Aurora 4x
VB6 Aurora => Bureau of Ship Design => Topic started by: tryrar on November 09, 2013, 08:23:18 PM
-
In an effort to retain all those fighter bonus officers, I've decided to create a simple fighter-bomber to destroy any ship that might wander into my system. To that end, I've been messing around with spinal mounting, and was wondering what you guys think of this design:
Peregine class Fighter-bomber 400 tons 3 Crew 144.6 BP TCS 8 TH 72 EM 0
12000 km/s Armour 2-4 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 0 PPV 2
Maint Life 3.18 Years MSP 23 AFR 12% IFR 0.2% 1YR 3 5YR 51 Max Repair 60 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.1 months Spare Berths 7
Stardust-96 Quad-Stream Plasma MicroDrive (1) Power 96 Fuel Use 329.23% Signature 72 Exp 20%
Fuel Capacity 20,000 Litres Range 2.7 billion km (63 hours at full power)
Jake Industries 18cm-R200 Spinal MicroLaser (1) Range 160,000km TS: 12000 km/s Power 8-0.2 RM 2 ROF 200 8 8 5 4 3 2 2 2 1 1
Raxon 90000-16000 Beam Targeting (1) Max Range: 180,000 km TS: 16000 km/s 94 89 83 78 72 67 61 56 50 44
T&G Power P.6-S.1 Reactor (1) Total Power Output 0.6 Armour 0 Exp 5%
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and maintenance purposes
I wanted an opinion before designing mothership craft for these, since I'll need to expand my shipyards to do so...
-
Well, the rate of fire is horrible, but with that range, speed and the 8 damage from the lazer you can pretty much just zip in, blow something up and get 2.4 million kilometers away before anyone can respond.
A small wing of those could probably shred capital ships in a few minutes, you just need to micromanage them away while recharging the lazer.
I really like this design.
-
Even better, if I go for less speed, I can make room for a frikken 30cm laser, hitting for over 24 damage! I'm really liking spinal mountings.....
-
I'm thinking FACs is where they really will shine ;D
Enough speed to still exploit that range and enough tonnage to put a BIG laser on it without to much reduced size mod.
-
I've been reading about very large ww1/2 railway guns, something about spinal lazers just reminds me of them.
-
To be honest, if you're at Magneto-Plasma, you need faster Fighters.
I would put in more engines and reactors, honestly, but I tend to go for 500 ton Fighters(I always feel like they aren't big enough/have enough smeg to be useful if they're smaller...) anyway. Since it's a Fighter-Bomber though, I'd put on that 30cm Laser, then design an accompanying smaller fighter(an interceptor, to be precise) with either gauss cannons, railguns(depending on your tech in that field), or AMM box launchers, to serve as Point Defence and kill any enemy fighters that might come streaking out to try and kill you. A little bit of micro-managing and you can keep them alive long enough to get in and out.
Also, reduce the TS of your Fire Control. It really doesn't need to be that fast. Half that, or half your actual speed, sould both be more than enough. If you want to be on the safe side, I would go for 3000-4000 km/s tracking speed, to give you enough room to be faster and have some armor. Especially if you get a 30cm laser, you'll be a true Bomber, and need the extra room to get a larger range.
-
...you must be forgetting fighter systems get a free x4 to tracking speed
-
That sounds pretty good to me, shove the 30cm on and significantly lower the tracking speed, perhaps add on a much larger but slightly higher efficiency engine so you get a little more speed and range then you'll have a decent very long range bomber which doesn't need to fly back to a carrier to reload, maybe keep a small group of PD destroyers around they can fly back to while recharging their lazers. Being a bomber it doesn't quite need extreme speed, reserve that for some intercepters to defend the bomber.
-
Actually, I'm having issues fitting a 30cm on something sub-1000 tons. (A 30cm without any reduction is 450tons. By itself. and still about 300 or so tons with 25% reduction) It looks like I'd have to go for laser corvettes(which is what I classify sub 3k ships) in order to get a decent speed out of such a package, and still have room for some sort of protection(or all the components to make a functional warship, really >_>).
At this point, I'd likely have to go with a 22cm as the absolute max for anything sub-1k(including fighters), as I can fit one with 50% reduction for only 150 tons. The reload is horrid(225 seconds!), but can't argue with 13 max damage ;D
Edit: Speaking of corvettes, this is what I came up with after a bit of messing around:
Astral class Corvette 2,500 tons 78 Crew 597 BP TCS 50 TH 270 EM 0
7200 km/s Armour 5-16 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 2 PPV 9
Maint Life 6.01 Years MSP 298 AFR 25% IFR 0.3% 1YR 14 5YR 212 Max Repair 135 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 1 months Spare Berths 2
Stardust-120 Fast-Flow Plasma Drive (3) Power 120 Fuel Use 157.07% Signature 90 Exp 15%
Fuel Capacity 250,000 Litres Range 11.5 billion km (18 days at full power)
Jake Industries 30cm-R30 Spinal Laser (1) Range 240,000km TS: 7200 km/s Power 24-4 RM 1 ROF 30 24 12 8 6 4 4 3 3 2 2
Raxon 120000-7500 Beam Targeting (1) Max Range: 240,000 km TS: 7500 km/s 96 92 88 83 79 75 71 67 62 58
T&G Power P6-S1 Reactor (1) Total Power Output 6 Armour 0 Exp 5%
ADT 23-100 Radar (2) GPS 2100 Range 23.1m km Resolution 100
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
The lolworthy thing to note is that that 30cm is actually an infrared laser. This is to reduce costs, and also that my beam targeting tech doesn't even come close to matching even the range of a visible light laser at these sizes(i'd come up over 100,000k short <_<).
Anyways, this is intended to both be carried in my current carriers(being 2500 tons, I can fit 2 in them), and be able to operate independently of any support. They are pretty well armored, so they can take enough of a beating to get close and absolutely wreck somebody with 24 damage every 30 seconds :)
-
The lolworthy thing to note is that that 30cm is actually an infrared laser. This is to reduce costs, and also that my beam targeting tech doesn't even come close to matching even the range of a visible light laser at these sizes(i'd come up over 100,000k short <_<).
Isn't it a good Idea to go with the bigger weapon range anyways so you get a more favorable long range damage curve?
Your current one is down to 4 dmg as close as 50k km which means to do any real damage your forced to take this fragile small ships into PD and Plasma range of the hostile fleet...
-
huh, did not know that. Unfortunately, I'm at my grandmas atm, so I can't fix that...
-
You know what? SCREW FIGHTERS. They are officially obsolete as of my 3rd generation corvettes:
Astral Mk-3 class Corvette 2,500 tons 76 Crew 695.4 BP TCS 50 TH 270 EM 0
7200 km/s Armour 5-16 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 1 PPV 9
Maint Life 5.34 Years MSP 296 AFR 29% IFR 0.4% 1YR 17 5YR 260 Max Repair 135 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 1 months Spare Berths 4
Stardust-120 Fast-Flow Plasma Drive (3) Power 120 Fuel Use 130.9% Signature 90 Exp 15%
Fuel Capacity 245,000 Litres Range 13.5 billion km (21 days at full power)
Jake Industries 30cm-R20 Laser (1) Range 240,000km TS: 7200 km/s Power 24-6 RM 4 ROF 20 24 24 24 24 19 16 13 12 10 9
Raxon 120000-7500 Beam Targeting (1) Max Range: 240,000 km TS: 7500 km/s 96 92 88 83 79 75 71 67 62 58
T&G Power P6-S1 Reactor (1) Total Power Output 6 Armour 0 Exp 5%
ADT 23-100 Radar (1) GPS 2100 Range 23.1m km Resolution 100
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
With a 30cm laser able to fire every 20 seconds(and the range to hit hard, unlike my mistake with first gen), these are in every way superior to my bombers. Sure, I can carry 10 bombers on my carriers, unlike only 2 corvettes, so they'd have a better overall alpha strike, but my corvettes have a FAR better DPM than my bombers, due to having a reload not measured in minutes :P. And in any case, once I get within 80k or so, things die. As simple as that.
Also, might as well post the rest of my fleet here, starting with my Jump ship:
Hera class Support Vessel 20,000 tons 319 Crew 2057.6 BP TCS 400 TH 1200 EM 0
3000 km/s JR 6-50 Armour 1-65 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 20 PPV 0
Maint Life 4.28 Years MSP 6286 AFR 160% IFR 2.2% 1YR 552 5YR 8286 Max Repair 458 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months Spare Berths 0
Orion 20000-6-50 Military Jump Drive Max Ship Size 20000 tons Distance 50k km Squadron Size 6
Stardust-600 Fast-flow Plasma Drive (2) Power 600 Fuel Use 103.34% Signature 600 Exp 15%
Fuel Capacity 10,960,000 Litres Range 95.5 billion km (368 days at full power)
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
This is my Fleet Support class, that has the jump drive, and also acts as a tanker and a supply ship. The only thing it doesn't have, though, is armor or defenses, so this stays behind on the jump point during combat. (Also, I'm thinking of throwing on a flag bridge onto this, because why not? :P )
Next, is my carrier that takes the Astrals into combat(when they aren't acting as an independent unit):
Wayfarer Mk-2 class Carrier 15,000 tons 346 Crew 2621.8 BP TCS 300 TH 960 EM 0
3200 km/s Armour 4-54 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 18 PPV 32
Maint Life 4.59 Years MSP 1966 AFR 100% IFR 1.4% 1YR 152 5YR 2281 Max Repair 240 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months Flight Crew Berths 154
Hangar Deck Capacity 5000 tons
Stardust-480 Fast-Flow Plasma Drive (2) Power 480 Fuel Use 110.23% Signature 480 Exp 15%
Fuel Capacity 1,635,000 Litres Range 17.8 billion km (64 days at full power)
Quad Jake Industries 10cm-R5 V2 Lasers (2x4) Range 120,000km TS: 18500 km/s Power 12-12 RM 4 ROF 5 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1
Raxon 60000-20000 Beam Targeting (2) Max Range: 120,000 km TS: 20000 km/s 92 83 75 67 58 50 42 33 25 17
T&G Power P6-S1 Reactor (4) Total Power Output 24 Armour 0 Exp 5%
ADT 103-20 Radar (1) GPS 4200 Range 103.3m km Resolution 20
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
This can carry 2 Astrals, and travels in a squadron of 5. With the large res-20 sensor, it can see just about anything in plenty of time to launch the Astrals. And, with it's twin quad turrets and thick armor, it'll take a beating.
And before you jump on me about not having a res-1 sensor, that's because I have an escort destroyer for that:
Michigan class Destroyer Leader 7,350 tons 217 Crew 1557.4 BP TCS 147 TH 240 EM 0
3265 km/s JR 5-50 Armour 4-33 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 6 PPV 32
Maint Life 4.53 Years MSP 795 AFR 72% IFR 1% 1YR 63 5YR 942 Max Repair 180 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months Spare Berths 3
Orion 7600-5-50 Military Jump Drive Max Ship Size 7600 tons Distance 50k km Squadron Size 5
Stardust-240 V2 Fast Flow Plasma Drive (2) Power 240 Fuel Use 124.01% Signature 120 Exp 15%
Fuel Capacity 950,000 Litres Range 18.8 billion km (66 days at full power)
Quad Jake Industries 10cm-R5 V2 Lasers (2x4) Range 120,000km TS: 18500 km/s Power 12-12 RM 4 ROF 5 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1
Raxon 60000-20000 Beam Targeting (2) Max Range: 120,000 km TS: 20000 km/s 92 83 75 67 58 50 42 33 25 17
T&G Power P6-S1 Reactor (4) Total Power Output 24 Armour 0 Exp 5%
ADT 6-1 AMM Radar (1) GPS 80 Range 6.4m km MCR 697k km Resolution 1
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposesIowa class Destroyer Escort 7,300 tons 204 Crew 1741 BP TCS 146 TH 240 EM 0
3287 km/s Armour 5-33 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 5 PPV 48
Maint Life 3.81 Years MSP 745 AFR 85% IFR 1.2% 1YR 81 5YR 1210 Max Repair 180 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months Spare Berths 2
Stardust-240 V2 Fast Flow Plasma Drive (2) Power 240 Fuel Use 124.01% Signature 120 Exp 15%
Fuel Capacity 950,000 Litres Range 18.9 billion km (66 days at full power)
Quad Jake Industries 10cm-R5 V2 Lasers (3x4) Range 120,000km TS: 18500 km/s Power 12-12 RM 4 ROF 5 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1
Raxon 60000-20000 Beam Targeting (3) Max Range: 120,000 km TS: 20000 km/s 92 83 75 67 58 50 42 33 25 17
T&G Power P6-S1 Reactor (6) Total Power Output 36 Armour 0 Exp 5%
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
I'm also working on a 10k ton shielded destroyer that can somewhat keep up with the corvettes, so that they can act in support against any ship that might be tougher than expected/ECM'd to hell
-
You know what? SCREW FIGHTERS. They are officially obsolete as of my 3rd generation corvettes:
Astral Mk-3 class Corvette 2,500 tons 76 Crew 695.4 BP TCS 50 TH 270 EM 0
7200 km/s Armour 5-16 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 1 PPV 9
Maint Life 5.34 Years MSP 296 AFR 29% IFR 0.4% 1YR 17 5YR 260 Max Repair 135 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 1 months Spare Berths 4
Stardust-120 Fast-Flow Plasma Drive (3) Power 120 Fuel Use 130.9% Signature 90 Exp 15%
Fuel Capacity 245,000 Litres Range 13.5 billion km (21 days at full power)
Jake Industries 30cm-R20 Laser (1) Range 240,000km TS: 7200 km/s Power 24-6 RM 4 ROF 20 24 24 24 24 19 16 13 12 10 9
Raxon 120000-7500 Beam Targeting (1) Max Range: 240,000 km TS: 7500 km/s 96 92 88 83 79 75 71 67 62 58
T&G Power P6-S1 Reactor (1) Total Power Output 6 Armour 0 Exp 5%
ADT 23-100 Radar (1) GPS 2100 Range 23.1m km Resolution 100
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
With a 30cm laser able to fire every 20 seconds(and the range to hit hard, unlike my mistake with first gen), these are in every way superior to my bombers. Sure, I can carry 10 bombers on my carriers, unlike only 2 corvettes, so they'd have a better overall alpha strike, but my corvettes have a FAR better DPM than my bombers, due to having a reload not measured in minutes :P. And in any case, once I get within 80k or so, things die. As simple as that.
Nice design, now imagine them with x3 power mod for engines too = 12000+ km/s speed :)
Sweet Swarm bug swatter design...
-
I find that beam weapons in general is very ineffective as anything but a defensive weapon or a last resort weapon when desperate. It can be used if you outmatch your enemy by quite a margin.
I'm not saying that beam weapons is useless, but from a strategic or operational point of view I regard them as secondary.
Fighters in particular is nearly ridiculously ineffective with beam weapons, at least in roles other than attacking unarmed support/commercial ships or enemy fighters/FAC. It is a complete suicide to attack any well defended group of enemy ships unless you have a severe technology advantage with beam fighters (or any type of beam armed ships for that matter). The fact is that engines needed will become very expensive. You will need to dedicate a large portion of the ships total weight to the engines while an enemy have more weapons and more scout/recon to spot you early enough to evade you or dictate where the engagement will take place.
Given that larger ships also can have effective shields attack with fighters can prove rather difficult. Any decently prepared enemy with specific anti-fighter weapon systems will be even worse.
I also find it hard to use beam weapons offensive when playing as humans, since placing human lives at risk unnecessary is not humane... ;)
I often use beam armed fighters as anti-fighter/missile escort to other fighter or against FAC attacks or as a means to attack unarmed support/survey ships.
I also use beam weapons in anti-missile/fighter role on escort ships and main cruisers/carriers. I also equip all my main capital ships from destroyers and up with heavy combat beam weapons of some sort as a secondary backup weapon for when I need to attack/defend a jump point or is chased down by a faster fleet.
In order to utilize beam weapons as the primary means of attacking an enemy main battle group you will need to either outnumber the enemy or be ahead in technology or preferably both.
As soon as I have box launchers/hangars and good fighter engines fighters become the main delivery platform for all my main offensive battle groups. Ship based missiles is my secondary means of engagement and beam weapons a back up or as a JP assault weapon. Ship based missiles mostly mean that ships must be very close to the enemy and that they will be spotted and thus fire upon. The best tactic (in my opinion) in any engagement is to be able to locate the enemy and then use brute force where they are the weakest and finish them of without them even being able to fire a shot at you.
Against the NPR you can probably win with any strategy. But if you have (as I often do) a more cunning enemy that knows you and try to gather lot's of intelligence on you and attack using smart tactics you need to diversify your fleet and rely much more on intelligence, reconnaissance and counter intelligence operations. Keeping your forces strength/weaknesses hidden is more important as it is in real life.
I like to think that I try to utilize the "Art of War" as Sun Zhu would use it. Know your enemy and yourself, attack where they are weak and you are strong, avoid a fair fight, don't fight when you know you will loose. There is no honour in war, winning is all that matters. :)
-
I am sorry to have to agree with you, Jorgen_CAB. Fighters, as of now, are too vulnerable to be more than a defensive, or at best, a secondary offensive weapon. I had a battle where both I and my enemy exhausted our missile supplies, in this situation the fighters came in handy to mop up. Fighters are very good against enemies that cannot defend themselves anymore ;D.
But to deploy just one squadron of beam fighters you'll need some very expensive paraphernalia, like carriers or PDCs, and when in battle you will have to babysit them all the time. All in all it means that they get a fairly low priority in my mobilization plans. I'd rather build a series of tender-served FACs because they deliver a harder punch and have a lot more survivability for the same amount of babysitting.
Not that I mind babysitting, I don't mind microing, actually I like it, my main argument is that fighters are not economically efficient. In my "serious" campaigns I have prohibited any use of SM except for correcting obvious blunders or bugs, so economy is an important factor for me. That I build carriers and fighters at all is mainly for role playing purposes - I like the idea of carriers.
Also, I like the idea of ground-based fighters. My populations want security, and why not build some cheapo PDC hangar installations and let the fighters do the riot control? As the OP mentions, fighters are a great way to organize a lot of officers, a place where you can keep all the talented lieutenants that you don't have an immediate use for, but that you also don't want to see retired in the next purge.
A system of ground-based air training PDC's could then later function as the reserve pool for an offensive carrier task force, providing the economy and the prevailing military doctrine should allow such a thing.
Last I tried out this idea of ground-based fighter training facilities, it failed somewhat, because in Aurora you could not at that time (a year ago RL) repair fighters in a PDC placed in an unihabitable environment, no matter how many engineers you put in, it was a known bug. So I had to design a cheap repair platform and perform a zillion micro transactions to get around the problem, and this kind of spoiled the elegance of the whole idea.
Which was primarily to provide *cheap* and easy containment and training facilities for a lot of young officers, with the benefit of getting some *free* population contentment.
Does anyone know if this has been fixed in the meantime? Is it possible in version 6.3 to keep fighters maintained in appropriately equipped PDCs?
-
As far as I know there has been no changes to hangars in PDC. They are mainly useful for storing fighters not as operational bases, you need space stations or tenders for that.
Fighters are otherwise very strong in the delivery of missiles. The main drawback of FAC is their size, they are simply easier to detect, both with passive and active sensors. This is the main strength of the fighters and why I use fighters as my main delivery system for offensive missiles.
In order to support a good offensive fighter force I build auxiliary carriers. The primary mission for these ships is to transport, train and support my fleet. You might see them as the equivalent of escort carriers in WWII.
They have minimal weaponry, missile magazines and sensors, their main function is to carry fighters, recon and other utility crafts around. Mine are usually between 8000-12000t with commercial engines and the same speed as most other support ships.
I however never use fighters to patrol and defend planets or systems. I rather build corvette sized ships for that 2000-3000t. With patrol ship with sensors at 750-1000t and/or recon crafts at 250t that is launched from corvettes.
Using fighters I need fighter stations, I find that corvettes are cheaper to use than fighters for what they do. Corvettes can also be upgraded for a reasonable price while fighters must be rebuilt if you want to change anything.
In any way... maintaining fighters is expensive. But if done properly can pay back in a big way with cutting down your losses in major conflicts since you can target enemy battle groups way beyond their effective sensor range.
-
I agree again, note that in my book only beam fighters are classified as fighters ;). If there is missiles involved it is quite another ball game.
Basically my problem is that I have figured out a useful doctrine for missile warfare, but I haven't yet found a good way to use beam weapons offensively. Not to my satisfaction, that is. But I have also seen what can happen to an all-missile fleet that runs out of missiles. In this situation beam fighters can be handy. But so can FACs. So my current fleet is a missile-based fleet with a strong back-up of beam FACs, and no fighters.
Here my interest in fighters is not so much how they perform in serious battle as it is the way they can be utilized as very cheap tour of duty platforms for otherwise unemployed officers. I am always short of senior officers for my big ships, and the only way I know of to get more is to have a lot of officers employed.
And because I don't trust beam fighters as weapons (they always get shot down), they will probably never see battle anyway, and consequently I could let their design be based, not on sound military principle, but on a cost-hype factor calculation. What will impress the public that is cheap? The only military specification that has to be met, is that it must have a motor strong enough to allow for tactical training missions.