|
is there any point in making a specialist point defence cruiser to shoot down missiles? are missiles still optimal at this stage of the tech tree?
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 01:08 |
|
|
code:
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
sebmojo posted:is there any point in making a specialist point defence cruiser to shoot down missiles? are missiles still optimal at this stage of the tech tree? A thousand times yes, to both. If anything, they've only gotten better with the engine tech upgrade.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
The Final Version of the new Beam Heavy Cruisercode:code:Tythas fucked around with this message at 09:41 on Sep 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
Special Reports from the Skunkworks re: Big rear end Guns Recent advances in our technological prowness have resulted in the following advances in our abilities to throw directed energy weapons about : 1) Fire Control: We have all sorts of shiny new sensor tech now. As far as non-PD/turret purposes goes, you get to have this to point your big ol' guns about : code:2)Weapon Capacitors We have Cap Recharge 3 Now! This means a big ol' cut to all our ROF, most notable with 10cm lasers and railguns getting to fire every 5 seconds now. 3) Plasma Gunnery We have big honking 40cm Plasma Carronades now. Specs with falloff follow. Falloff is in 10k range increments code:4)Lasers Lots and lots of new stuff here. First up, we're up to Far Ultraviolent wavelenght, which basically pumps up the range on all our lasers in exchange for them costing a bit more. Second, we've had Multiple upgrades in laser focus size, right up to 30cm. This means that we can toss out all of the existing plasma weapons for same size laser equivalents with much better range. As an example, take the new 30cm laser we've gone and cooked up and compare it to the plasma. Again, 10k range brackets code:You recall all the shiny Ship Wrapped Around A Giant Laser designs for the Schiaperelli that got tossed for Impractical Thinking or Heresy Against The Cult Of Plasma or some such hogwash? Welp, we've gone and redone that weapon again. Behold The Giant Ion Cannon Of Doom, only 700 tons. code: Even the sheer impact of being hit by the thing is almost guranteed to break SOMETHING inside an enemy warship. Do note that we recommend a good sized secondary battery on any ship that carries this weapon, due to the 90 second firing rate on it. Use on a cruiser to open up holes for smaller lasers to exploit along with potential enemy crippling at the start of a battle is one projected role for these. 6)Gauss We have made no significant advacements in Gauss/Railgun technology. We do note that improved turret and sensor technology is likely to substantially improve the performance of gauss-based point defence installations, even if the actual gun remains the same.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
It's hard to emphasize just how much the Giant Spinal Doom Lasers will gently caress poo poo up. They'll be one-shotting destroyers and crippling cruisers in the first tick of fire, which gives us a huge edge through the rest of the beam duel. And even if they end up shooting at impeneterable bricks of armor like an Earth BB or something, they still have a ~175% or so chance to inflict shock damage on the internals. We want as many of them as we can get, they're a huge edge I doubt Earth can match. And they're only 700 tons to top it all off, we can put them in anything destroyer-sized or bigger. Every beam design should be built around one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 02:07
|
|
|
TBH, i'm rather doubtful of the wisdom of doing that for our smaller designs. 15cm lasers will be firing 9 times for every time we fire the Giant Spinal Doom Laser, so if you miss with that one shot, your destroyer-sized ship is very likely to be hosed up by equal size opposition. I'd certainly prefer a 30cm and 15cm laser instead of a 45cm on a Schiaperelli sized platform, for instance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 02:16
|
|
|
Hrm, true, a 30cm is nearly as good. Point is, though, the Cult of Plasma is dead, long live the Cult of the Ion Cannon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
On the note of maximizing the number of giant doom lasers, I'm going to put forward my suggestion for a missile cruiser with beam secondaries. While primarily missile armed, it has a healthy punch with a spinal laser and two secondaries, enough to remain dangerous even after expending all of its missiles.code:Also the first time an enemy encounters them they might assume they're just a slow missile ship until they close to point blank range for the giant doom laser. Bremen fucked around with this message at 02:30 on Sep 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
I feel like a spinal is pretty overkill on a missile ship, I'd trade it for more launchers/mag space. Don't get me wrong, our missile ships definitely should have some lasers and decent shields/armor to get in the beam fight with everyone else, but a spinal is too much a beam ship with some ancillary missiles than a missile ship with some ancillary beams.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
My opinion continues to be that ships with the majority of their tonnage devoted to not-beam related things have absolutely no buissness wanting to get involved in beam fights. The 1400 tons i see devoted to the lasers, reactor, and fire control on that design could much better devoted to such pursuits as doubling the magazine size from the currently pitiful 11 volleys along with fixing the ROF on the launchers so its 30 seconds per volley instead of 60. I simply do not see any benefit in halving our long range firepower per ship simply to throw some weak additions into a beam fight they could contribute to much better by blowing up the combatants beforehand.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 03:05
|
|
|
Just a few quick work ups. Should cover most of the requirements for a fleet, and open to tweaking. I don't think multi-purpose ships are that useful -- if you're going to do something, do it all the way. Some of these are not as useful at this tech level -- like the missile escort cruiser -- but can get better easily with better missile tech, which requires 0 modifications to the ship. We 100% need some fast fuel tenders to go along with these fleets to give them any sort of legs, but they fit the requirements. code:code:code:code:code:code:code:code:code:code:code:
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
All beams all the time. I've got a fever and the only cure is more beams!
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
Nick Esasky posted:My opinion continues to be that ships with the majority of their tonnage devoted to not-beam related things have absolutely no buissness wanting to get involved in beam fights. The 1400 tons i see devoted to the lasers, reactor, and fire control on that design could much better devoted to such pursuits as doubling the magazine size from the currently pitiful 11 volleys along with fixing the ROF on the launchers so its 30 seconds per volley instead of 60. I simply do not see any benefit in halving our long range firepower per ship simply to throw some weak additions into a beam fight they could contribute to much better by blowing up the combatants beforehand. The fire rate is a personal preference; I find larger and slower salvos more effective. Nor does 1400 tons of beams get magically more effective if you put it on a different hull. For what it's worth, it has about 65% the launchers and magazine of a dedicated missile ship, and about 50% the beam firepower of the beam ship posted earlier. The advantage comes from the armor; it might have 50% of the beam firepower of a dedicated beam ship, but it has about the same health, so two would outlast a single beam ship, while having more missiles than a single missile ship.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
A couple things to keep in mind when designing ships: We should have all anti-ship missile launchers use the same ROF so fleet wide missile volleys are as concentrated as possible. Jump ships can bring along others so not every ship has to have a jump drive, but only if the the jump drive is designed for ships of that size or smaller. So a ship with a Battleship class jump drive can jump cruisers or destroyers with it, but not the other way around. Since early tech level jump drives take up such a huge percentage of a ship's tonnage just to be able to accomadate that ship, it's impractical to fit an oversized jump drive onto a smaller ship. Any taskforce will need at least 1 jump drive equipped 9900 ton ship or we won't be able to field any really big guns outside of the Solar system.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
Given that the next battles might be fought a jump or even multiple jumps away from home, giving the missile ships a backup weaponery after they run out of missiles seems prudent to me, we will run into missile logistics problems sooner or later. The chance that a missile ship is run down after a fight by an enemy beam ship is just too high and getting empty ships captured by a few enemy fighters would be just too embarassing. I do agree with Cryo though that it should be backup weaponery, so i d replace the doom laser with 1-2 additional 15cms, upgrade the reactor if needed and use the saved weight to increase the magazine. The missile ships should try to exploit the craters that are struck by the doomlasers of the beam ships. For the missile rate of fire, as our next opponent most likely is UT, which so far have not fielded any designs with shields that we know of, i don t think a slower rate of fire is an issue, especially given the missile ranges (we ll always be empty long before the knifefight begins).
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 04:54
|
|
|
the big issue with the ROF thing, aside from possibly getting blown up before all/most of your missiles have reached their target/been launched, is the possibility of someone deploying AMMs. your typical AMM is size 1 and the launcher cycles every 10 seconds. A set of AMM launchers getting 6 shots off at your incoming salvo before another one shows up is a lot more thinning out of your missiles than 3 shots.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 06:26
|
|
|
If it's not obvious, the Discord crew got to see this stuff about a week ago and has been furiously theorycrafting. Here's a proposal of our high-level ideas so we can design to a coherent doctrine. Composition -We mainly use tenders for fleet jumping so we don't have to burden warships with massive drives. -The main combat force consists of 9,900 ton heavy cruisers. We need CA designs for a pure beam combatant, a primarily or solely missile-based design (I'll let others argue over which, I honestly don't care), and gauss PD. An AMM PD cruiser is also a possibility. -Antifighter missile frigates or DDGs provide screening against fighters and FACs. We can probably just modernize the Hubble II, frankly. -A 9,900 ton escort carrier. Modernize the Phobos and fix the Type 009 by giving it a railgun. -A long range, fast corvette for commerce raiding. -Miscellaneous support like an updated Gale, FSV, etc, that can use our jump tenders. -A 17,000 ton general-purpose Dreadnought. It won't be able to use jump tenders so we intend it for operations in Sol only. They don't leave the barn unless poo poo has gotten Really Real (or we just want to have fun with a big fuckoff ship). Speed Standard -4 kkps for the general fleet speed. This would be missile boats, support ships, carriers, transports, etc. This will be our usual strategic speed. -Beam combatants go somewhat faster for closing range or kiting. Missiles -We propose going to S3 as our standard antiship missile size, with 100Mkm range. We have a design with good accuracy and higher damage than our current S2.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 06:32
|
|
|
Nick Esasky posted:TBH, i'm rather doubtful of the wisdom of doing that for our smaller designs. 15cm lasers will be firing 9 times for every time we fire the Giant Spinal Doom Laser, so if you miss with that one shot, your destroyer-sized ship is very likely to be hosed up by equal size opposition. I'd certainly prefer a 30cm and 15cm laser instead of a 45cm on a Schiaperelli sized platform, for instance. This is a decent point but remember that bigger shots are disproportionately better once the shields are down, as well as dps advantages at longer range. We're liking situationally pairing the 15cm lasers with the spinal lasers because we situationally value the refire rate there. Generally bigger lasers are better lasers although spinal mounts take this to an extreme and there are a few different schools of thought on it; Our maximum spinal laser for reference; code:If you're only practically going to get one shot, only take one shot. We now have access to 50% reduced size lasers. This disproportionately tanks the fire rate (by 20x) but a full 50% reduction in weight. Double down & use capacitor 1 instead of 3 since reduced size already inherently tanks the fire rate below anticipated beam combat time frames; code:- The primary role of a ship is to stay afloat Full sized spinal mounts will outperform single shot first strikers given enough time so we give them that time. We have access to Ceramic Composite armour that provides excellent weight to thickness. This has enabled us to make light paper ships with only 4 armour but it also enables us to build super heavy armour at reasonable weights. We need to sustain 7 & 1/2 of enemy fire to break even with reduced sized spinal lasers and this armour can get us that time by using 10+ armour layers. At 12 armour layers it could curb even our own spinal lasers! Hessi posted:we will run into missile logistics problems sooner or later. The chance that a missile ship is run down after a fight by an enemy beam ship is just too high and getting empty ships captured by a few enemy fighters would be just too embarassing If we want to field missiles in a multi-system context then we want a lot more focus on logistics than we have been
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 06:33
|
|
|
An AMM Frigate, essentially a supersized Hubble with a huge sensor. code:code:code:
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 06:35
|
|
|
For what it's worth, we ran a sim in the Discord chat of 1 Lucifer and 3 Lowells vs 2 Lucifers and 2 specialized missile ships, and the hybrid approach won pretty handily. Both sides took heavy damage, but the hybrids got off to a slightly better start since both fleets lost a cruiser in the missile engagement, which cost the specialized ships half their launchers but the hybrids only a third, and then got anther boost since the missile ships were effectively "dead" once they ran out of missiles. Ended up with 2 Lowells surviving and all the specialized ships dead. Basically, I maintain that the hybrid design approach is far superior. Another lesson from the sim: Don't underestimate the 15cm lasers, they killed two of the lucifers by hitting holes in their armor left by missile combat. The giant spinal doom laser is great against undamaged ships, though. Also, it's probably a good idea to hold fire with the spinal until 50,000 km or so. That 90 second recharge is huge.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 07:34
|
|
|
I'd note that the Lucifer was most definitely trading armor for speed, and that i think a different beam spec design could've handily won.
Nick Esasky fucked around with this message at 08:14 on Sep 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 07:45
|
|
|
If you have never designed in Aurora and would like to learn then jump now into the Discord chat in the aurora_design_chat channel. It can be somewhat daunting without active help but there's going to be a lot of help available for the next little while Designers, please have some consideration for Emergency Cryo bays for survivors. Also for clarity the recommended general use +20% boost or less refers to engines using Engine power modifier x1.2, which has x1.58 fuel usage and explosion chance 12% TheWetFish fucked around with this message at 13:02 on Sep 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 12:24
|
|
|
How ridiculous a ship could we get if we made a fuckoff dreadnaught and went all in on death-star lasers?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 12:57
|
|
|
Unfortunately, you can only ever bring one Spinal Doom Laser per hull because they're, well, spinal. If you want more spinals, bring more hulls. If you want just max raw damage output, surround your Doom Laser with 40cm plasma (this is the one niche where plasma is still competitive, the largest laser we can normally build is 30cm so big plasma still outdamages non-spinal lasers).
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 13:08
|
|
|
So, after going through with the helpful critics at Discord (Love you guys really!), this is my latest CVL design.code:Running 2x Rail fighters & 4x F-B's (With a Phobos style Weapons load) gives roughly 2.83 reloads of missile space. EDIT: So, after going through a joke 45cm Spinal fighter in Discord, SOMEHOW it's been changed to an actually legit Rail fighter. code:3rd Edit: Since I've not seen one yet in-thread, here is the end product of: Ripping out and installing new engines in a Phobos. Full credit goes to whoever designed the original. code:Tactical_Torpedo fucked around with this message at 00:51 on Sep 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 13:23
|
|
|
I assume the fleet can just drag around a giant can full of missiles for resupply in extra-solar theaters?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 13:50
|
|
|
mossyfisk posted:I assume the fleet can just drag around a giant can full of missiles for resupply in extra-solar theaters? Yep, sure can. It's not entirely a trivial thing as missile colliers have a tendency to cascade explode internally from combat, in spectacular fashion. Alternatively significant internal armour and less missile capacity. I think we even had a few volunteers for collier captaincy
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 13:55
|
|
|
TheWetFish posted:If you have never designed in Aurora and would like to learn then jump now into the Discord chat in the aurora_design_chat channel. It can be somewhat daunting without active help but there's going to be a lot of help available for the next little while Overcrowding doesn't kick in for 5 days. I.e. until after the battle is over. If you really want to bring cryo, put them on support ships where they aren't degrading the effectiveness of combat vessels.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 14:56
|
|
|
LLSix posted:Overcrowding doesn't kick in for 5 days. I.e. until after the battle is over. If you really want to bring cryo, put them on support ships where they aren't degrading the effectiveness of combat vessels. It's really fun when your combat occurs during that 5 day production cycle. And I think Saros has the production cycle set to a much shorter period, though I might be mistaken on that. Your point still stands, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
I figure cryo can be handled just fine by FSVs and jump tenders.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
I fully support the Church of Spinal Mounts and think that the doctrine of striking first, striking hard, and ending the fight quickly is a thoroughly Martian thing. Most of our previous battles were heavily influenced by our ability to reach out at touch someone before they can hit us.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
I have a rail interceptor design of my own. It contrasts with TT's by giving up the armor and shields for pure speed. The core concept of a rail fighter is to maximize the speed since that's the source of your tracking, and therefore your PD capability. Against 20k missiles, this design has a mean shootdown rate of 2.1/shot. Protection is then derived from speed and the ability to provide highly effective Final Fire PD against antifighter missiles. High speed also makes intercepting enemy bombers much more likely. Unfortunately, it's not very possible to cram in both an antifighter sensor and a missile sensor. I propose that we combine with AWACS-mounted missile detection when away from the fleet so the fighters can cover themselves with Final Fire. When the fighters are with the fleet, they can simply share the sensor on our bigger PD ships. code:Fray fucked around with this message at 16:26 on Sep 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
Yeah, if we're using them to shoot down missiles Fray's design beats mine hands down(a converted laser Anti-Capitol design). Although I know which I'd prefer being in when getting shot at. Then again, +/- fanatics.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
How does one set up manufactories and infrastructure anyway? If we get a self-sufficient military base with manufacturing capabilities and the ability to pump out ships beyond the jump point, we'll have serious control over the system. Are AI systems a possibility?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
I have no experience in this game or its ship design aspects, but I do know that I am a member of the cult of giant loving lasers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:How does one set up manufactories and infrastructure anyway? If we get a self-sufficient military base with manufacturing capabilities and the ability to pump out ships beyond the jump point, we'll have serious control over the system. Are AI systems a possibility? Easiest way is building factories on Mars, then shipping them piece by piece to a new colony. You also need enough colonists to run the factories, and enough infrastructure to support those colonists if you aren't on a planet close enough to Earth norms. Throw in a few mines if the planet has some local resources, or ship in some from around the local system, and then you can start using them to make make more factories & mines & infrastructure on site. With that in place you can build dedicated fighter & missile factories, fuel refineries, shipyards, etc. on your new world.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:How does one set up manufactories and infrastructure anyway? If we get a self-sufficient military base with manufacturing capabilities and the ability to pump out ships beyond the jump point, we'll have serious control over the system. Are AI systems a possibility? It takes a while for colonies to become both significant and self-sufficient. Initially you just have to bootstrap it by shipping in factories and minerals, or mines to produce minerals locally. Once you reach a decent level, you can start growing from local production. However, population is in turn limited by infrastructure depending on how habitable the world is (the purpose of terraforming is to reduce infrastructure needs per population). Fortunately the worlds in Rangi are pretty good and amenable to terraforming. For a pure military base we just need some maintenance facilities, some defenses and sensors, and perhaps a shipyard. Yards and maintenance facilities require some population though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
Mars is actually pretty well positioned new colony setup-wise as the climate has been improving thanks to Terraforming efforts (reduces Colony cost aka tons of infra needed per person) faster than the population grows into the existing infrastructure so there's actually a bunch of surplus infrastructure sitting around that can using Aurora rules be boxed and carted to a new system.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 01:08 |
|
|
Yeah we're pretty uniquely placed to be good at colonizing, like Saros said we've got lots of spare infra just laying around, and beyond that we've got decades of experience with terraforming that the Terrans don't. Also, a decentralized federation like us is probably gonna adjust to communications lag and colonies wanting self-government way better than the highly centralized Earth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 18:10
|
|