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.
I like the second one better, because if this is used for colony defense, 40 seconds is way too much time to wait for a chance to get attacked a gain.

Yes, I prefer the second design myself... think of it as a very heavy Fighter. It's 33% slower than our Fighters, with eight missiles instead of one or two, but it still has to return to base to reload.
 
If you can fit a second fire control in the fifty tonnes left it would improve the ability to penetrate PD.

Like this?

Wasp-X FAC class Fast Attack Craft 1,000 tons 59 Crew 182.24 BP TCS 20 TH 84 EM 0
8400 km/s Armour 1-8 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 0 PPV 10.56
Annual Failure Rate: 32% IFR: 0.4% Maint Capacity 28 MSP Max Repair 63 MSP Est Time: 1.19 Years
Magazine 32

GB Magneto-plasma Drive E77 (1) Power 168 Fuel Use 770% Signature 84 Armour 0 Exp 21%
Fuel Capacity 50,000 Litres Range 11.7 billion km (16 days at full power)

Size 4 Missile Launcher (33% Reduction) (8) Missile Size 4 Rate of Fire 2400
Missile Fire Control 2039 FC45-R100 (70%) (2) Range 45.4m km Resolution 100

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Another possible role for FAC might be Air Superiority... an anti-Fighter craft. They would need to be specifically designed for that, of course.
 
Yes, I prefer the second design myself... think of it as a very heavy Fighter. It's 33% slower than our Fighters, with eight missiles instead of one or two, but it still has to return to base to reload.

I asume we would have PD on the stations
 
Exactly like that. They seem to be using three PD missiles per salvo, so one salvo of 8 will take three rounds of PD fire while two salvos of 4 will take four rounds. One, two or four missile PD volleys would be the same in either case. A 5% loss in speed is probably worth that trade off.

Edit: The ideal number in an offensive volley is likely to be a high prime, as it is less likely to be exactly divisible by their PD salvos and thus will need surplus shots. I haven't got the time to flesh out that idea right now.

An anti-fighter craft would be a good idea, if we had evidence anyone else was using fighters or FAC. I'm not sure whether the benefit of being prepared is worth the tradeoff of tonnage (including the carrier) sitting idle.
 
I asume we would have PD on the stations

Yes, although when operating outside the range of the base's PD screen, a FAC would rely on its weak radar signature and high speed for anti-missile defense. An enemy radar tuned to pick up ship-sized targets at a quarter of a billion km (250,000,000 km) could only see a FAC at 625,000 km. Our FAC doesn't need to get even 1/30th that close in order to launch its missiles. Basically, it requires purpose-built sensors to spot them while they are still beyond weapon range.
 
The ideal number in an offensive volley is likely to be a high prime, as it is less likely to be exactly divisible by their PD salvos and thus will need surplus shots. I haven't got the time to flesh out that idea right now.

A high prime that fits the (3 x N)+1 pattern, such as 7, 13 or 19.
 
A high prime that fits the (3 x N)+1 pattern, such as 7, 13 or 19.

That would assume that all single FC PD defences fire three shots per reload, in which case (3 x N) + 1 would be sufficient. That includes four, which is just as good as five or six against a three shot per FC PD, but offers no advantage against a two shot.

If we had no intel on enemy PD, five would be better than four, giving an advantage against both two and three shot per FC PD systems (and products of those). Seven would give an advantage against both two, three and five shot, etc.

Of course, that assumes that you ca't have a one FC : one tube system, which would require each missile to be dealt with by a seperate FC time increment. It also gets more complicated if the opponent doesn't have a five second reload rate, because they can with hold fire until the FC is free the next increment without losing a full shot.

I think at the end of the day more salvos is always better in some circumstance, but there are only so many FC that can fit, and there is a point where no real advantages can be gained.
 
We can also consider loading some of the Carriers with Gnats and some with Wasps.

EDIT:

Our second Cornucopia class Ammunition Tender has been launched, the ESNN Bounty.
 
Last edited:
The best use I could find so far for FACs is recon... here's my design.

The Eye class Fast Scout 800 tons 68 Crew 285 BP TCS 16 TH 70 EM 0
12500 km/s Armour 3-7 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 0 PPV 0
Annual Failure Rate: 20% IFR: 0.3% Maint Capacity 56 MSP Max Repair 144 MSP Est Time: 1.45 Years

GB Internal Confinement Fusion Drive E70 (1) Power 200 Fuel Use 700% Signature 70 Armour 0 Exp 15%
Fuel Capacity 100,000 Litres Range 32.1 billion km (29 days at full power)

Active Search Sensor MR70-R45 (50%) (1) GPS 4320 Range 70.8m km Resolution 45

They fly in squadrons consisting of 2 "The Eye" and one FAC tender that acts as a jump assist/fuel supply for the scouts. Class name "The Nose" (get it? 2 eyes + 1 nose)

The Nose class FAC Tender 3,000 tons 264 Crew 737.5 BP TCS 60 TH 210 EM 0
10000 km/s JR 3-50 Armour 3-18 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 1 PPV 0
Annual Failure Rate: 72% IFR: 1% Maint Capacity 154 MSP Max Repair 88 MSP Est Time: 1.72 Years

J3000(3-50) Military Jump Drive Max Ship Size 3000 tons Distance 50k km Squadron Size 3
Internal Confinement Fusion Drive E7 (6) Power 100 Fuel Use 70% Signature 35 Armour 0 Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 300,000 Litres Range 257.1 billion km (297 days at full power)
 
The best use I could find so far for FACs is recon... here's my design.

Recon seems to be an excellent use for FAC. They`re pretty good at Alpha Strike, too... one of our Mountain-II class Carriers loaded with FAC instead of Fighters would have twice the Alpha Strike (40 missiles instead of 20) and the same re-arming turn-around time.
 
G034_Game.jpg


Cool.

EDIT:

G035_Game.jpg


Not cool :(
 
Last edited:
Still no word from the Julius Strange Xeno Team on El Dorado... it sometimes takes more than a year to locate all the Xeno sites. Here`s hoping for lots of high-tech sites.

Only 2000-odd more relations points to go, and we can propose a tech-sharing agreement with the Charlies.
 
I can't help thinking about the probability of our vessel happening to be in point-blank range of a Charlie ship when attacked...

They`ve had a squadron of 6+ ships stationed in Earth orbit for about eight years now. From now on, those ships protect us.
 
I can't help thinking about the probability of our vessel happening to be in point-blank range of a Charlie ship when attacked...

One situation that might qualify is one of our freighters trading with a Charlie planet which happens to come under attack. Their planetary defences would previously have left our ship to the wolves, but now they'll protect it as one of their own. Unlikely, but plausible, especially since "point blank" is at least tens of thousands of kilometres. Still, it's the thought more than anything.
 
Warships I assume. Can we make out how much of a tech difference seperartes us from the Charlies in regards to the speed and tonnage of their ships?

Warships, yes. Sizes similar to Prix ships... 7,550-7,600 tons and 14,000-14,500 tons. Thermals higher than ours... whatever that means. Hard to judge the signifigance without knowing whether they are using thermal suppression, like we are.

They were moving at a uniform fleet speed of 4736 back when 4000 was our best speed. Of course, these ships are at least eight years old, and likely obsolete. Their sensors are certainly stronger than ours.
 
It`s now late February 2040. About one year from now, we should be finished teching up one level in Gauss Cannons, and should be able to design a half-assed medium-range PD escort.