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

[Kashyyk]

 Does the Arbalest need five turrets? If we particularly desire five guns we could move the smokestacks closer together, and then make one of the turrets a double.

[evictedSaint]

I'm simply basing it off a highly-successful real-world ship. 

In the grand scheme of things, I doubt saying putting the turret forwards vs amidships will affect the performance in-game even the smallest amount.  It's not exactly a pursuit ship anyways, and I would be shocked if it ultimately mattered where the fifth turret was placed.

[NUKE9.13]

Hmm. On the one hand, IRL things were usually built that way for a reason. On the other, just blindly following history is kinda boring.

I mean, we can use our foreknowledge to our advantage here, right? Unlike actual WWII ship designers, we know that missiles are the future. Perhaps we should set up the Arbalest for conversion into a DDG ahead of time. Like, scrap the fifth turret entirely (for weight), and specify that one of the other sets is modular and can easily be replaced with other weapon systems.

[evictedSaint]

Not a bad thought, I can specify that the amidship turret is modular for later ASM implementation.

[Taricus]

The thing is that the fletcher didn't have a turret between smokestacks. It was 3 turrets in the back and two at the front.

[evictedSaint]

The thing is that the fletcher didn't have a turret between smokestacks. It was 3 turrets in the back and two at the front.

It features five 130 mm closed-in turrets; two on the bow, two on the stern, and one amidships behind the twin smokestacks

[Taricus]

Wouldn't that be better written as three on the stern? Because I got tripped up by that sentence.

[10ebbor10]

Actually, thinking about it the Arbalest is mostly pointless. The Cataphract is already a cheap design, so why would we make a smaller ship? What advantage do we get from that?

If we want sonar, we should design sonar. Better odds of success because we don't include an entire ship.
Torpedoes can (IIRC) be freely swapped onto and off ships. So, if we want them, we just need to make a good shipboard torpedo.

[evictedSaint]

Wouldn't that be better written as three on the stern? Because I got tripped up by that sentence.

Idk how else to describe it, man

Actually, thinking about it the Arbalest is mostly pointless. The Cataphract is already a cheap design, so why would we make a smaller ship? What advantage do we get from that?

Sonar, defense against seamines, improved landing capabilities, anti-torpedo ships, an actually useful destroyer.  The DD is mostly just a carrier for the sonar tech.

[Shadowclaw777]

Wild Ride (w/ research credit) (5): QuakeIV, Zanzetkuken, NAV, Funk, SC
UFN-HA-43 'Frightening' (2): Powder Miner, Madman
UFAF-F-43 "Grey Owl' (1): Lightforge
UFS-DD-43 "Arbalest" (7): RAM, eS, Kashyyk, NUKE9.13, McHuman, Taricus, Happerry

Yeah I’m a ghost of a voter here and have been mostly a lurker for this race, but I did join your side. I see more benefit out a of a improved missile than an altered Cataphract, that could eventually lead to guided missile cruisers and w/e

@10ebbor than shouldn’t we further down our guided missile technology?, i don’t know what else to go for

[10ebbor10]

Sonar, defense against seamines, improved landing capabilities, anti-torpedo ships, an actually useful destroyer

1) Better done by a dedicated sonar design
2) Better done by a dedicated sonar design
3) Landing capabilities are not included anywhere in the design, as far as I see
4) Perhaps a tiny advantage due to amount of guns, but are those even a major problem?
5) Replacing a design which I don't think we use anymore is kind of pointless. The Cataphract is cheap, it can fill in perfectly.

The Arbalest is called a destroyer to make us compare it to our Archer, but the reality is that it's far closer to the Cataphract in size, armor and weaponry. Here, let's compare those 2.

- Anti air defense :
    - Cataphract : Some
    - Arbalest : None
- Armor
    - Cataphract : Light + Heavy turrets
    - Arbalest : Light
- Weaponry :
    - Cataphract : 3*3*150 mm
    - Arbalest : 5*130 mm + Torpedoes?

As far as I can see, the Arbalest is nothing but a slightly smaller, worse Cataphract. We gain very little from it's design.

[evictedSaint]

1) then vote for the clickbait
2) then vote for the clickbait
3) seamines have literally been mentioned as a major problem for every landing
4) read the battle report
5) if the cataphract was fulfilling the DD role already, then the problems listed wouldn't have been mentioned

I mean, yeah, if you compare a DD to a CA then the CA wins every time, I guess?

[10ebbor10]

Actually, I reread the update, and it seems that torpedo boats and mines are big problem.

The questions is : "How"?

In update 14, this is said :

Corsair Cruisers take a lot of losses to Archers which are now being kept back to protect the fleet in greater numbers.

So, we know that the Corsair Cruiser is being beaten by the Archer.

Canalla's torpedoes and torpedo boat are legacy equipment. They're ancient. How are they still effective?
Canalla has never upgraded either it's torpedo boats or it's torpedoes. Our torpedoes have constantly been hailed as being very good and being something that allowed us to stop Canalla's complete dominance.

So, how does (now that we have a firepower advantage) it suddenly turn around. If our torpedo is better (and it's been described like that for multiple turns) how come that Canalla suddenly uses their torpedoes as an advantage?

[Jilladilla]

Main point of the Arbalest is to actually get a destroyer which can fulfill the original destroyer role: That of being a torpedo boat destroyer.
The fact that it can do minesweeping is a good bonus.


Pre-Post Edit:
...Uh... That is a good question, ebbor... Sensei? Mind enlightening us on just why the Archer can't fulfill the original Destroyer role? I thought it was due to them escorting their torpedo boats with their DD's... But apparently not..

[10ebbor10]

Main point of the Arbalest is to actually get a destroyer which can fulfill the original destroyer role: That of being a torpedo boat destroyer.

I still don't see how it's suddenly supposed to be a good destroyer though? It doesn't become a destroyer because you changed it's name.

It's guns are marginally smaller, and it has a few fewer of them, but that's it.