Posted by: Arwyn
« on: April 25, 2021, 02:31:05 AM »The logistics problems that most people usually associate with missile fleets apply equally to beam fleets too. Beam ships are strictly superior to missiles only when they can achieve a perfect victory without taking losses, which is very very unlikely unless you're at a substantial tech advantage. Refilling the magazines of a fleet is significantly cheaper than needing to outright replace 20-30% of the fleet after each engagement, especially considering the loss of experienced crew. Plus, beam ships need to be faster so they're going to need more gallicite anyway, and they're usually a bigger burden on fuel and MSP. Worse, they pretty much need to be replaced every engine generation, unlike missile ships, which have no issues with using obsolete engines or shooting obsolete missiles.
I agree, sort of. The thing is, even if your running pure missile fleets, you have some other classes present for AM duties, or you have really big expensive ships. Missiles eat lots of mass on ships with launchers and magazines, add anything else and you get very expensive (and big) ships. Even if thats AMM boats.
So, if your talking about refit/replacement, I have yet to have an equal fight were I didnt take damage/casualties. Now, unequal fights, sure. I have had missile fleets walk away scot-free after barfing a literal wall of missiles at an enemy and obliterating them before they got in range. Fun when it happens. I have also creamed enemy fleets with fighter strikes they couldnt detect. Also fun when it works.The majority of the time though, (assuming your not gaming the system) your going to have damage no matter the fleet composition. So your going to being investing in replacements, no matter what.
Where there is some trade off is that obsolete beams are useful longer, at least IMO. If you have a beam ship, they are still of some use even as obsolete platforms. Missiles are a lot harder, as you get more than a generation back, or worse, your hit rate effectiveness drop and the enemy counter outpace them. So, if you invest in upgrading engines and fire controls, while expensive, is still cheaper than building a net new ship, most of the time. Obviously at some point it is counter productive to upgrade and its better to scrap and recover minerals. Those beam ships arent great for front line service, but make decent pickets and patrol vessels. Thats as true in Aurora as it is in the real world. There are still WW2 vintage vessels in active service as patrol craft including minesweepers, corvettes, and tank landing craft.
Fun fact, the Russian Navy has the longest continuously serving naval vessel. Originally commissioned in 1915 (World War 1!) as the salvage ship Volkov, the ship was renamed after the Revolution as the Kommuna. She is still in service as a sub tender today.
So, those (smaller) obsolete beam ships can get shuffled off as patrol craft and military strength to backwater systems. More importantly, they dont need a fleet train to support them or dedicated ammo depots, just maint facilities.
I do tend to disagree with missile replenishment being cheaper all the time. I have absolutely run into issues with minerals in sustained wars due to the missile replenishment eating me alive. This is actually one of the reasons I dont use box launchers as primary missile systems. They are Godawful expensive to feed, and they do tend to either A) Overkill the hell out of stuff, wasting missiles or B) Shoot their bolt and have to run away from the battle. There is also they annoying tendency for box launchers to blow up when struck, and I have had that happen enough to find them not worth it on bigger ships, especially early game. I use them all the time on fighters and small craft though.
In particular, AMM ships EAT missiles by the fistful. I have had them consistently be one of the biggest replenishment issues. That was one thing that has caught me a couple of times.
Tactically, I agree with your assessment. Missile boats are more efficient cost wise. Strategically, they are more expensive in sustainment, infrastructure support, and logistics chain. Particularly the longer the shooting war goes, beams just tend to be a better investment over longer periods.