I'm wondering whether a multi-stage is better for an AAM? It needs range, speed and punch but not at the same time, after all. Other than that I like it.
I'm wondering whether a multi-stage is better for an AAM?
Possibly... for an aFTR missile, we wouldn't need to worry about penetrating PD defenses. One bonus of the missile design offered above is that it doubles as a multi-role long-range missile, so if we carry bunches of them in our ammo tenders and start running short of size-6 strength-9 missiles, we can start firing these as LR-ASMs.
Is it possible to launch a missle at a target even if it's out of range at the moment the missle is fired?
If not, then the 59 m km range of your missles is a little bit to short to intercept an incoming fighter with 15000 kps and 42 m km firing range.
Iamwinterborn said:Are there any summary pages since then? Also, what are your biggest colonies, and can you do a screenshot of their summary pages (and Earth's)?
How will the extreme tectonics of Moria (and the high of for instance remagen), affect those planets? is there any risk of eartquakes destroying our automated mines? If that works as a percentage, we could lose a hundred mines in a single event. Also, the mass driver capacity of Moria seems to be way below the numbers you give as its minin output. But where exactly are they shooting the minerals?
So the infrastructure units are useless once a world reaches class 0?
So the infrastructure units are useless once a world reaches class 0?
Is there anywhere else in the Solar system worth colonising? It's a shame to be sitting on all that infra on mars, and an in-system hop to transfer it should be fairly short...Same for the terraforming stuff.
In connection to this and an earlier suggestion (apologies for not having a proper reference.. But with catching up ca.20 pages, I'm not going back) - limiting the number of designs would be a good idea for reasons of refitting, shipyard retooling, needing more ships quickly. Assuming retooling time (etc.) scales with ship / yard size, the larger the ship, the more general-purpose it should be; also makes sense in that there's more room for "duplicate" systems (that is to say FC, scanners for different weapons systems)Here's another try at the Star-II => Star-III DE conversion. Removed the CIWS and one layer of armor. Increased speed and magazine space. Designed a size-6 strength-4 AFTR missile. Increased sensor and fire control ranges.
Is there anywhere else in the Solar system worth colonising? It's a shame to be sitting on all that infra on mars, and an in-system hop to transfer it should be fairly short...Same for the terraforming stuff.
If possible, I would like to transfer to a Blink while waiting for a passive-sensor stealth ship design to be available. If thematic with their class names I'd like the ship to be named Flash.
Not really, no. Titan is technically able to support a colony, but it will be out of minerals soon and can never reach class-0 status because of the limits on maximum Greenhouse Pressure. Not sure what a colony on Titan would be useful for.
Ie. A battlefleet based on;
Missile Destroyers (Storm type) and "Torpedo boat" Destroyers (what you call DE's) both at 8000tons (or a similar value, not looking back through the thread)
Ideally - design them with the exact same auxilliary systems (number of engines, fuel and ammunition storage etc.) if that doesn't affect speed &c. extremely (with the slower at least at main fleet speed)
Jump capability unnecessary.
Carriers - clearly your long range weapon; personally in favour of the armoured flight deck doctrine, although the most recent engagement suggests you might well get away without that. Keep them at a constant size until there's a significant overcapacity on the slips (say, double the displacement the current carrier generation has)
Jump capability unnecessary (see below)
Cruisers - the most multipurpose of all.
* Getting the fleet (carriers and destroyers) to location.
* provide credible firepower while fighter strikes are unavailable.
* 'long' range missile defense [although with sufficient MDs, possibly can be phased out]
Size consideration as the carriers.
> Possibility of "lone ranger" version Cruiser that can fight skirmishes on it's own should be considered; the Battlecruiser philosophy of the interbellum and WW2 - faster than ships it can't outfight, better armed and armoured than the rest; might not even need to be a separate design. But you need to have something beyond "the fleet" to maintain presence and respond to crises.
Re: Rocks and other auxilliary vessels
The Blink vessels proved rather effective in painting the targets; a third "Destroyer" type? I'd personally rather rely on redundant "cheap" destroyers to paint the enemy than on larger vessels that are then less numerous.
The Rocks did what they were intended for - soak missiles - but was it necessary? How close did the Juans get to the *fleet* (and not the Rocks, that I assume were again picketing), how close would they/it have gotten if there were no Rocks around? What sort of damage would you likely have sustained on the "worst case" vessels (least armor, CIWS, lowest speed) if it had engaged the main fleet?
I do realise that their being civilian (or did that change?) makes it rather less important that they not compete for specialised shipyard space, but still...
Shipyard philosophy;
If you keep the displacements constant within a class; shipyards function as dedicated destroyer / capital shipyards. When/if increasing capacity, the capital shipyards will eventually reach "supercapital" size, but with the destroyer shipyards following expansion, they can then take over the role of capital shipyards.
Meanwhile, new yards will start at the bottom of the ladder as destroyer yards.