Carrier Strike Group Critique

[liveware (OP)]

I am looking for feedback on possible improvement areas for my carrier and fighter wing strike group. Below is my current carrier design and the typical space-combat fighter craft it carries. Each carrier typically carries 6x each of the gauss, laser, and missile fighters as well as 6x boarding craft, 4x microwave fighters, 1x scout, and 1x jump scout. For planetary invasions, I replace the boarding craft and gauss fighters with drop ships. The carrier is not equipped with a jump drive and relies instead on a separate jump ship (not shown) for transport.

I've been using these carriers and fighters for quite a while now and have had reasonable success against precursor ships and planets but have not yet encountered a true NPR opponent.

Carrier:

Code: [Select]

Cetan B class Escort Carrier      70,000 tons       1,460 Crew       12,370.1 BP       TCS 1,400    TH 12,000    EM 0
8571 km/s      Armour 10-151       Shields 0-0       HTK 384      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 80      PPV 68.14
Maint Life 3.20 Years     MSP 19,731    AFR 560%    IFR 7.8%    1YR 2,904    5YR 43,557    Max Repair 2000 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 15,000 tons     Magazine 703    Cryogenic Berths 1,800   
Captain    Control Rating 4   BRG   AUX   ENG   FLG   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Flight Crew Berths 300    Morale Check Required   

Chaimberlin-Sherman Internal Fusion Drive  EP4000.00 (3)    Power 12000    Fuel Use 107.33%    Signature 4000    Explosion 20%
Fuel Capacity 13,616,000 Litres    Range 32.6 billion km (44 days at full power)

Single Chaimberlin-Sherman Gauss Cannon R300-100 Turret (1x4)    Range 30,000km     TS: 16000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 30,000 km    ROF 5       
Quad Chaimberlin-Sherman Gauss Cannon R300-85.00 Turret (2x16)    Range 30,000km     TS: 16000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 30,000 km    ROF 5       
Chaimberlin-Sherman CIWS-160 (8x8)    Range 1000 km     TS: 16,000 km/s     ROF 5       
Chaimberlin-Sherman Beam Fire Control R32-TS16000 (50%) (3)     Max Range: 32,000 km   TS: 16,000 km/s     69 38 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Chaimberlin-Sherman Size 1 Anti-Ship Missile (192)    Speed: 50,000 km/s    End: 0.1m     Range: 0.4m km    WH: 1    Size: 1    TH: 216/130/65
Chaimberlin-Sherman Size 6 Anti-Ship Missile (80)    Speed: 50,000 km/s    End: 0.9m     Range: 2.6m km    WH: 16    Size: 6    TH: 400/240/120
Chaimberlin-Sherman Size 6 Sensor Satellite (4)    Speed: 0 km/s    End: 0m     Range: 0m km    WH: 0    Size: 6    TH: 0/0/0
Chaimberlin-Sherman Size 1 Sensor Satellite (7)    Speed: 0 km/s    End: 0m     Range: 0m km    WH: 0    Size: 1    TH: 0/0/0

Chaimberlin-Sherman Active Search Sensor AS39-R100 (50%) (1)     GPS 2100     Range 39.8m km    Resolution 100
Chaimberlin-Sherman Active Search Sensor AS68-R500 (50%) (1)     GPS 10500     Range 68.1m km    Resolution 500
Chaimberlin-Sherman Active Search Sensor AS8-R1 (50%) (1)     GPS 21     Range 8.6m km    MCR 771.7k km    Resolution 1

ECCM-1 (3)         ECM 10

Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Gauss Fighter:

Code: [Select]

Barracuda II-G class Fighter      500 tons       20 Crew       312.3 BP       TCS 10    TH 47    EM 0
19516 km/s      Armour 3-5       Shields 0-0       HTK 4      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 3
Maint Life 11.75 Years     MSP 297    AFR 8%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 4    5YR 59    Max Repair 195 MSP
Lieutenant    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 1 days    Morale Check Required   

Chaimberlin-Sherman Magnetic Fusion Drive  EP195.00 (1)    Power 195    Fuel Use 1222.86%    Signature 46.80    Explosion 30%
Fuel Capacity 66,000 Litres    Range 1.9 billion km (27 hours at full power)

Chaimberlin-Sherman Gauss Cannon R400-50.0 (1x5)    Range 40,000km     TS: 19,516 km/s     Accuracy Modifier 50.0%     RM 40,000 km    ROF 5       
Chaimberlin-Sherman Beam Fire Control R40-TS20000 (20%) (1)     Max Range: 40,000 km   TS: 20,000 km/s     75 50 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction

Laser Fighter:

Code: [Select]

Barracuda II-L class Fighter      499 tons       21 Crew       354.8 BP       TCS 10    TH 47    EM 0
19543 km/s      Armour 5-5       Shields 0-0       HTK 4      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 2
Maint Life 9.73 Years     MSP 211    AFR 8%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 4    5YR 60    Max Repair 195 MSP
Lieutenant    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 1 days    Morale Check Required   

Chaimberlin-Sherman Magnetic Fusion Drive  EP195.00 (1)    Power 195    Fuel Use 1222.86%    Signature 46.80    Explosion 30%
Fuel Capacity 68,000 Litres    Range 2 billion km (28 hours at full power)

Chaimberlin-Sherman 15.0cm C0.3 Soft X-ray Laser (1)    Range 40,000km     TS: 19,543 km/s     Power 6-0.3     RM 60,000 km    ROF 100       
Chaimberlin-Sherman Beam Fire Control R40-TS20000 (20%) (1)     Max Range: 40,000 km   TS: 20,000 km/s     75 50 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chaimberlin-Sherman Magnetic Confinement Fusion Reactor R6-PB100 (1)     Total Power Output 6    Exp 50%

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction

Missile Bomber:

Code: [Select]

Barracuda II-MB class Fighter      500 tons       10 Crew       257.2 BP       TCS 10    TH 47    EM 0
19529 km/s      Armour 4-5       Shields 0-0       HTK 2      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 3.2
Maint Life 13.61 Years     MSP 320    AFR 8%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 3    5YR 48    Max Repair 195 MSP
Magazine 32   
Lieutenant    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 1 days    Morale Check Required   

Chaimberlin-Sherman Magnetic Fusion Drive  EP195.00 (1)    Power 195    Fuel Use 1222.86%    Signature 46.80    Explosion 30%
Fuel Capacity 68,000 Litres    Range 2 billion km (28 hours at full power)

Chaimberlin-Sherman Size 6.00 Box Launcher (4)     Missile Size: 6    Hangar Reload 122 minutes    MF Reload 20 hours
Chaimberlin-Sherman Size 1 Box Launcher (8)     Missile Size: 1    Hangar Reload 50 minutes    MF Reload 8 hours
Chaimberlin-Sherman Missile Fire Control FC7-R1 (20%) (4)     Range 7.1m km    Resolution 1
Chaimberlin-Sherman Size 6 Anti-Ship Missile (4)    Speed: 50,000 km/s    End: 0.9m     Range: 2.6m km    WH: 16    Size: 6    TH: 400/240/120
Chaimberlin-Sherman Size 1 Anti-Ship Missile (8)    Speed: 50,000 km/s    End: 0.1m     Range: 0.4m km    WH: 1    Size: 1    TH: 216/130/65

Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction

Microwave Fighter:

Code: [Select]

Barracuda II-MW class Fighter      500 tons       24 Crew       398.3 BP       TCS 10    TH 47    EM 0
19524 km/s      Armour 2-5       Shields 0-0       HTK 4      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 3
Maint Life 9.93 Years     MSP 284    AFR 8%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 5    5YR 78    Max Repair 195 MSP
Lieutenant    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 1 days    Morale Check Required   

Chaimberlin-Sherman Magnetic Fusion Drive  EP195.00 (1)    Power 195    Fuel Use 1222.86%    Signature 46.80    Explosion 30%
Fuel Capacity 67,000 Litres    Range 2 billion km (28 hours at full power)

Chaimberlin-Sherman R75/C6 High Power Microwave (1)    Range 40,000km     TS: 19,524 km/s     Power 3-6    ROF 5       
Chaimberlin-Sherman Beam Fire Control R40-TS20000 (20%) (1)     Max Range: 40,000 km   TS: 20,000 km/s     75 50 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chaimberlin-Sherman Magnetic Confinement Fusion Reactor R6-PB100 (1)     Total Power Output 6    Exp 50%

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction

Scout:

Code: [Select]

Barracuda II-S class Fighter      500 tons       16 Crew       282.8 BP       TCS 10    TH 24    EM 0
10006 km/s      Armour 1-5       Shields 0-0       HTK 6      Sensors 14/14/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 0
Maint Life 7.91 Years     MSP 108    AFR 8%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 3    5YR 46    Max Repair 100 MSP
Lieutenant    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 15 days    Morale Check Required   

Chaimberlin-Sherman Magnetic Fusion Drive  EP100.00 (1)    Power 100    Fuel Use 123.53%    Signature 24.00    Explosion 12%
Fuel Capacity 41,000 Litres    Range 12 billion km (13 days at full power)

Chaimberlin-Sherman Active Search Sensor AS51-R100 (20%) (1)     GPS 2800     Range 51.8m km    Resolution 100
Chaimberlin-Sherman Active Search Sensor AS11-R1 (20%) (1)     GPS 28     Range 11.2m km    MCR 1m km    Resolution 1
Chaimberlin-Sherman Active Search Sensor AS88-R500 (20%) (1)     GPS 14000     Range 88.7m km    Resolution 500
Chaimberlin-Sherman Thermal Sensor TH1.0-14.0 (20%) (1)     Sensitivity 14     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  29.6m km
Chaimberlin-Sherman EM Sensor EM1.0-14.0 (20%) (1)     Sensitivity 14     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  29.6m km

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction

Jump Scout:

Code: [Select]

Barracuda II-SJ class Fighter      500 tons       16 Crew       256.8 BP       TCS 10    TH 15    EM 0
6253 km/s    JR 1-50      Armour 1-5       Shields 0-0       HTK 7      Sensors 14/14/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 0
Maint Life 10.50 Years     MSP 100    AFR 8%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 2    5YR 25    Max Repair 62.5 MSP
Lieutenant    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 1 months    Morale Check Required   

Chaimberlin-Sherman J500(1-50) Military Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 500 tons    Distance 50k km     Squadron Size 1

Chaimberlin-Sherman Magnetic Fusion Drive  EP62.50 (1)    Power 62.5    Fuel Use 156.25%    Signature 15.000    Explosion 12%
Fuel Capacity 46,000 Litres    Range 10.6 billion km (19 days at full power)

Chaimberlin-Sherman Active Search Sensor AS51-R100 (20%) (1)     GPS 2800     Range 51.8m km    Resolution 100
Chaimberlin-Sherman Active Search Sensor AS11-R1 (20%) (1)     GPS 28     Range 11.2m km    MCR 1m km    Resolution 1
Chaimberlin-Sherman Active Search Sensor AS88-R500 (20%) (1)     GPS 14000     Range 88.7m km    Resolution 500
Chaimberlin-Sherman Thermal Sensor TH1.0-14.0 (20%) (1)     Sensitivity 14     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  29.6m km
Chaimberlin-Sherman EM Sensor EM1.0-14.0 (20%) (1)     Sensitivity 14     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  29.6m km

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction

Boarding Transport:

Code: [Select]

Barracuda II-TB class Fighter      499 tons       18 Crew       341.1 BP       TCS 10    TH 72    EM 0
30066 km/s      Armour 5-5       Shields 0-0       HTK 3      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 0
Maint Life 8.55 Years     MSP 306    AFR 8%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 7    5YR 112    Max Repair 300 MSP
Troop Capacity 100 tons     Boarding Capable   
Lieutenant    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 0.6 days    Morale Check Required   

Chaimberlin-Sherman Magnetic Fusion Drive  EP300.00 (1)    Power 300    Fuel Use 985.90%    Signature 72.00    Explosion 30%
Fuel Capacity 54,000 Litres    Range 2 billion km (18 hours at full power)

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction

Dropship:

Code: [Select]

Barracuda II-TL class Fighter      499 tons       7 Crew       68.9 BP       TCS 10    TH 5    EM 0
1879 km/s      Armour 5-5       Shields 0-0       HTK 3      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 0
Maint Life 6.62 Years     MSP 21    AFR 8%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 1    5YR 12    Max Repair 18.75 MSP
Troop Capacity 250 tons     Drop Capable   
Lieutenant    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 2 months    Morale Check Required   

Chaimberlin-Sherman Magnetic Fusion Drive  EP18.75 (1)    Power 18.8    Fuel Use 285.27%    Signature 4.5000    Explosion 12%
Fuel Capacity 53,000 Litres    Range 6.7 billion km (41 days at full power)

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction

The carrier is the most out-dated design and is due for re-design along with most of my commercial vessels. I hope to increase the carrier to 100k tons and hangar space to 25k tons during the next refit cycle. The remaining fighter craft are mostly acceptable as-is based on my combat experiences thus far, however I am considering replacing the laser fighters with a lower DPS, higher alpha-strike variant as the existing laser fighters do not do enough damage to penetrate enemy armor, which reduces the efficiency of boarding operations. However, even with the existing setup, I have completed several successful boarding operations with the loss of only a couple of the microwave fighter variants.

One major concern I have for the next carrier design is that my existing gauss turrets to not seem to engage hostile missiles. I believe I have been properly assigning the fire control orders and such, and I worry that I have missed something at the design stage.

[sneer]

TS 16000km/s  is far too low for turreted gauss battery
it is something from early magneto plasma era

lots of ciws ( unless carrier operates alone which I doubt ) gauss turret have better value added  asa they cover whole TF

[liveware (OP)]

TS 16000km/s  is far too low for turreted gauss battery
it is something from early magneto plasma era

lots of ciws ( unless carrier operates alone which I doubt ) gauss turret have better value added  asa they cover whole TF

Gauss cannons on the carrier are old and need to be updated, I agree. By my understanding of how gauss is supposed to work, the CIWS on the carrier should be unnecessary, however it is the CIWS that has saved my carriers on countless occasions rather than the gauss. The carrier gauss turrets have never fired on any enemy missiles from what I have observed, so something is not quite right with them.

[Ulzgoroth]

I think the Cetan might actually tend to operate without a battlegroup, from other threads.

However, I don't see the sense in combining CIWS and full-service Gauss turrets instead of just adding more turrets...

Agree that the tracking speed is terrible.  My first-gen magnetoplasma ships brought 20000. And against the spoiler missiles those guns are expected to face, that's definitely a desirable improvement...

[Ulzgoroth]

TS 16000km/s  is far too low for turreted gauss battery
it is something from early magneto plasma era

lots of ciws ( unless carrier operates alone which I doubt ) gauss turret have better value added  asa they cover whole TF

Gauss cannons on the carrier are old and need to be updated, I agree. By my understanding of how gauss is supposed to work, the CIWS on the carrier should be unnecessary, however it is the CIWS that has saved my carriers on countless occasions rather than the gauss. The carrier gauss turrets have never fired on any enemy missiles from what I have observed, so something is not quite right with them.

Yeah, that's very messed up and it's something you should resolve...

Have you not been assigning the guns to the fire control?
Or maybe not sticking to 5 second intervals only? Your missile detection sensor range is awful - missiles would go from out of detection range to impact in under 15 seconds.

[Zincat]

Sorry for the bit of critique I'm going to write 

You need better tracking speed on those gauss turrets/ciws, they're far too behind on that, they'll struggle to work with that.
And that Res1 sensor is abysmal. And I mean, not even worth looking at. At that tech level, you should have an MCR of at least 3-4 millions km imo. At the very minimum. You can surely spare some more tons in order to actually see the missiles coming.
Also the beam fire control, you want something better. Surely you can spare a bit of tonnage to give you better chance to hit, which you want with all those gauss turrets.

There's no point in mixing gauss and ciws. If you already have the radar and fire control for gauss turrets, just use gauss turrets, because in case you run even just two carriers together, they are SO much better.  CIWS are only for when you 10000000% sure that ship will always go solo, and/or when design space is so limited that you don't want to deal with having sensors.

As ulzgoroth said, you were either running time increments too big, or you made some mistake in firing assignments. Gauss turrets do work if properly assigned

[liveware (OP)]

The carriers tend to operate independently except for planetary invasions, in which case 2 carriers has been sufficient thus far.

I am missing something with the gauss and CIWS. I have had several encounters where I assigned gauss to my BFCs, designated targets for each, and set the BFCs to open fire, bit still only get reports that CIWS fired and destroyed incoming missiles.

I am assuming that whatever is necessary for targeting my gauss turrets on the carrier is essentially the same as for my laser fighters and missile bombers, as I am able to properly target and achieve hits with the fighters and bombers.

As for sensor size, I don't see much point in a res 1 sensor that outranges my gauss and AMM. I can see hostile ships from much farther than my res 1 sensor range and can close the sensor gap with my scouts and sensor buoys deployed from the missile bombers.

Also I always use 5 second increments when I am engaging enemy ships.

Perhaps I will omit CIWS entirely in the next carrier design in order to assure that I am setting targets properly with my gauss turrets.

[Ulzgoroth]

I am missing something with the gauss and CIWS. I have had several encounters where I assigned gauss to my BFCs, designated targets for each, and set the BFCs to open fire, bit still only get reports that CIWS fired and destroyed incoming missiles.

I am assuming that whatever is necessary for targeting my gauss turrets on the carrier is essentially the same as for my laser fighters and missile bombers, as I am able to properly target and achieve hits with the fighters and bombers.

Well, you're missing a lot and assuming wrong, but I'm not sure it explains anything about your problem.

Final defensive fire doesn't need or want you to set targets. Setting open fire is also unnecessary.

Oh, and if you're not set for final defensive fire, that would explain your problem - area defense fire with Gauss is just not going to work at all.


Did CIWS destroy all the missiles? Or destroy some and leak some?

As for sensor size, I don't see much point in a res 1 sensor that outranges my gauss and AMM. I can see hostile ships from much farther than my res 1 sensor range and can close the sensor gap with my scouts and sensor buoys deployed from the missile bombers.

...There's two really obvious ones.

Trivial is that you can't shoot what you can't see, and you don't get a detection check in the middle of the step when the missiles cross your sensor radius. If you managed to build a sensor garbage enough to only detect missiles at your defensive weapon range of 30 km, it would basically never detect any missiles at all.

Furthermore, you get a tracking bonus for tracking incoming missiles for more ticks before shooting them. Thus longer detection range translates directly to better defensive accuracy.

[xenoscepter]

Zincat

There's no point in mixing gauss and ciws. If you already have the radar and fire control for gauss turrets, just use gauss turrets, because in case you run even just two carriers together, they are SO much better.  CIWS are only for when you 10000000% sure that ship will always go solo, and/or when design space is so limited that you don't want to deal with having sensors.

sneer

lots of ciws ( unless carrier operates alone which I doubt ) gauss turret have better value added  asa they cover whole TF

CIWS has a sensor built in. 2x CIWS on a ship is a bit tonnage consuming, but also very useful. I use anywhere from 1-8 CIWS depending on what I'm designing and what doctrine I'm beholden to, although I don't always use them.

In VB6, that advice held true, but in C# CIWS is much more powerful overall.
Salvo Changes:
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg115853#msg115853
Point Defense Changes:
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg107268#msg107268

Now having even one CIWS on just some of your ships will make the PD of every ship in the group more effective, due to them being resolved first. In VB6 you needed more B-FCS to engage more salvos, so to defend two ships against two salvos with CIWS you needed two CIWS per ship, but with two B-FCS and two Gauss Turrets on one ship you could defend a whole fleet from two salvos for roughly the same mass on account of the mutual fire. That's no longer true under the new model, now one B-FCS and two Gauss Turrets can defend a fleet from two salvos, but with two CIWS any ship can defend itself from two salvos for roughly 50% less mass because it saves weight on Fire Control. So in C# CIWS is now more cost-effective for defending a ship from missiles than Gauss Turrets are. They're also more accurate than Gauss per ton overall.

Ulzgoroth and Zincat do have a point though, your Gauss should be firing on things... maybe not hitting anything, but they certainly should be firing at things. Remember that in Aurora an 8% accuracy doesn't mean 8 out of 100 shots might hit, but rather 92 out of 100 shots will miss. Aurora doesn't have any RNG in any of it's important calculations, AFAIK. System Generation stuffs and a few other things notwithstanding, there are definitely some things governed by RNG, but none of them are combat related. I don't know about that sensor thing though. Pretty sure this: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg117825#msg117825 was implemented to stop things from not firing on missiles, if you had a Res 1 sensor of any sort you'd still get Point Blank fire with the Gauss.

[liveware (OP)]

I am missing something with the gauss and CIWS. I have had several encounters where I assigned gauss to my BFCs, designated targets for each, and set the BFCs to open fire, bit still only get reports that CIWS fired and destroyed incoming missiles.

I am assuming that whatever is necessary for targeting my gauss turrets on the carrier is essentially the same as for my laser fighters and missile bombers, as I am able to properly target and achieve hits with the fighters and bombers.

Well, you're missing a lot and assuming wrong, but I'm not sure it explains anything about your problem.

Final defensive fire doesn't need or want you to set targets. Setting open fire is also unnecessary.

Oh, and if you're not set for final defensive fire, that would explain your problem - area defense fire with Gauss is just not going to work at all.


Did CIWS destroy all the missiles? Or destroy some and leak some?

As for sensor size, I don't see much point in a res 1 sensor that outranges my gauss and AMM. I can see hostile ships from much farther than my res 1 sensor range and can close the sensor gap with my scouts and sensor buoys deployed from the missile bombers.

...There's two really obvious ones.

Trivial is that you can't shoot what you can't see, and you don't get a detection check in the middle of the step when the missiles cross your sensor radius. If you managed to build a sensor garbage enough to only detect missiles at your defensive weapon range of 30 km, it would basically never detect any missiles at all.

Furthermore, you get a tracking bonus for tracking incoming missiles for more ticks before shooting them. Thus longer detection range translates directly to better defensive accuracy.

Gauss are always set to FDF. For the time being, I am at a loss to explain my poor gauss performance.

CIWS destroy 100% of inbound missiles I have thus far encountered.

My sensor buoys/other sensors consistently detect missiles at ranges in considerable excess of my carrier's res 1 sensor range, so I do not believe that is the fundamental problem.

[Ulzgoroth]

Gauss are always set to FDF. For the time being, I am at a loss to explain my poor gauss performance.

CIWS destroy 100% of inbound missiles I have thus far encountered.

...So then there is no problem at all with your Gauss performance.

They're not shooting down any missiles because every missile is dead before they get a chance. 0 for 0 may not be impressive or informative but it's as perfect a score as circumstances allow.

[liveware (OP)]

Gauss are always set to FDF. For the time being, I am at a loss to explain my poor gauss performance.

CIWS destroy 100% of inbound missiles I have thus far encountered.

...So then there is no problem at all with your Gauss performance.

They're not shooting down any missiles because every missile is dead before they get a chance. 0 for 0 may not be impressive or informative but it's as perfect a score as circumstances allow.

My expectation is that gauss in FDF will engage missiles at 10k km range. If my CIWS is destroying missiles at 1k km range, then my gauss has failed it's performance specifications.

[Ulzgoroth]

Gauss are always set to FDF. For the time being, I am at a loss to explain my poor gauss performance.

CIWS destroy 100% of inbound missiles I have thus far encountered.

...So then there is no problem at all with your Gauss performance.

They're not shooting down any missiles because every missile is dead before they get a chance. 0 for 0 may not be impressive or informative but it's as perfect a score as circumstances allow.

My expectation is that gauss in FDF will engage missiles at 10k km range. If my CIWS is destroying missiles at 1k km range, then my gauss has failed it's performance specifications.

Your Gauss guns aren't at fault for your incorrect expectations about firing sequence. Look at xenoscepter's second link.

[Cobaia]

Why have ASM on the Carrier if you can deploy Bomber Strike Groups?
Aren't you losing tonnage that could go to more Bombers?

The same thing applies for the Gauss. You have PD fighters that could replace the tonnage.

I also built Carriers with weapons in the past, but I've been replacing that tonnage either for Hangar space or nothing. In the first case I get more Strike Group tonnage, in the second case I get a lower tonnage carrier and can deploy more carriers faster.

I'm assuming those carriers don't go alone, so your task group would be specialized, having Missile Destroyers/Cruisers and Escort Destroyers/Cruisers, this is another motive to lose the Gauss and the ASM on the Carriers. I believe that 1 function per ship works better than a multi-role ship, reducing tonnage or getting more tonnage for the job description.

[xenoscepter]

@Cobaia

Livewire already said these ships would usually operate alone. He has ASMs on the carrier, but no launchers, which means that they are there to re-arm his bombers. PD Fighters are good to have, but they really can't replace the Gauss. Well, they can, but that would be really expensive and not exactly smart since "de-planing" the carrier would leave it defenseless. And since it's not supposed to have an escort, there wouldn't be anything else to shoot at incoming missiles.

Specialized versus Generalization isn't that cut and dry either. You can't make one ship do everything (well you can, but goddamn is that mind blowingly expensive), but you can make it do two or three things well enough and cheap enough to make the difference. Hell, having a few lasers on a Missile Ship has saved my bacon wayyyy more times than can count and packing a few Cans of Bug Spray on a beam ship doesn't hurt either...