Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RAM]

This is just for formatting, I am not actually endorsing anything here.

4) Design a destroyer sized ship armed with AA weapons only , (twin 40mm guns, quad patriotisms)  we may need to conduct naval operations and our little fleet needs better protection: Priority: Low

Proposal 6: Build an 8 cylinder variant of the engine and then try to lower its weight.

Proposal 7: Give RAM 3 engineers and a shack.

8.
Remove mine laying equipment and mines from our
cruisers, add many patriotism machineguns instead.  Priority: Low

9)OK, we finish working out the kinks on that PT boat/transport so that that offloading ramp works properly without sinking the boat

10)We get a blueprint started for a class of light frigates to provide protection to the rest of the fleet from aircraft(unless that was their only airfield, in which case the design becomes a light shiphunter/standoff bombardment ship).
Proposal 11: Regardless, I propose the design of lighter 120mm guns for these frigates (mounted into two single turrets) so as to provide some antiship capability

12)Alternately, since we captured their airfield we can go ahead and design a heavier aircraft capable of dropping a couple bombs, and begin a bombing campaign against their cities until they surrender

13)Doesn't really need to be said, but for clarity, begin producing Hydras so that they can form flak brigades to protect the armored divisions as they advance. If needed, expand the existing factory to handle the Hydra and all future Badger variants we might come up with(I have an ARV(Armored Recovery Vehicle) in mind for when we have breathing room)

14)Also, get as many of the new infantry weapons made as possible. See if we can get the military to sponsor a small-arms factory to speed up re-arming the troops

15)lower priority:If we managed to capture any of those TDs, take them apart and see if there's anything we can learn from them, as well as put any ones that are fixable through their paces to test their capabilities. What I want most is to reverse engineer and improve upon that 60mm gun, we might be able to use that in our own badger TDs

16) Expand the shipyard to handle ships of at least 2000 tons so we can start building proper warships

17) take the powered turret, It makes it's easier for the crew + useful for naval version of the turret

18) Analyze captured designs, especially 6mm ammo and 6mm machine-guns, try to design light SMG using 6mm bullet. Also reverse engineer and start producing 6mm ammo to use trophy carbines

19) Modify new Hydra turret to be used at navy, install them to our cruisers replacing mines and mining equipment.

20)  Redesign Righteous prototype once again, replace watercooled patriotisms with new AA turret(s)
10 Build Righteous universal boats, we need coast defense\landing crafts\patrol boats\mine layers whatever plans our military has. I do not think that  ramp needs to be fixed, we'll design a proper landing craft later. Those are our jack of all trades and can work without landing ramps.

21) Build more sniper rifles, SVA-10s, and, if any suitable design is made, those new 6mm SMGs from 7. But this is low priority, no land combat is expected soon

22)  New naming scheme for our navy (that always varied from navy to navy so we can invent our own, rename our existing destroyers to corvettes)
Up to 250 - Boat
250-750 - Corvette
750-1500 - Frigate
1500-3000 - Destroyer
3000-6000 - Cruiser

23) build Hydras, build more fighters, design  and build dedicated 80mm heavy fixed AA guns to be placed around our cities, we need to be ready for Morovian bombers. Do not work on bombers, securing our cities is more important 

24) Design new engine compatible with our current fighters to solve our lower speed problem. Retrofit existing fighters with new engines

25) Design 320mm gun and shell for it to be used as coastal battery to defend our capital and other coastal cities thus freeing our navy for offensive operations

Tryrar may have supported 17-25


_______________________________________________________________________
'k, now for my stuff.
I oppose:
-4, aircraft are nimble, they can probably mostly avoid a ship that has no purpose other than to shoot aircraft, at least put some sort of threatening weapon on it, or maybe some sort of cargo or observation ability...
 -11 We already have an 80mm and 160mm, one of those should do as this is a low priority.
 -12 We should spend a couple of years working on our engine first.
 -13 Let the army complain first. It doesn't seem like a pressing issue to me. Although I like the idea of more easily modifiable factories.
 -18 I just don't want it...
 -20 those turrets sound heavy, and the Righteous is already slow. But I support building it.
 -22 I want our designs to be labelled according to function, not weight. Submarine Destroyers are fleet protectors, Battleships are for heavy bombardment, Cruisers are, umm, support ships? Frigate might be scouts? pickets? making up the numbers? What to do if you can't be bothered with a capital ship? Boats are things that can dock at any random port and probably just beach themselves at a calm lagoon if they are desperate... Corvettes are frigates but more so... Frigates and corvettes should be fast...
 -23 What sort of vile miscreants would sack a city in this day and age?
 -24 This fighter was an emergency measure, I want to get a really nice engine then build a new fighter around that.

I support:
6 and 7, but I made those.
+9
+15 But I am not really interested in a 60mm gun, I just want to know if they have anything interesting about them.
+16
+17
+25 I am mostly looking for an excuse to turn it into a heavy artillery piece later on, but it is a good suggestion without that.


Concerns:
8: Have patriots actually been shooting down aircraft? I would want to look into a 40mm AA gun with better range and accuracy first.

Proposal 14.2: Focus on the production of the automatic rifle and shotgun.
Proposal 20.2: Build Righteous.

[tryrar]

I did change my mind about the PT boat and went with UR on it. We can work on a proper landing craft later, the higher priority is to finish it and get them built

[kahn1234]

I support the notion that we should defend our cities with heavy coastal batteries and 80mm flak guns, but i'd also make sure to add in that we need the quad linked MG's as well, situated on top of buildings and in their own fortified areas.

Also, bunkers, especially on the coast, to defend against any landing operations.

I also support the notion that we need more semi auto rifles (the SVA-10's effectiveness at medium/short range will complement the Nagants effectiveness at long/medium range very well). I would also like more pistols and shotguns as sidearms as well for the really gritty close quarters and house-to-house fighting.

26) Thirdly, i support the design and construction of a 8mm SMG. I'd preferably like it to have a straight stock (as opposed to the slight bent look the files have) to help handle recoil (and so it doenst 'pivot' about the soldiers shoulder) and either a 80 round box magazine or a 60 round drum magazine. Also, give it an air cooled, long-ish barrel. Finally, give it a forward grip for extra control.

27) Fourthly, I'd like to also recommend we lengthen and widen the chassis for the next stage of the Badger. Give it better treads, two (instead of one) engines, make sure the engines are of the new type (the ones with far more power) and i'd say increase the armour on the front and sides of the turret and hull by 10-15mm. Keep the armour slanted as much as possible to reduce penetration chance and also try to keep the gap between the turret and the hull as small as is possible without compromising the turrets turning capability. I's also recommend looking into powering the Badgers turret, so it traverses faster. Better optics too are needed. Finally, try to lighten it as much as possible without compromising firepower, mobility or protection and if that means we need to completely redesign some parts, then so be it.

I'd also recommend we dont rely solely on a 320mm coastal gun. have everything from 80mm to 320mm coastal batteries to keep up a constant rate of fire, to cover the time it takes to reload guns of 200mm and up.

[Sensei]

Proposal 7: Give RAM 3 engineers and a shack.

All these proposals! But this one in particular... you perhaps had attractive, female engineers in mind?

[kahn1234]

Also, i'd just like to say, we should NOT just focus on one thing per turn.

At the moment it seems to be we are reacting rather than predicting. Don't think for one second that other countries aren't watching with interest in this war, especially our other neighbour and rival, who will most likely have observers in both our nations, watching and cataloging our designs, strategies, equipment etc.

I wouldn't put it past our other neighbour to attack us when we try to launch an amphibious assault on our current enemies.


On a side note, what are the current Great Powers? and are there any treaties (such as the Washington and London naval treaties) that we should be aware of?

[tryrar]

Kahn, we don't need to upgrade the badger quite yet, they've only just started coming up with counters to our tanks, and pretty ineffective ones at that. If you read the post, the rest of the country is across a sea, so we need some naval units to defend against ocean attacks and to begin the process of invading them(if they don't wise up and surrender first. That's the only way they'll keep any portion of their country )

When we get some good ships, I'll support badger upgrades

[kahn1234]

Kahn, we don't need to upgrade the badger quite yet, they've only just started coming up with counters to our tanks, and pretty ineffective ones at that. If you read the post, the rest of the country is across a sea, so we need some naval units to defend against ocean attacks and to begin the process of invading them(if they don't wise up and surrender first. That's the only way they'll keep any portion of their country )

When we get some good ships, I'll support badger upgrades

As i said, we shouldnt get complacent. The Germans did and their Panzers got massacred by the Russians revolutionary tank designs (the KV-1, for all its faults, was known to be able to crush entire German armoured columns early into Operation Barbarossa and come away unscathed).

I think we need to take the fact that they HAVE come up with a counter and one that, with the right modifications (such as high velocity AP ammo), could really give our tankers a bad day.

heavier armour, better optics, longer cannon, better and more engines, better tracks, longer and wider chassis, powered turret traverse and elevation etc are all needed to keep ahead of the game.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

aircraft are nimble, they can probably mostly avoid a ship that has no purpose other than to shoot aircraft, at least put some sort of threatening weapon on it, or maybe some sort of cargo or observation ability...

Well, If enemy aircrafts will choose to avoid our fleet... I like that. But for know I abandon that, simply boosting AA of cruisers will help without straining our designing. But later, dedicated AA escorts should be made

-20 those turrets sound heavy, and the Righteous is already slow. But I support building it.

Well, I proposed to remove 4 machineguns and replacing it with a turret, but maybe 4 separate machineguns will work good enough, too. Support 20.2, producing Righteous without further modifications of the prototype

I vote against 4 to 15 (well all not my suggestions, but what can I say? I dislike them) Engine designs while good, should  be centered around compatibility with existing aircraft, we put a lot of manpower in it, I am not ready to abandon it. Surviving fighters deserve new engines. And they are good enough to produce more after modernization. Even when they'll stop being viable fighters, we'll change them to liason\recon\utility\Night attack roles

Especially I vote against 7, It's either not a funny joke or an attempt to turn the game into a quasi multiplayer

Also I vote against 26 Mosin's round and smg, doesn't mix at all. Even  6mm rifle round may be a bit too heavy for that. But Fedorov Automat worked on that, I think we can make 6mm

And against 27
Tanks can wait, we have more pressing needs.
Current Badgers will serve for years without need for upgrade, even if moved to secondary roles later.

Also, I am not a big fan of slopes everywhere, as those make tanks more expensive to make and more cramped.

Besides I strongly dislike what RAM did, old proposals from the prior turns should be renumbered if someone propose them again and it's bad to renumber something that was  numbered before as this will create confusion

BTW, Tryrar and others boldify you votes for\against or they may go unnoticed

Khan, I think we need to focus. That's allows better designs. Spreading too thin will lead only to many crappy designs.

Spoiler:  RW OCC (click to show/hide)

 And no, German tanks never were massacred by KV-1s, they just had some problems with them, problems solved by balanced army and greater mobility of all tanks they had.
Also, In my opinion German PZ III and Pz IV tanks are better than T-34, even if they were somewhat weaker in tank to tank combat (main role of tank is not to fight other tanks but to provide mobile firepower) . and I think that Germans made a huge mistake by introducing panthers wasting too much resources on that expensive tank
Balanced army is what we need not having tanks that are 20 years ahead to all other countries

[kahn1234]

aircraft are nimble, they can probably mostly avoid a ship that has no purpose other than to shoot aircraft, at least put some sort of threatening weapon on it, or maybe some sort of cargo or observation ability...

Well, If enemy aircrafts will choose to avoid our fleet... I like that. But for know I abandon that, simply boosting AA of cruisers will help without straining our designing. But later, dedicated AA escorts should be made

-20 those turrets sound heavy, and the Righteous is already slow. But I support building it.

Well, I proposed to remove 4 machineguns and replacing it with a turret, but maybe 4 separate machineguns will work good enough, too. Support 20.2, producing Righteous without further modifications of the prototype

I vote against 4 to 15 (well all not my suggestions, but what can I say? I dislike them) Engine designs while good, should  be centered around compatibility with existing aircraft, we put a lot of manpower in it, I am not ready to abandon it. Surviving fighters deserve new engines. And they are good enough to produce more after modernization. Even when they'll stop being viable fighters, we'll change them to liason\recon\utility\Night attack roles

Especially I vote against 7, It's either not a funny joke or an attempt to turn the game into a quasi multiplayer

Also I vote against 26 Mosin's round and smg, doesn't mix at all. Even  6mm rifle round may be a bit too heavy for that. But Fedorov Automat worked on that, I think we can make 6mm

And against 27
Tanks can wait, we have more pressing needs.
Current Badgers will serve for years without need for upgrade, even if moved to secondary roles later.

Also, I am not a big fan of slopes everywhere, as those make tanks more expensive to make and more cramped.

Besides I strongly dislike what RAM did, old proposals from the prior turns should be renumbered if someone propose them again and it's bad to renumber something that was  numbered before as this will create confusion

BTW, Tryrar and others boldify you votes for\against or they may go unnoticed

Khan, I think we need to focus. That's allows better designs. Spreading too thin will lead only to many crappy designs.

Spoiler:  RW OCC (click to show/hide)

 And no, German tanks never were massacred by KV-1s, they just had some problems with them, problems solved by balanced army and greater mobility of all tanks they had.
Also, In my opinion German PZ III and Pz IV tanks are better than T-34, even if they were somewhat weaker in tank to tank combat (main role of tank is not to fight other tanks but to provide mobile firepower) . and I think that Germans made a huge mistake by introducing panthers wasting too much resources on that expensive tank
Balanced army is what we need not having tanks that are 20 years ahead to all other countries

Complacency. I know you'll argue for all eternity because you think your way is the best way (clue: it isnt).

Weapons systems need constant upgrades as counters constantly come out.

The Germans designed and built the Panthers because the Panzer 3's and 4's couldn't come close to the T-34 and the KV tanks. The only thing that could penetrate a KV's armour was the dedicated upper calibre AT guns which could be easily flanked by faster tanks whilst they focused on the KV or taken out by infantry whilst the KV's distracted the German armour. Main reason for the production of the Panther was the impenetrability of Russian tanks and the forced reliance on stationary AT guns.

And the PPSH-41 used a 7.62mm round, and the gun is still an effective weapon. It doesn't have to be a full 8mm rifle round, but a shorter pistol variant. hell the Thompson used the .45 pistol round which is a 11.43mm round. Are you telling me the Thompson wasn't an effective weapon? and SMG's use 9mm rounds today, and they are effective.

and as for your aversion to sloped armour, it just shows how out of touch you are in armoured warfare. Tanks aren't only ever going to show their front. They need sloped, decent thickness armour on their front and sides of both the turret and the hull. To combat the loss of space, i recommended lengthening and widening the chassis, which has the added bonus of allowing thicker/wider tracks, better stability and more room for a powerful power-plant. Also, wider tracks allows better mobility in bad conditions.

also, a longer and wider chassis would be better for variants (like armoured recovery vehicles and armoured engineer vehicles) and will also make it easier to upgrade the turret mechanisms and cannon in later versions.

As i have said before, a good strategist and designer does not REACT to threats, they PREDICT threats and make sure they are taken by surprise. They plan for every eventuality.


Finally, it wasn't the design or construction of the Panther that negatively effected Germany, it was the Tiger, King Tiger and vanity projects put forward by Hither that negatively impacted Germany. If anything, the Panther helped prolong Germany's downfall.

[tryrar]

Kahn, our navy is currently 6 ships, and one of those counts more as a boat and isn't ready for military trials anyways; as well, we're now going to have to fight across a sea if we want to continue this battle. We need naval ships more than tanks right now, as soon as we get these designs finished, THEN we can stop reacting and start thinking ahead(FWIW I agree with you we need to start thinking about badger upgrades, but not this turn). I'll agree that rather than a 120mm on the frigate, two twin 80mm turrets might be a good idea for antiship.

So new number 10:

10)Get a class of light frigates designed that incorporates two turrets that are either single or double 80mm cannons, and try to fit several Hydra turrets and twin 40mms for AA/point-blank AS, as well as incorporating a couple torpedo tubes. This should be the standard light combatant for our fleet. The "destroyers" should be turned into second-line support ships such as PT boat fleet command

And in case it wasn't clear: I support 17-25

[Kashyyk]

My proposal
26) Design an offshoot of the Badger's 40mm cannon, aiming for increased muzzle velocity. This should, as a secondary affect allow better penetration, better accuracy and more range. In all other ways the cannon should be effectively the same.

Eventually, the Morovian's (or someone else) will produce armour which we cannot reliably penetrate with our current tank cannon. This is to pre-empt that.

[kahn1234]

How about a corvette type ship that supports landings?

a twin 80mm turret on the front to bombard the shore, shallow draft so it can get in close, multiple front facing MG's and several AA platforms to combat aircraft.

it could also have the capability to launch landing craft off its side, although no more than 2 i suppose.

[RAM]

Proposal 7: Give RAM 3 engineers and a shack.

All these proposals! But this one in particular... you perhaps had attractive, female engineers in mind?

Well, I vanish into a shack with three engineers and occasionally a poorly thought-out design emerges. The rumour mill will naturally do its part...

Especially I vote against 7, It's either not a funny joke or an attempt to turn the game into a quasi multiplayer.

Besides I strongly dislike what RAM did, old proposals from the prior turns should be renumbered if someone propose them again and it's bad to renumber something that was  numbered before as this will create confusion

I suppose quasi multiplayer is what I am trying for. I am having a terrible time trying to force my vanity projects into production and I was worried that I was becoming argumentative and disruptive.

I probably wouldn't have done it otherwise, but the G.M. explicitly said that some of the proposals from the previous year were still valid. So the situation that we had meant that 4,6,7,and 8 all had two different proposals. Also, recall that the G.M. wanted links included in, I think, votes of support for other suggestions.

[tryrar]

My proposal
26) Design an offshoot of the Badger's 40mm cannon, aiming for increased muzzle velocity. This should, as a secondary affect allow better penetration, better accuracy and more range. In all other ways the cannon should be effectively the same.

Eventually, the Morovian's (or someone else) will produce armour which we cannot reliably penetrate with our current tank cannon. This is to pre-empt that.

Since I had proposed the same thing last year, I support this(basically finish up work on the AT 40mm that didn't get finished last year)

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Khan I really suggest to do all the real world discussions in the spoiler. Let's not force others to scroll our walls of text

Spoiler: RW stuff (click to show/hide)

On SMG: When you say 8mm without specifying new round that means using the one existing.

On tanks: You are full of history channel myths on that. KV could be disabled by lighter guns, while it was troublesome it wasn't impossible at all with right tactics.

You ignored my words that main role of the tank is
not to combat other tanks....

As for Panther, it's subjective, but IMO it was too expensive and it's good antitank ability wasn't that useful on strategical scale. Tank destroyed could take that role.

Shermans never claimed to be very good against Tigers and Panthers but Americans produced them, not some heavier machine. Think why.

and as for your aversion to sloped armour, it just shows how out of touch you are in armoured warfare.

Look at modern tanks, Only few tanks (Like Merkavas)  can be called heavily sloped, others are quite boxy. Front armors are sloped.  But side armors (including turrets) are not
It never was an obvious decision  to make sloped armors. It's effects were well known from the mid 19 century (from naval armor) about sloped armor effect, but it made tanks more expensive and cramped. Some armored vehicles were sloped (look at french S-35 tank for example. It was done long before "revolutionary sloped T-34" Same with German armored cars) Some not. Because boxy tanks are easier to make (both in cost and workhours), have more space and easier in maintenance.


I love tanks, I am not an expert, but yours "out of touch" makes me smile

Good strategist produces what is needed now, not something that may be useful ten years later

In fact, I am against designing any new tanks until we cover our heavy artillery (I'd like to build extensive coastal batteries, both 160mm and 320mm. Also, I'd design 120mm as 80mm is too small for destroyer and 160mm is too big)  As well as new 80mm AA guns to cover our industry), navy (I'd like to build, 30-50 under 500 ton ships, 5-10 1000 ton ships, few 2000 ton ships in the following years and maybe one 4000-5000)  and airforce (light fighters, heavy fighters, torpedo bombers, transports for mobility. Maaaaybe early helicopters) needs. Even if that means several years without new models of tanks (Note that Badgers will be produced whatever we do. It's good to not change a model, because industry adapts to it and will produce them faster and faster with less and less flaws)

Of cause that will change if we'll get into a new full scale land war...

10.2 I fully support the above tryrar's, post and provide a new number to the proposal in it

I also fully  support 26 ( or rather 28, Kashyk missed 26 and 27, if it is low priority But I want to note that we are starting to have too many design projects in this turn