Space Engineers: Magazine Racking in Warfare II 

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 ;) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-_uxrxUZQios.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

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... 😂

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).

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.

:D maybe it's because I am! ... No not really.

it's just a demo. Otherwise I'd need to hit the ship many more times.

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

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).

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.

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

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?

Do you have this design on the Steam Workshop?

drop that bp big boy

"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

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 ;)

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

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

thanks man, sorry about the audio quality issues

@@GetBrocked what issues sounds fine to me

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?

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 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?

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.

oh wow, thanks!

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

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.

IT LOOKED AT ME OKAY?! IT'S AN EYE

AWP (assault weapon pack)

@@GetBrocked Nice. Thanks.

that's uh... what I said? I state that all or nothing basically describes a usage of a heavy armored core with everything else being light armor.

glad to help

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.

audio got corrupted. Sorry.

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)

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.

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.

Could also not place the ammo storage centrally so as to minimize how much damage is inflicted in the core areas.

see the posted video on my channel main page. It explains all you need to know

@@GetBrocked Thanks! much appreciated

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

it happens identically. All that needs to occur is that the magazine, h2 tank, dip below the redline due to damage. It'll just happen slightly slower (or in the case of some of the new weapons, faster, due to penetrative damage)

we've have rules against internal thrusters.

Assemblers don't produce fast enough for ammo consumption. You need at least 3 per turret on our server settings. It also makes you very vulnerable to partial power loss, conveyer severing and more

@@GetBrocked Interesting, is this with or without attachments?

Same. I also don't have the patience for hand placing all the armor and colour.

we use a gyro mod for exactly that reason.

@@GetBrocked Okay. That makes sense.