/nwg/ - Naval Wargames General

File: north dakota bb.png (64KB, 1012x748px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 1012x748px

>>55069519
How lucky then that I've realized that 15 inchers are more than enough to sink anything that AI can build.

>>55069719
My god that thing looks terrifying.

File: HMS_Iron_Duke2.png (6MB, 5256x3080px) Image search: [Google]

6MB, 5256x3080px

4 turrets good, 5 turrets better.

File: USS_Florida_(BB-30)_-_NH_61261.jpg (170KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 1280x853px

>>55070279
It's a little excessive, but in a good way.

Harpoon4 vs 2nd Fleet (Fleet series)
What is better, and what's the difference between them?

>>55070951
>What is better

Neither. They're different from each other, not better or worse.

>>and what's the difference between them?

For a start, one is miniature rules and the other is hex & chit. They also use different scales, different levels of detail, and many other things.

The Fleet series is going to give you a counter with a single number on it for an ASW rating. Harpoon is going the name of every ASW sensor and weapon on a given ship along with the percentages regarding their operation.

You're basically asking us whether apples or oranges is better and what the difference between them is.

The threads and pages dedicated to both games at Boardgame Geek and consimworld will be able to answer your question far better than a post on an image board with a character limit. Of course, then you'd have to do the WORK of finding all respective pages at those sites and then reading the information there instead of asking someone to spoon feed you.

>>55072721
Such a sexy boat.

>>55069730
Well duh, she is a 52k ton superdreadnought so she is supposed to be scary.

>>55069719
Is 15" really enough though?

File: iena.png (74KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 1366x768px

>>55076496
is it ?

>>55076496
The data for late game quality 1 15-inch guns is next.

>Penetration for 15 in guns
>Range - Side / Deck
>5000 - 27,3 / 0
>8000 - 24,3 / 1,1
>12000 - 20,1 / 2,1
>15000 - 17,9 / 3,1
>20000 - 14,6 / 4,2

>Max range: 23969
Based on my experience the computer rarely if ever goes for decks thicker than 2.5 inches so the horizontal penetration is more than enough.
>but what about horizontal armor
The max thickness for horizontal armor that you can have in RtW is 18 inches, thus by the point when AI decks will be able to resist 15-inch shellfire those shells be punching through even the thickest belt armor without any problems.

Max range is bit short though but then again I've never really seen any fights being fought on ranges longer than 20k yards.

>>55076978
You see, I've been playing for so long but I had no idea what the limits of the computer's building is.

>>55076978
>Based on my experience the computer rarely if ever goes for decks thicker than 2.5 inches so the horizontal penetration is more than enough.

*vertical penetration, I should just fucking stop posting after midnight.

File: thedick.jpg (37KB, 400x436px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 400x436px

>>55077334
It's all penetration, man.

File: 1503792384021.jpg (275KB, 1450x982px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 1450x982px

>>55079442
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the County-class would have made excellent Q-ships.
Black hull, canvas to build up the profile/provide shelter for personnel on deck...dead ringer for an old liner!

>>55081642

Q-ships was a shit concept. All it was good for was hundreds of sinkings where nobody was dumb enough to give anybody on board half a chance to live if they could help it.

File: Off Sardinia.png (58KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 1920x1080px

Wish me luck anons. Either this happens or blockade unrest starts to twist the knife.

>>55082263
>Pre-Dreadnought Battleship encounter

Man, you'll need tons of luck to score big on that one.
OTOH, you might just manage to sink one of those CA's - I'd shoot for them if I was you.

File: Off Sardinia2.png (59KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 1920x1080px

>>55082263
>>55082406

Nearly an hour, 4 7-inch hits to show for it. At least they're british 7-inchers, and not the -1's Austria starts with. Running out of daylight.

File: Off Sardinia3.png (74KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 1920x1080px

>>55082684

Right. Screw this. Turning into them.

>>55082716

And of course THEY can hit things with their main battery. I put a 10-inch belt on these things! How am I flooding!?

File: Off Sardinia4.png (57KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 1920x1080px

>>55082742

AW YISS!

>>55082684
>>55082716
>Plinking away with Pre-Dreadnought tech @ over 5000 yards.

Ruler of the Waves status: Failed.


>>55082772
>Night encounter with BB's.

10 bucks says you eat (at least one) torp before this thing's over.

File: Off Sardinia5.png (57KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 1920x1080px

>>55082772

YES! And 2/3 Speed reduction!

>now *not to screw this up*

>>55082790

My flagship has flooding down to the single digits but is out of it, I *think* I've peeled off one of their battleships and can make like a lion pride on a sick cape buffalo. Haven't screwed up yet.

File: Off Sardinia6.png (73KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1920x1080px

>>55082813

HAVEN'T SCREWED UP YET

>but that's probably because i'm taking like 4-minutes between ticks

File: Off Sardinia7.png (76KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 1920x1080px

>>55082855

Glorious Austrian ascended naval tactic passed down from Tegethoff- only fight 25% of the Italian fleet present, let the rest sail off and go be Italians somewhere else.

>also bow torpedoes never fire
>not gonna ram

File: Off Sardinia8.png (68KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 1920x1080px

>>55082923

Well that hurt.

>screw this, I'm ordering a flotilla attack

File: Off Sardinia9.png (74KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 1920x1080px

Could it be?

>>55083100

>Nope.

File: Off Sardinia10.png (70KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 1920x1080px

>>55083100

Could it be???

File: Off Sardinia11.png (68KB, 1918x1076px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 1918x1076px

>>55083129

YES!

>what the hell did I build all you torpedo boats for?
>there's like eight of them carousel'ing this just tiring out the stokers

>>55083154

Oh sure, NOW they can torp it.

>I'm not complaining- just about the only way left to screw up is to get torped by the cripple
>I think that's how HMS Black Prince went, actually
>no more risks

Anyone ever figure out how to change the hull forms? I've seen some people manage it...somehow...

File: Off Sardinia12.png (63KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 1920x1080px

>>55083197

Ok girls, field trip's over. Everybody say goodbye to the nice italian destroyers and head home. Don't strain your internal bulkheads and burst a tummy while running.

>>55083207

I'm not sure what you mean.

>>55083258

The shape of the hull itself. I've seen other people on the main RtW forums with differently shaped hulls with squared sterns and such.

File: 14xfmfd.png (1MB, 1742x1416px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1742x1416px

Oh and what does the "Bulged" checkbox do during ship construction? I've never seen it do anything. Theoretically I know what it SHOULD do but the option doesn't seem to work...unless its some bit of tech that I haven't ever gotten researched.

File: Off Sardinia end.png (16KB, 930x658px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 930x658px

I'll take it.

>>55083408

Knocks 2 knots off the design and gives you some torpedo protection, I think

>>55083453

STILL BLOCKADED!?

>ah, it's the two battleships down for repairs. it'll get better.

>>55083485

Fleet Battle in the Adriatic.

...I'm going to sleep.

>>55082263
>>55082406
>>55082684
>>55082716
>>55082772
>>55082797
>>55082855
>>55082923
>>55082983
>>55083100
>>55083129
>>55083154
>>55083258

How did Metternich get so far ahead of her consorts, let alone her escorts?

>>55084026
I'd say it was another episode of Full steam ahead! with a anyone that falls behind - can stay behind as subplot.

>>55084026

Nesselrode was the division leader and led a charge into the Italians- it got holed and dropped out. The escorts got into a duel with the Italian escorts. Nobody else kept up with either the charge or the weaving.

>>55083154
Such is life.
>that enemy ship that is still in fighting shape and could use couple torpedoes up her ass? nope, not gonna even think about doing a torpedo run against her
>that enemy ship that is slowly sinking beneath the waves and is very much dead in the water? yup, that thing is gonna need at least 20 torpedoes up her ass right now and here

File: SMS_Budapest_(1896),_Modell.jpg (779KB, 3040x2192px) Image search: [Google]

779KB, 3040x2192px

>>55085774

File: Metternich (Congress) class.png (52KB, 906x767px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 906x767px

>>55087522
>>55085774

Yeah, realistically these things never get built. They were simply ordered from Great Britain- the Hungarians never would have let them be paid for.

>very "advanced" legislative culture, the dual monarchy had
>for ex getting the Tegethoff dreadnaughts built was a nightmare
>one had to be contracted to the hungarians
>never mind there wasn't a capable shipyard for it

>>55084026
Admiral-mode can be frustrating, the second battleship division didn't feel like dodging through their destroyer screen getting their T-crossed at flank speed and their escorts staid with them. 1st Division's escorts actually kept up, but there were all these Italians for them to fight. They ended up peeling away everything for Metternich to get a pretty much 1-on-1 duel so I'm happy with them, mostly- destroyers that square off with light cruiser-led destroyer divisions so their battleships don't get torped in the night don't get criticized

>>55087652
>13in (-2)

the horror, the ai doesnt seem to realize how shit those are though, i've fought many a war with france in the early bb age where their whole fleet is armed with them while i have 0 or +1 12s, its pretty hilarious to read the battle reports and having 13s bounce off extended belts at point blank while i'm hulling them from max range.

>>55087696

My idea is to rebuild them with whoever comes up with a decent design first.

>even the hungarians, if it's me
>I imagine that's how we teased the money out of them- concrete rebuilding plans and schedules and guaranteed contracts
>they really are quite over-built

File: Round Three.png (82KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 1920x1080px

>>55087742

13-inch conning tower I give these things. 13-inches, what was the point? I guess my vice admiral is dead, then.

>>55087845
Personally I would only give CTs only enough armor to resist 6 inch and smaller guns, any armor beyond that is only gonna be worthless extra weight that you could use better as basically no amount of CT armor will stop a critical hit from BB or CC main battery.

>>55087845
Nah, that's just the bridge around the conning tower. A proper conning tower hit gives you a different message.

>play as russia
>end up in a war against uk
>my only ally is france
>my best ships are 3 16k ton dreads with 6 12-inch guns, 10-inch armored belt and 17 knot max speed (planned for 18 knots but then rng decided to fuck me with can't make their design speed event)
>their best ships are 20k ton dreads with 6 13-inch guns, presumably 10-inch armored belt and 22 knot max speed

This is gonna suck.

>>55088492
UK is a huge dick, but if you're lucky you can chain magazine explosions.

>>55089422

My rec is night engagement Armageddon. Roll the dice.

File: ZvCzv3e.jpg (930KB, 2700x2160px) Image search: [Google]

930KB, 2700x2160px

>>55069650

Were dreadnoughts able to be resupplied with main battery gun projectiles and propellant as part of underway replenishment? or was it too dangerous/awkward to manage?

Did this situation get better or worse over time as main batter guns got bigger but underway replenishment technology and methodology developed developed?

>>55090102
I would assume so. If you can move several tons of coal aboard a ship to fire her boilers then how much harder would shells be? Given you have the crane and access down into the stores then all you need is the due diligence that handling ammo requires.

File: grand.png (3MB, 3072x2172px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3072x2172px

>>55069650

Share advice and suggestions for finding maps of ships and plans you can use AS maps of ships in an RPG.

I'll go first.

Game was going to start with the party being flown out to rescue a container ship in distress in the North Atlantic. (and dropping into operators operating operationally)

So of course a map would be really great. Especially one with horizontal and vertical representations of the ship that were aligned and in scale with each other.

Things I learned:

1. Finding the right search terms is important and takes time and work. After some research I found out that "general arrangement plan" "general arrangement and capacity plan" and "general layout and capacity plan" were productive search terms.

2. Finding sources for ship plans that AREN'T behind a paywall is difficult. (most of the plans I found were preview images that had been shrunken down so much they were largely useless)

3. budget time for figuring out how long 5 feet is (or whatever the standard measurement of the game system you are using is) and then setting up the grid to lay over your map. This is Especially true if you are using Roll20 because the controls for customizing grid size and measurements are a bitch.


Once it was all set up it was very helpful.
I still have a lot of trouble finding ship plans that make good maps though. So any advice on how to find more would be appreciated.

File: night battle.png (28KB, 930x658px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 930x658px

>>55089586
Better than I expected but noticeably worse than what I hoped for.

Not sure that I would call it a major victory like the game tries to do, at best it looks like a Pyrrhic one to me, sure we sunk more ships than they did but RN has far more ships than IRN and I believe that their next gen capital ships will be out sooner than mine.

>>55091038
Just done checking the statics of this battle. It seems that all capital ships sunk during it fell victim to torpedoes.
>british dreadnought victorious - sunk due to flooding from 2 cl launched torpedoes
>russian dreadnought dvenadtsat apostolov - sunk after getting immobilized by british shellfire and being torpedoed by an enemy dd
>british pre-dread royal sovereign - sunk after a dd launched torpedo hit her magazine (whole ship blown up instantly because of it)

With RtW is there a research summary somewhere?

>>55092080
Machinery development - lowers machinery weight and allows oil firing
Armor development - lowers armor weight
Hull construction - lowers hull weight
Fire control - lets your boatfus shoot more accurately
Subdivision and damage control - helps your boatfus to stay afloat after getting hit
Turret and gun mountings - improves rate of fire and allows triple and quad turrets
Ship design - unlocks new armor schemes and turret arrangements
AP projectiles - improves your AP shell performance
Light forces and torpedo warfare - helps your DDs to grow bigger and stronger
Torpedo technology - helps your DDs to defend themselves from pedophiles
Submarines - this is your best friend if you want to u-boat
ASW technology - helps you to counter enemy u-boats
Explosive shells - improves your HE shell performance
Fleet tactics - helps your forces to fight smarter and not derp while communicating between themselves
Naval guns - improves your naval dakka

>>55092893

Is there a list of every development in order?

>>55092893
What do people do with research? Not in terms of Percentage advancement
but in terms of priorities. Do you actually set priority areas of research? Do you
set others to low? I'm interested in hearing if people do because i've tried once
or twice and not really noticed all that much of a difference in what my guys end
up researching.

File: a.jpg (357KB, 1024x750px) Image search: [Google]

357KB, 1024x750px

>>55090960

File: b.jpg (370KB, 1024x754px) Image search: [Google]

370KB, 1024x754px

>>55090960
>>55095059

File: c.jpg (366KB, 1024x757px) Image search: [Google]

366KB, 1024x757px

>>55090960
>>55095059
>>55095097
The cross-section, including crew spaces, for one of the most common types of modern cruise ship.

File: PT 723 layout capacity accommodation plan profile deck inboard outboard map patrol torpedo boat military navy ship support vessel.jpg (475KB, 1500x1690px) Image search: [Google]

475KB, 1500x1690px

>>55090960
posting PT Boat.

>>55095115
cool.
That is the inboard profile.
Do you have the deck plans?

>>55095631
https://www.cruisedeckplans.com/DP/deckimages/org/www.cruisedeckplans.com-deckplan.php-ship=Queen-Victoria.png
Just the public areas...

>>55094618
Usually you'll want Fire control, Subdivsion and damage control, Turret and gun mountings, and Ship design set on high.

>>55090102
>Were dreadnoughts able to be resupplied with main battery gun projectiles and propellant as part of underway replenishment?

In WW1? No.

In WW2 with the US? Yes.

I've read accounts by officers of the British Pacific Fleet in '45 watching unreps the USN considered routine with both awe and envy.

>>55090960
For WW2 and earlier ships, try Conway's "Anatomy of the Ship" series. They are *way* too spergy for me; but some would appreciate detailed schematics of hull girders and crew quarters.

>>55094464
>Machinery development
Improved surface condenser - 1% weight saving on machinery
Cockburn safety valve - 1% weight saving on machinery
Side drums - 1% weight saving on machinery
Preheater - 1% weight saving on machinery
Steam Turbines - 1% weight saving on machinery
Small tube boilers I - 1% weight saving on machinery
Oil firing - Enables oil firing if access to oil
Economizer - 1% weight saving on machinery
Small tube boilers II - 1% weight saving on machinery
Superheater - 1% weight saving on machinery
Circulation augmenter - 1% weight saving on machinery
Reduction gears - Increases endurance
Water wall furnace - 1% weight saving on machinery
Advanced superheater - 1% weight saving on machinery
Double reduction gears - 1% weight saving on machinery
Forced circulation - 1% weight saving on machinery
Turbo electric drive - 1% weight saving on machinery
Improved oil burners - 1% weight saving on machinery
>Armor development
Krupp armour - 1% weight saving on armour
Face hardening - 1% weight saving on armour
Quality control - 1% weight saving on armour
Improved annealing - 1% weight saving on armour
Krupp Cementit - 1% weight saving on armour
Quality control II - 1% weight saving on armour
Improved armour bracing - 1% weight saving on armour
Improved face hardening - 1% weight saving on armour
Improved homogenous armour - 1% weight saving on armour
Inclined armour - 1% weight saving on armour
Improved armour testing methods - 1% weight saving on armour
Internal belt - 1% weight saving on armour
Decapping belt - 1% weight saving on armour
Advanced face hardening - 1% weight saving on armour

>>55100606
>Hull construction
Improved riveting techniques - 1% weight saving on hull
High tensile steel - 1% weight saving on hull
Basic weight control - 1% weight saving on hull
Longitudinal framing - 1% weight saving on hull
Improved weight control - 1% weight saving on hull
Hydraulic riveting - 1% weight saving on hull
Better steel quality - 1% weight saving on hull
Improved longitudinal framing - 1% weight saving on hull
Slender hull girders - 1% weight saving on hull
Improved design calculations - 1% weight saving on hull
Weight saving - 1% weight saving on hull
Partial welding - 1% weight saving on hull
Lightweight fittings - 1% weight saving on hull
Hydrodynamic hull form - 1% weight saving on machinery
Lightweight scantlings - 1% weight saving on hull
Welded hull - 1% weight saving on hull
Improved welding - 1% weight saving on hull
>Fire control
Coincidence rangefinder - Gradual national accuracy improvement
6 ft rangefinder - Gradual national accuracy improvement
Central firing - Enables central firing as FC system on ships
Range calculator - Gradual national accuracy improvement
Control tops - Gradual national accuracy improvement
Automatic range transmitter - Gradual national accuracy improvement
9 ft rangfinder - Gradual national accuracy improvement
Mechanical fire control computer - Gradual national accuracy improvement
Stereoscopic rangefinder - Gradual national accuracy improvement
Plotting table - Gradual national accuracy improvement
Target designator - Gradual national accuracy improvement
Director firing - Enables director firing in ships
12 ft rangefinder - Gradual national accuracy improvement
Gyro stabiliser - Gradual national accuracy improvement
Ladder shooting - Gradual national accuracy improvement
15 ft rangefinder - Gradual national accuracy improvement
Secondary director - Enables directors for secondary battery and for CL
Improved Director
Synthetic fire control computer - Reduces penalty for own ship turning
Advanced director

>>55100619
>Subdivision
Double bottom - Gradual damage control improvement
Improved subdivision - Gradual damage control improvement
Torpedo protection I - Enables Torpedo protection I on ships
High capacity pumps I - Gradual damage control improvement
Torpedo protection II - Enables Torpedo protection II on ships
Extended double bottom - Gradual damage control improvement
High capacity pumps II - Gradual damage control improvement
Diesel generators - Gradual damage control improvement
Triple bottom - Gradual damage control improvement
Improved firefighting equipment - Gradual damage control improvement
Torpedo protection III - Enables Torpedo protection III on ships
Torpedo protection IV - Enables Torpedo protection IV on ships
Improved counterflooding equipment - Gradual damage control improvement
Non flammable materials - Gradual damage control improvement
Improved watertight hatches - Gradual damage control improvement
>Turrets
Hydraulic recoil - Gradual national ROF improvement
Power rammers - Gradual national ROF improvement
Pneumatic recuperator - Gradual national ROF improvement
Mechanical shell handling - Gradual national ROF improvement
Improved hoists - Gradual national ROF improvement
Triple turrets - Enables triple turrets
Hydraulic rammers - Gradual national ROF improvement
Reliable power training and elevation - Reduces ROF penalty for guns below 8 inches in turrets
Improved triple turrets - Eliminates ROF and reliability penalty for triple turrets
Quadruple turrets - Enables quadruple turrets
Increased elevation - Enables increased elevation
Improved power training and elevation - Eliminates ROF penalty for guns below 8 inches in turrets
Improved Quadruple turrets - Eliminates ROF and reliability penalty for quadruple turrets
Weight savings in turret fittings - 1% Weight saving on hull

>>55100628
>Ship design
Heavy secondary battery - Enables secondary guns heavier than 7 inches in casemates or single turrets
Medium wing turrets - Enables secondary wing double turrets up to 10 inches calibre
3 centreline turrets - Enables 3 centreline main turrets on ships
Main battery Wing turrets - Enables main battery wing turrets on ships
Cross deck fire - Enables cross deck fire for staggered wing turrets (positions D & F or E & G)
Superimposed X turret - Enables superimposed X turret on ships
4 centreline turrets - Enables 4 centreline main turrets on ships
Light cruiser armour configuration - Enables light cruiser armour configuration
Superimposed B turret - Enables superimposed B turret on ships
Triple turrets - Enables triple turrets
5+ centreline turrets - Enables 5 or more centreline main turrets on ships
Secondary turrets on BB - Enables secondary guns in turrets on BB
AON armour - Gives full benefits of all or nothing armour layout (no BE or DE)
Superimposed turrets on CA - Enables superimposed turrets on CA
More efficient hull form - 1% weight saving on machinery
Advanced design calculations - 1% weight saving on hull
Double gun mounts on DD - Enables double gun mounts on DD
Double gun mounts on CL - Enables double gun mounts on CL
Advanced weight saving - 1% weight saving on hull

>>55100641
>AP projectiles
Hardened AP penetrator - Gradual AP penetration improvement
Reliable bursting charges - Enhances damage from penetrating hits
Capped AP projectiles - Gradual AP penetration improvement
Improved AP cap - Gradual AP penetration improvement
Increased oblique penetration ability - Gradual AP penetration improvement
Improved AP penetrator alloys - Gradual AP penetration improvement
Stable explosive filler - Enhances damage from penetrating hits
Ballistic cap - Gradual AP penetration improvement
Improved shell quality control - Gradual AP penetration improvement
Heavy shells - Gradual AP penetration improvement
Improved ballistc cap - Gradual AP penetration improvement
Advanced penerator alloys - Gradual AP penetration improvement
Super heavy shells - Gradual AP penetration improvement
Increased muzzle velocity - Gradual AP penetration improvement
>Light forces
DD of up to 600 tons displacement - Enables building of DD up to 600 tons displacement
DD of up to 700 tons displacement - Enables building of DD up to 700 tons displacement
DD of up to 900t displacement - Enables building of DD up to 900 tons displacement
Double torpedo tube mount - Enables double torpedo mounts
DD of up to 1100t displacement - Enables building of DD up to 1100 tons displacement
Triple torpedo tube mount - Enables triple torpedo mounts
DD of up to 1500t displacement - Enables building of DD up to 1500 tons displacement
Above water tubes on CL - Enables above water torpedo mounts on CL
Superimposed X mount on CL - Enables superimposed X gun mounts on CL
Superimposed guns on DD - Enables superimposed gun mounts on DD
Quadruple torpedo tube mount - Enables quadruple torpedo mounts
Motor torpedo boats - Enables building of MTB squadrons
Superimposed B mount on CL - Enables superimposed B gun mounts on CL
Above water tubes on other ships - Enables above water torpedo mounts on all ships

>>55100650
>Torpedoes
Improved hydrostatic valve - Torpedoes now have range@speed 800@25/2000@15
Reliable pendulum mechanism - Torpedoes now have range@speed 900@28/2500@15
Gyroscope - Torpedoes now have range@speed 1000@28/3000@15
Improved compressed air supply - Torpedoes now have range@speed 2000@28/4000@18
Larger torpedo warheads - Torpedoes do more damage
Contra rotating propellers - Torpedoes now have range@speed 3000@28/5000@20
Preheater - Torpedoes now have range@speed 3500@30/7000@22
Horizontal turbines - Torpedoes now have range@speed 3800@30/8000@25
Wet heater engine - Torpedoes now have range@speed 4000@33/9000@26
TNT warhead - Torpedoes do more damage
Improved gyroscope - Torpedoes now have range@speed 4500@37/10000@27
Lenghtened torpedoes - Torpedoes now have range@speed 4800@37/10500@27
Enhanced pressure bottle - Torpedoes now have range@speed 4900@37/11500@27
Enhanced warhead explosives - Torpedoes do more damage
Improved wet heater engine - Torpedoes now have range@speed 5000@38/12000@27
Advanced preheater - Torpedoes now have range@speed 5000@38/13000@27
Oxygen fuelled torpedoes - Torpedoes now have range@speed 5000@38/18000@27

>>55100658
>Submarines
Pressure hull - 5% increase of submarine reliability
Early coastal submarine - Enables building of coastal submarines
Periscope - 5% increase of submarine reliability
Diving planes - 5% increase of submarine reliability
Coastal submarine - Better operating range for coastal submarines
Torpedo aiming system - 5% increase of submarine reliability
Diesel engines - 5% increase of submarine reliability
Improved diving gear - 5% increase of submarine reliability
Internal torpedo stowage - 5% increase of submarine reliability
Medium range submarine - Enables building of medium range submarines
Improved compressed air supply - 5% increase of submarine reliability
Minelaying submarine - Enables building of minelaying submarines
Improved diesel engines - 5% increase of submarine reliability
Increased battery capacity - 5% increase of submarine reliability
Improved pressure hull - 5% increase of submarine reliability
>ASW
Explosive sweeps - Gradual increase in national ASW capability
Anti submarine nets - Gradual increase in national ASW capability
ASW mines - Gradual increase in national ASW capability
Q-Ships - AMC on ASW patrol work as Q-ships
Hydrostatic pistols - Gradual increase in national ASW capability
Depth charges - Gradual increase in national ASW capability
Early hydrophones - Gradual increase in national ASW capability
Improved depth charges - Gradual increase in national ASW capability
Convoy system - Reduction in merchant losses to submarines
Improved depth charge racks - Gradual increase in national ASW capability
Reliable hydrostatic pistols - Gradual increase in national ASW capability
K-guns - Gradual increase in national ASW capability

>>55100667
>HE shells
Lyddite bursting charges - Gradual increase in shell damage
Safe fuze arming devices - Gradual increase in shell damage
Improved explosive filler packing - Gradual increase in shell damage
TNT bursting charges - Gradual increase in shell damage
Reliable delay fuzes - Increase in AP shell damage
Quality steel for shells - Gradual increase in HE shell damage
Base fuzes - Enables SAP ammo
Improved fuzes - Gradual increase in HE shell damage
Enhanced high explosive filler - Gradual increase in HE shell damage
Improved shell wall castings - Gradual increase in HE shell damage
Improved fuze reliability - Reduced dud rate
Enhanced explosive filler - Gradual increase in shell damage
Advanced explosive filler - Gradual increase in shell damage
>Tactics
Active mine warfare - Increased use of defensive minefields
Improved signalling - Makes signalling errors less likely
Destroyer screen - Enables screen formation for DD
Scouting force - Enables a separate scouting force with CA and BC
Mine rails on CL and DD - Enables fitting of mine rails on CL and DD
Fleet cruising formation - Enables crusing formation in parallel columns for the fleet
Battle turn away - Enables battle turn away maneuvre
Effective sigint - Better pre battle enemy strength asessment
Smoke Floats - Gives light cruisers the ability to launch smoke floats
Concentration firing - Reduces the penalty for more than one ship firing at the same target
Advanced signalling - Makes signalling errors less likely
Shell dyes - Reduces the penalty for more than one ship firing at the same target

File: NELROD.jpg (157KB, 1026x760px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1026x760px

> Let's play the 'Who explodes first?' game!

>>55094464
>>55100606
>>55100619
>>55100628
>>55100641
>>55100650
>>55100658
>>55100667
>>55100673

How stupid are you, exactly?
There IS an All-the-RtW-techs list on the fucking forum, you know:
https://pastebin.com/x3krmL1c

>>55101438
Does turret placement actually matter? I always just the normal 4 turrets (2 forward 2 rear), and it works fine.

>>55103383
Nelrod arrangement saves weight when compared to more common turret arrangements.

>>55103412
Oh really?
I always hear these claims, but never seem to get any tonnage reduction when I attempt it ... weird, huh?

File: nelrod weight comparison.png (83KB, 1014x1428px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 1014x1428px

>>55103608

>>55102094
So fuckin point it out before another anon goes the extra mile to post it all here. I asked from my phone which doesn't like the RtW forums for some god damn reason.

>>55100227
Interesting.
Some anon on /t/ linked me to a site on building book scanners a while back. (So that you can scan pages flat without removing the pages from the book. Good for digitizing books)
https://sys.4chan.org/derefer?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdiybookscanner.org%2Fen%2Fdesigns.html

That might be a way to get plans out of the books in a form suitable for being made into a map.

>>55096292
Cool.
Thanks anon.

>>55104232
Neat. I've got some Squadron-Signal books and some other books I've been meaning to scan forever now, and I'd tried the one on Essex class, but it was entirely too much trouble on the copier (we have a copier that can assemble images into pdfs and email them).

This looks significantly less painful.

File: Bluegate_00.png (83KB, 3000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 3000x2000px

Bloodwake anon here, Capt John Watson if you're about our mission is up so come get your post in.

>>55114098
Are those coastal cutters or some sort of corvette?
Not familiar with the class.

>>55114378
Type 15 frigates.

>>55114422
Cheers. Learn something new everyday.

Should have expected the Brits would update late war DDs like we did in the US. Just didn't know they'd gone full ASW refit.

>>55110161
What am I looking at?

>>55114927
It's a naval game they're playing. How'd the last mission go? Last I heard you were tangling in close with some Russians?

>>55114098
This picture is weirdly adorable.

>>55115273
We won, Capt Flashman (Commander of our Connecticut-class pre-dread Vermont) ended the battle by magazine detonating one of the Russian Donskoi ACs at such close range he caught the edge of the blast and it set him on fire.

>>55117971
>bunch of cute girls resting together
>weirdly adorable

>>55117971
>Mama-bote and her children

File: Mama Goose USS Marblehead and consorts.jpg (367KB, 1200x411px) Image search: [Google]

367KB, 1200x411px

>>55120810

>>55120973

Aww...they all have their momma's funnels.

File: Torpedoboote_in_Pola_1912.png (847KB, 1723x1021px) Image search: [Google]

847KB, 1723x1021px

>>55117971
Small botes cuddling will never not be adorable.

>>55122987
I love torpedo boats. I wish you could mount a bow tube on DDs in RtW though.
And that bow torps, and AI controlled DDs, were worth anything in the first place.

Playing Italy most recently and I got into an early war with GB, which has now stretched past the 2 year mark, and i'm amazingly frustrated with my DD force. Dead of night or High noon, training/experience levels...doesn't matter. Signal a flotilla attack and they'll either turn directly away from what I want them to attack or get into the thick of it and not launch a single torp.

File: 1.jpg (203KB, 1025x794px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 1025x794px

>>55123266
The old ship designer for Steam and Iron actually has a forward-facing, above-deck torpedo tube position. No idea why they didn't include it in RtW.
But then again, you can do a lot of insane stuff in the S&I designer that the RtW one won't allow. 40k ton DDs, here we go!

>>55123266
Early game DDs sorta suck.
>play as japan
>focus training on night fighting and use of torpedoes
>surprise night attack before mid-1910s
>you'll be lucky if your destroyers launch even a single torpedo during whole raid

Enemy AI destroyers in the other hand are fucking snipers that can and will snipe half your fleet with a single salvo from other side of the planet.

>>55123385
See in contrast I always have luck with Japanese surprise attacks when it comes to DDs. Its the only point in the game where I feel I can rely on torps at all.

>>55123356
>40k ton DDs, here we go!

Not really that farfetched considering how Brits had a 32k ton destroyer during WW2.

>>55123356
>selectable torpedo caliber

Hopefully they'll reintroduce this in RtW2, only having 18 inch torpedoes gets boring.

>>55125380
>Lion and Temeraire

Oh what could have been.

>>55125380
So this is why the British Empire's economy was devoured by it's military budget.

>>55118259
>you blow enemy up
>get set on fire by explosion
>O, Kurwa!

>>55116421

Is that Quebec?

>>55127293
Indeed it is.

>>55127878

Thanks. It was a mental block on my part more than anything else. I know container ships travel the St. Lawrence so why shouldn't battleships? I was just so surprised to see HMS Hood moored near Chateau Frontenac.

>>55130054
Man I feel like a derp, I managed not to realize that was the Hood until you brought it up, and then I looked again and saw Y turret under the awning.

>>55130719
Except it's actually Renown.

File: God damn right.jpg (49KB, 532x300px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 532x300px

>>55131003
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU--

>>55131003
It is Hood, you can tell pretty easily from how the turret immediately after the quarter deck starts is placed.

Renown's >>55127269 Y turret isn't noticeably higher than the quarterdeck itself but the turret in >>55116421's ship is noticeably raised which is line with how Hood's X turret should look from that angle. Plus it seems to have this small raised wall-like structure where the maindeck drops off, which is a feature that Hood had that Renowns didn't. Then there is also that little towerlike structure between the funnels which again is something Renowns didn't have but Hood had.

Not to mention that little fact that she pretty clearly has 4 main turrets while Refit&Repair only had 3.

>>55131357
Oh for...I mistook the awning at the rear for decking. Also wasn't it Renown that brought the royals over to Canada during the war?

>>55131824
I thought that was the original plan, but they eventually went with a passenger liner?

>>55133350
Too soon.

Any advice for a newbie just starting out in Rule the Waves?

>>55133418
Start with smaller fleet sizes and with a nation like USA that doesn't have to maintain garrisons on all oceans. Only build MSs at the start of the game, later on you can use obsolete destroyers in coastal patrol role during wars and thus avoid having to pay for ships that will get scrapped in decade anyway. Read the fucking manuals, they'll have helpful stuff in them. You can improve your ports (marked by squares with your flag in them) by clicking them on the world map. Nelrod is love, Nelrod is life.

>>55133404
This does however make me wonder how well USS Texas handled Harvey. I know she's had some leaking problems recently.

>>55133418

Just start playing. I recommend Austria-Hungary, they only have one sea to worry about, and only one real enemy in Italy.

Alright, so I just had my first fleet battle in Rule the Waves. Gotta say, the control interface is absolutely awful. Aside from that, the enemy just ran away until night fell so I never got to fire a shot. Then once it was night, all of my ships lost sight of the flagship so the AI seized control of them. The AI had all my ships scatter in different directions so that it could pick them off with submarines while they were alone and I couldn't control them. Eventually the timer ran out with me as the loser. Then, after that battle was done, the AI blockaded me and all the battle options that it's giving me have zero available forces on my side. So now even though I still outnumber, outmass, and outgun the enemy, I'm stuck with him slowly building up victory points from a blockade that I can't do anything about because the game won't allow me to actually fight.

All in all, I'm wondering why anyone likes this game. Is it like a Dwarf Fortress thing where people enjoy how much the game buttfucks them?

>>55135888

How are submarines a thing in your first fleet battle? Are your enough of your ships in "Active Fleet" mode instead of "Coastal Patrol/ASW" or "Raider"?

>I Dwarf Fortress and Aurora
>In comparison could have sworn RTW was idiot-proof

Something counter-intuitive but might work is to set "Admiral" mode- I gives you direct command of only one (sometimes two) Divisions, and the AI manages the rest. I found it was simpler, not more difficult.

>>55135888
>all the battle options that it's giving me have zero available forces on my side

How the fuck is that even possible?
Unless you have literally all ships in repair/reserve/mothballs, the AI will give you at least some engagements.

Admiral's mode might be what you need in battle - but then you need to check the squadron list on the left of the screen to see who's following who.
Still, even with that, some ships might go exploring straight into enemy lines ... that's just a fact of life.

Captain's mode is (maybe) a better option - you get to control all ships always. It's only downside is: you have to control all the ships always.

Still, like >>55135955 said: RtW is dead easy to pick up ... but winning it is a whole 'nother ball of twine.
OTOH, there's no 'win' condition, really - unless you count 'don't get fired' as a victory condition - so ...

>>55135955
> How are submarines a thing in your first fleet battle?
Since I have zero experience with the game, I can only assume that means that submarine tech is supposed to be late game? I guess there was a decent stretch of time before war actually broke out. I didn't actually get into a big battle until 1905. By then the Italians apparently had plenty of subs.

> Are your enough of your ships in "Active Fleet" mode instead of "Coastal Patrol/ASW" or "Raider"?
I have no raiders, and I only have about a dozen or so destroyers as coastal patrol, pretty much the entirety of my fleet except for those few destroyers is listed as active fleet.

> and the AI manages the rest
That seems like a terrible idea. That would just make it even easier for the AI to divide up my fleet
and feed it piecemeal to its own forces. As it sits, it had to wait until nightfall to take control. If it had control of all but one or two divisions from the beginning, that would make it pretty much impossible. But since I'm apparently an idiot, I guess I'll just forget about it.

>>55136088
> the AI will give you at least some engagements.
Oh, it does give me some options. Convoy raid, coastal whatever, etc. It's just they're all in areas where I have nothing under the "available forces" section because I don't have ships in that particular area. In my home waters I have a big fleet, but I'm not getting any options to fight there.

>>55136124
>That seems like a terrible idea. That would just make it even easier for the AI to divide up my fleet

Your fleet knows what to do, anon.

>>55136153

Have you upgraded to 1.34b1 version?
'cause that sounds like something base version of the game would do.

>>55136175
Apparently it doesn't, since as soon as it's night they all sail off in different directions.

>>55136221
Yes, I have upgraded.

>>55136223
Early on in the game, single ships and sometimes even entire divisions lose contact with their lead divisions. Reduce your speed at night to prevent excessive contact loss. 12 or 10 knots at night is a good speed, I've found.

>>55136337
I was going at 14 knots and the entire fleet broke apart anyway, will 2 knots really make that much of a difference?

>>55136337
Also, I noticed that ships that break away and head off in some random direction quickly accelerate up to their top speed while sailing away. How do I catch them with the fleet can only go at 10 knots at night? Or should I just write them off as a loss once the AI takes over?

>>55136223

What seems to be getting you is the changeover. If it was *always* run by the AI, you wouldn't get that shock moment.

>>55136508
No, I'd just be stuck with an AI giving itself an easy win right from the start.

>>55136409
Experiment a bit. The values I listed work well enough for me, both in RtW and S&I.

>>55136468
Don't try to catch them. After some time they'll realize they fucked up and will try to find the fleet again to reattach. Usually at daybreak or when visibility gets significantly better.

>>55136529

That's not what happens, anon.

>>55136670
Then why is it that when the AI gets control of my ships, it sends them charging off to get slaughtered?

>>55136728
Because sailing around aimlessly is what ships that have either lost contact or are set to independent tend to do. That happens to both your and enemy forces when their luck runs out.

>>55136728

Simple: It doesn't actually happen. You're making it up. Most of what you've been whining about isn't how this game works at all.

>>55136792
So anyone who doesn't enjoy it must be either retarded or lying? Okay. If that's what passes for help when it comes to RtW, then I won't bother. At least I didn't waste any actual money on it.

>>55136409
It does, you can lessen the odds of division losing contact with other forces during night by investing in fleet tactics research and/or night fighting training.

>>55136124
>Since I have zero experience with the game, I can only assume that means that submarine tech is supposed to be late game?

Early coastal submarines tend to pop up during early to mid 1900s with medium range and minelaying subs usually becoming available during 1910s.

>>55136985

Not communicating well, and making some assumptions.

You *can* get convoy defense missions in places you don't have enough ships to field a fleet- but you would need to have a colony there.

You *can* get a month full of destroyer raids when you need to break a blockade- but that would be a one-off.

You *can* get an indecisive fleet encounter. But the next one is liable to be a full contact, or the one after that.

...and still trying to wrap my head around multiple sub-related losses in a single battle in the earlies. You'd almost *have* to be misreporting that.

It seems like you threw up a wall of sperg and salt after what you thought was a massive setback that wasn't- if you haven't been sacked and your fleet hasn't been sunk (or if it has been sunk, you don't have good stuff coming off the yards), you're not actually losing. And even then you can just lose a war and carry on.

It's hard to get where you're at.

>>55137163
I've been playing ever since it was released, and I've NEVER had a whole fleet break off in different directions - and then sunk by subs.

It's always 3 or 4 ships detaching, and maybe 1 ship lost to subs at the end of the mission.
Now, unless his entire fleet is, like 5 or 6 ships ...

OTOH, A-H on small scale & historical settings just might be that tiny ...

>>55137268

No... like 90% of my experience is A-H and they're pretty small-ball and forgiving.

I'm pretty certain what happened with his fleet there- he was playing wide with individual squadron orders, night fell, and everything switched over and found itself out of contact. Full AI would have had a tighter formation.

>>55137328

Yeah - I see what you mean.
I've always played on Admiral's mode (DF & Aurora masochist/fan here) so I wouldn't know how it works exactly, but: if your forces were spread out in Vice-Admiral's mode when darkness fell ...

Yeah, full frontal fuckery.

>>55137374
Regular Vice Admiral player here, I usually tend to have all but 1 squadron under AI control unless a) the mission involves both a main fleet and a separate scout force or b) so that I can maneuver an individual squadron against a target that AI most likely would ignore.

>>55137420
>have all but 1 squadron under AI control

So, basically, Admiral's mode.

I usually got a 'Main Force' and (later on) 'Scout Force' to ... guide.
I wouldn't say direct or command 'cause the only orders you can give them are where to go & how fast. Oh, and who to follow. That's it.

When they start wasting half of their ammo on already sinking ships is when I usually start wishing I was on Vice-Admiral's (or Captain's) mode so I can tell them to CUT THAT SHIT OUT.
I won't though - too lazy.

>>55137559
>When they start wasting half of their ammo on already sinking ships is when I usually start wishing I was on Vice-Admiral's (or Captain's) mode so I can tell them to CUT THAT SHIT OUT.

I was of like mind, but then a "sinking" BC that I passed over showed up in the end as heavily damaged.

Never again. Shell and Torp them until they're under the water.

>>55131357
>Plus it seems to have this small raised wall-like structure where the maindeck drops off, which is a feature that Hood had that Renowns didn't. Then there is also that little towerlike structure between the funnels which again is something Renowns didn't have but Hood had.

Yeah. I always look at hull lines, superstructure, funnels, masts, and the like before counting turrets and their location.

File: Väinämöinen.jpg (154KB, 1261x851px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 1261x851px

/nwg/ tell me about coastal defense ships

>>55139645
They're like heavy cruisers and battleships except not meant to go out onto the high seas, so the freeboard can seem comically low for the size of the ship. They weren't generally that successful because most of them were built relatively on the cheap.

>>55140397

They almost invariably gave good service, anon.

>>55140713
Really? Almost every account I read of them going into battle ended with the CDS getting sunk by gunfire or torpedo without too much trouble.

>>55140829

Really.

>>55140871
Huh. I'll have to read more of them then.

>>55140980

It isn't all being David vs. Goliath at the Dardenelles (although that happened), a mainstream example would be the Swede Sveriges, who didn't have an exiting week in their service lives (although a tense few days around Aland in '44), but were *worth it*.

File: Vainamoinen2.jpg (54KB, 600x428px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 600x428px

>>55139645
>Is TREE, not ship!

>>55137163
> Not communicating well, and making some assumptions.
> It seems like you threw up a wall of sperg and salt after what you thought was a massive setback that wasn't
Okay then, here's a another summary of what happened.
I'm playing as France. In 1905, war with Italy breaks out. I set some destroyers to coastal defense and send the bulk of my fleet, which significantly outguns the Italians, to the Med. Battle option pops up, it's a fleet battle between our main fleets, I accept, battle starts. The Italian surface ships spend the entire battle running away, so I never actually get to shoot any of their ships.

Then, when night falls, all of my fleet except for 2 battle divisions lose sight of the flagship and start steaming off in various directions at top speed. While under AI control, a bunch of them get torpedoed by submarines, and one strikes a mine. Timer eventually runs out, with the total balance of the damage getting it classified as a decisive Italian victory and giving them a bunch of victory points.

Next turn, the Italian navy shows up in Northern Europe's waters, blockading me. I send my fleet to try to fight them, but for turn after turn it's done nothing but give me random battle options in random parts of the world where I don't have any actual ships. Each turn I get a popup that says another one or two of my ships is sunk by submarines.

As I said originally, even the losses from that battle, I still have a larger fleet than the Italians, with more and better ships than they have. The problem is that doesn't matter because the game just won't let me actually fight them, and they have a blockade that is giving them victory points every turn. So now I'm just stuck hemorrhaging victory points and ships with no way of fighting back.

So maybe you want to dismiss all of this as just retarded sperging, but I just don't see the appeal of a game that isn't letting me actually play it.

>>55141698

You're not in that bad a position. Give it another month, things will stabilize and you'll get options for fleet battles in northern europe- blockade only gives in the region of 200VPs a month, it's the unrest from it that gets you. That's nothing-points.

>if you don't get options for fleet battles in northern europe, they can't maintain a fleet there for long

>>55141698
> So maybe you want to dismiss all of this as just retarded sperging

We'll stop doing that the moment you actually stop and read the fucking advice that we've already given you. This is a pretty easy game, there's not much to it and what there is is pretty intuitive. It sounds like you're just butthurt that you fucked up commanding your fleet and you're trying to blame your retardation on the game. If you just left things alone, you would have won. So I guess it's not completely idiot proof, but then I doubt anyone could make a game that could withstand how retarded and petulant you are. So go back to playing CoD then, and good fucking riddance.

>>55141698
>Then, when night falls, all of my fleet except for 2 battle divisions lose sight of the flagship and start steaming off in various directions at top speed.

So I presume that you had set them on manual control (square flag) and possibly spread them too far apart for sake of covering more ground, then the night falls, squadrons lose contact with the flagship squadron and switch to Independent role with no designated lead formation.

>but for turn after turn it's done nothing but give me random battle options in random parts of the world where I don't have any actual ships.

Would be these random parts of the world be places like Caribbean, West Africa, Indian Ocean, Southeast Asia, and South Pacific? If they're and you don't have naval forces there then it is a sign that you'ven't been fulfilling your colonial force requirement obligations and now the game is fucking you in the ass with "not enough forces in the area to form a fleet" stuff.

>Each turn I get a popup that says another one or two of my ships is sunk by submarines.

By the sounds of it either a) AI has gone full u-boat spam mode (that can happen if it feels outmatched or has lost too many ships in a short order) or b) those ships that got sunk were in regions where you didn't have enough CP-ships stationed.

>>55142011
> So I presume that you had set them on manual control
I didn't set them to anything. The battle began with everything with a square flag except for two destroyer divisions tagging along with some of my battle divisions. This is my first time playing, I'm not actually changing stuff from the default. I didn't even know there was an captain/vice-admiral/admiral mode before this. Apparently I've been in vice-admiral the whole time because that was just the default.

> Would be these random parts of the world be places like Caribbean, West Africa, Indian Ocean, Southeast Asia, and South Pacific? If they're and you don't have naval forces there then it is a sign that you'ven't been fulfilling your colonial force requirement obligations and now the game is fucking you in the ass with "not enough forces in the area to form a fleet" stuff.
West Africa and the Indian Ocean. I figured that putting a half dozen armored cruisers on foreign service would be enough, since that way overkilled the tonnage requirement that the game gave, but apparently not.

>>55142173
ships on foreign service avoid battles, you have to set them to active service for them to fight.

>>55141888
I am leaving most things alone, and this game isn't "intuitive" at all. Practically nothing is explained in game, and while the read-me does give some vague ideas about what some things do, it seems to gloss over how to actually control anything.

And apparently people here are mostly interested in just repeatedly say that having trouble getting into this game makes me a lying retarded sperg who deserves to get fucked in the ass instead of being able to do anything.

>>55142368
No, you're just a dense, entitled retard. See >>55142353
FOREIGN SERVICE SHIPS DON'T FIGHT YOU FUCKING MORON.
If you paid any attention to anything you would know why you're fucking up, but you'd rather just whine about how this game doesn't serve up everything on a silver fucking platter. You come in here, having made a bunch of mindboggling retarded mistakes like not defending your own colonies or setting all your ships to manual, and then you bitch about people calling you a retarded sperg. Newsflash, if you don't want to be called that, stop acting like one.

File: interface.png (68KB, 1590x863px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 1590x863px

>>55142173
>I didn't set them to anything. The battle began with everything with a square flag except for two destroyer divisions tagging along with some of my battle divisions.

In the future you'll probably want to put them under AI's control and chainlink them together.

You can do this by right clicking the squadron's (which you want to put under AI control) flag, it should open a pop up screen like in pic related: under which you've stuff like lead formation (the squadron which AI controlled squadron will try to follow), roles and the box which allows you to decide whether or whether not you want the squadron to be under AI control.

The roles are:
Support (Destroyer Division 2 is currently set in this role) - ships will normally follow some distance behind the lead formation, usually used with destroyer divisions which are set to support cruiser and battleship divisions.

Core - ships will closely follow their lead formation, usually used when chaining together BB units to form a battleline. (i.e. if the flagship formation is BB division 1, you set BB division 2's role to "core" and it's lead formation to "BB division 1", then you set BB division 3's role into "core" and its lead formation to "BB division 2", etc. etc.)

Scout - ships will sail far ahead of the lead formation and scout for them.

Screen - ships will sail some distance ahead of the lead formation and protect them from stuff like mines.

Patrol - this is pretty much only used AI forces and will set the squadron to patrol around an objective.

>>55142441
Tbh that whole ships set into foreign service will try to avoid combat isn't mentioned in the manual so he isn't completely at fault for thinking that taking couple armored cruisers and setting them into that mode would be all that it takes to fulfill your colonial deployment requirements.

This is why I rec'd Austria-Hungary. The Mediterranean is pretty much the kiddy pool... there isn't a mistake you can make that can't be recooped by having a Battleship Division with some destroyers set to "AF" in home waters, with a few cruisers designed to beat other cruisers on the side.

>>55142787

France has all the downsides of a global commitment, but carried out by France.

File: 1280px-Courbet-Marius_Bar-img_3152.jpg (167KB, 1280x750px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 1280x750px

>>55142817
[angry croaking in the distance]

>>55142787
Japan is also a good choice for a training wheel nation.
>only has to worry about two seas
>they're right next to each other so moving ships between them is easy
>surprise attack can make your first wars that much easier by allowing you a chance to eliminate enemy ships with odds in your favor

Just ally with one of the European powers so that France/UK/Germany/Russia can't commit all of its forces against you and you'll do fine.

>>55142700
He is at fault for coming in here and whining like a entitled brat about something without even bothering to figure it out on his own. You can easily find this out through experimentation even if the manual doesn't say it. He's making a bunch of laughable mistakes and then blaming the game for his own incompetence. People need to be willing to learn by doing instead of bitching constantly whenever things don't go their way.

File: Uss_idaho_bb-42.jpg (5MB, 4369x3276px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 4369x3276px

ALL DIVISIONS OPEN FIRE

File: Brazilian_battleship_Minas_Geraes_firing_a_broadside.jpg (1MB, 1857x1332px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1857x1332px

>>55144438

File: Photograph_of_the_Battleship_USS_Michigan_-_NARA_-_19-N-13573.jpg (5MB, 3728x2768px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 3728x2768px

What would dreadnoughts be like in a fantasy setting with Edwardian technology?

>>55150570
Wouldn't that depend extremely heavily how potent the magic in setting is? A setting where magic is extremely rare and limited to shit like cursing someone with bad luck or somewhat accurate divination is going to have very different vessels than a setting where half of the population can cast shit and any even halfway decent mage can fire disintegration beams out of their ass and shield shit with billion different kinds of protective wards.

File: USS_California_(BB-44)_-_NH_82114.jpg (8MB, 5056x2948px) Image search: [Google]

8MB, 5056x2948px

>>55151799
True enough there. I'd been kinda thinking fairly modest magic. Technically a mage could light a fireball off in your powder magazine but not at several thousand fucking yards or through your belt armor.

>>55151821
How accurate divination spells are, if they're even possible, would be a massive game changer. If every ship's fire control crews include some kind of seer you could theoretically be seeing firing accuracy more like that of WW2 than WW1 or earlier.

File: hatsuse.png (16KB, 906x277px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 906x277px

>design and lay down on of these when you've both superfiring b and x turrets but still stuck with only 2 centerline turrets
>the very next turn americans offer to sell 4 centerline turrets

>>55154406
I lost count of how many times this happened to me.

Also, there was a couple of times I got cross-deck fire a year before wing main gun turrets - and 1 month after that I get 4 centreline turrets.

Also, sometimes, while everyone's building ships with 14 or 15 inch guns, I'm still on my old 12" -1 fuckers.
So I lay down my brand-new 4x3 12" gun ship - and next month i get 14" +1 guns ...

That's just RtW tech fuckery for ya ...
I like it - keeps me on my toes.

>>55154799
For me it usually the gun problem. I get upgraded small to midsize guns and am stuck with crap 11s and 12s far longer than seemingly anyone else. It's usually the mid teens before I get anything better.

File: CALissa.png (14KB, 906x310px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 906x310px

>>55154406
>>55154799

A tale of unabashed happiness, unlooked for.

>built this thing in 1911
>-1 11 guns best thing I had, BCs coming out and all my cruisers are dead meat
>go for it, 22,000 ton CA, Central Firing, 26 knots, TD1
>they smash Italian BC ass, clear CAs and CL from the seas
>one of them survives a gun-duel with a BB to allow a scouting CL to survive it's own idiocy, even
>so attached to the design I end up refitting them three times
>one time, I press space-bar twice and suddenly a CL-lead enemy destroyer division is wiped out
>the thing is just a street-sweeper

One of these days I'm gonna go and manually nerf the fuck out of torpedoes on a slow tech game just to see what happens.

>>55156739
Torpedoes are love, torpedoes are life.

What's a good spread of armor for an early-game pre-dreadnought? Obviously the belt, turrets, and conning tower are all very important, but how much armor should be on things like the deck, deck/belt extended, secondaries, turret tops, etc.?

>>55158755
Considering how the vertical penetration isn't that much of a major of concern for the early game when you get the most use out of your pre-dreads their deck and turret tops can be pretty thin.

>>55158755
Look up armor schemes for pre-dreads and use those.

>>55158962
How thin is pretty thin? As in, could I get away with a 1'' deck and 3'' turret tops?

>>55158755
you will get a different answer from everybody who plays, but lately i've been going minimalist for armour on the legacy ones, like 8in belt, 4in extended, 1in deck/extended, 8 in conn and turret faces, 2in turret tops.

when you use these things early game pen never really gets into double digits, and by the time it does pre dreads are used exclusively for target practice and blockade support anyway. thats my philosophy at least.

File: 1.png (792KB, 959x447px) Image search: [Google]

792KB, 959x447px

>>55158755
>early game pre-dreadnought
2" main deck. Any thinner risks splinters going through and into the machinery, any thicker is arguably a waste of weight for a pre-dread.
For turrets tops, I personally like to make them half an inch or a full inch thicker than the deck as the game assumes the turret top, or at least part of it, is angled. Once again, any less than 2" risks splinter damage. I've had 9" and 10" guns go through 1.5" turret tops at ~10k yards, too.
Deck extended covers the engine uptakes, so you probably want to splinterproof that with 2" as well, although 1.5" or even 1" generally works for me.
Secondaries should be properly armoured, especially as you go up in caliber. Remember that secondary flash fires exist and the bigger the secondaries, the easier it is to cause a flash fire.
Not really sure about the extended belt myself. I usually put a minimum of 4" there and then shift it up towards 6" as my ships grow. Some Steam & Iron designs have up to 8" of extended belt armour.

>>55160522
>that B turret

"heard you talkin' shit like I wouldn't find out"

>>55160917
>Meanwhile "Q"
>Fucking seagulls! Next one of you shits on me gets it right up tailpipe!

>>55160917
>>55161741
technically speaking those are turrets 2 and 3. USN didn't really do the lettered turrets thing iirc.

File: 1430865103257.jpg (562KB, 803x596px) Image search: [Google]

562KB, 803x596px

>Playing The Hunters
>My Type VIIB, U-84, has racked up 95600 tons so far
>Assigned to the Mediterranean
>Got past Gibraltar without being detected and sank a small freighter on my first patrol there
>Set out on a second patrol in the Med
>First tile is a storm that forces me to skip the second tile
>Third tile is an air attack that wounds my 1WO and knocks out all 4 of my forward torpedo tubes permanently
>Fourth tile is a capital ship encounter, at night

I have Nelson right infront of me and only a single steam torpedo in my aft tube to shoot at her, plus a single backup electric.
I'm going in, wish me luck.

Okay, so on the advice of people here, I tried a game of RtW as Japan hoping it would be a good option for a newbie. Considering how it went, I'm wondering if that was a troll answer. I consistently had half the budget of the next weakest nation (Italy usually) and 8-10 unrest. During peacetime. According to the manual, unrest develops because of war, losses in war, blockades, and high military spending. None of those were there, so I'm starting to think the manual is just plain wrong.

Also, is there any way to control what forces you have in a battle? It seems like every battle I only get a tiny fraction of my forces, while the AI gets to use everything it has.

>>55165094

Also you get unrest from cramped accommodations

>and I rec'd Austria-Hungary

>>55165094
Usually when the plebs start to get butthurt about things you'll get social reforms or unemployment-events where you can lower the unrest levels by momentary lowering your naval budget.

>>55165132
I never use cramped accommodations.

>>55165132
If he had problems with Japan having no money, Austria-Hungary is even worse. They are the poorest of the poorfags.

>>55165290

It's more that they're blessed in their enemies. Japanese need to leverage sneak attacks. Austria can just sit on Italy.

>>55165308
Austria is more likely to be the one getting sat on.

>>55164678
Goodluck anon, fire that fish and run.
Also don't get driven to the surface and torpedoed back by Nelsol.

File: ochakov after getting fucked.png (60KB, 908x737px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 908x737px

>russian battlecruisers have been a massive pain in the ass for months
>random fleet battle happens
>sun starts setting like less than a hour in
>fuck this is gonna be another of those battles where both fleets never find each other
>stumble into the russian fleet in twilight
>most of them manage to escape after a short fight
>except 1 battlecruiser that gets caught among my ships
>my entire fleet spends the next hour or so taking their pent up frustration out on it

End results: Out of 4 Russian battlecruisers that took part in the fight 1 managed to get out with light damage, 2 with heavy damage, and the last one got sunk.

>>55168920
What side are you playing?

File: Naval_ensign1.jpg (87KB, 371x529px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 371x529px

>>55169075
Nips

File: moreno_david_buell.jpg (85KB, 744x486px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 744x486px

>>55169121
>Japanese skullfucking the Russians again

Glorious.

File: General Arrangement plan making 692 693 Galerna and Vendaval Nabarra spanish civil war fishing trawler UK ship lenathehyena wordpress not yet a map.jpg (2MB, 2677x1931px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2677x1931px

>>55105229
let us know how it goes

>>55090960
>>55095115
>>55095631
>>55096292
>Ship plans, particularly for use as maps in RPGs

Here. Two of these ended up being converted to auxiliary cruisers and served in the Spanish Civil War.

https://lenathehyena.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/aberdeen-trawlers-in-the-spanish-civil-war/

>>55165493

>remove spaghetti

File: curbstomp.png (30KB, 931x666px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 931x666px

>7 months in
>3rd major victory in the row
>hell the only reason why that single destroyer was sunk during this was because she derped out and sailed into a mine

White peace followed by a military build up and an alliance with USA really seems to be paying off, now I just hope that the war doesn't end before I either manage to snatch Liaotung peninsula and its oil fields by military force or by causing the Russian government to collapse.

>BC Izmail 21 02.02 14 in 6302 yds ## Turret K hit T * Turret flash fire! Ship blows up! (BC Kurama, AP)
>CA Askold 21 02.11 14 in 4933 yds Turret G hit T * Turret flash fire! Ship blows up! (BC Kurama, AP)
>CA Oslyabya 21 02.20 14 in 6587 yds ## Turret D hit T * Turret flash fire! Ship blows up! (BC Kongo, AP)

Okay girls, maybe you should calm down a little bit.

File: gensui mizushima.png (41KB, 1107x676px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 1107x676px

>>55154406
>>55168920
>>55172548
>>55173221
And final results, pretty good game even if I didn't manage to get Liaotung (though we did get Kwang-Chou-Wan, Northern Korea, and Sakhalin instead so it is not all bad) and ended the game with the largest guns in my arsenal being -1 14-inch guns my eggheads figured out how to build back in 1909.

>>55172548
How do you actually take specific territories outside of the peace agreement? Just sit around in the zone for long enough?

>>55174981
Either archive a naval dominance over an area during a war and hope that the army feels like invading one of enemy's provinces or wait for a random event that allows you to send in an expedition to an unclaimed territory and possibly take over it.

>>55174634
How the fuck does anyone fit in that thing?

>>55175198
Very carefully, tovarishch, very carefully.

>>55174634
>>55175198
>>55175280
I'm wondering how it doesn't roll over the moment anything bigger than a ripple touches it.

>>55175381
Slav magics.

>>55175381
>>55175941
Is of ingenious design! Submarine is so prone to rolling over that any wave touch it, will roll *all* the way over and come right side up again!

>>55175381

Hardy loyal mujik swine in rowboat gaff to prevent capsize! Is genius! Strong peasent bloodlines, can hold breath for ten minutes, ten minutes submerged endurance! Knouted if they treacherously outpace technological marvel submersible!

Is it possible to design a battleship or cruiser in RtW with no traditional fore/aft turrets?

>>55179159
Sure.
Just put guns in casemates & in 1, 2, 3 & 4 positions instead of A & Y.
Why you'd want to, though, is beyond me - it requires more weight, and gives you only half the broadside ...

>>55179211
>>55179159
Sounds like Fun in the dorfiest sense possible.

>>55179211
>Why you'd want to, though, is beyond me - it requires more weight, and gives you only half the broadside ...

Oh I know it'd be completely retarded, I was just wondering if the game would let you do it for a laugh.

>>55179159
http://nws-online.proboards.com/thread/449/badnoughts-experiment

oh boy do i have a treat for you

>>55179250
Heh - okay, yeah, sure: it lets you do a ton of stupid things - by all means, knock yourself out.
And let us know how it goes.

>>55179242
Nah.
DF, Aurora, Children of a Dead Earth and Rule the Waves are all realistic simulators (for a given value of realism) of the 'life sucks and then you die' philosophy.
You CAN beat them - all it takes is figuring out the system. But that takes time and effort lots of people are unwilling to spend.
And RtW is on the lower end of the scale, IMHO.

File: 1445738716515.jpg (44KB, 383x700px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 383x700px

>>55179287

>>55179287
>http://nws-online.proboards.com/thread/449/badnoughts-experiment

Good sweet mother of Christ. Thank you for that link!

>>55179287
This pretty much sums up my reaction to that.

https://youtu.be/wgzdb0txR_c?t=280

>>55069650
Seaplanes/Floatplanes: What games have rules for them and how are they typically treated?

>>55179769
I'm sitting here wondering if anybody ever deployed ships with 17 inch guns now.

>>55180985
Well, Royal Navy and IJN both had 18 inchers.

>>55181047
USN had some experimental 18 inchers as well. Test firings happened but they were never mounted to a ship.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_18-48_mk1.php

Still though, I wonder if anybody ever tried 17''.

>>55180985
Italians had couple classes of ironclads with 17.7 and 17 inch guns.

>>55181047
>Well, Royal Navy and IJN both had 18 inchers.

18 inchers.

Uh... huhhuhuhuhuh yeah yeah hehehehehhehe

>>55181268
There's a reason I have a picture titled "HMS Furious is compensating" in my botes folder.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9eAzb-Yuzw

>>55179346
It isn't even all that hard to get decent in RtW, all that you've to do is to accept that somewhere someday some pencil pusher bureaucrat will decide that your sub fleet needs to go (probably because some cunts got butthurt when your u-boats sunk a liner or two), those +40k ton capital ships that are meant to form the core of your fleet must be scrapped (to comply with a naval treaty even though you told them to not to agree to anything), the cruiser warfare is the way of the future and thus the navy needs to build at least 50 new cruisers, head of the state could use a new pleasure yacht, the country could use some major social reforms, and that the army needs more money to ensue that its officer corps have uniforms that are in line with modern fashion sensibilities. That and the fact that your boats may randomly explode, get mined, get torpedoed, get torpedoed from a submarine, run aground, get stuck in a foreign port during a war, get rammed, decide to ram things themselves, or be involved in any of the other billion ways that things can and will go wrong.

>>55182217
This is exactly it.
RtW is, IMHO, definitely in the Hardcore Games category, since it's basic philosophy is: the universe is out to get you, and the only way to get ahead is to fuck that faggot over first.
With so much stupidity, incompetence and malice around you, you literally can't afford to be one yourself if you want to survive to 1925 - let alone score big.
It's totally an Admiral-level game just for showing you the true nature of high command: 1% of glory & 99% of digging in shit.

File: HMS_Agincourt.jpg (69KB, 740x565px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 740x565px

>>55070279
I see your 5 and raise you 7.

>>55183741
Still a less janky-looking aft turret arrangement than the Wyoming class.