Print

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

[Strongpoint]

Except you don't want ANY generalized vehicles, you keep begging for a specialized vehicle for every place. Which means for every vehicle the enemy makes and we counter, we've got to spend two to five times the development effort.

What? You are putting your words in my mouth. This isn't true at all. I very well recognize need for universal stuff. But we'll need universal later, not now. Now we have an important battle ahead. This is a core part of my position.

Hell, My very first proposal in this topic is a fighter that can operate in any atmosphere and perform both on the ground and in space. It is hard to go for a more generalized vehicle

[Madman198237]

Because right now an opaque-ish cloud of actual smoke is the idea. A sort of ERA-based chaff was my original plan, before Nidhunter pointed out that actual smoke is possible and quite possibly easier.

For vacuum environments, yeah, those would work better. I'll edit that design real quick.

As for you, strongpoint, you repeatedly insist that specialized is better and that we shouldn't make generalized things because specialized is better, etc. etc.

[Maximum Spin]

As for you, strongpoint, you repeatedly insist that specialized is better and that we shouldn't make generalized things because specialized is better, etc. etc.

I would very much like to concur that I have got the same impression.

[Jilladilla]

As for you, strongpoint, you repeatedly insist that specialized is better and that we shouldn't make generalized things because specialized is better, etc. etc.

I would very much like to concur that I have got the same impression.

Thirded... I have nothing against specialization, but Over-Specialization, which something optimized for only one Planet definitely qualifies, is something that should be avoided..

[Strongpoint]

As for you, strongpoint, you repeatedly insist that specialized is better and that we shouldn't make generalized things because specialized is better, etc. etc.

Specialized is better for one battle. If you assumed that I want to make a separate design for each planet, then you severely misunderstood my position. It is about doing stuff that is more useful now delaying long term designs for later. We'll design universal thing later, when we'll have more transport to move it. It is like revising dove was more important long term then revising better spacesuits, but we would be in a better spot if we did revise a spacesuit.

Anyway, my preferred course of action for the next turn

Start with this design
QS-I-02 "Bee"
Bee is a one seat jet engine powered aerodynamic interceptor with vertical launch ability that can operate on very-high attitude or atmospheres with even low amounts of oxygen. It is made from 3d printed titanium-aluminum alloy parts and coated with reflective heat resistant ceramic to protect pilot and vital systems against lasers. It is armed with a 20mm Hayk and four wing mounts for radar-guided missiles controlled by on-board miniaturized version of Huginn guidance system. Intended role of Bee is shooting down enemy shuttles that try to land troops/bring supplies and engaging other aerial targets. Secondary role of the interceptor is attackng vulnerable large stationary ground targets like supply depots, fusion reactors, and other objects of infrastructure that need no great firepower to damage. It can be used for close air support but it isn't optimized for engaging small land targets

My idea here is to decisively WIN D. Ideally, Fleet on orbit will filter out some of enemy reinforcements\supply missions, this little thing will deal with lucky ones that go through and create greater need for those supplies by attacking supplies on the ground. It is unimportant what toys they'll make for their troops if they never reach the ground.

Winning D is huge. Also, This is perfectly usable on two other planets (C and G) and can be adapted to other planets by changing engine at some later date. After all, we can come to something much better than old fashioned jet after few turns of getting new tech.

And, unless it is horrible and needs fixing, combine it with revision like this.

QS-UV-02 'whatever name'
Adapted version of a civilian off-road car. It is made to serve as an utility vehicle and help to solve logistic issues of the army on any planet. it is covered by heat resistant ceramic and air tightened. It's internal combustion engine is fueled by Infernium-9, which contains its own oxidizer and packs quite a lot of energy. It got a mount on the roof to install Hayk or any potential future weapon
Simple revision to get our own logistics improvement and give us useful experience for a proper tank or APC later. Even if we are unlucky and it fails to be a truly all terrain from revision, we still send it to D and still get useful experience.


In this case going for something like QS-AIV-02 'Hel' will be far easier because engine will be there

[NUKE9.13]

Or we can do it all in a vehicle that's probably Easy.

I'll tell you for free that none of the three vehicles you proposed would be Easy.

[Strongpoint]

I would be very surprised if it was

powered through the use of an advanced internal combustion engine fueled with Infernium-9, which contains its own oxidizer and packs quite a lot of energy,

New tech

and packing a linked pair of remote-aimed

new tech

carefully re-engineered to be accurate even at Long rage,

Upgrade of an existing tech

with a highly reflective paint (In the laser wavelengths Ertex uses)

new tech

Heat sensors just under the ceramics detect laser shots and trigger a large array of smoke dischargers to fill the air around the tank with smoke (In atmosphere) or clouds of reflective metal chaff (In vacuum)

new tech 

A fire-control computer uses a broadband sensor package and a small radar set to calculate distances to targets.

New techs or miniaturization of existing ones

Every vehicle from has a small IFF tag to allow the system to distinguish them from enemies.

new tech

The weapon is fully stabilized for fire-on-the-move capability.

new tech 

It is entirely atmospherically sealed

Not exactly new but adds to complexity of the design

[evilcherry]

I still don't understand why we can't make a tracked casemate odin with 30mm Hayks. Both weapons are there and the only thing new is a set of tracks.

[Madman198237]

Because the Odin is a *space warship*. The scales are INSANELY different.

Excellent, not Easy. I would hazard Normal, Hard at the very worst. Given that we have a fusion reactor and civilians are using holograms, I think we should be fine, since

OK, just because of the nice, easy-to-read formatting Strongpoint elected to use (Thank you!) this got long, so have a spoiler for your sanity.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

powered through the use of an advanced internal combustion engine fueled with Infernium-9, which contains its own oxidizer and packs quite a lot of energy,

New tech

Rather like a hydrogen peroxide engine, which were in use in WWII, this is just an internal combustion engine which does not need oxygen from outside.

and packing a linked pair of remote-aimed

new tech

Seriously? You think an RC system is even meaningful? There were remote-controlled turrets on WWII bombers.

carefully re-engineered to be accurate even at Long rage,

Upgrade of an existing tech

And that's going to add how much difficulty, do you think?

with a highly reflective paint (In the laser wavelengths Ertex uses)

new tech

Nope, it's used on the Odins.

Heat sensors just under the ceramics detect laser shots and trigger a large array of smoke dischargers to fill the air around the tank with smoke (In atmosphere) or clouds of reflective metal chaff (In vacuum)

new tech

Heat sensors are pretty ridiculously easy, seeing as how they've been around for years IRL. Literally a bunch of digital thermometers programmed to go "Hey pop smoke over here" whenever the temperature rises too quickly to be natural.

A fire-control computer uses a broadband sensor package and a small radar set to calculate distances to targets.

New techs or miniaturization of existing ones

Miniaturization AND simplification, in fact, since the computer is working at shorter ranges. Oh, and all of this is stuff that's been in use since the 1990s.

Every vehicle from has a small IFF tag to allow the system to distinguish them from enemies.

new tech

This has literally been used IRL for DECADES.

The weapon is fully stabilized for fire-on-the-move capability.

new tech

This one was invented near the end of WWII.

It is entirely atmospherically sealed

Not exactly new but adds to complexity of the design

Not even remotely new, and everything else we have is sealed anyway. Not going to be a real problem, I should think.

[Strongpoint]

You are assuming that designing something based on old tech = no effort at all. Our colonies have no real military industry so even ww2 era tech isn't something that add no difficulty at all. By new tech I mean something our colonists never did before.

For example, I expect my Bee design to be at least normal even if it is largely a remake of jet fighters of 20th century (with new materials and production methods but remake)

[Madman198237]

We pulled off a fusion reactor at, what, Hard? A super-plasma-drive at Normal?

We practically got an AI as a *bonus* for something entirely different.

I think we're set on "prerequisite techs", actually.

[Strongpoint]

Anyway, why I prefer fighters to tanks

1) I prefer to design a tank later, when we'll get more technologies and can build a better vehicle that will stay viable for a longer time

2) Designing fighter gives us experience that can be used for building small crafts for our space navy. For example, guided missiles can be easily adapted to be used on Loki's in space or make Loki aerodynamic and capable to support ground troops with its coilgun. Tank experience is mostly good only for the next generation of tanks.

3) I think it is very likely that the enemy will go for their own tank and I am very-very skeptical about our first generation armor stopping their tank sized lasers. In any case if we both go for land vehicles, it becomes a roll: who gets a better one

4) Aircrafts are far, far, far better against lasers. They need to lock the laser on a fast, maneuvering target. With tank you point on one spot of the armor of the big slow thing and patiently wait till you burn through. Even concentrated fire of their current rifles can do that not mentioning potential larger ones

5) Unless they have some secret Dove analogue, their shuttles are extremely vulnerable. I very much prefer to target this vulnerability

6) I think we we should get TPP sink with a revision to load something in second ICT. The only thing I can think of is a revision of a civilian car (or motorboat but this is extremely unpopular, so...) And this revision can give useful experience for future land vehicles.

7) We have more experience in making aircraft like things than experience in making tank-like things. We spent a good chunk of actions on designing spaceships that are quite close in manufacturing techniques to aircrafts. Aerospace industry is our focus.

[NAV]

I don't want a tank. I want a small scout utility vehicle. Because it will give us the early vehicle advantage and it will remain viable and useful indefinitely, because it is for scouting and utility or fighting infantry not directly competing with other vehicles.

[Strongpoint]

I don't want a tank. I want a small scout utility vehicle. Because it will give us the early vehicle advantage and it will remain viable and useful indefinitely, because it is for scouting and utility or fighting infantry not directly competing with other vehicles.

This is perfectly doable with a revision of a civilian car

[Madman198237]

Anyway, why I prefer fighters to tanks
Fast-mode responses

1) I prefer to design a tank later, when we'll get more technologies and can build a better vehicle that will stay viable for a longer time
We can build a functional tank now and it will be relevant to the end of the war if we build it right. I argue that doing that ends up in the infinite cycle of "make it a little better" in which you continue to research the "next big tech" and say "but it will be better later" and never actually build anything.

2) Designing fighter gives us experience that can be used for building small crafts for our space navy. For example, guided missiles can be easily adapted to be used on Loki's in space or make Loki aerodynamic and capable to support ground troops with its coilgun. Tank experience is mostly good only for the next generation of tanks.
Or we can design the space missiles, which will have nothing in common with atmospheric missiles except for the fact that fire goes out of one end and the other end is explosive.

3) I think it is very likely that the enemy will go for their own tank and I am very-very skeptical about our first generation armor stopping their tank sized lasers. In any case if we both go for land vehicles, it becomes a roll: who gets a better one
If they make a tank and we have nothing, we're screwed. If we have a better-designed tank, we win. I believe that given the methods I have supplied to defeat lasers, our tank could win. Further suggestions are welcome.

4) Aircrafts are far, far, far better against lasers. They need to lock the laser on a fast, maneuvering target. With tank you point on one spot of the armor of the big slow thing and patiently wait till you burn through. Even concentrated fire of their current rifles can do that not mentioning potential larger ones
I have something you need to read up on, it's called the speed of light. If modern-day ground platforms can traverse fast enough to put enough bullets in an aircraft to bring it down, you darn well better believe a laser platform with post-modern tracking systems can do it. ESPECIALLY when the INFANTRY VERSION of said laser is capable of melting through armor.

5) Unless they have some secret Dove analogue, their shuttles are extremely vulnerable. I very much prefer to target this vulnerability
Kill them in space if possible, but don't rely on killing them before they land. That way lies madness. Oh, and a lot of defeats.

6) I think we we should get TPP sink with a revision to load something in second ICT. The only thing I can think of is a revision of a civilian car (or motorboat but this is extremely unpopular, so...) And this revision can give useful experience for future land vehicles.
Or we could just deploy our tanks, which will likely have a high enough GPP cost. Oh, and we can also transport some Mjolnir installations around, soon anyway.

7) We have more experience in making aircraft like things than experience in making tank-like things. We spent a good chunk of actions on designing spaceships that are quite close in manufacturing techniques to aircrafts. Aerospace industry is our focus.
Not really. None of our vehicles use airfoils and none of them are capable of loitering. Presently you're either firing the engines for all its worth to get away from the planet, or you're coming in for a landing. That is very much not similar to spacecraft.