Print

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

[Stirk]

For an original machine gun design, that's pretty okay I think.  Should we revise our sniper rifle or should we revise this peashooter?

Like you said, its pretty OK. It'll work at least, its not like our last attempt at a sniper rifle . We have needed a sniper rifle since like, the second turn, so we should probably pump it out already.

Fire Eagle MKII:
A sniper/marksman variant of the Fire Eagle. The main goal of the revision is to increase accuracy by any means necessary, including a longer barrel, field adjustable sights, better rifling, etc.

I would like to try the scope again too. We had one originally that people just didn't want to use, so adding it to a revision shouldn't be too much, and the increased details at range should really help for spotting targets. The increased aim-time might be a burden in the marsh, but even then I think that the ability to tell whether something half-exposed in a shadow from a hundred metres away is a boot or a rock would be very useful...

Eh, it wasn't that nobody wanted to use our last scope, it was that our last scope was too poor quality to be used. We need a gun that can shoot strait before a scope becomes super practical, and trying to make a scope now might take away from the gun's aim. With how its been going, we really can't count on high roles  .

[griffinpup]

I'm in favor of improving the accuracy,, and just that.  It seems like the safe bet, and that's really what we need now.

((heh heh also apparently the Republic scum is misbehaving with their extra revision  ))

[Stirk]

Also, we should *probably* rename our LMG. I went off of Shoulder Boulder's naming ideas, but we already have a Fire Dragon musket :0.

[evilcherry]

Settle on a name of the LMG, please.

Otherwise to fixing the Fire Eagle...

Fire Eagle: Slightly larger copy M1903 in 8mm caliber. Uses smokeless powder. Rudimentary sight and scopes can now be affixed properly, and the production practices refined - unless you go real sniping at long range, the accuracy should suffice for the common footsoldier. 1 Metal, 1 oil (forgot to add in smokeless powder last turn).

[KiwiOui]

Ugh, disregard this post. Didn't notice evilcherry's name, thought it was a suggestion.

[evilcherry]

Btw, its spying and battle time. The wait would be pretty long indeed...

[Stirk]

Alright...Lets change the name to, uh, Fire Bird-of-Paradise?

Spy action: Can't think of one either . Should we check if they do, in fact, have a machine gun? "Do our enemies have a machine gun?".

I am fairly happy with our design. Its a marksman rifle, at least, if not a true sniper one. It *probably* is as good as whatever they had, hopefully.

Like I said, the war starts in 1914. So I think we should get some air support, so we can fire arty into the marsh. Seeing as how machine guns are advanced technology to us right now, we probably would have difficult with a plane. So lets go with an Artillery Spotter Balloon.

Blowfish:
A fabric balloon filled with hydrogen gas, attached to the ground with a steel cable and simple winch. Uses the "kite balloon" shape, rather than a traditional spherical shape. Has a series of visible flags it uses to communicate with the ground, allowing it to swiftly send messages.

That should let us use our now-accurate artillery at greater ranges, and hopefully in the Marsh.

[RAM]

How plausible would suicide-death-rocket+gliders simple wooden biplanes be at this point?

[griffinpup]

Let's ask if our enemies are focused more on naval or flight research?
I like the spy balloon.  It seems solid.  The eventual goal, is to make it high enough to avoid enemy fire, which should be easy.

[Stirk]

How plausible would suicide-death-rocket+gliders simple wooden biplanes be at this point?

Dunno. We had some trouble with the machine gun, so its probably best not to risk it too much on cutting-edge technology. After all, we don't even have an engine to power it at this point :-/.

Let's ask if our enemies are focused more on naval or flight research?
I like the spy balloon.  It seems solid.  The eventual goal, is to make it high enough to avoid enemy fire, which should be easy.

I'd doubt they have flight already, though its possible they are trying to fight us off in the oceans.

For the spy balloon, I was thinking more of a stop-gap thing until we get some heavier than air stuff in the sky. Ideally, it will be placed far from the front lines. Their cannons don't seem accurate enough to kill them, and they should be out of sniper range if they are positioned with our own arty. They can probably help on the ships too. This way we put the ball in their field, instead of trying to one-up whatever they do.

I also wanna get a tank up, probably in 1916, just because they don't seem to have anything that could stop it making it a pretty big game changer/upgrade to our cavalry .

[RAM]

Is it really so far-fetched to use our existing and effective rocket technology to get a manned vehicle up to gliding height? I mean, we can use massed arrays of the existing rockets(though timing would be an issue, electric detonators would be nice...) and they should expend most of their mass as fuel... Photography shouldn't be that far of a step either and all we really need to do is fly over a site and they will need to reposition everything. Balloons would provide a more sustained effect but gliders should have more psychological effect, better angles, similar range, and probably suffer few losses from enemy action...

Of course, the real benefit here is that since they are only gliders we can test them more quickly and effectively in miniature and they will still provide experience for heavier-than-air flight if we get around to that...

I would like to ask about the enemy's heavier rifles.

I predict that they are doing something with their cannons this turn, that or boats... Can we see the current turn's stuff?

[griffinpup]

Is it really so far-fetched to use our existing and effective rocket technology to get a manned vehicle up to gliding height? I mean, we can use massed arrays of the existing rockets(though timing would be an issue, electric detonators would be nice...) and they should expend most of their mass as fuel... Photography shouldn't be that far of a step either and all we really need to do is fly over a site and they will need to reposition everything. Balloons would provide a more sustained effect but gliders should have more psychological effect, better angles, similar range, and probably suffer few losses from enemy action...

I feel like this has all forms of complicated explodey bad written all over it.  I don't think our luck's gonna let us strap a ton of rockets together to achieve flight.

[RAM]

But the rockets already achieve flight... and a short-ranged glider barely needs proper wings. Really, it is just taking the existing rocket technology and tweaking it a bit to have no warhead, a greater fall-time to rise-time ratio, and somewhere to strap a pilot. They don't even need cameras, an eye-line map of the landmarks should be sufficient for basic operations. It is still basically just a reworking of existing rocket technology...