Not a member yet? Why not Sign up today
Create an account  

  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
Changing Tides - Archived pre-subforum thread

#61
"Using a network of scout balloons, they monitor the sandbars for potential salvage, often taking steps to ensure that the ships passing through become wrecks."

Would that by any chance include scout balloons that function as mine deployer's or missile balloons....?
"If you’re leaving scorch-marks, you need a bigger gun"

"If you're not willing to shell your own position, you're not willing to win."
Reply

#62
(2016-05-20, 06:23 PM)Gaurdian23 Wrote: "Using a network of scout balloons, they monitor the sandbars for potential salvage, often taking steps to ensure that the ships passing through become wrecks."

Would that by any chance include scout balloons that function as mine deployer's or missile balloons....?

They already have the Barrage Balloon, a modified Corensian Monarchy ballooncraft set up with a smart-bomb array. If you want to have a look at it (or steal it for use in campaign, it functions as a scout balloon thanks to a radar dish hidden inside), I'll add the blueprint here.

I'll be honest, I originally built it as a faster, more useful alternative to the dediblade-with-radar-attached that I usually build at the campaign's start, and it uses absolutely no resources in normal operation (ignoring repairs).

Don't make it too brutally effective - it is only a scout, after all!


Attached Files
.blueprint   Barrage Balloon.blueprint (Size: 69.69 KB / Downloads: 15)
.blueprint   Barrel of Laughs.blueprint (Size: 56.98 KB / Downloads: 15)
Reply

#63
(2016-05-20, 05:40 PM)Gaurdian23 Wrote: K, rams I can do. Her front ironically is almost optimized for them Smile. Also her speed as of yet is unknown (since I was gonna work on her and put the particle cannons on but in the middle of testing them Windows 10 threw an error code my way and forced a shutdown Angry), a ramming card would make ramming soo much easier lol.

Hopefully once we get ramming cards we'll see less sabot-sniping from the Flayers and more cool melee ships.

Gaurdian23 Wrote: Alright, impact it is (plus in my testing EMP is nice and can do a bunch of damage to AI components, but it just doesn't have the same appeal as ripping a ship apart >: ) (again, I need a devious face....) it just seems more fitting that way as well).

Yeah, EMP is very, very effective against AI components, and before particle cannons I would be sort-of OK with its use in this campaign... the sheer amount of EMP a particle cannon can throw at a target in a single burst makes surge protectors melt with little effect.

Gaurdian23 Wrote: Hmmmm, your giving me ideas.......the only problem is that last I checked Harpoons really don't work well on larger objects, saying that though there is a way to restrict what size those harpoons would attack. I'll have to think about how I'm gonna implement that.

Yeah, I'm thinking that the harpoons will mostly be for use against air targets and small fast things that can outrun the lumbering drill-wielding battleship bearing down on it. You can set the maximum size of vehicle a weapon targets in the local weapon controller menu, as well as maximum and minimum altitude to attack at... There's useful stuff there.

Gaurdian23 Wrote: You want Disco beams of Death, I can give you Disco Beams of Death >: ) (...)! Saying this, it'll be my first experiment with them so that'll be fun lol.

Nice. I'm similarly new to lasers (never really liked them due to their silly amount of engine drain and not being crams), but from what I've done so far it seems that 4 Q-switch lasers are more energy efficient than those with few Q-switches. Continuous lasers... I'm not really sure how effective they are.

Gaurdian23 Wrote: Also I'm thinking about adding 2 90mm Gatling cannons for those pesky fighters, so I'll give the Sabots to them and maybe give the 250mm cannons......HESH? I do have a good design of HESH for that size so I'll go ahead and play around and see what I think will fit most.

Ah. If you're making 90mm miniguns, shells with a single explosive component and composite head will probably be preferable (add in a solid head after the head if more AP is needed). I'm going to try and keep sabots restricted to 54mm and below for most factions.
As for the 250mm cannons... these should really be at a minimum, lasers and ramming are the main weapons of the Lance. HESH is fine, though.

Gaurdian23 Wrote: LAM's is my specialty (more so missiles, but they're a very close second), so I'll throw a *ahem* decent one on (and by decent I mean it's gonna be fun for any missile based ships >: ) (not gonna bother saying it lol)). Well currently all she has is a hull, bunch of fuel and ammo, an ammo production array and something along the lines of a 12,000 power engine(s) so power isn't gonna be too much of an issue, especially since I'm planning on adding another Hotrod engine from IreLAN.

Can't wait to see how that turns out. How effective are we talking? Which missile ships does it make a mockery of?
I may have a crack at making CIWS guns for the Lance or some other faction, because as you may have guessed I really like cannons.

Gaurdian23 Wrote: I'll try my best at adding shields, just a warning though they'll most likely be at a strength 5 or 7 since while I do have more than enough engine power, I want to keep some extra just for some future modifications.

5 or 7 is fine. I don't think I've ever used shields above 4 in designs I've used in campaign to be honest, because again, I like to have my campaign ships reasonably efficient. As long as it's stronger shielding at the ramming end, everything's good.

On a side note, I'd like you to have a bit of a look at this fighter I've built for the Iron Devotion, the first faction you fight - its missiles are a bit lacking, could you possibly give them a bit of an upgrade for taking on fast or erratic targets (keep them using IR seekers or single pixel seekers)?


Attached Files
.blueprint   Benevolence.blueprint (Size: 39.6 KB / Downloads: 13)
Reply

#64
(2016-05-18, 10:09 PM)Hypersycos Wrote: snip

You miss mai hydrufoil? D:

Also, gaurdian, plez snip pictures out when you quote stuff, it makes the page less cluttered. (Sorry if I come across as grumbly)
Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
~~Terry Pratchett
Reply

#65
(2016-05-20, 07:09 PM)StahlSentinel Wrote:
(2016-05-20, 06:23 PM)Gaurdian23 Wrote: "Using a network of scout balloons, they monitor the sandbars for potential salvage, often taking steps to ensure that the ships passing through become wrecks."

Would that by any chance include scout balloons that function as mine deployer's or missile balloons....?

They already have the Barrage Balloon, a modified Corensian Monarchy ballooncraft set up with a smart-bomb array. If you want to have a look at it (or steal it for use in campaign, it functions as a scout balloon thanks to a radar dish hidden inside), I'll add the blueprint here.

I'll be honest, I originally built it as a faster, more useful alternative to the dediblade-with-radar-attached that I usually build at the campaign's start, and it uses absolutely no resources in normal operation (ignoring repairs).

Don't make it too brutally effective - it is only a scout, after all!

K, I'll begin work on it a little later. Currently am on my tablet. Thanks for the DL link, I'm in need of a good radar design lol. My current one is litteraly 4 wood beams around a single block that are covered in balloon deployers. I also can't wait to play with the barrel of laughs. Also forgive any misspellings, this tablet is screwing with me.
"If you’re leaving scorch-marks, you need a bigger gun"

"If you're not willing to shell your own position, you're not willing to win."
Reply

#66
Yay, I'm on my computer now!! I can actually write things without having to go over them a million times looking for the inevitable misspell lol!

(2016-05-20, 07:09 PM)StahlSentinel Wrote: Hopefully once we get ramming cards we'll see less sabot-sniping from the Flayers and more cool melee ships.

Yea that'll make things alot easier!

(2016-05-20, 07:09 PM)StahlSentinel Wrote: Yeah, EMP is very, very effective against AI components, and before particle cannons I would be sort-of OK with its use in this campaign... the sheer amount of EMP a particle cannon can throw at a target in a single burst makes surge protectors melt with little effect.

Oh yea, thats kinda why I'm going against them as well. I may want to obliterate the WF, but I want to at least get some pleasure out of doing it (they deserve it).

(2016-05-20, 07:09 PM)StahlSentinel Wrote: Yeah, I'm thinking that the harpoons will mostly be for use against air targets and small fast things that can outrun the lumbering drill-wielding battleship bearing down on it. You can set the maximum size of vehicle a weapon targets in the local weapon controller menu, as well as maximum and minimum altitude to attack at... There's useful stuff there.

K, yea I did set a harpoon based system with the LWC a while back but I scrapped it in favor of long range destruction. Saying that I probably have that setup somewhere in my Prefabs list lol.

(2016-05-20, 07:09 PM)StahlSentinel Wrote: Nice. I'm similarly new to lasers (never really liked them due to their silly amount of engine drain and not being crams), but from what I've done so far it seems that 4 Q-switch lasers are more energy efficient than those with few Q-switches. Continuous lasers... I'm not really sure how effective they are.

Yep, Q-switches not only are more energy efficient but pump out more damage per shot. Continuous lasers do have some use, supposedly they're good for LAM's but I generally go for the Q-switches. Saying that I do have a fortress with a continuous laser setup and missile swarms have a very hard time getting through (saying this though the fortress have something like 30,000 power and 5 laser arms, all of which are continuous lasers). I know this thanks to Lathrix (or Lathland, never remember which he goes by on youtube).

(2016-05-20, 07:09 PM)StahlSentinel Wrote: Ah. If you're making 90mm miniguns, shells with a single explosive component and composite head will probably be preferable (add in a solid head after the head if more AP is needed). I'm going to try and keep sabots restricted to 54mm and below for most factions.
As for the 250mm cannons... these should really be at a minimum, lasers and ramming are the main weapons of the Lance. HESH is fine, though.

K, I'll actually switch them out for my flak round: Composite warhead, Flak, Flak, Flak, Timed Fuse and something like 9 gunpowder. Alright, good to know. Yea I honestly was gonna throw 6-7 on but I'll tone it down (since Advanced Cannons blow up so dang easily) and also since I don't want it to be OP for your campaign lol.

(2016-05-20, 07:09 PM)StahlSentinel Wrote: Can't wait to see how that turns out. How effective are we talking? Which missile ships does it make a mockery of?
I may have a crack at making CIWS guns for the Lance or some other faction, because as you may have guessed I really like cannons.

Very effective. I'll go through my blueprints to show you which one was the Mocker, and which one was the Mockery Smile. If you don't mind I'd like to take a look at what you've done with the CIWS, I haven't tested with those at all yet so it'll be interesting to see how they work.

(2016-05-20, 07:09 PM)StahlSentinel Wrote: 5 or 7 is fine. I don't think I've ever used shields above 4 in designs I've used in campaign to be honest, because again, I like to have my campaign ships reasonably efficient. As long as it's stronger shielding at the ramming end, everything's good.

K

(2016-05-20, 07:09 PM)StahlSentinel Wrote: On a side note, I'd like you to have a bit of a look at this fighter I've built for the Iron Devotion, the first faction you fight - its missiles are a bit lacking, could you possibly give them a bit of an upgrade for taking on fast or erratic targets (keep them using IR seekers or single pixel seekers)?

Sure, I'll begin work on her right away!
"If you’re leaving scorch-marks, you need a bigger gun"

"If you're not willing to shell your own position, you're not willing to win."
Reply

#67
(2016-05-20, 10:19 PM)Hypersycos Wrote:
(2016-05-18, 10:09 PM)Hypersycos Wrote: snip

You miss mai hydrufoil? D:

Also, gaurdian, plez snip pictures out when you quote stuff, it makes the page less cluttered. (Sorry if I come across as grumbly)

Yea sorry I think my posts kinda ate yours lol. Will do, been trying to keep the quote spam down to a minimum (hence the reason why sometimes I don't directly quote something). Hey, don't worry man.
"If you’re leaving scorch-marks, you need a bigger gun"

"If you're not willing to shell your own position, you're not willing to win."
Reply

#68
Ok, I have a few things about your Benevolence.

  1. First of all, a problem I noticed was that the balloon deployers weren't enough to get her airborne. So I added two thrusters on all the designs to allow her to take off.
  2. Second off, I couldn't come up with just one iteration lol. Mk II is one where the missiles are one longer and is using the Infrared Seeker because single pixels give up way too early, just one of these was able to take on two drake lights.
  3. Mk III I have increased the missiles again, however this extra space allowed me to put in my Sea Sparrow AASRM. Just one of these took out two full blown Drakes (get this) in under 15 seconds. No, I'm not kidding!
  4. Also a final note, your Benevolence is an incredibly tough design lol, in my testing I pitted the Mk II against the regular Drake, and it took out half her left wing, and she still was flying (I'll be it, in circles) all the while casually firing away haha.

I do have a version of both of these that have the single pixel IR if you want it but I honestly wouldn't use them. They give up on tracking targets WAY too easily.

Finally a picture from my initial testing using your original design that I thought was simultaneously interesting and proof of how good LAM's can be, so brace for the fireworks lol:

[Image: uFWmM8g.jpg]

This is my Test fortress that spawns in the Designer, I forgot to take it out of play when I first did this so all three shrikes took the fortress on. They did innumerable passes and not a single one of those bombs made it through. If you want I can give you the blueprint for the Fortress (don't plan on using her in the campaign, while she COULD I honestly would be worried since one good shot can blow her to bits).


Attached Files
.blueprint   Benevolence Mk II.blueprint (Size: 40.81 KB / Downloads: 13)
.blueprint   Benevolence Mk III.blueprint (Size: 40.99 KB / Downloads: 16)
"If you’re leaving scorch-marks, you need a bigger gun"

"If you're not willing to shell your own position, you're not willing to win."
Reply

#69
(2016-05-21, 05:36 AM)Gaurdian23 Wrote: First of all, a problem I noticed was that the balloon deployers weren't enough to get her airborne. So I added two thrusters on all the designs to allow her to take off.

Ah. Strange, I'm pretty sure that worked when I was building it...

(2016-05-21, 05:36 AM)Gaurdian23 Wrote: Second off, I couldn't come up with just one iteration lol. Mk II is one where the missiles are one longer and is using the Infrared Seeker because single pixels give up way too early, just one of these was able to take on two drake lights.
Mk III I have increased the missiles again, however this extra space allowed me to put in my Sea Sparrow AASRM. Just one of these took out two full blown Drakes (get this) in under 15 seconds. No, I'm not kidding!

Nice. I'll have a look at both and see how they compare. The Iron Devotion is the first faction you fight after all. Still, the improved missiles will help in its role as a bomber escort.

(2016-05-21, 05:36 AM)Gaurdian23 Wrote: Also a final note, your Benevolence is an incredibly tough design lol, in my testing I pitted the Mk II against the regular Drake, and it took out half her left wing, and she still was flying (I'll be it, in circles) all the while casually firing away haha.

Yeah, I designed it to be a little similar to the Shrike, which does the same thing when damaged.

(2016-05-21, 05:36 AM)Gaurdian23 Wrote: I do have a version of both of these that have the single pixel IR if you want it but I honestly wouldn't use them. They give up on tracking targets WAY too easily.

I wasn't really aware of how easily single pixel IRs give up on targets, I was mostly hoping that since they can't see in front of them they would be less likely to go off chasing flares (which wasn't the case)

(2016-05-21, 05:36 AM)Gaurdian23 Wrote: Finally a picture from my initial testing using your original design that I thought was simultaneously interesting and proof of how good LAM's can be, so brace for the fireworks lol:

Fireworks snipped

This is my Test fortress that spawns in the Designer, I forgot to take it out of play when I first did this so all three shrikes took the fortress on. They did innumerable passes and not a single one of those bombs made it through. If you want I can give you the blueprint for the Fortress (don't plan on using her in the campaign, while she COULD I honestly would be worried since one good shot can blow her to bits).

That's an impressive standard for LAMS Disco Missile Defense System.
Reply

#70
(2016-05-20, 10:19 PM)Hypersycos Wrote:
(2016-05-18, 10:09 PM)Hypersycos Wrote: snip

You miss mai hydrufoil? D:

Also, gaurdian, plez snip pictures out when you quote stuff, it makes the page less cluttered. (Sorry if I come across as grumbly)

Oops! Terribly sorry, I did miss it.

I'll have a look at it in a moment.
Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)