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

[NUKE9.13]

Why are carriers and seaplanes mutually exclusive?

They aren't. Kot is arguing for a 100% seaplane 'navy'. I think the other side in the argument would be fine with a few seaplanes.

[Mulisa]

Why are carriers and seaplanes mutually exclusive?

Because we're stubborn like that.

More serious answer? People are stingy with their design actions.

[Khan Boyzitbig]

Why are carriers and seaplanes mutually exclusive?

Time constraints I believe, In the long term both are viable (carriers more so due to jet aircraft being much harder to adapt to sea landings)

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

Why are carriers and seaplanes mutually exclusive?

Time constraints I believe, In the long term both are viable (carriers more so due to jet aircraft being much harder to adapt to sea landings)

Minor tangent from the discord: Jet engines and Radar really shouldn't be in the same category.  Went through a discussion on it, and I found the former is a hell of a lot harder to make than the latter, so it really should be bumped up or Radar bumped down.

[Khan Boyzitbig]

In the extreme long term is what I meant. I don't expect jet aircraft on either side for a long time (likely post war).

[Sensei]

We'll see, I may very well make it a different difficulty. MAYBE.

Also, in retrospect, I'm not sure if I meant to refer to Tereshkova as female or not. While he/she shares a name with the famous woman cosmonaut, that is a surname and therefore gender neutral. I'm not even sure what I meant to write late last night, so altogether the question is up in the air.

[Kot]

While he/she shares a name with the famous woman cosmonaut, that is a surname and therefore gender neutral.

It's not gender neutral. That's now how Slavic languages work. Male version would be Tereshkov.

Why are carriers and seaplanes mutually exclusive?

They aren't. Kot is arguing for a 100% seaplane 'navy'. I think the other side in the argument would be fine with a few seaplanes.

What you want is seaplanes that do nothing. What I want is seaplanes that actually do a thing. I'm for 100% seaplane "navy" because otherwise you're just going to not use my great idea of seaplanes. ;_;

[helmacon]

I believe when jet engines were created IRL it was cause they rolled a 6. Don't quite remember the details, but I did a thing on it for school once long ago.

[Khan Boyzitbig]

I am quite happy regardless of gender of the general, though a female general stands out more (and Russian airforce women were very effective).

[NUKE9.13]

We'll see, I may very well make it a different difficulty. MAYBE.

Also, in retrospect, I'm not sure if I meant to refer to Tereshkova as female or not. While he/she shares a name with the famous woman cosmonaut, that is a surname and therefore gender neutral. I'm not even sure what I meant to write late last night, so altogether the question is up in the air.

Make them female, why not. If we allow women into the military, that doubles our recruitment base!

(I am aware that women played a vital part in war by staying home and working in industry and agriculture, and so any recruitment of women would have to lead to a reduced recruitment of men in order to leave behind enough people to keep the lights on in the bullet factory)

[Mulisa]

We'll see, I may very well make it a different difficulty. MAYBE.

Also, in retrospect, I'm not sure if I meant to refer to Tereshkova as female or not. While he/she shares a name with the famous woman cosmonaut, that is a surname and therefore gender neutral. I'm not even sure what I meant to write late last night, so altogether the question is up in the air.

Make them female, why not. If we allow women into the military, that doubles our recruitment base!

(I am aware that women played a vital part in war by staying home and working in industry and agriculture, and so any recruitment of women would have to lead to a reduced recruitment of men in order to leave behind enough people to keep the lights on in the bullet factory)

I'll just leave this here. You can count it as a vote for Tershekova being a she if you wish to.

[evictedSaint]

If we have to choose between a destroyer/carrier navy and a seaplane navy, then the destroyer/carrier navy is better.

[Kot]

It's better while giving the Cannalans time to catch up in other fields, thus rendering our better weapons not that much better, or giving Cannalans time to make their navy even better, resulting in our navy being shit anyway.

Also, shameless shilling.

[Taricus]

Well the problem with developing seaplanes is that it does take up a design action which we could use to better effect either on the navy or our ground-based aircraft (Or carrier craft)

[Kot]

Well the problem with developing seaplanes is that it does take up a design action which we could use to better effect either on the navy or our ground-based aircraft (Or carrier craft)

What better effect? Weak expensive carriers that carry barely any planes as opposed to cheap seaplanes that can now strike enemy everywhere? And we could use them as dedicated torpedo planes, which we probably want and don't need for ground, and we could make them better due to lack of various problems of carrier borne planes.