Aurora 4x
C# Aurora => C# Bureau of Design => Topic started by: liveware on January 22, 2021, 06:27:12 PM
-
I've been messing around with small, low accuracy gauss cannons recently. One reason is because literally nothing else will fit on a proper fighter sized craft, and the other reason is because I read somewhere a forum post describing why low accuracy gauss cannons are the most efficient missile defence available (basically, less overkill per missile volley, so maybe not always useful but I wanted to try it out anyways). Designs are posted below for some smallish gauss craft. Most of these are intended to be expendable and used in very large numbers in order to be effective.
Feedback is welcome!
Wraith class Defence Satellite (P) 50 tons 1 Crew 11.4 BP TCS 1 TH 0 EM 0
1 km/s Armour 1-1 Shields 0-0 HTK 0 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0 PPV 0.5
Maint Life 26.27 Years MSP 60 AFR 10% IFR 0.1% 1YR 0 5YR 3 Max Repair 12 MSP
Lieutenant Commander Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months Morale Check Required
NRL Gauss Cannon R400-8.00 (1x4) Range 16,000km TS: 5,000 km/s Accuracy Modifier 8.00% RM 40,000 km ROF 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NRL Beam Fire Control R16-TS5000 (1) Max Range: 16,000 km TS: 5,000 km/s 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NRL Active Search Sensor AS1-R1 (1) GPS 1 Range 1.3m km MCR 113.5k km Resolution 1
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction
The Wraith is perhaps the most basic of beam combatants, featuring the smallest gauss cannon available coupled to a fire control which is barely capable of FDF engagement, all under the command of a single naval officer. While not very capable on it's own, it is extremely inexpensive and quick to manufacture, allowing it to be deployed in large numbers.
Viper class Space Superiority Fighter (P) 100 tons 2 Crew 21.3 BP TCS 2 TH 14 EM 0
7037 km/s Armour 1-1 Shields 0-0 HTK 1 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0 PPV 0.5
Maint Life 9.70 Years MSP 20 AFR 20% IFR 0.3% 1YR 0 5YR 6 Max Repair 12 MSP
Lieutenant Commander Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 3 days Morale Check Required
NRL Ion Drive EP14.00 (1) Power 14.0 Fuel Use 1223.91% Signature 14.00 Explosion 16%
Fuel Capacity 6,000 Litres Range 0.89 billion km (35 hours at full power)
NRL Gauss Cannon R400-8.00 (1x4) Range 20,000km TS: 7,037 km/s Accuracy Modifier 8.00% RM 40,000 km ROF 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NRL Beam Fire Control R20-TS5000 (1) Max Range: 20,000 km TS: 5,000 km/s 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NRL Active Search Sensor AS1-R1 (1) GPS 1 Range 1.3m km MCR 113.5k km Resolution 1
NRL Thermal Sensor TH0.1-0.5 (1) Sensitivity 0.5 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 5.6m km
NRL EM Sensor EM0.1-0.5 (1) Sensitivity 0.5 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 5.6m km
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction
The Viper is a space superiority fighter based on the Wraith hullform. It mounts the same weapon platform but is equipped with a superior BFC, and more importantly, a large engine. It is capable of travelling moderate distances, is fast, and is difficult to detect, giving it utility as both an interceptor and scout craft. However when engaging any moderately armed foe, it is expected that several Vipers will be required to achieve any useful outcome.
I could have made both the Wraith and the Viper slightly smaller but would not be able to achieve round hull numbers, which offends my sense of OCD. Also, I cannot mount a larger BFC without exceeding my self imposed 1-2 crew limit for fighter sized craft (Viper could arguably be a better fighter with 3 crew and a faster BFC, but who ever heard of a 3 crew fighter?).
I'm working on a Battlestar Galactica style campaign at the moment which will feature a large amount of gauss cannon, railgun, and missile combat, and little else. Additionally, carriers will be one of, if not the only, capital ship used, which makes fighters much more important than would otherwise be expected. In that environment, I am hoping these ships prove interesting, if not useful.
-
Wraith class Defence Satellite (P) 50 tons 1 Crew 11.4 BP TCS 1 TH 0 EM 0
1 km/s Armour 1-1 Shields 0-0 HTK 0 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0 PPV 0.5
Maint Life 26.27 Years MSP 60 AFR 10% IFR 0.1% 1YR 0 5YR 3 Max Repair 12 MSP
Lieutenant Commander Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months Morale Check Required
NRL Gauss Cannon R400-8.00 (1x4) Range 16,000km TS: 5,000 km/s Accuracy Modifier 8.00% RM 40,000 km ROF 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NRL Beam Fire Control R16-TS5000 (1) Max Range: 16,000 km TS: 5,000 km/s 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NRL Active Search Sensor AS1-R1 (1) GPS 1 Range 1.3m km MCR 113.5k km Resolution 1
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction
The Wraith is perhaps the most basic of beam combatants, featuring the smallest gauss cannon available coupled to a fire control which is barely capable of FDF engagement, all under the command of a single naval officer. However, it is extremely inexpensive and quick to manufacture, allowing it to be deployed in large numbers.
I don't think the cheap cost makes this worth it, honestly. The main issue is that you've foregone a turret which drops the ability of the Gauss cannon to hit any missile at similar tech level by quite a lot. The BFC range is also crippling since PD takes place at 10,000 km thus you will see only 37.5% accuracy from the very low BFC range. Against any similar-tech missile you'd be lucky to have 1% odds of killing even one missile in a salvo with this, meaning you'd need hundreds or thousands of these (siphoning commanders all the while, I imagine) to defeat a single small salvo (10 or 12 missiles, maybe).
I would suggest building larger platforms with 20,000 km/s (racial tracking * 4x modifier) turrets and BFCs with roughly 100,000 km range to push your PD fire control accuracy modifier pretty close to 90% which is I think acceptable. I don't know offhand how much such a turret would weight but you ought to be able to fit at least couple of them onto a <500-ton platform. At 8% accuracy you're also probably going to benefit from using quad turrets as well as there's a slight space savings from quad mounts and 8% accuracy is so low that you don't have a lot of problems with overkill.
Viper class Space Superiority Fighter (P) 100 tons 2 Crew 21.3 BP TCS 2 TH 14 EM 0
7037 km/s Armour 1-1 Shields 0-0 HTK 1 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0 PPV 0.5
Maint Life 9.70 Years MSP 20 AFR 20% IFR 0.3% 1YR 0 5YR 6 Max Repair 12 MSP
Lieutenant Commander Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 3 days Morale Check Required
NRL Ion Drive EP14.00 (1) Power 14.0 Fuel Use 1223.91% Signature 14.00 Explosion 16%
Fuel Capacity 6,000 Litres Range 0.89 billion km (35 hours at full power)
NRL Gauss Cannon R400-8.00 (1x4) Range 20,000km TS: 7,037 km/s Accuracy Modifier 8.00% RM 40,000 km ROF 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NRL Beam Fire Control R20-TS5000 (1) Max Range: 20,000 km TS: 5,000 km/s 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NRL Active Search Sensor AS1-R1 (1) GPS 1 Range 1.3m km MCR 113.5k km Resolution 1
NRL Thermal Sensor TH0.1-0.5 (1) Sensitivity 0.5 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 5.6m km
NRL EM Sensor EM0.1-0.5 (1) Sensitivity 0.5 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 5.6m km
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction
The Viper is a space superiority fighter based on the Wraith hullform. It mounts the same weapon platform but is equipped with a superior BFC, and more importantly, a large engine. It is capable of travelling moderate distances, is fast, and is difficult to detect, giving it utility as both an interceptor and scout craft. However when engaging any moderately armed foe, it is expected that several Vipers will be required to achieve any useful outcome.
I could have made both the Wraith and the Viper slightly smaller but would not be able to achieve round hull numbers, which offends my sense of OCD. Also, I cannot mount a larger BFC without exceeding my self imposed 1-2 crew limit for fighter sized craft (Viper could arguably be a better fighter with 3 crew and a faster BFC, but who ever heard of a 3 crew fighter?).
I'm working on a Battlestar Galactica style campaign at the moment which will feature a large amount of gauss cannon, railgun, and missile combat, and little else. In that environment, I am hoping these ships prove interesting, if not useful.
Same problems as the Wraith just not as dramatically so. Usually the idea of using fighters for PD is that their high speed can make up for not using a turret (most useful for railguns, especially in upcoming 1.13 with the reduced size options), but here you've not got nearly enough speed to make that work. Your BFC range is still abysmal (50% hit rate at PD range) and even worse - your tracking speed is less than your ship speed?!? Why even build a fighter in that case?
You really should not be afraid to build bigger fighters unless you're steadfastly committed to ultra-small sizes for RP reasons. Fighters in Aurora are simply not intended to be the same size as the darts, drones, X-wings, etc. in most sci-fi and the game reflects this in that it's difficult to get a lot of capability from such small sizes, with the exception of box launcher missile bombers. I strongly recommend making use of the full 500 ton limit until you're comfortable enough with the ship design to have an intuitive sense of what can be done with 500 tons, and extend that to 250tons, 125 tons, etc. Here you are seriously crippling your capabilities by underdesigning weapons and BFCs to fit into a cramped tonnage limit when it really is not necessary.
-
Wraith class Defence Satellite (P) 50 tons 1 Crew 11.4 BP TCS 1 TH 0 EM 0
1 km/s Armour 1-1 Shields 0-0 HTK 0 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0 PPV 0.5
Maint Life 26.27 Years MSP 60 AFR 10% IFR 0.1% 1YR 0 5YR 3 Max Repair 12 MSP
Lieutenant Commander Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months Morale Check Required
NRL Gauss Cannon R400-8.00 (1x4) Range 16,000km TS: 5,000 km/s Accuracy Modifier 8.00% RM 40,000 km ROF 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NRL Beam Fire Control R16-TS5000 (1) Max Range: 16,000 km TS: 5,000 km/s 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NRL Active Search Sensor AS1-R1 (1) GPS 1 Range 1.3m km MCR 113.5k km Resolution 1
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction
The Wraith is perhaps the most basic of beam combatants, featuring the smallest gauss cannon available coupled to a fire control which is barely capable of FDF engagement, all under the command of a single naval officer. However, it is extremely inexpensive and quick to manufacture, allowing it to be deployed in large numbers.
I don't think the cheap cost makes this worth it, honestly. The main issue is that you've foregone a turret which drops the ability of the Gauss cannon to hit any missile at similar tech level by quite a lot. The BFC range is also crippling since PD takes place at 10,000 km thus you will see only 37.5% accuracy from the very low BFC range. Against any similar-tech missile you'd be lucky to have 1% odds of killing even one missile in a salvo with this, meaning you'd need hundreds or thousands of these (siphoning commanders all the while, I imagine) to defeat a single small salvo (10 or 12 missiles, maybe).
I would suggest building larger platforms with 20,000 km/s (racial tracking * 4x modifier) turrets and BFCs with roughly 100,000 km range to push your PD fire control accuracy modifier pretty close to 90% which is I think acceptable. I don't know offhand how much such a turret would weight but you ought to be able to fit at least couple of them onto a <500-ton platform. At 8% accuracy you're also probably going to benefit from using quad turrets as well as there's a slight space savings from quad mounts and 8% accuracy is so low that you don't have a lot of problems with overkill.
Viper class Space Superiority Fighter (P) 100 tons 2 Crew 21.3 BP TCS 2 TH 14 EM 0
7037 km/s Armour 1-1 Shields 0-0 HTK 1 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0 PPV 0.5
Maint Life 9.70 Years MSP 20 AFR 20% IFR 0.3% 1YR 0 5YR 6 Max Repair 12 MSP
Lieutenant Commander Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 3 days Morale Check Required
NRL Ion Drive EP14.00 (1) Power 14.0 Fuel Use 1223.91% Signature 14.00 Explosion 16%
Fuel Capacity 6,000 Litres Range 0.89 billion km (35 hours at full power)
NRL Gauss Cannon R400-8.00 (1x4) Range 20,000km TS: 7,037 km/s Accuracy Modifier 8.00% RM 40,000 km ROF 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NRL Beam Fire Control R20-TS5000 (1) Max Range: 20,000 km TS: 5,000 km/s 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NRL Active Search Sensor AS1-R1 (1) GPS 1 Range 1.3m km MCR 113.5k km Resolution 1
NRL Thermal Sensor TH0.1-0.5 (1) Sensitivity 0.5 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 5.6m km
NRL EM Sensor EM0.1-0.5 (1) Sensitivity 0.5 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 5.6m km
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction
The Viper is a space superiority fighter based on the Wraith hullform. It mounts the same weapon platform but is equipped with a superior BFC, and more importantly, a large engine. It is capable of travelling moderate distances, is fast, and is difficult to detect, giving it utility as both an interceptor and scout craft. However when engaging any moderately armed foe, it is expected that several Vipers will be required to achieve any useful outcome.
I could have made both the Wraith and the Viper slightly smaller but would not be able to achieve round hull numbers, which offends my sense of OCD. Also, I cannot mount a larger BFC without exceeding my self imposed 1-2 crew limit for fighter sized craft (Viper could arguably be a better fighter with 3 crew and a faster BFC, but who ever heard of a 3 crew fighter?).
I'm working on a Battlestar Galactica style campaign at the moment which will feature a large amount of gauss cannon, railgun, and missile combat, and little else. In that environment, I am hoping these ships prove interesting, if not useful.
Same problems as the Wraith just not as dramatically so. Usually the idea of using fighters for PD is that their high speed can make up for not using a turret (most useful for railguns, especially in upcoming 1.13 with the reduced size options), but here you've not got nearly enough speed to make that work. Your BFC range is still abysmal (50% hit rate at PD range) and even worse - your tracking speed is less than your ship speed?!? Why even build a fighter in that case?
You really should not be afraid to build bigger fighters unless you're steadfastly committed to ultra-small sizes for RP reasons. Fighters in Aurora are simply not intended to be the same size as the darts, drones, X-wings, etc. in most sci-fi and the game reflects this in that it's difficult to get a lot of capability from such small sizes, with the exception of box launcher missile bombers. I strongly recommend making use of the full 500 ton limit until you're comfortable enough with the ship design to have an intuitive sense of what can be done with 500 tons, and extend that to 250tons, 125 tons, etc. Here you are seriously crippling your capabilities by underdesigning weapons and BFCs to fit into a cramped tonnage limit when it really is not necessary.
Normally I would agree with most of your points (being obsessed with optimization as I am prone to being), however in this situation I am intentionally designing small, low performance craft for RP reasons. Turrets are off-limits due to their prohibitive size (100 tons is the maximum ship size I am allowing myself for 'fighter' craft, the smallest turret available is greater than 100 tons with no BFC). The low end BFC on the Viper is necessary due to tech/crew limitations (it is the smallest 0 crew BFC capable of 5k km/s tracking speed and also 10k km range, given my existing technological constraints). I do have a separate box launcher fighter design in the works which is intended to provide some fire support capability (4x box launchers, similar range/speed as the Viper).
As imparting ANY useful combat capability to a 100 ton ship is extremely difficult (without resorting to missiles exclusively) I have actually considered imposing a house rule where engines are prohibited from fighter craft entirely, (due to personnel health reasons regarding TN drive technologies and inadequate personnel protection on such small craft).
Anyway, back to designs. The Wraith is about as good as it can be for it's size and RP constraints (crew <= 1, size <= 50 tons, ion engine tech, 5k km/sec BFC speed and 64k km BFC range). The Viper CANNOT mount a better BFC for RP constraint reasons as that would result in 3 crew (maximum 2 crew allowed for 'fighter' craft. 1x crew each are required for the gun and the engine).
-
It is just not very effective with PD fighters in Aurora C#... allot of that have to do with the fire-controls. As said... in 1.13 it will become a bit better but still not that good. When you add in the cost of engine, the gun and the fire-control you end up with something rather expensive and not hugely effective as a primary PD source.
A railgun fighter at 400-500 tons will be decent PD platform, really good as a secondary choice and a primary choice for protecting other fighters from anti-fighter missiles. Or simply as a beam fighter to engage unarmed or lone (damaged) warships.
Really small fighters need high tech to be effective as beam combat platforms.
-
Given your extreme self-imposed restrictions on these craft suggesting any kind of improvements at all is fairly difficult. However, if you plan to stick with these impositions, I would highly suggest ditching either the EM or TH sensor.
While it seems like a small change, that will allow you to fit a .6HS gauss instead of the .5HS gauss and will increase your effective hit chance by a full 25% compared to your current design while maintaining your crew requirements. I would have said ditch both and a pittance of fuel to take a .75HS gauss, but that would have increased your crew count.
The only other thing I wonder about is how Aurora actually handles fractions of a %. Unless I'm messing my math up, with a maximum hit chance of 50% at 10km, and a gauss modifier of 8%, that works out to a .4% chance of a hit before accounting for tracking issues. If it does any kind of rounding that might become a 0% hit chance.
Edit: In fact, I would recommend ditching both of those sensors and also improving the size of your active sensor another tenth of a hull size. You'd still maintain crew requirements, and then you could at least guarantee you still see missiles of ~30km/s incoming instead of risking anything over 23k going from outside your range to inside your face in a tick.
-
It is just not very effective with PD fighters in Aurora C#... allot of that have to do with the fire-controls. As said... in 1.13 it will become a bit better but still not that good. When you add in the cost of engine, the gun and the fire-control you end up with something rather expensive and not hugely effective as a primary PD source.
A railgun fighter at 400-500 tons will be decent PD platform, really good as a secondary choice and a primary choice for protecting other fighters from anti-fighter missiles. Or simply as a beam fighter to engage unarmed or lone (damaged) warships.
Really small fighters need high tech to be effective as beam combat platforms.
I agree, PD fighters, especially small gauss equipped ones, are not very effective in Aurora. However, that is the fleet doctrine that the powers that be have chosen in my game universe, and they are not willing back down. While rail guns offer improved performance, even the smallest exceeds the 100 ton fighter limit and thus are unusable on fighter craft.
If it were possible to design 500 ton fighters with 1-5 crew I would optimize around that that size, however ships of that size tend to have 10 - 30 crew minimum, which is difficult for me to justify in terms of RP terms. I can understand a situation where a flight crew consists of 1-5 crew, but 30 crew is excessive for small craft, and when the game drops 10 crew in a life pod for a 'fighter', it doesn't really work for me.
-
Given your extreme self-imposed restrictions on these craft suggesting any kind of improvements at all is fairly difficult. However, if you plan to stick with these impositions, I would highly suggest ditching either the EM or TH sensor.
While it seems like a small change, that will allow you to fit a .6HS gauss instead of the .5HS gauss and will increase your effective hit chance by a full 25% compared to your current design while maintaining your crew requirements. I would have said ditch both and a pittance of fuel to take a .75HS gauss, but that would have increased your crew count.
The only other thing I wonder about is how Aurora actually handles fractions of a %. Unless I'm messing my math up, with a maximum hit chance of 50% at 10km, and a gauss modifier of 8%, that works out to a .4% chance of a hit before accounting for tracking issues. If it does any kind of rounding that might become a 0% hit chance.
I've messed around with both 8% and 10% accuracy gauss cannons and haven't fully decided what is 'best' in the role I am seeking. Part of the problem for the Wraith is that is challenging to get exactly 50 tons displacement which bothers me if I cannot meet it (even if it is detrimental). The Viper mounts the best 10k km range BFC I can build which also has at least my minimum BFC tracking speed (5k km/s). Improving either BFC tracking speed or range would result in an additional crew member on the Viper, which is unacceptable. Reducing BFC below racial tracking speed also seems counter productive (also the savings are minimal... perhaps 2-3 tons displacement).
Removing the sensor suite might be a good idea. When the Vipers (and Wraiths) were originally designed I did not posses a dedicated scout ship of similar performance. Now I do, so these ships can probably omit these sensor capabilities.
EDIT: How to do you go about calculating the difference in accuarcy between the 8% and 10% gauss cannons? I estimate about a 2% difference in accuracy, which is why I have opted instead to improve BFC tracking speed and range.
-
So, I should clarify what I mean by "increase your effective hit chance" vs "increase your hit chance".
Yes, going from a .5hs gauss to a .6hs gauss is only a 2% increase in your hit chance, from 8% to 10%. That will increase the actual number of shells on target by 25%. So if your had an absolute mess of Vipers (which is how I assume you intend to deploy these), and they would have scored 20 hits with .5hs gauss, you would instead score a total of 25 hits with .6hs gauss.
Similar to how in games with damage resistance, a 1% increase in damage resistance is 1%. However, if you already have a damage resistance of 70%, increasing your damage resistance by another 1% is an effective decrease of 3.3% damage instead of 1% when compared against the fact you are only taking 30% of incoming damage to start with.
-
EDIT: How to do you go about calculating the difference in accuarcy between the 8% and 10% gauss cannons? I estimate about a 2% difference in accuracy, which is why I have opted instead to improve BFC tracking speed and range.
I should probably write this up or something... (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=12355.msg147217#msg147217)
Long story short, accuracy is determined by:
Accuracy = [ ( 1 - target_range / BFC_max_range) * ( missile_bonus * BFC_speed / target_speed ) - 0.10 * (enemy_ECM - self_ECCM) ] * weapon_accuracy
All of these parameters except for the weapon accuracy (which is 1.0 for non-Gauss weapons) are dependent on your BFC, not the weapon itself - with the usual caveat about BFC speed being limited by ship speed and so on, so forth.
So upgrading from 8% to 10% Gauss will improve your hit rate by +25%. That being said, the way Gauss accuracy works is that less-accurate weapons are also smaller, so ton-for-ton the accuracy will work out to the same average hit rate regardless of size. The main reason to prefer a larger or smaller size for point defense comes down to salvo overkill effects - in this case the analysis seems to have shown that the Gauss sizes at 1 HS or lower (17% accuracy and lower) are optimal, and larger sizes tend to waste more shots on salvo overkill.
For fighters there is some interest because of the extreme tonnage restriction, so it can be possible to get an objectively higher kill rate with one size or another just because they fit more neatly onto the actual fighter, but this is a special case and there's no rule of thumb about this.
-
So, I should clarify what I mean by "increase your effective hit chance" vs "increase your hit chance".
Yes, going from a .5hs gauss to a .6hs gauss is only a 2% increase in your hit chance, from 8% to 10%. That will increase the actual number of shells on target by 25%. So if your had an absolute mess of Vipers (which is how I assume you intend to deploy these), and they would have scored 20 hits with .5hs gauss, you would instead score a total of 25 hits with .6hs gauss.
Similar to how in games with damage resistance, a 1% increase in damage resistance is 1%. However, if you already have a damage resistance of 70%, increasing your damage resistance by another 1% is an effective decrease of 3.3% damage instead of 1% when compared against the fact you are only taking 30% of incoming damage to start with.
EDIT: How to do you go about calculating the difference in accuarcy between the 8% and 10% gauss cannons? I estimate about a 2% difference in accuracy, which is why I have opted instead to improve BFC tracking speed and range.
I should probably write this up or something... (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=12355.msg147217#msg147217)
Long story short, accuracy is determined by:
Accuracy = [ ( 1 - target_range / BFC_max_range) * ( missile_bonus * BFC_speed / target_speed ) - 0.10 * (enemy_ECM - self_ECCM) ] * weapon_accuracy
All of these parameters except for the weapon accuracy (which is 1.0 for non-Gauss weapons) are dependent on your BFC, not the weapon itself - with the usual caveat about BFC speed being limited by ship speed and so on, so forth.
So upgrading from 8% to 10% Gauss will improve your hit rate by +25%. That being said, the way Gauss accuracy works is that less-accurate weapons are also smaller, so ton-for-ton the accuracy will work out to the same average hit rate regardless of size. The main reason to prefer a larger or smaller size for point defense comes down to salvo overkill effects - in this case the analysis seems to have shown that the Gauss sizes at 1 HS or lower (17% accuracy and lower) are optimal, and larger sizes tend to waste more shots on salvo overkill.
For fighters there is some interest because of the extreme tonnage restriction, so it can be possible to get an objectively higher kill rate with one size or another just because they fit more neatly onto the actual fighter, but this is a special case and there's no rule of thumb about this.
More research on my part is required. New designs are under development...
-
The biggest issue with these fighters are ECM.
If they come up against someone with a decent ECM that have such low accuracy from their BFC that they could effectively get below zero to hit chance with their shots. This is why fighters this small need pretty high tech to work at all... and still... if they engage with someone at equal tech who have very good ECM you are still pretty much screwed.
ECM will hurt these fighters really badly as they cant have any ECCM of their own.
I understand that you want to use this from a role-play perspective... I would wait until 1.13 which will make things a bit easier. You can get smaller railguns and smaller fire controls. I also would up the minimum size to at least about 100t for a beam fighter to be a bit more realistic in their capabilities.
-
#
...they could effectively get below zero to hit chance with their shots.
Does that mean that there's a chance they hit themselves?
-
You know, continuing to think on this. If I may offer one additional suggestion.
I understand your desire to work within the constraints you’ve set, however, these ships wil simply be useless unless you turn off all spoilers and have strict control of all opfor designs and ban all ecm tech. My suggestion is you allow yourself a listed crew of 4 or 5, then simply roleplay that the extra crew is support personnel that remains aboard the carrier. If destroyed almost all of your escape pods will only have 1 or 2 survivors anyhow so there would hardly be any suspension of disbelief required. That change alone would give you significantly improved potential in your design parameters.
If you went one further and went to 125 tons on your design limits this would further improve your potential by a significant amount, especially in the fire control area. It also shouldn’t significantly, if at all, hurt your RP as this would still allow your Vipers to fit inside a small boat bay....which is already plenty tiny. They also are a nice easily divisible size for all hangar types for your OCD.
-
cant you just RP that a hull space is really 5 tons instead of 50? or even "the Imperial ton is defined as the volume of the first Emperor, Magnus Robustus the Very Healthy at the moment of his coronation, and is about .2 cubic meters".
-
You know, continuing to think on this. If I may offer one additional suggestion.
I understand your desire to work within the constraints you’ve set, however, these ships wil simply be useless unless you turn off all spoilers and have strict control of all opfor designs and ban all ecm tech. My suggestion is you allow yourself a listed crew of 4 or 5, then simply roleplay that the extra crew is support personnel that remains aboard the carrier. If destroyed almost all of your escape pods will only have 1 or 2 survivors anyhow so there would hardly be any suspension of disbelief required. That change alone would give you significantly improved potential in your design parameters.
If you went one further and went to 125 tons on your design limits this would further improve your potential by a significant amount, especially in the fire control area. It also shouldn’t significantly, if at all, hurt your RP as this would still allow your Vipers to fit inside a small boat bay....which is already plenty tiny. They also are a nice easily divisible size for all hangar types for your OCD.
That's a pretty good idea actually. My biggest issue with larger fighter craft isn't so much the overall hull size (I can headcannon myself out of the large tonnage number) but more that the life pods leave too many crew behind for a ship that I really intend to only have a couple of crew members. Another option would be to assume that all listed crew member have some sort psychic/quantum link and while only a couple of crew are present on the actual ship, the destruction of the ship can still cause the death of the entire listed crew. That's a bit more of stretch than I'd like but meh.
I've built 125 ton gauss fighters in a previous campaign with I think either the 10% or 12% accuracy mod. Those were certainly not very effective for any sort of major combat operation but they were useful in couple of roles. For one, they made good scouts/pickets due to their small size and high speed. Second, they allowed a colony with only the most basic of manufacturing capacity (one fighter factory) to produce something with a gun on it that could be used to chase away alien survey ships and/or unescorted troop ships. Often I have found that having any weapon system available at all is enough to keep the aliens from getting too nosy.
-
The biggest issue with these fighters are ECM.
If they come up against someone with a decent ECM that have such low accuracy from their BFC that they could effectively get below zero to hit chance with their shots. This is why fighters this small need pretty high tech to work at all... and still... if they engage with someone at equal tech who have very good ECM you are still pretty much screwed.
ECM will hurt these fighters really badly as they cant have any ECCM of their own.
I understand that you want to use this from a role-play perspective... I would wait until 1.13 which will make things a bit easier. You can get smaller railguns and smaller fire controls. I also would up the minimum size to at least about 100t for a beam fighter to be a bit more realistic in their capabilities.
ECM is probably an insurmountable problem for 100 ton fighters. I think even the comact ECM tech only gives you a 50 ton ECM module, and adding ECCM as well would be even more prohibitive.
-
The biggest issue with these fighters are ECM.
If they come up against someone with a decent ECM that have such low accuracy from their BFC that they could effectively get below zero to hit chance with their shots. This is why fighters this small need pretty high tech to work at all... and still... if they engage with someone at equal tech who have very good ECM you are still pretty much screwed.
ECM will hurt these fighters really badly as they cant have any ECCM of their own.
I understand that you want to use this from a role-play perspective... I would wait until 1.13 which will make things a bit easier. You can get smaller railguns and smaller fire controls. I also would up the minimum size to at least about 100t for a beam fighter to be a bit more realistic in their capabilities.
ECM is probably an insurmountable problem for 100 ton fighters. I think even the comact ECM tech only gives you a 50 ton ECM module, and adding ECCM as well would be even more prohibitive.
There is Small Craft ECM and ECCM, which is only 25 tons. Small Craft ECM is unlocked when ECM-4 is researched, and is equal to ECM-1, going up to Small Craft ECM 5 when you have ECM-10
But yeah, even that is too large for 100 ton fighters
-
You know, continuing to think on this. If I may offer one additional suggestion.
I understand your desire to work within the constraints you’ve set, however, these ships wil simply be useless unless you turn off all spoilers and have strict control of all opfor designs and ban all ecm tech. My suggestion is you allow yourself a listed crew of 4 or 5, then simply roleplay that the extra crew is support personnel that remains aboard the carrier. If destroyed almost all of your escape pods will only have 1 or 2 survivors anyhow so there would hardly be any suspension of disbelief required. That change alone would give you significantly improved potential in your design parameters.
If you went one further and went to 125 tons on your design limits this would further improve your potential by a significant amount, especially in the fire control area. It also shouldn’t significantly, if at all, hurt your RP as this would still allow your Vipers to fit inside a small boat bay....which is already plenty tiny. They also are a nice easily divisible size for all hangar types for your OCD.
That's a pretty good idea actually. My biggest issue with larger fighter craft isn't so much the overall hull size (I can headcannon myself out of the large tonnage number) but more that the life pods leave too many crew behind for a ship that I really intend to only have a couple of crew members. Another option would be to assume that all listed crew member have some sort psychic/quantum link and while only a couple of crew are present on the actual ship, the destruction of the ship can still cause the death of the entire listed crew. That's a bit more of stretch than I'd like but meh.
I've built 125 ton gauss fighters in a previous campaign with I think either the 10% or 12% accuracy mod. Those were certainly not very effective for any sort of major combat operation but they were useful in couple of roles. For one, they made good scouts/pickets due to their small size and high speed. Second, they allowed a colony with only the most basic of manufacturing capacity (one fighter factory) to produce something with a gun on it that could be used to chase away alien survey ships and/or unescorted troop ships. Often I have found that having any weapon system available at all is enough to keep the aliens from getting too nosy.
I think that the "problem" with Aurora is that is does not actually model things like Star Wars X-Wing and Tie-fighter equivalent space crafts. Even at 50t a ship in Aurora are roughly equal to a coastal corvette in real life. 50t in Aurora is roughly about the size of a 700t wet navy vessel or something like this.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visby-class_corvette (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visby-class_corvette).
A ship at about 7500t are roughly equal in size of a Nimitz aircraft carrier. ;)
We obviously can role-play things all we want, but I think the crew requirement is meant to reflect allot bigger ships than we normally envision.
-
I think that the "problem" with Aurora is that is does not actually model things like Star Wars X-Wing and Tie-fighter equivalent space crafts. Even at 50t a ship in Aurora are roughly equal to a coastal corvette in real life. 50t in Aurora is roughly about the size of a 700t wet navy vessel or something like this.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visby-class_corvette (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visby-class_corvette).
A ship at about 7500t are roughly equal in size of a Nimitz aircraft carrier. ;)
We obviously can role-play things all we want, but I think the crew requirement is meant to reflect allot bigger ships than we normally envision.
This is interesting because my experiences would seem to indicate the opposite.
Glancing at an older spreadsheet I used in a previous campaign, WW2-era RN cruisers (most in the 7000-13000 ton range) would have somewhere in the range of 500-900 crew members depending on tonnage and so on. More recently, using the Nimitz as an example again that 100,000-ton ship has a complement of 6,000 including 3,500 ship's crew (the rest being air crew).
By contrast in Aurora a 10,000-15,000 ton warship might have somewhere from 300-500 crew typically just ballpark from experience and a couple quick checks, which is roughly half what you see for those WWII-era cruisers but in a similar proportion to a Nimitz (ship's crew only). If anything I would suggest that based on crew numbers an "Aurora ton" would be a fraction of a "real-life" naval displacement ton - which of course is a view I've yet to see anyone espouse on this forum (I'm certainly not suggesting it to be true!).
Personally I take tons to be literal tons, as they are a unit of mass as well as displacement/weight so there's no reason this can't be the case. I've seen references to things like "void displacement" and "ton of hydrogen" but I've not yet seen how any of those are clearly defined to be larger than a "standard" ton, thus I proceed happily with my own headcanon.
-
I think that the "problem" with Aurora is that is does not actually model things like Star Wars X-Wing and Tie-fighter equivalent space crafts. Even at 50t a ship in Aurora are roughly equal to a coastal corvette in real life. 50t in Aurora is roughly about the size of a 700t wet navy vessel or something like this.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visby-class_corvette (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visby-class_corvette).
A ship at about 7500t are roughly equal in size of a Nimitz aircraft carrier. ;)
We obviously can role-play things all we want, but I think the crew requirement is meant to reflect allot bigger ships than we normally envision.
This is interesting because my experiences would seem to indicate the opposite.
Glancing at an older spreadsheet I used in a previous campaign, WW2-era RN cruisers (most in the 7000-13000 ton range) would have somewhere in the range of 500-900 crew members depending on tonnage and so on. More recently, using the Nimitz as an example again that 100,000-ton ship has a complement of 6,000 including 3,500 ship's crew (the rest being air crew).
By contrast in Aurora a 10,000-15,000 ton warship might have somewhere from 300-500 crew typically just ballpark from experience and a couple quick checks, which is roughly half what you see for those WWII-era cruisers but in a similar proportion to a Nimitz (ship's crew only). If anything I would suggest that based on crew numbers an "Aurora ton" would be a fraction of a "real-life" naval displacement ton - which of course is a view I've yet to see anyone espouse on this forum (I'm certainly not suggesting it to be true!).
Personally I take tons to be literal tons, as they are a unit of mass as well as displacement/weight so there's no reason this can't be the case. I've seen references to things like "void displacement" and "ton of hydrogen" but I've not yet seen how any of those are clearly defined to be larger than a "standard" ton, thus I proceed happily with my own headcanon.
Latest US supercarrier has a significantly lower crew:displacement ratio (4200/100k, I think this includes aircrew, this was one of the selling points). I.e. continual automation improvements reduce crew requirements. Aurora should expect even smaller numbers.
From what other people have said, the "larger than a standard ton" thing comes from the "displacement" actually being the volume to displace 1 tonne of liquid hydrogen. Thus, a "50 tonne" ship is actually specifying the VOLUME of the ship, not its mass.
-
Latest US supercarrier has a significantly lower crew:displacement ratio (4200/100k, I think this includes aircrew, this was one of the selling points). I.e. continual automation improvements reduce crew requirements. Aurora should expect even smaller numbers.
Makes perfect sense of course.
From what other people have said, the "larger than a standard ton" thing comes from the "displacement" actually being the volume to displace 1 tonne of liquid hydrogen. Thus, a "50 tonne" ship is actually specifying the VOLUME of the ship, not its mass.
I remember seeing this in a thread (or maybe on Reddit?) a while ago (originally it was suggested to be gaseous hydrogen which made no sense when we ran the numbers). However I've not seen a source linking this back to official lore and I personally dislike it - not on any scientific grounds, I'm just attached to my WWII-analogue ship classes and tonnages. ;)
-
I remember seeing this in a thread (or maybe on Reddit?) a while ago (originally it was suggested to be gaseous hydrogen which made no sense when we ran the numbers). However I've not seen a source linking this back to official lore and I personally dislike it - not on any scientific grounds, I'm just attached to my WWII-analogue ship classes and tonnages. ;)
Here ya go.
https://www.reddit.com/r/aurora4x/comments/7y9la5/whats_a_ton/dui2wwc?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
-
All the kitchen and cleaning staff have been replaced by robots.
-
I remember seeing this in a thread (or maybe on Reddit?) a while ago (originally it was suggested to be gaseous hydrogen which made no sense when we ran the numbers). However I've not seen a source linking this back to official lore and I personally dislike it - not on any scientific grounds, I'm just attached to my WWII-analogue ship classes and tonnages. ;)
Here ya go.
https://www.reddit.com/r/aurora4x/comments/7y9la5/whats_a_ton/dui2wwc?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
Excellent, thanks.
Thinking about it, 14 m3 being one "ton" seems in the ballpark of tons being literal mass. Aluminum for example has a density of roughly 2.7 tons/m3, so for 14 m3 of volume to contain one ton of mass would imply about a 3% volume fraction of an aluminum alloy. My recollection from some investigation I did a while ago was that most ships had average mass densities in the range of 1% to 10% of the theoretical density of the primary structural material (obviously there is space for crew, component access, actuating mechanisms, wiring/cabling, etc.).
Does this mean anything important? No. Am I pleased that my personal headcanon can be mathematically justified? Of course! ;D
-
My recollection from some investigation I did a while ago was that most ships had average mass densities in the range of 1% to 10% of the theoretical density of the primary structural material (obviously there is space for crew, component access, actuating mechanisms, wiring/cabling, etc.).
Does this mean anything important? No.
Well, TNE materials are very good in the sense of strength/mass, I think we must agree on it. :)
And I think liquid hydrogen displacement means Aether is filled with this stuff.
-
I remember seeing this in a thread (or maybe on Reddit?) a while ago (originally it was suggested to be gaseous hydrogen which made no sense when we ran the numbers). However I've not seen a source linking this back to official lore and I personally dislike it - not on any scientific grounds, I'm just attached to my WWII-analogue ship classes and tonnages. ;)
Here ya go.
https://www.reddit.com/r/aurora4x/comments/7y9la5/whats_a_ton/dui2wwc?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
Excellent, thanks.
Thinking about it, 14 m3 being one "ton" seems in the ballpark of tons being literal mass. Aluminum for example has a density of roughly 2.7 tons/m3, so for 14 m3 of volume to contain one ton of mass would imply about a 3% volume fraction of an aluminum alloy. My recollection from some investigation I did a while ago was that most ships had average mass densities in the range of 1% to 10% of the theoretical density of the primary structural material (obviously there is space for crew, component access, actuating mechanisms, wiring/cabling, etc.).
Does this mean anything important? No. Am I pleased that my personal headcanon can be mathematically justified? Of course! ;D
I think that we have to assume that Duranium is some form of metal like compound that can be combined with other TN materials to form into many different types of materials with different properties. Duranium is what most stuff is actually made of in Aurora in terms of physical properties and especially ship hulls and many times armour.
In terms of crew I certainly assume that automation is a bit better in Aurora than in most equally sized ships of today. ;)
Also... Mass is not important for Aurora in terms of ship movement, ships probably don't have much of any thrusts other than for very fine adjustments for docking. Travelling the stars in Aurora is purely based on ships volume, ships actually can weigh any amount of actual mass.
When I envision ships in Aurora they don't look much like most sci fi ships of most lore, certainly not with an engine at the back. I envision ships looking more like if they use and Alcubiere (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/172699/the-effect-of-multiple-alcubierre-rings (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/172699/the-effect-of-multiple-alcubierre-rings)) drive or something similar where the "fuel" is not the actual driving force but the stuff that sinks the ships into the Eather. This makes the ships sort of fall through the Eather or surf it by displacing it in real space by micro displacement in space. Ships sort of blink in and out of existence in our universe and that is how the can instantly travel from one point to another without incurring any actual thrust or G force on either the ship or the crew inside it.
We also need to assume that a ship automatically adjust its relative speed to any gravity object it is close to, this is also why a ship don't have to alter thrust in order to match it's relative speed as it get's closer and closer to another object that exerts a large enough gravity force, the larger the object and the closer you are too it the ship will match the relative speed to that object without effecting either the ship or the crews energy "Magic". This is also one reason why objects larger than 500t can land on planets and other bodies as gravity somehow interfere with the drive systems.