Author Topic: Ion tech cruisers  (Read 621 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline bankshot

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • b
  • Posts: 24
Re: Ion tech cruisers
« Reply #15 on: June 12, 2019, 04:01:47 PM »
This is my first play-through, and I did it per the tutorial PDF - so I have one NPR empire with precursors and star swarm turned on but invaders turned off.  I would guess my most likely encounter upon exploring a new system is with precursors so I want to make sure my fleet will be able to handle those.   
 

Offline Jovus

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • J
  • Posts: 146
  • Thanked: 45 times
Re: Ion tech cruisers
« Reply #16 on: June 13, 2019, 09:47:10 AM »
This is my first play-through

These are very competent first-ever designs. Well done.
 
The following users thanked this post: bankshot

Offline Titanian

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • T
  • Posts: 92
  • Thanked: 19 times
Re: Ion tech cruisers
« Reply #17 on: June 13, 2019, 06:46:03 PM »
Quote
Regarding AMM fire controls - for small salvos I assumed I could split my launchers and launch 16 missiles against 2 salvos every 5 seconds.  Would that involve too much micromanagement to be worthwhile?
It is doable but it's a PITA and few people are willing to do it more than once.
Why micromanage the reassignment of the launchers? As long as you don't care that the AMM salvoes all have the same size, you don't need to. The FC will find a use for any ready launchers it controls on it's own.

Why are so many people against size 4 missiles? I often go for size 2 or 3, as when all missiles get shot down by PD, larger warheads are of no use. One of the PD ships here can already shoot down the whole salvo the missile ship can launch, and including the cost of the missiles, the PD ship is probably only little more expensive. Go up to size 6 missiles, and now having enough PD ships is cheaper than having the missile ships they can defend against. Although NPRs are notoriously bad at PD, so you would probably get away with it here.

This is my first play-through
These are very competent first-ever designs. Well done.
Indeed.
 
The following users thanked this post: bankshot

Offline Father Tim

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1118
  • Thanked: 111 times
Re: Ion tech cruisers
« Reply #18 on: June 13, 2019, 08:03:33 PM »
I'll admit, my standard tactic is to use heavily-armoured PD (beam) ships that are cheaper to build than the missiles needed to destroy them.
 
The following users thanked this post: bankshot

Offline Cavgunner

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 252
  • Thanked: 101 times
Re: Ion tech cruisers
« Reply #19 on: June 13, 2019, 10:14:16 PM »
I'll admit, my standard tactic is to use heavily-armoured PD (beam) ships that are cheaper to build than the missiles needed to destroy them.

Care to provide an example?
 
The following users thanked this post: bankshot

Offline Iranon

  • Captain
  • **********
  • I
  • Posts: 564
  • Thanked: 51 times
Re: Ion tech cruisers
« Reply #20 on: June 14, 2019, 12:19:39 AM »
Hope my barging in isn't unwelcome: I'm fond of a similar type, except the "heavily armoured" bit. Cheap systems are cheaper per HTK than armour, and do something useful. Example with limited self-defence armament/ballistic diplomacy devices, expecting technologically superior foes:

Code: [Select]
Your Mom class Recreational Ship    20 000 tons     367 Crew     705 BP      TCS 400  TH 800  EM 0
2000 km/s     Armour 2-65     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 5     PPV 105
Maint Life 4.84 Years     MSP 1110    AFR 640%    IFR 8.9%    1YR 78    5YR 1174    Max Repair 21 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months    Spare Berths 1   
Magazine 100   

160 EP Commercial Magneto-plasma Drive (5)    Power 160    Fuel Use 0.54%    Signature 160    Exp 2%
Fuel Capacity 15 000 Litres    Range 25.0 billion km   (144 days at full power)

10cm Railgun V1/C1 (30x4)    Range 10 000km     TS: 4000 km/s     Power 3-1     RM 1    ROF 15        1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fire Control S00.2 16-4000 (2)    Max Range: 32 000 km   TS: 4000 km/s     69 37 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Stellarator Fusion Reactor Technology PB-1 (10)     Total Power Output 30    Armour 0    Exp 5%

Size 20 Box Launcher (5)    Missile Size 20    Hangar Reload 150 minutes    MF Reload 25 hours
Missile Fire Control FC3-R20 (4)     Range 3.1m km    Resolution 20
Missile Fire Control FC20-R100 (1)     Range 20.8m km    Resolution 100
Size 20 Anti-ship Missile (5)  Speed: 32 000 km/s   End: 7m    Range: 13.5m km   WH: 36    Size: 20    TH: 202/121/60

Active Search Sensor MR2-R1 (1)     GPS 21     Range 2.3m km    MCR 252k 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
« Last Edit: June 14, 2019, 12:21:49 AM by Iranon »
 
The following users thanked this post: Jovus, bankshot

Offline Father Tim

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1118
  • Thanked: 111 times
Re: Ion tech cruisers
« Reply #21 on: June 14, 2019, 09:06:22 AM »
Care to provide an example?

I can't get VB6 Aurora to work on my current laptop, so no actual design, but the basics are one or two large, reduced-power (sometimes commercial) engines, two to four basic fire controls, and a whole lot of reduced-size (the smallest that still have 1 HTK) Gauss Cannon (unturreted) and thick armour.  Six to eight layers, or fifteen layers, or more.  It varies widely based on armour tech.

At some tech levels it takes three or five or six of them working together to be "cheaper to build than the missiles needed to destroy them."  And, of course, it is possible to build cheap(er) missiles as a counter.
 
The following users thanked this post: bankshot

Offline Jovus

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • J
  • Posts: 146
  • Thanked: 45 times
Re: Ion tech cruisers
« Reply #22 on: June 14, 2019, 10:41:15 AM »
Hope my barging in isn't unwelcome: I'm fond of a similar type, except the "heavily armoured" bit. Cheap systems are cheaper per HTK than armour, and do something useful. Example with limited self-defence armament/ballistic diplomacy devices, expecting technologically superior foes:

I've been looking for your Just Shoot Me barge forever. Thanks for this.
 
The following users thanked this post: bankshot

Offline Iranon

  • Captain
  • **********
  • I
  • Posts: 564
  • Thanked: 51 times
Re: Ion tech cruisers
« Reply #23 on: June 14, 2019, 01:47:23 PM »
Ah, that would have been a purer example:

Code: [Select]
Just Shoot Me class Corvette    10 800 tons     321 Crew     481.8 BP      TCS     216  TH 480  EM 0
2222 km/s     Armour 1-43     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 3     PPV 81
Maint Life 1.04 Years     MSP 84    AFR 311%    IFR 4.3%    1YR 78    5YR 1166    Max Repair 48 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 11 months    Spare Berths 0   

240 EP Commercial Ion Drive (2)    Power 240    Fuel Use 4.05%    Signature 240    Exp 4%
Fuel Capacity 100 000 Litres    Range 41.1 billion km   (214 days at full power)

10cm Railgun V1/C1 (27x4)    Range 10 000km     TS: 4000 km/s     Power 3-1     RM 1    ROF 15        1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fire Control S00.7 24-4000 (2)    Max Range: 48 000 km   TS: 4000 km/s     79 58 38 17 0 0 0 0 0 0
Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor Technology PB-1 (6)     Total Power Output 27    Armour 0    Exp 5%

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

These pretty much build themselves. About 50% commercial engines, lots of base-tech railguns. Optional: anti-ship armament, Maintenance Storage Bay (because engineering bays add little MSP with such cheap systems), anti-missile sensor if you don't want a dedicated leader, second layer of armour. Weird tech priority: BFC tracking speed.
 
The following users thanked this post: bankshot

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1193
  • Thanked: 121 times
Re: Ion tech cruisers
« Reply #24 on: June 15, 2019, 05:16:13 AM »
Why micromanage the reassignment of the launchers?
Because he is using reduced size launchers so the reload rate is slow. The point is that in case of large salvos, he can utilize buttload of launchers to wipe them out and in case of multiple small salvos, he can micromanage them to get AMM launches every 5 seconds.

Why are so many people against size 4 missiles?
Because it is difficult to combine long range, powerful warhead, sufficient agility, and fast speed in a small missile, especially early game. Yes, your point about PD is valid, but it isn't the only concern. Especially since bigger missiles can more easily devote space for armour and/or ECM.
 
The following users thanked this post: bankshot

Offline misanthropope

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • m
  • Posts: 42
  • Thanked: 14 times
Re: Ion tech cruisers
« Reply #25 on: June 15, 2019, 08:46:45 AM »
penetrating PD may not be the only concern, but it *is* the only absolute requirement. 

iranon's sponges are so slow you run into certain inefficiencies that don't present from looking at the design in the viewer:  the chance of losing a war while the damn things *float* over to the front is non-trivial, or you have to own multiple ships to guarantee getting one to the point of contact in a reasonable time frame.

clearly that concern doesnt just go away at some magical speed threshold, but while serbeardian sets the standard for "speed to the exclusion of cost effectiveness", i think iranon is operating in the other tail.
 
The following users thanked this post: bankshot

Offline Father Tim

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1118
  • Thanked: 111 times
Re: Ion tech cruisers
« Reply #26 on: June 15, 2019, 09:18:05 AM »
As someone who also operates at the 'slow' tail, it's not as much of a problem as you might think.  Really, there are only two speeds: faster than your opponent, and *not* faster than you opponent.  My usual experience is my empire discovering their ships are slower than the enemy, and falling back more-or-less effectively in defense as we rapidly build basically the same ships with extra engines strapped on.  Eventually we roll out ships that are faster than the enemy, and can go on the offensive.

And sometimes we 'win' simply by outlasting the enemy's missile stocks.  Virtually every ship we kill has empty magazines at the time.

(And, to be clear, none of our victories are bloodless.  In a *successful* war we expect to lose half our fleet.  It's not unusual to have 80% casualties in victory.)
 
The following users thanked this post: bankshot

Offline Jovus

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • J
  • Posts: 146
  • Thanked: 45 times
Re: Ion tech cruisers
« Reply #27 on: June 15, 2019, 09:40:35 AM »
(And, to be clear, none of our victories are bloodless.  In a *successful* war we expect to lose half our fleet.  It's not unusual to have 80% casualties in victory.)

This is a big difference. In a victorious campaign I expect to lose none of my ships (fighters don't count). As pointed out above my designs are a lot more fuel-heavy and probably BP-heavy than other designs here, but I wouldn't be surprised if over the length of a whole campaign I saved BP due to not losing ships.

We should figure out a way to test this. Something like two players with same production capacity and resources encountering the same enemy at the same time, and check how much is left at the end. Would be interesting.

Not that it much matters, since Aurora is flexible enough you can play how you want. Would just be cool
 
The following users thanked this post: bankshot

Offline Iranon

  • Captain
  • **********
  • I
  • Posts: 564
  • Thanked: 51 times
Re: Ion tech cruisers
« Reply #28 on: June 15, 2019, 10:10:39 AM »
Fleet speed: When I field such flak barges, I typically have separate fast and slow fleets. Slow ones are built to deal with any expected missile threat, deliver one solid punch outside beam range, maybe a little cleanup capability (e.g. nebula-conscious designs with microwaves or large low-tech lasers). Fast ones are designed around dominating the opposition by being both faster and longer-ranged, with modest self-defence capability in case I need to deploy them into a messy situation.

Trade-offs regarding availability become tricky especially once we view the whole lifetime. An obsolescent battlecruiser, once the pride of your navy, may languish in a hangar because it's not worth the upkeep costs... but when the need arises, it can support a modern fleet without slowing it down or run down enemy assets where you don't want to risk your current ships. Ships that were bottom of the barrel even when new may be cheap enough to operate indefinitely, for PPV and as  a first line of defence.



Small missiles: These mostly suffer from poor fuel efficiency. This is not normally a problem for quite some time, because I'm stingy with power multiplier and agility tech (the latter means I'll use relatively large engines for the missile size). It may be different if you're willing to splurge on techs that will mostly affect your missiles.
I definitely prefer volume over armoured missiles, however splitting them up into single-missile salvos is often the most effective way to overcome point defence. Preferences may depend greatly on details: I generally like size 7 or above box launchers, size 1 full-size launchers, and reduced-size launchers for those in between.
 
The following users thanked this post: bankshot

Offline Father Tim

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1118
  • Thanked: 111 times
Re: Ion tech cruisers
« Reply #29 on: June 15, 2019, 10:40:53 AM »

. . . I wouldn't be surprised if over the length of a whole campaign I saved BP due to not losing ships.

But how many BP do you spend on missiles?  I read the AARs posted here and sometimes see people firing off AMMs 5v1 against shipkillers that cost only 50% more than a single anti-missile.  If you have to expend two frigates' worth of minerals in order to not lose ships, are you really better off than someone who built the frigates and watched them blow up doing their job?
 
The following users thanked this post: Michael Sandy, bankshot

 

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