Print

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

[andrea]

uh, I'll need to check. I seem to remember them being useful.

[Devastator]

C'mon people, less salt, more lead and steel.

The word you are looking for is 'whining'.

Anyway, that's enough whining for today, I'll get out of here.

[Sheb]

Come on, you had people complaining that we shouldn't be able to use our mortars in the mountains due to avalanche. It is in the nature of this game to complain.

[Kashyyk]

I've also had another tactic of Arstotzka pointed out to me. Arstotzka would shove a load of new tech into a design (turbos and fuel injection being examples) and thus get several new techs to apply to things in a single design phase. Moskurg would go for designs with one breakthrough tech in, if that.

I'm not upset that Arstotzka was able to do this, but I am upset that it was never mentioned/noticed that Moskurg could.

[andrea]

uh? it was established early on that you could add more things to your designs, at the price of more likely failure.
See our tank. it was a big pile of innovation. And we paid for that, since we had to spend a revision to make it  useable at all, and a second to make it common.
making a design with less parts, or less innovative parts, means it is more likely to work as intended. Less possible points of failure.
making a design with more parts or more innovative ones means more likely to fail, because of more possible points of failure, but good reward if you get it to work.

[Kashyyk]

Whereas you guys were able to get away with those complex innovations without very much cost, unlike Moskurg.

[andrea]

we got lucky. The SMG was an incredibly lucky serie of rolls. for each innovation a die was rolled and miraculously none of the rolls failed. Had it happened otherwise, we would have had a nice pile of junk.

[evilcherry]

we got lucky. The SMG was an incredibly lucky serie of rolls. for each innovation a die was rolled and miraculously none of the rolls failed. Had it happened otherwise, we would have had a nice pile of junk.

The tank is certainly too lucky. As for the SMG. Or the RPG.

[andrea]

we didn't shove a lot of new tech in the RPG. In fact , I don't believe we had any new tech from it. rocket came from mortars, payload came from grenades. Feel free to have issues with a RPG existing at this time, but I was replying to Kashyyk discussing our strategy of shoving a lot of new tech in each design. We did that, but the RPG isn't an example. SMG and tank however are examples of that.

as for the tank? that is where we paid the price for this strategy. We shoved a lot of tech in, then our rolls weren't stellar and so we ended up unable to actually field any. it took us 3 turns ( 1 design, 2 revisions) to actually achieve what we originally wanted to do.

the submachinegun was so lucky that Sensei himself was surprised. To quote, "I was a little surprised: Multiple sixes were rolled. You kinda skipped the "kludgy gun that jams all the time" phase."
it is not a matter of our design being treated unfairly kindly.
It is a matter of us having some rotten luck with dice. many rolls were made on that SMG, in which a single failure could have invalidated the design. And we got several 6 in a row. Big gamble, which succeeded.

[10ebbor10]

Expensive, plus one for optics.

I see. The wording is a bit ambiguous. I interpreted it as having bomb sights as a standard part of the design, not an expensive retrofit.

That would reduce the price of about three-quarters of Moskurg's items, along with free radios and optics on all tanks and artillery, if it was true.

Not quite. See, the interpretation I was referring too is that the Scope is a different thing all together than the bomb sight.  Different name and functioning, after all. But it is unclear; I agree.

Then again, the GM first made the mistake of describing our bomber as very expensive, and those results were kept, so it didn't matter, I guess.

[Aseaheru]

 Honestly, I think that the reason moskurg is doing as badly as it is, besides not throwing everything they could think of on a design in hope that most of it turned out OK, is that you guys did not capitalize on your bonuses soon enough. I mean, extra oil for getting your CQC loving troops Into close combat faster would have been a massive issuefor us, as would have you guys getting aircraft slightly sooner.

[Iituem]

Honestly, I think that the reason moskurg is doing as badly as it is, besides not throwing everything they could think of on a design in hope that most of it turned out OK, is that you guys did not capitalize on your bonuses soon enough. I mean, extra oil for getting your CQC loving troops Into close combat faster would have been a massive issuefor us, as would have you guys getting aircraft slightly sooner.

When did we ever get extra oil?

[Kashyyk]

Moskurg started with 2 oil 1 & ore, whilst Arstotzka had 2 ore & 1 oil.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

I think main Moskurg problem is  ignoring resource shortage while designing stuff. When you have less ore then your opponent your way is wooden aircrafts, light tanks\open tank destroyers and so on.

[Kashyyk]

Those are inherently worse than an equally cheap (for Arstotzka) full metal vehicle however. So we are immediately at a disadvantage.