Naval Battle Club

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

Hello, I'm going to try doing a scientific survey on missiles and armor. I have this test rig:

It is pictured with three missiles, a pocket I-beam, a flea with a structural panel on it, and a hammer with a structural panel on it. On the armor side, I have something like reactive armor. I have timecontrol installed, so I can see what happens to the armor. I also have hack gravity and do not apply drag on, so missiles fly basically straight.

However, I need your help! I need missiles and armor setups, so I can test them. Thank you.

[ScriptKitt3h]

Hello, I'm going to try doing a scientific survey on missiles and armor. I have this test rig:

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

It is pictured with three missiles, a pocket I-beam, a flea with a structural panel on it, and a hammer with a structural panel on it. On the armor side, I have something like reactive armor. I have timecontrol installed, so I can see what happens to the armor. I also have hack gravity and do not apply drag on, so missiles fly basically straight.

However, I need your help! I need missiles and armor setups, so I can test them. Thank you.

While I whip up some of my missiles in a handy-dandy subassembly pack, I'd suggest adding another test rig using this layout (in order of inner->outer): Girder segment, Steel Plate (4x4), Wing plate (the medium square one), radiator panel. This mimics what might be found on other types of warships, some of mine included. Also, I betcha tire-tipped rounds will punch through nearly every time.

Ex.:

This MU SX-13 (mind you, it's a time-tested warship from before 1.0+) got slammed in its side by ONE sub-20-part 1.25 meter ASM using a quad-tire tip.

It blew off half of this ship's center/aft hull, and everything on that side of the ship's internals.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, lest I neglect to post this before taking a nice break:

There is a new dreadnought in town...

The MU NX-2 Odin Battlecruiser is 100% complete, alongside a newly refitted NX-1 Excalibur Missile Cruiser.

Both feature a new, much more modern replacement for the ASM Evo guided missiles used by older MU ships; the lower partcount and harder-hitting MU ASM Evo II, nicknamed the "Mjölnir" ASM for it's speed and power...

[panzer1b]

While I whip up some of my missiles in a handy-dandy subassembly pack, I'd suggest adding another test rig using this layout (in order of inner->outer): Girder segment, Steel Plate (4x4), Wing plate (the medium square one), radiator panel. This mimics what might be found on other types of warships, some of mine included. Also, I betcha tire-tipped rounds will punch through nearly every time.

Ex.:

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

http://i.imgur.com/v0BoWNK.png

This MU SX-13 (mind you, it's a time-tested warship from before 1.0+) got slammed in its side by ONE sub-20-part 1.25 meter ASM using a quad-tire tip.

It blew off half of this ship's center/aft hull, and everything on that side of the ship's internals.

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

- - - Updated - - -

Also, lest I neglect to post this before taking a nice break:

There is a new dreadnought in town...

http://i.imgur.com/eR9M9Ym.png

The MU NX-2 Odin Battlecruiser is 100% complete, alongside a newly refitted NX-1 Excalibur Missile Cruiser.

Both feature a new, much more modern replacement for the ASM Evo guided missiles used by older MU ships; the lower partcount and harder-hitting MU ASM Evo II, nicknamed the "Mjölnir" ASM for it's speed and power...

See you went with tires now......

Guess every single semi-competitive player is using tires for their weapons now.....gotta try and find a way to defend against them now......assuming its even possible lol...

Also, those older missiles of yours did need an upgrade, they were good in their time, but they are kinda outdated with the advent of no more decouplers having infinite impact tolerance.

When it comes to weapons, ive also created a kraken-weapon, my 1st useable one. takes advantage of the resonance kraken, and once you are on the right trajectory, decouple the decouplers and it turns into a very lethal weapon. Just worthless in terms of part counts, its over 20 parts and less powerful then my 7 part 1.5t weapons.

Ohh, and when can i expect a download, im really interested in how you made the core on the NX series, ive always wanted to make a wedge (star destroyer) shaped ship, but all of my designs utterly sucked in both armor and part count. While im not gonna copy it (i dont liek to copy ships 100%), i do want to see what you did with the inners to maybee give me some ideas.

[Rune]

I'd like to see how one would fare in comparison to an armored ship, or perhaps to an armored version of that concept.

It would depend very heavily on the ruleset. If it has the old "core part" rule, then it's probably useless because all the probes aren't considered real ships, and hiding the name of the root part would, I think, be quite cheaty. If you use some special ruling, then... well, it depends on the ruling. Can I store the ships for your turn dissagregated? Can I attack you with just part of a ship? At what point can you call this things dead? I mean, the turrets have a pretty decent dV when separate from the main ship, I could call them fighters...

Rune. I.E: it is a ship to fight a legal battle.

[ScriptKitt3h]

It would depend very heavily on the ruleset. If it has the old "core part" rule, then it's probably useless because all the probes aren't considered real ships, and hiding the name of the root part would, I think, be quite cheaty. If you use some special ruling, then... well, it depends on the ruling. Can I store the ships for your turn dissagregated? Can I attack you with just part of a ship? At what point can you call this things dead? I mean, the turrets have a pretty decent dV when separate from the main ship, I could call them fighters...

Rune. I.E: it is a ship to fight a legal battle.

The most entertaining type of battle!

[burnoutforzai]

Hey guys. Working on a few new stuff and would like your critical advice. I rewatched all of macey's videos if you're wondering why I'm suddenly in the mood.

Also I've never been sure on what 'class' I should name things because that fighter, in other standards, is big so idk :/

Carrier:

Small Fighter:

Edited September 1, 2015 by burnoutforzai
Notice me ;~;

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

While I whip up some of my missiles in a handy-dandy subassembly pack, I'd suggest adding another test rig using this layout (in order of inner->outer): Girder segment, Steel Plate (4x4), Wing plate (the medium square one), radiator panel. This mimics what might be found on other types of warships, some of mine included. Also, I betcha tire-tipped rounds will punch through nearly every time.

Ex.:

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

http://i.imgur.com/v0BoWNK.png

This MU SX-13 (mind you, it's a time-tested warship from before 1.0+) got slammed in its side by ONE sub-20-part 1.25 meter ASM using a quad-tire tip.

It blew off half of this ship's center/aft hull, and everything on that side of the ship's internals.

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

[...]

Thanks! I'm going to make a thread about it, so I can post findings.

[panzer1b]

my newest warship (this model actually has some bloody armor unlike my 1st try i did in the morning).

This thing (it has no fuel yet so it will be slightly easier to kill i think) is around as tough to destroy as my Sk-CRV-Ig5 competitive ship.

And ofc, its inspired by the MU NX series, although its actually (shape and all) based moreso on a 0.22 craft then MU stuff.

[ScriptKitt3h]

http://i.imgur.com/XUuIuLf.jpg

my newest warship (this model actually has some bloody armor unlike my 1st try i did in the morning).

This thing (it has no fuel yet so it will be slightly easier to kill i think) is around as tough to destroy as my Sk-CRV-Ig5 competitive ship.

And ofc, its inspired by the MU NX series, although its actually (shape and all) based moreso on a 0.22 craft then MU stuff.

Nice job! I will mention that the high sloping on the front will indeed help in deflecting incoming dumbfire munitions, though guided rounds will still remain tricky to effectively protect against.

I'd recommend (provided your PC can handle the increased part count) armoring the joints between the main outer wing plates (the ones over the steel plates) using the small triangular wing parts, as they really do well in making seemingly seamless outer hull coatings. Also, I see you added an internal bulkhead between the missile cell(s) and the aft; that shows a good understanding of the arrowhead layout's overall method of survival.

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks! I'm going to make a thread about it, so I can post findings.

I'll have that pack of munitions done ASAP.

[burnoutforzai]

Wow I've been working hard on these but haven't gotten one in space. Everything's very experimental right now xD

Expanded my previous fleet of 0 to 3 (in theory) so that's nice.

Any Counterstrike player will understand the name and there's a joke to be made with the price...

- - - Updated - - -

-Snip- using the small triangular wing parts, as they really do well in making seemingly seamless outer hull coatings. -snip-

They're the best thing ever. Those parts are a godsend. Although I would appreciate a smaller 45 degree part.

[ScriptKitt3h]

Wow I've been working hard on these but haven't gotten one in space. Everything's very experimental right now xD

Expanded my previous fleet of 0 to 3 (in theory) so that's nice.

http://i.imgur.com/f8AMzpL.png

Any Counterstrike player will understand the name and there's a joke to be made with the price...

- - - Updated - - -

They're the best thing ever. Those parts are a godsend. Although I would appreciate a smaller 45 degree part.

Nice ship! I'd recommend trying hull with a lot more angles (much like modern tank armor), but the Dragon Lore looks pretty nice as-is. As for the space-testing, remember: Hyperedit is your friend.

And yes, the angled parts are awesome.

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

Thanks! I'm going to make a thread about it, so I can post findings.

Here's the thread: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/133206-Study-on-KSP-armor-and-missiles?p=2173458#post2173458

[8bitgammers]

here is a test i have preformed on my cruiser

[ScriptKitt3h]

Since the NX-1 is a good medium-weight ship and the NX-2 an outright ludicrous battlecruiser, the next ship in the MU's NX line is somewhat more modest (and economical in terms of mass, part count, and munitions):

The NX-3 Lancelot(-class) guided missile frigate is a good replacement for the stopgap ship that was the SX-14 Linebacker (a good ship itself, but not up to the increasingly high standards of modern stock combat in KSP). It features two guided 1.24 meter Mjölnir ASMs (which can be swapped on the fly for other 1.25 meter rounds) in armored VLS launch cells, and a standard dual-barrel bow gun firing HVAP i-beams.

Stats:

425 parts (including drydock clamps)

67-68 tons

14.5 meters in length, from bow to stern.

*Link for those who wish to test it ahead of my pack of the first 3 NX-series ships: https://www.dropbox.com/s/7t9pdn4ak5dbwt1/MU%20NX-3.craft?dl=0 *

[panzer1b]

Since the NX-1 is a good medium-weight ship and the NX-2 an outright ludicrous battlecruiser, the next ship in the MU's NX line is somewhat more modest (and economical in terms of mass, part count, and munitions):

http://i.imgur.com/GnhJ46l.png

The NX-3 Lancelot(-class) guided missile frigate is a good replacement for the stopgap ship that was the SX-14 Linebacker (a good ship itself, but not up to the increasingly high standards of modern stock combat in KSP). It features two guided 1.24 meter Mjölnir ASMs (which can be swapped on the fly for other 1.25 meter rounds) in armored VLS launch cells, and a standard dual-barrel bow gun firing HVAP i-beams.

Stats:

425 parts (including drydock clamps)

67-68 tons

14.5 meters in length, from bow to stern.

*Link for those who wish to test it ahead of my pack of the first 3 NX-series ships: https://www.dropbox.com/s/7t9pdn4ak5dbwt1/MU%20NX-3.craft?dl=0 *

Impressive, its defenetely not my design or building style (no idea why but every single ship i make is wider then taller), but looks very nice.

Anyways, here is my newest ship (thats actually to the point im kinda happy with).

70 tons

2800dV (some fuel shuffling required as 4 front tanks are disconnected)

great TWR (at least compared to my average as normally i go with 1 nuke for ~20 tons, this one has 4 nukes for 70 tons)

166 part hull (~250 with temporary weapons load)

All that and its armored enough to at least survive most of the time against capital ship weapons (ive yet to 1 shot this thing with any weapons ive used against it, although i have shot massive chunks (including an entire side) off the craft with lucky hits to weakspots. This is actually BETTER then the ~130 part hull of my SK-CRV-Ig4, which is actually quite suceptible to anything bigger then a long ibeam + 4 seps. Its only real achilles heel is the vulnurability of both weapons and engines, which unlike the 3rd generation AKS frigate of the same class, is actually jammed in teh same spot and especially weapons have little redundancy (although there are 2 separate bays with a bulkhead between them).

Javascript is disabled. View full album

These were a series of hits done with both MU ASMs and The missiles used on the older dreks (non popper-H, that other longer one). Its quite hard to actually kill (although one nasty hit with a ASM ripped out all 4 engines). Its really only extremely vulnurable to the engines, and ive only once managed to rip a major part off (chunk of the rear came off with a drek missile). With more practice i bet i can get good at actually killing it, but since the entire craft uses ibeams as its skeleton (and teh core skeleton is very small and hard to actually hit), its protection is above average at least against competitive rounds. Next versions will be less parts, cleaner builds, and most of all simpler with not as much bloody clipped fuel tanks inside engines (which do not help its survivability one bit).

All in all, i consider this comparable in survivability to my Sk-CRV-Ig5 (a little better, but the G5 is like 180 parts with a full weapons load), its harder to split in half at least (i have yet to actually manage to 1 shot kill the thing), and well, it looks so much nicer (although the simplicity of my SK-CRV-I is still a good look, it just doesnt compare to the wedge hull in terms of looks).

Edited September 2, 2015 by panzer1b

[ScriptKitt3h]

Impressive, its defenetely not my style (no idea why but every single ship i make is wider then taller), but looks very nice.

Anyways, here is my newest ship (thats actually to the point im kinda happy with).

http://i.imgur.com/9ekvXlq.png

70 tons

2800dV (some fuel shuffling required as 4 front tanks are disconnected)

great TWR (at least compared to my average as normally i go with 1 nuke for ~20 tons, this one has 4 nukes for 70 tons)

166 part hull (~250 with temporary weapons load)

All that and its armored enough to at least survive most of the time against capital ship weapons (ive yet to 1 shot this thing with any weapons ive used against it, although i have shot massive chunks (including an entire side) off the craft with lucky hits to weakspots. This is actually BETTER then the ~130 part hull of my SK-CRV-Ig4, which is actually quite suceptible to anything bigger then a long ibeam + 4 seps. Its only real achilles heel is the vulnurability of both weapons and engines, which unlike the 3rd generation AKS frigate of the same class, is actually jammed in teh same spot and especially weapons have little redundancy (although there are 2 separate bays with a bulkhead between them).

http://imgur.com/a/yReY5

These were a series of hits done with both MU ASMs and The missiles used on the older dreks (non popper-H, that other longer one). Its quite hard to actually kill (although one nasty hit with a ASM ripped out all 4 engines). Its really only extremely vulnurable to the engines, and ive only once managed to rip a major part off (chunk of the rear came off with a drek missile). With more practice i bet i can get good at actually killing it, but since the entire craft uses ibeams as its skeleton (and teh core skeleton is very small and hard to actually hit), its protection is above average at least against competitive rounds. Next versions will be less parts, cleaner builds, and most of all simpler with not as much bloody clipped fuel tanks inside engines (which do not help its survivability one bit).

Glad you like how the NX-3 looks! (It's a bit smushed compare to its predecessors. )

The new AKS ship looks polished, and I'm glad to hear that my ASMs still pack a wallop. (Only reason the NX-series ships don't use them by default is that my MK2 ASMs with the tire warheads are much less in terms of partcount.)

[panzer1b]

Glad you like how the NX-3 looks! (It's a bit smushed compare to its predecessors. )

The new AKS ship looks polished, and I'm glad to hear that my ASMs still pack a wallop. (Only reason the NX-series ships don't use them by default is that my MK2 ASMs with the tire warheads are much less in terms of partcount.)

i wouldnt say a wallop, as only one shot (one out of ~20 shots isnt exactly reliable) managed to actually destroy every single engine, but considering the mega nerf the infinite impact tolerance parts got, its sure not a bad warhead which can kill nicely (infinitely better then structural panel+SRB that seems to be rather popular for whatever reason). Multiple shots to the engine compartment and im guessing even ibeams in large numbers would destroy the engines, so thats a major issue im going to have to fix in later versions, but its other then that one major flaw, VERY hard to kill with anything ive yet to throw at it. Im gonna try those new torps of yours, and see if the wheels are truly that much better against it (my own Tripedo-S has trouble although ive managed to do some rather high damage when the shot connected). Once im happy with it ill upload it so you can see how the armor works and maybee give it a true unbiased armor test (as regardless of how unbviased i try to be, i know weakspots, i also may very well be using weapons that arent mine wrong, so who knows). All im gonna say is that this is more or less the same armor my prototype frigate (looked externally identical to a Sk-CRV-Ig4) had, except i angled sections and had to completely redo the roof armor. Its pretty good, and tough to actually destroy the entire hull with anything that isnt overpowered which makes me happy (as the frigates are in my view similar to corvettes but better armor and at least some dedicated anti-capital weapons).

just managed to split an entire side off of the frigate i made with your older ASM (so maybee i underestimated its potential before, but i still have to say its very unreliable vs my ships). Also, your new warheads feel less powerful then your older ones not to mention less accurate (although that may be in part due to being incredibly hard to control due to overkill TWR that just makes hitting anything near impossible). Perhaps i need some practice with the new warheads, although i believe the Tripedo-M is superior in both mass, part count, and lethality, although it has its share of problems like being largish and unable to fit in most ships i have.

Edited September 2, 2015 by panzer1b

[ScriptKitt3h]

i wouldnt say a wallop, as only one shot (one out of ~20 shots isnt exactly reliable) managed to actually destroy every single engine, but considering the mega nerf the infinite impact tolerance parts got, its sure not a bad warhead which can kill nicely (infinitely better then structural panel+SRB that seems to be rather popular for whatever reason). Multiple shots to the engine compartment and im guessing even ibeams in large numbers would destroy the engines, so thats a major issue im going to have to fix in later versions, but its other then that one major flaw, VERY hard to kill with anything ive yet to throw at it. Im gonna try those new torps of yours, and see if the wheels are truly that much better against it (my own Tripedo-S has trouble although ive managed to do some rather high damage when the shot connected).

just managed to split an entire side off of the frigate i made with your older ASM (so maybee i underestimated its potential before, but i still have to say its very unreliable vs my ships). Also, your new warheads feel less powerful then your older ones not to mention less accurate (although that may be in part due to being incredibly hard to control due to overkill TWR that just makes hitting anything near impossible).

Engine armoring can be a tough gambit, but I think you'll figure something out. As for the older ASM, it needs distance to build up velocity, which is why it fits in as a long-range missile well (besides its relatively good fuel economy from those Spark engines). The new v.II ASM Evos need finer control and patience to get squared-off, direct hits. (Feathering the throttle, and making a sure as possible you're aiming where you want to hit BEFORE maxing the throttle and watching the fireworks.)

[Rune]

Those things that you guys are putting out look gorgeous! Anyhow, I keep maintaining my point that with enough skill, no armor is enough. I mean, I cracked open Dreks with 0.625m munitions. With enough terminal velocity, phasing will just make any attempt at armoring futile, and the most you can do is try to soak up damage. No need to use tirepedoes!

Anyhow, that is what got me interested in the "ablative ship" concept. I actually spent a couple hours yesterday toying with the idea a bit more, and since you guys had asked about some armoring, and they did look fugly as hell... Well, now it has a lag shield at least. And this is without struts.

Those are the "Frigate" (minimal redundancy) and "Battleship" (at least triple redundancy on any one module) configurations. And yeah, the armor is modular, I just rotated a generic subassembly a bit on the edges to get the distinct looks from config to config with only 5 subassemblies (and some SPH-fu to make them root from different parts as I need to). And since every plate has a probe core, it doubles as chaff when discarded. The weirdest thing is that they short of look the part... don't they?

Anyhow, the only problem is that I see perfectly well where I am going with these: the logical conclusion of this is the "missile bus", which is clearly the most rational way of fielding the most competitive KSP fleet, mT per mT.

Note: I'm seriously considering giving you guys an "assembly kit" inside a Mk3 bay if I release it. Maybe with the SSTO around it. All modules would fit comfortably, but you would loose the custom, flushier armor bits.

Rune. And if I put 200mT of these things in the same spot, I will blow up my computer, that too.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Rune

[Sharkman Briton]

So I got inspired by the stuff I saw here (Wing armour, side-mounted weapon pods, and some other stuff) And made the LD-01 Fenrir-Class Light Destroyer, here she is.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

As you may see, she only has two shots, which are Horus Missiles, I wanted to ask you all if I should keep those two Horus Missiles, or switch them for multiple smaller ones?

And, of course, I'd love for someone to test her, as I am worthless at space combat, I can never get firing weapons right. So if someone could test her, I would be very happy, heres a DL link for people who would like to: download LD-01 Fenrir Light Destroyer

[burnoutforzai]

So I got inspired by the stuff I saw here (Wing armour, side-mounted weapon pods, and some other stuff) And made the LD-01 Fenrir-Class Light Destroyer, here she is.

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

As you may see, she only has two shots, which are Horus Missiles, I wanted to ask you all if I should keep those two Horus Missiles, or switch them for multiple smaller ones?

And, of course, I'd love for someone to test her, as I am worthless at space combat, I can never get firing weapons right. So if someone could test her, I would be very happy, heres a DL link for people who would like to: download LD-01 Fenrir Light Destroyer

Those side pods are from my ship aren't they. I love when people use my design ideas; very humbling.

[Sharkman Briton]

Yeah, infact I had a pic of your ship open while I was making it.

[AlexanderTeaH]

Those things that you guys are putting out look gorgeous! Anyhow, I keep maintaining my point that with enough skill, no armor is enough. I mean, I cracked open Dreks with 0.625m munitions. With enough terminal velocity, phasing will just make any attempt at armoring futile, and the most you can do is try to soak up damage. No need to use tirepedoes!

Anyhow, that is what got me interested in the "ablative ship" concept. I actually spent a couple hours yesterday toying with the idea a bit more, and since you guys had asked about some armoring, and they did look fugly as hell... Well, now it has a lag shield at least. And this is without struts.

http://i.imgur.com/2ShVR4H.png

http://i.imgur.com/EfL1Up6.png

Those are the "Frigate" (minimal redundancy) and "Battleship" (at least triple redundancy on any one module) configurations. And yeah, the armor is modular, I just rotated a generic subassembly a bit on the edges to get the distinct looks from config to config with only 5 subassemblies (and some SPH-fu to make them root from different parts as I need to). And since every plate has a probe core, it doubles as chaff when discarded. The weirdest thing is that they short of look the part... don't they?

Anyhow, the only problem is that I see perfectly well where I am going with these: the logical conclusion of this is the "missile bus", which is clearly the most rational way of fielding the most competitive KSP fleet, mT per mT.

Note: I'm seriously considering giving you guys an "assembly kit" inside a Mk3 bay if I release it. Maybe with the SSTO around it. All modules would fit comfortably, but you would loose the custom, flushier armor bits.

Rune. And if I put 200mT of these things in the same spot, I will blow up my computer, that too.

Wow, that looks awesome!

[ScriptKitt3h]

While using less armor (or none at all) is nice from a statistical standpoint, I think that having some armor (or at least armoring the more vulnerable components of your ship) is still a must, as in KSP combat (this applies for whenever Stock MP KSP combat becomes a thing as well) having some armor is still more likely to protect your ship than having none. Why? Because unless you've somehow managed to make a laser-accurate long-range munition that rarely EVER misses, you're going to need to take time to guide a shot in to your target, (or, in a less gentlemanly manner, ram your target with your ship), and this leaves your opponent open to fire off a guided or dumbfire round at you.

In a nutshell: some protection is better than none IMO. However, Rune's modular ship system is very nice looking, and likely will make some great strides in combat.

[Rune]

Wow, that looks awesome!

Thanks! I actually wasn't going for looks at all, a happy coincidence. I guess a decent design is always beautiful in a way

While using less armor (or none at all) is nice from a statistical standpoint, I think that having some armor (or at least armoring the more vulnerable components of your ship) is still a must, as in KSP combat (this applies for whenever Stock MP KSP combat becomes a thing as well) having some armor is still more likely to protect your ship than having none. Why? Because unless you've somehow managed to make a laser-accurate long-range munition that rarely EVER misses, you're going to need to take time to guide a shot in to your target, (or, in a less gentlemanly manner, ram your target with your ship), and this leaves your opponent open to fire off a guided or dumbfire round at you.

In a nutshell: some protection is better than none IMO. However, Rune's modular ship system is very nice looking, and likely will make some great strides in combat.

Actually, in multiplayer combat the first thing I would do is hit the emergency disengage button, and flood the area with an expanding cloud of equally important targets. That would be 14 different, probed targets for the Frigate configuration, and more than 20 for the battleship. Then I would start guiding the missiles to the enemy. Probably the best case scenario to use this tactic, since it gives you a huge targeting advantage: you can discriminate your targeting through mass to find the enemy's juicy main target, while all of your targets are more or less equal value.

The fragile fuel tanks don't actually carry probes when unarmored, and thus count as debris, like the engines, but both actually are unnecessary due to the excessive RCS load (>100m/s without tapping the engines, while lugging the whole ship). And yeah, I know I don't have "autotarget command mode" on those missiles. A shame that there are no probes with it under 1.25m, because frankly, 1.25m rounds look a bit silly*. Besides, I was already hitting at >500m/ when we didn't have those.

*I will concede they are probably a great advantage in real-time fighting

Rune. 0.625m munitions actually look like missiles if you squint your eyes.