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

[10ebbor10]

We can't get better AND cheaper in one go. And better typically means more expensive. Numerical superiority is a quality of it's own, and one we should strive to have.

Why not?

The revision consists of starting the use of materials we possess (maganese and aluminum) and that will both prove more heat resistant and easier to work with.

[Taricus]

Because it's far more reliant on a good roll, and may well have one of the two things we want to achieve drop off. We can't get too ambitious with revisions.

[somemildmanneredidiot]

I just want to say that RAM has good stuff up on the board and if the necessity of guaranteed Cheap Jets wasn't had, I would definitely vote for them.

[10ebbor10]

I'd argue my design is no more ambitious than the other.

The improvement in performance are balanced by an increase in special resource consumption.

We already have sufficient jet engine experience to understand it.

I just want to say that RAM has good stuff up on the board and if the necessity of guaranteed Cheap Jets wasn't had, I would definitely vote for them.

There'll be no guaranteed cheap jets.

Expensive jets, maybe. But not cheap.

[Taricus]

And we cannot afford for the price to go up any more if we want a shot at cheap jet fighters. Simply put if we want better engines we'd be better off just designing a new jet fighter altogether; something that can wait for us to kick the cannalans back on the ocean.

EDIT: Cheap jets just require one more point of usable TC. We boot cannala back on the ocean we can definitely be assured of cheap jets, and cheaper carriers.

[10ebbor10]

We can afford the price of Manganese and aluminum. We have both of those.

something that can wait for us to kick the cannalans back on the ocean.

So, never?

We're not doing anything that could tilt the naval battle this turn. Next turn, the Cannalan's get an extra ore and half their fleet becomes less expensive.

[Taricus]

One turn to develop a light cruiser would be the death-knell for the cannalan's grip on our TC. Once we do that, we're home free with cheaper Z class carriers and a whole slew of other stuff including jet fighters. We don't need to get it to our advantage, we just need to push back theirs to get the resources.

[stabbymcstabstab]

0 (RAM)Phased Death Ray radar:
0 (RAM)"P.J." HAFB bomber with jet engines:
1 (RAM)Bouncing Beans booster rockets: NAV
0 (RAM)Archer pattern "R.B." rocket boat:
3 (10ebbor10)aTJ04 Jet engine: Sheb, 10ebbor10, Chiefwaffles
6 (Light forger+andrea)Lighting Jet Engine Manufacturing: Andrea, SMMI, NUKE9.13, Piratejoe, Taricus, Stabby
0 (RAM)Thunderedge Revised jet fighter:
0 ():
0 ():

[10ebbor10]

One turn to develop a light cruiser would be the death-knell for the cannalan's grip on our TC. Once we do that, we're home free with cheaper Z class carriers and a whole slew of other stuff including jet fighters. We don't need to get it to our advantage, we just need to push back theirs to get the resources.

I don't believe that.

Whatever ship we design next turn will need to go up against the following vessel getting cheaper :

Cheap
Kraken Coastal Defense Ship
Corsair Destroyer
Walrus Landing Ship

Oh, and you also assume we'll hold the Jungle. Despite the following things getting cheaper

Cheap

M2A1 Armadillo
Type 36 Tank Destroyer (S1928W)
M3T1A1 Raider:
M3T3A1 SPAAG "Firecracker"

Expensive

MXA1 "Bull":

And in the air, they also get some new stuff.

Expensive

Dragonfly Floatplane Fighter

Expensive

B-1M2 Man'O War Class Heavy Bomber:

[andrea]

To be fair, it wouldnt be too bad to get stronger engines now, as long as next turn we make a bomber to decomplex in case the revision doesn't work.

[Taricus]

Yeah, heavy bombers. Not the most accurate of bombers. Their larger armoured vehicles need to land on shore and their raiders are easily destroyed by salamanders. The only issue is the corsairs but even then they do lack good torpedoes.

[NUKE9.13]

[...]

Sorry, I didn't mean to offend. I realise with hindsight how it could be interpreted that way, but I was genuinely trying to give some friendly advice. I think many of your designs have merit, and the fact that their eccentric names and descriptions are making them less appealing is a shame.
As for zero-vote designs, well. I tend to read the entire thread, and so am aware of all the designs that have been suggested, and view the vote box not as a list of designs, but a list of votes. But I guess I can understand that not everyone is going to keep track of every suggestion, in which case having zero vote designs makes some sort of sense.

[10ebbor10]

Yeah, heavy bombers. Not the most accurate of bombers. Their larger armoured vehicles need to land on shore and their raiders are easily destroyed by salamanders. The only issue is the corsairs but even then they do lack good torpedoes.

Unfortunately, the enemy actually has a landing craft, and one that will become cheap in Turn 13. So, their tank will be present in the battle, and it'll better and cheaper than anything we have.

Their raiders may be easily destroyed by Salamanders, but Salamanders are easily destroyed by Armadillo's, which will also become cheap.

And I think it's wrong to dismiss the Kraken so easily. It's heavily armored, reasonably fast, and equipped with 8 72 mm cannons and 4 31 mm cannons. It's going to make mincemeat of our destroyers.

Edit : Also, the enemy will actually design stuff. For your plan to work, they need to do nothing for 2 turns.

[NUKE9.13]

So, their tank will be present in the battle, and it'll better and cheaper than anything we have.

Just a little thing, but our T2 will also be cheap next turn, as will the Salamander. I'm not sure, but I think the T2 is better than their cheap tank.

[10ebbor10]

It might, but unless the enemy are idiots, they'll design something to turn the tide.