|
ChaseSP posted:Really do need to get some better laser wavelength tech to extend the range and thus reduce time we are being shot out in the future. Already researching the next level of laser wave length.
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 13:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 21:59 |
|
|
Virtual Russian posted:++++++++++++2113 Shipyard Production Vote++++++++++++ OMG, I couldn't disappoint ol' Jackie by NOT voting for my own design!  quote:2. What ship will our small military shipyard produce? We do need a missile design to go with the brawlers, and hopefully this one won't be getting shot before the enemy ships explode!
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 16:00
|
|
|
Capital Ship: H a huge damage output, strong armor and sufficient speed. having an additional shield would be nice, but this curretnly offers only a minor increase in defence. Escort: F Distracting/softening up the enemy with missile salvoes will allow our capitals to close in for the kill. I like the Prometheus-design, but without a dedicated tender this design has no place in the battleline. Commercial hangars allow for repair and refueling, but not rearming of parasite craft and can be build in civilian shipyards. A combination of a civilian tender and a group of FACs could be an interesting idea for support of the battlefleet or defence of outlying colonies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 19:13
|
|
|
Yeah, I would have been all over the Prometheus if we had a FAC yard and a way to support them away from colonies. Even something like a small hangar base would be useful for defensive operations. EDIT: I've been looking into it and it's a little more complicated than that. Commercial hangars don't stop the maintenance clock for military ships, so you'd need to have maintenance modules, too. I was able to design a maintenance station that could support a squadron of 10 1000-ton energy-weapon FACs like the Prometheus; it clocked in at about 86,000 tons. It can be built with industry, though. A station that could resupply missiles would be larger. Do note, however, that hangars aren't discrete entities in Aurora; 10,000 tons of hangar space is 10,000 tons of hangar space. You could cram three of our corvettes in there for maintenance and repairs just as easily as ten FACs. Zurai fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Aug 12, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 20:35
|
|
|
Virtual Russian posted:
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2020 00:52
|
|
|
1. What ship will our large military shipyard produce? B. LLSix's Seas the Day 2. What ship will our small military shipyard produce? H. LLSix's Hawkeye-class CT I'll put my money where my mouth is. Next design contest I'm thinking about building a table to make it easier to compare ship designs. Feels too late in the vote cycle to do it for this one. Zurai posted:Yeah, I would have been all over the Prometheus if we had a FAC yard and a way to support them away from colonies. Even something like a small hangar base would be useful for defensive operations. In c# you don't need hangers at all, just maintenance capacity. I'm honestly not sure what a commercial hangar does.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2020 01:19
|
|
|
LLSix posted:Next design contest I'm thinking about building a table to make it easier to compare ship designs. Feels too late in the vote cycle to do it for this one. Yeah, a spreadsheet or something would have been a good idea. It took me a surprisingly long time to compile my overview post. quote:Neat idea, but don't forget there are ground maintenance facilities. I wasn't sure whether we needed hangars or not, it's a little unclear. I guess commercial hangars are for moving ships without needing to worry about military engine fuel usage? Dropping the hangars saves on the order of 16k tons, bringing it down to about 70k in size. I'm aware of ground-based maintenance facilities, but given the short ranges of FACs and fighters—due to needing tiny (and thus incredibly inefficient) engines and not having the room for much fuel—deep space facilities seem more useful.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2020 01:30
|
|
|
LLSix posted:In c# you don't need hangers at all, just maintenance capacity. I'm honestly not sure what a commercial hangar does. A way to ferry fighters/FACs around long range without needing to take military carriers off the front maybe?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2020 01:33
|
|
|
It would mostly be for transport purposes, yes. Though there's nothing saying you couldn't sit one over a Jump Point as well or use them as other forward operating bases for fighters and FACs
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2020 01:35
|
|
|
Virtual Russian posted:++++++++++++2113 Shipyard Production Vote++++++++++++ I really like the Tempest and Avalanche, but I have to go with the Fisher.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2020 01:45
|
|
|
H F
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2020 01:51
|
|
|
Commercial hangers do appear to rearm ships, whether they're meant to or not. Hangers bypass fuel usage and deployment time. You can give fighters inefficient engines and hours-long deployment times, then park them in a hanger so they only count time they're actually flying. A fighter accompanying a commercial maintenance ship for weeks won't break, but it'll need a tanker constantly topping it up and have a very cranky crew at the end. Military ones also do maintenance, commercial ones don't and would need a separate enormous maintenance module.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2020 01:55
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:A way to ferry fighters/FACs around long range without needing to take military carriers off the front maybe? Lando131 posted:It would mostly be for transport purposes, yes. Though there's nothing saying you couldn't sit one over a Jump Point as well or use them as other forward operating bases for fighters and FACs
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2020 02:00
|
|
|
That's what I was thinking, yeah, a fighter freighter to schlep them from the factories to the front. The factories are the front at the current moment so not much need, but something to keep in mind for if we survive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2020 02:04
|
|
|
Also, they're 4000 RP in the future (though we do have a max skill logistics scientist, so it researches at 3X speed)
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2020 02:09
|
|
|
Radio Free Kobold posted:So, a CVE? Converted freighter-type, commercial hull/engine, token point defense guns, little to no armor, and enough hangar/flight deck to perform rear-line and transport duties?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2020 02:31
|
|
|
Yeah, and we still need to research maintenance modules, too. FACs are more of a mid to long term idea at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2020 02:46
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:Commercial hangers do appear to rearm ships, whether they're meant to or not. Per the wiki, commercial hangars should reload box launchers. I’m not sure if commercial hangars will reload ship magazines as well or if that requires an ordnance transfer system; I haven’t tried putting a ship big enough to have non-box launchers into a commercial hangar myself. If this FAC conveyor/CVE is a commercial ship, the explosion chance when hit for commercial magazines is a nice round 100%.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2020 02:46
|
|
|
So long as we're in a fight for survival our focus should probably remain on stuff making our ships stronger, while also being able to support them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2020 03:00
|
|
|
Virtual Russian posted:
This seems to fit the doctrine best: I'll be interested to see how it pans out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2020 06:12
|
|
|
I'll let the vote run for another eight hours or so, once I'm home from work I'll get things sorted and start working on the next update.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2020 11:43
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:B and G based entirely on coolness of ship names.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2020 14:25
|
|
|
Pirate Radar posted:If this FAC conveyor/CVE is a commercial ship, the explosion chance when hit for commercial magazines is a nice round 100%. To be fair, the explosion chance for commercial ships when hit tends to be a nice, round 100%, so that's just par for the course.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2020 17:11
|
|
|
F and F
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2020 19:07
|
|
|
Zurai posted:To be fair, the explosion chance for commercial ships when hit tends to be a nice, round 100%, so that's just par for the course. Freighters can actually be surprisingly durable. Aurora's internal damage model shows its tabletop game heritage. Systems are either perfect or completely destroyed, with no in between state. On damage, it rolls to pick a system, then the system has a Weapon Strength / System Durability chance to be destroyed, otherwise the hit does nothing. Freighters are mostly cargo holds, which can be destroyed with no effect, and the rest is big commercial engines with high durability scores. For example, our current freighters are 70% cargo holds and 25% engines. Each engine has a 80% chance to shrug off a missile hit. The engines also mostly don't explode when destroyed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2020 19:35
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:Aurora's internal damage model shows its tabletop game heritage. Also the HTK of smaller components goes from 1 to 0, nothing in between. Zero HTK components won't soak any damage from enemy hits if destroyed (so if you want to minmax your ship internals you have to use components of HTK 1 or above). This makes sense when you're having to pencil in single boxes on a damage column on your paper sheet. Less so in the age of computers that can, you know, handle the occasional fractions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2020 19:54
|
|
|
Yeah, but if a freighter is being attacked by enemies, it's not going to survive the journey. A commercial ship cannot outrun a military ship and cannot defend itself. If it encounters an enemy, it explodes eventually. Yeah, not on the first hit, most likely, but unless it's being escorted by a force strong enough to destroy the attackers in a handful of combat ticks, it's dead. Commercial magazines don't really matter in that respect.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2020 20:03
|
|
|
How do you figure out if an enemy's fleet is susceptible to microwaves or other forms of sensor-disabling weapons (if they exist directly and not as an indirect result of blowing the ship up)? I kinda wanna see that in action in the event we know they aren't using microwave-proof components or such.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2020 20:08
|
|
|
If they have active sensors, they can be burned out by microwaves. Maybe some of the spoilers are immune? But no normal races are, it's just that microwaves are pretty niche so they don't show up a lot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2020 20:25
|
|
|
F for our capitals and D for our screens
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2020 20:26
|
|
|
Yeah, I was maybe using a bit of hyperbolic propaganda in my objections to the Wolf Hawk, at least in regards to not knowing if the Kooks are immune. They aren't. There's one or two things that might possibly be immune (I'm genuinely unsure), but the Kooks are an NPR and they use exactly the same general systems that we do. It's possible that they have better shields and electronic hardening than us, both of which defend against microwaves to varying degrees, but they won't be out-and-out immune.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2020 20:30
|
|
|
Ah, okay, in that case I think it was kind of not nice of people to heavily imply there's a good chance the NPRs will have microwave-immune ships.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2020 20:30
|
|
|
Zanzibar Ham posted:Ah, okay, in that case I think it was kind of not nice of people to heavily imply there's a good chance the NPRs will have microwave-immune ships. I specifically added at the end of that post: me posted:(that's partially RP-speak, as far as I know nothing is outright immune to microwaves, but it's true that we don't know anything about their hardening or shield techs, and it's true that we're going to be outnumbered which isn't a great situation for a microwave-dependent capital ship)
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2020 20:35
|
|
|
Zurai posted:I specifically added at the end of that post: I missed that part, and I thought the ship rundown was someone else that also mentioned the possible microwave-resistance. But I don't really get the problem then. What if we go all in on missiles but they have powerful anti-missile tech/PD? Or go all in on beams and they all have their ships nanolaminated (been playing some of the Gundam Cross Rays game lately)? We'd be just as screwed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2020 20:40
|
|
|
Zanzibar Ham posted:But I don't really get the problem then. The problem is that defences to standard weapons - lasers, missiles, etc - mostly work on a gradient. Having good defences means you generally take less damage, even in a bad situation, but there are tactical ways to overcome those defences. The issue with microwaves is that the effect on the enemy is binary: either the enemy's defences aren't good enough and you have turned off their ability to kill you, or they are good enough and you haven't
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2020 20:50
|
|
|
Zanzibar Ham posted:I missed that part, and I thought the ship rundown was someone else that also mentioned the possible microwave-resistance. But I don't really get the problem then. What if we go all in on missiles but they have powerful anti-missile tech/PD? Or go all in on beams and they all have their ships nanolaminated (been playing some of the Gundam Cross Rays game lately)? We'd be just as screwed. They could have Electronic Hardening, which does give essentially what amounts to a save roll vs microwaves.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2020 20:52
|
|
|
Ah, okay, so it doesn't even have a weakening effect, it either disables completely or does nothing? That explains it, sorry about my misunderstanding the issue.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2020 20:53
|
|
|
Possible microwave defenses are: - Be faster/have longer range. Microwaves are longer ranged than carronades or mesons, but worse than lasers. Like all beams, this is the best defense because it completely shuts them down. - Have shields. Shields block microwaves. Any microwave deals 3 damage per shot to a shield and needs to drop the shields before it can hit sensors - Have hardened sensors. There's a tech line that lets you add a % chance to ignore microwave damage. It starts at 30% for 2500RP and goes up from there. If you expect to fight in microwave range, you ideally stack a bunch of these, e.g. dodge most shots, absorb the other ones onto shields (which are regenerating quickly), if anything gets through have it need to beat a hard roll to do damage, then have some redundant sensors anyway. Microwave ships can work, they have the same challenges as all beam ships where they need speed and survivability to get into their favored range. Missile ships are easier since their favored range can be very long and it's hard to have enough PD to ignore missiles, for equal tonnage of equal tech ships, you can add launchers a lot faster than you can add PD. Foxfire_ fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Aug 12, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2020 20:53
|
|
|
My OOC objections are that we have zero research invested in microwaves, they can take quite a while to blind ships with big sensors with even a little electronic hardening, we can't even fire them until we're literally right on top of the enemy (15k max range, and anything under 10k is considered to be at 0 distance by the game), and they work best when you have a critical mass of them so that you can keep the lion's share of the enemy fleet blinded. We have hostile, higher-tech aliens with bigger fleets 2 jumps from Earth. Is that really the time we want to be faffing around with base-level tech that is virtually useless in small amounts and is tied to ships that take 3 years to build and can only be built 2 at a time? If you want to use microwaves, they work better (IMO) on smaller, lighter ships like FACs and fighters, which you can mass produce. I wouldn't be nearly as opposed to the Wolf Hawk if it had been a corvette design.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2020 20:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 21:59 |
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:Missile ships are easier since their favored range can be very long and it's hard to have enough PD to ignore missiles, for equal tonnage of equal tech ships, you can add launchers a lot faster than you can add PD. It is worth mentioning that ships with PD that are in range of each other's PD essentially pool PD. So a fleet where every ship has some PD ends up being able to shoot down fairly large salvos.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2020 21:33
|
|