SeaKrieg (Or Naval General)

File: HMS_Nelson_Practice_Shoot.jpg (64KB, 500x379px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 500x379px

It would be Naval Admiral, not Naval General.

Get your shit together OP.

>>51325220
Pretty sure it's SeeKrieg 5 as well.

File: 2005-07-06-2231.jpg (170KB, 800x780px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 800x780px

>>51325364
http://www.seekrieg.com/

You are correct anon.

>>51325328
Fuck, that's one of the best looking photos of the Nelson I've seen.

>>51325220
I've played Seekrieg.

It's... intense. Not stupidly so, but turns take a lot of time to get through, or they seem to. Orders are written, and given by the flag, with a chance that your commanders misinterpret them (which leads to some historically accurate screwups in the pre-dread and dread age.)

It has one of the best damage systems I have ever seen in a ship game, with hits allocated to different sections of the ship, each with their own armor value, etc.

I would not recommend it for new players. But if you are advanced as a player (so if Command at Sea is too simple for you...) then it's very good. Quite expensive, but the authors did a ton of research.

is the SK4 playable or 5 is just plain better?

>>51325849
What makes it expensive? I see rulebooks, those can be pirated. I see paraphernalia, that can be ignored. I see terrain, that can be approximated. And strangely enough on their store site, I DON'T SEE MINIATURES. So those look like they can be anything.

To reiterate, what makes it so expensive?

File: hms_barham_28191429.jpg (70KB, 728x402px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 728x402px

>>51325910
Seekrieg4 is free on their website if you want to have a look at it.

It was published in 1984, so take from that what you will.

>>51325988
i never played one of these so i dont know
its a bad first naval wargame system?

File: USSNevada.jpg (102KB, 744x544px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 744x544px

>>51325980
>I see rulebooks, those can be pirated.

Good luck finding those. Unlike 40k or other popular games, it is a bitch and a half to find free copies of most historical games.

Add to that, they do need the money, since small publishers should be supported especially in a niche product area.

As to expense:
Base game is 80
Every Ship pack is 24. So for full fleets, probably 400 dollars or so.

File: WNFR_15-45_m1935_Richelieu_pic.jpg (26KB, 784x366px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 784x366px

>>51326007
>i never played one of these so i dont know
its a bad first naval wargame system?

Take a look at the rulebook, if it looks too complex, it probably is.

In the naval wargame world I would suggest in order of increasing complexity:
Axis and Allies Naval
Victory at Sea
Naval War (it is free though, so bonus points)
----- Line of insane complexity
Command at Sea (Very Complex)
SeeKrieg 5 (Like Command at Sea, yet somehow more complex?)

I have played all of them, they are all fun and make for great afternoons with friends. But your level of enjoyment will be higher if you ease yourself into it.

>>51325328
>nelrod

Effective design for sure but still one of the ugliest things ever put on the sea.

File: 1357035559517.png (798KB, 636x665px) Image search: [Google]

798KB, 636x665px

>>51326130
>one of the ugliest things ever put on the sea

Are we ignoring the Fuso/Ise/Tone in this discussion?

>>51326022
Never have needed luck. Just patience, nice manners, and diligence.

As far as them needing it, then they should market it so that it is easy/cheap to get into, harder/more expensive to master. Look as SFB and the direction it was going with Star Fleet Commander. Also campaign style games that cost more then the basic game are a decent way to get money for deeper play while trying to keep a entry/basic game inexpensive to gain a market.

You can't trust the written word to be worth anything in the internet society we have created. Just like you can't trust buggy whips to be worth much anymore. They can adapt or be driven extinct.

File: p7001.jpg (25KB, 560x300px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 560x300px

>>51326189
> then they should market it so that it is >easy/cheap to get into

Why?
They have a niche product, that grognards will pay for. They don't need it to be cheap, since the market bears the price point they have set. They don't need it easy to get into, since the only people who will play Seekrieg are dedicated and experienced wargamers.

Most niche wargames are like that.

>>51326189
>They can adapt or be driven extinct.

And yet I still have to send a written cheque to get pewter models from Britain, because this one hobby shop is the only one casting what I want.

You only have to adapt if you have competition, historical wargames really don't have any competition.

File: 20170118051453_1.jpg (445KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

445KB, 1920x1080px

Have some Victory At Sea anons

https://dropfile.to/K7zahzK

If you want to start playing naval games, start there and enjoy!

>>51326251
>>51326296
Then they are doing fine enough for me to pirate the rulebooks.

One way or the other. They are earning enough that they don't need my pity and therefore money for their rulebooks. Or they are the poor pathetic downtrodden publisher that needs me to stop being bad and getting information for free off the internet and actually pay them for the words they write.

And if they are doing well enough, it will be easy to get the games off the internet, and find people to play against

If they are not, then I couldn't find people to play against anyway, so why get into it?

File: Cruiser_Kynda.jpg (2MB, 2974x1741px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2974x1741px

Anyone play Harpoon?

>>51326501
>I couldn't find people to play against anyway, so why get into it?

You probably shouldn't, you sound like an autist douchebag with no friends and no income other then a disability cheque.

>>51326531
Or just a smart enough guy to know the words "wasted money" and what they actually mean. But you sound like a retard who actually thinks money has no value. Looks like you are going to be homeless and broke in your old age. So enjoy that disability check in your future.

>>51326365
Nice, thanks!

>>51326655
Lols, autist confirmed.

Get a job hippie.

>>51325220
I prefer Amirauté with the 2013 rules.
And you'll find people to play with, if only in play by mail where I live.

>>51326365
Only issue I have with V@S is they never expanded the fleet lists for Italy enough, or the Soviet Union although I understand the latter. France also sucks as well.

Kind of disheartening that the pt value for a Yamato is the same as a Littorio or Richilieu.

>>51326022

>small publishers should be supported

top kek, I'm a consumer not a charity donator

File: doing it before tone and mogami made it hip.jpg (51KB, 600x381px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 600x381px

>>51326841
Minor/less popular navies getting fucked so that devs can focus on shit that sells is to be expected. Sure they could include stuff like Sweden's attempt to make a sea plane cruiser or Spanish light cruisers but that shit doesn't sell copies.

>>51326513
A couple years back when Naval Generals were s regular thing for a little while before we had /Hwg/, a couple of anons did some Harpoon on Roll20.

>>51327088
You sound more like a poor thief then a consumer.

.>>51326841
http://www.ibisfightclub.co.uk/vaswiki/viewer.asp

This will help a bit in that regard.

File: s584022.jpg (197KB, 1500x1205px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 1500x1205px

>tfw american paperboats outside of montanas don't really get any love

File: s511-13.jpg (451KB, 3000x1425px) Image search: [Google]

451KB, 3000x1425px

>>51327803
Hell, even Montanas are always shitty 27-28 knot designs instead of shit like this.

>>51326180
>>51326130

those are all fine looking ships though. Y'all niggas gay

File: lvKzCGU.jpg (269KB, 1280x895px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 1280x895px

What a beautiful boat, what a shame that her service life was so short though.

>>51327876
>>51327803
>tfw nobody ever does stats for the Tillmans
I just wanna see a world where WW1 ends in a white peace and we see all the crazy ship plans get built. Maximums, Incomparable, Gavrilov design, etc.

>tfw you want to use SpringSharp but you're stuck on a mac for the immediate future
fug

>>51329769
>Tillman II
>4x6 16 in/50s

>6-gun turrets
jesus christ how horrifying

>>51329608
That's the Derfflinger.

It flings derfs.

File: Derfflinger.jpg (401KB, 923x662px) Image search: [Google]

401KB, 923x662px

>>51332702
From /hwg/

File: j3x4Cl4.jpg (113KB, 1024x676px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1024x676px

>>51328972
If you say so.

File: 41671365_p0.png (376KB, 1200x899px) Image search: [Google]

376KB, 1200x899px

>>51330242
Creating your own crimes against boat design should not be as enjoyable as it is.

>>51327876
Sacrificing Armor for speed worked out so well for everyone else, why not do the same on the Montana?

I'd rather have the 15 inch armor and 28 knots then 12 inch armor and 33.

>>51325220
OK, I give up, what boat is that?

>>51337428

I'd rather have two Essexes (with full plane complements) instead.

>>51337530
Keep your carrier faggotry out of this.

>>51337548
Still angry that both of your floating hotels got sunk by carriers?

>>51337563
>>51337548

Man, I can't wait for RtW2 to come out:

tfw you just got to the point where you can fight some real nice big-gun battles with your awesome Super-Dreadnoughts - and then a swarm of fucking bugs pays a visit to drops a shitload of stinking bombs & torps all over your shiny, new Battlefleet.

Do you guys know of anyway to do a tabletop type game over the internet? I know a few people who are interested but we are spread out all over the place.

>>51337648

Roll20 is the best option, IMHO.

File: 88My3kX.png (780KB, 5000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

780KB, 5000x2000px

>>51337625
>not building fast super-badnought carrier hybrids

Pic not exactly related.

>>51337648
Yes, planesandmercs.org

Bloodwake game.

>>51337563
Carriers are over-rated. In the modern day, they are just as obsolete as battleships.

Subs are the only WW2 naval weapon that is still valid in full scale combat today.

File: Wrhino_turn_04.png (120KB, 3000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 3000x2000px

>>51337723
I will second this. I was skeptical at first, but it runs pretty well. Pic is our fleet's current turn. Our ships are the disorganized mess, the enemy is the red ships that seem to know what they are doing.

It might not be your style to do play by post, but it works for me as an easy distraction every day or so.

File: 1301539079769.jpg (83KB, 1653x507px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 1653x507px

>>51337691
Why stay in the realm of the plausible?

>>51337723
>>51337747
Thanks I'll give it a shot

File: 52_bismarck_michel_guyot_1.jpg (108KB, 743x489px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 743x489px

>>51337829
Send a PM to the boss of botes (Hanley) and they'll help you out if you get lost.

File: addques.gif (936KB, 328x436px) Image search: [Google]

936KB, 328x436px

>>51337747
I kind of want to know what boats are what on your side. There are no notes on them.

File: 20170121072726_1.jpg (376KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

376KB, 1920x1080px

>>51337446
J3 Class Battlecruiser

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J3_Class_battlecruiser

>>51338049
What game?

>>51338076
Ded Chinese bote game called Steel Ocean.

File: 20161202080107_1.jpg (303KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 1920x1080px

>>51338096
>Ded

Doesn't seem dead to me when I played it this morning. Lots of new players now.

Superior to WoWs in pretty much every way.

>>51338118
>Superior to WoWs in pretty much every way.
You say that like it's an achievement.

File: __original_drawn_by_byeontae_jagga__fcff9ddae7779bec48f06d7d106d9008.jpg (841KB, 1240x1745px) Image search: [Google]

841KB, 1240x1745px

Who had prettiest boats during WW2 and why it was USA?

File: Type VII.jpg (336KB, 1900x1340px) Image search: [Google]

336KB, 1900x1340px

>>51338579

But, anon, this is a U-boat - not a USN boat ...

File: fatassIowa.jpg (151KB, 2179x807px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 2179x807px

>>51338579
>US
>pretty
Late US ship design (Carolina, Iowa, Montana) suffered from panama-canal fatass-syndrome

File: 20170118052243_1.jpg (429KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

429KB, 1920x1080px

>>51338141
You are right, that's not a very hard bar to jump.

File: 016110.jpg (451KB, 2996x2436px) Image search: [Google]

451KB, 2996x2436px

>>51338789
>not liking fat boat afts

File: 20161206083233_1.jpg (248KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 1920x1080px

>>51338039
Oberon= Courbet Class
Beowolf = Andrea Doria Refit
Skolopendra = Greek BB Salamis
Merda = Pensacola CA
Bandai= Takao CA
The others are DDs of some type or another, Ognevois and Bensons I think.

File: Salamis.png (40KB, 1370x505px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 1370x505px

>>51339150
>Salamis

Say what you will, that's a very nice looking boat.

>>51339334
>order 2 ships from 2 different countries
>both of them get delayed because of the ww1
>after the war go full jew and refuse to pay for the completion of the vessels

As expected of Greece.

>>51340684
I think Britain seized the US guns meant for the Salamis and used them on their own boats or something.

>>51340684
>>51341933

Well this just sounds like a clusterfuck.

Tell me more.

>>51342021
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_battleship_Salamis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abercrombie-class_monitor

File: Fleet overview.jpg (854KB, 2259x1231px) Image search: [Google]

854KB, 2259x1231px

So, gentlemen, what are your fleets like?

>>51342350
Mine are all 1/6000 so they don't photograph well.

>>51336082
>>51330242
>trying to use winebottler
>it just gets stuck halfway through and won't go
FUCK

File: 43683038_p0.png (795KB, 1200x857px) Image search: [Google]

795KB, 1200x857px

>>51343233
Sucks to be you.

>>51344124
>brit carriers
>not having english longbows
[REEEs externally]

but furious is a QT

File: 20170121071914_1.jpg (410KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

410KB, 1920x1080px

Vanguard reporting, last battleship ever made.

>>51345315
Gotta love those tiny WW1 vintage turrets.

>>51338789
You can talk bad all you want about the Iowas, but the North Carolinas were sexy boats.

>>51345355
Brits built their guns right the first time, BL 15 Mk1 was a damn fine gun through three wars.

File: WNBR_15-42_mk1_Hood_guns_pic.jpg (119KB, 896x753px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 896x753px

>>51345633
No argument from me.

File: 20170122172350_1.jpg (475KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

475KB, 1920x1080px

>>51345633
13.5 was pretty remarkable as well, and the 15 was just an upscale of that.

>>51348240
TIGER TIGER TIGER!

I SEE A TIGER!

SQUEEEE!

>>51344124
>>51343233
>manage to get winebottler to work
>it opens with the "do you want to quit" mini-window
>main window only appears after pressing no repeatedly, and won't allow me to click anything in it
[screams externally]

File: 20170121071944_1.jpg (449KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

449KB, 1920x1080px

>>51349204
Wait, is this because you are on a Mac?

>>51349543
Yeah.

File: Photo01bbVanguard2NP.jpg (96KB, 1065x840px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1065x840px

>>51349543
>Dat Transom Stern

>>51349792
Not very aerodynamic.

>>51351097
What did you expect from a boat built on shoestring budget?

>>51348490
>finally get a splendid cat with at least somewhat sane design
>scrap her when you get the first chance to do so

File: Stripesofsuffering.jpg (451KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

451KB, 720x540px

>>51342350
The stuff I've got painted so far.

http://pugliese.imgur.com/

pic is the biggest chunk of what I currently have left to do, along with some minor navies stuff and the little bit of USN I have.

>>51353313
Never understood the point of having stripes on non-carrier boats.

>>51353736
As far as I know the Italians once bombed a couple of their own ships by mistake, so they painted those high visibility stripes on the bows to avoid attacking allies again.

>>51354832
The Regia Aeronautica were really bad at coordinating with the Regia Marina, and this extended to target recognition. Lot of other countries used aerial recognition marks in one way or another, it's just that the Italians were the most stylish about it.

File: tone.jpg (122KB, 1024x457px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1024x457px

>>51326180
Fuck you man Tone is great. Perfectly shows how the Japs tried keeping somewhat within the treaties whiles bolting all the guns they could get their greedy little hands on

>>51326080
>axis and allies Naval
Fuck man that just reminds me that I have the entire Imperial Fleet. (Minus the odd destroyer and what not). Wish I could find someone to play with though

File: HMS Exeter Malta.jpg (77KB, 744x542px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 744x542px

>>51353207
t. John Fisher

It was Britain's own fault for being poor and having to concede to treaties.
At least we got some smaller cuties as compensation.

File: Exeter at night.jpg (19KB, 450x335px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 450x335px

>>51355511
Exeter a sex.

>>51355181
Tone is shit. Not even close to obeying treaties.

>>51355699
>treaties

Every Axis nation treated them like toilet paper. Italians, Germans, they all lied about displacement. Japanese were the worst. When shown the specs for the Mogami class, a RN shipbuilder commented "unless she is made out of cardboard, no way on god's green earth is that within the tonnage limit"

File: 20170122172838_1.jpg (314KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 1920x1080px

>>51348490
Here she is in a hard turn.

>>51356131
Saddest thing is that even though they lied to displacements none of them really managed to use those extra tons effectively.

>>51356740
Only the Brits and to some extent the Americans had the naval engineers capable of making good ships within treaty limits.

File: 1jrvw4[1].jpg (68KB, 799x533px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 799x533px

>>51357373
The French made some excellent treaty cruisers. Algerie in particular is held up as a gold standard.

>>51357951
British battleship designs really went for as ugly as possible approach following Revenge-class.

File: kgv-01.jpg (71KB, 800x691px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 800x691px

>>51358062
KGV is sex.

>>51358747
i dont get why the quad tower followed by the twin turret
is this some sort of bong naval engineering tecnique??

>>51358853
3 x 3 would had been too boring and conventional approach.

File: 01_sms_derfflinger_1914.jpg (119KB, 1200x859px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 1200x859px

I just wanted to post this image.

>>51358853
Weight Distribution. The upper turret was lighter then making it a quad, because of the additional machinery weight and armour. This arrangement, though weird, gave the KGV a higher throw weight then the Bismarck, at a huge cost savings and weight savings.

3x3 would havereduced the armament by 1, to 9 guns. 9x15 inch guns would have broken the treaty in weight and gun size. 10x14 was the best the Brits could do while obeying the treaty. Still made a damn fine ship.

File: Imperial Japanese Navy 04.jpg (167KB, 861x831px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 861x831px

Here, have a mediocre picture of some subs.

>>51361181
A class of boats almost uglier than post-aviation battleship conversion Ises.

File: a1bbd5efc8405745c55656ea8724b9c7.png (82KB, 1267x715px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 1267x715px

R8 my anti-dreadnought.

File: hiraga_s_1929_battleship_design__x__scan_by_xr4ever-d7k90fy (1).png (2MB, 1600x960px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1600x960px

>>51363011
>mixing 6in and 8 in guns
>no DP/AA

Still, killy/10

Take a look at this proposed design for a really compact design using "double purpose" 6in secondaries.
What program is that anyways?

File: 010611.jpg (91KB, 595x765px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 595x765px

>>51363534
Rule the Waves.

>>51337735
And here we have a tard. This specimen thinks it understands naval power in modern day. It thinks that combat capability and power projection can be accomplished with craft incapable of sustained surface action. It actually believes that a submarine can influence and support actions on land like a supercarrier group carrying hundreds of fighters and bombers along with amphibious assault groups and their ability to deploy to any location on the globe that has access to ocean water.

This is a rare find, it actually clocks in at an intelligence scale so low that it is amazing that it can actually write.

Enjoy the show.

File: USS_New_Orleans_LOC.det.4a04863.jpg (2MB, 4301x1986px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4301x1986px

>>51363630
Thanks.
Nice Battlebote, have another bote.

>>51363534
That's why I call it the anti-dreadnought. It uses post dreadnought technologies to return to pre-dreadnought design philosophy. IE, only two main turrets, and intermediary batteries.

I'm actually tempted to build something slightly more conventional that just uses two quad turrets and a 6 inch secondary battery. The idea being that quads allow the most firepower for the least weight, making superfiring obsolete.

As for the lack of DP/AA, this is 1925. Aircraft aren't considered in this game.

>>51364809
I understand the point you're making, I find it interesting, but I think it'd be more interesting if the tertiary battery would use fixed or semi-fixed rounds to increase the RoF, further differentiating itself from the secondary battery.
I dunno what the limitations of the program are, but I think everything afloat should at least have token 12-pdr and/or machine gun AA.
Also, have you seen this beastie? I find it enough argument to move to sextuple turrets if you're so inclined.
http://www.shipscribe.com/styles/S-584/images/s-file/s584108c.htm

>>51364928
Well I was going for silly because it was the end of the game and I could somehow build 50,000 ton BBs with 18 inch quad turrets and 18 inch armor.

You can put three different tiers of guns on any boat (essential to model pre-dreads), but firing at the same target with more than one kind of gun reduces accuracy. Better to just take a primary and secondary battery.

>>51364928
Hadn't realized that the Tillmans were named after Pitchfork Ben. I work very close to a building that bears his name, the prick. I'm gonna have to pick up the model someone had made on Shapeways now.

>>51327088
>paying for something is charity
Kill yourself

File: rtxeadu.jpg (712KB, 2967x1949px) Image search: [Google]

712KB, 2967x1949px

>>51363763

A carrier has a survivability measured in hours, days if they are lucky. It's one big target, and the loss of one removes most of the US Navy's threat to land based operations instantly.

There's a reason that full scale war operations don't involve carriers, the Navy knows they will be lost in the opening moves.

All naval vessels will be found underwater in the next major conflict, either by design, or by elimination.

>convinced my dad to try painting up a fleet to use
So what would be a good ruleset for someone who doesn't play board/wargames very often?

File: 20170123191306_1.jpg (361KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

361KB, 1920x1080px

>>51367182
Victory at Sea, by Mongoose. Very easy to learn, has the right 'flavour' for naval combat without being drowned in details.

Games are 60~120 minutes long, probably the best beer and pretzels naval game out there.

Also handles carriers without a lot of record keeping.

File: 20170123192004_1.jpg (355KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 1920x1080px

Not enough Kongo.

File: 20170123192124_1.jpg (310KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 1920x1080px

>>51369181

Not super realistic, but firing over an Island is satisfying.

File: IMG_20170123_195233810.jpg (367KB, 1547x870px) Image search: [Google]

367KB, 1547x870px

>>51342350
My 1/3000 painted part so far. Left is Japs right yanks.

Only like 10 cruisers, 15 carriers, 10 battleships, and 10 destroyers to go.

wooooo

File: RS0C1DX.jpg (373KB, 1450x874px) Image search: [Google]

373KB, 1450x874px

>>51369181
Why talk about export monkey models when you can talk about actual Brit boats?

>>51370374
2/10 bridge is too low.

File: hms_tiger_modernisation_ala_warspite_by_tzoli-d9kgsyi.png (2MB, 4600x4000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4600x4000px

>>51370374

>>51366181
>carriers operate alone without any kind of escorts

stop being retarded

>>51357373
British treaty cruisers are too lightly armored for my taste desu but that is a flaw that they share with basically all treaty cruisers.

>>51373311
The typical carrier is surrounded by three to five Aegis systems. Aegis has only been tested against multiple targets five times in its history, and since 2010 it's failed to intercept four times due to various failures. It's not a perfect system, and it's never been deployed against actual determined opposition.

Stop mistaking technical successes for invulnerability.

File: __darjeeling_kongou_lynette_bishop_and_warspite_girls_und_panzer_kantai_collection_strike_witches_and_world_witches_series_drawn_by_hoshino_banchou__e0f38ffa0e65e8178e12ff55ff3d3164.jpg (3MB, 2303x3248px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2303x3248px

You wouldn't bully an englishbuilt japanese battlecruiser.

Most overrated boats on national basis:

Germans > Japanese > British > Italians > Americans > French

>>51374339
I don't think I've ever seen anyone argue that Italian ships are amazing, just sexy. They had a few fair to good designs, like the Trentos and Zaras, and the Littorios could have been good if not for defective torpedo protection and bad quality control for ammunition. But I've never, ever seen actual Spaghettiwank. Mind sharing where this comes from?

>>51374408
Italian dispersion issues were caused by high velocity guns more then ammo quality.

>>51374339
>Japanese boats being overrated after the Fourth Fleet incident
>Anyone who approaches being an actual authority on the subject overrating the IJN
Nobody overrates Imperial Japanese naval design except for game designers who don't care and weeaboos who are in it for the tits anyway.

The Japanese had an excellent navy in the 20's and 30's and had revolutionary designs in the Kagerous and their carriers, but were rapidly eclipsed across the board when the US started building under the Second London Treaty's escalator clause. I don't think you'd find a single historian of note who would disagree.

>>51375240
> revolutionary designs in the Kagerous

Ah, the destroyer that had 1/3rd of its force wiped out by subs, and the other 1/3rd by aircraft.

Pretty good for an escort class...

>>51375700
The destroyer that set the standard for its era's concept of a "destroyer" in terms of role, armament, size, and configuration. That the IJN never quite got submarine warfare right, then frittered many of its destroyers away on fast transport duty in the South Pacific, and THEN conclusively lost control of the air war doesn't change the fact that they had some good naval designs at the outset. Heavy cruisers obviously excluded.

They just got outplayed at their own game and far outstripped in terms of production.

>>51376055
Japanese light cruisers weren't much better desu, but then again most of them were from 1910s and 1920s so that is to be expected.

>>51376426
Partly they also followed outdated concepts.

File: ru_bb_91.gif (136KB, 500x275px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 500x275px

>tfw there seems to not be a naval game about weird mid-to-late 19th century boats that came before pre-dreads

I just want to see what would happen if lets say HMS Captain ended up taking on USS Monitor.

File: 20160921_180455.jpg (260KB, 1200x1600px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 1200x1600px

Rule the Waves gets a bunch of attention but are the other games by the same lot worth getting as well if you already have that? Kinda curious about Steam & Iron for instance. Just grabbing the demo but if anyone's got an opinion on the full game it'd be appreciated.

File: 20170123191929_1.jpg (422KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

422KB, 1920x1080px

Is it shooting or exploding?

Who cares. BOATS!

From what i understand, the IJN in WWII had the best fleet... for the previous war.

>>51379842
Let me guess; one of the bongous?

File: RH_monitor_Huascar.jpg (61KB, 1019x530px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 1019x530px

>>51377007
I'd pay serious money for something like that, if I had anyone around to play with.
Have you read about Huascar's exploits by any chance? She was built by Laird, same as Captain, but was smaller. She had an encounter with HMS Shah, inconclusive as it was, but then fought many other ships over two different wars.

File: 36_146590~naval-combat-beween-the-peruvian-ship-'huascar'-against-the-chilean-'blanco-encalada'-and-the-'cochrane'-in-1879.jpg (27KB, 480x330px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 480x330px

>>51382751
She then faced Cochrane and Blanco Encalada, but when Blanco finally engaged, the battle had already been decided, it did not go well for Huascar.

File: image.jpg (1MB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x1200px

Just leaving this here, from one of our anons in /Hwg/

>>51383883

>>51381016
>actual carrier focus
nah, that title goes to the Italians probably

>>51381016
They knew what they had: the best torpedoes on the planet, and they stuck them on everything.

>>51375700
Who said they were an escort class? The Japanese concept for their 'special type' destroyers was 100% attack oriented. Who needs to bother with honorless escort duties when you can win the decisive battle instead :)

File: __choukai_kantai_collection_drawn_by_kamelie__ee7f71eb9155858ef3ef08dc5713c906.jpg (343KB, 873x1200px) Image search: [Google]

343KB, 873x1200px

>>51389225
Not that it really did them any good in the long run.

>>51391618
There was no 'long run' in the minds of the Japanese command. Everyone with a little grasp of the situation knew that Japan was screwed in a drawn out war of attrition, including the general staff and high-ranking brass like Yamamoto. That's why they tried to force a 'decisive battle' on the US at Pearl, Midway, Guadalcanal etc. The US just wouldn't give battle on that scale and whittled them down where they could and then just steamrolled everything when their production programs started to spit out carriers faster than Japan could build destroyers.

However, for the 'decisive battle', envisioned to be fought at night the Japanese were more than prepared, and the special type destroyers were an excellent example of the assymetrical tactics the Japanese tried to used. With the prime example at the battle of Tassafaronga, when a force of 8 Japanese destroyers took out 4! US heavy cruisers with only one of their own sunk...

>>51391699
I would consider Midway to be a rather decisive, even if it was so in a way that japs didn't hope it to be.
>japan loses 4 carriers and the hardened core of her naval aviation forces

File: Italian-Battleship-Roma-Anchored.jpg (45KB, 550x341px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 550x341px

>>51389022
Not finishing Aquila and Sparviero was a serious miscalculation on their part, as was not having a Naval Air arm separate from the Regia Aeronautica. But for a regional power with regional aims, they otherwise had a decent navy in terms of escort vessels and heavy cruisers, and some decent modern battleships in the Littorios (Pugliese aside). Most of the early Condottieri were trash, with the last two subclasses being the only ones worthwhile.

Technologically, the biggest thing that hampered them was the lack of radar on more ships, and a lack of practice in night fighting (They got better as the war went on).
When you lose an entire cruiser squadron because a battleship sneaks up on you in the night and unloads, it's a serious issue.

>>51392863
It is Italy if the battleship wasn't one of their own then they just losing a squadron of cruiser is better than expected.

>>51393641
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cape_Matapan#Night_action

>>51395543
This is one of the County class right? Which one?

File: Battle_of_Dogger_Bank_(1915)_Map.png (27KB, 549x358px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 549x358px

Am thinking of running an expanded Battle of Dogger Bank (1915). Worth it to go for the full OOB? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_battle_at_Dogger_Bank_(1915)

>>51395769
I'm pretty sure that's HMS Tiger mate.

>>51395935
Well, at least he got the country right.

File: ABDA strike force.jpg (387KB, 1600x960px) Image search: [Google]

387KB, 1600x960px

Just finished preparing stuff for a nice 250-point game of Naval War tomorrow evening.

I gave my opponent free choice of force based on my (still kinda limited) collection and he decided to go with an ABDA cruiser force. Pic related. Heavy cruiser HMS Exeter, light cruisers HMAS Perth, HNLMS De Ruyter and HNLMS Java and eight destroyers of a mix of nationalities.
The cruisers and the Dutch/Brit destroyers will start the battle on the table, with the US destroyers (Clemsons) arriving later as close support.

I'll be opposing him with a Japanese destroyer force from the newly tweaked Dutch East indies Order of Battle: 3 Kagerous and 4 Shiratsuyus, each led by a Sendai-class light cruiser.
The Shiratuyus and their destroyer leader will be arriving a bit later as close support as well.

The battleground will probably be fairly clear, which should provide the Allied side with a bit of an advantage to start.

Which side would you guys want to control here and what would your battle plan be?

>>51395935
>>51396012
Didn't pay any attention at all to all the damn casemates on the side, just saw the three stacks and the four twins and assumed.

>>51396057
Turret mounted aircraft launch platform, different superstructure and the noticeably larger distance between aft turrets should probably had been enough hint that she ain't one of the County class.

File: firepower1.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>51377007
Firepower has rules for that era, but it's a very simple game.

>>51396016
I think as the IJN player, you're going to have to make use of Stealthy Approach and Make Smoke to minimize incoming fire from the cruisers as much as possible, till you can get into range to punish them with your Long Lances. The Sendais are kind of weedy, but your destroyers, especially your Kagerous have a pretty good number of guns, and I think will be able to punish the other destroyers once they get stuck in. I think you'll have a fun challenge, and your opponent will have a slightly more forgiving force to learn with.

File: IJN destroyer force.jpg (364KB, 1600x960px) Image search: [Google]

364KB, 1600x960px

>>51396352
Pretty much what I was thinking.
Bit of an asymmetic matchup, which should make things quite interesting.

Here's a pic of the IJN opposing force, by the way.

Fun fact: these Sendais have lower points values than any other ship in my force: 22 points per Sendai, 26 per Shiratsuyu and 29 per Kagerou.
Now that I think harder, I don't think I've got any IJN ships in my collection that have a points value lower than them except for a landing ship and sub hunter that haven't got points values in Naval War yet.
The downside of not having any older IJN destroyers yet, I guess.

On the ABDA side, the Dutch cruisers are 16 and 15 points and the old Clemson-class four-stackers are only 13 a pop.

File: 925ac0575c048c61f737afcdab4158ae.png (81KB, 1268x722px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 1268x722px

Is this better? It's built around the idea that plunging fire is the only thing that matters, so it sacrifices a bit of belt armor for deck and turret protection, while maximizing broadside firepower.

>>51397590
I think it's Long Lance tax more than anything, but it does a pretty job of reflecting that quality over quantity mindset that did well for them early on and got them into so much trouble later.

Got off my ass and worked on my last bit of IJN stuff I have to push through (at least until I get some Shapeways money). So primed and waiting are four Type B1 subs, Ise, Nagato, and a No 13 type subchaser. Waiting for me to drill out a ludicrous number of portholes are my two remaining Sendai.

I would have an Amagi and some Clemson/Wickes to add to that for this month's community project on /hwg/, but I didn't get to place the order before life decided I had to fix my vehicle instead.

>>51396016
>>51397590
Incidentally, whatever you've changed (I'm thinking lighting) in your picture taking is making a big difference. Your stuff is really quite nice looking.

>>51397978
Yeah, I took these pics right next to my window, in clear daylight.

Much better than the indoor lighting I'd normally be using.

>>51397815
Could use couple more inches of deck armor.

>>51399443
Yeah, I'll probably get the extra tonnage for that by reducing the belt. Not sure if I should also reduce the turrets and conning tower, but If I have 6 inches of deck armor, I can be immune to my own guns plunging fire. Then It's just a matter of staying out of direct fire range.

>>51400069
"If I make my battleship's belt armor so thin that popguns can penetrate it, I can win against anything slower than me!" sounds like putting the cart before the horse.

File: 350px-Fisher,_NPG_x12902.jpg (35KB, 350x506px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 350x506px

>>51400204
Sounds perfectly sound to me.

File: ff9b816fc9e7ba748c128adaea5f9d25.png (76KB, 1267x740px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 1267x740px

>>51400204
It's still thick enough to basically ignore small craft. And anything within torpedo range is going to get rekt by the secondaries.

The problem is there is a balancing act between fast enough to maintain optimum range, and strong enough to keep that optimum range from being paper thin. Between 20000 and 25000 yards I am immune to both direct fire and plunging fire from my own guns. If I assume that my enemies will have worse guns (a safe bet considering I'm late game america) that's fine, but I could see getting rushed by a pair of 25,000 ton BCs.

Of course, this whole ship would only be useful during a paper thin period of time between WWI and WWII. Too early and technology can't support it, too late and planes make it obsolete.

File: 1477252992952.jpg (150KB, 1369x838px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1369x838px

>>51400321
I think it'll work great now, it's got enough armor to ignore anything that's smaller than a Panzerschiffe while being marginally slower. And at 25k tons, the most dangerous thing would probably be an Italian 3xII 15 in gun BC, and event two on one versus your BB it'd be a fair fight.
I don't think the period between WWI and II is a paper thin period though, you had 2 important wars and many smaller conflicts, and a major encounter between the USN and IJN or RN was only prevented by treaties, diplomacy and economic downturns.
I think your BB is delivering a lot, you're just asking a bit more, even Bisko was skewered at close range.

File: 804bec7a009cdc5e98f3cf0634275ffa.png (60KB, 1005x718px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 1005x718px

I gave it a more reasonable turret layout. This meant reducing speed and making the secondaries lighter, but I think this would be a more reliable design. Quad turrets are supposedly unreliable, and losing one would cut my firepower in half.

I think 2x4 super-firing is the best BB turret arrangement anyways. If you have tonnage to spare, then either get bigger guns, thicken the armor, or make it faster.

>>51400891
Personally I tend to go with either 3 x 3 or 3 x 4, depending on whether the boat class is gonna be fast hunter-killer or slow brawler.

Also change your engines to use oil.

File: nmf-normandie-1912-battleship.png (109KB, 1509x851px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1509x851px

>>51400891
Eugh, that looks so...conventional.
What happened to courage and innovation?
Is this still 1926 btw?

>>51400891
Why is the aft superimposed gun lighter than the fore superimposed gun?

File: 5e27cb7e9b688681762cc716f4981fca.png (62KB, 1005x719px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 1005x719px

>>51400954
Oh shit, I forgot it sometimes defaults to coal.I just checked thought, and apparently the difference in tonnage is not enough to go any faster, even if I switch the engines to speed focus. If I do switch to oil however I can get the same 25 knots with reliability focus.

And yes, it's still 1926. I'm just fucking around in the ship designer at the end of the game.

>>51401036
No idea, what's really strange is that aft-center-line superimposed is as light as a non superimposed turret, despite having the same firing arc. You'd think turrets closer together would be lighter because they reduce the amount of belt armor required to protect their magazines. Adjacent guns can share a magazine, and thus reduce the surface area.

>>51401238
Do you not have All or Nothing armor unlocked?

>>51403029
>Picture has AoN marked as the armor configuration.
>Belt extended and deck extended both set to zero.

I don't know, you tell me.

>>51366181
>A carrier has a survivability measured in hours, days if they are lucky.

...Against what, exactly?

Other surface forces? That's what the naval aviation's for-hitting targets from outside radar range, where OPFOR can't see the launching carrier. Ditto anti-naval aviation.

If a surface or airborne force does get a bead on and attempt to attack the carrier, they would have to deal with, in chronological order, naval aviation, antiship/antiair missile spam from the escorts, and point defense (in the form of lightweight missiles and autocannon fire) from the escorts and the carrier.

Submarines? You'd have to sneak past, in chronological order, other submarines, naval aircraft with MAD and sonobouys, and escort and carrier sonar. And, of course, you still have to get a bead on the carrier first.

About the only thing I could think of that could destroy a carrier with the complete impunity you're implying would be antiship ballistic missiles-and even then, they would be susceptible to anti-ballistic missiles like the SM-3.

The same missile is also capable of engaging satellites, so using spy satellites to pinpoint a carrier would only be viable in the first few months of our hypothetical WW3, assuming elimination of OPFOR's space-borne recon capability is not a overriding priority.

Now, this doesn't mean invincibility-nothing is- but the supercarrier battlegroups the US Navy bases its doctrine are not, as you claim, just big targets. They're also big, hard targets, with multiple layers of defense against threats airborne, seaborne, and submarine, an offense that outranges everything but other naval aircraft and ballistic missiles, and an operational range that leaves conventional ships dead in the water(pardon the pun).

Also, there's ten of them. Losing one would be painful, but it isn't "removes most of the US Navy's threat to land based operations instantly" painful.

>>51406022

Also also:regarding "full scale war operations", the Nimitz class has been deployed in every war with US military involvement since 1975, and their predecessers the Forrestal class had been similarly deployed since 1957. Unless brushfire wars don't count for the purpose, in which case we would have to go back to WW2, where avaition carriers supplanted battleships, and submarines, despite advancements from their WW1 days, supplanted neither.

>>51406033
*aviation, sorry, posted too soon.

File: n00696.jpg (62KB, 800x594px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 800x594px

>tfw people can't tell her from her japanese counterparts or county class cruisers

>>51406777
Some of us can Anon because some of us own a bit of that ship.

File: SMS_Ostfriesland.jpg (37KB, 783x567px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 783x567px

Post ships your senpai served on!

File: HMS_Enterprise_WWII_IWM_FL_005389.jpg (63KB, 800x611px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 800x611px

>>51409492

>>51410253
>a boat that has her own rugby cup

Noise

File: h82428.jpg (87KB, 740x515px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 740x515px

So what was the logic behind this whole 1 turret in front, 2 turrets in aft thing that Königsberg class had going on?

>>51406777
Which Kongou is that?

>>51412576
The only one who did worth of damn during her career.

File: Koln Konigsberg.jpg (555KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

555KB, 1000x750px

>>51412420
They were scout cruisers. The idea was to steam ahead, get a positive position of the enemy, and steam back to the main body. Putting the bulk of the firepower aft allowed them to in theory fling more backwards at the enemy while they were withdrawing back to the fleet.

On the K-class at least, the rear turrets were offset, with one more to port and one more to starboard. This in theory would allow the turrets to have a little more traverse so that they could have a slightly wider fire arc on the sides. It must have been more trouble than it was worth, because the Leipzig (successor class) class had all turrets on the centerline.

>>51412684
Kongou?

>>51412791
I said worth of damn, not ineffectually fail around without achieving anything.

>>51412833

Hiei?

>>51413928
Battlecruisers aren't supposed to get bullied around by lesser cruisers.

>>51415020
Frankly, when used in their intended role, Battlecruisers are fucking awesome.

>>51415176
Explosions have tendecy to be like that.

File: __alaska_and_guam_zhan_jian_shao_nyu_drawn_by_yi_yu__a5a1588147dafff3e247370fc8dc57c9.jpg (1MB, 3300x1200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3300x1200px

If you believe that large cruiser=battlecruiser then yanks probably had the best idea how to use battlecruisers; just use them to beef up your regular cruiser formations.

>>51416921
HMS Scourge?

Also, why do brits have the best boat names?

File: image.jpg (46KB, 640x391px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 640x391px

>>51417253
If you really want to rule the waves, you can't have something silly sounding, like say HMS Ladybird.

>>51417686
>Insect Class

All of my yes

>>51326130
It looks exactly the same as every other ww1/ww2 ship

File: 20160921_184330.jpg (295KB, 1600x1013px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 1600x1013px

>>51417253
Because when you're building literally hundreds of ships, you get through a lot of names.

This is where I bring up the Gay series of ships like Gay Viking. Even though it was a time when gay just meant happy, Happy Viking is still not a good military ship name.

>>51418365
>Show me your honor

>>51418365
Better than a Sad Viking.

>>51415020
Kirishima?

>>51412420
It's sexy as fuck is what it is.

Also, structuraly speaking, it's easier to add more turrets in the rear than in the front. Notice how the freeboard on most warships is lower in the aft than the bow.

>>51417253
I mean, The flower class corvettes excluded... Then again how embarassing to be a german submariner and get sunk by the HMS Dandelion or Daffodil.

naval bump

File: IMG_0163.jpg (116KB, 1136x640px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 1136x640px

I found a mobile game.

>>51423388
Please have that abortion commit suicide posthaste.

File: IMG_2151.jpg (109KB, 1136x640px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1136x640px

>>51423668
Nah. Maybe you could make a better one, I'd love to see it. :)

>>51426485
Never expected to see a picture of a KGV that makes it look at least somewhat decent.

File: s511-54.jpg (362KB, 3000x1395px) Image search: [Google]

362KB, 3000x1395px

Iowas would had made surprisingly cute carriers desu.

File: Naval War - Eastern Solomons.png (271KB, 669x1024px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 669x1024px

Looks like the Naval War dev has posted a couple of Guadalcanal previews.
Pic related.

More over here:
https://www.naval-war.com/navalforum/ordersofbattle/16-guadalcanal-battles?start=6

Personally, I'm quite interested in putting this list onto the table: it represents one of the carriers being caught out, possibly because of a storm or some kind of malfunction, with the rest of its force rushing in to help protect it.
As an added bonus, I already own a USS Wasp mini and will soon have some more of the stuff available here.
Trying to keep the squishy sister of the Yorktowns afloat should be a pretty interesting setup.

On the other hand, I'm also quite looking forward to playing some of the IJN forces that operated around Ironbottom Sound.

File: BB55 A Turret Fires.jpg (86KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 500x375px

>>51429368
I'm looking forward to getting to put North Carolina on the table. It'd be fun to play with something I've actually seen.

I'm sitting here at the moment trying to put together a Savo Island scenario, or at least come up with some ideas to get him started on one, since he'd asked for some.

>>51429646
Showboat a cute.

>>51430018
When I was like thirteen or so, me and my dad went and saw her for the first of two times, and we happened to run into a gentleman who had served on her who was conducting a tour.

This was the gentleman.
>http://www.blogs.va.gov/VAntage/33844/paul-wiesers-veteran-legacy-as-a-world-war-ii-navy-veteran/

It was quite an experience, and somewhere we've got a program that he signed.

File: 12 utter idiots.png (38KB, 1920x1016px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 1920x1016px

I guess I am officially a grognard now.

>>51431727
The WW1 games by the guys behind RtW, Steam and Iron was it?

>>51432356
Yes. Finally caved and paid for it, got the code within an hour of purchase, patched it up to the latest version and have since been stuck doing stupid things in the Battle of Dogger Bank repeatedly to see what happens.

>>51435335
Cute models, who makes those?

>>51439598
Probably GHQ by the look of them.

File: US_CVE_Casablanca_class_Escort_Carrier_USS_St._Lo.png (946KB, 1024x692px) Image search: [Google]

946KB, 1024x692px

More Naval War stuff going on on the official forums, with one of the more iconic later-war ship classes being shown.

In other news, I got my latest Shapeways order in and it seems they simply aren't able to properly print the old 1/1800 Hiei sculpt from tiny thingamajigs.

Instead, I decided to apply some cutting and try to sorta fix both of them.
Probably won't look as good as the Kirishima I got, but what else am I gonna do?
Then again, it does bring me up to 3/4 Bongous. The big question there will now be who gets left out.

Some US vessels in as well, including USS Washington to blast these "fast battleships" outta the water.

File: -Venus-_the_bulldog_mascot_of_the_destroyer_HMS_VANSITTART,_1941._A3998.jpg (55KB, 800x541px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 800x541px

>>51440954
Did you get to play that Java Sea game, or no? You usually tease with pics before you do a report, so I was curious.

>>51442016
My opponent turned out to be a bit too busy running the store, so we scaled down to a roughly 125-point game using the lists I'd also used in my demo the week previous.

With the lack of time, I also forgot to take any decent pics.

The battle was pretty straightforward; my opponent underestimated the potential power of IJN torps and then his dice kinda failed him in the critical turn of shooting before I could launch.

That left him with 1 CL sunk (Aussie cunt took 3 long lances), 1 CA damaged and broken off and 1 DD damaged and broken off, causing his retreat.
On the IJN side, only the DD Sazanami had been forced to break off through damage, though the CA Kako also had some decent damage.

The torp thing also made sense; his only previous experience with torps was the ones on Prinz Eugen against HMS Prince of Wales.

File: WIP 1.jpg (1MB, 2560x1536px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1536px

In the meantime, here's a WIP picture of some my painting and basing.

>>51440098
Not enough detail to be GHQ. Maybe shapeways?

>>51444502
Nah there's not enough mould lines. Probably some other company then like NavWar or Skytrex.

>fucking around in Silent Victory with a Salmon
>sinking japs, having fun
>roll capital ship, it's the Kaga
>go in for a night surface attack at close range because long range is for krauts and cowards
>sink her thanks to a torp crit
>first round of escort attacks sinks me with boxcars on the damage chart roll

It was totally worth it, though.

remove boteslut REMOVE BOTESLUT

File: __kaga_kantai_collection_drawn_by_tama_wo__4c2496e7d671eccde8154668afdde943.jpg (464KB, 1031x1055px) Image search: [Google]

464KB, 1031x1055px

>>51446172
No bullying yakitori grill.

>>51444323
Nice! That a USS Boise hiding in the background there?

>>51447020
Yup.
Fixed up the painting on her turrets, which was kinda messed up.
The gun barrels barely looked straight.

>>51446599
I also got Ooi earlier in that patrol, but managed to get away safely. Also a bunch of destroyers because I was reading the limited escorts rule wrong which meant I was able to kill a lot more than I should have and was playing on VASSAL so I just drew from the warship deck until I got a DD or FF because I couldn't create new generic escort tokens.

>>51444323
I like these but hate the WSF fuzziness so much.

>>51448731
It's like any other model, you have to prepare it before painting. If you put in a little time, it'll come out looking way better than it does raw like that.

>>51450352
To a point. Spent 3 hours sanding an airplane with metal files, and was still fuzzy. Nylon is tough as hell. On the bright side I stepped on said aircraft and it did no damage to the model. Made me miss my Legos.

>>51450549
You need a sealer to fill the surface pores. A couple of coats of future wax or MR. Filler helps a lot. I didn't get very far when I tried sanding either.

>>51450814
Sorry, meant MR. Surfacer.

http://www.swannysmodels.com/Surfacer.html

>>51450863
Thanks. I'll give this a try once I get some figures.

>>51448731
For warships, 2 or 3 decent coats of paint (not realy thinned) are enough to cover that up.

Fuck trying to get the smooth lines of aircraft in WSF material, though.
Tried that with a few cheap planes and I'd either cover up all the detail or still have it fuzzy.

>>51454295
GHQ need much cleaning up? I'm just getting started, so I have no idea what to expect.

>>51454678
Don't own any GHQ personally, so I can't help you there.

File: 6231188ea30ab4b4981c24f8e5542419.jpg (158KB, 1280x885px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1280x885px

Too bad so many companies short-change WWI and earlier ships, particularly smaller navies. Pre-dreads are just so fucking dumb it's adorable.

>>51454678
I don't have any of their ships, but I do have a lot of their armor and infantry. Generally they're very clean., just some flash and mold lines. A bit of scraping, sanding, and a good bath is all they need.

>>51417686
HMS Dreadquitealotreally

>>51455425
>lets design our boats to be as ugly as possible so that any potential enemies will die from terminal eye cancer long before they get into the fight

Absolutely genius, what a shame though that they stopped following that philosophy after the WNT.

>>51455425
I bet the side of this ship makes for a great slide.

>>51455425
Tumblehome hulls are actually kinda sexy, but I hate wing main battery turrets with a passion. Centerline or bust.

>>51460125
It is a pre-dread, they didn't know better back then.

File: south carolina.jpg (331KB, 1650x1100px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 1650x1100px

>>51462060
They also weren't always able to fit them. The center-line is also where machine space goes.

The solution to that problem of course is HOLY FUCK STOP TRYING TO CRAM A MILLION GUNS ONTO THIS THING. If you can only fit two centerline turrets, build more boats instead of bigger ones.

South Carolina was the first sanely designed dreadnought. Maybe they could have made it slightly faster. It's contemporaries all wasted tonnage on wing turrets. 4x4 double super-firing is the best layout. If you can fit more guns, you can probably mount better guns instead, or more armor or better engines.

File: German ship SMS Odin.jpg (437KB, 2048x1622px) Image search: [Google]

437KB, 2048x1622px

>>51460125
> I hate wing main battery turrets with a passion. Centerline or bust.
How does this ship make you feel, anon?

File: e66928447faec7af95801adb3cf00012.png (14KB, 903x281px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 903x281px

>>51462565
That kind of turret layout is just fine... for a light cruiser.

But that's a monitor with 9 inch guns. Pig disgusting.

Does anyone know where to find pH and pK figures for 1950s and 60s SAMS and AShMs like the Terrier/Tartar/Talos, SA-N-3, SS-N-2, etc?

>>51462565
Looks like some of the shit I used to build in Warship Gunner, but with less barrels.

File: isxnm6EhwHMhp.gif (3MB, 310x232px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 310x232px

>>51463527

>Someone else remembers Warship Gunner

...I thought I was alone.

>>51463588
One of the only PS2 games I still play, well WS2 at least.

File: French_battleship charles martel.jpg (686KB, 1264x1720px) Image search: [Google]

686KB, 1264x1720px

>>51455425
Tumblehome castle love <3.
There was an alt-history pasta written by some guy somewhere I forgot in which Japan goes to war with France instead of Russia in 1904, it was very well detailed and enjoyable, has anyone here read it?

>GHQ only makes 1/2400 models
>according to what I've seen here on /tg/ 1/1800 is the most common scale for ships

which one should I get?

>>51464592
Us folk that like 1/1800 are kind of outliers. 1/2400 is the common US scale, and 1/3000 is the common European scale.

File: IMGP0774.jpg (280KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 1024x768px

>>51464879
This.

If you're in Europe, get 1:3000 because it's fairly cheap and easy to.

If murrica, 1:2400 for the same.

Anywhere else: doesn't matter you're most likely paying for international shipping anyway.

I find 1:1800 to be far too large though once ships get proper xbox heug post-Dreadnought.

>>51465082
I like big boats, but I know I'm in the minority. It comes from playing Babylon 5 ACTA with the delightfully enormous models that were originally for B5 Wars, rather than the fleet scale stuff.

>>51465082
To be honest, depending on how the prices look now that the line was bought Skytrex's shipping stateside still made them a pretty damn good deal in the US and ship per ship a good deal cheaper than 1:2400

All of my stuff is 1:3000, I like smaller scale because it feels like the engagement distances are slightly better and fitting a ton of ships on doesn't look super wonky. (Yes I'm aware that historically the battleships should be firing in the ballpark of 30 feet, I said slightly better not accurate)

>>51462398
Funny how Americans managed to get so many things right at their first try back then.
>build their first dreadnought=got the turret arrangement right
>build their first battlecruiser=sign a treaty and convert it into an aircraft carrier
>build their first large aircraft carrier=go with single deck and thus future proof the design

Surprised there is so much disparity between GHQ and seemingly everybody else for WWII miniatures

>>51463588
>406mm Chain Gun

>>51462759
Also, the paucity of good WWI era Japanese minis is criminal. Speaking as a non-weeb the fact that they were modernizing so quickly through that period makes for an interesting study.

>>51469891

In terms of what? Price? Quality? Breadth of range?

File: Japanese_cruiser_Ibuki_2.jpg (54KB, 801x556px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 801x556px

>>51473276
Blame the fact that nips really didn't do anything interesting during that war.

>>51473342
They sent a small force to Malta and exported some fine destroyers to France. And before the war they kicked the Russians' asses hard enough to be worth SOME notice.

Bit of a request (I know, >>>/r/) but does anyone here have an actual photo of the Japanese light cruisers Ooi and/or Kitakami in their ALL THE TORPS refit?

File: 10147794t2.jpg (72KB, 990x306px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 990x306px

>>51475626
Have this drawing while I look for pic of that isn't ant sized.

>>51475686
Sorry, it seems that Japanese torpedo cruisers were rather camera shy. Saw couple pics of them in their less torpedo obsessed configs (and plenty of pics as boatsluts) but I doubt that you would be interested in those.

>>51475918
Would be pretty fun alternate option for Naval War stat cards, desu.

File: Chudbucket.png (133KB, 1920x1022px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 1920x1022px

Been having a bit of trouble with this scenario in Iron & Steam:

"7 Aug 1914
(Hypothetical)

As the German battlecruiser Goeben fled east
across the Mediterranean, the last British force
that could stop her was a division of armoured
cruisers commanded by Admiral Troubridge.

Troubridge avoided action and was later court
martialled. This scenario explores what would
have happened if Troubridge had engaged. Can
four armoured cruisers stop a battlecruiser?"

As far as I can tell, the answer to the question is 'no'. That battlecruiser outruns and outguns the entire group, the closest I've got was a lucky intercept with the destroyer group who spammed out some torpedoes before Goeben just tore through them and left. The light cruiser can generally be shot up though.

>>51475626
I think HJS is gonna have to go with an older pic of a Kuma as a "close enough." I looked last night a bit too and I couldn't find any either, save for post-transport conversion.

File: JPN_CL_Kitakami_class_Light_Cruiser_Oi.png (794KB, 1024x692px) Image search: [Google]

794KB, 1024x692px

>>51476655
Well, we have a first version now.

File: Oi.jpg (455KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

455KB, 1000x750px

>>51476780
>All those beautiful opportunities for Ammo Stowage disaster

Probably gonna be something that would only survive long enough in a night game, or one with plenty of squalls/terrain. But if it does, it'll be glorious.

>>51476948
Pretty much.

I suspect that this vessel's points value will also need some careful thought.
Purely using the default points formula, it apparently comes out at roughly 70 points, which is almost enough for a battlecruiser.

One thing's for sure: these girls will probably attract fire like nothing else.

File: German Mittelmeerdivision.jpg (3MB, 3200x2400px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3200x2400px

>>51476246

I've played that scenario on the tabletop a couple of times. The short version is that if Troubridge′s cruiser squadron engaged Breslau and Goeben in open ocean, they're toast. If they could engage the Germans in tighter quarters (say, in the Aegean where there's a shitton of islands), they can pull it off, but are almost certainly looking at ~2 ships sunk and 1-2 ships in need of significant repair. The squadron is for all intents and purposes annihilated in either case...but by choosing a better set of engagement circumstances they can at least stop the Goeben from escaping.

>>51477159
good to know it's not just me then