Naval Battle Club

[Frozen_Heart]

I don't know why people can't keep their part counts under 300-500.

Got a nice 180 part ship here. Yeah not much armour but I've always preferred aesthetics.

[ScriptKitt3h]

try using ions to push a 200t ship....THATS what i call PAINFUL! Actually isnt there someone here who likes to use ion clusters on their capitals? I cant even comprehend how you can survive watching such long burn times, even if your dV is crazy because of it.

Anyways, i usually have a rule of 1 nuke for ~20t. That makes burns minimally painful (a 20m burn max for jool ejection burn is ok). While i know that any added mass lowers dV, i feel dV is pointless if you have to spend ages burning anywhere. I find 0.3TWR is what i like minimum. i have some craft that are as low as 0.2, but i NEVER go below that as i cant have any fun burning for ages (if you could burn on-rails then thatd be another story, but sofar you cant).

I sometimes use ions for smaller ships (like frigates), but the Harvester uses quad Nervs, which actually work fairly well, and don't overheat too badly (or even noticeably, for shorter burns) due to the high-heat-and-impact resistance of most of the ship's frame and hull plating. Plus, I never attach ANY fuel tanks and engines directly to each other. Fuel lines exist for a reason!

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know why people can't keep their part counts under 300-500.

For me, it's the complexity of my heavy weapons (ESPECIALLY my guided ASM Evos), as well as my habit of going overkill with complex hull designs that I also try to make strong.

Also, struts.

[Three1415]

Build status report: I am nearly done; all I must do now is cap the ends of the armor (not that difficult) and attach some armament, as well as perform a few other minor tweaks. As I have progressed in ship development, I am now able to make a more (or less) reasonable estimate for final size: ~500 tons and 1450 parts. Truly frightening, as well as probably useless. Alas for the mass of deflection armor, as well as the fuel needed to get it anywhere.

Also unfortunate is that there is simply too much phasing for effective armor to actually be possible. If a weapon actually hits the ship's armor, it completely disintegrates and does basically no damage; however, even with seven-layered, spaced, four-and-a-half-meter-thick plating, weapon components still simply phase inside the inner hull about twenty-five percent of the time. Thus I have come to the conclusion that armor no longer serves a purpose, and I doubt that I shall make anything as heavily armored as this again. It is useless to try to defend against missiles anymore...

[ScriptKitt3h]

Build status report: I am nearly done; all I must do now is cap the ends of the armor (not that difficult) and attach some armament, as well as perform a few other minor tweaks. As I have progressed in ship development, I am now able to make a more (or less) reasonable estimate for final size: ~500 tons and 1450 parts. Truly frightening, as well as probably useless. Alas for the mass of deflection armor, as well as the fuel needed to get it anywhere.

Also unfortunate is that there is simply too much phasing for effective armor to actually be possible. If a weapon actually hits the ship's armor, it completely disintegrates and does basically no damage; however, even with seven-layered, spaced, four-and-a-half-meter-thick plating, weapon components still simply phase inside the inner hull about twenty-five percent of the time. Thus I have come to the conclusion that armor no longer serves a purpose, and I doubt that I shall make anything as heavily armored as this again. It is useless to try to defend against missiles anymore...

Not every single shot phases. The fact that that bug occurs is annoying, but it adds a degree of luck into the equation, just like in IRL warfare.

[Three1415]

Not every single shot phases.

True, but it is common enough that a volley of missiles from a capital ship is likely to phase with at least one round, and oftentimes that one round is enough to incur massive damage.

However, I discovered the main problem with my ship's internals: Some of the fuel tanks were clipping into one another and causing destructive oscillations during impact, which wreaked havoc on its interior; changing the layout somewhat has vastly reduced the damage possible through a single shot, so I have somewhat resolved that issue.

[8bitgammers]

i agree,

armor may not be very effective against high speed rounds, but against ramming and large rockets it's ideal.

[panzer1b]

True, but it is common enough that a volley of missiles from a capital ship is likely to phase with at least one round, and oftentimes that one round is enough to incur massive damage.

However, I discovered the main problem with my ship's internals: Some of the fuel tanks were clipping into one another and causing destructive oscillations during impact, which wreaked havoc on its interior; changing the layout somewhat has vastly reduced the damage possible through a single shot, so I have somewhat resolved that issue.

The biggest killer at least for turn based ship-ship games is the rule about unlimited ammunition per turn. basically all you need are ships that have fuel+weapons, since armor is (given enough shots) completely pointless. DMP games on the other hand are kinda neat, real time combat rules (even if there is teh occasional bug).

I actually think that space battles should have either some limits to weaponry (not necessarily caliber but mass), and also a limit of how much tonage can be fired per turn. With the current rule of unlimited ammo provided you are within 2.5km AND you are only firing at one target, there is just no way (massive luck aside) any ship regardless of armor will survive.

Also, you got teh fuel tank clipping issue spot on. From my experience you NEVER attach any fuel tansk or heavy large objects to the core, as fuel tansk absord large amounts of energy and transfer that to whatever is attached. That is basically a death sentence to most ships if you have the fuel connected to teh core. My designs use a structural element between fuel and core girders, which exponentially decrease the odds of catastrophic failure. Clipping is also to be avoided in general, and if you must clip dont have that clipped part anywhere near your core.

Finally, i and im guessing many others have come to the conclusion that the ONLY way to be effective is to make insanely redundant ships that can function even after being cut in half/massively damaged. I like to spread weapons, engines, control pods, generators, ect throughout the ship. Ive also really started liking vernors for their unique ability to work period provided any fuel tansk are attached to the vessel. Nukes make this more annoying as you need oxy for vernors, tempted to try to make some non nuke ships, might actually still get enough dV from them.

Edited May 11, 2015 by panzer1b

[ScriptKitt3h]

The biggest killer at least for turn based ship-ship games is the rule about unlimited ammunition per turn. basically all you need are ships that have fuel+weapons, since armor is (given enough shots) completely pointless. DMP games on the other hand are kinda neat, real time combat rules (even if there is teh occasional bug).

I actually think that space battles should have either some limits to weaponry (not necessarily caliber but mass), and also a limit of how much tonage can be fired per turn. With the current rule of unlimited ammo provided you are within 2.5km AND you are only firing at one target, there is just no way (massive luck aside) any ship regardless of armor will survive.

Also, you got teh fuel tank clipping issue spot on. From my experience you NEVER attach any fuel tansk or heavy large objects to the core, as fuel tansk absord large amounts of energy and transfer that to whatever is attached. That is basically a death sentence to most ships if you have the fuel connected to teh core. My designs use a structural element between fuel and core girders, which exponentially decrease the odds of catastrophic failure. Clipping is also to be avoided in general, and if you must clip dont have that clipped part anywhere near your core.

Finally, i and im guessing many others have come to the conclusion that the ONLY way to be effective is to make insanely redundant ships that can function even after being cut in half/massively damaged. I like to spread weapons, engines, control pods, generators, ect throughout the ship. Ive also really started liking vernors for their unique ability to work period provided any fuel tansk are attached to the vessel. Nukes make this more annoying as you need oxy for vernors, tempted to try to make some non nuke ships, might actually still get enough dV from them.

I personally think trying to limit weapons just complicates things, as most players already somewhat self-limit their ships (mainly to enhance range, and to help lower part count). On top of that, it's complicating something that has worked for quite a long time now.

EDIT: Also, while it's not perfect, armor is NOT pointless. Comparing an unarmored vessel with, say, a Drek or one of my more tough ships for example, is not too accurate.

Sure, no armor's going to serve as some sort of nigh-invulnerable shield, but it's worth it compared to just strapping some weapons to a fuel-tank-hull ship and calling it a day.

Edited May 11, 2015 by ScriptKitt3h

[Three1415]

I personally think trying to limit weapons just complicates things, as most players already somewhat self-limit their ships (mainly to enhance range, and to help lower part count). On top of that, it's complicating something that has worked for quite a long time now.

In fact, it has worked so well that no-one has battled in months because of it. zekes, spartwo, Frozen_Heart--them and so many others have stopped even requesting battles because they have recognized their futility. When every battle is effectively one ship eliminated per turn, and the person with the most ships wins regardless of their crafts' quality, combat becomes dull and uninteresting, and no-one feels like participating anymore.

Back when armor and weapon tech were more balanced, there were constant battles between members of the club. Now? Nothing. It is clear something needs to be done to remedy this.

The heart of the issue is that our current system of conducting battles is abysmal at approximating real-time warfare. As that is out of the question until more stable multiplayer is introduced, we must make do with our comparatively clumsier turn-based method--but we could at least make it closer to how combat would actually work. I have come up with several solutions to this, with varying degrees of realism and stringency; I will present the one I think is best at promoting varied and interesting gameplay.

Proposed Changes

1: Allow weapons to be fired from slightly outside render distance, say 3km.

2: Limit maximal weapon discharge per turn of any number of missiles to x% of a ship's mass. x could be constant, or could vary by tonnage; I prefer the latter, with fighters and smaller vessels being able to fire more per unit mass than larger ships.

3: Make combat order from highest to lowest TWR, regardless of tonnage or allegiance. In other words, if one player possesses three ships capable of higher acceleration than anothers', all three of them will get a turn before the other players' do.

Explanations

1: The reason for this change is fairly obvious--while retaining the requirement for physical proximity to a target, not having to bring both ships into render distance of one another greatly reduces lag and improves gameplay.

2: This change will help bring weapons and armor back into balance, hopefully allowing ships to survive at least one attack by an enemy vessel. In terms of realism, this change makes sense because firing a full volley of missiles into an enemy ship requires time--time that the enemy ship would likely spend retaliating with weapons of its own. Because we cannot really accurately simulate this interaction in a turn-based setting, this compromise helps ship-to-ship battles be "fairer" to the ship under attack. Varying mass percentages for different tonnages of ships helps keep fighter and smallcraft useful in combat, allowing them to be more efficient than larger ships on a per-turn basis but less efficient overall (they consume more fuel, require a dedicated carrier, are more vulnerable, etc.).

3: This is the most significant change that I have proposed, and I do so primarily on the basis of realism, as our current by-tonnage, alternating-allegiance system makes no sense whatsoever. Why should my nuclear-powered cruiser follow another's ion fighter in turn order when the former is capable of three times the acceleration of the latter? Moreover, if all of my ships are more maneuverable than my opponents', why should they have to follow his? It is entirely illogical. Ordering solely on the basis of TWR makes vastly more sense, because logically the ships capable of greater acceleration will be able to reach their intended destinations far more quickly than those with lower thrust outputs, and this time-to-target determines who gets the first strike in combat. This change would give short-range but high-acceleration fighters a more realistic place in combat, and reduce the dominance of the slow, ion-powered craft that are now ubiquitous. In sum, it would make maneuverability an actually valuable trait, giving designers another quality to consider in their construction of ships, while vastly improving our approximation of real-time, real-life orbital combat.

[Spartwo]

reduce the dominance of the slow, ion-powered craft that are now ubiquitous

And massively push the low range, high twr, engine with guns craft into dominance.

Because I can't update the rules here

furthermore

Fite me m8.

Anyone else got working ships yet?

[zekes]

And massively push the low range, high twr, engine with guns craft into dominance.

Because I can't update the rules here

furthermore

I actually just did refit the Drek and MACEYDEAN so they both have ion power, the drek now has some 5,000 m/s D/V and the macey gets 12,000.

But their TWR is abyssimal.

[Frozen_Heart]

I've always given my ships high dV and TWR. When multiplayer comes out this will work very well as no one will be able to catch my ships.

However in turn based combat those things are completely irrelevant at the moment. Yes I can make a metal tube covered in SRBs but I don't enjoy that which is why I've stopped battling.

I personally support Three1415s proposal as that would allow different combat styles to work against each other rather than having a single style.

[Spartwo]

The issue is that it won't fix the problem it will just make something new to exploit and favor one type of ship more than the other, even to a greater extent than previously.. When the highest TWR goes first people will forgo everything but weapons and high power engines in order to kill off the enemy before they can even move. There has to be a balance but without multiplayer there can't be.

Edited May 11, 2015 by Spartwo

[Three1415]

The issue is that it won't fix the problem it will just make something new to exploit and favor one type of ship more than the other, even to a greater extent than previously.. When the highest TWR goes first people will forgo everything but weapons and high power engines in order to kill off the enemy before they can even move. There has to be a balance but without multiplayer there can't be.

Hardly. With the armament restrictions, especially if they are based on tonnage, such ships will not be effective without some variety of survivability, as it is highly unlikely they will be able to destroy a slower but more armored ship in a single turn before being obliterated by other ships. These changes would bring diversity rather than dominance; making an extremely fast ship would, just like in real-time, give you the initiative in combat but limit your durability and range, so the latter would have to be complemented by other vessels possessing more "staying power." Also, the presence of logistics ships dedicated to supporting other craft with fuel and munitions would perhaps become important; this is far more realistic.

[Starwhip]

The issue is that it won't fix the problem it will just make something new to exploit and favor one type of ship more than the other, even to a greater extent than previously.. When the highest TWR goes first people will forgo everything but weapons and high power engines in order to kill off the enemy before they can even move. There has to be a balance but without multiplayer there can't be.

True, but if nothing else, it is significantly more balanced than the current system.

Edited May 11, 2015 by Starwhip
If, not of. Hate mobile!

[Three1415]

True, but if nothing else, it is significantly more balanced than the current system.

This was my intention--I know we can never perfectly approximate true real-time combat, but we can at least try. The current system has not been revised in years and is used only because Macey choreographed his Spiritwolf videos with it when the idea of KSP naval combat was still in its infancy. That is hardly applicable to now, after years of our research and development of new weapons and technologies; if we are to update our ships we must also update the rules.

[Spartwo]

Macey is the exact reason that rule cannot be changed. I'm already pushing it with 9 in the name of shorter battles. And unless those rules are changed such a drastic difference dulls the usefulness of this thread.

[Three1415]

Macey is the exact reason that rule cannot be changed. I'm already pushing it with 9 in the name of shorter battles. And unless those rules are changed such a drastic difference dulls the usefulness of this thread.

Erm...This is completely incomprehensible; I have no idea what you mean by the above.

[daemonCaptrix]

"Fite me m8."

"Anyone else got working ships yet?"

Am I invisible?

[Three1415]

Am I invisible?

I am afraid I cannot determine that based on the content of your posts. I suggest consulting a mirror.

Regarding people's reluctance to take you up on the challenge, I do not think anyone else has functional ships as of right now; I am still completing my dreadnought, but that is far too large to be used in conventional battles anyway, and zekes has already stated he requires additional escorts. I have no idea what ships Spartwo has right now...

[Three1415]

To celebrate the completion of my dreadnought's frontal armor (at long last), I decided to ram a Heavy Drek head-on at 80 meters per second. This took about fifteen minutes real-time, with fps hovering around 2 and the game running at 1/9 speed due to the presence of nearly 2300 parts within render distance. Despite this, I successfully hit the Drek dead-center (due to an effect I call "insanity's blessing"); these were the results:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited May 12, 2015 by Three1415

[panzer1b]

Regarding people's reluctance to take you up on the challenge, I do not think anyone else has functional ships as of right now; I am still completing my dreadnought, but that is far too large to be used in conventional battles anyway, and zekes has already stated he requires additional escorts. I have no idea what ships Spartwo has right now...

I have 3 working ships as of now in the 60-80t range. They are all corvette class but i have my own classification standards which are make capital ships of a certain class much bigger then most people (id classify a few destroyers and pretty much all frigates ive seen here as bombers or heavy fighters).

Anyways, the 2 ships that are 100% combat ready are my SK-CRV-IIIg2 and SK-CRV-IIIg3 (2nd and 3rd generation class-III corvettes). The 2nd gen is 351 parts (255 hull), and 75t. The 3rd gen is 286 parts (190 hull) and is roughly 70t heavy. While the g2 has absurd armor (for its weight and part count, still worse then a drek head on), but the g3 still has enough armor to use, and is FAR better in every other regard, better TWR, better dV, and its not like the g2 doesnt have weakspots a good player can exploit. Both are armed with 6 Ibeam-Ms and 6 Tripedo-S missiles, lightweight weapons that dont really do all that much damage, weigh under 1.5t each, and well are more of a for fun weapon. While i know some people are uber serious, i prefer fun so i dont actually arm my ships with absurdly overpowered weapons that have a 50% chance of instakilling a ship.

"Fite me m8."

"Anyone else got working ships yet?"

Am I invisible?

If you (or anyone else for that matter) is interested in a more relaxed for-fun game im in. If you want to face me i have just 2 rules that must be followed when fighting me. No weapons above 2ton mass allowed period, and no more then 5 tons of total ordinance may be fired in a turn (this is to keep those 1 shotting weapons out of here, and to keep people from just firing 20 rounds at enemy ships guaranteeing destruction through sheer volume of fire). Aside from this, im open to pretty much whatever else you guys want to battle. Keep in mind though that i ONLY have 80t ships, i dont have any behemoths and i also dont have any super tiny craft like fighters. I would be fine fighting stuff that is a bit smaller/larger then what i have, but in general id prefer not to have to deal with either a massive swarm of enemies or a super massive behemoth that i most likely wont be able to even hurt. Try to keep not only total tonage similar, but also not deviate too far with # of ships each side has.

To celebrate the completion of my dreadnought's frontal armor (at long last), I decided to ram a Heavy Drek head-on at 80 meters per second. This took about fifteen minutes real-time, with fps hovering around 2 and the game running at 1/9 speed due to the presence of nearly 2300 parts within render distance. Despite this, I successfully hit the Drek dead-center (due to an effect I call "insanity's blessing"); these were the results:

http://imgur.com/a/UMYsI

the sheer thought of the part count that thing must have scares me. Anyways, aside from being well armored, does that thing have any use at all? It looks like its engine cluster is utter crap armor wise, and it doesnt seem to have weapons (at least from screenshots).

Edited May 12, 2015 by panzer1b

[Three1415]

the sheer thought of the part count that thing must have scares me. Anyways, aside from being well armored, does that thing have any use at all? It looks like its engine cluster is utter crap armor wise, and it doesnt seem to have weapons (at least from screenshots).

I have not yet sealed the aft engine compartment, nor finished arming it; the above was one of a series of intensive tests I was performing on the frontal armor to ensure I would not need to do anything else. Also notable yesterday was my testing of an 87-ton missile on the frontal and side armor (which, impacting at 600 m/s, was only able to do minor internal damage) and the testing of my own missile prototypes (still somewhat effective, despite being a fourteenth the mass).

[panzer1b]

I have not yet sealed the aft engine compartment, nor finished arming it; the above was one of a series of intensive tests I was performing on the frontal armor to ensure I would not need to do anything else. Also notable yesterday was my testing of an 87-ton missile on the frontal and side armor (which, impacting at 600 m/s, was only able to do minor internal damage) and the testing of my own missile prototypes (still somewhat effective, despite being a fourteenth the mass).

87 ton missile wow.

What was it composed of btw? Ive had my SK-CRV-IIIg2 rammed at 500m/s by a 500t rocket in a DMP server,m and i still has weapons, movement, and while i lost most of the fuel/hull it could turn, move, and fire, although it lost all but 1 reaction wheel and i needed rcs to turn it at all and compensate for the offcenter thrust as one of he engines was destroyed. Ofc that missile was just someone flying a conventional unarmored rocket made of nose cones, fuel tanks, and engines, by no means is that designed to destroy someone.

I have a 7 ton weapon that is GUARANTEED to do massive damage to anything ive yet to fire it against, so once you are done id love to grab the craft and do some testing on it (just upload the armor segment, i can barely handle above 1000 parts as is).

[Spartwo]

Daemon wants a battle? Great, what ships have you available.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Spartwo