Naval Battle League 2016-2018

[Canberra_Gaming]

Just now, AlexanderTeaH said:

It's in my thread below along with lots more mushy targets!

Deal friend. I'm gonna record my juicy shots

[curiousepic]

Whoa, how did I not know about this? The first rule isn't even to not talk about Battle Club. Some questions and suggestions:

• Where's the best place to learn about "modern" optimal engineering, tactics, and doctrine?
• Why is there no part count limit rule (even with 1.1's improvements)?
• Likewise, there should probably be rules to standardize game options/settings to better ensure equal footing.
• Targets could be set to "Target" SAS mode, so they always attempt to face the attacker. That way, armor placement and flanking become more interesting.
• I know at some point when I checked in the past that KOS could not operate on craft not in focus, but if that has changed, it would be awesome to develop battle programs as well, to emulate real-time combat for both sides, with little or no active input.

Edited April 29, 2016 by curiousepic

[ScriptKitt3h]

12 minutes ago, curiousepic said:

Whoa, how did I not know about this? The first rule isn't even to not talk about Battle Club. Some questions and suggestions:

• Where's the best place to learn about "modern" optimal engineering, tactics, and doctrine?
• Why is there no part count limit rule (even with 1.1's improvements)?
• Likewise, there should probably be rules to standardize game options/settings to better ensure equal footing.
• Targets could be set to "Target" SAS mode, so they always attempt to face the attacker. That way, armor placement and flanking become more interesting.
• I know at some point when I checked in the past that KOS could not operate on craft not in focus, but if that has changed, it would be awesome to develop battle programs as well, to emulate real-time combat for both sides, with little or no active input.

Firstly, the best way to learn about stock space combat is through watching what goes on, examining the ships out there for download and seeing how they're made, and participating in battles yourself.

Next, part count limits are really up to the players in each individual match, especially since people have varying levels of hardware, and some players may need more or less complex ships to be effective. To limit part count across-the-board would severely hamper creativity in design and fleet sizes overall.

"Standardization" of game options isn't really all that important- it's never been an issue in the past, and still isn't today. A stock install with no mods (perhaps save for purely graphical options like EVE/Scatterer) generally behaves like any other stock install. 

I'm not too sure that a ship would even hold a "Target" SAS mode through loading/unloading, plus there's really no such thing as "flanking" in orbit, and good armor design allows ships to have better survivability in general, since a proper structural-part-built ship skeleton, plus well-laid-out and effective armor, almost always provides a noticeable boost in damage negation (though only to a point, as some weapons are designed to beat armored hulls, so in the end it's a game of trade-offs).

I'm not so sure KOS would work for that necessarily, and this is a stock game within KSP, so I'm not so sure that would work. However, with 1.1 completed, hopefully SQUAD's moving towards MP, which will hopefully allow for proper real-time combat (that's a whole 'nother form of stock space combat altogether, as you'd need to be very adept at orbital maneuvers on-the-fly and somehow have a way to remote-guide your missiles to a target from beyond loading range (ideally, by having multi-player-controlled ships, where one could pilot, another could fire/control missiles, and so on)).

[Iago]

Calling @Vaos Human. If multiplayer ever comes along will you duel us? Perhaps a few training matches in the meantime?

[Canberra_Gaming]

I'm going to be recording some battle scenes after I finish Episode 2. Does anybody have any ships they'd like me to use? It'll be later tonight after Prom so it's up to you. I know @ScriptKitt3h and @AlexanderTeaH would probably like to have some featured designs

[Spartwo]

17 hours ago, Iago said:

Calling @Vaos Human. If multiplayer ever comes along will you duel us? Perhaps a few training matches in the meantime?

*Realises you can now summon people*

[Frozen_Heart]

What is the current meta for shipbuilding? Is it still the central spine + layer of metal plates? And what works best for weapons now?

[Spartwo]

For the time being, I'm sitting here waiting for MP.

[Frozen_Heart]

28 minutes ago, Spartwo said:

For the time being, I'm sitting here waiting for MP.

One day....

[ScriptKitt3h]

46 minutes ago, Frozen_Heart said:

What is the current meta for shipbuilding? Is it still the central spine + layer of metal plates? And what works best for weapons now?

It's a mix of building styles and weapons- but if you're going for something highly-competitive, there's 2 main schools of thought (and design) right now:

1. Steel armor plating over structural skeleton/spine(s) with fully internal and compartmentalized fuel, engines (save for a thruster port at the back), and other more "squishy" components. External hulls often are steel coated with either a fully completed layer of wing plate (as ablative armor) or with the occasional decorative piece of wing plate or other aesthetic enhancements. Some ships (including a few of mine) have started putting internal armored "secondary hulls" inside the main hull, with an air-gap between them and the ship walls, in order to "catch" incoming projectiles that break or phase through.

2. Wing plating over a structural skeleton with the addition of large fuel tanks (like MK2/MK3) and fuselage parts into the superstructure, sacrificing heavy armor for enhanced delta-V, TWR, agility, and lower mass+part count (sometimes, depending on the weapon setups and size of the ship overall). Spartwo's current ships are a great example of this.

As for weapons, i-beams are still a good fallback for something nice and lightweight, spammable, and easily carried on a variety of ships. As posted earlier this week, rocket cannons now are seemingly functional again, and 1.25 meter anti-ship missiles still are a way to pack a wallop in a single shot. However, some players (myself included) also have started looking into effective 0.625 meter missiles, able to deal similar (slightly less, but in the same range) amounts of damage to our ship-killer missiles, but with much lower mass and size, enabling fighter kills and more missiles on a single capital ship.

1 hour ago, Canberra_Gaming said:

I'm going to be recording some battle scenes after I finish Episode 2. Does anybody have any ships they'd like me to use? It'll be later tonight after Prom so it's up to you. I know @ScriptKitt3h and @AlexanderTeaH would probably like to have some featured designs

Lemme see what I can whip up.

[Frozen_Heart]

I suspect that the wing plated ones will become more competitive when mp arrives, as they will just be able to manoeuvre until the enemy runs out of fuel. Also extreme long range missiles (like a whole orbit away) will become preferable.

[AlexanderTeaH]

1 hour ago, Canberra_Gaming said:

I'm going to be recording some battle scenes after I finish Episode 2. Does anybody have any ships they'd like me to use? It'll be later tonight after Prom so it's up to you. I know @ScriptKitt3h and @AlexanderTeaH would probably like to have some featured designs

Most certainly! I'll see what I have laying around in my save.

Also, I've noticed that KSP seems to crash a lot when something explodes, any ideas as to why this is happening?

[Spartwo]

They don't like us militarizing.

[ScriptKitt3h]

1 hour ago, AlexanderTeaH said:

Also, I've noticed that KSP seems to crash a lot when something explodes, any ideas as to why this is happening?

One potential technical reason is that much like crashes heading into and/or out of the editor scene, that explosions act as RAM usage spikes- something that can push a RAM-hungry install over the edge into an access violation, causing the game to CTD.

1 hour ago, Frozen_Heart said:

I suspect that the wing plated ones will become more competitive when mp arrives, as they will just be able to manoeuvre until the enemy runs out of fuel. Also extreme long range missiles (like a whole orbit away) will become preferable.

Perhaps, depends really on the ship itself, since TWR also depends on fuel mass/engine thrust+isp, and so on. A few current 1.25 meter missiles could in theory strike across orbits, but another alternative is having carriers and warships with parasite fighters that undock as the orbits near, fly to attack the hostile vessel, and then rendezvous afterwards with the parent. Manned ships will (hopefully) be preferable in stock MP, since any ability to have more than one player in control of a ship would allow for things like having dedicated missile/drone operators and the like.

While MP's likely going to be very interesting, for now I'm focusing on making currently-functional ships with some MP-styled concessions, like "chaff" probes and so on. After all, we've got no idea when or if SQUAD's going to go through with making an MP mode in stock for the near future, and all we can do is speculate.

[Servo]

3 hours ago, Frozen_Heart said:

I suspect that the wing plated ones will become more competitive when mp arrives, as they will just be able to manoeuvre until the enemy runs out of fuel. Also extreme long range missiles (like a whole orbit away) will become preferable.

When does it stop being a missile and start being a ramming drone? Ramming is a pretty consistent taboo, so I'm interested to see where you guys draw the line.

[Spartwo]

"4- A ship is considered dead when the main body of the ship is incapable of fulfilling two of these three goals unaided from other ships or on-board weapons...

+Sustaining power

+Moving

+Firing weapons.

5- Weapons can only be fired from the original ship core and must be used within the the same turn that they are fired.

12- Weapons must be fired between 3000 and 15 meters. "

[Frozen_Heart]

Spartwo will the rules change with real time combat though?

[panzer1b]

6 hours ago, Frozen_Heart said:

What is the current meta for shipbuilding? Is it still the central spine + layer of metal plates? And what works best for weapons now?

Personally the best hulls are going to be a central spine (or even 2 spines but that actually harder to make right) with some sort of spacers between spine and armor atop which your external hull is made.  One layer of armor works, and is the most efficient (low part count, lighter, ect), but the truly tough hulls have 2-3 layers on them which lower the probability of phasing crap instakilling your internals. 

1 hour ago, Servo said:

When does it stop being a missile and start being a ramming drone? Ramming is a pretty consistent taboo, so I'm interested to see where you guys draw the line.

Its a bit vague, given that at least for my single player campaigns i do have these things called a FK-100 which is a drone that acts like any other carrier based fighter but given its entirely disposable (and has no way to be rearmed without KIS), its intended to be used as a missile itself when ordinance is depleted or fuel is low.  Whether this thing is classed as a missile or as a fighter is really up for debate, but i think the club's no ramming rule is primarily in regards to larger vessels to stop people from being able to actually kill someone with a super badly damaged warship thats out of ammo.  If it looks like a dedicated ship, or is actually large, id say dont even bother trying to ram, but if its something super tiny that happens to have missiles on it and is designed to then ram, just ask your opponent if its ok with them if you treat it as a direct weapon.  Personally id be ok with it, but not everyone is as lenient as me (i play more for fun, not really ultra competitive).

[curiousepic]

Have flak missiles been found to be less effective than equivalent monolithic mass?

Also, I'm currently experimenting with using empty large fuel tanks as armor. Would it be kosher to clip a full fuel tank into an empty?

Edited April 30, 2016 by curiousepic

[panzer1b]

3 minutes ago, curiousepic said:

Have flak missiles been determined to be less effective than equivalent monolithic mass?

Ive had good experiences with flak missiles, but that is just me.  Not flak missiles per say though, buit the idea of firing multiple projectiles simultaneously (salvo firing a full battetry of railguns for example).

From my experience there is a sweet spot with the system.  For example firing a single double railgun (2 long ibeam+8 sepatrons) is generally weaker then firing 2 single ibeam+4 sepatron missiles at the same time.  That said, going overboard is also bad.  Firing every missile on a ship is less effective in general (unless the total mass of said missiles is so high that itll just instawipe the enemy) then firing accurate shots at the target CoM in say groups of 2-4.  It heavily depends on weapoin configuration, but single shots are actually not as powerful as a properly done multi-shot salvo cannon.  Also, keep your spacing and target size/shape in mind.  It seems that spacing the rounds too far is bad, as is having them be physically atop each other.

5 hours ago, ScriptKitt3h said:

However, some players (myself included) also have started looking into effective 0.625 meter missiles, able to deal similar (slightly less, but in the same range) amounts of damage to our ship-killer missiles

Can you give me an example, all my smaller misisles seem to be far weaker then the equivalent heavy hitters which are 1.2m diameter (even if mass is similar).  Id really love to scale down missiles (without killing their firepower), but i have yet to make anything that actually works in this regard.

Edited April 30, 2016 by panzer1b

[Spartwo]

35 minutes ago, Frozen_Heart said:

Spartwo will the rules change with real time combat though?

Another ruleset made for realtime combat.

Edited April 30, 2016 by Spartwo

[Servo]

What your tactic for aiming shots? I've had middling success with unguided missiles and okay with guided. My method is basically fast rendezvous (line up prograde to target and pointing at target using soft controls, then burn.) However, I've seen people get hits unguided at 1.5-.75km range, which is crazy under my methods.

[Frozen_Heart]

35 minutes ago, panzer1b said:

Personally the best hulls are going to be a central spine (or even 2 spines but that actually harder to make right) with some sort of spacers between spine and armor atop which your external hull is made.  One layer of armor works, and is the most efficient (low part count, lighter, ect), but the truly tough hulls have 2-3 layers on them which lower the probability of phasing crap instakilling your internals. 

I remember you mentioning the twin spine method now I think of it. Been meaning to try it for ages but haven't worked on a warship in ages.

Guessing that the spine can then double as armour with the fuel tanks hidden behind it?

[Matuchkin]

I am quite new in this business.

Well actually I just started 20 minutes ago-ANYWAY, I need some tips with building spacecraft. More precisely, I need help with armour.

1. Are there any general tips/additions/ recommendations that you would like to say about armour?

2. What are the properties of basic armour (say, layers of structural plates) against the stock kinetic projectiles that are so common here?

3. What are the most important components of a spacecraft to protect?

Edited May 1, 2016 by Matuchkin

[ScriptKitt3h]

6 minutes ago, Matuchkin said:

I am quite new in this business.

Well actually I just started 20 minutes ago-ANYWAY, I need some tips with building spacecraft. More precisely, I need help with armour.

1. Are there any general tips/additions/ recommendations that you would like to say about armour?

2. What are the properties of basic armour (say, layers of structural plates) against the stock kinetic projectiles that are so common here?

3. What are the most important components of a spacecraft to protect?

1-Something you'll hear a lot in regards to armor but that you'll generally also need to keep in mind: First, make sure you don't just slap wing/steel plates on a ship's outside and call it done. For truly effective (or at least functional per se) armor, you need to build your ship off a structural part spine/skeleton and build it out from there. It not only provides a degree of shock absorption/force load distribution, but also lets you layout your ship's internal and external space however you like. To finish, put in your internals (fuel, weapon mounts, etc.), mount your armor to the outside edges of your spine (have the armor connected to actual attachment points on the main spine, not radial-attached, and then build off the "root" armor plates to complete the hull), and make sure to leave openings for your engines and internally-stored weapons to fire out of.

2-So, there's really 3 "main" armor classes in here: light, medium, and heavy. Light armor is essentially wing plate and wing plate/parts only, meant for aesthetics, increased speed and dV, and for ships that aren't too concerned with taking severe damage. It's semi-effective against lighter weapons (like i-beams/fighter weapons), but otherwise is easy to obliterate. Medium armor is normally a single layer of steel plates, interlocked together to form a near-seamless hull/shell with openings for engines/weapons/etc. It's almost always effective at deflecting or negating severe damage from light weapons, and marginally effective against heavier slugs/rockets/shipkiller weapons. Heavy armor is the next step above medium, with two or more layers of steel plate (often through external "shields" and/or internal false/secondary hulls that catch stuff that phases through or punctures the outer layer) and lots of reinforced sections of the ship. 
Something increasingly common with medium/heavy armored ships these days (I use this on pretty much all of mine) is to coat the outside in wing armor OVER the steel plate hull, as it can act like ablative "reactive" armor, and cancel out the kinetic force from lighter weapons and/or shrapnel, while making the ship look much better in the process (as an added bonus).

3-Generally, the most valuable parts are your fuel, engines, and crew storage, as well as your power generation/storage. Without fuel, power, or a viable method of propulsion, you're dead in the water, so to speak. Additionally, it's a good practice to either try and keep whatever crew you have alive or go full drone ship, with only probe cores. Next, you really want to make it difficult to shoot out your weapons, as getting all your fancy 1.25 meter guided missiles knocked out by a simple i-beam can be quite irritating. I personally solve this by having 2 or more vertical or horizontal launch bays, with 1 or more missile per bay, all with some form of armor protection. While engines are probably the hardest "internal" to protect, some go about it by having protective cowlings or gratings covering up engine nozzle (leaving enough space for the thrust cone to get through), while others install backup thrusters like small LF/O rockets elsewhere on the ship as a redundancy.

A few more tips- never clip armor and fuel tanks through each other. EVER. It's asking to have your internals shredded. Just as well, try to keep clipped armor panels to a minimum, as sometimes the colliders can glitch out after hard hits and cause kraken attacks to ensue (not saying to never clip, just be careful). Also, adding internal bulkheads (armor panels sectioning off internal areas from each other) can help in reducing the damage projectiles deal when they phase through your armor at high speeds, as it will stop shrapnel from traveling the length of your ship.