Aurora 4x

C# Aurora => C# Bureau of Design => Topic started by: Borealis4x on December 29, 2020, 02:38:16 PM

Title: Carrier Doctrine Fleet
Post by: Borealis4x on December 29, 2020, 02:38:16 PM: I want my fleet's main striking potential to come from very light carrier-based fighters supported by long-range missile bombardments designed to soak up AMM missiles before sorties.

I realize these ships might be light on fuel, but its still rather early tech-wise and any major fleet I send out will be supported by tankers, colliers, and maintenance vessels.

Carrier
Code: [Select]
Carthage class Carrier (P) 100,000 tons 2,194 Crew 19,111.3 BP TCS 2,000 TH 9,600 EM 0 4800 km/s Armour 8-191 Shields 0-0 HTK 446 Sensors 550/550/0/0 DCR 63 PPV 90.24 Maint Life 0.96 Years MSP 6,650 AFR 1509% IFR 21.0% 1YR 6,896 5YR 103,439 Max Repair 1417.5 MSP Hangar Deck Capacity 30,000 tons Magazine 2,202 Commander Control Rating 6 BRG AUX ENG CIC FLG PFC Intended Deployment Time: 6 months Flight Crew Berths 600 Morale Check Required Magneto-plasma Drive EP2400.00 (4) Power 9600.0 Fuel Use 34.86% Signature 2400.00 Explosion 15% Fuel Capacity 10,000,000 Litres Range 51.6 billion km (124 days at full power) BEA Systems Quad 'Challenger' Gauss Cannon Turret (12x12) Range 30,000km TS: 16000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 30,000 km ROF 5 BEA Systems R.32k/T.16k 'Challenger' Series Fire Controls (6) Max Range: 32,000 km TS: 16,000 km/s 69 38 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UNSC Board of Naval Design Size-1 Missile Launch System Mk.1 (30) Missile Size: 1 Rate of Fire 10 Raytheon 2M. 'Minute-man' Missile Point-Defense Fire Controller (10) Range 24.3m km Resolution 1 Cyberdyne Systems Corporation 'T-200' Series Short-Range Capital Active Sensor Suite (1) GPS 1050 Range 60.6m km MCR 5.5m km Resolution 1 Cyberdyne Systems Corporation 'T-200' Series Mid-Range Capital Active Sensor Suite (1) GPS 21000 Range 164.6m km Resolution 20 Cyberdyne Systems Corporation 'T-200' Series Long-Range Capital Active Sensor Suite (1) GPS 210000 Range 354.6m km Resolution 200 Renraku Computer Systems 'Fujio' Series EM Capital Passive Sensor Suite (1) Sensitivity 550 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 185.4m km Renraku Computer Systems 'Fujio' Series TH Capital Passive Sensor Suite (1) Sensitivity 550 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 185.4m km ECM 20 This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
Cruisers
Code: [Select]
Kiev class Missile Cruiser (P) 29,726 tons 782 Crew 5,409.1 BP TCS 595 TH 2,880 EM 0 4844 km/s Armour 6-85 Shields 0-0 HTK 151 Sensors 110/110/0/0 DCR 22 PPV 132.12 Maint Life 2.13 Years MSP 3,364 AFR 589% IFR 8.2% 1YR 990 5YR 14,847 Max Repair 480.00 MSP Hangar Deck Capacity 250 tons Magazine 1,584 Captain Control Rating 4 BRG AUX ENG CIC Intended Deployment Time: 6 months Flight Crew Berths 20 Morale Check Required Magneto-plasma Drive EP960.00 (3) Power 2880.0 Fuel Use 55.11% Signature 960.00 Explosion 15% Fuel Capacity 5,000,000 Litres Range 54.9 billion km (131 days at full power) BEA Systems Quad 'Challenger' Gauss Cannon Turret (6x12) Range 30,000km TS: 16000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 30,000 km ROF 5 BEA Systems R.32k/T.16k 'Challenger' Series Fire Controls (3) Max Range: 32,000 km TS: 16,000 km/s 69 38 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UNSC Board of Naval Design Size-4 Missile Launch System Mk.1 (34) Missile Size: 4.0 Rate of Fire 30 Missile Fire Control FC107-R20 (30%) (1) Range 107.5m km Resolution 20 Cyberdyne Systems Corporation 'T-200' Series Long-Range Cruiser Active Sensor Suite (1) GPS 42000 Range 158.6m km Resolution 200 Cyberdyne Systems Corporation 'T-200' Series Mid-Range Cruiser Active Sensor Suite (1) GPS 4200 Range 73.6m km Resolution 20 Cyberdyne Systems Corporation 'T-200' Series Short-Range Cruiser Active Sensor Suite (1) GPS 210 Range 27.1m km MCR 2.4m km Resolution 1 Renraku Computer Systems 'Fujio' Series EM Cruiser Passive Sensor Suite (1) Sensitivity 110 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 82.9m km Renraku Computer Systems 'Fujio' Series TH Cruiser Passive Sensor Suite (1) Sensitivity 110 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 82.9m km ECCM-2 (1) ECM 20 This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
Code: [Select]
Gibralter class Light Carrier (P) 29,315 tons 581 Crew 5,043.6 BP TCS 586 TH 2,880 EM 0 4912 km/s Armour 6-84 Shields 0-0 HTK 133 Sensors 110/110/0/0 DCR 22 PPV 30.12 Maint Life 2.09 Years MSP 3,290 AFR 573% IFR 8.0% 1YR 1,008 5YR 15,118 Max Repair 480.00 MSP Hangar Deck Capacity 7,000 tons Magazine 724 Captain Control Rating 5 BRG AUX ENG CIC PFC Intended Deployment Time: 6 months Flight Crew Berths 140 Morale Check Required Magneto-plasma Drive EP960.00 (3) Power 2880.0 Fuel Use 55.11% Signature 960.00 Explosion 15% Fuel Capacity 5,000,000 Litres Range 55.7 billion km (131 days at full power) BEA Systems Quad 'Challenger' Gauss Cannon Turret (6x12) Range 30,000km TS: 16000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 30,000 km ROF 5 BEA Systems R.32k/T.16k 'Challenger' Series Fire Controls (3) Max Range: 32,000 km TS: 16,000 km/s 69 38 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cyberdyne Systems Corporation 'T-200' Series Long-Range Cruiser Active Sensor Suite (1) GPS 42000 Range 158.6m km Resolution 200 Cyberdyne Systems Corporation 'T-200' Series Mid-Range Cruiser Active Sensor Suite (1) GPS 4200 Range 73.6m km Resolution 20 Cyberdyne Systems Corporation 'T-200' Series Short-Range Cruiser Active Sensor Suite (1) GPS 210 Range 27.1m km MCR 2.4m km Resolution 1 Renraku Computer Systems 'Fujio' Series EM Cruiser Passive Sensor Suite (1) Sensitivity 110 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 82.9m km Renraku Computer Systems 'Fujio' Series TH Cruiser Passive Sensor Suite (1) Sensitivity 110 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 82.9m km ECM 20 This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
Destroyers

Code: [Select]
Spartacus class Missile Destroyer (P) 9,876 tons 267 Crew 1,727.8 BP TCS 198 TH 960 EM 0 4860 km/s Armour 4-41 Shields 0-0 HTK 69 Sensors 11/11/0/0 DCR 15 PPV 44.08 Maint Life 2.54 Years MSP 786 AFR 156% IFR 2.2% 1YR 171 5YR 2,559 Max Repair 240.00 MSP Magazine 756 Commander Control Rating 4 BRG AUX ENG CIC Intended Deployment Time: 6 months Morale Check Required Magneto-plasma Drive EP480.00 (2) Power 960.0 Fuel Use 77.94% Signature 480.00 Explosion 15% Fuel Capacity 1,250,000 Litres Range 29.2 billion km (69 days at full power) BEA Systems Quad 'Challenger' Gauss Cannon Turret (4x12) Range 30,000km TS: 16000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 30,000 km ROF 5 BEA Systems R.32k/T.16k 'Challenger' Series Fire Controls (2) Max Range: 32,000 km TS: 16,000 km/s 69 38 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UNSC Board of Naval Design Size-4 Missile Launch System Mk.1 (8) Missile Size: 4.0 Rate of Fire 30 Raytheon 'Future-Fight' Series Fighter Missile Fire Controls (1) Range 5.4m km Resolution 1 Cyberdyne Systems Corporation 'T-200' Series Short-Range Escort Active Sensor Suite (1) GPS 21 Range 8.6m km MCR 771.7k km Resolution 1 Cyberdyne Systems Corporation 'T-200' Series Mid-Range Escort Active Sensor Suite (1) GPS 420 Range 23.3m km Resolution 20 Cyberdyne Systems Corporation 'T-200' Series Long-Range Escort Active Sensor Suite (1) GPS 4200 Range 50.1m km Resolution 200 Renraku Computer Systems 'Fujio' Series EM Escort Passive Sensor Suite (1) Sensitivity 11.0 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 26.2m km Renraku Computer Systems 'Fujio' Series TH Escort Passive Sensor Suite (1) Sensitivity 11.0 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 26.2m km ECM 20 This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
Code: [Select]
Marlborough class Destroyer Escort (P) 10,000 tons 279 Crew 1,975.4 BP TCS 200 TH 960 EM 0 4800 km/s Armour 4-41 Shields 0-0 HTK 95 Sensors 11/11/0/0 DCR 15 PPV 52.16 Maint Life 3.11 Years MSP 857 AFR 160% IFR 2.2% 1YR 133 5YR 1,999 Max Repair 240.00 MSP Magazine 452 Commander Control Rating 4 BRG AUX ENG CIC Intended Deployment Time: 6 months Morale Check Required Magneto-plasma Drive EP480.00 (2) Power 960.0 Fuel Use 77.94% Signature 480.00 Explosion 15% Fuel Capacity 1,250,000 Litres Range 28.9 billion km (69 days at full power) BEA Systems Quad 'Challenger' Gauss Cannon Turret (8x12) Range 30,000km TS: 16000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 30,000 km ROF 5 BEA Systems R.32k/T.16k 'Challenger' Series Fire Controls (4) Max Range: 32,000 km TS: 16,000 km/s 69 38 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UNSC Board of Naval Design Size-1 Missile Launch System Mk.1 (12) Missile Size: 1 Rate of Fire 10 Raytheon 2M. 'Minute-man' Missile Point-Defense Fire Controller (4) Range 24.3m km Resolution 1 Cyberdyne Systems Corporation 'T-200' Series Short-Range Escort Active Sensor Suite (1) GPS 21 Range 8.6m km MCR 771.7k km Resolution 1 Cyberdyne Systems Corporation 'T-200' Series Mid-Range Escort Active Sensor Suite (1) GPS 420 Range 23.3m km Resolution 20 Cyberdyne Systems Corporation 'T-200' Series Long-Range Escort Active Sensor Suite (1) GPS 4200 Range 50.1m km Resolution 200 Renraku Computer Systems 'Fujio' Series EM Escort Passive Sensor Suite (1) Sensitivity 11.0 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 26.2m km Renraku Computer Systems 'Fujio' Series TH Escort Passive Sensor Suite (1) Sensitivity 11.0 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 26.2m km ECM 20 This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
Frigates

Code: [Select]
Defender class Escort (P) 2,967 tons 107 Crew 737.3 BP TCS 59 TH 384 EM 0 6471 km/s Armour 3-18 Shields 0-0 HTK 32 Sensors 11/11/0/0 DCR 10 PPV 8.16 Maint Life 1.47 Years MSP 117 AFR 141% IFR 2.0% 1YR 60 5YR 902 Max Repair 96.00 MSP Magazine 37 Commander Control Rating 4 BRG AUX ENG CIC Intended Deployment Time: 6 months Morale Check Required Magneto-plasma Drive EP192.00 (2) Power 384.0 Fuel Use 123.24% Signature 192.00 Explosion 15% Fuel Capacity 350,000 Litres Range 17.2 billion km (30 days at full power) BEA Systems Twin 'Challenger' Gauss Cannon Turret (2x6) Range 30,000km TS: 16000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 30,000 km ROF 5 BEA Systems R.32k/T.16k 'Challenger' Series Fire Controls (1) Max Range: 32,000 km TS: 16,000 km/s 69 38 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UNSC Board of Naval Design Size-1 Missile Launch System Mk.1 (3) Missile Size: 1 Rate of Fire 10 Raytheon 2M. 'Minute-man' Missile Point-Defense Fire Controller (1) Range 24.3m km Resolution 1 Cyberdyne Systems Corporation 'T-200' Series Short-Range Escort Active Sensor Suite (1) GPS 21 Range 8.6m km MCR 771.7k km Resolution 1 Renraku Computer Systems 'Fujio' Series EM Escort Passive Sensor Suite (1) Sensitivity 11.0 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 26.2m km Renraku Computer Systems 'Fujio' Series TH Escort Passive Sensor Suite (1) Sensitivity 11.0 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 26.2m km Compact ECCM-1 (1) This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
Fighters
Code: [Select]
B-24 'Raider' class Bomber (P) 125 tons 2 Crew 32.8 BP TCS 2 TH 40 EM 0 16077 km/s Armour 1-2 Shields 0-0 HTK 1 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0 PPV 0.9 Maint Life 0 Years MSP 0 AFR 24% IFR 0.3% 1YR 1 5YR 19 Max Repair 20.00 MSP Magazine 6 Lieutenant Control Rating 1 Intended Deployment Time: 3 days Morale Check Required Magneto-plasma Drive EP40.00 (1) Power 40.0 Fuel Use 1250.00% Signature 40.00 Explosion 25% Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres Range 1.16 billion km (19 hours at full power) UNSC Board of Naval Design Size-6 Missile Pod (1) Missile Size: 6.00 Hangar Reload 122 minutes MF Reload 20 hours Raytheon 'Future-Fight' Series Fighter Missile Fire Controls (1) Range 5.4m km Resolution 1 Raytheon 'Future-Fight' Series Fighter Active Search Sensor Suite (1) GPS 3 Range 2.7m km MCR 244k km Resolution 1 This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction
Code: [Select]
SC-38 'Magpie' class Scout (P) 250 tons 6 Crew 59.1 BP TCS 5 TH 40 EM 0 8007 km/s Armour 1-3 Shields 0-0 HTK 4 Sensors 11/11/0/0 DCR 0 PPV 0 Maint Life 0 Years MSP 0 AFR 49% IFR 0.7% 1YR 4 5YR 57 Max Repair 20.00 MSP Lieutenant Control Rating 1 Intended Deployment Time: 3 days Morale Check Required Magneto-plasma Drive EP40.00 (1) Power 40.0 Fuel Use 1250.00% Signature 40.00 Explosion 25% Fuel Capacity 84,000 Litres Range 4.8 billion km (6 days at full power) Renraku Computer Systems 'Fujio' Series EM Escort Passive Sensor Suite (1) Sensitivity 11.0 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 26.2m km Renraku Computer Systems 'Fujio' Series TH Escort Passive Sensor Suite (1) Sensitivity 11.0 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 26.2m km This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction
Code: [Select]
RS-23 'Stork' class Rescue Shuttle (P) 250 tons 2 Crew 39 BP TCS 5 TH 40 EM 0 8007 km/s Armour 1-3 Shields 0-0 HTK 4 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0 PPV 0 Maint Life 0 Years MSP 0 AFR 49% IFR 0.7% 1YR 2 5YR 32 Max Repair 20.00 MSP Cryogenic Berths 400 Lieutenant Control Rating 1 Intended Deployment Time: 3 days Morale Check Required Magneto-plasma Drive EP40.00 (1) Power 40.0 Fuel Use 1250.00% Signature 40.00 Explosion 25% Fuel Capacity 86,000 Litres Range 5 billion km (7 days at full power) This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction
Title: Re: Carrier Doctrine Fleet
Post by: nuclearslurpee on December 29, 2020, 03:20:42 PM: The main thing that sticks out to me is a lack of endurance. Your fleet has a short deployment time (6 months) and the flagship carrier has less than a year of maintenance life. It's easy to say you can handle this by sending a large auxiliary fleet but the necessity to drag a slow fleet of support ships everywhere is going to slow down your ability to quickly deploy the fleet where it is needed, particularly when facing multiple and/or unexpected threats. Even with logistical support, the carrier in particular will be chewing through MSP very quickly which will put a strain on your home/base planet ability to keep up MSP production for the fleet.

I would suggest cutting down the size of the Carthage carrier by cutting down on the PD, AMMs, and maybe also sensors by outsourcing these roles to the smaller escort ships and building more of those instead. The Gibraltar CVL is much closer to what I would consider an effective carrier design, maybe still a bit heavy on the turrets but otherwise reasonable. I personally would just scrap the supercarrier and use the CVL, but that's just me.

The Marlborough class DE is your best design here and should be your PD/AMM workhorse ship, and you should be able to get 9-12 months of deployment time on the design by reducing the number of fire controls (you really only need two for redundancy, one BFC will provide PD against any number of missile salvos due to how beam PD was changed in C#).

I also think you have too many ship designs here. All you really need for a carrier fleet is a carrier class, a point defense escort, and usually an anti-fighter/FAC class which in this case the cruiser or missile destroyer can do that, you don't need both. The frigate is too small to do much of anything, especially with so much tonnage given to engines, armor, and redundant sensors, so I would either scrap it or relegate it for outer systems defense roles in your backwater areas.

Again, note that not every ship needs a full set of active sensors. Other people like having dedicated sensor ships; personally I like to give each ship only the active sensors it needs for its particular weapons so it is able to operate "independently" if necessary, and maybe have a dedicated fleet sensor boat if and only if I have other sensors I want to tote around that don't fit a role on another ship. This means your DEs really only need the short-range AMM/PD sensors, and the only ship that needs the mid-range sensors will be the missile cruisers/destroyers since these serve as your main defense against enemy FACs, and those in exchange don't need long range sensors.
Title: Re: Carrier Doctrine Fleet
Post by: SpaceMarine on December 29, 2020, 03:48:12 PM: Some things I want to point out,

1. There is a lack of a unison fleet standard speed, in a fleet you will always travel at the speed of the slowest ship, this can cause issues and reduces the effectiveness and efficiency of a fleet.

2. It seems your going for the US carrier strike group doctrine way of doing things which is quite cool and one i favour myself but you have to keep in mind that to do this kind of strategy you need to be able to support such groups with an auxiliary fleet containing colliers, tankers, hospital ships, transport vessels, maintenance etc.

3. Your carrier seems to have quite a few issues. one of those is that even at its massive size only 30% of the ship is in hangars, a carriers primary weapon should be its fighters especially with a doctrine such as this, so packing missile launchers onto it makes no sense, the fighters are the "Missiles", another thing is that you have way too many fire controls considering you have relatively few actual gauss weapons. Maintenance is also a massive issue you have an IFR on the carrier of 21% so every 5 days there is a 21% chance for a component to fail which is an ungodly high rate considering a normal destroyer someone would make has an IFR of 1% or less, this is probably due to lack of actual engineering spaces and the large size of the vessel.

4. For magneto plasma your fleet is quite slow besides the frigates, for magneto plasma i tend to favor 6400-7000km/s for fleet standard speeds,

5. again your mixing and matching and compromising on ships that are quite small, you need to specialise this is the benefit of having so many types of ships, the ability for each one to fulfil one role or purpose, as none of your ships really fill one role excellently they all just do an average job at a few things.
Title: Re: Carrier Doctrine Fleet
Post by: Borealis4x on December 29, 2020, 11:04:08 PM: I trimmed down the amount of ships (for now, they'll form the basis of subsequent variants) and improved speed and endurance across the entire fleet. I figured since each ship is meant to serve together in the same task force, they should all have the same speeds.

Code: [Select]
Carthage class Carrier (P) 100,000 tons 2,208 Crew 17,880.7 BP TCS 2,000 TH 9,600 EM 0 4800 km/s Armour 6-191 Shields 0-0 HTK 401 Sensors 550/550/0/0 DCR 110 PPV 15.48 Maint Life 1.49 Years MSP 11,175 AFR 800% IFR 11.1% 1YR 5,616 5YR 84,240 Max Repair 2400.00 MSP Hangar Deck Capacity 30,000 tons Magazine 1,440 Captain Control Rating 6 BRG AUX ENG CIC FLG PFC Intended Deployment Time: 8 months Flight Crew Berths 600 Morale Check Required 150% Capital Engine (2) Power 9600.0 Fuel Use 24.65% Signature 4800.00 Explosion 15% Fuel Capacity 15,567,000 Litres Range 113.7 billion km (274 days at full power) BEA Systems Twin 'Challenger' Gauss Cannon Turret (6x6) Range 30,000km TS: 16000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 30,000 km ROF 5 BEA Systems R.32k/T.16k 'Challenger' Series Fire Controls (1) Max Range: 32,000 km TS: 16,000 km/s 69 38 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cyberdyne Systems Corporation 'T-200' Series Long-Range Capital Active Sensor Suite (1) GPS 210000 Range 354.6m km Resolution 200 Cyberdyne Systems Corporation 'T-200' Series Mid-Range Capital Active Sensor Suite (1) GPS 21000 Range 164.6m km Resolution 20 Cyberdyne Systems Corporation 'T-200' Series Short-Range Capital Active Sensor Suite (1) GPS 1050 Range 60.6m km MCR 5.5m km Resolution 1 Renraku Computer Systems 'Fujio' Series EM Capital Passive Sensor Suite (1) Sensitivity 550 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 185.4m km Renraku Computer Systems 'Fujio' Series TH Capital Passive Sensor Suite (1) Sensitivity 550 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 185.4m km ECM 20 This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposess
The amount of hangar space hasn't changed and I don't want to divorce the ship from its sensors. Even if that might be more efficient, it would be a real pain to manage and I like to RP with the Carrier being the central figure of the Carrier Task Force. Adding more hangar space would mean also adding more magazines, which I just can't fit. As it is, if we assume that I fill the carrier with 125-ton bombers carrying size-6 missiles and launch them all at the enemy, I can only reload them from the carrier once. Hopefully that is enough.

Code: [Select]
Kiev class Missile Cruiser (P) 30,000 tons 712 Crew 4,920.4 BP TCS 600 TH 2,880 EM 0 4800 km/s Armour 4-86 Shields 0-0 HTK 119 Sensors 110/110/0/0 DCR 22 PPV 97.74 Maint Life 1.36 Years MSP 2,430 AFR 600% IFR 8.3% 1YR 1,414 5YR 21,215 Max Repair 720.00 MSP Magazine 1,560 Captain Control Rating 4 BRG AUX ENG CIC Intended Deployment Time: 8 months Morale Check Required 150% Cruiser Engine (2) Power 2880.0 Fuel Use 45.00% Signature 1440.00 Explosion 15% Fuel Capacity 8,191,000 Litres Range 109.2 billion km (263 days at full power) BEA Systems Twin 'Challenger' Gauss Cannon Turret (3x6) Range 30,000km TS: 16000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 30,000 km ROF 5 BEA Systems R.32k/T.16k 'Challenger' Series Fire Controls (1) Max Range: 32,000 km TS: 16,000 km/s 69 38 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UNSC Board of Naval Design Size-4 Missile Launch System Mk.1 (30) Missile Size: 4 Rate of Fire 30 Missile Fire Control FC107-R20 (30%) (1) Range 107.5m km Resolution 20 Cyberdyne Systems Corporation 'T-200' Series Mid-Range Cruiser Active Sensor Suite (1) GPS 4200 Range 73.6m km Resolution 20 Cyberdyne Systems Corporation 'T-200' Series Long-Range Cruiser Active Sensor Suite (1) GPS 42000 Range 158.6m km Resolution 200 Cyberdyne Systems Corporation 'T-200' Series Short-Range Cruiser Active Sensor Suite (1) GPS 210 Range 27.1m km MCR 2.4m km Resolution 1 Renraku Computer Systems 'Fujio' Series EM Cruiser Passive Sensor Suite (1) Sensitivity 110 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 82.9m km Renraku Computer Systems 'Fujio' Series TH Cruiser Passive Sensor Suite (1) Sensitivity 110 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 82.9m km ECCM-2 (1) ECM 20 This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
Code: [Select]
Marlborough class Destroyer Escort (P) 10,000 tons 182 Crew 1,369.3 BP TCS 200 TH 960 EM 0 4800 km/s Armour 4-41 Shields 0-0 HTK 55 Sensors 11/11/0/0 DCR 13 PPV 16.04 Maint Life 1.94 Years MSP 496 AFR 267% IFR 3.7% 1YR 172 5YR 2,575 Max Repair 240.00 MSP Magazine 198 Commander Control Rating 4 BRG AUX ENG CIC Intended Deployment Time: 8 months Morale Check Required 150% Escort Engine (2) Power 960.0 Fuel Use 77.94% Signature 480.00 Explosion 15% Fuel Capacity 4,501,000 Litres Range 103.9 billion km (250 days at full power) BEA Systems Quad 'Challenger' Gauss Cannon Turret (2x12) Range 30,000km TS: 16000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 30,000 km ROF 5 BEA Systems R.32k/T.16k 'Challenger' Series Fire Controls (1) Max Range: 32,000 km TS: 16,000 km/s 69 38 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UNSC Board of Naval Design Size-1 Missile Launch System Mk.1 (6) Missile Size: 1 Rate of Fire 10 Raytheon R.2M. 'Minute-man' Missile Point-Defense Fire Controller (1) Range 24.3m km Resolution 1 Cyberdyne Systems Corporation 'T-200' Series Mid-Range Escort Active Sensor Suite (1) GPS 420 Range 23.3m km Resolution 20 Cyberdyne Systems Corporation 'T-200' Series Short-Range Escort Active Sensor Suite (1) GPS 21 Range 8.6m km MCR 771.7k km Resolution 1 Renraku Computer Systems 'Fujio' Series TH Escort Passive Sensor Suite (1) Sensitivity 11 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 26.2m km Renraku Computer Systems 'Fujio' Series EM Escort Passive Sensor Suite (1) Sensitivity 11 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 26.2m km ECM 20 This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
I don't know how people are getting more than 6000km/s out of Magneto engines with decent range. I don't think those speeds are necessary at this tech level anyways, unless you want a real aggressive beam ship or fighter.
Title: Re: Carrier Doctrine Fleet
Post by: nuclearslurpee on December 29, 2020, 11:44:34 PM: Quote from: Borealis4x on December 29, 2020, 11:04:08 PM
I trimmed down the amount of ships (for now, they'll form the basis of subsequent variants) and improved speed and endurance across the entire fleet. I figured since each ship is meant to serve together in the same task force, they should all have the same speeds.

snip

The amount of hangar space hasn't changed and I don't want to divorce the ship from its sensors. Even if that might be more efficient, it would be a real pain to manage and I like to RP with the Carrier being the central figure of the Carrier Task Force. Adding more hangar space would mean also adding more magazines, which I just can't fit. As it is, if we assume that I fill the carrier with 125-ton bombers carrying size-6 missiles and launch them all at the enemy, I can only reload them from the carrier once. Hopefully that is enough.

Definitely looks a lot better now as a fleet. On the carrier, it looks like the best way to make space for magazines would be to cut a layer of armor, and you could also cut the CIC module if you need a bit more room since the carrier shouldn't be doing a lot of shooting.

Quote
I don't know how people are getting more than 6000km/s out of Magneto engines with decent range. I don't think those speeds are necessary at this tech level anyways, unless you want a real aggressive beam ship or fighter.

Mainly cutting down the range quite a bit. Rarely do people build warships with 100b km ranges, usually somewhere in the 15-40b km seems more common. This is mainly just because your warships don't actually need to fly that far until fairly late in the game, and a lot of their deployment times tend to be spent sitting around rather than moving at high speed.

In this case running through an optimizer (E: assuming 0.7 fuel tech) shows that you can build a carrier that reaches 7000 km/s and 100b km range with two MP drives at size 350 and EP modifier 1.25, supplemented by some 11.5 million liters of fuel (230 HS). This comes out to a total of 930 HS for engines and fuel, or 46.5% of your total ship mass. That's a lot and definitely reduces the space you have for weapons, hangars etc. but many people will use this amount of space for propulsion to achieve high speeds. If you cut the range down to maybe 30b km, then two size 258 engines with a 1.70 modifier will give you 7,018 km/s and the desired range with 8.66m L of fuel (174 HS) which requires "only" 690 HS of engines and fuel for your ship (34.5%).

Actually for smaller ships it is trickier to get high speed and good range. For the 10,000-ton destroyer you would need two size-47 engines and a 0.95 EP modifier plus 1.58m L of fuel (31.6 HS), thus requiring 126 HS of engines and fuel (63%) to reach 7000 km/s and 100b km range, which is indeed prohibitive. Cutting the range down to 30b km gives a more manageable two size-35 engines with a 1.25x modifier and 1.09m L of fuel (21.8 HS), thus "only" needing a total of 92 HS (46%) to accomplish the goal.

That said, high speeds like this are more necessary for beam ships than missile ships. For missile ships I'd say 4,800 km/s is a bit slow and I'd prefer 5,000 km/s minimum. For beam ships with MP drives 7,000 km/s is a little high but I'd say 6,000 or 6,250 km/s is fine and should outpace most NPRs. In the case of a carrier fleet, as long as the fighters can outrun any larger enemy ships and the non-carrier ships do not need to close the range then a slower speed is acceptable in tactical terms. Strategically the response time may be too long, but this is difficult to tell and depends on how you manage your fleets and bases.
Title: Re: Carrier Doctrine Fleet
Post by: Borealis4x on December 29, 2020, 11:49:39 PM: The good thing is I'm satisfied with the allocation of components, so the only thing I have to change is the power of the engines. Currently that are at 150% power but could easily bump them up to 200% either before building or after through retrofits. Seeing as I have yet to even leave Sol (I take my time, I know) 100 billion is probably overkill atm.
Title: Re: Carrier Doctrine Fleet
Post by: SpaceMarine on December 30, 2020, 08:08:59 AM: To help give an example of magneto plasma ships with 6000km/s+ speeds I will list my three current mainstays of my navy, my destroyers.

Code: [Select]
Vanguard class Destroyer Escort 7,500 tons 166 Crew 1,415.2 BP TCS 150 TH 960 EM 0 6400 km/s Armour 5-34 Shields 0-0 HTK 37 Sensors 20/27/0/0 DCR 3 PPV 42.24 Maint Life 1.64 Years MSP 353 AFR 150% IFR 2.1% 1YR 155 5YR 2,323 Max Repair 240 MSP Trierarch Control Rating 1 BRG Intended Deployment Time: 18 months Morale Check Required Difede-Montejano Magneto-plasma Drive EP480.00 (2) Power 960 Fuel Use 69.84% Signature 480 Explosion 12% Fuel Capacity 549,000 Litres Range 18.9 billion km (34 days at full power) Quad Small Point Defence Cannon Turret (16x16) Range 10,000km TS: 16000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 10,000 km ROF 5 Beam Fire Control R48-TS16000 (1) Max Range: 48,000 km TS: 16,000 km/s 79 58 38 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 Active Search Sensor AS19-R1 (1) GPS 105 Range 19.2m km MCR 1.7m km Resolution 1 Active Search Sensor AS88-R100 (1) GPS 10500 Range 89m km Resolution 100 Thermal Sensor TH2.50-20.00 (1) Sensitivity 20 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 35.4m km EM Sensor EM2.50-27.50 (1) Sensitivity 27.5 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 41.5m km
Code: [Select]
Valiance class Destroyer Escort 7,500 tons 232 Crew 1,500.5 BP TCS 150 TH 960 EM 0 6400 km/s Armour 5-34 Shields 0-0 HTK 54 Sensors 20/27/0/0 DCR 3 PPV 35 Maint Life 1.60 Years MSP 375 AFR 150% IFR 2.1% 1YR 170 5YR 2,557 Max Repair 240 MSP Trierarch Control Rating 1 BRG Intended Deployment Time: 18 months Morale Check Required Difede-Montejano Magneto-plasma Drive EP480.00 (2) Power 960 Fuel Use 69.84% Signature 480 Explosion 12% Fuel Capacity 569,000 Litres Range 19.6 billion km (35 days at full power) BST-4 Particle Beam (5) Range 192,000km TS: 6,400 km/s Power 10-4 ROF 15 Beam Fire Control R192-TS6400 (1) Max Range: 192,000 km TS: 6,400 km/s 95 90 84 79 74 69 64 58 53 48 Stellarator Fusion Reactor R20 (1) Total Power Output 20.2 Exp 5% Active Search Sensor AS19-R1 (1) GPS 105 Range 19.2m km MCR 1.7m km Resolution 1 Active Search Sensor AS88-R100 (1) GPS 10500 Range 89m km Resolution 100 Thermal Sensor TH2.50-20.00 (1) Sensitivity 20 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 35.4m km EM Sensor EM2.50-27.50 (1) Sensitivity 27.5 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 41.5m km
Code: [Select]
Deliverance class Destroyer Escort 7,500 tons 192 Crew 1,313.3 BP TCS 150 TH 960 EM 0 6400 km/s JR 3-50 Armour 4-34 Shields 0-0 HTK 39 Sensors 20/27/0/0 DCR 3 PPV 21.12 Maint Life 1.46 Years MSP 328 AFR 150% IFR 2.1% 1YR 171 5YR 2,560 Max Repair 240 MSP Trierarch Control Rating 1 BRG Intended Deployment Time: 18 months Morale Check Required J7500(3-50) Military Jump Drive Max Ship Size 7500 tons Distance 50k km Squadron Size 3 Difede-Montejano Magneto-plasma Drive EP480.00 (2) Power 960 Fuel Use 69.84% Signature 480 Explosion 12% Fuel Capacity 456,000 Litres Range 15.7 billion km (28 days at full power) Quad Small Point Defence Cannon Turret (8x16) Range 10,000km TS: 16000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 10,000 km ROF 5 Beam Fire Control R48-TS16000 (1) Max Range: 48,000 km TS: 16,000 km/s 79 58 38 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 Active Search Sensor AS19-R1 (1) GPS 105 Range 19.2m km MCR 1.7m km Resolution 1 Active Search Sensor AS88-R100 (1) GPS 10500 Range 89m km Resolution 100 Thermal Sensor TH2.50-20.00 (1) Sensitivity 20 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 35.4m km EM Sensor EM2.50-27.50 (1) Sensitivity 27.5 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 41.5m km
Each ship is built on the same hull, utilising the same engines, the engines which take up 33% of each ships tonnage are able to give them these 6400km/s speeds while not being completely dead in terms of fuel efficiency, like many player it is presumed for any long term deployments these ships will be supported by tankers, in the most recent combat situation vs precursors I had to do exactly that as the combat zone was around 30bkm away.

Total Breakup of component tonnage for the ships are as follows:

Engines: 33% of Tonnage Allocated
Weapons and Armour: 25-34% Tonnage Allocated (Vanguard has the most, deliverance the least)
Sensors and firecontrols: 10-18% of Tonnage Allocated
Fuel: 8% of tonnage allocated
Other: 5-8% tonnage allocated (stuff like crew quarters etc)
Special: 17% of Tonnage allocated (Jump drive and only effects the Deliverance)

As you can see the engines essentially match the weapons and armour in terms of tonnage.

To assist further I will also list the full specs of the main engine

Code: [Select]
Difede-Montejano Magneto-plasma Drive EP480.00 Engine Power 480 Fuel Use Per Hour 335.2 litres Fuel per EPH 0.7 Thermal Signature 480 Explosion Chance 12% Military Engine Cost 240 Size 1,250 tons Crew 30 HTK 5 Base Chance to hit 100% Materials Required: Gallicite 240
I hope this has helped you understand how these speeds are possible for military ships at this tech level.
Title: Re: Carrier Doctrine Fleet
Post by: misanthropope on December 30, 2020, 10:50:19 AM: fast ships will burn your gallicite stockpile and leave you with too few ships and too little firepower. slow ships will require longer endurances just to reach the bad guys, and require more total firepower worth of fleet, because crises travel in packs. theres a tactical significance of the speed you choose too, of course, but unless its beams-only on both sides or you have specific advance knowledge of an opponent, it tends to imho be wildly overstated.

speeds are so circumscribed by engine tech that the most useful unit is _percentage_. spacemarine's ships are "speed 40%"; 1/3 engine times 1.2 power mod. just to underline one of spacemarine's implicit points, that's also just the right way to think about ships during the design phase. "i want 40% speed, [range/ fuel efficiency/ fuel production consideration] suggests 1.2 power mod, so i will design a single 25 hull space engine and build my ships in multiples of 75 hull spaces." you can get better ships with customized engines, but you get _better_ better ships spending the research elsewhere.
Title: Re: Carrier Doctrine Fleet
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on December 30, 2020, 06:18:11 PM: In my opinion the amount of research spent on the components of these ships are staggering at this stage of the development in general. If you spent all that energy to better your general research and built more of a defensive shorter ranged fleet until you meet an actual enemy you would be much better prepared to face whatever it is you are going to face.

Is there also some reason that the human government would spend this amount of research on naval assets when they don't even know of any hostile aliens or if there are any intelligent life at all out there, just asking... ;) ...from a role-play perspective that is.

I also, for the most part, question the idea of having ships of any significant size being specialised, your ships are plenty large so you don't need to bother at all about that. The important thing is the role of the ships. An escort should be able to perform in that role and there is no real need to provide multiple ship types unless you have some specific knowledge of the enemy to warrant it. An escort who have both PD and long range beam weapons is generally a sound choice as it leave you much less vulnerable to be destroyed in detail of that specific capacity as you have more hull space to soak damage for every weapon type in any situation. It is better to have an average of 8 long range beams on 8 ships rather than 10 on two specially equipped ones if all else is equal in terms of speed etc...

In most of my campaigns I build ships based on roles and have them able to perform in that specific capacity. Most fleet escorts generally also perform patrols and reconnaissance in force missions. I rarely build fleet escorts smaller than 10-20k. So they usually are jack of all trades ships with some hangars for scouts and/or beam fighters, beam weapons, PD, AMM and some mid range ASM as self defence in either smallest internal launches or box launchers. ASM missiles can often be replaced with anti-small-craft launchers for double duty when in fleet formations, refitting ships usually is a very quick affair or sometimes the missiles can just be swapped for anti-small-craft missiles.

My battlecarriers at this stage of the game who are 100k+ tons are usually equipped with Commercial engines with 50% efficiency and max stealth technology to reduce their thermal signature as much as possible. The main job of the carrier is to never be seen and will need stealth to do that. The one you have will be seen hundreds of millions of kilometres with even rudimentary passive sensors. If the carrier drives at full speed a size 5 sensitivity 11 passive will see the ship at little over 180mkm away. The reason for using commercial engines would be cost in research, both for the engines, jump engines and my economy in terms of Gallicite and Fuel.

If you have 30k ton of hangars and you will need about 2-2.5 million tons of fuel for every sortie your fighters make, that have to be added to the overall consideration of the fleet as well... fighters and really fast ships will cost allot of fuel so you will need tankers or using large amount of space on your ships for fuel rather than power.

My battle carriers usually are about 25% hangars, 40% engines and then support system for the rest including some weapon systems. But they are obviously way slower than all other capital warship... but the role of the carrier is space dominance not speed. I would never deploy the carrier anywhere unless the area are properly scouted first.

Every ship in my fleet also carry hangars, most cruisers or the largest ship with a military drive will have about 10-15% hangar space too so can be used as mini-carriers for quicker operations. They carry fighters instead of long range ASM. At this stage of the game I never use long range ASM in ships... only short or medium range for self defence purposes for when things go wrong.

In my opinion you should not waste neither research nor resources on offensive forces unless you know what you fight so you can design components and know what parameters your ships need.

If I were in your shoes I would just build one long range cruiser mainly with defensive systems to survive an encounter and retreat. Their best means of defence would be able to see the enemy before they themselves are seen so you can observe and have them report back. Then you have container ships (commercial carriers) that ferry fighter-bombers between planetary bases and some dedicated short to medium range missile frigates that are fast and able to operate one system away from their base of operations as a defensive measure. Once an enemy is found, then I would start figuring about buildings a fleet with a space supremacy role.

We also have to consider that the main role of the fleet are to protect planets, bases and mineral extraction sites... all of which are permanent places in space. Objects in space also is ultimately going to be your targets in an offensive campaign and you don't need super speed for invading a planet, they really don't move that fast.. ;)
We also should not build a fleet to go up against equal odds fights... that is why you need good recon abilities so you know what to bring to the fight so you can overwhelm the enemy forces and most importantly surprise them.

Some part of your fleet will need good speed to be able to react to changing circumstances and as a means to engage an enemy... but in order to determine the necessary speed you will need to know what that needs to be first otherwise you just waste resources needlessly. In my opinion there are NO specific speed you need to build your ship for depending on what engine technology you possess. Every parameter on a ship must be figured out based on their role and the potential enemy and the overall terrain and area your are operating in.
Title: Re: Carrier Doctrine Fleet
Post by: Borealis4x on December 31, 2020, 05:13:29 AM: Quote from: Jorgen_CAB on December 30, 2020, 06:18:11 PM
snip

I suppose its a debate over speed vs stealth. My thinking is that a Carrier Task Force should be anything but subtle and should not have to hide, and should be able to respond quickly to threats while being able to run away if it really needs to.

As for justifying why my empire needs a carrier in the first place when it hasn't encountered any ships, I admit it bothers me as well. I wish there was some reason to invest in small Patrol ships early on to keep the peace even when you haven't encountered any aliens, kinda like how garrisons are necessary.

On another note, what do people think about putting a beam weapon or two on the cruiser at the expense of some missile silos? It bothers me that I don't have any offensive weapons with unlimited ammo and am vulnerable if any ship gets up close.
Title: Re: Carrier Doctrine Fleet
Post by: xenoscepter on December 31, 2020, 05:26:34 AM: Quote from: Borealis4x on December 31, 2020, 05:13:29 AM
I suppose its a debate over speed vs stealth. My thinking is that a Carrier Task Force should be anything but subtle and should not have to hide, and should be able to respond quickly to threats while being able to run away if it really needs to.

As for justifying why my empire needs a carrier in the first place when it hasn't encountered any ships, I admit it bothers me as well. I wish there was some reason to invest in small Patrol ships early on to keep the peace even when you haven't encountered any aliens, kinda like how garrisons are necessary.

On another note, what do people think about putting a beam weapon or two on the cruiser at the expense of some missile silos? It bothers me that I don't have any offensive weapons with unlimited ammo and am vulnerable if any ship gets up close.

- I'll preamble by saying I wholeheartedly disagree with Jorgen_CAB on the matter of why, as I have never really been able to justify not having some sort of competent Navy before or shortly after exploring Jump Points. After all... If I can cross the stars whose to say I'm the only one with such an ability? That said, small Patrol Ships give PPV, or Planetary Protection Value, which means you don't need garrisons everywhere as they apply their bonus to every planet in their system.

- As for Beam weapons on a missile ship? Yeah, it can be worth it, but it's up to you. :) Here's an example of my own, a Frigate whose main role is to conduct AMM Escort as well as provide ancillary fire support and scouts:

Code: [Select]
Diligent class Frigate 6,250 tons 160 Crew 1,062 BP TCS 125 TH 252 EM 0 4032 km/s Armour 3-30 Shields 0-0 HTK 62 Sensors 1/1/0/0 DCR 6 PPV 20 Maint Life 9.63 Years MSP 1,550 AFR 48% IFR 0.7% 1YR 30 5YR 454 Max Repair 141.75 MSP Hangar Deck Capacity 375 tons Magazine 140 Cryogenic Berths 200 Commander Control Rating 1 BRG Intended Deployment Time: 8 months Flight Crew Berths 40 Morale Check Required Rahman General T1050-MP252/R50 Military-Grade Starship Drive (2) Power 504 Fuel Use 16.81% Signature 126.0 Explosion 7% Fuel Capacity 601,000 Litres Range 103 billion km (295 days at full power) Zingarelli Naval K320 Naval Particle Beam, Class 2 (2) Range 320,000km TS: 5,000 km/s Power 5-5 ROF 5 Zingarelli Naval T100/R320-TS5K Beam FCS, Standard Grade (1) Max Range: 320,000 km TS: 5,000 km/s 97 94 91 88 84 81 78 75 72 69 Kittleson Designs T43/10-2B100 Fusion Reactor, Stellarator-Type (1) Total Power Output 10.2 Exp 50% Kittleson Designs Class 1 Missile Launcher, S1/R3 (10) Missile Size: 1 Rate of Fire 10 Kittleson Designs T25/1R Missile Fire Control, Class 21-11 (2) Range 12.1m km Resolution 1 Kittleson Designs C1CMM "Diligent" (130) Speed: 67,200 km/s End: 0.3m Range: 1.2m km WH: 1 Size: 1 TH: 403/241/120 T100/21-11R1 Active Sensor Suite, Naval Grade (1) GPS 42 Range 12.1m km MCR 1.1m km Resolution 1 Sensor Calibrator [TH] (1) Sensitivity 1 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 7.9m km Sensor Calibrator [EM] (1) Sensitivity 1 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 7.9m km Strike Group 3x Sprinter Fast Scout Craft Speed: 16118 km/s Size: 2.48 Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
- I have a Nuclear Thermal template of this on the C3 Bureau of Design. Note: This design is Magneto-Plasma and while slow for it's era, it's meant to keep up with the Carrier Group that it is intended to protect.
Title: Re: Carrier Doctrine Fleet
Post by: Borealis4x on December 31, 2020, 07:43:47 AM: Quote from: xenoscepter on December 31, 2020, 05:26:34 AM
Quote from: Borealis4x on December 31, 2020, 05:13:29 AM
I suppose its a debate over speed vs stealth. My thinking is that a Carrier Task Force should be anything but subtle and should not have to hide, and should be able to respond quickly to threats while being able to run away if it really needs to.

As for justifying why my empire needs a carrier in the first place when it hasn't encountered any ships, I admit it bothers me as well. I wish there was some reason to invest in small Patrol ships early on to keep the peace even when you haven't encountered any aliens, kinda like how garrisons are necessary.

On another note, what do people think about putting a beam weapon or two on the cruiser at the expense of some missile silos? It bothers me that I don't have any offensive weapons with unlimited ammo and am vulnerable if any ship gets up close.

- I'll preamble by saying I wholeheartedly disagree with Jorgen_CAB on the matter of why, as I have never really been able to justify not having some sort of competent Navy before or shortly after exploring Jump Points. After all... If I can cross the stars whose to say I'm the only one with such an ability? That said, small Patrol Ships give PPV, or Planetary Protection Value, which means you don't need garrisons everywhere as they apply their bonus to every planet in their system.

- As for Beam weapons on a missile ship? Yeah, it can be worth it, but it's up to you. :) Here's an example of my own, a Frigate whose main role is to conduct AMM Escort as well as provide ancillary fire support and scouts:

Code: [Select]
Diligent class Frigate 6,250 tons 160 Crew 1,062 BP TCS 125 TH 252 EM 0 4032 km/s Armour 3-30 Shields 0-0 HTK 62 Sensors 1/1/0/0 DCR 6 PPV 20 Maint Life 9.63 Years MSP 1,550 AFR 48% IFR 0.7% 1YR 30 5YR 454 Max Repair 141.75 MSP Hangar Deck Capacity 375 tons Magazine 140 Cryogenic Berths 200 Commander Control Rating 1 BRG Intended Deployment Time: 8 months Flight Crew Berths 40 Morale Check Required Rahman General T1050-MP252/R50 Military-Grade Starship Drive (2) Power 504 Fuel Use 16.81% Signature 126.0 Explosion 7% Fuel Capacity 601,000 Litres Range 103 billion km (295 days at full power) Zingarelli Naval K320 Naval Particle Beam, Class 2 (2) Range 320,000km TS: 5,000 km/s Power 5-5 ROF 5 Zingarelli Naval T100/R320-TS5K Beam FCS, Standard Grade (1) Max Range: 320,000 km TS: 5,000 km/s 97 94 91 88 84 81 78 75 72 69 Kittleson Designs T43/10-2B100 Fusion Reactor, Stellarator-Type (1) Total Power Output 10.2 Exp 50% Kittleson Designs Class 1 Missile Launcher, S1/R3 (10) Missile Size: 1 Rate of Fire 10 Kittleson Designs T25/1R Missile Fire Control, Class 21-11 (2) Range 12.1m km Resolution 1 Kittleson Designs C1CMM "Diligent" (130) Speed: 67,200 km/s End: 0.3m Range: 1.2m km WH: 1 Size: 1 TH: 403/241/120 T100/21-11R1 Active Sensor Suite, Naval Grade (1) GPS 42 Range 12.1m km MCR 1.1m km Resolution 1 Sensor Calibrator [TH] (1) Sensitivity 1 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 7.9m km Sensor Calibrator [EM] (1) Sensitivity 1 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 7.9m km Strike Group 3x Sprinter Fast Scout Craft Speed: 16118 km/s Size: 2.48 Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
- I have a Nuclear Thermal template of this on the C3 Bureau of Design. Note: This design is Magneto-Plasma and while slow for it's era, it's meant to keep up with the Carrier Group that it is intended to protect.

I imagine Spinal Mounted guns are perfect for when you want to add offensive beam capabilities as a secondary function. It gives you the most bang for your buck.

I'm surprised you saw fit to add hangars of all things to such a small ship that is already doing a lot of roles at once. In my book any good escort should have at least Twin-mounted Gauss turrets which would be a much better use of the space imo. AMMs are great and all, but they can run out.
Title: Re: Carrier Doctrine Fleet
Post by: xenoscepter on December 31, 2020, 09:25:08 AM: - Well, these are AMM focused Escorts, the main fleet has plenty sufficient Gauss and Laser Based PD such that these are only there to thin out truly massive waves such as those that certain spoiler races might be inclined to throw out, or perhaps the small craft of certain other spoilers. Restocking them only takes about 3.5 hours at base ordinance transfer tech, so a single collier could have a full squadron of six restocked in just under a day.
Title: Re: Carrier Doctrine Fleet
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on January 01, 2021, 04:13:53 AM: Quote from: xenoscepter on December 31, 2020, 05:26:34 AM
- I'll preamble by saying I wholeheartedly disagree with Jorgen_CAB on the matter of why, as I have never really been able to justify not having some sort of competent Navy before or shortly after exploring Jump Points. After all... If I can cross the stars whose to say I'm the only one with such an ability? That said, small Patrol Ships give PPV, or Planetary Protection Value, which means you don't need garrisons everywhere as they apply their bonus to every planet in their system.

In most of the games that I have played in the recent years it usually have taken me quite a while to come across any evidence for intelligent alien life, before that I don't think that we as a human species would create a large military force in space to defend our self unless it is against our self... which is the main reason I have had military ships of some sort before meeting an alien race. In those cases I only build notional fleets to deal with PPV issues or minor patrol crafts, unless I play a multi faction Earth start, then all bets are off... ;)

I'm not saying it is wrong to build a fleet before you meet an alien race... I think you can have many role-play explanations for it.... just make sure it is justified if you role-play that is all I say.
Title: Re: Carrier Doctrine Fleet
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on January 01, 2021, 04:25:14 AM: Quote from: Borealis4x on December 31, 2020, 05:13:29 AM
Quote from: Jorgen_CAB on December 30, 2020, 06:18:11 PM
snip

I suppose its a debate over speed vs stealth. My thinking is that a Carrier Task Force should be anything but subtle and should not have to hide, and should be able to respond quickly to threats while being able to run away if it really needs to.

As for justifying why my empire needs a carrier in the first place when it hasn't encountered any ships, I admit it bothers me as well. I wish there was some reason to invest in small Patrol ships early on to keep the peace even when you haven't encountered any aliens, kinda like how garrisons are necessary.

On another note, what do people think about putting a beam weapon or two on the cruiser at the expense of some missile silos? It bothers me that I don't have any offensive weapons with unlimited ammo and am vulnerable if any ship gets up close.

Sure this is all about doctrine... just that my doctrine that I proposed are way cheaper so you can get more ships and more advanced ones... that is what I was trying to say. The main problem is the amount of resources, both minerals and research you need for your ships. Especially in a situation when you don't even need them yet.... you must have a really Hawkish government back on Earth. ;)

You do need ships or stations to cover PPV but that exclude Earth itself though.

I think you still should consider your carrier doctrine because that is cool and I see no direct issues with your designs other than the enormous research costs, I would never be able to afford those costs in my games in general... although I usually play with about 10-15% research costs and a bunch of other self inflicted rules for usage of research complexes so I'm a bit biased here. ;)

I would just wait an develop the fleet once I found a real threat, that way you might have way better overall technology to combat that threat with. You are not going to go on the offensive day one you meet anyone anyway, not normally anyway. It also give you the knowledge about what you need so you can design the fleet based on the enemy designs after you had a chance to study them.
Title: Re: Carrier Doctrine Fleet
Post by: vorpal+5 on January 01, 2021, 05:10:57 AM: Depends ... (about building a war fleet before meeting aliens in the real world). Because I don't think major nations will go away anytime soon. Meaning you can bet than in 50 years, there will be Chinese cruisers and US carriers in the solar system. Because tech improvements is exponential, not linear. That is, if we don't kill ourselves like stoopid by sacking our own planet.
Title: Re: Carrier Doctrine Fleet
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on January 01, 2021, 07:09:02 AM: Quote from: vorpal+5 on January 01, 2021, 05:10:57 AM
Depends ... (about building a war fleet before meeting aliens in the real world). Because I don't think major nations will go away anytime soon. Meaning you can bet than in 50 years, there will be Chinese cruisers and US carriers in the solar system. Because tech improvements is exponential, not linear. That is, if we don't kill ourselves like stoopid by sacking our own planet.

Sure... as I said... in a multi-faction Earth it make allot of sense... I have played in many such version in Aurora.

But if you are in a unified Earth scenario who are the ships suppose to be fighting against unless there is some alien forces out there?!?

Is it no just enough with some rudimentary patrol ships at that point as there are no real enemy besides to occasional "terrorist" or something by that stage.
Title: Re: Carrier Doctrine Fleet
Post by: StarshipCactus on January 01, 2021, 07:30:05 AM: A politician or grand strategy expert could easily deliver a proclamation of doom in the senate, or equivalent. Warning of the potential dangers of other species out in space. It would be very easy to make an argument that other species existed and could travel space and pose a threat. After all, Humanity is in space, it is clearly possible, even if you don't know how likely. Numerous space telescopes pointed to the stars have probably detected many planets, much like we have today, only a hundred times better. One of those planets could have aliens and they might not be friendly. Is it worth the risk? Also, if you find ruins, you'll have an even easier time arguing that you need a navy with more capabilities than basic security and anti piracy duties.
Title: Re: Carrier Doctrine Fleet
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on January 01, 2021, 09:51:10 AM: Quote from: StarshipCactus on January 01, 2021, 07:30:05 AM
A politician or grand strategy expert could easily deliver a proclamation of doom in the senate, or equivalent. Warning of the potential dangers of other species out in space. It would be very easy to make an argument that other species existed and could travel space and pose a threat. After all, Humanity is in space, it is clearly possible, even if you don't know how likely. Numerous space telescopes pointed to the stars have probably detected many planets, much like we have today, only a hundred times better. One of those planets could have aliens and they might not be friendly. Is it worth the risk? Also, if you find ruins, you'll have an even easier time arguing that you need a navy with more capabilities than basic security and anti piracy duties.

Sure... to some extent... but there are likely limits to what would be actually done in practical terms. My basic reaction to the OP is one of enormous waste in research and resources that you would only ever see if you were in a total war scenario given the overall technology level and industry used.

There is a pretty big difference there... the amount of RP invested into that fleet will come out at 100k+ easily and on top of that I have not seen the jump drives to propel that fleet beyond Sol system. If the fleet is not suppose to go beyond Sol I see even less reason for building it. A jump engine with level 8 efficiency tech to jump a 100k carrier would take over 50k research alone. Level 8 jump tech is on par with the technology used.
Title: Re: Carrier Doctrine Fleet
Post by: StarshipCactus on January 01, 2021, 09:01:59 PM: Yeah, the 100K ton carrier is probably far more than would be done imo. What would be done imo, is some research invested into military matters, and plenty of prototype ships built/tested to see what works. You would wind up with a relatively small fleet with long range capabilities, but not super strong because maintaining is expensive. Still, better than a few PPV corvettes.
Title: Re: Carrier Doctrine Fleet
Post by: misanthropope on January 02, 2021, 06:31:55 PM: "if there are no aliens, infinite wealth is ours for the taking, and the expense associated with a fleet is meaningless. if there are aliens, the fleet is an utter requirement".

to build a fleet is literally the dominant strategy.
Title: Re: Carrier Doctrine Fleet
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on January 02, 2021, 08:29:37 PM: Quote from: misanthropope on January 02, 2021, 06:31:55 PM
"if there are no aliens, infinite wealth is ours for the taking, and the expense associated with a fleet is meaningless. if there are aliens, the fleet is an utter requirement".

to build a fleet is literally the dominant strategy.

That is like you saying you are going to spend the majority of your life working for no gain in the notion that there "might" be some imaginary event instead of spending your life doing something really worth while. You can still save some resources as an insurance for a rainy day but you are not going to spend the majority of your energy for nothing if you are able to do otherwise, that would be a sad life spent. Time is a very real resource for "real" people who actually do inhabit your "game"... ;)

There would be no reason for us to prepare for some imaginary hostile intelligent life from a realistic perspective without some evidence for it. Just because we figure out a way to travel the stars does not make intelligent life more likely out there, I would say it would make it way less likely if there was an easy way to travel the stars from a logical perspective.

Now... you can easily have a role-play story about an alien artifact that was found on Mars that contained the knowledge of untapping the power of trans Newtonian materials and that this artifact only was perhaps 10-100.000 years or so old. Then I might see a reason for investing in some military preparations... although if you met that alien I don't think it would matter anyway... ;) ...and they have already been here and left this artifact in the hopes we one day would find it... what are the odds they are hostile to begin with?!?

I think that for most people playing it has more to do what is cool rather than being realistic... because it is fun... and there is nothing wrong with that. Some people do it because they know for a fact there is aliens out there as they played the game before (or simply know), so it is less about role-play and that is fine too... nothing wrong with that. It also is perfectly easy to make up a story, you can rip it right out of the "Independence Day" movies if you wish. I think that rationalizing building a large military fleet before evidence of an advanced hostile alien intelligent life are generally weak backtracking logic, but that is my personal opinion... you can do much better if that is your intentions. I bet there are many good stories playing out in peoples heads for why they do the things they do. Some people play it as a pure game, some play out a specific story in a specific setting and other go all in on role play and try to rationalize every decisions made as if it was living breathing agents with real unique motivation and allow the game to evolve naturally from there without a specific end goal of the setting in mind. Aurora inspires role-play in a rather diverse form so there is no wrong way to approach it.

So my objection is not one of the direct technical nature but one of logical economic and development level. A focus on an efficient defensive strategy together with an aggressive expansion philosophy would make you even stronger the day you "actually" meet that potential enemy we all know you will eventually meet. Investing in an expensive military will hugely hamper you economic and scientific progress for no real gain as that fleet will be outdated much faster than an otherwise leaner military can be updated with better technology and more focused on the task at hand. In my opinion it is a win win scenario all around.

Investing no resource what so ever in a military is from a role-play perspective quite a sane strategy if we have no evidence for intelligent life, it also pose a pretty interesting challenge down the road.

In my opinion the proposed carrier fleet doctrine are quite sound in theory and very fun to pursue and I see no direct problem going down that road. As long as the player don't explore the chances to meet any aliens are pretty slim. If you did not create any starting aliens either the chances are zero and you literally have almost unlimited time to build up (depending on resources in Sol that is). I know allot of people who mention they expand very slowly for the fact they are less likely to create aliens that way and stay in Sol for the same reason for a long time.

Personally, if I play a standard Earth unified start with no knowledge of any aliens, I just expand like crazy as that is what I believe we would do if we could. It obviously almost always end in some sort of disaster but that is the fun part. ;)
Title: Re: Carrier Doctrine Fleet
Post by: misanthropope on January 02, 2021, 09:34:28 PM: it isn't at ALL like the thing you said. what it's like, is this:

no aliens/ have fleet: score infinity. no aliens/ no fleet: score infinity
yes aliens/ have fleet: score 1 yes aliens/ no fleet: score zero.

the effort of building a fleet in the "universe is ours!" is precisely the opposite of spending "the majority of your life..." doing anything.

edit note: no words were put into my mouth and i have no idea why i suddenly turned super pissy there for a second.
Title: Re: Carrier Doctrine Fleet
Post by: QuakeIV on January 03, 2021, 03:54:05 AM: You would probably want at least some kind of token fleet in absence of anything else, particularly since it would be obviously possible to potentially do a huge amount of damage very quickly with very little.

Honestly usually the way I play its a matter of supressing rebels. So I would have a small force of ships that are mainly meant to bomb planets (but have some ability towards ship to ship combat), and then an even smaller force of ships meant for ship to ship combat in case any given ship were to go rogue.
Title: Re: Carrier Doctrine Fleet
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on January 03, 2021, 10:19:31 AM: Quote from: QuakeIV on January 03, 2021, 03:54:05 AM
You would probably want at least some kind of token fleet in absence of anything else, particularly since it would be obviously possible to potentially do a huge amount of damage very quickly with very little.

Honestly usually the way I play its a matter of supressing rebels. So I would have a small force of ships that are mainly meant to bomb planets (but have some ability towards ship to ship combat), and then an even smaller force of ships meant for ship to ship combat in case any given ship were to go rogue.

It make sense to keep a policing force in order to make sure no rouge political faction take advantage of a specific situation. But that is sort of evidence for the need of some military presence and a good reason for using it. Satisfying the PPV on colonies is a game mechanic we need to deal with for that very reason. So, having some patrol ships and some orbital stations around colonies makes total sense in that regard. It also is a reason for us to pursue some military technologies despite having no external threats.

in most games I usually stumble upon some alien threats rather quickly so the time between having no to little military needs and needing a serious one are usually not that long.
Title: Re: Carrier Doctrine Fleet
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on January 03, 2021, 10:47:35 AM: Quote from: misanthropope on January 02, 2021, 09:34:28 PM
it isn't at ALL like the thing you said. what it's like, is this:

no aliens/ have fleet: score infinity. no aliens/ no fleet: score infinity
yes aliens/ have fleet: score 1 yes aliens/ no fleet: score zero.

the effort of building a fleet in the "universe is ours!" is precisely the opposite of spending "the majority of your life..." doing anything.

edit note: no words were put into my mouth and i have no idea why i suddenly turned super pissy there for a second.

First I like to say sorry for upsetting you, that is and never was my intention... but... it is sort of like "Pascals Wager" about gods existence and I think that is a pretty bad argument to make... no matter what you believe. ;)

I don't object to the logic in the statement as that is perfectly legit. I just don't agree with the risk versus the reward calculations in the statement.

It is more about what is realistic in this specific situation... the "risk" in reality are so small that the argument make very little sense. People would never climb into a car if they worried they would be seriously injured or worse with this level or risk tolerance in my opinion. That is why I think it is a bad argument as you can argue this about ANY risk we ever take on ANYTHING. We would never get out of bed in the mornings.

I'm not being obtuse or condescending but the chances for intelligent life close to us is so remote that preparing for it in this extreme is a bad argument. It is even LESS likely if there is an easy way to travel between the stars as that would make things way more likely we would have came into contact with one a long time ago. The likelihood that there is another life form out there close to us with a technology level even remotely in a similar stage as us are astronomically small. I think it is better to just accept that we do it because it is fun, cool or whatever the reason we do it. Or... we make up a believable story why we do it.

Would it be possible for a government to scare the public about some fake alien threat and therefore getting funds for a military no one really needs... sure... anything is possible... so tell that story and make it believable. But also explain why they do this... religions or philosophical reasons... perhaps they have secret evidence of alien life, I'm sure it will be an interesting story.
Title: Re: Carrier Doctrine Fleet
Post by: Steve Walmsley on January 03, 2021, 11:49:33 AM: If I am starting out with a large battle fleet in a single-player game, I usually have 'alien ruins on Mars' in the campaign background, or some other similar pretext to explain the military forces.