Print

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

[Sheb]

Depend what the goal is. Bombing their artillery, or their industry?

[Andres]

Guys, remember that Moskurg is still close to capturing the Jungle. They'll probably design something they can use there as well as in their cities, so I'm guessing something that aids in CQC. Even if we don't get body armour, we should at least try to keep some focus on the Jungle. Anything that's useful there will definitely be useful in the cities.

Glory to Arstotzka.

[Sheb]

I dunno, with their Breaker going back to very Expensive, I think we should hold the jungle.

[Andres]

How much you wanna bet they're gonna do nothing and just let us hold the Jungle?

Glory to Arstotzka.

[andrea]

he means that what they are going to do might just end up offsetting the now more expensive T2.

I think they might fix their hippo.

[Sheb]

Even if they do, and they manage to take the Jungle, I'm not too worried. They need to hold it for one full turn, we can just design something new next turn, and we have an Expense Credit as a spare.

Plus, if our bomber is successful, we could disrupt their supply lines anyway.

[10ebbor10]

On that note, if we go for high altitude we need to go relatively lightly armed.

[andrea]

define lightly armed. The B-17 started from 5 machineguns and ended with 13.

Also: by rereading the battle report, while their new fighter has an higher service ceiling than their old one, we have no word about comparison to our own. I think it is not too distant, since we seem to have no problem dogfighting with them . I think for the most part they fly within reach of our current crafts, which could then provide some cover ( not great, since they must fly lower, but enemies will have to fly lower as well.).

On a bomber, we might also want retractable landing gear and some scope to help aiming the bombs.

[10ebbor10]

Our plane has no retractable landing gear, no supercharger and no enclosed cockpit.

The reason that our current planes have no problem reaching them is that the enemy has no reason to fly that high.

define lightly armed. The B-17 started from 5 machineguns and ended with 13.

One or two guns. No full coverage.

[andrea]

hm. Why do you think we need t go that light?

by the way: they have no supercharger either. I wonder what their ceiling actually is. cockpit and retractable gear help aerodynamics, but lack of supercharger means power drops with altitude.

[10ebbor10]

Because I fear with bombers we could be in the national effort case sooner than we'd like.

I mean, we're going to go over the oil limit, our bomb sight is likely to be expensive, then multi engine design, and then you want to tack turret tech on, which we don't really have.

[andrea]

Just as long as we don't get any design complexity we should be fine, at least for the next few turns. It is a reasonable concern however.
If we are going for high flying, we should get a turret on the belly, since our targets will be below us.
maybe to save ore and keep to the 4 ore long term budget we can save some aluminium, even if it impacts performance.

Note that the lwer cost of their craft is due to good rolls, not due to the guns in our crafts. That is what sensei said, at least.

[Andres]

A heavy bomber is a bit too ambitious and will likely need revision. This leaves us with nothing to beef up our Jungle and city combat. If we want better bombing we should just settle with quantity over quality for now. Besides, dive bombers are already pretty good at taking out artillery.

Glory to Arstotzka.

[Kot]

We don't exactly need heavy bomber. Twin/tree engine medium bomber would suffice, as long as it's high alt one. Meanwhile we revise our old fighter/bomber to include enclosed cockpit and turbochargers to also be high alt. This way, they won't have shit on us when it comes to air combat, since they won't be able to reach the bombers and the fighters would use the energy to make quick boom and zooming before they can react.
We use both design and revision to keep the advantage in air for us, and it should last a while.

As for the turrets... we don't need turrets. Turrets would just incerase the cost. We just need to pop two MGs on sides, one (dual?) on belly just below the tail and one autocannon on top.

[andrea]

the SM.79-I version could carry 1250 kg of bmbs it seems. take it to 1500 and I will support this.
As for turrets: you are right. Still, machineguns need to be pivotable, even if not a proper turret. If machineguns can't be pivoted, they are of little use.