Author Topic: CLE design help  (Read 527 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline welchbloke (OP)

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1013
  • Thanked: 7 times
CLE design help
« on: November 13, 2022, 04:54:15 AM »
What's wrong with this CLE design? I haven't really used Railguns in Aurora C#, and this design didn't appear to work that well as a CLE. Any advice would be welcome, including telling me that I should be using a different weapon type ;)
Code: [Select]
Diamond class Escort Cruiser      16,154 tons       468 Crew       3,576.7 BP       TCS 323    TH 1,920    EM 2,400
5942 km/s      Armour 2-56       Shields 80-480       HTK 106      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 5      PPV 40
Maint Life 1.64 Years     MSP 740    AFR 390%    IFR 5.4%    1YR 326    5YR 4,887    Max Repair 360 MSP
Captain    Control Rating 3   BRG   AUX   ENG   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Morale Check Required   

Potts Aircraft Engine Co Magneto-plasma Drive  EP160.00 (12)    Power 1920    Fuel Use 50.0%    Signature 160    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 2,782,000 Litres    Range 62 billion km (120 days at full power)
Talbot Defence Industries Theta S40 / R480 Shields (2)     Recharge Time 480 seconds (0.2 per second)

Benson Precision Arms 12cm Railgun V50/C2 (8x4)    Range 100,000km     TS: 5,942 km/s     Power 6-2     RM 50,000 km    ROF 15       
Newton-Butler Beam Fire Control R320-TS20000 (4)     Max Range: 320,000 km   TS: 20,000 km/s     97 94 91 88 84 81 78 75 72 69
Power & Cole Stellarator Fusion Reactor R12 (2)     Total Power Output 23.5    Exp 5%

Moss Warning & Control Active Search Sensor AS45-R1 (1)     GPS 360     Range 45.4m km    MCR 4.1m km    Resolution 1

ECM 30

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

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2211
  • Thanked: 1669 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: CLE design help
« Reply #1 on: November 13, 2022, 10:00:49 AM »
You have indeed made several mistakes. The telltale sign here is that I am looking at your design and wondering how you have a 16,000-ton ship with almost nothing on it. There is a lot of inefficiency and unnecessary use of tonnage that is making this ship not very effective:
  • You should be using a much larger engine, because fuel efficiency goes up with the square root of the engine size (not the total engine mass, but the size of an individual engine). If you used 3x size-40 engines instead of 12x size-10, you would be able to mount half as much fuel.
  • Seriously consider if you need 62 billion km of range. You probably don't need this for most missions, and if you do it will be more economical to station tankers strategically or to have them form your fleet logistics train. Reducing the amount of fuel you need to carry will mean more space for important things by a wide margin.
  • You need way more railguns with a faster ROF. 10cm railguns are usually best for pure PD and are easy to get to ROF 5 with just the level 3 capacitor tech, and ROF 5 is necessary in many cases to deal with missiles especially if the enemy mixes AMM and ASMs together. Even against purely AMM spam you need at least ROF 10. 12cm railguns could work but need better ROF (capacitor tech), and because they are larger than 10cm railguns you will not have as efficient of a PD screen. Even so... I can easily mount 8x 15cm railguns on a ~12,000-ton ship so clearly there are other problems here.
  • Your fire controls are too many and too over-engineered. You cannot benefit from the 20,000 km/s tracking speed because railguns, as hull-mounted weapons, are limited in tracking speed to the speed of the ship they are on (or the racial minimum based on tech level, if the ship is very slow - that's not a problem here). Also, 320,000 km range is excessive for point defense, you would probably be fine with 80,000 or 100,000 km range here. Finally, you do not need so many BFCs as a single fire control can target infinitely many separate missile salvos, the only limitation is that a single weapon may only fire at one salvo (since all shots fire simultaneously). I would have only two BFCs for redundancy unless there is a RP reason to do otherwise.
  • Your reactors are providing more power than you need, although this won't be relevant if you add more weapons or use better ROF tech.
  • Your active sensor is far too big. I'm not sure of your tech level, but size 10 and size 30 (which I suspect is more likely) are both much too large. If you want an extended active sensor range to get a missile tracking bonus, use a smaller number of dedicated (smaller) sensor ships and reserve the space on your CLEs for more PD guns, or else use small scout fighters to extend your sensor range instead (this is more efficient, in general).
Also, this isn't really a problem related to PD effectiveness, but the ship feels a little bit under-protected for MP tech and I would consider adding more shields or armor. Note that larger shield generators are significantly more efficient than multiple smaller generators, so you should always be using the largest shield generators your tech level allows you to build. Here, if you use a single size-20 generator instead of two size-10 ones, you would get 113 shield strength instead of 80. Of course, you could also increase the armor thickness. Either way, more protection would be welcome as right now these ships are very vulnerable in a close-range fight or if enemy missiles prove too numerous and the fleet must retreat (or advance) under fire.
 
The following users thanked this post: welchbloke

Offline welchbloke (OP)

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1013
  • Thanked: 7 times
Re: CLE design help
« Reply #2 on: November 13, 2022, 10:14:32 AM »
That's really helpful feedback. I haven't played Aurora that much for a while and I've clearly forgotten a lot :( I'll design a new version with your advice in mind and see how it performs.

Thanks!
Welchbloke
 

Offline Nori

  • Bug Moderators
  • Lieutenant
  • ***
  • Posts: 182
  • Thanked: 30 times
  • Discord Username: Nori Silverrage
  • Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter : Support the forums with a Bronze subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: CLE design help
« Reply #3 on: November 13, 2022, 02:03:46 PM »
So nuclearslurpee had a lot of great points, but I would add a few things to consider. Your max repair is 360 with 740MSP, I would consider adding a little more MSP storage even at the expense of less engineering.
I find it useful to have some thermal passive sensors as they can pick up missile engines pretty far out. You may have a dedicated sensor ship for this however.
Armor, 2 layers is waaay too low. A AMM hitting in the same spot has now opened up your internals. Something to think about is the damage profile of weapons as per the wiki: http://aurorawiki.pentarch.org/index.php?title=Armor#Damage_Profile
In summary, 4 layers of armor will block a 9 damage warhead from penetrating in one hit. I prioritize getting at least 4 layers for any combat related ship as it will protect you being opened up (in one missile hit) all the way to a 15 damage warhead. You get more bang for your buck from armor vs shields, but you have to repair so there is a tradeoff, but even in a shield heavy build, 4 layers of armor is essential imo. Heck with decent armor you can tank huge waves of AMM if need be. I've done it in a pinch before. Works really well when combined with shields.

As far as engines go. I always try to pick a base size, say 8kt and use multiples of that. So a 16kt ship might use 2 engines that I would put on a 8kt ship.
 

Offline StarshipCactus

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • S
  • Posts: 204
  • Thanked: 57 times
Re: CLE design help
« Reply #4 on: November 14, 2022, 02:07:05 AM »
What's wrong with this CLE design? I haven't really used Railguns in Aurora C#, and this design didn't appear to work that well as a CLE. Any advice would be welcome, including telling me that I should be using a different weapon type ;)
Code: [Select]
Diamond class Escort Cruiser      16,154 tons       468 Crew       3,576.7 BP       TCS 323    TH 1,920    EM 2,400
5942 km/s      Armour 2-56       Shields 80-480       HTK 106      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 5      PPV 40
Maint Life 1.64 Years     MSP 740    AFR 390%    IFR 5.4%    1YR 326    5YR 4,887    Max Repair 360 MSP
Captain    Control Rating 3   BRG   AUX   ENG   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Morale Check Required   

Potts Aircraft Engine Co Magneto-plasma Drive  EP160.00 (12)    Power 1920    Fuel Use 50.0%    Signature 160    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 2,782,000 Litres    Range 62 billion km (120 days at full power)
Talbot Defence Industries Theta S40 / R480 Shields (2)     Recharge Time 480 seconds (0.2 per second)

Benson Precision Arms 12cm Railgun V50/C2 (8x4)    Range 100,000km     TS: 5,942 km/s     Power 6-2     RM 50,000 km    ROF 15       
Newton-Butler Beam Fire Control R320-TS20000 (4)     Max Range: 320,000 km   TS: 20,000 km/s     97 94 91 88 84 81 78 75 72 69
Power & Cole Stellarator Fusion Reactor R12 (2)     Total Power Output 23.5    Exp 5%

Moss Warning & Control Active Search Sensor AS45-R1 (1)     GPS 360     Range 45.4m km    MCR 4.1m km    Resolution 1

ECM 30

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

As a member of the Round Tonnage Lobby, I have to say that I have identified the most significant flaw in your design.
Quote
16,154 tons
You can easily make your ship approximately 73% better by rounding the tonnage down to 16,000.
 
The following users thanked this post: El Pip, Nori, Zap0, Pedroig, ranger044, nuclearslurpee