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 $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«237 »
  • Post
  • Reply
Pharnakes
Aug 14, 2009


I suppose the logic is a BB that will never be unescorted doesn't need passives of its own?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Scintilla
Aug 24, 2010

I BEAT HIGHFORT
and all I got was this
jackass monkey


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.

Affi
Dec 18, 2005

Break bread wit the enemy

X GON GIVE IT TO YA


So will the mad casualties result in commanders getting bigger and better ships? I'd love to trade up my zoomy Corvette!

Erwin the German
May 30, 2011

:3


Did I ever get space dorfed?

Baron-of-hell
Jul 11, 2016


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.

Saros
Dec 29, 2009

Its almost like we're a Bureaucracy, in space!

I set sail for the Planet of Lab Requisitions!!



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.

Pash
Sep 10, 2009

The First of the Adorable Dead


Baron-of-hell posted:

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.

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.

koolkevz666
Aug 21, 2015


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?

Crazycryodude
Aug 15, 2015

Lets get our X tons of Duranium back!

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







You're totally ineffective, your fire control is shot out and I don't think it can be repaired without a shipyard.

Gridlocked
Aug 2, 2014

I should wake up at 4AM to watch Australia lose


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 Aug 4, 2017 around 15:51

Pash
Sep 10, 2009

The First of the Adorable Dead


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.

It did work to a degree, but it was a poor solution to a problem of their own making.

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.

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 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.

Gridlocked
Aug 2, 2014

I should wake up at 4AM to watch Australia lose


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.

Dance Officer
May 4, 2017
Probation
Can't post for 3 days!


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.

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.

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.

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 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 Aug 4, 2017 around 16:16

xp194
Feb 24, 2015


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?

Crazycryodude
Aug 15, 2015

Lets get our X tons of Duranium back!

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







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.

Fray
Oct 22, 2010



College Slice

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.

Crazycryodude
Aug 15, 2015

Lets get our X tons of Duranium back!

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







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.

Fray
Oct 22, 2010



College Slice

I'd also like railguns to get a role beyond just "dogshit tier PD in the very very early game."

LLSix
Jan 20, 2010

The real power behind countless overlords

Baron-of-hell posted:

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.

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?
Yep, that's a good idea. So good that Saros already gave us one. The Windhund, captained by Innocent Bystander. It's currently busy buzzing Uranus to keep the majority of the IC out-system fleet fixed in place there.

LLSix fucked around with this message at Aug 4, 2017 around 18:57

GunnerJ
Aug 1, 2005

Do you think this is funny?


So what about a scout FAC or corvette?

LLSix
Jan 20, 2010

The real power behind countless overlords

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?

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?

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:
Agincourt class Fighter (Bomber, Strategic)    460 tons
     14 Crew     100.2 BP      TCS 9.2  TH 16  EM 0
1739 km/s     Armour 1-5     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0
     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 1.2
Maint Life 45.89 Years     MSP 136    AFR 1%    IFR 0%    1YR 0
    5YR 2    Max Repair 32 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Spare Berths 3    
Magazine 8    

SpaceX 8 EP Nuclear Pulse Engine (2)    Power 8    Fuel Use 69.3%
    Signature 8    Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 30 000 Litres    Range 16.9 billion km   (112 days at full power)

Bomber Size 2 Box Launcher (4)    Missile Size 2
    Hangar Reload 15 minutes    MF Reload 2.5 hours
Size 2 Anti-ship Missile (4)  Speed: 16,000 km/s   End: 41.8m    Range: 40.2m km
   WH: 3    Size: 2    TH: 64/38/19
Mao-Kowalski Bomber Missile Fire Control FC49-R45 (1)     Range 49.6m km
    Resolution 45

Mao-Kowalski Bomber Active Search Sensor MR35-R100 (1)     GPS 3200
     Range 35.2m km    Resolution 100

This design is classed as a Fighter for production,
 combat and maintenance purposes
It'd be pretty funny if Terra sent something like this after us.

Pash
Sep 10, 2009

The First of the Adorable Dead


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

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:
Agincourt class Fighter (Bomber, Strategic)    460 tons
     14 Crew     100.2 BP      TCS 9.2  TH 16  EM 0
1739 km/s     Armour 1-5     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0
     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 1.2
Maint Life 45.89 Years     MSP 136    AFR 1%    IFR 0%    1YR 0
    5YR 2    Max Repair 32 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Spare Berths 3    
Magazine 8    

SpaceX 8 EP Nuclear Pulse Engine (2)    Power 8    Fuel Use 69.3%
    Signature 8    Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 30 000 Litres    Range 16.9 billion km   (112 days at full power)

Bomber Size 2 Box Launcher (4)    Missile Size 2
    Hangar Reload 15 minutes    MF Reload 2.5 hours
Size 2 Anti-ship Missile (4)  Speed: 16,000 km/s   End: 41.8m    Range: 40.2m km
   WH: 3    Size: 2    TH: 64/38/19
Mao-Kowalski Bomber Missile Fire Control FC49-R45 (1)     Range 49.6m km
    Resolution 45

Mao-Kowalski Bomber Active Search Sensor MR35-R100 (1)     GPS 3200
     Range 35.2m km    Resolution 100

This design is classed as a Fighter for production,
 combat and maintenance purposes
It'd be pretty funny if Terra sent something like this after us.

Are you able to drop that 45 year maintenance life at all to save any space/get more speed?

LLSix
Jan 20, 2010

The real power behind countless overlords

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 Aug 4, 2017 around 20:41

Pash
Sep 10, 2009

The First of the Adorable Dead


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...

Scintilla
Aug 24, 2010

I BEAT HIGHFORT
and all I got was this
jackass monkey


More tech:

Phobos

Compact Laser:


Compact Gauss Cannon:


Compact Reactor:


Fighter Fire Control:

Gridlocked
Aug 2, 2014

I should wake up at 4AM to watch Australia lose


Someone design ships from Wingcommander. This is makking me wanna pull up wingcommander agian.

Tythas
Oct 3, 2013



Been messing with a new SuperHeavy Battleship

code:
Fear and Dreadnought class Dreadnought    16 000 tons     444 Crew     2255.8 BP      TCS 320  TH 1030  EM 0
3218 km/s     Armour 12-56     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 16     PPV 92.64
Maint Life 1.8 Years     MSP 485    AFR 372%    IFR 5.2%    1YR 186    5YR 2788    Max Repair 129 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months    Spare Berths 1    

79.2 EP Nuclear Pulse Engine (13)    Power 79.2    Fuel Use 230.11%    Signature 79.2    Exp 16%
Fuel Capacity 1 000 000 Litres    Range 4.9 billion km   (17 days at full power)

Quad 15cm C0.5 Ultraviolet Laser Turret (4x4)    Range 192 000km     TS: 10000 km/s     Power 24-2     RM 4    ROF 60        6 6 6 6 4 4 3 3 2 2
30cm Plasma Caster (4)    Range 192 000km     TS: 4000 km/s     Power 24-2     RM 1    ROF 60        24 12 8 6 4 4 3 3 2 2
Fire Control S02 (1)    Max Range: 192 000 km   TS: 4000 km/s     3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1
Pebble Bed Reactor 11.1 (2)     Total Power Output 85.8    Armour 0    Exp 10%

Active Search Sensor MR2-R1 (1)     GPS 26     Range 2.8m km    MCR 306k km    Resolution 1

ECCM-2 (1)         ECM 20

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Tythas fucked around with this message at Aug 7, 2017 around 06:21

Tythas
Oct 3, 2013



Double Post

Introducing the new Martian Fleet PD ship

code:
Sans Peur class Recreational Ship    9 150 tons     264 Crew     1450.8 BP      TCS 183  TH 634  EM 0
3464 km/s     Armour 5-38     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 2     PPV 74.6
Maint Life 1 Years     MSP 198    AFR 334%    IFR 4.7%    1YR 198    5YR 2975    Max Repair 160 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months    Spare Berths 0    

79.2 EP Nuclear Pulse Engine (8)    Power 79.2    Fuel Use 230.11%    Signature 79.2    Exp 16%
Fuel Capacity 500 000 Litres    Range 4.3 billion km   (14 days at full power)

Twin Gauss Cannon R3.1 Turret (4x6)    Range 30 000km     TS: 16000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 3    ROF 5        1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15cm Railgun V3/C2 (2x4)    Range 90 000km     TS: 4000 km/s     Power 9-2     RM 3    ROF 25        3 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 0
Fire Control S02 (2)    Max Range: 192 000 km   TS: 4000 km/s     95 90 84 79 74 69 64 58 53 48
Pebble Bed Reactor Technology PB-1 (1)     Total Power Output 6    Armour 0    Exp 5%

Active Search Sensor MR14-R1 (70%) (1)     GPS 128     Range 14.1m km    MCR 1.5m km    Resolution 1

Compact ECCM-1 (1)         ECM 20

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
Should be noted this is supposed to replace the Sagan class

Tythas fucked around with this message at Aug 7, 2017 around 05:25

TheWetFish
Mar 30, 2006

by FactsAreUseless


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 lasers lances for anti-ship missions

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!

Gridlocked
Aug 2, 2014

I should wake up at 4AM to watch Australia lose


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

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 lasers lances for anti-ship missions

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!


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

Affi
Dec 18, 2005

Break bread wit the enemy

X GON GIVE IT TO YA


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.

CoffeeQaddaffi
Mar 20, 2009


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.

Crazycryodude
Aug 15, 2015

Lets get our X tons of Duranium back!

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







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.

Pharnakes
Aug 14, 2009


You mean IC isn't going to be a faction at all.

Veloxyll
May 3, 2011

Fuck you say?!

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.

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.

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.

Telsa Cola
Aug 19, 2011

No... this is all wrong... this whole operation has just gone completely sidewaysface


If they make dedicated Anti-FAC missiles though fighters just get wiped really fast.

LLSix
Jan 20, 2010

The real power behind countless overlords

Tythas posted:

Double Post

Introducing the new Martian Fleet PD ship

code:
Sans Peur class Recreational Ship    9 150 tons     264 Crew     1450.8 BP      TCS 183  TH 634  EM 0
3464 km/s     Armour 5-38     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 2     PPV 74.6
Maint Life 1 Years     MSP 198    AFR 334%    IFR 4.7%    1YR 198    5YR 2975    Max Repair 160 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 6 months    Spare Berths 0    

79.2 EP Nuclear Pulse Engine (8)    Power 79.2    Fuel Use 230.11%    Signature 79.2    Exp 16%
Fuel Capacity 500 000 Litres    Range 4.3 billion km   (14 days at full power)

Twin Gauss Cannon R3.1 Turret (4x6)    Range 30 000km     TS: 16000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 3    ROF 5        1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15cm Railgun V3/C2 (2x4)    Range 90 000km     TS: 4000 km/s     Power 9-2     RM 3    ROF 25        3 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 0
Fire Control S02 (2)    Max Range: 192 000 km   TS: 4000 km/s     95 90 84 79 74 69 64 58 53 48
Pebble Bed Reactor Technology PB-1 (1)     Total Power Output 6    Armour 0    Exp 5%

Active Search Sensor MR14-R1 (70%) (1)     GPS 128     Range 14.1m km    MCR 1.5m km    Resolution 1

Compact ECCM-1 (1)         ECM 20

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
Should be noted this is supposed to replace the Sagan class
Tracking Speed on the Fire control is too slow. Probably better to reuse the sensors and fire control from the Sagan than design from scratch.

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 better at blowing up other ships without a significant loss of tracking speed since unturreted beam weapons have a tracking speed equal to the speed of the ship cooler. As is, you only get 1-2 shots with the railgun before the gauss cannon are in range; due to low rate of fire. Do we really only have a capacitor recharge rate of 2? That makes big beams a lot less useful because they won't provide many volleys before we close to gauss range and start sand-pappering away armor.

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 Aug 8, 2017 around 04:03

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Gridlocked
Aug 2, 2014

I should wake up at 4AM to watch Australia lose


More Carriers
Better Fighters

BRIGHTER FUTURE FOR MARS

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply
«237 »