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.

"March to Battle!", March Battleship Contest.

Discussion in 'General' started by Skeloton, Feb 25, 2014.

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

    Messages:
    163
    It was not meant to be a sarcastic question, more a rhetoric one. I am sorry for the misunderstanding, I could have phrased it a bit more friendly.

    Any modern military vessel with the size of a battleship either has little armor thus falling into the class of cruiser, or is an aircraft carrier. A point that is made by two posts above here.

    As for the battleship, in my opinion it is for 'show business', as you state. You might feel that such business has no place among engineering, yet there is plenty of engineering challenges in making a show piece. I do say that politics is none of our business though, but who doesn't want to trump all other engineers with his or her fantastic battleship? No need for actual politics here, just... ambition. :D

    PS: English isn't my native tongue as well. You are managing alright though.
     
  2. damoran Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    608
    I think the idea behind space battleships like the Super Star Destroyer and others is simply to maintain control through intimidation and terrorism. Consider the galactic empire with millions of ships, still couldn't possibly patrol every square mile of empty space in it's territory. The answer was to use intimidation so they wouldn't have to. Nobody dares go against you out of fear.
    I don't really think it's about maneuverability or armor but about how f*%ing big and scary it looks. Even if it's a lie.

    To quote the Art of War:

    “Supreme excellence consists of breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.”
    Sun Tzu, <em style="color: #181818; font-family: georgia, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">The Art of War</em>
     
  3. Wahooiy Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    5
    So I made a post about a recent ship I made, and someone mentioned this competition, so i decided to enter it in.

    I made several changes to my already existing ship to fit the specifications, each turret is connected to at least 1 or more small storage containers via conveyors. All large reactors now have their own designated storage containers connected via at least 1 or 2 conveyors. I added in an area for 2 assemblers. (these changes aren't seen in the screenshots, sorry, (you may see turrets without conveyors) but the workshop link has been updated with the changes)

    [FONT= &#39]HVY-BCII-Behemoth[/FONT][FONT= &#39]
    [/FONT]
    File: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=234482588
    [FONT= &#39]Forum Post: [/FONT]http://forums.keenswh.com/post/hvybciibehemoth-6794072
    <strong>[​IMG]

    </strong>[FONT= &#39]Technical Specifications:[/FONT][FONT= &#39]
    Mass: 19,646,308 Kg (Not inc spinning aesthetic engine rotor)
    Reactors: 26,000GW (or there abouts)
    Thrusters: 77
    Gyroscopes: 65

    Fighters aboard: 4 (heavy)[/FONT] at least 1 block space between them.

    Whats special about my ship?
    I personally believe that my ship has a certain aesthetic design that sets it out from the rest - it certainly doesn't look generic, or boxy - it has a nice shape.

    It has an aesthetic (large) spinning body on the back of the ship, which I like to believe mimics a somewhat large rotary part for an engine.

    It has 26 escape pods! (probably unncessary, but they're rather cool to have).

    Here's a nice chopped up view for you. (this doesn't detail the new changes to enter the competition, sorry!)
    [​IMG]
     
  4. Skeloton Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,069
    Entries are this way -> http://forums.keenswh.com/post/march-to-battle-contest-entries-thread-6784127?pid=1281811251#post1281811251
     
  5. KriegsMeister Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    377
    In regards to the manueverability of present day/WWII battleships, a Battleship was the largest and most powerful ship of the navy and it was the center of the fleet (prior to aircraft carriers) speed was not a main concern because, quite literally, everything in the fleet revolved around it. On average, most pre-WWII battleships had a Max speed of 20-25 knots (10-13m/s, 37-46kph, 23-29mph) while smaller vessels such as Cruisers and Destroyers averaged between 30-35 knots (15-18m/s, 55-65kph, 34-40mph). This was because the battleship was suppose to sit back a fair bit and use it's massive guns to hit targets at range while the smaller vessels were to charge ahead to intercept threats such as Aircraft, submarines or other torpedo equipped vessels, and other Cruisers and Destroyers. However with the shift in priority from battleships to Carriers their tactics and design had to change as well, thus we introduce the Fast Battleship and Battlecruiser. Both were designed to attain certain speeds but mostly at the expense of weight and armor. The Fast Battleship (such as the American Iowa-class) sacrificed just enough weight to match the speed of carriers (which averaged around 30 knots) but it still retained enough armor to allow it to be competitive against other battleships. The Battlecruiser (HMS Hood) however was basically an uparmored/upgunned cruiser or a downarmored battleship, sacrificing the majority of the battleships defining armor and weight in order to keep up with the smaller escort ships (30-35 knots). However the general census on the battlecruisers was that they were ineffective in that they were not capable of effectively combating larger battleships and that they presented a much larger and easier to hit target for the cruisers and destroyers.

    tl;dr if you are worried about speed and maneuverability, then you are not designing a BattleSHIP but rather a BattleCruiser
     
  6. Volthorne Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    487
    Pretty much this. You build a battleship with the intention of scaring your opponent enough to never have to use it. It doesn't matter how feasible it is to use on a regular basis, because it's not going to be used on a regular basis.
     
  7. REDSHEILD Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    888
    Here's an update on my design, sadly had to abandon the gravity cannon, but now I am using my turret as the main weapon in lieu of the cannon:
    [​IMG]
    Yeah, it's pretty boxy right now. But I've finished the receiving bay, ammo bay and cargo bay, so I can move onto un-boxing it now.
     
  8. NutterChap Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    163
    Right on the money!

    This is the reason why I think most small-sized entries are not really battleships. I just failed to put it as clearly as you lads. :(
     
  9. radam Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,207
    Im not gonna build something that cant be driven at SANE FPS levels. Well while not using insane PC loadout.

    Not to mention survival mode is gonna kick those multi 100kt ships out of feasibility.
     
  10. NutterChap Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    163
    You are free to make your own choices. I have no problems making large ships as far as FPS go, probably a luxury position. If you feel making large ships is not in your cards, you are free to make small ships. It is just that small ships do not match my view on what a battleship actually is.

    Your remark on survival mode is off. First off, this whole contest makes no sense in survival mode, since no-one will be able to make any of the entries in survival mode, at least not in the set time for this competition. This is a creative mode competition, so why bother with survival mode compatibility of your design in this contest? ;)
     
  11. Skeloton Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,069
    Not including time taken to refine and create component pieces it will take someone 7hrs to build my entry, according to SEtoolbox.

    I think I might test that, deconstruct mine then rebuild it.
     
  12. NutterChap Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    163
    You are gonna try? just stacking all the blocks as quickly as possible will take those 7 hours, I guess. Doing it all in survival mode though is another matter. You need to mine, refine and then build it.

    I wish thee good luck with your speed build run! (You could try to simulate this build time by removing the blocks manually, switching between block types when removing a different type of block. A least that wya, you won't build things wrong, and have to redo parts just to follow your main entry. :p)
     
  13. Skeloton Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,069
    It took me 5hrs in creative :p

    as far as build time i'll just take my grinder to it until theres only the frame left then weld it all back up.
     
  14. busboy Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    67
    My entry is posted in the competition thread, and is duplicated below if there is any discussion.

    Battleship - USS Katherine

    [​IMG]

    Statistics (before refit; have not recalculated/recounted after recent patches and modifications):

    Length: 310m
    Width: 97.5m
    Height: 85m
    Mass: 49,526,532 kg

    The Katherine Class battleship is designed to dominate direct fire capital ship engagements as well as provide devastating fire support for infantry attacks. The ship is protected by multiple belts of heavy armor with multiple redundancies and armed with four large dual turrets. All offensive systems are designed to resupply through conveyor systems while in enemy contact. However, the ship’s most devastating weapon is a well protected gravity cannon in the bow, capable of accelerating a large projectile at maximum velocity along the ship’s forward axis. System redundancies as well as multi-tiered protection makes the Katherine class one of the most protected space battleships classes yet devised. This ship includes a complete interior and a practice target located a short distance from space dock.

    Primary armament:
    -4x dual multiple launch rocket turrets. Turrets are “travel locked” by landing gear; disable landing gear before attempting to traverse turrets. Restrict turret traverse speed to .4 MPS to prevent damage. Turrets must be controlled by individual players accessing small cockpits within each turret.

    -1x Gravity cannon firing 12,256 kg projectiles. Each small cargo container in the ready rack contains one projectile. Remove from container, place in barrel (lower forward hull marked in red with red lights) and then activate cannon’s reactor to fire. [gravity cannon mechanism is a separate ship within the hull]

    Secondary Armament:
    42x Gatling Turrets
    28x Interior Turrets
    14x Missile Turrets

    *Note: Weapons suite connected to conveyors and cargo containers with exception of interior turrets.

    Engineering systems:
    Power: 17,248 GW
    Gyroscopes: 234
    Thrusters: 258

    Sensor suite: 3x antenna, 3x ore detectors

    Machinery: 7x Assemblers, 2x refineries (removed with refit to comply with contest rules), large cargo capacity.

    Complete interior includes 79x doors, 672x interior lights, and fully equipped shuttle bay with rail mounted doors.

    Many images on the Steam page. Note that many pictures are "pre-refit." They are easily identified by the old heavy armor texture. There are no "stacked" engines after the refit. Some engines in the main hull only are protected by the grated windows, however all engine thrust has direct line access to space.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Workshop link: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=220444283
     
  15. busboy Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    67
    Updated to make shuttle doors a bit more resilient (still not perfect; need to wait for rails to get fully worked out. Small ships as doors are problematic). Also, rockets are detonating in the gun tubes for some reason now, so moved the rocket launcher to the end of the tube for the time being. Thanks to Sungur for pointing out the bugs.
     
  16. bacondeity Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    419
    Yeah, but I asked why you think the game sucks. It's a solid game with solid mechanics. One of my favorite stories too. It's easily one of the best real-time strategy games ever made.
     
  17. ElectronicFunk Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    37
    that Katherine is sexy
     
  18. Mac D Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    521
    I had that problem as well with some of my turrets. Moving the launcher to end of tube should work. Wider tubes with at least one block gap between launcher and tube wall seem to fix it also. I found it happened more when firing and rotating turret as if the rockets were too slow.
     
  19. busboy Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    67
    Its probably another proximity detonation issue. I'm having the same issue on stationary fighters too.
     
  20. Redrackham Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    2
    Busboy i love your ship...

    for the Katherine turret i have the same trouble with the same solution.
    I wanted to copy you for my own turret, but actually i don't think light fighter rocket launcher is enought for a 4000T turret, and your/the gravity gun is too destructive for the weapon itself.
     
  21. busboy Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    67
    Yea, the Katherine is a fun ship, not a practical one. :D The gravity cannon used to work very well, but after the generator patch shooting it damages the barrel reliably it seems.

    Kudos on the Tintin reference name by the way. :)
     
  22. Barabbi_Moonshadow Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    64
    After fighting the symmetry errors the game currently has, the third version of my entry's ship style style (5th overall attempt at this), is complete:

    [​IMG]
     
  23. Conradian Moderator

    Messages:
    2,596
    I noticed you called it a Battlecruiser and described it as:
    If this is the case, is it really a Battleship? You've already classed it as a battlecruiser, and it does seem more built as one. I don't know if the contest necessarily excludes battlecruisers, but I was just curious.
     
  24. Barabbi_Moonshadow Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    64
    That's in the notes on the contest entry. In short, I can't build a true battleship with the current bugs in the game. (This ship was the 3rd version I tried. The first two versions were larger and weighed more. The first even had movable turrets.)

    However:

    1. Symmetry issues.
    2. Large scale building issues on my 1 GB of video ram.
    3. (As noted in my notes on the build when saved.) I saved the ship, had the small ship weapons locked in place, all was well. Reloaded... the ship began tearing itself apart due to all of the small ship rocket launchers suddenly not being locked anymore.)
    4. ... ... ...

    At least, with this version, it is "mostly" finished. Further, with the community's unorganized opinion on what a "battleship" is... a "battlecruiser" can fit the bill of a "battleship." (In my opinion, I would have built it 2-3 times as large... as I tried to do. But, I simply can't right now.)
     
  25. Conradian Moderator

    Messages:
    2,596
    Fair enough. Good luck to you sir. I'd like to enter but no way I can hook my Behemoth-Class Dreadnought's weapons up in time to make it eligible.
     
  26. Barabbi_Moonshadow Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    64
    Also, for everyone building right now...

    The current build of SE doesn't allow for rockets to be placed end-to-end. (In, for example, turret barrels.) Just a FYI before you blow up your turrets. (They can be placed side by side, though.)

    Furthermore, the ends of the rocket launcher can't, seemingly, be hidden (surrounded) by armor blocks in the following configuration:

    &lt;armor>&lt;armor>&lt;armor>
    &lt;empty>&lt;empty>&lt;rocket launcher end>

    The rocket blows the barrel. (In short, you can only have 0 or 1 empty space at the end of the launcher if that empty square is surrounded by armor, at least in a 2 x 2 &lt;4 total> rocket configuration.)
     
  27. plaYer2k Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,160
    Wow thanks ... lets see of my turret concepts are still valid then .. otherwise i have to rethink them..
    Not that i can finish my building within the next few days as i cant play SE for technical reasons ... but hopefully in 4-5 days i can continue! :D
     
  28. busboy Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    67
    I dunno about ya'll, but I'm not sweating the small stuff. My ship has bugs. The gun tubes flail around, the shuttle doors want to shake themselves out, etc. As the game continues to grow, it'll come together more.

    In the meantime, I'm not going to be critical of anyone's creations based on the Alpha build.
     
  29. plaYer2k Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,160
    hehe yeah totally. Building a proper door or turret right now that doesnt assplode or wobble around like crazy as the ship moves is near impossible.

    But some are little perfectionists and want to iron those issues out.

    Some of my turret designs are utterly useless aswell as the rotors are way too weak and fragile, they tend to wobble around and you can not really controll them in the way they are meant to.
    You could find a solution in the real world but not in the current state of SE so i dont care much either C:
     
  30. Skeloton Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,069
    Exactly why I stuck with the one block wonder turrets :p
     
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.