Naval Battle Club

[zekes]

BTW WHY DO YOU KEEP TESTING MY SHIP? PLEASE ALSO USE YOURS.

Now you know my pain.

[Zamovinar]

Now you know my pain.

Lol! ( I feel like the debris of my BASIL is filling up the vastness of space, but I'm pretty much sure that the Drek has more parts flying about the void )

[panzer1b]

Lol! ( I feel like the debris of my BASIL is filling up the vastness of space, but I'm pretty much sure that the Drek has more parts flying about the void )

Actually you should be haoppy im using your ship for armor/weapon testing....

the ONLY reason im doing it cause my own ships SUCK now that the new flamers have come into play.

Anyways, im working on a new ship, the SK-CRV-A1 (1st gen A class which is 100% redone internally compared to older models and doesnt use girders since they have major hitboxes and instantly die to the thrust of engines), which is essentially killing 2 problems with 1 ship, part count, and armor vs the new stuff. Preliminary tests give it VASTLY improved protection vs ibeams and other crap, and while it is more vulnurable to heavy weapons (i used some part clipping, had no choice, but that is killing me now that i can 1 shot my ship every once in a while with the Tripedo-M, a weapon that was very unreliabe vs the older SK-CRV-Ig6/Sk-CRV-IA1 that i developed just before 1.0.5 hit. Really the other benefit is that it has ~4 tons less dry mass, which ive used to add more fuel tanks to help with the subpar range problem most of my vessels seem to have. Ohh, and with less parts, i can actually afford frivolities such as vernor RCS system, extra docking ports, cockpits that dont suck, antenas, and well, more ammo in general. Im gonna make a anti-fighter version of this one like i had of the SK-CRV-Ig3, g4, and g5 models.

If i can find a solution to dealing with more powerful ordinance, the SK-CRV-A1 will become the first 1.0.5 competitive AKS warship! And it looks even cooler then old versions, and ditched the useless railguns for 6 nose mounted drones that shoot out of the slot in the nose (which actually protects the ship too). Ohh, and given the crazy amount of internal space, i could (not that i ever would cause part count+lagfest) technically arm it with 4 1.25m weapons, and an astounding 16 internal and 8 forward mounted drones. With that much firepower nothing can really stand in my way, although it does destroy structural integrity, making the vessel a giant bomb with all those weapons aboard at once.

Edited November 12, 2015 by panzer1b

[AlexanderTeaH]

Ok, I take back what I previously said. That ship looks gorgeous (Is it a girl lol) anyways, from this view the front (which I assume the bridge) looks amazing.

Thanks! Means a lot to have my ships complimented.

[Sharkman Briton]

Can the battle club have a single little "fair play/geneva convention" rule? That rule means NO ENGINE EXHAUST EXPLOITING

[AlexanderTeaH]

Can the battle club have a single little "fair play/geneva convention" rule? That rule means NO ENGINE EXHAUST EXPLOITING

I second this, otherwise it'll turn into a Delta-V battle in order to escape the buggers.

[Sharkman Briton]

Btw Alex, I'm in the KSPMilitia IRC chat

[panzer1b]

I second this, otherwise it'll turn into a Delta-V battle in order to escape the buggers.

Im for it, at least until actual legit multiplayer comes out (or DMP/ some mod comes out taht isnt broken and buggy as hell).

Once MP becomes availeablem real time, you can evade and from experience the engine thrust weapons are hard to aim/keep on target for long enough, if that target is moving, even less so.

For turn based though, personally, i refuse to both use such weapons, as well as do battle against them (if target is stationary there is no way to really deal with teh weapons without making a 2000 part hull with so many layers itd lag anyone to deth).

That said, there is one major benefit to teh new engine damage, its forced me to accelerate development of ibeam skeleton hulls, which are stronger and much more luck requiring (phased rounds are much more likely to strike a girder then a ibeam, and they both weigh the same so rather same survivability, just less odds of phased crap direct hitting your skeleton. Now that ive somewhat fixed the resonance kraken problem (after taking extensive damage it still resonates and explodes, but usually when the damage is so high that the kraken awakens, you are pretty much neutralized and or dead anyways.

[Spartwo]

The vector engines are insane!

Edited November 12, 2015 by Spartwo

[panzer1b]

The vector engines are insane!

http://i.imgur.com/k2BETQQ.png

Yeah, if you want TWR and maneuverabuility they are the ultimate spacecraft engine.

That said, they are heavy and they kill ur dV. How heavy is that ship, cause at over 2K dV its gotta be bloody heavy. I have a ship that gets ~2500dV and is only 60t, with respectable but not incredible agility/turn rate/acceleration, 3 nukes pushing 60t is good for me (much less and id rip my eyes out trying to get to jool).

[Sharkman Briton]

All who war against SAP quiver in their seats as the broadcast showing our WIP offworld torture dungeon/prison! Those involved in the battles against SAP are retreating, as they wish not to undergo such torture as has been demonstrated...!

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[Spartwo]

70 tons.

[EladDv]

I AM UNTOUCHABLE! (by anyone but my own subs, MUHAHAHAHAHHA)

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[panzer1b]

All who war against SAP quiver in their seats as the broadcast showing our WIP offworld torture dungeon/prison! Those involved in the battles against SAP are retreating, as they wish not to undergo such torture as has been demonstrated...!

http://imgur.com/a/gt06E

This is most defenetely against the geneva convention, its even worse then taking a kerbal and firing thrusters at it from every angle until it slowly roasts alive.

Good thing AKS, being sentient AI is immune to torture tactics. That is until someone spills coffee on the probe core and all goes haywire

[Alphasus]

Arm the coffee blasters!

[panzer1b]

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Im seriously completely stuck with armor now. My latest ship is not up to my standards at all, too vulnurable to the popper-H/II i was using as a test weapon (replaced the pylons with 4 extra short ibeams and its so much ebtter as a weapon).

All my old designs are dead cause the new engine thrust bull destroyed the XL girder ultra reliably (so reliably that im vulnurable to a bloody ibeam with enough seps on it, something i was 100% immune to in 1.0.4 or well not immune, but impossible to get 1 shotted with em. Im really not liking this update , my SSTOs are massively nerfed to the point that they reach orbit with anywhere from 1-2K less dV left, and, looks like every bloody one of my warships is dead.

Need to think of something out of the box, since it looks like anything based on a girder core is massively weakened by luck and engines phasing right next to it and thus vaporizing it in 1 shot, and it looks like the ibeams, while promising, just arent delivering the sort of performance i need em to deliver! Biggest killer problem with ibeams is the whole kraken wobble bug, which is forcing me to use struts and hence weaken the structural integrity as struts placed in certain spots help, but they increase the force transfer from one part to another making it less likely to loose parts outright, and more likely for the entire hull to be shot apart. Looks like its back to learning armor from scratch, nothing seems to work!

Please tell me that not everyone is in the same boat as me, does anyone have any sort of armor designs that can survive at a minimum popper-Hs and ibeams with excessive sepatron amounts that tend to melt stuff behind them as they phase thru the hull (8 or more seps on them)?

perhaps the one benefit of all this crap is that its making me look into new directions when it comes to combat, im starting to look less towards armor, and more towards mobility/speed/range, and super long range outside LOS weapons, since well, it looks like multiplayer warfare is gonna go that route anyway since noone is, outside of specific rulesets disallowing ranged attacks, engage from close range anyways (especially if we cant find an effective way to armor vessels after 1.0.5 made at least my designs worthless).

Edited November 13, 2015 by panzer1b

[Zamovinar]

I AM UNTOUCHABLE! (by anyone but my own subs, MUHAHAHAHAHHA)http://imgur.com/a/c5Fez

Goddammmnnn... *Salute (Hi I'm back! what's up?)

[Zamovinar]

http://imgur.com/a/e5Msv

Im seriously completely stuck with armor now. My latest ship is not up to my standards at all, too vulnurable to the popper-H/II i was using as a test weapon (replaced the pylons with 4 extra short ibeams and its so much ebtter as a weapon).

All my old designs are dead cause the new engine thrust bull destroyed the XL girder ultra reliably (so reliably that im vulnurable to a bloody ibeam with enough seps on it, something i was 100% immune to in 1.0.4 or well not immune, but impossible to get 1 shotted with em. Im really not liking this update , my SSTOs are massively nerfed to the point that they reach orbit with anywhere from 1-2K less dV left, and, looks like every bloody one of my warships is dead.

Need to think of something out of the box, since it looks like anything based on a girder core is massively weakened by luck and engines phasing right next to it and thus vaporizing it in 1 shot, and it looks like the ibeams, while promising, just arent delivering the sort of performance i need em to deliver! Biggest killer problem with ibeams is the whole kraken wobble bug, which is forcing me to use struts and hence weaken the structural integrity as struts placed in certain spots help, but they increase the force transfer from one part to another making it less likely to loose parts outright, and more likely for the entire hull to be shot apart. Looks like its back to learning armor from scratch, nothing seems to work!

Please tell me that not everyone is in the same boat as me, does anyone have any sort of armor designs that can survive at a minimum popper-Hs and ibeams with excessive sepatron amounts that tend to melt stuff behind them as they phase thru the hull (8 or more seps on them)?

perhaps the one benefit of all this crap is that its making me look into new directions when it comes to combat, im starting to look less towards armor, and more towards mobility/speed/range, and super long range outside LOS weapons, since well, it looks like multiplayer warfare is gonna go that route anyway since noone is, outside of specific rulesets disallowing ranged attacks, engage from close range anyways (especially if we cant find an effective way to armor vessels after 1.0.5 made at least my designs worthless).

I have an advice, I already passed this. I suggest you to use the original parts as the core of your ship, by that I mean parts that were there since the beginning of the development of the game, why? because I bet that the physics and computations involved with them has not been changed compared to the other newly added parts. That way you will have a reliable base hull or sturdy core. I suggest you use the new parts outside and away from the center.

Another suggestion. Always build crafts that will last even if the game will have updates. So do not use new parts excessively. So when your crafts you can easily update them (or even rebuild them from scratch but still the same form) but with reliability (Just like we all rely on the Structural beam as cores for most of our ships, do you get what I mean?)

Look at my BASIL, I used all the parts that could be probably used as armor. Using fuel tanks as padding inside and sandwiched between armor plates/wing plates is a "timeless design". I treat everything as an expendable part, I don't consider fuel tanks as things you need to protect (I can see you are still stuck with this idea in your ships, trust me I was there. You desperately still try to protect vulnerable parts)

Remember, "treat every part as expendable" the only thing you need to protect is the engines itself and the core nothing more (unless you have multiple engines that could still function when hit). The rest is secondary and disposable.

Considering you tested my BASIL with flame weapons (Which is an old weapon actually) I only need to update it by protecting it using the new parts such as the heat shields and covering the engines (I admit, I kind of designed it lacking protection on the engines so that's my fault)

Use a hull configuration that is simple and basic, anything that has three or more core parts (Like three (3) girders is dangerous, two (2) is safe)

this considerably eliminates the 'Kraken Wobble Bug". My Atlantis and Aurora is very susceptible to this but I learned later on. This concepts though limits the ship you are about to build to certain sizes cause if you try to build anything bigger it gets weaker.

I build the core of my ships using one (1) part as core, yes that's right one (1) this is the only part that when destroyed will kill my ship at once (That's why it can still be one shotted) but I try to protect and pad that dreaded part with as many things as I can. So you can't really cut my ship in two, either that or it's completely dead. Since zekes made a new powerful piercing weapon I need to rethink my designing pattern. So basically competition is bringing this game forward.

So my ships survivability will rely on how accurate and how deep a piercing capability of the weapon used against it will be. By the way I use a single plate armor as my core part then build from there in a torus fashion (If you get what I mean). I think the Drek also used only two Girders only as core nothing more so it's strong.

That's my design paradigm, I got into this game when part count was not an issue for me. That's why I have high part count ships. It's not about who has more on the field or stronger ships (You try to design low part count ships but in battle we actually mostly field a max of 3 vs 3 ships), It's about having reliable ships then develop from there. I guess I could say that the Drek as a "reliable" ship, I think that's the secret of it's success.

Most of us create designs trying to innovate but I guess we are pretty much limited with the starting parts. Unless that's changed our game will still be the same.

It took me a 2-3 months to stay away from KSP, its a very long break then it hit me. So consider this advice a gold mine. Ahh I have come a long way since the beginning, I can't even believe I used fuel tanks as core of my earliest ships.

[AlexanderTeaH]

The vector engines are insane!

http://i.imgur.com/k2BETQQ.png

Oh damn, that thing's pretty!

[Sharkman Briton]

This is most defenetely against the geneva convention, its even worse then taking a kerbal and firing thrusters at it from every angle until it slowly roasts alive.

Good thing AKS, being sentient AI is immune to torture tactics. That is until someone spills coffee on the probe core and all goes haywire

SAP has some "exotic" virus software incase of AKS attack... MUAHAHAH

[Sharkman Briton]

Has anyone got any good 0.625m missiles (liquid-fuelled please) I can use for a carrier? (This things like half assault carrier, basically if it really needs to it can go and fight, or use the missiles for self-defense

[AlexanderTeaH]

Is it just me or are kerbals super bouncy when it comes to impacting water?

[panzer1b]

Has anyone got any good 0.625m missiles (liquid-fuelled please) I can use for a carrier? (This things like half assault carrier, basically if it really needs to it can go and fight, or use the missiles for self-defense

I have a large variety of 0.6m ordinance, which AKS will gladly provide on request.

Just one thing i need from you, is some info on what you want said weapons to accomplish? Most of the weapons ive developed are in one of 3 categories, either super simple/lightweight but rather weak (useless against any armor), a bit heavy and highish on part count, but fairly powerful, or somewhat in between.

Also, since missiles dont takje excessive time to design, ill even be happy to make a missile based on specs you give me (provided something i have atm doesnt fit into them). Just give me roughly what sort of vessels you intend to use it against (are these wings and weak armor, or something say based on the 50m/s impact mk2/mk3 parts?), how heavy roughly it should be (note that you cant make something ultra light be deadly vs armor), and if you have a preference as to maximum part count per missile.

Anyways, in other news, progress on the SK-CRV-A2 is going well, after teh A1 was deemed a failure of epic proportions. The A2 hull is essentially the same as the old SK-CRV-IA1/g6, except the girders have been replaced with ibeams, and the entire engine assembly has been redesigned to prevent the rear from getting shot off. Preliminary testing shows it to be IMPOSSIBLE to 1 shot kill with a popper-H, although the same was teh case for the old A1 failure, so im not getting my hopes up until i actually have it armed and fully fueled (since weapons and fuel add weaknesses overall).

Ive also managed to narrow down the reason for why the 6th generation's rear was occasionally able to be 1 shot vaporized: Clipping a nuke into the core girder is just a BAD idea period! The A2 goes up in parts (from 130 of the A1 to ~180 atm), but it has relatively good protection against the 3 weapons i use as a standard test, the long ibeam and 4 sepatrons, the RT-5 with 2 1x1 panels in front, and the popper-H. Like every ship, i have managed to neutralize it with excessive fire, but im currently unable to 1 shot it with anything i tried.

Finally, a small tip that may help those making armor, is to AVOID using the offset gizmo much. Since the force when something is hit is applied at the point of original contact regardless of where you moved said part afterwards, moving parts faryer away INCREASES bending moments, and thus makes it easier to destroy something. The offset gizmo is a great new addition, but you need to use it moderation with armor design, and if you must use it, only move the part a little bit, not like attach it at one end and move it across the ship.

And the one rule that i keep violating in terms of armor still stands, ANY CLIPPING WHATSOEVER IS BAD! Sometimes you dont have a choice, but clipping does one and only one thing in a military craft, and thats create weakspots which can lead to being shot in half reliably with anything including weaker weapons. The most critical thing is to NEVER clip fuel tanks or engines into the skeleton, but near every instance of clipping is VERY BAD!

Edited November 13, 2015 by panzer1b

[Alphasus]

Has anyone got any good 0.625m missiles (liquid-fuelled please) I can use for a carrier? (This things like half assault carrier, basically if it really needs to it can go and fight, or use the missiles for self-defense

Bottom to Top

Docking port

48-7s Spark

Oscar B

Wide but short I beam(clip this in so that only the head is exposed)

Smallest tire

Nose cone(clipped to hide warhead)

[Sharkman Briton]

I tested that setup just now on Kerbin, Alpha, and it seems kinda efficient, I clipped the docking port into the engine and the engine immediately explodes the docking port on engine startup, removing dead weight.

- - - Updated - - -

Okay, the as-of-now untested (I might get around to it tomorrow unless someone else tests it (dunno what I'll test it against)) Ramdasia I carrier is built, but since it's untested it may be changed. It's rather simple really, just a simple unmanned craft with a big opening at the front that holds a Plum Fighter, and multiple Ibiza Torpedoes.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

image 1-4: Ramdasia I, image 5: Plum fighter, image 6: Ibiza Missile.

download Ramdasia I