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

[Azzuro]

Artillery won't help much in the jungle, we either need to assert our air superiority or work on direct combat ground units like our armour or infantry.

Trees get in the way? Those trees will be exploded and add to the shrapnel fragments, creating an airburst effect. Admittedly this might be balanced out by other trees in the way. But when I was in the army, our artillery drill was to get off the track, yes, but not because the vegetation provided better cover from artillery. It was because artillery was generally pre-targeted in killboxes that usually extended along roads to kill convoys, and to get out of sight of aerial observation.

Anyway, another reason why artillery is also stated to be less effective in jungle is due to mobility issues. Which Nuke's proposal solves by being truck mounted and thus able to travel on the same roads that our trucks have been moving through already, at greater speed.

Not hubris, simply they don't actually plan to take and hold it. They just want a buffer between us and their homeland.

@Azzurro: yes, they designed a carrier this turn.
But our fighter isn't a reactive move: it was planned last turn and it is meant to be what the haast never was, learning our lessons from that design failure ( kind of. it is still a great plane). We rely a lot on air superiority, but until we get a better craft we are on the edge of losing it.
Rocket artillery is nice, but I don't see it as a big priority, although I really like it.

Hmmm, if so the Cannalans really misjudged the importance of resources. Or simply the importance of denying said resources to us. I supposed that could be true, given that they already had progress in the other two lanes though.

Again, we still have air superiority. I know it's hypocritical, but I would rather wait till we actually lose it to design a new fighter, especially with our new emphasis on pushing the Jungle.

Honestly, I was completely surprised by the new Cannalan carrier, because I was thinking they should go for a ground design/revision to secure the Jungle. Hubris?

Well, we've seen how it helped them gain a foothold on Mt. Konstantin. But yeah, if they'd gone for the knockout punch in the Jungle we could be facing them in the desert this turn.

I would argue that taking the entire plains and Mt Konstantin island would not be as damaging to us as losing the desert oil would be, but I'm not going to look a gift horse in the mouth.

[Taricus]

Our aircraft are more than capable of killing those convoys with mass firecracker bombing runs. And a truck mounted system may not be mobile enough for our needs especially if we're pre-targeting certain areas. with it. Now the Tiger truck we're mounting it on is capable of off-road travel, and was designed with it in mind (Especially since it gave less sore asses than Arstotzka's one ) but the trees and other vegetation will be an issue. If we want artillery, we need it mounted on a tracked chassis to actually push through vegetation. (The Salamander has a larger mass and is amphibious so is fairly suitable for jungle operation despite the wheeled chassis)

[andrea]

Actually, how feasible would it be to adapt a salamander for the rocket artillery?

[Taricus]

Uhhh... I'd say you'd be better off developing something like the calliope for the T33 or the demolisher.

[Mulisa]

Artillery won't help much in the jungle, we either need to assert our air superiority or work on direct combat ground units like our armour or infantry.

That's what the Blood Eagle is for, when we get to revision phase.

[NUKE9.13]

If only we could discuss things with our generals. They might be more suited to telling us what would be more useful, artillery or greater air superiority. Obviously both would be useful to some degree. Both would increase our ability to bombard enemy fortifications, take out convoys moving along roads, and generally make life miserable for the Cannalans.
...
Eh, I'm going with the rocket artillery. It's something new and unexpected. Though I'm not locked in.

0 Banana Salad Assault Carrier:
0 UFS-DD-40 Pattern A 'Ranger':
2 UFAF-LF40-S 'Zilant':  Lightforger, Andrea
4 Multiple Rocket Launcher UF-MRL-40 ‘SARUKH’: Mulisa, Kashyyk, Azzuro, NUKE9.13
1 UF-40-H/MB-T 'Demolisher': Taricus
1 Design: UFAF-F39 'Fuckbringer': Powder Miner
-But name it the Birdeater (1): Powder Miner

[...] If we want artillery, we need it mounted on a tracked chassis to actually push through vegetation.

One of the main benefits of rocket artillery is that it doesn't need a fancy tracked vehicle to move it around, it's light enough to fit on the back of a truck. Also, I don't think the Jungle was uninhabited before we arrived. There are roads through it, albeit not very good ones. Our trucks might not be able to get everywhere, but they can get within 7,500m of everywhere, which is the same thing.

[andrea]

Artillery won't help much in the jungle, we either need to assert our air superiority or work on direct combat ground units like our armour or infantry.

That's what the Blood Eagle is for, when we get to revision phase.

No, bad you bad. No blood eagle on revision. lets get it in a proper design. or if a revision, at least with a research credit.

[Azzuro]

Our aircraft are more than capable of killing those convoys with mass firecracker bombing runs. And a truck mounted system may not be mobile enough for our needs especially if we're pre-targeting certain areas. with it. Now the Tiger truck we're mounting it on is capable of off-road travel, and was designed with it in mind (Especially since it gave less sore asses than Arstotzka's one ) but the trees and other vegetation will be an issue. If we want artillery, we need it mounted on a tracked chassis to actually push through vegetation. (The Salamander has a larger mass and is amphibious so is fairly suitable for jungle operation despite the wheeled chassis)

Those aircraft are also vulnerable to being shot down by AA fire, even if they're the Haast. To shoot down a rocket takes a level of technology that won't be here for another 40+ years. Also, I was referring to mobile in the sense of being able to shoot-and-scoot quickly, not bashing through jungle. You can't expect to fire artillery, rocket or not, from within the vegetation. And you can't have it both ways, if the jungle is dense enough to provide significant artillery cover as you previously said, it is most assuredly dense enough to block vehicles from going offroad, tracked or wheeled.

If only we could discuss things with our generals.

If you're referring to the Theatre Commander bit from Wands Race, I liked it at first to give the thread direction but then realised it was really the GM saying more explicitly what we needed to design rather than subtly implying it via the combat reports. I preferred the greater latitude available without the Theatre Commander telling us what to do, which is less fun in my opinion.

[Kot]

Rocket artillery should be capable of being mounted on EVERYTHING, from our motorbike to the ships.
Also, added bonus of being able to be changed into a rocket catapult easily later on.

Also, regarding jets, we should send a design to Axis, get a research credit and make a fucking jet using their knowledge since they have a working one since last year, and Italians make one this year, it should make it easier. We should also name it in reference to Blood Eagle, to fuck with Cannalans more.

[andrea]

I wanted to do ERA next turn, but if we do this, I might change my mind and vote for something not fightery this turn.

Or maybe do ERA now. a design on it and we get super tanks.

[Azzuro]

I wanted to do ERA next turn, but if we do this, I might change my mind and vote for something not fightery this turn.

Or maybe do ERA now. a design on it and we get super tanks.

living dangerously I see Project Blood Eagle II: Bloodier Eagle?

Also, Kot, I approve of that plan. Although people may decide to jump aboard the hype-copter and spend the research credit on a working helicopter, though.

[NUKE9.13]

Also, Kot, I approve of that plan. Although people may decide to jump aboard the hype-copter and spend the research credit on a working helicopter, though.

If we don't do a fighter this turn, I could definitely get behind doing a proto-jet fighter next turn with a research credit.

[Strongpoint]

0 Banana Salad Assault Carrier:
0 UFS-DD-40 Pattern A 'Ranger':
2 UFAF-LF40-S 'Zilant':  Lightforger, Andrea
5 Multiple Rocket Launcher UF-MRL-40 ‘SARUKH’: Mulisa, Kashyyk, Azzuro, NUKE9.13, strongpoint
1 UF-40-H/MB-T 'Demolisher': Taricus
1 Design: UFAF-F39 'Fuckbringer': Powder Miner
-But name it the Birdeater (1): Powder Miner

I prefer a modern howitzer to rocket artillery but any kind of artillery is good.

NUKE9.13, can you edit in possibility of mounting it on a truck OR our APC?

[evictedSaint]

First off, the 'Fuckbringer' was a temporary name until I could think up something better.  I'm totally fine with naming it the 'Birdeater'.

Second, the Ziliant needs no armor at all - it should survive by simply being too fast to hit.  And you are crazy if you think it is going to have a chance at Normal difficulty;  everything we do has been one level harder than we expected.  Still, it's a decent path down the road to jets, so why not.

I'm torn between upgunning the Archer for our revision and giving up the naval theatre entirely.  Nothing we've done has evened the odds, and we've sunk so much time into it and they're back to Major in a single turn.  We can't save the middle or bottom lanes because they're almost entirely dictated by naval combat, and if we spend another two years trying to break even Cannala will negate our work in three months again.  It's just...so much is determined by naval combat, and they outclass us there so badly.  Even if we take the jungle, I'm not sure we can even continue the push to Turbados without landers, cruisers, better aircraft carriers, and an air superiority fighter.


The rocket artillery will also not be normal difficulty.  We keep expecting stuff to be easy and it never is.  It will absolutely be Hard or Very Hard.

We can also expect Cannala to put out an air superiority fighter this turn to compliment their new carrier.  They'll be able to easily beat our Stinger, and we will have lost both the sea and air advantages. 

[NUKE9.13]

NUKE9.13, can you edit in possibility of mounting it on a truck OR our APC?

Sure, done.

I'm torn between upgunning the Archer for our revision and giving up the naval theatre entirely.  Nothing we've done has evened the odds, and we've sunk so much time into it and they're back to Major in a single turn.  We can't save the middle or bottom lanes because they're almost entirely dictated by naval combat, and if we spend another two years trying to break even Cannala will negate our work in three months again.

We obviously cannot completely concede the seas forever- at some point, we will have to invade mainland Cannala, and unless a german geologist contacts us with a way to create a landbridge overnight, we will need ships for that.
But right now, the jungle takes priority. For our revision, I still want QoL.

It makes sense that they could quickly regain their advantage, since they started so far ahead.
Mind you, I wouldn't be so pessimistic. They only managed to regain their Major Advantage by playing by our rules and building their own carrier. We could easily change the rules again (submarines?) and catch them off-guard. Though not until we are seriously considering naval assaults, which we shouldn't do until we have the jungle firmly under our control.