Naval Battle League 2016-2018

[Spartwo]

Example craft from the tutorials.

[HeroBrian_333]

K, however, I didn't see the support craft episode.

[Piatzin]

15 minutes ago, HeroBrian_333 said:

@Spartwo please help me. I need a fairly recent craft file for target practice please.

Just make a wall of structural plates and play around with their layers and angles. Won't give you the full experience, but at least you'll have an idea of how destructive your weaponry is

[HeroBrian_333]

What KSP version should I use, and are we allowed to hyperedit our crafts into orbit?

[panzer1b]

Here is one of my better warships in the armor dept, albeit this particular upload is a teeny bit outdated (i have better versions of that ship available, just never bothered to upload em).

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ak7xpkncugfloiq/AKS SK-IV G3.craft?dl=0

 

Also, if you are interested, check the craft repository i have supplied here for a good variety of craft (almost all of these are outdated, but none of them are terrible since i never made ships without any armor protection):

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/8uujxmmgbmmsxru/AACKb0QFjPSQL33oAR7iZvb0a?dl=0

 

You can also get a glimpse of how i make weapons too since all of the craft provided come armed and if im not mistaken 90% of them have launch stages so you can take them into orbit without mods or cheats (if thats your thing ofc).

[HeroBrian_333]

Thank you @panzer1b, these should be very helpful. Especially since it seems like you always stressed the importance of armor.

[Piatzin]

15 minutes ago, HeroBrian_333 said:

it seems like you always stressed the importance of armor.

cOuGh CoUgH

*Discreetly adds more panels*

[SG Aero]

False alarm. I’m still alive. Anyway I might finally get to building that warship this weekend.

[panzer1b]

46 minutes ago, HeroBrian_333 said:

Thank you @panzer1b, these should be very helpful. Especially since it seems like you always stressed the importance of armor.

Not that im crazy about armor, but i generally have something against every battle ending in 1 shot kills.  I mean its fine to loose a starfighter in a single hit (if you fire a 1.2m torp at it), but a capital ship ive always envisioned them as capable of taking a beating and i always liked having weapons be precision kills rather then just making it go poof.

Anyways, my next land base is almost done, all i need is add the orbital defense cannon and 1-2 LRM batteries and itll be finished.

[SG Aero]

@&#%€¥>!!!! I didn’t buy the game early enough for the making history.

[panzer1b]

23 minutes ago, ShadowGoat said:

@&#%€¥>!!!! I didn’t buy the game early enough for the making history.

Well im sorta indifferent, the ONLY 2 things in the expansion that interest me is the ability to launch from different spot then KSC (assuming its not a mission builder only feature i can launch stuff from Duna for instance), and the structural panels they are adding (which frankly should have been in stock 1.4).  Im still prolly gonna get it to support further development (as much as i hate the EULA, its not like i really care, once software is on my machine i do whatever i please as long as its for personal use regardless of what agreements it has), so yeah, ill have the stuff to mess with eventually, but im in no rush, and i will NEVER create craft that i upload on here using DLC parts since not everyone will have the thing (which is a real shame, nomatter how nice it is, DLC only parts will split the community somewhat unless EVERYONE buys it which is doubtful)...

[HeroBrian_333]

Soo...

I'm picking up that the current meta is I-beam missiles? Why no mass cannons?

For that matter, weaponry hasn't changed at all since 2015! Did anyone use a new type of weaponry?

[HeroBrian_333]

I'm currently working on a thermal warhead missile and a broadside firing system.

And restart the discord!

Right here: see?

It is still in construction.

[panzer1b]

4 hours ago, HeroBrian_333 said:

Soo...

I'm picking up that the current meta is I-beam missiles? Why no mass cannons?

For that matter, weaponry hasn't changed at all since 2015! Did anyone use a new type of weaponry?

You are more or less correct.  The thing is, weaponry hasnt changed since not long after Macey Dean dissapeared when people realized that sticking a structural part on the tip or somewhere on the missile worked well.  After that, most of the weapons development became a matter of finding optimal shapes and configurations, but the concept stayed the same, have something with 80m/s impact or higher on the missile for maximum lethality.

There was a brief time where wheels were a thing, but these days i find wheels to be hard to work with and not really any better then regular 80m/s parts.  What made me personally stop using wheels was when the devs changed the wheel model and implemented forced auto-strut on wheels which cant be disabled.  Autostrut isnt entirely bad for armor, but i myself do not enjoy using it (feels cheaty), and in many cases autostrut makes armor weaker, not stronger like youd expect (so ive generally avoided it in combat with the rare exception of something docked to a carrier or station that started wobbling badly with no struts).  Nowadays, wheels still have good impact tolerance, but are generally lackluster and not exactly superior to regular parts or anything and cause your ship to be harder to protect (due to aforementioned autostrut you cant turn off).

there really isnt all that much to weapons design.  More mass equals more lethality and damage capability.  more impact tolerance means lower chance of missile being destroyed on impact and thus more chance of enemy ship being destroyed on impact.  Simpler weapons have been found to work not much worse then high end super complex 20+ part count ordinance, and thus in order to cut down lag and or allow one to carry alot of weapons, anything over 20 parts is generally avoided as it just lags really really badly in numbers.  Finally, you generally dont want to use weapons much more then 10t heavy.  SInce every single attack always has a luck factor nomatter how skilled or ideal your shot placement is, its better to have multiple rounds rather then 1-2 extremely large and or heavy rounds (unless you have something that is 95% guaranteed to kill target, i wouldnt bet on a single hit kill and rather stick to multiple slightly weaker hits which allow targeting multiple sections of the target if the 1st shot isnt a killshot.

[HeroBrian_333]

23 minutes ago, panzer1b said:

not long after Macey Dean dissapeared

Who is this Macey Dean character? The founder of KSP space combat?

24 minutes ago, panzer1b said:

there really isnt all that much to weapons design.  More mass equals more lethality and damage capability.

In someone's immortal words, I disagree. A clamper on weapons and ship design will always lead to mutual suicide, so someone needs to bring in new concepts.

26 minutes ago, panzer1b said:

Finally, you generally dont want to use weapons much more then 10t heavy.

I agree here. However, ordinance pods... not going to spoil it. You'll see after my first battle.

27 minutes ago, panzer1b said:

its better to have multiple rounds rather then 1-2 extremely large and or heavy rounds (unless you have something that is 95% guaranteed to kill target, i wouldnt bet on a single hit kill and rather stick to multiple slightly weaker hits which allow targeting multiple sections of the target if the 1st shot isnt a killshot.

I agree again. However, I am working on a new type of missile... one that has never been seen here before. Kill chance should be upwards of 80% per missile, and they are small.

[Piatzin]

6 hours ago, HeroBrian_333 said:

Who is this Macey Dean character? The founder of KSP space combat?

Whaaaat? You've never even heard of him??

Anyways.

I made some projectiles for my (small) (ish) 'Icebreaker' Corvettes:

3 small reaction wheels for stability. You may be wondering why I picked a low thrust engine such as the Aerospike. Main reason is range. 2100 D-V is, in my opinion, quite a lot, and it allows the torpedo to change its orbit and travel a fair distance before making the final speed run and ramming into the enemy.

The corvettes will (hopefully) be able to fit four of them (two per side) and two with Vectors, for less range but additional acceleration.

Not sure if this is the best strategy

Oh and I kinda abandoned the ship I showed you guys last time

[SG Aero]

@panzer1b Yeah I’ve oudl have preferred more planets or some visual dlc. As you said, the DLC only parts are going to split the community, and the quality of the DLC really isn’t worth that. Plus the historical missions suck.

[HeroBrian_333]

1.4 is broken. My SPH is not working properly, engine exhaust damage is broken, and I-beam missiles don't work right.

[HeroBrian_333]

Please continue to use 1.3.1, as it is less laggy. 1.4 adds nothing of use to this thread.

Also, like my new cover pic?

[panzer1b]

2 hours ago, ShadowGoat said:

@panzer1b Yeah I’ve oudl have preferred more planets or some visual dlc. As you said, the DLC only parts are going to split the community, and the quality of the DLC really isn’t worth that. Plus the historical missions suck.

Yeah, i completely agree.  Mission builder and stuff like extra launch pads are great ideas for DLC, but parts will always split the community somewhat unless they made the DLC forced (which it isnt).  But yeah, i really hope future DLC focused on visuals, something i would GLADLY pay for if it was done in an optimized manner, albeit the recent updates have made me seriously doubt that, im pretty sure EVE+scatterer+planetshine+distant object+KS3P+texture replacer will run far less laggy all together then anything the devs can come up with that actually offers similar visuals.  Extra planets would defenetely be welcome though, it really shouldnt split the community unless multiplayer becomes a thing, and itd also be something id really be willing to buy if it was done optimized and actually pretty.  As nice as kopernicus is, its super buggy and laggy so i stay away from using modded planet packs just because of that aspect.  Much better to add visual, planet, and completely new feature additions rather then parts which could have been stock (i dont midn the "historical" parts being DLC, but structural parts, and such should really be added in stock.

 

Anyways, the real sad part is that the entire DLC feels like it was rushed out teh door.  I dont own it myself, but from what ive seen its got more bugs and unfinished/badly thought out things in it then it should have, and for a player like me that plays sandbox exclusively (i have enuff of an imagination to make up my own missions, scenarios, and impose my own limitations on what sort of parts i can use and what the vessels should have/be able to do).

 

1 hour ago, HeroBrian_333 said:

Please continue to use 1.3.1, as it is less laggy. 1.4 adds nothing of use to this thread.

Also, like my new cover pic?

 

Im switching to 1.4, and aside from a couple visual bugs, there is nothing in the 1.4.1 update that stands out as bad.  Really, if only for the new decouplers, which are amazing compared to the trash we had to deal with back in teh days of 1.3.1 and earlier, that and well all the mods i actually care about have been already updated to 1.4 so its not like theres any reason for me not to use it (EULA doesnt mean squat when im using KSP for personal use only, its not like anyone will sue me for firewalling or decompiling the game or modifying whatever i please solong as i dont upload any of that or give it to anyone).

Edited March 14, 2018 by panzer1b

[SG Aero]

Oh yeah by the way @panzer1b so I did some sleuthing around the game files after KSP tripped my extensive web of firewall and security software programs, and turns out that T2 actually added spyware into 1.4.1 as it sends data back about not only the game, but PC specs and such too. Someone coded a blocker for it but apparently T2 attack’s dthem with the EULA.

[panzer1b]

40 minutes ago, ShadowGoat said:

Oh yeah by the way @panzer1b so I did some sleuthing around the game files after KSP tripped my extensive web of firewall and security software programs, and turns out that T2 actually added spyware into 1.4.1 as it sends data back about not only the game, but PC specs and such too. Someone coded a blocker for it but apparently T2 attack’s dthem with the EULA.

if T2 can somehow get past 2 firewalls, both specifically set to block KSP and anything i didnt allow manually, let em have my personal data.  there is nothing illegal i do on my machine, and well, im not THAT stupid to write down my bank account info on a destrop file called bank account info

 

Still, i do understand the fact that many people hate the idea of spyware being integrated in KSP.  There is no good reason for T2 to require personal info from a SINGLEPLAYER game, so yeah, unless MP of some sort (and laggy/buggy/unuseable mods like DMP dont count) comes out and is actually worth playing, KSP will never be given firewall access...

[SG Aero]

Yeah I don’t give it firewall access either. Just mentioning that it was setting something off. I don’t do any thing illegal either.

Edited March 15, 2018 by ShadowGoat

[Mitchz95]

I've been experimenting with warships lately. Would anyone be willing to critique my design?

Weapons: 32 missiles which consist of I-beams with attached Sepratrons and a tiny decoupler. The armored prow allows ramming.

Engines: one Nerv (interplanetary drive), two Swivels (combat drive). Thrusters can fire in any direction.

Edited March 21, 2018 by Mitchz95

[SG Aero]

Looks cool, but I-beams won’t do jack s*** against most seriously armored targets. If my craft can survive being dropped from orbit I think it can survive a few I beams. Also ramming is disallowed.