Author Topic: Meson Frigate  (Read 516 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Resident Evil

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • R
  • Posts: 84
  • Thanked: 5 times
Meson Frigate
« on: May 11, 2019, 10:58:00 PM »
I've always preferred missiles - but in my latest game, with Earth under continual assault for the last 5 years (currently 20 years into the game), I just can't build enough missiles and have come to see the value of meson PD (re my other post for the Meson PDC).

So with that, I have come up with this design for a meson frigate. It uses the same tech as the PDC, so with the same mismatch between the fire control and turret tracking - but with the caveat that the turret has the best tracking I can build, so it will be a simple matter to upgrade the fire control when the tech is available.

So without further ado, here it is.

Code: [Select]
Thea (E) class Point Defence Frigate    12,000 tons     362 Crew     1742.4 BP      TCS 240  TH 720  EM 0
3000 km/s     Armour 5-46     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 17     PPV 53.1
Maint Life 11.99 Years     MSP 1543    AFR 67%    IFR 0.9%    1YR 20    5YR 297    Max Repair 84 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 30 months    Spare Berths 1   

Evans-Jarvis 120 EP Ion Drive (Px1.0/F0.8/100%) (6)    Power 120    Fuel Use 72%    Signature 120    Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 1,450,000 Litres    Range 30.2 billion km   (116 days at full power)

Twin Gibbs Dynamics R3/C3 Meson Cannon Turret (6x2)    Range 30,000km     TS: 20000 km/s     Power 6-6     RM 3    ROF 5        1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mckenzie Fire Control S02 24-12000 (3)    Max Range: 48,000 km   TS: 12000 km/s     79 58 38 17 0 0 0 0 0 0
Andrews Power Gas-Cooled Reactor PB-1 (0.7/3.15) (12)     Total Power Output 37.8    Armour 0    Exp 5%

Lord Electronics ASS 4.0 MR5-R1 MCR 0.54 (a21/e6/100) (1)     GPS 84     Range 5.0m km    MCR 549k km    Resolution 1

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

I chose 6 turrets rather than 4 with additional engines because it is 500km/s faster than the hostiles as is - so I chose the extra fire-power instead of more speed. I am hoping groups of 5 or 6 of these together should be able to cope with the missile spam to close and destroy the baddies.

Anything obviously wrong with it that I've missed. I know the engines a thirsty - I don't have the luxury of time to research the tech yet - I've got to get them fielded with the tech I've got.

Anyway, there you have it.

RE
 

Offline Michael Sandy

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • M
  • Posts: 643
  • Thanked: 44 times
Re: Meson Frigate
« Reply #1 on: May 11, 2019, 11:19:15 PM »
Normally, I advise people to use engine power boost tech on beam ships.  Especially if most of your fighting it really close to base, you don't need billions of km of range.

But I suppose if you are faster than the enemy ships anyway, I guess you don't really need it.  It would be nice to be able to close to your energy range a little faster, if the enemy has longer ranged beams and attempts to kite.  But the AI is very poor at kiting.

A reference point: 40% of ship HS in engines, with +75% power boost yields about 8,400 km/s.  A speed at which you could dispense with turrets, and possibly just build meson fighters.

If you are in a rush to build defenders, you are much better off going with a 1,000 ton shipyard with multiple slipways, especially at low tech levels, because you can retool a small shipyard MUCH faster than a large one.
 

Offline Resident Evil

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • R
  • Posts: 84
  • Thanked: 5 times
Re: Meson Frigate
« Reply #2 on: May 11, 2019, 11:48:38 PM »
Thinking about it - you are absolutely right; I should have gone faster with less turrets. As it stands I can only close the range at 2,500km per 5 second interval.

Unfortunately at the moment I have so many problems, that researching new engines falls down the list. I would even struggle to build and expand a 100 ton shipyard atm.

I have a fuel crisis, a duranium shortage, have mined all the gallicite from earth, had several shipyards shot up and lost about 6 slipways; oh, and the Earths atmosphere glows slightly  ::)

My focus atm is building a squad of 500 ton missile satellites to put on the jump gate to try and stem the flood - but that's taking time to put together. So much research is critical atm that I can't research boosted engines so I'll have to live with this design. On a positive not, the npr seems mainly to use missiles, and one he empties his magazines at Earth I am usually able to destroy them in turn.

I'll bear your suggestions in mind - I have never tried putting a beam fleet together before -but I'm beginning to see the advantages of them (not having to build goddam missiles grrr)

Thanks

RE
 

Offline Michael Sandy

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • M
  • Posts: 643
  • Thanked: 44 times
Re: Meson Frigate
« Reply #3 on: May 12, 2019, 05:41:45 AM »
Definitely get a salvage module so you can start mining the gallicite rich wrecks around. ;)
 

Offline Neophyte

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • N
  • Posts: 19
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: Meson Frigate
« Reply #4 on: May 12, 2019, 07:18:21 AM »
If it's a crash/emergency design then why such a long deployment time and so many engineering spaces?  Taking the maintenance and deployment time down to a few months each ought to be enough to protect the solar system and maybe shuttle out to base at some nearby colonies. 

Same with the fuel tanks, 30b is a little long legged to me if you just need to have them for system protection vs. cruising around on a five year mission exploring strange new worlds etc etc.

You might not save a huge amount of tonnage or minerals by knocking these things down, but if you're in a time and TN squeeze every bit helps, and they would be a bit faster too.  Or maybe you could get in another layer of armor if the tonnage goes down enough.
 
The following users thanked this post: Resident Evil

Offline Resident Evil

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • R
  • Posts: 84
  • Thanked: 5 times
Re: Meson Frigate
« Reply #5 on: May 12, 2019, 07:49:12 PM »
If it's a crash/emergency design then why such a long deployment time and so many engineering spaces?  Taking the maintenance and deployment time down to a few months each ought to be enough to protect the solar system and maybe shuttle out to base at some nearby colonies. 

Same with the fuel tanks, 30b is a little long legged to me if you just need to have them for system protection vs. cruising around on a five year mission exploring strange new worlds etc etc.

You might not save a huge amount of tonnage or minerals by knocking these things down, but if you're in a time and TN squeeze every bit helps, and they would be a bit faster too.  Or maybe you could get in another layer of armor if the tonnage goes down enough.


Hmmm...

I've taken a look at your suggestions. I know what you're saying, but trimming the design right back to a much smaller and less capable ship leaves me needing 900BP and 1.1 years to build, as opposed to these at approx 1400BP and 1.4 years to build, so I'd have to invest substantially more for the same capabilities I think. Though I could get them out slightly quicker, I think it's a false saving.

I wasn't clear, these are really intended to provide a PD capability to go along with my already operational missile frigates, to enable them to close the range and weather the hail of hostile missiles to actually be able to engage them. At the moment I can't take the fight to them at all. Their missiles out-range me substantially, and their ships are far bigger than mine; so this is looking for a longer term solution to be able to fight back. At the moment I have a small safe zone around Earth from it's meson bases and anti-missile PDC's - but I can't venture outside that zone without dying horribly.

btw They've just slagged their own colony, which I conquered, on Mars.

RE

edit : Btw - I am actually quite enjoying the challenge this game is providing. Other games I've abandoned out of sheer boredom of not been able to find any hostiles to have a war with  ;D
« Last Edit: May 12, 2019, 07:50:46 PM by Resident Evil »
 
The following users thanked this post: Neophyte

Offline Iranon

  • Captain
  • **********
  • I
  • Posts: 576
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: Meson Frigate
« Reply #6 on: May 14, 2019, 04:56:00 AM »
Propulsion:

1.0 power always feels wrong to me. Go above and costs/manpower required scale linearly (1.2 is 1.2 times as expensive). Go below and costs scale quadratically (0.8 is 0.64 times as expensive).

Larger engines are more economical.
For a fixed engine size, a 5:2 split between engines and fuel is the most weight-efficient. You usually want to err on the side of more (and less stressed if you don't need more speed) engines and less fuel, unless your vessel is intended to routinely refuel others.

Mesons are dirt cheap, but among the weakest weapons per ton. As such, they are a good match for slow ships - at faster speeds, moving bulk is expensive and the cost of the weapons is less relevant. Dilemma: turret gear and sophisticated fire controls are expensive. If you're going for cheap, you may prefer to go all the way - commercial engines, no turrets, no armour since that's more expensive than cheap components per HtK, simply build more ships.
However, for point defence on a budget, it's hard to beat 10cm low-velocity railguns.

If speed is not a major consideration but PD capability is, a good alternative to turrets is deeper research into BFC tracking speed than other military techs. For unturreted weapons, tracking speed is capped at the higher of ship speed and standard BFC speed. Similar to the power multiplier issue, sticking to "the defaults" is subtly discouraged - with 3000km/s base tracking speed, you could go faster and enjoy better TS without turrets, but you aren't penalised for going slower. Same ship speed as the base BFC speed feels wrong.
 

Offline DeMatt

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • D
  • Posts: 9
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: Meson Frigate
« Reply #7 on: May 16, 2019, 01:21:13 AM »
Quote from: Resident Evil link=topic=10395. msg114442#msg114442 date=1557708552
Quote from: Neophyte link=topic=10395. msg114429#msg114429 date=1557663501
If it's a crash/emergency design then why such a long deployment time and so many engineering spaces?  Taking the maintenance and deployment time down to a few months each ought to be enough to protect the solar system and maybe shuttle out to base at some nearby colonies.   

Same with the fuel tanks, 30b is a little long legged to me if you just need to have them for system protection vs.  cruising around on a five year mission exploring strange new worlds etc etc.

You might not save a huge amount of tonnage or minerals by knocking these things down, but if you're in a time and TN squeeze every bit helps, and they would be a bit faster too.   Or maybe you could get in another layer of armor if the tonnage goes down enough.


Hmmm. . .

I've taken a look at your suggestions.  I know what you're saying, but trimming the design right back to a much smaller and less capable ship leaves me needing 900BP and 1. 1 years to build, as opposed to these at approx 1400BP and 1. 4 years to build, so I'd have to invest substantially more for the same capabilities I think.  Though I could get them out slightly quicker, I think it's a false saving.

I wasn't clear, these are really intended to provide a PD capability to go along with my already operational missile frigates, to enable them to close the range and weather the hail of hostile missiles to actually be able to engage them.  At the moment I can't take the fight to them at all.  Their missiles out-range me substantially, and their ships are far bigger than mine; so this is looking for a longer term solution to be able to fight back.  At the moment I have a small safe zone around Earth from it's meson bases and anti-missile PDC's - but I can't venture outside that zone without dying horribly. 
I agree with Neophyte - the 12kt Thea is way overbuilt on the logistics side.

Trim off Engineering Spaces, Crew Spaces (why did you bother adding that last Crew Space/Fighter?  One spare berth isn't enough to rescue anything), Fuel, and an Engine, and you can get this:
Code: [Select]
Thea (E) Modified class Frigate    10 000 tons     297 Crew     1400 BP      TCS 200  TH 600  EM 0
3000 km/s     Armour 5-41     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 6     PPV 53.1
Maint Life 4.53 Years     MSP 525    AFR 133%    IFR 1.9%    1YR 41    5YR 622    Max Repair 84 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Spare Berths 8   

Evans-Jarvis 120 EP Ion Drive (5)    Power 120    Fuel Use 72%    Signature 120    Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 1 150 000 Litres    Range 28.8 billion km   (110 days at full power)

Twin Gibbs Dynamics R3/C3 Meson Cannon Turret (4k) (6x2)    Range 30 000km     TS: 20000 km/s     Power 6-6     RM 3    ROF 5        1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mckenzie Fire Control S02 24-12000 (3)    Max Range: 48 000 km   TS: 12000 km/s     79 58 38 17 0 0 0 0 0 0
Andrews Power Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor Technology PB-1 (12)     Total Power Output 37.8    Armour 0    Exp 5%

Lord Electronics Active Search Sensor MR5-R1 (1)     GPS 84     Range 5.0m km    MCR 549k km    Resolution 1

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
Same guns, same speed, almost the same range, still plenty of endurance in both Engineering and Crew, and one-sixth smaller and cheaper.   If you really want the Damage Control Rating restored, then I'd swap fuel out for a DC component.
 

Offline Iranon

  • Captain
  • **********
  • I
  • Posts: 576
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: Meson Frigate
« Reply #8 on: May 16, 2019, 05:57:52 AM »
Counterpoint: Overbuilding for a long maintenance life is somewhat reasonable. Some of my ships are expected to see no overhauls ever - they'll be obsolescent by the time the end of their maintenance life approaches, and will be mothballed or treated as expendable in a time of crisis.
It also facilitates field repairs and reduces ongoing costs while underway (while increasing upfront costs and ongoing costs while actively maintained).
 

Offline Resident Evil

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • R
  • Posts: 84
  • Thanked: 5 times
Re: Meson Frigate
« Reply #9 on: May 16, 2019, 10:39:16 AM »
It's interesting how we approach things, and what we bring of ourselves to the game.

In comparison to your design, all my ships are over-engineered masterpieces of reliability. I personally find a quoted AFR of over 100% to be abhorrent, and the designs I come up with in the AFR 60-70% range are tolerable, but still high in my mind.

Would it surprise you to learn I worked as a Nuclear Safety Engineer. I expect an aircraft designer would approach reliability in much the same way I do  8)

I will have to try and curb my enthusiasm for Engineering space of my ships.

RE
 

Offline Resident Evil

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • R
  • Posts: 84
  • Thanked: 5 times
Re: Meson Frigate
« Reply #10 on: May 16, 2019, 10:40:16 AM »
It's interesting how we approach things, and what we bring of ourselves to the game.

In comparison to your design, all my ships are over-engineered masterpieces of reliability. I personally find a quoted AFR of over 100% to be abhorrent, and the designs I come up with in the AFR 60-70% range are tolerable, but still high in my mind.

Would it surprise you to learn I worked as a Nuclear Safety Engineer. I expect an aircraft designer would approach reliability in much the same way I do  8)

I will have to try and curb my enthusiasm for Engineering spaces in my ships.

RE
 

Offline DeMatt

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • D
  • Posts: 9
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: Meson Frigate
« Reply #11 on: May 16, 2019, 08:12:15 PM »
Quote from: Resident Evil link=topic=10395. msg114507#msg114507 date=1558021156
It's interesting how we approach things, and what we bring of ourselves to the game.

In comparison to your design, all my ships are over-engineered masterpieces of reliability.  I personally find a quoted AFR of over 100% to be abhorrent, and the designs I come up with in the AFR 60-70% range are tolerable, but still high in my mind.

Would it surprise you to learn I worked as a Nuclear Safety Engineer.  I expect an aircraft designer would approach reliability in much the same way I do  8)

I will have to try and curb my enthusiasm for Engineering space of my ships.

RE
Well, the way I see it, AFR as a statistic pulls double duty, both as the cost of regular maintenance ("disassemble the turbine so we can fluoroscope it"), and as the cause of newsworthy maintenance failures ("er, the turbine took care of the disassembly by itself. . . ").   So a >100% AFR is not, in and of itself, bad - so long as the ship carries enough MSP to fix the inevitable.   Thus, I prefer to use Maintenance Life as a guideline.

An important point of consideration:  the Thea has a fuel endurance of 4 months.   How much time is a Thea expected to idle somewhere that doesn't have maintenance facilities?

As to keeping AFR under 100%. . .  unfortunately, larger ships have a greater AFR purely because they have more systems to keep operational.   Try this experiment:  start a new design, add just one of those Andrews power plants (to make it officially a Military ship), and then start adding Engineering Spaces.   Eventually, you'll hit an AFR of 100% even though the "ship" is basically all maintenance shops.
 

 

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 55