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]

On D-Day there was a lot of waiting for everyone to form up (Largest amphibious landing ever, after all). Also, they were fighting rough seas in less-than-ideal landing craft.

[Parsely]

On D-Day there was a lot of waiting for everyone to form up (Largest amphibious landing ever, after all). Also, they were fighting rough seas in less-than-ideal landing craft.

"Less-than-ideal"?

0 "Caviar Soup" support ship:
0 "Paralytic Sneeze" bombardment ship:
1 'Compensator' 300mm Coastal Gun:  Piratejoe
0 "Caviar Soup Again?" support ship:
1 Ray of Deadlier Death: Madman198237
10 UF-ASA-40 "Overcompensator" Anti-Ship Artillery: Sheb, 10ebbor10, evictedSaint, Khan Boyzitbig, NAV, Andrea, Kashyyk, Powder Miner, Azzuro, GUNINANRUNIN

[Azzuro]

Anyway, one final argument for coastal artillery. This turn all three lanes are going to be naval invasions, which is exactly what coastal artillery defends against. Thus, best to do it now and gain maximum benefit from its timing, while it's also a step on the way to a less submarine-based navy.

[RAM]

0 "Caviar Soup" support ship:
0 "Paralytic Sneeze" bombardment ship:
1 'Compensator' 300mm Coastal Gun:  Piratejoe
0 "Caviar Soup Again?" support ship:
2 Ray of Deadlier Death: Madman198237, RAM
10 UF-ASA-40 "Overcompensator" Anti-Ship Artillery: Sheb, 10ebbor10, evictedSaint, Khan Boyzitbig, NAV, Andrea, Kashyyk, Powder Miner, Azzuro, GUNINANRUNIN

Note that I am not voting for my own design on principal, and the radar should be old enough to get some bonuses.

[Madman198237]

The Higgins boat was not the best available. But it was simple to produce and use, so it was chosen over some American designs that included more armor, rear-facing hatches, guns, amphibious capability, etc.

[Parsely]

The Higgins boat was not the best available. But it was simple to produce and use, so it was chosen over some American designs that included more armor, rear-facing hatches, guns, amphibious capability, etc.

The open top of the Higgins boat allows it to carry tall payloads and a front ramp makes for easy and efficient unloading of troops and equipment. Amphibious capability and rear-facing hatches are unnecessary unless it's an enclosed, armored, armed vehicle that can contribute to the beach assault, and if it's a tank like the Salamander you make it more expensive and less able to carry payload. Not to mention if you plan to commit it to the assault that it can't be going back to the landing ships to pick up another wave of men and gear. If we hadn't wanted a vehicle that could fight in river crossings for winning the jungle, we should have gone with a Higgins boat that was just big enough to deploy tanks.

We saw how unsuccessful the Salamander was in a coastal landing situation, and, ignoring their naval advantage for a moment, that's because it was too expensive to be employed in the numbers needed to deliver an overwhelming force, and it couldn't deliver our existing armor which have bigger guns and more armor and hence would have been way more valuable in an assault by comparison.

E: I said this before, but the danger of the front ramp is badly overstated because of the popularity of movies like Saving Private Ryan. For every boat that's unlucky enough to stop directly in front of a machine gun there are three dumping their troops safely at the same time. Not to mention you're in just as much danger pouring out of a rear-facing hatch since the defending machine guns should have overlapping fields of fire, which means that no matter what side of the boat you leave there's someone who can target you as you're exiting. Therefore the front ramp is the best choice on a non-amphibious craft since that ideally gets soldiers directly onto the sand so they don't have to wade through several feet of water, which puts them at even more risk of being machine gunned or drowning in their soaked gear than if they had been able to sprint directly onto dry land.

[Taricus]

...You know if the name was the issue I could've changed it (We can change the name prior to the design being locked in AFAIK ). I'd still recommend thwe coastal gun just be named compensator though; Overcompensator could be used for a 38cm cannon or the like

As for the salamander, we can make it cheap this turn, meaning we'll have enough for coastal landings. Though our focus this turn should be securing our shores.

0 "Caviar Soup" support ship:
0 "Paralytic Sneeze" bombardment ship:
1 'Compensator' 300mm Coastal Gun:  Piratejoe
0 "Caviar Soup Again?" support ship:
2 Ray of Deadlier Death: Madman198237, RAM
11 UF-ASA-40 "Overcompensator" Anti-Ship Artillery: Sheb, 10ebbor10, evictedSaint, Khan Boyzitbig, NAV, Andrea, Kashyyk, Powder Miner, Azzuro, GUNINANRUNIN, Taricus

[piratejoe]

0 "Caviar Soup" support ship:
0 "Paralytic Sneeze" bombardment ship:
0 'Compensator' 300mm Coastal Gun: 
0 "Caviar Soup Again?" support ship:
2 Ray of Deadlier Death: Madman198237, RAM
12 UF-ASA-40 "Overcompensator" Anti-Ship Artillery: Sheb, 10ebbor10, evictedSaint, Khan Boyzitbig, NAV, Andrea, Kashyyk, Powder Miner, Azzuro, GUNINANRUNIN, Taricus, Piratejoe

[evictedSaint]

It's nice, seeing us all agree on something for once. I hope the "do we change our government to appease nazi assholes" vote is equally agreeable.

[Taricus]

Only if we're agreeing to make the change for them

[Chiefwaffles]

no

[NUKE9.13]

Nope. The Nazis may kindly mind their own business. This is an alliance of convenience only.

[RAM]

I would just like to reiterate The 'Soup's modular design. It would, I hope, allow many versions to be made with a single revision. If we had sonar and big guns and helicopters and seamines and plane/lifeboat retrieval cranes and railguns and inflatable decoy ships and vertical-launch missiles and secret submarine resupply bays and ship's-cat+cabin-boy dispensers and golf greens and centrally hollow ships that enemy dive-bombers can't help but try to drop a bomb through the hole that makes the ship's lights flash in decorative patterns and a big puffs of coloured smoke rises up in the shape of "you win!" while exciting sounds blare out and fireworks go off... Well, we could probably produce several variants with a single revision to really quickly fill out our "small utility vessel" population. But I should probably add a specific mine-removal variant. It is relevant and unsupported at present. Ergh, too lazy...

Also note that the 'Sneeze is mostly the missile. Aside from that it is a catapult, which could potentially get us a free upgrade to our carrier catapult, and a missile, which is the same as our current missiles except much wider and very much longer, and a simple guidance mechanism, which should be easy, and a radar reciever, which is where all the work goes into it. Given what we can do with a revision to an archer, I don;t really see that it is much to expect that it might redue the size of our radar receivers.

[piratejoe]

Idea, compromise with the axis, ban the socialists but don't give seats to the FNP

[Sheb]

The thing is we really, really need something that hit hards on the sea. A battlecruiser based on the UF-ASA-40 should do mincemeat of everything they have afloat. Support ships are nice, but until they have actual ships to support their effect will be limited.

We could potentially decide to skip gun battleships and put all our effort in missiles and missiles boat, but that seems a bit premature: ship-based anti-ship missiles weren't deployed in large number until the mid-60's. A gun battleship will provide greatly enhanced sea power right now.

Tl;dr: I don't think your design are bad, I just think that right now they are behind a good, heavy gun combat ship in priority. Depending on how things come at sea, they might be useful later, where they can complement our ships.


Idea: Claim the Peace Party are judeo-bolshevik, ban them.