Aurora 4x
New Players => The Academy => Topic started by: scoopdjm on October 18, 2011, 06:42:00 PM
-
Right, hello there guys I've recently began playing aurora and interestingly enough I grasp somewhat how to play, however I need some advice with weaponry. In this new game I generated I've started out with a relatively large amount of particle torpedo stuff researched. My question is should I keep going down this 'tech tree' or should I research missiles instead, as u know they're the most primarily used alongside lasers. Also how effective is the torpedo?
-
Particle beams are a beam weapon. They are going to have the same sort of range as a laser. Their main advantage is that a small particle beam can have the same range as a large one, their damage is constant at all ranges so at long range when they hit they do more damage than a laser will. The disadvantages are that you can not mount them in turrets so they make poor point defense, and they don't do as much damage as any of the other beam weapons when you are at really close range.
As for missiles they will far outrange any beam weapon (max beam weapon range is 1.4 million km at very high tech). Missiles will tend to have ranges of 30-150 million km so you can see the range difference. The disadvantage of missiles is their cost and having to keep your missile ships supplied with ammo. You will need at least some missile tech for point defense against enemy missile attacks.
Hope this helps you with understanding the differences
Brian
-
I find missiles to be massively satisfying, but I'm a range lover myself so any time I can out-range the enemy I abuse it. My 40m km range missiles will obliterate your 60k km range lasers before they get into spitting distance. Missiles also don't need a powerplant, but they do need magazines. But there's just something about seeing 2x Glider (x100) soaring elegantly across the void of space that just seems nice...
-
When using missiles, you have to know that long term war with a solely missile based fleet can turn a bit "uglY", since missiles take a long time to build up in usable numbers, and your fleet will be using them up faster than you can make them.
-
So I should use some combination of the two? As for particle beams should I just ignore them or use them as a close support weapon, not point defense.
-
Due to the fact that they don't suffer attenuation of their damage, particle beams are best used on ships that try and stay at max range to 'snipe' enemy ships. Mixing their use with missiles for long range and point defence would be a good idea yes, though usually on seperate ships.
-
When using missiles, you have to know that long term war with a solely missile based fleet can turn a bit "uglY", since missiles take a long time to build up in usable numbers, and your fleet will be using them up faster than you can make them.
There is no such thing as a long-term war in missile combat. =P
One salvo from a 6kton frigate with reduced size launchers and you can kiss an entire homeworld goodbye.
Like you point out, its in the interest of the missile combatant to end wars quickly. And missiles are *good* at that.
-
There is no such thing as a long-term war in missile combat. =P
One salvo from a 6kton frigate with reduced size launchers and you can kiss an entire homeworld goodbye.
Like you point out, its in the interest of the missile combatant to end wars quickly. And missiles are *good* at that.
Only when facing inferior defenses.
-
Unless the defender has parked some area defence bases in the system. I for example tend to create a moonbase (or let one or two of my bricks orbit it) with a ton of long ranged weapons to prevent these nuclear drive-bys. Sadly it takes a relative high techlevel for that.
The thing is that a rocket will end it quickly if the enemy has no decent area-defence.
Anyway back to particle weapons. Another disadvantage of particle weapons is that they are rather powerhungry so you need for the higher echelons of damage a even higher level of capactators and generators. For a sniping ship they are perfect but i would advise you to mount some Gausguns (in turrets) as additional short-range weapons.
-
So what energy weapon had the longest range? Should I use it? Or should I just set up some missile tech? No rush as I'm happily turtling my system ATM.
-
So what energy weapon had the longest range? Should I use it? Or should I just set up some missile tech? No rush as I'm happily turtling my system ATM.
It's a toss up between Lasers and Particle Beams. Lasers have the longest range, however their damage peters off to zero at their longest range. Particle beams have a slightly lower range, but they do full damage, so they have a longer effective range.
Basically a Particle Beam may only be hitting at 80-90% the range of a laser, but they will be doing 6, 7 times more damage at that range, so Particle Beams are generally thought of as the "Long Range" weapon.
-
For real cloase combat you can use plasma caronades and i atleast use them sometimes as last line of defence against armed ordonance and those big guys that want to ram my outa space. Railguns make a good area defence. Infesting into some rockets isnt a bad idea thought if you need real long ranged weapons.
-
It's a toss up between Lasers and Particle Beams. Lasers have the longest range, however their damage peters off to zero at their longest range. Particle beams have a slightly lower range, but they do full damage, so they have a longer effective range.
Basically a Particle Beam may only be hitting at 80-90% the range of a laser, but they will be doing 6, 7 times more damage at that range, so Particle Beams are generally thought of as the "Long Range" weapon.
Usable range is limited by beam fire control. Weapons range ditermines damage.
-
Usable range is limited by beam fire control. Weapons range ditermines damage.
Yes, all beam weapons are also limited by beam fire control range, but since they share that trait a comparison between beam weapons should ignore the beam fire control.
As far as the range of the weapon being tied to the damage the weapon does, that is true for lasers, railguns, and plasma corronades. However that is not true for plasma beams, gauss cannons, mesons, or microwaves.
-
True, some weapons have equal damage across all ranges. But ignoring associated beam fire control range is a mistake since it dictates engagement ranges and hit probability.
-
True, some weapons have equal damage across all ranges. But ignoring associated beam fire control range is a mistake since it dictates engagement ranges and hit probability.
You will have the same fire control for both lasers and and particle beams, and if the FC is longer range than the weapons, then, the fire control range doesn't matter when comparing the range of the weapons. And you usually want a longer range FC.
-
You will have the same fire control for both lasers and and particle beams, and if the FC is longer range than the weapons, then, the fire control range doesn't matter when comparing the range of the weapons. And you usually want a longer range FC.
Not neccessarily. You may choose a different set of BFC options depending on hs usage and/or hit probability in combination with weapons choice and tactical role for the weapons system.
-
AAAAARGH!!! ok so I've got some warships up now and with missile launchers but they won't load missiles!!! When I tell them to load missiles from earth, it says they've completed the order but when I look at them nothing is picked up. Do I need a cargo bay or cargo handling system on my ships?
-
Remember the class designer window? I believe there is a tab in there marked 'ordinances' where you have to specify what the preferred missile load out is. If the ship still has the default preferred missile load of 'nothing,' then nothing is all it will load.
-
Happened to me too, and the same applies to colliers. You need to set their class's preferred loadout, and they'll load that amount of that ammo when ordered to reload anywhere. This change CAN be made after construction, no need for any refits or anything.
-
right, got it all working.
now I just have to find away to block the blockade the npr has enforced on sol :(
EDIT: oh, while im at it: do fighters need fuel tanks?
-
Yes, and you'll want to remember to put lots of extra fuel on any carrier you build so they can make multiple sorties.
-
I almost forgot! good thing I didn't send my ligt carrier into the field yet. I'll have to redesign it and retool :(
-
There's the Fuel Storage - Tiny specifically made for fighters (and fine-tuning your tonnage) that is pretty much tailor-made for fighter craft. Fighter engines also burn through a LOT of fuel, so your mothership should be a tanker to support their hungry drives.
-
Yeah, I just finished a bunch of xyzcomponent-tiny stuff. I've update all of my fighters to the mk. III version.
Also, do I need 'beam fire control' on fighters that hve laser weapons? If so how small should it be cause it's forcin my fighters to about 310-320 tons right now :/
Secondly, what is the best fighter weapon?
also as an unrelated side note: I got TANKED on Neutronium. Do I just start surveying asteroids like mad? or is there a more specific way to find it? I've only got one asteroid that's just produced 1000 tons of the stuff but thats barely enough to get me through my current ship yard expansion.
-
Also, do I need 'beam fire control' on fighters that hve laser weapons? If so how small should it be cause it's forcin my fighters to about 310-320 tons right now :/
You do indeed, and that will drive the mass for your fighter in the early-to-mid tech levels.
Secondly, what is the best fighter weapon?
Most people would probably say that the missile is the best all around weapon, and I'm inclined to agree. Fighters are often just used as a reusable first stage to get your missiles within 15-20m km. (Make sure you are using box launchers).
Beam weapons are a risky thing to put on offensive fighters, you are probably going to take a lot of casualties from them, and it's going to get expensive. While fighters can sneak in close in relative terms, that doesn't really apply to beam range. At that point the enemy missile defense sensors will most definitely spot you. And while fighters are faster and harder to hit than normal ships, not so much compared to those missiles those defenses are designed to shoot down.
Now there is one hope, your fighters beams may outrange your opponents missile defense beams, but if your enemy is using AMMs they'll have plenty of reach.
That said, if you are going with beam weapons, an old standby is Lasers, they have a techline similar to missiles which shrinks the turret while increasing the firing time. Overall damage is drastically reduced when you do that, but you can get enormous penetration from a weapon like that, which can end up doing more real damage. Mesons are also used, the idea being that you already have to be close, why not get a little closer and ignore armor.
It's also tempting to put the weapons on fighters which can't be put on turrets, since there is no need for a turret on a fighter. This actually works out decently well for the Plasma Corranade, but increased tech on the Plasma Beam only gives options for more damaging larger weapons, the small ones stay as weak as they ever were, so there is no room to grow.
As far as railguns go, they aren't worthwhile for a fighter hunting larger ships, but they'd work well for an interceptor, as would non-minituarized lasers. Coil guns would also be worth looking into. They don't need reactors, which is nice on a ship were every ton counts.
also as an unrelated side note: I got TANKED on Neutronium. Do I just start surveying asteroids like mad? or is there a more specific way to find it? I've only got one asteroid that's just produced 1000 tons of the stuff but thats barely enough to get me through my current ship yard expansion.
Survey the Comets first, since they have tons of minerals, then go on to Asteroids, Moons, and planets. Make sure you set up Geological Survey teams at Earth and the other Planets and Moons you set up on. They can find lots more mineral deposits.
-
My thoughts re:fighters:
I consider there to be three real roles that a fighter can fill: Missile fighters, beam frontliners, and anti-missile interceptors.
Interceptors are still in the theoretical stage (Yes, still, I've been playing other games recently) and are all about maximizing speed at the cost of, well, everything else. Using the 0.6HS GC, you should be able to get the interceptor in under 150tons in the early/mid game transition, and down around/below 110 towards the end. Yes, it's true that, if you're dealing with missiles that are faster than the interceptors, they will be nothing more than glorified PD platforms that are less effective than their fleet based counterparts, but, when their speed matches that of the missiles, they excel in dealing with the over-saturation missile strategy that counters fleet based PD. This is pretty much the only potential design for an interceptor, as anything else will weigh too much to obtain the necessary speed. Hell, you're pushing the size "limit" just with the extra 0.1HS on the 0.6HS GC.
Frontliners are what you'd typically imagine for beam fighters. Mesons are fantastic here as they do a fixed amount of damage, whereas all other weapons benefit significantly from increased weapon size (15cm is about the size limit for fighters). However, if you're using beam fighters in conjunction with missiles, there's really no reason to use mesons as your opponent's armor will already be damaged significantly. *However* one thing I will strongly recommend is that frontliners should either have several layers of armor, or, even better, one or two shield modules. This is one of the few areas where I'd recommend shields over armor (Save for all but the very early game, but at that point fighters are already out of the question due to tech requirements) for two reasons: I'm under the impression that fighters cannot have their armor repaired, so if a fighter takes a few hits but survives, it will forever be a cripple, and fighters have an incredibly small armor width (Most fighters will be four or smaller, iirc), so there's a fairly high chance for internal damage to occur after only a couple AMM/PD hits to armor. A full sized ship could survive such a leak, but any internal damage will likely result in the fighter goin' boom.
As far as strategy goes for the frontliners, I'm inclined to just let'em float outside their carrier and act as additional PD until my fleet takes fire from enemy beam weapons. At that point, it shouldn't take long for'em to close the last remaining gap and quickly shred the enemy fleet.
I can't really give much advice on missile fighters as my current game is beam only (Well, and sensor buoys), but they come off as being a bit more flexible depending on the role you want them to fill.
Oh, one thing that should be mentioned, if you're aiming to use fighters to "turret" weapons that otherwise wouldn't fit in one, about the only weapon I'd consider doing that for is the rail gun during the early/mid game when the RG has an RoF advantage over the GC. I don't consider carronades to be viable outside of the early game, so those are out (A 15cm carronade is only remotely useful until you've acquired 15cm lasers). Particle beams are tempting due to their "constant" range, but you get more bang for your HS buck out of the larger variants. Fighters do, however, have an easier time obtaining a speed advantage for sniping ships. However, to keep up the internal debate, you'll be needing a 4HS BFC in order to take advantage of the range, which puts you well over the size limit if you want to maintain decent speeds (Hell, I'm thinking you'd be lucky to fit the smallest particle cannon on *any* fighter, let alone a viable one). I'm sure microwaves could be used effectively on fighters, but I've yet to come up with such a strategy (I was originally going for a microwave + meson mix, but decided to go pure mesons).
On the neutronium note, I was forced to hold off on expanding/building more shipyards early on for the same reason. Fortunately my shortage was taken care of once I established my first manned mining colony outside Sol that has several million at 0.5 accessibility. Not perfect, sure, but it's more than enough to take care of all the neutronium I can use when you take into account my current duranium production.
-
Yes, it's true that, if you're dealing with missiles that are faster than the interceptors, they will be nothing more than glorified PD platforms that are less effective than their fleet based counterparts, but, when their speed matches that of the missiles, they excel in dealing with the over-saturation missile strategy that counters fleet based PD.
50 tons in 110 tons fighter is 50% engines.
Fighter engines have less thrust to mass ratio than missiles.
Ergo, fighters are never going to be as fast as missiles.
FYI, my standard ASM design is WH4 regardless of tech. Which then results in an ever increasing engine portion, useful for broaching PD. By mid-game, ASMs are faster than AMMs, and by end-game, even AMM hit rates are <15%.
-
OK, so I've now solved my mineral problems and got like 12 million excess now :) back to my fleets, I know how to load fighters and I've searched for using them in combat. But could some give me an indepth instruction on how to use squadrons?
EDIT: btw, if I subsidize a small shipping line will it buy some ships? also, do you need to have a ship design in dry dock for it to able to be built by civvies
-
EDIT: btw, if I subsidize a small shipping line will it buy some ships? also, do you need to have a ship design in dry dock for it to able to be built by civvies
It will. You don't need to have it in dry dock, civvies have their own "invisible" shipyards.
-
50 tons in 110 tons fighter is 50% engines.
Fighter engines have less thrust to mass ratio than missiles.
Ergo, fighters are never going to be as fast as missiles.
FYI, my standard ASM design is WH4 regardless of tech. Which then results in an ever increasing engine portion, useful for broaching PD. By mid-game, ASMs are faster than AMMs, and by end-game, even AMM hit rates are <15%.
Hell, with that design, *no* defense will be sufficient. Even with the unrealistic ideal situation (No missiles blowing up midway due to their target blowing up), I'm not sure if AMMs would be considered effective when you'd have to fire at least six size one missiles to take down a single size four (Assuming that's what your missiles are). Factor in the large amount of waste that comes with such poor hit rates and you're in even worse shape.
One's best defense in that situation might be to actually cut down the amount of PD/etc and install a bunch of shield modules instead. That 25HS turret + BFC combo might take down a handful of missiles and prevent twenty damage, but replacing those with just theta shields will add 100 shield strength and result in you just laughing off the extra damage.
-
Notably, they are capable of building much larger vessels than your existing docks--- there is no correlation between your shipyards and theirs.
They're churning out 600kton megafreighters while the largest i can produce are merely 130k.
-
YAY, progress.
right movin' on. I now have a sufficient military up (set up abunch of ground assault and defense stuff, have two main battlegroups, and am in the process of setting up production for carriers) my question is-well I have a few actually:
1. what is a good active-sensor setup?
2. what should I be using to defend any 'non-sol based' colonies?
3. can I store fighters in PDCs?
-
YAY, progress.
right movin' on. I now have a sufficient military up (set up abunch of ground assault and defense stuff, have two main battlegroups, and am in the process of setting up production for carriers) my question is-well I have a few actually:
1. what is a good active-sensor setup?
You will probably want a long range resolution 1 sensor for spotting missiles either on the carrier or on a dedicated sensor ship, as well as higher resolution sensors for spotting the enemy ships from range.
On fighters themselves I tend to go with no sensors on the armed fighters and have some dedicated sensor fighters accompany them. Exact ratio of sensor fighters to armed fighters depends on their general survivability, I'll start off with 1 to 9 and adjust as needed.
2. what should I be using to defend any 'non-sol based' colonies?
Depends on what kind of ships you are bulding. You could prefab some PDC's and assemble them on the new colonies, or ship/build maintainance facilities so that you can station some ships there as defence. How much defence to place there depends on your situation and what you can afford to have semi-permenantly stationed there. Missile armed ships/pdc's tend to do well for defence as you can have them sitting on a large stockpile of missiles.
3. can I store fighters in PDCs?
Yes. They act the same way as carriers.
-
1. what is a good active-sensor setup?
The way I generally do this is to make a "Watchship" class of ship that takes care of all of my sensor needs. It has:
Several layers of armor in the early game, as this will be the ship that gets targeted more than anything else. In the mid-game I'll add some shielding to this.
Enough engines to keep up with the rest of the fleet.
Large passive sensors, of each type. There are a few things I use baselines for this. Can I spot my enemies' engines from far outside of engagement range? Can I sense their Active Sensors before their Active Sensors would sense me. Would I be able to sense an inhabited planet with a thermal/EM signature of a small colony from far outside of either of our weapon ranges? Those are all of my goals, but depending on tech level I may not be able to attain all of those goals. When push comes to shove the Active Sensor capabilities of the Watchship are more important, each passive sensor probably shouldn't take up more than 10-15% of the ship's volume.
Now we get to the Active sensors, the easiest one to plan is the AM sensor. I give it a range of 150% that of my AMM missiles and ship Fire Control. That way the AM ships can stay ahead of the rest of the fleet by a small margin. In the very likely event that all of those missiles are heading for the sensor ship that will give the defenders another few salvos at the missiles as they fly past.
Everything else should be the ship active sensor, and it should have capabilities that mesh with those of your missiles and FCs.
2. what should I be using to defend any 'non-sol based' colonies?
There are many, many different ways to do this. As you mentioned building a carrier it seems like you are going to have fighters. A few Hangar PDCs stocked with Fighters/Gunboats are a great way to put some defenses on the front line, especially for smaller colonies. Once the colony is large enough to support some Maintenance facilities you can switch over to defensive Frigates, or tug in some orbital stations.
Of course those ideas are more of a self-supportive way of looking at the colonies. Another perfectly valid way of looking at it (especially from a roleplaying aspect of a government skeptical of the Colonies' need for having control and the ability to support firepower). Is to just make small fleets of ships that go to the colony systems for 3-4 year tours before returning to Earth for refitting.
-
OK new question: do plasma carronades need beam fire controls?
-
OK new question: do plasma carronades need beam fire controls?
Anything not a missile or CIWS needs beam fire controls. :)
-
right, thanks *sigh* gotta redesign som bombers :(
also will civilians build shps that aren't colony ships/freighters?
will they build terraformers/miners/jump-gate constructors/etc.?
-
Civilians will only build any commercial design that contains cargo holds, cryo storage or luxury passenger space.
-
Civilians will only build any commercial design that contains cargo holds, cryo storage or luxury passenger space.
According to this thread, http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,1130.0.html that is not quite correct. Though Steve might have changed it since then.
-
Has anyone seen a civilian shipping line produce a troop transport?
-
Has anyone seen a civilian shipping line produce a troop transport?
You can get them to produce strange designs if you put cargo holds on the ships-- but they only function as freighters. They wouldn't actually transport troops. I put a cargo hold in a tanker... to carry minerals... and industry produced 17 single-cargo-hold tankers before I noticed the issue.
-
Anything not a missile or CIWS needs beam fire controls. :)
With one notable exception...plasma torpedoes. They cycle in a similar fashion to beam weapons but require a missile fire control. Yes they are normally restricted to Invaders, but sufficient salvage will allow players to design and build them as well.