Print

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

[Micro102]

O wow did not know that. Thought you guys were talking about building individual parts and then building ships in the shipyard. Yeah I agree that's abusive as all hell.

It really isn't, though. I don't do it much for a similar reason as forsaken, but it's completely legitimate and restricted to a relatively narrow band of usefulness. The added volume (and, to a lesser degree, cost) makes it pretty useless for anything beyond things which would already effectively be orbital habitats anyways.

Agreed, it's not a terrible thing to do. For one, you cannot reasonably use it for any non-commercial craft. Its just not feasible as pointed out above.

What about having a planet surrounded by ships, but constructing orbital habitats armed with absurd amounts of weapons?



Also, built my first destroyer, need criticism.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Pikemen class Destroyer    28,650 tons     2812 Crew     5402.5 BP      TCS 573  TH 1590  EM 600
5549 km/s     Armour 5-83     Shields 20-300     Sensors 36/36/0/0     Damage Control Rating 21     PPV 86.58
Maint Life 7.14 Years     MSP 4475    AFR 312%    IFR 4.3%    1YR 154    5YR 2306    Max Repair 173 MSP

Ion Engine E7 (53)    Power 60    Fuel Use 70%    Signature 30    Armour 0    Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 2,300,000 Litres    Range 206.4 billion km   (430 days at full power)
Gamma R300/16 Shields (10)   Total Fuel Cost  160 Litres per day

Twin 12cm C4 Ultraviolet Laser Turret (6x2)    Range 160,000km     TS: 16000 km/s     Power 8-8     RM 4    ROF 5        4 4 4 4 3 2 2 2 1 1
20cm C4 Ultraviolet Laser (4)    Range 192,000km     TS: 5549 km/s     Power 10-4     RM 4    ROF 15        10 10 10 10 8 6 5 5 4 4
CIWS-160 (2x6)    Range 1000 km     TS: 16000 km/s     ROF 5       Base 50% To Hit
Fire Control S12 72-16000 (2)    Max Range: 144,000 km   TS: 16000 km/s     93 86 79 72 65 58 51 44 37 31
Fire Control S06 96-6000 H70 (1)    Max Range: 192,000 km   TS: 6000 km/s     95 90 84 79 74 69 64 58 53 48
Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor Technology PB-1 PO-4.5 (15)     Total Power Output 67.5    Armour 0    Exp 5%

Active Search Sensor MR21-R30 (70%) (1)     GPS 1920     Range 21.0m km    Resolution 30
Active Search Sensor MR3-R1 (70%) (1)     GPS 64     Range 3.8m km    Resolution 1
Thermal Sensor TH6-36 (70%) (1)     Sensitivity 36     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  36m km
EM Detection Sensor EM6-36 (70%) (1)     Sensitivity 36     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  36m km

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

[RedKing]

To reiterate (for about the fifth time  ), military orbital habitats don't work because the maintenance factor is so high the thing would blow itself apart due to component failures within a month.

As for the destroyer, it's really more of a cruiser in my terms. Maintenance life and MSP is probably way too high for a true destroyer role, as is fuel capacity.
Not sure about the shields. General consensus is that they're a waste better served by additional armor until you get to about Xi Shields or higher.

Your fire control for the twin turrets has a max range lower than the weapon range itself, which could be a problem, especially when you factor in enemy ECM.

I always put in redundant active sensors, otherwise one lucky hit ruins your whole day.

[Bremen]

Not sure about the shields. General consensus is that they're a waste better served by additional armor until you get to about Xi Shields or higher.

Shields are much nicer now thanks to shock damage. Generally over a certain amount armor starts hitting diminishing returns (the exact point depending on the strength of weapons hitting you), since the ship will likely be suffering shock damage before the armor is lost, so it now makes sense to mix shields and armor. That particular design, however, isn't really heavily armored for its size and so taking off the shields and boosting it to 6 or 7 armor layers might be better.

[Flying Dice]

RedKing, people might keep forgetting because they play with maintenance off and don't bother accounting for it in their designs.

RE: Destroyer:

RedKing pretty much nailed it. That looks like a heavy cruiser both in terms of size and the way it's outfitted.

-Shields still aren't incredibly useful at low tech, especially if your ships are as lightly armored as that.
-Armor. A ~30k ton ship is a substantial investment at that tech level. At least bring it up to ~7-10 layers (you can even nix some of the increased volume by improving the efficiency of other elements).
-The FC for the twin turrets?

Something to consider: Are those twin turrets supposed to be PD or offensive weapons? If the former, I'd suggest dumping the CIWS unless you're intending to deploy these ships entirely alone. That will either increase your top speed or give you room for additional PD lasers and fire controls (or thicker armor). In virtually all situations active PD is superior to CIWS given the AI tendency to concentrate fire on a single ship at a time -- CIWS can only defend the ship it's mounted on, but PD lasers/gauss/whatever can be used to defend other ships, as well as the fact that CIWS doesn't gain accuracy with improved crew rating. I only use CIWS on commercial ships, troop transports, true capital ships, and ships designed to operate alone.

Also: Always overengineer your fire controls. It's basically null cost to tack on a third again of the maximum range of the weapon, which serves both to buffer against the effects of enemy ECM and to help future-proof the ships, so that you can refit them with upgraded weapons even if you don't have a new FC to go with.

[Metalax]

Also, built my first destroyer, need criticism.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Pikemen class Destroyer    28,650 tons     2812 Crew     5402.5 BP      TCS 573  TH 1590  EM 600
5549 km/s     Armour 5-83     Shields 20-300     Sensors 36/36/0/0     Damage Control Rating 21     PPV 86.58
Maint Life 7.14 Years     MSP 4475    AFR 312%    IFR 4.3%    1YR 154    5YR 2306    Max Repair 173 MSP

Ion Engine E7 (53)    Power 60    Fuel Use 70%    Signature 30    Armour 0    Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 2,300,000 Litres    Range 206.4 billion km   (430 days at full power)
Gamma R300/16 Shields (10)   Total Fuel Cost  160 Litres per day

Twin 12cm C4 Ultraviolet Laser Turret (6x2)    Range 160,000km     TS: 16000 km/s     Power 8-8     RM 4    ROF 5        4 4 4 4 3 2 2 2 1 1
20cm C4 Ultraviolet Laser (4)    Range 192,000km     TS: 5549 km/s     Power 10-4     RM 4    ROF 15        10 10 10 10 8 6 5 5 4 4
CIWS-160 (2x6)    Range 1000 km     TS: 16000 km/s     ROF 5       Base 50% To Hit
Fire Control S12 72-16000 (2)    Max Range: 144,000 km   TS: 16000 km/s     93 86 79 72 65 58 51 44 37 31
Fire Control S06 96-6000 H70 (1)    Max Range: 192,000 km   TS: 6000 km/s     95 90 84 79 74 69 64 58 53 48
Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor Technology PB-1 PO-4.5 (15)     Total Power Output 67.5    Armour 0    Exp 5%

Active Search Sensor MR21-R30 (70%) (1)     GPS 1920     Range 21.0m km    Resolution 30
Active Search Sensor MR3-R1 (70%) (1)     GPS 64     Range 3.8m km    Resolution 1
Thermal Sensor TH6-36 (70%) (1)     Sensitivity 36     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  36m km
EM Detection Sensor EM6-36 (70%) (1)     Sensitivity 36     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  36m km

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Looks like a reasonable light frigate in size.

You look to be running an older version of Aurora, as you have a fire control larger than size 8 which is no longer possible(the size was halved in one of the last updates) and there is no intended deployment time listed. A lot of ship design advice has changed due to mechanics changes.

Some things that should still apply.

Maintenance life is excessive, unless this is intended to operate away from your territory for extended periods of time. Generally the only military vessels that need more than 1-2 years maintenance life are jump point defence bases and long range explorers. Also are you using maintenance storage bays? If so you would be better off replacing them with the same tonnage of engineering spaces, as those reduce the failure rate so you don't need as many maintenance supplies.

Fuel, again unless this is intended to operate far from resupply, has far too much. Aim for somewhere around 60-120 days fuel. This design isn't jump capable so you are going to need a jump ship along anyway, use it as a fuel tanker if you need to operate further out.

Weapons and fire controls look fine.

Sensors look fine if this is intended to operate on it's own. If it is intended to be part of a squadron, I'd strip off the res-30 active and the passives, place size 1 passives back on and move the larger sensors over to a dedicated sensor ship.

Armour is ok, although possibly a little thin for a beam combatant. Shields are ok for your tech level and in the current version of the game will help prevent shock damage from any missiles that leak through your PD.

[Sheb]

One other benefit to using higher number of weapons in a turret is that in addition to having a small space saving, it also requires less crew and has a lower cost than an equal number of single turreted barrels. The initial research cost is higher which is the primary drawback.

Does it? In RedKing's exemple, a single turret cost 42 and a quad turret cost 169, slightly more than 4 single turrets.

[Metalax]

One other benefit to using higher number of weapons in a turret is that in addition to having a small space saving, it also requires less crew and has a lower cost than an equal number of single turreted barrels. The initial research cost is higher which is the primary drawback.

Does it? In RedKing's exemple, a single turret cost 42 and a quad turret cost 169, slightly more than 4 single turrets.

Yes. Example below.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Code: (Single Townsend Precision Arms 30cm C6 Soft X-ray Laser Turret) [Select]

Damage Output 24x1      Rate of Fire: 20 seconds     Range Modifier: 6
Max Range 1,440,000 km    Turret Size: 13.5    SPW: 13.5    Turret HTK: 4
Power Requirement: 24    Power Recharge per 5 Secs: 6
Cost: 198    Crew: 27
Maximum Tracking Speed: 40000km/s
Materials Required: 57.7x Duranium  35.2x Corbomite  105.6x Corundium 

Development Cost for Project: 1980RP

Code: (Quad Townsend Precision Arms 30cm C6 Soft X-ray Laser Turret) [Select]

Damage Output 24x4      Rate of Fire: 20 seconds     Range Modifier: 6
Max Range 1,440,000 km    Turret Size: 52.2    SPW: 13.05    Turret HTK: 16
Power Requirement: 96    Power Recharge per 5 Secs: 24
Cost: 785    Crew: 97
Maximum Tracking Speed: 40000km/s
Materials Required: 221.8x Duranium  140.8x Corbomite  422.4x Corundium 

Development Cost for Project: 7850RP

Code: (costs) [Select]

        Quad        4x Single
Size      52.2     4x13.5 = 54
Crew      97       4x27 =   108
Cost      785      4x198 =  792

edit: I wonder if Redking increased the tracking speed above the base for his examples? Mine here use a tracking speed of 40,000 compared to a base of 10,000.

edit2: Just had a check, leaving the turret speed at the default tracking speed results in a cost of 182 per single, so 728 for the four while the quad is now at 724. Much closer but still in the quads favour. It looks like there is a level of tech advancement where it switches from one to the other being the cheapest.

So multi-barrel turrets become more favourable in terms of cost, the more gearing you need to add to reach the desired tracking speed.

[forsaken1111]

Ech, don't put code tabs in spoilers. Use quote tags or leave the code tabs out of the spoiler. It squashes it down flat and is hard to read.

[RedKing]

My original examples were for default 10000 km/s tracking, but that's in a game where I had already researched fire control and turret tracking up to a base of 8000 km/s.

The reason for the cost differential is probably more to do with rounding than anything. I tested two identical sets of turrets (except for the main gun):

R1.5/C2 Meson Cannon: Single costs 4, quad costs 17 (quad 1 unit more expensive)
20cm UV Laser: Single costs 50, quad costs 199 (quad 1 unit cheaper)

On the whole, the difference is negligible.

[Micro102]

To reiterate (for about the fifth time  ), military orbital habitats don't work because the maintenance factor is so high the thing would blow itself apart due to component failures within a month.

As for the destroyer, it's really more of a cruiser in my terms. Maintenance life and MSP is probably way too high for a true destroyer role, as is fuel capacity.
Not sure about the shields. General consensus is that they're a waste better served by additional armor until you get to about Xi Shields or higher.

Your fire control for the twin turrets has a max range lower than the weapon range itself, which could be a problem, especially when you factor in enemy ECM.

I always put in redundant active sensors, otherwise one lucky hit ruins your whole day.

Yes the orbital habitat would die quickly, but I think the ability to construct a platform with a swarm of lasers right next to your enemies is worth it if it's just going to be destroyed anyway.

As for the fire control, I based it off the speed of my current enemy's missiles, so I could get a second shot off, and I might as well make the shots start at as high a damage as I can, as lasers are weakest at their max range.

I was thinking of adding another fire control to let the turrets switch between point defense and ship shooters. Other than that, I will make some tweaks to the ship.

[iceball3]

To reiterate (for about the fifth time  ), military orbital habitats don't work because the maintenance factor is so high the thing would blow itself apart due to component failures within a month.

As for the destroyer, it's really more of a cruiser in my terms. Maintenance life and MSP is probably way too high for a true destroyer role, as is fuel capacity.
Not sure about the shields. General consensus is that they're a waste better served by additional armor until you get to about Xi Shields or higher.

Your fire control for the twin turrets has a max range lower than the weapon range itself, which could be a problem, especially when you factor in enemy ECM.

I always put in redundant active sensors, otherwise one lucky hit ruins your whole day.

Yes the orbital habitat would die quickly, but I think the ability to construct a platform with a swarm of lasers right next to your enemies is worth it if it's just going to be destroyed anyway.

As for the fire control, I based it off the speed of my current enemy's missiles, so I could get a second shot off, and I might as well make the shots start at as high a damage as I can, as lasers are weakest at their max range.

I was thinking of adding another fire control to let the turrets switch between point defense and ship shooters. Other than that, I will make some tweaks to the ship.

Wouldn't meson PDCs be more cost effective? Granted, mesons don't really feel quite as "cool" as other weapons. Are ships in extended orbit tended by maintence facilities?
It kind of stinks that fighters aren't tended by the facilities at all, but it would be kind of nice to put some small craft loaded with plasma carronades into orbit to take out overly nosey vessels at close range.

[RedKing]

To reiterate (for about the fifth time  ), military orbital habitats don't work because the maintenance factor is so high the thing would blow itself apart due to component failures within a month.

As for the destroyer, it's really more of a cruiser in my terms. Maintenance life and MSP is probably way too high for a true destroyer role, as is fuel capacity.
Not sure about the shields. General consensus is that they're a waste better served by additional armor until you get to about Xi Shields or higher.

Your fire control for the twin turrets has a max range lower than the weapon range itself, which could be a problem, especially when you factor in enemy ECM.

I always put in redundant active sensors, otherwise one lucky hit ruins your whole day.

Yes the orbital habitat would die quickly, but I think the ability to construct a platform with a swarm of lasers right next to your enemies is worth it if it's just going to be destroyed anyway.

As for the fire control, I based it off the speed of my current enemy's missiles, so I could get a second shot off, and I might as well make the shots start at as high a damage as I can, as lasers are weakest at their max range.

I was thinking of adding another fire control to let the turrets switch between point defense and ship shooters. Other than that, I will make some tweaks to the ship.

Wouldn't meson PDCs be more cost effective? Granted, mesons don't really feel quite as "cool" as other weapons. Are ships in extended orbit tended by maintence facilities?
It kind of stinks that fighters aren't tended by the facilities at all, but it would be kind of nice to put some small craft loaded with plasma carronades into orbit to take out overly nosey vessels at close range.

+1

For the time and resources involved in building that orbital hab laserdrome, you could crank out a slew of PDCs with more survivability and greater usefulness.

As for the plasma carronade fighters, just build a fighter base PDC. Then if you need them, launch the whole squadron and bingo they're in orbit. When they're not in use, land them at the base and maintenance is take care of.

In fact, I usually use a fighter base and a squadron of cheap close-defense fighters to satisfy military protection demands in systems that aren't really in any danger.

[Flying Dice]

To reiterate: Fighters = lots of micromanagement for lots of awesome.

[RedKing]

Plus a great personnel sink to expand your officer corps.

[Rince Wind]

Plus a great personnel sink to expand your officer corps.

Or to get rid of them when the fighters get ripped apart by AMMs.


My precursers had a resolution 4 Sensor, ist that new? Would be cool if the AI was finally able to detect fighters a longer way out, so they won't be an I-win button with missiles and 15mil km missile range.