Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Poll

Which team did you play in the last game?

Glorious Arstotzka
- 17 (16%)
Glorious Moskurg
- 13 (12.3%)
Ingloriously Didn't Play
- 76 (71.7%)

Total Members Voted: 106


Pages: 1 ... 188 189 [190] 191 192 ... 500

Author Topic: Intercontinental Arms Race: Finale  (Read 604844 times)

10ebbor10

  • Bay Watcher
  • DON'T PANIC
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Winter 1940 (Design Phase)
« Reply #2835 on: May 30, 2017, 03:11:56 pm »

Quote
Aircraft Carrier UFS-CV 'Wasp Nest' 38, Pattern A
Description: Forenia's first Aircraft Carrier.  A light flat-top ship based heavily off our existing AS-CV22 and AS-ARAC-35; main differences include a greater overall length and a flat wooden deck for aircraft take-off and landing.  Wooden deck is slightly elevated off the edges of the ship and utilizes one hydraulic lift for ferrying aircraft from below deck to above deck.  Due to the time it takes to lift aircraft from below deck combat-ready planes crowd the rear of the deck when expecting combat situations.  Makes use of several "Arresting Cables" which require aircraft to be modified with tail-hooks.  Command center is at the stern of the ship, below the deck.  Unarmored deck, open-air hanger deck to reduce cost and load. 
    Dimensions: 180 meters long, 22 meter beam, 7 meter draught.
    Displacement: 14,680 tons
    Engines: 6 water-tube boilers feeding 4 steam turbines, geared.
    Armament: 5 fighter aircraft.  15 torpedo/bomber aircraft.  16 Bumblebee AA nests and 6 AS-AC18 spread evenly around the edge of the deck.
    Armour: Medium around the belt for torpedo survivability.  Very Light elsewhere.
    Other stuff: Both Encryption and Decryption radios for communication.
ESTIMATED DIFFICULTY: HARD (We don’t have much experience building big ships. We have experience making landing strips in places they don't belong.  We could argue this should be easier since we are basing it on existing, decades-old tech

This was your original Wasp Nest design. Compare with what we got when we rolled a 6, the highest possible roll.

Now apply the same nerf to your current proposed carrier.

The Wasp Nest was the best possible result. Trying to overtop that will only result in a minor improvement.

Logged

andrea

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Winter 1940 (Design Phase)
« Reply #2836 on: May 30, 2017, 03:16:37 pm »

Keep in mind, we had absolutely no experience in large ships.

See the carrier Cannala designed? they got that on a 1.

Parsely

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • My games!
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Winter 1940 (Design Phase)
« Reply #2837 on: May 30, 2017, 03:18:24 pm »

Keep in mind, we had absolutely no experience in large ships.

See the carrier Cannala designed? they got that on a 1.
^^This. We have the experience with large ships to significantly reduce the difficulty of a proper fleet carrier. The Pattern C design is not that ambitious compared to our existing carrier (but the Zheleznogorod definitely is). This is the logical course of our navy, not BBs. The advantages are clear, even the Cannalans are investing in them rather than their BBs. Imagine the investment it would take just to support an artillery ship and keep it safe from torpedo bombers. No, we need to improve our air advantage.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2017, 03:19:57 pm by GUNINANRUNIN »
Logged

NUKE9.13

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Winter 1940 (Design Phase)
« Reply #2838 on: May 30, 2017, 03:19:28 pm »

Ebbor... we gain experience by designing things. The Wasp's Nest suffered because we had never ever built anything like it. Now that we have experience building carriers, even a substantially better one will not be as hard.
This is a fundamental part of the game.

Rockets on a wooden deck and a catapult that needs fuel sounds like a horrible idea. I'll do it if you can convince me Sensei won't punish us for it and that it has an actual advantage over a mechanical catapult.
Then don't make the deck out of wood? It doesn't have to be armoured, just not exposed wood.
I'm sure we will have the capacity to launch every plane on the carrier multiple times.
Rocket catapults have more power than mechanical ones, at least until steam catapults are invented. Even then, they might be more powerful, I dunno. They are also simpler to build.
Logged
Long Live United Forenia!

Parsely

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • My games!
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Winter 1940 (Design Phase)
« Reply #2839 on: May 30, 2017, 03:24:21 pm »

A hydraulic catapult seems a lot safer. A rocket catapult is just begging for a bug that washes the deck in flames and sets, not just the deck, but ammunition, parked planes, and deck crew on fire. The worst bug a hydraulic catapult could have is flinging a plane into the ocean at a bad speed or something. A hydraulic catapult can probably be set more quickly since I'm assuming a rocket catapult needs to be fueled. I'm not sure.
Logged

andrea

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Winter 1940 (Design Phase)
« Reply #2840 on: May 30, 2017, 03:26:13 pm »

an hydraulic catapult is also weaker and harder to design, since we have no experience in those, while we are skilled at rockets.
And you are being slightly apocalyptic in your description of failure. I don't expect them to do anything worse than blow up a plane on a serious bug.

Madman198237

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Winter 1940 (Design Phase)
« Reply #2841 on: May 30, 2017, 03:27:35 pm »

If we burn a design on a wastefully simple upgrade because we're acting too scared to do what needs to be done, we lose just as surely as if we were to ditch our focus on aircraft and design an all-gun navy. We CAN'T beat them if we don't make advances, and we can't beat them if we try to match them in WHAT THEY DO BEST.
Logged
We shall make the highest quality of quality quantities of soldiers with quantities of quality.

Parsely

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • My games!
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Winter 1940 (Design Phase)
« Reply #2842 on: May 30, 2017, 03:28:59 pm »

I think this is a bad idea, but I need votes so I changed it to a rocket catapult.

Should we have rocket powered lifts as well? (I'm scared that this is actually going to be enthusiastically pushed for.)

If we burn a design on a wastefully simple upgrade because we're acting too scared to do what needs to be done, we lose just as surely as if we were to ditch our focus on aircraft and design an all-gun navy. We CAN'T beat them if we don't make advances, and we can't beat them if we try to match them in WHAT THEY DO BEST.
E: Yeah, and what they do best is ships. We need to do what we do best: aircraft.
Logged

10ebbor10

  • Bay Watcher
  • DON'T PANIC
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Winter 1940 (Design Phase)
« Reply #2843 on: May 30, 2017, 03:29:43 pm »

Quote
Difficulty is mainly judged by three factors: What the best similar example of a technology you have built is, how long ago you built it, and what progress the outside world has made in that area

The Cannalan's had decades of experience using multiple ship designs. We have a year using two.

To suggest both our experiences are now similar is silly.

The Cannalan's could not manage what you're planning, and the cost of their design is significantly bigger than ours. It rolled a 1 yes, but a roll of 1 is not a complete failure in this game. It just results in a fatal flaw, which they fixed with a revision.

If we burn a design on a wastefully simple upgrade because we're acting too scared to do what needs to be done, we lose just as surely as if we were to ditch our focus on aircraft and design an all-gun navy. We CAN'T beat them if we don't make advances, and we can't beat them if we try to match them in WHAT THEY DO BEST.

Nobody is suggesting an all-gun navy.

We're talking about fixing the gaping hole in our fleet composition...
« Last Edit: May 30, 2017, 03:31:53 pm by 10ebbor10 »
Logged

VoidSlayer

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Winter 1940 (Design Phase)
« Reply #2844 on: May 30, 2017, 03:31:29 pm »

We are not trying to exceed them in naval designs.  We just need to actually bring a ball to the game at all.  Right now we have 1 naval power against their 100; both our ships are jokes.  Even if our ships are only slightly worse then theirs we can turn the MASSIVE ADVANTAGE into something more even.

Heck, we could even upgrade the archer this turn in a revision to be fitted with a single 300mm gun and snipe at them with small ships.

Baffler

  • Bay Watcher
  • Caveat Lector.
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Winter 1940 (Design Phase)
« Reply #2845 on: May 30, 2017, 03:32:23 pm »

Quote from: Votes
(4) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern A: evictedSaint, Andrea, Powder Miner, Madman198237
(1) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern C: GUNINANRUNIN
(0) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern K: CatamaranCat
(7) B3 'Compensator' 300mm Coastal Gun/Naval Cannon: Kashyyk, khan boyzitbig, Taricus, strongpoint, Nav, 10ebbor10, Baffler
(5) UFS-CV-40 Zheleznogorod B: Kot, Mulisa, Azzuro, NUKE9.13, Piratejoe
(0) UFS-CC-40 Pattern F "Cavalier":
Logged
Quote from: Helgoland
Even if you found a suitable opening, I doubt it would prove all too satisfying. And it might leave some nasty wounds, depending on the moral high ground's geology.
Location subject to periodic change.
Baffler likes silver, walnut trees, the color green, tanzanite, and dogs for their loyalty. When possible he prefers to consume beef, iced tea, and cornbread. He absolutely detests ticks.

VoidSlayer

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Winter 1940 (Design Phase)
« Reply #2846 on: May 30, 2017, 03:34:47 pm »

Quote from: Votes
(4) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern A: evictedSaint, Andrea, Powder Miner, Madman198237
(1) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern C: GUNINANRUNIN
(0) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern K: CatamaranCat
(8) B3 'Compensator' 300mm Coastal Gun/Naval Cannon: Kashyyk, khan boyzitbig, Taricus, strongpoint, Nav, 10ebbor10, Baffler, voidslayer
(5) UFS-CV-40 Zheleznogorod B: Kot, Mulisa, Azzuro, NUKE9.13, Piratejoe
(0) UFS-CC-40 Pattern F "Cavalier":

It looks like the carriers have more votes total though, we might want to consider a run off vote between the winning carrier and the naval gun.

NUKE9.13

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Winter 1940 (Design Phase)
« Reply #2847 on: May 30, 2017, 03:38:40 pm »

Much as I would like to do something a tiny bit crazy, I suppose a more humble design stands a better chance of winning. Just so long as it has a rocket on it.

Also yes, it would be nice to be able to hold a run-off, since there are clearly more people in favour of a carrier.

Quote from: Votes
(10) Some Sort of Carrier
(4) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern A: evictedSaint, Andrea, Powder Miner, Madman198237
(2) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern C: GUNINANRUNIN, NUKE9.13
(0) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern K: CatamaranCat
(8) B3 'Compensator' 300mm Coastal Gun/Naval Cannon: Kashyyk, khan boyzitbig, Taricus, strongpoint, Nav, 10ebbor10, Baffler, voidslayer
(4) UFS-CV-40 Zheleznogorod B: Kot, Mulisa, Azzuro, Piratejoe
(0) UFS-CC-40 Pattern F "Cavalier":
Logged
Long Live United Forenia!

Parsely

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • My games!
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Winter 1940 (Design Phase)
« Reply #2848 on: May 30, 2017, 03:44:01 pm »

Quote
Difficulty is mainly judged by three factors: What the best similar example of a technology you have built is, how long ago you built it, and what progress the outside world has made in that area

The Cannalan's had decades of experience using multiple ship designs. We have a year using two.

To suggest both our experiences are now similar is silly.

The Cannalan's could not manage what you're planning, and the cost of their design is significantly bigger than ours. It rolled a 1 yes, but a roll of 1 is not a complete failure in this game. It just results in a fatal flaw, which they fixed with a revision.

If we burn a design on a wastefully simple upgrade because we're acting too scared to do what needs to be done, we lose just as surely as if we were to ditch our focus on aircraft and design an all-gun navy. We CAN'T beat them if we don't make advances, and we can't beat them if we try to match them in WHAT THEY DO BEST.

Nobody is suggesting an all-gun navy.

We're talking about fixing the gaping hole in our fleet composition...
What hole does a 300mm fill that our aircraft don't, and better? There's no need for bigger artillery, our planes are good at sinking their ships and striking targets from over the horizon, the problem is the enemy having parity because they can launch more planes than us. To me that doesn't say "new cruiser", which doesn't address the enemy's air advantage, it tries to fight their already well-established artillery advantage. They can easily negate a cruiser design by improving their torpedo bombers and new ships do not stop bombers, Combat Air Patrols do.

Our planes stop their ships dead as long as they're not outnumbered.
Quote
If they can't harass a Khorne by setting its crew on fire with incendiary bombs and destroying its turrets, they can't stop a Khorne from destroying two Archer destroyers in a single volley.

"During WWII air raids accounted for the loss of warships and merchant vessels of all types, including the battleships Conte di Cavour, Arizona, Utah, Oklahoma, Prince of Wales, Roma, Musashi, Tirpitz, Yamato, Schleswig-Holstein, Impero, Lemnos, Kilkis, Ise and Hyūga."

In the era of air superiority battleships don't sink battleships, planes do.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2017, 03:46:04 pm by GUNINANRUNIN »
Logged

Kashyyk

  • Bay Watcher
  • One letter short of a wookie
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Winter 1940 (Design Phase)
« Reply #2849 on: May 30, 2017, 03:51:23 pm »

Quote from: Votes
(4) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern A: evictedSaint, Andrea, Powder Miner, Madman198237
(2+1) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern C: GUNINANRUNIN, NUKE9.13, Kashyyk
(8) B3 'Compensator' 300mm Coastal Gun/Naval Cannon: Kashyyk, khan boyzitbig, Taricus, strongpoint, Nav, 10ebbor10, Baffler, voidslayer
(5) UFS-CV-40 Zheleznogorod B: Kot, Mulisa, Azzuro, NUKE9.13, Piratejoe

I suggest everyone also lists a secondary vote. That way an instant runoff can be sorted, to decide which carrier faces off against the Coastal Gun.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 188 189 [190] 191 192 ... 500