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

[evictedSaint]

I can support this plan.  It doesn't rely on the optimism of "we can catch their navy with a single ship."

[Madman198237]

Well, of course. All warfare is risk. But the way to win is to take the right risks. I believe these are the right risks to take.

It's not "easy" at this point. This plan includes redundancies and doesn't actually need any part to function perfectly in order to reach the end goal---fully functioning missile guidance systems (Also radar in our fighter jets).

We don't expect everything to go to plan, we expect to lose ground, but I think we can recover from it.

[NAV]

Any plan that forces us to lose ground in the hope of some wonderwaffe is a bad plan.

[Taricus]

Nav's hit the issue on the head; we can't rely on a wunderwaffe and a transport plane would be useless if we lose the jungle. I mean for fuck's sake I thought we were doing cheap and effective :V

[andrea]

The guided bomb should be within our reach for one design and should have an effect on its own that should not be overlooked.

[Madman198237]

These aren't wonder weapons, though.

It's a natural evolution of tech. We're just going to roll it out faster. Force the game to change.

[evictedSaint]

Any plan that relies on us playing to Cannala's strengths rather than taking advantage of their weaknesses is a bad plan, NAV.

[Taricus]

There's one little issue in that statement: What weaknesses? They do have a well-rounded techbase.

[Madman198237]

As of right now, aircraft.

Also, their ground forces are not necessarily stronger than us, though with the creation of autoloaders and turboshafts a bit of effort might give them a lead again.

[NUKE9.13]

Whilst I approve of the plan in theory, it relies on the Cannalans doing basically nothing important that we need to react to. Remember, our Overcompensators only help prevent them from landing on the beaches. If they manage to secure a beachhead in the jungle, we must spend a design to drive them out again, else our big guns are useless.
In fairness, many of the proposed designs could help to do that. But maintaining flexibility is important.

Anyway, the plan for this turn I am fine with. I'd rather have the more vanilla Ice Giant, but turboprops can't be that hard, can they? _{(inb4 Very Hard)}

[3_14159]

[snip plan]

I definitely agree with Rev1 and Turn 2, although - assuming our radar can be shrunk sufficiently - we might actually deploy radar-guided glide bombs instead. However, I am still unsure about the Ice Giant, and I don't believe the focus on guided weapons is sustainable (coming from me, that does quite say something).

I am voting for the cruiser for now, since I believe it represents our greatest increment in capability and will greatly reduce their navy's superiority - they no longer can rely on their small ships to catch our carriers.

1 "Narwhal" guided torpedo: RAM
1 UF-ATGM-41 'Saltseeker': Stabby
0 Golden Salamander AFV:
0 Peregrine CAS with rockets:
0 Ranger improved escort destroyers with rockets:
0 Proximity fuse:
0 Overcompensator Mrk II coastal defence:
0 Maximum Effect aerial transport:
0 Sea Haul naval transport:
0 "Hunter" unoriginally named submarine:
4 Cavalier Class' Cruiser: Kashyyk, Taricus, NAV, 3_14159
0 Incompensation upgraded coatsal defence targeting and radar:
0 "Narwhal Ranger!" escort destroyer with rockets and bighuge torpedoes:
0 "Large Rock" Anti-radar bomb:
0 "Virgil" reckless radar:
0 UFAF-HAT-41 "Ice Giant":
7 UFAF-HAT-41 "Ice Giant" Model B Nuke, Andrea, Madman, evictedSaint, SMMI, 10ebbor10, Piratejoe

[10ebbor10]

ey no longer can rely on their small ships to catch our carriers.

Our carriers are slow and rare. They can use battleships to catch them.

[Sheb]

ey no longer can rely on their small ships to catch our carriers.

Our carriers are slow and rare. They can use battleships to catch them.

Which is why we need a battleship.

[3_14159]

ey no longer can rely on their small ships to catch our carriers.

Our carriers are slow and rare. They can use battleships to catch them.

"The only big downside of the Victoria is that it's slow, Forenian naval forces retreat from its sight when they can to let their planes fight it out."

[10ebbor10]

UFS-CV-40 'Zheleznogorod' B: [Very Expensive] This is Forenia's biggest ship yet; an aircraft carrier with two vertically stacked flight decks. Each deck is longer than those of the Wasp Nest, and built of steel. The lower flight deck is directly connected with the hangar deck, and can only launch aircraft. The upper flight deck can launch and recover aircraft with an arrester, which are transported from the hangar deck with a lift. Each flight deck terminates in a "ski ramp". Between some space on the top flight deck, the hangar deck's floor, and cable winches from the hangar deck ceiling, the Zeleznogorod can carry about 36 planes, but only 20 are able to quickly deploy. However, planes stored on the ceiling are prone to swinging about and often damaged during ordinary ship maneuvers. There is a launch assist system, on the lower and longer flight deck only, for heavier aircraft: a "catapult" is loaded with disposable solid-propellant rocket motors. This system, broadly speaking, works: heavier aircraft are accelerated enough to take off, but a launch fills the hangar deck with smoke for a few minutes and the rocket motors are lot more expensive than a steam system. There is a con tower as well, but no radar. The space taken up by the two flight decks, hangar, and living quarters leaves fairly little space for the engines. The ship is armed with a few AS-AC18's for point defense only, and armored with a moderate torpedo belt. It is top-heavy, and neither fast nor maneuverable

I'm fairly certain it's our destroyers who're running away.