Naval Battle Club

[sdj64]

So, is the consensus with our battle at Duna to scrap it, move on to 0.90, and try again later? Or did you want to continue this one?

Zamo, what version did you use when you placed your ships?

Edited December 21, 2014 by sdj64

[Mr Tegu]

Anything that isn't 900 parts. The jump is from 150 to 350 and I don't want to bring 3 of the same ship.

EDIT: Did I say 4?

Yeah, you said 1 to 4 ships, I'm happy for you to bring 4 if I can go 1st, 5 is too many, none of these ships have great armour.

Anyway, heres the persist: http://www./download/kvnbhkur41489cs/persistent_(Eve1).sfs

[Zamovinar]

So, is the consensus with our battle at Duna to scrap it, move on to 0.90, and try again later? Or did you want to continue this one?

Zamo, what version did you use when you placed your ships?

I've used 0.25 version for that persist. We should continue (please..) THe qestion is, how many here has got 0.90 and 0.25?

[Three1415]

I think we need to move on to 0.90 and have everybody re-place their ships, as it is not just the mass-bug (that was present before) but the fact that most of our ships wiggle themselves out of existence once you come within render distance--I checked last night, and the ships that inevitably disintegrated themselves were: All of ScriptKitt3h's ships; the RIMS Whitehall and the RIMS Hoplite; and my C3V Zytkow. Zamovinar's ship and ejudedude's fleet were comparatively unaffected, though they were still jittery, as were the remaining ships from the other fleets.

Also, about turn order: Should we restructure turns in order to attempt to compensate for Lanchester's laws which favor larger numbers of weaker ships? Here, the person with the least number of ships would get the first move, the player with the second least number of ships the second move, etc. If there were two or more players with the same number of ships, the fleet with the lesser mass would get the earlier turn. With this system, the turn order would now be: Zamovinar (2 ships); sdj64 (4 ships, less mass); Scriptkitt3h (4 ships, more mass); ejudedude13 (5 ships, less mass); and me (5 ships, more mass).

Additionally, I would like to propose an idea I had last night: Could we ask moderators or whoever has control over these things if the Battle Club could get its own sub- or sub-sub-forum? These threads are certainly active consistently enough and with enough volume to warrant it, and it would allow us to make our own separate threads for each battle and therefore be more organized. What do you think?

Finally, I can set up a new 0.90 persist in fairly short order (I have some retrofits and renovations [my "R&R"] still to do), or whoever else is ready now can do it if they wish.

[Zamovinar]

Yeah, you said 1 to 4 ships, I'm happy for you to bring 4 if I can go 1st, 5 is too many, none of these ships have great armour.

Anyway, heres the persist: http://www./download/kvnbhkur41489cs/persistent_(Eve1).sfs

Mr Tegu, Spartwo - what version are you using? If it's 0.25 could I join? if both of you are using 0.90 then I will not join you.

[Zamovinar]

I think we need to move on to 0.90 and have everybody re-place their ships, as it is not just the mass-bug (that was present before) but the fact that most of our ships wiggle themselves out of existence once you come within render distance--I checked last night, and the ships that inevitably disintegrated themselves were: All of ScriptKitt3h's ships; the RIMS Whitehall and the RIMS Hoplite; and my C3V Zytkow. Zamovinar's ship and ejudedude's fleet were comparatively unaffected, though they were still jittery, as were the remaining ships from the other fleets.

Aww, that's means I cannot join, I don't want 0.90. I still don't have it yet.

Also, about turn order: Should we restructure turns in order to attempt to compensate for Lanchester's laws which favor larger numbers of weaker ships? Here, the person with the least number of ships would get the first move, the player with the second least number of ships the second move, etc. If there were two or more players with the same number of ships, the fleet with the lesser mass would get the earlier turn. With this system, the turn order would now be: Zamovinar (2 ships); sdj64 (4 ships, less mass); Scriptkitt3h (4 ships, more mass); ejudedude13 (5 ships, less mass); and me (5 ships, more mass).

Holy, I thought I already know that, turns out it's a law. Cool! I was really hoping not to win because of that, I just wanted to test my ship in battle because the truth is smaller forces are more efficient in an actual battle. (Boardgame nerd here lol! Game theory FTW!)

Additionally, I would like to propose an idea I had last night: Could we ask moderators or whoever has control over these things if the Battle Club could get its own sub- orsub-sub-forum? These threads are certainly active consistently enough and with enough volume to warrant it, and it would allow us to make our own separate threads for each battle and therefore be more organized. What do you think?

Yeah this thread is getting/moving too fast. I was also thinking that we should do it. It should be separated for Space Battles, Naval Battles, Land Battles and Hopefully Aerial Battles.

Finally, I can set up a new 0.90 persist in fairly short order (I have some retrofits and renovations [my "R&R"] still to do), or whoever else is ready now can do it if they wish.

If people here agree on the 0.90, I will withdraw from the battle and seek a one on one using 0.25 but I hope we still use 0.25

[Three1415]

Aww, that's means I cannot join, I don't want 0.90. I still don't have it yet.

0.90 does not appear to break anything or really change KSP that much, and it would be more convenient for everyone else, as I am fairly certain that most of us have already updated...

Holy, I thought I already know that, turns out it's a law. Cool! I was really hoping not to win because of that, I just wanted to test my ship in battle because the truth is smaller forces are more efficient in an actual battle. (Boardgame nerd here lol! Game theory FTW!)

Very untrue here. In circumstances where any ship from the opposing side has the potential to seriously damage or destroy any ship of yours before you can react (due to the turn-based mechanic), it is far better to have more but weaker ships; this is because of the disparity in armor efficacy versus weapon efficacy, as it is difficult to survive attacks from well-built ships regardless of the difference in the two vessel's masses.

Edited December 21, 2014 by Three1415

[ejudedude13]

ZAMO! How could anyone NOT want 0.90??!!?!? It great and there are very few bugs that I know of, apart from existing krakens. And, considering your computer is powerful enough to run with a 1150+ part ship, you dont need to worry. 0.90 is VERY stable so far. I dont see why you wouldnt want it. Anyways, how is the hypersonic missile testing? Anyone got one faster than mine with max penetration?

[Mr Tegu]

Mr Tegu, Spartwo - what version are you using? If it's 0.25 could I join? if both of you are using 0.90 then I will not join you.

0.90 as far as i know. I don't mind people joining so it's up to Spartwo, I'm up for people starting their own version of the battle from my persist.

@ Spartwo: Do you mean you have a 350 ton and 150 ton ships? If so, I don't mind you bringing 650 tons.

[Spartwo]

I've got something plotted out.

[ejudedude13]

My first prototype for a new battle ship

23T, 78 parts. But my weapons are high part count

EDIT: It looks more like a carrier actually...

Edited December 21, 2014 by ejudedude13

[Zamovinar]

0.90 does not appear to break anything or really change KSP that much, and it would be more convenient for everyone else, as I am fairly certain that most of us have already updated...

Three1415: I'm downloading the patch now.

Very untrue here. In circumstances where any ship from the opposing side has the potential to seriously damage or destroy any ship of yours before you can react (due to the turn-based mechanic), it is far better to have more but weaker ships; this is because of the disparity in armor efficacy versus weapon efficacy, as it is difficult to survive attacks from well-built ships regardless of the difference in the two vessel's masses.

Three1415: Well I was assuming the smaller ships have the same good armor as the larger ships, so we really can't judge the outcome anymore because we design ships differently.

ZAMO! How could anyone NOT want 0.90??!!?!? It great and there are very few bugs that I know of, apart from existing krakens. And, considering your computer is powerful enough to run with a 1150+ part ship, you dont need to worry. 0.90 is VERY stable so far. I dont see why you wouldnt want it. Anyways, how is the hypersonic missile testing? Anyone got one faster than mine with max penetration?

ejudedude13: I'm downloading the patch now.

I made an Supercharged I-beam Missile with 24 sepatrons each it is made up of three (3) I-beams, one in the middle and two at the side (It acts as a whole).

It's heavier and slower than most missiles (top speed of about 500-550+ m/s in the atmosphere shooting up) but it gives quite the punch I'm looking for, not too fast where it usually disintegrates on impact with the panel it hits and not to heavy as to slow it down, but just right to deliver the damage I'm looking for at the right distance. Three I-beams on one missile is better because at least one of them will deliver the momentum even if the the other I-beams disintegrate. I'VE GOT A 50/50 CHANCE THAT ONE OF MY I-BEAMS DISINTEGRATING ON IMPACT BECAUSE OF IT'S MOMENTUM, IT SOMETIMES EVEN KILLS THE SHIP IT IS PUT ON WHEN YOU LAUNCH FOUR (4) OF THEM SIMULTANEOUSLY. I keep it as subassembly now cause the Tire Warheads have better potential.

[ejudedude13]

Update:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Also, zamo, thats pretty impressive. Mine is 554m/s in atmosphere but has 52 parts, still, it has max penetration.

[Three1415]

Hmm...I think I may have discovered the cause of the mass-disparity bug: There is a conflict between the config file's mass for the Sepratron and the mass displayed--0.0125 tons versus 0.0725 tons, respectively. This would also explain why no-one else has noticed outside this thread: Sepratrons are rarely used except as missile propulsion, and certainly civilian ships never use them in sufficient quantity to really notice the difference.

Also, does anyone know who I would go about asking to try to get this thread made into a subforum?

[Zamovinar]

Hmm...I think I may have discovered the cause of the mass-disparity bug: There is a conflict between the config file's mass for the Sepratron and the mass displayed--0.0125 tons versus 0.0725 tons, respectively. This would also explain why no-one else has noticed outside this thread: Sepratrons are rarely used except as missile propulsion, and certainly civilian ships never use them in sufficient quantity to really notice the difference.

Also, does anyone know who I would go about asking to try to get this thread made into a subforum?

THAT EXPLAINS IT! I thought we were missing something on the mass, the mass difference of the sepatrons. You are the one who pinpointed it. It would not have happened if it weren't for this thread cause we are the ones using sepatrons excessively and exclusively for missiles.

[ejudedude13]

I dunno who you would ask. Also, what do you guys think of my ship? Good, bad? Also, it uses my hypersonic missile.

[ScriptKitt3h]

If the Duna battle's now going to be in .90, I can definitely be in it.

My fleet awaits the persist...

[Three1415]

I dunno who you would ask. Also, what do you guys think of my ship? Good, bad? Also, it uses my hypersonic missile.

It seems...rectilinear. I do not really have enough experience to just a vessel based only on screenshots, but it does look formidable.

Also, the second revision of my ships is complete; I replaced all of the useless smaller missiles with Sepratron-powered Structural Pylon torpedoes on my fighter, added another 6 I-Beams and more xenon to my bomber, and swapped the small missiles for two 3.75-ton penetrators on my battlecruiser. I optimized tonnage to perhaps an overly large extent: My fleet mass now sums to 299.615 tons.

I suppose I shall set up first again...Does anyone else have an opinion on the new turn order?

[Three1415]

These are my initial orbits:

There is not much difference from last time, except that the bomber is in extremely high orbit (mainly to avoid being captured by Ike); everything else is the same.

Persist

[Zamovinar]

It seems...rectilinear. I do not really have enough experience to just a vessel based only on screenshots, but it does look formidable.

Also, the second revision of my ships is complete; I replaced all of the useless smaller missiles with Sepratron-powered Structural Pylon torpedoes on my fighter, added another 6 I-Beams and more xenon to my bomber, and swapped the small missiles for two 3.75-ton penetrators on my battlecruiser. I optimized tonnage to perhaps an overly large extent: My fleet mass now sums to 299.615 tons.

I suppose I shall set up first again...Does anyone else have an opinion on the new turn order?

What version are you using? Does 0.25 have no problem when I load a 0.90 persistent?

[ejudedude13]

Still downloading the patch? Also, I doubt it. It will definitely be kraken infested.

[Zamovinar]

I can't download the 0.90 guess I'm stuck on 0.25

[Three1415]

I am using 0.90...You have a terrible Internet connection, I am guessing? Alas, that is unfortunate. I do not wish to leave you out, but it is not really practical for everyone else to downgrade, so I do not really see any other option.

[Zamovinar]

I am using 0.90...You have a terrible Internet connection, I am guessing? Alas, that is unfortunate. I do not wish to leave you out, but it is not really practical for everyone else to downgrade, so I do not really see any other option.

If that's the case, I there anyone here who wants to fight me one on one? on 0.25 if anyone still has it. I just really want to test my ship.

[sdj64]

Hmm...I think I may have discovered the cause of the mass-disparity bug: There is a conflict between the config file's mass for the Sepratron and the mass displayed--0.0125 tons versus 0.0725 tons, respectively. This would also explain why no-one else has noticed outside this thread: Sepratrons are rarely used except as missile propulsion, and certainly civilian ships never use them in sufficient quantity to really notice the difference.

Also, does anyone know who I would go about asking to try to get this thread made into a subforum?

I don't think so... it still happens with my ships that have only liquid-fueled guided missiles.

Ej, your battleship is off to a good start. It's good that it has lots of interior space but have you considered using modular girders for the frame? Fuel tanks are likely to be destroyed and a girder frame could keep the structure of the ship together. I can see that the back center is a serious weak point. Fire from the back and destroy the fuel tank and the whole ship is dead.