Newtonian Aurora

[Elouda]

I second Byron that there should be some way that the player can design the ship in order to squeeze a little bit of speed out for the same amount of mass. Maybe in addition to "Armor" there could be a second "Internal Bulkhead" category? Multiple levels of this would mass much heavier than Armor though, because Armor is for the surface area, but Bulkheads are for the whole volume of the ship.

Then maybe the ship's number of 'Internal Bulkheads', in addition to increasing the maximum acceleration, adds to the HTK of every component or something like that.

Instead of adding to components HTK, why not let it have its own HTKs? So it could soak up hits (and get destroyed) that would otherwise hit components, making an interesting option for meson defence.

[PMantix]

Instead of adding to components HTK, why not let it have its own HTKs? So it could soak up hits (and get destroyed) that would otherwise hit components, making an interesting option for meson defence.

Probably should have a modifier for inverse crew effectiveness as well. . .

By that I mean the more internal bulkheads the more difficult it is for the crew to move about, repair things, reload weapons, etc.

You can see that effect in modern naval vessels. . .    it takes training to be able to move through those small corridors effectively.

Just something to think about 

[PTTG]

It sounds to me that these bulkheads would increase not only the total volume of a ship, but also its density. Now, it seems that right now vessels are assumed to be .1 x density of steel (or whatever) to account for a great deal of any ship being open space or at least somewhat less dense than the primary hull components.

I could definitely see adjusting these values as an interesting way to differentiate commercial/military ships.

[bean]

Current vessels are .1x the density of water, which comes out to about .013x the density of steel.
And I'm fairly certain that Steve isn't going to mess with variable density any time soon.

[UnLimiTeD]

Well, I'd like an overall coefficient that is raised by a lot of armor or whatever, easy to see for the player;
But I agree it won't happen.

As for Crew tolerances, can you just calculate it as

A Crew before damage taken
B Crew lost by hit
C Crew Max
D Crew Grade Points
E Task Force Training Value

(1-((B/C)*A/C))*D
&
(1-((B/C)*A/C))*E

Example:

Ship: 1000 Crew Max, 2000 Grade Points, 80% TFV
Ship has already lost 100 Crew, 900 Remain; Current Grade Points: 1800, TFV: 72%

The ship loses 90 Personnel on an attack.

(1-((90/1000)*900/1000))*1800 = 1654.2 Crew Grade Points
(1-((90/1000)*900/1000))*72% = 66.17% TFV

Additionally, a modifier of % Crew Lost should apply as a negative to training speed.
This would certainly give a noticeable penalty to losing crew to anything in general.
It would not, however, seriously hamper combat capability if synchronous fire is not required and the crew is green to begin with; Applying the crew lost modifier as a bonus to the maintenance clock speed might achieve that.
Now idea for civilians, though... Apply it to cargo handling multiplier and work speed?  

Edit; Sorry if numbers are clunky, it's 2am, and I really don't it it much myself.
That simple formula took me a half hour.

[Mel Vixen]

Well i like the idea UnLimiTeD but instead of using the entire crew as basis i would use the Number of crew-members that are needed to operate the ship. For example if i have a survey-ship with a crew of 250 but only 200 crew-members are needed to operate the ship the loss of 50 people (as tragic as it is) wouldnt reduce the TFV.


Now for something different: Steve could you implement a way to recover Missiles? Sometimes when i see those empty Percursor-minefields where only the first-stages of the mines are left i just want to take them apart for study. Sure it would only yield some sensors and maybe Reactor-tech but it would be worth it. Also refuelling a missile would be more cost-effective then building a new one - especially if my salvager is anyway in the system to get the enemys wrecks. Restocking the first stage with fitting Sub-ammunition couldalso be interesting.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

I've added the following paragraph to the missile design section of the Rules thread.

5) Max Speed and Reserve Delta-V
A missile can be designed with a maximum speed and/or a reserve delta-V. If a maximum speed is set, the missile will not accelerate beyond that speed and will retain fuel for course changes or decelerations. If an amount of reserve delta-V is specified, the missile will cease to use fuel for acceleration when its remaining delta-V is equal to or less than that amount. If both are set then a missile will only accelerate if it is currently below max speed and its remaining delta-V is above the reserve amount.

Steve

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Is max speed relative to the launching ship, or absolute in the reference frame?

[3_14159]

Using the posted information about missiles I did some small thought experiments about booster stages and their efficiency.  Using the missile design postet under Rules, and the Resolution-class destroyer as orientation, I redesigned the missile a little bit.

here's the original:

Code: [Select]

Nuclear Anti-ship Missile
Missile Mass: 5 Tons      Warhead Strength: 250 Kilotons     Guidance: Fire Control
Engine Power: 0.24 MN     Fuel Use: 134.40 litres per hour
Launch Acceleration: 48 m/s (4.89G)    Per Hour: 172.8 km/s    Per Day: 4147.2 km/s
Final Acceleration: 68.6 m/s (6.99G)
Fuel Mass: 1500 litres      Delta-V Budget: 2,285 km/s
Full Burn Duration: 11.15 hours    Distance Required for Max Velocity: 47m km
Fireball Radius:  1000 MJ/m: 289m    300 MJ/m: 527m     100 MJ/m: 912m
Proximity Detonation Range (PDR): 250m     Damage MJ/m: 1331
Cost Per Missile: 2.75
Materials Required:    1.55x Tritanium   0.25x Uridium   0.9x Gallicite   Fuel x1500
Development Cost for Project: 275RP

Mostly defining two stages:
1.  Booster Stage, transporting a 1. 75 coasting stage, totally 5tons.

Using basically the same engine, only cut to 204kN by reducing the size to 1. 8 and therefore the consumption of fuel to 120. 96l/h.  The fuel has been decreased slightly to 1. 45tons, and therefore 1450liter.
The statistics for this stage should be (compared to the original missile):
Delta-V: 2200km/s  from 2285km/s
MaxBurnDuration: 11. 98hrs from 11. 15hrs
DistanceToMaxV: 44,7mkm from 47mkm
Therefore it is (slightly) slower, and needs more time to reach final velocity.  One reached, however, the second, coasting or steering stage emerges:

2.  Coasting Stage, 1. 75 tons
Carrying the warhead of 1. 5 tons and the firecontrol guidance module, this mounts a very, very small engine and only 150liters of fuel.
The used engine is a smaller Fuel Efficient 160 KN Missile Engine, providing a measly 8kN power, and needing only 7l/h fuel.  This allows the quite good burn time of 21. 4 hours at an acceleration of something between 4. 57 and 5 m/s², depending on the fuel left.  Here, too, the statistics:
Delta-V: 368km/s
MaxBurnDuration: 21. 4h
DistanceToMaxV: 154mkm, assuming the velocity of 2200km/s has been reached, and the missile only makes course corrections.

This gives the missile a theoretical reach of nearly 2000 mkm against an evading Resolution, while still having an end velocity of about 2200km/s, which the previous design couldn't, as it would tap into the acceleration-delta-v-budget for course correction.

This wouldn't be the only improvement, as for everything except the boost-phase, the missile wouldn't be 5tons - it would be 2, pushing it under the minimum detection size, and maybe making interception more difficult.
The statistics, copied together, of the missile would be:

Code: [Select]

Two-Stage Nuclear Anti-ship Missile
Missile Mass: 5 Tons      Warhead Strength: 250 Kilotons     Guidance: Fire Control
Engine Power: 0.24 MN/0.008MN     Fuel Use: 134.40/7 litres per hour
Launch Acceleration: 43.2 m/s (4.4G)/ 4.57m/s (0.47G)    Per Hour: 155.5 km/s  /  16.452 km/s    Per Day: 3732.4 km/s / 394.8km/s
Final Acceleration: 60.85 m/s (6.2G) / 5m/s (0.51G)
Fuel Mass: 1600 litres      Delta-V Budget: 2200 km/s / 368km/s --> 2568km/s
Full Burn Duration: 11.15 hours/21.4hours --> 32.55    Distance Required for Max Velocity: 44.7m km
Fireball Radius:  1000 MJ/m: 289m    300 MJ/m: 527m     100 MJ/m: 912m
Proximity Detonation Range (PDR): 250m     Damage MJ/m: 1331


[procyon]

Copied from the Deep Strike thread.  It might apply to the Civ v Mil jump capabilities in an oblique way.




Under current rules, the 'deep strike' would be the way to go.  Other than the fact that you won't know where the enemy's main bases are without looking.

Perhaps part of the jump drive tech could be a max duration of the drive to maintain itself in hyperspace.  I am not sure I would tie this to fuel use as you could simply build larger fuel reserves to make these deep strikes.  Perhaps the drive begins to generate a 'sub-space charge' that will damage the drive after a certain level - forcing the ship out of subspace/hyperspace after a certain amount of time.  This would of course increase with research.

So civ ships designed with lower delta V budgets would have lower speeds at jump and would jump shorter distances.  Mil ships with higher delta V budgets could afford the high speeds to make longer jumps - but not infinite ones.  In this way you would need to operate forward bases to stop - refuel/resupply - reorient on the next system - then jump.

Some ships could be designed to make very long jumps by being very fast, but this would likely require a smaller ship with a large percentage of fuel to reach the required speed for the long jump.  A small ship that is mostly fuel probably isn't an ideal warship.  A good scout probably, but not a planet killer.

Just a thought.  Any opinions?

[UnLimiTeD]

+1

Though I'd also like fuel consumption for jumps.
It can be small.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

This wouldn't be the only improvement, as for everything except the boost-phase, the missile wouldn't be 5tons - it would be 2, pushing it under the minimum detection size, and maybe making interception more difficult.
The statistics, copied together, of the missile would be:

i don't think there is a minimum detection size anymore, actually. ~

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Is max speed relative to the launching ship, or absolute in the reference frame?

This is Newtonian Aurora not Einsteinian Aurora so it will be absolute speed.

Steve

[Elouda]

This is Newtonian Aurora not Einsteinian Aurora so it will be absolute speed.

Steve

Any chance of high tech designs being able to have more than one setting or a range of accepted values, programmable at launch, sort of like torpedoes in WW2 have various settings. This could be extended to detonation distance too. Just feels a little harsh to make it per design only.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Any chance of high tech designs being able to have more than one setting or a range of accepted values, programmable at launch, sort of like torpedoes in WW2 have various settings. This could be extended to detonation distance too. Just feels a little harsh to make it per design only.

Yes, I will probably add something along those lines once I start working more on fire controls

Steve