Print

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

[andrea]

Turbochargers also allow planes to get to higher altitude.
and making the engine smaller while adding a turbocharger is a way to make it consume less.

However, if we don't get a cheap turbocharger out of that, we haven't actually increased the number of planes we have ( although we might have improved their performance a bit)

edit: I was thinking... why don't we order to start building a road in the mountains? of course it wouldn't lead straight to their mines, but maybe we can get equipment a bit closer. In the jungle, both sides did exactly that, with roads being cut as armies advanced.

[Andres]

Going to bed now. If I find that you guys have wasted our Revision turn on a god damn boat, I'm going to be a bit upset. Revising our SMG or our uniform to include ghillie suits will help us more in the Jungle than a god damn boat. Revising our tank to be cheaper will help us more in the Jungle than a god damn boat. Getting more aerial bombardment will help us more in the Jungle than a god damn boat. Point being, don't bother with any god damn boats.

Glory to Arstotzka.

[Sheb]

Here is my revision proposal.

Spoiler: AS-CV22-A (click to show/hide)

A modified AS-CV22 optimize for shore bombing role. Its cargo capcity is gutted to make room for a battery of six AS-1912A as well as a couple dozens AS-AC18 and AS-1924 for air defense. It sport a radio to help coordinate the artillery.

The A stand for Andres, because hes such a fan.

[andrea]

I propose to revise our boat to carry planes. Clearly, that is what we must do right now.

or revise it to load more cargo! we can revise that boat so much!


more seriously

+1 RPG, using our solid propellant tech and our grenade experience. Primary role anti-tank, secondary anti infantry. Focus on reliability, range and accuracy. Aim to keep it expensive at most.Aluminium when possible to keep it man light ( it is just a tube anyway). In case it is not clear, it must be man portable.

[10ebbor10]

You know what, I'm going to be silly. I had the idea of developing new types of ammunition and other such things, but I've decided to come up with this.

Spoiler: AS-A19C-AB (click to show/hide)

A modification of our now mostly obsolete plane. It includes, quite simply, ripping out the weaponry, pilot seat and other related things, and replacing it with high explosives and a simple gyroscopic stabilization system. Launched via catapult towards enemy lines.

On a slightly less silly note:

Spoiler: AS-CV22-CAM (click to show/hide)

A modification of our trusty cargo ship to include a catapult, allowing it to launch (but not recover) fighters and bombers against enemy positions on both the plains and the Jungle.

We're going to need this if we want to break through the Jungle. Which we don't, but anyway.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Can we fit revising AS19C into a hydroplane variant and revising our cargo ship to be a poor man aircraft carrier in one revision action?  Because it can work rather well.

[Kot]

I oppose RPG design because reasons, wasting a design on something that could be done by revision isin't fun.

You know, getting our planes to have turbochargers could be rather useful

revising them to have turbochargers is counter-productive.

Holy shit, you really change your opinion very often.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

We don't need a CHEAP RPG. It will do us more harm then good. Stop this obsession with getting cheap weapons. Especially when we try to design something ahead of time


Design an RPG with a target cost Very expensive with focus on quality

 One tube per several squads is enough to deal with enemy tanks on a small scale.

wasting a design on something that could be done by revision isin't fun

What do you want to revise to get 15 years ahead tech?

[andrea]

I don't think we can get a proper RPG by revising our mortar. Not to the degree of effectiveness we want. For similar reasons to why we had to use different design actions for different guns: while the way they function is similar, the designs are different enough that a revision doesn't cut it.

as for it being cheap: that idea was shot down a few pages ago. However, I am not sure targeting very expensive is a good idea, since if we overshot we only get a fancy prototype. expensive seems a safer target.

[Andres]

I oppose RPG design because reasons, wasting a design on something that could be done by revision isin't fun.

We need to design a new solid propellant that can be used for controlled burns, we need to figure out how to do controlled burns, we have to stabilise the rocket using fins, we've got to figure out how exactly the RPG is reloaded, we need to design the basic shape of the RPG (including how we trigger the rocket to start rocketing), and we have to determine how the shape of the warhead will affect aerodynamics. This is not something we can do in a mere Revision phase.

You know, getting our planes to have turbochargers could be rather useful

revising them to have turbochargers is counter-productive.

Holy shit, you really change your opinion very often.

I apologise for changing my opinion whenever new facts and points of view appear. Truly I am the worst person and an utter hypocrite.

We don't need a CHEAP RPG. It will do us more harm then good. Stop this obsession with getting cheap weapons. Especially when we try to design something ahead of time

Dude, all of us - including myself - are saying that we should absolutely NOT try to make a cheap RPG.

Glory to Arstotzka.

[tryrar]

I don't think we can get a proper RPG by revising our mortar. Not to the degree of effectiveness we want. For similar reasons to why we had to use different design actions for different guns: while the way they function is similar, the designs are different enough that a revision doesn't cut it.

as for it being cheap: that idea was shot down a few pages ago. However, I am not sure targeting very expensive is a good idea, since if we overshot we only get a fancy prototype. expensive seems a safer target.

I'm supportive of a cost target of Expensive. I'm NOT supportive of a cost target of Very Expensive.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

expensive = every squad will have it. Way too ambitious for my tastes

[Andres]

A successful RPG prototype was made in 1918. The project was only stopped because the war ended 5 days after the successful RPG prototype was made. We're not ahead of our time.

[tryrar]

expensive = every squad will have it. Way too ambitious for my tastes

....you think that'll be ambitious? Given how simple the weapon is, that should be doable. And if we overshoot into Very Expensive, that's fine since we simply send all we have into the mountains to break the stalemate there. If we target Very Expensive and overshoot into National Effort though, we'll have a big problem. It's fine to be a bit ambitious in this case as ending up Very Expensive isn't too bad, but being more expensive than that is VERY bad.

[Andres]

Ironic how being ambitious actually increases the chance of success of the project.

Glory to Arstotzka.