Reduced size launchers as standard armament?

[NihilRex]

I even use box launchers for AMM missiles on some types of ships, these are mainly for emergencies on smaller ships while larger ships get the same type in 25% reduction launchers so I can reload them in space. These systems only require very small fire-controls and AMM missile detection systems and will thus become a cheap solution to deal with large enemy salvoes of ASM.

Honestly, if a ship is big enough to mount even a single reload salvo, the choice of a 25% is hands down better than the choice of a box.

Oh, you took fire, lost a box launcher.  Now you have a spare missile, but you cant fire it until damage control is done... 
VS "Oops, lost launcher 7, looks like 2 salvoes and some spares instead of just 2 salvoes."

[Iranon]

If I had to pick one, I'd use box launchers for everything... the flexibility is worth the smaller total loadout.
Moderate reductions have a big penalty to their output over time - box launchers have the highest output until they run dry, full-size ones are the next best thing if salvo size isn't a large concern.

Having enough box launchers to overwhelm defences at the start of a big battle, then enough full-sized ones to clean up at will with measured fire seems better offensively. Steadily thinning out incoming missiles with full-sized launchers with a big volley in reserve when needed seems better defensively. Logistics also work well with the extremes - Missile barges with deep magazines and modest hangar space carry the full-sized ones and reload the box launchers on smaller craft.

[Jorgen_CAB]

If you are in an arms race with similar powers and you need to extend the power of your fleets to every corner of known space you will need to use bigger ships with bigger more fuel efficient engines and who in general is more economical in the upgrade process than smaller ships, this is more of a long term overall economical issue. Bigger ships is also more survivable overall and can thus exploit high experience crew and captains more efficiently. Thus using box launcher instead of a 25% reduced launcher is not a sound option. Using a carrier to bring the ships aboard to reload seems like an awkward way of doing it instead of just using the 25% reduced size one instead.

Swarms of smaller ships is not as efficient as the same tonnage of larger ships for pure combat prowess. Smaller ships is of course useful in their own right and for their own purpose, but I would never build them as the main offensive power unless stationed on a dedicated carrier. I really see no point in doing so.

In most of the campaigns I have played the development of ships usually start with beam weapons being the main weapon of choice. It then gradually develop into ship based missiles on dedicated Destroyer type ships and then transfer into a carrier based environment where the main offensive punch of any battle group is the smaller craft. When carriers enters into the picture strike range will increase to billions of kilometres. Way outside the range of any ship based missile ranges as well as active scanning ranges. Ship based missiles will mainly become a weapon for "close" range skirmishers between cruiser scout groups.
When stealth technology is sufficiently developed then ship based weapon platforms will again become important, both as beam and missile platforms.

Beam weapons will always be important since that is the only way to forcibly hold and take fixed positions, jump point being the most extreme example. Well defended planets and bases will almost be impossible to attack using missiles alone, it just is too costly from an economical perspective.

Anyway... in my opinion... box launchers are for ships designed to operate in extremely short periods of time. Their mission is to go out and strike its target. Or fitted to patrol ships to give them some offensive and/or defensive punch, but these ships usually operate under the protection of powerful planet based installations of some kind. All other launcher types are for ships whose intent have longer time and range deployment. By the time you develop the box launcher you usually can build larger carriers anyway and the use of smaller fighter craft will become the most important and safest way to deal with a threat, unless we talk about system defences.

[Theodidactus]

if you take a look at my designs you'll see that in my current game I almost exlusively use half sized launchers and half sized lasers in my ship design...it works. I'm role playing a benevolent military dictatorship growing up in the middle of 4 hostile alien civilizations, so these guys have gotten a LOT of combat experience over the last 2-3 years...against varied opponents. The problem comes, as you'd expect, from fighting lots of little guys.

The trick is use lots of mid-sized ships to mount these weapons, that way, you don't have the situation where your lumbering behemoth battlecruiser is "tapped out" as the enemy approaches with more fighter waves that you expected. Also, I've had good results with very limited range on the missiles, ~5 million kilometers or less. Our naval doctrine calls for a battle line of 2 battlecruisers and 2 escort frigates, a missile cruiser and 2 escort frigates and 2 lighter turret beam cruisers, all of which run large groups of size 6 missiles from half sized launchers. I've taken out star swarm queens with a single battle line, and it has the added bonus of feeling deliciously like ancient naval combat...

hold...
hold...
FIRE ALL TORPEDOES!

[NihilRex]

Our naval doctrine calls for a battle line of 2 battlecruisers and 2 escort frigates, a missile cruiser and 2 escort frigates and 2 lighter turret beam cruisers, all of which run large groups of size 6 missiles from half sized launchers. I've taken out star swarm queens with a single battle line, and it has the added bonus of feeling deliciously like ancient naval combat...

hold...
hold...
FIRE ALL TORPEDOES!

To me, a pair of DDGs at 12,500 should eat that spoiler alive without any trouble.  I design launchers based on reload time.  A torpedo launcher fires every 2-5 minutes, and an assault missile launcher fires every 15-30.  Generally, when I design a new launcher, if I can get similar performance to the old launcher with a smaller launcher, I probably will, instead of opting for the faster reload and same size.

Then again, I consider non-missile combat to be for PD, interceptors, bases, and JP defense.

[Theodidactus]

What does DDG mean?

[CheaterEater]

What does DDG mean?

Missile destroyer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guided_missile_destroyer

[Theodidactus]

definitely not the case with my builds, though we don't have long ranged weapon systems, everything we build with the exception of our mighty missile cruisers has a range of less than 10mkm

In the Second action at Alpha Centauri, two 25kt battlecruisers, 4 15kt destroyer escorts, and 2 15kt light cruisers destroyed a spoiler with 2 salvoes of 44 size 6 torpedoes fired about 4 minutes apart.

[Jorgen_CAB]

To me, a pair of DDGs at 12,500 should eat that spoiler alive without any trouble.  I design launchers based on reload time.  A torpedo launcher fires every 2-5 minutes, and an assault missile launcher fires every 15-30.  Generally, when I design a new launcher, if I can get similar performance to the old launcher with a smaller launcher, I probably will, instead of opting for the faster reload and same size.

Then again, I consider non-missile combat to be for PD, interceptors, bases, and JP defense.

To be honest a couple of the ships proposed in this thread would be far more optimal in engaging such a creature.

Also, this highly depend on technology level.

Using large alpha strikes and small missiles is almost cheating the system against the NPR because they can never deal with this because their designs are not equipped to handle it unless they have a serious advantage in technology. I generally avoided that when I played much against the NPR.  Against the NPR I would general stay with size 4-6 missiles for ASM and full sized launchers to make it more fair.... or otherwise make my designs a little more suboptimal.

[NihilRex]

I use Size 3 sprint missiles, usually around 20m range, 9 damage, Size 5 Torps 4dmg, and size 25 Capital missiles, ~25dmg at that tech.

The DDGs in question carry 2 Capital Missile tubes and 5 torp tubes.  Getting the salvoes of both kinds to arrive together can be necessary, and is a pain, and was the subject of a previous discussion in the Adv Tac Academy forum.

[Theodidactus]

To be honest a couple of the ships proposed in this thread would be far more optimal in engaging such a creature.

Also, this highly depend on technology level.

Using large alpha strikes and small missiles is almost cheating the system against the NPR because they can never deal with this because their designs are not equipped to handle it unless they have a serious advantage in technology. I generally avoided that when I played much against the NPR.  Against the NPR I would general stay with size 4-6 missiles for ASM and full sized launchers to make it more fair.... or otherwise make my designs a little more suboptimal.

I'm with you. I only use size 6-10 missiles. It's more fair and it feels more like naval/submarine warfare

[Jorgen_CAB]

I use Size 3 sprint missiles, usually around 20m range, 9 damage, Size 5 Torps 4dmg, and size 25 Capital missiles, ~25dmg at that tech.

The DDGs in question carry 2 Capital Missile tubes and 5 torp tubes.  Getting the salvoes of both kinds to arrive together can be necessary, and is a pain, and was the subject of a previous discussion in the Adv Tac Academy forum.

That seems like an interesting blend of missiles and make it suboptimal enough to get a thumbs up in my book...

Mixing missiles are viewed by many to be suboptimal, I don't fully agree with that since there can be a good reason for carrying both long range and short range missiles. If you can deal with an enemy before they get into range that can become a huge strategic advantage. It is strange that regular wet navies today carry a wide range of ASM on ships if this was the case in reality.

In general I try and mix high yield larger missiles with armour as more important against capital warships and smaller missiles with a smaller yield against smaller more vulnerable ships. But then again in my campaign smaller ships are often alone or in smaller groups. The reason is scouting and protecting many places at the same time require fleets to break up and designs will have to be adopt to account for this. In most of my campaigns there are no such thing as leaving a mining colony to fend for it self, it will have serious political/economical repercussions if I do that, and I like for my top officers to stay in position (or they do ). For me it's not just a numbers game, it is a political very complex and intricate web of pragmatism, exploitation, conflict, power and human rights struggle.  

[NihilRex]

Definitions - Destroyers are purpose built - frigates have to be able to operate alone, in the same size class.  Cruisers are optimized for long deployment time and deep magazines.

An assault\sprint missile is FAST and has an ok hit.  A torpedo has a limited damage potential but LONG range, and once feasible, onboard sensors.  Damage of at least 4 is the only damage requirement.  Capital missiles should have at least as much range as torpedos, onboard sensors, and probably some armor and\or ECM.  Damage needs to be at least one more layer of armor than  the sprint\assault missiles.

So, doctrine is that torpedoes are used against capital ships mostly, while sprint missiles are for fighters and gunboats.  Capital missiles are only used against targets with sufficient Armor or PD to swat torpedoes.  Cap missiles are expensive after all.

Later on, when I can afford sensors on assault missiles or torpedoes, capital tubes will be used to launch missile buses.

[Jorgen_CAB]

You seem to de defining things pretty similar to what I do, both ships and missiles/torpedoes.

I often call ASM (anti-ship missiles) for torpedoes and AMM for interceptors and anti-craft (or smaller ships) for missiles. So missiles are often smaller with lower yield and intended to hit fast moving ships. Torpedoes generally trade speed for armour with a high yield warhead to cause shock damage and pierce armour more efficiently. I sometimes also have very fast low range torpedoes that only is for very close combat purposes, perhaps a few hundred thousand kilometres and up to a million maximum.

My ships types say more about their role than size even if frigates tend to be smaller than a destroyer they really don't have to be, especially not between different factions. The frigate are much as you say a ship intended for independent operations, mainly as scouts. Their weapons are mainly to engage other frigates or smaller crafts and they should basically avoid anything else. They can also be used for escort duty.

The destroyer are the main military platform and must be able to perform many roles, pretty much any role that is not performed by a carrier. So they must be able to engage the enemy, protect other ships and scout. Their main role is to be part of naval battle groups and they rarely act alone on any missions. There usually is two types, the slightly larger destroyer leader who is a command and control ship and the regular destroyer. Smaller factions might just have one type of destroyer.

The cruiser is often a controversial type of ship that not many factions will have the resources to build. They must be big enough to be deployed in an independent role and able to perform pretty much any task, including engaging enemy capital warships such as destroyers and even carriers if need be. In essence they are reconnaissance in force type ships. They can operate alone or in cruiser groups or as part of real naval task-groups. Most of my cruiser designs will also have adequate hangar space for either strike crafts and/or utility crafts. They need to have long range, good deployment time, decent speeds and good defensive capabilities, all which is hard to accomplish and still be a potent and efficient design. Cruiser are mainly a way to brag, you show how quite rich and advanced you are to afford such a project.

[NihilRex]

To me, a cruiser is by midgame the workhorse of the fleet.

Got a explorer\survey group going through systems far from home?  Too far to put a maintenance facility nearby for a destroyer squadron?  Send a Cruiser group.

What you describe is to me more like a BB\BC\DN.  My destroyers, on the other hand, are UNABLE to work alone.  The DL has a jump engine, but no active sensors at this tech level.

I'll toss this up in another topic so we stop hijacking.