Print Page - Railguns as a Main Weapon

VB6 Aurora => Aurora Chat => Topic started by: Borealis4x on May 06, 2016, 09:06:02 PM

Title: Railguns as a Main Weapon
Post by: Borealis4x on May 06, 2016, 09:06:02 PM

My favorite sci-fi fleets are the UNSC from Halo and the Alliance from Mass Effect who both use massive spinal mounted mass drivers. However, from what I gather the proper way to go are beam weapons and missiles for ship-ship combat and kinetic weapons for point defense. Rather disappointing considering I wanted the opposite, beam weapons for point defense and kinetics for ship killing.

Missiles of course are always needed, that goes without saying.

So what do you think?

Title: Re: Railguns as a Main Weapon
Post by: MarcAFK on May 06, 2016, 09:47:40 PM

There's nothing wrong with going heavy on railguns, as they can't be turreted they arent ideal for point defence, but they can be used for it in overwhelming numbers.
If you want a primarily non missile fleet you need to ensure fleet speed is enough to catch up or outrun the enemy and point defence is up to scratch.
Or alternatively just have tanks with enough armour to withstand everything the enemy throws at them till they run out of ammo.

Title: Re: Railguns as a Main Weapon
Post by: Thanatos on May 06, 2016, 10:25:04 PM

I actually mostly 'specialize' in beam/kinetic weapons, and what MarkAFK says is pretty true. Railguns are extremely devastating weapons, especially when you get into the 30cm range. Same goes for lasers.

The problem you have with missiles that is slightly alleviated by railguns, but still present, is reload speed, magazine capacity size, and limited ordnance. Now, when you count in the extra engines and armor you need, it kind of matches the tonnage of either option. But if you go into missiles, there are other things you need to consider due to logistics: Redundance for one. If you have only one ship with grav sensors, them getting knocked out means you don't have a fight anymore. Next up is size of fire controls. They need to be approximately as large as the sensor. So it's basically like you have a sensor anyway. Next is research, it takes a lot more research to get missiles up to speed than it does for railguns.

And lastly, of course, if your missiles are ineffective, your ship is ineffective, and you are a finished story. Point defense cannot counter railguns, and you can always find a way to approach a ship, whether through speed, or herding.

Lasers are sort of heavy on the research, but not as much as missiles, and they also have unlimited ordnance. They're nice as PD because of their range, but they get pretty heavy.

Title: Re: Railguns as a Main Weapon
Post by: Iranon on May 07, 2016, 02:04:15 AM

The main problem is that railguns are throttled badly by capacitor tech while small lasers with equivalent damage-per-shot aren't.

A 15cm/c5 railgun is similar to 2 10cm/c3 lasers in size and output, more expensive to build and especially to research.
A 15cm/c10 railgun does the job of 4 such lasers, worth the higher price because it is much more compact. If we have a need for such a weapon at this tech level.

Similar comparisons apply at larger sizes, and 50cm railguns are particularly bad at sustained damage output because they can never fire faster than once every 3 ticks.
The largest railguns our capacitors can handle are attractive dual purpose weapons on fast ships that don't need turrets... but how much are we willing to invest into such a limited and inflexible tech line? Low-tech 10cm railguns will do for point defence, and midsize lasers can match our maximum fire control range while still being adequate at area defence.

Title: Re: Railguns as a Main Weapon
Post by: Borealis4x on May 07, 2016, 02:09:07 AM

Quote from: Iranon link=topic=8629. msg90682#msg90682 date=1462604655

The main problem is that railguns are throttled badly by capacitor tech while small lasers with equivalent damage-per-shot aren't.

A 15cm/c5 railgun is similar to 2 10cm/c3 lasers in size and output, more expensive to build and especially to research.
A 15cm/c10 railgun does the job of 4 such lasers, worth the higher price because it is much more compact. If we have a need for such a weapon at this tech level.

Similar comparisons apply at larger sizes, and 50cm railguns are particularly bad at sustained damage output because they can never fire faster than once every 3 ticks.
The largest railguns our capacitors can handle are attractive dual purpose weapons on fast ships that don't need turrets. . . but how much are we willing to invest into such a limited and inflexible tech line? Low-tech 10cm railguns will do for point defence, and midsize lasers can match our maximum fire control range while still being adequate at area defence.

So giant spinal-mounted dreadnought sized space guns are out of the question then in terms of practicality?

Title: Re: Railguns as a Main Weapon
Post by: AL on May 07, 2016, 04:05:41 AM

The thing is, if you're just playing against the AI you already have numerous advantages over them. Most of the time it is possible to beat the AI even with (really) suboptimal ship designs. So really, if you're wanting to use railguns as your primary ship armament then go right ahead. I think the flavour of whatever system you prefer to use comes before any considerations of whether it is optimal or not. If it really bothers you that others say lasers are better, then just name a laser project as "high velocity railgun" or something, and imagine it as such.

Title: Re: Railguns as a Main Weapon
Post by: Thanatos on May 07, 2016, 05:14:09 AM

Quote from: Iranon on May 07, 2016, 02:04:15 AM

The main problem is that railguns are throttled badly by capacitor tech while small lasers with equivalent damage-per-shot aren't.

A 15cm/c5 railgun is similar to 2 10cm/c3 lasers in size and output, more expensive to build and especially to research.
A 15cm/c10 railgun does the job of 4 such lasers, worth the higher price because it is much more compact. If we have a need for such a weapon at this tech level.

Similar comparisons apply at larger sizes, and 50cm railguns are particularly bad at sustained damage output because they can never fire faster than once every 3 ticks.
The largest railguns our capacitors can handle are attractive dual purpose weapons on fast ships that don't need turrets... but how much are we willing to invest into such a limited and inflexible tech line? Low-tech 10cm railguns will do for point defence, and midsize lasers can match our maximum fire control range while still being adequate at area defence.

Actually, this is not really correct. For one, the discrepancy between recharge rates of railguns and lasers is not that much different. A railgun does about 30% more damage than lasers at point blank, and a 20cm railgun requires 12 capacitor tech, while a 20cm laser requires 10. 10 capacitor is a 100k research. You are not gonna have that unless you SM add it.

The range of a 20cm railgun at velocity 8, is like... 300k, while the laser at 20cm is 600k.

They both have 2 unique research techs, with the added disadvantage that the laser actually requires so much more beam fire control RANGE than the railgun. And those techs are EXTREMELY expensive. Like, pay through your eyeballs expensive. And their worth? Actually pretty crap. At max range, lasers are bad. Really bad. I mean, not worthless bad. But not as good as railgun in your face.

If you put a laser into a spinal mount where you can abuse max range, for maximum impact power and all that, you are shooting like... every 60 seconds for something that is actually worth the trouble. One blast from a 35cm railgun, even at 30 seconds per shot, is gonna ruin a ship's day.

You don't even need a 50, but, a 50 is gonna be like the 9th circle of hell on whatever it hits. But in the same vein, the same can be said about a maxed out laser.

The important thing to take away in beam-type weapons, like railguns and the energy variants, is that you want less bling on your ships, and more oomph. You want armor, but none of that other stuff you put on your blinged out ships. You need light, tough, and fast. Forget CIWS, off-load that to a Frigate. Forget tracking and sensors, leave that to a support ship. Disregard Jump Drives.

No, really, you want big railguns/lasers attached to a thruster with some nice cabins with consoles with big red 'FIRE' buttons on the sides, separated from the coldness of space by 250 tons of armor.

Title: Re: Railguns as a Main Weapon
Post by: Vandermeer on May 07, 2016, 05:40:18 AM

What AL said. Aurora is easy once you figure it out, and the AI cannot adapt to divergent tactics at all, making approaches that sound weak and eccentric on paper still very successful, even though a player opponent would have an easy time countering. As an example, both I and AL often play games with huge ships of 100kt+ range and fitted as extremely inefficient multi-role designs, ..but the AI is usually completely overwhelmed by this, because they just don't realize that a whole pallet of counter-measures exist that would expose the ridiculousness of this doctrine. (Advantages of big ships are natural thick armor and amazing shields, so counters: a meson fighter flotilla, large caliber "beam" ships for shock damage, or concentrated size-1 missile spammers who kill anything anyway)

The renaming is also a huge thing. AL had his shields renamed to "reactive armor" once for example, while we both had CIWS pretending to be some sort of Gravity or else Shield. Sometimes fire controls are "turrets", while the launchers are "barrels" or "capacitors", lasers become phasers or plasma blasters, and particle beams will be fusion lances. ..I had missile ammunition masquerading as artillery shells, or yes, even as railgun cartridges, as recently as in 7.1. (is interesting, because you actually exhaust an ammunition reserve this way) Picture from a recent Tau themed game:

Off-Topic: show

I had simiar rewrites for Warhammer, Stargate and Star Trek themed games, and even do it when I do original games.
Since there are no visible graphics, and ambiguous description detail on what weapons do when impacting, you could see the naming in Aurora as essentially just a label that Steve put on some mechanics, and you can basically change it into whatever you see fit. Especially when you mount a different fantasy setting like Halo.
I try to keep to Aurora still when I can, or at least keep the rewrites in categories that seem related, but sometimes you just have to break it for your own fun and simulation.

Title: Re: Railguns as a Main Weapon
Post by: Iranon on May 07, 2016, 07:53:38 AM

@ Basileus Maximos: Unfortunately, unless you adjust the fluff.
You could rename spinal lasers into something more to your liking. You could rename missile launchers as cannons and make (high-speed, low-agility?) missiles as shells to fit the flavour. But I don't think highly of large railguns as per defaults.

@ Thanatos: I disagree vigorously, and consider most of your points incorrect or irrelevant. In the context of optimisation rather than flavour:

Comparing one weapon to another simply because they have the same nominal calibre makes no sense.
20cm railguns do something very different from 20cm lasers, long-range artillery vs. dual purpose medium artillery/missile defence. They do something similar to 12cm lasers, and supporting techs determine whether they do it efficiently.

If I don't have capacitor-12, I don't make 20cm railguns because they'd be terrible. Yes, many campaigns are over before then, which is why I called large railguns mostly useless.
12cm lasers are already weak. At capcacitor tech 4 or 5, 20cm railguns are even worse (33% more output per weapon, 75% larger. This combines to only 76% of the effective output per ton).
With capacitor-6 they're about as bad (14% more space efficient, 29% more expensive for a given output)... while 15cm lasers become fantastic, imo the best general purpose weapon for a long time.

Having more range is never a disadvantage. At worst it's neutral, like in your stated case where the overhead for sophisticated firecontrols is deemed excessive.
"Long-range lasers are weaker than a railgun in your face" makes no sense. If the long-ranged laser ship has the smallest speed advantage it just needs to deal more damage per tick than your shields regenerate to score a flawless victory.

If you rule out range concerns and just want to evaluate the use of lasers for short-range brawlers versus a railgun solution, you should consider any implementation: small numbers of large lasers, large number of small lasers. The first ist difficult to predict and may require experimentation, effect of shock damage and armour penetration depends on details of the deisgns.
Evaluating the latter against railguns is easy: They do the the same thing, we just need to compare who gets more shots for a given size/cost.

Your 35cm/C5 railgun (4x9 every 30 second) should be measured not against a spinal laser that does something entirely different, but against a pair of 20cm/C5 lasers (2x10 every 10 seconds). 40% higher output for the lasers, adjusted for size requirements.
Personally, I'd invest the RP in the next capacitor tech and field 15cm/C6 lasers: We lose a third of the range, but deal 2.5 times as much damage per tick and HS.

Title: Re: Railguns as a Main Weapon
Post by: 83athom on May 07, 2016, 12:09:55 PM

A pip in; go for it. Its actually a good idea. I'm doing it as a test for a v7.2 game I have planed so I SM gave me max size railguns (which is sadly 50cm compared to the laser's 80cm which can be increased to 120cm with spinal tech (hint hint Steve, we want our spinal railguns)) which I will use 1-3 of based on ship class paired with defensive gauss cannons and missiles. Another game a while ago I went with railguns as a main weapon with particle beams as a secondary, It worked quite well. Also, a point being left out is that you can increase the fire amount of rails from 4 to 5 through tech without changing the fire rate.

The main reason people keep saying "laser are the best weapon, don't use the others" is because the laser is the best all-round weapon. Other weapons shine better in different circumstances, different ranges, and different synergies. At the long ranges, particle beams have the best damage per increment per size, at point blank ranges its the gauss cannons with the railgun right behind that. Mesons will bypass armor and shields but always does a flat 1 damage at a limited range, making it a good fighter weapon. HPMs will disable a ship so it can't fight back by taking out sensors and fire control and deals triple damage to shields, but is useless otherwise because it doesn't do physical damage to ships. I had a graph showing the statistics of the weapons at what ranges and whatnot from the wiki, but that is down atm. However, I did post it somewhere on the forums, you just have to dig a bit.

Title: Re: Railguns as a Main Weapon
Post by: Borealis4x on May 07, 2016, 12:11:58 PM

I'm confused about a term, so when someone refers to a beam weapon are they referring to a laser based beam or both a laser beam and a projectile?

Title: Re: Railguns as a Main Weapon
Post by: 83athom on May 07, 2016, 12:12:59 PM

Quote from: BasileusMaximos on May 07, 2016, 12:11:58 PM

I'm confused about a term, so when someone refers to a beam weapon are they referring to a laser based beam or both a laser beam and a projectile?

All non missile weapons are considered "beam weapons".

Title: Re: Railguns as a Main Weapon
Post by: Thanatos on May 07, 2016, 04:11:42 PM

@Iranon

I don't get your point. Why are you comparing smaller lasers to larger railguns. They both start at the same focal size/caliber size. So why are you comparing 2 lasers to 1 railgun?

12cm Railgun > 12cm laser. By 1/3. That is fact. They are the same size, railgun has slightly more power consumption. And that is it. 20 cm laser at capacitor 4 or 5 tech, is just as bad as a railgun 20cm. So there is no point in saying 'a larger railgun is worse at this capacitor tech, than a laser at that one'.

By your train of thought, when you call my very logical calculation 'wrong and irrelevant in terms of optimization', to you this statement is correct:

A 30cm c6 laser, that has damage output 24 and ROF 20, is better than 2 12 cm railguns with ROF 5 and damage output of 4x2. Because that is simply not true. Damage per tick of laser is 6, and the railgun have 16.

So no, you cannot compare arbitrarily rapid fire weapons with one slow slug-thrower.

Ton for ton, railguns are better at effective ranges than lasers. Lasers will undoubtedly output more damage at the max range of a railgun, but that is hardly relevant. If you have the speed to catch up to someone to shoot him with lasers, then you have the speed to close in and shoot the railguns effectively. That is optimization. There is no reason to go the less effective route of lasers if your ship is fast enough to field railguns.

Title: Re: Railguns as a Main Weapon
Post by: Iranon on May 07, 2016, 07:32:24 PM

Quote from: Thanatos on May 07, 2016, 04:11:42 PM

@Iranon

I don't get your point. Why are you comparing smaller lasers to larger railguns. They both start at the same focal size/caliber size. So why are you comparing 2 lasers to 1 railgun?

12cm Railgun > 12cm laser. By 1/3. That is fact. They are the same size, railgun has slightly more power consumption. And that is it. 20 cm laser at capacitor 4 or 5 tech, is just as bad as a railgun 20cm. So there is no point in saying 'a larger railgun is worse at this capacitor tech, than a laser at that one'.

Because, strange as it may seem, nobody forces you to build the biggest gun you can. If you consider railguns, you apparently find several smaller shots useful. Maybe more so than one large shot. You can achieve this with multiple smaller lasers. If small lasers can do the job of a larger railgun, it seems natural to check which does it better.

Quote

By your train of thought, when you call my very logical calculation 'wrong and irrelevant in terms of optimization', to you this statement is correct:

Inappropriate self-aggrandisement, and the introduction to a strawman.

Quote

A 30cm c6 laser, that has damage output 24 and ROF 20, is better than 2 12 cm railguns with ROF 5 and damage output of 4x2. Because that is simply not true. Damage per tick of laser is 6, and the railgun have 16.

Not at all. They do something different. The laser has range, penetration and single shot damage. The railguns have number of shots, and also damage output... not least because they are matched by an appropriate capacitor, the importance of which I've been trying to point out the entire time.

Quote

So no, you cannot compare arbitrarily rapid fire weapons with one slow slug-thrower.

Your example contained incomparables. Comparing space/build/research costs between setups with the same damage per shot, where the main difference is 4 shots every 10s to 2 shots every 5s, is much less problematic. Granted: The former is better at final fire and is 1/4 of a turn ahead on average (1/2 of a turn's output on odd turns if both start firing at the same time). These advantages can be quite expensive though.

Quote

Ton for ton, railguns are better at effective ranges than lasers.

Assertion with no basis in fact. Effective range depends on doctrine and needs to take into account weapon, fire control and possibly defences of both combatants.

Quote

Lasers will undoubtedly output more damage at the max range of a railgun, but that is hardly relevant.

Not what I have been focusing on. I've been explicitly comparing laser setups that are similar in effect to railguns with regard to volume of fire and firing range. That the laser line also gives you access to long-range heavy artillery is a bonus.

Quote

If you have the speed to catch up to someone to shoot him with lasers, then you have the speed to close in and shoot the railguns effectively. That is optimization. There is no reason to go the less effective route of lasers if your ship is fast enough to field railguns.

You neglect that a single ship that outranges and outruns the opponent can score flawless victories... but again, that is something entirely different. I'm not arguing that you always need snipers instead of brawlers, I'm pointing out that you can make better brawlers with tech you consider sniper-only.

Title: Re: Railguns as a Main Weapon
Post by: Thanatos on May 07, 2016, 10:13:56 PM

Oh, ok, I get what you are saying now.

I suppose you do make a good point, but I don't think it is fair to say just because they fire 4 shots at lower damage per shot, that this means that if you take a big railgun, you should compare it to a laser that outputs similar damage per shot, after factoring in weight and research cost and what not.

Indeed, you were right when you said that they provide different roles in combat. However, I cannot agree that lasers are superior to railguns. I have literally played 50 or so early start campaigns, at both very high tech levels, and very low, and the only two types of ships that were able to beat the nastiest sort of spoilers, at very low tech levels, were masons and railguns.

You underestimate the power of railguns on a few fronts:

4 pellets means 4 chances to hit. When you fire upon a very fast ship, you have a chance to miss. With a laser, you either need to turret it, which will increase it's size, or you need to fire more shots.

At high enough caliber sizes, railguns will cause shock damage per pellet. This means 4 shock damage rolls per railgun. This is absurdly powerful. At the same focal size, a laser will ruin your day, end of story.

It takes more research investment for laser, period. Beam fire range is extremely expensive to research. When you consider the damage output of lasers at long range, it may seem like it's not worth bothering with, but if you want to call laser long range artillery, you must take into account that it costs absurdly high amounts of RP to set lasers up to use their maximum range.

Some lasers can have such a huge range, that no beam fire control can actually support it.

The problem you point out that I like smaller shots more than one big one, is that to set it up with lasers, it costs a lot more power. And it is not very useful either- it is just a drawback of railguns.

Consider this: If you have 4 damage 8 lasers, you will penetrate 1 spot, 4 times. The chance of hitting the same spot is so low it's not even worth calculating. Railguns don't have that problem. 4 railguns will fire 16 damage 2 pellets. The chance of hitting the same spot is worth considering, and on subsequent runs it will just chew up armor.

I think at the end of the day, lasers and railguns will always have different roles in combat, depending on their focal/caliber size. Small railguns are as useless as small lasers, as you have pointed out.

You say that a 15cm laser with a matching capacitor is the best all-around weapon. I am inclined to agree. But I have played with 15cm railguns, with matching capacitors, and I can guarantee that they are the best brawling weapon in existence, that not even mesons can match.

Consider these two ships:

Off-Topic: show

The difference between these two ships is almost immediately visible. The railgun boat has one less railgun battery, lower deployment time and lower rate of fire. This railgun boat, in it's current state, obliterated the laser ship. The lasers could not penetrate the armor in one shot, and due to the fact that the railgun boat has 29 columns, every 10 seconds it returned 48 damage, in 16 pellets. The lasers did 30 damage every 5 seconds. Indeed, this is more than the railguns, but it did not matter. It could not penetrate the same spot, and the railguns chewed it out, with a 33% chance to hit the same spot. After the armor was cratered enough, it did not even matter.

But let's not draw the line here. Let's take it a step further, and pick a railgun caliber to match the 10 second ROF, with the capacitor-6 that the laser boat uses, and bring the number of weapons up to the same number, at the cost of our speed and tonnage.

Off-Topic: show

These railguns are not matched for their max range, to round off to a close number, I added another layer of armor- and this has resulted in a 3 column increase of armor, with 7 depth. The railguns now fire 20 damage 4 pellets for a total of 80 damage per 10 seconds, or 40 damage per 5 seconds. Even in the previous example, if we kept the same number of railguns as lasers, the damage per 5 seconds would've been 30. But since it is obvious that lasers have the advantage in ROF, we are taking this little detour in matching the capacitors with the caliber on a 2:1 ratio.

This ship is bad news for the laser boat and whatever the hell gets within that 120k range. But obviously, considering we did this, it cannot defeat the laser ship, as it is now faster, due to it being lighter.

Even in the previous case, it could maintain it's range, if I wanted to set it up that way, but just looking at it statistically, I believe it is clear to see which ship is superior. In this scenario, obviously, speed is life. And if we were to get into a optimization arms race, the clear winner is the laser, as it is lighter. For this purpose I specifically used max power ratio to demonstrate this fact. The lasers are lighter, if we were reduced to just one weapon, the laser ship would be faster, and thus, able to maintain it's range away from the railguns, and end up victorious.

In closing, I did not mean to start a war over this. True, I found issue with your statements, due to my misunderstanding of what you originally intended to convey, but I hope this breakdown, and yours, will shed some light on the matter of beam weapons, where they are useful, and what role they fulfill.

Title: Re: Railguns as a Main Weapon
Post by: 83athom on May 08, 2016, 10:11:40 AM

Found the graph I was talking about. Although this was made back in v5.54, there weren't any changes to the damages of weapons. And this was made to represent mid level tech where all have equal techs (rof, range, etc).
(http://aurorawiki.pentarch.org/images/2/26/ModifiedDPIS.jpg)

Title: Re: Railguns as a Main Weapon
Post by: Iranon on May 08, 2016, 02:34:48 PM

@ Thanatos: You raise some interesting point with regard to armour penetration.
My experience and understanding point towards narrow, deep penetration being preferable to sandpapering, with a mix being better still (if a few lasers carve deep gashes, a spray of railgun fire will find soft spots while the armour is still thick in most places). This does not seem to match your experimental result.

I have no major qualm with your 6000t ships for a general comparison; the laser ship is more expensive but also works as a long-range combatant if desired, seems fair. The concerns I do have:
1) How did you model the fight? We obviously don't want the laser ship to keep the range open and fire unopposed... but did it get a free salvo? Maximum closing rate is 250k per tick, the laser ship has a range band of 240k in which the railgun ship can't respond.
2) Chance will play a big part in a single duel.
3) Exact depth of armour belt may favour one weapon or the other, especially in small ships whether the first few hits to reach the internals can be decisive.
I'd be curious to see this repeated a few times with varying armour thicknesses in a realistic range.

As an aside, I'm happily fielding 15cm/c10 railguns in my current game. They don't displace 15cm lasers as my main offensive and 10cm railguns as my main defensive weapons, but they allow excellent area defence combined with serious short-range firepower.
Nice, but were the new toys (also: fast-firing 20cm lasers) worth the heavy investment into capacitor research? Seems dubious, they're expensive and not clearly better than my previous mainline weapons... and with twice the bulk for the same output, they wouldn't be competitive.

@ 83athom: Do you recall what weapons exactly were used for this? I recall being a little disappointed that a lot of effort was spent on making nice graphs about some rather impractical weapons.

Title: Re: Railguns as a Main Weapon
Post by: Thanatos on May 08, 2016, 05:17:53 PM

@Iranon: I tested it by creating two ships, one of each class, dividing them, and setting one to follow the other at 80k distance. One on one, due to the tracking speed, some of the crucial salvos of the laser ship miss, while the railguns, due to their multitude of pellets, have more chances to hit. In general, I saw an almost 50% higher effective DPS from the railgun than the laser.

It was simultaneous. They both fired at each other on the same tick one I gave one fleet to the AI.

However, just a few moments ago, I tried the same setup but this time used 2 and 3 ships per fleet, and the lasers won every time. I think in hindsight, one on one, if I had matched the tracking speed with the actual speed of the ship, the laser would've won. But then again, the railgun might've had a damage advantage, if I tried to force the laser ship to be 6000 tons.

So I made a 7000 ton laser ship, and put it up against the railgun boat II, as is. The railgun won. Even two on two. I think that extra layer of armor really messes those 6 damage lasers up. I think it's a matter of 'sweet spot' for both of the weapons. Personally, if I roll out railgun boats, I always do it at biphaside carbide armor, which is being used in this testing-- but, I always use 8 layers of armor.

It takes about 6 to 7 salvos for the railguns to kill the laser boats, but only 3 or 4, for the lasers to kill the railguns. Honestly, I am a railgun fan, but even I can see that when lasers are done right, they can be amazingly powerful. So long as you are not chasing a ship that is faster than you or your tracking speed. It's expensive, RP-wise, but worth it. In the same vein, once you get to 30cm railguns, it won't matter how often you shoot, because when you fire 4 or 5 of those babies, from 2 or 3 ships, you will kill with shock damage alone.

Against AI, I actually think railguns perform better, because the AI tends to build massive ships, and some of them, have a lot of armor. Like, we are talking 8-60. It is so hard to penetrate the same spot twice against those ships, with a low volume of fire. A railgun doesn't really bother with that. Like, it literally doesn't care. On one hand, shock damage will theoretically do the job, but on the other hand, the volume of fire is so high, that it will carve up the armor almost like a missile does, making each subsequent shot all the more effective.

Before I used railguns, I did use lasers and gauss turrets. When I came up against ships like these, I would actually use my gauss PD turrets to chew up the armor before I used the lasers. 20 seconds of that, and I was good to go for lasers. I actually made the change to railguns because of this, because 'if I am close enough to fire the gauss, I should just switch to railguns'- and the combo is amazingly effective. In the off rounds when your railgun is recharging, if your capacitor tech is too low, your gauss are just setting the stage for the end game. But the same applies to lasers, but you really feel the pain when you use that as a main tactic, while having sun so much RP into range.

Title: Re: Railguns as a Main Weapon
Post by: Iranon on May 09, 2016, 08:13:34 AM

Tracking speed, if the same for both ships, shouldn't change which weapon is favoured.
Accuracy being a concern adds a major random element though, I'd match fire control speed to ship speed for testing purposes.

Regarding 30cm railguns: Those should outperform 15cm lasers once they get their fire rate to 10 seconds.
As usual, same number of shots per tick as a pair of lasers... with 7 damage instead of 6, on 9 HS instead of 8, same power requirement. Adjusted for size, we get a 4% increase in firepower for a a 66% increase in cost, because the required capacitor tech drives the price up.
Expensive, but worth considering.

This requires capacitor-12 though, which adds an option I find more appealing. 20cm railguns that fire every tick are excellent for brawling and area defence, range isn't extreme but still respectable. I could definitely get behind this as my main weapon. There is nothing wrong with mixing in the 30cm version to extend maximum range, no need to invest in laser/particle beam tech if we haven't already.

*

Of the regular damage dealers, only lasers don't seem unreasonably limited by capacitor tech. Efficient with varied builds for different purposes, fast-firing 15cm may be first among equals but definitely not the only good option. Some weird builds work splendidly in the right situation. Yay!

Railguns with a 5s reload period are great, at 10s they're comparable to small lasers but more expensive at a higher tech investment.

Particle beams-2 get us range at at a reasonable cost. Larger ones need to fire every 5s to do more against ships - expensive even if we have the tech, and less effective as area defence. The upcoming lances may make large sizes appealing, maybe even at low range tech to save costs... looking forward to them.

Carronades are twice as expensive as infrared lasers of the same size, only attractive when we build for devastating single volleys over continuous output. Problem: Spinal/reduced lasers do this just as well or better, and the line is more flexible.

Title: Re: Railguns as a Main Weapon
Post by: Thanatos on May 09, 2016, 02:19:40 PM

Indeed, I think personally, you can basically disregard railgun tech between the 20 to 30cm range. 35 cm railguns, no matter how fast they reload, have a massive chance to do shock damage PER shot. That's pretty massive.

Title: Re: Railguns as a Main Weapon
Post by: Borealis4x on May 10, 2016, 12:42:18 AM

I don't get why the options for your rail-guns are so limited. Like why can lasers be spinal and turret mounted but not rails? Is there some scientific reason to it? Cause I doubt the dev cares much for balance.

Title: Re: Railguns as a Main Weapon
Post by: 83athom on May 10, 2016, 07:02:12 AM

Quote from: BasileusMaximos on May 10, 2016, 12:42:18 AM

I don't get why the options for your rail-guns are so limited. Like why can lasers be spinal and turret mounted but not rails? Is there some scientific reason to it? Cause I doubt the dev cares much for balance.

Rails are not turreted because of balance reasons comparing to gauss cannons. However Steve is working on Spinal versions for some of the other beam weapons (rails, etc).

Title: Re: Railguns as a Main Weapon
Post by: Iranon on May 10, 2016, 12:24:09 PM

Would be nice if other weapon lines got meaningful additions, as the particle beams do in the next version.

Quote from: Thanatos on May 09, 2016, 02:19:40 PM

Indeed, I think personally, you can basically disregard railgun tech between the 20 to 30cm range. 35 cm railguns, no matter how fast they reload, have a massive chance to do shock damage PER shot. That's pretty massive.

Quite the opposite imo. There is hope for railguns up to 30cm at high tech levels under some circumstances... but little for 35cm and above. You're hung up that some specific output is massive and enough to cause the enemy some grief. Sure, it may be... but all comparable outpus are. If there are alternative methods that do the same thing better, the fact that it's sufficient doesn't validate the weaker one.

I still think you're hung up on a metric that's not very relevant in context - power of a single salvo.
Do you expect your first salvo fired from maximum weapon range to largely decide the battle? This may be realistic with microwaves or ridiculous spinal lasers. With railguns and railgun-equivalents, this assumption implies pitting the punch of a battleship against the jaw of a gunboat.

With realistically matched offensive and defensive capabilities, we have to take RoF into account.
One strong salvo every few ticks may give you a head start in artificial tests, in practice it's mitigated by an effective range disadvantage: The ship with the strong salvo is encouraged to hold fire until it can deal meaningful damage, the fast-firing ship can open fire the instant it has a non-zero chance to hit.

35cm Railguns vs. 20cm lasers on realistic capacitor tech (10 is a good match for both):
Adjusted for space, the laser ship will fire ~42% as many shots per salvo... with damage increased to 10 and at three times the rate of fire.
If you object that capacitor-10 is an expensive tech at 125k, consider that the railgun option spent 70k more on calibre.

*

Specific examples are always problematic because one can always argue they don't apply in this or that case... but the comparison of equal-damage weapon can be broken down to simple principles:

1) For the same damage per shot, railguns and supporting crew/power typically need slightly less than 2x as much space as lasers.
2) Since railguns get 4 shots per weapon, a railgun loadout will have slightly more than twice as many shots per salvo.
3) Railguns require 3x the capacitor tech for the same rate of fire.

4) If railguns have a third of the fire rate, they have slightly more than 2/3 the output over time. Cost is comparable (same capacitor tech used).
5) If railguns have half the fire rate, they have slightly higher output over time than lasers. Cost is approaximately 50% higher (higher capacitor tech).
6) If railguns have the same fire rate, they have slightly mor than twice the output over time than the lasers. They cost approximately 3 times as much.
8) Lasers at the relevant sizes have exact capacitor matches, railguns not always. Resulting inefficiencies can reduce performance or increase cost.

Title: Re: Railguns as a Main Weapon
Post by: Thanatos on May 11, 2016, 12:39:57 AM

Actually, it is in tests where this sort of thing doesn't stand up to it's name. Once you go up to 35cm and above, in tests, they just perform poorly. I actually once tested ton for ton, Gauss Cannon vs Railgun. And at 35 cm and above, which means a hell of a lot more Gauss Cannons, GC wins. Hands down. It absolutely obliterates the railguns (And everything else, pretty much).

I seriously thought the GC ship drove up to the rail ship and was like 'I will do to you what China did to Pearl Harbor.' And the rails go: 'But that was not Chin-- AAARGH'

HOWEVER, it is in gameplay, when you have a proper fleet supporting these ships, which are not just a 35 cm slugger, but they have other weapons, that you can truly see the power of the railgun, and nothing else seems to be able to compare. In one of my games where I played 3 races, we all went down different tech paths, one was lasers, one was missiles, and one was pure rails.

So, I don't actually know. The only way I can make 35cm work, is in actual gameplay, in mixed fleets. It is difficult to test that and prove it works. If you are curious, you'll just have to try it, there is no other way.

Title: Re: Railguns as a Main Weapon
Post by: Iranon on May 11, 2016, 06:14:17 AM

Railguns performing poorly in tests is quite expected. All weapons lose DPS when they get too large for their capacitors, and large railguns don't do anything unique to compensate. Large lasers at least have penetration and shock damage that can't be mirrored by more efficient smaller weapons (maximum RoF is usually better overall, but it's not strictly better.).

What about 10cm railguns? Those have higher output than Gauss weapons per ton, unless we've researched all Gauss RoF techs (last one for 750k, eek!).
And if we do have high tech, the largest railgun that can fire every 5s should do better in a brawl.

Actual gameplay contains many uncontrollable variables, and anything that isn't outright silly can work. I have no doubt that ships with 35cm railguns can win battles, but I can say with near-perfect confidence that they are decidedly suboptimal, without the need for field testing.
When comparing the expected value of 5d6+2 vs. 6d6, we don't do empirical research and roll a lot of dice... we can isolate and compare what's different, and know that the former will score 1.5 higher on average.

Title: Re: Railguns as a Main Weapon
Post by: Thanatos on May 11, 2016, 09:20:58 AM

Strictly, speaking, you are right. But in the field, and ironically, I can with absolute perfect confidence tell you that 35cm and up railguns, no matter the ROF, are devastating and they have no comparable peer.

The problem is, after you fire those railguns once and they go into cooldown, you start relying on your secondary weapons, which soften the target up, and when the railguns fire again, I can outright tell you, unless the ship has 8 layers of armor or more, it is dead. Straight up dead. And even if it survives, the fact that it fires 4 pellets-- some of those are gonna hit what you want to be hit, and in general, it will tend to go towards inflicting higher internal damage than pure lasers or any other weapons.

And if that _doesn't_ kill the target... well, those secondary weapons will go to work again... probably for the last time.

As I've said before, I used to play with only laser ships, mesons, particles, carronades, normal lasers. And I've never seen anything kill stuff as quickly as a railgun at the 35cm+ level.

10cm railguns aren't really that good. They're basically a ROF4 gauss cannon. I mean, it's not useless- but it's not good. Lasers are a billion times better at this level. 15cm vs 15cm laser, I have to go with laser again- but railguns are also nice, cause at this level they are basically PD and anti-ship weapons. But beyond that, without matching capacitor tech which gets stupidly expensive? Forget it. Not worth it. The damage pattern becomes useless.

Title: Re: Railguns as a Main Weapon
Post by: Iranon on May 11, 2016, 04:34:50 PM

I tried to formalise damage being frontloaded in the case of railguns, which is what your point seems to hinge on.
Using the weapons from my last post for 35cm railguns/20cm lasers, standardising for the output of a railgun salvo, there seems to be some support for it:

Turn - total Railgun damage dealt - total Laser damage dealt - Difference - Cumulative Difference - Average difference (CD/T)

Code: [Select]

T    R   L       D       CD      A
1    1   0.47   -0.53   -0.53   -0.53
2    1   0.93   -0.07   -0.60   -0.3
3    1   1.40    0.40   -0.20   -0.07
4    2   1.87   -0.13   -0.33   -0.08
5    2   2.33    0.33    0       0
6    2   2.80    0.80    0.8     0.13
7    3   3.27    0.27    1.27    0.18

D expresses who's ahead, A "who was ahead on average so far", which we may care about as earlier damage may degrade enemy combat ability. A positive number means an advantage for lasers.
Although railguns fall behind forever after... they're ahead the turn their second salvo hits, which matches your experience.

However, this assumes all salvos are fired at decisive battle range. In practice, there will be some fire exchanged before, and the railgun fire at turn -2 is more heavily degraded than laser fire from turns -2 to 0.
Looking at a closing rate of 20000km/s, 600k fire control range and 450/500k weapon range, this would increase all values in column D by roughly 0.25 (best case for railguns, turn 1 is the exact turn decisive range with full damage is reached) to 0.8 (worst case for railguns, decisive battle range was reached at turn -1 and lasers already got off 2 salvos at full damage and accuracy).

The following assumes the best-case scenario for railguns, which isn't much different from the safe option (the salvo 3 ticks before is only worth about 0.05, we could just hold fire).
R now denotes the number of number of railgun salvos fired at decisive range, not total damage. A is calculated for turns at decisive range.

Code: [Select]

T    R    D        CD       A
1    1   -0.28    -0.28    -0.28    
2    1    0.18    -0.10    -0.05    
3    1    0.65     0.55     0.183
4    2    0.12     0.62     0.16
5    2    0.58     1.20     0.24
6    2    1.05     2.25     0.38
7    3    0.52     2.77     0.40

Title: Re: Railguns as a Main Weapon
Post by: Thanatos on May 11, 2016, 04:42:23 PM

Like I said before, there really is no point to compare a large caliber railgun, with a small focal size laser. Also, ECM would ruin laser's day, and only be a mild annoyance for a railgun.

And in your example, the shock damage would disable the laser before it got it's second shot off.

Title: Re: Railguns as a Main Weapon
Post by: Iranon on May 11, 2016, 06:25:13 PM

I don't see how ECM would ruin a small laser but not a large railgun with comparable range, damage per shot, accompanied by the same fire control.

It's strange that you would claim Gauss cannons "obliterate pretty much anything"... then dismiss 10cm railguns as not very good because they are "basically RoF4 Gauss Cannons".
Never mind that their size makes them more comparable to RoF7 Gauss Cannons ton for ton,

You keep bringing up red herrings. "While my railguns are silent, other weaponry continues the job"... as it would when supporting any other kind of weapon. You have not given a reason why your other unspecified weaponry would interact more favourably with intermittently firing railguns than anything else. Hyperbole and gushing anecdotes are also no arguments.

Your last claim is unsubstantiated, and absurd it the certainty with which it is stated.
I've tried to decipher what you might actually mean, formalise the reasoning behind the claims, and make it open to analysis.
I probably should have realised earlier that this was futile.

Title: Re: Railguns as a Main Weapon
Post by: Thanatos on May 11, 2016, 10:59:26 PM

I don't know why you are attacking my points at face value when it's pretty clear what I am saying. Your evidence that doesn't need no empirical research, is comparing large railguns with small lasers. I did that too, the other way around, and you didn't accept my proof.

So here it is one more time, very clear so you can understand without a doubt:

ROF8 Gauss Cannon x4 = Kill everything. Ok? Doesn't get simpler than that. You put a ship with two of these, next to another hostile ship, and in 30 seconds, no more hostile ship. Now imagine this: Imagine the hostile ship was hit twice by a laser, that removed some of the armor. Now you don't need 30 seconds, now you need 15. Why? Because the GC, with it's huge volume of fire, will hit internals very very often now.

Now, if you are still following, here is why this also works with railguns, especially big ones. 4x9 damage railgun? Very good. Why? Because, you hit hole in armor, ship explode. 35cm laser? Very good. You hit ship, ship dead. You hit ship in hole in armor, ship also dead. But. If ship too much armor? Take 35cm laser, and delete.

Here is the difference: Laser, 1 shot. Railgun, 4 shots. Laser does shock damage once, Railguns do shock damage 4 times. Laser has one chance to hit. Railguns have 4 chances to hit.

Now you plug ECM into a ship, say ECM 80, and the laser has a 20 percent chance to hit. Railguns have 4 shots, at 20 percent.

It is not rate of fire, or damage of any of the components that in the end wins the day. It is volume of fire. Now this is true in the real world as much as it is in Aurora. US military doctrine, for infantry and navy, will both state two things: Movement is life, and Volume of Fire is currency. And with currency you pay your ticket to go back home in one piece.

If there is even a 1% chance to miss your target, the ship with the higher volume of fire has a more favorable matchup. If you take into account the fact that armor does not need to be penetrated for you to deal internal damage, volume of fire also gives you a very large edge.

If lasers are the embodiment of one-shot kills, then railguns are the avatars of annihilation. That is not bias, that is simply the truth, fact, observational evidence, etc, etc, etc. If you put two ships, one laser, one railgun, next to each other, and they both field caliber 30+, if the laser does not kill the railgun in the first salvo, it is game over for the laser ship, end of story.

Title: Re: Railguns as a Main Weapon
Post by: Iranon on May 12, 2016, 08:39:25 AM

You state self-evident facts, imply that your incorrect conclusions from them are equally self-evident, and obfuscate by mixing in hyperbole, unubstantiated gushing and real-life analogies that don't translate to Aurora mechanics. You don't make clear what should be taken at face value, and what is colourful prose you already know to be incorrect. Stating the self-evident facts in an even simpler fashion does not help, it's the rest that is causing me problems.

If the initial salvo matters, large railguns don't deliver because they lack high single shot damage (which shock damage depends on) and penetration if that matters.
If continuous output matters, large railguns fail because they are held back badly by capacitor tech.
You want to have it both ways: "large calibre is good" and "many shots are good".
Railguns never had most advantages associated with the former, and lose the latter on anything but the first salvo if their fire rate is >10s.

You talked up the effect of the shock damage. Let's look at it.
Expected shock damage is proportional to (single shot damage)^1.3*(total damage)
A large railgun deals 2/3 the shock damage over time as 2 lasers with the same single-shot damage and triple the fire rate, but twice as much on the first salvo.
A large railgun is much worse at dealing shock damage than a laser of the same calibre. A 35cm laser has a 90% chance of dealing shock damage vs. 53% for a 35cm railgun, and expected amount is 4.7 times as large.
There is a trade-off between devastating single volleys and continuous output, but you are better off mixing weapons that are actually good at what they are doing rather than using one that fails on either account.

Quote

ROF8 Gauss Cannon x4 = Kill everything. Ok? Doesn't get simpler than that. You put a ship with two of these, next to another hostile ship, and in 30 seconds, no more hostile ship. Now imagine this: Imagine the hostile ship was hit twice by a laser, that removed some of the armor. Now you don't need 30 seconds, now you need 15. Why? Because the GC, with it's huge volume of fire, will hit internals very very often now.

I already mentioned the effect. I think very highly of 15cm lasers paired with 10cm railguns.
The raw damage output of this combination may not be the highest in a knife fight, but the format is good:
One carves respectable gashes. 4 layers deep, and many of them: it can fire every tick at reasonable tech and is quite compact at 4HS.
The other delivers more than one shot per HS, making sure that any gap in the armour will be found.
If the most practical sniping weapon (which is also good at area defence) and the finest point defence weapon for fast ships make for a good combination in a knife fight... any dedicated brawling weapon needs to be very good at it to be worth it.

Quote

Now you plug ECM into a ship, say ECM 80, and the laser has a 20 percent chance to hit. Railguns have 4 shots, at 20 percent.

Does this change anything of relevance? Sure, the railgun only has a 41% chance of missing entirely, but the important metric - expected damage - is reduced to 20% in either case.

Title: Re: Railguns as a Main Weapon
Post by: Thanatos on May 12, 2016, 05:10:34 PM

I'm done, dude. Seriously. I am not here to debate.

You said lasers are better. I said railguns are better. That's the end of the story.

It's not like you need to optimize to beat NPRs at Aurora, and we gave enough info to new people on which to pick. But if there is ever a tournament in Aurora, I'll enter with railguns, and you can enter with lasers, and I suppose we'll find out which one is really better.

Title: Re: Railguns as a Main Weapon
Post by: Sheb on May 13, 2016, 03:17:48 AM

Hey, a tournament. That's a neat idea. I could run it as a forum game: everyone get X RP and Y BP to spend on a design. They enter the design, along with tactical instructions, and I run the fight. Who would be up for it?

Title: Re: Railguns as a Main Weapon
Post by: MarcAFK on May 13, 2016, 06:59:26 AM

I love these, another idea might be to generate an NPR then we can take turns beating it with a set number of BPs and RPs, you can test your laser VS rail hypothesis while others could try more obvious strategies like AMM spam.

Title: Re: Railguns as a Main Weapon
Post by: Iranon on May 13, 2016, 09:06:30 AM

Sounds fun to me, I'd love to enter!

Title: Re: Railguns as a Main Weapon
Post by: Sheb on May 13, 2016, 10:00:02 AM

I created a thread (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8650.0), sign up there. :)

Title: Re: Railguns as a Main Weapon
Post by: Thanatos on May 14, 2016, 04:02:56 AM

Sounds good to me!

Aurora 4x

VB6 Aurora => Aurora Chat => Topic started by: Borealis4x on May 06, 2016, 09:06:02 PM