The keel of The UCC class known as \"Hammer\" has been laid today. Most of the major features have also been laid out so now begins the long task of filling it all in and shaping the hull. I meant to take a teaser shot that didn\'t reveal too much but seems I forgot to do that.
Things to do: (My OCD requires my ships to have all of these)
Medbay (will accept M805 Ambulance)
So far I am really happy with the progress of the Hammer, I like the shape and dimensions. It was originally planned to be nearly identical in size to the Scycle Destroyer and has turned out to be slightly larger and is well within the desired parameters for her class. I\'ll probably take a break before this is finished and work more on project Mammoth, there are a lot of M.A.M.s I have yet to build.
Now that the shell is finished I\'ll show off the light carrier I\'ve been working on, codename \"Hammer\"
It was supposed to be similar in size to the Sycle but got scaled up as I built it, it\'s still comperable in size though and I am happy with the results.
The Hammer has four landing pads on the top each capable of landing condor gunships, dropships or various other medium craft (almost but not quite big enough to handle M.A.M.s). Alternatively these ports can land two smaller craft each.
The main flight deck has docking ports for twelve Lark A3 (and similar sized craft) but the entire flight deck is lined with seven additional docking mounts for additional capacity if you are not worried about cluttering your deck. M805 ambulances can land on several of these docking ports but will get stuck if they attempt to leave out the front port.
Unlike all previous UCC ships the rear fin will contain the bridge and other important facilities. The \"wings\" still need to be outfitted with turrets and engine details added. As usual I started with main features such as the flight deck and internal \"hallway skeleton\" so that\'s all nearly finished. It will take a while to fill up the interior of the ship as it\'s mostly just a hollow shell at this point, of course most of which we be crew quarters and those do not take long. I will probably add some direct armament so pilots will have some (but quite limited, shes not a destroyer or cruiser) firepower.
Also I need to get around to finishing the Scycle refit.
Presenting The LC-14117-A1 Shortsword Heavy Gunboat
During combat trials between the UCS and a certain competitor a need for a ship to bridge the gap between the Dagger and Longsword was made apparent to us and thus the Shortsword was developed.
The Shortsword packs nearly an identical compliment of turrets as the Longsword but boasts twin STS Missile Racks instead of on board missile tubes. Additionally she is equipped with three Linear Antimatter Batteries for direct fire and features just under a 3:1 Trust to mass ratio for exceptional speed and maneuverability. The direct fire cannons in conjunction with the speed make this a deadly gunboat and even when in combat with the larger competitor she won the trials hands down.
Three Direct Fire Linear Antimatter Batteries @ 436.0 DMG
Single L6-3 AM2-4 Heavy Deck Gun @ 123.9 DMG x8
?Four L5-1 AM2-2 Heavy Turrets @ 149.7 DMG x4
?Two L1-2 Duel STS Missle Racks @ 301.1 DMG x2
?I\'m still messing around with my turret naming conventions, I\'m trying to set up an informative system that lets you know the major features of the turrets in question. The \"L#-#\" still stands for the required docking size (biggest factor for turrets) if anybody was confused about that. \"L6-3 AM2-4\" L6-3 AM(1)2(2)-4(3)
1: AM= Antimater.
2: Number of barrels.
3: Number of cannons per barrel.
No, I don\'t think you know of this \"competitor\" at all
With nothing but AI at the helm the main guns on the Shortsword really decided this battle. The turrets on the Seeker are more then a match for this gunboat but the AI kept distance between the two ships which put the seeker at the disadvantage despite being the larger more heavily armed of the two ships. Of course the Shortsword didn\'t fare without damage, but \"won\" two of the three trial runs, the other one being a draw. Damage on both ships was nearly identical on each fight too. The Shortsword VS Shortsword trial run also yielded very interesting results. I would have performed more combat trials but my sandbox only has a few schematics and my server got completely F-ed up when I tried to make the factions necessary for AI combat.
I do love the results of combat and seeing where damage is dealt and whatnot, on my server I always try to save the results in a boneyard. It will be interesting to see how fights like these fair when the AI is improved and turrets can actually target other turrets and don\'t just core drill. Also PVP combat would play out entirely differently too.
shame about how you can kill a ship by shooting one block a couple times. You almost never get to see our system redundancy at work.
And yeah, lack of hull mounted weapons is a serious drawback of Combine ships. That\'s why we rely so heavily on drones.
Anyway, 2.0s are coming, sleep in fear. And try out the Tusk. What it lacks in turrets it makes up for in ugliness
I was quite amazed at first when I realized that the Seeker was \"overheating\" and the Shortsword was still circling it\'s victim. The damage to the Seeker is not as superficial as it looks in the picture, there is in fact quite a large (2x2) hole bored through to the core. The main guns deal over 400 damage per shot which as far as I have been informed is the butter zone for cutting through hull blocks. However the missiles on the Seeker are far more powerful than my little turret mounted ones so the amount of hull damage to the Shortsword is extensive.
which is pretty much the sweet spot. One missile wont make more than a 3 by 3 hole in reinforced hull, but they mushroom out the soft giblets inside. And when you got 32 of those comin at you in a salvo it gets real ugly real quick.
Core damage aside, ive seen a seeker keep fighting with the whole front opened up, peeled back to the CIC.
Most of the time, i find them dead from a pinhole shot through the \"eye\". There\'s basically no armor there, maybe two blocks hull at most and then emptiness. Missiles that hit that area are a sure kill. It\'s always surprising to find one that\'s died to damage from the front.
Me and Tn44 where testing out your ship called the scyla ageisnt his fleet of ships it was one of the most epic fights i have ever been in (the fleet was ai) Your ship prevield! With no damage at all. But onto other news i was wondering if you could make another ship like the scylla. Its turrets preformed perfectly and its interior was hugly spacus. Or if not the Scylla the MAMMOTH I love ships please keep building :D
Today I actually just refit the Scycle with my new heavier standard turrets and replaced the missile racks with better shielded ones. Eventually I\'ll get around to cataloging my turrets so you can download them directly.
I\'m also currently building the UCC Hammer Light Carrier, there is a post about it in this thread. She\'s a long way out to being finished though as I\'ve not been in a building mood the last week or so. As for the M.A.M.M.O.T.H. I want to make a few refit versions of it as well as finish the other modules I started/planed.
I tried splitting up the missiles in my missile rack turrets but I don\'t know how I feel about it. It should be dealing twice the damage with all the other stats half as much. With a single pack the radius, speed, and reload speed are twice that of individual missiles and individual missiles deal half as much damage but also have 9 impacts. The single missile will fire twice for every shot of the 9 pack so essentially the raw damage should be 300 vs 1350 (with slower projectiles causing smaller spread)
In practice though the target ship (Seeker) was taking no missile strikes at all. I think the first volley harmlessly hits the shields, than the fight is over before the missiles are done reloading. With a single pack the missiles fire twice as fast so a second volley was actually striking the ship with it\'s shields down.
I blame the schools. With a human at the helm, the pilot would know to hold off on missiles until the shields drop. That\'s why I haven\'t bothered with missile turrets yet. But they\'re great for fleet engagements. If you get two or three ships unloading missile barrages in a fleet battle, you see some great wrecks. What\'d be really swell is if KBs worked properly. My ships were originally supposed to mount those, so that their missile batteries would be less a targeted weapon and more another defense screen. Wander too close to the ship and lose a limb. Or twelve. Hell, I have no idea what your anatomy is like. Alas, in initial tests with the Talon, we saw more Fangs die to friendly fire than enemy fighters.
The missiles on my Goshawk Heavy Fighter work fairly well, it has \"gun pods\" instead of direct fire guns. If the gunpods do their job you can fire the missile payload that the pilot controls. Other than that I like having direct fire weapons on my ships and I hate that you have to stop firing your main guns in order to target lock missiles and then those take forever to lock on which is why I favor missile turrets (plus I think they look cool). I\'ve gotten the idea of using the \"target\" option for AI to fire the missile turrets off at will using a target lock on as a command to launch but this doesn\'t let you ever target anything your not willing to unleash missiles at.
We took a look inside. Those three very large fixed guns worry us. Until the Hunter rolls out later next month (digits crossed), there is nothing in the Combine arsenal that can match its range. Nearly a thousand meters is nothing to sneeze at. However, we have found a rather elegant solution to this. We think you will appreciate it.
All my ship mainguns are designed for the 400DMG butter zone so that does leave some range concerns on the larger ships. Have you ever done combat runs agianst a VFW Nocturne HDE? The range on the four main turrets is extreamly frightening.