Gauss turret PD vs 10cm Rail - Dispelling common myths with math

[Jorgen_CAB]

I don't think the game 'assigned' 2 guns in the first place. I think the engagement goes by the FC picking one (the largest) salvo, pick a gun and do the interception. If a salvo is not completely destroyed, pick a 2nd gun and fire, until the salvo is destroyed. At that point, pick the next salvo, and pick the next gun to repeat the above.

So for non 100% accuracies, larger turrets always have higher 'expected hits' than smaller ones, thus having larger granularity in the process, thus potentially wasting more shots than smaller turrets.

This is how I suspect that it works too so depending on the environment you might be better of with smaller turrets. But if you repeatedly get attacked with 50+ salvos then larger turrets might still be better as there are some wight savings and with armour also make the ship more difficult to destroy... but in general smaller turrets is better due to how salvos and engagements work... which is kind of sad. 

Large turrets for anti-ship work with several guns are pretty good though.

I'm going to test how the game assign the turrets for fun...

***Edit***
Sorry... did not see you already did the test... I got the same results obviously.

It is a bit sad as the smaller the turret the better the performance despite weight savings.

Smaller turrets don't save weight though (not counting crew/engineering and such) I think? You need more smaller turrets to have the same average, the tonnage of the guns/turrets are the same for the same theoretical shot down. Smaller turrets are more flexible though since they are small

Kinda curious how MSP plays a role in this due to weapon failure. Do the smaller turrets take 1/6 of the MSP to repair?

seems to be proportional

They save weight on ships in other more indirect ways such as you need less engineering sections to get a higher average maintenance life expectancy if you use a cheaper component that does the same thing as a bigger more expensive component.

Two examples...

Code: [Select]

Leeuhof class Frigate      10 000 tons       269 Crew       1 634.8 BP       TCS 200    TH 250    EM 0
1250 km/s      Armour 4-41       Shields 0-0       HTK 54      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 4      PPV 142.8
Maint Life 2.10 Years     MSP 408    AFR 200%    IFR 2.8%    1YR 124    5YR 1 857    Max Repair 125.00 MSP
Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Morale Check Required   

Ion Drive  EP250.00 (1)    Power 250.0    Fuel Use 49.50%    Signature 250.00    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 93 000 Litres    Range 3.4 billion km (31 days at full power)

Single Gauss Cannon R400-100 Turret (17x4)    Range 40 000km     TS: 20000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 40 000 km    ROF 5       
Beam Fire Control R80-TS20000 (2)     Max Range: 80 000 km   TS: 20 000 km/s     88 75 62 50 38 25 12 0 0 0

Active Search Sensor AS5-R1 (1)     GPS 20     Range 5.6m km    MCR 614.4k km    Resolution 1

Code: [Select]

Leeuhof - Copy class Frigate      9 754 tons       259 Crew       1 593.6 BP       TCS 195    TH 250    EM 0
1281 km/s      Armour 4-40       Shields 0-0       HTK 118      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 2      PPV 140.0
Maint Life 2.13 Years     MSP 250    AFR 311%    IFR 4.3%    1YR 74    5YR 1 109    Max Repair 125.00 MSP
Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Morale Check Required   

Ion Drive  EP250.00 (1)    Power 250.0    Fuel Use 49.50%    Signature 250.00    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 93 000 Litres    Range 3.5 billion km (31 days at full power)

Single Gauss Cannon R400-17.00 Turret (100x4)    Range 40 000km     TS: 20000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 40 000 km    ROF 5       
Beam Fire Control R80-TS20000 (2)     Max Range: 80 000 km   TS: 20 000 km/s     88 75 62 50 38 25 12 0 0 0

Active Search Sensor AS5-R1 (1)     GPS 20     Range 5.6m km    MCR 614.4k km    Resolution 1

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
These are not real ships... just for quick demonstration with what I had in my test environment...

[Father Tim]

Pedroig, Smoelf:

You mean shots.  Gauss ROF is always 5 (seconds).

"Gauss (1x6) ROF 5" is ONE gauss cannon that fires SIX shots every FIVE second interval.

Yes, I know. I was referring to the 'Gauss Cannon Rate of Fire' tech line. I simply shortened it to ROF because that's how the game refers to it.

My point is that it is not how the game refers to it, and that Aurora uses "ROF" to mean something else.  There was an entire thread a month ago based on this very misunderstanding.

[skoormit]

Pedroig, Smoelf:

You mean shots.  Gauss ROF is always 5 (seconds).

"Gauss (1x6) ROF 5" is ONE gauss cannon that fires SIX shots every FIVE second interval.

Yes, I know. I was referring to the 'Gauss Cannon Rate of Fire' tech line. I simply shortened it to ROF because that's how the game refers to it.

My point is that it is not how the game refers to it, and that Aurora uses "ROF" to mean something else.  There was an entire thread a month ago based on this very misunderstanding.

"Rate of Fire" is exactly how the game refers to the tech line.

"Gauss Cannon Rate of Fire 2"
"Gauss Cannon Rate of Fire 3"
"Gauss Cannon Rate of Fire 4"
etc.

This is the name of the tech line. This is what they are talking about. They are abbreviating that as ROF

[Father Tim]

"Rate of Fire" is exactly how the game refers to the tech line.

Yes.

"Gauss Cannon Rate of Fire 2"

Yes.

"Gauss Cannon Rate of Fire 3"

Yes.

"Gauss Cannon Rate of Fire 4"
etc.

Yes.

This is the name of the tech line.

Yes.

This is what they are talking about.

Yes.

They are abbreviating that as ROF

And this is the part that's wrong, because that abbreviation is already used by Aurora to mean something else.

We have enough trouble with MSP and MSP; we don't need to add to it.

[Energyz]

Gauss shoot every 5 seconds no matter what, it's obvious that ROF mean how many shot are fired in 5 sec in that context. You're the only one who misunderstood that, and I'm probably sure you did understand very well what was described but you chose to fight for semantics just for the sake of it.

[Pedroig]

ROF  is ROF, rate of fire, BY DEFINITION means number of shots/rounds over a set of time.  Since gauss ALWAYS uses 5 seconds as the time interval ROF means shots/rounds per 5 seconds.  The fact that it is used wrongly in parts of the game makes no difference.

A musket or a howitzer has a ROF of 3 rounds per minute.
A Machine Gun has a ROF of 300 rounds per minute
A MLRS has a ROF of 1 round per 10 seconds
A SCUD has a ROF of 1 round per 8 hours.

A weapon which can fire 4 shots in 5 seconds has a ROF of 4 per 5 seconds
A weapon which can fire 1 shot every 15 seconds has a ROF of 1/3 per 5 seconds

[Father Tim]

Aurora already uses "ROF" to mean the number of seconds until a weapon can fire again. . . whether it fires single shots or bursts.  It's right there in the summary line of every weapon in the game and has already caused confusion for new players when they see, for example, CIWS firing the 'wrong' number of shots.

It is not a good idea to increase that confusion by using an established game term to mean something else.

[Pedroig]

The "established game term" needs to be changed to match up to basic English definition.  ROF is rate of fire.  Recharge is the mechanic which the game is incorrectly labeling ROF.  Keeping something because it is "Established" is asinine.  It should be corrected to abide by simple English rules/definition, which for international players is tricky enough with all its exceptions to the rules.  "We've always done it that way" is as poor of an excuse as "Just following orders" for doing something wrong.

[Kurt]

OMG!  At times this entire thread gives me flashbacks to the great statistics debate on the old Starfire mailing list. 

Although you guys seem to have avoided becoming as toxic as that one did, I'll give you that. 

Kurt

[Jorgen_CAB]

OMG!  At times this entire thread gives me flashbacks to the great statistics debate on the old Starfire mailing list. 

Although you guys seem to have avoided becoming as toxic as that one did, I'll give you that. 

Kurt

To be honest there were some pretty good discussion and evaluations and conclusions from this thread... discussions is healthy as long as you can change your view in the face of new evidence. 

I know that people often become entrenched in a certain view and then it become personal to be right for the sake of being right, that happen from time to time.