I like how your worst-case for the missile sub is that the launchers don't work, while your worst-case for the torpedo sub is that it can't submerge or outright sinks. Biased much?
And you're not addressing MoP's point, where he wanted to spend two design actions on the Sobriety instead. Arguing that the Sobriety is going to be the same difficulty is ridiculous, it literally asks for everything the Archer II has, and the VLS cells, and some useless bells and whistles like the IR detection.
In terms of cost, the Archer II again outright wins, given that the Sobriety carries multiple Expensive Saltseekers and will be Expensive or Very Expensive itself.
Also, you want the missile sub to do submerged combat? Yeah, given the Saltseeker is our very first ASM ever, I'm sure the GM will give us a free pass on launching it submerged - something that, in the real world, again took years of engineering to even pull off. And they had working subs to test with, even.
In case you have forgotten, even if we conquer the jungle only the VVF goes down in price (from VE to E) and we still have to cross another sea to get into Cannala proper, while if we lose naval advantage the Cannalans are two turns from outright winning the game, as well as denying us the possibility of winning via nuke via Vlanlados. Navy isn't going to go away, sorry to burst your bubble.
The worst case is that the missiles don't work because even if it can't submerge to employ its torpedo tubes it would still be useful as a missile frigate, so I was applying the outcome that either: the sub's main weapon doesn't work OR it can't submerge to both subs. My point is that if your design has buggy torpedoes or submerging, it's useless, but our sub only has a single point of failure which would make it completely (emphasis on completely) useless which is the missiles.
The missile sub is certainly more difficult, I'd prefer it had no torpedo tubes or IR sensors at all to save on cost and complexity, but relative difficulty isn't important, what's important is the category. The question is if one is going to be Hard or the other Very Hard. I'm saying we don't know and that vertical launch missiles and IR isn't going to put it into a different category of difficulty. but I still think they'll be in the same category of difficulty. I don't have any way of proving it though without a verdict from Sensei.
Aren't you advocating for a transition to missile subs next turn anyways? If that's the case then the expense in the end is the same, at a cost of another action which doesn't need to be spent. I'll agree that the Archer II would be cheaper but it can also be more easily countered. Our enemy has expensive, large cruisers and aircraft carriers, an expensive or very expensive missile sub fills the role just fine.
The Sobriety has two torpedo tubes. I didn't mean to imply we should have underwater launch capable missiles (but I don't think it's a very complicated idea when we already have such sophisticated missile technology).
That's why I want a missile sub, it's a difficult threat to answer quickly and it gives us space to make designs that will win the land war.
I don't follow this reasoning. You are aware that the
entire point of a missile sub is to use the submerging ability to pop up and fire unexpected missiles from inside enemy ASM range and escape again, right? If the Sobriety can't submerge, then it's useless anyway, carrying only two or three Saltseekers and being Expensive/Very Expensive and slow, and we should just go for the missile cruiser which carries 10-20 missiles at three or four times the speed instead. Suggesting that the sub, if it fails to be a sub, can double as a missile frigate is ridiculous. And our torpedoes aren't buggy, for god's sake, we've been using them for literally the length of the entire war without complaints. You'll note that the Archer II specifically doesn't throw a new torpedo design in the package for the sake of bells and whistles even though I want it.
Regarding difficulty, I suppose we must agree to disagree on this point. I simply don't think the Sobriety, which is going to be a rather larger sub in comparison to the Archer to carry our small-plane-sized ASMs, will be in the same difficulty tier as the Archer. Again, one is a 1940s design, the other is a 1960s design, and
we don't have any experience designing subs at all.
But if you can get Sensei to say that both would be the same difficulty and have the same penalties for a low roll, then sure, I'll switch my vote over to the Sobriety.Yes, I want a missile sub the turn after, as that's the turn we'll have to try and effect a landing on the plains island, or cross the last bit of sea into Cannala if we take the entire jungle next turn. One of my arguments for the Archer is difficulty: I'd argue that we need to spend an action to get a good result on the missile sub. And to go back to the cost argument, if the Sobriety was Very Expensive, I don't see how having a sub carrying two Saltseekers and
in fewer numbers than our huge-ass carriers is going to make any difference at all, unless the Saltseeker magically becomes 100% accurate and gains a nuclear warhead.
Fair point on not having underwater launched missiles, I see that I misread your post.
The missile sub is difficult to answer, but it's not going to be
necessary for the enemy to answer if it's VE/buggy/ineffective because it only carries two missiles. And if the Sobriety fails, you can shelve thoughts of fixing it with another design action because by then the Cannalans will be on our homeland and we'll have to make a land design to push them back. As well as missing the window for us to land on Cannala next next turn too!
Poll
17 (16%)
Author
Topic: Intercontinental Arms Race: Finale (Read 602954 times)