|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Oct 3, 2017 8:53:17 GMT
Just a small note: I've found that payloads are pretty useless for anything but anti missile/drone use. When a payload detonates, the rest of the missile simply vanishes. Since the missile itself generally weighs many times as much as the payload, the missile hitting a ship will generally do far more damage than the shrapnel from a flak warhead. As for nukes, small nukes aren't really capable of causing critical damage against anything other than non armored ships. Over all (as far as my testing shows), any flak missile has been more effective as a KKV and effective nukes tend to be fairly large an expensive. For small anti ship missiles KKVs are the way to go.
|
|
|
|
Post by jtyotjotjipaefvj on Oct 3, 2017 14:20:15 GMT
Just a small note: I've found that payloads are pretty useless for anything but anti missile/drone use. When a payload detonates, the rest of the missile simply vanishes. Since the missile itself generally weighs many times as much as the payload, the missile hitting a ship will generally do far more damage than the shrapnel from a flak warhead. As for nukes, small nukes aren't really capable of causing critical damage against anything other than non armored ships. Over all (as far as my testing shows), any flak missile has been more effective as a KKV and effective nukes tend to be fairly large an expensive. For small anti ship missiles KKVs are the way to go. That depends a lot on the way the ship is built. You can put all your big radiators over empty hull, which makes missiles target the non-critical part instead of crew modules or reactors. The vanilla ships just happen to have radiators right on top of reactors. This is especially apparent on the gunship from a side approach, where usually the first impacting KKV will disable the whole ship since the only reactor is where the missiles home in on. Frag missiles have the benefit that the fragments spread damage over a wider area of hull, tend to spread around inside the hull and at the very least will destroy the radiators they home in on. KKVs tend to just make a tiny entry and exit hole and rarely do any significant damage when impacting over empty hull. |
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Oct 3, 2017 14:56:33 GMT
I've thought of that, but in reality coolant pipes would need to run from the radiators to the reactors. These would be destroyed by an impacting KKV. Especially my KKVs, since they tend to leave half the entirior of the target glowing nicely after impact (indicating at least half the internal coolant pipes having been destroyed). The idea of simply having radiators over empty space for no extra weight and then having no negative effect when that space is damaged games the system in my opinion so I do not consider it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rocket Witch on Oct 3, 2017 21:03:50 GMT
Isn't the problem with a KKV that it fails to transfer most of its energy by overpenetrating? On that note, has anyone ever made any plate-shaped or broadside missiles?
|
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Oct 4, 2017 7:09:53 GMT
My KKVs overpenetrate. Thing is they transfer enough energy to be deadly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Oct 4, 2017 11:31:05 GMT
I would rather over pen then under pen
|
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Oct 4, 2017 21:56:42 GMT
Just as an example, heres the exit wound of an "overpenetration" on a gunship from one of my M11 Micro Vipers:  Sure it overpenetrated, but thats still significant damage, considering the thing only costs 29.5c. Considering that you could fire 33 of them for less than a kilocredit, any real ship would be crippled by the impacts. Beyond that, if guidance was sofisticated enough to allow distribution of impact points (witch it should be, since it weighs a kilogram), such a salvo would practically guranty a kill on a gunship (hell, 15 would be enough for that). |
|
|
|
Post by jtyotjotjipaefvj on Oct 5, 2017 9:39:52 GMT
Just as an example, heres the exit wound of an "overpenetration" on a gunship from one of my M11 Micro Vipers: Sure it overpenetrated, but thats still significant damage, considering the thing only costs 29.5c. Considering that you could fire 33 of them for less than a kilocredit, any real ship would be crippled by the impacts. Beyond that, if guidance was sofisticated enough to allow distribution of impact points (witch it should be, since it weighs a kilogram), such a salvo would practically guranty a kill on a gunship (hell, 15 would be enough for that). KKVs do barely any damage after the first hit in a location though. This is especially problematic with missiles since they tend to hit the same point over and over again. Against gunships this rarely matters since the only reactor is exactly where the missiles will home. But against well designed ships, even dumbfire KKVs can take very long to disable a ship if the internals have enough redundancy and are protected by bulkheads separating the ship to different compartments. See below for a video showing this: The rocket launcher puts out 6.8 GW of kinetic energy, but it still takes a fairly long time to disable the ship, since the rockets do very little internal damage after the first few penetrate through armor. A flak or even HE warhead would help spread that energy more efficiently. Even if most of the kinetic energy is wasted by the missile disappearing, spreading it over a larger area can be more effective if you have far too much energy in your impactors. |
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Oct 5, 2017 10:07:30 GMT
As I said, with proper hit distribution and considering that there would be coolant/fuel pipes and powerlines going through the hull, one missile would be crippling in reality. The reason it isn't is because the game doesn't account for these things. Which is the reason KKVs are the most effective missiles: the game doesn't account for the mass and energy of the missile once the payload detonates, wasting most of the energy in a frag missile and nukes don't work like they're supposed to, so they aren't really effective either. In reality, I would use frag missiles that choose point of detonation depending on the targets armor, going full KKV for heavy armor, or blanketing the ship in shrapnell for lightly armored craft.
Reasons why KKVs aren't as effective as flak/nukes:
-Always hit predictable point (simulation limitation)
-Do very little actual damage to a ship (simulation limitation)
Reason whay KKVs are better than flak/nukes:
-kinetic energy of the missile disapears (simulation limitation)
-1kg guidance package (simulation limitation)
-Limited payload flexibility in regards to detonation timeing (simulation limitation)
I, for one, have the most succes with KKVs because nukes small enough to be micro are ineffective against even moderately armored targets and flak (inside the constraints of a micro missile) either can't penetrate moderately armored targets either unless the spread is so tight that it has the same problem as KKVs. Not to mention the fact that I can use the mass freed up by not having a payload other than guidance in order to improve armor, allowing me to use smaller salvos to defeat point defence ultimately making KKVs more cost effective.
|
|
|
|
Post by treptoplax on Oct 5, 2017 15:07:59 GMT
As I said, with proper hit distribution and considering that there would be coolant/fuel pipes and powerlines going through the hull, one missile would be crippling in reality. The reason it isn't is because the game doesn't account for these things. Which is the reason KKVs are the most effective missiles: the game doesn't account for the mass and energy of the missile once the payload detonates, wasting most of the energy in a frag missile and nukes don't work like they're supposed to, so they aren't really effective either. In reality, I would use frag missiles that choose point of detonation depending on the targets armor, going full KKV for heavy armor, or blanketing the ship in shrapnell for lightly armored craft. Reasons why KKVs aren't as effective as flak/nukes: -Always hit predictable point (simulation limitation) -Do very little actual damage to a ship (simulation limitation) Reason whay KKVs are better than flak/nukes: -kinetic energy of the missile disapears (simulation limitation) -1kg guidance package (simulation limitation) -Limited payload flexibility in regards to detonation timeing (simulation limitation) I, for one, have the most succes with KKVs because nukes small enough to be micro are ineffective against even moderately armored targets and flak (inside the constraints of a micro missile) either can't penetrate moderately armored targets either unless the spread is so tight that it has the same problem as KKVs. Not to mention the fact that I can use the mass freed up by not having a payload other than guidance in order to improve armor, allowing me to use smaller salvos to defeat point defence ultimately making KKVs more cost effective. I suppose you could get combo frag/KKVs by putting the flak warhead in a forward-facing blast launcher (even one with minimal velocity); this would presumably prevent the missile body from disappearing when the warhead goes off. This may make it impractical to get a proper nosecone, so I guess you could make it side-facing instead (I've even seen designs that use this to get multiple overlapping linear flak distribution, but have never been about to tune one of those to work myself). |
|
|
|
Post by Rocket Witch on Oct 8, 2017 1:16:15 GMT
A modded entry. I wanted to make a missile matching the challenge requirements, for general use. Uses fluorine-sodium propellant and appropriate materials for contact with the former. The production version was subsequently weighed down with heavier and costlier armour to 9.2km/s, but this one qualifies. |
|
|
|
Post by someusername6 on Oct 9, 2017 0:36:06 GMT
Back to the forums, caught up on submissions while I wasn't paying attention. Let me know if I missed anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by Argopeilacos on Oct 16, 2017 12:15:31 GMT
[...] 1. omnipotentvoid -- 29.5 c, 11.4 kg, 10.00 km/s delta v, 22.3 g acceleration, 516000 mm 2 cross section, F + H combustion engine 2. jtyotjotjipaefvj -- 33.6 c, 22.4 kg, 10.6 km/s, 13.6 g acceleration, 406000 mm 2 cross section, F + H combustion engine 3. siskinedge -- 52.9 c, 9.03 kg, 10.0 km/s delta v, 4.34 g acceleration, 99800 mm 2 cross section, Methane NTR 4. CatastrophicReEntry -- 53.2 c, 25.0 kg, 10.6 km/s, 20.4 g acceleration, 444000 mm 2 cross section, F + H combustion engine 5. cyborgleopard -- 64.3 c, 12.2 kg, 10.00 km/s delta v, 3.74 g acceleration, 292000 mm2 cross section, Methane NTR 6. David367th -- 90.2 c, 21.0 kg, 10.00 km/s delta v, 2.71 g acceleration, 134000 mm 2 cross section, RP-1 NTR (partial front armor) 7. someusername6 -- 102 c, 23.4 kg, 10.3 km/s delta v, 2.26 g acceleration, 75700 mm 2 cross section, F + CH3 combustion engine 8. concretedonkey -- 121 c, 13.7 kg, 10.2 km/s delta v, 3.18 g acceleration, 90400 mm 2 cross section, F + H combustion engine 9. morrigi -- 307 c, 47.6 kg, 10.1 km/s delta v, 4.53 g acceleration, 531000 mm 2 cross section, RP-1 NTR 10. Durandal -- 550 c, 23.3 kg, 10.2 km/s delta v, 5.54 g acceleration, 1.14 m 2 cross section, HD NTR (carrying 95t nuke) With some formatting: Rank
| Name
| Unit cost
| Weight
| Delta-V
| Acceleration
| Cross section
| Engine type
| Note
| | 1 | omnipotentvoid
| 29.5 c
| 11.4 kg
| 10.0 km/s
| 22.3 g
| 516000 mm2
| F + H combustion engine
|
| | 2 | jtyotjotjipaefvj
| 33.6 c
| 22.4 kg
| 10.6 km/s
| 13.6 g
| 406000 mm2
| F + H combustion engine
|
| | 3 | siskinedge
| 52.9 c
| 9.03 kg
| 10.0 km/s
| 4.34 g
| 99800 mm2
| Methane NTR
|
| | 4 | CatastrophicReEntry
| 53.2 c
| 25.0 kg
| 10.6 km/s
| 20.4 g
| 444000 mm2
| F + H combustion engine
|
| 5
| cyborgleopard
| 64.3 c
| 12.2 kg
| 10.0 km/s
| 3.74 g
| 292000 mm2
| Methane NTR
|
| | 6 | David367th
| 90.2 c
| 21.0 kg
| 10.0 km/s
| 2.71 g
| 134000 mm2
| RP-1 NTR
| partial front armor
| | 7 | someusername6
| 102 c
| 23.4 kg
| 10.3 km/s
| 2.26 g
| 75700 mm2
| F + CH3 combustion engine
|
| | 8 | concretedonkey
| 121 c
| 13.7 kg
| 10.2 km/s
| 3.18 g
| 90400 mm2
| F + H combustion engine
|
| | 9 | morrigi
| 307 c
| 47.6 kg
| 10.1 km/s
| 4.53 g
| 531000 mm2
| RP-1 NTR
|
| | 10 | Durandal
| 550 c
| 23.3 kg
| 10.2 km/s
| 5.54 g
| 1.14 m2
| HD NTR
| carrying 95t nuke
|
|
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Oct 17, 2017 4:31:23 GMT
Here's my submission, The Darkshard. It's very cheap and effective if a bit heavy. It is kind of modded, as it uses the corrected thermal conductivity for graphite aerogel. 3 can kill a gunship and 100 can kill most designs. |
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Oct 19, 2017 20:48:25 GMT
Submission 2, the Yaka. It uses no modded materials and is much more cost effective than the darkshard. One Yaka can kill a gunship in 95% of cases. |
|
