engagements so there should have been time to resupply from a collier/supply ship or something if you had anyone part of the battle group?
In my opinion this sort of show how the new mechanic really is doing what it is suppose to be doing... and it show that even beam weapons will need to be supported or you will run out of steam. If instead you would have relied more on missiles you would have run out of steam allot earlier than what you did.
There will always be a trade off between how much MSP you want onboard your ships and how much you will rely on a collier or supply ship to bring extra MSP with any battle group. It is a question on how much space you are willing to use for military or commercial tonnage overall. This will obviously depend on your doctrines and the missions you want your ships to undertake as their primary role. A ship that is suppose to act far from friendly base and are suppose to bring all the fuel/supplies it needs you will have to sacrifice other stuff, that is just how it is.
In my opinion this is a god demonstration of how it can turn out and what you can learn from that experience. Either you bring more supplies ship next time or you add more space for MSP but less weapons to defend yourself with. You simply have to chose and live with that choice.
One issue that "might" be a bug is the cost of turrets... I think that if you have four lasers in one turret and one fail you have to pay for the whole turret. That means the turret will cost you four times the normal cost plus the extra cost for the turret mechanics as well. This can add considerably to the cost over time if this is the case. I have not investigated this myself, but some people seem to believe that it works that way. So it might be a potential bug. A turret should be counted as ONE chance to fail every time all the weapons fire, that way it would match up in cost with other weapons.