Print

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

[Doubloon-Seven]

Proposed Composition: a new infantry weapon to replace our old muskets. We request that this new weapon to not only have an increased range and accuracy, but also have a rate of fire of equal or greater than our current gun. Additionally this new gun must still be able to attach a bayonet for use in close quarters fighting.

Switch my vote to over here, +1.

[Khang36]

As a short note, I meant to include a bayonet in your starting list and have amended the list to include one on the list.

Still going to keep this part of the requirement just in case the engineers come up with some strange idea that we don't need them.

[RAM]

I'd propose just "Somehow useful in melee combat" and see what lunacy they come up with. Worst case, we suggest that they revamp it to include a bayonet (If they give us something lame like "can be used as a club" or some crap like that.

Ehh, we are the old guard, what could be better than a bayonet? They are free to come up with spring-driven spinning-blades and then try to convince us that this newfangled nonsense is better than a trusty steel blade! I am quietly confident that they will have the nerve to think themselves our intellectual betters and make such blasphemous insults until they have been properly put in their place.

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

...we should assume ourselves to be incompetent tacticians and strategists, not engineers who, at best, can hear about how some other country is doing wonderoud new things, but we do not know the specifics, and we probably heard it as gossip at some dinner-party...

Ehh, we are the old guard, what could be better than a bayonet? They are free to come up with spring-driven spinning-blades and then try to convince us that this newfangled nonsense is better than a trusty steel blade! I am quietly confident that they will have the nerve to think themselves our intellectual betters and make such blasphemous insults until they have been properly put in their place.

You know, the above quotes (former slightly modified, marked by the strikethrough and bolded text) are really apt at summing up the historic mindsets of most generals throughout history in my own mind.  Actually, make that most government officials, especially if you include talking about long-standing colleges/universities/etc.

Edit: Not saying you have to play like this, to be clear.  Could make for a bit of hilarious fun during the meeting phase from time to time, though.

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

Proposed Composition: a new infantry weapon to replace our old muskets. We request that this new weapon to not only have an increased range and accuracy, but also have a rate of fire of equal or greater than our current gun. Additionally this new gun must still be able to attach a bayonet for use in close quarters fighting.

Going to be utilizing this as the message, as it is effectively the same as the other, just updated. Will be slightly modified by adding to and from lines (see below):

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

To the Engineers of the Weapons Design Corps,

We need a new infantry weapon to replace our old muskets. We request that this new weapon to not only have an increased range and accuracy, but also have a rate of fire of equal or greater than our current gun. Additionally this new gun must still be able to attach a bayonet for use in close quarters fighting.

Signed,
The Generals of the Military Command

In the future, if you want to change the last part over to include the names of generals with your username being a nickname, use the above formatting but replacing 'the Generals of the Military Command' with the names you wish to use.  Could be used in order to track votes as well.


Your messenger has rode off to deliver your message to the Weapons Design Corps.  It is time to begin discussion of potential new battle doctrine.

[Doubloon-Seven]

Do we have any sort of entrenching tool? I'm considering trenches as defensive cover.

[RAM]

I wish to implement a professional guard to protect the cannons. They should train in alertness and accuracy as they won't have the concentration of forces necessary for the traditional volume-of-fire approach that serves so well with our formations.

[Doubloon-Seven]

I have two main ideas here.

Leapfrog Fire: A line of infantry fires at the enemy, and a line behind it advances in front, guns loaded. They fire while the infantry behind them are reloading, and the process repeats to keep up an ongoing barrage at the enemy. There can be anywhere from two to six separate lines of fire in the leapfrog.

Entrenched Defense: Trenches are dug into the earth to make it difficult for enemy fire to reach our troops, while allowing ample cover to reduce casualties, and peek up over the tops to fire, and reload away from danger.

[Khang36]

Assuming the engineers pull through for us we will not need the battle line doctrine. Instead we should focuse on a skirmish doctrine so instead of mass fire we will instead emphasize on mobility and marksmanship. Our units will be in loose groups to allow mobility, but close enough to allow them to quickly group up to form to fend off enemy cavalry.

[RAM]

Assuming the engineers pull through for us we will not need the battle line doctrine. Instead we should focuse on a skirmish doctrine so instead of mass fire we will instead emphasize on mobility and marksmanship. Our units will be in loose groups to allow mobility, but close enough to allow them to quickly group up to form to fend off enemy cavalry.

Before they hatch, your chickens, you count.

[Doubloon-Seven]

I vote for Leapfrog Fire

VOTES:

(1) Leapfrog Fire- Doubloonseven,
(0) Entrenched Defense-
(0) Unspecified Skirmish Doctrine-

That is, assuming we can vote for our own doctrines.

[Madman198237]

Of course you can.

[RAM]

assuming we can vote for our own doctrines.

There are really good reasons to implement that rule, but folk around here seem to despise any attempt to improve voting. so you may as well just give up and not bother making things better.

0 Cannon guards:
(1) Leapfrog Fire- Doubloonseven,
(0) Entrenched Defense-
(0) Unspecified Skirmish Doctrine-

[Khang36]

.

0 Cannon guards:
(2) Leapfrog Fire- Doubloonseven, khang36
(0) Entrenched Defense-
(0) Unspecified Skirmish Doctrine-

[RAM]

Assuming the engineers pull through for us we will not need the battle line doctrine. Instead we should focuse on a skirmish doctrine so instead of mass fire we will instead emphasize on mobility and marksmanship. Our units will be in loose groups to allow mobility, but close enough to allow them to quickly group up to form to fend off enemy cavalry.

Cannon guards are a good initial step towards this. They are defending a position in small groups, focused on observation.