Print

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

[Kot]

Ok, technically we didn't all agree on optics, Andres disagree, but ignoring him is as much of an Arstotzkan tradition as shooting tigers by now.

-1 to Andres.

[andrea]

he is referring to this

And I completely agree with him. We had a minor trait which gave flavor, and we are letting that overrun the whole country.

but since me and Andres are vastly outnumbered on this matter, with the other side including even the GM, I am likely not going to press the issue much further.

I'll just regularly point out that names such AS-CC-77-TPT-01 are simply atrocious for all kinds of widespread uses

[10ebbor10]

I'm with you, or at least passive on the issue.

[Sheb]

Hehe, ok, we could change the name of the teams.

Anyway, what is our strategic objective? Pushing in the desert to threaten their capital, or trying to push them back in the mountains and jungle?

[10ebbor10]

On a side note, I was asked to justify my tank improvements.

Here are the reasons :

1. The enemy was able to take the roads because they could take out our tanks. Resolve that, and we take the roads back.

2. Resolving the CC problem is much harder :
     - The enemy has innate advantage
     - The enemy has a better SMG
     - The enemy has a better light machine gun

3. Resolving the tank problem is easy :
    - Remove butter from the list of available armoring materials

4. We have more tanks than them anyway, being able to use them means we overpower them

So the thing is simple. If we revise the tank, we restore a great advantage. Even if we make an SMG, we're at serious disadvantage at CQC.

Anyway, what is our strategic objective? Pushing in the desert to threaten their capital, or trying to push them back in the mountains and jungle?

I'd say keeping the mountain first (hence, scopes), then desert, then Jungle.

[Execute/Dumbo.exe]

Alright, makes sense.
Though I still think we should eventually do something to catch up to them on the SMG/LMG front, we can't just keep ignoring it.

[Andres]

Anyway, what is our strategic objective? Pushing in the desert to threaten their capital, or trying to push them back in the mountains and jungle?

Doing the latter will help with the former. Snipers will let our men use vantage points in cities (tall buildings, for example) and an SMG will actually let them clear buildings.

2. Resolving the CC problem is much harder :
     - The enemy has innate advantage
     - The enemy has a better SMG
     - The enemy has a better light machine gun

Yes, no, kinda.
The enemy has a cheaper SMG. Revising our SMG means we get a belt feed as well as driving the cost down, making our SMG inherently better.
The enemy has a slightly better LMG that's giving them an edge, but our 1924 isn't exactly as a piece of junk.

If we get an SMG we'll be able to equal them or surpass them in CQC. We'll get an equivalent main weapon, we have slightly better armour, and we have grenades.

Alright, makes sense.
Though I still think we should eventually do something to catch up to them on the SMG/LMG front, we can't just keep ignoring it.

This is the time to do it! We're fighting two fronts where an SMG would be FAR more useful than a tank upgrade! If not now, then WHEN would be the best time to revise our SMG!?

Glory to Arstotzka.

[andrea]

oddly, we seem to have no big advantage from tank superiority. protection from RPG was enough for them to take the roads again, even if their new AT weapon couldn't be used ( it was said to be unreliable in the jungle).

anyway.

the mountains can probably hold, especially if we design a sniper rifle or optics of any kind.  each side has a big advantage in his own mines there, due to vehicles.

jungle is troublesome. we must do something there. if they take it, they get more resources.

As for the desert, we are entering the cities, where the situation will be similar to the jungle, only worse due to home ground advantage. snipers will not be as dominant as in mountains, especially before we take buildings, and every road will be an ambush.

we need sniper parity ( else losing mountains is a significant danger. they have the means to destroy our armor) and something to hold the jungle.

alternatively: we say 'screw mountains, our tanks will hold', revise something for the jungle and then design a strategic bombers to drop tons of explosives on their head.


For the revision I vote revise cheap sub-machinegun, belt fed, other imprpovements decided by my countrymen

[Andres]

As for the desert, we are entering the cities, where the situation will be similar to the jungle, only worse due to home ground advantage. snipers will have only slight use, and every road will be an ambush.

Snipers are actually rather useful in cities. Anyone who's played World at War or DayZ would know that, but check out the wikipedia page and see how often snipers are mentioned as being useful.

[andrea]

edited already before your post

[10ebbor10]

I don't think we should enter the cities. Give an order that the enemy should declare their cities as free cities, and if they don't, utilize our new artillery and shell them into the ground. Get at least some use out of it.

The enemy has a cheaper SMG. Revising our SMG means we get a belt feed as well as driving the cost down, making our SMG inherently better.
The enemy has a slightly better LMG that's giving them an edge, but our 1924 isn't exactly as a piece of junk.

Nope, their SMG is all around better. They revised it twice, we're not going to overpower it in a single action. We're certainly not going to overpower it dramatically enough to offset their innate advantage.

We wasted an action with the Rocket shells last turn. Let's not do it again

[Andres]

Nope, their SMG is all around better. They revised it twice, we're not going to overpower it in a single action.

We wasted an action with the Rocket shells last turn. Let's not do it again

This is bullshit. I'm reading its description and comparing it to ours. It's identical. Also, none of the reports stated they ever revised their Cascade except to make it cheaper. Also, while the rocket shells were an obviously bad idea, a cheap SMG has been proven by our side AND Moskurg to be extremely useful. To say that it's "wasting our action" is stupid. It goes against all proof presented to us.

Glory to Arstotzka.

[andrea]

Ebbor, their SMG is identical. Look at the descriptions, their is a word for word copy of our with imperial measures and an uglier wooden stock.
they used two revisions, yes. One to convert to imperial so they could manufacture it more cheaply, and one to make it not expensive, turning it into a cheap gun.

Cheapness is the only improvement they ever made on the design, but in performance they are equal.

edit: as for the rocket shells, I notice there is no mention of artillery superiority this turn, so they did have an effect.

[10ebbor10]

Still, I highly doubt it will be effective. They retain the close range advantage, and their better machine gun, and their hot weather advantage.

We need to do something where we already have an advantage, and amplify that, rather than fixing a small flaw in a bigger problem.

edit: as for the rocket shells, I notice there is no mention of artillery superiority this turn, so they did have an effect.

Nope. As mentioned, the rocket shells can't reach the enemy artillery. The loss of artillery superiority is due to our decryptor, and the fact that the enemy abandoned radio targeting as a result.

[Andres]

edit: as for the rocket shells, I notice there is no mention of artillery superiority this turn, so they did have an effect.

It wouldn't have been as great of an effect as making our planes cheaper. They were stated to be a big threat to their artillery and vehicles despite being Expensive. Getting triple the number would've tripled their effectiveness. Tripling "big threat to their guns" is better than "attack at longer but more inaccurate range".

Still, I highly doubt it will be effective. They retain the close range advantage, and their better machine gun, and their hot weather advantage.

We need to do something where we already have an advantage, and amplify that, rather than fixing a small flaw in a bigger problem.

Our SMG was said to actually be rather useful in hot weather and it damn well should be considering it got a 6 in reliability. Also, not having a main CQC weapon when we're fighting two CQC fronts is not merely a "small flaw".

Glory to Arstotzka.