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.

Cannon turret

Discussion in 'Suggestions and Feedback' started by ProfessorFalken, May 8, 2014.

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

    Messages:
    290
    While I have seen many different suggestions for rail guns and particle guns, I haven't seen anything in depth regarding a traditional projectile AutoCannon. I think this would be a great addition for large ships to have another option, besides missiles, for attacking other large ships/stations.

    [​IMG]

    From my tests in creative, the Gatling Turret is useless against large ship heavy armor. It can take several minutes for a Gatling Turret to get through a single layer of heavy armor, and if your target rotates so that you cant target the same spot, you will never kill them. This leaves missiles as the only reliable way to damage a large ship (besides ramming into them). True, we have large ship missile launchers and soon we will have missile turrets, but I think their is still room for a AutoCannon Turret for large ships. This would have a faster projectile than a missile, a longer range, and would have a higher firing rate but do less damage.

    What are your thoughts?
     
  2. REDSHEILD Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    888
    Personally I'd rather see a cannon as a mounted large ship weapon like with the large ship missile launchers. I'd like to see a small ship version of such a weapon, too, and large ship Gatling turrets/auto-cannons.
     
  3. ProfessorFalken Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    290
    The problem with a mounted cannon is lining up the shot. If its a smaller "large ship" then that is not too difficult a task. But if its something like a military transporter, than its very unlikely that you would be able to hit a moving target.
     
  4. Leonhardt Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,930
    Why not have both?
     
  5. muss02 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    10
    I don't see why a rail gun wouldn't fit the description of what you want. A cannon wouldn't be a very realistic addition where as a rail gun can fire the same type of projectiles with greater accuracy, speed and distance.
     
  6. ProfessorFalken Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    290
    A cannon would be the most realistic. It is a technology that has been around for over 100 years. I would imagine that it would still be viable in another 60 years.
     
  7. Martinineter Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,253
    cannons that the player can make themselves (give them the tools and they will create) would also be nice, building a cannon to your own specifications. Stuff like rails, magnetic accelerators and a custom projectile workbench (to mass produce the ammo that you designed). The essence of this game is engineering, why not expand and let us create cannons and other things ("I have a cunning plan, and it's so cunning you can brush your teeth with it!")
     
  8. Hatchie Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    194
    True dat, but in that case I would like to see a better possibility to join small and large ship blocks than landing gears!
     
  9. Thunderbird Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    634
    a cannon is LESS realistic, because in real space warfare spaceships would just routinely outrun cannon shells - they would have a somewhat more difficult challenge outrunning a railgun slug thats travelling 5x or faster than a cannon-fired shell
     
  10. mr.Flagman Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    15
    I would suggest to add insteed of ballisticcannon, an optical lasersystem, that use many electricity so the ship cant use the thrusters during the shot.
     
  11. Wombats Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    791
    I would prefer railguns for several reasons:

    - Faster than projectile
    - Require energy rather than charge (easier to acquire)
    - More potent than a projectile round
    - Big, heavy, expensive end-game large ship weapon, rather than yet another cheap wimpy weapon

    BUT I would also like to see autocannons implemented. I think these are a more realistic space weapon than large naval-type cannons.

    40-60mm caliber turret for large ships
    20-40mm caliber gun for small ships

    Fire a variety of munitions; slugs, HE, incendiary, etc. etc.
     
  12. Thunderbird Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    634
    i have nothing against cannons in general, i just dont think they should be the PRIMARY armament - railguns should

    on the other hand, not including autocannons and flak cannons would just be silly :D each has their uses... and im sure we are all looking for that "Battlestar Moment" in our own way - you need cannons for that
     
  13. SaturaxCZ Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,718
    I think we will need combine both cannons and rail guns on our ships

    Railgun is 100% more effective in one shot + beter projectile speed, but creat rapid fire railgun is now in testing and it dont look good for now...
    ( advantage +damage +accuraci +projectil speed / disadvantage -fire rate -repair rail gun barell, becose shoot realy damage barell of gun -big energy us)

    Cannons can easy performe rapid fire and there is no reason not give in game big cannons on greather distance.
    ( advantage +fire rate +smaller constructions +small energy us / disadvantages -projectile speed -accuraci -more expensive ammo )

    ( it dasnt mean becose normal cannons request more skill on biger distance we will not give them in game, you just have aim more in front of target )

    For player made cannons, i dont see diference if we let players construct them or give in game 3 diferent sizes of cannons and railguns
    ( small cannons - mid cannons - big cannons )

    Some special weapons like spin-mounted cannons taking half of ship hull, was in all games weak agains atack from side and long reload time, with proper balance good idea :thumb:.

    Fire ! More cannons we get = more fun we get :rof:
    [​IMG]
     
  14. Wombats Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    791
    Actually one of the primary advantages in a railgun system IS the rate of fire. Theoretically you can fire a railgun at essentially unlimited RPM because they don't have to eject a charge after each shot and they don't heat up nearly as much as a cannon.

    Of course, we can reasonably say that the RoF wouldn't be spectacular in 2077; but to say that a big naval cannon would reload faster than a railgun is completely bogus. Naval cannons are extremely slow to do anything, if you've ever seen a real one. They are necessarily very heavy and complicated. Railguns on the other hand can be made lighter and much simpler because they only need mechanisms to accelerate the round, no mechanism to reload / unload a cartridge.
     
  15. SaturaxCZ Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,718
    Curent rail gun request 5-10 minutes to recharge for next shoot + there is not problem with over heating, becose barell just disappear after few shoots :D direct change from
    metal --> gas and it dont have time exchange heat.

    For modern navy-cannons they get smaller caliber, but automatical realoading, it dasnt mean you can not do the same with big cannons specialy without gravitation.

    Last railgun experiments try us one charge of weapon to shoot multiple projectiles at same time, but then you will still need recharge and it realy dont go well yet, on othres side 60 years is a lot of time to come up with beter constructions and solutions, but for now make this balance ( lets say for game purpose ) is not so bad.
     
  16. Conradian Moderator

    Messages:
    2,596
    That is not less realistic, it is less feasible. Cannons are undoubtedly more realistic.
     
  17. Leonhardt Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,930
    You can outrun Missiles, too, yet we still have those. Though not that you would ever be able to outrun one. A Large ship isn't going to be going anywhere in a hurry, especially when there are asteroids all around it.
    Cannons would be great. People are just looking for excuses to demand Railguns, when cheaper, lower tech solutions are far more believable.
     
  18. Angry Mexicans Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    704
    A chemical cannon would work just fine.

    A railgun does not allow inherently greater accuracy. It simply offers an alternative to chemical propulsion. It has problems in terms of power input requirements and extreme barrel wear, but allows higher velocities than chemical guns.
     
  19. Angry Mexicans Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    704
    Also, you will not outrun cannon shells. Remember relative reference frames from introductory physics?
     
  20. ProfessorFalken Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    290
    Just to clarify, I was referring to it being an autocannon. For those who don't know the difference, a cannon is manually loaded one shell at a time, an autocannon has a machine that loads the next shell quickly so that you can fire rapidly (around 1 shot per second depending on the caliber).
     
  21. foxdie Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    141
    Difference isn't the speed, its the loading mechanism. Cannons are breach loaded, while auto-cannons are loaded mid-chamber, usually from a magazine or chain basically like an oversized assault/battle rifle. a Cannon thats fed by a magazine direct to the breach (like a T-90 MBT for instance) is still a canon not an autocanon. I learn't this from someone on here actually.
     
  22. ProfessorFalken Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    290
    Exactly, A quick Google search of a few different cannons calibers currently in use today show a muzzle velocity ranging from 800-1800 m/s. More than enough speed to hit a ship traveling at max speed in this game.

    And that is the relative speed from a stationary position. In space, all speed is relative. If you are traveling at 100 m/s and fire a cannon with a muzzle velocity of 800 m/s, then to a stationary observer, the shells would be traveling at 900 m/s.

    YES, I know a rail gun can fire the projectile at a higher speed. But that is not the topic of this thread. This thread it for discussing the implementation of an autocannon turret as an effective way to combat large ships with ballistics.
     
  23. Angry Mexicans Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    704
    Yup. Also note that many autocannons are also externally powered. That is, they do not use the energy of the shell firing to operate the loading of a new round of ammunition. Instead, they are often either electrically powered or chain operated, and are thus known as chain guns.

    A few exceptions are the GSh-23-6 and GSh-30-6 23mm and 30mm (respectively) cannons, which are both gas operated, drastically reducing the spin up time of the barrels.
     
  24. caineunholy Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    13
    I would like a turret mount!
    so we can put the weapons we have on it.
    like the missile pods and gun.
    this would be for the big ships.
    so you can have people shoot at more than one ship.
     
  25. Angry Mexicans Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    704
    My suggestion for turret rings would fit quite well.

    http://forums.keenswh.com/post/turret-ring-modules-6854262?pid=1282644865

    As well, I think cannons should be mounted directly to the hull, and not on prebuilt turrets.

    Small ships could have a 127mm cannon firing no more than 15 rounds per minute, and large ships could have a 406mm cannon firing 2-3 rounds per minute.

    Both would be mechanically autoloaded guns with dimensions of 1x11 blocks. As well, striking a nice balance between sensible chemical guns and future awesome railguns, they would be treated as ETC cannons.
     
  26. Leonhardt Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,930
    What would be the point of having gatling or missile turrets, then? "Just use the small ship gatling guns and rocket pods and make your own oversized and hilariously inefficient turrets!"

    No thanks. I'll take a block that doesn't have me using 10x more materials and is stupid to control.
     
  27. Angry Mexicans Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    704
    I never said to get rid of the regular turrets. Jesus but you're needlessly hostile.

    Plenty of people like making their own turrets. There's nothing wrong with that.

    Plus, custom turrets can be armored. Those prebuilt turrets would be easier to disable. That, and you don't get big guns on a tiny little mount. Big guns like that need increasingly larger turret housings.
     
  28. Leonhardt Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,930
    So of course the Cannon Turret would be larger than the gatling and missile turrets. Fail to see how this means we should be forced to build a ridiculously oversized and clunky turret.

    As I've said every time you suggest that we should only be allowed to build something out of blocks, you're totally free to build a needlessly oversized, inefficient, and expensive weapon all you want.

    But let those of us with some sense use a weapon that is much more compact, easy to use, and efficient.
     
  29. Angry Mexicans Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    704
    Actually, turrets of that scope would be well within the range that would more than justify construction with blocks. That would also make the turrets more realistic, as the specifics of the design would dictate the turret's weight, armament, angle of maximum elevation and depression, vertical and horizontal tracking rate, and everything else that matters to a turret design in combat.

    This is a game about engineering after all. Why not participate?

    Also consider that by your logic, the game should have prebuilt ships for people too sensible to use the inherently inefficient voxel mechanic.
     
  30. Leonhardt Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,930
    So why do you insist everyone be forced to build wildly inefficient weapons, rather than use simple, easy to use weaponry?

    A real engineer should appreciate something which is easier and more efficient to use, rather than the novelty of having built something far less effective himself.

    It's fine if you want to be able to build huge clunky things. But don't sit there and tell me that doing so makes you more of an engineer.

    Don't get me wrong. I'd be glad to be able to build a cannon turret myself. But don't limit it to that.
     
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.