Naval Battle League 2016-2018

[Joseph Kerman]

58 minutes ago, Spartwo said:

Try to make everything from parts with 80m/s tolerance.

That's what my most recent ships are made of.

Edited May 10, 2017 by Joseph Kerman

[Spartwo]

It's ok not to when you're in the lighter range of ships because they're more about a good hit then dying than a sustained slugging match. Wings weigh a third plates so a big ship doesn't notice .1 tons over .3 as much as a small one.

[Joseph Kerman]

Wings are hard to use for me. Unlike plates, wings cannot be layered.

[SG Aero]

yes. Also, have redundant systems. Have extra batteries, sas, probe cores, and if you really want to be annoying, have ion thrusters dispersed throughout the hull. Also with wings most weapons punch through armor so wings are fine as long as you have a near inpossible to hit skeleton with several structural redundancies.

Edited May 11, 2017 by ShadowGoat

[Joseph Kerman]

Fun Fact: Destroyers are not the most powerful nor the biggest ships, the mantles go to the Flagship and the Carrier, respectively.

[SG Aero]

THats obvious destroyers are made for lots of damage but are quite small

[Joseph Kerman]

@MiffedStarfish To be honest, when I tested your G3 against my Destroyer (or was it my Flagship?), it did only moderate damage, but a few times (meaning, inconsistent) it did some meaningful damage.

 

Meanwhile, when I shot a Javelin on your Hyperion, it ripped off the back of the craft, but it can still run. It should take at least 2 well-placed Javelins to incapacitate your Hyperion.

Edited May 11, 2017 by Joseph Kerman

[panzer1b]

When it comes to protection, there are really 2 distinct choices when it comes to skeletal design, yeah there are variations of the concept, but basically 2 unique ones.

The first involves using a line of girders/ibeams and building out sideways.  The is the older style, which still works and has its merits these days.  This has good results in that loosing the central girder will at worst split your ship in half, with a complete 1 hit KO being very very difficult if not impossible if you have the front and back redundified properly.  The way to do this is to use either engines inside your ships (ant, ion, rcs thrusters are the only engines right now that do not have a thrust hitbox modeled properly and thus work inside a craft), or have external engines so that every section can be propelled on its own.  Basically treat the ship as if it is a modular vessel (every segment stacked in front or behind has everything it needs to be its own ship) and this style of build will serve you very well, but at the cost of complexity, part counts, and mass.  You dont absolutely have to have super redundancy, but ive basically dismissed the old style completely without it, since getting cut in half happens all to often and most of the time if that happens you are finished because you either loose most of the weapons or the engine compartment.

The other style involves having one critical root part and then building outwards from that.  This is (in my opinion at least) the better way to build nowadays because you can abuse the concept of probability and make the ship so that the odds of hitting that part are extremely small.  This has the obvious downside of being instakilled when the root part goes with most designs of the sort, but you can kinda make a ship in 2 parts or so so that if the root goes its split in half and half usually remains a ship.  Anyways, the basic style here is what i call a H-frame (look at my SK-104 to see what i mean), you have 1 part in the middle, then branch out on 4 directions to make the main hull and corners of your ship.  Then optionally you can branch out up/down as needed if your ship is large/tall.  Each branch should have a reasonable amount opf stuff attached, but not so much that having 1-02 branches shot off considerably affects ship performance.  My newer ships have 8 branches, the 4 up front have weapons of em, 2 in the back have engines, and 2 in the back have weapons.  if i have more then 2 main engines all 4 rear branches get engines and there are usually 2 extra on the back with a few guns on em for 10 total.  Also worth mentioning is that this design may benefit from wing armor vs plating, since the vast majority of the craft can be made hollow and with wings ordinance just passes through taking a weapon or engine with it but rarely actually doing enough damage to negatively affect ship function.  Like anything, itll die to a luckshot (hit the root and its game over), and its not going to survive 20 impacts one after the other either (nothing will), but it has the best qualities of suitability coupled with the ability to use almost exclusively wing armor to lower the overall mass and allow you to bring more guns (or actually have more then 500dV, although who would even increase the dV if they can put more guns on ).

Anyways, there are many other variations of both styles, but generally you can choose one of these 2 options.  Generally speaking the older style of building is probably easier to make and a safer bet for newer players (if it isnt done perfectly the 2nd style can result in pretty reliable deaths, and you also have to deal with the wobble kraken that seems to feast on ships that have alot of branches coming off a single root part).  Still, feel free to try both and see what works better for you.

33 minutes ago, Joseph Kerman said:

@MiffedStarfish To be honest, when I tested your G3 against my Destroyer (or was it my Flagship?), it did only moderate damage, but a few times (meaning, inconsistent) it did some meaningful damage.

I think the G3 is a high penetration weapon, similar to my Tribeam missiles my ships carry.  It is very good against heavy compact armor, but its absolutely atrocious against anything with alot of empty voids inside with little vulnurable components to hit with 1 shot.  Most weapons with a cone shaped front spike work that way, they are great at phasing through and tearing the core apart, but are bad without exceptional aim since they have no shrapnel and are very thin with a little hitbox/front profile.

Edited May 11, 2017 by panzer1b

[Joseph Kerman]

@panzer1b AKSTech ships seem small, how's their armor protection?

Honestly, I might want to do an all out TDM battle after this.

[MiffedStarfish]

@Joseph Kerman That's strange. You probably weren't firing the G3 right, the first shot I took at your destroyer did this:

And 2 javelins from 3km did this to a Hyperion:

(Sorry for the lightning, you might want to turn your brightness up)

 

Edited May 11, 2017 by MiffedStarfish

[Joseph Kerman]

44 minutes ago, MiffedStarfish said:

@Joseph Kerman That's strange. You probably weren't firing the G3 right, the first shot I took at your destroyer did this:

And 2 javelins from 3km did this to a Hyperion:

(Sorry for the lightning, you might want to turn your brightness up)

 

Well, how would you fire a G3?

 

And I have seen the pic. The shot on the corvette.

[SG Aero]

I use a similar tribeam propelled by thuds. It's kind of a ap round, as it ususally goes straight through, and has two of the side i beams break off and get stuck inside the hull of the victim 

Edited May 11, 2017 by ShadowGoat

[SG Aero]

@Spartwo

@panzer1b

@MiffedStarfish

the persist will be up this afternoon

[SG Aero]

@Spartwo

@panzer1b

@MiffedStarfish

the persist will be up this afternoon

[Joseph Kerman]

Just now, ShadowGoat said:

@Spartwo

@panzer1b

@MiffedStarfish

the persist will be up this afternoon

Double post, @ShadowGoat

[SG Aero]

GOSH DARN WHY I DONT DO THIS BUT MY FLIPPING PHONE KEEPS DOING THIS TO ME

[Joseph Kerman]

4 minutes ago, ShadowGoat said:

GOSH DARN WHY I DONT DO THIS BUT MY FLIPPING PHONE KEEPS DOING THIS TO ME

Lolololol -- *cough* *cough* 

 

Try not pressing send twice.

 

 

 

[SG Aero]

I dont

[Joseph Kerman]

Then it is a server-side problem.

[SG Aero]

Ok

[panzer1b]

12 hours ago, Joseph Kerman said:

@panzer1b AKSTech ships seem small, how's their armor protection?

Honestly, I might want to do an all out TDM battle after this.

Most of those are actually outdated.  As i mentioned before i fell down the road of trying to make everything super compact, and while the ships themselves aint half bad, my modern vessels (regulator and rectifier class, as well as the in-progress SK-106 which ive yet to name) use my modern layout which is moderate size with alot of empty space inside them.  Most of the ships on my repository are last generation, with the so called "sub-capital" class being really popular with me for the last year or so (the concept is sound, super tiny and lightweight, hard to hit, ect, but in practice it kinda doesnt stand up well to any high end weapons and they get annihbillated by ibeam spam).  That and most of the last year or so ships used the so called internal ion spam technique, not that its illegal or anything according to rules, but i kinda feel really cheap abusing it to the extent that it was impossible to mobility kill any of my vessels period without vaporizing the entire thing outright.  Thus switched back to conventional engines as they feel more like an actual capital ship, even if they have the obvious downside of being less mass efficient and an easier target.  The larger ones (Sk-1xx and 2xx which are corvettes and frigates respectively) are basically from 2+ years ago and thus outdated by alot.  Most of the really outdated ships are just terrible and id never use them in a competitive battle (pretty much any ship that has a lengthwise girder skeleton structure in my repository is trash armor wise), and the just slightly outdated ones are the previously mentioned subcapital ships that are designed to be ultra lightweight and super tiny (but in doing so a single shot tends to do alot of damage).

Also a bit unrelated, but something id like to clarify with yall incase anyone has objections.  Is everyone ok with me using pulse cannons on my ships?  They are stock cfg edited weapons that use a decoupler with its eject force increased by enough to blast long and short ibeams at lethal velocity without the use of sepatrons (saves alot of parts).  From testing they are weaker then ibeam+sepatron in general, they just have the ability to be fired at point-blank and still do full damage to a target (not that i actually engage from that distance, usually ~100-200m out).  Its basically used entirely as a part count saving measure, and they have more disadvantages then advantages actually (less firepower, flat invariable impact velocity, insane recoil problems which have resulted in weapon mounts being ripped apart on some badly designed ships, inaccurate, ect).  I can alwasy swap these things out for conventional SRMs, but id rather not as they are just meant to be secondary weapons anyways and the saved part count is imo worth their weaker performance compared to regulat sepatron powered ibeams.

[Spartwo]

That's a mod but if the other people are ok with an overpowered guaranteed hit I-beam I don't see why not.

Edited May 11, 2017 by Spartwo

[panzer1b]

2 hours ago, ShadowGoat said:

@Spartwo

@panzer1b

@MiffedStarfish

the persist will be up this afternoon

kk

Just now, Spartwo said:

That's a mod but if the other people are ok with an overpowered guaranteed hit I-beam I don't see why not.

technically sepatron ibeams are guaranted hit too you know (as is basically every other weapon ive ever developed when used correctly)...

and its not a mod, i just opened the CFG and icnreased the decoupler force % past 100% that the in game allows you to. 

[Spartwo]

You're getting similar results for less mass being carried around. And you'll be doing consistent flat line damage. 

[panzer1b]

Just now, Spartwo said:

You're getting similar results for less mass being carried around. And you'll be doing consistent flat line damage. 

fine, ill swap to regular SRMs, granted the part count increase is not fun when ur ship is already over 600 parts...

and i dont even want to know how many parts my soon to be finished station will be when i carry SRM reloads.  Thats gonna be painful to be near...

Edited May 11, 2017 by panzer1b