Two additional points to be made regarding the 'turret-brick': Remember that you have to carry ammo for ALL of those guns. More guns = more ammo you need to carry. If your ship is a flying ammo locker, one lucky hit and you're shaking hands with the HMS Hood. Also, the conveyor system to pipe in ammo is exposed (generally) once a turret is shot away. If you have 40 guns on your ship, ten to a side and four distinct sides, that's ten places on EACH side where, once the gun is gone, you have no armor because you have a conveyor port. A lucky shot there will reenact a certain farmboy's shot down a two-meter exhaust shaft. Even with groups that don't have self-imposed limits, this is good advice.
yep, this use to not really be a thing, but now with ammo racking. It's very much a big risk. Lots of the factions on my server have basically removed the concept of a central magazine. And those that keep it, have moved it towards a sacrificial part of the ship
Perhaps yes. Though technically only containers containing ammo go off. Also due to the hold in the armour I would recommend not allowing a straight line from a turrets conveyer port to the internals of the ship.
I always put my ammo into a small container directly below the turret itself. If a small one blows up , the damage is still ok and only in the area were the gun was. At least the entire ship wont go boom
Less is more works for us, we rely on corvettes and small carriers. Our Medusa class uses missiles as it's main attack weapon with rapid fire secondary weapons mostly for point defense. I'm also pleased about the Taffy 3 reference as my father's ship, USS Gambier Bay was sunk out from under him in that battle.
It's always better to be able to avoid fire rather than designing to absorb hits. Also the term "Battlecruiser" seems to fit the motif of what's most viable for a large capital ship.
That and sometimes you can make your ship smaller. If you have an idea of fire power needed, then make your ship big enough to fit it and the supplies and the cut the waste. Smaller ships means less mass to push around, faster acceleration, and easier to balance out thruster placement.
So basically this video is about *mod* turrets. In other words, it's pretty pointless for the vast majority of players. Would've been nice for that to be in the title...
The explanation begins and is very detailed five minutes in, and you can apply the tips provided to vanilla weaponry very easily, be your weapons vanilla turrets, modded turrets, or PMWs.
The whole "Less can be more" from smart turret placement has seriously changed how I design and build ships. Almost entirely for the better. Also, referencing Taffy 3 makes me happy. Those sailors were supreme chads with balls of osmium. Also also, I still cringe at my older warship designs.
@@seomahazuri8999 Yeah... I recently completed another capital/supercapital-grade warship with the new knowledge I have, and not only does it look a billion times better than my gunbricks in the video, but with a fraction of the weaponry it's infinitely more effective thanks to smart placement and armament specialization.
@@seomahazuri8999 Keep the roof to 1.5 blocks high at most, make sure each room has a purpose and is just big enough for said purpose, make sure everything can be accessed with or without a jetpack quickly, and make sure everything is lit appropriately.
You should only have a 'engage multiple targets' design under these two circumstances, the enemy you are fighting are hopelessly outgunned as, even a single gun means death for an enemy or if you are designing a mult role ship that is meant to support a fleet eg Corvettes and frigates
There's a third you under no reasonable circumstances can you reasonably engage in the same numbers as your enemy . The ijn is a good example there navy by treaty had to be smaller so they started designing there vessels under the assumption that hhey would have to by nessesity deal with multiple targets . The Yamato and her sisters where built from the ground up to to walk in to a battle with pretty much any other battle ship 3 on one and win while walking away alive with acceptable amounts of damage take and staying reasonably repairable.
USS Roberts specifically; got inside the gun depression of the IJN Chikuma (along with the USS Heermann) and basically tore the superstructure off of her and set numerous fires.
glad you like it. I do what I can. Talk to Taidyr, or Omni if you want to take it a step further. I understand concepts, but I don't really builds ships anymore, they can take you that final step.
Less is more is important for a number of reasons not least of which is material cost as you mentioned a bit. You also have weight, which means even if you can slog it out you get hit way more often because shots that should miss end up hitting because you can't maneuver very well. That can cause you to be defeated faster against a well aimed shot from fixed guns. Any design issue that adds weight just ties back into this and in scenarios where ship sizes have to be limited for practical reasons, you have the famous rocket problem of needing to add more stuff to support the added weight which itself adds more weight. Then you have the issue of longevity. In survival you have to carry the ammo you need, and ammo containers now explode. You can actively assemble ammo as a mitigating factor but you still need the components stored and that is also a lot of weight. Same ammo with more guns means you run out too fast, and adding more ammo storage means more space and more weight. I usually consider rate of fire and gun count, then decide how long it needs to be able to fight to be worth sending in then stock it for a fight of that length (or multiple shorter fights if its role requires that) so I can't go overboard on guns otherwise the weapon logistics become a hassle. Finally you have surface area economy, which is generally split between hangars, propulsion and guns. Too many guns can mean not enough exterior space for thrusters, and hiding thrusters inside to maximize gun space makes it harder to fit all the internals you need, or to keep them spaced apart in case things blow up. This can mean needing a bigger ship which means more thrusters and weight and a larger, easier to hit profile which is bad for smaller classes of ship. This is a targeting issue, as cramming external features too close means targeted weapons will bring shots close to other things when having naked armor around it may be more ideal. This all ties together to mean that a ship with fewer guns will have its guns hit and disable less often, while a ship with more guns will lose more turrets from glancing shots, so you may start out with more firepower but it will decrease from damage more rapidly than a more sparsely armed ship. TL;DR in situations where ship size matters logistically you use as little weight as possible by not taking more guns and ammo than needed for the intended purpose, and for larger ships you can have functional blocks with high component counts like refineries and gyros near other important things to soak up shots to save on internal space and use a bit less armor. Things on the inside and outside should be reasonably spaced to lower the effectiveness of incoming fire, at least as far as disabling stuff and explosions go. Ship design is all about purpose, don't try too hard to make ships that can do everything.
I'm just starting space engineers, thanks to me having no dedicated GPU though I can't play on planets without massive lag, so I stick to creative mode and messing with ships I make, Except my ships always suck, only made two so far really, the first was an overly heavy small frame with too many blocks The second ship I made was a massive improvement in terms of defense and damage output, expect it's slow like the first one having too many blocks, and it looks like a piece of junk
I love to uild V-shaped ships like the star wars ship Supremacy with an angle more than 90° - they are very effective in 1v1. You can mount more fixed weapons at the whole front that will act like a ship cutter and this hard to evade. Every turret can fire in the main direction.
I have a ship I built as a broadsider, mostly for fun. I learned, by accident, that If I angle it right I can get 3 of the 4 gun lines on a target if they're over 350 meters out. Generally I'd angle it to get the bridge out of the way both to protect it, and so the gun line that blocked out by the hull of the ship is the one that would've been partially obstructed by the bridge. I might play around with it to see if I can improve it more
Something I've noticed: I made a quad symmetrical ship once (battleship ridge on top, left, right, and bottom). The idea was that at least a third of the guns would be on target if I could keep it within the front 180 degree cone, theoretically all if directly in front (this ship had a lot of gyros). Anyhow, something I noticed repairing the ship afterwards: just due to how I flew and tended to instinctively orient myself, the side guns took all the damage (even though I had decoys) while the top and bottom ridges where untouched. It could be just that the side guns were "closer" to the enemy and targeted first, IDK. All I know is that something about the placement of ridges on the top and bottom seems to give them a defensive advantage compared to the side weapons.
It could've been splash damage from explosions - where a missile would've hit next to a turret on the side, it may have missed on the ridges, where there is no hull around the ship. This is interesting, maybe jutting the turrets out from the hull a little isn't such a bad idea
@@bobbobson304 I hadn't thought of that. That could be it, as I did have quite a few missile attacks during that fight. As for the further out turrets, I think that might have merit, especially with decoys too. I had heard from some engineers that you wanted to put decoys behind your most armored section (so that they had to chew through all that heavy armor), but MAYBE that should be supplemented with "decoy spikes" in a ridge on top and bottom. That way, you'd get a similar effect even with the turrets placed on the side.
I play on a MSI Katana GF76 11UD gaming laptop, I'm not sure what exactly you meant by high end as in normal laptops or gaming but I hope my input helps
Yeah I might have a Mary Sue ship or two but then again I've also designed them so that they're fun to fight when you're shooting them stuff like space armor plates nay sales shear off I'll do things like connecting conveyors to decoys so that when the decoys are destroyed the piping shears away same with spaced armor I got warheads placed in the hall so they explode like in the movies when you shoot it you'll see debris flying off the ship when you fire it and I don't know which is more fun piloting the scavenger ship or shooting it on one hand yes it can absolutely tank it and everyone knows that but you don't even notice that it's just as I said fun to shoot at and in my opinion if I can make it a little more entertaining for me and for my enemy that's worth it
my main philosophy is split between 2 simple ideas 1: your Primary weapons should be able to be able to concentrate fire on a single target. Secondary Guns should be placed sparingly to compensate for the biggest weaknesses. Point Defense should be spread fairly evenly. 2: each gun should be placed with the maximum angle that it can achieve with very few exceptions. a gun that can't fire by design is worse than a destroyed gun. i tend to build ships with IRL specs, so i do over-size and over-gun my ships comparatively to other peoples (everything in SE is smaller). i kind of would like a mod that added the rest of the Iceberg to the rest of the guns. i've seen a couple mods try it, and designing my ship based around those limitations was fun.
Fighter sized large grid with hybrid small grid weapons, turrets, timers, programmable bloks and reactors. Takes up no space and has a lot of armor 👍 salvo, ship dianostic and radar scripted. Once done, then add lightness.
I’m pretty sure it wasn’t the ships of taffy three that slipped beneath the guns of a battleship, a vessel I know that did that was USS Laffey DD-459 during the battle of Guadalcanal
About a year late to this party, but it looks like you're still using somewhat similar budget and design rules: You can roleplay storage containers as your "reload mechanisms" for ships. Certain weapons would need more storage containers, etc etc, special rules can exist where each storage container individually has like a maximum amount of ammunition it can hold, and only for one weapons system, etc. I feel it would add a more engineering-friendly way to limit weapons than just the forcible point system. It would be literally impossible to add a million light guns onto a frigate, because each light gun needs its own storage container or two, and each storage container can hold only so much ammo.
I'm wanting to get into PVP, and Idk if the two ships I have would cut it, as they were both designed more for their appearance than anything else. I want to try them out, though, and see if I could rework them into combat variants.
The Ravager, aka IMDC Titan Cruiser (what it's adapted from) is a downright nasty design. Its "weak side" is obviously its back where the engines are. Head on is a bit weaker. But from any other angle you're going to have 50% of the ship's weapons firing on you at any one time. At least with legacy weapons it was rather meh from the front with only 8 rocket launchers, but in my own refit of it I stuffed 8 railguns in there firing in sequence. After that you're expected to go broadside and let the heavy weapons take the enemy apart.
Tbh, now that carrier with Ai controlled drones are possible, people really should think about engaging multiple targets at once, mabye not a battleships job, mabye if a faction has a big flagship or command ship, then that would be a great option for that kind of combat
The combat in this game isn't fun, because you spend so much time creating the ship, and having to repair every voxel isn't quite exciting or something you want to spend hours doing.
![MAC/Railguns Suck [Space Engineers]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ovAiAlGGQus/mqdefault.jpg)
Two additional points to be made regarding the 'turret-brick': Remember that you have to carry ammo for ALL of those guns. More guns = more ammo you need to carry. If your ship is a flying ammo locker, one lucky hit and you're shaking hands with the HMS Hood. Also, the conveyor system to pipe in ammo is exposed (generally) once a turret is shot away. If you have 40 guns on your ship, ten to a side and four distinct sides, that's ten places on EACH side where, once the gun is gone, you have no armor because you have a conveyor port. A lucky shot there will reenact a certain farmboy's shot down a two-meter exhaust shaft.
Even with groups that don't have self-imposed limits, this is good advice.
yep, this use to not really be a thing, but now with ammo racking. It's very much a big risk.
Lots of the factions on my server have basically removed the concept of a central magazine. And those that keep it, have moved it towards a sacrificial part of the ship
Perhaps yes. Though technically only containers containing ammo go off. Also due to the hold in the armour I would recommend not allowing a straight line from a turrets conveyer port to the internals of the ship.
I always put my ammo into a small container directly below the turret itself. If a small one blows up , the damage is still ok and only in the area were the gun was. At least the entire ship wont go boom
The other thing you can do is make a short ammo blow load ship provided you don't mind short combat endurance.
Given I built a ship with over 200 turrets this video MAY be useful for me.
Ah yes the time i spamed 35 pdcs on the roof.
Jesus, i can't imagine how much ammo that took
@@KiRiTO72987 much. Much ammo. But it's fine because the ship had like 50 large cargo
@@tiberiosity So your ship was a giant bomb just waiting to be one shot.
@@conormccue2871 pfft, it was FINE before keen introduced ammo racking cargo explosions
Less is more works for us, we rely on corvettes and small carriers. Our Medusa class uses missiles as it's main attack weapon with rapid fire secondary weapons mostly for point defense. I'm also pleased about the Taffy 3 reference as my father's ship, USS Gambier Bay was sunk out from under him in that battle.
So the best hull shape is a wedge?
Star Destroyers always had it right.
It's always better to be able to avoid fire rather than designing to absorb hits. Also the term "Battlecruiser" seems to fit the motif of what's most viable for a large capital ship.
"The Washington treaty was a balance patch"
That and sometimes you can make your ship smaller. If you have an idea of fire power needed, then make your ship big enough to fit it and the supplies and the cut the waste. Smaller ships means less mass to push around, faster acceleration, and easier to balance out thruster placement.
Don't avoid it, embrace it
I likje gun spam if you got that salvo script running makes it look nice with the breaks in the firing :D
"its never enough until its too much"
I guess you will have a ton of fun with the new warfare update ;)
Wait, I don't need to turret spam?
Big gun go brrrrrrrrrrrt
Gun break for the win!!!
very helpful😇
Space Lego
there is no such thing as too much DAKKA.
if 40% of me guns is 500% of all your planes then i win.
"gun bricks are bad" pft, sounds like some ones salty from losing to a well built gun brick
So basically this video is about *mod* turrets. In other words, it's pretty pointless for the vast majority of players. Would've been nice for that to be in the title...
I mean. It doesn't take much to extrapolate this to a vanilla or different mod set.
The vast majority of players use mods, bruh. Vanilla weapon sandbox is just awful
You still play vanilla... just sad on the fun you're missing out on.
Vanilla railguns inbound.
@@gmradio2436 i hope they also add capital class weaponry
This guy never gets to the point, and half of these turrets aren't even in the game. Must be another mod video...
The explanation begins and is very detailed five minutes in, and you can apply the tips provided to vanilla weaponry very easily, be your weapons vanilla turrets, modded turrets, or PMWs.
He literally says "we use the assault weapons pack"
What part of that is so hard to understand?
The whole "Less can be more" from smart turret placement has seriously changed how I design and build ships. Almost entirely for the better.
Also, referencing Taffy 3 makes me happy. Those sailors were supreme chads with balls of osmium.
Also also, I still cringe at my older warship designs.
Me with my cube destroyer 5000: @_@
@@seomahazuri8999 Yeah... I recently completed another capital/supercapital-grade warship with the new knowledge I have, and not only does it look a billion times better than my gunbricks in the video, but with a fraction of the weaponry it's infinitely more effective thanks to smart placement and armament specialization.
@@CaptainRhodor btw, any tips on interior design? I m having trouble with making the ship interiors look nice,
@@seomahazuri8999 Keep the roof to 1.5 blocks high at most, make sure each room has a purpose and is just big enough for said purpose, make sure everything can be accessed with or without a jetpack quickly, and make sure everything is lit appropriately.
You should only have a 'engage multiple targets' design under these two circumstances, the enemy you are fighting are hopelessly outgunned as, even a single gun means death for an enemy or if you are designing a mult role ship that is meant to support a fleet eg Corvettes and frigates
There's a third you under no reasonable circumstances can you reasonably engage in the same numbers as your enemy . The ijn is a good example there navy by treaty had to be smaller so they started designing there vessels under the assumption that hhey would have to by nessesity deal with multiple targets . The Yamato and her sisters where built from the ground up to to walk in to a battle with pretty much any other battle ship 3 on one and win while walking away alive with acceptable amounts of damage take and staying reasonably repairable.
USS Roberts specifically; got inside the gun depression of the IJN Chikuma (along with the USS Heermann) and basically tore the superstructure off of her and set numerous fires.
Very educational. i like these sorta videos, it gives me a pointer on how to improve my builds in SE.
Awesome vid Brock
glad you like it.
I do what I can. Talk to Taidyr, or Omni if you want to take it a step further. I understand concepts, but I don't really builds ships anymore, they can take you that final step.
Less is more is important for a number of reasons not least of which is material cost as you mentioned a bit. You also have weight, which means even if you can slog it out you get hit way more often because shots that should miss end up hitting because you can't maneuver very well. That can cause you to be defeated faster against a well aimed shot from fixed guns. Any design issue that adds weight just ties back into this and in scenarios where ship sizes have to be limited for practical reasons, you have the famous rocket problem of needing to add more stuff to support the added weight which itself adds more weight.
Then you have the issue of longevity. In survival you have to carry the ammo you need, and ammo containers now explode. You can actively assemble ammo as a mitigating factor but you still need the components stored and that is also a lot of weight. Same ammo with more guns means you run out too fast, and adding more ammo storage means more space and more weight. I usually consider rate of fire and gun count, then decide how long it needs to be able to fight to be worth sending in then stock it for a fight of that length (or multiple shorter fights if its role requires that) so I can't go overboard on guns otherwise the weapon logistics become a hassle.
Finally you have surface area economy, which is generally split between hangars, propulsion and guns. Too many guns can mean not enough exterior space for thrusters, and hiding thrusters inside to maximize gun space makes it harder to fit all the internals you need, or to keep them spaced apart in case things blow up. This can mean needing a bigger ship which means more thrusters and weight and a larger, easier to hit profile which is bad for smaller classes of ship. This is a targeting issue, as cramming external features too close means targeted weapons will bring shots close to other things when having naked armor around it may be more ideal. This all ties together to mean that a ship with fewer guns will have its guns hit and disable less often, while a ship with more guns will lose more turrets from glancing shots, so you may start out with more firepower but it will decrease from damage more rapidly than a more sparsely armed ship.
TL;DR in situations where ship size matters logistically you use as little weight as possible by not taking more guns and ammo than needed for the intended purpose, and for larger ships you can have functional blocks with high component counts like refineries and gyros near other important things to soak up shots to save on internal space and use a bit less armor. Things on the inside and outside should be reasonably spaced to lower the effectiveness of incoming fire, at least as far as disabling stuff and explosions go. Ship design is all about purpose, don't try too hard to make ships that can do everything.
I'm just starting space engineers, thanks to me having no dedicated GPU though I can't play on planets without massive lag, so I stick to creative mode and messing with ships I make,
Except my ships always suck, only made two so far really, the first was an overly heavy small frame with too many blocks
The second ship I made was a massive improvement in terms of defense and damage output, expect it's slow like the first one having too many blocks, and it looks like a piece of junk
I love to uild V-shaped ships like the star wars ship Supremacy with an angle more than 90° - they are very effective in 1v1. You can mount more fixed weapons at the whole front that will act like a ship cutter and this hard to evade. Every turret can fire in the main direction.
I got SE when it just came out or maybe even early access and then forgot about it. I cannot believe how far it's come. Oh. My daayyum.
I have a ship I built as a broadsider, mostly for fun. I learned, by accident, that If I angle it right I can get 3 of the 4 gun lines on a target if they're over 350 meters out. Generally I'd angle it to get the bridge out of the way both to protect it, and so the gun line that blocked out by the hull of the ship is the one that would've been partially obstructed by the bridge. I might play around with it to see if I can improve it more
6:40 definition of a gun brick.
Something I've noticed: I made a quad symmetrical ship once (battleship ridge on top, left, right, and bottom). The idea was that at least a third of the guns would be on target if I could keep it within the front 180 degree cone, theoretically all if directly in front (this ship had a lot of gyros). Anyhow, something I noticed repairing the ship afterwards: just due to how I flew and tended to instinctively orient myself, the side guns took all the damage (even though I had decoys) while the top and bottom ridges where untouched. It could be just that the side guns were "closer" to the enemy and targeted first, IDK. All I know is that something about the placement of ridges on the top and bottom seems to give them a defensive advantage compared to the side weapons.
It could've been splash damage from explosions - where a missile would've hit next to a turret on the side, it may have missed on the ridges, where there is no hull around the ship.
This is interesting, maybe jutting the turrets out from the hull a little isn't such a bad idea
@@bobbobson304 I hadn't thought of that. That could be it, as I did have quite a few missile attacks during that fight. As for the further out turrets, I think that might have merit, especially with decoys too. I had heard from some engineers that you wanted to put decoys behind your most armored section (so that they had to chew through all that heavy armor), but MAYBE that should be supplemented with "decoy spikes" in a ridge on top and bottom. That way, you'd get a similar effect even with the turrets placed on the side.
I prefer my brick with 600 turrets on all sides
Question does space engineers work on a high end laptop, I’m thinking about buying it but I’m worried about performance issues
I use the xps 15 and it runs pretty smoothly at medium settings
Cool good to know
I play on a MSI Katana GF76 11UD gaming laptop, I'm not sure what exactly you meant by high end as in normal laptops or gaming but I hope my input helps
Yeah I might have a Mary Sue ship or two but then again I've also designed them so that they're fun to fight when you're shooting them stuff like space armor plates nay sales shear off I'll do things like connecting conveyors to decoys so that when the decoys are destroyed the piping shears away same with spaced armor I got warheads placed in the hall so they explode like in the movies when you shoot it you'll see debris flying off the ship when you fire it and I don't know which is more fun piloting the scavenger ship or shooting it on one hand yes it can absolutely tank it and everyone knows that but you don't even notice that it's just as I said fun to shoot at and in my opinion if I can make it a little more entertaining for me and for my enemy that's worth it
my main philosophy is split between 2 simple ideas
1: your Primary weapons should be able to be able to concentrate fire on a single target. Secondary Guns should be placed sparingly to compensate for the biggest weaknesses. Point Defense should be spread fairly evenly.
2: each gun should be placed with the maximum angle that it can achieve with very few exceptions. a gun that can't fire by design is worse than a destroyed gun.
i tend to build ships with IRL specs, so i do over-size and over-gun my ships comparatively to other peoples (everything in SE is smaller). i kind of would like a mod that added the rest of the Iceberg to the rest of the guns. i've seen a couple mods try it, and designing my ship based around those limitations was fun.
Fighter sized large grid with hybrid small grid weapons, turrets, timers, programmable bloks and reactors. Takes up no space and has a lot of armor 👍 salvo, ship dianostic and radar scripted. Once done, then add lightness.
Are you gonna be using the new DLC in this series?
yep, we keep it up to date with the DLC packs.
I actually struggle with armor more than guns, but i'll take this to mind.
Great video! Awesome info
Thanks.
I’m pretty sure it wasn’t the ships of taffy three that slipped beneath the guns of a battleship, a vessel I know that did that was USS Laffey DD-459 during the battle of Guadalcanal
About a year late to this party, but it looks like you're still using somewhat similar budget and design rules:
You can roleplay storage containers as your "reload mechanisms" for ships. Certain weapons would need more storage containers, etc etc, special rules can exist where each storage container individually has like a maximum amount of ammunition it can hold, and only for one weapons system, etc.
I feel it would add a more engineering-friendly way to limit weapons than just the forcible point system. It would be literally impossible to add a million light guns onto a frigate, because each light gun needs its own storage container or two, and each storage container can hold only so much ammo.
Do you think it's a good Idea to defend you Battleship with PD Corvets while your Destroyers and Crusers Go against the normal enemy ship.
I'm wanting to get into PVP, and Idk if the two ships I have would cut it, as they were both designed more for their appearance than anything else.
I want to try them out, though, and see if I could rework them into combat variants.
The Ravager, aka IMDC Titan Cruiser (what it's adapted from) is a downright nasty design. Its "weak side" is obviously its back where the engines are. Head on is a bit weaker. But from any other angle you're going to have 50% of the ship's weapons firing on you at any one time. At least with legacy weapons it was rather meh from the front with only 8 rocket launchers, but in my own refit of it I stuffed 8 railguns in there firing in sequence. After that you're expected to go broadside and let the heavy weapons take the enemy apart.
Tbh, now that carrier with Ai controlled drones are possible, people really should think about engaging multiple targets at once, mabye not a battleships job, mabye if a faction has a big flagship or command ship, then that would be a great option for that kind of combat
I'm going to build a oval fighter and no one can stop me
how are you enforcing weapon limits on your players ships? is there a mod that can do that?
A team of reviewers who have to look over a ship before it is permitted for use
Gork an mork wantz ya stingy gitz to add moar dakka
Gork an Mork needz ta learn dat makin less dakka 'it like more dakka is jus as good as boltin on more dakka in da first place!
@@CaptainRhodor Ya wot I'll krump ya you git all da boiz knowz that moar dakka is betta cause youz can never haz enough dakka
@@willowyknight7645 But wot if we'z made da dakka betta!
@@CaptainRhodor now thatz gud thinkin thatz shor ta make gork and mork real appy!
Actually is use the Poseidon salvo and the missile come back at me and damage my ship
Did my comment in some way inspire this video?
I like to join one of the faction how do I join?
My ship violates several laws
The combat in this game isn't fun, because you spend so much time creating the ship, and having to repair every voxel isn't quite exciting or something you want to spend hours doing.
Can you do a faction creation guide please?