StarDestroyer.Net BBS

RogueIce wrote:You came in and got argued down (I don't really remember that) and you were where you were. Now we have Czech and his OOB, which for the record since I haven't seen anyone objecting to Steve being mod, I say we let him decide; Czech will let Steve know when his OOB is finished and then Steve can rule if it's ok or needs changes.

If we go with the "let Steve take up the Sword of Mod and cut the Gordian knot" argument, then why not let him decide whether or not Ryan here gets to redo (parts of) his OOB as well? What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

Steve wrote: Most people did things like points.

Your budget every year will realistically be divided at certain proportions between maintenance and procurement costs. Remember that a lot of assets could be years, even decades old.

Your post count makes you a Tsardom, so you could afford, even at peacetime level spending, a fairly capable force.

However, with your power projection, how long-range do you want it? Longer ranges and such may encourage more nuclear-propulsion designs as well as a greater need for support vessels capable of UNREP. If it's a case of projecting power into the Caribbean, the Crater Archipelago, and the Old Continent, then you can go with a shorter-legged force.

It's kinda like the old design differences in terms of habitability between British and German ships. The Germans didn't consider themselves needing to send ships far, so they could skimp on things like the habitability of their ships, support storage space, etc., for other things, while the British had a need for worldwide cruises.

I remember reading earlier that the whole point system was being rethought, but I guess that might not be the case. I do know that, as you said, my Post count gives me a hefty starting position, it is one of the reasons I was able to make a noticeable impact and influence in the original game thread.

As far as power projection, If I do end up getting put where Greenland is now, it will put me in the middle of two of the largest land masses on the planet, and I think I would like to be able to hit both of those with my forces, just in case you know... Look at ships in general, on page two of the "Building your Country" thread, I am mostly looking at a large group of:

As my Primary Projection force, followed by lots and lots of:

As Patrol and self defense forces as well as various support ships, radar ships, tankers, supply and the like.

And as Carriers, I'm not sure if I can get away with it, but I'd love two or three:

Just because they look freaking sweet

Crossroads Inc. wrote:

Steve wrote: Most people did things like points.

Your budget every year will realistically be divided at certain proportions between maintenance and procurement costs. Remember that a lot of assets could be years, even decades old.

Your post count makes you a Tsardom, so you could afford, even at peacetime level spending, a fairly capable force.

However, with your power projection, how long-range do you want it? Longer ranges and such may encourage more nuclear-propulsion designs as well as a greater need for support vessels capable of UNREP. If it's a case of projecting power into the Caribbean, the Crater Archipelago, and the Old Continent, then you can go with a shorter-legged force.

It's kinda like the old design differences in terms of habitability between British and German ships. The Germans didn't consider themselves needing to send ships far, so they could skimp on things like the habitability of their ships, support storage space, etc., for other things, while the British had a need for worldwide cruises.

I remember reading earlier that the whole point system was being rethought, but I guess that might not be the case. I do know that, as you said, my Post count gives me a hefty starting position, it is one of the reasons I was able to make a noticeable impact and influence in the original game thread.

As far as power projection, If I do end up getting put where Greenland is now, it will put me in the middle of two of the largest land masses on the planet, and I think I would like to be able to hit both of those with my forces, just in case you know... Look at ships in general, on page two of the "Building your Country" thread, I am mostly looking at a large group of:
-snip Anchar pic-
As my Primary Projection force, followed by lots and lots of:
-snip Udaloy pic-
As Patrol and self defense forces as well as various support ships, radar ships, tankers, supply and the like.

And as Carriers, I'm not sure if I can get away with it, but I'd love two or three:
-snip Future Continental Carrier pic-
Just because they look freaking sweet

Of those three designs, only the upgraded Udaloy would be plausible in your current situation. Last I checked, the Anchar is still a relatively new design intended only for the UCSR's domestic consumption so far, and the Future Continental Carrier hasn't even started production yet.

The only viable substitutes for the Anchar I can think of would either be the Kirov, the California, or the Virginia. As for an FCC substitute, just go with a regular Nimitz or Ulyanovsk for now.

The thing to remember with Carriers, and I will say this again for general consumption:

Small numbers means its unlikely you can support on-demand building. If your carrier fleet is 2-4 ships and you want to build locally then you better start spending money a decade in advance because your shipyard will have to retool, spend a lot of time testing the design and then actually ordering the parts. The US IRL with its 12 carrier Navy still spends 8 years from first funding to commissioning. Right now I know I operate the largest Fleet Carrier setup worldwide and I am funding out to 2028 right now in order to get long lead parts. My point is carriers have a HUGE penatly in terms of build time.

SiegeTank wrote:

RogueIce wrote:You came in and got argued down (I don't really remember that) and you were where you were. Now we have Czech and his OOB, which for the record since I haven't seen anyone objecting to Steve being mod, I say we let him decide; Czech will let Steve know when his OOB is finished and then Steve can rule if it's ok or needs changes.

If we go with the "let Steve take up the Sword of Mod and cut the Gordian knot" argument, then why not let him decide whether or not Ryan here gets to redo (parts of) his OOB as well? What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

For the record, I've been constantly discussing my OOB and those of the local NPCs with Steve as of late. Its' current state reflects his advice on the matter. He's been a great deal more helpful and considerably less confrontational about balancing it than Ryan. I've also acquiesced to the objections of Stas (regarding nookleeahr wessels and carriers) and others, and I think I've been pretty good about working it out as of late.

Shinn Langley Soryu wrote:Of those three designs, only the upgraded Udaloy would be plausible in your current situation. Last I checked, the Anchar is still a relatively new design intended only for the UCSR's domestic consumption so far, and the Future Continental Carrier hasn't even started production yet.

The only viable substitutes for the Anchar I can think of would either be the Kirov, the California, or the Virginia. As for an FCC substitute, just go with a regular Nimitz or Ulyanovsk for now.

He can always go with my Exarch DDGNs and Centurion FFGs if he wants other subsititute.

THere's also the option of the Comrade Stanislav carriers.

Alright, I've done some tinkering.

How's this look to you?

Note that this is just the Army; I haven't worked out what a proper air force should look like yet.

Navy stays the way it is; I am land-locked, after all, so the most I'll be doing there is producing a few small surface combatants later. Hydrofoils and the like...

Ryan, that looks pretty fine. You also have obscene MRLS to AFV ratio, but I'm sure everyone told ya that already. Forming divisions and hammering out the airforce, et cetera, is always kinda hard.

Fingolfin, it's unlikely that the UCSR would be selling the Comrade Stanislav carrier, or leasing it's technical documentation to anyone right now. It's arguably the most modern design carrier in existence, so the only nations that could receive them would be full CATO partners (Byzantium, Shroomania and Pezookia, maybe the NFT if they play their cards right)...

Of course, having so many modern AFVs is pretty excessive, unless most of those are National Guard type units. You need to pay for maintenance too, y'know

How much does it cost to maintain an active armored division, anyway? That's the only way to surely answer the question if Miratia can afford it.

A lot actually, but I thought Miratia operates readiness levels similar to those of the USSR: "A" level for units that are fully complect and maintained ready, "B" for intermediate readiness and "C" for bone, unprepared units that only have the command structure in place (the personnel are at home) and their tanks are on conservation.

The UCSR only keeps two tank armies at bay (for the case of Japanistan attack through Byzantium). That's 4x TD and 4X MD. Not much for an Empire.

Stas Bush wrote:A lot actually, but I thought Miratia operates readiness levels similar to those of the USSR: "A" level for units that are fully complect and maintained ready, "B" for intermediate readiness and "C" for bone, unprepared units that only have the command structure in place (the personnel are at home) and their tanks are on conservation.

Something like that, yes. I'll have to redo the math, but I believe I can afford to maintain 25% of my present force at high readiness. Of the top of my head, anyway. Don't hold me to that for the moment, I'll try to work out a more solid figure...

Of course, now that I have pseudo-ballistic missiles carrying nuclear cluster munitions my "reaction" forces have become sort of redundant, now that I think of it.

Yeah, you should probably only maintain enough heavy forces in active duty to counter whatever is currently in Tian Jiao. Seeing as a Tian Xian buildup for invasion would require months and be impossible to hide, you can afford a long lead-up time on bringing your remaining forces up to active standard.

Some wanker on SDN World Wiki wrote:Designed as a medium speed, stealthy replacement for the both the B-1 and B-2 bombers. Like the B-2, it is a flying wing design, but improvements in stealth technology result in a wideband stealth capability, effective even against over the horizon radars.

Really? Dear MESS, that was the deafening sound of supersonic uber-duper stealth bullshit. The B-2 has all-aspect stealth second to none, but even that cannot be 'effective against over the horizon radars', and NO stealth can be, so your "B-4" is someone's wet dreams removed all too far from reality. The only thing you will, and can possibly do, is decrease the RESOLUTION of the aquisition - i.e. your bomber will flare up on the OTH not like a 10 km diameter blob, but like a 20, 30 or 40 km blob. So fucking what? That's not "effective". That's still "detected" when we're talking about 5000-6000 km detection ranges. Sorry to poop on your parade.

I do not know, and neither have I ever seen, any substantiated claims about real effectiveness of stealth against OTH radars.

Some wanker on SDN World Wiki wrote:B-3 Sleipner

It's "Sleipnir" last time I conferred with my Norse mythology. Let me guess, that was Czech, right? Because only he would be so ignorant as to write the following:

Some wanker on SDN World Wiki wrote:maximum speed: Mach 3.5
cruise speed: Mach 3.5

Really? Max and cruise speed being the same? What school of flight did you go to, the FIREFOX school of flight? Or what?

There's a difference between engineering and bullshiteering.

Don't look at me man, I said the B-3 tops out at Mach 3.3

Stas Bush wrote:

Some wanker on SDN World Wiki wrote:B-3 Sleipner

It's "Sleipnir" last time I conferred with my Norse mythology. Let me guess, that was Czech, right? Because only he would be so ignorant as to write the following:

Some wanker on SDN World Wiki wrote:maximum speed: Mach 3.5
cruise speed: Mach 3.5

Really? Max and cruise speed being the same? What school of flight did you go to, the FIREFOX school of flight? Or what?

There's a difference between engineering and bullshiteering.

Allow me to enlighten you regarding a few things.

1) The last thing I designed for MESS/Tian Xia was the Chatham Isle-class LHD and that was a while ago.
2) I had nothing to do with the B-3.
3) If you weren't an arrogant, presumptuous tool you'd know to look at the page's history and see that a great deal of the data on that page was added all at once by Beo, and you'd also be able to grasp the concept that sometimes typos and errors do happen.

EDIT: Was it really necessary to try and pin it on me? Your little games are getting very old, Stas.

Stas, not being from a free society is unfamiliar with the "open-audit" systems that wikis provide through editing histories.

Lonestar wrote:Stas, not being from a free society is unfamiliar with the "open-audit" systems that wikis provide through editing histories.

His tiny stalinist mind wrestles with the concept of accountability.

Oh, and I fixed it. From what I've been told of the B-3, cruise speed is supposed to be high Mach 2 (2.75 iirc), not the maximum speed of 3.5.

This is going to get me toasted and is also going to be a bit ironic given this site but:

Can we just calm down a bit. The finger ponthing and insults really don't help this at all. Its just going to disolve into bickering. I know its annoying when someone else does something that is not right but really. I hate to see this game to go hell over some trivial details.

*Prepares to be flamed to a crisp*

Your idealism is endearing, but it's a moot issue. I went and fixed the errors based on what I know. Beo can fix it properly when he's on later.

Its not the Wiki issue Czech though thats part of it. I just fear the idea that this game will break down over some arguments OOC. I love the idea of this game and I hate for it to just collapse due to bickering. I am not saying don't argue or debate about anything, don't get me wrong. Sometimes stuff needs to be sorted out and wrangled with but as said, I fear people leaving, being petty over it all.

Just my 2 cents.

OTH radars work on VHF frequencies. It is possible to create a stealth aircraft that will be stealthy against VHF radars (requires careful attention to detail, and having very few, large features on the aircraft, amongst others). The objective is not to prevent detection by the OTH radars, but rather to delay it severely, and pose a much greater uncertainty as to the actual location of a bomber. It's a matter of optimization and how much money you're willing to spend. Current 5th generation fighters don't have the capability, because they'd rather have a more manueverable aircraft. The B-2 does have capability against VHF radars though (ref: AvLeak)

The interesting thing about Mach 3+ aircraft is that you get more fuel efficient as you go faster (in terms of fuel burn/mile). Thus, you typically want to go as fast as you can. The net result is that your cruising speed is identical to your sustained maximum speed.

Also, Sleipner is a perfectly valid transliteration from the original norse.

Bluewolf: We work it out. I have a policy of 'response in kind' regarding the OOC: if someone approaches a problem calmly and rationally I'll do the same, but if someone is a dick to me, I'll be a dick to them. Some people around here really like to nurse their grudges and refuse to let them go, and that leads to probably 3/4ths of the bickering.

Beo: I think a cruising speed of high mach 2 or low mach 3 is about as high as it should reasonably go. It seems to be very easy for people to misunderstand the details so taking a more conservative path could be desirable.

EDIT: I changed it to Sleipnir. That -is- the proper spelling, and that's the one point I'll concede to Stas. Credit where it's due.

Stas Bush wrote:Really? Max and cruise speed being the same? What school of flight did you go to, the FIREFOX school of flight? Or what?

There's a difference between engineering and bullshiteering.

YA RLY?

MKSheppard wrote:

Stas Bush wrote:Really? Max and cruise speed being the same? What school of flight did you go to, the FIREFOX school of flight? Or what?

There's a difference between engineering and bullshiteering.

YA RLY?

-snip-

You do realise there's a mountain of a difference between a B-70 and a stealth aircraft with a totally different airframe form>

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:

MKSheppard wrote:

Stas Bush wrote:Really? Max and cruise speed being the same? What school of flight did you go to, the FIREFOX school of flight? Or what?

There's a difference between engineering and bullshiteering.

YA RLY?

-snip-

You do realise there's a mountain of a difference between a B-70 and a stealth aircraft with a totally different airframe form>

You realize there's a mountain of difference between the B-3 (which is really a B-70 in disguise) and the B-4, which is the stealth bomber that stas is complaining about (as well)