Naval Wargames General - Hood was a BB Edition

File: Admiral-Hipper-mountains [DesktopNexus.com].jpg (276KB, 1132x750px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 1132x750px

Hipper was Heavy Cruiser.

>>52778729
Hipper was ugly.

Just realised that my 1899 ACs in RTW are very near to a fast 10" main armament Majestic class

>>52779577
Super CAs are a good, if expensive alternative to Bs for RtW starting fleets.

>>52779751
I've moved back to having some Bs recently, they age like milk but having all super CAs is too good, gets boring.

>>52779842
Yeah, I like to have 1-3 Bs to start with at least, if only as platforms to cart around 11 or 12 inchers.

>>52779842

Good choice.
Also: if you build our B's cheap, you can have 32 Blockade Points for the price of 15.

t. a B/BB fan.

What do you lads do for destroyers? I like to have a squadron on all occupied stations but I'm not convinced that, while helpful, it isn't woefully inefficient.

>>52779980
I have at least a Squadron of them anywhere I have a Fleet, as Britain that's generally the Med, Northern Europe, Indian Ocean and Southeast Asia. Otherwise I leave the other stations to Colonial Cruisers and Gunboats.

>>52780079
What do your early colonial cruisers & gunboats look like?

>>52780079
Gunboats are inefficient as fuck. You're better off with a Cruiser there: much better bang for your buck.

File: Colony-class CL.jpg (155KB, 1027x759px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1027x759px

>>52780186
Gunboats are generally for making up odd tonnages in stations too small to bother with a cruiser or with cruisers that just don't quite cover the required tonnage.

>>52780174
Pic related is my legacy fleet colonial CL from my latest RN playthrough, ignore the excess tonnage, it's just because I'm looking at the design from the end of the game in 1928. Sometimes I'll make them faster (23-24 knots) or longer ranged, or fiddle with the armour scheme, but most tend to end up something like that one.

>>52780316
Looks similar to mine, but I bump up the tonnage.
I often have a double fore turret because you can in legacy LCs, but I'm not sure it's worth the jamming.

>>52780612
I generally don't bother with double turrets on my Colonial CLs, though I often put them on my starting Fleet CLs.

My computer is cooked. I was going to scrimp and save for a few months and buy a flash gaymen laptop and use the time out to do some other things, but I'm missing RTW terribly

What livery should the legacy ships be for the RN?

Tried building Magnificent as a starting B in RtW, it's 400 overweight

>>52782541
Yeah, trying to do exactly historical builds rarely works out perfectly, for a variety of reasons.

>>52782541
RTW and springsharp are conservative in their math.

>>52785740
BIG
FAT
AMERICAN
AFT

Why are the Standards best BBs?

>>52786918
Eh. The best thing that can really be said for them is that they were consistent.

So me and a friend wanna get into the whole naval wargame thing but we don't have a clue about rulebooks nor where to get miniatures. Could any of you fine gentlemen in this thread help perhaps?

>>52788188
Personally, I'd recommend Naval War as a solid and not-too-complex WW2 ruleset.

As for minis, it depends on where you live and what scale you want.

>>52788231
Miniatures wise its anything that wont be too insanely expensive and ships inside or ships TO europe. Baltics specific.

>>52788264
Not too knowledgable about that area, desu.

My naval wargaming focuses on the Pacific plus a bit of Atlantic.

>>52788293
Are there any that focus on more than just the pacific though? Even if it goes a bit Alt history it would be fine. And miniatures wise it does need to be a baltic specific shop. Anything that just ships to Europe would be fine.

>>52788315
Well, Naval War does cover the Norwegian campaign, as well as the French and Italian orders of battle at the start of the war.

The Davco range of warship minis in 1/3000 scale are a cheap and decent but not amazing option for ships.
Those can be found at navymodelsandbooks.co.uk

If you want somewhat bigger minis, I like the various 1/1800 scale minis you can get through Shapeways.
Kinda pricy, tho.

>>52788384
I see. And as one last question could you perhaps link a site for Naval war as i cannot find anything on google.

>>52788405
https://www.naval-war.com/
Everything is available, only thing you need to do is make a login.

>>52788464
>https://www.naval-war.com/
Neat thanks. Though if said game grows a bit too dull/easy in the future. What are the more indepth rulesets.

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

555KB, 1000x750px

>>52788563
GQ3. Go over to /hwg/ and look in the Naval subfolder in the OP mediafire. It's more Battletech level of complexity.

>>52787050
>all-or nothing
>solid armament and armor
>intended to stick together, didn't waste tonnage for going faster than the battleline

>>52788264
If your looking for affordable 3D prints there is a guy in Italy who has started his own webshop. Reviews say it is comparable in quality to the higher lvl materials at shapeways, but at a way more economic price. I've put in an order myself this week to check out the quality.

Site at: http://www.3d-models-games.com/models.html

>>52789610
>something other navies adopted
>something all other super-dreadnoughts had
>one speed: slow
The Standards, during any given iteration, were only truly exceptional in the fact that coherence with the existing battle line was a stated design goal. And it was a design goal that by entry into the war had become obsolete.

>>52790020
Nobody had AoN when the Standards appeared.

>>52790369
>any given iteration
>other navies adopted it
I'll say it again, the only thing setting the standards apart in ANY GIVEN ITERATION was coherence. By the end of WWI other navies were eliminating intermediate armor schemes, their weapons were always on par with other super-dreadnoughts in competing navies, and by the final iteration they were pathetically slow.

And no navy used "true" AoN protection anyway, not even the US navy. The brits and french probably came closest, to the point where blast damage became an ongoing nuisance, while the Americans probably struck the best balance. The Japanese were all over the damn place because fuck consistency.

Why don't we have a standardised OP yet like foreverOP's from /hwg/? Obviously his storytime would be hard work but it couldn't hurt to have some resources.

>>52794491
We mostly just haven't gotten around to making one, probably should, and standardise on a name for the threads too, if we continue this to another thread.

File: 014603.jpg (393KB, 2753x2046px) Image search: [Google]

393KB, 2753x2046px

>>52796038
Yeah, makeshiftiness has its own charm but if these threads are going to be a regular thing we probably should at least have link to /hwg/'s naval wargames mediafire or something.

>>52799358
>rtw2.jpg

File: 46_hms_hood_explosion.jpg (78KB, 740x434px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 740x434px

>tfw starting to feel like having another battlecruisers only run in rtw

File: tfw main battery wing turrets but no superfiring or 3 centerline turrets.png (15KB, 901x275px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 901x275px

>>52805476

File: e6627858991847310ff117e9c8b1de2e.png (58KB, 1008x718px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 1008x718px

>>52805847
I've found battlecruisers with protected cruiser armor configuration and cross deck fire can be a somewhat effective design if you don't have superfiring or AON armor.

Shells will regularly overpenitrate the unarmored sections above the waterline because the enemy will use AP against you instead of HE. Just make sure the turrets and belt are properly armored, and they turn out to be surprisingly resilient.

>>52805476
>tfw right in the middle of another battleship only run & just had 3 battlecruisers for breakfast

Sure man, go right ahead ...

File: most likely will also be obsolete before getting commissioned.png (15KB, 900x281px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 900x281px

>>52805847
>the follow up class laid down a year and half later in 1907

>buy 0 quality 14 inchers from france
>the very next month my own eggheads figure out how to make usable 15 inch guns

Just found out the french were building predreads until the teens
What the fuck were they thinking?

>>52811343
Something like "Honhonhon, what would zose filthy rosbiffs know about ships!"

>>52811343

>What the fuck were they thinking?

"This Dreadnought thing, it is just another crazy vogue, no? Surely those tea drinkers will be wrong again... surely..."

Can I get some RtW early game ship designs? I feel I get overindulgent in terms of tonnage.

>>52805476
> tfw almost all your RtW playthroughs end up being essentially BC only by dint of hating slow ships.

>>52813307
>tfw your BB's all have 29-30kt speed

BC's on suicide watch, tbqh fyi senpai

>>52813442
You can only do that late game, most of my BCs are just fast battleships in armour and armament, it's just that because they're pre-1910 anything over 21kn with big guns is autoclassed as a BC.

>>52813568
That's often a boon though with how often they show up in cruiser clashes. It annoys me when I build new BCs too late and they get classed as BBs instead.

>>52813568
BB's can go up to 30kts starting in 1916 - and I usually build them as fast as I can.

Is there a CA in RtW or does one just make a relatively low tonnage AC?

>>52814024
I think you got your classifications the wrong way round.

>>52814087
I thought CAs were heavy cruisers and ACs were armoured? I read ACs were relatively heavy for the time and could be thought of as proto BCs. Minotaur was around 14,000 tons which is comparable to the later predreads, while heavy cruisers under the treaties were limited to 10,000 tons and I thought even before then sat around that mark.

>>52814443
The only thing that really makes a CA a CA is that they're modern cruisers (so predominantly centreline, usually superfiring turrets) with 8" guns. Consequently they happen naturally in just about every RtW playthrough, to the point that ACs and CAs share the same designation in-game of CA because after the first few years of the game, your ACs will generally morph into CAs. As for tonnage, that's really just a result of treaties, and if you get a naval disarmament treaty that locks you to 10'000ish tons you'll get very historically weighted CAs, but otherwise a few thousand here or there doesn't make them not Heavy Cruisers.

File: ship.png (49KB, 904x282px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 904x282px

Lotta work for a ship that will be scrapped in a handful of years.

Noticed after I finalised a couple of accessories mysteriously disappeared as they are want to do. I think the editor needs some work in RtW2

>>52811343
>What the fuck were they thinking?

It was complicated. 1st, the army got priority in defense spending and correctly so. Germany had trouble funding its naval buildup and keeping up with army spending despite having a larger economy and population. For France the problem was even worse.

2nd, France had a handshake agreement with the UK dividing naval responsibilities in case of war with Germany with the UK handling the North Sea/Channel and France concentrated in the Med. This wasn't an actual treaty mind you, but a private "understanding" which only certain UK cabinet members knew about and which Parliament knew nothing about. In fact, Grey's "war speech" to the House in early August '14 was the first time the agreement was acknowledged.

3rd, concentrating on the Med meant France's potential opponents didn't have dreads of their own. The AH didn't start building theirs until the teens and Italy's first wasn't commissioned until '13.

Predreads got the job done while saving money for the army.

>>52813615
>tfw had a comfy 28-29 knot design for heavily armored battlecruiser
>had to cut couple inches of belt armor to get it make 31 knots so that it won't be classified as a battleship

RIP 14 inch belt, it was nice to know you.

>>52815571
3 inches of deck? thats way overkill for the time period imo. i usually do 1 inch untill 13s show up, and even then its only to 1.5 or 2in

File: thanks RNG.jpg (68KB, 502x526px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 502x526px

>>52805847
Could be worse.

>>52825317
I generally take 2" D and 1.5" DE for my pre-dreads, mostly because I've got some bad experiences with splinter damage to machinery.

>>52825432
i used to do 2in minimum. but i started experimenting with minimal armour designs, like 8in belt and 1in deck/de for a lot less tonnage. i quite like the savings

>>52825317
It started out as a knock off of Majestic, forgot to lower deck to compensate for the extra 2 kts I wanted

>>52832738
SS Uncontrollable

File: 84854d81-dd50-4c30-877f-ddfc9f56923c-A16026.jpg (420KB, 3000x2168px) Image search: [Google]

420KB, 3000x2168px

One of the uglier ships of interwar era desu.

File: 1491971002733.png (1MB, 1009x1795px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1009x1795px

http://store.steampowered.com/app/563210/

Why aren't you playing this game RIGHT NOW

>>52846776

>mfw it's Panzer Corps at Sea.

Why don't you give me one (1) good reason why I should play it over the (obviously) superior (and actually original) product that is (our god and savior) 'Rule the Waves'?

>>52846776
Try again when it doesn't look like a shitty Civ mod. I've seen hex and chit games that looked better.

>>52846776
Not a fan of Kriegsmeme + OoB is pretty meh as a game desu senpai.

>order a class of destroyers
>get better 3 inch guns just a month after that
>design a successor class using those guns (or in other words just change guns with no other changes)
>they have problems reaching their design speed
>time to redesign them
>still problems reaching their design speed
>fuck it, time for a completely new destroyer design
>they're overweight

Fucking destroyers.

File: __haruna_hiei_kirishima_and_kongou_kantai_collection_drawn_by_tsukko_3ki2ne10__632b6a5d393fb6f34693fcc3a28e3022.jpg (139KB, 1000x600px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1000x600px

>>52851336
>surprise attack against germans
>have 4 battlecruisers (+fifth finishing her working up) operating on the area
>choose to mobilize all forces for the attack
>not even single one of them show up for the surprise attack

Fucking lazy cunts.

File: hotel.png (17KB, 907x278px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 907x278px

>>52852290

>>52855208
Sexiest cruisers of WW2 right there.

>>52862755
So how far back could the Nelson's superimposed turret rotate? Could it aim all three to the rear diagonal?

So how were fires on ships caused and dealt with? And how distracting would it be, as in could a cruiser or battleship continue fighting while on fire or would it require cessation of combat functions? I don't imagine the smoke would make directing fire easy or even possible.

>>52864152
Damage control teams would fight the fires while fighting continues if possible. Smoke from fire is the least of your concerns in a battle. Even in terms of visibility, ships can end up fighting in bad weather or at night depending on how things go.

>>52864152
Hits to ready ammo lockers, aviation fuel for spotter planes, that sort of thing.

File: caa0350cda904cddd913b21a423ff0f1.jpg (92KB, 785x604px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 785x604px

>>52863568

File: WNBR_16-45_mk1_pic.jpg (24KB, 493x413px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 493x413px

>>52865955

>>52864314
>>52864937
Alright so what kind of damage would a fire do? System was set up so that in the small chance that fire was started, the ship would suffer in terms of accuracy or outright be unable to fire, and if the fire wasn't stopped in time it'd damage or destroy the superstructure so that it'd be unable to really do anything (The hull itself would still be ok, so if you can save it and tow it back to port it could be repaired.).

On a similar note, what would 5, 6 and 8 inch shells do to a ship's superstructure? Not the armored conning tower itself, but the rest of the structure.

File: HMS-Rodney.jpg (174KB, 1204x767px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1204x767px

I wonder how effective a Nelson/Richelieu hybrid (3 x 4 all bow) would be in RtW.

>>52867387
Only one way to find out, pal ...

File: Richelrod.jpg (40KB, 910x293px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 910x293px

>>52867387
Something like this?

>>52867553
Pretty much

>>52866309
>Alright so what kind of damage would a fire do?

Ask Taiho, Wasp, Bismarck, and several dozen others.

>On a similar note, what would 5, 6 and 8 inch shells do to a ship's superstructure?

Ask Hiei and Washington.

>>52866309
The case study for this is Hiei: raked at point blank by ships too close for her secondary battery to depress. The result is gradual loss of systems until the ship is basically unmanageable, or else fires spread to readied ammo and set off secondary explosions.

Even with sufficient damage control to avoid the latter, the practical result is you end up scuttling the ship under threat of air or submarine attack to the ships towing her.

File: rodnol 6 gunned yank version.png (14KB, 905x292px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 905x292px

>>52867511
The first step on the road towards 12 gun Rodnol.

>>52870188
>final finish building them
>they easily surpass their design speed and make 21 knots

Good girls.

>>52870188
>>52871566

Way to go, man!

Now post screens of (swiss) cheesed enemy ships.

>>52868570
>Ask Hiei and Washington.
You mean SoDak, right? Washington was too busy carrying hard to get shot.

File: battle of bohai strait.png (24KB, 928x638px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 928x638px

Well that was one massive clusterfuck but at least Nelrods did pretty well (or in other words took bounding from enemy guns, got hit by couple torpedoes, but still not only managed to pull through but also to put out most of Russia's battleships in the far east) and I got 1 point of prestige out of it.

File: nelrod light.png (15KB, 911x287px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 911x287px

>conservatives whine about us not having enough armored cruisers
>get both improved triple turrets and superimposed turrets on cas in 1914

And this beauty was born.

File: I have no money but I must Nelson.png (15KB, 909x294px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 909x294px

>>52877989
> They're multiplying
Welcome to the way of the Nelson anon, may your turrets be ever forward mounted.

File: set sail for fail.jpg (90KB, 790x593px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 790x593px

>>52854046
>Quad turrets
>Submerged Torpedo Tubes
>MFW

>>52879307
>Armored cruiser
>Forward mounted turrets

That's a Japanese Heavy cruiser, not a Nelson. Sorry.

>>52882834
You should make an effort to be less wrong about things in the future anon. No japanese CA had the ABL turret layout, the closest to it is the Tone, which had 4 turrets mounted forward, not 3, or maybe the Myokos with their ABC setup which has the 3rd turret facing rearward, not forwards and they also have additional turrets mounted behind the superstructure, making them the Nelson-style CAs above.

File: rtw_Aki.png (47KB, 926x307px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 926x307px

>>52879307
yesss, this is how the race to the heavens starts

I wonder how horrible of an experience a Gangut challenge (I.e. no superfiring turrets) would end up being.

I wish that there were a HoMM with botes.

>>52889914

Good news mate - there is!

But they tried to hide it, so it's called Rule the Waves instead ...

>>52780316
What game is this?
What games are these?

>>52780316
>>52890100
I profusely apologize for my inability to read program titles.

File: 12 gun nelrod from us of a.png (61KB, 1024x761px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 1024x761px

>>52890100
Rule the Waves

>>52890081
>>52890115
>>52890125
Where do I download this?

>>52890151
http://yhst-12000246778232.stores.yahoo.net/ruwaddo.html

>>52890169
I found that, just wondering if it was available for free anywhere.

>>52890232
A couple of anons linked a mega for it a few threads ago over on /vg/'s Wargame General, you could ask there.

>>52890306
thanks but nah. /vg/ ain't somewhere I wanna go.

>>52890232
>>52890306

Call me an elitist bitch all you like, but that was (one of the) best spent 35$ in my life.

>>52890366
Oh I agree, I own RtW and do not at all regret my purchase, one of the best value games I've bought, period. I must have done at least a dozen playthroughs since I bought it last September. I just know a lot of anons can't afford to spend $35 on a game they 'might' enjoy even if it sounds like their jam. So if they want to obtain it less than legally to give it a try I fully endorse that, as I would like to think RtW is persuasive enough by its own merits to warrant a future purchase if they enjoy their time with it pirated as much as I have with my legit copy.

>>52890563

>last September

What a noob.
Try June 2015.
50 campaigns & counting

>>52888467
Look up Badnoughts.

>>52892168

Don't have to - I just shredded a Battlecruiser with my first (& shittiest) Dreadnought ...

>>52890366
>Call me an elitist bitch all you like, but that was (one of the) best spent 35$ in my life.

Quoted for truth. They'll fork over more than $35 a week for their daily triple-whipple-dipple, half-caf-decaf, soy skim, semen drizzled, steamed frappe at Starbucks but they somehow can't find enough money to buy a game they'll get years of play from.

File: Ship Creator 0.0.1.pdf (128KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 1x1px

Speaking of botes, here's a random ship creator i made last week. Don't know what it'll be good for other than rolling up floating WARCRIMES, but have at it anyway. Maybe you guys can figure something out

>>52894346
I remember the armor marker. It was glorious.

Paging John Doe and E.W. Brimmage to Bloodwake, we gots Ruskie botes to clobber.

As well for those interested in following the /tg/ fleet in Bloodwake. We are currently executing our first contract, engaging a Russian squadron that is currently shelling a Japanese settlement on the Kuril islands. Here is what we have versus the Russians.


St Vincent Class BB 1918
Connecticut Class B 1914
Rurik Class AC 1918

Kent Class CA 1927
Omaha Class CA 1925

2x Clemson DD 1935
2x Kerch DD 1916

VS.

Borodino BC
2x Dmitri Donskoi AC
2x Bogatyr PC

Battleships are gay. Battlecruisers are best.

>>52895775
Battlecruisers always die like flies in my games.
Sometimes even to coastal artillery.

>>52895834
My CCs survive just fine but, then again, most of them tend to follow the German principle of trading firepower for a moderate boost in speed instead of Anglo-mentality of trading firepower and armor for a massive boost in speed.

File: Ship Creator 0.0.1b.pdf (128KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 1x1px

>>52894346
Fixed some minor errors. I need to remember to never write shit when tired.

>>52895775
Battlecruisers are superior at two things: running away and blowing up.

>>52896902
Battlecruisers are also cuter with only one of them (Hood) being ugly.

>>52888467
It's not that bad, you could build pocket battleships with two turrets, or use cross deck fire.

Only having two centerline turrets also means you can take advantage of protected cruiser armor configuration for weight savings.

Stupid Rule the Waves question (since it isn't in the PDF included with the game). How do you make your ships change course in the tactical view? I'm having a convoy attacked by a CL and my ships just steam straight ahead, abandoning the convoy. Oh, they'll shoot at the attacking CL while it's in range, but they just steam on by and leave the convoy to get smoked.

>>52900871
Is the formation flag a triangle or a square? If the former, select it then right click on the flag to bring up the management screen and uncheck the AI controlled option. Then you can set bearing with the red mouse button at the bottom left of the screen, or by manually changing it to a degree value in the same part of the screen.

>>52900871
the hotkey is Shift+Click

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

358KB, 1584x1600px

>>52896991
>only one of them (Hood) being ugly.

DA FUK?

Hood is easily the prettiest ship to ever set sail.

>tfw no naval warfare RPG

>>52901601
I thought we established that Hood was a fast battleship by any reasonable metric.

>>52903322
"User's classification" is a reasonable metric.

File: 20170425_121955.jpg (2MB, 5312x2988px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 5312x2988px

>>52894949
Sorry m8, I clipped out of the map, host error I think
just background textures for a while

>>52901220
Didn't realise you could change that. Will come in handy

File: tfw superfiring turrets but no centerline turrets.png (33KB, 503x272px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 503x272px

The worst thing is that the game doesn't even let me to design derpy pre-dreads with a pair of superfiring turrets.

To anyone wanting to try out Rule the Waves here's the /vg/ mega link in the spoiler.

https://mega.nz/#!EccBTJIY!MqKZWSQqNv68hwOxBguat1gcC_i28O5hrJWxA-vXCtI

>just finish having 2 wars with germany over the control of micronesia
>less than a year later russia decides that it too wants to have a go

Guess us that funding Sakhalinian separatists must have really pissed them off.

Why are French pre-dreads fucking sex hot diggety.

File: dd 1923.png (54KB, 1011x724px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 1011x724px

Gotta give krauts props, most people would not start with a state that has beaten you up like a redhead stepchild 2 times during last 20 years.

>>52906343
Stacked turrets update when? I wanna Kearsarge.

>>52790014
Wow. Those are some damn good looking models. Here's hoping he expands a bit on the WW2 US selection.

>>52914058
> Germany can't pick wars to save itself.
Historically accurate.

File: What do.png (65KB, 1015x750px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 1015x750px

Just got RtW. How do I fix this CL? I know it's overweight but I don't know what to cut to get it under. Or should I just up the displacement?

>>52919227
Deck, you don't need 1.5 inches on a CL, just cut it down to 1, bring the Conning Tower to 2.5, if that's still not doing it, shorten its range or optimise its engine for speed. Also get rid of submerged torp tubes, they're useless.

>>52919282
I want to keep the range Long so it can raid once it's obsolete.
Why do the submerged tubes suck?

>38 overweight with reduced armour/no torps
Speed engines would get me 187 under but it feels like overkill. Can I refit the engines off speed later?
I know you can refit the turrets later, and dropping them down to 1in on top and sides gets me 10 under the limit. Is that too squishy?

>>52919512
Nah, not really, 6 inch and smaller guns almost never suffer flash fires, especially in single turrets. As for refits, you really won't be refitting starting CLs as a rule, because by the time it becomes worth it you're generally better off building proper CLs with centreline guns and whatnot.

Submerged tubes suck because they're fixed angle, single tube and if they get hit and explode they cause big holes below the waterline.

>>52919807
OK I'll just reduce the turret armour then. Thanks.

I'll probably have more questions as soon as the DD doesn't work either.

>>52919227
I'd remove the wing turrets and replace them with a 4 inch secondary batter, or nothing.

>>52919996
> 6000 ton CL with a 4 x 6" gun broadside, suffering from RoF debuff
> Secondary batteries induce accuracy debuffs when firing at the same target as the main guns and are local control only on CLs
I would not recommend that.

>>52778458
Torpedobeat is greatest meme

>>52919227
double turrets on cl cost way more weight than theyre worth early game imo, i'd also reduce deck and increase turret face and top to 2

File: DD.png (58KB, 1012x749px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 1012x749px

OK, next problem. Too many centerline mounts.

What do?

>>52920087
Then just build a smaller bote with more single turrets.

I've had lots of luck with 4 6inch single turret mini CLs. With two inch belts they tend to devastate those goofy commerce raiders the AI likes to build with a million 4 inch guns.

>>52920309
If it's your first DD, put the torpedo tubes on wing mounts and remember to turn them around after they fire their first shot. Once you get 600 tons you can easily build that loadout to go 30knots and you won't get any penalties.

I also find that 3 inch guns are good enough for early DDs, but that's up to you.

>>52920309
Just move the torps to wing mounts, early game they won't be very useful anyway.

>>52896694
i gave this a try

Name: HMS Lightbright

Class: Corvette
Hull:Hovercraft
Power: Gas Turbine
Armor: Cast Aluminium Supplemented with Nonexplosive-Reactive Armour
Optics: Satellite Uplink Imaging -Lidar Imaging

+Main Waepon+
1 551MM Torpedo Tube w/ Chain Autoloader and loaded with Neutron-Boosted Enriched Uranium Fission Torpedos

+Secondary Weapons+
4 6.6mm Quickfiring Light MG's loaded with Jacketed Soft Point Rounds

4 59mm Computer-Controlled Recoilless Rifle's Loaded with HEAT Rounds

4 16.1mm Heavy MG w/ Gun shields loaded with Caseless Tracer Rounds

Traits:NBC Sealing ,Smokescreen Generater, Crew-added Better Quality Food, Infamous

>>52922876
>autoloading neutron warhead torpedo launcher
jesus christ how horrifying

>>52922876

>Naval Wargames

What are they floating in, again?
Beer? Or weed?

>>52923955
On a Hovercraft no less

>>52915745
I'm happy that he's decided to ship to the US now. When he first got started, he wasn't offering that option, which sucked since he had a few Italian ships that I really wanted.

File: Foto_Littorio_1-3000.jpg (120KB, 1200x824px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 1200x824px

>>52927840
Well here's hoping he continues pumping out good product. I've been hoping to find some sort of highly detailed historical naval models - I'm so used to stuff like Dystopian Wars and their sexy details, that the ships I were finding just weren't doing it for me.

But these, god damn.

>>52929896

I don't see price ranges up on that site. Within a range (I understand it might be cheaper if you're ordering more), roughly what is he charging on a per-ship basis for a BB or a DD?

>>52930642
It varies on scale, but for two Leander 's at 1/2400 you're look at 10 Euros ($10.80), and 14 Euro's at 1/1800 ($15).

>>52931717
Alaska a cute! CUTE!

>>52931717
>>52931854
>>52932997
If you were playing a what if campaign, what support would you allocate to one of these ships that are totally, clearly not battlecruisers if you wished to send them on a sortie using BC doctrine?

>>52933029
whos bc doctrine? britains cruiser hunters or germanys fleet scouting? and what timeframe?

>>52929896
They're pretty damn nice looking, but so are FUD models on Shapeways, and GHQ stuff.
Biggest thing for me is he has models that nobody on Shapeways does, and are otherwise unavailable or prohibitively expensive in my scale (1/1800).

>>52933181
British doctrine, December 44. (Wish they had been launched sooner, it'd be more interesting early war in Pacific, or even in the Med).

>>52933244
i mean, they are fairly vulnerable to air attack and also have poor tds for their tonnage, as i understand it they also had cruiser style rudders which weren't ideal for a ship their size. a pair of atlantas or clevelands to help against air attack and a squadron of fletchers for asw would be pretty mandatory imo.

>>52933244
Generally speaking two capital ships and four destroyers is the bare minimum that's worthwhile. Personally I'd use Alaska and Guam side by side with a pair of Atlantas and no fewer than six Fletchers. Anything less feels like a misallocation of resources.

>>52896694
>Name: USS Dorfmode

>Class: Carrier
>Hull: Monocat
>Engine: Diesel-Electric
>Armor: Frag-Kit Reinforced Liquid Armor
>Supplementary Defence: Electric Reactive >Armour
>Optic: Computer-assisted Digital

>+Secondary Weapons+

>5 13.3mm CIWS systems W/Enlarged Ammo Storage and loaded with Chlorine Triflouride Incendiary Rounds

>5 111mm Chain Autoloading 6-Tube Anti-Aircraft Missile Launcher's with Enriched Uranium Fission Warheads

>5 16.4mm Fully Computer-Controlled Automatic Grenade Launcher's Loaded With HEI[Nitrocellulose] Grenades

>5 70mm Rapid-firing Light Mortar's with Guided Shells

>+Aircarft Types+
>Strike Fighter's
>Torpedo Bomber's
>Airborne Early Warning & Control

>Production Extra: Enhanced Sonar
>Crew-Added Extra: Emergency Supply Stockpiles
>Traits: Low Profile, NBC sealing

its slightly worrying that i keep getting nuclear ordinance paired with a chain auto-loader

>>52933029
Pair or more of Alaskas, handful of destroyers. Go hunt down enemy cruiser squadrons at range.

>>52938534
[KTKM-sama intensifies]

I like the wickes class destroyers, something that just seems so nice about those lil 4 stacks

File: image.jpg (124KB, 740x615px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 740x615px

>>52940655
Me too. It's fun running them with an Omaha-class as a flotilla leader.

>>52940766
Run them in what? Is there a naval RTS with them in it?

>>52940890
No, on the tabletop anon.

But now you've got me wishing that the Victory at Sea game was better implemented and with more ship classes.

>>52940766
>when your flotilla in Blood Wake is an Omaha and two Clemsons
feels /fourstack/ man

>>52941058
Sorry, am a newfag on this board. But do tell me more about this naval table top game? Or are there several?

File: Clemson-Wickes gaggle.jpg (665KB, 1200x618px) Image search: [Google]

665KB, 1200x618px

>>52941121
I approved when I saw that.


>>52940890
I'll see about writing up a list when I get up in the morning, it'll take a while. But yes, there's quite a few that cover all ranges of time period and complexity.

>>52890306
I probably will. I've never liked wargame vidya that's too numbers based, like Harpoon or Wargame, so I need to test out RtW before I buy it.

>>52892442
I don't even spend $35/week on fast food meals for lunch or dinner. I spend like maybe $10. The rest of the time I make sandwiches or eat rice and eggs. I can get all the meat I need for $20 a month by buying a giant ham.

>>52941913
An anon linked it here >>52906799

>>52941931

Ah, but that's 35$ a week.
This was 35$ once - and I've been playing this for nearly a year and a half now.
So, it's basically down to 0.50$ a week.

>>52942004

>see 12.4 MB
>"That can't be right"
>go and check.
>mfw it is!

It's a bundle of pocket-sized fun!

>>52778458
Hood a shit. A SHIIIIIT.

>>52942139

idk, man ... dude really puts on a bitchin' fireworks display ya know ...

>>52942124
>no music
>few sound effects
>win 95 graphics

It being a pretty tiny file was to be expected.

File: Turn03_03.jpg (221KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 2048x1536px

>>52941393
There's a bunch of naval wargames out there using minis.

Personally, I like Naval war, a free ruleset that has decent complexity without being full-on simulationist.
Can be found at naval-war.com and is suitable for a variety of scales; I've played with both 1/1800 and 1/2400 myself.

File: starting pre-dread.png (58KB, 1016x723px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 1016x723px

Is this design shitty enough to be a proper pre-dread?

>>52946039
looks fine to me, the number and caliber of tertiary guns seem excessive but not super bad

>>52946039

Sorry, I was just scrolling past this thread - what is this autism and how fun is it?

File: Suprise attack on RN.png (233KB, 1919x1042px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 1919x1042px

>>52947542
Rule the Waves, and extremely.

File: This is not operate.jpg (63KB, 455x817px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 455x817px

>>52947667
Jesus christ how horrifying.

>128 month war against france as usa
>fights across south eastern asia & caribbean
>in the end only reason why we won was because france suffered a coup before we did

Jesus, guess that this era in the history is probably gonna be remembered as some kind of unholy mixture of WW1, Vietnam War, and island hopping campaigns of Pacific.

File: world after the franco-american war.png (278KB, 1600x859px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 1600x859px

>>52949033

>>52949033
>>52949106
And it took less than 4 years for French to decide that they want to have round 2.

>>52949106

>130 million in the bank.

Padding up that Cayman Islands account, eh?
('cause who needs ships, anyway ...)

>>52941058
Well, DDs will sometimes support Battlecrusiers, so that's kinda like a Destroyer Leader... except more huge.

File: USS Marblehead.jpg (584KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

584KB, 1000x750px

>>52941393
>>52941891
So, assuming you're mostly interested in WWII and the interwar period, some of the games available are in order of increasing complexity:

Axis and Allies: War at Sea (WWII, game is OOP, but still a healthy online community)

Victory at Sea (Comes in both WWII and WWI flavors)

Naval War (my current favorite, very satisfying balance of rewards and playability)

General Quarters 1/2 (In reprint)

Grand Fleets (WW1 through 1939)

General Quarters 3 (Comes in both WWI and WWI flavors, and also age of sail)

There's a shitton more, but those are the ones I have at least some familiarity with.
/hwg/ has scads of resources, if you want to look over some of these systems, dig through this:

>https://www.mediafire.com/folder/lx05hfgbic6b8/Naval_Wargaming

Also, link to Naval War:

>https://www.naval-war.com/

Everything is free, the only thing you have to do is make a login.

Damn, honestly some of the wars that you end up getting involved in RtW can really be rather ridiculous.
>end up in war against uk alongside with italy
>have a massive fleet of submarines (built as a way to even the odds against uk)
>turns out that starving brits to surrender is perfectly viable strategy in rtw
>end up snatching hong kong while at it
>after year and half of usn submarines having fun with british cargo vessels kaiser decides that he can't let a fellow european monarchy get its ass kicked by bunch of colonial upstarts and thus germany joins in the war on the british side
>war score reset to 0 to reflect the changed strategical situation
>it is too little too late though as next month britain suffers a revolution and sues for peace
>germany keeps on fighting
>unrestricted submarine warfare intensifies.jpg
>two years later german people have enough, kaiser gets boot and germany loses pretty much her whole empire outside of europe

File: rtw_SMS_FUCK_DESTROYER_ACTIONS.png (45KB, 1660x765px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 1660x765px

So i discovered that while rtw doesn't allow you to put triple turrets on dd, they forgot to also disallow quads.

File: rtw_SMS_FUCK_DESTROYER_ACTIONS.png (34KB, 642x339px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 642x339px

>>52953841
er, excuse my lack of mspaint editing skills there

BRS Horizon scores first blood in our Blood Wake game.

Omaha master race.

>>52953875
That certainly is a Special Type destroyer, anon.

>>52953841
AA guns?

>>52956043
Hope you guys will post details later.

File: rtw_whathassciencedone.png (36KB, 642x338px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 642x338px

>>52957795
i'm just gettin started

>>52958243
rtw seems to only have sprites for the single mount dd guns, those are quad barrel 4in guns, i like to imagine they are positioned like the american quad .50 cal aa guns though

>>52958879
>8 quads

Doing >>52938534 proud, anon.

File: rtw_kaisarkame.png (36KB, 645x340px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 645x340px

>>52959027
i actually already remodeled my starter cls into torpedo cruisers

>have your crews trained for nighttime torpedo attacks
>a perfect chance to torpedo some botes during a night time raid against enemy harbor
>confused destroyer.jpg
>no torpedoes are fired at all

>>52956043
Be fair, it was the only ship that had line of sight to the enemy...

>>52941913
>so I need to test out RtW before I buy it.

Bullshit. You just want free shit.

>>52903322
It was a QE that did 32 knots. So I would call it a battleship.

>>52963231

Hey, c'mon man, don't be nasty - dude just wants a free spin (or two) 'round the Earth.

File: 20170422-144331.jpg (131KB, 820x461px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 820x461px

What did they mean by this?

>>52963204
Hey, the Clemsons had LOS too.

File: Houston and Boise.jpg (417KB, 1200x489px) Image search: [Google]

417KB, 1200x489px

>>52967428
Northhamptons were good looking CAs. The followup USA CA's weren't nearly as good looking.

>>52968065
Bullshit, the Baltimore is God Tier! It looks like a Baby Iowa.

>>52963936
What are you referencing in that picture?

Also, dads teaching wargaming to kids makes me happy.

>>52974475
dat Walrus.

File: madness.png (61KB, 1010x746px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 1010x746px

Is this ok for my first dreadnought? It's Dec 1906 and I have a money to burn.

>>52975476
wow thats really strong for a first bb, personally i would lower the armour of the secondaries to 2", this turns them into gun shields and saves more weight while still giving them splinter protection, i'd use the weight that would save to increase ammo for the main guns, ideally up to 120 at least. but thats just me

>>52975886
(another guy)
and put the secondaries out of the casemates - you're just weakening the belt armor this way.

Otherwise - yeah, that'll sink stuff alright.

File: torpedo cruiser.png (67KB, 1026x765px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1026x765px

Should I be worried that I'm currently building 7 of these qt3.14s?

File: spot familiar names.png (21KB, 1116x241px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 1116x241px

>>52980544
Well fuck, ended up building 17 of them because of government's demand for more cruiser.

>>52980544
I'd be more worried you consider them qt3.14s, tbqh fyi senpai

>>52980544
I predict torpedo explosions in your future, that many tubes might be as much danger to you as the enemy in a gunfight.

>>52981886
Don't they also fire, like, one torpedo at a time (not salvos like DD's)

Holy fuck this thread was created 11 days ago

Now die

Tentative OP format (using the namefield for the title) mainly cribbing off /hwg/, seeing as it's where we've come from anyway. Any image should work, but we could consider a header/footer format like /fowg/ if we'd like.

---
*X* Edition

Talk about botes, bote based wargaming and RPGs, and maybe even a certain bote based vidya that tickles our autism in just the right way.

Games, Ospreys and References (Courtesy of /hwg/)
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/lx05hfgbic6b8/Naval_Wargaming

Rule the Waves
https://mega.nz/#!EccBTJIY!MqKZWSQqNv68hwOxBguat1gcC_i28O5hrJWxA-vXCtI

> Question, possibly rhetorical, and probably about naval things. E.g. "Why cannot Germany into boats?" or "What's your favourite tabletop Naval Wargame?" or "How would you run a naval focused RPG campaign in *X* setting?"

>>52980544
those can be a lot of fun, but don't expect them to survive the battle

File: 1019044935.jpg (111KB, 1000x541px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1000x541px

>>52984894
Better die in a glorious explosion than to rust away in harbor desu.

>>52986415

live fast, die wide, eh?

>>52980633
>17 CLTs
[torpedo explosions intensify]

RTW keeps changing the class of my BBs to Bs or CAs. Why is that?

>>52988373
Post a pic, lets see what is the problem with them.

>>52988373
requirements for classes of ships change over time, for example i think after 1914 or so bcs must be over 27kn

Post sexy Pre-dreadnoughts

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

90KB, 800x533px

>>52990706
Don't have any good pre-dreads on the phone, have some of Dave Manley's pre-pre-dreads.

>>52993569
>>52993569