Print

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

[Strongpoint]

We don't need to flood our enemy with troops if we can use superior range, accuracy, firepower and recon. We could spare sending oen squad with standard gear and equip two squads with the TAV if it costs 0,5 EP. This would mean that the railgun-toting squad would be even more devastating, as the difficult ballistics would be taken care of by the HUD.

I am far from sure that XH+2x TAV will be better than 2xXH. Even if it will be, is this improvement worth a design action? What will you do if we need to split troops? What if it will cost 1EP?

Increased speed is not fixing an issue, it's making a boon. if we could catch them while they are comming down from orbit, we are in an advantage. increased speed gives us that advantage.

We already intercept them at detection height. We can't intercept them earlier than we detect them. It may be a boon in combat, true but I don't think that it is a large improvement
 

I will admit that the implants are a little too much, but that inherent boost in information processing is too good to dismiss

It is not a "little too much". It is a hard design on its own. You want to squeeze two designs into one. It is not gonna work.

With turrets, we can commit to evasive maneuvering that takes advantage of our speed to avoid hits while still dealing damage,  something a centrally mounted rail gun can never do.

Tell me why real world airforce didn't try turreted fighters since beginning of WW2? Turrets ruin aerodynamics and add weight. Also, computer assisted turret is another thing that adds to complexity.

I wanted an aircraft that was  more durable then the Raven by using alien alloys in our construction techniques

We don't have alien alloys token BTW, we have some experience with them from XH, but those alloys serve different purpose - heat dispersing and conducting electricity.

Also, there are little point in slightly more durable if result is the same: die from a single shot of an enemy weapon. An fighter jet construction is too fragile by design and can't withstand high energy weapons.

while still being more manuverable/etc then the Raven

Faster, bigger payload, more manuevrable, more durable. This results in cost, difficulty and overly generic designs that are good in nothing.

[Blood_Librarian]

We already intercept them at detection height. We can't intercept them earlier than we detect them. It may be a boon in combat, true but I don't think that it is a large improvement

The enemy can't hit us at all if they cant properly aim the shot with the evasive manuvering we would be doing!

It is not a "little too much". It is a hard design on its own. You want to squeeze two designs into one. It is not gonna work.

Yeah, good point, I may trim it out entirely at a later date.

Tell me why real world airforce didn't try turreted fighters since beginning of WW2? Turrets ruin aerodynamics and add weight. Also, computer assisted turret is another thing that adds to complexity.

Because they arn't dealing with aliens.  There are obviously solutions for turrets to exist on a plane (recessed into the hull, etc eetc) that wont ruin aerodynamics. Weight isnt a rpoblem because i compensated for it by using the Magic Space alien fuel to make the ship faster and more manuverable anyways.

We don't have alien alloys token BTW, we have some experience with them from XH, but those alloys serve different purpose - heat dispersing and conducting electricity.

Also, there are little point in slightly more durable if result is the same: die from a single shot of an enemy weapon. An fighter jet construction is too fragile by design and can't withstand high energy weapons.

We downed two~ UFO's. this includes all the alloys on the hull that we could want, although the equipment token means specifically " items they found",  It will be honestly equivalant if not better then having metal scraps.

Your also assuming that every single shot the enemy fires results in one thing: direct hit. If we have a more durable craft that can manuver faster, we can manuver hits that would otherwise be a direct hit into something that would be only grazing; aka something that we would still die from if hte craft wasnt made out of alien materials that is both impossibly durable and impossibly light. It could be possible that the craft we make would be both more durable and lighter then the Raven in terms of frame-hull weight.

Faster, bigger payload, more manuevrable, more durable. This results in cost, difficulty and overly generic designs that are good in nothing.

It is faster, carries less missiles in return for a turret. It is more maneuverable because of the elerium propulsion, and more durable because it uses alien materials. This results in a craft that requires alien materials, is difficult and shouldn't be an overly generic design that has specialties.

[Strongpoint]

It is faster, carries less missiles in return for a turret. It is more maneuverable because of the elerium propulsion, and more durable because it uses alien materials. This results in a craft that requires alien materials, is difficult and shouldn't be an overly generic design that has specialties.

In other words try to be better at everything, and have higher cost.

Well, I have a different philosophy here.

Look at Colibri:

It doesn't try to go faster than Raven. It doesn't try to be armored, in fact by being smaller it is more fragile. It goes for the same\slightly lover firepower (lover payload but better railgun +targeting system + new relatively simple weapon system), it tries to be much more nimble, It tries to be cheaper (Only one engine, smaller). It tries to be better in ground support.

The end expected result? Aircraft that fits our current needs. Aircraft that is better than Raven in ways we need instead of trying to improve just everything we can think off.

[Madman198237]

Tell me why real world airforce didn't try turreted fighters since beginning of WW2? Turrets ruin aerodynamics and add weight. Also, computer assisted turret is another thing that adds to complexity.

Because they arn't dealing with aliens.  There are obviously solutions for turrets to exist on a plane (recessed into the hull, etc eetc) that wont ruin aerodynamics. Weight isnt a rpoblem because i compensated for it by using the Magic Space alien fuel to make the ship faster and more manuverable anyways.

Strongpoint was VERY accurate with bringing up modern air forces: If non-aerodynamics-ruining and effective turrets were REASONABLY possible, the Air Force would be using them now, with computer systems that we already have capable of tracking missiles and planes, and they'd be giving modern bombers and fighters and, especially, ground-attack planes, really cool and useful firing angles. But they don't. Recessing it far enough into the hull to not have ANY effect on aerodynamics just means you have a gun facing in whatever direction, it can't be capable of meaningful movement (Or ANY movement) without affecting aerodynamics. We don't even have turrets on bombers anymore, and yet they still face fighter attack. That tells me that there are issues with aerodynamics, or ammo capacity, or weight (Or maybe I know what I'm talking about and it's all three at the same time), and so they're not feasible, and MAGIC ALIEN TECH WOOOOOO doesn't solve that without making the thing horribly expensive.

As for the implants, just NO. That design is going to be Very Hard IF the GM is feeling extremely merciful. I see no reasons why it shouldn't be fully Impossible, in fact. It's designing a brand-new aircraft AND trying to make our first step into a presumably difficult area of development....at the same time.

[Strongpoint]

We don't even have turrets on bombers anymore, and yet they still face fighter attack.

Well, it is not because bombers care much about weight or worsened auerodynamics. Turrets on bombers are just useless because fighters won't go to that range and just use AA missiles. (b52 got their tail turret removed only after 1991  modernization)

Our current enemy does go close so turrets are more useful and  I can see us going for large turreted aircrafts.

Turret fighters stopped being a thing in WW2, after this interesting but failed attempt - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulton_Paul_Defiant

Blood_Librarian offers high tech version of this concept for dogfighting. (At least I assume this because design fails to inform us about position of the turret and intended firing arc)

I want high tech analogue of something like Zero or Spitfire. If we are forced to fight enemy at close range lets take inspiration from aircrafts that were good dogfighters. 


Madman198237 Why don't you vote\offer anything? What do you think about Colibri?

[Madman198237]

Been busy. I'd tend to lean towards the TAV, or rather a clone but with some non-alien ceramic armor, except for the darn EPs we don't have.

[Blood_Librarian]

If you had bothered to read the original text, the Armageddon does have 4 less missiles then the Raven.

In addition to its 8 Missile mountings, it has a single integrated turret on the bottom of its fuselage, slightly below the center of mass.  The integrated weapon is a railgun "turret". designed to either be used by the gunnery control pilot, the railgun is connected to a comparatively vast computer system that allows the weapon to make precision shots against both tailing enemy aircraft or ground targets with merciless precision. This weapon has 360 rotation and can target pursuing UFO's as long as its "underneath" the aircraft.

EDIT: I removed all mentions of implants, seeing as it would be too hard to do and with discussion by other players.

[Chiefwaffles]

I wouldn't be surprised if TAV costs anything at all. It's mostly a software thing.
The consumer examples that I posted in the TAV design (and there are a lot more - the ones I posted were just off the top of my head) are very cheap for us. The Kinect cost, what, $100? HoloLens costs $3,000. That's pocket change for us. Ours would be a bit more complex, sure, but not by much.

EP is for things like cutting-edge railguns. Not-so-much "$3,000 consumer headset with a bit of relatively cheap extra tech glued on" (as a note, we're not actually including any alien tech in individual headsets - the nav token is for more or less "being inspired by their nav computer innards" and less so "using their nav computer innards").
And I genuinely think that it's not the right time to design an interceptor. We'd best wait until we get gravtech, which is by far the number one benefit we should be aiming for in a new interceptor.

[Blood_Librarian]

We are not getting grav technology for a long time.

What we do have is Elerium. You know, the stopgap between Alien gravity and nothing at all?

[Chiefwaffles]

I see absolutely nothing to suggest us "not getting grav technology for a long time."

And Elerium is not a stopgap between Alien gravity and nothing at all. It's a very useful tool, but it has very little to do with gravity manipulation other than them both being taken from the aliens.

[Strongpoint]

I wouldn't be surprised if TAV costs anything at all. It's mostly a software thing.

I will be quite surprised if they are free. It is simply a matter of game balance. We got what, one free thing? SMART missile but this is technically part of Raven and costs VP.

(as a note, we're not actually including any alien tech in individual headsets - the nav token is for more or less "being inspired by their nav computer innards" and less so "using their nav computer innards").

But it spends alien nav computer token. Once used it is gone. I think nav computer is better used for drone\aircraft electronics

And I genuinely think that it's not the right time to design an interceptor. We'd best wait until we get gravtech, which is by far the number one benefit we should be aiming for in a new interceptor.

Ignoring short term problems for some long time thing that may not happen is a way to defeat.
What will we do if enemy will field more UFOs? What will we do If enemy will start shooting down Skyrangers? What will we do if they'll start spreading their missions?

I can see the logic that jet engine is a dead tech end. This is one more reason to not try Magic Alien Fuel(c)
Colibri doesn't try to improve its jet engines. It develops a more powerful railgun, partly-elerium explosives, elerium detection scanners, on board electronics. All that is useful in future designs. Also, it can stay usable when we'll get anti-grav craft. filling the role of anti-light UFO when future ant-grav craft will work against larger ones.

Don't forget that we have spent a design action on a ground support type of mission. Aerial superiority is important for us. Without Skyrangers in the air we would likely lose the last battle.

[Chiefwaffles]

Yes, it does spend a nav token, you're right. But Ebbor has already stated that whatever a token gets spent on can be applied to future designs. Your design uses the nav token for hybrid computing. The TAV uses the nav token for hybrid computing - we can use that hybrid computing for anything in the future, including potentially the Colibri.
And if purely game balance, then TAVs should be free. If purely based on real life examples, then TAVs should be free. They're a small support device. Very useful, but they're not exactly railguns.


I like the Colibri, though. I just think we're dangerously close to losing again on ground. Their disguised units eliminated two squads - we only won because we went mildly overboard with the units sent. And they may very well invest more in ground capabilities The TAV prevents that kind of thing from happening in the future while giving a substantial passive buff to our ground teams.
And while we are close in aerospace combat, we don't rely on it as much. We need ground combat to get tokens. Being good in air combat just kind of helps us on ground (via ground support & crashed UFOs having some casualties before we engage on ground) and gives us more opportunities to engage in ground combat. Being good in ground combat is necessary at all, and we can still fight on ground even if completely outclassed at air.

[Blood_Librarian]

Jet engines and Gravi-tech are not mutually exclusive Jet engines could (as an example) give us incredible acceleration and a maximum top speed that gravity drives can't provide. By combining the two or using a rocket engine, we have the ability to go extremely fast and commit to extreme maneuvering that would let us dodge their fire. Besides, at some point, we can incorporate fusion or reactor technology into and get some extreme thrust, rather than rely on electricity-to-propulsion.

Landslide Missile (1): Cnidaros
Lightning Interceptor (1): Chiefwaffles
Tactical Awareness Visor (3): SaberToothTiger, Happerry, Blood_librarian
Colibri (1): strongpoint

[Strongpoint]

  we can use that hybrid computing for anything in the future, including potentially the Colibri.

Sure token stays there in a way, giving passible but smaller benefits in the future. It is a reason why I try to use all three tokens in the design. The sooner we use them the better. I would be far more willing to go for land design if it used more tokens.

And if purely game balance, then TAVs should be free. If purely based on real life examples, then TAVs should be free. They're a small support device. Very useful, but they're not exactly railguns.

We understand game balance differently then. There are no point in discussing it because only 10ebbor10 knows which position is correct

Their disguised units eliminated two squads - we only won because we went mildly overboard with the units sent. And they may very well invest more in ground capabilities

It was a night battle in city. Not a very typical kind of combat. If they'll go for ground forces, they will likely not go for more stealth. They'll go for either something that will withstand railgun slugs to some degree or their own long range weapon to spot being sniped from distance. I want air support in this case.

And numerical advantage was no more important than air support from skyrangers

And while we are close in aerospace combat, we don't rely on it as much. We need ground combat to get tokens.

Preventing them from taking tokens is as much important as getting ours. And I really, really, want a wreck of their fighter to study.

Being good in ground combat is necessary at all, and we can still fight on ground even if completely outclassed at air.

I disagree. They can start shooting Skyrangers in the air or start doing air support of their own and that means we have very bad chances. Also, the easiest way to win battles in X-COM games is to storm crashed UFOs.

______

Also, I think that we do need to improve our ground forces. And I think it will be done by
1) We sent 3 Skyrangers+2Ravens this turn. We had no enough EP to arm every NOTSOFTER. It is our most likely setup for the next mission, too. If we manage to make Colibri cost at least 2VP but not EP (and it, IMO shoudn't, its weapons are part of the vehicle, not external equipment), then we can give one NOTSOFTER additional XHs, not a minor improvement. Our need to spend EP to arm Ravens is meh for land combat. Stopping that will improve our land forces immediately.
2) We still have a revision to play with (unless we roll awful but...).
3) We have unit experience token we can use to revise NOTSOFTER into a specialist role or do something else with it during revision phase
4) We have ground support, every air design helps battle on the land, opposite is not true

I urge everyone to consider Colibri because of reasons above. I think we are in a bad tactical situation in the skies. Two Raven aren't enough, three ravens + 1 Skyranger is a not usable combination

[Happerry]

I also have a question to ones who vote for TAV. How do you plan to get EP for it? Last turn we used 2EP on aircraft weapons, 2EP on railguns. What is your plan if TAV costs... at least 0.5 EP? Get rid of aircraft weapons? Send less NOTSOFTER? Send NOTSOFTER units with TAV but no railguns? Imagine if we had 0.5EP cost HUD, what would you change in our last mission plan?

I plan to revise more accurate missiles this revision phase, personally, to remove the need to always put railguns on our planes and make sure the other team has to be wary of multiple ways for us to shoot them down, instead of just trying to counter one way. To be precise, a HARM, or Homing Anti-Radiation Missile, revision for our missiles to use all that energy they're emitting for their jamming as a big glaring beacon to shove a missile up their tailpipe.

we can use that hybrid computing for anything in the future, including potentially the Colibri.

Sure token stays there in a way, giving passible but smaller benefits in the future. It is a reason why I try to use all three tokens in the design. The sooner we use them the better. I would be far more willing to go for land design if it used more tokens.

The ability to use what we make later on is why I don't want to use everything up, because I feel that given the ability to keep our progress, it's better to focus on one thing at a time to get a good thing we can use later on instead of trying for three different advances and getting meh results that we'll probably have to spend more tokens on later. Also the part where we don't have a reliable supply of them yet...

And if purely game balance, then TAVs should be free. If purely based on real life examples, then TAVs should be free. They're a small support device. Very useful, but they're not exactly railguns.

Given it's basically a Scope type upgrade, I'm expecting some sort of railgun podish 'spend one point, get three' arrangement. Or at least that's what I'm hoping for.