Aurora 4x
C# Aurora => C# Bureau of Design => Topic started by: Borealis4x on May 21, 2020, 01:10:58 AM
-
Using the same technology I used in a previous thread to make a frigate, I made a series of Destroyers meant to work together in squads of 5. There would be 1 leader, 1 PD, and 3 regular DDs. What is just as important as their stats is the ability for them all to be made in the same shipyard. Therefor, they are all basically the same design except with different load-outs of weapons/sensors.
Base Destroyer
Belisarius class Destroyer 29,996 tons 768 Crew 5,789.7 BP TCS 600 TH 1,050 EM 0
5000 km/s Armour 4-85 Shields 0-0 HTK 167 Sensors 11/11/0/0 DCR 40 PPV 168.32
Maint Life 6.89 Years MSP 5,545 AFR 180% IFR 2.5% 1YR 204 5YR 3,054 Max Repair 437.5 MSP
Magazine 474
Captain Control Rating 4 BRG AUX ENG CIC
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months Morale Check Required
Rolls-Royce Intergalactic Ion Drive M.HS20 EP500.00 (6) Power 3000 Fuel Use 200% Signature 175.00 Explosion 20%
Fuel Capacity 8,000,000 Litres Range 24 billion km (55 days at full power)
Ares Macrotechnology 25.00cm C4 Ultraviolet Laser (1) Range 320,000km TS: 5,000 km/s Power 16-4 RM 40,000 km ROF 20
BEA Systems, Inc Gauss Cannon R300-100 Turret (8x3) Range 30,000km TS: 12000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 30,000 km ROF 5
Wuxing Incorporated Beam Fire Control R320-TS5000 (70%) (1) Max Range: 320,000 km TS: 5,000 km/s 97 94 91 88 84 81 78 75 72 69
Wuxing Incorporated Point Defense Fire Control R40-TS12000 (70%) (2) Max Range: 40,000 km TS: 12,000 km/s 75 50 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Saeder-Krupp Heavy Industries Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor R17-PB20 (1) Total Power Output 17 Exp 10%
Size 6.00 Missile Launcher (60.0% Reduction) (28) Missile Size: 6 Rate of Fire 95
Renraku Computer Systems Intermediat Missile Fire Control FC104-R80 (70%) (1) Range 104.5m km Resolution 80
Gladius Anti-Ship Missile (79) Speed: 18,733 km/s End: 139.8m Range: 157.1m km WH: 9 Size: 6 TH: 99/59/29
International Electronics Corporation Capital Search Sensor AS104-R80 (70%) (1) GPS 13440 Range 104.5m km Resolution 80
International Electronics Corporation Point Search Sensor AS24-R1 (70%) (1) GPS 168 Range 24.3m km MCR 2.2m km Resolution 1
Raytheon Technologies EM Sensor EM1.0-11.0 (1) Sensitivity 11 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 26.2m km
Raytheon Technologies Thermal Sensor TH1.0-11.0 (1) Sensitivity 11 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 26.2m km
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
Point Defense variant
Pyrrhus class Destroyer Escort 29,965 tons 938 Crew 5,803.9 BP TCS 599 TH 1,050 EM 0
5005 km/s Armour 4-85 Shields 0-0 HTK 240 Sensors 11/11/0/0 DCR 40 PPV 161.52
Maint Life 7.02 Years MSP 5,562 AFR 180% IFR 2.5% 1YR 198 5YR 2,967 Max Repair 437.5 MSP
Magazine 400
Captain Control Rating 4 BRG AUX ENG CIC
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months Morale Check Required
Rolls-Royce Intergalactic Ion Drive M.HS20 EP500.00 (6) Power 3000 Fuel Use 200% Signature 175.00 Explosion 20%
Fuel Capacity 8,000,000 Litres Range 24 billion km (55 days at full power)
Ares Macrotechnology 25.00cm C4 Ultraviolet Laser (1) Range 320,000km TS: 5,005 km/s Power 16-4 RM 40,000 km ROF 20
BEA Systems, Inc Gauss Cannon R300-100 Turret (8x3) Range 30,000km TS: 12000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 30,000 km ROF 5
Wuxing Incorporated Beam Fire Control R320-TS5000 (70%) (1) Max Range: 320,000 km TS: 5,000 km/s 97 94 91 88 84 81 78 75 72 69
Wuxing Incorporated Point Defense Fire Control R40-TS12000 (70%) (2) Max Range: 40,000 km TS: 12,000 km/s 75 50 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Saeder-Krupp Heavy Industries Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor R17-PB20 (1) Total Power Output 17 Exp 10%
Size 1 Missile Launcher (94) Missile Size: 1 Rate of Fire 10
Renraku Computer Systems Point Defense Missile Fire Control FC24-R1 (70%) (1) Range 24.3m km Resolution 1
Foil Anti-Missile Missile (400) Speed: 37,600 km/s End: 0.9m Range: 2.1m km WH: 1 Size: 1 TH: 263/157/78
International Electronics Corporation Capital Search Sensor AS104-R80 (70%) (1) GPS 13440 Range 104.5m km Resolution 80
International Electronics Corporation Point Search Sensor AS24-R1 (70%) (1) GPS 168 Range 24.3m km MCR 2.2m km Resolution 1
Raytheon Technologies EM Sensor EM1.0-11.0 (1) Sensitivity 11 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 26.2m km
Raytheon Technologies Thermal Sensor TH1.0-11.0 (1) Sensitivity 11 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 26.2m km
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
Destroyer Leader variant
Nelson class Destroyer Leader (P) 29,981 tons 860 Crew 7,765.6 BP TCS 600 TH 1,050 EM 0
5003 km/s Armour 4-85 Shields 0-0 HTK 146 Sensors 280/280/0/0 DCR 38 PPV 89.12
Maint Life 4.48 Years MSP 6,952 AFR 187% IFR 2.6% 1YR 561 5YR 8,410 Max Repair 1890.0 MSP
Magazine 138
Captain Control Rating 5 BRG AUX ENG CIC FLG
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months Morale Check Required
Rolls-Royce Intergalactic Ion Drive M.HS20 EP500.00 (6) Power 3000 Fuel Use 200% Signature 175.00 Explosion 20%
Fuel Capacity 8,000,000 Litres Range 24 billion km (55 days at full power)
Ares Macrotechnology 25.00cm C4 Ultraviolet Laser (1) Range 320,000km TS: 5,003 km/s Power 16-4 RM 40,000 km ROF 20
BEA Systems, Inc Gauss Cannon R300-100 Turret (8x3) Range 30,000km TS: 12000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 30,000 km ROF 5
Wuxing Incorporated Beam Fire Control R320-TS5000 (70%) (1) Max Range: 320,000 km TS: 5,000 km/s 97 94 91 88 84 81 78 75 72 69
Wuxing Incorporated Point Defense Fire Control R40-TS12000 (70%) (2) Max Range: 40,000 km TS: 12,000 km/s 75 50 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Saeder-Krupp Heavy Industries Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor R17-PB20 (1) Total Power Output 17 Exp 10%
Size 6.00 Missile Launcher (60.0% Reduction) (6) Missile Size: 6 Rate of Fire 95
Renraku Computer Systems Intermediat Missile Fire Control FC104-R80 (70%) (1) Range 104.5m km Resolution 80
Gladius Anti-Ship Missile (23) Speed: 18,733 km/s End: 139.8m Range: 157.1m km WH: 9 Size: 6 TH: 99/59/29
International Electronics Corporation Point Search Sensor AS24-R1 (70%) (1) GPS 168 Range 24.3m km MCR 2.2m km Resolution 1
Active Search Sensor AS340-R80 (30%) (1) GPS 112000 Range 340.3m km Resolution 80
Raytheon Technologies EM Sensor EM1.0-11.0 (1) Sensitivity 11 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 26.2m km
Raytheon Technologies Thermal Sensor TH1.0-11.0 (1) Sensitivity 11 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 26.2m km
EM Sensor EM20-280 (30%) (1) Sensitivity 280 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 132.3m km
Thermal Sensor TH20-280 (30%) (1) Sensitivity 280 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 132.3m km
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
-
I realize it's a negligible amount of gear, but did you intend to keep the tiny Raytheon Technologies passive sensors on the Destroyer Leader alongside the super-sized models?
-
I realize it's a negligible amount of gear, but did you intend to keep the tiny Raytheon Technologies passive sensors on the Destroyer Leader alongside the super-sized models?
No I did not...
Thanks for catching that!
-
In general I see no direct wrong with these ships but there are a few design choices that I would have done differently.
1. The maintenance life is really high for a ship that only have a deployment rate of 6 months. You could have some very good reasons for this so I just point that out. In my experience it is enough with a maintenance life that is roughly about 2-3 times a ships deployment rate for most capital ships.
2. There is really not much reason why you would not put the AMM and ASM capabilities in the same ship at this size... this give you way more flexibility in if you want to have a balanced load of missiles, defensive or offensive and you can decide that with the amount of AMM versus ASM you carry. Now you will lock yourself into how many ships you have from each class available. If you have both then these parameters can be switched with just having a collier present.
3. You only have ONE anti-missile fire control for 94 AMM launchers, this is not very good from a game play perspective. If you are attacked by say a fighter group that fire 50 salvos each of 4 missiles then your AMM ship can only launch AMM against one of those four missile salvos in every 10 seconds and will overwhelm your missile defences that way. You generally want about 1 MFC for each 5 AMM launchers that you have. Having 94 launchers is rather excessive as you can usually fire fast enough anyway... you are probably better of building a more powerful anti-missile sensor to detect the missiles earlier instead or use picket scouts to do so.
4. I also hope you have a really good fuel industry if you plan to operate these ships very often or mainly used as long range strike crafts... ;)
You probably could build the ships with slightly bigger engines and reduce the amount of fuel needed and still retain the speed of the ships. I have not made the math here but I'm pretty certain you could.
-
In general I see no direct wrong with these ships but there are a few design choices that I would have done differently.
1. The maintenance life is really high for a ship that only have a deployment rate of 6 months. You could have some very good reasons for this so I just point that out. In my experience it is enough with a maintenance life that is roughly about 2-3 times a ships deployment rate for most capital ships.
2. There is really not much reason why you would not put the AMM and ASM capabilities in the same ship at this size... this give you way more flexibility in if you want to have a balanced load of missiles, defensive or offensive and you can decide that with the amount of AMM versus ASM you carry. Now you will lock yourself into how many ships you have from each class available. If you have both then these parameters can be switched with just having a collier present.
3. You only have ONE anti-missile fire control for 94 AMM launchers, this is not very good from a game play perspective. If you are attacked by say a fighter group that fire 50 salvos each of 4 missiles then your AMM ship can only launch AMM against one of those four missile salvos in every 10 seconds and will overwhelm your missile defences that way. You generally want about 1 MFC for each 5 AMM launchers that you have. Having 94 launchers is rather excessive as you can usually fire fast enough anyway... you are probably better of building a more powerful anti-missile sensor to detect the missiles earlier instead or use picket scouts to do so.
My original design had the AMMs and ASMs combined into one ship, thing it was 20 ASMs and 40 AMMs. But people always say you should specialize your ships so I figured making a dedicated AMM ship that can use the same shipyard would be better.
-
[My original design had the AMMs and ASMs combined into one ship, thing it was 20 ASMs and 40 AMMs. But people always say you should specialize your ships so I figured making a dedicated AMM ship that can use the same shipyard would be better.
No... that is just pure wrong... it may look as if you save a TINY fraction of efficiency that way but in the end you don't even do that when you look at upgrade and retooling costs as well. If you have many less costly system in a ship it is less costly to upgrade as you usually do that in stages and retooling is way less costly with only one class instead of two. When the ship is this size there are very little reason to specialise as you do with smaller ships.
Then there is the more dynamic practical use of the ships that is worth EVEN more. People are always looking at these things from a theoretical perspective and not practical one. The same goes for weapons system and components in general. If you can distribute the use of minerals more evenly you also make better use of your mining industry, in fact you can practically double your mining efficiency by thinking about how the different minerals are used across your entire empire and avoid the worst mineral shortages early.
How can you NOT appreciate the fact that you can have a 2/3 load of AMM versus ASM for patrol and maybe 1/3 for strike missions using the SAME ships... you can even decide this in the field if you bring a collier with you. If you are scouting an enemy system and don't know what you face you are likely to want to use more defensive systems rather than offensive as it is better to be able to retreat back home and come back in stronger numbers than having your ships overwhelmed by an enemy missile attack... but on the other hand the same ships can just reload their missile storage for a strong ASM attack if they find a lighter opposition than expected.
For beam defences then none specialisation is VERY efficient if you mainly use beam weapons in self defence or for taking and holding points in space. If you spread your beam weapons among ALL ships the enemy can't just focus fire a few ships to make your whole fleet inert in a beam combat. It is way better to have 8 lasers on 8 ships than 5 lasers each on two ships any day of the week even of you have less lasers overall than the opponent. It does not mean that it sometimes make sense that you do have specialised beam ships because it does that too... but not for an entire fleet it usually does not.
The same thing also goes for missile ships... en enemy can't just focus on destroying your pure AMM ships so following salvos of missiles become that more effective, the same is true about knocking out your offensive capacity too. Two roughly equal sides then the more distributed will most often win as one can concentrate on the others specialised part and render that part ineffective. There can be a very few instances where that very small efficiency can be a deciding factor but that is so small that it might as well not be considered at all in most circumstances.
It is surely useful to specialise smaller ships as you can only fit so many weapon system on them before fire-controls simply become too much of a cost burden.
-
[My original design had the AMMs and ASMs combined into one ship, thing it was 20 ASMs and 40 AMMs. But people always say you should specialize your ships so I figured making a dedicated AMM ship that can use the same shipyard would be better.
No... that is just pure wrong... it may look as if you save a TINY fraction of efficiency that way but in the end you don't even do that when you look at upgrade and retooling costs as well. If you have many less costly system in a ship it is less costly to upgrade as you usually do that in stages and retooling is way less costly with only one class instead of two. When the ship is this size there are very little reason to specialise as you do with smaller ships.
I can't guarantee it would work, but BasileusMaximos clearly stated that the designs were arranged so that they'd all be able to come out of the same yard. I assumed that meant without retooling, which is possible if they're similar enough...
-
[My original design had the AMMs and ASMs combined into one ship, thing it was 20 ASMs and 40 AMMs. But people always say you should specialize your ships so I figured making a dedicated AMM ship that can use the same shipyard would be better.
No... that is just pure wrong... it may look as if you save a TINY fraction of efficiency that way but in the end you don't even do that when you look at upgrade and retooling costs as well. If you have many less costly system in a ship it is less costly to upgrade as you usually do that in stages and retooling is way less costly with only one class instead of two. When the ship is this size there are very little reason to specialise as you do with smaller ships.
I can't guarantee it would work, but BasileusMaximos clearly stated that the designs were arranged so that they'd all be able to come out of the same yard. I assumed that meant without retooling, which is possible if they're similar enough...
Yes... that is a possibility to save some on the retooling cost... but ships of this size will not really save anything in efficiency anyway. You still have to decide how many you want to build of each class and it is much more difficult to experiment with load out based on the missions... it also make you more susceptible to losses where it hurt the most etc...
-
[My original design had the AMMs and ASMs combined into one ship, thing it was 20 ASMs and 40 AMMs. But people always say you should specialize your ships so I figured making a dedicated AMM ship that can use the same shipyard would be better.
No... that is just pure wrong... it may look as if you save a TINY fraction of efficiency that way but in the end you don't even do that when you look at upgrade and retooling costs as well. If you have many less costly system in a ship it is less costly to upgrade as you usually do that in stages and retooling is way less costly with only one class instead of two. When the ship is this size there are very little reason to specialise as you do with smaller ships.
I can't guarantee it would work, but BasileusMaximos clearly stated that the designs were arranged so that they'd all be able to come out of the same yard. I assumed that meant without retooling, which is possible if they're similar enough...
Yes... that is a possibility to save some on the retooling cost... but ships of this size will not really save anything in efficiency anyway. You still have to decide how many you want to build of each class and it is much more difficult to experiment with load out based on the missions... it also make you more susceptible to losses where it hurt the most etc...
Notice how the destroyer leader version has to pull out 3/4ths of the missile battery to fit in the monster sensor suite. Not sure how you intend to avoid specialization there without giving up those capabilities.
I don't know how big the missile fire controls are, which is the 'efficiency' factor on splitting the AMM and ASM hulls. Probably not huge though.
If you've got a large enough fleet you could vary your loadout with specialist craft by switching which ships are sent out and which stay at base. Whereas with non-specialist craft you have no way to alter the balance of missile launchers, only the balance of ammunition carried. I have trouble imagining having a surplus of ships this size though.
-
[My original design had the AMMs and ASMs combined into one ship, thing it was 20 ASMs and 40 AMMs. But people always say you should specialize your ships so I figured making a dedicated AMM ship that can use the same shipyard would be better.
No... that is just pure wrong... it may look as if you save a TINY fraction of efficiency that way but in the end you don't even do that when you look at upgrade and retooling costs as well. If you have many less costly system in a ship it is less costly to upgrade as you usually do that in stages and retooling is way less costly with only one class instead of two. When the ship is this size there are very little reason to specialise as you do with smaller ships.
I can't guarantee it would work, but BasileusMaximos clearly stated that the designs were arranged so that they'd all be able to come out of the same yard. I assumed that meant without retooling, which is possible if they're similar enough...
Yes... that is a possibility to save some on the retooling cost... but ships of this size will not really save anything in efficiency anyway. You still have to decide how many you want to build of each class and it is much more difficult to experiment with load out based on the missions... it also make you more susceptible to losses where it hurt the most etc...
Notice how the destroyer leader version has to pull out 3/4ths of the missile battery to fit in the monster sensor suite. Not sure how you intend to avoid specialization there without giving up those capabilities.
I don't know how big the missile fire controls are, which is the 'efficiency' factor on splitting the AMM and ASM hulls. Probably not huge though.
If you've got a large enough fleet you could vary your loadout with specialist craft by switching which ships are sent out and which stay at base. Whereas with non-specialist craft you have no way to alter the balance of missile launchers, only the balance of ammunition carried. I have trouble imagining having a surplus of ships this size though.
The Active Sensor is probably far too big, even for a squadron leader. Ideally, DDs would be part of a larger fleet with a flagship that is big enough to afford the biggest sensors without as much impact on its abilities.
-
[My original design had the AMMs and ASMs combined into one ship, thing it was 20 ASMs and 40 AMMs. But people always say you should specialize your ships so I figured making a dedicated AMM ship that can use the same shipyard would be better.
No... that is just pure wrong... it may look as if you save a TINY fraction of efficiency that way but in the end you don't even do that when you look at upgrade and retooling costs as well. If you have many less costly system in a ship it is less costly to upgrade as you usually do that in stages and retooling is way less costly with only one class instead of two. When the ship is this size there are very little reason to specialise as you do with smaller ships.
I can't guarantee it would work, but BasileusMaximos clearly stated that the designs were arranged so that they'd all be able to come out of the same yard. I assumed that meant without retooling, which is possible if they're similar enough...
Yes... that is a possibility to save some on the retooling cost... but ships of this size will not really save anything in efficiency anyway. You still have to decide how many you want to build of each class and it is much more difficult to experiment with load out based on the missions... it also make you more susceptible to losses where it hurt the most etc...
Notice how the destroyer leader version has to pull out 3/4ths of the missile battery to fit in the monster sensor suite. Not sure how you intend to avoid specialization there without giving up those capabilities.
I don't know how big the missile fire controls are, which is the 'efficiency' factor on splitting the AMM and ASM hulls. Probably not huge though.
If you've got a large enough fleet you could vary your loadout with specialist craft by switching which ships are sent out and which stay at base. Whereas with non-specialist craft you have no way to alter the balance of missile launchers, only the balance of ammunition carried. I have trouble imagining having a surplus of ships this size though.
The sensor are easily replaced with small sensor scouts if each ship have say a 1000t hangar for example... it can even be smaller... but at this size it should be at least 1000t for a host of different sensor scouts in a combined fleet... or just some dedicated smaller much cheaper scout ships. A few much smaller scout frigates would probably do a much better job and be far stealthier as well if you don't want to use fighter scouts and find that is to much micro management (I wish Steve would add the escort mechanic back soon to fix this).
In C# it is far cheaper and even fun in my opinion to run small sensor scouts to do the heavy lifting in that area.
These are just my opinion and not fact.. but I'm very convinced you are far better of with very little specialisation with ships at this size. I don't say it is the only way to go. But when people say it is better to use specialisation I would say that it depends and in some situation it certainly is not... I would say that specialisation start to clinging off at around 10.000t when it starts to pay off to make ships less and less specialised.
Regarding MFC you probably would like to have at least some backup as well in any case... for the anti-missile FC you would need at least one per 5-10 launcher, roughly speaking.
-
Might my ship-sizes be too big?
I like to make every class 3 times as big as the previous class.
So a frigate is 10,000 tons, a destroyers 30,000, a cruiser 90,000 and a battleship/carrier 210,000 or just an even 200,000. I also plan to make three types of mil engines, one for fighters, one for escorts (frigates and DDs) and one for capital ships (cruisers and battleships/carriers)
I don't think anyone else makes mil ships this size.
It is surely useful to specialise smaller ships as you can only fit so many weapon system on them before fire-controls simply become too much of a cost burden.
I'm glad to hear that generalizing is a good option. I also think its more efficient for a logistics standpoint to have ships capable of doing things on their own.
-
I'm pretty sure I've never built a cruiser that was more than 10000 tons, but I run small and also early-game. 30kt destroyers do sound off the wall to me, but it doesn't matter that much what you call them.
-
I'm pretty sure I've never built a cruiser that was more than 10000 tons, but I run small and also early-game. 30kt destroyers do sound off the wall to me, but it doesn't matter that much what you call them.
Yeah, it might be a bit much. Especially if I want DDs to be the fleet 'workhorses'.
Perhaps teir things down to have 3000-6000 ton frigates that fullfill just 1 roll (Single Spinal beam, a couple rocket launchers, or a handful of AMM) and then 10000 - 20000 DDs that can defend themselves while packing a punch.
-
I'll be honest, this is the thing that has always bothered me the most of Aurora. EVER. Ships are tiny!
We are in space damnit. I want at LEAST sizes comparable to Star Wars ships ;D
I'm not exactly sure if this is the case, but since tons were linearly linked to hull size in vb aurora, I would assume that a "ton" is basically a ton of displacement, as seen in modern wet navies. So, more or less one cubic meter.
Assuming for simplicity's sake a parallelepiped with proportions of 5 length, 2 width and 1 height, a 10000 tons ship is
50mx20mx10m. That's... barely a corvette. Barely.
IIrc, from all the models I remember, a star wars cruiser is at least 500m long. With those proportions, 500x200x100m = 10millions. So a cruiser in Aurora should be at LEAST 10 millions tons.
Battleships eh, let's assume 800m long... 800x320x160= 40.96 million tons at a very bare minimum.
Sooooo frustrating XD Are we flying around in banged up trashcans?
I roleplay things in my mind to be at least 10x times as big as the game tells me they are XD
And let's not go into warhammer 40k, where battleships are at least approximately 7km long (other sources say 9km), and about 3 km tall and 2 km wide.....
-
I'll be honest, this is the thing that has always bothered me the most of Aurora. EVER. Ships are tiny!
We are in space damnit. I want at LEAST sizes comparable to Star Wars ships ;D
I'm not exactly sure if this is the case, but since tons were linearly linked to hull size in vb aurora, I would assume that a "ton" is basically a ton of displacement, as seen in modern wet navies. So, more or less one cubic meter.
Assuming for simplicity's sake a parallelepiped with proportions of 5 length, 2 width and 1 height, a 10000 tons ship is
50mx20mx10m. That's... barely a corvette. Barely.
IIrc, from all the models I remember, a star wars cruiser is at least 500m long. With those proportions, 500x200x100m = 10millions. So a cruiser in Aurora should be at LEAST 10 millions tons.
Battleships eh, let's assume 800m long... 800x320x160= 40.96 million tons at a very bare minimum.
Sooooo frustrating XD Are we flying around in banged up trashcans?
I roleplay things in my mind to be at least 10x times as big as the game tells me they are XD
And let's not go into warhammer 40k, where battleships are at least approximately 7km long (other sources say 9km), and about 3 km tall and 2 km wide.....
The ship size in Aurora are measured in their volume. 1 ton is the volume that displays 1 ton of liquid hydrogen, which is about 14m^3. So you can imagine your ships 14x larger than the equivalent wet navy size :)
-
The ship size in Aurora are measured in their volume. 1 ton is the volume that displays 1 ton of liquid hydrogen, which is about 14m^3. So you can imagine your ships 14x larger than the equivalent wet navy size :)
I was actually not aware of that. Thanks for the info. It's stlll .... too tiny for my tastes, but a bit better at least
Sooo, a 10000 tons ship in Aurora would be about 140000m^3, or about 120x50x24m. A tiny bit better, I guess. Still a far cry from a cruiser though XD Maaaaaaybe a small frigate
A star wars cruiser would still be at least 700000 tons in Aurora and a star wars battleship would be a 3 million tons ship in aurora.
A WH40K battleship would be a 3 billion tons ship in Aurora...
Yeah, we're flying around in banged-up trashcans XD
-
There's a problem with what imagery you get if you look at tonnage as displacement tons volume vs. tonnage as actual tonnage.
10,000 tons would be high for a naval light cruiser prior to the London Naval Treaty of 1930. (After which certain navies gamed the quota system by designing 'light' cruisers that were basically heavy cruisers with smaller guns.) There were cruisers under 6,000 tons that were 150m long, those are hardly shoeboxes!
But of course the total interior volume of one of those cruisers would be a lot more than a cubic meter per ton displacement. It would have to be, or they couldn't float!
Aurora armor mechanics suggest tonnage-as-volume. The engine mechanics might suggest tonnage-as-mass, but who knows how TN engines actually work? Their performance might be governed by volume rather than mass. Shock damage depends on ship tonnage, but I'm not sure whether that really makes sense for either interpretation.
I think I've heard what Iceranger refers to the Traveller displacement ton. Not sure why we'd think that's what Aurora uses?
-
30k for a destroyer. One can imagine what battleship would look like. Just nitpicking.
-
30k for a destroyer. One can imagine what battleship would look like. Just nitpicking.
200,000 tons by my system.
Realistically, I dont think that's too crazy even if it is in the game. The Nimitz is 100,000 tons.
-
I'll be honest, this is the thing that has always bothered me the most of Aurora. EVER. Ships are tiny!
We are in space damnit. I want at LEAST sizes comparable to Star Wars ships ;D
I'm not exactly sure if this is the case, but since tons were linearly linked to hull size in vb aurora, I would assume that a "ton" is basically a ton of displacement, as seen in modern wet navies. So, more or less one cubic meter.
Assuming for simplicity's sake a parallelepiped with proportions of 5 length, 2 width and 1 height, a 10000 tons ship is
50mx20mx10m. That's... barely a corvette. Barely.
IIrc, from all the models I remember, a star wars cruiser is at least 500m long. With those proportions, 500x200x100m = 10millions. So a cruiser in Aurora should be at LEAST 10 millions tons.
Battleships eh, let's assume 800m long... 800x320x160= 40.96 million tons at a very bare minimum.
Sooooo frustrating XD Are we flying around in banged up trashcans?
I roleplay things in my mind to be at least 10x times as big as the game tells me they are XD
And let's not go into warhammer 40k, where battleships are at least approximately 7km long (other sources say 9km), and about 3 km tall and 2 km wide.....
Many many moons ago I had sick book with detailed ship stats and engineering drawings for ALL ships in the starwars universe (including associated novels). As I recall, a super star destroyer of the Executor class was something like 7 or 8 kilometers long.
-
30k for a destroyer. One can imagine what battleship would look like. Just nitpicking.
200,000 tons by my system.
Realistically, I dont think that's too crazy even if it is in the game. The Nimitz is 100,000 tons.
'Only' twice the tonnage of a super-carrier and nearly three times the tonnage of the largest battleships ever?
Granted though it's not impossibly large. I'd definitely believe something that big could be built though maybe not that it should be.
-
30k for a destroyer. One can imagine what battleship would look like. Just nitpicking.
200,000 tons by my system.
Realistically, I dont think that's too crazy even if it is in the game. The Nimitz is 100,000 tons.
'Only' twice the tonnage of a super-carrier and nearly three times the tonnage of the largest battleships ever?
Granted though it's not impossibly large. I'd definitely believe something that big could be built though maybe not that it should be.
Well, its the far future where we have magic rocks that break physics so I'd say having a Nimitz x2 isnt unreasonable. Plus it's in space so size isnt as big an issue.
Unreasonable would be the 1 million ton Supercarrier I want to build that carrys it's own escorting frigates.
-
There is absolutely nothing wrong with calling a 30kt ship for a destroyer in aurora as ship sizes are completely relative to the type of economy and what you can support and research. Size are generally dictated by the type of components you put into the ships such as Jump Drives, Engines, shields, cloaking devices etc... components that you can scale with size to make big ships even more powerful.
If you have the economy/research to support large ships I see no reason why you should not build them. Large ships have allot of advantages but small ships also have advantages.
I would say that a healthy mix of different ship sizes for different reasons are quite useful from a strategical perspective.
In my games ship sizes simply grow with time as the economy and research progress, this seems like a very natural progression.
Small ships have a big advantage that you can produce them faster per tonnage and they are stealthier. Large ship have the benefit of being allot more efficient per tonnage and much harder to destroy.
Investment in large ships is a long term commitment. Small ships are better because you can ramp up very high production of new high quality ships very fast. It is very easy to construct one or two 1000t yards where you can mass-produce 25-50 FAC per year. But you will most likely see these yards dormant 95% of the time as the only time yo use at full capacity would be during a war.
On the other hand... your two 50.000 ton yards capable of producing three cruisers creates perhaps three ships every four to five years or so... but these ships are extremely powerful for its size and are ships you will nurture and take care of for many decades.. perhaps as much as a hundred years.
Whatever you call a ship should in my opinion be based on their role and not have much to do with size in and of itself... at least that is how I do it. Now... ships do tend to end up in size similarities with reality, but that is because the roles are similar to how those ships were used in reality so the tend to fall into the same type of spectrum.
So... on the bottom scale of capital ships I usually have the frigate. This would generally be a ship that are in some way self sufficient and tend to operate alone. They tend to be highly specialised ships in some way such as reconnaissance, scouting, patrol or similar duties.
The next would be the typical destroyer and these could vary in size quite allot even within the class... mostly because they will have been developed over many decades in many variants. Older destroyers tend to become destroyer escorts with the task to protect commercial shipping in all forms while more modern destroyers are the main protectors of other capital ships or who perform reconnaissance in force missions. These ships need to be enough self sufficient to operate in small squadrons alone.
The next class is the cruiser who is a large capital ships tasked with long range patrol and high strike capabilities without supporting elements other than destroyers. They will tend to be a fair bit larger than destroyers as they are meant to actually engage enemy by any means necessary so will need to perform will in all fields.
By the time I get to more specialised larger capital ships i generally have neither carrier or battleships but rather battle carriers... a battle carrier is a monstrosity of a ship designed only to for war and to do it very well with a combination of powerful beam weapons and strike crafts. They should be able to perform in any capacity on the field. A ship this size can't be lost because they are caught in a bad situation.
The actual size of any of the above ships would depend entirely on the circumstances... destroyers tend to be about 10-20kt in most of my games while cruisers are 30-50kt and battle carriers at whatever size I can build them.
In most early games I would not have much of any capital ships at all since I would not have the technology to really support them so I would have to make due with a mix of frigates and destroyer type ships. I would also have many other different ship types such as light carrier, escort carriers, assault carriers, jump tenders, command ships, mine layers and more...
-
Taking a break from work so didn't read the whole thread, I would say PD varient has very little magazine capacity compared to tonnage)/number of launchers. I recommend a lot more missile fire control as well, I have gone as extreme as one fire control per four launchers.
-
In my games ship sizes simply grow with time as the economy and research progress, this seems like a very natural progression.
Historically speaking this is absolutely correct.
Ville de Paris 1850 version not 1764, a behemoth ship of the line in her day 5302 tons
USS Maine of Havana fame, launched 1889, displaced 6789 tons
HMS Dreadnought first of the the new generation of capital ships 18000 tons 21000 fully loaded
USS Missouri of Tokyo Bay fame 40820 tons.
As technology has permitted the size of the capital ships of their day have grown to take advantage of it. Everything else follows apace as well. Consider a modern Ticonderoga class Aegis Cruiser of the US navy even with the design philosophy discounting armor as no longer practical due the destructive power of modern weapons still displaces 9800 tons fully loaded, quite a bit larger than the battleship of a hundred years earlier, the Maine was launched 92 years before the USS Ticonderoga.
-
Ships only grow in size with technology insofar as there is a reason to make a ship as massive as you possibly can.
For instance, carriers tend to scale quite nicely with size. Battleships in their time did as well.
-
In Aurora they usually follow the same pattern as in real life because they are driven by the same type of race that battleships had. That is more and powerful armour and defensive capabilities with larger shield generators, power plants more redundancy in fire-controls coverage, damage control capabilities and more.
But in order to support larger ship you also need a more advance infrastructure, logistics organisation and the research to get the components needed to benefit from really large ships.
Sure... it is pointless to deploy a 50kt ship if one or two 10kt ships could do the same thing. This is also why having multiple types of ships is a good thing. But having 200 10kt ships might be complete overkill in that department when you might be much better of with 50 10kt ships and 20 50kt ships and two 250kt ships instead as an example. Those 250kt ships will get your best captains and staff you have available to take full advantage of all that power in one place.
-
One of the advantages large missile ships can have is a large variety of fire controls. It may be overkill to use anti-ship missiles against fighters, but you can do it.
Back in VBAurora, I liked having large missile ships that had an extremely long range fire control, and also enough .1 HS fire controls to assign 1 fire control to each launcher, in order to be more difficult for enemy AMMs to shoot down. In C#, beam PD doesn't care much about volley size.
One of my early experiments was commercial engined missile ships, that treated engines as armor, and were magazine heavy, with the intent that they could have a future career as colliers. I was using commercial engined survey ships then, so the missile ships could use the survey support jump tenders, but I was not happy with the performance of the grav survey commercial ships, and switched to 800 ton grav survey boats.
-
My most efficient designs seem to be around 10kt. Seems to me to be a nice size that can be produced quickly enough during conflict but also slow enough that the yards aren't dormant outside of conflict either. The ships themselves can usually fit 2 or 3 specialty roles in the somewhat tight space available, like shields, pd, armor, sensors, fuel, or whatever.
-
I don't build ships below 10kt ( usually go in 10kt steps ) with 20-30kt most popular size for early to mid game
higher tonnage means I can easily put 2 or 3 weapon systems as loss of efficiency on higher tonnage is not significant
My fleet can be most often locked into 2-3 types of ships which I can refit if needed and which are all around ships
beams +gauss for 10/20kt and beam + gauss +box launchers for 30/40kt and bigger
knocking any ship out of the line in battle doesn't make any hole in combat capabilities (sensor/offence/PD)- only percentage overall reduction
it is cheaper in the long run , easier in refits , easier with managing shipyards , and finally I don't loose many ships this way (smaller ships are really very fragile)
-
I don't build ships below 10kt ( usually go in 10kt steps ) with 20-30kt most popular size for early to mid game
higher tonnage means I can easily put 2 or 3 weapon systems as loss of efficiency on higher tonnage is not significant
My fleet can be most often locked into 2-3 types of ships which I can refit if needed and which are all around ships
beams +gauss for 10/20kt and beam + gauss +box launchers for 30/40kt and bigger
knocking any ship out of the line in battle doesn't make any hole in combat capabilities (sensor/offence/PD)- only percentage overall reduction
it is cheaper in the long run , easier in refits , easier with managing shipyards , and finally I don't loose many ships this way (smaller ships are really very fragile)
Yes... the survival ability of larger ships can't be understated as well as they are way better to withstand chock damage that smaller ships will have to deal with allot more often.
-
There's a problem with what imagery you get if you look at tonnage as displacement tons volume vs. tonnage as actual tonnage. . .
. . .Aurora armor mechanics suggest tonnage-as-volume. The engine mechanics might suggest tonnage-as-mass, but who knows how TN engines actually work? Their performance might be governed by volume rather than mass. Shock damage depends on ship tonnage, but I'm not sure whether that really makes sense for either interpretation. . .
. . .I think I've heard what Iceranger refers to the Traveller displacement ton. Not sure why we'd think that's what Aurora uses?
Aurora defines tonnage as a measure of displacement, not mass, and the armour calculation uses 'one hull space (50 tons) equals one thousand cubic meters' (10m x 10m x 10m) and assumes a spherical ship. Engine mechanics use tonnage (hull spaces) -- and therefore volume -- to calculate speed.
I've never heard of the liquid hydrogen measurement before, but the "one hull space equals one megalitre of water" definition has been used.
-
I've never heard of the liquid hydrogen measurement before, but the "one hull space equals one megalitre of water" definition has been used.
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=10099.msg108545#msg108545
;)
If you go with 50t equal to 1000 cubic meters that is probably not too bad to imagine as it is not too far of the liquid hydrogen method.