Print

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

[tryrar]

If we go with an assault rifle, we'll want to use an intermediate round(like a 7.62x40 or an 8x39). The AK-47 uses the former, so...

+1 to AR27 if ut uses a 7.62x40mm round instead of a 7.76 round

[Sensei]

You might as well fully specify, when introducing new rounds, whether they're normal rifle sized, larger, pistol, or intermediate. I assume you're wanting the post-WWII 7.76mm intermediate round, but you're inventing a new round either way.

[Andres]

I'll at least admit the dive bomber idea ended up being better than the assault rifle when we were arguing about it. I honestly didn't expect our DB to be a better bomber than their normal bomber. The tank destroyer was still a terrible idea on paper and mediocre in practice.

If we go with an assault rifle, we'll want to use an intermediate round(like a 7.62x40 or an 8x39). The AK-47 uses the former, so...

+1 to AR27 if ut uses a 7.62x40mm round instead of a 7.76 round

+1

You might as well fully specify, when introducing new rounds, whether they're normal rifle sized, larger, pistol, or intermediate. I assume you're wanting the post-WWII 7.76mm intermediate round, but you're inventing a new round either way.

Yep. Normal assault rifle round.

Glory to Arstotzka.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

I suggest 6x36mm for our rifle because it is a sexy size and doesn't copy real world. Not that we need newer small arm that badly.

I dislike idea of going ambitious with creating a freaking RPG. Design action like
create manportable AT weapon(s) is much more failure safe

[tryrar]

Yeah, I agree something like my RPG would be a better bet

[Sensei]

create manportable AT weapon(s)

Too nonspecific to be a design action.

[Andres]

I suggest 6x36mm for our rifle because it is a sexy size and doesn't copy real world. Not that we need newer small arm that badly.

Moskurg soldiers lack camouflage, which is a liability, but the frequency of automatic weapons effective at close and medium range means they tend to mow Arstotzkan soldiers down.

Are you freaking serious!? We need a new small arm now more than we ever. Our soldiers are getting mowed down by small fire and an RPG won't help in the slightest. The only reason we managed to get a foothold back into the Jungle last time was because of cheap SMGs. That alone won't be enough to get the Jungle back if we lose it. Moreover, they have trucks now and would easily be able to exploit its resources.

Glory to Arstotzka.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Yes, I still think that there are many alternatives to small arms to hold jungles and advance in other fronts, but I don't think other ideas have any chances to get voted, so:

My vote:

AS-AR27(U). Still named AS-AR27. U is  here to differentiate votes

Create full automatic rifle using new 6*36mm rounds. It should be easy to handle, not complex to produce, reliable, rugged weapon. Use aluminium for anything but barrel and fire mechanism (but 2 ore max)

I prefer a lighter bullet because we need a new one anyway. Also I want to go away from an ugly 0.3 caliber to get a nice rounded calibre in millimetres. Such weapon is more compact than AK-47, something we need to counter them in jungles.

[10ebbor10]

They still need to hold the Jungle for one turn to get the new resources, and most of their fancy weaponry is more expensive due to their ore shortage. Most infantery will be left with nothing but sidearms ie shotguns.

If we can take the Mountains, that disadvantage would be permanent.

On the other hand, I must note that the situation in the plains, while also helped  by the resource shortage, is nowhere near as good. We will be losing ground there again by next turn, when we loose our armor buff.

[andrea]

keep in mind that they advanced in the jungle not just with the cascade, but also with their new machinegun, which is now expensive. furthermore, armor combat is becoming important there and the rhino recoilless rifle also went up to expensive. An anti tank weapon would have some effectiveness. Plus our new radio might help with ambushes.

however, a man portable anti tank would be very valuable in the mountains, where we could use it to permanently deprive them of their mines ( which we can't currently take due to our inability to deal with tanks). After we take the mines , we can switch focus.

meanwhile, if we want to hold the jungle at all costs, we still have the expense credit we saved from last turn.

ebbor, we don't have an armor buff going on. We saved the credit. Our armor is being deployed thanks to the revision.

[10ebbor10]

Sorry. I got confused. I meant artillery buff, due to the Ace.

On a side note, we could rather than go for the complex anti tank RPG, go for a mountain artillery piece.

[Andres]

They still need to hold the Jungle for one turn to get the new resources, and most of their fancy weaponry is more expensive due to their ore shortage. Most infantery will be left with nothing but sidearms ie shotguns.

Their Cascades cost 0/1 Ore and they're cheap. They'll still be armed with them. Taking out their mines means their shitty assault rifle becomes Expensive and their GPMG becomes Expensive. The former doesn't matter because it's shitty and the latter doesn't matter because it's an MG and it doesn't need to be cheap.

If we can take the Mountains, that disadvantage would be permanent.

Getting three times as many bombers as we have now by decreasing their Oil cost would drown their tanks in bombs. Alternatively, we can revise our mortal shells to include HEAT, AT, shrapnel, and more.

On the other hand, I must note that the situation in the plains, while also helped  by the resource shortage, is nowhere near as good. We will be losing ground there again by next turn, when we loose our armor buff.

Artillery buff. The buff we got from our hero related to artillery. If we end up not getting cheap bombers, we can just use our Expense credit to increase our tank numbers. Heck, it'd probably be necessary if they intend to use their Expense credit to cheapen their own tanks.

Glory to Arstotzka.

EDIT:

meanwhile, if we want to hold the jungle at all costs, we still have the expense credit we saved from last turn.

To do what? Make our SMGs cheap? They've already made their own SMGs cheap and we'd only be achieving parity in that one area. An Expensive machine gun is not a bad thing so we shouldn't count on that to save us. Any RPG we make won't have the range to fight tanks at long range and you can bet your ass that Desert battles are fought at long range.

EDIT2:

On a side note, we could rather than go for the complex anti tank RPG, go for a mountain artillery piece.

It's impossible to get a mountain artillery piece. We can't even bring an autocannon up there so we sure as hell can't bring any kind of artillery. Even if we could, it would be small enough that our mortar would be comparable in performance. It's not worth using a Design phase on it.

[andrea]

our artillery buff ends, but they can field less artillery. It should even out nicely.

the mountain artillery won't work , since it is stated multiple times that motorized vehicles can't cross mountains, since there are no roads. We can't bring a motorcycle, how do you think we can bring an artillery piece? ( note: if we find a good way to do that, it is a nice idea).
maybe RPG is too complex, but a recoilless rifle like their rhino ( but armor piercing), or some other kind of portable anti tank.

I am going to vote for a man portable anti tank, but not for an assault rifle this turn.


To Andres
expensive machine gun matters, because if you read the battle report, they are using it in the same numbers as the cascade. cheap SMG brings us to parity, which is all we need right now.
anti tank means possibly getting tank advantage in the jungle, which also helps. Keep in mind that if they use the expense credit on tanks, an assault rifle might not be that effective in the jungle.
As for usefulness in the desert: who cares? we have the desert loaded with vehicles of all kinds. man portable gear, of any kind, is useless there.
And please notice how they barely scraped land in the jungle this turn despite all the other things.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Cascades alone will not win them jungles if we will have a clear advantage in armor.

Assault rifle is an ok choice, but it is not the only one. Handheld-AT or  new boat or new landmines or floatplane

Handheld AT: may clear jungles from their armor, allowing our cars\motorbikes win by mobility again

Landmines: More advanched landmines will make it much harder to get to the close range. And bonus to defence every time on every front when we are forced to go defensive

Boat: A boat armed with few guns and radio will bring mobile artillery support  to jungles

Floatplane: We get aircraft that needs no airfields and can operate in jungle (Moksburgers, if you will suddenly design a floatplane, know that you are metagaming bastards)

[Andres]

maybe RPG is too complex, but a recoilless rifle like their rhino ( but armor piercing), or some other kind of portable anti tank.

I'd much sooner prefer an RPG to an RR. An RR is a dead end and it can only be used to 100m.

our artillery buff ends, but they can field less artillery. It should even out nicely.
To Andres
expensive machine gun matters, because if you read the battle report, they are using it in the same numbers as the cascade. cheap SMG brings us to parity, which is all we need right now.

I'm reading the report and I'm not seeing anything stating their MG is used as much as their SMG. In fact, their assault rifle is chosen occasionally due to being more portable than their MG. The SMG only brings us to parity in one area, but yeah it might be all we need since they just barely scraped through. If they revise their assault rifle or design a new one, a cheap SMG might not be enough.

anti tank means possibly getting tank advantage in the jungle, which also helps. Keep in mind that if they use the expense credit on tanks, an assault rifle might not be that effective in the jungle.

If they use their Expense credit on tanks, then that just means we need to use our own on tanks as well. It'll be the only way we can keep them in the Desert. Similarly, if making their tanks cheaper will help them in the Jungle then making our tanks cheaper would similarly help us in the Jungle.

And please notice how they barely scraped land in the jungle this turn despite all the other things.

That's worth considering, but them getting a better assault rifle could turn the tides further in their favour, enough that getting our own cheap SMGs won't be enough.

Glory to Arstotzka.

Handheld AT: may clear jungles from their armor, allowing our cars\motorbikes win by mobility again

I hadn't thought of the advantages of increased mobility. Fair enough, but the handheld AT better be a rocket launcher and we're still gonna need those cheap SMGs.

Landmines: More advanched landmines will make it much harder to get to the close range. And bonus to defence every time on every front when we are forced to go defensive

We haven't received any reports stating that our current landmines are lacking. The current ones will do, but we need a proper small arm for when they do manage to get into short range.

Boat: A boat armed with few guns and radio will bring mobile artillery support  to jungles

Floatplane: We get aircraft that needs no airfields and can operate in jungle (Moksburgers, if you will suddenly design a floatplane, know that you are metagaming bastards)

No. Just...no freaking boats.

Glory to Arstotzka.