Three1415

*Sounds of frantic construction emanate from adjacent room* Whatever; it is good enough for a bomber.

No, but I can through some gimmicks increase the distance the shot has to phase: Hooray for detachable armor.

I just split them up; it took about thirty seconds. No idea why I did not do that before... The nose leads directly to one of the two central girders that make up the ship, so I am not exactly surprised. However, I am not really sure how to remedy that...I will mess around with it some more.

Hopefully heat shields are sufficiently effective to counter them; I think no more than one stage per ship should be allowed, however, as it is truly impossible to defend against three to four separate flamethrowers in the same location. That individually-braced-plate armor scheme is by far the most effective I have found to date; even better, it works for most sizes of ships, thus the bomber's durability. I do not mind if you use it, as the battle club is, after all, as much a place for sharing designs as pitting them against one another. Just out of curiosity, how many missiles did it take to finally kill the bomber? What failed and allowed its destruction? I want to have some idea of its true durability, as well as its weak spots, before I take it into battle. Honestly, the intakes are more for aesthetics than for anything else; while they do provide marginal protection, I simply enjoy their look, especially as I really hate the appearance of structural-panel armor on ships. EDIT: Very ninja'd! Yes--it is really only effective if you strip a ship's armor down to its core segments. Also, heat shields would prevent a lot of the resultant damage. Again, I do not really care. However, I do not want to end up fighting myself by the end of the week because no-one else has come up with anything inventive! Also, now I have to come up with a good frigate/destroyer design...Hmm...What to do, what to do...

Hmm...So, should flamethrowers be banned in combat, or at least somehow limited? Because as of now there is nothing to prevent their proliferation, and with the new heating mechanics they seem to have only become more powerful.

I figured someone had done this before (at least in orbital combat); I control recoil by placing another quartet of sepratrons in the same configuration on the opposite side, which basically eliminates it. Yes, this is basically skill-less as a weapon system, and is just a bit overpowered (mainly because one cannot defend against it...Unless: Heat shields as armor! )...Alas, the really cool things are always unfair.

I am proud to announce that I have developed noses flamethrowers: [Also, it really does look like a rhinoceros beetle now.] After I got irritated with my inability to actually saw ships in half, I made an attachment that allows me to actually saw ships in half! How to use: Also, another ship, in the same vein as the bomber: The Omega Class Fighter! Basic statistics: 12.9 tons 195 parts 4 Ion Engines with 3.5 km/s delta-v Armament: 1 x Twin Chaingun (4 bursts) 1 x Nose-mounted Flamethrower Armor: Fairly minimal, but still light-weapon resistant; a small profile is the ship's greatest defensive asset. Also, download links! Dynastinae Class Bomber Omega Class Fighter

I was trying to cut it in half again, not remake the ship! I will link it as soon as I finish some minor tweaks, but in short, modular girder segments are your friend. It fires heavy rounds with respect to its overall size, and is belt-fed--thus "chaingun." Also, it uses a single-multiple cannon. Welcome back! I, too, only recently returned from a long hiatus (naval shipbuilding burns one out quickly); hopefully we can get some good battles in.

Unfortunately (for me, at least), I have been unable to replicate the bisection of the SK-CRV (I think the Kraken was involved in that one), but I am able to consistently do major damage; miniaturization is my specialty. I will link as soon as I finish the fighter, but I can tell you now that the armor on the bomber is essentially that of my dreadnought simply scaled down; similar concepts are involved, so it should possess similar resistance to damage.

Is firing them directly at a target from 1200 meters not how they are used? I would rather think it would be... Unless you can deploy Tripedo-M's on fighters, that commits you to spending a full capital ship turn to destroy a single bomber; I will take that trade-off any day. Indeed, it does look rather insectoid in nature (the majority of my ships do, for some reason, probably because I always use multiples of six); I took its name from the subfamily encompassing rhinoceros beetles, as they are remarkably similar in appearance to the craft itself. As long as one does not bring them within render distance of each other (and I see no reason to), part count is completely irrelevant to combat performance; a similar-mass ship with a lower part count but inferior performance is simply a waste, in my opinion. The chaingun is 1.8 tons with six rounds and fits into less than 1.3 cubic meters of space; I fail to see how that is more efficient than six I-Beams (not to mention the fact that it is vastly more effective due to higher damage output and accuracy). Also, this weapon has a "true rapid fire" mode; its fire rate is limited only by how rapidly one can stage, which means that if I were to bind the decoupling to individual action groups, I could put all six rounds downrange in less than a second. Also, four rounds can saw the SK-CRVIIIg2 in half, and I can oneshot your fighters...

At long last, I now possess a functional vessel. Presenting: The Dynastinae Class Bomber! Basic Statistics: 19.8 tons 332 parts 4.6 km/s delta-v Armament: 1 x Chaingun (6 rounds) 6 x "Wheel of Misfortune" Rockets Armor: Braced bi-layered steel/intake plating, sufficient to defeat Tripedo-S rounds omnidirectionally; I have not yet been able to cause more than superficial damage from any range or angle.

My chaingun grows powerful! I did this with four rounds in ~10 seconds (I made some modifications that trade chaingun fire-rate for damage, which is more efficient). *Maniacal laughter*

Of course it is--you have to have some trade-off somewhere; I typically choose to forgo low part count, as the only performance a high part-count affects is that of one's computer. Also, I think I may have found a solution to creating a potent chain-gun after many hours of testing; I have had to overcome a vast quantity of problems that affect all cannon-like designs, especially in miniature.

That is by far the largest cloud of debris I have seen in awhile... Anyway, still weapons testing (I prefer to have all of my weapons developed before I start ship construction) as of right now, though I will probably finish the fighter by the end of tonight. Another thing I have discovered is that there is a minimum mass required to do damage to a part--about 0.1 tons, it seems. For example, firing a 1x1 structural panel at a fuel tank at any speed does not seem to damage it in any way, which places a lower limit on miniaturization.

It is full stock and fires durable (40 m/s impact tolerance) projectiles at 80 m/s with an effective fire rate of 100 rounds/minute; this obliterates wing armor, fuel tanks, engines, and any other exposed vulnerable components, though it cannot pierce plate armor. Well, I suppose it is more of a bomber than anything else, but whatever.

Well, you probably need 1.0.2... Also, it annoys me that massless parts cannot be used as warheads; it inhibits the production of smaller weapons...

In interesting news, I have developed chainguns! They are quite fun to use, and, though their damage output is minimal right now, I believe I can improve it further. Also, by preliminary estimates, my fighter shall be 16-17 tons, primarily ion-powered, and armed with the following: 1 x Hyper I-Beam; 4 x Burst Rocket; 6 x Wheel Rocket; and 1 x Twin Chaingun Fear it! In related news: Help! I'm addicted to weapons testing! Must...stop...blowing things up!

Advances in miniaturization: Complete. I did this with a single 0.28-ton, 5-part missile fired from ~150 meters...My fighter carries six.

I classify a destroyer as a lightly-armored but heavily-armed vessel of approximately 75-100 tons.

I would be willing to accept a one-ship disadvantage (especially as it would only be a fighter), but of course true negotiations must wait until the ships are complete... I mean that I have constructed a weapon system that A: Allows the storage of a large quantity of (short) I-Beam rockets; and B: Allows them to be extremely effective against capital ships, to the point of causing severe damage to even Dreks with single volleys. They are as of yet inconsistent, but I believe I can decrease their variance from volley to volley with further testing. This weapon system will be mounted and field-tested on my cruiser; it is classified until then. I agree in this respect; the only time I ever use 650s as armor is on small fighters, where they are more economical mass- and volume-wise than plating; capital ship armor does not at all benefit from their use, thus my concern over ScriptKitt3h's new ship's durability (I suspect that the 650 column is too flexible to avoid being clipped through the outer armor when taking fire; this would result in the destruction of interior components with great rapidity).

Excellent. My preliminary estimates suggest that I shall end up with a 90-ton cruiser and a 15-ton fighter, so we seem fairly even. Alas, I still have to actually construct these ships, but whatever...Also, I believe I have found a way to make I-Beam missiles extremely effective versus even heavily armored targets without increasing their inefficiency, although this hypothesis warrants further testing once I have more time. EDIT: Much ninja'ing! Welcome! Those tanks look pretty good; I enjoy the sepratron flamethrower port. The high-symmetry 650s look awesome, though I am not really sure how effective they will be as armor...But still, this makes me want to participate in battles even more. Curse you, real life! [The only reason I am posting here is to procrastinate as much as possible on assignments. ]

I appreciate the offer, but the vast amount of time I poured into the construction of my now-mothballed dreadnought has left me bereft of functional warships, and now real life is conspiring against my capacity to construct new craft, so it will likely be some time before I can battle. When I do, however, it will likely be with a cruiser and several fighters--probably ~120 tons and 3-4 ships; hopefully these terms are acceptable.

Granted, the "dreks of the time" were fighters, but whatever. Interesting how ships usually seem to split in half along an approximate midpoint; this is a common pattern among all vessels, regardless of munitions' impact points...I suppose it is likely due to the loss of the vessel's root part, which is presumably centered. I do wish connections between parts functioned more like they do in other games, such as Robocraft, where cubes can be attached on multiple faces to reduce the loss of components. Also, I just realized I have never actually participated in a full battle--either my opponent vanishes, the battle never commences, or updates cripple my fleet. And the latter has been occurring since November last year! How depressing...

650 I-Beams are your friends...Also, exposed fuel tanks are bad.

It is nice to see battles being set up again... I have decided to mothball my dreadnought indefinitely, or at least until the liquid fuel-only tanks are improved; I am now constructing an 85-100-ton cruiser to act as a core fleet vessel. Real life, however, is interfering with my construction efforts, so it will likely be a few days until it is ready.