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

[Sheb]

The thing is: is there something which will give us enough of a benefit on air or land that it's worth researching?

Also, if we gain a submarine TC from trade sub, what would become cheaper?

Kashyyk: 10kg warhead will be useless against ships.

[Madman198237]

Rocket artillery is not a good idea until we get something along the lines of cruise missiles or some such. If we can't guide them to a target, we might as well not use them----the payload isn't enough to make use out of the hits you can get.

[10ebbor10]

UF-41-VT

This suprisingly simple design actually has enormous effect. Based on principles derived from radar, but dramatically simplified, the proximity fuse allows warheads to detonate when near an enemy target. In doing so, a near miss from a shell becomes a devastating hit, planes get torn apart by powerfull flak, and artillery explodes above ground, mowing down wave after wave of infantrymen

It is estimated that it increases the lethality by 5 to 10 times, compared to these other fuzes

The proximity fuze was one of the most important technological innovations of the war. It was so important that it was a secret guarded to a similar level as the atom bomb project or D-Day invasion.[6][7][8] Adm. Lewis L. Strauss wrote that, "One of the most original and effective military developments in World War II was the proximity, or 'VT', fuze. It was of incalculable value to both the Army and Navy, and it helped save London from obliteration. While no one invention won the war, the proximity fuze must be listed among the very small group of developments, such as radar, upon which victory very largely depended."[9] The fuze was later found to be able to detonate artillery shells in air bursts, greatly increasing their anti-personnel effects.[10]

The Proximity fuse will massively improve our artillery, anti- air and naval capacities. It's a near incomparable achievement.

And unlike the Allies, we can freely deploy it. The allies held back so that the Germans wouldnt figure anything out, but reverse engineering isn't a thing here. Well, preventing reverse enginwering isn't a thing. The enemy gets to see a list of designs.

[Kashyyk]

Kashyyk: 10kg warhead will be useless against ships.

According to google, it's the same weight as the average 90mm shell, which is what we're already using against them. It's not designed to be used against their battleships (that's what the torps and Aircraft are for), but against their cruisers and aircraft carriers.

[andrea]

Reverse engineering is TOTALLY a thing here. if they gain land we have, they can spend a revision to try to reverse engineer our stuff.
with a few complex tags added, mind you.

That said, proximity fuses are a nice idea. I don't know if our radar tech is good enough for that, but an interesting idea indeed.

[Sheb]

How about an air tanker to refuel our planes and extand their range to the point that the vulnerability of our carrier isn't an issue since we can cover everything from land?

[Madman198237]

Because midflight refueling is EXTREMELY difficult and almost requires some form of stable autopiloting system.

And not worth it when you can just deploy more aircraft from carriers.

[10ebbor10]

It's a thing, but  reducing use won't stop it.

We developed jet engines before we invented high octane fuel. Proximity fuses should be easier.

[evictedSaint]

We don't want to build a navy because if our navies are perfectly even, they they still have a Minor Naval Advantage from their naval general.  Any deficit on our part makes that a Major Naval Advantage.  That means we would have to spend multiple turns build up a navy, and they will be able to always stay one step ahead and keep us at a disadvantage.

I don't understand why people are decrying the saltseeker.  We have most of the tech, the only new thing we're making is the guidance.  Even if we do a wireguided torp, we still need to design a guidance system.  The saltseeker at least has potential to 1) get us into guided missiles 2) provide an armor bonus 3) a defensive bonus 4) possibly a landing bonus, if we get them on the salamander.

[10ebbor10]

We don't want to build a navy because if our navies are perfectly even, they they still have a Minor Naval Advantage from their naval general.  Any deficit on our part makes that a Major Naval Advantage.  That means we would have to spend multiple turns build up a navy, and they will be able to always stay one step ahead and keep us at a disadvantage.

Not one steps. Multiple.

Note how the 300 mm cannon they put on their battleships is better than ours, with higher firerate and better tracking. They get a serious advsntage in naval designs due to an experience we simply csn't match.

[evictedSaint]

Well, part of that was the crap roll.  We got a 2, I'm surprised they work at all.

[10ebbor10]

Normal:
A normal design advances your technology one "step" in a certain area, making it noticeably better. For example, you might build a cannon which fires shells about 50% larger than your existing ones, a machine gun which uses a new more effective type of action, your biggest ship yet, and so on. This is often the difficulty of a revision to remove a bug in an existing design.
1: The design suffers a pretty severe bug and the main advancement in technology probably isn't accomplished.
2: The design suffers a bug but the advancement in technology might be effective, or it works without any notable problems except that it isn't remarkably effective.
3: The design succeeds. It might suffer a minor bug, but it won't be crippling and probably won't affect future uses of the new technology.
4-5: The design succeeds.
6: The design might accomplish something better than planned. As with bugs, this depends on whether I can think of a way this makes sense

Not being ambitious has advantages.

[Happerry]

While I agree that at this point trying to match them battlecruiser to battlecruiser is a bad idea, I would like to get an actual landing craft sometime so we aren't limited to trying to deploy through floating APCs.

But I'd totally support Proximity fuse research this turn.

[evictedSaint]

I likewise agree that a landing craft is a good thing to produce this turn.  We should do that as a revision, with the Archer.

And, if we're going to be making landing craft, then a better force to deploy multiplies the effect quite nicely.  That's why I want to put out the saltseeker missile package for our design; if not that specifically, then anything else that is a ground-unit or air-unit bonus.  ERA, a new tank, a new jet (either to maintain air superiority or to make a jet bomber that can carry 2 TC).

Just...no naval inventions, please.  They won't have an appreciable effect on the next turn, no matter how well we roll (aside from maybe a sub).

(1) UF-ATGM-41 'Saltseeker': evictedSaint

[stabbymcstabstab]

(2) UF-ATGM-41 'Saltseeker': evictedSaint, Stabby