Naval Battle Club

[Three1415]

Alsom, what about the rear, same issue, if i get a solid hit on that rear section itll explode it just like a frontal hit, u need armor there too

*Sounds of frantic construction emanate from adjacent room*

Whatever; it is good enough for a bomber.

[panzer1b]

Whatever; it is good enough for a bomber.

True dat.

Anyways, despite its flaws (which are also shared by almost every other craft ive ever seen anyways), its some of the best armor ive ever seen for the size and weight. Its also, terrible TWr aside, a great craft that has a very interesting (even if useless) weapon on it. Well ok the weapon isnt useless, but i have major trouble with it, inaccurate, and its very inconsistent too at least from my experience. I dont know how you managed to cut my SK-CRV-III with it, perhaps a 1 in a 100 shot, but i havent even been able to destroy a bloody FIGHTER with that weapon.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Ohh in other news, the HK-103E has been created and i like it quite a bit, despite its flaws. Its surprisingly tough to 1 shot even with a Tripedo-S, is basically immune to short ibeams, and best of all its small and thus hard to hit in the 1st place. That and the new wing layout looks (at least for me) super cool and kinda looks menacing/evil, especially when i set lighting to red. That and the wings act as sacrificial armor that seems to deflect or just destroy many projectiles when hit. Ohh and it can aerobrake too since the wings are flaps and actually create quite some drag when needed, havent tried interplanetary yet though, that might now work too well.

And if you can tell, it shares some of the armoring scheme of your fighter, its still my own design and the internals are basically same as they were before, but the armor plate added doesnt weigh too much, and it helps so much against enemy fire!

Only thing i cant stand is teh abyssmal TWR of .19, its not SO BAD that its unplayeable, but its a major annoyance imo.

Finally, im looking for a weapon to replace the Ibeam-S missiles i have in this thing. Does anyone have any weapons that are effective vs unarmored or lightly armored vessels that are compact, can fit on a 0.6m docking port, and preferably have 2+ shots in as short a profile as possible. Weight and part count arent the biggest issues for me, i need multiple shots and most of all a small profile/size. I just want a multiple ammo weapon that is good vs fighters, the Ibeam-S are usually overkill, and the primary Tripedo-S® is beyond overkill.

Finally, im going away for the weekend, so i wont be around (i might but i dont think ill have internet), hopefully ill be able to finish my dropship and make a few more ships.

Edited May 22, 2015 by panzer1b

[daemonCaptrix]

Sorry I haven't set up yet. Getting frustrated with the changes to the NERV thrusters I always use. I can't seem to escape Kerbin in any of the craft that used to do so.

[Three1415]

Sorry I haven't set up yet. Getting frustrated with the changes to the NERV thrusters I always use. I can't seem to escape Kerbin in any of the craft that used to do so.

That change is indeed incredibly irritating; I have reverted to using ions almost exclusively as a result.

In other news, my prototype cruiser is nearly complete; I need only alter some I-Beam firing paths to ready it for release:

Statistics:

132.5 tons

5.2 km/s delta-v

1005 parts

Armament:

1 x Cannon (30 rounds)

24 x Large I-Beam Rocket

Armor:

Multi-layer spinal and girder-braced plate/ablative armor sections with anti-phasing core; front and rear (with armor cap) possess 6-meter-thick, 11-layer armor.

Ancillary systems:

2 x Detachable armor caps on cannon mounts

1 x Command pod (to ease cannon targeting)

1 x Detachable Ion Tug [at top] for missile/fuel scavenging

Edited May 24, 2015 by Three1415

[panzer1b]

Hey all, back from vacation.

That change is indeed incredibly irritating; I have reverted to using ions almost exclusively as a result.

In other news, my prototype cruiser is nearly complete; I need only alter some I-Beam firing paths to ready it for release:

http://i.imgur.com/Bn8TxvW.png

Statistics:

132.5 tons

5.2 km/s delta-v

1005 parts

Armament:

1 x Cannon (30 rounds)

24 x Large I-Beam Rocket

Armor:

Multi-layer spinal and girder-braced plate/ablative armor sections with anti-phasing core; front and rear (with armor cap) possess 6-meter-thick, 11-layer armor.

Ancillary systems:

2 x Detachable armor caps on cannon mounts

1 x Command pod (to ease cannon targeting)

1 x Detachable Ion Tug [at top] for missile/fuel scavenging

Anyways, impressive, im quite interested to see HOW resilient this is to enemy fire. Tripedo-H aside, im like to test this against my Tripedo-M, which i believe should still do some nice solid damage to the vessel.

Until they are going to release 1.25m ion engines, ions are for me limited to craft below 15t. I just cant bear very long burn times (even if ions had a isp of 900000000 they would still be worthless above 15t). Pretty much to have a TWR of 0.2 (what i call bare minimum im willing to use), you would need 100 ion engines. That is just the ions, not to mention teh sheer number of fuel tanks, batteries, solar panels, ect, not to mention the weight of the engines alone adds up to ~25t, 1/4 of a 100t ship. With enough batteries to run this for a 1000dV burn continuously, thats another 300 parts right there minimum (the 2.5m ones aint useable since they are too large to fit in a SK-CRV styled hull), more if i use the smaller batteries that are easier to fit in a ship. Finally, at a part count of 1000, i dont think very many people would even be willing to fight you. ~600 is the absolute max id fight against, since i cant have proper fights above 1000 parts in one area as physics actually starts to derp out at higher part counts and very weird stuff happens like perfectly good ammo desintegrating or puny weak ships, or ibeams obliterating massive vessels. Regardless of armor, at that part count, you just wont be able to use it against most of us (i think only zekes can handle above 1000 parts well).

That said, im curious as to how its armor holds up, and id love a download once you complete it. I will have to strip its of weapons and ion systems, but im really interested in testing my firepower against its hull, if its anything like that bomber i expect the Tripedo-S to be unreliable is not useless, the M might be useful and might be useless, and the H should still vaporize it. That said, i am developing a new weapon, the Tripedo-S/H which should address the part count and mass problems while still giving me a very powerful missile that weighs UNDER 3t and has almost as much firepower as the Tripedo-H. Really the only thing keeping me from deploying this new weaponb on all my ships is the weapon's very awkward shape and profile, which has lots of stuff sticking out of it sideways and it wont fit in a 1.25m tube, forcing them to be placed externally to the vessel like some of my earlier ships has mounted Tripedo-Ss.

Also, the ion tug concept is very similar to me repair drone ive started equipping many of my vessels with recently. Mine just has 2 claws to reconnect the ship in the (fairly common) event of being shot in half. Ohh, and im working on a SK-CRV-VI now, as the IV and V were promising on paper, but just lost too much armor and didnt shed enough parts to compensate. Had they been some drastic change like 100 less parts, the weaker armor would more then make up for that, but at a measly ~40 less parts, and considerably worse hull intergrity, i feel this is not worth bothering with. The VI model is actually a step in the opposite direction, minor part increase for extra armor plating and external fuel tanks added+extra engines in nacelles to compensate for weight increase. This should be ~100t and the middle weakness is heavily mitigated, although like most ships that use a similar construction, it still posesses that inherent weakspot in the central girder.

As for nuke changes, the biggest killer for me is the annoying change to LF only. before i could have backup vernors using the SAME fuel the nukes used. Now i need to either forego the vernors (and any sort of redundancy or docking ability), or carry dedicated oxy that cuts into teh already terrible dV my ships have. That and the fact that massless parts are actually now nolonger massless, means more dV losses from vernor useage. Its not that big of a deal (and a change i was assuming would come sooner or later), but its all the little things that add up to much tougher to create ships. That said, nukes are the ONLY engine that makes any sense for me. Ions are just too part count intensive and they have abyssmal TWR regardless of how many you spam, not to mention the sheer mass and part count needed in batteries/solars to use them for anything that isnt a super small burn on a low-gravity planet. What id do for some longer batteries (larger capacity say 1.25m ones that are as long as a FLT-400 or so) and more powerful RTGs so we can actually use them to run the ion drives and not have to rely on crappy solar panels. This would open up ion drives for capital ships, until then though, ions are probe, fighter, and light bomber exclusive at least for the part of teh community that cant bear to have 1000+ parts in a ship. And i dont even need to say why LFO engines are worthless if you care about armor. to get even 2K dV, you need a really large fuel fraction, and this devolves into large volume and also alot of weight. A nuke vessel with equal mass will have way better armor and or better firepower. It just makes no sense at all to use LFOs in a serious battle (unless TWR gets added into the combat rules somehow wher eTWR for exapmle lets you attack 1st).

Edited May 24, 2015 by panzer1b

[Three1415]

Until they are going to release 1.25m ion engines, ions are for me limited to craft below 15t. I just cant bear very long burn times (even if ions had a isp of 900000000 they would still be worthless above 15t). Pretty much to have a TWR of 0.2 (what i call bare minimum im willing to use), you would need 100 ion engines. That is just the ions, not to mention teh sheer number of fuel tanks, batteries, solar panels, ect, not to mention the weight of the engines alone adds up to ~25t, 1/4 of a 100t ship. With enough batteries to run this for a 1000dV burn continuously, thats another 300 parts right there minimum (the 2.5m ones aint useable since they are too large to fit in a SK-CRV styled hull), more if i use the smaller batteries that are easier to fit in a ship.

Larger ion engines would indeed be optimal, as well as even larger tanks; something like 184 parts in that ship are dedicated specifically to ion-based systems, and it has a TWR of something like 0.025...So slow, alas.

Finally, at a part count of 1000, i dont think very many people would even be willing to fight you. ~600 is the absolute max id fight against, since i cant have proper fights above 1000 parts in one area as physics actually starts to derp out at higher part counts and very weird stuff happens like perfectly good ammo desintegrating or puny weak ships, or ibeams obliterating massive vessels. Regardless of armor, at that part count, you just wont be able to use it against most of us (i think only zekes can handle above 1000 parts well).

Alas, all my ships above ~50 tons invariably have at least 800 parts; that is simply how I build, unfortunately enough, as I enjoy complexity and find that optimization in terms of performance typically comes at the cost of part count. I personally am fine with more or less any amount of lag, but it is true that the physics start to get weird at high enough part counts; if it were more consistent I think that more people would be willing to battle.

Or, alternate solution: Get entire server dedicated to battles; upgrade internet speeds; and then stream the computations from the server onto each player's computer. Goodbye lag!

Definitely practical.

That said, im curious as to how its armor holds up, and id love a download once you complete it. I will have to strip its of weapons and ion systems, but im really interested in testing my firepower against its hull, if its anything like that bomber i expect the Tripedo-S to be unreliable is not useless, the M might be useful and might be useless, and the H should still vaporize it.

From my testing the S is completely useless (at least as far as I have seen), and just splinters against the hull. I think the armor will be sufficient to absorb a hit from the M, but it depends on how much phasing the M can achieve; it might be enough to split some girders from the spine.

The VI model is actually a step in the opposite direction, minor part increase for extra armor plating and external fuel tanks added+extra engines in nacelles to compensate for weight increase. This should be ~100t and the middle weakness is heavily mitigated, although like most ships that use a similar construction, it still posesses that inherent weakspot in the central girder.

More durable armor is probably good; however, a 100-ton vessel would create a large mismatch between our fleets, which would preclude the possibility of battles between us until you or I develop more ships. I am thinking of resurrecting the old Vertex Class Destroyer, which was killed by the changes to Structural Intakes in 1.0 and now has a chassis effectively made of marshmallows; I will update its hull and armament, which should make it about 80-90 tons.

That said, nukes are the ONLY engine that makes any sense for me. Ions are just too part count intensive and they have abyssmal TWR regardless of how many you spam, not to mention the sheer mass and part count needed in batteries/solars to use them for anything that isnt a super small burn on a low-gravity planet. What id do for some longer batteries (larger capacity say 1.25m ones that are as long as a FLT-400 or so) and more powerful RTGs so we can actually use them to run the ion drives and not have to rely on crappy solar panels.

I will deal with low TWR because ions are the most mass-efficient propulsion system; ship mass is diminished because of the low fuel fraction required to get even excellent delta-v. However, they are indeed painfully slow, which is unfortunate but bearable for the cause of more powerful ships per tonnage.

Also, you and I seem to be the only people actually doing anything on this thread; when you or I am gone, nothing happens...zekes will be back on Tuesday; hopefully he will breathe some more life back into the battle club.

Edited May 24, 2015 by Three1415

[panzer1b]

Larger ion engines would indeed be optimal, as well as even larger tanks; something like 184 parts in that ship are dedicated specifically to ion-based systems, and it has a TWR of something like 0.025...So slow, alas.

yeah, id love to have a 1.25m ion, perhaps 20kn thrust or something, not enough to render nukes useless, but id guess

Alas, all my ships above ~50 tons invariably have at least 800 parts; that is simply how I build, unfortunately enough, as I enjoy complexity and find that optimization in terms of performance typically comes at the cost of part count. I personally am fine with more or less any amount of lag, but it is true that the physics start to get weird at high enough part counts; if it were more consistent I think that more people would be willing to battle.

Or, alternate solution: Get entire server dedicated to battles; upgrade internet speeds; and then stream the computations from the server onto each player's computer. Goodbye lag!

Definitely practical.

To tell you the truth i actually build ships that are intended for other tasks, and then end up arming them lateron. In my singleplayer campaigns i do (mostly launch new ships and test them against each other in battles) i often do docking, resupply, non-combat operations, and i very often end up having with multiple,m and that means 4 if not 6+ capital ships loaded at once, making 300+ parts per ship just impossible to have any fun with. Yes f you do 1 vs 1 battles 500+ parts may work fine, but for what i enjoy doing in my own game, it just isnt acceptable.

From my testing the S is completely useless (at least as far as I have seen), and just splinters against the hull. I think the armor will be sufficient to absorb a hit from the M, but it depends on how much phasing the M can achieve; it might be enough to split some girders from the spine.

More durable armor is probably good; however, a 100-ton vessel would create a large mismatch between our fleets, which would preclude the possibility of battles between us until you or I develop more ships. I am thinking of resurrecting the old Vertex Class Destroyer, which was killed by the changes to Structural Intakes in 1.0 and now has a chassis effectively made of marshmallows; I will update its hull and armament, which should make it about 80-90 tons.

Thats a good thing imo, the S was never designed to deal with excessive armor with any reliability, and id be surprised if it could kill it. The M is more or less comparable to some of the better player's missiles that are ~5-7t such as the popper-H that zekes uses. They are not lightweight or as small as the S, but they are perfectly lethal to most but the toughest targets out there. My new missile i have high hopes for. Its ONLY 6 parts, under 3 tons, and is the single most part and mass efficient weapons ive seen on here. It may not be a H, but the Tripedo-S/H is sure deadly and it has a notorious tendency to completely desintegrate anything it hits, ave if it doesnt have enough mass to take down an entire vessel with a single shot.

I will deal with low TWR because ions are the most mass-efficient propulsion system; ship mass is diminished because of the low fuel fraction required to get even excellent delta-v. However, they are indeed painfully slow, which is unfortunate but bearable for the cause of more powerful ships per tonnage.

Im just not patient enough, and im not that serious of a combat player that im willing to put up with it. I just cant stand anything below 0.15TWR, i prefer above 0.3, but i can live with ships that have less. 1 nuke for ~20 tons is the absolute minimum for a capital, and when it comes to ions im more flexible in TWR, but its not like

Also, you and I seem to be the only people actually doing anything on this thread; when you or I am gone, nothing happens...zekes will be back on Tuesday; hopefully he will breathe some more life back into the battle club.

I actually post quite a bit when i make stuff, im pretty sure there are others making ships, many are either not online much, or just dont post stuff.

[Spartwo]

M8

[panzer1b]

http://i.imgur.com/PcVQmJ8.png

M8

Cool, is this SSTO or just a atmospheric fighter?

In other words, my Tripedo-S/H is done. 6 parts, 2.5t, and its SUPERIOR to every other missile ive yet to come across in its weight class. heck, this is MORE POWERFUL then the popper-H at a miniscule fraction of the mass and part count. Its only killer issues are that it looks ugly as hell, and that it is in a shape that is very awkward to place anywhere except on the outer hull of a vessel radially. That said, my new SK-FRG-III is designed around mounting these weapons in actual internal bays. While the vessel isnt armor focused like the SK-FRG-II class, it still has better protection then the corvettes, and has enough firepower to make anything go away 3 times over.

[Spartwo]

SSTO, I don't know why else it would have rapiers.

[Three1415]

In other words, my Tripedo-S/H is done. 6 parts, 2.5t, and its SUPERIOR to every other missile ive yet to come across in its weight class. heck, this is MORE POWERFUL then the popper-H at a miniscule fraction of the mass and part count.

Worrisome, at least for the rest of us. Time to make some more powerful miniaturized weapons, and update the Vertex to provide a good mounting point...[Also, I am just resolving some minor issues with the cruiser; I will formally release it in an hour].

SSTO, I don't know why else it would have rapiers.

Because rapiers are superior for high-speed atmospheric flight...

[panzer1b]

Worrisome, at least for the rest of us. Time to make some more powerful miniaturized weapons, and update the Vertex to provide a good mounting point...

Well the Tripedo-S/H is not minuture at all, it (if you count the parts sticking out of it) is 2.5m diamater in one axis, and 1.25 in the other (its frontal crosssection is rectangular). It is not an OP weapon by a longshot, and even my SK-CRV-III class can survive a hit without being split apart, but it is very unlikely to not be split apart and or take massive critical damage. It is around as reliable as most 5-7t warheads, and the only real downside to it is the very difficult to work with profile. Btw, if you want to have a hint as to what it looks like, ill say your "wheel of misforture" weapon is extremely similar in composition, i just scaled it up to be heavy enough to kill off capitals and made it guided. Still very similar concept though (even if i had the idea well before i saw your missiles, just never bothered to implement it as i wasnt trying to develop OP firepower at the time). Guess your warships (assuming they actually turn up as powerful as advertized) forced me to make some super competitive ordinance.

Also, a bit of a sidethought, those wheel missiles you have on your bomber are about as accurate as chickens thrown at the enemy. The idea is great, high impact wheel and fast, but its bloody inaccurate and doesnt fly straight. That thing has some decent firepower, but you should look into the terrible accuracy issues.

The final Tripedo-S/H (im prolly going to redesignate it as a X-series missile as its more in the line with those style wise, tripedoes at least used to have 3 way symmetry, now they kinda lost that and this doesnt even resemble the others) weapon is ~2.5t, 7 parts (there is a stackable version with 8 parts), and is a hair superior to the popper-H in terms of firepower. The only major issue with it is that it has lowish TWR, and needs to be fired from an excess of 2km for maximum effect (although even at lower speeds itll still hurt, just wont 1 shot dreks then). Ill upload later some firing tests against various ships from varios makers that i consider decent in regards to armor levels.

Edited May 24, 2015 by panzer1b

[Three1415]

At last, the cruiser is complete.

Presenting: The Meson Class Barrage Cruiser!

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Statistics:

139.1 tons

3.8 km/s delta-v [i somehow miscalculated the first time]

1014 parts

Armament:

1 x Cannon (30 rounds)

24 x Large I-Beam Rocket

Armor:

Multi-layer spinal and girder-braced plate/ablative armor sections with anti-phasing core; front and rear (with armor cap) possess 6-meter-thick, 11-layer armor.

Ancillary systems:

2 x Detachable armor caps on cannon mounts

1 x Command pod (to ease cannon targeting)

1 x Detachable Ion Tug [at top] for missile/fuel scavenging

Download

Edited May 24, 2015 by Three1415

[Spartwo]

The 3 threads combined add up to 1'119 replies making this the second largest forum game and the 4th largest thread...and more than the 3rd most often poster in only one of them.

I think, there could be other threads locked after the massacre which were revived which have more combined.

[panzer1b]

Well, the Tripedo-S still proves itself to be useful even against Three's new warship:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Overall, this means i dont actually have to even bother rearming my ships with Tripedo-Ms.

Edited May 25, 2015 by panzer1b

[Three1415]

Well, the Tripedo-S still proves itself to be useful even against Three's new warship:

Hmm...I never saw that result in any of my testing; where did you actually hit it?

[panzer1b]

Hmm...I never saw that result in any of my testing; where did you actually hit it?

I targeted the front from the side and came in at 500m/s. Against thick armor, you fire from 2km or father and gun it right at the middle girder from the side. Its more effective to aim at cluster of weapons for 2 reasons, one if you get a bad hit, odds are at least some of the weapons will be shot off, if you get a good hit, the the whole cannon array gets vaporized. Ive also had 1 shot that cut the entire vessel into 5+ pieces, although most of the segments were still intact, just nolonger on teh ship. This was a hit to the middle of the side at above 500m/s.

That said,m you will be happy to know that while i have done some nasty damage even with a Tripedo-S, it does not happen reliably. I have had shots do very little but superficial damage on many occasions, some of them do nothing at all, but roughly 1/3 of the shots do anywhere from decent to massive damage. Btw, the Tripedo-S was designed to counter the Drek12P specifically, its damage is exponentially higher the thicker the enemy hull is and the more crap is inside it. It is never 100% reliable vs anything, but ive had better success vs thicker targets then thinner ships (the S is actually more lethal to your cruiser then your bomber, since the bomber is a thinner hull, harder to hit, and atop that it has less vulnerable things inside it). Again, it was a specialist weapon designed to critical hit vs thicker hulls, although again, its too small and light to do any truly 1 shotting damage to them.

[Three1415]

Btw, the Tripedo-S was designed to counter the Drek12P specifically, its damage is exponentially higher the thicker the enemy hull is and the more crap is inside it. It is never 100% reliable vs anything, but ive had better success vs thicker targets then thinner ships (the S is actually more lethal to your cruiser then your bomber, since the bomber is a thinner hull, harder to hit, and atop that it has less vulnerable things inside it).

I also noted that the Tripedo is incredibly effective at phasing. Also, I believe I may have abused part clipping to a greater extent than is advisable, which likely accounts for the "endless explosion" syndrome you observed. I have a sudden desire to make the thinnest ship possible...

[panzer1b]

I also noted that the Tripedo is incredibly effective at phasing. Also, I believe I may have abused part clipping to a greater extent than is advisable, which likely accounts for the "endless explosion" syndrome you observed. I have a sudden desire to make the thinnest ship possible...

Thin designs have their advantages and disadvantages from my personal experience.

Pros:

Harder to hit effectively or interact at all with higher velocity/"phasing" ammunition.

Smaller target in general.

Allows (if built properly) superior protection to conventional warheads, ibeams, and anything that does not phase as you can have much more layers in the same volume.

Requires (usually) heavier projectiles to do good damage to.

Can look better if you like compactness (this is extremely subjective as to whether compact looks nicer or not but it allows it to be small).

Cons:

Much and i mean MUCH more susceptible to "phasing" ammo.

More likely to have catastrophic failure in the event something inside is shot apart.

Prone to "kraken" attacks especially after taking damage.

Ohh and as for phasing, the entire tripedo line of weapons was specially designed for that purpose. Ive always had other weapons against other targets, such as the X-series or general purpose missiles, the RM-series of general purpose unguided missiles, the KDrone-series for precision low velocity work, ect. The tripedoes just happened to be my primarty weapon of choice vs capitals, despite the X series having plenty of larger capiber options, they are actually better vs weaker capitals, but worse in general due to slower speeds.

Edit:

Ohh, and you can FORGET about fighting my SK-FRG-III, its armor is extremely resistant to your ship's firepower, not immune but im confident itd take your entire load of ammo to destroy it, although even that might not cut it. Ohh, and its armed with the new Tripedo-S/H, and the following was a test fire, no reloading, all damage recorded no matter how much or little.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Once the SK-FRG-III is done, ill upload and id love it if you and perhaps other players give it a shot, im having positive results from my weapons, but no idea how good itll be out there.

Ohh, and i finished a ion refit of the Sk-CRV-IIIg3, 370 parts, which isnt that excessive, and equal firepower+ armor upgrades+ ~5K dV.

Edited May 25, 2015 by panzer1b

[Three1415]

As I was generally dissatisfied with the performance of the Meson Class, I went and made myself a new cruiser based on the old Vertex:

Statistics:

127.2 tons

974 parts

3.6 km/s of delta-v

Armament:

12 x "Wheel of Misfortune" Rockets

12 x Large I-Beam Rockets

6 x "Schism" Torpedo

Armor:

I have been as of yet unable to damage the vessel's interior with Tripedo-S missiles, as non-phasing impacts result in only superficial external damage; additionally, those projectiles that would normally phase through and destroy internal components simply pass through the vessel completely due to the limited quantity of utilized internal space, rendering the ship extremely resistant to both brute-force and phasing rounds. The Vertex Class has also shown extreme resilience to many other forms of weaponry, which, in conjunction with its high internal redundancy, should hopefully allow it to survive the majority of impacts.

Download

Also, a showcase of the capabilities of the new "Schism" Torpedo, a 14-part, 2.5-ton missile, versus the current SK-model:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Finally, what are the (at least projected) masses of your frigate and the SK-VI (or the SK-III ion refit)? I fear our fleets will be badly mismatched if we attempt to fight, so I wish to know what tonnage of ship I must construct to bring us back into balance.

EDIT:

Or not. Apparently with the additional parts from the weapons the ship is now at least somewhat vulnerable to phasing again. Sigh...

Edited May 26, 2015 by Three1415

[burnoutforzai]

[panzer1b]

As I was generally dissatisfied with the performance of the Meson Class, I went and made myself a new cruiser based on the old Vertex:

http://i.imgur.com/LIX4dKD.png

Statistics:

127.2 tons

974 parts

3.6 km/s of delta-v

Armament:

12 x "Wheel of Misfortune" Rockets

12 x Large I-Beam Rockets

6 x "Schism" Torpedo

Armor:

I have been as of yet unable to damage the vessel's interior with Tripedo-S missiles, as non-phasing impacts result in only superficial external damage; additionally, those projectiles that would normally phase through and destroy internal components simply pass through the vessel completely due to the limited quantity of utilized internal space, rendering the ship extremely resistant to both brute-force and phasing rounds. The Vertex Class has also shown extreme resilience to many other forms of weaponry, which, in conjunction with its high internal redundancy, should hopefully allow it to survive the majority of impacts.

Download

Also, a showcase of the capabilities of the new "Schism" Torpedo, a 14-part, 2.5-ton missile, versus the current SK-model:

http://imgur.com/a/5YmQF

Finally, what are the (at least projected) masses of your frigate and the SK-VI (or the SK-III ion refit)? I fear our fleets will be badly mismatched if we attempt to fight, so I wish to know what tonnage of ship I must construct to bring us back into balance.

EDIT:

Or not. Apparently with the additional parts from the weapons the ship is now at least somewhat vulnerable to phasing again. Sigh...

Almost all of my general purpose ships are between 70 and 100t, with the common SK-CRV-III class is ~75t (+~10t if i equip Tripedo-Ms instead of the Ss). The frigate classes are all above 100t, my SK-FRG-II being ~130t, and SK-FRG-III being around 110t. I have very few ships above 150t, and the 2 frigates that are actually somewhat in the general ballpark of your ships in weight, arent really finished to such a point that im happy with em (still trying to solve issues with phased anything hitting core girder, although i suspect that it is IMPOSSIBLE to defend against.

Your torpedo is similarish to my Tripedo-M, but lighter. The M has enough firepower to reliably kill the SK-CRV-III class, but again, that ship was never designed to take fire from anything in excess of 2t, and even a few lighter missiles are powerful enough to do severe damage especially with multiple kills. I knew that from teh start it was no drek, it was just one of my attempts at low part count+armor, and i feel for what i wanted it to do, its a great ship, just it focuses on cutting down parts and maintaining at least some armor protection. That said, im pretty sure i have some of the toughest ships if you compare them soley on part count. The ship has useable (not great but not bad either) dV, the armor is very hard to kill with shorter Ibeams or other weak crap, and still isnt exactly a guaranteed kill to even larger weapons, it has decent redundancy (the ship's rear can actually function even after the entire front has been lost, and the front can move a little bit on vernors if absolutely necessary), and has more then enough firepower to at least criple some of the toughest ships (with optional Ms loaded it is on par with most competitive capital ships such as the drek series), and it is pretty much low enough lag that i can have 4-5 of them in teh same area without being unable to do anything (ive had 3 of them face off against a larger vessel with a BDA rearm and not all that bad lag with ~1200 parts total).

Finally, i just got a job for the summer so ill most likely be 8unable to be as active as i used to, ill still be around, but dont expect me to be on here all the time.

[Spartwo]

http://i.imgur.com/8jTxRGt.png

...So that's why Triangle.

[ScriptKitt3h]

http://i.imgur.com/8jTxRGt.png

Hmm... fighter or modular capital ship? Still looks quite good regardless...

[Three1415]

http://i.imgur.com/8jTxRGt.png

Quite interesting...Modular warships are always annoying to deal with, though one rarely sees many of them.

Almost all of my general purpose ships are between 70 and 100t, with the common SK-CRV-III class is ~75t (+~10t if i equip Tripedo-Ms instead of the Ss). The frigate classes are all above 100t, my SK-FRG-II being ~130t, and SK-FRG-III being around 110t. I have very few ships above 150t, and the 2 frigates that are actually somewhat in the general ballpark of your ships in weight, arent really finished to such a point that im happy with em (still trying to solve issues with phased anything hitting core girder, although i suspect that it is IMPOSSIBLE to defend against.

So we shall be fairly evenly matched once our appropriate ships are constructed; I look forward to battle.

Your torpedo is similarish to my Tripedo-M, but lighter. The M has enough firepower to reliably kill the SK-CRV-III class, but again, that ship was never designed to take fire from anything in excess of 2t, and even a few lighter missiles are powerful enough to do severe damage especially with multiple kills. I knew that from teh start it was no drek, it was just one of my attempts at low part count+armor, and i feel for what i wanted it to do, its a great ship, just it focuses on cutting down parts and maintaining at least some armor protection.

The SK-CRV is quite durable for the amount of armor it possesses; I have to use larger warheads to do any more than minor damage to it, and even that is inconsistent at best. However, the Schism is quite proficient at armor penetration, so I expect it will do similar damage to even more heavily-armored warships.

Finally, i just got a job for the summer so ill most likely be 8unable to be as active as i used to, ill still be around, but dont expect me to be on here all the time.

Whatever; I, too, have activities that will likely keep me from being very active at all (though these do not start until later in the summer), and regardless, if I continue at my current rate, I shall probably burn myself out anyway--slowing construction rate now is probably advisable for me...