Naval Battle Club

[ScriptKitt3h]

I'm open for battles if anyone wants...

[Tynton]

@ Starwhip

My Zephyrs were actually only fighters, in case you haven't noticed, I made those before we specified which type of vehicle to use, as I'm having difficulties making a ship of my own (apparently the editor involuntarily makes me make my corvettes in radial symmetry mode, despite me being in the SPH)

But nevermind these issues, hopefully I can figure out how to revert symmetry. Although, I'm not sure if you're allowing a battle such as, multiple light ships vs. corvettes? That would need our collaboration.

Well, I just needed to consult the wiki for the controls needed to revert symmetry. I should have a corvette design finished by tonight (I have school, and tests soon), so I may not be able to begin an engagement until Thursday/Friday, when I have free-time.

Edited January 13, 2015 by Tynton
sometimes I need to learn how to do something first!

[War Eagle 1]

I'm open for battles if anyone wants...

I don't feel like battling right now. Im just saying Hi sense its been a while sense we have chatted…..

HI Skrpit

[Starwhip]

@Tynton

Roger that. I know how you feel, I've got stuff to do for school as well.

@ScriptKitt3h: Okay, what tonnage, ship limit and body?

EDIT:

Yep, the Lykotaek class still works.

[Tynton]

So, I will be able to have time tomorrow and wednesday to work on my ships, however you happened to forget the other part of my question (I forgive you ahead of time, by the way, we all make mistakes), though I would be able to make my ships tomorrow, most likely, and then we'll begin placing ships. Though, I was curious as to which planet we'll be fighting over?

[Starwhip]

So, I will be able to have time tomorrow and wednesday to work on my ships, however you happened to forget the other part of my question (I forgive you ahead of time, by the way, we all make mistakes), though I would be able to make my ships tomorrow, most likely, and then we'll begin placing ships. Though, I was curious as to which planet we'll be fighting over?

Whoops! Sorry.

Well, as long as I've still got a decent chance to defend myself, and you've got a decent chance to do some damage, multiple ships vs one/two of mine would work fine.

The Lykotaek weighs in at 60 tons.

So, if we went by tonnage, that would be 3 of your Zephyrs vs 1 Lykotaek. That's pulling the weapons capability rather slim: The Lykotaek only has 10 missiles. I don't know how many each of your ships has, but it's probably more. Somewhere between 10 and 15 total?

See how this could be considerably unfair?

As I said, we could figure it out once I see the craft specs of the Zephyr.

EDIT:

Jeez, I'm doing bad today.

What planet? If you're thinking something easy, how about Minmus, Gilly or a small Joolian moon? I never got to do the Vall battle.

Or we could do Eve/Kerbin, if you want something hard. Fighters the size of the Zephyr (17 tons, you said?) Are not typically prone to have large amounts of Delta-V.

[Tynton]

Actually, the Zephyr has 6 .625 m hardpoints, and can withstand standard I-beam missiles (but not my special armor piercing ones and the Zephyr has 1.7 km/s Delta V.

[Starwhip]

Wow. Those are pretty nice stats.

However:

The Lykotaek's I-Beam missiles are anything but "standard".

They accelerate to kill speed (80 m/s) in under 30 meters. And their effective range is around 100 to 200 meters.

And the Lykotaek has over 4,000 m/s of Delta V.

But enough talk, we'll see on the battlefield, I suppose.

[Tynton]

Quick question: Could I have a corvette (I might aim for 2, but you decide) accompany my Zephyrs (for long range/high Delta-V operations) if we're engaging over a large planet? I'd probably aim for Bop/Dres, either one really.

Or, for a concept I have, how about a "war"? a series of battles (of varying sizes, small to large, space or on land) that maybe has a long term objective? Though that may be something to chat about later, but I like having creativity envolved.

Also, apparently the Zephyr has 2 unintended 1.25m hardpoints (used mainly for docking with interplanetary transporters, but generally, the Zephyrs are actually slow...

Zephyr pictures: https://imgur.com/vKXtGJa,ljzn9eI

Edited January 13, 2015 by Tynton

[Starwhip]

Ooh, pretty!

ONE problem: Your cockpit is showing. Not good.

Here's a capture from another battle, me vs. Frozen_Heart, where the same problem was evident on his ship.

The ship cracked in half, and was dead.

ALSO:

I've developed a new guided missile. :evilgrin:

[Tynton]

Thanks for the constructive criticism-I was already making a Zephyr Gen3 (For being a fighter able to have 1 main hardpoint-and it retains the 6 hardpoints aforementioned, however, at the cost of a light amount of armor.

The reason the cockpit was up front was, for the ability to aim better (with dumb-fired weapons, but the Zephyr Gen3 solves this issue, while still retaining an aiming capacity.

- - - Updated - - -

The Zephyr Gen3 is finished. It has 7 total hardpoints, as the Zephyr Gen2 has the downfall of an exposed cockpit (despite my attempt to armor it with solar panels, which would fail horribly) and, the Zephyr Gen3 has a total of 36.51 tons, whilst retaining 1.6 km Delta V.

Pictures: https://imgur.com/GSfkYJj,y39F4Ir

Edited January 13, 2015 by Tynton

[Three1415]

Hmm...I need to start constructing yet another capital ship, which will hopefully be less prone to destructive oscillations, being the antithesis of the Tesseract class. It strikes me that I have yet to actually participate in a battle, but I do not have the necessary ships at this time.

[ScriptKitt3h]

*snip*

I was thinking Eve, 4 ships, total tonnage at about 400.

[Starwhip]

I was thinking Eve, 4 ships, total tonnage at about 400.

EVE?

What are you, crazy?!

I'll need to make some better ships first. More Delta-V. Eve is not a friendly place for maneuvering.

EDIT:

Refit of the Kyrian class is progressing.

Now to armor it.

Edited January 13, 2015 by Starwhip

[astecarmyman]

I'm open for battles if anyone wants...

My Panthers are expecting you. Post a land battle and we can annihilate each other.

(I KNOW you have stubs lying around) or whatever they are

[Tynton]

@ Starwhip

I believe our engagement will be over Bop (4th moon of Jool, as you know), I would like for you to equalize the numbers for me: 7 Zephyrs vs. 3-4 Corvettes (of your choosing) and you said the mass limit to be 100 tons, but I wanted to fit a few Zephyr 3's in my fleet. Also, I grant permission for both sides to have surface-to-space missiles, as you will have to make the confirmation.

I forgot to mention, this happened to be my first battle on this thread.

Edited January 13, 2015 by Tynton
Details n' stuff

[ScriptKitt3h]

My Panthers are expecting you. Post a land battle and we can annihilate each other.

(I KNOW you have stubs lying around) or whatever they are

Sadly, I really don't have any field-able tanks as of now, though the recent turret bearing setups people have put out have piqued my interest...

[Starwhip]

@ Starwhip

I believe our engagement will be over Bop (4th moon of Jool, as you know), I would like for you to equalize the numbers for me: 7 Zephyrs vs. 3-4 Corvettes (of your choosing) and you said the mass limit to be 100 tons, but I wanted to fit a few Zephyr 3's in my fleet. Also, I grant permission for both sides to have surface-to-space missiles, as you will have to make the confirmation.

I forgot to mention, this happened to be my first battle on this thread.

Bop sounds nice. Seven Zephyrs would be about 120 tons, right? If we did 4 of my Lykotaeks, that's 240 tons.

However, you still have the 3 ship advantage.

Suggested Compensation: More Surface-to-Space missiles on my side.

[Tynton]

@ Starwhip

So how many surface missile silos total? I have 1, you have 2?

I also put together a probe fighter, if you want me to show you the specs, all I remember is 2.5 km Delta V.

Also, which ship was the Lyotaek?

I thought of (perhaps) just one 3 meter wide missile silo as far as my assets are-unless you want only 1 missile silo, but that gave me a test concept: a low altitude fighter squadron to fight for the silo? They wouldn't add onto the total fleet mass-nor could they engage the fleet unless the ships will move to intercept the fighters.

I may need to do the math for the Zephyr squadron-but I was aiming at 4 Zephyr Gen2s and 3 Zephyr Gen3's. Though I also thought of (instead) 5 Gen2's and 3 Gen3's. Not to mention I planned a modification for the Gen2, where an AI core can take over in case the pilot is destroyed.

Semi-on topic: Perhaps a land engagement after this? On Laythe or something?

Edited January 14, 2015 by Tynton

[CrypticCross345]

I've now got a few ships so I'm open to battles. This will be my first battle so I'd like it kept small.

[sdj64]

Zamo, I tested out your battle barge. It's pretty tough if you don't hit it straight on, but it has a weak spot when shot from the top/bottom where my missile can destroy the core part.

I reloaded and tested your missile, which did the same thing against my destroyer. But that ship has only single layer armor plus wing panels, so it's a long shot to survive any 1.25m guided missile. I'll have to see how my larger ships fare.

I can battle with anyone who wants to. Space preferred. I can do land, but my tanks are pretty old. Ship stats are on my company thread.

[Souper]

always wanted to get in on this, any way tou guys could include me? (Is there a signup process or osmething, because 'm wondering if this is gonna be super-complex...)

[CrypticCross345]

always wanted to get in on this, any way tou guys could include me? (Is there a signup process or osmething, because 'm wondering if this is gonna be super-complex...)

Welcome, there is no signup process. If you don't already no here we share spacecrafts with weapons and fight each other.

Sdj64 I'll fight you. Could we please keep it small.

[Zamovinar]

Zamo, I tested out your battle barge. It's pretty tough if you don't hit it straight on, but it has a weak spot when shot from the top/bottom where my missile can destroy the core part.

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

I reloaded and tested your missile, which did the same thing against my destroyer. But that ship has only single layer armor plus wing panels, so it's a long shot to survive any 1.25m guided missile. I'll have to see how my larger ships fare.

I can battle with anyone who wants to. Space preferred. I can do land, but my tanks are pretty old. Ship stats are on my company thread.

How many shots did it take? what range are you firing at?

I was trying to run my own tests too but it keeps crashing. I only managed to severely damage one of your smaller ship with one shot then my game crashed.

I want to see how well your ships could hold.

We can set up again but I guess we could use one ship each. one on one do you have a ship that's about 125 tons?

[Three1415]

Although I am nowhere near ready for a battle, I would like to propose some possible amendments to the current rules regarding weapon usage and carriers.

As to utilization of armament, it is evident that, with the weapon capacities that most capital ships possess, any engagement with another vessel will almost certainly result in that craft's destruction; our warships simply carry so many and so massive warheads that it is effectively impossible to armor one's vessels to defeat a full salvo. This means that increasing the durability of a ship has little bearing on the result of an engagement: While it might force one's opponent to use more ammunition than he or she would otherwise have wished (which is comparatively insignificant for the same reason: High warhead capacities), the defender will not survive the encounter. I do not like this; I feel it defeats much of the enjoyment of battling, as one is more or less playing a game of elimination, removing vessels one by one until a player runs out of ships.

As such, I propose to limit the quantity of ammunition that any ship can discharge in one turn. I feel an optimal restriction is ten tons' or two missiles' worth of munitions; i.e, one can fire an unlimited number of rounds as long as their combined mass is less than ten tons or two missiles of any (though perhaps cut further to one if someone brings a twenty-ton missile to an engagement) combined mass. Thus, it becomes possible for a durable ship to survive an engagement to unload the armament it was not able to fire its first turn, while a less durable ship might only be able to fire a salvo's worth (a salvo being a number of rounds obeying the above restriction); this would make effective armor truly matter in a strategic sense. Additionally, it would reduce the advantage given to the player that moves first, as without the basic guarantee of a kill the first turn becomes less decisive, as well as, in my opinion at least, make battles more interesting to watch and participate in: The final engagement might come down to the actions of two tattered, battle-scarred warships in a final struggle for dominance, rather than an undamaged ship simply firing at another and destroying it. Finally, fighters and bombers would see their value increased: With such salvo-size limitations, a fighter or especially a bomber could unleash almost as much destructive power in one turn as could a capital ship, sacrificing "staying power" (these ships would likely exhaust all of their armament on their first turn, or, if they did not, would be easily destroyed by opposing warships) for first-strike capabilities. I feel that such considerations are currently lacking in battles, what with the massive power advantage possessed by capital ships.

These changes would, as they would make fighters and bombers more effective, increase the attractiveness of carrier designs. However, carriers are basically never used in the Naval Battle Club for a number of reasons: They are massive with high part counts and consume valuable tonnage; they are vulnerable due to imposed restrictions on their armor, making them soft targets for enemy warships; and most importantly, they introduce what I and no doubt most others feel is an unnecessary intermediate step between engagement and actually firing rounds. Why have fighters carry small ammunition loads from a large carrier when one can simply have a capital ship carry much more by itself?

However, carriers could see renewed viability if the previously described salvo limitation were to be accepted. I propose this be done in a number of ways: First, by removing the "heavy armor" restriction from them, as they are vulnerable enough having to provide a hollow internal space for structurally weak fighters without having to use far less durable armor across a majority of their surfaces; second, by removing fighter tonnage restrictions and capping total fighter mass to a certain percentage of carrier mass; third, allowing every fighter on the carrier to perform a sortie (rendezvous with target, discharge armament, return to carrier) in a single turn; and fourth, applying salvo restrictions on a per fighter basis, meaning that each fighter, and not the whole carrier, is bound by the ten-tons-or-two-missiles rule.

These changes would combine to make carriers less of soft targets (though they would still be more massive and vulnerable than their non-smallcraft-carrying counterparts) and make exotic, intriguing combinations, such a battleship that can deploy a single fighter for striking long-range targets and softening up ships before its own turn, more viable. Additionally, carriers could support a large bomber and several small fighters, rather than a few fairly homogenous fighters of similar sizes and tonnages, while still being restricted as to their maximum sortie size so that they do not become too effective, as the fourth change would give carriers first-strike capabilities comparable to those of a capital ship with the current rules. I feel that this is balanced, however, by (again) the intrinsic vulnerability of carriers, their large sizes and tonnages, and the fact that they themselves shall likely forgo their own armaments in favor of additional fuel and missiles for their carried smallcraft; this introduces additional design considerations that I think are missing in the current "metagame," if it can be called such. Similarly, carriers are so ubiquitous in the realm of science fiction and space-based warfare games that I think it would be unfortunate if we were not to make allowances for them here.

Keep in mind that the numbers I gave and even some of the smaller changes are highly flexible and could be easily adjusted--for example, one might wish to cap salvo tonnage limit at fifteen tons rather than ten, or make maximum carrier sortie size also proportional to its mass; I am simply looking for feedback on these ideas, rather than suggesting they be implemented immediately.

My apologies for the wall(s) of text, but I would much rather construct a long argument than an insufficiently supported or fallacious one due to attempting to compress my ideas.

Edited January 14, 2015 by Three1415