Print

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

[Chiefwaffles]

Revision
Black Raven (0):
Railgun Raven Refit (2): Happerry, Chiefwaffles

[Strongpoint]

Railgun Skyranger refit
New version of Skyranger comes with two high caliber railgun turrets (both dorsal, one closer to the nose, another to the tail). Controlled by a state of art computer, allowing targeting of even supersonic targets with remarkable accuracy. Additionally turret can be used in land battles should squad get pushed back to Skyranger or act as fire support when soldiers need to rush from Skyranger directly into battle

They may start hunting Skyrangers. I want them defended. Turrets should be pretty
accurate, unlike forward facing guns. Such turrets can be useful in land battles, too

Revision
Railgun Raven Refit (2): Happerry, Chiefwaffles
Railgun Skyranger Refit (1): Strongpoint

[Madman198237]

Turrets are generally unaerodynamic and also heavy, power-intensive, and bulky.

They won't fit on a Skyranger without reducing its necessary qualities of speed, maneuverability, and (limited) carrying capacity. Also, dorsal turrets are going to be too high off the ground, and with too little elevation capabilities, to successfully engage ground targets.

[Strongpoint]

Turrets are generally unaerodynamic and also heavy, power-intensive, and bulky.

They won't fit on a Skyranger without reducing its necessary qualities of speed, maneuverability, and (limited) carrying capacity.

And I think that reduction will be minor and manageable or I wouldn't offer it.

Also, dorsal turrets are going to be too high off the ground, and with too little elevation capabilities, to successfully engage ground targets.

That depends. Sure, dorsal will never be good enough at point blank, there will be some limitation with firing arc,  but being located near the edge of aircraft I fail to see why would they be unable to engage ground targets

[stabbymcstabstab]

Revision
Black Raven (0):
Railgun Raven Refit (3): Happerry, Chiefwaffles Stabby

[RoseHeart]

Revision
Railgun Raven Refit (4): Happerry, Chiefwaffles Stabby, roseheart

  X•COM TRUSTEE   
/\ •V I G I L O• /\\
/\ \C O N F I D O/ /\\

[Cnidaros]

Revision
Railgun Raven Refit (5): Happerry, Chiefwaffles Stabby, roseheart, Cnidaros

Although, for the record, I don't believe dogfighting with an opponent who can pull off physics-defying maneuvers propelled by antigravity is going to go well. At all.

Also, Chiefwaffles, I think you are failing to understand the difficulties of designs. You tend to ask for everything and the moon, insisting that it'll only be a Hard design. This would be a great strategy for winning an Arms Race, if only the GM agreed.

[Chiefwaffles]

Oh no, I understand the difficulties just fine.

I don't believe I ever directly speculated on the difficulty of either base design. I certainly never "insist[ed] that it'll only be a Hard design", and I haven't "ask[ed] for everything and the moon." Only one of my designs has gotten through: the XH1 Railgun. And I consider it a large success. The XH1 Railgun was Hard, which was expected, and I consider it (even without the revision) a success even with its bad roll.
(And for the record, I didn't want an airbase; I thought there were many other things we could have and should have done but since everyone else wanted an airbase I decided to support the best one: Happerry's.)

I think you fail to understand two things:
1.) That rolls exist. The results of designs aren't just arbitrarily decided by the GM based on what they think of it. The GM decides the difficulty, and the random roll decides the actual result. We got the worst possible roll we could have received.
2.) That Hard/Very Hard designs are not automatically bad. Sometimes good things come at a cost.

[RoseHeart]

If I could trade every fail, and if you count battles we've had a few.. for a less ambitious design, or less thinly armed mission,

I'd do it in a roseheart beat.

And for the record, I didn't want an airbase; I thought there were many other things we could have and should have done but since everyone else wanted an airbase I decided to support the best one: Happerry's.

Perhaps, we can do the 2 votes, so we can see what else they want.

I may have been willing to do a mission design, had I known it was desired by others.

Hindsight is 20/20.

Uh, except I am talking about how I voted.

[Chiefwaffles]

Hindsight is 20/20.

[Strongpoint]

Although, for the record, I don't believe dogfighting with an opponent who can pull off physics-defying maneuvers propelled by antigravity is going to go well. At all.

My thought here. I'd really would prefer just to field more ravens with more missiles trying to overcome problems of enemy maneuverability and ECM with more missiles launched. Skyranger turret is more or less "wild" proposal out of boredom because bandwagon was easy to spot. Cheaper Ravens is what I would do if it was a single player game. It is the most straightforward and the less risky way to try to get some parity in the air.

1.) That rolls exist. The results of designs aren't just arbitrarily decided by the GM based on what they think of it. The GM decides the difficulty, and the random roll decides the actual result. We got the worst possible roll we could have received.

Result oriented thinking. In games with random element decisions are either good or bad no matter what the end result of the action is. "We got the worst possible roll" doesn't even worth mentioning.

2.) That Hard/Very Hard designs are not automatically bad. Sometimes good things come at a cost.

In the current system very hard designs need a very good reason to be tried at all. There are claims that my version of the base very hard, too. Well. I see no point in arguing on that but I wouldn't even think about proposing very hard base. Risk of getting nothing is just too high. Happery did everything to make his base as hard as possible by adding stuff the base could work without including labs, garrison, large manufacturing complex. It was an unjustified risk. After all, everything of that could be added later with revision.

[Chiefwaffles]

I prefer a failed Very Hard design to a still-failed Hard (at best) design that would still have numerous flaws even with an 8.

Like how easy it would be for the aliens to find it. How it would have been impossible to defend. How it would have contributed little because - surprise - making and fielding top-secret cutting-edge experimental aircraft is harder than sourcing some extra hangars and maintenance technicians.

Happery did everything to make his base as hard as possible by adding stuff the base could work without including labs, garrison, large manufacturing complex. It was an unjustified risk. After all, everything of that could be added later with revision.

I sure am glad we know what the difficulty of your base design would have been and how the differences between Happerry's design and your's affected the diffi--
Wait, we don't know that?

...then why are you talking as if you know that?

[RoseHeart]

Happery did everything to make his base as hard as possible by adding stuff the base could work without including labs, garrison, large manufacturing complex. It was an unjustified risk. After all, everything of that could be added later with revision.

I sure am glad we know what the difficulty of your base design would have been and how the differences between Happerry's design and your's affected the diffi--
Wait, we don't know that?

...then why are you talking as if you know that?

Excuse me Mr. South American council member, could we park some ravens at one of your airbases?

VERY HARD DIFFICULTY


Admittedly I proposed a underground base as well, twice actually. But when I said to make it segmented to allow construction over time, or to start with a skeleton crew it just didn't seem necessary.


Hindsight is 20/20, but I seem to be building a collection of cases where other's hindsight was my recommendation in the first place.


We should play this game, as it has been shown.

We should play this game, like we have the dice from hell.

"Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win."
—Sun Tzu

[Thanatos Russ]

Wouldn't a roll to improve the missile lock on be fairly straight forward? all you need to do is get the missiles to actually hit.

[Strongpoint]

Like how easy it would be for the aliens to find it. How it would have been impossible to defend. How it would have contributed little because - surprise - making and fielding top-secret cutting-edge experimental aircraft is harder than sourcing some extra hangars and maintenance technicians.

No, sorry, I am not answering this with a wall of text again. I wrote why this exaggerated\wrong during the actual discussion many times.

Also, what you fail to understand: It is normal for a designs to have some flaws. Every freaking time when I offer anything with intended flaws they are a)exaggerated naming the design unusable, b)rejected immediately because designs must be perfect, or c)plain ignored

Flaws by design give GM what to base design on. Flaws by design are there to reduce difficulty and\or give benefits instead.

Design A: This fighter is very fast IS NOT better than design B: This fighter is very fast but has limited payload.

Excuse me Mr. South American council member, could we park some ravens at one of your airbases?

VERY HARD DIFFICULTY

To be fair there are also: We'll try to improve your deference for free (with technologies we already have) and setup pilot academy (I mean sometimes make our pilot to train together). Oh, and we'll dig a hole under one one of your hangars to place some of our technicians away from sight. I think it makes it Ludicrous

Sure, we can't know what difficulty was unless 10ebbor10 tells us (and he won't because it is a direct hint we can use in the future) but we can assume.

BTW, yes. Roseheart's base that started small was better than Happery's. Maybe it was the best of the three.