|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jan 5, 2017 15:24:17 GMT
save for drop tanks all modules are in a massive stack running the length of the ship (roughly) this is a problem when you have extra ammo tanks that can explode on a ship, because everything is in one giant stack any hit to ammo that cause an explosion tears the ship in two my suggestion would be to have the ability to attach modules (like ammo or fuel) radially
|
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on Jan 5, 2017 15:49:03 GMT
For this reason, I try to minimize the amount of volatile munitions aboard a capital ship. However, some amount of volatile munitions sotrage are probably unavoidable. You can reduce risk by using only single stacks of volatile munitions, but that's really inefficient cross section/volumewise.
|
|
|
|
Post by lieste on Jan 5, 2017 16:09:34 GMT
I'd be more interested in having the rail and the ammunition tank for drones occupying off centre positions to permit smaller cross sections than the current possible.
With 10 gundrones and a single rail I have a 6.14m 'core' and ~4m rail. After the packing inefficiency I need a 19m diameter hull to store this ammunition in a reasonable length (and although I can mount other missile launchers/smaller drones to the sides, most of the space is wasted).
If the same 2m 'gap' is retained with an offset rail/tank I could fit the same equipment into a 12m hull with a huge decrease in vulnerability and armour and fuel weight. With the integral rail/ammo bay, the situation is even worse as the dimension of a 5 round tank is 12.8m with the rail, and two would require well over 25m of hull - a single 'offset' combination would still require over 16.3m of hull width.
Other uses for offset placement would be a dorsal drone hangar with two other missile/fuel/crew bays running along the lower sides in the same length of the ship, within the standard armour shape.
|
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jan 5, 2017 19:24:57 GMT
For this reason, I try to minimize the amount of volatile munitions aboard a capital ship. However, some amount of volatile munitions sotrage are probably unavoidable. You can reduce risk by using only single stacks of volatile munitions, but that's really inefficient cross section/volumewise. if an explodie tank gets hit and blows up then your ship is torn in two |
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on Jan 5, 2017 19:44:50 GMT
if an explodie tank gets hit and blows up then your ship is torn in two This is not true in my experience. |
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jan 5, 2017 19:57:12 GMT
if an explodie tank gets hit and blows up then your ship is torn in two This is not true in my experience. whats your armour scheme? |
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on Jan 5, 2017 20:08:18 GMT
On my missile carrier drones (which usually have the highest % of explosive modules/mass) I use carbon/gel/rubber/carbon/gel; when a missile launch module (with a few hundred flak rounds in it) gets hit the entire section has a hole in it but usually the carrier can continue fighting (with some significant loss of reaction mass, ofc) and surviving missile cells can continue firing.
|
|
|
|
Post by kitten on Jan 5, 2017 21:01:01 GMT
Volatile munitions aren't a necessity though. Especially in space where anything that can't litterally explode on its own is safe (like methane tanks, they would explode easily on Earth but in space they can't because there's no oxydiser for them).
Radial design would still be great to have though for a number of reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on Jan 5, 2017 23:22:34 GMT
Volatile munitions aren't a necessity though. Especially in space where anything that can't litterally explode on its own is safe (like methane tanks, they would explode easily on Earth but in space they can't because there's no oxydiser for them). Radial design would still be great to have though for a number of reasons. My NEFP-warheads, Flak Missiles, and Gun (Firearm) Drones all incorporate conventional explosives. I can probably obsolete Gun Drones and either Flak or NEFP, but there's a role (almost necessity) for standoff anti-armor warheads. |
|
|
|
Post by kitten on Jan 6, 2017 2:11:24 GMT
Is there? I'm leaning towards building drones with a laser in the GW range. Even if you expensively armour your capital hulls against the lasers, I don't think there's a realistic way to give your turrets enough life expectancy and lasers currently never miss (at 1Mm that's quite fair, light-speed lag would only be a few milliseconds anyway so no need to model it). Once you're disarmed they can take their time to drill through the hull.
But back on topic, radial modules with different armouring per module is something I'd like to see.
|
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on Jan 6, 2017 5:26:21 GMT
I can build micromissiles for under 4 credits. With the introduction of Laser Wobble, these missiles with minimized cross sections are basically immune to long range laser fire.
In the old patch (1.07) it was possible to cost-effectively overpower (at the cost of ludicrous lag) any pure laser setup with raw numbers. In 1.08 laser wobble should make missiles even more powerful, but the dV bug, free frequency quadrupling, and stealth nerf to Sillica Aerogel may have done the trick. Other players are reporting increased missile effectiveness even with the dV bug, so YMMV.
|
|
|
|
Post by gedzilla on Jan 6, 2017 9:19:00 GMT
i just need radially attached modules for my side mounted, foward facing guns
|
|
|
|
Post by lieste on Jan 6, 2017 10:37:33 GMT
i just need radially attached modules for my side mounted, foward facing guns Oblique mounting would be nicest, with the turret facing from the plate normal, rather than the centre line - then you could have nose mounted guns able to all fire directly ahead and to their nearest broadside, but not to the rear. Or optionally fixed to fire forward. I'd like to have the option to limit the traverse angle, but not rate of traverse of large guns on small drones/ships with a nose mounted main weapon. It is much easier to provide rapid turning of the ship and slow but precise tracking of the heavy weapon... but with a large turret angle the time to return to target after manoeuvres can be painfully long. At long ranges most of the corrections to aim point are well below 5-10 degrees so a 60 degree arc of fire is not a requirement - that only becomes useful for point defense weapons or for fire during evasives. |
|
|
|
Post by Rocket Witch on Jan 7, 2017 23:39:36 GMT
I can build micromissiles for under 4 credits. Remote controls alone cost 4.65c. Are you a wizard? |
|
|
|
Post by someusername6 on Jan 7, 2017 23:46:11 GMT
I can build micromissiles for under 4 credits. Remote controls alone cost 4.65c. Are you a wizard? I also want to see / use that design, yes. My current micromissile is at 9.4c (but that's the Fluorine Hydrogen KKV that has a tendency of not being able to shut its engines off). |
|
