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

[Powder Miner]

I'm surprised by how long it turned out myself.

Let me try to help out a bit by summarizing.

Basically, it boils down to this: The turn progression supports the coastal defenses as initially successful, and specifically citing whether they are destroyed or not rather than if they are successful seems to me a way to try to get around this, and thusly it becomes pretty darn easy for me to argue that they matched the Cannalans; it is the change in resources and not the effectiveness of the Overcompensators that caused the sweep last turn -- a Massive Naval Advantage is not going to be stopped cold by setting up shore defenses.

Your other assertions, around the plane, are also based off of false assumptions. Though I was wrong about the Spearhead being referenced as a better interceptor, the fact remains that they're not going to be shooting down our bombers if they've been shot down themselves -- air superiority matters, and when it comes to deciding air superiority the Thunderbird shoots the Spearhead down better than vice versa, making it superior to the Spearhead plane-to-plane. The problem had been complexity, which they didn't have because they had done engine work the previous turn on the Bull.

Then you ask why they had Massive Naval Advantage if the Thunderbird is so superior, and that's a pretty easy answer. First of all, you state that our "cheaper jet" wasn't mentioned, and that their carriers didn't give jet numerical superiority, but these are both factually wrong statements. We don't have a cheaper jet this turn, because changes in TC happen the turn after making the transports, not the turn they are introduced. We would have had Cheap Thunderbirds if we had held the jungle one more turn, but we did not. This also means that they did have numerical jet superiority over us: Expensive Tbirds coming off of Very Expensive Zheleznogorods, and Expensive Spearheads coming off of now-Expensive Santos.

But even that doesn't mention the clear and obvious reason why they beat us so badly at sea, which doesn't even come close to implying thunderbird inferiority, a reason so plain that you can't ignore it: They now have a LOT more ships than last turn, a LOT, and that fairly clearly matters on the naval front.

[10ebbor10]

I'll counter with a few points.


Turn progression does not confirm the 300 mm as initially succesfull. We prevented Naval Canallan invasions before the introduction of the 300 mm artillery. Attributing the victory to artillery is a mistake. The turn states :

By the time Cannala hits the shore, some of their Walrus landers have been torpedoed and a portion of their Victoria Battlecruisers have been lost. They are capable of shore bombardment within a good distance of the coast (when men on the ground can provide accurate coordinates) but eventually the Forenians, who still have an advantage in infantry combat and benefit from their now-cheaper Salamander, drive Cannalan forces back

It was a combination of air, vehicles, infantry and the 300 mm that did it. Attributing the victory entirely too the 300mm, as you insist on doing, is highly misleading.

It's better to look to what is actually said in the turn reports :

A portion of the Victorias were destroyed. Not all of them, not even the majority. A portion. Meanwhile, our entire coastal artillery in the relevant section was lost. So, it's my assertion that our artillery is inferior, but our pre-existing advantage + cheaper Salamander overcame that weakness.

Though I was wrong about the Spearhead being referenced as a better interceptor, the fact remains that they're not going to be shooting down our bombers if they've been shot down themselves -- air superiority matters, and when it comes to deciding air superiority the Thunderbird shoots the Spearhead down better than vice versa, making it superior to the Spearhead plane-to-plane

That's a value judgement, and one I consider incorrect. Our 300mm cannon  bunkers got bombed because we couldn't stop the enemy bombers, while the enemy did not need to worry about our bombers because they got intercepted and destroyed. It is a lot harder to destroy all interceptors than it is to stop a meaningfull amount of bombers.

The problem had been complexity, which they didn't have because they had done engine work the previous turn on the Bull.

Remember, we did 2 engine revisions. One for power, one for complexity. If it were 1 and 1, it would've been fair.

Besides, those engine issues are still troubling us. Despite rolling a 6 our bomber still got weak engines. Oh, and our revisiin made our engines more expensive.

Expensive Tbirds coming off of Very Expensive Zheleznogorods, and Expensive Spearheads coming off of now-Expensive Santos.

Z-class is 50% larger, so that should not be an issue. We should still have numerical parity in jets.

The problem is noted in the turn :

Despite the fact that Forenian aircraft and torpedoes are still very effective at doing their jobs, too many of them get shot down by Cannalan aircraft to eliminate Cannalan fleets by themselves

The enemies interceptor jet intercepts our bombers. Our fighters superior dogfighting ability can not safeguard our bombers, because it can't shoot down 100% of all planes.

[Madman198237]

Alrighty, so, what on earth did this argument start for? What is it about? I can't see any point to be made, any advantage to be gained by debating this.

[10ebbor10]

It's a confusing story.

Started of with :

Why would it? We literally haven't tried to match cannala ever.

Aside from the radar, 300 mm cannon, radar targeting systems, the Z, the cheap jet, and the Archer, you're right.

From there it, it derailed a bit.

The big point of discussion appears to be whether some of those designs were successful at matching Canalla or not. This is primarily an issue of definition.

Powdergamer thinks a design matches if it affects the turn. I think it's successful if it's better than the Canallan counterpart.

For example : Powergamer thinks the 300 mm Cannons match the Canallan battleship, because it's noted to affect the turn. I think they do not match, because the design description notes that they do not have fire control, fire slower, and the turn description says they're being blown up.

[Madman198237]

A design is successful if it accomplishes the intended purpose.

The Cannalan Bull was successful because they got a turboshaft functioning, even if the tank itself just isn't good enough.

The 300mm gun is successful because it did damage to their landing forces, and paved the way for the 150mm we're about to deploy. It wasn't supposed to single-handedly (Single-barreledly?) win the war/protect our beaches, and it won't, because it wasn't designed to.

The Archer was successful, sacrificial though it is, because it beat down their naval advantage and gave us a basis in ship construction, even if it's not yet working as a destroyer.

The ERA did not work, because it did not add to the protection of our tanks. The Infantry QoL did not work, because it did not increase the effectiveness of our infantry in measureable ways. Save for the fluff comment on the evidently coin-flipping battle for the mountain.


If it meets the goals presented, it is an effective design. This cruiser is supposed to single-handedly destroy most of their navy. If it cannot, it can then be judged as less effective than it should be.

[10ebbor10]

A design is successful if it accomplishes the intended purpose.

We're not discussing if the design is succesfull though. At least, I'm not.

The entire discussion is about whether or not it matches what Canalla designed.

[Madman198237]

I'm arguing that it doesn't matter---if it's not meant to match or beat Cannala, then why judge it based on whether or not it does?

[10ebbor10]

Because that's the question that was asked.

When discussing whether or not our design matches theirs, obviously you judge it based on whether or not it matches theirs in performance. Not on whether or not it affects the battle.

[Madman198237]

Yeah. The question of matching is NOT based on "Does it make an impact?" because the Archer made an impact, but, even though it was playing Battleship, didn't come even CLOSE to matching the Cannalan equivalents, obviously.

Instead, we have to rely on Sensei's comments and battle reports---if we're just beating them in the sky, our aircraft are equal. Most likely. If we're *just* being beaten at sea, then we've tied them (Not likely). On land, a tie is a tie a tie, as generals don't really affect enough there....theoretically.

[Sheb]

If we're going for a cruiser, why don't we add a few torpedo tubes to it? We got decent torpedoes, and that would give it more punch against bigger ships.

[Madman198237]

Because if this thing has entered Dolphin range, it's screwed.

It is built to do what needs to be done, not do everything. It can't take 6inch hits at close range, and you've got to get EVEN CLOSER THAN THAT to use the Dolphin.
You'd be putting a gun cruiser within spitting distance of a heavier warship. Not to mention, it's built to be ALWAYS MOVING AWAY and such. It outmaneuvers, prevents itself from getting killed by the simple expedient of being faster than them.

[evictedSaint]

Lets also give it the ability to carry 1 tonne of bombs

[Sheb]

It worked fairly well for the japanese cruisers of WWII.

[VoidSlayer]

Lets also give it the ability to carry 1 tonne of bombs

I seriously hope it can hold more then a ton of ammunition.

All joking aside, if you want a more ambitious project it is better to go for one right off the bat, like a full battle cruiser or 10ebbor10's submarine or one that included a smaller radar guidance system, rather then picking something easy/normal and adding feature creep.

[NUKE9.13]

We can add torpedo tubes later when we develop a proper naval torpedo. As has been pointed out, the Dolphin's range isn't really suitable for ship-ship use.