Print

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

[evilcherry]

p.s. Somehow I find the Osprey as too forward for our tech. Perhaps we should petition for another Air Research team? Or shall we make the Osprey a biplane in the first place?


Or I guess we should reorganize our thinking. We currently have two aviation needs that can be fulfilled, that is air transport and torpedo dropping. We currently have a few "sets" of proposal that might work:

1. Press the raven into doing everything
Pros: Cheap, and fast
Cons: Probably just enough for a few packages or a small torpedo, might not be even airworthy in the first place
2. Design a Land Torp Bomber/Transport
Pros: Good payload-to-weight ratio, very battle-worthy
Cons: Hard for them to land on Crow Island, might need airdrops
3. Design a sea-based Torp Bomber/Transport
Pros: Most Versatile design
Cons: Not as combat-worthy as the Land based idea
4. Design a heavier transport/Attack Craft AND a torp bomber
Pros: Both transport needs and torp bomber needs are fulfilled
Cons: Double design time, Don't see how the Transport can double as attack craft (if that is heavy enough) under our current tech

[3_14159]

What do you like most? Backroom bickering, of course.

*thumbs up*

p.s. Somehow I find the Osprey as too forward for our tech. Perhaps we should petition for another Air Research team?

I believe the only new technology we have to research is the monowing type. I believe that the engine is powerful enough to carry it pretty well - after all, the engine has 4.5 times the raw power of the Raven's. I want to use the torpedo bomber to test the monowing design out, too. Best case: We have a new fighter, too. Worst case, we have experience and a stopgap measure.
We have a large, specialized air team. That should suffice, probably. I'd rather have gun, electronics, engine, naval and vehicle engineers first.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

We can however use BOB style large scale air defense to limit the enemy to ground based action.

We'll last far longer then facing them from air and ground.

Our economy can't cover anything, either we ramp up Raven production or land equipment, not both. putting all our effort in Ravens will leave our land forces underequiped

Yes, strafing runs from Ravens can be quite useful in land battles, but those aren't bombers by any means
_____________

Short analysis of our navy
a) Glory class cruiser
Outdated, outnumbered, useless
b) Revolutionary torpedo boats
Outdated, outnumbered, useless
c) Protectors
Our main force... problem is that it was designed for entirely different kind of war, it is meant to avoid heavy cruisers not combat them, it is meant to keep destroyers at safe range, not let them come close in defense battles. We may use them to turn that commerce raiders from hunters to prey and that's all
d) Sharks MTB
We have to few of them to sea any difference, should we have few hundreds that would be a somewhat different situation
e) 30 160mm coastal guns, our main "navy", that's still less guns than enemy cruisers have, but it's something that forced them to delay an assault

Enemy navy
a) six refitted glory class
We don't now what refits they did, but let's assume they never touched main guns, that gives them 24 160mm guns, somewhat inferior to ours
b) Five heavier cruisers, due to their size it's safe to assume that they have at least an equivalent of 6 160mm guns each (most likely they employ heavier caliber) , that gives us 30 160mm guns, same as our whole shore defense... difference is that they can concentrate firepower in one place, stationary defenses can't
c) Five commerce raiders
Hard to say what kind of vessels those are, doubt that they  are good due to their role, still the only ship that can counter them - protectors
d) 80 destroyers
More than enough to screen cruisers against whatever aerial, submarine or torpedo boat attack
e) 300 Torpedo boats... More than enough to patrol the lines and convoy invasion fleet
f) subs... It's hard to assume that they have none, we can hope that they  neglected it , but if they don't, our ASW capabilities are non-existent
g) Naval scouts. Unlike us, their fleet is not blind

My conclusion, we should admit that we lost the naval war and stop wasting resources on Protectors, resources it uses would look better in land army's hands, while our docks should switch to transport subs as those are the only realistic way to supply our Crow forces.
Later torpedo boats\subs\torpedo bombers may allow us to sway the balance, but no cruiser vs cruiser duels for a long time

[evilcherry]

What do you like most? Backroom bickering, of course.

*thumbs up*

p.s. Somehow I find the Osprey as too forward for our tech. Perhaps we should petition for another Air Research team?

I believe the only new technology we have to research is the monowing type. I believe that the engine is powerful enough to carry it pretty well - after all, the engine has 4.5 times the raw power of the Raven's. I want to use the torpedo bomber to test the monowing design out, too. Best case: We have a new fighter, too. Worst case, we have experience and a stopgap measure.
We have a large, specialized air team. That should suffice, probably. I'd rather have gun, electronics, engine, naval and vehicle engineers first.

The main problem for Monowings is not the engine, but rather an airframe sturdy enough.

Though we can make do with parasols, they hardly qualify as "modern" monos.

p.s. Please reread post about Aviation choice. We need some kind of aviation doctrine.

[3_14159]

Thanks for the choices - that's one of the things I like about those games.
I see the categories a bit different/additionals:
Clarification to 2. Design a patrol bomber: Basically a bigger, two- or four-engined, land-based plane. Can double as transport, or bomber. Something like the PB4Y Privateer.
Example for 3: Catalina.

Addition, 5: Something I'm currently trying. Build a dedicated attack plane/torpedo bomber. Heavier than the Raven but not as heavy as a transport. Like the Avenger.
Pros: Cheaper, faster, available to attack AA-defended ships, too. Can work as attack bomber, too.
Contras: Does not help the transport problem. Needs to be air-defended. Not as much range, therefore needs target guidance.
Note: When doing a monowing, this gets us more experience in monowings but may prove unreliable. Or may be awesome and be a fighter, too (though this is unlikely).

Oh, and @UR: Yes, we have problems engaging in a decisive naval battle. We will, however, probably be able to make the sea invasion costly for them. But we need something to at least escort our ships and harass the enemy fleet. Protectors are not idea, but they're better than only sharks, I believe.

[Patrick Hunt]

Our economy is fine and I suggested ramping up our mining to keep up with demand just to be sure.
We haven't even had supply issues yet anyway.

Now lets look at air the same way I did when I predicted the enemy would have far supetior numbers and you doubted it.

Crow island has 3 battles that will take place.

Artillery.
Land.
Air.

Artillery : Draw, so no effect either way and sending more guns was or is being suggested giving us an edge in that fight.

Air : Several small battles we won, large scale assault to be launched. Now it's effects. It fails? Nothing changes. It works? Enemy morale takes a huge hit, friendly goes up. We can strafe enemy landing craft to reduce how many men they can send and our AA guns can be used for anti infantry instead.

Land : Enemy is launching a naval landing against fortified defenses, under artillery fire, probably under assault by our Ravens as well, it's going to be hard if it works at all.


Now the enemy air force, they have to go home for fuel which takes time. They've got most of there fleet and a large infantry force away from home leaving them vulnerable.
I doubt they have more then 100 planes on station at any 1 time given that we haven't really resisted to date.
Meaning 3/4 of our force which now is 69 are well inside there effective fighting numbers and will have surprise on there side.

We chew them up then land, refuel and are already in place to meet a follow up attack thats likely to arrive piece meal because they'll expect us to need an airfield to refuel.

With seriously ramped up Raven production we can probably hold our ground pretty well once we take it and once we rule the air we have the advantage. Nobody wants to fight an enemy who has the high ground.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

3_14159
Their invasion fleets were busy capturing all our smaller islands, now they can concentrate on the main assault, + they got 17 new merchant ships.... don't see how can we hurt their invasion fleet noticeably...

The only reason we didn't lost most of our navy in the last turn is because we didn't engage with the enemy, not counting countering their torpedo boats raiding our merchant fleet


 

[evilcherry]

3_14159
Their invasion fleets were busy capturing all our smaller islands, now they can concentrate on the main assault, + they got 17 new merchant ships.... don't see how can we hurt their invasion fleet noticeably...

The only reason we didn't lost most of our navy in the last turn is because we didn't engage with the enemy, not counting countering their torpedo boats raiding our merchant fleet

Not really. They don't really need the big naval guns once they understand our outer islands are theirs. If they are capable of bringing naval arty fire on Crow Island, they should be already there.

I'm thinking the main point of the war for them is for those islands, so they are not cut into two halves. Once they got their wargoal they are trying to ramp up our war exhaustion. Lets see what kind of Casus Belli they are having.

p.s. Again I want the Aviation problem settled down soon. I don't like bickering on several seemingly equivalent options.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

They are capable to bring naval arty fire on the Crow, in fact they did it last turn

[3_14159]

@UR: Wasn't it a dedicated design doing the raiding?

Other than that, let me give my two cents on holding Crow's Island. Also in Air, Naval/Artillery and Land battle. I see it a bit different compared to both Pat and UR, more of a middle ground.
We can surely assume that if we win both the Air and the Naval battle, no invasion is going to take place.

Air battle:
Our design is superior and through Crow's Island's position allows us even more advantage. Against us is numbers. Assuming we can force much more losses while keeping the ratio, they will still have 200+ production more planes than us. All we can therefore assume is parity of force and no absolute air superiority for either of us. We will however be able to achieve local air superiority, I guess.

Sea battle/Artillery duel:
URs numbers (I'll work from them for now) assume a total number of 54 160mm guns, while we have fifteen in the fleet and thirty coastal defense. That means coastal bombardment will look bad for us. (Though coastal artillery should, through more armour and more dispersal take less damage).
We cannot directly engage their fleet if they mass it with our navy. We're just underequipped for that. We can use Sharks on attack missions, bleeding them dry, however. Though they then start patrols farther outside and so on.
If we reach local air superiority and get a torpedo bomber, we can attack them with them, though. Our torpedo's awesome, and wouldprobably be enough to sink those cruisers easily.
We can, though, attack their merchant ships used to transport the troops with torpedoes as they're much easier to hit. That may be possible.

Land invasion:
No clue. We know they have Mosin-Nagants, same as us, but nothing more. I count on the advantage of the Revolutionary Rifle, but we have too few MGs.
Ravens strafing the beaches won't work that good, and is probably not going to work as they're better concentrated on air superiority.
However, since probably none of us will be able to support the troops by air or sea, we have the advantage as defender.
So yes, I believe it will be both bloody and close - but we will probably win the fight fairly closely.

@evilcherry: I believe 1, 3 and 5 are the best. 1 is cheap, 3 means more patrol capability, 5 means better attack capability. This is why I'd choose 5.

[evilcherry]

They are capable to bring naval arty fire on the Crow, in fact they did it last turn

The majority of the fighting however has taken place around Crow's Isle. The assault has remained limited to long range artillery bombardment, in which neither sides sustained significant damage.

Long range arty bombardment, nuff said. Unless they got superweps like Paris Guns they are using naval firepower.

3_14159: I guess it boils down to how good we can build an airframe. We have the power for a good fighter (1x900) to a good bomber (2x900) to a good transport (4x900), but whether we have the capability to build a handle-able airframe for that power is another matter. Thus I suggest biplane for more strength.

I'm happy either way with 3 or 5. 1 should go no more than a "test of theory" stage, at least not as the solution to the problem. In fact if we can build a monoplane with good flight characteristics the next thing will be to replace the raven... then we might actually relegate it for torps.

[Patrick Hunt]

And thanks to me we'll have a lovely big complex to modify to produce our new plane in large numbers very quickly.

[3_14159]

They are capable to bring naval arty fire on the Crow, in fact they did it last turn

The majority of the fighting however has taken place around Crow's Isle. The assault has remained limited to long range artillery bombardment, in which neither sides sustained significant damage.

Long range arty bombardment, nuff said. Unless they got superweps like Paris Guns they are using naval firepower.

I think you're both trying to say the same thing: They're using their biggest naval guns to fire on crow's island and don't hit anything, and we're firing back and hitting nothing, too.

3_14159: I guess it boils down to how good we can build an airframe. We have the power for a good fighter (1x900) to a good bomber (2x900) to a good transport (4x900), but whether we have the capability to build a handle-able airframe for that power is another matter. Thus I suggest biplane for more strength.

I'm happy either way with 3 or 5. 1 should go no more than a "test of theory" stage. In fact if we can build a monoplane with good flight characteristics the next thing will be to replace the raven...

Aye. And my idea would be to first test our capability of building said airframes with the torpedo bomber as it hasn't got to be as manoeuvrable as a fighter. I hope, of course, that the design is really, really awesome, then we have an instant multirole fighter ;-)

Oh, and @ebbor, a rules question:
The Shark, for example, has a Production time of 1 month. Does that mean if we had a fifty ton dock, we could produce one per month, and a hundred ton dock would produce two (parallel) per month? With the drydock producing half the amount?
That would mean that our dockyard could produce nearly three hundred per year if we had the capacity for it.

Idea: Let's do a secondary version of the shark with no 40mm gun and if necessary no MGs. Their anti-air power will be nullified, but we can build much much more and the new version would be faster, too.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

URs numbers (I'll work from them for now) assume a total number of 54 160mm guns, while we have fifteen in the fleet and thirty coastal defense. That means coastal bombardment will look bad for us. (Though coastal artillery should, through more armour and more dispersal take less damage).

a) I doubt that that our 160mm coastal guns are heavily armored, such forts cost a lot. Most likely their armor is equivalent to one on the cruiser turrets, or even worse
b) Even if they are heavily armored, we can't use them all in the same time, while enemy can amass it's cruisers
c) Should protectors try to engage with enemy cruisers, there are very high chance that they will need to deal with destroyers first

Enemy commerce raiders have become increasingly troubling though, especially with the introduction of a dedicated vessel and have effectively cut off Crow's Isle.

That assumes that enemy had more raiders than dedicated vessels only. Besides where else we could sunk their torpedo boats? 

We can use Sharks on attack missions, bleeding them dry, however. Though they then start patrols farther outside and so on.

a) Sharks are not seaworthy, range is very limited, hard to force enemy to patrol more
b) Too few of them
c) Even modestly escorted convoy is hard to crack with boat like this... 3-4 torpedo boats + destroyer will make it fairly easy to defend against wave of sharks

If we reach local air superiority and get a torpedo bomber, we can attack them with them, though. Our torpedo's awesome, and wouldprobably be enough to sink those cruisers easily.

That's true, but first we need to get that torpedo bomber. Also, enemy fleet can be nicely screened by destroyers, and doubt that their cruisers lack AA weaponery

Weaponless sharks is a good idea, and honestly  I think it's what would have be done by default when navy found that they simply can't arm all ships with guns, halting production because some secondary subsystem couldn't be installed is a strange move

The majority of the fighting however has taken place around Crow's Isle. The assault has remained limited to long range artillery bombardment, in which neither sides sustained significant damage.

That means that they control waters around Crow's Isle uncontested and had most ships in that area. But their land forces were busy mopping up small islands, now they can concentrate on landing

[evilcherry]

They are capable to bring naval arty fire on the Crow, in fact they did it last turn

The majority of the fighting however has taken place around Crow's Isle. The assault has remained limited to long range artillery bombardment, in which neither sides sustained significant damage.

Long range arty bombardment, nuff said. Unless they got superweps like Paris Guns they are using naval firepower.

I think you're both trying to say the same thing: They're using their biggest naval guns to fire on crow's island and don't hit anything, and we're firing back and hitting nothing, too.

3_14159: I guess it boils down to how good we can build an airframe. We have the power for a good fighter (1x900) to a good bomber (2x900) to a good transport (4x900), but whether we have the capability to build a handle-able airframe for that power is another matter. Thus I suggest biplane for more strength.

I'm happy either way with 3 or 5. 1 should go no more than a "test of theory" stage. In fact if we can build a monoplane with good flight characteristics the next thing will be to replace the raven...

Aye. And my idea would be to first test our capability of building said airframes with the torpedo bomber as it hasn't got to be as manoeuvrable as a fighter. I hope, of course, that the design is really, really awesome, then we have an instant multirole fighter ;-)

Oh, and @ebbor, a rules question:
The Shark, for example, has a Production time of 1 month. Does that mean if we had a fifty ton dock, we could produce one per month, and a hundred ton dock would produce two (parallel) per month? With the drydock producing half the amount?
That would mean that our dockyard could produce nearly three hundred per year if we had the capacity for it.

Idea: Let's do a secondary version of the shark with no 40mm gun and if necessary no MGs. Their anti-air power will be nullified, but we can build much much more and the new version would be faster, too.

I would even think about making the shark with wood, while trying to improve the engine reliability, as well as removing the naval gun component. Hell they are our equivalent to PT boats, designed to be produced on the fly quickly in a war. All they need to do is to throw torps, retreat, rinse and repeat. Why complicate it?

I guess we could have just say "design a torp monoplane bomber, using 2x900 engines, with 2x15mm as secondary arms, reasonable armor, and reasonable torp carrying capacity." I'm still a bit bent on it should be a seaplane, or even a flying boat, but it all depends on votes.