Jump to content

Naval Battle Club

astecarmyman

By astecarmyman
in Forum Games!

 Share

Recommended Posts

zekes

zekes

Posted
Posted
Are they expensive? I didn't notice. :P

Hmm. Are you sure? (There's no heavy armor there, but I think he must've hit a strutty area in the construction.) My I-Beam missiles deal more damage than that thing, and they are much lighter, but then again they probably go a hell of a lot faster.

(And also, that missile was about five or six Oscar-B's long before it hit me)

there's some under it, look to the right of the projectile. Anyway, i've always thought .5 missiles ineffective.... i mean, look at this one, it couldn't even break the unarmored superstructure.

uFTiwiv.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Starwhip

Starwhip

Posted
Posted

gej3KeH.png

You can build in the VAB and then save as a subassembly that is accessible in both SPH and VAB.

Play around with this missile design for a while. The first part is the Cubic Octagonal Strut.

But don't unleash the power of the Kraken...

oluI2pQ.png

I don't even know how I got this to happen. It's 47x symmetry :0.0:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Frozen_Heart

Frozen_Heart

Posted
Posted

I try to keep my ships and weapons as low part count as possible. My I beam rockets are 4 parts including decoupler and still effective. That one is 34 parts from what I can see! I could pack 8.5 of mine for one of yours.

My main struggle is armour and small guided missiles. I don't want my ships to end up slow and without much dV which is why I'm using 0.5m weapons.

Would sticking an I beam on the front work perhaps?

However that Kraken weapon would probably destroy capital ships if you added an SRB... and saves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Starwhip

Starwhip

Posted
Posted

You could just strip the thing of the top structural nosecone and the sepatrons that would make it spin. What is left is even better than the missiles on my ships during that battle! (I just found out that they have only 6 sepatron motors :huh:)

You could try 1 structural piece on the nose, maybe that would suffice for an armor-piercing round.

- - - Updated - - -

oh god :P that's one awesome warhead

Which one? The struts or the intakes? (Or both?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
zekes

zekes

Posted
Posted
You could just strip the thing of the top structural nosecone and the sepatrons that would make it spin. What is left is even better than the missiles on my ships during that battle! (I just found out that they have only 6 sepatron motors :huh:)

You could try 1 structural piece on the nose, maybe that would suffice for an armor-piercing round.

- - - Updated - - -

Which one? The struts or the intakes? (Or both?)

both, i love that .5 lance thing :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rune

Rune

Posted
Posted (edited)
I try to keep my ships and weapons as low part count as possible. My I beam rockets are 4 parts including decoupler and still effective. That one is 34 parts from what I can see! I could pack 8.5 of mine for one of yours.

My main struggle is armour and small guided missiles. I don't want my ships to end up slow and without much dV which is why I'm using 0.5m weapons.

Would sticking an I beam on the front work perhaps?

However that Kraken weapon would probably destroy capital ships if you added an SRB... and saves.

That is an interesting question, and one in which I have recently invested a good amount of time. Let me share some hard-earned truths pried from Dreks with 0.5m guided rail weaponry:

The main thing is hardness. The piece you hit with HAS to have 80m/s impact tolerance. Otherwise, it'll have lower than plates, and when they collide, your warhead will be the thing exploding. That is at same weight, but apparently weight is the second factor: not only in the amount of energy as you would think (0.5*m*v^2 for kinetic energy and all that), but in the fact that when stuff collides, the relative weight of the parts contacting is also a very important factor in KSP deciding which one breaks. There's also some randomness, too. Other than that, I am pretty confident that the v^2 part is boop, since for light weaponry to be effective you have to get to insane impact speeds, over 400m/s, and as I understand heavier warheads composed of just more parts have dramatically better effects at lower speeds.

Also, don't do like in the first example by Starwhip and put something light and flimsy on the top like a cubic strut: it'll break for sure, and it'll rob the rest of the missile of some impact energy doing so. And then there is the physics limit of your computer: if you get really, really high impact speeds, you will phase through armor between time steps. This part is why you want long munitions: so you have a higher chance of your rail materializing inside your target moving at hundreds of m/s: that's when you get the satisfying internal hits with secondary explosions that leave the plate surface untouched and a crippled ship on the inside.

Other than that, get TWR over 10 on your munitions (I like it closer to 15), about 500m form the target, a very big navball (option menu! if you don't use some aiming cheaty mod, like I don't, that's like a must after growing accustomed to the docking indicator in my modded general install) so you are slightly more precise and can manage the distance, and pedal to the metal! I have managed shots from 800m away during testing... do the math yourself, but that's a lot of m/s by the time I hear the bang. However, everything much over half a km increases difficulty exponentially, while increasing the impact velocity marginally.

Rune. I love the "Z" key :)

Edited by Rune
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rune

Rune

Posted
Posted
I'll have to remember that.

That's one of the things I like most about KSP. I feel like a scientist probing the secrets of the physics of a brand new universe. Plenty of experimentation required! :D

Rune. It is a weird universe, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
zekes

zekes

Posted
Posted (edited)
That is an interesting question, and one in which I have recently invested a good amount of time. Let me share some hard-earned truths pried from Dreks with 0.5m guided rail weaponry:

The main thing is hardness. The piece you hit with HAS to have 80m/s impact tolerance. Otherwise, it'll have lower than plates, and when they collide, your warhead will be the thing exploding. That is at same weight, but apparently weight is the second factor: not only in the amount of energy as you would think (0.5*m*v^2 for kinetic energy and all that), but in the fact that when stuff collides, the relative weight of the parts contacting is also a very important factor in KSP deciding which one breaks. There's also some randomness, too. Other than that, I am pretty confident that the v^2 part is boop, since for light weaponry to be effective you have to get to insane impact speeds, over 400m/s, and as I understand heavier warheads composed of just more parts have dramatically better effects at lower speeds.

Also, don't do like in the first example by Starwhip and put something light and flimsy on the top like a cubic strut: it'll break for sure, and it'll rob the rest of the missile of some impact energy doing so. And then there is the physics limit of your computer: if you get really, really high impact speeds, you will phase through armor between time steps. This part is why you want long munitions: so you have a higher chance of your rail materializing inside your target moving at hundreds of m/s: that's when you get the satisfying internal hits with secondary explosions that leave the plate surface untouched and a crippled ship on the inside.

Other than that, get TWR over 10 on your munitions (I like it closer to 15), about 500m form the target, a very big navball (option menu! if you don't use some aiming cheaty mod, like I don't, that's like a must after growing accustomed to the docking indicator in my modded general install) so you are slightly more precise and can manage the distance, and pedal to the metal! I have managed shots from 800m away during testing... do the math yourself, but that's a lot of m/s by the time I hear the bang. However, everything much over half a km increases difficulty exponentially, while increasing the impact velocity marginally.

Rune. I love the "Z" key :)

wow, you've learned really fast. You're gonna be a scary opponent. I'm impressed.

Welcome to the club, Rune. You haven't really started applying physics to KSP untill you start flinging things at ships, and once you're in, it's hard to get out of KSP warfare :D

As for the Drek 15s not having emergency engines, i just might put Ions on them, that would REALLY add range.

Edited by zekes
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spartwo

Spartwo

Posted
Posted
wow, you've learned really fast. You're gonna be a scary opponent. I'm impressed.

Welcome to the club, Rune. You haven't really started applying physics to KSP untill you start flinging things at ships, and once you're in, it's hard to get out of KSP warfare :D

Time to head to the bunkers I suppose...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sdj64

sdj64

Posted
Posted

Battle Alert!

Reacher Industries vs AlexanderTeaH

You offered to battle earlier today (on page 98, we've gone through about 15 pages today alone...) and I accept! 250 tons, 3 ships as per your rules. I've chosen Dres. No leaving SOI.

Others welcome to test my ships out using this persistent.

PERSISTENT

Reacher Industries ships in this battle:

One Orrim Battleship (upgraded the armor, this one has drop tanks for extended range.)

bXjyXMh.png

Two Sonald Destroyers

PjcOmAI.png

What's all this talk about Lag shields? Lag is my weapon!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rune

Rune

Posted
Posted (edited)
wow, you've learned really fast. You're gonna be a scary opponent. I'm impressed.

Welcome to the club, Rune. You haven't really started applying physics to KSP untill you start flinging things at ships, and once you're in, it's hard to get out of KSP warfare :D

As for the Drek 15s not having emergency engines, i just might put Ions on them, that would REALLY add range.

Glad to be here! But not 100% greenhorn, since I do follow the battle and military threads, even if only as an observer up to now. But yeah, this battle is teaching me a lot, especially about armor. Thanks for that!

Ion auxiliary systems would really be add some difficult-to-aim-for auxiliary propulsion. Extra useful if they are small control pods so you also cover control, and extra-extra useful if they can re-attach themselves after being knocked off like they eventually will. That right there is the design philosophy behind my (I think) original engine pod idea: each of them fulfills the rules for an active ship by salvaging a weapon and some kind of fuel tank.

Rune. And that is my big surprise for you next turn, hopefully tomorrow: the main drives are all independent auxiliary propulsion systems. There the same number of those as you have missiles left, so don't miss!

Edited by Rune
Link to comment
Share on other sites
zekes

zekes

Posted
Posted
Glad to be here! But not 100% greenhorn, since I do follow the battle and military threads, even if only as an observer up to now. But yeah, this battle is teaching me a lot, especially about armor. Thanks for that!

Ion auxiliary systems would really be add some difficult-to-aim-for auxiliary propulsion. Extra useful if they are small control pods so you also cover control, and extra-extra useful if they can re-attach themselves after being knocked off like they eventually will. That right there is the design philosophy behind my (I think) original engine pod idea: each of them fulfills the rules for an active ship by salvaging a weapon and some kind of fuel tank.

Rune. And that is my big surprise for you next turn, hopefully tomorrow: the main drives are all independent auxiliary propulsion systems. There the same number of those as you have missiles left, so don't miss!

you're scaring me :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AlexanderTeaH

AlexanderTeaH

Posted
Posted
I know it's been a few pages, but are you still up for it? Also, you might want to check to make sure the thrust from those engines isn't blocked.

I upgraded my battleship again and I have an all-new destroyer as well. Will probably bring 1 battleship and 2 destroyers (~220 tons or so combined mass). I'll set up, give me a minute. (maybe tomorrow, I'm a bit busy)

Yeah, I'm still up for it. And yes, the armor does block the thrust. It's what I call a protective cap. It's so that you don't cripple my ship before I can even use it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AlexanderTeaH

AlexanderTeaH

Posted
Posted
Battle Alert!

Reacher Industries vs AlexanderTeaH

You offered to battle earlier today (on page 98, we've gone through about 15 pages today alone...) and I accept! 250 tons, 3 ships as per your rules. I've chosen Dres. No leaving SOI.

Others welcome to test my ships out using this persistent.

PERSISTENT

Reacher Industries ships in this battle:

One Orrim Battleship (upgraded the armor, this one has drop tanks for extended range.)

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

Two Sonald Destroyers

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

What's all this talk about Lag shields? Lag is my weapon!

Shall I go first?

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...