Cold War Comments Thread

[Kurt (OP)]

If any.

[Rye123]

I like the "USSR technically wins WW3" way you took this, especially where the US (ahem, the Coalition) still remains a relevant but weaker power being very similar to the Russian Federation in our world.

[Jovus]

I have one quick request, meant to be taken as non-confrontationally and politely as possible.

(I merely specify because sometimes it's difficult to get tone down in text.)

Could you perhaps change the name of this thread? It's named exactly the same as Steve's 1889 campaign comments thread, which means you're likely to get some people clicking the wrong thing, if they're using the 'recently updated' forum readout like I am.

That said, you did successfully snare another reader, so maybe you don't want to!

[Garfunkel]

Whoa, a new Starfire campaign! Wasn't expecting this. Will definitely follow.

[Kurt (OP)]

I have one quick request, meant to be taken as non-confrontationally and politely as possible.

(I merely specify because sometimes it's difficult to get tone down in text.)

Could you perhaps change the name of this thread? It's named exactly the same as Steve's 1889 campaign comments thread, which means you're likely to get some people clicking the wrong thing, if they're using the 'recently updated' forum readout like I am.

That said, you did successfully snare another reader, so maybe you don't want to!

Your very polite comment was well taken, don't worry.  I noticed the similarity when I posted it, but in the back of my head I thought the fact that it was in a different thread would be obvious.  Upon reflection, I agree with you and I've changed the header. 

Thanks!

[Kurt (OP)]

Whoa, a new Starfire campaign! Wasn't expecting this. Will definitely follow.

This is not a statement on the likelihood of Steve releasing C# Aurora any time soon  !  It's just that I was feeling like an old fashioned Starfire Campaign for a change.  We'll see how it goes.

Kurt

[Jovus]

Starfire's awesome. I'm hooked.

[Jovus]

I don't really understand what's going on, having never actually played Starfire. But it's a fun read nonetheless! I'm hoping that when it comes to fighting or rising tensions you might pull the curtain back a little on the mechanics, just to give us ignorati a peek.

[Kurt (OP)]

I don't really understand what's going on, having never actually played Starfire. But it's a fun read nonetheless! I'm hoping that when it comes to fighting or rising tensions you might pull the curtain back a little on the mechanics, just to give us ignorati a peek.

Hmmm...It hadn't occurred to me that there are people here that might be interested in the campaign story, but who don't know Starfire well, or at all for that matter.  I'll give that some thought as I continue the write ups. 

Kurt

[Father Tim]

No point defense on the Nelsons?  Is that a compromise to get the prototype built as quickly as possible?  Is there a refit already planned to upgrade the ships' tech?

[Gyrfalcon]

Could you lay out why the Coalition has both less income and more upkeep with a smaller fleet?

I also don't know Starfire at all, but I am finding your game interesting - looking forward to how this plays out.

[Father Tim]

Could you lay out why the Coalition has both less income and more upkeep with a smaller fleet?

Upkeep is based on cost, not size.  In addition, the coalition fleet may mass less hull spaces, but it frequently features more vessels than the Soviet Union.

Which is more the 'how.'  As for the 'why' -- politics?

[Gyrfalcon]

That's fair, but I was getting the sense from the narrative that the USSR constantly has a larger and more capable space fleet in terms of both hulls in use and hull sizes, and the coalition is scrambling to catch up.

When I total their OoB, the only major difference is the Coalition has twice the number of PDCs - I'm guessing they have outsized maintenance costs compared to ships?

[Father Tim]

That's fair, but I was getting the sense from the narrative that the USSR constantly has a larger and more capable space fleet in terms of both hulls in use and hull sizes, and the coalition is scrambling to catch up.

When I total their OoB, the only major difference is the Coalition has twice the number of PDCs - I'm guessing they have outsized maintenance costs compared to ships?

It's 15% for ships, 5% for orbital bases & PDCs. . . oh, and PDCs get "free" armour 'cause it's basically rocks.

The difference might actually be accounted for in ground forces, since I didn't see any listed but they also cost maintenance.

[Kurt (OP)]

No point defense on the Nelsons?  Is that a compromise to get the prototype built as quickly as possible?  Is there a refit already planned to upgrade the ships' tech?

That is exactly what I intended to happen.  The Coalition developed the "W" (gun/missile launcher) first, and intended to rush a prototype destroyer hull into construction, as it will take five months for the prototype to be constructed.  Then, before I could begin building the Nelson class, I realized that the Coalition needed to prototype a frigate design first, so the Outreach class was designed and construction started.  By the time the Outreach class frigate was out of the yards and it was time to build the Nelson prototype, I forgot that it didn't have point defense.  Story-wise, this will all likely be blamed on naval bureaucracy. 

A refit is planned, but sometimes events can get ahead of you...

Kurt