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

[somemildmanneredidiot]

Grabbing the U-boat from the Germans is an excellent idea as we could use it or revise it to grab ourselves additional resource transportation, in addition to its torpedo deployment and harassment roles.

Giving up on the Naval battle will cause our defeat. We need to understand and acknowledge that right now, otherwise we may as well surrender the game. Refusing to make any advancements upon the Naval front will allow our enemy to keep advancing their ground and their tech until we can't resupply our islands, which will lead to a slow and painful death for our soldiers holding them. To surrender the Sea is to surrender the War.

The battleship is an excellent start to stomping those pirates at their own game. Forcing them to engage on our terms is how we've made advances in Naval combat and it's how we'll regain the even measures we seek, which is exactly what a heavily armed and armored ship will do for us. To push it even further after we create the battleship, we should push ourselves to the edge of we are capable of and create a National Effort quality Carrier. That we haven't already is a tragedy that needs to be remedied. It'll allow us to have a concentrated air superiority advantage wherever we need it which is the bread and butter of our war doctrine.

[10ebbor10]

Giving up on the Naval battle will cause our defeat. We need to understand and acknowledge that right now, otherwise we may as well surrender the game. Refusing to make any advancements upon the Naval front will allow our enemy to keep advancing their ground and their tech until we can't resupply our islands, which will lead to a slow and painful death for our soldiers holding them. To surrender the Sea is to surrender the War.

Except that is not a thing within the mechanics of the game.

Complete isolation is not a possibility, so, we don't have to take it into account.

If the GM starts to change the rules just to ruin us, then we may as well surrender.

The battleship is an excellent start to stomping those pirates at their own game. Forcing them to engage on our terms is how we've made advances in Naval combat and it's how we'll regain the even measures we seek, which is exactly what a heavily armed and armored ship will do for us. To push it even further after we create the battleship, we should push ourselves to the edge of we are capable of and create a National Effort quality Carrier. That we haven't already is a tragedy that needs to be remedied. It'll allow us to have a concentrated air superiority advantage wherever we need it which is the bread and butter of our war doctrine.

Making a battleship will accomplish nothing the Cannallan's can't overcome in a single design, while we'll need to spend two.

Making a national effort carrier will accomplish nothing.

[Powder Miner]

It is a mechanic within the game, and one that we are very painfully experiencing right now -- TC halving.

We don't need a battleship right now, because we already have ourselves capital ships, we just need ships to prevent those capital ships from sinking -- escorts. We need cruisers right now from a strategic perspective.

[10ebbor10]

And if we do, the enemy will just revise the Khorne and we'll loose again, being behind 1 design action.

We outspend the enemy 4:1 in designs spend on the naval area, and we're no closer to not being horribly defeated.

[evictedSaint]

Giving up on the Naval battle will cause our defeat. We need to understand and acknowledge that right now, otherwise we may as well surrender the game. Refusing to make any advancements upon the Naval front will allow our enemy to keep advancing their ground and their tech until we can't resupply our islands, which will lead to a slow and painful death for our soldiers holding them. To surrender the Sea is to surrender the War.

Well, let's surrender then.  We can't catch Cannala in the ocean theatre, even if we spend literally the rest of the game trying.  They can and will remain one step ahead of us.  If we can't make up that advantage elsewhere, then there's no point in continuing because that means the game was irrevocably stacked against us from the very start.

[Madman198237]

Strange...
This is exactly what Cannala seems to say every time our aircraft hit them where it hurts.

This is why I want to see the radar---it uses our aircraft advantage to hurt them everywhere. If we want to be defeatist about catching their navy, then go around the dumb thing and have done with it all.

[10ebbor10]

Except, of course, the Cannalan's don't actually have a point. They only complain because they find it unfair that they can't enact a total naval blockade.

In a single turn, they designed a jet fighter which is better than ours, while we rolled a 6 on jet fighter design. We will need a total of 2 revision (thrust upgrade(already done) + decomplexify) to equal them.

Meanwhile, the situation is reversed for us at Sea. We rolled a 6 on a carrier, and get a tiny pre-World War 1 design. They roll a 1 on a carrier, and get a much better carrier, with a few flaws.


Also note, unlike the Cannalan's, we actually have experience with aircraft carrier design.

[Azzuro]

Except, of course, the Cannalan's don't actually have a point. They only complain because they find it unfair that they can't enact a total naval blockade.

In a single turn, they designed a jet fighter which is better than ours, while we rolled a 6 on jet fighter design. We will need a total of 2 revision (thrust upgrade(already done) + decomplexify) to equal them.

Meanwhile, the situation is reversed for us at Sea. We rolled a 6 on a carrier, and get a tiny pre-World War 1 design. They roll a 1 on a carrier, and get a much better carrier, with a few flaws.

Errr, weren't you previously arguing that the Thunderbird was superior to the Spearhead? And given that the Spearhead is an expense level below and outnumbers the Thunderbird minimally 2:1, yet can only bring the situation to air parity, suggests the Thunderbird is definitively better.

[10ebbor10]

Errr, weren't you previously arguing that the Thunderbird was superior to the Spearhead?

No?

The Cannalan's somehow made a better jet, and then revised their carrier to be on par with ours.

And given that the Spearhead is an expense level below and outnumbers the Thunderbird minimally 2:1, yet can only bring the situation to air parity, suggests the Thunderbird is definitively better.

No, we maintain air superiority due to the fact that we have tonnes of other, good plane designs and because of our Air general. Without him, we'd certainly have lost it.

Oh, and remember, Affordability is part of the quality of the design.

The heavy cannon in the Spearhead is best suited for hunting bombers (which it does extremely well) but isn't a huge advantage in regular dogfights, not enough to make up for its greater weight. The Thunderbird is somewhat a better dogfighter; it can't quite turn as tight as low speeds but it can climb and maintain energy better. Forenians maintain an air advantage thanks to their better training, and the capacity of their carriers (don't forget that the Wasp Nest is still in service as well) which helps somewhat to offset the fact that their jets are bloody expensive

The Thunderbird is a better design. It's only somewhat worse as a dogfighter, but it's a much, much better bomberhunter. In addition, it's cheaper.

Don't forget that we already spend a revision to upgrade the engines. Had we not done that, we wouldn't have the climbing advantage, and would've been decimated completely.

[andrea]

keep also in mind that in this case we don't actually have a design advantage because both sides have similar aircraft experience. In fact, having done a turboshaft before the jet engine they had an advantage in designing it. Our craft is better because we spent a revision upping its engine.

[10ebbor10]

Which is my point.

We have a serious design disadvantage in the naval area, the Cannalan's have no design disadvantage anywhere.

We're dealing with an Assymetric game start combined with mechanics that reinforce design superiority. All this forces us to abandon the Sea.

[Azzuro]

Okay, my mistake. But PM has already been over this issue with you. The expense is part of the design, but you will note the Spearhead is more expensive in resource cost than the Thunderbird. It's only because the Cannalans control the strategic resources that it's cheaper. If you look back at the very analysis you posted, armament isn't an issue because both planes tend to be glass cannons and an autocannon burst will bring them both down regardless of calibre/number. And I don't believe we were ever going to use mixed ammunition belts on plane guns in any case.

Also, we have air superiority over the sea because we have more (Cheap) carriers and thus numbers. It's stated explicitly in the turn. Also, under the Plains section, the Cannalans are only at parity with us when they also aren't hobbled by relative carrier limitations. Honestly, read the turn.

[Sheb]

I still think it's worth pursuing a good naval design. The reasons we didn't do well even though we spent many design on it is because of duplication of effort: we invested a ton in carriers and little in the other ways to get naval power. The marginal improvement of each carrier is diminishing. We need to get gun cruisers/BB, submarines and more stuff out therE.

[10ebbor10]

The expense is part of the design, but you will note the Spearhead is more expensive in resource cost than the Thunderbird. It's only because the Cannalans control the strategic resources that it's cheaper

[4 Ore (1 Ti), 4 Oil]  vs [4 Ore (1 Ti, 1 Al), 4 Oil]

Both sides start with 1 Al.

Point irrelevant.

If you look back at the very analysis you posted, armament isn't an issue because both planes tend to be glass cannons and an autocannon burst will bring them both down regardless of calibre/number.

There are more things in the sky than jet fighters.

Cannala's jet is much better at shooting down bombers.

And I don't believe we were ever going to use mixed ammunition belts on plane guns in any case.

That would be stupid. We would already be using mixed belts ages ago had it been possible. We know how to make the ammo.

It's stated explicitly in the turn. Also, under the Plains section, the Cannalans are only at parity with us when they also aren't hobbled by relative carrier limitations. Honestly, read the turn.

And we still have the advantage of different planes designs and Air General there. The fact that we're equal clearly indicates the Cannalans are superior.

Before either side introduced Jets, the Cannalan's were loosing heavily.

Regardless of your opinion on the relative power of the Jets, you can agree with me that the Cannalan's don't have nearly as much trouble taking the air than we have taking the Sea, right?

I still think it's worth pursuing a good naval design. The reasons we didn't do well even though we spent many design on it is because of duplication of effort: we invested a ton in carriers and little in the other ways to get naval power. The marginal improvement of each carrier is diminishing. We need to get gun cruisers/BB, submarines and more stuff out therE.

I agree that further Carrier development is useless. However, I don't think any other naval development will help.

We're too far back, and the enemy has such great advantage that they can get away faster.

[Azzuro]

You know what? Why don't you take this up with Mandemon in the Embassy thread, it'll be good for a laugh.