Print

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

[3_14159]

Instead of building the entire ship at the same time in the same drydock/shipyard, build different sections of the ship in smaller drydicks/shipyards or even land based or in-land factories and move them to where they can be put together (through riveting and welding).

It IS how modern ships are built, however there is no reason it couldnt be done in this period. Its not like its using technology that doesnt exist.


i suppose it could be said to be based around a standardised hull (either built in one place or built in parts and shipped in and assembled) with prefabricated modules (either built in their entirety in one place or in parts) built elsewhere also shipped in and attached as needed.

That's more or less what I thought. I'd say that the construction details are abstracted in the dockyard/drydock differences: The dockyard uses that method, but the drydock doesn't as the cranes and halls aren't big enough (after all, you need to transport those sections). Just a guess by me, though.

Oh, and I too ask you all to vote for the Protector class light cruiser. We need a naval design, and we need one this turn!

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Oh, and I too ask you all to vote for the Protector class light cruiser. We need a naval design, and we need one this turn!

And for merging teams as we would benefit from two large projects per turn

[Patrick Hunt]

Staying out of that one, most of my projects are small so I'm all for more small projects.

Actually I have a couple of big prjects that I might bring up in future.

[Patrick Hunt]

Oki.

So any problems or critique with my designs?

The mine should be fine, nothing really to change on that it's just an anti infantry mine designed to hit everything in a 360 degree arc at chest to head height depending on victim height.

The MSV is basically a well armored open top truck with a platform in it that rotates 360 degrees and 4 MG mounts on the sides. You can stick anything you like inside it and since it's not an actual armored combat vehicle other then maybe adding new versions of armor and reinforcing it to hold heavier guns later it's pretty much set for the next 20 years. Add a better engine maybe and upgrade the side mounts for new better guns but in essence it'll cover all of our mobile support needs and has a tow bar on it to enable it to be used to also drag fixed pieces into place as well.
It won't do very well if the enemy has tanks but it should be fast enough to out run them and evade a lot of heavier fire though it's designed to stay behind the lines or work with heavier vehickes.

[Aseaheru]

Half track. Mechanical issues, plus the tracks are gonna tear up our roads, along with wearing out. There is a reason we have tank carriers.
Else, I am fine with it. Make a wheeled version and we are set.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

The MSV is basically a well armored open top truck with a platform in it that rotates 360 degrees and 4 MG mounts on the sides.

Platform that rotates 360 degrees is called a turret. Also why put so many machine-guns inside?

You can stick anything you like inside it and since it's not an actual armored combat vehicle other then maybe adding new versions of armor and reinforcing it to hold heavier guns later it's pretty much set for the next 20 years

What do you mean by heavier guns? 80mm? why not make a tank instead?

It won't do very well if the enemy has tanks but it should be fast enough to out run them

Nope,  most tanks are just lighter, why should they be slower? Also I don't expect that this vehicle will be able to outran infantry

[Aseaheru]

If you look at what it is based off of it was also used as a mobile artillery piece or AA weapons. You can have troops in it, mount a big ass gun in it or mount a AA gun turret in it.

[Taricus]

It would probably be better to build a dedicated tank rather than building a half-track at this stage.

[Aseaheru]

It wouldn't be a tank, more of a mobile arty piece. Or even AAA.

But yes, I dont think we are ready for halftracks. Better go for one or the other, and if we go for tracks come up for something to carry the thing around so we dont waste roads and tacks.

[Patrick Hunt]

By big gun I mean a big indirect fire artillery piece. Why lug it into place and deploy it when you risk it being over run when you can put it in a vehicle and just drive it backwards when the enemy starts to close in? This can pull one into place and carry a second so we don't lose everything pulling back.

4 guns with a 90 degree field of fire each on the 4 corners gives you 360 degree protection against infantry forces, if it's near a frontline it's possible infantry will surprise it. This gives it the option of fighting back while you pull back to safer ground.
Less then 4 and you either have blind spots or you leave the gunner exposed to fire from other angles.
4 is the best way to give full coverage and relative safety for the gunners.

Meh out running them was a guess, at the very least it'll be able to match them enough to avoid them running it down unless it's something very light.

The tracks won't damage any reasonably strong road and they can always travel down the side of the road instead. Tracks have better options especially in bad weather.


The MSV is not built to be a tank at all, it's built to be a support vehicle. I want a tank as well but I'm horrible at designing them and this has a wider variety of uses.

Aseaheru, lets give it a try first, a good roll and it'll work fine, a bad roll and we can just pull it afterwards and replace it with full or no tracks. The benefits are worth the risk.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

By big gun I mean a big indirect fire artillery piece.

You do realize that this indirect fire artillery pieces weigh tonnes?

4 guns with a 90 degree field of fire each on the 4 corners gives you 360 degree protection against infantry forces

Why not use 2 machineguns with 180 degrees? Or one with 360? You need a gunner, ammo, space...

Meh out running them was a guess, at the very least it'll be able to match them enough to avoid them running it down unless it's something very light.

We are talking about like 30 ton vehicle here, it will craaaaawl

[Patrick Hunt]

Can add a second engine to boost it's speed if needs be.
I know how much they weigh, hence why I said later on once we add heavier stuff it may need to be reinforced to handle it. It's only the initial design it'll need to be upgraded later as tech advances.
2 of them are inherently vulnerable since you can't cover 4 directions with 2 guns, 1 is even worse since you can't cover 3.

4 guns allows you to cover all 4 directions at once making it far more effective otherwise you'll just have your 1-2 gunners being shot in the back because they have nobody to cover there backs. It takes up some space yes but it's worth it for the added security and it won't take up enough to be a problem on anything but the biggest of weapons mounted on it. Plus it's only the mounts in place, adding the guns is optional depending on what role your gonna use it for.

[Aseaheru]

Err... Like I said, What he is basing it off of was designed in part FOR big indirect firing pieces.

[Patrick Hunt]

Thats more for the shape design mate, in the game it's being built from scratch and we don't have artillery pieces like that so it can't be designed for it. It'd need to be upgraded later to handle heavier things.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Sorry I just can't see any value in a vehicle that will cost like three tanks, crawl, have no roof and use more crew than necessary, have more machgineguns than it will ever need (if it is that surrounded it's dead. Why? See no roof part)

What he is basing it off of was designed in part FOR big indirect firing pieces.

And what he is basing it at? I am rather curios