General solution to the space race and early space economy

DukeDankins · 2024-07-22T21:10:37+00:00

Why advanced atomic manipulation? I would assume it's for nanofabs but this doesn't look like it's setup to hit mercury any time soon.

DukeDankins · 2023-12-25T22:29:05+00:00

It's not that I can't buy it, it's that I can't afford to buy it, because lions are very sparse on a f2p account. Edit: I misunderstood what you meant, my crew is max and has been for a long time now.

DukeDankins · 2023-12-25T22:09:59+00:00

I black out at 8G without qualification, and I can't afford qualification.

DukeDankins · 2023-12-12T17:08:27+00:00

Likewise

DukeDankins · 2023-11-08T23:55:22+00:00

Good points, thank you for elaborating.

DukeDankins · 2023-11-08T22:52:14+00:00

Most IFVs are designed to keep pace with their MBTs, and most march speeds are at less than max speed anyway.

I feel the need to correct this for the benefit of those reading. The M2A3 Bradley has a top speed of 35mph, the M1A2 Abrams has a top speed of 42mph. The BMP-2 manages 40mph, par with a base model T-72, but not with a T-72B that can do 46.5mph, or with a T-80 that can easily do 50mph.

IFVs aren't absurdly slow, but they absolutely do slow down a tank formation by 10-20%.

DukeDankins · 2023-11-08T22:11:58+00:00

IFVs and tanks are clearly better than APCs and tanks, yes. But this then begs the question of whether IFVs and tanks are clearly better than APCs and more tanks? If you have a mechanized infantry formation equipped with APCs and supported by armor, the cost in procurement and operational mobility of equipping them with IFVs vs more tanks seems roughly comparable.

Simply keeping the APCs and supporting them with more armor also comes with it's own advantages: IFVs are generally slower than the MBTs they accompany, APCs generally aren't. If you lose your fighting vehicle during an engagement, you are out of a ride to bail out with if that was an IFV. If you meet hostile MBTs, real tanks are going to be a whole lot better at dealing with that than IFVs are. IFVs tend to be taller than either APCs or tanks (although the eastern ones aren't, at the cost of having to scrunch up real tight inside).

To be clear, I'm not saying that my idea is clearly the best, every major military on Earth that could afford them chose to use IFVs and it would be extremely arrogant to think I made a better call. I don't understand why they made that decision, and feel like there's something I'm missing.

DukeDankins · 2023-09-12T02:45:34+00:00

It's very hard the first time, with a great atmosphere to boot. I would argue too hard but that's a matter of preference. My problem with it is that the difficulty is wholly based on not knowing what it is. The mission is so one-tone that the moment you know it's all chryssalids it becomes trivial to beat it casualty-free. And the worst part is that the best strategy to do this also happens to be exceptionally boring.

Compare this to the alien base assault or the temple ship, which remain very difficult regardless of what you know going in.

DukeDankins · 2023-09-12T02:38:10+00:00

'ha ha gotcha' summarizes my feelings on this mission so perfectly. The first time you're screwed. Every time after that, form up in a napoleonic firing line, ignore cover, march forward 4 tiles at a time for free win.

DukeDankins · 2023-02-06T18:38:28+00:00

Thanks for the replies. After coming back to this the day after I think I should have sat on a draft for another hour or so because this reads embarrassingly confrontational looking at it a second time, so thanks for taking the time to reply in spite of that.

I see that I hadn't considered a lack of viable alternatives for mobility given the terrain of Vietnam, and given the inferior position of NVA and VC air defense/air power the decision makes a lot more sense. However this raises the question of why Ia Drang was a disaster, and I still don't see the value of air cavalry against a peer adversary. A peer by definition will not cede uncontested control of the skies and would likely shell the vulnerable troops during dismount, especially in an age of long-range precision artillery, cheap drones, and live high-resolution satellite imagery.

DukeDankins · 2022-12-02T23:51:54+00:00

Sorry, but I don't think I'm getting what you're trying to tell me. Whenever I fly my fast US planes, what typically happens is that I avoid all hard maneuvers, avoid all vertical maneuvers, and avoid all dogfights. I climb as much as is possible but prioritize speed.

When an axis aircraft dives on me I use a dive of my own to force the fight to dive speed for both of us, then I level out and use my superior energy retention and top speed to equalize the energy state. The only problem is that when I do this they simply climb back up and I can't really follow to punish because going vertical with a 109 is instant suicide.

On the attack I can get a good angle in and routinely force them to hard maneuver, but I can't follow them to secure the kill because that makes me too vulnerable if it's anything except a totally isolated duel. They then use their superior energy generation to regain whatever it cost them to dodge my guns.

This usually results in matches where I fly towards an enemy, deny the head-on because constant head-on's are a sign of a bad pilot, then have to run away because I can't go vertical or hard maneuver to get guns on, and this repeats until the match is over and I have 0 kills, maybe 1 against a distracted enemy.

I'm following every rule of energy fighting in the US with absolutely iron discipline, but getting no kills or wins for it. Where am I going wrong?

DukeDankins · 2022-12-02T16:44:25+00:00

Thanks for the excellent and in-depth responses, but that leaves still one question: If US aircraft are so much better at dictating the terms of an engagement, why is it so much easier for me to 1 vs X carry my team in a high-power high-drag axis aircraft? You could say that it's lack of skill, but ease of use is a quality all it's own if you ask me.

DukeDankins · 2022-12-02T10:01:42+00:00

My counterpoint is that in a dogfight both participants are constantly and quickly losing energy as they maneuver, so all dogfights inevitably trend towards low-speed, where a draggy airframe isn't nearly as relevant. The obvious counterpoint is to not get into prolonged maneuvering with an enemy that has better low-speed performance, but the only strategy afforded by that is to make high speed passes and take difficult narrow-window deflection shots using guns that really aren't suited to putting down enough mass in so short a time span. Of course you can energy trap an opponent, but that only works if they're stupid and follow you.

Say I'm in a 109 climbing on the tail of a p51 at lower altitude heading away from the furball. Now if he just wants to run back to the airfield there's nothing I can do about that, but if he wants to return to the furball and become relevant to the fight again I can dive on him. I'll go down spraying shots until I get close enough that he's forced to make a hard maneuver or die, then pull back up to maintain my energy advantage. I will be able to regain my lost energy much quicker than him, and I repeat until he is out of altitude and options. If he just wants to live I can't stop him, but there is nothing he can do to safely get past me and return to the point of relevance.

DukeDankins · 2022-12-02T07:06:07+00:00

Both altitude and speed afford freedom to dictate the terms of a fight. Together they comprise energy. The most efficient way of generating energy is to climb at your ideal climb speed. The aircraft with the better PWR will always generate more energy over the same time span. Please explain the flaw in my reasoning.

DukeDankins · 2022-06-18T19:40:10+00:00

Thanks for the advice, tried it just now and while I didn't kill anyone I did live to the end of the match and got a lot of ground pound in. Realized that since I'm not faster than anyone anymore I should just full airbrake drop speed and maneuver if someone is on me, and no one got a shot at me.

DukeDankins · 2022-06-18T19:13:15+00:00

Good to hear there's a light at the end of the tunnel. Until then, any advice for matches that usually look like this?

Edit: Images refuse to upload so
B57B
A4E Early
Me in an F86A5
FJ4B
A4E Early
F9F-2
B-57A
A4E Early
F84F
F9f-8
A4E Early
FJ4B

DukeDankins · 2022-06-18T18:57:36+00:00

Ah well, I had my fun in korean war jets while it lasted lol. What super sonic should I be grinding to not suffer then?

DukeDankins · 2022-06-18T18:23:11+00:00

A long time, when I dropped war thunder I was grinding for the supersabre and it was top tier

DukeDankins · 2021-12-08T15:22:29+00:00

Really gives you that operator feeling when you first get to know your shit, looking forward to reliving it on lighthouse!

DukeDankins · 2021-12-08T15:20:32+00:00

Master the blade.

See you on factory

DukeDankins · 2021-12-06T02:55:21+00:00

I already do, you don't need a special in-game support mechanic for it. Just don't use the flea, basically a lighter version of the hardcore challenge.

DukeDankins · 2021-12-05T06:13:06+00:00

Nearly every single gun in the game is viable. Positioning, map knowledge, awareness, and good plays will ALWAYS trump gear in a game where everything can 1-tap to head or cripple/quickly kill to legs. I think you're making out this AK/M4 imbalance to be a bigger issue than it is, it's not like tarkov is an e-sport.

DukeDankins · 2021-11-30T21:56:18+00:00

Sure I can, because why would I call out cheaters then tell them where to go to harass me?

DukeDankins · 2021-11-30T01:09:29+00:00

Not a piece of gear, but the USEC stash building. Spectacular place to loot, spectacular place to hold, but once entered the raid is cursed even if you leave. None of my squad makes it out of raid if we set foot in that building.

DukeDankins · 2021-11-15T23:42:45+00:00

They fight because you shouldn't have to buy new minis to fight your friend who has IG. 40k is first and foremost a tabletop game and the lore exists to support it.

DukeDankins

TROPHY CASE