Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Poll

Dead or not dead?

Dead
- 0 (0%)
LIVE!
- 4 (50%)
Eh. Dont care.
- 0 (0%)
Asea, you lazy git...
- 4 (50%)

Total Members Voted: 8


Pages: 1 ... 42 43 [44] 45 46 ... 70

Author Topic: Department of Armaments-Weapon Design Game-Dead. Please Lock.  (Read 104344 times)

tryrar

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Department of Armaments-Weapon Design Game-First Half 1937
« Reply #645 on: November 03, 2015, 01:51:04 pm »

We still need to consider a new rifle, one with a smaller round than the 7.62x54mmr round. Something for use for POAC squads too, so maybe a folding/retractable stock and considerably smaller than the Mosin Nagant. I'll put this out there, I suppose. Feel free to modify it or put something else forward.

I do not currently have the time to research a proper round, so I'll let you guys think on that until i'm available.

Spoiler: The Ovstra (click to show/hide)
I propose we go 7.62x33mm(which was the caliber of the M1 carbine round

Awesome!
I've added a small correction to the propulsion section.
Generally, a snorkel-equipped submarine uses the diesel most of the time, which is during cruising. However, when attacking, using the diesel produces significantly more noise, making it significantly easier to detect. Therefore, it only uses the e-motors and batteries during attack.
(I may have played Silent Hunter III for quite some time...)


Spoiler: Merlin Sub Version 3 (click to show/hide)

Thsanks! I +1 this
Logged
This fort really does sit on the event horizon of madness and catastrophe
No. I suppose there are similarities, but I'm fairly certain angry birds doesn't let me charge into a battalion of knights with a car made of circular saws.

Aseaheru

  • Bay Watcher
  • Cursed by the Elves with a title.
    • View Profile
Re: Department of Armaments-Weapon Design Game-First Half 1937
« Reply #646 on: November 03, 2015, 02:03:39 pm »

Questions for Asea:
- What's the effective range for the HiLo in the artillery role?
- Do we have a carriage for the HiLo allowing use as AA, AT and artillery gun?
- Did we do some mock dogfights between the FireStorm and the Tornado?
- If we assign the Vorishka to the naval factory, we'll build one (well, 1.5 due to specialization) per half-year. Correct?
- Details on the Goby's performance against the cruiser, and possibly about the cruiser as well?
- How's the Baklan performance with level-flight bombing accuracy?
- How does the Tornado (I-C-M1936-Mk2) perform against enemy fighters?
- Do we need to do anything to fix the Bychok?
-A few kilometers. Lets say about 15.
-No, you do not.
-Want some? Allrighty. Ill go write them up.
-Yep.
-The combat against the cruiser Canarias mostly consisted of both sides shelling eachother, with the Canarias hovering at the edge of both ships ranges and managing to drop enough shells on the Bychok until the Bychok broke off the engagement.
-Not as well as it is when dive bombing, but enough for covering an area in bombs.
-If the enemy dont know its there it destroys them. Dogfights are where it dies, and its best at bursting through the enemy aircraft, targeting one on its way. Boom-and-zoom.
-It just needs some time. Possibly a few parts for guns, that sorta thing.

Aseaheru:
What, exactly, is the ATHM1933 again?
A howitzer designed for use in tanks. Yes, I know how weird that sounds.
Also, the .280/30 Enfield may be a good round for your gun...
Hey, did you guys know that the first assault rifle showed up in the first world war? Right at the end of it, and it was a heavy beast, but it existed. Linky to wiki page on it
Logged
Highly Opinionated Fool
Warning, nearly incapable of expressing tone in text

3_14159

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Department of Armaments-Weapon Design Game-First Half 1937
« Reply #647 on: November 03, 2015, 03:40:13 pm »

I propose we go 7.62x33mm(which was the caliber of the M1 carbine round
7.62x33mm is one possibility; or we could go with a WWII-version of the 5.56x45mm round.
In any case, I have updated the description with a few more details, and have eliminated the magazine-as-grip requirement. This is mostly because handling the weapon by its magazine will make jamming more likely.

Spoiler: Ovstra Carbine (click to show/hide)


- What's the effective range for the HiLo in the artillery role?
A few kilometers. Lets say about 15.
Awesome.
Quote
- Do we have a carriage for the HiLo allowing use as AA, AT and artillery gun?
-No, you do not.
Design project, and one we should really do.
Quote
- Details on the Goby's performance against the cruiser, and possibly about the cruiser as well?
-The combat against the cruiser Canarias mostly consisted of both sides shelling eachother, with the Canarias hovering at the edge of both ships ranges and managing to drop enough shells on the Bychok until the Bychok broke off the engagement.
That was pretty much as expected. It's more armoured, has higher-calibre guns and more of them and something like three times the tonnage of the Goby. We survived, that's good.
Quote
- Did we do some mock dogfights between the FireStorm and the Tornado?
-Want some? Allrighty. Ill go write them up.
Thanks. That's going to be useful.

Quote
- How does the Tornado (I-C-M1936-Mk2) perform against enemy fighters?
-If the enemy dont know its there it destroys them. Dogfights are where it dies, and its best at bursting through the enemy aircraft, targeting one on its way. Boom-and-zoom.
That's actually better than expected. Very nice.

Quote
What, exactly, is the ATHM1933 again?
A howitzer designed for use in tanks. Yes, I know how weird that sounds.
Well, it's probably good for infantry support. Hm, could we feasibly (dimensions and weight) mount one in the POAC-H's turret? If so, that's a nice boost to HE load once the current gun isn't performing well against current tanks.

Quote
[ color=transparent]Also, the .280/30 Enfield may be a good round for your gun...[/color]
Hey, did you guys know that the first assault rifle showed up in the first world war? Right at the end of it, and it was a heavy beast, but it existed. Linky to wiki page on it
It even looks like an assault rifle. (Of course, the bipod betrays the trench-fighting origins)


Spoiler: Designs (click to show/hide)
Logged

Aseaheru

  • Bay Watcher
  • Cursed by the Elves with a title.
    • View Profile
Re: Department of Armaments-Weapon Design Game-First Half 1937
« Reply #648 on: November 03, 2015, 04:14:25 pm »

 You cant shove the ATHM1933 in the POAC-H's turet, as the turret is designed for that other gun. Could try designing a new turret for it, but, well, you have the POAC-B-C...

Logged
Highly Opinionated Fool
Warning, nearly incapable of expressing tone in text

coleslaw35

  • Bay Watcher
  • A disgusting pile of slop.
    • View Profile
    • My YouTube channel where I shitpost
Re: Department of Armaments-Weapon Design Game-First Half 1937
« Reply #649 on: November 03, 2015, 05:41:39 pm »

I don't think it'd be much good to mount such a large gun on the POAC. Like Aseaheru said, it'd require a new turret design. Why don't we, instead, design a multi-purpose tank hull? We could allow it to be outfitted with whatever seems reasonable.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2015, 05:53:13 pm by coleslaw35 »
Logged

Funk

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Department of Armaments-Weapon Design Game-First Half 1937 update is inbound
« Reply #650 on: November 03, 2015, 09:34:11 pm »

Interceptor-Pusher-Model of 1937 Firestorm
[...]
Variants wise a ground attack model would be useful, refit the front with twin or just a single 35mm+ cannon for anti tank use.
Like the POAC's gun, for example? That being said, for now I'd prefer modifying the basic Firestorm to include hardpoints for rockets and bombs. This way, we can continue manufacturing the Baklan and the Firestorm and use the latter as air support once we've succeeded gaining air superiority.
Quote

The POAC's gun the C-V-45-M1935 is the right calibre but it's too heavy at half a ton and it's to slow fireing at 20rpm.

Hard points are a good idea but we risk slowing the plane down.

Dam that armour weights it down some, you'll think that havering twice the engine power and lighter guns would make it faster.
Logged
Agree, plus that's about the LAST thing *I* want to see from this kind of game - author spending valuable development time on useless graphics.

Unofficial slogan of Bay 12 Games.  

Death to the false emperor a warhammer40k SG

Aseaheru

  • Bay Watcher
  • Cursed by the Elves with a title.
    • View Profile
Re: Department of Armaments-Weapon Design Game-First Half 1937
« Reply #651 on: November 03, 2015, 09:36:28 pm »

Theres also aerodynamic problems, which traditionally have always been the largest drawback to pusher aircraft.

Oh, and Funk, yer quotes are screwed up.
Logged
Highly Opinionated Fool
Warning, nearly incapable of expressing tone in text

coleslaw35

  • Bay Watcher
  • A disgusting pile of slop.
    • View Profile
    • My YouTube channel where I shitpost
Re: Department of Armaments-Weapon Design Game-First Half 1937
« Reply #652 on: November 03, 2015, 09:47:03 pm »

I'd say that with our current interceptors, we're okay in the skies. (That's entirely debatable though.)

So, which do you guys think is objectively better? The Tornado or the Firestorm? Should we produce both or replace one with the other? Looking for everyones' thoughts on the matter.

Would you guys be more in favor of a carbine or an attempt at an assault rifle?

Also, we're going to need another General factory for Facilitators and what-not.

I would like to suggest we redesign the combat vest (E-I-V-M1937) to use cloth that is cooler and breathes easily. No wool. I don't even know why wool was decided on by the materials team. I'm assuming that the soldiers in Spain unequip their greatcoats when they wear the Lava Vest?

EDIT: I remember Aseaheru hinting at something like this with some transparent text in a quote, but maybe we could also build an academy of sorts to train more Architects, Engineers, etc?
« Last Edit: November 03, 2015, 09:49:19 pm by coleslaw35 »
Logged

Funk

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Department of Armaments-Weapon Design Game-First Half 1937
« Reply #653 on: November 03, 2015, 10:21:59 pm »


I'd say that with our current interceptors, we're okay in the skies. (That's entirely debatable though.)

So, which do you guys think is objectively better? The Tornado or the Firestorm? Should we produce both or replace one with the other? Looking for everyones' thoughts on the matter.
I have favouritism to the Firestorm.

Would you guys be more in favor of a carbine or an attempt at an assault rifle?
Im for an assault rifle.

I propose we go 7.62x33mm(which was the caliber of the M1 carbine round
7.62x33mm is one possibility; or we could go with a WWII-version of the 5.56x45mm round.
In any case, I have updated the description with a few more details, and have eliminated the magazine-as-grip requirement. This is mostly because handling the weapon by its magazine will make jamming more likely.

I don't like the idea of copying 5.56mm or .30 Carbine, 5.56mm need good ammo and .30 Carbine is only of marginal power.

Spoiler: Ovstra Carbine (click to show/hide)


Theres also aerodynamic problems, which traditionally have always been the largest drawback to pusher aircraft.

Oh, and Funk, yer quotes are screwed up.
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.
Logged
Agree, plus that's about the LAST thing *I* want to see from this kind of game - author spending valuable development time on useless graphics.

Unofficial slogan of Bay 12 Games.  

Death to the false emperor a warhammer40k SG

3_14159

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Department of Armaments-Weapon Design Game-First Half 1937
« Reply #654 on: November 04, 2015, 09:43:03 am »

You cant shove the ATHM1933 in the POAC-H's turet, as the turret is designed for that other gun. Could try designing a new turret for it, but, well, you have the POAC-B-C...
I was thinking about future upgrades, once the only relevant performance for the POAC's gun will be HE load (once tanks are too strongly armoured). Still, it'll probably continue to perform nicely.

Quote
I guess that settles it: Produce the firestorm.

I would like to suggest we redesign the combat vest (E-I-V-M1937) to use cloth that is cooler and breathes easily. No wool. I don't even know why wool was decided on by the materials team. I'm assuming that the soldiers in Spain unequip their greatcoats when they wear the Lava Vest?
I'd actually just leave it for now. While it isn't optimal, there are other, more important projects.

Quote
EDIT: I remember Aseaheru hinting at something like this with some transparent text in a quote, but maybe we could also build an academy of sorts to train more Architects, Engineers, etc?
Good idea.

With Funk's addition we now have the choice between an assault rifle or carbine, chambered in one of:
5.56x45mm, 7.62x33mm (.30 carbine), 6.54x64mm (.25 remington auto) and 7.2x65mm (.280/30). I really, really don't care.

Spoiler: D-RN-M1937 Naval Radar (click to show/hide)

Spoiler: Proposals (click to show/hide)
Logged

coleslaw35

  • Bay Watcher
  • A disgusting pile of slop.
    • View Profile
    • My YouTube channel where I shitpost
Re: Department of Armaments-Weapon Design Game-First Half 1937
« Reply #655 on: November 04, 2015, 09:52:07 am »

Could we get the updated stocks for this turn? I'd like to see what we've got plenty of, what we need, etc. Maybe we've got extra stuff we don't need that we can send to R. Spain.

EDIT: If no one else gets an industry assignment up before I get home from school, I'll put something up to the vote.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2015, 09:56:20 am by coleslaw35 »
Logged

3_14159

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Department of Armaments-Weapon Design Game-First Half 1937
« Reply #656 on: November 04, 2015, 10:11:28 am »

Could we get the updated stocks for this turn? I'd like to see what we've got plenty of, what we need, etc. Maybe we've got extra stuff we don't need that we can send to R. Spain.

EDIT: If no one else gets an industry assignment up before I get home from school, I'll put something up to the vote.
I was just building it. It's not really complete - I have not yet included the renaming, nor the fact that general facilities count as specialized for the LBE and Vest. Also, what's the difference between Tooled and Empty?

Spoiler: Industry Assignment (click to show/hide)

Spoiler: Industry production: (click to show/hide)

Spoiler: Stocks (click to show/hide)

Edit: Now including combat losses.
Also, how many I-C-M1936s have been converted to Mk2?
« Last Edit: November 04, 2015, 11:03:34 am by 3_14159 »
Logged

Aseaheru

  • Bay Watcher
  • Cursed by the Elves with a title.
    • View Profile
Re: Department of Armaments-Weapon Design Game-First Half 1937
« Reply #657 on: November 04, 2015, 11:33:26 am »

 Tooled starts cranking out stuff the turn you assign something to it, empty takes a turn to get tooled up by the workers, unless you want to dump a construction team on it to get it done faster.
Logged
Highly Opinionated Fool
Warning, nearly incapable of expressing tone in text

coleslaw35

  • Bay Watcher
  • A disgusting pile of slop.
    • View Profile
    • My YouTube channel where I shitpost
Re: Department of Armaments-Weapon Design Game-First Half 1937
« Reply #658 on: November 04, 2015, 12:14:45 pm »

Would ship power plants be built in a naval factory or in a vehicle engine factory?
Logged

Aseaheru

  • Bay Watcher
  • Cursed by the Elves with a title.
    • View Profile
Re: Department of Armaments-Weapon Design Game-First Half 1937
« Reply #659 on: November 04, 2015, 12:43:20 pm »

Naval or Engine. Naval engine would make even more.
Logged
Highly Opinionated Fool
Warning, nearly incapable of expressing tone in text
Pages: 1 ... 42 43 [44] 45 46 ... 70