Author Topic: Carriers Worth It?  (Read 3885 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Iranon

  • Guest
Re: Carriers Worth It?
« Reply #15 on: July 05, 2016, 04:19:39 AM »
@ ChildServices: Are your considerations driven mostly by theme/style/roleyplay, or efficiency? If it's the latter, I have a few objections.


These are bombers, not fighters. Think Freespace.

Imo the mechanics don't encourage FAC bombers unless you care about the ability to be serviced by maintenance facilities. The slight efficiency gain and corresponding increase of performance/payload/armour over 4 equivalent 250t missile fighters is minor compared to reduction of sensor footprint.

Quote
This one carries its own magazine and doesn't use box launchers. I was gonna go for boxes, but the hangar reload on size 1 box launchers is slower than the refire rate that I got out of shrinking the launchers a little. It doesn't need to be as fast as the Achilles since it doesn't actually have to go anywhere that isn't within 10000km of its carrier.
I'm not really sure how good they are though, since I haven't actually had to use them yet. I'm sure somebody'll be eager to tell me how effective they are. ;)

If they aren't intended to go anywhere beyond 10k of the carrier, you could put defensive equipment on the carrier itself and save a ton of overhead.
Barebones (unpowered, unarmoured) box launcher pods to circumvent the inability to reload may be worth considering, but again that's a lot of overhead and hoops to jump through for a marginal advantage over 0.25 sized launchers.
Off on a tangent: I may do this for different reasons. Box launcher pods can cheaply get 20+ years of mission life, and dumped wherever desired.

Quote
While we're talking about bombers, has anybody had any luck designing something Homeworld-style with carronades instead of missiles?
For a given calibre, carronades are just an overpriced infrared laser with a worse damage profile. (Advanced) spinal lasers allow us to match their calibre size on small craft.
I've played around with the concept a bit. Ton for ton, I find fast-firing weapons of moderate size preferable. The only implementation of large beams that I liked was low-tech ships able to deliver a devastating single volley for cheap. Not quite as efficient, but scaling this down to FAC/fighter size is possible and offers some advantages (good use of spinal lasers, easy logistics for FACs).
 

Offline ChildServices

  • Hegemon
  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 140
  • Thanked: 10 times
Re: Carriers Worth It?
« Reply #16 on: July 05, 2016, 06:29:36 AM »
My whole fleet is meant to be modelled on Freespace at the moment. I decided to go for more roleplay this time and actually set guidelines for how I design ships and how I perform most of my fighting. These limitations mean that most of the combat ships I use are fighters and FAC bombers.
All of my offensive capital ships have one of three roles. They're either a carrier, a point defence ship (to protect carriers or support assets, not strike craft), or a beam assault ship (of which I don't have any yet because my "doctrine" hasn't progressed in-story yet). Some may be a hybrid of two of these roles (The Daedalus is part carrier part defence ship), but not all three.

I've tried to be as efficient as possible within these limitations. However, actually, I think FAC bombers could be better than multiple small ones.
Maintenance is kind of a non-point to me, since all ships are free when they're in hangars. As for the poorer stealth, I figure you can make up for it with layers of armour and the healthy application of combined arms with other escorting strike craft. Overall they'd also be cheaper, since you don't have to build as many fire controls (uridium shortages are absolutely f**king me atm) as if you had four size 250 fighters for every FAC bomber. You also have the potential of carrying even bigger bombs than you feasibly could with the smaller fighters. They'd also triumph over four of the smaller ships in raw firepower with the space potentially regained from lesser crew requirements (less fire controls), allowing them to probably mount maybe 1-3 more launchers depending on the size of your torpedoes, or another layer of armour.
The main downside with FACs for me is micromanagement stresses due to FACs not being able to use the fighter wings screen. Usually I actually don't even use FACs of any kind for this exact reason; because repetitive micromanagement isn't fun and if I can get away with not having to do it then I simply won't.

As for the Hector, well it's a "relic" of the early days when I just needed a wing of cheap ships to make my sol system colonies STFU. It was upgraded and then carried into the second generation fleet due to a concern over what to do if for some reason either
A) The Sky Marshal is an idiot and the Orion class destroyer (carrier) carrying the bulk of our killing power has no cruiser escort, or
B) Plans end up FUBAR and the Orion class destroyer (carrier) carrying the bulk of our killing power has no cruiser escort, or
C) The Sky Marshal did remember to assign an escort cruiser group to his flagship but it ran out of ammo due to an enemy NPR Macrossing them.
I've even stated before that its actual role is in some doubt, but the chassis is considered a "classic." Spoiler alert but I actually intend to replace it with beam interceptors after I finally finish this battle and post the next part of my story. My current Sky Marshal (and the predicted next one) aren't idiots and are fully aware of the fact that each Orion class destroyer basically has 4000 tonnes of scrap metal collecting dust in their hangars that would be better spent on other types strike craft.

The thing about carronades is really disappointing though. I wish they had something like the size reduction tech that lasers get, that might make them competitive again.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2016, 07:31:49 PM by ChildServices »
Aurora4x Discord: https://discordapp.com/invite/Q5ryqdW

Cold as steel the darkness waits, its hour will come
A cry of fear from our children, worshipping the Sun
Mother Nature's black revenge, on those who waste her life
War babies in the Garden Of Eden, she'll turn our ashes to ice
 

Offline SteelChicken

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 219
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: Carriers Worth It?
« Reply #17 on: July 05, 2016, 11:05:49 AM »
Yes, depending on how you use them/set them up.  The model of a large carrier with massive sensors and having fighters without actives launching missiles works very well.   It's easy to build a massive sensor even at low tech, and just get the fighters close enough to launch and scoot without ever being seen.  The carrier stays out of missile range and stays safe.

Ive also experimented with meson or gauss armed fighters for fleet missile defense, also works very well.

I dont use FAC's as has been mentioned, not worth the micromanagement hassle.

When you begin to out-tech your opponents, the simplest solution logistically for me is just large missile armed ships with both ASM/AMM capabilities and sensors.   One type of ship for the entire fleet minus logistic support. 

Beam armed ships getting into knife fights are much more fun, but the truth is most battles are long range missile dominated affairs.  I would like to see an option for new games where missile tech isn't allowed...might be alot more exciting :)
 

Iranon

  • Guest
Re: Carriers Worth It?
« Reply #18 on: July 05, 2016, 07:11:43 PM »
Consider the following, all 16k tech plus Magneto-Plasma drives:

Code: [Select]
Dodo class Fighter-bomber    300 tons     5 Crew     45.6 BP      TCS 6  TH 24  EM 0
4000 km/s     Armour 1-3     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 2.4
Maint Life 14.33 Years     MSP 19    AFR 3%    IFR 0%    1YR 0    5YR 3    Max Repair 14 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 24 months    Spare Berths 0   
Magazine 16   

12 EP Magneto-plasma Drive (2)    Power 12    Fuel Use 24.11%    Signature 12    Exp 7%
Fuel Capacity 10 000 Litres    Range 24.9 billion km   (72 days at full power)

Size 16 Box Launcher (1)    Missile Size 16    Hangar Reload 120 minutes    MF Reload 20 hours
Missile Fire Control FC58-R100 (1)     Range 58.8m km    Resolution 100
ASM-16a (1)  Speed: 25 000 km/s   End: 39.5m    Range: 59.3m km   WH: 49    Size: 16    TH: 166/100/50

Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and maintenance purposes

It's slow tactically, it's fragile, it's not as small as I would like for its fire control range... but it costs only twice as much as the ordnance it carries, has a very acceptable mission life and strategic mobility (a tanker variant without weapons could carry over 15 times the fuel), and it shouldn't need servicing ever.

Just the hangar space to house it would cost 2/3 of the build points, and even a barebones carrier needs some basics (hull, bridge,  engines, engineering spaces and crew quarters including flight crew berths). Maybe armour and other silly defensive extravagances: hopefully useless as the carrier is not intended to get into harm's way, but you never know and it's still a big target that'd be embarrassing to lose.
Carriers are expensive because of the duplication of systems inherent to the approach. I see the benefits for parasites that become much more effective when too insanely overpowered to cover long distances themselves (boarding craft, stand-off beam vessels), but the effort seems wasted for strike groups that'd function just fine at modest speed.