Aurora 4x
VB6 Aurora => Bureau of Ship Design => Topic started by: Teiwaz on March 29, 2011, 11:28:25 PM
-
So it's my first "real" game, and the very first system I start to chart contains hostile aliens who nuked my survey ship. I don't have so much as an off-earth mining colony, and I'm already in an interstellar war!
At the moment I have no military, or even pretty pictures of a military on an engineer's desk somewhere. So it's emergency measures time, and I could use some advice/feedback on my designs.
I don't know much about the aliens. My survey ship managed to get some active scans in before it was destroyed. It identified 2 classes, the 6000-ton "Chippewa" (saw 8. ) and the 12,000 ton "Battlehawk" (saw 3. ) The "Zambia" (my survey vessel) was struck by 10 str 6 missiles. I believe this was from the Battehawks - the Chippewas ran right down my throat (they caught up with the Zambia and were at 0km range when the Zambia was destroyed) with no attacks prior to the 10 hits that wrecked the Zambia. The Battehawks were a little under 3. 5m km out when the Zambia was destroyed, I don't know whether this represents the range of their missiles or just the range at which they were able to detect the Zambia, which was only 4000 tons and was running without active sensors. Both the Battlehawks and the Chippewas have a maximum observed speed of 4666 km/s.
As mentioned, I currently have no navy. Also, my naval shipyards are very limited. I have 2 yards, one with 3 slipways of 11000 tons, and one with 3 slipways of 4000 tons. I'm going to be designing for those limitations as I won't have time to expand and retool them.
Given my time limitations, it's probably best to just go with two designs to avoid retooling for now. My 11000 ton ship is probably going to be a missile cruiser - beating the aliens' speed is of course critical, and I'll do what I can to outrange them. I'm torn between making the 4000-ton frigate an AMM escort and making it a combat vessel to deal with the Chippewas. In any case, I'm going to need to get some missiles into production ASAP. Here's what I've got so far, I'd love feedback:
First, my anti-ship missile:
Sabre Anti-Ship Missile Mk1
Missile Size: 5 MSP (0.25 HS) Warhead: 4 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 11
Speed: 24000 km/s Endurance: 56 minutes Range: 81.0m km
Thermal Sensor Strength: 0.03 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 30,000 km
Cost Per Missile: 3.055
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 264% 3k km/s 88% 5k km/s 52.8% 10k km/s 26.4%
Materials Required: 1x Tritanium 0.03x Uridium 1.83x Gallicite Fuel x4500
Second, my anti-missile missile:
Lancet Anti-Missile Missile Mk1
Missile Size: 1 MSP (0.05 HS) Warhead: 1 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 14
Speed: 36000 km/s Endurance: 1 minutes Range: 2.3m km
Cost Per Missile: 0.95
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 504% 3k km/s 168% 5k km/s 100.8% 10k km/s 50.4%
Materials Required: 0.25x Tritanium 0.462x Gallicite Fuel x25
I'm thinking that the AMM's range may be too long, given how massive the fire control had to be to match it. (It's 350 tons!) But it already only has a 1-minute endurance, and its current engine power / maneuverability seemed to provide about the best hit % against 10k km/s + targets, so I'm not sure what to do about that. Maybe my engine tech (started with Ion with random techs) is just much better than my active sensors?
-
Also, my fire controls are reporting ranges of 0km in the ship design window, but when I designed them, they had ranges to fairly closely match the missiles. Why is this?
Update: My component summary says their detection strength is 0? How is that possible? (I gave them str 16 actives and sensitivity 6 EM passives)
-
Disclaimer: Take this with plenty of salt, as I'm a terrible player. :P
At your tech level, the anti-missile range is more than sufficient. You may want to sacrifice some fuel for agility, as your hit chance is pretty low.
Your anti-ship missiles have too much range IMO. I'd add some punch or, better yet, crank the hit rate with some agility. And/or just make them smaller.
You can back up your missile defense with some point-defense beam weapons. When your AMM stocks run out, you'll still have some defense. If your rate of fire for gauss cannons is less than 4, try 10cm railguns instead. On the other hand, your tracking speed is probably terrible, so you may want to design some gauss turrets (probably single, since gauss cannons weigh up to ~300 tons). Set their tracking speed to match (or slightly exceed) the enemy's fastest missile.
There's an alternative to worrying about tracking speed: Ship speed. Your effective tracking speed is the better of your weapon/fire-control speed and your ship speed. If you design some small fast ships (e.g. fighters), they should have an easy time swatting enemy missiles. With enough speed and numbers, they may survive well enough in CQB to take down the enemy ships, too.
As for your fire control range, I think it's limited to your longest-ranged beam weapon. Stick a weapon in the design and the listed range should change.
-
Also, my fire controls are reporting ranges of 0km in the ship design window, but when I designed them, they had ranges to fairly closely match the missiles. Why is this?
Update: My component summary says their detection strength is 0? How is that possible? (I gave them str 16 actives and sensitivity 6 EM passives)
Its a bug that seems to have something to do with having the missile design and create research project windows open at the same time. Would be nice if it could get fixed but I've never been able to reproduce it so Steve can fix it.
The only work around I know of is to make the sensors again. You can use sm mode to instant research them if you want or role play it as someone screwing up.
-
In my opinion, the points you spent in thermal sensor strengh on your size 5 missile is a waste of space.
A missile uses the sensor of the launching ship, except if its target is already destroyed, or if the lauching ship is destroyed, so going without onboard sensor is not a big problem in my opinion.
And with a 0.03 sensor strengh, your missile will autodirect itself if, and only if it is already very close to the target : the window of usefullness is very short.
When your missile's auto-targeter will swith on, either the targets will be too far, or your missile will already be located in some random part of your opponent's anatomy.
In your specific tactical situation, a good question would be "do you plan to invade them or just prevent an invasion of your own space ?"
If you want to defend your door and wait for better tech before planing an invasion, then your military will blocade the Jump Gate : in this situation, you don't need a very long range missile, a faster, big hitting one would be more efficient.
The size 5 you designed is more intended for classical long range battles, not "gate camping".
Your AMM seems fine to me, but it will have difficulties to hit fast moving targets such as... other missiles. You should back it up with beam defense or gauss guns.
Gauss guns are good for low tech civilisations and first ship designs : no need of powerplant technology, because it does not use power plant.
-
Given your ship yard constraints and I guess a fairly serious urgency to get some defences in place it sounds like some 11k missile cruisers and some 4k AM escorts would be the way to go. You biggest issue is going to be building sufficient missiles to actually arm those ships in any reasonable amount of time. Your also not really going to have the chance to train the crew for fast response times, hence sitting on the gate with energy weapons may not be the best bet at this stage.
I would spend less time trying to out pace those enemy ships and focus in on being able to deliver some significant volleys at the enemy ships. You won't have the ordnance for an attirtional fight so plenty of launchers and several MFCs for each ship is probably the way to go. I would personally be looking at sitting my defense fleet a good 10 mil k off of the gate with actives on to give me time for my fleet to be able to fire co-ordinated salvos at the hostiles.
In terms of building the ships as fast as you can its also well worth diverting you industry to build the main components ahead of actually commissioning the ships. This drastically reduces the overall build time and should allow you to get the first batch out in eight to twelve months.
I also agree on the anti ship missiles, less range more punch!
You might also think about building some PDCs on earth in the mean time...
-
A quick note about building part of the ships with your industry. In most cases you will be able to build 1/2-2/3 of almost any ship design you are looking at within one month. This will reduce the build time of the ship by the amount it has been pre built. I have in the past built engines, turret weapons and large fire control/sensors with my industry and taken a 18 month build time down to 3 months. The biggest drawback to this for you will be can you build enough missiles for the ships to have a full magazine. If you do not think you will be able to then I would suggest going with box launchers. Your total magazine capacity will be lower than with traditional ships, but you will be able to throw very heavy salvo's. If you do not want to have to bring the ships back to earth to re load then use the 1/4 size launchers. This will probably give you somewhere around 80 missiles that can be fired simultaneously. By doing this you will also reduce the need to coordinate your ships firing. As long as a couple of ships can fire together they have a good chance to get through the pd of the targets. Especially if you can fire soon enough for them to still be sensor blind when they would need to fire their anti-missiles off.
Good Luck
Brian
-
You may be between a rock and a hard place. What is the current state of your tech without further research? Engines, active sensor strength, fire controls (beam and missile), beam fire control tracking speed, turret speed, missile warhead strength per msp, beams, etc etc etc.
It sounds like you've bumped into regular NPR. The bad news is that they may come through the jump point before your ready. Plan for ships that can be quickly turned out from your shipyards (1000-4000 ton max). concentrate on quantity at first. If you don't have many ordinance factories concentrate on the smallest single beam ship that will track a 6000ton 5000kps target.
Once you've got a force that can swamp the NPR as it comes through the jump point then worry about quality ships. If you design the best ship your yards can produce that are finished a month after the enemy shows up on your doorstep they do you no good.
That's my opinion anyway.
-
Why all this violence? Can't you talk to them? They may have nuked your surveyor because they felt threatened.
-
Yes, you can try assigning a team of diplomats to the race in question. It doesn't look like they're part of them.
-
Thanks for the input, everyone.
I've reduced the fuel supplies on my anti-ship missile and put the size into agility instead to improve my hit rating.
The new Sabre ASM:
Missile Size: 5 MSP (0.25 HS) Warhead: 4 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 16
Speed: 24000 km/s Endurance: 28 minutes Range: 40.5m km
Thermal Sensor Strength: 0.03 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 30,000 km
Cost Per Missile: 3.18
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 384% 3k km/s 128% 5k km/s 76.8% 10k km/s 38.4%
Materials Required: 1x Tritanium 0.03x Uridium 2.55x Gallicite Fuel x2250
I also reduced the range on the AMMs - not because I needed the room, but because I think the 350-ton weight of a missile fire control is too much to justify on a 4000-ton escort, and so the extra range would be wasted anyway. (Managed to squeeze an extra 4% to hit, I don't think I'm going to get any more than that with current tech.
The new Lancet AMM:
Missile Size: 1 MSP (0.05 HS) Warhead: 1 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 18
Speed: 30300 km/s Endurance: 1 minutes Range: 1.1m km
Cost Per Missile: 0.955
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 545.4% 3k km/s 180% 5k km/s 109.1% 10k km/s 54.5%
Materials Required: 0.25x Tritanium 0.447x Gallicite Fuel x12.5
As for the . 1 MSP sensors on the Sabre, I was under the impression that with sensors onboard, any missiles in a salvo that overkill a target would redirect to another ship it can detect instead of self-destructing. As I'm likely to be facing enemy fleets in close formation, they're likely to be within fairly close range of each other, right? Or has that changed? (I get a lot of my info from the fiction boards, and I know a lot of those campaigns are pretty old. ) For . 1 MSP that seemed totally worth it?
I've tried assigning a diplomatic team to make contact with the aliens, but they're reporting that it may not be possible. In any case, I'm not about to sit around and hope they'll figure that out without gearing up for war as the aliens have proven hostile already. (Update: They've since given up. These evil aliens are inscrutable!)
In terms of strategy, for the moment, my priority is jump-point defense - I'm not planning on spending time researching large military jump drives yet. However, I do intend to force a confrontation with the Aliens ASAP, as they're simply too close to ignore (one jump point away from Earth, and the jump point is just outside the orbit of Saturn!) so I also plan to use this fleet for offense once I'm able to defend myself and spend the time to retool and build a jump cruiser.
Here's my proposed design for the missile cruiser:
Marauder class Missile Cruiser 11,000 tons 1028 Crew 1523.08 BP TCS 220 TH 1071 EM 0
4868 km/s Armour 3-44 Shields 0-0 Sensors 18/6/0/0 Damage Control Rating 5 PPV 36
Annual Failure Rate: 193% IFR: 2.7% Maint Capacity 1433 MSP Max Repair 96 MSP Est Time: 3.43 Years
Magazine 618
Lockheed-Martin E8.8 Overcharged Ion Engine (17) Power 63 Fuel Use 88% Signature 63 Armour 0 Exp 7%
Fuel Capacity 150,000 Litres Range 27.9 billion km (66 days at full power)
Anti-Missile Launcher S-1 Mk1 (11) Missile Size 1 Rate of Fire 10
Standard Missile Launcher S-5 Mk1 (5) Missile Size 5 Rate of Fire 50
Missile Fire Control FC122-R100 (1) Range 122.4m km Resolution 100
Anti-Missile Missile Fire Control FC10-R1 (1) Range 10.1m km Resolution 1
Sabre Anti-Ship Missile Mk2 (64) Speed: 24,000 km/s End: 28.1m Range: 40.5m km WH: 4 Size: 5 TH: 128 / 76 / 38
Lancet Anti-Missile Missile Mk2 (300) Speed: 30,300 km/s End: 0.6m Range: 1.1m km WH: 1 Size: 1 TH: 181 / 109 / 54
Active Search Sensor MR57-R100 (1) GPS 9600 Range 57.6m km Resolution 100
Thermal Sensor TH3-18 (1) Sensitivity 18 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 18m km
Sony EM1-6 Commercial EM Detection Sensor (1) Sensitivity 6 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 6m km
Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
I'm not entirely sure about the ordinance load. I've currently gone for 64 Sabre ASMs and 300 Lancet AMMs?
I've managed to just barely hold onto a speed advantage over the ships I've seen.
The Phalanx AMM Escort:
Phalanx class Escort 4,000 tons 304 Crew 548.74 BP TCS 80 TH 378 EM 0
4725 km/s Armour 3-22 Shields 0-0 Sensors 18/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 1 PPV 6
Annual Failure Rate: 128% IFR: 1.8% Maint Capacity 86 MSP Max Repair 56 MSP Est Time: 1.1 Years
Magazine 297
Lockheed-Martin E8.8 Overcharged Ion Engine (6) Power 63 Fuel Use 88% Signature 63 Armour 0 Exp 7%
Fuel Capacity 50,000 Litres Range 25.6 billion km (62 days at full power)
Anti-Missile Launcher S-1 Mk1 (6) Missile Size 1 Rate of Fire 10
Anti-Missile Missile Fire Control FC10-R1 (1) Range 10.1m km Resolution 1
Lancet Anti-Missile Missile Mk2 (297) Speed: 30,300 km/s End: 0.6m Range: 1.1m km WH: 1 Size: 1 TH: 181 / 109 / 54
Sony MR9-R100 Commercial Active Search Sensor (1) GPS 1600 Range 9.6m km Resolution 100
Thermal Sensor TH3-18 (1) Sensitivity 18 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 18m km
Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
297 Lancets on these.
These okay? I'm not entirely happy with the range on them, but I couldn't fit more fuel on without removing something important or going over my size limit. When I go on the offensive, I'll make sure I have tankers on standby.
-
The active sensor on the Phalanx won't be able to see size 6 missiles until it's too late to intercept them. It should be resolution 1 like the fire control. The active finds missiles for FC to track, so if the active can't see them... Edit: Same for the Marauder, though it will see them a bit sooner.
The Marauder's anti-ship FC has 3 times the range of your AS missiles? You could save a few HS there.
-
The active sensor on the Phalanx won't be able to see size 6 missiles until it's too late to intercept them. It should be resolution 1 like the fire control. The active finds missiles for FC to track, so if the active can't see them. . . Edit: Same for the Marauder, though it will see them a bit sooner.
The Marauder's anti-ship FC has 3 times the range of your AS missiles? You could save a few HS there.
Blech! I assumed that because the missile fire controls had sensors built in, they'd be able to target things on their own. That's not good!
The marauder's FC's range is to be able to target ~5000 ton vessels at max missile range. I'm expecting a large number of smaller ships based on what my survey ship ran into.
-
As for the . 1 MSP sensors on the Sabre, I was under the impression that with sensors onboard, any missiles in a salvo that overkill a target would redirect to another ship it can detect instead of self-destructing. As I'm likely to be facing enemy fleets in close formation, they're likely to be within fairly close range of each other, right? Or has that changed? (I get a lot of my info from the fiction boards, and I know a lot of those campaigns are pretty old. ) For . 1 MSP that seemed totally worth it?
If this will work, it is a great idea. But I cannot confirm that it will work. I know that, for instance, submunitions released from a bunch captor mines will not seek new targets once they've destroyed the first.
Additionally, if operating primarily as a jump-defence force, your priority must be overwhelming first strike before your enemies get their anti-missile radar up. I would advise reduced size launchers on the missile cruiser, it's cheap to research up to the 50% size ones, so that you can double your throw-weight in a hostile-jump-in situation. Given the likely technological advantage of your opponents, you really want that first strike to stick!
-
The marauder's FC's range is to be able to target ~5000 ton vessels at max missile range. I'm expecting a large number of smaller ships based on what my survey ship ran into.
Actually, a resolution 100 FC will be able to target 5000 ton and larger at it's rated range, the 122.4mkm in this case. Lower resolution is better for seeing smaller ships than bigger size. How big is that FC?
-
Actually, a resolution 100 FC will be able to target 5000 ton and larger at it's rated range, the 122.4mkm in this case. Lower resolution is better for seeing smaller ships than bigger size. How big is that FC?
212.5 tons. When I built it, I set it to the resolution I wanted (5000 tons) and then dialed up the size 'till I hit the range on my missiles. I guess something went wrong and the resolution got reset, or something?
-
Okay, trying this again (FC size issues notwithstanding):
I added a missile detection sensor to the Marauders. I had to remove a AMM launcher, but managed to fit a little extra fuel in there, as well.
I'm wondering if maybe I should remove some of the AMM launchers in favor or more ASM launchers? My missile cruisers have ended up being better missile defense than my escorts, and I'm going to end up with quite a few escorts due to my shipyard considerations.
Marauder Mk2 class Missile Cruiser 11,000 tons 1024 Crew 1538.08 BP TCS 220 TH 1071 EM 0
4868 km/s Armour 3-44 Shields 0-0 Sensors 18/6/0/0 Damage Control Rating 5 PPV 35
Annual Failure Rate: 193% IFR: 2.7% Maint Capacity 1437 MSP Max Repair 96 MSP Est Time: 3.43 Years
Magazine 617
Lockheed-Martin E8.8 Overcharged Ion Engine (17) Power 63 Fuel Use 88% Signature 63 Armour 0 Exp 7%
Fuel Capacity 190,000 Litres Range 35.3 billion km (83 days at full power)
Standard Missile Launcher S-5 Mk1 (5) Missile Size 5 Rate of Fire 50
Anti-Missile Launcher S-1 Mk1 (10) Missile Size 1 Rate of Fire 10
Missile Fire Control FC122-R100 (1) Range 122.4m km Resolution 100
Anti-Missile Missile Fire Control FC10-R1 (1) Range 10.1m km Resolution 1
Sabre Anti-Ship Missile Mk2 (64) Speed: 24,000 km/s End: 28.1m Range: 40.5m km WH: 4 Size: 5 TH: 128 / 76 / 38
Lancet Anti-Missile Missile Mk2 (300) Speed: 30,300 km/s End: 0.6m Range: 1.1m km WH: 1 Size: 1 TH: 181 / 109 / 54
Active Search Sensor MR57-R100 (1) GPS 9600 Range 57.6m km Resolution 100
Missile Detection Sensor MR1-R1 (1) GPS 20 Range 1.2m km Resolution 1
Thermal Sensor TH3-18 (1) Sensitivity 18 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 18m km
Sony EM1-6 Commercial EM Detection Sensor (1) Sensitivity 6 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 6m km
Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
Added a missile sensor to the Phalanx, as well. I downgraded the passive sensors to make room, as since the Phalanx is an escort, it should always be with a larger ship with better passives anyway.
Phalanx Mk2 class Escort 4,000 tons 307 Crew 575.74 BP TCS 80 TH 378 EM 0
4725 km/s Armour 3-22 Shields 0-0 Sensors 6/6/0/0 Damage Control Rating 1 PPV 6
Annual Failure Rate: 128% IFR: 1.8% Maint Capacity 90 MSP Max Repair 56 MSP Est Time: 1.13 Years
Magazine 297
Lockheed-Martin E8.8 Overcharged Ion Engine (6) Power 63 Fuel Use 88% Signature 63 Armour 0 Exp 7%
Fuel Capacity 80,000 Litres Range 40.9 billion km (100 days at full power)
Anti-Missile Launcher S-1 Mk1 (6) Missile Size 1 Rate of Fire 10
Anti-Missile Missile Fire Control FC10-R1 (1) Range 10.1m km Resolution 1
Lancet Anti-Missile Missile Mk2 (297) Speed: 30,300 km/s End: 0.6m Range: 1.1m km WH: 1 Size: 1 TH: 181 / 109 / 54
Missile Detection Sensor MR1-R1 (1) GPS 20 Range 1.2m km Resolution 1
Sony MR9-R100 Commercial Active Search Sensor (1) GPS 1600 Range 9.6m km Resolution 100
Sony TH1-6 Commercial Thermal Sensor (1) Sensitivity 6 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 6m km
Sony EM1-6 Commercial EM Detection Sensor (1) Sensitivity 6 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 6m km
Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
-
The resolution is right but the range is short. It will see 50 ton objects at 1.2mkm, but size 6 missiles are only 15 tons which it will see at 100,000-150,000km. So, you're gonna have to increase it's size. You can drop the other sensors to make room, let the Marauder worry about that.
Another option would be to not defend the jump point, but defend the populations. PDCs don't need to worry about engines, fuel or shipyard capacities and while they need some magazines, they can transfer ordinance from the populations. They can also be built faster than ships.
-
Argh! It did it to me again! I was looking at the wrong line of the range summary. Sigh...
Earth is already running low on several minerals. I can't stay bottled up, forever. (I established a number of automated mining complexes, no colonies, yet.)
Thanks for the input. Ship design is hard!
-
OKAY! If this doesn't work, I'm just going to hire some nautical engineers.
All the time re-researching components has allowed me to increase the size of my shipyards. The new versions are 1000 tons heavier than the old.
Marauder Mk3 class Missile Cruiser 12,000 tons 1139 Crew 1754.88 BP TCS 240 TH 1134 EM 0
4725 km/s Armour 3-46 Shields 0-0 Sensors 18/6/0/0 Damage Control Rating 4 PPV 40
Annual Failure Rate: 288% IFR: 4% Maint Capacity 1366 MSP Max Repair 176 MSP Est Time: 1.85 Years
Magazine 622
Lockheed-Martin E8.8 Overcharged Ion Engine (18) Power 63 Fuel Use 88% Signature 63 Armour 0 Exp 7%
Fuel Capacity 140,000 Litres Range 23.9 billion km (58 days at full power)
Standard Missile Launcher S-5 Mk1 (7) Missile Size 5 Rate of Fire 50
Anti-Missile Launcher S-1 Mk1 (5) Missile Size 1 Rate of Fire 10
Missile Fire Control FC122-R100 (1) Range 122.4m km Resolution 100
Anti-Missile Missile Fire Control FC10-R1 (1) Range 10.1m km Resolution 1
Sabre Anti-Ship Missile Mk2 (84) Speed: 24,000 km/s End: 28.1m Range: 40.5m km WH: 4 Size: 5 TH: 128 / 76 / 38
Lancet Anti-Missile Missile Mk2 (200) Speed: 30,300 km/s End: 0.6m Range: 1.1m km WH: 1 Size: 1 TH: 181 / 109 / 54
Active Search Sensor MR57-R100 (1) GPS 9600 Range 57.6m km Resolution 100
Missile Detection Sensor MR10-R1 (1) GPS 176 Range 10.6m km Resolution 1
Thermal Sensor TH3-18 (1) Sensitivity 18 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 18m km
Sony EM1-6 Commercial EM Detection Sensor (1) Sensitivity 6 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 6m km
Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
Phalanx Mk3 class Escort 5,000 tons 397 Crew 790.54 BP TCS 100 TH 504 EM 0
5040 km/s Armour 3-26 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 1 PPV 6
Annual Failure Rate: 200% IFR: 2.8% Maint Capacity 99 MSP Max Repair 176 MSP Est Time: 0.28 Years
Magazine 297
Lockheed-Martin E8.8 Overcharged Ion Engine (8) Power 63 Fuel Use 88% Signature 63 Armour 0 Exp 7%
Fuel Capacity 80,000 Litres Range 32.7 billion km (75 days at full power)
Anti-Missile Launcher S-1 Mk1 (6) Missile Size 1 Rate of Fire 10
Anti-Missile Missile Fire Control FC10-R1 (1) Range 10.1m km Resolution 1
Lancet Anti-Missile Missile Mk2 (297) Speed: 30,300 km/s End: 0.6m Range: 1.1m km WH: 1 Size: 1 TH: 181 / 109 / 54
Missile Detection Sensor MR10-R1 (1) GPS 176 Range 10.6m km Resolution 1
Sony MR9-R100 Commercial Active Search Sensor (1) GPS 1600 Range 9.6m km Resolution 100
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
All good? I hope?
-
I'm wondering if maybe I should remove some of the AMM launchers in favor or more ASM launchers? My missile cruisers have ended up being better missile defense than my escorts, and I'm going to end up with quite a few escorts due to my shipyard considerations.
Yes. Particularly early on, when you're limited with tonnage, specialisation for each ship is the way to go. That missile cruiser needs to be all about putting on the hurt, leave the escorts to keep it alive!
(edit: Drop the res 100 active sensor from the Phalanx, it's doubled up with the new missile sensor and isn't really doing anything any more.It will presumably always be operating with at least one Marauder, so no need to double up on a long-range active.)
Also, if you are sure you are always going to be operating with escorts, you could drop the AMM capability from the missile cruiser alltogether. You will be able to drop the anti-missile radar, the smaller fire controls and the launchers, gaining you a load more offensive launchers.
Look at it this way: Assume your two ships were firing at each other. A flight of seven of your anti-ship missiles is probably something that a single Phalanx escort could destroy before they impacted - you'd need ~4 AMMs per missile to have good chances to hit, and you'll get to fire about four volleys of 6 Lancets while while the Sabres crossed their 1mkm range. There's a decent chance none of them are going to get through, maybe one or two if you're unlucky. And it's impossible for one 4-damage missile to get through three layers of armour, and very unlikely for two. Assuming your opponents are better at missile defence than you, or that they outnumber you, your five missile volleys are going to have a hard time getting through a single escort.
More of an offensive focus, and more of a first-strike focus, will serve you well. Especially on the defensive.
-
My guess is that the resolution 100 sensor is 1HS and I would switch that for another engineering space. I would also guess that that max repair is either the fire control or the resolution 1 sensor. Don't want to not be able to repair either of those.
-
I've entered the Ross128 system and have engaged the alien fleet. Their missiles have ranges upwards of 90 million km! My AMM defenses are holding up for now...
I've deactivated active sensors other than my anti-missile sensors in the hope that that's how they're seeing me, and am moving a way to give my AMMs the best shot at stopping these waves. I sure hope I've got more AMMs than they've got missiles! (Or, 5x more AMMs than they've got missiles, really.)
Down to half ammo on most of my ships for AMMs. No end of the missile waves in sight. Just salvo after salvo of 48 size 4 missiles...
Phew! Missiles stopped. I'm at about 1/3rd stocks of AMMs. I hope that's all the missiles they've got and it's not that I just broke contact. Turning the big active sensors back on...
Battlehawks are retreating. They must have used up all their missiles and are heading home. Chippewas are still incoming, however, but they're further out.
Agh! More missiles! Chippewas are launching, now.
Only salvos of 30, this time. Missile defense are having an easier time of it.
Some of my magazines are dry. Hits are getting through. Those ships must be 90% magazine!
Warlord just exploded. All AMMs are expended. Running for it!
Champion just went, as well.
Oh, thank god! Missiles have stopped! Chippewas are bugging out. My damaged ships are collecting life pods form the ones that were destroyed, and are heading back to the jump point. My intact ships are in pursuit - I have a speed advantage, so I can always run if more alien ships show up.
Uh oh! They beat me back to a small moon, and apparently reloading ordinance is instant. The Chippewas went right past the moon, so hopefully that means they didn't get a full load of ordinance, because I'm far too close to them to flee.
I made it into missile range, no sign of enemy missiles, yet. What are they doing?
Woops, there they are. Does anyone know how to work the missile launchers on these things?
Marauder, Vengeance, Victory and Warspite just bought it. But I tihkn they're out of missiles again. I am sooooo nuking their homeworld for this!
Uh, crud. Chippewas are coming back, now. Time to leave!
Aha! My missile salvo just caught up with the bloodhawks despite almost all of the firing ships being destroyed. That .1 MSP on thermal sensors was the best 40th of a ton I ever spent!
...And that's it. The few survivors are limping back to the jump point so they can be rescued by a survey ship. That didn't go so well.
Aliens had twice my range. And with the ability to instantly refill ordinance, just weathering the storm of missiles wasn't enough.
-
Some maybe gamey tactics. Identify their bases in system. Then jump in with a fast ship high endurance (TG A)that has a long range active sensor (and nothing else). Then jump in ships with long range missiles (TG B).
Lure them away from their bases, and away from TG B, by flying around TG A with active sensors. When you think it's far enough, fly TG B up to their bases and nuke them from orbit.
Another tactic: Use fighters. They are fast and not easily seen, but can have enough missile firepower to nuke their bases. Given that you can design faster ships then they have, a carrier group is ideal.
Once they are out of ammo, you can kill them at your leisure.
Yes. Particularly early on, when you're limited with tonnage, specialisation for each ship is the way to go. That missile cruiser needs to be all about putting on the hurt, leave the escorts to keep it alive!
I wonder whether this really is the case. It doesn't matter on which ships the given systems are on, they always take up the same tonnage. It seems to me that escorts only make a difference if they are are positioned differently, which they should be of course. Otherwise it seems to make more sense to put all those defensive systems into the main combat ship, and armor that ship up.
But I admit my experience is limited, I only had one engagement so far with similar enemies, and I had 50 fighters with level 5 tech pretty much across the board (internal confinement level). Then it's pretty easy.
-
I wonder whether this really is the case. It doesn't matter on which ships the given systems are on, they always take up the same tonnage. It seems to me that escorts only make a difference if they are are positioned differently, which they should be of course.
You can save space with ship specialisation because you don't have radar and Fire control redundancies.
If you base your fleet on missiles for attack and anti-missile for defense and you chose not to specialize : you have to put a short range Resolution 1 fire control and a long range high res firce control on each ship.
Basicaly, if you have two ships, it means, you have to produce and install 4 fire controls or you have to design an even bigger RES 1 long range multipurpose fire control.
Or you can specialise, and your anti-ship vessel has the long range fire control, and your defense vessel has the short range res 1 fire control.
Basicaly, you have to produce and install only 2 fire control, and you can put more missiles launchers and magasines.
I often save more space on my ships by putting the sensors and radars on a single ships dedicated to that and early warning crafts : all my other ships are radarless, but they have bigger guns.
-
Ya i ussually roll with a Command ship that houses all my radars...passive and active. That way i can put more weapons on my other ships. And i'm definetly a specialize your ships type too. Maybe as your ships get larger you won't hae to worry about specialization, yet it really seems to help for smaller ships...atleast to me.
-Five
-
You can save space with ship specialisation because you don't have radar and Fire control redundancies.
I often save more space on my ships by putting the sensors and radars on a single ships dedicated to that and early warning crafts : all my other ships are radarless, but they have bigger guns.
I will often put a short range, low res active sensor on all of my ships. Something that can see anything out to just past my beam weapons fire control range. As these do not have much of a signature I can have them running without much chance of broadcasting where my fleet is. I then have a couple of fleet scouts with the really long range actives to spot enemy ships way out there. My anti-missile escorts will have a stronger res 1 sensor to see out as far as my missile fire control can shoot, and usually a little longer. On small escorts they will have a little smaller active that can see out about 1 million km. I am relying on the capital ship escorts for longer range actives against missiles. All together this gives me the ability to turn on different types of sensors selectivly. As currently you can only turn all the sensors on a ship on and off together, this lets me keep an eye on the near vicinity without broadcasting to everyone in a system where I am. Obviously I am depending on passives to spot a fleet at long range before they can spot my ships with their active sensors.
Brian
-
I confess that putting the sensors ina single ship can be a problem if you lose it, but that's very efficient.
I build a 2500 tons / RES 20 active sensor and I put it on a 10.000t cruiser.
That can see anything anywhere.
I add a RES 1 with the same range than my AMMs, like you do.
And I add strongest passives I can design.
The remaining space go in armor and shield, just in case.
Thanks to this, I save a lot of space on my other ships : before that, I used to take up to 10 HS for sensors in every ship, with 20 ships in an average fleet, 10.000 tons of space were wasted for radars.
This ship are the real eyes of the fleets, but you can put them in orbit of a new colony before the construction of tracking stations.
-
What do you think is a good passive strength for fleet scouts which fly the perimeter?
You can save space with ship specialisation because you don't have radar and Fire control redundancies.
I don't think so. For radar this is so because every ship is data linked to all the others, but fire control is linked to the weapons, it a part of the weapons in other words. Again it doesn't matter where the weapons are, they always take the same tonnage. The disadvantages could be found elsewhere,
1. for instance that the bigger the ship, the more space a single point of armor will cost. If you have offense and defense on the same ship, it tends to be big, so more tonnage is needed for a given armor thickness. On the other hand, the bigger ship's armor will be tougher because of the larger target area.
2. or it's the engine performance. A little test with level 6 tech (inertial confinement):
Ship A class Cruiser 6,550 tons 183 Crew 929.6 BP TCS 131 TH 35.84 EM 0
3419 km/s Armour 3-31 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 38 PPV 0
Annual Failure Rate: 40% IFR: 0.6% Maint Capacity 754 MSP Max Repair 308 MSP Est Time: 3.02 Years
Cargo 5000
Pratt & Whitney PW2176 Power (2) Power 224 Fuel Use 54% Signature 17.92 Armour 0 Exp 30%
Fuel Capacity 50,000 Litres Range 25.4 billion km (86 days at full power)
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
Ship B class Cruiser 12,700 tons 326 Crew 1702.8 BP TCS 254 TH 71.68 EM 0
3527 km/s Armour 3-48 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 47 PPV 0
Annual Failure Rate: 75% IFR: 1.1% Maint Capacity 1425 MSP Max Repair 308 MSP Est Time: 3.02 Years
Cargo 10000
Pratt & Whitney PW2176 Power (4) Power 224 Fuel Use 54% Signature 17.92 Armour 0 Exp 30%
Fuel Capacity 100,000 Litres Range 26.2 billion km (86 days at full power)
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
Ship B has double the payload, tank and engine power as ship A. Both ships have an advanced damage control and are designed for 3 years of maintenance life. Ship B is actually smaller than double the size of ship A, it is a little bit faster and has 54% more armor. It costs 183% of ship A. The range is similar.
So where is the advantage to build 20 of ship A instead of 10 of ship B?
Fleet A
has 3x31x20=1860 squares of armor, Fleet B has 3x48x10=1440 squares of armor :)
has more single targets for the enemy to engage. :)
has a smaller sensor footprint :)
needs smaller shipyards :)
and smaller maintenance facilities, :)
more jump drives to transport them over interstellar distances. :(
for about 10% more cost. :(
and maybe more shipyards :(
-
<snip>I've deactivated active sensors other than my anti-missile sensors in the hope that that's how they're seeing me, <snip>
Your most likely being tracked by planetary tracking stations. How close have you gotten to the planet and with what strength passive and active sensors?
-
Teiwaz, search your log.
Did you detect a sizeable thermal or EM signature from their planet?
Did that planet have atmosphere?
If not, it might be a base with guard ships, which means they likely outtech you beyond your imagination, but are very unlikely to follow you.
Given their capabilities and force composition, do you think they actually have jump drives? If so, could they jump their entire force through at once, or in small groups?
Further, it seems AI is always fireing on the ship best visible, be it the biggest or the one with the highest emissions.
You could make this your advantage by building a big ship with good armor, and plaster it with Gauss turrets and CIWS to soak missiles while you dis integrate their origin.
-
For radar this is so because every ship is data linked to all the others, but fire control is linked to the weapons, it a part of the weapons in other words. Again it doesn't matter where the weapons are, they always take the same tonnage. The disadvantages could be found elsewhere,
1. for instance that the bigger the ship, the more space a single point of armor will cost. If you have offense and defense on the same ship, it tends to be big, so more tonnage is needed for a given armor thickness. On the other hand, the bigger ship's armor will be tougher because of the larger target area.
2. or it's the engine performance. A little test with level 6 tech (inertial confinement):
*SNIP*
You're correct that the specialization benefit isn't pronounced for weapons systems, i.e. anti-missile escort vs. beam vs. anti-ship missile are all stuck with the mass. (Although salvo size is important in anti-ship missile combat, so sticking 20 launchers on 1 ship makes it easier to maintain a concentrated punch than 2 launchers on 10 ships.)
The real specialization benefit comes from all the other stuff: jump drives, geo/grav survey, active and passive sensors (NOT fire control). The point is that these payloads are used in different locations, so if you stick more than one of them on a single ship, one of them will be working at any given time, while the others will be sitting around doing nothing. This is also the case with missile vs. beam warships to a certain extent - they tend to have different tactical requirements, so trying to have a dual-purpose combatant leads to conflicting requirements on the platform (e.g. armor, speed).
You're correct that armor becomes more efficient for larger ships. In fact, this was one of the original design drivers Steve had for Aurora - he wanted to avoid the "swarms of small ships" strategy of StarFire and encourage the production of large ships. On the other hand (as I think you pointed out), Jump drive expense grows quickly with ship size.
As for engines, there's no efficiencies of scale - it's purely power/mass ratio that determines speed. If you double the size of the ship and double the number of engines (so both designs have the same hull percentage devoted to engines), then both designs will have the same speed.
John
-
From what I can observe, while it becomes more mass-efficient for larger ships, armour also becomes more expensive due to the larger surface it has to cover.
-
From what I can observe, while it becomes more mass-efficient for larger ships, armour also becomes more expensive due to the larger surface it has to cover.
If you compare 2 10,000 ton armor-5 ships to a single 20,000 ton armor-5 ship, you'll find that the armor is actually cheaper, and that the total surface area is smaller. The surface-to-volume ratio goes down for bigger ships.
In general this (equating total tonnage) is a good way to think about design comparisons in Aurora. The mechanics are mostly set up so that if you fuse two identical ships into a single ship with twice as many of every system, then the costs, capabilities etc. will be the same. The notable exceptions to this that I can think of are armor (merged design is better), bridge (ditto, for ships greater than 1 kton), jump engines (smaller ships preferred), SY capacity (ditto), SY build rate (bigger ships preferred - they get a bulk discount :) ), and sensor signature (bigger is worse, because TG signatures don't add)
John
-
And Sensor as well.
-
What do you think is a good passive strength for fleet scouts which fly the perimeter?
I don't know, I put active Res 100 on my fleet Early Warning Crafts.
But it worth be tried, since they often get spoted and shot down.
I would take the thermal signature of one of my small frigates and take it as a basis for designing the passive thermal and I would design an EM passive sensor of the same size than the thermal one.
I started a new campaign, without no EWC for the moment, but I will do it if I go for this option.
I don't think so. For radar this is so because every ship is data linked to all the others, but fire control is linked to the weapons, it a part of the weapons in other words. Again it doesn't matter where the weapons are, they always take the same tonnage. The disadvantages could be found elsewhere,
In fact no : if you put all the launchers of one category in one ship (ie you specialize) you only have to build one Fire Control because, as you said, it's part of the weapon.
You build two ships, same size, and your FC systems take 5HS :
first option : One ship for the big missiles, one ship for the small missiles. You have to build and install one and only one fire control per ship. FC size per ship = 5
Second option : Each ship can fire small AND big missiles; You have to build and install Two fire control per ship. FC size per ship = 10
So specialization can save up space in your ship, or allow you to put more launchers, or allow you to put more armor, or go faster or do anything you want with this empty space.
The matter is not to build big ships or small ships. The specialization is efficient in your case A and in your case B.
In fact, I would say the smaller the ship, the higher the specialisation, since specialization saves space.
In my last campaign my AMM frigates were 3900 tons only, with one missile FC and no radar. Principe Class.
I had another 3900t frigate class for gauss gun final defense, with one beam FC and no radar. Hastati Class.
I had a third 3900t class for active detection of missiles and jump drive, weaponless. Tertiari Class.
If I had wished to make a mutlipurpose frigate, it would have been impossible to put everything (missile fire control, Beam fire control, Res 1 radar, Jump drive) in a 3900t ship and still be efficient in combat.
-
It's a bit more complicated than that. Say for example you put one fire control per eight offensive weapons and one per four defensive weapons. You can then essentially say that an offensive 'module' is eight launchers/beams + an FC and a 'defensive' module is four launchers/beams + and FC. If you only ever put weapons on ships in multiples of those modules, you will never have any wasted tonnage.
However, say you want an offensive ship to have some limited defensive capability but don't have space for a full four weapons. Now you've wasted space, because you've got one FC for, say, two weapons. So between two of these ships you've got wasted space equal to one defensive FC.
So, assuming sensors are located elsewhere or otherwise standardised, the truth lies somewhere between what Giggle said and what Rastaman said.
-
It's a bit more complicated than that. Say for example you put one fire control per eight offensive weapons and one per four defensive weapons. You can then essentially say that an offensive 'module' is eight launchers/beams + an FC and a 'defensive' module is four launchers/beams + and FC. If you only ever put weapons on ships in multiples of those modules, you will never have any wasted tonnage.
Yup, assuming your FC and launchers are dimensioned to be effective for a standardized FC/launcher ratio, that's ok.
Being a "small ship" fanboy myself, like Rastaman, I don't do such calculation, except for mu occasional battleships : I always go for, 1FC per ship.
-
On a more practical point I've never mixed pd missiles with offensive missiles on the basis that I want to retain manual control of my anti ship missiles whilst leaving my amms on auto fire. As far as I can see you can only set auto fire per ship, not per fire control. Am I missing something here?
-
On a more practical point I've never mixed pd missiles with offensive missiles on the basis that I want to retain manual control of my anti ship missiles whilst leaving my amms on auto fire. As far as I can see you can only set auto fire per ship, not per fire control. Am I missing something here?
You don't need autofire for that.
Assign the FC/launcher/missile combination you desire for missile defense. Set the PD mode to that suite and it will function without further input. This only works for missile defense though.
Personally I don't use autofire since I have no control over the targeting decisions.
-
In fact, I had cases where auto-fire will cancell your PD settings.
I use to have problems with my AMM and I had to manualy target incoming salvoes.
The basic thing I do for good AMM setting is as follow :
-you select your defense fire control in battle control window
-you select a PD mode and save your choice
-you NEVER select auto fire for your ship or for your fleet, it is only open fire or cease fire, nothing else.
Your AMM launchers will lauch automatically on incoming salvoes.
This way, you can have another fire control on your ship and it can be intended for anti-ship fire, the AMM FC will not conflict with the ASM FC.
That beeing said, I personaly agree with your habit of putting different Fire control systems on different ship.
-
Why do so many people bother with AMMs? They seem so wasteful and finite compared to Gauss turrets.
Is it just for flavour or do you guys use them as an extra challenge?
-
Ah thanks very much, still going to stick to my specialised ships though!
-
Why do so many people bother with AMMs? They seem so wasteful and finite compared to Gauss turrets.
Is it just for flavour or do you guys use them as an extra challenge?
Actually I don't dare send out a fleet without both, and even then the shields and armour can take quite a beating. The key with AMMs is that you can get several attempts at intercepting each missile while it crosses your AMM range, while gauss turrets only get to snap off one volley at the last instant. So AMMs handle large volleys of missiles much better, while gauss handles a constant stream of small volleys.
-
Why do so many people bother with AMMs? They seem so wasteful and finite compared to Gauss turrets.
Is it just for flavour or do you guys use them as an extra challenge?
Because beam fire control tracking speed cannot keep up with missile speed. Yes you can build turrets that can keep up, but they soon get incredibly large in the mass/hs department.
With a layered defense of AMM/CM thinning salvos then CIWS and PD turrets have a chance at the leakers. Good armor and shields are your last line of defense.
The real challenge is to start the game without a massive tech advantage. When your facing incoming missile speeds of 30-40k kps and your best AMM is only 24k kps you learn a lot about integrated defense. ;D
-
So far I've used a squadron of seven Sussex-class frigates for anti-missile duties. They're rather old by now, however, and due to be replaced with a more advanced successor in the near future.
Sussex class Frigate 7,800 tons 616 Crew 2244.5 BP TCS 156 TH 500 EM 600
6410 km/s Armour 4-35 Shields 20-300 Sensors 36/36/0/0 Damage Control Rating 5 PPV 64
Annual Failure Rate: 97% IFR: 1.4% Maint Capacity 899 MSP Max Repair 216 MSP Est Time: 2.43 Years
GN-125M5 APOLLO MagCon Fusion Drive ( 8 ) Power 125 Fuel Use 50% Signature 62.5 Armour 0 Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 150,000 Litres Range 69.2 billion km (125 days at full power)
GenCore Theta-class R300/20 Barriers (5) Total Fuel Cost 100 Litres per day
Rheinmetall R3 Quad Gauss Turret (2x12) Range 30,000km TS: 16000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 3 ROF 5 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fire Control S06 90-16000 (2) Max Range: 180,000 km TS: 16000 km/s 94 89 83 78 72 67 61 56 50 44
Sentinel 3R19 Missile Defence LADAR (1) GPS 108 Range 19.4m km Resolution 1
Artemis ALS 86-20 (1) GPS 2160 Range 86.9m km Resolution 20
Hunter PST 2.36 (1) Sensitivity 36 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 36m km
Hunter PSE 2.36 (1) Sensitivity 36 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 36m km
ECM 40
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
You don't need to keep up with their missile speed. Yes, turrets can get big, but put them on dedicated escorts like that and you're golden. 40k-ish km/s seems to be a common speed for Precursor anti-ship missiles, and with 16k km/s tracking (which means 4000 km/s beam fire control tech: not advanced at all), you have an easily achievable maximum accuracy of 40%. Per shot.
Each barrel would fire 4-5 shots (I think mine fired 3, though). Quadruple turrets therefore spit out four times that. So you end up firing, in my modest case, 12 shots per turret. 24 per frigate. 168 total shots in my squadron's case. 168 40% chances. An average of 67 missiles destroyed every five seconds. Forever.
I think one turret can only engage one salvo at a time, but with 14 platforms in my case, it'd be hard to be outnumbered in this regard.
The only time my point-defense bubble was overwhelmed was one time a Precursor AMM PDC engaged my battle group with a considerable number of 60-missile salvos. They were tiny, warhead 1 missiles, but flew at close to 70k km/s (68,700 km/s, I believe). I don't quite remember, but I think at least 15% of every salvo got through, but thankfully didn't cause much damage.
Sure, if those had been larger warheads, I would've been in a pickle. But so far I haven't encountered enemies with such capabilities. But even if I do, the new turrets (and associated FC modules) I've designed have a tracking speed of 32k km/s, and fire 5 shots instead of 3 every five seconds. Not only would they have better accuracy (45%) against hypothetical 70k km/s anti-ship missiles than the old turrets did against 40k km/s ones, but also fire 67% faster, meaning 67% more chances to score hits.
That said, and playing my own devil's advocate, considering you can fit around 20 size-1 AMMs in a single HS (depending on magazine technology), you could potentially have all the AMMs you'll ever need for a single engagment (launchers included) in the space a pair of quad Gauss turrets would otherwise take. With better range and maybe even better accuracy. This would come at the expense of limited ammo and more logistics considerations, of course, but that may or may not be a problem.
I wouldn't mind if it worked like that, because that would mean we have at least two perfectly valid alternatives for anti-missile defense. And multiple balanced options is what makes Aurora grand. :)
PS: Yes, a layered defense is also possible, but it's a logistics hassle and I've yet to find a threat that warrants the use of such a setup. And besides, such strategy implies compromising each method for the sake of the other, raising the question of whether fully focusing on a single option would've been just as effective. If not more.
EDIT: De-smilified my design. :P
-
Good analysis of the point defense problem. My 1st choice is to have enough beam weapons to deal with any reasonable salvo size I might be seeing. I then add a few amm launchers with lots of ammo to thin out big strikes, like those a fighter or gunboat swarm can spit out. They thin out the combined alpha strike to the point my beam weapons can handle the remainder. Even if I take some heavy hits, this approach tends to leave me with armour damage and not internals, and my shields rebuild for the next strike. As long as the shields keep rebuilding they need a lot of extra damage to get through and it works.
Brian
-
I just copied the design for my AMM ship and replaced all the missile components with two full size quad gauss turrets.
Some other things I noticed in favor of gauss turrets: Max Repair decreased by 58.2%, Est Time increased by 60.6%, Build Points decreased by 13.3%, Build Time decreased by 13.1% and PPV increased by 540%.
-
I just copied the design for my AMM ship and replaced all the missile components with two full size quad gauss turrets.
Some other things I noticed in favor of gauss turrets: Max Repair decreased by 58.2%, Est Time increased by 60.6%, Build Points decreased by 13.3%, Build Time decreased by 13.1% and PPV increased by 540%.
Indirectly, you also have to keep in mind the resources saved otherwise spent building AMMs.
Also, theoretically, you could use half-size Gauss cannons on the quad turrets to considerably reduce the size of each emplacement. However, I'm not sure the size-related accuracy reduction comes before or after the cap imposed by tracking speed. If it's calculated before that, then it'd be a negligible disadvantage since base accuracy at point-blank is generally well over 100%. For example, imagine your base accuracy against a 40k km/s missile salvo at 10,000 km is 150%: halved by the half-size cannons is 75%, and capped by, say, 16k km/s tracking speed automatically reduces it to 40%. No actual loss.
Nevertheless, it would be a major issue if the penalty came in after the cap. You'd get a maximum accuracy of 20%. :-\
Good analysis of the point defense problem. My 1st choice is to have enough beam weapons to deal with any reasonable salvo size I might be seeing. I then add a few amm launchers with lots of ammo to thin out big strikes, like those a fighter or gunboat swarm can spit out. They thin out the combined alpha strike to the point my beam weapons can handle the remainder. Even if I take some heavy hits, this approach tends to leave me with armour damage and not internals, and my shields rebuild for the next strike. As long as the shields keep rebuilding they need a lot of extra damage to get through and it works.
Brian
Does the AI employ that kind of tactics?
-
I have seen npr's use gunboats with box launchers. I have never seen them use fighters. Gunboats (FAC's) have the advantage of range and they can pack in a lot of launchers. Fighters can have even more launchers, but are usually much shorter ranged.
Brian
-
Indirectly, you also have to keep in mind the resources saved otherwise spent building AMMs.
On the other hand, you need to research a whole other line of technologies, while AMMs are just undersized ASMs. So if you're missile-heavy anyway, a turret PD is expensive in that regard.
-
Nevertheless, it would be a major issue if the penalty came in after the cap. You'd get a maximum accuracy of 20%. :-\
From looking at my logs, for the CIWS the base of 50% is modified by crew grade then tracking speed.
On the other hand, you need to research a whole other line of technologies, while AMMs are just undersized ASMs. So if you're missile-heavy anyway, a turret PD is expensive in that regard.
Absolutely. I wouldn't say one is inherently better. Starting tech, resources and scientists are all factors that could sway to one or the other ... or both.
On the other other hand, for missiles you've got all the missile, launcher and magazine techs in MK and all the drive, power and fuel techs in PP. For the gauss cannons, all you really need is turret tracking in EW, gauss cannon rate of fire in MK and fire control tracking speed in SF.
-
You also need some of the beam fire control range or else you only have a 50% chance to hit without increasing the size of the fire control. You will also most likely want another weapon for anti-ship purposes and you may want another weapon for attacking planets.
At early techs missiles are the only weapon that can do all three.
-
In my first campaign, I encountered an alien race which was using heavily armored missiles.
My gauss huns were overwhelmed because the missiles were fast (80K kms), but the main issue was that these incoming missiles were too tough for the damage of gauss guns which are always 1.
I don't know the mechanics of damage / missile armor, so I tried to boost the warhead of my AMMs, the result was not impressive, but at least it worked a little where the gauss guns were completly useless.
So I would say that gauss guns are effective, but sometimes, 1 damage is not enough.
-
In my first campaign, I encountered an alien race which was using heavily armored missiles.
My gauss huns were overwhelmed because the missiles were fast (80K kms), but the main issue was that these incoming missiles were too tough for the damage of gauss guns which are always 1.
I don't know the mechanics of damage / missile armor, so I tried to boost the warhead of my AMMs, the result was not impressive, but at least it worked a little where the gauss guns were completly useless.
So I would say that gauss guns are effective, but sometimes, 1 damage is not enough.
Based on those stats I'd venture a guess that you faced Invader Plasma Torpedoes not missiles.
-
What are the tech levels you were using to build the guns and associated fire controls and turrets in the frigate? Would be interested to know how much effort it would be for me to get some similar ships to those in my fleets.
Went up against a couple of 15k ton AMM beast NPRs last night with pretty dire consequences. Am 15 years into the game with a std staert and 500m pop. Had 8*8k anti ship missile ships, 12*6k anti ship missile ships, 6*6 AMM ships plus 6*6k jump ships with sensors and 2*8k jump ships with sensors (I hate the idea of ferrying ships back and forth across JPs so just role play that you can't do - squadron jumps all the way!).
From a previous visit to the system I knew there were 5 NPRs sat in orbit at one planet and their AMMs were more than capable of defeating my previous waves of 72 missiles but some of the AMM ships would move to another moon to presumably reload once they had fired odd some stocks of missiles. This time roun therefore I sat my fleet on an intercept point between the planet and the moon and fired off a small salvo to try and get the two AMM hostiles to break from the planet and the mutual support they were getting from the other ship.
Once away I fired off some full salvos to engage the hostiles. Salvos were now at 136 missiles but these were still going down to just 4 or 5 hits per salvo with the hostiles coming straight at me.
Was feeling comfortable that I would be able to wear them down before they could restock when I get hostile missiles detected - waves of 43 size 1 missiles doing over 40k whislt the hostile ships was still about 25 mil from my position which gave their AMMs some 5 times the range of mine! My own AMMs went into action but even with a 3-1 fire rate and several goes 15 or so missiles were getting through - thank god they were only strength 1 warheads. Things seemed to be going ok for the first few rounds but then my AMMS got behind on the sucessive waves which meant that between targetting and launching my own AMMS the hostile missiles were closing and hitting their targets beofre mine could actually intercept which left my ships taking 43 volley hits every ten seconds or so. My jump ships have more armour then my missile ships so were weathering the storm slightly better but I soon had a stream of heavily damaged 8k missile ships dragging behind the fleet and several that were destroyed out right.
Thankfully I think the NPR that was in the lead had expended almost all of its AMMs on my ships as when my own ASMs finally reached them there was little defensive fire and they finally bit the dust. With 4 more volleys of hostile AMMS incomming to my own fleet it wasn't a moment too soon!
The fleet is now limping back home with repairs ongoing but with serious damage to many and with large numbers of the heavy ships having basically no armour left. Now all I have to do is work out how to try and take on the last three NPRs....
I guess one question on this is would the above tech gaus cannons actually have helped given that the hostile missles moved at just over 200k km per increment and were therefore moving from outside target range to hit in one step?
-
Well, turrets in Final Fire mode would always get one shot off just before impact, so there's no chance of them not firing because the incoming missiles were too fast. The problem is that against waves of 43 missiles it's next to impossible to have enough turrets to pop them all.
-
since base accuracy at point-blank is generally well over 100%
If you’re talking about beam fire control this is blatantly false. The best I've ever seen is 99% before modifiers.
Let's face it, it's all about overwhelming the defenses. The average NPR missile destroyer is packing at least 10 offensive launchers. Average anti-ship missile speed, that I've been facing since v5.0 came out, is 40k kps.
Let's use the above Sussex. The fire control and turret are matched is tracking speed (Good) at 16K kps (not so good) with a 10k accuracy of 94% (Good). 2 turrets of 12 rounds each (Good) and 2 fire controls (Good). Against 16k/kps missiles this is more than adequate (11 out of 12 hits). But against 40k/kps the percentage is adjusted to 37.6% (94% * (16k/40k)) that’s only 4 hits per turret.
But there are 7 frigates in the TG! You’re also facing 4 or more ships throwing missiles at you. In theory those 7 FG’s should intercept 56 40k/kps missiles. If the NPR has 2 more ships that’s at least 4 leakers. At this point it’s nominally acceptable. I’ve faced NPR’s who’s missiles are 50-60k/kps and that is where having the ability to thin the incoming salvos becomes necessary.
Against AMM’s this gets much worse. They start at 50k/kps, and I’ve faced 70k/kps, which drops the intercepts to 30% vs 50k/kps (per turret intercept of 3 missiles) and 21.5% vs 70k/kps (per turret intercept of 2 missiles).
Reduced size gauss cannons are not a good idea in this environment. That half size 50% cannon would mean that starting base 94% is a base 47% which then works out to 18.8% against 40k/kps missiles.
These figures are before crew grade modifiers are applied.
There is something that can help. Max Tracking Time Bonus vs Missiles. The percentage researched it the best offset vs speed penalty. If I recall correctly, this is in 4% increments per 5 seconds of tracking on active sensors.
Before facing NPR's I use my own missile ships as a benchmark. Your own Percival with salvos of 12 missiles at 70k/kps (wh16) will overwelm your Sussex. The Bellerophon's alphastrike of 20 50k/kps (wh100!!) would not even be a contest.
Yes, you can pack A high density of turrets to offset the lack of ranged intercept. But it does come at a cost vs offensive ability.
A program of requiring at least a single PD turret, and basic fire control, (not CIWS) on each combat ship for mutual defense and escorts with a quad turret (also for mutual defense) and suites of 5 AMM (w missile fire control) for area defense works in practice better than depending on turret only escort for fleet defense.
Yes, this is just my opinion.
-
If you’re talking about beam fire control this is blatantly false. The best I've ever seen is 99% before modifiers.
I apologize. I was quite imprecise there. By base accuracy I meant the combined accuracy you get before it's chopped by the tracking speed limitation. That means a base of 94%, in my case, plus the crew rating bonus and possibly other things that push it over 100%. I'm guessing the tracking time bonus (I've invested some research on that) applies at some point, but I'm not sure where.
Now, a couple of things.
I did mention the Sussex class is reasonably old by now, and due for replacement by a future frigate with 5-shot (+67%) quad turrets and 32,000 km/s tracking speed. The Percivals are a different, newer generation of warships, so they've expectedly better performance than the older escort frigates. That said, admittedly I haven't really gauged against my own vessels, but rather those of my most common enemy: Precursors. They have good tech but aren't really numerous. I know there's technically NPRs out there, but unfortunately I haven't encountered them yet, 39 years into the game and 50-ish systems explored (out of 1000).
If I encounter aliens with technology such as what you described, I'll likely expedite the upgrade of my current escort frigates and probably build at least six more (having refitted the seven Sussex). Yes, that will naturally come at a cost, but I doubt it'll put a meaningful dent in my offensive ability. If the enemy is all about missiles, if you have a solid AM shield, you have all the time in the world to blast them to bits. And those that try to flee would be promptly run down by my Rheinland-class strike cruisers.
I'll likely be trying out your proposed single Gauss turrets sometime soon, since they do look superior than the CIWS alternative. However, while I do believe your fleet defense setup is probably just as effective as mine, it's very hard to determine, all things considered, whether the former's measurably better than the latter.
Fun Facts
- During their debut, I found out my Rheinlands can provide surprisingly effective long range (for direct fire weapons) area defense with their main railguns. They're obviously less efficient than dedicated Gauss turrets, but they thin out salvos quite nicely. Nonetheless, they do need to stay within the bubble of the escort frigates' resolution-1 sensors to be able to actually target (not to mention see) the incoming warheads. I might put them through a sensor refit soon, because of this.
- The primary mission of the Bellerophon-class stealth missile frigates is to slay their Chimeras: they are proven Star Swarm hiveship killers. While they can be employed against more common foes, that would likely result in wasteful overkill. A successor of the huge SLM-190 Excalibur would have integrated sensors, and that may make large salvos of them whole fleet killers.