Jump to content

panzer1b

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,776

  • Joined

 Content Type 

Everything posted by panzer1b

  1. panzer1b
    So yeah, looking at my expected total mass of combat ships, anyone allied with me will not likely need to bring much supplies, i get 200t of bloody fuel/weapons to work with ... Im prolly going to bring 2 regulators and 2 rectifiers, assuming the rectifier comes out as expected and doesnt suck like my recently failed SK-105 i was really hoping would be a solid choice for me to bring. Looks amazing, lets see how that monstrosity holds up in battle. Btw, is 100t of fuel enough to keep that running? I plan on having a 100t supply ship which id be happy to follow you around in to keep that fueled since im basically 200t short of 500 with my 4 ships i plan to use. Also, how many parts/tonnage, just looking at that makes my "heavy" warships look like escort vessels
  2. panzer1b
    I say no rush, its not like most of us actually have 4 ships AND optional station/support vessel ready to go this instant. I need to make a new station and prolly modify an existing support ship for tug/fuel purposes so thatll take a bit, and i really want to finish my new rectifier class warship which should put me a little bit less behind on the tonnage scale. I think its a good idea to give everyone a wekk for setup, thatll be more then enough for me and prolly anyone else who want to finish building their fleet up...
  3. panzer1b
    If anyone needs ships i have a few that id be more then happy to let people that need them use. Pretty much anything that isnt AKS on my repository is free for anyone to use as they desire in this battle, most of those are reasonably well protected but you might want to upgrade the guns since in universe those ships never carried excessively strong weaponry. Lets hope noone decided to bring my venator replica here, its so terribad in a cobat scenario and has so many kerbals onboard its basically a coffin for 200... I have working screen recording right now, but i DO NOT have anywhere to upload it to so if you want i can put the file on a filesharing site and you upload to ur account. Also, are we limiting ourselves to the jool system and eeloo/dres? I think opening up the entire solar system would be too much fuel wise for anyone who doesnt put IRSU on every one of their ships... Basically you have 2 real options right now, either the more older and conventional girder down the middle with stuff branching off sideways, or my personal style these days which is a single root part (either ibeam or girder) and then branch everything off of that, then attach weapons/engines in such a way that its hard to knock em all out simultaneously.
  4. panzer1b
    I can provide you with a supply ship, and access to ammo, will a tripedo fit in that thing? uses 1.2m weapons right?
  5. panzer1b
    You guys need to seriously stop with the whole who created a missile first bull... Technically the G3 is a "clone" of my tribeam which looks almost exactly the same except its using 3 way symmetry vs 4, doesnt have RCS on teh base model (there is a model that uses 3 vernors for RCS but its only used as a ground launch model), and has somewhat different engine layout (and is a bit lighter/designed to be fired from longer range but otherwise identical shape/role). And ive had those things for ages, well before i ever saw the G3/I-20 on here. I dont mind people building similar/identical missiles, so please dont get into a fight over who made something first, many of us came to similar conclusions as to what works and what doesnt work regardless of who did it first
  6. panzer1b
    I think within limits this may be allowed, but ONLY with engines. That and i think new engines should only be available at your "space station" since it makes sense for that to allow repairs. Other then that, allowing anything to be repaired is kinda unfair imo as people can just stash so many additional guns/weapons/engines/probes they cant effectively be killed... My idea here was with the resupply to be immobile (so you cant just bring weapons to your ships, you need to return to base), so thinks like spare engines and ammunition should not be allowed to move around freely, while the mobile support ship should have fuel only.
  7. panzer1b
    Everyone has been attacked by the last player so they can pick anyone basically... Although i think limiting it to 2 attacks to any player per circle would be acceptable, more tactical options as high threat players can be targeted strategically, but at the same time noone gets wiped out too quickly to do anything...
  8. panzer1b
    Thats fair actually, so everyone gets a chance to move their ship and no 2 turn knockouts right off teh start, i support this...
  9. panzer1b
    There is arule against accidentally knocking ships into impact trajectories btw. Also, just to be nice to the peron, if you do knock a ship excessively and its still capable of moving at all afterwards, please take the time to take control of it and fly it into stable orbit...
  10. panzer1b
    One more rule that should be added: each person may only be attacked twice before everyone's turn is up. just to keep people from decimating any one player right out the start. Itd really really suck to be that one guy that happens to have their turn last and have 4 others hit each ship...
  11. panzer1b
    If time is a concern (and i really dont want to allow alt-f12 menu to warp ships as thatll be super lame and would render the skill of fuel management to be worthless), why dont we do something like this but in the jool system. Everyone can establish on one of the moons, and once we are out of moons people can start to deploy around jool with various orbital heights and or have multiple people in team establish on same place. Id like to have Pol if we do this (its so pretty, that planet has this nice yellow fog everywhere). What do you think @ShadowGoat, is that reasonable so that burns do not take excessively long especially for the few of us that arent experienced with interplanetary long distance transfers or simply dont have time to do an interplanetary burn? Also, i think ive thought of a good rule for teh support mechanic. One immobile station where weapons and fuel may be stored. And one support ship that is allowed to tow vessels that have been heavily damaged and may only carry fuel onboard. Total mass of these 2 are added to your total mass of up to 500t. This way is actually quite fair, you have the potential to have just 4 massive ships that have everything they need internally but arent as fuel efficient and when they run dry they are stuck, or you can choose to have a station near your start point or a supply ship that can make you more fuel efficient but not allow for excessively long missions for any ship. Might also be interesting to allow the "space station" to be a land facility, but i think keeping it in space makes it far easier to engage it should a player decide to go after the enemy logistics instead of their ships at the start (although the loss condition is entirely dependent on the 4 combat vessels and irrelvant of what happens to the support ships).
  12. panzer1b
    Sure, we can team if its not free for all rules wise. Also, i sorta like the 4 ship limit (so it doesnt take 3 months to do the battles) but i really feel that support ships (clearly labeled and not allowed to engage targets at all) would be fair for such a drawn out battle and since we are going to be dealing with interplanetary stuff i do fully intend to have a support ship with IRSU lander (if that is legal). Most of my ships are designed for ~2000-2500 dV, and having access to a pure fuel barge would be kinda beneficial to this. Actually i just thought of something that might be a good idea to include. Have each team get access to a space station around their start planet. TO make it more interesting lets make the station be our only source of weapons reloads (so ships need to eventually return to base for that purpose if they ever run dry), and only allow the support ships to carry fuel (or act as tugs for damaged vessels).
  13. panzer1b
    I have Minmus and Dres for in universe reasons (AKS territory in my campaign, minmus primary, dres secondary if we need it to be a unique planet and not a moon)... Also, while its 4 ships each, do you mind if i have like 2 support vessels that have no guns as part of my tonnage? I just DO NOT have anything that is above 80t and i dont plan on since i only build up to a frigate class wise with my competitive ships, so itd be kinda fair if those slightly undertonned ships had access to 1-2 support ships that carry fuel/weapons reloads (and cannot actively participate in battle but may be targeted) to fly alongside the 4 combat vessels? If no its not a huge deal, but i think allowing up to 2 support ships per team (provided the 4 combat + 2 support do not exceed 500t total) would be fair and would open up an interesting way to play the game (and if i dont get them ill have to be twice as badass with my maximum tonnage being like 250 )... Also, i need a bit of time to finish finals and make 1-2 more vessel, since my current "regulator" class is way too lightweight even if i cram all the comp weapons onto it (~70t with every hardpoint carrying tribeams). Ohh and are carriers allowed or just direct combat vessels? A carrier would easily let me bring my tonnage up to your 500t max.
  14. panzer1b
    Looks good, if i actually had the computer to RUN OPM is defenetely give it a try. Why ohh why does KSP lag so badly when i try to load too many mods and fly entire fleets of 500+ part count each warships...
  15. panzer1b
    No idea, i dont really have as much time on my hands as id like to recently to make this mod work with many other mods, but i dont see why it shouldnt work with rescaling, you just might want to alter the heights of the cloud/atmo layers to correspond to the recaled system. For example clouds for kerbin are around 5km, since it looks good on kerbin scale, but with rescaled system you might want to increase that to 10+km to make it fit with the new scale.
  16. panzer1b
    As you just experienced, 1.1 changed physics ALOT. The issue is that these days with multicore support, is seems that "phasing" has been considerably increased in effect and lower velocity crap tends to phase through armor much easier. Also worth mentioning is that heavy armor seldomly if ever vaporizes incoming ordinance like it used to in the past. Most weapons have a good chance of either blasting straight through a ship perhaps shattering into a few parts but not desintegrating completely, or simply being wedged inside the ship if low velocity, not like the old days where hitting a ship that had thick armor would instantly desintegrate the entire missile with at best a chunk of armor being shot off in the process. "Layering" has also taken a nose dive in effectiveness against anything semi competitive as well, it just doesnt seem to stop fire like it used to either. Personally ive switched to the concept of super thin and spread out skeleton with a good amount of redundancy thrown in to keep a particularly unlucky hit from neutralizing the ship completely. Its not really finished, and the weapons layout is atrocious, but if you want to see a fairly solid example of a recent ship that uses this concept (combined with alot of empty space internally to let rounds just pass through harmlessly), check out the SK-204 "Regulator" Prototype i have in my craft repository (under AKS warships category). Its also probably the first warship ive ever seen that rivals the best around armor wise without using any structural panels to protect it (well there are like 4 big ones in the back as a sorta makeshift bulkhead to protect engines but thats it). Still capable of being killed with really lucky shot to the root girder, but its design and a few tricks i included with it make achieving this so unreliable you cant really count on a 1 shot kill. Now if only i could find a way to fix the number one issue with every damn warship ive ever made that doesnt abuse 20+ ions clipped throughout the hull, susceptibility to engine knock outs...
  17. panzer1b
    You are welcome to use anything in my repository, but be aware only the "new" regulator prototype is fairly recentish and uses some of the modern armoring techniques ive come up with during my sorta on and off hiatus over the last 2 months. Also, despite being outdated, i have to say your ships are some of the few that have still remained in a useable state competitive wise, not the best armor anymore, but it still works against anything to an extent, those missiles, while very much outdated, still kill ships more often then youd think. Anyways, welcome back, and we all hope to see some breakthroughs coming from you, afterall, a few years back and you were like the best warship designer around (even if your part counts such as 1600+ made my old lappy cry every time it tried to load one). Guess you also came to the conclusion that wings work if you make a super skinny frame internally. My number one rule of modern combat: "since you cant make an invincible skeleton, make that skeleton as hard to hit as possible". Ofc no structural panels is also kinda a bad idea, but they should be used very sparingly for things like bulkheads (wing ships kinda need them since they are very suceptible to excessive shrapnel amounts that just fly through the entire ship) and to cover the most essential things. It might not be the toughest armor protection, but ive basically settled for wings+skinny skeleton and lots of empty space to abuse the fact that the odds of hitting less critical stuff is lower then the odds of hitting more critical stuff.
  18. panzer1b
    Well i made a new ship sorta based on a cross between my really old class-I corvette warship and the regulator styled hull internals, and it SUCKS... Every time it gets hit by anything one of the 2 kerbals in the really badly protected bridges dies. I dont think the kerbals are going to approve of my attempts at using a command pod as sacrificial spaced armor plating. If it ever gets deployed on a large scale i think the kerbals are going to nickname this thing the "Guaranteed Coffin for Two". At least ive been unable to split it with anything ive thrown at it that isnt excessively massive in size. And ofc it still shares the same problems that most of my "compact" ships that dont abuse ion engines share, relatively easy to neuter by targeting engines, and somewhat vulnurable weapons which are kinda all crammed into the front of the thing, they are nicely redundified so a single shot cannot destroy them all, but ive had a few rounds (especially 1.2 torps) tear apart over half the guns with one shot, leaving it with less firepower then a bloody starfighter. At least i may have come up with a better bulkhead layout to deal with shrapnel ammo which seems to gut both engines every single time from any angle. After that alteration this may very well become a good ship (when left uncrewed at least)...
  19. panzer1b
    here is my 2nd prototype version of the thing. It has a COUPLE angles from which there is some chance of a killshot. Other then that, the thing is so hollow that only hits targeting the core section have any hope of doing anything to the ship. Also, it may be worth mentioning that the weapons are placeholders, the later iterations will have actually thought out weapons placement that will both make it harder to take down multiple guns and generally more powerful weapons that arent from 2 years ago... https://www.dropbox.com/home/AKSTechnologies KSP/AKS Alliance?preview=[AKS]Regulator+V1.craft Worth noting is that this is my first warship attempt that uses almost exclusively wings for its armor, so while it might not be the toughest ship out there, its got very good part count and mass to remain competitive. Also, id like to see ur new "flak" ammunition you say you havem, the thing the burst into multiple pieces mid fight...
  20. panzer1b
    So its basically a flak cannon round, but with manual triggering instead of using a sepatron powered delayed fuse as my own flak ammunition had which would detonate and split the round into a debris field a bit after firing? Actually that reminds me, im so making a new flak cannon round, didnt quite hold onto the old ones as they were very weak against anything but fighters and not part count efficient, but it just had that cinematic feel when a round airbursts shortly after being launched and then hits multiple targets at once with a cloud of shrapnel... Also, i think ive found a weakspot in my ship that im now working on correcting, there is one angle that you can with some reliability pull off a killshot, and that cant be allowed...
  21. panzer1b
    If you want to ill give it a try against my prototypes, have a ship with it onboard thats uploaded somewhere. Also, work is going fairly well on my guide for armoring, im sorta focusing on some of the tricks ive learned work well in the modern game (1.2/1.29) which did not really work well before or were plain unnecessary to utilize. While most of my modern designs are really unorthodox and youd think im kinda crazy to build them the way i do, the original classic armored warship that uses a stack of girders lengthwise is really starting to show its age and id nolonger even consider that hull design to be competitive, one good shot from a single long ibeam can instantly split you, something that is virtually impossible to do to the vast majority of my ships 95% of the time (there is always that luck factor that can occasionally do something stupid like a 200t super heavily armored ship being split in half by a salvo of 2 short ibeams, and yeah, that really happened a few years back in a battle i was doing). Also, after i make a few more tweaks (not quite 100% happy with the ship right now in both the part count as mass efficiency departments) ill upload my new ship foir everyone to take a look at, sofar its armor is showing to be incredibly resilient with no reliable way to kill it, but its also possible i havent found some sort of weakness in it as of now and asking the community to shoot at it and test it out is prolly the best way to verify its superiority over everyone else's ships err improve it further...
  22. panzer1b
    tested your missiles, and they are solid (for a 0.6m weapon) but are about as unreliable at killing this thing as anything else. The real issue is the fact that i designed this ship with so much empty space its like trying to destroy the internals of a ship with basically no internals whatsoever. I had one luckshot split it apart (actual kill), but other then that one time im basically unable to destroy this thing (or even neuter it) with any sort of reliability. That said, your missiles are one of the better 0.6m weapons ive seen around, easily comparable to my own Tribeam missiles which are of very similar design except no RCS systems and lighter weight/part count since i dont have as many engines and use a longer engagement range then 1.5km. Glow stripes or something like that, its a mod ive used a very very long time ago i recently recompiled to get sorta functional in KSP. Granted, its buggy and doesnt quite work correctly, i plan on creating my own version of the concept with new models and 100% new coding too. If ur interested the mod works out of the box, just the stripes are ONLY blue and cannot be altered and is always turned on. If you compile the code it gives you a on-off toggle switch only, color switching is broken... Thats not very effective armor design btw... Might want to mention at least that you have to like build stuff around a 80m/s impact tolerance core or ur gonna get instakilled by a 1t microfighter armed with ant-torps
  23. panzer1b
    Now that classes are coming to an end (well not really but i got myself a bit of downtime) i think im REALLY onto something with my new prototype warship (which actually looks amazing with the right mods). The production model has YET to die to my older model SK-006 armed with 15 ibeam weapons and has shown to be incredibly resilient against 1.2m rounds too all thanks to a few tricks ive picked up over the years, one of which is actually abusing the root part to make "aim at target" feature borderline worthless forcing rounds to be manually guided in the whole way for the most part. This is what it looked like after one trial of shooting 15 ibeams at it, shot to hell and missing 90% of its armoring but still 100% functional. Btw, this ship uses WING ARMOR and not structural panels for the entire hull (a few structural panels are present internally but thats it). Fairly lightweight, lots of internal space (could easily make this into a wannabee carrier), and has workeable TWR/Dv as well without abusing ion engines like most of the SK-0xx line does. Also, would anyone be interested in me making a "ship armoring guide" especially for the newer players that are showing up? I have quite a bit of experience making ships (aside from occasional BDA ww2 replicas i almost exclusively develop starships/tanks/buildings all of which are designed for stock combat), so i think id be able to give everyone a good place to start from ship design wise. Not that the ships ive seen here are bad or anything, but i see alot of critical flaws everywhere which tends to have ships eliminated way too easily...
  24. panzer1b
    For very low orbits (as in under 70km, or maybee even up to around 100km) id support something like on-rails deorbiting, provided it does NOT take any noticeable performance hits to do so. Above that i dont want any mechanic that imposes any form of "lifetime" on a vessel, i dont care how realistic or whatever it is, if it renders vessels useless after a certain amount of time im going to disable it/mod it out. Now i have nothing against the concept, its just one of those "tedious" things like the not too long ago comm net system (screw you commnet, the droid brains on my starships are powered by sentient AI and dont need some command signal to operate) that id just turn off, and since i have no interest in tediousness and only really enjoy building military vessels in this game and having battles with them (both stock and occasional BDA for planes/tanks), i dont feel the time and effort spent to make this feature work is worth it when they could spend that time adding something (or just fixing the game) that would be more universally accepted. I completely understand why teh "realism" people like and want this idea, and it would add to gameplay complexity, but i just fail to see why such a controversial feature should be developed when there are already mods out there that do this concept (im pretty sure there is something in RO that adds N-body physics and has orbital decay added to the game in some form). For now, those that want it can stick to mods, i highly doubt its possible for squad to introduce this without a performance hit, and if we have to have a performance hit and really want orbital decay, just get the mod and be less unhappy.
  25. panzer1b
    If you would like to feel free, i have been very busy IRL recently (final year of college) so i havent had as much time to screw around with my modding/gaming. If you make a release for OPM id be very happy to put a link up on the main page of the mod. Btw, while its been a while, i have 1.3 version almost 100% done, so you guys can expect that to be released soonish most likely corresponding with teh release of squad's new localized KSP. I have it working fine on 1.2.9, but given its a beta im not really going to release an official version of this mod on a beta game version, so im just waiting around for that to be released, and for a few more changes i really want to make before i release the mod once i get time after semester is over...
×
×
  • Create New...