Author Topic: First warship, how bad am I doing?  (Read 909 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline 00lewnor

  • Able Ordinary Rate
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
First warship, how bad am I doing?
« on: May 19, 2017, 04:29:01 PM »
After the First Salvaging Task Force was destroyed by Cybran forces in an understandable move, we were salvaging wrecks of their ships in a contested system while active fighting was ongoing act of unprovoked aggression the Admiralty spent a few years waiting for the next engine technology immediately began the design and production of a fleet of warships to claim the zero colony cost planet with home-world mineral generation take revenge for our fallen spacers and secure humanities future among the stars!

The current plan is small (ideally all 8,000 ton) and fast ships specialised for a single role and change fleet composition as necessary.   Active search sensors will be provided by a dedicated ship, as will jump capabilities, more fuel and missiles, antimissile capabilities ,etcetera. 

Considering that how does my first ASM cruiser look? (I'm considering moving up to 9,000 ton ships so I can fit more launchers)
Code: [Select]
Geryon class Missile Cruiser    8,000 tons     216 Crew     1479.92 BP      TCS 160  TH 1500  EM 0
9,375 km/s     Armour 3-35     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 3     PPV 36
Maint Life 1.09 Years     MSP 347    AFR 170%    IFR 2.4%    1YR 295    5YR 4425    Max Repair 375 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 1 months    Spare Berths 4   
Magazine 371   

Military HS30 Mk.1 750 EP Internal Fusion Drive (2)    Power 750    Fuel Use 85.6%    Signature 750    Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 1,000,000 Litres    Range 26.3 billion km   (32 days at full power)

Size 6 Missile Launcher Mk.1 (6)    Missile Size 6    Rate of Fire 45
R170/MR153 Missile Fire Control (2)     Range 153.3m km    Resolution 170

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes


It will be firing the Harpoon Mk.  1 Multi-role Missile (i.  e.  : the Mk.  1 I'm-just-messing-with-the-missile-design-app-until-I-get-something-that-doesn't-look-to-bad Missile):
Code: [Select]
Missile Size: 6 MSP  (0.3 HS)     Warhead: 9    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 22
Speed: 33,500 km/s    Engine Endurance: 51 minutes   Range: 102.4m km
Cost Per Missile: 6.1401
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 737%   3k km/s 242%   5k km/s 147.4%   10k km/s 73.7%
Materials Required:    2.25x Tritanium   3.8901x Gallicite   Fuel x1529.5


Other probable hulls include:
  • The Lynx class sensor cruiser with two HS40 sensors; one R1 and one R170. 
  • The Gazelle class anti-missile missile cruiser.   (My Diable Mk.  1 anti-missile missile's have a 20m km range but a fire control that can match that is ~ 15 hull size, using this would give me 10 min AMM envelope vs my own missiles but that seems rather large.   Should I drop my AMM engagement range?
  • Tankers, colliers and jump ships should be fairly easy. 
  • A beam point defence vessel? Or just use the long range AMM's and plenty of reloads?
  • I have 9,000 ton 'civilian' carriers with 3,000 ton hangar space that have been hauling Geo and Grav survey fighters around that I can militarise fairly easily.   Here's my five minute railgun fighter to put in them.   (In hindsight my research may have been to focused on engines and missiles)
Code: [Select]
Broadsword class Fighter    482 tons     4 Crew     104 BP      TCS 9.64  TH 120  EM 0
12448 km/s     Armour 1-5     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 3
Maint Life 2.29 Years     MSP 13    AFR 18%    IFR 0.3%    1YR 3    5YR 50    Max Repair 60 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.1 months    Spare Berths 0   

120 EP Internal Fusion Drive (1)    Power 120    Fuel Use 384.1%    Signature 120    Exp 20%
Fuel Capacity 100,000 Litres    Range 9.7 billion km   (9 days at full power)

10cm Railgun V1/C2 (1x4)    Range 10,000km     TS: 12448 km/s     Power 3-2     RM 1    ROF 10        1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fire Control S00.5 16-3000 (FTR) (1)    Max Range: 32 000 km   TS: 12000 km/s     69 37 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tokamak Fusion Reactor Technology PB-1 (1)     Total Power Output 2.4    Armour 0    Exp 5%

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and maintenance purposes


Anyway this has turned from "how does my first ship look?" to a stream of conscious about my planed fleet so I'm going to shut up and post it now. 
« Last Edit: May 19, 2017, 04:31:17 PM by 00lewnor »
 

Offline Iranon

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 477
  • Thanked: 32 times
    • View Profile
Re: First warship, how bad am I doing?
« Reply #1 on: May 19, 2017, 05:21:43 PM »
6 Missiles are quite easy to defend against. AI point defence is notoriously poor, but you'll still need a fair number of these ships to land hits consistently; I'd favour reduced-size launchers unless you have a specific plan to break through.

the propulsion plant is unnecessarily thirsty - bigger less stressed engines and less fuel could have better performance; 0.9 power multiplier or so should do.
Then there's the question of whether you need this kind of speed for missile ships.

MSP < Max Repair, you won't be able to repair some breakdowns let alone battle damage.

*

I'd use separate sensor ships for R1 and R100+ sensors. Harder to detect/target and allows having only the R1 sensor switched on for emissions control.

AMM range beyond a couple of millions is usually use against ships in a pinch; missiles are built that way only because it doesn't cost much performance. A 15HS fire control would generally be considered excessive.

I'd definitely recommend some beam point defence vessels; in prolonged engagements they will more than pay for themselves.

*

The fighter probably needs no engineering spaces given its mission life. Again, a slightly overstressed propulsion plant. Capacitor-3 would be preferable. Extremely short range makes a good initiative rating a necessity, otherwise even slower opponents can evade you within every 5s tick.
 

Offline Barkhorn

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 397
  • Thanked: 49 times
    • View Profile
Re: First warship, how bad am I doing?
« Reply #2 on: May 19, 2017, 05:55:29 PM »
I think you forgot to change your deployment time on the cruiser.  1 month is really short, especially considering you have maintainance life for over a year.

Your magazine is way too large, you've got ~60 full volleys there.  But since you're only firing 6 missiles per volley, whatever you're fighting will likely kill you before you get anywhere near low on ammo.  I'd trade some of that magazine space for more launchers.  I'd also use reduced size launchers so I could fit even more.

Your fighter is OK I guess.  I always try to make it a factor of 500 tons, so I don't waste any hangar space.
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 737
  • Thanked: 32 times
    • View Profile
Re: First warship, how bad am I doing?
« Reply #3 on: May 19, 2017, 08:02:58 PM »
Magazines that deep are useful for long sustained operations but as others said, your salvo strength is somewhat poor unless you're going to stack A LOT of these ships. It also doesn't fit your 1 month deployment time. Probably better to increase the number of launchers and reduce the number of magazines and increase deployment time as well.  Another option is to mix box launchers, reduced size launchers and full size launchers - that allows you to customize your alpha strike to fit any situation while leaving you with flexibility of follow up strikes.
 

Offline I_Sicarius_I

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • Posts: 28
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: First warship, how bad am I doing?
« Reply #4 on: June 27, 2017, 03:40:30 AM »
8kt cruisers? Man i feel like im way overcompensating for something with mine haha.  I only started yesterday so im just here to see what they say about your ships
 

Offline Detros

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 386
  • Thanked: 25 times
    • View Profile
Re: First warship, how bad am I doing?
« Reply #5 on: June 27, 2017, 06:30:01 AM »
8kt cruisers? Man i feel like im way overcompensating for something with mine haha.  I only started yesterday so im just here to see what they say about your ships
Everyone uses the ship size types differently.
In my previous game I was using 5kt frigates and 10kt destroyers as the main military force, in my current one i have 3750t frigates, 7.5kt destroyers with 15kt cruisers and am preparing for 30kt battleships now.
 

Offline Michael Sandy

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 491
  • Thanked: 16 times
    • View Profile
Re: First warship, how bad am I doing?
« Reply #6 on: June 27, 2017, 08:22:07 PM »
One of the big things that affects ship size is whether you started with a conventional start or not, and about how many years after start you are building your warships.

It can take quite a while to expand a shipyard enough to build real capital ships.  Especially if you put a bunch of extra slips on your largest shipyard to get out some ships in a hurry.

Once you start building your fleet, you may be retooling your shipyards a lot more, so you can't be enlarging them at the same time.
 

Offline TT

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • Posts: 68
  • Thanked: 5 times
    • View Profile
Re: First warship, how bad am I doing?
« Reply #7 on: June 27, 2017, 08:37:50 PM »
Everyone is right. There is nothing wrong with an 8000T Missle ship but unless you have a plan that takes advantage of deep magazines using a small number of very fast firing launchers, you would probably benefit from reduced size launchers.  You could also trade magazines for launchers and get a better volley width. One thing I occassionally do is to use a small number of full size launchers with most of my launchers reduced size. That gives you a little throughput with decent volley sizes.

One thing, you ship is fairly fast.  You could reduce the engine multiplier which would reduce speed but also reduce fuel requirements and give you more launcher space. Good luck
« Last Edit: June 27, 2017, 08:47:26 PM by TT »
 

Offline Michael Sandy

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 491
  • Thanked: 16 times
    • View Profile
Re: First warship, how bad am I doing?
« Reply #8 on: June 28, 2017, 03:16:49 AM »
There are a very few missile ship philosophies that are not improved by using reduced sized launchers.

Antimissile missile ships benefit from fullspeed launchers.

What I call an avalanche design, where the launcher has a DEEP magazine, and fires missiles exactly as fast as it, so that all missiles arrive at the same time.  It is not horrible versus fixed bases defended by AMMs, because you can fire relatively slow missiles from outside the base's missile envelope, and have all the slow missiles arrive at the same time.

And at very high boost levels, when high agility AMMs basically kill long ranged missiles, ships that use missiles instead of beams for the .5 million - 1.5 million km or so range, high launcher rates improve overall dps.

And when you need high dps to kill closing beam fighters before they enter beam range.

So that is either slow missiles, or firing missiles at a very close target.  (that is also a lot faster than you, but has to get closer to attack)
 

 

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