Super heavy armour for capital ships

[roundtable8]

We cant bolt plates to the weapons?

Even if you can't have metal plates bolted to the turret you could attempt to build a shell around the turret. But I do think you will be ble to bolt metal plates to turrets because the turrets generate heat so if you can bolt metal plates to the gun of a turret it would probably make it heat up faster.

 

[CalenLoki]

I also don't see why a cap ship couldn't be faster than a small ship in at least straight line speed. A cap ship will always be less maneuverable than a small ship, but could potentially have a greater max speed. (I don't think this will be the case, but hey, it could be.)

In SB top speed is directly proportional to acceleration, which is important part of maneuvrability. You can't have one without the other.
Only way to make large ships fast but not agile would be changing drag formula to make it weaker the heavier the ship.

I agree that their should be large weapons

I never mentioned larger weapons. IMO those would only weaken large ships by making their armour (main strength) useless.
I mentioned heavier turret mounts that can be well protected, so they aren't that much of an unavoidable weak spots.

We cant bolt plates to the weapons?

Yes you can. In the video showing marketplace you can even see dedicated plate for gun protection attached to flak cannon.
But as Cranky said, the problem lies in turntable/rail structural integrity limit.

Even if you can't have metal plates bolted to the turret you could attempt to build a shell around the turret. But I do think you will be ble to bolt metal plates to turrets because the turrets generate heat so if you can bolt metal plates to the gun of a turret it would probably make it heat up faster.

At least for now, weapon heat mechanics is completely unaffected by any plating. Turret rotation speed however is.

 

[KingQuantum]

how would you define a super heavy ship? here ist a difference between ship and station but no two shiptypes in construction, super heavy armor would also work at smal ships, ppl would build kinetic torpedos, battery + propellant + yolol + truster + plates = ClangBÄM

a large Frame (like big ships have) alow you multiple places for autocannons with seats, even wen cables getting cuttet, turrets could get energy from a battery,

there bigger your ship is, there more crew you need. a fighter swarm could shred a frighter while one user would be lone there but a real battle ship generates a flackstorm which could shred a fighter swarm. single player can have powerfull ships, but when when they die, their ships getting useles, but a ship with a crew, whre the captain is dead, trusters are broken, can still be a nightmare to fight while decentralized batterys allow still the ability to fight, they can also hide inside the ship, you come closer think its a larege wreck and when its to late to leave, a bullet will appear und tell you who win

 

[Burnside]

To address the OP, superheavy armor is just more plates and the beam substructure to hold them. Battleships don't have super-special plating compared to cruisers or destroyers, they just have larger, thicker belts of plate over their critical sections. Adding a materials better than Oninum at doing the thing Oninum is best for makes Oninum the second-best at being Oninum. Disapproval.

 

[FranklinZ]

To address the OP, superheavy armor is just more plates and the beam substructure to hold them. Battleships don't have super-special plating compared to cruisers or destroyers, they just have larger, thicker belts of plate over their critical sections. Adding a materials better than Oninum at doing the thing Oninum is best for makes Oninum the second-best at being Oninum. Disapproval.

Yes. We don't want power creep in the game. If there is power creep it has to be design not new elements.

 

[FranklinZ]

If we want Battleships in the game, what we need is not a super strong material, but some super heavy guns.

 

[FranklinZ]

In the current game, the most powerful mounted weapon is the rail gun. However, it is usable even by a tiny fighter. There is no reason to build bigger ships because small ships can also support the strongest weaponry in the game, no reason to spend extra money to make the ship bigger than it needs to be.

 

[FranklinZ]

However, if there is a huge ,heavy and powerful weapon, for example a super rail gun, there are reasons to build large ships. This weapon will have superior range and damage, and will be a good siege weapon as well. It Will also be super heavy and consumes a hell ton of energy and ammo. That way small ships won't be able to use them

 

[FranklinZ]

As a result, we will have stations equipped with huge defense guns and then big ships with the same guns as siege weaponry. Once these ships are in the game, battleship to battleship combat will eventually occur, leading to a big ship arms race like what happened in reality.

 

[FranklinZ]

However, unlike in reality, carriers won't completely take over the place of battleships because of a simple reason: it's a game.
For a carrier to engage, you need many pilots, maybe even hundreds of them, to be able to fight effectively. However, a battleship could be piloted by a few players, in the extreme case even by a single player. This advantage in "logistics" will keep them active.

 

[FranklinZ]

Just by adding one massive super weapon, the game's ecosystem could be drastically diversified.

 

[Cannon Machine Ballista]

However, unlike in reality, carriers won't completely take over the place of battleships because of a simple reason: it's a game.
For a carrier to engage, you need many pilots, maybe even hundreds of them, to be able to fight effectively. However, a battleship could be piloted by a few players, in the extreme case even by a single player. This advantage in "logistics" will keep them active.

An aircraft carrier battle group driven by hundreds of people is more powerful and deadly than a hundred single-man battleships. They are united and orderly, and each division of labor has a strong endurance, and they are not afraid of damage. They can quickly defeat a lot of single-man warships.

 

[FranklinZ]

An aircraft carrier battle group driven by hundreds of people is more powerful and deadly than a hundred single-man battleships. They are united and orderly, and each division of labor has a strong endurance, and they are not afraid of damage. They can quickly defeat a lot of single-man warships.

Yeah but only if you can find 100 people. A guild fight involving 100 people will require serious planning, and won't be a regular thing.

And also, I doubt if it can defeat 100 battleships.

Of course, building so many battleships will be a serious problem. In the end it comes down to guild play style. A pirate guild can have many small ships while a production guild can have more big ships.

 

[Cannon Machine Ballista]

Yeah but only if you can find 100 people. A guild fight involving 100 people will require serious planning, and won't be a regular thing.

And also, I doubt if it can defeat 100 battleships.

I think SB is very attractive, and finding thousands of people to participate in the war is not a problem.

 

[FranklinZ]

I think SB is very attractive, and finding thousands of people to participate in the war is not a problem.

There will be big wars, but people can't regularly organize wars of that scale. You still need big ships with less crew to work on daily defenses and escorts. Also 1-2 crewed battleships can be for emergency respond as organizing a time for 100 players to play at once could take days.

 

[CalenLoki]

That super railgun will be good only against big ships, as it'll be too clumsy to aim at anything small and nimble.
Overpenetration is a thing, so even if you manage to hit small ship, the effect will be exactly the same as with current railgun: small hole that goes all the way through.
And will have exactly the same range as current one. Because range is hard capped at 5km (visual range) and soft capped by accuracy and bullet travel time.

Thus big ships and stations will be dying even more easily, small ships won't be affected at all.

Regarding crew: the whole small vs large is about which approach use manpower the most efficiently.
Single 10 people frigate or carrier+8 fighters. Both require the same amount of people to operate, and roughly the same amount of resources.

 

[roundtable8]

how would you define a super heavy ship? here ist a difference between ship and station but no two shiptypes in construction, super heavy armor would also work at smal ships, ppl would build kinetic torpedos, battery + propellant + yolol + truster + plates = ClangBÄM

a large Frame (like big ships have) alow you multiple places for autocannons with seats, even wen cables getting cuttet, turrets could get energy from a battery,

there bigger your ship is, there more crew you need. a fighter swarm could shred a frighter while one user would be lone there but a real battle ship generates a flackstorm which could shred a fighter swarm. single player can have powerfull ships, but when when they die, their ships getting useles, but a ship with a crew, whre the captain is dead, trusters are broken, can still be a nightmare to fight while decentralized batterys allow still the ability to fight, they can also hide inside the ship, you come closer think its a larege wreck and when its to late to leave, a bullet will appear und tell you who win

I think what people will consider as a super heavy ship would first of all be massive and have very strong armor it would probably also have a lot of weapons on it. And basically it would also be very heavy when talking about it's actual weight on a planet or moon.

 

[Burnside]

That super railgun will be good only against big ships, as it'll be too clumsy to aim at anything small and nimble.
Overpenetration is a thing, so even if you manage to hit small ship, the effect will be exactly the same as with current railgun: small hole that goes all the way through.
And will have exactly the same range as current one. Because range is hard capped at 5km (visual range) and soft capped by accuracy and bullet travel time.

Thus big ships and stations will be dying even more easily, small ships won't be affected at all.

Regarding crew: the whole small vs large is about which approach use manpower the most efficiently.
Single 10 people frigate or carrier+8 fighters. Both require the same amount of people to operate, and roughly the same amount of resources.

I always saw the plasma thrower as the logical "big gun" that deserved an upsizing, but the community as a whole is also extremely affectionate towards the modular-length mega railcannon.

As far as logistics, the carrier promises to take more players off the front line to support carrier ops, the BB and DNs actually have more direct combat roles comparatively. Where the carrier shines is that the fighters don't need to be as spaceworthy as the battleship to travel, a hole in the BB means it suffers under warp forces, the carrier is a "warp classed" platform if it has an enclosed deck. All things being equal tho, a squadron of fighters may have advantage over a single large ship, but the large ship will lose less firepower under attrition compared to the fighters but is more vulnerable to big guns. It's a fun balancing act.

 

[FranklinZ]

That super railgun will be good only against big ships, as it'll be too clumsy to aim at anything small and nimble.
Overpenetration is a thing, so even if you manage to hit small ship, the effect will be exactly the same as with current railgun: small hole that goes all the way through.
And will have exactly the same range as current one. Because range is hard capped at 5km (visual range) and soft capped by accuracy and bullet travel time.

Thus big ships and stations will be dying even more easily, small ships won't be affected at all.

I always saw the plasma thrower as the logical "big gun" that deserved an upsizing, but the community as a whole is also extremely affectionate towards the modular-length mega railcannon.

As far as logistics, the carrier promises to take more players off the front line to support carrier ops, the BB and DNs actually have more direct combat roles comparatively. Where the carrier shines is that the fighters don't need to be as spaceworthy as the battleship to travel, a hole in the BB means it suffers under warp forces, the carrier is a "warp classed" platform if it has an enclosed deck. All things being equal tho, a squadron of fighters may have advantage over a single large ship, but the large ship will lose less firepower under attrition compared to the fighters but is more vulnerable to big guns. It's a fun balancing act.

Regarding crew: the whole small vs large is about which approach use manpower the most efficiently.
Single 10 people frigate or carrier+8 fighters. Both require the same amount of people to operate, and roughly the same amount of resources.

Carrier might need less resources since that the fighters might not need a generator and main thrusters. Also a carrier can recover a damaged fighter and capture enemy damaged ships while frigates can't.

The big vs small question is a interesting one. If it is 10 big ships vs 10 small ships, big ships will for sure win. However, we don't know how valuable manpower and ships will be. My guess is in the early stages of the game people will tend to have small ship swarms and big ships with lots of crew. However, when in late game everyone gets rich enough, battles will mainly consist of single or duel piloted big ships.

 

[HarrisonB1210]

I agree. Large ships that aren't very tall and wide will have limited rear surface area available for thrusters, but main thrusters don't actually need to be in the rear - although less efficient, they can also be mounted on the sides with the thrust angled outward a bit so you can stack lots of them in a row without increasing the rear profile. Though I don't expect to see many, if any large ships going for the speed cap, since that would be gratuitously expensive for those last one or two dozen m/s.


The problem is the devices available as rotors - turntables can only handle limited weight, while rails' ability to survive flight is as of yet untested and they can't do 360-degree rotation without complex engineering. This complicates mounting heavy armor protection for non-fixed weapons.

so it is possible to bolt a plate and protect an weapon, its just hard to do so, right? also correct me im wrong, im still trying to get a feel of the game mechanics