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

  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Do we have any use for the genetic modification centre? Any bio techs researched to use it? Is it possible with the correct research do create a species of human capable of surviving low gravity environments like the moon?
 
Smaller missiles mean more missiles (Especially in magazines, but also tubes). More missiles mean more targets for enemy PD...
So I'd stay with size 4.
 
I'd say more field tests are required of the original size-4 missiles before we jump to any conclusions about refitting our entire offensive system.
 
Size 4 is "good enough", no need to dilly dally into other sizes when we have cold hard empirical fact that size 4 is good.
 
Since we're using ammunition tenders now, missile storage isn't as big a deal as it was. If going to size 6 lets us go to a size 9 warhead it seems worth considering to me.

How much work would it take to convert? We have a bunch of fighters around the place with size 4 launchers, in addition to the fleet. Size 6 launchers will take an extra 100 tonnes, which unless we're also taking the time to install new armour means we could have difficulties getting ships the correct weight for their jump drives. And what's the reload time off the size 6 compared to the size 4?
 
We just learned a new reload-time tech and I haven't redesigned our tubes yet, so I'm not sure. I would guess (just a guess) that the tech brings our size-4's down from the previous 40-second reload to 30, and the size-6's might now be at 40 seconds. Size-1s are likely unchanged at 10 seconds.

We could abandon standardized ammo, and build the new ships at size-6 while leaving the older ships as they are... if the reload time of the new-model size-6 is indeed 40 seconds, this would preserve our fleet salvo synch. On the other hand, standardized ammo has its own advantages... although those advantages were more pronounced before we started using Ammo Tenders.

EDIT: just checked. With the new reload tech, size-1 is still 10 seconds, size-4 is down to 30 (from 40), size-6 is 45 seconds.
 
If a new size 6 has the same reload time as the old size 4, what you could do is build all new ships with size 6 launchers, but continue to use size 4 missiles until such time as all the old launchers are phased out of service.
 
If a new size 6 has the same reload time as the old size 4, what you could do is build all new ships with size 6 launchers, but continue to use size 4 missiles until such time as all the old launchers are phased out of service.

The new size-6 is five seconds slower.

The size-6 delivers an average of 60% more damage per second... a strength-9 warhead every 45 seconds compared to a strength-5 warhead every 40 seconds. Of course, this assumes that we can pack a strength-9 warhead into a size-6 missile. At the moment, that would require 1.8 MSP, which is a bit tight. One more tech would reduce it to 1.5 MSP, which is perfectly do-able.
 
Last edited:
It sounds like we either deliberately build new ships with outdated tech to maintain a consistant rate of fire, or we upgrade all the old missile tubes to match new ones. If we did update the old ones, it might not take that much effort to find an extra 100 tonnes of space per launcher for bigger tubes.

It's probably worth checking what size 6 and size 4 ASMs would look like first though, because the main attraction of a size 6 given the effort it would take is the possibilty of an extra layer of armour penetration.
 
The new size-6 is five seconds slower.

The size-6 delivers an average of 60% more damage per second... a strength-9 warhead every 45 seconds compared to a strength-5 warhead every 40 seconds. Of course, this assumes that we can pack a strength-9 warhead into a size-6 missile.

Missile Size: 6 MSP (0.3 HS) Warhead: 9 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 37
Speed: 27600 km/s Endurance: 21 minutes Range: 34.3m km
Cost Per Missile: 5.685
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 1021.2% 3k km/s 333% 5k km/s 204.2% 10k km/s 102.1%
Materials Required: 2.25x Tritanium 6.51x Gallicite Fuel x2000

Parameters are: 1.13/2.07/0.8/2 - but of course that's at my tech level.
 
Parameters are: 1.13/2.07/0.8/2 - but of course that's at my tech level.

The warhead requires 1.8 MSP at my tech level, as mentioned above.

It sounds like we either deliberately build new ships with outdated tech to maintain a consistant rate of fire...

A consistent rate-of-fire is not mandatory, because we can synch-fire... then the faster-reloading ships will wait for the slower ones.
 
Only 734 more relations points until a tech-sharing agreement with the Charlies. We seem to be gaining at least one point a day, perhaps two... so one or two more years.
 
I just got a survey report from the Charlies, telling me about some minerals on a moon in the 82 Eridani system... and I thought "Hang on, isn't that system full of Prix?". So I looked at the system, and sure enough... it's full of wrecked Charlie scout ships. Apparently they sneak a scout in, survey a planet, get blasted to bits by the Prix, and then send in another scout ship. No Prix wrecks, so it seems to be a pretty one-sided affair.
Fits well the definition of "insanity".
Choice allies we have here :D

About ferrying Prix stuff from our digs: No wonder it takes so many ships. Research labs and Genetic centres are huge and take a lot of space. Far more than mines and factories.
 
We've unearthed about 100 of the 1747 sites so far. In the last month or two, we've found 27,000 tons of minerals, including Duranium, Corbomite and Gallicite... as well as another 10 million litres of fuel. This will go quite a long way towards allieviating our resource shortages.
 
One of our scouts has been jumped by five Prix warships in the Lutyen 205-128 system. Not much chance that he'll escape. Fortunately, there's an NPC commanding it, not a PC.

G045_Game.jpg


EDIT: Yeah, they got him. Nineteen strength-10 hits.
 
We have finished researching the improved turret tracking speed tech, and can now design our point defense vessels. We should have the next missile warhead tech (x6) finished in less than a year.
 
How does this look for a Gauss PD Frigate? It appears to get 21 shots against the incoming salvo:

Storm class Gauss PD Frigate 9,000 tons 697 Crew 1970 BP TCS 180 TH 504 EM 450
5600 km/s Armour 5-38 Shields 15-300 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 7 PPV 56
Annual Failure Rate: 92% IFR: 1.3% Maint Capacity 958 MSP Max Repair 360 MSP Est Time: 1.94 Years

Magneto-plasma Drive E7.7 (12) Power 84 Fuel Use 77% Signature 42 Armour 0 Exp 7%
Fuel Capacity 350,000 Litres Range 90.9 billion km (187 days at full power)
Delta R300/17.5 Shields (6) Total Fuel Cost 105 Litres per day

Quad Gauss Cannon R3-100 Turret (1x12) Range 30,000km TS: 20000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 3 ROF 5 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Triple Gauss Cannon R3-100 Turret (1x9) Range 30,000km TS: 20000 km/s Power 0-0 RM 3 ROF 5 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fire Control 2042 S16 96-20000 H70 (1) Max Range: 192,000 km TS: 20000 km/s 95 90 84 79 74 69 64 58 53 48

Active Search Sensor 2042 MR6-R1 (1) GPS 84 Range 6.7m km Resolution 1

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Five layers of armor, fifteen points worth of shields... no CIWS, but it probably won't need it. No AMMs, either.
 
Another scout gone :( We need to go Prix hunting :mad:

If we can sync fire, it seems like the difference between old model size 4 @ 40s and the possible size 6 @ 45s isn't too big a deal. The question is how big a deal it is to try and fit them in, then, if we don't mind the temporary logistical problems while upgrading.

The simplest way would be to swap three old tubes for two new ones. That would unfourtunately cut our missile numbers for one thing, and for another we don't have multiples of three ASM tubes in our ships IIRC. Damage would end up much the same, except for the extra layer of penetration, at the cost of reload time and PD penetration.

If we could instead find eough tonnage to swap in about three size 6 for four size 4, it could well be worth it, depending on the oponent's PD salvo size. If they're sticking to three missile salvos, we're better off with four fours, but against other numbers the extra damage of three 6 is worth it.

Edit: Just checking that you have 24000 km range and 5000 kps speed FC with x4 on both, 30,000 km range RoF 3 gauss cannons, 6250 kps tracking speed per 10% gear allocation and that you're designing for salvos of 4 40000 kps missiles.
 
Last edited:
The unimaginative naming of the Cornucopia Class

We represent the oft ignored farmers and bio-product suppliers of the Human Empire, and we humbly propose a minor name change. For years, the Cornucopia Class has ignored the contributions of agriculture to humanity, or at the very least, overlooked its importance. The Cornucopia Class consists of vessels labelled with mere adjectives, when other classes denote places, people, and materials of importance. We find this to be an unacceptable failure of imagination and insight on the part of your underlings, Great Avian Overlord.

To remedy this situation, we propose the following names for your consideration:
Mesopotamia: the cradle of civilization and agriculture, or at least, one of the very first.
Haber-Bosch Process: The next great leap of man controlling nature's production, with artificial fertilizers
Green Revolution I: better seeds and farming practices fed billions, providing the labor force for the last half of the 20th century.
Green Revolution II: by genetic engineering and advanced ecological understandings, this provided the labor force for the 21st century, until population numbers stabilized.

The rest may be named after great productive agricultural areas of the world today: The Ukraine, The Great Plains, the Serengeti, etc.

Respectfully yours,
The NPC farmers and bio-product suppliers of The Human Empire
 
Just checked off the last tech details you posted, so you don't need to answer my edit. I was right except for the turret tracking speed.

The improvement from 4000 to 5000 FC tracking speed increases your likelihood to kill at least four 40,000 kps missiles from 95.7% to 99.4%. Six barrels (two tripple turrets) would give you 97.9%, probably worth saving the space if that's all it will decrease it by. 5 barrels would have a significant drop off.

Alternatively, a single quad would have an 81.8% chance of stopping four, 93.7% chance of stopping three, and 98.6% chance of stopping two. Something worth thinking about, if we're operating an integrated missile/gun layered PD screen.

What percentage gearing have you given your turrets (or what desired target speed)? Can turrets fire at anything moving faster than this?