Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 15

Author Topic: Federation of Malaysia Design Bureau Thread (5 Engineers)  (Read 13456 times)

Taricus

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Federation of Malaysia Design Bureau Thread
« Reply #15 on: March 06, 2016, 05:23:59 am »

Mmm. Only thing I'd suggest is making the bomb hold a little larger. Other than that, I may as well support the bolt (And the bomb hold thing could very well be a revision.)
Logged
Quote from: evictedSaint
We sided with the holocaust for a fucking +1 roll

Ukrainian Ranger

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Federation of Malaysia Design Bureau Thread
« Reply #16 on: March 06, 2016, 07:51:29 am »

I want to make it as small as possible to
A) Fit it into small category
B) Keep ore and oil costs low
C) Make it even harder to hit for 1930s era air defences

With design being decided (unless we get more voters soon) lets discuss our second revision (assuming that first one is locked on fixing possible flaws)


My rough ideas:

1) Revise the troop transport by throwing away the air defence gun, replacing its engine with more fuel efficient variant and save ore whenever possible by using wood\cheaper alloys. Goal is to reduce expense level by one. (mid term effect for when we start lose transports)

2) Improve Yellowjackets to intercept enemy transports better (short term effect )

3) Revise electric engine powered\tracking radar bubmlebee (another long term decision for techs that is not very useful right now)

4) Revise the truck for better all terrain mobility (improving jungle warfare abilities)
Logged
War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all; but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend.

Taricus

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Federation of Malaysia Design Bureau Thread
« Reply #17 on: March 06, 2016, 07:57:19 am »

I reckon we'll need one revision for the rifle atleast, given that we got the pre-revised edition. That being said our MG is just plain better than theirs, we shouldn't need much work there to keep the squad MG advantage.

So, looking at the long term, the bumblebee revision is probably for the best. Especially since we can then stick it onto a tank.
Logged
Quote from: evictedSaint
We sided with the holocaust for a fucking +1 roll

Ukrainian Ranger

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Federation of Malaysia Design Bureau Thread
« Reply #18 on: March 06, 2016, 08:09:25 am »

I prefer to ignore personal equipment and tanks for some time. My priorities are - airforce, navy, logistics. Those are ways to win at theatre like this one.


Bumblebee Red
Modernized variant of Bumblebee.  Stationary weapon platform powered by electric motors (further development of electric engine from T2 tank) and assisted by a complex all-weather targeting radar. While its main goal is engaging enemy aircraft, the system is fully capable to engage land and naval targets and can be used as naval gun. Design team highly recommends using those to protect major ports against airborne attacks

[Expected cost change +2 chemicals, new tech expected- targeting radar]

How about this revision?
« Last Edit: March 06, 2016, 08:35:53 am by Ukrainian Ranger »
Logged
War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all; but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend.

Taricus

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Federation of Malaysia Design Bureau Thread
« Reply #19 on: March 06, 2016, 08:45:39 am »

Looks good. That being said it's our infantry that'll be doing a lot of the heavy lifting in the island fighting initially, and ensuring they've got every advantage they can get is going to be valuable in taking ground.
Logged
Quote from: evictedSaint
We sided with the holocaust for a fucking +1 roll

Baffler

  • Bay Watcher
  • Caveat Lector.
    • View Profile
Re: Federation of Malaysia Design Bureau Thread
« Reply #20 on: March 06, 2016, 02:40:32 pm »

Yeah, the MK-47 is basically a light machine gun pretending to be an assault rifle, and the only other option for the common soldier is a 9mm handgun. There's not a whole lot of infrastructure on these islands, and we're both pretty poor resource wise, so infantry is going to be doing most of the heavy lifting for the immediate future. Giving them something between the two should be fairly easy and we shouldn't have to worry too much about it for a while after that. How's this?

MAR-51
(Personal, Medium, General, target cost 2 ore.) A blowback operated rifle based on the MK-47, chambered for a new .280 caliber intermediate round. Much of the furniture has been replaced with wood, both to lower cost and decrease weight, and the magazine has been moved to the bottom of the rifle to reduce the weapon's profile. A cam mechanism has been installed to limit the weapon to one or three rounds per trigger pull, but can be disengaged to allow for fully automatic fire.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2016, 03:19:29 pm by Baffler »
Logged
Quote from: Helgoland
Even if you found a suitable opening, I doubt it would prove all too satisfying. And it might leave some nasty wounds, depending on the moral high ground's geology.
Location subject to periodic change.
Baffler likes silver, walnut trees, the color green, tanzanite, and dogs for their loyalty. When possible he prefers to consume beef, iced tea, and cornbread. He absolutely detests ticks.

Taricus

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Federation of Malaysia Design Bureau Thread
« Reply #21 on: March 06, 2016, 02:44:29 pm »

No limiter to the fire rate and we should be good. Select fire is better for general use.
Logged
Quote from: evictedSaint
We sided with the holocaust for a fucking +1 roll

Baffler

  • Bay Watcher
  • Caveat Lector.
    • View Profile
Re: Federation of Malaysia Design Bureau Thread
« Reply #22 on: March 06, 2016, 03:18:59 pm »

Edited. My thinking was that the burst fire would be able to replace the full auto, but I guess it doesn't really cost anything to make it available.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2016, 03:22:13 pm by Baffler »
Logged
Quote from: Helgoland
Even if you found a suitable opening, I doubt it would prove all too satisfying. And it might leave some nasty wounds, depending on the moral high ground's geology.
Location subject to periodic change.
Baffler likes silver, walnut trees, the color green, tanzanite, and dogs for their loyalty. When possible he prefers to consume beef, iced tea, and cornbread. He absolutely detests ticks.

Zanzetkuken The Great

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Wizard Dragon
    • View Profile
Re: Federation of Malaysia Design Bureau Thread (3 Engineers)
« Reply #23 on: March 07, 2016, 02:10:03 pm »

Here's the result for your design.

Quote
Bolt
A small, light jet bomber design that uses a large number of imported materials and technologies. It is capable to carry only one small (250 lb.) bomb. To save space, weight and improve aerodynamics it has no machineguns. The aircraft has poor manoeuverability, but the craft has a cruise speed around 500 miles per hour and a maximum speed of over 600 miles per hour, beating out the AS-HF-32 and Model 4 Yellowjacket by a little over 200 miles per hour in each category.  While it can reach a similar altitude to the other two aircraft, the reduction in the amount of fuel it could carry combined with the fuel guzzling jet engine reduces the Bolt's range to one-third that of the AS-HF-32 and the Model 4, even with the speed it has.
 
Classification: [Vehicle, Small, Specialized]
Cost: 2 ore, 3 oil, 1 chemicals, 2 exotic

New Tech: Jet Engine [New Tech (5 turns remaining before expense level lost)]

Currently: Excessively Expensive
« Last Edit: March 07, 2016, 02:13:13 pm by Zanzetkuken The Great »
Logged
Quote from: Eric Blank
It's Zanzetkuken The Great. He's a goddamn wizard-dragon. He will make it so, and it will forever be.
Quote from: 2016 Election IRC
<DozebomLolumzalis> you filthy god-damn ninja wizard dragon

Ukrainian Ranger

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Federation of Malaysia Design Bureau Thread (3 Engineers)
« Reply #24 on: March 07, 2016, 03:06:03 pm »

Oh, we rolled badly...  Should we try to fix it or leave it at - Design to get a jet engine experience stage and move along? Note that +2 to resources is meh, but currently there are no difference between being 4 resources short and 6 resources short.  We still get one per turn.

As for infantry weapon... I think it will not help us much at the current stage of war. We need something to counter enemy airforce or navy

Few ideas:

Yellowjacket II
Yellowjacket II  received a better, newer and more fuel efficient engine greatly increasing its range and maximum lifting weight and it is rearmed with four 0.5 machineguns that were purpose designed for aircraft use  Its main intended role is long range patrolling and attacking enemy ships or transports planes
[Medium Specialized Vehicle, cost 3 ore, 3 oil]

UF-CV35(b)
This version of CV35 is designed around saving money. It lacks Bumblebee, its engine was replaced by a more fuel efficient one(even if slightly less powerful diesel) and some of its less important metal parts were replaced by wood or cheaper alloys or just removed. While low cost is main advantage over the standard version it is also more quiet and has longer range
[Ship, medium 4 Ore (-2 from removing Bumblebee\metal part), 2 Oil (-1 more fuel efficient engine)]

Here I try to get a cheaper shup for logistics. AA-weapons don't save ship much

UF-CV35 Shark
Lacking ability to design a true warship, Federation of Malaysia chose different route. They added some armour, added a single torpedo tube and increased number of Bumblebees to 2 and adapting them to firing at both naval and aerial targets

[Ship, medium 7 Ore (+1 from additional Armor\Bumblebees), 3 Oil]
« Last Edit: March 07, 2016, 03:07:50 pm by Ukrainian Ranger »
Logged
War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all; but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend.

Baffler

  • Bay Watcher
  • Caveat Lector.
    • View Profile
Re: Federation of Malaysia Design Bureau Thread (3 Engineers)
« Reply #25 on: March 07, 2016, 03:22:51 pm »

I stand by the MAR, we're going to be doing a lot of infantry fighting and the MK-47 needs replacing, but failing that I think the Yellowjacket II is the best of those three. I agree that air superiority is going to be extremely important and it does a good job of addressing the Yellowjacket's weaknesses. We don't get enough out of the UF-CV35(b) IMO, and the Shark isn't any cheaper than a proper warship but is pretty lacking in capabilities for one that size.
Logged
Quote from: Helgoland
Even if you found a suitable opening, I doubt it would prove all too satisfying. And it might leave some nasty wounds, depending on the moral high ground's geology.
Location subject to periodic change.
Baffler likes silver, walnut trees, the color green, tanzanite, and dogs for their loyalty. When possible he prefers to consume beef, iced tea, and cornbread. He absolutely detests ticks.

Taricus

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Federation of Malaysia Design Bureau Thread (3 Engineers)
« Reply #26 on: March 07, 2016, 03:30:43 pm »

Again, our infantry are going to be doing a lot of the hard lifting in seizing the ports. Ensuring their equipment is up to scratch is a priority, especially since we don't have a lander.

As for the bolt, may as well leave it as-is for now, the range isn't too much of an issue currently. That being siad no wood for our ship designs. The material is far outdated at this point, and I doubt it has the tolerances we need for a military ship.

We DO get two revisions though, so using both to get the MAR-51 and the Yellowjacket II is a sound plan.
Logged
Quote from: evictedSaint
We sided with the holocaust for a fucking +1 roll

Ukrainian Ranger

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Federation of Malaysia Design Bureau Thread (3 Engineers)
« Reply #27 on: March 07, 2016, 03:45:18 pm »

Well, I will not insist. How about using this version?

MAR-51
A scaled down version of MK-47 chambered for a new .225 caliber  round that is also 25% shorter than original MK-47 bullets. Much of the furniture has been replaced with wood, both to lower cost and decrease weight, and the magazine has been moved to the bottom of the rifle to reduce the weapon's profile. A cam mechanism has been installed to limit the weapon to one or three rounds per trigger pull, but can be disengaged to allow for fully automatic fire.

(Personal, Medium, General, target cost 1 ore.)

I like 0.225 much more, making it less AK-47 clone. And I see no reason to not go for 1 ore cost
Logged
War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all; but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend.

Taricus

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Federation of Malaysia Design Bureau Thread (3 Engineers)
« Reply #28 on: March 07, 2016, 03:47:51 pm »

I'm gonna stick with the .280 round. Easier to kill with and longer ranged to boot. Going for a 1 ore cost is a pretty good idea though.
Logged
Quote from: evictedSaint
We sided with the holocaust for a fucking +1 roll

Ukrainian Ranger

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Federation of Malaysia Design Bureau Thread (3 Engineers)
« Reply #29 on: March 07, 2016, 03:50:02 pm »

We are going for jungle fighting and airborne operations, both like lower weight of the weapon. Besides reducing every measurement by 25% is a simpler solution
Logged
War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all; but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 15