Project 4-003 class Missile Cruiser

[Protomolecule (OP)]

Hello!
This is a (multi-role) missile cruiser I designed in my current game, and would like the opinions of the people here on what I can improve for the eventual sucessor.
Tech is as follows: Ion engines, Ceramic composite armour, 20cm Ultraviolet lasers, Active sensors 21/11 Strenght/Sensitivity, magazine feed system 85% and launcher reload rate 3.
For the missiles, I had (per MSP): warhead strenght 5, missile agility 48, max power 2.5x and fuel consumption 0.7.

Project 4-03 class Missile Cruiser      12,000 tons       323 Crew       2,076.3 BP       TCS 240    TH 1,203    EM 0
5010 km/s      Armour 6-46       Shields 0-0       HTK 86      Sensors 12/22/0/0      DCR 7      PPV 57.76
Maint Life 2.50 Years     MSP 838    AFR 149%    IFR 2.1%    1YR 187    5YR 2,800    Max Repair 300.625 MSP
Magazine 336   
Commander    Control Rating 2   BRG   AUX   
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months    Morale Check Required   

Cruiser Ion Drive  EP601.25 (2)    Power 1202.5    Fuel Use 70.12%    Signature 601.25    Explosion 13%
Fuel Capacity 1,001,000 Litres    Range 21.4 billion km (49 days at full power)

187mm/R15 Spinal Laser Mk1 (1)    Range 256,000km     TS: 5,010 km/s     Power 9-3     RM 40,000 km    ROF 15       
Twin 120mm/R5 Laser Mk1 Turret 16K (2x2)    Range 160,000km     TS: 16000 km/s     Power 8-8     RM 40,000 km    ROF 5       
Beam Fire Control R256-TS16000 (1)     Max Range: 256,000 km   TS: 16,000 km/s     96 92 88 84 80 77 73 69 65 61
Beam Fire Control R256-TS5000 (SW) (1)     Max Range: 256,000 km   TS: 5,000 km/s     96 92 88 84 80 77 73 69 65 61
Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor R12 (3)     Total Power Output 36.2    Exp 5%

1000mm Missile Pod (12)     Missile Size: 10    Hangar Reload 158 minutes    MF Reload 26 hours
100mm Missile Tube Mk1 (12)     Missile Size: 1    Rate of Fire 10
Missile Fire Control FC24-R1 (2)     Range 24.3m km    Resolution 1
1000mm Missile Mk1 (12)    Speed: 24,720 km/s    End: 11.9m     Range: 17.7m km    WH: 16    Size: 10    TH: 148/88/44
100mm AMM Mk1 (216)    Speed: 31,200 km/s    End: 0.5m     Range: 0.8m km    WH: 1    Size: 1    TH: 249/149/74

Active Search Sensor AS12-R1 (1)     GPS 42     Range 12.1m km    MCR 1.1m km    Resolution 1
Active Search Sensor AS70-R200 (1)     GPS 8400     Range 70.9m km    Resolution 200
EM Sensor EM2-22 (1)     Sensitivity 22     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  37.1m km
Thermal Sensor TH2-12 (1)     Sensitivity 12     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  27.4m km

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

[Droll]

Honestly it's ok but it isn't good at anything in particular. It is fast for its tech level though, which is good for the beam side of things.

I think this would be a great general system defense cruiser but I would not use it for any sort of offensive action.

I would suggest you split this into two further variants which are still somewhat multi-purpose:

1st Variant would drop the 20cm lasers and ASMs and go with a mix of 10-12cm laser PD weapons and more AMM launchers being a generalized escort ship.
2nd Variant would stick to the 20cm lasers and ASMs and drop the AMMs, making it a multi-spec Anti-Ship cruiser. (for this variant I would add more ASM launchers and make them reduced size launchers and not box launchers for combat endurance).

And then for the current variant half the range and add more engineering to make it cheaper to maintain, which is nice for a system defense ship.

[Jorgen_CAB]

In my opinion this is just a fine ship... multi-purpose work just fine at this size. This ship work very well in just about any type of missions. It also can be quite good to spread out your beam weapons if you end up in a beam fight or you need to protect/assault a jump point. When you mount beam weapons on multiple ships instead of putting them all in one ships you gain more hit point per weapon so you become much more durable in combat, especially if it is a drawn out affair at long range.

In my opinion it is a poor choice to build pure beam ships unless you build them for extreme speeds or some specific purpose (like JP picket duty) or have a fleet with no missiles at all.

The only change I would do is use max reduced sized launchers instead of box launchers so I could potentially use the magazines or reload them in space. Depends on it's intended role. I probably would sacrifice the 12cm laser turrets for this.

[SpaceMarine]

Id like to share one of my designs from my main series, it is actually fairly similar in purpose and loadout, and it may contribute, this is the guided missile destroyer newfoundland class, its main missiles arent done yet.

Code: [Select]

Newfoundland class Guided Missile Destroyer (P)      10,000 tons       269 Crew       1,539 BP       TCS 200    TH 1,008    EM 0
5037 km/s      Armour 5-41       Shields 0-0       HTK 63      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 6      PPV 52.4
Maint Life 1.79 Years     MSP 577    AFR 133%    IFR 1.9%    1YR 224    5YR 3,353    Max Repair 503.75 MSP
Magazine 396   
Captain    Control Rating 3   BRG   AUX   ENG   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Morale Check Required   

Ion Drive  EP1007.50 (1)    Power 1007.5    Fuel Use 91.82%    Signature 1007.5    Explosion 15%
Fuel Capacity 942,000 Litres    Range 18.5 billion km (42 days at full power)

20cm Railgun V30/C3 (2x4)    Range 120,000km     TS: 5,037 km/s     Power 12-3     RM 30,000 km    ROF 20       
Beam Fire Control R192-TS5100 (1)     Max Range: 192,000 km   TS: 5,100 km/s     95 90 84 79 74 69 64 58 53 48
Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor R6-PB30 (1)     Total Power Output 6.5    Exp 15%

Size 6.00 Missile Launcher (40.0% Reduction) (16)     Missile Size: 6.00    Rate of Fire 490
Missile Fire Control FC59-R100 (1)     Range 59.3m km    Resolution 100
MKI SLM-"Hawk*  (16)    Speed: 9,700 km/s    End: 5m     Range: 2.9m km    WH: 24    Size: 6    TH: 32/19/9

Active Search Sensor AS41-R100 (1)     GPS 3200     Range 41.9m km    Resolution 100
Active Search Sensor AS2-R1 (1)     GPS 2     Range 2m km    MCR 181.7k km    Resolution 1
Newfoundland class Guided Missile Destroyer (P)      10,000 tons       269 Crew       1,539 BP       TCS 200    TH 1,008    EM 0
5037 km/s      Armour 5-41       Shields 0-0       HTK 63      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 6      PPV 52.4
Maint Life 1.79 Years     MSP 577    AFR 133%    IFR 1.9%    1YR 224    5YR 3,353    Max Repair 503.75 MSP
Magazine 396   
Captain    Control Rating 3   BRG   AUX   ENG   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Morale Check Required   

Ion Drive  EP1007.50 (1)    Power 1007.5    Fuel Use 91.82%    Signature 1007.5    Explosion 15%
Fuel Capacity 942,000 Litres    Range 18.5 billion km (42 days at full power)

20cm Railgun V30/C3 (2x4)    Range 120,000km     TS: 5,037 km/s     Power 12-3     RM 30,000 km    ROF 20       
Beam Fire Control R192-TS5100 (1)     Max Range: 192,000 km   TS: 5,100 km/s     95 90 84 79 74 69 64 58 53 48
Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor R6-PB30 (1)     Total Power Output 6.5    Exp 15%

Size 6.00 Missile Launcher (40.0% Reduction) (16)     Missile Size: 6.00    Rate of Fire 490
Missile Fire Control FC59-R100 (1)     Range 59.3m km    Resolution 100
MKI SLM-"Hawk*  (16)    Speed: 9,700 km/s    End: 5m     Range: 2.9m km    WH: 24    Size: 6    TH: 32/19/9

Active Search Sensor AS41-R100 (1)     GPS 3200     Range 41.9m km    Resolution 100
Active Search Sensor AS2-R1 (1)     GPS 2     Range 2m km    MCR 181.7k km    Resolution 1


[DeMatt]

My thoughts:

- 37 HS is a weird size for the engines.  I suppose it does cross the 6 HTK threshold.  But I like nice round numbers, so I'd go for either 32 HS * 150% or 40 HS * 120% engines instead.  Maybe even split the engines up further (four engines of 16 HS * 150%), so a maintenance failure on an engine doesn't eat as much of my MSP.
- The 15cm+Spinal laser irks me.  Compared to a 20cm+Standard laser, it takes up the same space (6 HS), uses the same crew (18), fires 1 less point-blank damage (9 versus 10), and with Capacitor 4 saves only 0.5 power for the same fire rate.  Consider upgrading - or even going whole hog with a 20cm+Spinal laser (16 damage, 8 HS).
- Consider quad-mounting the 12cm lasers.  That saves you a little space on the rotation gear, but more importantly makes them a "single" weapon for the BFC...
- ...because that max-range/max-speed BFC is Expensive with a capital E.  And if you can cut its size in half, that would be great.
- The lack of a Final Defensive Fire weapon (e.g. turreted gauss cannons) to backstop your area defense weaponry (the AMMs and the 12cm lasers) leaves me feeling like there's a hole in your defenses.  If you convert the max/max BFC to a single-weapon version, consider adding a CIWS component;  otherwise, a gauss turret can provide fleet-wide FDF.
- The twelve size-10 missiles annoy me.  On the one hand, they're fast and powerful;  on the other hand, they're detected further out than the MCR of a sensor.  I feel like you could change them out for twenty size-6 missiles, each with warhead 9 but slightly reduced speed and/or range, and get just a little better combat performance.
- I like your AMMs.  I personally might try for just a little more range, to match the MCR on your antimissile sensor.

[Density]

IMO, a 12k ship is small to do multi-role anything, but I'm not going to harp on about it.

The thing that stands out to me are the MFCs. With that tech those are 2HS each, and seem to be designed with the range of the ASMs and the res of the AMMs.
You could instead have one for the AMMs that is size 0.5, res 1, that can target any missile at just over 1m km. And also have one for the ASMs that is size 0.1 and res 200 (to match the active sensor) with a 31m km range (or drop the res to 100 and still have 25m range).
Then you can actually throw on 2 of each for redundancy and it would still be smaller and cheaper than 1 of the MFCs you've got on there now.

After that, I'd look at the deployment time. Either you intend to park it at a spot that can support it (like a colony) and have it spring into action, or you intend to have it parked somewhere else (like a jump point) just in case the action comes to it. In the former case, 6 mo is too long; it can only move without refueling for less than 2 months. In the later, 6 mo is too short; I find anything less than a year makes me feel the micro of rotating ships to keep them combat-ready.

Hope this helps.

[Protomolecule (OP)]

First of all, thank you all for your replies!
Droll
- There is just one 18.75cm laser, removing it and the ASM results in either 2 more 12cm twin turrets, or one more turret and 4 more AMM launchers along with their associated magazine. I quite like this one, except for the lack of range in beam combat.
- The second suggestion is basically already in service, except it still keeps two 12cm twin turrets to help with PD.

Jorgen_CAB
- Yeah, I really prefer to spread out capabilities instead of very specialized ships, even if some efficiency is lost overall. More durable, and less vulnerable to losing a capability entirely if a ship gets taken out.
- Good point on the max reduced-size launchers, I have definitely felt the pain of having to go back all the way to a fleet base to rearm. I could do it by reducing the 12cm turrets to 10cm turrets.

SpaceMarine
- Nice one, although its a bit too specialized in anti-ship role for my taste.
- These are some strong missiles, never thought to get more than 16 damage in a size 6 :O

DeMatt
- Yeah, good point about the engines, gonna use a less weird size next time
- To be fair, when I started building these the 20cm lasers were under research, but you do have a point, a 20cm or even 25cm spinal would be way better. Time for a light refit.
- Yeah, I was just noticing how expensive the BFCs were, holy... Good point on the quad mounts, I will lose a bit of adaptability (the jump cruisers that accompany these had 3 twin turrets, for example), but I can easily change the balance of armament next round.
- Good point on the final defensive fire. Did not feel the lack of it (yet) because of the layered defenses, and I did not develop any gauss tech yet, but will look into it.
- Yeah, reducing the missile size is probably they way to go. The current size 10s are having trouble saturating enemy PD.

Density
- Could you tell me what size you think is enough for a multi-role ship?
- Great points about the MFCs. Definitely gonna do that.
- Yeah, I have been using them the second way you described (as cruisers from wet navies), and the micro has been a pain. 12 months here I go.

Thank you all once again, this has been a nice learning experience.

[Density]

Density
- Could you tell me what size you think is enough for a multi-role ship?

I said I wasn't going to harp on about it.

[Jorgen_CAB]

When it comes to multi-purpose and size I would say it depends entirely on the role and the capabilities that each ship needs. A ship at 10-15k do OK as multi-purpose but you will obviously have to do some concessions... be it speed, range, sensors or weapons systems to some degree.

I also think that it sometimes is odd to speak about a ship being multi-purpose... the above cruiser obviously is a missile cruiser as it's main role with the other weapons and systems as supporting systems. Almost every design you make will have a primary function but secondary system so they can perform in multiple roles if they need to.

Especially when I play multi-faction games then too many large specialised ships is an expensive investment in both time and research and can become an Achilles heel in a decent competitive environment as you want to spend as little resources on military as possible while still able to perform well and be versatile at the same time. Small ships are just way more quicker and efficient to build short term (they also tend to be more specialised) while large ships are more efficient long term... it also make sense to design larger ships able to perform in many roles for that same reason.

One thing that I find odd that many people don't do more of is combine ASM and AMM on the same ships as they can share the magazines you can easily make a ship more or less offensive or defensive by a single reload of missiles. I almost never build missile ships these days that don't combine these two capabilities anymore, the benefit of switching focus by just reloading their magazines are quite potent for the rather small overhead (if any) of not specialising them. A standard load out for a general mission normally would be one volley of ASM and a large AMM capability... if I know the mission parameters and expect less opposition or know the enemy forces to a certain degree I could then go light on AMM and provide several ASM volleys for more destruction.

[Agraelgrimm]

The only thing i can add on what the others have said, at this point is: 1 You need more fuel. 21BKM wont cut it. Thats 1/3 of a medium solar system. You will need to use tankers a lot if you want to go somewhere and the thing about tankers is that they will slow down your ship making you lose initiative. I did my fair share of ships with this amount of fuel per trip and more often than not they stay dead on their tracks and take the fuel tankers on the same road, since they drink a lot of fuel. Or they will be slowed down to a point where the whole fleet becomes a sitting duck.

Aside from that, i would take out the AMM box launchers, go with a half size AMM launcher, and instead of going launchers for the main missiles, just go box on them. I would make... 36 box launchers for your anti ship missiles. That means that if the smeg hits the fan you can fire all of them at once, if its the case of a lone cruiser, or fire in salvos and if you kill the target, you still have missiles there.

Now, if the main purpose of the ship is being able to launch salvo after salvo of missiles, then you will need 2 launchers for that, a big magazine and that will come out of some beam weapons. I like the box launchers for medium missiles sizes because you dont need to waste space crew, launcher *and* magazine. The downside is your ship will have to dock to reload the missiles after it has used them all.