Aurora 4x
C# Aurora => General Discussion => Topic started by: SpaceMarine on January 23, 2021, 10:55:55 PM
-
As some people may know I have had carrier design tutorials in the work for quite a while now, and I have decided that I am looking for input regarding what people would like to see, this can be what you think people generally overlook about carriers, mechanics you dont see talked about a lot, things you want me to clear up or look into specifically and the like.
At the time of writing this I am just into writing the script and am about 40% into chapter 3 of 6 of the first tutorial, an important note as well is because of the fact I am writing all of this down as a guide I will also be releasing the finished version of it as a written guide once its done, and it will accompany the video, I am also doing draft scripts so once i have completed one Il release it for feedback and either edit or work on a second one, so you guys can have further input if you so wish.
so Any input on things people would want to see in such a tutorial would be grand.
-
I'd like to see what the shortcuts are to alleviate micro-work with carriers, using sub-fleets effectively, auto-refit etc.
Clear info on what and how supplies, fuel and ammo are transferred and what is needed for that is also appreciated.
-
Way back in VB6, I had the thought that I didn't want to suddenly start an entire carrier+fighter infrastructure when I got the magic technology, box launchers, that made strike craft possible. So I started using fighters in a lot of roles, primarily scouts.
I had the pinnace class, which was basically a fighter with a single ship jump engine and enough endurance to go 100 billion km or so. It was purposed to probe jump points before I researched a much larger jump tender engine and then built tenders. Originally intended as a stopgap design, I realized I could probe with relatively inexpensive ships, and their slow speed could be compensated for a bit by simply having lots of them, ready to probe new systems that were discovered.
Once I had jump engines capable of sending more than one ship through, I could make probes that did not have to waste space on their own jump engine, and because they only needed 10-20 billion km range to probe a single system, they could be much faster.
I also had surveillance satellites, either completely empty ships that had the standard 1 power EM and TH sensors, or satellites built to commercial standards with an engineering space and sensors no larger than 1 HS. My survey support carriers would put one on both sides of any discovered jump point.
My initial carriers were long endurance, fairly small, designed to support survey and scout forces.
Colonial security can be greatly augmented by having a carrier full of scout craft that can shadow an enemy, and gather detailed information about them. The colonial security mission would not require the 3-5 year crew endurance that a survey support carrier mission would prefer. It would also include more armed ships, as part of the colonial security mission would be the capacity to kill enemy unarmed ships like survey craft and jump point stabilization ships.
Going beyond the Colonial Security mission, into offensive and defensive strike carrier missions, a VERY important consideration is the possibility of formerly neutral powers attempting to Pearl Harbor your fleet. This is more for multiempire games, RP, than a solo play vs the AI consideration.
On the one hand, carriers that are largely empty boxes that launch from beyond range of the enemy detection are clearly going to be the most efficient in terms of build points, that kind of sucks from an RP perspective. If you have a player vs player thing, the possibility of someone simply waiting until the slow carrier force is vulnerable, and can't run away, is anxiety inducing. The AI does not understand patience or deception.
When designing your carrier force, have a good idea of the missions you will be sending them on.
A defensive strike carrier mission could be to cover a jump point, with the capability of launching their complement and withdrawing through the jump point. The theory would be you could detect an approaching force from far out, and by the time they detected your strike force, they would be too deep inside your fighter envelope to withdraw. Such a mission would require long crew endurance and maintenance endurance, but possibly not so much magazine space for multiple missions.
An offensive carrier mission, on the other hand, only needs as much endurance as to get to the expected area, fight for maybe a month or two, and withdraw. But you will want more magazine space, both for multiple missions and so that the various strike missions can have mission load outs that are efficient for the mission. The missiles that are sufficient for taking out freighters would not be ideal for penetrating the point defense of an enemy battlegroup.
There is also the assault carrier mission, where you have to go through a contested jump point to clear it.
-
- Some very important things I see overlooked in CV designs:
1. Supplies: The most common design flaw I see in CV design is one of of supply, or rather a lack of it. Fuel and MSP being the most egregious, while missile reloads is far less common. Overall, all but the smallest of CVs need to carry some fuel and MSP with which to sortie their craft, or conversely the craft themselves will need to furnish it, but this isn't a great way for newbie's to do it. Conversely, a CV should be designed with the expectation to operate with support ships close at hand, to maintain tempo of operations. Don't overload them, the key is to have enough supplies to cover one or two of the expected engagements, and then fall back on a dedicated supply chain to up the ante as needed.
2. Payload: Many newbie CV designs seem to either have too much or too little in the way of payload. Not so much the fighters, but rather weapons, shields, etc. on the CV itself. Most CVs in my experience do not benefit from more than armor and some rudimentary Beam PD or shields. They don't benefit from being sitting ducks either, and should at least carry either a good sensors compliment and minor passive defenses or moderate defenses of both types. I have seen some CV designs which incorporate missile launchers and missile-based strike craft, this is a big no-no as they will be competing for magazine space.
3. Jump Drives, PFC * Strike Groups: No. I put Jump Drives on my CVs, but my CVs are HOOGE. For a newbie, offload that to a Jump Ship. Jump Drives eat up precious mission tonnage and aren't a good choice unless you no exactly what you are going to do with them. That Jump Ship can also be used elsewhere in peace time freeing up the CVs to sit in dock when not in use. Primary Flight Control is a must have once 1.13 comes out as it speeds up repair, re-fuel and re-arm. All but the lightest and/or most specialized of CVs should exclude this, and only if absolutely necessary. Designate your strike groups first, then build the CV, then build your fighters to the fleet containing the CV(s). This ensures that they are assigned to the ship's auto-magically. This saves on micro.
4. Design Focus: One other thing I see in newbie CV designs fairly often, is a lack of focus. Build your CVs for a certain mission profile or profiles. You don't need magazines on a CV meant for Beam Fighters, so you can omit that for more Fuel & MSP, which Beam Fighters tend to eat more of. If you want a scout focused CV, you can omit a lot of the MSP for fuel as scouts tend to be the thirstiest of the bunch overall. Know what synergizes well; Beam Fighters & Scouts share a lot in common, as Long-Range Scouts will want some MSP and Short-Range ones are typically Beam Fighters but with big Sensors instead of guns. A missile-focused CV can very easily double as a ground support CV, since the Ground Support Craft don't need to re-load and tend not to eat much fuel, which the missile-focused CV will have a little less of then other designs as it also needs magazines. A Ground Support Focused CV can be super small as a result, needing much less fuel and MSP than the others and not needing a magazine, strictly speaking.
5. Re-Supply: Cargo Shuttle Bay and Ordinance Transfer Hub are exceptionally useful for CVs. The former speeds up the resupply of MSP and is quintessential for most warships, the latter is really only useful for a CV. The Ordinance Transfer Hub is something newbies should consider, as despite the massive investment in space, it allows the CV to re-load from multiple colliers simultaneously, which can have a big impact on missile based operations. Having an Ordinance Transfer Hub can allow a CV to operate a large volume of missile-based strike craft at a very high turnaround rate, needing only to stock the necessary Fuel and MSP, which in terms of hull space is pennies on the pound compared to magazine space. Honestly, as un-orthodox as it is, I'd think newbies could benefit from this particular tip, as it enables a very effective Base Strike doctrine to be put in practice via high-turnaround rates on the fighters.
-
- Some very important things I see overlooked in CV designs:
1. Supplies: The most common design flaw I see in CV design is one of of supply, or rather a lack of it. Fuel and MSP being the most egregious, while missile reloads is far less common. Overall, all but the smallest of CVs need to carry some fuel and MSP with which to sortie their craft, or conversely the craft themselves will need to furnish it, but this isn't a great way for newbie's to do it. Conversely, a CV should be designed with the expectation to operate with support ships close at hand, to maintain tempo of operations. Don't overload them, the key is to have enough supplies to cover one or two of the expected engagements, and then fall back on a dedicated supply chain to up the ante as needed.
2. Payload: Many newbie CV designs seem to either have too much or too little in the way of payload. Not so much the fighters, but rather weapons, shields, etc. on the CV itself. Most CVs in my experience do not benefit from more than armor and some rudimentary Beam PD or shields. They don't benefit from being sitting ducks either, and should at least carry either a good sensors compliment and minor passive defenses or moderate defenses of both types. I have seen some CV designs which incorporate missile launchers and missile-based strike craft, this is a big no-no as they will be competing for magazine space.
3. Jump Drives, PFC * Strike Groups: No. I put Jump Drives on my CVs, but my CVs are HOOGE. For a newbie, offload that to a Jump Ship. Jump Drives eat up precious mission tonnage and aren't a good choice unless you no exactly what you are going to do with them. That Jump Ship can also be used elsewhere in peace time freeing up the CVs to sit in dock when not in use. Primary Flight Control is a must have once 1.13 comes out as it speeds up repair, re-fuel and re-arm. All but the lightest and/or most specialized of CVs should exclude this, and only if absolutely necessary. Designate your strike groups first, then build the CV, then build your fighters to the fleet containing the CV(s). This ensures that they are assigned to the ship's auto-magically. This saves on micro.
4. Design Focus: One other thing I see in newbie CV designs fairly often, is a lack of focus. Build your CVs for a certain mission profile or profiles. You don't need magazines on a CV meant for Beam Fighters, so you can omit that for more Fuel & MSP, which Beam Fighters tend to eat more of. If you want a scout focused CV, you can omit a lot of the MSP for fuel as scouts tend to be the thirstiest of the bunch overall. Know what synergizes well; Beam Fighters & Scouts share a lot in common, as Long-Range Scouts will want some MSP and Short-Range ones are typically Beam Fighters but with big Sensors instead of guns. A missile-focused CV can very easily double as a ground support CV, since the Ground Support Craft don't need to re-load and tend not to eat much fuel, which the missile-focused CV will have a little less of then other designs as it also needs magazines. A Ground Support Focused CV can be super small as a result, needing much less fuel and MSP than the others and not needing a magazine, strictly speaking.
5. Re-Supply: Cargo Shuttle Bay and Ordinance Transfer Hub are exceptionally useful for CVs. The former speeds up the resupply of MSP and is quintessential for most warships, the latter is really only useful for a CV. The Ordinance Transfer Hub is something newbies should consider, as despite the massive investment in space, it allows the CV to re-load from multiple colliers simultaneously, which can have a big impact on missile based operations. Having an Ordinance Transfer Hub can allow a CV to operate a large volume of missile-based strike craft at a very high turnaround rate, needing only to stock the necessary Fuel and MSP, which in terms of hull space is pennies on the pound compared to magazine space. Honestly, as un-orthodox as it is, I'd think newbies could benefit from this particular tip, as it enables a very effective Base Strike doctrine to be put in practice via high-turnaround rates on the fighters.
Thank you for the extensive input this will help a lot with adding explanations and advice during the mechanics portion of the tutorial as well as the use case part.
-
The only addition I’d make is in regards to a Cargo Shuttle Bay. Right now it is of course necessary to have one in your design to transfer MSP to your parasites at all. This makes them roughly as necessary as a fuel transfer system on a tanker. Once Steve releases 1.13 hangars will effectively incorporate one into the modules and they will no longer be strictly speaking necessary,
So, if you touch upon this factor you should decide if you want to mention the difference between versions or create your tutorial more for 1.12 or 1.13.
-
I have taken the decision prior to use all the 1.13 changes so that it is not out of date within weeks after release of the video. I have mentioned though in the video that this is the case and that if it doesnt match up exactly to how you see in your version then that is why. I will probably also be making a small section at the end which will cover the differences between 1.12 and 1.13 if people want it.
-
I have taken the decision prior to use all the 1.13 changes so that it is not out of date within weeks after release of the video. I have mentioned though in the video that this is the case and that if it doesnt match up exactly to how you see in your version then that is why. I will probably also be making a small section at the end which will cover the differences between 1.12 and 1.13 if people want it.
When is 1.13 coming out though? I see no indication that it's close.
-
I have taken the decision prior to use all the 1.13 changes so that it is not out of date within weeks after release of the video. I have mentioned though in the video that this is the case and that if it doesnt match up exactly to how you see in your version then that is why. I will probably also be making a small section at the end which will cover the differences between 1.12 and 1.13 if people want it.
When is 1.13 coming out though? I see no indication that it's close.
No one knows but I want this tutorial and future tutorials to cover as much as possible and be as resilient to changes as possible, so thats why I am doing it this way.
-
Allot of very good insight have already been shared in this thread.
I think you also can to some degree distinguish a carrier froma ship that also just have hangars as a secondary function, otherwise all of my ships become carriers more or less.
I think there are many types of carriers in the game and as stated it is important to understand what their roles are.
For example I could have a jump carrier whose job is to be the leader of a squadron of smaller ships and provide the squadron with a dynamic scouting force through it's hangar. It is not really a dedicated carrier but it is one of it's main role aside from providing their squadron with a fair jump capability.
You also can differentiate a dedicated fleet carrier with an escort carrier.
A fleet carrier need to have all the facilities to operate their fighters for at least one major engagements, that usually means several strikes worth of combat power so fuel, supplies and ammunition in addition to the fighters themselves.
An escort carrier probably have a role of transporting fighters during peace time and provide extra striking power or simply anti-fighter cover to a fleet. The escort probably are rather close to supporting ships and don't carry much in the form of extra fuel, ammunition and supplies. I would usually convert smaller ships into escort carrier when their previous role is not longer needed, or rather their shipyards will now produce escort carriers rather then old destroyers as my new ones are bigger and more capable.
As said... first you need to decide on the role of the carrier or why the hangar space is used in this particular ship.
In almost all of my capital ships I have some hangar space for scout crafts. A 20k destroyer would have at least 500-2000k hangar space for scouting or other uses. This can be anything recon to anti-fighter type operations. These ships are no dedicated carriers but if you want to fight other fighters then using your own fighter will extend the range at which you can engage enemy fighters substantially. A squadron of destroyers operating on their own can also be small carriers for anti-fighter purposes. An interceptor can be both beam and missile base... sometimes a combination of different fighters is good too.
A fleet carrier can also be very different based on doctrine. Do you build the carrier to always stay as far a way as possible from an enemy with minimal defences, which means you can optimise offensive potential. Or are the carrier suppose to be able to take part in a jump point defence or even offence?!?
Personally I like my carriers to be battle ready with good armour and shield as well as some basic beam weapons for self defence. That usually means I can fit perhaps between 20-30% of the ships hull for hangar space. A more optimised fleet carrier but more vulnerable to counterattack probably could have between 30-40% of its hull in hangar space.
What you choose probably have more to do with your overall doctrine than anything else.
As in most doctrines the most important part is to decide on what you primary way of hurting the enemy are suppose to be. Don't build a fleet where you don't have a primary way to deal with the enemy. Are your carriers a secondary defence weapon or the ones that deliver the primary damage potential. If you deploy fleet carriers you should not also deploy missile cruisers as the primary way to deal with enemy forces. There is nothing wrong with secondary armament and some tonnage in a fleet dedicated to beam weapons or ship based ASM if your fleet carries are suppose to do the primary damage, just make sure the proportions are justified.
Ship design is so much more than just the design of this particular ship, it always is about the entire doctrine of an entire fleet and it's support organisation. What are the needs... what are the distances involved, technology capabilities and most importantly what do you expect the enemy to have in way to respond to you. I often play multi-faction campaigns so ship design, doctrine and enemy disposition is even more involved and complicated than it is against the AI that don't have so many different ship classes to adapt to and who don't adapt their designs to your that much either.
-
Really great comments, I will hopefully have a draft of the script done somewhat soon as i have been making good progress and I can already see areas I want to improve thanks to the feedback on what you guys want to see.
-
- Are you covering fighter design in this too? If so I could add more on that as I'm rather kookoo for Coco Puffs when it comes to using fighters, so I've designed a lot of them.
-
I will not be covering fighter design but i will in the future as i want to focus fully on carriers as people voted for it
-
Simple and affordable way to make carriers both fuel efficient and possibly jump capable is to do commercial engines and commercial jump drives regardless of if the carrier is a military craft or not.
-
Simple and affordable way to make carriers both fuel efficient and possibly jump capable is to do commercial engines and commercial jump drives regardless of if the carrier is a military craft or not.
I do this sometimes with escort carriers and often with super large carriers for which I can't afford to create military jump drives so I need a commercial jump-drive. Their role is simply to act as a giant floating fighter base and will move at the same speed of my fleet support ships.
Cheap engines on a carrier make them really cheap to give them long deployment times, maintenance cycles and with being fuel efficient can operate far from home with impunity. Low speed obviously comes with its own disadvantages but you can't get everything.
-
I don't know if you can cover carrier design without covering fighter design to some extent.
As a newb, lo those many years ago, I remember carrier use and design was daunting. So much to think about. I developed a simple process that made it a lot easier.
You don't start with a carrier, or even a fighter. You start with whatever the primary system is in the fighter. So a beam fighter, you design the beam weapon first. Missile fighter the missile first, and recon/early warning fighter the sensor suite you want it to hold.
Then you design the fighter to carry that package. Then you are in a position to design a carrier that will house and deploy that fighter or some mixture of many fighters.
I usually have 4 early warning craft, 2 rescue shuttles, some amount of attacking fighters.
But to know how to design and use the carrier you have to know first how much fuel, msp, missiles, and hangar space you are going to need. Which you can't know until you know what the parasites are going to be using.
I actually use this process for all design in the game now. So a PD destroyer. I design the main PD weapon first, them it's fire controls. Then I start to out a ship together around that.
It's greatly simplified the design process for me. It made something that was really confusing, actually very straightforward, and fun.
Anyway, my 2¢
-
-snip
^This.
- This is basically how I do my carrier design, but in a different order.
-
While i can see the advantages and logic behind such a process and I may look into adding parts of it to the guide, the main problem is that I cant cover every single aspect in one video so covering carriers themselves in one video and then fighters in another will make it much easier to digest information and understand things because otherwise its gonna be like 1 hour 30 minute long video.
But in terms of use cases, philosophy behind what you are designing and how to think around designing a carrier this is very helpful and to some extent will be covered in such a way in the guide, in aurora these concepts are rather deep/complex and i have found require multiple videos and inside each video require multiple chapters which themselves have sub chapters to be able to fully explain every detail possible.
-
Hey guys its been a bit but I have practically finished the first draft script, sitting in at 4000 words, am posting it for peoples thoughs and feedback, there are already some things I do want to change but I cant spend forever on it, any glaring problems or issues il correct immediately, i still need to add sources and other things but this works as a rough first draft.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gi0QqMmZSU5vGsOy4u8OIgk0yHso6sqW-iXeOup_-5Y/edit?usp=sharing
keep in mind this will also be a full written guide once i have more time but video is priority.
-
Apparently the link wasnt working, again any feedback you guys have would be welcome, but you should be able to access it now.
-
Looks ok to me... just don't forget the mention some of the changes coming in the 1.13 changes to hangars so it is a bit more future proof.
-
Looks ok to me... just don't forget the mention some of the changes coming in the 1.13 changes to hangars so it is a bit more future proof.
At the start of the mechanics section i cover this fact.