Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nirur Torir]

GM question: If they spent metal on a 1x expense ship to get 2, and we destroy both, are they forced to wait a turn and rebuild that ship before switching the metal's target, or could they quickly swap that metal between two ship designs every time one blows up?


I agree with making better anti-fighter missiles for our revision. Give them a name like Type 1 Dagger ASM or something, so we can easily specify future ships to use Type 1 missiles, and make new missiles for multiple designs at once.

For the stratgy phase, let's move a C2 unit to A2, and the B2 pistol unit to C1. Move the Iliad and IMW to A2, our hopefully new Iliad-Class to C2 (I vote we name it the Aeneid), and have the last transport bring missile reloads to A2 for what little bombardment we have. No atmosphere means we can get something in, and A2 needs every bit of help we can give it.

For next turn, I like the idea of designing a ground/sea armored vehicle with a double-bolter turret. I propose the idea of making it modular, so it can fight on water on C2, or work as a light tank elsewhere. It might work, given the low recoil on our bolters. For the revision we make a transport capable of moving it (or resources).


I agree with Ebbor, the carriers were a separate creation from the fighters, and made this last turn. Note that they didn't have the ammo to destroy both our IMW and transport on the previous turn. As the missiles are better made than the fighters, I think they were a separate roll still.

More things we know about their designs:

The infantry armor was made during the first turn (We found it on cut-off forces later), and they only have one of them.

Their rifles are still useless at short range for some reason.

Their fighters have poor evasion, and are armed only with a pair of missiles.

They have high-agility precision missiles.


Any ideas with the orbital fight? It looks like the carrier launched the fighters, and had one guard its back. We were firing our third volley by the time fighter 2 was finally able to fire at us.

Are they lacking radar and carrier-fighter comms? But their fighters had an easy enough time finding our IMW.


I propose calling their carrier design 'Breadbox' and their fighter design 'Bumblebee.'

[Madman198237]

I like the names for the enemy vessels. So, we're getting the space platform now.

Draig, I'd leave off modularity. Build it as-is. We don't want added complications to our first space installation. Also, it won't be modular regardless, as our surface-to-space shuttles can't possibly fit a large enough section to make modularity worthwhile (In other words, it'd be far too much effort and time to transport the pieces up and down from the station). I'd not modify anything else. Instead of "can be expanded" or "has additional yards" or whatever, the thing is built to speed the production of spaceships. We don't want to it turn out only useful for the Iliads, as they're not going to be the best for long.

Also, I'd say that next turn we ought to revise or just straight up design a version of the space-to-ground shuttle to be useable in-atmosphere (Maybe in space as well? But not deep space) as a transport or gunship. Armor capable of repelling small arms fire, of course.


But this turn, definitely revise our missiles to be smart missiles. They can use the sensor equipment/eyeballs of the people still on the ship, using integrated circuitry to communicate with the mothership. Ought to make them pretty accurate and easy to make.

[Draignean]

Draig, I'd leave off modularity. Build it as-is. We don't want added complications to our first space installation. Also, it won't be modular regardless, as our surface-to-space shuttles can't possibly fit a large enough section to make modularity worthwhile (In other words, it'd be far too much effort and time to transport the pieces up and down from the station). I'd not modify anything else. Instead of "can be expanded" or "has additional yards" or whatever, the thing is built to speed the production of spaceships. We don't want to it turn out only useful for the Iliads, as they're not going to be the best for long.

Alright, let me split the design votes up...

Yggdrasil Pattern A (No Modular Construction): (1) Madman198237
Yggdrasil Pattern B (Modular Construction): (3) Draignean, Nirur Torir, NUKE9.13

Look, modular constructions are how major space stations have been built, and it's how it makes sense to build them. In our case we can do a lot pre-build in space and avoid your spurious assumption that each module is built on the ground before being attached, so we can still build very large components, but we should absolutely not design a single monolithic chunk. We have experience in making things of relatively small (Illiad) scale, we do not have experience making things of relatively large (space station) scale. Therefore, the logical assumption is to play with legos, not suddenly build giga-frames.

[Madman198237]

Yes BUT
This thing is HUGE. Much larger than the ISS. At present, the reason everything is constructed of prebuilt sections is because there's not enough money and design expertise going into any spacefaring program anywhere.

I'm not saying somehow get the entire assembly up from the ground. I'm saying that if you take it in replaceable pieces, then it's going to take far too long to actually replace or expand anything, because of the amount of transport capacity you need to use to get from the ground to space with the new parts, then you have to take the old parts off, attach them somewhere, put the new part in, load the old part on the space shuttle/transport vessel, then take it back to the ground.

It's too big to be replacing pieces, and it's not meant to be expanded. It's meant to be built to form, in space, with (Duh) prebuilt, relatively small pieces (Easy enough to manhandle around, preferably, with the exceptions of really important, delicate things like O₂ tanks and airlocks. Simplicity is key. Modularity, expandability, all of that is far too advanced for the first station we're putting in orbit.

[Draignean]

I'm not saying somehow get the entire assembly up from the ground. I'm saying that if you take it in replaceable pieces, then it's going to take far too long to actually replace or expand anything, because of the amount of transport capacity you need to use to get from the ground to space with the new parts, then you have to take the old parts off, attach them somewhere, put the new part in, load the old part on the space shuttle/transport vessel, then take it back to the ground.

... Please, for the love of all that is holy, read what the other person says, don't fake it with an enthusiastic 'Yes BUT'.

We are transporting the exact same amount of stuff, we adjusting our building policy to be more in line with current design and technological capacity.

We. Are. Not. Talking. About. Building. All. Modules. On. The. Ground. See quote:

In our case we can do a lot pre-build in space and avoid your spurious assumption that each module is built on the ground before being attached

 Our spacecraft are currently all space built. It makes good sense to use our current production techniques, and not invent entirely new ones. We have the Akh printers, which are really, really good for mid-scale contruction, but they will balk at making components that are too large- Which, if I might point out, was the EXACT problem we had with our earlier attempt at a space station.

Modular construction lets us circumvent this problem until we can throw a design into shipyard-class printers.

Our first design was monolithic, and failed because we don't have the precision to create monolithic components.

This game advances quickly, and we want to be able to efficiently revise this baby with further updates. For now, I'm leaving this to the vote.

[Madman198237]

Wow. Just wow.

Read my arguments before protesting that I didn't read yours.


I might not be the most articulate person you'll ever meet, in fact I hope I'm not, but I know for sure that I understand very well what I'm talking about. This is part of my field of interest and of study.

We do NOT want replaceable parts. Too much added complexity, not enough added value. Especially as we will need to deploy a better station before making improvements facility-wise. This one has no artificial gravity (Spinning rims method or otherwise) and so isn't suitable for long-term work. It would require a constantly rotating crew, to prevent muscle and bone weakness/destruction. It has very basic facilities unsuitable to larger scale productions. Even on a perfect roll, I can't imagine that this station will be good enough to stay in service to the point we NEED to expand it. We should build a different one before then. Think about it: If it's replaceable, you have to minimize things like welds or other airtight [literally] methods of connecting things. We WANT these complicated, should-not-be-removed solutions for our first attempt.


I thought you were arguing for ISS-like entire pieces (Halls, science labs, shipped, mostly, in a single piece). We don't want those. We can't manage those, not at the scale we're talking. And, as I said before, well no duh we're going to have to build it on the ground. We just won't be building it like the ISS---it should be welded, bolted, riveted (Not sure you can actually rivet things in space, but you know, whatever) together. Permanently. Reduces failure points in our first-ever and extra-complicated space station.

[Draignean]

Wow. Just wow.

Read my arguments before protesting that I didn't read yours.

Out of curiosity, is there a part of your arguments you feel I specifically ignored, or are you just defending by the reflexive property? Honestly, 'No, you are!' really works best if you have something to push off of.

This is part of my field of interest and of study.

Your field of steady is orbitals, but you think it costs excessive energy to move an orbital pattern on a rock with no atmosphere? Same way you're a history buff, but called the Sobriety a 'well researched' design? Same way you blatantly said that the only form of fission propulsion was blast propulsion?

This the internet. I don't care that you were top of your class in the navy seals.

We have the ability to do orbital construction, that is confirmed by Chief. It's how we build the ships we have now. Yet you insist on:

as I said before, well no duh we're going to have to build it on the ground.

Which is insane. We already construct our ships in space. There is no reason to build on the ground, subject to all the rigors of gravity, and then burn it through orbit (again risking damage) to do final slotting in space.

Modular construction, the main difficulty with it, is the actually hookup. As you stated, our station does not spin, therefore docking new modules is made nearly trivial.  Our ships are crewed. Our ships are built in space. Thus, we are capable of routine hard docking between space vessels. Therefore reusable airlock technology is nothing new. You're making mountains out of molehills for the sake of a bad design choice, and I have no idea why.

I suppose the question is this:

Do people want to use a design roll on a station that is planned for obsolescence?
Or do people want use a design roll on a station we can build and upgrade going forward?

Pretty sure the votes speak for themselves.

[Madman198237]

Are you trying to make it hard to have a nice, pleasant, opinionated yet salt-free discussion? Because you're succeeding.

It takes energy to change orbits. Go ahead and try it yourself if you don't agree. You MUST inject energy, very precisely, to change orbits. Depending the type, size, and other stuff around the planet, this can be more or less trivial. Also, there are different orbits you can take, and it takes a lot of energy to, say, shift from a nearly-circular geosynchronous orbit to a highly elliptical one.

I said the Sobriety was well-researched because, according to my knowledge base (Not in the technical details of aircraft) the information given by eS about airframe design and effects and all that was accurate and useful.

You ignored the part of the argument where I said that yes, the pieces were to be built on the ground, but not at the level the ISS is (entire sections).

If you think that a man in a space suit can do delicate electronics work, you, sir, have no future. You have to build everything with integrated electronics or electronics/wiring of any essential kind on the ground. Essential, of course, refers to life support, required before you can do delicate electronic work on the inside with your hands. Most of any space structure must be built either on the ground or in an established structure.

I'm not saying it'd be HARD to dock new modules, I'm saying that the added fragility and complexity required by using such sections is not worth the cost in sheer difficulty of construction.


"votes speak for themselves", eh? Well, think about this before you toss more logical fallacies out there: the Iliad is built to go obsolescent. It will not be the best for long. It was built simple, which meant we succeeded. I propose we do the same thing with a more difficult structure.

[Draignean]

Spoiler: My Continuing Discussion With Madman (click to show/hide)

Are you trying to make it hard to have a nice, pleasant, opinionated yet salt-free discussion? Because you're succeeding.

Madman. Look at your behavior. You came into this thread, flatly denied that technology we already had was possible, told people their ideas were impossible without a speck of research (hell, I agreed within before I did the two minutes to consult google), called everyone idiots for not specifying a trivial detail on the space station not even relevant to the game, and have basically gone around offering people salt shakers.

Sure, I'd love to have a decent discussion on the merits of various designs, but we're not discussing the merits of various designs, you're coming in and telling everyone they're wrong and that they need to do it your way. Everyone is willing to vote for your space station, if you're willing to accept a small compromise on your design. The fact that you're throwing this much of a tantrum over not having exactly your way is silly.

You ignored the part of the argument where I said that yes, the pieces were to be built on the ground, but not at the level the ISS is (entire sections).

I'm not ignoring that, I'm including it in the category of insane when our existing methods are superior. Essentially, it goes like this: If you're suggesting no change from our existing construction protocols, why are you bothering to mention it, and if you're specifying we use more ground based construction that we do for our existing designs- it's a waste of energy.

If you think that a man in a space suit can do delicate electronics work, you, sir, have no future. You have to build everything with integrated electronics or electronics/wiring of any essential kind on the ground. Essential, of course, refers to life support, required before you can do delicate electronic work on the inside with your hands. Most of any space structure must be built either on the ground or in an established structure.

This first sentence, legitimately, makes me laugh. Seriously? I'm beginning to think I've misjudged and you're writing parody.  We. Print. Pefectly. Integrated. Electronics. The circuit is the panel, the panel is the circuit. Is there come precision work in connecting it to the mechanical hardware? Probably. Is there precision work that is not clearly already handled by existing techniques already used in orbit? No. We have the tech to make every part of this station in sections, and we have the tech to make it BEST in sections. Please, if you're not just trolling for the hell of it, I implore you read our initial attempt. It was built much like what you were originally specifying, and its primary failure was because we do NOT have the precision necessary to create large sections.

"votes speak for themselves", eh? Well, think about this before you toss more logical fallacies out there:

You are aware that logical fallacy is a very specific term? Please, for my own edification, would you mind pointing the ones I've made out so that I may better myself by your shining example?

Now, to the last comment, there's a big difference. In addition, the Illiad is a terrible example for your point, let me help you. The IMW was designed to be obsolete. The Illiad was designed to be our light ship for a good while. We made the IMW because it was literally our first construction in the field, and slipshod gave us something we could deploy, because we NEEDED something to deploy. We have experience in small scale construction, and this IS our first large scale construction, you're not wrong there, but there's no pressure for this to be immediately deployed at efficacy. We do not need to design this to be thrown away.

Everyone else, feel free to weigh in. It's possible I'm biting into Madman a bit hard here. I do have the tendency to not let go at times, but the constant pointless 'it won't work' on various designs is irritating me.

Chief, I do apologize for the thread arguing. It'll stop once this design phase is over.

[Chiefwaffles]

Units are mostly destroyed if they fail an evacuation (just because you send shuttles doesn't automatically mean your troops are going to make it there alive) or are destroyed with overwhelming force/consistently perform very poorly. A disastrous failure losing you your last section of land is more likely to have the Unit(s) survive compared to a string of disastrous failures moving you from 3/3 to 0/3 over the course of several years.
Without a detailed look, I'm assuming the increased land gain in 2208 was to skip the no man's land where both sides had 1/3 despite one clearly beating the other.
Units just have to be there to capture the land - the holding for one year doesn't require your troops there, but you have to be there to get from 0/3 to 3/3.
And extra designs from allocated resources are generally the last to be destroyed, but if they are destroyed their resource is rendered useless as well. If Amaok has 3 death stars, 1 from bonus metal, and you destroy 2, the last one is using the bonus metal and they can switch it to another design but at the cost of that bonus death star.Design: Yggdrasil SS-01A
6, 5, 5

The Yggdrasil is a shining example of Moerthi engineering; we've added another star to the sky.

Moerth's first space station holds a permanent crew of 10 who run the station with space for 100 temporary workers that come up to work on construction projects. Two docking bay arms house shuttles for transport of goods and people between the station and planetside while two other arms serve as dry docks for ships, where our vessels can be constructed or repaired by the current workers or stay docked at where its crew can resupply at the station or get a shuttle planetside. The 10 primary crew have dedicated quarters and amenities fit for a comfortable year in space, and the 100 temporary workers are still given accomodations but their stay is limited to a month, max. The station does not possess any kind of artificial gravity, limiting how long our personnel can stay regardless.

Yggdrasil is our biggest construction yet, being far larger than the International Space Station of old Earth or any of our existing ship classes. It's not a mammoth construction, though. It can fit a large amount of goods in its central warehouse with rails ferrying supplies between it and the various arms.
The dry docks theoretically could fit ships a bit larger than the Iliad-Class, but not by a large degree. The station is built to accept additions and modifications, but they still have to be largely built onto the station in orbit thanks to the sheer size of the station. Additions are possible but won't be particularly easy. They're likely a better idea instead of creating a new station, however.

The station largely serves as a staging point for space, and we're still limited by limits on what we can build thanks to our shuttles' weight restrictions. Most parts of the ships are assembled on the surface and shipped up where they're stored in Yggdrasil's warehouse until workers use the parts on the current construction project. This is still a large improvement over our previous methods of orbital construction, where workers had to constantly return planetside and the pace of shipping had to match the pace of construction. Now our workers can easily retrieve stored parts, stay in orbit for extended durations, and have more advanced and extensive equipment for actually constructing the finished vessel.

Our civilians have complained that they don't see the station over Moerth's capital like one of the leaked design documents originally planned.

Yggdrasil has allowed us to field another Iliad-Class Destroyer, and is equipped to handle the construction of similar ships if needed.
Iliad-Class Destroyer's expense has increased by 1.


Yggdrasil SS-01A: A large space station equipped to handle a semi-permanent crew of 10 for 1-year durations and a temporary worker crew of 100 for 1-month durations. It has four arms - two ports for shuttles and loading/unloading supplies and two dry docks for vessels built similar to the Iliad-Class Destroyer. The station cannot produce or refine any kinds of materials and gets all construction materials pre-made from the surface, limiting what can be built, but provides excellent conditions and amenities to use those supplies to build vessels. A semi-modular design allows for new parts or modifications to be constructed in orbit.
Expense: 1x
Resources: None


It is now the Revision Phase of 2210.

[NUKE9.13]

Missile Pods Mk3: Combining our skill at integrated electronics with combat data from the Iliad has led to this new generation of spaceship armaments. An improved guidance system, coupled with more advanced thrust-vectoring, all but eliminates the requirement for the ship to 'point' the missile at its target. Instead, the missile can intelligently calculate the required course to its target, and perform the necessary manoeuvres autonomously. Additionally, an (optional and crude) point-defence-avoidance system is provided, which can make the missile veer from side to side randomly as it approaches the target, making it far harder to shoot down.

Missile Pods Mk3: (1) NUKE9.13

[10ebbor10]

So, uhm, what does our station actually do?

It can't refine resources, can't build larger ships, isn't modular, or anything special really.

It consumes an entire production line to build just 1 example of our Illiad Destroyer. Something that was explicitly said that we could do with a revision, which would not have required a dedicated production line either

If we'd simply designed another Illiad-like design, we would have gotten that too, and it would have been far better.

[NUKE9.13]

It will presumably reduce the cost of most future ships that we build. For example, if we create a new transport, and would get an expense of 1, we now get an expense of 2.

[Chiefwaffles]

The Yggdrasil will serve as infrastructure for any compatible designs, giving varying bonuses where reasonable. For the most part, it serves as a step towards infrastructure for bigger ships (by preventing penalties for lack of infrastructure). Right now the Iliad-Class is pushing how big you can make your ships, and going any further than that would start getting some serious penalties.

Speaking of which, I evidently neglected to mention this part too. My bad.
The Yggdrasil SS-01A gives 1 extra production line that can be used for vessels compatible with its dry docks.


So to answer 10ebbor10's question:

• Retoractively increase Iliad's expense level
• Give bonuses/prevent lack-of-infrastructure penalties for future vessel design expenses
• Give back its used production line by adding a spaceship-only line that you can use.

[10ebbor10]

Oh well, that kind of changes everything.

Missile Pods Mk3: (2) NUKE9.13, 10ebbor10

With 2 warships, and our Improvised missile boat, we can block of all the enemies planets.