|
Glorious deaths: 1 Boring retirements: 0  Re-dorf me, please. Ship design input: I think carronades are cool and underused. I would also like to emphasise speed as an important design factor for big beam battleships. If our target out-speeds us even slightly all those big guns are just expensive targets, and speeds will only go up as time progresses. Making our big boats fast means we don't have to scrap them as quickly. Also, if we're fast anyway, we might as well zoom in to point-blank for plasma goodness.
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2020 11:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 19:24 |
|
|
Shoeless posted:How do you set a delay on orders? And different but similar, how do you tell a fleet to move but maintain a set distance from their target?  The annoying bit is that it's in seconds and you should be careful to set the box back to 0 so every subsequent order isn't also given a delay. Supposedly there's a 'wait until X amount available' order in the future that'll negate the need for math which'd be nice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2020 11:50
|
|
|
A new serious contender for the prized Battlecruiser contest, making full use of technologies not even yet deemed worthy of consideration, the Wolf Hawk: Simply put, the Wolf Hawk will defeat every other contender put forth every single time by way of savage efficiency and ruthless tactics. At nearly 7000 km/s the Wolf Hawk can outmatch it's fastest competitors and close on longer ranged beamships well before they can break through it's 15 layers of armor. While not as heavily armored as some designs it makes up for it by the fact that as soon as it's in range the battle is over as six newly designed Tenebrous Electroncs High Power Microwaves savage their sensors and fire controls, leaving them entirely unable to return fire. This explains the choice for the inclusion of not four, or even five, but six of the most powerful engines the Union of Terra has ever created. A blinded ship has one option only: to run. And no warship that can dare approach the Wolf Hawk can escape it's grasp. Ton for ton the previously overlooked 12cm Railguns are the most powerful direct-fire systems around, dealing four shots of two damage each in a 15 second time frame. No, the Wolf Hawk will not destroy it's prey quickly, but the dual use point-defense and direct-fire railguns will surely pick apart it's crippled prey. In prolonged battles the Wolf Hawk's role is clear: Blind one target before switching to the next until the enemy is rendered incapable. This tactic is extremely well suited to jump-point defense as well as transiting ship recovering from Jump Shock will find themselves entirely unable to activate their fire control systems to retaliate. Gentlemen, we find ourselves at a technological disadvantage against dangerous and trigger happy foes. I hereby put forth the Wolf Hawk and a strategy to go alongside it. We build a salvage ship, wait in ambush at a jump point, scramble the sensors of a lone enemy ship and destroy it before it can escape. With this done we salvage it's engines and weapons and prepare for the great leap forward we will undoubtedly gain by reverse engineering their technology. I challenge anyone to put their designs up against the Wolf Hawk and come out victorious; I don't believe it's even possible at our current levels of technology. Sometimes it isn't the most powerful combatant that wins the fight, but the most cunning. Lando131 fucked around with this message at 12:48 on Aug 9, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2020 12:44
|
|
|
Please note that your maintenance life is less than your deployment time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2020 13:06
|
|
|
Zurai posted:Please note that your maintenance life is less than your deployment time. I think that's been true of all our BB and BC designs except the Menelaus
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2020 13:18
|
|
|
Servetus posted:I think that's been true of all our BB and BC designs except the Menelaus Nope. The Wolf Hawk-class is the only ship in the entire list that has a lower maintenance life than deployment time. I just checked. On average, a Wolf Hawk will only be able to remain away from a maintenance facility for about 9 months, while its designed deployment time is 12 months. It's generally a good idea to have maintenance life higher than deployment time so that you have spares available to fix things in combat. I also don't like relying on the completely untested "high-powered microwave" technology in a life-or-death combat. We have no idea of the Kooks' (or bugs') electronics or shields technologies, we don't know how much redundancy is built into their warships, and we don't even know if microwaves will even perform their function against alien ships! At least the railguns will hurt when they hit something; what if their systems are hardened or don't use the same kind of electronics we do? Also, the fire control is abysmal. I realize both weapon systems on the Wolf Hawk are extremely short ranged, but even when you're right on top of the enemy that "point defense" fire control fails to achieve a lock a third of the time. Finally, even if everything works perfectly for the microwaves, they are a weapon that works best when they outnumber, or at least have numerical parity with, an enemy. You're relying on shutting down the enemy's systems then sandpapering them to death with railguns; that's an excellent strategy for a duel, but a terrible one when we already know the Kooks have half-a-dozen battlecruiser-sized vessels and can likely build new ones just as fast as we can. A single Wolf Hawk likely fights off one or two Kook BCs, but what about the escorts, and what does it do if it encounters the entire BC squadron? (that's partially RP-speak, as far as I know nothing is outright immune to microwaves, but it's true that we don't know anything about their hardening or shield techs, and it's true that we're going to be outnumbered which isn't a great situation for a microwave-dependent capital ship)
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2020 13:35
|
|
|
You're right, my eyes glazed over and I though you wrote 'build time' not 'deployment time'
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2020 13:44
|
|
|
Lando131 posted:No idea on the latter but the delay is right here: It's in the similar spot for the "Follow" order.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2020 13:45
|
|
|
So wait a minute. My ship and I discovered a good system with an alien race on it, I was transferred off the ship and then it was blown apart by aliens. This is a slight against my honor, denying me my birthright of being blasted into stardust by hostile aliens! I ask to captain one of the new battleships and be sent to the front lines against this new alien threat.Innocent_Bystander posted:Glorious deaths: 1
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2020 14:53
|
|
|
Okay, we've got plenty of designs available, so I'm going to give a quick (biased!) pro and con list for each of them. For the record, I am of the opinion that speed is king in Aurora. The faster ship dictates range, can refuse combat with poor odds, is harder to hit, and so on. Both missile and beam ships want to be faster than the enemy (missiles so they can clown beam ships, beam ships so they can actually do anything). Ships that are slower than known enemy capabilities are at risk of being kited to death. Capital Ships Menelaus-class BB:
This is a brawler design, a little faster than known Kook speeds, with a significant armament. 16 lasers is a lot, even if the fire control situation is awkward (the long-range BFC is too slow for the turret and the BFC that matches its speed is the terribly inaccurate "point defense" BFC). It's lighter on the armor side than most of the other contenders, though it does have two shield generators to take the edge off an alpha strike and to provide regenerating defenses over a long enough engagement. Our current shield tech is balls, but it's still helpful. Overall, this is a very solid design, absolutely terrifying if it can close to within 10-20k of an enemy and stay there. It's slower than I'd like, but it at does at least meet what I consider the minimum speed threshold of 4.5k. Menelaus Gauss-class BB:
I honestly prefer the primary configuration better. The gauss turrets are slightly better PD (at the cost of a lot of RP) but worse secondary armaments. If the Kooks are firing large volleys of shipkiller missiles at us every 5 seconds, we're hosed, and the laser turrets can handle anything else. Short recharge would be important if we could get multiple shots at each volley, but our beam fire controls aren't good enough for that. Any likely enemy missile will be doing 15k kps+, which means they'll cross the entire 32k km firing range of our point defense beam fire control in a single 5 second tick. The longer-range off-the-shelf BFC doesn't have the tracking speed to keep up with missiles. Seas the Day-class (Mk2) BB:
I believe this is the only hybrid missile/beam ship proposal. It's got a heavy enough beam armament to be relevant, mounted in turrets to make them usable as point defense on the approach, and 16 volleys of missiles. The volley size is a little low, but since it's not putting all of its eggs into the missile basket, that's fine. This would make a good companion to a Bomb Truck-class escort group ... except that it's slower than known Kook speeds. It can't force an engagement. I like this ship, but it needs more get-up-and-go. Supernova-class (Mk2) DN:
This design is a heavy brawler, capable of melting the armor of any ship it can engage in short order. It has two point defense turrets to engage missiles and extremely heavy armor to make sure it lives long enough to deliver its plasma payload, assuming it can close the range. With the improved fire control of the Mk2 Supernova, this is a more defensive version of the Menelaus; it has much heavier armor, but a weaker armament (that 4x4 laser battery is nasty). It's also got a shorter deployment time, which narrows the field of situations it can be used in. Admirable range, though, and this is a good design with a wart or two. Phantom-class DN:
The Phantom can fire 9 volleys of our standard shipkiller missiles at a range of about 24m km. Those missiles have about a 40% chance to hit a ship moving at 4k speed, so about 12 missiles out of every volley. That's ignoring PD fire. So, on average, each Phantom will hit 108 times before running out of warheads. That's enough to savage a lighter vessel, but I'm worried that it won't kill one of the Kooks' big ships. This design has light armor for a "dreadnought", but as a pure missile boat, that's understandable. If beam ships get into its range, we've already lost, and it has enough armor to hopefully flush its racks against other missile-armed ships. Do note that missiles self-destruct if their parent vessel dies and they don't have their own internal sensors, though. This has the same deployment time restriction as the other DN candidate. Cudgel-class BB:
This design is ... very focused. This is a beam ship disguised as a missile ship, due to the overwhelming firepower of the 240(!) gauss cannons and the torpedo box launchers. Unfortunately, its 2300 kps top speed means that it will never be able to close to firing range, and its 8 layers of armor means even if it could close, it wouldn't survive. This is more of a self-propelled jump point defense station than it is a battleship. In that role, it might have some merit with a little redesign. As a primary combatant and backbone of our fleet, however, it fails. Tempest-class BC:
Now, this is a pretty ship. I've discussed my opinion of its flaws before (light armament and short deployment time, primarily), but this is still a sexy ship. I would not mind at all if the Tempest is chosen over my own design. I would suggest bumping up the deployment time (and maintenance life) a little bit though, even if it costs a little top speed. Avalanche-class (Mk2) BC:
This is my own design and I've sung its praises before. As a quick summary, it's a faster, harder-hitting, less tough Tempest. Fisher-class BC:
This is the heaviest-firepower option available. This ship puts out enormous amounts of damage, and it's fast enough and tough enough to force an engagement given known Kook speeds. The problem is the research time required for the (admittedly very good) fire control and carronade upgrades. The Fisher would be significantly delayed compared to any other capital ship proposal. I don't know if we can afford that much time. There are several proposed variants of the Fisher, but they all share that flaw. Wolf Hawk-class BC:
I've voiced my disapproval of this design elsewhere; I very much dislike relying so heavily on microwaves when we have no idea of the enemy's defenses against them and we're so heavily outnumbered. The Wolf Hawk is lightly armed as far as damaging weapons go and is entirely reliant on knocking out all of the sensors/fire controls on the entire enemy fleet to win, because it's not killing capital ships quickly. It's also got an awkward BFC situation and a maintenance life shorter than its deployment time. It's a great duelist, but I have concerns about its suitability for being the backbone of our fleet. Escort Ships Penny-class CT:
This is a reworked, improved Inspector Gadget. It's a purely colony defense/rapid response ship, but it should perform admirably in that role. It has a strong primary armament for a ship of its size and is quite reasonably fast. It does use the myopic Mabena Warning & Control "point defense"" R32-TS8000, but that's excusable in such a tiny vessel. A better BFC would be nice, but isn't as critical here as it is on the capital ships. Penny II-class CT:
This is an improved Penny relying on a bigger engine. Unfortunately, that engine takes about half a year of research at our maximum Power & Propulsion research rate. That's a big ask for a ship intended to keep us alive before the battleships start rolling off the line. Breaker Gadget-class CT:
This is a nasty corvette. Fitting two plasma carronades onto a 2500-ton ship is quite an engineering feat. Unfortunately, it comes at a cost of speed, and speed is king. We've already observed Kook ships going 4k kps; the Breaker Gadget has very limited overtake speed compared to those. IMO we shouldn't consider anything under 4500 kps top speed for beam-armed ships, which unfortunately disqualifies this vessel unless we want to research a stronger engine specifically for it. Prometheus-class FAC:
This little number is blisteringly fast and packs as much punch as the Penny-class Corvettes, but they have cripplingly-low range. It's true that they can be carried by our single Dionysus-class CVL, but, well, we only have one of those, and they have to be built out of our capital ship yard due to size. Unfortunately, as sexy as this ship is, I don't believe it is a viable choice at the moment. Please keep this design on file for once we have some more carriers (and possibly a dedicated FAC yard), though! Brain-class CT:
This is an even more minimalist redesign of the Inspector Gadget than the Penny, and it shows. It's a tiny bit slow for my tastes, but otherwise a perfectly-reasonable upgrade. I'd prefer something with more offensive punch, but it's hard to argue with a proven and popular design. Bomb Truck-class CT:
This is an interesting design. It strongly resembles Hexanitrohexaazaisowurtzitane in that it's a relatively stable high explosive just waiting for anything to happen to make it not stable and therefore not exist anymore. On the other hand, that's a lot of punch in a little ship, and I can forgive its slightly lower than desired top speed given that it's a missile boat. Acrid-class RC:
This is my design and I've already discussed it. Long story short, it requires some moderately expensive (1000 RP/3 month-ish) research for improved engines and is intended as the bird-dog to a fleet of fast battlecruisers (Tempest / Avalanche / Wolf Hawk) and Acids. It's armed, but only nominally. Acid-class CT:
This is my design, the counterpart to the Acrid, with a stronger primary armanent but weaker sensors. It's intended as an escort that can keep up with the fast battlecruiser designs. It can be used without the Acrid, although it needs to know where it's going in that case. Both can be built from the same shipyard if that shipyard is tooled for the Acrid. Uses the same engine as its sister-class and the same beam fire control as the battlecruiser it escorts. Hawkeye-class CT:
I'll be honest, I don't like this design at all. It's slow and it only fires a single volley of 30 missiles. If it doesn't kill its target in that single volley, it's hosed, and so are we. As far as missile-armed CTs go, I like the Bomb Truck better. They have similar total expected hits, assuming some PD, but the Bomb Truck at least matches known Kook speeds and can be theoretically reloaded in a reasonable amount of time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2020 15:55
|
|
|
Ships do not have to be faster than enemy ships to force an engagement. It helps, but it's not necessary. On the defense, the enemy must come to us. On the offense, enemy vessels can be forced to fight by menacing important strategic objectives. If the enemy surrenders the objective to us without a fight, that's still a win.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2020 16:06
|
|
|
Technically true but still a huge negative. Being slower than your enemy's known speed is a terrible idea. Slow ships are easier to hit, harder to hit with (with non-turreted weapons), can't retreat, can't interdict unless geometry is kind, are the opposite of future-proof, etc etc. As an example of a benefit for a missile ship to be as fast as the fast battlecruisers, it would let us retreat and rearm multiple times over the course of a running fight, vastly expanding their ability to hurt an enemy invasion force. I also want to reemphasize future-proofing. The three fast BC designs on offer are viable second-tier ships even after we've done more research because they are fast enough to keep up with more advanced vessels. The slower ships will be dangerously obsolete much more quickly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2020 16:14
|
|
|
thank you for the rundown zurai, i'm not very good at parsing ship statistics and comparing them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2020 17:26
|
|
|
What's the impact of speed on beam fire accuracy? The faster designs tend to have less guns for obvious reasons, but do they hit significantly better against a 4000 km/s target?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2020 17:52
|
|
|
Innocent_Bystander posted:What's the impact of speed on beam fire accuracy? The faster designs tend to have less guns for obvious reasons, but do they hit significantly better against a 4000 km/s target? Beam tracking rate is limited by the ship speed or turrets. So the fast ships aren’t any more accurate. The fast ships without turrets are less accurate than the ones with turrets. Fast ships do take less damage. We don’t know what the fleet speed of any of our enemies is. We know that there are some ships which are just under 4K. Big ships are probably slower than that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2020 18:00
|
|
|
I almost want to assume the other way. Given how our big-rear end battleships can in fact be blisteringly fast it's possible they've taken the same tack and what we've seen so far is merely "average" engines as far as the Kooks are concerned. It's also never a good idea to assume demonstrated capabilities (esp. as few instances as we actually have) are in-line with actual capabilities. We definitely want to err on the side of "too much" rather than "just enough".
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2020 18:29
|
|
|
Also note accuracy is limited by the BFC speed as well - you could have turrets whirling around at lightspeed but if the BFC is significantly slower than your target you're still going to miss a lot. The Wolf Hawk's maintenance life might do better if you do what I did with the Fisher and remove some engineering spaces to add maintenance bays. You're basically trading off more frequent breakdowns with a much larger supply of MSP to fix those breakdowns, still giving you a net gain in estimated maintenance life. Plus any beam warship should be MSP-heavy, especially one that counts on volume of fire over damage. Also I'm a bit sad that nobody thought my SCS Fisher joke was funny  (although tbf that's probably because it isn't really)
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2020 18:38
|
|
|
Basically, beam fire takes an accuracy penalty if the target is moving faster than the tracking speed of the attacking ship. Tracking speed is the speed rating of the fire control or the speed of the ship whichever is lower. That is the point of turrets - they use the tracking speed of the turret in place of the speed of the ship.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2020 18:45
|
|
|
Neophyte posted:Also note accuracy is limited by the BFC speed as well - you could have turrets whirling around at lightspeed but if the BFC is significantly slower than your target you're still going to miss a lot. your design is blisteringly fast, extremely well-armed, and ruinously expensive. naming it after the First Sea Lord was an excellent call.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2020 18:52
|
|
|
Radio Free Kobold posted:your design is blisteringly fast, extremely well-armed, and ruinously expensive. naming it after the First Sea Lord was an excellent call.  If I can submit yet another design, here's a more realistic Fisher we can start building soonish.  Same armor, speed, and deployment - the damage done is still the same per volley, and actually does more over time due to the faster firing of the smaller 20cm carronades! Sadly, this loses the nice combination of armor penetration and shock damage potential that 25cm carronades would offer, but oh well maybe next time, when we don't have 4 nasty alien races knocking at our door. It uses present tech for the BFC designs, with the carronade BFC needing 256 research points and the smaller railgun BFC only 96. The most expensive item in terms of RP is the power plant, a no-boost 3 HS reactor needing 496 rp, which again was just me trying to balance saving space vs the higher costs of RP as the more powerful each reactor becomes. You could even simply use the existing last-gen reactors if you want, but you'll have to find quite a bit of space somewhere. I found the space by heavily reducing the fuel carried, though it's still a respectable ~10 billion range ship. As a consequence of the more numerous weapons, the crew needed has gone up by about 100, but that's fine, it's not like they're going to be built in bulk. Still roughly the same cost in wealth and minerals as well. Speaking of costs:  I didn't post this for the last submission, but here's the costs and sizes of the ship. Just like the previous ones, the engines are roughly 40% of the build cost and should be pre-built by our industry to speed up construction. The other components are pretty low in cost, so there's not much to be saved there but if you want to why not? We'll still have to wait for the structural parts (hull/crew quarters/fueltanks/etc.) to be built by the shipyard though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2020 19:28
|
|
|
Oh yeah, if you want you can withdraw the Future Fishers from submission, I don't want to spam the design list and it's pretty clear that people think it will take too long to get the 25cm carronade versions researched and built.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2020 19:31
|
|
|
Ok great, I'm going to end submission time and start working on the vote. Might take me a bit, lots of ships and I just got in from work.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2020 19:36
|
|
|
FWIW, I know the policy vote isn't coming yet, but I'd be totally in favor of focusing on carronades for the future. Lasers are good, but boring. I always end up using lasers in my own games. Something new would be neat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2020 19:41
|
|
|
Carronades are fun as hell, even though they suck compared the other beams in the late-game. But the late-game is usually pretty boring, you'll probably be able to own any AI enemy (except possibly the Invaders) by then, so who cares? Big Plasma, Big Life
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2020 19:47
|
|
|
By the way, aside from overall performance improvements, by FAR the best change in C# has to be the improved quality of life with designing new ships. Being able to prototype components to test them without having to research them first is huge, and not having to design separate missile engines is mindblowing. I haaaaaaated designing new missiles in VB6.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2020 19:53
|
|
|
We do have a doctrine already. I feel like we need to really see some combat before we start revising it, especially if we are revising towards a knife-fight only style weapon. My suspicion is we are going to get brutally kited and have to re-align towards missiles. Our ships are fast, but not so fast as to easily get into 20k or less range where cannonades become truly effective. They could make pretty solid STOs though. Zurai posted:By the way, aside from overall performance improvements, by FAR the best change in C# has to be the improved quality of life with designing new ships. Being able to prototype components to test them without having to research them first is huge, and not having to design separate missile engines is mindblowing. I haaaaaaated designing new missiles in VB6. But also the army is now granular in a way I could never have imagined. Win some, lose some. Virtual Russian fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Aug 9, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2020 19:55
|
|
|
Zurai posted:Nope. The Wolf Hawk-class is the only ship in the entire list that has a lower maintenance life than deployment time. I just checked. On average, a Wolf Hawk will only be able to remain away from a maintenance facility for about 9 months, while its designed deployment time is 12 months. It's generally a good idea to have maintenance life higher than deployment time so that you have spares available to fix things in combat. Yes. The Wolf Hawk BC is a tempermental bitch of a ship to keep running, but sometimes that's what it takes. The inclusion of any kind of maintenance ship, such as the logistics ship previously listed, renders this point moot unless the Wolf Hawk is in a sustained combat engagement for 12 months, in which case I believe it's already proven it's design effectiveness. Yes, Microwaves are unproven. The enemy might have shields, but microwave weapons tear through shields and so do the Wolf Hawk's railguns. The potential of hardened and redundant sensors is well known and also exactly why there are six microwaves and four railguns instead of four microwaves and six railguns. This greatly increases the chances of a successful blinding in the first strike, and near guarantees it 10 seconds later when they fire again. Edit: A quick test shows that by removing a single engineering space and replacing it with a maintenance storage bay will give the Wolf Hawk a deployment time of 1 year, even if it tends to break down more as a result. Lando131 fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Aug 9, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2020 20:05
|
|
|
I want to focus either on carronades or spinal lasers. I don't know, nor care, how effective they actually are in optimized fleet, I just like them goddamit. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2020 21:25
|
|
|
Virtual Russian posted:But also the army is now granular in a way I could never have imagined. Win some, lose some. For the people that don't play Aurora: The button to add a infantry to a ground unit now literally adds a single guy with a rifle. We can count the number of rifles in our multi-planet army. Here's ship durability vs missiles for the contest ships. Missile vs Armor Durability Table This is # of strength-4 missile hits to penetrate a battleship with 90 columns of N thick armor Armor 8 -> 61 hits Armor 10 -> 86 hits Armor 12 -> 113 hits Armor 15 -> 155 hits Armor 20 -> 229 hits Missile hit chance vs Speed Table This is hit rate for a 16000km/s missile with no agility vs a target moving at various contest ship speeds Speed 2300 -> 70% Speed 3500 -> 46% Speed 4600 -> 35% Speed 6000 -> 27% Speed 6500 -> 25% Speed 7000 -> 23%
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2020 21:36
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:Missile vs Armor Durability Table In other news I spent an hour or so optimizing our current generation Size 4 anti-ship missiles by tweaking the numbers. Here is the current Macrotis:  And here is the improved:  Note the values need to be exact; a size 3.9999 missile instead of 4 changes the math on missile agility and these can still be fired from a size 4 launcher as normal. This was achieved by first testing adjusting agility and replacing engine size, and then lowering engine size, adding fuel and increasing engine power one step at a time. I might recommend space mastering this new missile in rather than researching it if our current generation missiles have never been fired. The hit chance improvements are minor, but as people have already shown Aurora is as much a game about spreadsheets, optimizations and logistics as it is about spaceships. Lando131 fucked around with this message at 23:50 on Aug 9, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2020 22:06
|
|
|
Cutting around 700 km/s from the speed is not an improvement. The tiny increase in hit percentage will likely be erased by increased vulnerability to PD.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2020 22:13
|
|
|
I'd like to be re-dorfed, please! Early retirement is not my thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2020 22:54
|
|
|
Which weapons show the most Elan? Which weapons suit red trousers the best?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2020 23:06
|
|
|
Servetus posted:Which weapons show the most Elan? 1. Ramming to have marines board. 2. Ramming. 3. Carronades --- they have really sharp damage dropoff with distance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2020 23:12
|
|
|
Servetus posted:Which weapons show the most Elan? The most? That's simple my friend!   The biggest missile engine we can build with the largest warhead that will fit with whatever room's left over holding the fuel. Capable of blowing through an astounding 12 layers of armor in a single hit! An Excessively Powerful weapon system for all your battleship erasing dreams. Lando131 fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Aug 9, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2020 23:40
|
|
|
Lando131 posted:The most? That's simple my friend! so how long will it take us to get these mounted on STO planetary defense units?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2020 00:20
|
|
|
Radio Free Kobold posted:so how long will it take us to get these mounted on STO planetary defense units?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2020 00:23
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:For the people that don't play Aurora: The button to add a infantry to a ground unit now literally adds a single guy with a rifle. We can count the number of rifles in our multi-planet army. Interesting. I had no idea the math for time to live with armor was nonlinear like that. Definitely something I'll keep in mind for future ship designs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2020 00:29
|
|
|
Lando131 posted:Sadly missiles of any kind are not allowed as STO weapons. space platform, then. how cheap can we get a satellite-mounted version of this thing?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2020 00:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 19:24 |
|
|
Radio Free Kobold posted:space platform, then. how cheap can we get a satellite-mounted version of this thing? The missile itself is around 7650 RP which can be finished by our best researcher in 2 and a half years if we divert the maximum labspace to them. It's almost completely infeasable! At least not until much later in the game when 7000 RP is a pittance compared to the next tech level.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2020 01:29
|
|