Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Poll

Which team did you play in the last game?

Glorious Arstotzka
- 17 (16%)
Glorious Moskurg
- 13 (12.3%)
Ingloriously Didn't Play
- 76 (71.7%)

Total Members Voted: 106


Pages: 1 ... 229 230 [231] 232 233 ... 500

Author Topic: Intercontinental Arms Race: Finale  (Read 592469 times)

evictedSaint

  • Bay Watcher
  • if (ANNOYED_W_FANS==true) { KILL_CHAR(rand()); }
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Spring 1940 (Design Phase)
« Reply #3450 on: June 07, 2017, 04:37:10 pm »

Ah, come on, folks. Let's all calm down a little. eS, you're starting to sound a little hyperbolic.


Eh...sorry.  I guess I let myself get a bit worked up.  I'll take it down a notch.  Thanks Nuke.

According to Sensei, our lack of decent landers was as critical as the Naval Disadvantage.  That implies with decent landrs and strong ground troops, we could get by letting Cannala control the seas.

10ebbor10

  • Bay Watcher
  • DON'T PANIC
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Spring 1940 (Design Phase)
« Reply #3451 on: June 07, 2017, 04:38:28 pm »

Presuming the aluminium and titanium on the map requires TC to shift, the cannalans would have to invest in getting more TC to ship those resources, which buys us a turn. Two resource points makes out Z class merely expensive. We build a light, or even a heavy, cruiser of that cost category we'll have a ship that as well armed as the Khorne that outnumber it significantly more.

Transport Capacity: 1 by land, 3 by sea, 1 by air.

They can ship all their resources.

Edit : Or do you mean new resources?
Logged

Taricus

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Spring 1940 (Design Phase)
« Reply #3452 on: June 07, 2017, 04:40:27 pm »

I mean the new resources.

@ES: Or salamanders should be cheap this turn or the next, depends on if we can start using the jungle ore this turn.
Logged
Quote from: evictedSaint
We sided with the holocaust for a fucking +1 roll

evictedSaint

  • Bay Watcher
  • if (ANNOYED_W_FANS==true) { KILL_CHAR(rand()); }
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Spring 1940 (Design Phase)
« Reply #3453 on: June 07, 2017, 04:41:55 pm »

We should be able to.  We can try landing again; I doubt it will work without actual landers, but next turn we should try Designing an improvement to our tanks and Revising the Archer into a lander.

Taricus

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Spring 1940 (Design Phase)
« Reply #3454 on: June 07, 2017, 04:45:14 pm »

We're going to need to sort the naval advantage first. Our troubles chiefly stem from that; we solve that and we get the breathing room to develop landers and go on the offensive.
Logged
Quote from: evictedSaint
We sided with the holocaust for a fucking +1 roll

evictedSaint

  • Bay Watcher
  • if (ANNOYED_W_FANS==true) { KILL_CHAR(rand()); }
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Spring 1940 (Design Phase)
« Reply #3455 on: June 07, 2017, 04:47:02 pm »

At the risk of circling the same argument again, we can't sort the naval advantage.  Cannala holds it firm, and they can maintain the tech gap between us too easily.  We can still successfully fight and land despite a naval advantage, though.

Taricus

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Spring 1940 (Design Phase)
« Reply #3456 on: June 07, 2017, 04:48:08 pm »

They can only maintain the tech gap if the put effort towards it, and even then tech won't be enough to compensate for numbers.
Logged
Quote from: evictedSaint
We sided with the holocaust for a fucking +1 roll

NUKE9.13

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Spring 1940 (Design Phase)
« Reply #3457 on: June 07, 2017, 04:51:17 pm »

Taricus, the Navy vs No Navy argument is clearly going nowhere at the moment. Why don't you leave it for now?
Logged
Long Live United Forenia!

Taricus

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Spring 1940 (Design Phase)
« Reply #3458 on: June 07, 2017, 04:52:01 pm »

I'll leave it if he leaves it.
Logged
Quote from: evictedSaint
We sided with the holocaust for a fucking +1 roll

evictedSaint

  • Bay Watcher
  • if (ANNOYED_W_FANS==true) { KILL_CHAR(rand()); }
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Spring 1940 (Design Phase)
« Reply #3459 on: June 07, 2017, 04:53:22 pm »

Your assumption is that Cannala wont maintain the tech gap, and that they won't either gain new resources or be able to make up for the lack of resources with quality.  I disagree with both of these assumptions, but understand why you think they are valid.  I hope that whichever route we go will be the correct one, regardless of whichever of us it may be.

somemildmanneredidiot

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Spring 1940 (Design Phase)
« Reply #3460 on: June 07, 2017, 04:55:43 pm »

A Cruiser and a Torpedo Boat (revised Archer?) will help signficantly, as the four ships we have are a merchant trader, two carriers, and a stop gap. We really haven't actually tried anything of significance for our ships as far as I can tell. Just the Cruiser alone will make a signficant difference. Assuming we don't get blindsided, doing a Cruiser and revising the Archer into a lander next turn should help lower their Naval advantage as well as allowing us to solve our landing problem. But that's for next turn to debate about and I definitely will be stopping now on this topic.

Are we waiting for any waves of people for more votes for the design this turn? I'm prettt sure there's around 60-70 people who voted in the survey up there.
Logged
"As to why you'd want to [throw your sword in combat] at all? The answer is pretty simple: There's someone you want to stab, but they're all the way over there, and walking is for peasants." - Starke of How To Fight Write

Light forger

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Spring 1940 (Design Phase)
« Reply #3461 on: June 07, 2017, 05:01:22 pm »

Here is my design idea we could possibly revise it to give us another air TC and make our thunderbirds outright cheap next turn.

UFAF-FLB-1940-S 'Blight'
A the blight is a new front line bomber designed to operate in area with comprised air cover although, Forenia high command is smart enough to never send them without some kind of fighter support. The blight is armed with four nosed mounted 20mm autocannons and two 20mm autocannons mounted in a rear ball turret. The rear turret as excellent coverage letting it protect not only the rear but also a fair bit of sides with it's blind spot being the rear. The cabin is pressurized and come with a full radio set.  It's large bomb bays can carry up to 4 metric tons of bombs and the blight can also carry paratroopers although, not at it's full altitude as the bomb bay is unpressurized. Using our knowledge gained from the reckless and the haast the bomber has it's engines, cabin and rear turret lightly armored. It's enough to ward off fragmentation and off glancing light autocannon fire but, Cannalan's heavy autocannon will still rip through it. By working in reserve with damaged reckless's(armoring wherever they aren’t hit) the blight also as has a reinforced superstructure which further helps with autocannon fire but, once again isn't enough to stop it from falling apart if the Cannalan's get a solid burst with their heavy autocannons. The bomber has air-breaks to help with landing and as an added befit let's it drop torpedoes from it's bomb bays. The blight is powered by it's new aT-J05 engine which are backwards compatible with the thunderbird. These new engines are roughly the same size but, make use of a larger compressor and a smaller annular combustion chamber let them burn more efficiently. The end result is while the new engine is only slightly more powerful they consume quite a bit less fuel. Thanks to our knowledge of jet engine creation the new engine are also easier to manufacturer remove the complex tag from both the blight and the thunderbird.
Logged

andrea

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Spring 1940 (Design Phase)
« Reply #3462 on: June 07, 2017, 05:05:02 pm »

That plane is only half the size we need to get 2 TC. Remember that only the highest TC design per category is counted.

Light forger

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Spring 1940 (Design Phase)
« Reply #3463 on: June 07, 2017, 05:13:12 pm »

The blight is loaded down with guns, armor, bomb bays and, other stuff ripping that off will give it more carry weight. Also we can expand it's wingspan of more lift and therefor more carry weight. Doing all of that should get it to at least 6 tons if not more combined with the fact it's faster should creep us to 2TC.
Logged

Khan Boyzitbig

  • Bay Watcher
  • [THOUGHTS:CHAOTIC] [ACTUALLY A SWAN]
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Spring 1940 (Design Phase)
« Reply #3464 on: June 07, 2017, 05:22:43 pm »

So something like this?

UFAF-SB-40 "Apocalypso"
A massive quad jet engine bomber designed to fly well above hostile forces. Carrying 16 tons of bombs or cargo whichever is needed most. 6 dual autocannon turrets and a heavy quad autocannon turret provide protection from all angles, one turret is nose mounted, one tail, one on each flank, one upper spine, and both a dual turret aft underbelly and the quad turret fore underbelly. The pressurised cabin contains a radio set and has spall liners. The whole plane has fairly thick armour and can withstand obscene punishment without failing. Onboard fuel supply easily allows for over 4000km range.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2017, 05:27:29 pm by Khan Boyzitbig »
Logged
////;::;\\\\ Scuttle Scuttle...

Milk for the Khorneflakes!

Luminous Bolt of Bacon
"Excuse me sir, You are on Fire."
Pages: 1 ... 229 230 [231] 232 233 ... 500