|
Crazycryodude posted:Never. A few tech levels from now is probably when missiles are at their worst compared to AMM's/PD, and then they take off again and by the end of the game you've got missiles going faster than the speed of light loving your poo poo up from the other side of the system. Can you actually do this? I tested out a max tech game and the best I could do was was ~.95c size 1 AMM with 6 minutes of endurance. Tried them out against low tech NPR civvies and the hit calculations overflowed and caused all missiles to miss.
|
# ? Sep 22, 2017 19:38 |
|
|
# ? Mar 29, 2024 01:26 |
|
Leif. posted:I don't see how you get that? The question was "Should we continue with specialized, or should we develop hybrids?" To be clear, the "hybrid" option simply means that our missile CA design would have a minor laser armament as well. The overall doctrine would still look like what I summarized in this post: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3822055&userid=168857&perpage=40&pagenumber=2#post476574418 Maybe it sounds different, but take my word for it that that's the understanding per the (endless, insufferable) argument on Discord that spawned this vote.
|
# ? Sep 22, 2017 19:41 |
|
Yeah the hybrid vote is basically "do we strap a couple 15cm lasers and a beam FC to the missile boats so they're not defenseless when they run out of ammo Y/N?"
Crazycryodude fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Sep 22, 2017 |
# ? Sep 22, 2017 19:44 |
|
Yep. It's worth noting that the long range sensor and fire control for a missile setup is much larger than the firecontrol for beam weapons, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to strap a few missile launchers onto a dedicate beam ship (which can't run out of ammo anyways). I'll also note that most beam cruiser designs have a backup firecontrol anyways for redundancy, so having a missile fire control and a beam fire control isn't even that big a loss in efficiency compared to jamming all the beams into one hull.
|
# ? Sep 22, 2017 20:48 |
|
Yes that's my understanding too, 1B just means we have some hybrid ships in the mix.
|
# ? Sep 22, 2017 20:48 |
|
TBH, the examples of usage given to me by Bremen on Discord involved sacking all of our missile ships for hybrids and then sacking half the dedicated beam ships as well to theoretically maintain the same missile throw weight. That did not sit very well with me.
|
# ? Sep 22, 2017 21:52 |
|
Jackson Taus posted:Fire Control of 8.8m km range, Sensor range of 2.6m km, missile range of 0.6m km? Seems like those should be better balanced? I get that we want to future proof, but that feels like a bit much. The Fire control and the Sensors are literally as small as we can make them there is nothing more i can do to make them more balanced I have also fixed the nemesis code:
|
# ? Sep 22, 2017 21:54 |
|
Nick Esasky posted:TBH, the examples of usage given to me by Bremen on Discord involved sacking all of our missile ships for hybrids and then sacking half the dedicated beam ships as well to theoretically maintain the same missile throw weight. That did not sit very well with me. That was a theoretical example that if we made 1/3rd beam 2/3rd missile ships, we could replace a 2:2 beam:missile squadron with 1:3 beam:hybrid to get the same number of launchers but much greater staying power in a beam fight. The actual specifics of a hybrid ship haven't really been nailed down; I've been experimenting with a hybrid with only two light beams and more missile launchers (more practical with the addition of torpedoes), but I'm waiting to see what missile size we settle on.
|
# ? Sep 22, 2017 22:11 |
|
1B 2B In reverse order, larger missiles mean more varied designs or roles are possible, maybe not all minmaxed but spice of life and all that. Future designs get more room to breathe too. Same reasoning for hybrid designs - while it may be less efficient than all-or-nothing designs, it give people a lot more leeway to theorycraft and come up with new ship proposals that aren't just the USS Best Missile Box. Plus a ship that can get stuck in even after blowing its wad (hurr) is more fun to RP and read about. It's not a suicide charge if I've still got a few lasers to attack the giant battleship with! Pew pew Mars Attacks bitches!
|
# ? Sep 22, 2017 23:23 |
|
1B, 2B: 1B: If the fight at Titan had turned out only a little different and IC had been the one with a surviving ship or two, our out of ammo missile ships could all have been run down or captured, as we didn t start fleeing with them, but rather tried to reload. I would prefer the hybrids to have only a few long range beam weapons so they cannot be kited and can defend against light pursuit from a beam destroyer or a few fighters.They should get their big close range damage spike from a salvoe or two of torpedos instead of doomlasers so they retain more of the volume and magazine depth of pure missile boats. This means they are less Hybrids but Missile boats with light backup laser guns and a salvoe or two of knife-fighting range high damage missiles. 2B: Going to size 4 now increases the chance we stay at that level for some time, so this generation of starships can still sling missiles with the best of them even if their engine and other techs are outdated. Hessi fucked around with this message at 00:59 on Sep 23, 2017 |
# ? Sep 23, 2017 00:22 |
|
How much meaningful difference is there between strapping a giant laser on a missile cruiser, and just sticking a few dozen torpedoes in its magazine? If the space a beam setup requires would accommodate enough torpedoes for several engagements, then that seems simpler and keeps missile output high. (I am right in assuming they can fire torps from their normal missiles tubes?)
|
# ? Sep 23, 2017 04:08 |
|
Hybrid ships are good because they can form a solid detachment for striking secondary targets/raiding
|
# ? Sep 23, 2017 04:34 |
|
mossyfisk posted:How much meaningful difference is there between strapping a giant laser on a missile cruiser, and just sticking a few dozen torpedoes in its magazine? For what it's worth, here's the tonnages involved at our current tech: 10cm laser (+power plant): 180 tons 15cm laser (+power plant): 230 tons 30cm laser (+power plant): 480 tons 45cm laser (+power plant): 730 tons 17 extra Size 4 missiles: 100 tons On the surface torpedoes do look pretty good, though they suffer pretty low fire rate after the first salvo. There's also a small but real chance that missiles will explode in a ship if it takes internal damage, Battletech style. Also, if you have the missiles for multiple salvos of torpedoes, you start to wonder why you don't just load them with missiles and hit them before beam range.
|
# ? Sep 23, 2017 04:44 |
|
So what exactly is a torpedo is Aurora terms? Is it just a normal missile with most of the fuel storage replaced with a larger warhead?
|
# ? Sep 23, 2017 10:58 |
|
Pharnakes posted:So what exactly is a torpedo is Aurora terms? Is it just a normal missile with most of the fuel storage replaced with a larger warhead? Pretty much
|
# ? Sep 23, 2017 11:01 |
|
1B 2B No plan survives contact with the enemy. Having a backup plan is never a bad thing.
|
# ? Sep 23, 2017 13:44 |
|
Pharnakes posted:So what exactly is a torpedo is Aurora terms? Is it just a normal missile with most of the fuel storage replaced with a larger warhead? Personally when I hear "torpedo" in Aurora terms I think a big missile that's designed to be fired from within 5 seconds of the enemy to avoid PD. This lets you trade basically all the fuel for a fuckoff huge warhead and speed.
|
# ? Sep 23, 2017 14:16 |
|
A torpedo should look something like this:code:
|
# ? Sep 23, 2017 15:19 |
|
I'm sure that would be good but that's a size 9 missile isn't it? People are talking about size 3 or 4 launchers, I don't think torpedoes are a good idea if they require dedicated tubes, only if they can be carried by our standard missile ships for a bit of extra punch up close.
|
# ? Sep 23, 2017 15:34 |
|
Our Marine ships were awesome, so its time to update them. I've managed to compress a useful number of meteors down into a Destroyer frame. 4 companies is 80% of a battalion and more than enough for commerce raiding and pillaging lightly defended colonies. For the new generation of marine ships I targeted a fleet speed of 5k in order to allow them to outrun anything they can't outshoot.code:
The new marine assault shuttles are smaller, faster, and longer ranged than the previous generation. code:
The Kanaloa Dropship Carrier is extremely vulnerable to enemy attack and as a result should not be deployed without escorts. At minimum, each carrier task group should have 1 Marine FSV and 1 Claw Corvette attached to it. The Marine FSV provides long range passive spotting allowing the raiders to choose their battles. Avoiding front line combatants and picking off supply convoys and possibly small escorts. It also carries spare parts, extra fuel, and even 200 cryoberths to stash prisoners in. code:
The next generation Fang needs to have 3 times the deployment time and 3 times the range as the current generation. Accordingly, a much larger design has been chosen; the Claw class. The new design is measurably more fuel efficient and more heavily armed as well. It also can keep up with the other raider designs should they need to relocate in order to avoid engaging anti-piracy task groups. code:
Engine designs: Kanaloa Dropship Carrier Meteor Engines: 1 Size 3 max boost fighter engine or 3 size 1s Destroyer Engines: Unlike last gen marine engines, these only use 1.4 engine boost to extend their range in recognition that supply lines will likely be tenuous in other solar systems; and especially so for raiders. (Previous designs used 1.5)
|
# ? Sep 23, 2017 15:51 |
|
Pharnakes posted:I'm sure that would be good but that's a size 9 missile isn't it? People are talking about size 3 or 4 launchers, I don't think torpedoes are a good idea if they require dedicated tubes, only if they can be carried by our standard missile ships for a bit of extra punch up close. Here's the S4 torpedo design I came up with: code:
|
# ? Sep 23, 2017 17:31 |
|
Bremen posted:At 120,000 km or closer, it's uninterceptable; for comparison, our lasers do their max damage out to 50,000 km and can theoretically hit out to about 300,000 km. Not really as good as a laser for the tonnage, especially considering the limited ammo, but it's a nice bonus for ships that have the launchers anyways. Agreed.
|
# ? Sep 23, 2017 18:57 |
|
Upgrades of existing designs are probably also a good idea:code:
|
# ? Sep 23, 2017 19:09 |
|
Scintilla posted:Upgrades of existing designs are probably also a good idea: Are you using Stealth/Baffled engines? That's probably a big chunk of the expense. I'm also not sure it's worth hardening the Thermal/EM sensors. If you're getting hit by microwaves, you're probably in combat and don't need to worry if those go down. Or is that to just make the microwave hit table a bit better?
|
# ? Sep 23, 2017 20:35 |
|
No Giant Spinal Laser Of Doom, no Buys
|
# ? Sep 23, 2017 20:37 |
|
Jackson Taus posted:Are you using Stealth/Baffled engines? That's probably a big chunk of the expense. I'm also not sure it's worth hardening the Thermal/EM sensors. If you're getting hit by microwaves, you're probably in combat and don't need to worry if those go down. Or is that to just make the microwave hit table a bit better? Thanks for the advice - here's a much more affordable redesign: code:
Nick Esasky posted:No Giant Spinal Laser Of Doom, no Buys Fiiiine, here's a cheap and cheerful Monitor that mounts both Giant Doom Lasers and Huge Plasma Death-Throwers. code:
|
# ? Sep 23, 2017 20:54 |
|
Yay I caught up! ... just in time for a hiatus. I can't wrap my head around these ship designs. Once a good number of them have come in, would it be possible to get a summary of the differences between them? I know nothing but I can still vote! ...right, it's not too late? 1B, 2B
|
# ? Sep 23, 2017 23:15 |
|
there's a lot of chat going on in the discord, with the results being posted here: I'm guessing there will be some votes on areas of dispute. shall we call the hybrid/specialised vote? seems very strongly in favour of hybrid.
|
# ? Sep 23, 2017 23:18 |
|
I know there is a design for a 350 ton spinal doom laser earlier in the thread, that takes an entire hour and a half to reload. How many tons would it take to pair that up with an okay fire control? Since spinal mount lasers are one per ship I could accept 500 tons or less being devoted to them on future missile ships. Still wouldn't help with end of battle clean up, but hey.
|
# ? Sep 24, 2017 00:39 |
|
The giant spinal doom lasers remind me of when someone was telling me about the Star Wars EU, and apparently in one of the books the Empire decides it can't really afford ANOTHER Death Star, but they have one of the planet killer guns lying around so gently caress it let's just strap some engines on that bitch and call it a ship!
|
# ? Sep 24, 2017 00:52 |
|
Marines MK II With regard to our Marine boats, i feel like they really can't be expected to adhere to Saros' guidelines and still resemble the originals in any real way because of how different the originals already were from the rest of the fleet in two manners: 1)All the Marine ships, even the LSD were running around on engines uprated to 150% in order to get their speed on minimal tonnage 2)Unlike the rest of the fleet, which all already had 12-18 months of deployment built into the designs(barring the field refits on Hubbles/Lockyers), OG Marines have 6 months, or 9 months for their LSDs. Also, we have cloaks now, and Marines apparently love to have sneaky engines. I figured i may as well try to make something vaguely usable on the Maximum Sneakiness side of the scale for them. So, a few upteched designs based on those points: 1) Fangs Have a upteched Regular Fang with a bit of extra fuel, and a Sneaky Fang with a cloak on it. Yes, i am aware that the latter is slow, and both of them are a bit light on fuel. I don't really think that trying to go through a Terran jumppoint to raid things on the other side is a thing that can be done sneakily for a variety of reasons, and thus i'm content with them in the role of in-Sol commerce raider, or maybe based somewhere in Ragni should we end up sharing that with the Terrans. code:
code:
code:
|
# ? Sep 24, 2017 07:25 |
|
pun pundit posted:I can't wrap my head around these ship designs. Once a good number of them have come in, would it be possible to get a summary of the differences between them? habituallyred posted:I know there is a design for a 350 ton spinal doom laser earlier in the thread, that takes an entire hour and a half to reload. How many tons would it take to pair that up with an okay fire control? Since spinal mount lasers are one per ship I could accept 500 tons or less being devoted to them on future missile ships. Still wouldn't help with end of battle clean up, but hey. 450 tons which is 9 HS (Hull Size); 350 tons for the laser + 100 tons for the fire control code:
Ship Design Checklist v5 Combat - tonnage limit - speed target - defences - MSP > 2x Max Repair (if not parasite) - Maintenance Life target - Intended Deployment target - Engine within restrictions - Fuel Range target - Active Sensor - Fire Controls - Tracking speeds - Fire control ranges - Power generated - Electronic warfare - Passives - Sanitise internal HTKs Missiles - Magazines Carriers - Flight Crew Berths - MSP > 2x parasite Max Repair Support - Survivor Cryo Pods TheWetFish fucked around with this message at 11:15 on Sep 24, 2017 |
# ? Sep 24, 2017 07:58 |
|
Zaodai posted:The giant spinal doom lasers remind me of when someone was telling me about the Star Wars EU, and apparently in one of the books the Empire decides it can't really afford ANOTHER Death Star, but they have one of the planet killer guns lying around so gently caress it let's just strap some engines on that bitch and call it a ship! http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Darksaber_(novel)
|
# ? Sep 24, 2017 10:26 |
|
^^^Sold(on TheWetFish's post) I would change my vote for some classic cone of death action. But I think that fleet plan LENSMAN has no chance of making it off the drawing board.
|
# ? Sep 24, 2017 10:27 |
|
Nick Esasky posted:Marines MK II Does a shuttle really need baffled engines? At boarding ranges its just going to get instantly picked up on actives anyway.How much mass can you save with standard engines?
|
# ? Sep 24, 2017 11:06 |
|
habituallyred posted:^^^Sold(on TheWetFish's post) I would change my vote for some classic cone of death action. But I think that fleet plan LENSMAN has no chance of making it off the drawing board. Pharnakes posted:Does a shuttle really need baffled engines? At boarding ranges its just going to get instantly picked up on actives anyway.How much mass can you save with standard engines?
|
# ? Sep 24, 2017 11:35 |
Just finished catching up for this LP, so Make me a captain . I'll take anything destroyer sized or larger, call it the Alien Vessel Also: why is no one designing anything bigger than 9,900 tons? I understand we won't be able to jump with it, but we have gate tech, which will mean that most systems worth defending will have wormholes to them, so larger ships can help defend them. Nothingtoseehere fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Sep 24, 2017 |
|
# ? Sep 24, 2017 11:41 |
|
Well for starters we have yet to deploy gate tech, or even build a construction ship. Also we have no idea if gates are safe, building one might well just result in a repeat of the Pluto incident, only without facility on hand to pull our poo poo out the fire.
|
# ? Sep 24, 2017 11:55 |
|
Our first gate builder is also a prototype vessel, like our first jumpship was, and the engine of that one exploded after 3 jumps. The first designed gate builder ships will come quite some time later, so we are not completely relying on using gates for everything.
|
# ? Sep 24, 2017 13:21 |
|
|
# ? Mar 29, 2024 01:26 |
|
Nick Esasky posted:2) ATM i don't have a new LSD design percolating in my head, but i do have a Meteor to put on them. Yes, its bigger than the one in LLSix's proposal, but i believe the extra speed it offers is well worth it, especially since it gives us the option of relative safety in boarding things that only have 80% of their engines out instead of all of them. The marine carrier (LSD Kanaloa class) can only fit 3 of these things. That's a loss of 25% of our marine carrying capacity. nothing to seehere posted:Just finished catching up for this LP, so Make me a captain . I'll take anything destroyer sized or larger, call it the Alien Vessel Design one and post it then. LLSix fucked around with this message at 15:14 on Sep 24, 2017 |
# ? Sep 24, 2017 14:56 |