Bay 12 Games Forum

Switching vote mostly to remove vote weirdness so MoP can proceed (if he wishes) with no regrets.

Resource:
Caelium in the Rolling Hills: (7) NUKE9.13, Jilladilla, Rockeater, Taricus, DGR, Madman, Twinwolf

Fortify:
South Peaks: (7) NUKE9.13, Jilladilla, Rockeater, Taricus, DGR, Madman, Twinwolf

Deployment:
Hold the Line (no attacks): (2) NUKE9.13, Rockeater,
Attack the Savannah only (One Attack)and deploy the Tectonic there: (5) Taricus, Madman, DGR, Twinwolf, Powder Miner
Reinforce the Peaks with our other action: (4) Powder Miner, Madman, DGR, Jilladilla

Gavrillium Mine Name:
Land-Explosive, Gavrillium Ordnance (LEGO): (6) NUKE9.13, Jilladilla, Rockeater, Taricus, DGR, Madman

In the end, the PGG was really the only thing I actually had a strong opinion about. Most other things rated about equal to me (except the jacks, those rated lower).

Fortify the South Peaks: (0)
Salviosi Jacks and other defensive measures: (4) Powder Miner, DGR, Taricus, Rockeater
Portable Gatling Guns: (4) NUKE9.13, Jilladilla, Twinwolf, Madman
ECR-16 'Mountaineer': (0)
TBC-16 "Doomfire" Tactical Bomber: (2) Taricus, Jilladilla
AAA-16: (4) Rockeater, Twinwolf, NUKE9.13, Madman,

The Caelum sticky satchel really only needs a smaller power source from them, you know (and glue, I guess); that may not be too far out of reach of a revision to pull off. They've pulled off a fairly comprehensive upgrade on their Kingmaker transport at least once (look at the Caliburn); and the level of change between the two doesn't imply re-design.

And this may be harsh of me but breathing room just isn't required right now; we're neither in position to start a game-winning lunge nor are we at risk of being pushed to the brink of defeat.

And like you said; 'we need to do a significant amount of infantry work to take the lead again'; and the jacks don't qualify as infantry work...

Quote from: NUKE9.13 on February 28, 2019, 03:16:10 am

When the GM practically puts up a neon sign saying "MAKE PORTABLE GATLING GUNS", you follow that advice.

There is no neon sign saying make portable gatling guns. It was one of a laundry list of issues mentioned with our infantry last turn, and by attempting to portray it as simply a matter of PORTABLE GATLING GUNS SIGN you have to ignore the entire litany of problems we face, such as comparative survivability and comparative mobility. Even if this DOES solve the mobile weaponry problem, all it does is make it even, not better than theirs. We cannot narrow enough of these gaps with these revisions to overturn last turn's status quo, much less deal with their new design as well. You cannot oversimplify these facts away.

We can quite possibly lower how much territory we lose this turn, but I am sure that we WILL lose territory this turn. Accordingly, I have voted to button up in hopes of making the losses I see as inevitable this turn hurt less, which will also give us a better base later, especially if we totally hold the South Peaks. Remember, they won pretty handily in the North Peaks.

At the same time though Powder, simply because it cannot bridge all of the gaps in one fell swoop does not mean that it isn't worthwhile. Arguably being able to leverage greater firepower in a more mobile manner would mitigate their defensive advantage as well. As for your concern for only matching them? Well we are at a current disadvantage; outright upending the status quo in multiple areas to an advantage is a tall order. The path of 1000 miles begins with but a single step, after all.

Now as for the other revision... I am torn, really. The Mountaineer could have pretty decent synergy with the portable gatling guns, and possibly serve as a foundation for a take 2 on the uniform; but reinforcing the South Peaks could also be a decent move, with all evidence pointing that they can in fact beat us up in mountains and successfully force a landing... My vote there is very tentative; not solid at all. But in the end?

Fortify the South Peaks: (3) Powder Miner, DGR, Jilladilla
Salviosi Jacks and other defensive measures: (4) Powder Miner, DGR, Taricus, Rockeater
Portable Gatling Guns: (2) NUKE9.13, Jilladilla
ECR-15 'Mountaineer': (1) NUKE9.13
TBC-16 "Doomfire" Tactical Bomber: (1) Taricus
Fortify Harren (1): Rockeater

PRE-POST EDIT (Dammit why do you all have to organize your thoughts faster than me?): Powder, I don't think we've lost our fortification in the Savannah; it's still listed at 2 Entrenchment, we just can't further entrench ourselves in it while Abbera is there.


As for the Jacks.... This is just something that is going to go obsolete, you know? It may have a day or two at the edge of the spotlight; but all they need to do is make their stuff hover higher, or even just 'jump' to render it pointless. It's a dead-end tech, and it's not even one I consider vital to compete in the moment.. Hell; the jacks may even end up more of a hindrance than help! All of our ground vehicles remain pretty darn close to the ground, we don't really have hover vehicles like they do. (I mean, yes the armored sleds hover, but those are pushed around by hand soooo..)

You know what? It has Charm. Something that the Gergasangin didn't really have (sorry Nuke). Count me in.

(Note: The old power armor proposal got renamed into the 'Earthquake' to mitigate confusion.)

Regular Design:
SAR-16 Automatic Rifle:
Ambrosia: (3) Jilladilla, Taricus, Rockeater
BSU Exoskeletal Combat Rig: (5) Powder Miner, Madman, Twinwolf, NUKE9.13, DGR

---

NE Design:
ARC-16 'Iron Drake':
ABB-16 Gergasangin: (3) NUKE9.13, Taricus, DGR
ALS-16 'Earthquake': (4) Madman, Powder Miner, Twinwolf, Rockeater
MLS-16 'Tectonic': (1) Jilladilla

Of note is that we do have an advantage in internal volume compared to contemporary ships in that our powerplant and fuel storage are much, much smaller; and the fact that they are distributed means that we don't need a mostly contiguous space for them and as such don't have to compete as much with the turret wells for space.

That being said Madman; didn't we conclude (on Discord) that we could just use downwards facing weakened impacts to essentially override normal gravity and as such allow us to basically build the side turrets as normal? IIRC; we concluded while not a flawless solution, it was one that was viable? At least, I don't recall any major issues being brought up about it. (Please correct me if I'm wrong)

Still; it would probably be ideal to consolidate the main battery into fewer quadruple turrets to save both size and weight (we definitely have the beam for it); and secondaries into twin turrets.

Personally I see Ambrosia as having potential; but I am in the same boat as Nuke for the most part. (Granted I am of the opinion of 'Why not both, eventually?' when deciding between the exoskeleton and Ambrosia.)

Regular Design:
SAR-16 Automatic Rifle:
Ambrosia: (2) NUKE9.13, Jilladilla
BSU Exoskeletal Combat Rig: (1) Powder Miner

---

NE Design:
ARC-16 'Iron Drake':
ABB-16 Gergasangin: (2) NUKE9.13, Jilladilla

I mean, my 'spend 1 die' vote was meant for this phase only, although I suppose your vote is a bit more literal declaration of intent; albeit one that could potentially be misinterpreted as 'save all dice for revision spam'; just like mine could be misinterpreted as 'spend 1, bank the other 4 for next turn'.