|
"We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in Mihr, we shall fight in the asteroid belts and debris fields, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the void, we shall defend our homes, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight at the warp nodes, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; and above all WE SHALL NEVER SURRENDER." Turn it back a bit and remind those traitorous space bears why it pays to play nice. Crazycryodude fucked around with this message at 14:56 on Oct 10, 2016 |
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 14:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:29 |
|
|
We have had a vision of what may come to pass. Make ready, and let's see if we can rewrite history in Bulrathi hull wreckage. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
AJ_Impy posted:We have had a vision of what may come to pass. Make ready, and let's see if we can rewrite history in Bulrathi hull wreckage. The Hags warned us.  Hell, if we survive, it'd be a good explanation for why the Bulrathi would relatively quickly accept human rule if we end up defeating them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
2396- Ship Design Contest The Bulrathi Empire has forced its way into Mihr through overwhelming weight of missile firepower, with five nuclear missile tubes on every Imperial combat vessel, and has left behind half its fleet to blockade Paradise. The Archer has been sunk in its attempt to return to Earth, while the Arbalest has escaped destruction. Humanity has been staggered under this attack, but not broken, and on Earth, a new generation of combat vessels is ready for construction. The Defense Department wishes for no fewer than three new designs- a fleet escort and scouting vessel to upgrade the current Arbalest hull, an escort and ground attack vessel of similar size, and a new primary space control cruiser, larger and more powerful than earlier designs, intended to take on Bulrathi forces in the void and win. With new construction technology, the smaller combat vessels have been reclassified as 'frigates' rather than 'cruisers'.  Internal Defense Department studies have designed the proposed Davy Crockett class of heavy space control cruiser. The Davy Crockett class mounts a powerful ECM suite and electromagnetic deflector units that should screen against some enemy fire. Its primary armament is a two-gun dorsal neutron cannon turret mounting heavy cannons with nearly the estimated firepower of standard nuclear missiles, while two launch tubes for light kinetic kill vehicles with the tracking and acceleration to knock out hostile shipkiller missiles further strengthen its anti-missile defenses. The Chiefs of Staff wish to review other options before approving this design for production. Current Ship Design Parameters 575 tons free displacement, 10 production cost for a frigate hull; 912.5 tons free displacement, 19 production cost for a heavy cruiser hull. Three weapons hardpoints and three special hardpoints on a frigate, four and four on a heavy cruiser. Shields Shields do not take a special system slot of their own. Class I Shield: 100 tons displacement, 6 production for a frigate; 250 tons displacement, 9 production for a heavy cruiser. Provides a buffer of protection equal to 50% of the hull durability, which can recharge slowly in battle. Also reduces all incoming damage by 1 point, even after shields have been knocked down. Specials Augmented Engines: 125 tons displacement, 10 production for a frigate; 312.5 tons displacement, 25 production for a heavy cruiser. Improves mobility, strategic speed, and evasion against direct-fire weapons; far more cost-effective on a frigate hull. ECM Jammer: 150 tons displacement, 12 production for a frigate, 225 tons displacement, 18 production for a heavy cruiser. 25% chance of jamming and diverting any incoming missile. Weapons Laser and Neutron Cannon Please bear in mind cannon damage drops off at range, and hits at the extreme edge of the range envelope tend to do no damage at all. Point-Defense Laser: 20.4 tons displacement, 1 production. 10 range, 2.25 seconds between shots, 2.5 damage, 25% accuracy bonus, automatically engages incoming missiles. Standard Laser Mount: 60 tons displacement, 2 production for front or rear mount. 75 tons displacement, 3 production for sides mount. 90 tons displacement, 4 production for 360 degree mount. 50 range, 3 seconds between shots, 5 damage. Autofire Laser Mount: 90 tons displacement, 3 production for front or rear mount. 112.5 tons displacement, 4 production for sides mount. 135 tons displacement, 6 production for 360 degree mount. 50 range, 1.5 seconds between shots, 5 damage, 20% accuracy penalty. Heavy Laser Mount: 90 tons displacement, 4 production for front or rear mount. 112.5 tons displacement, 6 production for sides mount. 135 tons displacement, 8 production for 360 degree mount. 75 range, 3.75 seconds between shots, 10 damage. Heavy Autofire Laser Mount: 120 tons displacement, 5 production for front or rear mount. 150 tons displacement, 7 production for sides mount. 180 tons displacement, 10 production for 360 degree mount. 75 range, 1.88 seconds between shots, 10 damage, 20% accuracy penalty. Standard Neutron Cannon Mount: 80 tons displacement, 5 production for front or rear mount. 100 tons displacement, 7 production for sides mount. 120 tons displacement, 10 production for 360 degree mount. 50 range, 3 seconds between shots, 9 damage. Autofire Neutron Cannon Mount: 120 tons displacement, 7 production for front or rear mount. 150 tons displacement, 10 production for sides mount. 180 tons displacement, 15 production for 360 degree mount. 50 range, 1.5 seconds between shots, 9 damage, 20% accuracy penalty. Heavy Neutron Cannon Mount: 120 tons displacement, 10 production for front or rear mount. 150 tons displacement, 14 production for sides mount. 180 tons displacement, 20 production for 360 degree mount. 75 range, 3.75 seconds between shots, 18 damage. Heavy Autofire Neutron Cannon Mount: 160 tons displacement, 12 production for front or rear mount. 200 tons displacement, 17 production for sides mount. 240 tons displacement, 25 production for 360 degree mount. 75 range, 1.88 seconds between shots, 18 damage, 20% accuracy penalty. Missiles Missiles have slow travel speeds and are vulnerable to jamming and PD. Nuclear Missiles: 100 tons displacement, 4 production. 60 range, 11 seconds between shots, 20 damage, 2 HP warhead HP. Defensive KKVs: 30 tons displacement, 2 production. 10 range, 2 seconds between shots, 5 damage. Automatically engages missiles in range with excellent accuracy; not usable against non-missile targets. Bombs Bombs are exclusively for ground attack. Nuclear Bombs: 100 tons displacement, 4 production. nweismuller fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Oct 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
I would suggest, if resources permit, to focus efforts on the offensive capabilities of the destroyer, while offloading point defence duty to highly mobile specialized frigates.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
my dad posted:I would suggest, if resources permit, to focus efforts on the offensive capabilities of the destroyer, while offloading point defence duty to highly mobile specialized frigates. Yeah I'm sitting here spitballing designs on a piece of paper and this seems to be the most effective design strategy. Edit: Nevermind google says no Crazycryodude fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Oct 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
I told you guys I would laugh if our first enemy is a primarily missile-user and I'm laughing right now. I told you this would happen. Sure, we were also incredibly outnumbered, but having the wrong design didn't help either. Since we're redoing this, I suggest the following two designs to go bear hunting: Viper (Heavy Cruiser) 4 Weapons, 4 special hard points Class I Shield 250t 3x Heavy Neutron Cannon 360° mount 480t 54 damage 6x PD Laser-turrets 122,4t 2x Defensive KKVs 60t 912,4t total The Viper is a new class of space superiority warship, able to overpower enemies using primarily energy-weapons with its three massive Neutron Cannon mounts, while missile-based designs can just go home and weap. The Viper can easily shred missile salvoes of multiple enemy ships and even on its own will tear apart enemy warships. The design is similar to the Davy Crockett-class, but exchanges the ECM-Jammer for more offensive firepower. The Viper instead trusts its 6 defensive turrets and two anti-missile launchers to keep enemy ordnance at bay. Shrike (Frigate) 3 Weapons, 3 Specials Class I Shield 100t Augmented Engines 125t ECM-Jammer 150t 1x Heavy Neutron Cannon Front Mount 120t 2x PD Laser-turrets 40,8t 1x Defensive KKV 30t 565,8t total The Shrike is an adaption of earlier frigate-designs: As it lacks the enormous firepower of larger ships, it augments its defenses with a ECM-Jammer and Augmented Engines. The primary weapon is a single frontal mounted Heavy Neutron Cannon to shred unfortunate victims. Two PD-turrets and a single defensive launch tube have been crammed into the small hull to give the ship additional point defense capabilities instead of depending solely on maneuverability and ECM. This frigate, while capable on its own, can be used to devastating effect when escorting a Viper-class heavy cruiser: The sizable point defense of the heavier ship combined with the ECM-Jammer of the smaller escort will keep the space near a task force swept clean of hostile missiles. Thanks to the multiple heavy energy weapons such a task force can bring to bear, this makes potential enemies a lot less lucky. Both ships are able to hold their own if they are alone, but if both Vipers and Shrikes are together in the same fleet they should wreak untold havoc and reduce every ship the bears have to space dust without letting a single missile through.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
Here's my designs, if I got the numbers right: Schiltron class escort frigates: Shield (100 displacement) - the extra health is just too good of a value not to add this 14 Defensive KKVs (420  ) - the crucial part of the ship's design, intended to mulch the enemy missile output cost-effectively2 PD lasers (40.8) - cramming them in the get as much use from the space as possible Total: 560.8 displacement (heavy on AMRs because our accuracy is poo poo, no augmented engines because these ships only really need to keep ahead of a small number of destroyers, so mobility doesn't matter all that much) Catapult class missile destroyer: Shield (250 displacement) - the extra health is just too good of a value not to add this 6 nuclear missiles (600) - the meat of our damage output 2 Defensive KKVs (60) - using up the remaining space to help deal with missiles that make it past the escorts Total: 910 displacement Reminder: Our beam accuracy is poo poo, and the enemy isn't using ECM
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
"our beam accuracy is poo poo" is the line of reasoning which will lead to us getting owned by space bears repeatedly. At least the Bulrathi will end us the way we deserve it for being addicted to nukes. For one thing, nothing prevents them to just fill up some of their ships with point defense, too. Really guys, we're fighting against someone who will probably heavily outnumbers even if we start building warships sooner, and your idea is to just double down on stupid? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
The Defense Department puts the long-term manufacturing cost for the current proposals at 196 TC for the Viper, 180 TC for the Davy Crockett, 112 TC for the Catapult, 84 TC for the Shrike, and 80 TC for the Schiltron. This is only a cost for extended manufacturing- any attempt to speed the process will greatly inflate the cost due to the difficulty of rush jobs and supply shortages. Although the Chiefs of Staff are favorably impressed by the cheap manufacturing cost of the Catapult proposal, they are concerned that a missile-exclusive design may be vulnerable to a significant loss of combat effectiveness against Imperial fixed defenses. In the absence of any new proposals yet submitted, the Chiefs of Staff have commissioned an internal study for the Longbow bomber and counter-piracy frigate as a straightforward evolution of the old Archer design, sacrificing one missile tube to free the displacement to mount a shield generator. They will, of course, consider any alternate proposals.
nweismuller fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Oct 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
MD Design Bureau would like to point out that stationary defenses did not, in fact, prove to be a major obstacle to missile focused Bulrathi designs. The Catapult is a solution to the burning problems we are facing now, and by the time we are to go on the offensive, our scientific progress may allow for designs better suited for offensive action than anything we can produce now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
Ladies and gentlemen of the Chiefs of Staff, we here at at Teyer-Young Weltraumwerke are proud to present our entries for the 2396 design contest. X-01 "Liberator" Space Control Cruiser -1x Rivera Dynamics 'Aegis' Class I Electromagnetic Deflector System (250 tons) -1x Sozvezdie 'Zmora' ECM Suite (225 tons) -4x launch tubes and magazine space designed for use with VSM-63 'Lancer' Boosted Fission Nuclear Missile (400 tons) -1x launch tubes and magazine space designed for use with VIM-7 'Sparrow' Anti-Missile KKV system (30 tons) Total free displacement usage: 905 tons Project 891 "Srivatsa" Fleet Escort/Point Defense Frigate -1x Rivera Dynamics 'Aegis' Class I Electromagnetic Deflector System (100 tons) -1x Sozvezdie 'Zmora' ECM Suite (150 tons) -1x launch tubes and magazine space designed for use with VSM-63 'Lancer' Boosted Fission Nuclear Missile (100 tons) -6x launch tubes and magazine space designed for use with VIM-7 'Sparrow' Anti-Missile KKV system (180 tons) -2x TYW 'Thunderbolt' Point Defense Laser systems (40.8 tons) Total free displacement usage: 570.8 tons VB-28 "Revelation" Strategic Bombardment Frigate -1x Rivera Dynamics 'Aegis' Class I Electromagnetic Deflector System (100 tons) -1x Navy Standard 3.2 terawatt laser cannon (60 tons) -4x 'Jiuchidingpa' Nuclear Bombardment Systems (400 tons) Total free displacement usage: 560 tons Now, I'm sure that you all have questions and concerns. If I may preempt some of them? Thank you. The most glaring difference between these designs and our current ones are the offensive armaments. No doubt you'll have noticed that our proposed cruiser has armament comparable to that of the Arbalest class. You must remember, however, that this proposed fleet is heavily focused on defenses, and for good reason. The Bulrathi have been dedicating a large portion of their society's industrial output to constructing warships and training crews for decades at this point, while we are starting almost from scratch. In other words, the Bulrathi can afford to lose some ships because they have large reserves to fall back on. We, on the other hand, are already on the losing side of this war with a grand total of 1 battle-ready military vessel, and if we're going to turn it around we can't afford to lose a single ship. Even the cheapest of humanity's designs represent years of work - years that we don't have and needing to replace ships would quite possibly stretch us past the breaking point. As such, ensuring the survival of our navy is the number one priority of these designs -after all, a warship's number one priority is to REMAIN a functioning warship, they're no good to us if they're blasted apart by the Bulrathi. Unfortunately, this heavy focus on defenses leaves little space for offensive weapons. We at TYW don't see this becoming a problem, however. The Bulrathi navy is fielding vessels that contain 5 missile tubes each. Assuming we have roughly similar levels of engineering technology and expertise, that leaves them very little room for defenses. It seems that Bulrathi fleet doctrine is focused heavily on being able to destroy the enemy within the first salvo or two of missiles, with little preparation made towards taking damage in return. In other words, the Bulrathi ships are glass cannons, we don't need to be able to match them tube for tube, just weather their salvos while returning with our own and watch as the Bulrathi's lack of significant defenses leads to their demise. As to our own proposed fleet doctrine, these designs are heavily specialized. A core of Liberator-class cruisers is intended to make up the bulk of the fleet's offensive capability, while being protected from enemy missiles by a screen of Srivatsa-class frigates (which will also supplement the fleet's offense via their single large missile tube). The Revelation-class bombardment vessels are not designed for direct combat. The shielding and space-to-space weaponry are kept to an absolute minimum, only included as preparation for a worst case scenario where they have to engage with other space forces. Instead, they carry heavy strike packages designed for use against hardened surface targets and, if it comes to this, population centers. Revelation-class frigates should, ideally, accompany troop transports and other unarmed vessels into already secured space rather than traveling with the main battle fleet into hostile territory. If the Chiefs of Staff think the space-to-space provisions of the Revelation class to be superfluous, a variant that removes the shielding in favor of more bombardment weaponry has also been drawn up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
The Defense Department estimates the long-term manufacturing costs of the Liberator, Srivatsa, Revelation, and Longbow proposals at 128 TC, 92 TC, 68 TC, and 80 TC respectively. The Chiefs of Staff believe that the Liberator and Srivasta designs from TYW should be effective in joint operations, despite any concerns about pure missile armament. The Revelation, however, raises extreme concerns amongst the Joint Chiefs, in that part of the mission profile of any bombardment frigate at this point in time includes independent counter-piracy operations, which they do not believe the Revelation is suitable for. All in all, a very creditable effort from TYW. What's the intended expansion of the 'VSM' and 'VIM' acronyms? And I quite like how you advanced your proposal, thanks for the effort! For everybody's reference, I'm taking a quick and dirty estimate of the value of one production point as 2 TC. nweismuller fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Oct 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
TYW thanks the Chiefs for their input, it's obvious we misunderstood the mission requirements of the bombardment frigate. Our design team has prepared a second design more suited towards independent operations, provisionally designated the "Pinaka" class. VB-32 "Pinaka" Bombardment Frigate -1x Rivera Dynamics 'Aegis' Class I Electromagnetic Deflector System (100 tons) -2x 'Jiuchidingpa' Nuclear Bombardment Systems (200 tons) -1x TYW 'Thunderbolt' Point Defense Laser system (20.4 tons) -2x launch tubes and magazine space designed for use with VSM-49 'Arrow' Fusion Nuclear Missile (200 tons) In many ways an update of the concept exemplified by the Archer class, the Pinaka is a more general purpose take on the bombardment frigate emphasizing ease of manufacturing and affordability. While it can't deliver the same amount of sheer destructive force as a Revelation class vessel, nor the direct combat ability of a dedicated space control vessel, the Pinaka is a versatile design that can both provide strategic bombardment capability and act independently on counter-piracy missions. Provided that the industrial and technological capabilities of the galaxy's pirates do not significantly increase from what we've previously seen, the Pinaka should have no trouble defeating and dismantling piracy operations for at least the next few decades. Thanks, I rather enjoy the RP and it's always nice when someone compliments it. As to the missile prefixes, I based them off the US's 1962 Missile and Drone Designation System, the first letter represents what it's launched from, the second letter represents the intended role, and the third letter represents guidance (or the absence thereof). The only thing I made up is 'V', for void/vacuum launched (because the actual system only has designations for various ground/sea/air launch methods). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1962_United_States_Tri-Service_missile_and_drone_designation_system Crazycryodude fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Oct 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
The Defense Department estimates the long-term manufacturing cost of the Pinaka class at 66 TC, a very affordable design.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
MD design bureau would like to point out that the Pinaka sacrifices strategic mobility, which reduces its capabilities as a pirate hunter and scout, especially in comparison to the Longbow design. (I'd like to keep a no-nonsense feel to MD posting. Keep in mind, what I post may well be nonsense, but it will always take itself with utmost seriousness. )
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
I propose that, if we do indeed lose, we start a new game as the Terran Empire as a direct sequel of this, since this started so soon after getting warp tech you could just start up a terran empire game as post-warp and say we are the survivors from earth, forced to flee, and we become Space Mongols.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
 An internal Defense Department proposal for a fleet escort frigate has been made public. The Huscarl fleet escort and scout retains the high-output drive system of the earlier Arbalest-class. Unlike the Arbalest, the Huscarl is not intended as a primary space control vessel, but retains limited anti-ship engagement capability through a nose-mounted neutron cannon with a limited arc of traversal. A capable Sozvezdie-manufactured electronic warfare suite strengthens its defenses in fleet engagements, while four defensive KKV launch tubes provide it good firepower against shipkiller missiles targeting it or the vessels it escorts. Electromagnetic deflectors provide the Huscarl with good survivability. Its excellent strategic mobility, strong defenses for its size, and limited offensive firepower should allow the Huscarl to operate independently as a scout, while its strong KKV armament and ability to offer some small amount of supporting firepower should ensure that it will operate effectively in any larger fleet battle while coordinating with larger space control cruisers. The design has an estimated manufacturing cost of 102 TC. nweismuller fucked around with this message at 23:20 on Oct 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
A few observations - At this stage, the effect of accuracy on the efficacy of both cannons and point defense (and therefore the opposite effect of accuracy on missiles) is untested. However, this appears to create a paradigm in which point defense can be expected to consistently reduce missile volleys by a given number, which will necessarily represent a larger ratio of smaller numbers. This would appear to support a strategy based on either purely missiles or purely cannons. We have recently unlocked a major upgrade in heavy neutron cannons and no equivalent upgrades to missiles. Moreover, missiles are likely to be at their least effective against superior numbers, which we are currently facing. While we have no objective accuracy data to base these decisions on, we appear to be facing a combination of factors that favor cannons and disfavor missiles. As the accuracy of cannon type weapons remains under question, anti-missile rockets are also probably a much safer choice than point-defense lasers at this time. Optimal designs should focus only on these weapons.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
nweismuller posted:An internal Defense Department proposal for a fleet escort frigate has been made public. The Huscarl fleet escort and scout ... I like the sound of this vessel.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
Lamia Domina posted:A few observations - Well, I can't speak for the public position of the whole company, but down here in engineering we can't agree with this analysis. The major upgrade in beam weapon technology has only brought them up to par with our current missile technology. Now, maybe the navy's done some testing that hasn't been released to the defense contractors yet but based on the data we've got now a neutron cannon blast at point blank range does slightly LESS structural damage than a proximity detonation from one of our boosted fission warheads. Then factor in that all our beam tech is both shorter ranged than our missiles and rapidly decreases in effectiveness over range due to... well, that's not my department but the physics guys say something about dispersion and our current focusing methods. Anyways, point is the jump to neutron cannons only serves to put beam weaponry on par with our missile tech, and from a pure efficiency perspective (i.e. highest total void displacement to effective damage ratios) missiles win out over beams in all but the most optimistic of situations. Plus, you've got to take into account that we simply haven't quite worked out all the kinks when it comes to effectively directing beam fire from a ship and our accuracy suffers accordingly. Overall, missile based designs are still the best way to fight a war right now, especially against the glass cannons with little/no PD the Bulrathi seem to be fielding.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
In general simulations suggest that specialized vessels will in general outperform general purpose ones. Ergo, from an economics standpoint we want to get as many units into combat readiness as quickly as possible. Some simulations have suggested trying to make smaller, cheaper units that can be produced in larger numbers but fit more specialized roles to help make up for this tradeoff. Units designed to engage enemy space superiority craft purely from long range operating with smaller escorts designed to engage enemy missiles nad prevent closing with the main battle line while the task force is ordered to stay at maximum effective combat range should theoretically be able to hold off an enemy piecemeal offensive long enough for full system defenses to be established. (OOC - most of my games turn into making missile cruises with escorts with PD, fly in formation, set the task force to engage at maximum range. Your ships constantly retreat while firing missiles, the escorts handle incoming enemy missiles, and the enemy fleet charges forwards while you withdraw and gets slowly shot up)
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 06:37
|
|
|
I'm going to continue accepting design submissions until this evening, then formally call for a vote on design submissions. Currently valid design submissions: Space Control Cruiser: Davy Crockett (heavy neutron cannon firepower, solid defenses), Viper (sacrifices some defenses relative to the Davy Crockett in favor of increased neutron cannon firepower), Liberator (a solid missile attacker with reasonable defenses), Catapult (very heavy missile firepower but relatively weak defenses) Escort/Scout Frigate: Huscarl (weak offensive neutron cannon firepower, solid anti-missile defenses, high strategic mobility for scouting), Shrike (high strategic mobility and solid offensive firepower render it an excellent scout; anti-missile screening is the weakest of current proposals for the escort role), Srivatsa (strong escort with offensive nuclear missile firepower; lacks strategic mobility normally needed for scouting), Schiltron (massive anti-missile capabilities and absolutely nothing else) Bombardment/Counter-Piracy Frigate: Longbow (an extremely simple Archer modification, with good strategic mobility, moderate nuclear missile armament, and light bomb payload), Pinaka (lower strategic mobility than the Longbow, but heavier bomb payload; similar nuclear missile armament) E: Did anybody know that in Davy Crockett's autobiography, he claims to once have killed 105 bears in a single year? nweismuller fucked around with this message at 15:44 on Oct 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
OK, I'm officially opening voting on the designs proposed, as listed in the previous post. For my ease of tallying everything, if you're voting for your own design, please make a new post to do so- I'll only be counting votes that come after this post opening the voting.
nweismuller fucked around with this message at 04:56 on Oct 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
Voting for the Catapault design and for the Schiltron Proposals for our main fleet component. The combination of stand off artillery and a dedicated pure escort craft will make for effective fleet engagements. The enemy won't be able to close the distance to engage while getting shot up, and the escorts can shoot down anything targeted at them. For the anti-piracy vessel prefer the Longbow as it seems to have more flexibility.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
TYW (obviously) casts their votes in favor of the Liberator, Srivatsa, and Pinaka designs. OOC: What kind of legislative power would a medium-to-large sized aerospace firm such as TYW have? Is there some kind of Corporate Sovereignty Act that lets large corporations have representatives in legislative bodies like nation-states or is politics still pretty much the same as it is today with all the
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:OOC: What kind of legislative power would a medium-to-large sized aerospace firm such as TYW have? Is there some kind of Corporate Sovereignty Act that lets large corporations have representatives in legislative bodies like nation-states or is politics still pretty much the same as it is today with all the Corporate sovereignty would be very unusual but theoretically possible as a member state of the Republic. It would almost have to take the form of having a particular city which has a corporate government that is a member state, giving a territorial basis to the sovereignty claim; the government of that city would have to meet the basic standards of human rights and liberties expected of member states. By far the more likely format, however, is a situation basically similar to today. In most fields, there's not a huge amount to be gained in lobbying the central government, given the relatively light hand it takes- but defense appropriations are the obvious place where there is something meaningful to be gained by lobbying. E: Probably the most likely places for sovereign corporate enclaves as things stand are 'some particular asteroid belt lab complex', honestly. nweismuller fucked around with this message at 05:29 on Oct 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
Catapult/Schiltron
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:Well, I can't speak for the public position of the whole company, but down here in engineering we can't agree with this analysis. The major upgrade in beam weapon technology has only brought them up to par with our current missile technology. Now, maybe the navy's done some testing that hasn't been released to the defense contractors yet but based on the data we've got now a neutron cannon blast at point blank range does slightly LESS structural damage than a proximity detonation from one of our boosted fission warheads. Then factor in that all our beam tech is both shorter ranged than our missiles and rapidly decreases in effectiveness over range due to... well, that's not my department but the physics guys say something about dispersion and our current focusing methods. Anyways, point is the jump to neutron cannons only serves to put beam weaponry on par with our missile tech, and from a pure efficiency perspective (i.e. highest total void displacement to effective damage ratios) missiles win out over beams in all but the most optimistic of situations. Plus, you've got to take into account that we simply haven't quite worked out all the kinks when it comes to effectively directing beam fire from a ship and our accuracy suffers accordingly. Overall, missile based designs are still the best way to fight a war right now, especially against the glass cannons with little/no PD the Bulrathi seem to be fielding. Similar damage at nearly triple a missile's rate of fire. Nearly twice that again in the case of autofire cannons, although voters appear understandably hesitant to accept further compromises to the accuracy of an as-yet untested system. While observed Bulrathi designs may carry light point defense, we have no assurance that that will remain the case, either. For the above reasons, this agency endorses the proposed Davy Crockett cruiser. Its ECM defenses are better suited to counter the Bulrathi's missile based weapons than the competing Viper design. The Huscarl frigate best serves its intended scout and escort role. The Pinaka seems to be the only serious design proposal for an updated anti-pirate patrol unit at this time. Lamia Domina fucked around with this message at 05:59 on Oct 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 05:36
|
|
|
Let's go with the Davy Crockett and the Huscarl. Versatility is underrated.
TAlkaline fucked around with this message at 07:27 on Oct 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 07:08
|
|
|
So I started nuMoO this afternoon, now it's 3 am and I dunno where the redt of my day went to. I conquered some Sillycoids worlds and it's annoying their lack of pop growth. It's like watching over Pandas, "REPRODUCE ALREADY YOU FUCKS"
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 07:16
|
|
|
Siegkrow posted:So I started nuMoO this afternoon, now it's 3 am and I dunno where the redt of my day went to. They're too busy being stoners for that. I should have thought that would be clear as crystal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 07:18
|
|
|
gently caress the Silicoids, I lost a game because they decided to attack me out of the blue on turn 400.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 08:07
|
|
|
Its amazing how sneaky a bunch of rocks can be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 10:34
|
|
|
I dislike the nuMoO Silicoids because their advisor has rocktits. loving rocktits. What the hell?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 10:35
|
|
|
Theantero posted:I dislike the nuMoO Silicoids because their advisor has rocktits. loving rocktits. What the hell? Silicone implants.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 11:53
|
|
|
Oh hey, this game! I kept bouncing off of this a bit, but maybe a pre-warp start might be more interesting. Give me a moment to read the designs before I vote. Theantero posted:I dislike the nuMoO Silicoids because their advisor has rocktits. loving rocktits. What the hell?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 12:00
|
|
|
TAlkaline posted:Let's go with the Davy Crockett and the Huscarl. Versatility is underrated. Agreed; who knows what else awaits us in the void- our ships need to be ready for anything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 13:09
|
|
|
Voting for Viper as our main space combat ship and the Shrike as combined scout/escort frigate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 14:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:29 |
|
|
TYW feels the need to remind delegates that, while the Davy Crockett and Huscarl designs are seemingly the most versatile general-purpose designs, the Republic and quite possibly humanity itself is locked in an existential battle where the enemy has us hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned. Although we don't have an accurate count on the exact number of Bulrathi ships currently pressing into Republic territory, the Bulrathi fleet could easily number into the dozens, each one with (from what we've so far seen) at least 5 missile tubes. Humanity is only going to have the time and resources to produce a few ships - the Viper and Davy Crockett are simply to expensive, and what ships we do produce need to be specialized against the Bulrathi for maximum effect. As such, we simply cannot support ships with insufficient missile defenses. A Davy Crockett/Huscarl combination will cost the Republic around 282 trillion credits and have 6 point defense weapons in addition to ECM. A Liberator/Srivatsa combination will cost only 220 trillion credits (a ~21% reduction) and have 9 point defense weapons in addition to ECM (a 33% increase). A Catapult/Schiltron combination will cost 192 trillion credits and have an incredible 18 point defense weapons, though no ECM (and at the cost of being the most highly specialized design pair - the Catapult and Schiltron would have the most difficulty operating separately, the Schiltron's complete lack of offensive weaponry is a sacrifice that we TYW are unwilling to make). No matter which specific missile cruiser/point defense escort combination is approved (and keep in mind they need not come from the same designer, a Srivatsa could easily operate in tandem with a Catapult, or a Schiltron with a Liberator), it should be clear that these are the designs most suited towards fighting the Bulrathi right now. These are by no means supposed to compose our fleet for the next few decades, they're emergency solutions to a very specific problem in an attempt to keep us all from being either dead or enslaved a few years from now. A more versatile fleet can be discussed at a later date, but right now we need to fight the Bulrathi AS THEY CURRENTLY ARE or we cease to exist as a polity and potentially as a species, not some hypothetical third enemy or what the Bulrathi fleet might look like a decade or two from now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 14:35
|
|