==Naval Wargames General== *Never Built Edition.* The old t

Apparently name and title boxes confuse me. Oh well, people should be able to figure it out.

File: 20170121072903_1.jpg (452KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

452KB, 1920x1080px

British J Class never built.

>>53339367
I love it! Pop-Sci always had great futurists working for it.

File: BB Hiraga Design 1929.png (69KB, 2043x535px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 2043x535px

Come on and SLAM, and welcome to JAPAN.

>>53339071
Ok, I give up. That looks like an American Nelson. WTF is it?

File: FusoPagoda.jpg (104KB, 1000x621px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1000x621px

>>53339459
Not enough Pagoda!

>>53339617
My guess? A north carolina proposal.

The 32,250-long-ton (32,770 t) design "A" was one of the first proposals. Unlike "B" and "C", it was far below the treaty-mandated limit of 35,000–tons. It would have carried nine 14–inch guns in its main battery; although all of the turrets were forward of the superstructure, the guns could still fire forward provided that they were elevated to 4.5 degrees or more. The secondary battery planned was twelve 5-inch (127 mm) were unusually arranged in triple mounts.

>>53339734
are there records of one of these getting BTFO with a single shot?

>>53339071
>dat ship
what is that from?

>>53339887
Well, the Japanese had a serious stability issue in the 1930s, when a bunch of their top heavy dds and cls toppled over in storms. I think the Fusos and Ises were protected against that, and the actual Pagoda wasn't overly heavy. I don't know of one of them actually collapsing, but other spot top masts were brought down in WW1 and in pearl harbor.

File: b1abba41d4d8af9aef3a510f4a5aa833.jpg (231KB, 1450x801px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 1450x801px

>>53339900
Looks like Steel Ocean.

>>53339900
Steel Ocean, on Steam, Free. Pretty Fun, better then WoWs.

>>53341164
Is that the USS Spud?

My favourite standard.

>>53341582
Nah, it is just her big sister New Mexico.

Take a look at this shit.

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1916/08/06/page/43/article/build-the-limit

>>53342077
>only 3 guns per turret

Not enough maximum battleship for me.

>>53342077
>http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1916/08/06/page/43/article/build-the-limit

I'm looking at the ads, and wishing I could furnish my home with a hand made oak table for only 15.95.

Fuck Ikea quality, I want a solid mahogany dining table.

>>53342842
That is the price of living in the future, you might not have jetpacks or space colonies but at least you've overpriced Swedish furniture and more porn than a man can enjoy during his lifetime.

>>53344213
Aww yiss such a good picture.

>muh Ramilles
>muh Terror and Erebus
>muh Ajax and Enterprise

File: fuck.png (12KB, 310x457px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 310x457px

The worst thing is that I've no idea why or how it ended up like this.

>>53345673
And 1 turn later they all just decide to give up (following UK deciding that it had enough, for 2nd time during that war too), well not that I really mind; my unrest was 9 and it would had only took couple more months of war for Kaiser to be put against a wall and shot.

>>53344213
I love that it still has the old names for Anson and Howe on it. Not to mention Lion and Temeraire!

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

246KB, 1568x960px

>>53346263
Why did they change away from Jellicoe? Did Jellicoe piss on Churchill?

Honestly, Jellicoe was a goddamn hero.

File: newyorkbb.jpg (97KB, 736x562px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 736x562px

Oh would you just look at the time.

It's FUCK YOU UP OCLOCK!

US NY class was the best WW1 battleship. Fight me.

File: heavy light cruiser.png (62KB, 912x748px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 912x748px

I really didn't expect this type of ship to be as effective as it is.

>>53347415
I would expect it to be really good at bullying light cruisers and destroyers, hell even under-armoured heavier vessels given the AP of even 6" guns by that point.
The mass of torpedo tubes and high speed is just additional benefits.

I build similar ships but with 8" guns, not normally as high a tonnage as that but nah, it works.

File: 20170520080521_1.jpg (467KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

467KB, 1920x1080px

Mah Standards!

File: 20170401104402_1.jpg (487KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

487KB, 1920x1080px

And a Nagato, the not quite as cool as a Colorado.

>>53349164
A Colorado with a union Jack, now I have seen everything.

File: 18676478_10209454222852293_726329407_o.jpg?oh=8c8da6568d463bcdc5c63db781c7f206&oe=5923D638.jpg (110KB, 1136x852px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 1136x852px

posting plastic crack

>>53354175
Scale was too big IMHO, but they were nice toys. I hate that buying them was so expensive since it was MYSTERYBOX.

>>53356901
I love the Revenge class.

So, Beasts of War are gonna run a Midway series starting tomorrow.
How do you lads feel about carrier battles?

>>53358544
>carrier battles

Could not give a fuck.

>>53358544
>How do you lads feel about carrier battles?

Carriers are the Cancer that killed naval battles. And subs.

>>53339459
I see that they built the conning tower of a sub on a battleship.

Japanese already prepared for their ships to sink.

File: Iwate.jpg (265KB, 1600x1193px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 1600x1193px

Funny how things escalate.
>start a war against germany as japan to grab couple of its east asian colonies
>end up causing the collapse of german empire and seize all of their holdings outside of europe

>>53355406
They repaint pretty nice though. I got a bunch in lots and on the singles market, particularly without cards.

>>53364758
Probably way cheaper then ghq as well.

>>53364916
Well, for certain things yes, but the nature of CMGs and being OOP means that certain things are ludicrously expensive. Shapeways has been pretty awesome in providing more affordable and better looking alternatives and for providing things that WotC never released.

>>53339930
>the actual Pagoda wasn't overly heavy
Most importantly this. "Pagodas" were mostly just extra decks built around the existing tripods, which were strengthened for the purpose, and were largely open space. Nagato and Mutsu's were built on seven-legged masts which were stupidly durable, where the central "leg" was large enough to fit an elevator inside it without compromising stability.

File: Greenbirch_Turn_04.png (102KB, 2000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 2000x1500px

The story so far:
The Imperial War Ministry of Japan has requested your assistance. The Greater East Asia Prosperity Sphere has been under significant threat from both Commonwealth and Franco-American interests. The Imperial Navy is stretched protecting the expanse of the GEAPS empire from numerous multi-pronged attacks. It would seem that in this period of momentary weakness, the Russian Navy has decided to stake a claim to some of the Kuril Islands. A move so close to the home islands is a serious threat to the security of Japan.

GEAPS intelligence has identified a small raiding party being sent to harass local assets and destabilize the region. With the tensions in the ongoing Russian civil war, the Russian Tsar can only detach a small portion of his Eastern fleet, composed mostly of older vessels. However, unopposed, the raiding fleet could caus significant damage to local merchant shipping and emplaced fortifications in the Kurils. This contract authorizes you to engage the Russian force and hopefully eliminate the threat it represents.
--
So we found the Russian fleet, and are currently engaged with 2 Protected Cruiser, 2 Armored Cruisers, and 1 Pre-Dread.
Our own destroyers took some six inch fire, and are pulling back as the main line pulls into range. We've given more then we have taken, but the battle is still young (18 minutes into the engagement)

>>53371836
Legend:
Banshee- a St Vincent class Dreadnaught
Vermont- a Connecticut class Pre-Dread
William- a Rurik class Armored Cruiser
Essex- a County Class cruiser w/ two DD escorts
Horizon- an Omaha Class Light Cruiser w/ two DD escorts

File: warships_bb_gunnery.png (115KB, 640x240px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 640x240px

>>53371871
That's an eclectic mix.

Banshee has already shredded the bridge of one of the Dmitri Donskoi AC's with its 12 inch guns and moved to engage the Borodino pre-dread. The Vermont has split its fire between the second Donskoi and supporting the lighter squadron against one of the Bogatyr's. Missing with everything, except its 8 inchers which blew up the Donskoi's port launch. Our lighter cruisers and DD's are pulling back under smoke.

>>53372800
>blew up the Donskoi's port launch

Yeah! No Shore leave for you fuckers!

We also looking for a new player to round out our fleet. We have a shiny Minotaur Armored Cruiser as well as a Rurik AC

File: Rurik_Brasseys[1].jpg (69KB, 977x701px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 977x701px

>>53373096
Rurik? This thing? I feel sorry for whoever gets stuck with it.

>>53374767
I guess that he is talking about the Vickers built Rurik with 4 10 inchers.

File: Ryurik(II)1913.jpg (158KB, 1600x902px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1600x902px

>>53374767
This bad boy right here.

File: Nagato Kai Ni.png (500KB, 764x800px) Image search: [Google]

500KB, 764x800px

>>53339071
>maybe even a certain bote based vidya that tickles our autism in just the right way.
Which one is that?

>>53377184
>lets add triple turrets on nagato
>better do it in the most unaesthetic way possible

>>53377184
Wait... please tell me this isn't official.

>>53377303
It is, guys at Kadokawa have a fetish for slapping triple turrets on nip boats during their fantasy refits.

>>53377410
As a gentle/m/an I could see the triples as the superfiring set if it used her old rigging design. It would've been able to fit those Type-98's better as well. But this strikes a nerve with my /k/ AND my /m/ at the same time.

Kinda digging the outfit though.

>>53377184
>nagato with triples
REEEEEEEEE

File: Special_Type_2_Amphibious_Tank_167_Full.png (74KB, 287x430px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 287x430px

>>53377239
>>53377303
>>53377410
>>53377548
>>53377694
But wait, it gets dumber.

>In her Kai Ni form, Nagato is capable of equipping Daihatsu Landing Craft, Daihatsu Landing Craft (Type 89 Medium Tank & Landing Force), Toku Daihatsu Landing Craft, Toku Daihatsu Landing Craft + 11th Tank Regiment, and Special Type 2 Amphibious Tank.
>Nagato Kai Ni is also the only battleship capable of using small-caliber main guns normally exclusive to Destroyers.

>>53377808
Wonder what they were smoking when they decided to make her an amphibious assault support battleship that can be armed with 13cm main guns.

>>53377808
What is it now, Combined Arms Collection? First land based planes, now ground vehicles?

>>53377808
LCVP master race when

>>53377694
Nagato is already something of an oddity by 1944, having received a series of unusual armor additions to her turtle deck consisting of 6-8in Vickers cemented and additional homogeneous plates over *some* of her machinery spaces. She also had the turrets designed and built for Tosa which featured internal armored bulkheads based on contemporary British design.

The triple 41cm mounts were drafted by Hiraga as a possible version of #13, though I don't have the drafts in front of me so I'm not sure they would fit Nagato as-designed and iirc they had no internal bulkheads due to space restrictions. But if built subsequently fitting them to Nagato, which was already a cobbled-together mess of armor schemes and incremental improvements, absolutely wouldn't stand out as unusual.

>>53377808
To be fair she spent a lot of time shuttling troops and materiel, so if you wanted an amphibious support ship that could do all those things you could make dumber decisions than a slow battleship who has to compete with bigger botes for a niche.

And historically speaking the Type 98 was also mounted to Taiho and the last few light cruisers designed. So fitting it to a battleship that's already WAY off the historical reservation is far from the weirdest thing going on here.

>>53377878
Airship girls when?

File: suzuya_kantai_collection_drawn_by_konishi_koconatu__3a7196b776019bde639c559dbb5bb526.png (357KB, 405x754px) Image search: [Google]

357KB, 405x754px

>>53377982
How about Light Aircraft Carrier Suzuya?

IIRC the logic that people guessed was behind this was the similarity of the Ibuki's original design to the Mogami class, and Ibuki's hull being turned into an aircraft carrier that was never completed.

>>53378339
The aviation cruiser design actually makes sense, as Mogami was actually rebuilt that way. Ibuki is the only reason why conversion to a light carrier makes any damn sense and it's a stretch.

>>53378444
It's a stretch, but possible.
I seem to remember reading that the Japanese Navy actually considered going whole hog CVL with the Mogamis in their conversion, but eventually (read: quickly) discarded the idea as impractical, unrealistic, too expensive, and a waste of a CA.
Basically, even they realized that making that conversion late in life would introduce hundreds, if not more, bugs and kinks into the system that they could not afford to work out.

>>53378779
Guess that made them at least bit smarter than krauts and the whole silliness that they did with Seydlitz/Weser.

>>53378779
They wouldn't have been as useful as other CVL conversions, that's for sure.

>>53381235
God that makes me rock hard.

>>53373096
Where do I sign up?

How do I control battles in Rule the Waves? My ships just keep sailing in a straight line, then hugging the coast.

>>53347415
what program is this? it looks interesting.

>>53382587
That is Rule the Waves, which is commonly brought up in these threads a lot.

>>53382412

http://s1.zetaboards.com/PlanesAndMercs/forum/1524721/

Sign up there. Using this format "Capt. Firstname Lastname." Once you have signed up, find the Bloodwake sub-forum and access it. That will let you poke around and check things out.

File: von der tann.png (15KB, 907x288px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 907x288px

>>53382493
First check if the division you try to command has square or triangle shaped flag, if it is triangle it is under AI control. If it is square click the red arrow in the lower left corner and then click on the map in direction where you want your boats to go.

I actually made one for wargaming with an extra hull.

Because lets face it, seaplane cruisers were dumb.

File: spot the badass granny.png (24KB, 777x493px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 777x493px

>>53383606
Probably because it probably among the best bote games currently available.

File: Too many guns.jpg (67KB, 901x281px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 901x281px

Why do my science guys keep trying to convince me that single turrets are the most efficient? What the fuck are they on?

>>53384931
Or just hold shift and click, left or right it doesn't matter.
Or adjust the course number thingy manually.

>>53389705
>>53389705
>What the fuck are they on?

Badnoughts son, badnoughts.

How do I start a game with all technologies unlocked? I remember seeing the technology copy and paste ages ago, but now I can't find it.

>>53393065
That spotting top is armoured isn't it!

File: it's march 1911 and there's still no superimposed turrets.jpg (232KB, 1023x759px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 1023x759px

>>53389705
>Why do my science guys keep trying to convince me that single turrets are the most efficient? What the fuck are they on?

You have varied technologies enabled. This randomizes the order at which techs are researched and adds a single special effect. One of those is single turrets being more effective, one is shitty gun penetration, one is shitty torpedoes, one is heavier engines and the other I don't know.
Pic related is from a lowered research rate game with varied tech that has the shitty gun modifier.

>>53391049

https://pastebin.com/4aejqp6z

Put this inbetween the lines of any nation in BNat.dat or into the file of any custom nation.

>>53393934
>One of those is single turrets being more effective, one is shitty gun penetration, one is shitty torpedoes, one is heavier engines

So badnoughts ahoy, torpedo battleships, literally a paradise, and no battlecruisers allowed zone.

File: distant sounds of 80% HE loadouts.jpg (21KB, 290x342px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 290x342px

>>53394686
Shitty pen games are my favourite. You either have to focus on many small guns slinging a lot of HE or just mount the biggest guns you can possibly manage on each one of your ship types. And I think the dud rate is also tweaked with that modifier so that AP shells that actually penetrate do less damage, not sure though.
This here is a quality 0 18" gun with every tech researched, by the way.

File: 1223262384748.jpg (940KB, 1751x1010px) Image search: [Google]

940KB, 1751x1010px

>>53393934

Any easy way to tell which of those special effects is in play or do you have to compare stats to find out which is in effect?

>>53396193
such a good bote.

>>53398417
The only ones that you can tell right away are the penetration and engine modifiers. For the turrets and torpedoes you have to wait until you get a notification, which is entirely random. I once went from 1900-1908 without knowing that single turrets are more effective because I never got a notification.

File: h97132.jpg (151KB, 740x615px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 740x615px

Still crazy, but an oddly beautiful ship nonetheless.

>>53398762
I really wish it made the info more obvious. I don't think I saw the AI build any single gun turret ships to take account of the thing. I suspect this is because of how they don't really design ships… yet can follow treaty restrictions still.

File: German Fleet.jpg (2MB, 4032x2272px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x2272px

Oh, hey, I forgot these threads existed.

So, we had a navals game a few weeks back. The game was General Quarters 3: Fleet Action Imminent. The scenario was a hypothetical attack on the British Expeditionary Force as it sailed across the Channel. Essentially, it assumes that Hipper is allowed to take the I Scouting Group (Seydlitz, Moltke, Von Der Tann, Blucher), II Scouting Group, (Strassburg, Graudenz, Kolberg and Stralsund; light cruisers all) and some support ships (~12 torpedo boats), and go actually do stuff.

The British get wind of the planned attack at the last moment and are able to rush Beatty's 1st Battlecruiser Squadron to intercept (since they aren't up in Scapa Flow). The British have four actual Battlecruisers (Lion, Princess Royal, Queen Mary, New Zealand), and two 8-DD flotillas, each led by an Arethusa-class Light Cruiser. Contact is made *just* inside the Channel; the British ships are steaming almost southwest to intercept while the German vessels are heading parallel to the coast.

As per history, light was good, there was little wind (blowing at ~10kts towards Calais). We had no information on currents, so we called it a wash.

The game was best described as, "there's something wrong with our bloody ships today." Hipper in Seydlitz closed at the head of his column, quartered his ship to bring after turrets to bear at the center of the British line, and landed his first salvo squarely on Princess Royal at 18,000 yards, a single shell penetrating the top of A turret and blowing the entire magazine. After two more salvos straddling Queen Mary, the second British ship is struck at about 17,000 yards, blowing a second ship out of the water by the 10 minute mark of the engagement.

File: British BCs.png (6MB, 1800x2042px) Image search: [Google]

6MB, 1800x2042px

>>53402388

Aghast, Beatty in Lion ordered his DD screen (which was already oriented to Beatty's port forward quarter) forward to make smoke, which forced Hipper to sail forward to try and get the troopships back into LOS. Hipper ordered his own DD screen and Blucher (aka, the "live bait" ship) into the smoke, where Blucher got absolutely torn apart by point-blank torpedo fire as it cleared the far edge of the smoke...but the Brits had flushed most of their tubes, and had little left 5 minutes later when the remainder of Hipper's BC's cleared the smoke. Only Moltke took a hit, flooding a few after compartments and dropping her speed, not leaving her still able to fight. Desperate, the British threw their DD flotillas forward, clearly hoping to emulate Taffy 3's Battle of Samar, or at least not go too wrong placing their ships alongside that of the enemy...but the Germans countered by throwing their light cruiser squadron into the face of the incoming DD flotillas, breaking up their attack and allowing the German BC's to sail past unimpeded but for a few desultory shots at their superstructures.

Now only 8-10,000 yards from the remaining British BCs (who fell back and tried to engage with their after turrets), the Germans turned almost directly south to unmask their batteries while the British fell back towards their troopships. Lion had her stern shot away and went dead in the water; evacuation of the ship began, but Vonn Der Tann hit the British flagship with her entire broadside at ~6,000 yards and blew the ship sky-high. New Zealand broke and ran, and the Germans let her go, choosing instead to concentrate fire on the troopships, destroying 18 of 24.

>>53402388
Is this the scenario you were looking for weather reports for a while back? Nice.

File: SMS Sedylitz.jpg (193KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 1280x960px

>>53402425

The final tally was 1 obsolete German "battlecruiser" (Blucher) sunk, Moltke ate a single torpedo and was reduced to ~20kts, Straslund a drifting hulk and two more light cruisers moderately damaged, and half-dozen german DDs sunk or crippled.

MVP was definitely Seydlitz, for sinking two British BCs in 4 salvos. Incidentally, Franz von Hipper was wounded during the engagement, when a British DD shell hit the superstructure of Seydlitz. We decided that he'd end up with scarring and a rakish eyepatch from then on; making him the first incarnation of Captain Harlock.

On the British side, they lost 3 of 4 BCs to magazine detonations, 6 of 16 DDs, and 1 of their 2 Arethusa light cruisers. Plus having most of the British Expeditionary Force's I Corps lost in the channel, obviously, completely undermining the ability of Britain to support France on the Western Front and dooming that country to face Germany almost totally alone.

As it happened, David Beatty was, in this timeline, "the man who could lose the war in an afternoon."

>>53402451

It was, yes. If you're the person who put me on to the ship logs, then definitely, thank you.

>>53402388
Is this the scenario you were looking for weather reports for a while back? Nice.>>53402632
Nah, I had found some generalized logs from the weather service, that was another anon's bit of brilliance. Thanks for the batrep!

>>53393934
You're a star.

>>53403783
nasty

File: USS_Alaska_(CB-1)-3.jpg (5MB, 4803x3616px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 4803x3616px

>>53400376
What is so crazy in taking a heavy cruiser and enlarging it until it can take on any cruiser that axis could potentially field?

>>53407542
Not that anon, but I'd say the craziness is more in the mental gymnastics involved in the naming classification.

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

97KB, 800x581px

>>53407542

I know, right?
And people called Fisher crazy when he took a light cruiser, and then enlarged it until it could take on any cruiser Germany can possibly field.
What a bunch of nuts.

>>53407620
The difference is the Alaskas have armor and a reasonable number of guns, rather than being overengined monitors.

File: BB55 Launches Kingfisher.jpg (656KB, 2000x1443px) Image search: [Google]

656KB, 2000x1443px

>>53409816
Showboat a sex.

File: Roma on the Fritz.jpg (25KB, 640x469px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 640x469px

>Spend a week and a half looking for the next botes you want to paint.
>Look everywhere you can conceive, multiple times
>Begin to despair that they got tossed accidentally
>Find them exactly where you thought you had put them, and where you've looked 5-6 times already
>Mybotewhen

I guess since I finished up the last IJN shit I had, I can move on to the batch of British stuff I've accumulated since the last time I finished them off.

>>53410435
>>Find them exactly where you thought you had put them, and where you've looked 5-6 times already

That seems to be a favorite hobby among all small things that haven't been nailed down.

>>53410435
Speaking of aforementioned IJN stuff:
A Type B1 that I had missed while painting the other four, and a No. 1 Class Landing Ship. The No. 1 is actually a really neat class, it's pretty much the IJN equivalent of the APD. Added some Daihatsus to the ramp, but they're probably a bit too big.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No.1-class_landing_ship

http://destroyerhistory.org/flushdeck/green%5Fdragons/

File: No.1 Class Landing Ship and Type B1 Sub.jpg (843KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

843KB, 1200x900px

>>53412030
Helps if you attach the image.

File: HMS-Rodney[1].jpg (174KB, 1204x767px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1204x767px

Any Rodnol fans know if she had her catapult still when she was serving in the Med? I keep seeing drawings that alternately depict it and don't.

>>53412125
At least navypedia seems to claim that her catapult was removed in August of '42.

>>53407542
The Craziness is that the Alaska-class was half an Iowa for almost all of the cost and crew (designed).
We could have had 2 more Iowas actually completed if it wasn't for them.

>>53413343
>We could have had 2 more Iowas actually completed if it wasn't for them.

No big loss desu, even Missouri and Wisconsin would had been better off cancelled and the resources used on them diverted towards building more Essexes or Midways.

>>53413343

No the real craziness is that they didnt keep the Alaskas on longer than they did. They would have been ideal as conversions to early missile cruisers and beyond.

>>53413426

This. There's never a reason to have guns on ships when aircraft exist.

>>53413426
>>53413747

You say this, yet in RIMPAC 1991 the USS Missouri group completely destroyed the USS Constellation group.
In the Atlantic, during wargames the USS Iowa and USS New Jersey both individually managed to take on and destroy entire Carrier Battle Groups - centered around Nimitz-class Carriers!
And all of these wargames heavily favored the Carriers, going so far as to claim that if an Aircraft even saw one of the Iowas, the Iowa was sunk.
Never happened, they could never find the Iowas, even with current generation technology. Every time, the Carrier groups were wiped out in night combat.

FACT: The US Navy has maintained for years (including today) that Battleships are more effective Warfighting platforms than Carriers - Carriers being more effective Peace Keeping platforms.
Ideally, they stated, they would want both.

"You Americans do not realize what formidable warships you have in these
four battleships. We have concluded after careful analysis that these
magnificent vessels are in fact the most to be feared in your entire
naval arsenal. When engaged in combat we could throw everything we have
at those ships and all our firepower would just bounce off or be of
little effect. Then we are exhausted, we will detect you coming over the
horizon and then you will sink us."
- Soviet Fleet Admiral Sergei I. Gorshkov, 1985, after watching the USS Iowa in a NATO exercise:

"Put a Battleship with an Aegis cruiser and you've got something that can go anywhere in the world. Put a battleship battle group within a couple of hundred miles of a carrier battle group and you've got something no one in the world can beat!".
- Former Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Albert Herman Trost.

>>53414225
>Never happened, they could never find the Iowas, even with current generation technology.

>AN/APS-145 radar on E-2 has a 350 nm max range
>AWACS is up 24/7 in wartime
>somehow it can't detect an Iowa

shiggy

>>53414925

Anon, Radar isn't magic. Terrain Masking and Storm Riding are things.
You also both overestimate and underestimate the Radar Cross Section of an Iowa.
The secret? The Iowas supposedly looked so insane to most Radar processing systems of the time, both American and Soviet, that they were ignored as Islands. The crews of the Iowas knew this and abused it. That is from the RIMPAC Report, I'm not joking.

File: HMS Rodney lewds.jpg (52KB, 500x374px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 500x374px

I guess today was not the day to work on my Royal Navy. Washed everything, and was drying them with compressed air, and I lost my grip on Rodnol's "A" turret. Spent an hour looking, and wound up sculpting a new one instead.

File: e8e.png (84KB, 600x587px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 600x587px

>>53414225
>>53415325

>>53416179
Anon, RIMPAC '91 is one of the most commonly cited events by battleship reactivationists.
Go look it up, you'll find a wealth more information than what I could link you here (I'm at work).

If you want to demand substantiation from someone, demand it from the anon who claimed aircraft invalidated the Gun - despite the fact that every single navy in the world still relied on the Naval Gun as the backbone of their strength until GUIDED MISSILES came around, at which time Guns took a SECONDARY role (but are still there, across the board).

>>53416379

American imperialist propaganda is not data, anon.

>>53416379
A '90s wargame does not imply that 1) a pair of battleships would have been more useful to the american war effort then say another pair of essex class carriers, and 2) I am skeptical that the actions of a '90s wargame can really be used to accurately represent the fighting capability of a nearly fifty year old warship.

>>53416379
>google RIMPAC 1991
>no good results on the first three pages
U wot m8

>>53416726
1) Anon, another pair of Essexes would have done NOTHING for the American War effort.
We CANCELED 8 Essexes at the end of the war, having the funding and resources for another pair would have simply meant we would have canceled 10. We were building them as fast as we possibly could, at the end of the war we had more of them than we knew what to do with. Even Adm. Mitscher was complaining about the lack of Heavy Escort (Read: Iowa-class Battleships) in the years going forward after WW2, and it was by his and other CARRIER ADMIRALS' insistence that the four ships stayed in active service following WW2 as long as they did and why the two unfinished Iowas sat for as long as they did. As Halsey put it, "Too many swords, not enough shields."
2) The 4 Iowas are actually not really that old, when it comes to the lifespan of a ship. They were and are relatively low mileage ships in the peak of condition - in the recent (2016/17) inspections, NAVSEA indicated that the four hulls were each in better condition than all but two of the Carriers in service (Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush). In the 80s/90s, those ships were barely 15 years old (service) and had (and still have) a potential 35 more years left in their boiler-turbines, which NAVSEA still holds to be "...the best ship's power-plant ever used by the US Navy, hands down." (Navy Day 2008)...
Representatives of BAE in 2008 simply stated "There is no logical reason that these ships are not still in service. They are, without a doubt, the single most superior Naval Surface Warfare assets the world has ever seen."

>>53417117
It was 1988 and 1990, Anon made a mistake. Mo was in the Gulf in '91.

File: Moskva.jpg (302KB, 1200x594px) Image search: [Google]

302KB, 1200x594px

>>53417197

Look at this propaganda. American ships were never that good, to say nothing of "superior naval surface warfare assets".

Now this is a real warship.

>>53417375

"You Americans do not realize what formidable warships you have in these four battleships. We have concluded after careful analysis that these magnificent vessels are in fact the most to be feared in your entire naval arsenal. When engaged in combat we could throw everything we have at those ships and all our firepower would just bounce off or be of little effect. Then we are exhausted, we will detect you coming over the horizon and then you will sink us."
- Soviet Fleet Admiral Sergei I. Gorshkov, 1985, after watching the USS Iowa in a NATO exercise.

Your argument, by posting a Soviet ship, is invalid.

>>53417420

You've never heard of lulling one's opponent into a false sense of security?

>oh no, mister american, please don't use those big scary warships against us!

>>53417464
>implying that 12 inch of belt armor isn't capable of stopping a soviet anti-ship missile carrying a 500kt nuclear warhead

>>53417504
> implying that everyone and their uncle didn't know that in the 80s/90s firing a Nuclear Missile at a US ship would immediately cause the US to fire off every nuclear missile in the US arsenal, causing MAD
Anon.

File: image.jpg (71KB, 640x512px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 640x512px

>>53417504

>>53417546
>23kt

>>53417769
>with one shaft offline
Also it arguably wasn't even Baker that sank Nagato, but unrepaired damage below the waterline from sixty near misses at Yokosuka. Surprise, if you hit a ship that's one foot in the grave with two nukes then abandon it for several days it'll sink.

>>53421671
>kt is the yield
Disregard that bit, but still. Damage assessment of that blast was screwy, point stands.

File: IMG_6278.jpg (446KB, 864x648px) Image search: [Google]

446KB, 864x648px

>>53422668
I've got her sitting here on my desk, waiting on my to get back to my MN stuff.

>>53424874
I had to go do some digging. I'd never seen Jean Bart after she was finished, but I knew it wasn't Richlieu or one of the Dunquerkes. Quite an AAA patch she grew.

Just played a demo game of Naval War at the FLGS.
Went pretty well, though my opponent had some trouble swapping from land-based movement and firing arcs to naval stuff.
He also failed to realise his modern destroyers would have been stronk vs my battleship.

End result:
US had battleship USS Washington slightly damaged (affected propulsion) and heavy cruiser USS Houston moderately damaged and fleeing with engine damage. Destroyer USS Alden got peppered with 5-inch rounds from two IJN destroyers before taking a long lance torpedo hit, annihilating the little old craft.
Heavy cruiser USS San Francisco, light cruiser USS Atlanta and destroyers USS John D Ford and John D Edwards were all untouched.

IJN had battlecruiser Kirishima crippled and unlikely to escape, heavy cruiser Nachi moderately damaged, heavy cruiser Haguro crippled and without propulsion in firing range of USS Washington and destroyer Sazanami crippled and barely afloat.
Light cruiser Naka and destroyer Ushio untouched.

Pretty interesting game.
We'd left out the command stations providing advanced orders, which did slow down the game a fair bit by preventing gunnery buffs, moving at flank speed etc.
First 2 turns were basically just maneuvering plus ineffective ranging shots.

But by the end of turn 4 IJN Kirishima ("fast battleship") was heavily damaged and fleeing from USS Washington (actual fast battleship).
Dem 16" guns.

File: image.jpg (23KB, 320x128px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 320x128px

>>53431700
Nice. Probably no pics since you were busy teaching, but it was still nice to read. Real life keeps devouring my time, so I've yet to get in another game. I'm pretty excited about finally having an excuse to paint up the bigger portion of my USN stuff finally.

>>53414225
>>53417420

If Gorshkov was so hot for battleships, why didn't the Soviets field any of their own? It's not as if Ivan could compete with the US in carriers...

>>53436069
The usual answer to the question if battleships are so good why there hasn't been new ones built since Vanguard/Jean Bart is to blame a global carrier&submarine mafia conspiracy against them.

File: shot-17.05.26_01.18.57-0962.jpg (2MB, 3440x1440px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3440x1440px

>>53347223
Uh, no

>>53347223
Do you legitimately not know the Queen Elizabeth-class existed?

File: Battleship_Andrea_Doria.png (710KB, 1185x756px) Image search: [Google]

710KB, 1185x756px

>>53347223
How about no

>>53437713

Some jackass pilot tried to fly a plane between those two superstructures at least once. I know this.

File: Courbet-Marius_Bar-img_3152.jpg (3MB, 4052x2373px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4052x2373px

>>53438293
>jackass pilot

There are pilots that aren't jackasses?

File: Bad Day for Bolzano.jpg (128KB, 806x518px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 806x518px

>>53438481
Next thing you'll be telling me they don't engage in homoerotic volleyball matches to establish dominance structures. And that may or may not be meant as a euphemism.

File: Turn 5 climax.jpg (446KB, 864x648px) Image search: [Google]

446KB, 864x648px

Just a Naval War heads up: The Midway Order of Battle just got posted as a surprise release for the 75th Anniversary.

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

>>53440335
Taking a look at it, it's not just the carrier battles; there's also lists for the IJN supporting fleets.

In other words, a historically legitimate reason to bring Yamato, Nagato and Mutsu in the same force.

File: IJN Nagato Ise and co.jpg (392KB, 1200x432px) Image search: [Google]

392KB, 1200x432px

>>53440454
Yes, and I'm hype for that reason. I've been wanting a good excuse to run Nagato for a long time. I really need to pick up some Japanese carriers already. I pretty well just have surface combatants and odd things when it comes to IJN.

>>53442252
>>53441719
>>53438481
>>53431152
>>53424874
>>53422668
Why are French ships so sexy?

>>53444487
Med-based ships are sexy as hell, both French and Italian.

File: HMS Sikh HMS Jamaica HMNZS Achilles.jpg (325KB, 1000x345px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 1000x345px

Finished up some RN to add to the group. HMS Sikh, HMS Jamaica, HMNZS Achilles.

I really need to get my hands on Graf Spee so I can run River Plate.

I'm working on painting Rodney as well, but I don't think I'll get back to her until next week.

>>53444487
"British sports cars are designed for mechanics. Italian sports cars are designed for looks. German sports cars are designed to *last*."

An old, bad, joke; but also an accurate comment on national design philosophies, that may also apply to naval architecture.

Thinking of trying a new run on RtW. What's some interesting tweaks I can make? I've already tried starting with maximum tech, and a run with very slow tech. What would really shake things up and lead to interesting new ship designs to try out?

>>53451682
Nothing above cruiser size.

JEUNE ECOLE
E
U
N
E

E
C
O
L
E

>>53451682

Just before my interest was ... diverted ... I was trying out the '4-tier' school of shipbuilding:

BB's & BC's - as usual.
CA's - about 1/3 the tonnage of a BB/BC & designed to sink the enemy CL's.
CL's - about 1/3 the tonnage of a CA (& about 3 times the tonnage of a DD) & designed to sink DD's (aka Destroyer Leaders)
DD's - as usual & chock full of torps (with a 2" gun or 2 - see CL above.) - guess what their job is ;-)

Naturally, this starts to kick in only after you get the BB's & BC's.

If you do try it out, let me know how it works out, please.

>>53451941
>>53451682
Guerre de course

Commerce raiders errywhere.

>>53453010

So, business as usual, then?

I think he asked for tweaks - not vanilla.

>>53453041
No, I mean solely commerce raiding. No dick waving, no stand up fights, no Mahan.

>>53453169

>No dick waving, no stand up fights, no Mahan.

Well that sounds like nofunallowed.jpg

File: tanksbutnotanks.jpg (159KB, 1400x943px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1400x943px

>>53451682
I don't know if you can actually do this in your game, but, "OGRE mode"? 1 side has the biggest, most ridiculously overgunned BB they can make, and nothing else. Every other side has nothing bigger than a DD, possibly a CL.

Optionally, if air power matters, allow 1 BB and 1 fleet carrier for the OGRE player, and CVLs for the other players. The OGRE carrier and battleship have to operate together.

>>53453746

Unfortunately, not possible.

1. You have absolutely no control over your opponents builds.
2. Your opponents are programmed to adapt to your designs.
3. One un-escorted BB has a snowflake's chance in hell vs. a dozen DD's. (especially lategame)

Noice idea, tho.

>>53451682
No manually upgrading your dock size, only rely on random events to do so or better learn to save them tons, m8.

Another one could be the bare minimum run:

Destroyer (DD)
>Displacement less than 2000 and speed more than 19 knots. Must have torpedoes. It cannot be armoured.

Light Cruiser (CL)
>Displacement larger than 2000 and less than 8000. Speed must be more than 16 knots and main gun calibre cannot be larger than 6 inches, unless it is a protected cruiser in which case it can have guns in single mountings up to 8 inches.

Predreadnought Battleship (B)
>Displacement must be at least 5000 and it must have belt armour at least 6 inches. Main gun calibre must be larger than 6 inches and speed less than 20 knots. It cannot have more than 2 main turrets.

Armoured Cruiser (CA)
>Displacement must be more than 4000 and speed greater than 19 knots. It must have more than 2 inches of belt armour but no more than 12 inches. Main guns must be at least 6 inches calibre and cannot be more than 11 inches.

Battlecruiser (BC)
>Must have main gun calibre larger than 10 inches and speed more than 23 knots, or three main gun turrets and speed more than 21 knots. In some borderline cases armour thickness can be the difference between a BC and a BB. Speed requirement rises with time, as fast battleships develop.

Dreadnought battleship (BB)
>Must have at least 3 main gun turrets, displacement over 8000 and belt armour of more than 6 inches. Main guns must be more than 10 inches.

File: sure-keith.jpg (92KB, 909x391px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 909x391px

>>53459886

Almost as much youtried.jpg as the French sub with cruiser-tier main guns.

File: 9uiynGN.jpg (267KB, 997x558px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 997x558px

>>53460735
At least the french knew when to give up on their hairbrained prototypes.

>>53460735
Tbf that was pretty early into the era of submarines as viable weapons of war so some pretty questionable designs and ideas how to use them in war was to be expected.

File: k2a.jpg (20KB, 600x273px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 600x273px

>>53462714
*sinks*

>>53393934

>Put this inbetween the lines of any nation in BNat.dat

Could you give me an example of how to do this please?

File: spanish 12k ton dread 1900.png (18KB, 937x360px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 937x360px

>>53467063
Open the [insert nation name here].nat file you want to edit in notepad, copypaste the text in pastabin there, save, and voila you've unlocked all techs.

>>53463972
>build a high speed submarine
>when even the biggest speed obsessed assburger in rn thinks that it is a bad idea

>>53467063
Open the Bnat.dat in notepad or something, the nation data should look something like this

[Nation0]
Name=Germany
Name2=German
TroubleRegion=in the Balkans
Leader=Kaiser
AdmiralRank=Admiral
AdmiralName=Tirpitz
BuildAreaName=Northern Europe
GovernmentType=1
FlagFileName=Ge.bmp
DockSize=14000
FlahFires=1
BaseResources=18
HBR=8
Friend=Austria
Research1Advantage=1
Research4Advantage=1
Research7Advantage=1
Guns2=0
Guns3=1
Guns4=0
Guns5=-1
Guns6=0
Guns7=0
Guns8=0
Guns9=0
Guns10=0
Guns11=-1
Guns12=9
Guns13=9
Guns14=9
Guns15=9
Guns16=9
Guns17=9
Guns18=9
Intelligence=1
Sigint=0
GGP=0
RGP1=1
RGP2=0
Cautious=1
GlobalNavalPower=0
TechnicalExcellence=1
GovernmentType=1
EfficientShipbuildingIndustry=0
UndevelopedShipbuildingIndustry=0
PoorEducation=0
Bombastic=1
Colonies=1
DesignPriority=3
TurretStyle=2
BTL1=72

Copy the text in https://pastebin.com/4aejqp6z and paste it beneath BTL1=72. You can also modify other data in the file to modify the government type, dock size, guns available, nation traits, etc. once you're done save the file and open the RtW.

>>53461315
>At least the french knew when to give up on their hairbrained prototypes.

Well, the IJN versions of >>53459886 were less of a "harebrained prototypes" and more of a "complete failure to even use as planned". While Japan failed to make any real effort against WAllie merchant shipping despite German/Italian examples and pleas, can you imagine the havoc an IJN patrol line/wolfpack armed with Type 93 torps and with organic air scouting could have caused?

Imagine what the KM U-boats could have done in the mid-Atlantic air gap with organic air recon until the CVEs were built.

>>53471119
>can you imagine the havoc an IJN patrol line/wolfpack armed with Type 93 torps and with organic air scouting could have caused?

Given that this is IJN we're talking about they probably would had found some new creative way to fuck it all up.

>>53472490

Sad, but very true. The IJN had some wonderful kit.

>>53470602
Is there something in there that could be tweaked to up the basic budget? Might be a giggle to play with larger fleets for everyone.
Could perhaps efficient ship building be tweaked to go higher than 1 too for faster ship construction so as to get battleships in 2 years rather than 2 and a half for instance?

>>53473227
>Could perhaps efficient ship building be tweaked to go higher than 1

At casual glance national traits seem to operate on binary system where "0" is no and "1" is yes so I doubt it.

>>53462714
Yeah, it's important to keep in mind that during WWI, submarines weren't yet all about submerged attacks like they would be in WWII and later. Their main deal was basically being a warship that had a strategic freedom of mobility that traditional surface craft couldn't match, that could pop up more or less anywhere it wanted. And even a shitty light warship with only some torpedoes can do a whole lot of damage if it can just slip past the enemy's blockade and romp around in waters he'd considered safe. In some ways, they were basically light destroyers with some stealth capability bolted on top. From that perspective, it kind of made sense to try and beef them up to cruiser-level, particularly since cruisers were the prototypical commerce raiders of the time.

And on top of that you can then add the factor that torpedoes were still a relatively new weapon system at the time (and would see significant development and troubles well into WWII), whereas the classic big old gun was proven and reliable.

>>53473227
>Is there something in there that could be tweaked to up the basic budget? Might be a giggle to play with larger fleets for everyone.

BaseResources=(value) and HBR=(value)

HBR is historical budgets. The value ingame is always half the value in the bnat.dat file, so, for example, if you want to up every nation's budget to the max, add 40 to both lines for 20 million base resources. Be aware that Great Britain has the Global Naval Power modifier, which gives them an automatic raise in budget if another nation overtakes them in naval spending.

>>53482162
Sweet, thanks, will give it a try and see what monstrosities happen.

blump

>>53485355

jfc I looked at that and thought "That's a Tone class" and then I looked at the file name.

I have no life.

>>53486207
Japanese heavy cruiser turret autism makes them easy to recognize.

Tone probably has one of the most recognisable profiles of any WW2 ship, together with Rodney/Nelson probably

>>53488499
Weird looking turret arrangements have their advantages.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei30pLIK9_Y

Seems pretty cool, going to be out in June

File: Ship Boarding Action.jpg (194KB, 1200x600px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 1200x600px

Hope this isn't the wrong place to ask this:

I've currently got a Pathfinder game going and the party's in a harbor considering buying a ship. I planned the campaign with them taking the overland route to their destination, but I hadn't considered they might want to go by sea (my oversight).

One of them was a sailor in their backstory and another one was a smuggler. They put points into Profession: Sailor/Smuggler so I'd feel bad not letting them put it to use.

My players are pretty cool, so I'm sure if I just said 'please go by land, all my plans were expecting you to go by land' they'd oblige me without any fuss, but I'd rather not do that if I can draw up some plans before next session to cover the sea route.

Sure I've got 'Sea Monster attack', 'boarding actions', 'exploring water temples/sunken ships', 'searching islands for supplies', and 'responding to emergency flares' as tried-and-true aquatic campaign fare, but some of the ships in the harbor have cannons on them which leaves me open to have some more traditional naval engagements and I'd already mentioned in the campaign notes that at least two naval powers were contesting the waters they'd be going through.

My question (finally) is this:
Is there a good rules system/module that can be quickly and easily 'tacked on' to a Pathfinder Campaign that can keep 5 players occupying a single boat occupied with enough stuff to do, that lets them engage in more surface-to-surface combat actions?

I'm sure I can get by without one, and it's not like Pathfinder doesn't have -some- rules governing this sort of thing (There may even be a PF splatbook for this specific thing I've never heard of). I just want to make sure 3/5ths of my party isn't bored, and I'm curious to see if there's a more streamlined suggestion available to answer my needs and this seems like the appropriate thread to post this question.

Also a general request for aquatic-themed DnD sessions/encounters to go in my Notebook of Canned Encounters.

File: 7th SEA NAVAL COMBAT v3.pdf (757KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

757KB, 1x1px

>>53495301
>Is there a good rules system/module that can be quickly and easily 'tacked on' to a Pathfinder Campaign that can keep 5 players occupying a single boat occupied with enough stuff to do, that lets them engage in more surface-to-surface combat actions?

Not really, no. Three reasons:
1) Naval rules written for d20 systems have invariably sucked. As in, "literally don't funtion as rulesets."
2) Spellcasters generally render ships and traditional naval combat pointless ("fireball to the rigging" being only the most blatantly obvious example).
3) It's really hard to make ship functions (which require several dozen men at least) work while "starring" your 4-6 PCs without their presence being pointless or overpowering.

My suggestion would be to use an age of sail wargame ruleset to run ship-based encounters. Figure out some way for your naval-specced PCs to give significant bonuses to traditional ship functions (so one PC may be a helmsman and be able to cut the ship's turning radius in half, make it harder to hit, etc), and your non-naval-specced PCs can take "miscellaneous" actions to do various things which'll require a large amount of GM fiat to settle (exhort the crew to be more efficient, cast spells to have X or Y effect, etc).

The big thing is making navals more of a wargame (and "zooming in" to RPG scale if needed). That keeps the focus and interest on ships, which should almost be characters in their own right. Giving your non-naval PCs freedom of action with an understanding you may say "no" is critical to keeping their interest. And I highly recommend making the God of the Sea a jealous god that smites the shit out of mages who screw around too much on the surface, see point #2, above.

Attached isn't PF-related, but it's how I integrated naval combat into 7th Sea (which had famously bad naval rules) with a similar party mix of naval and non-naval specced PCs. May help, may not.

>>53485355
2 turrets forward, up to 4 broadside, nothing aft.

Also, having to put one turret up on blocks to make it work.

[*head explodes*]

>>53496470
Yes but look at all the weight we are saving by only needing one big magazine instead of two smaller ones on each end of the ship sandwiching the engineering spaces.

Why has it taken me this long to work out I can press 'e' to make time run in RtW battles rather than having to manually click it?

Should I blame the manual?

>>53498335
I think that SAI manual might have included that.

File: Italian_battleship_Andrea_Doria.jpg (61KB, 743x411px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 743x411px

>>53438293
Sadly, by the time decent planes were around, the gap had been closed. Even though, to be honest, I can't completely deny that it might have happened with biplanes.

>>53496470
No weirder than half of RtW designs that appear in these threads.

>>53499621
Checked, it doesn't but apparently you can control how long the battle runs before pausing via number keys.

File: HNLMS De Zeven Provinciën.jpg (73KB, 700x585px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 700x585px

Has anyone had any success with small coastal battleships in RtW? Vessels like the Sverige class, Väinämöinen, or De Zeven Provincien? Low tonnage, slow, max armor, and fewer big guns? Against later vessels with long range torpedoes I realize something like this is likely a floating tomb but the idea appeals to me.

>>53517501
Out of those Sverige-cass probably would probably be the only one to make a halfway decent mini-bb for RtW.
>better armored (8 inch belt, 1.5 inch deck, 8 inch turret) & armed (4 11 inch guns) than väinäminen (2 inch belt, 1 inch deck, 4 inch turret + 4 10 inch guns) and de zeven provincien (6 inch belt, 2 inch deck, 6 inch turret + 2 11 inch guns)
>decently fast (22 knots) unlike the other too (14 knots for the finnish ship and 16 knot for the dutch one)

>>53518559

I'll refine my question I suppose. Has anyone ever focused on purely defensive short ranged coastal vessels with low tonnage, large guns, good armor, and lower speeds?

I'm considering a very specific style of building in my next campaign which will likely be an Italian or Austrian game. Coastal Defense BB to protect home waters, Strong armored cruisers for hunting raiders and for raiding themselves(likely followed by BCs in later years), fast low tonnage all gun light cruisers for screening and killing DD, and plentiful amounts of DD and SS.

A version of the Jeune École style.

>>53517501
i tried a game as spain where i just spammed 8k ton b's as my legacy fleet. was sort of fun blockading much large nations and not partaking in fleet battles

>>53518778
Probably could work for Austria given that they really don't have to leave Mediterranean and thus the limitations that come with short ranged ships shouldn't really bother them.

>>53518778
>>53521169
I must've been doing something wrong. Had 5 Coastal pre-dreads, about a dozen raider CAs (<10k tons, 24kts speed, low armor, 4x10 or 11in guns), about a dozen raider CLs (<4k tons, 24-25kts speed), half dozen destroyer destroyer CLs (~6.5k tons, lots of 6in guns), and over 50 high speed, short range torpedo boats. Also around 20 subs

>be AH at war with Italy in 1905
>just spammed with fleet battles that I have to decline because I have 5 coastal Bs to their dozen or so regular Bs
>finally get forced into a large battle
>AI controlled DD squadrons stay on the outside of my command squadrons plinking away with their 1x3in gun instead of going for torp runs with their 4 tubes when I close range with the enemy fleet
>CAs therefore die because the DDs don't want to do their job
>later, sink one of their Bs with a sub
>less than 100 VP for me ;^)

The only luck I had was my CAs were good at killing their interceptors and I did fairly well on the coastal bombardment mission because the AI doesn't design CAs with 24kts speed at the beginning of the game

Well I tried a super-budget for everyone (not maxed out but close), 40% tech speed game, playing as Germany. Stopped at 1925.

Somehow I got in 4 wars with the USA and 2 with Italy, which lead to lots of long range colony wars stuff. However, the increased budgets really did see a lot more DDs and CLs in the AI fleets, which was rather nice. But due to the nature of the wars I didn't get a proper fleet battle out of anyone.

I think I might give it another go, see if I can fight more local opponents rather than have to build everything for fighting in everywhere but my home waters. The slower tech was interesting, lead to a long period of just massive amounts of crappy battle-cruisers being built by everyone because building BBs would have meant going really slow.

>>53521473
The AI can derp out at the times
>you mean that we should support our fellow battlecruisers in a battle against the french in the english canal? sorry sir, no can do, we would much rather go and have a tourist trip across the uk's east coast
>run away and live to fight another day? are you a fucking coward? we'll fucking charge straight into their guns even though they outnumber us 12 to 1 and are so fucking slow that they'll have no chance in hell of catching up to us if we run
>firing torpedoes against stationary targets in a night time raid against enemy fleet? that doesn't sound too fair, what if we wait until they wake up and have time to get their boats into fighting shape so that will get to engage them in a fair fight

>>53522024
>do pretty decent damage to the enemy fleet
>break off and head south
>that one CA that says "fuck this I'm not done with them" and turns around to re-engage the entire enemy fleet
>dies instantly skewing the score to the enemies favor

>>53522296
This seems to happen a lot, seen it dozens of times.

>>53522678
"Friendly" AI forces seem to be filled with quislings just trying to find an opportunity to sink your ships.

File: 20170118052225_1.jpg (546KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

546KB, 1920x1080px

>>53523018
I think you mean "filled with heroes."

Is it true that there is a RtW sequel in the works and if so is it still? I'd really like to see CV/CVL/CVEs etc and for it to be brought out with tech and whatnot to 1950 or so.
Also having the AI fight each other and for tension to be toned down a bit so it isn't sometimes a new war every couple of years. It'd be cool to see two nations with mostly treaty ships have to try to duke it out.

>>53525129
Yeah, the devs are still working on it. One of them posted a screenshot of the WiP radar system a while back. Carriers are confirmed, as is a timeline/tech extension to 1950.

>>53525889
>carriers

There goes the whole point of the game.

>>53527692

So just end it in 1925.
wtf's the problem?

Personally, I'll be building nothing but CVE's with 20% recon, 80% fighters onboard for muh carrier force ...
BB's all day, every day, yo.

File: Ise1944.png (264KB, 1011x598px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 1011x598px

>>53525129
Neat. That should open up a lot of ship design options

>>53527692
>not wanting to design carriers with different aircraft loadouts
>not wanting to design AAA gun boats loaded with dakka
>not wanting to try having a fleet of BBCVs Ise style instead of having BBs and CVs
>not wanting to design specialized CV hunters with high speed and long-range guns

File: SMS_Derfflinger.jpg (2MB, 2625x1768px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2625x1768px

I'd love to see an earlier start than 1900 added. Maybe just 1890. But just to fill in that late pre-dreadnought era a bit more.

Or just more options built in to extend out that WW1 era. Even with massively reduced research speed, things get a bit explodey too quickly. Like an option for reduced AP. Saying that having 10% research rate lead to interesting bullshit in that since dock size increased normally, was seeing 20k+ tonnage B's which were completely immune to everything except mines and torpedoes because no-one had the AP shells to get through anything. Lasted a good...8 years that way.

>>53527866
>not wanting to try having a fleet of BBCVs Ise style instead of having BBs and CVs

How about:
>not wanting to try having AP shells flying anywhere near a shitload of avgas & HE.

flash fires: just say NO.

If they add CVs will Airships be possible too?

>>53528245
They would probably be included as an abstract thing like subs, just being a map marker that reports more accurately within it's line of sight.

>>53527866
>Fast CVLs with a dedicated scout/strike wings escorted by a heavy cruiser and a pair or so of AA cruisers for commerce raids and lightning strikes on distant outposts.

>CL/CV hybrids for solo commerce raiding and outpost duties.

>CVLs dedicated to scouting/CAP coverage for Battlegroups.

>Building airfields instead of shore emplacements.

Yeah i'm already planning this shit out. I still prefer worlds without carriers and aircraft but i'll quite happily play in ones that have them as long as I get to tinker with my own designs.

File: never fired a single shot.jpg (83KB, 922x322px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 922x322px

>>53528436
> I still prefer worlds without carriers and aircraft

Hopefully the developers will listen to some of the forum members and include a checkbox to disable (or heavily nerf) air power, like the current Historical Budgets and Randomized Tech boxes.

File: RIP Nicky.jpg (82KB, 501x466px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 501x466px

>>53528930
And again I forget to remove the name, fuck's sake.

Also, noticed this earlier. Normally the leaders just get deposed, but the Russkies in this game went straight for the firing squad.

>>53528991
Limited democracies and autocracies seem to be more likely to go for the firing squad solution if their government collapses.

>>53525061
There is nothing heroic in sinking valuable ships in an attempt to prove that your dick isn't small.

>>53525889
Hopefully the max ship size also gets upgraded, 52k tons isn't enough for my megalomaniac designs.

>>53487415

Well...it's like recognizing the Nelson or Rodney, I guess.

>>53527866
The Ise conversions were the result of cost and time restrictions more than a desire to deploy a "hybrid" ship.

>>53528054
Avgas was stored in the space for the aft magazine, protected at deck level by plates salvaged from the turrets. A shot that would've destroyed the ships outright would've done so regardless of what was in the magazine in question, and they weren't intended to stand in a line anyway so large shells setting off the munitions for the planes wasn't an issue.

>>53531951
>they weren't intended to stand in a line anyway

Aaand here's the main reason I'll never (ever) be building them right there.
It's like a friggin' BattleCruiser discussion all over again:
Too small hangar to be an effective CV, too few guns (and armor) to be an effective BB.

Cut the half-assed jobs out and make some proper ships, will ya?

>>53534395
>It's like a friggin' BattleCruiser discussion all over again:

Tbf German battlecruisers were actually decent idea for the era when you couldn't have speed, guns, and armor on your fast capital ships.

>>53535378

Somewhat, yeah.
OTOH, 3 or 4 times more CL's (or same amount of BB's) would've been much more useful, IMHO.

>>53527692
There will most likely be options for games with varied tech like there already is in the current game. These will likely include an option where aircraft do not exist, or are otherwise impractical to put on ships.

Or if you are really masochistic, it would be cool if in some games planes and carriers exist, but the politicians prevent you from building them because that's the Air Force's job.

>>53537404
>, but the politicians prevent you from building them because that's the Air Force's job.

The good old Göring way of thinking where anything that flies and is larger than a bullet belongs to the airforce,

File: aquila-1[1].jpg (75KB, 1200x470px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 1200x470px

>>53537404
>but the politicians prevent you from building them because that's the Air Force's job.

>Italy is her own aircraft carrier

Fucking Mussolini.

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

451KB, 720x540px

>>53537404
Do you also get the bonus of Air Force units being always AI controlled, and them being especially helpful?

>>53538902
>friendly ai
>helpful

They'll all be reckless to a point that a kamikaze pilot would tell them to chill down and think what they're about to do.

>>53539749
I mean helpful in the sense that they only show up rarely, and when they do, they doggedly bomb your forces, while ignoring the enemy, hence the candystripes.

>>53539798
>thinking that stripes will save you from "accidentally" getting bombed/torpedoed by supposedly friendly flyboys

>>53538902
These are cute, where are they from?

>>53542313
Axis and Allies: War at Sea. Dead game that had a decent rule set.

Just finished a small fleet size game as Japan where I never build anything bigger than a 15k ton CA. I still managed to kick Germany completely out of the Pacific AND Africa and get the better of France in SEA(though I only got one of their colonies. Of course the biggest vessel sunk on any side was a CL and I could count the number of times I saw a BB on one hand.

I shall be trying something similar as the CSA in a Large+ game next.

>>53542276
They won't be able to see the stripes until they have already dropped torpedoes.

>>53534395
Battlecruisers are for shooting the enemy's normal cruisers at range, so you're immune to their fire but yours will still sink them.