Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Poll

Which team did you play in the last game?

Glorious Arstotzka
- 17 (16%)
Glorious Moskurg
- 13 (12.3%)
Ingloriously Didn't Play
- 76 (71.7%)

Total Members Voted: 106


Pages: 1 ... 290 291 [292] 293 294 ... 500

Author Topic: Intercontinental Arms Race: Finale  (Read 442167 times)

10ebbor10

  • Bay Watcher
  • DON'T PANIC
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Autumn 1941 (Design Phase)
« Reply #4365 on: June 24, 2017, 09:28:52 am »

It literally can't be hard.

Fine, a bet.

If it turns out that the design difficulty of our Cruiser is Normal or easier, I will lend you my vote for one voting period of your choice. If it isn't, well, you decide what (if anything) you bet for that.
Logged

Madman198237

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Autumn 1941 (Design Phase)
« Reply #4366 on: June 24, 2017, 09:41:24 am »

Need I correct my phrase? When I said hard, my thought was "Very Hard" in the game rules. But if this is normal, I will be extremely pleased. Not surprised, but pleased. Hard designs, which:

A hard design advances your technology by a couple "steps", such as building a new cannon more than twice as large as your previous largest one, or advances technology in multiple areas, such as building a tank with a new type of armor and new cannon and better engine than your previous one, or begins into a new field of technology but one which you would reasonably have access to, like your very first shaped charge explosive or radio system. A hard design might also be a design which was deemed Very hard or Impossible and failed before, but your team learned from the experience. Getting a technology advancement in a revision is usually Hard.

pretty much fit the bill for this thing. This ship applies new tech in many areas, but as it's all international standard now and has been for 30 years, it won't be Very Hard.


I'll take your bet, but no penalties. Well, you can say I lost if it's VH, or, heck with it, even just Hard. But it wouldn't be fun if, for example, I used your vote for the government policy of "Never floatplanes ever." (Plus I'm reasonably certain it will be a Hard design. However, because of what this design is, a roll of 4-6 will get us a perfectly functional cruiser)
Logged
We shall make the highest quality of quality quantities of soldiers with quantities of quality.

10ebbor10

  • Bay Watcher
  • DON'T PANIC
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Autumn 1941 (Design Phase)
« Reply #4367 on: June 24, 2017, 09:46:11 am »

Not seeking to manipulate anyone, so yeah, a friendly bet is all that's needed.
Logged

Azzuro

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Autumn 1941 (Design Phase)
« Reply #4368 on: June 24, 2017, 09:54:08 am »

the government policy of "Never floatplanes ever."

And you wonder why there's secret rebels? Repeal this policy immediately!
Logged

United Forenia Forever!

10ebbor10

  • Bay Watcher
  • DON'T PANIC
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Autumn 1941 (Design Phase)
« Reply #4369 on: June 24, 2017, 09:57:05 am »

Icegiant floatplate when?
Logged

Madman198237

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Autumn 1941 (Design Phase)
« Reply #4370 on: June 24, 2017, 10:32:37 am »

You idiots!

It's a stealth floatplane ekranoplan flying wing submarine.

 It shall be GOYRLIOUS!
Logged
We shall make the highest quality of quality quantities of soldiers with quantities of quality.

helmacon

  • Bay Watcher
  • Just a smol Angel
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Autumn 1941 (Design Phase)
« Reply #4371 on: June 24, 2017, 11:49:00 am »

Quote
GOYRLIOUS 
((How do you pronounce that?))
but seriously, never float planes ever.
Logged
Science is Meta gaming IRL. Humans are cheating fucks.

Madman198237

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Autumn 1941 (Design Phase)
« Reply #4372 on: June 24, 2017, 11:56:34 am »

It's a misspelling of GLORY (Then glorious, because GOYRLIOUS FORENIAN SPELLING) based on a military badge Kot drew in a previous AR game.

  The order of letters for the badge of GLORY was wrong, so it spelled GOYRL instead.

And, being B12'ers, we ran with it.
Logged
We shall make the highest quality of quality quantities of soldiers with quantities of quality.

3_14159

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Autumn 1941 (Design Phase)
« Reply #4373 on: June 24, 2017, 01:32:46 pm »

Quote from: Designs
0 RDN-39-3 "DEADLIEST RAY" :
0 UFA-SAB-41 Speedy Altitude Bomber :
0 UFN-AIPS-41 Submarine :
0 UFSS-41-A "Siren" :
1 UFAF-A41 "Turbohaast" : Azzuro
1 UF-GEV-41 "Ekaterina" : RAM
1 UFS-CL-41 Pattern A 'Cavalier' Cruiser :Taricus
1 UFS-CL-41 Pattern B 'Knight' Cruiser : 10ebbor10
0 UFS-CL-41 Pattern C 'Paladin' Cruiser :
3 UFS-CA-41 Pattern D 'Winged Hussar' Cruiser : Zanzetkuken the Great, Piratejoe, NUKE9.13
10 UFN-CA-41 Pattern E 'Cataphract' Cruiser : Madman198237, evictedSaint, Andrea, NAV, Wolfhunter, Happerry, Powder Miner, SMMI,Stabby, 3_14159
1 UFN-CA-41 Pattern F 'Lancer' Cruiser : Kashyyk
I'm refraining from the "Told you so" :-)
Logged

Powder Miner

  • Bay Watcher
  • this avatar is years irrelevant again oh god oh f-
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Autumn 1941 (Design Phase)
« Reply #4374 on: June 24, 2017, 04:17:45 pm »

Quote
this worked, it's just their resource boost that popped up made things massive and it's not going to simply remove the naval element from the game

Actually, it didn't.

The gun they have on their ship has far superior targeting systems, as well as superior firerate. As well as, you now, building an entire ship around it.
The problem with this is that the evidence of that turn doesn't carry out that assertion. That turn, they did not manage to land upon the jungle despite their Major Naval Advantage because, as stated, the 300mm guns (which DO have rocket assisted shells) were shooting their ships and landing craft down. I can say it worked because it did.

Quote
Quote
actually a superior carrier, but they (coincidentally or "coincidentally") happened to be improving the Santos at the same time, hmmmm. damn resources too

The Z-class is inferior to the enemy.

It's more expensive, deploys aircraft far slower, and destroys it's own planes.

Them upgrading their carrier was not unexpected. They designed a jet against our jet, and they needed the upgrade to use it.
This is probably the most valid bit, but back when the Santos and Z were both very expensive, the Z did in all evidenced fact match their Santos for plane output.
Quote
I have no idea what you're referring too.
Tbirds didn't become cheap because we didn't hold the jungle. If you're referring to Spearhead expense, however...

Quote
The simple fact is however, that we needed a design (which rolled a 6) and 2 revision (rolled 4 and 5 respectively) to equal a single Canallan design.
Let's dissect this then. I have two fronts on which to argue this: the fact that designs are not made in a vacuum, and the in-turn evidence which is being disregarded.

1. It didn't take us a design and two revisions to equal their plane, it took us a design and two revisions to beat their plane. The Thunderbird with its first revision was a superior jet despite being our first foray into that sort of engine, as it was the better dogfighter of the two and for all that people talk about the Spearhead being a "better interceptor" this claim hasn't once been backed up by the turns. When the Thunderbird was VE and the Spearhead Expensive, then we equaled them. It was the second revision bumping the Thunderbird to superiority. Before you point to the last turn as a lack of air superiority, this was due to their carrier dropping in expense and then flooding the skies with more planes that our (specifically noted to be very effective at doing their jobs) planes could handle -- NOT, notably, that our planes were inferior.

2. The bit about design not being in a vacuum. Though a slightly inferior plane to the Thunderbird, as evidenced by turn material, the Spearhead was cheaper specifically because it was not complex, and there's a very good reason it was not complex: Cannala had JUST done a bunch of complicated engine work with the Bull that provided a tech base for the Spearhead.
Logged

10ebbor10

  • Bay Watcher
  • DON'T PANIC
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Autumn 1941 (Design Phase)
« Reply #4375 on: June 24, 2017, 04:51:31 pm »

It seems your and mine definition of "working" are different.

Quote
The problem with this is that the evidence of that turn doesn't carry out that assertion. That turn, they did not manage to land upon the jungle despite their Major Naval Advantage because, as stated, the 300mm guns (which DO have rocket assisted shells) were shooting their ships and landing craft down. I can say it worked because it did.

It seems your and mine definition of "working" are different.

From the turn reports:

Quote
When the Victoria ships close into range of the shore, they can begin targeting the Overcompensator guns. At this point the Forenians will have the advantage of their radar and spotters for more accurately targeting the ships, and the fact that they do not have the added challenge of firing on the water, so Cannala begins to see casualties. The Victoria Battlecruisers eventually destroy enough Overcompensator guns to make a gap shore defenses, but this fighting creates a standoff where Forenian air forces have more time to act.

Quote
With some offshore shelling, Cannala punches through the Forenian shore positions and takes ground

In both cases, Canalla blew up the shore fortificitions with ease. They only worked last turn because it gave our airforce time to do something, which failed later when they got more carriers.

In the Battle for Mount Constantin, they're so useless they aren't even mentioned.

On a side note, these 2 turn sections make no sense to me. Canalla gets less battleships, and they somehow push through more easily.
 Just doesn't make any sense.



Quote
It didn't take us a design and two revisions to equal their plane, it took us a design and two revisions to beat their plane.

I disagree.

You're integrating our natural aviation capability as being part of the design. Without that, the planes would be equal. The design spells it out. Both are equally fast (after our engine power revision), both have the same cost.

« Last Edit: June 24, 2017, 04:53:12 pm by 10ebbor10 »
Logged

Powder Miner

  • Bay Watcher
  • this avatar is years irrelevant again oh god oh f-
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Autumn 1941 (Design Phase)
« Reply #4376 on: June 24, 2017, 05:31:59 pm »

Your own quote here spells out pretty clearly that they aren't blowing them up "with ease", as their ships are being killed and delayed -- aka the point of the entire design. The Overcompensator will not, and should not be expected to, kill their entire landing forces, but DID hinder them greatly, which was the point, and thusly it worked.

The turn where the Spearheads and Tbirds clash over sea specifically mentions that the Thunderbird planes are somewhat superior dogfighters to the Spearheads. The turns are better sources of evidence than your comparisons of our designs, because your comparisons are unfailingly pessimistic and unfailingly portray Cannalan designs in a better light.
Logged

10ebbor10

  • Bay Watcher
  • DON'T PANIC
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Autumn 1941 (Design Phase)
« Reply #4377 on: June 24, 2017, 05:52:24 pm »

We're losing track of the goalposts.

The original item of discussion was us trying to match Canalla and failing.

Now, let's look at the turn results.

Jungle 1 : Coastal defenses destroyed
Jungle 2 : Coastal defenses destroyed
Mount Constantin : Not mentioned, presumed destroyed

Combine that with the design information literally saying that the Canallan gun is more accurate and fires faster, I can't see how you could ever assert that the design did not fail in matching Cannalla.

Of course, it's not 100% useless, but that is a strawman you made up that does not represent my argument.  Put an equal amount of resources worth of coastal guns versus Victorias, and the Victorias will win.

Quote
The turn where the Spearheads and Tbirds clash over sea specifically mentions that the Thunderbird planes are somewhat superior dogfighters to the Spearheads. The turns are better sources of evidence than your comparisons of our designs, because your comparisons are unfailingly pessimistic and unfailingly portray Cannalan designs in a better light

What is so unfair about my comparisons? I want to compare jet engines. So, I look at our jet performance and the enemy jet performance. The description then explicitedly states :

Quote
Despite carrying more weight, it's very nearly as fast as the Thunderbird,

Which clearly makes my point.

The turns do not support your argument. Not unless you cherrypick the lines you want.

Quote
The heavy cannon in the Spearhead is best suited for hunting bombers (which it does extremely well) but isn't a huge advantage in regular dogfights, not enough to make up for its greater weight. The Thunderbird is somewhat a better dogfighter; it can't quite turn as tight as low speeds but it can climb and maintain energy better. Forenians maintain an air advantage thanks to their better training, and the capacity of their carriers (don't forget that the Wasp Nest is still in service as well) which helps somewhat to offset the fact that their jets are bloody expensive

The Spearhead is the better Bomberhunter, the Thunderbird is the better dogfighter. Both designs have their own advantages and disadvantages, but the designs are equal.

If the Thunderbird was so superior, why didn't we rule the Sea this turn? Our cheaper jet wasn't even mentioned.

Before you bring up your old argument : We have the same amount of planes at Sea than them now. They didn't flood the skies, they just eliminated our previous numerical superiority. The naval areas are an equal battleground, and the result there is equality.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2017, 05:58:46 pm by 10ebbor10 »
Logged

Powder Miner

  • Bay Watcher
  • this avatar is years irrelevant again oh god oh f-
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Autumn 1941 (Design Phase)
« Reply #4378 on: June 24, 2017, 06:25:17 pm »

We're losing track of the goalposts.
I think that we have vastly different goalposts in the first place. You want designs to match on your own terms, but I'm counting by terms of turn effectiveness.

Quote
The original item of discussion was us trying to match Canalla and failing.
And that's what I've been discussing.

Quote
Now, let's look at the turn results.

Jungle 1 : Coastal defenses destroyed
Coastal defenses kept them off of the island, despite new battleships used with an expense credit. Good result.
Quote
Jungle 2 : Coastal defenses destroyed
Mount Constantin : Not mentioned, presumed destroyed
They did not do so, bad result.

Quote
Combine that with the design information literally saying that the Canallan gun is more accurate and fires faster, I can't see how you could ever assert that the design did not fail in matching Cannalla.
It's fairly easy to make that assertion, actually, you just have to go off of the results rather than semantically bypass them. During their first turn of existence, before the ore kicked in and ruined everything, they held the Cannalans at bay. This was their purpose.

Quote
Of course, it's not 100% useless, but that is a strawman you made up that does not represent my argument.
It was never a matter of making a strawman up for you, it was always a matter of arguing on terms of the actual progression of the game.

Quote
Put an equal amount of resources worth of coastal guns versus Victorias, and the Victorias will win.
Wasn't the Victorias that won the turn last turn but the overall Massive Naval Disadvantage and drop in cost of multiple ships that caused it. There's no way shore batteries are going to cancel this out.

Quote
Quote
The turn where the Spearheads and Tbirds clash over sea specifically mentions that the Thunderbird planes are somewhat superior dogfighters to the Spearheads. The turns are better sources of evidence than your comparisons of our designs, because your comparisons are unfailingly pessimistic and unfailingly portray Cannalan designs in a better light

What is so unfair about my comparisons? I want to compare jet engines. So, I look at our jet performance and the enemy jet performance. The description then explicitedly states :

Quote
Despite carrying more weight, it's very nearly as fast as the Thunderbird,

The engine itself is not inferior to the Tbird engine, for the reason I stated earlier: they worked on it over the course of two designs, the Bull being the first turn of work.

Quote
Which clearly makes my point.
Which then falls apart when you look at the actual description of performance of the turn:

Quote
The heavy cannon in the Spearhead is best suited for hunting bombers (which it does extremely well) but isn't a huge advantage in regular dogfights, not enough to make up for its greater weight. The Thunderbird is somewhat a better dogfighter[...]
This line is a very important one. It does actually mean I was wrong earlier about the bomber hunter statement, but this right here is the statement of plane-to-plane performance between the Thunderbird and the Spearhead: The Thunderbird is successful.

Quote
The turns do not support your argument. Not unless you cherrypick the lines you want.
I would say that that charge is better leveled against you: I am going off of the progression of the turns and the specific lines I do choose, when I choose them, are the most pivotal. You on the other hand are choosing much more specific lines, counter to the overall turn progression, to core your arguments off of, like the line about a gap being created in the Overcompensators when they nonetheless did enough damage to make the landing untenable that turn.

Quote
Quote
The heavy cannon in the Spearhead is best suited for hunting bombers (which it does extremely well) but isn't a huge advantage in regular dogfights, not enough to make up for its greater weight. The Thunderbird is somewhat a better dogfighter; it can't quite turn as tight as low speeds but it can climb and maintain energy better. Forenians maintain an air advantage thanks to their better training, and the capacity of their carriers (don't forget that the Wasp Nest is still in service as well) which helps somewhat to offset the fact that their jets are bloody expensive

The Spearhead is the better Bomberhunter, the Thunderbird is the better dogfighter. Both designs have their own advantages and disadvantages, but the designs are equal.
This statement has more truth to it, but nonetheless overall air superiority is much more decisive than individual bomber-hunter ability for a fairly simple reason: You can't kill a bomber if you're dead.

Quote
If the Thunderbird was so superior, why didn't we rule the Sea this turn? Our cheaper jet wasn't even mentioned.
(A lot) more ships, same reason it says in the turn. It's a pretty big change and nowhere near one you can get away with ignoring.

A notable mistake with this argument, though: our Thunderbird didn't become cheaper this turn, though. TC effects do not come in the same turn a transport is designed, they come in the turn after, so we in fact don't have a cheaper jet...

Quote
Before you bring up your old argument : We have the same amount of planes at Sea than them now. They didn't flood the skies, they just eliminated our previous numerical superiority. The naval areas are an equal battleground, and the result there is equality.
...which changes the context here quite a bit. We haven't made our jets cheap, they're just as expensive as before, but now the (already Expensive) Spearheads are being deployed from now Expensive Santos, as opposed to presently Very Expensive Zheleznogorods -- in terms of jets, there is in fact a pretty clear numerical advantage on their side.
Logged

10ebbor10

  • Bay Watcher
  • DON'T PANIC
    • View Profile
Re: Intercontinental Arms Race: Autumn 1941 (Design Phase)
« Reply #4379 on: June 24, 2017, 06:28:45 pm »

Okay, I like the idea of splitting arguments to adress things point by point, but you've turned you argument into an unreaddable, uninterpretable mess.

« Last Edit: June 24, 2017, 06:48:14 pm by 10ebbor10 »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 290 291 [292] 293 294 ... 500