Print

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

[3_14159]

Hey Ebbor, small error in our glorious military spoiler you've put.

'25 for our sparrows.

That should be a 4, for 425 Sparrows (245 last turn + 280 produced - 100 lost). Which makes air superiority against 200 of their fighters achievable.

On the Ravens: Remember, we only have 185 Ravens, which means a rocket attack equivalent in number to just 19 Ospreys. That doesn't seem like it will actually be useful, but we can try.

How long would it take to upgrade the current Sparrows to IIA if we drafted every possible man?

I am assuming that, contrary to mounting the rockets and building the dockyard, this would require mechanically schooled people, which are probably not that widely available.

Looking at Navy numbers I think we can manage a counterattack

Yeah, that looks even better than I had initially assumed.

I'm actually seriously comtemplating this. Just doing 1 military turn, and 1 design turn. Most of the the time, I'd put them together, but sometimes I'd separate.

Thanks for the answers! I've had an idea, if you want to invest the necessary time: Do the military turns in flexible time slices and in another thread. For example, a good slice would be one or two weeks until the decision of the Crow's Island campaign, allowing us knowledge about the result.

[Patrick Hunt]

We're not sending all the fighters at once, we can upgrade the ones that stay behind and cycle the old ones out on each raid to do a few more.
Plus we're not using them for night raids so we can do some then.

Probably not all but some. It'll pay off to cut down the enemies edge in quality and we can't get any III out in time, the fewer we lose the better.

[Taricus]

Huh... Looking at the loss ratio, they took losses of about 1.8 to 1 for the fighters. Let me make that clearer: They lost nine fighters for every five we lost. I'd say that we have a very definite advantage in the airwar. And even if we count in the osprey losses, we still have a rather large margin over them.

EDIT: And looking at the production rates, we're massively outproducing them in terms of aircraft. I have a feeling that they might start groveling for peace if we beat them back from crow's isle. This must be a very determined and desparate attack.

[10ebbor10]

They attacked a heavily fortifified position with plenty of AA defense. Higher losses are expected.

[evilcherry]

Military turns can come up whenever sh*t comes up, and generally that should be resolved in reasonable time.

That also means Greek letter suggestions will be solved out of sync, which might not be bad if at all.

(in fact I feel that the second battle of Crow Island should be rushed through, as high command probably do not have the time to discuss elaborate plans. For example Raven Rockets would probably be out of reach.)

EDIT: And looking at the production rates, we're massively outproducing them in terms of aircraft. I have a feeling that they might start groveling for peace if we beat them back from crow's isle. This must be a very determined and desparate attack.

I feel that they are already going out of steam and needed some all-or-nothing attack to get enough edge in the war for them just to recover from it.

[10ebbor10]

Problem is that my current shedual doesn't lend itself very well for many distributed post, but does fairly well for periodical large posts.

[Patrick Hunt]

That can be done within the 3 days before the attack.
The ravens will all be retired soon, let them carry out one major assault before they go.

[Taricus]

Eh, we can fluff it as the Moldavians celebrating their victory prematurely

[3_14159]

The ravens will all be retired soon, let them carry out one major assault before they go.

The question is not whether it's acceptable to lose the Ravens, but whether it's acceptable to lose the pilots.

Now, there are a few things I'd like to do this turn.
- Since we have a gun engineer, I'd like to do a proposal for refining the 30mm gun.
- Instead of Proposal 8's twin-fuselage seaplane, I'd like a twin-engined flying boat with a nose turret and possibly additional defensive armament. Roles would be commercial harassment, naval reconnaissance and possibly resupply missions. The changes should allow more room for later cargo and/or improvements.
- I would switch all Sparrow production to the Mk. III, either with only two guns or with full four.
Thoughts on any of that?

Oh, and lastly:
The great white variant should have about 21MW of power available, while the Annihilator should have 7.5MW for cruise and 37.5MW total for combat usage.

[evilcherry]

Promotional material for my proposals.

8. Mallard Escort seaplane

Firstly, we do not have any immediate need of a new fighter aircraft, seeing Sparrow III should have treated most of the design's problems. Secondly, the Ospreys and the Albatrosses are doing alright. Thirdly, as a few of us wanted a bi-engine fighter or bomber, the Mallard should provide an answer. It is a seaplane, meaning it should remain useful at the attack of Moldovian mainland; It can double as an escort fighter, so if the enemy keep up with the Albatrosses, we have a way to fight back; It packs two pairs of guns mainly because it is not that good at moving itself into position, so it need higher firepower to compensate the lack of firing time. It is also designed to be a patrol bomber, so it should also excel at ASW duties.

It is understandable that its drawbacks are poor handling and extremely high sophistication (plus being a two-manned fighter), and thus leading to a high cost. However, if it is correctly designed, it would provide us with an excellent platform to move forward and build on.

B: The Sparrow is a very maneuverable aircraft, so moving into a firing position, especially in a turn and burn situation, is pretty easy. The removal of the extra guns should increase performance by a bit; if needed instead provide with bigger magazines. IIbs are no brainers, if we have the time that is.
C: ebbor mentioned numerous times that as we are not building the Sovjet designs they aren't selling us more. Lets build a few prototypes to see how these designs fare in the first place.
D: Our fuel situation is so dire that making more fuel is a no-brainer.

The ravens will all be retired soon, let them carry out one major assault before they go.

The question is not whether it's acceptable to lose the Ravens, but whether it's acceptable to lose the pilots.

Now, there are a few things I'd like to do this turn.
- Since we have a gun engineer, I'd like to do a proposal for refining the 30mm gun.
- Instead of Proposal 8's twin-fuselage seaplane, I'd like a twin-engined flying boat with a nose turret and possibly additional defensive armament. Roles would be commercial harassment, naval reconnaissance and possibly resupply missions. The changes should allow more room for later cargo and/or improvements.
- I would switch all Sparrow production to the Mk. III, either with only two guns or with full four.
Thoughts on any of that?

Oh, and lastly:
The great white variant should have about 21MW of power available, while the Annihilator should have 7.5MW for cruise and 37.5MW total for combat usage.

I have no objections to it (well, having a twin mustang seaplane is probably more useful as a catalyst for a better design), but I would suggest that this seaplane should be designed with ASW in mind, since we should not rely on ospreys at this role.

Another question: is it too early for a helicopter or autogyro?

[Ukrainian Ranger]

What about helicopter and later helicopter carrier route? And later anti tank helicopters can kick ass

[3_14159]

We will probably not need a new fighter this turn, but may need it next turn. This leaves this one as opportunity to branch out.
There are three areas I see branching out as possible: Flying boats, transport aircraft and helicopters.

As a warning: The helicopters we get will probably have no more than two hundred kg of cargo area, meaning a pretty bad weapons loadout. Not saying they won't be worth it.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

I think that refortification of Crow's island is a waste of resources, if we win Naval counterattack we should rule the waves, better produce more Aircrafts\vessels

[3_14159]

Hm... that's a question of doctrine - do we want (and need) to keep Crow's Island secure, or can we keep it secure enough with just force projection?
In any case, I think Crow's Island will later require a RADAR post and airfields to help our aircraft and ships operate.

Oh, any maybe we should stop producing pistols. Every single one of our soldiers has one available.

[Funk]

Yes lets stop makeing pistols and start makeing  machineguns and issue the SMG as well as our soldiers deserve the best we can give them.