Print

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

[Ukrainian Ranger]

What you call pet projects is what I call fun projects. Emulating the best  WW2 weapons is somewhat boring. As min-maxing in general

And I'll never play the game - you vote for that, I vote for this

In  fact, just for proposing this scheme, I will tend to avoid everything you propose. Hate gaming of system like this after MBA alliance in Nadaka's game

[Patrick Hunt]

I was hoping it'd come out better then it did, the chance was worth voting for.
The outcome not so much so I'll wait till something better comes up.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

It has great speed, low cost, good operational range and anti-small arms armor. Good infantry support now and nice scout later. Can't understand why you think it's useless and can't imagine what better result you expected

Whatever, if you want more truck, then more trucks.

[Patrick Hunt]

(( I don't want either really, hence why I've avoided voting for anything related to the trucks. ))

[evilcherry]

For me its very simple. If you refuse to trade votes (to put it bluntly) nothing will get through.

[Patrick Hunt]

Stuff will get through, just stuff people want not stuff people traded for to get ideas other people don't want put through.

[3_14159]

We can gain critical resources from scrapping the Raven's, that's true - 15mm MGs of which over four hundred are currently mounted in the Ravens. I'm not sure, however, that that's the best course of action for now.

@trading votes: I'm against it, though not so much that I'd scorn proposals just because of that. What I'd rather like is trying to convince people. And those unconvinced, ask about things you don't like!
Why build the tankettes?
Why design the new engine; why not continue using the designed truck engine from years ago?

A question on the tankette: We've still got several turns before an invasion is possible, during which we will have other, better tanks. I assume that the tankette is outarmoured and outgunned against their new tank models already. Do the advantages really warrant producing them now when we have other priorities?

[Ukrainian Ranger]

For me its very simple. If you refuse to trade votes (to put it bluntly) nothing will get through.

Stuff will get through even if GM will need to do some tie-breaking rolls for a dozen of one voted proposals

Some optimal stuff may not get through, yeah (see the last turn and fighter). So what?

You see, I hate any forms of metagaming. Trading votes is a blatant metagaming

You want to know why people don't vote for your engine? Then ask. If you noticed I tend to ask quite often why people don't support some of my ideas. Some thing that you may see as obviously useful, other people may see as quite bad

I am not voting for 9 because
1) In no way I want a new truck. If you noticed I am trying to get rid of truck production for several turns in a row. The only thing we could want heavy truck for - towing heavy guns, that we have none (160mm is too heavy to towed by any truck)
2) It's entirely possible to design new vehicles without designing an engine for them beforehand. In fact that's more logical way to do it,  design engine that fits vehicle, not engine that you need to design vehicle around
3) We are not in great fuel situation, all diesel fuel should go to Herrings and Hunters....
4) I  don't want fuel hungry powerful tank engines in general. We don't need fast tanks. We can't afford to produce heavy tanks.  We need diesel fuel for the navy and petrol fuel for both airforce and navy (Our fleet of patrol boats eating way too much petrol, BTW. Cods are eating that too... As I said petrol engine is a bad thing for the sub.  )
5) While I'd prefer to get new diesel engine for the navy, that means designing new maritime diesel not one fit for all engines
6) While that is metagamish in some way, I prefer to choose thing fun for GM to process, and fun for players to read the results. You got new (bad\OK\great) engine is not something I play this game for

A question on the tankette: We've still got several turns before an invasion is possible, during which we will have other, better tanks. I assume that the tankette is outarmoured and outgunned against their new tank models already. Do the advantages really warrant producing them now when we have other priorities?

a) Enemy may try landings again. They'll not  bring much heavy guns with them so tankettes will be useful (even if easy target for their tanks) Furthemore, tankettes are fast to move where enemy has landed
b) I am not offering to build new factory for the Tankettes, that indeed is a waste. I am offering to switch half of the production from not that useful trucks. 
c) Even later, due to their speed and range, tankettes will stay useful in scouting roles
d) Rebuilding them later as SPG or SP AA guns shouldn't be hard. It offers a good, fast chassis, quite cheap and made from local materials. Remove turret and top armor, and we have a base for any kind of light armored vehicle. Yes it will be heavier and thus slower, but with it's current great speed that is affordable, having a factory producing producing those chassis is nice because retooling is trivial

[evilcherry]

UR:

1. Your opinion on meta, to be fair, is really bullshit. We are working as a team, to guarantee our nation's survival, and so what we are going to do is to do the decisions that we perceive is in the nation's best interests. Most of the time, people are rational enough to vote for good suggestions, but this is not good enough. We need all five design slots productive; and the best way to achieve this is to make sure that every design is discussed thoroughly, and in the worst case, a head-on vote (as opposed to a FFA vote) is used to get the better design out of the options available.

But sometimes, people just refuse to listen. What other people can do is to trade votes to make sure that these dumb things don't go through.
This is a politics game; horse-trading is not meta. It is, on the contrary, a crucial and central part to this game.

I am NOT going to accept less in this regard, even it might be capable of producing better results.

Everyone: I'm always open to quid pro quid promises.

2. The Engine is crucial because:
a. we are low on oil, and sadly our current ships are fuel guzzlers. We need higher fuel efficiency, and at least not ships with a lot engines connected to propellers through mumbo jumbo.
b. Face it the 12L isn't too large. It is because...
c. As you said we DO need a platform for the 160mm, and not the lighter guns. We get all our guns on the move first, before we think of making it blitzkrieg firepower.
d. I want standardization, so things can be easier to follow in additional to the RL advantages. I want most of the army use the same engine, and if it can be shared with the navy its better. Likewise I want all guns for one purpose in one caliber.
e. That means I would actually do away with the distinction of Marine, Prime Mover, or Automotive diesels. Ideally they should use one kind of engine. Pretty fit for our Proletarian setting too: One less type of engine is one less thing for our workers to understand. I would prefer a reduction gear for the Propeller, which is at least a much simpler construction (plus we need a planetary gear for reversal anyway).

[Patrick Hunt]

Yeah I can't explain it worth a damn so not gonna try.

[3_14159]

2. The Engine is crucial because:
a. we are low on oil, and sadly our current ships are fuel guzzlers. We need higher fuel efficiency, and at least not ships with a lot engines connected to propellers through mumbo jumbo.
b. Face it the 12L isn't too large. It is because...
c. As you said we DO need a platform for the 160mm, and not the lighter guns. We get all our guns on the move first, before we think of making it blitzkrieg firepower.
d. I want standardization, so things can be easier to follow in additional to the RL advantages. I want most of the army use the same engine, and if it can be shared with the navy its better. Likewise I want all guns for one purpose in one caliber.
e. That means I would actually do away with the distinction of Marine, Prime Mover, or Automotive diesels. Ideally they should use one kind of engine. Pretty fit for our Proletarian setting too: One less type of engine is one less thing for our workers to understand. I would prefer a reduction gear for the Propeller, which is at least a much simpler construction (plus we need a planetary gear for reversal anyway).

I see. The problem I'm having with that (I both would like a better naval engine and a better land engine) is the multi-roled design. While nice in theory (and it should be used with all land-based designs where possible) is that ships generally required much bigger engines. Building them out of many, many smaller ones would mean that we have to introduce complicated gears. I'm honestly pretty surprised that the Shark worked with six engines.
I still cannot see the advantage of a new engine such as you propose since we currently have a 200kW reliable and fuel efficient petrol engine that is already produced and used in the truck design. We can at least build tanks with them.
I would vote, however, for a new naval engine technology with less fuel consumption and/or easier to build.

@UR: I see your arguments about the tankette, but I am more sceptical about long-term reusage. Self-propelled guns or anti-air guns will probably prove difficult since the their total weight remains at two tons, the same as our 40mm gun for example. If there's no better use for the factory, I will vote against it with the expectation for it to be converted for 'real' tank production as soon as possible.

I am critical against the 12 ton tank. I generally don't like the idea of Infantry Tanks and would rather take more balanced ones. I will introduce a modification. How about this:
Wolf tank:
Armed with either a 40mm cannon or the new 30mm.
One coaxial 10mm MG and one commander's.
30mm armour front and on the sides, 15mm else.
Use the 200kW truck engine.
Include a radio and a four-man crew.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Your opinion on meta, to be fair, is really bullshit. We are working as a team, to guarantee our nation's survival,

a) I am not a part of any team, for sure.
b) For me any suggestion game is a game of suggestion where story will go, not a game where players try to win in a game against the GM.

This is a politics game; horse-trading is not meta.

No, that's not politics game. Can't see political parties or even in game representation of the players.

a. we are low on oil, and sadly our current ships are fuel guzzlers. We need higher fuel efficiency, and at least not ships with a lot engines connected to propellers through mumbo jumbo.
b. Face it the 12L isn't too large. It is because...
As you said we DO need a platform for the 160mm, and not the lighter guns. We get all our guns on the move first, before we think of making it blitzkrieg firepower.

No, we don't... That's a huge gun that needs rails or transport in parts and assemble on the place. No blizkrieg material.  No other way to transport it exist. It's not a 160mm howitzer, it's a long barreled naval gun

Also! I am 100% sure that We don't need blitzkrieg. We'll either have to do amphibious landings, mountain crossing or defense. That's why I am against more and more trucks

d. I want standardization, so things can be easier to follow in additional to the RL advantages. I want most of the army use the same engine, and if it can be shared with the navy its better. Likewise I want all guns for one purpose in one caliber.

Standardization like that is excessive. Ships need one kind of diesel, tanks another, trucks third. Different parameters are needed
As for same caliber it's nice, but again not to take it to extreme

The only thing you are right about - our little ships are fuel eaters, but we have no time and no resources to change their engines midwar...
Besides they use fuel efficient engine, so situation is not that bad

Wolf tank:
Armed with either a 40mm cannon or the new 30mm.
One coaxial 10mm MG and one commander's.
30mm armour front and on the sides, 15mm else.
Use the 200kW truck engine.
Include a radio and a four-man crew.

Well, that exactly what I propose, very armored and slow tank. Only even heavier

Edit: On other hand I quite forgot how unrealistically powerful our engine is... That tank is earlyWW2 level..

[Patrick Hunt]

Actually UR you overlooked a fourth option for an assault, one that people always seem to forget and that if done right can be catastrophic for the enemy. But it's a bit tricky to pull off and would require a lot of luck.

It'll only work once though, I wonder if any of you can figure it out. It was done beautifully in the past and had an amazing effect and if we pulled it off we could invade the enemies land in massive force without having to fight a massive battle just to get our feet on the shore.

But first we need some explosives like c4 and an AT mine and some timed detonators, get that and I can get us into that country without much trouble baring horrible luck on the rolls.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

If you talk about airborne assault, it doesn't need tanks either...

And it's a suicide on strategical scale, if not backed up by a proper invasion

[Patrick Hunt]

Nope not airborn. Were at least 7-8 years from being ready for that, you've got time to figure it out while I try to get us the supplies we'd need to pull it off.