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]

UF-LSL-39 "Tadpole": (5) GUNINANRUNIN, evictedSaint, Kashyyk, Hibou, Stabby
UF-SUB-1939 "Jonah"(1) Piratejoe
UFS-LVT-40 "Tiger Shark"
UFS-LVT-40 "Tiger Shark" Variant B (2) 3_14159, Powder Miner

Why is getting the tundra island a priority, Strongpoint? Because their getting close to Forenia will take them a while and isn't honestly a problem at the moment, because we're closer to Turbados than they are to us thanks to the Jungle. They've got land to go until they get there, and that won't be automatically easy for them to take.

What matters is resources. The team that loses the most resources inevitably loses. The plains island can be partially embattled for a while, it doesn't overly matter. But if you just let them have a resource advantage then you land us in hot water. We shouldn't try to gun right for Cannala, what we need to do is take control of the intermediate islands and the resources that come with them.

[andrea]

UF-LSL-39 "Tadpole": (5) GUNINANRUNIN, evictedSaint, Kashyyk, Hibou, Stabby
UF-SUB-1939 "Jonah"(2) Piratejoe, Andrea
UFS-LVT-40 "Tiger Shark"
UFS-LVT-40 "Tiger Shark" Variant B (2) 3_14159, Powder Miner

Voting for madness, for the sake of madness.

[Strongpoint]

UF-LSL-39 "Tadpole": (6) GUNINANRUNIN, evictedSaint, Kashyyk, Hibou, Stabby
UF-SUB-1939 "Jonah"(1) Piratejoe

Why is getting the tundra island a priority, Strongpoint? Because their getting close to Forenia will take them a while and isn't honestly a problem at the moment, because we're closer to Tubados than they are to us thanks to the Jungle. They've got land to go until they get there, and that won't be automatically easy for them to take.

What matters is resources. The team that loses the most resources inevitably loses. The plains island can be partially embattled for a while, it doesn't overly matter. But if you just let them have a respirce advantage then you land us in hot water. We shouldn't try to gun right for Cannala, what we need to do is take control of the intermediate islands and the resources that come with them.

Yes. I say exactly the same thing. We need resources. Important ones like ore, not Titanium. Territory is not very important. There will be few designs benefiting from it. It is not me who is worried about them getting closer it is GUNINANRUNIN who thinks that way.

Our focus is jungle ore. We are not far ahead there. Should we do nothing, there are a big chance that they we will not manage capture it.

We need the lander, there are no doubts about it. Few turns later after we secure Jungles. But not now... Even if we somehow capture Tundra (I don't think we have a high chance even with a very good lander. They are simply ahead on that front), we still give up initiative and likely lose on other fronts. If we design a lander and fail to capture Tundra > this equals to skipping a turn.

[andrea]

Jugnle has ore, not oil. I need to check the list, but I don't believe we even have anything that would benefit from an extra ore right now.

[Taricus]

UF-LSL-39 "Tadpole": (5) GUNINANRUNIN, evictedSaint, Kashyyk, Hibou, Stabby
UF-SUB-1939 "Jonah"(2) Piratejoe, Andrea
UFS-LVT-40 "Tiger Shark"
UFS-LVT-40 "Tiger Shark" Variant B (3) 3_14159, Powder Miner, Taricus

We don't need to land tanks, what with air superiority and bombing the everloving rum out of them. So long as we can get our infantry onto the shore and support them with heavy air cover we're solid.

[Light forger]

UFA-ISV-1939-S 'Lancer'
A multi role so called Infantry Support Vehicle the Lancer is designed to offer support to infantry units. It comes in two possible versions a light amphibious APC and a light turreted Tank Destroyer. The vehicle is steel framed and equipped with enough aluminum armor to stop small machine fire and protect it's crew from the fragments of nearby shells. The APC is armed with a top mounted 20mm autocannon and, is completely enclosed and is not only amphibious by default but can also be fitted with flotation platoons for naval landings. The tank destroyer is armed with a modified version of the 90mm bumblebee fitted with HEAT rounds. It's designed to take out Cannalan tanks from long range and is fitted with optics and stabilization in the turret for the task. The vehicle is tracked and powered by a front mounted V-12 turbo charged engine. The engine block offers some level of protection against anti-tank rounds all though not being hit is still the main protection of the vehicle; as a added benfit the vehicle is equipped with rear mounted hatches. Early worries with spalling messing with the engine where found pointless as if hit with anti-tank rounds the vehicle was going to knocked out anyway.

Crew:
APC: Driver, gunner/radioman. eight soldiers
TD: Driver, gunner, radioman, loader, commander.

At least it's useful in the jungle as well. Apposed to just being lander.

[Parsely]

We don't need to land tanks, what with air superiority and bombing the everloving rum out of them. So long as we can get our infantry onto the shore and support them with heavy air cover we're solid.

...So uh, you're saying we don't need tanks at all? Because the battle reports seriously contradict that claim that air superiority can make up for a lack of tanks, seeing as how we get cheesed by Daybreakers even when we DO have tanks. You definitely need tanks to succeed in a landing. Planes are great for harassing the enemy but there's a reason you need tanks. Tanks are especially suited for succeeding in an opposed landing, because they're great for assaults.

E: And that's the other reason why we need a lander. Not all our landings are going to be opposed, sometimes we just need to be able to get troops and gear onto a beach so we can seize a harbor to land all the rest of our stuff. An amphibious APC just can't do that job. A lander that can move ALL our medium armor onto the beach AND infantry AND gear is better than a lightly armored APC that can only move small numbers of men and material. In addition, our tanks will be able to fire from the landers, so you still get the benefits of having an APC, technically. The only reason we'd get an amphibious APC is to make inland assault crossings easier or if we're having problems with reefs, which to date there haven't been any issues with reefs.

[Strongpoint]

Yep, I was wrong.  somehow I assumed that Desert got ore and Jungles got oil. In any case denying the enemy ore is more important than denying Titanium.

UF-LSL-39 "Tadpole": (5) GUNINANRUNIN, evictedSaint, Kashyyk, Hibou, Stabby
UF-SUB-1939 "Jonah"(3) Piratejoe, Andrea, strongpoint
UFS-LVT-40 "Tiger Shark"
UFS-LVT-40 "Tiger Shark" Variant B (3) 3_14159, Powder Miner, Taricus

Voting for for what I consider the lesser evil because submarine gives useful experience in a defensive war.

I expect that enemy will design something useful for either ground warfare or airforce or navy + use the expense credit on something and that will be enough to hold Tundra even if we roll 6 on whatever lander will be voted. We can hope that will roll 1+1 but it is a slim hope.

[Powder Miner]

We attack 2 fronts Strongpoint

[Taricus]

@Gunin: Not for the initial landing. Once we're on the shore we could likely land more tanks without having to rely on more vulnerable craft. That being said we ARE at the stage where our naval invasions are still hindered by the enemy fleet advantage. We need to boost the advantage we have before considering landings.

[Parsely]

@Gunin: Not for the initial landing. Once we're on the shore we could likely land more tanks without having to rely on more vulnerable craft.

That being said we ARE at the stage where our naval invasions are still hindered by the enemy fleet advantage. We need to boost the advantage we have before considering landings.

How do you plan to do that without a small landing craft that has a shallow enough bottom that it can get onto a beach? The only other option for moving troops is the cargo ship and that's too big to get onto a beach, which means you need a harbor.

We can do that too in this same turn by revising RADAR.

[stabbymcstabstab]

UF-LSL-39 "Tadpole": (4) GUNINANRUNIN, evictedSaint, Kashyyk, Hibou,
UF-SUB-1939 "Jonah"(3) Piratejoe, Andrea, strongpoint
UFS-LVT-40 "Tiger Shark"
UFS-LVT-40 "Tiger Shark" Variant B (4) 3_14159, Powder, Miner, Taricus, Stabby

I'll switch my vote simole cause I feel a LVT has more versitlity the a Lander.

[Strongpoint]

We attack 2 fronts Strongpoint

I know. We have a small chance to get the last point of jungles without designing something useful for that front. There are even smaller chance that we will capture a point of Tundra even with a very good lander. Our enemy will not spend their turn doing nothing. Most likely they will finish their advanced hidden project whatever it is. I can name at least few that will totally wreck us (submarine\aircraft carrier\jet fighter\new heavy tank\) any of those are not countered by the landing ship at all

You are trying playing the game as if opponent is not there and doesn't try to win, too. I think going landing ship is plain wrong when we have a danger of some two turn project+expense credit.

[Taricus]

@Gunin: One point of territory is enough for us to gain a harbour to land troops and heavier equipment.

[Kashyyk]

How are we supposed to get that first point if we don't have any landers?