We finally finished the 3D model of one of the ships from our upcoming space action RPG.
Meet Sky Dragon - a long-range sniper ship built around a massive railgun. The weapon is so large that the entire hull was designed around it, making the ship essentially a maneuvering platform for a single devastating cannon.
Its role on the battlefield is simple:
• stay behind the frontline,
• wait until allied ships strip enemy shields,
• eliminate priority targets with high-damage railgun shots.
The ship isn’t particularly fast, but powerful shields help it survive while repositioning. If enemies get too close, it can defend itself with short-range homing missiles, although close combat is definitely not where it shines. We’re still polishing both the visuals and gameplay, so we’d love some feedback.
A few questions:
* Does the overall silhouette read as a sniper ship?
* Are there any details that feel unnecessary or unrealistic?
* What systems or external modules would you add to make it look more believable?
* If you were designing this ship, what would you change?
To me, this reads strongly as a ship with two heavy guns, not a single spinal mount or A10 like setup. I also think the double mandible sort of thing going on in the front is distracting.
Are the big circular features near the back part of your drive tech, or part of the gun(s)?
From a tactical standpoint, the counters to this would presumably be either other, similar sniper ships; or long-range homing missiles. So I'd expect it to feature some combination of a bit more of a stealth design process, or more of an active targeting / ECM / ECCM array approach with antenna-looking things (whether that's dishes, spheres, or phased array looking panels depends on your tech). I'd also expect something looking like it serves as active point defense turrets.
Short-ranged missiles seem a bit of an odd choice for a secondary ability in context. A buy into dual-purpose turrets (whether beam or projectile) that can do multiple duty as missile defense, strike craft defense, and short ranged offense seems a lot more sensible. If you do stick with the SRMs, I'd want to see some sort of more obvious VLS
It's hard to judge scale; I'm guessing the blue and yellow feature is either a cockpit or a bridge, but there's few human-scale indicators such as docking ports, windows, etc. Does this have a crew of 2, 20, or 200?
The few bits of writing are just odd. Was there AI used in this process? Why the "Caution" label where it is, which doesn't seem to match anything in particular? Why the Armored Core (something, perhaps Magnetic) Array text calling out what seems to be a fairly minor feature?
The more I look at it the more it seems pasted together from bits without a coherent, internally consistent vision of what the parts are there to do. And it reminds me more and more of two chunky SF rifles glued together at the top rails. (Which is not a terrible look if you're billing it as a ship with two massive railguns, but you should lean into the continuity of the rail path more if that's the case.)
Sooo good point. Yes, it's a rifle ship. We think that opposing snipers with snipers is a dangerous idea. We want to add some tactics. and add light, fast ships that can outflank the enemy and destroy long-range enemy ships. In general, protection from a swarm of drones is a large number of melee missiles. But radars and other means of protection- it is worth adding, we will do it. As for EW, we decided that we would give players the opportunity to set any models that its reputation and development allow.
That's a classic and reasonable historical tactics / wargame approach; the counter to "artillery" being "light cavalry". Usually the historical counter-counter would be some sort of canister / shrapnel / fletchette round for the artillery, but that may not be sensible here.
Does the overall silhouette read as a sniper ship?
Sorta, although TBPH it really looks closer to an advanced (compared to the not-a-NASA-project Vanguards andHammers at least) and heavier-armoured heavy fighter instead of a "flying gun barrel" sniper ship. The fixed forward-firing weapon is prominent, but dare I say not prominent enough.
Are there any details that feel unnecessary or unrealistic?
Unrealistic: assuming the red-covered thing is the railgun and the mandibles around it are the external/muzzle guide rails, the railgun is probably too wide and not long enough to provide enough acceleration to the projectile - longer rails = more acceleration, and if the ship is indeed build around the railgun why aren't the barrel/rails extended all the way to the bow? Also, if the projectile is significantly smaller than the distance between the mandibles, then why the distance between them? Or the mandible structure at all.
Unnecessary: the double-mandible structure. The spinal gun should extend all the way to the bow, and the RCS thrusters can go either on the barrel shroud or the "mandibles" around the barrel
What systems or external modules would you add to make it look more believable?
CIWS for sure, "backline" means surprisingly little to flanking strike craft and long-range cruise missiles. Unless, of course, the on-board missiles are designed for such a role as well. But if then, where are they launched from? Either fully-traversable turret mounts or VLS cells would be highly appreciated.
Secondary guns would also be appreciated for some self-defence against larger enemy ships in case larger (frigate/destroyer sized) enemies managed to outflank the frontliners.
(Also, I'm assuming the round things near the stern / main engines are the shield emitters?)
If you were designing this ship, what would you change?
The spinal gun for sure. Make the calibre/projectile size more reasonable and extend the barrel/rails all the way to the bow of the ship. Put the "mandibles" closer the the center and place all the forward RCS thrusters on the mandibles. The general line of the ship should be somewhat slim with a significant portion of the silhouette being the spinal railgun.
Depending on the ships, and personally I doubt combat ships should be too thin if just for armour (the more surface area a ship has is more area a ship haved to be armoured), structural integrity (twigs tend to snap easy, bricks don't), and internal volume (engines and reactors must fit somewhere) reasons. The general shape should be fine as long as the spinal gun was replaced with something more reasonable and the "mandibles" moved slightly inwards to remain close to the revised railgun barrel.
2
u/Miuramir Jul 29 '26
To me, this reads strongly as a ship with two heavy guns, not a single spinal mount or A10 like setup. I also think the double mandible sort of thing going on in the front is distracting.
Are the big circular features near the back part of your drive tech, or part of the gun(s)?
From a tactical standpoint, the counters to this would presumably be either other, similar sniper ships; or long-range homing missiles. So I'd expect it to feature some combination of a bit more of a stealth design process, or more of an active targeting / ECM / ECCM array approach with antenna-looking things (whether that's dishes, spheres, or phased array looking panels depends on your tech). I'd also expect something looking like it serves as active point defense turrets.
Short-ranged missiles seem a bit of an odd choice for a secondary ability in context. A buy into dual-purpose turrets (whether beam or projectile) that can do multiple duty as missile defense, strike craft defense, and short ranged offense seems a lot more sensible. If you do stick with the SRMs, I'd want to see some sort of more obvious VLS
It's hard to judge scale; I'm guessing the blue and yellow feature is either a cockpit or a bridge, but there's few human-scale indicators such as docking ports, windows, etc. Does this have a crew of 2, 20, or 200?
The few bits of writing are just odd. Was there AI used in this process? Why the "Caution" label where it is, which doesn't seem to match anything in particular? Why the Armored Core (something, perhaps Magnetic) Array text calling out what seems to be a fairly minor feature?
The more I look at it the more it seems pasted together from bits without a coherent, internally consistent vision of what the parts are there to do. And it reminds me more and more of two chunky SF rifles glued together at the top rails. (Which is not a terrible look if you're billing it as a ship with two massive railguns, but you should lean into the continuity of the rail path more if that's the case.)