|
Galactic Trading, followed by military research, in anticipation of losing our trade agreement. If we don't go to war, the extra money is just that much more bootstrap. standard civilian economy with shipbuilding appropriations deploy according to War Plan Red Infiltration of industrial activities on Porov is expected within seven years, after which Team Alpha will be ready for further operations. Targets for Team Alpha remain to be determined, however. continue the Porov mission as planned target Bulra, infiltrate government and security services raven
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 13:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 08:32 |
|
|
Steam's got this game for 40% off. Considering that I enjoyed MoO2, is it worth getting or not? Are there any significant crashes/bugs/frustrations I should know about?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
McGavin posted:Steam's got this game for 40% off. Considering that I enjoyed MoO2, is it worth getting or not? Are there any significant crashes/bugs/frustrations I should know about? I'd say it's worth trying. The main bug I've encountered seems to be a weird interaction with my web browser or something that can end up with map scrolling by having the mouse pointer at the edge of the screen very slow until I reboot my computer, but I have no idea if you'll even encounter that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
McGavin posted:Steam's got this game for 40% off. Considering that I enjoyed MoO2, is it worth getting or not? Are there any significant crashes/bugs/frustrations I should know about? Just be aware there are some minor annoyances if you go directly to this from MoO2, like there not being any Freighters so you can't just make Garden planets for food anymore and you have to build transports for every single pop that you want to send that will also disappear once you unload them on a planet so you have to make quite a few if you want those newly colonized planets to be of any use in the next 50+ turns. They made it a bit tedious to be a highly productive race since you'll create so much drat pollution until you get a few cleaner buildings up and even then you might have to remove all the people off production until you lower the bar to a safe/managable level. (Since you will make a planet one tier shittier once you exceed the pollution limit for that planet.) Remember to keep a couple frigates with a bomb around so you can get rid of those pirate fleets that pop up with regular intervals so they don't sneak in and mess up your planets if you didn't spend any time building a missile base, thankfully they can also be farmed for Pops or cash so that's nice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
Oh yeah! That's definitely a thing I like less about nuMoO- the food and population growth model. For post-industrial societies I like food production better as a simple matter of 'having enough to supply the population' as MoO2 did it rather than having excess food production boost population growth rate. For pre-industrial societies having food production tied to growth rate works well as a model for how the endemic hunger of pre-industrial societies ends up slowing growth, but post-industrial societies tend to have food supplies well in hand.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
Thanks for the replies! I'll probably pick it up later tonight. I refuse to pay Wargaming full price for anything on principle.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
McGavin posted:Steam's got this game for 40% off. Considering that I enjoyed MoO2, is it worth getting or not? Are there any significant crashes/bugs/frustrations I should know about? I'd suggest getting the game. You aren't constrained by your fuel size anymore, so the only thing stopping you from scouting the entire universe early on are bandits and other civs, anything else you can ignore and just move to the system warp exit points. The frustrating thing is your scouts can't escape from a fight, so sending a frigate out to scout isn't the worst idea since they might be able to escape from a fight before being blown to pieces.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
nweismuller posted:Oh yeah! That's definitely a thing I like less about nuMoO- the food and population growth model. For post-industrial societies I like food production better as a simple matter of 'having enough to supply the population' as MoO2 did it rather than having excess food production boost population growth rate. For pre-industrial societies having food production tied to growth rate works well as a model for how the endemic hunger of pre-industrial societies ends up slowing growth, but post-industrial societies tend to have food supplies well in hand. Silicoid food production ALSO affects their growth rate last I checked. Des[ote the whole not eating thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
IIA Central Office posted:Alpha Actual:
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 09:27
|
|
|
OK, I'm playing through the update. War Plan Red is approved in all particulars.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
2534 Space Fleet Design Contest Recent advances in technology have rendered all previous classes of Space Fleet combat vessels obsolete, and the Defense Department wishes to hold a design competition for classes to replace and upgrade the three existing ship classes, and to commission an entirely new ship class for a fleet flagship. Desired roles for the four classes to design are 'fleet escort frigate', 'counter-piracy/ground attack frigate', 'space control cruiser', and 'fleet flagship to anchor the center of the fleet battle line'. Hulls A basic hull for a frigate costs 20 trillion credits to manufacture and has 575 tons of free displacement for mission equipment, with up to three separate weapons systems and three special systems available for fitting. A basic hull for a cruiser costs 38 trillion credits to manufacture and has 912.5 tons of free displacement for mission equipment, with up to four separate weapons systems and four special systems available for fitting. A basic hull for the new heavy battleships costs 74 trillion credits to manufacture and has 2031.2 tons of free displacement for mission equipment, with up to five separate weapons systems and five special systems available for fitting. Drives Upgrading basic frigate drives to modern standards taking advantage of high-output fusion reactors takes nine tons of displacement, but no significant manufacturing cost. A similar upgrade for cruisers takes 14.1 tons of displacement and 2 trillion credits added manufacturing cost, while such an upgrade to battleship drives takes 15 tons of displacement and 4 trillion credits added manufacturing cost. Improved drives improve both tactical and strategic mobility and increase ability to evade hostile fire. Armor Materials Upgrading ship armor to high-durability modern alloys costs 8 trillion credits for a frigate, 16 trillion credits for a cruiser, and 32 trillion credits for a battleship, and should both improve durability by nearly 50% and increase resistance to weak impacts at long range. No increase in displacement is required. Targeting Computers Installing targeting computers and fire control costs 12 trillion credits for a frigate, 14 trillion credits for a cruiser, and 18 trillion credits for a battleship, and should significantly improve targeting accuracy. (+25%) Shields Shield systems for a frigate cost 12 trillion credits and take 100 tons of displacement. Shield systems for a cruiser cost 18 trillion credits and take 250 tons of displacement. Shield systems for a battleship cost 26 trillion credits and take 625 tons of displacement. All will help absorb damage from most ship-to-ship weapons, although mass drivers should punch through with minimal disruption. Special Systems Augmented Engines: 20 TC, 125 tons for frigate, 50 TC, 312.5 tons for cruiser, 124 TC, 781.3 tons for battleship. Greater strategic mobility, greater ability to evade hostile direct fire, and the capacity for bursts of increased speed in combat due to reworked and expanded drive systems. ECM Jammer: 24 TC, 150 tons for frigate, 36 TC, 225 tons for cruiser, 54 TC, 337.5 tons for battleship. Baffles hostile missile guidance through broadcasting jamming signals, thwarting 25% of incoming missile fire. Displacement Device: 12 TC, 46 tons for frigate, 36 TC, 105.8 tons for cruiser, 108 TC, 243.3 tons for battleship. Periodic short-range teleportation; regarded by Defense Department planners as largely useless. Automated Repair Unit: 20 TC, 160 tons for frigate, 44 TC, 256 tons for cruiser, 92 TC, 409.6 tons for battleship. Allows periodic dispatch of repair drones from a drone bay to engage in emergency minor hull repairs on friendly ships; also allows 10% repair of damage every year even without support facilities. Battle Scanner: 8 TC, 60 tons for frigate, 12 TC, 90 tons for cruiser, 20 TC, 135 tons for battleship. High-sensitivity scanners and data processing sections improve both sensor range and targeting accuracy (by 30%). Battle Pods: 10 TC, +87.5 tons for frigate, 24 TC, +153.1 tons for cruiser, 62 TC, +268 tons for battleship. Re-engineered machinery, life support systems, and automation help reclaim usable displacement for mission equipment. Heavy Armor: 26 TC for frigate, 46 TC for cruiser, 68 TC for battleship. Improved high-grade armor alloys further increase the ship's ability to shrug off damage from light weapons hits. Weapons Mass Drivers Mass drivers use advanced acceleration techniques to fling projectiles at very high velocities in order to make intercept at space combat ranges. They are anticipated to be the mainstay of a combat fleet by most in the Defense Department. Mass drivers suffer no loss of damage over distance and penetrate shields with no effective loss in power. Point-Defense Mass Driver Mount: 10 TC, 34 tons. 6 damage, 3 seconds between shots, 10 range, 25% accuracy bonus. Automatically engages missiles in range, 360 degree arc of fire. Standard Mass Driver: 20 TC, 100 tons front or rear mount, 30 TC, 125 tons sides mount, 40 TC, 150 tons dorsal or ventral full-rotation turret. 12 damage, 4 seconds between shots, 50 range. Heavy Mass Driver: 40 TC, 150 tons front or rear mount, 60 TC, 187.5 tons sides mount, 80 TC, 225 tons dorsal or ventral full-rotation turret. 24 damage, 5 seconds between shots, 75 range. Autofire Mass Driver: 30 TC, 150 tons front or rear mount, 44 TC, 187.5 tons sides mount, 60 TC, 225 tons dorsal or ventral full-rotation turret. 12 damage, 2 seconds between shots, 50 range, -20% accuracy penalty. Heavy Autofire Mass Driver: 50 TC, 200 tons front or rear mount, 74 TC, 250 tons sides mount, 100 TC, 300 tons dorsal or ventral full-rotation turret. 24 damage, 2.5 seconds between shots, 75 range, -20% accuracy penalty. Other Cannon Other cannon are currently mostly deprecated by Defense Department planners. Equipment specifications are available on request. Torpedoes Fusion torpedoes are heavy unguided warheads primarily useful for assault of fortifications. Limited guidance systems and manuevering systems can be installed, but the requirement for the warhead to remain below a size able to be effectively targeted by point defense limits the effectiveness of such measures. They are very cheap to deploy, but of only limited use in most fleet battles. Lack of guidance systems renders them mostly immune to jamming. Standard Fusion Torpedoes: 12 TC, 150 tons front or rear mount, 18 TC, 187.5 tons sides mount, 24 TC, 225 tons dorsal or ventral full-rotation turret. 50 damage, 8 seconds between shots, 70 range. Heavy Warhead Fusion Torpedoes: 24 TC, 225 tons front or rear mount, 36 TC, 281.3 tons sides mount, 48 TC, 337.5 tons dorsal or ventral full-rotation turret. 100 damage, 10 seconds between shots, 70 range. 'Shiphunter' Fusion Torpedoes: 24 TC, 225 tons front or rear mount, 36 TC, 281.3 tons sides mount, 48 TC, 337 tons dorsal or ventral full-rotation turret. 50 damage, 8 seconds between shots, 70 range. 50% greater travel speed and limited homing capabilities give a modest chance to actually hit something mobile. Heavy Warhead 'Shiphunter' Fusion Torpedoes: 36 TC, 300 tons front or rear mount, 52 TC, 375 tons sides mount, 72 TC, 450 tons dorsal or ventral full-rotation turret. 100 damage, 10 seconds between shots, 70 range. 50% greater travel speed and limited homing capabilities give a modest chance to actually hit something mobile. Guided Missiles Fast-reaction nuclear missiles and defensive KKVs both could potentially fill an effective role in a battlefleet. A wide variety of modifications can be accepted by modern fast-reaction nuclear weapons. Guided missiles have nearly perfect accuracy unless jammed or shot down, but are vulnerable to point defense. Defensive KKV: 4 TC, 30 tons. 5 damage, 2 seconds between shots, 10 range. Automatically engages missiles in range with high accuracy, 360 degree arc of fire. Ineffective against ships. Standard fast-reaction nuclear missile: 12 TC, 100 tons. 25 damage, 10 seconds between shots, 60 range, 4.2 warhead HP. Up-armored fast-reaction nuclear missile: 14 TC, 125 tons. 25 damage, 10 seconds between shots, 60 range, 8.4 warhead HP. Increased armor for improved resistance to point defense. ECCM-equipped fast-reaction nuclear missile: 14 TC, 125 tons. 25 damage, 10 seconds between shots, 60 range, 4.2 warhead HP. 50% resistance to jamming due to improved guidance package. Fast fast-reaction nuclear missile: 18 TC, 125 tons. 25 damage, 10 seconds between shots, 60 range, 4.2 warhead HP. 50% increased travel speed due to improved propulsion unit. High-performance fast-reaction nuclear missile: 22 TC, 175 tons. 25 damage, 10 seconds between shots, 60 range, 8.4 warhead HP. 50% resistance to jamming and 50% increased travel speed. Missile with upgraded armor, propulsion, and guidance systems. MIIW fast-reaction nuclear missile: 24 TC, 150 tons. 50 total damage, 10 seconds between shots, 60 range, 4.2 warhead HP. Loaded with a payload of four smaller warheads to bracket the targeted vessel, for greater damage. Up-armored MIIW fast-reaction nuclear missile: 26 TC, 175 tons. 50 total damage, 10 seconds between shots, 60 range, 8.4 warhead HP. Loaded with a payload of four smaller warheads to bracket the targeted vessel, for greater damage. Shooting down the missile destroys all four payload warheads. ECCM-equipped MIIW fast-reaction nuclear missile: 26 TC, 175 tons. 50 total damage, 10 seconds between shots, 60 range, 4.2 warhead HP. 50% resistance to jamming and loaded with a payload of four smaller warheads. Fast MIIW fast-reaction nuclear missile: 30 TC, 175 tons. 50 total damage, 10 seconds between shots, 60 range, 4.2 warhead HP. 50% increased travel speed and loaded with a payload of four smaller warheads. High-performance MIIW fast-reaction nuclear missile: 34 TC, 225 tons. 50 total damage, 10 seconds between shots, 60 range, 8.4 warhead HP. 50% resistance to jamming, 50% increased travel speed, and loaded with a payload of four smaller warheads. Bombs Necessary for counter-piracy duties but considered unnecessary for fleet combat vessels. Useless in fleet battle. Nuclear bomb bay: 8 TC, 100 tons. The Defense Department will review designs submitted and award construction contracts accordingly. nweismuller fucked around with this message at 15:02 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 08:12
|
|
|
MD Design Bureau proposes the following designs: Peacemaker class battleship
This vessel was designed with a simple purpose: Use superior firepower to destroy as many enemies as possible before they enter effective range, and then outlast the survivors. Very expensive to produce (the mass drivers cost A LOT of production) but oh so very much worth it. Hwacha class bombardment cruiser
This vessel also has a simple job: There's something big and not very mobile in your way? This ship makes it very, very dead. It sacrifices a lot to achieve this amount of firepower, but comes at 23% of the price of the Peacemaker. Ideally, only one or two of these ships would be required as support ships against stationary defences and ground-based targets, but they can be mass-produced rapidly if the enemy brings battleships to the fight, and can be used cost-effectively to kill giant space monster thingies. Sandblaster class escort frigate
Expensive for a frigate, but works really well if paired up with the Peacemaker. Kills missiles dead. Horngold class pirate hunter
Cheap, fast scout/pirate hunter. Could probably remove the heavy armor to reduce the cost by ~20%, but meh, why take pointless risks. ... ... Eluder class battlecruiser
Cowardly, mobile clam armed with a howitzer. e: fixed a typo my dad fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Nov 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 11:07
|
|
|
EDIT: Slightly unfucked the maths. An unknown amount of gently caress remains. Thank you nweiss for your help with gently caress reduction. It's this time again, eh? KTT has a new batch of warship designs ready to roll off the slipways. Cataphract-class Fleet Flagship
Compared to MD Design Bureau's Peacemaker, even more firepower but with a limited arc of fire, skimping on the heavy armour because it's really expensive and throwing in some point defence because I had some space left over. Only about 3/4 of the cost because of cheaper armour and fixed-mount weaponry. Landsknecht-class Fleet Cruiser
Basically a smaller version of the Cataphract. Given that it has quite a bit less than half the firepower and rather less survivability despite costing almost half as much, I'm not sure this was a good design. I honestly prefer the Hwacha, but there's not much different I could do for a torpedo boat, save maybe drop a tube to make them homing. Actually... Varangian-class Torpedo Cruiser
I'm not entirely happy dropping the shields, but since this thing is fairly cheap it's no biggie if they drop like flies (as long as you aren't too bothered by all the crew you're sending to their needless deaths). Slingshot-class Escort Frigate
A bit cheaper than MD's Sandblaster, but it'll be less capable if jammers don't affect missiles shot at other ships ( Javelin-class Independent Frigate
A cheap and nasty ship with enough (i.e. any) firepower to obliterate pirate craft, automated repair so you don't have to bring it back to base (and no shields because, honestly, pirates aren't a threat, and why not take pointless risks), and a second bomb bay to reduce the chance of Those Fuckers surviving the turn. It'll die instantly against any serious opposition, but at that cost, do you really care? Friend Commuter fucked around with this message at 13:22 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 13:25
|
|
|
A TYW rep will be by later (i.e. whenever I get time to sit down and write/think), but skimming over what's been proposed I see a major flaw in KTT's designs - the mass drivers are all mounted in fixed forward arcs. The entire philosophy behind a mass driver fleet is to keep the range open so we can take advantage of the fact that they don't lose damage over distance. Building ships that can only fire their main battery while charging the enemy headlong is basically the exact opposite of our fleet doctrine right now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 13:58
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:A TYW rep will be by later (i.e. whenever I get time to sit down and write/think), but skimming over what's been proposed I see a major flaw in KTT's designs - the mass drivers are all mounted in fixed forward arcs. The entire philosophy behind a mass driver fleet is to keep the range open so we can take advantage of the fact that they don't lose damage over distance. Building ships that can only fire their main battery while charging the enemy headlong is basically the exact opposite of our fleet doctrine right now. Yeah, my designs kind of rely on the ships being able to cripple the enemy fleet before it manages to close the distance. I'm tempted to learn from my dad and the Spathi and shift all the big guns to rear mounts, but I'll stick with what I've got there and see how it plays out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
MIIW, incidentally: 'Multiple independently intercepting warheads'. E: Friend Commuter, you appear to have made calculation errors with the Landsknecht, Slingshot, and Javelin proposals. I can get the Landsknecht and Slingshot within mass by dropping one PD mass driver each from them; the Javelin, I don't see any way to make work. nweismuller fucked around with this message at 23:02 on Nov 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
nweismuller posted:MIIW, incidentally: 'Multiple independently intercepting warheads'. Wow, only 3/5 hosed up? I'll have another go. EDIT: I saw what I did with the Javelin, I took out the shields to save space and forgot to actually delete them from the design writeup. Can't see any problems with mass, but if you gotta strip off a point defence gun or two then go for it. Friend Commuter fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
Friend Commuter posted:Wow, only 3/5 hosed up? I'll have another go. The Javelin is still over mass, but either losing the KKV or adding battle pods will address that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
I haven't played in a while but my assessment is that our economy is, to use the proper term, "right bangin'". Can somebody confirm, because if so, now that we've got the luxury of prep time we should go all in on quality over quantity (better armor, battle pods, the whole 9 yards).
Crazycryodude fucked around with this message at 01:51 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
Our economy is indeed strong for our population size with room for further improvement once we start implementing robo miners and spaceports, and our population exceeds that of the Bulrathi Empire. Our biggest weakness compared to them is that they can maintain a heavy shift to industry better than we can due to their policy of intensive development to reduce ecological impacts- Bulrathi cities and industrial centers are deliberately built in a far more compact and concentrated fashion than they develop in Human space to reduce land usage and make it easier to treat all their waste production.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
Wow, they really want you to specialize your colonies in this game. Those maintenance costs are outrageous.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
It's less that they want you to specialise and more that they expect certain structures to only go up once you get a more significant population on the planet capable of making use of things, in my experience. All the per-cell production boosters like Soil Enrichment, Neutron Colliders, and Advanced Data Centers are worth it, but you basically need at least three population in place in their field to make it worth it- or possibly two for Soil Enrichment, taking advantage of faster population growth in a colony, given that early colonies are agriculture-heavy anyhow.
nweismuller fucked around with this message at 02:23 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
Plus once you've made it through the red node lines and met a few more races (spoiler: there are more races on the far side of the red node lines) you can make mad bank from trade agreements, so the maintenance costs suddenly stop being an issue.nweismuller posted:The Javelin is still over mass, but either losing the KKV or adding battle pods will address that. Lose the KKV, the Javelin is supposed to be cheap and barely effective at its job.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 13:26
|
|
|
All right, I'll review the design submissions once Teyer-Young submits its designs. Thank you all for your part. E: I have also fixed the image error with the discovery of Robotics. I went back and captured the image I actually *wanted* for the second part of Robotics' discovery, instead of having the same image twice under two names like a moron. nweismuller fucked around with this message at 23:59 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Ladies and gentlemen of the board, Teyer-Young Weltraumwerke is proud to present the following designs for the 2534 contest. XB-34 "Galaxy" Fleet Leader -Re-engineered machinery spaces and automation measures (+268 tons free displacement) -1x Milspec fusion drive system (15 tons) -1x Krupp-Hibei "Ancile" high-durability armor plating -1x Teyer Electronics "Marksman" 3-Dimensional Optronic Fire Control System -1x Teyer Electronics "Bloodhound" Enhanced Combat Sensor Suite (135 tons) -1x Rivera Dynamics "Aegis" Class I Electromagnetic Deflector System (625 tons) -5x Nové Škoda Works 300mm "Blesk II-A" heavy autofire mass drivers, mounted in 360 degree turrets (1500 tons) Total free displacement usage: 2275 tons X-03 "Battleaxe" Space Control Cruiser -Re-engineered machinery spaces and automation measures (+153.1 tons free displacement) -1x Milspec fusion drive system (14.1 tons) -1x Krupp-Hibei "Ancile" high-durability armor plating -1x Teyer Electronics "Marksman" 3-Dimensional Optronic Fire Control System -1x Teyer Electronics "Bloodhound" Enhanced Combat Sensor Suite (90 tons) -1x Rivera Dynamics "Aegis" Class I Electromagnetic Deflector System (250 tons) -3x Nové Škoda Works 300mm "Blesk II-H" heavy mass drivers, mounted in 360 degree turrets (675 tons) -1x launch tube and magazine space designed for use with VIM-25 "Sparrowhawk" Anti-Missile KKV system (30 tons) Total free displacement usage: 1059.1 tons Project 1102 "Chevalier" Fleet Escort -Re-engineered machinery spaces and automation measures (+87.5 tons free displacement) -1x Milspec fusion drive system (9 tons) -1x Krupp-Hibei "Ancile" high-durability armor plating -1x Rivera Dynamics "Aegis" Class I Electromagnetic Deflector System (100 tons) -10x launch tubes and magazine space designed for use with VIM-25 "Sparrowhawk" Anti-Missile KKV system (300 tons) -1x TYW "Thunderbolt" Point Defense Laser system (20.4 tons) -1x launch tube and magazine space designed for use with M7R "Lancer" shipkiller fusion torpedo (225 tons) Total free displacement usage: 654.4 tons VB-56 "Gandiva" Fleet Scout/Counter-Piracy frigate -Re-engineered machinery spaces and automation measures (+87.5 tons free displacement) -1x Milspec fusion drive system (9 tons) -1x Krupp-Hibei "Ancile" high-durability armor plating -1x Teyer Electronics "Marksman" 3-Dimensional Optronic Fire Control System -1x Teyer Electronics "Bloodhound" Enhanced Combat Sensor Suite (60 tons) -1x Rivera Dynamics "Aegis" Class I Electromagnetic Deflector System (100 tons) -2x "Jiuchidingpa" Nuclear Bombardment Systems (200 tons) -1x Nové Škoda Works 250mm "Mini-Blesk" autofire mass driver, mounted in 360 degree turret (225 tons) -2x launch tubes and magazine space designed for use with VIM-25 "Sparrowhawk" Anti-Missile KKV system (60 tons) Total free displacement usage: 654 tons TYW envisions a fleet core composed of Battleaxes led by a handful of Galaxies volleying mass driver fire while keeping the range open, screened from enemy missiles by Chevaliers. Although the inclusion of a torpedo tube aboard the Chevalier-class may be somewhat unconventional, TYW believes that this will provide higher utility than an equivalent tonnage of mass drivers or support systems. 10 KKV tubes per frigate is more than sufficient to screen the fleet, so by dedicating space to torpedoes over more KKVs or ineffective mass drivers, our standard battle fleet gains anti-fortification capabilities and allows escorts to contribute by breaking up enemy formations/potentially scoring crippling blows against enemy capital ships. If the Joint Chiefs saw fit to request a purpose-built torpedo boat TYW is ready to deliver, but within the constraints of the design competition (just the 4 core classes) we believe that this is the best solution. Edit: Our engineers just realized the TYW Galaxy and MD Design Peacemaker are functionally identical, even if some minor details as to subcontractor, internal layout, and cosmetics exist. MD Design submitted their proposal first, so TYW is willing to withdraw the Galaxy entry (though the Galaxy has a far more aesthetically pleasing hull form if I do say so myself, as well as a complimentary zero-G coffee maker in every galley). Crazycryodude fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Nov 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
The Battleaxe design lists three heavy autofire mass drivers as massing 675 tons, which is only consistent with 'heavy' or 'autofire', not both. How should I resolve this?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
Ah, I missed that when I copy-pasted the bulk from the Galaxy. They're supposed to be heavy only, no autofire, fixing it now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
On review of the submissions, the Defense Department awards design contracts to Miller-Douglass Industries for the Peacemaker battleship and the Benjamin Hornigold counter-piracy frigate, while awarding contracts to Teyer-Young Weltraumwerke for the Battleaxe space control cruiser and Chevalier frigate escort. I will proceed to finish the update. E: Defense Department meddling in the design process of the Peacemaker resulted in the addition of three point defense mass drivers to the final design. nweismuller fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Nov 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
nweismuller posted:On review of the submissions, the Defense Department awards design contracts to Miller-Douglass Industries for the Peacemaker battleship and the Benjamin Hornigold counter-piracy frigate, while awarding contracts to Teyer-Young Weltraumwerke for the Battleaxe space control cruiser and Chevalier frigate escort. I will proceed to finish the update. One of these days.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
nweismuller posted:On review of the submissions, the Defense Department awards design contracts to Miller-Douglass Industries for the Peacemaker battleship and the Benjamin Hornigold counter-piracy frigate, while awarding contracts to Teyer-Young Weltraumwerke for the Battleaxe space control cruiser and Chevalier frigate escort. I will proceed to finish the update. Three cheers for the defense department! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
TYW demands that the Peacemaker get portholes for the marines to shoot out of or we pull all technical support for our existing spaceframes 
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
nweismuller posted:E: Defense Department meddling in the design process of the Peacemaker resulted in the addition of three point defense mass drivers to the final design. How? Did I miscalculate or did you remove a weapon? I hope you didn't remove heavy or autofire, the loss of either of these would be much worse for the ship's DPS.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
You were slightly under mass- I am wondering if I screwed up on reporting mass changes from battle pods.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
Good news and bad news, while we are waiting on me to do the LP writeup. Good news- no new provocations from the Bulrathi. Bad news- they're in the process of building two new vessels as heavy as Peacemakers, and their pollution tolerance on Bulra renders their industrial plant formidable. I question how they hope to support that weight of metal with the number of starbases they have and how many command points they surely must already be using. On the plus side, all of Space Fleet but the Striker have been upgraded to new technology, and we should have a firm technical advantage over the enemy. The Striker will take a number of years more stockpiling money to upgrade.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 09:33
|
|
|
How prepared are we for a ground invasion?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 10:07
|
|
|
CommissarMega posted:How prepared are we for a ground invasion? We have 160 million ground troops mustered in transports and could whip up another 40 million pretty easily. Not all are in position with the main fleet yet, though. They will be by the time we can upgrade the Striker, at least. Our current mobile Space Fleet assets are: Striker, Striker-class space control cruiser Hugh Glass, Battleaxe-class space control cruiser Davy Crockett, Battleaxe-class space control cruiser Arbalest, Chavalier-class escort frigate Huscarl, Chevalier-class escort frigate Paladin, Chevalier-class escort frigate Pinaka, Benjamin Hornigold-class scout frigate The Pinaka is off on independent duty along with the Industrious, but the rest are concentrated at Segel waiting on the Striker's upgrade. The Bulrathi have 90 million troops on Korga and 130 million troops on Bulra to hold the planets; the Chiefs of Staff would strongly prefer in the event of war to tackle Korga first and assess just how bloody ground warfare against the Bulrathi can be before dealing with Bulra. nweismuller fucked around with this message at 12:30 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 10:18
|
|
|
I am lazy and suspect I will not process things up for the next update before I leave tomorrow. Expect an actual update Sunday or Monday. I can take questions if people want, however.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
So are missiles the go to weapon again in this game? They seem to do so much more damage than everything else and most of the AI's designs don't fit anywhere near enough PD.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 03:27
|
|
|
McGavin posted:So are missiles the go to weapon again in this game? They seem to do so much more damage than everything else and most of the AI's designs don't fit anywhere near enough PD. My experience is that missiles are lethal when they work and can be shut down entirely when they don't- I've had missile bases entirely fail to land a single hit before. Although missiles are high-damage per hit, they also have long cooldowns compared to cannons. So really, the answer is 'it's ambigious, but mass drivers are still awesome'.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 08:32 |
|
|
I tried using mass drivers, but they just don't do damage quickly enough for me to avoid getting slaughtered by the AI's missile spam. If you ditch beam weapons entirely you can usually pack enough missiles to KO an equivalent class ship in one volley. Also, lol at how the Psilons get -20% security for no good reason. You can make a custom race with the exact same picks (creative, technologist, low-g, small) and have no security malus and have 3 points left over. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 03:56
|
|