NationStates Jolt Archive

I just felt like making one of these threads. Perhaps other nations will follow suit.

How to kill a Klonor Capital Ship:

1) If energy weapons are in use, use singular shots of extreme power rather than many shots of small power. A single powerful shot could overload the absorbtion pads, thus completely nullifying the energy absorbtion armor. Many small shots will merely be absorbed by said armor, doing no damage to the ship and increasing its offensive and defensive capabilities (the absorbed energy can be shunted to either shields, engines, or weapons)

2) If physical weapons are in use, either use single large weapons or massive amounts of small weapons fire. Physically large weapons can not be deflected by the break away armor, thus they are only impeded by Klonor shields (which are extremely primitive and weak) and the collapsed-core molybdenum sheathing which, though strong, is meant to work in conjunction with both the break away and energy absorbtion armor. Small weapons fire can be deflected by the break away armor (its singular purpose), but if you use massive amounts (as I stated) the odds are extremely large that you will hit a spot you have already shot (meaning that the armor there will have already broken away).

3) Target the tactical sub-systems. Each ship operation has a sub-system, designed to co-ordinate and improve each operation. The sub-systems are Navigation, Weaponry, Communications, Sensors, Engines and there are more depending on each ship class (For example: Carriers have a sub-system designed specifically to track and target fighter craft). Destroy the navigation sub-system and their directional control will be much impeded, destroy the weaponry sub-system and their targeting/firing of weapons will be much impeded, destroy their communications sub-system and their communications range and quality will be severely reduced, destroy the sensor sub-system and their sensor range and definition will be much reduced, destroy the engine sub-system and their maneuverability and power will be greatly lowered. Destruction of all sub-systems shall lower the combat capability of a Capital Ship to less than 25% of its original efficiency

4) Swarm the ship. Klonor weaponry is focused along the lines of numercially small yet powerful weapons. An Orion class Destroyer only has 5 Beam Cannons (Our primary anti-capital ship weapon). While this gives it the fire power equal to almost any other encountered warship, it can't divide that power to deal with dozens of smaller ships.

Anything else you need to know?

What are your thoughts regarding torpedoes and electromagnetic rail weapons?

What do you mean by torpedoes? That's an extremely general term

Large scale nuclear weapons that are slow (Only a bit faster than your average fighter) but pack a punch. Traditional freespace torpedos basically. :)

I think most space torpedos would fall under physical damage, but they do explode... I would also like to know how torpedos effect your ships, Klonor.

Actually, large scale nuclear warheads (on the multi-gigaton size) actually do much less damage than smaller sized warheads. See, do to the almost common use of Harbinger Warheads Klonor ships are designed to defend against them. The hull and armor are designed to funnel such explosions, containing it to a small section of the ship. There is massive damage sustained, due to a multi-gigaton explosion in an extremely small space, but the ship as whole survives and and still retains most of its combat capability (see the recent "Nexus Colony Fleet Returns" RP for an example of this). Smaller warheads, on the multi-megaton range instead of gigaton, would do more damage.

BUMP

I really did expect more interest

No other comments?

how's my tactic?

Many of my ships are equipped with battering rams at the front...and at the front of each ship are exits for boarding enemy ships...

based on the ancient Roman style

Couldn't I just shoot your ships before they hit me?

Couldn't I just shoot your ships before they hit me?

it depends on the ship's speed, size, armor, and ranged weaponry...and also you need to take into consideration that we would try to disable your ships with the said methods you listed above...plus it would be difficult to take out several massive "boarding vessels" at once with that "anti-capital ship" you have since you said they only have 5 beam cannons...

Yes, 5 extremely powerful weapons, each one capable of inflicting massive damage upon enemy vessels by themselves. There's also other weapons, the Beam Cannons are just the main weapons.

Okay, say I do miss you (or you have enough ships so that I can't get them all), your ships drive in, collide with the molybdenum armor, and bounce off with a large dent in the nose. You wouldn't be damaged (since you said they have battering rams at the front) but I don't see what you'd gain.

Yes, 5 extremely powerful weapons, each one capable of inflicting massive damage upon enemy vessels by themselves. There's also other weapons, the Beam Cannons are just the main weapons.

Okay, say I do miss you (or you have enough ships so that I can't get them all), your ships drive in, collide with the molybdenum armor, and bounce off with a large dent in the nose. You wouldn't be damaged (since you said they have battering rams at the front) but I don't see what you'd gain.


the point is penetrating the hull and boarding your ships...no armor is indestructable...

So basically, you say that if I beat at your ships long enough, with a big enough hammer, it'll eventually break. Either that or sting it to death with a million bees. And here I was, expecting to get some insightful, new military doctrine to adopt - How to whip those Klonor suckers so bad that they submit to my awesome will. Guess, I'll have to go about the old fashioned way, eh?

About that damage "getting funneled" into a small space.....that just means that the energy itself is focused within that small space and thus allowed to be even more destructive..... Especially since getting that "small space" logically dictates that there is a large amount of mass surrounding it. Look up the terms "shaped charge" and "shot trap" to understand exactly why that would be a bad idea to have said design features.

But, I suppose my critisims are a moot point since my ships (when I get around to officially designing them) will be firing multi-ton, dense ass rounds at some yet-to-be-determined fraction of c. Interpret: 10 tonne uranium slugs at .1c :twisted:

If it's so simple, why hasn't anybody done it? The fact is, nobody has yet seen these glaringly obvious weaknesses. Nothing I said took any real brain power ("Shoot a lot", "have more ships", etc.) yet nobody has done it yet (No offense to any past enemies)

Regarding the large explosions being funneled, I agree with what you said. I know it gets intensefied and focused by the funneling, and I thought it was implied when I described it before (I'm sorry if it wasn't). But it's like this: Either have the bomb blow up and expand and damage the entire ship, or stay close together and vaporize a small portion of the ship. I chose the small and vaporize, since it leaves the ship still able to work (depending where it hits)

Tips for killing a Xanthalian capital ship (Excursion, Eclipse, or Apocalypse class):
-If you have an operative aboard (not likely, but who knows?):
--Have your person/people sabotage the ship's AI or EI. Any tampering with outlying systems will most likely be detected by the computer anyway, so it's best to cripple the computer itself. If you do your job well the ship will have to be controlled manually. Due to the high automation of Xanthalian ships, most complex functions will be lost and less than half of the ship's weapons can be effectively used at one time. Don't expect a free ride though; it can be hard to get past the security protocols to sabotage anything in a Xanthalian ship. Come prepared with several backup plans. As much as a simple bomb may seem like a good idea, you'll be captured immediately if you try taking anything of that nature aboard. Rigging the ship's own wepons to blow can be done, but capital ships are designed with countermeasures against this type of action which you will fist have to circumvent.
-If you have an operative in the high levels of the Ministry of the Armada and Military (again, not likely):
--Have your operative stop the Xanthalians from attacking you in the first place by throwing wrenches into the political machine. Xanthalian politics depends on people working together. When they don't it becomes bureaucratic.
-If there are no operative involved on your side:
--Pack a lunch and a lot of firepower. Xanthalian capital ships are shielded beyond belief and there's no magical way to effectively punch through. Shield disrupters and bio-based weaponry will wear them down faster than most coventional weapons. Ideally your fleet should have more small, fast ships than big, strong ships. Even with the firepower of two midsized fleets turned on it, it can take up to fifteen minutes to cut through all the shield redundancies on a Xanthalian capital ship, and in those fifteen minutes you can bet that you'll have the full brunt of tens of thousands of weapons arrays pouring out on you. If you can't dodge them, you're guaranteed to be the worse for wear afterwards. Also remember to bring a lot of ships. Unless you catch them off-guard, Xanthalian capital ships have a large escort. To survive long enough to destroy the ship is going to be your biggest problem, so upgrade those shields before you try your luck.

How would your ships fare against a Point Singularity Blaster? (patent pending)

No... just kidding.

Yes...

Torpedo information now...

Zero point energy detonations... ? How do your ships stand up to those?

I am not familiar with "Zero point energy detonations". Explanation?

PSBs... Heh. Xanthal should totally develop that as a weapon. With their long-running ability to manipulate gravity and inertia I should think they'd be capable. Well, no funding at the moment. I'm pouring the development budget into two new automated ship classes that will give a much-needed supplement to fleet defense. Mabye after they're done.

As for zero-point energy detonations... I think that I know what you're talking about, but I'll wait to hear your explanation first.

Klonor, how effective against your ships are missile barrages containing few dozen missiles with each going at a good fraction of c. and carrying a multi-hundred megaton thermo-nuclear warhead?

Or Strike Fighters (spacefighters if you will) carrying nuclear level firepower?

i have a question, why in the hell would you tell people how to beat you?

nd i don't need any of those tips, i had no intention of going to war with you, you're not a bad guy, but if i did, MD bombs go through all

nuclear missiles are fun to shoot down he he makes for pretty explosions

How well does your vessels work against fast assault frigates able to move quite fast with unorthodox evasive manuevers, i.e. barrel rolls, and such?

Clairmont, it depends of the forwarning. If my ships see you coming with enough time they could initiate the Wall of Fire and possibly shoot down enough missiles to survive. However, if it was a surprise attack or during an ongoing fight, I'd be ripped to shreds.

Jitano, because it makes for more interesting RP's.

5CN, it depends on the ship. Do you have a specific class in mind?

Well, how would your fleet react towards two groups of six Meteor Assault Frigates each, moving towards you while performing highly unorthodox evasive maneuvers. Say, performing barrel rolls while diving through your fleet, firing a myriad of weapons, energy (i.e. beam, laser), physical (rail guns, missiles, etc...), and E-M.

Things to realize about nukes:

1) Nukes rely heavily on the atmosphere to do their damage. Without said atmosphere, a nuke will need to be used as a close or contact detonation weapon to be most effective. (Bursting one in the middle of a wide spread fighter formation won't do much)

2) Explosions tend to distribute their energy spherically (you'd need a small nuke and some great material to even hope to focus a nuke blast). Because of this distribution, only half of the energy of the blast will have a vector component in the direction of the target. Of the half that has the vector component in the direction of the target, alot of it will still be near parallel to the target surface. In the end you're looking at around only 30% of a nuke's energy being directed at a target.

3) Regardless, a multi gigaton nuke will cause much more damage than a megaton nuke. It won't simply damage a section of the ship, regardless of your funneling. It will eat your ship.

I just felt like making one of these threads. Perhaps other nations will follow suit.

How to kill a Klonor Capital Ship:

1) If energy weapons are in use, use singular shots of extreme power rather than many shots of small power. A single powerful shot could overload the absorbtion pads, thus completely nullifying the energy absorbtion armor. Many small shots will merely be absorbed by said armor, doing no damage to the ship and increasing its offensive and defensive capabilities (the absorbed energy can be shunted to either shields, engines, or weapons)

2) If physical weapons are in use, either use single large weapons or massive amounts of small weapons fire. Physically large weapons can not be deflected by the break away armor, thus they are only impeded by Klonor shields (which are extremely primitive and weak) and the collapsed-core molybdenum sheathing which, though strong, is meant to work in conjunction with both the break away and energy absorbtion armor. Small weapons fire can be deflected by the break away armor (its singular purpose), but if you use massive amounts (as I stated) the odds are extremely large that you will hit a spot you have already shot (meaning that the armor there will have already broken away).

3) Target the tactical sub-systems. Each ship operation has a sub-system, designed to co-ordinate and improve each operation. The sub-systems are Navigation, Weaponry, Communications, Sensors, Engines and there are more depending on each ship class (For example: Carriers have a sub-system designed specifically to track and target fighter craft). Destroy the navigation sub-system and their directional control will be much impeded, destroy the weaponry sub-system and their targeting/firing of weapons will be much impeded, destroy their communications sub-system and their communications range and quality will be severely reduced, destroy the sensor sub-system and their sensor range and definition will be much reduced, destroy the engine sub-system and their maneuverability and power will be greatly lowered. Destruction of all sub-systems shall lower the combat capability of a Capital Ship to less than 25% of its original efficiency

4) Swarm the ship. Klonor weaponry is focused along the lines of numercially small yet powerful weapons. An Orion class Destroyer only has 5 Beam Cannons (Our primary anti-capital ship weapon). While this gives it the fire power equal to almost any other encountered warship, it can't divide that power to deal with dozens of smaller ships.

Anything else you need to know?
Has it fallen off yet?

Berserker: Nukes dont "rely" on athmosphere to do their damage, merely in athmosphere their effects are enhanced. The energy release in a nuke is the same whether its in athmosphere or in deep space. In deep space however there is no fireball or a pressure wave, so in space the damaging components of a nuke are therefore thermal radiation as well as x-ray and gamma radiation. So altough you are correct in a sense, few kiloton nukes wouldnt be effective on large scale in space for example, a several hundred megaton thermo-nuclear weapon would allready have quite a vast area-of-effect where the intensity of released energy would be extremely high.

Because of the physics of nuclear weapons in space as you mentioned the spherical energy release and only 30% of energy going towards the target, the high yield warheads for space combat. Consider this, out of a 300 Megaton nuke even 30% is nearly 100 megatons. And 100 megatons worth of thermal, gamma and x-ray radiation as well as visible light would be a bit bad for a spacecraft.

Despite the physics of nuclear weapons in space, they are propably the most effective form of stand-off weaponry in space combat. Chemical explosive missiles are pitifully weak to accomplish anything usefull and their effects in space are even worse than those of nukes, and direct fire weapons cant guide themselves. Nukes are easy to produce and they are effective.

Earlier you were talking about multi gigaton nukes that kind of ordanance would not vapourise a small section of your ship it would most likley eat most of your fleet.
multi gigaton would proably be enough to kill all life on a planet. plus the EMP radiation ect that goes with it

Berserker: Nukes dont "rely" on athmosphere to do their damage, merely in athmosphere their effects are enhanced. The energy release in a nuke is the same whether its in athmosphere or in deep space. In deep space however there is no fireball or a pressure wave, so in space the damaging components of a nuke are therefore thermal radiation as well as x-ray and gamma radiation. So altough you are correct in a sense, few kiloton nukes wouldnt be effective on large scale in space for example, a several hundred megaton thermo-nuclear weapon would allready have quite a vast area-of-effect where the intensity of released energy would be extremely high.

Because of the physics of nuclear weapons in space as you mentioned the spherical energy release and only 30% of energy going towards the target, the high yield warheads for space combat. Consider this, out of a 300 Megaton nuke even 30% is nearly 100 megatons. And 100 megatons worth of thermal, gamma and x-ray radiation as well as visible light would be a bit bad for a spacecraft.

Despite the physics of nuclear weapons in space, they are propably the most effective form of stand-off weaponry in space combat. Chemical explosive missiles are pitifully weak to accomplish anything usefull and their effects in space are even worse than those of nukes, and direct fire weapons cant guide themselves. Nukes are easy to produce and they are effective.

[b]As I said, nukes rely heavily upon the rapid heating and accompanying expansion of the atmosphere to do their damage. They don't completely rely on the atmosphere, just heavily. (There is a difference, subtle perhaps, but the difference is there. Read more carefully before attempting to correct a post.) The vaccum of space is a good insulator and thermal radiation is inefficient for transfering energy between objects.
(It's worth noting that an uninsulated body will freeze far more quickly in Antartica than it would in a vaccum)

It stands to reason that any space going combat vessel is shielded from the effects of solar and cosmic radation. Without an atmosphere to create a concussive blast, physical damage from the nuclear weapon at a distance will be light. Considering the above that vessels would be radiation shielded, it's very likely that a nuclear weapon detonated at range wouldn't be very effective. (Much more effective than chemical explosives, but this was not my point of contention) Long range kinetic weapons would probably be most effective, as they would be much more efficient at transfering energy to the target. At high enough speed they yield large amounts of energy and are by far easier to produce and store than nuclear weapons. (However, this wasn't my point of contention either)

If you read again, you'll note that I said regardless of the above that a close or contact detonation of a large scale nuclear weapon would still cause massive damage. As I said, nukes rely heavily upon the rapid heating and accompanying expansion of the atmosphere to do their damage. They don't completely rely on the atmosphere, just heavily. There is a difference, subtle perhaps, but the difference is there. Read more carefully before attempting to correct a post with information that isn't contradicting.

I gues my post before didn't go through. This should be before anybody responded to Berserker:

"Futuretech dude, futuretech. The way gigaton warheads are hurled around I could probably get away with taking no damage at all. Just be glad I didn't say 'My super power X-ray shields absord the explsion and use it to kill you all!' "

Scolo, I'm just confused (Help?)

"Futuretech dude, futuretech. The way gigaton warheads are hurled around I could probably get away with taking no damage at all.Yes, if you're a horrible wanker who faps so hard "it" may fall off.
Just be glad I didn't say 'My super power X-ray shields absord the explsion and use it to kill you all!' "

Scolo, I'm just confused (Help?)
Coincidentally, I believe that's his point.

Eww. Your analogies are quite sickening.

i have a question, why in the hell would you tell people how to beat you?

nd i don't need any of those tips, i had no intention of going to war with you, you're not a bad guy, but if i did, MD bombs go through allAs Klonor stated before, it does not take much brain power. Shoot your guns - Use many ships. This thread is more of an explanation of why shooting like a freak and hurling 30 ships at an objective will work.

Oh, by the way, these are just tips. Nothing more. I'm not giving away every single way to destroy the ships, as some people seem to think I think I'm doing. I'm not revealing their key weaknesses, or saying that 'do this and I'll crumble'. Just simple and easy things.

Berserker: I took your wording as such that you implied that nuclear weapons would require athmosphere to do their damage. Again, they dont in essence "rely" on athmosphere, merely in athmosphere their effects are enhanced. And it is an entirely valid point to be correcting. Thermal radiation in space is not the most efficient form of transferring energy true, but when the range is in the order of few hundred meters upto a kilometer for a several hundred megaton nuke, the amount of thermal energy reaching the target is quite high still.

Ofcourse any serious space combat vessels are shielded from solar and cosmic radiation. But that means background radiation in the light-minute range from the systems star. Background radiation has far lesser intensity against a spacecraft than a close-range nuclear detonation does. Radiation shielding only exceeds to an extent, and conservation of energy also steps into account here. To my knowledge, the rad shieldings used in combat starships by players who attempt to be as realistic as possible with their stuff, protect from background radiation, not from anything as intense as a nuke.
Kinetic weapons have their uses, they are just horribly inaccurate in space. Especially if ships are capable of traversing at relativistic velocities, kinetic weapons are REALLY inaccurate in space. Consider attempting to hit a kilometer long target 500,00 kilometers away when the target is moving at lets say .1c and you are moving at .09c, it would be a bit tricky at best.

I read your post, and i also read how you think a close or contact detonation of a nuke would affect, in that point i do agree 100%, i was merely providing another point of view to the subject. And again, i was correcting you because nukes in essence do not "rely" on athmosphere, in athmosphere they are more effective true but they are not depentant upon it.

ill try to add something productive here:

nuclear warheads are used in the tech base my nation uses, in the form of nuclear warheads for missiles. Theses warheads are considered obsolute when compared to laser warheads for this reason. Nuclear warheads are considered to be more or less "Contact" when viewed aganst shipborne weaponry requiring it to close to a distance with a dozen or so kilometers to be effective. Aganist modern point defense this is very hard to do.

The laser warhead detonates 30,000 km from the target bombarding it with x-ray lasers which travel at light speed. A weapon with greater hitting potential then contact nukes.

ooc: to lazy to spell check this so cut me some slack in that area plz

Well, how would your fleet react towards two groups of six Meteor Assault Frigates each, moving towards you while performing highly unorthodox evasive maneuvers. Say, performing barrel rolls while diving through your fleet, firing a myriad of weapons, energy (i.e. beam, laser), physical (rail guns, missiles, etc...), and E-M.

no armor is indestructable...

That may be true, but with the tensile strength of some materials, it would take so much firepower to make a small hole that it wouldn't be worth it, unless one had outnumbered the ship by several hundred to one.

Berserker: I took your wording as such that you implied that nuclear weapons would require athmosphere to do their damage. Again, they dont in essence "rely" on athmosphere, merely in athmosphere their effects are enhanced. And it is an entirely valid point to be correcting. Thermal radiation in space is not the most efficient form of transferring energy true, but when the range is in the order of few hundred meters upto a kilometer for a several hundred megaton nuke, the amount of thermal energy reaching the target is quite high still.

Ofcourse any serious space combat vessels are shielded from solar and cosmic radiation. But that means background radiation in the light-minute range from the systems star. Background radiation has far lesser intensity against a spacecraft than a close-range nuclear detonation does. Radiation shielding only exceeds to an extent, and conservation of energy also steps into account here. To my knowledge, the rad shieldings used in combat starships by players who attempt to be as realistic as possible with their stuff, protect from background radiation, not from anything as intense as a nuke.
Kinetic weapons have their uses, they are just horribly inaccurate in space. Especially if ships are capable of traversing at relativistic velocities, kinetic weapons are REALLY inaccurate in space. Consider attempting to hit a kilometer long target 50,000 kilometers away when the target is moving at lets say .1c and you are moving at .09c, it would be a bit tricky at best.

I read your post, and i also read how you think a close or contact detonation of a nuke would affect, in that point i do agree 100%, i was merely providing another point of view to the subject. And again, i was correcting you because nukes in essence do not "rely" on athmosphere, in athmosphere they are more effective true but they are not depentant upon it.Heavily rely, not completely rely. There is a difference.
Had I intended to say that nukes require the atmosphere to do damage I would have simply said rely or completely rely. But i didn't say that, I chose a modifier to modify the meaning of the words.

And I don't see why kinetics would be "inacurate". It's called leading the target, an ancient practice that yields suprising results. And, if one knows the velocity either by visual guesstimate or by using the sensors of the attacking ship, one can lead the target with great accuracy. At 0.1c, a kilometer long target is on a relatively fixed course (they aren't turning anytime soon), and with a higher velocity projectile (which will reduce the amount of lead needed), hitting said target would be relatively simple.

Assuming a projectile velocity of .2c (being drastically smaller than the target, it requires far less energy to accelerate up to speed.), and a distance to target (how far the projectile will have to travel to impact) of 50000km, we can tell the following. Also assumed is that information travels between ships at C (energy signature from launch of projectile will travel at C)

It will take 0.167 seconds for the target ship to recieve information regarding launch of projectile. (This doesn't take into account sensor and computer processing times.) This of course assumes the ship is near the 50k mark when it recieves it's data. Being that it's mobile, it was probably nearer the launching vessel at the launch of the projectile, and thus the signal would reach it part way through it's course. Therefore 0.1s-0.16s are probably acceptable times to detect launch.

It will take 0.834 seconds for the projectile to reach.
This gives 0.73 seconds at most to affect a drastic course change. Given the acceleration curve of a vessel moving at 0.1c, it's unlikely that even maximum delta v will affect the course of the ship enough to move it completely from the strike zone. While the projectile won't hit the original point that was aimed for, a 1 km vessel likely has a large surface area facing the launchign vessel. The projectile will simply hit above, below, forward, or rear of it's intended point of impact (depending on how the target vessel applies it's delta v.)

Allright, it just bugs me when nukes are talked about "relying" on athmosphere, nothing else.

Regarding the kinetics, i actually meant a range of 500,000 kilometers, for some reason forgot one zero out of that. In any case, you also need to take into account electronic warfare. ECM isnt going to work against kinetics but electronic warfare contains more than merely ECM. In order to hit with a kinetic round, very precise vector would need to be calculated for the round and EW would make those calculations more difficult than they allready are.

Ok, using the 500,000 kilometers as an example. Lets say that the target ship has an accurate enough LIDAR or other means of detection to notice the round when its inbound. Assuming projectile velocity of .3c, it would take over 5.5 seconds for it to reach target. The target ship would be detecting the round 1.666 seconds after it has launched, leaving it roughly 3.833 seconds to either evade or engage it. Assuming automated point-defense, which would be the smartest option in space, the point-defense would have that much time to destroy it. And interception wise, kinetics have a problem. They have no evasive capabilities at all, once they are detected and any half-baked computer analyzes their trajectory and speed, engaging them with lightspeed point-defenses would be rather simple.

In any case, you have a valid point regarding kinetics. But when taking into consideration the kind of computer technology a space faring culture would have and most likely laser point-defenses, kinetics would be pretty much closer-range weapons with them having no capability to guide themselves nor accelerate on their own.

And even when going by this, we are only talking about ships that do obey Newtonian physics by 100%. Because i know that there are players here using ships with inertialess drives. Against such vessels kinetics would be even less efficient.

Well, how would your fleet react towards two groups of six Meteor Assault Frigates each, moving towards you while performing highly unorthodox evasive maneuvers. Say, performing barrel rolls while diving through your fleet, firing a myriad of weapons, energy (i.e. beam, laser), physical (rail guns, missiles, etc...), and E-M.

I still need more specifics. Do you mean my entire fleet? (I'm pretty sure you don't) Cause if you do, they'd just laugh and shoot at you with thousands upon thousands of Beams and Lasers. I presume you mean some small section of my fleet, but I need to know what you want (A small patrol fleet, A large combat fleet, etc.)

And does anybody else have any questions about my defenses?

Let's say a combat fleet...

As this seems to be the predominate thing going on, and as Klonor and I will soon be involved in at least a low level war soon, I suppose its time I divulged my ships weaknesses, and so, I bring you the methods to defeat the Takian Armada, dubbed Prince Makoto's Freuidian Compensation Fleet by some, at least untill I finish my current story line and you see what I plan to do with my ungoddly overpowered ships.

first of all, what won't work

1) I shoot you with teh nux0rs!!!

HEPD fields make your attack null and void.

2) oh yeah, well I have a 12397849137451038401823481234 gigawatt laz0r on my death star!

Absorbtion shields assure that none of my ships can be defeated by your cheapass excues for a megaultraspiffy cannon of doom.

3) I have *insert number inversly preportionat to your IQ here* ships!

I really don't care, my ships are designed to be fleet killers.

What does work? the secret to getting past all of my technology and counter messures?





































Roleplay!!!

Gasp!!!


thats right boys and girls, if you make a post that makes me go "damn, s/he can really roleplay" then you will get past the single most potent defence in my arsenal, my anti-wanking fields. If you pull a stunt or a tactic that makes me pause in admiration, you will do a hell of a lot more damage to my ship than if you just slug it out in a numbers game, and belive me, if you play a numbers game, I will not let you win.

Now that is out of my system, I doubt there will be much of a change, but this is here to prove that I'm not really Godmodding, I'm simply being a complete and total bastard when it comes to people who want wars to boil down to mindless "I sit back and shoot at you" slugouts.

tag

On my Sovereign battleship, if you can get past the cloud of fighters and ISDs, It is not as vulnerable to TRD (Trench Run Disorder) as the Death Star, but we have yet to figure out a counter to fighter pilots managing to make a run in a trench and throwing missiles and torpedoes into a weak point except lots and lots of fighters and antifighter weapons.

(Loved the original trench run in ANH)

On my Sovereign battleship, if you can get past the cloud of fighters and ISDs, It is not as vulnerable to TRD (Trench Run Disorder) as the Death Star, but we have yet to figure out a counter to fighter pilots managing to make a run in a trench and throwing missiles and torpedoes into a weak point except lots and lots of fighters and antifighter weapons.

(Loved the original trench run in ANH)

Just as a question... why do people put these curiously vulnerable points at the end of a very long trench?

Why have vulnerable points in the first place? AAARRRGHH. This makes little sense.

Here's something that sounds like it's already been addressed but may have not been.

How would a Klonor ship fare against a large amount of plasma weapons?

Just wondering, because Kajali ships rely primarily on plasma based weapons. Lots of them.

Hence why they have a "fusillade" option. ^_^

Tips for killing a Xanthalian capital ship (Excursion, Eclipse, or Apocalypse class):
-If you have an operative aboard (not likely, but who knows?):
--Have your person/people sabotage the ship's AI or EI. Any tampering with outlying systems will most likely be detected by the computer anyway, so it's best to cripple the computer itself. If you do your job well the ship will have to be controlled manually. Due to the high automation of Xanthalian ships, most complex functions will be lost and less than half of the ship's weapons can be effectively used at one time. Don't expect a free ride though; it can be hard to get past the security protocols to sabotage anything in a Xanthalian ship. Come prepared with several backup plans. As much as a simple bomb may seem like a good idea, you'll be captured immediately if you try taking anything of that nature aboard. Rigging the ship's own wepons to blow can be done, but capital ships are designed with countermeasures against this type of action which you will fist have to circumvent.
-If you have an operative in the high levels of the Ministry of the Armada and Military (again, not likely):
--Have your operative stop the Xanthalians from attacking you in the first place by throwing wrenches into the political machine. Xanthalian politics depends on people working together. When they don't it becomes bureaucratic.
-If there are no operative involved on your side:
--Pack a lunch and a lot of firepower. Xanthalian capital ships are shielded beyond belief and there's no magical way to effectively punch through. Shield disrupters and bio-based weaponry will wear them down faster than most coventional weapons. Ideally your fleet should have more small, fast ships than big, strong ships. Even with the firepower of two midsized fleets turned on it, it can take up to fifteen minutes to cut through all the shield redundancies on a Xanthalian capital ship, and in those fifteen minutes you can bet that you'll have the full brunt of tens of thousands of weapons arrays pouring out on you. If you can't dodge them, you're guaranteed to be the worse for wear afterwards. Also remember to bring a lot of ships. Unless you catch them off-guard, Xanthalian capital ships have a large escort. To survive long enough to destroy the ship is going to be your biggest problem, so upgrade those shields before you try your luck.
I find that I.G.N.O.R.E. cannons are an effective weapon for single-shotting Xanthalian ships.

Try 'em, you'll like 'em.

:lol: , Menelmacar, we can't always use the I.G.N.O.R.E. cannon...

On Xanthal, we can.

*shrugs* I guess we can then?

Tips for killing a Xanthalian capital ship (Excursion, Eclipse, or Apocalypse class):
.
.
.
Even with the firepower of two midsized fleets turned on it, it can take up to fifteen minutes to cut through all the shield redundancies on a Xanthalian capital ship, and in those fifteen minutes you can bet that you'll have the full brunt of tens of thousands of weapons arrays pouring out on you.p.
I find that I.G.N.O.R.E. cannons are an effective weapon for single-shotting Xanthalian ships.

Try 'em, you'll like 'em.
And that's just one ship. He's got fleets of 'em.
That's some mighty powerful wanktech.

I'd have to agree with Menel.

Powerful wank? More like superuberduperpooperoperwinningillegalstupid wank... :wink:

10 Eclipse class
2 Excursion class
1 Apocalypse class.

Those are my totals. I could do worse.

Are they now?

if you just slug it out in a numbers game, and belive me, if you play a numbers game, I will not let you win.

What exactly -is- a numbers game?

Is it really so wrong to concentrate on overall strategy, logistics and physics, rather than whether Private 1st Class Johnson wets his pants dramatically or not?

Isn't warfare in real life, in effect, decided by those kinds of numbers?

I like a well-RPed conflict, but numbers are still important. Without a basis for comparison the outcome is essentially arbitrary.

Here's something that sounds like it's already been addressed but may have not been.

How would a Klonor ship fare against a large amount of plasma weapons?

Just wondering, because Kajali ships rely primarily on plasma based weapons. Lots of them.

Hence why they have a "fusillade" option. ^_^

It depends on the size and number of the weapons. If you are referring to something along the lines of the Covenant Plasma technology from Halo then I'd have to say I wouldn't fare to well :wink: If they're primarily smaller weapons that rely purely on numbers to do damage then I'd have to say I'd fare pretty well (see first post for explanation)