Remove ads

Project Knight [Mecha Design Bureau]

Voting is open for the next 10 hours, 44 minutes
Reader mode
Why are you guys wanting to try and move the gun, which is noted in the brief as to make it ever further from the PDF screen we have for it? Making it ever easier to be taken out and then neutering the mech entirely? It's a fixed mount tank gun. There is no turret and very little depression involved. Furthermore, the gun in question is entirely unsuited for Anti-air duties in the first place. It's a tank destroyer set up and it will never be good for AA, if you wanted an AA capable design, you'd need either missiles with good ecm and eccm, lasers or rapid-fire ballistics on a turret. Not a fixed mount big gun.

Furthermore, it's ultimately a MINOR issue, and one that was never going to be relevant in the design's use case anyways. Instead of throwing off the balance of the design entirely as now we have to reposition ammunition, fire suppressors, and literally everything else in the mech because we're trying to move the big and bulky gun around, perhaps we should attempt to get more buyers with pertinent issue instead?
[X]Plan Amazon Bid
[X] Plan No Amazon
[X] Plan Not a Parade Mech
[X]Plan Cheaper than a Kalashnikov
[X] Plan Simon Says Simplify
 
Last edited:
CuriousRaptor said:
Why are you guys wanting to try and move the gun, which is noted in the brief as to make it ever further from the PDF screen we have for it?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
As for myself? Because I disagree with you. All the arguments have already been made and it seems that at least some of the voters have read the discussion and decided that it sounds like a good idea. You might think it's a bad idea and that's fine. Only 1 of the three plans I presented and voted for have it. I don't feel it's a 100% must have. On the other hand I feel it's potentially worth the cost.

As for the other element of disagreement. I've said my piece, you've said yours and the QM said it was enough barring some brand new POV.

I admit I'm amused that my plans have a 3 way tie with a different mix of people voting for each of them. Just 1 vote behind the current leading plan.
 
Speaking of which...
Verisaimilitude said:
they are likely to flood the market with cheap, disposable mecha. Market Analysts believe despite their attempts to impress proper militaries, they are most likely to gain market share with Private Security Companies and Colonial Militias
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
They stole my dream! I dreamed building of a mech to be in every garage...

I wonder if there will be new contracts available in the next round. If not, I'd be up for going bigger (Great Powers or Superpowers) in the hopes of big military procurement purchases.
 
i like efficiency, the mech has a lot of empty space inside it, space it doesn't need, i voted for the plan that cuts the mechs size and shape down to what it actually needs now that we know what it needed.

Should make for a cheaper lighter more nimble mech.
 
CuriousRaptor said:
Why are you guys wanting to try and move the gun, which is noted in the brief as to make it ever further from the PDF screen we have for it? Making it ever easier to be taken out and then neutering the mech entirely? It's a fixed mount tank gun. There is no turret and very little depression involved. Furthermore, the gun in question is entirely unsuited for Anti-air duties in the first place. It's a tank destroyer set up and it will never be good for AA, if you wanted an AA capable design, you'd need either missiles with good ecm and eccm, lasers or rapid-fire ballistics on a turret. Not a fixed mount big gun.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Using the main gun to shoot at aircraft is indeed a silly thing.
but that's not the reason and never has been part of the reason to scoot the main gun back. It's that the main gun is blocking the existing dedicated PD turret from shooting straight upwards. we scoot the main gun back a bit, and that clears up that line of fire for the turrent.
 
CuriousRaptor said:
Furthermore, it's ultimately a MINOR issue, and one that was never going to be relevant in the design's use case anyways. Instead of throwing off the balance of the design entirely as now we have to reposition ammunition, fire suppressors, and literally everything else in the mech because we're trying to move the big and bulky gun around, perhaps we should attempt to get more buyers with pertinent issue instead?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think it's at least in part that it's been noted as a complication with the colored text and everything.

It also seems like most people have given up on going for contracts at this point? I think it's leaving money on the table, but the winning plans have gone all in on ignoring gaining more customers in favor of being cheaper.
 
TerrisH said:
Using the main gun to shoot at aircraft is indeed a silly thing.
but that's not the reason and never has been part of the reason to scoot the main gun back. It's that the main gun is blocking the existing dedicated PD turret from shooting straight upwards. we scoot the main gun back a bit, and that clears up that line of fire for the turrent.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Except it means that the turret is now farther away and thus even harder to defend, and we now have all our ammo at risk of cook off as it's no longer in the same chassis area as the cockpit fire suppression systems. Which is bad.
 
Lohjak said:
It also seems like most people have given up on going for contracts at this point? I think it's leaving money on the table, but the winning plans have gone all in on ignoring gaining more customers in favor of being cheaper.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
All the leading plans are working towards either Bethnar and/or the SCC. The leading plan is going HARD towards Bethnar. None of them are trying for the Amazon contract, but many people think it's not worth it to try.

Cut to Snub-Nosed Hull on its own has a ok chance to hit the Bethnar target. Composite Plating Research has an ok chance to hit the SCC target. Plan Double down on the SCC also just flat out adds more armour with the hopes of getting the SCC's attention.

If one really wants to keep the moving the gun back from winning you could attempt to tip the balance and approval vote on some of the other leading plans.
 
Jalinth said:
All the leading plans are working towards either Bethnar and/or the SCC. The leading plan is going HARD towards Bethnar. None of them are trying for the Amazon contract, but many people think it's not worth it to try.

Cut to Snub-Nosed Hull on its own has a ok chance to hit the Bethnar target. Composite Plating Research has an ok chance to hit the SCC target. Plan Double down on the SCC also just flat out adds more armour with the hopes of getting the SCC's attention.

If one really wants to keep the moving the gun back from winning you could attempt to tip the balance and approval vote on some of the other leading plans.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Honestly, I think Bethnar barely even counts as a customer. It doesn't sound like they're going to buy more than a company or so of mechs to show off, and they're certainly not going to see much in the way of attrition.
 
[X] Plan Double down on the SCC
[X] Plan Field of Fire

It's eminently possible to pick up both Bethnar and SCC with decent rolls, and getting one or both seems liable to be much more impactful on our profits and, more importantly, reputation than simply picking up a few extra orders at a slightly better margin from already-interested clients.
 
Lohjak said:
Honestly, I think Bethnar barely even counts as a customer. It doesn't sound like they're going to buy more than a company or so of mechs to show off, and they're certainly not going to see much in the way of attrition.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I feel they are a perfectly legitimate customer. Just because they don't plan to go to war doesn't mean that war won't come to them. I've not voted for the currently ahead by 1 vote plan that is going all in on them, but saying it is "ignoring gaining more customers" is patently incorrect. If I'm going to get accused of lying and distorting facts I'm not going to let an incorrect statement slide the next day. Adding something like "worthwhile" there would change it from a factually incorrect statement to a matter of opinion.

Other plans are trying for SCC who feel like a much more potentially lucrative customer. It's unlikely but with good rolls Plan Double down on the SCC might get 2 clients. Quite far from forgetting about gaining any new ones. You might think it's not the best way to go about it, but I would kindly ask you not distort the facts to fit your narrative. Because I'm still slightly annoyed about that accusation directed at me yesterday and am glad that the QM stated that it was a legitimate possibility, even if it was by no means a sure thing.

For those curious as to what I felt that there could be consequences of things not listed in the option voted it, it is because it's happened at least 3 times. The blind spot, the heat sink problems, and the big combination of factors that gives the mech the indirect fire option. I can make mistakes but I'm not going to be bloody well lying for a vote in a quest.
 
To be honest, in my view the only critical upgrade in this turn is Cheaper Coolant/Resilient Piping. Other options are just gradual improvements for an already decent design, so whichever leading plan wins is going to be decent. I'd prefer something that is not [ ] Plan Field of Fire, but even that wouldn't be actively bad.

I initially considered the partial blind spot to be much more important, but two things convinced me to disregard the Relocate Main Gun to Rear Hull option. First, that our mecha has just one minor point defense turret, so against a dedicated air attack blind spot or no blind spot won't make that much of a difference. Second, engineering concerns of moving the main gun away from the ammunition storages and fire suppression systems. It might cause more problems than it solves. It likely won't, but we're near the end of the design process and I'm not comfortable with it.
 
Jalinth said:
I feel they are a perfectly legitimate customer. Just because they don't plan to go to war doesn't mean that war won't come to them. I've not voted for the currently ahead by 1 vote plan that is going all in on them, but saying it is "ignoring gaining more customers" is patently incorrect. If I'm going to get accused of lying and distorting facts I'm not going to let an incorrect statement slide the next day. Adding something like "worthwhile" there would change it from a factually incorrect statement to a matter of opinion.

Other plans are trying for SCC who feel like a much more potentially lucrative customer. It's unlikely but with good rolls Plan Double down on the SCC might get 2 clients. Quite far from forgetting about gaining any new ones. You might think it's not the best way to go about it, but I would kindly ask you not distort the facts to fit your narrative. Because I'm still slightly annoyed about that accusation directed at me yesterday and am glad that the QM stated that it was a legitimate possibility, even if it was by no means a sure thing.

For those curious as to what I felt that there could be consequences of things not listed in the option voted it, it is because it's happened at least 3 times. The blind spot, the heat sink problems, and the big combination of factors that gives the mech the indirect fire option. I can make mistakes but I'm not going to be bloody well lying for a vote in a quest.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No, they're not expecting to see any combat anytime soon, and even if they were they're probably too broke to do anything about it:
Verisaimilitude said:
Since regaining its independence following the Persian Civil War at the turn of the millennium, the Bethnari state has become a model for reconstructing exhausted nations. They are safe from war at home, but wish to restore their prestige by procuring some level of advanced military technology - they want something advanced and fancy enough to show off on parade. If it's not practical, that's fine - but they are on a tight budget, so keeping costs down is essential.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
They've been laid out as probably the least valuable prospective buyer for a while now.

And why are you being so self-righteous? Your argument rested solely on nebulous "well actually this specific option will have terrible detriments and the other ones won't". The QM has come out and said that it might or might not and that they're flying by the seat of their pants and don't actually know yet—but then the same is probably true for all the options. It's just not a good argument, and your response to being called out on it is to go to bed and come back the next day scolding people for it?

I can admit that "going for no new customers" is an exaggeration and that technically the winning plans usually do go for Bethnar—I just think that Bethnar is not a valuable customer to have.

EDIT: also it's been over 24 hours why are you even bringing it back up?
 
Last edited:
Lohjak said:
EDIT: also it's been over 24 hours why are you even bringing it back up?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I thought my last post made things clear. When you and curious raptor disagreed with my statements I was faced with accusations of lying and distorting facts. I left because I could see no way to convince you, and any further discussion was pointless. When I saw you making a clearly incorrect statement to support your position I was not willing to let it pass. Might have been for the best to have done so, as it's fairly irrelevant. I severely doubt that your words are going to shift the way the vote is currently going.

If you have any response feel free to make it. I have nothing further to add on the topic. I shall allow you to get in the last word.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Voting is open for the next 10 hours, 44 minutes
Remove ads
Back
Top