Full name:  
Password:  
Register 
It is currently Fri Aug 17, 2018 2:34 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours





Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 1 post ] 
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
 Post subject: Final Discus postings and link to Discus archive
PostPosted: Wed Sep 07, 2005 5:22 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 9:13 pm
Posts: 41
http://www.adastragames.com/discus/messages/2/96.html?1118547992




Ethan McKinney
Senior Member
Username: Emckinney

Post Number: 576
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 05:45 pm:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
As I said, it was an idea. I didn't exactly expect it to survive more than 30 seconds in reality, but I felt it would be good to kick out the 'lock and see how it would fare.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Absolutely! I didn't mean to be discouraging, only explantory.

I'm not sure I'm following your second point. You're suggesting that they can just use specialized cargo containers with regular freighters? Pretty much, yes. You don't put gunboat docks on the (docked) containers, though. You'd modify some of the freighter's own docks and mount the gunboat there. My apologies if I've just restated what you said in the first place.

(Message edited by emckinney on May 23, 2005)


Sylvester Wrzesinski
New member
Username: Xveers

Post Number: 11
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 06:04 pm:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nah, I'm not discouraged. Just covering my bases <g>

You pretty much followed it as I said it. Docking the gunboats directly to modified pod docks right on the spine would be a more effective method compared to modifing pods to have the docks. I suppose this does mean that can wars is a bit more possible now :D


Richard Leclercq
Intermediate Member
Username: Hardlec

Post Number: 149
Registered: 07-2004
Posted on Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 08:46 am:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only if there is a "supply" of cheap and/or surplus gunboats.
Otherwise very few if any "Cans" can afford to purchase a gunboat.
Since "the loss" I rather doubt any shipping lines can afford to buy a spiffy new gunboat, either. Pity.
Opportunity for military action under the radar of the planetary governments would add to the setting. Mercenaries; Can invading Can: A can trying to go into the Pirate business (Won't work, but someone is bound to try) etc.


Anthony Jackson
Advanced Member
Username: Anthony

Post Number: 175
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 01:24 pm:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There may actually be enclosed freighters, which just store standard cargo pods internally, and have some sort of shrouding which covers them all. As long as you're not trying to armor them, the weight won't really be all that different from a freighter which stores the pods externally; you replace a bunch of cables with a bunch of structural supports, and you have a slight mass penalty for the shroud.

The main reason to do this is that it becomes somewhat easier for the crew to examine the outside of the cargo pods, should that prove useful.


James Brown
Member
Username: Jamesbr

Post Number: 75
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 04:36 pm:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only if you pressurize it. And I strongly suspect that potential hazards and cost of maintenance go up a lot more than the savings in being able to inspect cargo in your coveralls.

James


Anthony Jackson
Advanced Member
Username: Anthony

Post Number: 176
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 06:57 pm:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if you don't pressurize it, the shrouding has some effect on thermal control and shielding from incidental radiation.


Sylvester Wrzesinski
New member
Username: Xveers

Post Number: 12
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 01:25 am:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, considering first off that Xing Cheng might be moving away from their LP-13/Daixing combo, that might mean that some gunboats might make their way into third party hands (and do well to ingratiate Xing Cheng into some of the can cities... make them less favorable to Olympia).

This being said, the Musharrif is another candiate for sales for this as they are not appreciatively more than the LP-13's but also are far less munitions-reliant than the LP-13's and a better deal since part of it's punch lies in the onboard laser.




Richard Leclercq
Intermediate Member
Username: Hardlec

Post Number: 150
Registered: 07-2004
Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2005 - 08:01 pm:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I won't speak for the sellers specifically, but there are bound to be political and fiduciary concerns when transfering warships.

Remember. after WWII, a benevolent US sold some old and surplus warships to Argentina, and Argentina used them to fight the UK in the ill considered Falklands/Malvenas "war." (One politician liked to say, we should never sell anything to someone that they might shoot back at us.)

Gunboats are really cool for one-on-one fights where the object is learning, and a "squadron" or flotilla of gunboats can be interesting against another flotilla, too. The problem with gunboats is they kinda evaporate in the presence of warships. Which is not to sat a school of LP-13s can't do a pretty good impression of a school of Pirhana, but in fleet actions, gunboats are a lot of work to run for not a lot of effect in combat.



Stefan Lahr
New member
Username: Sempiternity

Post Number: 7
Registered: 05-2005
Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2005 - 09:22 pm:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't tried running a gunboat squadron yet, but i've been looking at the squadron rules and wondering how well that might work - or does it restrict the gunboat's attack runs too much?


Sylvester Wrzesinski
New member
Username: Xveers

Post Number: 16
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Friday, June 03, 2005 - 11:38 pm:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard, that's all the more reason why they can afford to sell a few gunboats. As said above, a can city's unlikley to be able to support anything more than a Daixing's full load. Even then it would need a particularily millitant and large can city.

We all know that pound for pound, a can city would have trouble even facing off against the Nova Brazil "navy", seeing as how the gunboats would have only one chance, and then they'd be toast.

As for who's selling what to whom, this kind of transaction is much more akin to the Chinese selling hardware to the North Vietnamese than anything else. Start up brush fires, force the enemy to have to divert forces to other flanks, and all the while having some third party drawing fire that would otherwise be pointed at you.


Claudio Bertinetto
Intermediate Member
Username: Claudio

Post Number: 103
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Saturday, June 04, 2005 - 04:59 pm:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Damn. XC intelligence has been penetrated again. Sylvester, people from the Second Directorate (Intelligence) of the XC General Staff are on their way to make you an offer you can't refuse.


Sylvester Wrzesinski
New member
Username: Xveers

Post Number: 17
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 01:59 am:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spiffy. I'll make them some perogies. Last time I checked, there was a decent collection of Poles on Medina, yeh? <vbg>

A better refutation about the falklands war came to my mind while I was at work today as well. The example is flawed due to the actual size of what the Americans sold the Argentinians. As I recall, they sold them an Atlanta class CA and an older Fleet carrier (or was it an escort). What is being proposed here instead is more akin to the US selling the Argentinian some brown-water patrol boats. They might be reasonably big, but they wouldn't survive operations in the south atlantic, and no amount of modernization would make them a threat to even a second-rank navy in anything more than a one-punch role.


Klebert L. Hall
New member
Username: Klebert_l_hall

Post Number: 18
Registered: 07-2004
Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 12:41 pm:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was a Brooklyn class CL (USS Phoenix). Vienticino De Mayo was a UK Colossus class.

-Kle.


Sylvester Wrzesinski
New member
Username: Xveers

Post Number: 19
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 03:49 pm:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ahh, I stand corrected. In any case, the arguement still stands. Thanks Klebert :D


jack huskey
Intermediate Member
Username: Jack

Post Number: 89
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 10:43 pm:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Except for the fact that the argi navy spent the whole war at port, (except for the bel grano)...

I get such a feeling of "WTF" when I think what the UK navy could have done with a few AWACS aircraft or the Argie AF with a few mid air tankers. Either one of those would have turned the war into a one sided event simular to clubbing a baby white harp seal. (which is what the Arg Navy vs the Royal navy would have been)

But at least thanks to the bel grano... we now have a ship that has been sank by a nuclear sub. That is news worthy.


Ethan McKinney
Senior Member
Username: Emckinney

Post Number: 587
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 11:58 pm:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, the Argentine navy sortied in force, including their aircraft carrier. The carrier suffered an engineering casualty (engine breakdown) and couldn't make enough speed to launch its Skyhawks (not enough wind over the deck, weather was fairly calm, IIRC). Quite rightly, they turned back, rather than trying to sail around at 10 knots within the Harriers' strike range.

Without the engineering casualty, there would have been an interesting little carrier vs. carrier battle. The Skyhawk is quite a capable jet.


Sylvester Wrzesinski
New member
Username: Xveers

Post Number: 20
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Monday, June 06, 2005 - 01:52 am:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, it would have been quite an interesting battle then, and I'll wager the Royal Navy would have picked up a much longer butcher's bill had the Argentinians had a fully functional carrier.

But the weather cut both ways there, and the Brits had trouble getting their own Harrier's up into the air with ordinance. The south Atlantic's normally howling with wind that time of year too. Most bizzare.


Ken Burnside
Board Administrator
Username: Admin

Post Number: 985
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, June 06, 2005 - 09:23 am:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guys, I think we can cut the discussion of the Falklands/Maldives incident back. It makes harvesting this topic for magazine articles more difficult when I have to winnow through this chaff.


Michael Strain
Member
Username: Mike_strain

Post Number: 52
Registered: 04-2004
Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 09:52 am:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken, check my message in Player Support for you.

Thanks muchly.


Richard Leclercq
Intermediate Member
Username: Hardlec

Post Number: 152
Registered: 07-2004
Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 10:46 pm:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A little could-have-been:
Argentina and Brazil each have usually maintained what has to be considered a first-class navy, albiet a small one. These governments mostly buy their ships from Europe and the US. Had Argentina and Brazil fought a naval war, it would be a duel between equipment normally used by allies to support each other.
The first Gulf War is a modern wargamer's paradice, because equipment form all over the world was used in one place. There was French and Soviet-bloc stuff on both sides.
Point: If I want to make a what-if scenario that is rolled up at random, I could have two Can Cities duel with Gunboats that both bought from Medina (for example.)
The idea is to have little brushfire wars no-one cares about.
News Item: Two Can Cities near the end of their third generation fought a battle. Records from the one "surviving" gunboat indicate . . . The gunboat survived, the crew died when they ran out of life support . . .
Two depopulated Can Cities are available for occupancy.

The idea of a Can City taking on a planetary government is pretty wild. Must be mass hysteria from the failing life support system :-)


 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 1 post ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron







Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
mile200 v1.0 desgined by CodeMiles Team (msi_333)