Aurora 4x
C# Aurora => C# Bureau of Design => Topic started by: Iceranger on May 25, 2020, 11:49:58 AM
-
This is a series of ships that I usually go for, and I would appreciate some critics on them. The most recent missile tactics I have bene using is that using relatively fast and medium/short ranged ASMs.
First is a series of 12kt destroyer classes:
ASM destroyer, the main composition of the destroyer fleet.
Gearing class Destroyer 12,000 tons 280 Crew 3,734.4 BP TCS 240 TH 3,840 EM 0
16000 km/s Armour 5-46 Shields 0-0 HTK 101 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 10 PPV 37.8
Maint Life 3.20 Years MSP 2,745 AFR 115% IFR 1.6% 1YR 403 5YR 6,050 Max Repair 960 MSP
Magazine 1,146
Captain Control Rating 2 BRG CIC
Intended Deployment Time: 24 months Morale Check Required
Inertial Fusion Drive EP1920.00 (2) Power 3840 Fuel Use 34.45% Signature 1920 Explosion 15%
Fuel Capacity 909,000 Litres Range 39.6 billion km (28 days at full power)
Size 6 Missile Launcher (30.0% Reduction) (21) Missile Size: 6 Rate of Fire 920
Missile Fire Control FC33-R10 (3) Range 33.7m km Resolution 10
ASM 6/25/64k/30/ECM/ECCM (191) Speed: 64,000 km/s End: 7.9m Range: 30.3m km WH: 25 Size: 6 TH: 533/320/160
Active Search Sensor AS33-R10 (1) GPS 240 Range 33.7m km Resolution 10
Compact ECCM-5 (3) ECM 60
AFM destroyer, provide anti fighter capabilities. Typically 1 in a fleet due to its cost. The AFM is designed to mainly counter beam fighters or boarding shuttles, and shared with the interceptors to provide long range anti-fighter capability. A bridging hull based on this ship can enable a shipyard to build all 3 types of missile destroyers here.
Summer class Destroyer 12,000 tons 277 Crew 5,184.4 BP TCS 240 TH 3,840 EM 0
16000 km/s Armour 5-46 Shields 0-0 HTK 117 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 12 PPV 38.4
Maint Life 4.40 Years MSP 4,040 AFR 96% IFR 1.3% 1YR 337 5YR 5,060 Max Repair 960 MSP
Magazine 776
Captain Control Rating 2 BRG CIC
Intended Deployment Time: 24 months Morale Check Required
Inertial Fusion Drive EP1920.00 (2) Power 3840 Fuel Use 34.45% Signature 1920 Explosion 15%
Fuel Capacity 959,000 Litres Range 41.8 billion km (30 days at full power)
Size 3.0 Missile Launcher (40.0% Reduction) (32) Missile Size: 3 Rate of Fire 130
Missile Fire Control FC26-R5 (16) Range 26.7m km Resolution 5
AFM 3/9/57k/28 (258) Speed: 56,933 km/s End: 8.2m Range: 28m km WH: 9 Size: 3 TH: 1081/649/324
Active Search Sensor AS35-R5 (1) GPS 210 Range 35.4m km Resolution 5
Compact ECCM-5 (16) ECM 60
PD destroyer escort:
Nicolas class Destroyer Escort 12,000 tons 356 Crew 4,333.4 BP TCS 240 TH 3,840 EM 0
16000 km/s Armour 5-46 Shields 0-0 HTK 115 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 10 PPV 79.2
Maint Life 3.68 Years MSP 3,456 AFR 115% IFR 1.6% 1YR 397 5YR 5,956 Max Repair 960 MSP
Captain Control Rating 2 BRG CIC
Intended Deployment Time: 24 months Morale Check Required
Inertial Fusion Drive EP1920.00 (2) Power 3840 Fuel Use 34.45% Signature 1920 Explosion 15%
Fuel Capacity 929,000 Litres Range 40.5 billion km (29 days at full power)
Single Gauss Cannon R200-17.00 Turret (60x6) Range 20,000km TS: 40000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 20,000 km ROF 5
Beam Fire Control R150-TS40000 (2) Max Range: 150,000 km TS: 40,000 km/s 93 87 80 73 67 60 53 47 40 33
Active Search Sensor AS17-R1 (1) GPS 30 Range 17.5m km MCR 1.6m km Resolution 1
ECCM-6 (2) ECM 60
AMM destroyer escort. I'm still undecided on putting ECCM on AMMs, since based on my tests, with high agility tech an AMM without ECCM can perform reasonably well, and can be much cheaper.
Fletcher class Destroyer Escort 12,000 tons 343 Crew 4,009 BP TCS 240 TH 3,840 EM 0
16000 km/s Armour 5-46 Shields 0-0 HTK 86 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 10 PPV 27
Maint Life 3.79 Years MSP 3,688 AFR 115% IFR 1.6% 1YR 403 5YR 6,044 Max Repair 960 MSP
Magazine 1,056
Captain Control Rating 2 BRG CIC
Intended Deployment Time: 24 months Morale Check Required
Inertial Fusion Drive EP1920.00 (2) Power 3840 Fuel Use 34.45% Signature 1920 Explosion 15%
Fuel Capacity 939,000 Litres Range 40.9 billion km (29 days at full power)
Size 1.2 Missile Launcher (75.00% Reduction) (30) Missile Size: 1.2 Rate of Fire 10
Missile Fire Control FC31-R1 (5) Range 31.3m km Resolution 1
AMM 1.2/1/75k/2/ECCM (480) Speed: 75,167 km/s End: 0.5m Range: 2.1m km WH: 1 Size: 1.2 TH: 1478/886/443
AMM 1/1/96k/2 (480) Speed: 96,000 km/s End: 0.4m Range: 2.1m km WH: 1 Size: 1 TH: 2336/1401/700
Active Search Sensor AS28-R1 (1) GPS 78 Range 28.2m km MCR 2.5m km Resolution 1
Compact ECCM-5 (5) ECM 60
Jump destroyer, two per fleet. Typically I put the jump drive on the sensor ship, but now it is very tempting to give the sensor ship a large sheild. With a bridging hull, this can be built in the same yard with the PD escort.
Porter class Jump Destroyer Escort 12,000 tons 330 Crew 4,025.8 BP TCS 240 TH 3,840 EM 3,630
16000 km/s JR 3-50 Armour 10-46 Shields 121-378 HTK 91 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 10 PPV 42.24
Maint Life 3.41 Years MSP 3,296 AFR 115% IFR 1.6% 1YR 432 5YR 6,484 Max Repair 960 MSP
Captain Control Rating 2 BRG CIC
Intended Deployment Time: 24 months Morale Check Required
J12000(3-50) Military Jump Drive Max Ship Size 12000 tons Distance 50k km Squadron Size 3
Inertial Fusion Drive EP1920.00 (2) Power 3840 Fuel Use 34.45% Signature 1920 Explosion 15%
Fuel Capacity 946,000 Litres Range 41.2 billion km (29 days at full power)
Omicron S121 / R378 Shields (1) Recharge Time 378 seconds (0.3 per second)
Single Gauss Cannon R200-17.00 Turret (32x6) Range 20,000km TS: 40000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 20,000 km ROF 5
Beam Fire Control R150-TS40000 (1) Max Range: 150,000 km TS: 40,000 km/s 93 87 80 73 67 60 53 47 40 33
Active Search Sensor AS17-R1 (1) GPS 30 Range 17.5m km MCR 1.6m km Resolution 1
ECCM-6 (1) ECM 60
Sensor destroyer, two per fleet
Sentry class Sensor Platform 12,000 tons 336 Crew 5,245.8 BP TCS 12 TH 3,840 EM 3,630
16000 km/s Armour 10-46 Shields 121-378 HTK 61 Sensors 320/320/0/0 DCR 40 PPV 0
Maint Life 2.89 Years MSP 3,132 AFR 115% IFR 1.6% 1YR 553 5YR 8,291 Max Repair 960 MSP
Lieutenant Commander Control Rating 1 BRG
Intended Deployment Time: 24 months Morale Check Required
Inertial Fusion Drive EP1920.00 (2) Power 3840 Fuel Use 34.45% Signature 1920 Explosion 15%
Fuel Capacity 1,018,000 Litres Range 44.3 billion km (32 days at full power)
Omicron S121 / R378 Shields (1) Recharge Time 378 seconds (0.3 per second)
Active Search Sensor AS362-R100 (1) GPS 60000 Range 362.9m km Resolution 100
Active Search Sensor AS78-R1 (1) GPS 600 Range 78.2m km MCR 7m km Resolution 1
Thermal Sensor TH10-320 (1) Sensitivity 320 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 141.4m km
EM Sensor EM10-320 (1) Sensitivity 320 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 141.4m km
Cloaking Device: Class cross-section reduced to 5.00% of normal
ECM 60
A light carrier provides long range scouts and long range anti-fighter capabilities. It carries ultra light interceptors and scouts.
Indy class Light Carrier 12,000 tons 252 Crew 3,096.5 BP TCS 240 TH 3,840 EM 0
16000 km/s Armour 4-46 Shields 0-0 HTK 80 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 10 PPV 0
Maint Life 3.64 Years MSP 3,612 AFR 115% IFR 1.6% 1YR 422 5YR 6,333 Max Repair 960 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 3,000 tons Magazine 486
Commander Control Rating 2 BRG PFC
Intended Deployment Time: 24 months Flight Crew Berths 60 Morale Check Required
Inertial Fusion Drive EP1920.00 (2) Power 3840 Fuel Use 34.45% Signature 1920 Explosion 15%
Fuel Capacity 1,055,000 Litres Range 45.9 billion km (33 days at full power)
AFM 3/9/57k/28 (162) Speed: 56,933 km/s End: 8.2m Range: 28m km WH: 9 Size: 3 TH: 1081/649/324
ECM 60
Strike Group
20x Needle Interceptor Speed: 40117 km/s Size: 2.39
2x Needle Scout Interceptor Speed: 40117 km/s Size: 2.39
3x Shadow Scout Fighter Speed: 24070 km/s Size: 2.39
Ultra light interceptor, operates within the fleet's , should be hard for enemy bomber squadrons to detect.
Needle class Interceptor 120 tons 3 Crew 61.2 BP TCS 2 TH 96 EM 0
40117 km/s Armour 1-2 Shields 0-0 HTK 1 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0 PPV 0.9
Maint Life 3.69 Years MSP 20 AFR 24% IFR 0.3% 1YR 2 5YR 34 Max Repair 48 MSP
Magazine 6
Lieutenant Commander Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 30 days Morale Check Required
Inertial Fusion Drive EP96.00 (1) Power 96 Fuel Use 1232.38% Signature 96 Explosion 30%
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres Range 1.2 billion km (8 hours at full power)
Size 3.0 Box Launcher (2) Missile Size: 3 Hangar Reload 86 minutes MF Reload 14 hours
Missile Fire Control FC26-R5 (1) Range 26.7m km Resolution 5
AFM 3/9/57k/28 (2) Speed: 56,933 km/s End: 8.2m Range: 28m km WH: 9 Size: 3 TH: 1081/649/324
The sensor fighters to accompany the interceptors:
Needle Scout class Interceptor 120 tons 5 Crew 96.1 BP TCS 2 TH 96 EM 0
40117 km/s Armour 1-2 Shields 0-0 HTK 1 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0 PPV 0
Maint Life 31.90 Years MSP 70 AFR 1% IFR 0.0% 1YR 0 5YR 2 Max Repair 48 MSP
Lieutenant Commander Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 30 days Morale Check Required
Inertial Fusion Drive EP96.00 (1) Power 96 Fuel Use 1232.38% Signature 96 Explosion 30%
Fuel Capacity 18,000 Litres Range 2.2 billion km (15 hours at full power)
Active Search Sensor AS35-R5 (1) GPS 210 Range 35.4m km Resolution 5
Scout for detecting large ships:
Shadow class Scout Fighter 120 tons 5 Crew 82.9 BP TCS 2 TH 58 EM 0
24070 km/s Armour 1-2 Shields 0-0 HTK 1 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0 PPV 0
Maint Life 32.68 Years MSP 63 AFR 1% IFR 0.0% 1YR 0 5YR 2 Max Repair 48.0 MSP
Lieutenant Commander Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 9 days Morale Check Required
Inertial Fusion Drive EP57.60 (1) Power 57.6 Fuel Use 471.40% Signature 57.60 Explosion 20%
Fuel Capacity 20,000 Litres Range 6.4 billion km (3 days at full power)
Active Search Sensor AS102-R100 (1) GPS 4800 Range 102.6m km Resolution 100
Then a few heavier ships:
A heavy cruiser that is capable of attacking and defending herself.
Albany class Heavy Cruiser 48,000 tons 1,345 Crew 16,277.8 BP TCS 960 TH 15,360 EM 0
16000 km/s Armour 10-117 Shields 0-0 HTK 391 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 130 PPV 180
Maint Life 3.53 Years MSP 18,436 AFR 263% IFR 3.7% 1YR 2,275 5YR 34,128 Max Repair 2560 MSP
Magazine 3,474
Captain Control Rating 3 BRG ENG CIC
Intended Deployment Time: 24 months Morale Check Required
Inertial Fusion Drive EP5120.00 (3) Power 15360 Fuel Use 25.60% Signature 5120 Explosion 16%
Fuel Capacity 3,038,000 Litres Range 44.5 billion km (32 days at full power)
Single Gauss Cannon R200-17.00 Turret (30x6) Range 20,000km TS: 40000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 20,000 km ROF 5
Beam Fire Control R150-TS40000 (2) Max Range: 150,000 km TS: 40,000 km/s 93 87 80 73 67 60 53 47 40 33
Size 6 Missile Launcher (30.0% Reduction) (63) Missile Size: 6 Rate of Fire 920
Size 1.2 Missile Launcher (75.00% Reduction) (30) Missile Size: 1.2 Rate of Fire 10
Missile Fire Control FC31-R1 (5) Range 31.3m km Resolution 1
Missile Fire Control FC33-R10 (9) Range 33.7m km Resolution 10
ASM 6/25/64k/30/ECM/ECCM (441) Speed: 64,000 km/s End: 7.9m Range: 30.3m km WH: 25 Size: 6 TH: 533/320/160
AMM 1.2/1/75k/2/ECCM (360) Speed: 75,167 km/s End: 0.5m Range: 2.1m km WH: 1 Size: 1.2 TH: 1478/886/443
AMM 1/1/96k/2 (396) Speed: 96,000 km/s End: 0.4m Range: 2.1m km WH: 1 Size: 1 TH: 2336/1401/700
Active Search Sensor AS28-R1 (1) GPS 78 Range 28.2m km MCR 2.5m km Resolution 1
Active Search Sensor AS33-R10 (1) GPS 240 Range 33.7m km Resolution 10
ECCM-6 (2) Compact ECCM-5 (14) ECM 60
Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s
A heavy command cruiser.
Aigaion class Command Cruiser 48,000 tons 1,414 Crew 17,499.3 BP TCS 960 TH 15,360 EM 40,260
16000 km/s JR 3-50 Armour 10-117 Shields 1342-671 HTK 297 Sensors 320/320/0/0 DCR 100 PPV 79.2
Maint Life 3.28 Years MSP 19,110 AFR 263% IFR 3.7% 1YR 2,689 5YR 40,342 Max Repair 2560 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 1,000 tons Troop Capacity 1,000 tons
Captain Control Rating 5 BRG AUX ENG CIC FLG
Intended Deployment Time: 24 months Flight Crew Berths 20 Morale Check Required
J48000(3-50) Military Jump Drive Max Ship Size 48000 tons Distance 50k km Squadron Size 3
Inertial Fusion Drive EP5120.00 (3) Power 15360 Fuel Use 25.60% Signature 5120 Explosion 16%
Fuel Capacity 4,003,000 Litres Range 58.6 billion km (42 days at full power)
Omicron S671 / R671 Shields (2) Recharge Time 671 seconds (2 per second)
Single Gauss Cannon R200-17.00 Turret (60x6) Range 20,000km TS: 40000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 20,000 km ROF 5
Beam Fire Control R150-TS40000 (2) Max Range: 150,000 km TS: 40,000 km/s 93 87 80 73 67 60 53 47 40 33
Active Search Sensor AS362-R100 (1) GPS 60000 Range 362.9m km Resolution 100
Active Search Sensor AS78-R1 (1) GPS 600 Range 78.2m km MCR 7m km Resolution 1
Active Search Sensor AS168-R10 (1) GPS 6000 Range 168.4m km Resolution 10
EM Sensor EM10-320 (1) Sensitivity 320 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 141.4m km
Thermal Sensor TH10-320 (1) Sensitivity 320 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 141.4m km
ECCM-6 (2) ECM 60
Strike Group
8x Shadow Scout Fighter Speed: 24070 km/s Size: 2.39
A fleet carrier, still mainly on anti-fighter role.
Yorktown class Carrier 48,000 tons 1,110 Crew 12,306.7 BP TCS 960 TH 15,360 EM 0
16000 km/s Armour 8-117 Shields 0-0 HTK 298 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 70 PPV 0
Maint Life 2.91 Years MSP 13,217 AFR 263% IFR 3.7% 1YR 2,304 5YR 34,563 Max Repair 2560 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 13,000 tons Magazine 1,773
Captain Control Rating 3 BRG ENG PFC
Intended Deployment Time: 24 months Flight Crew Berths 260 Morale Check Required
Inertial Fusion Drive EP5120.00 (3) Power 15360 Fuel Use 25.60% Signature 5120 Explosion 16%
Fuel Capacity 4,153,000 Litres Range 60.8 billion km (44 days at full power)
Filler (1) Total Power Output 0 Exp 5%
AFM 3/9/57k/28 (384) Speed: 56,933 km/s End: 8.2m Range: 28m km WH: 9 Size: 3 TH: 1081/649/324
AFM 3/16/56k/7 (207) Speed: 55,867 km/s End: 2.1m Range: 7.1m km WH: 16 Size: 3 TH: 540/324/162
ECM 60
Strike Group
96x Needle Interceptor Speed: 40117 km/s Size: 2.39
8x Needle Scout Interceptor Speed: 40117 km/s Size: 2.39
4x Shadow Scout Fighter Speed: 24070 km/s Size: 2.39
Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s
-
I would make the AFM 3/9/57k/28 (2) Speed: 56,933 km/s End: 8.2m Range: 28m km WH: 9 Size: 3 TH: 1081/649/324 shorter ranged as the fighters are 120 tons so they probably won't be seen at 28m km away. You can probably safely get within 15m km.
-
It looks like your engines have no thermal sig reduction tech; your heavy cruisers have the same thermal signature as a medium-sized colony. It’s going to be hard to hide from enemy passive detection, especially at this tech level.
-
It looks like your engines have no thermal sig reduction tech; your heavy cruisers have the same thermal signature as a medium-sized colony. It’s going to be hard to hide from enemy passive detection, especially at this tech level.
Since the main offensive weapons are short ranged ASMs, being stealthy isn't much of a concern for the fleet. The interceptors are designed to be sneaky, but the capital ships are not. The cloaking device on the sensor ship is mainly for creating targeting difficulities for the enemies.
-
I would make the AFM 3/9/57k/28 (2) Speed: 56,933 km/s End: 8.2m Range: 28m km WH: 9 Size: 3 TH: 1081/649/324 shorter ranged as the fighters are 120 tons so they probably won't be seen at 28m km away. You can probably safely get within 15m km.
Tried with some shorter ranged AFM designs:
Missile Size: 3.0000 MSP (7.5000 Tons) Warhead: 9 Radiation Damage: 9 Manoeuver Rating: 44
Speed: 81,867 km/s Fuel: 629 Flight Time: 184 seconds Range: 15.09 Mkm
Cost Per Missile: 10.40020 Development Cost: 1,040
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 3602.1% 3k km/s 1200.7% 5k km/s 720.4% 10k km/s 360.2% 20k km/s 180.1% 50k km/s 72.0% 100k km/s 36.0%
It is indeed faster and more accurate, however the range is probably a bit short to double as a ship based AFM.
-
i believe you can spare a point of warhead (or two) in an anti-fighter missile, which gives you plenty of latitude for your other specifications. always nice to troll the forum by building warheads at n^2 - 1.
i think the anti-fighter sensor is too high-resolution. res 5 is about right in the I(r)on Age, but it's natural to build missile fighters at the same tonnage you yourself did by the end of the fusion epoch.
-
i believe you can spare a point of warhead (or two) in an anti-fighter missile, which gives you plenty of latitude for your other specifications. always nice to troll the forum by building warheads at n^2 - 1.
i think the anti-fighter sensor is too high-resolution. res 5 is about right in the I(r)on Age, but it's natural to build missile fighters at the same tonnage you yourself did by the end of the fusion epoch.
Indeed, the anti fighter sensor was one of the few components that I didn't design to counter my own fleet. Since it is tricky to cramp all the things needed into a 120 ton fighter :)
The anti-fighter missile can be used in anti-ship role in an emergency. Due to their high agility, they are less affected by the ECM so they have a fair chance to hit a ship that is much slower than a fighter.
-
i believe you can spare a point of warhead (or two) in an anti-fighter missile, which gives you plenty of latitude for your other specifications. always nice to troll the forum by building warheads at n^2 - 1.
I like warheads in the n², n²+n, and n²+2n ranges, since they are 1, 2, and 3 damage at n penetration. Just so long as one remembers that n²+2n is really just (n+1)²-1. So the useful warheads would be 6, 8, and 9 damage, getting 2, 3, and 4 damage at 2 penetration(this one being 1 damage at 3 penetration...) respectively. Could definitely divert that into fuel to reclaim some of the lost range while keeping the speed up, might be a happy middle ground in there.
-
i believe you can spare a point of warhead (or two) in an anti-fighter missile, which gives you plenty of latitude for your other specifications. always nice to troll the forum by building warheads at n^2 - 1.
I like warheads in the n², n²+n, and n²+2n ranges, since they are 1, 2, and 3 damage at n penetration. Just so long as one remembers that n²+2n is really just (n+1)²-1. So the useful warheads would be 6, 8, and 9 damage, getting 2, 3, and 4 damage at 2 penetration(this one being 1 damage at 3 penetration...) respectively. Could definitely divert that into fuel to reclaim some of the lost range while keeping the speed up, might be a happy middle ground in there.
I do use n2 + n sometimes if the next n2 is too hard to reach. But I have never used n2-1 warheads. I guess in the context of AFMs the penetration does not matter too much, especially when shock damage is now super effective against fighter sized ships.
-
amram
for anti fighter work what matters is "warhead minus total fighter armor", and ime 7 suffices. against expected fusion-tech antagonists, a 9 point warhead is still just spam.
iceranger
shipkillers can spare ~15 kkps, and the frame can be 15% bigger, feel those things relieve design constraints. as much effort as you're putting into fighter defense (we see eye to eye there) its hard to justify leaving a window open for a fairly vanilla fighter attack mode. one of the nice things about fighters is how little extra effort it takes to adapt
n^2 - 1 is really just for troll value, it's anti-optimal but the difference between max and min is meaningless :)
-
Clearly you put a lot of work and thought into your designs, and they look pretty good. A good combined unit with specialized ships and roles is a great way to go. The only real issue I see is your reload time for your size 6 and size 3 launchers. A reload time of 920 for your ASMs is over 15 minutes. In a battle with 5 second increments, 15 minutes is an eternity! Especially if you realize after launch (or impact) that you just fired your whole volley at a spoiler fuel harvester, not the missile cruiser you thought you had. I can understand that reducing launcher size will give you more launchers for a better throw weight to your salvos, but the 15 minute reload means you wont likely get more than one off before the battle is over. Your missiles are fast and short ranged too, so they will cover that range very quickly, leaving you with little to do other than absorb many, many volleys of incoming fire while you wait. Same with your anti fighter missiles, the reload is over 2 minutes. Fighter sized craft are FAST, (yours are 24k to 40k) and two minutes gives them time between volleys to move into or out of range with impunity. Hopefully your first volley is effective, or your fighters can track them down while you wait for a reload.
I generally keep my ASM launchers around size 6 as well, but make sure that they can spew out a missile salvo every 20 to 30 seconds. At your tech level, this should be no issue. Smaller salvos in rapid succession can be very hard to defend against, particularly if you have a large number of ships (or fighters) to throw them with. Consider using missile destroyers with 8 or 10 launchers in grouped in four or five per FC and enough magazine space for 8 or 10 salvos in rapid fire. Try smaller missile warheads are of 9, 12 or 16 and as fast as you can manage them with a range of about 80 million kms or better, so you can hit them first and bugger off if need be, or at least have an opening range engagement. Plus I find this gives me time and range for my bombers to launch close in, time on target attacks that will overwhelm any defenses.
Good luck!
-
Clearly you put a lot of work and thought into your designs, and they look pretty good. A good combined unit with specialized ships and roles is a great way to go. The only real issue I see is your reload time for your size 6 and size 3 launchers. A reload time of 920 for your ASMs is over 15 minutes. In a battle with 5 second increments, 15 minutes is an eternity! Especially if you realize after launch (or impact) that you just fired your whole volley at a spoiler fuel harvester, not the missile cruiser you thought you had. I can understand that reducing launcher size will give you more launchers for a better throw weight to your salvos, but the 15 minute reload means you wont likely get more than one off before the battle is over. Your missiles are fast and short ranged too, so they will cover that range very quickly, leaving you with little to do other than absorb many, many volleys of incoming fire while you wait. Same with your anti fighter missiles, the reload is over 2 minutes. Fighter sized craft are FAST, (yours are 24k to 40k) and two minutes gives them time between volleys to move into or out of range with impunity. Hopefully your first volley is effective, or your fighters can track them down while you wait for a reload.
I generally keep my ASM launchers around size 6 as well, but make sure that they can spew out a missile salvo every 20 to 30 seconds. At your tech level, this should be no issue. Smaller salvos in rapid succession can be very hard to defend against, particularly if you have a large number of ships (or fighters) to throw them with. Consider using missile destroyers with 8 or 10 launchers in grouped in four or five per FC and enough magazine space for 8 or 10 salvos in rapid fire. Try smaller missile warheads are of 9, 12 or 16 and as fast as you can manage them with a range of about 80 million kms or better, so you can hit them first and bugger off if need be, or at least have an opening range engagement. Plus I find this gives me time and range for my bombers to launch close in, time on target attacks that will overwhelm any defenses.
Good luck!
Indeed 920 seconds is a lot in combat, but for missile ships, I feel this is workable. Especially when in VB6, such reload would be easily 40 mins. :)
I value salvo size much more than RoF when using missiles offensively, since the larger the salvo size, the smaller percentage can be shot down by PD. The fleet is designed to weather the incoming missile fire until I can get in my range. Kind of in between missile ships and beam ships. Thus the fleet is fast (in missile ship standard, and I'd say these ships are not slow in beam ship standard), and heavy defenses are put on high value targets (sensor platforms and jump ships).
The range of my short ranged ASMs is chosen on purpose to accomodate the firing rate. At 30mkm range, a 32kkm/s speed difference can cover this range in 930s. This mean if my fleet can try to keep the distance from the enemy fleet by moving away, my fleet can fire all their salvos. My DDs hold 9 salvos each, and my CAs hold 7 salvos each. Thus if the enemy's speed is below 21kkm/s, I have enough time to fire all 7 salvos, or if they are below 20kkm/s, I have time to fire all 9 salvos.
Similarly for the AFM. The missile itself was designed for the interceptor initially, so I adjusted my magazine depth and the firing rate so the AFM wielding ship can fire as many as possible in a single salvo, while having some reloading capabilities. The Summer class holds 8 salvos of missiles, needing 1050 seconds to empty its magazine. Assuming the missiles are fired starting from 25mkm range, the incoming (beam) fighters need to be about 23.8kkm/s faster than my fleet to reach my fleet within that time frame.
-
Updated the AFM destroyer so it has dedicated sensors and MFCs designed for her:
Summer class Destroyer 12,000 tons 277 Crew 5,293.7 BP TCS 240 TH 3,840 EM 0
16000 km/s Armour 5-46 Shields 0-0 HTK 117 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 12 PPV 38.4
Maint Life 4.20 Years MSP 3,708 AFR 96% IFR 1.3% 1YR 338 5YR 5,064 Max Repair 960 MSP
Magazine 776
Captain Control Rating 2 BRG CIC
Intended Deployment Time: 24 months Morale Check Required
Inertial Fusion Drive EP1920.00 (2) Power 3840 Fuel Use 34.45% Signature 1920 Explosion 15%
Fuel Capacity 914,000 Litres Range 39.8 billion km (28 days at full power)
Size 3.0 Missile Launcher (40.0% Reduction) (32) Missile Size: 3 Rate of Fire 130
Missile Fire Control FC27-R2 (16) Range 27.9m km Resolution 2
AFM 3/9/57k/28 (258) Speed: 56,933 km/s End: 8.2m Range: 28m km WH: 9 Size: 3 TH: 1081/649/324
Active Search Sensor AS31-R2 (1) GPS 120 Range 31.1m km Resolution 2
Compact ECCM-5 (16) ECM 60
I realized there isn't any ELINT modules in my fleet to gather enemy active sensor information. So I managed to squeeze them into the command ships, at the price of some PD or troop space:
Porter class Jump Destroyer Escort 12,000 tons 323 Crew 4,275.3 BP TCS 240 TH 3,840 EM 3,630
16000 km/s JR 3-50 Armour 10-46 Shields 121-378 HTK 85 Sensors 0/160/0/0 DCR 10 PPV 31.36
Maint Life 3.40 Years MSP 3,426 AFR 115% IFR 1.6% 1YR 451 5YR 6,764 Max Repair 960 MSP
Commander Control Rating 1 BRG
Intended Deployment Time: 24 months Morale Check Required
J12000(3-50) Military Jump Drive Max Ship Size 12000 tons Distance 50k km Squadron Size 3
Inertial Fusion Drive EP1920.00 (2) Power 3840 Fuel Use 34.45% Signature 1920 Explosion 15%
Fuel Capacity 910,000 Litres Range 39.6 billion km (28 days at full power)
Omicron S121 / R378 Shields (1) Recharge Time 378 seconds (0.3 per second)
Single Gauss Cannon R200-17.00 Turret (23x6) Range 20,000km TS: 40000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 20,000 km ROF 5
Gauss Cannon R200-17.00 (1x6) Range 20,000km TS: 16,000 km/s Accuracy Modifier 17.00% RM 20,000 km ROF 5
Beam Fire Control R150-TS40000 (1) Max Range: 150,000 km TS: 40,000 km/s 93 87 80 73 67 60 53 47 40 33
Active Search Sensor AS17-R1 (1) GPS 30 Range 17.5m km MCR 1.6m km Resolution 1
EM Sensor EM5-160 (1) Sensitivity 160 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 100m km
ELINT Module (1) Sensitivity 14 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 29.6m km
ECCM-6 (1) ECM 60
Aigaion class Command Cruiser 48,000 tons 1,434 Crew 17,800 BP TCS 960 TH 15,360 EM 40,260
16000 km/s JR 3-50 Armour 10-117 Shields 1342-671 HTK 304 Sensors 320/320/0/0 DCR 100 PPV 79.2
Maint Life 3.30 Years MSP 19,384 AFR 263% IFR 3.7% 1YR 2,693 5YR 40,399 Max Repair 2560 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 1,000 tons Troop Capacity 500 tons
Captain Control Rating 5 BRG AUX ENG CIC FLG
Intended Deployment Time: 24 months Flight Crew Berths 20 Morale Check Required
J48000(3-50) Military Jump Drive Max Ship Size 48000 tons Distance 50k km Squadron Size 3
Inertial Fusion Drive EP5120.00 (3) Power 15360 Fuel Use 25.60% Signature 5120 Explosion 16%
Fuel Capacity 3,948,000 Litres Range 57.8 billion km (41 days at full power)
Omicron S671 / R671 Shields (2) Recharge Time 671 seconds (2 per second)
Single Gauss Cannon R200-17.00 Turret (60x6) Range 20,000km TS: 40000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 20,000 km ROF 5
Beam Fire Control R150-TS40000 (2) Max Range: 150,000 km TS: 40,000 km/s 93 87 80 73 67 60 53 47 40 33
Active Search Sensor AS362-R100 (1) GPS 60000 Range 362.9m km Resolution 100
Active Search Sensor AS78-R1 (1) GPS 600 Range 78.2m km MCR 7m km Resolution 1
Active Search Sensor AS168-R10 (1) GPS 6000 Range 168.4m km Resolution 10
EM Sensor EM10-320 (1) Sensitivity 320 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 141.4m km
Thermal Sensor TH10-320 (1) Sensitivity 320 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 141.4m km
ELINT Module (1) Sensitivity 14 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 29.6m km
ECCM-6 (2) ECM 60
Strike Group
8x Shadow Scout Fighter Speed: 24070 km/s Size: 2.39
And finally, a stealthy dedicated intelligence ship. I probably should put a CIWS somewhere on the ship, but I cannot squeeze it in...
Eve class Intelligence Ship 6,000 tons 169 Crew 3,186.7 BP TCS 6 TH 115 EM 0
12000 km/s JR 3-50 Armour 6-29 Shields 0-0 HTK 38 Sensors 160/160/0/0 DCR 7 PPV 0
Maint Life 5.13 Years MSP 4,323 AFR 41% IFR 0.6% 1YR 274 5YR 4,109 Max Repair 1980.0000 MSP
Commander Control Rating 1 BRG
Intended Deployment Time: 24 months Morale Check Required
J6000(3-50) Military Jump Drive Max Ship Size 6000 tons Distance 50k km Squadron Size 3
Inertial Fusion Drive EP1440.00 TM 8% (1) Power 1440.0 Fuel Use 23.02% Signature 115.2000 Explosion 12%
Fuel Capacity 464,000 Litres Range 60.5 billion km (58 days at full power)
Filler (1) Total Power Output 0 Exp 5%
Active Search Sensor AS17-R1 (1) GPS 30 Range 17.5m km MCR 1.6m km Resolution 1
Thermal Sensor TH5-160 (1) Sensitivity 160 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 100m km
EM Sensor EM5-160 (1) Sensitivity 160 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 100m km
ELINT Module (1) Sensitivity 14 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 29.6m km
Cloaking Device: Class cross-section reduced to 5.00% of normal
ECM 60
-
I'm not sure why an empire would build all those destroyers when it could build Albany heavy cruisers instead. The main drawback of the CAs is that they can't be in four places at once, but really neither can the DDs since they can't handle independent operations.
Personally, at your shield tech I'd drop the fifth layer of armour on those destroyer designs that mount it, and install equal displacement of shields instead. Currently your shields are big EM-blinking-billboards that say "I'm valuable; shoot me!" (Though, granted, they make killing the valuable targets much more difficult.)
-
I would agree with Father Tim on this one... unless the destroyer class is something left over from the past I don't see why you would ever use them and not the larger cruisers who are so much more capable ships in all areas except stealth, but I don't think either is particular good at that anyway.
Super specialist ships is a huge liability anyway as you can easily be deprived of an important ability even by pure chance and that is not a sound military doctrine in my opinion. In my opinion highly specialised ships should be built below 10.000t... after this ships are capable of multiple mission operations so you don't put all your eggs in one basket. Especially at this technology level you should be able to make better use for those destroyer yards, perhaps expand most of them to larger sizes or tow them to a planet with no population for safe keeping to use at a later date. You probably could build some scout or patrol version of the destroyer yards meant mostly for low level engagement.
I never understood why you wanted the same capabilities from multiple ship classes just with different sizes. You also could make much better use of those shields. Personally I would drop the huge sensor ship in favour of a jump command ship that essentially is a carrier that have all the scouts and interceptors. You don't need a vulnerable super sensor ship anyway... you are generally better of with sensor scouts. But this is of course a personal preference.
-
I guess it is more of a preference. I feel 10kt ships are still small ships and need specialization to be effective. In terms of ASM ships, I prefer large salvo size than the multi-role capability on ships smaller than 20kt. As for the large sensor, it is more for convenience rather than creating a tactical advantage. Although obvious in a fleet, its cloaking device should make it hard to be targeted by long-range missile fire. Each destroyer is fitted with a suitable active sensor for their own role, so in the worst case of the sensor ship is lost, the fleet keeps its fighting capability.
The heavy cruisers are more of an experimental to me as I don't build large military ships much in previous games. The designs are to show the effectiveness of the larger ships after the buffs for them implemented in C#. They are slower to build, but indeed more cost-effective compared to smaller destroyers. The destroyers still exist due to their flexibility to reinforce any fleet and their lower cost and build time, and the fact that I do have quite a few shipyards with many slipways dedicated to mass-produce them.
-
I guess it is more of a preference. I feel 10kt ships are still small ships and need specialization to be effective. In terms of ASM ships, I prefer large salvo size than the multi-role capability on ships smaller than 20kt. As for the large sensor, it is more for convenience rather than creating a tactical advantage. Although obvious in a fleet, its cloaking device should make it hard to be targeted by long-range missile fire. Each destroyer is fitted with a suitable active sensor for their own role, so in the worst case of the sensor ship is lost, the fleet keeps its fighting capability.
The heavy cruisers are more of an experimental to me as I don't build large military ships much in previous games. The designs are to show the effectiveness of the larger ships after the buffs for them implemented in C#. They are slower to build, but indeed more cost-effective compared to smaller destroyers. The destroyers still exist due to their flexibility to reinforce any fleet and their lower cost and build time, and the fact that I do have quite a few shipyards with many slipways dedicated to mass-produce them.
Something a human can do to target the sensor this is to simply use EM sensor on the missiles, so you fire the missile against something and when that thing is destroyed it will re-target into the strongest emission which is the sensor ship. Or even sneakier would be to turn of the targeting senor just before impact as the missile the re-target into the sensor ship.
But the AI obviously never would do any of that so why not... my idea of sensor scout is that it is much cheaper and way more flexible and make it actually possible to use to actively scan for enemy without revealing something critical as you entire fleets location.
But I look at this from a multi-faction earth start where you have needs to be efficient all the time and rarely have time to build anything truly unified. You need the ship yesterday not tomorrow kind of thing. So it is different for different conditions.
As for shipyards I can understand that you would like to continue using the yards that you have, I would still contemplate expanding them or find some other use for them and make all my capital ships larger. I have personally never seen any campaign where I could not overproduce ships in any category no matter what. There really are no way to replace those particular destroyers for a cruiser as you a NEVER deploying less than three destroyers anyplace anyway, so they are not cheaper in any way.
The only time I would feel a need to produce ships very fast would be in a defensive situation, then I would use my 1000t shipyards that each have ten slipways before anything else to produce things really fast... otherwise these shipyards are for refitting small crafts.
There is nothing wrong with using many smaller ships, I just would never do it if I have the components to build larger more potent ships. I would just expand my current yards to take full advantage of it and that is what I normally do. For me a 10.000t ship is a small ship... a capital ship that can't deploy on their own in some fashion is not really a useful ship. I always have to risk a large number of crafts for no good reason. If I want a powerful force I want it to be as survivable as possible, that means as large as my research can allow me to make them. Expanding the yards and slipways are generally much easier than doing the research... now with 20% research rate it is super easy to do that which changes the perspective allot to of course.
In the end... the size of ships in my campaigns depend almost entirely on my research capabilities and the outside pressure for an offensive fleet... defensive fleets are quite useful to build just very small highly specialised ships as they don't need support of a fleet structure or the deployment length to do what they need to do. Defensive ships I rarely make much larger than a few thousand tons, maybe as large as 5-6kt or so but even rarely that, FAC and up to 3-4kt max usually.
In my current Conventional game the first real capital ships I look at making right now would be around 10kt and that is with Thermal Nuclear Engines technology, so very early indeed. But I have no need for offensive military ships as I have just started to explore at this time. In another 10-20 years I will have the yards and components to likely support capital ships at 15-20kt most likely so they will be full fledged multi-purpose at that size.
I also would never field military ships without beam weapons... beam weapons is what infantry is for ground wars. Beam weapons make you hold key areas in space that does not move. Those are the areas that are why you build ships in the first place. That is colonies and jump-points. If you don't have enough beam weapons you will have to fall back after you launched all the missiles and in beam combat have some beam weapons on every ship makes you way more resilient and likely to win.
You then also have the issue of command staff, larger ships can get the best and most efficient command staff.. getting enough good captains for huge numbers of ships is quite difficult. This issue should also not be taken lightly and is a serious consideration everyone should make. It is good to weed out the good and less good captains by staffing the less experienced ones in your more defensive backwater defence fleet and the best one on your larger offensive capital ships.
I also know and fully acknowledge that there is not really any right or wrong in however you do it... ultimately I don't think it will matter all that much to be honest. The above is just my general thought process and why I tend to do something in a particular way... I tend to allow my fleets to evolve more organically and never really settle on any particular size or speed or whatever and let external pressure decide that for me.
A final note on a really long reply... I would try to find a good different use for my destroyers. I would make them perhaps slightly larger and mutli-purpose and turn them into forward scouts I can deploy with cruiser battle groups. Perhaps much better speed as extra defence. I could then deploy them as a screening force... say I have three or four cruisers and three to four destroyers... the destroyers can still add some punch to the battle group but also act alone or in small group and using their extra speed to scout and evade enemies. I just would make them clearly different with a different purpose... I would not get rid of them.
-
I noticed that some of your designs use like 60 single gauss turrets (if i read the 60x6 correctly). At numbers like these you might consider to double, triple or even quadruple those turrets.
Larger turrets save space on crew and tracking gear all the while firing the same shots overall. The only disadvantage is that a single turret can only engage one salvo, so by no means completely replace your single turrets.
-
I noticed that some of your designs use like 60 single gauss turrets (if i read the 60x6 correctly). At numbers like these you might consider to double, triple or even quadruple those turrets.
Larger turrets save space on crew and tracking gear all the while firing the same shots overall. The only disadvantage is that a single turret can only engage one salvo, so by no means completely replace your single turrets.
Turret MSP consumption is still bugged. Quad turrets use four times the MSP while firing than four singles combined, rather than equal to the combined usage.
-
I noticed that some of your designs use like 60 single gauss turrets (if i read the 60x6 correctly). At numbers like these you might consider to double, triple or even quadruple those turrets.
Larger turrets save space on crew and tracking gear all the while firing the same shots overall. The only disadvantage is that a single turret can only engage one salvo, so by no means completely replace your single turrets.
From a math perspective single turrets is way more effective than multi turrets for PD duty as the overkill of salvos waste allot more shots than you gain by having them in the same turrets. That is in addition to turrets being more expensive in terms of MSP loss from weapon failures.
-
I noticed that some of your designs use like 60 single gauss turrets (if i read the 60x6 correctly). At numbers like these you might consider to double, triple or even quadruple those turrets.
Larger turrets save space on crew and tracking gear all the while firing the same shots overall. The only disadvantage is that a single turret can only engage one salvo, so by no means completely replace your single turrets.
From a math perspective single turrets is way more effective than multi turrets for PD duty as the overkill of salvos waste allot more shots than you gain by having them in the same turrets. That is in addition to turrets being more expensive in terms of MSP loss from weapon failures.
Is there any sense in mixing quads/triples/doubles with singles? For example would it be useful to mount 2x quad turrets along with 4x single turrets?
-
I noticed that some of your designs use like 60 single gauss turrets (if i read the 60x6 correctly). At numbers like these you might consider to double, triple or even quadruple those turrets.
Larger turrets save space on crew and tracking gear all the while firing the same shots overall. The only disadvantage is that a single turret can only engage one salvo, so by no means completely replace your single turrets.
From a math perspective single turrets is way more effective than multi turrets for PD duty as the overkill of salvos waste allot more shots than you gain by having them in the same turrets. That is in addition to turrets being more expensive in terms of MSP loss from weapon failures.
Is there any sense in mixing quads/triples/doubles with singles? For example would it be useful to mount 2x quad turrets along with 4x single turrets?
Other than RP I do not think so unless you are trying to squezee in a smaller turret.
I forget where the post was but someone made an experiment with different sizes of gauss. Apparently the larger gauss turret sizes are slightly more efficient at handling fewer but larger salvos whereas the smaller ones are better at fighting more but smaller salvos.
Additionally, in my game I have noticed that my larger gauss turrets "which I call flak cannons" will always fire before the smaller ones - this is incredibly relevant because missile salvos move in descending order of size (largest first) so you could argue that there is a point to mixing different sizes of gauss weapons.
-
I noticed that some of your designs use like 60 single gauss turrets (if i read the 60x6 correctly). At numbers like these you might consider to double, triple or even quadruple those turrets.
Larger turrets save space on crew and tracking gear all the while firing the same shots overall. The only disadvantage is that a single turret can only engage one salvo, so by no means completely replace your single turrets.
From a math perspective single turrets is way more effective than multi turrets for PD duty as the overkill of salvos waste allot more shots than you gain by having them in the same turrets. That is in addition to turrets being more expensive in terms of MSP loss from weapon failures.
Is there any sense in mixing quads/triples/doubles with singles? For example would it be useful to mount 2x quad turrets along with 4x single turrets?
Other than RP I do not think so unless you are trying to squezee in a smaller turret.
I forget where the post was but someone made an experiment with different sizes of gauss. Apparently the larger gauss turret sizes are slightly more efficient at handling fewer but larger salvos whereas the smaller ones are better at fighting more but smaller salvos.
Additionally, in my game I have noticed that my larger gauss turrets "which I call flak cannons" will always fire before the smaller ones - this is incredibly relevant because missile salvos move in descending order of size (largest first) so you could argue that there is a point to mixing different sizes of gauss weapons.
Interesting.
By larger cannons do you mean higher accuracy turrets? Or just larger low accuracy turrets?
-
In regards to cannons I do think that all the cannon on one ship fires and then the next.... so the larger ones might fire first but only for that ship.
I think that in VB6 it was firing the guns on some sorted order based in the name of the guns or something, are you sure that is not what is going on?
I have not tested this but I remember there was some specific way you could control this in VB6.
On regards to efficiency there is a pretty big gap in how efficient guns are between say a 17% and a 100% when dealing with many salvos but the difference in performance on large salvos for big guns are in general almost negligible in comparison. Personally I like larger guns as well as small ones for role-play so I use a combination quite often.
-
In regards to cannons I do think that all the cannon on one ship fires and then the next.... so the larger ones might fire first but only for that ship.
I think that in VB6 it was firing the guns on some sorted order based in the name of the guns or something, are you sure that is not what is going on?
I have not tested this but I remember there was some specific way you could control this in VB6.
On regards to efficiency there is a pretty big gap in how efficient guns are between say a 17% and a 100% when dealing with many salvos but the difference in performance on large salvos for big guns are in general almost negligible in comparison. Personally I like larger guns as well as small ones for role-play so I use a combination quite often.
Based on this
When a missile reaches its target, a target ship will use its CIWS first. If that is insufficient, it will use any weapons linked to fire controls set to 'Final Defensive Fire' or 'Final Defensive Fire (Self Only)'. If that is still insufficient, ships or the same race or an allied race with fire controls set to 'Final Defensive Fire' will be checked in increasing order of distance from the target ship.
Each ship being attacked will fire their own weapons first, and only when that is not enough other ships in the fleet will fire to help.
-
In regards to cannons I do think that all the cannon on one ship fires and then the next.... so the larger ones might fire first but only for that ship.
I think that in VB6 it was firing the guns on some sorted order based in the name of the guns or something, are you sure that is not what is going on?
I have not tested this but I remember there was some specific way you could control this in VB6.
On regards to efficiency there is a pretty big gap in how efficient guns are between say a 17% and a 100% when dealing with many salvos but the difference in performance on large salvos for big guns are in general almost negligible in comparison. Personally I like larger guns as well as small ones for role-play so I use a combination quite often.
Based on this
When a missile reaches its target, a target ship will use its CIWS first. If that is insufficient, it will use any weapons linked to fire controls set to 'Final Defensive Fire' or 'Final Defensive Fire (Self Only)'. If that is still insufficient, ships or the same race or an allied race with fire controls set to 'Final Defensive Fire' will be checked in increasing order of distance from the target ship.
Each ship being attacked will fire their own weapons first, and only when that is not enough other ships in the fleet will fire to help.
Yes I know this... but I was talking more about which weapon on a ship fires first. There also is the issue of all weapons on one ship fire before any other ships fire as well... so you are not likelt to see all 100% Gauss in a fleet fire first and then all 50% gauss and then all your 11% gauss for example.
So mixing different sizes of Gauss will likely have little no no real effect.