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

[Strongpoint]

How do you expect to add an additional transport point in the design?

[RAM]

Would it be possible to revise a correction to the faulty system in the base model while also retro-fitting an alternate version? We could try to make a combat-drop version with a couple of turrets from our bomber and some internal accoutrements for dropping, such as rails to slide cargo along and rings/bars for crew and paratroops to secure themselves to when they don't want to fall out...

Subs aren't going to be that helpful since they already have defense a against them and two world ears have proven that focusing on subs doesn't win the naval war.

I would say that World War II made a pretty good argument for submarines. The problems seem to have mostly been communication-based but all sides still used them quite effectively. And defences are good, but the main issue of a submarine is finding it in the first place. You can't just scour the whole sea in hopes of spotting them. Sure, it'll happen but most of them will doe their thing, occasionally pop up for some air and a look around, then pop down again with nobody any the wiser. They CAN block ports and straights, but there don't seem to be many straights and if we can't secure a port than we have more pressing issues, assuming that they even need a port(which is a fair assumption given current expertise)

I'm trying to emphasize what we really need out of this thing. Namely, plentiful-ness.

Actually, I think it'd be fine at Expensive.

Given that our transport ship is only 1 TC, I find it difficult to imagine that capacity will get us 2 TC. I only see 2 TC by air happening from a combination of 'enough' capacity combined with massive quantities.

[NUKE9.13]

NUKE9.13 - Today at 10:03 PM
@Sensei can we add features at the same time as we fix bugs?
Sensei - Today at 10:05 PM
Maybe, but it increases difficulty.

Adding an entire point of TC may be overambitious. On the other hand, fixing this bug should be trivial (I mean, how could we possibly fail to fix it?). What are some simple features we could add to make this better, without trying to double the cargo capacity?

[Taricus]

Not really, since another TC is basically up-powering the engines and strengthening the frame for such a load essentially. Both of which will help it in paradrops by making it faster and more stable.

[RAM]

Or we could improve its fuel-consumption, get another oil from somewhere, and cover the skies with them. But I didn't spot anything in the rules about quantities increasing transport capacity...

Then again, we could cut off the tail on one, the cockpit of another, weld them together and double the wings and engines...

[Strongpoint]

General reliability
Optional defensive armament
Low noise engines
Further fuel efficiency
Rocket assisted take-off for short runways

I prefer going for general reliability because it is less likely to backfire
Another TC is just greedy and very likely to fail. We need to make it able to carry two times more cargo without increasing cost...

[Light forger]

Just a heads up they didn't use their espionage credit to mess with the transport... So that's still out there; honestly it makes me want to kill whoever added the doors in more. For the extra TC point I think we can wing it. As I have noted a lot they go one as a side bonus on a bomber so getting two on a dedicated transport shouldn't be impossible.

[Taricus]

Cost isn't likely to affect the TC it can bring in. If it did the CV22 would be bringing in 3 TC.

[NUKE9.13]

General reliability

Actually, yeah, just small tweaks to improve reliability and performance is probably best.

"Reckless Effort" Pattern B:
-Fix the cargo jettison mechanism activating at the slightest bump. If necessary, remove it altogether.
-Optimise engine performance through extensive testing.
-Use flight data from prototypes to identify weak points in the structure and reinforce them.
-Standardise as many parts as possible in order to make maintenance easier.

Plan Corrective Measures: (2) Lightforger, Khan Boyzitbig
Pattern B (General performance and reliability): (1) NUKE9.13

[andrea]

New edition of the war bulletin, new edition out after a missed quarter!

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Taricus]

Plan Corrective Measures: (2) Lightforger, Khan Boyzitbig
Pattern B (General performance and reliability): (2) NUKE9.13, Taricus

[Kashyyk]

Any reason why more planes doesn't equal a TC increase? Is it just a balance thing?

As fixing the cargo doors is, as said, pretty straightforward, maybe we could jam a ventral gun position in there? Give it a bit of self-defence on the off chance they beat us in the air game for a turn?

[Sensei]

Fair warning, getting 2 TC out of this plane is quite unlikely. You could probably get 2 TC out of a plane, but not this one. The Cannalans got 1 TC out of a similar plane with all four engines turbocharged, but it has bombing capability and no cargo ramp.

Generally, the quantity of something affecting TC leads to weird scenarios like when the TC something would give if it was a lower price would be enough to make it change in price, or something. I just prefer not to touch it and assume that the price just affects military operations.

[helmacon]

If we can make it to land on short runways, we can land them on our carriers. Not sure how much that does for us.. but it's a thing.

[Strongpoint]

Plan Corrective Measures: (2) Lightforger, Khan Boyzitbig
Pattern B (General performance and reliability): (3) NUKE9.13, Taricus, Strongpoint

we can land them on our carriers.

No. We can't. Even modern nuclear powered super carriers can't accept aircrafts of that size