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

[andrea]

Thunderbirds also become cheap.

[10ebbor10]

And what have we gained if we push down their naval advantage? Simple, 1TC which we can then use to make our carriers cheaper thanks to the oil on Mutriqa not being collected.

Except that won't happen, because the enemy uses their cheaper landing craft and probably a new design to capture the Jungle, rendering the extra TC useless.

Besides the idea that we're going to reduce the naval advantage is completely delusional.

The last time we reduced their advantage we had a complete monopoly on Aircraft carriers, which were cheap. We had a complete control of the seaborne aviation, we had a radar that outperformed the Cannalan's, and most of their vessels were more expensive.

This time, the enemy will have more planes in the air than we do, will have more ships than we do, has even larger ships than they had then, and will have a better radar than we do.

[Taricus]

The Thunderbird is our fighter

It'll take more than a cheaper lander to get a more definite advantage on land: The tanks and infantry it carries have to survive contact with our troops to push forward. And we still have more planes in the air due to the Wasp's nest being fielded still, they just aren't jet fighters. A light cruiser would massively improve our naval efficiency by allowing our bombers to focus on their largest ships while the cruiser focuses on the ones it can destroy.

And we need some form of control on the seas to even push forward, we cannot sit here defending all the time.

[10ebbor10]

The Thunderbird is our fighter

I fixed that, you saw nothing.

And we still have more planes in the air due to the Wasp's nest being fielded still, they just aren't jet fighters.

When the Santos was introduced, it was Very Expensive, while our carriers were cheap. At that point :

Falcon fighters now engage Stingers in almost equal number

With the Santos becoming expensive, I fully expect them to at least equal us in the air, and at worst outnumber us. In either case, they'll succeed in keeping our torpedo bombers away from their ship, preventing us from killing them.

The bigger problem is that nearly half of our carrier fleet can not support our torpedo bombers or our jet fighters, while 100% of the Cannalan fleet can do that.

And we need some form of control on the seas to even push forward, we cannot sit here defending all the time.

Which is why I'm advocating a combined use design that is useful both at sea and at land. Proximity detonated shells are an enormous improvement in naval artillery, and a lethal improvement at land.

[Sheb]

We don't have guns to throw effective proxi-fuse shells on the sea.

[10ebbor10]

We have the 300 mm coastal defense guns, with their enormous range.

Those'll do fine.

The point of the design is not to win the naval war now (which is not going to happen), but to gather advantages on land that we can then deploy at Sea, just like we did with the carrier.

[Sheb]

Their enormous range is still purely defensive. I really like your proxy fuse idea, but I'd rather design a ship with big guns that can use it first, and then deploy proxy fuse next turn to make maximal use of them before they're copied.

[Taricus]

A proximity fuse isn't going to help keep the shores safe from their landers; those things do need an actual hit to be sunk.

[10ebbor10]

The Walrus is stripped from most of it's armor. Proximity fused shells will turn near misses into serious damage. On the beach, they'll send shrapnel everywhere.

[Taricus]

Most. Not all. And ships aren't as vulnerable to shrapnel damage.

[10ebbor10]

Even so, the proximity fuses will absolutely devastate the enemy the moment they get out of their landers.

[Sheb]

And a cruiser which improve the Overcompensator will wreck them before they exit their landers.

[10ebbor10]

Only if that improvement gets migrated back to the Overcompensator;

In addition, given our success with naval projects I highly doubt any such success will occur;

[Madman198237]

So, right now there's a lot of pointless defeatism and even more pointless garbage I'm not going into.

The way I see the war right now: We're DONE FOR at sea. It will take multiple turns' worth of investment to get even close to getting even. So, we'll have to spend that time. HOWEVER: We're not going to do that right now, as it'd ensure that we lose. The Cannalans are CATCHING US in the AIR!!!! THINK ABOUT IT. If we push out ATGMs or a new jet fighter this turn, and then the other one next turn, we can work towards the combination of AAMs (Anti-Air Missiles) and advanced jet fighters that will entirely destroy Cannala's aircraft chances.

After Cannala can't compete in the air, THEN we can go back and utilize guided-missile technology to rain death on the seas. I don't think it's necessary to beat them at their own game at sea. We'll never succeed. But if we deploy a simple motor torpedo boat/PT Boat style vessel, we can sink most of their ships. Combine that with deadlier and more plentiful aircraft, and we'll be all but unbeatable.


But MATCHING Cannala is never going to work. Too much experience working against us. Our two chances were building a sub (Still possible) and building a WWI-style battleship (They beat us to it, basically) that outguns everything they have. Those were the two pieces of shock factor that would've allowed us to make gains at sea for one or two turns.

[Taricus]

ATGMs on a fighter will be worthless, especially the wire-guided ones: They're simply too heavy and ineffective compared firecrakers to be of much use. And a new fighter would be worthless if we only have our autocannons to put on them; we need new weapons to deploy on them. Anyone who thinks that missiles are a wonder weapon that'll obliterate the cannalans are fools; it'll take far to long to even get guided missiles and those require post-war electronics.

For anti-air missiles we'll need better radar, to the point where we can mount the radar in the planes, for AAMs to be even close to effective. And we aren't done for in the sea; currently the only thing we have on the water that's remotely effective is the Z class and that's suffering from a lack of escorts. Something that we need to rectify.