Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Zeond
Oct 16, 2008

Please give generously to The League for Fighting Chartered Accountancy, 55 Lincoln House, Basil Street, London, SW3.

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.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Fray
Oct 22, 2010

Leif. posted:

I don't see how you get that? The question was "Should we continue with specialized, or should we develop hybrids?"


I guess I can see an argument that 1B really just means "one" hybrid design, but the way discussion has gone, it seems to be implying that 1A is "base entire fleet around specialized" and 1B is "base entire fleet around hybrids".

I'm advocating for a 1C which is "Continue developing specialized ships, but add in one or two hybrid's for multirole/frigate work."

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.

Crazycryodude
Aug 15, 2015

Lets get our X tons of Duranium back!

....Is that still a valid thing to jingoistically blow out of proportion?


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

Bremen
Jul 20, 2006

Our God..... is an awesome God
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.

sebmojo
Oct 23, 2010


Legit Cyberpunk









Yes that's my understanding too, 1B just means we have some hybrid ships in the mix.

Nick Esasky
Nov 10, 2009
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.

Tythas
Oct 3, 2013

Never felt at home in reality
Always hiding behind avatars


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:
Nemesis MkII class Fighter    467 tons     1 Crew     86.2 BP      TCS 9.34  TH 72  EM 0
7708 km/s     Armour 2-5     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 4.8
Maint Life 0 Years     MSP 0    AFR 93%    IFR 1.3%    1YR 3    5YR 52    Max Repair 36 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.1 months    Spare Berths 3    
Magazine 32    

72 EP Ion Drive (1)    Power 72    Fuel Use 329.23%    Signature 72    Exp 20%
Fuel Capacity 5 000 Litres    Range 0.6 billion km   (21 hours at full power)

Size 1 Box Launcher (32)    Missile Size 1    Hangar Reload 7.5 minutes    MF Reload 1.2 hours
Missile Fire Control FC2-R8 (1)     Range 2.5m km    Resolution 8

Active Search Sensor MR1-R6 (50%) (1)     GPS 26     Range 1.4m km    Resolution 6

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and maintenance purposes

Bremen
Jul 20, 2006

Our God..... is an awesome God

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.

Neophyte
Apr 23, 2006

perennially
Taco Defender
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!

Hessi
Oct 28, 2010
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

mossyfisk
Nov 8, 2010

FF0000
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?)

Agean90
Jun 28, 2008


Hybrid ships are good because they can form a solid detachment for striking secondary targets/raiding

Bremen
Jul 20, 2006

Our God..... is an awesome God

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?

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?)

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.

Pharnakes
Aug 14, 2009
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?

Tythas
Oct 3, 2013

Never felt at home in reality
Always hiding behind avatars


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

Rorac
Aug 19, 2011


1B

2B



No plan survives contact with the enemy. Having a backup plan is never a bad thing.

Crazycryodude
Aug 15, 2015

Lets get our X tons of Duranium back!

....Is that still a valid thing to jingoistically blow out of proportion?


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.

Scintilla
Aug 24, 2010

I BEAT HIGHFORT
and all I got was this
jackass monkey
A torpedo should look something like this:

code:
Titanomachia Anti-Ship Torpedo
Missile Size: 9 MSP  (0.45 HS)     Warhead: 12    Armour: 1     Manoeuvre Rating: 14
Speed: 26700 km/s    Engine Endurance: 0 minutes   Range: 0.5m km
Cost Per Missile: 7.0148
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 373.8%   3k km/s 112%   5k km/s 74.8%   10k km/s 37.4%
Materials Required:    3.25x Tritanium   3.7648x Gallicite   Fuel x6.25

Development Cost for Project: 701RP
Short range, big warhead, high agility and possibly an armoured tip if you're worried about PD fire.

Pharnakes
Aug 14, 2009
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.

LLSix
Jan 20, 2010

The real power behind countless overlords

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:
LSD Kanaloa class Dropship Carrier    4 500 tons     88 Crew     866 BP      TCS 90  TH 112.32  EM 0
5200 km/s     Armour 1-24     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 2     PPV 0
Maint Life 2.19 Years     MSP 241    AFR 81%    IFR 1.1%    1YR 68    5YR 1013    Max Repair 234 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 18 months    Flight Crew Berths 18    
Hangar Deck Capacity 1625 tons     Cryo Drop Capacity: 1 Company    

Marine Baffled 234 EP Ion Drive (2)    Power 234    Fuel Use 143.85%    Signature 56.16    Exp 15%
Fuel Capacity 500 000 Litres    Range 13.9 billion km   (30 days at full power)

Strike Group
4x Meteor Mk2 Assault Shuttle   Speed: 9375 km/s    Size: 7.68

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes


The new marine assault shuttles are smaller, faster, and longer ranged than the previous generation.
code:
Meteor Mk2 class Assault Shuttle    384 tons     4 Crew     73.8 BP      TCS 7.68  TH 72  EM 0
9375 km/s     Armour 1-4     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 0
Maint Life 0 Years     MSP 0    AFR 76%    IFR 1.1%    1YR 18    5YR 263    Max Repair 36 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.5 months    Spare Berths 1    
Cryo Drop Capacity: 1 Company    

Born to Burn Shuttle 72 EP Ion Drive (1)    Power 72    Fuel Use 329.23%    Signature 72    Exp 20%
Fuel Capacity 5 000 Litres    Range 0.7 billion km   (21 hours at full power)

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and maintenance purposes
Keep excess crew is checked so that I could force the design to use 2 fighter crew quarters instead of the tiny one it wanted. This squeezes out an extra 25kilometers/sec.


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:
Marine FSV class Scout Frigate    3 000 tons     69 Crew     766.4 BP      TCS 60  TH 72.48  EM 0
5033 km/s     Armour 1-18     Shields 0-0     Sensors 288/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 0
Maint Life 3.94 Years     MSP 1160    AFR 72%    IFR 1%    1YR 119    5YR 1780    Max Repair 302.4 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 18 months    Spare Berths 1    
Cryogenic Berths 200    

Marine Baffled Outsystem 302.4 EP Ion Drive (1)    Power 302.4    Fuel Use 114.1%    Signature 72.576    Exp 14%
Fuel Capacity 600 000 Litres    Range 31.5 billion km   (72 days at full power)

Marine Tripwire Thermal Sensor TH16-288 (1)     Sensitivity 288     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  288m km

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
It is not flagged as a tanker to prevent allied forces from wandering over to it to top off and revealing the raider's position.


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:
Claw class Corvette    3 000 tons     96 Crew     767.4 BP      TCS 60  TH 72.48  EM 0
5033 km/s     Armour 5-18     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 10
Maint Life 1.39 Years     MSP 160    AFR 72%    IFR 1%    1YR 90    5YR 1350    Max Repair 302.4 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 18 months    Spare Berths 1    

Marine Baffled Outsystem 302.4 EP Ion Drive (1)    Power 302.4    Fuel Use 114.1%    Signature 72.576    Exp 14%
Fuel Capacity 250 000 Litres    Range 13.1 billion km   (30 days at full power)

Orion Mk2 15cm C3 Far Ultraviolet Laser (1)    Range 300 000km     TS: 5033 km/s     Power 6-3     RM 5    ROF 10        6 6 6 6 6 5 4 3 3 3
Orion Mk2 20cm C3 Far Ultraviolet Laser (1)    Range 320 000km     TS: 5033 km/s     Power 10-3     RM 5    ROF 20        10 10 10 10 10 8 7 6 5 5
Mao-Kowalski Fire Control S02 160-5000 (1)    Max Range: 320 000 km   TS: 5000 km/s     97 94 91 88 84 81 78 75 72 69
Safe Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor Technology PB-1 (2)     Total Power Output 6.3    Armour 0    Exp 5%

Mao-Kowalski FC Sensor MR4-R10 (1)     GPS 105     Range 4.6m km    Resolution 10

ECCM-2 (1)         ECM 20

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes


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)

Bremen
Jul 20, 2006

Our God..... is an awesome God

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:
Missile Size: 4 MSP  (0.2 HS)     Warhead: 9    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 13
Speed: 24000 km/s    Engine Endurance: 2 minutes   Range: 2.5m km
Cost Per Missile: 3.6932
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 312%   3k km/s 104%   5k km/s 62.4%   10k km/s 31.2%
Materials Required:    2.25x Tritanium   1.4432x Gallicite   Fuel x25
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.

LLSix
Jan 20, 2010

The real power behind countless overlords

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.

Scintilla
Aug 24, 2010

I BEAT HIGHFORT
and all I got was this
jackass monkey
Upgrades of existing designs are probably also a good idea:

code:
Olympus Mons II class Battlecruiser    14,900 tons     438 Crew     4053 BP      TCS 298  TH 345.6  EM 750
4832 km/s     Armour 6-53     Shields 25-300     Sensors 54/42/0/0     Damage Control Rating 28     PPV 86.1
Maint Life 2.11 Years     MSP 1360    AFR 222%    IFR 3.1%    1YR 410    5YR 6151    Max Repair 540 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Spare Berths 0    
Cryogenic Berths 200    

SpaceX 360 EP Ion Drive (4)    Power 360    Fuel Use 70.98%    Signature 86.4    Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 400,000 Litres    Range 6.8 billion km   (16 days at full power)
Delta R300/360 Shields (10)   Total Fuel Cost  150 Litres per hour  (3,600 per day)

Orion 30cm C3 Far Ultraviolet Laser (1)    Range 320,000km     TS: 5000 km/s     Power 24-3     RM 5    ROF 40
Twin Orion Gauss Cannon R3-100 Turret (2x6)    Range 30,000km     TS: 14000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 3    ROF 5 
Orion 40cm C3 Plasma Carronade (4)    Range 320,000km     TS: 5000 km/s     Power 40-3     RM 1    ROF 70 
Fire Control S06 160-15000 H50 (2)    Max Range: 320,000 km   TS: 15000 km/s    
Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor Technology PB-1 (2)     Total Power Output 18    Armour 0    Exp 5%

Active Search Sensor MR78-R80 (50%) (1)     GPS 5040     Range 78.9m km    Resolution 80
Thermal Sensor TH3-54 (50%) (1)     Sensitivity 54     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  54m km
EM Detection Sensor EM3-42 (50%) (1)     Sensitivity 42     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  42m km

ECM 20

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
An updated Olympus Mons. I stripped out the missile components to make room for component upgrades and shield generators. The 4000+ BP is pretty rough though.

Jackson Taus
Oct 19, 2011

Scintilla posted:

Upgrades of existing designs are probably also a good idea:

code:
Olympus Mons II class Battlecruiser    14,900 tons     438 Crew     4053 BP      TCS 298  TH 345.6  EM 750
4832 km/s     Armour 6-53     Shields 25-300     Sensors 54/42/0/0     Damage Control Rating 28     PPV 86.1
Maint Life 2.11 Years     MSP 1360    AFR 222%    IFR 3.1%    1YR 410    5YR 6151    Max Repair 540 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Spare Berths 0    
Cryogenic Berths 200    

SpaceX 360 EP Ion Drive (4)    Power 360    Fuel Use 70.98%    Signature 86.4    Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 400,000 Litres    Range 6.8 billion km   (16 days at full power)
Delta R300/360 Shields (10)   Total Fuel Cost  150 Litres per hour  (3,600 per day)

Orion 30cm C3 Far Ultraviolet Laser (1)    Range 320,000km     TS: 5000 km/s     Power 24-3     RM 5    ROF 40
Twin Orion Gauss Cannon R3-100 Turret (2x6)    Range 30,000km     TS: 14000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 3    ROF 5 
Orion 40cm C3 Plasma Carronade (4)    Range 320,000km     TS: 5000 km/s     Power 40-3     RM 1    ROF 70 
Fire Control S06 160-15000 H50 (2)    Max Range: 320,000 km   TS: 15000 km/s    
Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor Technology PB-1 (2)     Total Power Output 18    Armour 0    Exp 5%

Active Search Sensor MR78-R80 (50%) (1)     GPS 5040     Range 78.9m km    Resolution 80
Thermal Sensor TH3-54 (50%) (1)     Sensitivity 54     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  54m km
EM Detection Sensor EM3-42 (50%) (1)     Sensitivity 42     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  42m km

ECM 20

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
An updated Olympus Mons. I stripped out the missile components to make room for component upgrades and shield generators. The 4000+ BP is pretty rough though.

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?

Nick Esasky
Nov 10, 2009
No Giant Spinal Laser Of Doom, no Buys :colbert:

Scintilla
Aug 24, 2010

I BEAT HIGHFORT
and all I got was this
jackass monkey

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:
Olympus Mons II class Battlecruiser    14,900 tons     438 Crew     3254 BP      TCS 298  TH 1440  EM 750
4832 km/s     Armour 6-53     Shields 25-300     Sensors 54/42/0/0     Damage Control Rating 28     PPV 86.1
Maint Life 2.42 Years     MSP 1092    AFR 222%    IFR 3.1%    1YR 257    5YR 3853    Max Repair 540 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Spare Berths 0    
Cryogenic Berths 200    

SpaceX Standard 360 EP Ion Drive (4)    Power 360    Fuel Use 70.98%    Signature 360    Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 400,000 Litres    Range 6.8 billion km   (16 days at full power)
Delta R300/360 Shields (10)   Total Fuel Cost  150 Litres per hour  (3,600 per day)

Orion 30cm C3 Far Ultraviolet Laser (1)    Range 320,000km     TS: 5000 km/s     Power 24-3     RM 5    ROF 40   
Twin Orion Gauss Cannon R3-100 Turret (2x6)    Range 30,000km     TS: 14000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 3    ROF 5   
Orion 40cm C3 Plasma Carronade (4)    Range 320,000km     TS: 5000 km/s     Power 40-3     RM 1    ROF 70 
Fire Control S06 160-15000 H50 (2)    Max Range: 320,000 km   TS: 15000 km/s  
Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor Technology PB-1 (2)     Total Power Output 18    Armour 0    Exp 5%

Active Search Sensor MR78-R80 (1)     GPS 5040     Range 78.9m km    Resolution 80
Thermal Sensor TH3-54 (1)     Sensitivity 54     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  54m km
EM Detection Sensor EM3-42 (1)     Sensitivity 42     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  42m km

ECM 20

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Nick Esasky posted:

No Giant Spinal Laser Of Doom, no Buys :colbert:

Fiiiine, here's a cheap and cheerful Monitor that mounts both Giant Doom Lasers and Huge Plasma Death-Throwers.

code:
Tempest class Monitor    7,350 tons     225 Crew     1657 BP      TCS 147  TH 720  EM 0
4897 km/s     Armour 6-33     Shields 0-0     Sensors 36/28/0/0     Damage Control Rating 24     PPV 38
Maint Life 2.51 Years     MSP 564    AFR 108%    IFR 1.5%    1YR 125    5YR 1874    Max Repair 270 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Spare Berths 2    
Cryogenic Berths 200    

SpaceX Standard 360 EP Ion Drive (2)    Power 360    Fuel Use 70.98%    Signature 360    Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 250,000 Litres    Range 8.6 billion km   (20 days at full power)

Orion 'Annihilator' 45cm C3 Far Ultraviolet Laser (1)    Range 320,000km     TS: 5000 km/s     Power 53-3     RM 5    ROF 90  
Orion 40cm C3 Plasma Carronade (2)    Range 320,000km     TS: 5000 km/s     Power 40-3     RM 1    ROF 70        
Fire Control S03 160-7500 H50 (2)    Max Range: 320,000 km   TS: 7500 km/s    
Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor Technology PB-1 (1)     Total Power Output 9    Armour 0    Exp 5%

Active Search Sensor MR58-R100 (1)     GPS 4200     Range 58.8m km    Resolution 100
Thermal Sensor TH2-36 (1)     Sensitivity 36     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  36m km
EM Detection Sensor EM2-28 (1)     Sensitivity 28     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  28m km

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

pun pundit
Nov 11, 2008

I feel the same way about the company bearing the same name.

Yay I caught up! :D ... 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

sebmojo
Oct 23, 2010


Legit Cyberpunk









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.

habituallyred
Feb 6, 2015
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.

Zaodai
May 23, 2009

Death before dishonor?
Your terms are accepted.


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!

Nick Esasky
Nov 10, 2009
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:
Ersatz Fang - Copy class Gunboat    1,700 tons     57 Crew     594.5 BP      TCS 34  TH 43.2  EM 0
5294 km/s     Armour 5-12     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 6
Maint Life 0.74 Years     MSP 55    AFR 92%    IFR 1.3%    1YR 75    5YR 1119    Max Repair 180 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months    Spare Berths 0    

180 EP Baffled Ion Drive (1)    Power 180    Fuel Use 148.81%    Signature 43.2    Exp 15%
Fuel Capacity 115,000 Litres    Range 8.2 billion km   (17 days at full power)

Orion 20cm C3 Far Ultraviolet Laser (1)    Range 320,000km     TS: 5294 km/s     Power 10-3     RM 5    ROF 20        10 10 10 10 10 8 7 6 5 5
Bradshaw-Wright Limited Fire Control S02 160-5000 H50 (1)    Max Range: 320,000 km   TS: 5000 km/s     97 94 91 88 84 81 78 75 72 69
Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor Technology PB-1.2 (1)     Total Power Output 3.24    Armour 0    Exp 16%

Active Search Sensor MR7-R10 (50%) (1)     GPS 168     Range 7.4m km    Resolution 10

Compact ECCM-1 (1)         ECM 10
code:
Ersatz Fang class Gunboat    2,400 tons     81 Crew     692.5 BP      TCS 9.6  TH 43.2  EM 0
3750 km/s     Armour 5-15     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 6
Maint Life 0.31 Years     MSP 45    AFR 184%    IFR 2.6%    1YR 145    5YR 2175    Max Repair 180 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months    Spare Berths 1    

180 EP Baffled Ion Drive (1)    Power 180    Fuel Use 148.81%    Signature 43.2    Exp 15%
Fuel Capacity 115,000 Litres    Range 5.8 billion km   (17 days at full power)

Orion 20cm C3 Far Ultraviolet Laser (1)    Range 320,000km     TS: 5000 km/s     Power 10-3     RM 5    ROF 20        10 10 10 10 10 8 7 6 5 5
Bradshaw-Wright Limited Fire Control S02 160-5000 H50 (1)    Max Range: 320,000 km   TS: 5000 km/s     97 94 91 88 84 81 78 75 72 69
Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor Technology PB-1.2 (1)     Total Power Output 3.24    Armour 0    Exp 16%

Active Search Sensor MR7-R10 (50%) (1)     GPS 168     Range 7.4m km    Resolution 10
Cloaking Device: Class cross-section reduced to 20% of normal

Compact ECCM-1 (1)         ECM 10
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.

code:
Meteor II class Dropship    500 tons     12 Crew     161 BP      TCS 10  TH 28.8  EM 0
12000 km/s     Armour 1-5     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 0
Maint Life 0 Years     MSP 0    AFR 100%    IFR 1.4%    1YR 60    5YR 900    Max Repair 120 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 1 months    Spare Berths 3    
Cryo Drop Capacity: 1 Company    

Baffled 120 EP Ion Drive (1)    Power 120    Fuel Use 322.44%    Signature 28.8    Exp 20%
Fuel Capacity 5,000 Litres    Range 0.6 billion km   (12 hours at full power)

TheWetFish
Mar 30, 2006

by FactsAreUseless

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?
Would you like some help translating the summaries, understanding some of the mechanics, important differences, a bit of everything?



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.
Sounds like a 50% reduced size 45cm spinal laser with a hmm, Fire Control S02 160-5000 H50 (Or a Fire Control S02 80-5000 H50)
450 tons which is 9 HS (Hull Size); 350 tons for the laser + 100 tons for the fire control

code:
45cm C0.05 Far Ultraviolet Laser
Damage Output 53     Rate of Fire: 5300 seconds     Range Modifier: 5
Max Range 2 650 000 km     Laser Size: 7 HS    Laser HTK: 3
Power Requirement: 53    Power Recharge per 5 Secs: 0.05
Cost: 18    Crew: 21
Spinal Weapon Only
Materials Required: 3.6x Duranium  3.6x Boronide  10.8x Corundium

Development Cost for Project: 180RP
---
Fire Control S02 160-5000 H50
50% Accuracy at Range: 160 000 km     Tracking Speed: 5000 km/s
Size: 2 HS    HTK: 1    Cost: 180    Crew: 8
Chance of destruction by electronic damage: 50%
Materials Required: 180x Uridium

Development Cost for Project: 1800RP
---
45cm C0.05 Far Ultraviolet Laser (1)    Range 320 000km     TS: 5000 km/s     Power 53-0.05     RM 5    ROF 5300        53 53 53 53 53 44 37 33 29 26
Fire Control S02 160-5000 H50 (1)    Max Range: 320 000 km   TS: 5000 km/s     97 94 91 88 84 81 78 75 72 69
And for designers we finally now have;
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

Leif.
Mar 27, 2005

Son of the Defender
Formerly Diplomaticus/SWATJester

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)

habituallyred
Feb 6, 2015
^^^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
Aug 14, 2009

Nick Esasky posted:

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:
Ersatz Fang - Copy class Gunboat    1,700 tons     57 Crew     594.5 BP      TCS 34  TH 43.2  EM 0
5294 km/s     Armour 5-12     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 6
Maint Life 0.74 Years     MSP 55    AFR 92%    IFR 1.3%    1YR 75    5YR 1119    Max Repair 180 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months    Spare Berths 0    

180 EP Baffled Ion Drive (1)    Power 180    Fuel Use 148.81%    Signature 43.2    Exp 15%
Fuel Capacity 115,000 Litres    Range 8.2 billion km   (17 days at full power)

Orion 20cm C3 Far Ultraviolet Laser (1)    Range 320,000km     TS: 5294 km/s     Power 10-3     RM 5    ROF 20        10 10 10 10 10 8 7 6 5 5
Bradshaw-Wright Limited Fire Control S02 160-5000 H50 (1)    Max Range: 320,000 km   TS: 5000 km/s     97 94 91 88 84 81 78 75 72 69
Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor Technology PB-1.2 (1)     Total Power Output 3.24    Armour 0    Exp 16%

Active Search Sensor MR7-R10 (50%) (1)     GPS 168     Range 7.4m km    Resolution 10

Compact ECCM-1 (1)         ECM 10
code:
Ersatz Fang class Gunboat    2,400 tons     81 Crew     692.5 BP      TCS 9.6  TH 43.2  EM 0
3750 km/s     Armour 5-15     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 6
Maint Life 0.31 Years     MSP 45    AFR 184%    IFR 2.6%    1YR 145    5YR 2175    Max Repair 180 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months    Spare Berths 1    

180 EP Baffled Ion Drive (1)    Power 180    Fuel Use 148.81%    Signature 43.2    Exp 15%
Fuel Capacity 115,000 Litres    Range 5.8 billion km   (17 days at full power)

Orion 20cm C3 Far Ultraviolet Laser (1)    Range 320,000km     TS: 5000 km/s     Power 10-3     RM 5    ROF 20        10 10 10 10 10 8 7 6 5 5
Bradshaw-Wright Limited Fire Control S02 160-5000 H50 (1)    Max Range: 320,000 km   TS: 5000 km/s     97 94 91 88 84 81 78 75 72 69
Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor Technology PB-1.2 (1)     Total Power Output 3.24    Armour 0    Exp 16%

Active Search Sensor MR7-R10 (50%) (1)     GPS 168     Range 7.4m km    Resolution 10
Cloaking Device: Class cross-section reduced to 20% of normal

Compact ECCM-1 (1)         ECM 10
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.

code:
Meteor II class Dropship    500 tons     12 Crew     161 BP      TCS 10  TH 28.8  EM 0
12000 km/s     Armour 1-5     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 0
Maint Life 0 Years     MSP 0    AFR 100%    IFR 1.4%    1YR 60    5YR 900    Max Repair 120 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 1 months    Spare Berths 3    
Cryo Drop Capacity: 1 Company    

Baffled 120 EP Ion Drive (1)    Power 120    Fuel Use 322.44%    Signature 28.8    Exp 20%
Fuel Capacity 5,000 Litres    Range 0.6 billion km   (12 hours at full power)

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?

TheWetFish
Mar 30, 2006

by FactsAreUseless

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.
I'm not sure we're sold on it but I'm not discounting it yet either. They are to lasers what box launchers are to missiles, with similar strengths & weaknesses. Whether they're a good idea will depend a lot on what they're mounted on & how it's used



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?
"Baffled" thermal reduction raises the cost of the engine, doubles it if it's our max - 75% emissions. At these sizes of 180 EP Baffled Ion Drive engines we're talking about 90 cost, 90 build points (BP) reduction

Nothingtoseehere
Nov 11, 2010


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

Pharnakes
Aug 14, 2009
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.

Hessi
Oct 28, 2010
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.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

LLSix
Jan 20, 2010

The real power behind countless overlords

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.

code:
Meteor II class Dropship    500 tons     12 Crew     161 BP      TCS 10  TH 28.8  EM 0
12000 km/s     Armour 1-5     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 0
Maint Life 0 Years     MSP 0    AFR 100%    IFR 1.4%    1YR 60    5YR 900    Max Repair 120 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 1 months    Spare Berths 3    
Cryo Drop Capacity: 1 Company    

Baffled 120 EP Ion Drive (1)    Power 120    Fuel Use 322.44%    Signature 28.8    Exp 20%
Fuel Capacity 5,000 Litres    Range 0.6 billion km   (12 hours at full power)

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

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 modt systems worth defending will have wormholes to them, so larger ships can help defend them.

Design one and post it then.

LLSix fucked around with this message at 15:14 on Sep 24, 2017

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply