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

[Madman198237]

It CAN shoot broadside. That's why there's only one turret. Any more and a salvo would kick the ship over onto its side. Some monitors couldn't even fire every gun at the same time because of that very reason.

We do NOT want a monitor. They can't out-duel even a nominally smaller and weaker battleship, because they have a few relatively big guns, slow speeds, and slow rates of fire.


We need to get loaded Haasts deployed at sea. That will even the odds. Getting a new jet fighter next turn, one better than the Thunder-whatever-it-is and capable of carrier operations, will do that for us.

[RAM]

Guys, we need to consolidate carrier votes. We agree a carrier NEEDS to win, we need to then choose a carrier option.

It is cute what you did there, but without a consensus you really can't claim authority over the voting system. you need ALL of those people to agree "Bad carrier is stronk! Good gun is not stronk!"

So what you have done is completely invalid. If you really want something like that, then try adding a new option, like so...

(2) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern A: Andrea
(4+1) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern C: GUNINANRUNIN, NUKE9.13, Kashyyk, evictedSaint, Stabby, Madman198237
( 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" aerial cannon:
0 Unity Tiger Armor:
0 "Salad Shake" heavy transport:

0 Whichever carrier design has the most votes:
0 Whichever carrier-themed design has the most votes:

Also note that the Salad Shake is a carrier design, just one that takes two designs to get something good rather than one design to get something desperate.

[Taricus]

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.

Take a look at it from the system. We can't make a gun more than 30% larger without additional difficulty as part of a ship design. But a cannon 50% smaller (or more) has no such limitations.

[Madman198237]

?

I'm pointing out that some form of carrier is the consensus in an obvious format. Perhaps it will convince people to make a different choice. And I "can't claim authority over the voting system"? Would you like to discard that "secondary vote" now, or is it a highly selective anti-claims-of-authority system you're running?

Also, if you're going to grab another vote box, at least fix the numbers and don't screw it up.

( 8 ) B3 'Compensator' 300mm Coastal Gun/Naval Cannon: Kashyyk, khan boyzitbig, Taricus, strongpoint, Nav, 10ebbor10, Baffler, voidslayer
(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:

( 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:

Either box is correct.

[Taricus]

Given the first past the post system here, only the top one is correct.

[Madman198237]

Actually, vote-count-wise, they're correct. The second one is formatted to point out to people that while yes, a carrier is the majority opinion, the vote-splitting between carriers is a problem right now, and the supporters of carriers need to figure it out before we make a coast defense gun with no practical use for a minimum of two turns.

[Taricus]

A coastal gun has a benefit straight off the bat in stymieing their invasion attempts; they don't have a ship to outrange those guns. A carrier won't have a benefit given the designs will be very hard without prior large hull experience.

[VoidSlayer]

( 8 ) B3 'Compensator' 300mm Coastal Gun/Naval Cannon: Kashyyk, khan boyzitbig, Taricus, strongpoint, Nav, 10ebbor10, Baffler, voidslayer
(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:

( 8 ) B3 'Compensator' 300mm Coastal Gun/Naval Cannon: Kashyyk, khan boyzitbig, Taricus, strongpoint, Nav, 10ebbor10, Baffler
Carrier Votes=12
          (1) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern A: Andrea
          (6+1) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern C: GUNINANRUNIN, NUKE9.13, Kashyyk, evictedSaint, Stabby, Madman198237, 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:

My second vote would be for the UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern C the other one seems too ambitious for a single design.

In fairness I will abandon the 300mm gun and vote for a carrier since that seems to be the consensus.

[RAM]

Actually, vote-count-wise, they're correct. The second one is formatted to point out to people that while yes, a carrier is the majority opinion, the vote-splitting between carriers is a problem right now, and the supporters of carriers need to figure it out before we make a coast defense gun with no practical use for a minimum of two turns.

Except that that is not what they voted for. They voted for one specific design. They have not in any way confirmed that they would preer any of the other carrier designs over any of the non-carrier designs. You are assuming their opinions. Now, certainly, it would seem likely that someone who wants a carrier would prefer carriers in general to non-carriers, but there are other scenarios. There may be, for example, someone who wants a specific carrier docrine, and would eagerly avoid a carrier that does something that they object to and feel would contaminate our future together with carriers. There may be someone who is voting for a carrier as a vote exchange with someone else. and they are only voting for that one specific design to satisfy their collaborator who proposed that design, and doesn't actually care about carriers at al, they are just buying a vote for themselves. Really, there are agreat many reasons why someone would vote for an idea, and just assuming that everyone who chose a specific carrier automatically prefers any carrier is definitely presumtuous. But thankyou for fixing my failure to correct the numbers. I got caught up in the formatting and forgot, apologies!

[helmacon]

Someone throw me on the pattern C, please.

[Parsely]

Done.

( B3 'Compensator' 300mm Coastal Gun/Naval Cannon: Kashyyk, khan boyzitbig, Taricus, strongpoint, Nav, 10ebbor10, Baffler, voidslayer
(1) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern A: Andrea
(6+1) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern C: GUNINANRUNIN, NUKE9.13, Kashyyk, evictedSaint, Stabby, Madman198237, helmacon
(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:

[Olith McHuman]

( B3 'Compensator' 300mm Coastal Gun/Naval Cannon: Kashyyk, khan boyzitbig, Taricus, strongpoint, Nav, 10ebbor10, Baffler, voidslayer
(1) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern A: Andrea
(7+1) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern C: GUNINANRUNIN, NUKE9.13, Kashyyk, evictedSaint, Stabby, Madman198237, helmacon, McHuman
(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:

[evictedSaint]

Hey Voidslayer, I think your vote got lost? You switched to pattern C, right?

[VoidSlayer]

Yeah, sure lets do the big boat to put our planes on.

Pattern C, I think I copied some things wrong.

Put me on it.

[RAM]

(7) B3 'Compensator' 300mm Coastal Gun/Naval Cannon: Kashyyk, khan boyzitbig, Taricus, strongpoint, Nav, 10ebbor10, Baffler
(1) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern A: Andrea
(9*) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern C: GUNINANRUNIN, NUKE9.13, Kashyyk*, evictedSaint, Stabby, Madman198237, helmacon, McHuman, voidslayer
(6) UFS-CV-40 Zheleznogorod B: Kot, Mulisa, Azzuro, NUKE9.13, Piratejoe, Powder Miner
0 "Killerqueen":
0 Unity Tiger Armor:
1 "Salad Shake" class heavy transport: RAM
*second choice?