This site is in archival mode. A replacement is being developed. In the meantime, please use the PBW2 Forums for community discussions. The replacement software for this site will use a unified account system with PBW2, and any newly created threads will carry over.
Welcome to Spaceempires.net
Login or Register

Search
Modules
· Content
· Downloads
· Forums
· Game Info
· Image Gallery
· Links
· Shipyards
· Topics
· Staff

User Info
· Welcome, Anonymous
Membership:
· New: Astorre
· New Today: 0
· New Yesterday: 0
· Overall: 3155

People Online:
· Visitors: 132
· Members: 0
· Total: 132

  

Spaceempires.net :: New Point Defense ship needed :: View topic
Forum FAQ :: Search :: Memberlist :: Usergroups :: Profile :: Log in to check your private messages :: Log in


New Point Defense ship needed
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Spaceempires.net Forum Index -> Federated Worlds Star Navy
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Astorax
Space Emperor


Joined: Jan 14, 2008

PostPosted: Wed May 28, 2008 1:09 pm    Post subject: New Point Defense ship needed Reply with quote

Gentlemen, as shown in combat against a single enemy carrier with normal fighters, the Barrier point defense destroyer fared poorly and, in fact, two of them were crippled. I believe this is because the guns are too small on them - they are good enough to take out missiles perhaps but not the fighters that are shooting them. I have come up with a prototype that uses 40mm guns instead. 4x 40mm Plasma Cannons and 4x 40mm Maser II's. This will allow the vessel to still perform its point defense duties but with added punch. No longer will it be all bark but will have a bite too! It has 1 shield, 10 regen armor and 9 20cm ceramic composite armors. This is less shields and less armor than even the Barrier V, our latest out now. I think it will still perform better however.

If someone would like to suggest a better design I'm all ears but continuing to rely on the Barrier design is foolhardy in my opinion. I hate to imagine the fate of our fleets when confronted with multiple 200kt enemy carriers full of fighters and we have to use Barriers to defend with.

-edit- I did another with 4x 40mm Plasma Cannons and 2x 40mm Maser II with 1 shield, 10 regen armor and 25 20cm ceramic composite if that seems better to you guys.


Back to top
Heimdall
Space Emperor


Joined: May 17, 2007

PostPosted: Wed May 28, 2008 2:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have never considered the Barrier to be an anti-fighter design. With the multiple light kinetic missiles that all barriers have as a primary weapon system there isn't much room for an array of anti-fighter weapons. I wouldn't entirely replace the Barrier class vessels as are still good vessels in the anti-missile role.

Before designing a new anti-fighter defense ship we should look at what it will need to kill. The largest and toughest fighters we have encountered (so far) are the heavy fighters used by the Ukra-Tal. Analysis of the wreckage from the Cue-Cappa carrier you destroyed shows that the Evil-Cue are also capable of building a similar class of fighter.

These Ukra-Tal fighters have a movement of three, have 15 std unit of shielding and 17 std units of damage before destroyed. However, we know that since the production of those fighter the Ukra-Tal have had breakthroughs in armour and shield technology and a similar fighter manufactured with their current technology would likely have 20 units of shielding and be able with stand 19 points of damage.

So, if we are using 40mm weapons each fighter will take 4 DUC or 2 plasma cannon hits to destroy. A single 40mm torpedo can destroy a fighter of this class, but it needs to be at range and the low RoF of the torpedo systems would be a concern. While 60mm weapons could shatter fighters in a single hit, the lack of accuracy would greatly limit them in an anti-fighter role.

The Longbow design take a different approach with its 4 Heavy Kinetic Missiles (with 3 LKMs for missile defense). Unfortunately each HKM inflicts only 7 units of damage, so six impacts would be required to destroy a top-of-the-line Ukra-Tal fighter and there is the risk of HKMs being shot down by enemy PD ships and units. However the HKM does have the advantage of long range and allows the Longbow to destroy non-missile armed fighters before they can get close enough to fire.

A third possibility would be the use of Heavy Explosive Missiles. The low RoF is a problem, as is the low velocity. However they are less vulnerable than HKMs and inflict five times the damage per missile. The ships could also be ordered to engage capital ships if no fighters were in range.

The best design for use in larger fleets may not be a single design, but rather two designs that complement each other. We should run some simulator tests before selecting our future anti-fighter approach.


SL Heimdall of House Bifrost (PBC IV)
Currently onboard command vessel BGS Resolution


Back to top
Kana
Space Emperor


Joined: Jan 15, 2005

PostPosted: Wed May 28, 2008 7:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well we have the Ped Wrath ships for the specific Anti-Fighter role, the Barriers are intended to take on missiles first, then fighters.

We have more Barriers/Dragonflies than we do Ped Wraths.

Of course if we had more fighters in the air, it might have been a different story as well.

Ships are going to take damage. Maybe we need to beef up the defenses on the Anti-Missile/Anti-Fighter Ships? At least enough to take hit from fighter level weapons. But a missile is a missile, and its going to hurt no matter who launches it.


FSL Kana/CNO F.W.S.N/FNS Brawler (PBC IV)


Back to top
Astorax
Space Emperor


Joined: Jan 14, 2008

PostPosted: Wed May 28, 2008 7:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, I liked the idea of weapons that can fire atleast once per combat turn. Plasma weps of the 40mm variety alongside 40mm Masers. Those Ped Wraths use missiles which fire every 3rd round. My Cuspis Tutaminis design has 22% armor (this on a destroyer) comprised of 10 regen and 25 20cm ceramic, a shield, 4x 40mm plasma and 2x 40mm maser II's. Speed 5. I think it'll be a tough little ship that packs quite a punch.

Back to top
Kana
Space Emperor


Joined: Jan 15, 2005

PostPosted: Wed May 28, 2008 8:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is an improved Ped Wrath. It adds some guns as well. Plus it both versions have Light Explosive missiles which are slow but pack a punch, and rapid fire Heavy Kinetic missiles designed to hit fighters. I'll review the designs and check out some prototypes, but its not like we have alot of choice at this time.

We would probably be better off building a few more Saint-B class carriers and fill them with fighters than either building new Escort ships or retrofiting to a newer design.


FSL Kana/CNO F.W.S.N/FNS Brawler (PBC IV)


Back to top
Astorax
Space Emperor


Joined: Jan 14, 2008

PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2008 5:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

lol, I totally agree we need alot more carriers! Still, I tested this new design out versus that Cue carrier with its fighter complement in some simulations and it worked way better than my Barriers did. Gonna try it with an equal amount of Ped Wraths and then compare.

- well, the Ped Wraths got torn up more by them but managed to kill them all and my new design didn't get as damaged but couldn't catch the fighters after the fighters had run out of supplies to fire and were just running. If the ship and fighters are all going the same speed I guess you need a missile or something that can get a burst of speed faster to catch up. So now I'm thinking of a 40mm plasma cannon + missile combo. <ponders>


Back to top
Astorax
Space Emperor


Joined: Jan 14, 2008

PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2008 1:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ok, so I changed my design to 4x 40mm Plasma Cannons + 2x Extended Rack Heavy Explosive Missile II's and, by the simulations, it is working excellent! By making them the Heavy variety it makes them take alot more punishment to kill so they can't just take a potshot and kill the incoming missiles, it would take dedicated firing with multiple weapons. I am really liking this upgraded design, guys.

1x Bridge
2x Automation II
1x LS
1x CQ
1x Ancient Supply Bay
1x Drive Reactor III
16x Small Engine Ports
1x Gun Crew
4x 40mm Plasma Cannon
2x Extended Rack HE Missile II
1x Shield
10x Regen Armor
21x Ceramic Composite Armor

Fighter/Missile Screen strat.


Back to top
Kana
Space Emperor


Joined: Jan 15, 2005

PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2008 7:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You will save on cost, if you make the engine scheme 2x Port, 8x small Port. Of course you will have to give up some armor or some other components to make up for the space difference.

I worked on a prototype as well with 4x 40mm Plasma, and 4x 40mm DUC. Of course this would run into your chasing down problem. Have you tried a version with 2x Shields, which would be 50 shield points?

If we submit a new design, it will be of a new type which I want called Escort. So this, any new Ped Wrath designs an other anti-fighter designs will be under.

If we could get the speed up to 7 it would be able to probably catch the fighters.

Also if you use the fighter/missile screen strat, you wasting effort on the missiles. If you want this thing to kill fighters then thats what it needs to do.


FSL Kana/CNO F.W.S.N/FNS Brawler (PBC IV)


Back to top
Astorax
Space Emperor


Joined: Jan 14, 2008

PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2008 7:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Also, an upgraded Bombardment ship:

Thumper

1x Bridge
2x Automation II
1x LS
1x CQ
2x Ancient Supply Bay
1x Drive Reactor III
16x Small Engine Port
1x Gun Crew
4x External Rack Heavy Explosive Missile II
2x External Rack Heavy Nuclear Missile II
10x Regen Armor
13x 20cm Ceramic Composite Armor

Fighters then Ships Spreadfire strat.

It has enough supplies to fire all its weapons for one entire combat with some supply leftover (4-5k). This thing has some power behind it plus all the missiles are heavy so harder to kill.


Back to top
Astorax
Space Emperor


Joined: Jan 14, 2008

PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2008 7:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kana, as to having the Fighter/Missile strat on the Cuspis, it was just so it would also fire on the missiles if it wasn't in range of a fighter at that moment. What other strat would you recommend for it then? If it worked in tandem with the Barriers (which are all anti-missile pretty much) it should work out great but theres no just-fighter strat except anti-fighter deep bombardment (whatever that is).

Back to top
Kana
Space Emperor


Joined: Jan 15, 2005

PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2008 7:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've toyed with the idea of an external mount missile ship, but the supply issue could actually be a problem.

As for strat, you could use JAF Anti-Fighter. Or make your own, and call it FWSN Anti-Fighter, or FWSN Escort.

For a Bombardment ship, you shouldn't be wasting missiles on fighters. So it should have a strat that is directed towards ships only. If you must destroy the fighters, then I wouldn't call it a bombardment ship. And I would just use Ships then fighters.

As I'm learning the key is to create specialty ships for specifc jobs. You have to have a mixed fleet for best results. Any individual ship which has mulitiple purposes tends to not do quite as well as one designed to fulfill a certain role.


FSL Kana/CNO F.W.S.N/FNS Brawler (PBC IV)


Back to top
Astorax
Space Emperor


Joined: Jan 14, 2008

PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2008 7:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, I could easily change it to Ship vs Ship Bombardment strat. All its missiles can target ships, after all. If a ship wasn't in range though, would it still fire at a fighter if one of those were in range instead?

Back to top
Kana
Space Emperor


Joined: Jan 15, 2005

PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2008 8:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Actually the Nukes don't target fighters. Plus with the reload times involved, you either want to concentrate on the fighters, or ships. Again, specialization.

Here are some ideas I've been working on.

Mongoose Corvette Escort (chase and kill fighters)
1x Auto
1x Bridge
1x Reactor
2x Port
8x Small Port
1x Supply
8x Regen Armor
1x 40mm Plasma
2x 40mm DUC

This might make a good buddy with the Palisades.


DE Destroyer Escort
2x Auto
1x Bridge
1x LS
1x CQ
1x Gun Crew
1x Reactor
2x Port
8x Small Port
1x Supply
2x A3 Shield
10x Regen Armor
4x 40mm Plasma (could replace with 4x Maser or 2x Maser and 2x Plasma)
4x 40mm DUC
16x 20cm Armor (or 8x 40cm Armor)


DDB Planet Bombardment Destroyer
2x Auto
1x Bridge
1x LS
1x CQ
1x Reactor
2x Port
8x Small Port
5x Supply
9x Regen Armor
3x XPBM


Saint-C
2x Auto
1x Bridge
2x LS
2x CQ
1x Reactor
3x Port
8x Small Port
2x Supply
3x Small Bay
12x Cargo Bay
8x Regen Armor


FSL Kana/CNO F.W.S.N/FNS Brawler (PBC IV)


Back to top
Astorax
Space Emperor


Joined: Jan 14, 2008

PostPosted: Fri May 30, 2008 5:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes of course I wasn't talking about the nukes firing on the fighters but if there were no ships to fire on nearby the ship, while perhaps pursuing the ships out of range, could potshot any fighters in the vicinity as it passed with its explosive missiles. I'm asking if thats what it would do. Or, if it has a ship vs ship strat, would it totally ignore a valid target one of his weapons could fire upon and singlemindedly chase after just ships? This little datum would be good to know.

Your triple PBM ship really only needs 2 supply bays and it could fit more armor so it could then get closer to the planet before it shot its missiles thus allowing the missiles to have less chance of getting shot down (however unlikely that is). With those PBMs going speed 1, closer is better.

Also, why does the Saint-C have 2 supply bays? Thats the last 2 regen armors + 3x 20cm armors. We have dedicated Camels for supply. I think the Saya II design is the cutting edge for Carriers at the moment. I'm probably going to retrofit my Saint-B carrier into a Saya II once it hits the HW.


Back to top
Heimdall
Space Emperor


Joined: May 17, 2007

PostPosted: Fri May 30, 2008 9:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

With the proposed Saint-C, what is the advantage of using three small fighters bays as opposed to two std fighter bays. The two standard bays would launch one more fighter per turn, use 4kt less space and are cheaper. The only advantage I can see for the small is redundancy, as the enemy would need to destroy all three fighter bays to stop the carrier from recovering fighters after the battle instead of only two. Is there something else I haven't noticed that make the smalls better?

SL Heimdall of House Bifrost (PBC IV)
Currently onboard command vessel BGS Resolution


Back to top
Astorax
Space Emperor


Joined: Jan 14, 2008

PostPosted: Fri May 30, 2008 12:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Probably just a legacy from the Saint-B. If he just hit upgrade it wouldn't have changed it. Like I said though, the Saya II design should be what we upgrade from from now on. Its sleek and sexy! Nothing unnecessary on it and it holds the most fighters of any carrier we have.

Back to top
Kana
Space Emperor


Joined: Jan 15, 2005

PostPosted: Fri May 30, 2008 4:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well there are two thoughts on the Fighter bays. If you use the smalls they launch in groups of 3 as apposed to the bigger bays that launch 5. This means that you have more 'groups' of fighters on the board for the enemy to divide fire between. Of course if your 'group' is larger, you have more firepower directed at a target at one time.

Here is a new revised Saint-C. This one can launch 10 Fighters per turn, in 2 groups of 2, and it can hold 30 Heavy Fighters. It is also cheaper than the Saint-B. Of course it is vulnerable to attack so it will need escorts.

Saint-C
2x Auto
1x Bridge
2x LS
2x CQ
1x Reactor
3x Port
8x Small Port
1x Supply
2x Fighter Bays
15x Cargo Bay
2x Regen Armor

As for combat mechanics. Depending on the strategy set, yes you can completely ignore certain types of targets and go directly to your intended target to destroy it. If you give it options of other targets of opportunity, it will waste supplies and fire opportunities it could have used on your main target.

As for the supplies on the DDB, I would much rather it have the option of being able to bombard again, and be able to move without the need of immediate supply. While I agree that your idea of getting it as close as possible before launch is a good strategy, it may be difficult to implement.

Retrofiting your brand new Saint-B to a Saya II may be a bit extreme, at least wait till it gets damaged or something. If you must, maybe you will want to retrofit it to a cheaper cost Saint-C.

No comments on the Mongoose, or the DE?


FSL Kana/CNO F.W.S.N/FNS Brawler (PBC IV)


Back to top
Astorax
Space Emperor


Joined: Jan 14, 2008

PostPosted: Fri May 30, 2008 4:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, the destroyer design - is it for fighters or anti-ship? If for fighters, it has the same problem trying to catch them as that design I had earlier before I added a couple HE missiles to it.

As for the Mongoose, I think it should be 7 small ports not 8 for speed 7 as the 8th one doesn't do anything for it. Plus, it doesn't have a Gun Crew so it should have 10x regen armor, 5 regen armors if you do add a Gun Crew. It could be an ok ship though, of course, I like my Cuspis design better Wink


edit- I have found out definitively that a ship with a Ship vs Ship strat will *not* fire on a fighter or anything else its weapons could fire on if a ship isn't in range and whatever else is. I did a simulation with my Thumper bombardment ship on a ship vs ship strat and put it against a single fighter. The fighter just sat there wailing on it while it did nothing at all, just sat there.


Back to top
Astorax
Space Emperor


Joined: Jan 14, 2008

PostPosted: Fri May 30, 2008 5:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

btw Kana, I saw where you wanted someone to build a Command Post. That design is flawed in that it need not have a LS or CQ on it at all. Doesn't need it. Then you could add two more cargo bays if you liked or more armor.

Back to top
Kana
Space Emperor


Joined: Jan 15, 2005

PostPosted: Fri May 30, 2008 5:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Astorax wrote:
btw Kana, I saw where you wanted someone to build a Command Post. That design is flawed in that it need not have a LS or CQ on it at all. Doesn't need it. Then you could add two more cargo bays if you liked or more armor.


Yes, I know that. It is a RP device. Come on a Space Station in orbit without LS or CQ. Please. Cool

Astorax wrote:
Well, the destroyer design - is it for fighters or anti-ship? If for fighters, it has the same problem trying to catch them as that design I had earlier before I added a couple HE missiles to it.

As for the Mongoose, I think it should be 7 small ports not 8 for speed 7 as the 8th one doesn't do anything for it. Plus, it doesn't have a Gun Crew so it should have 10x regen armor, 5 regen armors if you do add a Gun Crew. It could be an ok ship though, of course, I like my Cuspis design better Wink


edit- I have found out definitively that a ship with a Ship vs Ship strat will *not* fire on a fighter or anything else its weapons could fire on if a ship isn't in range and whatever else is. I did a simulation with my Thumper bombardment ship on a ship vs ship strat and put it against a single fighter. The fighter just sat there wailing on it while it did nothing at all, just sat there.


The DE is for anti-fighter, yes it is too slow, that is what the Mongoose is for. I like the idea of the 4x DUC, 2x Plasma, 2x Maser design. I'm also considering a 8x DUC, 2x Maser design as well. I also like your design as well. The big benefit of this design is that the costs for each resource are equally distributed. No large amount of Min/Org/Rad denting the budget. Like those Lumina's you had me buy for you. Sad

The extra engine on the Mongoose is for redunancy. If it looses one small port, then it can still go speed 4 in combat, I just need to figure out if it would be more cost effective to just put 2 more armor on instead. More than likely it would be. It is either going to survive or get the crap kicked out of it. Probably too small to need redunancy.

Yep as I told you before, certain strategies will ignore certain targets, thats why speciality ships are used in conjunction with other speciality ships. Did you study your course materials in the Academy?

Star Navy Officer Candidate School (SNOCS) http://home.spaceempires.net/ftopict-4102.html

Especially the School of Design : http://imagemodserver.mine.nu/other/MM/SE4/Mods/CarrierBattles/CBmodTutorial/


FSL Kana/CNO F.W.S.N/FNS Brawler (PBC IV)


Back to top
Kana
Space Emperor


Joined: Jan 15, 2005

PostPosted: Fri May 30, 2008 6:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Also with the redesign of the Saint, it should use Heavy Fighters. I'm thinking that we need to mix HF and SF in fleets by using either a Light Carrier or the Angels. The SF carried could be of the anti-missile type mostly, and maybe a few anti-fighter.

Or we could use the Light carriers specifically for that role, and reserve Angels for fighter transport to and from the front. Mabye redesign it to be faster at the expense of armor and what not.


FSL Kana/CNO F.W.S.N/FNS Brawler (PBC IV)


Back to top
Heimdall
Space Emperor


Joined: May 17, 2007

PostPosted: Fri May 30, 2008 6:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Astorax, if you go the Empire Status window there is a button for strategies. You can use that to examine in detail the legal targets and priorities of a strategy.

For example, since they are relevant to the ships being discussed, the new FWSN Antimissile and FWSN CAP both have the same movement strategy and legal targets (seekers and fighters only). However the Antimissile strat' will target missiles first and the CAP has priority set to attack fighters first.


SL Heimdall of House Bifrost (PBC IV)
Currently onboard command vessel BGS Resolution


Back to top
Kana
Space Emperor


Joined: Jan 15, 2005

PostPosted: Fri May 30, 2008 6:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm torn on two designs for the Light Class CVL.

Light Class Mk1
2x Auto
1x Bridge
1x LS
1x CQ
1x Reactor
2x Port
8x Small Port
1x Supply
2x Small Fighter Bays
13x Cargo Bay

Light Class Mk2
2x Auto
1x Bridge
1x LS
1x CQ
1x Reactor
2x Port
8x Small Port
1x Supply
4x Small Fighter Bays
8x Cargo Bay
1x Regen Armor

I like the Mk2 because it will launch 12 fighters at one time, then another 12 right after it. The Mk1 carries half as many more fighters, but take three times as long to launch them all.

Plus I'm not liking the possiblities of an upgrade to the Angel.


FSL Kana/CNO F.W.S.N/FNS Brawler (PBC IV)


Back to top
Astorax
Space Emperor


Joined: Jan 14, 2008

PostPosted: Fri May 30, 2008 6:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ooOOoo, suicide carriers! Razz

Well, since they will be retreating while they are launching fighters, I suppose minimal armor is ok - in that case I would prefer the launch more at one time one.

Wait, couldn't you just use 2 5-fighter bays instead of the 3 3-fighter ones, save space and add more cargo bays?


Back to top
Kana
Space Emperor


Joined: Jan 15, 2005

PostPosted: Fri May 30, 2008 6:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Heimdall wrote:
Astorax, if you go the Empire Status window there is a button for strategies. You can use that to examine in detail the legal targets and priorities of a strategy.

For example, since they are relevant to the ships being discussed, the new FWSN Antimissile and FWSN CAP both have the same movement strategy and legal targets (seekers and fighters only). However the Antimissile strat' will target missiles first and the CAP has priority set to attack fighters first.


We will probably want to make a FWSN Escort strategy or use JAF Anti-Fighter for any Escort (Anti-Fighter) ship.

Submit your own strategies under your name Astorax, the only problem is it wont be a ship strategy, you would have to use it for a Fleet Strategy. Unless you design and build a ship to go with it.


FSL Kana/CNO F.W.S.N/FNS Brawler (PBC IV)


Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Spaceempires.net Forum Index -> Federated Worlds Star Navy All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB
All logos and trademarks used on this site, all comments and stories posted for reading, all files hosted for download,
and all art work hosted for viewing are property of their respective owners; all the rest copyright 2003-2010 Nolan Kelly.
Syndicate news: SpaceEmpires.net News RSS Feed - Syndicate forums: SpaceEmpires.net Forums RSS Feed
Page Generation: 0.21 Seconds