|
Post by jtyotjotjipaefvj on Nov 17, 2017 16:11:38 GMT
A late reply, I know, but here's a WIP of the various ship designs I've had in mind. In the novel, this style of ship is referred to as the "Foss-Gaughan Pattern." Was Foss-Gaughan a Dark Eldar by any chance?
|
|
|
Post by srbrant on Nov 18, 2017 0:32:42 GMT
A late reply, I know, but here's a WIP of the various ship designs I've had in mind. In the novel, this style of ship is referred to as the "Foss-Gaughan Pattern." Was Foss-Gaughan a Dark Eldar by any chance? Not sure, but I'm certain they weren't from Commorragh. To be honest, their resemblance to Drukhari Raiders I didn't even notice until I was about to photograph the drawing. I thought "what could be aesthetically pleasing but functional at the same time? Would these be ships that both Heinlein and Jodorowsky could look upon with pride?"
|
|
|
Post by srbrant on Nov 18, 2017 0:49:06 GMT
With their sharpened prows and narrow profiles, these ships are ideal for charging straight towards their targets. One side has most of the ship's armaments and armor, while its less-armored "underbelly" holds the escape craft, observation domes, APAS rings, communication equipment and other essential non-com installations.
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Feb 14, 2018 10:05:10 GMT
Apart from asymmetry allowing task-specific sides on a ship (dedicated broadsiders are a special case of that), symmetry is also a gift to your enemy - with a symmetrically laid out ship, when a stream of hypervelocity sand carves a deep gash in your whipple shield and threatens your turret, performing a barbecue roll simply exposes another turret in the ring, allowing the enemy to quickly sandblast the entire ring without retargetting (and retargetting tends to take time before retargetted projectiles start arriving). With lower symmetries, asymmetrical layouts or ring symmetry not matching hull symmetry rotating component out of the way does just that.
Asymmetrical layouts are also nice for ships that are generally nose on, but may occasionally broadside.
As for mass distribution management - that's what gimbals are for.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Feb 14, 2018 19:43:50 GMT
Asymmetry allows the enemy to pincer you between two attacks
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Feb 15, 2018 6:53:57 GMT
Asymmetry allows the enemy to pincer you between two attacks That depends on the asymmetry. For typical dedicated broadsiders - absolutely, but it's also the case for dedicated nose forward ships, especially those relying on extremely directional armour or weapon scheme. For asymmetry merely serving to break-up exploitable patterns, nah. Manoeuvrability is presumably also going to be a huge game changer against pincer attacks. In any case, we can't test it in game as it doesn't allow multiple intercepts.
|
|
|
Post by srbrant on Feb 15, 2018 6:55:50 GMT
Asymmetry allows the enemy to pincer you between two attacks That depends on the asymmetry. For typical dedicated broadsiders - absolutely, but it's also the case for dedicated nose forward ships, especially those relying on extremely directional armour or weapon scheme. For asymmetry merely serving to break-up exploitable patterns, nah. Manoeuvrability is presumably also going to be a huge game changer against pincer attacks. In any case, we can't test it in game as it doesn't allow multiple intercepts. Most of the ships in _Kemono_ are spearheads (nose-forward.)
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Apr 4, 2018 4:38:06 GMT
After some rumination it seems to me that combat spaceships would be bilaterally symmetrical or completely asymmetrical - sort of a hybrid broadsider/needleship (possibly a "sabreship", "knifeship" or something like that).
In general, having separate, specialized sides to your vessel is a Good ThingTM - I don't think anyone is going to argue for spherically symmetrical ships, it's more effective to have dedicated sides on which you can focus propulsion, offensive power and so on. Meanwhile the geometry of a hostile intercept is defined by two axes that are in turn determined by parallel and perpendicular components of relative velocity vector. This means that you have one direction where lasers and fast kinetics are going to be coming and leaving, and another where on one side you'll be hit by slower kinetics - you will probably want some extra armour and sloping there as well - on the other you will be launching your own slow kinetics and might be tempted to put all sorts of vulnerable external components (because you won't be hit there unless penetrated or flanked). That gives us bilateral symmetry.
On top of that you'll probably want preferred dodging axis and this is where things get tricky - it's nice to be able to choose your dodging direction somewhat freely and we have just run out of spatial dimensions for that. If you forgo choosing dodging direction, in favour of just distance, but want to maximize your gains from choosing dodging distance/change in velocity, you'll probably want to dodge in your shortest axis, which is perpendicular to both slopes (CDE doesn't so far allow us to make such flatships unless you abuse saucers, but you still have things like radiators), and you might want to maximize the available magnitude by putting your dodging thrusters on one side only (after dodge you will want to reorient to match changed velocity vectors) - this way you get fully asymmetrical ship.
If you want to keep your ability to choose dodging direction, you will have to compromise on some fronts, which seems to allow multitude of strategies. You will also get to keep bilateral symmetry.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by srbrant on Jul 19, 2018 16:57:03 GMT
After some rumination it seems to me that combat spaceships would be bilaterally symmetrical or completely asymmetrical - sort of a hybrid broadsider/needleship (possibly a "sabreship", "knifeship" or something like that). In general, having separate, specialized sides to your vessel is a Good Thing TM - I don't think anyone is going to argue for spherically symmetrical ships, it's more effective to have dedicated sides on which you can focus propulsion, offensive power and so on. Meanwhile the geometry of a hostile intercept is defined by two axes that are in turn determined by parallel and perpendicular components of relative velocity vector. This means that you have one direction where lasers and fast kinetics are going to be coming and leaving, and another where on one side you'll be hit by slower kinetics - you will probably want some extra armour and sloping there as well - on the other you will be launching your own slow kinetics and might be tempted to put all sorts of vulnerable external components (because you won't be hit there unless penetrated or flanked). That gives us bilateral symmetry. On top of that you'll probably want preferred dodging axis and this is where things get tricky - it's nice to be able to choose your dodging direction somewhat freely and we have just run out of spatial dimensions for that. If you forgo choosing dodging direction, in favour of just distance, but want to maximize your gains from choosing dodging distance/change in velocity, you'll probably want to dodge in your shortest axis, which is perpendicular to both slopes (CDE doesn't so far allow us to make such flatships unless you abuse saucers, but you still have things like radiators), and you might want to maximize the available magnitude by putting your dodging thrusters on one side only (after dodge you will want to reorient to match changed velocity vectors) - this way you get fully asymmetrical ship. If you want to keep your ability to choose dodging direction, you will have to compromise on some fronts, which seems to allow multitude of strategies. You will also get to keep bilateral symmetry. Thoughts? Run an example of these "axes" by me please, I need a better picture of how that works.
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Jul 21, 2018 14:24:49 GMT
Run an example of these "axes" by me please, I need a better picture of how that works. Ok, first: During an intercept you can break your relative velocity into two components: - Parallel - towards the enemy
- Perpendicular - sideways
In practice your perpendicular velocity will never be zero - first, you probably don't want to actually collide with the enemy, second, when orbiting around some mass your relative trajectories will curve in your orbital plane(s). Now let's assume a rotating frame of reference based on line connecting your and enemy ship (this line will rotate as you pass each other by). In this frame of reference projectile trajectories will be curves and they will curve more the slower they are: (Stock weapons, so the colours should be familiar - 60mm cannons curve more than RG/CG fire, sniper CG curves the least) Notice that kinetics will primarily impact your ship from one side, and their velocity will affect their impact angle (your ship will have rotated more - assuming nose forward orientation - before slow kinetics reach it). Also notice that your own kinetics will primarily be leaving your ship on the opposite side. Now, for the remaining part of my post I will be using the convention based on the orientation of space shuttle reference model in CoADE, which I believe should therefore be considered semi-official (if still completely arbitrary because space*): - 0o - port
- 180o - starboard
- 90o - dorsal
- 270o - ventral.
- Any sort of flattening is dorsal-ventral
*) Unless your ship spends significant amounts of time landed on a planetary surface or under >1miligee thrust (meaning "is a torchship") "down is where the main engines are pointing" doesn't mean a damn, and a convention that keeps most of the action in "horizontal" plane and calls forward "forward" instead of "up" is a potentially useful one to optimize crew's situational awareness, so this convention works for me.
Arbitrarily, I will also use port as the direction a ship will be impacted from the most (conforming to the potentially deeply ingrained sword+board analogy - you hit with your right hand and defend with your left one - *AND* allowing ship's ensign - in CoaDE, at least - to be displayed on the side with largest continuous stretches of smooth armour). This is also consistent with the way polygonal armour works in CoaDE - there is always a ridge at 0 o, but not necessarily at 180 o. Now, the ship built with those considerations in mind will be polygonal and flattened, exposing steeply sloped armour from the side, not just front. PD weaponry will be spread across the hull, but mostly concentrated on ventral and dorsal flats (maximizing coverage and minimizing exposed weak spots in the armour). Other than that, the port side will be mostly just a large uninterrupted armour surface - steeply sloped, with ridge going down the middle. The armour will be reinforced to weather massed kinetic attacks, with PD trying to shoot down anything less durable than a dumb k-slug. Apart from the nosecone and laser armour covering the entire forward-visible part of the hull starboard, OTOH, will be mostly unarmoured, but bristling with weapons, radiators and whatever fragile external equipment you might need - still vulnerable to laser fire, but shielded by heavy port armour and the bulk of the ship against kinetics. In the order of priority first will go the main laser battery (if present and distinct from PD lasers) with uninterrupted forward line of sight, then high velocity kinetic guns. Low velocity guns, launchers and - if possible - radiators might benefit from being hidden even from laser fire by a bulge or the edge of the nosecone as they will be launching their munitions at significant angle and won't need direct line of sight. Sort of like this: - Green - main laser battery
- Purple - high velocity kinetic battery
- Red - low velocity kinetic/payload battery and launchers
- Orange - radiators
- Bluish-grey - laser armour
- Grey - kinetic armour
- PD not pictured
RCS, if present, will be located as necessary for its function, but port nozzles might be replaced by pairs of highly angled nozzles in dorsal and ventral flats. Now, for dodging. Our ship is narrowest in its dorsal-ventral axis (meaning it has to move the least in that direction to completely avoid getting hit), it is also the direction that is perpendicular to both high and low velocity trajectories so you can dodge both kinds of kinetics this way.If you want to dodge primarily in one direction and mount dedicated powerful (though not necessarily efficient) engines just for jinking, you might want to mount them on, say, ventral side (rocket engines point down, after all ), leaving just high and mid Isp propulsion on the rear. Congratulations! You now have your fully asymmetrical ship. Bonus: Game specific considerations: Because of how AI works, you might want to put some of your longest range weapons pointing directly forward (note: you might be able to radially offset it and with some clever use of spacers maybe even hide it behind the nose against kinetics). You might also consider putting some rare long range weapons on the port side to ensure that, if the AI uses the ship in broadside orientation, it will be optimally protected by thick port armour.
|
|
|
Post by tukuro on Jul 21, 2018 16:04:08 GMT
Back onto more relevant topics, are there any sort of benefits to a warship with an asymmetrical arrangement? I imagine there could be if one wanted to keep a vital component out of harm's way. I've had a few designs were one side of the hull is dedicated to thermal armor, and the other to kinetics. But you could go even further and use it to hide vital components like radiators, heat sinks, solar panels, reactors and life support. As it stands, it's actually possible to do this in-game now, with multiple types of components being allowed to surround a single module. It's more effort than a typical sequence layout though. But if you can get it to work , it's absolutely worth it: For one-on-one combat you can slap on additional armour on the side facing the enemy, while still minimizing cross-section. You can even reduce armour for redundant components such as propellant tanks, similar to how aircraft armour was optimized during WW2.
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Jul 21, 2018 19:42:43 GMT
I've had a few designs were one side of the hull is dedicated to thermal armor, and the other to kinetics. But you could go even further and use it to hide vital components like radiators, heat sinks, solar panels, reactors and life support. As it stands, it's actually possible to do this in-game now, with multiple types of components being allowed to surround a single module. It's more effort than a typical sequence layout though. But if you can get it to work , it's absolutely worth it: For one-on-one combat you can slap on additional armour on the side facing the enemy, while still minimizing cross-section. I usually wrap critical components (CMs, reactors) in layers of tankage and some other radially offset modules - both for protection and better control over hull shape. Using clusters of tankage also reduces the risk of tank penetration sending craft into a deathspin. That's an absolutely killer feature on drones. Unlike CMs remotes are tiny and can be made multiply redundant for little cost, multiple engines and RTGs also aren't much of a problem and while clusters of tanks are somewhat less space efficient, you no longer have to fear about single penetration killing your drone, so you can pack much lighter armour. You can easily end up with a swarm of drones that can be burned with laser and multiply penetrated with kinetics, yet they just refuse to die.
|
|
|
Post by Apotheon on Aug 1, 2018 21:30:54 GMT
Run an example of these "axes" by me please, I need a better picture of how that works. Ok, first: During an intercept you can break your relative velocity into two components: - Parallel - towards the enemy
- Perpendicular - sideways
In practice your perpendicular velocity will never be zero - first, you probably don't want to actually collide with the enemy, second, when orbiting around some mass your relative trajectories will curve in your orbital plane(s). Now let's assume a rotating frame of reference based on line connecting your and enemy ship (this line will rotate as you pass each other by). In this frame of reference projectile trajectories will be curves and they will curve more the slower they are: (Stock weapons, so the colours should be familiar - 60mm cannons curve more than RG/CG fire, sniper CG curves the least) Notice that kinetics will primarily impact your ship from one side, and their velocity will affect their impact angle (your ship will have rotated more - assuming nose forward orientation - before slow kinetics reach it). Also notice that your own kinetics will primarily be leaving your ship on the opposite side. Now, for the remaining part of my post I will be using the convention based on the orientation of space shuttle reference model in CoADE, which I believe should therefore be considered semi-official (if still completely arbitrary because space*): - 0o - port
- 180o - starboard
- 90o - dorsal
- 270o - ventral.
- Any sort of flattening is dorsal-ventral
*) Unless your ship spends significant amounts of time landed on a planetary surface or under >1miligee thrust (meaning "is a torchship") "down is where the main engines are pointing" doesn't mean a damn, and a convention that keeps most of the action in "horizontal" plane and calls forward "forward" instead of "up" is a potentially useful one to optimize crew's situational awareness, so this convention works for me.
Arbitrarily, I will also use port as the direction a ship will be impacted from the most (conforming to the potentially deeply ingrained sword+board analogy - you hit with your right hand and defend with your left one - *AND* allowing ship's ensign - in CoaDE, at least - to be displayed on the side with largest continuous stretches of smooth armour). This is also consistent with the way polygonal armour works in CoaDE - there is always a ridge at 0 o, but not necessarily at 180 o. Now, the ship built with those considerations in mind will be polygonal and flattened, exposing steeply sloped armour from the side, not just front. PD weaponry will be spread across the hull, but mostly concentrated on ventral and dorsal flats (maximizing coverage and minimizing exposed weak spots in the armour). Other than that, the port side will be mostly just a large uninterrupted armour surface - steeply sloped, with ridge going down the middle. The armour will be reinforced to weather massed kinetic attacks, with PD trying to shoot down anything less durable than a dumb k-slug. Apart from the nosecone and laser armour covering the entire forward-visible part of the hull starboard, OTOH, will be mostly unarmoured, but bristling with weapons, radiators and whatever fragile external equipment you might need - still vulnerable to laser fire, but shielded by heavy port armour and the bulk of the ship against kinetics. In the order of priority first will go the main laser battery (if present and distinct from PD lasers) with uninterrupted forward line of sight, then high velocity kinetic guns. Low velocity guns, launchers and - if possible - radiators might benefit from being hidden even from laser fire by a bulge or the edge of the nosecone as they will be launching their munitions at significant angle and won't need direct line of sight. Sort of like this: - Green - main laser battery
- Purple - high velocity kinetic battery
- Red - low velocity kinetic/payload battery and launchers
- Orange - radiators
- Bluish-grey - laser armour
- Grey - kinetic armour
- PD not pictured
RCS, if present, will be located as necessary for its function, but port nozzles might be replaced by pairs of highly angled nozzles in dorsal and ventral flats. Now, for dodging. Our ship is narrowest in its dorsal-ventral axis (meaning it has to move the least in that direction to completely avoid getting hit), it is also the direction that is perpendicular to both high and low velocity trajectories so you can dodge both kinds of kinetics this way.If you want to dodge primarily in one direction and mount dedicated powerful (though not necessarily efficient) engines just for jinking, you might want to mount them on, say, ventral side (rocket engines point down, after all ), leaving just high and mid Isp propulsion on the rear. Congratulations! You now have your fully asymmetrical ship. Bonus: Game specific considerations: Because of how AI works, you might want to put some of your longest range weapons pointing directly forward (note: you might be able to radially offset it and with some clever use of spacers maybe even hide it behind the nose against kinetics). You might also consider putting some rare long range weapons on the port side to ensure that, if the AI uses the ship in broadside orientation, it will be optimally protected by thick port armour.
Basically, a stock Sentinel, but with guns on the sides? Should all guns go on one side and that side also be anti-lasing armoured?
Also, I don't really get why you call 0 degrees "port"... isn't "bow" forward, port left, starboard right, and stern back? Or you could just call them forward, left, right, and back. In my designs, 0 degrees is actually down, but I guess this naming idea only applies ships of this asymmetric design?
Edit: like this?
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Aug 1, 2018 22:11:03 GMT
It's just a convention. When I was using mostly pentagonal armour, I treated 0o as "down". Now I'm using flattened hexagonal designs, so I'm defaulting to the same convention as reference model of a space shuttle included in game given that top-bottom flattening feels more natural than left-right, and for that model 00 is "left".
as for the layout - see the diagram: Most of the guns go on the opposite side than primary kinetic shield. The ship also gets armoured, sloped nosecone, and is oriented nose-forward. Everything visible from the enemy PoV also gets laser armour.
Kinetic shield is oriented forward in regards to lateral velocity vector.
|
|
|
Post by thejustwriter on Aug 3, 2018 1:59:27 GMT
giga-laser dreadnaught with overpowered MPD thrusters So, literally every single one of my ships, then?
|
|