Remove ads

Attempting to Fulfill the Plan: GDI Edition

Reader mode
So, because apparently working on Chicago is extremely popular, trying a plan modification that includes it, but also gets some of what I would prefer back in - security review, more help for ZOCOM with the advanced sonic weapons, and less ASAT overkill.

[X] Plan Attempting To Have Banks In Chicago, with security blanket
-[X] Infrastructure (5 dice + 2 Free dice, +32 bonus, 140 R)
--[X] Yellow Zone Fortress Towns Phase 6 273/300 (1 die, 20 R) (100% chance)
--[X] Chicago Planned City (Phase 4) 3/550 (6 dice + HI die, 120 R) (71% chance)
-[X] Heavy Industry (4 dice + 2 Free dice, +29 bonus, 110 R)
--[X] Continuous Cycle Fusion Plants (Phase 9) 236/300 (1 die, 20 R) (81% chance)
--[X] Advanced Alloys Development 0/120 (2 dice, 30 R) (94% chance)
--[X] Suzuka Prototype Hover Chassis Factory 0/175 (2 dice, 40 R) (50% chance)
--[X] Chicago Planned City Phase 4 (1 die, 20 R) (see above)
-[X] Light Industry (4 dice, +24 bonus, 80 R)
--[X] Bergen Superconductor Foundry (Phase 3) 251/380 (2 dice, 60 R) (79% chance)
--[X] Civilian Drone Factories 292/380 (1 die, 10 R) (52% chance)
--[X] Artificial Wood Development 0/60 (1 die, 10 R) (85% chance)
-[X] Agriculture (4 dice + 1 Free die, +24 bonus, 50 R)
--[X] Strategic Food Stockpile Construction Phase 4 134/200 (2 dice, 20 R) (99.99% chance of Phase 4)
--[X] Vertical Farming Projects (Stage 2) 65/240 2 dice 30R 40%
--[X] Free die for Security Review
-[X] Tiberium (7 dice + EREWHON!!!, +39 bonus, 170 R)
--[X] Red Zone Border Offensives (Stage 1) 0/250 (3 dice, 75 R) (74% chance)
--[X] Liquid Tiberium Power Cells (Phase 1+2) 41/280 (2 dice, 40 R) (99% Phase 1, 15% Phase 2) (-5/?? PS from Phase 1/2)
--[X] Visceroid Research Programs 0/120 (2 dice, 30 R) (99% chance) (-10 PS)
--[X] Venusian Tiberium Studies 95/120 (E die, 25 R) (91% chance)
--[X] Tiberium Harvesting Claw Deployment 363/380 (autocompletes without dice)
-[X] Orbital (6 dice, +26 bonus, 120 R)
--[X] Station Bay 0/400 (3 dice, 60 R) (3/5 median)
--[X] Leopard II Factory 0/350 (3 dice, 60 R) (2% chance)
-[X] Services (5 dice, +27 bonus, 110 R)
--[X] Human Genetic Engineering Programs 77/120 (1 die, 25 R) (100% chance) (-5 PS)
--[X] Regional Hospital Expansions (Phase 1) 121/300 (2 dice, 50 R) (42% chance)
--[X] Ocular Implant Development 83/120 (1 die, 20 R) (100% chance)
--[X] Hallucinogen Research 0/60 (1 die, 15 R) (88% chance)
-[X] Military (8 dice + 2 Free dice, +26 bonus, 220 R)
--[X] Ground Forces Zone Armor (London) 121/180 (2 dice, 40 R) (100% chance)
--[X] Zrbite Sonic Weapons Development 0/60 1 die 20R 87%
--[X] Sparkle Shield Module 0/120 (2 dice, 60 R) (91% chance)
--[X] OSRCT Stations (Phase 4) 319/395 (2 dice, 40 R) (100% with Seo bonus)
--[X] ASAT Defense System (Phase 4) (Updated) 36/220 3 dice 60R 93%
-[X] Bureaucracy (4 dice, 100 R)
--[X] Erewhon: I Hear You Like Space and Tiberium Research So Here Is Space Tiberium Research
--[X] Security Reviews (Agriculture) DC50 2 dice 100%
--[X] Banking Reforms (-100 R)
--[X] Make Political Promises (Updated)
---[X] FMP: ‌Complete Electric Vehicle Factory in Next Plan: +1d6 steps.
---[X] Market‌ ‌Socialist‌: Complete Electric Vehicle Factory in next Plan: +2d6 steps.
---[X] Homeland‌ ‌Party‌‌: Complete 2+ BZ Inhibitors by end of next plan: +3d6 Steps.
---[X] Biodiversity‌ ‌Party‌: Compete Dairy Ranching Domes phase 2 by end of next plan: 1d10 steps.
-[X] Total 1100/1155R + 110 Reserve

And because I still like my original plan:
[X]Plan Save Moneys, with more SCIENCE!
And to boost the various plans that aren't getting approval voted:
[X] Plan Refugees and Research
[X] Plan Security, Navy, Armor and Talons
[X] Plan Savings and Tech
 
Last edited:
[X] Plan Refugees and Research

This is very similar to @Simon_Jester's plan, save for a different slate of infrastructure choices and doing buckler shields instead of island-class development; and it's that last part that makes it my preference, because buckler shields explicitly require the stuff that uses it to be redesigned to take advantage so it makes zero sense to lock in a ship class design before we have it. Sadly, plan walls of guns also makes the same mistake. Hell, even the distant third place does naval platform dev prematurely.

I'll approval vote your plan if you swap island class for bucklers, Simon. Likewise for Wall of Guns.
 
Last edited:
I will say that I do like the Island Class development. The buckler shields will probably be great on it but if need be that can go on in the refits or the next ship design. In either case, I'd like to keep it as a thing we do.
 
Prime 2.0 said:
This is very similar to @Simon_Jester's plan, save for a different slate of infrastructure choices and doing buckler shields instead of island-class development; and it's that last part that makes it my preference, because buckler shields explicitly require the stuff that uses it to be redesigned to take advantage so it makes zero sense to lock in a ship class design before we have it. Sadly, plan walls of guns also makes the same mistake. Hell, even the distant third place does naval platform dev prematurely.

I'll approval vote your plan if you swap island class for bucklers, Simon. Likewise for Wall of Guns.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Let me explain why I think that specific choice isn't critically important. We begin with the blurb text for the technology:

A much stronger shield, designed to cover some small portion of the overall hull. While it will likely require substantial redesigns to field, it is also going to provide significant protection for weak points, or allow GDI to reduce total armoring.

...

Buckler shields are, of necessity, most useful when you can precisely predict the direction of incoming fire. They are also likely to be relatively more useful for covering smaller objects rather than larger ones.

The Island-class amphibious ship, in particular, is extremely large object. This is a "flattop" ship so large it routinely operates VTOL transports that are in turn capable of airlifting 70+ ton tanks. It is likely to be built to the same scale as an aircraft carrier, potentially a big aircraft carrier. So it would require an exceptionally expansive grid of buckler shields to provide meaningful coverage.

Furthermore, the doctrinal role of an amphibious assault ship means never actually getting close to the enemy. The ship is supposed to stay over the horizon, protected by a battlegroup of escorts. They are not normally designed with heavy layers of armor in mind, and expensive layers of shield generators would fall under the same general category.

If we were designing a ship intended to close with the enemy, especially given that many modern Nod warships mount powerful naval-scale direct fire energy weapons, I would assuredly want the buckler shields. I would want them before beginning work on the Governor-A refit, for example, or before any notional battleship refits we might get in the future. But I suspect that putting the buckler shields on the Island-class will represent a counterproductive form of feature creep; the tonnage cost of installing the technology on a scale large enough to protect a warship that's likely 200-300 meters long would detract significantly from the other missions of the ship, and the increased survivability would rarely work out to our advantage.

Just because a feature CAN be piled onto a ship, doesn't mean it SHOULD.

If I were going to pick one tech to put on the Islands in a hurry, it'd be Advanced ECCM, because that's much more likely to tie into their role as command and control ships for amphibious assaults that have to push over Nod-defended coastlines and deal with Nod's own jamming and electronic warfare capabilities. But since that's already a topic for a major refit of the entire military anyway, I don't consider it to be likely to make much of a difference.

And whatever happens, I refuse to repeat what happened with the escort carriers. Where first we delayed designing them because we didn't have wingman drones, and then it turned out that the drone-compatible carriers were bigger and would take longer to build anyway, and then the resulting ships were totally unavailable in time for the Regency War or even its aftermath.

The perfect is the enemy of the good, and Buckler Shields is not a key technology for an amphibious assault ship that's designed to sit in the middle of a battlegroup and toss VTOL transports at the enemy coastline.
 
Simon_Jester said:
The perfect is the enemy of the good, and Buckler Shields is not a key technology for an amphibious assault ship that's designed to sit in the middle of a battlegroup and toss VTOL transports at the enemy coastline.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Fair enough - I hadn't recalled that about its size. I wonder if stealth disruptors once developed would be able to be fit into their design, though? Hm.

Oh well.

[X] Plan Refugees and Research
[X] Plan Attempting To Have Banks In Chicago
 
Department of Refits (New)
With the military looking towards updating, replacing and refitting much of its equipment there will need to likewise be an update, replacement and refit of the production and handling facilities. Spinning this function off into a dedicated department will increase the efficiency while decreasing the Secretary of the Treasury's workload.
(-1 die) (-30 resources per turn) (30 progress towards each refit project per turn)


I'd like to take a minute to explain what this department is for and why I think people are missing not only the point... but what that actual cost is.

I've seen Simon talk about how unaffordable it is for the new plan at -30 RpT. That is a false problem. Its a military dice and thus with probable be used anyway. I haven't really seen a plan not using all the dice. (Could happen, but it'd cause people to freak out about wastefulness.)

So the cost of a military dice should not be considered as -30 RpT + the minimum RpD that can be spent. This looks to be 10 per dice for the research projects. Some projects are 15 RpD and some research projects are. So basically its 10-15 Rpt over the cheapest non-research project. Funny thing about all those research projects is that they open up new refit options thus make this more economical.

This department actually saves you RpT if used properly. To use it properly you first do a giant pile of research projects leading to refits and then your -30 Rpt is instead (2x)-15RpT per project. 3x projects 10 RpT per project. If you have 30x refit projects per turn its -1 Rpt per project. That would be incredible efficiency... if it was the only cost.

See the issue is that even if you just wait for the projects to finish they still (mostly) have a cost beyond RpT. That cost is you have to have the ongoing operational costs per project when they complete. So while you don't have to (though you can expedite said projects with normal dice use) and won't be paying the build cost... you will be paying any on going operational costs in Capital Goods, Energy, or whatever the project completion investment is.

That may be effectively free or may be costly across the board. Depends on the project completed.

Funny thing is though, in the short term being able to drop 10-15 RpD costs is good for the resource budget during the new plan spin up period. So you can just fire and forget certain projects with this department. Also less people annoying your Treasury head over 'Do it now!' things. Though not 'Do it faster' demands would continue.

Looking at the two current projects this would effect:

-Infernium Laser Refits:
In 15 turns your hit with a (-1 STU, -2 Energy) cost at the end. As its 30 RpD anyway that is 1 for 1 Resource per development. Not great efficiency, but you'll get meh progress while your gearing up for improved income stream.

-Ferro Aluminum Armor Refits:
Its stupid cheap at 5 RpD, which makes it not really worth it alone for dice efficiency reasons. However in 12 turns its complete at no additional cost. So a bonus to any other techs. However its also a great 5 RpD project for economic efficiency in these start of plan lean times.

Technically its worth it right now for those two projects alone. Technically. However you need to keep the research completing to be worth it long term and it gives you something productive to do while your spinning up the resource economy to exceptable levels for higher spending levels.

Project your likely to do anyway that probably count as refits:
-Advanced ECCM Development (Tech) refit if not redesign
-Stealth Disruptor Development (Tech) refit if not redesign
-Binary Propellant Exploration (Tech)
-Military Particle Beam Development (Tech)
-Infantry Recon Support Drone Development (Platform) probably factory building involved.
-Backpack Rocket Launcher Development (Platform) possible factories needed.
-Guardian Mark 2 Development (Platform) most likely refit, possible factory upgraades.
-MBT-7 Paladin Development (Platform) tank refit
-Mammoth Block Four Development (Platform) big tank refit
-GD-3 Rifle Development (Platform) refit and looks increasingly needed.
-Governor A Development (Platform) not only a refit, but a plan goal.
-Zone Lancer Development (Platform) refit and/or factory building
-Zrbite Sonic Weapons Development (Tech) refits and probably factory buiding
-Ultralight Glide Munitions Development (Platform) refit
-Hallucinogen Countermeasures Deployment: refit with chance of factory

Also Inferno Gel may count, but PS negative and lack of a real need for it at the moment.

Steel Talons want more shinies and there are 5-6 techs right now that scream refit and to keep the advisor bonus they want more spiffy stuffs:
-Medium Tactical Plasma Weapon Deployment
-Light Combat Laser Development (Tech)
-Heavy Combat Laser Development (Tech)
-Buckler Shield Development (Tech)
-Sparkle Shield Module (Tech) (High Priority)
possibly:
-Unmanned Support Ground Vehicle Development (Tech)
---

So the real question isn't if you should be invoking this department, but which project to do before you do it and which projects to load in after its spun off.
---

Department of Munitions will build one of the railgun munitions factories per year at present, though the first 2 or 3 should probably be done manually. Future projects that will probably be effected by this look to be:
-Backpack Rocket Launcher Development
-Binary Propellant Exploration (Tech)
-Ultralight Glide Munitions Development (Platform)

Same thing about having the supplies ready for completion ahead of time... also they may just build more of the munitions factories of old on the side.
---

I would suggest neither of these until after your new plan goals are set and you know what new dice expansion and contraction effects are kicking in though. I would suggest working out which projects to research first.

Also, once the Tiberium of Venus project is completed (its really a see what tech you need to even try to effect that project), I'd really suggest the one to revise your the continuous fusion reactors. You've got far to many of things to have them start breaking down on you at random... plus you may be able to get more energy without more upkeep out of it.
 
I support doing Chicago now because we are not going to be able to build any significant Capital Goods projects in the next year, and we need to fill our reserve ASAP so that the private market can start functioning again.
Yes, it delays good quality housing, but quality housing is the only cheap projects that we'll be able to afford next year. And the last results update indicated that we can expect the refugee wave to stop. NOD are getting their act together.
Lightwhispers said:
6) We have a *fuckton* of "unfinished business" projects.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Do they use Infra dice?

@Ithillid Does building a new station's central frame on Earth and using old rockets to get it into space really lock that station out of getting later benefits from new rockets and orbital fabrication? Because it make no sense to me that it would work this way.
 
HousePet said:
Do they use Infra dice?

@Ithillid Does building a new station's central frame on Earth and using old rockets to get it into space really lock that station out of getting later benefits from new rockets and orbital fabrication? Because it make no sense to me that it would work this way.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
One of the major reasons I decided against pulling things up and doing Plan FIFO 2.0 is that it would start with Karachi. So, in short: Yes.

And, switching designs and manufacturing techniques in the middle of construction sounds like something that would *at least* not help. That's how I see it, at least.
 
Prime 2.0 said:
Fair enough - I hadn't recalled that about its size.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm just working off basic known facts. They have to be big enough to operate V-35s, and a V-35 can carry a literal tank. That makes the amphibs big chunky boys by default.

Likewise, we can compare their size to real world ships that do the same thing, such as the Americans' amphibious warfare ships. Which... yeah, are well over 200 meters long and displace something over forty thousand tons, being built to the same scale as World War Two aircraft carriers.

I wonder if stealth disruptors once developed would be able to be fit into their design, though? Hm.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Maybe, but stealth disruptors are apparently some kind of active 'ray' weapon that interferes with cloaking devices, as I understand it. Therefore, for the same reason that I don't expect buckler shields to be very useful on an amphibious assault ship, I don't expect stealth disruptors to be useful.

Necratoid said:
I'd like to take a minute to explain what this department is for and why I think people are missing not only the point... but what that actual cost is.

I've seen Simon talk about how unaffordable it is for the new plan at -30 RpT. That is a false problem. Its a military dice and thus with probable be used anyway. I haven't really seen a plan not using all the dice. (Could happen, but it'd cause people to freak out about wastefulness.)

So the cost of a military dice should not be considered as -30 RpT + the minimum RpD that can be spent. This looks to be 10 per dice for the research projects. Some projects are 15 RpD and some research projects are. So basically its 10-15 Rpt over the cheapest non-research project. Funny thing about all those research projects is that they open up new refit options thus make this more economical.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We have 800 points worth of Railgun Munitions at 10 R/die, 200 points worth of support satellites at 10 R/die, and 350 points of Ferro-Aluminum Armor Refits at 5 R/die (!!!). Aside from a very small number of dice spent on really important projects, I expect those to be the predominant spending categories for 2062Q1-Q2 in Military.

What it comes down to is that yes, yes, the spinoff bureau gives you something good, gives you something worth what you pay for it. If it can run even four refit projects concurrently at 30 Progress per turn, then it's well worth it under nearly all circumstances. Three concurrent refit projects is pretty good, if not great.

It's just that 30 RpT is actually a nontrivial fraction of all disposable income we will even have in 2062Q1. It's a lot. It's something like 10-20% of the money we'll have left over after quasi-mandatory massive spending on Tiberium projects.

It's a LOT of money to lock ourselves into spending, even if we will totally and indisputably get our money's worth out of it in the event that we decide to spend it.

So I'm just begging everyone, can we please please wait until 2062Q1 when we know what our post-reallocation budget looks like before taking this. Because it might be fine, we might have the money, we might be able to, say, cash in 20 PS and evaporate 90 RpT worth of line items and suddenly we can breathe a lot more freely and it's great! But we might not. We don't know yet. It's not a good time to make binding irreversible choices, even ones that seem pretty damn good, because while the refits are great, we're not in that much crushing danger without them.

Also, I strongly suspect that @Ithillid will cap the maximum number of refit projects the bureau can do at once, just to avoid too much blatant cheese.

-Guardian Mark 2 Development (Platform) most likely refit, possible factory upgraades.
-MBT-7 Paladin Development (Platform) tank refit
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
These are explicitly redesigns, not refits. An MBT-6 Predator with all the trimmings cannot be turned into a Paladin. A Guardian II cannot be built out of a normal Guardian.

I think you're being grossly optimistic about how many projects count as refits, in other words, because a refit is when you take an existing platform and modify it, or an existing production line and modify it slightly.
 
[X] Plan Microfusion Dreams, Fleet Memes
 
Simon_Jester said:
These are explicitly redesigns, not refits. An MBT-6 Predator with all the trimmings cannot be turned into a Paladin. A Guardian II cannot be built out of a normal Guardian.

I think you're being grossly optimistic about how many projects count as refits, in other words, because a refit is when you take an existing platform and modify it, or an existing production line and modify it slightly.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Refit projects are about refitting factories, not vehicles. If we're retooling a factory to produce an updated tank, the bureau applies. If we're building a new factory to make the updated tank, it doesn't. We're not going to keep producing predators so those old factories will be retooled to produce something else, probably the new ones, so the bureau may apply to some but not most of that deployment.

Or so I've gathered from watching Q&As with ithillid on discord, take with salt.
 
Last edited:
By the end of this coming 4 year plan I want the monitors fully implemented. They provide basically a modular hull that we can shift to whatever mission profile we need at the time. It is a way to gain extra hulls on very short notice in specialties. Submarine hunting or convoy defense to actually going on the offensive. It can be shifted around to shore up weaknesses or enhance strengths and give our navy a lot of wiggle room when it comes to doing their jobs.

It also means that more hulls in the water brings us closer to overcoming the current NOD advantage in the waters. At the moment we are the ones barely holding on and defending our own supply routes and convoys while they can freely perform raids on our assets and not even seem to need to worry about defending their own convoys!

Take back the oceans of the planet! Or at the very least reach parity so they have to take our fleets seriously. Right now they are just a joke to the forces of NOD.
 
Simon_Jester said:
So I'm just begging everyone, can we please please wait until 2062Q1 when we know what our post-reallocation budget looks like before taking this.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
*looks up the math that was done... thanks Derpmind*
Assuming no further income from this turn:
Tiberium‌ ‌Processing‌ ‌Capacity‌ ‌(2115/3070)‌, so +2115
Taxation Per Turn: +30
Space Mining Per Turn: +100
Maintenance Reductions: +40

Total, minus Space Mining (because we get 100% of that), is 2185R/turn
20% budget = 437 rounds to 435 +100 = 535Rpt - 165Rpt for commitments = 370Rpt + reserve
25% budget = 546.25 rounds to 545 + 100 = 645Rpt - 165Rpt for commitments = 480Rpt + reserve
30% budget = 655.5 rounds to 655 + 100 = 755Rpt - 165Rpt for commitments = 590 Rpt + reserve

So, assuming we keep a reserve of 150R, that means we have between 520 and 740 Resources Q1
If we go for one of the higher-saving plans, that jumps by another 150ish, to between 670 and 890R

Simon_Jester said:
These are explicitly redesigns, not refits. An MBT-6 Predator with all the trimmings cannot be turned into a Paladin. A Guardian II cannot be built out of a normal Guardian.

I think you're being grossly optimistic about how many projects count as refits, in other words, because a refit is when you take an existing platform and modify it, or an existing production line and modify it slightly.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
As mentioned, the bureau's refit remit applies to factory refits as well as refits of existing platforms, or so it sounds.
F0lkL0re said:
Nowhere because we have yet to roll the damned things out.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We literally just rolled them out. From Q3's results:
"
[ ] Mastodon Heavy Assault Walker Deployment (High Priority)
...
(Progress 259/225: 10 resources per die) (-3 Energy, -1 Capital Goods, -1 Labor, -1 STU) [89]

The first of the Mastodons have walked off the production lines..."
Daniel14541 said:
By the end of this coming 4 year plan I want the monitors fully implemented. They provide basically a modular hull that we can shift to whatever mission profile we need at the time. It is a way to gain extra hulls on very short notice in specialties. Submarine hunting or convoy defense to actually going on the offensive. It can be shifted around to shore up weaknesses or enhance strengths and give our navy a lot of wiggle room when it comes to doing their jobs.

It also means that more hulls in the water brings us closer to overcoming the current NOD advantage in the waters. At the moment we are the ones barely holding on and defending our own supply routes and convoys while they can freely perform raids on our assets and not even seem to need to worry about defending their own convoys!

Take back the oceans of the planet! Or at the very least reach parity so they have to take our fleets seriously. Right now they are just a joke to the forces of NOD.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No. You are fundamentally misunderstanding what monitors are.
They are coastal invasion support vessels. Yes, they are somewhat modular, but they are not designed for long-range operations, away from land. Try to put them on convoy defense and they will make the convoys more vulnerable, because they're trying to help the monitors which are busy floundering, or even capsizing. If you want control of the sea, as opposed to invasion support, you want more Governors and Sharks.
 
Lightwhispers said:
We literally just rolled them out. From Q3's results:
"
[ ] Mastodon Heavy Assault Walker Deployment (High Priority)
...
(Progress 259/225: 10 resources per die) (-3 Energy, -1 Capital Goods, -1 Labor, -1 STU) [89]

The first of the Mastodons have walked off the production lines..."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I was talking about plasma weapons.

EDIT:
Specifically these ones
Ithillid said:
[ ] Medium Tactical Plasma Weapon Deployment
A medium weight ion cannon, capable of being fielded on the Titan and other Initiative vehicles, and as a secondary weapon on other systems, is a potentially substantial increase in direct firepower. Deployment is likely to be small scale however, as it is less flexible, barring further delays in deployment of variable munitions for the Initiative's railguns.
(Progress 0/80: 30 resources per die)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
Simon_Jester said:
These are explicitly redesigns, not refits. An MBT-6 Predator with all the trimmings cannot be turned into a Paladin. A Guardian II cannot be built out of a normal Guardian.

I think you're being grossly optimistic about how many projects count as refits, in other words, because a refit is when you take an existing platform and modify it, or an existing production line and modify it slightly.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The military refit department will include refitting production lines for new units.

This will not cover all needs for new units that are replacing old units, but it will cover some of them.
 
F0lkL0re said:
I was talking about plasma weapons.

EDIT:
Specifically these ones
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Ah, valid. Sorry, it sounded like you meant the Mastodons.

But even with the deployment of the mid-scale plasma cannons, I'm not sure they would be switched out - railguns allow for more varied operation, and possibly even artillery-style fire missions. Unless size proves to be a problem, I imagine they would be more likely to go on the Titans for direct-fire blastyness.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top