Aurora 4x
C# Aurora => C# Bureau of Design => Topic started by: Cobaia on June 12, 2020, 03:29:11 PM
-
Hello,
I'm currently trying to understand which figther would be better at PD Mission.
These are my designs:
Sting class Fighter (P) 500 tons 26 Crew 773.9 BP TCS 10 TH 854 EM 0
85510 km/s Armour 1-5 Shields 0-0 HTK 3 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0 PPV 3
Maint Life 1.80 Years MSP 96 AFR 20% IFR 0.3% 1YR 37 5YR 555 Max Repair 426.88 MSP
Lieutenant Commander Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 1 days Morale Check Required
Rolls Royce Fighter PCAMD - FC0.16 - TR100 - HS4.6 - EP953.76 (1) Power 853.8 Fuel Use 337.86% Signature 853.76 Explosion 29%
Fuel Capacity 39 000 Litres Range 4.2 billion km (13 hours at full power)
Arsenal Corp Railgun - D4/1 - ROF5 - R090 (1x4) Range 75 000km TS: 85 510 km/s Power 3-16 RM 90 000 km ROF 5
Skynet Fighter Railgun BFC - R075 - TS5 - EH2 (1) Max Range: 75 000 km TS: 5 000 km/s 87 73 60 47 33 20 7 0 0 0
Rolls Royce PCAMPP - PB100 - PO16.0 (1) Total Power Output 16 Exp 50%
Skynet Fighter MASS - R12 - EH2 (1) GPS 10 Range 12.6m km MCR 1.1m km Resolution 1
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction
Bite class Fighter (P) 500 tons 22 Crew 783.8 BP TCS 10 TH 854 EM 0
85510 km/s Armour 1-5 Shields 0-0 HTK 2 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0 PPV 3.66
Maint Life 2.05 Years MSP 98 AFR 20% IFR 0.3% 1YR 31 5YR 467 Max Repair 426.88 MSP
Lieutenant Commander Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 1 days Morale Check Required
Rolls Royce Figther PCAMD - FC0.16 - TR100 - HS4.6 - EP953.76 (1) Power 853.8 Fuel Use 337.86% Signature 853.76 Explosion 29%
Fuel Capacity 30 000 Litres Range 3.2 billion km (10 hours at full power)
Arsenal Corp Twin Fighter Gauss - ROF8 - R60 - ACC8 Turret (3x16) Range 60 000km TS: 60000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 60 000 km ROF 5
Skynet Figther Gauss BFC - R075 - TS60 - EH2 (1) Max Range: 75 000 km TS: 60 000 km/s 87 73 60 47 33 20 7 0 0 0
Skynet Fighter MASS - R12 - EH2 (1) GPS 10 Range 12.6m km MCR 1.1m km Resolution 1
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction
First, if you have any comments on the designs it would be appreciated.
Second, As is, my understanding says that the railgun variant of the fighters would be the best approach due to higher Tracking Speed. Is this sentence true?
-
Ah, the typical gauss vs railgun :)
First of all, your railgun fighter has a BFC with tracking speed too low for its weapon. Your BFC should have tracking speed as close as your weapon.
Second, you don't need a turreted gauss on a fighter. The fighter's high speed means hull-mounted weapons have higher tracking speed than your 60kkm/s turret.
Third, since you already have the gauss RoF 8 tech, a hull-mounted gauss will be slightly better than a railgun. They have the same shot per HS (4 per 3HS), while the gauss gun does not require a power plant.
-
Ah, the typical gauss vs railgun :)
First of all, your railgun fighter has a BFC with tracking speed too low for its weapon. Your BFC should have tracking speed as close as your weapon.
Second, you don't need a turreted gauss on a fighter. The fighter's high speed means hull-mounted weapons have higher tracking speed than your 60kkm/s turret.
Third, since you already have the gauss RoF 8 tech, a hull-mounted gauss will be slightly better than a railgun. They have the same shot per HS (4 per 3HS), while the gauss gun does not require a power plant.
Well then that clears the waters. Those pieces of information were missing from my thought process, the BFC TS for the railgun figther and unturreted version of the gauss. That way I can make a smaller figther.
Thank you!
-
I haven't quite gotten far enough in any of my campaigns to confirm, but my understanding is that higher tech gauss cannons are more hull-space efficient than high tech rail guns. However, at low tech levels, rail guns are more spatially efficient. So there is an argument to be made for using rail gun fighters at low tech levels instead of larger gauss turreted corvettes or FACs.
However, being difficult as I am, I have been employing gauss cannons exclusively on my fighter designs for my recent campaigns.
Another test I want to perform is a comparison between lasers set to area defense vs gauss set to FDF. Lasers have a significant range advantage over gauss.
-
Another question I can't wrap around, what about the accuracy modifier? Since you are making the gauss smaller the ACC is going down. What about the Railgun ACC vs the Mini Gauss ACC? Is that a factor?
-
I think because the BFC of the railgun fighter has a tracking speed of 5000, the tracking of the railgun will be limited to 5000.
Also I think the gauss fighter doesn't benefit from the turret because the turret tracking is lower than the speed of the ship.
If I'm reading this right, the gauss cannon fighter has 48 shots at 60% accuracy so I would be inclined to say that it has a large advantage in weight of fire, irrespective of the tracking issues, and should be better at shooting enemy missiles.
-
You can calculate the efficiency of your point defense like this. First get the base accuracy of your fire control at 10k km against the missiles using the box on the right hand side of the ship design window. For example you could set this 35000 km/s to see the fire control accuracy against missiles traveling that speed. These are the numbers beside your fire control.
Then you can figure it out like this:
Railgun = 4 shots @ 87% accuracy = 4 * 0.87 = 3.48 expected hits
Gauss Turrets = 48 shots (3x16) @ 8% of 87% accuracy = 48 * 0.87 * 0.08 = 3.34 expected hits
So in this case even if your turret tracking speed was the same as the fighter speed the rail gun would still be better. I suspect that's because you're wasting some tonnage on turret mounts. At RoF8 Railguns and Gauss should have the same performance per HS.
-
Another question I can't wrap around, what about the accuracy modifier? Since you are making the gauss smaller the ACC is going down. What about the Railgun ACC vs the Mini Gauss ACC? Is that a factor?
On an average sense, a railgun firing 4 shots with 100% accuracy each is equivalent to a 3HS (50%) gauss firing 8 shots with 50% accuracy each. Factoring in other accuracy bonuses/penalties, in general, the railguns will have less variance in its performance than the 3HS gauss.
-
So, I'm going to go a bit off-track but... what do you guys actually use PD fighters for? Apart from escorting bombers, obviously.
I prefer PD warships for other tasks. So I'm curious to hear if people have creative uses for PD fighters.
I mean, of course you can use fighters to double up as PD for anything...but I always found PD warships to be a better source of PD for fleets, and of course PD bases to protects planets or orbitals.
-
I haven't quite gotten far enough in any of my campaigns to confirm, but my understanding is that higher tech gauss cannons are more hull-space efficient than high tech rail guns. However, at low tech levels, rail guns are more spatially efficient. So there is an argument to be made for using rail gun fighters at low tech levels instead of larger gauss turreted corvettes or FACs.
However, being difficult as I am, I have been employing gauss cannons exclusively on my fighter designs for my recent campaigns.
Another test I want to perform is a comparison between lasers set to area defense vs gauss set to FDF. Lasers have a significant range advantage over gauss.
Gauss 8 is superior to a pair of 10cm railguns for PD due to not needing a reactor. Slower Gauss guns are only competitive because they can be turreted.
Range penalties tend to make area defence a niche option at best. Note that ADF mode almost* always fires at longer ranges than FDF mode. If your accurate range is less than 10x the enemy missile speed then they will overdrive your laser and you won't get second shots in. You also need a 2x ROF advantage vs the enemy launchers to get second shots in after the first volley. An FDF Gauss 3 will still outperform such a setup.
*There is a rare corner case where ADF can fire at point blank but it is difficult to set up and unreliable at best.
So, I'm going to go a bit off-track but... what do you guys actually use PD fighters for? Apart from escorting bombers, obviously.
I prefer PD warships for other tasks. So I'm curious to hear if people have creative uses for PD fighters.
I mean, of course you can use fighters to double up as PD for anything...but I always found PD warships to be a better source of PD for fleets, and of course PD bases to protects planets or orbitals.
PD fighters are an early game option for system defence and are an acceptable supplement for fleet PD. They can also catch and kill enemy fighters.
-
Gauss 8 is superior to a pair of 10cm railguns for PD due to not needing a reactor. Slower Gauss guns are only competitive because they can be turreted.
Range penalties tend to make area defence a niche option at best. Note that ADF mode almost* always fires at longer ranges than FDF mode. If your accurate range is less than 10x the enemy missile speed then they will overdrive your laser and you won't get second shots in. You also need a 2x ROF advantage vs the enemy launchers to get second shots in after the first volley. An FDF Gauss 3 will still outperform such a setup.
*There is a rare corner case where ADF can fire at point blank but it is difficult to set up and unreliable at best.
I honestly do not know what laser area PD is used for besides role play. A turretted laser not only would be massive because of the required tracking, negating the "firing twice" bonus, any other fleet that you are defending would have to be at best 2.8m away (which gives you like a 0.01 acc modifier since its the absolute max range). If your fleets flying are that close you might as well just have them merge together.
I tend to use 2 sizes of gauss, the max size which I call "Flak" and 25% which are my standard gauss weapons. Instead of using laser area PD just use gauss final defensive.
And if you want to escort a fleet without joining them together just use gauss area defence which is almost as good anyways.
-
As for OPs post, as people have said, gauss is more space efficient in the PD role however note that railguns allow your fighter to be OK at PD while also being great at:
a- hunting other fighters with their higher-per-shot damage railguns
b- less good but still better than gauss at swarming larger warships with railgun shots
You could say that railgun fighters can partially fill the role of both PD fighters and meson fighters even if not individually excelling in each particular role.
-
Gauss 8 is superior to a pair of 10cm railguns for PD due to not needing a reactor. Slower Gauss guns are only competitive because they can be turreted.
Range penalties tend to make area defence a niche option at best. Note that ADF mode almost* always fires at longer ranges than FDF mode. If your accurate range is less than 10x the enemy missile speed then they will overdrive your laser and you won't get second shots in. You also need a 2x ROF advantage vs the enemy launchers to get second shots in after the first volley. An FDF Gauss 3 will still outperform such a setup.
*There is a rare corner case where ADF can fire at point blank but it is difficult to set up and unreliable at best.
I honestly do not know what laser area PD is used for besides role play. A turretted laser not only would be massive because of the required tracking, negating the "firing twice" bonus, any other fleet that you are defending would have to be at best 2.8m away (which gives you like a 0.01 acc modifier since its the absolute max range). If your fleets flying are that close you might as well just have them merge together.
I tend to use 2 sizes of gauss, the max size which I call "Flak" and 25% which are my standard gauss weapons. Instead of using laser area PD just use gauss final defensive.
And if you want to escort a fleet without joining them together just use gauss area defence which is almost as good anyways.
FDF is supposed to protect other fleets at the same location. If it doesn't work then that is a bug. ADF won't actually work in that case because the missiles will hit before the ADF guns can fire.
-
You can calculate the efficiency of your point defense like this. First get the base accuracy of your fire control at 10k km against the missiles using the box on the right hand side of the ship design window. For example you could set this 35000 km/s to see the fire control accuracy against missiles traveling that speed. These are the numbers beside your fire control.
Then you can figure it out like this:
Railgun = 4 shots @ 87% accuracy = 4 * 0.87 = 3.48 expected hits
Gauss Turrets = 48 shots (3x16) @ 8% of 87% accuracy = 48 * 0.87 * 0.08 = 3.34 expected hits
So in this case even if your turret tracking speed was the same as the fighter speed the rail gun would still be better. I suspect that's because you're wasting some tonnage on turret mounts. At RoF8 Railguns and Gauss should have the same performance per HS.
@rainyday
I'm placing the values as follows:
Range Bands: My BFC TS
Target Speed: Incoming Missile Speed
Using the following Inputs:
Range Bands: 60.000 km/s
Target Speed: 199.600 km/s (My Size 6 ASM Missile Speed)
With those inputs I'm getting 6% chance to hit.
So 48 * 0.06 * 0.08 = 0.23 Expected hits.
Is this correct?
-
You can calculate the efficiency of your point defense like this. First get the base accuracy of your fire control at 10k km against the missiles using the box on the right hand side of the ship design window. For example you could set this 35000 km/s to see the fire control accuracy against missiles traveling that speed. These are the numbers beside your fire control.
Then you can figure it out like this:
Railgun = 4 shots @ 87% accuracy = 4 * 0.87 = 3.48 expected hits
Gauss Turrets = 48 shots (3x16) @ 8% of 87% accuracy = 48 * 0.87 * 0.08 = 3.34 expected hits
So in this case even if your turret tracking speed was the same as the fighter speed the rail gun would still be better. I suspect that's because you're wasting some tonnage on turret mounts. At RoF8 Railguns and Gauss should have the same performance per HS.
@rainyday
I'm placing the values as follows:
Range Bands: My BFC TS
Target Speed: Incoming Missile Speed
Using the following Inputs:
Range Bands: 60.000 km/s
Target Speed: 199.600 km/s (My Size 6 ASM Missile Speed)
With those inputs I'm getting 0.08% chance to hit.
So 48 * 0.08 * 0.08 = 0.30 Expected hits.
Is this correct?
FDF is always at 10k km, so the BFC gives 87% CTH due to range.
The gauss guns get 8% accuracy.
That speed difference gives 30% CTH.
48*0.08*0.87*0.3 = 1.00 expected hits.
-
You can calculate the efficiency of your point defense like this. First get the base accuracy of your fire control at 10k km against the missiles using the box on the right hand side of the ship design window. For example you could set this 35000 km/s to see the fire control accuracy against missiles traveling that speed. These are the numbers beside your fire control.
Then you can figure it out like this:
Railgun = 4 shots @ 87% accuracy = 4 * 0.87 = 3.48 expected hits
Gauss Turrets = 48 shots (3x16) @ 8% of 87% accuracy = 48 * 0.87 * 0.08 = 3.34 expected hits
So in this case even if your turret tracking speed was the same as the fighter speed the rail gun would still be better. I suspect that's because you're wasting some tonnage on turret mounts. At RoF8 Railguns and Gauss should have the same performance per HS.
@rainyday
I'm placing the values as follows:
Range Bands: My BFC TS
Target Speed: Incoming Missile Speed
Using the following Inputs:
Range Bands: 60.000 km/s
Target Speed: 199.600 km/s (My Size 6 ASM Missile Speed)
With those inputs I'm getting 0.08% chance to hit.
So 48 * 0.08 * 0.08 = 0.30 Expected hits.
Is this correct?
FDF is always at 10k km, so the BFC gives 87% CTH due to range.
The gauss guns get 8% accuracy.
That speed difference gives 30% CTH.
48*0.08*0.87*0.3 = 1.00 expected hits.
I apologize but I'm missing something.
So since 10k km is the FDF base my inputs are:
Using the following Inputs:
Range Bands: 60.000 km/s
Target Speed: 10.000 km/s
When I compute those values where do I get the 87% from? I don't see it anywhere.
Also where did the 30% came from?
-
You can calculate the efficiency of your point defense like this. First get the base accuracy of your fire control at 10k km against the missiles using the box on the right hand side of the ship design window. For example you could set this 35000 km/s to see the fire control accuracy against missiles traveling that speed. These are the numbers beside your fire control.
Then you can figure it out like this:
Railgun = 4 shots @ 87% accuracy = 4 * 0.87 = 3.48 expected hits
Gauss Turrets = 48 shots (3x16) @ 8% of 87% accuracy = 48 * 0.87 * 0.08 = 3.34 expected hits
So in this case even if your turret tracking speed was the same as the fighter speed the rail gun would still be better. I suspect that's because you're wasting some tonnage on turret mounts. At RoF8 Railguns and Gauss should have the same performance per HS.
@rainyday
I'm placing the values as follows:
Range Bands: My BFC TS
Target Speed: Incoming Missile Speed
Using the following Inputs:
Range Bands: 60.000 km/s
Target Speed: 199.600 km/s (My Size 6 ASM Missile Speed)
With those inputs I'm getting 0.08% chance to hit.
So 48 * 0.08 * 0.08 = 0.30 Expected hits.
Is this correct?
Final PD always happens at 10kkm range, however changing the range band to 60kkm means the first number showing there is the accuracy at 60kkm. So the range band does not help with understanding that. (Also, gauss range above 10kkm does not help with final PD :) )
In your first post of your design, the range band is by default 10kkm.
Skynet Fighter Railgun BFC - R075 - TS5 - EH2 (1) Max Range: 75 000 km TS: 5 000 km/s 87 73 60 47 33 20 7 0 0 0
which means the BFC has an accuracy of 87% at 10kkm.
Alternatively, without relying on the range band readout, you can calculate your BFC's accuracy at 10kkm as
1 - 10000/(BFC max range) = 1 - 10000/75000 = 86.67%
The beam PD accuracy is calculated as
( min( 1, tracking/(target speed)*(1+tracking bonus) ) * (PD range penalty) - ECM ) * (CIC bonus) * (crew bonus) * (1/2 of commanding officer's tactical bonus) * (gauss size penalty)
Ignoring the tracking/crew bonus and stuff, and assume no ECM/ECCM difference, your hit chance against your missile with a single shot is (assuming your tracking speed is 60kkm/s
60 / 199.6 * 0.87 / 12 = 2.179%
I used 1/12 rather than 0.08 as the gauss size penalty since that is the 'actual' hit chance of a 1/12 sized (0.5HS) gauss.
So your gun firing 48 shots per tick has an average shot down of 48*2.179% = 1.046, so on average one missile per tick.
-
So, I'm going to go a bit off-track but... what do you guys actually use PD fighters for? Apart from escorting bombers, obviously.
I prefer PD warships for other tasks. So I'm curious to hear if people have creative uses for PD fighters.
I mean, of course you can use fighters to double up as PD for anything...but I always found PD warships to be a better source of PD for fleets, and of course PD bases to protects planets or orbitals.
I have discovered the following problem in my games:
If enemy missiles can close to my own ships in less than 1 five second game increment, I cannot target them and they always hit, unless I use CIWS.
So my assumption is that with faster ships I will be able to eventually target incoming missiles by matching ship speed to missile speed appropriately.
-
So, I'm going to go a bit off-track but... what do you guys actually use PD fighters for? Apart from escorting bombers, obviously.
I prefer PD warships for other tasks. So I'm curious to hear if people have creative uses for PD fighters.
I mean, of course you can use fighters to double up as PD for anything...but I always found PD warships to be a better source of PD for fleets, and of course PD bases to protects planets or orbitals.
I have discovered the following problem in my games:
If enemy missiles can close to my own ships in less than 1 five second game increment, I cannot target them and they always hit, unless I use CIWS.
So my assumption is that with faster ships I will be able to eventually target incoming missiles by matching ship speed to missile speed appropriately.
What you need in that situation is longer range active sensors.
-
So, I'm going to go a bit off-track but... what do you guys actually use PD fighters for? Apart from escorting bombers, obviously.
I prefer PD warships for other tasks. So I'm curious to hear if people have creative uses for PD fighters.
I mean, of course you can use fighters to double up as PD for anything...but I always found PD warships to be a better source of PD for fleets, and of course PD bases to protects planets or orbitals.
I have discovered the following problem in my games:
If enemy missiles can close to my own ships in less than 1 five second game increment, I cannot target them and they always hit, unless I use CIWS.
So my assumption is that with faster ships I will be able to eventually target incoming missiles by matching ship speed to missile speed appropriately.
What you need in that situation is longer range active sensors.
I am able to detect and track missiles outside of the range of my 100% CTH gauss cannon turrets, but my turrets never fire once missiles are in range and only my CIWS's fire. Fortunately my CIWS's seem capable of destroying all hostile salvos I have thus far encountered.
-
So, I'm going to go a bit off-track but... what do you guys actually use PD fighters for? Apart from escorting bombers, obviously.
I prefer PD warships for other tasks. So I'm curious to hear if people have creative uses for PD fighters.
I mean, of course you can use fighters to double up as PD for anything...but I always found PD warships to be a better source of PD for fleets, and of course PD bases to protects planets or orbitals.
I have discovered the following problem in my games:
If enemy missiles can close to my own ships in less than 1 five second game increment, I cannot target them and they always hit, unless I use CIWS.
So my assumption is that with faster ships I will be able to eventually target incoming missiles by matching ship speed to missile speed appropriately.
What you need in that situation is longer range active sensors.
I am able to detect and track missiles outside of the range of my 100% CTH gauss cannon turrets, but my turrets never fire once missiles are in range and only my CIWS's fire. Fortunately my CIWS's seem capable of destroying all hostile salvos I have thus far encountered.
Did you set your Pd in area PD mode? Final fire is guaranteed to fire if the missile is detected before impact, but area PD is not guaranteed.
-
So, I'm going to go a bit off-track but... what do you guys actually use PD fighters for? Apart from escorting bombers, obviously.
I prefer PD warships for other tasks. So I'm curious to hear if people have creative uses for PD fighters.
I mean, of course you can use fighters to double up as PD for anything...but I always found PD warships to be a better source of PD for fleets, and of course PD bases to protects planets or orbitals.
I have discovered the following problem in my games:
If enemy missiles can close to my own ships in less than 1 five second game increment, I cannot target them and they always hit, unless I use CIWS.
So my assumption is that with faster ships I will be able to eventually target incoming missiles by matching ship speed to missile speed appropriately.
What you need in that situation is longer range active sensors.
I am able to detect and track missiles outside of the range of my 100% CTH gauss cannon turrets, but my turrets never fire once missiles are in range and only my CIWS's fire. Fortunately my CIWS's seem capable of destroying all hostile salvos I have thus far encountered.
Did you set your Pd in area PD mode? Final fire is guaranteed to fire if the missile is detected before impact, but area PD is not guaranteed.
Gauss fire controls were set to FDF in my tests. Also, FWIW, my gauss tech range modifier is 40km. Incoming missiles are approximately 30-40 km/s and my own turret tracking speed is 16 km/s.
I understand my turrets are slow but I would still expect them to fire?
-
So, I'm going to go a bit off-track but... what do you guys actually use PD fighters for? Apart from escorting bombers, obviously.
I prefer PD warships for other tasks. So I'm curious to hear if people have creative uses for PD fighters.
I mean, of course you can use fighters to double up as PD for anything...but I always found PD warships to be a better source of PD for fleets, and of course PD bases to protects planets or orbitals.
I have discovered the following problem in my games:
If enemy missiles can close to my own ships in less than 1 five second game increment, I cannot target them and they always hit, unless I use CIWS.
So my assumption is that with faster ships I will be able to eventually target incoming missiles by matching ship speed to missile speed appropriately.
What you need in that situation is longer range active sensors.
I am able to detect and track missiles outside of the range of my 100% CTH gauss cannon turrets, but my turrets never fire once missiles are in range and only my CIWS's fire. Fortunately my CIWS's seem capable of destroying all hostile salvos I have thus far encountered.
Did you set your Pd in area PD mode? Final fire is guaranteed to fire if the missile is detected before impact, but area PD is not guaranteed.
Gauss fire controls were set to FDF in my tests. Also, FWIW, my gauss tech range modifier is 40km. Incoming missiles are approximately 30-40 km/s and my own turret tracking speed is 16 km/s.
I understand my turrets are slow but I would still expect them to fire?
Is there ECM on the incoming missiles? Do you have ECCM on your CIWS? Do you have ECCM for your gauss BFC?
-
So, I'm going to go a bit off-track but... what do you guys actually use PD fighters for? Apart from escorting bombers, obviously.
I prefer PD warships for other tasks. So I'm curious to hear if people have creative uses for PD fighters.
I mean, of course you can use fighters to double up as PD for anything...but I always found PD warships to be a better source of PD for fleets, and of course PD bases to protects planets or orbitals.
I have discovered the following problem in my games:
If enemy missiles can close to my own ships in less than 1 five second game increment, I cannot target them and they always hit, unless I use CIWS.
So my assumption is that with faster ships I will be able to eventually target incoming missiles by matching ship speed to missile speed appropriately.
What you need in that situation is longer range active sensors.
I am able to detect and track missiles outside of the range of my 100% CTH gauss cannon turrets, but my turrets never fire once missiles are in range and only my CIWS's fire. Fortunately my CIWS's seem capable of destroying all hostile salvos I have thus far encountered.
Did you set your Pd in area PD mode? Final fire is guaranteed to fire if the missile is detected before impact, but area PD is not guaranteed.
Gauss fire controls were set to FDF in my tests. Also, FWIW, my gauss tech range modifier is 40km. Incoming missiles are approximately 30-40 km/s and my own turret tracking speed is 16 km/s.
I understand my turrets are slow but I would still expect them to fire?
Is there ECM on the incoming missiles? Do you have ECCM on your CIWS? Do you have ECCM for your gauss BFC?
1. Unknown (I assume yes)
2. Not sure (I have ECCM on my gauss BFC and I don't see a way to assign ECCM to CIWS)
3. Yes
-
Is there ECM on the incoming missiles? Do you have ECCM on your CIWS? Do you have ECCM for your gauss BFC?
1. Unknown (I assume yes)
2. Not sure (I have ECCM on my gauss BFC and I don't see a way to assign ECCM to CIWS)
3. Yes
ECCM on CIWS is added during the component design phase.
So far I haven't seen any issue for final PD not firing during my various tests. So if you can reproduce this reliably, you should report it as a bug.
-
Is there ECM on the incoming missiles? Do you have ECCM on your CIWS? Do you have ECCM for your gauss BFC?
1. Unknown (I assume yes)
2. Not sure (I have ECCM on my gauss BFC and I don't see a way to assign ECCM to CIWS)
3. Yes
ECCM on CIWS is added during the component design phase.
So far I haven't seen any issue for final PD not firing during my various tests. So if you can reproduce this reliably, you should report it as a bug.
Further testing required...
-
Is there ECM on the incoming missiles? Do you have ECCM on your CIWS? Do you have ECCM for your gauss BFC?
1. Unknown (I assume yes)
2. Not sure (I have ECCM on my gauss BFC and I don't see a way to assign ECCM to CIWS)
3. Yes
ECCM on CIWS is added during the component design phase.
So far I haven't seen any issue for final PD not firing during my various tests. So if you can reproduce this reliably, you should report it as a bug.
Further testing required...
Another possibility... did you actually turn on your active sensors to detect those missiles? Since you may just detect them on your thermal sensor so your BFC will not work... but CIWS will aways work regardless if there is an active lock on or not...
-
Is there ECM on the incoming missiles? Do you have ECCM on your CIWS? Do you have ECCM for your gauss BFC?
1. Unknown (I assume yes)
2. Not sure (I have ECCM on my gauss BFC and I don't see a way to assign ECCM to CIWS)
3. Yes
ECCM on CIWS is added during the component design phase.
So far I haven't seen any issue for final PD not firing during my various tests. So if you can reproduce this reliably, you should report it as a bug.
Further testing required...
Another possibility... did you actually turn on your active sensors to detect those missiles? Since you may just detect them on your thermal sensor so your BFC will not work... but CIWS will aways work regardless if there is an active lock on or not...
Yes. Active sensors were engaged.
-
Yes. Active sensors were engaged.
For the sake of pedantry, were the guns assigned to the PD FC?
-
Yes. Active sensors were engaged.
For the sake of pedantry, were the guns assigned to the PD FC?
Yes. Though no targets were assigned as all potential targets were outside of the firing range of the applicable guns and the game throws an annoying interrupt error in this situation. I was running on 5 second increments all the same as I had beam fighters and boarding craft closing on the hostile fleet.
-
Yes. Active sensors were engaged.
For the sake of pedantry, were the guns assigned to the PD FC?
Yes. Though no targets were assigned as all potential targets were outside of the firing range of the applicable guns and the game throws an annoying interrupt error in this situation. I was running on 5 second increments all the same as I had beam fighters and boarding craft closing on the hostile fleet.
Final PD does not need manual targeting or setting BFC to open fire though.
-
Yes. Active sensors were engaged.
For the sake of pedantry, were the guns assigned to the PD FC?
Yes. Though no targets were assigned as all potential targets were outside of the firing range of the applicable guns and the game throws an annoying interrupt error in this situation. I was running on 5 second increments all the same as I had beam fighters and boarding craft closing on the hostile fleet.
PD modes shouldn't need targets assigned. Is the PD FC set to open fire?
-
PD modes shouldn't need targets assigned. Is the PD FC set to open fire?
It doesn't need that either for final defensive fire.
-
PD modes shouldn't need targets assigned. Is the PD FC set to open fire?
It doesn't need that either for final defensive fire.
It shouldn't need that, but there have been bug reports about it.
-
PD modes shouldn't need targets assigned. Is the PD FC set to open fire?
It doesn't need that either for final defensive fire.
It shouldn't need that, but there have been bug reports about it.
Final Defensive Fire used to not work properly but it has been fixed.
-
I figured out my problem with some help from others in another thread. In my case I had CIWS and gauss on the same ship. CIWS ALWAYS FIRES FIRST! My CIWS was so effective that my gauss turrets never needed to fire.
-
I figured out my problem with some help from others in another thread. In my case I had CIWS and gauss on the same ship. CIWS ALWAYS FIRES FIRST! My CIWS was so effective that my gauss turrets never needed to fire.
To add to this, the point defence weapons on the targetted ships also fire before the other ships in the fleet. If the target of the missiles can fend for itself completely then the rest of the fleet wont get to shoot. If it can't then a random friendly ship with gauss weapons are picked and only when that ship runs out of weapons does the next ship in the fleet come in to assist.
Also I find CIWS and gauss co-existing on the same ship an interesting choice. What is the benefit of the mix?
-
I figured out my problem with some help from others in another thread. In my case I had CIWS and gauss on the same ship. CIWS ALWAYS FIRES FIRST! My CIWS was so effective that my gauss turrets never needed to fire.
To add to this, the point defence weapons on the targetted ships also fire before the other ships in the fleet. If the target of the missiles can fend for itself completely then the rest of the fleet wont get to shoot. If it can't then a random friendly ship with gauss weapons are picked and only when that ship runs out of weapons does the next ship in the fleet come in to assist.
Also I find CIWS and gauss co-existing on the same ship an interesting choice. What is the benefit of the mix?
Gauss cannons are always better in any fleet situation. Period. Because all the gauss cannons of the fleet will defend the targeted ships, and their number adds up.
There is no benefit in normal situations IF the ship already has sensors and fire controls anyway.
A CIWS is literally a gauss cannon with self contained sensor and BFC. As such, if you already have a sensor in the fleet and a BFC on the ship, there's no reason to put CIWS.
And yes, the targeting rules of for incoming missile volleys have changed, but that does not even matter. Assuming you have multiple ships with PD anyway, say 3 ships with 600 tons each, 600 tons of CIWS will always be inferior to 1800 tons of gauss across the three ships.
Of course you can use CIWS for RP, but that's an entirely different matter. CIWS in a fleet have no mathematical justification. And the more ships you have, the more having CIWS on multiple ships will be a waste. After all CIWS can only defend their own ship, and the enemy will not target all the ships at once, so a lot of the CIWS will end up unused. Space which you could have used for more gauss cannons.
CIWS make sense for lone ships or civilians or orbital platforms.
EDIT: to clarify, I use CIWS on important capital ships because I am an RP guy. To me RP stands above all. But if the question is: Does it make mathematical sense in a fleet. Then the answer is no.
-
I figured out my problem with some help from others in another thread. In my case I had CIWS and gauss on the same ship. CIWS ALWAYS FIRES FIRST! My CIWS was so effective that my gauss turrets never needed to fire.
To add to this, the point defence weapons on the targetted ships also fire before the other ships in the fleet. If the target of the missiles can fend for itself completely then the rest of the fleet wont get to shoot. If it can't then a random friendly ship with gauss weapons are picked and only when that ship runs out of weapons does the next ship in the fleet come in to assist.
Also I find CIWS and gauss co-existing on the same ship an interesting choice. What is the benefit of the mix?
It was an experiment to determine the relative effectiveness of each system. Unfortunately I got the firing sequence backwards so my gauss turrets remain untested and the experiment did not quite work as planned.
-
I figured out my problem with some help from others in another thread. In my case I had CIWS and gauss on the same ship. CIWS ALWAYS FIRES FIRST! My CIWS was so effective that my gauss turrets never needed to fire.
To add to this, the point defence weapons on the targetted ships also fire before the other ships in the fleet. If the target of the missiles can fend for itself completely then the rest of the fleet wont get to shoot. If it can't then a random friendly ship with gauss weapons are picked and only when that ship runs out of weapons does the next ship in the fleet come in to assist.
Also I find CIWS and gauss co-existing on the same ship an interesting choice. What is the benefit of the mix?
Gauss cannons are always better in any fleet situation. Period. Because all the gauss cannons of the fleet will defend the targeted ships, and their number adds up.
There is no benefit in normal situations IF the ship already has sensors and fire controls anyway.
A CIWS is literally a gauss cannon with self contained sensor and BFC. As such, if you already have a sensor in the fleet and a BFC on the ship, there's no reason to put CIWS.
And yes, the targeting rules of for incoming missile volleys have changed, but that does not even matter. Assuming you have multiple ships with PD anyway, say 3 ships with 600 tons each, 600 tons of CIWS will always be inferior to 1800 tons of gauss across the three ships.
Of course you can use CIWS for RP, but that's an entirely different matter. CIWS in a fleet have no mathematical justification. And the more ships you have, the more having CIWS on multiple ships will be a waste. After all CIWS can only defend their own ship, and the enemy will not target all the ships at once, so a lot of the CIWS will end up unused. Space which you could have used for more gauss cannons.
CIWS make sense for lone ships or civilians or orbital platforms.
EDIT: to clarify, I use CIWS on important capital ships because I am an RP guy. To me RP stands above all. But if the question is: Does it make mathematical sense in a fleet. Then the answer is no.
I believe there is an argument to be made for sticking a CIWS on a commercial ship as a commercial ship cannot mount a gauss turret. So in this edge case CIWS is the superiors system because there is no viable alternative. However, I don't ever do this because I try avoid situations where my commercial ships would be fired upon at all.
-
Jump shock is another situation where CIWS is valuable, since I think it is unaffected (correct me if I'm wrong, haven't tried it myself).
-
You can calculate the efficiency of your point defense like this. First get the base accuracy of your fire control at 10k km against the missiles using the box on the right hand side of the ship design window. For example you could set this 35000 km/s to see the fire control accuracy against missiles traveling that speed. These are the numbers beside your fire control.
Then you can figure it out like this:
Railgun = 4 shots @ 87% accuracy = 4 * 0.87 = 3.48 expected hits
Gauss Turrets = 48 shots (3x16) @ 8% of 87% accuracy = 48 * 0.87 * 0.08 = 3.34 expected hits
So in this case even if your turret tracking speed was the same as the fighter speed the rail gun would still be better. I suspect that's because you're wasting some tonnage on turret mounts. At RoF8 Railguns and Gauss should have the same performance per HS.
U know I am really glad I am rereading this post, I never really quite understood/used that box on the right.
I knew it would need at something otherwise Steve would have not placed it there, but let's be honest: how many things are there but we still confortably using calculators or spread sheets?
-
CIWS is actually mainly intended as a defensive weapon for commercial designs as CIWS is not a military component.
The only really positive effect of CIWS on a military vessel are breaching ships during a jump point attack and ships that often act on their own.
Other than that then regular Gauss turrets are always going to be preferable as you rarely move fleets with only one ship.
If you want to militarise your survey ships then adding some CIWS and box launched AMM can actually save them from being destroyed. Although, from a resource perspective it probably is more expensive to do that than have the occasional surveyor destroyed, but Aurora is not about min/max in that sense my opinion. YOU decide what is acceptable and how important the lives of the crew and officers are valued in your society.
-
Hijacking this thread to ask whether escort PD fighters do any good against size 1 AMMs that keep getting spammed at my bombers whenever they get in close.
-
Railgun Fighters do well against those, give 'em 10cm Railguns with Capacitor 3, Railgun Launch Velocity 20,000 km or better and pair them with an FCS that has at least 20,000 km range... and that is the bare minimum.
30,000 km Launch Velocity and 60,000 km FCS Max Range is much more comfortable, while 20,000 km Launch Velocity and 40,000 km FCS Max Range is cost-effective. Make sure that the FCS tracking speed is matched to the fighter's own top speed if that speed exceeds your base FCS Tracking Speed, i.e. the Tracking Speed that your Beam FCS has before changing the Tracking Speed in the Component Design window.
Also, make sure all of your PD Fighters have at least a small Res 1 Active Sensor. An additional fighter dedicated to sensors is very helpful, but it is wise to ensure that it's destruction does not result in a mission kill for the entire escort formation. Of note, you could also create a bomber with AMM "Canisters" by adding some extra Box Launchers dedicated to holding a missile stage comprised of nothing but AMMs set to deploy immediately upon launch. A 20 Ton Res 1 Active Sensor and a 5 Ton Res 1 Missile FCS make a good pairing for each bomber, so when you detect the missiles, you can launch the AMMs.
Consider using 2-3 layers of armor, depending on your tech; it makes them that much harder to shoot down. A Small Craft ECM 1 module is nice to have as well, gives you a 10% evasion against missiles that lack ECCM, which is a common trait of typical AMMs as they tend to work best as cheap, high speed, high agility spam missiles.
-
Railgun Fighters do well against those, give 'em 10cm Railguns with Capacitor 3, Railgun Launch Velocity 20,000 km or better and pair them with an FCS that has at least 20,000 km range... and that is the bare minimum.
30,000 km Launch Velocity and 60,000 km FCS Max Range is much more comfortable, while 20,000 km Launch Velocity and 40,000 km FCS Max Range is cost-effective. Make sure that the FCS tracking speed is matched to the fighter's own top speed if that speed exceeds your base FCS Tracking Speed, i.e. the Tracking Speed that your Beam FCS has before changing the Tracking Speed in the Component Design window.
Also, make sure all of your PD Fighters have at least a small Res 1 Active Sensor. An additional fighter dedicated to sensors is very helpful, but it is wise to ensure that it's destruction does not result in a mission kill for the entire escort formation. Of note, you could also create a bomber with AMM "Canisters" by adding some extra Box Launchers dedicated to holding a missile stage comprised of nothing but AMMs set to deploy immediately upon launch. A 20 Ton Res 1 Active Sensor and a 5 Ton Res 1 Missile FCS make a good pairing for each bomber, so when you detect the missiles, you can launch the AMMs.
Consider using 2-3 layers of armor, depending on your tech; it makes them that much harder to shoot down. A Small Craft ECM 1 module is nice to have as well, gives you a 10% evasion against missiles that lack ECCM, which is a common trait of typical AMMs as they tend to work best as cheap, high speed, high agility spam missiles.
ECM 1 might not be so valuable against AMMs for fighters. If the accuracy of the missile is high enough, the ECM can be negated. For example, if your fighter is 20kkm/s, against a AMM that has 100% chance to hit a 22kkm/s target. Then this missile will have 110% hit rate against this fighter, or 100% when it has ECM1.
Also, due to the shock damage change, even AMMs now have a chance to induce shock damage on fighters. So armor on fighters is much less valuable than before.
-
Railgun Fighters do well against those, give 'em 10cm Railguns with Capacitor 3, Railgun Launch Velocity 20,000 km or better and pair them with an FCS that has at least 20,000 km range... and that is the bare minimum.
30,000 km Launch Velocity and 60,000 km FCS Max Range is much more comfortable, while 20,000 km Launch Velocity and 40,000 km FCS Max Range is cost-effective. Make sure that the FCS tracking speed is matched to the fighter's own top speed if that speed exceeds your base FCS Tracking Speed, i.e. the Tracking Speed that your Beam FCS has before changing the Tracking Speed in the Component Design window.
Also, make sure all of your PD Fighters have at least a small Res 1 Active Sensor. An additional fighter dedicated to sensors is very helpful, but it is wise to ensure that it's destruction does not result in a mission kill for the entire escort formation. Of note, you could also create a bomber with AMM "Canisters" by adding some extra Box Launchers dedicated to holding a missile stage comprised of nothing but AMMs set to deploy immediately upon launch. A 20 Ton Res 1 Active Sensor and a 5 Ton Res 1 Missile FCS make a good pairing for each bomber, so when you detect the missiles, you can launch the AMMs.
Consider using 2-3 layers of armor, depending on your tech; it makes them that much harder to shoot down. A Small Craft ECM 1 module is nice to have as well, gives you a 10% evasion against missiles that lack ECCM, which is a common trait of typical AMMs as they tend to work best as cheap, high speed, high agility spam missiles.
ECM 1 might not be so valuable against AMMs for fighters. If the accuracy of the missile is high enough, the ECM can be negated. For example, if your fighter is 20kkm/s, against a AMM that has 100% chance to hit a 22kkm/s target. Then this missile will have 110% hit rate against this fighter, or 100% when it has ECM1.
Also, due to the shock damage change, even AMMs now have a chance to induce shock damage on fighters. So armor on fighters is much less valuable than before.
What is shock damage?
-
Iceranger:
ECM 1 might not be so valuable against AMMs for fighters. If the accuracy of the missile is high enough, the ECM can be negated. For example, if your fighter is 20kkm/s, against a AMM that has 100% chance to hit a 22kkm/s target. Then this missile will have 110% hit rate against this fighter, or 100% when it has ECM1.
Also, due to the shock damage change, even AMMs now have a chance to induce shock damage on fighters. So armor on fighters is much less valuable than before.
Example AMM:
Missile Size: 1.00 MSP (2.500 Tons) Warhead: 1 Radiation Damage: 1 Manoeuvre Rating: 40
Speed: 52,800 km/s Fuel: 50 Flight Time: 14.5 seconds Range: 765,600 km
Cost Per Missile: 2.167 Development Cost: 217
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 2112.0% 3k km/s 704.0% 5k km/s 422.4% 10k km/s 211.2%
Materials Required
Tritanium 0.255
Gallicite 1.912
Fuel: 50
Railgun Figher
New Class class Escort 500 tons 27 Crew 189.1 BP TCS 10 TH 204 EM 0
20439 km/s Armour 1-5 Shields 0-0 HTK 4 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0 PPV 3
Maint Life 8.46 Years MSP 127 AFR 10% IFR 0.1% 1YR 3 5YR 47 Max Repair 102.00 MSP
Lieutenant Commander Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 0.1 days Morale Check Required
Internal Fusion Drive EP204.00 (1) Power 204.0 Fuel Use 1336.70% Signature 204.00 Explosion 30%
Fuel Capacity 9,000 Litres Range 0.2 billion km (3 hours at full power)
10cm Railgun V20/C3 (1x4) Range 20,000km TS: 20,439 km/s Power 3-3 RM 20,000 km ROF 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Beam Fire Control R40-TS20000 (1) Max Range: 40,000 km TS: 20,000 km/s 25 17 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tokamak Fusion Reactor R3 (1) Total Power Output 3 Exp 5%
Active Search Sensor AS1-R1 (1) GPS 2 Range 1.8m km MCR 160.6k km Resolution 1
ECM 10
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction
Armored Escort
New Class - Copy class Escort 500 tons 24 Crew 177.7 BP TCS 10 TH 204 EM 0
20438 km/s Armour 2-5 Shields 0-0 HTK 3 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0 PPV 3
Maint Life 1.64 Years MSP 80 AFR 100% IFR 1.4% 1YR 35 5YR 526 Max Repair 102.00 MSP
Lieutenant Commander Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 0.1 days Morale Check Required
Internal Fusion Drive EP204.00 (1) Power 204.0 Fuel Use 1336.70% Signature 204.00 Explosion 30%
Fuel Capacity 9,000 Litres Range 0.2 billion km (3 hours at full power)
10cm Railgun V20/C3 (1x4) Range 20,000km TS: 20,438 km/s Power 3-3 RM 20,000 km ROF 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Beam Fire Control R40-TS20000 (1) Max Range: 40,000 km TS: 20,000 km/s 25 17 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tokamak Fusion Reactor R3 (1) Total Power Output 3 Exp 5%
Active Search Sensor AS1-R1 (1) GPS 2 Range 1.8m km MCR 160.6k km Resolution 1
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction
Fast Escort:
New Class - Copy class Escort 500 tons 26 Crew 197.6 BP TCS 10 TH 222 EM 0
22243 km/s Armour 1-5 Shields 0-0 HTK 3 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0 PPV 3
Maint Life 1.53 Years MSP 80 AFR 100% IFR 1.4% 1YR 39 5YR 583 Max Repair 111.00 MSP
Lieutenant Commander Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 0.1 days Morale Check Required
Internal Fusion Drive EP222.00 (1) Power 222.0 Fuel Use 1281.36% Signature 222.00 Explosion 30%
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres Range 0.3 billion km (3 hours at full power)
10cm Railgun V20/C3 (1x4) Range 20,000km TS: 22,243 km/s Power 3-3 RM 20,000 km ROF 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Beam Fire Control R40-TS21875 (1) Max Range: 40,000 km TS: 21,875 km/s 27 18 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tokamak Fusion Reactor R3 (1) Total Power Output 3 Exp 5%
Active Search Sensor AS1-R1 (1) GPS 2 Range 1.8m km MCR 160.6k km Resolution 1
ECM 10
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction
- I'm not entirely convinced that the ECM 1 is less valuable after building the above examples, but that's not the point of this reply. I feel the point about shock damage is misleading, and so in the spirit of the thread I'll chime in. The value of armor isn't against shock damage, it's against sandblasting. The Escort invests 25 Tons for it's ECM 1,and while the Example AMM could and would spam it to oblivion and then some, BasileusMaximos is doing something very wrong to get within 766,000 km of the enemy in a bomber to start with. The Armored Escort on the other hand, even at Composite Armor Tech, invests a mere 35 tons t literally double the amount of armor that the Example AMM must grind through. The Fast Escort is simply faster than 20,000 km/s so the ECM 1 is still valuable even against the Example AMM.
- Armor is probably a lot less valuable than it was in VB6, but I feel like you might be devaluing it a bit overtly. Shock Damage is inherently RNG, while sandblasting the armor is not. 35 Tons for double the endurance is a tremendous return on investment, and cheaper than shields to boot. ECM 1 is a nice to have, but ECM 2 or 3 would certainly be much better. I think a lot of it comes down to design, but this thread is called "PD Fighter Analysis" so I felt compelled to chime in... even if I'm splitting hairs. I did learn something though! I learned that AMMs scale way harder than I previously thought. >.>; @BasileusMaximos - I would encourage you to make a new thread about this, so we could better help you. :) The range of your bombers, ASMs, the range of the enemy AMMs, their tech level, your tech level... these things matter a lot. We'd need that to give you a good solution.
-
Shock Damage is damage that goes through the armor. That is to say Shock Damage is applied directly the internal structure, i.e. Crew Quarters, Engines, Weapons Systems, Fuel Tanks, and so on. HtK, which stands for, "Hit to Kill" is a measure of your ship's overall toughness, it's basically your Hit Points. I don't know if HtK takes armor into account or not.
-
Shock damage is additionnal damage whose probability depends on the damage and the total HS.
cf : http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg111676#msg111676
-
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg111676#msg111676
Well then, a warhead of 1 versus a 500 Ton (10HS) hull would have a 10% chance of doing shock damage. That would mean 1 in 10 AMMs would go through, so the Armored Escort could take the 9 hits and maybe see 1 Shock Damage, 2 at most before the armor gave out given how Aurora calculates RNG. So that armor is even more effective than I thought! :D The shock damage would be up to 2 points though if it did hit, but honestly that's not a big deal overall as by the time such an AMM managed to inflict shock damage the armor is almost gone anyway... so whats the extra point of damage really worth at that rate?
-
Iceranger:
ECM 1 might not be so valuable against AMMs for fighters. If the accuracy of the missile is high enough, the ECM can be negated. For example, if your fighter is 20kkm/s, against a AMM that has 100% chance to hit a 22kkm/s target. Then this missile will have 110% hit rate against this fighter, or 100% when it has ECM1.
Also, due to the shock damage change, even AMMs now have a chance to induce shock damage on fighters. So armor on fighters is much less valuable than before.
- I'm not entirely convinced that the ECM 1 is less valuable after building the above examples, but that's not the point of this reply. I feel the point about shock damage is misleading, and so in the spirit of the thread I'll chime in. The value of armor isn't against shock damage, it's against sandblasting. The Escort invests 25 Tons for it's ECM 1,and while the Example AMM could and would spam it to oblivion and then some, BasileusMaximos is doing something very wrong to get within 766,000 km of the enemy in a bomber to start with. The Armored Escort on the other hand, even at Composite Armor Tech, invests a mere 35 tons t literally double the amount of armor that the Example AMM must grind through. The Fast Escort is simply faster than 20,000 km/s so the ECM 1 is still valuable even against the Example AMM.
- Armor is probably a lot less valuable than it was in VB6, but I feel like you might be devaluing it a bit overtly. Shock Damage is inherently RNG, while sandblasting the armor is not. 35 Tons for double the endurance is a tremendous return on investment, and cheaper than shields to boot. ECM 1 is a nice to have, but ECM 2 or 3 would certainly be much better. I think a lot of it comes down to design, but this thread is called "PD Fighter Analysis" so I felt compelled to chime in... even if I'm splitting hairs. I did learn something though! I learned that AMMs scale way harder than I previously thought. >.>; @BasileusMaximos - I would encourage you to make a new thread about this, so we could better help you. :) The range of your bombers, ASMs, the range of the enemy AMMs, their tech level, your tech level... these things matter a lot. We'd need that to give you a good solution.
The point of armor is never to protect against shock damage, it is never the way how armor works anyway. In VB6 armored fighters allow you to defend against sandblasting without worrying about the probability of shock damage. That's why I say armor now is less valuable than before (in VB6). Not sure how that is over devaluing it.