Naval Battle Club

[8bitgammers]

If you would like some specific tips and or an AKS modified version (ive made a few modifications before of other peoples ships in an attempt to improve them, for example in the battle i did before yours, i took Frozen's ship and modified it to be way more resistant). IF you are interested just give me a link to the .craft file, id be glad to at least make some minor changes to it in an attempt to improve it.

alright! having a second pair of hands on my destroyer sounds like a good idea.

here is the version of my destroyer you fought:

http://www./download/jsj87m5stcff610/Destroyer-Py-4.craft

here is a newer hangar-ed version with more armor:

http://www./download/ptzda72bq6tjtbg/Destroyer-Py-8.craft

it would be great to get your input to the design.

i'm up for whatever you do!

[panzer1b]

alright! having a second pair of hands on my destroyer sounds like a good idea.

here is the version of my destroyer you fought:

http://www./download/jsj87m5stcff610/Destroyer-Py-4.craft

here is a newer hangar-ed version with more armor:

http://www./download/ptzda72bq6tjtbg/Destroyer-Py-8.craft

it would be great to get your input to the design.

i'm up for whatever you do!

Ok, expect something tomorrow, i have some real life stuff i need to do today that came up. Anyways, ill check both versions and do what i can to keep its basic shape/apearance, and improve its resilience to enemy fire without adding too many parts (i might even be able to cut down part count somehow).

[Three1415]

At long last, I now possess a functional vessel.

Presenting: The Dynastinae Class Bomber!

Basic Statistics:

19.8 tons

332 parts

4.6 km/s delta-v

Armament:

1 x Chaingun (6 rounds)

6 x "Wheel of Misfortune" Rockets

Armor:

Braced bi-layered steel/intake plating, sufficient to defeat Tripedo-S rounds omnidirectionally; I have not yet been able to cause more than superficial damage from any range or angle.

[panzer1b]

At long last, I now possess a functional vessel.

Presenting: The Dynastinae Class Bomber!

http://i.imgur.com/Ir8Dhio.png

Basic Statistics:

19.8 tons

332 parts

4.6 km/s delta-v

Armament:

1 x Chaingun (6 rounds)

6 x "Wheel of Misfortune" Rockets

Armor:

Braced bi-layered steel/intake plating, sufficient to defeat Tripedo-S rounds omnidirectionally; I have not yet been able to cause more than superficial damage from any range or angle.

Gimme a download link and ill be glad to show you how to properly use Tripedoes , they need to be fired at a particular velocity for each target hull.

That, and i also have Tripedo-Ms that i can always deploy if needed, those are roughly equivalent to a popper-H in firepower back when the decouplers had 9999 crash tolerance, now the Tripedo-M is superior.

Still, i do like the looks, makes me think of one of those beetle things i keep killing en-mass cause one of the windows in my house has a broken screen and they keep getting inside somehow.

Finally, while it looks neat and has nice firepower+useable armor, at that part count you can forget about deploying many of them. I have a bomber that is 50 parts, and has what id consider comparable firepower and it has some decent dV to boot, not to mention it has a 80m/s impact tolerance hull, not exceptional but still quite strong against at least ibeam based weapons.

Btw, as cool as the chaingun (err mass driver, or accelerator or whatever you wnat to call those things) concept is, its kinda large and bulky, i think classical missiles make WAY more sense. Im close to making a true rapid fire weapon, with 6 shots per clip (and my HK-103 can mount 3 of these things giving it 18 shots or 6 3 shot salvos). Its not part count practical, and it doesnt have firepower to kill heavier ships, but its deadly to fighters, bombers, and other low armor ships, has 0 recoil, and accelerated incredibly fast making even hist from 50m lethal.

Edited May 21, 2015 by panzer1b

[Three1415]

Gimme a download link and ill be glad to show you how to properly use Tripedoes

Is firing them directly at a target from 1200 meters not how they are used? I would rather think it would be...

That, and i also have Tripedo-Ms that i can always deploy if needed, those are roughly equivalent to a popper-H in firepower back when the decouplers had 9999 crash tolerance, now the Tripedo-M is superior.

Unless you can deploy Tripedo-M's on fighters, that commits you to spending a full capital ship turn to destroy a single bomber; I will take that trade-off any day.

Still, i do like the looks, makes me think of one of those beetle things i keep killing en-mass cause one of the windows in my house has a broken screen and they keep getting inside somehow.

Indeed, it does look rather insectoid in nature (the majority of my ships do, for some reason, probably because I always use multiples of six); I took its name from the subfamily encompassing rhinoceros beetles, as they are remarkably similar in appearance to the craft itself.

Finally, while it looks neat and has nice firepower+useable armor, at that part count you can forget about deploying many of them. I have a bomber that is 50 parts, and has what id consider comparable firepower and it has some decent dV to boot, not to mention it has a 80m/s impact tolerance hull, not exceptional but still quite strong against at least ibeam based weapons.

As long as one does not bring them within render distance of each other (and I see no reason to), part count is completely irrelevant to combat performance; a similar-mass ship with a lower part count but inferior performance is simply a waste, in my opinion.

Btw, as cool as the chaingun (err mass driver, or accelerator or whatever you wnat to call those things) concept is, its kinda large and bulky, i think classical missiles make WAY more sense. Im close to making a true rapid fire weapon, with 6 shots per clip (and my HK-103 can mount 3 of these things giving it 18 shots or 6 3 shot salvos). Its not part count practical, and it doesnt have firepower to kill heavier ships, but its deadly to fighters, bombers, and other low armor ships, has 0 recoil, and accelerated incredibly fast making even hist from 50m lethal.

The chaingun is 1.8 tons with six rounds and fits into less than 1.3 cubic meters of space; I fail to see how that is more efficient than six I-Beams (not to mention the fact that it is vastly more effective due to higher damage output and accuracy). Also, this weapon has a "true rapid fire" mode; its fire rate is limited only by how rapidly one can stage, which means that if I were to bind the decoupling to individual action groups, I could put all six rounds downrange in less than a second.

Also, four rounds can saw the SK-CRVIIIg2 in half, and I can oneshot your fighters...

Edited May 21, 2015 by Three1415

[panzer1b]

Is firing them directly at a target from 1200 meters not how they are used? I would rather think it would be...

Unless you can deploy Tripedo-M's on fighters, that commits you to spending a full capital ship turn to destroy a single bomber; I will take that trade-off any day.

Indeed, it does look rather insectoid in nature (the majority of my ships do, for some reason, probably because I always use multiples of six); I took its name from the subfamily encompassing rhinoceros beetles, as they are remarkably similar in appearance to the craft itself.

So you are firing from 1200m, and blasting the engines AT FULL POWER?

1st of all the Tripedo-S (and tyo a certain extent the M and H) are dynamic velocity weapons. You need to vary the impact velocity for maximum effect based on enemy hull design/thickness. When firing at dreks or other very heavily armored and thick hulled ships, you basically fire from 2km and blast full power to get as much V as you can. When firing at thinner vessels (such as my SK-CRV-III series), ive actually found that you want to come in at a velocity that is LOWER then maximum attainable, such as 200m/s or something similar. Against very small targets, i rarely exceed 150m/s as if you go faster there is a good chance that you will phase through the entire vessel and not even interact with it, not to mention lower speeds are better vs weaker armor (those intakes arent exactly high imnpact tolerance).

While im not questioning your armor (as i dont have the vessel to actually test out) or your ability to use my weaponry, the Tripedo-S is a very finicky weapon since it is lightweight and short. It was designed to be a precision weapon that has a very specific way to engage each individual target. Heavier weapons such as most 1.3m torps used by the best players here, and my Tripedo-M you basically gun it at full speed at target and hope for the best since the combo of mass and longer length make it way less susceptible to the speed you ram into with. The Tripedo-S is from experience the toughest missile i have to use properly, it is not just a point at middle and hit there, you need to know how to engage each target.

As for deploying Ms on fighters, the HK-103 (you have seen this multiple times before) is perfectly capable of arming up to 10t of ordinance before it becomes so painful to use its not worth it. The Tripedo-M is what, ~5t, so i can at least in theory mount 2 of them on a HK-103, although the tonage will go to around 15t then. That, and i do actually have other craft availeable that are basically all capable of mounting at least 2 Ms standard (although i dont enjoy using super powerful weapons all that much so they are currently equipped with 4 Tripedo-S or RT-5 based weapons). Almost all my mainstream fighters can bring Tripedo-Ms into battle, and my capitals are also all capable of bringing Ms in the side bays, i just elect not to as i like to give the enemy a chance and not turn every game into a guaranteed every turn something gets 1 shotted problem.

Anyways, im reather interested to see how that thing is made, so unless its something you would rather keep classified, a link woukld be cool.

As long as one does not bring them within render distance of each other (and I see no reason to), part count is completely irrelevant to combat performance; a similar-mass ship with a lower part count but inferior performance is simply a waste, in my opinion.

The chaingun is 1.8 tons with six rounds and fits into less than 1.3 cubic meters of space; I fail to see how that is more efficient than six I-Beams (not to mention the fact that it is vastly more effective due to higher damage output and accuracy). Also, this weapon has a "true rapid fire" mode; its fire rate is limited only by how rapidly one can stage, which means that if I were to bind the decoupling to individual action groups, I could put all six rounds downrange in less than a second.

Also, four rounds can saw the SK-CRVIIIg2 in half, and I can oneshot your fighters...

The 1st is a matter of what you enjoy doing in KSP. I for one like to have multiple ships within render range and ive actually started using mods such as burn together and BDArmory to have say 4 vs 4 combat. Ofc if uou only do 1 vs 1, the parts arent as big of a deal, but i often like to have way more then 2 ships loaded at once, and for this playstyle (or if you play DMP where even 200 parts can cause lag let alone 500+), part count makes a MAJOR ISSUE.

Well its larger for a fighter (i was thinking of mounting a rapid fire weapon on fighters, but i doubt thisll work for a fighter), and it doesnt appear to be reloadeable which is something i like to have on my ships. That said, i might give your weapon a try, and see what results i can pull off, but it seems that minaturized weapons are just impossible to make powerful (say something that can be stuck on a 0.6m dock port and be short as well.

And as to how that thing shot a SK-CRV-III in half, i dont know how that could happen. Then again, ive managed to shoot a drek 12p in half with a ibeam+2 sepatrons, so i guess anything is possible with enough velocity and a bit of luck.

Anyways, good design, once i make a few more advances in my own tech, ill be glad to give you a battle and see if your craft are truly as good as you say!

Edited May 21, 2015 by panzer1b

[Three1415]

That said, i might give your weapon a try, and see what results i can pull off, but it seems that minaturized weapons are just impossible to make powerful (say something that can be stuck on a 0.6m dock port and be short as well.

And as to how that thing shot a SK-CRV-III in half, i dont know how that could happen. Then again, ive managed to shoot a drek 12p in half with a ibeam+2 sepatrons, so i guess anything is possible with enough velocity and a bit of luck.

Unfortunately (for me, at least), I have been unable to replicate the bisection of the SK-CRV (I think the Kraken was involved in that one), but I am able to consistently do major damage; miniaturization is my specialty.

Anyways, im reather interested to see how that thing is made, so unless its something you would rather keep classified, a link woukld be cool.

I will link as soon as I finish the fighter, but I can tell you now that the armor on the bomber is essentially that of my dreadnought simply scaled down; similar concepts are involved, so it should possess similar resistance to damage.

[panzer1b]

Unfortunately (for me, at least), I have been unable to replicate the bisection of the SK-CRV (I think the Kraken was involved in that one), but I am able to consistently do major damage; miniaturization is my specialty.

I will link as soon as I finish the fighter, but I can tell you now that the armor on the bomber is essentially that of my dreadnought simply scaled down; similar concepts are involved, so it should possess similar resistance to damage.

Why are u trying to replicate the SK-CRV-III?

I have all my craft (i do not believe in keeping stuff that is not OP classified) uploaded to the AKSTechnologies craft repository (click my signature picture to get to it). Well i dont have everything uploaded, but teh stuff im happy with is there.

Ohh, and the 3rd generation SK-CRV-III abuses offsets for parts. That is most likely why it is bloody hard to replicate (if you remove fuel tanks and guns, it literally appears that the hull is suspended in mid air relative to the spine. This was done to save part count by removing the need to have a special part in the middle to support it. While it doesnt make logical sense to suspend stuff in mid air, i prefer sci-fi themed craft, and i dont care if it is deemed reality impossible.

As for the bomber armor, im curious as to how you did it internally. Ive always liked small compact vessels, and perhaps (assuming i can find a way to chop that part count down) ill actually use a similar armor layout in some of my upcoming vessels. My HK-R dropship needs a major overhaul, and it is somewhat similarly shaped to your bomber, and it deprately needs armor protection and better fuel fraction. it cant even do a tylo roundtrip, which makes it terrible dV wise imo for a dropship that is suppose to do roundtrips from orbit back to orbit on any body without atmo.

Also, im working on a actual mass driver craft, so ill have a "chaingun" styled cannon on my new command ship. Although its actually intended more to launch vessels instead of projectiles, might as well slap a few ibeams to the sides. Also, why did you name it a chaingun? I think most players call the whole push projectile with engine concept a mass driver, or mass accelerator, and if you have multiple engines in a long row i think itd be called a railgun.

Edited May 22, 2015 by panzer1b

[ejudedude13]

Hey guys, I have returned from lengthy vacation from KSP BUT IM BACK XD. I've got a two-staged missile design I might want to test on people, so if anyone has a good platform I could test it on, PM ME!!! Also, YOUTUBE VIDS SOON. Cyas

[Three1415]

Why are u trying to replicate the SK-CRV-III?

replicate the bisection of the SK-CRV

replicate the bisection of the SK-CRV

replicate the bisection of the SK-CRV

I was trying to cut it in half again, not remake the ship!

As for the bomber armor, im curious as to how you did it internally. Ive always liked small compact vessels, and perhaps (assuming i can find a way to chop that part count down) ill actually use a similar armor layout in some of my upcoming vessels. My HK-R dropship needs a major overhaul, and it is somewhat similarly shaped to your bomber, and it deprately needs armor protection and better fuel fraction. it cant even do a tylo roundtrip, which makes it terrible dV wise imo for a dropship that is suppose to do roundtrips from orbit back to orbit on any body without atmo.

I will link it as soon as I finish some minor tweaks, but in short, modular girder segments are your friend.

Also, im working on a actual mass driver craft, so ill have a "chaingun" styled cannon on my new command ship. Although its actually intended more to launch vessels instead of projectiles, might as well slap a few ibeams to the sides. Also, why did you name it a chaingun?

It fires heavy rounds with respect to its overall size, and is belt-fed--thus "chaingun." Also, it uses a single-multiple cannon.

Hey guys, I have returned from lengthy vacation from KSP BUT IM BACK XD.

Welcome back! I, too, only recently returned from a long hiatus (naval shipbuilding burns one out quickly); hopefully we can get some good battles in.

Edited May 22, 2015 by Three1415

[Three1415]

I am proud to announce that I have developed noses flamethrowers:

[Also, it really does look like a rhinoceros beetle now.]

After I got irritated with my inability to actually saw ships in half, I made an attachment that allows me to actually saw ships in half!

How to use:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Also, another ship, in the same vein as the bomber:

The Omega Class Fighter!

Basic statistics:

12.9 tons

195 parts

4 Ion Engines with 3.5 km/s delta-v

Armament:

1 x Twin Chaingun (4 bursts)

1 x Nose-mounted Flamethrower

Armor:

Fairly minimal, but still light-weapon resistant; a small profile is the ship's greatest defensive asset.

Also, download links!

Dynastinae Class Bomber

Omega Class Fighter

Edited May 22, 2015 by Three1415

[panzer1b]

I am proud to announce that I have developed noses flamethrowers:

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

[Also, it really does look like a rhinoceros beetle now.]

After I got irritated with my inability to actually saw ships in half, I made an attachment that allows me to actually saw ships in half!

How to use:

http://imgur.com/a/rfcaF

Also, another ship, in the same vein as the bomber:

The Omega Class Fighter!

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

Basic statistics:

12.9 tons

195 parts

4 Ion Engines with 3.5 km/s delta-v

Armament:

1 x Twin Chaingun (4 bursts)

1 x Nose-mounted Flamethrower

Armor:

Fairly minimal, but still light-weapon resistant; a small profile is the ship's greatest defensive asset.

Also, download links!

Dynastinae Class Bomber

Omega Class Fighter

I had weapons like this ages ago, but i discontinued their development as mounting them on ships was (im my opinion) a violation of the no ramming rule (yes its not ramming but getting that close just didnt feel fair), and they were awkward to use. My last one was pretty much a giant rocket with sepatrons on the front, allowing mutliple shots as well (then you wopuld use the wholer missile as a kinetic warhead).

It was bloody hard to control but its pretty much the same concept you have here.

This also took me a whilke to find:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Same idea, just on a missile and not on a ship. Makes no sense from a part count perspective though and it is only effective (like yours) when you can get in and saw the root girder apart. This was (if i remember correctly) 1st tried in .25, although the idea was my own, it is actually the same concept to the flame tanks but in space, and you dont have any ground to control recoil, so it is awkward to use.

Also, i rather like your ships, they arent as resilient to the Tripedo-S as you claimed initially (with the right approach vector and right velocity you will still do catastrophic damage to it), but it is way tougher then any of my ships in its class (as in equivalent mass). Finally, the best part about it is that it seems to be very hard to take down with RT-5 weapons, making the HK-103's default weapon iffy at best (i had one shot where i tore it apart but thats it). As for ibeams and other low level crap, its very tough to destroy the vessel or even criple it beyond operation with them, although longer 1beams + 4 seps still work somewhat. All in all, impressive armor especially considering the size and weight. Now if only you could get that much armor with under 100 parts.

the only major killed for me though is the TWR being abyssmal. I have a fighter under 10t and i think 10 ion engines are too few, i fail to comprehend how on earth you dont rip you keyboard off when burning with that? I consider 0.2 TWR to be my cutoff, i just refuse to fly anything with less (unless its a backup emergency engine that isnt intended to even be used normally in the 1st place like my new LFO powered HK-103 and HK-102 has after i switched em to LFO only, the ion adds around 2K dV to it and in total ion+fuel+batteries are under 5 extra parts and eigh around 1.5t which is not that bad for something thats intended to be used as a backup engine.

Edited May 22, 2015 by panzer1b

[Three1415]

This was (if i remember correctly) 1st tried in .25, although the idea was my own, it is actually the same concept to the flame tanks but in space, and you dont have any ground to control recoil, so it is awkward to use.

I figured someone had done this before (at least in orbital combat); I control recoil by placing another quartet of sepratrons in the same configuration on the opposite side, which basically eliminates it.

I had weapons like this ages ago, but i discontinued their development as mounting them on ships was (im my opinion) a violation of the no ramming rule (yes its not ramming but getting that close just didnt feel fair), and they were awkward to use.

Yes, this is basically skill-less as a weapon system, and is just a bit overpowered (mainly because one cannot defend against it...Unless: Heat shields as armor! )...Alas, the really cool things are always unfair.

[panzer1b]

I figured someone had done this before (at least in orbital combat); I control recoil by placing another quartet of sepratrons in the same configuration on the opposite side, which basically eliminates it.

Yes, this is basically skill-less as a weapon system, and is just a bit overpowered (mainly because one cannot defend against it...Unless: Heat shields as armor! )...Alas, the really cool things are always unfair.

Most of my designs were already absurd part count and had multiple shots so i used a very powerful main engine to remove the need to have double the already painful sepatron counts. As for fairness, while the weapon was never officially banned according to my intel, its in my opinion in teh same boat as the Tripedo-H, a weapon that is extremely reliable and takes little skill to do catastrophic damage (if not disable a ship outright) with. Its just a weapon i never bothered with cause in turn based there is no counters to it, and it is very effective especially against certain ships. just like the Tripedo-H which was actually completely developed btw and is fully combat capable (my new SK-FRG-III which is in the works is designed to carry 4 of them even if i wont depoy them unless its some super competitive game where odds are every ship will 1 shot every other ship anyways). Still, its a weapon that i jst wont use as its no fun, takes no real skill (just aim at midsection and gun velocity to maximum), and is again, virtually impossible to not cripple a ship with regardless of its armor levels or quality. You know that it can pretty much 1 shot nullify your dreadnought, and it wasnt even designed for that, when it comes to dreks, they just go away with it. It used to be named the DrekBuster, but since it ended up looking liek a upscaled Tripedo, i named it Tripedo-H. Btw, while i cant find it myself, a long time ago i posted something called the Hexpedo-M, which is what this weapons evolved from, the Hexpedo was such overkill though, over 15t, powered by skipper, and so bloody overkill against every single target.

Also did some more testing ve your ships, and they are quite good, although a single solid hit to the rear of the bomber will take down all its fuel around 75% of the time. Aside from internals being suceptible, ive only managed to 1 shot obliterate the whoile thing 3 times firing maybee 20 shots. it happens, but its really tough to pull off as the small size makes phasing a hit or miss. I reccomend spreading the fuel around more, its your primary weakspot right now!

Edited May 22, 2015 by panzer1b

[Three1415]

Most of my designs were already absurd part count and had multiple shots so i used a very powerful main engine to remove the need to have double the already painful sepatron counts. As for fairness, while the weapon was never officially banned according to my intel,

Hmm...So, should flamethrowers be banned in combat, or at least somehow limited? Because as of now there is nothing to prevent their proliferation, and with the new heating mechanics they seem to have only become more powerful.

[panzer1b]

Hmm...So, should flamethrowers be banned in combat, or at least somehow limited? Because as of now there is nothing to prevent their proliferation, and with the new heating mechanics they seem to have only become more powerful.

I dont know, all im saying is that such weapons are not fun to use for me. I personally enjoy smaller weapons that are less likely to destroy stuff (personally i try to limit my firepower to 2t MAXIMUM per shot unless its a super competitive game). That said,m if they do end up popular, i have a good feeling that peoiple will just start using heat shields, so it wont be a one weapons beats all, but it will most likely still be very effective.

Anyways, i hope you dont mind me using a similar (not identical but similar) armor scheme to your bomber in my HK-R dropship. Since i want it to have good protection, and your hull of all the stuff ive seen or tried myself is the best for that size, im so gonna have a actually armored dropship now. Ofc it will loose those intakes, as they are too many parst for too little benefits.

[8bitgammers]

hey!

all this space fighter/flame tank stuff is really cool.

I've just got to get involved!

[panzer1b]

hey!

all this space fighter/flame tank stuff is really cool.

I've just got to get involved!

http://i.imgur.com/5MEtAi3.png

Great now we got someone else hooked on the idea...

Three1415 YOU JUST RUINED SPACE COMBAT FOREVER!

Anyways, im now working on a HK-103E, more armor, better range, better everything, and its kinda influenced by your fighter'sd armor, just in 3 way symmetry (its a bloody Tri-Fighter, it has to have 3 way symmetry!). Anyways, i really hope you dont mind me using some ideas from your vessels, especially since they actually work pretty damn well. If i can make an armored fighter, then ill be all set for combat.

[8bitgammers]

Three1415 YOU JUST RUINED SPACE COMBAT FOREVER!

really!

i mean sure, if torching was easy and effective, YES!

but it's not effective. (at least not any better than rockets).

also, you could make armor very resistant to it.

having said that, it's fine.

[Three1415]

I dont know, all im saying is that such weapons are not fun to use for me. I personally enjoy smaller weapons that are less likely to destroy stuff (personally i try to limit my firepower to 2t MAXIMUM per shot unless its a super competitive game). That said,m if they do end up popular, i have a good feeling that peoiple will just start using heat shields, so it wont be a one weapons beats all, but it will most likely still be very effective.

Hopefully heat shields are sufficiently effective to counter them; I think no more than one stage per ship should be allowed, however, as it is truly impossible to defend against three to four separate flamethrowers in the same location.

Anyways, i hope you dont mind me using a similar (not identical but similar) armor scheme to your bomber in my HK-R dropship. Since i want it to have good protection, and your hull of all the stuff ive seen or tried myself is the best for that size, im so gonna have a actually armored dropship now.

That individually-braced-plate armor scheme is by far the most effective I have found to date; even better, it works for most sizes of ships, thus the bomber's durability. I do not mind if you use it, as the battle club is, after all, as much a place for sharing designs as pitting them against one another. Just out of curiosity, how many missiles did it take to finally kill the bomber? What failed and allowed its destruction? I want to have some idea of its true durability, as well as its weak spots, before I take it into battle.

Ofc it will loose those intakes, as they are too many parst for too little benefits.

Honestly, the intakes are more for aesthetics than for anything else; while they do provide marginal protection, I simply enjoy their look, especially as I really hate the appearance of structural-panel armor on ships.

EDIT: Very ninja'd!

i mean sure, if torching was easy and effective, YES!

but it's not effective. (at least not any better than rockets).

also, you could make armor very resistant to it.

Yes--it is really only effective if you strip a ship's armor down to its core segments. Also, heat shields would prevent a lot of the resultant damage.

Anyways, i really hope you dont mind me using some ideas from your vessels, especially since they actually work pretty damn well. If i can make an armored fighter, then ill be all set for combat.

Again, I do not really care. However, I do not want to end up fighting myself by the end of the week because no-one else has come up with anything inventive!

Also, now I have to come up with a good frigate/destroyer design...Hmm...What to do, what to do...

Edited May 22, 2015 by Three1415

[panzer1b]

Hopefully heat shields are sufficiently effective to counter them; I think no more than one stage per ship should be allowed, however, as it is truly impossible to defend against three to four separate flamethrowers in the same location.

That individually-braced-plate armor scheme is by far the most effective I have found to date; even better, it works for most sizes of ships, thus the bomber's durability. I do not mind if you use it, as the battle club is, after all, as much a place for sharing designs as pitting them against one another. Just out of curiosity, how many missiles did it take to finally kill the bomber? What failed and allowed it destruction? I want to have some idea of its true durability, as well as its weak spots, before I take it into battle.

Honestly, the intakes are more for aesthetics than for anything else; while they do provide marginal protection, I simply enjoy their look, especially as I really hate the appearance of structural-panel armor on ships.

I was doing tests one at a time at a full HP shipm, i did not use multipel salvos in these tests. Ill say (once i caught on what the optimal speed and spot to hit was), i could wipe out its fuel supplies pretty regularly, but not exactly reliably. Most of the times it was destroyed it was due to internals being shot apart, not due to frame beinbg destroyed. The few times it was destroyed, it just split in half down the middle (im guessing it got lucky and phased into the center girder joing destroying it, this is a common issue with most ships, if any half decent intact warhead hits the core girder its cut in half, nothing at all you can do about it (but luckily for your design its very hard to actually do this even if you aim at it unless the weapon is a Tripedo-M which is as good as the most popular drek killing weapons such as teh popper-H. Pretty much any weapon below 2t has a very hard time destroying it with any reliability, and ive even had my Tripedo-M fail to do any real damage a few times. Like any ship, it is suceptible to luckshots, but i feel you have created something that minimized the odds of such a occurence. That is in my book what makes good armor, not necessarily being indestructible, but being tough to kill reliably without luck and or excessive mass on your weapons.

Anyways, as for its killer weakness, that fuel tank stack. most of my ships have fuel spread out, so that it is unlikely a single shot (that doesnt vaporize the entire ship) can take down more then half the fuel tanks. Ofc since its a bomber, you have some limitrs, but perhaps move some of that fuel to the front area, so that a single critical hit doesnt leave you without any fuel.

As for looks, i like wings and structural panels mized together the best, but i dont mind all structurals as they give one cool thing, amazing lighting. My old series warships (the 1st corvette ei made for example) looked so amazing as the light would reflect off every little bump in the panels and the entire thing glowed. Aside from that, wings look much nicer then panels.

Edit:

More testing was just done, Tripedo-S will 1 shot obliterate teh craft when fired directly into the nose, more then 75% of the time, although its a difficult shot to accomplish such a shot especially at higher velocities that are more effective damage wise.

Edited May 22, 2015 by panzer1b

[Three1415]

Anyways, as for its killer weakness, that fuel tank stack. most of my ships have fuel spread out, so that it is unlikely a single shot (that doesnt vaporize the entire ship) can take down more then half the fuel tanks. Ofc since its a bomber, you have some limitrs, but perhaps move some of that fuel to the front area, so that a single critical hit doesnt leave you without any fuel.

I just split them up; it took about thirty seconds. No idea why I did not do that before...

More testing was just done, Tripedo-S will 1 shot obliterate teh craft when fired directly into the nose, more then 75% of the time, although its a difficult shot to accomplish such a shot especially at higher velocities that are more effective damage wise.

The nose leads directly to one of the two central girders that make up the ship, so I am not exactly surprised. However, I am not really sure how to remedy that...I will mess around with it some more.

[panzer1b]

I just split them up; it took about thirty seconds. No idea why I did not do that before...

The nose leads directly to one of the two central girders that make up the ship, so I am not exactly surprised. However, I am not really sure how to remedy that...I will mess around with it some more.

You CANT remedy this as a shot that phases through at high enough velocity and hits core girder simply will obliterate the craft, its a unavoidable problem. As for actually making the shot, it is VERY difficult often taking 5 tries to even hit is spot on (although a direct hit there will instakill the ship). I think you might be able to protect it a little better, but the root girder will still end up killing you sooner or later, i think its still good as is though.

[Three1415]

You CANT remedy this as a shot that phases through at high enough velocity and hits core girder simply will obliterate the craft, its a unavoidable problem. As for actually making the shot, it is VERY difficult often taking 5 tries to even hit is spot on (although a direct hit there will instakill the ship). I think you might be able to protect it a little better, but the root girder will still end up killing you sooner or later, i think its still good as is though.

No, but I can through some gimmicks increase the distance the shot has to phase:

Hooray for detachable armor.

[panzer1b]

No, but I can through some gimmicks increase the distance the shot has to phase:

http://i.imgur.com/3WwZIJu.png

Hooray for detachable armor.

http://i.imgur.com/h3q53HK.png

That reminds nme of the initial days of my capital ships where all of them had armor over a barrel in the front that would detach when i was ready to fire. 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