I may have been misled regarding the target prio claim I made. I'm testing it more right now and there doesn't seem to be proof behind what I was told. I'll update on this in the next Ragnarok video.
So, multiple things to note: Target prioritization just selects which vehicle you shoot at, which means the settings shown will result in your ship just shooting the enemy with the most weapon systems on it but not targeting the weapons specifically. If you want to target specific blocks you will need to change the settings in the Aimpoint selection AI card. (Where you want to use "target clusters of blocks" for basically all your battleships) Next up: ERA is a lot more powerful than you think: Yes, it's single-use but armor is single-use in the same sense. Also, ERA stops any chemical APS shell, even an APHE shell with over 100k rail draw that could usually melt through 25+ layers of metal beams. This means the only way to get through ERA with APS in one shot is by using pure kinetic shells which are unlikely to destroy a critical system when hitting such a large ship. (And even against a pure kinetic railgun ERA will reduce its kinetic damage more than a single metal beam) Why is this so important? Against a very big ship, it's exceedingly unlikely to hit the same spot twice, which means the difference of your armor withstanding 1 or 2 shots is your ship getting potentially crippled at the start of the fight vs very late into the fight. As for the rubber and heavy armor dynamic: Lets say you coat your AI in heavy armor and then wrap rubber around the heavy armor. Now, assume an APEMP shell hits this box. It's very likely to break the fragile rubber block on the outside but gets stopped by the heavy armor of the inner box, which means the EMP blast will be released into the heavy armor box with the AI inside. Due to the rubber cage, the EMP blast is trapped in this box with the heavy armor serving as a conductor straight into the AI compartment. This is why you want the rubber layer on the inside with heavy armor on the outside: It will cause the EMP blast to start on the heavy armor and then it can't get to the AI due to the inner rubber barrier.
Ive tested the target prio. It works. It also picks from objects, not vehicles. ERA is generally inferior to just using more blocks in armor in every test I’ve done. No exceptions have ever arisen. Also, APEMP is laughably bad and armoring against it is a moot point EDIT; I know see the APEMP statement was regarding something else. TH-cam studio is bad for replies.
@@Brenzo44 Damn, answered in 4 minutes. You're really good with your reply times. As for the things discussed: Well, I will test the target prioritization trick to see if it works. After all, nothing in the target prioritization description makes a note of this, but FtD is often weird like that. As for your ERA tests: build a 500mm 8m Autoloader railgun, and give it a 16-component shell with 8 HE warheads, 7 AP warheads, and an AP Nose. Juice it up with 100k rail draw. It will shred through 25 blocks of metal beams like it's nothing and cause a decently powerful explosion. A single ERA block invalidates this shell completely. Now one might wonder if there's any point worrying about such a ridiculous shell, and there is reason to worry about it: If you build a capital ship around 2m materials and you had to find a way to kill it, building a ship with a lot of efficient engines and a slow firing but terrifyingly powerful APHE or APFRAG gun is a good bet. (Again, pure kinetics are a lot more unreliable) You could try to instead defend against this shell with LAMS, but seeing how it goes over 1200 m/s and has over 26k hp that's going to cost way more than a single ERA layer. (A single ERA layer costs as much a 2 metal layers, so it's way cheaper than 25m of metal or a giga lams)
I've tested it and the AI does in fact look for objects instead of vehicles. Therefore, a turret with sufficiently high FP and filtering for FP will take prio over the main vehicle object. Obviously ERA is good in that one extant case. But against literally anything else? Not so good. Building armor to counter one thing and then spamming that counter isn't a great bet in 99% of cases. You addressed this, yes. But it's literally not worth it. ERA spam induces lag, and the amount of times you're going to see such a shell in a campaign is zero. If you're trying to win tournaments, sure, maybe you account for extant cases. But I would rather (EDIT: teach people to use) armor that is strong in EVERY metric instead of one metric. That's the reason I don't include ERA in my ships. I also think SABOT is the best shell in the game, anyway.
@@Brenzo44 The thing is: You armor against it because it's more dangerous than other weapons. Sure, it's nice if a citadel armor can survive 40 instead of 20 pure HE rounds, but if it can only withstand 1 APHE round vs 2 APHE rounds of the enemy, then you won't really care about the HE rounds, because the chance of an enemy hitting you 20 times in the same spot with an APS system that isn't a sandblaster is next to none. And if it does happen, it will be so late that the fight will already be over. This is generally the principle behind armor: you want to delay an attack reducing your combat effectiveness for as long as possible. So if you have 10 potential threats you face, having an armor that survives (on average) 5 minutes against 9 threats and 10 seconds against 1 threat is worse than an armor that survives 3 minutes against all 10 threats. Of course, you won't see a shell this scary in the campaign (unless I forgot some specific craft) but the campaign isn't hard anymore when you optimize a 2 million mats battleship anyways. Also, 4 blocks of ERA are 10 materials, so double the cost of a 4m beam. Also in terms of lag, I haven't found ERA to contribute much - which makes sense because, in terms of block count, 1 ERA layer is 4 layers of metal beams. So a 12-block thick armor with one ERA layer in it is 12-1+4=15 layers of block count equivalent of pure metal beams. That's 25% more block count than using 12 layers of metal beams. This isn't a lot considering armor bulk is just one of the multiple factors making a build laggy. (And the thicker your armor already is, the less that 1 layer of ERA will contribute percentually to that lag) If you want to, there's a guy called BungalowBill on TH-cam (the guy who made the BBS 5th season) who made a video called "Is ERA fine?" in which he even argues it being too powerful because it completely shuts down one of the best ways to kill large battleI finished EDIT: Finished testing the target prioritization thing: I built a floating platform that had a single turret on it and a block of armor on the other side of the deck, it also had an enemy simulator on it configured to be 10 seconds of enemy simulation. Then, I had another platform with good detection exactly 1km away with a highly accurate gun that shot once every 6 seconds. I had the weapon controller, aimpoint selection and target prioritization all on vanilla settings (not changed since I put them down) and let the AI shoot at the target platform twice every time I turned the enemy simulator on. I then repaired the platform. I tested for 50 shots. Then I recorded which ones shot at the turret and which ones shot at something else. I then changed the target prioritization to the one in the video and repeated the test with another 50 shots.(I also made sure it was positioned exactly the same as the previous test) This is the result for vanilla settings:(X means it shot at the turret, and O means it shot at something else on the platform, the number right of each row is the total amount of shots aimed at the turret among the 10 shots for that row) XX OX XO XO OO 5 OO XO OX OO XO 2 XO XO OO XO XX 5 XO XO XO XO XO 5 XX XO OO XO OX 5 Total: 22 out of 50 shots aimed at the turret This is the result with target prioritization as in the video: OX OX XO OO XX 5 XO XO OO OO XO 3 XO XO XX XO XO 6 XX OX XO XX OO 6 OO OO XO XX XO 4 Total: 24 out of 50 shots aimed at the turret This tiny difference is statistically insignificant, especially since I tried to be more generous with near misses of the turret (i.e. the shot destroyed blocks just below the turret) for the modified target prioritization than I was for the vanilla settings, so I conclude it doesn't increase the chance to shoot at weapon systems. If you think my testing methodology was flawed in a way I didn't account for, please let me know.
So I should armor against PAC pierce because its deadlier than other weapons, and alpha strike lasers because they're deadlier than other weapons, and SABOT spam because it's deadlier than other weapons...My whole point is this: I'm trying to teach general practices. ERA is a bad general practice and I'm sure most people besides that guy would agree. Every person I've asked in every discord seems to agree. The issue with ERA is that people tend to spam it when they first learn that it's "good" and run up block count and lag. I can barely handle the Tslang loaded in with it's block count. I simply believe that for almost every other purpose you should teach people to make armor without it.
@@Brenzo44 Oh dear, please do good sir. I am also struggling to build a good hull... So far the only "trick" I can implement is to build ships with some offset block, and they still looks super meh... I really want to learn how to build those smooth lines, tropedo bulges, huge "nose" in the bow, and build a ship that does not has a dreadful-looking flat-bottom...
okay so counterpoint to triple barrel tetris ok so it may be harder and may be less volume efficient if you want it symmetric but 3 barrels looks cooler than 2 or 4 barrels, and what is ship game without embracing less optimal designs for the sake of creativity
Submissions still open to send in a ship? Watched till the end. The next Monday for anyone else wondering. These ship breakdowns are pretty helpful, cause you can also learn form others mistakes, not only your own!
Oy! Taking my thumbnail ideas I see! Lol. Of course I’m just kidding, I like the video. But I must ask, what microphone do you use? I’ve tried two different microphones now and they don’t seem to get a nice quality such as yours.
@@Brenzo44 interesting, I’ve tried a blue yeti. While it had good sound, when I get louder it has a tendency to get crackly and staticy which annoys me. If you know a way to prevent that I would love to know
When you say next Monday, do you mean tomorrow or the week after that? I was hoping to submit something but it's nowhere near up to date for the current version of the game!
I don't think that's how target prioritization cards work. I believe that it just tells the AI what craft to fire at and not specific blocks. I believe that is what the aim point selection card does.
Could i submit a ship worked on by me and about 4 other people once i finish the insides and propulsion? She aint perfect of complete, but she takes down the Stronghold, Redeemer and Tyr like a champ.
I…suppose so? My main thing is its hard to give you advice for others peoples stuff, right? But if you like, convey it to the others then I dont see why you shouldn’t
As in a design meant for a CC? Yeah. I accept anything, if you have some sort of qualifications it has to meet just write about it and ill talk around it
45:54 sabots are more effective again'st wedges by a whole mile than any kinetic damage apart from hollowpoint thump and are weaker to chemical damage: frag and HE mostly
I may have been misled regarding the target prio claim I made. I'm testing it more right now and there doesn't seem to be proof behind what I was told. I'll update on this in the next Ragnarok video.
So, multiple things to note:
Target prioritization just selects which vehicle you shoot at, which means the settings shown will result in your ship just shooting the enemy with the most weapon systems on it but not targeting the weapons specifically. If you want to target specific blocks you will need to change the settings in the Aimpoint selection AI card. (Where you want to use "target clusters of blocks" for basically all your battleships)
Next up: ERA is a lot more powerful than you think: Yes, it's single-use but armor is single-use in the same sense. Also, ERA stops any chemical APS shell, even an APHE shell with over 100k rail draw that could usually melt through 25+ layers of metal beams. This means the only way to get through ERA with APS in one shot is by using pure kinetic shells which are unlikely to destroy a critical system when hitting such a large ship. (And even against a pure kinetic railgun ERA will reduce its kinetic damage more than a single metal beam) Why is this so important? Against a very big ship, it's exceedingly unlikely to hit the same spot twice, which means the difference of your armor withstanding 1 or 2 shots is your ship getting potentially crippled at the start of the fight vs very late into the fight.
As for the rubber and heavy armor dynamic: Lets say you coat your AI in heavy armor and then wrap rubber around the heavy armor. Now, assume an APEMP shell hits this box. It's very likely to break the fragile rubber block on the outside but gets stopped by the heavy armor of the inner box, which means the EMP blast will be released into the heavy armor box with the AI inside. Due to the rubber cage, the EMP blast is trapped in this box with the heavy armor serving as a conductor straight into the AI compartment. This is why you want the rubber layer on the inside with heavy armor on the outside: It will cause the EMP blast to start on the heavy armor and then it can't get to the AI due to the inner rubber barrier.
Ive tested the target prio. It works. It also picks from objects, not vehicles. ERA is generally inferior to just using more blocks in armor in every test I’ve done. No exceptions have ever arisen. Also, APEMP is laughably bad and armoring against it is a moot point EDIT; I know see the APEMP statement was regarding something else. TH-cam studio is bad for replies.
@@Brenzo44 Damn, answered in 4 minutes. You're really good with your reply times. As for the things discussed:
Well, I will test the target prioritization trick to see if it works. After all, nothing in the target prioritization description makes a note of this, but FtD is often weird like that.
As for your ERA tests: build a 500mm 8m Autoloader railgun, and give it a 16-component shell with 8 HE warheads, 7 AP warheads, and an AP Nose. Juice it up with 100k rail draw. It will shred through 25 blocks of metal beams like it's nothing and cause a decently powerful explosion. A single ERA block invalidates this shell completely.
Now one might wonder if there's any point worrying about such a ridiculous shell, and there is reason to worry about it: If you build a capital ship around 2m materials and you had to find a way to kill it, building a ship with a lot of efficient engines and a slow firing but terrifyingly powerful APHE or APFRAG gun is a good bet. (Again, pure kinetics are a lot more unreliable) You could try to instead defend against this shell with LAMS, but seeing how it goes over 1200 m/s and has over 26k hp that's going to cost way more than a single ERA layer. (A single ERA layer costs as much a 2 metal layers, so it's way cheaper than 25m of metal or a giga lams)
I've tested it and the AI does in fact look for objects instead of vehicles. Therefore, a turret with sufficiently high FP and filtering for FP will take prio over the main vehicle object.
Obviously ERA is good in that one extant case. But against literally anything else? Not so good. Building armor to counter one thing and then spamming that counter isn't a great bet in 99% of cases. You addressed this, yes. But it's literally not worth it. ERA spam induces lag, and the amount of times you're going to see such a shell in a campaign is zero. If you're trying to win tournaments, sure, maybe you account for extant cases. But I would rather (EDIT: teach people to use) armor that is strong in EVERY metric instead of one metric. That's the reason I don't include ERA in my ships.
I also think SABOT is the best shell in the game, anyway.
@@Brenzo44 The thing is: You armor against it because it's more dangerous than other weapons. Sure, it's nice if a citadel armor can survive 40 instead of 20 pure HE rounds, but if it can only withstand 1 APHE round vs 2 APHE rounds of the enemy, then you won't really care about the HE rounds, because the chance of an enemy hitting you 20 times in the same spot with an APS system that isn't a sandblaster is next to none. And if it does happen, it will be so late that the fight will already be over.
This is generally the principle behind armor: you want to delay an attack reducing your combat effectiveness for as long as possible. So if you have 10 potential threats you face, having an armor that survives (on average) 5 minutes against 9 threats and 10 seconds against 1 threat is worse than an armor that survives 3 minutes against all 10 threats. Of course, you won't see a shell this scary in the campaign (unless I forgot some specific craft) but the campaign isn't hard anymore when you optimize a 2 million mats battleship anyways.
Also, 4 blocks of ERA are 10 materials, so double the cost of a 4m beam. Also in terms of lag, I haven't found ERA to contribute much - which makes sense because, in terms of block count, 1 ERA layer is 4 layers of metal beams. So a 12-block thick armor with one ERA layer in it is 12-1+4=15 layers of block count equivalent of pure metal beams. That's 25% more block count than using 12 layers of metal beams. This isn't a lot considering armor bulk is just one of the multiple factors making a build laggy. (And the thicker your armor already is, the less that 1 layer of ERA will contribute percentually to that lag)
If you want to, there's a guy called BungalowBill on TH-cam (the guy who made the BBS 5th season) who made a video called "Is ERA fine?" in which he even argues it being too powerful because it completely shuts down one of the best ways to kill large battleI finished
EDIT: Finished testing the target prioritization thing: I built a floating platform that had a single turret on it and a block of armor on the other side of the deck, it also had an enemy simulator on it configured to be 10 seconds of enemy simulation. Then, I had another platform with good detection exactly 1km away with a highly accurate gun that shot once every 6 seconds. I had the weapon controller, aimpoint selection and target prioritization all on vanilla settings (not changed since I put them down) and let the AI shoot at the target platform twice every time I turned the enemy simulator on. I then repaired the platform. I tested for 50 shots. Then I recorded which ones shot at the turret and which ones shot at something else. I then changed the target prioritization to the one in the video and repeated the test with another 50 shots.(I also made sure it was positioned exactly the same as the previous test)
This is the result for vanilla settings:(X means it shot at the turret, and O means it shot at something else on the platform, the number right of each row is the total amount of shots aimed at the turret among the 10 shots for that row)
XX OX XO XO OO 5
OO XO OX OO XO 2
XO XO OO XO XX 5
XO XO XO XO XO 5
XX XO OO XO OX 5
Total: 22 out of 50 shots aimed at the turret
This is the result with target prioritization as in the video:
OX OX XO OO XX 5
XO XO OO OO XO 3
XO XO XX XO XO 6
XX OX XO XX OO 6
OO OO XO XX XO 4
Total: 24 out of 50 shots aimed at the turret
This tiny difference is statistically insignificant, especially since I tried to be more generous with near misses of the turret (i.e. the shot destroyed blocks just below the turret) for the modified target prioritization than I was for the vanilla settings, so I conclude it doesn't increase the chance to shoot at weapon systems.
If you think my testing methodology was flawed in a way I didn't account for, please let me know.
So I should armor against PAC pierce because its deadlier than other weapons, and alpha strike lasers because they're deadlier than other weapons, and SABOT spam because it's deadlier than other weapons...My whole point is this: I'm trying to teach general practices. ERA is a bad general practice and I'm sure most people besides that guy would agree. Every person I've asked in every discord seems to agree. The issue with ERA is that people tend to spam it when they first learn that it's "good" and run up block count and lag. I can barely handle the Tslang loaded in with it's block count. I simply believe that for almost every other purpose you should teach people to make armor without it.
Im always so jealous of people who can make such good looking ships…
Maybe i will make a hull video one day…
Me to. But I think a good ship is beater then that.
Well, I built my first good looking hull after ~500 hours of trying so it'll come to you with time for sure!
@@SmallWader I’ve been playing this game for 900 hours and still can’t build a good looking hull.
@@Brenzo44 Oh dear, please do good sir. I am also struggling to build a good hull... So far the only "trick" I can implement is to build ships with some offset block, and they still looks super meh... I really want to learn how to build those smooth lines, tropedo bulges, huge "nose" in the bow, and build a ship that does not has a dreadful-looking flat-bottom...
okay so counterpoint to triple barrel tetris
ok so it may be harder and may be less volume efficient if you want it symmetric
but 3 barrels looks cooler than 2 or 4 barrels, and what is ship game without embracing less optimal designs for the sake of creativity
Submissions still open to send in a ship?
Watched till the end. The next Monday for anyone else wondering.
These ship breakdowns are pretty helpful, cause you can also learn form others mistakes, not only your own!
Next monday
This helps me when I'm building my own stuff.
Damn, this ship looks cool
Nice review
I'll try to make it to the funni stream but I suspect family stuff is going to be at the same time.
Sorry for adding to the roast, but dear god my 5M ship's internals look like a 5-star hotel compared to this thing.
I'd guess that the HE component of the shell is for visual effect.
Oy! Taking my thumbnail ideas I see! Lol. Of course I’m just kidding, I like the video. But I must ask, what microphone do you use? I’ve tried two different microphones now and they don’t seem to get a nice quality such as yours.
In this video I had the mic on a hyperx cloud II headset, I've switched to a blue yeti since.
@@Brenzo44 interesting, I’ve tried a blue yeti. While it had good sound, when I get louder it has a tendency to get crackly and staticy which annoys me. If you know a way to prevent that I would love to know
when’s the next ragnarok video and love the content dude
When you say next Monday, do you mean tomorrow or the week after that? I was hoping to submit something but it's nowhere near up to date for the current version of the game!
Tomorrow, I meant "as in the very next monday to occur"
@@Brenzo44 ah, fair enough!
I don't think that's how target prioritization cards work. I believe that it just tells the AI what craft to fire at and not specific blocks. I believe that is what the aim point selection card does.
Ive been told otherwise by a KOTL
Ayo if i send you a blueprint will you evaluate it?its not finished but i will send it this week
Just send it in the channel, I can't review everything that's sent to me though so I do streams where I review anything people send me.
Could i submit a ship worked on by me and about 4 other people once i finish the insides and propulsion? She aint perfect of complete, but she takes down the Stronghold, Redeemer and Tyr like a champ.
I…suppose so? My main thing is its hard to give you advice for others peoples stuff, right? But if you like, convey it to the others then I dont see why you shouldn’t
@@Brenzo44 Fair 'nuff. I'll see about submitting once i finally finish the beastie.
did you record the vod? twitch doesn't have the video and I would like to see it :)
Could you do this again I have a ship to send
Do you accept upcoming custom campaign designs?
As in a design meant for a CC? Yeah. I accept anything, if you have some sort of qualifications it has to meet just write about it and ill talk around it
What in gods name did you do the turret armor
45:54 sabots are more effective again'st wedges by a whole mile than any kinetic damage apart from hollowpoint thump and are weaker to chemical damage: frag and HE mostly
Frag gets reduce damage from angles which means wedges do fine against it. (99% sure at least)
@@scorpion563 I mean when frags explode in between the wedges reducing the angle of how wedges normally reduce damage by angle