Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Funk]

Gyrojets lacked starting velocity, if they had even a small primer charge to get them up to 300 m/s or so.
With a starting charge the jets only have to sustain the flight but can increase the speed with out the losses from friction in the barrel.
For snipers or anti tank guns, a special rocket round will let them have a massive amount of energy at longer ranges.

[Aseaheru]

Hmm... What about a PIAT sorta thing for it?

[Funk]

The problem with a PIAT that is the springs are difficult to cock and limit muzzle velocity and projectile weight, so we get short range or low power and with the low velocity of springs your range is limited to start.
Still we can build them quickly and cheapy.

I think that a anti tank rifle shooting an lengthened 15mm round with a rocket assist, will be a good weapon for now.
Later we can get a proper rocket and make a 15mm rocket machinegun.

We should try a wireless remotely controlled tank we for fun yes it happened, Crazy Russians
or remotely controlled mines Crazy Germans

[Aseaheru]

I meant just the spigot thing. Later versions of the PIAT had rocket propelled rounds.

[3_14159]

@Gyrojet: The problem I have with that are issues of tech level. Even with the more advanced technology of the 1960's, the bullets were performing worse than normal ones - not counting issues like blocking a muzzle would result in a very strange path.

@ICBMs/Long-range rockets: Well, they may be useful - but the problem is one of cost. Basically, building a bomber and sending that onto enemy territory means lower cost per kg of explosives delivered - a four-engined strategic bomber cost about as much as a V-2, carried eight times the bomb load to double the range. And that's even without counting reusability which is rather limited for the rocket.
You almost need an atomic bomb for them to be effective.

[10ebbor10]

On a side note, some of you might have been noticing that this game is slowly dying out right now. Additionally, running the turns has become more complex over time, so I'm wondering wherether it might be better to end it here, rather than continue the struggle.

[Aseaheru]

We could always restart with something much less complex.
Say, we design weapons for a dwarven fortress?

[ICBM pilot]

We could always restart with something much less complex.
Say, we design weapons for a dwarven fortress?

that is more complex 
restart in the medieval times because torture and simple weapons.

[Aseaheru]

Well, dwarven fortresses are sorta more simple. Smaller armies...

[Ukrainian Ranger]

I don't want it to die....

[evilcherry]

Well, dwarven fortresses are sorta more simple. Smaller armies...

But its more... simple.

Wait, I have a good idea.


http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=132576.0

Just trying.

[3_14159]

I don't want it to die....

+1

On the other hand, I definitely understand the problem of expanding time complexity - it seems as if the game type is destined to die a heat death.
So, I wanted to thank the other players for playing in this, and, most importantly, ebbor for running the game.

[10ebbor10]

While I don't really want it to die either, numbers have become a drag, so don't expect an update in the near future.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

I can understand that, after all I made... hmmm... four attempts to run a design game.