Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: L0ckAndL0ad
« on: October 23, 2021, 02:55:23 PM »

Oh, I forgot to mention the Fleet Auxiliaries. All these box launchers missile cells need rearmament. Initially, I wanted to make a civilian carrier that would also be able to make small repairs to armor. But so far, I came up with this mobile ordnance transfer hub.

Supplies and Fuel are of secondary priority here, but it has a bit of both. Main function is to rearm missiles near the frontline. 1800 km/s is not much, but this is a "mobile base", not a "ship". Or, at least, a "tender". I've constructed 2 of these so far.

Code: [Select]
Ananke class Resupply Base      200 000 tons       768 Crew       6 595.6 BP       TCS 4 000    TH 7 200    EM 0
1800 km/s    JR 2-25(C)      Armour 1-304       Shields 0-0       HTK 162      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 11      PPV 0
MSP 15 020    Max Repair 2400 MSP
Magazine 5 000    Cryogenic Berths 1 000    Cargo Shuttle Multiplier 2   
Commander    Control Rating 2   BRG   AUX   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months   
Ordnance Transfer Hub - Capable of transferring ordnance to multiple ships simultaneously

JC200K E10 Commercial Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 200500 tons    Distance 25k km     Squadron Size 2

Commercial Internal Fusion Drive  EP600.0 (12)    Power 7200    Fuel Use 2.89%    Signature 600    Explosion 5%
Fuel Capacity 5 200 000 Litres    Range 162.1 billion km (1042 days at full power)
Refuelling Capability: 125 000 litres per hour     Complete Refuel 41 hours

CIWS-250 (4x10)    Range 1000 km     TS: 25 000 km/s     ROF 5       
This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes
This design is classed as a Colony Ship for auto-assignment purposes

The more I use these, the more I realize that it's easier to put both fuel and MSP on the same ship and call it a day. Speed also matters quite a lot, even for a non-frontline vessel. On patrol, this ship can travel with the combat fleet so that its fuel tanks and supply would be full when the call for warships comes in...

Code: [Select]
Reliant class Replenishment Oiler      30 000 tons       264 Crew       1 355 BP       TCS 600    TH 3 000    EM 0
5000 km/s    JR 1-25(C)      Armour 1-86       Shields 0-0       HTK 68      Sensors 18/18/0/0      DCR 11      PPV 0
MSP 7 528    Max Repair 150 MSP
Cryogenic Berths 200    Cargo Shuttle Multiplier 2   
Commander    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months   

JC30K E10 Commercial Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 30000 tons    Distance 25k km     Squadron Size 1

Commercial Internal Fusion Drive  EP600.0 (5)    Power 3000    Fuel Use 2.89%    Signature 600    Explosion 5%
Fuel Capacity 6 671 000 Litres    Range 1 386.5 billion km (3209 days at full power)
Refuelling Capability: 125 000 litres per hour     Complete Refuel 53 hours

CIWS-250 (2x10)    Range 1000 km     TS: 25 000 km/s     ROF 5       
Long Range Navigation Radar (1)     GPS 5400     Range 76.3m km    Resolution 150
EM Sensor EM1.0-18.0 (1)     Sensitivity 18     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  33.5m km
Thermal Sensor TH1.0-18.0 (1)     Sensitivity 18     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  33.5m km

This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes
This design is classed as a Colony Ship for auto-assignment purposes

I also need a dedicated collier to ferry the ammo to Ananke in the field, but I'm still behind in actually producing enough ammo for it to matter, so it'll come later and will be based on Reliant class :D
Posted by: L0ckAndL0ad
« on: October 23, 2021, 02:21:29 PM »

2nd Generation small craft and ammo

My usual go-to is Size 4 or 6 ASM. This time I tried using ECM and it's doing great so far. It fits okay at current tech level, but also fitting ECCM feels not worth it.

Since the damage against heavily armored targets is not that great, I'm trying to switch to Size 20 ASMs.. They should provide internal shock damage capability but would require bigger volleys to deal with heavy PD/AMMs. Thankfully, my current enemy does not use AMMs yet, only GC PD.

Code: [Select]
ASM-62 Spike Anti-Ship Missile
Missile Size: 6.0000 MSP  (15.00000 Tons)     Warhead: 12    Radiation Damage: 12    Manoeuvre Rating: 15
Speed: 40 467 km/s     Fuel: 1 305     Flight Time: 21 minutes     Range: 50.07m km
ECM Modifier: 40%     
Cost Per Missile: 11.61032     Development Cost: 1 161
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 607.0%   3k km/s 202.3%   5k km/s 121.4%   10k km/s 60.7%

Materials Required
Corbomite  2
Tritanium  3
Gallicite  6.61032
Fuel:  1305

Code: [Select]
ASM-200 Demiurge Anti-Ship Missile
Missile Size: 20.00 MSP  (50.000 Tons)     Warhead: 65    Radiation Damage: 65    Manoeuvre Rating: 16
Speed: 40 200 km/s     Fuel: 1 450     Flight Time: 2 minutes     Range: 5.42m km
ECM Modifier: 40%     ECCM Modifier: 40%
Cost Per Missile: 42.568     Development Cost: 4 257
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 643.2%   3k km/s 214.4%   5k km/s 128.6%   10k km/s 64.3%

Materials Required
Corbomite  4
Tritanium  16.26
Gallicite  22.308
Fuel:  1450

I came back from GC fighters to Railgun ones. I compared both closely and Railguns are far superior, of course. I do see a need to make the engine smaller to be able to fit more fighters on carriers. Lower speed would hurt, but I feel like I need more numbers to be able to rotate individual sorties more efficiently. It's there mostly for a small chance that I may encounter missiles or enemy fighters/FACs at some point, so I do not worry much about it.

Code: [Select]
F-2A Retribution class Fighter      480 tons       24 Crew       206.4 BP       TCS 10    TH 240    EM 0
25040 km/s      Armour 1-5       Shields 0-0       HTK 3      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 3
Maint Life 0 Years     MSP 0    AFR 95%    IFR 1.3%    1YR 42    5YR 627    Max Repair 120 MSP
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 6 days    Morale Check Required   

Internal Fusion Drive  EP240.00 (1)    Power 240    Fuel Use 985.90%    Signature 240    Explosion 30%
Fuel Capacity 34 000 Litres    Range 1.3 billion km (14 hours at full power)

10cm Railgun V50/C3 (1x4)    Range 50 000km     TS: 25 040 km/s     Power 3-3     RM 50 000 km    ROF 5       
Beam Fire Control R58-TS25000 (SW) (1)     Max Range: 57 600 km   TS: 25 000 km/s     83 65 48 31 13 0 0 0 0 0
Magnetic Confinement Fusion Reactor R3 (1)     Total Power Output 3    Exp 5%

Active Search Sensor AS4-R1 (1)     GPS 4     Range 4.5m km    MCR 408.7k km    Resolution 1

Absolution is basically a torpedo bomber. It's slow for its tech level, but can carry a big missile. A bigger craft of 500t will probably be unable to carry two such missiles at good speed, so making this LAC small and slow allows for larger volley size. Turnaround time is important, but delivering payload is what matters the most. As the enemy has no missiles, the ASM is short ranged, but the MFCS and radar allows longer range engagement if another missile would be introduced. Small craft ECM is included, which is also nice.

Code: [Select]
A-2A Absolution class Light Attack Craft      350 tons       7 Crew       106.3 BP       TCS 7    TH 120    EM 0
17171 km/s      Armour 1-4       Shields 0-0       HTK 3      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 3
Maint Life 0 Years     MSP 0    AFR 69%    IFR 1.0%    1YR 12    5YR 175    Max Repair 60 MSP
Magazine 20   
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 6 days    Morale Check Required   

Internal Fusion Drive  EP120.00 (1)    Power 120    Fuel Use 1394.27%    Signature 120    Explosion 30%
Fuel Capacity 35 000 Litres    Range 1.29 billion km (20 hours at full power)

MSL-20B Missile Cell (1)     Missile Size: 20    Hangar Reload 223 minutes    MF Reload 37 hours
Missile Fire Control FC48-R150 (1)     Range 48.3m km    Resolution 150
ASM-200 Demiurge Anti-Ship Missile (1)    Speed: 40 200 km/s    End: 2.2m     Range: 5.4m km    WH: 65    Size: 20    TH: 214/128/64

Active Search Sensor AS34-R150 (1)     GPS 1080     Range 34.1m km    Resolution 150

ECM 10

Early Warning Craft needs no introduction. Long range, decent endurance and great sensor coverage is all there is to wish for.

Code: [Select]
E-1 Watcher class Early Warning Craft      500 tons       15 Crew       191.3 BP       TCS 10    TH 144    EM 0
14418 km/s      Armour 1-5       Shields 0-0       HTK 6      Sensors 0/18/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 0
Maint Life 4.48 Years     MSP 73    AFR 20%    IFR 0.3%    1YR 6    5YR 88    Max Repair 72 MSP
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 1 months    Morale Check Required   

Internal Fusion Drive  EP144.00 (1)    Power 144    Fuel Use 274.92%    Signature 144    Explosion 18%
Fuel Capacity 76 000 Litres    Range 10 billion km (7 days at full power)

ASR-6LR 6K Search Radar (1)     GPS 8640     Range 100.2m km    Resolution 120
EM Sensor EM1.0-18.0 (1)     Sensitivity 18     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  33.5m km

ECM 10

I wish I could make this thing unmanned. It's great to have, but it will pop like a balloon if anything would touch it, while an actual warship may survive and escape. It is very small and can fit in a pocket, though!

Code: [Select]
SJ-2 Torchbearer class Jump Scout      125 tons       4 Crew       32.3 BP       TCS 2    TH 30    EM 0
12073 km/s    JR 1-50      Armour 1-2       Shields 0-0       HTK 2      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 0
Maint Life 0 Years     MSP 0    AFR 24%    IFR 0.3%    1YR 1    5YR 18    Max Repair 15 MSP
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 days    Morale Check Required   

J500 (E10-1-50) Military Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 500 tons    Distance 50k km     Squadron Size 1

Internal Fusion Drive  EP30.00 (1)    Power 30    Fuel Use 348.57%    Signature 30    Explosion 15%
Fuel Capacity 8 000 Litres    Range 3.3 billion km (3 days at full power)

Active Search Sensor AS24-R150 (1)     GPS 540     Range 24.1m km    Resolution 150

The last two designs are for rescuing life pods. H-1 Sotiris is carrier-borne and does not have its own maintenance capability, but H-2 Ranger is intended to be stationed at colonies to be dispatched when needed if life pods are fairly close by.

Code: [Select]
H-1 Sotiris class Rescue Shuttle      125 tons       2 Crew       24 BP       TCS 2    TH 30    EM 0
12073 km/s      Armour 1-2       Shields 0-0       HTK 2      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 0
Maint Life 0 Years     MSP 0    AFR 24%    IFR 0.3%    1YR 1    5YR 16    Max Repair 15 MSP
Cryogenic Berths 200   
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 1 months    Morale Check Required   

Internal Fusion Drive  EP30.00 (1)    Power 30    Fuel Use 348.57%    Signature 30    Explosion 15%
Fuel Capacity 13 000 Litres    Range 5.4 billion km (5 days at full power)
Code: [Select]
H-2 Ranger class Rescue Shuttle      500 tons       9 Crew       110.2 BP       TCS 10    TH 144    EM 0
14418 km/s      Armour 1-5       Shields 0-0       HTK 7      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 0
Maint Life 5.55 Years     MSP 73    AFR 20%    IFR 0.3%    1YR 4    5YR 60    Max Repair 72 MSP
Cryogenic Berths 200   
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Morale Check Required   

Internal Fusion Drive  EP144.00 (1)    Power 144    Fuel Use 274.92%    Signature 144    Explosion 18%
Fuel Capacity 175 000 Litres    Range 22.9 billion km (18 days at full power)

ECM 10
Posted by: L0ckAndL0ad
« on: October 23, 2021, 01:38:38 PM »

2nd Generation major combat vessels

Surigao is the result of previous drafts I made public here but never built. 4 ships of the class were constructed so far, although the initial designs had 500t of hangar space for scouts and size 6 missile cells. Recent combat made me question the potency of size 6 missiles against heavily armored ships, which resulted in size 20 wh 65 missiles, which should allow for occasional internal shock damage, even if they fail to penetrate the armor.

This probably would be the last of the laser weapon armed designs, as I see clearly that str 18 particle lance is far superior choice when you want to kill heavily armored ships. My current enemy uses them on pretty much every ship - DD, CA, BC. I think I'm gonna do the same when I research all the needed tech.

Troop Capacity was probably a bad idea because my experience with boarding so far wasn't that positive. Oh, and the construction of carriers made me shift all the scouting craft there.

Code: [Select]
Surigao class Battleship      35 190 tons       829 Crew       8 298 BP       TCS 704    TH 4 400    EM 3 570
6251 km/s      Armour 18-95       Shields 119-476       HTK 193      Sensors 36/18/0/0      DCR 37      PPV 196
Maint Life 2.54 Years     MSP 7 105    AFR 583%    IFR 8.1%    1YR 1 533    5YR 22 996    Max Repair 550 MSP
Troop Capacity 250 tons     Boarding Capable    Magazine 440   
Captain    Control Rating 4   BRG   AUX   ENG   CIC   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Morale Check Required   

Internal Fusion Drive  EP1100.00 (EP110/FC0.4) (4)    Power 4400    Fuel Use 22.70%    Signature 1100    Explosion 11%
Fuel Capacity 1 710 000 Litres    Range 38.5 billion km (71 days at full power)
Epsilon S119 / R476 Shields (1)     Recharge Time 476 seconds (0.3 per second)

400mm SXR Laser (10)    Range 384 000km     TS: 6 251 km/s     Power 42-6     RM 60 000 km    ROF 35       
Gunnery FCS R384-T6 (2)     Max Range: 384 000 km   TS: 6 250 km/s     97 95 92 90 87 84 82 79 77 74
Magnetic Confinement Fusion Reactor R6 (10)     Total Power Output 61.1    Exp 5%

MSL-20B Missile Cell (22)     Missile Size: 20    Hangar Reload 223 minutes    MF Reload 37 hours
Mk 6 Missile FCS (11)     Range 59.6m km    Resolution 100
ASM-200 Demiurge Anti-Ship Missile (22)    Speed: 40 200 km/s    End: 2.2m     Range: 5.4m km    WH: 65    Size: 20    TH: 214/128/64

ASR-6LR 6K Search Radar (1)     GPS 8640     Range 100.2m km    Resolution 120
EM Sensor EM1.0-18.0 (1)     Sensitivity 18     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  33.5m km
Thermal Sensor TH2-36 (1)     Sensitivity 36     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  47.4m km

ECCM-4 (1)         ECM 40

Command, Control, Intelligence and Jump capability version of Surigao class battleship allows to put everything you may need on a flagship into a single hull, enabling it to lead other battleships in JP assaults. 2 ships built so far. Requires a dedicated shipyard and cannot be built on the same yard as the main line Surigao, unfortunately.

Code: [Select]
Surigao C2IJ class Battleship      35 194 tons       891 Crew       8 115.1 BP       TCS 704    TH 4 400    EM 3 570
6251 km/s    JR 6-750      Armour 18-95       Shields 119-476       HTK 180      Sensors 36/14/0/0      DCR 48      PPV 70
Maint Life 2.36 Years     MSP 6 735    AFR 354%    IFR 4.9%    1YR 1 650    5YR 24 756    Max Repair 1181.5 MSP
Troop Capacity 250 tons     Boarding Capable    Magazine 120   
Captain    Control Rating 5   BRG   AUX   ENG   CIC   FLG   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Morale Check Required   

J35K (E10-6-750) Military Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 35250 tons    Distance 750k km     Squadron Size 6

Internal Fusion Drive  EP1100.00 (EP110/FC0.4) (4)    Power 4400    Fuel Use 22.70%    Signature 1100    Explosion 11%
Fuel Capacity 1 710 000 Litres    Range 38.5 billion km (71 days at full power)
Epsilon S119 / R476 Shields (1)     Recharge Time 476 seconds (0.3 per second)

400mm SXR Laser (4)    Range 384 000km     TS: 6 251 km/s     Power 42-6     RM 60 000 km    ROF 35       
Gunnery FCS R384-T6 (1)     Max Range: 384 000 km   TS: 6 250 km/s     97 95 92 90 87 84 82 79 77 74
Magnetic Confinement Fusion Reactor R6 (4)     Total Power Output 24.4    Exp 5%

MSL-20B Missile Cell (6)     Missile Size: 20    Hangar Reload 223 minutes    MF Reload 37 hours
Mk 6 Missile FCS (3)     Range 59.6m km    Resolution 100
ASM-200 Demiurge Anti-Ship Missile (6)    Speed: 40 200 km/s    End: 2.2m     Range: 5.4m km    WH: 65    Size: 20    TH: 214/128/64

ASR-6LR 6K Search Radar (1)     GPS 8640     Range 100.2m km    Resolution 120
Thermal Sensor TH2-36 (1)     Sensitivity 36     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  47.4m km
ELINT Module (1)     Sensitivity 14     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  29.6m km

ECCM-4 (1)         ECM 40

Coral Sea is the carrier I was able to build as quickly as possible. The size of the naval yards and the presence of Jump Drive were limiting factors. The preferable 100k+ ton carriers would have to come later, and the JD capability is something I think is crucial and will stay no matter what. Everything else, even CIWS and passive sensors that I usually put on carriers, were gotten rid of in favor of more hangar space, supplies and fuel.

The ship has enough ammo and fuel for 3 full strikes, for a total of 4, if we include the armament that LACs have on board when they embark. Strike wing consists of 30x 350t LACs (carrying 1x ASM-200 Demiurge each), 6x railgun fighters (not that tactically relevant in current conditions), 6x Early Warning craft, 2x JP scouts and 3x rescue shuttles.  4 carriers were built so far.

Code: [Select]
Coral Sea class Carrier      60 000 tons       1 189 Crew       9 254.7 BP       TCS 1 200    TH 7 200    EM 0
6000 km/s    JR 3-50      Armour 1-136       Shields 0-0       HTK 310      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 75      PPV 0
Maint Life 2.48 Years     MSP 7 957    AFR 524%    IFR 7.3%    1YR 1 796    5YR 26 944    Max Repair 1381.9 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 17 000 tons     Troop Capacity 250 tons     Magazine 2 208   
Captain    Control Rating 4   BRG   AUX   ENG   PFC   
Intended Deployment Time: 24 months    Flight Crew Berths 340    Morale Check Required   

J60K (E10-3-50) Military Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 60000 tons    Distance 50k km     Squadron Size 3

Internal Fusion Drive  EP1200.00 (EP120/FC0.4) (6)    Power 7200    Fuel Use 28.22%    Signature 1200    Explosion 12%
Fuel Capacity 6 150 000 Litres    Range 65.4 billion km (126 days at full power)

ASM-200 Demiurge Anti-Ship Missile (110)    Speed: 40 200 km/s    End: 2.2m     Range: 5.4m km    WH: 65    Size: 20    TH: 214/128/64

ECM 40

Strike Group
6x F-2A Retribution Fighter   Speed: 25040 km/s    Size: 9.58
6x E-1 Watcher Early Warning Craft   Speed: 14418 km/s    Size: 9.99
3x H-1 Sotiris Rescue Shuttle   Speed: 12073 km/s    Size: 2.48
2x SJ-2 Torchbearer Jump Scout   Speed: 12073 km/s    Size: 2.48
30x A-2A Absolution Light Attack Craft   Speed: 17171 km/s    Size: 6.99

Dragon class was something I always wanted to build, but wasn't brave enough to do so. I've built 9 of them so far, and the reality is that fiddling with their FCS assignments is MUCH harder than it is for ordinary, reloadable missile launcher designs. The idea was that I could use size 1 light attack missiles (currently with wh 2) against fighters and ships if there's a need to do so. Which is a good idea, considering that my current enemy does NOT have missile capabilities whatsoever.

But this design would make you a lot of trouble when dealing against fighters... removing/adding missile cells to target different small targets for each ship is too time consuming. So I'd rather switch to some other missile design very soon.

Code: [Select]
Dragon class Destroyer      9 000 tons       180 Crew       1 832.3 BP       TCS 180    TH 1 200    EM 1 170
6666 km/s      Armour 3-38       Shields 39-325       HTK 54      Sensors 9/9/0/0      DCR 14      PPV 62.26
Maint Life 3.80 Years     MSP 1 508    AFR 162%    IFR 2.2%    1YR 164    5YR 2 458    Max Repair 300 MSP
Magazine 310   
Captain    Control Rating 3   BRG   AUX   CIC   
Intended Deployment Time: 24 months    Morale Check Required   

Internal Fusion Drive  EP600.00 (EP120/FC0.4) (2)    Power 1200    Fuel Use 39.91%    Signature 600    Explosion 12%
Fuel Capacity 475 000 Litres    Range 23.8 billion km (41 days at full power)
Epsilon S39 / R325 Shields (1)     Recharge Time 325 seconds (0.1 per second)

Mk 45 Gauss Cannon (4x5)    Range 50 000km     TS: 25000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 50 000 km    ROF 5       
Gunnery FCS R67-T25 (1)     Max Range: 67 200 km   TS: 25 000 km/s     85 70 55 40 26 11 0 0 0 0

MSL-1B Missile Cell (150)     Missile Size: 1    Hangar Reload 50 minutes    MF Reload 8 hours
MSL-20B Missile Cell (8)     Missile Size: 20    Hangar Reload 223 minutes    MF Reload 37 hours
Mk 6 Missile FCS (4)     Range 59.6m km    Resolution 100
MD-6 Missile FCS (3)     Range 20.3m km    Resolution 1
AMM-11 Iris Interceptor Missile (50)    Speed: 64 800 km/s    End: 0.5m     Range: 1.8m km    WH: 1    Size: 1    TH: 669/401/200
ASM-10 Tulip Light Attack Missile (100)    Speed: 29 600 km/s    End: 11.3m     Range: 20.1m km    WH: 2    Size: 1    TH: 276/165/82
ASM-200 Demiurge Anti-Ship Missile (8)    Speed: 40 200 km/s    End: 2.2m     Range: 5.4m km    WH: 65    Size: 20    TH: 214/128/64

ASR-6 6K Search Radar (1)     GPS 2160     Range 50.1m km    Resolution 120
MDR-6M Missile Defense Radar (1)     GPS 72     Range 20.3m km    MCR 1.8m km    Resolution 1
Thermal Sensor TH0.5-9.0 (1)     Sensitivity 9     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  23.7m km
EM Sensor EM0.5-9.0 (1)     Sensitivity 9     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  23.7m km

Compact ECCM-3 (2)         ECM 40

Initially, Kotlin was a pure RP design which I came up with after re-reading one of my favorite sci-fi books, where a group of such frigates makes a daring attack against superior foe near Jupiter. It had small PD cannons and size 6 missile cells. As I later begun experimenting with bigger missiles, and my enemy has no missile capability of his own yet, two new size 20 cells were installed instead and more speed and supplies were provided.

8 ships constructed so far. I see them being useful in the future, but I kinda hate having so many different ship designs and would rather install a big beam weapon with SW BFC on destroyers instead in the future.

Code: [Select]
Kotlin class Frigate      6 000 tons       178 Crew       1 545.4 BP       TCS 120    TH 1 200    EM 1 170
10000 km/s      Armour 2-29       Shields 39-325       HTK 44      Sensors 9/9/0/0      DCR 2      PPV 22
Maint Life 3.09 Years     MSP 1 287    AFR 115%    IFR 1.6%    1YR 202    5YR 3 037    Max Repair 300 MSP
Magazine 40   
Captain    Control Rating 3   BRG   AUX   CIC   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Morale Check Required   

Internal Fusion Drive  EP600.00 (EP120/FC0.4) (2)    Power 1200    Fuel Use 39.91%    Signature 600    Explosion 12%
Fuel Capacity 270 000 Litres    Range 20.3 billion km (23 days at full power)
Epsilon S39 / R325 Shields (1)     Recharge Time 325 seconds (0.1 per second)

500mm SXR Spinal Laser (1)    Range 384 000km     TS: 10 000 km/s     Power 65-6     RM 60 000 km    ROF 55       
Gunnery FCS R384-T10 (SW) (1)     Max Range: 384 000 km   TS: 10 000 km/s     97 95 92 90 87 84 82 79 77 74
Magnetic Confinement Fusion Reactor R6 (1)     Total Power Output 6.1    Exp 5%

MSL-20B Missile Cell (2)     Missile Size: 20    Hangar Reload 223 minutes    MF Reload 37 hours
Mk 6 Missile FCS (2)     Range 59.6m km    Resolution 100
ASM-200 Demiurge Anti-Ship Missile (2)    Speed: 40 200 km/s    End: 2.2m     Range: 5.4m km    WH: 65    Size: 20    TH: 214/128/64

ASR-6 6K Search Radar (1)     GPS 2160     Range 50.1m km    Resolution 120
Thermal Sensor TH0.5-9.0 (1)     Sensitivity 9     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  23.7m km
EM Sensor EM0.5-9.0 (1)     Sensitivity 9     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  23.7m km

Compact ECCM-3 (1)         ECM 40
Posted by: L0ckAndL0ad
« on: October 14, 2021, 03:26:41 AM »

Like I've already said, I first got into Gauss Cannon fighters when playing VB6 Aurora. With low % GCs, I was able to make a fighter that was smaller and faster than the railgun one, and also utilized crew grade and pilot's skills, thus improving the degraded hit-chance and making it better than it was on paper. It was cheaper, smaller, faster and more reliable (because no reactor needed). Yeah, the reduced GC's performance obviously could not compete with railgun 1:1, but it was "good enough" for me, granted the crew grade and skilled pilots were there. I really wanted the smallest possible fighter, to fill as many of them on a carrier.

Also, against missiles, the faster fighter has better chances dealing with them due to tracking speed, but of course it is a matter of how much the difference is. And don't forget about Research investment. In my current playthrough, I researched lasers, GCs and missiles almost exclusively until late 2090s. Railguns is another tech you need to research, if you don't use them for anything else.

Sadly, there's a bug in 1.13 Aurora where commander's bonuses don't apply on craft without a bridge, so you can't utilize the GC fighter potential fully as I envision it.

I did look into reduced size railguns and they seem to be awesome. They become less space efficient with reduced shots, but still, it's a good option to have.
Posted by: nuclearslurpee
« on: October 13, 2021, 09:11:02 AM »

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?

I've done the math a number of times on this forum and it always comes out that a 10cm railgun is far more tonnage-efficient than a Gauss cannon for fighters until you reach endgame levels of Gauss ROF technology.

Keep in mind, a full-size Gauss cannon is 6 HS (300 tons), and any reduced-size Gauss cannon loses accuracy in proportion to its size so that damage per ton remains a constant. You might think "oh, I can put a 1 HS Gauss cannon on my small fighter but not a 3 HS railgun" but the 1 HS Gauss cannon is only 17% as accurate as the railgun.

A 10cm railgun is always 3 HS, so with the exception of very low tech levels (when you shouldn't be building fighters anyways as they are woefully ineffective) railgun + power plant is always lighter than an equivalent-DPS Gauss cannon until very high tech levels. Gauss cannons really do not break even until ROF 8 tech - in theory ROF 6 tech would work but by the time you are that high in the tech tree you can also build a R3 reactor very small and cheaply so Gauss is still not quite good enough.

It turns out that the 150 ton size of a 10cm railgun is about optimal for fighters as you can build up to the full 500 tons and get a very comfortable design which is the most efficient. With fighters, always keep in mind that bigger is usually better as the size efficiency of various components is most pronounced for smaller sizes. For example, a 500-ton fighter will get better use out of a given BFC than two 250-ton fighters would get out of two BFCs which are half the size each.

I believe the maximum railgun range modifier is 90,000, which gives 90,000 km range for 10cm and 180,000 km range for 12cm at max tech. This is quite short (compared to lasers easily exceeding 1.4m km at max tech) but still longer-ranged than Gauss which I believe caps out at 60,000 km.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: October 13, 2021, 08:11:14 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.

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?

Armour levels depend entirely on technology level and the role of the ship.. I would never deploy a ship with only a single level of armor that has a beam weapon meant for at least some form of close combat or any military ship that is not a fighter or missile boat for that matter, that is just a personal preference.

It also make very little sense to split a ship for having multiple fire-controls... keeping it all on one ship is way more efficient even if you have several fire-controls. You get better captains and bridge officers, more efficient components and the ships are way harder to destroy. It also make sense from a backup point of view. The only real drawback is thermal signature and the fact they take longer to build.

If you make a small combat ship make it for the reason it is small, not as a main combat ship because it is effective. You keep the ship small for scouting reasons not combat reasons, for being able to deploy them on singular missions or in smaller numbers. A larger ship with onboard small scouts actually often are stealthier than a bunch of smaller ships, you don't want the ship itself to be the one that contact the enemy, you want the option to decide if you want to engage or not. A larger ship is always more efficient and resilient when you do engage, that is just pure math.

It is just fine to justify any design or ship based on role-play factors, because there can be a reason from a political point of view you deploy ship of a certain size. Similar to the split between light and heavy cruisers and bigger ships during World War II which were a product of treaties.

In terms of Railguns they are way more efficient on a fighter or FAC hull than Gauss cannons even when counting the power generators, that is also just pure math. The Gauss cannon might get better if it fires like six or more shots or, it where some time ago I did the math on that. A quick look is a 10cm Railgun with a Powerplant that fires every five seconds weigh around 190t and cost about 20 production while a similar Gauss cannon weigh 300t and cost about 50 production, both fires four shots. The smaller rail-gun can comfortably be put into a fighter hull of 500t but you would need to make the Gauss a bit smaller which reduce their effectiveness From a research perspective there really is no good argument not to invest in the lower end of Railguns for general point defence.

Gauss weapons do not work well with fighter hulls in my opinion, you are better off with a railgun for PD fighters if you use them. Gauss should always be mounted in a turret to be effective.
Posted by: L0ckAndL0ad
« on: October 13, 2021, 05:16:09 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.

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?
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: October 10, 2021, 02:14:27 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.
Posted by: nuclearslurpee
« on: October 10, 2021, 12:53:18 PM »

A couple of additions to the ongoing discussions:

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).
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: October 10, 2021, 07:43:12 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.
Posted by: L0ckAndL0ad
« on: October 10, 2021, 05:22:32 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
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: October 10, 2021, 04:17:20 AM »

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.
Posted by: L0ckAndL0ad
« on: October 10, 2021, 03:39:08 AM »

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.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: October 09, 2021, 08:28:55 PM »

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?
Posted by: nuclearslurpee
« on: October 09, 2021, 03:08:56 PM »

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.