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.

CVN Abyssus, warhead damage testing

Discussion in 'Community Creations' started by Ihmemies, Dec 19, 2013.

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

    Messages:
    26
    I suppose the damage is circular, so the further away from the hull the warhead explodes, the less damage it does. Some kind of ablative screens which take the hit might be a good idea. Also hitting all kinds of obstructions like turrets, engine pods etc. significantly reduced the damage.

    Small warheads did not do much damage to a carrier. Mainly small dents, no penetrations:

    [​IMG]

    Larger warheads, on the other hand, penetrated easily 3 layers of armor:
    [​IMG]

    Hitting turrets, engine pods or other reinforced parts didn't hurt as much:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    One hit nearly got to the command center. Must.. add... more... armor:

    [​IMG]

    ->

    [​IMG]

    A hit to reactor area took out five reactors:

    [​IMG]

    A couple of more shots:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Solved the ventilation problems:

    [​IMG]

    The performance of the ship did not take any major losses. Still combat-ready despite multiple hard hits. Perhaps even the handling improved thanks to reduced mass :)

    Final shots:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  2. Skeloton Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,069
    Looking worse for wear there :)

    You've given me inspiration to test my Battlecruiser, new carrier and Battleship, I know for a fact my frigates wont survive a couple of hits from large warheads, they're more mobile to compensate :)
     
  3. Xeplion Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    12
    It looks like light armor is the most vulnerable block in the game. It is good idea to armor your ship with catwalk)
     
  4. Ihmemies Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    26
    Now now, after watcing the patch trailer I thought the warheads would simply obliterate my ship. I was pleasantly surprised the damage levels weren't that bad after all :)
     
  5. freshmango55 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    444
    That won't be the case in the final game, you can count on it.
     
  6. Ericius11 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    463
    Looking at one or two of the shots, I'm fairly convinced they had some explosives inside the target ship so the boom would be much more grand. Even so... my other projects are going to have to be put on hold until I can sort out a reasonable defense against this monster. I certainly wasn't expecting this for an update.
     
  7. Skeloton Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,069
    Well the 4 layers of armour on my Ravana and Bastion didn't hold up as well I hoped but my Knight in the rear sections did extremely well. The forward sections are light on armour(2-3 layers) but the rear is mostly covered in 5-8 layers. The hangar had about 5 holes that I couldn't fit through though the hangar isn't a pressurized area, the reactor room had a major breach but the reactors seem undamaged. The main corridors weren't breached by single warheads either.

    Is that ship of yours on the workshop? I want to test my PKK on it.
     
  8. Ihmemies Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    26
    Until today I thought 2-3 blocks was lots of armor. My carrier sits already at 46 000 tons with 3 layers of armor. Time to add at least two more to better protect the hangar, bridge & reactors. Moving the gyros elsewhere would already give two more levels for the bridge.
     
  9. GDFKingTigerTank Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    264
    I hate to break it to you but at this point simply modifying your current designs ain't gonna cut it.

    1. You need heavy armor as opposed to six layers of light armor (that also just had it's HP reduced in the last update) - you'll have to either wait for it to be officially implemented or use a mod to unlock it.

    2. Six straight layers of armor is the wrong solution anyway. Do some research on ablative shielding and kinetic blast deflection techniques.

    3. Can you stop a railgun shot with your ship? More than likely no. That requires an entirely different defense method which you have to incorporate into your base design either contained in the hull or inside the armor layer.

    4. Until we know exactly how powerful the ingame gatlin gun and missile launchers are (and also how hard they are to construct and keep supplied with ammo) Your placement of said defenses will very likely not be sufficient or optimal (or possibly even workable - unless inside your hull you're linking everything up via conveyor as you go. Most people are not)

    I highly recommend that anyone who intends to take pvp combat in this game "seriously" with their ship go have a read of a series of books by Sean MacUisdin- Europa Rising and Jupiter Rising (The Columbus Protocols Series). It translates well into a guide on successful ship construction/combat in this game since we are playing with newtonian physics here.
     
  10. Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    38
    I'd imagine something as slat might come in handy, but it might not look great.
     
  11. Skeloton Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,069
    I use Fractal armour. I have a suspicion that despite the gaps created by the armour its still treated like solid block armour.
     
  12. GDFKingTigerTank Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    264
    Even so Skeloton, your fractal armor has other properties that make it situationally better than a straight block layer and I think in a certain manner could be augmented to make it at least somewhat more effective against these warheads. In other words, you're still at least a step ahead of the pack conceptually.

    So far I haven't seen any "deep penetration" warhead designs shared... But I suspect Admiral Yuki, Lttwinkie, Advanced Avionics Corp, etc. will probably have those worked out within a week at most - if not already. At which point you might as well expect that wherever the missile has a good hit, 90% chance it's going to make it through and into the systems behind your armor. And probably they won't share them until they're mainstream - not that I blame them at all. I don't share my designs because I want whatever faction I eventually end up with to have an exclusive advantage for as long as possible and they do the same.

    Now due to block resistance/hp apparently not being balanced yet, there are some other armor systems out there that take advantage of the imbalance that will work against deep penetration weapons. Whether that will remain the case long enough for those designs to be effective in multiplayer remains to be seen.
     
  13. jadkansas Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    1
    Let's not forget the ships that will carry said bombs. They're going to be double edged swords, so to speak. I plan on firing down anything on a ship that looks like a torpedo tube. One lucky shot and you could blow a bomber up from the inside.
     
  14. Skeloton Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,069
    Ignore the pod on the left, the two on the right are my breach pods, the left of the two is more economical but reaches max speed slower than the right one. The right one reaches 104m/s in under 10seconds and has on two occasions penetrated 4 layers of fractal armour, though one of those occasions the pod itself ended up exploding like a warhead. I'll stick a war head or two in and see if I get anything nice :)
    [​IMG]
     
  15. Slade Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    47
    With the current warhead implementation it might work better to have say 2 layers of armor then a dead space, the armor held out from your inner hull by the pylons would it not?
     
  16. GeneralApathy Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    273
    You're right in respect to the latter.
     
  17. Ihmemies Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    26
    That sounds spergy as hell, dude, it's just a video game. I was simply throwing a few warheads to a "not 1337 pvp r3ady" boat :)
     
  18. GDFKingTigerTank Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    264
    I figured as much, and then the counter development simply depends on how closely certain people have been paying attention to certain threads and then connecting the dots... In other words, likely already prototype tested and undergoing refinement.

    This game is quite the innovation flywheel. I like the competition.
     
  19. GDFKingTigerTank Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    264
    You'll have to forgive me, I don't speek "leet". You see, engineering is a science. Science requires the use of complex terms and ideas. The clear communication of complex terms and ideas requires a format that people can easily understand.

    I'm terribly sorry that "enumerated bullet points" is a format that you consider "spergy" but I haven't the time or inclination to translate it further for you.

    Furthermore, if it's not a "pvp ready boat" then why are you wasting time to test it like it is? Don't get me wrong, it's an informative and telling picture you're painting regarding the danger these warheads can pose. But if you're planning on playing in a pvp context then every ship is a pvp ready ship. You also describe it as a "carrier" which by it's contextual definition designates it as a military vessel. You did not specify it as container carrier or a passenger carrier or a mining carrier. You could also have easily avoided such confusion through the term "pleasure yacht" if it has absolutley no military application as a vessel at all.

    Which brings me to a very interesting question - if this is not intended as a "military vessel", why are you intending to waste time to modify it defensively in reaction to this weapon or even add five or six layers of armor on it at all? Is it that you think that armor will save you long enough from a random attack for a friendly "warship" to come running to your defense to save you?
     
  20. Ekolu1986 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    3
    You're a douchebag. Take your English 100 vocabulary and your narcissistic attitude and shove it up your arse. No one is impressed.
     
  21. Stiletto Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    381
    Some srs bsns going on here ^
     
  22. GDFKingTigerTank Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    264
    Mmm, your first post on the Space Engineers forums... Wow, I would have hoped for your sake that you had something more impressive to contribute to the community but I'm flattered none the less that you took the time on my account. And you registered today too JUST to reply to me?

    Nevermind, don't bother answering. I've long since accomplished everything meaningful I meant to contribute to this discussion. See you later alligator.

    Thanks Skeloton and Gen. Apathy. Informative discussion. We'll talk again I'm sure [​IMG]
     
  23. Skeloton Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,069
    Yeah, but i dont know when i politely say that you do indeed come across as narcissistic, abit elitist too.
    Just a forewarning i have an aversion to arrogance. Its one of the main reasons i wont join AAC.
     
  24. GDFKingTigerTank Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    264
    And that's a polite and fair criticism.

    I really did post here just to provide a helpful critque to the thread maker regarding his "modifications" to fix the damage issue... I see so many people here and on the workshops designing ships as if this is going to be star wars or star trek and it is not... I'd rather that when multiplayer is released that pvp is not completely one sided in favor of a few factions that have vastly superior designs and systems. A leg up for being organized and putting their heads together, sure, but not completely outclassed. And that is why I have not joined a faction yet and do not share my designs.

    Are they better? I hope so but I don't know. But if they are do I want them copied or reverse engineered and used against me or anyone else? Hell no.
     
  25. Skeloton Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,069
    I'll most likely be only doing PvE/Coop, im a bit out of my comfort zone with non-fps pvp.
    Think there are already pirate vessel entries in the game data.
    I think majority of the creations are people having fun, the only time i can see some proper shipbuilding when everything reaches its optimal balance.
     
  26. CptTwinkie Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,458
    Several responses here.

    First, the current warhead implementation is very unstable. Not on my ships!
    Second, they don't penetrate well so spaced armor should work.
    Third, I did two test runs with them attached to torpedoes. They blew up the torpedoes on impact, causing less damage than the torp would have alone.
    Fourth, the large warheads have control panels so they will probably be able to be armed/disarmed in the future.
    Fifth, yuki won't be playing for a while and I have 7 designs I'm working on right now. You may have two weeks before we figure out how to kill you with these. On the other hand Carrion has been blowing stuff up for a couple of days...
    Sixth, if I've shared this much, what am I not sharing? ;)
     
  27. Spaceballs Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    32
    Everyone talks like they know what Space Engineers 1.0 will be like. Nobody does...period.

    The optimal ship design right now? Armored cubes...
    Cubes with many layers of armor that encase a smaller ship that has spinning whips or some nonsense. It's a big concern I have for this game In terms of multiplayer pvp and I'll be making a separate topic soon to address this fear I have in more detail, when I have time.

    GDFKingTigerTank, You have a point about many layers of light armor versus heavy armor; it's the main reason I wont do any large scale or "PVP builds" right now, why bother this early into development. Your tone on the other hand will only put people off to opinion whether you're right or wrong, and the condescension simply does not help this community or the development of this amazing game.

    The community here is small enough as it is without you scaring off the few people here who can complete builds, so that you can inflate your ego.
     
  28. Ekolu1986 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    3
    A whole lot of nothing. Just like your original posts.

    I read the forums to get new build ideas from builders, read about tests done on game mechanics, and keep up to date on updates; all when I'm not at home. Someone who is neutral, at the very least, is not contributing negatively.

    There's nothing special about your implied connection to scientific legacy here.

    You don't need to know Gauss or Faraday for this game. You don't need Einstein or Bohr. You don't need Feynman diagrams to periodic tables. Stop acting like you do. I don't know why I had to even point this out...but...

    I'll be there when stupidity rears his head.

    Like Batman.
     
  29. Ihmemies Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    26
    Relax, everyone :) I was simply a bit surprised about the seriousness in KingTiger's response. For me, Space Engineers is a enjoyable pastime, a game which I plan to spend some time on, but not seriously trying to get some technological design advantage over other players in a pvp scenario. Different people approach games in various ways, and I appreciate when someone has the time and resources to really invest in one game.
     
  30. Ekolu1986 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    3
    I actually liked what you were saying, up to that post I first quoted.

    Anyway, good work on the tests using a ship.

    Can't wait to see small ship bombers with those things. Might try my hand at one.
     
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.