Jump to content

KIDI- Kerbal Interplanetary Defence Initiative

sodopro

By sodopro
in KSP1 The Spacecraft Exchange

 Share

Recommended Posts

Orky Kultur

Orky Kultur

Posted
Posted
Up to a point. After that the internals can't deal with the damage and lower tolerance parts break, basing the frame off of these lower tolerance parts means that the ship snaps more easily requiring munitions with yields 37-85% lower than those needed to break structurally framed ships.

A good hit will punch through your central spine anyway, won't it? As it is, Redundant systems seem like the only real way forward on the defensive side of things, but I personally have found difficulty integrating that into my designs with my preference for the functionally superior forward-engine layout.

[image]
1635 parts. Like, I can't even comprehend that number properly. That's enough to melt my laptop four times over...

Why does it have landing gear on the front?

Depends. Some small torps will indeed bounce, some will damage an armored ship (within fairly acceptable levels, however), and others (often built specially to defeat armor systems, at the cost of complexity and mass per shot) will cripple, explode, or otherwise destroy a ship with armor.

However, I always armor my capitals, for three reasons:

1. It fits in my aesthetic preferences, and I know how to make ships look good with armor.

2. Most "fighter" craft carry sub-1.25 meter munitions, making it effective to armor ships that you'd like to not get crippled by a lucky fighter/drone shot. (I'm one of the few guys on here other than Spartwo with a really strong sub-1.25 meter fighter weapon.)

3. It will help negate damage that is done. Even if say, a Flea-based shot, for instance, scores a hit on your ship, damaging it, good armor combined with proper internal engineering can negate damage to acceptable levels. Some of my newer ships use things such as backup engines, expendable internal tanks, "false hulls" that function as shot traps, and so on to achieve a higher survival rate. While lots of firepower is nice, I like having a smaller amount of weapons on a ship (weapons which can reliably 1-2 shot disable/kill a hostile) and having the ship be much more tough in terms of hull plating and redundant systems.

The first point is basically the only reason you'll be seeing armour on my ships from now on (there'll also be a return to wing armour over steel plate). I would hotly contest the second point, however; in my case, only the lightest fighters can't realistically arm Fleas. Anything expected to run on more than just RCS/Ion will be packing at least two if capitol ships are expected. As to the third point: as I mentioned, redundant systems are something I'm having trouble working in atm (I've more been looking towards replaceable systems, which shouldn't be too expensive in terms of docking ports so long as you use the big tanks/etc). It would be nice to have the computational power to spare for a 'false hull', but I really, really don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spartwo

Spartwo

Posted
Posted
A good hit will punch through your central spine anyway, won't it? As it is, Redundant systems seem like the only real way forward on the defensive side of things, but I personally have found difficulty integrating that into my designs with my preference for the functionally superior forward-engine layout.

1635 parts. Like, I can't even comprehend that number properly. That's enough to melt my laptop four times over...

Why does it have landing gear on the front?

The big one is only 1000 and I'm trying to get a hangar door working but the parts aren't flexible enough so I will have to come to a more complex design. It's melting my laptop more than it would likely yours.

A good hit will still, yes, but it has to be 37-85% stronger than on ships based upon fuel tanks. The tanks will still be destroyed but they aren't integral to the structure of the ship meaning that it leaves a cavity in the ship rather than a gaping hole which then exposes the central point of the ship(at best)

Look, I was the last person who Battled regularly to convert but the results don't lie. It drastically increases the survivability of ships for very little extra weight if done right. And it also makes renovations and variants much easier to produce, it took me 20 minutes to update the Scythe for 1.0, I just switched out the propulsion arrangement and the heavy munitions compared to a number of hours to bring the Avalon back up to spec which required a full rebuild.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spartwo

Spartwo

Posted
Posted (edited)

Good idea.

yYBoSER.png

Hmm, new version of the Broadsword means I have more space than I need, Not complaining of course.

rvoRQlt.png

Maybe I could opt out of 4 fighters for 2 frigates...

Edited by Spartwo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spartwo

Spartwo

Posted
Posted (edited)

I should really get to putting this on a launcher but nah, more messing about.

kPeb5aw.png

5qzedNt.png

ZHEK7Vz.png

Over 1000 parts worth of carriage. Extra munitions and MMU's included.

I am very conservative...except when it comes to carriers.

Edited by Spartwo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Golden_ Clock Industries

Golden_ Clock Industries

Posted
Posted (edited)

I'll name her "Ulm".

Updated June 14th, 2015. Removed 4 engines for increased D/v. Pictures do not reflect these changes, but the craft can now make it to a circular Jool orbit with proper piloting.

uDhWr4c.png

c4akJ8z.png

Armament and equipment:

x6 "Hades Lite" Flea Torpedoes (fired in pairs)

x4 of my primitive SMS replacement that I need to work on at some point

x1 releasable probe (not self-propelling)

http://www./download/84v78rzqhx31t2u/Ulm-class+Destroyer.craft

And you can use it if you want, HoH.

Edited by Golden_ Clock Industries
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SHiftER2O

SHiftER2O

Posted
Posted
I'll name her "Ulm".

http://i.imgur.com/uDhWr4c.png

http://i.imgur.com/c4akJ8z.png

Armament and equipment:

x6 "Hades Lite" Flea Torpedoes (fired in pairs)

x4 of my primitive SMS replacement that I need to work on at some point

x1 releasable probe (not self-propelling)

http://www./download/khydxd68ej3a42b/Ulm-class+Destroyer.craft

And you can use it if you want, HoH.

You know, the engine part is quite... vulnerable ._.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Khobai

Khobai

Posted
Posted
Most "fighter" craft carry sub-1.25 meter munitions, making it effective to armor ships that you'd like to not get crippled by a lucky fighter/drone shot. (I'm one of the few guys on here other than Spartwo with a really strong sub-1.25 meter fighter weapon.)

That might have been true prior to the addition of the srb-5. But the srb-5 gives fighters a compact weapon that can damage or even destroy most armored ships.

You know, the engine part is quite... vulnerable ._.

I like the way it looks. I think armoring the engines would ruin the aesthetic. Besides adding armor on top of a crash tolerance 6 fuel tank wouldnt help anyway. Armor really only helps if you attach it to crash tolerance 80 structure and even then it doesnt really do anything to stop srb-5s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ScriptKitt3h

ScriptKitt3h

Posted
Posted
That might have been true prior to the addition of the srb-5. But the srb-5 gives fighters a compact weapon that can damage or even destroy most armored ships.

I like the way it looks. I think armoring the engines would ruin the aesthetic. Besides adding armor on top of a crash tolerance 6 fuel tank wouldnt help anyway. Armor really only helps if you attach it to crash tolerance 80 structure and even then it doesnt really do anything to stop srb-5s.

While it is true that armor only really is beneficial if you add it to a strong structural spine, I still have to disagree with you on the matter of its effectiveness. There's still more a much more severe drawback to making unarmored combat vessels than there is to making armored ones in terms of survival rate, probability of 'bouncing' munitions (where a missile hits at a angled portion of the hull and ricochets off), and finally, the SRB-5 is nice, but it's not a a guaranteed kill against armored craft 100% of the time (compared to weaker craft).

That's why I still think strong armor is absolutely necessary (for capital ships, not carriers) and will continue to encourage others to use it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Caldari Navy

Caldari Navy

Posted
Posted
Co-102 'Vulcan' Class Corvette is under construction. Pretty sure that this is the longest running line of capital ships still going in KSP. (Number correlates to version, except the Co-1 to Co-7)

I'm packing every advancement I can think of into this thing. Central spine, layered armour, segregated tanks, main gun, drop tanks, high TWR and dV. If you can think of anything else I should add point it out. Warship design has stagnated and so needs a bit of a shakeup.

Here is a pic of the barebones. Not armour yet so looks ugly as. The spaceplane tanks have a very good impact tolerance and so should increase survivability compared to the older models.

http://i.imgur.com/3vdAr4S.png

Most likely way too late to suggest anything for this ship but what about having reactive armor, I've found it can be quite effective...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
8bitgammers

8bitgammers

Posted
Posted (edited)

i have decided to post all my current fleet craft for download:

elhDlm0.jpg

Mid-Sized fighter: Space-Mu

versatile, with 4 I-beam torpedoes, 1 SRB torpedo.

Download

dFlclDD.png

Large Corvette: Raptor I

Large, 72 I-Beam torpedoes, 36 shots. LAG!

Download

Hfk6QNc.png

Destroyer: Py-8

heavy, small missiles=6, SRB Torpedoes.

download

Also, here are other crafts:

Slug-1

download

HR-SF-1

download

Space-Torch

download

Space-trn

download

SpaceWolf-1

download

the Breaker

download

Mini Frig-A

download

Latest video:

Edited by 8bitgammers
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
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...