Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[iceball3]

Well, technically if you're roleplaying, what engineers wouldn't want to make efficient designs? Unless their civilization is comprised of idiots, or they simply don't give a fuck about good practices.

...

Probably involves drunk science.

And of course, let's not forget about bureaucratic agencies and political interests which would want costs and corners (both running and construction) of a ship to be cut as much as possible.
(especially considering that one missile boat design i made that doesn't even have evened out magazine space or enough MSP for a single guaranteed self maintenance failure... I'll just post it.)

Code: [Select]

Furataka 5530-M3x5 class Missile Boat    3 000 tons     83 Crew     382.76 BP      TCS 60  TH 210  EM 0
3500 km/s     Armour 2-18     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 15
Maint Life 1.72 Years     MSP 80    AFR 72%    IFR 1%    1YR 33    5YR 490    Max Repair 100 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 11 months    Spare Berths 0   
Magazine 40   

210 EP SCRU25-Class Ion Drive (1)    Power 210    Fuel Use 24.6%    Signature 210    Exp 7%
Fuel Capacity 50 000 Litres    Range 12.2 billion km   (40 days at full power)

Size 3 Deshpande Missile Launcher (5)    Missile Size 3    Rate of Fire 30
SKIA Developement Missile Fire Control FC56-R10 (1)     Range 56.8m km    Resolution 10
Size 3 "Gankspank" SW-SRASM (13)  Speed: 26 700 km/s   End: 9.2m    Range: 14.7m km   WH: 4    Size: 3    TH: 249/149/74
0.1HS DHX-Micro Gravity Wave Antenna MR0-R10 (1)     GPS 21     Range 390k km    Resolution 10

Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

As well as also potentially totally missing some design errors or allowing them through on the basis of reducing budgetary expenses, cutting said budgetary expenses secretly and taking the difference as embezzled funds, strict deadlines on R&D enforced by scientists and engineers who just want to look impressive, etc (that's my story and I'm sticking to it!)

That's what I was getting at earlier, though. The physical laws (as such) in Aurora regarding T/N ships design have a lot of pretty clear points where they're objectively more effective or efficient or whatever. Because it's a game. In Aurora if you don't design every missile with a square number WH, you're deliberately reducing the efficiency of your missile fire. But in real life it's not that simple, you don't just say "Oh, X energy discharge is the ideal for a missile in this role, why would you ever use something different?" Modern AAMs don't even all use the same warhead type, never mind functionally identical warheads.

This is what I was talking about when I said that I deliberately avoid overoptimizing (which, again, people seem to ignore). From a storytelling perspective the way that a lot of Aurora's systems can be gamed for optimal design points is dull. Making the same ships according to the same design principles in every campaign is not interesting.

Actually, I figure knowing how much warhead strength blows through how much thickness of armor would be something that your engineers would be aware of. That said, the significance is really just "Can I do damage through a particular thickness armor in one shot?" Beyond that point, the significance of a quantity of warhead significantly above or below this threshold is less based on the square values and more just if your DPM and DPS is doing a good enough job, which are both vague enough thresholds that it can be left up to "gut" and "flavor" design. While, yes, a square-theory warhead will make deeper marks in the armor, it's not that big of a deal due to RNG nature of hitting armor. For instance, against a fast hard to hit enemy that my missiles in the size range can't shart it's way through the armor in a single hit, if i had a quantity of warhead that was just below a square, I'd probably just invest in agility instead rather than refitting everything to use bigger launchers.

[Alastar]

There are certain sweet spots, but this should not be overemphasised.
Square numbers of WH strength are nice, n^2+n is the next best thing. There's no reason to stick to this slavishly, though.
If we have other tight design constraints, fitting a sweet-number warhead may not be practical, (e.g. "slow but high-yield size-1 ASM", "the smallest missile that can fit a practical sensor to avoid overkill")

Serious optimisation forcing you to make samey ships in all campaigns is a red herring.
Most of the numeric optimisation here is about good design practice for specific implementations, it doesn't restrict our high-level goals.
The theory behind propulsion optimisation is the same whether you're designing a missile, a beam cruiser or a freighter... and many people make the same blunders for all of them. This doesn't make things richer or deeper, because all their clever little decisions are rendered meaningless - their creation does its job poorly or much more expensively than necessary.
However, if you are aware of the reasonable trade-offs and juggle compactness, build cost, tech requirements, fuel use, redundancy, projected future use when the design is no longer fresh... the decisions become more meaningful, there are some real trade-offs rather than just a scale of incompetence.

Observing good practice for the fiddly details doesn't mean your concept needs to be samey, you can still implement any doctrine you care to envision. Your vessels will just share some general characteristics, just like many vehicles share circular wheels - they simply work better than triangular ones for most common needs.
The cool bit: If you find a good reason to break multiple rules of usual good practice, and your oddball design has notable advantages over the "strictly formula" approach, you have some true innocation rather than yet another fashion folly.

[Flying Dice]

That's what I was getting at earlier, though. The physical laws (as such) in Aurora regarding T/N ships design have a lot of pretty clear points where they're objectively more effective or efficient or whatever. Because it's a game. In Aurora if you don't design every missile with a square number WH, you're deliberately reducing the efficiency of your missile fire. But in real life it's not that simple, you don't just say "Oh, X energy discharge is the ideal for a missile in this role, why would you ever use something different?" Modern AAMs don't even all use the same warhead type, never mind functionally identical warheads.

This is what I was talking about when I said that I deliberately avoid overoptimizing (which, again, people seem to ignore). From a storytelling perspective the way that a lot of Aurora's systems can be gamed for optimal design points is dull. Making the same ships according to the same design principles in every campaign is not interesting.

Actually, I figure knowing how much warhead strength blows through how much thickness of armor would be something that your engineers would be aware of. That said, the significance is really just "Can I do damage through a particular thickness armor in one shot?" Beyond that point, the significance of a quantity of warhead significantly above or below this threshold is less based on the square values and more just if your DPM and DPS is doing a good enough job, which are both vague enough thresholds that it can be left up to "gut" and "flavor" design. While, yes, a square-theory warhead will make deeper marks in the armor, it's not that big of a deal due to RNG nature of hitting armor. For instance, against a fast hard to hit enemy that my missiles in the size range can't shart it's way through the armor in a single hit, if i had a quantity of warhead that was just below a square, I'd probably just invest in agility instead rather than refitting everything to use bigger launchers.

Well, yes, obviously. But not to the point that it occurs in game mechanics. There's no magic line where a warhead a hair under penetrates two layers of armor and one a hair under penetrates three, because armor thickness isn't actually divided into arbitrary block layers and a warhead not strong enough to penetrate a given thickness will still do damage beyond penetrating a prior thickness measurement. They're just represented that way because it's an easy and decently accurate simplification.

That's part of why shock damage was implemented, to help offset the extreme efficiency of square WHs (and also to make oversized weapons more impactful).

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

(What's an AAM? Anti-anti missiles?)

So how do you guys design tugs?

[KingofstarrySkies]

One day I'll learn Aurora. One day.

[da_nang]

(What's an AAM? Anti-anti missiles?)

Anti-air missiles, I imagine.

So how do you guys design tugs?

If mechanics work as they should (i.e. tugged mass is added), you'll want a ship comprised mainly of a strong engine with plenty of fuel as the range is reduced by additional mass. How strong depends on the desired tug speed, which varies from scenario to scenario.

[QuakeIV]

They most likely meant AMM, anti missile missile.

[Rince Wind]

Or air to air missile, of it was in the context of the current weapons.

[ThtblovesDF]

Or Awesome Anti-Missile

I mean, why do we have to say anti missile missile, what is gonna be anti to if we don't add the extra missile?

[Rince Wind]

The one missile to end all missiles!

[Sheb]

Well, anti-missile could be anti-missile lasers, or anti-missile mesons, or anti-missile gauss.

[Dorsidwarf]

Scrolling up a bit, all these people with 10,000 km/s speedster ships are so unambitious.

My speedy scouts are up to 110,000km/s already by the power of ENGINES. Who cares if they've got 6 days of fuel if those 6 days are spent at twice the speed of my fastest missiles!


(It's actually really worrying how fast they are. On the other hand, reality quickly asserts itself with their colossal heat sig and such, meaning they usually get blown to smithereens by a railgun/gauss picket in the Asshole System)

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

HOW DID YOU DO THAT

HOW LARGE DID YOU MAKE THEM

ARE YOU AT PHOTONIC DRIVES OR WHAT

GIVE ME THE PAYLOAD FRACTIONS AND ALL THE LOAD STATISTICS NAO

*eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee*

[iceball3]

That's what I was getting at earlier, though. The physical laws (as such) in Aurora regarding T/N ships design have a lot of pretty clear points where they're objectively more effective or efficient or whatever. Because it's a game. In Aurora if you don't design every missile with a square number WH, you're deliberately reducing the efficiency of your missile fire. But in real life it's not that simple, you don't just say "Oh, X energy discharge is the ideal for a missile in this role, why would you ever use something different?" Modern AAMs don't even all use the same warhead type, never mind functionally identical warheads.

This is what I was talking about when I said that I deliberately avoid overoptimizing (which, again, people seem to ignore). From a storytelling perspective the way that a lot of Aurora's systems can be gamed for optimal design points is dull. Making the same ships according to the same design principles in every campaign is not interesting.

Actually, I figure knowing how much warhead strength blows through how much thickness of armor would be something that your engineers would be aware of. That said, the significance is really just "Can I do damage through a particular thickness armor in one shot?" Beyond that point, the significance of a quantity of warhead significantly above or below this threshold is less based on the square values and more just if your DPM and DPS is doing a good enough job, which are both vague enough thresholds that it can be left up to "gut" and "flavor" design. While, yes, a square-theory warhead will make deeper marks in the armor, it's not that big of a deal due to RNG nature of hitting armor. For instance, against a fast hard to hit enemy that my missiles in the size range can't shart it's way through the armor in a single hit, if i had a quantity of warhead that was just below a square, I'd probably just invest in agility instead rather than refitting everything to use bigger launchers.

Well, yes, obviously. But not to the point that it occurs in game mechanics. There's no magic line where a warhead a hair under penetrates two layers of armor and one a hair under penetrates three, because armor thickness isn't actually divided into arbitrary block layers and a warhead not strong enough to penetrate a given thickness will still do damage beyond penetrating a prior thickness measurement. They're just represented that way because it's an easy and decently accurate simplification.

That's part of why shock damage was implemented, to help offset the extreme efficiency of square WHs (and also to make oversized weapons more impactful).

As mentioned above, square warheads are not extreme-efficiency, in most situations where they help they only provide a point or four of internal damage on initial impact.
And mind you, the threshold for armor-depth penetration isn't some "hairline threshold". 1 WH difference isn't small, functionally: the amount of tonnage you'd have to devote in your missile designs for it is pretty real, and a 1 WH nuclear explosive is still a nuclear explosive.
To further press the point of the availability of knowledge of missile penetration depth: The game has a category of Intelligence called "estimated armor thickness". It is basically, what your empire deduces the thickness of the armor of a vessel based on the deepest penetration weapon that hit it without detecting a contact for the ship's innards spilling out, "Streaming atmosphere".
The game will also make these predictions based on missile warhead penetration depth, meaning that yes, even your own Intelligence officers know exactly how deep your missiles penetrate when they hit armor just by looking at the WH value.
It should also be worth noting that the armor in Aurora should well enough be considered exceptionally tough, considering you don't get shock damage until higher warhead increments are involved.

[Dorsidwarf]

HOW DID YOU DO THAT

HOW LARGE DID YOU MAKE THEM

ARE YOU AT PHOTONIC DRIVES OR WHAT

GIVE ME THE PAYLOAD FRACTIONS AND ALL THE LOAD STATISTICS NAO

*eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee*

I misremembered, it's been a while. My suicide scouts are 50,000 km/s, with a 6000 EP SCAM drive and 2.25 million fuel in a 5900-ton shell giving them a 6-day range. (22bnkm)

The Upholder Mark 2-B-Omega-fuckoff class battle scout gets 100,000 out of a 33,000 ton chassis.... by having eleven of the same engine. Fourteen hours of fuel (5.2bnkm)

its a pretty shitty scout because I made it to GO FAHTS TAKE NAMESforgot which of my sensors was which and therefore has an active scan range of <12mnkm

Upholder MK 2B-Omega-fuckoff Scout    33 000 tons     1690 Crew     33969.8 BP      TCS 660  TH 66000  EM 0
100000 km/s     Armour 1-91     Shields 0-0     Sensors 12/12/0/3     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 0
Maint Life 0 Years     MSP 643    AFR 8712%    IFR 121%    1YR 222461    5YR 3336911    Max Repair 3000 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 1 months    Spare Berths 0   

SpeedFreek 6000 EP Solid Core AM Drive (11)    Power 6000    Fuel Use 233.83%    Signature 6000    Exp 30%
Fuel Capacity 2 250 000 Litres    Range 5.2 billion km   (14 hours at full power)

Active Search Sensor MR8-R84 (1)     GPS 1344     Range 8.8m km    Resolution 84
Thermal Sensor TH2-12 (1)     Sensitivity 12     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  12m km
EM Detection Sensor EM2-12 (1)     Sensitivity 12     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  12m km
Advanced Geological Sensors (1)   3 Survey Points Per Hour

ECM 10

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

(Using these engines in this way to reach 110,000km/s requires 200+ engines. I'm stretching the limit of solid-core here!)