|
Fast Beam cruisers towing missile pods are pure win. The beam faction gets their beam ships. The go fast faction gets faster ships than they originally wanted. The missile faction gets more missiles. 100 missiles per pod is equivalent to 400 magazine space which is more than any design I saw. What's more, they get them in one big, beautiful salvo. The hybrid faction gets missile ships that can beam better than their wildest dreams. Everyone wins. Missile pods forever.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2017 00:22 |
|
|
# ? Apr 23, 2024 11:01 |
|
Have we designed a dedicated exploratory fleet yet? We ought to consider doing so, as Terra pretty evidently has survey fleets out exploring already, considering it is unlikely they came directly to the treasure system from their jump points. If we do not begin exploring now, we will find all the good poo poo claimed by Terra before we can do so.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2017 00:27 |
|
I'd be wary organizing any combat unit around the idea of 1 dedicated jump tender. Even if that ship hangs back from combat it's still at risk from raiders, and if the enemy realizes it's your only way out of the system then conecentrated missile fire or FAC suicide runs become serious concerns. Plus any damaged or disabled ships won't be able to retreate on their own, either leaving the fleet without jump capability while the tender escorts them out of system, or left to fend for themselves as the fleet needs the tenders to continue to the next system.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2017 01:02 |
|
Nevets posted:I'd be wary organizing any combat unit around the idea of 1 dedicated jump tender. Even if that ship hangs back from combat it's still at risk from raiders, and if the enemy realizes it's your only way out of the system then conecentrated missile fire or FAC suicide runs become serious concerns. That's part of why the logistics ships have drives too. You don't want to give up a huge chuck of tonnage by putting drives on your warships. Then they're not gonna come home regardless cause they're just going to get owned in combat.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2017 01:37 |
|
LLSix posted:Fast Beam cruisers towing missile pods are pure win. 1) Missile pods are a giant 1-shot weapon that're a logistical PITA to both move around and rearm. Do we really want Meyers without even the benefit of having their own engines? 2)Do we REALLY need cruisers using 40% of their tonnage on engines to hit these bloody speeds? As far as we've seen, the Terrans have a line speed of 2700ish, while we've had one of 3k. With the current proposal, we're moving to a line speed of approximately 4363, or a 45% increase, while also significantly upsizing our ships. Do we think the Terrans are gonna be breaking well past the 4k barrier themselves while behind on tech? 3)To hit that 40% engine tonnage mark while otherwise resembling a Cassini, Bremen has eliminated a lot of what i consider very useful QoL features from it: a)A Flag Bridge that our admirals can hide from the Flag Officer Seeking Missiles in. b)The sensor suite with a OK radar as well as passives gets dumped for a min sized radar that reaches all of 2 million instead. I'd sorta like to be able to regard a scout as a Very Useful Supplement That Can Be Detached rather than Absolutely Mandatory To Avoid Being Shanked. c)Dropped 25% of the shields. Don't think i need to explain why this is bad. d)Dropped the Microwave. Might be useful in a fight.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2017 01:58 |
|
Nick Esasky posted:2)Do we REALLY need cruisers using 40% of their tonnage on engines to hit these bloody speeds? As far as we've seen, the Terrans have a line speed of 2700ish, while we've had one of 3k. With the current proposal, we're moving to a line speed of approximately 4363, or a 45% increase, while also significantly upsizing our ships. Do we think the Terrans are gonna be breaking well past the 4k barrier themselves while behind on tech? Yes: Saros posted:
|
# ? Sep 27, 2017 02:09 |
|
Nick Esasky posted:2)Do we REALLY need cruisers using 40% of their tonnage on engines to hit these bloody speeds? As far as we've seen, the Terrans have a line speed of 2700ish, while we've had one of 3k. With the current proposal, we're moving to a line speed of approximately 4363, or a 45% increase, while also significantly upsizing our ships. Do we think the Terrans are gonna be breaking well past the 4k barrier themselves while behind on tech? One thing to consider as well is that ranges get a lot larger once you have to transition jump points. Consider how far you'd have to travel in the hypothetical: A) Move to a Sol exit and jump. B) Move from one JP to another in the next system, then jump C) Move from the JP to a planet Having a fleet speed of 4.5k rather than 3k cuts travel time by a 1/3rd which is a big strategic advantage.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2017 02:24 |
|
Re: jump drives on ships, yeah at these tech levels they're just too drat big to give every ship its own drive. In another tech level or two with better efficiency and size constraints, you can strip out all the fancy poo poo like squadron capacity to make a personal drive that can practically get the ship its mounted on around, but right now we've got to rely on tenders. And as a consequence of that, our tenders should be very hard to kill, and preferably not being shot at to begin with.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2017 02:31 |
|
How hard would it be to make a stealth ship and take a look at what is through the Erf JP? We have that Stealth tech from the wrecks right?
|
# ? Sep 27, 2017 02:35 |
|
Phrosphor posted:How hard would it be to make a stealth ship and take a look at what is through the Erf JP? Impossible. Erf is going to have ships parked right on top of that JP at all times, and no stealth can get past that.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2017 02:39 |
|
I mean, literal endgame tech with 99% reduction put on a fighter-sized scout might sneak past? I don't feel like doing the math. But yeah, not gonna happen.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2017 02:44 |
|
Crazycryodude posted:I mean, literal endgame tech with 99% reduction put on a fighter-sized scout might sneak past? I don't feel like doing the math. But yeah, not gonna happen. It depends if they have an active missile sensor up at all times. If they do it is impossible because that will spot you.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2017 03:11 |
|
Crazycryodude posted:Re: jump drives on ships, yeah at these tech levels they're just too drat big to give every ship its own drive. In another tech level or two with better efficiency and size constraints, you can strip out all the fancy poo poo like squadron capacity to make a personal drive that can practically get the ship its mounted on around, but right now we've got to rely on tenders. And as a consequence of that, our tenders should be very hard to kill, and preferably not being shot at to begin with. I agree each ship with it's own drive is overkill, but alot of the fleet compositions that have been posted were 4 combat ships + 1 jump ship. There's no margin there. I think a much safer plan would be something like squads of 6 combat ships + 2 jump ships: - In the event 1 jump tender is taken out you can still evac most of the squad (or all if there are other casualties, as is likely). - If a ship is rendered combat ineffective it can retreat with 1 escort (or 1 other ineffective ship) and 1 jump tender, leaving the squad at 66% combat efficiency & still jump capable.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2017 03:34 |
|
If we want to see past the UT jump point, we can just go round the other way.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2017 07:02 |
|
for those that are unfamiliar with how jumps work in Aurora, there are two kinds of jumps: standard and combat. Standard jumps can be accomplished by a fleet with at least one jump engine and all ships under the size of that jump ship/engine. They drop you out exactly at the jump point on the other side and give jump delay 5 or so minutes. A ship with a jump drive may sit on either side of the jump point and allow fleets with appropriately sized ships to transit the jump point- such a ship is usually referred to as a tender. A jump point that has a jump gate built by a construction ship acts as a infinitely sized tender for the side that it is built on, allowing standard transits for everyone. Combat jumps can carry a number of ships of appropriate size through up to the jump drive rating, with the default fir military drives being 3 ships, including the jump ship. These jumps drop the fleet out a distance away from the jump point - any where from 50k to 2.5m km depending on tech of the jump engine - and give ships a much smaller delay. Combat jumps require the fleet to have adequate jump capacity within it to cover all the ships.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2017 07:06 |
|
sloshmonger posted:for those that are unfamiliar with how jumps work in Aurora, there are two kinds of jumps: standard and combat. The only reason you need a combat jump is if there's combat on the other side. Unless we're assaulting a jump point that has hostiles DIRECTLY on the other side, we can jump any number of ships smaller than our largest jump drive through. And by "DIRECTLY" I mean "close enough that the hits start coming in 5 minutes". A fleet 50M km away wouldn't be able to hit us in time, for instance. It might make more sense to have a subset of our fleet that does jump point assault, and then the rest of our fleet joins them when the coast is clear. Also, combat jumping is one of the downsides of those pods - they count as a separate ship for combat jump purposes.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2017 15:48 |
|
Yeah if we're having to jump directly into a JP assault, I figure we just leave the pods behind. Or hell, bring them anyways, I'd rather bring a pod with 100 boxes to a knife fight than a CG with only 8 tubes that has to wait 40-80 seconds between salvos.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2017 15:55 |
|
Bring nothing but boxes in the first wave. Splat all over whatever is on the other side, then bring in the fleet. Toss a nade in before clearing the room.
|
# ? Sep 27, 2017 16:34 |
|
Crazyeyes24 posted:Expendable missile pod? Sweet lets see wha- On the other hand, the missile pods are unlikely to take fire before they get to shoot, and after they have shot, why would anyone target them unless the rest of the fleet is already scrap. Clearly they are the safest place to be in the fleet, at least unless the fleet ditches them and runs away. (And they wouldn't do that, surely?) I really like the missile pods and beam tractor doctrine idea. My only contribution to it is that we should limit the size of the pod to what can fit in our jump-capable carriers (4000t) -- that way, it's possible to reload it between fights while off-system from missiles brought in on a tender.
|
# ? Sep 29, 2017 12:20 |
|
Tuna-Fish posted:On the other hand, the missile pods are unlikely to take fire before they get to shoot, and after they have shot, why would anyone target them unless the rest of the fleet is already scrap. Clearly they are the safest place to be in the fleet, at least unless the fleet ditches them and runs away. (And they wouldn't do that, surely?) 4500tons. Ship size breakpoints are 3k, 4,5k, 9.9k.
|
# ? Sep 29, 2017 12:42 |
|
LLSix posted:4500tons. Yes, but our pocket carriers only have hangar space of 4k. Box launchers can reload in hangars, so fitting the missile pod into the hangar to reload while the fighters chill out waiting outside makes box launcher pods much more operationally flexible. Here is a slightly different take on Broadsword, now with slightly less gofast, one less gun and only 4kt missile pod, but with 1x improved damage control, enough fuel to meet the 10B standard while tugging the missiles, and longer deployment time: code:
Full component list: And the S4 missile pod: code:
Here is a version with S7 launchers. It would need specialized missiles, but it would not blow up from a gentle breeze: code:
edit: I just realized that missile pods are basically missile defense satellites with an extra tractor beam. There might be sense in having extra missile pods around... Tuna-Fish fucked around with this message at 14:02 on Sep 29, 2017 |
# ? Sep 29, 2017 13:56 |
|
Tuna-Fish posted:...Box launchers can reload in hangars, so fitting the missile pod into the hangar to reload while the fighters chill out waiting outside makes box launcher pods much more operationally flexible. So much respect for this. Box launchers are cool & good on disposable platforms, particularly with hanger reloading considerations covered. Meeting the 10B range standard with the reduced speed from towing the pods is a fantastic design gotcha to catch. I'd like to see the Component Summary tab for more designs. Also the (total) Internal HTK value, from the left of the design screen under Passive Defences TheWetFish fucked around with this message at 15:32 on Sep 29, 2017 |
# ? Sep 29, 2017 15:30 |
|
Proper LSD code:
|
# ? Sep 30, 2017 18:49 |
|
Nick Esasky posted:Proper LSD Where do the troops go? There no flight crew berths nor cryogenic berths, our current LSD carries 8 companies worth of troops
|
# ? Sep 30, 2017 23:58 |
|
Tythas posted:Where do the troops go? There no flight crew berths nor cryogenic berths, our current LSD carries 8 companies worth of troops The troops go in drop pods on the shuttles, just like with the original Serene. This one is basically the same but with ion engines and some hangar space given up for a jump drive.
|
# ? Oct 1, 2017 00:23 |
|
Fray posted:The troops go in drop pods on the shuttles, just like with the original Serene. This one is basically the same but with ion engines and some hangar space given up for a jump drive. ahh okay I still have things to learn looks good then
|
# ? Oct 1, 2017 00:51 |
|
I've pulled together all the ship designs posted so far. Where multiple versions of the same ship were posted, I tried to take the most recent version as long as it was still named the same. I know some people have more recent designs they haven't posted outside of discord. If they'll post them in thread I'll update my list here. I present the submitted designs here without further comment. 3,000 ton Frigate designs LLSix posted:For our various beam frigates, I present the novel Paw class jump frigate. Given the abundance of beam frigates in the Martian fleet and the sterling service of the Snaggletooth I wouldn't be surprised to see 2 or 3 of these giving good account of themselves in any hypothetical JP assault. It is essentially a Claw class frigate with the main laser replaced with a jump drive. Accordingly, recommend fleet doctrine is to make a squadron jump in a minimum distance from the JP to facilitate closing to beam range with the enemy immediately. Thanks to it's duo of cutting edge shields and lighter armament, any opponent foolish enough to prioritize targeting a Paw will quickly be taught regret by the quartet of Claws or other beam frigates it ferried in-system. sloshmonger posted: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. Nick Esasky posted:and also, two variants of an upteched Schiaperelli design, one meant simply to increase the armor somewhat and switch the plasma for lasers while staying at the 3k ton limit, and the other also adding another engine and heavy shields to serve something of an fast interceptor. Nick Esasky posted:Fleet Scout BwenGun posted:Great job on collating all the designs LLSix, makes it much easier to see what we potentially have. LLSix fucked around with this message at 14:40 on Oct 1, 2017 |
# ? Oct 1, 2017 02:01 |
|
4,500 ton CVE & Destroyer Designs. Carrier designs are grouped up at the top: [quote="Tactical_Torpedo" To add to the code:
The design can hold 2 Full-size Fighters, features as much MSP as some full Fledged CVL's, Sufficient fuel for limited Operations (As it's engines are relatively efficient) & can store 42 S4 Missiles. The design also features 5 Layers of Armour, making up for a lack of Shields & allowing it to survive any surprise attacks (That aren't several WH26 Torpedoes at once). [/quote] sloshmonger posted: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. Jack2142 posted:An AMM Frigate, essentially a supersized Hubble with a huge sensor. Tythas posted:I Present the Dragon Class Torpedo Boat Destroyer, it is to get within 115 km of the target and shoot off it's torpedos Nick Esasky posted:and also, two variants of an upteched Schiaperelli design, one meant simply to increase the armor somewhat and switch the plasma for lasers while staying at the 3k ton limit, and the other also adding another engine and heavy shields to serve something of an fast interceptor. Jack2142 posted:My take on a DDG is a little different, essentially my logic is the DDG's are fairly fragile fleet assets, they just need the biggest magazine and biggest number of launchers possible to fit on a somewhat survivable chassis. In a fleet fight their main defense is other targets are likely a lot more dangerous or priority, however with 4 layers of armor they should be able to survive until their magazines are empty and they can withdraw. Their active sensor is mostly a backup unfortunately, and they will probably rely on fleet ships to maximize their missile throwing potential, although they aren't blind without a spotter ship either. Tactical_Torpedo posted:So, with the option of 75% Missile launchers, It potentially makes DDG's a viable ship type for the fleet suggestions Jack has put out. LLSix posted:First up is the Proletariat class jump tender. Intended to be deployed along with the Communist Mk4 class DDGs its single turret of two gauss cannon will help extend the lifespan of its quartet of DDGs. LLSix fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Oct 1, 2017 |
# ? Oct 1, 2017 02:01 |
|
Fighter DesignsTactical_Torpedo posted:EDIT: So, after going through a joke 45cm Spinal fighter in Discord, SOMEHOW it's been changed to an actually legit Rail fighter. Fray posted: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. LLSix posted:The Fox class strikefighter is designed to take a kicking and keep on ticking. Fast enough to dodge 50% of missiles fired at it; it's Mimi LaFloo railgun can knock down 2 missiles that do manage to keep track; and then its shield can easily brush aside the first 2 missiles that do hit. Any damage that does make it through the shields and armor is unlikely to disable a Fox Strikefighter thanks to its triply redundant power plants and spare fuel tank. But wait, there's more, this nigh-unkillable zombie intercepter can even repair itself, ensuring it can survive multiple waves of missiles. Tythas posted:Two new ideas for Fighters and Bombers Scintilla posted:Nobody's designed a Microwave fighter yet, have they? Here's one from me: LLSix posted:Here is my partial answer to needing to assault a JP. Battleships and other vessels over 9900 tons Scintilla posted:Thanks for the advice - here's a much more affordable redesign: PDCs Scintilla posted:We've had a lot of ship and fighter designs, so here's a PDC for variety: LLSix fucked around with this message at 02:11 on Oct 1, 2017 |
# ? Oct 1, 2017 02:01 |
|
9,900 ton CVL & Cruiser designs. Carrier designs are grouped up at the top:Tactical_Torpedo posted:So, after going through with the helpful critics at Discord (Love you guys really!), this is my latest CVL design. Jack2142 posted:Here is my Locklear, it doesn't have the shields of the other design, but it doesn't sacrifice any carrying space and can carry the same compliment of fighters, has a pair of MSP bays for repairs if needed. Tythas posted:The Final Version of the new Beam Heavy Cruiser Bremen posted: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. sloshmonger posted: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. Jack2142 posted:AMM Cruiser Scintilla posted:There have been some solid designs so far, but nothing too outlandish or experimental. Let's rectify that. Nick Esasky posted:On a related note, this is what my idea of a dedicated beam combat ship looks like, as a replacement for the general role of the Cassini in the current fleet: Nick Esasky posted:And i suppose i may as well throw in my baseline Max Gauss PD boat as well. 27 shots ATM, could be upped to 36 at the cost of things like half the armor and the two seperate fire controls. A jump tender variant is possible that fits in a 9900-ton jump drive by dropping one of the turrets, the shields, and two armor layers. Scintilla posted:Fiiiine, here's a cheap and cheerful Monitor that mounts both Giant Doom Lasers and Huge Plasma Death-Throwers. sloshmonger posted:I think I've come around to the hybrid approach, but with a kinda of Melissa Meyer twist. Using a crapton of box launchers, you can add a lot of missile capabilities while closing. Going to size 4 vs the size 6 I was anticipating changes the calculus also. Tythas posted:a new Command Cruiser Bremen posted:Comedy option: Tuna-Fish posted:Yes, but our pocket carriers only have hangar space of 4k. Box launchers can reload in hangars, so fitting the missile pod into the hangar to reload while the fighters chill out waiting outside makes box launcher pods much more operationally flexible. FSVs Nick Esasky posted:Fuel/Ammo/Maintnence Tenders Jack2142 posted:For the Record, I put together a few missile ship designs comparing the merits of Size 2, Size 3 and Size 4 missiles. I personally like the Size 3 design, Size 4 might have more versatility however if we do decide to add some sensors etc. to the missiles. Ostensibly the biggest question becomes what is Terra's PD situation like, if it is fairly minimal size 4's might be better as each missile has some spare space for sensors/armor/ecm etc., if Terra has excellent PD size 2's are probably the best since you can poo poo out more missiles per volley. Size 3's are I think a good middleground it looks like they can pack pretty similar punch to Size 4's, but don't have extra space for fun add-ons. code:
LLSix fucked around with this message at 14:42 on Oct 1, 2017 |
# ? Oct 1, 2017 02:07 |
|
Marine designsLLSix posted: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. Nick Esasky posted:Marines MK II Nick Esasky posted:Proper LSD
|
# ? Oct 1, 2017 02:12 |
|
Theoretical SB Snoopshipcode:
Heretical Not-Hybrid Missile Cruiser code:
|
# ? Oct 1, 2017 03:34 |
|
Aw hell, sad Aurora-related news, Coldest War has been inactive long enough to get archived. Guess I finally have to admit it's dead
|
# ? Oct 1, 2017 05:47 |
|
It got way ridiculously complicated towards the end, so I'm not surprised really. :|
|
# ? Oct 1, 2017 05:50 |
|
Crazycryodude posted:Aw hell, sad Aurora-related news, Coldest War has been inactive long enough to get archived. Guess I finally have to admit it's dead So many memories, so many avatars
|
# ? Oct 1, 2017 05:51 |
|
Great job on collating all the designs LLSix, makes it much easier to see what we potentially have. For example we seem to have relatively little in the way of 3,000 ton Frigate designs so to remedy that I've put this together. The Rapier sacrifices 1 15cm Laser compared to Sloshmongers 3k Beam Frigate for the addition of 3 layers of armour and extra shields. Ideally this design will be able to outlast anything in it's weight range in a beam dual whilst also making it more likely to last long enough to make a contribution in any fleet engagement. code:
The Archer can theoretically fire 11 salvos at missiles traveling at 24k km/s, assuming no other factors it would be able to destroy 12 of those inbound missiles. The downside is the magazine capacity which only has enough for 24 salvos. That said a pair of them, would be able to handle massed inbound missile salvos of up to 25 without too many leakers. Making it sufficient for AMM roles in our Frigate Squadrons, and a nice addition if it has to lend it's weight to a fleets PD Umbrella. code:
code:
BwenGun fucked around with this message at 14:12 on Oct 1, 2017 |
# ? Oct 1, 2017 14:02 |
|
BwenGun posted:3,000 ton Frigates Nick Esasky posted:stuff
|
# ? Oct 1, 2017 14:42 |
|
If we're listing stuff I'd like to post an updated version of my Thunderchild design:code:
Shieldbreaker Torpedo: code:
Scintilla fucked around with this message at 17:06 on Oct 1, 2017 |
# ? Oct 1, 2017 17:03 |
|
Scintilla posted:If we're listing stuff I'd like to post an updated version of my Thunderchild design: I strongly recommend moving up to size 7. Size 6 (and below) box launchers are giant 0HTK holes in the internals of your ship, which is particularly bad when you intend to fight close. Size 7 box launchers are HTK1 components, which are good for soaking up damage.
|
# ? Oct 1, 2017 18:58 |
|
|
# ? Apr 23, 2024 11:01 |
|
I thought we were standardising to size 2, 4 and 6 missiles, but just in case:code:
code:
|
# ? Oct 1, 2017 19:24 |