|
Humbug Scoolbus posted:Concertina thirsts for the blood of infantry (or anybody else stupid enough to be on a battlefield). I hate that loving stuff and it is everywhere on any semi-permanent facility. Triple-roll stacked over Jersey rails will stop a lot of trouble coming your way. It is also potentially Very Bad for tracked/armored vehicles. It won't instantly immobilize it, obviously, but if you get enough of it tangled in the tracks it has the potential to get worked into the drive sprockets and then the final drives. If this isn't caught - and the wire isn't cut out - it can shred the seals, which will cause a loss of lubrication; the whole thing will seize up and stop the AFV dead. This is one of the reasons armor stops frequently for maintenance; one of the many things you check is making absolutely sure there is no wire in your sprockets/finals.
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 00:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 23:21 |
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:[Engine Stuff] Engines: - Reciprocating Steam - Coal Steam Turbine - (Optionally) Coal with Oil Sprayed Onto It Steam Turbine - Oil Steam Turbine - Diesel - Petrol - ??? - Gas Turbine using really early jet engines? Theoretically possible but I wouldn't like to try it. Transmissions: - Direct Drive - Geared - Turboelectric - ??? You can achieve all of the historical combinations with this and also some pretty weird combination systems like a Turbopetrol Priusbote. It's definitely worth distinguishing between coal and oil though because that dramatically changes a) how long you can maintain your top speed without the stokers getting tired and the engines clogged with soot and b) how on fire you are if they hit a fuel tank.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 00:59
|
|
|
Are you going to include nuclear-powered steam turbines in your propulsion options?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 01:01
|
|
|
FrangibleCover posted:I think the better way to tackle this is probably an engine-transmission approach. GotLag posted:Are you going to include nuclear-powered steam turbines in your propulsion options? I think I mentioned this upthread, but there's a variety of postwar techs that I'd like to include in the late game when things start really going off the rails. Nuclear generators are one of them, along with missile systems and homing / supercavitating torpedoes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 01:14
|
|
|
Alkydere posted:Oh god this was supposed to be a relatively small post that just kept growing...I'm so loving sorry... I know the feeling man. You got relevant things in your brain that are just itching to get out. I think one of the interesting things to consider about all of that is how the Empire, at its inception, had a more diverse fleet with heavier, more durable fighters and bombers, which was mostly scuppered during the interwar period for the cheaper fleet with overall less capability and versatility from the exclusion of hyperdrives and shields. It can be cast as just a cost-cutting measure, but it seems even more important that the new Imperial Fleet introduced dependencies that while reducing effectiveness, greatly restricted the freedom of individual officers at all levels of the command chain, which also goes nicely with the Imperial tendency of enacting draconian punishments on unsuccessful officers that introduced a tense, brittle paranoia in all but the truest believers in the Imperial way. They considered their own army to be more of a threat as the populace they were using the army to clamp down on. In that way, I'd compare the Empire to China or Rome, which had their own issues with spending and a disloyal military, but while they had to deal with military disloyal because of spending cuts, it seems like the Empire provided cheaper equipment to reduce the dangers of a disloyal military. Their focus on building massive ships rather than more ships seems to jive with that, they put all their eggs in one basket to keep easier track of the basket, despite the fact that the best advantage the Rebels had was the ability to hide on worlds that the Empire couldn't spare the resources to park a couple Star Destroyers on. The problem with the cost argument is that while it makes sense, there just doesn't seem to be anybody talking about Imperial logistics worries in any of the actual fiction, whereas they're constantly voicing worries about loyalty along the chain of command. While the Imperial military is a major expense, the Empire's iron grip over its constituent planets probably gives them more access to resources than the loosely-knit Republic ever did. Palpatine already demonstrated a phenomenal ability to maneuver the financial system both by getting the loans to finance the clone army in the first place and by convincing many of the heads of the financial industry to secede and bet big on the CIS, although that could also mean that there's not enough financial industry left to be willing to give loans to the Empire.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 02:26
|
|
|
So the empire had 2/3 of the galaxy... who had the remaining 1/3? Were there any polities that had enough muscle to stay autonomous or was it just garbage worlds not worth wasting resources on
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 02:45
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:So the empire had 2/3 of the galaxy... who had the remaining 1/3? Were there any polities that had enough muscle to stay autonomous or was it just garbage worlds not worth wasting resources on I think it may be mind altering bugs that could convince you to gently caress them but it’s been a long time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 02:57
|
|
|
Section of galaxy belonged to an entire sector of hyper capitalists, another essentially perfect anime/manga fantasy warrior people. Han Solo's world was sort of a weird Independent neutral enclave thing going for it too.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 03:12
|
|
|
Alkydere posted:Lucas was very aware of the symbolism and the Empire are basically supposed to be Space Nazis on so many levels.  so are the Rebels
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 03:13
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:So the empire had 2/3 of the galaxy... who had the remaining 1/3? Were there any polities that had enough muscle to stay autonomous or was it just garbage worlds not worth wasting resources on There's a large area just called "the Unknown Regions"...it's basically space that's largely because of weird anomalies at its border which make navigation in and out of it dangerous, was never really explored. It's where the Chiss, which is Grand Admiral Thrawn's species are from, and it's where, in the sequel movies, the Imperial hardliners who would become the First Order fled to. There was also, in what was called the "Outer Rim", a bunch of places where the Empire claimed control over, but in practice didn't have a lot of authority. Tattooine, Luke's planet was like that. Epicurius fucked around with this message at 03:18 on Dec 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 03:16
|
|
|
Isn't there a thread for discussing the old books/comics gubbins and fluff for Star Wars kicking around? Still waiting to suggest some exile groups to the dude who wants some interesting Napoleonics.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 03:21
|
|
|
That stuff about the Empire makes sense. The Emperor had after all taken pains to kill off the entire population of trained persuasive super-warriors. He was down to one plus whatever EU horseshit you allow. It also makes the Death Star make sense, it was an intimidation tactic to prevent some Mofference from rising up against him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 03:35
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:So the empire had 2/3 of the galaxy... who had the remaining 1/3? Were there any polities that had enough muscle to stay autonomous or was it just garbage worlds not worth wasting resources on The Hutt Cartel is the other big one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 03:46
|
|
|
FrangibleCover posted:- (Optionally) Coal with Oil Sprayed Onto It Steam Turbine What was this called when it was implemented IRL? I'd like to read about it but can't figure out the right terms to google it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 05:07
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:What was this called when it was implemented IRL? I'd like to read about it but can't figure out the right terms to google it. I was doing some digging as well and having trouble; best I could manage is "mixed firing" or "oil-sprayed coal boiler", none of which feel particularly authoritative. I'm also trying to figure out why, if you can do this, you don't just upgrade to straight oil firing. Best I can figure is either the oil sprays weren't consistent enough to run the boiler entirely off of them, or the oil was an "aftermarket upgrade" kind of thing that provided an easy boost to a coal-based boiler without having to rebuild the entire system. But those are both purely speculation on my part.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 05:20
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:I was doing some digging as well and having trouble; best I could manage is "mixed firing" or "oil-sprayed coal boiler", none of which feel particularly authoritative.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 05:28
|
|
|
On a different note, though I guess kind of related to the Star Wars talk, this breakdown of warfighting functions as demonstrated in the Lord of the Rings was pretty amusing.Nessus posted:Supply security? The UK had plenty of coal but didn't have a lot of oil (the North Sea wasn't accessible at the time I assume). So you could have some of the benefit of oil while not having your fleet be reliant on it. Sounds plausible to me. But I'm hesitant to put anything into the part's flavor text for "this is why this thing was used" without some reasonably trustworthy source, lest I be flayed online by angry grognards. (ehh, who are we kidding, they'll check out as soon as they see the flying battleship air-dropping destroyers into the combat arena in mission 2)
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 05:55
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Isn't there a thread for discussing the old books/comics gubbins and fluff for Star Wars kicking around? I'm kinda surprised no on in Iran has remade it based on the Force being Islam, Luke being some kid from a 'Stan, and the evil empire is the original one Lucas planned on - The USA. One of his original idea's was based on the idea of the Vietnamese being the good guys and doing a war movie were the US was the bad guys. The Death Star would be a US Carrier Battlegroup and our hero's pilot small naval craft (or MIG-21's I guess) too small for missiles to get a lock on. The US even does the torture like Darth did to the Princess these days. Hell, the Iranian F-14Tomcat works out quite tell as an X-Wing. Extra long range, heavy firepower, multi role figher that's great at killing bombers beyond visual range (which they never actually do in the movies, just like Tomcat's never got a chance to either I think). quote:Still waiting to suggest some exile groups to the dude who wants some interesting Napoleonics. The Kings German Legion sounds cool - a full combined arms force but I *think* they wore British Uniforms? I know Sharp's books refer to them AS the "KGL" all the time, but did they call them that in Wellington's time? I need to check if Sharpe's Waterloo is on Netflix. I might end up doing the Black Powder army i just ordered as them, simply, so I can refer to them as The KGL every chance I get. Did the Saxons, Bavarians, Piedmont, Denmark or Sweden accomplish much between 1790 and 1815? There's army lists or figures for most of them but I have no information on if they were actually able to do anything compared to the major powers. While doing research, I discovered that ONE of the British cavalry units were BLUE instead of the red everyone else did. Why is that? And wouldn't they get confused with the French cavalry wearing blue at the same time? Also, why didn't British Heavy cavalry wear armour like the French did? What countries used Lancers? They sound so useful compared to normal light cavalry, and I know afterwards the British converted some units to use them. I know the French used Polish lancers, did anyone else? And if not, why not?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 06:14
|
|
|
The shade of blue was much darker than the Indigo blue the Napoleonic French used and their helmets were of a different design. The Light Dragoons did cause some confusion due to their shako design in the later part of the war. The KGL cavalry look nice if you want something different from red red red blue of British stock but yeah not much of a visual difference outside facings and plates from the average line. Their light infantry and riflemen looked slightly different!
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 06:20
|
|
|
My old haunts stardestroyer.net got pretty indepth on the analysis of the Empire, lemme dig up the links. https://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=122169 https://web.archive.org/web/20120204063509/http://www.domuspublica.net/analysis.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 06:33
|
|
|
Loel posted:My old haunts stardestroyer.net got pretty indepth on the analysis of the Empire, lemme dig up the links. Man, that's a blast from the past. TIE fighter does a really good thing where the first campaign is trying to mediate a local conflict and handle a lot of totally mundane work that you'd expect for actually administering a vast empire. Inspecting ships to deal with smuggling, and trying to handle pirate raids and deal with civil wars where Y-wings and Z-95s aren't even really a match for your TIEs. By the time you're part of a major fleet unit playing tag with the rebels you're running more front line stuff, and even get into really snazzy stuff like shielded TIE interceptors with missiles. TooMuchAbstraction posted:I was doing some digging as well and having trouble; best I could manage is "mixed firing" or "oil-sprayed coal boiler", none of which feel particularly authoritative. Mixed firing is fine as best as I can tell, it's pretty much the most common way to refer to, for example, the Kongo class ships. I think a lot of the reason to go with mixed firing is that it's a relatively scalable system that can be added with a less comprehensive rebuild, and if you don't have a guarantee of large amounts of oil you can at least get some of the benefit. The US went to oil promptly and for obvious reasons, but that was a really scary jump to make for the UK, and the US wound up sending less advanced battleships to the UK during WWI because of fueling concerns (battleship division nine if you're interested in reading about it).
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 06:50
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Yeah that's the one. It's such a chubby little fascist desperation weapon!! the smol fat plane liker has logged on ed: am i the only non star wars liker in this place? HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 07:55 on Dec 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 07:49
|
|
|
The original series is good but I'm either hostile or indifferent to the rest of the franchise, barring a few of the video games  . It's kinda fun to apply real world logic to a goofy space samurai/cowboy fantasy though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 08:23
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:It's kinda fun to apply real world logic to a goofy space samurai/cowboy fantasy though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 08:27
|
|
|
Comstar posted:
There probably was a Saxon contingent marching with Napoleon into Russia, but I have to re-read 1812 to confirm. If they were, they probably broke off with the Prussian contingents and changed sides.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 12:28
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:The shade of blue was much darker than the Indigo blue the Napoleonic French used and their helmets were of a different design. The Light Dragoons did cause some confusion due to their shako design in the later part of the war. What's the wildest napoleonic uniform color scheme? I've seen some green/white/red dudes and that looks pretty cool. https://i.pinimg.com/736x/87/54/e8/8754e81e68021c0d82a4277da7bd8bab.jpg
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 12:37
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Sounds plausible to me. But I'm hesitant to put anything into the part's flavor text for "this is why this thing was used" without some reasonably trustworthy source, lest I be flayed online by angry grognards. (ehh, who are we kidding, they'll check out as soon as they see the flying battleship air-dropping destroyers into the combat arena in mission 2) The Grand Fleet by David K. Brown goes into this in some detail. Its basically due to worries that any ship made completely oil dependant will be unable to patrol all areas of the empire, due to many of the refueling stations not having large storage capacities for oil (if they had any at all), an uncertain capability of supplying said refueling stations with oil during a war and the fact that coal supplies were already established. Aside from that, the coal bunkers of a ship was generally used as a secondary means of damage mitigation from various impacts. Oil tanks do not work for that same purpose. Early oil based boilers (1890s) also had the issue of inefficient evaporation per pound of fuel which meant that while the oil holds more calories that even the best available coal, the boilers at the time got less energy out of the oil while also producing massive smoke plumes (and this is compared to the already rather heavy coal based smoke plumes) . Between 1903 and 1905, experiments led to marked improvements in oil based boilers and in 1904 it was decided that all (british) battleships and cruisers were to be fitted to burn oil as an auxiliary to coal and the 1905 destroyers were designed for oil only. Another issue was the fact that while coal is a fairly static (though cumbersome and time consuming) thing to transport, load and fire, oil changes its characteristics based on its temperature, which means issues with loading cold oil from train tanks due to it being thick and sludgy as well as issues when firing cold oil, resulting in huge amounts of smoke. In 1908 the 16 Beagle class destroyers we reluctantly ordered as coal burners instead of oil simply because there was insufficient oil available at supply depots. Around 1908 the use of oil instead of coal was generally accepted and work was being done to increase the oil bunkers stockpiles in bases around the world. This was deemed at a sufficient level of supply and storage around 1911. Oil did have the advantage of having full power available to the ship as a constant instead of as a variable impacted by the difficulty for the stokers to physically reach the remaining stores of coal in the corners of the coal stores as well as the general level of exhaustion among the stokers during long periods of high speed maneuvers. Later ship designs were also made with higher average speeds in mind which meant that oil was the only possible choice, due to its higher calorific value compared to coal. Oil had disadvantages as well, ranging from an inability to store extra bags of it around the ship, as you could with coal, being more expensive pound for pound, having fewer ports capable of supplying it to unexpected fleet units (especially the bigger ships), not having the protective value against gunfire that coal did (although oil would later be used as part of torpedo protection) and being a bigger firehazard (firefighting tests at the time found that oilfires were manageable if fought with sufficient seawater). SerthVarnee fucked around with this message at 14:00 on Dec 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 13:23
|
|
|
Comstar posted:
Sweden fought the eventually inconclusive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Swedish_War_(1788–1790), then the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_War where it lost badly to Russia and some 25,000 Swedishs troops participated in the Battle of Leipzig in 1813.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 13:27
|
|
aphid_licker posted:What's the wildest napoleonic uniform color scheme? I've seen some green/white/red dudes and that looks pretty cool. Personally I say everything between 1780-1850 but in this context it might as well be 'majority of Hussar uniforms'. Or what a certain French Marshal wore on Tuesday when he wanted to get laid. It is hard to say, no doubt both sides had plenty of rich volunteers with more money and no care for regulations because they wouldn't be doing much. You could have a vaguely uniform colour scheme with some but blow people away with your boots or hat or some other functional accessory made of rich leather.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 13:53
|
|
|
What's the story with the french marshal?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 14:08
|
|
|
He got shot because he was more interested in remaining neutral than hanging out with Napoleon during Hundred Days because he didn't want to make waves and give them excuse to bring back the other king of Naples. Honestly just go read a biography about Murat.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 14:12
|
|
|
Libluini posted:There probably was a Saxon contingent marching with Napoleon into Russia, but I have to re-read 1812 to confirm. If they were, they probably broke off with the Prussian contingents and changed sides. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Saxon_Army#Napoleonic_wars  saxon milhist
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 14:21
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:the Elector was ride-or-die Napoleon, the men changed sides during the battle of leipzig itself Holding on to the losing side until your own army rebels, now that's tenacity! I wonder what the Saxon soldiers thought when they learned the Prussians were changing sides behind them and joining the Russians, while their own leader forced them to continue bravely onwards Though I'm guessing their uprising at the Battle of Leipzig answers that question
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 15:42
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Mixed firing is fine as best as I can tell, it's pretty much the most common way to refer to, for example, the Kongo class ships. I think a lot of the reason to go with mixed firing is that it's a relatively scalable system that can be added with a less comprehensive rebuild, and if you don't have a guarantee of large amounts of oil you can at least get some of the benefit. The US went to oil promptly and for obvious reasons, but that was a really scary jump to make for the UK, and the US wound up sending less advanced battleships to the UK during WWI because of fueling concerns (battleship division nine if you're interested in reading about it). SerthVarnee posted:The Grand Fleet by David K. Brown goes into this in some detail. Its basically due to worries that any ship made completely oil dependant will be unable to patrol all areas of the empire, due to many of the refueling stations not having large storage capacities for oil (if they had any at all), an uncertain capability of supplying said refueling stations with oil during a war and the fact that coal supplies were already established. Thanks for the details! That's really helpful. Sounds like the primary issues are logistical, with some secondary technological ones that I'll have to emphasize since logistical issues basically won't exist in my game.  Would you recommend The Grand Fleet? It's a generation too early for my setting but if it has useful tech details it might well still be worth reading.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 16:22
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:On a different note, though I guess kind of related to the Star Wars talk, this breakdown of warfighting functions as demonstrated in the Lord of the Rings was pretty amusing. One of the books that blew my mind in High School was a Lord of the Rings book on arms and armor. I don't think there was much that was all that revolutionary, things like one sword having grooves to cut weight, orcs having rough-looking swords to emulate the Balrog, the forces of the Last Alliance of Elves and Men having superior formation tactics against the unorganized orc hordes, but it was a whole angle to things I never considered as a kid, that something as simple as a sword could have a number of serious design decisions associated with it. There's not good odds on me ever finding that book again, as opposed to the old Essential Guides of Star Wars that I have on a shelf and read while falling asleep as a kid. I guess at least it gave me some common ground with my parents who became language nerds from Lord of the Rings. My dad got angry that Elrond used the word "fire" when telling his elves to shoot arrows, since before firearms there would've been no etymological relation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 16:30
|
|
|
It's Lord of the Rings: Weapons and Warfare and it's still in print: https://www.amazon.com/Lord-Rings-Weapons-Illustrated-Middle-Earth/dp/0618390995
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 16:44
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:My dad got angry that Elrond used the word "fire" when telling his elves to shoot arrows, since before firearms there would've been no etymological relation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 17:04
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Thanks for the details! That's really helpful. Sounds like the primary issues are logistical, with some secondary technological ones that I'll have to emphasize since logistical issues basically won't exist in my game. Absolute yes. The Grand Fleet covers the evolution of all british warship (and submarines) designs, starting around the time of Dreadnaught and ending up with the pre-WWII ship designs and what was learned and incorporated along the way. The author was a Naval architect for the Admiralty and writes in a way that, while technically heavy here and there, comes across as very informative and very readable at the same time. He explains the developments of every major component of the ship and backs it up with contemporary studies, experiments, trials and political slap fights in an attempt to explain WHY they went with this or that decision in spite of what we know to be the sensible choice with todays computer modelling. If you need to know what the gently caress caused them to plonk down a lookout post right behind the main exhaust for the main boiler room instead of somewhere survivable for a crewman to inhabit, then yes you need to look at this book. (yes. yes they did indeed do this on at least one of their battleships.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 17:10
|
|
|
SerthVarnee posted:
This has me imagining what insane machinery you could contrive with modern technology to move coal around a ship quickly enough to allow high speeds on a warship. Belts that move bins of coal between flashlight doors! Forklift drones! More maimings than an Amazon warehouse!
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 17:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 23:21 |
|
|
HookedOnChthonics posted:
Behold, the Nazis 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 17:51
|
|
