Naval Miniatures

>>51559908
Where do you live?

I'd suggest going with 1:1800 or 1:2400 personally, the detail's worth the cost. Heard very good things about GHQ, but if you're outside the US shipping might be a deal-killer.

>>51560374
Canada.

>>51559908
My fleet is from NavWar they do 1/3000 and I like them a lot.

Only problem is that you can only order by mail, regular mail

File: Duitse vloot.jpg (1MB, 1500x1125px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1500x1125px

>>51562765
Here's a pic

File: atomic pagoda.jpg (115KB, 1024x585px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1024x585px

>>51559908
>know that it is a chrysanthemum seal
>always see a stylized asshole

>>51562786
1/3000 from britain? No chance, Postage will kill me.

>>51563103
GHQ does very good 1:2400s, and it's only 10% (maxing at $15) S&H for Canada orders.

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

373KB, 1450x874px

>>51562786
Fuck, for a second there it looked like Z-29's name was "Z-29 Cunt".

>>51562786
The thumbnail pic looks like those are iPhones.

File: 1484492171884.jpg (164KB, 1280x911px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 1280x911px

>>51562786
The red-topped German camo was the best.

>>51565562
I agree, gave the British a big red bullseye to shoot at.

File: lord fisher would be proud.png (4KB, 240x207px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 240x207px

I feel dirty for designing this monstrosity.

>>51565661
What's wrong with it?

>>51564619
>kancolle.jpg

>>51565661
>fisher would be proud
>no comically oversized guns
18 inchers on a light cruiser or bust, anon.

Anyone else play World of Warships? I just got Neptune and am loooooving it

>>51567147
>liking a game where crossing the T is a bad maneuver
come on, man

>>51565661
gibe stats screen

File: rtw_stop.png (36KB, 641x311px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 641x311px

>>51565661
mah nigga

>>51567494
Gotta wonder how they managed to fuck that up.

File: Oktyabr'skayaRevolyutsiya1934.jpg (208KB, 2000x1028px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 2000x1028px

Has there ever been a ship uglier than this?

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

303KB, 1920x1080px

>>51570691
Oh, I know the answer to that one.

They based their armor pen model on tanks, the rounds from the shells impact at the wrong angle, they artifically make battleship guns scatter like crazy for 'realism' and since they wanted every ship to have a role, you have DDs with unlimited torps, Cruisers with pyrotechnic guns, and battleships which are just around to be shot and catch on fire.

If you want a naval game with more strategy and closer to real naval warfare, look up Steel Ocean on steam. It might not be pretty, but at least every ship class is useful without the BS that Warships has.

>>51572081
Yes.

Fuso.
Ise
Ise BBV
Tone
Myoko

All were way uglier.

>>51559908
I just bought the entire Mediteranean conflict from Topside OP, 400 bucks for every ship Italy/Germany/Netherlands/Poland/France/UK had. Shipping was 23.50 to Canada.

File: 224a4ea1b80f5e80866f449dff5abfa6.jpg (418KB, 2000x1168px) Image search: [Google]

418KB, 2000x1168px

>play rtw as germany
>war against france with uk as my ally, less than 6 months
>war against italy with both uk and usa as my allies, 34 months and counting

Jesus, pastas aren't planning to surrender anytime soon, are they?

>looking through HyperWar's WW2 USN section
Man, I forgot how fucking insane WW2 US naval production was.
>let's build a hundred CVEs because why the fuck not

Anyone got a good source breaking down production by class? I don't want to count every individual ship in each class.

>>51566943
Don't you talk shit about my shipfu.

To those playing Rule The Waves:

Is it worth the money?

I've been playing Steam and Iron and I've yet to wear it out but the prospect of designing my own ships is very tempting. Does it suitably supersede the campaign expansion and russo-japanese war games?

>>51585188
Ship design is THE reason to get RtW, anon.

>>51565661
A slow destroyer with an impractical gun loadout?
I mean it's shit, but not a monstrosity.

Cut one of the tubes (torps are useless early game) and remove the two wing turrets to replace them with a single aft. That should free up enough tonnage to hit 30knots.

File: __hibiki_kantai_collection_drawn_by_kome__dd3e3b7062c6c7da67a2e13f780efd9e.jpg (471KB, 1063x1200px) Image search: [Google]

471KB, 1063x1200px

>>51586166
That and seeing what kind of bizarre alternative histories you end up creating.
>imperial germany and uk being bffs with brits helping krauts in their wars and krauts helping them to root out australian rebels
>1st world war being fought mostly on various caribbean islands and in canada between us&france and uk

File: RTW-sendhelp.png (76KB, 1897x1013px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 1897x1013px

>>51585188
i'll admit 35$ is sorta steep for what it is, but it's a real blast designing your stuff and fighting with it.

>>51587651
>tfw had one game where russia kept building pre-dread battlecruisers well until late 1910s

>>51587747
man i wish, the svent istvan in >>51587651 pic is a former russian ship. it fought me on its own in over half a dozen combats after i wiped out the rest of the russian fleet. it took a beating but never broke. after the russian government collapsed i took it as a spoil and i had it till the end of the campain.

>>51562765
Ah, the curse of the Grognard.

>>51587819
It is pretty funny how certain wars can drag on and on while others end almost instantly.
>stuck in a stalemate with france
>random cruiser battle
>1 of my 10 inch armored cruisers with +7 inches of belt armor vs 2 of their 6 inch CAs with 3 inch belts
>2 sunk french CAs later
>france surrenders

Just what were those ships carrying that made French to take up white flags?

>>51587651
I wouldn't say it's steep from a cost/benefit analysis. RtW has rocketed to my most played game by far. That's saying something, given its age.

>>51588318
Mashing your fisherian nightmares against computer's equally weird, ugly, and/or diseased designs never stops being fun.

File: 2nd franco-german war.png (42KB, 1322x802px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 1322x802px

>random coastal raid against france
>end up facing against all that remains of french fleet outside of mediterranean

Well, that escalated quickly. Guess that I should had noticed the signs that this would happen when the game gave me 3 battlecruisers to sink couple boats with.

If you guys are looking to try some tabletop boat stuff, I'm working on a pretty simple naval wargame set during WW1 and the inter-war period. I'll post the PDF for the playtest when I'm at my desktop.

>>51591045
A ship so fast they had to streamline the funnels!

>>51595369
Sounds interesting.

>>51588288
Their last hopes annon, their last hope.

>>51598319
Or gold.

>>51559908
I bought Topside Minis Coronel and Falklands set during the Christmas sale. For what you pay, you get a pretty nice looking, feeling, and portable product. But they're essentially just really nice counters, so if that's gonna bother you I'd look at 1/2400 or 1/3000 scale minus instead.

File: image.jpg (23KB, 190x270px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 190x270px

>>51577396
>Myoko
It's a mother beautiful ship!

>>51603094
Oddball pls, Myoko looks like shit.

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

331KB, 1650x1100px

Hey guys, what if the South Carolina had turbine engines?

>>51605664
>everyone else is running around with stupid shit like wing turrets and crossdeck fire
>yanks go with 2 pairs of superfiring guns

File: 5c74a8365ad1ddc5c658347960e5b9fa.jpg (79KB, 740x495px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 740x495px

>>51607536
I mean, we did our own retarded shit WITH 2 pairs of superfiring guns.

File: acr0462.jpg (101KB, 906x644px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 906x644px

Fuck, I had forgotten how crap the gunnery is in very early game.

File: 008[1].jpg~original.jpg (35KB, 792x391px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 792x391px

>>51605022
Anon, pls. Myoko a sexy.
I'll give you most IJN battlewagons though.
Especially the concept ones that never got built.

Pic related so hard.


>>51605664
I think lattice masts are kind of neat. For some reason they conjure up associations in my head of those really ornate stacks riverboats used to have. I do remember either South Carolina or her sister ship losing a mast in a fairly stiff breeze though.

>>51609187
>that funnel

I wonder what he was smoking while designing that.

File: 2prd1jl[1].jpg (13KB, 587x238px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 587x238px

>>51609510
No idea. It's like it's begging for one good hit so that it can collapse and foul all sorts of shit on deck.

>>51609510
It's basically just more, higher, and taller from Nagato's intermediate two-stack arrangement and the norm for their cruisers. Though advances in naval radar would've made the whole thing irrelevant anyway: even Japanese capital ships were getting it towards the end of the war.

Just too late to save most of their fleet.

Carriers or no carriers, /tg/?

My main beef is that it makes no sense to bring them to the table: if you wanted a realistic simulation of WWII naval combat your fleets would spend most of the time in neighboring buildings.

>>51610970
If it's bugs you that badly, do a separate pair of tables for carrier groups and one main one for surface combatants. That way they're technically offboard, but you can still game with them, particularly when air strikes or subs come into play.

And also when you want to play convoy missions where escort carriers were part of the attached escorts, or for hunter killer groups wandering the Atlantic look for boots.

File: __lexington_zhan_jian_shao_nyu_drawn_by_asakuraki__c759346be208d3778e6d67f81f970dc4.jpg (342KB, 969x1518px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 969x1518px

>>51610970
Pro-carriers but can see why certain people don't it like when they get involved.

>>51611056
Generally speaking when fleet carriers are involved you'd do best dedicating your surface fleets to AA and ASW screening duty rather than engaging in surface combat.

Or you can be the Kriegsmarine and IJN of your table and get your clocks cleaned.

>been playing rtw for over 6 moths
>finally found that you can upgrade your base capacity

Guess that this what I get for being an idiot and not reading the manual.

Been contemplating RtW for a bit, but currently on a binge of From the Depths. Anyone else like it?

File: Fear Naught11.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>51595369
Took a while but here you go.

>>51615516
Thanks m8.

File: image.jpg (435KB, 923x662px) Image search: [Google]

435KB, 923x662px

>derfbumpen

File: image.jpg (90KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 800x533px

Anybody here like ACW era naval action? It's on my gaming bucket list, but I'm still shopping around for scale, manufacturer, and system. I've heard good things about Peter Pigs Hammering Iron, does anybody have any suggestions?

>>51607610
Kearsarge is mai shipfu. How dare you insult her.

File: 010505b.jpg (175KB, 1000x789px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 1000x789px

>>51624065
Kearsarge a cute.

File: Nagato_1944.jpg (105KB, 1024x636px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 1024x636px

Potentially unpopular opinion: I actually kinda like some pagoda masts, depending on where they are and how high they are.

File: nagato_aft_kure_42.jpg (460KB, 2500x1765px) Image search: [Google]

460KB, 2500x1765px

>>51626279
Here's an appealing rear oblique view.

File: Fuso.jpg (250KB, 1600x842px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 1600x842px

>>51626279
>>51626514
Pagodas really don't work unless you are ready to go full pagoda.

>>51627070
See, that wasn't exactly a pretty ship before she got the pagoda treatment. Then you add something that looks that unwieldy and awkward, it gets downright hideous.

The double-ended boats wore pagodas much better.

>>51627232
Fusos ended up being so ugly that they became once again beautiful, same thing with Ises and their aviation battleship rebuilds.

>>51627262
There are some areas where I'd agree that's possible, to come around full circle. Naval architecture isn't one of them.

File: __damage_control_crew_fairy_and_uss_enterprise_kantai_collection_and_original_drawn_by_qihai_lunpo__4f88064ed364c71456f459346e952cab.jpg (556KB, 2480x3507px) Image search: [Google]

556KB, 2480x3507px

Behold the enemy of waifuboats everywhere.

File: thiskillstheroma.jpg (55KB, 1000x709px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 1000x709px

>>51628943
>Not Friitz X

File: hit20on20warspite.jpg (145KB, 842x598px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 842x598px

>>51629047
>cannot even sink a +30 years old british grandma

WWI, WWII, or something in-between?

File: 0522429.jpg (106KB, 974x768px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 974x768px

>>51630331
Mid (late 20s - early 30s) interwar probably would give the best mix of WW2 and WW1 boats.

>>51627232
Dunno, Nagato and Mutsu sorta managed to get it work but on Kongous it look like they had develop some kind of conning tower cancer.

>>51631399
I always figured they look uneven because they were stretched as part of their rebuild, and their rear superstructures weren't built up as much. So you have a tall pagoda with a comparatively long, low-slung ass end. Nagatos would've looked just as odd had they been refit into fast battleships.

File: mass1898.jpg (73KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 800x600px

>>51630331
Whichever one lets me put garish filigree on the prow and ten foot statues of Victory on the main guns

>>51630331
I love surface combat, but WWI era cruisers and destroyers were a bit of a mess and product lines can have glaring gaps in coverage for anything that's not HMS or SMS something-or-another. WWII without air wings would be the best for me, a lot of good designs to draw on and much more comprehensive product lines.

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

280KB, 1024x768px

>>51630331
WW1 and earlier for me. I love those weird designs of pre-dreadnought stuff and having to have offset wing turrets and everyone is trying to adapt to rapidly changing technology. WW2 for me is too... optimised.

File: 0400104.jpg (154KB, 1017x438px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 1017x438px

>try to modernize and upgrade my forces after fighting a 4 year war against usa
>random naval disarmament event happens
>tell them to politely not agree to anything
>they end up signing the treaty anyway and this leads to basically all of new capital ships and CAs that I've laid down getting scrapped
>pick a fight with france and in 8 months have started a war with them

Guess that starting a war with another country that will most likely end up killing tens if not hundreds of thousands of men just so that I don't have to follow disarmament treaties is bit dickish but, in my defense, the government forced me to do this.

>>51615516
How big are the firing markers?
I would assume it changes on scale but what is your base?

>>51633563
I've just been using penny-sized (UK) counters I found in a charity shop for dirt cheap.

>>51615516
Why are battleships faster than destroyers and cruisers? I know some could get over 30knots, but that was the exception not the rule, and by then DDs were even faster.

>>51634356
I got some feedback on an earlier build and I was told that was more accurate. Better do some more research I guess.

>>51634356
This is correct. As a general rule cruisers and destroyers had to be at least 5kt faster than contemporary battleships due to the occasional need to overtake them.

File: 010507.jpg (70KB, 800x390px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 800x390px

>>51634925
Even the slowest British destroyers during WW1 were still at least a knot or two faster than their fastest battleships (but slower than the newer battlecruisers but that is what you get for not running your speed trials correctly).

File: tumblr_o4i15bWjFQ1u3to9ro1_1280.gif (144KB, 500x1025px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 500x1025px

>>51634263
>I've just been using penny-sized (UK) counters I found in a charity shop for dirt cheap.
You can also get these from Rolco Games (they sell board game parts for scratchbuilders). There are 3/4 (~18.8mm) "poker chips" with ridges around the edges, or smooth-finished "tiddlywinks" the same size. You can also get 7/8", 1", and 1.25" markers off of them. I use them all the time in games as cheapy markers.

And the "tanks" work okay as Scorpions in Battletech, or as generic 6mm M1 Abrams if you're not too picky about detail for price.

>>51634925
To be a useful as an escort, you need to be able to (literally) run circles around the ship you are escorting.

>>51634652
I'd say

>8 inches DDs, BCs, and Fast battleships
>7 inches for most cruisers
>6 inches for BBs and old cruisers
>4 inches for Civilian craft, submarines, monitors, and pre-dreadnoughts.

>>51637509
Are those distances arbitrary or based on an actual scale?

'Cos it looks kinda arbitrary.

>>51637593
Well, the idea is that each inch is 5 knots, but with 2 extra inches of padding so things aren't boring. More for gamability than strict scale accuracy.

Also, the way the rules were written, most ships seemed to go 6 or 8 inches, so I wanted to keep that.

Now that I think about it, pre-dreads and gunboats should be 5 inches instead of 4.

File: 7a980dd5ea0afafbcbc38e94031767ce.png (61KB, 1007x716px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 1007x716px

France ceded this abomination to me as part of our war reparations. Should I rebuild or scrap?

File: 126654416d90502e50586c35322c2741.png (60KB, 1009x719px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 1009x719px

This is the closest I'd be able to get to making it a good ship. It would still be too slow and lack the seakeaping ability required to serve in my battle line.

scrap. if its not useful in your battle line get rid of it. otherwise you might just find it appearing when you cant afford it

>>51638527
I accidentally selected rebuild, and then scraped it, resulting in getting absolutely nothing.

Oh well, it's not like I lost anything.

>>51638219
>>51638237
Some kind of French coastal battleship? At least it seems to have more armor than 8 or 9 inches that French just love to armor their boats in my games.

>>51637509
>>51637657
Interesting! Thanks for putting some thought into it.

I'll run a bit of testing with the revised movement and see how it all works.

File: zvD4Y7V.jpg (857KB, 4194x2800px) Image search: [Google]

857KB, 4194x2800px

Anyone else have any images of Nagato in her camo pattern?

File: 3a4f9507.jpg (149KB, 1280x855px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1280x855px

>>51646520

File: Nagato 1945a.jpg (293KB, 1600x1094px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 1600x1094px

>>51647229

File: Nagato 1946e.jpg (1MB, 1600x1192px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x1192px

>>51647249

File: Nagato 1946f1.jpg (1MB, 1600x1290px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x1290px

>>51647267

>>51647267
That's actually a new one to me. I just wish it were easier to tell which spots were green, which were arsenal coat, and which are just areas of contrast because the photos are so comparably shit.

>>51647384
Good luck with that, 40's pic quality and the fact that she probably hadn't been repainted in quite a while when that pic was being taken probably isn't gonna make it easy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90l4P-N0-lk

>>51648059
IJN practice was to paint a ship any time it put in at Kure or Sasebo, and Nagato almost always wore the Kure arsenal coat. So the lighter spots in most people's schemes and in >>51647229 should all be Kure grey, which is consistent with how that tone shows up in colorized photos. The green is most likely IJN dark green #2, which would've been widely available at the time and is one of the few colors produced in sufficient quantity that's noticeably darker than either arsenal coat.

Beyond that, especially aft of the stack, it's largely estimation.

File: nagato.png (11KB, 880x198px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 880x198px

>>51648059
>>51648286
And this is how it looks using Tamiya's colormatching. From what I can tell it's more or less symmetrical port/starboard.

>>51650342
Pretty ugly camo pattern desu but then again being aesthetically pleasing is at best a tertiary concern when it comes to camouflaging stuff.

File: ijn-tama-1941-cruiser.gif (40KB, 500x328px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 500x328px

>>51651033
All IJN camouflage devices were ad hoc, and used a limited variety of colors that were on hand. They used their dark green and a dark arsenal grey because they wanted to accomplish three tasks: to break up the silhouette against fog or haze, to break it up against a forested shoreline, and to reduce its visibility under star/moonlight.

These things tend to look even worse on a monitor, and they weren't exactly works of art in person, but they had a rhyme and reason to them. Arctic was certainly nicer to look at though.

>>51643208
Keep in mind, if RTW tells me anything, it's that ships slow down as they take damage. Older coal fired vessels also suffer from crew exhaustion if they run at full speed for any length of time.

Ships taking on water should have their top speed halved. And risk making things worst if they attempt to move faster than a quarter of their top speed. Cruising speed is 2 inches less than full speed, and some older ships might suffer penalties if they exceed this for extended periods.

>>51629151
Crippled and put out of action for 9 months isn't bad for one bomb.

>>51629151
Hey, it OHKO'd Roma.

File: vm276-2.jpg (41KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 500x500px

>>51656763
Beating up Italians is at most worthy of a participation prize.

>>51657601
>Moral Ascendancy bullshit

The Regia Marina had some problems, notably:

Insufficient fuel reserves

Rigid upper command that discouraged initiative on parts of lower level commanders

No dedicated naval air assets and no fleet carriers

Very little prior training or thought to equipment for night fighting

Of those, only the lack of preparations for night combat can really be attributed to Regia Marina, and the rest are symptom of having fascists meddling with everything.

In terms of fighting spirit, gunnery, and the like, the Italians weren't slouches.

>>51660072
Not to mention that they had some very decent (and goodlooking) ships.

File: 3ZK4G1Y.jpg (272KB, 1450x881px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 1450x881px

>>51660292
When it comes to the pretty Mediterranean boats I've always preferred French myself.

File: image.jpg (48KB, 800x357px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 800x357px

>>51661262
>Algerie
Damn good treaty cruiser. Got one that should be coming in the mail to me very soon, among a lot of other goodies.

I'm kinda fond of the the Duguay-Trouins myself, something I really like about the flying bridge.

>>51662558
Come to think of it, are there any systems that let you mess around with dynamite cruisers?

>>51664358
>Superfiring quad turrets
>Because fuck having a low center of mass.

>>51665850
It's only got those two turrets, so not especially.

File: 1438272.jpg (137KB, 800x522px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 800x522px

>still manage to keep my old as fuck armored cruisers at least somewhat combat capable well into 1920s

Sure they are bit slower than my newer ones and carry less guns main battery guns but after their refits they still work just fine as colonial units.

>>51664358
>2x4 main battery ahead
>3x3(?) secondaries rear
for what purpose

File: 668a1a2db34a036d47ac54da9af601fb.png (49KB, 903x283px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 903x283px

>>51670439
Naval planners figure it needs more firepower in the front in case somebody tries crossing it's T. They also seem to assume it will never have to run away, and that destroyers will only approach from the rear.

2x2 fore, 2x2 aft is the best layout, but I've been having fun with 1x2 for, 2x2 aft is on early dreadnoughts in RTW. At any rate, secondaries should be balanced.

>>51670439
It allows for a much better armor scheme. Personally, I like it a lot.

File: rtw_graz.png (13KB, 910x294px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 910x294px

>>51670439
imo Richy was the best pre war fbb, could do 30 knots, very heavy belt and deck, and after modernizing in new york was top of the line for AA as well

File: gx9rj0Y.jpg (275KB, 1450x966px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 1450x966px

>>51670660
>good looking
>decent armor & guns
>ammo prone to randomly exploding while in barrel

What is not to like?

>>51670529
Personally I prefer 2 x 3 in front with 1 x 3 in aft for my CCs with BBs going with 2 x 3 front + 2 x 3 aft.

That is of course assuming that the eggheads figure out how to make reliable triple turrets and I don't have to buy them from France after getting reliable quad turrets from research.

>>51670529
1x2 fore and 2x2 aft is good for cruisers and destroyers, things that are more likely to spend time running from bigger ships. In their original intended role battlecruisers would benefit from a heavier concentration of fire aft as well, but increasingly they were placed into the battle line with proper battleships instead.

>>51670529
>2x2 fore, 2x2 aft is the best layout
>not 2x3 fore, 1x3 aft
fite me

>>51677507
2x2/2x2 is better for a battle line because even if you get crossed you're never caught with fewer than 4 barrels on target: and that includes when you may be obliged to turn away. 2x3/1x3 is only better if you're confident that you're either going to be shooting from your maximum effective distance or simply won't get crossed.

They're for different purposes.

>>51677605
Or you can be the one doing the aggressive maneuvering and always have at least 6 guns pointing at the target, with only 1 less gun than your "ideal" pointing at the enemy if you somehow are driving in such a way that your main guns are out of arc. Not to mention that the triple turret arrangement will be significantly lighter, freeing up that tonnage for more useful things.

>>51677698
Or you could go full gungho and putt 2 quad turrets in the front like French did.

>>51677705
Sadly, it's less viable than IRL because the armor scheme isn't advanced enough in game to model its big advantages.

>>51673003
>>51674964
>>51677605
>>51677507

>Lead battleship has 3x2/3x1 to discourage T crossing.
>Scout battlecrusiers have 2x1/2x2, if they have to fight in the line, they go in the back.
>All other dreadnoughts have 2x2/2x2 or 3x2/3x2

Perfect.

The only problem with battlecruisers with rear facing turrets is that they make them slightly worse at chasing smaller cruisers, however if you are fast enough, you can chase them diagonally and bring your entire broadside on them.

I've found that repeatedly weaving behind an enemy allows you to effectively cross their T multiple times while still chasing them. And it also makes it hard for them to torpedo you.

>>51677605
not that anon, but RTW has hidden rof and reliability stats for turrets. triples have pretty poor for both untill late game. so 4x2 will actually have higher rate of fire over 3x3 despite losing a barrel. though you have to decide for yourself if the weight you gain from the extra turret is worth it still.

>>51677774
I don't understand how they calculate turret weight. Aft centerline superimposed weighs less than aft superimposed, even though putting turrets close together should allow them to share maggazine armor.

>>51677698
>triple turret arrangement will be significantly lighter
You were talking nonsense until you said this. The Panamax boats, Nelsols, and any other vessels with most of their armament fore of the bridge did it to save weight. And not because triple turrets are necessarily lighter than four twin turrets, but because it requires less heavy armor for the raft.

As in that was the explicit purpose when the RN and USN made those decisions.

>>51677796
if you look closely, the armour weight for your belt armour goes up i think if you take the V turret over the X.

>>51677785
I'm a twin turret purist. If you can afford more guns, you can also afford bigger guns, more speed, or more armor. Remember bigger guns are more accurate at the same range.

>>51677826
yeah for a long time i was wondering why you would bother to go past 15in guns, then the ai built 18in guns when i hadnt bothered going past 16's and i got blown the fuck out

>>51677849
It's kind of scary how powerful big guns get late-game. Nothing can withstand 16+ inch gunfire at min range, and at max range it becomes hard to provide deck protection against plunging fire. Combine with lategame directors, and you can start questioning if it's even worth it to build BBs.

I'm forced to conclude that even had the aircraft never been invented, Battleships would have made themselves obsolete. Really the WNT extended their usefulness by applying moderation. Imagine battleships with 20 inch guns.

>>51677893
part of it is the game artificially limits the tonnage to 52k, yamato was what like 72k? with that sort of tonnage you could at least armour the turrets and deck enough.

>>51677893
Late game (presuming that AI goes for big gun approach) you are better off building fast battlecrusers armored only against cruiser scale guns as your capital ships. Any armor beyond that is just waste of valuable tonnage that could be used on more guns or more speed.

>>51677938
thats what i love about this game, everyone i talk to about it has different ways of playing. myself, i always dump speed, my bc's go the minimum to get themselves qualified as a bc and my bbs go 21kn. but your approach works too i'd bet.

>>51677938
Yeah that's the conclusion I came up with. I also started giving Everything torpedoes. Partly because I could, and partly because some battles had been decided by stumbling into the enemy fleet in the dark at point black range. So many battlecrusiers sunk off the Laiotung peninsula.

By then, all battleships had to push 25 knots, all cruisers did 30, and DDs slower than 35 were decommissioned.

At the end of the (extended) game I did manage to build a BB that actually had enough armor to withstand an 18 inch shell at max range, but It never saw action. I wish you could create custom scenarios.

File: __musashi_and_yamato_kantai_collection_drawn_by_cis_carcharias__d12e59d66b4dac0564197dd3fd80bb04.png (355KB, 488x762px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 488x762px

>>51677919
I think that the game has problems modelling stuff properly once things go past 52k tons. Of course it doesn't stop having dock capacity of +60k (gotta love those random shipbuilding capacity has increased events that happen just after they've stopped being useful) but being only able to build 52k ton boats from being annoying.

>>51677999
Personally I tend to spend the whole game with trying to stuff in as many torpedoes as possible aboard of my ships. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
>captain a boat filled with torpedoes, your crew and you've been trained in torpedo warfare
>don't launch any torpedoes while in combat, because it is not like the people in charge want you to use them or anything
>meanwhile that ai boat with 1 torpedo tube on each side goes and randomly torpedoes all boats in the fleet

>>51679069
I keep forgetting to set training, but I always set research to max, so it evens out.

>>51668023
I think if you build them to max tonnage they can survive a long time.

Are there some sort of paper cut-outs for sail ships and the like to make yourself a fleet for cheap?

>>51587651
>>51593002
What game is this? Looks interessting.

>>51681817
Rule the Waves.

>>51679069
That shits me, AI seems to launch torpedoes very easily while you are stuck doing laps to do the same even with training and accelerated research

>>51681657
I keep CAs designed and built at game start relevant to about 1915 in that manner. At that point, they start getting too slow, and need to be refitted with new engines or else become completely irrelevant. They also need to be moved off to the colonies at that point.

Another possible option is making small as fuck CLs in a sort of Destroyer Leader role. Those can function decently enough.

>>51681657
>tfw my 16k tonners that I had ordered in 1900 were still fairly combat capable when game ended in '25

Good design, fast for its era (24 knots), heavily armored and armed (8 inch belt and came with 2 double 10 inch turrets and 24 6 inch casemate guns), and upgradable (with their final form being 28 knot pseudo-pocket battleship).

Thread inspired me to fire up RTW.

I forgot how bad early accuracy was.
And how hard it is to get the AI to fire the Torps.

Had a convoy attack. Attack squad was 3 DDs. Defense was 2 CL and 4 DD. Ran straight through them and ended up sinking all the transports from point blank shellfire while underfire. Managed to launch an single torp narrowly missing a squadron mate

Good times

>>51678594
[X] Call her a Hotel.

>>51682186
Spamming destroyer leader CLs is fun. You can get a lot done with 2600 tons, 6 inch guns, and 2 inch plates. There will still be room for torpedoes and mines when you get them. Only reason to go heavier is for speed ironically.

>Powell's says they have Castles of Steel in stock
>go down to get it
>it's not there
at least they had Dreadnought

>>51683945
At a certain point why not just have a bunch of big, angry destroyers?

>>51687898

Congratulations. You just reinvented the "jeune ecole".

The trouble is torpedoes are never as effective as our games make them out to be, especially against warships able to maneuver.

>dreadnought isn't one of the random names that rtw can assign on british battleships

Talk about a missed opportunity, I would had loved to see a dreadnought-class pre-dread.

>>51688080
Recall that even bracketing a capital ship with torpedoes has an effect on the battle despite having "missed", and that forcing an opposing force to respond is an advantage all its own. See also: Yamato.

>>51689430

Yes, torpedoes like smoke create "terrain" in a naval battle and, yes, at Leyte Yamato carrying Kurita was forced to steam away from the battle for 10 miles while being chased by USS Heerman's torpedoes which were coincidental set at her top speed.

Air-dropped torpedoes were ship killers. However, apart from the IJN schooling the USN in night fighting in the Solomons, RN and KM light forces tangling in the Narrow Seas, and other ambush type situations, torpedoes launched from surface craft never really lived up to their promise and surface launched torpedoes before WW2 achieved even less.

Cripples were finished off and the enemy's maneuvering affected, but relatively few surface gunline battles were decided by torpedoes alone.

>>51689833
Because "gunline battles" were irrelevant by the time torpedo-carrying destroyers came into their own anyway. And Fuso was sunk by destroyer torpedoes, where most historians consider "crossing the T" to have been basically a moot point. The battle had already been decided by that point by torpedo attacks that sank a battleship, damaged a second, sank two destroyers outright and forced a third to limp away and sink later.

>>51689952
>Because "gunline battles" were irrelevant by the time torpedo-carrying destroyers came into their own anyway.

Missed the phrase "ambush type situations"?

Fuso and Yamashiro steamed into a narrow strait at night with minimal screening forces and primitive radar against a "zerg rush" of TWENTY NINE destroyers and over FORTY PT boats.

US forces were so "thick on the ground" that most US casualties were a result of friendly fire and at least one US BB didn't even open fire for fear of "blue on blue" hits.

Compare and contrast that to DDs used on "blue water" engagements. At Jutland, attacks by Scheer's DDs did cause Jellicoe to turn away but no damage occurred. Vian's five DDs accomplished nothing against the Bismarck which couldn't even fully maneuver the night before the battle. At North Cape, Scharnhorst was hit ~4 times by Fraser's 9 DDs, but shellfire put her under. 1st Narvik had only DDs on each side, but 2nd Narvik saw KM DDs completely fail against Warspite despite her steaming in a fjord. Calabira saw both sides make several futile long range DD torpedo attacks. The only way DDs effected that battle was the RM DDs making smoke. Earlier, Cape Bon was another radar assisted ambush.

DDs and surface launched torpedoes rarely lived up to their promise.

>>51690223
First of all, you're mischaracterizing Pennsylvania's refusal to fire. If you can't identify a target you don't fire regardless of whether you think a friendly ship might be downrange. That's just standard procedure.

Second, your argument basically boils down to "when they miss they don't sink ships". Getting an opponent to turn away is a positive outcome. Inflicting damage is a positive outcome. Sinking a ship is a positive outcome. The fact of the matter is that ALL weapons at any scale of conflict have a certain failure rate, which increases in scenarios that are less than optimal. Cherry-picking a few engagements that torpedoes didn't win outright doesn't change the fact that they did have an effect in other battles: sometimes decisive, other times not so much.

>>51690430
>your argument basically boils down to

No. My argument is that the weapon system never worked as theorized or produced the results those theories promised.

>>51690556
Then that's also wrong. IJN doctrine relied on brief and intense engagements with surface torpedoes, particularly in ambushes or at night.

That torpedoes never supplanted or even truly equaled gun lines in the way Jeune Ecole theory suggested is down to technical limitations in the case of WWI which made coordinated torpedo attacks difficult, inaccurate, and unreliable (recall that the USN started WWII with a torpedo that had a 50% success rate in testing), and the fact that the very concept of surface warfare was largely irrelevant by the time technology advanced to the point such attacks would have been more effective. Which left the sorts of engagements you're trying to write off as exceptions as the only place where torpedo attack was viable anymore.

>>51682967
>friendly ai almost never fires them
>enemy ai is fucking aimbot when it comes to using torpedoes

>>51687898
Late game they get replaced by Special type destroyers with 2x1/2x2 4 inch +1 guns, which by now have more penetration than the old 6 inch guns did.

>>51691026
>IJN doctrine relied on blah blah blah blah

No. Pick up "Kaigun: Strategy, Tactics, and Technology in the Imperial Japanese Navy 1887 -1941" by Evans & Peattie. While IJN doctrine naturally evolved as technology did, the IJN's use of torpedoes - like everyone else - was more noted for failure than anything else. The RJW opened with a surprise night time torpedo attack on resulted in all of 3 hits and no sinkings. The IJN kept trying to use torpedoes in a decisive manner and, like everyone else, kept failing.

You're fixated on the partially successful tactics ambush developed by ONE navy from about the mid-1920s onward when I've been talking about the failed massed torpedo tactic theories of the jeune ecole and ALL navies from about 1890 onward. Surface launched torpedoes NEVER lived up to the theories surrounding their use.

Yes, the IJN scored successes in the Solomons during '42/'43 but the doctrinal massed attacks meant to attrit the USN never occurred as IJN doctrine believed it should.

>>51693699
That's an ugly ship. I don't mind pagodas (they're not really what you'd call pretty, but they are at least a visually interesting element), but this one just looks lumpy.

File: Kumano.jpg4.jpg (181KB, 1600x895px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 1600x895px

>>51694031
It is Japanese, most of their boats had rather "interesting" look to them.

>>51692571
My IJN torpedo strategy in late game RTW is just put quad torpedo mounts on every ship, and then play normally.

When they work, they work, otherwise my battlecruisers' with 15 inch +1 guns in twin mountings and advanced directors do most of the work.

If the enemy runs, my shells will catch them, and if they don't run, they eat torpedoes. Either way the yellow sea is littered with the wreaks of Russian dreadnoughts.

>>51694804
>>51693699
Japanese heavy cruisers are so ugly. It's sad because their battlecruisers/fast battleships are pure sex.

File: TYnNnl9.jpg (957KB, 3303x1992px) Image search: [Google]

957KB, 3303x1992px

>>51695111
Kongous were only decent looking back during WW1/early interwar period after that Japanese did their best to make them as ugly as possible. And even before that they were inferior in looks when compared to boats like Tiger, Renowns, Hood, or Derfflingers.

File: Furutaka.jpg4.jpg (235KB, 1600x896px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 1600x896px

Come to think of it Furutakas were only Japanese boats that didn't get uglier as they got older.

>>51695289
Nah, the Kongos looked good with or without the Pagodas.

Pagodas aren't what made IJN warships look ugly, it was the curved stacks and stupid turret arrangements. Yes in some cases they made ugly ships look uglier, but on a solid design they demonstrate that the ship has been around for a while and worth modernizing.

>>51695345
FurryTaco got better because they gave it non retarded turrets.

>>51695422
> but on a solid design they demonstrate that the ship has been around for a while and worth modernizing.

You mean:
>outdated as fuck but we can't replace them with more modern vessels because of various treaties that we signed

>>51695721
Not so much the treaties, but their inconsistency in planning with regards to treaties AND with regards to how best to breach them.
>breach a treaty that artificially limited your main rival to the 2:3 ratio of 16in botes that best serves your own interests
>allow them to escalate and make more 16in battleships than your entire battle line
>waste money on two 18in monstrosities instead of more 16in botes
>upgrade obsolete 14in botes to go faster, 'upgrade' serviceable 16in botes to go slower because FUCK LOGIC
>field battlecruisers and call them battleships
>then wonder why they get shot full of holes by cruisers
>pioneer carrier warfare
>lose all your carriers because what are reconnaissance aircraft
>all your ships are covered in 25mm light AA that can't hit anything
>how do I submarine
>no, all my capital ships sinking doesn't count

The IJN in a nutshell everyone.

>>51696444
>'upgrade' serviceable 16in botes to go slower because FUCK LOGIC
?

>>51696556
NagaGate and Mubomb originally had a max speed of 26 knots, and were reduced to a max speed of 25 knots after refits.

>>51696583
26.5 on her trials. That makes Nagato and Mutsu among the rare few ships the IJN ever made slower after a refit. The reasoning was they were still faster than the 16in standard battleships they were meant to fight, giving them an advantage at the head of a battle line.

>>51696583
That's because they bolted a shitton of AA guns to it. Like everyone did.

>>51696583
Meanwhile in the states they go and build class of 33 knot 16 inch battleships and 12 inch super-heavy cruisers just so that Admiral King stops screaming how his carrier waifus are being completely defenseless out there.

>>51696649
They added armor here and there and replaced her boilers, as her modernization occurred prior to 1941. The shitton of 25mm guns would come later.

>>51696444
I still don't get how you can turn a battlecruiser into a fast battleship without adding more armor.

Making a battlecruiser faster just makes it a faster battlecruiser.

>>51696810
Wishful thinking and undue optimist.

>>51696779
Large Cruiser.

>>51696810
Oh, they uparmored them. Just not nearly enough.

>>51697092
It is pretty sad when your "fast battleships" end up having less armor than Fisher's fast Baltic monitors had after their uparmoring.

>>51696779
What, the carrier? Deck number's 25, which means it's Cowpens, which as an Independence is an ex-CL.

>>51696635
>planning to fight the Standards rather than any possible faster new-build US ships
Man, they really went all-in on that "win the war in the first year"

>>51697583
The fleet faction only ever considered individual superiority and overall parity of 7:10, not industrial capacity, reserves, or supply lines.

>>51697583
It was the only way they could feasibly win. They needed to crush the Pacific Fleet sufficiently to make the US believe that continued conflict was not worth it. They couldn't win an extended conflict. They knew it.Unfortunately for them, they did the one thing that they could have done that made the US want to stick with the war no matter the cost.

If I were Japan, I'd probably not attack America at all. I'd still attack the European holdings. America would probably declare war on me for it, as their strategic situation is thrown out of whack if Japan rises too far. This might also give me several weeks or months of time to focus my efforts on British, Dutch, and French holdings without worrying about the USN. America being the declarer of war is exactly my plan. You see, Americans of the time were not very big fans of imperialism. In fact, they HATED it. Many were distrustful or hateful towards the Imperialist nations. How many young men is the American public willing to lose solely for the perpetuation of some foreign king's evil imperialism if they get solidly trounced one, two, three times? Imagine three Midways happening to a country that lacked public support for the war in the first place, because it lacks a solid event to rally behind. And yes, multiple such major engagements in that first year, year and a half are likely, due to the American battleships being intact.

So really, Japan fucked up with Pearl Harbor. This act incensed America such that the decisive battle strategy could not work. Learn the lesson: surprise attacks, while effective, make people very mad.

>>51698702
And leave the Philippines astride the SLOC from Borneo to the Home Islands? That is like having an exposed flank on the geo-strategic level.

The real mistakes Japan made were not being satisfied with Manchuria, and signing the Tripartite Pact. Combined, both precluded any realistic hopes for negotiation. Japan should have sold Germany down the river in return for recognition of Manchukuo.

>>51562765
Solve the problem, buy Skytrex, same scale, similar price, no regular mail idiocy.

Even if NavWar had an email I'd mail a check, but it's too much work to try to set it up.

>>51700717
>And leave the Philippines astride the SLOC from Borneo to the Home Islands?
Yep. While yes, it horrifically menaces said LOC, I personally believe that the Philippines can still be taken out once the US enters the conflict, with minimal disruption. Even if said SLOC is disrupted for two months, in the end, I believe that said two months of threat is worth actually winning the war. Besides, if I believe that US involvement is inevitable, I would have forces prepared to deal with it. While I suspect that the US and Philippine forces would be marginally better prepared (hence why I said two months instead of the original one), they would still be bottled up in Bataan, Corregidor, and the other assorted islands and fortresses before long, as that was the US war plan anyways.

>The real mistakes Japan made were not being satisfied with Manchuria, and signing the Tripartite Pact.
I would have to agree. However, we're trying to think of how best to fight the war.

File: Taiho.jpg1.jpg (156KB, 1600x516px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1600x516px

>be outnumbered by your enemy
>your whole naval planning is built around muh individual superiority of your naval units
>yet your damage control is absolute shit and you constantly lose boats because of it

File: kirov_class.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

So what is with people and calling larger than average heavy cruisers battlecruisers?

>>51704482
Because "even heavier cruiser" just sounds silly, and cruiser terminology was pretty much arbitrary anyway.

>>51563103
What's to stop you from just printing out your own cards?

>>51585188
Check out the videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZiepCZwf70

>>51704942

Thank you for this.

File: 04020220.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>51704834
If only there was a term for large cruisers that have grown past their lesser counterparts but aren't battlecruisers.

>>51625110
Renamed Crane Ship No. 1

>>51705291
But still bearing her old name as a tramp stamp.

>just got a lovely GHQ Nagato in the mail
>already sanded, washed, and fitted together
>too cold to prime her hull and start painting
Fuck my entire life. Can post progress if weather improves and anyone's interested.

>>51707001
Don't get raped by her.

File: IJN Nagato Ise and co.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>51707001
Please do. Need more painted botes in the world/thread.

File: Nagato 1936.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>51707005
>not wanting to have a go with a qt3.14 like this

>>51707422

She was sweet. Shame she ended up an irradiated hulk.

>>51707502
She went out with some dignity, and unlike the other IJN capital ships you can still visit her. The wreck is actually a popular dive spot.

>>51707525

It's on my bucket list, although I'll have to hit the lottery to cross it off. (That will be hard because I never play the lottery!)

I'd love to dive on her, Sinking Sara, Prinz Eugen, etc. While I've read Arkansas is basically a smashed capsized lump, it would still be great to dive on her too.

>>51705063

Heavy cruisers?

>>51707758
Heavy cruisers were defined by treaty as 8" or less. If you have guns bigger than that you are by definition NOT a heavy cruiser anymore. So you have to either go back and change the treaty definitions or just call anything that's not a battleship but over-gunned for a heavy cruiser by some different name.

>>51707595
Hardly surprising considering that she was already +30 years old by that point and the underwater blast happened less than 200 meters from where she was moored.

>>51708072
Heavier Cruiser.

>>51708988

Gotta love that picture of the Crossroads Baker shot showing her standing straight up.

>>51707758
>>51704834
>>51705063

So like "Large Cruiser"

>>51709084
Gives you a pretty good idea of what kind of forces even a relatively small and primitive nuclear device can unleash.

>>51710093

What made Baker relatively more nasty than Able was the fact that Baker was an underwater detonation. Both Able and Baker were 23kt IIRC.

They fucked up aiming Able. It went off something like 500ft in the air but over 700 yards away from where it was supposed to be aimed at. It was supposed to 'pop" right over the old Nevada. Five ships in the target array did sink, 2 immediately and the rest later because the initial radioactivity kept the salvage crews from repairing them. Because they missed the aim point, Able didn't sink as many ships as planned.

Baker was detonated ~100ft underwater beneath an old landing ship of which no part was ever found. The shock wave moving through far more water fucked up a lot more ships. Because the detonation was in the water, a really nasty sodium isotope was created and it really fucked with the decon, salvage, and repair efforts. Ships were sinking weeks later because crews couldn't stay aboard them long enough to repair the leaks.

Baker was a giant radiological cluster fuck which the Navy still uses as a bad example in it's training.

So what's a good way to base a 1/2400 mini?

>>51711212
I used bits of perspex. Wasn't pretty due to wonky cutting of edges but a clear plastic base (gotta be easier ways to get hold of them these days) is pretty nice if you have a proper 'sea' sheet. Can put some waves on it with something that dries clear like transparent acrylic caulk.

>>51712390

Beautiful ship and she came THAT close to getting away from Fraser at North Cape.

>>51621979
There are acw naval rules in the historical thread archives. Haven't tried hammering iron yet but most peter pig rules sets are good. I prefer 1/1200 for fuckhuge battles but the 1/600 scale is very nice and extremely detailed. Stone Mountain minis are a good 1/1200 supplier and thoroughbred is the premier 1/600 seller. Enjoy!

File: nagato_potato.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>51707026
This is how she looks at the moment. It's midnight though, and the lighting is so bad in here I can't really tell whether my touchup work looks okay or not. If I like what I see in the morning when there's good light I'll finish off the turrets and mount them, but if it looks shit I may strip it and just stick with an arsenal coat.

>mfw people think the carrier obsoleted the battleship in WW2

>>51719103
>1 old british battlecruiser vs 2 modern german battleships that both have more high caliber guns and shitload of more armor
>the battlecruiser ends up forcing 2 of them to retreat

>play rtw as usa
>end up having a world war against russo-german alliance
>my only ally is italy

Should I be worried?

>>51719942
>>1 old british battlecruiser

Plus 9 destroyers.

>>vs 2 modern german battleships that both have more high caliber guns

No. The Scharnhorsts had 11-inch guns and Renown 15-inch.

>> and shitload of more armor

Depends. The German's belt was better, deck armor was the same, turrets on both armored differently more than better/worse, and German conning tower better.

>>the battlecruiser ends up forcing 2 of them to retreat

Sort of. The German ships did withdraw, especially after Renown put two 15-inch shells into Gneisenau at an incredibly long range, but the battle, withdrawal, and subsequent search took the RN away from it's primary job of preventing any German landings at Narvik.

Call it a wash.

>>51720783
Well, that ended up being a rather disappointing world war
>war lasts 13 months and ends in status quo ante even though I fucking told the negotiators to go for as harsh terms as possible

>>51721356
>Well, that ended up being a rather disappointing world war

Not surprising. After all, how could each side "get at" the other?

Russia can't pass the Dardanelles, so nothing is going to happen in the Med from that direction.

Russia and Germany can operate in the Baltic, North Sea, and eastern North Atlantic but, without bases, they're not going to be steaming off the US East Coast, into the Caribbean, or into the Med via Gib.

The same holds true in the opposite direction for the US and Italy. How can they operate in the eastern North Atlantic, off Norway, in the North Sea, or even in the Baltic without bases?

I suspect all that occurred was a sporadic guerre de course/handelskreig with both sides destroying/capturing whatever merchant shipping they stumbled across.

>>51721695
I at least expect to get some action around German Cuba but no, outside of them probing Panama with one old pre-dread exactly jackshit happened in Caribbean.

>>51721750
>German Cuba

Huh? I'm not familiar with RtW's setting. Was that the result of an earlier war or a fire sale by Spain of her colonial holdings?

File: land battlecruiser goeben.png (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>51721809
Random colonization event, they can end up giving AI nations some pretty random oversea holdings.

>>51721874
>Random colonization event, they can end up giving AI nations some pretty random oversea holdings.

Interesting. So using my example in >>51721695 an AI Russia could have bases in the Med which obviate the Straits Convention or an AI US have a base in Norway and an AI Germany have a base in Bermuda or Nova Scotia?

>>51722322
Depends on what territories haven't yet claimed by great powers. AI Russia could be operating out of Libya or Germany could have Caribbean holdings.

File: De Ruyter and CO.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

Another update on ABDACOM wrecks, but at least it's some goodish news this time.
>https://news.usni.org/2017/02/13/23658

>>51723411
Wanna bet how many months it will take for them to strip mine them clean too?

>Nagato is just about ready with her Kure/IJA green camo
1st/2nd BatDiv with a non-camouflaged Mutsu, same with a customized camouflaged Mutsu, or 1st BatDiv with Yamato and Musashi?

Or just do whatever the fuck I want?

>>51726312
>Or just do whatever the fuck I want?

This. Your minis, your call. Whatever you choose is right because it's your choice to make.

Whatever you decide, however, please share pics!

File: IMG_20170214_191023625.jpg (1MB, 2592x1456px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2592x1456px

>>51726467
Despite the shitty lighting in my flat I managed to take a picture that wasn't worthless. Still need to play with her highlights a bit and finish her floatplane, then base her.

>>51726659

Sweet!

>>51726659
Hit it with some wash and a little more highlights, and it's gonna look really nice anon.
The GHQ models really do have some beautiful detail on them.

What do y'all think is the most cost effective transport for regular infantry?

>>51727785
Whoops, wrong thread.

File: Hall_PHs_over_Farragut_class_DDs_1936.jpg (358KB, 2064x1659px) Image search: [Google]

358KB, 2064x1659px

Does anyone here know where to find a TROM for the US Navy like the one on combinedfleet or something similar? I'd like to know where the USN assets were at a certain time for an AU scenario.

File: image.jpg (58KB, 736x404px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 736x404px

>>51728486
Combinefleet is awesome. Seconding this request.

>>51728486
The national archives maintains an extensive collection, but I don't think they've been digitized.

File: USS_New_Orleans_6_inch_gun_LOC_det_4a13965.jpg (4MB, 4615x3540px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4615x3540px

>>51728885
I'm so boned, but thanks regardless.

>>51562786
Waar zijn je Nederlandse schepen :^(

>>51728486
Navweaps has some TO&Es, but you probably need more than that.
>>51728885
I wonder if I should just email them a request for that sort of thing and post it here if I get it. It would be useful as hell.

>>51728486
>>51734486
There is the Dictionary of American Fighting Ships, but you'd probably have to trawl to get a good idea of where everything was.

http://www.hazegray.org/danfs/

Or maybe ibiblio has something in their WWII USN section.

>>51736501
Got five of those (among some other things) on their way to me now. I just need to lay hands on some Minekaze/Kamikaze classes and then I'll have a decent spread of IJN dds.

>>51737226
Not doubling down on Akizukis?

>>51737526
Future purchase sometime. The only ones available in 1/1800 are FUD only, so they're way more than what I'm accustomed to paying for destroyers.

>tfw only 4 Gridleys
Torps are love, torps are life.

File: Kung-Fu-Panda-3-Epic-Reaction.gif (2MB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x225px

>>51739393
>tfw I actually get a chance to unload with Kitakami and Ōi

File: Aganos and Kitakami.jpg (966KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

966KB, 1200x900px

>>51740441
Glorious. Do tell.

>>51740665
It was a surprise attack against a line of American BBs moving up a narrow strait. 48 torpedoes later (two TTCLs and an Akizuki ahead and astern) all that was left were tears.

What line are those botes, anon?

Can you guys recommend any WW2 naval games? I need to scratch that itch and I don't want to reinstall the disappointment that is WoWS again.

Also, is NWS Wargaming Store the only place selling Rule the Waves? Bastards won't accept my credit card.

File: 0800110.jpg (101KB, 740x540px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 740x540px

>>51741249
>Also, is NWS Wargaming Store the only place selling Rule the Waves?

As far as I know they don't sell it anywhere else.

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

310KB, 1920x1080px

So happy this thread is still here.

>>51740855
Axis and Allies: WaS repaints.

File: Force_H_off_Gibraltar_Rowland_Lang_hc1582_large.jpg (60KB, 944x461px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 944x461px

It is 1935 and in two years Battleship construction will, in all likelyhood, resume in all major navies. Are you a bad enough bong to design the future Royal Navy Battleship?

PROTIP: your boss wants to stick to 14" guns.

>>51744940
4x4 14 INCHERS

LET'S DO THIS MOTHERFUCKERS

>>51744940
Well, I do have a few suggestions...
>stick to 14" guns
I hear Kure is comfy this time of year.

>>51745300
We can't confirm that what's under that tarp is a Battleship being built, sir Anon. And besides that, even if it were a Battleship, it would have, at most, 16" guns since that's all the Japanese have! How do you convince the cabinet to escalate when we've got the French and Americans ready to sign up for 14 inchers too?

>>51745268
Excellent suggestion, Lord Anon, but what speed can we get with such a configuration on 35000 tons?

>>51747186
I wouldn't know, because I can't get SpringSharp to work on mac.

>>51744940
2x2/2x2 make it small and fast. Speed is armor old chap!

File: KMS Bismarck1.jpg (338KB, 1243x346px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 1243x346px

I thought i would share a 1200 scale superior model I painted

File: IJN Yamato1.jpg (244KB, 1278x308px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 1278x308px

and also a Yamato

>>51749287
I like it.