Print

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

[Aseaheru]

 I would go with the UF-T33 as the chassis. Only slightly more cost for better speed, better armor, and a radio stock.

[VoidSlayer]

A heavy tank looks a little small to mount a full sized radar installation,  I was thinking a few train cars similar to the mobile runway.  Maybe upgrade it to a diesel train engine to reduce the cost a bit?

[Funk]

We need a Two part system.
A train mounting a full sized radar installation and heavy AA to shoot them down.
Then it unloads troops and vehicles who will actuality so everything.
This let a small number of troops cover most of Forenia.
An AA tank lets use attack away from the rail way lines.

Edit train come first.

[Aseaheru]

 Its a medium tank, we just shoved heavy armor on the front of it. And I dont think anyone was suggesting shoving a gen-1 radar system on one.

 Just doing that sounds like a bad idea to me. Perhaps have a few of those trains to fill gaps, but I think we should work on a faster, less susceptible to damage means of rapid transport than railways. Plus, railways are limited to where the tracks go.

[Sheb]

I like the idea of mobile trains as reaction forces.

[andrea]

it is too early for kamikaze pilots, but an air carried rocket plane might actually be a good thing to design next turn, it likely is our only chance to match enemy speed. As for weapons, my vote would go for rockets. an autocannon would work too, but I am not sure we can get one on what is likely going to be a very small plane.

but that is a matter for next turn. Now we should work on the revision. What proposals do we have? I see talk about mobile AA, radar trains and then my radio proposal ( which I'll update to reduce interference with our RDF system)

The first improves response, the second improves detection and the last improves communication.

Another possibility would be further upgrading the RDF. 17 km range is bad, truly bad. I mean, it is our first attempt in this area, so it is ok, but we can reasonably update it to work better, smaller and with less interference from radios. For example, we could reduce the wavelength by using a cavity magnetron to generate the pulse. Furthermore, the considerable smaller dimensions would allow us to mount it on pretty much everything (or keep oversized antennas and achieve better range on fixed installations)

Spoiler: UF-Model 1940/2 radio (click to show/hide)

An improved radio model, using the latest developement in electronics and radio waves manipulation to achieve lower weight and bulk, such that it requires only one man to be operated. It also features connectors suitable for linking to external power sources, particularly the power grid for easier use in inhabited areas and for easier mounting on any future vehicle which allows such connections. Special care is taken to avoid interference with RDF systems.

Spoiler: UF-1940/2-RDF v2 (click to show/hide)

Using a cavity magnetron to generate the electromagnetic pulse, this systems works on much shorter wavelengths allowing better resolution and much lower dimensions of the antenna. Fixed installations , retaining their large sizes, would have improved range. Mobile RDF systems become possible at useful ranges thanks to the reduction in size of the system

I am partial to the radar upgrade. It seems a very important field and currently we are far behind the WW2 powers.

[RAM]

Trains are a great rapid response measure if your opponent isn't magical nonsense. Even the best trains in the best circumstances are going to take hours to respond and unless they somehow manage to suffer a critical equipment failure for our benefit or decide to all get out and moon the locals as some sort of hazing ritual for the new recruits then I don't see them hanging around for that long... In the time-scales that we are looking at, the train is no better than a fixed installation, the only advantage is that it can be relocated so that they can't permanently map out our entire defence grid...

 Guided missiles will most likely fail to knock them out of the sky, but at least there is maybe a chance there, and it has pretty good odds of doing enough damage to keep them on the ground if they decide to stand still down there. And if we are trading ten pilots for every hostile craft that we bring down then I think that we should consider it a cause for celebration. Sure, once we start reverse-engineering some goodies then we might be able to remotely match them in the air but for now we can expect to be out-ranged, out-armoured, out-ceilinged, out-manoeuvred, out-aimed, out-sighted, out-run, and out-lasted... The only reliable advantage we have is numbers and throwing cannon-fodder at a numerically-inferior-but-otherwise-superior opponent tends to have a very specific downside...

But Imma following the rule of "don't vote for your own stuff, because that way lies madness(and not the good kind). As for the revision? Umm, I guess I vote for mounting the R.D.F. on a train and providing the necessary additions(fixing its vulnerability to wind obviously, no point putting it on a train if it breaks whenever it moves...). It may not be able to respond in time to react to current threats, but reducing the enemy's ability to track our detection ability and being able to repair holes in our detection grid sounds nice. Also, it would sort of vaguely increase their coverage area if they are mobile(straight lines and stuff...), at least until the enemy adapt their flight-plans to account for it... I kind of hope that we can do it as a revision because we are revising it to be mobility-tolerant, putting it on a platform and dragging it along a rail-line is hopefully a bit of a freeby... But just upgrading its specifications to be more resistant to motion would be an upgrade to its resilience, so that seems like a win...

+1 "put the R.D.F. on a train as a revision"

[Sheb]

We got a mobile aircraft carrier. Mount the radar on the trains, and we can have a good mobile response protocol: Identify landing sites, send paratroops to pin them down while the train come rolling down with more troops and vehicles for support.

[andrea]

putting them on trains is a nice idea, and I blieve we should use our considerable experience of mounting any kind of stuff on trains ( we mounted a runway and supply facilities on one).
But I am not sure it will work that well on the current, bulky, tech. making it more sturdy will require a smaller antenna and without other changes that will lead to an even shorter range than the current average of 17 km. At that point, we might as well have spotters. That is one of the reason I propose to improve our system for shorter wavelengths, so that it can be made much smaller  and therefore mobile. By much smaller, I mean possibly able to be mounted on planes.

So, I think a centimetric radar like I proposed is the first required step for such mobility programs.

If that fails, then sure. My second preference and my vote for the sake of not voting myself, goes to mounting radars on trains. It will improve our coverage. But still I think it would work far better next turn, after we improve our tech.

edit: @sheb: yes, I believe our single ARAC should be a crucial part of our response system at least for the first times. a mobile squadron of paratroopers and perhaps interceptors is too good of an asset to not use it. I just think radar mounting can be done another turn. Unless we try to cram everything in a single revision.

[Aseaheru]

 The problem is, the trains are too small to transport our bombers. I think we should work on increasing personal firepower, starting development of helicopters, or else working on interceptors next turn.

 Also, as a note, the main form of rocket interceptor(which mostly fought as a glider, as its rocket engine was for getting it to altitude and lacked the fuel for long duration flight) was armed with two 30mm autocannons. We can shove our autocannons on one with no real problems.


 Personally, I think we should get a radio this turn as a revision, then an early scouting/utility helicopter that has capacity to be modified in future or a underbarrel grenade launcher next turn.

Vote for radio revision

[3_14159]

Our main priority, in my opinion, should be to be able to stop (or make sufficiently expensive) any further abductions. To do this, we need to be able to find out when abductions are happening. Correspondingly, I vote for the UF-1940/2-RDF v2, although I'd like the radio and helicopter too - for a later turn.

[andrea]

Our main priority, in my opinion, should be to be able to stop (or make sufficiently expensive) any further abductions. To do this, we need to be able to find out when abductions are happening. Correspondingly, I vote for the UF-1940/2-RDF v2, although I'd like the radio and helicopter too - for a later turn.

absolutely agree

@Aseaheru our trains can handle bombers while deployed I think. just, they need to follow the ARAC flying, while it moves. which, yes, is absolutely terrible for a permanent train based base. But that is a matter for the future, we haven't even managed to detect one of the enemies yet.

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

Current leader is the RDF on a train idea, but things are close enough I'm not willing to call it yet.  Keep the debate up.

[Kot]

PTW.
I proably ain't going to actually play since I apparently got kidnapped by aliens... still, expect glorious Arstotzkan Forenian propaganda.
But I do have one last suggestion for you guys...
Tigers.

Figure it out on your own.

[Aseaheru]

 RDF is most certainly far too large for trains right now, even of that size, unless the whole thing is for the antenna. Early radar antennas where about the size of a few football fields strung together. The receivers where a fair deal smaller though., and it sounds like ours is of an alright size.

 Well, that or we skipped 25+ years of work on radar.