The War of the Worlds; Lets Play Aurora

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > Let's Play! > The War of the Worlds; Lets Play Aurora

Nick Esasky: Nov 10, 2009

Don't Help

There's already a surplus of intel to be had off of the prisoners taken/stuff salvaged from the last engagement. Tell this SB dude to go with the orders he already had while we concentrate on this Pluto convoy.

# ¿ Jun 15, 2017 05:08

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 26, 2024 06:47

Nick Esasky: Nov 10, 2009

A reminder: We sent TF Goofy over to eyeball the nearest IC fleet base at Titania, and it saw two cruisers and two DDGs sitting around. I'm fairly certain that those weren't with the convoy we blew up, so plans to do things like drop marines at ST should probably include a strong enough escort to deal with them if they sortie.

# ¿ Jun 21, 2017 06:23

Nick Esasky: Nov 10, 2009

INTEL:

I don't suppose our inner system guys have run into the Musk/Zuckerberg/Jobs during initial engagements and can give some idea as to their capabilities?

# ¿ Jun 22, 2017 18:46

Nick Esasky: Nov 10, 2009

Sit Tight and see what happens. Worst case that siege cruiser has enough range to linger outside our PDCs range, so we just wander out for enough time to make sure its dead, then wander back into cover.

# ¿ Jul 4, 2017 02:48

Nick Esasky: Nov 10, 2009

Brief Pro/Cons list in my head for each option Not a vote yet.

1) :ussr:

Pros:
-Possibly some limited form of support via Emergency Shipyard Operations for Titan Defense.
-If all goes well, we win and they declare the loyalty of the Saturnine system to Mars instead of the bourgoise exploiters of the IC.
-Whatever else may happen, this option near gurantees the IC doesn't get Saturn back. If we hold.

Cons:
-We are completely stuck in, with little option to, say, run the gently caress away if 3rd Fleet's battle goes badly.
-They don't have a well organized leadership, things could go all Iran-shaped and have a revolving door that ends up with Something Bad happening with respect to supporting us.
-Related to above, Terra could have people in the mix down here trying to sway them towards declaring for Terra or independence instead of Mars.
-That, or they get spooked about Proletarian Uprisings and that BB squad comes in to crush it and claim Saturn for themselves.
-Proletarian Uprisings/losing Saturn might spook IC leadership into pushing the Big Red Buttons and trying to just wipe Mars.

2) Corporate Skullduggery

Pros:
-POSSIBLY gets us a friendlier IC/end to the war, with possibility of indepentent/Martian Saturn.
-More Terran Palatable, probably.
-We don't have to worry about boots on the ground if we feel we have to run.
-Might be able to run if things go completely pear-shaped for 3rd Fleet.

Cons:
-Skullduggery might not actually work to get peace, Saturn is only one part of the IC leadership.
-Possibility of IC retaining Saturn in any peace deal (I'm not sure what Extremly Favourable even amounts to if they keep Saturn/Uranus, though).
-Might get a rep for abandoning Proles In Need.
-Terrans might still come in to support their own skullduggery.

3) :sherman:

Pros:
-gently caress the IC and all their works.
-Terrans don't get them either.
-Minimal risk to surviving Triton fleet.
-Revenge fully taken for bombardment of Mars.

Cons:
-Will DEFINITELY get a rep for abandoning proles in need.
-Terrans likely to come by and sweep up all the civvies/ground side infrastruture.

Anyone think i'm missing something to consider here?

# ¿ Aug 10, 2017 01:41

Nick Esasky: Nov 10, 2009

1. Vive Le Revolution
2. Burn it all down

I have no idea how IC politics work, but i rather doubt Full Scale Proletarian Uprising gives any Saturn reps influence to push for a peace deal even if Warcrimes' plan works and they get replaced. In that case, may as well go for the two options that are max gently caress THE IC.

# ¿ Aug 10, 2017 20:49

Nick Esasky: Nov 10, 2009

I have 4 responses to those proposed negotiation terms:

1) We're not the guys to decide on diplo things. Maybe we can make suggestions to Sen. Warcrimes + Our Boss.
2)Theres no way in hell Terra is giving us sole possesion of Pluto without seeing whats there themselves. MAYBE a joint custody arrangement.
3)Letting them have military assets near Titan? Of Equal Tonnage? Thats just begging for them to start off a war by headshotting the Titan shipyards or something similiarly damaging.
4)Lets not have this as our inital offer. Seriously.

# ¿ Aug 10, 2017 21:26

Nick Esasky: Nov 10, 2009

Or they might just wait on the whole negotiations thing until they see how the 3rd Fleet/us/IC throwdowns shake out. They might well be satisfied to go We Are Renegotiating The Deal at the IC.

# ¿ Aug 11, 2017 05:32

Nick Esasky: Nov 10, 2009

i think the issue is that we finishing whipping the IC on Titan and these guys suddenly go and hail some pro-Terran random as True Leader Of The TFS instead of the Obvious Martian Puppets or we. Basically, give that big ol' fleet heading our way an excuse to intervene.

@SB Do we have reasonable means to prevent this sort of scenario? Or the Director-General pulling old tricks out of the bag in general? Protect pro-Martian leaders from suddenly being incommundo, etc.?

Nick Esasky fucked around with this message at 02:38 on Aug 26, 2017

# ¿ Aug 26, 2017 02:35

Nick Esasky: Nov 10, 2009

My thoughts on Mr. Triumvir's offer: WE decide the conditions here, not you

If he wants to save his skin so bad, he can consider these 4 points:

a) The IC is rather obviously losing this war at this point. You are one of 3 people in the IC who can decide to cut your collective loses and sue for peace before you have nothing to bargain with besides Jupiter itself.

b)Saturn is lost to you, and Mars does not intend to leave their brothers behind. Any peace overtures from the IC WILL include the immediate recognization of the Titan Free State's independence with the entire Saturnine system as their territory and all IC property therein transferring to them.

c)the first two steps in any peace process are that fleet heading out from Jupiter at this moment turning right around and the siege of Patroclus being lifted. We are quite willing to gurantee your safety on Titan for the duration of talks, and you will be allowed to leave upon the successful conclusion of a tripartiate peace treaty.

d)Any nukes that may or may not exist exploding in the harvesters or anywhere else on Titan means that all goodwill granted by the preceding is lost and you will be left to the mercies of the TFS. If no peace overtures from the IC are forthcoming before your forces break, we cannot gurantee your safety.

If he doesn't want to try and get us a peace deal, gently caress him, give him the Unconditional Surrunder demand and he can consider the approaching mob over the next two days.

Nick Esasky fucked around with this message at 04:43 on Aug 31, 2017

# ¿ Aug 31, 2017 02:00

Nick Esasky: Nov 10, 2009

right, i amended my post a bit to make three things clear.

a)TFS gets their independence/ownership of Saturn + everything around recognized as part of the IC suing for peace, quite unnegotiable. I personally think they can be bought around to the idea of letting Mr. Triumvir go if it means not having to fight any more Battles Of Titan/freaking Jupiter + getting all their other possible demands met.

b)Mr. Triumvir does not get to leave Titan alive until such point as we actually have a peace treaty signed thats agreeable to both Mars and the TFS.

c)The gurantee of his safety does not apply if he does not produce IC peace overtures before the angry mobs break in his doors.

# ¿ Aug 31, 2017 04:44

Nick Esasky: Nov 10, 2009

BwenGun posted:

That is a risk, yes. Part of the problem is that we don't know how many JPs there are in Sol, there could be 6 Jump points all leading to full jump chains.

One thing we could suggest is that until the providence of the Jump Points are known no power is able to claim them solely for their own. Perhaps suggesting that we share survey data until each Jump point has at least been probed, if not explored out to at least the second system in each chain. Thus assuring that we know neither Earth or Mars have locked themselves into a dead-end. With claims after that point being based firstly on who did the survey. Or maybe even the one who did the survey has first claim but can pass on taking it allowing the other powers to claim it instead. Or some other system, the point being to allow us to claim a decent amount of real estate whilst keeping Terra happy and ensuring we can then defend what we claim relatively easily.

Yea, i'm pretty much thinking this, as far as an ideal JP Exploitation Arrangement goes. Probably don't want to be giving up too much so far as Solstuff goes until we know better what the JP locations are.

Anyway, my personal list of IC peace terms ATM:

1)IC hands over hardware to replace/fix everything they broke on Mars/Titan/Patroclus, + more for all the civvie casaulties.
2)TFS is independent and soveriegn over Saturn + everything around it, and inherit all IC property left there. They are free to make alliances with whoever they like.
3)War Crimes Trail Demands can be included, but more as a bargaining chip than anything serious. Don't make them force a Battle Of Jupiter or such.
4)IC accepts that Uranus is ceded to Mars for starting this whole mess, precise future disposition TBD.
5)The IC's employees in the Jupter system have the right to nullify their contracts and migrate to Mars/Earth/Titan/Whatever for a year after the ratification of peace. Mars will happily provide shipping.

As far as the Terrans go, i have this starting point for negotiations with them:
1)they can have half of Titan's production/one of the harvesters if they're willing to provide appropiate compensation to the TFS for it.
2)They can have a force at Hyperion to guard their harvester, with severe restrictions (numbers, perhaps No Missiles Period, verification required)
3)Discussions on Uranus and the outer system in general IS required. However, we'd prefer to be sure we're discussing with the same information in mind. Perhaps you could tell us how many JPs you've found beyond which orbits?

# ¿ Sep 8, 2017 23:22

Nick Esasky: Nov 10, 2009

as far as the whole Terran Terms thing goes, my general line of thinking goes as follows for insystem stuff:

1) The Terrans really really want a source of Sorium that a) is under their control to minimize price/embargo type dickery. and b) not likely to get blown up within an hour of them getting into a war with us/TFS.

2)To get 1), their options, both of which they're shooting for are either them getting Uranus in full to have as their private Sorium source ala what we had on Neptune prior to this war, or trying to get a big rear end share of Saturn and plopping down a military base down to protect it. Jupiter too, i suppose, but that really seems like something that'd require trying to completely kill off the IC, which would lead to having to eat a fair amount of bloodshed and Martian yelling about wanting a share of all the stuff on Jupiter.

3)If forced to choose, they probably much prefer to get Uranus, even if its further away. Them having a little private base out there seems a lot more palatable than having to deal with the headaches of being in knife-fight range on Saturn. A share of (compensated)Saturn fuel production still seems like a good bargaining chip, though, even if we/TFS don't grant basing rights.

4)I personally don't think that Uranus is a fatal concession to us if we get good terms out of UT for it. Particularly if we get them to agree to us having a snoopship there. We can still try to get the rest of the outer system as our SOI.

5)That said, we can make it very clear to the Terrans that discussions on them getting Uranus and other non-Saturn adjustments start after we get info from them on very rough locations for the various JPs they've found. We don't need precise details, just number of JPs Inside The Belt, Outside The Belt, Outside Saturn/Uranus/Neptune Orbit, etc. We very much want a good idea of the strategic value of what we're negotiating over, and this is the big X Factor.

# ¿ Sep 9, 2017 18:32

Nick Esasky: Nov 10, 2009

JPs are stationary and don't orbit at all. One being somewhat nearby might be a factor, but the outer system is a Big Place. They probably just view Uranus as a safer option for a gas station than trying to share Saturn with the TFS or prying Jupiter out of the IC.

# ¿ Sep 9, 2017 20:10

Nick Esasky: Nov 10, 2009

uhhhhhh, who said anything about letting UT strongarm the TFS in negotations? ESPECIALLY to the extent of having a base on Titan Itself and Bloody Military Advisors to the TFS? I thought we shot all the UT mercs earlier so they wouldn't have the opportunity to gently caress with the TFS from within, why are we suddenly giving that up now?

# ¿ Sep 12, 2017 00:16

Nick Esasky: Nov 10, 2009

Special Reports from the Skunkworks re: Big rear end Guns

Recent advances in our technological prowness have resulted in the following advances in our abilities to throw directed energy weapons about :

1) Fire Control:

We have all sorts of shiny new sensor tech now. As far as non-PD/turret purposes goes, you get to have this to point your big ol' guns about :

code:

Fire Control S02 160-5000 H50

50% Accuracy at Range: 160,000 km     Tracking Speed: 5000 km/s
Size: 100 Tons    HTK: 1    Cost: 180    Crew: 8
Chance of destruction by electronic damage: 50%

Yes, this does mean we can engage targets up to 320k KM away. Do note that 320k is the point at which base CTH goes to 0, so this is probably not a good idea, especially if one's opponent has shields.

2)Weapon Capacitors
We have Cap Recharge 3 Now! This means a big ol' cut to all our ROF, most notable with 10cm lasers and railguns getting to fire every 5 seconds now.

3) Plasma Gunnery
We have big honking 40cm Plasma Carronades now. Specs with falloff follow. Falloff is in 10k range increments

code:

40cm C3 Plasma Carronade (1)    Range 320,000km     TS: 5000 km/s     Power 40-3     RM 1    ROF 70        40 20 13 10 8 6 5 5 4 4

that is one shot per minute there for 40 damage. The thing weighs in at 600 tons. Note that the damage goes to rather meh territory about 60k off from the target

4)Lasers
Lots and lots of new stuff here. First up, we're up to Far Ultraviolent wavelenght, which basically pumps up the range on all our lasers in exchange for them costing a bit more. Second, we've had Multiple upgrades in laser focus size, right up to 30cm. This means that we can
toss out all of the existing plasma weapons for same size laser equivalents with much better range. As an example, take the new 30cm laser we've gone and cooked up and compare it to the plasma. Again, 10k range brackets

code:

Orion 30cm C3 Far Ultraviolet Laser (1)    Range 320,000km     TS: 5000 km/s     Power 24-3     RM 5    ROF 40        24 24 24 24 24 20 17 15 13 12

30cm C3 Plasma Carronade (1)    Range 240,000km     TS: 5000 km/s     Power 24-3     RM 1    ROF 40        24 12 8 6 4 4 3 3 2 2

5)Giant Spinal Doom Lasers
You recall all the shiny Ship Wrapped Around A Giant Laser designs for the Schiaperelli that got tossed for Impractical Thinking or Heresy Against The Cult Of Plasma or some such hogwash? Welp, we've gone and redone that weapon again. Behold The Giant Ion Cannon Of Doom, only 700 tons.

code:

Triton Navy Yard 45cm C3 Far Ultraviolet Ion Cannon (1)    Range 320,000km     TS: 5000 km/s     Power 53-3     RM 5    ROF 90        53 53 53 53 53 44 37 33 29 26

This thing WILL penetrate the armor of any opponent that isn't a Giant Brick Of Armor And Absolutely Nothing Else. For illustrative purposes, we went and shot the thing at a giant brick of armor we had sitting around and recorded the damage pattern:

Even the sheer impact of being hit by the thing is almost guranteed to break SOMETHING inside an enemy warship. Do note that we recommend a good sized secondary battery on any ship that carries this weapon, due to the 90 second firing rate on it. Use on a cruiser to open up holes for smaller lasers to exploit along with potential enemy crippling at the start of a battle is one projected role for these.

6)Gauss
We have made no significant advacements in Gauss/Railgun technology. We do note that improved turret and sensor technology is likely to substantially improve the performance of gauss-based point defence installations, even if the actual gun remains the same.

# ¿ Sep 20, 2017 01:42

Nick Esasky: Nov 10, 2009

TBH, i'm rather doubtful of the wisdom of doing that for our smaller designs. 15cm lasers will be firing 9 times for every time we fire the Giant Spinal Doom Laser, so if you miss with that one shot, your destroyer-sized ship is very likely to be hosed up by equal size opposition. I'd certainly prefer a 30cm and 15cm laser instead of a 45cm on a Schiaperelli sized platform, for instance.

# ¿ Sep 20, 2017 02:16

Nick Esasky: Nov 10, 2009

My opinion continues to be that ships with the majority of their tonnage devoted to not-beam related things have absolutely no buissness wanting to get involved in beam fights. The 1400 tons i see devoted to the lasers, reactor, and fire control on that design could much better devoted to such pursuits as doubling the magazine size from the currently pitiful 11 volleys along with fixing the ROF on the launchers so its 30 seconds per volley instead of 60. I simply do not see any benefit in halving our long range firepower per ship simply to throw some weak additions into a beam fight they could contribute to much better by blowing up the combatants beforehand.

# ¿ Sep 20, 2017 03:05

Nick Esasky: Nov 10, 2009

the big issue with the ROF thing, aside from possibly getting blown up before all/most of your missiles have reached their target/been launched, is the possibility of someone deploying AMMs. your typical AMM is size 1 and the launcher cycles every 10 seconds. A set of AMM launchers getting 6 shots off at your incoming salvo before another one shows up is a lot more thinning out of your missiles than 3 shots.

# ¿ Sep 20, 2017 06:26

Nick Esasky: Nov 10, 2009

I'd note that the Lucifer was most definitely trading armor for speed, and that i think a different beam spec design could've handily won.

Nick Esasky fucked around with this message at 08:14 on Sep 20, 2017

# ¿ Sep 20, 2017 07:45

Nick Esasky: Nov 10, 2009

1A)
2b)

I am very much of the view that losing 5-20% tonnage efficiency to hybridize our ships is too high a price to pay vs. just simply devoting our ships to one aspect of combat to excel at. Missile tonnage has no buissness wanting to advance any closer to the enemy than it takes to fire missiles at them, and intentionally bringing them into a beam fight means having to devote a great deal of tonnage to the idea of surviving and contributing for a long period there, tonnage which i believe would be much more usefully spent on magazines to hold more missiles to fire and more launchers to fire them with, and perhaps engines to make sure that any enemy beam ships don't catch up with them. Torpedos are all well and good, but i think it should be the job of a dedicated torpedo bomber off a carrier to deliver them, not a missile cruiser charging into a place where a majority of its weaponry will be deadweight.

If we are worried about the possibility of an enemy choosing to concentrate fire on one part or another of our fleet, then the solution is additional point defence vessels, not to water down the combat power of our individual ships in the name of them not being picked off. We have done quite well for ourselves with generalist beam and missile-only designs for everything short of outright capital ships during this past IC war, and i see no reason to change that now.

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:

code:

Ersatz Cassini class Cruiser    9,900 tons     314 Crew     2271 BP      TCS 198  TH 864  EM 1200
4363 km/s     Armour 7-41     Shields 40-300     Sensors 18/14/0/0     Damage Control Rating 24     PPV 38
Maint Life 2.23 Years     MSP 573    AFR 196%    IFR 2.7%    1YR 156    5YR 2336    Max Repair 180 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Spare Berths 0    
Flag Bridge    

288 EP Ion Drive (3)    Power 288    Fuel Use 75.72%    Signature 288    Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 450,000 Litres    Range 10.8 billion km   (28 days at full power)
Triton Navy Yard Delta R300/360 Shields (16)   Total Fuel Cost  240 Litres per hour  (5,760 per day)

Triton Navy Yard 45cm C3 Far Ultraviolet Ion Cannon (1)    Range 320,000km     TS: 5000 km/s     Power 53-3     RM 5    ROF 90        53 53 53 53 53 44 37 33 29 26
Orion 15cm C3 Far Ultraviolet Laser (5)    Range 300,000km     TS: 5000 km/s     Power 6-3     RM 5    ROF 10        6 6 6 6 6 5 4 3 3 3
R9/C3 High Power Microwave (1)    Range 90,000km     TS: 5000 km/s     Power 6-3     RM 9    ROF 10        1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
Bradshaw-Wright Limited Fire Control S02 160-5000 H50 (2)    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 (4)     Total Power Output 21.6    Armour 0    Exp 16%

Active Search Sensor MR45-R60 (50%) (1)     GPS 2520     Range 45.5m km    Resolution 60
Triton Navy Yard Thermal Sensor TH1-18 (50%) (1)     Sensitivity 18     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  18m km
Triton Navy Yard EM Detection Sensor EM1-14 (50%) (1)     Sensitivity 14     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  14m km

ECCM-2 (1)         ECM 20

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.

code:

Ersatz Schiaparelli class Destroyer    3,000 tons     98 Crew     744 BP      TCS 60  TH 288  EM 0
4800 km/s     Armour 5-18     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 2     PPV 13
Maint Life 4.13 Years     MSP 310    AFR 36%    IFR 0.5%    1YR 29    5YR 437    Max Repair 180 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Spare Berths 0    

288 EP Ion Drive (1)    Power 288    Fuel Use 75.72%    Signature 288    Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 150,000 Litres    Range 11.9 billion km   (28 days at full power)

Orion 15cm C3 Far Ultraviolet Laser (1)    Range 300,000km     TS: 5000 km/s     Power 6-3     RM 5    ROF 10        6 6 6 6 6 5 4 3 3 3
Orion 30cm C3 Far Ultraviolet Laser (1)    Range 320,000km     TS: 5000 km/s     Power 24-3     RM 5    ROF 40        24 24 24 24 24 20 17 15 13 12
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 (2)     Total Power Output 6.48    Armour 0    Exp 16%

Active Search Sensor MR45-R60 (50%) (1)     GPS 2520     Range 45.5m km    Resolution 60

Compact ECCM-1 (1)         ECM 10

code:

Ersatz Schiaparelli class Destroyer    4,500 tons     131 Crew     1003 BP      TCS 90  TH 576  EM 600
6400 km/s     Armour 4-24     Shields 20-300     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 2     PPV 13
Maint Life 2.25 Years     MSP 279    AFR 81%    IFR 1.1%    1YR 75    5YR 1119    Max Repair 225 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Spare Berths 0    

288 EP Ion Drive (2)    Power 288    Fuel Use 75.72%    Signature 288    Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 150,000 Litres    Range 7.9 billion km   (14 days at full power)
Triton Navy Yard Delta R300/360 Shields (8)   Total Fuel Cost  120 Litres per hour  (2,880 per day)

Orion 15cm C3 Far Ultraviolet Laser (1)    Range 300,000km     TS: 6400 km/s     Power 6-3     RM 5    ROF 10        6 6 6 6 6 5 4 3 3 3
Orion 30cm C3 Far Ultraviolet Laser (1)    Range 320,000km     TS: 6400 km/s     Power 24-3     RM 5    ROF 40        24 24 24 24 24 20 17 15 13 12
Fire Control S02.5 160-6250 H50 (1)    Max Range: 320,000 km   TS: 6250 km/s     97 94 91 88 84 81 78 75 72 69
Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor Technology PB-1.2 (2)     Total Power Output 6.48    Armour 0    Exp 16%

Active Search Sensor MR33-R50 (1)     GPS 1680     Range 33.3m km    Resolution 50

Compact ECCM-1 (1)         ECM 10

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.

code:

Ark Royal class Escort Cruiser    9,900 tons     242 Crew     2216 BP      TCS 198  TH 864  EM 450
4363 km/s     Armour 6-41     Shields 15-300     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 4     PPV 69.99
Maint Life 1.56 Years     MSP 560    AFR 196%    IFR 2.7%    1YR 265    5YR 3975    Max Repair 270 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Spare Berths 0    

288 EP Ion Drive (3)    Power 288    Fuel Use 75.72%    Signature 288    Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 500,000 Litres    Range 12.0 billion km   (31 days at full power)
Triton Navy Yard Delta R300/360 Shields (6)   Total Fuel Cost  90 Litres per hour  (2,160 per day)

Triple Gauss Cannon R3-100 Turret (3x9)    Range 30,000km     TS: 20000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 3    ROF 5        1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fire Control S03 60-20000 H50 (3)    Max Range: 120,000 km   TS: 20000 km/s     92 83 75 67 58 50 42 33 25 17

Active Search Sensor MR5-R1 (1)     GPS 42     Range 5.9m km    MCR 640k km    Resolution 1

Sept 25th update: Jumpship Version of that PD cruiser

code:

Ark Royal - Copy class Jump Escort Cruiser    9,900 tons     267 Crew     1638 BP      TCS 198  TH 864  EM 0
4363 km/s    JR 5-250     Armour 4-41     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 4     PPV 46.66
Maint Life 1.21 Years     MSP 414    AFR 196%    IFR 2.7%    1YR 291    5YR 4371    Max Repair 270 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Spare Berths 1    

J9900(5-250) Military Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 9900 tons    Distance 250k km     Squadron Size 5
288 EP Ion Drive (3)    Power 288    Fuel Use 75.72%    Signature 288    Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 400,000 Litres    Range 9.6 billion km   (25 days at full power)

Triple Gauss Cannon R3-100 Turret (2x9)    Range 30,000km     TS: 20000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 3    ROF 5        1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fire Control S03 60-20000 H50 (1)    Max Range: 120,000 km   TS: 20000 km/s     92 83 75 67 58 50 42 33 25 17

Active Search Sensor MR5-R1 (1)     GPS 42     Range 5.9m km    MCR 640k km    Resolution 1

Comments appreciated, of course.

Nick Esasky fucked around with this message at 04:49 on Sep 26, 2017

# ¿ Sep 22, 2017 05:10

Nick Esasky: Nov 10, 2009

My view in response to that is that the currently extant threat is UT, and i cannot imagine any near-future conflict with them that would not have the heavy majority of the fighting taking place in Sol. The fleet should be built with a war in Sol as the primary consideration, and logistical concerns regarding supporting forces in Ragni or other extrasolar arenas should not be allowed to decrease the effectiveness of the fleet in the main area of conflict. If we must have a hybrid, it should be exclusively for colonial duties at best, and not basing the entire fleet on them.

# ¿ Sep 22, 2017 06:05

Nick Esasky: Nov 10, 2009

proposing to make half or more of the fleet hybrids IS basing the fleet entirely on them, as the fleets' behaviour will have to be dictated by their limitations. That is far too drastic a doctrinal change for a reason that should have little relevance for this generation of ships. Why is it that we didn't make hybrid cruisers before if it was such a good idea?

# ¿ Sep 22, 2017 08:15

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.

# ¿ Sep 22, 2017 21:52

Nick Esasky: Nov 10, 2009

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

# ¿ Sep 23, 2017 20:37

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)

# ¿ Sep 24, 2017 07:25

Nick Esasky: Nov 10, 2009

Crazycryodude posted:

IIRC, because Word of Saros is "don't." We're designing just the jump-capable colonial fleet right now to reduce the design spam, nobody wants to try and keep track of like 30 different designs come voting time. If the main line fleet that fights in Sol/the gate network is ever relevant I think he'll be cooking it up, or we'll have another contest then.

TBH, i really think we should operate on the assumption that most of the not-capital/jump drive designs we're cooking up here get used both in Sol and the colonies. Whats the actual differrence in requirements between the two? 12-18 months deployment time already exists on the current fleet, the MSP storage on our ships being yanked up is a good idea no matter where they go, so the only theoretical requirement difference is fuel stowage. I think just making the entire fleet able to operate in either theatre would be a great help for strategic flexibility, and greatly eases the production logistics situation as well.

# ¿ Sep 24, 2017 18:08

Nick Esasky: Nov 10, 2009

i very much disagree on that point. The only requirement for a colonial ship that isn't also a very good idea on a Sol ship is the fuel requirement, and the only thing to be gained from losing that is perhaps one laser's worth of weaponry. Additional colonial ammo/repair logistical considerations are best handled by dedicated tenders, not by compromising on the combat effectiveness of our ships.

# ¿ Sep 24, 2017 18:48

Nick Esasky: Nov 10, 2009

Fuel/Ammo/Maintnence Tenders

We're gonna need them, and i don't see any proposals floating about for them. I have a few. With JDs, so they can go fetch things themselves/pull things back to Sol for repair on their own. Potentially also can fill generic Sit On JP And Help Jump Things duty if not otherwise needed/its safe.

code:

Ersatz Eberswalde class Military Tanker    9,900 tons     163 Crew     1188 BP      TCS 198  TH 864  EM 0
4363 km/s    JR 3-50     Armour 1-41     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 4     PPV 0
Maint Life 1.3 Years     MSP 300    AFR 196%    IFR 2.7%    1YR 189    5YR 2829    Max Repair 144 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Spare Berths 0    
Cryogenic Berths 200    

J9900(3-50) Military Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 9900 tons    Distance 50k km     Squadron Size 3
288 EP Ion Drive (3)    Power 288    Fuel Use 75.72%    Signature 288    Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 4,350,000 Litres    Range 104.4 billion km   (277 days at full power)

Basic military gas mover if we really need to send gas through an ungated JP. Would prefer commercial designs in other cases.

code:

Volcano class Ammunition Transport    9,900 tons     198 Crew     1215.5 BP      TCS 198  TH 864  EM 0
4363 km/s    JR 3-50     Armour 1-41     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 2     PPV 0
Maint Life 1.05 Years     MSP 211    AFR 285%    IFR 4%    1YR 191    5YR 2872    Max Repair 144 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 11 months    Spare Berths 4    
Magazine 1360    

J9900(3-50) Military Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 9900 tons    Distance 50k km     Squadron Size 3
288 EP Ion Drive (3)    Power 288    Fuel Use 75.72%    Signature 288    Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 400,000 Litres    Range 9.6 billion km   (25 days at full power)

Hauls our spare missiles around. A non-JD version has 1870 space and a few less design warts.

code:

REPAIRMAN PRIME class Maintenance Vessel    9,900 tons     197 Crew     1137 BP      TCS 198  TH 864  EM 0
4363 km/s    JR 3-50     Armour 1-41     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 4     PPV 0
Maint Life 12.67 Years     MSP 12287    AFR 196%    IFR 2.7%    1YR 142    5YR 2125    Max Repair 144 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 18 months    Spare Berths 1    
Cryogenic Berths 600    Tractor Beam     

J9900(3-50) Military Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 9900 tons    Distance 50k km     Squadron Size 3
288 EP Ion Drive (3)    Power 288    Fuel Use 75.72%    Signature 288    Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 600,000 Litres    Range 14.4 billion km   (38 days at full power)

Carries all the spare parts to fill those 2 x Max Repair ships y'all are trying to make. Also has a tractor beam and extra fuel if case you manage to break something that can't be fixed and need your shiny chariot taken back to Sol.

# ¿ Sep 26, 2017 05:07

Nick Esasky: Nov 10, 2009

Fleet Scout

I have an upteched/upfueled Gale without a JD. That is all. Recommended if we want options to just be an annoying shadow on the enemy fleet like Windhund was doing during the leadup to 2nd Titan.

code:

Gale II class Scout    2,750 tons     83 Crew     828 BP      TCS 55  TH 69.12  EM 0
5236 km/s     Armour 1-17     Shields 0-0     Sensors 90/56/0/0     Damage Control Rating 2     PPV 0
Maint Life 3.18 Years     MSP 376    AFR 30%    IFR 0.4%    1YR 56    5YR 839    Max Repair 288 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 18 months    Spare Berths 0    

288 EP Baffled Ion Drive (1)    Power 288    Fuel Use 75.72%    Signature 69.12    Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 150,000 Litres    Range 13.0 billion km   (28 days at full power)

Active Search Sensor MR296-R60 (1)     GPS 16380     Range 296.1m km    Resolution 60
Thermal Sensor TH5-90 (1)     Sensitivity 90     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  90m km
EM Detection Sensor EM4-56 (1)     Sensitivity 56     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  56m km

# ¿ Sep 26, 2017 22:59

Nick Esasky: Nov 10, 2009

LLSix posted:

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.

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: Nov 10, 2009

Proper LSD

code:

Serene II class Dropship Carrier    9,900 tons     211 Crew     1655 BP      TCS 198  TH 207.36  EM 0
4363 km/s    JR 3-50     Armour 3-41     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 4     PPV 0
Maint Life 1.14 Years     MSP 470    AFR 174%    IFR 2.4%    1YR 368    5YR 5515    Max Repair 288 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 9 months    Flight Crew Berths 0    
Hangar Deck Capacity 3000 tons     

J9900(3-50) Military Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 9900 tons    Distance 50k km     Squadron Size 3
288 EP Baffled Ion Drive (3)    Power 288    Fuel Use 75.72%    Signature 69.12    Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 750,000 Litres    Range 18.0 billion km   (47 days at full power)

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

upteched version of our current LSD, with a JD on it. Holds 6 12000 km/s Meteors so we can at least think about boarding things that aren't completely dead in space.

# ¿ Sep 30, 2017 18:49

Nick Esasky: Nov 10, 2009

Theoretical SB Snoopship

code:

Sneaky Sneak Sneak class Patrol Craft    2,400 tons     78 Crew     610.2 BP      TCS 9.6  TH 27.6  EM 0
2395 km/s     Armour 1-15     Shields 0-0     Sensors 180/56/0/0     Damage Control Rating 2     PPV 0
Maint Life 5.07 Years     MSP 318    AFR 23%    IFR 0.3%    1YR 21    5YR 310    Max Repair 180 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 18 months    Spare Berths 0    

Baffled 115.2 EP Ion Drive (1)    Power 115.2    Fuel Use 87.07%    Signature 27.648    Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 200,000 Litres    Range 17.2 billion km   (83 days at full power)

Active Search Sensor MR9-R10 (50%) (1)     GPS 210     Range 9.3m km    Resolution 10
Dawson Space & Security Thermal Sensor TH10-180 (1)     Sensitivity 180     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  180m km
EM Detection Sensor EM4-56 (50%) (1)     Sensitivity 56     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  56m km
Cloaking Device: Class cross-section reduced to 20% of normal

I have no idea how SB actually designs their snoopships, but i'm sure they're looking to put shiny new cloaking devices on them. That up there is basically a WAG at what they'd look like with a min size cloak on them.

Heretical Not-Hybrid Missile Cruiser

code:

Ersatz Long Rifle class Cruiser    9,900 tons     261 Crew     1506 BP      TCS 198  TH 864  EM 360
4363 km/s     Armour 5-41     Shields 12-300     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 4     PPV 36
Maint Life 1.79 Years     MSP 380    AFR 196%    IFR 2.7%    1YR 147    5YR 2202    Max Repair 144 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Spare Berths 1    
Magazine 728    

288 EP Ion Drive (3)    Power 288    Fuel Use 75.72%    Signature 288    Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 400,000 Litres    Range 9.6 billion km   (25 days at full power)
Triton Navy Yard Delta R300/360 Shields (5)   Total Fuel Cost  75 Litres per hour  (1,800 per day)

Size 4 Missile Launcher (75% Reduction) (12)    Missile Size 4    Rate of Fire 80
Missile Fire Control FC110-R80 (1)     Range 110.4m km    Resolution 80
Size 4 Anti-ship Missile (182)  Speed: 24,000 km/s   End: 69.6m    Range: 100.3m km   WH: 5    Size: 4    TH: 136/81/40

Active Search Sensor MR105-R80 (1)     GPS 6720     Range 105.2m km    Resolution 80

ECCM-2 (1)         ECM 20

15 12 missile salvos, or 20 9-missile salvos at double the ROF. For if you decide the whole Hybrid Fad was really sort of silly. :cheeky:

# ¿ Oct 1, 2017 03:34

Nick Esasky: Nov 10, 2009

...why are we fitting size 7 box launchers only to put size 4 missiles in them? fit more size 4 boxes instead if you want to do alpha-strike malarky.

(seriously, can we not do weird stuff just to avoid 0HTK optimisation things?)

# ¿ Oct 1, 2017 20:05

Nick Esasky: Nov 10, 2009

i prefer Fray's design, because i very much prefer the choices of PD vessels and support tenders there, as well as the Cult Of Speed destroyer for when we feel we need to run something down quickish. I wouldn't mind trying to fit Bremens' Wraiths and Stalwarts in there somewhere, though.

# ¿ Oct 2, 2017 00:24

Nick Esasky: Nov 10, 2009

Fray posted:

So there's clearly a lot of demand for the 45cm laser. How would you all feel about modifying the DD in my post to use it? At that point the two plans would use them in equal amounts.

I have to say, the reason i didn't put a 45cm on the thing in the first place were twofold:

1)ROF: 90 seconds vs. 40 seconds for a 30cm is sorta a big deal, even if the OG Schiaperelli has 60 second ROF on their big plasma. I don't horribly like a single 15cm for secondary armament for that long.

2)Fitting: Have to find another 250 tons of ship to put the drat thing in. Getting that without touching the engines means either ripping out the other laser and its generator, leaving us with a 90-second long ROF with no secondary damage. Or we can do horrific things to the durability of the thing by cutting out 75% of the shields or making the armor completely out of paper.

# ¿ Oct 2, 2017 22:35

Nick Esasky: Nov 10, 2009

MISSILES! THINGS THAT GO BOOM!

Our R&D and salvage from Facility has been quite kind to us on the missile front, with a bunch of new things being possible:

1) Our base missile agility has been fully DOUBLED, which means we need to devote far less of the missile to having a good chance to hit targets once they get through enemy PD. This also grants us a ability to make AMMs with a decent chance of actually splashing same-size inbounds.

2)Although less dramatic, the amount of Boom/Ton has gone up for our warheads.

3)New Engines means Missiles Go Fast Now. 24000 if you devote half the things to its engine.

4)We decided to recommend Size 4 as standard ASM size because it gives us a decent amount of room for shiny extras. Such as, say, putting our new sensor tech to use as a secondary seeker head so that missiles don't just plain SD and waste their warheads once their launcher/initial target dies.

Here are some initial suggested designs we have, courtesy of Chief Missile Tech Ranjani from the Triton yards (they're all 50% engine):

code:

Missile Size: 4 MSP  (0.2 HS)     Warhead: 5    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 17
Speed: 24000 km/s    Engine Endurance: 70 minutes   Range: 100.3m km
Active Sensor Strength: 0.105   Sensitivity Modifier: 140%
Resolution: 50    Maximum Range vs 2500 ton object (or larger): 100,000 km
Cost Per Missile: 3.1387
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 408%   3k km/s 136%   5k km/s 81.6%   10k km/s 40.8%
Materials Required:    1.25x Tritanium   0.0627x Boronide   0.105x Uridium   1.721x Gallicite   Fuel x1000

(1 Warhead, .4 Fuel, .407 Agility, .1 Active, .093 Reactor, 2 Engine)

A 100 million range ASM, with a decent size warhead, guranteed to hit any target slower than 4080 km/s if it gets through PD. Also packs 0.1 MSP of sensor with associated reactor to find other things to kill if their launcher dies or the target dies horribly. Huzzah for minimizing overkill!

code:

Missile Size: 1 MSP  (0.05 HS)     Warhead: 1    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 29
Speed: 24000 km/s    Engine Endurance: 3 minutes   Range: 3.9m km
Cost Per Missile: 0.9212
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 696%   3k km/s 232%   5k km/s 139.2%   10k km/s 69.6%
Materials Required:    0.25x Tritanium   0.6712x Gallicite   Fuel x25

(.2 Warhead, .01 Fuel, .29 Agility, .5 Engine)

Our probable AMM design. 29% chance of splashing a incoming missile of equal speed (we doubt the Terrans will make anything faster). only 1% of the missile is fuel, but we are informed that fitting a ship-borne sensor that can find incoming missiles at even 3.9 million KM out is already a source of great difficulty for the design department, so we see no need to increase the fuel load further.

code:

Missile Size: 8 MSP  (0.4 HS)     Warhead: 9    Armour: 1     Manoeuvre Rating: 17
Speed: 24000 km/s    Engine Endurance: 21 minutes   Range: 30.2m km
Active Sensor Strength: 0.105   Sensitivity Modifier: 140%
Resolution: 50    Maximum Range vs 2500 ton object (or larger): 100,000 km
Cost Per Missile: 6.1647
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 408%   3k km/s 136%   5k km/s 81.6%   10k km/s 40.8%
Materials Required:    2.5x Tritanium   0.0627x Boronide   0.105x Uridium   3.497x Gallicite   Fuel x375

(1.8 Warhead, 1 Armor, 0.157 Fuel, 0.85 Agility, 0.1 sensor, 0.093 reactor, 4 Engine)

we are informed that there is a proposal for a dedicated bomber with 4 size 8 box launchers floating around. This is a missile that'd go in it. Quite Heavy Warhead, same agility as the dedicated ASM, but 30 million range instead of 100. Most notably, they come with incorporated armor to increase survivability against AMMs and Gauss PD weapons. 48 of these from 8 bombers off of a Lockler WILL hurt something badly, in our estimation.

Nick Esasky fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Oct 3, 2017

# ¿ Oct 2, 2017 23:38

Nick Esasky: Nov 10, 2009

A FAC

code:

Squeezed Fang class Fast Patrol Craft    1,000 tons     38 Crew     257 BP      TCS 20  TH 120  EM 0
6000 km/s     Armour 4-8     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 6
Maint Life 4.93 Years     MSP 80    AFR 16%    IFR 0.2%    1YR 5    5YR 82    Max Repair 60 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 1 months    Spare Berths 2    

120 EP Ion Drive (1)    Power 120    Fuel Use 322.44%    Signature 120    Exp 20%
Fuel Capacity 50,000 Litres    Range 2.8 billion km   (5 days at full power)

Orion 20cm C3 Far Ultraviolet Laser (1)    Range 160,000km     TS: 6000 km/s     Power 10-3     RM 5    ROF 20        10 10 10 10 10 8 7 6 5 5
Fire Control S01 80-5000 (1)    Max Range: 160,000 km   TS: 5000 km/s     94 88 81 75 69 62 56 50 44 38
Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor Technology PB-1.2 (1)     Total Power Output 3.24    Armour 0    Exp 16%

Active Search Sensor MR9-R10 (1)     GPS 210     Range 9.3m km    Resolution 10

It occured to me that having at least one design that can be spammed to sit near our colonies/try to swarm things ala the IC Branson isn't the most horrible idea in the world. This is what happens when you decide to try to squeeze/cheapify our good ol' Fangs down to FAC level tonnage and put an engine from a Meteor on. Even still has enough range/deployment time for it to be reasonable to shepherd it to extrasolar colonies with a tanker, or do a bit of a sortie in support of a defensive action.

A 17000 ton Carrier

code:

Iron Duke class Carrier    17,000 tons     282 Crew     2079 BP      TCS 340  TH 1440  EM 0
4235 km/s     Armour 3-58     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 5     PPV 0
Maint Life 1.89 Years     MSP 1382    AFR 462%    IFR 6.4%    1YR 497    5YR 7453    Max Repair 360 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Flight Crew Berths 71    
Hangar Deck Capacity 8000 tons     Magazine 340    

SpaceX 720 EP Ion Drive (2)    Power 720    Fuel Use 47.32%    Signature 720    Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 650,000 Litres    Range 14.5 billion km   (39 days at full power)

A theoretical in-Sol carrier, because why should only dreadnoughts get to be that big. Twice the capacity of the Lockler, absolutely does not want to be shot at. Recommended group of 8 bombers/8 beam fighters.

# ¿ Oct 3, 2017 07:09

Nick Esasky: Nov 10, 2009

Facility:

Plan Cryo is acceptable, i suppose.

Terra:

I feel like before we even talk with Terra about anything regarding Ragni in specific we need two points made clear to them:

1) Mars will NOT accept attempts at trying to lock us into Sol in ANY aspect, and the Terrans should drat well know that. Them even thinking thats an acceptable starting position for negotiations is Quite Upsetting.

2) If the Terrans want to start talking poo poo like extrasolar ownership, we should have maps/details of everywhere else they've gone so we know precisely what we're negotiating over.

# ¿ Oct 3, 2017 19:07

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 26, 2024 06:47

Nick Esasky: Nov 10, 2009

LLSix posted:

This version of C sounds potentially amusing. Also, full infodump to Facility. Also, also offer its scientist friend an official position. Facility Liaison and Chief Scientist of Pluto maybe? Something suitably important sounding to help her cut through red tape and keep people from bugging her. Maybe assign some of the marines there as permanent bodyguards for her and facility?

2) Ragni and all worlds in it are ours
The ruins are ours
UT knew about Ragni and tried to screw Mars out of it. It didn't work and now they're crying about outsmarting themselves. Tough.
Negotiate down to allowing UT civilian researchers access to the ruins. Access dependent on good behavior. UT expected to allow similar access to any ruins it finds because 'ruins belong to all humanity' blah blah blah. This means UT must announce any other ruins it has found, subject to meaningful fines that can only be paid with minerals or new tech. Give the new teeth some teeth.
We just negotiated one treaty with these jerks, and here they are trying to overturn it. I don't want to have to do this again.
Remind UT that sole control was their idea and we always thought it was stupid.

Proposed addenum: If Terra starts crying about none of their other systems having colony candidates, demand maps of their systems and that we get to verify that crap. Or heck, demand maps as a precondition to anything else.

Also, make it Very VERY clear to them formally/via backchannels that opening with a suggestion that essentially locks us into Sol while they get to do whatever is completely and utterly unacceptable to Mars and have royally pissed us off regarding their suitability as negotiation partners.

Nick Esasky fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Oct 3, 2017

# ¿ Oct 3, 2017 20:27

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > Let's Play! > The War of the Worlds; Lets Play Aurora

«‹›2 »