Great topic would be about how player's on Official KEEN server's that only work with conversional weapons are now at a major disadvantage. Here is a teaser of a new long ranged smart tracking cluster bomb 100% Vanilla ;) th-cam.com/video/_uxrxUZQios/w-d-xo.html
Bro check your sound levels on your videos. Make sure they're filling the decibal bar but not clipping at your maximums, your shits probably 40% too low.
The ability to use the custom turret controller to make drones. I don't know how it works, but I have seen a design on YT where the creator didn't post a tutorial, and that could be super useful
Learned this the hard way yesterday when I was experimenting with atmospheric corvette designs. One which had 2 turrets, a decent weight, and light armor around vitals. In all my wisdom I forgot to cover the entirety of the cargo container, a few lucky dings from a pirate ship I was trying to shoot down and boom almost the entire back half of my ship, gone.
It's quite the ... experience... Especially when it chains, because they're that split second where only the one thing explodes, and then suddenly the rest of the ship goes with it.
Yea, I don't have the game. I'm going to get it sometime, this latest update looks fun, really really fun. Just curious what if you put the ammo in it own compartment like irl. Will the explosion be less than your whole ship, just a thought I had.
6:33 If memory serves, the actual reason was that the development of centralized fire control systems led to the expectation that future battleship brawls would occur outside the range of destroyer- and cruiser-calibre weaponry. Ergo; As the ship was unlikely to be hit by such weapons in the first place, there would be no need to carry armour to defend against them. The point about intermediate armour not being able to stop battleship-caliber weaponry is moot because that's not what it was there for in the first place. Lastly, there's a legit reason why removing the intermediate armour could actually *increase* the ship's survivability: fuze sensitivity. Battleship AP shell fuzes typically needed a serious jolt to start the countdown, and so a shell might pass clean through a ship without detonating if it fails to hit anything sturdy. Getting rid of the intermediate armour meant that there was one less such sturdy thing around that could trigger the fuzes of incoming shells.
there were many reasons for it. Battleships were very much a political design process. But considering, WWII showed that battleships would often be in cruisers/destroyer range and "all or nothing" was still used, as well as documents stating. The reasoning provided is correct. It isn't the only reason as stated.
@@GetBrocked I assume by "political" you mean the inter-war naval treaties? Yes, they effectively forced the use of all-or-nothing armour upon the signatories, as the weight of the intermediate armour would cut into the weight allowance for the citadel. I should have led with that. Sorry.
Kind of. All or Nothing was a natural progression in naval armour design as designers sought the most efficient layout possible, so as to both well armour a ship and maintain some semblance of mobility and speed. Guns became more powerful, and eventually it was getting to the point where a ship completely armoured would carry an absurd amount of armour in displacement. The solution, of course, was to concentrate the ship's vital components and fighting crew within a well armoured citadel that can stand up to the most powerful weapons expected, with non vital areas left unprotected as there was really no point in protecting crew and officer berths, mess halls, and other non essential areas. The crew themselves would be concentrated in the citadel. Given a certain displacement, you can fit thicker armour over the citadel than a warship protected all over. It isn't that no one expected to fight at closer ranges - destroyers by definition are supposed to get in close and ruin your day (unless you happened to be a Japanese destroyer with torpedoes out ranging some battleships). But that damage to those extremities aren't really concerning and so their armour can be used elsewhere.
@@briantien7146 While destroyers *are* (were) supposed to come close, that's only really possible to do in inclement weather or after otherwise degrading the battleship's self-protection capability. Intermediate armour around the secondary batteries thus helps the battleship protect itself against smaller vessels by keeping the secondary battery in action longer. Similarly, armouring the full length of the waterline makes the ship less likely to suffer mobility degradation from lighter (destroyer and cruiser) gunfire, which in turn reduces the risk of getting smacked with a torpedo. As such, the mess halls and galleys and crew quarters and storerooms are technically part of the ship's defensive characteristics in the sense that flooding these spaces will seriously degrade the ship's mobility. There's merit to focusing on protecting the citadel and main batteries, especially if you're working with a limit on the size of ship you can build. There's also some merit to the idea of armouring the ship enough that it can't be mobility-killed by a brief HE bombardment. A specific example would be when you know that you can't produce as many ships as a potential adversary. In this scenario, you have to focus on making sure that the ships you do build will be able to control whatever engagement they enter so as to avoid being chased down by a numerically superior opposing force. Speed (and defensive measures to prevent a reduction of said speed) take priority over firepower. On the other side, those who hold the numerical advantage can typically afford focudingnon the citadel and main batteries as the relative cost of a mobility-killed vessel is much lower (and the relative reward of inflicting a mobility-kill on the weaker navy's vessel is much higher).
I made a dreadnought carrying custom made drill pods that stick to your big ship, drills the hull while the driver and passenger can lower with the side legs. The drill bit can pop off and let players trough inside the enemy ship. It can drill trough a 10-20m hull depending on the pod size (height). These pods never lost a battle. I got my inspiration from Halo when the covenant always board ships/space station. Also had Deep Rock Galactic and Rock raiders in mind.
That cruiser is very reminiscent of a Cleveland Class cruiser. Instead of a main magazine, the Cleveland had shell rooms spread throughout the ship. It's worth noting that the US built 27 Cleveland class ships through World War 2. Every Cleveland survived and not because they were kept safe. Cleveland class light cruisers saw some of the heaviest fighting of the Pacific campaign and suffered catastrophic damage, but every ship survived.
Another thing too, your can place your hydrogen tanks directly behind your thrusters just as you put your ammo storage behind your turrets. Same idea. If the thruster goes there's no point in the tank anyway and vice versa. Conveyor severing would only affect refueling and rearming of the ship, but not the combat.
magazine racking makes sense since battleship had that issue which would kill a battleship in the past if you hit their magazines that is what killed the Hood in ww2
HMS Hood was one of a number of British ships that had a planned armour upgrade. Many of her classifications had already been upgraded. She had not. The upgrade was due to a change in gunnery tactics. Earlier in the century fire was directed at the flank of a ship. By the time of her sinking, it had changed to targeting the deck because of the thickness of the armoured belt on the flanks.
Warfare 2 removed deformation damaging blocks, they reckon that was actually a bug. In my testig its been proven gone. So unless your server is running an armour rebalance mod that needs an update i dont see why blast door is relevant beyond not needing grids. Just seems like extra chance to have a block floating loose in your ship making a bad hit worse.
Another reason to use blast door blocks is that the larger face provides enough of a gap when fronted/backed by any other block to count as a ray cast break for damage templates/calculations. SE does some funny things in the damage code, and having that small gap can change how damage/penetration is factored in-game.
4:01 The HMS Edinburgh was sailing, carrying gold from the Soviet Union and the Germans made her dead in the water and she couldn't be salvaged so the ships sailing with her shot a torpedo into her ammunition storage and scuttled her. They made it so the torpedo armed the moment it was launched. And it took decades to be able to recover the gold. It was and was split between Russia, the UK and the Divers.
Blast doors also have resistance to explosions (and thrust damage) so you can section off areas with blast doors to keep damage localized to certain areas if mags or hydrogen tanks were to explode
@@captain61games49 true, but it was the magazine getting hit that killed most of the crew. Its also why she was one of the few ships in the harbor that never returned to service
Im looking at the ship I'm building right now in survival after this video, and while I haven't even got to the turrets yet, I'm like "awwww crap." Haha I learned a lot. I've never built a large ship before so this gave me good pointers
What about localized high speed assemblers to craft ammo on demand? Can't blow up ammo that does not exist yet. Depending on server settings for assemblers that might work.
Love this sort of videos, it really educates me on how to build/design a ship that can be used for pvp. i had no idea that the mags in ships now detonates. i really prefered the 1 large cargo container brimmed with ammo. but now it seems like its a more viable option to use several small cargo containers replacing conveyers. Very good informative video.
An interesting point I've not seen many talk about publicly, KSH actually already tended to place ammo rack storage either directly next to, or within 1-3 blocks, from the turrets, with overflow racks down the keel line, or larger cargo areas in their pre-Warfare 2 update. My current heavy cruiser build is planned to actually use "reloader assembler" clusters that feed specific groups of turrets, while drawing raw resources from a more centralized supply line. This keeps the raw materials more secure, while pulling to the "remote assembly" areas, which in turn feed the decentralized/local ammo racks. Based on ammo consumption rates, the assemblers should be able to feed the turrets/racks faster than the guns can throw rounds down range. Using a queue system, I should be able to maintain a "just in time" style supply line, with a small buffer in the case something changes in the RoF of the supplied turrets.
That's a really good idea, how do you set it up? Initially I'm assuming you're using sorter blocks to prevent excess ammo from being stored somewhere else at the "back" of the system, while also having another to pull out ammo and stuff it into the turrets, if not decentralized magazines right under the turrets, correct?
@@eageraurora879 Basically yes. I built a stronghold/citadel area for a large bank of assemblers (was a bit of math to figure out how many I'd need, and what level to maintain for my production queue), so I have inert materials in small/large cargo containers near the assemblers, with ammo racks (small containers) holding the overflow/on-demand ammo. I use inventory scripts to keep the rack container loaded with just enough ammo to ensure the weapon can keep firing (basically a risk tolerance figure), even if the assemblers start to lag behind. Now I'm playing with a design that removes the racks almost entirely and prints ammo on demand. Same basic design, just a lot more assemblers, and 1 small cargo in a citadel, as a "pull" rack for the entire ship.
2-3 minutes of constant action for combat. That's good to know! I used to play SE many years ago, and I used to design with a "Five Minute Fire" rule to predict how much ammo a ship should be designed to carry. Sounds like I can stream-line that down a bit if I come back to the game.
I have designed a few battleships before the Warfare II update and the designs were mainly historical inspiration. For reference the dorsal turrets and the belly turrets are in line with each other and each ship is about 7 to 9 blocks in the draft. But one thing I did for my ammunition situation, is each set of main turret have their own main ammunition locker and each locker has about three blocks of heavy armor. With my reactors and fuel located near the center of the ship The only problem is being you would have to hand load the lockers and the manual control seats for those tourists are one heavy armor block away from the magazine.
These tip/tutorials videos are extremely helpful in my own design ideas. I will be definitely using blast door blocks to protect key areas of the ship. It's been a few years since I played, so I didn't realise hyrdo tanks and ammunition could explode. It really does make you think about ship design more than just placing blocks anywhere.
Interesting, I had not thought to use Blast door blocks as internal armor. all around i find i underuse Blast door blocks, and am always surprised by how others find unique ways to use them. and, holy heck that rain of Gatling fire.
There is an added bonus in the way SE calculates damage spread/penetration as well. 2 blast door blocks face to face (on the largest face) will leave a small gap between the blocks which counts as a "break" in the armor for damage bleed. You see this a lot as a form of compact "spaced" armor (and can see it in the larger ships in the video)
The big reason they aren't used is that blast doors are actually weaker then a normal heavy armor block. It's only advatage is it doesn't deform, but that's it
@@Cooldude-ko7ps yeah you can look up some videos comparing blast doors to heavy armor blocks. They aren't as good as people thought they were. Of course this game is moved so it does change some things. For instance their blast doors are basically the strength of light armor
This is great, thanks for doing this! There are questions being answered here I'm confident people may not even realize to ask. I am confused about the practicality of decoys now, seems like their effectiveness is tied to bring fire closer to things you'd rather want protected which seems... odd? Transverse bulkheads for the meta ;)
the decoys are weird. They seemed to be designed for a world where ships are slow moving, and turrets are pin point accurate. Which neither typically are true. Even if a decoy effectively decoys, basic turrets accuracy cone is typical the size, if not larger of a fast moving ship. We've noticed some slight effectiveness. And there's not reason not to include them. But they're not really game changers either.
I use decoys like mines I usually have a welding system to build a small battery and a decoy then just release the decoy so it pulls the fire towards it while I pick up speed and try to get away
@@GetBrocked I've seen rotating decoy setups being used as "ECM" to confuse automated turrets. The turrets try to lead their shots to where the decoy is "going", but since it's rotating around a central point its velocity vector does not match that of the ship, causing a significant percentage of shots to miss the ship entirely. This is especially useful on smaller ships.
I'm glad I watched this. Haven't done any combat in game for awhile because I'm in solo survival, but I recently added the MES mod. My main ship in my current world is a commandeered cargo ship with the large cargo containers still uncovered... and one of them storing all my ammo. Thanks for posting this. I may have dodged disaster.
those test on the half ships were flawed, a lot of the components weren't fully in the ship and were unprotected from the probably explosive shell the capital grade weapon was firing. also that hydrogen tank didnt have any green lights on it, indicating it was empty. (or they didnt render because of the distance?)
@@lucaspatrick7478 wasnt the point of these tests to show people how the ship reacts to damage and help people better design them? a bunch of the tests gave faulty information that would lead people to believe that some of the setups wont work.
@@guesswho2778 From what I got from the video is it was based on the assumption that armor had already been breeched. What matters isn't how the ship takes that incoming damage as much as when the damage triggers a detonation of the ammo/tank/etc.. So more of a theory-crafting discussion showing practical application of theory vs an introspective look of the specific ship's effectiveness (pro/cons).
I ran into this hopping in with a few of my older designs. My hit and run ship has a new vulnerability because of this and can now be one shot. It is a tiny 9 block length and hits hard but got hit by a few missiles and my storage is pretty close to my cockpit and it was all over.
I just thought of something: I think there will now be a major consideration to make space-only combat vessels, and use drop ships to transport goods to and from the surface. Why? Because hydrogen based ships might now be far too dangerous to use in combat. The fact that the fuel can explode and cause a chain reaction means that ion based ships will objectively have a durability advantage, since you don't have the added risk of fuel explosions.
@@Cyberguy42 I haven't been in SE for a while, but how hard would it be to design a ship that can use its gravity drive to go in any direction and could that be better than h2 for evasion?
if a ship is equipped with a script like isy's inventory mananger (IIM) you could very easily set up autocrafting loops that maintain a set reserve of ammo at all times, IIM can also move components throughout the ship which removes the need for conveyor sorters forcing ammo to turret mags
the issue is: fighters need H2 to be effective. So fighters are sorta just little bombs that can't really take much heat anymore. Though more testing is needed. Haven't done to much yet
@@GetBrocked Well small grid anything tends to just die under light fire from large grid weapons. Fighter design is probably best done with the assumption that durability is not possible. One thing that small grid vessels gained with Warfare 2 was weapon range beyond 800m. Small grid meta would probably revolve around long range attack fighter/bombers and interceptors armed with more close in weaponry to prevent the fighter/bombers from attacking large grid vessels. This is all without knowing how your rules work. I only just found your channel. I plan to take a look (and steal ideas for single player).
Small grid blocks have the durability of wet tissue paper. A fighter armed enough to do any real damage would be an expensive investment that would be lost in seconds and one that's well armored would be too slow to be effective. They'd have to be very cheap affairs with the expectation that the pilot isn't coming back and that's a waste of a good pilot.
@@GhostOfSnuffles I honestly think their best use is either interception and interdiction, or for delivering torpedoes in very long range hit-and-runs.
I know these designs are for PvP and are probably simplified for block cost. However I find that things that make a ship a ship actually serve a purpose in damage mitigation. Crew decks, cargo bays, other compartments, can provide a lot of blast gaps and absorbant protection against chain damage. Also Turret>conveyor>small cargo magazine would be better to isolate the the magazine from the surface.
I’ve been having my magazines under the turrets for a long time as not only since warfare 2 that ammo now blows up but it allows for that space to be used for something else or allows for a more compact vessel
yeah this is the true terror of railguns. those thing ammo rack and take out hydrogen tanks all the time... So you'll have a corvette or light destroyer rolling, firing missiles and such, its PDC's trying to shield it till it can get a good shot with its rail gun, then.. one shot severs several convayors, hits fuel tanks setting them off, and hits 2-3 ammo containers... spread about... becomes a very bad idea to have components... lined up...
have you guys considered auxiliary systems? Having smaller sets of power or fuel sources behind bulk heads may act to keep things in the fight. The other option is jelly fish mentality where if you design the ship to break away and a ai script to take charge when disconnected from the main hull it can engage the enemy while allowing the surviving pilot to adjust orientation and attack plans.
Most players in most science fiction games which involve building space ships suffer from a largely unacknowledged bias or form of short-sightedness: spaceships are not (or rather do not have to be) air craft. Nor are they naval vessels. This means that there are a whole host of geometries which are readily available to space ships which are not for atmospheric service which few players ever explore.
Yes, I tested this a lot. One layer of heavy armour completely soaks up any damage, even from a fully loaded large container (filled with ammo of course) or a fully loaded h2 tank. A couple of blocks get annihilated completely but any neighbouring systems remain unaffected.
According to the Warfare 2 update notes deformed armor no long damages adjacent systems. Whether or not this is a reality needs to be tested and proven true.
I'm probably going to regret this at some point, but with the local ammo racking issue, I recommend not using cargo containers for the local magazines, but instead conveyor sorters whitelisted to the correct ammo set to draw all - it will stay full while in use, and in the case of artillery shells on 1x inventory, will add about 70s of firing to the artillery turret's 40s internal magazine. Having nearly 2 minutes of combat time after being severed should be plenty for the local magazine, and for most designs this requires no additional complexity to the conveyor system. On 3x, it might get to be a bit much for local ammo being 18 in the turret and 30 in the sorter, and on 10x having 60 shells in the turret should be all you need locally, but this is my suggestion. Take it or leave it.
I dunno how people can build and design ships that large and still come out with usable but still awesome-looking ships. Do you guys tend to build a basic outer shell 1st then fit stuff inside or do you build the internal systems and then build a shell around that?
I wonder if on larger ships it would be worth having gun mags, and assemblers and maybe a refinery running to slowly restock throughout and inbetween fights, allowing you to store inert materials and ore, to create ammo as needed.
You can script assemblers for on demand ammo. So you only have a small amount of munitions at a time so your guns are filled but as you start using your ammo you have assemblers begin to make more to re fill it. No need to store high explosive material just the material to make it. Also if the assembler dies it doesn't explode. Assemblers also can take more damage and the upgrades for them can also soak up a lot of damage. The power draw isn't too intense depending on the set up and in testing it can keep up with demand of weapons firing at multiple ships surrounding a singular ship. Still suffers from distribution loss however. Also the only reason the last ships reactor died was because there was a direct line of damage from the hydrogen tank to the reactor where the armor is not from you cutting it in half
the issue with is is two fold. you need a conveyer system functioning. (not a giving) or you need to spam assemblers which might get you slapped by a server owner for setting said server on fire (or more likely it's plugin limited)
I see a few modified versions of JD Horx's IMDC ships there. Definitely a Cerberus Mk. III and what definitely looks like it was once a Mk. II. Structurally, these are very strong ships, although the Mk. III, in stock form, has several major vulnerabilities due to the large hydrogen tanks.
As far as I know there is only two IMDC ship. The Alysium (cerberus) CA, and the Ravager (A titan), BL Those are the only two IMDC baseline ships in the series presently.
A good implementation will be a penetration system, so heavy armour do not get destroyed by a machine gun, the armor will be pen if the projectile has the power to do so, so you can protect those vital areas with thicker armour making it impervious to proyectiles.
Cool how you use historical references to help design your ships and make them better. Certainly learned a few things. Also, which weapon mod are you using? Those guns are awesome.
What about on demand manufacturing? Have a cargo container filled with raw materials feeding an assembler with ammo on its list but turned off and then when you enter battle you switch the assembler on feeding your little magazines under your turrets
I'm working on this now actually, but it comes down to supply/demand rates, as you need to produce enough ammo fast enough for the turrets being fed from that array. On a smaller ship, this might not be practical, I'm working on a "heavy cruiser" scale though, where I have space to build out small arrays of assemblers in groupings tied to regional turret arrays. So each ship face has at least 1 or 2 assembler arrays (with speed modules) feeding a fixed percentage of that face's turrets, and maintain a small buffer of live ammo.
Hood wasn't that survivable. She didn't have the armor to survive the delay action fuzes, instead of the WW1 contact fuzes. Also idk why you're calling this magazine racking. In tanks, it's an ammo rack, but for a magazine on a ship, it'd be more proper to call a magazine detonation
What if you gave a bit more space because your turrets are targets anyways? or would that make a destroyer to big? Really to bad that slanted armor doesn't do anything in space engineers like it might in real life or does it? and explosion just doesn't care?
Where were the gyro's for those ships? For the tonnage of some of them i was kind of expecting row after row of them stuffed inside but some of them looked like they didn't have any at all?
I know this is a little bit off topic but couldn't to use decoys like chaf? Threw a bunch of them out the back of the ship so that it screws up the enemys guns?
On the last ship you spoke about (awesome ship) how fast does a ship burn through hydrogen? I saw a lot of large thrusters and only 1 tank. Do you have multiple tanks? Generators with some ice?
Have you, or your crew, ever considered throwing concept builds from other sci-fi shows like the expanse or Battlestar Galactica, seeing if they could challenge the mechanics engine of the game?
One question, where can I play this sort of space warfare in space engineers? Are there servers with ships and stuff? I bought it recently and playing survival but I dont know how you go from that to pvp space warfare.
Hmm i see a way to mimic a ammo dumping kinda system using airvents if you keep your magazines in a pressurized environment. You could resonably assume if youve lost atmo around your storage there is a armor breach and using that with the airvents actions force sort out of that magazine in a attempt to midagate further damage causing a cook off.
I tend to build reactor rooms enclosed by heavy armor. Maybe I should do that with a dedicated ammo cargo container aswell. Should hopefully prevent surrounding systems from too much damage. I know that this is not really a possibility on your PvP Server, I really like the approach you use.
My ship design approach would be as based in reality and logic as i can. for a faction fleet or wtvr---Internal decking maintenance areas and such can all be done with the internal blocks ramps and such. Modules or "rooms" engineering or reactor room or storage or wtvr can be wrapped in light armor, further dividing up areas of the ship with blast walls or blast doors especially on a capital ship. then outside that a mix of blast door blocks and heavy armor for the external shell for a relatively tough ship. I love the idea of modular ship design and adaptive design, meaning I like to have as much stuff be basically used over and over again for various ships or structures as possible without having to design a whole new thing ever time. of course some size variation and what not to allow for a proper fleet mix of ship designs. oh and yeah with this mag racking thing I would definitely be blast wall wrapping weapons bays and ammo storage whenever possible. oh and I like the expanse style ship design where they basically turn and burn, so my fleet would be mostly rear thrust, and some rcs but no real breaking thrust without rotating the ship unless the ship purpose requires it. for example a gunship should be able to move about a bit the fighter should be able to strafe around like madd, an interceptor is just 1 direction of thrust as it has one job. Proper mother ships sized vessels should have more like a navy vessels movement of fore/aft and a little in other directions. A battleship should not be moving about like a fighter, cruisers should be more maneuverable but still not maneuverable compared to destroyers, friggates or even corvettses.
As far as i know lithium batteries dont really explode as much as they just catch fire and wont stop being on fire. Fire isnt really a thing in Space Engineers and it would makes sense for it not to do much in a vaccuum.
depends on how it occurs. Li-Ion have the energy density approaching that of TNT If you can break the barrier of the battery such that the whole thing basically floods itself, you could get a boom. The difficultly lies in blowing it in such a way that it's heavily damaged, but the pieces aren't just scattered to the wind, and you just start a fire with what remains.
@@GetBrocked Perhaps when a battery is damaged enough, it could burn blocks in the surrounding area with a slowly expanding damage radius, like how a thruster can "melt" blocks, until the battery is discharged of its energy.
It wouldn't be interesting, it'd be stupid. Atmo/ions already are weak compared to hydro in thrust. One of the biggest reasons to go batteries instead of hydro is the lack of explosions.
Just build your ships with no cargo containers to save space and problem solved. (Yes I design fighters meant to be thrown into battle, blow some stuff up, then blow up, how could you tell?)
Still need some ammo and fuel storage in case your pilots are aces... Or just do drones. Hmm.. Drone bombers with heavy armor and rail/artillery guns a thing?
You have said throughout the video that one small container is not enough ammo, are you saying that you run out during the course of a single fight? It sounds like you are playing with high volume ammunition that you can't fit much of to begin with. I don't know about these modded weapons, but with the vanilla weapons a small cargo container can hold something like 150 artillery shells, and one turret will take a fair while to shoot them all. The railgun sabot and assault shells take less than half as much space as artillery shells do, so they last quite a while. You may have to evaluate whether or not those modded munitions take up too much volume for what they do.
Well, what about carrying the supplies to assemble more ammunition in the field? A couple assemblers and a couple speed mods should let you condense your explosiveness when hit.
it works, but the only issue is you need a lot of assemblers to overcome convayer issues. And most servers worth their salt will limit assemblers per grid due to the extreme lag they cause.
I built my ammo storage underneath my bridge and ended up getting kamakazied by a sprt drone and getting ammo racked and dying and it was all heavy armor
yall think british ships blowing up from ammo is dumb, but the biggest non nuclear explosion was the Halifax Harbor explosion, where a ship carrying lots of ammo caught fire... and, well, I am sure you are smart enough to figure it out.
What mods are you using to make the bullets look as good as they are? I've always wanted my battles to look exactly like this and I can never find the right mods.
I would love it if SE could implement explosion shaping/redirection. The Abrams tank has hatches to direct an ammo explosion away from the crew. Sadly it's too hard for most games to emulate it.
While it's not the same, you can use blast door blocks to protect systems from ammo rack explosions and tank detonations, this could be the difference between your ship blowing itself in half, or losing only a lower deck or two's worth of blocks in that section.
Won't lie as an outlands player this hasn't affected as bad as you think. Primarily now you'll see sorters acting as ready magazines to weapons on turrets and a still centralized cargo. If not then you have multiple crippling explosions through your ship.
![MAC/Railguns Suck [Space Engineers]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ovAiAlGGQus/mqdefault.jpg)
Any other topics you'd guys like to here? Warfare II mechanics? (no shell bouncing though)
Armor deflection and angle. And some armor schemes that we can use in order not to get one shooted.
Great topic would be about how player's on Official KEEN server's that only work with conversional weapons are now at a major disadvantage. Here is a teaser of a new long ranged smart tracking cluster bomb 100% Vanilla ;) th-cam.com/video/_uxrxUZQios/w-d-xo.html
Decoys and their placement? Have people tested that yet?
Bro check your sound levels on your videos. Make sure they're filling the decibal bar but not clipping at your maximums, your shits probably 40% too low.
The ability to use the custom turret controller to make drones. I don't know how it works, but I have seen a design on YT where the creator didn't post a tutorial, and that could be super useful
You space your machinery to reduce damage, I space mine because I'm horrible at designing ships. We are not the same.
underrated comment xD
still accidental intelligence
You are so relatable. I tried designing a small destroyer and wound up having a one person battleship.
@@scottbaase4042 yeet
@@scottbaase4042i mean, if it works... 😂
Learned this the hard way yesterday when I was experimenting with atmospheric corvette designs. One which had 2 turrets, a decent weight, and light armor around vitals. In all my wisdom I forgot to cover the entirety of the cargo container, a few lucky dings from a pirate ship I was trying to shoot down and boom almost the entire back half of my ship, gone.
It's quite the ... experience... Especially when it chains, because they're that split second where only the one thing explodes, and then suddenly the rest of the ship goes with it.
Yea, I don't have the game. I'm going to get it sometime, this latest update looks fun, really really fun. Just curious what if you put the ammo in it own compartment like irl. Will the explosion be less than your whole ship, just a thought I had.
F
I typically made it standard to layer my large reactor in 2-block layers for capital ships, while munition storage are considered on a by-case clause.
@@lmcg9904 you need to pay for most of the updates
Dlcs like warfare 1 and 2
6:33
If memory serves, the actual reason was that the development of centralized fire control systems led to the expectation that future battleship brawls would occur outside the range of destroyer- and cruiser-calibre weaponry. Ergo;
As the ship was unlikely to be hit by such weapons in the first place, there would be no need to carry armour to defend against them.
The point about intermediate armour not being able to stop battleship-caliber weaponry is moot because that's not what it was there for in the first place.
Lastly, there's a legit reason why removing the intermediate armour could actually *increase* the ship's survivability: fuze sensitivity.
Battleship AP shell fuzes typically needed a serious jolt to start the countdown, and so a shell might pass clean through a ship without detonating if it fails to hit anything sturdy. Getting rid of the intermediate armour meant that there was one less such sturdy thing around that could trigger the fuzes of incoming shells.
there were many reasons for it. Battleships were very much a political design process.
But considering, WWII showed that battleships would often be in cruisers/destroyer range and "all or nothing" was still used, as well as documents stating.
The reasoning provided is correct. It isn't the only reason as stated.
@@GetBrocked
I assume by "political" you mean the inter-war naval treaties? Yes, they effectively forced the use of all-or-nothing armour upon the signatories, as the weight of the intermediate armour would cut into the weight allowance for the citadel.
I should have led with that. Sorry.
@@gustaveliasson5395 basically dictators swinging ther dick around going oh look at me i have the best ship
Kind of. All or Nothing was a natural progression in naval armour design as designers sought the most efficient layout possible, so as to both well armour a ship and maintain some semblance of mobility and speed.
Guns became more powerful, and eventually it was getting to the point where a ship completely armoured would carry an absurd amount of armour in displacement. The solution, of course, was to concentrate the ship's vital components and fighting crew within a well armoured citadel that can stand up to the most powerful weapons expected, with non vital areas left unprotected as there was really no point in protecting crew and officer berths, mess halls, and other non essential areas. The crew themselves would be concentrated in the citadel. Given a certain displacement, you can fit thicker armour over the citadel than a warship protected all over.
It isn't that no one expected to fight at closer ranges - destroyers by definition are supposed to get in close and ruin your day (unless you happened to be a Japanese destroyer with torpedoes out ranging some battleships). But that damage to those extremities aren't really concerning and so their armour can be used elsewhere.
@@briantien7146
While destroyers *are* (were) supposed to come close, that's only really possible to do in inclement weather or after otherwise degrading the battleship's self-protection capability. Intermediate armour around the secondary batteries thus helps the battleship protect itself against smaller vessels by keeping the secondary battery in action longer.
Similarly, armouring the full length of the waterline makes the ship less likely to suffer mobility degradation from lighter (destroyer and cruiser) gunfire, which in turn reduces the risk of getting smacked with a torpedo.
As such, the mess halls and galleys and crew quarters and storerooms are technically part of the ship's defensive characteristics in the sense that flooding these spaces will seriously degrade the ship's mobility.
There's merit to focusing on protecting the citadel and main batteries, especially if you're working with a limit on the size of ship you can build.
There's also some merit to the idea of armouring the ship enough that it can't be mobility-killed by a brief HE bombardment.
A specific example would be when you know that you can't produce as many ships as a potential adversary. In this scenario, you have to focus on making sure that the ships you do build will be able to control whatever engagement they enter so as to avoid being chased down by a numerically superior opposing force. Speed (and defensive measures to prevent a reduction of said speed) take priority over firepower.
On the other side, those who hold the numerical advantage can typically afford focudingnon the citadel and main batteries as the relative cost of a mobility-killed vessel is much lower (and the relative reward of inflicting a mobility-kill on the weaker navy's vessel is much higher).
I made a dreadnought carrying custom made drill pods that stick to your big ship, drills the hull while the driver and passenger can lower with the side legs. The drill bit can pop off and let players trough inside the enemy ship. It can drill trough a 10-20m hull depending on the pod size (height). These pods never lost a battle. I got my inspiration from Halo when the covenant always board ships/space station. Also had Deep Rock Galactic and Rock raiders in mind.
Do you have this design on the Steam Workshop?
drop that bp big boy
That cruiser is very reminiscent of a Cleveland Class cruiser. Instead of a main magazine, the Cleveland had shell rooms spread throughout the ship. It's worth noting that the US built 27 Cleveland class ships through World War 2. Every Cleveland survived and not because they were kept safe. Cleveland class light cruisers saw some of the heaviest fighting of the Pacific campaign and suffered catastrophic damage, but every ship survived.
Another thing too, your can place your hydrogen tanks directly behind your thrusters just as you put your ammo storage behind your turrets. Same idea. If the thruster goes there's no point in the tank anyway and vice versa. Conveyor severing would only affect refueling and rearming of the ship, but not the combat.
magazine racking makes sense since battleship had that issue which would kill a battleship in the past if you hit their magazines that is what killed the Hood in ww2
HMS Hood was one of a number of British ships that had a planned armour upgrade. Many of her classifications had already been upgraded. She had not. The upgrade was due to a change in gunnery tactics. Earlier in the century fire was directed at the flank of a ship. By the time of her sinking, it had changed to targeting the deck because of the thickness of the armoured belt on the flanks.
Warfare 2 removed deformation damaging blocks, they reckon that was actually a bug. In my testig its been proven gone. So unless your server is running an armour rebalance mod that needs an update i dont see why blast door is relevant beyond not needing grids. Just seems like extra chance to have a block floating loose in your ship making a bad hit worse.
ah could be. A lot of the "tech" is from before Warfare II so some stuff may be indeed gone
have you tried deactivating the option that makes things like deformations not occur if the game is overloaded?
Another reason to use blast door blocks is that the larger face provides enough of a gap when fronted/backed by any other block to count as a ray cast break for damage templates/calculations. SE does some funny things in the damage code, and having that small gap can change how damage/penetration is factored in-game.
Thanks keen
@@Haladmer Yes, additionally they are more durable to collisions and in some cases.
4:01 The HMS Edinburgh was sailing, carrying gold from the Soviet Union and the Germans made her dead in the water and she couldn't be salvaged so the ships sailing with her shot a torpedo into her ammunition storage and scuttled her. They made it so the torpedo armed the moment it was launched. And it took decades to be able to recover the gold. It was and was split between Russia, the UK and the Divers.
Blast doors also have resistance to explosions (and thrust damage) so you can section off areas with blast doors to keep damage localized to certain areas if mags or hydrogen tanks were to explode
"How Not to Become the HMS Hood II"
"the Germans hate him!"
@@GetBrocked XD
Or the USS Arizona
@@Erik_Ice_Fang eh Arizona was effectively under constant attack from aircraft while Hood was one-shotted in a peer to peer gunfight.
@@captain61games49 true, but it was the magazine getting hit that killed most of the crew. Its also why she was one of the few ships in the harbor that never returned to service
Im looking at the ship I'm building right now in survival after this video, and while I haven't even got to the turrets yet, I'm like "awwww crap." Haha I learned a lot. I've never built a large ship before so this gave me good pointers
What about localized high speed assemblers to craft ammo on demand? Can't blow up ammo that does not exist yet. Depending on server settings for assemblers that might work.
it can/could. but is mega conveyer line dependent
It's also havoc on sever performance from a more realistic standpoint
@@GetBrocked Something I was wondering, have players been experimenting with merge blocks for rearm/refit at all?
I learned a lot more than I had expected when I clicked on this video.
thanks man, sorry about the audio quality issues
@@GetBrocked what issues sounds fine to me
Love this sort of videos, it really educates me on how to build/design a ship that can be used for pvp. i had no idea that the mags in ships now detonates.
i really prefered the 1 large cargo container brimmed with ammo. but now it seems like its a more viable option to use several small cargo containers replacing conveyers.
Very good informative video.
An interesting point I've not seen many talk about publicly, KSH actually already tended to place ammo rack storage either directly next to, or within 1-3 blocks, from the turrets, with overflow racks down the keel line, or larger cargo areas in their pre-Warfare 2 update.
My current heavy cruiser build is planned to actually use "reloader assembler" clusters that feed specific groups of turrets, while drawing raw resources from a more centralized supply line. This keeps the raw materials more secure, while pulling to the "remote assembly" areas, which in turn feed the decentralized/local ammo racks. Based on ammo consumption rates, the assemblers should be able to feed the turrets/racks faster than the guns can throw rounds down range.
Using a queue system, I should be able to maintain a "just in time" style supply line, with a small buffer in the case something changes in the RoF of the supplied turrets.
That's a really good idea, how do you set it up? Initially I'm assuming you're using sorter blocks to prevent excess ammo from being stored somewhere else at the "back" of the system, while also having another to pull out ammo and stuff it into the turrets, if not decentralized magazines right under the turrets, correct?
@@eageraurora879 Basically yes.
I built a stronghold/citadel area for a large bank of assemblers (was a bit of math to figure out how many I'd need, and what level to maintain for my production queue), so I have inert materials in small/large cargo containers near the assemblers, with ammo racks (small containers) holding the overflow/on-demand ammo.
I use inventory scripts to keep the rack container loaded with just enough ammo to ensure the weapon can keep firing (basically a risk tolerance figure), even if the assemblers start to lag behind.
Now I'm playing with a design that removes the racks almost entirely and prints ammo on demand. Same basic design, just a lot more assemblers, and 1 small cargo in a citadel, as a "pull" rack for the entire ship.
The other pro is conveyor redundancy. Smash through in 4 places and you have 5 independent systems still sharing to their turrets.
I have no idea what this is but I am glad youtube recommend me this.
2-3 minutes of constant action for combat. That's good to know! I used to play SE many years ago, and I used to design with a "Five Minute Fire" rule to predict how much ammo a ship should be designed to carry. Sounds like I can stream-line that down a bit if I come back to the game.
I have designed a few battleships before the Warfare II update and the designs were mainly historical inspiration. For reference the dorsal turrets and the belly turrets are in line with each other and each ship is about 7 to 9 blocks in the draft. But one thing I did for my ammunition situation, is each set of main turret have their own main ammunition locker and each locker has about three blocks of heavy armor. With my reactors and fuel located near the center of the ship The only problem is being you would have to hand load the lockers and the manual control seats for those tourists are one heavy armor block away from the magazine.
These tip/tutorials videos are extremely helpful in my own design ideas. I will be definitely using blast door blocks to protect key areas of the ship. It's been a few years since I played, so I didn't realise hyrdo tanks and ammunition could explode. It really does make you think about ship design more than just placing blocks anywhere.
glad to help
Interesting, I had not thought to use Blast door blocks as internal armor. all around i find i underuse Blast door blocks, and am always surprised by how others find unique ways to use them.
and, holy heck that rain of Gatling fire.
Yeah. It’s very useful
There is an added bonus in the way SE calculates damage spread/penetration as well. 2 blast door blocks face to face (on the largest face) will leave a small gap between the blocks which counts as a "break" in the armor for damage bleed. You see this a lot as a form of compact "spaced" armor (and can see it in the larger ships in the video)
The big reason they aren't used is that blast doors are actually weaker then a normal heavy armor block. It's only advatage is it doesn't deform, but that's it
@@irontemplar6222 huh.
@@Cooldude-ko7ps yeah you can look up some videos comparing blast doors to heavy armor blocks.
They aren't as good as people thought they were.
Of course this game is moved so it does change some things. For instance their blast doors are basically the strength of light armor
"to show you the explosive power of magazines, I cut this ship in half!"
This is great, thanks for doing this! There are questions being answered here I'm confident people may not even realize to ask. I am confused about the practicality of decoys now, seems like their effectiveness is tied to bring fire closer to things you'd rather want protected which seems... odd? Transverse bulkheads for the meta ;)
the decoys are weird.
They seemed to be designed for a world where ships are slow moving, and turrets are pin point accurate.
Which neither typically are true.
Even if a decoy effectively decoys, basic turrets accuracy cone is typical the size, if not larger of a fast moving ship.
We've noticed some slight effectiveness. And there's not reason not to include them. But they're not really game changers either.
I use decoys like mines
I usually have a welding system to build a small battery and a decoy then just release the decoy so it pulls the fire towards it while I pick up speed and try to get away
@@GetBrocked I've seen rotating decoy setups being used as "ECM" to confuse automated turrets. The turrets try to lead their shots to where the decoy is "going", but since it's rotating around a central point its velocity vector does not match that of the ship, causing a significant percentage of shots to miss the ship entirely. This is especially useful on smaller ships.
Transverse bulkheads?
@@Cooldude-ko7ps Hull tank best tank ;)
I'm glad I watched this. Haven't done any combat in game for awhile because I'm in solo survival, but I recently added the MES mod. My main ship in my current world is a commandeered cargo ship with the large cargo containers still uncovered... and one of them storing all my ammo. Thanks for posting this. I may have dodged disaster.
those test on the half ships were flawed, a lot of the components weren't fully in the ship and were unprotected from the probably explosive shell the capital grade weapon was firing.
also that hydrogen tank didnt have any green lights on it, indicating it was empty. (or they didnt render because of the distance?)
Although your not wrong, he already mentioned this every time he did so. He gave examples of what happens in combat and explained what was happening.
@@lucaspatrick7478 wasnt the point of these tests to show people how the ship reacts to damage and help people better design them?
a bunch of the tests gave faulty information that would lead people to believe that some of the setups wont work.
@@guesswho2778 From what I got from the video is it was based on the assumption that armor had already been breeched. What matters isn't how the ship takes that incoming damage as much as when the damage triggers a detonation of the ammo/tank/etc..
So more of a theory-crafting discussion showing practical application of theory vs an introspective look of the specific ship's effectiveness (pro/cons).
I ran into this hopping in with a few of my older designs. My hit and run ship has a new vulnerability because of this and can now be one shot. It is a tiny 9 block length and hits hard but got hit by a few missiles and my storage is pretty close to my cockpit and it was all over.
I just thought of something: I think there will now be a major consideration to make space-only combat vessels, and use drop ships to transport goods to and from the surface. Why? Because hydrogen based ships might now be far too dangerous to use in combat. The fact that the fuel can explode and cause a chain reaction means that ion based ships will objectively have a durability advantage, since you don't have the added risk of fuel explosions.
the issue is, hydrogen is so much better vs ion in terms of evasion that I think H2 still wins out in durability.
For purely space travel, gravity drives are definitely the best, though also quite expensive to build.
@@Cyberguy42 I haven't been in SE for a while, but how hard would it be to design a ship that can use its gravity drive to go in any direction and could that be better than h2 for evasion?
Could you use assemblers and keep ammo in inert parts so that you have the minimal amount of volatile ammo avaliable to be detonated?
if a ship is equipped with a script like isy's inventory mananger (IIM) you could very easily set up autocrafting loops that maintain a set reserve of ammo at all times, IIM can also move components throughout the ship which removes the need for conveyor sorters forcing ammo to turret mags
In theory that would work; even a few assemblers won't be able to keep up with sustained fire, however. Especially on a destroyer class ship.
@@mrpotat680 i thought was a lossible issue along with capacity as it isn't uncommon for something to weighless then the some of its parts in games
@@liamsmith882 Weight might be a slight issue but I think production speed would be the biggest bottle neck.
@@mrpotat680 i would say space is less of an issue than volume as it will take more space to meet required production
Thanks man!
Honestly you were one of the main reasons I want to do TH-cam lol
oh wow, thanks!
It seems the update has made fighters more relevant since the destruction of components has become critical during battles
the issue is: fighters need H2 to be effective. So fighters are sorta just little bombs that can't really take much heat anymore.
Though more testing is needed. Haven't done to much yet
Would probably benefit more from the all or nothing armor scheme
@@GetBrocked Well small grid anything tends to just die under light fire from large grid weapons. Fighter design is probably best done with the assumption that durability is not possible. One thing that small grid vessels gained with Warfare 2 was weapon range beyond 800m. Small grid meta would probably revolve around long range attack fighter/bombers and interceptors armed with more close in weaponry to prevent the fighter/bombers from attacking large grid vessels.
This is all without knowing how your rules work. I only just found your channel. I plan to take a look (and steal ideas for single player).
Small grid blocks have the durability of wet tissue paper. A fighter armed enough to do any real damage would be an expensive investment that would be lost in seconds and one that's well armored would be too slow to be effective.
They'd have to be very cheap affairs with the expectation that the pilot isn't coming back and that's a waste of a good pilot.
@@GhostOfSnuffles I honestly think their best use is either interception and interdiction, or for delivering torpedoes in very long range hit-and-runs.
The Jutland mention is a good one
I know these designs are for PvP and are probably simplified for block cost. However I find that things that make a ship a ship actually serve a purpose in damage mitigation. Crew decks, cargo bays, other compartments, can provide a lot of blast gaps and absorbant protection against chain damage.
Also Turret>conveyor>small cargo magazine would be better to isolate the the magazine from the surface.
From what I've heard, armor deformation damage was removed. Probably worth double-checking though.
I’ve been having my magazines under the turrets for a long time as not only since warfare 2 that ammo now blows up but it allows for that space to be used for something else or allows for a more compact vessel
yeah this is the true terror of railguns. those thing ammo rack and take out hydrogen tanks all the time... So you'll have a corvette or light destroyer rolling, firing missiles and such, its PDC's trying to shield it till it can get a good shot with its rail gun, then.. one shot severs several convayors, hits fuel tanks setting them off, and hits 2-3 ammo containers... spread about... becomes a very bad idea to have components... lined up...
have you guys considered auxiliary systems? Having smaller sets of power or fuel sources behind bulk heads may act to keep things in the fight. The other option is jelly fish mentality where if you design the ship to break away and a ai script to take charge when disconnected from the main hull it can engage the enemy while allowing the surviving pilot to adjust orientation and attack plans.
I wish I could build ships to this scale, but I always get lost in the hangar design and then get bored.
25:00 Baby Reactor is like: Yeah, I'll survive :p
Thanks for sharing your insight man. I look forward to implementing them in my own designs… if I ever get back to them
Most players in most science fiction games which involve building space ships suffer from a largely unacknowledged bias or form of short-sightedness: spaceships are not (or rather do not have to be) air craft. Nor are they naval vessels. This means that there are a whole host of geometries which are readily available to space ships which are not for atmospheric service which few players ever explore.
Now I wonder if surrounding the highly explosive stuff with heavy armor on the interior will be effective
Go with a mix of heavy and blast doors. Heavy has raw durability and blast doors mitigate splash damage
Yes, I tested this a lot. One layer of heavy armour completely soaks up any damage, even from a fully loaded large container (filled with ammo of course) or a fully loaded h2 tank. A couple of blocks get annihilated completely but any neighbouring systems remain unaffected.
According to the Warfare 2 update notes deformed armor no long damages adjacent systems. Whether or not this is a reality needs to be tested and proven true.
19:02 That's just a thruster Brock, not an eye! 🤣
When I add eyes they're much more aesthetically pleasing than that!
IT LOOKED AT ME OKAY?! IT'S AN EYE
Am i the only one to remember filling up containers with explosive components an flinging them to stations for fun?
I used containers stuffed with stone. When they pop, they leave a giant rock rattling around in the ship/station.
I too remember explosive results of popping cargo with stone
I'm probably going to regret this at some point, but with the local ammo racking issue, I recommend not using cargo containers for the local magazines, but instead conveyor sorters whitelisted to the correct ammo set to draw all - it will stay full while in use, and in the case of artillery shells on 1x inventory, will add about 70s of firing to the artillery turret's 40s internal magazine. Having nearly 2 minutes of combat time after being severed should be plenty for the local magazine, and for most designs this requires no additional complexity to the conveyor system. On 3x, it might get to be a bit much for local ammo being 18 in the turret and 30 in the sorter, and on 10x having 60 shells in the turret should be all you need locally, but this is my suggestion. Take it or leave it.
bruh we need shields at this point. yes, heavy armor helps, bet now, even the heaviest of ships can be killed in one hit from a large rail gun.
I dunno how people can build and design ships that large and still come out with usable but still awesome-looking ships. Do you guys tend to build a basic outer shell 1st then fit stuff inside or do you build the internal systems and then build a shell around that?
I wonder if on larger ships it would be worth having gun mags, and assemblers and maybe a refinery running to slowly restock throughout and inbetween fights, allowing you to store inert materials and ore, to create ammo as needed.
You can script assemblers for on demand ammo. So you only have a small amount of munitions at a time so your guns are filled but as you start using your ammo you have assemblers begin to make more to re fill it. No need to store high explosive material just the material to make it. Also if the assembler dies it doesn't explode. Assemblers also can take more damage and the upgrades for them can also soak up a lot of damage.
The power draw isn't too intense depending on the set up and in testing it can keep up with demand of weapons firing at multiple ships surrounding a singular ship.
Still suffers from distribution loss however.
Also the only reason the last ships reactor died was because there was a direct line of damage from the hydrogen tank to the reactor where the armor is not from you cutting it in half
the issue with is is two fold.
you need a conveyer system functioning. (not a giving) or you need to spam assemblers which might get you slapped by a server owner for setting said server on fire (or more likely it's plugin limited)
Lost an entire capital ship to poor ammo placement once, never again haha
wel my pre warfare 2 ships make for some awesome fireworks XD
that last shot in the end card was perticulary nice
Made myself a ship yesterday after watching this video again in creative thanks for making this video.
Missed opportunity with the description, shouldve said "audio is BROCKed", lol
have a nice day :)
I see a few modified versions of JD Horx's IMDC ships there. Definitely a Cerberus Mk. III and what definitely looks like it was once a Mk. II. Structurally, these are very strong ships, although the Mk. III, in stock form, has several major vulnerabilities due to the large hydrogen tanks.
As far as I know there is only two IMDC ship.
The Alysium (cerberus) CA, and the Ravager (A titan), BL
Those are the only two IMDC baseline ships in the series presently.
A good implementation will be a penetration system, so heavy armour do not get destroyed by a machine gun, the armor will be pen if the projectile has the power to do so, so you can protect those vital areas with thicker armour making it impervious to proyectiles.
Cool how you use historical references to help design your ships and make them better. Certainly learned a few things. Also, which weapon mod are you using? Those guns are awesome.
AWP (assault weapon pack)
@@GetBrocked Nice. Thanks.
What about on demand manufacturing? Have a cargo container filled with raw materials feeding an assembler with ammo on its list but turned off and then when you enter battle you switch the assembler on feeding your little magazines under your turrets
I'm working on this now actually, but it comes down to supply/demand rates, as you need to produce enough ammo fast enough for the turrets being fed from that array. On a smaller ship, this might not be practical, I'm working on a "heavy cruiser" scale though, where I have space to build out small arrays of assemblers in groupings tied to regional turret arrays. So each ship face has at least 1 or 2 assembler arrays (with speed modules) feeding a fixed percentage of that face's turrets, and maintain a small buffer of live ammo.
i dont play the sever but would having the magazines under the turret but having assemblers around the ship making ammo and pushing to the turrets?
Hood wasn't that survivable. She didn't have the armor to survive the delay action fuzes, instead of the WW1 contact fuzes. Also idk why you're calling this magazine racking. In tanks, it's an ammo rack, but for a magazine on a ship, it'd be more proper to call a magazine detonation
What if you gave a bit more space because your turrets are targets anyways? or would that make a destroyer to big? Really to bad that slanted armor doesn't do anything in space engineers like it might in real life or does it? and explosion just doesn't care?
Where were the gyro's for those ships? For the tonnage of some of them i was kind of expecting row after row of them stuffed inside but some of them looked like they didn't have any at all?
we use a gyro mod for exactly that reason.
@@GetBrocked Okay. That makes sense.
12:20 I’ve never played the game but instead of the decoys in the nose just put redundant systems up there
I know this is a little bit off topic but couldn't to use decoys like chaf? Threw a bunch of them out the back of the ship so that it screws up the enemys guns?
On the last ship you spoke about (awesome ship) how fast does a ship burn through hydrogen? I saw a lot of large thrusters and only 1 tank. Do you have multiple tanks? Generators with some ice?
I noticed several "Gaps" which may be further reactors or tanks
We use a x25 tank mod to save on performance. Hydrogen tanks MURDER sim speed
Have you, or your crew, ever considered throwing concept builds from other sci-fi shows like the expanse or Battlestar Galactica, seeing if they could challenge the mechanics engine of the game?
perhaps. I should probably finish the expanse.
One question, where can I play this sort of space warfare in space engineers? Are there servers with ships and stuff? I bought it recently and playing survival but I dont know how you go from that to pvp space warfare.
Hmm i see a way to mimic a ammo dumping kinda system using airvents if you keep your magazines in a pressurized environment.
You could resonably assume if youve lost atmo around your storage there is a armor breach and using that with the airvents actions force sort out of that magazine in a attempt to midagate further damage causing a cook off.
I've considered this, and I think it would super cool
I'll probably implement it on the eternity at some point
I tend to build reactor rooms enclosed by heavy armor. Maybe I should do that with a dedicated ammo cargo container aswell.
Should hopefully prevent surrounding systems from too much damage.
I know that this is not really a possibility on your PvP Server, I really like the approach you use.
Could also not place the ammo storage centrally so as to minimize how much damage is inflicted in the core areas.
Your UNSC designed ship is already better than most cannon UNSC ships because it actually has turreted cannons.
My ship design approach would be as based in reality and logic as i can. for a faction fleet or wtvr---Internal decking maintenance areas and such can all be done with the internal blocks ramps and such. Modules or "rooms" engineering or reactor room or storage or wtvr can be wrapped in light armor, further dividing up areas of the ship with blast walls or blast doors especially on a capital ship. then outside that a mix of blast door blocks and heavy armor for the external shell for a relatively tough ship. I love the idea of modular ship design and adaptive design, meaning I like to have as much stuff be basically used over and over again for various ships or structures as possible without having to design a whole new thing ever time. of course some size variation and what not to allow for a proper fleet mix of ship designs. oh and yeah with this mag racking thing I would definitely be blast wall wrapping weapons bays and ammo storage whenever possible. oh and I like the expanse style ship design where they basically turn and burn, so my fleet would be mostly rear thrust, and some rcs but no real breaking thrust without rotating the ship unless the ship purpose requires it. for example a gunship should be able to move about a bit the fighter should be able to strafe around like madd, an interceptor is just 1 direction of thrust as it has one job. Proper mother ships sized vessels should have more like a navy vessels movement of fore/aft and a little in other directions. A battleship should not be moving about like a fighter, cruisers should be more maneuverable but still not maneuverable compared to destroyers, friggates or even corvettses.
It would be interesting if batteries could be racked in a similar way, assuming space engineers uses lithium ion batteries.
As far as i know lithium batteries dont really explode as much as they just catch fire and wont stop being on fire. Fire isnt really a thing in Space Engineers and it would makes sense for it not to do much in a vaccuum.
depends on how it occurs.
Li-Ion have the energy density approaching that of TNT
If you can break the barrier of the battery such that the whole thing basically floods itself, you could get a boom.
The difficultly lies in blowing it in such a way that it's heavily damaged, but the pieces aren't just scattered to the wind, and you just start a fire with what remains.
@@GetBrocked Perhaps when a battery is damaged enough, it could burn blocks in the surrounding area with a slowly expanding damage radius, like how a thruster can "melt" blocks, until the battery is discharged of its energy.
It wouldn't be interesting, it'd be stupid. Atmo/ions already are weak compared to hydro in thrust. One of the biggest reasons to go batteries instead of hydro is the lack of explosions.
25:40 I'd imagine the fact the ship is missing the other half and the components are sticking out more damage was caused
it's just a demo. Otherwise I'd need to hit the ship many more times.
Just build your ships with no cargo containers to save space and problem solved. (Yes I design fighters meant to be thrown into battle, blow some stuff up, then blow up, how could you tell?)
Based Zerg player XD
Still need some ammo and fuel storage in case your pilots are aces... Or just do drones.
Hmm.. Drone bombers with heavy armor and rail/artillery guns a thing?
You have said throughout the video that one small container is not enough ammo, are you saying that you run out during the course of a single fight? It sounds like you are playing with high volume ammunition that you can't fit much of to begin with. I don't know about these modded weapons, but with the vanilla weapons a small cargo container can hold something like 150 artillery shells, and one turret will take a fair while to shoot them all. The railgun sabot and assault shells take less than half as much space as artillery shells do, so they last quite a while. You may have to evaluate whether or not those modded munitions take up too much volume for what they do.
Well, what about carrying the supplies to assemble more ammunition in the field? A couple assemblers and a couple speed mods should let you condense your explosiveness when hit.
it works, but the only issue is you need a lot of assemblers to overcome convayer issues.
And most servers worth their salt will limit assemblers per grid due to the extreme lag they cause.
I built my ammo storage underneath my bridge and ended up getting kamakazied by a sprt drone and getting ammo racked and dying and it was all heavy armor
Would it be a viable concept to just carry the raw materials for the ammo and then rig up a bunch of assemblers to produce it as you need it?
This is a space combat revamp for se?
A quick question, what mod is that massive battery from? I don't recognize it from the base game or any DLC.
can you time stamp it? we don't have a massive battery.
Are you referring to the jump drive?
@@GetBrocked Oh good lord yep that's the jump drive 😅 Midterms does a number on me.
@@knickett hah, I get that. Just graduated.
Good luck man
do you guys ever use torpedos with warheads on them?
yall think british ships blowing up from ammo is dumb, but the biggest non nuclear explosion was the Halifax Harbor explosion, where a ship carrying lots of ammo caught fire... and, well, I am sure you are smart enough to figure it out.
What mods are you using to make the bullets look as good as they are? I've always wanted my battles to look exactly like this and I can never find the right mods.
What's mods the server using?
Purely out of curiosity, since they are metal rods, do railgun sabots explode?
From what I've seen, the railgun rounds punch straight through the target without any extra area-of-effect damage.
it's weird though, there's usually a explosive "effect" but no explosive damage observed. Might also just be sub systems exploding.
What weapon mods are you using? Haven't seen many new weapon mods that allow manual targeting since weaponcore came out
Lack of internet and the desire for good PvE forces me into playing Empyrion over SE, but I really miss the engineering complexity and variety of SE.
I would love it if SE could implement explosion shaping/redirection.
The Abrams tank has hatches to direct an ammo explosion away from the crew. Sadly it's too hard for most games to emulate it.
While it's not the same, you can use blast door blocks to protect systems from ammo rack explosions and tank detonations, this could be the difference between your ship blowing itself in half, or losing only a lower deck or two's worth of blocks in that section.
Havent you do this vid before?
Dear Brock, can I join your server? been lonely for a long time playing SE and the RP is super exciting
see the posted video on my channel main page. It explains all you need to know
@@GetBrocked Thanks! much appreciated
Won't lie as an outlands player this hasn't affected as bad as you think. Primarily now you'll see sorters acting as ready magazines to weapons on turrets and a still centralized cargo. If not then you have multiple crippling explosions through your ship.
Stop picking on us Brits, you missed out on the Arizona! Ammo Racked!
The turrets at 0:45, what mod are they apart of?
AWP: Assault weapons pack.
Assault weapons pack
I see you are using tiered thrusters. Have you found a way to make them stop disappearing when you reload the game besides repainting them?
why do you sound exactly like my highschool history teacher lmao
:D maybe it's because I am!
... No not really.
From what mod or dlc are these encased thrusters, if i may ask?
What is grabeling ?
It would be great if your ship turrets would stop firing with target unintentionally powering down.
build ships with heavily armored citadels like naval ships and have each gun with a separate armored magazine