Print

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

[Ukrainian Ranger]

I still stand by 10bber10 design. It has shallow draft for fight in the Swamps.

Well, my idea and 10ebbor10s idea can be combined in one... but I am very sceptical that we can have a craft that is usable both in swamps and in the sea. And support vessels are very different to cargo vessels.

and I really want upgraded steam engine because it improves logistics both by introducing cargo ships and by improving trains and maybe making T-15s useful again.

Anyone gonna counter my point of their being able to steal two designs from us if we do this?

First - giving them ideas here is not a very good thing to do
Second - they still need to get good spying rolls and then spend revision to reduce the cost
Third - We need ships anyway, no matter what decision will we take on spying front

And lets discuss spy related stuff via PMs....

I change my mind. A boat design would be a good idea, but only for logistics purposes.

So you support my boat that is not designed for operating in swamps and fighting with land forces?

With the Revise, we can improve our plane's manoeuvrability and hopefully still get those rockets.

I doubt that much modernization potential is left and we will try to replace it anyway. I prefer my idea with new shells for artillery unless we don't go for a new fighter next turn. Flak shells will make their aviation far less dangerous

[tryrar]

alright, I'll go ahead and +1 that boat design, UR. Just, could you specify that the engine upgrade is to a triple-expansion engine?

[Andres]

Nope, we're using the boat to go after the sub as well. Also, yeah, at this point we'd be better off revising something else as there's a point of diminishing returns on revisions.(Sensei even said something to the effect when we LAST revised our plane.)

I'm pretty sure you're not thinking about it right. Revising a design to get wildly different results gets diminishing results, but revising a design to fix a bug in the design is fine. Our crap manoeuvrability is a bug.

I would also like to state that revising our plane means we get a chance to armour it with aluminium.

Glory to Arstotzka.

[tryrar]

Nope, we're using the boat to go after the sub as well. Also, yeah, at this point we'd be better off revising something else as there's a point of diminishing returns on revisions.(Sensei even said something to the effect when we LAST revised our plane.)

I'm pretty sure you're not thinking about it right. Revising a design to get wildly different results gets diminishing results, but revising a design to fix a bug in the design is fine. Our crap manoeuvrability is a bug.

I would also like to state that revising our plane means we get a chance to armour it with aluminium.

Glory to Arstotzka.

If we don't actually do it this turn(and it looks like we're going boating) we're probably replacing it next turn, so no point.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

alright, I'll go ahead and +1 that boat design, UR. Just, could you specify that the engine upgrade is to a triple-expansion engine?

Done.

[Andres]

If we don't actually do it this turn(and it looks like we're going boating) we're probably replacing it next turn, so no point.

Ever since we started laying landmines in the Mountains, the Moskurgs have been slightly smarter than normal. They know they'll lose air superiority again if they do nothing so they'll do something. The upgrade should help to counter that and again, it might help us develop rockets (assuming it doesn't just give them), and it gives us more experience when designing planes.

Mount at least a single AA 1910 and a single regular 1910 on our cargo ship. The AA is to fight against Moskurg airplanes (since apparently we're not upgrading our fighters to prepare for them) and the regular 1910 is to kill the enemy spy who tries to get to the U-Boat.

Glory to Arstotzka.

[Sheb]

It's not clear that "logistics" is just getting ressources back to Arstotzka City. Getting ressources to our troops presumably also count?

Anyway, for revision, I propose making our Armored Car carry a full turret to solve that issue with gunner getting shot. Also design a variant with twins  AS-1910 for anti-infantry role. Doctrine should be to mix both car types to cover each others.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Spoiler: votes (click to show/hide)

AS-CV-22 (cargoship) : Tryrar, UR, Andres
AS-1922-CC: (universal river\swamp\shore cargo\combat support ship): 10ebbor10, Sheb

I think I counted right. correct me if I missed something or made a mistake

[Andres]

It's not clear that "logistics" is just getting ressources back to Arstotzka City. Getting ressources to our troops presumably also count?

I thought so to, but since it's never been brought up even once in any of our battle reports (including the time we blew up all their trains), I'm guessing it just plain doesn't matter.

Anyway, for revision, I propose making our Armored Car carry a full turret to solve that issue with gunner getting shot. Also design a variant with twins  AS-1910 for anti-infantry role. Doctrine should be to mix both car types to cover each others.

Our bigger problems are ground-based AA hitting our planes and enemy bombers blowing up our positions at night time. The 1910 is anti-infantry and we tried to make it more anti-infantry by making it portable. We got a 1910 Mag. If we want a better machine gun, we need to design for it.

Glory to Arstotzka.

I still stand by 10bber10 design. It has shallow draft for fight in the Swamps.

There is no Swamp. There has never been a Swamp. We have always been at war with the Swamp.

But in all seriousness, where was there a mention of any Swamp? Unless it doesn't exist, I think I missed it.

EDIT: A quick search in the OOC thread for 'swamp' turned up no results.

EDIT2: 'river' and 'rivers' didn't turn anything up but 'swamps' did. It's mentioned in the OP and it only says the Jungle meets the shoreline with swamp rather than beach.

[Sheb]

I don't mean a new MG, I mean an armored car carrying AS-1910.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

IMO, revision needs to help the war in the skies...

1) Improve 20mms in some way
2) Third revision of the triplane (I am sceptical here. third revision is third revision)
3) Flak shells for 80mm guns. Will not make it a proper AA gun, but will work against current bombers

I prefer shells because we can try to revise many more shells we need. : illumination, smoke, incendiary.

[Andres]

I don't mean a new MG, I mean an armored car carrying AS-1910.

Understood.

Do the following if Arstotzka uses DC electricity: Pen a letter to High Command. As engineers, we've compared Edison's DC to Tesla's AC. Despite DC's popularity, we believe that AC would be better for our country than DC. Compare how Tesla's inventions were patented by Edison just as our SMG was patented by Moskurg.

IMO, revision needs to help the war in the skies...

1) Improve 20mms in some way
2) Third revision of the triplane (I am sceptical here. third revision is third revision)
3) Flak shells for 80mm guns. Will not make it a proper AA gun, but will work against current bombers

I prefer shells because we can try to revise many more shells we need. : illumination, smoke, incendiary.

Actually, you're kind of onto something. We can improve the manoeuvrability of the triplane easily enough, but if we design flak shells for our autocannons it would significantly improve their effectiveness in the skies. Any ground-based autocannons would similarly benefit.

Glory to Arstotzka.

[10ebbor10]

On a side note for another revision idea, remember how we designed our truck with the idea that we could put gun's on it.

If we do that as a revision, chances are great that can get mobile artillery and mobile anti-air in one action.

[Sheb]

Anyway, I'd support UR's cargo ship if he makes it an armed merchant cruiser. Surely, we can design that in one go.

[Andres]

On a side note for another revision idea, remember how we designed our truck with the idea that we could put gun's on it.

If we do that as a revision, chances are great that can get mobile artillery and mobile anti-air in one action.

I was under the impression it looked like this, so getting flak ammo for our autocannons would probably be better for AA.

Glory to Arstotzka.