Print

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

[evilcherry]

@3.14 I have no choice but to concur with the basic design, seeing that it is what everyone wanted. At least I don't like worst things to get through, and I tend to forget that 200kW is a lot (I should say wunderwaffe-grade) these ages.
That said we will also need an SPG/Gun Tractor just to bring our 160mms into combat.

I tend to divide proposals into priorities. for the current situation:

Top Priority (If they are not done now we might lose the war):
Sparrow Fighter
High Priority (We need them sooner rather than later)
300mms (since we need another turn for the boat)
Medium Priority (They are useful, but we can wait if needed)
30mm AT-AC (to be fair I want it to be 40mm just to make things simple but I guess that's not something I could even think of push for), Cheap 10mm LMG, Diesel ICE overvamp, Light MBT, One Rocket (preferably the AP one)
Low/Questionable Priority (Pet Projects, should only be undertaken when there is nothing useful if at all)
Jet Engine, any rocket after the first

To me we should all vote for the Sparrow fighter, the 300mm, and a selection of the medium ones. Who voted for the Low priority ones should be viewed with suspicion, and an investigation should be started for any potential capitalist connection.


@UR:
1. Your refusal to collaborate is why I'm officially promoting on the Pravda that you should be put on watch under the secret police.
2. Winning the war and preventing another revolution against us is our ONLY objective. We can never beat the game, but we should try our best not to lose.
3. We might just cut the gun down. It certainly hurts internal ballistics but we can try something like that. Alternatively we should use lower power shells.
We actually need an SPG direly, even more than the tank, but I'm putting that off until we got something viable.
4. We still should use the basic design for every engine. If the power needed cannot be provided by a pair of large Diesel engines we should switch to coal anyway (we actually have a lot of them).
5. You see I actually tried to logroll things.

@Pat
As much as I'm intrigued, I'm never a big fan of keeping actions secret to high level comrades. You are now on the capitalist watch list, too.

[Patrick Hunt]

It's a game mate, I want to see if any of you can figure it out and if so how quickly.

I'll explain it when it comes to the time to actually carry it out so you all understand it until then it doesn't change anything if I don't tell you and it encourage you all to think outside the box a little more then the blunt and obvious tactics used so far.
Which incidentally is also why i encouraged the use of said tactics earlier, our enemy will expect us to meet them strength to strength as we've done so far. Anything they've done we've done it right back.

When we come at them with something totally new it'll throw them off completely.

Besides there is no higher level comrade in this.

[evilcherry]

As much as I'm intrigued I'm not going to vote for any proposal which involves hiding things from comrades. Out.

[3_14159]

@Tank: Yup, using the tank engine as main difference, and a slightly different design strategy. Other than that, I agree with you.

@Invasions: There is literally no other way except for an amphibious invasion. We need to gain a foothold, ship it with supplies and then expand it via new combat. An airborne invasion just makes it easier.
Even by breaking through levees or similar things you just make gaining a foothold potentially easier, but still require capturing a major harbour (or mulberries).
What I do not like at all is doing guessing games just to display a perceived superiority over others.

@evilcherry: I agree on the list of priorities. I'd add a tank design as a medium priority one, together with 'reducing expenditure of fuel' as either medium or high, but aside from that...

[Patrick Hunt]

It's not a sense of superiority mate, I just want to see if any of you will work it out. I'll explain it all in full detail later on but I'm curious if you'll come up with it on your own in the mean time.
It's a pretty obvious tactic that more then likely every one of you already knows of because it's taught in history classes across most of the planet.

It will make gaining the initial foothold easy as pie and slow down enemy counter attacks as well as scattering them for a while and it's a fairly easy one as well it just requires a little bit of luck to pull off but then so does every other battle tactic in history.

Don't take it so seriously it's just a game.

[ICBM pilot]

@Pat
As much as I'm intrigued, I'm never a big fan of keeping actions secret to high level comrades. You are now on the capitalist watch list, too.

capitalist watch list

I always know cherry was a filthy capitalist pig.

[evilcherry]

While I understand mind-games has a place in games like this, in this case you are just inviting people to dump their F-words unto you.

That's why I'm not going to reach the Pravda as I know the secret police of our proletarian government will not be happy with a minister which tries to show his superiority at every imaginable situation.

@ICBM
You got me here, but the word is "capitalist watch" list, not capitalist's "watch list". Sorry for being a grammar proletariat.

[Patrick Hunt]

Uhm? Mind games? Minister? Government?

I'm just curious if you as players will consider the same tactic I did or not but it's not important at the moment because we lack the supplies to actually carry it out.

Your taking this far to seriously.

[Alexandria]

Oh, I get it. That should work if I haven't got completely the wrong end of the stick.

Where does the timed explosive fit in though?

[Patrick Hunt]

Distraction in advance to set up the main move.

I'll explain it later on tonight unless you wanna do it?

[3_14159]

The current votes mean we have all of our higher priorities through. Yay!

Now, using the current wait for a new turn for some other discussions:
I am thinking of retiring the Shark and Piranha patrol boats soonish and replacing it with a new patrol boat design.
Currently, they have the important role of fast attack and harassment craft. However, they drink fuel - especially important fuel - like hell.
Changing it for a bigger design with a higher engine weight ratio would help there. However, those ratios don't seem to help much, since normal ship Diesel propulsion has more than 2.5 times the power per ton than steam propulsion.

Here's my question, now: Should we continue with steam propulsion, resulting in less speed and less resources needed, or use diesel for the future, too?

[Alexandria]

Ok now that I've got it all straight in my head I'll explain.

First thing we need is to capture several enemy civilian transport ships and fake there destruction. Not difficult to do if we sink the escorts and then destroy 1-2 of the civilian ships since we only need 2-3, we're doing this already anyway so it shouldn't be hard to just capture a few.
Then we need to send maybe 50 men with timed explosives into neutral countries to travel into the enemy on civilian ships, the port security back in this era was a joke so it'll be a piece of cake for them to get in.

They plant explosives with set times all over the country working in small teams, doesn't need to be in critical locations just plant them around potential landing zones for us and let them blow, the enemy will flood those areas with men expecting a major landing operation thats never coming. Maybe a few in the capitol as well just to shake them up a bit.

We then take out another enemy convoy at the same time and send our captured ships loaded with infantry carrying AT mines and HMG into a civilian dock, they'll be able to dock without questions because they're on enemy ships and are expected and our soldiers can seize control easily with minimal resistance, the moment they take control they deploy AT mines all over outside the dock and on the roads in the dock itself preventing the enemy from bringing in armor to counter assault, our planes are close enough from crow to arrive before the enemy knows whats going on to prevent aerial assaults and the infantry can dig in with HMG, Rifles, SMG and Grenades. The enemy will need time to gather an infantry force to counter attack and our fleet can be at crow already loaded up with men and armor to drop straight into that dock with our bombers and fighters wreaking havoc to prevent the enemy launching a full counter offensive.

Anything they do throw at us is attacking dug in and well armed defenders without armor or aerial support giving our men an edge and our men will have air support and will only need to hold out for a matter of hours for the first wave of reinforcements to arrive.

And wallah, our main fleet arrives at a dock we already hold and we begin deploying armor and additional forces then break out once we've got enough forced on land, our fleet secures the sea side of the foothold with torpedo bomber support while the infantry and armor secure the land side with bomber support and we begin an offensive on enemy soil without having to launch a full scale amphibious assault that will be extremely costly even if it goes well.

In essence, terrorist bombing campaign to draw enemy attention followed by a trojan horse to to seize our beachhead and begin the main invasion, unlike the enemy who attacked us head on and ran into our defenders we'll be able to land almost unopposed rather then repeating what they did except where they assaulted an undermanned and under supplies force we'd be assaulting an enemy with far superior numbers and more then enough supplies. Not ideal.


And best of all, it's 0 risk. If it works our invasion goes off without a hitch, if it doesn't? Then we're back in the exact same situation we're already in and have to launch a frontal assault which we'd have to do anyway if we didn't try it.


I'd say yeah drop them, we can cover them with bombers now anyway, the Osprey can handle anything they would have been dealing with and without the massive fuel cost.
Diesel for sure, if our ships are slow then we give the enemy free reign to choose when and where he fights because he'll run circles around us.


(( This is just an assumption of what his plan is based off of what he mentioned earlier and what seemed to make sense so it could be entirely wrong. ))

[Patrick Hunt]

Heh close enough, I'd have explained it differently but yeah thats my basic plan. Although I was taking it more from the art of war.

Fight where your enemy isn't, or in this case. Attack where your enemy isn't. Why throw our men onto enemy defenses when we can trick the enemy into opening the door for us?
Amphibious assaults are the bloodiest kind of assault so if we can secure a beachhead without needing to throw our men into the grinder it's a huge morale victory for our men and a massive morale loss for the enemy on top of meaning we don't lose tones of men and material just to attempt to gain a foot hold.

Although it will require Epsilon to be voted through, but I don't see why it shouldn't be. What do we lose by asking our friends for the design for an AT mine and explosives with a time detonator? It requires 0 use of resources and the worst that can happen is they refuse and we have to design it ourselves.

[3_14159]

Really? That's your genius plan?

Let me explain why it won't work. You rely on the following steps:
1) Capture enemy civilian ships
2) Infiltrate men for distraction
3) Distract the enemy by bombings
4) Land a disguised spearhead in a harbour
5) Land own forces in the harbour.

So, where can and where will this go wrong? 1 might work [except for calling for help], 2 might, too. But, then:
3) You rely on the enemy to flood the areas where a distraction occurs. How? If you've got a possible landing site for us that's not guarded, you can just land, if you get one that is guarded, you have trouble getting to them.
Even if, you rely on the enemy to send all or near all of his 24-44 thousand men to those areas. Surely he won't do that; he's no idiot. Instead, you can be sure that every single large harbour will be garrisoned with troops that won't just go away.
And why would he even do that? The only thing that had happened would be an explosion. So what? Why does that warrant sending significant troops, or soldiers at all?
4) Disguised spearhead: Sure, you might be able to land those troops - if the enemy does not escort them, recognize they're not the same ships that were destroyed, or actually check them through. Remember? They're at war.
Even if said ship is not checked and our troops are able to embark, you want them to secure the harbour plus city (unknown terrain), plant anti-tank mines and hold it. Against a garrison that might be surprised but will know the place, will be equipped well (an amphibious landing is at the moment their greatest concern) and against a fleet that might just be near them.
Even if they succeed in all that, they'd need to secure the whole area for dozens of kilometres as otherwise the enemy can use artillery (and since they must be prepared for a coastal assault they will have artillery at the coast) to bombard the unloading ships.
5) Even if all that had been done, you require our fleet to sail, unattacked and undetected onto the enemy harbour. If only one enemy ship or plane detects an invasion force, you can be sure they will attack with all they have currently available. And since we're fighting a naval war, they will have most of their ships available.
Should even all that succeed (it will not), you still need to defend the supplies incoming, and this requires naval and air superiority.

To sum up: You rely on the enemy being an idiot, stumbling blindly into traps and concentrating all of his forces where he wouldn't need any.
Feints can work, but they require an actual feint, not just explosives.

The art of war teaches us to rely not on the likelihood of the enemy's not coming, but on our own readiness to receive him; not on the chance of his not attacking, but rather on the fact that we have made our position unassailable.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Oh, one more plan that assumes that enemy are complete idiots (Ninja'd: 3.14 sums it up nicely)

Here's my question, now: Should we continue with steam propulsion, resulting in less speed and less resources needed, or use diesel for the future, too?

I think hunter is the largest ship that can use diesels, larger than that and we are running into problems

Sharks... I never liked them for many reasons.... Would be happy see them all retired... but after the war

What we need is a proper destroyers (Hunters are not destroyers, good vessels but not destroyers) and proper cruisers...
For destroyers I failed to get a gun several times, at least cruiser gun will be designed