Oh. Actually 7500 tons hitting at 16000kp/s is only about 6.8 megatons, right? I guess if our ships are armoured against large nukes it's not that bad.
-
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.
Showing developer posts only. Show all posts in this thread.
Oh. Actually 7500 tons hitting at 16000kp/s is only about 6.8 megatons, right? I guess if our ships are armoured against large nukes it's not that bad.
Well, there's also the fact that this was a single, unarmed ship instead of a Prix fleet that was firing back 
I'm glad the fighters got some action though.
I'm glad the fighters got some action though.
I like the fast fighters too. We need that to chase down Prix, and a faster fighter can head out, strike, and be recovered in less time.
Another reason laster will be ranged limited is that in 5 seconds a Prix ship would be 50,000KM away from where you fired at, you'd need to prdict where it'd be, and I assume they can jink around a bit while flying.
With larger "Fleet" carriers, perhaps we could carry a few PD/Anti-fighter fighters per CV?
With larger "Fleet" carriers, perhaps we could carry a few PD/Anti-fighter fighters per CV?
Of course, the British approach was much better adapted to operations in the ETO (never too far from land and land-based air), while the other approach was better for slugging matches out in the middle of the Pacific.
And the Pacific is a puddle compared to the scale of the environment these carriers have to work in.
The "hangar in an eggshell" philosophy of carrier design shouldn't pose too many problems. Especially as the remainder of the fleet should be putting out enough emissions to make the enemy fire at them instead of the carrier.
(the idea of "hot berthing" the fighters if you lose a carrier in battle, OTOH, will probably be a major pain in the neck when you have to cross warp points
The american/WW2 concept relied on making sure the enemy could not launch a strike at your carriers.
That is to shoot down (or sink, depending) the scouts OR the aircraft launched in a strike.
However, with massive range for BOTH detection AND shooting (missiles), you certainly can't rely on part #1, and part #2 only if you have some serious PD in your fleet.
Externalising PD is evidently possible, so is storage (of weapons, fuel, etc), but the launching platform is still extremely vulnerable. Even if extracting the fighters by rotation on another CV is possible, you lose a lot of strike capacity, and presumably investment in the carrier itself.
I would argue in favour of at least a decent passive defense (shields, armor)
That's pretty much what Venus has.
I like the current CV design anyway, even though I am but a PD captain
I was more arguing against suggested paper tiger carrier designs that others seemed to be advocating, and what seems implied in your US vs UK carrier doctrine discussion.
I'm amused when my ships go to survey such planets and don't have any scratch after that. I'm even more amazed when you can actually put plenty of stuff there, mine them, and nothing ever seems to burn. I mean, shouldn't most of these minerals actually be in a liquid form?
Melting points are affected by extreme pressures..
take a look at this for an example;
(unfortunately, it insists on being shrunk
)Now, granted, for water, at 200atm, you don't see much of a difference yet, but for other materials you might (unfortunately, phase diagrams aren't that easy to come by)
Not to mention that, e.g. Tungsten has a melting point at atmospheric pressure of 3422 degree Celsius.
Last edited:
When the new CVs roll off the lines, the CVLs will open up for commands.
I need to at least shoot down some missiles first. Plus I love my shipname
100% for building a completely new ship
the remaining 9%, and the minerals you'd get for the old ship, spent on retraining the crew on the new ship.
How much WOULD scrapping the ship earn you as a %?
Ewoks
Emu: What's your plan for resources? Just keep piling automated mines onto Moria? Do any of the colonies have enough useful minerals and population to run more regular mines once you have freighters free to ship them there? At what point will you start expanding the shipyards?
Also, what are my stats?
Edit: Also, also: How long does it take to build a full load of Streaks for the CVs? With the carriers being quick to build perhaps we can have them and upgraded escort ships ready for a new de-Prixing while the Battles upgrade.
Is there anywhere else in the Solar system worth colonising? It's a shame to be sitting on all that infra on mars, and an in-system hop to transfer it should be fairly short...Same for the terraforming stuff.
In connection to this and an earlier suggestion (apologies for not having a proper reference.. But with catching up ca.20 pages, I'm not going back) - limiting the number of designs would be a good idea for reasons of refitting, shipyard retooling, needing more ships quickly. Assuming retooling time (etc.) scales with ship / yard size, the larger the ship, the more general-purpose it should be; also makes sense in that there's more room for "duplicate" systems (that is to say FC, scanners for different weapons systems)
Ie. A battlefleet based on;
Missile Destroyers (Storm type) and "Torpedo boat" Destroyers (what you call DE's) both at 8000tons (or a similar value, not looking back through the thread)
Ideally - design them with the exact same auxilliary systems (number of engines, fuel and ammunition storage etc.) if that doesn't affect speed &c. extremely (with the slower at least at main fleet speed)
Jump capability unnecessary.
Carriers - clearly your long range weapon; personally in favour of the armoured flight deck doctrine, although the most recent engagement suggests you might well get away without that. Keep them at a constant size until there's a significant overcapacity on the slips (say, double the displacement the current carrier generation has)
Jump capability unnecessary (see below)
Cruisers - the most multipurpose of all.
* Getting the fleet (carriers and destroyers) to location.
* provide credible firepower while fighter strikes are unavailable.
* 'long' range missile defense [although with sufficient MDs, possibly can be phased out]
Size consideration as the carriers.
> Possibility of "lone ranger" version Cruiser that can fight skirmishes on it's own should be considered; the Battlecruiser philosophy of the interbellum and WW2 - faster than ships it can't outfight, better armed and armoured than the rest; might not even need to be a separate design. But you need to have something beyond "the fleet" to maintain presence and respond to crises.
Re: Rocks and other auxilliary vessels
The Blink vessels proved rather effective in painting the targets; a third "Destroyer" type? I'd personally rather rely on redundant "cheap" destroyers to paint the enemy than on larger vessels that are then less numerous.
The Rocks did what they were intended for - soak missiles - but was it necessary? How close did the Juans get to the *fleet* (and not the Rocks, that I assume were again picketing), how close would they/it have gotten if there were no Rocks around? What sort of damage would you likely have sustained on the "worst case" vessels (least armor, CIWS, lowest speed) if it had engaged the main fleet?
I do realise that their being civilian (or did that change?) makes it rather less important that they not compete for specialised shipyard space, but still...
Shipyard philosophy;
If you keep the displacements constant within a class; shipyards function as dedicated destroyer / capital shipyards. When/if increasing capacity, the capital shipyards will eventually reach "supercapital" size, but with the destroyer shipyards following expansion, they can then take over the role of capital shipyards.
Meanwhile, new yards will start at the bottom of the ladder as destroyer yards.
-----
I realise this is largely the philosophy you're following anyway, but just would like to add my two cents and reinforce the theoretical front
Sorry, using destroyer as the size classification here.
How big are your blinks then, anyway?
Well, you know the salvos they fired, you should have some idea of how the CIWS systems and armour plating of your fleet ships compare to the Rocks..
And that still doesn't answer the question on whether the Prix could/would have reached the fleet (and that you should be able to estimate from the (estimated) dispositions at the time it must've fired at the Rocks)
Having the enemy fire at your battle fleet doesn't typically translate as losing a battle. Although it IS generally a prerequisite, true.
Team them up with a battlecruiser for "presence" purposes, possibly after a bit of a redesign?
Pen and paper exercises? How do you think real life navies decide if a ship class should be scrapped?
All I'm saying is that I would favour scrapping the Rocks *if and when* possible - they complicate doctrine and tactics
IMO you really shouldn't need an officer per fighter. You should perhaps have an officer per squadron then have a "squadron experiance" level like ships have. In case Steve is still around
Ooh, do you have anywhere targetted for that? Assuming you do, will you build some Habitats at the same time so they're ready by the time the tugs are done?