Which ship form is best for combat?

[F1tgal911]

Online I see pictures of:

- "Star Destroyers" (wedges) with weapons on front and sides
- "Cubes" mainly with front weapon mounts
- classic fighter crafts with front weapons

[Khan Boyzitbig of Mercia]

Any works. Wedge ships can be built around a spinal mount more effectively than the others and can bring a lot of guns to bear that the cube/fighter style cannot.

Cubes can just disregard the idea of being flanked by firing in all directions and can protect missile launchers better than a wedge can.

Fighters will typically lack staying power vs bigger foes but are handy in a fleet fight by flanking the foe.

[Ortorin]

The best shape is the smallest profile to the front that you can get away with. All shots fired will spread out a little bit, which makes a wedge shape a good tradeoff between having a narrow front and there being some space for forward-facing weapons.

The best answer is this: make your ship as narrow as possible with all the features you can fit. A shield up front with a gradual wedge-shaped build will always have the best possible defense for its shape.

The closer to a square or circle that you make your ship, the more you need to invest into shields and/or overwhelming firepower. Those shapes alone don't offer any advantages, they just give you space to add more modules.

Oh, the last good design is the inverted wedge. It takes more shields/armor up front on the flat side, but the trailing edge of the ship getting narrower means no attack from the front can directly hit the sides of the ship. Really good with side-mounted missiles.

[Draken]

The best ship form is obviously the abductor:

A big U-form ship where the inside of the U is filled with disruptors. Then just hugg the enemy ship inside the U, disable it completely and fly back to the nearest station with weapon platforms. Those can then safely destroy the disabled ship.

That was a joke.

But yeah, Khan already answered it pretty good. Each shape has it's own pros and cons. No one is better than all others in all use cases.

[WillieSea]

Square, with firepower on all 4 sides. The engines can be inside the square.

Why?

You sit and spin so one side is not taking all the damage for the entire battle.

As the side that was taking the damage goes out of the enemy firing when you spin, it can replenish shields and weapons while side 2 is active. Keep spinning for side 3 and side 4, and by the time you get back to side 1 it is refreshed with full shields and weapons and ready for combat again.

[F1tgal911]

Originally posted by WillieSea:

Square, with firepower on all 4 sides. The engines can be inside the square.

Why?

You sit and spin so one side is not taking all the damage for the entire battle.

As the side that was taking the damage goes out of the enemy firing when you spin, it can replenish shields and weapons while side 2 is active. Keep spinning for side 3 and side 4, and by the time you get back to side 1 it is refreshed with full shields and weapons and ready for combat again.

Do you switch to manual steering for this?

[Gilmore]

Originally posted by WillieSea:

Square, with firepower on all 4 sides. The engines can be inside the square.

Why?

You sit and spin so one side is not taking all the damage for the entire battle.

As the side that was taking the damage goes out of the enemy firing when you spin, it can replenish shields and weapons while side 2 is active. Keep spinning for side 3 and side 4, and by the time you get back to side 1 it is refreshed with full shields and weapons and ready for combat again.

Resistance is futile?

[Diarmuhnd]

I love speed, and red ones go faster. I recreated the ship I made in the previous latest demo, it just works so well early game.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2867024707
Once I get 2+ ships, nothing stand a chance so far.
--------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by WillieSea:

Square, with firepower on all 4 sides. The engines can be inside the square.

Why?

You sit and spin so one side is not taking all the damage for the entire battle.

As the side that was taking the damage goes out of the enemy firing when you spin, it can replenish shields and weapons while side 2 is active. Keep spinning for side 3 and side 4, and by the time you get back to side 1 it is refreshed with full shields and weapons and ready for combat again.

Hahaha. THat sounds like an awesome idea to try out. Did you post a screenshot in the ship thread or sub forum?

[Buntkreuz]

I had a concept in the demo for starting ships (smaller ones) to avoid disruptor fire on my systems so they cant disable them.
The goal was to spread weapons, so even if they shoot ones, the others continue.

I went away from placing weapons and such at the front, because they would suck up the damage especially from disruptors first, leaving me without any weapons.
So i started to place weapons further behind in ways, where its hard to hit them.
Ofcourse this has its own disadvantages, but you at least cant get disrupted easily.

I never got to properly test it in a longer game, early fights went solidly.
But generally maybe putting weapons more to the back than the front, might be a good way to go?

[WillieSea]

Originally posted by Fitgal:

Originally posted by WillieSea:

Square, with firepower on all 4 sides. The engines can be inside the square.

Why?

You sit and spin so one side is not taking all the damage for the entire battle.

As the side that was taking the damage goes out of the enemy firing when you spin, it can replenish shields and weapons while side 2 is active. Keep spinning for side 3 and side 4, and by the time you get back to side 1 it is refreshed with full shields and weapons and ready for combat again.

Do you switch to manual steering for this?

Manual steering? You can spin your ship by grabbing the 'circle arrow' icon and spinning the ship. Just like the 'four arrow' icon lets you move the ship closer, further, or change the angle of attack.

Originally posted by Diarmuhnd:

Originally posted by WillieSea:

Square, with firepower on all 4 sides. The engines can be inside the square.

Why?

You sit and spin so one side is not taking all the damage for the entire battle.

As the side that was taking the damage goes out of the enemy firing when you spin, it can replenish shields and weapons while side 2 is active. Keep spinning for side 3 and side 4, and by the time you get back to side 1 it is refreshed with full shields and weapons and ready for combat again.

Hahaha. THat sounds like an awesome idea to try out. Did you post a screenshot in the ship thread or sub forum?

No, that always worked in the classic version of the game, I have been playing the game for years. Enemy ships will do the same thing if they are a square.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2881057776

[krunjar]

Square has best endurance. And wedge provides the best single face defence. Inverted wedge is also good for protecting your goobly bits. But personally I subscribe to none of these. I'm a big fan of the 'hammerhead' design.

What is hammerhead I hear you ask? Well It's the same sort of configuration you see in starcraft's terran battlecruiser. You have a somwhat wide head structured around a forward battery and a central weapon system. 2-4 Railguns in the case of cosmoteer work very well.

Initially it doesn't seem to make sense to detach the side sponsons however this internal 'space' surrounded by other ship parts can easily house thruster dead zones. Allowing you to keep your thrusters nice and protected between the central body and the side structures.

I don't know if this is a mod. But phase thrusters are great here because of their small dead zones.

The rear of the ship is the main cargo hold. And any factories you want to use should be here too. Appart from ammo factories which obviously should be local to their weapon systems :)

The side structures make Ideal mounts for ion beams. And for side launching missles. Or even additional railguns.

This is a configuration that's highly customizable too. You can extend the side structures into long wings Which can support a devastating ion beam array, Focus more on the main gun/forward battery To emphasize alpha strike. Stuff the side of your ship with thrusters to give it excellent strafing.

Another type of ship that can work well if you fancy controlling an armada is the broadside. A ship like this should be highly manouverable and fast. As it's survival depends on NOT being in the enemies main firing arc. A broadside ship needs to be able to bring it's side to bear on an enemies unprotected flanks. But they can be ridiculously cost effective in that role.

The bar ships mentioned above are a kind of broadside. But i don't rate that design. Too many reactors too close. You should stick to zero energy guns on a broadside. Because a long thin ship like that with dotted reactors .. One bad rail gun barrage could chain detonate the entire ship.

[Netaris]

Originally posted by WillieSea:

Square, with firepower on all 4 sides. The engines can be inside the square.

Why?

You sit and spin so one side is not taking all the damage for the entire battle.

As the side that was taking the damage goes out of the enemy firing when you spin, it can replenish shields and weapons while side 2 is active. Keep spinning for side 3 and side 4, and by the time you get back to side 1 it is refreshed with full shields and weapons and ready for combat again.

I had an idea like that, I'll be happy to share it when it gonna be advanced enough, but I wanted more of a "round" shape, if possible. Anyway. I believe in that design too. :)

[CursedPh4nt0m]

Since I'm not quite sure how serious the suggestion of a spinning square was:
You'll always have the disadvantage in terms of effective firepower. A simple wall with the same budget as your spinning ship would probably have about the same amount of guns but all of them shooting you at once whereas you're using a maximum of about half of your weapons at any given time.
So it's nice as a joke design, it does help against flanking too, but in the end it's definitely not cost-effective.

Now onto effective designs (especially against the AI).
While the shape is important, the role of a ship (which usually requires a certain shape) is much more relevant to it's actual performance. Established roles/classes are the following:
1. Railgun, missile or mine kites (or a combination of those); ships that focus on long range weaponry and extremely high backwards thrust allowing them to shoot at the enemy while permanently staying out of their range. You'd usually use a rectangle design for those as weapon requirements and diagonal thrust make 'diags' and more spherical builds impractical.
2. Missile barges; massive blocks of armor up front and rows of missile launchers safely packed behind them make for extremely resilent ships with immense firepower. You'd usually want elongated ractangles for this class, but diagonal designs of such shape are possible too.
3. Rail barges / railfans; rows of railguns embedded behind a frontal block of armor make for capable long-range snipers that still fare extremely well even if the enemy manages to get close enough to return fire. Just remember that focused fire is kinda tricky with railguns, which lead to the development of the fanning tactic explained in one of Saris's guides.
4. Swarms / flankers; relatively small and nimble ships designed to fly around an enemy ship and attack lesser protected areas. Having a larger 'tank' to draw enemy fire is advised, but the main downside of this design is the enormous amount of micromanaging required to use each ship effectively.

That'd be the most effective designs coming to mind rn (ranked in order of how easy it is to use them effectively), but if you wanted 'the best' ship (there actually isn't such a thing) you'd be better off asking someone that is active in the competetive scene.

[WillieSea]

The question was NOT about being "cost effective", it was about the best combat design.

This design has been proven for years in the classic version, in which combat is exactly the same.

The only thing 'better' is a 4 armed missile monster that I made once.

[Targa]

Currently I'm using a main ship to take the brunt of the enemy firepower. It has an outer layer of Structure blocks, which weight less than armor, allow lasers/disruptors/point defense to fire through them, and soak up damage. Behind that I have woven armor, with a shield about halfway through the armor. It's cheaper to repair with steel than to rely solely (or mostly) on a shield for defense.

I captured 2 small enemy ships, one with cannons and one with lasers. They have a lot of thrusters for their mass, and very little armor. This makes them fast flankers. I use a wedge formation initially, then have the 2 flankers swing around to the sides or behind the enemy ship(s) and attack the vulnerable points. I've adjusted their combat default distances to keep them farther away from the enemy than the main ship. So far neither has gotten any aggro.

[CursedPh4nt0m]

Originally posted by WillieSea:

The question was NOT about being "cost effective", it was about the best combat design.

This design has been proven for years in the classic version, in which combat is exactly the same.

The only thing 'better' is a 4 armed missile monster that I made once.

Fight any of the first 3 design types I've mentioned then. Spinners worked because they mitigated railgun firing delay, but your spinning ship actually does considerably less damage than any ship with the same amount of guns at the front and consequentially takes more during the engagement as well (disregarding shield regen, which still is somewhat of a weak argument).
And we do have to consider cost effective design since the enemy should normally be around the same cost and consequently have roughly similar firepower.