Close Assault Missile discussion (split from official 5.20 suggestions)

[Vanigo]

I suppose the obvious way to miniaturize railguns would be to reduce the number of shots per volley. Two shots at 75% size and one at 50% sounds about right, and then you could stick hangar reloads a level after that.

[UnLimiTeD]

Well, if you have limited ammo, you could even make them smaller without drawbacks, and explain it with the lack of an integrated Ammo and energy management system.
Further, I think having the weapon at 50% size with only 25% of the punch is rather bad, I mean, I rarely see anyone use small lasers, in no AAR so far that I read, aside from on fighters once you have capacitor 15.
It's just too much of a nerf to be useful.

[jRides]

I rarely see anyone use small lasers, in no AAR so far that I read, aside from on fighters once you have capacitor 15.
It's just too much of a nerf to be useful.

You have that absolutely right as far as I am concerned, it really seems to me that the only viable weapon for a fighter is the missile, especially at low tech. Right now lasers lack the punch and range another missile armed ship fighter would have, this is why I would like to see some other choices for fighter weapons.

Right now I'm only in my first proper game and (only at capacitor 6), I've not even looked at the laser miniaturisation tech as it just seems the rps are better spent elsewhere, so I fully accept I could be completely wrong in their usefulness, but logistics seems to be the only plus I can see so far - at least until I'm at a way higher tech level.

I like the idea of reworking beam weapons as mentioned by UnLimiTeD, better damage at the expense of an ammo requirement. I would suggest number of missiles in the pod increases with tech, and options to single/ripple fire X/ripple fire all.

[UnLimiTeD]

I think someone should split this discussion off.
It's a page long by now, without much input from anyone with a lot of experience or influence, and we're clogging up the thread.
And keep in mind we shouldn't tough standard beam weapons, the main use for them IS that they do not cost ammo, and on a 50k battlecruiser you would not want to manage ammo for rapid firing short range weapons.

[sloanjh]

I think someone should split this discussion off.
It's a page long by now, without much input from anyone with a lot of experience or influence, and we're clogging up the thread.
And keep in mind we shouldn't tough standard beam weapons, the main use for them IS that they do not cost ammo, and on a 50k battlecruiser you would not want to manage ammo for rapid firing short range weapons.

Done.

John

[On_Target]

You have that absolutely right as far as I am concerned, it really seems to me that the only viable weapon for a fighter is the missile, especially at low tech. Right now lasers lack the punch and range another missile armed ship fighter would have, this is why I would like to see some other choices for fighter weapons.

Depends on their role.  Mesons and microwaves are great for the antiship role, though I suggest making engine and thermal dampening your highest priority tech if pursuing those.  Railguns handle anti-fighter duties just fine, and either they or gauss work well for anti-missile.

200 meson equipped fighters make short work even of invaders (as long as you're faster than they are, at least.)

I still haven't seen a convincing argument for rockets.  Missiles have had a lot of love already, and strategically they're a poor choice (even if tactically superior); I'd like to not make victory solely about how much Gallicite and Neutronium I have available.

[UnLimiTeD]

Victory is always about resources.
Missiles are a good fighter weapon because you can get a superior first strike onto the enemy outside of his interception range.

What people are asking for is essentially that punch combined with a little staying power, at the cost of range.

[Vanigo]

What people are asking for is essentially that punch combined with a little staying power, at the cost of range.

Granted, these would only have first-strike capacity versus gauss cannons, but unless you're building an extremely heavy interceptor, half-size lasers are the only other option, and they have very little punch. I have no idea how you're making meson-armed fighters that are not only faster than invaders, but fast enough to close to firing range before getting blown apart by plasma torpedoes.

[UnLimiTeD]

They are not.
You just build enough of them.
A meson armed fighter can be around 400-450 tons, which is reasonable, but not faster than a gunboat with one meson.
It is, however, cheaper.

[On_Target]

Granted, these would only have first-strike capacity versus gauss cannons, but unless you're building an extremely heavy interceptor, half-size lasers are the only other option, and they have very little punch. I have no idea how you're making meson-armed fighters that are not only faster than invaders, but fast enough to close to firing range before getting blown apart by plasma torpedoes.

My last batch of meson fighters were down to 300 tons even, and that was with me being generous with the fire control's range, making sure they had 3 days worth of fuel (even with a stealthy carrier, having the range to keep the main fleet from detection is crucial), and giving them all a 0.1 size active radar for backup targeting (based on combat experience, this is unnecessary, and all targeting will be done by the pair of scout fighters attached to each squadron of 22).  A size 450 meson fighter has too much wasted space, and needs to be pared down.

As for closing to firing range, I've researched on the technologies I mentioned being crucial previously: engine speed and thermal signature.  12% signature and (magneto-plasma I believe?  Will check later) engines are sufficient.  If meson fighters are the backbone of your fleet, you can focus solely on meson focusing, and leave the size of the beam as 10cm (same damage as a 25cm beam, after all).  Your fire control similarly will need range as its highest priority (given the free 4x speed fighters get).

It's not a lossless strategy, but fighters aren't expected to all survive.  That said, it's cheaper to build a few replacement fighters after a battle than to completely replenish a fleet's stocks of missiles.

They are not.
You just build enough of them.
A meson armed fighter can be around 400-450 tons, which is reasonable, but not faster than a gunboat with one meson.
It is, however, cheaper.

Fighters are also smaller, which helps with not being detected until almost in firing range, and with being a hard target for enemy fire.  Nor do they require a shipyard to be built, unlike a gunboat/FAC, which is the benefit I find most valuable.  The speed a "FAC-engine fighter" brings to the table is helpful, for sure, but comes with very real tradeoffs.

[UnLimiTeD]

Well, you could just build shipyards instead of fighter factories.
And prebuild the engines in construction factories.
Also, doesn't a 12% thermal dampening drastically increase the cost?
I mean, a Missile fighter, on high tech, can be ~150 BP, I think this one would be at least 250.

[Charlie Beeler]

On_Target has the right idea.  At least for a functional beam fighter.  I've used the approach against the Invaders on several occations.  It actually works better that than the gunboat or light warship armed with longer ranged meson cannons.  Economicly as well as tactically and strategicly it's the best approach I've found to counter the Invaders.  It also functions very well against the Swarm and Precursor fleets you encounter, not to mention NPR races. 

As mentioned, the primary key is 2 part: 1) advanced engine tech, minimum of Magneto-Plasma  2) Thermal reduction, minimum of 25% which is not much of a cost increase.

Keep in mind that I prefer this to dealing with Invaders and Swarms over GC armed fighters.  And I play with a modified database that has 100% GC's at 1hs not 6hs.  The ablity to bypass shields and armor far out performs high rates of fire for 1 point hits.  And the increased ablity to stay on station with consecutive firing passes far out weighs the punch of missiles with heavy warheads and short range.

This has been my experience...your mileage may vary. 

[UnLimiTeD]

Yep, I did. Due, super gauss cannons would be grossly OP, don't even want to imagine that.
Well, back to topic.

The idea of a weapon miniaturization that has ammunition as a drawback instead of something else.
Like Gauss Rifles with higher accuracy, or lasers with bearable reload, at the cost of using ammo.

[Vanigo]

And the increased ablity to stay on station with consecutive firing passes far out weighs the punch of missiles with heavy warheads and short range.

Hmm. You're probably right. Maybe with higher range, so they can outperform mesons in that regard? Or, 10cm mesons, anyway. Make for a sort of a super-particle beam

[Vanigo]

As mentioned, the primary key is 2 part: 1) advanced engine tech, minimum of Magneto-Plasma  2) Thermal reduction, minimum of 25% which is not much of a cost increase.

On another note, how the hell do you do this? A magneto-plasma fighter with a command module, enough fuel for about 24 hours of operation, a size 3 meson cannon, and a size 0.5 fire control only has a speed of around 9,250 km/s (depending on armor and engine power boost), which is too slow to deal with Invaders. For the 300 ton fighters you mention, even internal confinement fusion drives only hit 10,000 without a power boost. Even with a low thermal signature, is an overhaul speed of ~1000 km/s really enough?