Author Topic: Oh, the Humanity: Designs 1.13 edition (Read 5620 times)

L0ckAndL0ad · « **on:** October 01, 2021, 05:20:04 AM »

I did not manage to properly play my previous game in 1.12, and so I'm playing another one in 1.13. Humanity's situation:

It's year 2076. We have couple nearby colonies and get very little in terms of mineral income. We've met an alien species in a system 4.3bn km away from Sol. They shot one of our survey ships when it was trying to explore their home system, but other than that, our relations are improving. The little intel managed to get collected before we broke off all contact is rather concerning. The aliens have 18 str particle beam armed battlecruisers that can go ~6000km/s, at least. That's gotta be a lance, right? Not an ordinary particle beam weapon.

At first, I was going to construct some particle beam battlecruiser of our own, but we're too behind engine and PB/lance technology to get on par with them (str 12 lance is the best I have right now). Then I came up with a heavily armored laser battleship... But it seems to be too overpriced for what it offers. I will most definitely discard it.

Off-Topic: show

So far my systems were defended by small missile and gauss fighters, so I came back to designing missile ships. Started with destroyers. Trying to get them to fly at 6000+ speed proved very costly, compared to my previous games, where I put less emphasis on speed. My first destroyer blueprint seems, again, too overpriced, for its role and significance. I will discard it as well.

Off-Topic: show

Now, I realized I could downscale the destroyers, eliminating one engine, decreasing its thermal profile and making it cheaper per unit. Here are two variants I came up with. Daedalus is more conservative and has more AMM missiles and would require simpler support infrastructure. Dachhound is box launcher platform, which can be used both for defense, and for offense. I even came up with str 2 size 1 missiles that can fly 50m km and swarm the enemy, if needed. But I hope it's not gonna come to that...

Off-Topic: show

P.S. I've spent TOO MANY days dwelling over these and countless other designs, without actually building anything, and I thought I had to actually stop at some point and make a decision. But damn...

nuclearslurpee · « **Reply #1 on:** October 01, 2021, 09:44:47 AM »

Quote from: L0ckAndL0ad on October 01, 2021, 05:20:04 AM

The aliens have 18 str particle beam armed battlecruisers that can go ~6000km/s, at least. That's gotta be a lance, right? Not an ordinary particle beam weapon.

Sounds about right, I think this is a particle lance with PB 9 strength tech which matches their engine tech (sounds like IntCF). Interesting as I didn't know NPRs could use lances... TIL

Looking at your techs, the big problem I see you running into is going to be BFC range which is matched with the NPRs. If you have the same ship speed as them, they can prevent you from closing and probably win a sniper duel since particle weapons don't have damage falloff at long range like lasers do. However, if their particle beams only have 240,000 km range there is an envelope which you can exploit with long-ranged lasers. In this case, you don't need to fear the particle lances at all and can just kite them with lasers. If the lances have 320,000 km range you will need to take a different approach. A good tactic is to use shields instead of heavy armor and stay at long range, since shields can regenerate and hits at extreme range are very low-probability (and lances fire very slowly) so you can probably regenerate the damage while chipping off their armor with lasers. Otherwise, missiles are your best option to remain outside of lance range entirely. Any of these strategies can work, as long as you choose one and base your fleet around that strategy.

ShipChat:

Quote

Bane class Battleship (P)

First impression is that you're trying to do way too much in a single ship, the design lacks a focus beyond trying to beat particle beams. You need to pick a plan and optimize a ship design for it. The combination of armor + shields is inefficient; either use bare armor with the intention of absorbing an initial lance barrage, or use minimal armor but a lot more shields. I would probably prefer the latter as it matches the tactics described above which will be very effective.

As for the armament, turreted heavy lasers are horribly inefficient. You only need ~6000 km/s tracking to hit the target, which you get from mounting bare lasers on your hull. Using a turret with 10,000 km/s tracking speed is a waste of tonnage dedicated to gearing when it doesn't have to be. If you really want to use turrets for flavor (or single-weapon BFC cheese), use a turret with zero tracking speed and it will use either your racial tracking speed tech or the ship's speed, I don't remember which. You also should use a spinal laser whenever possible as these provide a significant alpha strike and long-range damage capability.

You can probably optimize this ship and bring it down to the 30-40 kton range which will be affordable.

Quote

D Artagnon class Missile Destroyer

It's really not hard to get 6,000+ km/s speed with MP tech, especially if you are boosting the engines. The trick is that you have to accept compromises in other areas. A 9,000-ton ship is not going to be able to mount strong Gauss PD, AMM, and ASM capabilities all on one frame, it's just too much on too small of a ship. This ship demonstrates that quite starkly, as your ASM loadout as listed will only deal at most 90 damage to a target, which isn't even enough to shred all of the armor on this ship - a ASM ship should at least be able to comfortably destroy itself with missiles to spare, assuming every missile hits (and not every missile will hit, so you need a pretty large "excess".

I would probably reduce to maybe 2x Gauss turrets (it is good for most ships to have some beam PD, but not too much), scrap the AMMs, and go all-in on ASMs. If you want a AMM destroyer escort make another class for it.

I have broadly the same comments on the smaller destroyers... the Dachhound class will probably work the best but only because it uses box launchers which are basically an exploit against NPRs. The actual design still lacks a focus and tries to do too many things.

The saving grace here is that AMM spam is still a highly effective strategy for winning fights and will probably knock out the NPR ships given enough missiles, so you will probably be fine using these ships even though they are not very strong designs.

L0ckAndL0ad · « **Reply #2 on:** October 02, 2021, 03:32:13 AM »

Quote from: nuclearslurpee on October 01, 2021, 09:44:47 AM

Looking at your techs, the big problem I see you running into is going to be BFC range which is matched with the NPRs.

I agree that range factor is key here. This is why I continued to develop lasers instead of PBs. Ships with big lasers can be upgraded with better BFC in the future once they become available, while particle beams need a complete replacement. Hence 10k km/s tracking turrets, futureproof. Who knows what other ships I may encounter in the following years? Capital ships are a long term investment and need to serve for a really long time.

Quote

First impression is that you're trying to do way too much in a single ship, the design lacks a focus beyond trying to beat particle beams. You need to pick a plan and optimize a ship design for it.

Actually, this IS a pretty focused setup. I did not put AMMs or secondary lasers there, but I was considering it! :)

Box launchers (which I forgot to switch to size 6 from an earlier generation size 4s, btw!) were put there to a) to keep the ship useful within missile-armed fleet formations; b) as a plan B for being outmatched in speed and beam range); c) to soften the enemy up before engaging with beams; d) because I originally wanted to make a particle beam ship fleet a-la Legend of the Galactic Heroes :)

Everything else is pretty mandatory on my ships. Sensors, PD, long range radar... Pretty standard stuff for a capital ship.

Quote

The combination of armor + shields is inefficient; either use bare armor with the intention of absorbing an initial lance barrage, or use minimal armor but a lot more shields. I would probably prefer the latter as it matches the tactics described above which will be very effective.

Well, I put the armor in just enough to counter the potential enemy lance: str 18 + 1 extra layer. And the shield is there to just top it off for initial hits or leaked missiles. I actually put less shields on there than I originally done. Just enough to say "this is a battleship". Armor is 21% and shield is 3% of the total tonnage. I consider this to be a pretty reasonable ratio for an armor-heavy ship.

Quote

As for the armament, turreted heavy lasers are horribly inefficient. You only need ~6000 km/s tracking to hit the target, which you get from mounting bare lasers on your hull. Using a turret with 10,000 km/s tracking speed is a waste of tonnage dedicated to gearing when it doesn't have to be.

These are not only higher-than-average tracking turrets (again, futureproof, but I agree that's it can be downgraded), these are also armored (turret armor str 8) turrets! They cost a fortune! BUT! I did use armored turrets before in my previous games and they worked pretty well. They have high DAC % (damage allocation chance, 18%, the second highest on the ship, after the engines) and high HTK (39), meaning that they would add A LOT to survivability of the ship under fire.

The highest DAC on the ship are engines. Meaning the engines would be damaged first, and the ship will slow down. If it remains within firing range, it will still be able to fire efficiently, because the turrets dictate the tracking, not the engines. And then the turrets will begin to take damage.

Quote

You also should use a spinal laser whenever possible as these provide a significant alpha strike and long-range damage capability.

I see a decent potential in spinal lasers to be good under many circumstances, but at extreme ranges the hit chance is pretty low, and the damage/armor penetration profiles are worse than a lance. So I decided not to use spinal lasers.

Quote

You can probably optimize this ship and bring it down to the 30-40 kton range which will be affordable.

I agree. There's room for many refinements and optimization. But I gave up on a battleship concept for now in favor of missile ships. I will return to it later.

Quote

A 9,000-ton ship is not going to be able to mount strong Gauss PD, AMM, and ASM capabilities all on one frame, it's just too much on too small of a ship.

I do agree that ships need to be as specialized as possible. But I also want them to be very flexible. And I hate dealing with too many types. I wanted to use 10-12cm lasers for area PD initially, but gave up on this idea for a more coherent Gauss battery, for example.

ASM strikes, in order to be effective, need to be synced and massed by an entire fleet. So it is not fair to judge the ASM weaponry of such a small, multi-purpose vessel. Everything else is limited by the size and the price of the vessel.

I intend on following my usual carrier doctrine with missile ships having secondary offensive missile fire capability. But missiles (especially box launchers) allow for more flexibility and faster adoptability to whatever the enemy may put on the board.

L0ckAndL0ad · « **Reply #3 on:** October 06, 2021, 07:32:08 PM »

I managed to avoid conflict with the aliens so far, so there was no dire need for battleships yet. But I have built 9 cruisers and 24 destroyers. A small TF was sent to shadow aliens and I managed to find a dormant jump point that these folks were using to fly around our borders in unexplained patterns. I had to detach destroyers at some point due to range limitations, but that's normal tradeoff on such a small hull (and my current aux support is also limited).

Both designs are very multirole. I even decided to give a spinal laser a chance, after much consideration. Electronic components are a bit overpriced for the cruiser IMO, but I was going to make a small number of these in a hurry so it's okay for now. Destroyer feels pretty solidly fine-tuned for what it's suppose to do - work as an escort for bigger ships, lone radar picket and general purpose offensive warship.

1st Generation combat vessels

Code: [Select]

Challenger class Cruiser      15 987 tons       450 Crew       3 254.7 BP       TCS 320    TH 1 920    EM 750
6005 km/s      Armour 6-56       Shields 25-300       HTK 97      Sensors 14/14/0/0      DCR 29      PPV 86.76
Maint Life 2.25 Years     MSP 1 645    AFR 227%    IFR 3.2%    1YR 437    5YR 6 556    Max Repair 480 MSP
Magazine 180    Cryogenic Berths 200    
Captain    Control Rating 4   BRG   AUX   CIC   FLG   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Morale Check Required    

Magneto-plasma Drive  EP960.00 (EP120/FC0.5) (2)    Power 1920    Fuel Use 35.27%    Signature 960    Explosion 12%
Fuel Capacity 950 000 Litres    Range 30.3 billion km (58 days at full power)
Delta S25 / R300 Shields (1)     Recharge Time 300 seconds (0.1 per second)

375mm FUV Spinal Laser (1)    Range 320 000km     TS: 6 005 km/s     Power 37-5     RM 50 000 km    ROF 40       
200mm FUV Laser (4)    Range 320 000km     TS: 6 005 km/s     Power 10-5     RM 50 000 km    ROF 10       
Mk 33 Gauss Cannon (6x4)    Range 30 000km     TS: 20000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 30 000 km    ROF 5       
Mk 55 Mod 1 Gun FCS (1)     Max Range: 80 000 km   TS: 20 000 km/s     88 75 62 50 38 25 12 0 0 0
Mk 55 Mod 2 Gun FCS (1)     Max Range: 320 000 km   TS: 6 000 km/s     97 94 91 88 84 81 78 75 72 69
Tokamak Fusion Reactor R13 (2)     Total Power Output 25.1    Exp 5%

MSL-6A Missile Cell (30)     Missile Size: 6    Hangar Reload 122 minutes    MF Reload 20 hours
Mk 5 Missile FCS (5)     Range 60.4m km    Resolution 120
ASM-60 Sizzle Anti-Ship Missile (30)    Speed: 25 467 km/s    End: 32.9m     Range: 50.2m km    WH: 9    Size: 6    TH: 178/106/53

MDR-5M Missile Defense Radar (1)     GPS 63     Range 16.8m km    MCR 1.5m km    Resolution 1
ASR-5LR 6K Search Radar (1)     GPS 11760     Range 103.1m km    Resolution 120
EM Sensor EM1.0-14.0 (1)     Sensitivity 14     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  29.6m km
Thermal Sensor TH1.0-14.0 (1)     Sensitivity 14     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  29.6m km

ECCM-3 (1)         ECM 30

Code: [Select]

Defender class Destroyer      6 374 tons       192 Crew       1 287.8 BP       TCS 127    TH 768    EM 0
6025 km/s      Armour 2-30       Shields 0-0       HTK 46      Sensors 4/4/0/0      DCR 12      PPV 45.34
Maint Life 2.21 Years     MSP 452    AFR 162%    IFR 2.3%    1YR 124    5YR 1 862    Max Repair 192 MSP
Magazine 90    Cryogenic Berths 200    
Commander    Control Rating 2   BRG   AUX   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Morale Check Required    

Magneto-plasma Drive  EP384.00 (EP120/FC0.5) (2)    Power 768    Fuel Use 55.77%    Signature 384    Explosion 12%
Fuel Capacity 200 000 Litres    Range 10.1 billion km (19 days at full power)

120mm FUV Laser (4)    Range 200 000km     TS: 6 025 km/s     Power 4-4     RM 50 000 km    ROF 5       
Mk 33 Gauss Cannon (4x4)    Range 30 000km     TS: 20000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 30 000 km    ROF 5       
Mk 55 Mod 0 Gun FCS (1)     Max Range: 64 000 km   TS: 20 000 km/s     84 69 53 38 22 6 0 0 0 0
Mk 55 Mod 3 Gun FCS (1)     Max Range: 240 000 km   TS: 6 000 km/s     96 92 88 83 79 75 71 67 62 58
Tokamak Fusion Reactor R8 (2)     Total Power Output 16    Exp 5%

MSL-6A Missile Cell (15)     Missile Size: 6    Hangar Reload 122 minutes    MF Reload 20 hours
Mk 5 Missile FCS (3)     Range 60.4m km    Resolution 120
ASM-60 Sizzle Anti-Ship Missile (15)    Speed: 25 467 km/s    End: 32.9m     Range: 50.2m km    WH: 9    Size: 6    TH: 178/106/53

MDR-5 Missile Defense Radar (1)     GPS 28     Range 11.2m km    MCR 1m km    Resolution 1
ASR-5 6K Search Radar (1)     GPS 3024     Range 52.3m km    Resolution 120
Thermal Sensor TH0.3-4.2 (1)     Sensitivity 4.2     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  16.2m km
EM Sensor EM0.3-4.2 (1)     Sensitivity 4.2     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  16.2m km

ECCM-3 (1)         ECM 30

I was going to build this battleship, but had to wait for the shipyards to expand. Then the new technologies came by and I am holding off for some additional tech now. How do you like this battleship idea? It's also pretty unoptimized, but I feel like I'm finally getting somewhere...

Off-Topic: show

Jorgen_CAB · « **Reply #4 on:** October 08, 2021, 05:33:35 AM »

I really like these designs as they are well thought out and have a great role-play aspect to them and they will probably work really well.

My only concern is the amount of research that goes into the designs as they have so many components that are not shared between the hull types. I usually come from a situation where I have multiple factions going at once and research is then a precious resource to keep the race with other factions competitive.

For practical reasons over time factions in my games usually end up with ship classes of different designs doing roughly the same thing and having the same capabilities... but rarely if ever are anyone designing two ships of different size having pretty much the same capabilities but just one is twice the size of the other. That is a huge waste of research unless they use the same components.

That is my only real critical opinions, but I see them from a different set of eyes most likely.

Another thing I think you might consider is adding a few hangars on those bigger ship to keep some scout craft. Knowing where the enemy is and how strong they are before committing or revealing your force is key to any military operation through time and history.

L0ckAndL0ad · « **Reply #5 on:** October 09, 2021, 09:56:24 AM »

Quote from: Jorgen_CAB on October 08, 2021, 05:33:35 AM

My only concern is the amount of research that goes into the designs as they have so many components that are not shared between the hull types. I usually come from a situation where I have multiple factions going at once and research is then a precious resource to keep the race with other factions competitive.

I see where you're coming from. But Humanity is currently more worried about mineral costs, rather than research requirements. It is good to have research costs in mind, and we try to, when we can. Also, in peace time, I come up with new designs every tech generation, and the amount of RP spent to advance all the technologies one notch further is not comparable to the RP costs of components that come out of it. At least so it seems to me - I did not actually make any calculations on this. Just a gut feeling.

But yeah, I agree, it's good to have as few different items of nomenclature as possible. Even when it comes to ship types!

Quote

For practical reasons over time factions in my games usually end up with ship classes of different designs doing roughly the same thing and having the same capabilities... but rarely if ever are anyone designing two ships of different size having pretty much the same capabilities but just one is twice the size of the other. That is a huge waste of research unless they use the same components.

In most of my Aurora games, I've been building carriers + multirole destoyers, mostly, with occasional cruiser design that act as a leader in absence of a carrier. Now that I'm trying to create more beam oriented Navy, I feel like most of my ships should have, well, beams. But still have some missiles for long range combat. Other than that, the designs I made are pretty different to one another in comparison. Or did I get you wrong?

Quote

Another thing I think you might consider is adding a few hangars on those bigger ship to keep some scout craft. Knowing where the enemy is and how strong they are before committing or revealing your force is key to any military operation through time and history.

Ah, yes!.. I was going to create a utility design with hangar for scout fighters, flagship facilities, ELINT, Jump Drive, etc.. but I kinda settled with simply adding FLAG to the cruiser and forgot about the fighters.. I'll figure something out in my next generation designs.

But I may also delegate it to the carriers that I'm going to build at some point. Having parasite craft on every cruiser is nice, but can be micro-intensive. Not decided yet.

nuclearslurpee · « **Reply #6 on:** October 09, 2021, 03:08:56 PM »

Quote from: L0ckAndL0ad on October 09, 2021, 09:56:24 AM

I see where you're coming from. But Humanity is currently more worried about mineral costs, rather than research requirements. It is good to have research costs in mind, and we try to, when we can. Also, in peace time, I come up with new designs every tech generation, and the amount of RP spent to advance all the technologies one notch further is not comparable to the RP costs of components that come out of it. At least so it seems to me - I did not actually make any calculations on this. Just a gut feeling.

Back before 1.13, the calculation tended to be fairly simple in many cases. For example, for engine techs the EP per tech level increases by roughly 25% each level, while the tech costs increase by 2x, so over time an engine of the same size and EP modifier will cost less relative to the cost of upgrading to the next tech. Broadly, this means that as you advance in tech levels the game implicitly supports expanding your fleet to use a wider variety of engines, bigger engines, etc. Sensors are another similar case as the cost increase per tech level tends to be roughly +33% so a similar law applies.

In 1.13+ this is weighted even more in favor of the components because tech costs vary as SQRT(cost) so all components above 50 BP cost are even cheaper to research relative to their associated tech level. This affects larger components but also having more numerous components of moderate size.

In practice I think a lot of players seem to miss out on this nuance because most campaigns tend to hang around in the ion/MP/IntCF tech range, with the earlier techs being rushed through in the name of optimization and the latter techs rarely seeing play due to campaign abandonment. Additionally, since many players use low research rates it makes reaching higher tech tiers even less likely. If you like to play long-term campaigns at a decent research rate you will be likely to see this come into play as you advance up the tech tree.

Jorgen_CAB · « **Reply #7 on:** October 09, 2021, 08:28:55 PM »

Quote from: L0ckAndL0ad on October 09, 2021, 09:56:24 AM

In most of my Aurora games, I've been building carriers + multirole destoyers, mostly, with occasional cruiser design that act as a leader in absence of a carrier. Now that I'm trying to create more beam oriented Navy, I feel like most of my ships should have, well, beams. But still have some missiles for long range combat. Other than that, the designs I made are pretty different to one another in comparison. Or did I get you wrong?

You probably have good reasons for the different designs and as I said they look pretty solid from my point of view in general.

I probably just thought that there was a bit too little differences between some of the ship types to warrant different designs, especially is just changed a little bit. Both the cruiser and battleship are pretty similar in design... even the cruiser and destroyer are pretty similar as well. There are some subtle differences yes... perhaps enough to warrant the different classes.

In most of my campaigns though each generation usually only have a very few select ship classes and then a bunch of older classes that also need to be maintained to have some use, but in general they just grow in size with every generation. What I meant was that I probably would not construct a new 6000t destroyer hull when I could have a multi-role 15kt hull doing the same thing just better. I would just keep the old destroyers but not build more of them and concentrate more on the bigger hull that is more capable in all regards. I would retain one yard for the smaller class for refits but that is all.

I generally I find it odd that one would still design 6kt fleet vessels when you run around with 70kt battleships... you probably should have been able to make a bit more decent escort ships by then, unless there is some other reason why you keep them so small?

L0ckAndL0ad · « **Reply #8 on:** October 10, 2021, 03:39:08 AM »

Quote from: Jorgen_CAB on October 09, 2021, 08:28:55 PM

I generally I find it odd that one would still design 6kt fleet vessels when you run around with 70kt battleships... you probably should have been able to make a bit more decent escort ships by then, unless there is some other reason why you keep them so small?

I think it's a good opportunity to take a look in detail in what makes a destroyer destroyer. The role of my destroyers is to guard the fleet from small, numerous threats. That's missiles, fighters and everything up to its own size. The best way to protect a fleet is to prevent it from being seen and attacked in the first place. That means having ships in advanced picket position, scattered around the "main body" of the fleet. That's where size matters - the smaller the ship, the harder it is to target from long range, and to detect by passive sensors, if it's going under restricted EMCON. One could even deploy pure sensor scout fighters or FACs (and I always do, within carrier centric doctrine), but here, in this particular case, I wanted something with less micromanagement overhead, an actual independent small warship, that can also work as an attacker, not just a scout/picket. This is why my destroyers are as small as possible, even compared to my previous games, where it was usually 7-10k tons.

My potential enemy (Duchy of Trif) so far has no fighters or FACs. I've scouted their home planet's orbit twice (first time I met them and then fairly recently the second time). And their smallest military combat ship is 8-9k tons. So, I chose to focus on 1) dealing with missiles; 2) dealing with ships of roughly its own size (hence the radar/MFCS resolution). If the enemy decides to employ fighters or smaller warships after all, I could simply a) refit a portion of existing destroyers to focus on smaller resolution radars/MFCs b) build new ships with such capability.

So, a layer of picketing destroyers could be employed at 1-2m, 10-20m or 50-100m km away from the main body of the fleet, to allow for advanced warning against, respectively, missiles, fighters, and warships. Small size of destroyers allows having many of them.

At this point, I've developed 50k km and 5 shot Gauss Cannons and thinking about swapping out lasers entirely for a bigger, coherent turreted short range dual purpose Gauss Cannon battery, but I'm still evaluating various options.

Jorgen_CAB · « **Reply #9 on:** October 10, 2021, 04:17:20 AM »

Quote from: L0ckAndL0ad on October 10, 2021, 03:39:08 AM

Quote from: Jorgen_CAB on October 09, 2021, 08:28:55 PM
I generally I find it odd that one would still design 6kt fleet vessels when you run around with 70kt battleships... you probably should have been able to make a bit more decent escort ships by then, unless there is some other reason why you keep them so small?

I think it's a good opportunity to take a look in detail in what makes a destroyer destroyer. The role of my destroyers is to guard the fleet from small, numerous threats. That's missiles, fighters and everything up to its own size. The best way to protect a fleet is to prevent it from being seen and attacked in the first place. That means having ships in advanced picket position, scattered around the "main body" of the fleet. That's where size matters - the smaller the ship, the harder it is to target from long range, and to detect by passive sensors, if it's going under restricted EMCON. One could even deploy pure sensor scout fighters or FACs (and I always do, within carrier centric doctrine), but here, in this particular case, I wanted something with less micromanagement overhead, an actual independent small warship, that can also work as an attacker, not just a scout/picket. This is why my destroyers are as small as possible, even compared to my previous games, where it was usually 7-10k tons.

My potential enemy (Duchy of Trif) so far has no fighters or FACs. I've scouted their home planet's orbit twice (first time I met them and then fairly recently the second time). And their smallest military combat ship is 8-9k tons. So, I chose to focus on 1) dealing with missiles; 2) dealing with ships of roughly its own size (hence the radar/MFCS resolution). If the enemy decides to employ fighters or smaller warships after all, I could simply a) refit a portion of existing destroyers to focus on smaller resolution radars/MFCs b) build new ships with such capability.

So, a layer of picketing destroyers could be employed at 1-2m, 10-20m or 50-100m km away from the main body of the fleet, to allow for advanced warning against, respectively, missiles, fighters, and warships. Small size of destroyers allows having many of them.

At this point, I've developed 50k km and 5 shot Gauss Cannons and thinking about swapping out lasers entirely for a bigger, coherent turreted short range dual purpose Gauss Cannon battery, but I'm still evaluating various options.

I think we operate pretty much in the same operational doctrine, the difference is that I just increase the hangar size on my escorts so the outer picket is small sensor platforms. I rarely find size above 5kt to be harder to detect than anything bigger in general as resolution 100 sensors tend to have such huge ranges that it does not really matter to be honest. The only real difference are the heat signature of smaller ships make them harder to detect with passives which is still significant.

I think there is only a measure of what micro management you are willing to deal with... but if you make the escort functionality of the game your friend that is not really a huge issue in my opinion. Every little scout ship on my escorts sit in their own sub fleet and I can easily detach them using the escort mechanic and have them follow the mothership properly.

I also often deploy smaller Frigate sized craft at around 3-4000t as they are a bit harder to detect in your 6kt role, and even they have a small hangar with additional scout crafts to stay safe. The best defence is to never be detected in the first place. These small frigate usually have a small railgun and a CIWS system for self defence only and a minimal armour belt, the rest are sensors and a small hangar.

So, the outer picket usually are a few frigates with sensor scouts, the inner defence perimeter are the destroyers with their scout crafts and then the mission ships, yet more small scout crafts available. Destroyers can either defend the outer picket or the mission ships as the events unfold. The point being is that you need to know the strength and disposition of the enemy. You need to know if you can engage or not with overwhelming firepower, this is important. This is also why missiles on my fleet combat ships are never the main combat strength but fighters, unless we are talking about skirmishes. Destroyers are generally equipped with long range Anti-fighter FAC missiles and AMM only plus beam weapons, they are escorts not main combat ships. Cruisers and Carriers (battle carriers) have hangars big enough to fit strike fighters.

Not saying I'm right and you are wrong in any sense... but the ships in my fleets just grow larger and larger with every generation so my destroyers tend to be in the 10-25kt range over the course of a campaign. A cruiser might be about 30kt or more, no real size limit on those... Carriers are the same 30kt or more with some utility carriers at smaller sizes. Smaller and older destroyers might get relegated to frigate jobs and striped down of certain weapon systems and given more sensor equipment. Super Carriers with commercial engines also fit older destroyers well for escort, just with upgraded sensors and fire-controls mainly.

I would say my fleets are really fluent in what each ship do depending on needs and the age of the ships. I often re task ships to rear duties or scout role as they get older rather than refit the engines of every ship all the time to save minerals, time and resources on more important things. That means I have ships of different sizes too, just for different reasons, not by design.

L0ckAndL0ad · « **Reply #10 on:** October 10, 2021, 05:22:32 AM »

Quote from: Jorgen_CAB on October 10, 2021, 04:17:20 AM

I think there is only a measure of what micro management you are willing to deal with... but if you make the escort functionality of the game your friend that is not really a huge issue in my opinion. Every little scout ship on my escorts sit in their own sub fleet and I can easily detach them using the escort mechanic and have them follow the mothership properly.

Do you mean that fighter sized craft from hangars launch and land when using "deploy escorts"/"Recall escorts" orders? I am yet to test that, actually! Could you tell me a bit more?

Quote

I also often deploy smaller Frigate sized craft at around 3-4000t as they are a bit harder to detect in your 6kt role, and even they have a small hangar with additional scout crafts to stay safe. The best defence is to never be detected in the first place. These small frigate usually have a small railgun and a CIWS system for self defence only and a minimal armour belt, the rest are sensors and a small hangar.

Hm, why railguns? For dual purpose work as anti-ship weapons? What is their max possible researchable range? I almost never touch railguns in my games so not really familiar with them. And what is the size of the the engines on the frigate then?

Quote

So, the outer picket usually are a few frigates with sensor scouts, the inner defence perimeter are the destroyers with their scout crafts and then the mission ships, yet more small scout crafts available. Destroyers can either defend the outer picket or the mission ships as the events unfold. The point being is that you need to know the strength and disposition of the enemy. You need to know if you can engage or not with overwhelming firepower, this is important. This is also why missiles on my fleet combat ships are never the main combat strength but fighters, unless we are talking about skirmishes. Destroyers are generally equipped with long range Anti-fighter FAC missiles and AMM only plus beam weapons, they are escorts not main combat ships. Cruisers and Carriers (battle carriers) have hangars big enough to fit strike fighters.

This sounds more reasonable than my previously described picket doctrine, actually! Just a little bit complex for me, maybe? What is the size of your anti-fighter FAC missiles here and what the beam weapons on the destroyer? Could you share the design example please?

Quote

Not saying I'm right and you are wrong in any sense... but the ships in my fleets just grow larger and larger with every generation so my destroyers tend to be in the 10-25kt range over the course of a campaign. A cruiser might be about 30kt or more, no real size limit on those... Carriers are the same 30kt or more with some utility carriers at smaller sizes. Smaller and older destroyers might get relegated to frigate jobs and striped down of certain weapon systems and given more sensor equipment. Super Carriers with commercial engines also fit older destroyers well for escort, just with upgraded sensors and fire-controls mainly.

I had to resist the urge of designing a bigger destroyer THE MINUTE I finished working on the 6k ton one! But, generally, my experience with Aurora 4x designs shows that my newer ships are usually smaller than previous generation, because they're not trying to do much more, just taking less space for more or less similar capability.

Quote

I would say my fleets are really fluent in what each ship do depending on needs and the age of the ships. I often re task ships to rear duties or scout role as they get older rather than refit the engines of every ship all the time to save minerals, time and resources on more important things. That means I have ships of different sizes too, just for different reasons, not by design.

Oh, repurposing designs is very cool. In VB6 Aurora I even repurposed a bunch of destroyers into fast destroyer troop ships to land marines on enemy base! There was a mineral crisis (isn't there always one?) and so it was the most practical thing to do. So I hear ya!

ADDED LATER:

Oh, I forgot to mention the first generation fighters that defend Sol in my game. I wasn't going to mention them because they were pretty obsolete by the time first destroyers came on-line, but since they fired shots at alien scout recently, they deserve being described here.

Solar defense legacy fighter craft

Fearless and Avenger class fighters were built back in 2059, when we've met the aliens and they destroyed our exploration ship in their system. I had to quickly produce something to defend Sol with. 12 Fearless and 96 Avengers were built.

Fearless was meant as a PD escort for the attacking Avengers, and as a general purpose fighter. Avenger was meant as a fairly light attack fighter, not reaching it's maximum possible 500t mark to make it faster rather than provide more punch.

My current generation full size warships use size 6 cruise missiles now and I wish to discontinue size 4 missiles, but I'm also considering trying out something bigger that can punch through armor more easily than size 4-6 missiles ever could and have more room for electronics. Size 20-25 is on the table (for one missile per launching platform). Reduced size laser for high penetration anti-ship attacks is also under consideration. Or lance equipped FACs, maybe?

Code: [Select]

Fearless class Fighter      361 tons       16 Crew       84.8 BP       TCS 7    TH 63    EM 0
8679 km/s      Armour 1-4       Shields 0-0       HTK 3      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 2
Maint Life 4.08 Years     MSP 14    AFR 10%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 1    5YR 20    Max Repair 31.25 MSP
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 1.2 months    Morale Check Required    

Ion Drive  EP62.50 (EP250/FC0.6) (1)    Power 62.5    Fuel Use 1325.83%    Signature 62.5    Explosion 25%
Fuel Capacity 30 000 Litres    Range 1.13 billion km (36 hours at full power)

Gauss Cannon R300-33.00 (1x3)    Range 30 000km     TS: 8 679 km/s     Accuracy Modifier 33.00%     RM 30 000 km    ROF 5       
Beam Fire Control R48-TS9200 (1)     Max Range: 48 000 km   TS: 9 200 km/s     79 58 38 17 0 0 0 0 0 0

Active Search Sensor AS4-R1 (1)     GPS 8     Range 4.5m km    MCR 406.2k km    Resolution 1

Code: [Select]

Avenger class Light Attack Craft      389 tons       10 Crew       83 BP       TCS 8    TH 63    EM 0
8039 km/s      Armour 1-4       Shields 0-0       HTK 2      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 2.4
Maint Life 3.78 Years     MSP 13    AFR 12%    IFR 0.2%    1YR 1    5YR 21    Max Repair 31.25 MSP
Magazine 16    
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 1 months    Morale Check Required    

Ion Drive  EP62.50 (EP250/FC0.6) (1)    Power 62.5    Fuel Use 1325.83%    Signature 62.5    Explosion 25%
Fuel Capacity 30 000 Litres    Range 1.05 billion km (36 hours at full power)

MSL-4A BX (4)     Missile Size: 4    Hangar Reload 100 minutes    MF Reload 16 hours
MFCS 7.5Kt/47M (1)     Range 48m km    Resolution 150
ASM-40 Anhur Anti-Ship Missile (4)    Speed: 25 500 km/s    End: 27.3m     Range: 41.8m km    WH: 5    Size: 4    TH: 136/81/40

RAD 7.5Kt/41M (1)     GPS 3600     Range 41.5m km    Resolution 150

Jorgen_CAB · « **Reply #11 on:** October 10, 2021, 07:43:12 AM »

Quote from: L0ckAndL0ad on October 10, 2021, 05:22:32 AM

Do you mean that fighter sized craft from hangars launch and land when using "deploy escorts"/"Recall escorts" orders? I am yet to test that, actually! Could you tell me a bit more?

Yes, you also can chain them in several layers if you wish to do that. I keep the smaller scout craft in their own sub-fleets in general, depending on how I operate them and on the missions. But you should experiment with deploying/recalling escort that will make your life so much simpler in terms of reconnaissance. It is hard to explain in a short manner, but play around with it so it becomes your friend.

Quote

Hm, why railguns? For dual purpose work as anti-ship weapons? What is their max possible researchable range? I almost never touch railguns in my games so not really familiar with them. And what is the size of the the engines on the frigate then?

Well, the frigate role can be picked up by old destroyers too but there also are dedicated recon frigates. The beam weapon can pretty much be anything, depends on the faction when I play multiple faction... but railguns are a good middle ground. They are never really meant to go up against a fleet vessel so their beam weapon is mainly to defend against beam armed fighter, FAC or other smaller ships, railguns is a good overall weapon for a small ship as they can destroy some incoming missiles too. The weapon on the frigate is really not important. The point of them is to never be detected or if they are not be a good target as that will reveal the enemy for a low value target.
Most of my frigates are not super fast either, usually slower than most destroyers, their protection in generally not being detected or being a low value target or protected by other military assets that will be nearby anyway.

Quote

This sounds more reasonable than my previously described picket doctrine, actually! Just a little bit complex for me, maybe? What is the size of your anti-fighter FAC missiles here and what the beam weapons on the destroyer? Could you share the design example please?

I don't have any active campaign right now but the range is roughly the same as the ASM. I usually aim for around 50-60% to-hit rates. With grew grade, CiC and officers I can easily get a total hit rate at 80-90% usually. Fighters are not that good at shooting down missiles either so you don't need to launch them in massive strikes either, so are a bit more economical that way. But they should be big enough you get the range... a yield of four is usually enough to engage fighters, not very good for ASM in general though. I do have some house rule about missiles though such as sensors ECM/ECCM or EM/Thermal as a means to represent guidance, communication and targeting systems, so my missiles are far from optimal and bigger than normal, even AMM. So giving specific detail might not be that useful.

Quote

I had to resist the urge of designing a bigger destroyer THE MINUTE I finished working on the 6k ton one! But, generally, my experience with Aurora 4x designs shows that my newer ships are usually smaller than previous generation, because they're not trying to do much more, just taking less space for more or less similar capability.

Larger ships just are that much more effective. The only drawback is slower construction and bigger thermal signature. But the efficient use of officers and bridge officers just make larger ships so much more effective. Not to mention efficiency of components. The idea is that if I always deploy a ship types in three or bigger squadrons than three in any mission I might as well combine them into one larger ship. If I need more scouts I just build dedicated scout craft and put them in a hangar on said ship as smaller sensors are way more efficient than large sensors anyway.
But I also understand that not everyone are as patient as me about how to conduct missions, for me that is part of the fun role-play aspect of the game.

Also, about anti-fighter missile and engaging fighters. If your anti-fighter missiles are the same or even slightly less range you are at a pretty big advantage. The idea is to use a combination of beam fighters on the destroyers and anti-fighter missiles. The point is detecting the fighters at an early enough stage you can fire your missiles at a distance they will not reach as the enemy fighters will wander into the range of them... you also sent out your beam fighters before that so when the detect the missiles your beam fighters will also be there to intercept them as well. In the mean time your destroyers will try to move away from the the fighters and the fighters have to chase them so the effective range of their missiles are considerable shorter while your anti-fighter missiles become longer. This are important things to remember on the different tactics used.
I use this when playing multiple sides so it usually become much more complicated than this, but that is the optimal way you engage enemy fighters with your destroyers, if I have big enough destroyers they instead used multi-role fighters armed with anti-fighter missiles instead of mounting them on the destroyer themselves or a combination as missile launcher and magazines are less space restrictive.

nuclearslurpee · « **Reply #12 on:** October 10, 2021, 12:53:18 PM »

A couple of additions to the ongoing discussions:

Quote from: L0ckAndL0ad on October 10, 2021, 03:39:08 AM

The best way to protect a fleet is to prevent it from being seen and attacked in the first place. [...] That's where size matters - the smaller the ship, the harder it is to target from long range, and to detect by passive sensors, if it's going under restricted EMCON. [...] This is why my destroyers are as small as possible, even compared to my previous games, where it was usually 7-10k tons.

It is important to note when discussing ship sizes and detection that it is very rare to see sensor resolutions larger than 100 to 120 (5,000 to 6,000 tons) at least from NPR designs. Against player races a ship size of 6,000 tons may prove harder to detect but against NPRs it does not make any real difference if a ship is 6,000 or 60,000 tons - unless of course you are using cloaking devices. Usually for a larger ship class, 3,000 to 4,000 tons works well to avoid the largest NPR sensors. NPRs usually deploy a wide range of sensor resolutions so there is not too much reason to go smaller than this as you will not beat the lower-resolution sensors anyways.

Quote

At this point, I've developed 50k km and 5 shot Gauss Cannons and thinking about swapping out lasers entirely for a bigger, coherent turreted short range dual purpose Gauss Cannon battery, but I'm still evaluating various options.

It is worth noting that Gauss cannons in almost all circumstances, other than point defense and some edge cases involving SW fire controls, will have inferior performance to 10cm railguns in terms of DPS (really DPS per ton to be precise). They are really not a good weapon to use for antiship work, they can be effective but rarely if ever as effective as any other option (except mesons, which are even worse).

Jorgen_CAB · « **Reply #13 on:** October 10, 2021, 02:14:27 PM »

Quote from: nuclearslurpee on October 10, 2021, 12:53:18 PM

It is important to note when discussing ship sizes and detection that it is very rare to see sensor resolutions larger than 100 to 120 (5,000 to 6,000 tons) at least from NPR designs. Against player races a ship size of 6,000 tons may prove harder to detect but against NPRs it does not make any real difference if a ship is 6,000 or 60,000 tons - unless of course you are using cloaking devices. Usually for a larger ship class, 3,000 to 4,000 tons works well to avoid the largest NPR sensors. NPRs usually deploy a wide range of sensor resolutions so there is not too much reason to go smaller than this as you will not beat the lower-resolution sensors anyways.

I would say this is even true in multi-faction games too as larger resolution sensors become quite inefficient above somewhere about a 100 resolution sensor. A resolution 100 sensor will generally have the range you need to fire missiles at max range and then some for quite small investment in sensor size and cost. Larger resolution does not really cut cost and size of sensor all that much.

L0ckAndL0ad · « **Reply #14 on:** October 13, 2021, 05:16:09 AM »

Quote from: Jorgen_CAB on October 10, 2021, 07:43:12 AM

The point of them is to never be detected or if they are not be a good target as that will reveal the enemy for a low value target.
Most of my frigates are not super fast either, usually slower than most destroyers, their protection in generally not being detected or being a low value target or protected by other military assets that will be nearby anyway.

What would be your thoughts on armour rating 1 for such a ship then?

Quote

Larger ships just are that much more effective. The only drawback is slower construction and bigger thermal signature. But the efficient use of officers and bridge officers just make larger ships so much more effective. Not to mention efficiency of components. The idea is that if I always deploy a ship types in three or bigger squadrons than three in any mission I might as well combine them into one larger ship. If I need more scouts I just build dedicated scout craft and put them in a hangar on said ship as smaller sensors are way more efficient than large sensors anyway.
But I also understand that not everyone are as patient as me about how to conduct missions, for me that is part of the fun role-play aspect of the game.

I often think that if a ship has multiple FCS, then I should spread them across multiple ships instead. Each ship is a different target and thus more ships allow to distribute the offensive power. Which should be a good strategy dealing with high penetration, low ROF weapons like lances.

Quote from: nuclearslurpee on October 10, 2021, 12:53:18 PM

It is important to note when discussing ship sizes and detection that it is very rare to see sensor resolutions larger than 100 to 120 (5,000 to 6,000 tons) at least from NPR designs. Against player races a ship size of 6,000 tons may prove harder to detect but against NPRs it does not make any real difference if a ship is 6,000 or 60,000 tons - unless of course you are using cloaking devices. Usually for a larger ship class, 3,000 to 4,000 tons works well to avoid the largest NPR sensors. NPRs usually deploy a wide range of sensor resolutions so there is not too much reason to go smaller than this as you will not beat the lower-resolution sensors anyways.

Yes, I was mainly talking about thermal signature from the engines of smaller size. But you are absolutely right about sensor resolution! In my older games I frequently used 8Kt sensors, but NPRs in C# seem to be sticking to res 100/120 tops. Thanks for noting that!

Quote

It is worth noting that Gauss cannons in almost all circumstances, other than point defense and some edge cases involving SW fire controls, will have inferior performance to 10cm railguns in terms of DPS (really DPS per ton to be precise). They are really not a good weapon to use for antiship work, they can be effective but rarely if ever as effective as any other option (except mesons, which are even worse).

I found GC is a better light-weight option for small fighters in terms of tonnage, since they do not require a reactor. But I have not tried new reduced shot railguns yet, since my experience with them goes back to VB6 Aurora. Also...I am wondering what is the max researchable range for 10-12cm railgun in C# Aurora 1.13?

Author Topic: Oh, the Humanity: Designs 1.13 edition (Read 5620 times)

L0ckAndL0ad (OP)

Oh, the Humanity: Designs 1.13 edition

nuclearslurpee

Re: Oh, the Humanity: Designs 1.13 edition

L0ckAndL0ad (OP)

Re: Oh, the Humanity: Designs 1.13 edition

L0ckAndL0ad (OP)

Re: Oh, the Humanity: Designs 1.13 edition

Jorgen_CAB

Re: Oh, the Humanity: Designs 1.13 edition

L0ckAndL0ad (OP)

Re: Oh, the Humanity: Designs 1.13 edition

nuclearslurpee

Re: Oh, the Humanity: Designs 1.13 edition

Jorgen_CAB

Re: Oh, the Humanity: Designs 1.13 edition

L0ckAndL0ad (OP)

Re: Oh, the Humanity: Designs 1.13 edition

Jorgen_CAB

Re: Oh, the Humanity: Designs 1.13 edition

L0ckAndL0ad (OP)

Re: Oh, the Humanity: Designs 1.13 edition

Jorgen_CAB

Re: Oh, the Humanity: Designs 1.13 edition

nuclearslurpee

Re: Oh, the Humanity: Designs 1.13 edition

Jorgen_CAB

Re: Oh, the Humanity: Designs 1.13 edition

L0ckAndL0ad (OP)

Re: Oh, the Humanity: Designs 1.13 edition