Print

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

[Taricus]

Every metre counts when it comes down to it. And when we get around to building proper invasion ships I'd like to try stacking these in two abreast.

[Dansmithers]

Hm. A hovercraft looks good on a beach, but these islands are covered in thick jungle. Perhaps our scientists could look into defoliants at a later date?

[Taricus]

To be fair, I don't think anyone should be driving an amphibious lander that far inland for that to be a problem in the first place

[Dansmithers]

To be fair, I don't think anyone should be driving an amphibious lander that far inland for that to be a problem in the first place

But if we were to add some sort of ... fire weapon to it, we could do such things, and surprise the enemy! Then fry them!

[Ukrainian Ranger]

MALH-1 "Bottlenose" Hovercraft:
An ambitious small craft design intended to be fully amphibious, able to traverse over land and water with little difficulty on either. Capable of carrying a single squad into combat, whilst also able to engage light enemy units by itself with it's pintle-mounted .50 cal MG taken from the Yellowjacket. Mounting enough armour on the vehicle's upper half (Leaving the skirt unarmoured) to stop a .30 cal round and able to reach speeds in excess of 100km/h makes the craft difficult to deal with in it's preferred terrain.

Big, big, BIG -1. I think it is simply an awful way to spend a design action.

I dislike using aircraft weapon here, it is purpose-designed for aircraft use, not general purpose heavy machine-gun. Hovercraft is unneeded  +1 to cost tech that has little further use. Amphibious = bad at both roles. Not that good for fighting on land against real armor, incapable to travel long distances overs sea.

Pigeon Helicopter (outdated proposal)
A light, single rotor helicopter capable to carry pilot and 3-5 passengers or ~300 to 400kg of cargo. Part of its hull is made from wood at furniture factories to save ore cost. It is meant to be available in every infantry unit to cover liaison, recon, supply, medical evacuation and small scale landings behind enemy lines

[Vehicle, general, (if we can fit 3 passengers in very small, than very small, else 5 passengers and small), 1 ore, 2 oil, new tech expected: helicopters] ]

General vehicles are rather easy to produce and we will have them in many units few turns later
We can also revise a helicopter carrier from our transports, making a good landing option

[Taricus]

They'll be perfectly fine in the distances we'd have to cross with them. They'll be perfectly fine in fighting as well, so long as it sticks to soft targets and mostly clear terrain. They'd hardly be a prototype for a tech with little use, given that we can upsize it for a later model to bring in larger amounts of troops and tanks at a far greater speed with less concerns about any obstacles planted below sea level.

As for the MG, we can adapt it, it's hardly a problem (And we have to fix it anyway.)

[Dansmithers]

+1 to helicopters, because they can be used in pretty much any environment.
Also, a revision idea:
Name: UD-M45 Rattler
Type: Personal Equipment(Medium?)
Designation: Specialist? Not everyone gets one, so I guess Officer.
Description: Revised version of the UF-M35 Cobra that sacrifices the pressure detonation mechanism and compact size for sheer explosive power. Used in demolitions and to clear terrain.
Projected Cost: 2 Oil

[Parsely]

I dislike using aircraft weapon here, it is purpose-designed for aircraft use, not general purpose heavy machine-gun. Hovercraft is unneeded  +1 to cost tech that has little further use. Amphibious = bad at both roles. Not that good for fighting on land against real armor, incapable to travel long distances oversea.

There can't be much difference between an aircraft machine gun and the same caliber weapon used on land. The other points have validity. I would say they'd be good as landing craft if only they were bigger.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Upsize? Who needs amphibious tank carrier? No, really, who needs amphibious tank carrier?

And adapting machineguns meant to be used at high speeds is almost same as designing a new one because of different cooling systems. It is jam prone even in the sky. I fail to see why not use Sorraria or two...

Clear terrain is not something very common in Indonesia. I see huge APC with little armour and unusable for actual logistics as ship.  Such things had many problems in WW2 vs Japan (the country that had little anti-armor ability), they will have even more problems against enemy like Guinea.

I said my arguments, my vote goes for Pigeon Helicopter I like us being a leader in airforce and getting helicopter tech early is good for us.

[Taricus]

Upsize? Who needs amphibious tank carrier? No, really, who needs amphibious tank carrier?

Us

As for clear terrain, sure, there may not be plenty of that, be so long as we have to launch amphibious invasions. It's not meant to be treated as a ship, it's too small for that. As for it's weaknesses against anti-armour, the tank is meant to function in areas where there'd be little in the way of AT weapons outside of man-portable weapons, something they don't have.

[Parsely]

Upsize? Who needs amphibious tank carrier? No, really, who needs amphibious tank carrier?

Clear terrain is not something very common in Indonesia. I see huge APC with little armour and unusable for actual logistics as ship.  Such things had many problems in WW2 vs Japan (the country that had little anti-armor ability), they will have even more problems against enemy like Guinea.

How else do you get the tanks onto the beach, except by perhaps building a jetty out to the transport ships? Are you gonna airlift all the tanks to the island? That's not efficient. Amphibious landers that can meet a ship, then drop the forces off up the beach above the water, are the best way to get your equipment immediately to the fight. When it comes to landing on beaches, I think there's little else that can do it better than a hovercraft.

Of course not. It's definitely not a jungle fighting weapon. That's what the tanks, that your hovercraft deliver, are for.

[TopHat]

+1 to the Pigeon helicopter. Seems far more useful for the jungle environment than the hovercraft, and I'd rather we got helicopters before the Guineans. As mentioned, we hopefully won't need to launch any seaborne operations this turn anyway.

[Taricus]

The pigeon I'd say would be... lacklustre, due to the wooden components. It's not a craft where we can cut corners on such a thing.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

The pigeon I'd say would be... lacklustre, due to the wooden components. It's not a craft where we can cut corners on such a thing.

I can edit it out and make it 2 ore, 2 oil but I am worried that we may get +2 resource roll making it 4 resources short.

Wood is not that inferior to aluminium and I kinda like to make a helicopter that has no real life equivalents (my google skills failed to find helicopters with wooden hulls... ). If people prefer to not use wood, I don't mind editing the design

[tryrar]

The pigeon I'd say would be... lacklustre, due to the wooden components. It's not a craft where we can cut corners on such a thing.

I can edit it out and make it 2 ore, 2 oil but I am worried that we may get +2 resource roll making it 4 resources short.

Wood is not that inferior to aluminium and I kinda like to make a helicopter that has no real life equivalents (my google skills failed to find helicopters with wooden hulls... ). If people prefer to not use wood, I don't mind editing the design

K, if you do that I'll switch my vote to it just so we have consensus