Print

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

[milo christiansen]

After reading up on it, it doesn't sound reliable enough for RL use. It would be useful if we were building in the arctic, but not for our actual situation.

As for flame throwers: I think they would be better made large (high pressure pumps = longer range) and mounted on light tanks for use against bunkers and trench lines.

[Amperzand]

The things are legitimately amazing for enclosed spaces because they burn all the oxygen into carbon monoxide very rapidly. Firing a flamethrower for one second into a smallish bunker can asphyxiate everyone inside, even if nobody is harmed by the flames. I would say that man-portable flamers are extremely useful for this sort of warfare.

[milo christiansen]

That is 100% true, but anti-bunker is only of use if we are attacking fortifications. Larger flamers on armored vehicles would be usable for suppressing infantry in trenches, a much more likely situation. Also a flame tank can mount a high pressure pump for more range. More range == better. A flame tank could also suppress a bunker by targeting it's firing slit...

Consider the M4A3R3 (sounds like a SW droid...), it was awesome against bunkers, and it had far more range than an infantry flamethrower. Mostly the flame tank would be good to lead infantry assaults (clear enemy trenches).

Infantry flamethrowers are too bulky for fast movement, and they are very visible, marking that guy as a priority target. That would limit them to urban or jungle combat (short sight lines). Flame tanks would be very effective until good anti-armor was a thing.

Further though leads me to the conclusion that we should skip flamethrowers and go for thermobaric shells, in world war 2 the germans experimented with thermobaric bombs using coal dust for fuel, so it wouldn't be totally impossible for us.

EDIT: Here have a quote from wikipedia:

Finally, the flamethrower's effective range was short in comparison with that of other battlefield weapons of similar size. To be effective, flamethrower soldiers must approach their target, risking exposure to enemy fire. Vehicular flamethrowers also have this problem; they may have considerably greater range than a man-portable flamethrower, but their range is still short compared with that of other infantry weapons.

Also I found these ranges quoted:
25 yards for an infantry thrower (flammenwerfer 35)
"less than 150" yards for a flame tank

[somemildmanneredidiot]

So they're the explosive type that was originally explained to me as setting fire to the atmosphere. Apparently Russia uses this type of explosive in pump action grenade launchers for their Spec Ops.

I see a couple issues with the shell, relating to the liquid oxygen component. It's definitely going to be pretty complex, both to design and to produce. Like, we're going to need to actually make that munitions design facility I've been harping about as well as make a specific factory for production to handle the complexity for it as I don't think any old factory will be easily retooled to handle it.

All in all, I'm for it. We're going to have to look into how resources work before we can initiate it, because this will definitely be a multi-turn, resource intensive project, but it looks like it will be very effective once we get it up and running.

Since anti-bunker has been mentioned, should we look into designing a bunker system? We could have engineers go out to the front to make more infrastructure to help, though that sounds rather risky.

[Aseaheru]

 FAEs are designed to not use self-contained oxidizers. Well, beyond that initial one.

 Anyways, work on the turn is stalled right now.

[Amperzand]

Thermobaric weapons, or Fuel-Air Explosives, use a small explosive charge to aerosolize a large quantity of fuel, which mixes with the surrounding air for its oxidizer, then is ignited. This creates a concussive blast of considerable force and lights just about everything involved on fire.

[somemildmanneredidiot]

@FAE: I was assuming that we would be aiming for something similar to the German design as that is what's closest history wise. I'm more than glad to go for a more efficient and less complex model.


@Turn Stall: Makes sense, the posting was to see about keeping interest in the game and because I'd remembered a few ideas. Also because the thread had fallen down a few pages.

Take all the time you need. If it takes a month or two or longer to get back to it, then it takes a month or two or longer. In the meanwhile we can stumble on ideas and refine and debate specific designs so that the next design phase or three has some parts prepared in advance.

[milo christiansen]

Turn stall just means we have lots of time to put our evil little minds to use coming up with cool ideas...

The big problem I can see with thermobaric rounds is spreading the fuel without igniting it. AFAIK the solution here is actually easy, prevent the initial "burst" charge from getting any external oxygen until it is fully burned out. Obviously a high velocity, low temperature explosive works best. If the ignition source is in the center, then as soon as the fuel is sufficiently mixed it should go off quite satisfyingly...

Actually it may be easier to make ICM (Improved Conventional Munition, cluster bomb basically) rounds for anti-infantry first, just to get some experience with advanced artillery rounds. +1 to building a munitions design facility soonish.

Anyone give any further thought to spending most of a turn on building factories? The more I think about it the more it grows on me. If we build a crap load of factories we can simple outproduce our foes and crush them under out fully equipped modern army.

[somemildmanneredidiot]

I remembered doing some guesstimates on how many factories we could make, presuming we had teams of 3-4 each.

9 teams make 4x300pp factory lines each, that will provide us with 10,800pp which would about triple our current production (for a total of 18,100 pp after the factories this turn are built with 3,900pp of that specified for specific arms)

Here are some specific buildings that have been suggested over time.

-Airfield
-Specialized Munitions Design Building
-Drydock
-Artillery factory
-General factory
-Improved Design Studio
-Harbor
-Improved Workshop
-Fancy Test Lab (for things like wind tunnels and pools)

There are two big issues I can see with mass producing factories. The first is, with the upcoming resource system, we might not have the resources to build all of the factories we'd like nor be able to use them to full capacity due to expensive components or just plain running out of more common things. The second is, if the previous isn't a problem or one we can surmount, it'll turn this game into a question of who has the more factories rather than who has better designs. Granted, better and more logistics has won a vast number of wars, so it is more than a valid path to pursue.

I'm definitely in favor of creating a bunch more factories. We're going to reach a point where to get out useful things in usable quantities that turn, we're going to need to have something like 15,000pp to throw around. It all really comes down to how the new resource system works and what we'll have avaliable. I suspect we'll have an edge with our naval blockades though.

[Amperzand]

Something worthy of note is that in the First World War, Germany was forced by shortages to trade with the Entente for rubber.

[Aseaheru]

 Specifically, their optics.

 However, there are no colonial forces in this world, strangely enough.

[somemildmanneredidiot]

There are vassal states however.....

So we rebelled against the Monarchy, do you think it would be possible to fund and arm revolution in Monarchy territory? Now I really want to spend a few designs helping out our spies.

[milo christiansen]

Remember: the fluff says none of the minor powers like either side very much, which means our allies are unlikely to be very close to us, but also means their vassals are unlike to be very close to them either...

Interesting possibilities there. We probably won't be able to do much, since diplomacy isn't out responsibility...

[somemildmanneredidiot]

But design and production are 

Once we get a few more factories up and running, we could produce trade items (weapons, not weapons, potted plants) in exchange for other resources.

Actually, we seem to be in charge of the entirety of our war production besides munitions. An interesting choice by our government.

@Aseaheru: Are we able to consult with members of the military to see what areas they would appreciate improvements in, or is that covered by the AARs from the field? Do we have an idea of what equipment our spies are using and do they have any requests? (Probably no on both request fronts, but better to ask than not.)

Playing more to our design strengths, we could design things that make certain diplomatic and espionage options easier to accomplish, encouraging policy that way. Exactly what, I'm a bit unsure of, but it's an idea.

[Aseaheru]

 It mostly is covered by the AARs, but you can ask for more.

 In related news, I left without saving my work for dinner, and returned to a shut-down computer. Which may have been due to the heat.