Jump to content

Naval Battle League 2016-2018


Spartwo
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Matuchkin said:

That brings me to a new, very simple question. What types of weapons are there, and what do they do? How do they perform?

(From my limited experience)

Weapons are mainly divided into three main groups, based on size and capabilities:

Anti-fighters: These are light missiles designed to knock out small craft with little to no armor. Anti-fighter weapons are either powered solely by RCS, (using radial thrusters or puffs) for guided missiles, or are sepatron-based. They are accurate and can knock out small ships, though are ineffective against much more than wing armor. Anti-fighter missiles are almost always .625m radius and have no warhead/penetrator. A basic anti-fighter missile might consist of a hex probe core, with an in-line rcs tank, plus RCS thrusters to maneuver and accelerate.

 

Anti-ship missiles: This is the standard fare of medium to large ships, and is capable of punching through wing armor easily, and maybe some steel-based. These are typically either LFO or sepatron-based (occasionally RT-5s), and sacrifice a little bit of accuracy for power and effectiveness. These missiles are typically tipped with I-beams or other warheads (ruggedized vehicluar wheels and fixed landing gear have high crash tolerances, too) to help punch through armor. A basic anti-ship missile is an FTL-200 with four radial engines, two I-beams, and a RCS system to aim.

 

Anti-capital missiles: These are the heavy weapons of a fleet. They are designed to punch through the heaviest armor and destroy ships in one shot. Aerospikes and RT-5s are typically found on anti-capital missiles. A basic anti-capitol missile is a RT-5 with a probe core and four I-beams attached to it.

 

Weapons can be guided or unguided (LFO designs typically being guided and solid-fuel ones typically being unguided), and their usage is up to preference. Guided missiles are more accurate, at the cost of being larger, slower, and less effective at short range.

Again, I have comparatively little experience, compared to Zekes or Spartwo, but I hope you appreciate my two cents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Matuchkin said:

That brings me to a new, very simple question. What types of weapons are there, and what do they do? How do they perform?

From my experience, I've divided missile-type weapons into 2 "families", with 2-3 classes in each.

1. Unguided:
-Fighter/light missiles (used on fighters and for backup weapons on large ships):
Lightweight weapons like RCS/LF+O-propelled rounds, short i-beams with separatrons, etc. Light, easy-to-spam, and only effective against armor when fired off in large quantities (causes kinetic shock to overload multiple weak points on a hull/spine, but only works some of the time).
-Capital Ship missiles:
Consists of unguided missiles (normally RT-5/10-based, or using a simple LF+O engine setup) normally with some sort of "warhead"- either a specialized penetrator tip or a fragmenting tip designed to "inject" shrapnel into a target. Somewhat easier to spam-fire than guided missiles, but also is less effective and accurate at range.

2. Guided:
-Fighter/light missiles:
Smaller 0.625 meter LF+O and/or RCS-powered missiles, controlled via probe core almost always using either a nosecone tip (only effective on fighters lacking armor) or some form of structural part tip, either designed to penetrate, explode into shrapnel, or otherwise knock-out or spall armored hulls. These also are often equipped with RCS thrusters/vernor engines for fine-tuning impact trajectories at range.
-Capital Ship missiles:
These are what is often referred to as "shipkiller" or ASM (anti-ship missile) weapons: guided, (normally) 1.25 meter-ish weapons, often with multiple LF+O engines (RCS is not really used as the main propulsion on these from what I've seen) and plenty of SAS/RCS/Vernor control for precision strikes at range. Warheads and missile designs range from advanced penetrator systems to "popper" style weapons that explode into clippy shrapnel+provide strong kinetic impact damage, to slug-style missiles that strike with enough high-speed mass to fracture hulls. Guided 1.25 meter ASMs are more often than not a serious threat to most warships, as the designs currently in use by many players are often based around defeating the most durably-armored ships out there (a good example is how Zekes' Drek-series warships essentially lead to an arms race for a bit, in order to defeat his armor design). Guided ASMs are also often used in smaller numbers than their unguided brethren, as they pack a much larger punch per shot than simpler, unguided munitions, and also are higher part count per unit.
 

In addition, there's also rocket cannons (rocket engine(s) propelling objects out at high velocity via thrusting), which generally come in two varieties: scatterguns and mass drivers. Scatterguns function much like their IRL namesake- shooting high-speed clouds of high-impact shrapnel at a target, making it hard to avoid incoming fire and easier to score multiple hits in quick succession. These cannons often can be fired quite rapidly, via ammo "clips" of launchable projectiles inside the cannon's launch tube/barrel. In addition, mass drivers function much like their spread-shot cousins, but instead fire unguided and/or guided rounds individually, allowing for more precise shooting (guided rounds could be equipped with RCS/vernor/LF+O thrusters for course correction).

EDIT: I will mention, though, that rocket cannons do pretty much require line-of-sight on the target within a decently close range, unlike guided ASMs which can be fired from even beyond visual loading range if one is skilled at guiding them in.

Edited by ScriptKitt3h
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some very useful information I'm getting! How about hull angle? Does it impact the effect of kinetic projectiles in the same way as, say, sloped tank armour? What about the usage of slat armour?

Also, What are the maximum constraints? As far as I am reading, this thread focuses more on the average "Two rows of ships meet and dogfight it out" way of fighting:

space_battle_by_villenummisalo.jpg

Can I do more realistic scenarios? Makes stuff more interesting.

Edited by Matuchkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Matuchkin said:

How about hull angle? Does it impact the effect of kinetic projectiles in the same way as, say, tank armour?

Also, What are the maximum constraints? As far as I am reading, this thread focuses more on the average "Two rows of ships meet and dogfight it out" way of fighting:

space_battle_by_villenummisalo.jpg

Can I do more realistic scenarios? Makes stuff more interesting.

Yup, to an extent shots hitting angled plating are indeed more likely to bounce/deflect- but only to a point, as high velocities and varying impact resistances and designs can still let some projectiles deal damage (albeit negated a bit and sending the victim into a spin).

As for maximum constraints, the way most battles are fought (turn-based, as per the rules in the OP) is for a number of reasons, namely that there is no stock MP, not everyone can handle the lag from massive fleets in close proximity (i.e. within loading range of each other), so we go ship-on-ship more often than not instead, and so on. Things will likely change if and/or when a stock multiplayer mode is introduced, but until then a traditional method of stock, turn-based combat prevails.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Spartwo said:

So what's your favorite one of those you've made?

None. I just can't seem to figure out where to put everything, and still have an unique design. Also, my visual creativity is nonexistent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So yeah, looks like im stuck on trying to design a hull.

I literally make something immune to popper-H knockoffs, and ibeams end up instakilling it.  I make it immune to ibeams, and RT-5s kill it, i make it immune to RT-5s, and poppers kill it.  I cant seem to make armor that is immune to near any weapon discounting excessive spam of it (ofc i dont expect even super armor to survive like 20 hits).

I want multipurpose omnidirectional armor that can stand up against ANYTHING!  NEED HELP NOW!

Edited by panzer1b
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, panzer1b said:

So yeah, looks like im stuck on trying to design a hull.

I literally make something immune to popper-H knockoffs, and ibeams end up instakilling it.  I make it immune to ibeams, and RT-5s kill it, i make it immune to RT-5s, and poppers kill it.  I cant seem to make armor that is immune to near any weapon discounting excessive spam of it (ofc i dont expect even super armor to survive like 20 hits).

I want multipurpose omnidirectional armor that can stand up against ANYTHING!  NEED HELP NOW!

It's not worth trying to make an "invulnerable" ship- trust me, it's a time drain. Instead, it's better to make a series of ships, each with their own strengths and weaknesses, so that you can plan your fleets around who you'd be fighting, and have a nice variety of craft to field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, ScriptKitt3h said:

It's not worth trying to make an "invulnerable" ship- trust me, it's a time drain. Instead, it's better to make a series of ships, each with their own strengths and weaknesses, so that you can plan your fleets around who you'd be fighting, and have a nice variety of craft to field.

Its not about being invincible, all i want is a simple 150 part (or less) hull that can take 3-4 hits from a RT-5 torp, 6-8 hits from a ibeam, or 1-2 hits from a popper-H or similar high end weapon before its neutered.  I will never give up my attempts at creating my dream warship!

 

How hard can it be to make a 50-60T warship that is 150 parts maximum (not counting weapons), has 10-15t payload papacity, and 3000 dV fully loaded?  That and it has to be able to tank 1-2 high end missiles, 3-4 RT5s, or a entire battery of ibeams?

Edited by panzer1b
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, as in it's near physically impossible. My competition ships are fairly lightly armored by turn based standards but even at that it's armor is 30% of the ship's mass. Building a ship that is just a nuke, 35 tons of dead weight and 40 tons of liquid fuel will give you just a smidgen over 3km/s. Then you need to tack on countermeasures, SAS, Power, control points, and whatever else which will undoubtedly bring it below the bar. You might be able to make it if your ship is just a flying hexagon but not something stylized.

 

Guess the borg were onto something...

Edited by Spartwo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Spartwo said:

No, as in it's near physically impossible. My competition ships are fairly lightly armored by turn based standards but even at that it's armor is 30% of the ship's mass. Building a ship that is just a nuke, 35 tons of dead weight and 40 tons of liquid fuel will give you just a smidgen over 3km/s. Then you need to tack on countermeasures, SAS, Power, control points, and whatever else which will undoubtedly bring it below the bar. You might be able to make it if your ship is just a flying hexagon but not something stylized.

 

Guess the borg were onto something...

I did a bit of math a while ago. In order to get 3000 dV, roughly 1/3 of the mass has to be fuel (not even fuel tanks), and that's assuming you're using nukes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I decided to tow this ship out of the junkyard and give it a fresh coat of paint and a few more wing panels (actually, I had to rebuild it from scratch but the new one has a similar shape to the old 0.90 design).

Right now it is armed with some really simple weapons - I beams and RT5 torpedoes, since I haven't made any new guided missiles yet.  It's probably not that great, testing has shown that the I beams can penetrate or phase through and destroy the fuel tanks, and the RT5s with landing gear warheads make suprisingly good shrapnel weapons.  Seriously, 325 m/s impact tolerance for the landing gear?  Here's the download if any want to test...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hnt67sq2ahojw7l/ESPER%20Aqua%20Destroyer.craft?dl=0

lyDc3AN.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I have a few questions regarding missiles.

1. Is it useful to connect missiles via docking port instead of decoupler?

2. Could someone make a step-by-step guide to making those RC whatsamacallsits?

3. What are some basic designs for each 'tier' of missile?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sharkman Briton said:

So I have a few questions regarding missiles.

1. Is it useful to connect missiles via docking port instead of decoupler?

2. Could someone make a step-by-step guide to making those RC whatsamacallsits?

3. What are some basic designs for each 'tier' of missile?

1: I always connect missiles via docking port because 1, it allows reloading, and 2, they function like decouplers anyways.  Actual decouplers are lighter weight, so there is a reason to use them if you are trying to get absolute max dV out of a ship.  That is about it, docking ports will almost always work better, and you can even have then staged with 1.1 (they added a new feature that lets you add ports as decouplers tyo staging, as well as disable staging on decouplers.  Really the sole reason people prefered decouplers in teh past is their ability to be staged, now that ports can be staged, use ports.

2: no idea what a RC missile is...  Need some info before i can explain anything.

3: well there arent really any "tiers" in this game at all, but in general there are 3 categories of missiles that i kinda consider, and most of any weapons falls into one of these. 

One is your anti-capital ship heavy missile.  This usually is a 1.2m projectile that is designed to tear apart other ships, and can be both guided and unguided, but guided is more popular because it doesnt require you to park in front of your enemy at point blank range and many even have the range to be deployed from minmus and hit a ship orbiting the mun (is real time MP is ever made these will be all but useless vs a competitive player).  The unguided ones are usually simpler (RT5 and a AP or shrapnel tip), so less part counts (and may or may not be lighter weight).  Some examples are my Tripedo-M, Zeke's Popper-H, and Script's ASMs.

The second is what id call dedicated anti-fighter weapons.  These are usually low thrust but very accurate, and most of my designs have at least 1 RCS block for side to side movement.  Their lethality is relatively lousy, but they have the advantage of being relatively low part count.  Basic missile includes droid brain, fuel (almost always RCS fuel), RTG or battery, side RCS, forward thrust engine (if you use 2 RCS blocks they can act as a pseudo engine too), and a docking port (or some way to attach it to the ship).  The minimum you need is 4 parts, control, fuel, thrust, electricity, so they are quite economical and spammable, but their lethality is quite bad, even if you add a impactor to the top.  2 examples are my own KDrone-S (different variants, most have lateral RCS and an impactor and are ~7-8 parts), and the HT-400 (B-Corp missile, literally as barebones as it gets, worthless vs capital ships or armor but does kill fighters).

The last category is what i call a omni-purpose missile, designed to engage both capitals and fighters.  They are considerably weaker then heavy torps, and very rarely do these things 1 shot anything heavy, but they are lighter, lower part count, and usually 0.6m so thus spammable.  The classical example of these is a long ibeam+4-8 sepatrons.  It is effective vs almost anything, but they require both accurate fire and multiple direct hits to actually destroy capitals (fighters are 1 shotted if direct hit 95% of the time).  Ive recently really gotten into these things because i want to have more compact weapons systems (0.6s are way easier to store anywhere compared to 1.2s), while retaining decent ship killing capabilities.  I actually made a new missile (which is somewhat inspired by Script's mini shipkiller) which does work quite well, and while its not part count efficient, its super lightweight, very accurate, and i can fit like 3 of them in the same space i could fit a Tripedo.  Less part count efficient then the Tripedoes that rely more on mass and tire impactors, but far superior firepower for a given mass of the missile, and they split quite well if you hit the spine of a ship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...