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

[Sheb]

Why don't you want to build a battleship that can stand to the Victoria if we're going for surface ship?

[NUKE9.13]

Why don't you want to build a battleship that can stand to the Victoria if we're going for surface ship?

Well, the Victoria is not what's killing our carriers. It is too slow to catch them. Their destroyers and Buccaneers are what's killing our carriers, and a cruiser might be somewhat useful against them.

Folks voting for the Saltseeker: I am all in favour of developing missiles, but you should realise that the Saltseeker will not be immediately useful. Consider the X-4/X-7; the pinnacle of Nazi missile technology, developed at the very end of the war, with all their experience with V2s and whatnot- and the end product was shit. The french tested the X-7 after the war, and found it to be wildly inaccurate. Even the Malkara, developed in the fifties as a descendant of the X-7, was shit. Actually useful guided missiles will require at least two designs. Which may be worth it! But just know what you're voting for.

Regarding the Sea Haul: Ah, no, I sincerely doubt it. 5 TC = modern cargo ship. We do not have the technology.

Regarding a cruiser: I'm not saying we never develop a cruiser. I am saying it won't do us any good this turn. It won't knock them down to a minor NA. They're simply too far ahead.

I think we should use our revision on the Overcompensator. It was quite effective this turn at keeping their navy occupied, with better targeting and some other minor fixes, it should manage to keep their cheaper navy at bay as well.
I would vote for the Maximum Effect, but for a few changes. First, it should specify the ability to carry medium vehicles, like the Salamander. If it can't do that, it won't be much use. Second, I think we should probably build it (primarily) out of wood, to cut costs. Third, jet engines weren't used on cargo planes until several decades after the war (and there are still cargo planes in use today that don't use them), for good reason. Jets are good for speed (and height), not long hauls. Propellers are just more fuel efficient.

[somemildmanneredidiot]

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.

Fair cop, the design was mostly to get something on the table for 300mm improvements. RAM's design is much better than mine and I'm voting for it. It advances our electronics, our radar, and makes our coastal defenses signficantly stronger.

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

I would vote for the Maximum Effect, but for a few changes. First, it should specify the ability to carry medium vehicles, like the Salamander. If it can't do that, it won't be much use. Second, I think we should probably build it (primarily) out of wood, to cut costs. Third, jet engines weren't used on cargo planes until several decades after the war (and there are still cargo planes in use today that don't use them), for good reason. Jets are good for speed (and height), not long hauls. Propellers are just more fuel efficient.

In all fairness, it was 16 V12 engines. It was editted last night to say 6 Jet engines. I also figured that it would be best to get some sort of design for Air TC out there as you yourself have advocated for expanding our air TC. Also hooray, mire criticism! I have no idea what I'm doing with specific details so please tell me the specifics that are needed as you think of them. I'll get to editting now. Also I chose Jet Engines as we want more experience and developments in that field, and a 'practical' development like that would likely get more votes.


_____

Right now on a stragetic level we need to get more time to consolidate our gains and begin teching into more complicated ideas that will allow us to make progress into their territory. Those techs could be Guided Rockets, they could be Submarines, they could be fuckhuge ships, they could be Proixmity Fuses, they could be Salamander mounted Flamethrowers. That's for the next turns to be figured out. Right now we need to keep them off our shores and get the Oil that's been sitting there for a few turns. It will help secure and push our air advantage, which is the heart of our combat doctrine, and make sure that we're using all of our available resources.

To that end, we can spend this turn improving the 300mm which has proven to be effective at limiting their Naval effectiveness, which is the heart of their combat doctrine, and expanding our TC so we are able to field as much of our best equipment as possible. After that, we can debate and figure out what particular method of mass murder would be best to drive the Cannalas back to the (Dead) Golden Age of Piracy.

[Madman198237]

NUKE, the Cannalans have a 3 TC ship, don't they? A 3 TC ship smaller than ours, built decades before ours, based on an ironclad. Seriously! We can do better! How, exactly, do you know what a "modern cargo vessel" could carry relative to what a TC is?

It's a simplistic revision definitely worth our time. Getting it will solve our transport problems for now. Unless you have a better immediate plan that solves our transport problems AND makes progress towards revolutionizing warfare?

[Sheb]

Wait won't an extra sea TC be wasted while they have Major Naval Advantage?

[10ebbor10]

I would vote for the Maximum Effect, but for a few changes. First, it should specify the ability to carry medium vehicles, like the Salamander. If it can't do that, it won't be much use. Second, I think we should probably build it (primarily) out of wood, to cut costs. Third, jet engines weren't used on cargo planes until several decades after the war (and there are still cargo planes in use today that don't use them), for good reason. Jets are good for speed (and height), not long hauls. Propellers are just more fuel efficient.

Something like this, then.

UFAF-HAT-41 "Ice Giant"

This enormous cargo plane used for strategic transport of resources as well as deployment of heavy vehicles. It uses a wooden geodetic airframe (as used on the HAFB) strategically reinforced with aluminum where needed. Power is provided by 4 V12 engines on each wing. The nose of this enormous plane can fold open, which combined with the rear cargo door allows loads of all sizes to be transported, as long as the weight does not exceed the targeted 8-12 tonnes, allowing it to carry a Salamander. A series of rocket engines mounted beneath the wings can be fired not only to allow the vehicle to take off on remarkably short runways, but also allowing it to land on those same runways. Rockets mounted in the nose can be ignited to forcebly slow the vehicle down and stop it near instantly.

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:
0 UFAF-HAT-41 "Ice Giant"

[10ebbor10]

Wait won't an extra sea TC be wasted while they have Major Naval Advantage?

The idea is to get 2 extra TC. So that we loose 1 and keep the other.

NUKE, the Cannalans have a 3 TC ship, don't they? A 3 TC ship smaller than ours, built decades before ours, based on an ironclad. Seriously! We can do better! How, exactly, do you know what a "modern cargo vessel" could carry relative to what a TC is?

TC is weird.

Our dedicated cargoship gets 1 TC, while the Cannalan converted Ironclad gets 3, despite the fact that it's just 50% longer at 90 meters but much more expensive.

The Zheleznogorod, which by all reasonable estimates should be more than twice as long (Wasp's nest is 180 meters), is even bigger carries only just as many TC.

Our plane, which gives 1 TC, carries 4 tonnes.

[somemildmanneredidiot]

We're asking Sensei for more information about how TC works over Discord, which may take some time. Hopefully we'll get answers about those questions.

The Ice Giant looks fantastic IMO

[andrea]

The ice giant looks good. If we go for a TC plane, that is it. In fact, if it works (including the rocket things), it will be the definitive cargo plane.
Maybe also write about our reliability lessons from the reckless, just in case Sensei forgets?

[NUKE9.13]

UFAF-HAT-41 "Ice Giant"

Yes, that's what I mean. I like that you PAROI. Certainly the takeoff rockets are a good idea, and I guess braking rockets can't hurt... much.

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:
1 UFAF-HAT-41 "Ice Giant": NUKE9.13

[NAV]

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:
3 Cavalier Class' Cruiser: Kashyyk, Taricus, NAV
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:
1 UFAF-HAT-41 "Ice Giant": NUKE9.13

[10ebbor10]

1 "Narwhal" guided torpedo: RAM
4 UF-ATGM-41 'Saltseeker': evictedSaint, Stabby, Madman198237, 10ebbor10
0 Golden Salamander AFV:
0 Peregrine CAS with rockets:
0 Ranger improved escort destroyers with rockets:
0 Proximity fuse:
0 Overcompensator Mrk II coastal defence:
0 Maximum Effect aerial transport:
0 Sea Haul naval transport:
0 "Hunter" unoriginally named submarine:
3 Cavalier Class' Cruiser: Kashyyk, Taricus, NAV
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:
1 UFAF-HAT-41 "Ice Giant": NUKE9.13

Strategic voting to avoid making a cruiser, because we are not going to reduce them at Sea whatever you do or say.

[evictedSaint]

I think using wood is an incredibly bad idea for a modern heavy aircraft.  I know we want to cut costs, but it would be worth it to make it out of aluminumn instead. Wood is not nearly as strong, and the forces put on this plane by the rockets and weight will most assuredly damage a wooden frame.

Our Reckless has 4 V12's, and its limiting factor is speed and lift.  4 V12's on the Giant will not be enough.  Considering the plane is currently just "a bigger Reckless Effect" it would not be a bad idea to try and upgrade the engines - I would recommend trying to do turboprops rather than V12 engines.  The Salamander is pretty heavy; based on the BTR-80 but with Medium Armor instead of the Light Armor.  That would put it around 12-15 tons; the capacity needs to specify that it can carry a fully-loaded Salamander.  This would really help during landings, I think.

If you change these factors, then the Giant would be something I could see myself voting for.  But as it is, there's not enough there.  I still think guided missiles are a better investment, but at least this isn't a torpedo or cruiser.

[andrea]

it is 4 engines, PER WING.
total, 8 engines.

[evictedSaint]

Oh! My mistake.  That...is a big fucking plane.  It may be a better investment to do 3 turboprops per wing and still get the better speed.

My other points still stand, though.