|
I suppose the logic is a BB that will never be unescorted doesn't need passives of its own?
|
# ? Aug 4, 2017 10:00 |
|
|
# ? Apr 19, 2024 17:54 |
|
Pharnakes posted:I suppose the logic is a BB that will never be unescorted doesn't need passives of its own? This is basically the advice I was given. I could add them back, but it would take the ship to 16,300 tons.
|
# ? Aug 4, 2017 12:34 |
|
So will the mad casualties result in commanders getting bigger and better ships? I'd love to trade up my zoomy Corvette!
|
# ? Aug 4, 2017 13:20 |
|
Did I ever get space dorfed?
|
# ? Aug 4, 2017 13:42 |
|
Finally caught up again. Involving as ever Saros. To bad my CV didn't get chosen, would have been useful with all these fighter swarms out there. I hope its protecting holy Mars at this moment. I don't know how to design ships in this game but when we do get our CV it should function as a fleet scout and fleet fighter/missile protection, as has been mentioned before. Earth will probably have better CV's so we shouldn't try to compete in that regard. To this end, in terms of fighter load out we should have fighters with guns that can track missiles and shoot down other fighters and have a fighter that can act as an AWAC. Our inability to detect fighter swarms at standoff distances is really cramping our style. If the AWAC fighter is multi functional to take out corvettes/frigates, so much the better.
|
# ? Aug 4, 2017 15:06 |
|
Demand currently outstrips supply of ships and I haven't had time to update the spreadsheet yet. If you check and you're not there feel free to add yourselves and you will eventually receive a command.
|
# ? Aug 4, 2017 15:07 |
|
Baron-of-hell posted:Finally caught up again. Involving as ever Saros. I don't earth will necessarily have better CVs... they will just have a lot more of them. The set up was basically Earth has a large, tough fleet, but are a bit outdated tech wise.
|
# ? Aug 4, 2017 15:20 |
|
Well i'm alive but I am certain my ship is combat ineffective at this point. Saros can Macross.1 still launch and guide her remaining missiles or am I unable to?
|
# ? Aug 4, 2017 16:26 |
|
You're totally ineffective, your fire control is shot out and I don't think it can be repaired without a shipyard.
|
# ? Aug 4, 2017 16:31 |
|
Scintilla posted:This is basically the advice I was given. I could add them back, but it would take the ship to 16,300 tons. I'm just asking because apparently in the older LP Aurora goons did something very very similar (designed an attacker with no actives) and when this went badly they build another ship entirely dedicated to being a passive carrier just so they could see beyond their portholes. It did work to a degree, but it was a poor solution to a problem of their own making. Gridlocked fucked around with this message at 16:51 on Aug 4, 2017 |
# ? Aug 4, 2017 16:48 |
|
Gridlocked posted:I'm just asking because apparently in the older LP Aurora goons did something very very similar (designed an attacker with no actives) and when this went badly they build another ship entirely dedicated to being a passive carrier just so they could see beyond their portholes. I'm pretty sure they specifically decided after a few gently caress ups to never again design a ship that can't shoot on its own.
|
# ? Aug 4, 2017 17:05 |
|
Yeah the problem with Coldest War Goonfleet was that they had the genius idea of putting one massive active sensor on a fleet scout and then saving the tonnage and not putting any good ones on the rest of their ships. When the sensor ship inevitably and immediately ate a missile, everyone else was useless. But not having passives is fine, a battleship should never find itself in a situation where it's isolated and alone and has to use passives to survive.
|
# ? Aug 4, 2017 17:08 |
|
Crazycryodude posted:But not having passives is fine, a battleship should never find itself in a situation where it's isolated and alone and has to use passives to survive. A reasonable argument.
|
# ? Aug 4, 2017 17:11 |
|
Crazycryodude posted:Yeah the problem with Coldest War Goonfleet was that they had the genius idea of putting one massive active sensor on a fleet scout and then saving the tonnage and not putting any good ones on the rest of their ships. When the sensor ship inevitably and immediately ate a missile, everyone else was useless. I still think it's a good idea to have a dedicated sensor ship, but the fleet should be big enough to have more than one.
|
# ? Aug 4, 2017 17:11 |
|
Yeah if we were talking about some kind of scout or spy ship that relies on sneaking about to survive, then not having passives would be pants-on-head retarded. But a 16,000 ton battleship is gonna light up sensors halfway across the system no matter what it does, so needing to turn on an active to look for baddies doesn't change much. Plus, of course, the only time it should ever not have a swarm of escorts with better sensors is if they're all dead and the battleship is about to die, too. E: Dedicated sensor ships are fine, fleet scouts are Cool and Good and we've been using them well this campaign. The problem is when you overspecialize your fleet to the point that one lucky missile breaking the one active sensor you brought renders everyone useless. Every ship should be able to acquire its own targets, as was rather painfully learned in CW. Crazycryodude fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Aug 4, 2017 |
# ? Aug 4, 2017 17:13 |
|
There's a lot of things I don't quite get about Aurora (tried it a few times and bounced completely off the interface) but how feasible would a 'Long Gun' style orbital support weapon be? As in something we can leave back in orbit in our territory and fire at extremely long range with hopefully reasonable accuracy, maybe using targeting data gathered by ships closer in. Which thinking about it sounds a lot like our regular missile platforms. Would any direct fire style weapon be able to fit the bill?
|
# ? Aug 4, 2017 18:27 |
|
Unfortunately the farthest any beam weapon (both energy and projectile weapons like railguns are classified as "beams" in Aurora) can theoretically fire even with maxed out tech is only a few million km. Massive interplanetary missiles fit that role, really, but they take weeks to cross interplanetary distances so they're more a strategic strike weapon rather than something that can support a battle like ours.
|
# ? Aug 4, 2017 18:33 |
|
I'm really hoping the Aurora guy makes progress on the C# upgrade. He's talked about how he wants to make beam weapons a lot more viable relative to missiles. At the very least it seems like beam fire control ranges need to be increased by a lot. As it is, even max tech fire controls can't get anywhere near the range that high end weapons are capable of.
|
# ? Aug 4, 2017 18:39 |
|
Steve's still chugging along on C#, there's a little dev update every few weeks. Probably be out in a year or so at this rate. One of the really good changes is that missiles use 5x as much fuel in C# as they do currently, so ranges get slashed massively. That alone should do a whole lot to even things out, because as is missiles are bullshit levels of effective, especially at our tech levels where sensors and PD suck.
|
# ? Aug 4, 2017 18:45 |
|
I'd also like railguns to get a role beyond just "dogshit tier PD in the very very early game."
|
# ? Aug 4, 2017 18:48 |
|
Baron-of-hell posted:Finally caught up again. Involving as ever Saros. Making fighter scouts is really hard at this point. Functionally impossible. I took a stab at it upthread a little ways if you want to see how the numbers work out. Sensors need to be huge to be useful. Frigates and/or super tough battleships are much more effective as active sensor platforms. I've read about people making useful stealthy sensor fighters that only use passives to scout, but I don't think we could pull that off either. To be fair, sensor aircraft are huge in the real world too. AWAC aircraft have a wingspan of 156′ and a length of 159′, making them as large as most passenger planes. Compare that to the 35' wingspan of even a large fighter jet like the F-35 and it becomes clear why this doesn't work so great. GunnerJ posted:So what about a scout FAC or corvette? LLSix fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Aug 4, 2017 |
# ? Aug 4, 2017 19:14 |
|
So what about a scout FAC or corvette?
|
# ? Aug 4, 2017 19:49 |
|
xp194 posted:There's a lot of things I don't quite get about Aurora (tried it a few times and bounced completely off the interface) but how feasible would a 'Long Gun' style orbital support weapon be? This is what fighters are best at. Fighters are first in class 2 stage missiles. Fighter ferries their box launchers out to the fight with the rest of the fleet, shoots their wad, and then returns to base to rearm. It's not hard to design a fighter with a roundtrip range of half a solar system They're not moving light speed or anything though so time-to-target is an issue if you need them to support an unexpected battle. I was curious what we could do at the current tech level so I quickly whipped up a not very optimal long range bomber. It even still has an engineering bay. Hilariously, it's only half as fast as the battle feet, but she's got legs that just don't quit. code:
|
# ? Aug 4, 2017 19:53 |
|
LLSix posted:This is what fighters are best at. Fighters are first in class 2 stage missiles. Fighter ferries their box launchers out to the fight with the rest of the fleet, shoots their wad, and then returns to base to rearm. It's not hard to design a fighter with a roundtrip range of half a solar system Are you able to drop that 45 year maintenance life at all to save any space/get more speed?
|
# ? Aug 4, 2017 21:23 |
|
Pash posted:Are you able to drop that 45 year maintenance life at all to save any space/get more speed? LLSix posted:I was curious what we could do at the current tech level so I quickly whipped up a not very optimal long range bomber. It even still has an engineering bay. Yep. It still has the default engineering bay the designer starts all ships with. That's what is giving it that crazy maintenance life. Cutting the engineering bay would save 50 tons but a real long range bomber would need to be faster. At least fast enough to outrun the ships it is shooting at. That would mean more fuel, which would mean more tonnage. That was just the napkin math version. LLSix fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Aug 4, 2017 |
# ? Aug 4, 2017 21:38 |
|
Ya, Currently the only use for that thing would be as a hidden strike after a feint operation. Like hiding a bunch somewhere and leading an enemy into a trap. It would have to work though or these would all die immediately afterwards...
|
# ? Aug 4, 2017 22:14 |
|
More tech: Phobos Compact Laser: Compact Gauss Cannon: Compact Reactor: Fighter Fire Control:
|
# ? Aug 4, 2017 22:46 |
|
Someone design ships from Wingcommander. This is makking me wanna pull up wingcommander agian.
|
# ? Aug 5, 2017 01:58 |
|
Been messing with a new SuperHeavy Battleshipcode:
Tythas fucked around with this message at 07:21 on Aug 7, 2017 |
# ? Aug 7, 2017 01:57 |
|
Double Post Introducing the new Martian Fleet PD ship code:
Tythas fucked around with this message at 06:25 on Aug 7, 2017 |
# ? Aug 7, 2017 05:31 |
|
I'm not sure we should satisfy our PD requirements with a ship. Missiles & PD technology potentially advance quite quickly and also have severe consequences for falling behind Fighters are one of very few ways to mitigate very fast missiles, due to their inherent tracking bonus. Also an excellent way to quickly hot swap advances in technology into the field. Carriers won't necessarily need downtime to refit in order to pick up newer fighters, as ships would. Fighter designs can be quickly updated as there is no concern for retooling shipyards. Getting advances into the field sufficiently quickly is essentially an awesome once off boost to technology level Building the requisite carriers also inherently enables a wide range of strategic options down the line by simply changing the fighters out to meet different mission profiles. We have some nice beam technology including Advanced Spinal Mounts. We could field some brutal FAC with oversized If we go right down that rabbit hole then we could even push for reduced size lasers. Think of it as all the ridiculousness of box launchers, for lasers. That might let us squeeze (effectively single shot) lances onto fighters. Terrifying fighters that can each erase a ship. Let's get more carrier capacity!
|
# ? Aug 7, 2017 08:05 |
|
TheWetFish posted:I'm not sure we should satisfy our PD requirements with a ship. Missiles & PD technology potentially advance quite quickly and also have severe consequences for falling behind I like the carrier capacity suggestion because I'm really over Space-Battleships at the moment and it feeds into my WC fantasy of factions just throwing carriers at each other loaded up with bombers, strike fighters, dedicated wild weasel craft and gunships for maximum fun. Also Lances are fun. +1 from me
|
# ? Aug 7, 2017 08:44 |
|
Super-battleships aren't what we need. Especially when the range on missiles is so much greater. Carriers and fighters and ways to counteract missiles and fighters. That is a good idea.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2017 12:39 |
|
gently caress this Wing Commander wankery. Give every capital level ship a hanger deck and a dozen or so small fighters and let's do Babylon 5.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2017 15:32 |
|
Getting carrier capacity is certainly the better path to go down, but that's kind of Earth's hat right now while Mars is the Maximum Plasma Cannon faction. Design a fleet carrier and some fighters to go with it, sure, we really do need them. Just don't expect our fleet composition to change overnight, we're still gonna be the beam heavy faction, Earth's gonna be the carrier faction, and the IC is gonna be the high tech faction.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2017 15:36 |
|
You mean IC isn't going to be a faction at all.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2017 22:46 |
|
Crazycryodude posted:Getting carrier capacity is certainly the better path to go down, but that's kind of Earth's hat right now while Mars is the Maximum Plasma Cannon faction. Maximum Plasma cannon fighters hoooo or an armada of strike corvettes. Who cares how good their missile tech is if they have a target saturated environment of Plasma-y death to contend with.
|
# ? Aug 8, 2017 02:24 |
|
If they make dedicated Anti-FAC missiles though fighters just get wiped really fast.
|
# ? Aug 8, 2017 03:27 |
|
Tythas posted:Double Post Otherwise a fairly reasonable upscaling of the already excellent Sagans. I'd probably have gone with either a spinal mount for the railgun or more gauss cannons. More gauss makes it better at its primary role, a spinal railgun would be I think big ships are more fun than carriers. I'd have made more ship designs, but I like our current fleet mix. I'd never make something so fiddly for myself, but its fun to read about as long as someone else has to set fire orders for each of the dozen different ship types in the fleet. I'll be impressed if you don't chop the variety down by half whenever you do a timeskip; Saros. Battles must take hours. LLSix fucked around with this message at 05:03 on Aug 8, 2017 |
# ? Aug 8, 2017 05:00 |
|
|
# ? Apr 19, 2024 17:54 |
|
More Carriers Better Fighters BRIGHTER FUTURE FOR MARS
|
# ? Aug 8, 2017 08:51 |