We're losing track of the goalposts.
I think that we have vastly different goalposts in the first place. You want designs to match on your own terms, but I'm counting by terms of turn effectiveness.
The original item of discussion was us trying to match Canalla and failing.
And that's what I've been discussing.
Now, let's look at the turn results.
Jungle 1 : Coastal defenses destroyed
Coastal defenses kept them off of the island, despite new battleships used with an expense credit. Good result.
Jungle 2 : Coastal defenses destroyed
Mount Constantin : Not mentioned, presumed destroyed
They did not do so, bad result.
Combine that with the design information literally saying that the Canallan gun is more accurate and fires faster, I can't see how you could ever assert that the design did not fail in matching Cannalla.
It's fairly easy to make that assertion, actually, you just have to go off of the results rather than semantically bypass them. During their first turn of existence, before the ore kicked in and ruined everything, they held the Cannalans at bay. This was their purpose.
Of course, it's not 100% useless, but that is a strawman you made up that does not represent my argument.
It was never a matter of making a strawman up for you, it was always a matter of arguing on terms of the actual progression of the game.
Put an equal amount of resources worth of coastal guns versus Victorias, and the Victorias will win.
Wasn't the Victorias that won the turn last turn but the overall Massive Naval Disadvantage and drop in cost of multiple ships that caused it. There's no way shore batteries are going to cancel this out.
The turn where the Spearheads and Tbirds clash over sea specifically mentions that the Thunderbird planes are somewhat superior dogfighters to the Spearheads. The turns are better sources of evidence than your comparisons of our designs, because your comparisons are unfailingly pessimistic and unfailingly portray Cannalan designs in a better light
What is so unfair about my comparisons? I want to compare jet engines. So, I look at our jet performance and the enemy jet performance. The description then explicitedly states :
Despite carrying more weight, it's very nearly as fast as the Thunderbird,
The engine itself is not inferior to the Tbird engine, for the reason I stated earlier: they worked on it over the course of two designs, the Bull being the first turn of work.
Which clearly makes my point.
Which then falls apart when you look at the actual description of performance of the turn:
The heavy cannon in the Spearhead is best suited for hunting bombers (which it does extremely well) but isn't a huge advantage in regular dogfights, not enough to make up for its greater weight. The Thunderbird is somewhat a better dogfighter[...]
This line is a very important one. It does actually mean I was wrong earlier about the bomber hunter statement, but this right here is the statement of plane-to-plane performance between the Thunderbird and the Spearhead: The Thunderbird is successful.
The turns do not support your argument. Not unless you cherrypick the lines you want.
I would say that that charge is better leveled against you: I am going off of the progression of the turns and the specific lines I
do choose, when I choose them, are the most pivotal. You on the other hand are choosing much more specific lines, counter to the overall turn progression, to core your arguments off of, like the line about a gap being created in the Overcompensators when they nonetheless did enough damage to make the landing untenable that turn.
The heavy cannon in the Spearhead is best suited for hunting bombers (which it does extremely well) but isn't a huge advantage in regular dogfights, not enough to make up for its greater weight. The Thunderbird is somewhat a better dogfighter; it can't quite turn as tight as low speeds but it can climb and maintain energy better. Forenians maintain an air advantage thanks to their better training, and the capacity of their carriers (don't forget that the Wasp Nest is still in service as well) which helps somewhat to offset the fact that their jets are bloody expensive
The Spearhead is the better Bomberhunter, the Thunderbird is the better dogfighter. Both designs have their own advantages and disadvantages, but the designs are equal.
This statement has more truth to it, but nonetheless overall air superiority is much more decisive than individual bomber-hunter ability for a fairly simple reason: You can't kill a bomber if you're dead.
If the Thunderbird was so superior, why didn't we rule the Sea this turn? Our cheaper jet wasn't even mentioned.
(A lot) more ships, same reason it says in the turn. It's a pretty big change and nowhere near one you can get away with ignoring.
A notable mistake with this argument, though: our Thunderbird didn't become cheaper this turn, though. TC effects do not come in the same turn a transport is designed, they come in the turn after, so we in fact don't have a cheaper jet...
Before you bring up your old argument : We have the same amount of planes at Sea than them now. They didn't flood the skies, they just eliminated our previous numerical superiority. The naval areas are an equal battleground, and the result there is equality.
...which changes the context here quite a bit. We haven't made our jets cheap, they're just as expensive as before, but now the (already Expensive) Spearheads are being deployed from now Expensive Santos, as opposed to presently Very Expensive Zheleznogorods -- in terms of jets, there is in fact a pretty clear numerical advantage on their side.
Poll
17 (16%)
Author
Topic: Intercontinental Arms Race: Finale (Read 601710 times)