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: liveware
« on: May 15, 2020, 05:42:42 PM »

It seems, based on my research, possible to design gauss turrets with superior performance compared to CIWS. I will pursue that avenue.

Additionally, I will be mining all jump points between Sol and the hostile NPR system. I will post the designs shortly as I need to finish research on the warhead before the second stage can be developed.
Posted by: liveware
« on: May 15, 2020, 11:38:50 AM »

Yeah, I will probably invest in some gauss and ciws defences. I spent the better part of last night reading through some of SpikeTheHobbitMage's experiments with gauss turrets. Gauss missile defense corvettes seem like they should be viable, and I did have the foresight to research a few of the relevant techs for those systems.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: May 15, 2020, 01:56:45 AM »

In terms of defences if your CIWS worked really well I would build some flak frigate escorts in you case. Research one x4 tracking beam fire-control and a twin 17% reduction in size Gauss turret matching the fire-controls tracking speed.

CIWS is good if your ships run around on their own... but a fleet need dedicated PD that can mutually support each other.

This way you should be able to concentrate missiles on attacking as you should be able to deal with their missiles using flak cannon fire and good enough armour.

Even at your low tech speed you should be able to make this work withing a reasonable time frame. An escort of this kind would perhaps be 5-6000t if you have a good naval yard available at that size.
Posted by: liveware
« on: May 14, 2020, 10:47:05 PM »

These may be the waning days of the Aegis corporation in that case. I guess it depends on how hostile the NPR is. I've never encountered one in one of my own systems before, but I assume they are capable of navigating jump points?

Fortunately this particular NPR is not located adjacent to my home system, so I have some standoff capability.

I think it's time then to mine all of the intervening jump points and set up some ambushes. Might be able to catch them in the jump shock. It's going to be an uphill battle getting better tech online in order to mount a proper counterattack.
Posted by: DFNewb
« on: May 14, 2020, 10:32:14 PM »

With your engine tech there is no way to get through the PD so your best bet would be a lot of small cheap missiles to overwhelm them or to tech more.
Posted by: liveware
« on: May 14, 2020, 10:05:39 PM »

This is about the fastest missile I think I can build, though it's gigantic:

Code: [Select]
Falcon III Anti-ship Missile

Missile Size: 65.00 MSP  (162.500 Tons)     Warhead: 12    Radiation Damage: 12    Manoeuvre Rating: 16
Speed: 21,539 km/s     Fuel: 10,000     Flight Time: 53 minutes     Range: 69.05m km
ECM Modifier: 10%     ECCM Modifier: 10%
Cost Per Missile: 46.20     Development Cost: 4,620
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 344.6%   3k km/s 114.9%   5k km/s 68.9%   10k km/s 34.5%

Materials Required
Corbomite  1
Tritanium  3
Gallicite  42.20
Fuel:  10000

I'm curious if anyone has any good pointers for an appropriate overall missile speed which is capable of penetrating hostile anti-missile fire?
Posted by: liveware
« on: May 14, 2020, 09:56:28 PM »

Quote from: DFNewb on May 14, 2020, 09:53:24 PM
What's your missile tech looking like? A screenshot of the right side of the missile tech screen would be helpful. I don' think your missiles will do so well, they will get hit by PD 100 percent of the time at that speed so you will need a lot.

I think you're right. I'm struggling to make a small missile fast enough to be effective. See attached for existing tech.
Posted by: DFNewb
« on: May 14, 2020, 09:53:24 PM »

Quote from: liveware on May 14, 2020, 09:15:03 PM
After messing around some more in the missile design window, I came up with this:

Code: [Select]
Falcon II Anti-ship Missile

Missile Size: 10.00 MSP  (25.000 Tons)     Warhead: 4    Radiation Damage: 4    Manoeuvre Rating: 20
Speed: 14,000 km/s     Fuel: 3,750     Flight Time: 63 minutes     Range: 53.22m km
ECM Modifier: 10%     ECCM Modifier: 10%
Cost Per Missile: 7.42     Development Cost: 742
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 280%   3k km/s 93.3%   5k km/s 56.0%   10k km/s 28.0%

Materials Required
Corbomite  1
Tritanium  1
Gallicite  5.42
Fuel:  3750

I think this is on the border of being acceptable. It has worse chance to hit than the Falcon but has much longer range and might be capable of outranging the NPR ships. If I were to fire two of these for every one of the Falcons, I would use less gallicite and should hit with more missiles than if I had used the Falcons. For example, if I fire 10 Falcons against a 5k km/s target, 6 - 7 would probably hit (neglecting enemy CIWS and ECM). If instead I fired 20 Falcon II's against the same target, about 10 - 11 should hit. However, the Falcon has a more powerful warhead and does more damage when it hits, so even with fewer hits it might still be a more capable missile... except the range is terrible. If my math is right, 10 Falcon II's would cause 4*10 = 40 damage total, and the Falcons would cause 6*12 = 48 damage total. So from a pure damage perspective the Falcon is probably superior, and it would also penetrate armor more reliably and deal more consistent damage.

Speaking of which, I have no idea how heavily armored the NPR ships are. I should probably fail conservative on that front, and assume they have at least 5-10 layers of armor. So in that case the Falcon II wouldn't even do internal damage and the Falcon would only do 7 - 2 damage, depending on armor.

Need to ponder this one some more it looks like.

What's your missile tech looking like? A screenshot of the right side of the missile tech screen would be helpful. I don' think your missiles will do so well, they will get hit by PD 100 percent of the time at that speed so you will need a lot.
Posted by: liveware
« on: May 14, 2020, 09:28:52 PM »

Here's what I think seems reasonable for anti-ship purposes based on what I've observed of the NPR's ships. Best tech available:

Code: [Select]
Missile Fire Control FC108-R100 (50%)

Active Sensor Strength 72   Sensitivity Modifier: 60%
Sensor Size 6 HS  (300 tons)    HTK 1
Resolution 100     Maximum Range vs 5000 ton object (or larger): 108,858,687 km
Range vs 1000 ton object: 4,354,347 km
Range vs 250 ton object: 272,147 km
Chance of destruction by electronic damage 50%
Cost 90.0    Crew 12
Development Cost 900 RP

Materials Required
Uridium  90.0

I've not observed any NPR ships smaller than about 10k ton... yet. The sensors on my dead carrier should have detected anything down to 5k ton in the ranges involved in that encounter (I think).
Posted by: liveware
« on: May 14, 2020, 09:24:39 PM »

I was just about to start looking at that. Stand by.
Posted by: kenlon
« on: May 14, 2020, 09:22:25 PM »

First thing, before you start designing your missiles: What are the stats on your current missile fire control?
Posted by: liveware
« on: May 14, 2020, 09:15:03 PM »

After messing around some more in the missile design window, I came up with this:

Code: [Select]
Falcon II Anti-ship Missile

Missile Size: 10.00 MSP  (25.000 Tons)     Warhead: 4    Radiation Damage: 4    Manoeuvre Rating: 20
Speed: 14,000 km/s     Fuel: 3,750     Flight Time: 63 minutes     Range: 53.22m km
ECM Modifier: 10%     ECCM Modifier: 10%
Cost Per Missile: 7.42     Development Cost: 742
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 280%   3k km/s 93.3%   5k km/s 56.0%   10k km/s 28.0%

Materials Required
Corbomite  1
Tritanium  1
Gallicite  5.42
Fuel:  3750

I think this is on the border of being acceptable. It has worse chance to hit than the Falcon but has much longer range and might be capable of outranging the NPR ships. If I were to fire two of these for every one of the Falcons, I would use less gallicite and should hit with more missiles than if I had used the Falcons. For example, if I fire 10 Falcons against a 5k km/s target, 6 - 7 would probably hit (neglecting enemy CIWS and ECM). If instead I fired 20 Falcon II's against the same target, about 10 - 11 should hit. However, the Falcon has a more powerful warhead and does more damage when it hits, so even with fewer hits it might still be a more capable missile... except the range is terrible. If my math is right, 10 Falcon II's would cause 4*10 = 40 damage total, and the Falcons would cause 6*12 = 48 damage total. So from a pure damage perspective the Falcon is probably superior, and it would also penetrate armor more reliably and deal more consistent damage.

Speaking of which, I have no idea how heavily armored the NPR ships are. I should probably fail conservative on that front, and assume they have at least 5-10 layers of armor. So in that case the Falcon II wouldn't even do internal damage and the Falcon would only do 7 - 2 damage, depending on armor.

Need to ponder this one some more it looks like.
Posted by: liveware
« on: May 14, 2020, 07:58:08 PM »

So I tried loading an older game save (initial contact) in order to try and save my ship, but alas, it is too slow and her fate is truly sealed.

I was able to get some additional sensor contact this time as I launched my survey fighters as a decoy to try and buy the carrier time to escape through the JP. However, the situation was hopeless.

I was able to gain some valuable intel before the ship was destroyed this time. It appears that the missiles are being launched from some 30 kt curisers from about 40-60m km. So that is going to be a challenge because my Falcon design cannot travel that far. Also, my CIWS does not work as well as I previously thought... it has about a 10-13% chance to hit and faired much worse this time around. I think I got lucky originally when I was able to destroy 20 missiles.

If any are interested, attached is the tactical situation immediately prior to the loss of the carrier. Missiles are closing.
Posted by: liveware
« on: May 14, 2020, 06:50:08 PM »

Quote from: macks on May 14, 2020, 05:56:44 PM
I am very interested in how youll deal with a threat moving 5000-7000km/s at your current tech. Keep us updated. You could mine the jump points to your home system as well, thats something high tech disparity fleets can do because it requires no missile tech.

I'm taking a mental break for now while I think about what my best options are. The Falcon missile previously posted is my current best hope, but after looking through some other forum posts I think I can design a smaller missile with equivalent performance, so I will probably spend some time min-maxing missile designs.

I doubt I can build a ship fast enough to keep up with this NPR using my existing tech. Maybe a fighter, but even that is a stretch. I think the fastest fighter I could field would be under 3-4 km/s, and it would be little more than an engine with a fuel tank attached. So probably what I will do is design a heavily armored missile cruiser/destroyer and use a squadron of those to establish a beachhead at the jump point, then try to push in towards the NPR home planet.

I note from reviewing my event log that my CIWS seems to work well, I just didn't have enough of them to deal with 60 incoming missiles. So CIWS with heavier armor might buy me enough time to launch all of my missiles and run away before my ships are destroyed.

Mines are probably worth developing in the meantime while I develop the missile destroyers.

My biggest concerns with the Falcon missile I posted before are:

1. Price too high
2. Chance to hit too low
3. Size too large

I think the range is good as-is and I could probably drop the speed down to about 10k km/s and still be able to hit the enemy ships. With that in mind I want to try and get the size down to 10 or less... size 5 would be great. That should drop the missile cost substantially and also allow me to build cheaper launchers, and also cram more launchers onto each ship. More launchers means larger salvos, so if I can keep the chance to hit for the new missile in the same ballpark as the previous design, I might stand a chance.

Another advantage of smaller launchers is that I could put them on fighters and build a new carrier (or 4) and try to swarm the NPR. Not sure if this would be more cost effective than the missile destroyers or not, because it seems like I should be able to design a 2 stage missile that would give performance equivalent to a fighter launched missile. However with the carrier I could theoretically field multiple fighter types at once, and there might be some benefits to that also.

Decisions decisions...
Posted by: liveware
« on: May 14, 2020, 06:45:22 PM »

In C# there is new low-end pre-trans Newtonian "conventional" engine tech which has worse performance than anything I remember from VB6. That's what I was using on my early designs in this thread.

If I do another conventional start like this, I think I'm going go with a dedicated geo/grav survey vessel first and save the scout carrier concept for later in the game when I have better engine technology. While my early carrier did technically work, it was very slow and probably not as resource efficient as an equivalent performance geo/grav survey ship would have been.

However, it was my first foray into carrier ops in C# and it was a useful learning experience. Now, for example, I know that I should expect to encounter extremely fast NPR ships and should design my own ships accordingly.