Messages

1

World / Re: Air force or Navy

« on: August 20, 2013, 05:08:21 pm »

I could see a massive airship with an enormous cannon (heavy howitzer, anyone?) bombarding a port from afar.

These are definitely navel vessels, and now that I think about current ships, it wouldn't be hard to imagine an Airship carrier that houses a dozen Squids as almost-airforce.

There wouldn't be a point in that, that's like a carrier launching out speedboats. It would have to launch out something similar to airplanes, traveling at speeds MUCH faster than the carrier/normal ships. Other wise why not just have this giant ship blow the crap out whatever, or just carry around normal ships with more fire power to survivability to cost efficiency.

It would be extreamly difficult for an airship to be used in an infrastructure destroying capacity if that infrastructure was defended by the same weapons available in the game world. The airships can't fly high enough to be unhitable from the air based weapons in the game much less any beefier ground based variants that don't have to worry about weight. That plus bunkers would have better armor than an airship due to the complete lack of weight restrictions. So using an airship to fight through a fortified position would be next to impossible.

Amphibious invasion has been historically inefficient (reference Seal Team Eight, the book, idk proper notation), which is why you don't do it except as a last resort, or when you're 100% sure you can sustain the heavy loss to take the position. As seen with D-Day, WW2. Navies dry out countries, they don't invade (except with Marines and the proper invasion point. You were saying it, but you don't explain it very well. Also, they wouldn't go high they would go far with long range weapons. Hitting a stationary target from multiple moving positions will be easier than hitting multiple moving targets from a stationary position imo.
I agree with most of what you said though.

2

World / Re: Air force or Navy

« on: August 19, 2013, 10:48:18 pm »

Okay, have you ever had something that sounded better in your mind than when you wrote it down? I was thinking more of open system without any regard for closed systems.

Lol. I haven't looked at the engines, I usually just slap them and move to the next part. About to look. When I was typin I thought it would probably be open system, but pretended like it wasn't.
~I don't see anything besides gears and propellers.

The ships that we have in game are more comparable to brown water corvettes or gunships.  Relatively lightly armed and armored, with a minimal crew manning it.  Could you put troops on them?  Sure.

Seems more comparable to submarines or any surface ship that isnt a carrier to me. I'm thinking of LCSs.

3

World / Re: Air force or Navy

« on: August 18, 2013, 06:39:02 pm »

the pressure, even super-pressurized steam, so you'd be seeing almost no gain

System internals are closed off to pressure, however systems will expand/contract etc. Couldn't find it on wikipedia, but high altitude planes, such as the U-2, will leak fuel at ground level due to being made to be a perfect fit at higher altitudes. Made in 1950s. Regardless, all I've found on google is people mentioning steam engines lose no power at high altitudes, and read once or twice that efficiency is higher. Your statement contradicts itself, which is why I quoted it. Super-pressurized + lower pressure = same pressure or still higher pressure.

For those of you who live in high-altitude areas (looking at you, Colorado), think how much longer it takes you to boil water and how much quicker the water cools down.

Cools down the same, unless you mean it going from steam to liquid.

You gotta land sometime and somewhere, and airships don't capture and control ground.  Just like a navy can't retain control of land that it rains lead onto, it can set up some awesome blockades.  (Hence, my support for the airships as navy viewpoint.)

marines

Navy, under the same concepts that decide space warfare would be conducted by Navy. See the Navy's page for seal astronauts.