Author Topic: 1st gen beamers of the TAN: late magneto-plasma era beam cruisers  (Read 1968 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline YABG (OP)

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • Y
  • Posts: 43
  • Thanked: 19 times
The Terran Authority, a xenophobic, militaristic dictatorship governed by a junta of the empire's top military commanders, issues a demand for combat ship designs to form it's first fleet.  The rapid growth of Earth's off-world and out-of-system colonies have made clear the need for a fast, mobile navy capable of responding to threats quickly.  The design board's answer to this is the big-gun cruiser concept: super-fast warships built around a central spinal laser cannon system. 

X-06 Independence class battle cruiser:
Code: [Select]
X-06 Independence class Battlecruiser    30 000 tons     826 Crew     6867 BP      TCS 600  TH 6000  EM 1800
10000 km/s     Armour 9-86     Shields 60-300     Sensors 49/11/0/0     Damage Control Rating 84     PPV 50
Maint Life 2.09 Years     MSP 3434    AFR 300%    IFR 4.2%    1YR 1051    5YR 15771    Max Repair 600 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Flight Crew Berths 3   
Flag Bridge    Hangar Deck Capacity 2000 tons     

Type-059 Capital Plasma Drive (5)    Power 1200    Fuel Use 68.89%    Signature 1200    Exp 15%
Fuel Capacity 2 805 000 Litres    Range 24.4 billion km   (28 days at full power)
Type-059 Shield Projector (20)   Total Fuel Cost  300 Litres per hour  (7 200 per day)

Type-062 450mm Spinal Laser Cannon (1)    Range 320 000km     TS: 10000 km/s     Power 53-6     RM 5    ROF 45        53 53 53 53 53 44 37 33 29 26
Type-059 200mm Laser Cannon (4)    Range 320 000km     TS: 10000 km/s     Power 10-5     RM 5    ROF 10        10 10 10 10 10 8 7 6 5 5
Type-058 100mm Railgun (4x4)    Range 40 000km     TS: 10000 km/s     Power 3-3     RM 4    ROF 5        1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
SBG-10 Beam Fire Control Radar (2)    Max Range: 80 000 km   TS: 10000 km/s     88 75 62 50 38 25 12 0 0 0
SBG-09 Beam Fire Control Radar (1)    Max Range: 320 000 km   TS: 10000 km/s     97 94 91 88 84 81 78 75 72 69
SFR-6 (6)     Total Power Output 36    Armour 0    Exp 5%
SFR-3 (1)     Total Power Output 3    Armour 0    Exp 5%

SPS-12 Active Search Radar (1)     GPS 14700     Range 200.8m km    Resolution 105
SPD-11 Early Warning Radar (1)     GPS 70     Range 9.8m km    MCR 1.1m km    Resolution 1
SAR-01 Thermal Sensor Suite (1)     Sensitivity 49     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  49m km
SDR-04 EM Sensor Suite (1)     Sensitivity 11     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  11m km

ECCM-2 (1)         Strike Group
4x F-60/A Vulture Interceptor   Speed: 20120 km/s    Size: 9.94

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes


F-60/A Vulture class Interceptor    497 tons     4 Crew     174.4 BP      TCS 9.94  TH 200  EM 0
20120 km/s     Armour 1-5     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 3
Maint Life 0 Years     MSP 0    AFR 99%    IFR 1.4%    1YR 46    5YR 694    Max Repair 100 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.1 months    Spare Berths 0   

Type-060 Fighter Plasma Drive (1)    Power 200    Fuel Use 469.4%    Signature 200    Exp 25%
Fuel Capacity 10 000 Litres    Range 0.8 billion km   (10 hours at full power)

Type-058 100mm Railgun (1x4)    Range 40 000km     TS: 20120 km/s     Power 3-3     RM 4    ROF 5        1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
APG-14  Beam Fire Control Radar (1)    Max Range: 80 000 km   TS: 20000 km/s     88 75 62 50 38 25 12 0 0 0
SFR-3B (1)     Total Power Output 3    Armour 0    Exp 20%

APD-15 Target Aquisition Radar (1)     GPS 6     Range 780k km    MCR 85k km    Resolution 1

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

The first capital ships of the TA, the four proposed ships of the Independence class will provide the Authority's navy with advanced C3 capability, heavily armed big-gun combatants, and incredibly useful propaganda tools.

This monstrous ship is built around a single, central 480mm laser cannon capable of delivering a penetrating energy blast the equivalent of a 53 kiloton nuclear warhead at 50,000 km or reaching out and striking targets at 300,000 km with the strength of an 8 kiloton warhead.  A secondary battery of four 200mm laser cannons supplement the gargantuan primary battery.  The ships armament is rounded off with a tertiary battery of four 100mm railguns for point defense and anti-FAC duties.  Dual point defense fire control radars support the main fire control director allowing the Independence's point defense package to track multiple hostile salvos or, in CQB engagements, engage multiple enemy warships. 

Each Independence at full load carries four F-60/A Vulture class interceptors.  These small ships add an extra four railguns to the Independence's point defense capabilities, tracking at a blistering 20,000 km/s.  The design bureau forsees that this hanger capacity will give the Independence's improved power projection abilities as a host of small ship classes become available for use.

It is said that critics of the design argue that the ship's protection system is inadequate for the engagements the ship is designed to fight, assuming they can get there on their meager 24m km range.  It is also said that critics of TAN ship designs have a higher chance of being found guilty of a whole host of easily fakeable crimes.  Funny coincidence that.

The TAN intends to commission four of these ships.  They will remain in orbit of Earth and be deployed in concert with the following cruiser and destroyer designs to lead expeditionary fleets to expand Authority space.


X-05 Pegasus I/A class Heavy Cruiser
Code: [Select]
X-05 Pegasus class Heavy Cruiser    18 000 tons     556 Crew     4329 BP      TCS 360  TH 3600  EM 1260
10000 km/s     Armour 6-61     Shields 42-300     Sensors 98/11/0/0     Damage Control Rating 54     PPV 45
Maint Life 2.29 Years     MSP 2180    AFR 178%    IFR 2.5%    1YR 563    5YR 8449    Max Repair 600 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Spare Berths 0   

Type-059 Capital Plasma Drive (3)    Power 1200    Fuel Use 68.89%    Signature 1200    Exp 15%
Fuel Capacity 1 765 000 Litres    Range 25.6 billion km   (29 days at full power)
Type-059 Shield Projector (14)   Total Fuel Cost  210 Litres per hour  (5 040 per day)

Type-059 380mm Spinal Laser Cannon (1)    Range 320 000km     TS: 10000 km/s     Power 38-5     RM 5    ROF 40        38 38 38 38 38 31 27 23 21 19
Type-059 200mm Laser Cannon (3)    Range 320 000km     TS: 10000 km/s     Power 10-5     RM 5    ROF 10        10 10 10 10 10 8 7 6 5 5
Type-058 100mm Railgun (5x4)    Range 40 000km     TS: 10000 km/s     Power 3-3     RM 4    ROF 5        1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
SBG-09 Beam Fire Control Radar (1)    Max Range: 320 000 km   TS: 10000 km/s     97 94 91 88 84 81 78 75 72 69
SBG-10 Beam Fire Control Radar (2)    Max Range: 80 000 km   TS: 10000 km/s     88 75 62 50 38 25 12 0 0 0
SFR-6 (6)     Total Power Output 36    Armour 0    Exp 5%

SPN-05 Navigation Radar (1)     GPS 21     Range 2.3m km    MCR 252k km    Resolution 1
SPS-12 Active Search Radar (1)     GPS 14700     Range 200.8m km    Resolution 105
SAR-02 Thermal Sensor Suite (1)     Sensitivity 98     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  98m km
SDR-04 EM Sensor Suite (1)     Sensitivity 11     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  11m km

ECCM-2 (1)         ECM 20

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Intended to form the core of patrol and strike units in the TAN, Pegasus cruisers can be considered, in many respects, to be a smaller version of the independence.  The Pegasus can be seen as a response to dwindling Mercassium and Duranium stocks, as well as a 'good-enough' beam combatant that could be quickly developed with the tech on hand at the time. 

Two key differences between the classes is the inclusion of a stronger passive sensor suite and a larger tertiary point defense battery on the Pegasus.  TAN officials believe that cruiser role mandates the ability to undertake solo patrol tasks, thus the better active-defensive and passive detection capabilities of the class.  Six divisions, each comprised of two ships, are planned for a total of 12 cruisers.


X-04 Comet I/A class Destroyer:
Code: [Select]
X-03 Comet I class Destroyer    6 000 tons     190 Crew     1554 BP      TCS 120  TH 1200  EM 450
10000 km/s     Armour 2-29     Shields 15-300     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 3     PPV 18
Maint Life 2.16 Years     MSP 486    AFR 96%    IFR 1.3%    1YR 139    5YR 2086    Max Repair 300 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Spare Berths 0   

Type-059 Destroyer Plasma Drive (2)    Power 600    Fuel Use 103.34%    Signature 600    Exp 15%
Fuel Capacity 795 000 Litres    Range 23.1 billion km   (26 days at full power)
Type-059 Shield Projector (5)   Total Fuel Cost  75 Litres per hour  (1 800 per day)

Type-059 120mm Laser Cannon (3)    Range 200 000km     TS: 10000 km/s     Power 4-4     RM 5    ROF 5        4 4 4 4 4 3 2 2 2 2
Type-058 100mm Railgun (2x4)    Range 40 000km     TS: 10000 km/s     Power 3-3     RM 4    ROF 5        1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
SBG-13 Beam Fire Control Radar (1)    Max Range: 240 000 km   TS: 10000 km/s     96 92 88 83 79 75 71 67 62 58
SBG-10 Beam Fire Control Radar (1)    Max Range: 80 000 km   TS: 10000 km/s     88 75 62 50 38 25 12 0 0 0
SFR-6 (3)     Total Power Output 18    Armour 0    Exp 5%

SPD-11 Early Warning Radar (1)     GPS 70     Range 9.8m km    MCR 1.1m km    Resolution 1

ECM 20

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Envisioned as the workhorse and principle fleet escort of the TAN Fleet, the Comet class of destroyers offers a balance of defensive and offensive capabilities.  When operating with the fleet they provide the stronger SPD-11 early warning radar giving fleet commanders better awareness of potential fighter and missile attacks.  The inclusion of the Type-059 QF 120mm laser cannon gives a division of destroyers a potent deterrent to any beam combatant attempting to close to CQB engagement range with an Authority fleet.

A total of 24 to 32 ships are expected to be orders, providing a total of 6 to 8 destroyer divisions for patrol and escort duties in Authority space. 



Thought I'd make a proper post to mark an end to my lurking here.  I've been playing Aurora for a little while now and I've wanted to do a run with a focus on spinal mounted beam cruisers.  I enjoy naval history and I've taken some loose inspiration from early C20 warships in the development of these beamers: hence the big gun on the battlecruiser.  To me, you just can't call yourself a battle-anything without a 12"/30cm or above primary armament!

As I alluded to in the post, I feel the protection and range on these things is a little low for the tech level, though I like to think that the 10,000 km/s speed will give them an edge on the defensive. 
 

Offline misanthropope

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • m
  • Posts: 257
  • Thanked: 65 times
Re: 1st gen beamers of the TAN: late magneto-plasma era beam cruisers
« Reply #1 on: December 28, 2019, 07:07:08 PM »
i mean, the usual problem with beam-based fleets are a) they're made of gallicite b) have the shelf life of calamari and c) if your enemy out EWs you, you're in for a bad day at the office.  if you've got someone handy to overrun, i can see rushing with designs like this.  as a fleet to have just because, maybe a little budget-busting. 

i kind of like the pegasus.  indy ("was the dog's name") has imo too much armor and the hangars, extravagances brought on i feel by the allure of 30,000 tons to fill up, but with the immense cost of that engine suite, you need ruthless focus on murder.  comet is a glass cannon, and the "cannon" part is nothing special.

might look to shave some tonnage off pegasus's's's sensor suite (a boat bay for small recon craft might be a cost effective alternative, and maintain the independent action capability).   Through all three classes i personally prefer 15 cm lasers over 12 or 20.  But broadly speaking, implementation seems sound.
 

Offline Father Tim

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2162
  • Thanked: 525 times
Re: 1st gen beamers of the TAN: late magneto-plasma era beam cruisers
« Reply #2 on: December 29, 2019, 10:39:35 AM »
I mostly like them.  Personally, I hate spinal lasers and LOVE spinal mass drivers (as a concept), so I would only ever spinal-mount a rail gun, but that is 100% personal taste.

I have built many an Aurora fleet based on late 19th, early 20th, and WWII wet navies, and find it a great way to theme and constrict my ships.

- - - - -

Again, this is one hundred percent my personal style and opinion, but 'spinal mount weapons' don't seem very 'early 20th C' Battleship to me.  Two to four turrets of two to three big guns does.  When I'm doing a 'simulation' fleet I frequently use SM to give myself up to 30cm guns for free, in order to build proper battlewagons.  It's not even unbalancing, since a C1 Infrared 30cm Laser with a 10,000 km range fires very slowly (and since NPRs spawn with a proportion of your empire's total research points).

What I really like doing is copying an actual ship that existed in the time period, and 'interpreting' it by Aurora's rules.  For example, I would take the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cressy-class_cruiser and in Aurora design it to have:
speed 2,100 km/s, or 2,400 km/s or 3,900 km/s depending on my engine tech
2 single-turret 20cm or 25 cm lasers
12 single-turret 15cm lasers
12 single-turret 33% gauss cannon
3 single-turret 12.5% gauss cannon
2 reduced-0.25 size 9 missile tubes
Armour 6 layers deep

At least, as a starting point.  I might have to drop the armour to 5 layers to fit my jumpships, or fiddle the engines/fuel/maintenance/crew ratio to fine-tune the displacement.

And sure, someone will come along and say "You should replace all those piddly little gauss cannon with a single CIWS; it's more efficient" and I will laugh at them because efficiency is not the goal; re-creating a Cressy is.

- - - - -

My point is, with a fixed design goal in mind you can easily weigh suggestions against the fiction and decide what's appropriate.  Replacing three medium guns with two big ones might give better combat performance, but it will make your Mogami-class cruisers not Mogamis any more.*  Long range fighter strikes and massive missile salvoes might win you every battle, but they sure don't feel like Jutland.



*Okay, bad example, since historically this is exactly what happened in 1939.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2019, 10:44:53 AM by Father Tim »
 
The following users thanked this post: Alsadius

Online xenoscepter

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1046
  • Thanked: 255 times
Re: 1st gen beamers of the TAN: late magneto-plasma era beam cruisers
« Reply #3 on: December 29, 2019, 01:05:50 PM »
The 1st thing I would like to say is... HOLY BALLS THOSE ARE QUICK!

With that out of the way, these are some pretty solid designs, but here are some ways to improve them:

 - Your burn time [fuel], deployment time, and maintenance life are pretty out of wack; from a roleplay perspective why is your battlecruiser kitted out to sustain maintain itself for two years without repair, sustain it's crew for a year without resupply, but only have enough fuel to run the engines for less than a month?

 - Armor vs Shields, these are okay as is however the mechanically speaking the armor for your battlecruiser is quite light while the shields are very adequate for boom and zoom tactics.

 - Your classes are all over the place. What makes the Heavy Cruiser "Heavy"? Is there a "Regular" Cruiser and it's halfway between it and a proper Battlecruiser? What is the Destroyer intended to do? Not so much an improvement as something to think about.

 - Only the Heavy Cruiser has a Navigational Radar... if you are role-playing your ships to need a navigational radar, things might go a bit pear shaped if your cruiser bites it.

 - Have you considered really tiny active sensors for dedicated target acquisition? A little Resolution 1 sensor, maybe ten tons or so, is great for firing the weapons if your big sensors bite the dust. They are also much quieter than great big Anti-Missile Sensors.

 - Armament is sane, and firepower is great across the board. Might suggest replacing the SBG-10 Fire Controls with a lighter one with either 40,000(50% at 20,000) or 20,000(50% at 10,000) max range. The SBG-09 and SBG-13 are fine for using the Railguns outside of the Point Defense role, however you do lose some redundancy if the main FCS goes down... which could suck.

All in all, they seem like excellent ships. It is very hard to grade beam warships w/o knowing what technology level you are at though. The 1st priority for a beam-only warship is either speed or defense, then firepower. All other capabilities take a backseat to these. Long range and good sensors are nice to have though.
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2383
  • Thanked: 774 times
Re: 1st gen beamers of the TAN: late magneto-plasma era beam cruisers
« Reply #4 on: December 29, 2019, 05:46:15 PM »
Yeah, those engines are THIRSTY!

It looks like you intend to send your cruisers out to the dark and have them sit there waiting for tankers, then send them further away to secure another location and wait for tankers - then rinse & repeat? Otherwise, they look quite capable.
 

Offline YABG (OP)

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • Y
  • Posts: 43
  • Thanked: 19 times
Re: 1st gen beamers of the TAN: late magneto-plasma era beam cruisers
« Reply #5 on: December 30, 2019, 06:37:40 AM »
Quote from: misanthropope link=topic=10544. msg117728#msg117728 date=1577581628
i mean, the usual problem with beam-based fleets are a) they're made of gallicite b) have the shelf life of calamari and c) if your enemy out EWs you, you're in for a bad day at the office.   if you've got someone handy to overrun, i can see rushing with designs like this.   as a fleet to have just because, maybe a little budget-busting.   

i kind of like the pegasus.   indy ("was the dog's name") has imo too much armor and the hangars, extravagances brought on i feel by the allure of 30,000 tons to fill up, but with the immense cost of that engine suite, you need ruthless focus on murder.   comet is a glass cannon, and the "cannon" part is nothing special.

might look to shave some tonnage off pegasus's's's sensor suite (a boat bay for small recon craft might be a cost effective alternative, and maintain the independent action capability).    Through all three classes i personally prefer 15 cm lasers over 12 or 20.   But broadly speaking, implementation seems sound.

Yeah, beam fleets have serious issues when compared to missile-based fleets but I've played around with both big missile cruisers and carriers/missile fighters and wanted a change.  Gallicite shouldn't be too much of an issue right now - it's my biggest stockpile on Earth at about 120,000 tons compared to the >1000 tons of Mercassium I have - but obviously will be a problem later down the line if I carry on the game long enough.

Your right that the Indy has some extravagances that it probably doesn't need.  I really wanted to give it fighters because I recently read Forever War and played a bit of Steller Monarch and both settings give their cruisers fighters for extra defense and strike power.  I was weighing up the benefits of stripping the hangers and just going with more railguns, which would be the more efficient option, but decided it probably wouldn't be as cool/fun.  I went with an armour rating of 9 because I like to think of that as a 9" belt which, in rough OTL terms, is on the lighter side for a ship designed for use in a battle line. 

I'm not too keen on the Pegasus since it was built with as many off-the-shelf components as possible, creating something quite mediocre in my mind.  A boat-bay recon craft is a good idea, kind of like the float planes cruisers used to carry, so I might incorporate that into a later variant.

Quote from: Father Tim link=topic=10544. msg117733#msg117733 date=1577637575
I mostly like them.   Personally, I hate spinal lasers and LOVE spinal mass drivers (as a concept), so I would only ever spinal-mount a rail gun, but that is 100% personal taste.

I have built many an Aurora fleet based on late 19th, early 20th, and WWII wet navies, and find it a great way to theme and constrict my ships.

- - - - -

Again, this is one hundred percent my personal style and opinion, but 'spinal mount weapons' don't seem very 'early 20th C' Battleship to me.   Two to four turrets of two to three big guns does.   When I'm doing a 'simulation' fleet I frequently use SM to give myself up to 30cm guns for free, in order to build proper battlewagons.   It's not even unbalancing, since a C1 Infrared 30cm Laser with a 10,000 km range fires very slowly (and since NPRs spawn with a proportion of your empire's total research points).

What I really like doing is copying an actual ship that existed in the time period, and 'interpreting' it by Aurora's rules.   For example, I would take the https://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Cressy-class_cruiser and in Aurora design it to have:
speed 2,100 km/s, or 2,400 km/s or 3,900 km/s depending on my engine tech
2 single-turret 20cm or 25 cm lasers
12 single-turret 15cm lasers
12 single-turret 33% gauss cannon
3 single-turret 12. 5% gauss cannon
2 reduced-0. 25 size 9 missile tubes
Armour 6 layers deep

At least, as a starting point.   I might have to drop the armour to 5 layers to fit my jumpships, or fiddle the engines/fuel/maintenance/crew ratio to fine-tune the displacement.

And sure, someone will come along and say "You should replace all those piddly little gauss cannon with a single CIWS; it's more efficient" and I will laugh at them because efficiency is not the goal; re-creating a Cressy is.

- - - - -

My point is, with a fixed design goal in mind you can easily weigh suggestions against the fiction and decide what's appropriate.   Replacing three medium guns with two big ones might give better combat performance, but it will make your Mogami-class cruisers not Mogamis any more. *  Long range fighter strikes and massive missile salvoes might win you every battle, but they sure don't feel like Jutland.



*Okay, bad example, since historically this is exactly what happened in 1939.

You got me! Those spinal guns aren't like OTL ships at all, I just wanted a really big gun! I have a plan to do something with more realistic ships in a multi-faction game inspired by the C19 Concert of Europe and scramble for Africa when C# comes around.  One thing I've thought of is, to represent early ironclad and pre-dreadnought battleship guns, is to use plasma cannonades since they get a bigger caliber earlier than lasers.  The fact they're worse than lasers would help represent how crappy those early guns were.

Quote from: xenoscepter link=topic=10544. msg117734#msg117734 date=1577646350
The 1st thing I would like to say is. . .  HOLY BALLS THOSE ARE QUICK!

With that out of the way, these are some pretty solid designs, but here are some ways to improve them:

 - Your burn time [fuel], deployment time, and maintenance life are pretty out of wack; from a roleplay perspective why is your battlecruiser kitted out to sustain maintain itself for two years without repair, sustain it's crew for a year without resupply, but only have enough fuel to run the engines for less than a month?

 - Armor vs Shields, these are okay as is however the mechanically speaking the armor for your battlecruiser is quite light while the shields are very adequate for boom and zoom tactics.

 - Your classes are all over the place.  What makes the Heavy Cruiser "Heavy"? Is there a "Regular" Cruiser and it's halfway between it and a proper Battlecruiser? What is the Destroyer intended to do? Not so much an improvement as something to think about.

 - Only the Heavy Cruiser has a Navigational Radar. . .  if you are role-playing your ships to need a navigational radar, things might go a bit pear shaped if your cruiser bites it.

 - Have you considered really tiny active sensors for dedicated target acquisition? A little Resolution 1 sensor, maybe ten tons or so, is great for firing the weapons if your big sensors bite the dust.  They are also much quieter than great big Anti-Missile Sensors.

 - Armament is sane, and firepower is great across the board.  Might suggest replacing the SBG-10 Fire Controls with a lighter one with either 40,000(50% at 20,000) or 20,000(50% at 10,000) max range.  The SBG-09 and SBG-13 are fine for using the Railguns outside of the Point Defense role, however you do lose some redundancy if the main FCS goes down. . .  which could suck.

All in all, they seem like excellent ships.  It is very hard to grade beam warships w/o knowing what technology level you are at though.  The 1st priority for a beam-only warship is either speed or defense, then firepower.  All other capabilities take a backseat to these.  Long range and good sensors are nice to have though.

I heard speed was important for beam engagements :P Thank god we don't have to worry about G-force for transnewtonian ships or my crews would be a fine red paste by the end of each tour. . .

Endurance is a problem with these ships, but 25 billion km at this stage is more than enough to get to any colony in TA space right now.  It was a sacrifice for their stupid speed.  In game doctrine for their use is for them to either operate from a colonial base when on the defensive, picketing jump points or striking out, when passives detect a hostile fleet, or, in offensive actions, to be accompanied by a 'support squadron' consisting of tankers, maintenance supply ships, and hospital ships which moves around 2500 km/s and keeps the attack elements moving. 

The maintenance life to deployment time mismatch is a preference on all my ships.  I like to dedicate 4% of tonnage to engineering because it makes really reliable ships but, at the same time, find that my military ships often don't need to be deployed for more than 12 months at a time, especially ships this fast.  It's useful in the sense that I get 3-4 missions out of my ships instead of 2-3 before they need to be overhauled but your right that it is a little odd. 

Class wise: Pegasus is a heavy cruiser because it has 8" and larger guns instead of 6" and smaller, which I would consider a light cruiser.  The Indy is a battlecruiser because it is intended to be used in a battleline (bigger guns, more armour) but still keeps the speed of a cruiser. 

The destroyer is an odd one.  Compared to real ships its sort of the size of a small cruiser, although some modern destroyer such as the US's Arleigh Burkes are bigger.  The concept behind them is to provide escort during fleet actions, adding weight to final fire PD and engaging smaller craft that come too close to the battleline, and to provide a more economical patrol unit than the Pegasus.   I'm not totally happy with how they've come out but they'll get better with subsequent models.

Good idea with the little active sensor.  It may be the case that a later class ditches the large SPD in favour of a single tiny radar to create a more economical destroyer design, like how the Royal Navy's new frigates are cheaper generalists designed to free up the more expensive previous generation of frigates for specialist use.

Quote from: Garfunkel link=topic=10544. msg117736#msg117736 date=1577663175
Yeah, those engines are THIRSTY!

It looks like you intend to send your cruisers out to the dark and have them sit there waiting for tankers, then send them further away to secure another location and wait for tankers - then rinse & repeat? Otherwise, they look quite capable.

Yeah, pretty much.  I like to think of it as the ships having a 10,000 km/s combat speed and a 2,500 km/s cruise speed when going somewhere with tankers.
 

Iranon

  • Guest
Re: 1st gen beamers of the TAN: late magneto-plasma era beam cruisers
« Reply #6 on: December 30, 2019, 03:39:26 PM »
Looks good. If I was fitting a hangar, I might consider reducing the sensor package - just the AMM sensor as you need that to fight, everything else could be a sensor module in the hangar. This gives one the option for emissions control, and allows one to avoid duplication when deploying several ships together.

I don't mind the apparent discrepancy between fuel life, deployment time and maintenance life. Refueling is instant and just requires a tanker. R&R takes time, but often happens incidentally (on station at a newly liberated colony). Overhaul for a large ship may only be possible at the homeworld or a major naval base, excess engineering is useful if field repairs have to be made, and makes long deployments cheaper because less things will break down. Having said that, my preference would be for a slightly bulkier and more efficient power plant.

Armour and shields look more than sufficient to me. Considering you're building respectable numbers for fleet engagements, I'd rather emphasise point defence - that's relevant on all ships, while passive defences only count for the ships currently under fire.

Lastly, I find 15cm lasers the most effective calibre once capacitor-6 is available... but I'm also actively avoiding them in my current game.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2582
  • Thanked: 548 times
Re: 1st gen beamers of the TAN: late magneto-plasma era beam cruisers
« Reply #7 on: January 09, 2020, 12:06:12 PM »
I find these ship to be quite solid designs. You always have to juggle the space for powerful engines and fuel versus mission tonnage, this is true no matter what type of ships and doctrine you follow.

I don't find the maintenance times of these ships to be short by any means. I usually aim for 2-2.5 years of service time before they need overhaul but want to perform overhaul normally after about 1.5 to 2 years. This reduce the cost of MSP in the form of maintenance failures and failures become more and more likely as time passes.

Having such "low" amount of fuel to deployment time makes perfect sense on ships this fast who burn that amount of fuel. You don't really care about how long fuel last in terms of days but how far a ship can steam on its own. The distance you want your ship to go will entirely depend on your needs and doctrines. Having a range of 20-25 billion km range are usually enough for ships to operate 1-2 system their logistical train. Since these ships are so phenomenally fast they can easily reach their tankers in a matter of a days rather than weeks even if staying a system or two away.

You also rarely need to move your ships all the time, certainly not at 10.000km/s as that would alert every ship in range where they are due to their high thermal signature, the larger the ship the worse this get and ships will need to move slower unless you use thermal reduced engines.

Having a 12 month deployment time is quite reasonable for a large capital ship... I usually stay in the 9-12 month bracket for most capital ships, a bit more for long range patrol cruisers.

If this was C# I might have some question about the ships have so very similar stats but in VB6 the size of ships are quite important on whether you can maintain them or not in a specific place. In C# it will not really make allot of sense to have ships of different sizes unless they form some specific role doing so.