Welcome to Keen Software House Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the KSH community.
  1. You are currently browsing our forum as a guest. Create your own forum account to access all forum functionality.

Efficient Capital Ship Design Ideas :

Discussion in 'General' started by BrickedKeyboard, Apr 19, 2014.

Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.
  1. Skeloton Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,069
    Well essentially jet fighters are missiles with wings. So you can have rockets and be a kinetic weapon :)
     
  2. Dwarf-Lord Pangolin Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,597
    ^This. Being able to accelerate quickly in one direction is going to be much more helpful than spreading thrusters on every face of a cube. If you're using unpowered kinetics (which, to be honest, makes more sense than covering it in turrets), it's essential. If you and they are using something like a gravity gun, you're not going to be circle-strafing the enemy anyway; you'll keep your main gun pointed at them, and hold at the closest distance you think you'll have time to dodge something traveling from them to you at max speed.
     
  3. Vermillion Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,131
    High-speed pew-pew.
    Max speed in 6 seconds, has ports for 8 conveyored Rocket Launchers.
    [​IMG]
    If you REALLY wanted to, you could also fit a refinery and assemblers on board. It'll be a tight fit though.
     
  4. Morbophobie Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    145
    Do you recognize that a cube is two pyramids (square base) with the bases faced to each other?
    Well a shpere or a cube is good in the middle of the battlefield while the pyramids (so half a cube) want to be at the edge of the battlefield because only one side is designed for fight.

    What do you think about carrier designs? I think a ring would be the best design. Because the hangar doors are so vulnerable. If you have them on the inside of the ring they would be well protected.

    The designs above are more or less designs for stationary combat. Smaller ships will probably look different.

    Strafing ships want to orbit the bigger ships probably. Because with this methode you maximize your angular velocity. And they will probably be slim.

    -> | -> you will have the hardest time to hit a sideways moving line
    -> | ->
    -> | ->

    To orbit something you have to accelerate always to the center of your orbit. If you orbit a planet the gravity does that for you. If you orbit a ship your truster have to accelerate you always to the center. So you need many trusters at the back.

    Interceptors will probably need a very balanced design to move in all directions. But if they hunt a strafing ship they may need many trusters at one side to orbit with the strafing ship but instead of pointing at the center you point orthogonal to it.
     
  5. Lecic Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    310
    You are aware that rocket launchers do not work with conveyors? Small ones certainly don't, anyway.
     
  6. Skeloton Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,069
    Then you aren't aware that large ship rocket launchers have 2 hatches.
     
  7. ArcherV Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    166
    turrets^^
     
  8. Volthorne Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    487
    No. A ring is a terrible design regardless of the purpose. You'd have to make it massive to get any decent amount of armor and internal space, which would defeat the entire purpose of using it to begin with.
     
  9. Vermillion Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,131
    Also, if the goal is to protect the landing bay on the inside of the ring, firing at the Ring from any elevated position will just send rockets straight into the bay.
     
  10. foxdie Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    141
    All my new designs im working on use light armour and lots of big engines, speed i think will prevail as most engagements will be over in moments i imagine. Bit like a WW2 era pocket battleship: light, fast and well armed.


    HMS Vengeance WIP
    [​IMG]
     
  11. Conradian Moderator

    Messages:
    2,596
    Erm what? No, it's not. If you did that you'd end up with either a low-polygon hourglass (Bases facing out, sides reaching in and intersecting) or what is in effect the Sims diamond... which is a square bipyramind (also called an octahedron) with eight triangular faces.

    A cube is a square-face cylinder with the width, height, and length of the cylinder all being the same.
     
  12. Xocliw Public Relations Staff

    Messages:
    2,615
    That's different but interesting foxdie... you use 3ds Max to design your ships? I mean I can see the benefits of using it, like being able to view all sections of the ship with ease but surely it takes a lot more time?
     
  13. paswert Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    756
    Design ships around a specific purpose.

    If the ship is, for example a carrier, you would design it with what a carrier would need: hangars, defensive weaponry, construction and repair areas etc... A carrier's use is dependent on the ships it is carrying, so a short range fighter-bomber would need a more heavily armed and armoured carrier, but a mining carrier would need refineries and large amounts of cargo space in order to store resources.
     
  14. StellaVagus Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    162
    True, and I was speaking in terms of defensiveness (I probably should've mentioned that though!) for say a carrier, but if they make weapons function as automated turrets, then wouldn't having a cube with flat corners be the best so that you could have an omnidirectional firing range with the equal coverage?
     
  15. StellaVagus Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    162
    But honestly, what would be the best shape in terms of both aesthetics AND functionality?
     
  16. Vermillion Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,131
    Probably an X-shaped ship... Capable of mounting turrets on both sides of each wing, with the vital components being in the middle of ship. Allowing it to have every turret pointed in one direction for concentrated firepower, but also able to fire on an enemy from every side. The wings themselves contain no real vital components, so they're more like shields protecting the core of the ship.
    Something like this, but bigger... and with turrets.
    [​IMG]
    It was a custom starter ship I made. all the same equipment as the yellow ship, but with a few more thrusters and more armor.
     
  17. foxdie Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    141
    Only real reason is that I've got max installed at work haha.
     
  18. BrickedKeyboard Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    372
    Finally a superior design to mine. I agree completely. Assuming the guns can rotate +-90 degrees (a very reasonable assumption, given they appear to be on rotary mounts), the X shape (really a variant of a pyramid) allows 100% of weapons to fire out the front, yet it allows you to deal with targets to your sides and even the back without loss of frontal firepower.

    Dunno how much better you can do, tbh. Sounds like that's the best design for a ship-ship slugfest.
     
  19. Dwarf-Lord Pangolin Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,597
    Sleek design; me like!
     
  20. Cobra Commander Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    63
  21. Cobra Commander Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    63
    Ok, so ya'll have been mainly discussing the efficiency of design for what are essentially main battleships: that is to say, the backbones of your fleets, the big guns.

    But what about Carriers and Aegis types?

    With carriers, what do you think of a concept similar to what they did in Star Wars: Wraith Squadron? Basically, Wedge and his new squadron, the Wraiths, are undercover, posing as pirates in a cruiser commandeered from real pirates, in order to try and get in the good graces with Warlord Zsinj and bring him down from the inside. In the book, they took the cruiser's escape pods, and detached them, modifying the launch points to hold Tie Fighters on the outside. What this meant was that the ship could enter an engagement, and launch all of its fighter craft IMEADIATELY, instead of funneling them out through a small launch bay. Translated into space engineers, this would simply mean a carrier designed to have all of its fighters docked to the outside, allowing you to have a smaller, more maneuverable mothership with a smaller profile, since you have eliminated the need for a large, internal landing bay.

    As to the Aegis class, which is essentially a small to medium sized ship, mounted with a lot of point defense weapons, designed to take out not big ships, but smaller threats like torpedoes, bombers, and fighters. I imagine in this case that the best design would be one that can direct the most, rapid fire weaponry in as many directions as possible, while maintaining a low profile, such as a very flat but wide rectangle.

    Thoughts?
     
  22. ViperMan Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    680
    Very cool looking boat. I hope that soon they add light and heavy armor blocks that resemble the ramps but have more hitpoints. Actual ramps rarely survive a single light rocket volley.
     
  23. Texas Jack Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    31
    Well, to be fair, neither does light armor.

    Cobra Commander, I've been working on a carrier with that same basic idea. It was scorpion based with the tail as a crows nest for troops with rifles and side turrets covering the ships that would be parked on the top/back. there are also a few interior turrets on the deck to cover the ships as well. It holds about four to six fighters. It also had a separate debris field countermeasure dispersal system on the bottom, perfect for stopping missile fire. It has an auto load, collectors and the countermeasures are setup as separate network so your not ejecting your ammo and gear. A med bay and assembler. All that and still about 1m in weight. But, I simply couldn't get the entire design to be just right. First was the landing gear problem with turning with the small ships flying off. I replaced the landing area with large gears, which fixed that problem, but they leave a large gap on the landing deck and you fall in between them, which means you have to have room under them to get out and also have more space for the landing gears in general. That's a wider design and more weight. It also means that you have to stop and unclasp all ships before just one can take off. Forget about launching ships while moving as well. Until the small ship landing area issue can be fixed, it simply isn't going to practical and it's performance will suffer. that said, given a few more updates, it's likely to be a powerhouse, but for now, it's just a WIP.

    A mobile platform that moves, parks and then launches...those will do well.
     
  24. BrickedKeyboard Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    372
    What about carriers?


    In the current game, they are useless. Fighters have limitless range.

    But, assuming they

    a. Fix the physics so that there is not a speed cap, or at least said cap is very hard to reach
    b. Fix the physics so that high speed combat works
    c. Expand the map so that there's actually somewhere to go at high speeds
    d. Add fuel limitations
    e. Add life support or some other crew longevity limitations

    Then maybe a carrier would be worthwhile. You'd bring fighters because of their small size making them harder to hit, and use them to pound on larger ships. Still, from an efficiency perspective, why bother arming the carrier? Just make it a utility spaceship made as cheaply as possible, and hook the fighters up to it.
     
  25. Leon026 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    155
    Thing with carriers -

    1) Carriers dont need landing strips. There is no need for 20th century conventional landing decks.
    2) Unless you happen to have 20 people playing at once, carriers do not need to carry more than 10 fighters
    3) Carriers dont need a bridge - just a well armored CiC at the core
    4) You needed adapted fighters - ie a good fighter design is more important than a good carrier design.
    5) Fully networked conveyor system / simplicity for rearming both the fighters and the carrier. Probably need a collector / connector to hook up to the supply ship
    6) Hangars optional - unless you need your fighters fully protected and defended because you're sending your carrier on the front line (why are you even there?), fighters can be attached on the hull outside
    7) Role? Do your fighters need to be able to quickly zoom off at a moments notice (catapult system), or not (regular take-off/landing system)


    I can see 3 main carrier "types" for SE that will begin to rise:
    - Industrial Flagship, with refineries, assemblers, and capacity to carry mining ship. Basically as a moving industrial operations base
    - Recon ship, able to carry a couple fighters to scout out new areas
    - Combat Carrier, where the fighters / bombers are the weapon system --- currently pointless in SE as I've yet to hear of massive clan wars raging on a server that is lag free


    The carrier in SE at the moment, is definitely more of a feat of technology demonstration, and with a decent catapult launch system for your fighters, it can also be retrofitted to fire grav-torpedoes.
     
  26. Cronos988 Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    545
    If missile launchers stay at frontal loading only, that would be an incentive to have a combat carrier, or more general a "supply ship", in which the fighter can safely land and rearm.
     
  27. Volthorne Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    487
    I disagree. It is far from a "very good design" overall, as it has some very obvious and very exploitable flaws, the first and most pressing of which is forcing all of your weapons to be exterior-mounted with no extra armor (on a number of large ships I've seen turrets that are slightly recessed into the armor or have the armor slightly extruded around them, limiting the viable angles of attack to something the turret can easily fire back at and will have plenty of time to react to). Furthermore those "wings" enlarge your profile majorly from the top/bottom/side, and add extra weight which means you need more engines to compensate.
     
  28. Morbophobie Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    145
    *fetch a dice*

    You are right ... :confused: I must have thought 2D about it (cutting a square in half -> triangular) and then converting it into 3D or something like that ^^
    Or: if one corner of the cube is facing you it looks like the top of a pyramide - although it would have a triangular base and you can not cut the cube in symetrical halves.

    But anyway my statement of how to use the designs is not inflicted by that. (I think)
     
  29. Morbophobie Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    145
    @Volthorne Ok so a ring only when you build really big ships

    @Vermillion Depending on the size of the inner circle you only have a very small angular to shoot into the bay. And to look for this angular while in fight is not so easy. Also because it prevents you from orbiting so you will be easier to hit. The next thing is that the biggest surface of the ring is on top or the bottom. So if you are above the ring most of the turrets will be able to target you. So you will be very vulnerable if you do so. And: if you rotate the Ring you will get even bigger problems. You could say if you rotate the ring you can not get out with the fighters. But if you make a gravity based steering system you could catapult them out of the ring so that the rotation is not a problem.
     
  30. BrickedKeyboard Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    372
    It does? Why can't you mount the weapons that are on each side of the "Xs" in turrets? Turrets will still have +-90 degrees of arc, so all the advantages are retained. Anyways, the point of my thread was "given what we have in the game right now , but assuming the guns actually fire, what's the best design for a big ship"
     
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.