Spartwo

Naval Battle League 2016-2018

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, MiffedStarfish said:

Looks great! I ripped the shape straight from Mass Effect anyway, so getting annoyed would be hypocritical. :) Extending the middle pod to carry more weapons looks interesting, I might do something like that if I make a 6 engine ship in the line.

I actually extended that pod purely to save on part count and not because i had to stick 2 SRM-4s in there (originally was gonna be a single SRM-4 in nose), but using the smaller structural panels over that big a distance ate too many parts for me to justify it even if it looks better then the wide style (same reason i used those wings on the sides, just 1 part per side is better then all those super tiny DLC panels (looks better with DLC panels, but i cant deal with that part count on my designs so it has to be a wing on the side).

32Yq31l.png

In other news, im making good progress on my Nebula-II class corvette (its a bit longer then the original so i might designate it as a frigate because it really is with its weapons payload).  The 1st complete overhaul of my old ships to make them look less terrible (nothing wrong with old models, but excessive symmetry looks bad, i dont mind symmetry in 1 axis, but 2 axis symmetry (same up/down and left/right) really doesnt look good imo, so i managed to shift some stuff around to make the new SK-IV actually visually appealing while still keeping some of the old styling and ofc i love the nose of this thing, rectangles are overrated anyway.

qktKt5S.png

Also doing a bit of standardizing weapon payloads, such as removing excess kdrones (you really dont need more then 2 on anything but a dedicated flakboat or anti-fighter ship), cutting down on excessive hardpoint amounts (a SRM-4 is more vulnurable to being shot off but it saves alot of parts over 4 SRM-1s), and redoing my guided torpedoes (the G5b is decent, but i think im going to move all my ships towards using G7cs, heavier and more parts but also deadlier then even 2 G5bs).  It wont make the ships much better/worse, but itll hopefully cut down on the excessive amount of overengineering i have a tendency to do with all my combat vessel designs while still keeping them competitive and not much below their older counterparts.

 

Well, i think ive finished my new Nebula-II class corvette, and its the prettiest thing ive created in years.  Gone are the days of 100% efficiency, looks come 1st, then part count, then range and armor, and if i can afford it guns.  Sofar its armor is proving to be on par with the old Nebula class, a bit weaker (ive managed to 1 shot it a few times with the G7c, but its relatively uncommon sight) but im happy with its survivability given that its become smaller and more compact, as well as loosing some redundancy, only 8 hardpoints on this model vs the 11 on the previous, and only 1 bridge as the backup bridge as i couldnt get 2 to look good.

Rl1UGcY.png

ZrsQH29.png

I really really love the look of that primary gun barrel surrounded by the 2 G7cs, really scary to be looking directly at that thing given its rather impressive payload.  Currently armed with 2 G7c torpedoes (one of my better models developed for AKS, not perfect and rather large, but packs a incredible punch for its weight and simplicity), 4 SRM-4 launchers for taking down anything that gets within 200m (and while they suck individually, fired in numbers will cut most ships in half), and 2 kinetic drones for some anti-fighter and precision targeting.

IbvhylR.png

Tested it against my relatively recent Javelin class i made for a rival faction called BC, and well it ended faster then i expected it to given that the ship can actually get alot of damage out with its HT-1210 torps (one of the stronger missiles available to BC).  Obviously i had the weaker ship fire 1st, and all it did was vaporize the Nebula-II's center engine and i think knock out the RCS fuel, both of which it can go without.

2eYhTEY.png

The G7c fired in retaliation was alot more successful in that it destroyed the remaining missile stack on the Javelin and blew off most of the front armor.

eowpnL7.png

And as expected, the secondarys of the Javelin were completely worthless, just took down a few of the cosmetic wing panels on the top and despite a confirmed direct hit on it, didnt hurt the bridge.

JBWaCKc.png

After 1 salvos of SRM-4s, it sorta got cut in half, most likely because of the damage the G7c did to it before.

PbbdWgW.png

Defenetely a keeper, even if i might make a few adjustments down the line to get its weapons layout optimized as id rather have just 2 SRM-4s and add another 1.2m hardpoint in the center for either another G7c, or a simple and low part count stack of RT-5s which seems to work very well against anything that doesnt immediately die to SRMs.  maybee a different ship though, since i cant think of how to do that without ruining the nose which is the main reason it looks so epic.

U5OgyPw.png

So thanks alot @MiffedStarfish, your ship inspired me to do something i havent been able to in years, create an warship that both looks amazing and still works perfectly in the combat role.

Edited by panzer1b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of space combat, but my potato laptop doesn't. I downloaded some of the sample ships that you guys posted and had them shoot at each other. I was literally counting seconds per frame with some of the bigger explosions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/30/2018 at 2:28 PM, sturmhauke said:

I like the idea of space combat, but my potato laptop doesn't. I downloaded some of the sample ships that you guys posted and had them shoot at each other. I was literally counting seconds per frame with some of the bigger explosions.

Well the thing comes down to 2 issues:

1: Its is extremely difficult if not impossible to make a hull (with no weapons) below ~150 parts for a frigate sized ship and not have the result be 1 shotted by anything the enemy throws at it.  Then you add weapons atop it which is a bare minimum of ~4 parts PER SHOT, and if you want to have something that is good for more then a single attack then you are going to be using both more complex weapons (most powerful guided 1.2m weapons are ~15-20 parts), and is going to have multiple rounds so that there is a good chance it can take down 2-3 targets before running out of ammo.  Another thing coming back to armoring is that more weapons = more redundancy and less chance of a enemy 1 shot neutering the craft.

2: Many of us design ships around asthetics, and that multiplies the already above average part count by a factor of 1.5-3 depending on how much in depth we are willing to go.  A great recent example of this is miffedstarfish's mass effect ships he showed a few weeks back.  Those use the new DLC panels which allowed him to create some of the most beautiful and sleek hulls ive ever seen, but at the cost of breaking 300 parts since quite a bit of the hull was made of teh smallest panel available, there were many of the smallest wing part to fill gaps, and other cases where asthetic requirements drove the part count upwards from what a comparable but 100% combat effective ship would be.

 

So yeah, if you want to have a real battle, be prepared for at a bare minimum ~200 parts per vessel, more likely 300+.  Only starfighters are a bit easier on the CPU, since those rarely exceed 100 parts (unless its a TriFighter or some overengineered monstrosity with 12 ibeam weapons onboard).

 

 

 

 

In other news: i FINALLY fixed my computer, so i can actually get back into KSP after a week's long hiatus (stupid GPU's thermal paste dried out and it was cooking itself).  Maybee if i can get 1 more ship im happy with designed i can actually do that jool battle ive been planning for quite some time now..

Edited by panzer1b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@panzer1bI took some lessons from your ships and started building ships that are under 400 parts and it really helps in battles. So far I've had battles with five ships at one time and although it gets slower frame it no longer gets choppy. I also turned my graphics down too which also helps. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone else been playing with high-precision RACs recently? I know there were some discussions a while back, but it's been months, if not years, since then.

Also: Any pointers regarding impact velocity? I've had mixed results at practically every value I've tried.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/20/2018 at 10:26 PM, 0111narwhalz said:

Has anyone else been playing with high-precision RACs recently? I know there were some discussions a while back, but it's been months, if not years, since then.

Also: Any pointers regarding impact velocity? I've had mixed results at practically every value I've tried.

Not sure what RACs are is it a mod?  As far as impact velocity what I've discovered from my own tests is there is a limit to how fast an object can hit a target without clipping through harmlessly. From what I can tell it seems 400/500ms is the fastest a projectile can hit a target without clipping, but I don't know if there is any differences in versions, I run 1.2.2. And I also found it depends on the angle it hits. If your interested in a glitch weapon try mounting landing legs on the sides of an ibeam and attach a cubic strut to the end. Make sure the landing legs feet clip into the cubic strut then add sepratrons. When fired at a ship a couple of things happen. Either blow a giant hole in the side of the ship or the legs will clip into the ship and bounce around a bit before they go "critical" and destroy the internals. But I don't know if this is version thing. Hope this helps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Jeb federation said:

Not sure what RACs are is it a mod?

RAC=rocket accelerator cannon. It's a play on Halo's (I think) MAC or magnetic accelerator cannon. Basically, you use rocket exhaust to propel an I-beam.

I've built a couple of them with modded robotics parts, and I'm developing one in stock. I've gotten pretty good results so far, but I'm wondering if anyone else has done any development on the subject recently.

20 hours ago, Jeb federation said:

As far as impact velocity what I've discovered from my own tests is there is a limit to how fast an object can hit a target without clipping through harmlessly. From what I can tell it seems 400/500ms is the fastest a projectile can hit a target without clipping

My issue is less one of overpenetration and more one of the complete failure of a projectile to do any damage to what it hits. Pretty much anything but volleys of mid-phasing (around 200m/s) fails to damage anything, and even that seems to only flay the farside armor off without touching the internals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, 0111narwhalz said:

RAC=rocket accelerator cannon. It's a play on Halo's (I think) MAC or magnetic accelerator cannon. Basically, you use rocket exhaust to propel an I-beam.

I've built a couple of them with modded robotics parts, and I'm developing one in stock. I've gotten pretty good results so far, but I'm wondering if anyone else has done any development on the subject recently.

My issue is less one of overpenetration and more one of the complete failure of a projectile to do any damage to what it hits. Pretty much anything but volleys of mid-phasing (around 200m/s) fails to damage anything, and even that seems to only flay the farside armor off without touching the internals.

Ive found that for SRMs (ibeam+sepatrons) and impulse cannons (ibeam+modded decoupler) you want between 150 and 250m/s impact, any less and its very likely to bounce or get wedged in the hull doing squat, any more and it has a very high chance of either phasing completely through a thinner target or as you say, knocking off the armor behind the ship and not doing much to internals or critical aspects of ship.  Still, to get any sort of effect out of SRMs you need multiple shots, as the new physics engine (post 1.1) makes impacts alot less consistent then the old single core model and there is always a chance the round will just shatter into nothing when it hits the target going at optimal velocity (i see this ALOT with 1.2m torps, perfectly lined up shot at 200m/s just phases into the target and disintegrated doing negligible damage to target (maybee knocks out a single fuel tank, weapon or something the ship can live without).

As for very thick targets, you pretty much need to increase velocity to 300-500m/s if the round is heavy enough to not instantly go poof when it hits the armor (single ibeam is usually too light to engage very thick ships effectively) and the ship is actually thick enough so the round doesnt just phase completely through it 90% of teh time.  1.2m torps (or even some of the more complex 0.6m weapons) really need to be going above 200m/s when hitting anything frigate or larger, they just wont do enough damage to justify their weight and part count unless they hit decently fast.

 

Other then that, it all comes down to target shape, warhead design (every single missile is different), and a bit of luck with regards to optimal velocity.  You cant really generalize this all that much, but a general rule to follow at least for starting is ~200m/s for low mass multi-shot weapons like ibeams, and ~300-500 for 1.2m capital ship weapons, with heavier warheads usually going closer to the 500m/s while lighter budget warheads going 300 or maybee even 250m/s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, panzer1b said:

Ive found that for SRMs (ibeam+sepatrons) and impulse cannons (ibeam+modded decoupler) you want between 150 and 250m/s impact, any less and its very likely to bounce or get wedged in the hull doing squat, any more and it has a very high chance of either phasing completely through a thinner target or as you say, knocking off the armor behind the ship and not doing much to internals or critical aspects of ship.  Still, to get any sort of effect out of SRMs you need multiple shots, as the new physics engine (post 1.1) makes impacts alot less consistent then the old single core model and there is always a chance the round will just shatter into nothing when it hits the target going at optimal velocity (i see this ALOT with 1.2m torps, perfectly lined up shot at 200m/s just phases into the target and disintegrated doing negligible damage to target (maybee knocks out a single fuel tank, weapon or something the ship can live without).

As for very thick targets, you pretty much need to increase velocity to 300-500m/s if the round is heavy enough to not instantly go poof when it hits the armor (single ibeam is usually too light to engage very thick ships effectively) and the ship is actually thick enough so the round doesnt just phase completely through it 90% of teh time.  1.2m torps (or even some of the more complex 0.6m weapons) really need to be going above 200m/s when hitting anything frigate or larger, they just wont do enough damage to justify their weight and part count unless they hit decently fast.

 

Other then that, it all comes down to target shape, warhead design (every single missile is different), and a bit of luck with regards to optimal velocity.  You cant really generalize this all that much, but a general rule to follow at least for starting is ~200m/s for low mass multi-shot weapons like ibeams, and ~300-500 for 1.2m capital ship weapons, with heavier warheads usually going closer to the 500m/s while lighter budget warheads going 300 or maybee even 250m/s.

Thanks for this information! I'll take it into account during my design.

If I'm interpreting this correctly, a single long I-beam is considered a "light" weapon and should have an impact velocity of 150–250m/s, and if you want to hit harder you simply require larger rounds. You can (and generally should) also increase the impact velocity of those heavier penetrators. Does that sound about right?

Additionally: Do multiple I-beams attached to one another qualify as a heavier weapon (for the purposes of this advice), or do you need heavier single parts or plate-stacks? Have you any experience with Sepratron-plate torps, launched either edge-on or face-on? I've had limited success getting plates to feed evenly (they're simply too thin), but if they're viable warheads I might pursue development further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, 0111narwhalz said:

Thanks for this information! I'll take it into account during my design.

If I'm interpreting this correctly, a single long I-beam is considered a "light" weapon and should have an impact velocity of 150–250m/s, and if you want to hit harder you simply require larger rounds. You can (and generally should) also increase the impact velocity of those heavier penetrators. Does that sound about right?

Additionally: Do multiple I-beams attached to one another qualify as a heavier weapon (for the purposes of this advice), or do you need heavier single parts or plate-stacks? Have you any experience with Sepratron-plate torps, launched either edge-on or face-on? I've had limited success getting plates to feed evenly (they're simply too thin), but if they're viable warheads I might pursue development further.

Never had any luck whatsoever with plates as weapons with the possible exception of adding 1-2 of them on the front of a SRB purely to increase mass and impact tolerance at the tip.  They make some sense in a MAC as you can stack crazy amounts of them in a very small space, but then MACs with the exception of some super buggy landing leg designs (which have the issue of obliterating their own vessel half the time they fire and have velocity in excess of 8km/s which make it almost 100% chance of phasing through the thickest ships) suck and are very unreliable not to mention a huge weakspot and easy to knock out with any weapons including pocket ibeams. 

As for speed, it depend on projectile mass, as speed increases, ive found that the odds of shattering (when a projectile impacts and seemingly goes poof vanishing into mid air) increases exponentially, but this also decreases as the missile gets heavier and more complex.  Higher velocity is ALWAYS deadlier, but there is a point where increasing velocity makes phasing and shattering become so likely its just not worth the increased lethality when more of your rounds wont do anything to the target at all.  If your weapon is heavier and or complex/physically large, you can afford to increase velocity because that weapon is way less likely to go poof when hitting a target and you may as well give it as much energy as possible if it can withstand the impact and deal damage fairly reliably.  Another somewhat unrelated but worth knowing aspect is that the higher amount of clipped parts (more compact missile designs), the more likely shattering can occur.  Not saying you cannot compact weapons, but if your ship can afford to have a physically longer/larger missile, it will provide you with more consistency and thats like always good.

But in the end, you need to do actual testing on modernized vessels to make a good missile.  Armoring has changed so much from the old days that im honestly starting to ditch most of my "conventional" skeletons and replace them with hybrid armor designs that combine mk2 cargo bays with some paneling to create something that can both take hits from every type of weapon out there and not eat part count or weigh so much that it can only play defensively and be unable to make all but the most basic low dV moves.  Probably my best example as of this moment is the Nebula-II class i made not that long ago.  It has almost 3000dV, carries 2 redesigned G7 torps (which are very lethal despite not weighing that much (3t per round), and is armed with 4 SRM-4s (which alone are more then capable of splitting almost every conventional warship if you spam them at the target COM).  Has its flaws and isnt quite 100% efficient as i just had to make it look pretty, but its byfar my strongest and most vesatile warship if you consider its hull is under 150 parts and it weighs 60t which is fairly light for what ive seen on here and other threads where people made space vessels for combat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, panzer1b said:

MACs with the exception of some super buggy landing leg designs (which have the issue of obliterating their own vessel half the time they fire and have velocity in excess of 8km/s which make it almost 100% chance of phasing through the thickest ships) suck and are very unreliable not to mention a huge weakspot and easy to knock out with any weapons including pocket ibeams.  

I haven't tried anything involving landing legs since my ill-advised Kerbal Foundries-powered "popguns" a couple versions back. My RACs are rocket-propelled through and through, with (on the robotic ones) tunable muzzle velocities up to a couple hundred m/s. As to precision… well, I'll let this speak for itself:
0LJnpIg.png

That's out of one of my stock prototypes. I'm currently trying to get a microgravity-rated bolt system worked out. It's also made almost entirely out of structural parts (I-beams and the like), so it should be fairly sturdy and reasonably compact, though the partcount leaves something to be desired.
The test article itself:
fnL8Qnb.png

My current prototype is something like this:
JAY4NJK.png

There are some issues yet to resolve (e.g. drive clipping, slug alignment quality in the chamber), but the seven-round magazine will be fully reloadable by docking ports, and the feed system is quite reliable. Once I get the bolt situation figured out, I'll probably tighten up a bit more of the receiver and possibly develop a couple accessories, like barrel-boosters and suchlike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IDK if they're all that practical here but I know the is such a thing as reloadable do docking-port-landing-gear cannons. Someone made a working "Orion drive" with them once, since the projectiles reach 10s of km/s or higher. The thing would fire a little 0.625m monoprop tank so hard a several hundred tonne spacecraft would gain 90 m/s from each shot.

 

I wonder what happens if they are fired at ships? Even "LOW" velocity projectiles are still usually at 1000+ m/s, although ones that are slow enough to reliably not clip through the target are definitely doable.

Edited by Pds314

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly have never experimented with weaponry outside BDA

I mean, other than one huge, slow, bulky thermal burner missile I made once. The theory was that it would use heat damage to melt through structural plates, leaving the weak innards vulnerable to I-beam missiles of some sort. Turns out SRBs don't apply heat damage to structural plates...

Also, does testing weapons on Kerbin with 0.1g affect results at all?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried an rac a while back and didn’t get too good of results. Half the time it didn’t even launch. I mean, I was using a pretty bad system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/2/2018 at 4:51 AM, HeroBrian_333 said:

I honestly have never experimented with weaponry outside BDA

I mean, other than one huge, slow, bulky thermal burner missile I made once. The theory was that it would use heat damage to melt through structural plates, leaving the weak innards vulnerable to I-beam missiles of some sort. Turns out SRBs don't apply heat damage to structural plates...

Also, does testing weapons on Kerbin with 0.1g affect results at all?

 

0.1g is still gravity and will ruin the accuracy of weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the drawing board in terms of starship design...

UKNK5B9.png

oIXUDWj.png

Just made a new heavy torp, the G9a and it wrecks my best ship around 50% of the time :(

df2NdMY.png

Although i may have my share of complaints about the quality of the new revamps, i really do like the option to make stuff not white anymore :), finally a warhead that i actually like in the asthetics department (and it even fits with AKS styling cause of the 3 way symmetry and all).

Now if only i could actually make a warship (that isnt above 400 parts) that can eat these bloody missiles and not instantly go poof

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Space Warfare Tournament 2019

 

Greetings Kerbonauts! I am here to introduce the Space Warfare Tournament 2019! A competitive ranked battle where players duke it out in space with stock fleets of their own design! Many of you have undoubtedly come across series such as the Spirit of Kerbin and Kethane Station; this tournament is design to recapture those epic space battles they featured, while giving a competitive edge. The tournament will start next month, just in time for the anniversary of the Battle of Midway (June 4th)!

 

Pre-Game

Each player will be given a tonnage allowance of 800k tons, that they can build their fleet within. A player will then need to send a listing, compiling the names, weights, and files of each of their ships. This fleet cannot be changed during the tournament at any point (unless stated by a moderator). Once the submission process is complete, the players will be paired up with one another, and then matches will commence. Three battles will make up each match, the winner of the majority of battles will win the match and be paired again. Once all players have played, the top two will have an extended 5 battle match. The winner of the Final will then receive the prize and the title of “Space Warfare Tournament 2019 Champion”.

 

Prize

The prize will be any combination of any software on Steam for $60 USD. This will not include sales tax. As long as the total list of items the champion wants is equal to $60 USD total value, they will be rewarded that prize.

 

Turn Phases & Rules

Below will be the current ruleset. The tournament is to be 100% stock (KSP DLC will not be allowed, this is to ensure perfect compatibility) and will be run on 1.7.0. The Spheres of Influence (SOI) players will battle in are chosen by moderators before each battle.

 

  1. The team with the last functional ship wins

  2. Each player takes turns to engage one target with one ship.

  3. Ships engage in order of tonnage, lightest to heaviest. The cycle repeats once all ships have moved.

  4. If a ship fails to sustain power, move, or fire weapons, it is considered “lost”

  5. Weapons can only be fired from the original ship.

  6. A common persist file must be updated and a list of screenshots or statements must be provided at the end of each turn describing each players actions.

  7. Players are not allowed to take control enemy craft when they are active.

  8. Players are not allowed to edit configs or save files unless corroborated by a moderator.

  9. Cheats are not allowed.

  10. All ships can be moved, but only one may attack per turn.

  11. Ramming(the act of hitting another ship with your own) is disallowed

  12. Weapons must be fired within a 2.5km distance of an enemy ship.

  13. Autopilot (KOS, Mechjeb, etc.) is disallowed

  14. If a player loses half their fleet, they may forfeit. If a moderator deems the forfeit premature, they will be told to continue the battle.

  15. Carrier rulings:

    1. The total mass of carriers must include the fighters and other items they are carrying

    2. Ships onboard carriers can not fire weapons.

    3. Carriers cannot have weapons larger than 1.5m diameter

    4. Fighters must return to the carrier after 2 turns.

 

Ship Design rules and exploits:

  1. Ships cannot exceed 600 parts

    1. Carriers and fighters are considered separate entities while building

  2. Fairing ships (warships made entirely out of fairings) are not allowed

  3. Kraken Drives are not allowed

  4. Extensive Clipping is not allowed (this is up to the discretion of the moderation)

  5. (If any exploits are found during the tournament, they will be added to this list)

 

    Good luck! If you have any questions, feel free to direct message me here or on Reddit. There will also be a discord server setup for the tournament which will be added to the Resources section. If you would like to volunteer to do moderation, that would be greatly appreciated, just leave a comment or direct message me. Below will be a list of resources about ship building and the current list of moderators:

 

Moderators;

  • THIRTY9CLUES

 

Resources:

Edited by THIRTY9CLUES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

let's a go. Really confused as to why there's a prize though.

Edited by Spartwo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/12/2019 at 1:09 PM, THIRTY9CLUES said:

1,600,000 tons

Im assuming this is a typo...  Thats a grand total of 25806 nebula-II class frigates :D...  In pretty sure noone even has enough ammo to fight that many of them, and with the armor layout you can forget about 1 shotting them with any reliability (unless we are talking about larger then 1.25m weapons).  Vast majority of vessels people make would be up to ~200t, i dont think ive even seen anything above that, and with 200t ships you are still looking at 8000 ships per team (which is beyond unreasonable). 

Not trying to force you to change rules or anything, but id suggest something a bit closer to reality which would be maybee up to 500t, and probably a 10 ship limit (so you dont see anyone deploy 100s of tiny starfighters which would win purely by making enemy run out of ammo).  Based on past experience, 5-15t is a fighter, 30-40 is a support ship (corvette/very weak frigate), 50-100 is where most true warships fit into (at least all of mine do), and occasionally you get a dreadnought or some monstrosity that gets upwards of 150-200t, but even then its very rare to see such weights.

7lp8boh.png

This is pretty much my mainstream vessel which is by a longshot the most efficient and practical thing ive ever made in KSP in regards to warships.  It weighs 62t with full armarment (can get it to 70 with a double load of G9 torpedoes). 

tfeWdXH.png

Armed with 4 SRM-4s, 2 kinetic drones, and 2 G9 medium torpedoes (1.25m), which is not overkill but provides good variety to engage any target and enough punch to kill almost anything that isnt a dreadnought.

UKFjNxB.png

Has 3 nukes for its engines providing very good range (over 2500 with weapons), and the compartmentalized design makes it very very hard to knock them all out with a single shot (yeah its really not hard to deengine it with multiple hits to rear, but that seems to be an issue for 95% of ships ive seen in KSP so its not like i can do anything unless i want to be cheaty and put stupid amounts of vernors inside it or something to be a backup engine).  The fuel system is a tad clippy (i have 3 fuel tanks per engine), but like all my ships, i maintain it to a reasonable amount (those fuel tanks could fit in the mk2 bay easily, just like the mk2 fuel tanks take up way too much volume for their fuel capacities).

511oXwl.png

Still, wish i could participate, but i just have almost 0 freetime these days (55hr work weeks suck arss even if i get payed through the roof).  So yeah, unless you guys are willing to be super ultra patient with me (in which case ill join as i havent done a battle on here is forever and itd be cool to relive the glory days of KSP), no go since id only have time on weekends to do anything realistically (and would still need a bit of time to finish my aurora-II destroyer which is coming along well and turning out to be a damn beautiful ship, just needs a bit more work to finalize it and arm the sucker, afterall, i cant battle with just 3 good ships, 1 of which is a starfighter and weighs nothing).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah that seems a tad absurd. I could put so many of my indestructible 50 ton snake looking things and just sit there and wait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/16/2019 at 5:03 PM, Spartwo said:

Really confused as to why there's a prize though.

Thought it would bring more eyes to the tournament and bring in people who would otherwise ignore it.

 

 

11 hours ago, panzer1b said:

Im assuming this is a typo

It wasn't a typo, simply an overestimation. It was based on having two of Script's Jormungand class carrier. In hindsight, considering the part limit, I think 800k is far more reasonable. I am not going to limit the number of deployable craft, just to see how people form their fleets. If one team runs out of ammunition, it will be considered a draw. From their, moderation will look over the reasoning and take action from their.
 

 

11 hours ago, panzer1b said:

So yeah, unless you guys are willing to be super ultra patient with me (in which case ill join as i havent done a battle on here is forever and itd be cool to relive the glory days of KSP)

This tournament is going to be rather slow, depending on how many people join. Most fights will occur over the weekend, so it should be fine!
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well since i had nothing better to do (after my legs almost fell off doing like 100km on a bicycle saturday) i managed to finish my aurora-II class.

5GMwqRN.png

0ctd8ub.png

Fairly solid ship, and what i like most of all is that 90% of its firepower is mounted internally which makes it look sleeker from outside (and even the nose SRM-4s look alright imo).

icgFQr7.png

s3XYnhf.png

toARBvp.png

Fairly survivable, but not quite as solid as the nebula class purely because i took some liberties with the internals to allow for more hardpoints and cut down its already insane part count of ~400 (only way to make it truly well armored is to ditch all 4 of those internally mounted G9 torps and add extra components to it).  Ive managed to kill it a few times already, but considering its more or a gunbag then a tank, i think i can live with its current survivability.

PE4WatC.png

Ofc the only thing i need to fix on this ship is the drones jamming up inside it.  Right now its got the hardpoints to bring 4 drones or 4 LRMs easy, but no way to get them in our out of the ship without it being already shot apart partially (which is not how i intend the weapons to be deployed, post being shot at).

 

So yeah, now i have a grand total of 4 combat worthy ships (that are actually semi competitive, if im going for my non competitive designs i have like a dozen or so), 1 of which i need to redesign as its excessively clippy (i dont mind clipping, but i really really try to avoid "unrealistic" clipping like the tri-fighter's fuel supply which is 12 tanks in the space for 6). 

But yeah, if we get 8000000 tons, i might as well bring a venator replica to the table, its worthless in combat, but it has over 1500 parts and has the most decked out interior ive ever managed to create (seats like 100 kerbins in it, and thats only those in command chairs).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay no those rules aren’t going to fly. 800000 tons is still way too much. Also no limit on the number of ships is completely absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.