Post reply

Topic Summary

Posted by: Garfunkel

« on: April 08, 2021, 06:29:09 PM »

Insert Quote

Guys guys guys,

you're hijacking the dude's patrol craft thread with off-topic chat. There's a whole bunch of threads for theorycrafting about ships or to explain your personal building ethos or to discuss early-tech home world/system defence techniques.

Quote from: Theoatmeal2 on March 28, 2021, 07:13:57 AM

Here is the revision. Many of you are right it`s nearly a moot point building it but I still want some protection. I`ll do the STO and jump point defence as well.

Looks much better. I'd still recommend dropping the armour to 1. It takes up a lot of tonnage that could be used for more weapons and sensors, or to make the craft cheaper and faster to build.

Quote from: Theoatmeal2 on March 28, 2021, 07:13:57 AM

Did any of you actually discover low level aliens that are for example at Nuclear Thermal capacity.

It is possible, just bit rare. I'll spoiler the explanation in case you don't want to know the details:

NPR generation takes your tech level in consideration but with a large random element. So, the starting point is tech parity with you and then RNG fudges it up or down. With a conventional start, an NPR might start at NP or NT engine level, though Ion is more common. However, this does NOT apply to spoiler races and you're most likely to encounter one of them before any NPRs meaning that your first fight is almost guaranteed to be against a technologically (significantly) superior enemy. This also does not apply to the game creation NPR if you started with one as those get a regular TN start but with population roughly equal to yours. Starting conventional is a big handicap if you also start with NPRs and have spoiler races toggled on!

Posted by: Jorgen_CAB

« on: April 08, 2021, 05:38:54 PM »

Insert Quote

Quote from: xenoscepter on April 08, 2021, 12:32:43 PM

--- Allow me to explain, and please bear with me as I'm quite bad at doing so. Dyscalculia is a bitch and half and then some. I'm going to ignore the Range as a function of distance because while relevant in practice it is irrelevant for the purposes of expressing this concept. Range in terms of distance is still governed by how long it takes to get there and is thus arbitrary with respect to Deployment Times and Burn Times, AKA "X Days at Full Power" The following examples are but two of the possibilities that I know of.

Example A:
Code: [Select]
Let's say that Ship A has enough fuel for 6 Months worth of Burn Time and enough Deployment for 6 Months worth of operations. Now let's say Ship B has enough fuel for 3 Months worth of Burn Time and enough Deployment for 6 Months worth of operations. Finally, let's say Ship C is a Commercial Tanker for Ship B, due to it being Commercial it only needs 3 Months worth of Deployment Time and carries 3 Months worth of fuel for Ship B. Example B:
Code: [Select]
Let's say Ship A and Ship B have the same amount of fuel and Deployment as before, but now we have no Ship C in the equation. Ship B is designed to spend 1 Month at reduced power, enabling it to travel for 6 Months at that speed. It then can use it's remaining fuel for high-speed maneuvers. So while Ship A can go the full 6 Months at full speed, Ship B cannot and does not, instead dividing it's consumption between a strategic "Cruise Speed" and a tactical "Combat Speed" --- So in Example A, Ship A and Ship B both carry an amount of Fuel equal to their Deployment, but Ship B offloads some of the fuel to Ship C. In Example B on the other hand, Ship A and Ship B are still carrying an amount of Fuel equal to their Deployment, but Ship B allocates it in such a way that it carries less Fuel to achieve the same endurance at the cost of having less speed available to it overall. In either Example, an overage of either Fuel OR Deployment would result in wasted tonnage, with the exception of redundancy with regards to Battle Damage or time spent loitering on station. Both of these, however, are deliberate design choices rather than some natural or normal thing. Exceptions, rather than the rule, so to speak.

I fully understand what you are tying to say here but let me explain why I think this is faulty logic, for the most part.

If you have a ship that carry fuel equal to deployment I think that is fine (in some cases)... if that is the role of the particular ship. It could be something like a fighter or FAC for example. Even here you sometimes want more deployment than you have range for fuel so you can extend their range further when needed. Se below why this can be smart...

First of all, fuel can take up an awful allot of space so if you have a ship with an intended deployment of say 12 months you might not have room for much else with that much fuel as well. If you offload fuel to a tanker you suddenly have a ship that require no maintenance and can run fuel runs non stop for as long as you keep the ship around. The same ship can probably keep more than one ship with fuel as warships need overhauls/upgrades at certain intervals. Your commercial ships don't require any maintenance facilities and are much cheaper to maintain which means you can keep a larger fleet for less cost.

If you also look at the practical side there are a few points to make... any fleet stationed inside your territory can utilise refuelling points to get on stations thus will not need tankers for travelling inside your space if you space out refuelling points close enough to each other.

You can station a fleet quite close to any hot spots while you are scouting for potential targets, thus they need much less fuel than they need deployment time.

It is in my experience common to have a fleet camp at a JP for a pretty long while, perhaps a few system away from any refuelling stations while you send scouts ahead a few systems over. You don't know if there will be a fight or not or when... but you want the fleet close by.

Scouting in general can take up a considerable amount of time, time allot of ships either are just sitting around doing nothing or sneaking around trying to find the enemy.

Quite often you don't need more than a fraction of the total range of a ships deployment and that is true no matter how you build your ship... in your case you waste both deployment and fuel for the range you need... others just waste some deployment space. If is far cheaper to waste deployment when you don't need it than it is fuel AND deployment space if you don't need it.

We can make some more practical examples...

I have a Destroyer (in an old campaign) with a deployment time of 9 months who will burn its entire fuel storage in 43 days for a total range of 16mkm. It's nine months of deployment takes up roughly 5.7% of the ship space and their fuel tanks about 6.5%.
If I made this ship have the same range as deployment (using the same space and change nothing else) it would become deployment time of 2 months, and a range of 21mkm.

This ship would no longer be able to fill its function properly...

If I instead changed it to keep 9 months of fuel I would have to increase the fuel tanks from 6.5% of the ship to roughly 40% of the ships space into fuel. Given that this particular ship already have about 35% dedicated to weapons and 15% to defences you would have to strip off most of the ships mission tonnage just to make the ship able to run constantly for nine month which obviously you are almost never going to need, if ever. At this point offloading nearly 34% of a ships weight to a commercial tanker seems like a smart move. Obviously you would need a more efficient and bigger engine at this point... so it would not be as bad as stated above.

The point here being that range is most often completely detached from deployment. The range a ship need from a design perspective is always going to be the distance it need to travel from any source of fuel and it's target, including battle manoeuvres.

The deployment a ship need is also depending on its role and how long you might expect the ship to be able to perform in the field away from a base where the crew might rest for a considerable amount of time.

You could argue that you might build ships with more efficient engines... but then you still need more space for engines while you still don't need more range for battle manoeuvring. So you still end up wasting space on the ship. Smaller engines might require twice the amount of fuel to run, but fuel consumption for warships should rarely be a concern from a strategic perspective. Having more guns pointing at the opponent should be a higher concern overall. There obviously is a break point and for me that is the minimal amount of battle manoeuvre range my ships need. Depending on role that can usually be from 10-30 billion km in range for a normal fleet vessel.

The most optimum rate if engine to fuel are generally 3/4 engine and 1/4 fuel tanks... just decide what range you want the ship to have and build the engine to fit into that ratio. You might not always be able to fit the optimum rate for different reasons, especially if you have ships with different needs and having to use the same engine.

Posted by: xenoscepter

« on: April 08, 2021, 12:32:43 PM »

Insert Quote

Quote from: Jorgen_CAB on March 28, 2021, 03:41:45 PM

You do realize though that deployment time take much less space on a ship and you can't extend deployment unless you have a base or recreation facility where you also need to stay for an extended period. Fuel you can at any time just replenish in a few hours.

it is way more common to need far more deployment than you need range... when doing battle manoeuvring you often even move ships very slowly to avoid detection by IR signature as another example.

Therefore from a logistical and strategic perspective most ships have a deployment requirement and a tactical range requirement and they often don't align all that well. They can... but quite often they don't.

- "You do realize though that deployment time take much less space on a ship and you can't extend deployment unless you have a base or recreation facility where you also need to stay for an extended period. Fuel you can at any time just replenish in a few hours. Therefore from a logistical and strategic perspective most ships have a deployment requirement and a tactical range requirement and they often don't align all that well. They can... but quite often they don't."

--- I didn't know for sure which one was the heavier, but I have been laboring under the assumption that it was Deployment, so it I guess it all works out.

Yes, I am aware that Recreational / Colonies are the only way to replenish Deployment and yes, I'm aware the Re-Fueling is faster on the whole.

- "it is way more common to need far more deployment than you need range... when doing battle manoeuvring you often even move ships very slowly to avoid detection by IR signature as another example."

--- The way you phrase this presents it as a natural occurrence, at least to me. I disagree that this is the natural way of things, if that is what you mean by it. "Battle Maneuvering" for me is the act of getting into range to fire and possibly evading enemy fire by way of kiting or other range-based shenanigans. I refer to the act of going slow to avoid enemy Thermal detection as, "sneaking around" As for it being way more common to need more deployment than range, I categorically disagree. Rather I say it is ALWAYS wasteful to NOT have them equal to each other, one way or the other.

--- Allow me to explain, and please bear with me as I'm quite bad at doing so. Dyscalculia is a bitch and half and then some.

I'm going to ignore the Range as a function of distance because while relevant in practice it is irrelevant for the purposes of expressing this concept. Range in terms of distance is still governed by how long it takes to get there and is thus arbitrary with respect to Deployment Times and Burn Times, AKA "X Days at Full Power" The following examples are but two of the possibilities that I know of.

Example A:

Code: [Select]

Let's say that Ship A has enough fuel for 6 Months worth of Burn Time and enough Deployment for 6 Months worth of operations.

Now let's say Ship B has enough fuel for 3 Months worth of Burn Time and enough Deployment for 6 Months worth of operations.

Finally, let's say Ship C is a Commercial Tanker for Ship B, due to it being Commercial it only needs 3 Months worth of Deployment Time and carries 3 Months worth of fuel for Ship B.

Example B:

Code: [Select]

Let's say Ship A and Ship B have the same amount of fuel and Deployment as before, but now we have no Ship C in the equation.

Ship B is designed to spend 1 Month at reduced power, enabling it to travel for 6 Months at that speed. It then can use it's remaining fuel for high-speed maneuvers.

So while Ship A can go the full 6 Months at full speed, Ship B cannot and does not, instead dividing it's consumption between a strategic "Cruise Speed" and a tactical "Combat Speed"

--- So in Example A, Ship A and Ship B both carry an amount of Fuel equal to their Deployment, but Ship B offloads some of the fuel to Ship C. In Example B on the other hand, Ship A and Ship B are still carrying an amount of Fuel equal to their Deployment, but Ship B allocates it in such a way that it carries less Fuel to achieve the same endurance at the cost of having less speed available to it overall. In either Example, an overage of either Fuel OR Deployment would result in wasted tonnage, with the exception of redundancy with regards to Battle Damage or time spent loitering on station. Both of these, however, are deliberate design choices rather than some natural or normal thing. Exceptions, rather than the rule, so to speak.

Posted by: d.rodin

« on: April 08, 2021, 10:38:21 AM »

Insert Quote

Quote from: Jorgen_CAB on March 29, 2021, 07:22:29 AM

Quote from: d.rodin on March 28, 2021, 10:22:39 AM
Isnt it easier to use fighters&missles for Sol system protection early in game?
As far as i understand - main goal is to secure everything inside Saturn orbit, since Earth & Luna & Mars are first colonies and Jupiter & Saturn are primary fuel sources early in game.
So:
Fighters with deployment time ~3-6 days based on Earth / Luna / Mars.
~4 asteroid colonies in Asteroid Belt to cover all directions with DSTs and 1 Cargo + 1 Refueling + 1 Ordinance transfer stations with some fuel and ordinance supply for refueling and 2nd, 3rd, 4th strike capability - fighters return to those colonies for refueling and ordinance pickup after mission.
After some time same scheme repeats and extends using Jupiter and Saturn Moons.
In the end:
Earth / Mars / Venus / Ganymede / Callisto / Titan / Ceres with fighter bases + resupply colonies in Asteroid Belt + resupply colonies on Jupiter-Saturn orbit.

Yes... I agree that for defensive purposes you can be way more efficient.

My Patrol Ships/Crafts usually also are way smaller and only carry a single weapons system. Early on that is usually a 12cm Rail-gun for some extra range. These are NOT combat ships... they are there to patrol and mostly intercept any non military enemy assets that stumble into the system or any adjacent system they are stationed at. Their main role is scouting and patrolling and they rarely are above 3000t usually closer to 2000t depending on the system I want to have on them. A patrol ship is as I said not built for engaging enemy military ships unless they are scouts or something.

Other system defence assets are better in the form of fighters or FAC in some form using the bases themselves as a carrier with heavy PD and Beam defences that are way more efficient than what any ship can bring.

As the OP said though... their missile technology is not good enough to use missiles so the ship they got is pretty much it for them in terms of ship design. I would guess that investigating a bit more into missile design or better beam weapons should be a priority if there is any threat to Earth or Sol system.

I think that we as players often over engineer our design because they seem cool instead of what we actually need, nothing wrong in that in general... just a reflection on what I often see.

I waited for new engines before trying to do something like simple patrol ships.
and since one of the goal is : "patrol and mostly intercept any non military enemy assets" - added Boarding party, i think it is essential for para-military / police force.

Quote

Gals G9 class Patrol Ship 2 494 tons 88 Crew 2 891.9 BP TCS 50 TH 38 EM 0
25062 km/s Armour 5-16 Shields 0-0 HTK 21 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 3 PPV 18
Maint Life 6.25 Years MSP 2 174 AFR 17% IFR 0.2% 1YR 96 5YR 1 433 Max Repair 2187.5 MSP
Troop Capacity 250 tons Boarding Capable
Commander Control Rating 1 BRG
Intended Deployment Time: 1 months Morale Check Required

Gas Core AM Drive 200% EP1250.00 (1) Power 1250 Fuel Use 50.60% Signature 37.50 Explosion 20%
Fuel Capacity 250 000 Litres Range 35.7 billion km (16 days at full power)

Gauss Cannon R600-100 (3x8) Range 60 000km TS: 25 062 km/s Power 0-0 RM 60 000 km ROF 5
Beam Fire Control R125-TS30000 (1) Max Range: 125 000 km TS: 30 000 km/s 92 84 76 68 60 52 44 36 28 20

Active Search Sensor AS12-R1 (5%) (1) GPS 10 Range 12.6m km MCR 1.1m km Resolution 1
Active Search Sensor AS34-R20 (5%) (1) GPS 200 Range 34.2m km Resolution 20
Active Search Sensor AS58-R100 (5%) (1) GPS 1000 Range 58.6m km Resolution 100

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Posted by: Jorgen_CAB

« on: March 29, 2021, 07:22:29 AM »

Insert Quote

Quote from: d.rodin on March 28, 2021, 10:22:39 AM

Isnt it easier to use fighters&missles for Sol system protection early in game?
As far as i understand - main goal is to secure everything inside Saturn orbit, since Earth & Luna & Mars are first colonies and Jupiter & Saturn are primary fuel sources early in game.
So:
Fighters with deployment time ~3-6 days based on Earth / Luna / Mars.
~4 asteroid colonies in Asteroid Belt to cover all directions with DSTs and 1 Cargo + 1 Refueling + 1 Ordinance transfer stations with some fuel and ordinance supply for refueling and 2nd, 3rd, 4th strike capability - fighters return to those colonies for refueling and ordinance pickup after mission.
After some time same scheme repeats and extends using Jupiter and Saturn Moons.
In the end:
Earth / Mars / Venus / Ganymede / Callisto / Titan / Ceres with fighter bases + resupply colonies in Asteroid Belt + resupply colonies on Jupiter-Saturn orbit.

Yes... I agree that for defensive purposes you can be way more efficient.

My Patrol Ships/Crafts usually also are way smaller and only carry a single weapons system. Early on that is usually a 12cm Rail-gun for some extra range. These are NOT combat ships... they are there to patrol and mostly intercept any non military enemy assets that stumble into the system or any adjacent system they are stationed at. Their main role is scouting and patrolling and they rarely are above 3000t usually closer to 2000t depending on the system I want to have on them. A patrol ship is as I said not built for engaging enemy military ships unless they are scouts or something.

Other system defence assets are better in the form of fighters or FAC in some form using the bases themselves as a carrier with heavy PD and Beam defences that are way more efficient than what any ship can bring.

As the OP said though... their missile technology is not good enough to use missiles so the ship they got is pretty much it for them in terms of ship design. I would guess that investigating a bit more into missile design or better beam weapons should be a priority if there is any threat to Earth or Sol system.

I think that we as players often over engineer our design because they seem cool instead of what we actually need, nothing wrong in that in general... just a reflection on what I often see.

Posted by: Jorgen_CAB

« on: March 28, 2021, 03:41:45 PM »

Insert Quote

Quote from: xenoscepter on March 27, 2021, 08:30:42 PM

Quote from: Migi on March 27, 2021, 07:38:47 PM
I've never understood the desire to have the same deployment time as fuel days, except to ensure that deployment is more than fuel days.
I always worry about needing to camp a jump point for extended periods when I think about reducing deployment time, so I normally go with 12 months for warships and up to a few days to a month for fighters.

That said for a small ship with low tech, and the mission goal of shooting down missiles I think 4 months is fine.

- I'll be honest, the idea of using my ships for impromptu Jump Point camping never occurred to me, as I so seldom guard my Jump Points at all. In VB6, I used PDCs with super long range missiles and a combination of DSTS and Picket Ships to defend large swaths of territory... Jump Points often included. In C#, I've switched over to a combination of STOs, fighter garrisons, and rapid response ships for the same purpose. With DSTSs and "Relay" Stations to go with it.

- My problem with non-matching Deployment / Fuel is that I have tonnage that is "wasted" on Deployment range that I can't "use". Fuel Tankers have this odd issue whereby they can get shot at and die. My warships already have that same issue, which stems from the whole problem of "going into a war zone". I've done plenty of thinking on this, but a thread titled "Re: Early defence." doesn't seem an appropriate place to put it. I'll post my thoughts elsewhere upon request, if anyone wants to read them. Long & Short of it though: I'm not against Tankers, relying on Tankers isn't "wrong" or "worse" or "bad", I just don't like using 'em for the most part.

You do realize though that deployment time take much less space on a ship and you can't extend deployment unless you have a base or recreation facility where you also need to stay for an extended period. Fuel you can at any time just replenish in a few hours.

it is way more common to need far more deployment than you need range... when doing battle manoeuvring you often even move ships very slowly to avoid detection by IR signature as another example.

Therefore from a logistical and strategic perspective most ships have a deployment requirement and a tactical range requirement and they often don't align all that well. They can... but quite often they don't.

Posted by: d.rodin

« on: March 28, 2021, 10:22:39 AM »

Insert Quote

Isnt it easier to use fighters&missles for Sol system protection early in game?
As far as i understand - main goal is to secure everything inside Saturn orbit, since Earth & Luna & Mars are first colonies and Jupiter & Saturn are primary fuel sources early in game.
So:
Fighters with deployment time ~3-6 days based on Earth / Luna / Mars.
~4 asteroid colonies in Asteroid Belt to cover all directions with DSTs and 1 Cargo + 1 Refueling + 1 Ordinance transfer stations with some fuel and ordinance supply for refueling and 2nd, 3rd, 4th strike capability - fighters return to those colonies for refueling and ordinance pickup after mission.
After some time same scheme repeats and extends using Jupiter and Saturn Moons.
In the end:
Earth / Mars / Venus / Ganymede / Callisto / Titan / Ceres with fighter bases + resupply colonies in Asteroid Belt + resupply colonies on Jupiter-Saturn orbit.

Posted by: Theoatmeal2

« on: March 28, 2021, 07:13:57 AM »

Insert Quote

Here is the revision. Many of you are right it`s nearly a moot point building it but I still want some protection. I`ll do the STO and jump point defence as well.

Diana class Patrol Craft (P) 4,000 tons 108 Crew 387.4 BP TCS 80 TH 240 EM 0
3000 km/s Armour 4-22 Shields 0-0 HTK 23 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 2 PPV 12
Maint Life 2.19 Years MSP 121 AFR 64% IFR 0.9% 1YR 34 5YR 508 Max Repair 120 MSP
Commander Control Rating 1 BRG
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months Morale Check Required

Eurojet M-240NP (1) Power 240 Fuel Use 90.21% Signature 240 Explosion 12%
Fuel Capacity 295,000 Litres Range 14.7 billion km (56 days at full power)

Rebeiro Armaments 10cm Railgun V20/C2 (4x4) Range 20,000km TS: 3,000 km/s Power 3-2 RM 20,000 km ROF 10
Atlas Electronic Systems FC-1 Beam Fire Control (1) Max Range: 80,000 km TS: 3,000 km/s 66 56 47 38 28 19 9 0 0 0
Homberg-Schneider Pebble Bed Reactor R8 (1) Total Power Output 8.1 Exp 5%

Atlas Electronic Systems M-1 Missile Detection Sensor (1) GPS 10 Range 4m km MCR 359k km Resolution 1
Atlas Electronic Systems M-18 Navigation Sensor (1) GPS 1000 Range 18.5m km Resolution 100

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Did any of you actually discover low level aliens that are for example at Nuclear Thermal capacity.

Posted by: xenoscepter

« on: March 27, 2021, 08:30:42 PM »

Insert Quote

Quote from: Migi on March 27, 2021, 07:38:47 PM

I've never understood the desire to have the same deployment time as fuel days, except to ensure that deployment is more than fuel days.
I always worry about needing to camp a jump point for extended periods when I think about reducing deployment time, so I normally go with 12 months for warships and up to a few days to a month for fighters.

That said for a small ship with low tech, and the mission goal of shooting down missiles I think 4 months is fine.

- I'll be honest, the idea of using my ships for impromptu Jump Point camping never occurred to me, as I so seldom guard my Jump Points at all. In VB6, I used PDCs with super long range missiles and a combination of DSTS and Picket Ships to defend large swaths of territory... Jump Points often included. In C#, I've switched over to a combination of STOs, fighter garrisons, and rapid response ships for the same purpose. With DSTSs and "Relay" Stations to go with it.

- My problem with non-matching Deployment / Fuel is that I have tonnage that is "wasted" on Deployment range that I can't "use". Fuel Tankers have this odd issue whereby they can get shot at and die. My warships already have that same issue, which stems from the whole problem of "going into a war zone". I've done plenty of thinking on this, but a thread titled "Re: Early defence." doesn't seem an appropriate place to put it. I'll post my thoughts elsewhere upon request, if anyone wants to read them.

Long & Short of it though: I'm not against Tankers, relying on Tankers isn't "wrong" or "worse" or "bad", I just don't like using 'em for the most part.

Posted by: Migi

« on: March 27, 2021, 07:38:47 PM »

Insert Quote

I've never understood the desire to have the same deployment time as fuel days, except to ensure that deployment is more than fuel days.
I always worry about needing to camp a jump point for extended periods when I think about reducing deployment time, so I normally go with 12 months for warships and up to a few days to a month for fighters.

That said for a small ship with low tech, and the mission goal of shooting down missiles I think 4 months is fine.

Posted by: Veneke

« on: March 27, 2021, 07:19:57 PM »

Insert Quote

Quote from: nuclearslurpee on March 27, 2021, 06:45:51 PM

Quote
or just drop some deployment time. You have 120 days of deployment, but only 58 days of fuel.

I constantly see people say to drop deployment time to match fuel consumption and I don't understand this. Do people not ever keep ships on station for an extended period away from a recreational center/colony? I think the deployment time is fine as it is to give you a buffer for picketing JPs, escort missions for slower commercial ships, etc. Cutting it to 60 days will only net about 35 tons anyways due to the cube-root dependence of the crew quarters requirement.

This is a really good point. I'd add on that you can always have a tanker top up your warships. Max range is only max range with given fuel, additional deployment time essentially means additional effective range, assuming you've adequate fuel logistics.

Quote

Quote from: Veneke on March 27, 2021, 06:05:08 PM
Code: [Select]
Dylan class Frigate 5,995 tons

This is a lovely ship but it could be far more beautiful with another 5,000 litres of fuel.

Ah, but those missing 5 tons is part of what gives her character.

Posted by: xenoscepter

« on: March 27, 2021, 06:55:11 PM »

Insert Quote

Quote from: nuclearslurpee on March 27, 2021, 06:45:51 PM

Quote from: xenoscepter on March 27, 2021, 05:24:02 PM
stuff

Just to point out, the OP's ship has 4x4 railguns, not 1x4, which makes many of your comments incorrect - notably, the Starshield gunboat does not have 3x the firepower (actually about 3/4, which is in line with the tonnage difference), and the R4 reactor is the correct power output for the class.

Quote
Your 10cm Railgun is mated to an 80,000 km Beam FCS, while having a 10,000 km range. On the one hand that's gonna be one hell of an accurate gun, on the other hand... most of that accuracy is wasted.

Hardly wasted. Since minimum range is 10k km, the 80k km BFC range ensures 88% base accuracy, while a 20k km BFC gives only 50% accuracy. Given that OP's ship has four railguns I'd say the extra tonnage is very much worth it in terms of effective fire volume especially for PD purposes.

I usually try to get around 80k to 100k range for a PD fire control to get close to 90% base accuracy. Trying to push to 95% is not economical, but the difference between 90% and 50% (for 20k km range) is well worth it.

Quote
Replacing that 10cm Railgun with a 12cm Railgun with 20,000 km range and Capacitor 2 would give you 50% faster Rate of Fire, 400% more range and could still be run on a reactor that has half the output of them one you currently have mounted.

Besides the reactor bit already mentioned, this is not how railguns work. A 12 cm railgun requires 6 power, not 4, so Cap 2 would only give ROF 15 which is the same as what the given railgun has.

Quote
She'll take 12cm Railgun / laser fire and Strength 3 Warheads without venting atmo...

Four armor layers are actually proof against penetration by a 15 cm laser and any missile warhead below 24 damage, of course assuming no prior armor damage as enough effective DPS will shred any armor. It's a pretty good armor breakpoint if you want a durable ship especially for a railgun fleet which relies on armor to win beam engagements.

Quote
or just drop some deployment time. You have 120 days of deployment, but only 58 days of fuel.

I constantly see people say to drop deployment time to match fuel consumption and I don't understand this. Do people not ever keep ships on station for an extended period away from a recreational center/colony? I think the deployment time is fine as it is to give you a buffer for picketing JPs, escort missions for slower commercial ships, etc. Cutting it to 60 days will only net about 35 tons anyways due to the cube-root dependence of the crew quarters requirement.

I apologize as I'm not meaning to pick too hard on your post, but there's a lot of misinformation that could confuse OP or others.

Quote from: Veneke on March 27, 2021, 06:05:08 PM
Code: [Select]
Dylan class Frigate 5,995 tons

This is a lovely ship but it could be far more beautiful with another 5,000 litres of fuel.

--- Looking back there are an absolutely atrocious number of typos in my post, so the feedback was certainly welcome. As for durability mis-calculations, I wasn't sure about those, so I was working on the VB6 model, plus I had outright incorrect info, since it would be a Strength 9 warhead in that case anyway. The durability was also assuming a non-penetrating hit, 3 layers "lost" with on remaining. As for deployment matching fuel, time on station exceeding fuel is fine for exactly what you mentioned, but no, I reckon a lot of us don't just put ships in deep space or around tiny colonies that can't support 'em. One big colony or Rec / Maintenance center can service a goodly amount of colonies with a fashionable response time, assuming strategic placement of said areas that is.

Posted by: nuclearslurpee

« on: March 27, 2021, 06:45:51 PM »

Insert Quote

Quote from: xenoscepter on March 27, 2021, 05:24:02 PM

stuff

Just to point out, the OP's ship has 4x4 railguns, not 1x4, which makes many of your comments incorrect - notably, the Starshield gunboat does not have 3x the firepower (actually about 3/4, which is in line with the tonnage difference), and the R4 reactor is the correct power output for the class.

Quote

Your 10cm Railgun is mated to an 80,000 km Beam FCS, while having a 10,000 km range. On the one hand that's gonna be one hell of an accurate gun, on the other hand... most of that accuracy is wasted.

Hardly wasted. Since minimum range is 10k km, the 80k km BFC range ensures 88% base accuracy, while a 20k km BFC gives only 50% accuracy. Given that OP's ship has four railguns I'd say the extra tonnage is very much worth it in terms of effective fire volume especially for PD purposes.

I usually try to get around 80k to 100k range for a PD fire control to get close to 90% base accuracy. Trying to push to 95% is not economical, but the difference between 90% and 50% (for 20k km range) is well worth it.

Quote

Replacing that 10cm Railgun with a 12cm Railgun with 20,000 km range and Capacitor 2 would give you 50% faster Rate of Fire, 400% more range and could still be run on a reactor that has half the output of them one you currently have mounted.

Besides the reactor bit already mentioned, this is not how railguns work. A 12 cm railgun requires 6 power, not 4, so Cap 2 would only give ROF 15 which is the same as what the given railgun has.

Quote

She'll take 12cm Railgun / laser fire and Strength 3 Warheads without venting atmo...

Four armor layers are actually proof against penetration by a 15 cm laser and any missile warhead below 24 damage, of course assuming no prior armor damage as enough effective DPS will shred any armor. It's a pretty good armor breakpoint if you want a durable ship especially for a railgun fleet which relies on armor to win beam engagements.

Quote

or just drop some deployment time. You have 120 days of deployment, but only 58 days of fuel.

I constantly see people say to drop deployment time to match fuel consumption and I don't understand this. Do people not ever keep ships on station for an extended period away from a recreational center/colony? I think the deployment time is fine as it is to give you a buffer for picketing JPs, escort missions for slower commercial ships, etc. Cutting it to 60 days will only net about 35 tons anyways due to the cube-root dependence of the crew quarters requirement.

I apologize as I'm not meaning to pick too hard on your post, but there's a lot of misinformation that could confuse OP or others.

Quote from: Veneke on March 27, 2021, 06:05:08 PM

Code: [Select]
Dylan class Frigate 5,995 tons

This is a lovely ship but it could be far more beautiful with another 5,000 litres of fuel.

Posted by: Veneke

« on: March 27, 2021, 06:05:08 PM »

Insert Quote

I use pretty similar (but slightly larger) railgun frigates to start my navy as well. I think people have caught the big ticket items (ROF 5/10 would be better, res-1 sensor, better align MSP with max repair, etc). The only other thing I'd add which I don't see mentioned is to consider having two engines. Probably more of a doctrine thing, but due to maintenance breakdowns + potential for combat damage I usually end up ensuring that all warships have two engines. Just in case.

The suggestion to improve the railgun range is interesting. In practice I've never felt that the difference between 10k and 20k range for these types of ships matters all that much. The basic 10cm/10k railgun does exactly what you want it to do - good early point defence - and it does it really well.

My very similar starting railgun frigate from my most recent campaign (far from flawless btw!) is coped below. I mostly end up using these as system patrol ships, satisfy PPV demands, and provide initial missile defences for the fleet. To be fair, they don't stay in a combat fleet role for very long - I tend to replace them with 12k tonne railgun missile destroyers relatively quickly.

Code: [Select]

Dylan class Frigate      5,995 tons       151 Crew       587.9 BP       TCS 120    TH 400    EM 0
3336 km/s      Armour 4-29       Shields 0-0       HTK 42      Sensors 5/5/0/0      DCR 1      PPV 21
Maint Life 2.01 Years     MSP 461    AFR 288%    IFR 4.0%    1YR 153    5YR 2,292    Max Repair 100 MSP
Commander    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 9 months    Morale Check Required    

Kraus MNP200-25 Engine (2)    Power 400    Fuel Use 63.25%    Signature 200    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 400,000 Litres    Range 19 billion km (65 days at full power)

Woodward & Evans 3" QF Close-in Railgun (7x4)    Range 10,000km     TS: 5,000 km/s     Power 3-3     RM 10,000 km    ROF 5       
Trawinski-Maczka T4 Close-in Gun Fire Control (2)     Max Range: 20,000 km   TS: 4,000 km/s     50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bazaine-Preher Pebble Bed Reactor R9 (3)     Total Power Output 27.3    Exp 5%

Bergström Electronics Industries Active Sensor R18-100 (1)     GPS 1000     Range 18.5m km    Resolution 100
Bergström Electronics Industries R4-50 Missile Detection Array (1)     GPS 10     Range 4m km    MCR 359k km    Resolution 1
Bergström Electronics Industries EM Sensor EM1.0-5.0 (1)     Sensitivity 5     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  17.7m km
Bergström Electronics Industries Thermal Sensor TH1.0-5.0 (1)     Sensitivity 5     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  17.7m km

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Posted by: xenoscepter

« on: March 27, 2021, 05:24:02 PM »

Insert Quote

- I tend to avoid warships before Ion Tech on the whole, but I have certainly dabbled in, built and even fielded warships before that.

- This post has additional fluff and the technological requirements for the designs below: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=10971.0

- Posted EDITED for accuracy.

Project Starshield:

Code: [Select]

Project Starshield class Gunboat      3,000 tons       82 Crew       237.6 BP       TCS 60    TH 150    EM 0
2500 km/s      Armour 3-18       Shields 0-0       HTK 19      Sensors 1/1/0/0      DCR 1      PPV 7
Maint Life 5.10 Years     MSP 246    AFR 41%    IFR 0.6%    1YR 16    5YR 237    Max Repair 75 MSP
Commander    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 2 months    Morale Check Required    

Aliiance Drives NCET-150/1250 (1)    Power 150    Fuel Use 79.81%    Signature 150    Explosion 12%
Fuel Capacity 175,000 Litres    Range 13.2 billion km (60 days at full power)

PSS-E1/Laser (120mm) (1)    Range 40,000km     TS: 2,500 km/s     Power 4-2     RM 10,000 km    ROF 10       
PSS-E1/Railgun (100mm) (1x4)    Range 20,000km     TS: 2,500 km/s     Power 3-3     Accuracy Modifier 100%     RM 20,000 km    ROF 5       
PSS-E1/FCS (PRIMARY) (1)     Max Range: 40,000 km   TS: 2,500 km/s     47 31 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PSS-E1/FCS (PD/AUX) (1)     Max Range: 20,000 km   TS: 2,500 km/s     31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PSS-E1/PW Reactor System (1)     Total Power Output 5    Exp 5%

Mk. I Experimental GravScope (Active Detection Module) (1)     GPS 1     Range 1.3m km    MCR 137.4k km    Resolution 1
Mk. I Experimental GravScope (TH Calibration Module) (1)     Sensitivity 1     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  7.9m km
Mk. I Experimental GravScope (EM Calibration Module) (1)     Sensitivity 1     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  7.9m km

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

- The most comparable one to yours, uses railguns as well. This one has Capacitor 3, with one 12cm Railgun and two 10cm Railguns. This ship is 1,000 Tons lighter than your Diana-Class, has 25% less armor, roughly 15% less speed and half the endurance, but more than three times the firepower, the ability to fire on two targets at once, and the ability to conduct Point Defense fire with the 10cm Railguns while simultaneously firing back at enemies with the 12cm. Not the most useful feature, but a backup FCS can be a prudent addition overall. The Starshield is also powered by Nuclear Thermal engines, if those were replaced with equivalent size Nuclear Pulse engines, I'd reckon it would be much faster than the Diana-Class too.

- EDIT: The Diana-Class has four railguns, not one, I misread it. Likewise the Starshield-Class has one 12cm LASER and ONE 10cm Railgun, not one 12cm Railgun and two 10cm Railguns. Thus the Starshield-Class has roughly half the firepower, not 300% as previously stated.

Project Starlance:

Code: [Select]

Project Starlance class Gunboat      3,000 tons       80 Crew       241.4 BP       TCS 60    TH 150    EM 0
2500 km/s      Armour 3-18       Shields 0-0       HTK 19      Sensors 1/1/0/0      DCR 2      PPV 8
Maint Life 5.54 Years     MSP 260    AFR 36%    IFR 0.5%    1YR 14    5YR 214    Max Repair 75 MSP
Commander    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 2 months    Morale Check Required    

Aliiance Drives NCET-150/1250 (1)    Power 150    Fuel Use 79.81%    Signature 150    Explosion 12%
Fuel Capacity 175,000 Litres    Range 13.2 billion km (60 days at full power)

PSS-E1/Laser (120mm) (1)    Range 40,000km     TS: 2,500 km/s     Power 4-2     RM 10,000 km    ROF 10       
PSL-E1/HPM (120mm) (1)    Range 40,000km     TS: 2,500 km/s     Power 4-2     RM 40,000 km    ROF 10       
Guardian Fire Control System (PRIMARY) (1)     Max Range: 40,000 km   TS: 2,500 km/s     47 31 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PSL-E1/PW Reactor System (1)     Total Power Output 4    Exp 5%

Mk. II Experimental GravScope (Active Detection Module) (1)     GPS 1     Range 1.3m km    MCR 137.4k km    Resolution 1
Mk. II Experimental GravScope (TH Calibration Module) (1)     Sensitivity 1     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  7.9m km
Mk. II Experimental GravScope (EM Calibration Module) (1)     Sensitivity 1     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  7.9m km

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

- Same deal here for the most part, although the HPM could knock out a Diana-Class' sensors, while the laser fires 30% faster and both weapons would seriously outrange it. A good ship killer with Electronic Hardening to help it resist HPMs, both this and the Starshield-Class also have more than double the Maintenance life of a Diana-Class while costing almost 100 BP less. Likewise both of these dedicate more mass than a Diana-Class to their respective reactors, while producing almost the same output as one.

- EDIT: The Diana-Class' reactors are very sufficient for four 10cm Railguns, again, I mis-read the design.

EDIT: Old info, some incorrect and some outdated. Left for posterity.

Off-Topic: show

--- So, now to suggest improvements. First off, your reactor only needs to put out 1 point of power, your quite literally producing more than 400% of the power you need. You could free up some mass by using a smaller reactor. Your 10cm Railgun is mated to an 80,000 km Beam FCS, while having a 10,000 km range. On the one hand that's gonna be one hell of an accurate gun, on the other hand... most of that accuracy is wasted. Replacing that 10cm Railgun with a 12cm Railgun with 20,000 km range and Capacitor 2 would give you 50% faster Rate of Fire, 400% more range and could still be run on a reactor that has half the output of them one you currently have mounted. Alternatively, a dropping some armor and adding three more of the 10cm Railguns you already have would allow you to keep that reactor by making use of the other 3 points of output and give you a pretty meaty salvo to boot. I'd recommend upgrading to the 20,000 km Railgun range anyway, though, simply because of Aurora's mechanics... it doesn't like 10,000 km for anything except Final Fire PD.

--- The good parts of the Diana-Class though. This ship is pretty quick, not that quick, but it's certainly not slow. 15 billion km range is nothing to sniff at and four layers of armor is quite good for such a small warship. She'll take 12cm Railgun / laser fire and Strength 3 Warheads without venting atmo... and that's pretty damn good for her speed and range. That Beam FCS is overbuilt to hell and back, but that also means you could refit these ships quite well as newer, more long range guns come online. You could put a 60,000 km, Strength 2 Particle Beam on there with a smaller reactor and have a pretty good defensive ship. Four months of deployment is also pretty damn good, and while the MSP is quite low, the IFR is 0.9%, which is damn good.

--- I'd consider perhaps removing some Engineering spaces, replacing one or two with MSP storage. Use either a smaller FCS or bigger guns. Use either a smaller reactor or mount more guns to use that excess power. And maybe lose a layer of armor, or just drop some deployment time. You have 120 days of deployment, but only 58 days of fuel. You could save some weight there too, to mount more guns etc. It's a solid start, but it needs some tweaking unfortunately.

Still, I wouldn't worry too much about building the "best" ship or even a "very good" ship. Build the ships you want to build... just don't complain if they get blown to hell, ok?

--- EDIT: Although I mis-read the class at first, and my own for that matter, my thoughts remain largely the same. Reduced deployment, more MSP and/or less Engineering Spaces, potentially one less layer of armor, potentially smaller Beam FCS. You can get away with about 40,000~60,000 km FCS range and do just fine. The FCS as given is very accurate though and not really a problem, so much as something you could get away with slimming down if you so chose. More fuel would be a good thing to have, maybe doubling it to match your deployment time, that way you go further before needing a re-fuel. As is, to go 4 months out, you'll either need a tanker or to stop at a re-fueling point along the way. Re-fueling takes time in C#, so this could be a problem if time is of the essence... and when it comes to defense, it so very often is. If you're going to use a tanker though, the 4 months is advantageous. Again, not a problem per se, but rather something you could either beef up to improve the ship, or slim down to free up mass for something that would.