Topic: Department of Armaments-Weapon Design Game-Dead. Please Lock. (Read 104281 times)

coleslaw35 · « **Reply #660 on:** November 04, 2015, 12:55:06 pm »

Quote from: Aseaheru on November 04, 2015, 12:43:20 pm

Naval or Engine. Naval engine would make even more.

Fair enough. Just curious.

3_14159 · « **Reply #661 on:** November 05, 2015, 05:08:06 am »

Quote

Right lets fix the aerodynamic problems, C1 Wind tunnel
A large wind tunnel capable of testing items up to 2 meters across.
Objects larger will be tested by the use of scale models.

Good idea, probably.
Aseaheru: Will this help us with future designs, or is it abstracted anyway? Also, should we assign the Aero team to it, or is a construction team sufficient?

Now, we have a currently probably unused aero-engineer team. Personally, I'd like to build a long-range naval patrol/medium bomber allowing us to shadow enemy merchants, search for surfaced submarines and - later - possibly mount a radar on. Alternatively, we could postpone this for a turn and design a better engine, which'd first be used in the bomber and, afterwards, in a new and updated fighter design. Or design an air-to-ground rocket or possibly a rocket-based hedgehog alternative since we don't have any way to attack ships.

Additionally, we should probably design a new engine for use in the tank we're supposed to build at some time, at about 300kW (compared to the 40kW of the current POAC's engine). We might also refit it to the POAC itself later on.

Any preferences on these?

As for industry assignment, we have the Naval Complex, three ammo lines and two artillery lines. Oh, and the vehicle complexes.

My proposal is to produce the Vorishka in the Naval Complex (obviously) and produce the POAC-B-C and -C(F) in the two vehicle complex lines (plus, obviously, the engines in the VE2 complex). This'd give us one Vorishka plus spare parts and I don't know how many POACs. In the two artillery lines, we could produce CA-A-1935 (they're needed for the interceptor) the AATSM1933 from the Large Workshop, switching that to combat webbing.
Oh, and produce the Firestorm instead of the other interceptor.
Any other ideas? What kind of munitions, for example?
(I'll need to run the numbers with the proposed changes later this weekend)

Aseaheru: How many POAC variants can be produced per turn? (Compared to the 10 for POAC-H and 20 for the POAC-L)?

Proposals:
C.2: Begin constructing a large drydock (targeted size: 10k ton)

Aseaheru · « **Reply #662 on:** November 05, 2015, 05:52:02 am »

It will probably give a bonus both to aero- and hydrodynamics, less of one for hydrodynamics of course.

POAC variant numbers and costs: (I knew this would come back to bite me. Also, I just realized there where two POAC-Cs.... The one with the big gun is the POAC-B-DFS)

Spoiler: POAC-B(Back from page 7 and never moved) (click to show/hide)

Spoiler: POAC-B-C (click to show/hide)

Spoiler: POAC-B-C(f) (click to show/hide)

Spoiler: POAC-B-M (click to show/hide)

Spoiler: POAC-B-DFS (click to show/hide)

3_14159 · « **Reply #663 on:** November 05, 2015, 07:04:04 am »

Quote from: Aseaheru on November 05, 2015, 05:52:02 am

It will probably give a bonus both to aero- and hydrodynamics, less of one for hydrodynamics of course.

Very nice.

Quote

POAC variant numbers and costs: (I knew this would come back to bite me. Also, I just realized there where two POAC-Cs.... The one with the big gun is the POAC-B-DFS)

Spoiler: POAC-B(Back from page 7 and never moved) (click to show/hide)
20 mm armor front, 18 mm side, 16 mm rear, all heavily sloped.
Powered by a 100HP engine(twin linked 50HP engines)
POAC-B
top speed(land) of 60kmph, 20kmph(water)
Crew of two
Mounting for only single pintlemounted MG
3 ton
Requires 2ton steel and 1ton AL per batch, 1u electronics, 2x SDE M1933, 1x LMG(optional)

Batch size of 25
Spoiler: POAC-B-C (click to show/hide)
20 mm armor front, 18 mm side, 16 mm rear, all heavily sloped.
Powered by a 100HP engine
top speed(land) of 50kmph, 10kmph(water) (speeds assumed loaded)
Crew of two
Mounting for only single pintlemounted MG
2 ton, 1.5 ton cargo capacity
built in cargo loading system
Requires 1ton steel and 1ton AL per batch, 1u electronics, 2x SDE M1933, 1x LMG(optional)
Can be converted to POAC-B-C(f) by workshops provided tanks are available.

Batch size of 30
Spoiler: POAC-B-C(f) (click to show/hide)
20 mm armor front, 18 mm side, 16 mm rear, all heavily sloped.
Powered by a 100HP engine(twin linked 50HP engines)
POAC-B-C(f)
top speed(land) of 55kmph, 15kmph(water)
Crew of two
Mounting for only single pintlemounted MG
3 ton, abstracted levels of fuel storage
Built in fuel crane
Requires 1ton steel and 1ton AL per batch, 1u electronics, 2x SDE M1933, 1x LMG(optional) and either .5ton steel(at factory) or 1u POAC armored fuel tank(workshop, requires .5 ton steel per batch, counts as a generic specialization, batches of 20)
Examples fitted with removable tank can be refitted back to being POAC-B-C at workshop, gives the tank back.

Batch size of 20(factory)(workshop numbers depend on supplies, max limit of ten(large size))
Spoiler: POAC-B-M (click to show/hide)
20 mm armor front, 18 mm side, 16 mm rear, all heavily sloped.
Powered by a 100HP engine(twin linked 50HP engines)
POAC-B
top speed(land) of 60kmph, 20kmph(water)
Crew of two, plus mortar crew of... Three
Mounting for pintlemounted MG, 1x EAM M1932 in troop compartment
4 ton (full munitions load)
Requires 2ton steel and 1ton AL per batch, 1u electronics, 2x SDE M1933, 1x LMG(optional), 1x EAM M1932

Batch size of 30
Spoiler: POAC-B-DFS (click to show/hide)
20 mm armor front, 18 mm side, 16 mm rear, all heavily sloped.
Powered by a 100HP engine
top speed(land) of 45kmph, 10kmph(water)
Crew of 5 (Driver, Radio operator, gunner, loader, commander)
1x ATHM1933 in an enclosed turret(20mm front and side, 10mm rear)
1x optional pintle mounted MG on turret
6 ton
Requires 2ton steel and 2ton AL per batch, 1u electronics, 2x SDE M1933, 1x LMG(optional), 1x ATHM1933

Batch size of 6

Does that mean the POAC-H and POAC-L also use 1u electronics?

Lastly, you mentioned that a Vehicle Engine factory produces more vehicle engines than a normal engine factory. How much more efficient is a vehicle engine factory at:
- Producing something non-engine-y?
- Producing a vehicle (with no engine)?
- Producing a non-vehicle engine?
- Producing a vehicle engine?

Also, I'm thinking we should build a new design building.

Aseaheru · « **Reply #664 on:** November 05, 2015, 07:19:35 am »

If you want them to have radios, yes.

For (x)(y) factories, consider them to have the effects of both (x) and (y). So, vehicle engine factories can build vehicles or engines, but work best with engines designed for vehicles. Call it an extra 50% bonus.

Ah, hell. I just made your work harder for you, dident I?
It may help to list the ones with radios as POACH-whatever(R). It /may/ help.

3_14159 · « **Reply #665 on:** November 05, 2015, 07:28:57 am »

Quote from: Aseaheru on November 05, 2015, 07:19:35 am

If you want them to have radios, yes.

Yes, yes, yes!

Quote

For (x)(y) factories, consider them to have the effects of both (x) and (y). So, vehicle engine factories can build vehicles or engines, but work best with engines designed for vehicles. Call it an extra 50% bonus.

Ah, hell. I just made your work harder for you, dident I?
It may help to list the ones with radios as POACH-whatever(R). It /may/ help.

Not that much, actually. I'll implement it later.

3_14159 · « **Reply #666 on:** November 05, 2015, 02:59:00 pm »

And now, here's the updated assignment/stocks numbers.

Changes include:
- Instead of adding the combat losses to our stocks, I have subtracted them (don't ask).
- I am assuming that nothing can be salvaged from combat losses.
- Now including the multi-speciality and special-speciality stuff
- New sorting by name, grouping similar stuff together.
- (More important for me: Automated forum post generation)
- Including Empty tool lines.
- Now including general-as-specialized factories for infantry equipment: Steel helmet, gas mask, vest, LBE
- Also, including POACs with radio, explaining the lack of electronic parts.
- Also including the Mk-2 converted interceptors
- And new printing by type!
- And included losses and expenditures
- And destroyed 45 phantom T-18 a copy-paste factory had built
- And now including exact changes (including losses etc) compared to the last turn

Aseaheru: How many I-C-M1936s have been converted to the Mark 2?

Projections for this turn's assignments will soon be finished.
TURN 10: 1937.0

Spoiler: Industry assignments 1937.0 (turn 10) (click to show/hide)

Spoiler: Industry production 1937.0 (turn 10) (click to show/hide)

Spoiler: Stocks 1937.0 (turn 10) (click to show/hide)

And here's the new industry status assuming we do the following:
- Produce the POAC-B-C and -C(F) in V3
- Produce the engines in VE1
- Produce the Vorishka in our drydock
- Produce the firestorm instead of the current interceptor
- Switch productions of the HiLo and M1932 40mmAAA cannon to the new LA factory, in addition to producing the CA-A-M1935 autocannon
- Produce the LBE in our workshop, instead.

Problems:
- Far, far too few electronic parts to add one radio to each POAC.
- We produce ten POACs too much for our engine production. We could only produce the POAC-B-C(F), leaving the tank to be removed in the field.
- For the first time, we're not producing enough MM1934s. Switching from the SMM1934 Double will produce enough. On the other hand, we still have 1233, meaning we'll have to worry about that in about twelve years.
- We're producing an annoying 1.5 20mm plane autocannon too little.

Aseaheru: I realized I don't have batch numbers for the MM1927/DP-28 MG.
TURN 11: 1937.5

Spoiler: Industry assignments 1937.5 (turn 11) (click to show/hide)

Spoiler: Industry production 1937.5 (turn 11) (click to show/hide)

Spoiler: Stocks 1937.5 (turn 11) (click to show/hide)

Aseaheru · « **Reply #667 on:** November 05, 2015, 03:16:09 pm »

Combat losses that can be salvaged are included in the number, but parts to fix them are also removed.
All the interceptors have been converted, mostly because I am feeling lazy.

Spoiler: Stocks after ammo use and stuff (click to show/hide)

Oh, and guys, dont forget ammo for the Winchesters. Or to say what type of it. Currently everything except the arty is using ball ammunition.

3_14159 · « **Reply #668 on:** November 05, 2015, 03:59:35 pm »

I've updated the industry status above with the new numbers.
Also, you might like the new output for production and stock numbers - I think it's far easier to actually understand anything.

Someone else is going to have to assign the ammo factory lines for me.

Lastly, can you give me the batch size for the MM1927/DP-28 MG? The 30 I have has obviously been a placeholder.

Aseaheru · « **Reply #669 on:** November 05, 2015, 04:30:18 pm »

Take the number for the MM1911 and add 25%.

Also, I really need to start writing down these numbers myself. Hurrah for the attack of the lazy!

tryrar · « **Reply #670 on:** November 05, 2015, 04:35:23 pm »

Hey guys, the HiLo is a 105mm gun right? Well that's a roughly 4" gun while standard destroyer guns are usually 127mm(5") guns. I'd say we should make a 130mm gun based off the HiLo for destroyer and heavy AA usage(keep the HiLo for applications where weight is a concern). This should giver our destroyers a bit of a longer and larger punch without needing to go larger.

Spoiler: 130mm gun "Hammer" (click to show/hide)

coleslaw35 · « **Reply #671 on:** November 05, 2015, 05:06:39 pm »

Quote from: 3_14159 on November 05, 2015, 03:59:35 pm

Someone else is going to have to assign the ammo factory lines for me.

Wait, so, have you assigned everything except munitions to all the empty factory lines?

3_14159 · « **Reply #672 on:** November 06, 2015, 03:39:34 am »

Quote from: tryrar on November 05, 2015, 04:35:23 pm

Hey guys, the HiLo is a 105mm gun right? Well that's a roughly 4" gun while standard destroyer guns are usually 127mm(5") guns. I'd say we should make a 130mm gun based off the HiLo for destroyer and heavy AA usage(keep the HiLo for applications where weight is a concern). This should giver our destroyers a bit of a longer and larger punch without needing to go larger.

Spoiler: 130mm gun "Hammer" (click to show/hide)
A new, 130mm gun based off the 105mm HiLo for usage in ships and heavy AA installations, this gun should be able to engage both surface and air targets. Comes with a new updated sight and director for increased accuracy.

Good idea. We put the HiLo on the destroyer simply because it was easily available, and didn't fit too badly. I'd include a carriage-mount for optional use as heavy artillery.
(Also, we should probably build more Destroyers)

Quote from: coleslaw35 on November 05, 2015, 05:06:39 pm

Quote from: 3_14159 on November 05, 2015, 03:59:35 pm
Someone else is going to have to assign the ammo factory lines for me.

Wait, so, have you assigned everything except munitions to all the empty factory lines?

My proposed production plan (see above) assigns all available factory lines except munitions, because I haven't evaluated ammo consumption. If noone proposes anything in the next few days, I'll probably cook up something.

3_14159 · « **Reply #673 on:** November 06, 2015, 12:55:34 pm »

So, I actually did have some time.
First of all, I've added an entry for change in stocks to the stocks.

7.62x54mm ammo: 4 (+2)

for example, means that 7.62x54mm ammo has had a net increase of +2 compared to last turn, resulting in a total of four units. Our industry produced six (seen at industry production) and so we used/lost four units.

Looking at our ammunition expenditures now, we can see the following:
- 7.62x54mm ammo (Mosin, MGs): High production, high expenditure. In a real war, this'll increase further.
- 7.62x38mm ammo (SM1895): This is only used in the Nagant Revolver, of which we only have about 700 left. No need to produce; we've got more important things.
- 12g ammo (Winchester shotgun): We don't have any, and don't produce any.
- .45 ACP ammo: We're losing some.
- 40mm ammo: We are losing some.
- EAM M1932 ammo (mortar): We are losing some.
- AATSM1933 HiLo ammo: We are constant. This'll change once we use it as artillery.
- ATHM1933 ammo: Constant. That's acceptable for now - only the Shockwave uses it, and we're not producing that many.
- 20mm gun ammo: We're in plus.
- Torpedo: We're producing enough for now.
- Grenade: We're producing enough for now.

With that in mind, I'd assign ammo for the HiLo, the EAM M1932 mortar, the .45 ACP and the 40mm AAA gun.

Additionally, I'd like to propose expanding our Electronics factory by several factory lines. As it is now, we're using electronics for the Firestorm (12 per turn) and up to 45 for the POAC. As of next turn, we'll also use 10 per turn for the Vorishka, and up to 120 for the PAOC. We're producing 9 per turn.
Actually, that's probably not really doable with only building electronics factories.
Aseaheru: If we'd design a new radio, could that use less electronics?

Lastly, I propose we build a new building for our engineers to work. The building is supposed to use everything we've learned in the past few years as head of the Department of Armament, and to provide clean, large spaces for design work. (I'm hoping that'll give us a bonus for design projects)

Edit: I forgot to add:
Since we currently don't have any way to kill submarines (which is something that will absolutely bite us in the ass) I'm adding my old proposal again.

Spoiler: D.6 Anti-submarine rocket (click to show/hide)

Spoiler: Proposals (click to show/hide)

tryrar · « **Reply #674 on:** November 06, 2015, 01:18:47 pm »

Good point about the carriages, I'll add them to my proposal.

Bay 12 Games Forum

News:

Poll

Dead or not dead?

Author Topic: Department of Armaments-Weapon Design Game-Dead. Please Lock. (Read 104281 times)

coleslaw35

Re: Department of Armaments-Weapon Design Game-First Half 1937

3_14159

Re: Department of Armaments-Weapon Design Game-First Half 1937

Aseaheru

Re: Department of Armaments-Weapon Design Game-First Half 1937

3_14159

Re: Department of Armaments-Weapon Design Game-First Half 1937

Aseaheru

Re: Department of Armaments-Weapon Design Game-First Half 1937

3_14159

Re: Department of Armaments-Weapon Design Game-First Half 1937

3_14159

Re: Department of Armaments-Weapon Design Game-First Half 1937

Aseaheru

Re: Department of Armaments-Weapon Design Game-First Half 1937

3_14159

Re: Department of Armaments-Weapon Design Game-First Half 1937

Aseaheru

Re: Department of Armaments-Weapon Design Game-First Half 1937

tryrar

Re: Department of Armaments-Weapon Design Game-First Half 1937

coleslaw35

Re: Department of Armaments-Weapon Design Game-First Half 1937

3_14159

Re: Department of Armaments-Weapon Design Game-First Half 1937

3_14159

Re: Department of Armaments-Weapon Design Game-First Half 1937

tryrar

Re: Department of Armaments-Weapon Design Game-First Half 1937