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

[Taricus]

The big guns are more to ensure that:
-A: We have coastal defenses that force the cannalans to spend a turn countering them.
-B: We don't have any issues slapping the desired gun size onto destroyers, cruisers and so forth

So it's more an investment into the entire navy than trying to just get a bigger battleship.

[RAM]

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.

I am doubtful of this. A big gun tends to have issues that a small ship is vulnerable to. Of particular note if having the thing do a sumersault when it fires. Assumingthat it doesn't just tip over and sink as soon as the overly heavy lump of metal teeters to one side a little. Please bear in mind that you can comfortably(Well, nervously, but you won't be cramped) stand inside a 300mm barrel. You could probably break an archer in half just by dropping the barrel on it...

ROCKETS!!!!! on the other hand, could easily be mounted on an Archer, on account of having no need of heavy firing chambers, little to no recoil to soak... honestly, what we desperately need to do is start down the path of ground-effect aircraft. We can build a rocketpedo that(Oh my, I just saw what I wrote, total accident but it is stuck there now...) can fly a metre from the water in a straight line and penetrate enemy shipping at rocket velocities. Just imagine if instead of tipping a torpedo off of a rack and watching it plip off into the ocean and trundle out in a vague direction you had a rack of rockets that zoom off into the distance leaving a trail of flaming rage... This was the age of torpedo boats dying, because they could not get close enough. Rockets can overcome that range. Also, ground-effecttransports would be awesome...

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.

Well that is nice and all, but I think that we should stick with our current worthless insult to democracy of a worst possible voting method. It is comforting like an old familiar blanket that hasn't been washed in a decade. I mean, you idea is just so strange and bizarre that it would most assuredly break the minds of us poor souls who are barely even familiar with the mild affronts to reality of such works as those of Lovecraft... Please do not offend our elicate sensibilities with such brazen and desperate attempts to apply what is clearly a pointless whimsy that compels you to torment outhers with an endless bureaucracy of needless overcomplication... .. ...   ... ... ...   ... ... ...

[stabbymcstabstab]

(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
( B3 'Compensator' 300mm Coastal Gun/Naval Cannon: Kashyyk, khan boyzitbig, Taricus, strongpoint, Nav, 10ebbor10, Baffler, voidslayer
(6) UFS-CV-40 Zheleznogorod B: Kot, Mulisa, Azzuro, NUKE9.13, Piratejoe, Stabby

We need a Carrier that's somewhat modern, besides even if this is a expensive ship we'll still have the Wasp Nests, to act a escort for it.

[evictedSaint]

I am concerned the double-decker carrier will add unneeded weight and increase complexity more than a single deck would, especially because it also tries to make use of catapults, a ramp, and multiple multi-level elevators.  It'd be about four times the size of the wasp nest, wouldn't it?

Also, how is Pattern C less expensive than Pattern A?  It's identical except for also featuring an additional runway - wouldn't that make it more expensive?

[Powder Miner]

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

I want a ship, because that naval advantage NEEDS modulation, and a coastal artillery is much more limited than a ship.

[Parsely]

I am concerned the double-decker carrier will add unneeded weight and increase complexity.

Also, how is Pattern C less expensive than Pattern A?  It's identical except for also featuring an additional runway - wouldn't that make it more expensive?

No. The Pattern C is this design: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Cvna1nim.gif Except there is a catapult on the landing strip for launching a second fighter or a medium/heavy aircraft. One spot is dedicated for launching planes, the other is for landing but can also launch planes. This means twice the launching speed and at much lower cost and complexity compared to the Zheleznogorod and it could store more aircraft. I also cut one of the lifts so there are only two, but that's still one more than the Santos, as well as the steel deck, which should at least make the cost at parity with the Pattern A, if not cheaper. I doubt a catapult costs as much as a lift and a deck's worth of steel plate.

Angling the deck (or angling the runway would be more precise?) to accommodate a second catapult means no increased complexity, because either way you're getting a catapult, for way more benefit (double the launching speed!!!) than you get from a third lift and a steel deck, at a similar cost, and it increases the odds we'll be able to land large planes because landing diagonally across the deck means a plane has longer to slow down than if it landed on the same deck going lengthwise (a^2 + b^2 = c^2).

[evictedSaint]

Oh!  Yeah, that is a good design.  I may switch my vote - I feel like the more humble design would be more likely to work than the double-deck design and be more useful than the really big coastal gun.

[Sheb]

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

Voting for kot's design is a guilty pleasure.

[Parsely]

The Zheleznogorod is overengineered you guys. I'd prefer you voted for the 300mm than something that's obviously going to be Very Hard or Very Expensive for no added benefit over the Pattern C.

[evictedSaint]

It looks like people want a carrier 4x as big with no additional carrying capacity : (

[Powder Miner]

We won't stop having the cheap carriers, so I don't see a huge need to spring for another inexpensive model rather than working on performance. Plus, there is in fact one very big added benefit: the Zheleznogorod is designed to launch jets. The Pattern C is not.

[NUKE9.13]

Votebox was broke. I switched my vote to the Pattern C a while ago.
...although I now feel tempted to switch back. Coastal artillery just isn't as useful as a new carrier, and it looks like the Zheleznogorod has the best chance of beating it.

(3) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern A: evictedSaint, Andrea, 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
(7) UFS-CV-40 Zheleznogorod B: Kot, Mulisa, Azzuro, Piratejoe, Stabby, Powder Miner, Sheb

[Wolfhunter107]

(3) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern A: evictedSaint, Andrea, Madman198237
(3+1) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern C: GUNINANRUNIN, NUKE9.13, Kashyyk, Wolfhunter107
( B3 'Compensator' 300mm Coastal Gun/Naval Cannon: Kashyyk, khan boyzitbig, Taricus, strongpoint, Nav, 10ebbor10, Baffler, voidslayer
( UFS-CV-40 Zheleznogorod B: Kot, Mulisa, Azzuro, NUKE9.13, Piratejoe, Stabby, Powder Miner, Sheb

[Parsely]

We won't stop having the cheap carriers, so I don't see a huge need to spring for another inexpensive model rather than working on performance.

 Plus, there is in fact one very big added benefit: the Zheleznogorod is designed to launch jets. The Pattern C is not.

Except the Zheleznogorod is expensive for no good reason.

Yes it is, it has catapults. The angled deck design was specifically invented with jets in mind, because they can get their jets burning then get kicked out by the catapult, so they don't need very much space to take off. The angled deck has massive benefits.

The angled flight deck was invented by Royal Navy Captain (later Rear Admiral) Dennis Cambell, as an outgrowth of design study initially begun in the winter of 1944–1945. A committee of senior Royal Navy officers decided that the future of naval aviation was in jets, whose higher speeds required that the carriers be modified to "fit" their needs.[14][15][16] With this type of deck — also called a "skewed deck", "canted deck", "waist angle deck", or the "angle" — the aft part of the deck is widened and a separate runway is positioned at an angle from the centreline.[17] The angled flight deck was designed with the higher landing speeds of jet aircraft in mind, which would have required the entire length of a centreline flight deck to stop.[17] The design also allowed for concurrent launch and recovery operations, and allowed aircraft failing to connect with the arrestor cables to abort the landing, accelerate, and relaunch (bolter) without risk to other parked or launching aircraft.[17]

The redesign allowed for several other design and operational modifications, including the mounting of a larger island (improving both ship-handling and flight control), drastically simplified aircraft recovery and deck movement (aircraft now launched from the bow and re-embarked on the angle, leaving a large open area amidships for arming and fueling), and damage control. Because of its utility in flight operations, the angled deck is now a defining feature of STOBAR and CATOBAR equipped aircraft carriers.

The Zheleznogorod lands planes on the centerline which is shorter than the angle from one corner of the deck to the other. This is inferior for landing jets and would require the carrier to be longer and more expensive.

[RAM]

Anak-H.C.90-1940-doge "Killerqueen"
A complete overhaul of the Bumblbee for a radically new usage. Most of the effort is expended on a mechanical reloading system that allows it to be crank-loaded from an ammunition belt. The important aspect of this is that it can be operated without a dedicated handler. It has also been refined to ensure that it will work at any orientation and withstand gravitic forces. We then looked at aerodynamics to produce a new round, enclosed by a detaching case it is intended to travel some distance before become aerodynamically unsound, churning the air around it and causing instability in aircraft as it passes by. Then comes the painful process of trying to relieve it of weight, by using all materials at our disposal and everything that we have learned of aircraft construction. The final step is to combine it with an electric reloading device and attachments such that it can be mounted and operated in the bomb-attachment of a Haast.

The intention beign that a Haast could be loaded with appropriate ammunition. Such that an escort could be loaded with spoiler-rounds to disrupt enemy frontal-passes and disrupt enemy flight to make easy targets. Tank attackers could load shaped charges. Naval operations could benefit from penetrating rounds... Switching or alternating ammunition mid-flight would be impractical, but the weapon would have the potential for great versatility in the range of operations that it could be sent on...