|
|
Post by Easy on Jun 7, 2017 12:57:47 GMT
Play those Star trek/ Wingcommander games I always wondered why those ships weren't given enough power generation to run all systems at full power. But now playing CDE I find myself doing the same thing with making under powered ships, since power generation is really expensive, and ships don't really need to be able to accelerate and shoot at the same time. Similar design philosophy in Battletech/Mechwarrior games where you sacrifice heat dissipation rather than power generation. So you end up with a set of long and short range weapons, but not able to safely fire both or design a controlled overheating where you have a few turns to get really hot and then find time to rest afterwards. It is kind of like designing your ship to be an athlete who can sprint for a short duration and get that extra little kick for when it matters, rather than a jogger who can run forever, but can never go faster than a jog. |
|
|
|
Post by ash19256 on Jun 7, 2017 13:43:12 GMT
Play those Star trek/ Wingcommander games I always wondered why those ships weren't given enough power generation to run all systems at full power. But now playing CDE I find myself doing the same thing with making under powered ships, since power generation is really expensive, and ships don't really need to be able to accelerate and shoot at the same time. Similar design philosophy in Battletech/Mechwarrior games where you sacrifice heat dissipation rather than power generation. So you end up with a set of long and short range weapons, but not able to safely fire both or design a controlled overheating where you have a few turns to get really hot and then find time to rest afterwards. It is kind of like designing your ship to be an athlete who can sprint for a short duration and get that extra little kick for when it matters, rather than a jogger who can run forever, but can never go faster than a jog. By contrast I never design my ships so that I can't run every single gun at once while still keeping everything else powered, because power generation is cheap and light enough that my relatively low-power requirement vessels tend to never need more than 1 GW of power. The one exception might be any laserstars I make, and even then I tend not to make laser stars because that lags the game right the hell out now that the AI has found the ignore range button. |
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jun 7, 2017 14:00:31 GMT
Similar design philosophy in Battletech/Mechwarrior games where you sacrifice heat dissipation rather than power generation. So you end up with a set of long and short range weapons, but not able to safely fire both or design a controlled overheating where you have a few turns to get really hot and then find time to rest afterwards. It is kind of like designing your ship to be an athlete who can sprint for a short duration and get that extra little kick for when it matters, rather than a jogger who can run forever, but can never go faster than a jog. By contrast I never design my ships so that I can't run every single gun at once while still keeping everything else powered, because power generation is cheap and light enough that my relatively low-power requirement vessels tend to never need more than 1 GW of power. The one exception might be any laserstars I make, and even then I tend not to make laser stars because that lags the game right the hell out now that the AI has found the ignore range button. I have enough power to fire all my guns because most of them can fire forwards and I try to limit dead mass |
|
|
|
Post by ash19256 on Jun 7, 2017 15:50:31 GMT
By contrast I never design my ships so that I can't run every single gun at once while still keeping everything else powered, because power generation is cheap and light enough that my relatively low-power requirement vessels tend to never need more than 1 GW of power. The one exception might be any laserstars I make, and even then I tend not to make laser stars because that lags the game right the hell out now that the AI has found the ignore range button. I have enough power to fire all my guns because most of them can fire forwards and I try to limit dead mass That tends to be about 50% of my reasoning. The other 50% is accounting for that unlike in CoaDE, real life fleets would likely get caught in the occasional pincer maneuver or have to engage multiple adversaries at once. As such, being able to fire all weapons at once is an important capability. |
|
|
|
Post by concretedonkey on Jun 7, 2017 16:38:25 GMT
... -SI Destroyer: [ID] Primary Combat Ship. Larger variant of the cruiser; will have a new more powerful class of railguns, more redundancy, possibly thicker armor. May also come equipped with lasers and a small compliment of Microdrones. ... Minor nitpick: traditionally, cruisers are larger than destroyers. Destroyers are versatile all-around performers at an acceptable cost, the workhorse of a navy. They were originally developed to protect capital ships from torpedo boats, but grew through the ages as their role become more cruiser-like (fleet escort and scouting). Cruisers were larger ships used for scouting, supporting other capital ships and for neutralizing destroyers. They are (generally speaking) larger and less versatile. While destroyers (both now and during WW2) often serve anti-sub, anti-air and anti-surface roles, cruisers are almost exclusively used for anti-air and anti-surface. If you're looking for something bigger than a cruiser, you're probably meaning a heavy cruiser (if greater in size, armour and firepower, but still less than a battleship's firepower and armour) or a battlecruiser (also known as a 'pocket battleship', they are cruiser sized and have typical cruiser speeds and armour, but battleship-grade cannons). If you mean a versatile ship smaller than a destroyer, you probably mean frigate or corvette (which are even smaller than frigates and only barely larger than torpedo-, gun- and missile-boats). Not that navies always keep themselves to these rules. The USSR had a class of cruisers they called destroyers because "cruisers are too bourgeois". And the US Navy has the Zumwalt class 'destroyer', which is a cruiser in function (anti-air and anti-surface, but no anti-sub) and size (larger than a Ticonderoga class cruiser). yep, just to add more in to the mess, everything got extremely muddy after WW2, there was one point in which the US navy had frigates larger than destroyers and the germans still call their destroyers frigates because destroyer sounds too... agressive. |
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on Jun 7, 2017 17:15:36 GMT
Minor nitpick: traditionally, cruisers are larger than destroyers. Destroyers are versatile all-around performers at an acceptable cost, the workhorse of a navy. They were originally developed to protect capital ships from torpedo boats, but grew through the ages as their role become more cruiser-like (fleet escort and scouting). Cruisers were larger ships used for scouting, supporting other capital ships and for neutralizing destroyers. They are (generally speaking) larger and less versatile. While destroyers (both now and during WW2) often serve anti-sub, anti-air and anti-surface roles, cruisers are almost exclusively used for anti-air and anti-surface. If you're looking for something bigger than a cruiser, you're probably meaning a heavy cruiser (if greater in size, armour and firepower, but still less than a battleship's firepower and armour) or a battlecruiser (also known as a 'pocket battleship', they are cruiser sized and have typical cruiser speeds and armour, but battleship-grade cannons). If you mean a versatile ship smaller than a destroyer, you probably mean frigate or corvette (which are even smaller than frigates and only barely larger than torpedo-, gun- and missile-boats). Not that navies always keep themselves to these rules. The USSR had a class of cruisers they called destroyers because "cruisers are too bourgeois". And the US Navy has the Zumwalt class 'destroyer', which is a cruiser in function (anti-air and anti-surface, but no anti-sub) and size (larger than a Ticonderoga class cruiser). yep, just to add more in to the mess, everything got extremely muddy after WW2, there was one point in which the US navy had frigates larger than destroyers and the germans still call their destroyers frigates because destroyer sounds too... agressive. And then we're not even talking about escort carriers or 'helicopter destroyers' as Japan likes to call them, because carriers are offensive weapons and the Japanese constitution prohibits the JSDF from being offensive, only defensive. Then you have more exotic ships that don't really fit in any of the neat boxes, like ekranoplan, or China's concept of a submersible/hydroplaning arsenal ship. |
|
|
|
Post by underwhelmed on Jun 7, 2017 20:42:40 GMT
The political games played to rename things are funny... The Ticonderoga-class cruisers were originally designated as destroyers as well, but then Congress complained about a cruiser gap with the Soviets, so the Navy reclassified them as cruisers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jun 7, 2017 21:58:36 GMT
The political games played to rename things are funny... The Ticonderoga-class cruisers were originally designated as destroyers as well, but then Congress complained about a cruiser gap with the Soviets, so the Navy reclassified them as cruisers. and a whole bunch of frigates |
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on Jun 8, 2017 10:23:52 GMT
The political games played to rename things are funny... The Ticonderoga-class cruisers were originally designated as destroyers as well, but then Congress complained about a cruiser gap with the Soviets, so the Navy reclassified them as cruisers. They're (slightly) larger than Arleigh Burke class destroyers, and they mainly fulfill an anti-air and anti-surface role, and lack ASW capability to my knowledge. So they should have been called cruisers from the start. |
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jun 8, 2017 12:00:30 GMT
The political games played to rename things are funny... The Ticonderoga-class cruisers were originally designated as destroyers as well, but then Congress complained about a cruiser gap with the Soviets, so the Navy reclassified them as cruisers. They're (slightly) larger than Arleigh Burke class destroyers, and they mainly fulfill an anti-air and anti-surface role, and lack ASW capability to my knowledge. So they should have been called cruisers from the start. they have 128ish MK41 VLS missile tubes, which can hold ASROC anti-submarine missiles (they drop a torpedo) any ship with VLS can do anything |
|
|
|
Post by Rocket Witch on Jun 9, 2017 6:53:13 GMT
or a battlecruiser (also known as a 'pocket battleship', they are cruiser sized and have typical cruiser speeds and armour, but battleship-grade cannons). Another nitpick. Battlecruisers were often about the same size as battleships, longer but thinner. The term 'pocket battleship' was a media expression referring specifically to certain German treaty cruisers like Graf Spee. |
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jun 9, 2017 12:46:27 GMT
or a battlecruiser (also known as a 'pocket battleship', they are cruiser sized and have typical cruiser speeds and armour, but battleship-grade cannons). Another nitpick. Battlecruisers were often about the same size as battleships, longer but thinner. The term 'pocket battleship' was a media expression referring specifically to certain German treaty cruisers like Graf Spee. yeah, he might have been refering to Alaska type light battlecruisers |
|
|
|
Post by Hicks on Jun 12, 2017 16:55:05 GMT
So I'm currently running a destroyer/battleship combination navy; methane is my reaction mass of choice.
The DD-LCmn-001 Megawatt is the 31st iteration, armed with a ventral 100 MW near ultraviolet extruded turret that outputs 12.6 MW/m2 @ 1000 km and a dorsal mounted conventional 880 mm cannon that fires a 1.02Kt nuclear missile (1.02 Km/s dV) @ 2 Km/s every second; it has a dual NTR/MPD drive that either gets 39.7 km/s dV or an accelleration of 306mg. Everything is powered by a 107 Mw reactor so it can either use the laser or the MPD. It masses 1.89 kt and costs 19.4 Mc.
The BB-LCmn-001 Gigawatt is the 4th iteration of battleship, designed after the last update broke my cannon BB line. Although is masses 6.1 Kt and costs 41.1 Mc, it exceeds the destroyer in range and firepower due to it's 1.01 Gw reactor. It shares the same kind of dual drive, but supersized; getting either 72.6 Km/s dV or 1.39g accelleration. It shares the same armor scheme with the destroyer (500um of diamond,1cm amorphous carbon, 1m graphite aerogel, 2cm boron, and 8cm Boron under the first 40% of the vessel, plus a pointed bow. It has the same nuclear missile cannon, but carries a thousand missiles, and the largest difference is the 1 GW ventral extruded near ultraviolet laser turret, which hits for 105 MW at 1000 Km, which totally out classes the destroyer. Every turret is armored with 20 cm of amorphous carbon; the cannons are driven by neodymium electronic motors while the lasers use momentum wheels, bor on for the 100 Mw and polyethylene for the 1 Gw.
The 316 mm missile has, as previously stated, a 1.02 Kt boosted fission warhead. It's armor scheme is 500 um of diamond over 5 mm of amorphous carbon. Each has 4x800 g methane tanks, and are propelled by a miniature NTR that accellerate at 1.39g for just over a minute. Each masses 20.5kg and costs 485c. They get their initial boost from 50kg of TNT from the dorsal extruded cannon turret. The nuke is set to arm within 20 Km of an enemy vessel, drone, or missile, and will detonate at closest approach.
Standard doctrine is to coast into laser range surrounded by a cloud of 20-200 missiles, open up with the long range laser, and start shooting missiles from the cannon. Range really isn't an issue the destroyer can go anywhere in the solar system, and the battleship can come back after.
In a perfect world, the missile cannon would be used to boost a constellation of nukes accross orbits, but in practice they just fly off in a random direction unless it's set to NOT split the fleet, then it magically kills the 2 Km/s reletive velocity and somehow flies in formation with the destroyer/battleship.
So you basically get a choice with my fleet: have 2 ships for the price of 1, which allows you to be in 2 places at once, or just have 1 ship that is just way better because of it's much longer range and giant laser.
Oh, I almost forgot. Both the destroyer and battleship have 2 methane auto-refueled (one for each reaction mass tank cluster), and are serviced by the largest an most expensive ship in the fleet, the 211 Kt 299 Mc AC-001 Heavy Collier. The Collier has two 100kt methane tanks, 7 Kt of cargo, room for 197 passengers, and an absolutely terrible accelleration: 40.3 mg with the NTRs, and 13.3 ug under MPD, although it does get 201 km/s dV in MPD mode. Its two 100 Mw extruded laser turrets are mostly there to sweep debris away, because its boron - graphite aerogel - boron armor is more a glorified whipple shield, and won't stand up to harsh language in combat; dodging is right out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Easy on Jul 23, 2017 16:30:05 GMT
Regarding tankers, I never use them ingame. I'm sure players wouldn't use drone or missile carriers if you could start the scenario with loose drones/missiles nicely undocked and ready to use.
But tankers, cargoships and other support vessels have that nice strategic way of reducing your operation ships' mass for better acceleration and fuel efficiency. But I'll let the bean counters and logistics officers do those calculations. Remember to use external tanks, because why armor fuel that you're going to burn off before the engagement anyways?
|
|
|
|
Post by cyborgleopard on Aug 22, 2017 21:11:24 GMT
After our previous doctrine caused controversy, we simply decided upon inventing our own ship classes, for our second line of ships.
Ships massing <1.5kt are classed as demons. 1.5-5kt are dragons. 5kt+ are aliens.
Ships designed to stay out of combat and engage enemies at a distance are classified as Ninjas, while ships that are designed for direct engagements and/or point defense are classed as Pirates.
Ships that are designed primarily to carry missiles are called Werewolves, while ships that carry drones are referred to as Vampires. If a ship carries both and is multi role it is referred to as a Cyborg.
Example: A 3.5kt ship designed for direct combat that also carries missiles would be a Dragon Pirate Werewolf
Additional information may be included in the naming.
-Ships now use nose forward configurations rather than broadside.
-Ships now use methane as it is a heck of a lot cheaper than RP1 and we can now make effective armoring schemes that are reasonably cheap and light. NTRs are primary propulsion though Dragon and Alien class ships should have backup MPDs. From a roleplaying perspective, NTRs should be able to accelerate a ship at .2g.
-All dragon and alien class ships must have atleast 5km/sec DV without refueling on their main NTRs. Demon class ships need only four but sometimes have more. Methane tankers can supplement DV on long missions.
Combat doctrine is highly situational, but generally extensive preparation is preferred. Fleets of demon-class (small) ships are often used as they can be interchanged more easily to allow the creation of a fleet with the right tools for the job. This also allows fleets to divide up and attack in waves. Missiles and drones are used to attack the enemy capital fleet and intercept incoming attacks, especially if the fleet is not equipped with substantial point defense. Even Pirate-Class ships only engage as a last resort and function primarily as defense and deterrent.
In space combat the most valuable thing might just be human lives. After all, one can always strip mine another asteroid to crank out more warships, but to raise a person to the age where they can be a productive crewmember will take decades of growing food, filtering water, educating them, and making sure they aren't killed by radiation, depressurization or their own stupidity.
|
|
