Aurora 4x
C# Aurora => C# Bureau of Design => Topic started by: Borealis4x on May 23, 2020, 10:26:58 PM
-
I've always wanted to create a spinal-mounted Frigate that was basically a floating gun, sort of like the In Amber Clad from Halo. It would serve as my expendable 'tackle' force while my carriers and missile cruisers did work from behind. This is my first attempt at it. I just wish I could reduce the rank of the CO, tho...
Trafalgar class Frigate (P) 5,000 tons 183 Crew 1,551.6 BP TCS 100 TH 64 EM 0
4000 km/s Armour 4-26 Shields 0-0 HTK 37 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 22 PPV 30.76
Maint Life 2.54 Years MSP 533 AFR 73% IFR 1.0% 1YR 116 5YR 1,736 Max Repair 450.0000 MSP
Captain Control Rating 4 BRG AUX ENG CIC
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months Morale Check Required
Internal Fusion Drive EP400.00 (1) Power 400.0 Fuel Use 28.28% Signature 64.0000 Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 500,000 Litres Range 63.6 billion km (184 days at full power)
45.0cm C6 Soft X-ray Laser (1) Range 320,000km TS: 6,250 km/s Power 53-6 RM 60,000 km ROF 45
Single Gauss Cannon R400-100 Turret (2x4) Range 40,000km TS: 25000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 40,000 km ROF 5
Beam Fire Control R320-TS6250 (30%) (1) Max Range: 320,000 km TS: 6,250 km/s 97 94 91 88 84 81 78 75 72 69
Beam Fire Control R40-TS25000 (30%) (1) Max Range: 40,000 km TS: 25,000 km/s 75 50 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Magnetic Confinement Fusion Reactor R13-PB30 (1) Total Power Output 13 Exp 15%
Active Search Sensor AS19-R80 (30%) (1) GPS 288 Range 19.6m km Resolution 80
ECM 20
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
I know some will criticize having PD on such a small ship that isn't meant for such roles, but its important o me that every ship has some active defense against missiles. That way, when they are grouped together they can all contribute to shooting down missiles shot at the whole squadron. I think it would add up. I also like having some PD weapons from a purely RP standpoint; I don't believe anyone would make a warship without some secondary defense weapons.
-
It is a nice ship, and is not too much to build. A good bolster to either defense forces or a wolf-pack grouping style of ships.
-
I have nothing against the ship's concept, though personally I wouldn't tend to consider it a frigate :P
I would, however, note that if you throw the 'tackle' force into the teeth of a missile-armed opponent it's going to need to be able to bear the brunt of their fire. You might need some kind of supplemental missile defense vessels to accompany the Travalgars in those situations where their organic PD battery won't hold up.
A couple petty engineering notes:
-Your reactor generates more than double the power your ship actually uses. You could make some kind of savings there, surely. (Whether it's worth the research, assuming the depicted reactor is off-the-shelf, is your call.)
-I think you would find the Gauss turrets become more efficient if built as quad turrets of smaller weapons. From here (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg103323#msg103323) dual and quad turrets are progressively more efficient compared to an equal number of individually-mounted weapons. And Gauss guns are efficiently divisible: 4x 150 ton Gauss guns cost exactly the same as 1x 600 ton gun and produce the same number of hits on average. Put those together and a quad-turret of 25% Gauss guns should be slightly cheaper, smaller, and more dependable than a single turreted 100% Gauss gun.
-
I have nothing against the ship's concept, though personally I wouldn't tend to consider it a frigate :P
I would, however, note that if you throw the 'tackle' force into the teeth of a missile-armed opponent it's going to need to be able to bear the brunt of their fire. You might need some kind of supplemental missile defense vessels to accompany the Travalgars in those situations where their organic PD battery won't hold up.
A couple petty engineering notes:
-Your reactor generates more than double the power your ship actually uses. You could make some kind of savings there, surely. (Whether it's worth the research, assuming the depicted reactor is off-the-shelf, is your call.)
-I think you would find the Gauss turrets become more efficient if built as quad turrets of smaller weapons. From here (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg103323#msg103323) dual and quad turrets are progressively more efficient compared to an equal number of individually-mounted weapons. And Gauss guns are efficiently divisible: 4x 150 ton Gauss guns cost exactly the same as 1x 600 ton gun and produce the same number of hits on average. Put those together and a quad-turret of 25% Gauss guns should be slightly cheaper, smaller, and more dependable than a single turreted 100% Gauss gun.
Quad-Gauss sounds great, but I have no idea how to make one a mere 150 tons. I know you can reduce the size dramatically by reducing the accuracy of the GGs, but the cost seems pretty steep, especially for a PD gun...
Taking your advice, I shrunk the power-plant and the Gauss cannons considerably, allowing me to add more PD, range and maintenance.
Trafalgar class Frigate (P) 4,996 tons 168 Crew 1,484.8 BP TCS 100 TH 64 EM 0
4003 km/s Armour 4-26 Shields 0-0 HTK 41 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 23 PPV 21.84
Maint Life 3.40 Years MSP 757 AFR 67% IFR 0.9% 1YR 100 5YR 1,497 Max Repair 450.0000 MSP
Captain Control Rating 4 BRG AUX ENG CIC
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months Morale Check Required
Internal Fusion Drive EP400.00 (1) Power 400.0 Fuel Use 28.28% Signature 64.0000 Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 950,000 Litres Range 121 billion km (349 days at full power)
45.0cm C6 Soft X-ray Laser (1) Range 320,000km TS: 6,250 km/s Power 53-6 RM 60,000 km ROF 45
Twin Gauss Cannon R400-25.00 Turret (2x8) Range 40,000km TS: 12500 km/s Power 0-0 RM 40,000 km ROF 5
Beam Fire Control R320-TS6250 (30%) (1) Max Range: 320,000 km TS: 6,250 km/s 97 94 91 88 84 81 78 75 72 69
Beam Fire Control R40-TS25000 (30%) (1) Max Range: 40,000 km TS: 25,000 km/s 75 50 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Magnetic Confinement Fusion Reactor R6-PB30 (1) Total Power Output 6 Exp 15%
Active Search Sensor AS19-R80 (30%) (1) GPS 288 Range 19.6m km Resolution 80
Active Search Sensor AS4-R1 (30%) (1) GPS 4 Range 4.5m km MCR 408.7k km Resolution 1
ECM 20
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
-
I have nothing against the ship's concept, though personally I wouldn't tend to consider it a frigate :P
I would, however, note that if you throw the 'tackle' force into the teeth of a missile-armed opponent it's going to need to be able to bear the brunt of their fire. You might need some kind of supplemental missile defense vessels to accompany the Travalgars in those situations where their organic PD battery won't hold up.
A couple petty engineering notes:
-Your reactor generates more than double the power your ship actually uses. You could make some kind of savings there, surely. (Whether it's worth the research, assuming the depicted reactor is off-the-shelf, is your call.)
-I think you would find the Gauss turrets become more efficient if built as quad turrets of smaller weapons. From here (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg103323#msg103323) dual and quad turrets are progressively more efficient compared to an equal number of individually-mounted weapons. And Gauss guns are efficiently divisible: 4x 150 ton Gauss guns cost exactly the same as 1x 600 ton gun and produce the same number of hits on average. Put those together and a quad-turret of 25% Gauss guns should be slightly cheaper, smaller, and more dependable than a single turreted 100% Gauss gun.
There has been a lot of argument over this, but lower % weapons leak which can be fatal for a missile PD system. Also, quad turrets are currently bugged so that they burn 4x as much MSP as they should. The extra maintenance slots more than take up the space savings.
-
Quad-Gauss sounds great, but I have no idea how to make one a mere 150 tons. I know you can reduce the size dramatically by reducing the accuracy of the GGs, but the cost seems pretty steep, especially for a PD gun...
4x150 tons means 4 150 ton guns, not 4 guns that weigh 150 tons combined.
In terms of expected hits, smaller Gauss guns almost exactly break even. What you lose in accuracy you make up in volume of fire. The only friction is rounding issues.
However, this is probably a good point:
There has been a lot of argument over this, but lower % weapons leak which can be fatal for a missile PD system. Also, quad turrets are currently bugged so that they burn 4x as much MSP as they should. The extra maintenance slots more than take up the space savings.
At high chances to hit the chance for 4x small guns to entirely fail to connect is a lot higher than for 1x big gun. In terms of expected hits they make it up by making larger numbers of hits some of the time, but that may not be a satisfactory compensation in some situations.
I don't know about the MSP thing, but put it together and you might have been better off with the original design for the defense turret.
-
Quad-Gauss sounds great, but I have no idea how to make one a mere 150 tons. I know you can reduce the size dramatically by reducing the accuracy of the GGs, but the cost seems pretty steep, especially for a PD gun...
4x150 tons means 4 150 ton guns, not 4 guns that weigh 150 tons combined.
In terms of expected hits, smaller Gauss guns almost exactly break even. What you lose in accuracy you make up in volume of fire. The only friction is rounding issues.
However, this is probably a good point:
There has been a lot of argument over this, but lower % weapons leak which can be fatal for a missile PD system. Also, quad turrets are currently bugged so that they burn 4x as much MSP as they should. The extra maintenance slots more than take up the space savings.
At high chances to hit the chance for 4x small guns to entirely fail to connect is a lot higher than for 1x big gun. In terms of expected hits they make it up by making larger numbers of hits some of the time, but that may not be a satisfactory compensation in some situations.
I don't know about the MSP thing, but put it together and you might have been better off with the original design for the defense turret.
I compromised and replaced my single turret with a twin turret at 25% accuracy. Although I suppose that just makes my overall PD 50% as effective...
-
I compromised and replaced my single turret with a twin turret at 25% accuracy.
That's half as much gunpower though? 2x25% = 50%, and your original turret was 100%...
-
I compromised and replaced my single turret with a twin turret at 25% accuracy.
That's half as much gunpower though? 2x25% = 50%, and your original turret was 100%...
Yeah, it probably not the best option.
EDIT: I managed to sacrifice range in exchange for 2 twin Gauss turrets.
Trafalgar class Frigate (P) 5,000 tons 180 Crew 1,534 BP TCS 100 TH 64 EM 0
4000 km/s Armour 4-26 Shields 0-0 HTK 37 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 23 PPV 28.68
Maint Life 3.29 Years MSP 735 AFR 67% IFR 0.9% 1YR 102 5YR 1,537 Max Repair 450.0000 MSP
Captain Control Rating 4 BRG AUX ENG CIC
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months Morale Check Required
Internal Fusion Drive EP400.00 (1) Power 400.0 Fuel Use 28.28% Signature 64.0000 Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 591,000 Litres Range 75.2 billion km (217 days at full power)
45.0cm C6 Soft X-ray Laser (1) Range 320,000km TS: 6,250 km/s Power 53-6 RM 60,000 km ROF 45
Twin Gauss Cannon R400-50.0 Turret (2x8) Range 40,000km TS: 12500 km/s Power 0-0 RM 40,000 km ROF 5
Beam Fire Control R320-TS6250 (30%) (1) Max Range: 320,000 km TS: 6,250 km/s 97 94 91 88 84 81 78 75 72 69
Beam Fire Control R40-TS25000 (30%) (1) Max Range: 40,000 km TS: 25,000 km/s 75 50 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Magnetic Confinement Fusion Reactor R6-PB30 (1) Total Power Output 6 Exp 15%
Active Search Sensor AS19-R80 (30%) (1) GPS 288 Range 19.6m km Resolution 80
Active Search Sensor AS4-R1 (30%) (1) GPS 4 Range 4.5m km MCR 408.7k km Resolution 1
ECM 20
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
This was a good crash-course on the benefit of turrets. It seems that having a turret made up of two guns with 50% to hit is more HS efficient than a single barreled version of that gun with a 100% chance to hit.
EDIT:
I made a heavy version of the frigate as an experiment, accentuating speed and ECM to dodge missiles.
Bull Run class Heavy Frigate (P) 8,000 tons 256 Crew 2,571.8 BP TCS 160 TH 192 EM 0
7500 km/s Armour 4-35 Shields 0-0 HTK 47 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 24 PPV 28.68
Maint Life 1.42 Years MSP 1,323 AFR 128% IFR 1.8% 1YR 720 5YR 10,797 Max Repair 1350.0000 MSP
Captain Control Rating 4 BRG AUX ENG CIC
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months Morale Check Required
Internal Fusion Drive EP1200.00 (1) Power 1200.0 Fuel Use 16.33% Signature 192.0000 Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 752,000 Litres Range 103.6 billion km (159 days at full power)
45.0cm C6 Soft X-ray Laser (1) Range 320,000km TS: 7,500 km/s Power 53-6 RM 60,000 km ROF 45
Twin Gauss Cannon R400-50.0 Turret (2x8) Range 40,000km TS: 12500 km/s Power 0-0 RM 40,000 km ROF 5
Beam Fire Control R320-TS6250 (30%) (1) Max Range: 320,000 km TS: 6,250 km/s 97 94 91 88 84 81 78 75 72 69
Beam Fire Control R40-TS25000 (30%) (1) Max Range: 40,000 km TS: 25,000 km/s 75 50 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Magnetic Confinement Fusion Reactor R6-PB30 (1) Total Power Output 6 Exp 15%
Active Search Sensor AS19-R80 (30%) (1) GPS 288 Range 19.6m km Resolution 80
Active Search Sensor AS4-R1 (30%) (1) GPS 4 Range 4.5m km MCR 408.7k km Resolution 1
ECM 20
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
-
That ship is astonishingly slow for IF. It's moving at base-level Ion speeds. If your enemy has even ion or magneto-plasma tech, they're going to kite you to death. Also, your range is at least 3x too large. Boost engine size and massively increase engine boost percentage. At least 110%. Your beam ships need to be as fast as possible to close on the enemy.
-
You should have called it a Gungine
-
If you want to look at Gauss and efficiency you should look at this thread.... http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=11325.0
My recommendation is several 17% single turrets... that is the most efficient turret you can get because of how the mechanics works. The increase in efficiency of more barrels does not make PD turrets better. More guns in turrets only make sens for anti-ship or dual purpose laser turrets and when you want to armour the turret... which you probably don't want on PD turrets.
It also is nice because each turret is between 60-70 tons each so easy to fit into a ship between all the other components and can be used as a filler or tweaked with other components such as engineering, fuel, armour etc...
-
That ship is astonishingly slow for IF. It's moving at base-level Ion speeds. If your enemy has even ion or magneto-plasma tech, they're going to kite you to death. Also, your range is at least 3x too large. Boost engine size and massively increase engine boost percentage. At least 110%. Your beam ships need to be as fast as possible to close on the enemy.
How fast should they be going? I've tried the same engines boosted to 150% and 200% but they get such smeg fuel economy that they can hardly make it out of the Sol jumpgate.
-
That ship is astonishingly slow for IF. It's moving at base-level Ion speeds. If your enemy has even ion or magneto-plasma tech, they're going to kite you to death. Also, your range is at least 3x too large. Boost engine size and massively increase engine boost percentage. At least 110%. Your beam ships need to be as fast as possible to close on the enemy.
How fast should they be going? I've tried the same engines boosted to 150% and 200% but they get such smeg fuel economy that they can hardly make it out of the Sol jumpgate.
It completely depends on your enemies and how you want the sips to be used. You can't say that one speed is better than the next unless you put it into context.
Whatever you choose there is a trade off between cost, fuel and mission tonnage.
-
Yeah it seems like the amount of HS dedicated to your engine is a little low. At magnetic fusion, my beam fleets have 33% of their mass in engines, which lets me have 150% boost and adequate range. I definitely like the single gigantic beam on corvette size ships (5000t). Smaller corvettes can be manufactured very quickly, so losing some to having not quite enough armor is fine.
-
That ship is astonishingly slow for IF. It's moving at base-level Ion speeds. If your enemy has even ion or magneto-plasma tech, they're going to kite you to death. Also, your range is at least 3x too large. Boost engine size and massively increase engine boost percentage. At least 110%. Your beam ships need to be as fast as possible to close on the enemy.
How fast should they be going? I've tried the same engines boosted to 150% and 200% but they get such smeg fuel economy that they can hardly make it out of the Sol jumpgate.
It completely depends on your enemies and how you want the sips to be used. You can't say that one speed is better than the next unless you put it into context.
Whatever you choose there is a trade off between cost, fuel and mission tonnage.
It goes without saying that it depends. But I think it can be assumed that unless specifically stated that most warships are designed to venture out and fight the enemy, meaning they need some fuel economy. I'm trying to develop some 'rules of thumb' to apply when designing my ships since I don't know what constitutes good, bad, and too much in a lot of cases.
I assume that expeditionary fleets should all be supported by tankers while in transit? Or would that slow them down too much and make them even more fuel inefficient meaning its better to have ships carry their own fuel? Its things like this I'm trying to figure out.
-
If your tankers use highly efficient engines, then carrying large quantities of fuel in them will almost certainly be much more efficient than carrying it in your warships. And it won't in any way make moving the warships themselves more expensive. Engine efficiency translates pretty directly to fuel/ton of ship/km.
Of course, the tankers will then almost have to be much slower than the warships, which means that a fleet anchored to such tankers can't travel nearly as fast as one that isn't. That's your tradeoff. (On internal routes, you can possibly pre-position tankers to enable the fleet to bridge large distances at full speed. On the front lines, tankers positioned in advance of the fleet are likely to get shot up.) And if you manage to get the tankers shot up your fleet might be stranded, at least until replacements arrive.
Tankers aside, a beam ship on the attack against mobile enemies needs to outrun its target, or outrange it and be able to compel an engagement some other way (probably by threatening a colony or other stationary asset). Otherwise, the enemy can refuse action indefinitely, and possibly pick you to bits while doing it if they've got a range advantage.
-
As Jorgen said, "good" speed depends on what your enemies can do.
But I'm going to guess from your tech, you likely have been playing a while.
It's quite likely that enemy NPR ships will be fast. And so, you need speed as well...
Anyway, for general purpose beam ships I usually go for at least 30% space of the ship in engines with between 100 and 150% engine power, depending on fuel efficiency/tech. Personally, I don't plan for more than 20-30 billions of range around that tech level. Bring tankers instead!
Ultimately, the main point is simple. Designs are always a tradeoff of many variables. But... if you don't know what you're facing precisely, for beam ships you must make sure you can reach the opponents. A beam ship that is slower than the opponent will never be able to catch it in open space, and that can be a fatal flaw. Of course it really depends on the situation, it might not be crucial for planet assault. But still... you risk it being useless in a lot of situations.
This become even more crucial if the enemy has beam ships, if he's faster than you he can always fight at HIS preferred range...
-
That ship is astonishingly slow for IF. It's moving at base-level Ion speeds. If your enemy has even ion or magneto-plasma tech, they're going to kite you to death. Also, your range is at least 3x too large. Boost engine size and massively increase engine boost percentage. At least 110%. Your beam ships need to be as fast as possible to close on the enemy.
How fast should they be going? I've tried the same engines boosted to 150% and 200% but they get such smeg fuel economy that they can hardly make it out of the Sol jumpgate.
It completely depends on your enemies and how you want the sips to be used. You can't say that one speed is better than the next unless you put it into context.
Whatever you choose there is a trade off between cost, fuel and mission tonnage.
It goes without saying that it depends. But I think it can be assumed that unless specifically stated that most warships are designed to venture out and fight the enemy, meaning they need some fuel economy. I'm trying to develop some 'rules of thumb' to apply when designing my ships since I don't know what constitutes good, bad, and too much in a lot of cases.
I assume that expeditionary fleets should all be supported by tankers while in transit? Or would that slow them down too much and make them even more fuel inefficient meaning its better to have ships carry their own fuel? Its things like this I'm trying to figure out.
The "base" speed of any engine type is a ship that has 1/3 engine at 100% power efficiency. From there you can go in whatever direction you want. The problem in my opinion is in the question... because there is no best or most usable speed as it all depend on so many external factors.
-
The TS of your fire controls don't line up with your weapon capabilities.
The FC for your gauss is rated 25k km/s, but your gauss turret is only rated 12.5k km/s. You are overpaying for that FC.
The FC for your laser is rated 6250, but your ship moves 7500. That FC won't use the full potential of the ship.
-
that ship aint likely to get two shots, so you can save some money by dialing back the capacitor. i don't do spinal mounts since they don't chuck asteroids (gotta have standards) but if reduced size spinal is a real thing, the volume savings might make a big difference in overall utility.
-
That ship is astonishingly slow for IF. It's moving at base-level Ion speeds. If your enemy has even ion or magneto-plasma tech, they're going to kite you to death. Also, your range is at least 3x too large. Boost engine size and massively increase engine boost percentage. At least 110%. Your beam ships need to be as fast as possible to close on the enemy.
How fast should they be going? I've tried the same engines boosted to 150% and 200% but they get such smeg fuel economy that they can hardly make it out of the Sol jumpgate.
In a recent game, I had an NPR that was ahead of me in engine tech, they had magneto plasma, and were doing 8150km/s, and on Ion engines I had built mine to do 8600, which was incredibly fortunate when we met in battle - I could just close in and force a fight.
I always build my beam ships to be twice as fast as any missile ships, since they need speed far more than the missile ships do. Unless I have an opponent that suggests I need even more speed, I usually build Internal Confinement Fusion ships to a speed of 6900km/sec, twice that(13800) for beam ships, By Ion I'm already pushing 4300/8600.
Range of course suffers, but I find warships rarely need more than 40bkm, and often I don't even give them more than 20bkm, they can be escorted by a tanker to the fight if they need it - I don't need their speed until the enemy is actually engaged.
You might have no need for such speeds, but to answer the question of how fast, those are what I consider to be suitable speed for those two engine techs.
-
Regarding the general concept of single engined small warships:
In terms of fuel consumption, it is a good idea. You can have a higher boost and therefore a longer range. However, such a huge engine will have a huge max repair cost. Which means you either need an extra maintenance supplies module or quite a few engineering systems. Which is a consideration if you are trying to make a very efficient and high performance craft. In C#, the maximum size of your engine, and therefore of the highest performance single engined ship will change over the course of the campaign.
What I define as "cruisers" is generally a ship that has at least 3 max sized engines, and enough engineering and maintenance supplies to repair at least one if battle damaged.
-
What I define as "cruisers" is generally a ship that has at least 3 max sized engines, and enough engineering and maintenance supplies to repair at least one if battle damaged.
you do realize that on C#, that can mean from 30.000 tons to 180.000 tons right? your max engine size can get to 400HS.
-
I love the basic idea, and it is one that I did myself too back on the good old days of VB6... that said, that ship is a bit slow, to close in fast enough at that tech level, assuming enemies of similar tech level, it would need to be at least twice as fast. I also like that you put PD on this ship, this means you wont get caught with your pants down by cheeky NPRs, but once you get to the right speeds, you can even drop the turrets, and go either with 10 cm railguns or some GC. There has always been some discussion over whether reduced size or full size GC are better, but from what I got, 100% gets the least leakers, but has less granularity, and forces you to use single and twin turrets to cover that, maning you are less space efficient, and are also a bit easier to completely overwhelm. reduced size GC tends to be a bit more versatile, and you can put it basically anywhere, can use quad turrets, which are more efficient in terms of space, and are a bit harder to completely overwhelm, and are a good choice if you have shields who can take a couple leakers every once in a while. Just make sure the hit chance is always bigger than 1%, that is the minimum for the game to consider.
-
I love the basic idea, and it is one that I did myself too back on the good old days of VB6... that said, that ship is a bit slow, to close in fast enough at that tech level, assuming enemies of similar tech level, it would need to be at least twice as fast. I also like that you put PD on this ship, this means you wont get caught with your pants down by cheeky NPRs, but once you get to the right speeds, you can even drop the turrets, and go either with 10 cm railguns or some GC. There has always been some discussion over whether reduced size or full size GC are better, but from what I got, 100% gets the least leakers, but has less granularity, and forces you to use single and twin turrets to cover that, maning you are less space efficient, and are also a bit easier to completely overwhelm. reduced size GC tends to be a bit more versatile, and you can put it basically anywhere, can use quad turrets, which are more efficient in terms of space, and are a bit harder to completely overwhelm, and are a good choice if you have shields who can take a couple leakers every once in a while. Just make sure the hit chance is always bigger than 1%, that is the minimum for the game to consider.
About leakers then please see this thread... 100% Gauss generally produce the most leaking missiles. I did allot of tests about this and so have others too.
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=11325.0
The basics is that if you are faced by huge salvos then 100% Gauss will produce a small better performance, but as soon as you have multiple salvos incoming then larger Gauss will perform terrible as they tend to overkill salvos instead of shooting on the next one. Therefore smaller more guns is way more efficient in the long run by far. 17% are probably the best as they are the smallest you can fit into a turret and have at least 1 HTK to destroy, smaller guns have 0 HTK and that is not great on a capital ship.
-
Slightly different variant of fast inteception ship, first to meet enemy in border systems until mail forces arrive:
Approach, keep range ~900k km
Kiev-L M7 class Frigate 2 996 tons 116 Crew 5 382.1 BP TCS 1 TH 40 EM 0
16693 km/s Armour 6-18 Shields 0-0 HTK 27 Sensors 50/50/0/0 DCR 1 PPV 16
Maint Life 3.76 Years MSP 1 684 AFR 48% IFR 0.7% 1YR 186 5YR 2 793 Max Repair 1500 MSP
Commander Control Rating 1 BRG
Intended Deployment Time: 1.5 months Morale Check Required
Gas Core AM Drive 200% EP500.00 (2) Power 1000 Fuel Use 100% Signature 20.00 Explosion 20%
Fuel Capacity 500 000 Litres Range 30 billion km (20 days at full power)
25.0cm C16 Near Gamma Ray Laser (2) Range 1 000 000km TS: 16 693 km/s Power 16-16 RM 100 000 km ROF 5
Beam Fire Control R1000-TS15000 (5%) (1) Max Range: 1 000 000 km TS: 15 000 km/s 99 98 97 96 95 94 93 92 91 90
Solid-core Anti-matter Power Plant R16 (2) Total Power Output 32 Exp 5%
Active Search Sensor AS39-R1 (5%) (1) GPS 100 Range 39.9m km MCR 3.6m km Resolution 1
Thermal Sensor TH1.0-50.0 (5%) (1) Sensitivity 50 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 55.9m km
EM Sensor EM1.0-50.0 (5%) (1) Sensitivity 50 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 55.9m km
Cloaking Device: Class cross-section reduced to 2.00% of normal
Compact ECCM-6 (1) ECM 70
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
-
About leakers then please see this thread... 100% Gauss generally produce the most leaking missiles. I did allot of tests about this and so have others too.
you are by all means right, but still the 100% just satisfies an emotional need for safety that the 17% can never hope to achieve... its important to remember that this game isn't nescessarily one where you need to optimize things, and that you can, and should whenever its fun, make decisions that let you have the most fun.
if big 100%GC senpai makes you feel safer, go with 100%GCsenpai
Slightly different variant of fast inteception ship, first to meet enemy in border systems until mail forces arrive:
Approach, keep range ~900k km
this technology is light years beyond my comprehension. I was going to criticise the 25cm laser, but then I noticed its ROF 5. I shall never recover from the shock.
-
you are by all means right, but still the 100% just satisfies an emotional need for safety that the 17% can never hope to achieve... its important to remember that this game isn't nescessarily one where you need to optimize things, and that you can, and should whenever its fun, make decisions that let you have the most fun.
if big 100%GC senpai makes you feel safer, go with 100%GCsenpai
And I agree 100% with that sentiment... ;)
I just wanted to make sure you did understood the mechanics. I do allot of personal restrictions and choices for RP reasons as well in the game too.
-
Slightly different variant of fast inteception ship, first to meet enemy in border systems until mail forces arrive:
Approach, keep range ~900k km
Kiev-L M7 class Frigate 2 996 tons 116 Crew 5 382.1 BP TCS 1 TH 40 EM 0
16693 km/s Armour 6-18 Shields 0-0 HTK 27 Sensors 50/50/0/0 DCR 1 PPV 16
Maint Life 3.76 Years MSP 1 684 AFR 48% IFR 0.7% 1YR 186 5YR 2 793 Max Repair 1500 MSP
Commander Control Rating 1 BRG
Intended Deployment Time: 1.5 months Morale Check Required
Gas Core AM Drive 200% EP500.00 (2) Power 1000 Fuel Use 100% Signature 20.00 Explosion 20%
Fuel Capacity 500 000 Litres Range 30 billion km (20 days at full power)
25.0cm C16 Near Gamma Ray Laser (2) Range 1 000 000km TS: 16 693 km/s Power 16-16 RM 100 000 km ROF 5
Beam Fire Control R1000-TS15000 (5%) (1) Max Range: 1 000 000 km TS: 15 000 km/s 99 98 97 96 95 94 93 92 91 90
Solid-core Anti-matter Power Plant R16 (2) Total Power Output 32 Exp 5%
Active Search Sensor AS39-R1 (5%) (1) GPS 100 Range 39.9m km MCR 3.6m km Resolution 1
Thermal Sensor TH1.0-50.0 (5%) (1) Sensitivity 50 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 55.9m km
EM Sensor EM1.0-50.0 (5%) (1) Sensitivity 50 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 55.9m km
Cloaking Device: Class cross-section reduced to 2.00% of normal
Compact ECCM-6 (1) ECM 70
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
That's some very advanced technology, I have to say. I'm surprised you can fit all that on such a small vessel, especially the cloaking device.
-
Take this as concept - i think you can fit everything in 5k tons on your tech level.
-
I've always wanted to create a spinal-mounted Frigate that was basically a floating gun. . .
I do like a nice gunboat, though I normally do them on FAC hulls. As long as you remember they're defensive units -- or for besieging fixed fortifications -- and can't kill anything that can run away from them, you can have a lot of fun with them.