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

[Kashyyk]

We need to build a warship using our Overcompensator guns. It's been mentioned repeatedly that relying on undergunned destroyers to act as line ships has been screwing us over at sea.

[NUKE9.13]

Welp. Time to abandon the sea. Cannala has sent a pretty clear message here: they are not going to give us even the slightest chance of evening the naval odds.
So, we turn to the air for solutions. I say we design a large transport plane. Just bypass the naval theatre, and invade by air.

[10ebbor10]

Yeah, it's obvious now. We need to abandon the Sea. We can't even hold our own shore.

No more dedicated Sea designs, only designs that aid elsewhere and aid the Sea.

At the end of this turn, the Cannalan's will get 1 extra ore. This ore will allow them to keep dominating the Seas, and will allow them to keep the land as well. We need to ensure we don't loose the Jungle as a top priority.

[evictedSaint]

I just don't think a battleship or a cruiser will be able to go toe-to-toe with cannala, especially since they just put out an even better battleship.  And especially not one that we build.  Changing the nature of combat is usually more powerful, which is why I think going for a sub would be a better investment than spending the turn building equipment that will likely be inferior to Cannalas.  Plus, merchant subs could be an easy TC.

I think we should abandon the sea, but if we insist on trying I advise against trying to "match" and encourage trying to "change".

[andrea]

Hear me out: Cannala built another ship. Another big, slow ship. and furthermore, the report mentions how even our small dolphins can incapacitate it.
WHat is the best weapon against big slow ships? Torpedoes. We don't need to have big naval cannons, if we can use big naval torpedoes.
Hence my proposal is to design a proper naval torpedo, capable of sinking ships, and revising the archer to become a more capable torpedo destroyer.
Furthermore, I propose a wire guidance system to allow the crew to steer the torpedoes. This will make them far more effective and will give us experience in guidance systems that we will be able to use for missiles later.


UF-TD-1941 "Narwhal"
This is the next step in Torpedo technology, using all the knowledge of the dolphin plus more.
This torpedo weights 2 tons and uses a wet-heater propulsion. Being made for naval use, it has a considerably longer range than its aerial counterpart, while still having space for a larger warhead.
The warhead itself still employs the magnetic detonator that made the dolphin fearsome.
The main improvement, however, is the wire guidance system. A wire, deployed from a spool, allows to send signals to a rudimentary guidance systems which makes the torpedo remotely steerable.

[evictedSaint]

Just gonna repost this idea here...just think about it.

Missile Cruisers. 
Cruise Missiles.


Basic Idea: a Guided Missile package that can be deployed in defensive emplacements, or added onto existing vehicles like our Breaker or Salamander (much like their Raider's RPG). Gives us experience building guided missiles.

UF-ATGM-41 Saltseeker' Pattern A

Forenia's first step towards guided missiles and one-hundred seventy-fourth step towards better rockets, the United Forenian Anti-Tank Guided Missile 'Saltseeker' is designed as a heavy anti-tank weapon that can be deployed via stationary infantry emplacements or appended to vehicle turrets.

Relying on a modified SARUKH rocket, the Saltseeker is launched via a disposable tube à la our Recoilless Rifles.  Eight fins lay flat until free of the tube, at which point they spring free to provide stability and control for the missile.  Four kilometers of braided steel-reinforced wire is spooled in the rear of the rocket which is dispensed as the rocket flies along.  This wire is connected to the control station which the operator uses a joy-stick to control the flight of the missile.  Rather than controlling roll and pitch like in a fighter plane, this joy-stick controls yaw and pitch instead.  This relatively simple programming is handled by the launcher rather than putting the control station in the missile.  The missile uses a small launch-motor to kick it free of the tube to prevent exhaust from frying the operator, and a small probe that extends outward from the tip to allow detention prior to striking a surface.  A small scope sight is attached to the launcher for the user to look through.  A crosshairs is to be placed on the target and the operater must keep the fired missile in the center of the crosshairs.  This rudimentary targeting system is to allow more precise control at maximum range.

The Saltseeker is designed as a 'package' that can be installed on vehicles for a small additional cost.

We can totally do this - it's based off of the Malkara Missile which was developed between 1951 and 1954.  90% kill rate.  We have all the prerequisite tech.  It gives our tanks, salamanders, and defensive emplacements the extra punch to knock out enemy armor from long range.  It opens the door to AA missiles, Cruise Missiles, and if we do subs we'll want wire-guided torpedos or TASM missiles to hit enemy ships.

It is an investment with a real, present bonus that we have all the tech to pull off.

Wire-guided and radio-controlled missiles existed in WW2.  Hell, wire-guided torpedos existed before then, too.  We can do it!!!

[10ebbor10]

Our only effective torpedo delivery systems is planes, and your torpedoes are too heavy.

Our destroyers can not get in range.

90% kill rate

In the manufacturer's tests. In reality, it was rubbish.

[andrea]

Yes, our only torpedo deploying mechanism now is planes. Hence why this design would have to be paired with an archer revision, to make it useful.

As for guided missiles, guided torpedoes are a stepping stone that can still prove useful. Shooting straight for missiles will be hard, they are significantly harder to guide and their targets are much more mobile.

[Olith McHuman]

How about guided bombs? I bet the reckless could kill that ship from a safe altitude with a big one. Basic ones would be in period too (I seem to recall one that was steered by joystick via radio an had a flare for visibility). And even with a bad roll the bomb could still be dropped like a normal one.

[Madman198237]

Why two tons?
One not ONE ton, which can be carried by the Haast (One at a time, anyway) and thus amplify our air power?


I'd go for guided missiles. If we start there, we can progress to better versions. AGMs (Anti-Ground-Missiles) would allow our Haasts especially to become deadlier than ever, and anti-shipping missiles (Yes, those are a thing. Rather like a torpedo with a rocket motor, in some cases) would allow us to cripple their navy from the air.

[10ebbor10]

Nearly everything the enemy has in the Seas next turn will get cheaper. Investing in the Seas will accomplish nothing but give the enemy the opportunity to invade succesfully.

Anyway, a few ideas.

UF-41-LFT "Golden Salamander"

This design is based upon our thrustworthy Salamander chassis, to allow for the easy development of seversl new technologies. Firstly, the ERA is grabbed from the archives, and reworked untill it functions properly. Secondly, the design is adjusted so that it can be equipped with a large, vehicular flamethrower.
 

UF-41-HSB "Peregrine"

The Peregrine high speed bomber is a solution to recent Cannalan improvements. A relatively light vehicle, it relies on it's speed to avoid unwanted attention. Equiped with 20 mm AS-18 autocannons and a miniaturized version of the Sarukh rocket launcher, this vehicle can rapidly demolish enemy lines.

How about guided bombs? I bet the reckless could kill that ship from a safe altitude with a big one. Basic ones would be in period too (I seem to recall one that was steered by joystick via radio an had a flare for visibility). And even with a bad roll the bomb could still be dropped like a normal one.

Reckless is getting torn apart by their jet fighters.

On a side note, people are starting to suffer from tunnel vision.

Do not Focus Only on the naval area. We can not afford to ignore land and air


Edit :

Right now we've had a couple turns where both sides are attacking in the same lane, but trying to make landfall on enemy islands. Right now I've been evaluating each separately and I think if they both gain ground, I'll have whoever did so by a lesser margin get cut off so there's not a weird dual-front in the same lane. However I've also been sort of going against my rule that one side must gain ground if they attack in the same lane. Do you think I should keep running it the way I have been, or require one side to successfully make landfall and gain 1 piece of the next island? An alternative might be to track who has 'initiative' in the sea part of a lane somehow, so that both sides can't attack opposite sides of the sea section at the same time (this would be more similar to how I ran it in the old games where everyone attacked every turn

I never really liked the one-side must gain ground thing, so I prefer the current version.

[Devastator]

Nearly everything the enemy has in the Seas next turn will get cheaper. Investing in the Seas will accomplish nothing but give the enemy the opportunity to invade succesfully.

Do not Focus Only on the naval area. We can not afford to ignore land and air

So.. not doing anything about the sea will prevent the enemy from invading successfully?  That's not how it works.

[evictedSaint]

Well, they had a major advantage last turn and were unsuccessful.  Letting them continue holding the sea doesn't mean they do land.

[10ebbor10]

So.. not doing anything about the sea will prevent the enemy from invading successfully?  That's not how it works.

It's exactly how it works.

We threw the enemy back from the Jungle with :

who still have an advantage in infantry combat and benefit from their now-cheaper Salamander, drive Cannalan forces back.

We threw them back from the Mountain with :

they don't have an advantage in land combat to make up for it.

We are not going to dent the Cannalan naval advantage this turn. Simply won't happen. They get extra materials and resources. Half their ships will become cheaper. We need something that blows them up on the coast.

Edit :

Btw, if you guys so desperatly want to do something in the naval sphere, make naval mines. We have magnetic detonators, that makes mines enormously better. We could do it in a revision.

[Kashyyk]

"Lets not bother with naval designs, the enemy is too strong to try, don't mind that the GM said that naval invasion assets are needed in order to do anything."

If you guys insist on not going toe to toe with their warships, can I at least try this?

UFN-DD-41 "Ranger"
A re-work of the floating coffin that is the "Archer", this does away with the undergunned bumblebee cannons in exchange for four of enhanced Sarukh rocket batteries. These enlarged rockets are designed to carry 10kg warheads up to 20km. The expected inaccuracy at such ranges is counteracted by the sheer volume of fire these batteries can output. It is also fitted with six torpedo tubes aside. In total, this ship should output a ridiculous volume of rockets and torpedoes to the point that accuracy should almost be a non-issue. Enhanced steam engines are used to increase speed and maneuverability. Finally, the ship is fitted with smoke generators, able to deploy a smoke screen large enough to hide our aircraft carriers.