Aurora 4x

C# Aurora => C# Bureau of Design => Topic started by: Borealis4x on July 05, 2020, 10:07:07 PM

Title: Independent Cruiser
Post by: Borealis4x on July 05, 2020, 10:07:07 PM

I want my cruisers to stand apart from my destroyers, frigates and corvettes by being able to operate independently. That means giving them beam, sensor, missiles, AMM, and perhaps even limited hangar capacity. Oh, a standard troop bay for a company of marines. 

Is this doable or even advisable assuming you're working with a ship of 50-90k tons?

Title: Re: Independent Cruiser
Post by: Lord Solar on July 05, 2020, 10:19:57 PM

Here's what I have for a similar idea as a sort of generalist cruiser.  I've built these but they haven't seen combat yet, only on patrols and other missions.

Code: [Select]

John Paul Jones class Light Cruiser      30,000 tons       670 Crew       4,057.9 BP       TCS 600    TH 3,000    EM 1,200
5000 km/s      Armour 7-86       Shields 40-333       HTK 197      Sensors 6/8/0/0      DCR 25      PPV 108.72
Maint Life 1.34 Years     MSP 2,110    AFR 464%    IFR 6.5%    1YR 1,253    5YR 18,802    Max Repair 500 MSP
Troop Capacity 100 tons     Boarding Capable    Magazine 1,338   
Captain    Control Rating 2   BRG   CIC   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Morale Check Required   

Stichus & Faustinianus Elite  Ion Drive  EP1000.00 (3)    Power 3000    Fuel Use 17.68%    Signature 1000    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 2,705,000 Litres    Range 91.8 billion km (212 days at full power)
E-MAG Defexor 2 Beta S20 / R333 Shields (2)     Recharge Time 333 seconds (0.1 per second)

Chiles Quad "Shredder" Turret Quad Chile Ordinance Tribarrel PD Gauss Cannon R100-17.00 Turret (6x16)    Range 10,000km     TS: 14000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 10,000 km    ROF 5       
RapidTrac M1 Beam Fire Control R16-TS16000 (1)     Max Range: 16,000 km   TS: 16,000 km/s     38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cortreas Assault Sytems Launcher Mk 2 Size 6.00 Missile Launcher (75.00% Reduction) (13)     Missile Size: 6    Rate of Fire 40
Thunderfire M2 Missile Fire Control FC88-R120 (50%) (1)     Range 88.4m km    Resolution 120

Fallis Watchmaster M6 Active Search Sensor AS80-R120 (1)     GPS 12600     Range 80.7m km    Resolution 120
Drumstick 3 Active Search Sensor AS2-R1 (1)     GPS 3     Range 2.3m km    MCR 251.8k km    Resolution 1
Drago-Dilbert M3 Thermal Sensor TH1.0-6 (1)     Sensitivity 6     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  19.4m km
AG Celedon M3 EM Sensor EM1.0-8 (1)     Sensitivity 8     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  22.4m km

ECCM-1 (1)         ECM 10

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Title: Re: Independent Cruiser
Post by: Ulzgoroth on July 05, 2020, 11:02:22 PM

I'd suggest that being able to operate independently doesn't mean being able to do absolutely everything at once.

An independent warship needs to be able to defend itself from missiles (and maybe gun fighters), to take a hit, to see what's happening, and to engage the enemy somehow. But is building 2-3 missile suites and a beam arsenal really the best way to do that? Does your ship really need two different kits each for attack and defense? Why not just pick one each of offensive beams or missiles and defensive beams or missiles? (I'd tend to not lean hard on missiles for an independent cruiser, since operating alone means not having a collier handy, but YMMV.)

My tiny 8000 ton battleships have all the features they'd strictly need to operate solo. They'd be toast if they ran into a serious opponent that way, of course, because they've only got one spinal laser and a dozen gauss shots per tick. But they can spot an enemy, weather a light missile bombardment, and kill something that they get to grips with without relying on anything outside their own hull.

Sticking a boarding bay and a hangar on is obviously taking tonnage you could use for other things, but I wouldn't argue against it - having a boarding/landing force and a few parasite craft can certainly come in handy. And at the size you're talking about dropping 3-4 ktons on bays isn't a killer.

Title: Re: Independent Cruiser
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on July 06, 2020, 05:08:20 AM

I would agree with the above...

An independent cruiser with the role of scouting and patrolling will need a few things to be important. It need to be able to see without being seen and it will need to be able to defend against missiles and smaller craft and possible have a decent beam complement. If you try to build a cruiser to do everything then it will not really be good for the purpose you are giving it. If you are going to compare it with some other function it should be more like an escort rather than an offensive ship.

A ship that run on its own will never be able to overwhelm any decent enemy force so there really is no reason to even try to make them do that.

When I build a cruiser for this purpose I generally want it to have reduced thermal engines, especially if it is decently big like 30kt or bigger. You will need a decent hangar for scouting crafts. You probably will need to use a bit more engine space than normal too if you want both good range and speed.
For defences then decent armour and good shields would be one priority then a decently good anti missile defence with a combination of beam PD and AMM.
I would but a decent compliment of beam weapons and perhaps some smaller missile launchers to engage enemy fighter crafts or just bring a slightly bigger hangar and use interceptor crafts for that. 

I still would not put CIWS on these ships as you probably still will find it likely that you send them in pairs or with other ships as often as you send them of alone.

Sensors then passive sensors needs to be more than decent, I would put at least a size five or larger of each passive on any ship of this kind in addition to any scout ships they carry in their hangars. For active sensors I would concentrate on a good resolution 1 and perhaps a resolution 5 sensor if I have anti-craft missiles on the actual ship. If the game allowed me to switch on active sensors independently I would likely have some basic large resolution sensors on it too. But personally I would rely on a smaller sensor scout to provide that service.           

Having troops on your ships is always nice. At least in multi-faction games as you can take over enemy passive listening posts if they left them unguarded. But then also bring a fast drop ship so you don't have to reveal the cruiser every time you want to drop some troops some place. A ship also need cargo shuttles to load troops sent down to a planet while if memory serves me right a fighter sized drop capable ship don't as they can land and pick the troops up.     

To be honest I rarely build super specialist ships at all in the game unless they are pretty small like below 6-10kt or so. After this ships need to be able to perform in some capacity independently or I just need a ship of a bigger design. This is why military ships tend to grow bigger and bigger in my campaigns all the time. Smaller ships get relegated to patrol and escort duties. It also make the logistics of naval yards easier as I have fewer models of ships so it is easier to expand them to make bigger versions as time goes on.

Title: Re: Independent Cruiser
Post by: hubgbf on July 06, 2020, 07:16:42 AM

Quote from: BasileusMaximos on July 05, 2020, 10:07:07 PM

I want my cruisers to stand apart from my destroyers, frigates and corvettes by being able to operate independently. That means giving them beam, sensor, missiles, AMM, and perhaps even limited hangar capacity. Oh, a standard troop bay for a company of marines. 

Is this doable or even advisable assuming you're working with a ship of 50-90k tons?

Let's say you merge a 10ktons missile cruiser with a 10 kTons scout ship, a 10 kTons AMM ship, a 10kTons beam ship, a 10kTons carrier and a 10 kTons DCA ship.

You'll have a generalist ship as you want.

Let's compare both.

About engine/fuel : same tonnage
About weapon/sensors : same tonnage, perhaps a bit less for generalist if you have redundant sensors on your ships, yet you'll want to keep redundancies.
Bridge, auxiliary control ans so on : A lower tonnage as you'll need only one of each
Officers : less officers needed in generalist design, so perhaps you'll have better bonuses, or perhaps you'll have worst as you cannot choose the best officer for each post, depends on your officer pool.
Crew : same tonnage, or a bit less for generalist due to to less bridges
ECCM and ECM : a small gain in ECM for generalist, as you need only 1 or 2, not 6, and perhaps a small gain in ECCM too as you won't need ECCM for missile and beam weapon at the same moment most of the time.
Jump engine : same tonnage if every ship has its own jump engine, but the RP cost will be far higher as you'll need a 60 kTons jump engine, and not 6x10kTons jump engine. If you use a dedicated jump design, you'll need only a third of the HS for specialized ships (or a sixth if high tech enough).
Defense : Armor cost will be the same I think, shield will be better used if grouped, and you'll be less vulnerable to shock damage. Yet you are more vulnerable to meson, one shot to the magazine and you lost everything. Another point, when damaged, your generalist ship will loose speed, if one of your specialized ship is damaged, the rest can go full speed and has a better chance to flee.

On a tons per tons basis, a generalist design will be more costly in RP and less efficient due to jump engine HS.
If you stabilize every jup point, or play with stabilized jump point option, a generalist design cost a bit less HS and same RP.

On a strategic/economic point of view :
It will be far longer to build/refit. A 60 kTons ship is far longer to build than 6x10 kTons, at least if you have enough shipyard to avoid constant retooling and can build all ships at the same moment.
For maintenance, it will be the same cost in C# (far less in VB6).
One slipway at 60 kTons now need the same number of workers than 6x10 kTons one. No difference there.
But you'll lack flexibility. You have to fight against a heavy missile opponent? Add a 10 kTons AMM ship. You need to saturate ennemy defense without improving your defense? Add a 10 kTons missile ship. With one design, your weapon/defence mix cannot be changed.

But there is a huge difference : detection
You'll have 6x the electromagnetic and thermal strength, so you'll be seen before seing.
And who see first, fire first, and in a better position.
If you have a better tech, it won't change a lot of thing, but if you have worst tech, you'll be fired upon without being able to retaliate.

Conclusion: specialize your ships.


I prefer to put at least some defense on every ship, and minimal sensors, I even put CIWS on critical ships like jump and flag bridge to be sure to have a better protection there, but I go with specialized ships but for 2 cases :
- DCA ship who also have at least a spinal weapon to be able to be used as beam ships (or to start intercepting missile at a higher range)
- exploration ships which operates usually alone. They have CIWS for defense, and hangar for scout fighters, but also a small magazine to allow them to be used as small offensive carriers when needed. Sometimes I even put one big missile launcher in them, to be able to launch a long range missile probe. Yet I keep them small, with thermal reduction, and without shields (and slow as they do not move often, most of the time they wait for their scout fighter to perform their task).

And they are not designed to fight, they are designed to scout and flee to tell their big brother that there is a bully somewhere.

Title: Re: Independent Cruiser
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on July 06, 2020, 08:47:11 AM

In terms of generalist ship I do agree that trying to make a ship do everything equally well is probably not very efficient. The problem the way I see it is how you need to utilise shipyards and how you will perform upgrades etc which make ships with many systems cost less in both time and resources over time as well as being more efficient in the field as every ship can potentially be used for multiple mission types depending on their characteristics.

The bigger a ship is the more they also can incorporate multiple versions of the same ships with some small differences. While smaller ships can be built faster when that is a priority. Although I have never found myself that I can't produce more ships than I can possibly support if I produce at full capacity all the time. So the time benefit is only really important when you are pressured and on the defensive and then you probably want really small ships like FAC that can be produced very fast and be very powerful in terms of offence and scouting for it's tonnage but not so much for long range warfare (without carriers).

My generalist ships almost always have a primary function or objective to fill in the fleet but they also will have to be able to fulfil secondary roles as well. A fleet carriers primary role would be to combat enemy fleets in deep space, their secondary role is to provide aggressive or passive scouting capabilities or sometimes simply to escort an assault fleet on their way to invade an enemy planet.

Every military ship a required to have some beam weapons for self defence as having beam weapons on the ship means they can't be ignored during beam combat. And spreading out the beam weapons will improve your chances in beam combat allot when it happens.

The same rule as above is also try for missile combat as well, spreading out PD on many platforms means more power to stop enemy attacks as they can't just target your missile defence ships outright and make the rest of the fleet a sitting duck.

You might have some ships with the primary role of escort for example which in my world means a combination of beam weapons, PD and AMM and possibly some anti-craft missile defence systems as well. Anything that can threaten the main mission of the fleet they are suppose to protect.

If have an enemy that for some reason don't use beam weapons or missiles then obviously I would change my designs accordingly to respond to that. But that is more about adapting to the situation at hand than anything else. As I tend to play multi-faction games I will face all manner of systems not just one... I also need to defend against more sophisticated designs and doctrines than what NPRs use as well and opponents that also adapt.

Therefore I can't rely on ships i might have tomorrow as I need the ship I built yesterday today... ;)

In addition to this I want each class of ships to fill a primary purpose so I see no point if building 100 small destroyers when 20 four times as large ones are more powerful (and cheaper) as large ships can combine defences and durability and many other items and become more effective that way. Unless I want to have them in 50 places at once there is no point having that many ships unless there are some specific reasons to. Therefore I tend to increase the size and keep the number of smaller ships reasonable and then just build more of the bigger ones instead. So I might have 50 10kt destroyers and 25 40kt Cruisers... I have less half the numbers in cruisers but twice the amount in tonnage. In tonnage I tend to have allot more in the larger segment than in the smaller even if I then have more ships in smaller sizes. But the numbers completely depend on my needs and if I'm at war or not...     

Title: Re: Independent Cruiser
Post by: Borealis4x on July 06, 2020, 09:37:58 AM

I hear people saying that diversifying a ship to use ASMs and beams is a bad idea. But what about having a primarily beam ship that carries a few short range (1m km at most) very fast and very strong missile to be used as an 'i win' button against other ships? Think of the spaceship version of a Roman Pilum javelin that is thrown right before your melee infantry hits the enemies lines.

Can missiles that can reach a target in under 15 second bypass all PD?

Title: Re: Independent Cruiser
Post by: Borealis4x on July 06, 2020, 10:25:49 AM

Quote from: Jorgen_CAB on July 06, 2020, 08:47:11 AM

Every military ship a required to have some beam weapons for self defence as having beam weapons on the ship means they can't be ignored during beam combat. And spreading out the beam weapons will improve your chances in beam combat allot when it happens.

You mean a primary beam weapon, not a PD right? That is an interesting take; I tired myself to make escort frigates (8k tons) with AMM and PD as well as a spinal beam but I just couldn't fit it all. But I'm glad to hear someone agrees that having primary beam ability to ward off ships that get too close is just as important as having PD ability for escorts.

Title: Re: Independent Cruiser
Post by: Iceranger on July 06, 2020, 10:48:53 AM

Quote from: BasileusMaximos on July 06, 2020, 09:37:58 AM

I hear people saying that diversifying a ship to use ASMs and beams is a bad idea. But what about having a primarily beam ship that carries a few short range (1m km at most) very fast and very strong missile to be used as an 'i win' button against other ships? Think of the spaceship version of a Roman Pilum javelin that is thrown right before your melee infantry hits the enemies lines.

Can missiles that can reach a target in under 15 second bypass all PD?

Unfortunately, in C# there is a change that eliminates the point-blank torpedoes that can bypass PD. http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg111431#msg111431

Title: Re: Independent Cruiser
Post by: Zincat on July 06, 2020, 10:51:17 AM

Quote from: Iceranger on July 06, 2020, 10:48:53 AM

Unfortunately, in C# there is a change that eliminates the point-blank torpedoes that can bypass PD. http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg111431#msg111431

Hmmmmm  ;D
I find it a very weird way to put it. It should be, fortunately in C# that can no longer happen and PD will always shoot  ;D

Title: Re: Independent Cruiser
Post by: Ulzgoroth on July 06, 2020, 11:17:23 AM

Quote from: BasileusMaximos on July 06, 2020, 09:37:58 AM

I hear people saying that diversifying a ship to use ASMs and beams is a bad idea. But what about having a primarily beam ship that carries a few short range (1m km at most) very fast and very strong missile to be used as an 'i win' button against other ships? Think of the spaceship version of a Roman Pilum javelin that is thrown right before your melee infantry hits the enemies lines.

Can missiles that can reach a target in under 15 second bypass all PD?

A few torpedoes won't be an 'I win' button against anything that posed a threat in the first place, and by being few will be relatively weak against point defense. You could use very short range missiles instead of offensive beams if that fits your inclination or tech base better...but what's the benefit of mixing them?

Title: Re: Independent Cruiser
Post by: Borealis4x on July 06, 2020, 12:17:23 PM

Quote from: Iceranger on July 06, 2020, 10:48:53 AM

Quote from: BasileusMaximos on July 06, 2020, 09:37:58 AM

I hear people saying that diversifying a ship to use ASMs and beams is a bad idea. But what about having a primarily beam ship that carries a few short range (1m km at most) very fast and very strong missile to be used as an 'i win' button against other ships? Think of the spaceship version of a Roman Pilum javelin that is thrown right before your melee infantry hits the enemies lines.

Can missiles that can reach a target in under 15 second bypass all PD?

Unfortunately, in C# there is a change that eliminates the point-blank torpedoes that can bypass PD. http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg111431#msg111431

Thats a shame. Is it possible to make missiles so fast that they evade most PD?

Quote from: Ulzgoroth on July 06, 2020, 11:17:23 AM

Quote from: BasileusMaximos on July 06, 2020, 09:37:58 AM

I hear people saying that diversifying a ship to use ASMs and beams is a bad idea. But what about having a primarily beam ship that carries a few short range (1m km at most) very fast and very strong missile to be used as an 'i win' button against other ships? Think of the spaceship version of a Roman Pilum javelin that is thrown right before your melee infantry hits the enemies lines.

Can missiles that can reach a target in under 15 second bypass all PD?

A few torpedoes won't be an 'I win' button against anything that posed a threat in the first place, and by being few will be relatively weak against point defense. You could use very short range missiles instead of offensive beams if that fits your inclination or tech base better...but what's the benefit of mixing them?

cuz its cool

Title: Re: Independent Cruiser
Post by: Iceranger on July 06, 2020, 12:37:03 PM

Quote from: BasileusMaximos on July 06, 2020, 12:17:23 PM

Thats a shame. Is it possible to make missiles so fast that they evade most PD?

If by evading you mean hard to hit for most PD, then yes, making your missile fast does that. Although unfortunately, when facing equivalently teched opponent this does not work as well as you may hope, comparing to the good old 5s torpedoes.

Title: Re: Independent Cruiser
Post by: SevenOfCarina on July 06, 2020, 12:40:27 PM

Quote from: Ulzgoroth on July 06, 2020, 11:17:23 AM

A few torpedoes won't be an 'I win' button against anything that posed a threat in the first place, and by being few will be relatively weak against point defense. You could use very short range missiles instead of offensive beams if that fits your inclination or tech base better...but what's the benefit of mixing them?

I understand the point would be to attrit hostile AMM stockpiles to prevent them from being used offensively, which in general is bad news for a pure beam-based force. This is far more effectively done with large numbers of small, fast short-range missiles, though.

Title: Re: Independent Cruiser
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on July 06, 2020, 07:11:11 PM

Quote from: BasileusMaximos on July 06, 2020, 09:37:58 AM

I hear people saying that diversifying a ship to use ASMs and beams is a bad idea. But what about having a primarily beam ship that carries a few short range (1m km at most) very fast and very strong missile to be used as an 'i win' button against other ships? Think of the spaceship version of a Roman Pilum javelin that is thrown right before your melee infantry hits the enemies lines.

Can missiles that can reach a target in under 15 second bypass all PD?

It is pure nonsense that combining beams with ASM is a bad idea as such a ship can act in many roles and it is not uncommon for ships to eventually end up in situation where it is deadly serious and having both will save you.

In a beam fight you rather have 20 beams on 10 ships than 25 beams on 5 ships given the same tonnage on said ships. Sure the one side have half the tonnage in the fight, but that other half is dead weight in this fight as they too have ASM ships, we are talking about specialised designs here so we have to assume there is five more ships that don't carry any beams at all either there or somewhere else.

You have to trade some flexibility for another kind of flexibility. 

You might have sent a fleet of 25 ships and did not expect to hold a jump point so you only brought 5 dedicated beam ships. The other side also brought 25 ships and all of them had beams so they had no problem sitting on that JP for 12 month guarding it.

You loose some flexibility in tailoring a fleet for a specific mission and might need to bring some extra tonnage compared with a more specialised fleet to have the same capabilities in some areas. But... this is where you see half specialised ships enter the picture. Some ship types would generally be primarily focusing on one category while being weak or lacking some category. Say an escort ship that lack any direct anti-ship capabilities but can provide it indirectly through light means such as in beam combat or AMM or perhaps Anti-craft missiles with lower yields and short range.

Quote from: BasileusMaximos on July 06, 2020, 10:25:49 AM

Quote from: Jorgen_CAB on July 06, 2020, 08:47:11 AM

Every military ship a required to have some beam weapons for self defence as having beam weapons on the ship means they can't be ignored during beam combat. And spreading out the beam weapons will improve your chances in beam combat allot when it happens.

You mean a primary beam weapon, not a PD right? That is an interesting take; I tired myself to make escort frigates (8k tons) with AMM and PD as well as a spinal beam but I just couldn't fit it all. But I'm glad to hear someone agrees that having primary beam ability to ward off ships that get too close is just as important as having PD ability for escorts.

Here is an 8000t escort frigate. It's primary function is escort of the supply train and can in a pinch also bolster the anti-torpedo defence of a fleet or act as jump point guards for up to roughly nine months. They also can be deployed as scouts as they do have a small hangar where they can deploy small scouts from say 25-250t in size.

Code: [Select]

Sword class Frigate      8,000 tons       210 Crew       1,387.3 BP       TCS 160    TH 675    EM 900
4218 km/s      Armour 6-35       Shields 30-300       HTK 60      Sensors 11/11/0/0      DCR 2      PPV 38.7
Maint Life 1.67 Years     MSP 296    AFR 256%    IFR 3.6%    1YR 126    5YR 1,891    Max Repair 112.50 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 250 tons     Troop Capacity 100 tons     Boarding Capable    Magazine 118   
Commander    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 9 months    Flight Crew Berths 20    Morale Check Required   

VanTech Corporation Class III Ion Infused Void Drive (3)    Power 675.0    Fuel Use 77.28%    Signature 225.00    Explosion 12%
Fuel Capacity 374,000 Litres    Range 10.9 billion km (29 days at full power)
Phoah-Kingsmeyer 484-J4E  Shield Projector (1)     Recharge Time 300 seconds (0.1 per second)

Quasar Tech Type-15 Heavy Turbolaser Array (3)    Range 300,000km     TS: 4,218 km/s     Power 6-3     RM 50,000 km    ROF 10       
XG-17  Rapid-firing Flak System (10x4)    Range 40,000km     TS: 16000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 40,000 km    ROF 5       
Indigo Secondary Targeting Computer System (1)     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 (1)     Max Range: 40,000 km   TS: 16,000 km/s     75 50 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mason-Branger 7085-09  Ionization Reactor (1)     Total Power Output 9    Exp 20%

Inobyte Auto-loading Anti-torpedo Launch System (3)     Missile Size: 1    Rate of Fire 10
Inobyte Rapid-fire Anti-torpedo Launch System (50)     Missile Size: 1    Hangar Reload 50 minutes    MF Reload 8 hours
Sienar Fleet Systems Anti-torpedy Fire-control System (2)     Range 22.3m km    Resolution 1

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     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  26.2m km
Pax Hustana  XN-03 Suite  Thermal Sensor (1)     Sensitivity 11     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  26.2m km

ECCM-2 (1)         ECM 20
To be honest an 8000t ship is a rather small ship and they should not be built for multi-tasking that much, you always will have to make too many compromises. A real fleet escort needs to be at least twice if not three times the size to make a good job as an escort with some endurance.

This could then be a Fleet Destroyer that act as a fleet escort, still a bit small for my taste but not terribly small. This one is a bit more expensive but that is because it has thermal reduced engines for scouting and patrol missions which it should also be able to perform in the empires out rim system. Their hangar deck can be loaded with a bunch of craft and anything from pure strike crafts, interceptors, multi-role fighters or scout crafts or even a combination. You could also find a few version of this ship with flag bridge, better sensors, smaller hangars larger missile capacity etc... there are allot of different configurations possible for this class.

Code: [Select]

Spear class Destroyer      16,874 tons       444 Crew       3,342.4 BP       TCS 337    TH 675    EM 2,550
4000 km/s      Armour 8-58       Shields 85-425       HTK 131      Sensors 11/11/0/0      DCR 28      PPV 63
Maint Life 2.25 Years     MSP 1,390    AFR 285%    IFR 4.0%    1YR 370    5YR 5,555    Max Repair 337.500 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 1,000 tons     Troop Capacity 250 tons     Boarding Capable    Magazine 296   
Captain    Control Rating 4   BRG   AUX   ENG   CIC   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Flight Crew Berths 20    Morale Check Required   

VanTech Corporation Class IV Ion Infused Void Drive (3)    Power 1350.0    Fuel Use 54.64%    Signature 225.000    Explosion 12%
Fuel Capacity 1,005,000 Litres    Range 19.6 billion km (56 days at full power)
Phoah-Kingsmeyer 884-J4EB Shield Projector (1)     Recharge Time 425 seconds (0.2 per second)

Quasar Tech Type-20 Heavy Turbolaser Array (3)    Range 320,000km     TS: 4,000 km/s     Power 10-5     RM 50,000 km    ROF 10       
XG-17  Rapid-firing Flak System (25x4)    Range 40,000km     TS: 16000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 40,000 km    ROF 5       
Indigo Secondary Targeting Computer System (1)     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 (2)     Max Range: 40,000 km   TS: 16,000 km/s     75 50 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mason-Branger 7085-15  Ionization Reactor (1)     Total Power Output 15.3    Exp 15%

Inobyte Auto-loading Anti-torpedo Launch System (12)     Missile Size: 1    Rate of Fire 10
Sienar Fleet Systems Anti-torpedy Fire-control System (3)     Range 22.3m km    Resolution 1

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     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  26.2m km
Pax Hustana  XN-03 Suite  Thermal Sensor (1)     Sensitivity 11     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  26.2m km

ECCM-2 (2)         ECM 20


Title: Re: Independent Cruiser
Post by: Ulzgoroth on July 06, 2020, 07:28:15 PM

Quote from: Jorgen_CAB on July 06, 2020, 07:11:11 PM

Quote from: BasileusMaximos on July 06, 2020, 09:37:58 AM

I hear people saying that diversifying a ship to use ASMs and beams is a bad idea. But what about having a primarily beam ship that carries a few short range (1m km at most) very fast and very strong missile to be used as an 'i win' button against other ships? Think of the spaceship version of a Roman Pilum javelin that is thrown right before your melee infantry hits the enemies lines.

Can missiles that can reach a target in under 15 second bypass all PD?

It is pure nonsense that combining beams with ASM is a bad idea as such a ship can act in many roles and it is not in common for ships to eventually end up in situation where it is deadly serious and having both will save you.

In a beam fight you rather have 20 beams on 10 ships than 25 beams on 5 ships given the same tonnage on said ships. Sure the one side have half the tonnage in the fight, but that other half is dead weight in this fight as they too have ASM ships, we are talking about specialised designs here so we have to assume there is five more ships that don't carry any beams at all either there or somewhere else.

You have to trade some flexibility for another kind of flexibility. 

You might have sent a fleet of 25 ships and did not expect to hold a jump point so you only brought 5 dedicated beam ships. The other side also brought 25 ships and all of them had beams so they had no problem sitting on that JP for 12 month guarding it.

You loose some flexibility in tailoring a fleet for a specific mission and might need to bring some extra tonnage compared with a more specialised fleet to have the same capabilities in some areas. But... this is where you see half specialised ships enter the picture. Some ship types would generally be primarily focusing on one category while being weak or lacking some category. Say an escort ship that lack any direct anti-ship capabilities but can provide it indirectly through light means such as in beam combat or AMM or perhaps Anti-craft missiles with lower yields and short range.

You're talking about multi-function ships in a fleet context. (And I strongly disagree on that, but that's beside the point.)

But for an independent cruiser this isn't relevant. You aren't choosing between 20 beams on 10 ships or 25 beams on 5 ships, you're choosing between 0 beams or 2 beams or 5 beams. Of course, it's not beams that are really the sticky point there. 2 beams out of a possible 5 may lose a fight, but it's still reasonably functional. 2 ASM launchers out of a possible 5, though, very likely doesn't do anything but entertain the enemy's missile defense suite. Missile attacks on anything but defenseless targets are a go big or go home situation.

Title: Re: Independent Cruiser
Post by: Black on July 07, 2020, 01:26:29 AM

I think beams are definitely better for independent ship. You need lot of missiles to get through PD and destroy the target and solo ship will not have enough magazine capacity to do that.

I am using large survey cruisers that operate independently. And they have mix of turreted lasers and small caliber railguns (most likely switch to gauss later), so if they encounter spoilers they can survive long enough under missile fire to escape the system. That also gives them enough firepower to take down smaller spoiler ships.

In general I am using much less missiles in C# even for my fleet combatants. Now I admit I have only fought with spoilers but from my experience they pack a ton of PD so to get through with missiles gets expensive very fast.

Title: Re: Independent Cruiser
Post by: hubgbf on July 07, 2020, 02:33:02 AM

There is something I do not understand there : Why do you want to have an independant ship able to fight for surveying?

To be able to fight you'll need a very high tonnage of weapons, which means a very big costly ship.
Better to have a small ship unable to fight back, only able to defend itself for a limited time, but difficult to spot.

My exploration vessel are light carriers with armor and CIWS as they operate solo.
They are small (6 kT), slow, with fuel efficient engines, and they carry a jump fighter and several fighter scout with passives.
They send their jump fighter to scan the other side, wait for them to come back, jump themselves, then send their fighters scout scan every planet.
In case of problem, they jump and flee. If they can, they wait for their scout to come back, if not, medals are posthumous awarded. Their jump fighter can serve as a mean to send an emergency signal back the chain.

Usually a 110 tons fighter scout  with 0.2 HS passive will spot ennemy planet or ships before being detected if he has good thermal reduction.
Once a system is clear, send unarmed grav and geo survey ship.

I do not have tested this procedure extensively in C# but reading AAR make me guess that NPR and other space monsters often camp on jump point once you are detected using it. As jump point assault are costly, better to be undetected.

Note, if I have enough tonnage my light exploration carrier also have a slow firing missile launcher and a bit of magazine, to be able to put advanced warning buoy in place (also roleplayed as communication relay), or to send a scan missile toward a dangerous place.

Title: Re: Independent Cruiser
Post by: sneer on July 07, 2020, 02:41:20 AM

For ships below 10-20 kt mixing beams and asm doesn't work well but the bigger the ship the smaller problem
I prefer a bit higher tonnage and mix system a lot ( usually have 2 classes of ships in use ) what makes upgrades super easy
30-40kt ships or higher have really tremendous survivability that let experience accumulate fast
 

Title: Re: Independent Cruiser
Post by: Black on July 07, 2020, 03:06:36 AM

Quote from: hubgbf on July 07, 2020, 02:33:02 AM

There is something I do not understand there : Why do you want to have an independant ship able to fight for surveying?

Well in my case it is roleplay. Did you read Starfire books (Hun class survey cruiser)? Did you see Star Trek?

For Aurora I would say most optimal are smaller, specialized ships. But most of us roleplay to some extent so most optimal design might not be what we go for because of that.

I personally do not really like single purpose, single weapon system ships. If I look at naval ships in human history that is rarely a case so I most often have combination of weapons on my ships that comes from some self imposed RP reasons and such.

Title: Re: Independent Cruiser
Post by: hubgbf on July 07, 2020, 03:25:38 AM

Hi Black,

Yes, I did.

If my memory is correct the Hun survey cruiser do not operate alone, isn't it?
In Starfire books survey cruiser very often have a military escort fleet, even in peace time.
It is perhaps a biased perception as survey operation described in the books tend to have a fatal issue when encountering the main ennemy.

About star trek, I like the whole thing, but IMHO the enterprise can do everything as it is better for a TV show.
Only one ship to modelize fot special effects, better identification for the viewer, and so on...

On earth, I think that exploration was mostly made with light military ships optimized for long range operation by lowering its weapon quantity, or lightly militarized merchantship, ships operating in small fleets due to navigation hazards.
Let's see Colomb expedition with caravel for exemple.

But if it is for roleplaying, I can only hope you have fun with big fighting survey ships :p

Title: Re: Independent Cruiser
Post by: Black on July 07, 2020, 04:48:41 AM

We are getting a bit offtopic. I think that at the beginning of the war against the Bugs, Huns operated in small flotillas without military escort, but it is years since I read the books so I may be mistaken. At the end they have weapons and my survey cruisers are inspired by them.

When my survey cruisers (only military ships that I operate independently) start surveying the system, they operate alone and will most likely not be close enough to support each other even if the are in same star system, but the weapons should give them enough time to escape the system with hostile presence.

I had several situations with Precursors, when I got under missile fire from their ships and so far I was always able to escape because I was able to shoot down the missiles.

I am more WW2 guy so I do not have deep knowledge about age of sail exploration. But I would say that few 10-12cm lasers/railguns and some gauss are relatively good approximation for survey cruiser equivalent to age of exploration ship (I checked some info and it seem that Santa Maria had some naval cannons).

But my comment about singe weapon system ships was aimed more at Aurora military ships in general not at exploration ships in particular. From what I know even sail ships had usually several types of cannons like culverins, corronades and so on.

So all my military ships have several weapon systems and at least one of those does not rely on ammo. But they still operate in flotillas or squadrons and never alone.

Title: Re: Independent Cruiser
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on July 07, 2020, 04:58:15 AM

Well.... Aurora IS a role-playing game. The Author of the game Steve have explicitly stayed away from detailing things like government, politics and cultural mechanics for this very purpose and it IS up to the player to decide if a specific style is optimised based on the cultural and ethical rules of the society it is built in.

We have to imagine that ships are not built in a vacuum in any game and people who role-play often either decide on a specific way they like to do things or do things as things happen in the game and base every decision made based on the information given within the game. Using your own knowledge of game mechanic and such is pretty much forbidden in such scenarios.

Many people do a variation of these types of role-play.

This also mean that a Star-Trek type of ship can make very much sense and be quite effective from that point of view, it does have to be pretty big and expensive though.  :)

There is nothing wrong with just playing the game mechanics and that is your choice... but optimisation always comes down to the personal rules of the game from the person playing the game. The game is built around that fact, it is simply a tool set with mechanics for players to mold to their harts content.

If someone send an entire fleet with their survey ships in order to scout and keep them safe you can't say that is not "optimized" play because loosing a small survey vessel once in a while is far less resources than protecting them with an entire flee all the time. This depend on the political climate in which why this decision was made and how much you value skilled labour and the lives of your crew, officers and scentists.

Aurora is NOT a traditiona game in the sense there are no victory conditions or even any way to "WIN" the game. You can keep playing until your computer burns the processor for having too many systems, NPRs and civilians in play... ;)

Quote from: Ulzgoroth on July 06, 2020, 07:28:15 PM

You're talking about multi-function ships in a fleet context. (And I strongly disagree on that, but that's beside the point.)

But for an independent cruiser this isn't relevant. You aren't choosing between 20 beams on 10 ships or 25 beams on 5 ships, you're choosing between 0 beams or 2 beams or 5 beams. Of course, it's not beams that are really the sticky point there. 2 beams out of a possible 5 may lose a fight, but it's still reasonably functional. 2 ASM launchers out of a possible 5, though, very likely doesn't do anything but entertain the enemy's missile defense suite. Missile attacks on anything but defenseless targets are a go big or go home situation.

I agree... using missile launchers on an independent cruiser make very little sense as you need weight of fire. In that case you would need use box launched missiles as they will not be expected to be close to a resupply point anyway. But beam would be my preference as they are more useful overall for self defence. Missile weapons are usually more of a group effort to make them work properly.

When talking about missiles I rarely find that allowing ships to fire ASM at all make much sense until you have very strong cloaking abilities. Fighters and FAC do this so much more efficiently. They are quicker to both build, upgrade and specialise than any ship can ever hope to be. They are faster, stealthier and just deadlier in so many ways. Fighters are so much easier to build early in C# that the time for missile cruisers pas so quick I rarely see them at all even in my campaigns of 10-15% science rates.

I only ever use ASM missile for system patrol craft, fighters and FAC these days, this has mainly to do with role-play because it sort of falls naturally from how things turns out. Putting full size launchers on huge ships simply limits the volume of fire and using box launchers on huge ships is extremely limiting on the type of missile you can use and reloading of the platform is tricky when far from home and they loose the very important stealth factor (before cloaking that is). On any ASM ship just rip out the launcher and part of the magazines, plug in some hangars and some extra fuel and off you go...  ;)

The only ASM and use of regular launchers is for engaging opposing small crafts, so size 3-4 missiles with say 4-9 yields typically. As these smaller ships have much more limited defence capabilities using such system is highly efficient. Against dedicated PD defences then regular sized launchers are almost useless unless you are seriously outmatching en enemy.

I use specialised ships too but mostly in rather small numbers. For example Monitor ships... usually a ship at 10-20kt range with the most powerful engines I can build for speed and extremely short range, usually around a billion or two kilometres. These will have to be moved by fleet tugs to do anything useful outside guarding colonies, jump points or whatever real estate they are built to protect.

Specialisation is more about how much variation I can put into a ship within the 20% difference that a single yard to do with any ship type.

I'm likely to have like one frigate type, one destroyer type one cruiser type and one carrier type ship and then have allot of different variant of them that reside within that 20% variation.

When it comes to anti-missile defences then due to the nature of missiles I'm never ever going to deploy a fleet without anti-missile defences so there is NO loss to put some PD on every capital ship.
The Frigate usually is an older ship that used to be a destroyer, perhaps changed a bit but slower (perhaps old engines) and their primary mission is patrol, scouting and performing escort for my supply train or other high value commercial designs or perhaps a squadron of Monitors. The Frigates are not suppose to operate far from supplies and fuel.
I then have the destroyer who in general is the main escort and patrol ship and its primary mission are anti-missile and will primarily have most of those systems. The rate at which I build destroyer would the correlate to how important I think this mission is to the overall performance of the fleet.
The cruiser if the fleet flagship and the one with the best sensors and usually a bigger hangar for more dedicated scout crafts. They are sort of an overgrown destroyer with more space dedicated for scouting and perceiving the surroundings better, it will have the strongest armour and shields and a really powerful beam complement.
The carrier is more like a mesh of a typical battleship and carrier... usually about 25% hangars and the rest is armour, shield and beam weapons and a good chunk of PD weapons too.

As almost all of my ships use hangars there is an option at times to fill most if not all of it with strike crafts. This has happened when there has been a need for a dedicated and very strong alpha strike at a specific target. It is good to have options that way. Otherwise scouting is the primary function and anti-craft operations a secondary role.

Fighters is usually a weapon that I see as the main branch for deep space combat. If I'm to attack an enemy colony or JP I'm more about brute force using the defensive nature of my much stronger fleet to throw any defensive missile barrages to the sides and engaging them at close range with both missiles and beams until I win.

Obviously this s not one correct way to look at the game... this is just one natural way that it seem to develop for me in most games.

Building ships this way you need to build allot less shipyards... ships are easier to upgrade as they come in smaller sizes. Yards are much quicker to retool as a direct effect of that reducing the time in which you can upgrade existing ships. You can very easy change a ship from one type of a class to the other as it is mostly switching out components for other components, so very little material costs, just a small amount of time. You yards will also tend to be in use allot more as each yard service so many more ships of a single class. Adding slipways are more industry effective than building new yards.

Ships also by definition work very well both alone or in small groups.

Title: Re: Independent Cruiser
Post by: L0ckAndL0ad on July 07, 2020, 07:28:58 AM

Interesting thread.

If I was to construct a cruiser for its classic lines-of-communication/behind-the-lines/scouting role, I'd definitely go with armored laser turrets, CIWS/Gauss PD and maybe a small hangar for 1-2 tiny scout/jump scout fighters. And large MSP storage + extra Damage Control. Not sure about the sensors suite.

Sounds fun.

Speaking of, is it actually helpful in current C# Aurora to attack enemy (AI) supply bases to deprive it from refueling opportunities? Have anyone tried/seen impact? I think Steve said that NPRs should be fuel dependent, IIRC, no?

Title: Re: Independent Cruiser
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on July 07, 2020, 09:14:53 AM

Quote from: L0ckAndL0ad on July 07, 2020, 07:28:58 AM

Interesting thread.

If I was to construct a cruiser for its classic lines-of-communication/behind-the-lines/scouting role, I'd definitely go with armored laser turrets, CIWS/Gauss PD and maybe a small hangar for 1-2 tiny scout/jump scout fighters. And large MSP storage + extra Damage Control. Not sure about the sensors suite.

Sounds fun.

Speaking of, is it actually helpful in current C# Aurora to attack enemy (AI) supply bases to deprive it from refueling opportunities? Have anyone tried/seen impact? I think Steve said that NPRs should be fuel dependent, IIRC, no?

Fuel and ordnance yes but not maintenance as NPR currently don't need to maintain their ship in the way the player does. He has said that he have plans for a similar function for maintenance for NPR as for that of fuel too in the future though. We will have to wait and see about that.

Title: Re: Independent Cruiser
Post by: Borealis4x on July 07, 2020, 11:14:24 AM

Quote from: L0ckAndL0ad on July 07, 2020, 07:28:58 AM

Interesting thread.

If I was to construct a cruiser for its classic lines-of-communication/behind-the-lines/scouting role, I'd definitely go with armored laser turrets, CIWS/Gauss PD and maybe a small hangar for 1-2 tiny scout/jump scout fighters. And large MSP storage + extra Damage Control. Not sure about the sensors suite.

Sounds fun.

Speaking of, is it actually helpful in current C# Aurora to attack enemy (AI) supply bases to deprive it from refueling opportunities? Have anyone tried/seen impact? I think Steve said that NPRs should be fuel dependent, IIRC, no?

About turrets: I've only used them so far for PD weapons and I always go for 25% accuracy guns mounted on a quad turret. This provides the best HS to firepower ratio from what I understand. Now, if we are talking capital ships they are obviously not going to be fast enough to track smaller targets with their beams, so they would benefit from main beam-weapon turrets.

How would you suggest to build them? Is it best the do the same as with PD weapons and have quad 25% accuracy beams?

Title: Re: Independent Cruiser
Post by: Black on July 07, 2020, 11:25:54 AM

I would go with 12cm lasers for dual purpose turrets, they have good firing intervals to be used as PD and decent range and they are still relatively small. Gauss has low range to be used as dual purpose weapon.

Title: Re: Independent Cruiser
Post by: Borealis4x on July 07, 2020, 11:29:12 AM

Quote from: Black on July 07, 2020, 11:25:54 AM

I would go with 12cm lasers for dual purpose turrets, they have good firing intervals to be used as PD and decent range and they are still relatively small. Gauss has low range to be used as dual purpose weapon.

I was talking primary weapons, but i suppose it would make sense for bigger ships to rely on smaller turreted secondaries to take out smaller targets rather than trying to cram a huge turreted main gun into them.

That method might also solve the problem of me wanting an offensive beam weapon on my small escorts but not having enough space.

Title: Re: Independent Cruiser
Post by: Black on July 07, 2020, 11:49:35 AM

You can go to 15cm lasers with better tech, but you only need capacitor recharge rate 4 to get 5s RoF on 12cm laser, 15cm lasers need rate 6. Something like 30cm laser will have RoF that is IMO too long for PD use.

Title: Re: Independent Cruiser
Post by: Borealis4x on July 07, 2020, 11:56:44 AM

To me those are still mere secondaries. When I talk about primaries I mean Particle Lancers of the highest possible caliber or at least spinal weapons.  ;D

Title: Re: Independent Cruiser
Post by: Black on July 07, 2020, 12:04:31 PM

Oh I misunderstood, I thought that you want turreted primary weapons and that basically means lasers, as messons are IMO useless in C#. If you want to use other weapons as PD then railguns are the way as they have several shot whitch means better chance to hit the missiles.

Title: Re: Independent Cruiser
Post by: xenoscepter on July 07, 2020, 01:32:51 PM

An ASM launcher or two is handy for hitting enemy shipping as an attack of opportunity. Carrying Nukes for planetary bombardment comes to mind as well, although this is again quite situational.

That being said:

The best use for missiles on an independent warship is in the Anti-Fighter and/or Anti-Missile role, since thinning a volley or two... or a flight or two of enemies can sometimes be the difference between life or death. A Size-3 or Size-6 launcher is good, since you can place Anti-Fighter or Anti-Missile missiles into empty missile stages to create a "Canister" and thus you retain Anti-Ship and Orbital Bombardment options without sacrificing the ability to thin enemy missile/fighter swarms.

Title: Re: Independent Cruiser
Post by: Borealis4x on July 07, 2020, 02:12:14 PM

Quote from: Black on July 07, 2020, 12:04:31 PM

Oh I misunderstood, I thought that you want turreted primary weapons and that basically means lasers, as messons are IMO useless in C#. If you want to use other weapons as PD then railguns are the way as they have several shot whitch means better chance to hit the missiles.

Or maybe I have. You can't turret Lances can you...

Title: Re: Independent Cruiser
Post by: Black on July 07, 2020, 04:04:49 PM

Only Gauss, Lasers and Messons can be turreted. Gauss has too small range and Messons were changed a lot in C# and I believe general consensus on them is that they are useless.

So that leaves lasers and for dual purpose you want fast rate of fire, with better capacitors you can get bigger lasers that will still have 5s rate of fire. I suppose you can do with 10s RoF depending what kind of missiles you are facing.

With capacitor rate of 8 you can get 20cm lasers with 10s RoF and that is quite a nice punch with good range, so you could engage missiles in area defense mode and get more hits on single salvo.

Title: Re: Independent Cruiser
Post by: xenoscepter on July 07, 2020, 06:50:27 PM

Black:

Quote

Only Gauss, Lasers and Messons can be turreted. Gauss has too small range and Messons were changed a lot in C# and I believe general consensus on them is that they are useless.

So that leaves lasers and for dual purpose you want fast rate of fire, with better capacitors you can get bigger lasers that will still have 5s rate of fire. I suppose you can do with 10s RoF depending what kind of missiles you are facing.

With capacitor rate of 8 you can get 20cm lasers with 10s RoF and that is quite a nice punch with good range, so you could engage missiles in area defense mode and get more hits on single salvo.

lolwut.

 - Mesons have undergone pretty significant testing as I recall, showing them to be surprisingly useful, especially when paired with Railguns. If I remember correctly, it had to do with Mesons making pockmarks under armor layers, thus creating a snowball effect of increasing DPS. The thing which made that useful was that empty armor patches didn't count, and so you could out DPS enemies by mixing the two. Don't quote me on this one, as I only know that testing was carried out and that results seemed favorable while I was actively following it. YYMV.

 - Gauss range too small? Whaaaaaat? I have seen a great many criticisms leveled at Gauss Cannons both Turreted and un-Turreted, but range has never been one them. I'm curious about your claim, would you care to expound a bit? I agree that Lasers make great dual purpose guns, but I'd add that 15~20cm Railguns make fine dual purpose guns at Capacitor 8. Railguns get four shots to the laser's one, and that isn't nothing when you take into account the way Aurora handles random numbers.

BasileusMaximos:

Quote

Or maybe I have. You can't turret Lances can you...

I got some bad news chief... you can't turret Lances.

Title: Re: Independent Cruiser
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on July 07, 2020, 07:25:06 PM

Quote from: xenoscepter on July 07, 2020, 06:50:27 PM

Black:

Quote

Only Gauss, Lasers and Messons can be turreted. Gauss has too small range and Messons were changed a lot in C# and I believe general consensus on them is that they are useless.

So that leaves lasers and for dual purpose you want fast rate of fire, with better capacitors you can get bigger lasers that will still have 5s rate of fire. I suppose you can do with 10s RoF depending what kind of missiles you are facing.

With capacitor rate of 8 you can get 20cm lasers with 10s RoF and that is quite a nice punch with good range, so you could engage missiles in area defense mode and get more hits on single salvo.

lolwut.

 - Mesons have undergone pretty significant testing as I recall, showing them to be surprisingly useful, especially when paired with Railguns. If I remember correctly, it had to do with Mesons making pockmarks under armor layers, thus creating a snowball effect of increasing DPS. The thing which made that useful was that empty armor patches didn't count, and so you could out DPS enemies by mixing the two. Don't quote me on this one, as I only know that testing was carried out and that results seemed favorable while I was actively following it. YYMV.

Mesons have a few other important effect as well... with railguns especially they help each other in two ways. They way you describe is possibly one, the other is as the railgun strips armour off the meson gun gets more effective as well.

Another effect that Meson have is that you will force the enemy to perhaps add more armour than otherwise they would not as they got very strong shields. You only need a few Meson guns around to provoke that behaviour from the opponent. The same way that Microwaves force the enemy to use more shields. Obviously an NPR could care less but if you have a multi-faction campaign running it certainly will.

Title: Re: Independent Cruiser
Post by: Ulzgoroth on July 07, 2020, 08:10:57 PM

Quote from: xenoscepter on July 07, 2020, 06:50:27 PM

- Gauss range too small? Whaaaaaat? I have seen a great many criticisms leveled at Gauss Cannons both Turreted and un-Turreted, but range has never been one them. I'm curious about your claim, would you care to expound a bit? I agree that Lasers make great dual purpose guns, but I'd add that 15~20cm Railguns make fine dual purpose guns at Capacitor 8. Railguns get four shots to the laser's one, and that isn't nothing when you take into account the way Aurora handles random numbers.

Nobody criticizes Gauss range because it's such a trivially obvious criticism - their range is pitiful at best. If you want a weapon with range, you don't use Gauss cannons.

This is no problem at all in their primary role as final defensive fire point defense. It's regrettable but unavoidable in the case of ultra-light fighter gunnery. When considering them as primary weapons for heavier fighters, FACs, or full-size ships  you have to face up to the fact that any other weapon except maybe very small plasma carronades will outrange Gauss cannons.

Railguns and Gauss cannons are entirely different weapons. They share the traits of being under missile & kinetic research and of firing multiple shots, but that's about it for their parallels.

Title: Re: Independent Cruiser
Post by: xenoscepter on July 07, 2020, 08:17:04 PM

@Ulzgoroth

 - Well, yeah... but they are just that, PD weapons. I just didn't understand why that was brought into the discussion... perhaps I should re-read the OP. Just re-read it, and yeah still confused. I never even considered them dual purpose weapons at all... ever. Meh. I dunno, it just seemed like Black was leveling that critique to Gauss as a whole. That's why I asked them to expand on the idea, since I see Gauss only as dedicated PD or Fighter weapons, which makes the range seem somewhat superfluous as a consideration. Now carronades on the other hand... they could use a slight range buff IMO, a slight one...

Title: Re: Independent Cruiser
Post by: xenoscepter on July 07, 2020, 09:24:35 PM

Based on this: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=10447.0

Independent Class:

Code: [Select]

Independent class Cruiser      12,500 tons       316 Crew       1,659.2 BP       TCS 250    TH 500    EM 510
4000 km/s      Armour 3-47       Shields 17-283       HTK 65      Sensors 25/25/0/0      DCR 12      PPV 23.2
Maint Life 5.62 Years     MSP 2,897    AFR 100%    IFR 1.4%    1YR 155    5YR 2,322    Max Repair 300.00000 MSP
Captain    Control Rating 3   BRG   AUX   ENG   
Intended Deployment Time: 5 months    Morale Check Required   

Ion Drive  EP500.00 (2)    Power 1000.0    Fuel Use 17.92%    Signature 250.000    Explosion 8%
Fuel Capacity 650,000 Litres    Range 52.2 billion km (151 days at full power)
Gamma S17 / R283 Shields (1)     Recharge Time 283 seconds (0.1 per second)

15.0cm C3 Near Ultraviolet Laser (2)    Range 180,000km     TS: 4,000 km/s     Power 6-3     RM 30,000 km    ROF 10       
Single 10cm C3 Near Ultraviolet Laser Turret (2x1)    Range 90,000km     TS: 8000 km/s     Power 3-3     RM 30,000 km    ROF 5       
10cm Railgun V30/C3 (2x4)    Range 30,000km     TS: 4,000 km/s     Power 3-3     RM 30,000 km    ROF 5       
Beam Fire Control R96-TS8000 (1)     Max Range: 96,000 km   TS: 8,000 km/s     90 79 69 58 48 38 27 17 6 0
Beam Fire Control R192-TS4000 (1)     Max Range: 192,000 km   TS: 4,000 km/s     95 90 84 79 74 69 64 58 53 48
Beam Fire Control R64-TS4000 (1)     Max Range: 64,000 km   TS: 4,000 km/s     84 69 53 38 22 6 0 0 0 0
Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor R18 (1)     Total Power Output 18    Exp 5%

Active Search Sensor AS12-R1 (1)     GPS 100     Range 12.6m km    MCR 1.1m km    Resolution 1
Thermal Sensor TH5-25 (1)     Sensitivity 25     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  39.5m km
EM Sensor EM5-25 (1)     Sensitivity 25     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  39.5m km
ELINT Module (1)     Sensitivity 5     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  17.7m km

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes*Beam weapon chances to hit are based on targets moving at 4,000 km/s at a range of 10,000 km
Techs Used:

Off-Topic: show

 - Damage Control
 - Composite Armor
 - Gamma Shields
 - Shield Recharge Rate 2
 - Thermal Reduction 50%
 - Ion Engine Technology
 - Minimum Engine Size 60
 - Fuel Consumption 0.7
 - Capacitor 3
 - 15cm Laser
 - Near-Ultraviolet Lasers
 - 10cm Railgun
 - Railgun Velocity 30,000km
 - Turret Gear Ratio 4,000km/s
 - Beam Fire Control Range 64,000km
 - Beam Fire Control Tracking Speed 4,000 km/s
 - ELINT Module Strength 5
 - Auxiliary Bridge
 - Main Engineering

 - Designed off an early cruiser design that I made for VB6, this cruiser is an example of what I might use for independent actions. Unfortunately, this design lacks a Jump Drive and is thus reliant on a Jump Tender or Stabilized Jump Points to get it to the Area of Operations. The three B-FCS allow it's weapons groups to operate independently of each, maximizing the number of threats that an Independent-Class can engage simultaneously. The sensors package is top-notch, but low tech while the ELINT further assists it in reprising the reconnaissance role. The ship is capable of engaging in Ship-to-Ship beam combat, Area Defense and Final Fire defense all at the same time. Light armor and modest shields mean that this ship cannot weather sustained fire.

 - A long deployment time of 5 months coupled to a generous MSP supply is further extended by a Main Engineering and 12 Engineering Spaces. 1,160 Tons are dedicated to the weapons themselves, with a further 1,500 tons dedicated to sensors and ELINT. 5,000 tons is dedicated to the engines, almost half of the ship's overall mass. Of note is the engines with their 50% thermal reduction; in C# this is much more relevant than it was in VB6 as when you power down your engines to a full stop you no longer produce zero thermal signature, but rather the engine's minimum... in this case 250.

 - It has room for alterations and improvements for sure, but it's a solid design for the kinds of things a ship could hope to do when deployed all alone. Smaller sensors, a Marine complement, a Cargo Shuttle Bay are all things which could add to it. This design was built off of the design linked above, and I tried to stick to it as much as possible. :)

Title: Re: Independent Cruiser
Post by: Ulzgoroth on July 07, 2020, 10:01:28 PM

Quote from: xenoscepter on July 07, 2020, 08:17:04 PM

@Ulzgoroth

 - Well, yeah... but they are just that, PD weapons. I just didn't understand why that was brought into the discussion... perhaps I should re-read the OP. Just re-read it, and yeah still confused. I never even considered them dual purpose weapons at all... ever. Meh. I dunno, it just seemed like Black was leveling that critique to Gauss as a whole. That's why I asked them to expand on the idea, since I see Gauss only as dedicated PD or Fighter weapons, which makes the range seem somewhat superfluous as a consideration. Now carronades on the other hand... they could use a slight range buff IMO, a slight one...

The post you quoted was the latest in a sequence discussing turreted heavy/primary weapons for the OP's 'cruiser'. Gauss got mention only because it's one of only three weapon types that can be turreted...

Title: Re: Independent Cruiser
Post by: xenoscepter on July 07, 2020, 10:02:03 PM

Ah, I missed that bit. Thanks for clearing that up. :)

Title: Re: Independent Cruiser
Post by: L0ckAndL0ad on July 07, 2020, 11:46:18 PM

Quote from: BasileusMaximos on July 07, 2020, 11:14:24 AM

About turrets: I've only used them so far for PD weapons and I always go for 25% accuracy guns mounted on a quad turret. This provides the best HS to firepower ratio from what I understand. Now, if we are talking capital ships they are obviously not going to be fast enough to track smaller targets with their beams, so they would benefit from main beam-weapon turrets.

How would you suggest to build them? Is it best the do the same as with PD weapons and have quad 25% accuracy beams?

For main battery laser turrets I'd go with 3x or 4x 15/20 cm twin or triple turrets,  armored slightly higher than the ship's hull, and 100% accuracy. That's mostly to mirror RL WW2 cruiser designs, but I'm also basing this on practical limitations.

Armored turrets provide much better survivability for the ship. They have high chance to be hit because they're big, and armor makes them less likely to be destroyed. Calibre needs to be high enough to do reasonable damage, but low enough to still be economically suitable. Quad guns may be too much in terms of MSP costs (misfire/maintenance failure repair cost), but twins are less optimal in terms of crew/weight/RP/material costs. So triple may be the sweet spot for me. 100% accuracy is needed because this is a main battery and it needs to be as accurate as possible, otherwise more hits would result in higher misfire/maint failure rate.

For Gauss PD, yeah, 50% accuracy and 0 or lvl 1 armor is normal. 2-3 twin turrets are fine.

But then again, I would not send such a ship going completely solo, probably. Not at first, at least. 2-3 cruisers are much better option, and they then can split up in the enemy territory as needed to cover more ground.

Speed and sensors should be great also. And jump/scout parasites. Situational awareness for such a role is paramount.

Title: Re: Independent Cruiser
Post by: Black on July 08, 2020, 05:20:19 AM

It seems there was a bit of a discussion about my opinions for main or primary turreted weapon that can serve as dual purpose weapon system of independently operated cu riser. This was original question:

Quote

...so they would benefit from main beam-weapon turrets. How would you suggest to build them?

I believe that Gauss question was answered - they are PD weapons (and I use them extensively myself as such), but IMO unsuitable as primary weapons on capital ship, basically all other weapons have better range.

Railguns can definitely be used as dual purpose weapons (again I used them in such way myself) and I did mention them in one of my posts. But they cannot be turreted. Original question was for turreted main weapon.

As for the messons I was vaguely remembering this topic: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=11186.0 so I made my opinion about messons based on that and some previous discussions when Steve initially decided to change messons.

From what I see, they could be useful as support weapons for railguns. But as I stated, we were discussing primary weapon system. They also have worse range than same tech level lasers. Steve admitted that they are underpowered in human vs human environment, which may not be concern for lot of us that do not play against human opponents, but it is still a factor.

I stand by my opinion that they are definitely much less usefull than in VB6 and not suitable as primary weapon system.

Title: Re: Independent Cruiser
Post by: liveware on July 10, 2020, 06:33:43 PM

Quote from: L0ckAndL0ad on July 07, 2020, 11:46:18 PM

Quote from: BasileusMaximos on July 07, 2020, 11:14:24 AM

About turrets: I've only used them so far for PD weapons and I always go for 25% accuracy guns mounted on a quad turret. This provides the best HS to firepower ratio from what I understand. Now, if we are talking capital ships they are obviously not going to be fast enough to track smaller targets with their beams, so they would benefit from main beam-weapon turrets.

How would you suggest to build them? Is it best the do the same as with PD weapons and have quad 25% accuracy beams?

For main battery laser turrets I'd go with 3x or 4x 15/20 cm twin or triple turrets,  armored slightly higher than the ship's hull, and 100% accuracy. That's mostly to mirror RL WW2 cruiser designs, but I'm also basing this on practical limitations.

Armored turrets provide much better survivability for the ship. They have high chance to be hit because they're big, and armor makes them less likely to be destroyed. Calibre needs to be high enough to do reasonable damage, but low enough to still be economically suitable. Quad guns may be too much in terms of MSP costs (misfire/maintenance failure repair cost), but twins are less optimal in terms of crew/weight/RP/material costs. So triple may be the sweet spot for me. 100% accuracy is needed because this is a main battery and it needs to be as accurate as possible, otherwise more hits would result in higher misfire/maint failure rate.

For Gauss PD, yeah, 50% accuracy and 0 or lvl 1 armor is normal. 2-3 twin turrets are fine.

But then again, I would not send such a ship going completely solo, probably. Not at first, at least. 2-3 cruisers are much better option, and they then can split up in the enemy territory as needed to cover more ground.

Speed and sensors should be great also. And jump/scout parasites. Situational awareness for such a role is paramount.

I also use 100% accuracy for my big gun triple turrets on cruisers and other large ships. This is based somewhat on the balance of turret size/firepower/crew size considerations and also because during my WWII research I found that US battleships of that era had extremely accurate, long range gun fire controls that proved decisive in several engagements in the Pacific.