Ad Astra! ... an Aurora Forum Game, run by blue emu

[blue emu]

Are there any more engine techs left to research ? (as in Nuclear Pulse engine, Magneto Plasma, Internal confinement fusion etc.)

Yes. We haven't caught up to the Prix, yet... they are at least one level ahead of us, and I strongly suspect that there is at least one more level (Photon Drive) beyond that.

[Polar Mongoose]

If you are going to terraform Venus (which sounds good to me) you might as well do Mercury first.

[blue emu]

If you are going to terraform Venus (which sounds good to me) you might as well do Mercury first.

I'm not sure that three atmospheres of anti-greenhouse gas will drop the temperature far enough to make it Class-0.

[blue emu]

Earth is up to 500 Financial Centers. Still losing money, but slowly. Situation under control... we've still got $310,000 in the bank.

[Polar Mongoose]

I'm not sure that three atmospheres of anti-greenhouse gas will drop the temperature far enough to make it Class-0.

It only took me .65 or so atmospheres of anti GHG to make Mercury habitable, including countering the warming from the oxygen I put in. And your humans are more flexible in temperature than mine. In fact I think that 1.1something atm of anti GHG would drop the temperature to 0 Kelvin, the anti greenhouse pressure simply being negative greenhouse pressure.

Greenhouse Factor = 1 + (Atmospheric Pressure /10) + Greenhouse Pressure
1 + 1.1/10 - 1.1 = 0 (ish 0.01 really, but its too late to be doing decimals)

[blue emu]

Only 153 of the 1,747 archeological sites on El Dorado remain to be exploited.

[Capt. Kiwi]

Are there any more engine techs left to research ? (as in Nuclear Pulse engine, Magneto Plasma, Internal confinement fusion etc.)

Yes.

Magnetic confinement fusion, inertial confinement fusion, solid core antimatter, gas core antimatter, plasma core antimatter, photonic drives. Who knows, there may even be alien tech on top of that. The later levels take millions of RP, it roughly doubles at each TL.

As for splitting the fleet, I think it ties in with our problem of new techs being researched before the fleet is upgraded with the last. Have two fleets, and only refit one at each tech level. I've been anticipating this problem for awhile, and it seems the best way to handle it. Especially if we build a second monitor with that second xenotech FC.

[blue emu]

Did you take a look at the new Fighter and FAC models? We have new tech levels in both Grav and EM sensors as well, so our active sensors and fire controls can all be boosted considerably.

EDIT:

Our second Venue class Orbital Habitat has been towed into position and deployed... this one in the Gliese 205 system, in orbit around a potentially terraformable moon that circles a gas giant. This extends our colonized claims through adjacent systems from Gliese 205 - Procyon - Sol - Ross 248 - Struve 2398 - Sigma Draconis; and this chain will soon be extended at both ends, as far as Wolf 294 and 82 Eridani + Kapteyn's Star.

[Pablo8]

Great news on the new engines, btw, if it's not too much trouble could I see the current design of my monitor? So I have a clue of what I'm working with

[blue emu]

Great news on the new engines, btw, if it's not too much trouble could I see the current design of my monitor? So I have a clue of what I'm working with

This is the current design (for comparison, a Battlecruiser has eight size-6 missile launchers; the Monitor has forty size-8 missile launchers) :

Culverin class Bombardment Cruiser 14,000 tons 907 Crew 2237.8 BP TCS 280 TH 570 EM 360
4071 km/s Armour 3-51 Shields 12-300 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 13 PPV 105.6
Annual Failure Rate: 120% IFR: 1.7% Maint Capacity 1299 MSP Max Repair 80 MSP Est Time: 4.69 Years
Magazine 640

Ion Engine E7 (19) Power 60 Fuel Use 70% Signature 30 Armour 0 Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 400,000 Litres Range 73.5 billion km (208 days at full power)
Gamma R300/16 Shields (6) Total Fuel Cost 96 Litres per day

Size 8 Missile Launcher (33% Reduction) (40) Missile Size 8 Rate of Fire 1600
Missile Fire Control FC177-R83 (1) Range 177.1m km Resolution 83
Size 8e Kiwi MIRV (80) Speed: 10,000 km/s End: 160.7m Range: 99.9m km WH: 0 Size: 8 TH: 33 / 20 / 10

Active Search Sensor MR51-R100 (70%) (1) GPS 6400 Range 51.2m km Resolution 100

ECCM-4 (1) Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

... and this is what it will look like after it's rebuilt:

Culverin II class Monitor 13,950 tons 917 Crew 3527.6 BP TCS 279 TH 724.5 EM 450
7419 km/s Armour 5-51 Shields 15-250 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 16 PPV 105.6
Annual Failure Rate: 97% IFR: 1.4% Maint Capacity 2529 MSP Max Repair 202 MSP Est Time: 4.57 Years
Magazine 658

Internal Confinement Fusion Drive E7.8 (18) Power 115 Fuel Use 78% Signature 40.25 Armour 0 Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 750,000 Litres Range 124.1 billion km (193 days at full power)
Delta R250/17.5 Shields (6) Total Fuel Cost 105 Litres per day

Size 8 Missile Launcher (33% Reduction) (40) Missile Size 8 Rate of Fire 1600
Missile Fire Control 2053 FC181-R100 (50%) (1) Range 181.4m km Resolution 100

Active Search Sensor 2053 MR189-R100 (50%) (1) GPS 13500 Range 189.0m km Resolution 100

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

... faster, better armor, better shields, better sensors and fire control.

We could also bring the calibre down to size-6 in order to standardize ammunition, and install more of them. Similarly, we could increase the calibre instead, and use more powerful MIRVed warheads.

Especially if we build a second monitor with that second xenotech FC.

Our own home-produced FCs are already better, if somewhat bulkier.

[Hearth]

yay for better assault boats!
Suggestion: Make a dedicated assaultforce under the 170th(?) Brigade. Have what, 1-2-3 Marine battalions, a heavy, some marine companies. Have this as a mobile strikeforce that can either help other ground forces, or engage enemy stations etc

[Capt. Kiwi]

Did you take a look at the new Fighter and FAC models? We have new tech levels in both Grav and EM sensors as well, so our active sensors and fire controls can all be boosted considerably.

Yeah, they look good. I think we've hit on the best formula, as small as possible. Two missiles isn't better than one if the opponent has PD, because they target salvos rather than missiles. Their PD seems to target three missiles at a time, so unless you can get up to four missiles there's no advantage. Actually, one option to keep an eye on is at what point you can get at least four strength four missiles onboard, whatever size they may be. Remembering that a size 6 box can have six size ones etc, it'll just be a touch longer to reload.

Our FC is better than the Prix? Wow, we've come far Even if that's only by making them a bit bigger.

And I think the bombardment ships should be going with slightly larger for MIRVing, although we can't use 25% ones because of reload time. It's a matter of whether we can get more time on target with a lot of small missiles, or special firing sequences of MIRVs.

[Capt. Kiwi]

Just checked, and unless you've got a new reload tech a size 6 @33% has a 15 minute reload time, @25% 75 minutes, while a size 12 @33% has a 30 minute reload. The @33% is probably best in both cases, so the question becomes with which option more warheads can be delivered time on target. I'd suggest it's possible to get three salvos in with 12s, and two with 6s. There'd be half as many 12s, but they'd have more warheads in total - three per missile, two per missile and one per missile in their respective firing order.

The MIRVs might have weaker warheads, I'm not sure. Ultimately the damge doesn't matter, it's whether it gets through.

[blue emu]

We've since gained the x8 damage missile tech, and are working on Inertial Comfinement Missile Engines right now. ETA about six months. Working on a faster reload tech, but that won't be done soon. Our Missile scientists are noobs.

We are up to 98 research labs on Earth now.

[Capt. Kiwi]

x8 damage... Depending on your other tech, it might be possible to do a size 6 strength 16, or a size 1.5 strength 4, for a next gen fighter missile, if you're prepared to sacrifice a bit of range. Both would have one third taken up by the warhead, which is usually a reasonable upper limit. The fighters can sacrifice a bit of firing range, since they're so small. What's your agility and fuel consumption techs? I'll take a look at what a fusion powered missile could look like.

[blue emu]

x8 damage... Depending on your other tech, it might be possible to do a size 6 strength 16, or a size 1.5 strength 4, for a next gen fighter missile, if you're prepared to sacrifice a bit of range. Both would have one third taken up by the warhead, which is usually a reasonable upper limit. The fighters can sacrifice a bit of firing range, since they're so small. What's your agility and fuel consumption techs? I'll take a look at what a fusion powered missile could look like.

Agility currently 48, but I'll have 64 in six months. Fuel efficiency .6

[Capt. Kiwi]

Future fighter missile designs to be considered:

Missile Size: 6 MSP (0.3 HS) Warhead: 16 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 23
Speed: 36100 km/s Endurance: 14 minutes Range: 30.0m km
Cost Per Missile: 7.9397
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 830.3% 3k km/s 276% 5k km/s 166.1% 10k km/s 83%
Materials Required: 4x Tritanium 5.3346x Gallicite Fuel x1500

Development Cost for Project: 794RP

Or four:

Missile Size: 1.5 MSP (0.075 HS) Warhead: 4 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 22
Speed: 34500 km/s Endurance: 19 minutes Range: 40.0m km
Cost Per Missile: 2.162
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 759% 3k km/s 242% 5k km/s 151.8% 10k km/s 75.9%
Materials Required: 1x Tritanium 1.0645x Gallicite Fuel x500

Development Cost for Project: 216RP

I'd personally go with the first, and also use it on warships. ECM affects FC range, not missile range, correct? You could also cut a little more speed and agility to reach 40 m-km, if it's needed. That would bring the accuracy more in line with the 1.5.

And I suspect one of those missile researchers must be an alt character of mine

[blue emu]

Missiles can be fractional size (like 1.5), but the launchers must be integral sizes. Fractional size missiles are really only useful for upper stages... AFAIK. I'm pretty sure I can't put four 1.5s in a size-6 box launcher. I could put three size-2 box launchers on a fighter, though.

[Hearth]

Missiles can be fractional size (like 1.5), but the launchers must be integral sizes. Fractional size missiles are really only useful for upper stages... AFAIK. I'm pretty sure I can't put four 1.5s in a size-6 box launcher. I could put three size-2 box launchers on a fighter, though.

You forgot to comment my marine suggestion

[Capt. Kiwi]

Missiles can be fractional size (like 1.5), but the launchers must be integral sizes. Fractional size missiles are really only useful for upper stages... AFAIK. I'm pretty sure I can't put four 1.5s in a size-6 box launcher. I could put three size-2 box launchers on a fighter, though.

You can load them at class design, not sure about during the game:

Tribal class Fighter 120 tons 2 Crew 18.1 BP TCS 2.4 TH 60 EM 0
24999 km/s Armour 1-2 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 0 PPV 0.9
Annual Failure Rate: 24% IFR: 0.3% Maint Capacity 0 MSP Max Repair 10 MSP Est Time: 0 Years
Magazine 6

FTR Internal Confinement Fusion Drive E600 (1) Power 60 Fuel Use 6000% Signature 60 Armour 0 Exp 25%

Size 6 Box Launcher (1) Missile Size 6 Hangar Reload 45 minutes MF Reload 7.5 hours
Size 1.5 Anti-ship Missile (4) Speed: 34,500 km/s End: 19.3m Range: 40m km WH: 4 Size: 1.5 TH: 253 / 151 / 75

Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and maintenance purposes

Yes, I know there's no FC.

Edit: I should point out I'm for the size 6 anyway, because more penetration is a good thing and with a bit of tweaking it would also work as a missile for warships.