Print

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

[evilcherry]

Optics. Periscopes and magnifying telescopes for tanks to improve awareness, accuracy, time to fire, and range, as well as allowing for indirect fire. Infantry scopes for rifles and automatic weapons to allow for accurate long range engagement. Magnifying crosshair lenses for pilots to allow for better long range shooting and bombing. Binoculars and monoculars for officers, scouts and artillerymen to aid in spotting and coordination.

+1.

+1

The arztoskans are going to use it for sure, so I think we'll have to get this first. Also sorry for messing up.

Well we better NOT use this. Its a trap.


............ Fools. How will a scope be useful without the firearm being actually accurate at a distance?

[Iituem]

+1 Grenades.

[Devastator]

Yes, optics could well be (expensive), and then they won't take advantage of things as they'd like.  If we get them, that's decent odds of crippling ourself, as they aren't useful in the jungle, and might make stuff even more expensive.  Or might need a refit or another design action to use at all.

Changing my vote for Grenades, to block Optics.  Include a molotov/Incenidary varient to help ko tanks.

You know, they probably should even work pretty well.  Turbocharged means big air intakes.

Expense chit?

[heydude6]

Retracting my vote for optics cause above is correct.

I now add it to Ap rounds

[Parsely]

Optics. Periscopes and magnifying telescopes for tanks to improve awareness, accuracy, time to fire, and range, as well as allowing for indirect fire. Infantry scopes for rifles and automatic weapons to allow for accurate long range engagement. Magnifying crosshair lenses for pilots to allow for better long range shooting and bombing. Binoculars and monoculars for officers, scouts and artillerymen to aid in spotting and coordination.

+1.

+1

The arztoskans are going to use it for sure, so I think we'll have to get this first. Also sorry for messing up.

Well we better NOT use this. Its a trap.


............ Fools. How will a scope be useful without the firearm being actually accurate at a distance?

What in the blue hell are you talking about. We have rifles, man. Are you saying our rifles don't shoot straight? We've had sharpshooters killing each other at range since the beginning of the war. Optics will just make it easier. They didn't have to make the Springfields left over from WW1 shoot straighter than they already could, or whatever you're implying, in order for them to be compatible with scopes.

Yes, optics could well be (expensive), and then they won't take advantage of things as they'd like.  If we get them, that's decent odds of crippling ourself, as they aren't useful in the jungle, and might make stuff even more expensive.  Or might need a refit or another design action to use at all.

You can't make existing guns more expensive by making attachable scopes available (we do have the lost technology known as screws, right?). Its an accessory, the same way a strap for slinging a rifle over your shoulder is an accessory. You distribute as many as you can based on demand and doctrine. For fighters, its as simple as removing some screws as well, or just bolting a piece of glass behind the crosshair. For tanks though, you'd have to retrofit them specially by cutting holes in the hull. But if we specify that new tanks don't have to be manufactured with periscopes, then it won't make them more expensive either, if indeed the scopes will, as you're speculating.

[evilcherry]

What in the blue hell are you talking about. We have rifles, man. Are you saying our rifles don't shoot straight? We've had sharpshooters killing each other at range since the beginning of the war. Optics will just make it easier. They didn't have to make the Springfields left over from WW1 shoot straighter than they already could, or whatever you're implying, in order for them to be compatible with scopes.

The problem is, ugh, we don't have an anti-infantry problem. Our glut of small arms is enough to defeat them.
We do have a problem with our tank guns, and for some reasons, we need specialized rounds which can defeat them at range, rather than ricochet off armor. Which means we need specialized AP rounds.

If we develop Shaped charges, we can deploy them on Rhinos, expensive spigot mortars, tank guns, and howitzers. The scope is only useful in killing infantry.

[heydude6]

But if we go for regular Ap rather than shaped charges, our tanks will be able to snipe them from range and our infantry will be able to use the rhino against them.

FakeEdit: Sorry misread your comment. Out of curiosity, what's a shaped charge and how does it compare to an AP shell?

[Parsely]

What in the blue hell are you talking about. We have rifles, man. Are you saying our rifles don't shoot straight? We've had sharpshooters killing each other at range since the beginning of the war. Optics will just make it easier. They didn't have to make the Springfields left over from WW1 shoot straighter than they already could, or whatever you're implying, in order for them to be compatible with scopes.

The problem is, ugh, we don't have an anti-infantry problem. Our glut of small arms is enough to defeat them.
We do have a problem with our tank guns, and for some reasons, we need specialized rounds which can defeat them at range, rather than ricochet off armor. Which means we need specialized AP rounds.

If we develop Shaped charges, we can deploy them on Rhinos, expensive spigot mortars, tank guns, and howitzers. The scope is only useful in killing infantry.

You're kidding right? Telescopes for tanks are crazy important. They let you fire from so much further away. Just read up a little on armor optics in WW2. Magnifying lenses were valuable as hell. We'd get a massive range advantage if we had them. It has the potential to make us untouchable on open ground.

[heydude6]

Problem is, there's no point to being able to shoot from far away when our shells only penetrate at close range. Get Ap rounds and then we can consider optics.

[Parsely]

Fair enough. +1 to AP.

[Playergamer]

Fair enough. +1 to AP.

+1.

[Happerry]

Guuuys... Guuuuys...

Ammo mods are for the revision phase, not the design phase!...

Though, granted, since we were planning on camo for this revision phase I guess I can see the attraction of getting camo and ammo mods this round. But it still feels like a waste of a design round. If we want AP ammo, I'd prefer to design a tank destroyer of our own designed to use AP ammo and get AP by actually designing something new. Or something along those lines.

(And Grenades plus camo should be a nasty combination in the jungle, too.)

What's the benefit of grenades over shaped charges, out of curiosity?  [I am aware they are different things, I'm just fuzzy on what you mean by shaped charges.]

I don't know what's in other people's heads, but for me, infantry used shaped charges are things you apply by hand, and grenades are things you throw.

[Sensei]

Hooo boy. I see votes for camo, optics, grenades, and AP/shaped charges... which of those are for design, and revision? Can I get a vote talley?

[evilcherry]

Guuuys... Guuuuys...

Ammo mods are for the revision phase, not the design phase!...

Though, granted, since we were planning on camo for this revision phase I guess I can see the attraction of getting camo and ammo mods this round. But it still feels like a waste of a design round. If we want AP ammo, I'd prefer to design a tank destroyer of our own designed to use AP ammo and get AP by actually designing something new. Or something along those lines.

(And Grenades plus camo should be a nasty combination in the jungle, too.)

What's the benefit of grenades over shaped charges, out of curiosity?  [I am aware they are different things, I'm just fuzzy on what you mean by shaped charges.]

I don't know what's in other people's heads, but for me, infantry used shaped charges are things you apply by hand, and grenades are things you throw.

Because Shaped charges are counter-intuitive enough for Forenia.

[Devastator]

Camo is for the revision phase.

What a shaped charge is is a bomb that is intended to blow up in one direction in particular.  The materials required for it is pretty easy, but it takes a lot of finky tinkering before you figure out how to build one that works properly.  If we had it, it  would be a very fine substitue for AP rounds for the arty, and make for really, really good anti-tank mines, as well as allow for really good anti-tank personnell weapons.

The problem is a fired shaped charge (artillery shells, anti-tank mortar rounds, PIAT rounds) is much harder than a stationary one for roadside bombs or satchel charges, so to speak.  A good roll will probably get us shaped charges for use if we place them against something.

An incenidary grenade could probably burn out their turbo-charged petrol fueled tanks with a few hits.. and grenades for anti-personnel use.

I'm pretty sure Grenades and Optics are for design.  Revision are for Camo and AP rounds.