Print

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

[Graknorke]

@Stirk:
Consider that in the Moon Landing That Totally Wasn't a Propoganda Film we only won because of enhanced mobility. The only reason our brave and noble astronauts won was because of a mobility advantage. Covering them in stonking steel plates would seriously limit us there.

One idea for improving our firearm would be building a suppressor into the thing. Reduced recoil due to it means effectively higher RoF, as well as the longer weapon making the sights more accurate, and the extra weight makes the recoil easier to manage some more.

A modification I thought of for the suit was to put sensors and a HUD in it, but at least at the moment it seems like it wouldn't help our astronauts much with what they're doing, and our pilots already have sensors in their planes. Maybe when they get fancier weapons and/or computer systems.

And one more potentially good improvement would be to try and see if we can make the Z-1 faster with better fuel, which would probably push up its cost to Expensive. But that's okay. Faster jets mean better interception times and less getting shot down. Our ability to project anti-aircraft measures would still be limited though.

EDIT: Actually yeah, my vote is on faster Z-1s. Our airspace advantage last year was speed and altitude, but not enough to operate in the west. If we get to be able to go faster and higher then maybe we'd have more luck.

[Stirk]

@Stirk:
Consider that in the Moon Landing That Totally Wasn't a Propoganda Film we only won because of enhanced mobility. The only reason our brave and noble astronauts won was because of a mobility advantage. Covering them in stonking steel plates would seriously limit us there.

One idea for improving our firearm would be building a suppressor into the thing. Reduced recoil due to it means effectively higher RoF, as well as the longer weapon making the sights more accurate, and the extra weight makes the recoil easier to manage some more.

A modification I thought of for the suit was to put sensors and a HUD in it, but at least at the moment it seems like it wouldn't help our astronauts much with what they're doing, and our pilots already have sensors in their planes. Maybe when they get fancier weapons and/or computer systems.

And one more potentially good improvement would be to try and see if we can make the Z-1 faster with better fuel, which would probably push up its cost to Expensive. But that's okay. Faster jets mean better interception times and less getting shot down. Our ability to project anti-aircraft measures would still be limited though.

EDIT: Actually yeah, my vote is on faster Z-1s. Our airspace advantage last year was speed and altitude, but not enough to operate in the west. If we get to be able to go faster and higher then maybe we'd have more luck.

It wasn't really mobility, it was getting out of the freaking command pod that was the problem. I think that is more of a problem with the module then the armor. If they both met under open space, our armor would probably be a great advantage.

Adding a suppressor isn't a bad idea, but just making the barrel longer would have the same effects but better. If we end up doing that then adding a suppressor, then it just gets silly  .

I think we should focus on number for now, we should develop an entire better jet. I don't think "Going slightly faster" is work kicking up the price for. Besides, at least the armor probably won't get anyone killed in testing  . We should wait on doing that until we capture more Chemicals (hopefully this turn with the Sunrise), so we can use more for the fuel without a price change.

I am not sure we really have the technology for HUDs right now. It would be something we could probably *try* to add in for free when designing the Moonkiller armor. Additionally, we don't have to equip every one of our guys with the same heavy armor. Some would have lighter armor, keeping mobility, while others trade it for protection.

[VoidSlayer]

Okay improve performance on Z-1s, first priority is speed, second is heavier lift... like two missiles maybe?

[~Neri]

Sure.

[Graknorke]

Adding a suppressor isn't a bad idea, but just making the barrel longer would have the same effects but better. If we end up doing that then adding a suppressor, then it just gets silly 

Actually suppressors do help with recoil, their entire thing is trapping gasses. Here's a link. And according to similar sources, a longer barrel is actually bad for accuracy because it is less rigid, which comes as a surprise to me. Apparently short and rigid > long. Fucking counter-intuitive shit.

I am not sure we really have the technology for HUDs right now. It would be something we could probably *try* to add in for free when designing the Moonkiller armor. Additionally, we don't have to equip every one of our guys with the same heavy armor. Some would have lighter armor, keeping mobility, while others trade it for protection.

Aeroplanes had HUDs in WW2, but I guess yeah you're probably right about a person-mounted projector. And while I don't know exactly, I think modifying the design means that all of that design gets updated to the new specs. So all of our suits would have the armour plates on.

EDIT: I'm not entirely clear on the engineering of the thing, but I think that a more powerful engine and less drag should increase both max speed and max lift capacity, just not both at the same time.

And since I missed it:

I think we should focus on number for now, we should develop an entire better jet. I don't think "Going slightly faster" is work kicking up the price for.

Inexpensive is the kind of thing that can be deployed basically everywhere. The benefit of that with a jet isn't appreciable, since the limiting factor is storage and the logistics of ground control and managing runways, rather than how many planes you have.

[Stirk]

First, can I remind everyone to please bold your votes? DMs job is already hard enough! _{And this game goes slowly when nobody votes...}

Adding a suppressor isn't a bad idea, but just making the barrel longer would have the same effects but better. If we end up doing that then adding a suppressor, then it just gets silly 

Actually suppressors do help with recoil, their entire thing is trapping gasses. Here's a link. And according to similar sources, a longer barrel is actually bad for accuracy because it is less rigid, which comes as a surprise to me. Apparently short and rigid > long. Fucking counter-intuitive shit.

I am not sure we really have the technology for HUDs right now. It would be something we could probably *try* to add in for free when designing the Moonkiller armor. Additionally, we don't have to equip every one of our guys with the same heavy armor. Some would have lighter armor, keeping mobility, while others trade it for protection.

Aeroplanes had HUDs in WW2, but I guess yeah you're probably right about a person-mounted projector. And while I don't know exactly, I think modifying the design means that all of that design gets updated to the new specs. So all of our suits would have the armour plates on.

EDIT: I'm not entirely clear on the engineering of the thing, but I think that a more powerful engine and less drag should increase both max speed and max lift capacity, just not both at the same time.

And since I missed it:

I think we should focus on number for now, we should develop an entire better jet. I don't think "Going slightly faster" is work kicking up the price for.

Inexpensive is the kind of thing that can be deployed basically everywhere. The benefit of that with a jet isn't appreciable, since the limiting factor is storage and the logistics of ground control and managing runways, rather than how many planes you have.

I realize suppressors act as muzzle brakes, actually we just had a gun shooting charity event where several suppressor companies brought in products to try out last week. I was just pointing out that lengthening the barrel would improve over all of your suggestions. Personally, I think we should just go with lengthening the barrel and adding a muzzle brake. Basically, it does the recoil singleness thing better, with a similar mechanic.



You where actually correct about the sight radius initially. Assuming we have iron sights, a longer barrel makes it more accurate. To be more specific, while a shorter barrel makes the gun slightly more accurate, it makes the shooter less accurate. The gun will almost always be more accurate than the shooter. If we put all our cosmonauts on a bench and gave them competition rifles, then it might be a problem. Come to think of it, we should probably add a scope or at least a red-dot sight while we are at it. A longer barrel gives us higher velocities anyway, in addition to less recoil (again, adding to accuracy due to the extra mass).

Also, this is a good point to put out that if we do not state something/argue about it, Gunnin won't know and won't be able to implement it as it would be in real life  . If we really need to, we should have suppressors and muzzle breaks already. We can probably do a fast test to see which works better in psudo-moon conditions.

I didn't think you where going for as primitive HUD as that. It might mean that we update all of everything, but we can always use a design phase to make a new one.

Inexpensive: It is my understanding that it is applicable under the rules, and that we just kind of assume have enough support for everything to work right. Unless we need to design logistics thingies. Might need to ask for a clarification on that.

[Graknorke]

Actually you were right on the expense thing, reading the rules more carefully there's this section:

Equipment that would be suitable to be Expensive would be jets, as you only ever need several thousand or so of those in order to cover a continent. However, you'll need to go even cheaper if you find a way to make daily launches possible.

Daily launches sound like the thing we want from the only potentially offensive part of our air defence.

So uh, unvote Z-1

Vote Belle improvements (longer barrel, built-in muzzle brake, improved sights, folding stock built in)
It's still gonna be the sleekest handgun around.


And sorry about the lack of gun knowledge, I am a Britbong and therefore have literally zero first-hand experience with guns. All I have is reading.
Yes arguing is good. If we just agreed on whatever was said first chances are nothing productive would get done.

[LordSlowpoke]

basically grak if you want robust guns you wanna vote develop gyrojet weaponry

trust me, i purge communists

[~Neri]

I vote improving the guns.

[Graknorke]

basically grak if you want robust guns you wanna vote develop gyrojet weaponry

trust me, i purge communists

But chemical costs
And a gyrojet gun would be a whole other weapon. Completely different firing mechanism and ammunition and the whole gun would have to be designed around it. It's a rocket launcher more than a gun.

Plus I'm not really sure it's a good idea. Their prime benefit is being quiet and operable underwater. The first is pretty irrelevant and the second is completely so. Then there's the downsides: worse accuracy, unreliable in operation, larger projectiles (means magazines have to be larger to carry the same number of rounds), and the final velocity of the projectile wouldn't even be all that much faster than what a regular pistol can accomplish.

[Stirk]

Actually you were right on the expense thing, reading the rules more carefully there's this section:

Equipment that would be suitable to be Expensive would be jets, as you only ever need several thousand or so of those in order to cover a continent. However, you'll need to go even cheaper if you find a way to make daily launches possible.

Daily launches sound like the thing we want from the only potentially offensive part of our air defence.

So uh, unvote Z-1

Vote Belle improvements (longer barrel, built-in muzzle brake, improved sights)
It's still gonna be the sleekest handgun around.


And sorry about the lack of gun knowledge, I am a Britbong and therefore have literally zero first-hand experience with guns. All I have is reading.
Yes arguing is good. If we just agreed on whatever was said first chances are nothing productive would get done.

Don't sell yourself short, reading is a great way to learn! You probably figured out more about guns from that than many people I know  .

Hmm...I think I will Change My Vote to Gun Improvements too. I guess the moonkiller armor fits better in a Design Phase anyway.

basically grak if you want robust guns you wanna vote develop gyrojet weaponry

trust me, i purge communists

We can't develop anything, we are just Revising existing things.

But chemical costs
And a gyrojet gun would be a whole other weapon. Completely different firing mechanism and ammunition and the whole gun would have to be designed around it. It's a rocket launcher more than a gun.

Plus I'm not really sure it's a good idea. Their prime benefit is being quiet and operable underwater. The first is pretty irrelevant and the second is completely so. Then there's the downsides: worse accuracy, unreliable in operation, larger projectiles (means magazines have to be larger to carry the same number of rounds), and the final velocity of the projectile wouldn't even be all that much faster than what a regular pistol can accomplish.

_{He still just wants bolters...}

All those downsides are correct, but the main goal of a gyroget is to have no recoil, like a reconciles rifle or rocket launcher. The fact that the bullet propels itself means that it (should) have nearly no recoil. It is a blasphemous concept, that has completely failed in all real-life attempts.

[LordSlowpoke]

...actually, what's stopping us from putting rcs on guns to counteract recoil

[Stirk]

...actually, what's stopping us from putting rcs on guns to counteract recoil

Rockets? Its possible, thruster-controlled recoil isn't a bad idea for a larger gun. I would imagine that it would be more dangerous to our guys then the enemy if we don't spend enough time developing it  .

Speaking of Rockets, we should probably start developing our way to the moon soon. We are ahead of our opponents with the help of solar panels, and it is kin of first-come-first-serve at this point.

[LordSlowpoke]

i think we'd be better resource-wise placing a permanent habitat in orbit, leo has 6 resources total compared to moon's 2

i can imagine we'd need to invest pretty heavily in point defense for it to not be shot down instantly, heh

[~Neri]

We could also just blockade LEO.