/nwg/ naval wargames general

>>53551625
Scharnhorst is not a cute butt nazi.

>>53552328
I can't help but feel we don't make things as grand as we used to, even if the scale of modern cruise liners or CVs more than match or surpass the old battleships.

>>53551982
>scharnhorsts
>not cuties

>>53553829
Flat tops just aren't visually as stimulating as the old gun armed ships of the years gone by.

Hey guys was sent here by /awg/. Mainly looking for a good easy to teach and fun to play naval war game rule set. Don't mind if its fantastical, steampunk, or historical just want something fun to play.

>>53558497
Naval War https://www.naval-war.com/ gets recommended around here pretty often.

>>53558497

Does that let me do any world one stuff? Seems very ww2 focused.

File: image.jpg (170KB, 1102x1637px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 1102x1637px

>>53562578
That's all it covers at the moment. If you want fast and loose ww1/predread stuff, take a look in the media fire and find Ship Blows Up! It's a /tg/ original from back when there were naval threads before /hwg/ and before the current round of naval generals. If you want something with some more meat on it's bones, take a look at Grand Fleets and General Quarters 3: Fleet Action Imminent. Naval War is a fun game though, and it's worth actually giving a go. You can download the Victory Sea books and print off counters and only pay the cost of paper and toner, so no need to feel like minis are a hurdle to trying it out.

File: waitwat.jpg (258KB, 1009x725px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 1009x725px

I think I am finally getting the hang of this ship design drawing tool thing.

You guys think ekranoplanes could have gotten invented around the times of ww1? seriously considering them for this naval game I'm making.

>>53564840

To add to this more around the "Era" of world war one.Want to have a more fantastical naval scene for this world I'm building.

File: o blyad.jpg (238KB, 1352x780px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 1352x780px

Reminder to armour your turrets properly

>>53564840
I don't know how well those engines would deal with being that close to water with all the spray and stuff.

Theoretically the principle is there but I am not sure the design capabilities could make it work, reliably.

>>53565287

Hmmm, ok. Might have to look into it more.

Can anyone knowing more about ship design give me a couple designs for ship hulls of the period?

>>53565563
New or old, what kind of size? Shit was changing rapidly in lot of subtle ways.

>>53566748

Say from pre-dreadnought era to about world war two. Thinking I'm gonna go with a lot of tumblehome designs with some of the sexy ugliness of the pre-dreadnoughts.

By the way what is everyones favorite rule sets for naval warfare?

>Naval War
>Victory at Sea
>Dystopian Wars

These are the ones I know and the ones I'm drawing inspiration from but I wanted some input. Really considering doing an alternative to dystopian wars at the moment because I fell I could offer a potentially better product that'd actually be supported if given a chance.

>>53565038

>3" guns on CL
>only 21kt speed

You deserve everything you get, anon ...

File: 11.jpg (52KB, 923x323px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 923x323px

>>53566893
Nah, this is mine.
Designed for 22kts, but ended up with 23 due to a lucky event. 3" secondaries are also pretty great for ripping apart DDs and early 4" armed CLs at close range. Usually I just put between 8 or 12 on mine, this one is sort of an experiment.

>>53566997

I used to put 3" guns on mine, too - but found out more 6" works better.
Put in 10 or 12 6" guns, keep your distance, and watch the enemy CL's & DD's melt away.

>>53567334
Personally I've found 24 knot design with 3 inch belt + 8 or so (1 both fore and aft centerline, rest being along the sides) to be the most effective early game CL design.

File: Rodnol.jpg (752KB, 1200x751px) Image search: [Google]

752KB, 1200x751px

Finally finished Rodnol, so have some shitty pics. She looks a little better in person, but I'm still not happy with the way some of the camo looks, and I may go back and try to clean edges up further.

File: $_57[1].jpg (90KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1024x768px

>>53573322
I did quite a bit to her, to make her more detailed. I added botes, her catapult, mast, crane, and anchor chains. I also had to scratchbuild another turret after losing her "A" turret due to me being an idiot.

Pic for reference of what she looked like before.

>>53573322
Nice work on the turret and crane!

My experimentation has lead to good results.

Setting everyone's starting tech levels to 4, 10% research rate, large fleets, massively increased budget, dock size around 20k (just swapping the 1 for a 2 in size).

Has lead to some really good large battleship battles. Lots of use of wing turrets to start with, things not too explodey, fleets able to engage in large numbers but able to hurt each other with some work unlike the Bs era, and a long period of time this lasts for.

Am up to 1919, playing as Germany. Had a couple of brief wars with the USA, a really long knock-down and drag out fight with the Russians that initially outnumbered my fleet. Lots of big fleet clashes there. Currently running a winning war against both Russia (dregs of a fleet from the last war, hit bad by a harsh treaty that came in and stalled their rebuilding whilst I was just refitting everything) and the UK (bit more of a problem there) and still managing to not have everything explode even though torpedoes are getting a bit more vicious. Start of game ships have been worth hanging on to with gun quality upgrades, because starting out with Torpedo Protection 2 strapped on means they're still hanging on even whilst the dreaded torpedo barrages have been getting harder. And 11 inch guns are still doing great with ammo upgrades. They're losing out on range to the newer bigger guns (biggest so far is a 14") but director fire has only just been coming in so hardly anyone is making use of the range.

>>53566719
[anger noises]

File: brutal.jpg (124KB, 935x657px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 935x657px

>>53579721
Continuing this, just had my own 'Battle of Jutland'. British fleet decided to engage the Germans, but the timing was bad and they hit at night. Whilst daylight was still going, German battlecruisers were already giving favourable signs from managing to hold their own against the lead British battleships in a 10km~ish range gun duel whilst the main battleship fleet caught up.

And then the murders started.

File: 1396527713676.gif (1MB, 482x344px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 482x344px

>>53585645

>Eagle Orgasm Intensifies

But seriously...holy hell. What did you do? Did you DDs just rape face in the night or what?

>>53586572
A lot of it was just down to tactics, though admittedly I was only in control of a few ships whilst most of the battle was a giant swirling clusterfuck.

But, I did emphasise night fighting training, which probably helped a lot. Torpedoes certainly did a number but being able to hit their ships with 11" guns at short range and tank a bunch of their hits in return really worked out. My BBs and BCs just got in close and started hammering away, broke up their battle line and chased down ships as they failed to retreat in good order. Once a ship slowed down or stopped it just got torn up.

>>53585645

>not farming the enemy for prestige by letting them off lightly (i.e. sinking just 2 or 3 CA/B/BB/BC's each time)

do you even Rule the Waves?

And actually now I think about it, crew experience for my fleet was pretty good from fighting the Russians, so that probably played a big factor in being able to out-shoot the British fleet and probably better damage control (I assume that's affected by experience).

>>53586870
Needed to go for the big casualties to break their blockade.

>>53586930
>Needed to go for the big casualties to break their blockade.

The only downside of a blockade is the increase in Unrest Level - which drops if you score Major wins.
Not sure by how much, tho - at least 1, if not 2.

So: lots of Major Wins (as per above) = fuck the Blockade.

>>53586930
>>53587035

Oh, and:
Less Capital Ships lost = less chance of AI going on a highly annoying sub-spamming spree.

HIGHLY annoying.

>>53586870
>tfw you once abused cruiser battles to savage the French fleet and get a major prestige boost

>>53582552
Still upset that the bulldog ended up becoming an ammo barge?

>>53587736

>tfw building a shitload of tiny (ie 9k tonne legacy) B's (or BB's) to help blockade - and a handful of massive (ie 16k tonne legacy) CA's (or BC's) to murder stuff.

100+ prestige here I come.

>>53565563
>Can anyone knowing more about ship design give me a couple designs for ship hulls of the period?

>>53566791
>Say from pre-dreadnought era to about world war two.

Hull changes from the pre-dred era through WW2? There are multi-volume historical studies detailing such changes within specific navies and for specific ship types alone.

You might as well ask how air frame designs changed between 1903 and 1945.

>>53589767
>tfw there is no prestige level beyond getting an aircraft carrier named after you

>>53587104
In my experience the AI is prone to go for submarine spam if it is in an overwhelming position of weakness compared to you with or without you having to sink lots of capital ships.

>>53595777
>Just like doitsu in my chinese cartoons

>>53595777

Well, sure - but sinking a lot of their battleships helps accelerate the process.

>>53591540

You know some of these volumes?

File: SMS_Ersatz_Yorck_line_color-aaa3[1].png (3KB, 894x278px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 894x278px

>>53594462
Sometimes I really wish they had completed the Mackensens and Ersatz-Yorcks, just so we had some pictures of them in their finished state. I just love the bows on the German BCs.

>>53596516
>>You know some of these volumes?

You're either a glutton for punishment or too stupid to understand just how much technical data you're asking for.

Start with the names "Nathan Okun" and "R.A. Burt". Next, move on to both the United States Naval Institute (USNI) and "Janes" to look for the appropriate technical titles in their huge library lists. Look through the bibiliographies of Ospreys linked in the OP too. The many names and many titles you come up with should give you a lengthy list of books to acquire via inter-library loan.

You've no conception about the enormity of the topic you asked about. There's no "Babbie's 1st Many Reasons Behind Historical Hull Design Evolution" flash card set. You're going to be digging through dense technical texts explaining how a bewildering mixture of tactical theories, technological capabilities, budgetary limitations, espionage reports, AARs, and other factors drove and changed ship designs and how those designs differed between nations.

People earn their doctorates digging into this stuff.

>>53597329

>You're either a glutton for punishment or too stupid

Both. But I think I'll narrow it down to Pre-dreadnoughts to the dreadnoughts of world war one. All I'm literally wanting to do is to see why they designed ships the way they did in these time periods. Really just want some material to read into when I'm designing thr rough outlines of my game.

I think it's safe to say that England would not have been able to fully refit all of their older dreads and BBs like the US did with Nevada, Texas, etc...

How feasible would it have been to just take out the midships turrets and put in more boilers+better turbines to make them heavy cruiser equivalents for WWII?

>>53564780
What program is this?

>>53602135
Rule the Waves

>>53601957
Not really, the hull shape isn't suitable for speeds useful for cruisers. Really only WW1 capital ships that could had been useful for WW2 if rebuilt properly that Brits didn't end up keeping were Tiger+Lions.

>>53606135
How about older BBs in general, not just British? They had decent armor, and 8 12- or 14-inch guns is still battlecruiser-tier: would replacing the midships turrets with an enlarged powerplant have brought old designs like the Ise and Fuso up to a 30+ knot top speed? The result would be comparable to the Hood and Alaska...

File: wwi-de-bb.png (723KB, 3838x4708px) Image search: [Google]

723KB, 3838x4708px

>>53596599

>>53607747
Part of it was treaty obligations, but mostly it's because it's never that simple: any class of pre-holiday capital ship I can think of had issues that limited what you could do to modernize them. The R-class rolled too much, the Nagatos had too little space available over their machinery for decently thick armor, the Standards were fat, etc.

At a certain point if you want a cruiser just build a fucking cruiser.

File: 2017-06-04 14.16.27.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

Not historical, but today was the Finnish military parade day and they had several navy ships docked at the harbour near my home so I went to take some pictures. This one is the Uusimaa, sister ship of the flagship of the Finnish navy (who was not present due to being currently on a training cruise). Offcially classed as a minelayer, she can also function as an escort and anti-submarine ship, among other things.

File: 2017-06-04 13.49.28.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>53610925
Here's a picture taken from her deck of three other vessels on the other side of the harbour. From left to right, Hamina-class missile boat (I think this is the lead ship, after which the class is named, but the number isn't quite clear on the picture), Vahterpää, a Katanpää-class mine countermeasure vessel, and coast guard ship Turva.

Oh, and I forgot the mention that Uusimaa's class is Hämeenmaa, after her sister and only other ship of the class.

File: 2017-06-04 14.17.57.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>53611073
One more larger vessel was present, a Pansio-class minelayer Porkkala (unlike the Hämeenmaa class, these are pure minelayers). Some smaller vessels were also present but I didn't take pictures of those.

>>53611099

Sweet. Thanks for the share.

>>53610925
>>53611073
>>53611099

Thanx for the pics!

>>53607747
>How about older BBs in general, not just British?

Why not just drop a bigger engine in your mom's SUV and race it at Daytona? That would make as much sense as your derping & herping about removing turrets and "enlarging" power plants as if you were still playing with your fucking Legos.

Ships aren't "modular" and upgrades/updates can only do so much. As >>53610460 already explain, if you need a fucking cruiser build a fucking cruiser.

Just passing this on:

http://topsideminis.com/summer-sale-15-off-all-items/

File: 20161203191712_1.jpg (545KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

545KB, 1920x1080px

>>53617439
>http://topsideminis.com/summer-sale-15-off-all-items/
I found that the quality was hit or miss for the images. Some had rotated turrets that were off center, the Colorado series was really bad. And then you have the Italian BBs which look amazing, like they had a different/better artists rather then an amateur.

>>53612356
>>53610460

Do you have any idea how much work building even one cruiser is? The US could shit them out because they were huge and not on the front line: for a smaller country constantly under attack with a reserve of older ships, having more guns available and not too vulnerable takes top priority (assuming they don't have enough aircraft to merit converting them to carriers)

>>53618643
>Do you have any idea how much work building even one cruiser is?

And rebuilding an entire fucking battleship isn't? Just for starters, you will need larger dry docks. I'm not even going to try explain the problems involved when changes are made to a ship's metacentric height.

What you're also completely failing to understand is that the propulsion plant upgrades which took place in the 20s and 30s didn't involve ADDING more boilers, turbines, and whatnot. Incremental changes like using oil instead of coal, increasing operating pressures, changing boiler internals, upgrading turbines, etc. increased speeds and not ripping out entire engineering plants.

The people of the period weren't stupid and looked for any way to stretch the limited funding they had. The fact that no one seriously considered "retrofitting" old BBs into slightly faster versions with fewer guns as some sort of faux cruiser stopgap is telling. They didn't do it because it's a stupid idea which could only be made by someone with no conception of the issues involved and thus fails even cursory scrutiny.

>>53618643
You're not listening. There's a limit to what you can do with an obsolete ship designed based on outmoded design paradigms, and at a certain point the weapon you get out of the process doesn't justify the expense when it's STILL obsolete when you're done.

At a certain point sell the dumb thing for scrap or shoot holes in it for target practice, because there's just no way to make it worth keeping.

>>53553829
The huge expense that goes onto a battleship or large guns ship is not justified anymore due to its lack of range; especcially when the ship can instead be a CV and used as a multipurpose asset with huge range and power.

Its sad things have come to be like this; but missiles and other kinds of tech have simply surpassed our protection capacity for capital ships; making blue water navies be basically a "CV and its escorts" kinda deal.

That being said; one day we might recover the grandiose power of battleships (as in; not-flat big capital ships) by some odd twist of technology or some shit.

>>53610268
Nice picture, thanks!
Someone mixed up Moltke and Seydlitz, though.

>>53622041
I think the Excalibur M5 seems like the project to watch on that front. Sure it's not a "big gun", but it's extending the range and accuracy of the existing 5" guns in USN service in a way that's more cost-effective than replacing them with missiles: you could have 7,000 shells for the cost of one cruise missile if you use Raytheon's own estimates.

I think the technology exists to revive an 8" or greater naval weapon in a useful form, we just haven't set up to produce or use them.

File: 6308e1e2c4cd7c9b25be901aaf3db5aa.jpg (255KB, 1500x1130px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 1500x1130px

hello i am bote

File: Huascar1.jpg (2MB, 2304x1728px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2304x1728px

>>53628373
>toot toot imma boot

>>53628373
Wonder what they were smoking when this got approved.

>>53628800
>Wonder what they were smoking when this got approved.

How may fucking times does this need to be explained? Russia's circular ironclads were a direct result of the Treaty of Paris ending the Crimean War.

Russia was banned from having a Black Sea fleet larger than six corvettes of a certain size. Russia was also banned from building warships of any type in the Black Sea beyond those needed for customs and harbor/estuary defense. The last bit is very important because Novgorod and the others were designated as "mobile coastal defense batteries".

Using that coastal defense loophole, the ships gave Russia some ability to defend the Kerch Straits, Dniepr estuary, and various harbors until Russia with German help was able to abrogate the naval provisions of the Treaty after France's defeat in 1871. The ships even had a minor, but successful, role in the 1877-78 Russo-Ottoman War.

>>53628415

The only reason I want to visit Chile is to tour the Huascar.

>>53629080
Matey, you've got top notch surfing, the Atacama desert, delicious wine, kayaking off Chiloe, Patagonia and of course everything being named after Bernando fuckin' O'Higgins. And you just want to see some bloody boat?

Very good, carry on.

>>53630000
Tbf there are plenty of other places with good surfing spots, exotic nature, decent wineyards, and constant overuse of national hero's name, but there is only one Huascar for him to visit.

>>53630000
>>53630329
How about Easter Island?

File: 0512171129.jpg (6MB, 5312x2988px) Image search: [Google]

6MB, 5312x2988px

>>53630000

m8, I'm planning a vacation to the UK just to go see what's left at Scapa Flow and the Belfast. I also spent six months working in Japan JUST to see the Mikasa.

>t. worst-coast American

>>53630637
DESU there's not much left above water at Scapa Flow. There's the Churchill Barriers, the Italian Chapel, and a visitor's center on Hoy that's at the docks the ferry still uses. All worth seeing mind you, just temper your expectations if you're into boats and don't want to dive.

>>53630637
>JUST to see the Mikasa.

I'm jelly.

File: 0512171152.jpg (7MB, 5312x2988px) Image search: [Google]

7MB, 5312x2988px

So, kinda-cool story about this particular shot. Those buildings across the way from Mikasa? That's some of the main housing for the US Fleet Activities at Yokosuka. I made the joke to the curator of Mikasa that she's "waiting until America starts talking shit again". He laughed at that and told me Mikasa's position at her permanent mooring has her eternally pointing at the Imperial Palace in Tokyo, to continually show honor to the Emperor.

>>53642450
>heavy cruiser pocket battleship

Is panzerschiff/armoured ship really that much of a mouthful?

File: 1496705115581.jpg (3MB, 2988x5312px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2988x5312px

>>53639736
Unless there was a particularly bad earthquake that day...

>>53646375
Or just "half of a battlecruiser".

>>53646375
Gotta include both the German wartime designation of them and what the foreign public called them.

>>53644344
>>53645913
Never understood why some people claim that Kongos and Tiger look alike, sure the hull shape and turret arrangement are similar but the bow shape, how casemates are organized, smokestacks, and the superstructure are quite different between them.

>>53648697
They're kissing cousins at best.

>>53648697
>Never understood why some people claim that Kongos and Tiger look alike

All post-dreadnought battleships look alike to somebody who isn't interested in battleships.

File: 593b6c66a3acd9445ca5e2eb75c73bb2.jpg (413KB, 1450x849px) Image search: [Google]

413KB, 1450x849px

>>53648697
Compare Kongo in her original configuration to Tiger (inset) in her original configuration. There were always some obvious differences to someone interested in capital ships: the funnels and the aft mast, then the funnels (specifically Kongo's fingernail deflector) and Tiger's fighting top, then the dreaded Pagoda. But in terms of fighting ships serving with two different navies their similarities are actually striking. In fact they look more similar to each other than they do to some of their predecessors in their own respective navies.

>>53652053
>Admiralty Standard
The most boring camo scheme to paint ever, even worse than US measure 22.

>>53654774
Huzzah! Some pre-dread action.

>>53656550
What is this dystopian wars bullshittery?

>>53657319
>replace #2, #5, and #6 guns with twin Type 89s
There, I fixed your scouting cruiser concept. Hire me, Imperial Japan.

File: Zenta.png (29KB, 902x741px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 902x741px

>TARGET STRADDLED 0 HITS
>TARGET STRADDLED 0 HITS
>TARGET STRADDLED 0 HITS
>TARGET STRADDLED 0 HITS

>this happens until my cruiser runs out ammo

What methods can one use to increase accuracy and hit percentage in Rule The Waves. The hit percentage on my ships is absolutely abysmal. My gunnery training seems to have no effect at all on accuracy.

>>53658109
>Gunnery Training
>0/+1 Guns
>More main armament guns
>Closing in on targets
>Crew Quality
>Weather(Glare, etc)
>RNG hates you

There are lots of factors anon.

File: Christmas came early.jpg (106KB, 500x935px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 500x935px

>>53658109
>2 main battery guns
Try getting at least 4 guns for your broadside. There's a negative accuracy modifier for small salvo sizes.
Also, 80 rounds per gun? That's pretty low, even for the comparably large 8" guns.

>>53657478
>Not lovin dat sweet sweet tumblehome

>>53660466
>Dat image...

This is why I invest heavily in minelayers and subs set to fleet support. Especially when i'm dealing with enemy navies who will always outmatch me in terms of B/BB/BC.

>>53658109
Welcome to the early game, the accuracy should improve as you research better fire control systems and bigger range finders.

>>53663125
Personally I prefer unrestricted submarine warfare, sure you occasionally get a sunk liner or two but the prestige cost is usually worth of the damage that it causes to enemy's stability.

File: 9f200dc0.jpg (141KB, 1024x588px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 1024x588px

>>53666473

Depends on the situation. If i'm on the defensive and they're blockading me its Fleet support all the time. Thin out that fleet and even the odds.

If its more closely matched or i'm beating them i'll go to unrestricted. Especially if no other countries are waiting in the wings just a hair or two away from coming into the fight.

>>53658109
Also, did you or the enemy change course or speed? That tends to throw gunnery off.

>>53666534
I tend to do the reverse; outmatched by enemy fleet and blockaded? Time to go full kraut and send the wolf packs out. Equally matched or fighting against inferior navy? Might as well follow prize rules.

>>53668100
>>53666534
>>53666473

I went on a unrestricted submarine campaign spree once.

ONCE.

As in: 'it started off as a 2-on-1 fight and ended as a 6-on-1 gangbang' once ...

>>53670803

That sounds like a terrible bout of bad luck. Worst i've ever had is one other nation joining against me.

>>53672822
I once managed to get Russia and Japan involved in one of my wars thanks to my use of submarines, not that it really mattered given that I already were at war with UK.

File: 7e932d96.jpg (141KB, 1024x705px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 1024x705px

>>53674371

Speaking of war with the UK...does anyone regularly beat the UK in games? If I ever go to war with them the best I can hope for is a draw.

>>53677272
Yes but with the huge caveat of not unmodded. See: >>53585645
Though that was also a war of Russia and UK teaming up against me.

>>53677272
I can beat UK with late game USA and force a stalemate with France&Germany. Based my experiences the best way to deal with UK is to have a massive fleet of medium range submarines and starve them out.

>>53680369
Lookin sexy as hell. What make?

>>53680488
GHQ by the look of them.

Hey Chaps, i am new to the bote type autism. It seems a fair bit more complicated than ground forces organization and a little overwhelming. I have no idea where i should be starting learning the differences between a frigate and a destroyer, or the parts of a ship, or just general naval termanology.

Where would you advise i start? I am particularly interested in the Late Coldwar to Current era of combat but the world wars have their charm too.

>>53690609
>new to the bote type autism
>more complicated than ground forces organization

wtf?
ground forces = 12 layers of organization (fireteam to army group)
naval forces = 5 layers (division to fleet)
U kidding me?

Also, of course you can't tell the difference between a Modern Frigate and a Destroyer - noone can.

If you managed to get this far: congrats and report to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Naval_warfare
Carry on, midshipman.

>>53691175
Admittedly, while it's rarely modeled in wargaming, each ship itself in a naval formation is an organisational feat far more complex than a fireteam.

>>53691256

I know - awesome, right?
You basically already start at the Company/Battalion level and then work your way up.

Interesting part is that the whole Squadron/Task Force (like Regiment/Brigade, but naval) is resolved at this level, too.
Awesome, right?

>>53691175
>>53691256
>>53691320


I guess the names and terms change a lot throughout the areas. thats what i can gather so far. thanks.
12 years in the army so i guess i got used to the idea of our organizational structure. plus its a small army so we keep it simple.
Navy seems so much more involved. but im looking at it as an outsider.

>>53691437
>Navy seems so much more involved.

I don't really know about that - ship IS a much more complex mechanism than an Army battalion, but other than that - I'd say higher Army levels are much more complicated than the Navy's.

>>53670803
3 separate campaigns as US, Germany and then Austria. Build up massive sub force every time a treaty is imposed (happened a lot), usually total about 90-110 active by the time another war breaks out. And have never had unrestricted backfire. Sounds like the rng just hated you.

>>53690609
The most important thing Anon, is that you have a good list of ship names to name the botes in your fleet. A ship without a name isn't worth a damn.

>>53694596

Just name them all after politicians, major donors, and politically-important people. Best possible naming scheme.

>>53694677
I found the Navy/LockheedMartin Requisition team.

>>53694596

I never both to name individual DDs and subs. It's hull numbers all the way.

I do name DD and sub classes though.

>>53694677
Bah, best naming convention is just giving up on trying and instead having extended lists of various insults and curse words, sometimes themed to type designations.

>>53701605

Is that from her Baltic work-ups or the Spitzbergen raid?

>>53694677
No, just name them after your favourite scantly clad chinese cartoon characters.

>>53710608

I kind of wish the tech had stalled out in this moment. That airwing size was just stupidly awesome...and 30s biplanes were too.

File: 20170602_124349.jpg (4MB, 5312x2988px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 5312x2988px

I was at the Yamato museum in Kure last week, some choice scales of botes there

File: 20170602_124444.jpg (4MB, 5312x2988px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 5312x2988px

>>53710832
Kongou is a big girl

File: 20170602_131657.jpg (5MB, 5312x2988px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 5312x2988px

>>53710864
A big girl who gets uploaded upside-down for some reason.

Try this next; Ise's fight deck. A shame they didn't feature any of the dive bombers she could launch (but not recover) on the model

>>53710894
Welp, I don't know what's going on with them; they're the right way up in the file explorer.

>>53710912

Try turning your monitor 180 degrees.

>>53710643
Bigger the boat bigger the animu grill's tits, right?

>>53710864
>>53710894
It's okay, they are just sailing in the southern hemisphere.

File: 1496266303176.png (937KB, 776x795px) Image search: [Google]

937KB, 776x795px

>>53711307

>>53710832
Interesting that a Tsukuba is featured.

>>53711307
Mostly.