Please let it be a carrier.
I don't know why but I like the idea of a Thunderchild carrier.
I don't know why but I like the idea of a Thunderchild carrier.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Treku thinks Carriers are ugly, or at least not as beautiful as battlecruisers
I do indeed think Carriers are ugly. Also, I am a member of the school of thought who believe that in Space Combat fighters are pointless. I'd rather carry more armour and weapons.
Battlestar Galactica would look a bit weird without the Vipers etc... (assuminng it ever gets made without Star Wars to copy off). I personally think a space fighter would be useful not as dog fighters but to attack large space stations and get in close (see the Death Star trench run for why a space fighter could be useful).
I would like an Honor Harrington TV series.
Not to get too OT, but I think that if you have to attack space stations you might as well use something that can stand off and take some fire. Because frankly, I believe that missiles of some sort would likely be the main weapons of space combat. Missiles with seeker heads.
The discussion for and against Space Carriers is pretty much moot, IMO. 
Until we can go up there and find out it's mostly personal preference.
Until we can go up there and find out it's mostly personal preference.
We will have to disagree on this, other than the common ground on finding slavery repulsive.
Steve
What's the date by the way now? It is March 1943 (the date when Rommel/Zhukov thought there is going to be an Imperial attack on Vienna)
I personally cannot see Germany lasting any later than end 1944, especially if you land in France as well as advancing up through Austria and the Balkans. After that, the Soviet Union could well try and establish control over the former German empire but I reckon they'll be beaten by the end of 1945, which will leave Japan. I can't see them surviving much longer either, depending on whether you have to invade or not, they could be gone by 1946.
I personally cannot see Germany lasting any later than end 1944, especially if you land in France as well as advancing up through Austria and the Balkans. After that, the Soviet Union could well try and establish control over the former German empire but I reckon they'll be beaten by the end of 1945, which will leave Japan. I can't see them surviving much longer either, depending on whether you have to invade or not, they could be gone by 1946.
stevep Pretty much.
talt It's early November 1942, and in the next update(s) we'll see the Axis and the Allies shuffling for the better position in Eastern Europe for the 1943 season.
Your dating would be good, except that you don't factor in two things that you can't possibly know. No offence intended.
What I mean is that for one the Empire and the Allies have literally all their mobile or deployable forces available at the moment in Austria/Eastern Europe or in readiness positions in Italy and North Africa, and for the moment these are all that there is in way of a Strategic reserve and until the Co-Prosperity Sphere is defeated that won't change as that front is bound to tie up at least 80% of Indian manpower, especially once the front widens when the Allies push into Siam and French Indochina.
Overall this means that barring a massive military catastrophe of some sort the Germans and the Soviets have the ability of tying up the Allies in Europe for years.
While their capacity isn't as large as the US one was in WW2 in the end superior British manufacturing will crush the Germans and ironically the Japanese are at the same time fighting the Allies in Asia and supporting them in Europe by way of tying up two thirds of the Red Army and making a good fight of it.
In the end though, all this is written from an in-universe perspective. I know of course when the war ends and what cities beginning with B fall at what time to what units, and you must remember that in this war the proverbial can of Instant Sunshine is used twice, and both times in the ETO.
talt It's early November 1942, and in the next update(s) we'll see the Axis and the Allies shuffling for the better position in Eastern Europe for the 1943 season.
Your dating would be good, except that you don't factor in two things that you can't possibly know.
No offence intended.What I mean is that for one the Empire and the Allies have literally all their mobile or deployable forces available at the moment in Austria/Eastern Europe or in readiness positions in Italy and North Africa, and for the moment these are all that there is in way of a Strategic reserve and until the Co-Prosperity Sphere is defeated that won't change as that front is bound to tie up at least 80% of Indian manpower, especially once the front widens when the Allies push into Siam and French Indochina.
Overall this means that barring a massive military catastrophe of some sort the Germans and the Soviets have the ability of tying up the Allies in Europe for years.
While their capacity isn't as large as the US one was in WW2 in the end superior British manufacturing will crush the Germans and ironically the Japanese are at the same time fighting the Allies in Asia and supporting them in Europe by way of tying up two thirds of the Red Army and making a good fight of it.
In the end though, all this is written from an in-universe perspective. I know of course when the war ends and what cities beginning with B fall at what time to what units, and you must remember that in this war the proverbial can of Instant Sunshine is used twice, and both times in the ETO.
chalk the way he speaks up to his stage training. you'll notice he got much smoother in later years once he overcame the stratford stage beginning.
hmm perhaps the gov generals guard would be issued phasers?
The version I heard was after Little Big Horn a lot of the surviving Sioux, including Sitting Bull, escaped to Canada where they were told they could stay as long as they obeyed the law and didn't cause any problems. He did something and a single Mountie rode into their camp and arrested him.
Steve
there weren't enough mounties to coerce the sioux into behaving and any real military force was some weeks away at best. the thing was the mounties were straight up about enforcing the law and the indians knew it. steal an indian's horse in canada and the man in red heaves you in jail and gives the indian back his horse. doesn't take much of that to establish a fair level of trust. compare that to the us where stealing an indian's horse didn't really count unless you shot the indian off it first.
In comparison there was an independence conflict in 1861-65 where a distinct geographical area sought to govern itself but was brutally suppressed by the central government. [Not to ignore that the issue the war was in many ways about, slavery, is morally repulsive].
from what i've read slavery was not really much of an issue in that war until the north seized on it as a propoganda tool. it was more a case of whether the feds had the right to dictate to the states which according to the vision of the founding fathers it most certainly did not have. despite the entire issue of slavery i'm forced to conclude the south had the right to secede.
from what i've read slavery was not really much of an issue in that war until the north seized on it as a propoganda tool. it was more a case of whether the feds had the right to dictate to the states which according to the vision of the founding fathers it most certainly did not have. despite the entire issue of slavery i'm forced to conclude the south had the right to secede.
IMO, and that is from the standpoint of an outside, non-British or American observer, the ARW was a war for independence
rather more a case of the colonists and their what have you done for me lately attitudes. they were perfectly happy under british rule so long as the french threat hung over their heads. once the british removed that by taking quebec it didn't take very long for the british attempts to limit settler incursions into indian lands and the very idea of paying taxes made fervent "patriots" out of a lot of colonists. you know the richest people per capita in the british empire were the 13 colonies at the time of the insurrection?
rather more a case of the colonists and their what have you done for me lately attitudes. they were perfectly happy under british rule so long as the french threat hung over their heads. once the british removed that by taking quebec it didn't take very long for the british attempts to limit settler incursions into indian lands and the very idea of paying taxes made fervent "patriots" out of a lot of colonists. you know the richest people per capita in the british empire were the 13 colonies at the time of the insurrection?
space stations don't move. as such any sufficiently large rock will do nicely to kill them. worst case need to stealth the rock some to get it close enough in you cannot stop it.
Exactly. So why bother with fighters when you can just use a few Torps from those nifty DNs floating about out there?
How come the British have larger manufracturing base then Germans and Soviets combined?
They don't. They are about a quarter larger than the Germans alone, that was what I meant, and a lot of the Soviet Output is going to Asia.
Ehran
I think we may be veering rather off topic here but in general agreement. The Americans pre-1776 wanted British protection and access to British markets but didn't want to contribute to even their own defence. Why I sometimes call the ARW the Taxdodgers war.
In terms of 1861 it was an independence struggle and technically the issue was whether the south, had the right to declare independence. However because the issue that prompted them to want to succeed was slavery that clouded the issue. As you say the north used it for propaganda purposes but it was an underlying issue.
Steve
PS - Just got promoted to officer rank.
I think we may be veering rather off topic here but in general agreement. The Americans pre-1776 wanted British protection and access to British markets but didn't want to contribute to even their own defence. Why I sometimes call the ARW the Taxdodgers war.
In terms of 1861 it was an independence struggle and technically the issue was whether the south, had the right to declare independence. However because the issue that prompted them to want to succeed was slavery that clouded the issue. As you say the north used it for propaganda purposes but it was an underlying issue.
Steve
PS - Just got promoted to officer rank.
Guys
Again a bit off topic but why presume that the designers of space stations, especially military ones which will have considerable power capacity for weapons and defences [armour and/or shields depending on the technology] will neglect to add some propulsion capacity?
If they don't or even if they do, depending on the ability to move and detection capacity possibly the simplest approach are some relativistic rocks. High energy impact, minimal warning and very simple with no fancy electronic on the actual missile to detect or influence.
Steve
Again a bit off topic but why presume that the designers of space stations, especially military ones which will have considerable power capacity for weapons and defences [armour and/or shields depending on the technology] will neglect to add some propulsion capacity?
If they don't or even if they do, depending on the ability to move and detection capacity possibly the simplest approach are some relativistic rocks. High energy impact, minimal warning and very simple with no fancy electronic on the actual missile to detect or influence.
Steve