Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Poll

Which team did you play in the last game?

Glorious Arstotzka
- 17 (16%)
Glorious Moskurg
- 13 (12.3%)
Ingloriously Didn't Play
- 76 (71.7%)

Total Members Voted: 106


Pages: 1 ... 475 476 [477] 478 479 ... 500

Author Topic: Intercontinental Arms Race: Finale  (Read 599860 times)

ConscriptFive

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Spring 1945 (Design Phase)
« Reply #7140 on: August 09, 2018, 10:53:48 am »

...only the VVF getting cheaper?  Suck it Wolfram Q. Gottfried.

Powder Miner

  • Bay Watcher
  • this avatar is years irrelevant again oh god oh f-
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Spring 1945 (Design Phase)
« Reply #7141 on: August 09, 2018, 12:09:55 pm »

The jungle is still the quickest way to an overland victory, because we only have to do one win (Rest of West Tereshkova) to get to Cannalan shores whereas through the middle lane we've got 1 (Plains 1-2) 2 (Plains 3) 3 (Archipelago 1) 4 (whatever the fuck is even beyond the Archipelago I don't remember lmfao 1-2) 5 (wtfiebtAIdrl 3) wins(!) and in the southern lane we have 1 (Titan remainders) 2 (City 1-2) wins to get to Cannalan shores

Also it seems to me that a missile submarine is what would get us the medium-term naval advantage as it's what would be more effective when the yarrs start trying to counter the subs, on account of having the distance on the enemy ships.

Quote
(0) UFS-DDG-45 'Onegin' Guided Missile Destroyer:
(0) UFS-CG-45 'Bogdanov' Guided Missile Cruiser :
(6) UFN-SS-45 Archer II: Kashyyk, Cnidaros, ConscriptFive, NAV, Happerry, Taricus
(0) UFS-GMC-45 "Outmatch" Pattern A:
(0) UFN-SSG-45 Sobriety:
(6) UFN-USB-45 "Sobriety" Pattern B: eS, voidslayer, Mop, zanzetkuken, Parsely, Powder Miner
Logged

Parsely

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • My games!
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Spring 1945 (Design Phase)
« Reply #7142 on: August 09, 2018, 01:25:35 pm »

I dunno what to make of this reasoning. So you want us to try two rolls at a Very Hard Design, instead of two at Hard? With the interim being a useless submarine, exactly when we need to prevent the Cannalans from taking two bites of our homeland and being in position to win the game the turn after?
Missile sub: One design roll, probably a revision if it turns out to be Very Hard, which AFAIK there's no GM verdict on there being a difference in difficulty. Worst case the vertical missile launchers don't work and we fix it, if it has issues with submerged combat we still have a missile frigate.
Pure torp sub: One design roll, if it can't submerge or the torpedo tubes flood the ship or something then we need revision, and then assuming we have a working sub another revision next turn to make it into a missile sub.

Do I have that right?

Now really isn't the time to be making safe, low value plays. We can't spend three actions on the sub. Good or bad we need to be making land plays next turn in order to make resource gains that will close out this game, so let's just go for what we want now. Either way we bait ASW counters because Cannala is a reactive team.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2018, 01:28:09 pm by Parsely »
Logged

Cnidaros

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Spring 1945 (Design Phase)
« Reply #7143 on: August 09, 2018, 01:51:02 pm »

I dunno what to make of this reasoning. So you want us to try two rolls at a Very Hard Design, instead of two at Hard? With the interim being a useless submarine, exactly when we need to prevent the Cannalans from taking two bites of our homeland and being in position to win the game the turn after?
Missile sub: One design roll, probably a revision if it turns out to be Very Hard, which AFAIK there's no GM verdict on there being a difference in difficulty. Worst case the vertical missile launchers don't work and we fix it, if it has issues with submerged combat we still have a missile frigate.
Pure torp sub: One design roll, if it can't submerge or the torpedo tubes flood the ship or something then we need revision, and then assuming we have a working sub another revision next turn to make it into a missile sub.

Do I have that right?

Now really isn't the time to be making safe, low value plays. We can't spend three actions on the sub. Good or bad we need to be making land plays next turn in order to make resource gains that will close out this game, so let's just go for what we want now. Either way we bait ASW counters because Cannala is a reactive team.

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.
Logged

Man of Paper

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Spring 1945 (Design Phase)
« Reply #7144 on: August 09, 2018, 02:30:33 pm »

I don't want to spend two designs on it, but I'd rather spend two designs on the same type of vessel, getting direct experience with it the first time if we do indeed need to dedicate more actions, than designing two different types of subs with two different roles over two turns. Going straight for the missile sub gives us a chance to get what we want now without tying up our next turn. Point is even if it does fail, the plan was to put two turns into sub design anyway. Why not risk it for the biscuit? Even if it's not that great we can at least use our revision to fix it, whereas we can't really revise the attack sub into the missile sub, or at least not easily.

Trying for the missile sub now keeps the rest of our actions open until we roll, while going for an attack sub automatically ties down another design if we don't get distracted by something else.
Logged

Parsely

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • My games!
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Spring 1945 (Design Phase)
« Reply #7145 on: August 09, 2018, 04:24:08 pm »

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.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2018, 04:31:45 pm by Parsely »
Logged

Cnidaros

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Spring 1945 (Design Phase)
« Reply #7146 on: August 09, 2018, 08:57:55 pm »

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!
Logged

Wizgrot

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Spring 1945 (Design Phase)
« Reply #7147 on: August 09, 2018, 11:04:09 pm »

Could we change it so the Archer 2 has double hulls? I wil vote the lock then. I just feel it will just better that way.
Logged

Cnidaros

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Spring 1945 (Design Phase)
« Reply #7148 on: August 09, 2018, 11:22:54 pm »

Could we change it so the Archer 2 has double hulls? I wil vote the lock then. I just feel it will just better that way.

Okay, changed it. Double hulls were used on another submarine, the German Type XXI U-boat in 1943. Debate online about the pros/cons of single/double hull seems to be all over the place, so I don't really have a strong opinion on it one way or another. I don't think it affects difficulty too, since the earliest of submarines also used the double-hull design. That source mentions double-hulled has a disadvantage in dive speed, but I can't find any other sources to back it up. In fact Wikipedia mentions the exact opposite: that the Type XXI had a faster dive time as the product of its hull form.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2018, 11:27:19 pm by Cnidaros »
Logged

evictedSaint

  • Bay Watcher
  • if (ANNOYED_W_FANS==true) { KILL_CHAR(rand()); }
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Spring 1945 (Design Phase)
« Reply #7149 on: August 09, 2018, 11:35:11 pm »

Single-hull pressure designs didn't really become common until nuclear subs were a thing.  Nuclear subs dont need oxygen to generate power, so they can stay underwater indefinitely - oxygen can be extracted from the water through electrolysis, which normally goes to keeping the crew alive and whatnot, but for a diesel-electric it would require more oxygen than that and it's generally more efficient to run the engines on the surface.  Since we don't have electrolysis plants or nuclear engines, our subs will spend a lot of time traveling on the surface, meaning a ship-shaped hull (i.e. the first hull in a double-hull design) would improve speed and efficiency. 

Wizgrot

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Spring 1945 (Design Phase)
« Reply #7150 on: August 10, 2018, 12:28:26 am »



Quote
(0) UFS-DDG-45 'Onegin' Guided Missile Destroyer:
(0) UFS-CG-45 'Bogdanov' Guided Missile Cruiser :
(7) UFN-SS-45 Archer II: Kashyyk, Cnidaros, ConscriptFive, NAV, Happerry, Taricus, Wizgrot
(0) UFS-GMC-45 "Outmatch" Pattern A:
(0) UFN-SSG-45 Sobriety:
(6) UFN-USB-45 "Sobriety" Pattern B: eS, voidslayer, Mop, zanzetkuken, Parsely, Powder Miner

Done. But I would rather selet a new name. Archer 2 is... too puny.
Logged

Jilladilla

  • Bay Watcher
  • Most Sleep Deprived
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Spring 1945 (Design Phase)
« Reply #7151 on: August 10, 2018, 01:25:28 am »

The Dolphin torpedo may be excellent, but the thing was designed before the Archer. It was meant for use by planes and only planes. The range on the things are garbage in respect towards ship torpedoes, but more or less in line with aircraft ones.

Quote
(0) UFS-DDG-45 'Onegin' Guided Missile Destroyer:
(0) UFS-CG-45 'Bogdanov' Guided Missile Cruiser :
(7) UFN-SS-45 Archer II: Kashyyk, Cnidaros, ConscriptFive, NAV, Happerry, Taricus, Wizgrot
(0) UFS-GMC-45 "Outmatch" Pattern A:
(0) UFN-SSG-45 Sobriety:
(7) UFN-USB-45 "Sobriety" Pattern B: eS, voidslayer, Mop, zanzetkuken, Parsely, Powder Miner, Jilladilla
Logged

Glory to United Forenia!

If you see a 'Nemonole' on the internet elsewhere, it's probably me

piratejoe

  • Bay Watcher
  • Obscure References and Danmaku everywhere.
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Spring 1945 (Design Phase)
« Reply #7152 on: August 10, 2018, 06:51:56 am »

Quote
(0) UFS-DDG-45 'Onegin' Guided Missile Destroyer:
(0) UFS-CG-45 'Bogdanov' Guided Missile Cruiser :
(7) UFN-SS-45 Archer II: Kashyyk, Cnidaros, ConscriptFive, NAV, Happerry, Taricus, Wizgrot,
(0) UFS-GMC-45 "Outmatch" Pattern A:
(0) UFN-SSG-45 Sobriety:
(8 ) UFN-USB-45 "Sobriety" Pattern B: eS, voidslayer, Mop, zanzetkuken, Parsely, Powder Miner, Jilladilla, Piratejoe
« Last Edit: August 10, 2018, 06:54:37 am by piratejoe »
Logged
Battleships Hurl insults from behind thick walls, Destroyers beat up small children, Carriers stay back in the kitchen, and Cruisers are a bunch of tryhards who pretend to be loners.

NUKE9.13

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Spring 1945 (Design Phase)
« Reply #7153 on: August 10, 2018, 08:17:37 am »

Quote
(0) UFS-DDG-45 'Onegin' Guided Missile Destroyer:
(0) UFS-CG-45 'Bogdanov' Guided Missile Cruiser :
(7) UFN-SS-45 Archer II: Kashyyk, Cnidaros, ConscriptFive, NAV, Happerry, Taricus, Wizgrot,
(0) UFS-GMC-45 "Outmatch" Pattern A:
(0) UFN-SSG-45 Sobriety:
(9) UFN-USB-45 "Sobriety" Pattern B: eS, voidslayer, Mop, zanzetkuken, Parsely, Powder Miner, Jilladilla, Piratejoe, NUKE9.13
So, what clinches it for me is that, as mentioned, our torpedoes are not useful for non-aerial use. For the Archer II to be remotely useful, we'd need to spend at least a revision on torpedoes, otherwise it would have basically no practical armament.
If we had a decent torpedo, I could see doing the torp-sub first, although I'd still be unsure. But as it stands, that extra mandatory revision is an action too much for my tastes.
Logged
Long Live United Forenia!

evictedSaint

  • Bay Watcher
  • if (ANNOYED_W_FANS==true) { KILL_CHAR(rand()); }
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Spring 1945 (Design Phase)
« Reply #7154 on: August 10, 2018, 08:32:21 am »

To answer the question people have been asking, the reason it's named Sobriety is because that is literally Cannala's greatest fear.
Pages: 1 ... 475 476 [477] 478 479 ... 500