Naval Wargames General

>>52482244
Scharnhorst
Sex Appeal: Slightly higher then Bismark, lower then everything else except Nippon.

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

2MB, 2974x1741px

Looking for a sex appeal rating.

Kthxbye.

File: 19.jpg (70KB, 700x465px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 700x465px

Come into my hidden sub base, so we can talk more about botes anon.

I've got candy.

>>52482533
Underwater catwalks? Were the germans retarded or something?

>>52482599
Those aren't underwater, there is no water in that picture, you are seeing mist illuminated by floodlights.

File: 1308027950420.jpg (358KB, 1584x1600px) Image search: [Google]

358KB, 1584x1600px

Have a naval wargame on me. Victory at Sea and the Expansion Pack for it.

https://dropfile.to/pfjashC
https://dropfile.to/tGrETEv

Have a great Weekend /botetards/

Sink some Huns for this ol Bong.

File: 14.jpg (79KB, 700x465px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 700x465px

>>52482599
The catwalks are there for when the area is drianed, it is a drydock for repairing subs.

It is also in Russia, not germany.

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

314KB, 1920x1080px

If we are doing a sexy contest, the Tiger should be in it!

File: image.jpg (185KB, 1275x626px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 1275x626px

Spaghetti botes more a sex.

>>52482694
Appreciate posting it anon. That's the one bad thing about us having our own general when /Hwg/ has all kinds of goodies like this in the OP.

>>52482244
>>52482834
What game are those from?

File: 20170401104439_1.jpg (357KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

357KB, 1920x1080px

>>52483078
Steel Ocean.

Free on Steam.

>>52482599

It's as drydock, meaning it can be pumped dry.

File: sumships.jpg (343KB, 1600x804px) Image search: [Google]

343KB, 1600x804px

Did the anons get a fleet together?

>>52483994
1/1200? Those are some enormous bites anon.

Somebody posted something about Anon Fleet in the other thread.

File: naval 002.jpg (437KB, 2048x784px) Image search: [Google]

437KB, 2048x784px

>>52484038
I have more reasonably sized boats.

>>52483994
Those the old Revell kits?

>>52484135
Yeah, I found them for 10 CDN in my local hobby store.

File: 20150826_161858.jpg (778KB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

778KB, 3264x2448px

Another Naval Model I built.

File: Baden.jpg (422KB, 1450x978px) Image search: [Google]

422KB, 1450x978px

Best ship of WW1 reporting in.

File: image.jpg (3MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4032x3024px

>>52484119
Don't take offense anon, I like unreasonably sized botes, I had just never seen any 1/1200 stuff with anything that puts their size in context.

My stuff is all 1/1800, and all my spess stuff is decidedly not fleet scale.

>>52484554
Doesn't post a Revenge class. SAD!

>>52484720
Only good things that ever came out of Revenge-class were Repair&Refit.

Are there any larger scale naval wargames that have models depicting crews and the like?

>>52484713
Hey, I see you ordered a test piece from CzarChino!

>>52484814
Like rule models for crews?

There are some coastal navy (patrol boats) that model crews. Some solitary sub games model crewmembers.

File: fong.gif (331KB, 480x274px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 480x274px

>>52484794

>>52482244
Ah the Scharnhorst, could have been better then Repulse/Reknown, ended up being worse.

>>52484713
What are you basing on and what's that rectangle block ship thing?

>>52484794
What is wrong with the Revenge? Better armoured and massively cheaper QE. Probably the best BB at the time they were built. Were capable all the way into early WW2. That's 20 years of excellent service.

The only reason they were never refitted like the QE is that the frame they were built on couldn't easily accept upgrades.

>>52482428
hunghh i love that slav bote aesthetic

>>52485003
The rectangle block is a vinyl sticker on a piece of wood. Basically a dirt cheap way to get a lot of ship models really fast.

>>52485052
Where'd you get em?

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

48KB, 800x357px

>>52484858
Over Christmas I bought the Coronel and Falklands set too. Pretty nice, cheap way to branch out some.

File: 1488591400500.png (64KB, 326x376px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 326x376px

So if I'm not mistaken y'all here are a bunch of naval nerds, right? Can someone explain to me what the fuck Japan was thinking during WW2? I get that the Imperial Court was wrapped around the navy's finger and the navy wanted to do navy stuff while the army wanted to do army stuff (in Russia) but even then from an outside perspective the Japanese navy appeared downright suicidal. Yamamoto himself predicted that even if Pearl Harbor was succesful, he'd have supremacy over the Pacific for 6 months, 12 months max before the Americans would've rebuilt their fleet to old capacity. Did the Nips honestly believe they could win the war in six months? Against the number one industrial power? Without landing on the American continent?

Hindsight is 20/20 but joining Germany for a two pronged attack against the Soviet Union seems like the much more logical option, maybe later joining Germany to attack America from two sides or something. Why did the Nips go full retard?

>>52485615
Desperation. They're oil was cut off, meaning their war machine in China would grind to a halt. They'd have to invade Southeast Asia to get more oil, but that'd piss off the Allies and bring the US into the war, which would launch attacks from the Philippines. Originally, the IJN wanted to have their DECISIVE BATTLE near the Philippines, after harassing the overextended US supply lines across the Pacific. The overall goal would've been to (hopefully) wear down the US's taste for war and settle for a negotiated peace. Yamamoto wanted to launch a first strike against the American battleship fleet at Pearl Harbor, timed to be done just after their embassy handed in their declaration of war. Yamamoto outright threatened to quit if he didn't get his way, so the Navy had to do his plan.

Then Pearl Harbor happened, the declaration of war was accidentally handed in AFTER the attack, and shit went sideways. Add in the sheer amount of YAMATO PEOPLE SUPERIOR FILTHY GAIJIN GO HOME indoctrination the Japanese military had institutionalized and you get a majority that flipped between seriously believing they could win and plain refusing to give up unless everything was ashes.

>>52485781
>They'd have to invade Southeast Asia to get more oil
But didn't they already have French Indochina, Singapore, Malaysia (Rubber in all three) and the Dutch East Indies (oil) in about 1940 due to their alliance with Germany, and no real threat of American intervention at the time? They already had what they wanted, were already at war with the Western Allies and if they really wanted to expand for resources India was the logical target, right? Maybe aid the Germans in trying to stir up a rebellion there and invade once shit hits the fan?

>>52485835
>Singapore, Malaysia, Dutch East Indies
Offensives there began timed alongside Pearl Harbor. True occupation began in 1942. Oil exports to Japan were also embargoed by the US at that point. Hence the "halted war machine".

>India
Heavy British presence, would take years to fight through, busy occupying China and Southeast Asia, and didn't fit into their ideological plans for the Greater East-Asian Co-prosperity Sphere.

File: ussidaho.jpg (124KB, 1280x868px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1280x868px

>>52485489
I bought everything from WW2. It's the simplest way to have every ship in the war, and they are durable so I don't have a problem bringing them out to game nights. Great way to get new players interested. I bought a big pack of BBs so I can had one out to every participant. I write the website name on the back of them so the newbies know where to get more boats.

History and rules of Jane's wargame 1906 edition.

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=JF9PAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=Fred+T.+Jane+wargame&source=bl&ots=PkYpQs-Jkv&sig=tkPXQjctipcxZXg02GdHLOaq7Lk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjv5orYwvvSAhUJ1mMKHUCKBc84ChDoAQgeMAE#v=onepage&q=Fred%20T.%20Jane%20wargame&f=false

>>52485615
Ignore the fuck out of >>52485781 for one thing. So much wrong and lack of historical context.

Japan had imperialistic aspirations since the Americans forced their government to open up to trade. That caused a crisis where the shogun and forces that wanted to restore the Emperor to direct power fought a little war, modernizing piecemeal all the while: the only viewpoint they shared was literally FUCK THE FOREIGNERS. In fact the pro-Emperor faction that won literally had "Revere the Emperor, Expel the Barbarians" as its official slogan. Afterwards the nation rapidly modernized way beyond its means, with the spread of mass culture and sweeping changes to the military class occurring at the same time. Militant nationalism was common in the transitional period, and at one point the government was referred to as "governance by assassination" because of the number of PMs Japan went through in a short time.

Back then Russia was the main enemy de jour, since they had a presence in the region most notably in Sakhalin/Karafuto, but after the war with Russia focus shifted to America as the primary competing Imperial power in the region. So the Japanese pinned their fleet developments to the US Navy in terms of individual ship designs and total numbers. Their plan was to form a coherent battle line that could take on an American battle line consisting of half her battleships and armored cruisers after suffering attrition to submarines while crossing the Pacific... and THEN face the remaining Atlantic fleet afterwards. That focus also determined her international agreements during the runup to the war, as well as her refusal to abide by treaties which would have limited the size of her navy to the point where they couldn't handle half the US navy at a time.

Meanwhile the battle of Taranto happened, proving the concept of an overwhelming air attack on a fleet in port.
>1/2

>>52486992
The IJN even sent an emissary to study the aftermath, though none of the records of it were written down for secrecy. So you have a faction that supports the use of air power in a preemptive strike, which made sense particularly given the size of the Pacific ocean compared to the Med. So this ultimately led to Pearl Harbor, but the focus was still on seizing territory then holding it against an American attack in a defensive action. The IJN's biggest and most powerful battleships remained primarily in Japanese waters for exactly that reason: they were waiting for the kind of strike Pearl Harbor made all but impossible. So they lost a lot of their carriers due to poor damage control, lack of decent defensive fire, and several high-profile miscalculations on the part of the commanders involved.

They couldn't replace all their ships and equal American output. They hadn't planned on being the ones suffering attrition. And so with their battle fleet in reserve and their carriers and destroyers sinking about as fast as they could float new ones, it was basically just a matter of waiting for them to run out of something.

As it turns out what they ran out of first was planes and pilots, followed shortly thereafter by avgas and fuel oil. Their territory contracted, they concentrated their forces in southern Japan in anticipation of a ground invasion despite the fact that most of their fleet was sunk at Kure, and finally the bombs became more than they could handle. A definite *invasion* that they could respond to was suddenly in doubt.

And so they finally gave up. True story, most of the people who heard the Emperor's voice for the first time that day had no idea what he was even saying, because he spoke such an outdated dialect, but it became obvious pretty quickly what had happened.

Maybe in one final FUCK YOU Nagato steamed out and was in position to cross the T on the force that was sent to officially capture her.

>>52482428
Slav boat, so she'd look best sitting in port all war being bombed.

>>52485153
Anyone?

>>52483994
Yeah. Currently waiting on the GM for our first mission, I think.

File: ArizonaCutaway.jpg (2MB, 3600x2700px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3600x2700px

>>52487859
http://topsideminis.com/

>>52485153
Topside Minis is the company's name.

http://topsideminis.com

>>52485003
I use matboard cut to shape. I have a bunch leftover from framing pictures and the like, and it's easyish to work with.

>>52487134
>>52486992
This tessellates with my knowledge.
Add to that that while Japan had a liberal/democratic movement within it, it had no tradition of civilian control of the military, and american (and european) treatment of them undercut the liberal, xenophile line- IE, why should we be more like these gaijin when no matter what they're going to give us a shit deal.

I also believe the army was the one with the Emperor wrapped around their fingers right up until Kahlkin Gol, or whatever it was called. In Khalkin Gol, the Kwangtung army, which had been roflstomping chinese peasants since the mid thirties, ran into Georgy Zhukov and a much more modernized Red Army. They got their shit kicked in pretty ridiculously hard (down to their last division being ordered to charge across two and a half miles of open ground and assault enemy defensive lines after the battle was already foregone).

The results of Khalkin Gol meant that the Army/Northward expansion political faction got humiliated (based on the Kwangtung army getting humiliated) and war with Russia was decided to be a bad idea.

>>52490431
KD?

>>52485615
>Hindsight is 20/20 but joining Germany for a two pronged attack against the Soviet Union seems like the much more logical option, maybe later joining Germany to attack America from two sides or something. Why did the Nips go full retard?

It's impossible to seriously answer your questions on an image board with a 2000 character limit. Attacking the USSR was the retarded option, especially after Nomohan showed even the fire eaters in the IJA how far they'd fallen behind. The IJA gave Tokyo a list of prerequisites for another attack on the USSR which included a Soviet civil war, the Germans in Moscow, and material advantages Japan could never achieve.

Grabbing the Soviet Far East would solve none of Japan's resource issues while also pissing the USSR off.

And, before some moron brings it up, the Soviets NEVER moved troops from the Far East to the front in European Russia to fight the Germans. The "Siberian" troops idiots like to talk about were from military districts in Central Asia. During the war, the USSR actually managed to reinforce the Far East.

I don't what >>52485835 is talking about but I do know they're a fucking idiot. Japan occupied French Indochina in Sept of '40, but didn't step foot in Burma, Malaysia, Singapore, or the Dutch East Indies until AFTER they declared war on the UK, US, and Holland on 7/8 December '41. For various reasons, most of which were related to inadequate shipping, the resources in those regions didn't help Japan as much as they believed they would.

There are answers to your questions, but you're going to have to do some reading instead of "learning" them 2000 characters at a time on an image board.

>>52486992
>Back then Russia was the main enemy de jour, since they had a presence in the region most notably in Sakhalin/Karafuto, but after the war with Russia focus shifted to America as the primary competing Imperial power in the region.

Not exactly. After 1905, Japan had settled most of her security concerns in northeast Asia by occupying Korea & Manchuria and gaining Russian acquiescence of the same. Japan's ARMY still regarded China & Russia as likely opponents while the NAVY looked at the US and UK. That schizoid outlook fucked up Japan's strategic planning for decades.

I've recommended Evan's "Kaigun: Strategy, Tactics, and Technology in the Imperial Japanese Navy; 1887-1941" in several of these threads now and I'll do so again for anons who actually want to learn about the issues involved instead of repeating the usual load of lie, partial lies, and misconceptions.

Pearl Harbor was a very LATE addition to the "Lunge to the South" war plans Japan had been working on since at least the 1910s. European & US possessions in Asia & the Pacific had been Japan's cross-hairs for decades. The main argument against Pearl Harbor wasn't that the US would be attacked as invading the Philippines & Guam were already part of the plan. The real arguments against the Peal operation had to do with whether or not the CVs, BBs, and other assets used would still be available for previously planned operations elsewhere in the Pacific. The IJN eventually decided the risk to the Kido Butai would be worth the reward of damaging the US Pacific Fleet.

>>52486992
>Meanwhile the battle of Taranto happened, proving the concept of an overwhelming air attack on a fleet in port.

No. Taranto proved you could successfully drop torpedoes in the shallow waters of a harbor.

The US' own fleet problems in the 30s had already shown a fleet in port could be attacked.

>>52490431
Khalkin Gol was more "USSR uses doctrinal and armored superiority to concentrate their armored forces at one point, execute a textbook double envelopment on a Japanese infantry division, and wipe it out", and not without Soviet failures in the early stages. The Japanese getting their shit kicked in was basically a series of failed break-outs/break-ins by their forces after the envelopment.

Jesus. I can just imagine the fucking monotony already.

>You are BMSN Timmy.
>You're brand new to DDG70 and you have 72 hours to compete your check-in-sheet
>sweepers is from 0700 to 0800
>quarters is at 0805
>fresh water washdown is from 0815 to 0915
>zone inspection of boatswain 1 at 1300, so you'll spend all morning correcting deficiencies. No fuck your check in sheet... what do you mean you can't get hazmat yet? Extended hours until you get qualified
72 hours later...
>you got qualified, but where's your check-in sheet? That's your 3rd counseling chit, so it's DRB for you.

God damn. Fuck this shit.

>>52491568
>>You are BMSN Timmy.

If you go to boot without a guaranteed A school, you deserve everything that happens to you.

>>52491617
We're roleplaying. Why would I roleplay a rate I chose?

>>52491631
>We're roleplaying.

Who is "we"?

>>52490596
?

>>52491695
The royal "we" then. I'm any case, it was to illustrate a point, not to say that I'm a BM, or anything. Romanticism of Navy life is just silliness to a Sailor.

>>52491758

The only "point' here is the one of the top of your head.

No one here is romanticizing navy life. We're discussing naval wargames and the history those wargames attempt to model.

File: gay_archer_p1041_b.jpg (68KB, 743x555px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 743x555px

>>52491847
Maybe he mixed this board with /lgbt/ and thought that this was a naval sodomy threat?

>>52492975

Most likely. Didn't Jap Moot and His Merry Crew mix together boards for April Fools or something?

So, I've never been involved in wargaming really, but after going to a local military museum and seeing their model ships, I started thinking that a naval war game would be cool.

What should I be looking into?

>>52494944
That sorta depends on stuff like what time period you're interested in, how large you want your games to be, how complex rules you're ready to tolerate, how large/small you want your minis to be, etc.

>>52495209

I think >>52494944 was actually asking about those same kind of basics as you just mentioned ...

>>52487845
look better in port rusting away dont you mean?

>>52491847
I'm seeing a lot of historical masterbation, and not a lot about actual wargaming. So yeah, maybe it's over my head. You guys wanna play trains with me?

>>52496209
Several of us post batreps from time to time, but that's all dependent on getting to actually play.

I'm sitting down with Heart of Oak currently trying to learn that system. Later on in my slate are Frigate and Fire as She Bears. Anybody have any experiences to share with these systems?

>>52482244
Why does that ship fly one Nazi Empire Marine flag and one Republican flag?
Also, what are botes?

>>52494944
Finding other people to play with.

>>52496875
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7Vadzjac6g

File: 20170314110120_1.jpg (569KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

569KB, 1920x1080px

>>52496903
It is a game, and people can put whatever flags they want on the ships. Case in point attached.

>>52496209
>I'm seeing a lot of historical masterbation

The word is "masturbation" so, yeah, it is over your head.

They play with trains in /n/. Have fun.

File: 2008-04-12-96097.jpg (97KB, 552x800px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 552x800px

>>52496921
Five anons found each other here, and are now playing in a game.

What are some pre-dreadnought to WW1 era systems with reasonably detailed damage models?

I'd like to wargame some stuff out for a story

>>52499080
Fear God and Dread Nought.

File: 20170401104524_1.jpg (478KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

478KB, 1920x1080px

The feeling when you get your favourite ship ever in a game...

>>52488535
>>52488305
>they don't do trawlers
aww

>>52500164
The OG treaty cripple.

>>52501121
Nelson wasn't a treaty battleship...

>>52501360
Well she was, but she certainly wasn't crippled because of it. Nelson>Nagato>Colorado

>>52501360
>its nickname is literally the "cherry tree class" because it was "cut down by Washington"

>>52501831
>4 kt slower than Nagato as-designed
>only two screws
>one more barrel of main battery than either of her contemporaries, but the 16" guns she mounted were so disappointing the RN went back to 14"
>her rounds were lighter than her contemporary 16" cousins and had a theoretical maximum penetration nearly two inches less than Nagato
The only real advantage she had was that as-built her secondary batteries were turreted and she was built with the right amount of decent AA. Nagato and Colorado were relatively deficient in that regard due to having been laid down along more traditional lines prior to the Washington Naval Treaty which forced many of the more modern touches on the Nelsons to be incorporated.

>>52502030
>Cherry Tree Class

You mean the original South Dakota (WW1) class?

>>52502175

Nelson's poor performing 16 inch battery was due to an original loading of a light shell. When the RN went back to a heavy shell (mid 30s) the 16 inch regained her power. Of the three guns, the Colorado had the worst, the Nips were second, and the Brits had the hardest hitting. The British were also the only ones to adopt a 6crh shell, although the americans did put heavier shells on the Colorado eventually, but the loading mech could not support longer shells. Any supposed deficiency in Nelson or Rodney's battery was proven false when Rodnol put rounds straight through the Bismark's armor, knocking out first her turrets, then her engineering spaces.

Nelson also had heavier armor then any of her contemporaries. The Colorado was second, and the Nagato had a crap armouring scheme that reduced her effective protection by almost 15%. Nagato had speed but never made turns for those knots, so it is just a paper figure.

Add to that Radar, Secondary and DP AA, and the Nelson really only loses in speed, and then only to the Jap with bad protection.

>>52502491
>Nagato had a crap armouring scheme that reduced her effective protection by almost 15%.
How, exactly? Failed to armor parts of the citadel properly?

File: sexytebowing16.jpg (94KB, 485x650px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 485x650px

>>52502491
You forgot to mention dispersion.

The Colorado could fire effectively out to 25,000, and a max of about 32~34. But the dispersion was so bad beyond 27,000 it wasn't worth doing. The Nelson's guns, despite being wire wound, were unerringly accurate, only encountering dispersion at 34~35, with a max range of 39.

That is a not insignificant advantage, of being in effective firing range 10K yards before your opponent is.

>>52502600
Much like the Bismark, the Nagato was armored to fight at close range, and had none of the Jutland lessons implemented into her (sloping, decking, etc) so although she had 12~13 inches, against modern armaments at combat ranges in the interwar and WW2 eras, she only really had 10~11 inches of protection.

>>52502637
Decking? Sorry, new to "how BBs work" stuff.

>>52502822
Armored decks to protect against plunging (high angle) fire that occurs at longer ranges.

File: rodnolArm.jpg (136KB, 1160x862px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1160x862px

>>52502822
Armor was not just put on the outside. In addition to the belt (side) they generally had additional layers of armor inside the ship. The outermost armor was supposed to take the brunt of the blow, and either decap the projectile, or deflect it. If it made it into the ship, the shell exploded after x amount of milliseconds according to the fuzing. Now, with additional layers of armor inside the ship (decking) the shell will either be slowed enough to explode in a place that isn't vital, or will be bounced/redirected. The Nelson had a very advanced armor scheme for her time, and the Colorado was similar. Multiple layers in addition to the outer belt, with oil tanks and angled layers of armor designed to increase the relative protection of the armor. The Nagato did not have nearly as many of these advances, in addition to less armor overall. This made her a lot more vulnerable then the other two bbs.

>>52502934
>>52502637

Yep, Nagato only had 305mm armor at the thickest point, and had no angling at all. Nelson was inclined 10~15 degrees if i remember right. I think Nelson and Colorado both armored all or nothing as well, another weight saving trick that made them more effective.

>>52502934
Nagato's armor was strengthened and modernized before the outbreak of the war, with similar strategies aside from angling the main belt which was kind of a non-starter.

>>52503052
Nagato was all-or-nothing as well. People like to shit on Japanese boats, especially on /tg/ where shitting on anything Japanese is a pastime, but some of them were every bit as effective in most regards.

>>52502822
>Decking? Sorry, new to "how BBs work" stuff.

Answering that in 2000 characters will be hard. "Armor" in a BB depends on the type of armor used, how thick the armor is, and how the armor is arranged within the ship's structure. The last very important.

Decking refers to the horizontal armored deck AND it's position in the ship. That armored deck was not the deck you saw sailors walking around on. It's actually within the hull. After WW1, Jutland, and various testing, the UK & US determined that an armored deck should be higher in the hull to increase the volume of the armored "citadel" protecting various critical bits. The Germans & Japs didn't make the same change. They kept their armored low in the hull, nearly at the waterline, and that meant portions of the ship were hideously vulnerable.

Bismarck, for example, used an armor layout dating from the 1914 Bayern class. While plenty of equipment and materials were new, the arrangement of the armor was old. When Bismarck faced KGV and Rodney she was mission killed (meaning she couldn't fight back) in 20 minutes. As Preston explains, all her internal comms, electrical power, telemotor leads, boiler uptakes, etc. located above her low armored deck were quickly shredded because they were unprotected. Bismarck's main machinery spaces were relatively untouched because the RN was firing at such a close range none of their fire was "plunging", but that didn't matter because all the "connecting" systems above the deck were destroyed.

Imagine an armored knight wearing a gauntlet on his hand, a breastplate on his torso, and NO ARMOR on the arm connecting the two. That's the problem with Bismarck's and Nagato's "decking". Their armored deck aren't in the proper location to protect vital areas of each ship.

>>52503309
Nagato modernization slapped more armor on the turret barbettes, Nagato had a tapered belt, not all or nothing.

>>52503365
>Bismarck's main machinery spaces were relatively untouched

That isn't correct. She had flames pouring from her engineering spaces, and reports from people who were on her said that the boilers were knocked off line. Flooding was reduced by the compartmentalization, but the British shells, especially the 16 inch shells, were going through the main protective systems. The knock outs on the turrets, going through the barbettes and gunhouses is proof of that.

>>52503587
All or nothing refers to distribution over vital areas while minimizing coverage over nonvital areas, not angling or whether the belt is tapered or not.

Don't conflate terms.

>>52503724
No, all or nothing means that you either have maximum protection, or none. Belt Tapering is a feature of ships that do not have all or nothing.

Havin 8 inches over one spot, 12 in another, and 4 in another is not all or nothing. A solid 356mm of armor on the belt, with nothing in other areas, that is truly the definition of all or nothing. Colorado class had no tapering, true all or nothing.

>>52503662
>That isn't correct.

The operative word is "relatively", you pedantic sperglord. The middecks damage I referred to had mission killed Bismarck BEFORE KGV and Rodney approached close enough to start blowing main battery rounds through her.

Bismarck lost the ability to fight back within 20 minutes of the battle beginning and did so because her obsolete armor arrangement was a fatal handicap.

File: HMS Anson.jpg (246KB, 1568x960px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 1568x960px

>>52503309
>/tg/ where shitting on anything Japanese is a pastime

I think the British KGV gets the brunt of that, despite being, to all accounts, an excellent vessel.

File: HMS_Sheffield3.jpg (67KB, 876x493px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 876x493px

>>52482244
In a more modern era of missiles and carrier groups is hex and chit the better option for naval wargaming?

Do you know of or have any experience in systems for our era or just before, Hex and Chit or otherwise?

>>52504283
>In a more modern era of missiles and carrier groups is hex and chit the better option for naval wargaming?

Yes, because of the incredible ranges of the weapons involved.

Tabletop WW1 & 2 games, naval or ground, already nerf weapon ranges while buffing things like firing rates, hit %, and damage.

>>52504283
Shipwreck! was always my favourite modern tabletop.

For sim, try C:MANO on steam. By far the best sim of naval ops to date.

>>52482694
>>52486393

these links don't work anymore?

>>52505643
Do you want a copy?

>>52506014
yes please.

Lads, how do I organise asset packs for RtW?

>>52504249
Blame the fact that a 28 knot bote with 10 14 inch guns looks pretty unimpressive when compared to her direct competitors; a 27.5 knot boat with 9 16 inch guns and 30 knot boat with 8 15 inch guns.

>The Hunters, trying a fan's Early U-Boats rules
>Type IA
>roll single patrol, April 40, Norway
>only have one encounter box on station
>roll capital ship
>it's the Nelson at night
>succeed in closing range
>fire all three torps
>all hit, no duds, SINKS HER
>manage to escape undetected and make it safely to port

Every once in a while I get an amazing game with the early U-boats. Most of the time it's just "sunk a transport or two, didn't die because things aren't that bad in 39/40." The best I had before this was a 20K ton game where my IIB got lucky with finding big targets during her patrols, and even then she was scuttled during her second attack because IIs aren't very tough.

>>52510201
IIA, not IA, rather.

>>52510201
>roll for what type of boat KptLt Anon, Pride of the Kriegsmarine, with his shiny new Knight's Cross gets assigned to
>*** 2d6 = [2] [1]***
>*** 1d6 = [5] ***
>he gets a IID in five months (which is exactly when IIDs enter combat roles)

Must have pissed off somebody in command REALLY bad to get chucked in a coastal boat right when they're being pulled out of training duty for combat. Maybe he made a joke about Der Fuehrer's stache while on propaganda duty?

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

108KB, 743x489px

>>52506116
https://dropfile.to/Sb0KymY
https://dropfile.to/cLAuJOo

File: GHQKGV.jpg (98KB, 670x230px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 670x230px

>>52509926
A 31 knot bote (early models) with 15 inch armor and 10 14 inch guns, always sounds more impressive.

>>52512568
>14" being anything more than underwhelming
By that metric the Ise and Fuso classes are impressive.

No, a fast battleship with only 14" main armament is either a glorified escort or a particularly quick artillery platform to support amphibious invasions. For actual ship to ship brawls in the North Sea or the Med you must be 15" or bigger to play.

>>52512664
Which is why the KGVs' shells proved wholly ineffective in their engagements against Bismarck and Scharnhorst right?

>>52512664
Tbh Fusous&Ises could had been decent had gooks gone and built them with 4 x 3 instead of going for autistic double turret farms.

>>52512664
Well the Ise and Fuso were impressive in WW1, but that is what they were, WW1 ships.

By all accounts, the British 14 inch was a true workhorse gun. If you put the gun data into the USN Empirical Formula for Armor Penetration, they perform better then ANY 14 inch guns, and on par with every 15 inch gun in existence. They were noted for being one of the most accurate guns ever mounted on a battleship, historically I can't find any other ship that ever had such a high straddle percentage at equivalent ranges.

>For actual ship to ship brawls in the North Sea or the Med you must be 15" or bigger to play.

That's empirically not true.

>>52512773
No offense to the Brits, but how much of the accuracy was inflated as wartime propaganda?

>>52513049
Royal Navy archives are probably the best documented historical sources for naval action. Scoring 21 straddles out of 25 salvoes is impressive, and I doubt the Captain would lie to the admiralty about that.

Ditto gunnery trials.

>>52513304
Fair enough.

I just know pic related was a thing too, and that the British were more than happy to dump extreme amounts of ordnance downrange. That's chiefly the reason I asked.

>>52513416
...And I take the pic off the phone, post it from a computer and it still tries to break necks.

File: British Moral Ascendency.jpg (2MB, 3024x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3024x3024px

>>52513451

>>52513512
Fuck it. I've tried rotating and saving it several times. I give up.

File: ussWestVirgin.jpg (120KB, 1134x845px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 1134x845px

TOO MUCH SEXY WEST VIRGIN!

>>52513608
Fat bote a fatty.

>>52514018
No bote can truly be called fat until you look at Bismark.

>>52513049
Mostly it was due to being commissioned with fully modern radar fire direction, and serving during the earlier phases of the war in an ocean small enough for surface fleets to realistically expect to engage each other instead of resorting to air wings doing 100% of the work in most engagements.

>>52515273
Gunnery dispersion was notably low as well, which is a huge factor in being able to hit. Radar only helps you point in the right area, dispersion size is purely a gun design/powder QA thing.

File: hms_kent_900x700.jpg (257KB, 900x700px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 900x700px

Kent confirmed for most sexy bote.

File: HMS Exeter enters Malta.jpg (2MB, 4360x2755px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4360x2755px

>>52518781
I prefer older cousin.

>>52518836
Firepower sacrifice not worth it.

So, gents, I'm in a dilemma. I'm putting together a small force (system TBD) along the lines of Force H or Force Z (as intended), based on the premise that these various forces are engaging in an environment like the Mediterranean or the Solomons which keeps surface ships relevant outside of screening and escort. I chose Japanese because I'm a sucker for kinda wonky designs and the IJN had practically nothing BUT. So far I've selected Nagato and Mutsu as a BatDiv and a screening force of Akizuki-class destroyers and Matsu-class escorts led by a Tenryu-class light cruiser. Since Nagato and Mutsu's secondary batteries are designed with destroyers in mind I'm tempted to opt out of cruisers for the time being to double down on the most effective destroyers I can get my hands on. The real problem is carriers.

The obvious choice in my mind is Taiho despite the poor damage control and its design flaws, because armored carriers were basically designed PRECISELY for this sort of scenario and it carries a good number of the best AA gun the IJN ever built. Also, a usable air wing for conducting all the various functions of an aircraft carrier.

The alternatives are a fleet carrier or a light carrier, which I've narrowed down to two real options: the Hiyo class or the Zuiho class. The former has a 42-aircraft capacity but is slower, has shittier defenses aside from a double hull, and is in every way aside from the abovementioned design flaws inferior to Taiho. The latter only carries 30 aircraft meaning a pathetic strike capacity, but is better built and much faster, and may allow some wiggle room to invest in another cruiser or two if I feel like it.

Anything else I've judged too big and lightly-built for the intended role aside from Kaga, whose armor was eventually lightened and which suffered just about as much from its own design flaws as Taiho.

tl;dr please talk me out of Taiho, or else confirm that it's the best option for the scenario.

>>52519926
If you're gonna go with a plane barge you might as well go with one that didn't fart herself to death.

>>52520142
That basically leaves CVLs. Most of the IJN fleet carriers were lost to a combination of internal explosions and avgas fires, as were many of the light carriers for that matter.

Who knew, avgas doesn't respond well to fire.

>>52519926
>The real problem is carriers.

No it isn't. The real problem is your mistaken belief the IJN would field something along the lines of Force H or Z.

We're talking about different navies with different doctrines and different assets fighting different enemies in different operational environments and yet you want to believe the IJN is going to copy RN practice for no other reason than herp derp hurr durr. The IJN did not use carriers as you propose.

The only time the IJN deployed a force even remotely similar to the one you're asking about was during an operation which was part of the Battle of the Eastern Solomons. Ryujo was detached from 3rd Fleet along with CA Tone and 2 DDs on a recon/strike mission against Henderson Field with the result being Ryujo sunk.

>>52520734
This isn't a reenactment though? As should be fairly clear from the setup to the question?

Jesus Christ use your fucking imagination.

>>52520777
Fun is haram, you should not have it nor partake in activities that cause it.

>>52520777
>This isn't a reenactment though?

A reenactment reenacts something which previously existed. It just doesn't make shit up because it's "kewl".

You want to field an IJN task force? Then follow IJN doctrine. If not, you might as well just use your "imagination" and mix & match a grab bag of hulls from every navy.

This is the central problem with point-based wargames, games which allow players to "build" armies from various lists without regard to historical OOBs, doctrine, or even common sense. Currently, Bolt Action is the best example of this point build nonsense. Players "game" the army list lists well before they even play the game. In BA generals, posters routinely ask just how far they can ignore historical OOBs and still make a "case" for whatever min/max munchkin force they've put together. Late war Germans are a favorite in BA because the jumble of ad hoc formations gives players the excuse they need to field a-historic formations.

File: rtw.png (21KB, 628x351px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 628x351px

I've got an asset pack for Rule the Waves. I'm wondering how I organise it so that the in-game editor recognises it.

>>52521939
>You want to field an IJN task force? Then follow IJN doctrine.
First of all holy autism batman. Second of all the IJN DID field carriers in support of surface fleets/exercises until 1932, at which point carriers striking against carriers was emphasized on a LEVEL with CAP and escort duties. As late as the 1940's light carriers like Hosho, Zuiho, and Shoho were used in escort roles, most notably the battleship-heavy screen for the return of the carrier striking force after Pearl Harbor. So there IS precedence for it within IJN doctrine over several decades, because while it would be really fucking strange by endwar American doctrine the Japanese clung to the idea of a major surface engagement long enough that it remained distinctly thinkable if not practical in any given situation.

And seriously, if you get so booty-blasted about people bending what you THINK historical doctrine was to have fun then don't bother answering a question like that in the first place. I mean good lord man, you're the reason that even other wargamers think historical wargamers are a bunch of nofun autists.

>>52522052
>Second of all the IJN DID field carriers in support of surface fleets/exercises until 1932

1932

>As late as the 1940's light carriers like Hosho, Zuiho, and Shoho were used in escort roles

Yeah but you're not going to use a LIGHT carrier are you? You want to use Taiho because it's armored while ignoring how the IJN used her.

>I mean good lord man, you're the reason that even other wargamers think historical wargamers are a bunch of nofun autists.

Score a laugh point. For all your concerns about "history" you might as well be playing Warhammer.

You love all the shiny historical toys, but can't be bothered with the thinking behind their actual use. All your tanks are Tigers, all your infantry carry MP-40s, etc. You don't play to try and better the historical performances and results. You're a min/max munchkin looking for loopholes.

It's people like you who deliberately blur the line between history and fantasy who are the real cancer in wargaming.

>carriers with surface elements never happened
>what is Ozawa's force during Operation C

>>52522565
Look, I don't know how to break this to you but not all of us are so obsessed about OOB that we can't get creative with things, and not all of us are trying to minmax. Some of us want to do what-if scenarios and hypotheticals, some of us have certain pet units that didn't see as much historical use as they could have, and some of us just want to play against our friends with forces that are relatively balanced for gameplay purposes.

Some of us have fun differently than you do, and that's okay. If there's any "real" cancer to be found in wargaming it's faggots like you who come in shrieking about how other people are having fun the wrong way and dismiss any arguments that disagree with you. I'm not going to try and tell you that reenactment can't be fun and that you shouldn't do it, because I'm not an asshole.

Try and learn from the example.

>>52522565
>stop having fun wrong: the unironic post

I don't even do the whole grab-bag of stuff approach in historical games, spending far too much time and effort on attempting to learn era-appropriate tactics and mimic unit composition in my games, and that post is still cringe-worthy and should trigger some serious self-examination on the part of the poster as to whether such attitudes are rational.

>>52522763
>Try and learn from the example.

Seeing as fantasy is your preference, go play Warhammer.

>>52522873
Ah, Shitposter-Kun. Greetings. Blessings of the double vee upon you.

>>52521939
jesus christ, autism in action

>>52522873
Wow, such a sick burn. You win.

Now does anyone who's not painfully autistic want to discuss the relative advantages and disadvantages of Japanese carrier designs if they were suddenly transplanted out of the open Pacific?

>>52522042
Sorry anon, I've no idea how you'd go about that, have you considered asking on the RtW forum? The devs frequent it and the community itself is quite helpful, I'm sure you'd learn what you need there.

>>52523109
Figured it out. The CCIP stuff is additional accessories and parts which plugs into the sets that somebody else made. I copy the accessories folders into each of Nuno's set folders.

>>52523090
i mean, jap carriers were pretty okay overall. their major flaw imo was the enclosed hangar that caused the talked about death farts. what sort of system are you running? is there like a point system to consider or just for fun?

>>52523817
The system hasn't been decided yet, as we'll likely be trying a few out. As for points I'm not wedded to running Nagato and Mutsu together, so if mostly omitting cruisers can't buy one of their nicer carriers a battleship and a heavy cruiser would be the place for wiggle room.

The Shokakus were pretty tough boats, and were beautifully-designed by comparison. Particularly for screening and escorting a BatDiv in a hypothetical engagement, you'd think one of their finer carriers would be appropriate.

>>52523551
Though if anybody that has used these has an easy way to unpack all of the assets into the sets, that would be grand.

>>52523945
i mean, i don't know the system or anything so i can only speak from what i know historically. all the nip fleet carriers were pretty good, akagi to taiho. though if you go with kaga or akagi the speed will be on the slow side. conversely hiryuu or soryuu are way faster than any other, but they pay for it in plane capacity. objectively taiho would be what you want but the shokaku class has similar hangar space so it should do too if thats your only requirement.

Reminder that Nagato is a rapist.

>>52525350
Reminder that Nagatos are the worst of the Big Seven.

File: Argonaut1899.jpg (76KB, 910x313px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 910x313px

Lads...

>>52526011
excessive, i like it

>>52526150
Usually build them to 24kts so they last all game with one major rebuild towards the end. Don't think it looks old fashioned enough, but I'm loving the expanded asset list.

>>52485615
>Did the Nips honestly believe they could win the war in six months? Against the number one industrial power? Without landing on the American continent?
IIRC They didn't, they were aiming to beat the USN so badly that America would be forced to sue for peace, but I could be wrong

>>52526587
I am pretty sure you are correct. Sink the fleet, draw remnants out for decisive battle, basically cripple the us so hard that the us would give up the prosperity sphere as part of peace talks.

What to play if I want to be a shipgirl?

File: 1446966944395.jpg (2MB, 3000x2060px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x2060px

>>52530650
An RPG that simulates weaboo fighting

Or the official KanColle RPG, but considering it's built to simulate the browser game, I'd advise against it

May the thread have a pic for being off topic

>>52530707
>A million missiles
>No reliable way track targets
>No point defense
>Also sonar and a single helicopter and some marines for no reason

>>52530818
There is a reason why arsenal ships didn't become a thing.

>>52530832
All the disadvantages of big gun battleships with non of the advantages of guided missile destroyers. What's not to love?

>>52530818
>>No point defense
Did you miss the Quad Pack Point Defense missiles? New ships are moving away from gun point defense, to systems that can track multiple targets and engage them simultaneously.

>>52530832
The Ohio class cruise missile submarine would disagree with you, but you know, keep shitting on non traditional warfare solutions. That's the sort of thinking that helped the navy win the Millenium CHallenge.

>>52531478
This ship can track zero targets. It has no radar.

>>52531868
It is nothing more than hull, engines, bare minimum of control facilities and shitload if missiles. It has no role outside of ferrying missiles around and launching them, hell even in that role its interior to submarines because at least those things are stealthy and can hide from enemy.

>>52530707
You know, that thing would probably make Somali Pirates cum in their pants.

File: M_U_G.jpg (320KB, 1154x773px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 1154x773px

Smug mug

>>52532431
From what hotel you stole it from?

>>52533721
Poor proud spaghetti girl, what did those awful reds do to you?

>>52533847
Slavs shouldn't be allowed to own boats, it's cruel.

File: 2156933c1110a690ec149f4dabba70c8.jpg (578KB, 2598x1485px) Image search: [Google]

578KB, 2598x1485px

>>52533847
The same thing they always do.

>>52526011
How good is that game? I was thinking about getting it.

>>52537270
There is a reason why the custom waifu bote creator is as popular as it is.

>>52534868
Still don't understand how the Soviets rated war prizes from Italy, much less the UK giving them Royal Oak. The Royal Navy should have had Conte di Cavour, or maybe the Free French.

>>52524112
After basically removing Treaty compliance from the equation I was left with a three-way choice: Zuiho, Taiho. or Shokaku.

Taiho I kind of dropped from the running because her design flaws get in the way of that whole "survivability" thing I'd like to have in a carrier. Zuiho would be workable but is rather limited as a carrier: 21 zeros and 9 kates is a realistic air wing that gives her a decent number of fighters for her own defense (in fact Shokaku was intended to only carry 18) and enough torpedo bombers to carry out a limited offensive strike or chase down fleeing surface ships. She carried a decent number of AA guns for her displacement, but still only half as many as Shokaku... which is her only real competitor at this point and also benefits from an air wing more than twice the size. Shokaku also had the sound design and the bulk to absorb more punishment than is reasonable to expect a CVL to survive.

For me it's a tough call, primarily because taking a fleet carrier feels a little excessive when on paper the CVL should do.

>>52540941
If you like eclectic things, why not attach a seaplane tender so that you have devoted reconnaissance assets and your combat craft can focus on combat.

>>>52541027
In addition to whatever carrier you pick, I mean.

>>52541027
Here's the problem with that: it takes a seaplane tender 15 minutes to recover her aircraft, during which time the vessel had to drop out of formation. Hosho sometimes operated alongside Zuiho, but Hosho was a third-stringer at best with hardly any passive or active defenses to speak of. She was also only capable of 25 knots flat out and if the seas cooperated.

No, if you're going to take a second hull the solution is to take two true CVLs, which I HAVE considered. Problem is that's another hull to screen for.

>>52540941
something to keep in mind with cvl, their limited length limits the potential payload of strike craft, its why you dont see torpedo bombers in her lineup. cvls shine in the asw role, and do okay when providing cap support for a combined fleet while a real cv's fighters are escorting the strike. but their offensive capability is limited against surface forces. they do okay en masse when supporting landings though.

also, taiho is basically a shokaku with an armoured flight deck and better AA, anything wrong with taiho is probably also wrong with the shokaku class. her reputation for blowing up can be attributed both to the enclosed hangar and incompetent/untrained damage control crew.

>>52530707
battletech is a naval warfare ruleset used to simulate bipedal robots

>>52541819
The uncompensated increase in her weight from the armored flight deck and the enclosed hangars are all you really needed to turn a solid ship into a bigass bomb. It's a noteworthy series of flaws that were exacerbated by borderline criminal damage control.

All told I'd shy away from her because of those flaws.

>>52541819
But Zuihocchi is not a jeep carrier and had B5Ns as regular compliment. And B5Ns can carry either 1 800kg torp, 1 800kg bomb or 2 250kg bombs and lighter stuff, so it'd be kinda dumb to bring them if they can't take off with the 800 kg load.
I'd say to that anon bring Zuiho and add a couple more DDs if there's points left.

>>52541995
I don't think the flight deck turned her into any more of a bomb than not having it, i mean the same thing happened to lexington basically and her deck wasnt armoured and her hangar was open. really the main thing was the crappy damecon.

>>52541997
oh yeah you might be right about the torpedo bombers on cvl, i could have sworn i read somewhere most of them couldn't take one type of plane and i think i guessed wrong. thats what i get for not checking my own facts before hitting post

>>52542096
The increased weight meant she rode lower in the water, which contributed to her flooding problems and made damage control that much harder. So you're right in that it's a separate issue, but it definitely contributed.

>>52542096
Some carriers in that size range had issues. Hosho was useless, Ryujo only had one elevator that could handle modern aircraft, but the other IJN and USN designs were fine.

True escort carriers weren't so hot.

>>52542258
>True escort carriers weren't so hot.

Except in the battle of the Atlantic, where they fucking dominated!

File: 7a1c5d5a2bb87cdcb6681e034eff54a2.png (13KB, 902x226px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 902x226px

Guys, I built my first RTW battlecruisers with the protected cruiser armor configuration, and they are wreaking shit because the enemy's shells keep passing through without detonating.

I think I broke the game.

File: HMS Laforey.jpg (56KB, 736x404px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 736x404px

By the by other Blood Wake fleet anons, we should probably sort out our character bios and post them in the officer roster so that we can get started.

>>52531492
>Millennium Challenge
[laughing intensifies]

And the Ohio SSGNs are for attacking land targets and SF insertion, neither of which involve getting shot at or actually targeting ships. They're also actually hard to detect, being ex-boomers, which means they aren't likely to get shot at.

When playing RtW with variable technologies how do you check what tech has varied?

>>52543858
what game is that?

>>52544344
I should have Flashman's bio up in the next day or so.

>>52554237
Rule the Waves

>>52554569
Any word on when the sequal is coming out?

File: British_battleship_HMS_Vanguard_(23)_underway_c1947.jpg (167KB, 1200x896px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 1200x896px

>>52555635
Nope

>>52541819
>>52542096
I might have figured out where you read that: the English wiki for Kancolle mistakenly states that ALL light carriers had trouble with non-folding dive bomber wings. Which is incorrect, only Ryujo had issues with her aft elevator being too small for B5Ns, which didn't mean she couldn't carry them. It just messed with her flight operations.

No other class of light carriers the IJN operated had elevators that small. As for not using dive bombers their wings made them an inefficient use of internal space.

File: bushjralien (1).jpg (114KB, 500x417px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 500x417px

Hey, I don't mean to distract you all from your botes, but I come with a wargaming question.

I'm looking to revise and expand a worldbuilding game, Dawn of Worlds. It's a lovely game, but the army/conflict mechanics are total shit.

What are your favorite conflict resolution mechanics in wargames? What are the simplest you've ever seen?

I'm currently looking at Axis and Allies and Risk, but I want to see more rule sets.

Bonus points for simplicity with depth. I want a conflict between two forces to resolve in a single roll if possible, and not require turn taking or initiative systems. Preferably, the system would generic enough to apply to any type of military conflict or even ideological conflicts or social conflicts. Doesn't need to use dice, but should have some level of "indeterminacy" before the engagement begins.

>>52555635
Final patch is still in beta so a while.

>>52552308
Vesuvius? That's the dynamite gun ship, right?

File: image.jpg (167KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 1024x768px

>>52563433
Think so.

/his/ doesn't have a thread up, so I think this is my next best bet.
I was curious about how sailors were paid wages while they were at sea and when I tried to google that, I got results like
>shanghaiing
>impressment
So, in an era without direct deposit and fancy credit cards that handle all our money electronically, how did those sailors get their money?

U-1

Only patrol: April 1940: Norway.

Transit uneventful.

On April 12, encountered freighter Calchas with escort during the day and followed until nightfall. U-1 closed the range and fired three torpedoes. Two hit, but failed to sink her. The escorts abandoned the damaged Calchas, and U-1 surfaced to make an easy close-range shot using her UZO. However, the torpedoes all missed and U-1 was forced to abandon her pursuit.

Transit home was uneventful.


>tries to sink unescorted damaged freighter
>fails
[SCREAMS IN GERMAN]

>>52564796
On pay day, the ship would set out a table. The officer in charge of pay would sit at it with some helpers, with cash from the safe. Each sailor would arrive, place his hat on the table, state his name and rank, and receive his pay on top of his hat.

Just a simple cash transaction.

File: HNLMS Java Tromp Kortanaer.jpg (505KB, 1200x612px) Image search: [Google]

505KB, 1200x612px

>>52571443
Like me some Dutch ships.

File: De Ruyter and CO.jpg (685KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

685KB, 1200x900px

>>52571633

File: ff9594e8507e19c13d2ace71204cf3ec.jpg (113KB, 600x376px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 600x376px

So the past few days I've been in the (UK) National Archives finding stuff for my Masters diss on the development of the Commonwealth navies.
Been reading a lot about the Aussie & NZ ships in actions like the capture of Rabaul and the Sydney vs. the Emden. That type of small scale action, with forces of destroyers and maybe cruisers hunting each other and grabbing colonies really appeals to me.

What's a good way of playing scenarios like that for someone with no /nwg/ experience (well, aside from Dystopian Wars)? Autistic simulationists and reenactors need not apply.

>>52575096
Naval War or Victory at Sea, maybe?

>>52576521
I'll check them out, cheers!

>>52569005
THICC AMERICAN STANDARDS

>>52526011
>submerged torpedo tubes

>>52582243
Those are surprisingly effective in RTW.

>>52583772
Is a pre-WW2 CLT a viable design? Lots of broadside submerged tubes, good speed, and balls of steel.

File: rtw cl designs once you've unlocked overwater torpedo tubes on cls.png (927KB, 1280x1880px) Image search: [Google]

927KB, 1280x1880px

>>52583827
The max amount of submerged tubes is 6 (1 aft, 1 bow, 2 on each side) but from my experience most late game CL designs tend to evolve Kitakami-like direction.

>>52583993
Also submerged tubes are useless because you can never get the AI to fire them.

>>52584184
Friendly AI, the enemy AI in the other hand can use them to basically snipe your botes left, right, and center.

File: I already had Leander-classes in service.png (16KB, 911x293px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 911x293px

>>52583993
Really? I always go for pretty gun focussed CL designs late game, pic related.

File: CSA for the win.jpg (41KB, 904x283px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 904x283px

>>52584232
Man, I hate playing as Brits - nothing but patrol ship shuffling (as you refit them) all game long.

In other news, here's one of my favourite late-game designs.
Note the speed. It just screams Destroyer Leader, don't it?

File: It lives for the chase.png (13KB, 911x293px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 911x293px

>>52584342
I really wish you could delegate squadrons or forces and assign them to foreign stations easily to make the shuffling less of a pain, but otherwise I really enjoy playing the Brits, especially if I can guide them into a big war against 2-3 other nations. The massive fleet engagements make it all worth while.

And speaking of stupidly fast destroyer leader CLs.

>>52583993
A long time ago, I read complaints on the NWS forum that the AI did not use KTKM-like designs properly. Is this still so? I never experimented with them.

>>52584817
>tfw once ended up building a 21 knot 17 inch yank nelson

File: Roar.png (15KB, 908x294px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 908x294px

>>52584827
I've made Super Nelsons too. I even did a playthrough where I cheated myself the starting tech for the turret locations and triple turrets from the start so I could build exclusively Nelson layouted ships, except for DDs, which were the same layout with single, then later double turrets. It was glorious.

File: She just wants to grow up to be like Nelson-sama.png (13KB, 911x294px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 911x294px

>>52584864
And I found the last DD I made for said playthrough, isn't she a beauty?

File: h44-bismarck.jpg (47KB, 750x510px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 750x510px

Triggered?

>>52586511
All I can think about when I see the H44 is it somehow getting Austin Powers'd in the Kiel Canal.

>>52586511
>>52586584
So how badly would they have fucked it up, had it been built?

>>52586678
Well, the whole "can't actually be built in Germany" bit combined with the events of June 6, 1944 kinda put the kibosh on it.

File: h44-km.jpg (238KB, 1134x1304px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 1134x1304px

>>52586678
>>52587535
Well, assuming for the sake of the thought experiment that they would have had access to the facilities and resources to build one, it would still have to go through severe revisions and even then lacking due to technological shortcomings.

First of, the German gun designs: While their rangefinding/ballistics/munition aspect were fine, the loading/turret designs were way behind every other nation (the reason for the German twin barrel designs in turrets where everybody else would have been able to put in triple barrels).

Secondly torpedo belts and bulges which also usually had flawed designs with German ships.

Third and most obvious the AA/secondary setup. Every of the H class designs simply carried over the weaponry from the Bismarck with the 6x2 150mm, 8x2 105mm (DP) plus the anemic suite of 2x37-mm, 4/2x20-mm guns. Especially the (hand-loaded!) twin 37-mm cannons were outdated by the end of WWI and took eons to be replaced by the 2x37-mm Flak 37.

If we assume that by 44/45 Germany would have been able to build it, we also can take the freedom to assume that designs like the 2x128-mm and 2x55-mm Flak and 2x30-mm MK mounts had been properly developed and navalized.

The dual-purpose 2x128 would uniform replace the 150 and 105 mounts as secondary and long range AA, the 2x 55-mm Flak would be the "new" medium range heavy hitter replacing the 37-mm Flak and for short range burst the twin and quad 20s should be replaced by 2x30-mm MK-103 auto-cannons. Of course generally with the whole lot of empty deck space of such a size additional mounts for the 128-mm are very feasible. One thing the Japanese almost turned into an art form especially on the Yamato were the whole stair-case like structures of AA batteries.

>>52587911
Another thing becoming very apparent late into the war, were the advancing developments of the American radar and targeting computer technologies which became way advanced than their German designs.

Finally the engine/propulsion design of German BBs similar to the guns always stuck to three shafts, which should be replaced by four at such sizes (at least they got the memo of three rudders after Bismarck's twin rudder design showed its flaws).

Basically: They'd need Japanese guns, Italian torpedo protections, American radar and British engines.

Also the whole Luftwaffe/No Carriers thing but that's another novel.

What are some good books on the development of naval warfare in the late 19th/early 20th century?

>>52590073
That lone Bofors tower at the bow always kills me, looks so stupid.

>>52584817
>>52584864
>>52584946

So how have these been performing? (I don't have RTW to try it myself, only S&I)

>>52590200
At least my Nelson-type botes have been fairly successful in their roles but given that my most successful ship ever was an unholy lovechild between Renown&Derfflinger I don't know much trust I would put on it.

>>52591477
>an unholy lovechild between Renown&Derfflinger

pics or it didn't happen.

>>52590200
They did quite well, the lack of any rearward facing armament encouraged very aggressive handling, always attempting to close with the enemy and give them a broadside, was quite fun.

>>52491363
>The US' own fleet problems in the 30s had already shown a fleet in port could be attacked.

What fleet problems were those?

>>52595758
>What fleet problems were those?

1st, soon after encountering millennial sperglords, I learned to take time to explain terms because autists take everything LITERALLY. You most likely believe that the word "problem" in this case means "trouble" or "difficulty". It does not.

In this case, the term "problem" refers an exercise or investigation much like how the term is used in chess or mathematics. Understand, sperglord? Good.

Next, here's a link which will explain: wikipedia DOT org/wiki/Fleet_problem

Finally, because I know most of you can't be bothered to follow that link and read the article, I'll provide a brief explanation. During the 20s and 30s, the USN conducted fleet problems nearly every other year. The problems were used to test doctrine, tactics, and equipment. Most of those exercises took place in the Pacific.

During two problems in the 20s, aircraft from a carrier successfully attacked the Panama Canal. During the problem in '32, the problem involved both Hawaii the West Coast with carriers doing so well that the Navy asked for 8 carriers in the Pacific alone. During the rest of 30s, Hawaii was successfully attacked and defended in various problems by forces including carriers.

The USN and Army was well aware that Hawaii could be attacked by carriers because they'd been practicing such attacks and defending against such attacks since the 1920s. What they didn't plan on was the IJN attacking from the north - Kimmels limited PBY patrols focused on the the Japanese Mandates - or the attack being a Port Arthur style surprise.

>>52596922
>1st, soon after encountering millennial sperglords, I learned to take time to explain terms because autists take everything LITERALLY. You most likely believe that the word "problem" in this case means "trouble" or "difficulty". It does not.
>In this case, the term "problem" refers an exercise or investigation much like how the term is used in chess or mathematics. Understand, sperglord? Good.
Well, aren't you a gay old fellow.

>>52596922
>yfw I actually knew the sense in which you were using the word without being aware of the specific ones you were talking about

But keep imagining you're superior to everyone around you, if you have to cling to illusions they might as well be pleasant ones.

>>52597094
>I actually knew the sense in which you were using the word

And yet still couldn't be arsed enough to google the term "fleet problem" yourself.

Nice try, sperglord.

>>52597120
Googling "fleet problems" isn't going to tell me which specific fleet problem(s) you were talking about.

Are you trying to let us know it's Autism Awareness month? Wait, let me google it...

File: F4F_over_HMS_Warspite_off_Salerno_1943.jpg (102KB, 535x373px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 535x373px

Hey, folks. I'm encountering a challenge. I've been building up a small fleet of wargaming scale ships after a long hiatus from miniatures, and I've got some people who are potentially interested in trying it out. Problem is, they are all from a background of board games and RPGs, and generally don't have a lot of time for bigger longer form detailed games.

I'm using Victory at Sea, and I'm trying to write up some sort of introductory/shorter form simple naval scenarios that might draw people in and be tactically interesting. There's obviously shit like a raid on a beach landing, or something like a WW2 version of the battle of Manila Bay, but I'm having a hard time thinking of more compelling small scale scenarios that might serve as good demo games. You guys have any ideas?

TL,DR: I need to come up with some short introductory/demo scenarios for wargaming noobs that are complex enough to actually involve some thought, not just two ships shelling each other forever. This a good place to bounce ideas for that?

>>52597983
>You guys have any ideas?

Look at the 1st and 2nd Battle of Narvik.

>>52597176
>Googling "fleet problems" isn't going to tell me which specific fleet problem(s) you were talking about.

The wiki page I linked lists will all 21 of them, gives a precis of most, and provides links to more places to get more information, but why bother?

Why educate yourself when you can just whine to be spoon fed?

Right, sperglord?

>>52597983
One of the Med convoys? Vigorous but the Brits don't turn back maybe?

>>52597983
The Battle of the River Plate to my mind would be a good learn the rules scenario.

>>52598209
>>52598259

Two very good suggestions there.

>>52598053
>2nd Narvik
>Warspite and escorts rape a bunch of half-dead/low on ammo DDs trapped in a fjord
>good for beginners
Yeah no. First Narvik might be good as a "value of circumstances/surprise" teaching scenario, though.

>>52596922
Proper use of capitalization aids effective communication. "Fleet Problem" and "fleet problem" can mean very different things.

>manage to get a VIIB to April 43
>this might be my last patrol, depending on how much damage I take
>spot Ark Royal
>time to remove perfidious albion
>attack from long range for safety, hit with three torps and sink her
>escorts go into fucking murdermode, easily spot me, and instakill me second round of depth charges with boxcars and the '43 damage roll boost

We had a good run, U-101. So close to that Knight's Cross with Oakleaves.

File: 1280px-USS_New_Jersey_(BB-16)_in_camouflage_coat,_1918_edit.jpg (187KB, 1280x854px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 1280x854px

>>52601501
Gotta love those smaller turrets mounted on top of main turrets.

>>52598832
>>2nd Narvik
>>Warspite and escorts rape a bunch of half-dead/low on ammo DDs trapped in a fjord

AND a U-boat which failed to take a shot.

Small playing area because fjord? Check. Low speeds because fjord? Check. Short playing time so players can switch sides and play again? Check. All weapons/assets except aircraft present? Check.

"Beginner" means "teaching".

The "beginner" could play the RN while the grog gets stomped. Then, because the scenario is so short, they could switch sides and play again.

>>52597983
I kind of like Cape Spada as a teaching scenario. I was working on a version for Naval War, but no reason it shouldn't work for VaS also, with a little tinkering.

I need to have time to do a revised version, but I'd recommend that the British DD squadron at least be within extreme range of the Italian CL's on the first turn, so that they have a chance of sinking two before reinforcements arrive.
I'm a bit fuzzy at how VaS admirals work, but you might consider trying that, and doing some tweaking. I also don't recall how lethal things are in VaS, so you might have to tweak when Sydney and Havock arrive for the RM to have at least some chance.

https://www.naval-war.com/navalforum/ordersofbattle/49-battle-of-cape-spada-scenario

>>52605308

I forgot to mention: Low number of units? Check.

>>52597983
Maybe some of the actions in the Solomons? Kula Gulf? Empress Augusta Bay?

>>52605817

Maybe Komandorski Islands?. Small number of units (8 vs 6), involved only guns although surface torpedo attacks are possible, no aircraft.

>>52601664
They aren't separate turrets, they are welded in place and cannot train independently.

>>52607132
That's the orkiest way of doing quads I've seen. How were they about dispersion?

>>52607712
They were horrible. The ones on top are quick firing, so they figured they could get a couple shots out while the big guns were reloading, but in practice all this accomplished was making the big guns lose their firing solution because they had to re-train the turrets for each gun and directors weren't advanced enough at the time to keep track independently. And then improvements in loading technology meant they didn't have as much time between shots to fire the secondaries anymore. Eventually they just gave up and removed them.

Fortunately from this failure we got the South Carolina with it's super-firing big gun turrets that eventually became the standard.

>>52607712
>That's the orkiest way of doing quads I've seen.

If you haven't got the technology yet, what else can you do? It wasn't RtW or some video game where you can simply "unlock" shit. They had to actually INVENT stuff and test it to see what didn't work.

>>How were they about dispersion?

As >>52608006 explains, in practice the system was horrible. Part of the idea was to use the top pair of quick fires as 'sighting rifles" much like how smaller weapons are/were used to sight for larger ones. It was thought the QFs had a better chance of "walking" their shells on target and, when they did, they big guns would fire using the same solution.

It didn't work in practice, but it did lead to super-firing main batteries.

Fire control was a huge problem for decades and wasn't really "solved" until radar.

>>52531933
This. It's supposed to link up with other ships that have radar and slave it's missiles to their system.

>>52608886
>Have two ships, one full of missiles, and one with radar.
>Losing either ship means you lose 100% of your firepower
vs.
>Have two ships, both of which have radar and missiles
>Losing either ship means losing 50% of your firepower

There is a reason they went with the second option. Overspecialization results in death.

>>52609254
>>Have two ships, one full of missiles, and one with radar.
Wouldn't it be possible to just link it to the radar and targeting systems of existing ships, like Burkes or Ticonderogas?

>>52609370
That was the concept. Basically have a regular naval taskforce but with the ability to call up swarms of missiles from ships not pumping out radar with low profiles. A fun concept, but didn't go anywhere.

>>52609606
They already exist. They're called carriers, and they use these special two-stage missiles called "Super Hornets with Harpoons". You might have heard of them.

>>52609606
>A fun concept, but didn't go anywhere.

The "sharing sensor data across multiple platforms" portion of the idea stuck around as NTDS and it's follow-on JTIDS.

Is anybody following the "War is good for business." Rule the Waves Let's Play over on the somethingawful forum?

I'm binging on it right now, and it's gently-caressingly hilarious.
At least IMHO, of course.

So does anyone have advice for building terrain at 1:2400 scale? I'd like to try and build a set of islands based on the islands of the Firth of Forth (which were built up during the two world wars) making the largest of them 31 centimeters from end to end, but I've never done terrain that small before.

>>52614559
At that scale you probably won't want to go for hyper-realistic and detailed look.

File: CA Kent.png (29KB, 1370x385px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 1370x385px

Announcement for Blood Wake anons: We have the brief for our first mission, so try to hammer out your bios and get them posted asap, that way we can get started.

>>52614559
I'm doing a version of the island of Leros, although it's not necessarily to scale. I went and found an image of the island, printed it, and used a ballpoint pen to transfer an outline to some foam insulation, and cut it out. I've still got to sculpt it, and figure out where the emplacements were, and add some very small scale harbor details and the like.

Pic related current progress. Gotta attach it to a base so that when I start working away at shaping it, so I don't outright break off all the little fiddle bits.

>>52616157
It's all about creating an impression of the reality. Make the island shaped correctly, and imply some of the key features.

File: image.jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

>>52617233
Dumbass may have forgotten his picture.

>>52614559
Use very fine flock.

Overall you really need to ramp up the impressionism (probably the wrong word) of the terrain; all detailing needs to be fairly abstract. It is possible to build in some detailing but for the most part you can really get away with sod all real detail and fill in most of it with just appropriate colour.

You don't need to try and match GHQ's detailing levels. Even large clusters of buildings can be done with just bits of something fine and able to be cut, like small pieces of sprue. The overall impression is what matters, not the detail. Spend time looking at aerial views of the kind of terrain you're making, note how you can divide things into blobs of certain colour and texture, like how fuzzy forests are and the tiny lines needed to make patchwork farmland. Work out what you don't need to add for it to still be recognisable and not too cluttered. But be wary of copying directly though because you might include modern features, get appropriate historical photos if you can.

>>52618311
>>52618311
New thread, women and children first.