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

[Olith McHuman]

3 - UF-BID-41 Supernova: NAV, Madman, Jilladilla
6 - Z-Carrier Overhaul: 10ebbor10, evictedSaint, Stabby, Powder Miner, Taricus, McHuman
3 - Blood Eagle Repairs: RAM, Piratejoe, Kashyyk
0 - UF-RAC-42 "Martial Eagle":

[RAM]

Steam catapults are superior.

That's all there is to be said---there's no reloading except for cranking the thing back to position, there's no smoke, and no silly FLAMES on a warship (Come on now, don't you people learn ANYTHING about naval warfare? You do NOT start fires voluntarily around aircraft loaded with ship-killing ordinance).

Renaming it to "repressurisation" doesn't stop it from being reloading, and sticking a solid rocket-fuel pod into a slot is not worse than monitoring a pressure reading to ensure that the valves don't fail and make something explode. Using liquid hydrogen and oxygen would have their share of issues, but would be completely clean, powerful, and potentially restocked using electrical power. Or we could use a railgun, I mean, if we are not aiming for 2000+metres per second then we can tone down the power requirements and use pulses or something... Mostly though, rockets are local, while the steam has to be shipped in from somewhere, which is a lot of volume and points of failure. Last thing you want is for your catapult to be out of action for hours while you try to track down a loose bolt somewhere.
Not to mention that a steam system needs to be sealed, so you are pretty much stuck with cranking it back after every launch. Rockets and rails on the other hand can run serially if you have multiple harnesses.

Replacing smoke with steam is not that big of an improvement. The steam we are talking is probably at a rather extreme temperature, also it is at sea, so it'll absorb salt from the environment. Salty steam is not fantastically nice. And it is entirely possible to make a rocket that produces steam as its only exhaust. Certainly steam is less offensive than smoke, but it is not free of problems. A railgun on the other hand would have no exhaust at all.

Incendiary ammunition is not some sort of automatic win condition for naval warfare. Most military-grade explosives are about as flammable as people are or can often burn to ash without exploding. Also, hot steam can start fires too... Electricity can be a problem if it makes contact with a detonator, but those ought to be insulated...

[Madman198237]

I can only point you to the battle of Jutland while telling you that our militaries aren't even half as advanced as the British navy was at that point.

[Sensei]

Revision: Z-Carrier Overhaul

The expensive and smoke-producing rocket-catapults on the Z defeat the purpose of being able to rapidly launch aircraft, which has hurt our capabilities on the seas for years.  The rocket-pults are switched over to the more commonly-used steam catapults to facilitate rapid airpower deployment.  In order to appease the PAROI Party, the steam catapults will officially be referred to as "Steam-Powered Rocket Catapults".

Additionally, the rope suspension used to store aircraft in the rafters is switched over to modular steel bar mountings, which should prevent the ridiculous problems with aircraft swinging around and damaging themselves during ordinary maneuvers.

Normal: 2
Z-Carrier Steam Catapults: The Z-Carriers have had their rocket cartridge launch system replaced with a steam-powered one. It's faster to use and doesn't cloud up the deck so much. Unfortunately, so much time was spent trying to stop the PAROI party from blocking the idea (including a bill increasing the funding for Union Day Fireworks by 20% to appease them) that no attention was paid to the rafter storage mounts for aircraft.

[evictedSaint]

Thanks NAV.


So - do we press the north lane or the south lane?  Do we control the mountains to the south? If so, let's try for the tundra to disrupt their titanium source. I doubt we'll land successfully, but let's try it anyways.

[NAV]

Well this is a thoroughly underwhelming turn, but at least our tanks can survive one more hit and we can launch planes a bit faster at sea.

[Madman198237]

Quite a bit faster, the damaged planes are of minimal importance. Probably.

[NAV]

We're unlikely to make landing at cannala's mainland and wouldn't immediately benefit from doing to anyway. Let's press the south and middle, that way we have a chance of distrupting their titanium and making some of their stuff more expensive, and a chance of kicking them off our homeland.

[Sensei]

Hey, you guys might want to make some strategy votes.

[NAV]

Push them out of Forenia (1): NAV
Invade Titan (1): NAV

[Madman198237]

Push them out of Forenia (2): NAV, Madman
Invade Titan (2): NAV, Madman

[Jilladilla]

Push them out of Forenia (3): NAV, Madman, Jilladilla
Invade Titan (3): NAV, Madman, Jilladilla

Is this even a question?

[Madman198237]

Technically yes, because it was asked.

Really, though, it's not. We all know that crippling their air force AGAIN is going to hurt them worse than anything else we can do, and we ALSO know that taking them off our sub-demi-semi-hemi-quaver continent is also incredibly important.

[helmacon]

Push them out of Forenia (4): NAV, Madman, Jilladilla, helmacon
Invade Titan (4): NAV, Madman, Jilladilla, helmacon

[Kot]

I think we should conceal the name of Blood Eagle, and instead name it something else, just to make them think we made this in one turn and the original Blood Eagle was something different, or something.