Range finding Question (Or how do i increase the range on my Beam firing control

[Catman115 (OP)]

Quote.

Now you see this is something im having a large problem with. Im looking over the wiki and while i see example ship that are like your is am also seeing things like the active Sensors article that give me an entirely different weight scheme closer to the one i posted. And yes i know its all about personal preference in the end but at the exact same time im still trying to envision what my ships are supposed to be doing and at the same time figuring out what weight is too much and what weight is too little and how that affects speeds, fuel consumption and needed engines and weapons. Im also trying not to let my weight spiral out of control like it did on some of my first designs.

Well, your fighters having active sensors helps them if they leave the envelope of the carrier. However, how do you know where to send them in the first place?

Your fighters can fly over 3 billion kilometers, according to the design you posted, yet your carrier can't even "see" a hundred million kilometers. So what do you wanna do with all that range on the fighters? Send them out blindly, hoping they find something with their limited sensors?

I have no idea how to counter this.

[Pixel1191]

You could put a larger sensor on the carrier, that's one option. You could also attach a dedicated sensor platform to the fleet..basically some engines and fuel built around a massive sensor. That needs protection tho, as it's basically a homing beacon for the enemy. You probably won't be able to match sensor range to fighter range and you don't have to. You have to consider return trips and loiter time as well. But your current ratio is somewhat off. As a completely different option, you could scratch some fuel from the fighters, that gives you either smaller fighters which you can carry more of, or you use the saved space for another gun, leaving it at the same size.

And as for the ship sizes: I'm just giving my opinion, it's by no means taken to be definitive. I'm just a big fan of a smaller fleet of heavier ships, instead of having the same tonnage in a lot more individual ships. Aside from the initial setup (shipyards and facilities) I find the larger ships take a load off the support structure. If I have a strikegroup of 7 ships that is battle worthy for what I need, I need a jump tender that can take 8 ships (indlucing itself) on a squadron transit in one go. If I have smaller ships but need, say, 13 of them to be battle worthy, I'm gonna need a jump tender able to ferry 14 ships (which is vastly expensive tech) or I need multiple tenders and split up the fleet, or I need to use one tender and move it back and forth, which leads to delayed arrival. Also, a bigger missile ship can take more ordnance, potentially even enough to last an entire engagement without needing a collier close at hand..and still have a usefully large salvo size.

[Catman115 (OP)]

Duly Noted. Now then to the next topic, the Sensor vessel.

Okean class Surveillance Cruiser    9 950 tons     304 Crew     2091.2 BP      TCS 199  TH 264  EM 0
1326 km/s    JR 3-50     Armour 5-41     Shields 0-0     Sensors 6/5/0/0     Damage Control Rating 11     PPV 0
Maint Life 3.39 Years     MSP 1445    AFR 71%    IFR 1%    1YR 191    5YR 2864    Max Repair 1050 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 10 months    Spare Berths 0   

State Engineering Commune Sub-Capital Military Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 11100 tons    Distance 50k km     Squadron Size 3
State Engineering Commune Light Vessel Ion Drive (2)    Power 132    Fuel Use 34.27%    Signature 132    Exp 11%
Fuel Capacity 250 000 Litres    Range 13.2 billion km   (115 days at full power)

State Engineering Commune CIWS-200 (8x4)    Range 1000 km     TS: 20000 km/s     ROF 5       Base 50% To Hit
State Engineering Commune Sensor Vessel Sensor (1)     GPS 84000     Range 420.0m km    Resolution 100
State Engineering Commune Thermal Sensor Suite (1)     Sensitivity 6     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  6m km
State Engineering Commune EM Detection Sensor Suite (1)     Sensitivity 5     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  5m km

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
Is this ok for a boat with bigass eyes or no?

[Pixel1191]

That's not looking half-bad.

I assume you're going for jump drives on every vessel? It's an option, but you have to remember that you'll be unable to use squadron transit, crippling your ships longer after a jump, not important for regular operation, but the moment you run into an enemy picketing a jump point, every second counts.

[Iranon]

Should work, but I'd use larger, less stressed engines. Size may as well match the rating of your jump drive and it'll be less thirsty.

[Catman115 (OP)]

Should work, but I'd use larger, less stressed engines. Size may as well match the rating of your jump drive and it'll be less thirsty.

Less stressed engines? Im pretty sure these are already size 10.

[Iranon]

Which gives you a propulsion percentage of around 10%. This is rather low for my tastes, especially when you need to compensate with a power boost and high fuel load.
You could actually get longer range with size 11 engines without power boost and 150000l fuel (samge speed and tonnage) and save on running cost. If shipyards allow, I'd increase tonnage up to the 11k your jump drive is capable of.

Power boost is imo not something for general use, I'd need a reason (only days of deployment time, I care about compactness because of hangar space or sensor footprint, I'm pushing the limits of my tech to meet the speed requirement - e.g. to be able to play tag with the spoiler races).

*

One more thing which may be completely besides the point:
The designation says Surveillance Cruiser. This design looks more suited for fleet use than an independent survey ship. It's not that long-legged without modifications to the propulsion system, deployment time a tad on the low side, CIWS my not save a lone ship of that speed.
As the eyes of a fleet, it looks much better, armour and plentiful CIWs will come in useful as it's probably going to be the first thing to be shot at (big noisy sensor).

[Catman115 (OP)]

Which gives you a propulsion percentage of around 10%. This is rather low for my tastes, especially when you need to compensate with a power boost and high fuel load.
You could actually get longer range with size 11 engines without power boost and 150000l fuel (samge speed and tonnage) and save on running cost. If shipyards allow, I'd increase tonnage up to the 11k your jump drive is capable of.

Power boost is imo not something for general use, I'd need a reason (only days of deployment time, I care about compactness because of hangar space or sensor footprint, I'm pushing the limits of my tech to meet the speed requirement - e.g. to be able to play tag with the spoiler races).

I will be perfectly honest here, the goal of the design of the jump engine is merely to allow for that size range of ships (Escort, Destroyer, Sub-Capital, Capital, Super-Capital) to have a jump drive that i dont have to redesign the wheel for every time i make a new variety of vessel. I dont much care for adding on junk weight as it seems rather pointless and only costs me more resources and build time in the end. I will give you that i should probably make a standard engine range as well, for the same categories.

One more thing which may be completely besides the point:
The designation says Surveillance Cruiser. This design looks more suited for fleet use than an independent survey ship. It's not that long-legged without modifications to the propulsion system, deployment time a tad on the low side, CIWS my not save a lone ship of that speed.
As the eyes of a fleet, it looks much better, armour and plentiful CIWs will come in useful as it's probably going to be the first thing to be shot at (big noisy sensor).

For the size i didnt see any other descriptor that really fit the Vessels purpose. I wish the wiki had a full list of those thing, as pointless as they are in most ways.

[doulos05]

When I get the time, I'll walk through a sample fleet creation from doctrine to construction. It will help if you actually write out a doctrine, derive your individual ship class requirements from the doctrine, and then design the ships to the requirements you've written, especially in the beginning. Some things to consider in your fleet doctrine include:

Smallest deployable element: ex. The fleet shall operate in squadrons of 4-6 combat vessels plus their Replenishment vessels. Squadrons shall have sufficient jump capacity to transit the combat element in its entirety.
Operational range (with and without Replenishment vessels): Squadrons shall have the fuel and maintenance capacity (without Replenishment vessels) to operate within a singlesolar system for a period not less than 12 months when not in combat. Ships shall carry a combat load of not less than 10 salvos of their main anti ship battery plus not less than 30 salvos of their main anti missile batteries. With Replenishment vessels, the range shall be doubled and the amp capacity shall be tripled.
Primary weapon type with usage guidelines: The primary fleet weapon is long ranged anti ship missiles. AMM defenses are to be defeated through the use of synchronous fire from multiple weapons platforms.
Secondary weapon type with usage guidelines
AMM plan: Enemy ASMs will be defeated through a multi layer approach using AMMs, beam weapons, and CIWS.
Use of parasites: The Terran Federation does not regard parasites as offensive platforms. As such, their primary purpose shall be maintaining separation from the enemy fleet and extending the fleets missile engagement envelope.

These are just examples. But from this, several design requirements fall out that might be missed otherwise. For example, my jump drives need to have a fleet size of 6. My parasites should mount AMMs, but there won't be many of them because tonnage spent on hanger bays is tonnage not spent on offensive weapons platforms. My deployment time should be set to 15-18 months (to avoid morale degradation due to unfortunate timing). I should consider multiple ASM for controls to let me synchronize more salvos in order to defeat their AMM defenses.

[Catman115 (OP)]

Alright so i have tried to design a series of ship engines (Officially Designed by the State Engineering Commune) to attempt to standardize production for the different general varieties of vessel run by the Soviet High Command. Here goes nothing:

Commercial Engine:
Engine Tech: Ion Drive Technology
Power/Efficiency Modifiers: Engine Power x0.50/Fuel Consumption per EPH x0.18
Fuel Consumption: 0.6 Fuel Efficiency
Thermal Reduction: 100% Normal
Engine Size: 25 HS, Fuel Consumption -25%

Fighter Drive:
Engine Tech: Ion Drive Technology
Power/Efficiency Modifiers: Engine Power x2.00 /Fuel Consumption per EPH x5.66
Fuel Consumption: 0.6 Fuel Efficiency
Thermal Reduction: 100% Normal
Engine Size: 1 HS, Fuel Consumption -1%

Escort Drive:
Engine Tech: Ion Drive Technology
Power/Efficiency Modifiers: Engine Power x1.10 /Fuel Consumption per EPH x1.27
Fuel Consumption: 0.6 Fuel Efficiency
Thermal Reduction: 100% Normal
Engine Size: 15 HS, Fuel Consumption -15%

Destroyer Drive:
Engine Tech: Ion Drive Technology
Power/Efficiency Modifiers: Engine Power x1.00 /Fuel Consumption per EPH x1.00
Fuel Consumption: 0.6 Fuel Efficiency
Thermal Reduction: 100% Normal
Engine Size: 15 HS, -15% Fuel Consumption

Sub-Capital Drive:
Engine Tech: Ion Drive Technology
Power/Efficiency Modifiers: Engine Power x0.80 /Fuel Consumption per EPH x0.57
Fuel Consumption: 0.6 Fuel Efficiency
Thermal Reduction: 100% Normal
Engine Size: 15 HS, -15% Fuel Consumption

Capital Drive:
Engine Tech: Ion Drive Technology
Power/Efficiency Modifiers: Engine Power x0.80 /Fuel Consumption per EPH x0.57
Fuel Consumption: 0.6 Fuel Efficiency
Thermal Reduction: 100% Normal
Engine Size: 20HS, -20% Fuel Consumption

Super-Capital Drive:
Engine Tech: Ion Drive Technology
Power/Efficiency Modifiers: Engine Power x1.00 /Fuel Consumption per EPH x1.00
Fuel Consumption: 0.6 Fuel Efficiency
Thermal Reduction: 100% Normal
Engine Size: 20 HS, -20% Fuel Consumption


And Missile engines since i can in fact lump them into this post.

Size 6 Missile Drive:
Engine Tech: Ion Drive Technology
Power/Efficiency Modifiers: Engine Power x /Fuel Consumption per EPH x
Fuel Consumption: 0.6 Fuel Efficiency
Missile Engine Size:

AMM Drive:
Engine Tech: Ion Drive Technology
Power/Efficiency Modifiers: Engine Power x4.00 /Fuel Consumption per EPH x32.00
Fuel Consumption: 0.6 Fuel Efficiency
Missile Engine Size: 0.1 MSP, Fuel Consumption 14.47

[TheDeadlyShoe]

i'd probably collapse the escort, destroyer, and maybe sub-capital drive into one drive.

i'd also collapse the super-capital and capital drives into one drive, and make it Size 50.

I'd also make the Commercial drive have the lowest available drive multiplier; it's a huge fuel saver, which is an enormous concern for commercial designs.

[db48x]

I'm not sure you can usefully design missile engines without designing the whole missile. First you have to decide on a warhead strength, then see how much space is left over for fuel+engines+agility. Fuel efficiency and desired range will give you a guess to use for the amount of fuel, and that just leaves the split between engines and agility. At my tech level in my game I seem to get the best results with slightly more engine than agility, so in my AMM I'm using a 0.45-sized engine with 0.415 agility and my ASM (which is size 6) is using a 2.25-sized engine and 1.5 agility. At earlier tech levels my missiles had larger engines and much less agility, and in fact each time I've redesigned my missiles I've used completely different engine sizes.

On the other hand, in this game I've been quite cautious and haven't actually had to use either of these. I've no idea if they'll be sufficient, but the numbers for each generation have been an improvement over the last.

[Iranon]

@ db48x:
That's too much agility. Highest accuracy for a given engine/agility budget is achieved when
(Agility MSP) = (Engine MSP) - 10*(Total Size) / (Agility per MSP)

In practice, you'd use less for bigger engines: larger engines save a little fuel, speed has other advantages.



@ catman115:
Agree with the others mostly, I'd standardise more and use size 50 drives when practical.
I also rather like 0.3 power multiplier for my commercial ships. Lower for freighters if it's worth researching a separate drive (probably not at Ion tech, better to focus on new engine concept).

[Catman115 (OP)]

Alright it is time for me to begin trying to parse how to missiles.

SO imma begin with probably the most important device i will ever construct (hopefully correctly) in the game, the AMM.

Size 1 AMM:
Warhead Strength: 0.2 MSP, 1 Value
Fuel Capacity: 0.1 MSP, 250 Value
Agility: 0.6 MSP, 38.4 Value
Engine Size: 0.1 MSP

Engine Make:
Engine Tech: Ion Drive Technology
Power/Efficiency Modifiers: Engine Power x4.00 /Fuel Consumption per EPH x32.00
Fuel Consumption: 0.6 Fuel Efficiency
Missile Engine Size: 0.1 MSP, Fuel Consumption 14.47

Engine Stats:
Number of Engines: 1
Engine Total Size: 0.1 MSP
Engine Total Power: 0.24
Engine Total Cost: 0.06

Resulting Descriptor:
Missile Size: 1 MSP  (0.05 HS)     Warhead: 1    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 48
Speed: 4800 km/s    Engine Endurance: 45 minutes   Range: 13.0m km
Cost Per Missile: 1.078
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 230.4%   3k km/s 48%   5k km/s 46.1%   10k km/s 23%
Materials Required:    0.25x Tritanium   0.828x Gallicite   Fuel x250

[Iranon]

Try this:

0.2 warhead
0.5 engine (preferably a single one)
0.211 agility
0.089 fuel


This should get you a viable AMM with enough range to use it offensively, without giving up much for that capability.