Aurora 4x
VB6 Aurora => Bureau of Ship Design => Topic started by: Icecoon on March 07, 2014, 07:46:37 AM
-
Hi.
I wanted to ask, what do you think about using reduced size launchers as a standard armament on missile armed ships. I have two designs, and I'm curious how would they fare against ships with full size launchers. Obviously you can stuff more smaller launchers on a ship, thus increasing the number of missiles in a single salvo.
Nelson class Missile Destroyer 7 850 tons 172 Crew 1274.68 BP TCS 157 TH 160 EM 0
2038 km/s Armour 3-35 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 4 PPV 24.84
Maint Life 2.35 Years MSP 406 AFR 123% IFR 1.7% 1YR 100 5YR 1501 Max Repair 160 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months Spare Berths 2
Magazine 281
Wade PN-160 Naval Pulse Engine (2) Power 160 Fuel Use 56% Signature 80 Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 750 000 Litres Range 30.7 billion km (174 days at full power)
Armstrong Industries SM-19 Torpedo Tube (8) Missile Size 6 Rate of Fire 1800
Armstrong Industries SM-1D Missile Launcher (9) Missile Size 1 Rate of Fire 15
Astrotech MCS-56 (3) Range 10.1m km Resolution 1
Astrotech MCS-80 (1) Range 64.4m km Resolution 20
SRD-11 Dagger (101) Speed: 13 200 km/s End: 9.2m Range: 7.3m km WH: 1 Size: 1 TH: 70/42/21
MRS-62 Martell (30) Speed: 13 000 km/s End: 84m Range: 65.6m km WH: 6 Size: 6 TH: 69/41/20
Alliance Systems C-96/66 Search Sensor (1) GPS 11520 Range 63.1m km Resolution 120
Alliance Systems C-96/16 Low Resolution Sensor (1) GPS 160 Range 9.6m km MCR 1.0m km Resolution 1
Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
Novara class Cruiser 13,800 tons 247 Crew 1656.96 BP TCS 276 TH 280 EM 0
2028 km/s Armour 5-51 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 8 PPV 62.2
Maint Life 2.42 Years MSP 600 AFR 190% IFR 2.6% 1YR 141 5YR 2109 Max Repair 210 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months Spare Berths 1
Magazine 588
Wade PN-280 Naval Pulse Engine (2) Power 280 Fuel Use 45.5% Signature 140 Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 1,100,000 Litres Range 31.5 billion km (179 days at full power)
Armstrong Industries SO-65 155mm Laser Cannon (4) Range 120,000km TS: 3000 km/s Power 6-2 RM 2 ROF 15 6 6 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 1
Armstrong Industries MPD-120 CIWS (2x4) Range 1000 km TS: 12000 km/s ROF 5 Base 50% To Hit
KVK CW-160 Main Cannon Fire Control (1) Max Range: 192,000 km TS: 3000 km/s 95 90 84 79 74 69 64 58 53 48
Pebble Bed Reactor Technology PB-2 (1) Total Power Output 6 Armour 0 Exp 5%
Pebble Bed Reactor Technology PB-1 (1) Total Power Output 3 Armour 0 Exp 5%
Armstrong Industries SM-33 Torpedo Tube (14) Missile Size 10 Rate of Fire 3000
Astrotech MCS-80 (1) Range 64.4m km Resolution 20
MRS-111 Sunwell (58) Speed: 13,200 km/s End: 83.1m Range: 65.8m km WH: 12 Size: 10 TH: 61/37/18
Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
-
How many standard size launchers can you fit on the Nelson? If you are only getting 1-2 more reduced launchers, then I'd opt for the full sized and the increased RoF.
It all comes down to big alpha strike, or long engagement.
-
How many standard size launchers can you fit on the Nelson? If you are only getting 1-2 more reduced launchers, then I'd opt for the full sized and the increased RoF.
It all comes down to big alpha strike, or long engagement.
With 3 full size launchers the Nelson is now 8,100 tons and it slowed down to 1975km/h. I did not changed anything except the launchers. Interresting.
Nelson - Copy class Missile Destroyer 8,100 tons 218 Crew 1307.88 BP TCS 162 TH 160 EM 0
1975 km/s Armour 3-35 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 4 PPV 27
Maint Life 2.26 Years MSP 404 AFR 131% IFR 1.8% 1YR 107 5YR 1607 Max Repair 160 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months Spare Berths 0
Magazine 251
Wade PN-160 Naval Pulse Engine (2) Power 160 Fuel Use 56% Signature 80 Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 750,000 Litres Range 29.8 billion km (174 days at full power)
Armstrong Industries SM-1D Missile Launcher (9) Missile Size 1 Rate of Fire 15
Size 6 Missile Launcher (3) Missile Size 6 Rate of Fire 90
Astrotech MCS-80 (1) Range 64.4m km Resolution 20
Astrotech MCS-56 (3) Range 10.1m km Resolution 1
SRD-11 Dagger (101) Speed: 13,200 km/s End: 9.2m Range: 7.3m km WH: 1 Size: 1 TH: 70/42/21
MRS-62 Martell (30) Speed: 13,000 km/s End: 84m Range: 65.6m km WH: 6 Size: 6 TH: 69/41/20
Alliance Systems C-96/16 Low Resolution Sensor (1) GPS 160 Range 9.6m km MCR 1.0m km Resolution 1
Alliance Systems C-96/66 Search Sensor (1) GPS 11520 Range 63.1m km Resolution 120
Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
-
I often use reduced-size launchers, albeit with better launcher tech. I think you need to look at something between the two. 3 missiles isn't enough to be able to make it through most point defenses I've seen, while a reload time of half an hour might be a shade too long. I'd also see what I could do to make my missiles faster. There's a thread in Advanced Tactical Command Academy that might help.
-
I use 3x Novara, 3x Nelson and 4x beam ships in a task group now. That means the initial strike will have 66 missiles. I agree, the reloading tech is only level 2 and I use .33 size reduction launchers, the reloading is pretty long. I think those 66 missiles are enough to severely cripple or destroy a ship or two though. The rest should be destroyed by beam armed ships.
-
I've had some pretty bad experiences with reduced size launchers with very long reload times trying to jump into a guarded system... ;D
-
The rest should be destroyed by beam armed ships.
Should work right up to the first 5-sec interrupt.
-
I use reduced rate of fire for larger alpha strikes. For my AMM's launchers, I do not.
-
I'm fond of Box Launchers, and skimping on magazine and reloading techs.... and throwing a few full-size launchers on my "colliers".
I don't care much for the moderate size reductions, except maybe as light support for a primarily-beam fleet.
0.15 or 0.25 launchers (with no and relatively small magazines respectively) give us impressive salvo sizes, full-size launchers give us the ability to empty spacious magazines in a decent time . The in-betweens simply don't perform when we need overwhelming firepower.
-
The only time reduced rates have bit me in the butt is wormhole defense/knifefighting. Much of the time, I am launching single, massive salvoes and waiting for results before firing again. I tend to combine my offensive missiles and defensive in the same ship, so even in knife fighting, im spamming AMM's. My offensive missile count might be low compared to a dedicated offensive ship, but I just make up for it with more ships.
-
It depends whether or not the standard launchers can overwhelm a targets point defenses. If they can't, you're pretty much always better off with reduced size launchers.
Since reload speed (and therefore ability to overwhelm) scales with missile speed, the smaller a missile is the more viable standard launchers are.
I typically run standard launchers with size 3-4 missiles and reduced size/box for anything over that (like your size 6s :) )
-
I prefer .75 reduced launchers because they allow 25% more weight of fire and enough reload speed to empty magazines quickly and GTFO, which is valuable for smaller less armoured ships.
-
Now I have to find some spoilers/NPRs to test those designs. Also I'm researching reloading speed lvl3 and Ion tech.
-
Here are the same ships with better reloading, better missiles and on Ion tech level. Plus one bigger ship on the same tech level.
Nelson - refit I. class Missile Destroyer 7 750 tons 168 Crew 1354.12 BP TCS 155 TH 360 EM 0
3096 km/s Armour 4-34 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 4 PPV 24.84
Maint Life 2.36 Years MSP 437 AFR 120% IFR 1.7% 1YR 107 5YR 1605 Max Repair 160 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months Spare Berths 0
Magazine 295
Wade PI-240 Naval Ion Engine (2) Power 240 Fuel Use 56% Signature 180 Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 750 000 Litres Range 31.1 billion km (116 days at full power)
Armstrong SM-22 Torpedo Tube (8) Missile Size 6 Rate of Fire 1200
Armstrong SM-2 Missile Launcher (9) Missile Size 1 Rate of Fire 10
Astrotech MCS-56B (3) Range 13.4m km Resolution 1
Astrotech MCS-64 (1) Range 68.7m km Resolution 20
MRS-68 Onyx (32) Speed: 19 500 km/s End: 56m Range: 65.6m km WH: 8 Size: 6 TH: 110/66/33
SRD-18 ASRIM (103) Speed: 18 000 km/s End: 6.3m Range: 6.8m km WH: 1 Size: 1 TH: 144/86/43
Alliance Systems C-160 Low Resolution Sensor (1) GPS 160 Range 12.8m km MCR 1.4m km Resolution 1
Alliance Systems C76/66 Search Sensor (1) GPS 9120 Range 66.6m km Resolution 120
Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
Novara - refit I. class Cruiser 13 750 tons 257 Crew 1932.56 BP TCS 275 TH 630 EM 0
3054 km/s Armour 5-51 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 8 PPV 68.8
Maint Life 2.34 Years MSP 703 AFR 189% IFR 2.6% 1YR 174 5YR 2617 Max Repair 262.5 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months Spare Berths 0
Magazine 636
Wade PI-420 Naval Ion Engine (2) Power 420 Fuel Use 45.5% Signature 315 Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 1 100 000 Litres Range 31.6 billion km (119 days at full power)
Armstrong SO-65/2 155mm NUV Laser Cannon (4) Range 180 000km TS: 3054 km/s Power 6-2 RM 3 ROF 15 6 6 6 4 3 3 2 2 2 1
Armstrong Industries MPD-120 CIWS (2x4) Range 1000 km TS: 12000 km/s ROF 5 Base 50% To Hit
KVK CW-160 Main Cannon Fire Control (1) Max Range: 192 000 km TS: 3000 km/s 95 90 84 79 74 69 64 58 53 48
Gas-Cooled Reactor R-1 (2) Total Power Output 9 Armour 0 Exp 5%
Armstrong SM-35 Torpedo Tube (16) Missile Size 10 Rate of Fire 2000
Astrotech MCS-64 (1) Range 68.7m km Resolution 20
MRS-120 Amethyst (63) Speed: 19 800 km/s End: 55.4m Range: 65.8m km WH: 16 Size: 10 TH: 99/59/29
Alliance Systems C76/66 Search Sensor (1) GPS 9120 Range 66.6m km Resolution 120
Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
Saturn class Battlecruiser 19 500 tons 458 Crew 2771.3 BP TCS 390 TH 945 EM 0
3230 km/s Armour 6-64 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/6/0/0 Damage Control Rating 12 PPV 104.3
Maint Life 2.36 Years MSP 1066 AFR 253% IFR 3.5% 1YR 261 5YR 3911 Max Repair 262.5 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months Spare Berths 0
Magazine 584
Wade PI-420 Naval Ion Engine (3) Power 420 Fuel Use 45.5% Signature 315 Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 1 600 000 Litres Range 32.5 billion km (116 days at full power)
Triple Armstrong Industries SO-31 105mm Laser Cannon Turret (2x3) Range 60 000km TS: 12000 km/s Power 9-6 RM 2 ROF 10 3 3 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
Armstrong SO-146 250mm NUV Spinal Laser (1) Range 256 000km TS: 3230 km/s Power 16-2 RM 3 ROF 40 16 16 16 12 9 8 6 5 5 4
Armstrong SO-125 205mm NUV Laser Cannon (6) Range 256 000km TS: 3230 km/s Power 10-2 RM 3 ROF 25 10 10 10 7 5 5 4 3 3 3
KVK CW-266 Main Cannon Fire Control (1) Max Range: 256 000 km TS: 3000 km/s 96 92 88 84 80 77 73 69 65 61
KVK CW-55 PD Fire Control (2) Max Range: 72 000 km TS: 12000 km/s 86 72 58 44 31 17 3 0 0 0
Gas-Cooled Reactor R-2 (3) Total Power Output 27 Armour 0 Exp 5%
Armstrong SM-22 Torpedo Tube (18) Missile Size 6 Rate of Fire 1200
Astrotech MCS-64 (1) Range 68.7m km Resolution 20
MRS-68 Onyx (97) Speed: 19 500 km/s End: 56m Range: 65.6m km WH: 8 Size: 6 TH: 110/66/33
Alliance Systems C76/66 Search Sensor (1) GPS 9120 Range 66.6m km Resolution 120
Alliance Systems C-64/55 Defensive Sensor (1) GPS 64 Range 5.1m km MCR 558k km Resolution 1
Spacetech PS-6/EM (1) Sensitivity 6 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 6m km
Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
-
Decent, hefty ships. A little slow for ion age though. Expect to be outrun by everything.
-
My own ION are 3750 km/s, but i'm making some FAC's that should be around 6'000 km/s. I can't afford to fuel them though :p
That goes for most of my fleet, BUT, if something jumps into sol, ill be ready for them! Unless they run away and dump missiles from out of my range and travel too fast for my ships to catch up. :(
-
Yes, they are a little bit slower. I wanted to ask, what engine power modifiers do you use? I have set them to have 1.00 and if I'm low on Sorium, or I prefer to have longer range ships I usually set it to 0.85 - 0.95 for military ships.
-
Big fan of reduced sized launchers here as well:
Blücher Mk2 class Raketen-Zerstörer 8 000 tons 118 Crew 1059.2 BP TCS 160 TH 600 EM 0
3750 km/s Armour 2-35 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 3 PPV 49.5
Maint Life 1.15 Years MSP 248 AFR 170% IFR 2.4% 1YR 190 5YR 2846 Max Repair 300 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months Spare Berths 2
Magazine 660
600 EP Ion Drive (1) Power 600 Fuel Use 35% Signature 600 Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 405 000 Litres Range 26.0 billion km (80 days at full power)
Size 6 Missile Launcher (33% Reduction) (25) Missile Size 6 Rate of Fire 1200
Missile Fire Control FC55-R16 (1) Range 55.4m km Resolution 16
Missile Fire Control FC151-R120 (1) Range 151.8m km Resolution 120
Hellfire9-259/95/31 (110) Speed: 25 900 km/s End: 61.1m Range: 95m km WH: 9 Size: 6 TH: 103/62/31
Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
Since I tend to launch full volleys and see what they did before launching the next one 20min reload time are no problem at all. And I prefer to used specialised ships since my navy is organized into carrier task forces, so no active sensors and fairly light armor due to being largely protected from missiles by other ships.
Concerning power modifiers - 1.00 here, but I usually take the time to build 1 50HS engine.
edit: Dang, just saw that I can't repair my engine, so will get rid of 1 launcher and add 1 engineering for the next revision.
-
IMO generally people overestimate how much range they need. Fuel efficiency is nice, but you only really need enough range for operations within a solar system. It's usually safe to crank up power modifiers a little and/or reduce fuel allotments and gain some extra space. Use tankers to help make up the difference.
-
I don't like power multipliers close to 1.0, because of the way costs scale (quadratically with power multiplier until 1.0, linearly thereafter).
This is one of the reasons my ships tend to come in two flavours, painfully slow and painfully stressed. Several other concerns also make this attractive.
Slow ships may get turrets for beam armament where the fast ones get spinal lasers and railguns. The slow ones will be designed to be cheap to operate while the fast ones may be mothballed when not needed. And so on.
-
This is one of the reasons my ships tend to come in two flavours, painfully slow and painfully stressed. Several other concerns also make this attractive.
Slow ships may get turrets for beam armament where the fast ones get spinal lasers and railguns. The slow ones will be designed to be cheap to operate while the fast ones may be mothballed when not needed. And so on.
I usually do something like this with the addition: The fast ships with max modifier will generally be sitting inside a hangar on one of the slower ones to gain range.
-
I'm a pretty big fan of reduced-size offensive launchers and I'm starting to play with the idea of using them defensively as well.
The Manticore class Missile Barrage Heavy Cruiser makes up most of the offensive punch of my current fleets. It's centered around one massive wave attack, but it carries enough ordinance to rearm once and colliers help it last longer.
Lately, I've become a fan of 25% Reduction tech for capital ships so I can still rearm in the field, although they're really only expected to launch once or maybe twice in an engagement..
Manticore class Missile Barrage Heavy Cruiser 24,000 tons 478 Crew 4432 BP TCS 480 TH 2640 EM 1800
5500 km/s Armour 6-74 Shields 60-300 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 23 PPV 140
Maint Life 4.12 Years MSP 2655 AFR 200% IFR 2.8% 1YR 250 5YR 3749 Max Repair 440 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 48 months Spare Berths 0
Magazine 1148
880 EP Internal Fusion Drive (3) Power 880 Fuel Use 30.46% Signature 880 Exp 11%
Fuel Capacity 3,030,000 Litres Range 74.6 billion km (156 days at full power)
Epsilon R300/360 Shields (20) Total Fuel Cost 300 Litres per hour (7,200 per day)
Size 4 Missile Launcher (25% Reduction) (140) Missile Size 4 Rate of Fire 2400
Missile Fire Control FC235-R100 (4) Range 235.2m km Resolution 100
Avalanche (280) Speed: 40,000 km/s End: 73.2m Range: 175.7m km WH: 9 Size: 4 TH: 213/128/64
Obliterator Orbital Bomb (7) Speed: 2,500 km/s End: 3.7m Range: 0.6m km WH: 31 Size: 4 TH: 8/5/2
Active Search Sensor MR96-R150 (1) GPS 8400 Range 96.0m km Resolution 150
ECCM-2 (2) ECM 20
Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
For anti-missile roles, I've tended to favor regular sized launchers, but I'm considering adding a box-launcher reserve.
For example, the Shepherd class Area Defense Corvette is a support ship designed to round out aging fleets and to provide strength to escort and garrison formations.
It can get away with thin armor because the ships it's guarding tend to be more likely targets.
Shepherd class Corvette 3,000 tons 74 Crew 560.5 BP TCS 60 TH 330 EM 0
5500 km/s Armour 2-18 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 3 PPV 8
Maint Life 5.96 Years MSP 350 AFR 24% IFR 0.3% 1YR 17 5YR 253 Max Repair 165 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 48 months Spare Berths 0
Magazine 284
330 EP Internal Fusion Drive (1) Power 330 Fuel Use 53.94% Signature 330 Exp 11%
Fuel Capacity 355,000 Litres Range 39.5 billion km (83 days at full power)
Size 1 Missile Launcher ( 8 ) Missile Size 1 Rate of Fire 10
Missile Fire Control FC35-R1 (1) Range 35.3m km Resolution 1
Meteor II (284) Speed: 60,000 km/s End: 1.3m Range: 4.6m km WH: 1 Size: 1 TH: 720/432/216
Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
But the variant below has slightly better maintenance life and fuel reserves, a salvo size about 20 times larger, and still manages to carry about 60% of the ordinance.
It might be a key addition to fleet defense plans in the event that we find ourselves facing an enemy with a similar doctrine of massed first strikes.
It can't be reloaded in the field, but there are plenty of outlying bases capable of rearming 3,000 ton corvettes.
Shepherd Mass Variant class Corvette 3,000 tons 35 Crew 509.7 BP TCS 60 TH 330 EM 0
5500 km/s Armour 2-18 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 2 PPV 25.8
Maint Life 6.03 Years MSP 159 AFR 48% IFR 0.7% 1YR 7 5YR 112 Max Repair 165 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 48 months Spare Berths 0
Magazine 172
330 EP Internal Fusion Drive (1) Power 330 Fuel Use 53.94% Signature 330 Exp 11%
Fuel Capacity 430,000 Litres Range 47.8 billion km (100 days at full power)
Size 1 Box Launcher (172) Missile Size 1 Hangar Reload 7.5 minutes MF Reload 1.2 hours
Missile Fire Control FC35-R1 (1) Range 35.3m km Resolution 1
Meteor II (172) Speed: 60,000 km/s End: 1.3m Range: 4.6m km WH: 1 Size: 1 TH: 720/432/216
Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
-
I use 25% reduced sized launchers as if they were the same type of missile launchers we have on wet navies today. Real wet navy ships do not use "full size" launchers as they are in the game since they can't be fired or even house as many missiles with enough variety. The only reason I don't use box launchers are of course since I can't reload them in space. I don't put any magazines on the ships unless they are for AMM launchers that are full size. For RP purposes I use one FC for every 10 missile launchers and I stagger the launch in 5 second for every 5+ missile volleys (up to five volleys maximum) on every ship for realism sake so I can't just completely overpower beam defenses in an unrealistic fashion. It is a bit of micromanagement but it is fun nevertheless.
-
I'm now experimenting with half sized launchers and I'm getting good results with them. In a battle against the precursors I managed to destroy their 8500t ships with a single salvo of 42 missiles and their 16,000-ish cruisers with two salvos. These were from three missile cruisers(12 launchers each) and three missile destroyers(6 launchers each). The 400 s reload time of the size 8 launchers is acceptable for me.
-
I use reduced sized launchers on fast attack craft as soon as I can. Being able to cram 3 to 6 launchers on a FAC works great for swarms of them.
Here is an example. These are slightly older FAC's from my current game. Ion tech.
Lamprey class Fast Attack Craft 1,000 tons 26 Crew 223.5 BP TCS 20 TH 90 EM 0
9000 km/s Armour 1-8 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 0 PPV 4
Maint Life 1.38 Years MSP 35 AFR 32% IFR 0.4% 1YR 20 5YR 298 Max Repair 135 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 1 months Spare Berths 4
Magazine 33
180 EP Ion Drive (1) Power 180 Fuel Use 148.81% Signature 90 Exp 15%
Fuel Capacity 20,000 Litres Range 2.4 billion km (3 days at full power)
ASM-4 Missile Tube (4) Missile Size 4 Rate of Fire 4000
Tantalus M92 Missile Fire Control (1) Range 92.0m km Resolution 60
ASM-4 Kestrel (8) Speed: 18,000 km/s End: 75.3m Range: 81.3m km WH: 4 Size: 4 TH: 96/57/28
Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
An older Ion tech design, the Lamprey was designed as a stop gap system defense FAC that prioritized missile launchers over all other considerations. A Lamprey group is usually four vessels plus a Pilotfish command FAC, and they can put a flight of sixteen ASM-4 Kestrels into space at a time. The Lamprey carries two full reloads for their missile tubes, but require difficult and laborious reloading. In the field, Lamprey crews often resort to EVA to expedite the reloading process, as the ships internal spaces are so cramped. The Lamprey is considered a hardship posting, as the accommodations on the small ship are minimal at best. With an internal fuel load of only three days, the spartan crew accommodations were seen as acceptable for a vessel that was likely to be assigned to permanent system defense. This makes for a VERY uncomfortable ship when the FAC groups are assigned to training. Training duty also requires a tanker to be attached to the group, due to the high fuel consumption. Training duty is dreaded by Lamprey crews.
Accompanying Lampey groups are the Pilotfish FAC leader. The Pilotfish is a Lamprey with all missile tubes and magazine removed in order to mount a long range search sensor for the FAC group. Pilotfish are just as uncomfortable for their crews, as the sensor hardware takes up just as much space. Pilotfish are also notorious for being quite warm when the sensor gear is fully operational, as the cooling systems are the same as the Lamprey, which generates significantly less heat in operation that the large sensors generate on the Pilotfish.
Pilotfish class Fast Attack Craft 1,000 tons 31 Crew 271.5 BP TCS 20 TH 90 EM 0
9000 km/s Armour 1-8 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 0 PPV 0
Maint Life 1.24 Years MSP 42 AFR 32% IFR 0.4% 1YR 28 5YR 427 Max Repair 135 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 1 months Spare Berths 4
180 EP Ion Drive (1) Power 180 Fuel Use 148.81% Signature 90 Exp 15%
Fuel Capacity 20,000 Litres Range 2.4 billion km (3 days at full power)
Tantalus M95 Search Sensor (1) GPS 6720 Range 95.4m km Resolution 60
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
-
It depends on your goal. Below is my Volley-class OWP. Its a tanker\collier\OWP with 100 box launchers firing a Trident missile bus. You park it over a colony and turn the shields and active sensors on.
Volley class Orbital Weapon Platform 300 000 tons 6476 Crew 47907 BP TCS 6000 TH 1200 EM 30000
200 km/s Armour 2-399 Shields 1000-300 Sensors 1200/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 1150 PPV 1500
Maint Life 22.85 Years MSP 299806 AFR 720% IFR 10% 1YR 1100 5YR 16506 Max Repair 5400 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 36 months Spare Berths 11
Magazine 24400
Fuel Harvester: 2 modules producing 144000 litres per annum
Commercial Solid Core AM Drive (2) Power 600 Fuel Use 0.49% Signature 600 Exp 3%
Fuel Capacity 31 050 000 Litres Range 3802.0 billion km (220025 days at full power)
Xi R300/240 Shields (200) Total Fuel Cost 2 000 Litres per hour (48 000 per day)
CIWS-320 (10x8) Range 1000 km TS: 32000 km/s ROF 5 Base 50% To Hit
Size 100 Box Launcher (100) Missile Size 100 Hangar Reload 750 minutes MF Reload 125 hours
Missile Fire Control FC17280-R100 (25%) (1) Range 17 280.0m km Resolution 100
Phalanx Anti-missile Missile (2000) Speed: 120 000 km/s End: 1m Range: 7.1m km WH: 1 Size: 1 TH: 2200/1320/660
Marlin Anti-ship Missile (1240) Speed: 120 000 km/s End: 11.3m Range: 81.6m km WH: 20 Size: 10 TH: 920/552/276
Trident Marlin (100) Speed: 3 600 km/s End: 517.3d Range: 160908.9m km WH: 9 Size: 100 TH: 16/10/5
Active Search Sensor MR5760-R100 (25%) (1) GPS 240000 Range 5 760.0m km Resolution 100
Thermal Sensor TH50-1200 (25%) (1) Sensitivity 1200 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 1200m km
ECCM-4 (1) ECM 40
Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
-
What's Inside the missile bus? I see no launchers for the AMMs or ASMs.
-
Three Marlins, the other missiles are reloads for other ships. The Marlins separate at 2. 5m klicks, outside (most/all?) beam defense range, and a little over 10secs at Marlin speed from impact.
-
I don't feel like reduced sized launchers is really worth the lengthy reload rate to just add another launcher or two. It can help with first strikes but then your followup is severely delayed. I decided to take this to an extreme at one point and built a fleet of Box Launchers based loosely on modern day VLS systems on most warships. Instead of say 5 launchers with magazines that held 10 each for a total of 55 missiles I just put on 55 launchers and and 3-4 Fire control systems. I had great flexibility in deciding how big of a strike to launch on a target, and I think the tonnage trade off between launchers and magazines is pretty comparable until you get to the more advanced magazine techs. my only problem was you had to constantly reassign launchers to your fc if you didnt want a 55 missile salvo
-
If you want to have decent multi-purpose ships and still get a decent amount of missiles that can actually hurt a defended enemy battle-group you need to use reduced sized launchers. Such ships only carry one (maybe two) load of missiles. They will have to meet up with a tender to replenish if they can not perform their mission with that single strike, or simply retreat and fight another day.
One of the main problem with full size launchers are how easy they can be countered with beam point defences in combination with a decent AMM capacity to top of any overly large salvoes. In these cases you really need larger salvoes to breach any defences. Sometimes using both can be an option because it is trickier to build an efficient defence against them. If all missile waves comes in 50 missiles per salvo then beam defences can be designed around that and you can reduce the number of fire controls. If you mix it up this become less of a problem.
Personally I will at one time or another use all different types of launching systems on different ships for different reasons. It also depend on the research done and what the immediate threats are and what the enemies are like. Most of my campaigns are multi factions and that usually pose a bigger problem when it comes to the innovation of the different sides as well (not to mention political pressures). I even use box launchers for AMM missiles on some types of ships, these are mainly for emergencies on smaller ships while larger ships get the same type in 25% reduction launchers so I can reload them in space. These systems only require very small fire-controls and AMM missile detection systems and will thus become a cheap solution to deal with large enemy salvoes of ASM.
-
I even use box launchers for AMM missiles on some types of ships, these are mainly for emergencies on smaller ships while larger ships get the same type in 25% reduction launchers so I can reload them in space. These systems only require very small fire-controls and AMM missile detection systems and will thus become a cheap solution to deal with large enemy salvoes of ASM.
Honestly, if a ship is big enough to mount even a single reload salvo, the choice of a 25% is hands down better than the choice of a box.
Oh, you took fire, lost a box launcher. Now you have a spare missile, but you cant fire it until damage control is done...
VS "Oops, lost launcher 7, looks like 2 salvoes and some spares instead of just 2 salvoes."
-
If I had to pick one, I'd use box launchers for everything... the flexibility is worth the smaller total loadout.
Moderate reductions have a big penalty to their output over time - box launchers have the highest output until they run dry, full-size ones are the next best thing if salvo size isn't a large concern.
Having enough box launchers to overwhelm defences at the start of a big battle, then enough full-sized ones to clean up at will with measured fire seems better offensively. Steadily thinning out incoming missiles with full-sized launchers with a big volley in reserve when needed seems better defensively. Logistics also work well with the extremes - Missile barges with deep magazines and modest hangar space carry the full-sized ones and reload the box launchers on smaller craft.
-
If you are in an arms race with similar powers and you need to extend the power of your fleets to every corner of known space you will need to use bigger ships with bigger more fuel efficient engines and who in general is more economical in the upgrade process than smaller ships, this is more of a long term overall economical issue. Bigger ships is also more survivable overall and can thus exploit high experience crew and captains more efficiently. Thus using box launcher instead of a 25% reduced launcher is not a sound option. Using a carrier to bring the ships aboard to reload seems like an awkward way of doing it instead of just using the 25% reduced size one instead.
Swarms of smaller ships is not as efficient as the same tonnage of larger ships for pure combat prowess. Smaller ships is of course useful in their own right and for their own purpose, but I would never build them as the main offensive power unless stationed on a dedicated carrier. I really see no point in doing so.
In most of the campaigns I have played the development of ships usually start with beam weapons being the main weapon of choice. It then gradually develop into ship based missiles on dedicated Destroyer type ships and then transfer into a carrier based environment where the main offensive punch of any battle group is the smaller craft. When carriers enters into the picture strike range will increase to billions of kilometres. Way outside the range of any ship based missile ranges as well as active scanning ranges. Ship based missiles will mainly become a weapon for "close" range skirmishers between cruiser scout groups.
When stealth technology is sufficiently developed then ship based weapon platforms will again become important, both as beam and missile platforms.
Beam weapons will always be important since that is the only way to forcibly hold and take fixed positions, jump point being the most extreme example. Well defended planets and bases will almost be impossible to attack using missiles alone, it just is too costly from an economical perspective.
Anyway... in my opinion... box launchers are for ships designed to operate in extremely short periods of time. Their mission is to go out and strike its target. Or fitted to patrol ships to give them some offensive and/or defensive punch, but these ships usually operate under the protection of powerful planet based installations of some kind. All other launcher types are for ships whose intent have longer time and range deployment. By the time you develop the box launcher you usually can build larger carriers anyway and the use of smaller fighter craft will become the most important and safest way to deal with a threat, unless we talk about system defences.
-
if you take a look at my designs you'll see that in my current game I almost exlusively use half sized launchers and half sized lasers (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,6735.0.html) in my ship design...it works. I'm role playing a benevolent military dictatorship growing up in the middle of 4 hostile alien civilizations, so these guys have gotten a LOT of combat experience over the last 2-3 years...against varied opponents. The problem comes, as you'd expect, from fighting lots of little guys.
The trick is use lots of mid-sized ships to mount these weapons, that way, you don't have the situation where your lumbering behemoth battlecruiser is "tapped out" as the enemy approaches with more fighter waves that you expected. Also, I've had good results with very limited range on the missiles, ~5 million kilometers or less. Our naval doctrine calls for a battle line of 2 battlecruisers and 2 escort frigates, a missile cruiser and 2 escort frigates and 2 lighter turret beam cruisers, all of which run large groups of size 6 missiles from half sized launchers. I've taken out star swarm queens with a single battle line, and it has the added bonus of feeling deliciously like ancient naval combat...
hold...
hold...
FIRE ALL TORPEDOES!
-
Our naval doctrine calls for a battle line of 2 battlecruisers and 2 escort frigates, a missile cruiser and 2 escort frigates and 2 lighter turret beam cruisers, all of which run large groups of size 6 missiles from half sized launchers. I've taken out star swarm queens with a single battle line, and it has the added bonus of feeling deliciously like ancient naval combat...
hold...
hold...
FIRE ALL TORPEDOES!
To me, a pair of DDGs at 12,500 should eat that spoiler alive without any trouble. I design launchers based on reload time. A torpedo launcher fires every 2-5 minutes, and an assault missile launcher fires every 15-30. Generally, when I design a new launcher, if I can get similar performance to the old launcher with a smaller launcher, I probably will, instead of opting for the faster reload and same size.
Then again, I consider non-missile combat to be for PD, interceptors, bases, and JP defense.
-
What does DDG mean?
-
What does DDG mean?
Missile destroyer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guided_missile_destroyer
-
definitely not the case with my builds, though we don't have long ranged weapon systems, everything we build with the exception of our mighty missile cruisers has a range of less than 10mkm
In the Second action at Alpha Centauri, two 25kt battlecruisers, 4 15kt destroyer escorts, and 2 15kt light cruisers destroyed a spoiler with 2 salvoes of 44 size 6 torpedoes fired about 4 minutes apart.
-
To me, a pair of DDGs at 12,500 should eat that spoiler alive without any trouble. I design launchers based on reload time. A torpedo launcher fires every 2-5 minutes, and an assault missile launcher fires every 15-30. Generally, when I design a new launcher, if I can get similar performance to the old launcher with a smaller launcher, I probably will, instead of opting for the faster reload and same size.
Then again, I consider non-missile combat to be for PD, interceptors, bases, and JP defense.
To be honest a couple of the ships proposed in this thread would be far more optimal in engaging such a creature. ;)
Also, this highly depend on technology level.
Using large alpha strikes and small missiles is almost cheating the system against the NPR because they can never deal with this because their designs are not equipped to handle it unless they have a serious advantage in technology. I generally avoided that when I played much against the NPR. Against the NPR I would general stay with size 4-6 missiles for ASM and full sized launchers to make it more fair.... or otherwise make my designs a little more suboptimal. ;)
-
I use Size 3 sprint missiles, usually around 20m range, 9 damage, Size 5 Torps 4dmg, and size 25 Capital missiles, ~25dmg at that tech.
The DDGs in question carry 2 Capital Missile tubes and 5 torp tubes. Getting the salvoes of both kinds to arrive together can be necessary, and is a pain, and was the subject of a previous discussion in the Adv Tac Academy forum.
-
To be honest a couple of the ships proposed in this thread would be far more optimal in engaging such a creature. ;)
Also, this highly depend on technology level.
Using large alpha strikes and small missiles is almost cheating the system against the NPR because they can never deal with this because their designs are not equipped to handle it unless they have a serious advantage in technology. I generally avoided that when I played much against the NPR. Against the NPR I would general stay with size 4-6 missiles for ASM and full sized launchers to make it more fair.... or otherwise make my designs a little more suboptimal. ;)
I'm with you. I only use size 6-10 missiles. It's more fair and it feels more like naval/submarine warfare
-
I use Size 3 sprint missiles, usually around 20m range, 9 damage, Size 5 Torps 4dmg, and size 25 Capital missiles, ~25dmg at that tech.
The DDGs in question carry 2 Capital Missile tubes and 5 torp tubes. Getting the salvoes of both kinds to arrive together can be necessary, and is a pain, and was the subject of a previous discussion in the Adv Tac Academy forum.
That seems like an interesting blend of missiles and make it suboptimal enough to get a thumbs up in my book... ;)
Mixing missiles are viewed by many to be suboptimal, I don't fully agree with that since there can be a good reason for carrying both long range and short range missiles. If you can deal with an enemy before they get into range that can become a huge strategic advantage. It is strange that regular wet navies today carry a wide range of ASM on ships if this was the case in reality.
In general I try and mix high yield larger missiles with armour as more important against capital warships and smaller missiles with a smaller yield against smaller more vulnerable ships. But then again in my campaign smaller ships are often alone or in smaller groups. The reason is scouting and protecting many places at the same time require fleets to break up and designs will have to be adopt to account for this. In most of my campaigns there are no such thing as leaving a mining colony to fend for it self, it will have serious political/economical repercussions if I do that, and I like for my top officers to stay in position (or they do :) ). For me it's not just a numbers game, it is a political very complex and intricate web of pragmatism, exploitation, conflict, power and human rights struggle. ;)
-
Definitions - Destroyers are purpose built - frigates have to be able to operate alone, in the same size class. Cruisers are optimized for long deployment time and deep magazines.
An assault\sprint missile is FAST and has an ok hit. A torpedo has a limited damage potential but LONG range, and once feasible, onboard sensors. Damage of at least 4 is the only damage requirement. Capital missiles should have at least as much range as torpedos, onboard sensors, and probably some armor and\or ECM. Damage needs to be at least one more layer of armor than the sprint\assault missiles.
So, doctrine is that torpedoes are used against capital ships mostly, while sprint missiles are for fighters and gunboats. Capital missiles are only used against targets with sufficient Armor or PD to swat torpedoes. Cap missiles are expensive after all.
Later on, when I can afford sensors on assault missiles or torpedoes, capital tubes will be used to launch missile buses.
-
You seem to de defining things pretty similar to what I do, both ships and missiles/torpedoes.
I often call ASM (anti-ship missiles) for torpedoes and AMM for interceptors and anti-craft (or smaller ships) for missiles. So missiles are often smaller with lower yield and intended to hit fast moving ships. Torpedoes generally trade speed for armour with a high yield warhead to cause shock damage and pierce armour more efficiently. I sometimes also have very fast low range torpedoes that only is for very close combat purposes, perhaps a few hundred thousand kilometres and up to a million maximum.
My ships types say more about their role than size even if frigates tend to be smaller than a destroyer they really don't have to be, especially not between different factions. The frigate are much as you say a ship intended for independent operations, mainly as scouts. Their weapons are mainly to engage other frigates or smaller crafts and they should basically avoid anything else. They can also be used for escort duty.
The destroyer are the main military platform and must be able to perform many roles, pretty much any role that is not performed by a carrier. So they must be able to engage the enemy, protect other ships and scout. Their main role is to be part of naval battle groups and they rarely act alone on any missions. There usually is two types, the slightly larger destroyer leader who is a command and control ship and the regular destroyer. Smaller factions might just have one type of destroyer.
The cruiser is often a controversial type of ship that not many factions will have the resources to build. They must be big enough to be deployed in an independent role and able to perform pretty much any task, including engaging enemy capital warships such as destroyers and even carriers if need be. In essence they are reconnaissance in force type ships. They can operate alone or in cruiser groups or as part of real naval task-groups. Most of my cruiser designs will also have adequate hangar space for either strike crafts and/or utility crafts. They need to have long range, good deployment time, decent speeds and good defensive capabilities, all which is hard to accomplish and still be a potent and efficient design. Cruiser are mainly a way to brag, you show how quite rich and advanced you are to afford such a project.
-
To me, a cruiser is by midgame the workhorse of the fleet.
Got a explorer\survey group going through systems far from home? Too far to put a maintenance facility nearby for a destroyer squadron? Send a Cruiser group.
What you describe is to me more like a BB\BC\DN. My destroyers, on the other hand, are UNABLE to work alone. The DL has a jump engine, but no active sensors at this tech level.
I'll toss this up in another topic so we stop hijacking.