/nwg/ - Naval Wargaming General

>>52993569
You forgot to change the placeholder question/prompt.

File: 1940_hms_renown_ark_royal_sheffield.jpg (103KB, 744x575px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 744x575px

If you play Rule the Waves and like it, don't be a scrub, go buy it.

File: HMS_Courageous_WWI.jpg (97KB, 800x581px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 800x581px

Fisher's autistic fast monitors have their own kind of charm desu.

Captains Doe and Brimmage, if you could get your maneouvre orders for the round in post haste it would be much appreciated.

>>52994405
They were like bigger, better Deutschlands.

>>52996058
Being better than German penis extenders is hardly worth of mentioning.

File: 140978215.jpg (700KB, 2100x1500px) Image search: [Google]

700KB, 2100x1500px

Fellow Admirals, I have two questions:

First, how can I quit my first bote? Prior Navy btw.

File: 1452134366283.jpg (2MB, 2237x1678px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2237x1678px

>>52999730

Second, how can I quit my current botefu?

>>52994405
For what they were: Shallow Draft Battlecruisers, they were ok.

Arguably in the theatre of operations they were designed for, their armour was sufficient, and their firepower was impressive. Taking out a land based fortification would have been a snap for them, and they could operate where actuall battleships could not.

Courageous and Glorious were decent, Furious was a bit stupid.

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

2MB, 4360x2755px

>>52999756
>>52999756
Pic related can help you quit...

File: HMS Exeter colorized Panama 1934.jpg (41KB, 600x315px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 600x315px

>>52999932
Excellent taste, anon.

>>52999730
>>52999756
>>52999932
>>53000419
>abandoning your boatfu for some english homewrecker

File: Four Stacker Stacks.jpg (2MB, 5444x3762px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 5444x3762px

>>53000700
Hey, Exeter is a classy lady. We could have suggested he take up with a bunch of slutty sisters instead.

>>52999918
>Arguably in the theatre of operations they were designed for...

A theatre of operations which never happened ad never came even close to happening.

Fisher's Toys were a waste because they were too specialized. They were built to meet the theoretical needs of a series of theoretical operations in a theoretical campaign. Every navy has made similar mistakes and the IJN made more of them than anyone.

>>53003713
May I remind you of how Churchill still toyed with the idea of assaulting through the baltic many years later? Take off your 20/20 hindsight glasses, every campaign and operation starts as theory, and mistakes will inevitably be made.

>>53004371

This isn't a case of hindsight. This is a case of acknowledging there's a huge difference between toying with an idea and actually studying or planning for it.

Hell, even the self-admitted fantasies Wilhelmine German had about landing an army corps on the US East Coast ~1900 had more actual staff studies and planning than Fisher's or Churchill's '90 miles of hard sand" Baltic fantasies.

Fisher built three ships to meet a need which primarily existed in his cocktail conversations and personal correspondence. Those 3 light BCs were a waste and suggesting they had any role beyond Fisher's personal fantasy land ignores the facts.

>>53005401
>Those 3 light BCs were a waste and suggesting they had any role beyond Fisher's personal fantasy land ignores the facts.

They forced a response, and led to a decent carrier conversion due to their lightweight and high speed.

>>53002502
>talking shit about four stackers
behead those who insult flushdecks

File: Four Stacker Stacks 2.jpg (1MB, 6272x4922px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 6272x4922px

>>53006999
Meant it as a complement, honest.

>>52993569
>Why can't Germany into botes
They spent too much time advancing down the pomp and beatbox branches of the music tree.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=McFj_vq3cwk

http://www.thestate.com/entertainment/celebrities/article147878374.html

Hope Mad Mel does a good job, Laffey is a badass ship, and deserves her story to be told well.

File: 4234612345.jpg (87KB, 800x454px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 800x454px

>>53006999
>>53007338
>mbw reading Destroyermen brought me into naval wargaming and fostered a love of four stackers as bright as the sun

>>53013324
Aww yiss, there's muh girl.

>>53013324
>>53013516

Such a classier ship than the American ones.

File: USS Walker Mahan IJN Amagi.jpg (584KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

584KB, 1000x750px

>>53013458
Might be one or two others that can say the same.

Dumb RtW question: I see AI forces constantly making moves and taking over neutral areas (say, Cuba in the early game) and I have the ability to respond to those moves through the dialogue box. Which is fine, but how do I order my own forces to move on/take over a neutral port?

>>53014776
during peacetime its completely random, it might be more likely if you have forces in the area but don't quote me on that. in wartime you can land on enemy controlled colonies if you have way more forces in the area than they do.

>>53014483
I will never get tired of reading about the top of the evolutionary ladder getting their shitty wooden ships btfo by a 4"-50 HE shell.

>>53013324
TOP HAT

>>53014971
How far along into the series are you?

>>53019326
I just finished up the latest, Blood in the Water. I had dropped the series for a few years. Looks like the next one comes out in June though, and I am excited.

>>53019950
I just finished Deadly Shores. Kinda bummed that I'm catching up to the author now. Been very much enjoying the series.

>>53019968
Well, I wont spoil anything then, but I think you'll like where it goes from there. It gets more nuts, if nothing else.

File: Bretagne Primaguet.jpg (711KB, 1200x744px) Image search: [Google]

711KB, 1200x744px

>>53020027
The end of Deadly Shores was nuts enough. I can only imagine.

Anyone here read "The Great Pacific War"? Basically a what if Japan attacked in 1930 book. Pretty damn well done as well. It is presented as a history book, sort of like Tom Clancy.

>>53022667
No, but gonna add it to my list.

Are there any submarine wargames you guys would recc? I recall seeing a fa/tg/uy playing a (card-based?) game regarding subs. Subs have always fascinated me but I didn't get into Silent Hunter when I had the chance and now it's too late since I'm on W10.

File: SM_U_1_800px.jpg (138KB, 799x500px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 799x500px

>>53023780
>I recall seeing a fa/tg/uy playing a (card-based?) game regarding subs.

Guess that you're talking about either the Silent Victory (yanks on the Pacific) or The Hunters (krauts on the Atlantic).

>>53023908
>The Hunters
Fucking nailed it. Thanks lad.

>>53023780
There's also Silent War and Steel Wolves, for those who think running all the encounters of only one sub is too simple, so you run the entire campaign of the US/Germany down to the individual sub attacks on targets. IIRC Steel Wolves even has a rule for pulling a Prien and sneaking into Scapa Flow.

File: 504223.jpg (65KB, 800x480px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 800x480px

So what settings do you guys use for RtWs? Historical resources? Varied tech?

File: rtw settings.png (49KB, 187x255px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 187x255px

>>53029521

>>53030291

what does the Varied Tech even do? Anyone actually know?

File: light_battlecruiser_victor_hugo_by_soload-d4rtv44.png (3MB, 1600x1134px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1600x1134px

le'Bump

File: light_battlecruiser_victor_hugo_by_soload-d4rtsom.png (683KB, 1600x800px) Image search: [Google]

683KB, 1600x800px

>>53033957

>>53023780

this?

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1413/attack-sub

>>52993569

One authentication key to rule them all in RtW?

>>53032502

Purely pulling this out of my ass, but I'm guessing tech develops sporadically, not in clockwork chronological order as in the historical record.

Maybe a certain kind of torpedo became available to Austro-Hungary in 1907. With varied tech, it might be earlier or later (?)

I am guessing, though.

>>53034781
pretty much, you might develop quad turrets in 1904, or you might never.

File: 32484b32.jpg (104KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1280x960px

Looking for some tips on the what's a good armour thickness like in the 1900-1910ish era. Normally I play Steam&Iron so don't really have to think about it all that much.

Not sure how to armour up my armoured cruisers and pre-dreadnoughts. I've been going with 2-3 on light cruisers on the belt, 5-6 on ACs and around 8+ on Bs but I am sure most of that armour will be irrelevant once guns get above 10". Speaking of which, is it actually ever worth loading up heavier ships with heavy secondaries in that timeframe? Does having a big old battery of 8" guns alongside a few 10" main guns really help much over something like massed 6" guns?

Once I get up to BCs and BBs I feel more like I know what I'm doing anyway, though am experimenting with effectively making super-armoured cruisers in the form of lower tonnage BCs (about 12-15k) with about 10"-12" armour and packing as large a primary armament as possible and a few triple-6 inch gun turrets. Not exactly great for speed though but functional I guess. Have had so much bad weather in wars I think ignoring casemates and instead taking the fire-rate hit is worth it.

>>53035351

>Never encountered Kasuga or her sistership before.
>Crazy ownership.
>Powerful too.

I think i've found one of my new favorite vessels from the time period.

>>53033957
>>53033976
>single rear-mounted quad
>on a battlecruiser
WAT

The krauts got away with one ahead, two aft on their normal cruisers because they were meant to run away from enemy ships. But CCs are meant to run down enemy cruisers.

File: early ca design reopened.png (59KB, 1024x764px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 1024x764px

>>53035351
When it comes to secondaries single turrets with 1-2 inch gun shields are a decent alternative to casemates.

>>53033957
>>53033976
Would have been interested in seeing the creator's justifications, but it's all in Russian.

>>53038957
>french study glorious ships of the revolutionary navy
>design a revolutionary vessel that could take down biscuit, hotel, and big stick at the same time

>>53039141
I'm genuinely surprised that the secondary battery isn't made up of those giant recoilless rifles that the Russians tried out on a destroyer.

>>53038957

Guessing its meant to be a commerce raider myself. No other explanation for that arrangement that I can think of.

>>53040450

Oh Tiger...you were too pure for this world. By far my favorite BC of all time.

File: CA Suffren 1939.png (19KB, 1320x505px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 1320x505px

>>53040510
That actually would be in keeping with parts of French doctrine, so it would make sense for it to be.

>>53040556
Whenever I can finally lay hands on an appropriately scaled Tiger, I'm gonna do that what-if conversion by the Dutch that's in the GQ3 book.

>>53040603

Which conversion is this? Were the dutch looking to buy Tiger or something?

>>53042110
I'll snip the bits from the PDF later and post them if you'd like, but if you want to read it now, it's the end of this book:

http://www.mediafire.com/file/7tmq7jp3b2lw4i2/GQ3_Dutch_Complete.pdf

It's a what-if//fantasy scenario. Although the Dutch did have plans to build some BC's of their own that never materialized.

>>53042196
>plan to have battleships
>plan gets derailed by ww1
>plan to have battlecruisers
>plan gets derailed by ww2

Guess that we know that the next big European war is going to start soon when Dutch decide that they could use an aircraft carrier or two.

>>53042196

That's a lot more well thought out than I thought it would be. Thanks for sharing. Having a stronger dutch presence in the South Pacific in the early war would have been interesting though i'm not sure it would have mattered.

File: Dreads Nought But God.jpg (41KB, 740x580px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 740x580px

>>53037165
Single turrets just looks so much less classy, but I'll give it a go, at least on some lighter ships.

File: cc bunker hill.png (16KB, 906x287px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 906x287px

>>53042384
Aesthetics are a small price to pay on the road to tonnage savings and reliable secondaries.

>>52993569
What's with the huge bulge on the bow?

>>53044403
An attempt to improve its seakeeping properties.

File: wet tin.jpg (55KB, 902x266px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 902x266px

Are tertiary guns ever worth a damn?

>>53044403
The Bow. The K class was designed to steam at fleet speeds (24 knots, which at the time, allowed them to chase down pretty much any battleship they felt like, and to reposition very quickly.)

The bow was modified a bit, to make it sink slower when submerging, since crush depth for the submarine was less then the length of the sub (not uncommon), and the boat had a tendency of diving so fast that the bow would go below crush depth in a dive.

File: BC Arizona 1907.png (97KB, 1008x1280px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1008x1280px

So what's been your MVP design so far? Not just the biggest, baddest 50+ k-ton battleship, but the ship that's done you the most good and has created the best emergent story for you thus far?

I've got two, but my favorite is pic related. Commissioned in January 1907 and immediately retrofitted with a better fire-control system, the BC Arizona entered service in July of 1907. She is the only ship of her kind, and the very first ship in the world to be commissioned as an oil-burner instead of a coal-burner. She's served in three wars, against Germany, France, and Germany again. As of 1924 she has established a worldwide reputation as the worst thing a cruiser (armored or not) can see cresting the horizon. She and her elite crew been single-handedly responsible for 13 ships sunk (including three French cruisers - 2 CAs and 1 CL - in a single solo engagement off the Gulf Coast in 1908 where she was able to drive the French into Galveston Bay and trapped them there), and has partial kills on another dozen or so, usually by disabling the engines of a ship in a squadron and driving on against the rest of the squadron while her escorting DD's torpedo the cripple. It seems that wherever enemy action is hottest, the Arizona finds herself nearby.

Of course, she's likely nearing the end of her useful lifespan, as the world is now seeing plenty of 35-45 k-ton ships capable of matching (or nearly so) her speed, and the 14-16-IN guns now standard will blow right through her armor in a capital ship engagement. I don't want to scrap her, and if I could guarantee her being used against enemy cruisers she'd likely still have plenty of life left in her (getting hit with 4 13-IN and 4 8-IN guns will give any cruiser a headache), but her likelihood of ending up like the Invincible grows with each month.

>also, I'm terrible at getting the line/superstructure tool to actually fill correctly on the ship design page. Funnels are self-explanatory, but the line tool is miserable

>>53042678
10" turret faces, i threw up a little in my mouth

>>53045005
if you have a heavy secondary battery then they can be. guns 7" and over prioritize large ships to fire at, cruiser and up. QF guns, 6" and below, prioritize dds over everything else.

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

13KB, 910x294px

>>53046367
the graz, for sure, excuse the shitty lines and stuff, i kept meaning to fix it but forgot and then that hard drive died. Originally ordered from german yards as a 3x4 12in gun ship, but with spare weight to be upgunned to 15s in the future, TOP MEN in france obtained +0 15in guns a month before it was delivered to the glorious austrian navy. graz was immediately sent back to the docks and re gunned to a 2x4 15in gun ship. along with her sister, the lissa. she saw service in every war from 1914 to 1950 when the game ended, and also was involved in practically every battle. the finest damage control teams kept her fighting even after at one point losing 3/4 turrets to gunfire from 3km away during a hectic battle in a storm off the german coast. in fact, i cant remember a battle where either graz or lissa werent 1 stiff breeze away from capsizing

Come to think of it, there really isn't any point in going past 16 inch guns in RTW.
>ai doesn't really seem to build ships armored to the point that 16 inch guns would stop being useful
>the rather small increase in performance isn't worth of the massive increase turret weight

>>53047015
not really, since there are no floatplanes to spot over the horizon for you you pretty much are never able to shoot past 20k yards or so. however the longer the max range of a gun, the more accurate it is under its max range. larger guns also do more damage, so i guess it mostly comes down to preference, do you want 9 18s that hit more often and do more damage when they do, or 12 16s that have a better volume of fire?

File: Hansa R1910.jpg (248KB, 1014x748px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 1014x748px

>>53046367
Hansa, one of my first custom designs, being based on a modified Victoria Louise class AC.

She's been the terror of the French in both a 1904 war and a 1914 war, sinking multiple light cruisers. I've no idea how to check how many kills she's had specifically but for an AC, she's done fairly well, limping back home barely above the waterline at a couple of points after tanking a torpedo hit.

Against Russia she served decently if not spectacularly. But I've finally a chance to actually fully replace this class with a much more modern ship for service in the Baltic, capable of properly challenging all those old Bs Russia is hanging on to as well.

File: RtW Arethusa.png (17KB, 910x294px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 910x294px

>>53046367
Definitely the Arethusa. Intended as a cheap and easy CL, I only made one of the class before advances in tech made a 4 turret version (essentially the Leander) possible on the same tonnage. She should have been obsolete, but instead she became the workhorse of the RN. In seemingly any battle across 2 wars with Germany and France, Arethusa could be found, valiantly taking the fight to the enemy, and she was good at it too, far better than she had any right to be really. Not a single engagement went by without Arethusa claiming at least one kill, including a German BC that she hit with 3 torpedoes during a night engagement, before moving on to its trio of Destroyer escorts, sinking all 3 with the help of her own escorts. In another fight she took on a pair of French CAs and a CL alone, sinking the CL in a gunnery duel and heavily damaging both CAs before being forced to retire with 2 of her 3 turrets destroyed and the last completely out of ammo.

Nothing about the ship's design should have made it the terror of the seas it was, but she must have been crewed by the finest sailors in the world and Captained by a steely eyed badass.

File: Figure1-Ship-collision-of-Gas-Roman-and-Springok-near-Singapore-coast-occurred-in-2003.png (426KB, 835x379px) Image search: [Google]

426KB, 835x379px

ship bump

>>53051674
Serious question, why do they have the superstructure at the back of tanker ships like this? Why not at the front so they can see over the bow?

File: 1363370356465.jpg (158KB, 1280x885px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1280x885px

>start of game
>disarmament treaty
>13 years of nothing above 12kt and 8" guns

Well that makes things interesting.

I suspect this is where a ton of 7" secondary guns will be worth using. I wonder if it is even worth building battleships when they're going to be slower, less well armed ACs?

>>53047100
I've had ships with smaller guns outshoot biger guns many times in instances where both ships were capable of penitrating each other's armor, so I think the accuracy bonus is less effective than the ROF bonus. But this is just personal experience.

>>53051978
Probably something to do with lighter bows being better for seakeaping, and not needing to see directly in front of you most of the time while at sea.

>>53052826
>disarmament treaty
>13 years of nothing above 12kt and 8" guns

Just start a war, anon. Treaties go away once hostilities commence.

>>53051978
http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1304105

http://www.marineinsight.com/naval-architecture/oil-tanker-ships/

>>53053174
War has begun, wasn't really looking for it though, was hoping I could drag out that mess longer.

>>53051978
Apparently it's because it's simpler to put the controls near the machinery and because you can't put the bridge over flammable cargo because safety regs?

File: late game bb design..png (57KB, 1015x724px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 1015x724px

Guess that something like this would be a pretty effective late game BB design for RtW.
>decently armed
>well armored
>sadly pretty slow but that is something that you just have to deal with

>>53055246
> Literally a Nelson

>>53055309
Nuh-uh! Nelson didn't have tripple secondaries :^P

File: BaPkTdf.jpg (362KB, 3400x1631px) Image search: [Google]

362KB, 3400x1631px

>>53055309
Nelrod with stronger belt+turret face armor and KGV/Vanguard styled lightly armored conning tower. Plus if you've to deal with tonnage limits Nelson styled 3 x 3 in front is pretty much a perfect way to save weight while still ensuing decently heavy broadside.

>>53057706
Does it really save weight? I've tried building those before and I didn't notice any difference. Do you need to wait for AON?

>>53062319
Wouldn't AoN kind of be necessary to see drastic weight reduction in that configuration?

>>53063253
You probably would see some reduction even without AoN but due to the extended belt armor it would be far less noticeable.

>>53062319
It should work without AON.
>Nelrod style BB that displaces 21500 tons=25 tons of weight remaining
>the exact same design but with Y turret instead of L turret=296 tons overweight

File: kashima nelrod.png (56KB, 1010x726px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 1010x726px

>>53065158
Fuck, forgot the picture.

File: kashima renown.png (56KB, 1016x729px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 1016x729px

>>53065200

>>53013458
Mein neger

>>53065158
>>53065200
>>53065222
I've tried that before, and didn't notice any reduction in belt mass. Wierd.

When I want to save mass, I usually use the aft centerline superimposed because it's the only superimposed turret that weighs the same as regular turrets. (no idea why it should be any different)

>>53069877
What version of RtW you're using?

Any advice for fighting a greater power than you in RtW?

Currently I'm playing as France, in a war with Germany (UK on my side but being useless) but the German's larger naval budget still sees them hauling around a ton of old ships and a few newer monsters whilst I've been struggling. My general plan has been to use a ton of CAs and much heavier than the norm for the era CLs and avoiding large battles. Cruiser fights are typically quite good, particularly older CAs out in the far east utterly destroying convoys when they catch them and the chunkier CLs ding basically the same (5500/6200 ton ships against a lot of old 3k ton ships). But it's chip damage at best.

Anyone got any good ideas for cheap 1910 era ships that work decently? I've ended up with decent 14" guns already but I'm not really sure about fast&light battlecruisers as a thing. Is it possible to just dispense with Battleships and just run all battlecruisers and still have a decent shot at things at least until things start inflating out of control (hopefully going to get to push for disarmament treaties after this war to stall the bloat)

Battlecruiser only run is possible (as I heard from others) but I usually build BB's (+ light York-like CA's for CL killing)

Smaller ships are more squishy, but you get to build a lot of them, and get the Blockade numbers up way high.

When all else fails, submarines are good for raiding/torpedoing.

Could you gentlemen recommend a naval wargame that has pen & paper RPG elements?

>>53072761
I've been trying to churn subs out faster than they can be destroyed and they've not been a complete waste but lack the tech yet to be of much use.

>>53023908
>Silent Victory
>tfw when you fire off 2/3rds of your torps at a freighter and they all miss or are duds

Feels BuOrd, man.

Is this the place to discuss Dropfleet Commander?

>>53074159
Nah, that would be /dcg/.

File: HMS_Legion.jpg (55KB, 800x592px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 800x592px

L/M-class>Tribal-class

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

56KB, 736x404px

>>53077257

File: hon hon hon.jpg (589KB, 1959x1486px) Image search: [Google]

589KB, 1959x1486px

>>53020115
>that's a nice floating drydock you got there
>shame if something happened to it

>>53079360
Hush you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kAj9syecU0&t=6s

>>53079360

Wait wait...is that a Strike From the Sea reference?!?

File: j2J0DEv.jpg (845KB, 4167x2188px) Image search: [Google]

845KB, 4167x2188px

>>53079500
Don't make me call my mom

File: honboot.jpg (58KB, 906x283px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 906x283px

>tfw your not exactly optimal ships beat the crap out of superior numbers of heavier ships because yours can actually hit their targets.

>>53072552 here. Ended up in a war with the Austro-Hungarian Empire, who due to vast numbers of ancient ships and newer vessels seriously out-tonnage'd my fleet. I'd ended up with maybe 5 20kt BCs, no BBs and a mere handful of vaguely relevant CAs whilst they started the war with at least 2 BBs and 6 BCs all with something like 13" and 15" guns. First battle of the war was a BC raid to go bombard a target, my cruisers ran into most of their fleet. Somehow managed to sail half-way up the Adriatic and back again losing on a couple of light cruisers whilst sinking a BB and severely damaging a bunch of other ships, and the only thing I can work out as to how that happened is their gunnery was so poor nothing important got any big holes in it.

These BCs were the stars of the show and they were built to go bully CAs and CLs not fight head on with their supposed betters.

>order a pair of battlecruisers form uk to see whether getting AoN armored boats from abroad would help my eggheads to figure that shit out
>brits seize them during my 4th and final war against france because of reasons and, to add insult to injury, decide to build couple more of them
>had to order basically exact same ships from the states instead and after my guys figured out how AoN works build ships to counter the boats that uk seized

Well, at least they were just ordered on tax payer money instead of being funded by schoolchildren marks.

>>53074128
>tfw you roll two capship encounters in one patrol
>in 44 when your torpedoes work
>both are at night

Doing the fore and aft attack is fucking murderous when you're using a boat with actual rear tubes.

I have been thinking of getting into naval games for a long time, especially after reading a lot of books for the pacific war.

What are good rules for the Pacific Theater of Operations in WW2, with regards to anything that involve naval landings.

I am also a fan of more modern ships as well. Anything that covers cold war period to now that is fun?

File: 1464469746454.jpg (637KB, 2810x2231px) Image search: [Google]

637KB, 2810x2231px

Is Rule the Waves worth buying?

>>53084885
Naval landings? Don't think there's a lot that do that. Sane people clear the seas before the landing craft arrive (cough cough unspeakable marine mammal cough cough), so most games involving them are probably land ones.

For modern stuff Harpoon's the way to go.

>>53086199
Does a Jap lie about their ship?

File: H.M.S Javelin 1942.gif (45KB, 645x328px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 645x328px

>>53086199
Are British twin turret Destroyers sexy?

/nwg/, how many torpedo mounts on a light cruiser is too many? Because I am up to 16 on my latest design and I think that might be a bit much to expect to be used.

>>53086199
Yes. More than any other naval wargame going I'd say. It's got a great thing going. Lots of detail yet actually fairly easy to comprehend. the manual is a bit crap but answers can usually be found on the forums somewhere, and there's some very, very useful gun penetration/range charts hanging around. But the effect of designing and building your fleets adds a lot of investment into their use when it comes to fighting, more than any historical scenario.

File: image.png (18KB, 300x232px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 300x232px

>>53087093
Not nearly enough by half. If a nine year old standing on the docks can pitch a rock at any part of the ship, and not set off an earth shattering kaboom, there aren't enough.

Side note, explosive handling mishaps kinda suck.

I figured that was the case that no wargame focused on landing craft as well. Any suggestions then for ww2 and modern rule sets?

>>53087706
What is this, a cruiser for ants?

>>53087768
Naval War has been brought up a decent number of times, and so has Victory at Sea. They aren't exactly the hardcore sims like Harpoon or Seekrieg, but they're good enough for most stuff.

File: image.gif (34KB, 800x340px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 800x340px

>>53087856
The pieces left of her were probably appropriately sized for ants.

Sometimes it's hard to judge image size on mobile.

>>53087093
>16 torpedo tubes
>too many

Come back when it is at least 30 tubes.

So I'm looking at the Spring Styles site for 20s US designs, and I notice some of them have the armor labeled no in inches, but in [Number]#, like how an armored cruiser sub is labeled 90# over 40#. It's not normal steel gauges, so I've got no clue what it means.

Also, torpedo battleships were apparently a thing, which is fucking crazy. Unfortunately, they were kinda shit, as the most torps any of them had was 18, by ditching all main guns.

>>53090946
Never mind, found it. It's pounds/ft2, with about 40 being one inch thick. Funky system.

>>53091028
The US specialises in daft classification systems.

>>53091278
Retarded classification and measurement systems are part of the America's charm desu.

>>53083373
There's something about commerce raiders that I love.

File: tubes.jpg (57KB, 908x283px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 908x283px

>>53090628
Did a quick experiment. Oddly when I added underwater tubes it said I only had 27 on this, without it reads as 32 above water. can drop it to 5600 tons without those extra 6 tubes that confuse it.

>>53090946
>vol 2, from 25-38 has been lost in time, like tears in rain
Time to die.

File: well-camoflauged-finnish-ship.jpg (694KB, 1600x1180px) Image search: [Google]

694KB, 1600x1180px

>>53095128
Such is life.

File: tauchschiff_projekt_50_100dpi.jpg (5MB, 6538x3803px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 6538x3803px

>>53093282

I know the feeling. Its how I prefer to win wars in RtW. Build a shit ton of subs and fast light cruisers with good endurance pre-war. Then build long range AMCs and send them all out together to strangle the enemies commerce.

A few naval ospreys have popped up on the Non-Fiction/History section of Mobilism.

German Battleships 1939-1945.
Warships of the Anglo-Dutch Wars
US Submarines 1900-1935
US Patrol Torpedo Boats

Sadly, they're all epubs rather than pdfs :(

>>53095995
Sumatra PDF is your friend. Despite the name, it also handles epub and cbr.

>>53095780
There is nothing more beautiful than seeing +100 medium range submarines to strangle your enemy's commerce to death.

>>53096120

Thanks. I've tried several epub readers but they all display the Osprey illos in various wonky ways.

File: s584165.jpg (470KB, 2475x1100px) Image search: [Google]

470KB, 2475x1100px

>>53090946
>4 8-inchers for ships and 2 4-inchers for AA
>6 ahead 2 aft tubes
>3 inch armor deck/sides
>room for like 4 planes
>TORPEDO PROTECTION ON A SUB

The 20s were a helluva time.

File: s584021.jpg (242KB, 1500x1205px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 1500x1205px

>>53097848
And here's one of the torpedo battleships.

Note the 25.5 inch belt armor. That's Yamato turret face tier, on the entire belt. Yeah, she's only got 9 tubes to a side, but she's FUCKING INVINCIBLE.

>>53099019

One of the RtW mavens here should build her and see how she fares in a war.

File: Torpedobattleship.jpg (243KB, 1010x751px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 1010x751px

>>53102829
Can't build the armour that thick I am afraid, only up to 18". This is what I got with a 1928 design. Had to put the tubes up top because you can't have a broadside of 9 torpedoes per side, only 2.

I think as a design, well with only 18" of armour and a need to get close to make sure it volleys torpedoes suitably, well it will just draw fire, suck and probably die expensively. I think sticking with overloaded torpedo light cruiser designs would just work better.

>>53103022

Too bad. Thanks for trying anyway!

>>53021773
Please post names and navies, preferably with dates.

>>53022667
The one from the '30s (yes) or is there a new one?

>>53103215

C'mon... think of it as a nice puzzle. It's a monitor, obviously, flying the US national ensign. A quick check of US monitors reveals it is USS Puritan BM-1. Wasn't it fun figuring that out on our own instead whining to be spoon fed?

>>53103225
>The one from the '30s (yes) or is there a new one?

"The Great Pacific War" by Hector C. Bywater. The book is from the 1920s while the war it presents is in the 1930s. Bywater was a well regarded naval journalist in his time. The book is interesting with both prescient and archaic bits. On the plus side, he correctly predicts a Japanese attack on the Philippines with a US island hopping campaign. The Japan's sneak attack doesn't hit Pearl, but instead disables the Panama Canal with a freighter loaded with explosives.

On the minus side, he has planes attacking ships with poison gas and carriers launching aircraft within visual range of the enemy as a normal operation.

>>53103482
>planes attacking ships with poison gas

You know that was considered by both sides...

>>53103697
>You know that was considered by both sides...

Yes, knucklehead, I know it was considered by both sides. That's why Bywater put it in his novel. He was a naval analyst and correspondent so he wrote accordingly. He wasn't just making shit up like some sci-fi pulp writer.

I also know it was determined to be impractical after lots of testing. Bywater wrote the book in the 20s when the tactic was seen as plausible. However, by the time of the book's war was supposed to occur in the 30s, the tactic had already been discarded. That's why I referred to the tactic as "archaic".

Ships were still built with Circle-W capabilities, but no one seriously planned on dousing enemy ships with phosgene, napalm, or other agents instead of using normal bombs and torps.

>>53049029
The Saucy Arethusa indeed. Fitting.

>keep a doc of notes on The Hunters games I've run
>like a third of the non-Type II ones have some variation of "had a bad runin with aircraft"
Suddenly the U-Boat crew irrational fear of anything bringing aircraft down on them makes so much sense (cough cough Metox/Naxos gives off a signal cough cough). Especially cause this only goes to mid-43, and things get even worse.

File: surrender-monkey.jpg (736KB, 1181x1181px) Image search: [Google]

736KB, 1181x1181px

>play as germany
>end up in war against italy with france as my ally
>what does france do during it?
>a) move most of their fleet down to mediterranean and tie down italian forces there b) launch regular attacks against italian forces c) or just sit around and hope that i'll do all the fighting for them

>>53104086
The british test bombed one of their old ships with anthrax. They still won't tell people where they sunk it, for safety.

>>53108971

There's an island they didn't let people on for fifty years too. It was all part of Operation Vegetarian.

Anthrax can take up to 2 months to effect those exposed to it, so spreading spores on a ship with an N-bomb isn't going to immediately win a battle, especially considering there are water washdown systems, Circle-W capabilities, etc.

>>53112888

There's a great story involving "Oregon" and Joshua Slocum, the 1st man to sail around the world single-handed.

On May 14th, 1898, Slocum aboard "Spray" was off Brazil near the latitude of the mouth of the Amazon when "Oregon" came steaming up over the southern horizon. Slocum had heard USS Maine blowing in Havana during a lay over in South Africa and the resulting war scare. In fact, he'd been warned not to continue sailing as the Spanish would "get him". When he spotted "Oregon" that day, he didn't know that war had been declared nor did he know about "Oregon's" famous "trip 'round the Horn" to reinforce the Atlantic Fleet.

"Oregon" hoisted flags asking whether "Spray", which was flying her US ensign, had seen any Spanish men-of-war. Slocum wasn't able to read the flag hoist until she had passed ahead by nearly two miles. He immediately hoisted "No" and then added "Let us keep together for MUTUAL protection".

"Oregon" was well ahead by then and didn't respond to his hoist. The two ships did dip their flags to each other however and the encounter was logged aboard the battleship.

>>53107966
That's all allies, it just abstracts out their operations so no joint fleet action, ever.

>be allied against france with japan
>once the french government collapses and their territories are up for taking japanese decide to take antilles instead of something more logical like parts of french indochina

Guess that the Japanese emperor mentioned that he wanted to have a palace at Caribbeans or something.

File: jesus.png (55KB, 1014x725px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 1014x725px

Guess that guy who said that quad turrets on DDs were allowed wasn't joking.

>>53117421
ayep, don't tell the devs though, i'm having too much fun