Print

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

[Draignean]

Alright, to clarify: We only get ONE revision, right Draig? Even if we have multiple dice?

One revision per item. If we wanted we could revise 5 items per turn. At least I'm pretty sure that's how it is...

What? No. You can make as many revision per turn as you have dice for, and you can make them all to the same tech if you wanted. However, revisions (even on a string of sixes) have more steeply diminishing returns than most arms race games.

Can a production pattern be revised? And if so, are the existing items refitted rather than scrapping the old and building new?

Revising patterns is basically the act of creating a new pattern. Increasing the expense of a pattern will decrease the maximum number you can field and/or decrease the build rate. The build rate, as per previous questions, is equal to the refit rate since I don't feel like working out a system to convert partial ships.

PPE: Nirur is right. Though it does make me realize a flaw. You should have been building ships last round, in order for them to be ready this round. Bah.

THIS ONE TIME, Construction will take place in a separate stage before deployment, and you'll get the ships immediately to use during deployment.

[milo christiansen]

So I guess the question is: Fewer, but tougher, skyskiffs or just keep them as-is?

[Khan Boyzitbig]

They are slightly more capable than originally anyway. I think keep them as is and add a second line later if we can using the better (select) crystals or more improvements overall.

[Jilladilla]

I'd really like to revise a production pattern with select crystals. It should help greatly with both combat and hunting down retreating ships. If it cuts down our line's numbers too much, we don't have to use it and it's useful knowledge for the future.

It's a 1 in 36 chance though... I guess spending 3 dice would 100% ensure it would pass... I switch if it comes to a tie, as I don't think our luck is that bad.

But still, if we go with this and the unlikely happens and we need all three dice? We need to spend our remaining one die on ore-free suppressors (in some form, I recommend just stripping all the fancy metal bits, most likely to succeed that goal) so we can do a crossbow spam strategy.

(Also to those suggesting revising our skyskiff production line into a Select Crystal Skyskiff line, remember that it doesn't actually boost it's durability much at all (Stronger shroud yes, but those do nothing to kinetic weapons), and we might lose build rate. Maybe add another line later.)

[Madman198237]

OK, so let me understand this: We throw two dice at the Suppressor (And the suppressor alone) likely getting one back. Then we spend a die to get cheapened Suppressors. One more die should get us a production pattern using the advanced crystals (Because it's not actually a revision to make a Skyskiff with the advanced crystals, it won't take a revision to design a Skyskiff with those crystals. That said, it's liable to have relatively poor production rates). Two revisions should let us do a wait-until-they're-close followed by wait-until-they're-in-the-ambush-killzone for tactics. Alternatively, well, I've got some ideas for other tactics, however Ambush was the one that occurred to me.

Speaking of which, we need a crossbow-based trap system, that allows a repeating crossbow to be mounted in a wall or some such and trigger by hostiles. Then we can have Crossbow Corridors of Carnage.


OK, I missed four posts while typing this out. We COULD revise our Skyskiff line to make use of Itshana Select lift and trim crystals for greater maneuverability. It'd give us massive advantages in fights, but maybe/maybe not effective enough. That said, our ships are already all better than theirs anyway, due to regular crystal improvements.

[Nirur Torir]

It doesn't boost the durability, but maneuverability and speed should up our defense rolls, and better positioning should make them help more once we get bigger ships.

[Madman198237]

Alright, so I'm staring at the Light Aether Cannon stats just posted in the core thread, and I can tell you this: As of right now, we'll win most naval battles (Assuming zero progress in shipside techs on Kasgyr's side) because we can outmaneuver the enemy and our cannons, though they can fire fewer shots before cooling, hit harder. A revision on cannon cooling systems would cement our advantages hideously well.

The opening volleys would favor our ships, which have outmaneuvered and/or outrun the enemy vessels, as well as getting, let's say a 16.6%ish reduction in fire rate, down to 5 rounds, one per six seconds, for the first volley. The opening volley, right now, is the most important strike because of the faster fire rates present before the guns need to reduce to sustainable fire rates.


So Draignean, one of your clarifications has un-clarified things for me.
If we revised our production line to use Itshana Select crystals, would we be adding them to some of the Skyskiffs as a sort of aftermarket-type thing (Retaining Skyskiffs we can't modify in time), or would we produce fewer Skyskiffs all with Itshana Select?

[milo christiansen]

I'm pretty sure he already said we get fewer.

I'll support revising our cannons for better cooling.

[Draignean]

So Draignean, one of your clarifications has un-clarified things for me.
If we revised our production line to use Itshana Select crystals, would we be adding them to some of the Skyskiffs as a sort of aftermarket-type thing (Retaining Skyskiffs we can't modify in time), or would we produce fewer Skyskiffs all with Itshana Select?

If you change a production line, the following things happen.

IF the change represents an increase in costs, you'll lose some capacity. Ships beyond this capacity must be immediately scuttled or bought out.

Existing ships AT PORT are refitted to the new schematics at the pattern's build rate.

Unless your vote swings dramatically, I'll lock things in shortly.

[Madman198237]

OK. That's as I expected, however the description in the core thread was confusing.

So, vote locked as-is. I'll...screw it, I'll plan later.

[Jilladilla]

Right, my suggestion for the cheaper Suppressor revision:

Suppressor Type-B Light Crossbow
The Type-B variant takes a radical departure from the standard model Suppressor: It completely removes all of the fancy mechanisms and magazines, everything that made the Suppressor a repeating crossbow. After this fairly simple process is finished, the stock will be redesigned, as it no longer has to support all the bulky equipment that the Standard Model has to. Any modifications to the bow are to be avoided unless absolutely necessary, in order to retain power and range.

It is expected that these modifications will allow the Type-B to be a very cheap ranged option that retains the Suppressors draw weight.
(Basically, remove the ore cost, see if we could maybe possibly knock down the wood cost a bit too; but get a crossbow that can hit just as hard as the current Suppressor. The B stands for Budget.)

Depending on how many dice we retain and if we get any other good revision write-ups (whether edits to existing techs or new tactics), I'll post the Type-H variant idea I had in a bit. (The H stands for heavy, but we can't really use it now) But either way, suggest edits, post alternative proposals for removing that ore cost, make write-ups of revisions for other things, or just add to the Bureaucracy Loving Nation that is Spire Wreth.

[milo christiansen]

Crossbows, no matter what you do to them, will require metal parts. The only way to get rid of all metal is to get rid of any kind of trigger, which will kill accuracy without raising fire rate.

So no. Very no.

[Madman198237]

Really?

Your info comes from where?

You can make those parts out of wood if you're careful about how you build it and where you direct pressure to. Besides, we could probably *effectively* remove the ore cost, which would just mean "Remove enough metal that what's left doesn't actually count for anything in an Arms Race's abstracted measurement system"

[Jilladilla]

Crossbows, no matter what you do to them, will require metal parts. The only way to get rid of all metal is to get rid of any kind of trigger, which will kill accuracy without raising fire rate.

So no. Very no.

Remember that our swords only need 2 swords for the entire squad. Do you think that our swords need only twice as much metal as a bare bones crossbow? The idea is hopefully cutting metal usage and complexity down to the point where it wouldn't even register as 1 ore.

[milo christiansen]

I'll vote for improvements to the manufacturing process and a redesigned trigger mechanism with fewer moving parts (since obviously our engineers overbuilt it when they rolled low), but I will never vote to turn the basic design into something entirely different, which is what this is trying to do.

Trying to make sweeping design changes will surely impose complexity penalties.