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 ... 191 192 [193] 194 195 ... 500

Author Topic: Intercontinental Arms Race: Finale  (Read 599985 times)

Azzuro

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Winter 1940 (Design Phase)
« Reply #2880 on: May 30, 2017, 06:25:03 pm »

In defense of Z carrier: It Has Been Done. Both British and Japanese navies had multi-decked carriers. To those who say it's going to be too complex to build, I assure you it's definitely less so than an larger angled-deck carrier. Kaga and Akagi seemed to do pretty well as actual carriers, albeit without fire protection systems.

Also, I'm curious: if the angled deck doesn't jut out over the side and the ship is the same length as the Pattern A, how is that physically possible? Is "angled deck" a magic incantation to warp reality and increase the available deck space enough to have two runways somehow? The Pattern C will be a larger, and thus more difficult to build carrier than one without. And yes, it will be larger than two Wasp Nests, because the runways themselves will be larger and you will have two of them.

Oh, and also the Pattern C literally has a wooden deck, when it's going to experience jet blast and rocket catapults, because Armoured Decks Reeeeee, I guess. This thing's default state may well be on fire.
Logged

United Forenia Forever!

Baffler

  • Bay Watcher
  • Caveat Lector.
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Winter 1940 (Design Phase)
« Reply #2881 on: May 30, 2017, 06:28:21 pm »

"It hasn't exactly manifested as a naval advantage" except for the occasions when their advantage was threatened even from being a naval advantage until they built carriers of their own which brought them solidly to MNA because of the now much less prominent air advantage which had been in fact manifesting?
Because you're building a gun right now that you're going to spend another design on to make a boat to attach it to. That's a multiturn effort.

Because we built the Wasp's Nest in a single turn and the Pattern C will be even easier because of that existing technology.

Yes it did. In Summer and Winter 1939 the Cannalans had only a basic naval advantage because of our planes, but we were foiled by the Santos in Spring 1939.

Exactly. Even when we had an absolute advantage in the air, we still didn't even manage to overturn their advantage, let alone take the initiative ourselves. Just as they're advancing on the plains right now because their tanks are better despite our air superiority, we need to at least match their whole fleet if we ever want to take a naval advantage, rather than just maintaining our edge in the air and ignoring everything else.

And for the record I did vote for a cruiser, but nobody else seemed interested so I changed for second best.
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.

Parsely

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • My games!
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Winter 1940 (Design Phase)
« Reply #2882 on: May 30, 2017, 06:33:01 pm »

In defense of Z carrier: It Has Been Done. Both British and Japanese navies had multi-decked carriers. To those who say it's going to be too complex to build, I assure you it's definitely less so than an larger angled-deck carrier. Kaga and Akagi seemed to do pretty well as actual carriers, albeit without fire protection systems.

Also, I'm curious: if the angled deck doesn't jut out over the side and the ship is the same length as the Pattern A, how is that physically possible? Is "angled deck" a magic incantation to warp reality and increase the available deck space enough to have two runways somehow? The Pattern C will be a larger, and thus more difficult to build carrier than one without. And yes, it will be larger than two Wasp Nests, because the runways themselves will be larger and you will have two of them.

Oh, and also the Pattern C literally has a wooden deck, when it's going to experience jet blast and rocket catapults, because Armoured Decks Reeeeee, I guess. This thing's default state may well be on fire.
Sure, but we've never built a multi-decked carrier. That's going to be more complicated than building a new flattop.

Again, my response about the Centaur class:
Just because early carriers didn't have angled decks doesn't mean it was impossible until the ship was the size of a supercarrier. The angled deck does not need to jut out over the edge of the ship, and the runway doesn't inherently need to be longer to accommodate an angled deck. I've yet to hear a single concrete reason as to why an angled flight deck wouldn't work with our current technology.

Just look at the Centaur class. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centaur-class_aircraft_carrier
22,000 ton displacement (NOT a supercarrier) and it was built in 1953, not that that matters a lick, since this is a design concept that isn't limited by technology.
Spoiler: Angled flight deck. (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

E: There you have it. One runway for landing and another for launching, that's all. It's more efficient and it doesn't have to be as massive as a Nimitz.
It's not magic, it's math. If you're landing diagonally across a rectangular deck, you're making more efficient use of the space than if you landed across the length, because the diagonal will always be longer than the length. Therefore the Pattern C won't be longer, the Z will.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

If the exhaust isn't angled downward it can't set the deck on fire.
Logged

VoidSlayer

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Winter 1940 (Design Phase)
« Reply #2883 on: May 30, 2017, 06:35:34 pm »

We actually do have experience with unfolding runways, based on our runway on a train design.

The 300mm gun is more then twice the size of our existing gun so by default is is a Hard project, that is why we are doing it separately from making the light cruiser itself, which will again be more then twice the size of our existing ships which will also make it a hard project. 

Unity Tiger Armor:


A complete reworking of the way the Tiger Armor is balanced and fitted.  The base armor is separated into several different parts each manufactured separately and designed to be fitted together while putting the armor on.  Several different shapes and sizes are included to account for 5 or 6 distinct body types common in our military.  This semi-custom fitted armor is as heavy as the existing one but much better balanced while maintaining the same quality of armor.  Aluminum is used in some of the structural and connecting metal to reduce weight without compromising the manganese steel armor.

Changes to the arms include specialized gauntlets designed to fire each of the common weapon types.  Changes to the legs remove the metal "skirt" and replaces it with proper leg and foot guards.

Azzuro

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Winter 1940 (Design Phase)
« Reply #2884 on: May 30, 2017, 06:39:30 pm »

Just because early carriers didn't have angled decks doesn't mean it was impossible until the ship was the size of a supercarrier. The angled deck does not need to jut out over the edge of the ship, and the runway doesn't inherently need to be longer to accommodate an angled deck. I've yet to hear a single concrete reason as to why an angled flight deck wouldn't work with our current technology.

I have yet to actually see why this would be the case, given that one of the statements bolded above has been false for every angled deck carrier built in reality. Either the flight deck juts out over the side, or the ship is longer. Also, one thinks that if it were that simple, all carriers from the very very beginning should have had diagonal runways.

We've also never built an angled deck carrier before. And before the Wasp Nest, we've never built a carrier before. I fail to see how "we've never done it before" is a valid argument in the Design Phase.

Also, the ski jump ramp may point those exhausts downward-ish, no? But steel = armour = Is Bad, so I guess wooden decks it is!
Logged

United Forenia Forever!

evictedSaint

  • Bay Watcher
  • if (ANNOYED_W_FANS==true) { KILL_CHAR(rand()); }
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Winter 1940 (Design Phase)
« Reply #2885 on: May 30, 2017, 07:24:38 pm »

I am a bit confused.  What advantage does the Z have over the TS Pattern C?

RAM

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Winter 1940 (Design Phase)
« Reply #2886 on: May 30, 2017, 07:33:29 pm »

Steel isn't magically immune to fire, and wood isn't magically vulnerable to it. You can treat and structure wood to be resistant to fire, and holding thin steel foil over a naked flame is a good way to lose steel foil. Long story short, the substance of the deck doesn'r much matter, it is the surface, and a surface of replaceable tiles, that was somehow also firm enough to never slip even the slightest little bit, or some sort of repaintable surface, would be ideal, and would completely negate the disadvantage of lacking armour...

It is worth noting that what we need really isn't a larger capacity for aircraft. Being so numerous, our wasp's nests can actualyl transport a lot of craft, they just have difficulty launching them quickly and in a coordinated fashion, along with difficulties of launching all our current craft.

I feel that the gun is a good proposal for a pocket battleship. The gun is useful by itself, it would be a big bonus against enemy landings which would reduce the pressure a good deal, and it would ease us into a medium-ship with a heavy gun. The downside is that big guns are not our way, we need rockets instead, this gun nonsense is insulting. We ought to be building coastal 320mm rocket bunkers and putting all our efforts into loading mechanisms*drools*. Then we can dump the idea of a big target like a pocket battleship and instead make little 30 metre ships with 320mmm rockets that are too small and agile to hit with torpedoes or bombs and too murderdeath to attack with a small gun and too expedible to attack with a big gun... But the coastal gun is a good way to go about starting a conventional navy, and carriers alone are definitely not enough, they need escorts.

The carrier proposals are a bit too much. We should start with just the hull. Our carrier is going to be huge, we don't have any huge ships, and we need more transport capacity anyway. The carrier SHOULD be two design actions. We want to do it right so we should do it well.

"Salad Shake" class heavy transport
This is a massive transport designed to be converted into a carrier at a later date. It has an open deck with no obstructions, a sophisticated internal command centre for coordinating nearby vessels, its dimentions are focused towards providing a square/triangular deck and its cargo handling is designed to quickly move aircraft-sized objects from two hangar-styled under-decks, along with being long enough to launch anything that we would care to with a little extra spare. We have, obviously, reviewed the engines and incorporated the best engine for the role incorporating what we could from the Haast's engine into a massive diesel design with the obvious periscope-style intake and exhausts... It features two rudders with independent mechanisms and four redesigned propellors from applying what we know of aerodynamics to hydrodynamics and a current-tunnel to deal with the deep displacement... Our final touch is to add an extendible overhang to the front with floats and a simple electrically-driven hook. This can be extended out the front to rapidly disembark vast numbers of amphibioust vehicles. Armaments iinclude five bumblebees and 20 AC-18s sticking out from under either side of the deck, and four Sarukhs at the front.
Logged
Vote (1) for the Urist scale!
I shall be eternally happy. I shall be able to construct elf hunting giant mecha. Which can pour magma.
Urist has been forced to use a friend as fertilizer lately.
Read the First Post!

Taricus

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Winter 1940 (Design Phase)
« Reply #2887 on: May 30, 2017, 08:02:51 pm »

320mm unguided rockets would be utterly unusable from a fleet perspective: Half the intent of the gun design is to be able to fit it to smaller ships.
Logged
Quote from: evictedSaint
We sided with the holocaust for a fucking +1 roll

Parsely

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • My games!
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Winter 1940 (Design Phase)
« Reply #2888 on: May 30, 2017, 08:21:31 pm »

I have yet to actually see why this would be the case, given that one of the statements bolded above has been false for every angled deck carrier built in reality. Either the flight deck juts out over the side, or the ship is longer. Also, one thinks that if it were that simple, all carriers from the very very beginning should have had diagonal runways.

We've also never built an angled deck carrier before. And before the Wasp Nest, we've never built a carrier before. I fail to see how "we've never done it before" is a valid argument in the Design Phase.

Also, the ski jump ramp may point those exhausts downward-ish, no? But steel = armour = Is Bad, so I guess wooden decks it is!
The Centaur is the carrier I'm referencing, it was 737 ft long, it had an angled deck that did not jut out, and it launched jets. By comparison, the Essex has a 862 ft flight deck that launched prop planes down the centerline. The deck only needs to be as long as it needs to be to land our jets, and apparently this design was found adequate for a real life carrier that launched jets. E: (It should be noted though that the Centaur's flight deck was considered to basically be the theoretical minimum length, which isn't ideal, but my point is that a carrier with an angled flight deck that lands jets does not have to be longer than a centerline jet-launching carrier)

I think there's a fundamental engineering difference between building a carrier with a traditional hull and building a brand new hull that has a large hole in the front for launching planes out of. The deck I'm proposing is not a new shape, it does not in itself present design challenges. The Z does. And us never having built a carrier before did increase the difficulty of the Wasp's Nest. My point is the Pattern C will be easier because it's just another flattop (the innovation is in how we're using the deck, not any inherent part of it's shape or anything), whereas the Z is unarguably a new hull that does something unique that could be challenging.

The Pattern C doesn't have a ski jump. Also, this is a picture of a jet taking off from the USS Phillippine Sea, an Essex-class carrier with a wooden flight deck. So no, you don't need a steel deck to launch jets. Glad we put that one to rest.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2017, 08:28:23 pm by GUNINANRUNIN »
Logged

evictedSaint

  • Bay Watcher
  • if (ANNOYED_W_FANS==true) { KILL_CHAR(rand()); }
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Winter 1940 (Design Phase)
« Reply #2889 on: May 30, 2017, 09:04:31 pm »

Would someone move me to Pattern C, please? 

The Z is sacrificing hanger space for a design no one uses any more so it launch twice as fast.  Pattern C also launches twice as fast, but doesn't sacrifice hanger space.  I'd prefer it if it had the "literally adds no cost" ski jump, but at this point I'm worried we'll end up with a silly carrier with a [Complex] tag for no reason at all.

The only upside to the Z is if we go with it, we can revise it to have 3 TC (unlike the "Penis Pun" 300 mm).

@Kot: how surprised are you people are going with your design?

RAM

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Winter 1940 (Design Phase)
« Reply #2890 on: May 30, 2017, 09:06:41 pm »

320mm unguided rockets would be utterly unusable from a fleet perspective: Half the intent of the gun design is to be able to fit it to smaller ships.
Please explain this? All I can see is an oxymoron. You want a 300mm rifle, that would, simply put, be completely unworkable on a small ship. If that is half the intent then half the intent is pointless. A small ship cannot handle the recoil, it would only be able to fire forwards or backwards. And the gun, being on the top, would make the ship too top-heavy, causing it to capsize far too easily. Rockets, meanwhile, do not need a heavy firing chamber, don't need a heavy barrel, and don't cause much recoil. A mechanical altimeter connected to some very insensitive steering mechanism could probably keep a rocket at an altitude that would generally avoid the water and generally hit shipping and that is very easy given that atlimeters generally operate based at sea-level, which is quite useful when you are on the sea...
A 200 mm rifle would probably break an archer. A 160mm one would probably perform pretty badly. A 300mm rifle isn't really relevant to anything that an archer-sized ship could hope to field. If you want to massively overgun a small ship then rockets are the only option because artillery places more stress upon its foundations.
Logged
Vote (1) for the Urist scale!
I shall be eternally happy. I shall be able to construct elf hunting giant mecha. Which can pour magma.
Urist has been forced to use a friend as fertilizer lately.
Read the First Post!

stabbymcstabstab

  • Bay Watcher
  • OW SNAP!
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Winter 1940 (Design Phase)
« Reply #2891 on: May 30, 2017, 09:07:28 pm »

Quote from: Votes
(2) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern A: Andrea, Madman198237
(4+1) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern C: GUNINANRUNIN, NUKE9.13, Kashyyk, evictedSaint,Stabby
( 8) 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, Powder Miner
Logged
Long Live Arst- United Forenia!
"Wanna be a better liberal? Go get shot in the fuckin' face."
Contemplate why we have a sociopathic necrophiliac RAPIST sadomasochist bipolar monster in our ranks, also find some cheese.

RAM

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Winter 1940 (Design Phase)
« Reply #2892 on: May 30, 2017, 09:26:12 pm »

Quote from: Votes
(2) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern A: Andrea, Madman198237
(4+1) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern C: GUNINANRUNIN, NUKE9.13, Kashyyk, evictedSaint,Stabby
( 8) 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, Powder Miner
0 "Killerqueen":
0 Unity Tiger Armor:
0 "Salad Shake" class heavy transport:

Please note tht the salad shake is quite ambitious, and is basicalyl all carrier. You need to do the fleet carrier in two parts. I know that it is painful to hear, but it is sadly true.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2017, 09:31:17 pm by RAM »
Logged
Vote (1) for the Urist scale!
I shall be eternally happy. I shall be able to construct elf hunting giant mecha. Which can pour magma.
Urist has been forced to use a friend as fertilizer lately.
Read the First Post!

Madman198237

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Winter 1940 (Design Phase)
« Reply #2893 on: May 30, 2017, 09:34:10 pm »

Quote from: Votes
( 8) B3 'Compensator' 300mm Coastal Gun/Naval Cannon: Kashyyk, khan boyzitbig, Taricus, strongpoint, Nav, 10ebbor10, Baffler, voidslayer
Carrier Votes=12
          (1) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern A: Andrea
          (5+1) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern C: GUNINANRUNIN, NUKE9.13, Kashyyk, evictedSaint, Stabby, Madman198237
          (6) UFS-CV-40 Zheleznogorod B: Kot, Mulisa, Azzuro, NUKE9.13, Piratejoe, Powder Miner
0 "Killerqueen":
0 Unity Tiger Armor:
0 "Salad Shake" class heavy transport:

Guys, we need to consolidate carrier votes. We agree a carrier NEEDS to win, we need to then choose a carrier option.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2017, 09:35:55 pm by Madman198237 »
Logged
We shall make the highest quality of quality quantities of soldiers with quantities of quality.

Wolfhunter107

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Winter 1940 (Design Phase)
« Reply #2894 on: May 30, 2017, 09:41:56 pm »


Those guns are turreted, so that thing could definitely shoot broadside. That said, those monitors had plenty of disadvantage. They were slow, fat, and weren't all that seaworthy--They were designed for inshore work, and suffered elsewhere.
Logged
Just ask yourself: What would a mobster do?
So we butcher them and build a 4chan tallow soap tower as a monument to our greatness?
Pages: 1 ... 191 192 [193] 194 195 ... 500