Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 36 37 [38] 39 40 ... 74

Author Topic: The revolutionary design bureau (OOC)  (Read 43570 times)

RAM

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: The revolutionary design bureau (OOC)
« Reply #555 on: May 16, 2013, 10:27:58 am »

Apparently there was an eight-hundred millimetre gun designed in 1934, but, well, it required a railway... Ideally this gun would be defended and have the range to not require frequent repositioning, so you could get away with something that needed some disassembly to move.
It could be lowered to 240mm I suppose, but no lower than that.
The value of a large-calibre howitzer really can't be overstated. The ability to damage terrain, suppress hardened targets, and outright destroy a wide array of otherwise highly resistant opposition really does set it apart from lighter ordnance...
Logged
Vote (1) for the Urist scale!
I shall be eternally happy. I shall be able to construct elf hunting giant mecha. Which can pour magma.
Urist has been forced to use a friend as fertilizer lately.
Read the First Post!

10ebbor10

  • Bay Watcher
  • DON'T PANIC
    • View Profile
Re: The revolutionary design bureau (OOC)
« Reply #556 on: May 16, 2013, 10:32:51 am »

What I plan to propose next turn

Use unfinished airship aircraft carrier design and re-purpose it as flying headquaters

Fit radar in it. Fit powerful radio room. Add room for HQ stuff. Add machnegun turrets for it's protection. (but it should be protected by fighters, always), add equipment to allow it to dock helicopters.  ( to supply airship midair, mostly) Have gilders attached to it as the emergency escape option for the staff, abandon aircraft carrier role because that's not viable for heavier aircrafts


Our very own low tech AWACS
While I approve the idea of an AWAC airships, you really need to adjust the idea.

1. No helicopters: Why would you use a short range, low altitude tech to resupply a long range, high altitude vessel? Besides, a helicopter has a very low cargo capacity, meaning many, expensive rides. I doubt it'll even work as resupply. After all, in order to allow the helicopters to dock, the ship needs to drop to a lower altitude. This interferes with radar and intelligence operations, and wastes hydrogen gas and ballast(when going back up again). Both can't be refilled in adequate capacities midflight(meaning you might shorten operations, rather than lengthen them).  The lower altitudes also put the ship at risk (hydrogen burns easier, scenery collision).

Where are you going to put the helipads anyway. You can't put them below the airship. That would result in a very dangerous and complicated docking procedure (heli has to fly inbetween the pad and the capsule above it, while avoiding the structural parts attaching both). Additionally, it would interfere with radar operation and would weight a bloody lot.  You can't have them jut out from the sides, as that would destabilize the craft when helicopters land, and again, weights way too much.

The only remaining option is putting the pads on top. This is a bad idea, because that's where the hydrogen vents are located. It's a very bad idea to fly a combustion powered engine in a very volatile mixture of hydrogen/oxygen. Meaning that the airship will need to stay low far longer, in order to allow the hydrogen to dissipate.

Then there's the problem of actually docking them. Unlike helicopters, airships can't do stationkeeping. They just float around, and are on the mercy of the wind. This makes docking very dangerous, as the helicopter could fall of the pad before being secured, or just be blown into the airship. Also, helicopters need to cut pitch during landing, meaning that if they miss, they will very often hit the balloon.
I don't need to tell you what spinning helicopter blades do to a balloon, do I.

Gliders are bad Evacuation ships

Airships tend to crash for 3 reasons.
1. Scenery collision (Not much point in evacuation ships here)
2. Bad weather (There's only one thing worse than flying an airship in a storm, and that's flying a glider in a storm)
3. Balloon fire/ other dramatic loss of floatation capacity. (Gliders are useless here because they have more lift than the airship itself. Ie, if they're below the capsule, they will smash into it when they're made loose, if they're on top of the balloon, they're on fire now.)



Suggestions to fix these problems:
-Use planes to resupply the ship, or just don't resupply it at all.
       -Advantage of using planes is that it still retains it carrier role. (Useless for larger ships, I know, but you just can't cut it out.)
-Just use parachutes and rubber boats for evac.

The supply issues shouldn't be much more serious than any airship supply issues. The issue with the fighters is figuring out a docking system. We can create very light, relatively low-speed fighters for the task. Building an actual runway would likely be impractical, although if it was only catering to light aircraft then it might be possible using light materials. One could try some sort of bag, hook, or net if the aircraft we specifically designed to use it, or even some sort of railing that the aircraft uses as a runway but threads through a device on top of the aeroplane. Once you had such a device, then you could try to incorporate it into resupply efforts so that the airships would only have to dock to collect crew.
Most airships can reach speed up to 70 km/h or more. The most commonly used method (read only method) was to attach a hook to the plane, and then have the plane hook into a specially designed trapeze. The plane is then pulled up, in order to allow the pilot to leave his vehicle. Advantage is that it can handle fairly heavy planes, and most importantly, is very light itself.

Don't land stuff on top of the volatile balloon. The slightest spark can be enough to ignite the entire thing, especially considering we don't have truly airtight fabrics yet. There's always a bit of hydrogen leaking, and I'm not comfortable with combustion engines being near it.

Comparison:
Missed Landing below the capsule: Try again, there's nothing below you to collide with.
Missed Landing on top of the airship:  Significant chance to collide in balloon

HQ doesn't have to hold generals, but it should have some officers to coordinate air war, mostly defensive air war. I'd prefer to have few of that airships and keep them deep in own territory where only long range fighters can pose a threat (and those should be intercepted before they reach the airship)

Problem is that conventional escort may not work, because Airships are damn large targets and enemy may easily opt to arm it's fighters with long range inaccurate stuff like rockets or high caliber guns... Main form of protection for those airships aren't close escorts, but interceptions of whatever that tries to come near to it
What's the point in making your radar mobile when you're keeping it with you?  The entire point of a mobile radar is the ability to take it with you. I vote we do so, keeping it away from the front, but still, having it fly over enemy terretory.

Altitude should be the airships primary defense. Besides, it's got a radar for something, doesn't it.
Logged

Ukrainian Ranger

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: The revolutionary design bureau (OOC)
« Reply #557 on: May 16, 2013, 10:35:20 am »

WW2  and even WW1 disagree with you, RAM.
Those guns were nearly useless comparing to their cost

Value of high caliber howitzer is nearly zero in mobile warfare, the only real use - bust Magino-like forts
Logged
War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all; but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend.

tryrar

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: The revolutionary design bureau (OOC)
« Reply #558 on: May 16, 2013, 10:40:32 am »

Doublepost. I just got an idea for a good project; modernizing the Alexi! Due to the changes, it'll be treated as a separate class that will eventually replace all alexis and alexi 1337s:

Jaguar Escort Frigate. A larger, more modern frigate than the Alexi variants, this ~1500 ton frigate is designed top-down for ASW, ship-to-ship combat, and AA duties. It sports a double-hull and other anti-torpedo measures, a sonar and radar suite, 4 GVS-14s, 4 Hydra turrets, 4 double-mount twin HVG-40s in an open turret configuration, and 4(slightly modified) HVG-80s in a twin-turret configuration, as well as two front torpedo tubes+two hedghog mounts, and room for minelaying/depth-charge racks. It will, of course, use the new maritime deisel to power all this to keep the speed about the same as the Alexi's
« Last Edit: May 16, 2013, 10:44:58 am by tryrar »
Logged
This fort really does sit on the event horizon of madness and catastrophe
No. I suppose there are similarities, but I'm fairly certain angry birds doesn't let me charge into a battalion of knights with a car made of circular saws.

3_14159

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: The revolutionary design bureau (OOC)
« Reply #559 on: May 16, 2013, 10:47:40 am »

All right, let me take a look into my little crystal ball. Of course, all of that could will be invalidated soon enough...

Air war
Using the Zephyrs and new, unnamed fighters, the Capian air force will effectively be defeated during the first few days, before the Morovian forces arrive, fighting against which they will take higher losses. Only light casualties for the fighters. The wolverines, however, will be a different story. AA guns will take a high toll, here.
Zephyrs: ca. 30% losses, most against Morovia
New Fighters: about 10% losses, against mostly Morovian fighters
Wolverines: up to 50% losses. Mostly AA fire, though if they are used without air superiority that may go up.
Conclusion: Clear win, air superiority and the ability for CAS (Close Air Support).
Note: The hydra turrets might come in handy there, as the introduction of Capia in the conflict will provide them airfields to launch the shorter-range fighters and bombers.
Land War
Now, here it's interesting. In the tank department, we are faster and probably nearly armoured and armed the same. Artillery is a problem for large-scale assaults. Our infantry should have better fire power (especially against tanks) and is a ton more mobile - at least the motorized (Not sure how many that'll be). Probable tactics: Punch a hole though the front (using CAS), move through and attack from the rear. We will probably gain quite a bit land during the first few days up to two weeks, as after that, Morovia will join. Then it'll be a lot bloodier.
K-1: Probably up to 50%. They need to punch a hole through and will take most of the fighting.
Badger: Up to 20-30%. Lighter fighting, more flanking and rear-area.
For the rest about 10-20% losses.
Conclusion: Several rounds of fighting, but with a clear advantage for us. Artillery should pose the main problem.

Sea war
The sea war is our main problem. Unless we are able to destroy the enemy fleet through a surprise attack, our own must be relegated to scouting duty for air strikes. Our coastal batteries together with the aircraft should hold off any attack on our cities, though.
Conclusion: There's only one way to win the sea war: Conquer the ports!

I'll post something for new designs and airship comments later.
Logged

tryrar

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: The revolutionary design bureau (OOC)
« Reply #560 on: May 16, 2013, 10:50:00 am »

I thought we had agreed on the name of YR-2 Stormfront for the new fighter????
Logged
This fort really does sit on the event horizon of madness and catastrophe
No. I suppose there are similarities, but I'm fairly certain angry birds doesn't let me charge into a battalion of knights with a car made of circular saws.

10ebbor10

  • Bay Watcher
  • DON'T PANIC
    • View Profile
Re: The revolutionary design bureau (OOC)
« Reply #561 on: May 16, 2013, 10:52:01 am »

Quote
18. Design the Hunter submarine, modified on our previous design. The torpedo tubes should be lengthened to be twice their original length, in order to allow the useage of electric torpedos. Enlarged versions of current torpedos are also on board. The hull should be modified for this, so take that advantage to fix the flaw. Addition of hydrophone allows our submarine to find enemies from under water, while a snort (submarine snorkel) allows the submarine to take in air and use the diesel engines while remaining submerged. Tonnage will be freed by the removal of the deck gun, and a reducing the electrical engines to 2, as well as cutting battery reserves. Also ensure that this submarine has a greater depth allowance than previous models. Optimally, it should be capable of dropping to the bottom or below the thermocline, or at least below the depth of the enemy ships. Add a basic chemical lifesupport system.
Any comments on this. It got few votes, despite being the only submarine suggestion
Logged

Nadaka

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • http://www.nadaka.us
Re: The revolutionary design bureau (OOC)
« Reply #562 on: May 16, 2013, 10:54:31 am »

I thought we had agreed on the name of YR-2 Stormfront for the new fighter????

I only saw 1 vote for stormfront, "lightning" was in the text of the proposal (I don't know if was there to start or edited in later). I am perfectly fine calling it Lightning AKA Stormfront. Plenty of military vehicles have informal names, such as the A-10 Thunderbolt AKA Warthog.
Logged
Take me out to the black, tell them I ain't comin' back...
I don't care cause I'm still free, you can't take the sky from me...

I turned myself into a monster, to fight against the monsters of the world.

Funk

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: The revolutionary design bureau (OOC)
« Reply #563 on: May 16, 2013, 10:54:40 am »

I thought we had agreed on the name of YR-2 Stormfront for the new fighter????
+1
10ebbor10, surely we will be using helium to fill the airships?

Logged
Agree, plus that's about the LAST thing *I* want to see from this kind of game - author spending valuable development time on useless graphics.

Unofficial slogan of Bay 12 Games.  

Death to the false emperor a warhammer40k SG

10ebbor10

  • Bay Watcher
  • DON'T PANIC
    • View Profile
Re: The revolutionary design bureau (OOC)
« Reply #564 on: May 16, 2013, 10:57:23 am »

Nope. Helium is expensive, and is quite rare. Rarer than the cheap price would make you believe. (Cheapness is a result of the USA selling all their stock by 2015. Real price should be a 40fold of the current one)

Helium can only be found in some oil wells. We don't have oil, hence we can't have helium. (It's also fairly hard to refine.)
Logged

Taricus

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: The revolutionary design bureau (OOC)
« Reply #565 on: May 16, 2013, 10:58:56 am »

...How the heck do we have fuel for our tanks and such then?

And I really hope that either Capia or Morovia has oil fields, because we'll need them.
Logged
Quote from: evictedSaint
We sided with the holocaust for a fucking +1 roll

tryrar

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: The revolutionary design bureau (OOC)
« Reply #566 on: May 16, 2013, 11:01:51 am »

...dunno, it seems reasonable enough. Though, I'd go for something similar to the Type 93 long lance torps(or more accurately the type 95 sub-launched versions) rather than electric torpedos. For reference, the type 93 and 95 torps were compressed-oxygen wet burner torpedos; pure compressed oxygen burned much better than regular compressed air, and since the only waste gas really was CO2(which has higher solubility in water), there was a much reduced bubble trail.

Now, I'm not saying we copy the long lance, I'm just saying we develop compressed-oxygen wet burner torps

I thought we had agreed on the name of YR-2 Stormfront for the new fighter????

I only saw 1 vote for stormfront, "lightning" was in the text of the proposal (I don't know if was there to start or edited in later). I am perfectly fine calling it Lightning AKA Stormfront. Plenty of military vehicles have informal names, such as the A-10 Thunderbolt AKA Warthog.

No, that's fine, lightning will still be part of our air theme. I'll just propose a slight modification to YR-2 Lightning(for consistency with the Zephyr)
« Last Edit: May 16, 2013, 11:03:59 am by tryrar »
Logged
This fort really does sit on the event horizon of madness and catastrophe
No. I suppose there are similarities, but I'm fairly certain angry birds doesn't let me charge into a battalion of knights with a car made of circular saws.

Ukrainian Ranger

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: The revolutionary design bureau (OOC)
« Reply #567 on: May 16, 2013, 11:04:06 am »

10ebbor10 As for sub.... I think we first should design electric torpedoes... or better torpedoes in general, we still use those from 1920! (Yep, our navy is badly outdated, that's a price we pay for being ahead of time in other areas)

As for oil, I think that GM abstracted that to not monitor  stuff like steel, rubber, tungsten, aluminum, horses, oil, and other strategic goods
Logged
War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all; but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend.

10ebbor10

  • Bay Watcher
  • DON'T PANIC
    • View Profile
Re: The revolutionary design bureau (OOC)
« Reply #568 on: May 16, 2013, 11:06:33 am »

...How the heck do we have fuel for our tanks and such then?

And I really hope that either Capia or Morovia has oil fields, because we'll need them.
Helium is just a bit scarcer than oil. (Also, I made a mistake. It's found in natural gas reserves) It's likely we have a communist ally (Russia) which supplies us with oil. It's unlikely we got one that can supply us with helium.

Adding to that, I doubt they will sell us helium, if we're going to use it for war. (And what else could we use it for?)
Logged

RAM

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: The revolutionary design bureau (OOC)
« Reply #569 on: May 16, 2013, 11:10:55 am »

WW2  and even WW1 disagree with you, RAM.
Those guns were nearly useless comparing to their cost

Value of high caliber howitzer is nearly zero in mobile warfare, the only real use - bust Magino-like forts
bust railway-lines, bust roads, bust trenches, bust tank columns(I really should improve the accuracy I am asking for...), bust command bunkers, bust a variety of entrenched positions. A quick search revealed a very highly thought-of 240mm howitzer. With enough tweaking and enough enthusiasm it should be possible to get a practical model in a few years, dedicate a factory to it, and have the finest artillery in the world...
 Also, a war cannot be entirely mobile, you have to hold the line somewhere, and something like this can be invaluable for damaging air defences, artillery positions, and fortified positions that can impede a mobile war...

We may want to hold on to the hydra turrets to convert old badgers into air-defence units. Although the hydra is looking dated itself...

I favour the badger over the K-1. We want k-1s to be sure, but I expect that opposing tank-destroyers will be few in number and somewhat easy to out-manoeuvre. K-1s should only be required at a few strategic points when the tank-destroyers can't be surrounded or just avoided.

Quote
18. Design the Hunter submarine, modified on our previous design. The torpedo tubes should be lengthened to be twice their original length, in order to allow the useage of electric torpedos. Enlarged versions of current torpedos are also on board. The hull should be modified for this, so take that advantage to fix the flaw. Addition of hydrophone allows our submarine to find enemies from under water, while a snort (submarine snorkel) allows the submarine to take in air and use the diesel engines while remaining submerged. Tonnage will be freed by the removal of the deck gun, and a reducing the electrical engines to 2, as well as cutting battery reserves. Also ensure that this submarine has a greater depth allowance than previous models. Optimally, it should be capable of dropping to the bottom or below the thermocline, or at least below the depth of the enemy ships. Add a basic chemical lifesupport system.
Any comments on this. It got few votes, despite being the only submarine suggestion
I am sceptical of the effectiveness of the snorkel, as it will reveal the subs position, and consequently reducing the number of electric engines worries me, though I suppose I read that too quickly and it would be the batteries that effect fully-submerged time rather than the engines. The removal of the deck gun and expansion of the torpedoes would create ammunition concerns. The diving depth could give it issues with maintaining a large size and could dramatically extend its development time. All things considered, an interesting design, I think that I would rather support it than oppose it if it could remain submerged for a respectable time, but its limited ammunition would make it a rather specialised vehicle.
Logged
Vote (1) for the Urist scale!
I shall be eternally happy. I shall be able to construct elf hunting giant mecha. Which can pour magma.
Urist has been forced to use a friend as fertilizer lately.
Read the First Post!
Pages: 1 ... 36 37 [38] 39 40 ... 74