Aurora 4x
C# Aurora => C# Bureau of Design => Topic started by: lumporr on July 27, 2022, 08:29:55 AM
-
EDIT: I have removed the redundant sensor from the bomber, and doubled the size of the DDE sensor. Also, I squeezed a little more speed out of my AMMs in exchange for halving their range from 1.3mkm to 0.56mkm, and I doubt I'll get any more out of them at this tech level. I am likely scrapping the idea for the missile boat, but will leave the design up for posterity. Anybody know a good use for a 2k ton missile boat? My other corvette design of the same tonnage has two lasers and 3 layers of armor, mostly for PPV and probing jump points without risking bigger ships, but it doesn't feel particularly useful. Wondering what to do with it.
Hey all, looking for some feedback on some smaller missile-equipped vessels I designed as prototypes for missile doctrine going forward. The first two are a fighter-bomber and a 2kt missile boat with proper ASMs, while the last one is a 4kt AMM Destroyer Escort.
For the bomber and missile boat, I know that these ranges are rather short - their intended role is to close with enemies outside of beam range, release their payloads, and retreat back to their motherships. In all likelihood they would be escorted by PD fighters and/or the DDE seen below. As for why - I found that shorter range missiles are more accurate, and I like the idea of short range bombers. I'm aware that this may negate many of the positives of missiles in the first place. I like the idea anyway, though I could be convinced to abandon it if it's deemed entirely unfeasible or if the design seems too confused.
Primarily, I just want to know if these are functional before I move onto designing vessels for longer range combat, as I would think there are more design considerations to iron out there. Do I have everything right in terms of what I need in a missile-armed vessel? Are the MFC ranges appropriate for the payloads, and are the payloads distributed well?
Specifically for the DDE, I was banging my head against the wall trying to determine how AMMs actually function and what makes for good coverage re: number of tubes, MFCs and magazine size. With the design seen below, I think I could fire at three separate salvos every 10 seconds, with a maximum of 4 missiles fired per salvo. Is this correct, and if so, does that seem prudent?
Sparta class Bomber 500 tons 9 Crew 79 BP TCS 10 TH 100 EM 0
10008 km/s Armour 1-5 Shields 0-0 HTK 2 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0 PPV 4.8
Maint Life 2.52 Years MSP 14 AFR 20% IFR 0.3% 1YR 3 5YR 46 Max Repair 50 MSP
Magazine 32
Lieutenant Commander Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 1 days Morale Check Required
Ion Drive EP100.00 (1) Power 100 Fuel Use 626.10% Signature 100 Explosion 20%
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres Range 0.58 billion km (15 hours at full power)
Size 4.0 Box Launcher (8) Missile Size: 4 Hangar Reload 100 minutes MF Reload 16 hours
Missile Fire Control FC16-R100 (1) Range 16.2m km Resolution 100
Leeuhof Anti-Ship Missile (8) Speed: 21,750 km/s End: 7.8m Range: 10.2m km WH: 9 Size: 4 TH: 87/52/26
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
This design is classed as a e for auto-assignment purposes
Thermopylae class Missile Boat 2,000 tons 31 Crew 246.2 BP TCS 40 TH 250 EM 0
6250 km/s Armour 1-14 Shields 0-0 HTK 6 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 1 PPV 14.4
Maint Life 2.44 Years MSP 81 AFR 32% IFR 0.4% 1YR 19 5YR 281 Max Repair 125 MSP
Magazine 96
Commander Control Rating 1 BRG
Intended Deployment Time: 8 days Morale Check Required
Ion Drive EP250.00 (1) Power 250 Fuel Use 49.50% Signature 250 Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 31,000 Litres Range 5.6 billion km (10 days at full power)
Size 4.0 Box Launcher (24) Missile Size: 4 Hangar Reload 100 minutes MF Reload 16 hours
Missile Fire Control FC22-R100 (2) Range 22.9m km Resolution 100
Leeuhof Anti-Ship Missile (24) Speed: 21,750 km/s End: 7.8m Range: 10.2m km WH: 9 Size: 4 TH: 87/52/26
Active Search Sensor AS12-R50 (1) GPS 320 Range 12.9m km Resolution 50
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
This design is classed as a c for auto-assignment purposes
Corinth class Destroyer Escort 4,000 tons 110 Crew 582.9 BP TCS 80 TH 500 EM 0
6250 km/s Armour 1-22 Shields 0-0 HTK 34 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 1 PPV 12
Maint Life 1.65 Years MSP 141 AFR 85% IFR 1.2% 1YR 61 5YR 916 Max Repair 125 MSP
Magazine 147
Commander Control Rating 1 BRG
Intended Deployment Time: 1 months Morale Check Required
Ion Drive EP250.00 (2) Power 500 Fuel Use 49.50% Signature 250 Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 174,000 Litres Range 15.8 billion km (29 days at full power)
Size 1 Missile Launcher (12) Missile Size: 1 Rate of Fire 10
Missile Fire Control FC15-R1 (3) Range 15.6m km Resolution 1
Transvaal AMM (147) Speed: 29,600 km/s End: 0.3m Range: 0.6m km WH: 1 Size: 1.0000 TH: 167/100/50
Active Search Sensor AS7-R1 (1) GPS 32 Range 7.8m km MCR 703.6k km Resolution 1
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
This design is classed as a c for auto-assignment purposes
Looking forward to receiving feedback! I've always been daunted by the prospect of adding missiles to my repertoire. If there's any other considerations I should be made aware of, don't hesitate to let me know!
-
I like your bomber design. I do not understand why you chose a resolution 1 sensor or any sensor at all, but aside from that, it is fast and packs a punch as a capital ship killer. The missiles might be stronger with more agility and less warhead size, but I do not know your tech level.
The missile boat on the other hand will be in trouble. The general design is good, but it is quite a lot larger and easier to get an active lock on. In such a case it might be unable to get close enough to fire. I would use a fire control and missiles with a longer range.
Your AMM ship looks potent to me as well, I would try to add some more ammunition, as it carries only 7 salvos. At what range does the active sensor detect incoming missiles?
-
First of all your AMM is slower than your own ASM, so the chance that your AMM would shoot down your own ASM is rather slim.
Also, I think that you can cut some range on your AMM, since your detection range is around 500k km for a size 6 missile, and your AMM range is 1.3m km . Put that weight into speed (engine).
-
I like your bomber design. I do not understand why you chose a resolution 1 sensor or any sensor at all, but aside from that, it is fast and packs a punch as a capital ship killer. The missiles might be stronger with more agility and less warhead size, but I do not know your tech level.
The missile boat on the other hand will be in trouble. The general design is good, but it is quite a lot larger and easier to get an active lock on. In such a case it might be unable to get close enough to fire. I would use a fire control and missiles with a longer range.
Your AMM ship looks potent to me as well, I would try to add some more ammunition, as it carries only 7 salvos. At what range does the active sensor detect incoming missiles?
Ahh, good catch on the sensor - I copied the design from a different fighter and forgot to scrap it. You're right about the MB too - didn't consider that it would be a much larger target. The DDE's sensor MCR is about 500kkm, which should likely be increased. Likely going to cut into the fuel storage to deal with that. As for ammunition, it might be a tough squeeze without reducing the number of launchers, until I get better tech. As it is, the magazine storage space is un-upgraded (these are tests for a game that has yet to begin, but I don't think I'll be able to allocate points to it until I actually get researching in the game), so that might have to change later.
-
First of all your AMM is slower than your own ASM, so the chance that your AMM would shoot down your own ASM is rather slim.
Also, I think that you can cut some range on your AMM, since your detection range is around 500k km for a size 6 missile, and your AMM range is 1.3m km . Put that weight into speed (engine).
Is not! 27k vs 21k! :P (But you are right - let me edit the designs).
-
These missiles should definitely serve their purpose. Although given your Ion tech level, missiles, especially AMMs, hardly outperform other weapon systems. This is especially true when the engine boost tech is not maximized.
For the ASM, I suggest making it larger (maybe size 6) and keeping the current warhead size to make it either faster or more accurate.
I'm not sure if the AMM can be more accurate as I don't know your missile techs. But as I mentioned, they hardly perform at this tech level. They currently have less than 1/4 hitting chance against your own ASMs.
The destroyer escort definitely can use a deeper magazine for sustained PD capabilities.
-
I'd be inclined to trade some of the ASM range for speed. Ignoring ECM and missile agility, you get 100% chance to hit when missile speed equals or exceeds 10x target speed, so your current ASM is only a 100% hit against targets of ~2,100km/s. PD range is hard capped at ~1.5mkm for beams, and typically between about 2 and 4mkm for AMMs, so 10mkm range for a fighter-carried ASM is pretty generous, 7-8mkm is probably adequate. If you trade some of the fuel for a bigger engine, you'll have ASMs that are less vulnerable to any PD, and because larger engines (especially at the smaller sizes missiles use) are more fuel efficient, you should find you can get quite a lot of extra speed for the range reduction, plus the PD survival benefits
-
Now that you changed the Sparta class bomber, there is no point in building the missile boat anymore, as the former does the same job and is literally better at everything. The Thermopylae is four times the size carrying only three times the ordinance. This makes it easier to counter and less dangerous per tonnage. At the same time it is significantly slower making it easier to catch and hit. Finally it is more than three times as costly to build and six times to maintain. The only thing it does better is range, but both of them do not have enough range to operate without a carrier.
-
Given the feedback thus far, I've decided to shake up my initial techs and begin with 3x max engine power. Didn't realize how much of a difference it would make! Speaking of, I took a look back at my initial 250k start techs, and realized I had actually underbudgeted by quite a bit.
My new (still rough) list of tech is attached as a zipped excel file.
And with the additions of better armor, engines, etc., my designs have changed thusly:
Sparta class Fighter-bomber 500 tons 6 Crew 61.2 BP TCS 10 TH 63 EM 0
6255 km/s Armour 1-5 Shields 0-0 HTK 2 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0 PPV 4.8
Maint Life 3.20 Years MSP 12 AFR 20% IFR 0.3% 1YR 2 5YR 26 Max Repair 31.25 MSP
Magazine 32
Nakhoda Sevom Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 6 days Morale Check Required
Ion Drive EP62.50 (1) Power 62.5 Fuel Use 165.73% Signature 62.50 Explosion 12%
Fuel Capacity 17,000 Litres Range 3.7 billion km (6 days at full power)
Size 4.0 Box Launcher (8) Missile Size: 4.0 Hangar Reload 100 minutes MF Reload 16 hours
Missile Fire Control FC16-R100 (1) Range 16.2m km Resolution 100
Agrippa Anti-Ship Missile (8) Speed: 21,650 km/s End: 6.2m Range: 8m km WH: 9 Size: 4.0000 TH: 115/69/34
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
This design is classed as a e for auto-assignment purposes
Corinth class Missile Destroyer 4,000 tons 104 Crew 545.7 BP TCS 80 TH 500 EM 0
6250 km/s Armour 1-22 Shields 0-0 HTK 35 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 1 PPV 12
Maint Life 1.56 Years MSP 132 AFR 85% IFR 1.2% 1YR 62 5YR 930 Max Repair 125.00 MSP
Magazine 192
Nakhoda Dovvom Control Rating 1 BRG
Intended Deployment Time: 1 months Morale Check Required
Ion Drive EP250.00 (2) Power 500.0 Fuel Use 42.43% Signature 250.00 Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 222,000 Litres Range 23.5 billion km (43 days at full power)
Size 1 Missile Launcher (12) Missile Size: 1 Rate of Fire 10
Missile Fire Control FC11-R1 (3) Range 11.1m km Resolution 1
Holy Flame AMM (192) Speed: 34,400 km/s End: 0.3m Range: 0.6m km WH: 1 Size: 1.0000 TH: 252/151/75
Active Search Sensor AS7-R1 (1) GPS 28 Range 7.2m km MCR 648.7k km Resolution 1
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
This design is classed as a c for auto-assignment purposes
Missile Size: 4.0000 MSP (10.00000 Tons) Warhead: 9 Radiation Damage: 9 Manoeuvre Rating: 16
Speed: 21,650 km/s Fuel: 778 Flight Time: 6 minutes Range: 8m km
Cost Per Missile: 4.850256 Development Cost: 485
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 346.4% 3k km/s 115.5% 5k km/s 69.3% 10k km/s 34.6%
Missile Size: 1.0000 MSP (2.50000 Tons) Warhead: 1 Radiation Damage: 1 Manoeuvre Rating: 22
Speed: 34,400 km/s Fuel: 25 Flight Time: 16.4 seconds Range: 564,160 km
Cost Per Missile: 1.340208 Development Cost: 134
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 756.8% 3k km/s 252.3% 5k km/s 151.4% 10k km/s 75.7%
Let me know if you'd deem these good to go, or if you have any critiques of my tech list! I know I have gaps in command/control and some other areas, but if you notice anything glaring, let me know! Also, I was able to allocate a fair bit of points into gauss RoF (the improvements to missiles with equivalent tech invested were marginal), so this may make my AMM Destroyer redundant, but that's how it goes sometimes. What exactly are the advantages of AMMs over gauss?
-
The only thing it does better is range, but both of them do not have enough range to operate without a carrier.
Almost. The Thermopylae has the only active sensor that matches the range of the missiles, so it is at least doing the job of providing the necessary sensor coverage. It is just doing that very, very inefficiently.
Putting that active sensor on a 500t fighter with similar speed/range to the Sparta would be a more typical and much cheaper way of doing it. Or stripping all the weapons and make a very fast scout FAC. Or just sticking a massive active sensor on the carrier. Depends on your wider doctrine really, but I struggle to think of one where the Thermopylae design is appropriate.
EDIT:
So the question now is, how is active sensor coverage for the Spartas being provided?
-
The only thing it does better is range, but both of them do not have enough range to operate without a carrier.
Almost. The Thermopylae has the only active sensor that matches the range of the missiles, so it is at least doing the job of providing the necessary sensor coverage. It is just doing that very, very inefficiently.
Putting that active sensor on a 500t fighter with similar speed/range to the Sparta would be a more typical and much cheaper way of doing it. Or stripping all the weapons and make a very fast scout FAC. Or just sticking a massive active sensor on the carrier. Depends on your wider doctrine really, but I struggle to think of one where the Thermopylae design is appropriate.
EDIT:
So the question now is, how is active sensor coverage for the Spartas being provided?
Just as you say, with a fighter-scout similar in size to the Sparta.