Print

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

[LordSlowpoke]

i say we use the design phase to get a plane going and the revision to combine our mg with their smg for best mg

anyone?

[evilcherry]

'nades are good utility weapons, but they are just ill-suited to take out a tank at range.

They're also not web-shooters, and do not catch crooks like flies.

Anyway, I don't understand the opposition to allowing soldiers to throw bombs at the enemy.  If the only thing that matters is anti-tank capability, rifle grenades, PIATs or bazookas would be the natural follow-up to small explosives, and could then be done next year.

I'd also suggest using the spy to delay them another year from grabbing the plains resources.

There is no opposition to allow our soldiers to throw bombs. There is opposition to the idea that throwing bombs at tanks can take them out.

... But then if we are fighting the tanks as they are advancing upon cities, grenades might actually be the preferred weapon, as we can just drop them above the tanks. We can then use the revision phase to regauge the SMG or else.

[Devastator]

An airplane would be sweet, but we would only get to use it as a surprise thing once.  That means we should have a clear goal for it and a combined arms thing for it, to use it to it's best effect.

it either needs a good weapons system of it's own, which is difficult;  a couple of strafing machine guns and an underwing rocket pod would be useful, but it's questionable if we could field enough of them to actually matter.

Better is if it's a recon plane.  That way all it would need is a smaller radio and improved artillery fuses as the weapon system... and good contact fuses would also be able to help a future man-portable anti-tank explosive weapon.

I still think grenades would be the best design choice this year, as they will help fight everywhere, and would likely be some use against AFVs, not to mention motorbikes, and the improvement phase should be towards artillery fuses, as they would help now.  We can fix the radio when we build the plane, but a recon plane with nothing good to spot for won't help as much as it could.

[LordSlowpoke]

if we're doing urban warfare against tanks, it's about time to be thinking molotov cocktails instead of grenades, and that's a revision phase imo

[evilcherry]

if we're doing urban warfare against tanks, it's about time to be thinking molotov cocktails instead of grenades, and that's a revision phase imo

Actually no. They are steam tanks instead of petrol tanks, and unless we are really going for the "cook them alive" route they are pretty resilient to fire itself.

Their main vulnerability is still the weak side and back armor, plus their enormous profile.

[Devastator]

'nades are good utility weapons, but they are just ill-suited to take out a tank at range.

They're also not web-shooters, and do not catch crooks like flies.

Anyway, I don't understand the opposition to allowing soldiers to throw bombs at the enemy.  If the only thing that matters is anti-tank capability, rifle grenades, PIATs or bazookas would be the natural follow-up to small explosives, and could then be done next year.

I'd also suggest using the spy to delay them another year from grabbing the plains resources.

There is no opposition to allow our soldiers to throw bombs. There is opposition to the idea that throwing bombs at tanks can take them out.

... But then if we are fighting the tanks as they are advancing upon cities, grenades might actually be the preferred weapon, as we can just drop them above the tanks. We can then use the revision phase to regauge the SMG or else.

They might not be good anti-tank weapons, but they're weapons useful everywhere, and it would not be a bad thing to have a few grenades if you need to take out a tank.  Small, cheap, effective, and very easy to use.

..also, how is the underside armor on those tanks?

[Taricus]

At this point, designing weapons for plains warfare would be a little irrelevant. However, now they're fighting us on our preferred ground, and they have to adapt to our methods.

First off, I think we need to get a proper tank onto the field though.

T1 'Smasher' Tank
Designed to counter the Arstotzkan tank in it's role, the T1 is designed to be more heavily armoured, and faster than the Arstotzkan tank. Using a similar turret system to that on the Struunk to mount a new, 2-inch short barrel cannon capable of punching through the steam tank's armour without having the turn the entire tank to do so. If we can, attempt to mount the radio onto the design.

[Parsely]

T1 'Smasher' Tank
Designed to counter the Arstotzkan tank in it's role, the T1 is designed to be more heavily armoured, and faster than the Arstotzkan tank. Using a similar turret system to that on the Struunk to mount a new, 2-inch short barrel cannon capable of punching through the steam tank's armour without having the turn the entire tank to do so. If we can, attempt to mount the radio onto the design.

Our tank will almost certainly be faster since theirs is a freaking locomotive. It should only need enough armor to be immune to flipping rifle rounds (seriously how are 7.62 rifle rounds piercing our tank destroyer's armor). I'll probably +1 this later but I need to think some more...

We should use a revision to simplify the motor powering our vehicles, then they will become more numerous.

[Happerry]

We should use a revision to simplify the motor powering our vehicles, then they will become more numerous.

No, we use the reversion to rework the Sub-Machine Gun so it works off our own measurements, reducing to expensive instead of very expensive, taking away their advantage in close combat.

[evilcherry]

We should use a revision to simplify the motor powering our vehicles, then they will become more numerous.

No, we use the reversion to rework the Sub-Machine Gun so it works off our own measurements, reducing to expensive instead of very expensive, taking away their advantage in close combat.

Concur unless something breaks seriously.

[Taricus]

Bonus points if we revise the design to be even cheaper than what the Arstotzkans are fielding.

[Happerry]

For the design phase...

I vote for the 'Pegasus' Observation and Aerial Harassment Semi-rigid Dirigible.

As the name suggests, it is a Semi-rigid Dirigible (IE, no internal framework but it does have a Keel. Not as hardy as an actual Zeppelin, but unlike a Zeppelin can be deflated for travel.) that should have Six crewmen and enough lifting power and storage space to carry at least 50 pounds, preferably and if possible more, worth of air drop-able explosives and some ammo for a prow mounted Brumby, as well as an Model 2 Radio. Crew should be Captain, Pilot/Navigator, Ship's Engineer, Brumby Gunner/Observation Officer, Bombardier, and a Radio Operator with the Ship's Engineer doing double duty as a second Radio Operator.

The combination of air flight, bombs (as limited as they might be both in boompower and accuracy), minimal self defence, and radio should be a potent recon and general harassment asset. And it should be a lot cheaper and easier to make then an airplane.

This should be totally possible as according to wiki the Germans were building bigger ones with lots more bombs back in 1914.

[Iituem]

Hrm.  Dirigble or tank?  Tank will be useless in jungle warfare, mountain warfare.  So will dirigible.  Tank will be faster, less prone to getting dropped by a good shot at low altitude.  Dirigibles are cool, but we want to set up for planes anyway and oil isn't a terrible problem.

Rrgh.  Make a good argument for me not to vote tank, please?

[Happerry]

Why would a dirigible be useless in jungle or mountain warfare? Sure the bombs won't be very accurate, but they're dirigible dropped bombs, they're never going to be really accurate, and as a flying vessel what does it care about 'harsh terrain'?

The most important bits about it is that it is flying and it has a radio, making it the best recon thing we're going to have until actual airplanes show up, and it should be a lot cheaper and easier to make then actual airplanes, and whenever we upgrade our radio that function will get upgraded too.

...And I really don't understand why someone would claim it'd be useless in jungle or mountain warfare at all. Maybe the mountain one more as accuracy isn't the best and mines are dug in, but not even the mountains will enjoy bombs being dropped on their paths, roads, and rally points, and those wooden forts in the jungle should be perfect bomb dropping targets...

Edit : Also, the enemy is about to get the Plain's resources this turn, and something that can fly above the trenches and bomb the rail lines is something that keeps them from handing out Sub-Machine Guns and such squad deep.

[Iituem]

Fair argument.  +1 Dirigible