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

[RAM]

1 "Narwhal" guided torpedo: RAM
(3) UF-ATGM-41 'Saltseeker': evictedSaint, Stabby, Madman198237
0 Golden Salamander AFV:
0 Peregrine CAS with rockets:
0 Ranger improved escort destroyers with rockets:
1 Proximity fuse: 10ebbor10
0 Overcompensator Mrk II coastal defence:
0 Maximum Effect aerial transport:
0 Sea Haul naval transport:
0 "Hunter" unoriginally named submarine:
2 Cavalier Class' Cruiser: Kashyyk, Taricus
0 Incompensation upgraded coatsal defence targeting and radar:
0 "Narwhal Ranger!" escort destroyer with rockets and bighuge torpedoes:
0 "Large Rock" Anti-radar bomb:
0 "Virgil" reckless radar:

Is there any chance of sticking a phased-array on the Virgil? It might be a bit much but it has been around for a long while and seems good... Unless we already have it or there is some problem that I am not seeing?

I do like the narwhal, but it needs a revision to be used... I kind of feel that maybe it should have at least a launching and control system with it? Something that could be mounted on multiple ships if we wanted to go that way... Ehh, a revision to the archer would probably be for the best I guess... I might swap my vote to Virgil maybe. I do like the idea of advancing radar and we have had it for long enough that we ought to be getting pretty comfortable with changing it...

[10ebbor10]

Anyway, I think I've given Taricus too much time already. Let's discuss the other proposals.

Narwhal guided torpedo : A highly problematic design. Intends to be both long ranged yet reliant on wire guidance. Giving the expected survival time of any of our destroyers in the face of the enemy, I can not see this thing being effective.

UF-ATGM-41 Saltseeker' Pattern A : All in all, a pretty good idea. Unlike the torpedo, here the wire guidance is for fairly short range, not dozens of kilometers. Only worry is ambition, the shitty variant of this design was only made in 1951

UF-41-LFT "Golden Salamander" : Flamethrower tank. Should be good at holding the Jungle and storming fortifications, probably going to suffer in other areas. Has the advantage of being based on the salamander, and thus being nautically capable. This should benefit enormously when storming beach fortifications. (Oh, and includes finally fixing our attempts at Explosive Reactive Armor)

UF-41-HSB "Peregrine" : A jet powered light bomber. Should stop the enemy from negating our bomber advantage, and should the enemy naval advantage a bit.

UFN-DD-41 "Ranger" : Replaces the Bumblebee with rockets, gets extra torpedo tubes, and more goodies. Seems like it would run out of ammo in 2.3 seconds.

UF-41-VT : Proximity fuses, a design literally hailed as something that won the war, on the same level of importance as radar. Should dramatically increase lethality of all large caliber weapons. Any narrow miss becomes a hit, dramatically improving accuracy of all designs. May be a bit ambitious.

UF-ASA-41 'Overcompensator Mrk II' : A spectacular and daring investigation to see if Sensei has a difficultly level below trivial. Really, this is a revision.

UFAF-MTA-39 'Maximum Effect' A spectacular and daring investigation to see if Sensei has an expense level above theoretical. Really, 16 jet engines?

UFS-CV-40c Sea Haul An interesting idea to solve naval TC problems without having to deal with the Sea. Will not help us in the short term, and is hence not  that usefull.

UFS-SUB-40c "Hunter" A rather peculiar submarine design. Includes a deck gun for if the captain is feeling suicidal, and a full radar and sonar system, making it the largest submarine ever designed. [Our radar is huge, it takes up an entire cargo ship]

UFS-CL-41 'Cavalier Class' Cruiser A cruiser which is the direct equivalent of the enemy Seaweed cruiser, except with slower firing weapons, no fire control systems, and designed by Forenians, who have no idea what they're doing.

Incompensation Actually, a very good radar design. Probably my second most favorite on the list currently.

Archer pattern S.T. "Narwhal Ranger!" Basically, a combination of the Narwhal design and the Ranger

Ana-bomb2000-1941-foo "Large Rock" Anti-radar missile An attempt to build a type of missile dating 1965, but with our current subpar radar tech

UF-RDN-1941-S 'Virgil' A rather conservative radar revision.

[10ebbor10]

We still have a medium and light armour advantage. We're only flagging in heavy armour.

Not really.

The Salamander is good, but it will not hold on it's own. We're noted as having an armor disadvantage.

If the Cannalans did this to us in the air, why is it so hard to believe we can do it to them at sea?

Because the Cannalan's actually build planes in the last 30 years. When they design a plane, it's as good as one of ours.

When we design a ship, it's a bunch of floating crap. When they design a ship, it's a state of the art vessel.

We can not catch up to them given that they systematically get better results.

All we need is one design on a large ship such as a battleship or cruiser, then we can revise it to different sizes. That still leaves plenty of actions to ensure our advantage elsewhere.

You said that before with the carrier, and then with the next carrier, and you'll say it again with the next ship too.

We have a big ship, it's the Z-class carrier. You can revise that, you don't need a design.

If you don't want to do that, I won't believe you when you say future naval actions will be revisions.

[Taricus]

Revising a carrier into a cruiser... We'll I'm just going to call you stupid for proposing such a BAD idea. While converting cruisers to carriers was done, the reverse wasn't and for good reason >.>

[Light forger]

Phased-array added let the feature creep begin

UF-RDN-1941-S 'Virgil' A rather conservative radar revision.

We are already trying it make it about a quarter of the size of the Cannala's and vastly smaller then our current system. I'm not really sure what is "conservative" about that.

[Sheb]

I like the idea of a cruiser, but why downsize the armament that much? The enemy is fielding 30 cm guns in their Victoria. We need to be able to hold the Victoria off.

[10ebbor10]

Revising a carrier into a cruiser... We'll I'm just going to call you stupid for proposing such a BAD idea. While converting cruisers to carriers was done, the reverse wasn't and for good reason >.>

Yes it's silly. Just as silly as the idea that you're going to revise a cruiser into a battleship, or any other of those things.

Let's not pretend.

If you give you a naval design now, you'll ask for a naval design next turn, and for naval design the turn after that.

I like the idea of a cruiser, but why downsize the armament that much? The enemy is fielding 30 cm guns in their Victoria. We need to be able to hold the Victoria off.

Because Taricus is making an inferior knock-off of the enemy seaweed cruiser which also uses weapons of that caliber.

We are already trying it make it about a quarter of the size of the Cannala's and vastly smaller then our current system. I'm not really sure what is "conservative" about that.

Our latest "Make radar smaller" design action was Normal in difficulty. Giving that 6 turns have passed since then, and we've gained experience both from that action and from revisions, "making the radar smaller once more" should be an easy action.

[Taricus]

The Maretto is a 130mm weapon, not 150mm. Big difference.

EDIT: @Sheb, it's because it's a light cruiser to escort our carriers, not a battleship of any stripe.

[10ebbor10]

Oh, whoops. Miscalculation there.

Anyway, doesn't your design rely on it being cheaper. I'm not sure how you're going to accomplish that, given that you want more armor and larger guns.

[Sheb]

The Maretto is a 130mm weapon, not 150mm. Big difference.

EDIT: @Sheb, it's because it's a light cruiser to escort our carriers, not a battleship of any stripe.

The issue was the swarms of Victorias, that design isn't going to help. They build a BC, we need a BB.

[Khan Boyzitbig]

The Maretto is a 130mm weapon, not 150mm. Big difference.

EDIT: @Sheb, it's because it's a light cruiser to escort our carriers, not a battleship of any stripe.

The issue was the swarms of Victorias, that design isn't going to help. They build a BC, we need a BB.

The Victoria was very expensive, they don't have swarms of them.

[10ebbor10]

Nothing is going to help :

Next turn, the enemy will have cheap minelayers, cheap destroyers, and a cheaper destroyer.

If we build a cruiser, it will be tied up by their abundant destroyers and destroyed by their battleships. If we build a battleship, it'll be mined, torpedoed and bombarded.

Cannala also benefits significantly from the ability to launch their A-2 Spark planes from Santos carriers, their bomb loads can quickly ruin radar systems, or make carrier flight decks unusable on Forenian ships (especially the Wasp Nest). The fact that Cannala isn't getting totally trounced in the air is enough to let their ships' superior cannons, armor, torpedoes, and sea mines do the talking.

Last turn, we got destroyed because the enemy had more jets. This turn, we got destroyed because they had more battleships.

Next turn, they'll have more destroyers, more jets (all their carriers can launch jets), and battleships.

[Taricus]

And they did spend an expense credit on them this turn; so I reckon they were thinking the increased amount of bombardment was going to help. Sucks for them that didn't turn out as planned.

@Ebbor Well then you best stop bitching because our fleet is going to need a lot of work then. Their destroyers will be dealt with by our cruisers (Their torpedo boats have been running rings around us because our destroyer doesn't do it's job because it's too lightly armed) and their capitals will be dealt with via naval aviation. Am I expecting a total victory? No. But one that lets us push it down to minor advantage is enough. The cannalans don't have any effective naval bombers so their entire naval strategy relies around large guns; if we start bringing in our own it'll lessen the effectiveness of their carriers.

EDIT: They will also have LESS battleships, they're still too expensive to be anything but VE even with the battlecruiser.

[10ebbor10]

The idea that you're going to push to minor Cannalan advantage is a fantasy.

The enemy gains cheaper destroyers and cheaper carriers. We won't be able to bomb their capital ships or deal with their destroyers.

Besides, in the extremely unlikely event that you succeed. What have you gained? Nothing, that's it. Because, unless the enemy is completely stupid, they'll try to take the Jungle, and they'll succeed.

[Taricus]

By that metric they're still going to take the jungle regardless; none of the designs supported are going to help keep the jungle if they work towards it. We do have a revision that we ARE going to dedicate to the fire control systems of the coastal batteries which will be placed on the cruisers.

And what have we gained if we push down their naval advantage? Simple, 1TC which we can then use to make our carriers cheaper thanks to the oil on Mutriqa not being collected.