Orbital Weapon Platform

[Theoatmeal2 (OP)]

How is this.

Goliath class Orbital Defence Platform (P)      19,992 tons       442 Crew       2,856.7 BP       TCS 400    TH 0    EM 3,600
1 km/s      Armour 12-65       Shields 120-300       HTK 131      Sensors 24/24/0/0      DCR 13      PPV 161.7
Maint Life 6.19 Years     MSP 3,683    AFR 241%    IFR 3.4%    1YR 165    5YR 2,477    Max Repair 115.2 MSP
Commander    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 48 months    Morale Check Required   

Gamma S20 / R300 Shields (6)     Recharge Time 300 seconds (0.4 per second)

Twin Gauss Cannon R300-100 Turret (10x6)    Range 30,000km     TS: 12000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 30,000 km    ROF 5       
Beam Fire Control R192-TS12000 (2)     Max Range: 192,000 km   TS: 12,000 km/s     95 90 84 79 74 69 64 58 53 48

SA-50M Active Search Sensor (1)     GPS 4800     Range 51.3m km    Resolution 100
M-1 Missile Detection Sensor (1)     GPS 52     Range 11.5m km    MCR 1m km    Resolution 1
TH-24M Thermal Sensor (1)     Sensitivity 24     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  38.7m km
EM-24M Electromagnetic Sensor (1)     Sensitivity 24     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  38.7m km

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

[TheTalkingMeowth]

Search radar on a point defense base is a bit odd. And if it's intended to be placed in orbit around a colony, you don't need nearly that much maintenance life or deployment time. Like, I could see wanting a few months of maintenance so you can tug it between systems without damage, but letting the morale drop during the tug is fine. And you certainly don't need to be able to spend 6 years in transit.

On the other hand, if you intend to deploy this at jump points the maintenance/deployment make sense. But an antimissile platform on a jump point is a bit odd.

[Carthar]

Wouldn't a deep space tracking station on the planet be a better option than putting passive sensors on a defence platform?   Better sensitivity and cheaper maintenance wise.   

[Borealis4x]

I always thought it would be a better idea to use a ton of fighter-sized missile platforms so that building them was easy and losing them was no loss. If you have an ordinance transfer station hub or spaceport on the planet you don't even need since the planet can reload them. You'd need a separate Active Sensor platform to spot, but that can be fighter-sized as well.

EDIT:

I threw together something real quick. Take a look:

Missile Platform

Code: [Select]

Missile Platform class Missile Base      493 tons       10 Crew       244 BP       TCS 10    TH 0    EM 0
1 km/s      Armour 1-5       Shields 0-0       HTK 3      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 5.4
Maint Life 0 Years     MSP 0    AFR 98%    IFR 1.4%    1YR 33    5YR 489    Max Repair 126 MSP
Magazine 36   
Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 0.3 days    Morale Check Required   


Size 6.00 Missile Pod (6)     Missile Size: 6    Hangar Reload 122 minutes    MF Reload 20 hours
Small ASM Missile Fire Control (1)     Range 110.3m km    Resolution 20

Compact ECCM-3 (1)         ECM 30

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

Sensor Platform

Code: [Select]

Sensor Platform class Missile Base      421 tons       16 Crew       370.8 BP       TCS 8    TH 0    EM 0
1 km/s      Armour 1-5       Shields 0-0       HTK 2      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 0
Maint Life 0 Years     MSP 0    AFR 84%    IFR 1.2%    1YR 161    5YR 2,419    Max Repair 315 MSP
Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 0.3 days    Morale Check Required   


Medium Mid-Range Active Sensor Suite (1)     GPS 18000     Range 149.1m km    Resolution 100

ECM 40

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

Point Defense Platform

Code: [Select]

Point Defense Platform class Missile Base      485 tons       20 Crew       281 BP       TCS 10    TH 0    EM 0
1 km/s      Armour 1-5       Shields 0-0       HTK 6      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 5.91
Maint Life 0 Years     MSP 0    AFR 96%    IFR 1.3%    1YR 37    5YR 549    Max Repair 126 MSP
Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 0.3 days    Morale Check Required   


Single Gauss Cannon 25.00 Turret (3x5)    Range 50,000km     TS: 25000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 50,000 km    ROF 5       
Gauss PD Fire Control (1)     Max Range: 57,600 km   TS: 25,000 km/s     83 65 48 31 13 0 0 0 0 0

Fighter Active Sensor Suite (1)     GPS 4     Range 4.5m km    MCR 408.7k km    Resolution 1

Compact ECCM-3 (1)         ECM 30

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

EDITEDIT:

I realize now that you want this platform to mostly deal with enemy missiles. In that case I'd still suggest fighter-sized platforms armed with gauss cannons AND/OR these AMM platforms.

AMM Platform

Code: [Select]

AMM Platform class Orbital Defence Platform (P)      493 tons       15 Crew       188.9 BP       TCS 10    TH 0    EM 0
1 km/s      Armour 1-5       Shields 0-0       HTK 3      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 4.8
Maint Life 0 Years     MSP 0    AFR 98%    IFR 1.4%    1YR 15    5YR 218    Max Repair 63 MSP
Magazine 45   
Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 0.3 days    Morale Check Required   


Size 1 Missile Launcher (8)     Missile Size: 1    Rate of Fire 25
AMM Fire Control (1)     Range 28.7m km    Resolution 1

Fighter Active Sensor Suite (1)     GPS 4     Range 4.5m km    MCR 408.7k km    Resolution 1

Compact ECCM-3 (1)         ECM 10

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


[nuclearslurpee]

I always thought it would be a better idea to use a ton of fighter-sized missile platforms so that building them was easy and losing them was no loss. If you have an ordinance transfer station hub or spaceport on the planet you don't even need since the planet can reload them. You'd need a separate Active Sensor platform to spot, but that can be fighter-sized as well.

It's a viable idea, yes...but "better" is a bit of a stretch. The smaller platforms would suffer from a fair amount of inefficiency, particularly as each one would need its own fire controls to control maybe 3-4 AMM launchers (size 1 launcher plus magazine = 100 tons, whether 3 or 4 depends on your chosen MFC size - and you do need a magazine, since ordnance reloading will take some time and you must be able to fend off a full load of ASMs) while a single 10,000-ton or larger platform could easily manage to have 2-4 MFCs in total controlling dozens to even 100+ launchers. In addition to the space saved on armor for a larger platform. Plus, a larger platform can get much better use out of skilled Tactical officers, double-dipping with both commander and CIC positions for a big boost to hit chances.

The advantage of fighter-size platforms of course is that they can be built without a shipyard, but if you have a big enough empire to spare the shipyard then the large platforms are generally going to perform better by a decent margin...not a huge margin, but enough to be noticeable.

[Borealis4x]

I always thought it would be a better idea to use a ton of fighter-sized missile platforms so that building them was easy and losing them was no loss. If you have an ordinance transfer station hub or spaceport on the planet you don't even need since the planet can reload them. You'd need a separate Active Sensor platform to spot, but that can be fighter-sized as well.

It's a viable idea, yes...but "better" is a bit of a stretch. The smaller platforms would suffer from a fair amount of inefficiency, particularly as each one would need its own fire controls to control maybe 3-4 AMM launchers (size 1 launcher plus magazine = 100 tons, whether 3 or 4 depends on your chosen MFC size - and you do need a magazine, since ordnance reloading will take some time and you must be able to fend off a full load of ASMs) while a single 10,000-ton or larger platform could easily manage to have 2-4 MFCs in total controlling dozens to even 100+ launchers. In addition to the space saved on armor for a larger platform. Plus, a larger platform can get much better use out of skilled Tactical officers, double-dipping with both commander and CIC positions for a big boost to hit chances.

The advantage of fighter-size platforms of course is that they can be built without a shipyard, but if you have a big enough empire to spare the shipyard then the large platforms are generally going to perform better by a decent margin...not a huge margin, but enough to be noticeable.

I dunno, I think if I'm investing in shipyards for colony defense I'd rather have a few FAC or 3,000 ton yards to pump out potent, fast, but short ranged defense craft rather than a 20k ton immobile monstrosity. Investing a lot in static defenses that can't take the initiative seems like a waste by comparison, but I can see the sense in having a cloud of expendable missile launchers that can be pumped out and serviced by planetary facilities. And this way the enemy doesn't have one big, dumb floating object to shoot at but has to deal with 10s or even hundreds of small dumb floating objects that are hard to see and all mass their firepower together. The small, unarmored swarm is much more durable than the large fortress. The only true downside I see is how its consumes officers. If only automation was an option and we could have autonomous drone platforms, that'd be amazing.

Its not going to stop a determined enemy assault, but no mere planetary defenses should. The best defense against an enemies battle fleet is deploying your own battle fleet to intercept them. You should never rely on local defenses to do so and expect anything but a slight delay a determined enemy and your investment should reflect that imo.
 
I think a better alternative to a large, immobile defense platform would be a heavily armed and armored warship with very little invested in engines or range relative to its size. I believe these are called 'Monitors' and they seem like a much better alternative to what OP is suggesting as they can at least move on their own and might have a chance of evading slower missiles.

[nuclearslurpee]

words

This is broadly true. Static defenses will generally be relatively inflexible and nearly always a proper warship is a better investment. However they can be useful in limited scenarios, particularly as a form of denial weapon to keep an enemy fleet very far away from a colony. This can be useful for example at major colonies which are close to the front line of a particularly dangerous enemy, as a cost-effective means to keep the crown jewel in that region of space unmolested until the cavalry arrives.

Still, though, for that purpose I would rather use STOs in most cases as they just have so many advantages. Really to make military stations viable we need to be able to build them with planetary facilities like we can for commercial stations...thus far in C# we do not have a real replacement for the old PDC mechanic that was so well-used in VB6.

[Droll]

words

This is broadly true. Static defenses will generally be relatively inflexible and nearly always a proper warship is a better investment. However they can be useful in limited scenarios, particularly as a form of denial weapon to keep an enemy fleet very far away from a colony. This can be useful for example at major colonies which are close to the front line of a particularly dangerous enemy, as a cost-effective means to keep the crown jewel in that region of space unmolested until the cavalry arrives.

Still, though, for that purpose I would rather use STOs in most cases as they just have so many advantages. Really to make military stations viable we need to be able to build them with planetary facilities like we can for commercial stations...thus far in C# we do not have a real replacement for the old PDC mechanic that was so well-used in VB6.

I think the fix for this is easy, and change the condition of space station eligibility to no engines only. You could also toy around with the idea of making structural shell not restricted to crafts with no engines but that's not necessary.

I never understood why space stations aren't allowed military components.

[Borealis4x]

words

This is broadly true. Static defenses will generally be relatively inflexible and nearly always a proper warship is a better investment. However they can be useful in limited scenarios, particularly as a form of denial weapon to keep an enemy fleet very far away from a colony. This can be useful for example at major colonies which are close to the front line of a particularly dangerous enemy, as a cost-effective means to keep the crown jewel in that region of space unmolested until the cavalry arrives.

Still, though, for that purpose I would rather use STOs in most cases as they just have so many advantages. Really to make military stations viable we need to be able to build them with planetary facilities like we can for commercial stations...thus far in C# we do not have a real replacement for the old PDC mechanic that was so well-used in VB6.

I think the fix for this is easy, and change the condition of space station eligibility to no engines only. You could also toy around with the idea of making structural shell not restricted to crafts with no engines but that's not necessary.

I never understood why space stations aren't allowed military components.

I think it would be pretty abusable to be able to build a 100,000 ton brick of armor and weapons using ground industry and then tow to camp a jump point without the normal military restrictions.

Restrictions are also there to encourage the use of a bunch of smaller sensors instead of one large one (all sensors below 50 tons are civilian) as well as putting planetary sensors on celestial bodies instead of out in space which I think is reasonable. Why build a whole space station shell when you could just build a facility on a strategically placed asteroid?

[Droll]

words

This is broadly true. Static defenses will generally be relatively inflexible and nearly always a proper warship is a better investment. However they can be useful in limited scenarios, particularly as a form of denial weapon to keep an enemy fleet very far away from a colony. This can be useful for example at major colonies which are close to the front line of a particularly dangerous enemy, as a cost-effective means to keep the crown jewel in that region of space unmolested until the cavalry arrives.

Still, though, for that purpose I would rather use STOs in most cases as they just have so many advantages. Really to make military stations viable we need to be able to build them with planetary facilities like we can for commercial stations...thus far in C# we do not have a real replacement for the old PDC mechanic that was so well-used in VB6.

I think the fix for this is easy, and change the condition of space station eligibility to no engines only. You could also toy around with the idea of making structural shell not restricted to crafts with no engines but that's not necessary.

I never understood why space stations aren't allowed military components.

I think it would be pretty abusable to be able to build a 100,000 ton brick of armor and weapons using ground industry and then tow to camp a jump point without the normal military restrictions.

Wait hold on, your implying that a space station with military components wouldn't have to deal with maintenance or crew. That is not what I meant at all. The 100k ton brick that you mentioned would be a space station that is also classed as a military vessel. Hence The Brick^TM would eat up MSP and need crew recreation.

[nuclearslurpee]

I think it would be pretty abusable to be able to build a 100,000 ton brick of armor and weapons using ground industry and then tow to camp a jump point without the normal military restrictions.

On one hand, this is a fair point as tonnage restrictions are rather important. On the other hand, is there really a big difference between building a 100,000-ton brick and ten 10,000-ton bricks? There are some small efficiency gains in the former case but these are minimal compared to the difference between fighter and warship sizes. Maybe the big difference is officer efficiency.

On the other hand, even if it is exploitable Aurora has numerous exploits and the general position on these is usually that the player can do whatever they like in their own space solitaire game.

Restrictions are also there to encourage the use of a bunch of smaller sensors instead of one large one (all sensors below 50 tons are civilian) as well as putting planetary sensors on celestial bodies instead of out in space which I think is reasonable.

Larger sensors are already balanced by the cost in BP and RP as well as the SQRT efficiency in C#. We this for ship designs, granted not the NPRs but some players will never cease to preach the wonders of small sensors on small fighters. Both are viable and have their place in the current C# game balance.

Why build a whole space station shell when you could just build a facility on a strategically placed asteroid?

Asteroids move. At least, they do in my games.

[StarshipCactus]

A large ODP can be a good force multiplier, especially if it is armed with anti missile capabilities. You can turtle up and tank missiles with the help of a comparatively low tonnage space station. Now the enemy can't go past that world in the jump chain because you will still have a mobile fleet protected behind those stations. If they can't beat it, they might bypass it, leaving you free to go attack their worlds, or harass their rear lines.