Print

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

[Brood]

I took destroyer and designed an anti ship escort. Otherwise I'd have gone much smaller.

What do we need next turn and this time please be specific.

[10ebbor10]

We're mainly finishing stuff up, I think.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

How can we know what we will need next turn? Enemy may start bombing us with heavy bombers, we may get invaded by country #2, enemy may meet us with their cruisers, counter revolution may start in our country,  peace treaty and several years of calm developement may happen or we'll get invaded by aliens

[Brood]

.... I'm gonna get the bones of a chopper done so I can do a heavy transport and an attack chopper.

[tryrar]

The main reason I'm not voting for the DE right now and want to keep it limited to blueprints at the moment is we're approaching last-turn levels of stuff to do

[Brood]

+1 to 13

[mesor]

Vote for 13,15

[Nadaka]

Note: I am retconning LENGTH of your current artillery shells, but not your small arms bullets. I probably had them to long for low velocity rounds to start. This will not affect their actual performance. This will let me add high velocity rounds that are not rediculously long.

Beginning to compile the votes.

[Nadaka]

Ok, its taking me 3+ hours a day to run this game.

The update is still on for tonight, definitely will skip tomorrow.

Most likely will be moving to more like 3 updates a week.

[RAM]

20? Damn....  So you want to take  our experienced aviation engineer from the fighter project? To design something of a very niche use?

Well, yes, I would let them finish the project that they started.
Vote

18.3: Designate the new destroyer a cruiser

Vote

18.4 Keep Destroyer design theoretical (or in the fridge)

Veto veto veto20.1 It will just lead to and endless series of identical proposals countering each other, and at the end of the day, if enough people want it, then the vote to ignore the other votes will be nullified and the thing will pass anyway. Just assume that I made a 20.11: continue the project regardless of 20.1, and that everyone who voted for 20 also voted for 20.11... Now if you just wanted to retask the aviation engineer, then I wouldn't have supported it, taking the project lead off of a project reeks of desperation, but it would have been somewhat legitimate.

Well destroyer escorts were famous for being subhunting ships, so there's that as well....

Destroyer is an abbreviation of Torpedo-boat Destroyer or Submarine Destroyer. They exist to protect large anti-ship capital ships from small fast ships with torpedos that will, by tonnage ratio, massacre anything that is relying upon heavy anti-capital ship guns for their main armament. As submarines entered that role, destroyed adapted to fight submarines. Something that is designed to fight large ship is not a Destroyer.

Missed the chance for proposals, but I would like to suggest that next turn we advocate sending our capital ships and many righteous ships to blockade the enemy ports.

I also suggest a formant change for our posts to make things easier for the G.M.

Maintaining a master-list of proposals and votes is good, but can exacerbate mistakes.
Maximum of two proposal per player per update, there are plenty of players here and we can't do everything. If you have a dozen good ideas then you just have to hope someone else does something similar or that you can get it in next turn.
Maximum of 6 subproposals per player per update. Subproposals let us make something that everyone wants, so there should be some freedom there.
Spoiler our debates, just making the game-commands bold works, but spoilering stuff should reduce page size...

[Nadaka]

10ebbor10

While I tend to agree with you, I am a bit worried about possible entrance of the unnamed country in the war as they do posses navy and may provide airfields for Morovia

Also, I tend to hope that our new biplanes will keep enemy subs at bay

Also, that new destroyers can play hunt the merchant ships game way better than their subs

What saddens me is thatr government decided to syop making Righteous boats and switched that shipyard to popular devotions... That no one want to update to fit ASW role (really would prefer that to destroyer, but no one supported that)

I hope that my 18.5 will find enough support as this can be a neat ship

this was the result of an editing error... you should still have a shipyard producing the Righteous.

I've updated the first post again, corrected the missing shipyard and added the last 2 years of designs to the tech list.

[RAM]

P.S.
 This game is awesome, thankyou for all your efforts.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Destroyer is an abbreviation of Torpedo-boat Destroyer or Submarine Destroyer. They exist to protect large anti-ship capital ships from small fast ships with torpedos that will, by tonnage ratio, massacre anything that is relying upon heavy anti-capital ship guns for their main armament.

Well, yep name went directly from shortening  torpedo boat destroyer (fun fact in Ukrainian we call destroyer -  fleet minecarrier)

But WW2(midwar) destroyers were designed to fight with bigger ships, they had respectable Armour, they had had 4-6,  5-6 inch guns, and torpedos. They were meant to get close to capital ships and fight with them

That's why in WW2 terms like escort destroyer, ASW destroyer or frigate appeared, to distinguish between destroyers and support ships

Calling the ship proposed by Brood a cruiser is a nonsense. (2000 ton cruiser in 1930? Not funny)
Just go here for examples of real world destroyers : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_World_War_II_destroyers

Are those made to fight submarines\smaller ships? No way.
Modern missile destroyers are even further away from the original role

I propose, starting from ther next turn
a) banning direct anti-project (failed projects make game funnier after all) But if c is approved, then in theory, as votes are limited, let players to spend them in that way
b) Banning exact engenieer\workforce allocations as this can be discussed to hell and such discussion can't work with the current proposal system. Let GM handle this judging by number of votes\scale of the project. Maybe allow not numberic stuff like high priority\low prority, but still votes should be more important for the GM)
c) Limiting players to 2 design and 1 production proposals is something I very much support. Also limit the number of subproposals and votes to 6. +1 is also a subproposal, but  a boring one. That will stop the situation when majority of proposals do get voted.
d) no changing votes. Made vote is a made vote


And yep, Nadaka, great GMing

[RAM]

As I said earlier, I want designations based upon function rather than size. If you have a half-a-dozen twin 160mm turrets on a single heavily armoured ship or have half-a-dozen smaller vessels with a similar combined capability then give them the same classification... Throw in a light or heavy or something if it troubles you...
I would much prefer something like this:
Battleship: Heavily-armoured bombardment.
Cruiser: Swift-travelling bombardment.
Carrier: Primary armament= subsidiaries.
Destroyer: Fleet protection.
Frigate: Independent.
Corvette: Scout, surveillance, express transport, primarily built for speed.
Boat: Shallow-water operation.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

I prefer something more close to real world... For some immersion and logic

Destroyer-frigate-corvette-boat are basically same things under that classification. Because the very same ship can easily act as fleet escort, as independent hunters, as scout and all smaller ships can operate in shallow waters

The simplest example - Alexi. It can, and should operate in all this roles. Hell, it can be called a light cruiser, too. Because it can be used for shore bombardment... NO, it's a battleship! large portion of it's weight is armor.