/k/ - Weapons

>>548068

Rifle grenades.

What are the restrictions here lad? What's stopping you from 'designing' a nuclear warhead on a missile?

>>548074

Nothing's stopping us, except that A) we're a small country, and even the U.S nuclear program took a long while. B)We can only "design" once per turn. And C) the GM rolls for how a design turns out, and assigns different difficulty scales depending on how hard/much of a leap it is. And a nuke would likely be on the highest tier. So, it's just impractical.

Fast-moving small tanks with auto-loaders and an active protection system.

>other side has advantage in infantry AND armoured combat

You must know the following things:

From WWI until today tanks are nothing more but large anti infantry weapons. They are armoured so that they are immune to enemy infantry without special weapons, and armed to take out any infantry that sticks their head out. In WWI they were nothing more but a mobile armoured MG position.

Nowadays and in WWII they added a cannon, because enemy tanks needed to be taken out as well.

To kill the enemy infantry and nullify their advantage you need to take out their armour.

To achieve this, you can split up the AT and anti infantry roles into two vehicles. One is a tankette with an HMG or two, the other is essentiially tank destroyer. Their mobility (and thus armour) depends on weather you are on the attack or defense. If you are defending, you may not need/be able to change positions quickly, so lotsa armour would be necessary. An attacking army needs extreme mobility, which can be achieved more easily if the tank isn't as heavy (read: less armour, more dakka).

Also: don't underestimate AT infantry weapons. The panzerfaust didn't spawn an entirely new class of weapons without reason.

>>548080

can i join tbh? sounds like fun fam

>>548086

It's a forum game, on a forum. You just have to register an account and go on the thread. The discord's also important. So, a warning if you don't want to do that sort of stuff.

>>548081

Can you point me to a Active protection system that's possible in WW2/ early cold war? We already got auto-loaders.

>>548082

Sounds like good advice.

>>548082

> a tankette with an HMG or two, the other is essentiially tank destroyer

>hurr italy is a good role model

You're essentially saying the only necessary vehicles are shitty IFVs and TDs. That's not how it works. At the very least, your ww2-IFV needs to have a cannon of some sort. As evident, small caliber HE-guns aren't really efficient, so you want to have maybe a 37-50mm on it. Now you have a turret too large for a tankette, and thus you enlarge the thing to a light. But say, that's not enough armor or not enough dakka for your purposes, so you need a bigger tank.. etc. And unless you want basically a mobile AT-gun, and as shown by the US quite clearly during the war, thin armor on tank-killers doesn't really work out, you put sufficient armor on it to give it a chance against the enemy- tada, now you have a heavy or super heavy. Since these guys are catapulting themselves into late-war ww2, mimicking the developmental stages is retarded and isn't needed.

>>548094

Good point. The enemy has that kind of tank-killer with them, except low-profile and a slow-fireing cannon. kinda like this one german tank I don't remember the name of. Any counters for that?

>>548095

We currently have a disadvantage in regards to air-combat. Is that bad for UFOs?

>>548096

I don't know the rules or mechanisms of your game still, but saying low-profile in specific makes me think you're talking about the StuG, which was more of a multi-purpose infantry/assault gun than a TD. The hard counter for paper-thin TD's is going to be a platoon of lights working in tandem with support artillery.

>>548089

>It's a forum game, on a forum. You just have to register an account and go on the thread. The discord's also important. So, a warning if you don't want to do that sort of stuff.

of course. now gib link

>>548089

>Active protection system that's possible in WW2/ early cold war?

Shit, forgot you wanted a WWII design. Just make tanks with 4x 20mm or 30mm cannons for taking out infantry and equip them with some kind of ATGM. Prototypes were made at the end of WWII and the first widely used one appeared in 1955.

>advantage in infantry and armored combat

guerilla warfare, my man.

send the gm a pm saying basically hey we're gonna kick it into espionage i'm publically sending some air dropped goods to [ally that gives you an excuse to fly low] and in the same general area as an area the're comfortable in.

say you're going to be air dropping infantry and supplies but drop a handful of commandos to destroy production and transportation infrastructure. for bonus points tell the GM that its a secret air drop

when their tanks have to make extra rolls and face wear and tear from not having infrastructure or a place to readily produce and ship new parts, you send some planes to drop a few bombs and send your troops in to mop up.

ideally, you want your sabotage to go unnoticed as long as possible before they start noticing that your're putting up less of a fight on what they think is your frontlines.

Unguided 100mm HEP rockets launched from paper thin barrels. Low recoil, 10x lighter, caseless, easy/fast to load, cheap to make, causes more damage than any WWII gun to tanks and fortifications. HE-FRAG variant rocket for killing troops.

You can mount them on anything, from jeeps and light tanks, to heavily armored tanks and assault guns. A 500m effective range would be sufficient to make it competitive in WWII.

Rocket propellant can be made safer than shell casing designs, so it wont explode if the tank gets penetrated.

>>548068

Anti-Tank dogs.

>>548100

> Just make tanks with 4x 20mm or 30mm cannons for taking out infantry and equip them with some kind of ATGM.

all our discusions about tank development only apply to modern combat where atgms exist and you have lots of lightly armored targets . this is not the case here.

>>548109

Dude the majority of wermecht was on horseback. Bikes and trucks were most of the remainder.

Full mechanization didnt happen until the 70s, when realities of WMD combat meant that all troops needed to be in enclosed troop carriers that could resist nuclear flash and filter out RBC airbornes.

>>548098

Here it is: https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/intercontinental-arms-race-spring-1942-strategy-phase.520537/

>>548097

It's got pretty heavy armor, though. Check that link and go to the latest post, and you'll see.

>>548171

>It's got pretty heavy armor, though. Check that link and go to the latest post, and you'll see.

Whoops, I mean the latest turn

>>548104

>>548120

>>548122

Looks good. I'll try and convince the team to do something like that.

Anymore ideas?

>>548391

Rifle grenades.

>>548104

What do you mean by HEP? Not a military expert.

>>548068

Speaking of Ratte. Besides the obvious square-cube law problem, it would've worked out pretty well, if they had used modular chassis as opposed to a classic monolithic tank design. Terrain is much more uneven than its tracks travel range would allow for, and even then it's extremely uneven suspension stress distribution. What's worse, is that it would be nearly impossible to fix such massive chassis in field conditions if it were to break, whereas with multiple smaller chassis it could lose a whole unit or even a few and continue moving, and repairing individual block is not harder than repairing a normal tank track. They should've put more anti-aircraft cannons on it, too, I'd put four on top of the turret in an indentation. Ratte would be a super-heavy fortification destroyer, which would be a major force on WW2 battlefield. Meanwhile its sheer size would allow it to absorb a lot of otherwise critical damage, such as multiple tank shells penetrations. Provided it was built like a sea vessel, not as a tractor covered in rolled armor from all sides. In general I would've used multiple small tank chassis as its base chassis, and have the turret sitting on top of these on a spring loaded tripod sort of frame. Odd that they did not consider that sort of design, to me that's pretty obvious way of getting an extremely oversized cannon have self propulsion on land.

>>548405

Just searched it, found out the other term. Sorry.

Anyways,we already have HEAT rounds, but the enemy's got ERA. Any way to counter ERA?

>>548408

Tandem warheads.

>>548409

Can you use those on the set-up described by this:>>548104

???

>>548410

It's the same weapon except it has two warheads strapped together. Front one defeats ERA, rear one defeats armor. If it hits a piece of armor with no ERA, total penetration is combined that of both warheads. Front warhead is usually smaller because it's not expected to penetrate the armor.

>>548411

Guys stated we need Penetrating armor right now. Any advise on that?

>>548416

Any specific advice for defeating this thing:

The [REDACTED] is a heavy tank, with Very Heavy frontal armor and Heavy armor on the rest of the tank and turret. It is very wide and flat, to give the armor a shallow slope on all sides which extends over the top of the tracks. The armor is well-covered with ERA, and the material itself is a manganese alloy. The turret is a shallow conical-section shape which comes nearly flush with the flat top of the hull, and sits towards the rear of the tank. The tank is so shallow that the crew must crawl about the tank, and performing many simple tasks like moving ammo from storage to the cannon is difficult. The driver even lays on his stomach. It includes wet ammo storage, which spills water over rounds if it is damaged to prevent fires, and lensed periscopes which allow for view ports which don't break up the slope of the armor. It's powered by a twin-charged diesel V12 engine, which takes up much of the tank's front (theoretically protecting the crew), and has intakes and exhaust cutouts in the top armor. This gets the enormously heavy tank to an acceptable speed, and powers electric motors for the turret. It is armed with the 100mm L/55 sliding-breech REDACTED cannon, the 5.5m barrel extends shortly beyond the front of the tank in a forward position. This cannon is slow to load, partly owing to the tank's layout, but has impressive range and power. It is also armed with an M3 Sorraia coaxial to gun and on top of the turret, and smoke grenade launchers shamelessly stolen from [REDACTED]'s designs

>>548454

HEAT penetrators don't give any sliver of shit about slope angles, they don't ricochet. Contrary to popular belief, normal shells don't ricochet much either, instead they tend to dig into armor at oblique angles like when beam of light enters water, negating much of the sloping.

Make tons of small HEAT bombs and carpet bomb the fucker from a crop duster. It didn't do much in real life because it is nearly impossible to hit anything using unguided bombs, but I see your game doesn't takes physics into account so that should be a good counter.

>>548483

The GM claims to know about "normalization". So, maybe it's just because the players on the other side don't know shit about the effectiveness of slopes?

>>548486

Well either way it couldn't had much protection on the top or bottom, exploit this by using explosives and bombs. Or bring a 9" cannon, that's guaranteed to fuck up any land vehicle, armor or not.

>>548487

That's what we've been doing mostly, though on the top. Even then, our enemy has the superior air-force. At least those tanks are pretty rare.

Just spam artillery.

HE destroys armor and infantry alike.

If you can't stand up the enemy face to face, then don't bother directly engaging.

Design a highly mobile MRSI SPG.

Just keep shooting and scooting until they run out of tanks.

Use defense in depth and make sure your infantry can slow them down and that you are able to move your SPGs faster than their tanks.

Enough artillery wins any battle.

Good stuff! Keep at it.

>>548522

I also came here to say pretty much this.

Also mortars. Mortars are cheap, light, and can fuck up both infantry and tanks by exploiting the weak roof armour. Mount them on the back of lightly armoured halftracks for additional mobility at a low cost.

If they're heavily dependant on their slow-firing heavy tanks, I'd also revisit the panzerfaust idea.

Other options could be to look into recoiless guns or dumbfire rockets so you can mount them on cheaper frames and get that fire volume advantage build Katushyas maybe?

Based on what you've given us so far, it sounds like you're getting spanked. What strengths do you have? Or do you need to go full sneaky breeki with AT mines and ambushes?

>>548454

Invent APFSDS ammo, and start building tanks with long 75mm or 90mm guns if you aren't already. Early ERA is largely ineffective against sabots, so this should give even your 75mm-armed medium tanks the ability to kill the enemy's supertank from around 2000m.

In order to buy some time I'd also recommend blowing up any bridges or railways near the front that can support heavy tanks.

Fast Attack Vehicles.

The original TOW is earlyish Cold War era, and old enough to probably suit your purposes.

I want you to picture a sandrail. Basically an off-road dune buggy with a riced out engine and some very light armor panels covering critical areas. Now stick a TOW missile on it with 2 or 3 extra rounds for it. Throw a STRELA-2 MANPADS (Cold War) in the backseat and train the mechanic to use it well. It has a 3 man crew: A driver, a missileer, and a mechanic, all trained infantrymen.

Deploy these in packs. 15 to 20 of them in each pack. They zip around the battlefield, off-road, at 50-60mph, ducking in and out of the terrain and are too fast and easy to get in defilade for the tanks to really get to them. They stop just long enough to peek out and fire a TOW at anything that clanks. They fire their missiles from outside MG range, but cannons are useless against their tiny, fast frames zig-zagging around.

Air support will have to be called in to strafe them, but each of those 20 buggies has a MANPADS that can take out a low flying aircraft, so any approach is dicey and there will be casualties.

Follow up these fast-attack vehicles (from a generously safe distance back) with platoons of medium IFVs. Basically like M113s but with a pair of heavy MGs on top and some of them are towing 75mm artillery with an arty crew. Each IFV has a full squad of doodz and every 4th one for infantry has one guy with a flamethrower for clearing the peskiest positions.

Following closely behind the APCs are a few dedicated mobile AAA vehicles. Something like the Wirbelwind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirbelwind These are just for covering the infantry from the air, but can also chew up ground forces if need be.

>>548605

The enemy has air superiority, and the ground forces don't have any openings to exploit right now. Before we can do any raiding, we first need to either regain control of the air or create a breakthrough on the ground so the cruiser tanks can do their job.

Fortunately this appears to be an intercontinental war, so there's a third option: if the navy is in decent shape and the enemy hasn't penetrated too deeply, we can simply set up a blockade to cut them off entirely.

>>548610

>Before we can do any raiding, we first need to either regain control of the air or create a breakthrough on the ground so the cruiser tanks can do their job.

That's one way to look at it, another approach would be to ask what sort of state your recon and artillery is in at the moment?

Good stuff! Keep at it.>>548610

We've had the advantage in navy for most of the game, until the enemy just straight-out stole our "battlecruiser" and somehow made it cheaper. Plus, it's not really air superiority I think, but an advantage in air. Plus, we landed on the enemy "continent" while the enemy failed in their landing at our continent.

Anyways, we're catching up in the air thanks to missiles. But the enemy might be getting a counter soon.

>>548613

Don't know about the state of artillery and recon, except for the fact that we have a night-vision system.

>>548626

>NV Gear

Mass produce that shit and just infiltrate the absolute shit out of your enemy. Never attack by day always attack by night if you can.

>>548626

>except for the fact that we have a night-vision system.

Assuming 1940's vintage tech that's a ridiculously huge advantage. Get your infantry infiltrating all over the front under cover of darkness and then just basically go full Solid Snake on them. If you can give some kind of artillery beacon it'll help them deal with targets too big for whatever weapons they're carrying.

>>548642

>>548632

Here's the night-vision

>This is a night vision device, consisting of an infrared spotlight, a scope which allows the user to view infrared light, and a rechargeable battery. The spotlight is simply filtered, so that only invisible infrared light passes through. The scope contains a small cathode ray tube, operated by power transformed from the battery to several kilovolts. The battery is in a backpack and makes up the bulk of the system's weight, at 32 pounds it is man-portable but uncomfortably heavy. The large spotlight and scope are normally attached to the weapon, whether the weapon is a sniper rifle or machine gun, and these add seven pounds to weapon making it unwieldy without a bipod. The scope looks bulky and the seven-inch spotlight looks enormous on top of it, and there are some wires running along the outside and a cable to the backpack, as well as some adjustment dials and an on/off switch visible along the side of the scope. The [REDACTED]'s spotlight illuminates targets up to a little over 100 yards, without revealing the user's position.

And the updated version:

>The [REDACTED] is based on the original [REDACTED] night vision system, but the entire thing is smaller and more efficient. The system is down to about 22 pounds for the same lifetime, and the spotlight is only four and a half inches. Vehicle-powered spotlights are larger, at ten inches, and illuminate to about 250 yards. The viewing scopes are also a bit shorter.

Also, I suggest you guys read that forum thread to get a grasp of the strategic situation. Don't even have to read all of it, just click on "threadmarks" and go to turn 19. It has everything you need, including a handy design-list in the above post.

>>548709

I still think you're focusing too much on conventional/symmetric solutions. From what you've told us the enemy have you beaten 10 times out of 10 there. You'll have a better idea of the game system than we do, but you're going to need to find an unexpected/asymmetric solution. There's no point fighting the battle that the enemy has prepared for. The traditional weak-points are logistical and industrial targets, with your knowledge of the setting, situation, and your available forces what can you do to hit the targets & systems your enemy relies upon?

Let me attempt to surmise the stratigic situation in an accurate way. First off, we currently have an advantage at sea, due to gaining missile AAA, so the enemy planes can not approach our ships. Because of this, we were able to ensure that the enemy invasion of our home continent did not have enough forces to succeed. We then counter-invaded into a nearby jungle, which we succeeded in advancing the front. This is due to the fact that our missiles are quite effective against bombers and air-transports, which the enemy relied upon to win in the jungle previously. Also, that super-tank wasn't effective in the jungle terrain. It was, however, effective on the flat lands of the southern front, and the weather messed up our Air-force allowing the enemy transports free-reign to do as they wished. The enemy also had infantry armor and better sniper-rifles, so with these they were able to establish a beachhead. Finally, we once again invaded the enemies continent, into its jungle. We met similar success as in the other jungle.

This is the strategic situation as it stands. I hope this helps.

>>548744

So

>You have SAMs that can hold the hostile airforce at bay.

>Fighting in jungle terrain neutralises hostile armour advantage

>Hostile beachhead (on your continent) secured by infantry

>Pushing Hostiles back in their own jungle

Is that accurate? If it is then:

<Can the SAMs be improved and/or mounted on your aircraft?

<Are you able to gas the hostile beachhead?

<If you can use modified SAMs as AAM (with the aim of establishing air-superiority) how do the hostile tanks stack up against your ground attack aircraft?

>>548752

1. They're on aircraft, though the enemy has already picked up on flares. Good thing we developed proximity fuses right when they pulled that one.

2. I'm not sure if the US would approve of such things. Though we do have such weaponry left over from a previous war.

3.They're an easy target.

Some clarification: The southern front I'm talking about is currently another island, a frozen one in fact. It provides 1 titanium, a special resource we can and have built stuff out of.

A tank that shoot fire

>>548756

It's sounding more and more like you shouldn't have too many problems, use AAM equipped fighters to ensure your bombers get through to his airfields. You'll take some losses but he'll take more. Once you've got Air-Sup you can start bombing everything he relies on while refitting some fighters for CAS. Get a gas attack ready to roll and fire it off the moment the enemy start their next push from the beachhead - if the USA gets pissy about it just say "They were on homeland soil, I couldn't gamble on them taking another yard of ground, it needed to be done" or something to that effect. By the time you've pushed them out of the jungles and into ground that suits their tanks you should have air superiority, allowing your CAS to rip though their roofs and removing them from the equation.

I'd just like to add that the situation he's described is not really accurate, or helps you understand the nature of the game.

We do not in fact have SAM sites.

> Design jet. Roll 6.

> itsbeautiful.jpg

> Enemy rolls out virgin egg with a cannon on top.

> GM decides it's superior.

> niggauwot.gif

> Upgrade airforce to the point where you're in the late 60's in terms of technology.

> Buff up fucking guided missiles that would make America in 1980 jealous.

> Suit up your armored forces to fight with less resources, focusing on asymmetric warfare and slowly gaining ground when possible.

> Enable Spearhead to function with one engine, with much more power.

> "Enemy still has air superiority due to better fighters."

> niggauwot2-electricboogalo.gif

Enemy infantry superiority hinges on absurd physics-defying mangalloy body armor for stationary emplacements (say, machine gun nests), flamethrowers and cheap scopes (we never got around to making lenses non-complex). Armor superiority hinges on their Heavy Tank, which really just needs tandem charges to be rendered null due to how the crew's positioned in the tank - hence plans hatch (can't get into it, you can check the thread if you want, just in case someone from the other team finds this). Asymmetrically solving that is easy, and boosts our own armor too.

Enemy air superiority hinges on them having an Air General which boosts their performance in the air (they had an unfairly good general choice compared to us given the rules of the game) and their virgin Lightning Streak, described in the following way:

This is a single-engine jet fighter, with a large [REDACTED] jet taking up most of the fuselage. The [REDACTED] is a low-bypass turbofan; some of the air taken in by the compressor blades passes around the engine core and is not combusted. A planned afterburner system wasn't prepared, but the bypass system provides useful cooling. The [REDACTED] has a relatively fat fuselage, which widens out in the middle after the intake and narrows again at the exhaust, there there is a rudder and two tail wings directly on the fuselage. With the round glass canopy (using 15mm of heavy laminated glass) the aircraft has sort of an egg shape, with thin swept wings. The wings have no bomb mounts and are as light as possible for speed and maneuverability, it is armed solely with three [REDACTED] (auto)cannons in the nose above the intake, with somewhat limited ammo. It also includes airbrakes on the body near the tail, and hydraulic controls. Since it was designed as an absolutely dedicated fighter, and the [REDACTED] is larger and with better weight-specific performance than the [REDACTED], the speed and maneuverability are remarkable. [CHEAP]

From what I remember hearing, it's superior performance hinges on:

- Their resource advantage, due to an early game advantage and Ore form the Nazies which we cannot disrupt.

- It being their second jet, while we just revised ours twice. We got a low-by in the newest version, too, but the GM noted no improvements, despite the engine powering a much heavier aircraft at respectable speeds, much to our salt, but that's not much of an issue.

Our missiles are heat-guided, have a range of about 4 miles and are relatively alright against their flares, which magically don't give them an exotic magnesium cost on their bombers. Their jets don't use flares because their flare boxes are yuge to say the least. Proxy fuzes are possibly going to be under jamming this turn, depending on how autistic the GM is in determining how those function, but a counter to that should be easy. Plan is to attack through jungles where we have the advantage due to air power, which is crucial there, and take their resources, automatically making all their shit a lot more expensive. Titanium is being phased out of critical supplies due to loss of Titan.

http://i.imgur.com/j49drXe.png

Map. We control 1/4 in the northwestern jungle, 1/4 in the western enemy jungle and 3/4 on the southern island.

>>548932

Don't forget AT mines for ruining the tanks' day.

Also, if you already have heat-seeking missiles, have you considered making a ATGM? That would seriously change the power balance.

Additionally, if you've developed proximity fuzes, make sure you also put them on your conventional artillery, that should give you a good boost against their infantry as well

>>548934

We've got AT mines, but they haven't been mentioned at all. We have indeed considered ATGMs, but design space is tight and the enemy also adapts (as I'm sure you already know). Our proxies work on all artillery, bombs and munitions above 3".

Said boost was noted in the last report, and I think you have a link somewhere in here if you're interested in joining our side. More active members are always welcome~.

If you (or anyone really) have any questions about the game mechanics, or some-such, I'd gladly help.

Re-posting for those who want to join:

https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/intercontinental-arms-race-spring-1942-strategy-phase.520537/

Just go on this thread, and register an account here, and post on the thread. Or just go on the discord and state you wish to join Canalla.

>>548890

>>548932

>>549008

What I'm beginning to understand is that this is essentially a pants-on-head retarded dice game run by a pants-on-head retarded GM with pants-on-head retarded restrictions, decision-making methods, and pants-on-head retarded, just, fucking gameplay period. Completely dumb and you're not going to get what you're looking forward here because, presumptuously, everyone at least has a realistic grasp on warfare while this is hinged off a child's assumption on how shit works.

>>549017

Having read through the (limited) description of the rules on the forum link the process seems to be.

>Players all submit design ideas, vote on them and submit the winning design to the GM.

>GM looks at it and declares how hard it will be, rolling a D6 and using that to determine how well the invention works.

>Quality of kit applies a modifier to the dice roll that determines the result of that turns combat.

It's a shame, it looked interesting, but it would seem that we've found a game with less tactical depth than Battlemallet 40K.

>>549032

Eh. There's no dies rolled for combat. Said game layout isn't really the best, and leads to some questionable results. Basically, the game's not about the strategy but about the design aspect of the game.

Now, of course, greater tactical depth would be desired to actually, y'know, so people can't do logistics defying bullshit or so it's not as arbitrary and dependent on a good GM.

Battles generally take into account ways in which the gear can be used, of course, and it's not just modifiers etc. being thrown around randomly.

I'm personally working on another game with more strategic and tactical depth, with stuff like, y'know, manpower, level of training, production capacity etc. abstracted to a point, alongside a credible battle analysis using Dupuy's QJM or it's extension in PFRM, and using an extended Lanchaster's Law (Square, Linear or Mixed depending on situation) to calculate casualties. Still making said combat model, but the game should offer some more content than just "Design shit and hope for a good roll."

Note the restrictions are indeed retarded and that some things are simply abstracted so much they're practically irrelevant, like logistics etc., in the current state the game is in. It's kinda sad, really.

>>549048

>I'm personally working on another game with more strategic and tactical depth, with stuff like, y'know, manpower, level of training, production capacity etc. abstracted to a point, alongside a credible battle analysis using Dupuy's QJM or it's extension in PFRM, and using an extended Lanchaster's Law (Square, Linear or Mixed depending on situation) to calculate casualties. Still making said combat model, but the game should offer some more content than just "Design shit and hope for a good roll."

Nice. Are you going to post a link when your first campaign is up and running?

>>549064

Most likely. I could use some serious players on both teams, and some fresh faces couldn't hurt. Hopefully I'll be a decent GM when the time comes.

>>549194

Please do post a link on /k/ when you're recruiting, what sort of setting/time period are you looking at?

>>549210

Basically, both factions are going to be confined to a tunnel system (do note I'm simplifying the subterranean network when compared to my original idea, due to the sheer amount of time it'd take to actually get anything done exceeding reasonable values.

Would be happening on another planet, so different gravity, thicker atmosphere made almost exclusively out of CO2, different star, and other fun stuff like that (no life on the damn rock, of course, lol). Tech's going to be mixed, with stuff like electronics being harder to produce with starting factories (more like production plants centered around colonies, tbh, since said industrial complexes present the foundation of the two factions, and are linked with their resource acquisition technologies). Still debating whether to give them small, low-efficiency nuclear reactors while taking out anything that could be used to make nukes, as to guarantee that's not the first thing people go for. Materials are confined to minerals, petroleum products and whatever biological matter you can scrounge up from your food sources, though that's mostly recycled so why you'd want to do something like that is beyond me, especially since said food sources are vegetables, fish (for A) and chicken (for B) (that sure was an odd tangent).

So basically, it's not a set time period as much as it's a collection of tech they've got, their population and whatever you guys can think of with that. Doesn't constrain players as much, and forces them to use what they've got instead - mitigating at least to some extent the need to literally copy-paste shit from Wikipedia. Hopefully…

Theatre's I'm looking at include tunnels of different shapes, sizes and conditions, the surface - with everything that'd entail without biology (mostly topological barriers, or difficulties such as mountains, hills, or loose ground). The fact the planet's tidally locked introduces some other interesting twists to surface combat and shifts power sources a bit, since the factions are in the terminator of the planet. Still need to work out the exact temperatures. Sea'll be interesting, mostly because I'm thinking about whether I should introduce tides from other orbiting bodies as the system's tighter than the Solar System, or if I shouldn't really do THAT much math. :P

Aerial combat will surely be interesting, mostly because the atmosphere's thicker (about 2x Earth's) meaning biplanes are a much more enticing option, and that, due to it's composition, you can't just use ICE to power everything.

What haven't I talked about y-… Oh Right, population. Population's around 250 - 350 k people, meaning manpower's limited to about 40% of the pop assuming both women and men can enter the army. Mobilization rates are fixed, mostly because letting the players handle that could lead to some extremely unfavorable outcomes and would just outright break the way the society of either faction works to the point where even if they won, they'd collapse within the next couple of years. Even tho the players would be what amounts to a colonial council governing both weapons development, military industry construction and forging battle plans, I'd like to imagine another council or workers unions within the colonies would heavily object after a point where the elderly have to enter service, due to their vital role to this world's society when at war, or even when not because they're the primary caretakers of children, primary guys for maintenance of machines, gathering food from aquaponics / hydroponics & livestock etc. while younger people gradually shift from the army, or arts, or R&D / engineering projects to said maintenance roles. Populations have a strict generational clock when new peeps are born, roughly several years around a fixed point with a given childbearing quota and a maximum population determined by the resource income they get from ancient extractors, after which they'd be forced to use labor, but the game would never get to that point and it's not like the players would have power over the civilian population outside R&D project appointment anyways.

The above was mostly a little monologue / rant about the setting, but I've probably forgotten at least a few stuff I'll most likely compile when actually posting the game.

Lol, "Body was too long". I wonder what the character limit on 8chan is.

Bluh. Might be better to answer concrete questions, and said questions might actually get me to consider something I've neglected.

Furthermore, I'm currently working on the combat model (got at least a portion of that settled!), and after that the game should be ready for play (or at least 90% there :P). I've already got a map and the lore laid out, as well as a general idea about how many resources and control points I should place for subsurface combat and how to direct surface combat since it's nonlinear. Planet's surface was taken from Space Engine at 10240 x 5120 px as inspiration and then drawn over (since even then it was heavily pixelated at the scale that I needed - aka sub-kilometer distances, and it was lacking in details that would make it more fun imho) in Photoshop.

Do note the above listed manpower is the *maximum potential manpower, assuming the game goes horribly poorly for a particular faction*. It starts at around 1.5%, raises to about 2.5% as tensions rise (a few turns~) and reach 5% when war is declared. Then, onwards, I've got it planned out to 15%, and after that it's triggered by significant losses of manpower on the battlefield. The civilization model presented regarding duties etc. is mostly fluff and how I see it working, and is not yet finalized, but it's main points are there.

Again - prolly forgot to address a ton of other stuff again.