We have no BS.
But if you are referring to the BC's - Add 2 years + Retooling from the design locked.
But if you are referring to the BC's - Add 2 years + Retooling from the design locked.
The most obvious solution is more fire controls, and time-on-target salvos with missiles of different speeds... timed so that two or three successive fleet salvos (with the slowest missiles launched first) all enter the opponent's PD zone simultaneously.
The point being: each enemy FC can only target one salvo per five-second impulse.
1) If the enemy's PD range gives him five shots at your missiles before they impact,
2) If he has ten defensive FCs,
3) If you are using ten ships with five offensive FCs each,
4) If you fire three waves of salvos, at different speeds, timed to all enter the enemy PD range simultaneously...
... then he only gets to shoot at 50 of your salvos, and the other 100 salvos will reach the target unopposed.
@ Vain - I have no knowledge of this "Mercy" you are referring to. Is it similar to Mystery Meat?
Generally speaking I agree with the points made on the Beam FC ranges. It does not make sense with the size you have to get in, but if you look at the Missile FC, it is the complete opposite. In the resent designs, we have a 100mio+ km range from a size 1 resolution 120 FC. I don't think I can get 200k km from the largest Beam FC we have.
I don't know how to correct this, but that's just another point to why Missiles are so overpowered...
And I haven't seen any armored missiles either. All missiles hit by one of my strenght 1 AM's have died - no survivors and I have checked it in the logs.
And as stated before. I have no problem with design-, philosophy- or other Aurora-related topics "hi-jacking" the thread, as long as people are behaving themselves and remembering it is only pixels on a screen...
When will BS finish?
That sums it up well. The armour on missiles reduces the chance of a beam weapon kill but does not affect missiles. A better name than armour might be more appropriate as well. Does v3.1 have "ablative armour" on the missile design window or have I only added that for v3.2?
The formula for beam kills vs missiles is Weapon Damage / (Missile Armour + Weapon Damage)) * 100. So a 1 point hit on a missile with 1 armour would be 50%. A 3 point hit on a missile with 2 armour would be 60%.
This is an old post from Steve:
I don´t think anything has changed since then.
Note: CIWS, Gauss, Particle Beams and Plasma Carronades all play by that rules, so it is not only lasers.
Armor sure is a non-starter on smaller missiles, but think about a conventional start. I usually just upgrade the starting ICBM bases with a Trans-Newton Firecon and be done with it. On a size-24 missile, a point of armor or two isn´t all that bad and gives your missiles a better chance to get trough enemy PD (yes I know, sub-munition would probably work even better)
The "missile armor should improve with better armor tech" has been suggested two or three times and I think Steve will come around to implement it some day (I hope)
That is exactely what I was afraid of, when I asked about the armor and shields. We build well protected carriers which lack striking power. 8 anti-ship fighers and 10 anti FAC fighters are, excuse me saying so, pityful.
What we are looking at is a remake of the british WW2 carriers. Sturdy, but with so small airgroups, to make them next to useless (yes, I am exagerating)
Ok, have to work with what we got.
However, dividing the strikegroup into two parts with different missiles/MFCs is a absolute nono.
How large would a res-20, range 50m MFC be. Could it be put into the F3-As when we droped one of the launchers and put 18 of ´em on a carrier. That would give us 36 birds to put into the air, ahem space, and being able to deal with both, FACs and ships. Yes, they would be slower than the F3-Bs, but still.
Or how about designing a longer ranged or less powerful size-2 missile, for use in both roles and go with a pure F3-B loadout.
Basicly, I am arguing for abandoning the idea of two different strike fighters on one carrier.
@ Blue Emu - How the hell do you cram that many fighters into your ships? I can barely get 20 in!
Constellation II class Carrier 18,300 tons 1012 Crew 4402.8 BP TCS 366 TH 1006.25 EM 900
7855 km/s Armour 6-61 Shields 30-300 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 13 PPV 3
Maint Life 3.78 Years MSP 1955 AFR 206% IFR 2.9% 1YR 215 5YR 3219 Max Repair 126 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 7000 tons Magazine 547
Magnetic Confinement Fusion Drive E5.2 2028 (20) Power 143.75 Fuel Use 52% Signature 50.3125 Armour 0 Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 1,045,000 Litres Range 197.7 billion km (291 days at full power)
Epsilon R300/15 Shields 2027 (10) Total Fuel Cost 150 Litres per day
Size 1 Missile Launcher 2013 (3) Missile Size 1 Rate of Fire 5
Missile PD Fire Control FC30-R1 2027 (1) Range 30.2m km Resolution 1
Size 1 AMM 1-5-2029 (67) Speed: 62,400 km/s End: 1.3m Range: 5m km WH: 1 Size: 1 TH: 1019 / 611 / 305
Size 6 ASM 16-75-2029 (80) Speed: 42,100 km/s End: 29.7m Range: 75m km WH: 16 Size: 6 TH: 463 / 277 / 138
Strike Group
40x Wasp II Fighter Speed: 24571 km/s Size: 3.5
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
Wasp II class Fighter 175 tons 3 Crew 77.2 BP TCS 3.5 TH 30.1 EM 0
24571 km/s Armour 1-2 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 0 PPV 0.9
Maint Life 0 Years MSP 0 AFR 35% IFR 0.5% 1YR 4 5YR 59 Max Repair 36 MSP
Magazine 6
FTR Magnetic Confinement Fusion Drive E520 2028 (1) Power 86.25 Fuel Use 5200% Signature 30.1875 Armour 0 Exp 60%
Fuel Capacity 15,000 Litres Range 3.0 billion km (33 hours at full power)
Size 6 Box Launcher (1) Missile Size 6 Hangar Reload 45 minutes MF Reload 7.5 hours
Missile Fire Control FC151-R100 2027 (1) Range 151.2m km Resolution 100
Size 6 ASM 16-75-2029 (1) Speed: 42,100 km/s End: 29.7m Range: 75m km WH: 16 Size: 6 TH: 463 / 277 / 138
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