Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Cnidaros

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 27
151
Edited my nation again, dropping Cavalry Traditions for Highly Developed and Research Pioneer instead. Sorry for being indecisive.

More questions:
-Does the presence of navies affect fighting on land in coastal provinces at all?
-Do the NPC micronations get capitals and the associated defensive bonus?

152
I've edited my nation, changing Industrial Aptitude for Cavalry Traditions and Focus: Aeronautics for Focus: Military.

Industrial Aptitude seems a bit weak for its cost, considering that a normal-sized nation should have enough Coal+Chemicals to reach +1 improvement per turn at the outset, perhaps +2 if factories are built, and considering that Nationalised Industry gives +3 improvements/turn. Alternatively, taking Robust Government and Industrial Planning, or Research Pioneer and Petroleum Refining, provides the same effect for cheaper, and are also more versatile.

Some questions on mechanics:
-Can we demolish our own province improvements to make way for newer ones? And if yes, is that a free action, or limited?
-Does the capital itself (not the associated HQ/Academy) count as 1 of the 4 improvements?
-Are technology trades allowed? I hope not, considering that technology seems likely to progress slowly in this game so a couple of tech-trading players would be very far ahead of those who didn't trade.
-Can you only launch one bombing raid per airfield per turn?

153
Man, I didn't think naming it the Archer II would have cursed it so badly. At least we didn't go for the missile sub with that roll.

UFN-SS-45 "Boot"

So named because several engineers were given the boot over the Archer II project, because it sounds similar to the successful German Unterseeboots, and also because some believe it's now bad luck to name any naval vessel "Archer". All records that the submarine was ever named Archer are expunged, and written over with "Boot", which is now the term to describe that something has been censored.

Firstly, the lead-acid batteries are fixed to no longer leak, which should improve its endurance slightly. The engineers who decided we needed to hunt for Cannalan ghosts are booted overboard, and the parascope replaced with a periscope. The passive sonar from the Whalesong mine is added to the bow to assist in stealthy detection of enemy ships.

Finally, a variant of the Dolphin torpedo, the UFN-TPD-45 "Orca" torpedo is developed, which is simply a Dolphin torpedo upscaled with enough fuel to double its range, retaining the gyroscope-assisted running and magnetic detonator of the Dolphin, as well as warhead size.



Differences from the others:
-Doesn't include active sonar but settles for passive. From what I've researched online (here and here and here, as well as wiki) extremely few subs in WWII were equipped with active sonar, and those that did have it rarely used it to target enemy ships, because it gave away their presence and possibly their position. Active sonar was more employed as an anti-submarine measure on surface ships, and also used by submarines to detect other submarines during the Cold War.
-Doesn't include weapons topside, because by this stage in the war it was infeasible to mount sufficient antiair weaponry to deter air attack on submarines, see the U-flak concept. Admittedly the Germans didn't have guided SAMs, but then the aircraft in our war are also much more advanced.
-Instead, focuses on fixing the defects and developing a longer-ranged torpedo to enable more effective attack. I don't think the Dolphin is really all that ineffective as to render the submarine ineffective too, but it seems to be what people wanted.

Quote
(1) UFN-SS-45 "Archer III": Es
(1) UFN-SS-45 "Boot": Kot
(1) UFN-SS-45 "Rán": lightforger
(1) 'Leto' Naval Countermeasure Launcher: taricus
(1) UFN-SS-45 "Boot" (v2): Cnidaros

154
Joining this too:

Spoiler: Kingdom of Sudetenavik (click to show/hide)

EDIT: Changed Industrial Aptitude for Cavalry Traditions and Focus: Aeronautics for Focus: Military.
EDIT 2: Switched out Cavalry Traditions for Highly Developed and Research Pioneer.

155
I may do a longer post tomorrow but, one major issue with the archer is helicopters. It’s hard to be effective if you get hunted down by radar equipped gunships anytime you launch an attack.

Good thing that the Archer II is 100% invisible to radar when it's launching an attack then.

156
Alright, included a larger torpedo with the Archer II. Fingers crossed that this doesn't ramp up difficulty too much.

157
It seems to me that there’s no way we would lose the sea if we had a missile sub and they a missile destroyer... in fact, this is actually kind of the whole point of the missile sub in the first place. We’re talking about a missile platform they have nothing to hit it with and which helps mitigate the range issues vs a missile platform they CAN hit and perhaps directly out-do, which would require a successful ASM revision to even potentially outmatch a Cannalan missile cruiser.

As for the torpedo sub, considering the overall importance of the ASMs I don’t see it winning the sea for us for more than a turn.

A hypothetical Cannalan missile cruiser would carry ten times more ASMs than a crappy missile sub. Their ASMs are superior to ours in every way except warhead size, and most crucially in hit rate. Even assuming that both platforms are Expensive, they will outmatch us by sheer volume of accurate fire, since I don't believe our submarines will exclusively target their missile cruisers alone. And that's assuming we get an actually working missile sub right off the bat from zero submarine experience, which to me is verging on impossible, because again, 1960s design with extra bells and whistles. I would dearly like for the GM to give us a working missile sub, but I don't want to count on it.

Again, I'm not arguing for a torpedo sub over a missile sub. I'm arguing that we should do the torpedo sub first, then the missile sub.

EDIT: I will say though, if we get the VLS cells a future missile cruiser could use that instead of single or double-arm launchers.

158
Forum Games and Roleplaying / Re: Exodus from Vlanlados
« on: August 10, 2018, 11:17:33 am »
Obviously we need to help relieve the spiritual burden.  Confession is a great way to do it - and if citizens confess the sins of others, they are doing their part to save their soul, too!

This is a great plan, and a way to lessen the burden on the DEATH squads/whatever Inquisition we're going to inevitably set up.

Urgent things now: get more coal. I don't want to burn wood if we can help it, since it's also useful as a building material. We'll need to send out an expedition to the coal mining seam to get the excavator working, but we're short on tents, which can only hold 18 people. We can send people out in coats as well to sleep on snow, and rotate who's sleeping inside and outside on the journey. Once they get there, they can start making igloos at the seam for more permanent shelter.

Shelter: I still think we should mine out more pit-igloos, because those aren't vulnerable to these stupid storms. We can also continue the wooden-lining project.

Morale: returning to full rations should boost spirits a bit, along with improving the igloos. It's only a stopgap though, we'll have to do something about the COTL before long. Still against just shooting them, because that only makes them martyrs. It's time to give the Church of Kot a proper building, preferably one made out of the whale bones for extra moral authority. Also, are some of the Lost refusing to work? That is the one thing that should be a capital crime, because we're in freakin' Antarctica, and if they're not working they're just mooching off the labor of others.

Quote from: Votes
Food:
(1) Continue all boats fishing: Cnidaros (can this be a default action?)
(1) Return to full rations: Cnidaros

Coal Mining Expedition:
(1) Send 56 people (including mechanical expert) with all tents and coats, two week's rations in backpacks and sleds to carry them if needed, and 10 rifles with ammunition to defend themselves against shoggoths: Cnidaros
(1) On the journey, rotate who gets to sleep inside and outside the tents: Cnidaros
(1) Once they get there, half to build igloos, the other half to begin coal mining immediately: Cnidaros
(1) Dispatch a return party with the tractor and sled to haul back whatever coal they've mined in one week's time: Cnidaros

Shelter:
(1) Build more pit-igloos and smooth floors: Cnidaros
(1) Continue lining igloos with wooden insulation: Cnidaros

Religion:
(1) Church of Kot, Hold Konfessionals: eS, Cnidaros
(1) Build a Chapel of Kot out of the whale's skull and ribcage, using wooden planks to fill in the gaps: Cnidaros
(1) Relocate the gun/ammunition stockpile to the pit-igloo, put a door over it and guard it with a DEATH squad: Cnidaros

The Property list doesn't have the amount of shit we have stockpiled. Is the GM Biased and trying to make New Vlanlados freeze to death? Find out in tomorrow's issue of the Vlanlados Times!

159
So, what clinches it for me is that, as mentioned, our torpedoes are not useful for non-aerial use. For the Archer II to be remotely useful, we'd need to spend at least a revision on torpedoes, otherwise it would have basically no practical armament.
If we had a decent torpedo, I could see doing the torp-sub first, although I'd still be unsure. But as it stands, that extra mandatory revision is an action too much for my tastes.

Man, I dunno why you all think the Archer II is going to be 100% useless with just the Dolphin. We don't need long-range torpedoes when the enemy has absolutely zero anti-sub measures, which as I'll remind everyone, is still the case for the critical next turn. If you all think torpedoes are useless, then why not remove them from the Sobriety? I don't believe we even have torpedo tubes yet, since apparently the Dolphin has some kind of mysterious mechanism which only works if it's air-dropped.

But eh, I feel like I'm arguing against the tide here. What I will say is that if we go for the missile sub and Cannala goes for the missile cruiser, we will lose the seas next turn, along with the Forenian jungle. I would say that the Sobriety can only hope to carry 2-3 missiles and be Expensive even on a 6 (because 1960s design), while a likely Cannalan missile cruiser will carry up to 20 and be Cheap on a 3 or 4. At which point we'd be right back into the double-jungle mess again. I'd say I told you so, but this thread is full enough of salt as it is.

And as for making a good torpedo after making the missile-armed Sobriety, when that was the justification for not making a torpedo sub...I don't know what you guys are on, but I want some of it too.

160
Could we change it so the Archer 2 has double hulls? I wil vote the lock then. I just feel it will just better that way.

Okay, changed it. Double hulls were used on another submarine, the German Type XXI U-boat in 1943. Debate online about the pros/cons of single/double hull seems to be all over the place, so I don't really have a strong opinion on it one way or another. I don't think it affects difficulty too, since the earliest of submarines also used the double-hull design. That source mentions double-hulled has a disadvantage in dive speed, but I can't find any other sources to back it up. In fact Wikipedia mentions the exact opposite: that the Type XXI had a faster dive time as the product of its hull form.

161
The Kolechians have settled on a plan, update within two days. You can still submit additional stuff for the Test Pilots event, up to 48 hours from the time of this post, as I decide the winner only at the end of the BR. Or submit espionage actions.

162
I like how your worst-case for the missile sub is that the launchers don't work, while your worst-case for the torpedo sub is that it can't submerge or outright sinks. Biased much?

And you're not addressing MoP's point, where he wanted to spend two design actions on the Sobriety instead. Arguing that the Sobriety is going to be the same difficulty is ridiculous, it literally asks for everything the Archer II has, and the VLS cells, and some useless bells and whistles like the IR detection.

In terms of cost, the Archer II again outright wins, given that the Sobriety carries multiple Expensive Saltseekers and will be Expensive or Very Expensive itself.

Also, you want the missile sub to do submerged combat? Yeah, given the Saltseeker is our very first ASM ever, I'm sure the GM will give us a free pass on launching it submerged - something that, in the real world, again took years of engineering to even pull off. And they had working subs to test with, even.

In case you have forgotten, even if we conquer the jungle only the VVF goes down in price (from VE to E) and we still have to cross another sea to get into Cannala proper, while if we lose naval advantage the Cannalans are two turns from outright winning the game, as well as denying us the possibility of winning via nuke via Vlanlados. Navy isn't going to go away, sorry to burst your bubble.
The worst case is that the missiles don't work because even if it can't submerge to employ its torpedo tubes it would still be useful as a missile frigate, so I was applying the outcome that either: the sub's main weapon doesn't work OR it can't submerge to both subs. My point is that if your design has buggy torpedoes or submerging, it's useless, but our sub only has a single point of failure which would make it completely (emphasis on completely) useless which is the missiles.

The missile sub is certainly more difficult, I'd prefer it had no torpedo tubes or IR sensors at all to save on cost and complexity, but relative difficulty isn't important, what's important is the category. The question is if one is going to be Hard or the other Very Hard. I'm saying we don't know and that vertical launch missiles and IR isn't going to put it into a different category of difficulty. but I still think they'll be in the same category of difficulty. I don't have any way of proving it though without a verdict from Sensei.

Aren't you advocating for a transition to missile subs next turn anyways? If that's the case then the expense in the end is the same, at a cost of another action which doesn't need to be spent. I'll agree that the Archer II would be cheaper but it can also be more easily countered. Our enemy has expensive, large cruisers and aircraft carriers, an expensive or very expensive missile sub fills the role just fine.

The Sobriety has two torpedo tubes. I didn't mean to imply we should have underwater launch capable missiles (but I don't think it's a very complicated idea when we already have such sophisticated missile technology).

That's why I want a missile sub, it's a difficult threat to answer quickly and it gives us space to make designs that will win the land war.

I don't follow this reasoning. You are aware that the entire point of a missile sub is to use the submerging ability to pop up and fire unexpected missiles from inside enemy ASM range and escape again, right? If the Sobriety can't submerge, then it's useless anyway, carrying only two or three Saltseekers and being Expensive/Very Expensive and slow, and we should just go for the missile cruiser which carries 10-20 missiles at three or four times the speed instead. Suggesting that the sub, if it fails to be a sub, can double as a missile frigate is ridiculous. And our torpedoes aren't buggy, for god's sake, we've been using them for literally the length of the entire war without complaints. You'll note that the Archer II specifically doesn't throw a new torpedo design in the package for the sake of bells and whistles even though I want it.

Regarding difficulty, I suppose we must agree to disagree on this point. I simply don't think the Sobriety, which is going to be a rather larger sub in comparison to the Archer to carry our small-plane-sized ASMs, will be in the same difficulty tier as the Archer. Again, one is a 1940s design, the other is a 1960s design, and we don't have any experience designing subs at all. But if you can get Sensei to say that both would be the same difficulty and have the same penalties for a low roll, then sure, I'll switch my vote over to the Sobriety.

Yes, I want a missile sub the turn after, as that's the turn we'll have to try and effect a landing on the plains island, or cross the last bit of sea into Cannala if we take the entire jungle next turn. One of my arguments for the Archer is difficulty: I'd argue that we need to spend an action to get a good result on the missile sub. And to go back to the cost argument, if the Sobriety was Very Expensive, I don't see how having a sub carrying two Saltseekers and in fewer numbers than our huge-ass carriers is going to make any difference at all, unless the Saltseeker magically becomes 100% accurate and gains a nuclear warhead.

Fair point on not having underwater launched missiles, I see that I misread your post.

The missile sub is difficult to answer, but it's not going to be necessary for the enemy to answer if it's VE/buggy/ineffective because it only carries two missiles. And if the Sobriety fails, you can shelve thoughts of fixing it with another design action because by then the Cannalans will be on our homeland and we'll have to make a land design to push them back. As well as missing the window for us to land on Cannala next next turn too!

163
I dunno what to make of this reasoning. So you want us to try two rolls at a Very Hard Design, instead of two at Hard? With the interim being a useless submarine, exactly when we need to prevent the Cannalans from taking two bites of our homeland and being in position to win the game the turn after?
Missile sub: One design roll, probably a revision if it turns out to be Very Hard, which AFAIK there's no GM verdict on there being a difference in difficulty. Worst case the vertical missile launchers don't work and we fix it, if it has issues with submerged combat we still have a missile frigate.
Pure torp sub: One design roll, if it can't submerge or the torpedo tubes flood the ship or something then we need revision, and then assuming we have a working sub another revision next turn to make it into a missile sub.

Do I have that right?

Now really isn't the time to be making safe, low value plays. We can't spend three actions on the sub. Good or bad we need to be making land plays next turn in order to make resource gains that will close out this game, so let's just go for what we want now. Either way we bait ASW counters because Cannala is a reactive team.

I like how your worst-case for the missile sub is that the launchers don't work, while your worst-case for the torpedo sub is that it can't submerge or outright sinks. Biased much?

And you're not addressing MoP's point, where he wanted to spend two design actions on the Sobriety instead. Arguing that the Sobriety is going to be the same difficulty is ridiculous, it literally asks for everything the Archer II has, and the VLS cells, and some useless bells and whistles like the IR detection.

In terms of cost, the Archer II again outright wins, given that the Sobriety carries multiple Expensive Saltseekers and will be Expensive or Very Expensive itself.

Also, you want the missile sub to do submerged combat? Yeah, given the Saltseeker is our very first ASM ever, I'm sure the GM will give us a free pass on launching it submerged - something that, in the real world, again took years of engineering to even pull off. And they had working subs to test with, even.

In case you have forgotten, even if we conquer the jungle only the VVF goes down in price (from VE to E) and we still have to cross another sea to get into Cannala proper, while if we lose naval advantage the Cannalans are two turns from outright winning the game, as well as denying us the possibility of winning via nuke via Vlanlados. Navy isn't going to go away, sorry to burst your bubble.

164
But if the Sobriety rolls crap then we have two sunk designs whereas we could do the Sobriety now, and we still have the ability to throw another design (+revisions) down on it should it roll poorly enough. That way we either get Sobriety on a good roll, or get experience even if it's crap, plus have the basic design of what we're going for already accomplished.

I dunno what to make of this reasoning. So you want us to try two rolls at a Very Hard Design, instead of two at Hard? With the interim being a useless submarine, exactly when we need to prevent the Cannalans from taking two bites of our homeland and being in position to win the game the turn after?

Anyway, I don't think the Endgame announcement really changes our calculus. We still need to wrest Naval Advantage from the Cannalans to hold both our shores and Vlanlados. I considered writing up a jungle design to get us the last two quarters of the northern jungle and an extra ore resource, but on checking it seems like only the VVF fighter and Sea Lift get cheapened by having 6 instead of 5 ore, so it's not really worth it. I don't think the Sea Lift being cheaper has any effect too.

165
The Kols are done with revisions, and simply debating on plans right now (p.s. voting would be appreciated).

Since there's nothing much else to do for now, I thought I'd write up a little explanation of my mechanics here, where it's visible to both sides. First up for now is cost.

On Cost

The cost of an airframe depends on (about) four things: its overall size+type+structural materials (a large metal triplane will cost much more than a small wooden monoplane), the engine it uses (generally more powerful/advanced = more expensive), its weapons (more guns/larger bombload), and any additional features, such as complex sights, a retractable landing gear or a fancy hand-carved wooden emu head. I assign each of these a PP cost and add them all up for total cost, with the caveat that the total cost will never be a fractional PP number, so rounding it down instead.

That said, these costs do not necessarily scale linearly. Say you want to make a large bomber, with a total of seven defensive machineguns at various positions around the fuselage. Such a plane will not necessarily cost +7 PP from the guns alone, but may instead have +3.5 PP extra due to the guns cost. Two guns may cost twice as much as one, but three guns may not cost thrice as much as one. Don't go too overboard with this information!

Regarding the matter of additional features, both sides have encountered many many upgrades to existing aircraft which require 1 PP to implement (and some that don't, such as the tracer rounds). These reflect the cost of retrofitting new equipment such as Foster mounts or synchronisation gear onto existing planes. It does not mean that those features (like the Foster mount or the ailerons, which are relatively simple) necessarily cost 1 PP if you were to add them onto a new aircraft starting from scratch. In general, it's always worth it PP-wise to continue churning out new plane designs so as to include new features starting from the production stage, rather than keeping the same old aircraft models around and relying on continual revisions to keep them up to par.

Next, maintenance costs depend largely on engine numbers and power (a proxy for fuel consumption) and size (representing number of parts that need maintenance).

Finally, cost can be reduced through revisions, albeit it requires a good roll (5 or 6) to do so without affecting performance. Like improving effectiveness, however, there are steeply diminishing returns as to how far cost can be reduced this way. Maintenance cost is more difficult to reduce, and may require multiple good rolls to do so, and with a justification that makes some narrative sense.

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 27