Print

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

[10ebbor10]

* Devastator notes that sights are, indeed, now free.

Not free, a designable feature. Don't complain to me when you roll several 1's in a row and end up with a gold plated tank.

I would like you to tell me what new cannon tech was included in our tanks cannon that wasn't included in yours, which was basically 'same as Moskurg's, but slightly bigger.'  If you mean the turret, there was turrets on the old tank, and we had electrical experiments from the endless parades of radio failures.

It has a muzzle brake. Which we later had to include on our tank destroyer, so our tank doesn't have it.

* Devastator notes that Moskurg's new plane should be Expensive, and really, really should have dominated the air when it was designed, instead of flipping a slight disadvantage into even.

Your plane is, and has always been merely expensive, but so is ours.

Engine Refinements: Your engineers finally manage to perfect a fuel-recycling, constant-flow fuel injection system. This offers increased power, mostly at full throttle, making it suitable for planes and it will help with the top speed of tanks. Most importantly, it's not Expensive this time. The T-25 is ready to be deployed with this system, and its existing turbo.

There you go! Obviously the biggest benefit is that your HF-24's and T-25's both go down in price.

You did need to research improved alloys and explosives at several points in the game.  Rocket propellants should be on the list.  If you don't think rockets are hard, there is a great book you should read called "Ignition!  An Informal History of Liquid Rocket Propellants."

I read that book. We're not designing ICBM's.

And we didn't need to research improved alloy's. The only 2 examples where the mortar, where we got improved propellants, and the planes, where we got ICBM's. Both included in the design.

[Sheb]

Again, for all the discussions, Sensei never nerfed a design after complains. As you said, we've played better, stacking bonuses (just look at our SMG revision vs yours). But it's not too late to turn the tide. Go forth and design!

[Devastator]

Again, for all the discussions, Sensei never nerfed a design after complains. As you said, we've played better, stacking bonuses (just look at our SMG revision vs yours). But it's not too late to turn the tide. Go forth and design!

It does not matter what you design if random passerbyers vote for flamethrowers.  Victory under those conditions is impossible.

[10ebbor10]

Again, for all the discussions, Sensei never nerfed a design after complains. As you said, we've played better, stacking bonuses (just look at our SMG revision vs yours). But it's not too late to turn the tide. Go forth and design!

It does not matter what you design if random passerbyers vote for flamethrowers.  Victory under those conditions is impossible.

Don't worry. Any Arztotskan tactical coherence has disintegrated over the panic of joke in your resource spoiler. At this point, I fear we might do nothing at all this turn.

[Sheb]

Hey, if you can't convince your players to vote for good design, it's your issue.

[Devastator]

* Devastator notes that sights are, indeed, now free.

Not free, a designable feature. Don't complain to me when you roll several 1's in a row and end up with a gold plated tank.

Aye, that's what I said, free.

It has a muzzle brake. Which we later had to include on our tank destroyer, so our tank doesn't have it.

* Devastator notes that that muzzle brake provides zero benefits to anything, as our tank is outranged in the open.

Your plane is, and has always been merely expensive, but so is ours.

* Devastator wonders why the 60-40 air war went to 50-50 when it was introduced, then.

You did need to research improved alloys and explosives at several points in the game.  Rocket propellants should be on the list.  If you don't think rockets are hard, there is a great book you should read called "Ignition!  An Informal History of Liquid Rocket Propellants."

I read that book. We're not designing ICBM's.

The book isn't about designing ICBMs.  It's about rocket propellants.

[Aseaheru]

 Poping in to comment further further on the quote below, as I feel that Ebbor has finished with the rest.

One last bit, your automatic cannon is ridiculous and in all honesty, is the kind of thing that should be failing an immense number of times.  It was quite common for automatic aircraft cannon to jam on many, if not most, sorties, jamming perhaps for every fifty or so rounds fired, and taking quite some time to repair and refeed the cannon again.  And those were the successful designs.  That would make it dreadfully ineffective at infantry or anti-infantry use, as if you have to spend ten minutes fixing the cannon for every ten seconds of firing, it simply wouldn't work.  You cannot suppress someone with a cannon that doesn't fire.

 The secret is short bursts. Long, sustained fire can jam almost everything.
 Well, except possibly the various Maxims, but they where designed for sustained fire.

--ninja edit--

It's about liquid propellants, mostly. We use solid fuel. Like gunpowder.

As for the muzzlebrake, I direct you to the suspension system we spent, what, two actions on? That doesn't do too much either.

[evilcherry]

Hey, if you can't convince your players to vote for good design, it's your issue.

No. Its that somehow Moskurg is less GM-savvy and have to second guess GM's intentions.

[Devastator]

The secret is short bursts. Long, sustained fire can jam almost everything.
 Well, except possibly the various Maxims, but they where designed for sustained fire.

Short burst can jam too, it's just less likely.  The larger size also makes it much harder and longer to clear jams.  It also makes it much hotter and require a more robust cooling system.  It's a pretty absurd weapon, even if it isn't really impossible.

It also should be, well, bigger than it is, and being inaccurate due to recoil effects on your APCs.  20mm autocannon are big mothers.

It's about liquid propellants, mostly. We use solid fuel. Like gunpowder.

As for the muzzlebrake, I direct you to the suspension system we spent, what, two actions on? That doesn't do too much either.

There's a very significant difference between deflagrating propellants and solid fuel rockets.  You don't need an engine for the gunpowder, you don't need to worry about fuel flow, you don't need to worry about fuel stability, you only need to worry minimally about packaging..  some of them are issues to some degrees, but everything is ten times easier when you don't need it to actually explode continually.  The two are not 'like' each other, not one bit.

I'm not really worried about the muzzlebrake.  I'm miffed by being told that Moskurg's tank cannon was specially good when Arstotzka's very next turn involved designing the same gun, but bigger.  It's just hypocritical.


Oh, and evilcherry, it's also because if someone jumps out and says 'flamethrower weapons suck', people still vote for them anyway.

[andrea]

gunpowder can also act as rocket fuel. See old fireworks and old rocket artillery. I think aseaheru simply used that as a solid fuel he can actually give a name to.

and once again, we explicitly had solid fuels in our public tech list, and we had a report on civilian life describing solid fuel rocketry as well known in our society. nif it wasn't for that, we wouldn't even have tried.

[Execute/Dumbo.exe]

On that note, assuming war just stopped in this game, would anyone want to live in Moskurg or Arstotzka? I mean, the fact that Arstotzka has rocket cars as a national sport is pretty tempting.

[Aseaheru]

I said gunpowder mostly so he couldn't have gone "that's from the cold war, you can't have that!"

As for guns, may I say that there are tons of nine millimeter pistols out there. Do you expect them to be identical?

[Devastator]

Fireworks act as, or are launched from, mortars.  They also aren't intended to hit anything other than 'sky', or the ground, fifty or a hundred meters that way.

Still though, having the tech explicitly makes the difference.  It's a hell of a tech to have for free, though;  I'd be hard pressed to come up with a better one.

[Sensei]

FWIW, I'm looking at a solid propellant rocket motor on my desk right now. It has the benefit of modern chemistry, sure, but it's a bunch of white paste/powder packed into a cardboard tube. It's less mechanically complex than a roll of coins.

[Taricus]

The process of making the propellant and ensuring the chemical reaction is stable isn't though.