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

[piratejoe]

We should make a decent torp anyway, probably a basic acoustic one if we can sometime soon. At least with how we are going into submarine warfare.

[Kashyyk]

The Canners are likely to launch their own Sub somewhere in their mess of ASWs. We'd likely need a new torpedo so our subs can successfully fight theirs.

[piratejoe]

Thats more or less why we should make a good torp, that and because it makes surface ships targets

[Cnidaros]

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.

Man, I dunno why you all think the Archer II is going to be 100% useless with just the Dolphin. We don't need long-range torpedoes when the enemy has absolutely zero anti-sub measures, which as I'll remind everyone, is still the case for the critical next turn. If you all think torpedoes are useless, then why not remove them from the Sobriety? I don't believe we even have torpedo tubes yet, since apparently the Dolphin has some kind of mysterious mechanism which only works if it's air-dropped.

But eh, I feel like I'm arguing against the tide here. What I will say is that if we go for the missile sub and Cannala goes for the missile cruiser, we will lose the seas next turn, along with the Forenian jungle. I would say that the Sobriety can only hope to carry 2-3 missiles and be Expensive even on a 6 (because 1960s design), while a likely Cannalan missile cruiser will carry up to 20 and be Cheap on a 3 or 4. At which point we'd be right back into the double-jungle mess again. I'd say I told you so, but this thread is full enough of salt as it is.

And as for making a good torpedo after making the missile-armed Sobriety, when that was the justification for not making a torpedo sub...I don't know what you guys are on, but I want some of it too.

[NAV]

Why can't we can include a bigger torp with the sub? no different than adding a 30mm autocannon to plane when all we had was 20mm. Why does it need its own revision? Torps are easy and old tech.

[Man of Paper]

Because that would potentially add difficulty, which is the only reason I could see building an attack sub first for in the first place.

[Powder Miner]

It seems to me that there’s no way we would lose the sea if we had a missile sub and they a missile destroyer... in fact, this is actually kind of the whole point of the missile sub in the first place. We’re talking about a missile platform they have nothing to hit it with and which helps mitigate the range issues vs a missile platform they CAN hit and perhaps directly out-do, which would require a successful ASM revision to even potentially outmatch a Cannalan missile cruiser.

As for the torpedo sub, considering the overall importance of the ASMs I don’t see it winning the sea for us for more than a turn.

[Cnidaros]

It seems to me that there’s no way we would lose the sea if we had a missile sub and they a missile destroyer... in fact, this is actually kind of the whole point of the missile sub in the first place. We’re talking about a missile platform they have nothing to hit it with and which helps mitigate the range issues vs a missile platform they CAN hit and perhaps directly out-do, which would require a successful ASM revision to even potentially outmatch a Cannalan missile cruiser.

As for the torpedo sub, considering the overall importance of the ASMs I don’t see it winning the sea for us for more than a turn.

A hypothetical Cannalan missile cruiser would carry ten times more ASMs than a crappy missile sub. Their ASMs are superior to ours in every way except warhead size, and most crucially in hit rate. Even assuming that both platforms are Expensive, they will outmatch us by sheer volume of accurate fire, since I don't believe our submarines will exclusively target their missile cruisers alone. And that's assuming we get an actually working missile sub right off the bat from zero submarine experience, which to me is verging on impossible, because again, 1960s design with extra bells and whistles. I would dearly like for the GM to give us a working missile sub, but I don't want to count on it.

Again, I'm not arguing for a torpedo sub over a missile sub. I'm arguing that we should do the torpedo sub first, then the missile sub.

EDIT: I will say though, if we get the VLS cells a future missile cruiser could use that instead of single or double-arm launchers.

[Wizgrot]

To be fair, I believe bigger torpedoes, even if they up the dificulty one level, are pretty worthwhile. Think of i as inludig bigger cannons in a ship´s design. Dolphin torpedoes are not enough to take care of ships. If we don´t arm our sub with big torps, it will be like a battleship with 50 mm guns

[NUKE9.13]

Why can't we can include a bigger torp with the sub? no different than adding a 30mm autocannon to plane when all we had was 20mm. Why does it need its own revision? Torps are easy and old tech.

This is a fair point, actually. If a bigger torpedo was baked into the Archer II, I could perhaps be convinced to vote for it. Because I've been thinking about the difficulty level of the Sobriety, and it does worry me.

[NAV]

It would also benefit our archer destroyers (as laughable as that is, it's still a benefit).

[RAM]

Or we could double-down on mini-torps. If our subs are designed to fire a spread of dozens, with them, maybe say, 5 metres apart at optimal range, then they could potentially strip away the escorts, which would play merry havoc with their fleet projection... I would expect even dolphins could pretty easily stop a carrier form effectively fielding aircraft, and then we just drop missiles on them from uncontested skies...

[NAV]

Thats kinda hilarious, torpedo version of buckshot

[Cnidaros]

Alright, included a larger torpedo with the Archer II. Fingers crossed that this doesn't ramp up difficulty too much.

[Olith McHuman]

(0) UFS-DDG-45 'Onegin' Guided Missile Destroyer:
(0) UFS-CG-45 'Bogdanov' Guided Missile Cruiser :
( UFN-SS-45 Archer II: Kashyyk, Cnidaros, ConscriptFive, NAV, Happerry, Taricus, Wizgrot, McHuman
(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