Print

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

[Ukrainian Ranger]

I intend to make our nown version of the T-34. That is, a complete game-changer for armoured warfare.

1) It's way more advanced than T-34, just wiki T-34 and compare with what you try to achieve
2) Why do you assume that our enemy will not make anything new? Like thousands of less advanced tanks?
3) Russian had T-34 (and Kv-1s) in 1941... It wasn't very successful year for them
4) Germans Had Panthers and Tiger IIs in 1944... It wasn't great year for them either
5) Why are you so sure of success? What if we'll get a crappy tank with huge number of flaws?

[tryrar]

I already know the answer to 5!

5)because it's cool and I thought of it, so it can't POSSIBLY fail

[Brood]

Not really, it's kinda the same as you 2.
Your sure it won't work he's sure it will. Neither of you has got any proof that it will or won't work so it's entirely a matter of opinion until after it's attempted and it passes or fails.

[Taricus]

Well, the more engineers that that work on it within a given year, the more likely it's going to be completed with some extra bonuses. Same with the tank gun.

[tryrar]

There's something else you guys forgot to consider. We're roughly producing 6 badgers per K-1 Thunders.(and that's only by chassis. Half those Badger chassis' are being mated with Hydra turrets instead of Badger turrets!). While the K-1 is clearly more advanced(and armored!) that the Badger, it isn't THAT much more advanced. This thing is generationally ahead of everything else. I wouldn't be surprised if we could build 12 K-1s per whatever this thing is(for the record, that'll be 72 badgers per new tank). Not only is it impractical from a research and design standpoint, it's also probably gonna be impractical due to the cost to build the frigging thing(and that's not including the gun you want to pair with it. THAT thing will drive the cost and time to build even higher!). Guys, please, PLEASE just try for something less ambitious. Even if it's only 2 years more advanced than anthing our enemies have, that's 2 years where it'll rule the ground.

Edit: Actually, Nadaka, if this thing does go through and can get built(no flaws or anything) what do you estimate the cost to build this thing, exactly?(in the interest of clarity)

[Brood]

I'm ranking the projects each turn in order of potential, if his new tank has high enough potential to come in say 3rd place and I have 3 votes then it gets the vote.

Simple way to get rid of this cheating crap, I ignore who made it and just base everything on potential.

[tryrar]

...I don't think anyone's accused you of cheating in a while dude

[Brood]

Meh from the last turn, wasn't that long ago so I decided to do it that way instead so each turn if needs be I can post my potential list to explain my choices and I got Alex doing the same thing.

[kahn1234]

dude. You're throwing good money after bad. This is the same mega argument we had in the LAST thread. BIGGER ISN'T ALWAYS BETTER. It's better to start smaller, THEN work your way up.

As a matter of fact, next time this thing is proposed, I'm gonna counter it with this:

K-1 Modernization. Upgrade all current K-1s to the K-1B standard, which include replacing all current engines with two 400kw diesels, and an upgraded turret mounting an HVG-80 modified for tank warfare, as well as bolting on extra armor plates on the front and sides

If Capia has anything that will bounce an HVG-80 we're utterly fucked, which is why I'm confused as to why you insist on a 78mm that'll take 5 years to field(and a tank chassis that will take 10)

didn't i propose this several turns ago only to be shouted down by you and Ukrainian Ranger?

[3_14159]

May I take my usual role and ask all of you to calm down a bit?

While I am firmly of the opinion that the advanced tank chassis will be a waste of resources, we are all trying to have fun here...

Now, why am I pretty sure it's not going to work? Well, because it's way, way out of our current technological abilities. To quote the development post:

The requested armor thickness will weight in excess of 30 tons for armor alone and will require a major and perhaps all consuming investment in manpower for the next several years if it is to have performance much better than the old SPIA.

Therefore, barring extreme luck, it will either deploy our resources or will not be ready soon. In both cases, it's a waste of resources. To compare: The K-1 tank has half of the armour WITH the turret included, and does not have a new (and therefore probably unreliable at first) suspension system.

I therefore strongly believe that the advanced tank chassis will not be successful and should not be continued further.

If one had been spare it would of gone through, and that all depends on luck our engineers could have a stroke of genius and build a mega tank chasis right off the bat, I like that kind of risk-reward thing.

And, honestly, that's not the way to plan. Depending on luck, the same engineer might develop the B-2 bomber decades in advance, or might throw a ball to kill the enemy government, or may develop the nuclear bomb. Luck isn't dependable, especially in cases like this where the chance is most definitely very, very much smaller than ten percent, most probably even than one.

Well, the more engineers that that work on it within a given year, the more likely it's going to be completed with some extra bonuses. Same with the tank gun.

Well, not exactly. Each engineer adds a random roll to the project advancement. Flaws and Crits are balancing out more or less, though flaws are balanced by higher rolls, too. So, if you (for example) use 50 experienced engineers only to provide new crits, you basically throw away around 250 points of development additionally to whatever the tank will need - which is already enormous. For that, you will get (on average) 5 crits, and therefore a few benefits.
However, that is
a) Assuming that Nadaka will let the game be exploited like that
b) Not taking into account that those 250 points could be used for other projects - that horrendously expensive tank gun from last turn? 130 points. The phalanx engineering vehicle? 71.

To sum up, I believe that you want to counter the critic of your design being too expensive and high-tech by throwing more design resources onto it.

@tryrar: I wholeheartedly agree with you. Remembers me of the tactics used against tigers using shermans: Attack with five or more, two or three get killed, the rest flanks and destroys the tiger.

[10ebbor10]

Let's talk about something else, shall we.

Here is the stuff I intend to do next turn. Depending on what happens, of course.

1. Repropose the submarine
2. Propose a Missile artillery truck (Short to mid range saturation bombardement.)
3. Try to get some research done in new missile propulsion systems. (Possible discoveries: Improved gunpowder,Jet engine, liquid oxygen, )

[Brood]

Sometimes, other times a single German tank blew away all 5 tanks then went on to kill more because it was superior and had a good crew.

It's all about balancing.

[Nadaka]

extra bonuses are entirely random as the chance for a bonus is equal to the chance for a failure, simply adding more engineers means it can go either way.

as for the cost of the super tank? 5 or more  times the expense of a k-1 at least. its not set in stone at this point.

[tryrar]

dude. You're throwing good money after bad. This is the same mega argument we had in the LAST thread. BIGGER ISN'T ALWAYS BETTER. It's better to start smaller, THEN work your way up.

As a matter of fact, next time this thing is proposed, I'm gonna counter it with this:

K-1 Modernization. Upgrade all current K-1s to the K-1B standard, which include replacing all current engines with two 400kw diesels, and an upgraded turret mounting an HVG-80 modified for tank warfare, as well as bolting on extra armor plates on the front and sides

If Capia has anything that will bounce an HVG-80 we're utterly fucked, which is why I'm confused as to why you insist on a 78mm that'll take 5 years to field(and a tank chassis that will take 10)

didn't i propose this several turns ago only to be shouted down by you and Ukrainian Ranger?

No, I DO remember you proposing upgrading the K-1 to two diesels, I kinda agreed but countered that if that isn't possible one diesel be put in (or something like that). I don't think I would have shouted you down on upgrading our heavy punch....

[3_14159]

2. Propose a Missile artillery truck (Short to mid range saturation bombardement.)

I agree with that. Actually, that shouldn't surprise anyone, as I tried to get it through before ;-).

Idea for changing it, though: Design the missile first, then design a truck design to take it (Both in the same proposal should be acceptable, however). Then the missile can be used for other systems, too.