Author Topic: Railgun Battleship - enough MSP?  (Read 1208 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline CharonJr (OP)

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • C
  • Posts: 273
  • Thanked: 16 times
Railgun Battleship - enough MSP?
« on: May 18, 2020, 03:42:38 PM »
Hi,

this is the flagship of the Raummarine currently under design. Since this is the first shot at a pure railgun/beam design in C# I am wondering if the MSP is high enough for the expected repairs due to weapon fire.

The main purpose is to serve as a brawler and as missile defense (no Gauss due to RP reasons) and to try to draw enemy fire in order to enable less armored heavy hitters (Carronades - RP again ;) ) to get close to their targets more easily (after ASMs are dealt with).

Without turrets engaging missiles will not be easy, but the Bismarck should be able to soak AMMs and destroy at least some ASMs. Any other obvious weaknesses/enough MSP?

Code: [Select]
Bismarck class Battleship      72 000 tons       1 744 Crew       14 359.4 BP       TCS 1 440    TH 8 640    EM 27 480
6000 km/s      Armour 12-154       Shields 916-536       HTK 427      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 32      PPV 244
Maint Life 2.26 Years     MSP 4 788    AFR 1296%    IFR 18.0%    1YR 1 262    5YR 18 929    Max Repair 357 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 500 tons     
Kapitan zur See    Control Rating 5   BRG   AUX   ENG   CIC   FLG   
Intended Deployment Time: 24 months    Flight Crew Berths 40    Morale Check Required   

Daimler Magneto-plasma Drive  EP160.00 (54)    Power 8640    Fuel Use 70.0%    Signature 160    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 10 094 000 Litres    Range 36.1 billion km (69 days at full power)
Thyssen Theta S229 / R536 Shields (4)     Recharge Time 536 seconds (1.7 per second)

Krupp 40cm Railgun V70/C6 (8x4)    Range 320 000km     TS: 6 000 km/s     Power 36-6     Accuracy Modifier 100%     RM 70 000 km    ROF 30        12 12 12 12 12 12 12 10 9 8
Rheinmetall 12cm Railgun V70/C6 (12x4)    Range 140 000km     TS: 6 000 km/s     Power 6-6     Accuracy Modifier 100%     RM 70 000 km    ROF 5        2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
Rheinmetall 10cm Railgun V40/C3 (32x4)    Range 40 000km     TS: 6 000 km/s     Power 3-3     Accuracy Modifier 100%     RM 40 000 km    ROF 5        1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Siemens Beam Fire Control R320-TS6000 (3)     Max Range: 320 000 km   TS: 6 000 km/s     97 94 91 88 84 81 78 75 72 69
Siemens Beam Fire Control R80-TS6000 (3)     Max Range: 80 000 km   TS: 6 000 km/s     88 75 62 50 38 25 12 0 0 0
AEG Tokamak Fusion Reactor R6 (36)     Total Power Output 216    Exp 5%

Mannesmann Active Search Sensor AS15-R1 (1)     GPS 56     Range 15.8m km    MCR 1.4m km    Resolution 1

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
 

Online tywudtke

  • Able Ordinary Rate
  • t
  • Posts: 4
Re: Railgun Battleship - enough MSP?
« Reply #1 on: May 18, 2020, 03:57:54 PM »
I would say MSP is a bit low, with that many energy weapons the 1% fail chance could add up very quickly.  Other than that, as it's an energy ship, speed is always good.
 

Offline froggiest1982

  • Commander
  • *********
  • f
  • Posts: 357
  • Thanked: 74 times
Re: Railgun Battleship - enough MSP?
« Reply #2 on: May 18, 2020, 04:05:57 PM »
Hi,

this is the flagship of the Raummarine currently under design. Since this is the first shot at a pure railgun/beam design in C# I am wondering if the MSP is high enough for the expected repairs due to weapon fire.

The main purpose is to serve as a brawler and as missile defense (no Gauss due to RP reasons) and to try to draw enemy fire in order to enable less armored heavy hitters (Carronades - RP again ;) ) to get close to their targets more easily (after ASMs are dealt with).

Without turrets engaging missiles will not be easy, but the Bismarck should be able to soak AMMs and destroy at least some ASMs. Any other obvious weaknesses/enough MSP?

Code: [Select]
Bismarck class Battleship      72 000 tons       1 744 Crew       14 359.4 BP       TCS 1 440    TH 8 640    EM 27 480
6000 km/s      Armour 12-154       Shields 916-536       HTK 427      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 32      PPV 244
Maint Life 2.26 Years     MSP 4 788    AFR 1296%    IFR 18.0%    1YR 1 262    5YR 18 929    Max Repair 357 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 500 tons     
Kapitan zur See    Control Rating 5   BRG   AUX   ENG   CIC   FLG   
Intended Deployment Time: 24 months    Flight Crew Berths 40    Morale Check Required   

Daimler Magneto-plasma Drive  EP160.00 (54)    Power 8640    Fuel Use 70.0%    Signature 160    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 10 094 000 Litres    Range 36.1 billion km (69 days at full power)
Thyssen Theta S229 / R536 Shields (4)     Recharge Time 536 seconds (1.7 per second)

Krupp 40cm Railgun V70/C6 (8x4)    Range 320 000km     TS: 6 000 km/s     Power 36-6     Accuracy Modifier 100%     RM 70 000 km    ROF 30        12 12 12 12 12 12 12 10 9 8
Rheinmetall 12cm Railgun V70/C6 (12x4)    Range 140 000km     TS: 6 000 km/s     Power 6-6     Accuracy Modifier 100%     RM 70 000 km    ROF 5        2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
Rheinmetall 10cm Railgun V40/C3 (32x4)    Range 40 000km     TS: 6 000 km/s     Power 3-3     Accuracy Modifier 100%     RM 40 000 km    ROF 5        1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Siemens Beam Fire Control R320-TS6000 (3)     Max Range: 320 000 km   TS: 6 000 km/s     97 94 91 88 84 81 78 75 72 69
Siemens Beam Fire Control R80-TS6000 (3)     Max Range: 80 000 km   TS: 6 000 km/s     88 75 62 50 38 25 12 0 0 0
AEG Tokamak Fusion Reactor R6 (36)     Total Power Output 216    Exp 5%

Mannesmann Active Search Sensor AS15-R1 (1)     GPS 56     Range 15.8m km    MCR 1.4m km    Resolution 1

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

It's very big, building must be taking a while..

You Have 3 main weapons but 2 MFC only. Now it's true you can use one FC for all your weapons but in this case you are limited to by the Range. I guess you using one for PD.

It's range is quite limited considering the fuel you are using, I guess it's because is so big.

It's there a reason to have an Hangar?

Back to your question: You need more engineering, your annual failure rate is 1200%.  Your true lifespan will be
4788÷[(1296÷100)×357]=1,07. If you are lucky you can survive a year without taking into account the extra failure rate when you'll start firing.

Finally, considering the above combined with the mentioned fuel and range I would lower the deployment time to 3 months.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2020, 04:08:20 PM by froggiest1982 »
 

Offline Zincat

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Z
  • Posts: 440
  • Thanked: 60 times
Re: Railgun Battleship - enough MSP?
« Reply #3 on: May 18, 2020, 04:39:46 PM »
It has six fire controls, froggiest, so that's fine. As for size, I guess you use smallish ships? It's fine if the economy can support it.
Anyway, since it's an RP ship, I do not have anything to say about the weapons

However..
1) It's slow for magnetoplasma. Beam ships live by their speed, even more so if using not turreted weapons. I understand that you want to use it mostly as a missile soak, but keep in mind higher speed = higher tracking = better missile interception.
2) The annual failure rate is absurdly high. You need a LOT more engineering. More MSP would help too
3) A deployment time of two years is probably too long. Even more so with 70 days of fuel. Generalist high perfomance warships should not be in the field for more than a few months. I'd use 6 months. Keep in mind that overhaul in c# is a LOT more costly, you do not want your ships in the field for so long if you can avoid it.

The exception to this would be a fleet that HAS to be deployed for a long time, such as a jump point blockade. In that case, you need to juggle all the various needs to obtain something acceptable. Just keep in mind, it will be extremely costly to overhaul.
 

Offline Gabethebaldandbold

  • last member of the noob swarm
  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 200
  • Thanked: 22 times
Re: Railgun Battleship - enough MSP?
« Reply #4 on: May 18, 2020, 04:42:34 PM »

It's there a reason to have an Hangar?


its usefull for puting in scouts, maybe some boarding shuttles.
To beam, or not to beam.   That is the question
the answer is you beam. and you better beam hard.
 

Offline froggiest1982

  • Commander
  • *********
  • f
  • Posts: 357
  • Thanked: 74 times
Re: Railgun Battleship - enough MSP?
« Reply #5 on: May 18, 2020, 04:43:51 PM »

It's there a reason to have an Hangar?


its usefull for puting in scouts, maybe some boarding shuttles.

He just didnt have any? I guess he may load them later depending on situation.

It has six fire controls, froggiest, so that's fine.

Sorry haven't seen the (3) :-)
« Last Edit: May 18, 2020, 04:45:37 PM by froggiest1982 »
 

Online DFNewb

  • Captain
  • **********
  • D
  • Posts: 445
  • Thanked: 87 times
Re: Railgun Battleship - enough MSP?
« Reply #6 on: May 18, 2020, 05:29:42 PM »
Looks fine to me, if anything I would put less MSP storage and more engineering spaces.

Pretty sure this ship could handle equivalent tonnage of spoiler ships, so it's more than fine.

I think the speed is fine too, given the range of the big cannon. 6km\s outspeeds spoilers.
 

Online Ulzgoroth

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • U
  • Posts: 88
  • Thanked: 7 times
Re: Railgun Battleship - enough MSP?
« Reply #7 on: May 18, 2020, 06:52:36 PM »
It has six fire controls, froggiest, so that's fine. As for size, I guess you use smallish ships? It's fine if the economy can support it.
Anyway, since it's an RP ship, I do not have anything to say about the weapons

However..
1) It's slow for magnetoplasma. Beam ships live by their speed, even more so if using not turreted weapons. I understand that you want to use it mostly as a missile soak, but keep in mind higher speed = higher tracking = better missile interception.
2) The annual failure rate is absurdly high. You need a LOT more engineering. More MSP would help too
3) A deployment time of two years is probably too long. Even more so with 70 days of fuel. Generalist high perfomance warships should not be in the field for more than a few months. I'd use 6 months. Keep in mind that overhaul in c# is a LOT more costly, you do not want your ships in the field for so long if you can avoid it.

The exception to this would be a fleet that HAS to be deployed for a long time, such as a jump point blockade. In that case, you need to juggle all the various needs to obtain something acceptable. Just keep in mind, it will be extremely costly to overhaul.
By the numbers I'm seeing, overhaul is the same cost as staying in dockyard all along.

Overhaul uses MSP 4 times as fast as regular maintenance. However, overhaul time is 1/3 of the accrued clock time (assuming that's consistent from the VB section of the wiki). Meaning that if you spend 3x time on operations and 1x time overhauling, you spend the same amount of MSP as if you'd simply spent the entire 4x duration sitting in the dock.

Of course, any MSP actually used up to cover system failures are extra.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 1671
  • Thanked: 223 times
Re: Railgun Battleship - enough MSP?
« Reply #8 on: May 18, 2020, 07:22:22 PM »
It has six fire controls, froggiest, so that's fine. As for size, I guess you use smallish ships? It's fine if the economy can support it.
Anyway, since it's an RP ship, I do not have anything to say about the weapons

However..
1) It's slow for magnetoplasma. Beam ships live by their speed, even more so if using not turreted weapons. I understand that you want to use it mostly as a missile soak, but keep in mind higher speed = higher tracking = better missile interception.
2) The annual failure rate is absurdly high. You need a LOT more engineering. More MSP would help too
3) A deployment time of two years is probably too long. Even more so with 70 days of fuel. Generalist high perfomance warships should not be in the field for more than a few months. I'd use 6 months. Keep in mind that overhaul in c# is a LOT more costly, you do not want your ships in the field for so long if you can avoid it.

The exception to this would be a fleet that HAS to be deployed for a long time, such as a jump point blockade. In that case, you need to juggle all the various needs to obtain something acceptable. Just keep in mind, it will be extremely costly to overhaul.
By the numbers I'm seeing, overhaul is the same cost as staying in dockyard all along.

Overhaul uses MSP 4 times as fast as regular maintenance. However, overhaul time is 1/3 of the accrued clock time (assuming that's consistent from the VB section of the wiki). Meaning that if you spend 3x time on operations and 1x time overhauling, you spend the same amount of MSP as if you'd simply spent the entire 4x duration sitting in the dock.

Of course, any MSP actually used up to cover system failures are extra.

In general yes... overhaul is over time the same as having them in dock all the time. The cost of deployment is the MSP you need for maintaining the ships system due to failures, which will happen. This is why it is important to use engineering sections rather than MSP storage. Engineering section will tend to be bigger and more expensive but you will save MSP in the long run... so it is important to weight the pros and cons.

In general I want to give all my capital ships maintenance section to cover its deployment time and then I add MSP storage to extend the maintenance life to about with an extra 50-150% maintenance life time. That will be a reasonable compromise between up front cost and cost over time and operational security.


Hi,

this is the flagship of the Raummarine currently under design. Since this is the first shot at a pure railgun/beam design in C# I am wondering if the MSP is high enough for the expected repairs due to weapon fire.

The main purpose is to serve as a brawler and as missile defense (no Gauss due to RP reasons) and to try to draw enemy fire in order to enable less armored heavy hitters (Carronades - RP again ;) ) to get close to their targets more easily (after ASMs are dealt with).

Without turrets engaging missiles will not be easy, but the Bismarck should be able to soak AMMs and destroy at least some ASMs. Any other obvious weaknesses/enough MSP?


As the others I think the only real issue with this ship is the lack of engineering section... try to use my rough outline above to rectify it.

Don't bother about remarks on fuel and deployment time... fuel is only important in regard to your operational range. You can easily refuel many times over a ships deployment term and using tankers should be quite natural as storing fuel on military ships is wasting space in too much quantities. You only want enough fuel for whatever tactical operations you designed the ship for.

Likewise speed is a relative thing, speed is entirely based on the context in which the ship is used. Although more speed also means easier to intercept AMM etc... but it also means more space dedicated to engines and/or less range due to less efficient engines. Everything is a trade off.

I would consider a lower deployment time unless there is a very big reason to have 24 months deployments... somewhere between 9-12 month is generally enough and also make maintenance requirement allot lower as well.
 

Offline CharonJr (OP)

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • C
  • Posts: 273
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: Railgun Battleship - enough MSP?
« Reply #9 on: May 19, 2020, 01:16:53 AM »
Thank you for the input, so the overall agreement is that the deployment time is too long, MSP is too low.

I am alerady using 38% of the weight for engines and 14% for fuel, due to using tankers I am actually tempted to remove some fuel, but try to aim for 30bn km with own fuel usually.

18% are used by armor and shields, 20% for weapons, reactors and fire controls.

The boat bay is a mix for RP reasons (having a marines on board when I get to build some alter on and a small rescue vessel for lifepods).

Concerning MSP storage vs. engineering  I am already using 32 engineering sections and just 2 maintenance storage bays. I tried to cover the AFR x Max Repair MSP here. But a complete coverage of the intended deployment time by engineering and adding about 100% via storage sounds like a good idea.

But maybe I am miserading the information - does 1YR 1262 not mean that it is expected that 1262 MSP are used in the first year after an overhaul (which is fairly low due to the large number of engineering used)? This would mean that the current design has more than 3 times as much from engineering and another 800 from storage.

Lowering deployment to 12 month is a good idea as well, since it is a flagship and supposed to stay on station for some time in some scenarios I dislike going much lower, but will have to see where I end up, maybe 9 month might be an option as well.

I just reaslised that I am still using fairly old fuel inefficient engines on this one (70%, current tech is at 50% now) and with the number of research labs online now a larger engine might be very viable as well.

Revised design - mainly larger more efficient engines (6% of weight is fuel now at roughly the same range which is a huge saving), allowing for more engines (47%) and I went for one year of MSP by engineering and a bit more than a additional year of MSP from storage - if I understand the 1YR stat correctly. The added speed is nice for sure. Overall this would need about 3.5k additional research for the new parts which is not that bad.

Code: [Select]
Bismarck - Copy class Battleship (P)      72 000 tons       1 846 Crew       15 255.1 BP       TCS 1 440    TH 10 800    EM 27 480
7500 km/s      Armour 12-154       Shields 916-536       HTK 381      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 23      PPV 244
Maint Life 1.56 Years     MSP 6 245    AFR 1803%    IFR 25.0%    1YR 2 952    5YR 44 274    Max Repair 357 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 500 tons     
Kapitan zur See    Control Rating 5   BRG   AUX   ENG   CIC   FLG   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Flight Crew Berths 40    Morale Check Required   

Magneto-plasma Drive  EP400.00 (27)    Power 10800.0    Fuel Use 31.62%    Signature 400.00    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 4 206 000 Litres    Range 33.3 billion km (51 days at full power)
Thyssen Theta S229 / R536 Shields (4)     Recharge Time 536 seconds (1.7 per second)

Krupp 40cm Railgun V70/C6 (8x4)    Range 320 000km     TS: 7 500 km/s     Power 36-6     Accuracy Modifier 100%     RM 70 000 km    ROF 30       
Rheinmetall 12cm Railgun V70/C6 (12x4)    Range 140 000km     TS: 7 500 km/s     Power 6-6     Accuracy Modifier 100%     RM 70 000 km    ROF 5       
Rheinmetall 10cm Railgun V40/C3 (32x4)    Range 40 000km     TS: 7 500 km/s     Power 3-3     Accuracy Modifier 100%     RM 40 000 km    ROF 5       
Beam Fire Control R320-TS7500 (3)     Max Range: 320 000 km   TS: 7 500 km/s     97 94 91 88 84 81 78 75 72 69
Beam Fire Control R80-TS7500 (3)     Max Range: 80 000 km   TS: 7 500 km/s     88 75 62 50 38 25 12 0 0 0
AEG Tokamak Fusion Reactor R6 (36)     Total Power Output 216    Exp 5%

Mannesmann Active Search Sensor AS15-R1 (1)     GPS 56     Range 15.8m km    MCR 1.4m km    Resolution 1

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

What do you think?
 

Online Ulzgoroth

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • U
  • Posts: 88
  • Thanked: 7 times
Re: Railgun Battleship - enough MSP?
« Reply #10 on: May 19, 2020, 01:40:59 AM »
One error - twice the one year expected MSP expenditure is not equal to the two-year maintenance expenditure. As you run up the clock failure rates snowball. Note that the 5 year projection is a lot more than 5 times the 1 year projection. I don't know exactly how that math runs though.

I tend to prefer using engineering spaces as much as possible to minimize MSP wastage due to peacetime breakdowns. But that may be a flawed approach for a warship that expects to actually wind up burning MSP in combat operations.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 1671
  • Thanked: 223 times
Re: Railgun Battleship - enough MSP?
« Reply #11 on: May 19, 2020, 01:42:55 AM »
This ship looks allot better and the new engine is also way more efficient and lift its capabilities allot. The investment in research is probably worth it for these upgrades.

Regarding engineering sections and MSP storage... the thing is that using storage will be more space efficient and engineering section is more expensive so add a small maintenance cost long term and a larger upfront cost... BUT... it lowers the amount of MSP used in the field by ALLOT which will kill any maintenance you save in a few month of deployment, not to mention years of service in the field.

So... if you have a ship like a survey ship that is working more or less non stop outside overhaul then you want ONLY engineering sections for as many years you want maintenance to reduce MSP loss over time.

On a warship or especially system defence crafts you don't need much of any engineering as you rarely deploy more than a few days or weeks at most at a time even if deployment times can be up to six months perhaps. When they do deploy for longer you don't mind spending the extra MSP as it does not happen so often and saving space for more fuel, engines and weapons are also important.

For a capital ship you need to strike a balance and it depend on how often you will have your ships out of dock and in the field. If the ships spend allot more time docked at a planet with maintenance facilities you can skimp on engineering sections. But you will need to make these judgements in a case by case scenario.

It is also a good thing you have a main engineering section too, that will save you allot of maintenance on this ship.

We also have to expect that really large ships always have rather high AFR rates as that is natural for really large ships. if you instead had 10 7200t ships you would make 10 rolls every five days to see if something breaks so even if they have a smaller value there still is a much larger chance that something breaks on at least one of them. In a 72000t ship you only roll once... and bigger ships usually also have bigger more expensive components too which compound the costs even more.

It is also true that the clock will get worse over time... this is why you need to think about how many engineering section you want on the ship. How long is a normal deployment and how often will the ship use max deployment rates.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2020, 02:00:28 AM by Jorgen_CAB »
 

Offline sneer

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • s
  • Posts: 225
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: Railgun Battleship - enough MSP?
« Reply #12 on: May 19, 2020, 03:01:44 AM »
There is a way to improve further
instead of 27 relatively small engines go for 5-6 bigger ones
It will be safe enough and will offer fuel efficiency
 

Offline CharonJr (OP)

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • C
  • Posts: 273
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: Railgun Battleship - enough MSP?
« Reply #13 on: May 19, 2020, 03:16:07 AM »
I think the MSP should be OK now. While I designed for 12 month deployment time I expect most missions to be shorter than that, thus offering some buffer in MSP/repairs.

Actually I am using the largest engines I can produce now (25HS - I neglected the engine size tech), but you are right, once Internal Confinement Fusion Drives are completed I will research 1-2 levels of engine size before building a new engine.

edit: And something I forgot to mention before: Pre-building of some components via industry should help with the construction time which would be 3years+ otherwise.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2020, 03:30:56 AM by CharonJr »
 

Offline vorpal+5

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 297
  • Thanked: 35 times
Re: Railgun Battleship - enough MSP?
« Reply #14 on: May 19, 2020, 03:46:47 AM »
Invoke imagery!

 
The following users thanked this post: skoormit

 

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 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72