Print

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

Glorious Arstotzka

17 (16%)

Glorious Moskurg

13 (12.3%)

Ingloriously Didn't Play

76 (71.7%)

Total Members Voted: 106

[Parsely]

Do we really need to recapture Tundra? Why is this a priority?

Also, if we design a lander and don't recapture Tundra then design will be nearly useless.

We got a low impact design > Radar. Going for another low impact design is a bad strategy that may deny us a chance to win very important jungles.

They are focused on winning the skies from us. Their strategy is just that. I don't want to allow them that

Yes. They're getting close to Forenia.

That's why we're going to design a lander and try to recapture the Tundra. This design will inform the rest of the war, because it allows us to invade and be aggressive.

RADAR has already shown it's benefit with detecting their planes and it's going to pay off even more when we revise it to fit on our ships. Cannala is going to have a hard time surviving night attacks by Archers.

What are you talking about? They've only been making ground designs for the past couple turns, and the SPAAG didn't seem to have an impact. It wasn't mentioned at all.

[evictedSaint]

The troop transporter is an evil necessity.  It's a low-impact crucial design we will need if we wish to make progress.

UF-LSL-39 "Tadpole": (2) GUNINANRUNIN, evictedSaint

[Parsely]

I don't see how enabling us to invade islands is "low-impact". It's absolutely vital to us winning this war.

[evictedSaint]

I think he means it's not a "big" design, like an aircraft carrier or a radar or a cruiser.

[Kot]

Which leads me to that we should spend an revision on it, instead of a design. We can revise the old cargo ship, we can revise a tank to be LVT, or we could revise a plane to deliver tanks and troops straight to the shore.

The last option is certainly the best.

[Strongpoint]

Do we really need to recapture Tundra? Why is this a priority?

Also, if we design a lander and don't recapture Tundra then design will be nearly useless.

We got a low impact design > Radar. Going for another low impact design is a bad strategy that may deny us a chance to win very important jungles.

They are focused on winning the skies from us. Their strategy is just that. I don't want to allow them that

Yes. They're getting close to Forenia.

That's why we're going to design a lander and try to recapture the Tundra.

RADAR has already shown it's benefit with detecting their planes and it's going to pay off even more when we revise it to fit on our ships. Cannala is going to have a hard time surviving night attacks by Archers.

What are you talking about? They've only been making ground designs for the past couple turns.

They did more (anti)arforce related designs than ground forces designs

If you consider them getting closer to Florenia a problem than, maybe, we should do something that will help us to hold the plains island or even push them back in the sea?

Radar impact is minimal comparing to whatever we could design last turn. It didn't even help to hold the plains island

What if we fail to recapture island after designing a lander? What happens? It means we effectively designed nothing. There are no need in landers when our enemy will be the one who attacks.   This is a gg level of mistake. Anything is better than lander. Let's secure the jungle, lets kick them out of the plains island and then start thinking about a lander. BTW, archupelago is way more important that Tundra

[piratejoe]

UF-LSL-39 "Tadpole": (2) GUNINANRUNIN, evictedSaint
UF-SUB-1939 "Jonah"(1) Piratejoe

[Kashyyk]

UF-LSL-39 "Tadpole": (3) GUNINANRUNIN, evictedSaint, Kashyyk
UF-SUB-1939 "Jonah"(1) Piratejoe

Because it's close enough to my design.

Because firearms aren't "big" designs, does that mean we'll only ever use revisions on them from now on? I'm pretty sure the Tadpole is bigger and more difficult (for us) than another plane, which people want to use a design on after all.

[Parsely]

We can revise the old cargo ship,

we can revise a tank to be LVT,

or we could revise a plane to deliver tanks and troops straight to the shore.

The last option is certainly the best.

A cargo ship can't land men directly on the beach without having the hull seriously modified. That's going to be expensive and complicated. People worried about sandbars and reefs should keep in mind that a big ship will have problems.

An LVT can't deliver our existing tanks.

Planes won't be able to return after they land on the shore. If they land in the water, how will the men and tanks and gear be gotten to the beach? Even if the plane could get back off the beach, it's going to have to fly all the way back to a landing strip to load up again.

A plane is the worst option.

[Hibou]

UF-LSL-39 "Tadpole": (4) GUNINANRUNIN, evictedSaint, Kashyyk, Hibou
UF-SUB-1939 "Jonah"(1) Piratejoe

As much as I'd love to see Kot's design take to the seas (skies?), the Tadpole will probably have better luck in the design phase for being a fairly mundane machine. Also it's halfway to a floating tank, and who doesn't like floating tanks?

[Kot]

A cargo ship can't land men directly on the beach without having the hull seriously modified. That's going to be expensive and complicated. People worried about sandbars and reefs should keep in mind that a big ship will have problems.most evident example, change in how guns work from 1 to 2

Then we revise the destroyer, most destroyers IIRC have shallow enough draft to operate near the coast, and it won't really matter much if we beach them, as long as it gets us close enough for the tanks to roll out.

An LVT can't deliver our existing tanks.

LVT itself is a tank. We could even use it to counter that Cannalan amphibious APC.

Planes won't be able to return after they land on the shore. If they land in the water, how will the men and tanks and gear be gotten to the beach? Even if the plane could get back off the beach, it's going to have to fly all the way back to a landing strip to load up again.

Because the plane lands on the beach? And honestly speaking, thrust reversal in proppeler driven aircraft is least of our concerns, and in worst case we can just tow the planes out after the landing.
And you don't need a landing strip if the plane is floating on water.

[Parsely]

Plus if we revise the Tadpole into an amphibious APC we can call it the "Bullfrog".

[stabbymcstabstab]

UF-LSL-39 "Tadpole": (5) GUNINANRUNIN, evictedSaint, Kashyyk, Hibou, Stabby
UF-SUB-1939 "Jonah"(1) Piratejoe

[Strongpoint]

I am ready to vote for anything that is not a landing craft of some sort. By anything I mean exactly anything, feel free to propose. Going for the lander right now is a a huge blunder. I don't that situation will be salvageable barring some lucky rolls combinations.

[3_14159]

UF-LSL-39 "Tadpole": (5) GUNINANRUNIN, evictedSaint, Kashyyk, Hibou, Stabby
UF-SUB-1939 "Jonah"(1) Piratejoe
UFS-LVT-40 "Tiger Shark"
UFS-LVT-40 "Tiger Shark" Variant B (1) 3_14159