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

[10ebbor10]

The Spearhead being a better interceptor only mattered when it was cheaper than Tbird, now that both are same cost, Tbirds blam enough Spearheads that they dont get to blam our bombers

They still get to blam them at Sea.

[Azzuro]

Are we?

Well then, guess what the only thing we could do in reply would be?

Oh yeah, build another jet fighter. Except with the Turbohaast, we'd ONLY have the engine tech. Not a slightly uprated cannon, not extra experience in extreme maneuverability and high speeds.

Building this fighter could conceivably allow us to go supersonic in one more jet aircraft.

And heck, if you're so certain they'll blow their research credit on it, then we design TWO jet aircraft regardless, one this turn, one the next, and suddenly *we're* two turns ahead and they can't catch up as easily.

Engine tech is King for a jet fighter. FYI the age of proper dogfighting is about to draw to a close with the advent of boom and zoom.

Also, spending two designs on jet fighters, when we could have Turbohaast and Good Future Jet, is just wasteful.

[evictedSaint]

Torpedoes account for far, far more naval kills.

Especially since we know that :
a) The torpedoes work
b) They're very effective

On a side note, there are no anti shipping missiles among the designs.

When torpedos were all there was, yeah.  Swords and spears accounted for more kills than jets, by the same arguement.

And with regards to you anti-shipping missile, it's not an option right now because we don't have the tech to pull it off; thus the saltseeker.

[Madman198237]

We design the jet fighter, then we equip BOTH our carriers with steam catapults, which will allow both of them to launch our jet fighters AND LOADED HAASTS.

With the Salamander becoming Cheap again this turn, plus cheap Cataphracts, the stolen Victoria design, cheap Thunderbirds and carriers to fly them from, plus a new Expensive jet, we can likely destroy enough Cannalan advantages to land without a dedicated lander. Land quite easily without one, in fact, as their shore defenses aren't specialized, just regular units, and we'll have Cataphract AND Victoria shore bombardment.

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

So, uh, now we're hoping to reduce them to no Naval Advantage and land in the Tundra without actual landers? That's...optimistic

We were pretty close to establishing a beachhead the last time we hit the Tundra under a Major, actually.  With the stuff listed and the cheaper Haast, we should be able to reduce to minor and pull it off.  Especially since with the stealing of the Victoria, we have a greater ability to bombard shores.

If the plan is to land on tundra we should get a lander, not parachutes.

We kinda have one with the Salamanders for infantry and them, and parachutes would help with boosting our paratrooper capabilities to help with the landings anyway, as well as assisting the jungle.  If we make a lander, it should be for tanks or something similar.

[10ebbor10]

When torpedos were all there was, yeah.  Swords and spears accounted for more kills than jets, by the same arguement.

Both torpedoes and German anti-ship missiles were deployed in WW2.

[evictedSaint]

Yes, guided missiles were deployed and effective in ww2, you are correct.

[10ebbor10]

And they were dramatically less effective than torpedoes. They're also harder for us to make. Hence, not a priority right now.

Anyway, good news on the naval theather. Canalla is forced to choose between making their jet cheaper, or making the Seaweed and Kalmar cheaper.

If they don't pick the jet, they get annihilated in the air. I mean, we fought them to a near stalemate in such a situation, and we had extra carriers and our air general. We still retain those advantages, so they'll be hit twice.
 
If they don't pick the planes, then our Cataphract gets to utterly demolish their smaller naval forces, leaving them weakened to the air.

[andrea]

Also, you are trying to design wire guided anti tank missiles, which are a far call from what was actually deployed

[Powder Miner]

Missile/Rocket
(4) UF-ATGM-41 Saltseeker' Pattern A: evictedSaint, Sheb, Stabby, S34N1C
(0) UF-A(A/T)R-41 'Saltstriker':
(0) UF-ATR41 A  "Firefly":

Aircraft
(1) UFAF-A41 "Turbohaast": Azzuro, Powder Miner
(7) UFAF-F-41 Lightning Streak: Madman198237, Zanzetkuken, Jilladilla,  10ebbor10, Piratejoe, Andrea, Powder Miner
(1) UFAF-HF41-W 'Strife': Lightforger
(0) UFAF-JF-41 'Sobriety' Pattern A
(0) UFAF-SHB-41 "Hammer of Forenia"

Tank
(3) UF-MT-41 'Demolisher': Taricus, Kashyyk, NAV
UF-HT-41 "Apocalypse"
Pattern A: 0
Pattern B: 0
Pattern C: 0
Pattern D: 0
Pattern E: 0
Pattern F: 0

Radar
(3) RDN-41-3 "DEADLIEST RAY": RAM, SMMI, NUKE9.13
(0) UFS-41-W 'Virgil':

Other
(0) Ana-G.A.P.-1941-D.F.A. Kriegblitz antimateriel rifle: 0
(0) UF-ERA-41 "Blood Eagle":

TFW I like pretty much all the designs

[Jilladilla]

Missile/Rocket
(4) UF-ATGM-41 Saltseeker' Pattern A: evictedSaint, Sheb, Stabby, S34N1C
(0) UF-A(A/T)R-41 'Saltstriker':
(0) UF-ATR41 A  "Firefly":

Aircraft
(1) UFAF-A41 "Turbohaast": Azzuro
(7) UFAF-F-41 Lightning Streak: Madman198237, Zanzetkuken, Jilladilla,  10ebbor10, Piratejoe, Andrea, Powder Miner
(1) UFAF-HF41-W 'Strife': Lightforger
(0) UFAF-JF-41 'Sobriety' Pattern A
(0) UFAF-SHB-41 "Hammer of Forenia"

Tank
(3) UF-MT-41 'Demolisher': Taricus, Kashyyk, NAV
UF-HT-41 "Apocalypse"
Pattern A: 0
Pattern B: 0
Pattern C: 0
Pattern D: 0
Pattern E: 0
Pattern F: 0

Radar
(3) RDN-41-3 "DEADLIEST RAY": RAM, SMMI, NUKE9.13
(0) UFS-41-W 'Virgil':

Other
(0) Ana-G.A.P.-1941-D.F.A. Kriegblitz antimateriel rifle: 0
(0) UF-ERA-41 "Blood Eagle":

Powder Miner, your name was on the list for both the Turbohaast and the Lightning Streak... The number change implies you changing to Lightning Streak so... I took care of it?

[Light forger]

Let me argue for the strife. First of all don't buy into the myth that maneuverability is all important. Speed is still life and by extension altitude is life. The strife offers both of those in droves and is still quite maneuverable. The point at which raw speed became less important was when guided missile became common. The thunder streak is a Vietnam era fighter and, isn't that well suited for gun focused combat. The strife however, is, it flies high, dives fast and, kills anything that gets into it's gun-sight.

On a final note that's completely unrelated to effectiveness the lighting streak is boring. Flying wings are interesting, perfectly possible and, can lead to other interesting design. I would prefer to lose with interesting designs and, off the wall design rather, then win with Wikipedia edits.

[Madman198237]

The phrase goes: Speed is life, altitude is life insurance.

And you're correct...halfway. Speed is important. Maneuverability is equally or more important. And the heck you mean the Lightning Streak isn't good for gun combat? You have not convinced me (I am biased for sure, but still) that you know anything about what you're talking about. You must be able to turn, or take hits and have backup to save you. Otherwise, the enemy just dodges his way up close, and shoots you down by out-turning you and sitting on your tail.

The Lightning Streak's entire purpose, entire reason for existing, is gun combat. It goes fast, faster than anything else yet produced because of the huge new engine it's going to be built around. It's also maneuverable, because that's what it's built to do. A flying wing can't match maneuverability, and there are times when a gun-and-run diving attack just don't work.

Like every time you are defending an installation getting attacked, and thus don't have enough time to reach high altitudes. Your argument, that maneuverability is not important, is ridiculous, Light.

[Light forger]

Where did I say maneuverability isn't important? The only thing I said was "don't buy into the myth that maneuverability is all important". A flying wing has the lowest possible drag for a air-frame design and is still maneuverable. The main way dogfighters win vs a plane with higher speed and/or altitude is by superior skill. Otherwise they will be knocked out in a single dive. Yes, if they do screw up they run the risk of getting shut down but, we have better pilots. Also it fills a niche that is open at the moment a long range fighter. If you make something really maneuverable you are going to have to trade range, firepower and, lift. Also we will still have the thunderbird for all your dogfighting needs. Also we have radar sneak attack aren't really a thing anymore unless we screw up badly.

[Madman198237]

No, but it takes so long to scramble planes at sea (Can a flying wing be used effectively at sea? For some silly unimportant reason I'm sure, it's never been done for real as a fighter) that we're still launching when the hostiles reach us.