Print

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

[Aseaheru]

They have the tech clearly from the plans they stole with the SMGs.

[Andres]

We stole your gun and changed the measurements to imperial, so it's only expensive.

Fair enough.

[Iituem]

On some of the models, you can actually see where we etched the serial numbers off and replaced them.

[heydude6]

Why would you tell them that?!

[Aseaheru]

Because Sensei told us that.

[Andres]

Perfect match for Arstotzka.

Glory to Arstotzka.

[Aseaheru]

Oh, thats THAT song! Awesome!

[Andres]

Oh, thats THAT song! Awesome!

It's from Age of War and Age of War 2, so I guess that makes it even more appropriate.

Hey Sensei? I think you need to redesign how tanks are done. As it is right now, we could have 30mm of shit armour or 10mm of good armour and there's no reason to pick one over the other except for cosmetic reasons. Moreover, we don't have any decent way of classifying what grade of materials we want to use for our tanks. Can you recommend or devise a way for us to deal with this issue?

[10ebbor10]

While I'm at it, is there also an explanation for why our SP-AT's 91mm doesn't badly outrange the steam tank's 80mm?

Your gun is a howitzer. That means shorter barrel and small propelant charge to lob a larger projectile a shorter distance than the equivalent gun.

You used your 80mm field gun for your tank. Sensei calls it a field gun, but he means field howitzer, since it's used as an indirect artillery weapon.

I proposed it. It's a field gun, long barrel and all, and optimized for range so as to outrange your Bombardier.

Oh, thats THAT song! Awesome!

It's from Age of War and Age of War 2, so I guess that makes it even more appropriate.

Hey Sensei? I think you need to redesign how tanks are done. As it is right now, we could have 30mm of shit armour or 10mm of good armour and there's no reason to pick one over the other except for cosmetic reasons. Moreover, we don't have any decent way of classifying what grade of materials we want to use for our tanks. Can you recommend or devise a way for us to deal with this issue?

Simple. Define performance rather than thickness. So say, armor strong enough to stop a 0.60 cal bullet or something like that.

[Andres]

The problem is that we can say we use 1 metre of tin armour to protect against .60 cals and it would totally be ok. There's got to be some kind of regulation.

[Kashyyk]

I've been thinking about that for a game I've wanted to design. My solution was to always translate it into an equivalent thickness of rolled homogenous armour, as I believe that's actually one of the standards they use. Ding things like having different metals or techniques would apply a modifier to the actual thickness. When comparing to weapon penetration, you'd use this RHA value.

[Aseaheru]

Oh, thats THAT song! Awesome!

It's from Age of War and Age of War 2, so I guess that makes it even more appropriate.

It's also from this weird old flash game I played all the time.

[Andres]

Oh, thats THAT song! Awesome!

It's from Age of War and Age of War 2, so I guess that makes it even more appropriate.

It's also from this weird old flash game I played all the time.

I'm pretty sure that's Age of War, unless you're talking about something else. What was the game about?

[Aseaheru]

Nope, thats it. Curse my memory that does not hold names!

[Sensei]

I've been thinking about the armor issue. What I might do is specify the type and thickness, or just have it be based on your current armor technology. Thicker, shittier armor is not indistinct from thinner, high-quality armor: the higher quality stuff is lighter for the same protection. I also thought about a War Thunder-style equivalent thickness, but I'm not sure if I like committing to hard numbers like that.

I must ponder it, some more, perhaps.