Print

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

[Nirur Torir]

In case one fails, I would like to revise in two pieces of equipment that fit with the EFM, able to be sent with it for the event. Tracer rounds would be great.

Well, we will need some big design on the radio

Or just integrate it into the two-person plane, as the main new feature.

[NUKE9.13]

Well, we will need some big design on the radio

Or just integrate it into the two-person plane, as the main new feature.

60m aerial, for 4km of range. It'll need some serious work to be practical. Doable, but it might be better to do it as a separate project so we can get the plane out quicker. I mean, radios are useful, but not so useful that they warrant delaying deployment of proper bomber. We do have rainbow flares as a stopgap for communications.

Anyway, I remain skeptical that we will be able to reduce the cost of the EFM without impacting performance. It's significantly better than the Feather, yet only costs 66% more. To reduce the cost even by 1 would make it an extraordinary bargain. I think. We could ask the GM, on the off chance that they might answer:
@Cnidaros: Do we reckon there is room for cost reductions in the EFM without impacting performance? Such as by reducing the complexity of the sync gear?

For our revisions, I think we want to get tracers, and revise the mortar rounds into proper air-drop bombs (which we might not deploy this turn, but they'd still be nice to have). We might also improve our camera setup- it'd be useful for us, and I was reading about the Ottoman situation right now, and better intel is something they could really use.

[Cnidaros]

@Cnidaros: Do we reckon there is room for cost reductions in the EFM without impacting performance? Such as by reducing the complexity of the sync gear?

I'm not answering this question directly, as it's too close to a "should we do this?" question. It's up to you to decide if you want to spend a revision on it or not.

[Kashyyk]

Perhaps the only bright spot in the whole mess is that of cost: the Equilibrium is projected to not be that much more expensive than a Feather, with most of the extra cost coming from the complexity of the synchronisation gear. 

@Cnidaros: I believe Nuke is referring to this part of the EFM. The way it is phrased implies that we can spend revisions to simplify the gear, reducing cost and not affecting performance. Is that the case or are we being misled.

[Nirur Torir]

Or, since we're the engineers who know how much these things cost, how much of the price is going into building and maintaining the complex gears?

[NUKE9.13]

Or, since we're the engineers who know how much these things cost, how much of the price is going into building and maintaining the complex gears?

Yes, this. We surely have access to a cost breakdown.

[Cnidaros]

Perhaps the only bright spot in the whole mess is that of cost: the Equilibrium is projected to not be that much more expensive than a Feather, with most of the extra cost coming from the complexity of the synchronisation gear.

@Cnidaros: I believe Nuke is referring to this part of the EFM. The way it is phrased implies that we can spend revisions to simplify the gear, reducing cost and not affecting performance. Is that the case or are we being misled.

To clarify, this part was meant to read that having the gear costs more, as opposed to not having any synch gear at all as in the Feather. Separately, there was a bug that caused the synch gear to be over-complex, affecting performance, which you already fixed with the first revision. Also separately, the gear wasn't very effective, and you improved its performance with the second revision. You can attempt to simplify it even further and reduce cost that way with a revision, but whether it affects the performance is up to the die roll.

Cost breakdowns won't be accurate because I don't want to deal with fractional PPs too much, but here's a rough estimate:
2 PP for the monoplane (slightly cheaper than an equivalent biplane)
0.5 PP for the engine
1 PP for the Type 11
1.5 PP for the synchronisation gear

[Nirur Torir]

Cost breakdowns won't be accurate because I don't want to deal with fractional PPs too much, but here's a rough estimate:
2 PP for the monoplane (slightly cheaper than an equivalent biplane)

Thank you!

I'm against going for it. We probably could, with a few dice, and get good precision engineering xp from it (which I want for copying the yummy over-engineered German engines), but I'd rather get the bombers one turn sooner.

[Chiefwaffles]

We should dedicate a project to just the radio at some point. It's just not a good fit for any type of airplane that we can make at this point, I feel. Perhaps two projects: a two seater bomber/radio plane (though it'd only be performing one role at a time), and a radio suitable for aerial use.


Here's my attempt at a camera revision. Surprisingly there's not that much information easily available about the exact use and type of cameras in aerial reconaissance during world war 1.
Revision: Oracle Camera (other names accepted)
The Oracle Camera is a Lvoc camera modified to have a tri-lens system allowing it to take multiple photos at different angles of the land below, to allow convenient overlaying of photos onto existing maps. It has a multiple-plate "magazine" allowing for taking multiple sets of photos at once before manual changing, and comes with a "holder" and primitive remote trigger so pilots can get the optimal angle photos at the perfect times without being distracted.

Revision: Tactical Escape Parachute
The Tactical Escape Parachute, which will of course be used tactically and is not at all a tool of cowardice no sir, is a parachute based around the novel idea of increasing pilot survival rate. It's actually just a modification of the existing "parachute" used in the Hykib observation balloons. It's convenaniently packed in a backpack-style configuration for wearing by the pilot, and features a "ripcord" that allows the escaping pilot to deploy the chute after he's cleared the craft. It features some other improvements as well to make it generally more reliable compared to its predecessor.
The Tactical Escape Parachute should hopefully increase pilot morale, and a much greater pilot survival rate means we lose skilled pilots less frequently.

Revision: Kolechian Flight Academy
A set of adjustments to our current Pilot Training Institute should increase the skill level of our pilots to some degree. We aren't making a whole new institution, but we're a bit more formalizing the current institute. Instead of just teaching the basics on operating planes, our instructors also go into tactics and minor field training. Also, we take instructors from (relatively) veteran pilots to ensure the best possible teachers for our new pilots.
We also give it a cool new name and have our insignia painted very fancily on the front of the building, which is now "slightly bigger than a shack" instead of "a shack". Baby steps.


We should also consider a bomb revision (obviously) and a dedicated engine revision, but I don't know enough about our current engines (or engines at all really) to make a revision for them that's not just "more cylinders". Maybe a revision for our radio to make the eventual radio project easier.

[Kashyyk]

It may be worth having the camera focused at infinity as well, if we're going to be designing our own.

I was actually thinking of a Training Center where we could assign Aces as instructors to improve the skill of pilots assigned to it.

[Nirur Torir]

We can't revise the academy.

Two questions to the GM:
1.) Can we change the pilot training academy place-thing, or is that just set in stone like the dice infrastructure?

1) No, you can't change that. It was a leftover from when I hadn't implemented the experience system for squadrons. I may upgrade it as the game progresses to start new squadrons at a higher experience level, but such changes will apply to both sides equally.

Tracer Rounds
Our pilots will have an easier time aiming if they can clearly see their bullets. We will add pyrotechnic materials to special hollow 7.65x53 mm Argentine bullets, using our experience from our flare guns, and use these rounds in ratio of 1 tracer round for every 4 normal rounds.
We'll try using phosphorous as the charge, to burn our foes out of the sky.

[Kashyyk]

Actually, if we specifically use phosphorous as the charge it'll work as both a tracer and an incendiary round. Apparently the range will be limited to about 350m according Wikipedia, but I don't think many dogfights occur beyond those ranges so that shouldn't be an issue.

[Taricus]

Tracer Rounds (1): Taricus

Getting the vote ball rolling, though do get those synch gear improvements in so that we can vote them in. Possibly an engine performance revision too.

[Rockeater]

Tracer Rounds (2): Taricus, Rockeater
Revision: Oracle Camera (1): Rockeater
Tactical Escape Parachute (1): Rockeater

[Doomblade187]

Engine Performance Improvement:

We've learned a lot about machining over the course of our synchronization gear design, and this has led to us taking a second look at the way we build the engines for the Equilibrium. Using more finely machined pistons and engine blocks, and reviewing designs for extra weight, we should be able to improve piston compression and reduce engine weight across the fleet.

Tracer Rounds (2): Taricus, Rockeater, Doomblade
Revision: Oracle Camera (2): Rockeater, Doomblade
Tactical Escape Parachute (2): Rockeater, Doomblade
Engine Performance Improvement (1): Doomblade

I would support other revisions if they are proposed and I like them.