Aurora 4x
C# Aurora => C# Bureau of Design => Topic started by: Alsadius on April 15, 2020, 09:53:04 AM
-
I just managed to squeeze in a nice little laser-equipped fighter, at fairly low tech levels.
Apollo class Fighter (P) 500 tons 23 Crew 85.1 BP TCS 10 TH 87 EM 0
8707 km/s Armour 1-5 Shields 0-0 HTK 3 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0 PPV 3
Maint Life 5.16 Years MSP 26 AFR 8% IFR 0.1% 1YR 2 5YR 24 Max Repair 43.75 MSP
Commander Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 3 days Morale Check Required
FAC Improved Nuclear Pulse Engine EP87.50 (1) Power 87.5 Fuel Use 401.06% Signature 87.50 Explosion 17%
Fuel Capacity 1 000 Litres Range 0.1 billion km (2 hours at full power)
10cm C3 Near Ultraviolet Laser (1) Range 16 000km TS: 8 707 km/s Power 3-3 RM 30 000 km ROF 5
Beam Fire Control R16-TS8000 (1) Max Range: 16 000 km TS: 8 000 km/s 75 50 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fighter Improved Pebble Bed Reactor R3-PB10 (1) Total Power Output 3 Exp 7%
Active Micro-Sensor AS10-R100 (1) GPS 160 Range 11m km Resolution 100
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction
I managed to get a 0.1 HS sensor in, so it can spot its own targets, as well as a tiny engineering space so it can repair a laser failure on firing. Everything is squeezed to the bone to fit it all in (the exact size is 9.9908 HS), but it does work. Doesn't even need a reduced-size laser, either.
I think the loss of fighter-specific beam fire controls might not hurt as badly as we were afraid of. That BFC is 25% range, 200% speed = 12.5 tons. Even if I felt the need to jack it up to 4x speed, you can still fit that in a fighter.
-
Nice, yes, but that's ten times the size I'd call "little."
-
Nice, yes, but that's ten times the size I'd call "little."
All fighters are little ;)
-
Quite a thicc fighter, still props for a good low tech design
-
Quite a thicc fighter, still props for a good low tech design
The 250-ton engine that I designed for my FACs was a bit much. But laser ships do need to go faster, so hey, why not?
(Also, it makes my OCD happy to not have any unused space in my hangars. I don't normally manage it, but it's nice when it works out that way.)
-
My only critique would be the engineering space.
I think you only need MSP for weapon failures. Also, you could get more MSP by switching to from a Fighter-Sized Engineering Bay, then adding a Fighter & Tiny Maintenance Storage Bay.
-
My only critique would be the engineering space.
I think you only need MSP for weapon failures. Also, you could get more MSP by switching to a Fighter-Sized Engineering Bay, then adding a Fighter & Tiny Maintenance Storage Bay.
No, the Apollo class are quite capable of blowing up on their own, with max repair of 44 and only 26 MSP on board.
-
The ship can still break with regular failure chances as well. At 0.1% on a cheap fighter I'll take my chances, especially since it has enough MSP to survive anything but an engine failure, and it won't ever be outside for very long. But it's a risk. It actually becomes a somewhat meaningful risk if you get rid of engineering spaces entirely - with none, there's a 1.4% failure chance per interval.
I tested the changed maintenance setup that you suggested. That gets me to 70 MSP with a 0.3% failure chance per interval. It even drops the cost of the ship a bit, from 85.1 to 84.3 BP. I've changed it accordingly.
-
You need to increase the range on the BFC. That fighter will be largely ineffective against a force that moves 4000 km/s and has better reaction than it, (unless reaction rules changed and I didn't notice.)
As a general rule of thumb, you should always look at at (expected enemy speed * 5) as the minimum presumed beam engagement range.
This is the main reason I mostly stopped using Gauss fighters.
-
From: The DeadlyShoe
You need to increase the range on the BFC. That fighter will be largely ineffective against a force that moves 4000 km/s and has better reaction than it, (unless reaction rules changed and I didn't notice.)
As a general rule of thumb, you should always look at at (expected enemy speed * 5) as the minimum presumed beam engagement range.
This is the main reason I mostly stopped using Gauss fighters.
Or you could just go faster?
Your rule of thumb assumes the enemy is faster, but also assumes that they have better range than you too. Otherwise the speed is irrelevant if they have to stay within your firing range to shoot back. Conversely if you out speed them, you can just control the engagement range. Speed & Range is more of an "and / or" thing rather than a "one or another" thing.
EDIT: Checked the design again, saw what you were talking about. My bad. :-[
-
You need to act faster or the speed doesn't matter. Enemy will just get the move after you and move out of range
-
@Doren
- Good catch! I forgot about the initiative bit, but that's more of a commander thing then a design thing.
-
BTW
TheDeadlyShoe is still right about your Beam FCS range, 20,000 km is minimum for anything that isn't Final Defensive Fire.
-
In general I'm not much for beam fighters unless they are used as interceptors to engage enemy unarmed scouts or commercial ships. Any other larger ship with a decent set of weapons just have to sneeze in the fighters basic vicinity and they die.
The problem with beam fighters is their paper thin armour and vulnerable internal components.
-
I thought initiative was mostly random, no? (I don't have much combat experience tbh)
Also, what's this 20,000 km rule? Is that just five seconds times the presumed enemy speed of 4000 km/s, or is it a hard rule?
-
In general I'm not much for beam fighters unless they are used as interceptors to engage enemy unarmed scouts or commercial ships. Any other larger ship with a decent set of weapons just have to sneeze in the fighters basic vicinity and they die.
The problem with beam fighters is their paper thin armour and vulnerable internal components.
Beam fighters make good pickets. Pair them with a scout fighter and use them to intercept enemy missile fighters before they can get their missiles away.
-
It's just some wonkiness with initiative and things at less than 10,000 km that aren't firing at missiles in final fire. It was in VB6.
Basically, if you engaged the enemy at 10,000km, but didn't get to move first, the enemy would move away 9/10. This movement in VB6 did not provoke return fire unless you had a beam FCS with more than 10k km range. So depending on the speed of the enemy, according to vb6 rules, you might not get a shot off with your ship, but the enemy will... depending on your turn order.
20,000 km range was simply the range where no matter what, the enemy would provoke reaction fire. It had to do with weirdness in the per increment cycle. Missiles also had a thing where at 10k km or less pd wouldn't fire. That was fixed in C#. Unsure about the beam thing though.
However, IIRC, reaction has changed in C#.
Officers in VB6 had an "Initiative" rating. It influenced turn order.
-
since the smallest interval is 5 seconds, anything under 20k km is very easily out-ranged.
-
In general I'm not much for beam fighters unless they are used as interceptors to engage enemy unarmed scouts or commercial ships. Any other larger ship with a decent set of weapons just have to sneeze in the fighters basic vicinity and they die.
The problem with beam fighters is their paper thin armour and vulnerable internal components.
Beam fighters make good pickets. Pair them with a scout fighter and use them to intercept enemy missile fighters before they can get their missiles away.
Yes... that is one way I use them... as interceptors to target stuff that have relatively low chance to attack them. Although even missile fighter will have a decent chance to destroy them before they get to fire though in C# as even a 100 resolution FC can target a fighter at a decent distance now and that is if the fighters don't have their own anti fighter/FAC escort with them which they might in a multi-human faction game. ;)
Beam fighters have its use... but FAC armed with beams are something I generally prefer. Interceptors tend to be mostly for engaging enemy missiles and the occasional unarmed scout or commercial ship.
-
Gauss make good orbital bombardment in C#. Small ones are also nice for cramming a little extra oomph into a railgun fighter, or some pd into a missile fighter. Better for FACs in that role though.
Railguns, the 10cm ones, are great PD, and excellent for making attacks of opportunity.
High-Powered Microwaves, specifically the 10cm ones, fit neatly in a 10cm railgun fighter design. You can't refit fighters, but they make nice anti-fighter compliments and don't need a total re-design. I like them as a variant for my fighter commanders.
Mesons... are nerfed to hell. Not good for a fighter.
Lasers make a damn good weapon for countering enemy beam fighters of other types. Reduced size ones also hit really, really hard and make a nice alpha due to their speed, which allows them to evade fire better then other ships. Knowing there are fighters on the way and being able to do something about it are very different things.
Try to use some long range AMMs from your supporting ships to create a "strike envelope". A nice sized Res 1 sensors, plus a Res 1 MFCS to match, paired with Long Range AMMs can allow you to shoot down enemy missiles that engage your fighters.
-
Beam fighters are fine as long as you treat them as detachable beam mounts rather than trying to chase down enemy fleets from range. It's simply not practical for beam fighters to have enough point defence capability to knock down AMM salvos in a remotely even fight. In my experience, they work well with Battlestar strategies.
-
Also, what's this 20,000 km rule? Is that just five seconds times the presumed enemy speed of 4000 km/s, or is it a hard rule?
Because beam weapon accuracy actually ramps hyperbolicly to infinite at 0 km, the 'to hit' calculation treats all ranges of less than 10,000 km as 10,000 km. This means if you have a fire control that can't reach 10,000 km (say, because they are low tech and you went for reduced range to get reduced size) it will never hit anything.
-
I think that 23 crew might be an issue.. Military Hangars now add 20 crew berths each. So in general carriers can support fighters with 1 crew per 1 HS.
-
I thought initiative was mostly random, no? (I don't have much combat experience tbh)
Also, what's this 20,000 km rule? Is that just five seconds times the presumed enemy speed of 4000 km/s, or is it a hard rule?
You have 100 percent chance multiplier to hit at 50 percent max range for beam fire control. You have 50 percent chance multiplier at max range.
Since 10k is min range, you want BFC to be at least 20k so you can get max percent chance to hit at 10k (point blank).
EDIT: After testing a bit I think this is wrong and the 20k thing only applies to final fire PD.
-
I think that 23 crew might be an issue.. Military Hangars now add 20 crew berths each. So in general carriers can support fighters with 1 crew per 1 HS.
C# Aurora should be ignoring parasite craft actual crew rating in the assumption that the built-in '20 per Hangar' is sufficient. The actual crew numbers will only come up once the carrier takes internal damage to life support and/or crew members.
-
Made with the auto assigned starting tech + I researched improved nuclear pulse engines and some fuel efficiency tech.
The range is meant so it can cover Saturn inwards of Sol. perhaps a size 0.2 sensor would be better incase of missiles. I could probably get it faster with lower range if I wanted to but it's really just meant to be a very light fight to chase down targets that have been hit with missiles and finish them off. I have better active sensors on pretty much everything (size 1 with res 1 10x the size, even on civ ships) so they should be fine at defending against missiles hopefully with the bonus to hit from tracking them. The chance to hit a 10000km/s target is listed as 10 percent. 20000km/s is 5 percent. Have not tested them yet.
You can get a 9000km\s fighter with matching BFC with half the range and maybe 2 or 3 less gauss if you wanted to with same tech.
Dagger class Fighter 500 tons 16 Crew 67.4 BP TCS 10 TH 60 EM 0
6009 km/s Armour 1-5 Shields 0-0 HTK 5 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0 PPV 3
Maint Life 3.97 Years MSP 8 AFR 20% IFR 0.3% 1YR 1 5YR 12 Max Repair 7.50 MSP
Commander Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 7 months Morale Check Required
Improved Nuclear Pulse Engine EP15.00 (4) Power 60.0 Fuel Use 697.14% Signature 15.00 Explosion 15%
Fuel Capacity 50 000 Litres Range 2.6 billion km (4 days at full power)
Gauss Cannon R200-8.00 (6x3) Range 12 000km TS: 6 009 km/s Accuracy Modifier 8.00% RM 20 000 km ROF 5
Beam Fire Control R12-TS6000 (1) Max Range: 12 000 km TS: 6 000 km/s 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Active Search Sensor AS1-R1 (1) GPS 2 Range 1.5m km MCR 136.2k km Resolution 1
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction
-
You'd be better off with one (33% I believe?) Gauss Cannon instead of 3x 8% gauss cannon. Sure, you think they're nice and small and perfect for a fighter, but that 8% chance to hit means that they'll generally miss hitting what they're shooting at.
-
You'd be better off with one (33% I believe?) Gauss Cannon instead of 3x 8% gauss cannon. Sure, you think they're nice and small and perfect for a fighter, but that 8% chance to hit means that they'll generally miss hitting what they're shooting at.
Math says you are wrong. Also that's 6 gauss cannons not 3.
Expected value of the fighter's weapons is 3.06 with a deviation. If I put 1 100 percent gauss on the fighter it would be just 3 but always 3.
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=11325.0
-
You'd be better off with one (33% I believe?) Gauss Cannon instead of 3x 8% gauss cannon. Sure, you think they're nice and small and perfect for a fighter, but that 8% chance to hit means that they'll generally miss hitting what they're shooting at.
Math says you are wrong. Also that's 6 gauss cannons not 3.
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=11325.0
17% are probably one of the better choices if you can fit it into the design... the main reason is that it is the smallest cannon at 50t that also have 1 HTK... it also have a slight edge in to-hit for its size... even it is a very small difference.
The main problem with PD fighters is that fighter no longer get advantage in the fire-controls anymore... so it will become very expansive to make PD fighters. I would still make them but I would make them relatively large and would also consider FAC sized PD versions even to protect bomber squadrons. Rail-guns can probably also be more efficient than Gauss in that role due to speed benefits.
-
You'd be better off with one (33% I believe?) Gauss Cannon instead of 3x 8% gauss cannon. Sure, you think they're nice and small and perfect for a fighter, but that 8% chance to hit means that they'll generally miss hitting what they're shooting at.
Math says you are wrong. Also that's 6 gauss cannons not 3.
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=11325.0
17% are probably one of the better choices if you can fit it into the design... the main reason is that it is the smallest cannon at 50t that also have 1 HTK... it also have a slight edge in to-hit for its size... even it is a very small difference.
The main problem with PD fighters is that fighter no longer get advantage in the fire-controls anymore... so it will become very expansive to make PD fighters. I would still make them but I would make them relatively large and would also consider FAC sized PD versions even to protect bomber squadrons. Rail-guns can probably also be more efficient than Gauss in that role due to speed benefits.
The changes to BFC made almost no differences. You can put them 0.25x range and then set the tracking speed equal to the fighters movement speed unless you are using turreted Gauss, and it's pretty much the same as in VB.
-
The 250-ton engine that I designed for my FACs was a bit much. But laser ships do need to go faster, so hey, why not?
From a reliability viewpoint, two engines is always better than one. With that in mind, I always use two or more engines on all designs, even if a single engine design is better on paper.
-
You'd be better off with one (33% I believe?) Gauss Cannon instead of 3x 8% gauss cannon. Sure, you think they're nice and small and perfect for a fighter, but that 8% chance to hit means that they'll generally miss hitting what they're shooting at.
Math says you are wrong. Also that's 6 gauss cannons not 3.
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=11325.0
17% are probably one of the better choices if you can fit it into the design... the main reason is that it is the smallest cannon at 50t that also have 1 HTK... it also have a slight edge in to-hit for its size... even it is a very small difference.
The main problem with PD fighters is that fighter no longer get advantage in the fire-controls anymore... so it will become very expansive to make PD fighters. I would still make them but I would make them relatively large and would also consider FAC sized PD versions even to protect bomber squadrons. Rail-guns can probably also be more efficient than Gauss in that role due to speed benefits.
You'd be better off with one (33% I believe?) Gauss Cannon instead of 3x 8% gauss cannon. Sure, you think they're nice and small and perfect for a fighter, but that 8% chance to hit means that they'll generally miss hitting what they're shooting at.
Some play testing has revealed the bigger gauss are better.
-
Also, what's this 20,000 km rule? Is that just five seconds times the presumed enemy speed of 4000 km/s, or is it a hard rule?
Because beam weapon accuracy actually ramps hyperbolicly to infinite at 0 km, the 'to hit' calculation treats all ranges of less than 10,000 km as 10,000 km. This means if you have a fire control that can't reach 10,000 km (say, because they are low tech and you went for reduced range to get reduced size) it will never hit anything.
Where did you get that from? BFCs start with 100% CTH at 0km and decrease linearly to 0% at their rated range. This is why BFCs should have at least twice the rated range of their attached weapon. Beam FDF mode is calculated at 10k because that is the base distance unit in Aurora. As such a BFC with 10k km range has base a 0% CTH. A BFC with a 20k km range paired with a Gauss cannon with a 10k km range will have a 50% CTH before speed penalty.
To illustrate, this BFC is rated exactly 100k km. CTH numbers start at 10k and are in 10k increments.
Beam Fire Control R100-TS25000 (1) Max Range: 100,000 km TS: 25,000 km/s 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Edit: Note that this is a change from VB Aurora where BFCs had a 50% CTH instead of 0% at their rated range.
Edit2: Scratch that. C# component design screen shows BFC stats at max range while VB component design shows stats at 1/2 range. Aside from the name, the parts are identical.
-
You'd be better off with one (33% I believe?) Gauss Cannon instead of 3x 8% gauss cannon. Sure, you think they're nice and small and perfect for a fighter, but that 8% chance to hit means that they'll generally miss hitting what they're shooting at.
Math says you are wrong. Also that's 6 gauss cannons not 3.
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=11325.0
17% are probably one of the better choices if you can fit it into the design... the main reason is that it is the smallest cannon at 50t that also have 1 HTK... it also have a slight edge in to-hit for its size... even it is a very small difference.
The main problem with PD fighters is that fighter no longer get advantage in the fire-controls anymore... so it will become very expansive to make PD fighters. I would still make them but I would make them relatively large and would also consider FAC sized PD versions even to protect bomber squadrons. Rail-guns can probably also be more efficient than Gauss in that role due to speed benefits.
The changes to BFC made almost no differences. You can put them 0.25x range and then set the tracking speed equal to the fighters movement speed unless you are using turreted Gauss, and it's pretty much the same as in VB.
I don't consider a 4x size penalty 'almost no difference'. Fighters are cramped as it is and a 4x speed/0.25x range BFC is still 10% of a max size fighter. On top of that, for a 0.25x range BFC to have a 50% CTH at 10k km (ie: minimum range) requires a racial range of 80k km, which costs 30k RP with prereqs. That makes beam fighters prohibitively expensive in the early game.
-
You'd be better off with one (33% I believe?) Gauss Cannon instead of 3x 8% gauss cannon. Sure, you think they're nice and small and perfect for a fighter, but that 8% chance to hit means that they'll generally miss hitting what they're shooting at.
Math says you are wrong. Also that's 6 gauss cannons not 3.
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=11325.0
17% are probably one of the better choices if you can fit it into the design... the main reason is that it is the smallest cannon at 50t that also have 1 HTK... it also have a slight edge in to-hit for its size... even it is a very small difference.
The main problem with PD fighters is that fighter no longer get advantage in the fire-controls anymore... so it will become very expansive to make PD fighters. I would still make them but I would make them relatively large and would also consider FAC sized PD versions even to protect bomber squadrons. Rail-guns can probably also be more efficient than Gauss in that role due to speed benefits.
The changes to BFC made almost no differences. You can put them 0.25x range and then set the tracking speed equal to the fighters movement speed unless you are using turreted Gauss, and it's pretty much the same as in VB.
I don't consider a 4x size penalty 'almost no difference'. Fighters are cramped as it is and a 4x speed/0.25x range BFC is still 10% of a max size fighter. On top of that, for a 0.25x range BFC to have a 50% CTH at 10k km (ie: minimum range) requires a racial range of 80k km, which costs 30k RP with prereqs. That makes beam fighters prohibitively expensive in the early game.
it ends up being 13tons. That is much less than 10 percent.
-
Well, 25t actually and this one would need 1/2 range instead of the 1/4 I used, so 50t ;)
Max Range 8 000 km Tracking Speed 5 000 km/s
Size 0.50 HS (25 tons) HTK 0
Chance of destruction by electronic damage 100%
Cost 2.0 Crew 2
-
Well, 25t actually and this one would need 1/2 range instead of the 1/4 I used, so 50t ;)
Max Range 8 000 km Tracking Speed 5 000 km/s
Size 0.50 HS (25 tons) HTK 0
Chance of destruction by electronic damage 100%
Cost 2.0 Crew 2
These are my current fighter BFC's:
Beam Fire Control R22-TS10000
Max Range 21 760 km Tracking Speed 10 000 km/s
Cost 10.9 Size 21 tons Crew 2 HTK 0
Base Chance to hit 100%
Materials Required: Uridium 10.9
I was using 13ton ones before.
-
Yup, but for "early/low-tech game" the weight is kinda prohibitive, later on I am using beam PD-fighters myself.
-
Well, 25t actually and this one would need 1/2 range instead of the 1/4 I used, so 50t ;)
Max Range 8 000 km Tracking Speed 5 000 km/s
Size 0.50 HS (25 tons) HTK 0
Chance of destruction by electronic damage 100%
Cost 2.0 Crew 2
This BFC has a 0% CTH at the 10k km minimum range.
-
Yup, that's why I mentioned that it needs to be twice as large (50t) - 16kkm range for still fairly bad chances to hit.
-
Well, 25t actually and this one would need 1/2 range instead of the 1/4 I used, so 50t ;)
Max Range 8 000 km Tracking Speed 5 000 km/s
Size 0.50 HS (25 tons) HTK 0
Chance of destruction by electronic damage 100%
Cost 2.0 Crew 2
This BFC has a 0% CTH at the 10k km minimum range.
From what I have seen in play testing it will only be 0 percent for missiles and will still be able to hit ships when they are right on top of them.
-
Yup, that's why I mentioned that it needs to be twice as large (50t) - 16kkm range for still fairly bad chances to hit.
Ah, sorry. Reading comprehension FTW. A 37.5% range factor is pretty bad, and the low speed doesn't exactly do it any favours, either.
Well, 25t actually and this one would need 1/2 range instead of the 1/4 I used, so 50t ;)
Max Range 8 000 km Tracking Speed 5 000 km/s
Size 0.50 HS (25 tons) HTK 0
Chance of destruction by electronic damage 100%
Cost 2.0 Crew 2
This BFC has a 0% CTH at the 10k km minimum range.
From what I have seen in play testing it will only be 0 percent for missiles and will still be able to hit ships when they are right on top of them.
Even if that is true it still means that fighter based PD simply isn't viable early game. Cheers.
-
Yup, that's why I mentioned that it needs to be twice as large (50t) - 16kkm range for still fairly bad chances to hit.
Ah, sorry. Reading comprehension FTW. A 37.5% range factor is pretty bad, and the low speed doesn't exactly do it any favours, either.
Well, 25t actually and this one would need 1/2 range instead of the 1/4 I used, so 50t ;)
Max Range 8 000 km Tracking Speed 5 000 km/s
Size 0.50 HS (25 tons) HTK 0
Chance of destruction by electronic damage 100%
Cost 2.0 Crew 2
This BFC has a 0% CTH at the 10k km minimum range.
From what I have seen in play testing it will only be 0 percent for missiles and will still be able to hit ships when they are right on top of them.
Even if that is true it still means that fighter based PD simply isn't viable early game. Cheers.
There is no reason to ever use fighters as PD except for rail gun high speed fighters anyways. 1 500 ton fighter can kill a 50000ton ship with no beam weapons tho.
Even fighters with max tracking speed with best possible PD will die to AAM's so thinking fighters are good for PD is a mistake cause they can't tank 1 damage hits effectively without giving up their speed thus their own to hit.
-
Yup, that's why I mentioned that it needs to be twice as large (50t) - 16kkm range for still fairly bad chances to hit.
Ah, sorry. Reading comprehension FTW. A 37.5% range factor is pretty bad, and the low speed doesn't exactly do it any favours, either.
Well, 25t actually and this one would need 1/2 range instead of the 1/4 I used, so 50t ;)
Max Range 8 000 km Tracking Speed 5 000 km/s
Size 0.50 HS (25 tons) HTK 0
Chance of destruction by electronic damage 100%
Cost 2.0 Crew 2
This BFC has a 0% CTH at the 10k km minimum range.
From what I have seen in play testing it will only be 0 percent for missiles and will still be able to hit ships when they are right on top of them.
Even if that is true it still means that fighter based PD simply isn't viable early game. Cheers.
There is no reason to ever use fighters as PD except for rail gun high speed fighters anyways. 1 500 ton fighter can kill a 50000ton ship with no beam weapons tho.
Even fighters with max tracking speed with best possible PD will die to AAM's so thinking fighters are good for PD is a mistake cause they can't tank 1 damage hits effectively without giving up their speed thus their own to hit.
Nerfing fighter BFCs has effectively eliminated beam fighters, including railgun PD, as an early game option.
Ship-to-ship missile combat is normally at long range, well beyond where the enemy can detect PD fighters.
-
Lets agree that they are not very efective as PD, but I think that they have their uses at higher tech levels.
E.g.
Interceptor Mk2 class Interceptor 473 tons 22 Crew 195.4 BP TCS 9 TH 225 EM 0
23808 km/s Armour 1-5 Shields 0-0 HTK 6 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0 PPV 5
Maint Life 6.37 Years MSP 125 AFR 18% IFR 0.2% 1YR 5 5YR 79 Max Repair 112.5 MSP
Commander Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 3 days Morale Check Required
Boost 3 Magnetic Fusion Drive EP225.00 (1) Power 225 Fuel Use 1423.02% Signature 225 Explosion 30%
Fuel Capacity 10 000 Litres Range 0.3 billion km (3 hours at full power)
Gauss Cannon R400-17.00 (5x5) Range 24 000km TS: 23 808 km/s Accuracy Modifier 17.00% RM 40 000 km ROF 5
Beam Fire Control R24-TS20000 (1) Max Range: 24 000 km TS: 20 000 km/s 58 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction
The hit chance is actually a bit better than it should be. Decent PD per ton, but bad PD per BP in my opinion. But it has it uses when protecting a flight of missile bombers (fighters) which are very unlikely to be targeted by AMMs and as additional protection for carrier tasks groups when on the defense.
Edit: At current tech levels a better BFC should actually help, it should hit 1-2 missiles moving at 40kkm, equal tech railguns should perform pretty similar (with a even larger R96-TS20000 BFC).
Interceptor Mk2 class Interceptor 499 tons 24 Crew 219.5 BP TCS 10 TH 225 EM 0
22583 km/s Armour 1-5 Shields 0-0 HTK 7 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0 PPV 5
Maint Life 5.90 Years MSP 127 AFR 20% IFR 0.3% 1YR 6 5YR 93 Max Repair 112.5 MSP
Commander Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 3 days Morale Check Required
Boost 3 Magnetic Fusion Drive EP225.00 (1) Power 225 Fuel Use 1423.02% Signature 225 Explosion 30%
Fuel Capacity 10 000 Litres Range 0.3 billion km (3 hours at full power)
Gauss Cannon R400-17.00 (5x5) Range 40 000km TS: 22 583 km/s Accuracy Modifier 17.00% RM 40 000 km ROF 5
Beam Fire Control R48-TS20000 (1) Max Range: 48 000 km TS: 20 000 km/s 79 58 38 17 0 0 0 0 0 0
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction
-
Lets agree that they are not very efective as PD, but I think that they have their uses at higher tech levels.
E.g.
Interceptor Mk2 class Interceptor 473 tons 22 Crew 195.4 BP TCS 9 TH 225 EM 0
23808 km/s Armour 1-5 Shields 0-0 HTK 6 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0 PPV 5
Maint Life 6.37 Years MSP 125 AFR 18% IFR 0.2% 1YR 5 5YR 79 Max Repair 112.5 MSP
Commander Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 3 days Morale Check Required
Boost 3 Magnetic Fusion Drive EP225.00 (1) Power 225 Fuel Use 1423.02% Signature 225 Explosion 30%
Fuel Capacity 10 000 Litres Range 0.3 billion km (3 hours at full power)
Gauss Cannon R400-17.00 (5x5) Range 24 000km TS: 23 808 km/s Accuracy Modifier 17.00% RM 40 000 km ROF 5
Beam Fire Control R24-TS20000 (1) Max Range: 24 000 km TS: 20 000 km/s 58 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction
The hit chance is actually a bit better than it should be. Decent PD per ton, but bad PD per BP in my opinion. But it has it uses when protecting a flight of missile bombers (fighters) which are very unlikely to be targeted by AMMs and as additional protection for carrier tasks groups when on the defense.
Edit: At current tech levels a better BFC should actually help, it should hit 1-2 missiles moving at 40kkm, equal tech railguns should perform pretty similar (with a even larger R96-TS20000 BFC).
Interceptor Mk2 class Interceptor 499 tons 24 Crew 219.5 BP TCS 10 TH 225 EM 0
22583 km/s Armour 1-5 Shields 0-0 HTK 7 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0 PPV 5
Maint Life 5.90 Years MSP 127 AFR 20% IFR 0.3% 1YR 6 5YR 93 Max Repair 112.5 MSP
Commander Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 3 days Morale Check Required
Boost 3 Magnetic Fusion Drive EP225.00 (1) Power 225 Fuel Use 1423.02% Signature 225 Explosion 30%
Fuel Capacity 10 000 Litres Range 0.3 billion km (3 hours at full power)
Gauss Cannon R400-17.00 (5x5) Range 40 000km TS: 22 583 km/s Accuracy Modifier 17.00% RM 40 000 km ROF 5
Beam Fire Control R48-TS20000 (1) Max Range: 48 000 km TS: 20 000 km/s 79 58 38 17 0 0 0 0 0 0
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction
I am finding that for early game the smallest caliber railguns are good on fighters and later lasers seem quite effective. I have long given up on guass as a source of PD or damage on fighters, the cannnons are simply too large and the reduction on chance to hit seems to hit it much harder than I thought.
-
Yeah, the same setup with a railgun would be slightly better (with the mentioned larger BFC). 90% chance to hit vs. 20kkm x 4 shots = 3,6 hits and this Gauss would do 79% x 17% x 25 shots = 3,36 hits using simple math.
At a ROF of 6 the Gauss should be better and I have forgotten if statistically the larger number of shots would make it more likely to hit those 3 or 4 missiles already at a ROF of 5 for the Gauss. But yes, the dual use of railguns is nice and I am using them in my new game.