Blood, Sweat, and Tears (WH40k Design Bureau)

Explosive shells will provide a benefit to a much larger portion of our forces, since our primary fleet weapon is macrocannons. See the difference between our solid shots and explosive shells fired by traitor warships:

As happy as the Calavan gun mafia would be to go with that argument I suspect, Macrocannons and torpedoes have slightly different roles in the battlefield. More pertinently, the DPS of torpedoes is potentially vastly higher then that of Macrocannons. Except that, right now, they kind of aren't for us.

We lose in flexibility what we gain in power if we let the gap between line guns and torpedoes get too far.
 
As happy as the Calavan gun mafia would be to go with that argument I suspect, Macrocannons and torpedoes have slightly different roles in the battlefield. More pertinently, the DPS of torpedoes is potentially vastly higher then that of Macrocannons. Except that, right now, they kind of aren't for us.

We lose in flexibility what we gain in power if we let the gap between line guns and torpedoes get too far.
Ok, how about we do the following research:
1. Better Armor
2. Proper explosive shells for our macrocannons.
3. Subsidiary Shipyard design
4. Better Torpedoes
 
Ok, how about we do the following research:
1. Better Armor
2. Proper explosive shells for our macrocannons.
3. Subsidiary Shipyard design
4. Better Torpedoes

Heh, sounds fine too me. Really, though, aside from long term plans, we also have to plan for what we are going to construct next and what we are planning on deploying the things we build on.

Hmmm, I think that we if we DO go with the plasma shells that we can wait on the torpedoes. And vice versa. I slightly want the torpedoes researched, because of the reasons I have outlined, but it's not like macrocannon superiority is a bad thing. In all honesty....we are a glass canon as is and it hasn't worked out badly for us seeing as everyone we fight has gone almost all full on for defensive features.

Depending on what Dalinty says the dealio with the armor is, I do not believe it's strictly necessary right now.

Like, what are we doing this turn and the next few that we need better stuff for?
 
Ok, how about we do the following research:
1. Better Armor
2. Proper explosive shells for our macrocannons.
3. Subsidiary Shipyard design
4. Better Torpedoes
We don't need to research better armor. We're going to get it free once we repair the industrial platform.

I could go for:
1: Subsidiary shipyards
2: Macrocannon shells
3: Better torpedoes
4: Macrocannon streamlining to try to remove the 1A cost

The artisinal labor cost on our mkII macrocannons seriously crimps our ability to turn out new ships with good weapons. I'm poking at a plan that makes three ships and one defense platform plus starting the cruiser, and it's sitting at 8A before even starting on the cruiser (which needs 8A of its own between this turn and next).
 
We don't need to research better armor. We're going to get it free once we repair the industrial platform.

I could go for:
1: Subsidiary shipyards
2: Macrocannon shells
3: Better torpedoes
4: Macrocannon streamlining to try to remove the 1A cost

The artisinal labor cost on our mkII macrocannons seriously crimps our ability to turn out new ships with good weapons. I'm poking at a plan that makes three ships and one defense platform plus starting the cruiser, and it's sitting at 8A before even starting on the cruiser (which needs 8A of its own between this turn and next).
It says it enables superior armor, but we currently don't have any designs for superior armor.

Im not sure that we can reduce that 1A cost in the macrocannons. The Imperial cannon designs also require A, so maybe we should look into getting more A production.
Alternative idea: The 1A cost in the macrocannons comes solely from making the accelerator coils, so maybe we could design a facility or expansion dedicated to producing the coils for the macrocannons, in effective giving us extra Artisan output dedicated to making macrocannons.

@DaLintyGuy Could we design a facility or an expansion to the Octan Platform to provide more Artisan output? Or is Artisan output solely the domain of the Mechanicus.
 
It says it enables superior armor, but we currently don't have any designs for superior armor.

Im not sure that we can reduce that 1A cost in the macrocannons. The Imperial cannon designs also require A, so maybe we should look into getting more A production.
Alternative idea: The 1A cost in the macrocannons comes solely from making the accelerator coils, so maybe we could design a facility or expansion dedicated to producing the coils for the macrocannons, in effective giving us extra Artisan output dedicated to making macrocannons.

@DaLintyGuy Could we design a facility or an expansion to the Octan Platform to provide more Artisan output? Or is Artisan output solely the domain of the Mechanicus.
We could try and design artisanal workshops with automation and trained assistants for labor multiplication.
 
Oh, how much would they probably cost to build from scratch?

Have the Lexicalum actually come up with stuff? Does this help us in some way?
8-ish Manufacturing, which honestly is what I should have had the Farstrikes cost.

Lexicalum has started building their own hulls.
we could have done that at any time, so I'm not sure what the point is. @DaLintyGuy, do the better armor materials give us a new design free when we do the repairs?
I'm going to go with yes on this one.
The problem with designing better armor was that we previously couldn't make advanced materials in large quantities, hence why the plating in Scaffold armor is softer alloy with a plasteel facing instead of being made entirely of plasteel. With the platform from Octan, this production cap is lifted.
Essentially.
A lot of our enemies are relatively lightly armored, meaning that explosive shells will rip large holes in them compared to solid shot
That description was a ship with an Armor rating of 3 and Battery 3 turrets slapping your trio of straight unarmored ships with Battery 2 installed. Or... Maybe 1, it's been a while.
The point being that while explosive shells are one way of increasing your damage penetrators are also another if you build for it. All the vitals of a ship are buried in the core rather than on the surface after all.
More pertinently, the DPS of torpedoes is potentially vastly higher then that of Macrocannons. Except that, right now, they kind of aren't for us.
Torpedoes are burst damage, not DPS, though they do typically have a longer range.
@DaLintyGuy Could we design a facility or an expansion to the Octan Platform to provide more Artisan output? Or is Artisan output solely the domain of the Mechanicus.
Artisan is solely the Mechanicus, though things can have their A cost reduced. Representing superior machining being introduced through whatever method... For that specific process.
 
That description was a ship with an Armor rating of 3 and Battery 3 turrets slapping your trio of straight unarmored ships with Battery 2 installed. Or... Maybe 1, it's been a while.
The point being that while explosive shells are one way of increasing your damage penetrators are also another if you build for it. All the vitals of a ship are buried in the core rather than on the surface after all.
That was our MkI macrocannons (battery 2) against the Carmine Glory, which only had 2 armor, according to the NavInt post.
 
Torpedoes are burst damage, not DPS, though they do typically have a longer range.

Yeah, I suppose Burst Damage is a better way of putting it.

On Lexicum building their own hulls: Are they basing them on the Spatha, Saber or any of the others that we have designed? I suppose they could make research and make their own, but they most have so much experience with what's build in Calavar that the only reason why they wouldn't go with ours is that they still have blueprints for some more of the traditional IN stuff.
 
Alright, so we can research:
1. Remove Artisan cost from Macrocannons Mk2
2. Proper explosive shells for our macrocannons.
3. Subsidiary Shipyard design
4. Better Torpedoes

I still think explosive shells is the way to go, because many of the ships we are facing don't have good armor, and we can use plasma shells and lances against the tougher targets.
 
That was our MkI macrocannons (battery 2) against the Carmine Glory, which only had 2 armor, according to the NavInt post.
Hm. Good point. Still, essentially the same reasoning, and the the Carmine was also more experienced then your ships.
Yeah, I suppose Burst Damage is a better way of putting it.

On Lexicum building their own hulls: Are they basing them on the Spatha, Saber or any of the others that we have designed? I suppose they could make research and make their own, but they most have so much experience with what's build in Calavar that the only reason why they wouldn't go with ours is that they still have blueprints for some more of the traditional IN stuff.
They are focusing on carriers converted from civilian hulls, as replacing strike craft is easier for ships and familiarity with your ships isn't the same as having the tooling or blueprints to make them.
 
Hm. Good point. Still, essentially the same reasoning, and the the Carmine was also more experienced then your ships.

They are focusing on carriers converted from civilian hulls, as replacing strike craft is easier for ships and familiarity with your ships isn't the same as having the tooling or blueprints to make them.

Have they finally come around to the true path of the Savior? :p
 
Thinking on it, removing the artisan point cost of the MkII Macrocannons sound like a good research. Maybe further refining it will help us with our research of IN macrocannons in the future.
 
Calavan Tortoise and Angery Tortle (reward TBD)
The bulk haulers produced by Calavar, widely known as Calavan Tortoises, are not the most cost-efficient freighters, but they are generally considered "broadly adequate", and form a key part of the war effort. The arched central hull above the cargo cylinders provides ample space for crew and machinery, although in many cases it is simply fitted out to haul more cargo.


Heavily modified for military purposes, but still readily recognizable, the Strife-class assault carrier carries Calavan troops and strikecraft into battle in large numbers. Its rounded civilian prow, among other features, betrays its civilian origins. Among enlisted men, it is universally known as the "Angry Turtle".


 
Last edited:
The bulk haulers produced by Calavar, widely known as Calavan Tortoises, are not the most cost-efficient freighters, but they are generally considered "broadly adequate", and form a key part of the war effort. The arched central hull above the cargo cylinders provides ample space for crew and machinery, although in many cases it is simply fitted out to haul more cargo.


Heavily modified for military purposes, but still readily recognizable, the Scorn-class assault carrier carries Calavan troops and strikecraft into battle in large numbers. Its rounded civilian prow, among other features, betrays its civilian origins. Among enlisted men, it is universally known as the "Angry Turtle".


I must protest!

The angry turtle doesn't have features that would make it look as if it had an angry face!
 
Oh, there it is, hiding between the Indomitable II and the Warrior II. Never mind then, although I think 60M might be undercommitting.

Boarding shuttles are the key to being able to actually capture ships, which has the potential to do us a lot of good. Improved warp drives, I think, are best gotten by trading with Grudan (or maybe even Narran, if we can reclaim the orbitals for them).
We don't need to put all spare resources into Gehault repair. 60M should allow at least a couple of Gehault Imperial Navy ships to get back to full capacity or at least almost full capacity. Which will do nicely to point out to the Gehault captains and other lower ranking personnel that being friends with Calavar has quite a bit of benefits.

While i'd love to put all the M into Gehault we need more ships of our own.

If we can remove the A cost of MkII Macrocannons I'd like to take a turn to churn out 5 Warrior IIs to replace all of the Resolutes and Warriors currently on our frontline squadrons which are rather showing their age with their systems. After which we can establish more patrol squadrons. Hell, start replacing all the escort carriers in our frontline squadrons with Courantes and dump the escort carriers into the patrol squadrons.
 
Last edited:
We don't need to put all spare resources into Gehault repair. 60M should allow at least a couple of Gehault Imperial Navy ships to get back to full capacity or at least almost full capacity. Which will do nicely to point out to the Gehault captains and other lower ranking personnel that being friends with Calavar has quite a bit of benefits.

While i'd love to put all the M into Gehault we need more ships of our own.

If we can remove the A cost of MkII Macrocannons I'd like to take a turn to churn out 5 Warrior IIs to replace all of the Resolutes and Warriors currently on our frontline squadrons. After which we can establish more patrol squadrons. Hell, start replacing all the escort carriers in our frontline squadrons with Courantes and dump the escort carriers into the patrol squadrons.
I mean obviously we aren't going to spend all 270M this turn, but I was thinking more like a third to a half of the total. Don't forget, these are five-year turns.

I definitely agree that we need to be cycling our Resolutes out of the naval squadrons (and into patrol squadrons), but I don't know about doing it all in one turn. We have so much other stuff that needs doing.
 
I mean obviously we aren't going to spend all 270M this turn, but I was thinking more like a third to a half of the total. Don't forget, these are five-year turns.

I definitely agree that we need to be cycling our Resolutes out of the naval squadrons (and into patrol squadrons), but I don't know about doing it all in one turn. We have so much other stuff that needs doing.
If the subsidied dockyard research works, it would be worth taking a few turns to set those up so that we can have them do all the escort replacing if we can for example.
 
Last edited:
If the subsidies dockyard research works, it would be worth taking a few turns to set those up so that we can have them do all the escort replacing if we can for example.
I doubt we'll have to directly worry about which shipyards are building which ships, but yes, it would be a lot more manageable with more industry. And, if it turns out we don't get direct control over the subsidiary shipyards, "build escorts" is pretty much what we'll want them on. (That would suck, though.)
 
I mean obviously we aren't going to spend all 270M this turn, but I was thinking more like a third to a half of the total. Don't forget, these are five-year turns.

I definitely agree that we need to be cycling our Resolutes out of the naval squadrons (and into patrol squadrons), but I don't know about doing it all in one turn. We have so much other stuff that needs doing.
Fair. Eh, we'll see how much we can shove into the Gehault repairs once we know how much we've got in terms of M (we should have more since we are seeing less pirate attacks and Homna as well as Lativa has been cleared).

That's true. If we can remove the A cost from MK II macros then the total cost of 5 Warrior IIs (which is what we need to replace the various Resolutes and Warrior in service in the naval squadrons) is 215M. Pretty easily able to be split between two turns.
 
Edit: Why are we using Atomic missiles in the terrestial batteries? We could use Mk1 Macrocannons to improve damage by 0.5 and range to short, without making them more expensive
Because DaLintyGuy said that missile batteries can be fired in 'shoot people on the ground' mode as a sort of ICBM type thing, allowing them to bring bottled sunlight to landed enemy armies that slack off on their anti-air defense if needed back when I was getting them built. And given that for the purposes of 'bullying invader transports so they have to land elsewhere' the missiles were still fine, I took the additional anti-land capacity given that it was a hassle to get people to go for even a single ground battery given our admittedly not-minor needs to spend on shipping. If we add more batteries to a planet they probably should have Macrocannons, but it's good to have some missile silos around you know?

I mean obviously we aren't going to spend all 270M this turn, but I was thinking more like a third to a half of the total. Don't forget, these are five-year turns.
I'd support spending at least 90M on it, which is literally a third. We don't want them to be feeling short changed or that we're slacking off and not repairing them after all.
 
Because DaLintyGuy said that missile batteries can be fired in 'shoot people on the ground' mode as a sort of ICBM type thing, allowing them to bring bottled sunlight to landed enemy armies that slack off on their anti-air defense if needed back when I was getting them built. And given that for the purposes of 'bullying invader transports so they have to land elsewhere' the missiles were still fine, I took the additional anti-land capacity given that it was a hassle to get people to go for even a single ground battery given our admittedly not-minor needs to spend on shipping. If we add more batteries to a planet they probably should have Macrocannons, but it's good to have some missile silos around you know?


I'd support spending at least 90M on it, which is literally a third. We don't want them to be feeling short changed or that we're slacking off and not repairing them after all.
Fair enough. Now that we've finished the shipyard upgrades, we should have at least 420 Manufacturing available, so 90 M towards Gehault repairs should be within our means even with starting the light cruiser and building some more escort class ships.
 
Because DaLintyGuy said that missile batteries can be fired in 'shoot people on the ground' mode as a sort of ICBM type thing, allowing them to bring bottled sunlight to landed enemy armies that slack off on their anti-air defense if needed back when I was getting them built. And given that for the purposes of 'bullying invader transports so they have to land elsewhere' the missiles were still fine, I took the additional anti-land capacity given that it was a hassle to get people to go for even a single ground battery given our admittedly not-minor needs to spend on shipping. If we add more batteries to a planet they probably should have Macrocannons, but it's good to have some missile silos around you know?


I'd support spending at least 90M on it, which is literally a third. We don't want them to be feeling short changed or that we're slacking off and not repairing them after all.
Should I add in Macrocannon terrestrial defenses to the tentative plan? They'd still cost 6 M IIRC since MkI macrocannons cost 2M.
 
Back
Top