-
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.
May 31st, 2002.
Our first set of upgrades to the new PD Frigate equipped with the 2001-model Gauss Cannon.
Each turret fires 16 shots per 5-second impulse. More dakka.
Our first set of upgrades to the new PD Frigate equipped with the 2001-model Gauss Cannon.
Each turret fires 16 shots per 5-second impulse. More dakka.
- 2
We now have six full squadrons (of 26 Strike-Fighters each) of the new heavily-armed Fighter, with more building.
We are now shipping another set of turrets (anti-ship and PD) out to 25 Ursae Minoris, to set up a third comet mining operation in that system. This is the star system beyond Tau Ceti that we are mining for Uridium.
Comet Delta has Duranium, Tritanium, Uridium and Gallicite. Currently holds 546 mines and our Naval Base.
Comet Epsilon has Duranium, Neutronium, Boronide and Uridium. Currently holds 441 mines.
The new mine will be on Comet Phi, which has Neutronium, Boronide, Uridium and Corundium. That's where we're sending the third set of turrets.
We will also have to shift our mineral-hunting focus... now that our Uridium supply is secure, our next big problem will be Corundium.
Comet Delta has Duranium, Tritanium, Uridium and Gallicite. Currently holds 546 mines and our Naval Base.
Comet Epsilon has Duranium, Neutronium, Boronide and Uridium. Currently holds 441 mines.
The new mine will be on Comet Phi, which has Neutronium, Boronide, Uridium and Corundium. That's where we're sending the third set of turrets.
We will also have to shift our mineral-hunting focus... now that our Uridium supply is secure, our next big problem will be Corundium.
- 1
I'd like to.
I'd like to kill them while they still out-tech us, so that we can learn something from examining the wrecks.
The problem I see is that our scout saw about 30 ships, about 30 years ago. Do they build ships? If so, they might have HUNDREDS by now, especially since Hazards don't pay maintenance (while we are paying TENS OF THOUSANDS of minerals per year maintenance).
I think we should send some stealthed scouts in as soon as our stealth tech supports it. Then we will know whether or not an attack is feasible.
A Stealth Scout needs small size, high speed, good stealth and a powerful sensor suite.
- 1
- 1
This looks like the best we can so at the moment for an Active Sensor scout.
Halifax class Stealth Scout (P) 3,600 tons 111 Crew 1,260.5 BP TCS 11 TH 154 EM 0
6111 km/s Armour 1-20 Shields 0-0 HTK 17 Sensors 0/14/0/0 DCR 2-5 PPV 0
Maint Life 1.93 Years MSP 512 AFR 52% IFR 0.7% 1YR 179 5YR 2,680 Max Repair 672 MSP
Lieutenant Commander Control Rating 1 BRG
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months Morale Check Required
Magnetic Fusion Drive EP440.00 (1) Power 440.0 Fuel Use 35.89% Signature 154.0000 Explosion 11%
Fuel Capacity 250,000 Litres Range 34.8 billion km (65 days at full power)
1992 Active Sensor AS254-R100 HS-24 (1) GPS 67200 Range 254m km Resolution 100
1993 EM Sensor EM1.0-14.0 (1) Sensitivity 14 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 29.6m km
Cloaking Device: Class cross-section reduced to 15.00% of normal
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
This design is classed as a Scout for auto-assignment purposes
Not good enough. We observed Galapagonian warships moving at over 7,700 kps.
But we're actually getting close! One more set of engine upgrades should catch us up.
Halifax class Stealth Scout (P) 3,600 tons 111 Crew 1,260.5 BP TCS 11 TH 154 EM 0
6111 km/s Armour 1-20 Shields 0-0 HTK 17 Sensors 0/14/0/0 DCR 2-5 PPV 0
Maint Life 1.93 Years MSP 512 AFR 52% IFR 0.7% 1YR 179 5YR 2,680 Max Repair 672 MSP
Lieutenant Commander Control Rating 1 BRG
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months Morale Check Required
Magnetic Fusion Drive EP440.00 (1) Power 440.0 Fuel Use 35.89% Signature 154.0000 Explosion 11%
Fuel Capacity 250,000 Litres Range 34.8 billion km (65 days at full power)
1992 Active Sensor AS254-R100 HS-24 (1) GPS 67200 Range 254m km Resolution 100
1993 EM Sensor EM1.0-14.0 (1) Sensitivity 14 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 29.6m km
Cloaking Device: Class cross-section reduced to 15.00% of normal
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
This design is classed as a Scout for auto-assignment purposes
Not good enough. We observed Galapagonian warships moving at over 7,700 kps.
But we're actually getting close! One more set of engine upgrades should catch us up.
- 2
With regard tot he GTO can that then be upgraded at plants, or does it need ot be outright scrapped when replacements come in?
The design is very tight.
The immediate ways to make it faster all involve freeing up some tonnage for a larger, more powerful engine.
eg:
1) Smaller and weaker sensor suite.
2) Less fuel and life support, shorter endurance.
3) Fewer maintenance spares, increased breakdown risk.
The longer-term ways of making it faster all involve research:
4) Better (and lighter) armor.
5) Improved engines.
6) Improved (more compact) sensor tech.
7) Improved stealth tech.
... and so on.
- 1
Not sure how to upgrade STO.
That's one reason that I waited until we could build EFFECTIVE weapons before mass-producing them.
- 2
Nice.
I sense a Missile re-design coming up soon. The same Scientist is now researching on-board ECM for missiles.
We've been putting more emphasis on Gunships, rather than Missile Boats.
- 1
Culise in ESNS Christaan Huygens is heading for one of the jump points leaving Known Space, far to Widdershins (counter-clockwise) of Sol and Earth.
We wish our intrepid explorer luck!
We wish our intrepid explorer luck!
- 1
- 1
We now have 208 Grinders either built or under construction. Each Grinder is the equivalent of twenty-one normal mines.
We are also researching a tech that allows us to "orbital mine" slightly larger bodies.
We are, however, starting to get a bit low (~120,000 tons in stockpile) on Corundium which is needed for all sorts of mines, including Grinders.
There are now a total of 52 Grinders in the 25 Ursae Minoris system (exactly one-quarter of our entire orbital mining fleet). That's the Uridium system.
This system has not yet been raided by the Pirates.
Where will the Pirates strike next? I'm placing my bet on 25 Ursae Minoris.
We are also researching a tech that allows us to "orbital mine" slightly larger bodies.
We are, however, starting to get a bit low (~120,000 tons in stockpile) on Corundium which is needed for all sorts of mines, including Grinders.
There are now a total of 52 Grinders in the 25 Ursae Minoris system (exactly one-quarter of our entire orbital mining fleet). That's the Uridium system.
This system has not yet been raided by the Pirates.
Where will the Pirates strike next? I'm placing my bet on 25 Ursae Minoris.
- 1
More Sabres converted to Sabre V.
It won't be long before we start bringing in the Sabre IVs for conversion.
Also... eight full (26 Fighter) squadrons of X-Wing III-Bs.
That's 624 missiles in the Alpha Strike!
That's a lot of missiles.
- 1
We now have enough spare Sabre Vs that we have started replacing and converting the Sabre IVs.
Within a year, all Sabre Gunships in our Empire should be converted to the latest model.
Within a year, all Sabre Gunships in our Empire should be converted to the latest model.
- 1
Our main mining priority is now Corundium.
Here's a Geology report:
We're already mining Comet Able in AX Microscopii and Comet Phi in 25 Ursae Minoris. We used to mine Halley's Comet in the Sol system, but withdrew our mines to richer sites once the accessory minerals ran out. It may be time for a return to Halley's Comet. There's a good site in Alpha Centauri and one or two more in 25 Ursae Minoris.
Those two rich sites in Iota Ursae Majoris are unfortunately placed, several jumps from Earth, out beyond AX Microscopii... but perfectly do-able.
Here's a Geology report:
We're already mining Comet Able in AX Microscopii and Comet Phi in 25 Ursae Minoris. We used to mine Halley's Comet in the Sol system, but withdrew our mines to richer sites once the accessory minerals ran out. It may be time for a return to Halley's Comet. There's a good site in Alpha Centauri and one or two more in 25 Ursae Minoris.
Those two rich sites in Iota Ursae Majoris are unfortunately placed, several jumps from Earth, out beyond AX Microscopii... but perfectly do-able.
- 3
- 1
December 18th, 2002
This is a solid step in the direction of Stealth Scouts... more compact active sensors.
Having just finished the "stronger PING strength" tech, the same scientist is now working on developing more sensitive receivers as well.
This is a solid step in the direction of Stealth Scouts... more compact active sensors.
Having just finished the "stronger PING strength" tech, the same scientist is now working on developing more sensitive receivers as well.
- 2
Our recent advance in three-stage nuclear weapons allows us to design more powerful anti-ship missiles.
In fact, if we are willing to make a few concessions we can DRAMATICALLY increase the blast effect of the weapons.
Normal (ie: non-Laser-warhead) missiles will bite a wedge-shaped chunk out of the target ship's armor. It penetrates one layer of armor for each perfect square in the warhead strength... so a strength-1, 2 or 3 missile penetrates one layer of armor, a strength 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 missile penetrates two layers of armor, a strength-9 to strength-15 missile penetrates three layers of armor, and so on.
Our current generation of anti-ship missiles (the Rapier) carry a strength-4 warhead (so they can penetrate two armor layers), travel at 38,000 kps to a maximum range of 100 million km, and have a 50% chance of hitting a 10,000 kps target (that's a FAST target). Better odds against slower targets, of course. Our current missile also has retargeting capability (so if its assigned target is destroyed before it arrives, it will instead attack another enemy ship in the same group), +32% active homing, and level 2 ECCM (to counter enemy ECM).
With the recent advance in nukes, we can't QUITE squeeze a strength-9 warhead into the Rapier... but we can get really close.
By dropping the retargeting capability (but retaining the ECCM and active homing) we can do this:
Slightly faster than our current weapon, slightly better to-hit (+3%)... and Strength-9 instead of Strength-4. It loses our retargeting capability, though.
The other choice is to KEEP the retargeting capability (and the ECCM, and the active homing) and shave off the economies elsewhere.
If we use a less powerful engine, we can greatly improve the missile's fuel economy (at the cost of slower speed, of course) so we can afford to carry less fuel... and that will allow us to retain the current generation of missiles' retargeting capability and still use the new Strength-9 warhead.
So this version would be slightly slower than our current missile (-3%), slightly worse to-hit (-1%)... but would improve the BANG from Strength-4 to Strength-9 and would still keep all of the current generation's bells and whistles (retargeting capability, ECCM and active homing).
Any preferences between the two? Research both, maybe? Practicals are cheap in research points.
In fact, if we are willing to make a few concessions we can DRAMATICALLY increase the blast effect of the weapons.
Normal (ie: non-Laser-warhead) missiles will bite a wedge-shaped chunk out of the target ship's armor. It penetrates one layer of armor for each perfect square in the warhead strength... so a strength-1, 2 or 3 missile penetrates one layer of armor, a strength 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 missile penetrates two layers of armor, a strength-9 to strength-15 missile penetrates three layers of armor, and so on.
Our current generation of anti-ship missiles (the Rapier) carry a strength-4 warhead (so they can penetrate two armor layers), travel at 38,000 kps to a maximum range of 100 million km, and have a 50% chance of hitting a 10,000 kps target (that's a FAST target). Better odds against slower targets, of course. Our current missile also has retargeting capability (so if its assigned target is destroyed before it arrives, it will instead attack another enemy ship in the same group), +32% active homing, and level 2 ECCM (to counter enemy ECM).
With the recent advance in nukes, we can't QUITE squeeze a strength-9 warhead into the Rapier... but we can get really close.
By dropping the retargeting capability (but retaining the ECCM and active homing) we can do this:
Slightly faster than our current weapon, slightly better to-hit (+3%)... and Strength-9 instead of Strength-4. It loses our retargeting capability, though.
The other choice is to KEEP the retargeting capability (and the ECCM, and the active homing) and shave off the economies elsewhere.
If we use a less powerful engine, we can greatly improve the missile's fuel economy (at the cost of slower speed, of course) so we can afford to carry less fuel... and that will allow us to retain the current generation of missiles' retargeting capability and still use the new Strength-9 warhead.
So this version would be slightly slower than our current missile (-3%), slightly worse to-hit (-1%)... but would improve the BANG from Strength-4 to Strength-9 and would still keep all of the current generation's bells and whistles (retargeting capability, ECCM and active homing).
Any preferences between the two? Research both, maybe? Practicals are cheap in research points.
- 1
Is waiting until we can improve the blast effect without giving up the retargeting a bad idea?
Otherwise I’d research both and decide later, as our situation may change (enemies discovered!), and the advantage of one particular choice may be clearer.
Otherwise I’d research both and decide later, as our situation may change (enemies discovered!), and the advantage of one particular choice may be clearer.
- 1