The idea that a 14+die project would manage to go unnoticed enough to achieve strategic surprise is laughable to me.
That it would catch them flat-footed has been stated explicitly since the RER nat100. The foundation of the original karachi sprint was to act and have it done before they could react. The window for either has closed.

and I've switched from doing the Battleship Yards to doing the Merchantman Carrier Conversions.
sigh

[X] Plan No Steps Forward (Because we'll be flying)
[X] Plan Shipyards, Tech and Industry
[X] Plan: Factories, Refugees, Vanguard-ees
[X] Plan: Factories, Refugees, Even More Vanguard-ees
[X] Plan: Factories, Refugees, MORE Vanguard-ees
 
That is your prerogative. But we need hulls. Not just Frigates. We need Carriers. Yes, the conversion carriers are worse than the properly built ones. Yes, they are likely to be scrapped just as soon as we can get enough actual escort carriers in place. Yes, we messed up our priorities in military investment. All of that does not change the fact that we need hulls. Now. Not in 1.5 to 2 years when the CVEs come out of the yards. We need hulls. No, Frigates alone will not do the job. NOD's forces at sea are minor Patrol/Surface Attack boats, Bintang's Battleships, and NOD's SSN and SSBN submarines. For the first the frigates are ideal, and for the second we have the Cruisers and our own Battleships. The best way to find the last one is through ASW missions off of carriers. There is a lot of ocean to cover. We need more hulls, carrier hulls, to find and kill those subs.

Navibus Opus Est

Actually, the Shark frigates carry a pair of Hammerhead choppers, presumably kitted for ASW work. Build enough frigates, and that's close enough to a CVE's ASW squadron.

That number varies, but is 4 to 6 frigates per convoy.


Also, to everyone who wants to build conversion carriers and do Karachi? Don't. Conversion carriers let the navy free up some fleet carriers from convoy duties. But if we decide to then perform a major, supplies demanding amphibious operation, we'd better do it somewhere safe, relatively speaking, where Nod's biggest navy beat stick isn't, and where we can lean heavily on land based air power. Somewhere like Mexico, where GDI can lean on Baja California, or the Sea of Japan. Because the more supplies absolutely have to be hauled by ship to a target area, the more likely the navy is to haul converted merchantmen too close to enemy forces to be able to avoid an attack.

Karachi this Plan is lost. Start planning for Karachi 2062 or 2063 instead, when we've had time to build up a navy that can do more than keep the enemy away from our shipping.
 
So now that things have been clarified, how about voting for [ ] Plan I Refuse To Give Up On Karachi Yet, so we can do Chicago things? Just for me? I'd appreciate it, and it helps plan goals.
That plan is half-assing both Chicago and the more general options to support Steel Vanguard, and even if it wasn't half-assing it the next phase of Steel Vanguard is aimed at driving up Russia and Australia. Efforts would be better placed on the general Harvesting/Intensification actions than a specific spot that's not in an expansion phase.
 
I'm still thinking that if we improve our logistics, like with the orbital freight or whatever that was called, it could help take some pressure off the navy convoys.
 
[X] Plan By Apollo and Poseidon
[X] Plan: Starting our Strategic Area Defence Networks and giving the Navy Hulls
[X] Plan Second Vanguard, delaying Karchi, balsa flattops
[X] Plan No Develop, Only Deploy
 
I'm still thinking that if we improve our logistics, like with the orbital freight or whatever that was called, it could help take some pressure off the navy convoys.
I don't recall if it was posted in the thread, but someone did the math and we'd need dozens-to-hundreds of launches per day to match even a single ship's worth of supply. Unions and Leopards have 250 and 100 tonnes of lift capacity respectively, where a ship can carry thousands (65,000–80,000 tonnes for an OG Panamax, and even more for newer ships). Shuttles are not going to be more than a single-digit percentage for a while.
 
Due to discussions on Discord, I'm putting up an alternative plan that does the Battleship Yards instead of the Carrier Conversions. If you object to the shipyard change I made to my (main) plan, please consider including this among your votes.

[X] Plan One Step Forward + Battleship Yards
-[X] Infra 6/6 +2 free dice 145R
--[X] Yellow Zone Fortress Towns (Phase 4+5) 232/550 4 dice 80R 72%
--[X] Rail Network Construction Campaigns (Phase 3) 159/300 3 dice 45R 99% (3/5.5 Phase 4)
--[X] Tick Rapid Digger System Development (New) 0/40 1 die 20R 100%
-[X] Heavy Ind 5/5 dice 120R
--[X] Continuous Cycle Fusion Plants (Phase 5) 232/300 2 die 40R 100% (2/4.5 Phase 6)
--[X] Nuuk Heavy Robotics Foundry (Phase 3) 118/640 2 dice 40R (2/6.5 median)
--[X] Isolinear Chip Development (New) 0/60 1 die 40R 90%
-[X] L&CI 5/5 dice 100R
--[X] Reykjavik Myomer Macrospinner (Phase 4) 378/640 2 dice 40R 17%
--[X] Medical Supplies Factories 0/225 3 dice 60R 60%
-[X] Agri 4/4 dice 50R
--[X] Blue Zone Aquaponics Bays (Phase 2+3) 3/280 3 dice 30R 23% (Phase 2 98%)
--[X] Freeze Dried Food Plants 73/200 1 die 20R 13%
-[X] Tiberium 7/7 +1 admin dice 135R
--[X] Yellow Zone Tiberium Harvesting (Phase 7+8) 183/300 5 dice 100R 76% (Phase 7 100%)
--[X] Intensification of Green Zone Harvesting (Stage 5) 63/100 1 die 15R 100% (Stage 6 18%)
--[X] Railgun Harvester Factory (Dandong) 45/70 1 admin die 10R 90%
--[X] Railgun Harvester Factory (Bissau) 0/70 1 die 10R 85%
-[X] Orb Ind 6/6 dice 100R
--[X] GDSS Enterprise (Phase 4) 456/765 4 dice 80R 71%
--[X] Orbital Cleanup (Stage 9+10) 41/170 2 dice 20R 82% (Stage 9 100%)
-[X] Services 2/5 dice 40R
--[X] Neural Interfaced Operating Theaters (New) 0/160 2 dice 40R 60%
-[X] Military 8/8 +5 free +1 admin dice 275R
--[X] Tactical Airborne Laser Deployment (New) 0/210 3 dice 60R 75%
--[X] Apollo Wingmen Drones (New) 0/210 3 dice 60R 75%
--[X] Plasma Warhead Factory (Phase 1) (New) 0/90 1 die 10R 52%
--[X] Frigates (Quonset Point) (New) 0/300 4 dice 80R 64%
--[X] Escort Carrier Shipyards (Battleship Yards) (New) 0/120 1 die 20R 22%, 2 dice 40R 87%
--[X] Neural Interface System Refits (Talons) 83/105 1 Admin die 25R 94%
-[X] Bureau 4/4 dice
--[X] Administrative Assistance x2 4 die auto

[X] Plan One Step Forward
[X] Plan No Steps Forward (Because we'll be flying)

@Romans As you voted for my entire plan instead of just the plan name, and I've altered the Plan One Step Forward since then, the vote tally isn't picking up your vote. Please consider changing your vote.
 
Last edited:
[X] Plan One Step Forward + Battleship Yards
[X] Plan One Step Forward

I don't like the other plan that much so main vote and approval for the changed vote. If the former gets traction I will delete the approval.
 
I will not be party to this amateurish bungling of a last desperate sprint to the finish line like we were a pack of schoolboys trying to pump out an acceptable 3000 word essay in full the night before hand-in. The jeep carriers can hang and the CVs can stay on convey duty till we do it right or not at all.
I find this philosophy rather confusing.

Out of character, "we screwed up, so let's not take steps that would mitigate the consequences of our screwup." In character, "The Treasury has sinned, so let's do nothing about the underlying problem the Treasury failed to address, and expect the Navy to continue doing the thing it spent all this time telling us it shouldn't be doing, only now during wartime, and let the consequences fall where they may."

There's a certain righteousness in preparing to bear the consequences of one's own mistake, but in this case, the in-character consequences mostly fall on everyone else, not the Treasury, unless of course someone writes a tell-all story and Seo is forced to resign. It seems a bit odd to prioritize "let the natural consequences of our mistake play out" over "enable the Navy to fight effectively."

I'd be significantly less against Simon's plan if it didn't spend two extra dice on that Frigate yard, too. The only reason to rush a single yard like that is in hopes of pushing it to spit out Frigates extra-fast for Karachi specifically...
Alternate hypothesis: I anticipate that by 2061Q1 or so we'll really be hurting for more hulls and the extra infusion of hulls will feel like a godsend to the Navy, regardless of what the Navy is doing, to the point where I don't want to dribble out and slow-walk that particular yard over the course of 2-3 turns if we roll moderately poorly.
I'm of the opposite view. His plan is specifically hoping to line things up for a Karachi 2061 sprint and so I think he isn't spending nearly enough on frigates.
I find it interesting that I am under condemnation from both directions at once here; your views on the subject are not strictly contradictory, but it's an interesting situation.

We can do that late in the plan. There's no need to reach for those plan goals right now while the war is still ongoing.
My choice to fund Chicago is motivated by a desire to take the part of Steel Vanguard that acts against Gideon and specifically hit him over the head with it. Balancing that against everything else means accepting some compromise between various Steel Vanguard supporting tiberium project options.

Put a die on the mastodons and you'll have my vote
Now that I'm able to act again, as soon as I've caught up with thread discussion, I plan to take the two unallocated Military dice, put one on plasma missile factories (which hopefully at least gives the Air Force SOME of the missiles, or can be AA'd next turn cheaply), and one on the Mastodon development. It may be a while before we can afford to build it, but at least we'll know what's behind that door.

Eastern Paris was something we had to commit to in the first place because it made it possible for our current navy to deal with via the element of surprise, but also and more importantly because it strangled the export of gana before they had 1-2 years of sending more out at "we don't have to remotely hide it" levels.

The meaning of a statement is not merely the sum of its words. Try naming a single instance where the phrase "don't give up yet" was meant to convey hedging your bets rather than committing to a remaining hope with little to no entertaining of the idea of giving up later - you'll probably have to try pretty hard!

You really, really cannot blame anyone for assuming the latter.
Put this way.

Someone can fail to read all the words in my one sentence, and instead take a broader view.

Or they can summarily ignore everything I've spent several of the past 24 hours and then insist, even when corrected on the matter, that no, I must mean X, based on their literal interpration of that one sentence, in which case I damn well expect them to read it literally.

Pick one.

Because I don't think it's very fair to me otherwise, because at that point someone's saying "Simon, I'm going to make up my own version of your long term goals, then tell you what they are, then they'll be wrong, then when you say they're wrong, I'll tell you that I don't need either to read the large volume of evidence against, nor the more compact evidence against that comes from the very passage I am now quoting."

That said.

Merchant conversions is only necessary if we give the navy responsibilities that make it necessary.
The Navy's responsibilities that make merchant conversions necessary are not the consequence of Treasury making them do things. They are a consequence of "Nod exists and we wish they didn't."

Note that the Navy hasn't been saying for the past five years "we're totally okay with you not building the escort carriers as long as we never have to launch a major offensive into the heart of Nod-held waters and just stick to protecting convoys." They've been saying "we need escort carriers to free up the fleet carriers."

And that's the situation we're in right now. The Navy cannot divert fleet carriers to cover strikes on coastal targets, it cannot actively hunt down and suppress raiders, it cannot keep fleet carriers on station to secure sea lanes that convoys aren't happening to be passing through at a particular moment.

The Navy can't do any offensive action, or for that matter any mission apart from convoy protection, because of the current situation. It can't even escort convoys that well because convoy escort availability's gated behind availability of 100-kiloton ships that it can't build more of in a timely manner. Freeing up the fleet carriers to strike at targets doesn't only benefit Karachi; it gives the Navy vastly more flexibility to do effectively whatever it wants, which in turn makes it considerably more likely that they will have a positive effect on the war in any way. It also tends to somewhat diminish Nod's general power of action on the sea, which can only be a good thing for us because they will use that power of action to hurt us.

Even if there isn't a big dramatically named mega-offensive in which we demand that the Navy use this capability for the good of GDI in a specific manner, they will still use it for the good of GDI.

The idea that the Navy should just stay in its lane and do nothing but commerce protection and that as long as they do so, everything will be fine is not a tenable idea.

But more importantly, putting conversions into that escort role means some of them WILL get sunk, and GDI sailors WILL die that otherwise wouldn't.

Do you think the -ps on conversions is for shits and giggles? The public will see us throwing lives away just to fight a war we're already winning more aggressively. They would be absolutely right to call us incredibly callous for doing that.
This assumes that there will be no casualty consequences to just not having the relevant flattops.

We have been overtly told why the PS penalty applies, by the QM. Namely, that the Navy is convinced that something like the conversion carriers is now necessary, and is embittered and prepared to spend some of their own political capital to punish us for making it necessary. If we needed to do the same thing in a situation where we'd been clearly addressing the problem and had just run out of time, the QM directly said, this option would cost less.

The problem isn't' "having these conversion carriers will cause more deaths than not having them, so we shouldn't build them." It's "having these conversion carriers will cause more deaths than if you had built escort carriers of any kind earlier, instead, like we wanted, so we are making you pay a political price for unlocking this action at the literal last minute as a global war blows up in all our faces like we warned you about."

Delaying the necessary action and allowing the crisis to spiral even further out of control does us no favors.

And yes, I'm titling my own plan to do something about that "I Refuse to Give Up On Karachi Yet." Even if we end up not doing Karachi because the military situation is too bad.
 
[X] Plan: Factories, Refugees, Vanguard-ees
[X] Plan: Factories, Refugees, Even More Vanguard-ees
[X] Plan: Factories, Refugees, MORE Vanguard-ees
[X] Plan One Step Forward
 
Making the agreed-upon edits, from before I had to go AFK for three hours.

First, approval voting all plans with conversion carriers.

[X] Plan By Apollo and Poseidon

did it first hours before I joined the discussion, but after subsequent discussion a number of other plans adopted the merchantman conversion.

These include

[X] Plan: Starting our Strategic Area Defence Networks and giving the Navy Hulls
[X] Plan Second Vanguard, delaying Karchi, balsa flattops
[X] Plan No Develop, Only Deploy

and others later after still further very energetic discussion, which are being supported in:

[X] Plan We Need More Ships

by @doruma1920 (shout-out to Doruma for strong support of the conversion carriers!)

There is also

[X] Plan One Step Forward

Now, I must note that @Derpmind 's version of the plan gives the conversion carriers only a 23% chance to complete as a project this turn, but I promised her (and everyone) that I would approval vote EVERY plan with merchant conversion carriers, and it's clear that Derpmind did this as a good faith attempt to compromise on an issue I care a lot about, so I'm not going to disrespect that. My plan has more conversion carrier, but hers does legit have conversion carriers.



This plan differs from my old version as follows:

1) Due to errors on my part, I misread the cost of Nuuk (because the QM changed his mind about something I'd been told by third parties would be true, and I didn't notice it had changed) and made some other arithmetic errors. Once all these errors were tallied...

2) I had to delete the Services development of hallucinogens, something I only added because I had free Service dice left over and thought I had budget for.

3) I had two unallocated dice in the Military category and 20 R to do something with them. After some discussion, i decided to:

3a) Develop the Mastodon assault walker prototype for the Steel Talons, and
3b) Spend one die developing plasma missiles for the Air Force.



Notably, I have a bit of a problem in that I don't consider the 64% chance associated with four dice on the Melbourne yard to be sufficient, owing to the urgent need for more hulls which will only grow more urgent over time. Regardless of whether we build Karachi Planned City, we will take losses to our surface combatant force and the supply of available surface combatants will become pretty fucking dire over the course of the war, as it already was dire before the war. Thus, there is considerable urgency in getting at least a trickle of reinforcements into the water. I plan to be somewhat less profligate in my dice spending on shipyards after this one, settling for more like a50-60% chance of completion and then slow-walking, after we have at least done something to address the relevant problem. I had originally used an AA die to 'round out' the chance of the yard completing to about 83%, but I now find myself feeling like it would be better to use that AA die for the Mastodon (likely to complete anyway) and swap it out for a Military die.

...

Ahem, anyway.

965/965 R
7/7 Free dice

VERY CONSERVATIVE ENERGY BUDGET
+9 (Existing Surplus) + 16 (Fusion Phase 5)
-1 (Medical Supplies) -1 (Freeze Drying) -2 (Dandong) -2 (Porto) -4 (Apollo backup dancer bots) - 6 (Angry Australian Frigates) -1 (Plasma Missiles)
End Result: +8 surplus, well positioned to slam out another phase of fusion plants plus Reykjavik for +18 more in Q3

CONSERVATIVE CAPITAL GOODS BUDGET
+17 (Existing Surplus) +2 (Enterprise) -2 (Operating Theaters) -1 (Apollo backup dancer bots) -2 (Angry Australian frigates)
End Result: +14 Surplus, well positioned to slam out Nuuk Phase 3 and Reykjavik for +18 more Goods in Q3



[X] Plan I Refuse To Give Up On Karachi Yet

Infrastructure 6/6 Dice 105 R
-[X] Yellow Zone Fortress Towns (Phase 4+5) 232/550 (2 Dice, 40 R) (Phase 4, 2/3.5 median on Phase 5)
-[X] Rail Network Construction Campaigns (Phase 3) 159/300 (3 Dice, 45 R) (99% chance; 3/5.5 median to Phase 4)
-[X] Tick Rapid Digger System Development 0/40 (1 Die, 20 R) (100% chance)

Heavy Industry 5/5 Dice + 3 Free Dice 180 R
-[X] Continuous Cycle Fusion Plant (Phase 5+6) 232/600 (4 Dice, 80 R) (~100% chance Phase 5, 28% chance of Phase 6)
-[X] Nuuk Heavy Robotics Foundry (Phase 3) 118/600 (3 Dice, 60 R) (3/6 median)
-[X] Isolinear Chip Development (1 Die, 40 R) (90% chance)

Light and Chemical Industry 5/5 Dice 100 R
-[X] Reykjavik Myomer Macrospinner (Phase 4) 378/640 (2 Dice, 40 R) (17% chance)
-[X] Medical Supplies Factories 0/225 (3 Dice, 60 R) (60% chance)

Agriculture 4/4 Dice 50 R
-[X] Freeze Dried Food Plants 73/200 (1 Die, 20 R) (13% chance)
-[X] Blue Zone Aquaponics Bays (Phase 2+3) 3/280 (3 Dice, 30 R) (98% chance of Phase 2, 23% chance of Phase 3)

Tiberium 7/7 Dice 115 R
-[X] Yellow Zone Tiberium Harvesting (Phase 7) 183/300 (2 Dice, 40 R) (97% chance)
-[X] Chicago Planned City 3/600 (2 Dice, 40 R) (2/6.5 median)
-[X] Railgun Harvester Factory (Dandong) 45/70 (1 Die, 10 R) (~100% chance)
-[X] Railgun Harvester Factory (Porto) 0/70 (1 Die, 10 R) (85% chance)
-[X] Intensification of Green Zone Harvesting (Stage 5+6) 63/200 (1 Die, 15 R) (Stage 5, 18% chance of Stage 6)

Orbital 6/6 Dice 110 R
-[X] GDSS Enterprise (Phase 4) 456/765 (5 Dice, 100 R) (96.5% chance, median outcome 114/1535 to Phase 5)
-[X] Orbital Cleanup (Stage 9) 41/85 (1 Die, 10 R) (98% chance, 13% chance of Stage 10)

Services 3/5 Dice 40 R
-[X] Neural Interfaced Operating Theaters 0/160 (2 Dice, 40 R) (60% chance)

Military 8/8 Dice + 4 Free Dice + 2 AA Dice 265 R
-[X] Apollo Wingmen Drones 0/210 (3 Dice, 60 R) (75% chance)
-[X] Plasma Warhead Factory (Phase 1) 0/90 (1 Die, 10 R) (52% chance)
-[X] Shark Class Frigate Shipyard (Melbourne) (5 Dice, 100 R) (93% chance)
-[X] Merchantman Carrier Conversions (High Commitment) 0/200 (3 Dice, 60 R) (81% chance)
-[X] Neural Interface System Refits (Talons) 83/105 (AA Die, 25 R) (94% chance)
-[X] Mastodon Heavy Assault Walker Development 0/30 (AA Die, 10 R) (86% chance)

Bureaucracy 4/4 Dice
-[X] Administrative Assistance x2 (4 Dice)
 
Last edited:
Actually, the Shark frigates carry a pair of Hammerhead choppers, presumably kitted for ASW work. Build enough frigates, and that's close enough to a CVE's ASW squadron.

That number varies, but is 4 to 6 frigates per convoy.

The Casablanca Class, which is my mental image of the converted carriers, carried 27 aircraft, rounding up to 28 for each of numbers. This is reasonable since our actual escorts carry 24 Orcas, 12 Hammerheads, and 36 wingmans, for a total of 72 aircraft. As I've said, the converted carriers are not the best ships. However, working with the 28 aircraft assumption and the same ratio as the actual escorts, that is 9 Orcas, 5 Hammerheads and 14 wingmans, 28 aircraft. The first of which we wouldn't have with just frigates because the Sharks are not equipped for them. Assuming the Shark doesn't just support the Hammerheads, but also their wingman, which is not said in the results, that is 4 aircraft. Simple math yields that a converted carrier likely has about 7 times the number of aircraft than a Shark frigate. Taking the high estimate of 6 frigates per convoy, adding a single converted carrier more than doubles the air complement of that convoy.

Furthermore, I don't know exactly how much ocean a single aircraft can cover, but it makes sense to me that it is a function of fuel, cargo load, and distance from homebase (be that a ship or land). The more fuel you have, the more area you can cover. The more cargo you're carrying (sonar buoys, torps, mines, ect) the less area you can cover. The farther away you are searching from home, the less area you can cover do to the time spent in transit. If I had an aircraft in the air dropping buoys listening for subs I'd want another aircraft to takeover once the first was running low on fuel, or if the aircrew were getting fatigued. I don't know how long that is, but at most I'd say 3-4 hours. Assuming I've got say 2 crews per aircraft, that means, if I wanted 1 aircraft always in the air, I'd need 3-4 aircraft minimum. Likely more cause things will break on anything military and I'd want back ups in place for when long term maintenance needed to be done, or on standby incase something happens. So say 4-6 aircraft total per aircraft constantly in the air. The next question is, how many aircraft do I need to be in the air at one time to protect the convoy? The answer to that question doesn't matter because if we only have 4-6 frigates per convoy we can only support 2 aircraft in the air at all times. For close in support work this is fine, but to actually go looking for subs and other threats to the convoy so it can avoid or deal with them before it is threatened, that doesn't seem likely. Thus we need more hulls.

Plus different aircraft are good at different things. Hammerheads and Orca's likely have different ranges and altitudes they travel most efficiently. With their turbofans Orcas likely can make better speed then the Hammerheads, but are less fuel efficient down low in denser air than the Hammerhead's props. A Hammerhead is probably very good at acting close to the boat, while an Orca can range further afield. So we would want the converted carriers anyway to have some longer range Orcas with the convoy, even if we already had Hammerheads to do close in work. Thus we need carrier hulls to support the Oracs.

Navibus Opus Est
 
[x] Plan I Refuse To Give Up On Karachi Yet
[x] Plan By Apollo and Poseidon
[x] Plan Second Vanguard, delaying Karchi, balsa flattops
[x] Plan No Develop, Only Deploy
[x] Plan One Step Forward
 
I don't recall if it was posted in the thread, but someone did the math and we'd need dozens-to-hundreds of launches per day to match even a single ship's worth of supply. Unions and Leopards have 250 and 100 tonnes of lift capacity respectively, where a ship can carry thousands (65,000–80,000 tonnes for an OG Panamax, and even more for newer ships). Shuttles are not going to be more than a single-digit percentage for a while.

Of course, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

What I'm saying is that if we invest in the orbital cargo Hauling or whatever we might be able to ease the pressure on the navy. Not solve the problem but make it more manageable.

For example, and I might be completely off base here, a convoy needs to go to 4 ports to drop off supplies. With orbital delivery one of those could be handled by them so the convoy now only needs to hit three ports, saving time and giving the ships a little more wiggle room to enforce another convoy or spare a carrier for a day to chase down a sub. I don't know.

If we do conversions it stacks with that to, more ships per convey for added protection maybe.

It might not have a huge effect but it would have SOME positive impact on the navy.
 
It may be a while before we can afford to build it, but at least we'll know what's behind that door.
3) I had two unallocated dice in the Military category and 20 R to do something with them. After some discussion, i decided to:

3a) Develop the Mastodon assault walker prototype for the Steel Talons, and
3b) Spend one die developing plasma missiles for the Air Force.
For the record, I object to putting a die on the Mastaon. Even you yourself acknowledge that it's unlikely we'll be able to put dice into deploying it next turn, and I don't believe "know what's behind that door" to be a worthy use of our Military dice this turn. Compare this to a second die on the Plasma Warheads, which will deliver an immediately-usable asset to the Air Force. As we're going to be rolling battle dice again this turn, projects like the Plasma Warheads can give bonuses to those dice that may alter the outcomes of some of those battles in our favor. Mastaon Development does not do that.
 
The Casablanca Class, which is my mental image of the converted carriers, carried 27 aircraft, rounding up to 28 for each of numbers. This is reasonable since our actual escorts carry 24 Orcas, 12 Hammerheads, and 36 wingmans, for a total of 72 aircraft. As I've said, the converted carriers are not the best ships. However, working with the 28 aircraft assumption and the same ratio as the actual escorts, that is 9 Orcas, 5 Hammerheads and 14 wingmans, 28 aircraft. The first of which we wouldn't have with just frigates because the Sharks are not equipped for them. Assuming the Shark doesn't just support the Hammerheads, but also their wingman, which is not said in the results, that is 4 aircraft. Simple math yields that a converted carrier likely has about 7 times the number of aircraft than a Shark frigate. Taking the high estimate of 6 frigates per convoy, adding a single converted carrier more than doubles the air complement of that convoy.
It should be noted that the Orca may well be significantly larger than a WWII fighter aircraft. Then again, our merchant conversion carriers will probably be based on larger hulls than the Casablanca-class, if only because we probably don't have in mass production any merchant ship class as small as the Casablancas were.
 
We should probably do the orca wingmen next turn as well. They are the primary navel aircraft unit right?

If we are going to be adding a bunch of carriers they could probably use the extra punch.
 
For the record, I object to putting a die on the Mastaon. Even you yourself acknowledge that it's unlikely we'll be able to put dice into deploying it next turn, and I don't believe "know what's behind that door" to be a worthy use of our Military dice this turn. Compare this to a second die on the Plasma Warheads, which will deliver an immediately-usable asset to the Air Force. As we're going to be rolling battle dice again this turn, projects like the Plasma Warheads can give bonuses to those dice that may alter the outcomes of some of those battles in our favor. Mastaon Development does not do that.
That's a fair point and I may yet be persuaded to make that edit.

At the same time, I figure that my plan had my voters' approval before this point, so adding an AA die on the Mastodons is a strict improvement for most of them; it is a diversion of effort I didn't know would be available to divert. Historically, we've gained some very attractive military upgrade options from Talons development programs, and knowing what comes out of the Mastodon would help inform decisions we make on, for instance, whether it's even worth bothering spending ANY more dice on the Talons until 2061Q1 or 'Q2 when we have to slam out the Mastodon or break our promise to General Jackson.

The main reasons I am hesitant about committing two dice to plasma missiles is that they are STU-hungry, and are also very high-powered munitions to the point where it is implied that they are for specialized targets. I am hesitant to commit five (as opposed to four) STUs to the Air Force alone while we're still struggling to work out what the STU requirements of some of the other branches' military options will be.

As long as we have a trickle of plasma missiles to fight Krukov's aerial battleships and whichever factions make most extensive use of the Barghest, I think the situation is good enough for now.

We should probably do the orca wingmen next turn as well. They are the primary navel aircraft unit right?

If we are going to be adding a bunch of carriers they could probably use the extra punch.
Iffy. Orca wingmen are good for the Navy eventually when the purpose-built light carriers start showing up in like... 18-24 months. Whereas the Air Force really wants wingman drones for the Firehawks, and is asking for them in an attempt to cut down serious ongoing casualties caused by Nod's superior frontline fighter tech.

(Also, Navy fleet carriers operate Firehawks, and are coincidentally the only Navy carriers large enough to use the drones effectively without being purpose-built to operate them. Thus, the Firehawk drones will still be a modest upgrade to the Navy's fleet carriers, which are the ones actually facing battle)

(Orca drones MIGHT boost the merchantman conversion carriers; it's unclear whether the conversion carriers will use drones if they're available, though I'd imagine so because our freighters are big girls, and the limiting factor on how many airframes you can put on them probably isn't strictly internal volume, I speculate)
 
Iffy. Orca wingmen are good for the Navy eventually when the purpose-built light carriers start showing up in like... 18-24 months. Whereas the Air Force really wants wingman drones for the Firehawks, and is asking for them in an attempt to cut down serious ongoing casualties caused by Nod's superior frontline fighter tech.

(Also, Navy fleet carriers operate Firehawks, and are coincidentally the only Navy carriers large enough to use the drones effectively without being purpose-built to operate them. Thus, the Firehawk drones will still be a modest upgrade to the Navy's fleet carriers, which are the ones actually facing battle)

(Orca drones MIGHT boost the merchantman conversion carriers; it's unclear whether the conversion carriers will use drones if they're available, though I'd imagine so because our freighters are big girls, and the limiting factor on how many airframes you can put on them probably isn't strictly

Fair enough.

Yikes... I'm starting to think we really need to invest in the superconductors next turn. They are the bottleneck stopping the next upgrade in energy production and we are hurting for energy with all these new projects.
 
[X] Plan I Refuse To Give Up On Karachi Yet
Seems like the conversions are inevitable, so I'm just gonna go for the one that gets us the missiles (even just the threat of those existing will be a big scare factor in future engagement possibilities) and mastodon. I'm 100% of the belief that developing tech is a priority even if we don't start making it asap for the possible new research options it opens up *cough* Ground Forces Zone Armor for the possible Navy (and aerospace?) variants *cough*.
 
Back
Top