From the Depths - Not Dying 101: Armour

[@BorderWise12]

Good job on condensing armor basics down to less than 20 minutes, I don't think I've ever managed that. XD

[@OhmIsFutile]

Thanks! To be honest, I could probably have made a 40 minutes video and still not address everything, but that's kind of the point. If you start thinking about every little thing, you lose sight of the big picture and overcomplicate things.

[@onerxowns2202]

I am glad From The Depths start getting traction

[@astolbro7183]

One thing I would mention is that the thicker the armor of your ship the less space you have to put guns and vital components or you sacrifice speed and maneuverability thick armor costs more then resources it costs space and on any ship smaller then a battleship space comes at a premium

[@astolbro7183]

Take this with a grain of salt though I would describe my ability at ship design as intermediate not expert even after multiple hundreds of hours in the designer

[@OhmIsFutile]

It's a good point, the fact that armour costs space is often underplayed, especially when people talk about wood being meta.

[@IainDoherty51]

@@OhmIsFutile Wooden ships are normally only meta in tourneys where you can accept your entire ship being shredded so long as the enemy is more so 😂

[@no3ironman11100]

You don't lose space for internals, but you have less space to be maneuverable, as 90% of speed is just "how much drag does this have at top speed" and acceleration is minor. A massive craft has a lot of drag counterforce. A giant wood brick basically can't evade for shit even if in theory it's more cost effective vs a quarter of weapon types (Pierce pac, Pierce APS). cram and various payload weapons become much more menacing, as cram AP especially is high kinetic energy and low AP so very scary.

[@scorpion563]

Very epik. Now I can referance this whenever someone asks me about armor.

[@PeterRudesindus]

best video on armor I found so far.

[@GMODISM]

Very good summary, but I wouldn't agree on HA on the outside (except for small profile turret heads and detail protection) just because of it's extreme cost and weight, better to go light and redundant.

[@IainDoherty51]

There's a time for both in my opinion, but generally the less HA you are using the better for most things. So it tends to be the outer skin of the innermost layer of my armour schemes

[@doktork3406]

I also use HA on the inside, but because of a different reason. I want the cheaper metal to soak up most of the damage in a high alfa incoming shot. Sure the metal gets deleted by say a big CRAM shot, but the HA will survive. During the time it takes the enemy to reload, i disable him (my firepower is generally geared towards heavy penetration for critical hits)

[@OhmIsFutile]

The main thing to remember is HA should be backed by something and if you're going to use only two layers then HA should be on the outside due to stacking. It's mathematically more efficient, not a matter of opinion.

[@OhmIsFutile]

@@IainDoherty51 This is also how I tend to use it, though ironically it's better on flying things due to how buoyancy works... hence my largest hovertank using a ton of it.

[@IainDoherty51]

@@OhmIsFutile The one I found most interesting when testing for tourneys was a layer of HA slopes backed by 2 layers of Alloy. Not a ridiculously tough composite, but one that almost floats itself without external assistance so long as your outer skin is metal and alloy

[@Klint_Izwudd]

With the one at 15:47, what does the layer of alloy add if the wood is the spall liner? Also curious on your thoughts on a final layer of alloy on the outside for slightly improved buoyancy/roll stability on boats and a slightly reduced signature? (also for aesthetics but that's more personal preference).

[@OhmIsFutile]

The alloy layer is for buoyancy/controlling weight. It is merely a suggestion, as that example would not float on its own without pumps. As for your question about alloy outside, I'd be a bit concerned if it was important for stability/buoyancy, but signature and aesthetics are legitimate reasons in my eyes.

[@Klint_Izwudd]

@@OhmIsFutile In terms of stability I figure having the more buoyant parts of the ship further from the center of mass allows them to have a greater effect on stability. While admittedly I haven't noticed a significant improvement if applied to an already unstable design I like to imagine it slightly improves the stability on an already good design.

[@OhmIsFutile]

@@Klint_Izwudd when it comes to buoyancy and stability, then you actually want the most and least buoyant bits aligned vertically with the center of mass. It is akin to strings pulling on the vehicle and putting those strings away from the CoM horizontally will result in a less stable design, especially if you factor in damage. The "ideal" design for passive buoyancy and stability is something with lead below the the CoM and center of buoyancy and alloy above.

[@Klint_Izwudd]

@@OhmIsFutile I hadn't thought of that, I was more thinking of catamaran stability whereas yours is similar to a fishing float. I can definitely see yours preventing those little movements that shake the boat and reduce the stability penalty to accuracy.

[@kralexprofill4571]

How about incorporating ERA in the armour scheme? Is it less effective than simple stacking with airgap?

[@OhmIsFutile]

ERA is awkward to use. If you put it internally, it's vulnerable to HESH fragments spreading around and breaking a bunch at once. If you put it externally, well, it's exposed. ERA might require its own video tbh. It's really good against heavy hits, but it's really weak to fragments and such hitting multiple blocks...

[@IainDoherty51]

@@OhmIsFutile It works really well in checkerboards with some of the cheaper blocks like wood and stone, as that limits the amount any single shell can delete

[@fluffythecandleeater6196]

im an idiot so i just make THICCCCC HA hulls cause why not though it does lead to m craft costing 20 mill this is for airships btw

[@OhmIsFutile]

👁👄👁

[@teche6564]

Are you doing the EMP tutorial next?

[@OhmIsFutile]

Probably

[@nicopence3148]

What was this change to sabot?

[@OhmIsFutile]

Sabots now treat angles as being significantly less steep than they are. Compared to regular kinetics, their performance is visibly better against slopes of 45 degrees or more.

[@nicopence3148]

@@OhmIsFutile thx.

[@GMODISM]

@@OhmIsFutile I until recently thought that sabots got deflected more easily, and that the opposite is true.... darn this game has layers and it is not easier when things get updated ^^

[@keasereibe5140]

Its ab it late, but what how do you think about aplique armor for airgaps?

[@OhmIsFutile]

It's not bad, but it's honestly quite comparable to adding slopes and creating air gaps that way. Slopes get the stacking which applique can never get. That said, applique is a proper full air gap unlike slopes which can technically be crossed by HEAT/HESH on pixel perfect hits... and those do happy if you have an alright volume of fire. tl;dr: it's got fierce competition but it's worth considering.

[@coffeezombie244]

where does era come into this?

[@OhmIsFutile]

ERA is typically very good to prevent a single powerful shot from actually dealing most of its damage, but almost anything will trigger them and then they need to be repaired so they're a bit unwieldy... I suppose I should experiment with them more and make a video at some point, but for now I might as well be considered on hiatus.