 Thread: Us Lst |
|
|
I can live with Hoo's compromise solution.....
|
|
| Thread: Talons 1939 |
|
|
Odd....that two two pilots tasked with training the Iberian pilots of the future would so blatantly ignore the mission brief..........very odd.......
|
|
| Thread: Us Lst |
|
|
| Zitat: |
Originally posted by Brockpaine
| Zitat: |
Originally posted by Commodore Green
We pay for aircraft on our carriers, so why shouldn't we pay for the tanks in our LST's? |
|
No we don't. We assign miscellaneous weight for the number of planes it can carry, but that's not paying for the planes. Otherwise, we'd be paying tonnage every time we replaced a carrier's planes. The weight covers important things like the flight deck and hangers.
| Zitat: |
Originally posted by Commodore Green
We pay for troops on our troopships, so why shouldn't we pay for the tanks in our LST's? |
|
Again, no we don't; we pay for the accomodations to support troops. Bunks, kitchens, etc.
| Zitat: |
Originally posted by Commodore Green
We pay for landing craft on our troopships, as well as building and paying for the landing craft themselves,so why shouldn't we pay for the tanks in our LST's? |
|
This new rule follows hand-in-hand from our existing rule - it's a logical extension. We can either pay for the landing craft with the refit via miscellaneous weight, or we can pay for them independently.
Edit: rereading this one again... no, we DON'T pay for the landing craft twice. Several months ago we all agreed that landing craft, if paid for via miscellaneous weight on a landing ship, do not need to be paid for separately. The logical inverse of that is that we can drop that weight for the construction of the ship, but would then need to build the landing-craft individually in order to equip the landing ship with them. We do not pay for landing craft twice.
| Zitat: |
Originally posted by Commodore Green
As for the "you'll have a tougher ship" argument for older vessels.......absolutely pointless!
We have no mechanic in place to assign damage sustained in combat, so a "tougher" ship is of no value. |
|
I disagree strongly. Everybody here knows you can conjure a "cruiser" out of a merchant ship with a 25% refit, and re-engine and armour it for 50%. Why then is nobody doing it? It's because, damage metric or not, we KNOW that those ships are nothing better than cheap stopgaps with lesser damage capabilities. |
|
So, why shouldn't you pay for the ability to transport the tanks, in the same way you pay for the aircraft accomodations.
As for the landing craft, does that mean I'll get a refund on the Iberian troopships?
|
|
| Thread: Us Lst |
|
|
While you're at it, why not change the rules for CV's as well??
We pay for aircraft on our carriers, so why shouldn't we pay for the tanks in our LST's?
We pay for troops on our troopships, so why shouldn't we pay for the tanks in our LST's?
We pay for landing craft on our troopships, as well as building and paying for the landing craft themselves,so why shouldn't we pay for the tanks in our LST's?
And on a personal note, I paid for the misc weight on Loki, as well as building and paying for the torpedo boats themselves,so will I get a "tougher" Loki???
As for the "you'll have a tougher ship" argument for older vessels.......absolutely pointless!
We have no mechanic in place to assign damage sustained in combat, so a "tougher" ship is of no value.
|
|
| Thread: The Next Mission....... |
|
|
Jamie and Anna, reprising their cover as newlyweds, waited at the flying boat terminal at Foynes.
The weather was good for the time of year, and the local girls were fliting about in light summer dresses.
Anna was taking mental notes, just in case she ever had to carry out a mission in Ireland.
"So, who is our target this time Jamie?" she purred in his ear, using the cover of a peck on the cheek.
"Oh, you'll recognise him, my dear, you'll recognise him!"
|
|
| Thread: Computer died |
|
|
| Zitat: |
Originally posted by HoOmAn
Well, I could help her, you know... ;o) |
|
You Sir, are not in a position to make threats like that.......
Intelligence could be gathered and ....well, leaked to interested parties in the near future........... 
|
|
| Thread: Computer died |
|
|
| Zitat: |
Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
Booze first, then computers, then women..... |
|
Women first, then booze and computers.......
....after all, you need someone to carry the computers and to bring you a cold beer!!!
(I'm safe saying that here, her Ladyship forgot her password!! )
|
|
| Thread: stupid question |
|
|
Yup, that WAS a stupid question!!
Alvama, your art is an inpiration to us all, I for one, am more than glad you are here.
|
|
| Thread: Indian News 1939 |
|
|
| Zitat: |
Originally posted by Hood
Argentina: don't look at us, *points finger at Peru* they did it!  |
|
Iberia: "No, We can vouch for Peru. They were out with us celebrating "Federartion Day"....hic!"
|
|
| Thread: Various Aircraft and Tanks |
|
|
| Zitat: |
Originally posted by ALVAMA
I'll will modfied it heavly then....  |
|
Don't get me wrong, your work is outstanding Alvama.
It's just this craft is so different to anything else in WW.
And I know that this is the Non-WW thread, it just came as a bit of a shock......
|
|
| Thread: Various Aircraft and Tanks |
|
|
There's a "rule of thumb" in aircraft design, and I'm speaking from a R/C aircraft point of view, and basically it is ...."If it looks right, it will fly right"
Sorry Alvama, but that just looks wrong!!!
Has an air of Warhammer 40K about it.....Ork-ish even!!
|
|
|
Thread: 
