Print

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

[Devastator]

Nah, we're very, very bad off.  Our planes just got Very Expensive.  Their tank is going to be equal to ours and Expensive.  They have cheap SPGs that can shell us indefinately.  Our artillery is mostly useless, and going to be bombed to hell.  We are not going to be able to break into the plains, pretty much period... that turn was our one opportunity to do so, and we blew it.

It's not defeatism if you are only seeing things accurately, we are hosed, quite hosed, and permanently down three resources unless we can hold the jungle for two turns.

Maybe we should make a spigot mortar (a portable AT gun based around a large spring and an oversized explosive charge) instead of camo and do camo next turn, maybe.  But we can't gain two territory on the plains being blown away in the air, blown away on the ground, and facing vast numbers of far superior armor with faster infantry support vehicles.  Trying to fight on the plains is 'we are fucked' territory.

[evilcherry]

To be honest, I'm tempted to surrender right now.  We're not quite as hosed as they think we are, but we're permanently down three resources, and I'm not sure what's the point in stretching this out.

That said, thinking about it again, we have exactly one hope, winning the jungle so we get +1 ore and +1 oil from it, despite losing the mountains.

That probably calls for camo after all, with a redesign for something solely on the same front:  A truck redesign into a bulldozer, letting us properly block the jungle roads.

So yes, changing my vote.  +1 to Camo, aiming for tarps and uniforms, and then +1 to making bulldozer trucks, so we can properly block the jungle roads.

Oh, and Sensai, what sorts of things would we be able to do with an engineering vehicle?

Much defeatism I detect here. Basically the only reason we didn't enter into the plains this turn was because we lost the hero write in, you know? It's a bit early to be calling us doomed. And once we do break into the plains they're going to be in trouble because a lot of their stuff would get more expensive. Honestly, loosing the mountains for entering the plains is basically a net gain for us, we loose one resource and they loose two. And unless they have another tactical genius move this turn, we should break right into those plains.

- We don't really need specialized AP ammo to defeat their tanks, as our tank gun is good enough. If you want to go that route you should be better served by a mobile SPG.

...Are you reading the battle report? Let me quote the relevant bits at you.

Engagements between main battle tanks are very important this year. Battles between two tanks often go to the better pilot, but Arstotzka has a few things to their advantage. The T25 has slightly more range, and moves faster, as well as having well-angled front armor, tough that doesn't apply to its turret. Most of all, its cannon is loaded with armor-piercing rounds. A T25 can typically penetrate a Breaker's armor at long range, whereas the Breaker has to get in closer. The T2 Breaker has its electrically-powered turret which helps in tracking targets which move quickly, but it takes a very good shot to penetrate an AS-T25 at the range a T25 gunner will start taking confident shots against a Breaker.

AP gives them the range advantage. We get AP Ammo of our own, that goes bye bye and our better accuracy from turrets really starts taking effect.

Which we can afford to cede. I don't think we can gain back init there with an AP round alone, and anything that can destroy them head on is going to be very expensive. Not to mention the AP round is a revision project and we have better ways to use our design turn.

- FlaK is not really useful against anything except level bombers, mainly to prevent them from accurate bomb-laying. Stukas are better countered by fighter aircraft, which for some reason our dedicated fighters couldn't.

They're dive bombing us. Flack is perfectly able to blow Dive Bombers to bits, or at the very least make them spend more time dodging then aiming. And the reason our fighters aren't winning is because our fighters are taking a single heavy machine gun verses an enemy autocannon and four other machine guns on their fighter. And they have incendiary bullets to set the wood parts on fire and armor piercing bullets to breach our armor and we have neither. Which is another reason to get AP ammo of our own, besides letting our fighters strafe their vehicles.
[/quote]
What is commonly called the AA gun is divided into two distinct categories. One is like the German 88mm gun, designed to fire a HE shrapnel shell into high attitudes. These guns are intended to disrupt bombers and escorts, so they can't drop their bombs at the locations they like. These are formidable articles of engineering, and we should have this if we have one instead of designing another howitzer (I remember I did prefer a proper long-barreled AT gun, but anyway). But then they are sending us Dive bombers, and these things are more maneuverable (at least in terms of game mechanics), so they can just fly erratically before diving for opportunistic shots. Also, as they are diving, unless you hit them directly, its impossible to control the detonation a HE Shrapnel shell for something that changes its altitude every second.
The other kind of AA gun is exemplified by the Bofors. They cannot fire as high as the larger caliber guns, but they have a high firing rate to compensate for this, and they also don't rely on shrapnel but direct hits - they are strong enough to destroy every aircraft Arstotzka is fielding.
Maybe its more on semantics than any actual intention, but the use of the erroneous spelling of Flack instead of FlaK, and the lack of any further elaboration, leads to me thinking that you are referring to throwing metal high in the air which breaks down, rather than throwing as many shells at the enemy as possible.

We do need a high-velocity anti-material gun, but sadly people voted down my HMG proposal which should be capable of killing two birds with a hail of stone. We wasted two design actions.

Go send sandworm to hunt down rebels. But yeah, our lack of AP shells is hurting our tanks, we need to get close to actually do anything to theirs.

Indeed, we can't afford for them to keep messing our resources up.

Let them steal. We've to steal something more valuable: PM for details.

[Devastator]

Stealing might be nice.  I'm not sure why we stole their tank.. it's something we already have, y'know?  Not something new.

[Happerry]

Again, we already have a HMG. You might remember this thing known as the Stallion? If we're going to make a new gun it'd be better to make our own autocannon to match theirs. Anyway, autocannon flack or shotgun flack, either would be useful.

And I highly doubt anything we can steal will be more important then keeping the rebels from making our stuff more expensive.

...As for AP being a Revision project, yes it is, that's when I want to do it.

Stealing might be nice.  I'm not sure why we stole their tank.. it's something we already have, y'know?  Not something new.

I know!

[Devastator]

Stealing might be nice.  I'm not sure why we stole their tank.. it's something we already have, y'know?  Not something new.

I know!

..That's basically how I've been feeling all game long, really.  Also, note, it's too late, and we lost our second ore already.

Anyway, we can't change the past, and we're pretty hosed, but we can change what we do now.  With that in mind, we need to begin from the beginning, with a coherant strategy.

Here's what I've proposed for an overall strategy:

1.  Lose the desert.  We don't need it, and in order to take it back, we need either a very good new aircraft or a very good AA gun, along with AP rounds, and likely one other severe answer to their tanks.  Winning the desert would take at least two-plus design actions and probably another two revision actions, and that's assuming they don't come up with anything, which they will.  We can afford to lose three territories, which would give us at least a turn and a half to come up with a solution.

2.  Win the jungle.  We NEED those resources.  With a replacement ore for our permanently-lost mountain ore, and an additional oil, we can make some hard counters for what they have now, and win the plains again with probably half as many revisions.

3.  To win the jungle we need three things:  1.  A better man-portable anti-tank weapon, so we can demolish their heavy armor.  This is what I'm talking about with a PIAT, as it's a very simple device mechanically, and even if we can't make the proper round, the proper round was only necessary to deal with heavy armor.  As it's reloadable, fairly small, and much easier to handle, even if it comes out expensive it's good enough to deal with it.  It was a weapon that wasn't obsolete until Vietnam.

2.  Their camo.  We have a massive advantage in personal firepower, with camo uniforms we will do MUCH better.  I think we can also get tarps if we do it ourselves, which will help lose more slowly in the other fronts.

3.  Fucking grenades.  They're a VERY GOOD answer to their motorbikes, their lightly-armored SPGs, their machine gun nests.. just so many things.

I keep changing my mind with what exactly we need to do, but I think the camo design for ourself would probably be the best one, and we can use the revision this turn to provide some kind of anti-tank capability.

[Devastator]

In summary, I recommend we design our own effing camo, revise something else infantry related, and steal the principle behind AP rounds.

The problem with that is we very much need 4/4 jungle, which it seems to me would demand designing a really good AT gun.

If you can think of a way to get camo with a revision action, or a good man-portable AT weapon with a revision action, we can win the jungle by designing the other one.

[Playergamer]

I'm sure we can get camo as a revision action, at least camo uniforms. All we'd be doing is removing the cape and adding some better camouflage.

[Devastator]

That's fine, then.  If camo can be done as a revision action, we can build something like AT mines for the design option.  They might also slow down the advance in the desert, too.

I really think we need both something to let infantry take out one of their tanks AND camo to take 4/4 jungle.

[evilcherry]

In summary, I recommend we design our own effing camo, revise something else infantry related, and steal the principle behind AP rounds.

The problem with that is we very much need 4/4 jungle, which it seems to me would demand designing a really good AT gun.

If you can think of a way to get camo with a revision action, or a good man-portable AT weapon with a revision action, we can win the jungle by designing the other one.

Hey, we have an alternative there. How about we design shaped charges instead? We do want to maximize our chances with turns. We have rhinos and Spigot Mortars, and these are platoon level weapons anyway.


Design: 1.5 in AA/Autocannon?
Revision: Shaped charge or Camo?

[heydude6]

Ok after reading the latest post, I see what we have to do.

In the plains, their tank has a longer range, and Ap ammo. Their antitank gun also has the same benefits, but less mobility, and higher quantity.

In the jungle, we are still winning although the main things that are almost stopping us are the landmines, and the camo. There are enemy tanks here as well.

In the mountains, it's the flares, camo, and arztoskan ambush proficiency.

My verdict:

If we get Ap ammo, we will beat the tanks, but it will not help us against the anti-tank guns. There are too many of the anti-tank guns and there is still the range problem, they are also minimally armored so no need for ap against them. This will help us in the jungle where there are no anti-tank guns.

Getting camo will probably be a good idea. It will slow down their mountain and jungle advance, as well as helping us there as well.

Another thing. For you guys voting for a man portable anti-tank. We already have one, it's called the rhino. The reason why our rhino isn't as effective is because we don't have any AP shells to load it with. We only have HE, Smoke, shrapnel, and incendiary.

So my suggestion:

Revise our artillery shells to have an AP variant. (This can be used by both the rhino and the breaker)

Design camouflage

[evilcherry]

Sensei do shaped charges or EFPs require design or revise?

[Kashyyk]

I agree with the revision action for AP rounds for our rhinos, tanks and artillery. As the typical revision action lets us have three ammo types for one set of guns, we should be to revise AP for all our guns just fine.

Using a design action for camo almost feels like overkill,  unless it gives us camo for our vehicles ( land and air), our infantry and our  emplacements, both as paint,  uniform and  training. But I like it because it gives us an advantage on all fronts,  and is something that Sensei has been dropping increasingly heavier hints for several turns.

[evilcherry]

Lets really make up our minds. Do we want camo? AA gun? or shaped charges? all got their pros and cons really.

[Parsely]

How about IR goggles?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

You could just have a guy who sits in a bunker with goggles and an IR spotlight and he scans around for hidden enemies. That would eliminate early warning advantages for camoflauged/night-attack troops on defended positions.

[heydude6]

Moskurg Camo program

The foolish Arztoskans only have camouflage on their own uniform, well we have camouflage on EVERYTHING!!!! Trucks? Check. Tanks? Obviously. Soldiers? Of course! Machine gun nests? Definitely. How about planes? We will make them look like the clouds! Guns? P-lease. Even trains? Don't you understand the meaning of everything?!

How about IR goggles?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

You could just have a guy who sits in a bunker with goggles and an IR spotlight and he scans around for hidden enemies. That would eliminate early warning advantages for camoflauged/night-attack troops on defended positions.

I think that's too big of a leap.