Print

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

[Sirus]

@ ED: I just use Gunboat as a catch-all term for "ship with a fast-attack engine". Gunboat engines use fuel 10x as fast as comparable engine tech, plus they can be docked in any ship with a hanger (practically a requirement, unless you plan on leaving them in orbit around something).

However, firing up Aurora doesn't give me design errors when a GB/fighter goes over my previously mentioned weight limits, which I remember from earlier in this thread. Perhaps those requirements were removed in more recent versions? 

[Sheb]

You know you can dock a 24,000 tons battleship if you just put enough hangar bay in a carrier, right?

Well, thanks for the explaination. I guess I'll just design a large, civilian troop transport with loads of Cargo Handling Systems. And maybe something to board ships, like a carrier with troops bay carrying one or two drop-module equipped FACs.

[Earthquake Damage]

However, firing up Aurora doesn't give me design errors when a GB/fighter goes over my previously mentioned weight limits, which I remember from earlier in this thread. Perhaps those requirements were removed in more recent versions? 

IIRC fighters (i.e. ships build by Fighter Factories instead of Shipyards) must have a FTR engine and be no more than 10 HS.  I could be wrong on the requirements, but the game handles them differently from normal ships.  Gunboats are handled exactly like other ships AFAIK.

[Sirus]

However, firing up Aurora doesn't give me design errors when a GB/fighter goes over my previously mentioned weight limits, which I remember from earlier in this thread. Perhaps those requirements were removed in more recent versions? 

IIRC fighters (i.e. ships build by Fighter Factories instead of Shipyards) must have a FTR engine and be no more than 10 HS.  I could be wrong on the requirements, but the game handles them differently from normal ships.  Gunboats are handled exactly like other ships AFAIK.

I knew the FTR engine part, but testing the "under 10 HS" tidbit, I threw a bunch of cargo holds on a fighter, and got no errors. It still might not be built, but it will theoretically work.

[Sheb]

Well, does it say that it is considered a fighter?

[Sirus]

Well, does it say that it is considered a fighter?

Not anymore...
I is stupid after Zombie Jebus Day 

[Smitehappy]

Just designed my first Warship and would appreciate some feedback on anything I did wrong before it gets shot to hell by some random alien menace.

Code: [Select]

Star Burst class Battlecruiser    38,000 tons     3479 Crew     6844.08 BP      TCS 760  TH 1100  EM 750
1447 km/s     Armour 12-100     Shields 25-375     Sensors 33/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 34     PPV 357
Annual Failure Rate: 339%    IFR: 4.7%    Maint Capacity 3827 MSP    Max Repair 264 MSP    Est Time: 2.42 Years
Flag Bridge    Magazine 743   

ARM-1 Military Combat Engine (10)    Power 110    Fuel Use 96%    Signature 110    Armour 1    Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 800,000 Litres    Range 39.5 billion km   (315 days at full power)
ARM-1 Delta Shielding (10)   Total Fuel Cost  200 Litres per day

ARM-1 Particle Cannon (12)    Range 192,000km     TS: 4000 km/s     Power 10-4    ROF 15        4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
ARM-1 AM Guass Turret (12x3)    Range 30,000km     TS: 16000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 3    ROF 5        1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
AM Fire Control (4)    Max Range: 48,000 km   TS: 16000 km/s     79 58 38 17 0 0 0 0 0 0
ARM-1 Beam Fire Control (4)    Max Range: 192,000 km   TS: 6000 km/s     95 90 84 79 74 69 64 58 53 48
ARM-1 Reactor Core (1)     Total Power Output 80    Armour 1    Exp 5%

Size 39 Missile Launcher (3)    Missile Size 39    Rate of Fire 390
Anti-Ship Missile Fire Control (3)     Range 28.8m km    Resolution 100

ARM-1 Active Sensors (1)     GPS 8000     Range 48.0m km    Resolution 100
Thermal Sensor TH3-33 (50%) (1)     Sensitivity 33     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  33m km

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Pretty standard stuff, though I am proud of the 39 size missiles I'm using (Breaks up into a bunch of really fast, small warheads near at 15k from the target.

[Felius]

Holy fuck, why the hell are you building a Warship this huge?

More practically: You'd probably get a better range if you use drones, instead of missiles for the main ammunition. Also, I'd recommend you make it much smaller, for more Dakka. While you shoot one, everyone else's going to fire at the very least 2-3, at the very low end, possibly much, much more.

Big missiles will make it easier to detect and intercept.

[Sheb]

Also, it is really slow. It'll likely never close up enought to use it's particle beam.

[umiman]

Also, it is really slow. It'll likely never close up enought to use it's particle beam.

In my time playing Aurora, there's one thing I've learned about the non-missile weapons. You don't get them for offensive purposes. You get them in case the enemy likes to get in your face.

[Felius]

Also, it is really slow. It'll likely never close up enought to use it's particle beam.

In my time playing Aurora, there's one thing I've learned about the non-missile weapons. You don't get them for offensive purposes. You get them in case the enemy likes to get in your face.

Then simply don't get it. You can fit a a lot more missiles if you don't. It's possible to make interesting non missile ships though, they just really need to be able to outrun everything else, have lots of PD and enough armor to shrug a good handful of hits

[Sheb]

Well, that space would be better used by more missiles launchers, so the ennemy doesn't get anywhere near.

Also, you beam fire control has a tracking speed 150% that of your beam weapons, and you lack any sensors to pick hum smaller target like missiles.

[Smitehappy]

Holy fuck, why the hell are you building a Warship this huge?

More practically: You'd probably get a better range if you use drones, instead of missiles for the main ammunition. Also, I'd recommend you make it much smaller, for more Dakka. While you shoot one, everyone else's going to fire at the very least 2-3, at the very low end, possibly much, much more.

Big missiles will make it easier to detect and intercept.

I didn't think it was all that big. It easily fits in my largest shipyard and gets churned out in about 6 months in pairs of two thanks to the extra slipway. I suppose I could tone down the armor to cut down on size though.

I see your point with the missiles though, I suppose I should have considering how the missile could have gotten close enough to split without getting shot down.

Also, it is really slow. It'll likely never close up enought to use it's particle beam.

That's not an issue for me, this is part of the systems defense fleet, it just hangs out at the gate into the system. My main attack fleet is mostly based around carriers full of extremely fast beam fighters and missile FACs. Probably should have mentioned that. This ship in particular should never really have to close into range.

Also, you beam fire control has a tracking speed 150% that of your beam weapons, and you lack any sensors to pick hum smaller target like missiles.

Yeah tracking speed thing is just an error I didn't feel like correcting and smaller targets(Missiles and Fighters) are handled by another ship.

[RedKing]

Yeah, I was gonna say the speed is the bigger problem. Even my biggest warships are designed to pull 2500-3000 km/s minimum. Active sensors are probably a bit strong, considering their range is almost double your max weapon range.

I'd ditch the gauss turrets for CIWS myself. You'll lose range and dual-purpose fire, but most missiles are going to cross the distance between 30k range (gauss turret range) and 1k range (CIWS range) in a couple of seconds, so you're probably only going to get one shot either way. And CIWS is a more optimized use of space.

Reactor core seems underpowered. Which is fine if plan to only fire a portion of your beams at a time (looks like you're planning 4 banks of 3 cannons each?), but I prefer to have enough to fire everything. Also, you're building one massive core. It's generally better, IMHO, to build a cluster of smaller cores (say 4 20-power cores), so that if one takes damage, you can continue to operate at decreased output.

For the same reason, I often build 1 or two more fire control systems than are operationally required, so that I have backups. But those are just differences in design philosophy.

I also tend to eschew the MIRV design (mostly because I haven't played around much with the booster/second-stage options) and just build a crapload of small, relatively short-range tubes (5-10km) and a handful of larger, slow-reloading tubes for long-range, large-warhead missiles. If I can, I get their reload times to be factors, so that for instance, for every six salvos of Strelas (the light SRMs), I fire one salvo of Molotoks (the big cruise missile jobbies).


EDIT: ahh, ok. If it's for a jump point monitor, then that's a different story. I'd up the power cores so you can fire all 12 particle cannons every reload cycle (120pwr, maybe in 4 30-point cores? that way if you have them grouped in 4 banks of 3 and you lose a single power core, you just turn off one FC and keep at it).

If it's an in-system monitor, you don't need that much fuel capacity. 100 days shoud be plenty, even with the shields. If you need to refuel, use a small tanker instead of wasting it by moving the whole ship off-station.

[Sheb]

Well, if the aim is to defend jump gate, why bother with missiles at all? A smaller warship, or a battle sttion (ship without engine) with a lot of beam weapons can wreck any ships before they can use their sensors, if the TF training is at 100%/