Two Gunboat Designs, Nameless for now.

[xenoscepter (OP)]

I've built these with one being a long range focused ship and one being a close range brawler. These are still quite early tech, but I liked them well enough so I figured I'd share them. Might do a more proper write up later.

Code: [Select]

Nameless -A class Gunboat (P)      3,125 tons       111 Crew       411.3 BP       TCS 62    TH 315    EM 0
5040 km/s      Armour 5-19       Shields 0-0       HTK 19      Sensors 1/1/0/0      DCR 3      PPV 9
Maint Life 10.22 Years     MSP 767    AFR 24%    IFR 0.3%    1YR 13    5YR 200    Max Repair 157.5 MSP
Commander    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 1.1 months    Morale Check Required   

Ion Drive  EP315.00 (1)    Power 315    Fuel Use 121.00%    Signature 315    Explosion 14%
Fuel Capacity 302,000 Litres    Range 14.4 billion km (33 days at full power)

12cm C2 Visible Light Laser (1)    Range 80,000km     TS: 5,040 km/s     Power 4-2     RM 20,000 km    ROF 10       
Particle Beam-2 (1)    Range 60,000km     TS: 5,040 km/s     Power 5-2.5    ROF 10       
Beam Fire Control R80-TS5000 (SW) (50%) (2)     Max Range: 80,000 km   TS: 5,000 km/s     88 75 62 50 38 25 12 0 0 0
Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor R5 (1)     Total Power Output 5    Exp 5%

T15/10-5R1 Active Sensor Suite, Standard Grade (1)     GPS 3     Range 2.2m km    MCR 196.7k km    Resolution 1
T15/10-5R500 Active Sensor Suite, Standard Grade (1)     GPS 1500     Range 17.3m km    Resolution 500
T10/1EM Passive Sensor Suite, Standard Grade (1)     Sensitivity 1     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  7.9m km
T10/1TH Passive Sensor Suite, Standard Grade (1)     Sensitivity 1     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  7.9m km

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
This design is classed as a c for auto-assignment purposes

Code: [Select]

Nameless -B class Gunboat (P)      3,125 tons       118 Crew       413.5 BP       TCS 62    TH 315    EM 0
5040 km/s      Armour 5-19       Shields 0-0       HTK 19      Sensors 1/1/0/0      DCR 3      PPV 9
Maint Life 9.50 Years     MSP 668    AFR 24%    IFR 0.3%    1YR 13    5YR 200    Max Repair 157.5 MSP
Commander    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 1.1 months    Morale Check Required   

Ion Drive  EP315.00 (1)    Power 315    Fuel Use 121.00%    Signature 315    Explosion 14%
Fuel Capacity 302,000 Litres    Range 14.4 billion km (33 days at full power)

12cm Railgun V20/C3 (1x4)    Range 40,000km     TS: 5,040 km/s     Power 6-3     RM 20,000 km    ROF 10       
R40/C2 Meson Cannon (1)    Range 40,000km     TS: 5,040 km/s     Power 4-2     RM 40,000 km    ROF 10       
Beam Fire Control R80-TS5000 (SW) (50%) (2)     Max Range: 80,000 km   TS: 5,000 km/s     88 75 62 50 38 25 12 0 0 0
Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor R5 (1)     Total Power Output 5    Exp 5%

T15/10-5R1 Active Sensor Suite, Standard Grade (1)     GPS 3     Range 2.2m km    MCR 196.7k km    Resolution 1
T15/10-5R500 Active Sensor Suite, Standard Grade (1)     GPS 1500     Range 17.3m km    Resolution 500
T10/1TH Passive Sensor Suite, Standard Grade (1)     Sensitivity 1     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  7.9m km
T10/1EM Passive Sensor Suite, Standard Grade (1)     Sensitivity 1     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  7.9m km

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
This design is classed as a c for auto-assignment purposes
 --- Five layers of armor gives them passable defense while they carry enough fuel and Life Support for a 7.2 Billion Kilometer round trip. One uses a Particle Beam paired to a Laser to kite, but with the caveat that it becomes more dangerous if pressed. The other acts as the tackle, using a Railgun / Meson combo to demolish / bypass enemy shields for big damage. They're both lightly armed ships, but they're rather quick for Ion era designs and fairly durable to boot. A huge 900 Ton engine with 140% boost represents almost a third of the ships mass, while the 300,000 liters of fuel the feed it represents a further 10% or so. These are defensive ships, btw. I imagine getting WAY more mileage out of them when 1.14 (2.0?) rolls out.

[kilo]

They both look decent. There is just one thing I do not understand. What is the point of bringing two single weapon beam fire controls? Are they half the size so that it makes no difference?


PS: Another dumb question of mine. I completely dismissed Mesons as a viable weapon. What are your experiences when bringing meson fighters right now. Back in VB6, meson fighters could be pretty painful. With the changes to armor penetration they should have lost quite some punch. At least they did from my point of view.

[Zap0]

For being defensive ships that are presumably always near bases and not out in space on operations conquering distant stars that's an awful lot of supply. Are you planning on sustaining fire on planets? Otherwise I'd cut the majority of those MSP stores.

Unforunately due to how aurora research works it's a bit uneconomical to invest into two weapon systems for the same job, since you need to push that many more weapon techs. May or may not be a concern, depending on how you want to play and roleplay.

I want to say having two single weapon firecontrols is better because it provides you with a backup if one fails, but with two weapons on the ship you lose firepower if one goes offline anway. Still better than having no functioning weapons left, I suppose.

[nuclearslurpee]

They both look decent. There is just one thing I do not understand. What is the point of bringing two single weapon beam fire controls? Are they half the size so that it makes no difference?

This is exactly correct. But since there are two of them the design is a bit more resilient in the face of battle damage, so it is advantageous. Plus, they're a bit cheaper to research which could occasionally matter.

[Droll]

They both look decent. There is just one thing I do not understand. What is the point of bringing two single weapon beam fire controls? Are they half the size so that it makes no difference?


PS: Another dumb question of mine. I completely dismissed Mesons as a viable weapon. What are your experiences when bringing meson fighters right now. Back in VB6, meson fighters could be pretty painful. With the changes to armor penetration they should have lost quite some punch. At least they did from my point of view.

Having 2 single weapon FCs vs 1 multi-weapon FC have the exact same cost, crew and size requirements. However, in the former case you have 2 FCs, this means that the ship in question can choose to multi-target and fire on two hostiles simultaneously (essential ability against fighter swarms), there is also the additional benefit in the case of battle damage. If you have one FC, if it gets knocked out, you lose the ability to fire your weapons. Now with 2 single weapon FCs, if one gets knocked out, you're still firing with half your weapons.

As for your "dumb" question, mesons have been significantly nerfed. Now instead of guaranteed armor ignore, there's a % chance for every layer to the ignored. For this reason, and I'm going to be curt here - meson fighters are smeg. However the beam fighter lives on thanks to the reduced size railguns that are available since 1.13, so railgun fighters can actually be quite decent against even medium armored targets when massed.

[nuclearslurpee]

As for your "dumb" question, mesons have been significantly nerfed. Now instead of guaranteed armor ignore, there's a % chance for every layer to the ignored. For this reason, and I'm going to be curt here - meson fighters are smeg. However the beam fighter lives on thanks to the reduced size railguns that are available since 1.13, so railgun fighters can actually be quite decent against even medium armored targets when massed.

This is absolutely correct with regards to mesons. However the part about railguns is misleading. Full-size 10cm railguns are still going to give the best performance on a fighter compared to any reduced-shots version, due to the numerous tonnage inefficiencies inherent to fighter designs. For larger railguns (15cm and up) the reduced size variants are necessary to mount on a fighter, though I'm not sure I'd really consider it worth doing personally.

As a general rule for fighters you really do want to build to the 500-ton limit if you care about the most effective design, and use the largest weapon you can which fits the mission profile.

A better use of reduced-shot railguns is to mount a large number of reduced-shot large-caliber guns on large warships with ROF 5, since the required capacitor is also reduced proportionally. For example, instead of using full-size 20cm railguns which require 12 power, you can mount a bank of single-shot 20cm railguns which require only 3 power each. You do lose about 20% of your alpha strike damage by doing this due to tonnage inefficiency and the additional reactors needed, but the resulting DPS is absolutely frightening.

[ISN]

As for your "dumb" question, mesons have been significantly nerfed. Now instead of guaranteed armor ignore, there's a % chance for every layer to the ignored. For this reason, and I'm going to be curt here - meson fighters are smeg. However the beam fighter lives on thanks to the reduced size railguns that are available since 1.13, so railgun fighters can actually be quite decent against even medium armored targets when massed.

This is absolutely correct with regards to mesons. However the part about railguns is misleading. Full-size 10cm railguns are still going to give the best performance on a fighter compared to any reduced-shots version, due to the numerous tonnage inefficiencies inherent to fighter designs. For larger railguns (15cm and up) the reduced size variants are necessary to mount on a fighter, though I'm not sure I'd really consider it worth doing personally.

I've found larger caliber reduced-shot railguns to be rather effective on anti-ship fighters, as they can usually out-range beam-based point defenses, while fighters with 10cm railguns will often get chewed up by any Gauss turrets or other small railguns you run into if you try to take on enemy shipping. I think fighters with 10cm railguns are generally best kept to an anti-missile role if you want your fighters to stick around.

A better use of reduced-shot railguns is to mount a large number of reduced-shot large-caliber guns on large warships with ROF 5, since the required capacitor is also reduced proportionally. For example, instead of using full-size 20cm railguns which require 12 power, you can mount a bank of single-shot 20cm railguns which require only 3 power each. You do lose about 20% of your alpha strike damage by doing this due to tonnage inefficiency and the additional reactors needed, but the resulting DPS is absolutely frightening.

...I'd never thought of that, that's brilliant -- and indeed terrifying.

[xenoscepter (OP)]

They both look decent. There is just one thing I do not understand. What is the point of bringing two single weapon beam fire controls? Are they half the size so that it makes no difference?


PS: Another dumb question of mine. I completely dismissed Mesons as a viable weapon. What are your experiences when bringing meson fighters right now. Back in VB6, meson fighters could be pretty painful. With the changes to armor penetration they should have lost quite some punch. At least they did from my point of view.

 --- As others have pointed out, two Single Weapon FCS are effectively the same as one Multi-Weapon FCS, excepting that if one gets taken out I have half my weapons and I can target two enemies at once. Useful for splitting the Railgun and Laser into the PD role, or engaging enemy fighter swarms. Meson Fighters... are pretty terrible now, yeah. It's for the best I think. Mesons are good at anti-shield work though, since they bypass them completely. They are firmly in the secondary weapon category and a good pick for it to boot, since they can be turreted. They tend to rip enemy missiles and fighters to shreds. A great multi-purpose secondary IMO.

For being defensive ships that are presumably always near bases and not out in space on operations conquering distant stars that's an awful lot of supply. Are you planning on sustaining fire on planets? Otherwise I'd cut the majority of those MSP stores.

Unforunately due to how aurora research works it's a bit uneconomical to invest into two weapon systems for the same job, since you need to push that many more weapon techs. May or may not be a concern, depending on how you want to play and roleplay.

I want to say having two single weapon firecontrols is better because it provides you with a backup if one fails, but with two weapons on the ship you lose firepower if one goes offline anyway. Still better than having no functioning weapons left, I suppose.

 --- I'm on a 100% research game; keeping up with 4 weapons isn't all that hard, to be honest. With regard to the MSP, the ship has only one engine, so being able to repair / replace it once or twice is kinda essential...