It's impossible to make good figther weapons

[sayerulz]

A big reason for this was missiles: they can sink a large ship pretty much just as easily as they can sink a small ship, and unlike guns the most powerful missiles can be launched even from relatively small ships. So there just wasn't a lot of point using large ships anymore.

This isn't entirely true, a 16 inch shell used on most WWII battleships actually contained more explosives (if not better explosives) than most modern anti-ship missiles, and certainly had vastly greater penetration ability. But that's besides the point.

I think that a lot of trouble sometimes stems from different ideas of how big a "fighter" is. An X-wing is 12 meters long. That's small by real life standards, and far to small to be useful in starmade. A homeworld fighter-class ship, on the other hand, can be as long as 30 meters, putting it within the range of effective vessels in starmade. The biggest thing on has to consider is that in starmade, the smallest any part of the ship can ever be is 1 cubic meter. That means that a tiny ship is going to have a lot of hull compared to systems (or just be butt-ugly).

There is a minimum size at which things work, but if you work within those restrictions, you can have fighters that do adequate damage and look decent. Now, mobility is another issue entirely.....

 

[Jojomo]

This isn't entirely true, a 16 inch shell used on most WWII battleships actually contained more explosives (if not better explosives) than most modern anti-ship missiles, and certainly had vastly greater penetration ability. But that's besides the point.

Yes it is beside the point: I didn't say a missile was as powerful as a large gun.
I said even a small ship can carry and fire enough missiles to sink the largest ship, effectively making large ships pointless (or at least relatively very cost-ineffective).

 

[Panpiper]

I said even a small ship can carry and fire enough missiles to sink the largest ship, effectively making large ships pointless (or at least relatively very cost-ineffective).

This is not entirely accurate. A 'fleet' of small ships can carry enough missiles to defeat the largest ship, but not a small ship on it's own. This is not a trivial detail. If your opponent is flying around a five million block ship, you cannot defeat him with a one hundred thousand block ship, regardless of your build. You could defeat him with a large fleet of such ships, but the kicker is that you cannot fly such a large fleet. There is no mechanism in game currently that will allow you to effectively engage their 500K titan with a fleet of twenty or more such smaller, 10K mass ships, nor even a few larger ones. For all practical purposes currently in game, we are still flying single ships. (Carriers with tiny drones are insufficiently powerful to do the job.)

If you are god's gift to ship building, you could take on a ship that out masses you two to one. If your opponent is especially inept, you might even be able to get away with four or five to one, but that is about it. At a certain point, no amount of ship building or combat skill is enough to overwhelm their shield regeneration. Size will win at some point.

Large ships would be largely pointless in the face of functional fleets. If you could fly your flagship and have the rest of the fleet jump with you and engage targets with you, then you would be correct; a fleet of smaller ships will defeat a single larger ship every time. Such capability however does not yet exist in the game. You can make fleets, but you cannot really use them for anything except guarding a place in space, and currently that only works when you are online, as the fleet will forget it's orders the instant you log off. You most certainly cannot attack with fleets, unless you have a lot of players operating together to fly their individual ships.

 

[sayerulz]

Yes it is beside the point: I didn't say a missile was as powerful as a large gun.
I said even a small ship can carry and fire enough missiles to sink the largest ship, effectively making large ships pointless (or at least relatively very cost-ineffective).

Since this thread is a bit pointless at this point, I'll keep derailing.

In my opinion, big gun battleships are still ultimately more cost effective, for two important reasons:

1) Shells are WAY cheaper than missiles.

2) It's cheaper to repair a big ship than replace a little one. If two glass-cannon missile destroyers engage each other, then in all probability they will both die due to the fact that they can both destroy each other in one hit. But a massive battleship, fully equipped with CIWS, is far more likely to survive a salvo of missiles, while a destroyer opponent would be sunk by a single shell or missile.

 

[Jojomo]

This is not entirely accurate.

I was still talking about real life naval fleets, not SM
[doublepost=1484989016,1484988965][/doublepost]

Since this thread is a bit pointless at this point, I'll keep derailing.

In my opinion, big gun battleships are still ultimately more cost effective, for two important reasons:

Modern navies appear to disagree with you.

 

[AtraUnam]

Modern navies live in a world of 1 ship being able to 1 hit any other ship, thats why the united states keeps its supercarriers surrounded by numerous destroyers and cruisers covered in various types of anti-missile system. Firepower has vastly outstripped armor.

 

[Gasboy]

Since this thread is a bit pointless at this point, I'll keep derailing.

In my opinion, big gun battleships are still ultimately more cost effective, for two important reasons:

1) Shells are WAY cheaper than missiles.

2) It's cheaper to repair a big ship than replace a little one. If two glass-cannon missile destroyers engage each other, then in all probability they will both die due to the fact that they can both destroy each other in one hit. But a massive battleship, fully equipped with CIWS, is far more likely to survive a salvo of missiles, while a destroyer opponent would be sunk by a single shell or missile.

1) One Exocet will do far more damage from a far greater distance than 16in shells. Shells might be cheaper, but missiles are far more cost effective.

2) That destroyer will have CIWS too, perhaps smaller in size, but it will have it none-the-less. It's cheaper to build a new destroyer, as that battleship will spend months, possibly years, laid up. A single missile hit is devastating, even to large ships. Back in the battleship's heyday, battleships frequently spent months in drydock after battles. Having a destroyer screen was incredibly important.

But to completely settle the issue, battleships gave way to carriers. Because quite simply 16in guns were not as powerful a projection of power as 96 aircraft are. The same goes for StarMade: carriers can be far more powerful for the reach out and fuck you up capabilities they have. About 40% of a ship's mass in fighters is enough to sink that ship.

Of course, fleet commands and abilities need a bit more improvement.

In a 1v1, you want a bigger ship. If the other guy brought a swarm, you want that as well, or you be ded.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Currently, there is no way to make effective "fighters" in the traditional sense (FA-18 sized). That's why, in StarMade, the term "fighter" has been expanded to include gunboats in excess of 40 meters in length. Shield regen alone can permanently tank a ship from anything in this size range.

Spoiler

...unless you bring a fuck-ton of them.

But for that to work effectively, we need better fleet control. It's the only thing that will settle this debate once and for all.

 

[Az14el]

Tried making it fightery looking since we're bringing up real life fighters, and dimensionally pretty small. K not a perfect f-16 tactical space penis but ive been up for like 30 hours before i started it, didnt even go crazy on exposed systems (like you really should be doing at this size because that pittance of armor you could potentially carry aint stopping shit but your acceleration rate).

Primary weapon is a single output 100 block/1000 dps cannon-cannon-punch which does 150 damage per shot to unarmored blocks (due to effect), this will kill ~2-5 systems blocks or 1 armor buffed hull block per round at 10 per second. The two turrets are both 24 block/12.5k per hit missile-beam-punch with 40% beam support, not "damage efficient" missile size, but still proven effective against other small fast ships that the cannons can't manage to score repeat hits on, which is most small/fast ships :DDD, if you want a pure smolships dogfighter then beams & missiles are your go to, cannons are amazing and just the best and wow amaazing, but only if they can hit repeatedly.

won't be killing any death stars with tactical plot device missiles or shrugging off capital ship fire with armor/shields powered by the pilots importance to the story (you'd be disappointed anyway, I'm the only protagonist here), but can kill both shields & blocks at a perfectly acceptable rate for its size, no fancy tricks or even anything above average, just a standard gunship type with 2 turrets.

personally? fukdat ill take a frigate, this range is for the drones. But its always nice to have an appropriate level of force for all your would be victi- attackers. Often find myself sitting at some puny homebase thinking I should have brought my 500 mass instead just so i don't feel like I'm seal clubbing, and even then...

 

[sayerulz]

1) One Exocet will do far more damage from a far greater distance than 16in shells. Shells might be cheaper, but missiles are far more cost effective.

2) That destroyer will have CIWS too, perhaps smaller in size, but it will have it none-the-less. It's cheaper to build a new destroyer, as that battleship will spend months, possibly years, laid up. A single missile hit is devastating, even to large ships. Back in the battleship's heyday, battleships frequently spent months in drydock after battles. Having a destroyer screen was incredibly important.

But to completely settle the issue, battleships gave way to carriers. Because quite simply 16in guns were not as powerful a projection of power as 96 aircraft are. The same goes for StarMade: carriers can be far more powerful for the reach out and fuck you up capabilities they have. About 40% of a ship's mass in fighters is enough to sink that ship.

Of course, fleet commands and abilities need a bit more improvement.

In a 1v1, you want a bigger ship. If the other guy brought a swarm, you want that as well, or you be ded.

A shell or number of shells with a given destructive power will ALWAYS be MUCH cheaper than an equivalent missile. I would think that that would be obvious. Shells require no guidance system, and where a cruise missile is propelled by a fairly complex and expensive liquid fueled rocket, a shells propulsion consists of nothing more than a few dirt-cheap bags of cordite or similar explosive. Without recoil issues or a need for a turret, missiles have a higher upper limit on how big they can practically be, but a WWII battleship would commonly carry nine or more main guns. Missiles only win at very long ranges. A battleships size means it can also mount pretty much every missile defense system in existence, greatly reducing the odds of a hit.

A battleship can spend months, or in cases of very severe damage, years in drydock, but how long do you think it takes to build a whole new destroyer? A battleships massive armored bulk and large number of internal compartments mean, as I said before, that one can probably survive multiple missile hits. A modern destroyer, on the other hand, with their paper-thin armor and large stores of explosive missiles, would be very doubtful to survive even a few 6 inch shells from a battleships secondaries. A 16 inch shell from WWII would obliterate one, to say nothing of a shell using more modern explosives and potentially larger callibers (the Yamato mounted the largest guns ever put on a warship, at 18 inches.)

When engaging multiple enemies, a battleships multiple turrets mean that they can fire 4 or more independently aimed salvo's at once, each of which can easily destroy a modern destroyer.

Modern militaries have a missile-mania primarily because, in most countries, they are best friends with weapons manufacturers, who LOVE missiles, supersonic aircraft, and stealth planes, despite their often dubious effectiveness, precisely BECAUSE they are expensive.

As a result, we have efforts to get rid of the practical and economical A-10, which is somehow supposed to be replaced with the super expensive and underperforming F-35, despite the fact that the F-35 is totally incapable of any sort of CAS.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

A shell or number of shells with a given destructive power will ALWAYS be MUCH cheaper than an equivalent missile. I would think that that would be obvious. Shells require no guidance system, and where a cruise missile is propelled by a fairly complex and expensive liquid fueled rocket, a shells propulsion consists of nothing more than a few dirt-cheap bags of cordite or similar explosive. Without recoil issues or a need for a turret, missiles have a higher upper limit on how big they can practically be, but a WWII battleship would commonly carry nine or more main guns. Missiles only win at very long ranges. A battleships size means it can also mount pretty much every missile defense system in existence, greatly reducing the odds of a hit.

This is an "apples to oranges" argument if I ever saw one. Battleships are no longer used because modern carriers offer a farther projection of force by using aircraft. They can be fitted with the same anti-missile/anti aircraft weapons as battleships; while offering similar, if not superior firepower to a battleship and at greater ranges.

Also, Cannon shells aren't quite as easy to hit with as you make them out to be. They are affected by wind and gravity and require a direct hit unless the target is on land, while a missile's trajectory can be corrected in mid-flight.

A battleship can spend months, or in cases of very severe damage, years in drydock, but how long do you think it takes to build a whole new destroyer? A battleships massive armored bulk and large number of internal compartments mean, as I said before, that one can probably survive multiple missile hits. A modern destroyer, on the other hand, with their paper-thin armor and large stores of explosive missiles, would be very doubtful to survive even a few 6 inch shells from a battleships secondaries. A 16 inch shell from WWII would obliterate one, to say nothing of a shell using more modern explosives and potentially larger callibers (the Yamato mounted the largest guns ever put on a warship, at 18 inches.)

Forget about armor; if you take a direct hit from a large caliber shell or missile to the bridge, radar mast or engines, your ship is out of the fight. ...which brings up a good point about shot placement. Cannons and missiles aren't insta-kill death rays that vaporize enemy targets. Read up on the U.S.S. Stark; a U.S. naval frigate that was hit by 2 Iraqi Exocet missiles in the late 1980s. U.S.S. Stark made it back to port under her own power.

When engaging multiple enemies, a battleships multiple turrets mean that they can fire 4 or more independently aimed salvo's at once, each of which can easily destroy a modern destroyer.

Sorry to burst your bubble but your battleship would be too slow to reach a destroyer before being hit with enough missiles to knock it out of commission. Those 16" guns only have a 24+/- mile range while an Exocet can hit you from 43–112 miles away. A Tomahawk can hit past 600 miles.

Modern militaries have a missile-mania primarily because, in most countries, they are best friends with weapons manufacturers, who LOVE missiles, supersonic aircraft, and stealth planes, despite their often dubious effectiveness, precisely BECAUSE they are expensive.

As a result, we have efforts to get rid of the practical and economical A-10, which is somehow supposed to be replaced with the super expensive and underperforming F-35, despite the fact that the F-35 is totally incapable of any sort of CAS.

I can't argue with this. The truth is, defense contractors have their hands in the money pot and there's no getting them out. On the other hand, the range, effectiveness and efficiency of missiles is undeniable.

Personally, I think the A-10 is one of the most ingenious CAS aircraft ever designed.

Seriously; it's a maneuverable, flying 30mm auto cannon with wings bolted onto it to hold it's "accessories".

Spoiler

Hardpoints: 11 (8× under-wing and 3× under-fuselage pylon stations) with a capacity of 16,000 lb (7,260 kg) and provisions to carry combinations of

• Rockets:
  • 4× LAU-61/LAU-68 rocket pods (each with 19× / 7× Hydra 70 mm/APKWS[185] rockets, respectively)
  • 4× LAU-5003 rocket pods (each with 19× CRV7 70 mm rockets)
  • 6× LAU-10 rocket pods (each with 4× 127 mm (5.0 in) Zuni rockets)
• Missiles:
  • 2× AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles for self-defense
  • 6× AGM-65 Maverick air-to-surface missiles

• Bombs:
  • Mark 80 series of unguided iron bombs or
  • Mk 77 incendiary bombs or
  • BLU-1, BLU-27/B Rockeye II, Mk20, BL755[186] and CBU-52/58/71/87/89/97 cluster bombs or
  • Paveway series of Laser-guided bombs or
  • Joint Direct Attack Munition (A-10C)[187] or
  • Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser (A-10C)
• Other:
  • SUU-42A/A Flares/Infrared decoys and chaff dispenser pod or
  • AN/ALQ-131 or AN/ALQ-184 ECM pods or
  • Lockheed Martin Sniper XR or LITENING targeting pods (A-10C) or
  • 2× 600 US gal (2,300 L) Sargent Fletcher drop tanks for increased range/loitering time.

Meanwhile, the F-35 was defeated in a training exercise by the 'ancient' F-16 Fighting Falcon.

 

[sayerulz]

The closing range is the weak point in my argument, to be sure. At that point, it all hinges on CIWS being able to defend the ship effectively enough for it to close with the enemy. While I don't know a enough about current or near-future anti-missile weapons (much of the information regarding which is no doubt classified) to say for sure, the prospects don't seem very good.

I still maintain, however, that battleships have a cost VS damage caused advantage over carriers and destroyers, and definitely have them beat when attacking land targets that are near a coastline or large river (going upriver is of course only something you would do if you are certain that there are going to be no effective attacks on the battleship, in which case, what the hell are you doing shelling someone who can't fight back?)

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Coastline targets... Aren't you forgetting something?

Spoiler

24 miles... That's how close you need to get to your target to hit it with the big guns.

If you want to win the fight, always use the right tool for the job. There is no one-size fits all craft in war.

Also, shelling people who can't fight back is the American way...

 

[Brokengauge]

Well, if you dontbwant your targets to shoot back, pick targets that CAN'T shoot back.

While missiles and aircraft have superseded the big guns of the last century, in a way we're bringing that kind of weapon back: the railgun in the new overpriced, underperforming and constantly broken destroyer, the zumwalt. USS Zumwalt - Wikipedia
*Edit*
Just double checked, and I'm wrong about the railgun. They're considering installing it, but right now it has a different, super expensive main gun on it. Jeez guys, can you PLEASE stop spending so much money? Please? Just a little?*end Edit*


Reason being, for within its range it's cost effective, and you don't have to worry about munitions explosions in the case of getting hit.

Instead you just have to worry about your fission reactor overheating lol.

Still though, thinking that a ww2 era 16" gun has a place in a modern navy's arsenal isn't paying attention. We kept the Iowa's in service until the 90's when we finally decommissioned them. We weren't using them to the extent we needed them. Everything they did in the modern era we could have easily done with a smaller, cheaper vessel.

Don't get me wrong, the big battle barges are really something special. Battle ships are awesome. Hell when I got to walk around the Uss Texas I fell in love with it. But those ships aren't useful anymore. These days you have to hit hard AND fast, and the level of firepower we deal with now, not even the venerable Iowa's could tank.

Hell the yamato was brought down by aircraft. The bismark was crippled by antique bi-planes, and every ship that sunk at pearl harbor was sunk by air craft.

My point is, war is always changing (no matter what Ron Pearlman says) and you have to adapt to how it's done now, and anticipate how it'll be done tomorrow.

Fighters in starmade aren't at their apex yet. But they'll get there. The design considerations are there now, we just need ship ai that does more than sit still and alpha strike everything it's got...

 

[Kelpaz]

The term fighter can be very deceptive because it usually refers to jets.

In Starmade's terms though I made the decision to re brand them into "Support Wings" and those are built at a reasonable scale, were the game mechanics work properly.
I once saw a post about making cockpits around the core and it inspired me to scale the ships differently.

Here's an example of how large they have to be. That's a "Zippy"
It uses a large beam/damage pulse array split between to computers to zap shields away, it's a favorite of mine.

For the pirates though I have this nasty gunship that will shoot missiles all day because I gave it 24 missile launchers with separate computers combined with ion cannons, a small wing of those can obliterate cruisers.


So to build effective fighters rethink the scale they are built at, specialize their weapons and they will be more efficient.

 

[Nickizzy]

There's also the fact that missiles have much greater capability to hit the radar or ammo or bridge, while a shell just blows up and hopes it hits something.

One thing militaries really need to figure out are PD turrets.

Laser PD turrets. HE warhead? Boom.

Or shields. Star Trek-style force-field armour being developed by military scientists

 

[kingreol]

Wasn't it blood and steel where speed has been the Best weapon. :O anyways 2v1 frigate + fighter I'd wager that would be a hard match to face off.. fighter pilots in starmade have some talent and iv seen some things..

 

[Brokengauge]

There's also the fact that missiles have much greater capability to hit the radar or ammo or bridge, while a shell just blows up and hopes it hits something.

One thing militaries really need to figure out are PD turrets.

Laser PD turrets. HE warhead? Boom.

Or shields. Star Trek-style force-field armour being developed by military scientists

I'm just gonna leave this here lol Close-in weapon system - Wikipedia

 

[Nickizzy]

I'm just gonna leave this here lol Close-in weapon system - Wikipedia

Oh. Well it still says:

Laser based CIWS systems are being researched

They'd get much better results that way because of longer range with precision, and the fact that if powerful enough the vaporized sections could act as propellants, easier aerodynamic molding, and potential warhead detonation options.

 

[Brokengauge]

Oh. Well it still says:

They'd get much better results that way because of longer range with precision, and the fact that if powerful enough the vaporized sections could act as propellants, easier aerodynamic molding, and potential warhead detonation options.

No argument here! Lol