Bomber - class Bomber 125 tons 2 Crew 30.2 BP TCS 2 TH 13 EM 0
10031 km/s Armour 1-2 Shields 0-0 HTK 1 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0 PPV 0.9
Maint Life 5.92 Years MSP 20 AFR 25% IFR 0.3% 1YR 1 5YR 15 Max Repair 18.75 MSP
Magazine 6
StormBoy Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months Morale Check Required
Ion Drive EP25.00 (1) Power 25 Fuel Use 1073.31% Signature 12.5 Explosion 20%
Fuel Capacity 4 000 Litres Range 0.5 billion km (14 hours at full power)
Size 6.00 Box Launcher (1) Missile Size: 6 Hangar Reload 122 minutes MF Reload 20 hours
Missile Fire Control FC5-R1 (1) Range 5.4m km Resolution 1
ThornMKII Size 6 (1) Speed: 29 167 km/s End: 1.9m Range: 3.3m km WH: 10 Size: 6 TH: 136/81/40
Active Search Sensor AS2-R1 (1) GPS 3 Range 2.7m km MCR 244k km Resolution 1
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 Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction
Fighters in Aurora are not comparable to the fighters of the present which usually only have 1 or 2 crew members. Fighters in Aurora have 10-20 crew, sometimes even more. So I agree with them needing a commander. This officer cost is one of the trade offs of using fighters, but fighters give you some other advantages (like high range) to make up for it.
Fighters in Aurora are NOT traditional one man fighters. They are actually more like small Frigates or Corvette size.
A 300t Aurora fighter are roughly the size of a 4000t wet nave Frigate and might have 15-30 crew. Contrary to how many people think I never use fighters in the throwaway fashion as both crew and officers ARE important... both for moral and resources.
Are they all missile fighters or micro-Gauss interceptors rather than rail or energy weapon types?Fighters in Aurora are not comparable to the fighters of the present which usually only have 1 or 2 crew members. Fighters in Aurora have 10-20 crew, sometimes even more. So I agree with them needing a commander. This officer cost is one of the trade offs of using fighters, but fighters give you some other advantages (like high range) to make up for it.
I don't see where you're getting these numbers from. The vast majority of my fighters, even the 500 ton ones, have crew below 10. Even if 10-20 was the norm, a LT.Commander would be too high a rank to command such a small ship.
Barracuda-G class Fighter 500 tons 21 Crew 167.2 BP TCS 10 TH 175 EM 0
17533 km/s Armour 3-5 Shields 0-0 HTK 3 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0 PPV 3
Maint Life 12.82 Years MSP 232 AFR 8% IFR 0.1% 1YR 3 5YR 39 Max Repair 87.5 MSP
Lieutenant Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 0.3 days Morale Check Required
Chaimberlin-Sherman Internal Fusion Drive EP175.00 (1) Power 175 Fuel Use 1002.23% Signature 175 Explosion 25%
Fuel Capacity 15,000 Litres Range 0.5 billion km (8 hours at full power)
Chaimberlin-Sherman Gauss Cannon R300-50.0 (1x4) Range 30,000km TS: 17,533 km/s Accuracy Modifier 50.0% RM 30,000 km ROF 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
Chaimberlin-Sherman Beam Fire Control R32-TS16000 (50%) (1) Max Range: 32,000 km TS: 16,000 km/s 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interactionBarracuda-G3 class Fighter 500 tons 23 Crew 156.2 BP TCS 10 TH 150 EM 0
15003 km/s Armour 1-5 Shields 0-0 HTK 4 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0 PPV 5
Maint Life 4.41 Years MSP 79 AFR 20% IFR 0.3% 1YR 7 5YR 98 Max Repair 75 MSP
Lieutenant Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 0.3 days Morale Check Required
Chaimberlin-Sherman Internal Fusion Drive EP150.00 (1) Power 150 Fuel Use 1082.53% Signature 150 Explosion 25%
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres Range 0.3 billion km (6 hours at full power)
Chaimberlin-Sherman Gauss Cannon R300-85.00 (1x4) Range 30,000km TS: 15,003 km/s Accuracy Modifier 85.00% RM 30,000 km ROF 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
Chaimberlin-Sherman Beam Fire Control R32-TS16000 (50%) (1) Max Range: 32,000 km TS: 16,000 km/s 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interactionClaymore Class Assault Fighter (P) 500 tons 18 Crew 106.8 BP TCS 10 TH 80 EM 0
8015 km/s Armour 1-5 Shields 0-0 HTK 2 Sensors 2/2/0/0 DCR 0 PPV 3.79
Maint Life 2.91 Years MSP 60 AFR 100% IFR 1.4% 1YR 10 5YR 157 Max Repair 40.00 MSP
Magazine 5.25
Lieutenant Commander Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 2.5 days Morale Check Required
Magneto-plasma Drive EP80.00 (1) Power 80.0 Fuel Use 791.96% Signature 80.00 Explosion 20%
Fuel Capacity 38,000 Litres Range 1.7 billion km (59 hours at full power)
10cm Railgun V30/C3 (1x4) Range 30,000km TS: 8,015 km/s Power 3-3 Accuracy Modifier 100% RM 30,000 km ROF 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Beam Fire Control R32-TS8000 (1) Max Range: 32,000 km TS: 8,000 km/s 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Stellarator Fusion Reactor R3-PB20 (1) Total Power Output 3 Exp 10%
Size 5.25 Box Launcher (1) Missile Size: 5.25 Hangar Reload 114 minutes MF Reload 19 hours
Missile Fire Control FC27-R125 (1) Range 27.1m km Resolution 125
Claymore ASM (1) Speed: 18,286 km/s End: 24.2m Range: 26.5m km WH: 9 Size: 5.25 TH: 79/47/23
Active Search Sensor AS27-R125 (1) GPS 1050 Range 27.1m km Resolution 125
Active Search Sensor AS1-R1 (1) GPS 1 Range 1.9m km MCR 168.4k km Resolution 1
EM Sensor EM0.2-2.2 (1) Sensitivity 2.2 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 11.7m km
Thermal Sensor TH0.2-2.2 (1) Sensitivity 2.2 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 11.7m 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 Fighter for production, combat and planetary interactionLongspear Class Fighter (P) 500 tons 21 Crew 85.4 BP TCS 10 TH 40 EM 0
4003 km/s Armour 1-5 Shields 0-0 HTK 3 Sensors 1/1/0/0 DCR 0 PPV 5
Maint Life 1.90 Years MSP 40 AFR 100% IFR 1.4% 1YR 14 5YR 215 Max Repair 27.4 MSP
Lieutenant Commander Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 3 days Morale Check Required
Magneto-plasma Drive EP40.00 (1) Power 40.0 Fuel Use 140.0% Signature 40.00 Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 5,000 Litres Range 1.3 billion km (3 days at full power)
Particle Beam-2 (1) Range 60,000km TS: 4,003 km/s Power 5-5 ROF 5 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Beam Fire Control R64-TS4000 (1) Max Range: 64,000 km TS: 4,000 km/s 27 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Stellarator Fusion Reactor R5-PB20 (1) Total Power Output 5 Exp 10%
Active Search Sensor AS1-R1 (1) GPS 1 Range 1.3m km MCR 113.5k km Resolution 1
Thermal Sensor TH0.1-1.1 (1) Sensitivity 1.1 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 8.3m km
EM Sensor EM0.1-1.1 (1) Sensitivity 1.1 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 8.3m km
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interactionArrow - class Fighter 500 tons 24 Crew 197 BP TCS 10 TH 80 EM 0
16020 km/s Armour 1-5 Shields 0-0 HTK 3 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0 PPV 3
Maint Life 3.09 Years MSP 44 AFR 20% IFR 0.3% 1YR 7 5YR 104 Max Repair 120 MSP
Commander Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 1 months Morale Check Required
Magneto-plasma Drive EP160.00 (1) Power 160 Fuel Use 781.25% Signature 80.0 Explosion 25%
Fuel Capacity 27 000 Litres Range 1.2 billion km (21 hours at full power)
10cm Railgun V40/C3 (1x4) Range 40 000km TS: 16 020 km/s Power 3-3 RM 40 000 km ROF 5
Beam Fire Control R40-TS15000 (1) Max Range: 40 000 km TS: 15 000 km/s 75 50 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Stellarator Fusion Reactor R3-PB40 (1) Total Power Output 3 Exp 20%
Active Search Sensor AS3-R1 (1) GPS 3 Range 3.1m km MCR 281.8k km Resolution 1
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interactionScoutcraft - - class Scout 500 tons 19 Crew 213.4 BP TCS 10 TH 80 EM 0
16003 km/s Armour 1-5 Shields 0-0 HTK 6 Sensors 11/11/0/0 DCR 0 PPV 0
Maint Life 3.03 Years MSP 46 AFR 20% IFR 0.3% 1YR 8 5YR 113 Max Repair 120 MSP
Commander Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 1 months Morale Check Required
Magneto-plasma Drive EP160.00 (1) Power 160 Fuel Use 781.25% Signature 80.0 Explosion 25%
Fuel Capacity 49 000 Litres Range 2.3 billion km (39 hours at full power)
Active Search Sensor AS57-R200 (1) GPS 5600 Range 57.9m km Resolution 200
Active Search Sensor AS9-R1 (1) GPS 28 Range 9.9m km MCR 891.1k km Resolution 1
EM Sensor EM1.0-11.0 (1) Sensitivity 11 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 26.2m km
Thermal Sensor TH1.0-11.0 (1) Sensitivity 11 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 26.2m km
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interactionApollo class Fighter (P) 500 tons 23 Crew 85.1 BP TCS 10 TH 87 EM 0
8707 km/s Armour 1-5 Shields 0-0 HTK 3 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0 PPV 3
Maint Life 5.16 Years MSP 26 AFR 8% IFR 0.1% 1YR 2 5YR 24 Max Repair 43.75 MSP
Commander Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 3 days Morale Check Required
FAC Improved Nuclear Pulse Engine EP87.50 (1) Power 87.5 Fuel Use 401.06% Signature 87.50 Explosion 17%
Fuel Capacity 1 000 Litres Range 0.1 billion km (2 hours at full power)
10cm C3 Near Ultraviolet Laser (1) Range 16 000km TS: 8 707 km/s Power 3-3 RM 30 000 km ROF 5
Beam Fire Control R16-TS8000 (1) Max Range: 16 000 km TS: 8 000 km/s 75 50 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fighter Improved Pebble Bed Reactor R3-PB10 (1) Total Power Output 3 Exp 7%
Active Micro-Sensor AS10-R100 (1) GPS 160 Range 11m km Resolution 100
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interactionInterceptor Mk2 class Interceptor 473 tons 22 Crew 195.4 BP TCS 9 TH 225 EM 0
23808 km/s Armour 1-5 Shields 0-0 HTK 6 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0 PPV 5
Maint Life 6.37 Years MSP 125 AFR 18% IFR 0.2% 1YR 5 5YR 79 Max Repair 112.5 MSP
Commander Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 3 days Morale Check Required
Boost 3 Magnetic Fusion Drive EP225.00 (1) Power 225 Fuel Use 1423.02% Signature 225 Explosion 30%
Fuel Capacity 10 000 Litres Range 0.3 billion km (3 hours at full power)
Gauss Cannon R400-17.00 (5x5) Range 24 000km TS: 23 808 km/s Accuracy Modifier 17.00% RM 40 000 km ROF 5
Beam Fire Control R24-TS20000 (1) Max Range: 24 000 km TS: 20 000 km/s 58 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction
Interceptor Mk2 class Interceptor 499 tons 24 Crew 219.5 BP TCS 10 TH 225 EM 0
22583 km/s Armour 1-5 Shields 0-0 HTK 7 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0 PPV 5
Maint Life 5.90 Years MSP 127 AFR 20% IFR 0.3% 1YR 6 5YR 93 Max Repair 112.5 MSP
Commander Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 3 days Morale Check Required
Boost 3 Magnetic Fusion Drive EP225.00 (1) Power 225 Fuel Use 1423.02% Signature 225 Explosion 30%
Fuel Capacity 10 000 Litres Range 0.3 billion km (3 hours at full power)
Gauss Cannon R400-17.00 (5x5) Range 40 000km TS: 22 583 km/s Accuracy Modifier 17.00% RM 40 000 km ROF 5
Beam Fire Control R48-TS20000 (1) Max Range: 48 000 km TS: 20 000 km/s 79 58 38 17 0 0 0 0 0 0
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interactionFighters in Aurora are NOT traditional one man fighters. They are actually more like small Frigates or Corvette size.
A 300t Aurora fighter are roughly the size of a 4000t wet nave Frigate and might have 15-30 crew. Contrary to how many people think I never use fighters in the throwaway fashion as both crew and officers ARE important... both for moral and resources.
I don't see this. Fighters are bigger than what we would traditionally call a fighter, but they aren't the size of corvettes and certainly not frigates. More the size of 747s or other large commercial planes. I don't see how you could convert 300 tons to 4000 tons.
Do you think it is necessary for fighter craft to have commanders?
Fighters in Aurora are NOT traditional one man fighters. They are actually more like small Frigates or Corvette size.
A 300t Aurora fighter are roughly the size of a 4000t wet nave Frigate and might have 15-30 crew. Contrary to how many people think I never use fighters in the throwaway fashion as both crew and officers ARE important... both for moral and resources.
I don't see this. Fighters are bigger than what we would traditionally call a fighter, but they aren't the size of corvettes and certainly not frigates. More the size of 747s or other large commercial planes. I don't see how you could convert 300 tons to 4000 tons.
From Steve himself...
In Aurora the tonnage is not in metric tons it is the Volume of Hydrogen to some mass or some such, don't remeber the details... but I'm pretty sure it is suppose to be *14 in cubic meters for each ton of Aurora.
So anything you see in Aurora is measured in "volume" not in actual mass as the mass of the ship is of no consequence to propelling it forward only the ships volume is.
So a 300t fighter actually have the volume of 4200 cubic meters. That could be something like 75*7*8 meters in dimension, so pretty big. An 8000t destroyer actually displace about 112000 kubic meters or could be like 350*20*16 meters (roughly the size of a large aircraft carrier). Even a tiny thing like a size 1 AMM is about 35 cubic meters in size, so not very small.
This is why a cargo ship burn as much fuel whether it is transporting any cargo or not for example or why a ship will not travel faster if they expend their fuel or ordnance as it otherwise should.
I want a fighter with only one person in it. I want my Zakus launched from Musai's. Not this 30 man crew on a space van. The commander being gone would be a start though.Surely the commander being gone would be a start in the wrong direction? Seeing as it's the only game factor that represents an important, portable character being present in the inexplicably-humanoid space fighter.
Zaku Class Mobile Suit (P) 55 tons 2 Crew 10.3 BP TCS 1 TH 1 EM 0
917 km/s Armour 1-1 Shields 0-0 HTK 1 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0 PPV 0.5
Maint Life 16.35 Years MSP 20 AFR 11% IFR 0.2% 1YR 0 5YR 2 Max Repair 8 MSP
Lieutenant Commander Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 0.1 days Morale Check Required
Ion Drive EP1.00 (1) Power 1.0 Fuel Use 457.95% Signature 1.00 Explosion 8%
Fuel Capacity 1,000 Litres Range 0.7 billion km (9 days at full power)
Gauss Cannon R100-8.00 (1x2) Range 10,000km TS: 1,250 km/s Accuracy Modifier 8.00% RM 10,000 km ROF 5
Beam Fire Control R10-TS625 (1) Max Range: 10,000 km TS: 625 km/s 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Active Search Sensor AS1-R1 (1) GPS 2 Range 1.5m km MCR 136.2k km Resolution 1
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interactionIf you went with missile box launchers rather than a Gauss gun you could get down to only the one crew from the engine I think?Code: [Select]Zaku Class Mobile Suit (P) 55 tons 2 Crew 10.3 BP TCS 1 TH 1 EM 0
917 km/s Armour 1-1 Shields 0-0 HTK 1 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0 PPV 0.5
Maint Life 16.35 Years MSP 20 AFR 11% IFR 0.2% 1YR 0 5YR 2 Max Repair 8 MSP
Lieutenant Commander Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 0.1 days Morale Check Required
Ion Drive EP1.00 (1) Power 1.0 Fuel Use 457.95% Signature 1.00 Explosion 8%
Fuel Capacity 1,000 Litres Range 0.7 billion km (9 days at full power)
Gauss Cannon R100-8.00 (1x2) Range 10,000km TS: 1,250 km/s Accuracy Modifier 8.00% RM 10,000 km ROF 5
Beam Fire Control R10-TS625 (1) Max Range: 10,000 km TS: 625 km/s 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Active Search Sensor AS1-R1 (1) GPS 2 Range 1.5m km MCR 136.2k km Resolution 1
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction
- Slow, mostly useless, but it has a two man crew. That's the best I could do, sorry.
I also think that fighter crews are too large, though for the 500 ton examples I can understand why at least.
I'm not certain where Jorgen is getting 14m^3 from. The armour calculations in VB assumed 1t=1m^3, which is a perfectly valid way to measure ship size.
Well, this was the first I'd ever heard of it. I do agree that 'fighters' in Aurora are nothing of the kind. At 14m^3 per ton I can't even justify calling them PT boats anymore. Corvettes and frigates is more like it. :(I'm not certain where Jorgen is getting 14m^3 from. The armour calculations in VB assumed 1t=1m^3, which is a perfectly valid way to measure ship size.
You can search the forum if you like but this is old information... the measure of volume is one ton of liquid Hydrogen which is 14 cubic meters, that is the intended true size of the ships. This is where Steve calculate how much space the crew need for living on the ships for example. How much space is needed for Habitats, Passenger modules, ground military unit space requirements etc...
Edit... found a qoute from Steve...
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=10099.msg108545#msg108545
Well, this was the first I'd ever heard of it. I do agree that 'fighters' in Aurora are nothing of the kind. At 14m^3 per ton I can't even justify calling them PT boats anymore. Corvettes and frigates is more like it. :(I'm not certain where Jorgen is getting 14m^3 from. The armour calculations in VB assumed 1t=1m^3, which is a perfectly valid way to measure ship size.
You can search the forum if you like but this is old information... the measure of volume is one ton of liquid Hydrogen which is 14 cubic meters, that is the intended true size of the ships. This is where Steve calculate how much space the crew need for living on the ships for example. How much space is needed for Habitats, Passenger modules, ground military unit space requirements etc...
Edit... found a qoute from Steve...
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=10099.msg108545#msg108545
A test fighter in my game for example need 30t living space for 20 people for a 3 month deployment operation... it would not be very reasonable to think that 30 cubic meters is anywhere near enough for that. That is what 15 square meters of space to live on roughly.Submarine crews have been crammed into pretty small spaces for a few months at a time. 1.5 cubic meters per person would certainly be tight, but if you throw in hot-bunking it's probably possible. Well, provided you're ignoring food stores. Three months of preserved food is probably going to put that over the edge.
The bridge of most ships are about 50t which would be about 25 square meters or a 5*5 room, that is VERY small as you need all the equipment in there too... not just the people working there.
A test fighter in my game for example need 30t living space for 20 people for a 3 month deployment operation... it would not be very reasonable to think that 30 cubic meters is anywhere near enough for that. That is what 15 square meters of space to live on roughly.Submarine crews have been crammed into pretty small spaces for a few months at a time. 1.5 cubic meters per person would certainly be tight, but if you throw in hot-bunking it's probably possible. Well, provided you're ignoring food stores. Three months of preserved food is probably going to put that over the edge.
The bridge of most ships are about 50t which would be about 25 square meters or a 5*5 room, that is VERY small as you need all the equipment in there too... not just the people working there.
The bridge is easier - since (small) ships work without a bridge, most of the fundamental control equipment must not be coming out of the bridge tonnage at all.
I think this really falls into the: "please roleplay it" category. There's no real reason to do anything else, really.
I love Aurora, but I want battleships that are kilometers long. Even using these numbers, as I posted here
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=11489.msg134344#msg134344
these ships are far too small for me.
For a battleship, let's assume a small one, 800m long, with a 5x2x1 size proportions (you know, it's not a cigar. In space you do not have the constraints you have for ships on water)... 800x320x160= 40.96 million m^3 at a very bare minimum.
So, that's a 3 million tons warship in aurora... I'll never build that XD
Example of ships with that shape, the mon calamari star cruiser
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars/images/5/5f/Mon_Cal_Firing_Arc.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20091209171208
Or, even though it's bigger, those are more or less the proportions of a Star Destroyer
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars/images/6/61/Star_Destroyer_Blueprint_SWCT.png/revision/latest?cb=20170717123932
Best just roleplay it.
I will say though, I find fighters disproportionately big in aurora, compared to ships. In my favorite sci-fi concepts, I have carries with hundreds of thousand fighters onboard. True motherships. Once again, not going to happen here in aurora XD
I think that Starwars and many other sci-fi just have incredible sized for their ships for no real good reasons other than just because, there are no real thought behind why they are the way they are. It become more like a contest in which lore have the biggest ships and that become tiresome quite fast in my personal taste. WH-40k are sort of the end of the spectrum here with their hulking cathedrals in space using VAST open space inside their ships...makes little sense but perhaps cool for cinematic effects. These ships are just meant to be cool and nothing else.
I think that Starwars and many other sci-fi just have incredible sized for their ships for no real good reasons other than just because, there are no real thought behind why they are the way they are. It become more like a contest in which lore have the biggest ships and that become tiresome quite fast in my personal taste. WH-40k are sort of the end of the spectrum here with their hulking cathedrals in space using VAST open space inside their ships...makes little sense but perhaps cool for cinematic effects. These ships are just meant to be cool and nothing else.
Eh, I won't contest the fact that WH40k is just trying to look cool
However regarding star wars, I was a fan of the extended universe lore (not the CRAP that disney made afterwards). I even have all the sourcebooks for the pen and paper RPG (which I used to play with friends).
In those, and keep in mind this is basically "official" material before disney came and ruined everything, there was a mission description for the various ship classes, and for battleship it read something like this:
A battleship is supposed to be a force strong enough to lay waste to most "normal" star systems on its own, carry enough troops to mount a credible offensive against a "normal" planent, bombard a "normal" planet into submission, act as a command and control center, carry a full wing of fighters into battle, have enough assorted small ships and shuttles for a variety of situations, and have enough supplies to stay operative for years.
That's a lot to ask from one ship. I would say that being 1km long or more is certainly warranted for all that. And it fits, considering it's literally a galaxy-spanning setting.
Now, I don't want to talk about realism when we're talking about sci-fi. But I don't feel it was for "big for no real reason"
But hey, maybe I'm a bit on the fanboy side of things here ;D
Sorry, I derailed the thread :-[
TIE/ln class Space Superiority Fighter 84 tons 4 Crew 30.2 BP TCS 2 TH 15 EM 0
8981 km/s Armour 1-1 Shields 0-0 HTK 1 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0 PPV 0.5
Maint Life 0 Years MSP 0 AFR 16% IFR 0.2% 1YR 1 5YR 14 Max Repair 16.0 MSP
Lieutenant Commander Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 3 days Morale Check Required
Sienar Fleet Systems STD-P54 Twin Ion Drives (1) Power 15.0 Fuel Use 4676.54% Signature 15.00 Explosion 30%
Fuel Capacity 3,000 Litres Range 0.1 billion km (4 hours at full power)
Cydyne Corporation Twin Blaster Cannons (1x4) Range 40,000km TS: 8,981 km/s Accuracy Modifier 8.00% RM 40,000 km ROF 5
Sienar Fleet Systems BL5-YN Targeting Computer System (1) Max Range: 40,000 km TS: 8,000 km/s 75 50 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Imperial II class Star Destroyer 625,000 tons 18,947 Crew 105,788 BP TCS 12,500 TH 48,600 EM 10,320
3888 km/s JR 3-50 Armour 12-651 Shields 344-537 HTK 4560 Sensors 110/110/0/0 DCR 1976 PPV 1,602.6
Maint Life 3.79 Years MSP 187,879 AFR 1760% IFR 24.4% 1YR 20,547 5YR 308,208 Max Repair 18033.7 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 10,000 tons Troop Capacity 100,000 tons Drop Capable Cargo 5,000 Cryogenic Berths 10,000 Cargo Shuttle Multiplier 4 Tractor Beam
Captain Control Rating 6 BRG AUX ENG CIC FLG PFC
Intended Deployment Time: 24 months Flight Crew Berths 200 Morale Check Required
Kuat Drive D-625 Class-2 Primary Hyperdrive Max Ship Size 625000 tons Distance 50k km Squadron Size 3
Cygnus Spaceworks Gemon-4 Ion Engines (18) Power 48600.0 Fuel Use 31.76% Signature 2700.00 Explosion 13%
Fuel Capacity 40,119,000 Litres Range 36.4 billion km (108 days at full power)
KDY-58 Deflector Shield Generator Dome (2) Recharge Time 537 seconds (0.6 per second)
XX-20 Turbolaser Battery (50x2) Range 320,000km TS: 6000 km/s Power 20-10 RM 40,000 km ROF 10
XX-15 Turbolaser Battery (50x2) Range 240,000km TS: 6000 km/s Power 12-6 RM 40,000 km ROF 10
XG100 Quad PD Laser Cannons (80x4) Range 40,000km TS: 16000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 40,000 km ROF 5
C180 Ion Cannon (20) Range 200,000km TS: 4,000 km/s Power 10-5 ROF 10
R200 Tractor Beam Projector (10) Range 200,000km TS: 4,000 km/s Power 10-5 RM 200,000 km ROF 10
Indigo Secondary Targeting Computer System (3) Max Range: 320,000 km TS: 4,000 km/s 97 94 91 88 84 81 78 75 72 69
Zergon Corporation Point-defence Targeting Computer System (4) Max Range: 40,000 km TS: 16,000 km/s 75 50 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Indigo Turbolaser Targeting Computer System (4) Max Range: 320,000 km TS: 6,000 km/s 97 94 91 88 84 81 78 75 72 69
Cydyne D43/242 Solar Ionization Reactor (4) Total Power Output 971.6 Exp 10%
Cydyne High Resolution Sensor System (2) GPS 12600 Range 94.6m km Resolution 120
Cydyne Low Resolution Seonsor System (2) GPS 2100 Range 52m km Resolution 20
Cydyne Torpedo Detection Sensor (2) GPS 105 Range 19.2m km MCR 1.7m km Resolution 1
Fortis Tech EM Sensor (1) Sensitivity 110 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 82.9m km
Fortis Tech Thermal Sensor (1) Sensitivity 110 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 82.9m km
ELINT Module (1) Sensitivity 5 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 17.7m km
ECCM-2 (8) ECM 20
That's an amazing attempt at replicating a Star Destroyer ;D
I would assume that, in Aurora's terms, you'd need more cargo, as given the description in the various books you'd guess it would have a lot more "generic" supplies apart from just MSP.
Also the hangar deck would need to be larger, as in the star wars universe they seem to be quite spacious.
Keep in mind, we literally see a corellian corvette being tractored inside. And that's a 150 meters long ship. A quick and dirty calculation makes it around 100000 m^3, or about 7000 tons by itself. That is in excess of any other ships the ISD was carrying already.
But still, an amazing design 8)
I had not considered the masimum size of the military jump drive. That's a problem, yeah.
Corellian CR-90 class Transport 8,749 tons 241 Crew 1,478.1 BP TCS 175 TH 625 EM 900
3571 km/s JR 1-50 Armour 4-37 Shields 30-300 HTK 62 Sensors 11/11/0/0 DCR 6 PPV 34.24
Maint Life 3.05 Years MSP 633 AFR 102% IFR 1.4% 1YR 102 5YR 1,530 Max Repair 312.50 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 375 tons Cargo 500
Commander Control Rating 1 BRG
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months Flight Crew Berths 40 Morale Check Required
Mason-Branger JP50 Class-2 Hyperdrive Max Ship Size 8750 tons Distance 50k km Squadron Size 1
Girodyne Tier-58 Ion Turbine Stardrive (1) Power 625.0 Fuel Use 52.41% Signature 625.00 Explosion 12%
Fuel Capacity 748,000 Litres Range 29.4 billion km (95 days at full power)
Phoah-Kingsmeyer 484-J4E Shield Projector (1) Recharge Time 300 seconds (0.1 per second)
Taim & Bak H9 Twin Turbolaser Turret (2x2) Range 160,000km TS: 8000 km/s Power 8-8 RM 40,000 km ROF 5
Taim & Bak H6 Single Turbolaser Turret (4x1) Range 120,000km TS: 12000 km/s Power 3-3 RM 40,000 km ROF 5
Pheren Tech Type-40 Targeting Computer System (1) Max Range: 160,000 km TS: 12,000 km/s 94 88 81 75 69 62 56 50 44 38
Pheren Tech Type-80 Targeting Computer System (1) Max Range: 240,000 km TS: 8,000 km/s 96 92 88 83 79 75 71 67 62 58
Mason-Branger 7085-12 Ionization Reactor (1) Total Power Output 12.5 Exp 20%
Mason-Branger 7085-16 Ionization Reactor (1) Total Power Output 16.5 Exp 20%
Pax Hustana XN-03 Suite High Resolution Sensor (1) GPS 2240 Range 42.7m km Resolution 80
Pax Hustana XN-03 Suite Torpedo Detection Sensor (1) GPS 28 Range 9.9m km MCR 891.1k km Resolution 1
Pax Hustana XN-03 Suite EM Sensor (1) Sensitivity 11.0 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 26.2m km
Pax Hustana XN-03 Suite Thermal Sensor (1) Sensitivity 11.0 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 26.2m km
Compact ECCM-1 (1) ECM 10
A test fighter in my game for example need 30t living space for 20 people for a 3 month deployment operation... it would not be very reasonable to think that 30 cubic meters is anywhere near enough for that. That is what 15 square meters of space to live on roughly.Submarine crews have been crammed into pretty small spaces for a few months at a time. 1.5 cubic meters per person would certainly be tight, but if you throw in hot-bunking it's probably possible. Well, provided you're ignoring food stores. Three months of preserved food is probably going to put that over the edge.
The bridge of most ships are about 50t which would be about 25 square meters or a 5*5 room, that is VERY small as you need all the equipment in there too... not just the people working there.
The bridge is easier - since (small) ships work without a bridge, most of the fundamental control equipment must not be coming out of the bridge tonnage at all.
Submarines are a pretty good example and even if they are cramped the crew don't live in 1.5 cubic meters... you don't only count their sleeping quarters but all living space on the ship. A fighter and FAC also include all of the working space as well into this space. It also include ALL the space for the equipment, bulkheads, water and life support machinery etc. So perhaps two third or as little as half of the space is actual space for the crew to move around in, tops.
I think I remember that Steve said something a few years ago about using submarines and living space as one of the measurements for the space needed for space ship in Aurora so he clearly have thought this through more than once.
Submarines have allot more space than 1.5 cubic meters for the crew to live and work on, even in a small diesel submarine.
Do you think it is necessary for fighter craft to have commanders?Yes.
Piranha-MF class Fighter 108 tons 3 Crew 28 BP TCS 2 TH 35 EM 0
16296 km/s Armour 1-2 Shields 0-0 HTK 1 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0 PPV 0.9
Maint Life 33.94 Years MSP 16 AFR 1% IFR 0.0% 1YR 0 5YR 0 Max Repair 17.5 MSP
Magazine 9
Lieutenant Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 0.3 days Morale Check Required
Chaimberlin-Sherman Internal Fusion Drive EP35.00 (1) Power 35 Fuel Use 2241.05% Signature 35 Explosion 25%
Fuel Capacity 7,000 Litres Range 0.5 billion km (8 hours at full power)
Chaimberlin-Sherman Size 1 Box Launcher (7) Missile Size: 1 Hangar Reload 50 minutes MF Reload 8 hours
Chaimberlin-Sherman Size 2.0 Box Launcher (1) Missile Size: 2 Hangar Reload 70 minutes MF Reload 11 hours
Chaimberlin-Sherman Missile Fire Control FC5-R1 (50%) (1) Range 5.4m km Resolution 1
Chaimberlin-Sherman Size 2 Anti-Ship Missile (1) Speed: 50,000 km/s End: 0.2m Range: 0.7m km WH: 3 Size: 2 TH: 233/140/70
Chaimberlin-Sherman Size 1 Anti-Ship Missile (7) Speed: 50,000 km/s End: 0.1m Range: 0.4m km WH: 1 Size: 1 TH: 216/130/65
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 Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction
Honestly it doesn't matter to me whether or not fighters need or dont need commanders - I wan't the ability to exclude specific classes from auto assignment so if I have 100s of defence satellites in orbit of a planet my lieutenants don't get taken up by them. Its not a problem for commanding officers but since auto assignment considers command positions over bridge crew it hampers my ability to field tactical officers etc.
Honestly it doesn't matter to me whether or not fighters need or dont need commanders - I wan't the ability to exclude specific classes from auto assignment so if I have 100s of defence satellites in orbit of a planet my lieutenants don't get taken up by them. Its not a problem for commanding officers but since auto assignment considers command positions over bridge crew it hampers my ability to field tactical officers etc.What I would go for is priory 0 taking surplus officers and immediately giving them up when a better post opens up, and negative priority not getting anyone assigned.
Then there would be hundreds of lieutenants with no job openings when they get promoted from do-nothing positions. There is the number of academies needed and the needless expense of building them. Ships that are RPed as unmanned shouldn't have officers assigned to them. The problem isn't that there aren't enough lieutenants, but that not every ship should have one.Honestly it doesn't matter to me whether or not fighters need or dont need commanders - I wan't the ability to exclude specific classes from auto assignment so if I have 100s of defence satellites in orbit of a planet my lieutenants don't get taken up by them. Its not a problem for commanding officers but since auto assignment considers command positions over bridge crew it hampers my ability to field tactical officers etc.
Why not just build more military academies? Then you would have more lieutenants?
A test fighter in my game for example need 30t living space for 20 people for a 3 month deployment operation... it would not be very reasonable to think that 30 cubic meters is anywhere near enough for that. That is what 15 square meters of space to live on roughly.Submarine crews have been crammed into pretty small spaces for a few months at a time. 1.5 cubic meters per person would certainly be tight, but if you throw in hot-bunking it's probably possible. Well, provided you're ignoring food stores. Three months of preserved food is probably going to put that over the edge.
The bridge of most ships are about 50t which would be about 25 square meters or a 5*5 room, that is VERY small as you need all the equipment in there too... not just the people working there.
The bridge is easier - since (small) ships work without a bridge, most of the fundamental control equipment must not be coming out of the bridge tonnage at all.
Submarines are a pretty good example and even if they are cramped the crew don't live in 1.5 cubic meters... you don't only count their sleeping quarters but all living space on the ship. A fighter and FAC also include all of the working space as well into this space. It also include ALL the space for the equipment, bulkheads, water and life support machinery etc. So perhaps two third or as little as half of the space is actual space for the crew to move around in, tops.
I think I remember that Steve said something a few years ago about using submarines and living space as one of the measurements for the space needed for space ship in Aurora so he clearly have thought this through more than once.
Submarines have allot more space than 1.5 cubic meters for the crew to live and work on, even in a small diesel submarine.
If you are dedicated to determining the level of reality of Aurora, you might consider historical airship designs, such as those used in the early 20th century. In that context, the volume consideration based on liquid hydrogen is much more relevant and interesting than for submarines immersed in water.
Star Wars sizes have no reason aside from rule of cool. The sizes came first, then afterward few nerds were hired to come up with the filling for the ships. To be fair to them, they came up with a lot of good reasons why the SW ships are the way they are but in the end, the real reason is that George Lucas thought that big numbers are cooler than small numbers.
but in the end, the real reason is that George Lucas thought that big numbers are cooler than small numbers.
I disagree. I think the reason is because it's much more relatable to real world fighters airplanes which from WW1 until today have almost all of them been single pilot planes.
If you look at star wars in general the genius about it is that all locations, characters and vehicles are in some way instantly relatable to real world counterparts which helps massively to build immersion and feel attached to the world.
I do agree that you should be able to opt out of using commanding officers on small crafts in favour of other more important positions such as executive officer or commander of a CIC on a capital ship. Fighter should have the lowest of priorities followed by FAC and then as bridge crew of capital ships. It is is irritating when a fighter gets commanded before you get a CIC officer on your most important ships for example.
I do agree that you should be able to opt out of using commanding officers on small crafts in favour of other more important positions such as executive officer or commander of a CIC on a capital ship. Fighter should have the lowest of priorities followed by FAC and then as bridge crew of capital ships. It is is irritating when a fighter gets commanded before you get a CIC officer on your most important ships for example.
I thought it was already possible to do this by setting the Commander Priority of your larger ships to be higher than that of the fighters. Haven't tested it myself but doesn't this work?
A test fighter in my game for example need 30t living space for 20 people for a 3 month deployment operation... it would not be very reasonable to think that 30 cubic meters is anywhere near enough for that. That is what 15 square meters of space to live on roughly.Submarine crews have been crammed into pretty small spaces for a few months at a time. 1.5 cubic meters per person would certainly be tight, but if you throw in hot-bunking it's probably possible. Well, provided you're ignoring food stores. Three months of preserved food is probably going to put that over the edge.
The bridge of most ships are about 50t which would be about 25 square meters or a 5*5 room, that is VERY small as you need all the equipment in there too... not just the people working there.
The bridge is easier - since (small) ships work without a bridge, most of the fundamental control equipment must not be coming out of the bridge tonnage at all.
Submarines are a pretty good example and even if they are cramped the crew don't live in 1.5 cubic meters... you don't only count their sleeping quarters but all living space on the ship. A fighter and FAC also include all of the working space as well into this space. It also include ALL the space for the equipment, bulkheads, water and life support machinery etc. So perhaps two third or as little as half of the space is actual space for the crew to move around in, tops.
I think I remember that Steve said something a few years ago about using submarines and living space as one of the measurements for the space needed for space ship in Aurora so he clearly have thought this through more than once.
Submarines have allot more space than 1.5 cubic meters for the crew to live and work on, even in a small diesel submarine.
If you are dedicated to determining the level of reality of Aurora, you might consider historical airship designs, such as those used in the early 20th century. In that context, the volume consideration based on liquid hydrogen is much more relevant and interesting than for submarines immersed in water.
I do agree that you should be able to opt out of using commanding officers on small crafts in favour of other more important positions such as executive officer or commander of a CIC on a capital ship. Fighter should have the lowest of priorities followed by FAC and then as bridge crew of capital ships. It is is irritating when a fighter gets commanded before you get a CIC officer on your most important ships for example.
I thought it was already possible to do this by setting the Commander Priority of your larger ships to be higher than that of the fighters. Haven't tested it myself but doesn't this work?
Yes... but officers still prioritise commanding a vessel over commanding a secondary position on a capital ship. At least I'm sure that is what happens.
I was thinking in terms of buoyant forces. Any ship would need to displace sufficient volume of the fluid in which it is immersed to be able to float. Buoyancy is the bridge between ship mass and ship volume and any equipment on board a ship will affect the overall ship displacement volume. If one considers the vacuum of space to be extremely low density hydrogen gas instead of true vacuum, one might be interested in working out how large a ship would need to be to float on a hypothetical ocean of liquid hydrogen.Mass*gravity, and buoyant forces simply don't exist in free-fall, which is what a ballistic orbit is.
This brings up another point: Priority for secondary positions. In many navies officers are expected to have XO experience before they are assigned their own command, so there is an argument for filling secondary positions before command of lower priority ships. I think Steve didn't do that precisely so that fighters would get pilots, but a way to set those priorities might help some people. The big question of course is how to set it up so that: A) it works and B) people can understand how it works.I do agree that you should be able to opt out of using commanding officers on small crafts in favour of other more important positions such as executive officer or commander of a CIC on a capital ship. Fighter should have the lowest of priorities followed by FAC and then as bridge crew of capital ships. It is is irritating when a fighter gets commanded before you get a CIC officer on your most important ships for example.
I thought it was already possible to do this by setting the Commander Priority of your larger ships to be higher than that of the fighters. Haven't tested it myself but doesn't this work?
Yes... but officers still prioritise commanding a vessel over commanding a secondary position on a capital ship. At least I'm sure that is what happens.
This is exactly what I am referring too. In one of my games as a way of handling PPV I would build 100s of these 400t missile defense satellites. Their commander priority was set to lowest which meant that every one of my important ships/fighters got their commanders but none of the capital ships were getting their bridge crews unless they were set to "senior officer" which means they had commanders fill bridge positions instead.
And no I do not want commodores captaining every ship either.
I was thinking in terms of buoyant forces. Any ship would need to displace sufficient volume of the fluid in which it is immersed to be able to float. Buoyancy is the bridge between ship mass and ship volume and any equipment on board a ship will affect the overall ship displacement volume. If one considers the vacuum of space to be extremely low density hydrogen gas instead of true vacuum, one might be interested in working out how large a ship would need to be to float on a hypothetical ocean of liquid hydrogen.Mass*gravity, and buoyant forces simply don't exist in free-fall, which is what a ballistic orbit is.This brings up another point: Priority for secondary positions. In many navies officers are expected to have XO experience before they are assigned their own command, so there is an argument for filling secondary positions before command of lower priority ships. I think Steve didn't do that precisely so that fighters would get pilots, but a way to set those priorities might help some people. The big question of course is how to set it up so that: A) it works and B) people can understand how it works.I do agree that you should be able to opt out of using commanding officers on small crafts in favour of other more important positions such as executive officer or commander of a CIC on a capital ship. Fighter should have the lowest of priorities followed by FAC and then as bridge crew of capital ships. It is is irritating when a fighter gets commanded before you get a CIC officer on your most important ships for example.
I thought it was already possible to do this by setting the Commander Priority of your larger ships to be higher than that of the fighters. Haven't tested it myself but doesn't this work?
Yes... but officers still prioritise commanding a vessel over commanding a secondary position on a capital ship. At least I'm sure that is what happens.
This is exactly what I am referring too. In one of my games as a way of handling PPV I would build 100s of these 400t missile defense satellites. Their commander priority was set to lowest which meant that every one of my important ships/fighters got their commanders but none of the capital ships were getting their bridge crews unless they were set to "senior officer" which means they had commanders fill bridge positions instead.
And no I do not want commodores captaining every ship either.
I do agree that you should be able to opt out of using commanding officers on small crafts in favour of other more important positions such as executive officer or commander of a CIC on a capital ship. Fighter should have the lowest of priorities followed by FAC and then as bridge crew of capital ships. It is is irritating when a fighter gets commanded before you get a CIC officer on your most important ships for example.
I thought it was already possible to do this by setting the Commander Priority of your larger ships to be higher than that of the fighters. Haven't tested it myself but doesn't this work?
Yes... but officers still prioritise commanding a vessel over commanding a secondary position on a capital ship. At least I'm sure that is what happens.
True, but the guys on the star destroyers tended to outlive both.I do agree that you should be able to opt out of using commanding officers on small crafts in favour of other more important positions such as executive officer or commander of a CIC on a capital ship. Fighter should have the lowest of priorities followed by FAC and then as bridge crew of capital ships. It is is irritating when a fighter gets commanded before you get a CIC officer on your most important ships for example.
I thought it was already possible to do this by setting the Commander Priority of your larger ships to be higher than that of the fighters. Haven't tested it myself but doesn't this work?
Yes... but officers still prioritise commanding a vessel over commanding a secondary position on a capital ship. At least I'm sure that is what happens.
"I would rather be first in that little fighter than second in that deathstar" once said a famous Space Roman.