Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 83

Author Topic: [Discussion] The Glorious Design Bureau of the People  (Read 69598 times)

Aseaheru

  • Bay Watcher
  • Cursed by the Elves with a title.
    • View Profile
Re: [Discussion] The Glorious Design Bureau of the People
« Reply #270 on: September 29, 2013, 01:23:38 pm »

With the cods we can ship things to crow isle. although frankly I thought we where going with the smaller design of sub. Ah well, alls well that went well.
Logged
Highly Opinionated Fool
Warning, nearly incapable of expressing tone in text

Patrick Hunt

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: [Discussion] The Glorious Design Bureau of the People
« Reply #271 on: September 29, 2013, 01:33:20 pm »

We can try, they have an advanced ship so odds are they have at least a basic means of locating subs. We don't know how effective they will be at breaching the enemies blockade at the moment.

Air is safer but we lack the numbers to protect the supply flights properly.

Btw evil wouldn't it make more sense to just retool it to produce ravens? Rather then just 1 part thats gonna sit on a shelf.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2013, 01:36:23 pm by Patrick Hunt »
Logged
Caine's law.
And so, here at the end of days, you are as you’ve always been. Willing to die. Not willing to quit.

Vengeance is mine saith the Lord but this morning. He's going to fucking well have to share.

Is she worth it, would you burn the city to save her? For her, I'd burn the world.

evilcherry

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: [Discussion] The Glorious Design Bureau of the People
« Reply #272 on: September 29, 2013, 01:39:02 pm »

We can try, they have an advanced ship so odds are they have at least a basic means of locating subs. We don't know how effective they will be at breaching the enemies blockade at the moment.

Air is safer but we lack the numbers to protect the supply flights properly.

Btw evil wouldn't it make more sense to just retool it to produce ravens? Rather then just 1 part thats gonna sit on a shelf.
I'm thinking along the lines of "well just divert some of the engine supply jobs to the Truck factory". So more space for airframes, props, and anything else. I don't think A biplane has much in common with a Truck factory except the engine, though.

10ebbor10

  • Bay Watcher
  • DON'T PANIC
    • View Profile
Re: [Discussion] The Glorious Design Bureau of the People
« Reply #273 on: September 29, 2013, 01:43:49 pm »

You don't really have significant air transport capability.
Logged

evilcherry

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: [Discussion] The Glorious Design Bureau of the People
« Reply #274 on: September 29, 2013, 01:45:22 pm »

You don't really have significant air transport capability.
I think someone is proposing to use the raven as a makeshift transport.

Anyway that's why I pushed for the Condor...

Patrick Hunt

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: [Discussion] The Glorious Design Bureau of the People
« Reply #275 on: September 29, 2013, 01:47:05 pm »

Yeah I know, diverting 1/4 of the Ravens to it is going to make very little difference and probably just result in losses that we could have avoided because there weighed down and we don't have enough Ravens to defend them properly.

Ukranian is, you voted for it as well evil.


It's also why I want to ramp up the factory, if we're going to throw away fighters on transport duty we need to bump that production way up.

Luckily since it's external even my vote alone is enough to push it through.
Logged
Caine's law.
And so, here at the end of days, you are as you’ve always been. Willing to die. Not willing to quit.

Vengeance is mine saith the Lord but this morning. He's going to fucking well have to share.

Is she worth it, would you burn the city to save her? For her, I'd burn the world.

3_14159

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: [Discussion] The Glorious Design Bureau of the People
« Reply #276 on: September 29, 2013, 02:19:04 pm »

All right, first of all, perks:
SMG: No idea. I like Accurate, as that gets us more range which is good. On the other hand, in urban environments... hm.
Submarine: No matter what, take Snorkel! That thing alone makes them practically invincible for now against most fliers, ships and early radar, simply by being nearly undetectable. The rest... since it's not supposed to be in combat, maybe decreased signature (always a plus) and hydrophonic systems to evade ships?
Torpedo: Both warheads plus resilient. The others are both unneeded.

Now, what to design? I like the Condor, but I'd change it quite a bit:
Two engines, armed with several 15mm MGs and torpedoes/droppable ordnance or space for cargo. Seaplane, still.

Alternatively, a dedicated torpedo bomber with shorter range but more mobility:
One aircraft engine, two mounted 15mm MGs. The ability to drop one torpedo or the equivalent amount of bombs. Monowing design. Armoured against small-arms fire for the pilot, range needs to be better than the Raven.

They have different roles, one searching for threats to attack and targets of opportunity plus transport, the other killing targets already detected.
Thoughts?

Oh, and it's not that bad for fighters. True, we lost half of their losses, but there's also the forces currently matched - 600 vs 100. Even in a 6-1 situation, we only got half their losses. Our fighters are awesome.

Ideas other than that?
Train team in guns, excluding small arms. (Whoops. that's already proposed)
The naval war looks very, very good for us: Lost seven torpedo boats versus the enemy's 41 destroyers.
Design a new 40mm gun for anti-aircraft duty?
Long-range artillery bombardment against Crow's island means they're staying in range and in under twenty, maybe thirty kilometres. A dedicated torpedo bomber will probably make them more cautious.
Logged

Patrick Hunt

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: [Discussion] The Glorious Design Bureau of the People
« Reply #277 on: September 29, 2013, 02:24:58 pm »

I agree with the bomber, which is part of why I proposed doubling or tripling the Raven complex. Once the design is ready we can redirect half of it's production onto the bomber right away giving us a nice high level of production for it right off the bat.

The naval war our only real danger is they have a nasty big and advanced warship which could give us a lot of trouble.

A new 40mm sounds perfect, duel mount it and get it into mass production to place on Crow so in future it has better defenses, need to build a big supply depo on Crow as well so we can give it enough supplies to withstand a siege.
Logged
Caine's law.
And so, here at the end of days, you are as you’ve always been. Willing to die. Not willing to quit.

Vengeance is mine saith the Lord but this morning. He's going to fucking well have to share.

Is she worth it, would you burn the city to save her? For her, I'd burn the world.

3_14159

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: [Discussion] The Glorious Design Bureau of the People
« Reply #278 on: September 29, 2013, 03:22:37 pm »

Another thing I thought of is to reduce our investment in the machine gun - we are currently needing nearly a thousand production points to keep up, which is over one fourth of our total production. I want to wait for us to have specialists available, though, before doing that as this thing ends up on nearly everything. The idea is as such: Improving the 15mm MG, the new version focuses on being light and being cheap to produce. Other characteristics are secondary (that is, do not need to be improved; not don't need to exist).

Oh, and btw, it's a dual mount.
Logged

Ukrainian Ranger

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: [Discussion] The Glorious Design Bureau of the People
« Reply #279 on: September 29, 2013, 03:33:16 pm »

Question - why bother arming the subs if they'll be used as cargo ships only?
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.

Patrick Hunt

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: [Discussion] The Glorious Design Bureau of the People
« Reply #280 on: September 29, 2013, 03:39:53 pm »

I sent a large team for guns couse it includes naval cannons and that kind of thing.
Logged
Caine's law.
And so, here at the end of days, you are as you’ve always been. Willing to die. Not willing to quit.

Vengeance is mine saith the Lord but this morning. He's going to fucking well have to share.

Is she worth it, would you burn the city to save her? For her, I'd burn the world.

10ebbor10

  • Bay Watcher
  • DON'T PANIC
    • View Profile
Re: [Discussion] The Glorious Design Bureau of the People
« Reply #281 on: September 29, 2013, 03:45:12 pm »

I sent a large team for guns couse it includes naval cannons and that kind of thing.
Even heavy naval cannons are medium projects. For now.

Besides, you can add people to a trained team without problems. (Unless you exploit it, off course)
Logged

3_14159

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: [Discussion] The Glorious Design Bureau of the People
« Reply #282 on: September 29, 2013, 03:49:24 pm »

I sent a large team for guns couse it includes naval cannons and that kind of thing.
Which are, I believe, still medium projects. "design of new large weaponry is a medium project"

Question - why bother arming the subs if they'll be used as cargo ships only?
Well, I figure them to be much more freighter than fighter - after all, they have four times the cargo space than the torpedo space. With their inability to dive further than thirty metres and their speed they cannot really flee after an attack, and are very vulnerable against any countermeasures. So I'd rather keep the sub moving a hundred tons of cargo once every two or three days than risk losing it against a commercial raider who - as we probably cut all non-sub and non-air supply to Crow's Island - have to operate near our cost and therefore far inside our own air envelope anyways.
Basically, I believe them to be too valuable to risk. Armament (I didn't design it) would then be just defensive weaponry.
Logged

Ukrainian Ranger

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: [Discussion] The Glorious Design Bureau of the People
« Reply #283 on: September 29, 2013, 04:53:35 pm »

BTW I think we don't need seaplane, yet... We need a plane to create a lot of problems  for enemy navy between in the narrow passage between our mainland and the Crow island, and we have a perfect aircraft for that: Raven. It's low stalling speed should allow it to carry that 600kg, it reliability should allow it to survive AA fire from enemy ships, and it's empty speed should let it run away after torp is launched
Furthemore modification should be a medium project, so we'll have large tea,s to use on other projects
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.

evilcherry

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: [Discussion] The Glorious Design Bureau of the People
« Reply #284 on: September 29, 2013, 07:13:08 pm »

BTW I think we don't need seaplane, yet... We need a plane to create a lot of problems  for enemy navy between in the narrow passage between our mainland and the Crow island, and we have a perfect aircraft for that: Raven. It's low stalling speed should allow it to carry that 600kg, it reliability should allow it to survive AA fire from enemy ships, and it's empty speed should let it run away after torp is launched
Furthemore modification should be a medium project, so we'll have large tea,s to use on other projects
Not really.
The Raven might be a great dogfighter, But if you put another 600 kg onto it, I doubt it can still be fast enough for a Torp bomber. Besides it's maneuverability will also suffer making it largely a sitting duck.
Besides, we are actually winning the naval and air theatres. Our challenge is to resupply Crow Island,and I see the seaplane and the sub are key components of it.

The initial proposal for the condor is a light multipurpose bomber also suitable for freight runs to Crow Island, hence the design. I see it more like a quick cheap design to cover the gap of designing a real Torp/dive bomber and a real freighter.
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 83