Author Topic: Please rate Wally the Warship  (Read 292 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lord Defecator

  • Able Ordinary Rate
  • L
  • Posts: 3
Please rate Wally the Warship
« on: November 08, 2018, 10:54:38 AM »
Newb strike incoming! Brace brace brace!

I've got a game going on atm where it would seem prudent to start building some warships.   I have a test game going on at the same time to let me space master things and make designs without having to worry about getting them wrong on my normal save.   This is my idea for an AMM frigate:-

Quote
New Class class Frigate    6,200 tons     164 Crew     1141.  7 BP      TCS 124  TH 720  EM 0
5806 km/s     Armour 3-30     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 4     PPV 20
Maint Life 3.  36 Years     MSP 460    AFR 76%    IFR 1.  1%    1YR 62    5YR 929    Max Repair 180 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Spare Berths 1   
Magazine 220   

360 EP Magneto-plasma Drive (2)    Power 360    Fuel Use 163.  96%    Signature 360    Exp 15%
Fuel Capacity 1,000,000 Litres    Range 17.  7 billion km   (35 days at full power)

Size 1 Missile Launcher (20)    Missile Size 1    Rate of Fire 15
Missile Fire Control FC6-R1 (4)     Range 6.  8m km    Resolution 1
Size 1 AMM (220)  Speed: 24,000 km/s   End: 4.  7m    Range: 6.  8m km   WH: 1    Size: 1    TH: 176/105/52

Active Search Sensor MR7-R1 (1)     GPS 126     Range 7.  6m km    MCR 823k km    Resolution 1

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

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

I plan on deploying these in 2s or 3s along with some gauss PD ships of similar size and a couple missile destroyers.   The other ships will be equipped with active sensors of R180. 

I'm wondering if it would be prudent to stick some small R180 active search sensors on these just as a backup, since I'm expecting things to go wrong and it'd be nice for these frigates to have a means of seeing for themselves in case the other ships go down or any other reason they might end up going solo, such as retreating while the rest of the flotilla carries on for example. 

I'm also considering upping the sensor size on the R1 to increase intercept range against missiles. Just realised all my fire controls would have to be bigger too. 

So then, what could be improved on this wee willy warship?
« Last Edit: November 08, 2018, 11:07:43 AM by Lord Defecator »
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 975
  • Thanked: 69 times
Re: Please rate Wally the Warship
« Reply #1 on: November 08, 2018, 11:58:04 AM »
5-to-1 Launcher/MFC ratio, which is excellent but can be a bit of an overkill if the ship will never operate alone. Range is bit short for any longer deployments but with tanker support it can be managed easily enough. Did you use the Missile Design Tool to create the AMMs? Since you're at Magneto-Plasma engine level, those hit chances seem a bit low. Playing around with speed vs agility, as well as the amount of fuel carried, might improve THC. Nearly seven million klicks is quite a nice range for an AMM, not necessarily useful since the ship will operate as part of a task group. Magazine is definitely on the small side, that amount of missiles can be easily expended in just a single engagement. Against even a handful of NPR missile-armed PDCs, you'd need at least five of these ships if not even more.

But all in all, it's not a bad design by any means. As you wrote, combine this with several sister ships, PD ships, and a tanker, and you'd have a pretty effective defensive group.
 

Offline Lord Defecator

  • Able Ordinary Rate
  • L
  • Posts: 3
Re: Please rate Wally the Warship
« Reply #2 on: November 08, 2018, 12:57:06 PM »
I didn't use the missile designer, but having just used it now, the best it gives me for my current tech is:-

Quote
Size 1 AMM 2  Speed: 25,400 km/s   End: 0. 5m    Range: 0. 8m km   WH: 1    Size: 1    TH: 177/106/53

Compared to what I had before:-

Quote
Size 1 AMM  Speed: 24,000 km/s   End: 4. 7m    Range: 6. 8m km   WH: 1    Size: 1    TH: 176/105/52

So marginally better at the cost of range, although still within the engagement envelope against missiles from my sensors and fire controls.  If I go for the 175% engine boost the chance to hit goes up to 61. 9, so I might wait for that.
 

Offline davidb86

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • Posts: 78
  • Thanked: 4 times
Re: Please rate Wally the Warship
« Reply #3 on: November 08, 2018, 02:47:56 PM »
I prefer the longer AMM range as it allows my frigates to be useful against beam armed fighters/FAC. As you noted researching higher levels of engine boost pays off big for missiles even if you don't use it for your ships.

I do agree that 10 reloads will go pretty fast unless you massively outclass your opponent.   
 

Offline misanthropope

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • m
  • Posts: 18
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: Please rate Wally the Warship
« Reply #4 on: November 08, 2018, 10:42:45 PM »
id say give up half the launchers and go to one long range fire control and 4 shorter range ones, use the rest of the space liberated for more magazines.  maybe you can give up some engineering spaces, i wonder about your engine/ fuel setup but its too much work to reverse engineer the components.  i find that faster designs (faster than 30% of engine nominal speed) usually have kind of a sweet spot around 125% engine power. 

not having 1.75 engine multiple is IMO a significant oops, but you can research that while the ships are building.    that missile design seems not bad as a compromise between spam ASM and stopgap AMM. if you don't have a lot of missile factories i wouldnt feel bad cranking out some while i wait on my engine tech.

7/10, i'd kill BEMs with it.
 

Offline Lord Defecator

  • Able Ordinary Rate
  • L
  • Posts: 3
Re: Please rate Wally the Warship
« Reply #5 on: November 09, 2018, 11:17:30 AM »
These aren't being built atm, they aren't even in my actual playthrough.   I've simply spacemastered the same techs on a separate save to test things out so I'm not wasting time researching components that might not be used.   I'm waiting on 1.  75 boost, the ship's engines are currently 1.  5, are you suggesting lowering this for better fuel economy?

I'm not particularly concerned with using this for ASM spam, I'd prefer to keep it dedicated to AMM.   I'd need a completely separate size 1 missile for that to match the range of my larger ASM missiles and it would also mean splitting the magazine between two missile designs for this ship which I'd prefer not to.  You've given me something to think about though, I think I'll make a separate ship for ASM spam. 

I really need to get the rest of my battle group designed to have a better idea of capabilities and such.   I'll get back to youz when it's done. 

 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 975
  • Thanked: 69 times
Re: Please rate Wally the Warship
« Reply #6 on: November 09, 2018, 12:26:33 PM »
I use Excel to track my battle group composition and what components are required. That way all ships in the BG are synergistic with each other, there are no overlap (except for necessary redundancy) and I won't run into an issue where a single component is missing.

Basically it goes with ship classes like:
PD escort
AMM escort
beam slugger
missile thrower
sensor scout
jump tanker

These are all put on the same row and then each gets its own column, where I put in the components that the class needs, like:
engine
missile spotter
ship spotter
BFC
MFC res 1
MFC res 100
passives
jump engine
spinal laser
normal laser
gauss turret
power plant
S1 launcher
S8 launcher
S8 box launcher
magazine


On the same sheet I record some general guidelines, like BG overall speed at least 2500 kms and deployment time 24 months or whatever is required at that stage, as well as the number of each class per a BG. Then I just change the colour of the cells as I develop the components. This allows me to see at a glance what is still required to be researched, even if I take a break of few weeks from the game, and ensures that nothing is forgotten.

I think that this is the best method IF you are building specialised ships that form a composite Battle Group. On the other hand, if you're building just one or two general use classes, then this is unnecessary and overkill.
 

Offline Michael Sandy

  • Captain
  • **********
  • M
  • Posts: 563
  • Thanked: 24 times
Re: Please rate Wally the Warship
« Reply #7 on: November 09, 2018, 01:21:41 PM »
The endurance looks about right.  Early conflicts are usually within about 10 billion km, as you don't have the ability to economically exploit victories beyond that range for a while.  More than enough MSP to fix some battle damage (x2 max repair)

I am concerned that you might have a Very Large Fuel Tank.  One military ships, I never go bigger than Large, because I don't want the ship mission killed by shock damage taking out the fuel tank.

I don't like relying on AMMs for primary anti-missile defense, especially early in the game.

One thing I would suggest is to develop Sand Blaster missiles as alternate loadout.  Sand Blasters are 1 MSP missiles with short range but only enough accuracy to engage ships, having larger warheads.  They are effective at penetrating point defense, and allow you to do antiship damage more efficiently than just using AMMs.

The only serious flaw is the magazine space.  I suggest that for AMM ships, put twice the HS into magazines that you do into launchers.  Maybe more.  Which touches on the main problem I have with AMMs for primary anti-missile defense: logistics.  It is really easy to spend hundreds or thousands of BP on AMM and use them in a single battle, forcing you to wait and wait to rebuild stocks.  AMMs are great vs reduced launcher size volleys, in my opinion, but the AI tends to go with faster firing ships with HUGE magazines that would simply drain your AMMs even if you win.
 

Offline Michael Sandy

  • Captain
  • **********
  • M
  • Posts: 563
  • Thanked: 24 times
Re: Please rate Wally the Warship
« Reply #8 on: November 09, 2018, 01:27:47 PM »
Rule of thumb, you should have +75% power in Ion era, and +100% in Magneto Plasma.  But the ship engines are fine, in my opinion. 5,000+ km/s is decent for fleet speed in Magneto Plasma.  You will want your beam ships to be faster, like 10-12,000, but for the bulk core of your fleet, including point defense, 5,000 is pretty decent.

You can probably get a commercial engined jump tender to 5,000 at Magnetic Plasma, if it is 65% of HS in engine.  Having commercial jump tenders saves you the anxiety of your jump engine having a maintenance failure.

 

Offline misanthropope

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • m
  • Posts: 18
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: Please rate Wally the Warship
« Reply #9 on: November 09, 2018, 08:55:15 PM »
30 hull spaces of engines and 20 of fuel tanks definitely means you're building your engines too hot.  my quick button mashing (which therefore is none too dependable...) suggests that engines of the same power at 1.25 power cost you six hull spaces for the engine and save you 7.5 on the tank.  more importantly cutting your fuel use by 40% means 40% less fuel production and transportation crap you have to build and manage.

i disagree with michael sandy on one point:  while there's a very real limit on how far you can fling colonies and automines (if you're even into those...), anywhere that has a big population you can enslave is worth pretty much whatever effort it takes to get boots on the faces.  er, ground.  being deterred from knocking over someone's homeworld by the cost of driving there to do it is an awful, horrible, *avoidable* limitation to your growth.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 852
  • Thanked: 15 times
Re: Please rate Wally the Warship
« Reply #10 on: November 10, 2018, 06:26:30 AM »
When it comes to engines I have mainly begun looking allot on the general use of fuel for different types of ships. In general I want my capital ships to burn roughly 40-60% fuel while I'm fine with smaller patrol ships to burn around 80-120% fuel which give them more leeway to be rather fast.

As technology increase I can build my engines with a higher power multiplier to either make them faster of use less engines and more mission tonnage.

I have found that having the capital ships at around 40-60% fuel efficiency seem pretty good from an economical perspective but you might find upgrading ship to start getting expensive if you change the size of engines too much, it is a fine line to walk.

You have to decide between saving fuel, speed and mission tonnage... you can't get everything.
 

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54