/nwg/ Naval Wargames General

I keep reading in various sources that IJN ships had poor damage control. Can someone elaborate on what they mean by that (and/or why their naval architects did not devote as many resources to it as in other nations)?

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

>oh boy do i have a treat for you

How do you find the high up space and weight on your ship to mount all the fire control equipment to put all those turrets to good use?

Also how do you process all the math especially from 1890 to 1925?

>>55187956
In American ships (and most nations in general, but USN was one of the ones that put most focus on damage control) every crewman was trained in basic damage control duties and instructed to drop whatveer they were doing and go help with damage control if something bad happened near their station. Additionally, you had several crewmen whose main duty was to do damage control. Over a hundred in the battleships.
IJN did not train their crewmen in damage control and in fact told them that if there was a fire or something, they should just ignore it keep doing whatever they were supposed to be doing. They had some specifally crained damage control crew, but only a handful even aboard their biggest ships.

I'm not entirely sure why they thought this was a good idea, but it may have somethign to do with their obsession with the "decisive battle". Basically, their entire naval doctrine in the war was centered in weakening the USN fleet and then engaging them with every capital ship they had in one final battle. In that case, you wanted to get as much firepower out of your ships as possible, so you want as many men loading ammunition, doing fire control, operating turrets, etc., rather than running around putting out fires. Since you expect your capital units to only fight one battle where the enemy must be crushed utterly, it doesn't matter if they sink half an hour after the battle due to leaking or fire, as long as they sent the entire enemy fleet to the bottom first.

What was the loudest submerged cold war era submarine class the soviets built at cruising speed and below (at flank speed I'm guessing it would be the Papa or Alfa class because they were ludicrously fast)

My gut says November Class but I don't actually know.

>>55187956
you are going to get variations of this
>>55188425
answer a lot in these threads.
If you want more specific answers then you should probably start searching for experts to contact to have recommend specific books for you

How long do you think it will be before a navy figures out a reliable way to add "reloading VLS tubes on surface ships" to the range of capabilities of underway replenishment?

>>55188471
Probably one of the very first models. It took some time for designers to succeed in cutting down the noise. The Nautilus, the first ever nuclear submarine build by USN, was absolutely ridiculosly loud, which would have made it rather useless in actual combat situation since you could hear it literally half an ocean away, but it was more of a proof of concept design than somethign intented for combat.

>>55188425
>their obsession with the "decisive battle"
To be fair, their decision to go turbo-mahanian makes sense in the context that any enemies Japan would be fighting in full scale naval war were going to have a major economic and industrial advantage over them, making it more or less impossible to win a long war once ships start getting sunk. Fighting a short war decided by winning a single battle was likely the only chance they had of defeating a determined opponent.

Though I suppose in hindsight the best move for Japan may have been to not get involved in the war to begin with and wait for the post war collapse of European colonialism so they could attempt to expand their interests in SE Asia without fear of western reprisal (and possibly even their support if they claim their actions are to prevent the spread of communism in the region).

I'm still sad the US and Russia didn't work together in the early 90's to convert one of the typhoons into a large oceanographic research vessel that didn't have to real in the ROV's and other equipment whenever surface conditions became less than ideal.

we could have gotten so much science done with one of those.

File: UB1model 4.jpg~original.jpg (67KB, 660x791px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 660x791px

And I thought eye/mouth decals were pretty much only used on planes and tanks.

File: UB1model 3.jpg~original.jpg (46KB, 668x769px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 668x769px

>>55189109

>>55189133
Not the most threatening decal that I've ever seen.

>>55187570
Rule the waves

>Be italy, get in war with france.
>Fleet engagement, we are already in point blank range.
>In 2 minutes France loses 4 BBs, and I lose 2 BB.
>in 5 minutes 3 french cruisers and 4 Italian cruisers go to the bottom.
>I won the battle but I don't have ships left.

>>55189133
>can't wake up.jpg

>find out my late grandfather served on the Lexington

Is there somewhere I can look up crew registers or something to see what rank/position was?

>>55190930
contact the dept of navy they;ll be able to help you anon

>rules the waves
>keep getting "cruiser division 1 is set as new force flag division" which messes up my orders

How do I turn this off?

>>55192019

>don't get your original flag division sunk doofus

Dunno, as setting everything to support/screen/(in one case) core/scout for the new guy wasn't inconvenient enough to go looking the odd time it happens

>>55192165
It doesn't seem to have anything to do with ships being sunk (I've had it happen randomly without any of my ships taking damage)

>playing italy in RTW

Can I get away with moving to low freeboard on all my future ship designs since I'm only going to be operating in the Mediterranean? Also, does putting down the funnels/superstructure have any ingame effect or is it just cosmetic?

>>55187570
Seaplanes and floatplanes: Which games have rules for them and how are they typically treated?

>>55193187
Low freeboard is asking for trouble, even in the Med.

Are there any good resources for naval games in tabletop simulator?

>>55193429

IIRC, Seekrieg handles them but they're a pretty niche system at best. By the time you've started developing seaplanes, you've starting developing carriers too.

While PBYs did a lot of strategic level patrolling, SAR, and ASW work how is that going to fit into a tactical wargame? The IJN did use the "floatplanes drop flares" trick a time or 3, but, apart from Savo, the technique was rarely worth the effort. The infamous delayed floatplane launch at Midway may or may not have cost the IJN a chance to strike first, but again that's an operational or strategic level event, not a tactical one. While USN floats belonging to BBs and CAs did FO work during various island invasions, they did so under the CAP provided by carriers.

About the only campaign I can think of where floats were an important part was the Axis' anti-shipping efforts in the Black Sea between '41 and '44.

Other than that floats are too inconsequential and the few benefits they provide are not immediately tactical. You'd have to be playing a game like AP's GWAS series in which operational phases that include SEARCHING trigger tactical encounter for floats to be accounted for and then they'd still just part of a force's search rating.

With two battelines going at it, no one really gives a fuck if a few floatplanes from either side tussle. After the scouting is done, their presence is almost of no consequence.

>Rule the waves
>Long war with Italy and France
>Get a convoy attack
>my fleet completely rekts the italian fleet and transports.
>10 transports and 3 DD are on the bottom.
>Withdraw to the south to get a nice victory.
>One of my Cruiser groups is now under AI control.
>Keeps heading north
>runs into the Italians at night.
>Lead CA of the group is torpedoed and sunk
>Major victory turns to minor one
Dammit!

>>55195174
Is there a good online source for Seekrieg stuff?

>>55195256

Well, I'd google/bing "Seekrieg" and see for myself. There just might be an official homepage where you can download the entirety of 4e or buy 5e.

Then again, that's just me.

>>55195287
Meant more fanstuff and other things, but thanks.

>>55195287
That'd probably be a better idea if they didn't still expect you to buy CDs with the ship logs on them.

>>55187570

What were the major technological bottlenecks that delayed development of wire guided torpedoes and homing torpedoes?

>>55195912

Funny. I'm looking at a 469 page pdf I downloaded for free from that site titled "Seekrieg4-ShipLogSheets". It starts with Argentina's 1890 Libertad-class BB and ends with the US' 1943 Oakland-class CL.

Did you bother to look at the second page of free downloads? Or was that too much effort for, much like >>55195256?

>>55196391

Electronics.

You can look this stuff up yourself, you know.

>>55195174
>By the time you've started developing seaplanes
What about the interwar period though, and before then? Wasn't there a lot of seaplane development for the purposes of recon and transportation?

>>55196589
I was talking about Seekrieg 5, the one that you actually *have* to buy? Try picking up some reading comprehension before you default to snark, it'll prevent you from looking this stupid in the future.

>>55196723
>Wasn't there a lot of seaplane development for the purposes of recon and transportation?

That was more about operational ranges, navigational issues including radio capabilities, engine reliability, and infrastructure. The advances demanded by WW2 solved all those "problems" for normal aircraft.

Regular aircraft needed runways while seaplanes could use any old harbor. More "runways" like that meant you could "land" and refuel nearly anywhere. There's a good reason why the first circumnavigation by aircraft involved modified DT-2s which could both pontoons and wheels while carrying extra fuel in their weapons bays.

Thanks to WW2, by '45 operational ranges had increased dramatically, radio & navigation were much better, engines were more reliable, and there was an airstrip just about anywhere you wanted to go.

In the Pacific where ranges were freakin' huge, yeah, PBYs carried torps and depth charges knocking off the occasional PC, merchant, or sub and, yeah, floats handled a lot of recon duties because you didn't need a flight deck to carry one. For a naval game focused on tactics, floats generally mean you've a better chance of a fire aboard.

I'm not saying their jobs weren't helpful or that they didn't do them well. I am saying that what they did do - patrolling, recon, SAR, and ASW - doesn't translate too well to a tactical game. While those jobs do translate well in operational/strategic games, the "big picture" nature of those game means floats are going to be folded into "search factors", "patrol points", and the like.

If you've got a stiffy to run some battle involving floats, a game which focuses on AIRCRAFT and not SHIPS is your best bet.

>>55196772
>I was talking about Seekrieg 5...

And I was talking about BOTH, shitstain. You can get ALL of 4e for free.

File: blackcat[1].jpg (47KB, 470x380px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 470x380px

>>55195174
Black Cats were an integral part of shutting down the Tokyo express.

Night Rufe patrols are also the reason PT-109 got cut in half.

GQ3 has some pretty good optional rules for seaplanes. Naval War includes them as well, but they're still less than optimal compared to carrier or land based planes.

They're still my fetish

>>55196973
>And I was talking about BOTH

Good for you! Doesn't change anything about what I said, and you're still fucking illiterate. Try to unclench your bowels before posting next time.

>>55196991
Aren't they everybody's?

>>55196991
>Black Cats were an integral part of shutting down the Tokyo express.

Very true, in a recon and light attack role. The Black Cats' greater endurance allowed them to "loiter" longer increasing detection odds.

File: 6482a8287a13a345ddd60fc8d1eaf9dc.jpg (70KB, 720x486px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 720x486px

>>55196991
Why are PBYs so sexy

Which dreadnought is the most AESTHETIC, /nwg/?

>>55198219
Ain't got a picture at the moment, but I've always been fond of the Orion class.

Is there a way to autoresolve the battles in rule the waves?

>>55203197
Yes but only for raider fights.

>>55197798
Because they're a chunky little bote that also happens to fly.

Forgive me my ignorance, but what are the diagonal ribs I see on the sides of the hull on so many dreads?

>>55204796
Could you post an example of these trips or link to a post that has them? Plenty of ships have riblike features so it could be anything without a specific example.

File: IMG_4958[1].jpg (78KB, 1024x632px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 1024x632px

>>55204963
>>55198683
Two birds with one stone. HMS Monarch sporting the ribs I mentioned.

File: Hail Sterneck.png (57KB, 1858x1080px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 1858x1080px

>june 1903
>a year into a war with France and Italy both
>War is over No Frogs in Rhodes, had finally fought france into a postive VP balance through sheer dull grinding (the only battleship sunk had been mine), then Italy climbed on
>Italy is now falling apart but my unrest is at 8 and climbing
>fleet encounter with French 15000 tonners with my four remaining prewar 10-inch 11000 tonners
>gale brews up
>Torpedo boat torps a frog with style, a solid year of this and they've gotten good
>french start to disengage, not having any of that although my bb's are nearing 30% damage things starting to give
>THIS HAPPENS

I'm probably going to lose the war badly next month, but von Sterneck is getting a fucking statue after this, I'm thinking. Those crazy Austrians, don't let them get close.

File: dreadnought_6.jpg (72KB, 550x378px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 550x378px

>>55205423
Of those? They're rolled up torpedo nets, they look like this when deployed.

>>55205509
Ah. That makes sense in retrospect. I had the same sort of time trying to figure out what the weird basket looking things on the aft end of some of my destroyers and cruisers were when I first started painting models. Took me forever to find out that they were prop guards, because I couldn't really articulate what I was trying to find out well in search terms. Those things look like they'd take forever to deploy.

What does /nwg/ think of Kantai Collection?

>>55206650
>make a waifu driven web game
>the cutest girls are on the enemy side

It is ok, most of its fanbase seem to have shit taste in ships though.

>>55205506
You never know how a war can turn out.
>couple months ago
>playing as germany
>end up in a war against anglo-italian alliance
>massively outnumbered by anglo-italian fleet
>fug, time to go for full u-boat spam
>unrestricted submarine warfare everywhere
>end up pissing off russia and japan too and they join in the war
>usa doesn't give a shit and france is still too busy licking it wounds from my previous war with them to do anything
>still the odds aren't exactly in my favor
>couple years long u-boat war starts, hochseeflotte spends most of it sitting in harbor
>unrest is high among basically all european nations that take part in the war, every turn there seems to be news about rebellions in the fleet, anti-war riots either from home or from abroad
>uk decides that enough is enough and abandons the war
>rest of the alliance decides to continue fighting
>this gives me couple months of breathing room, surface units get a chance to engage in battles that don't involve them being outnumbered at least 3-to-1
>couple months go by in game, i manage to push back against italians&russian forces in the europe
>then uk decides to join in the war again
>fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, this isn't good, this isn't good
>we're back to the deadlock
>3 months later
>news from the uk, there has been a coup and the government has been disposed, the new government has decided that continuing the war isn't worth of it
>this shatters the fighting spirit of rest of the anti-german alliance
>peace is signed, the new borders will follow the frontlines of the war
>end up losing couple colonies in the east africa
>still a small prize to pay considering that my unrest was 9 when the war ended and it would had only took couple more months before germany would had collapsed completely

>>55207052

Nope, deposed (and after a more than 3-1 loss rate).

At least they walked away with a bunch of obsolete battleships and cruisers for their trouble, although the reduced resource base hurts.

File: nets00[1].jpg (34KB, 306x188px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 306x188px

>>55205621
Well, they were only deployed when the ships were at anchor in port, so time wasn't really an issue.

>first time playing as austria-hungary
>kaiser orders 2 new battleships
>lay down 2 13k ton ships
>this brings the the total amount of austro-hungarian battleships either in service or building to 6
>great britain decides to freak out due to this, apparently those 6 mediocre battleships supported by handful of armored cruiser, light cruisers and destroyers is enough to endanger rn's ability to control the seas
>never mind that they outnumber us 3 to 1 in battleships, 5 to 1 in both armored and light cruisers, and 2 to 1 destroyers
>spend next year sucking off uk's dick in hopes that it will be enough to calm them down

>>55207665

...And I've just picked up a two-prestiger by sinking two of them (along with a native Italian build) with the six-gun 14-inch british BB's I promptly ordered.

File: Kancolle Warspite.png (436KB, 570x696px) Image search: [Google]

436KB, 570x696px

>>55206726
> the cutest girls are on the enemy side
But Warspite is on your side?

I'm at war with Italy. My fleet is parked in the Med, blockading them. I have 4 battleships and 3 battlecruisers. They have 1 battleship and 2 battlecruisers. In the resulting battle, they have 2 battlecruisers. I have only 1 under my control, plus 2 more in the area under AI control. The 2 Italian battlecruisers kill the battlecruiser I have under my control. Then the battlecruisers that are supposedly mine but are under AI control go in, one at a time, to fight the Italians, and both die as a result.

Fuck this game.

>>55209406
Just clicked next turn and one of my subs accidentally torpedoes a cruise liner, causing the Russians to declare war. One of their subs then immediately sinks one of my newest battleships in a pop up event.

>>55209406
AI can derp around quite bit.
>should we partake in the battle that is happening in english canal?
>nah, lets take a tour across britain's eastern seaboard first and then go in to get our asses kicked

>>55209406
At the end of the day, as much as I love the subject matter, Rule the Waves is just not a very well made game.

For example, when you're deciding on ending a war the "Go for total victory" and "The navy can fight on if need be" answers are actually reversed in their effect. Saying to go for total victory will always result in a middling peace.

>>55209490
>>55209406
Yeah, that's why they pretty much have to pull shit like the player only getting a tiny fraction of their forces in any battle. If the player and the AI actually had the same ships, the AI would lose every time, so they have to handicap the player in order to compensate for the moronic AI.

>>55209676

>embarrassingly recalling that full-on fleet battle where I ducked into port because I was being out-damaged 2-1.

>>55209949
It's not that embarrassing considering that in a fleet battle the AI usually outnumbers by about that much.

>>55210030

No, straight-up fight, decently matched.

>>55209406

Did you try to solo the enemy, or did you rally on your supporting forces, refusing combat if need be?

>>55210165
Battle started with the two Italian battlecruisers pretty much right on top of mine. They were about as fast, so trying to get away just didn't work. It didn't even let me issue commands until they were already within range.

>>55204796
>>55205621

I can't ever imagine being this stupid. Seriously.

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

8MB, 5056x2948px

rollin' some coal, boss

>>55196608
i mean the downsizing of what electronic components specifically. that's harder to find explained in plain language.

>>55187570
so what was the fastest dreadnought/superdreadnought not class, individual ship, cause in trials they don't always go the speed you expected, and it can vary between ships in a class.

>>55211194
why they got parts of the boat painted to look like they covered in niggas or measuring tape?

>>55211316
USS Wisconsin apparently once made 39 knots because of freak circumstances while in Chesapeake Bay.

>>55210321
Right then. Who shat in your shit on a shingle?

>>55211332
those are meant to signal to other ships in formation what precise angle their guns are traversed to, IIRC. that plus the clock thingy on the fire control tower helps to ensure the formation concentrates fire correctly.

>>55211294
>that's harder to find explained in plain language.

No it isn't, you pathetically lazy fuck.

Even something as dumbed down as the Wiki page for sonar talks extensively about how advances in piezoelectrics, power supplies, and signal processing led to advances in sonar. The page's embedded links then lead to other pages which further explain certain concepts.

The information is neither hard to find nor hard to understand. You're just too fucking lazy to make a minimal effort and want us to spoon feed you instead.

>>55191360
>records are only available to un-remarried widow or widower, son, daughter, father, mother, brother or sister
huh, I guess I have to get my dad to sign off on this
>requires veteran's SSN and service number
...well, that complicates things

>>55211944

Have your dad make the request. You can help him fill out the forms, "navigate" the internet, and all the rest, but he "signs" the request.

Be sure to read their warning about a fire in the records office in the 60s(?). They lost everything between certain years. I don't remember the details, but there are records which no longer exist.

>>55209183

And now it's France's turn. That alliance with Russia has been a godsend in both wars (and they got Eritrea out of it, which is probably just awesome as far as they're concerned, and I intervened in their favor in the subsequent rebellion), but in this one it's the only thing (through Northern Europe blockade) that France really notices as we've been lining the Med's seafloor with iron. Traded one of my two "modern" battleships for the final reparation ship I lost, feels.. ok. Fighting the French is weird because while they've got some cutting edge stuff (their med BB is a white whale, I've moderately damaged it twice), they also hold one to a lot of really old shit. I can hardly criticize, though- I just fought a fleet engagement in 1914 that saw ships from DD's to BBs on both sides that range from brand new to 15 years old at least.

>>55212776

>...and just like that I lose my two quasi-modern (had torpedo defenses) B's (both to a single torpedo, instantly) and I'm down to the two x4 11-inch/x10 10inch with no torpedo defenses I never liked, one british BC and one BB still in yards.
>subs, do you thing
>ok, there's also a modern BC from germany getting delivered in two months

>>55209577
>For example, when you're deciding on ending a war the "Go for total victory" and "The navy can fight on if need be" answers are actually reversed in their effect. Saying to go for total victory will always result in a middling peace.

In earlier versions you could just force your country to fight on every single time that option came up, allowing you to collapse the enemy in revolution every single time. A recent version of the game fixed this by making the chances that the politicians don't listen to you bigger.

>I love a brew up in the mist

>>55211316
The single fastest Battleship in history according to the USN's internal documents was the USS New Jersey, which by abusing her overbuilt turbines, very friendly currents, and weather conditions that were just perfect, became the only US Capital Ship to ever break the 40 knot line (40.1 knots, ship's records) while crossing the Atlantic at full speed.
More realistic guestimations judging by inherent inaccuracy of ships' instrumentations would drop that just slightly, with the Navy saying that the minimum she must have been doing was 39.2 knots.
The crew of the USS Wisconsin, sistership of the New Jersey, and the crew of the USS New Jersey still sometimes argue about that (which one was faster, see >>55211470 ), but the US Navy says it was USS New Jersey.

Incidentally, it's not what you asked, but the fastest USN Major Surface Combatant in history was the Allen M. Sumner-class USS Laffey (DD-724) clocked at 42.8 knots (at light load) off Tacoma, Washington during Speed Trials; loaded speed was approx. 40.8 knots. This is only really notable because the Sumner-class was well known for their disappointing speeds.
There were apparently advantages to having your entire aft half nearly blown off (exaggerating) by the enemy and having the US Navy determined to bring you back up to shape 'whatever the cost' as an emblem of the American fighting spirit - the girl ended up with a unique, one of a kind stern and oddball boilers/turbines that fixed many of the problems discovered in her sisters and near-cousins (the Gearings).

>>55214635
So New Jersey went the fastest battleship officially.
Wisconsin may have gone faster.
Laffey was the fastest AMERICAN destroyer

and CVN-65 has gone faster than any large navy ship in the world but the fastest she ever went will probably not be declassified for a long time.

>>55215957
>and CVN-65 has gone faster than any large navy ship in the world but the fastest she ever went will probably not be declassified for a long time.
Actually, no.
USS Enterprise (CVN-65)'s 'speed' was actually her ridiculous acceleration, not her top speed.
Her hullform limited her to 32 to 34 knots, but (due to her eight reactors) she could build up enough steam to reach that speed in very little time at all.
Comparatively, it would take an Iowa over 20 minutes to get to speed during an emergency.
This is what causes the legends of the Enterprise's 'very fast' speed - because the she would pick up and leave her escorts behind that were struggling to build up steam. Then those escorts would build steam and catch up to her and think that she slowed down - she didn't, the escorts were faster than she was.
Gas Turbine Ships, such as the Burkes, were actually able to accelerate nearly as fast as she could; so, whenever GTs came into the fleet strong, the legend became that her age was showing. In reality, it's just that her Escorts were able to keep up with her acceleration.

>>55215957
>CVN-65 has gone faster than any large navy ship in the world

No, but >>55216129 already explained why people THINK so.

>>55216129
That's a distinct possiblity. I've just talked to 5 people who served on her all years apart who all said she could do over 40 knots and figured that at least one of them would have said something different if that wasn't the case. Also they also all said the hull vibrated in a way described as scary or "your ship shouldn't do that" when going over 40 knots.

>>55216129
was her rate of deceleration also exceptional?

>>55216129

that depends. demanding rapid accelleration can be a great way to damage gas turbine engines and end up spending a lot of time back at the shipyard.

>>55214635
>>55216129

so an iowa could cross an ocean faster than the enterprise.

Does that mean the K-162 was the fastest large warship ever in terms of top speed?

File: 213060USSIowaoprationFlintlockjanvier1944.jpg (127KB, 800x627px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 800x627px

>>55216129
>Comparatively, it would take an Iowa over 20 minutes to get to speed during an emergency.

Apparently attempting to do this faster than that on USS Iowa herself led to some machinery damage towards the end of WW2 that caused her to be limited to 32.5 knots max.

>>55212776

...5 year war. I've got one B that I started it with left (and some pretty nice not!Teggetoff 12-inchers that I had time to lay down, build, and clear the seas of 14-inch French BC squadrons with). No cruisers. Double-digit sunk destroyers because I kept showing up to cruiser fights with no cruisers after I got all my cruisers sunk (even the three I built during the war).

Well, at least France got kicked out of the Med by the end of it.

>>55216129
>because the she would pick up and leave her escorts behind that were struggling to build up steam. Then those escorts would build steam and catch up to her and think that she slowed down - she didn't, the escorts were faster than she was.

escort crews aren't stupid.

>>55216395
Indeed, they aren't and weren't. The press personnel that were with them were, however.

>>55216428
Paparazzi are annoying.

>>55216257
>K-162

What is that?

>>55216491
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_K-222

>>55216516
how did they make a guided missile submarine with a payload of 10 PLUS a torpedo room and tubes and still have room for crew and sizeable enough machinery for it to be that fast and have the resulting boat be not gigantic?

>>55216872
Slav magic.

>>55206650
Eh. Kind of shit as a game if I'm being honest, a lot of the character designs are shit, and sometimes when they HAVE something good they proceed to ruin it with nonsense.

If only "cute girls but also warships" was as easy to make good as you might think.

>>55216953
the only magic is Las Vegas magic.

File: HMS_Swiftsure_LOC_ggbain_16800.jpg (1MB, 3300x1980px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3300x1980px

>>55217165
I dunno, Russia's had a long-running act involving their warships disappearing from the ocean.

>>55219914
>Square ass
Why tho.

File: t3_41y5z1.jpg (177KB, 1400x942px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1400x942px

>>55220584
Improved performance at higher speeds by providing ship with false length, this is why also HMS Adventure had to be noticeably lengthened when she was converted from transom to cruiser stern.

>>55217723

is that a crack at russian ships sinking or how the navy put to sea far less in the 90's because the implosion of the economy starting being felt by the military and also worsened?

how hard is it to pull the gas turbines and gearboxes out of the various flights of Arleigh Burke class destroyers?

>>55221896

is their a difference between screws optimized for acceleration and screws optimized for top speed?

>>55207052
can you actually take over countries in this game.

like be Germany or Spain and invade and take the British Isles?

>>55222513

I've yet to take an area worth more than 10 (which is the highest you can get after winning a war anyway), so I don't know if that is possible or not. Actual territory from a core country is more represented by unused settlement points coming out of their national resource base period.

>>55222347
Mostly the latter plus the fact that this same economic crunch has led to a lot of decommissions. There's like...only one or two Kirovs left in active service, for example.

File: pastabote 3.jpg (150KB, 1024x685px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1024x685px

Why is pasta so good at making good looking botes?

>>55225354
EETS-A ME! A-LITTOOOOORIO

>>55225354

Austrian shipyards

Turrets: 3x3 or 4x2?

File: 18 MISSOURI juillet 1944 0163042.jpg (199KB, 1600x1245px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 1600x1245px

>>55228098
4x2 is a little more elegant, but 3x3 has this nice aggressive look to it.

File: Konig-class_battleship[1].jpg (6MB, 5552x3104px) Image search: [Google]

6MB, 5552x3104px

>>55228098
I like 5x2, myself.
All of them, even the cross-deck firing ones.

>>55228098
4x3, because DAKKA

>>55228098

Just found out you can make a BC with 30 or less kt speed with over 12" of Belt armor if you put less than 8 guns in 2 turrets on it, so ... 4+3 for me.

>>55229602

What do want to do with your BCs though, anon?

Bully cruisers that didn't know any better, or get to where BBs need to be fought and fight them?

>>55229936
Get to where BBs need to be fought and fight them, of course ...
With enough armor on them (German style) and all guns forward (Richelieu style) I might just do enough damage in the first five minutes to gain a solid edge over them.

Why?

>>55228098
3 turrets with 4 guns each.

>>55230056
was this ever done on a historical battleship?

>>55230505
from what i understand, north carolina class was designed with 3x4 14in turrets, but with provisions to upgun them to the 3x3 16in setup should japan ignore some treaty limitations.

>>55230056
In Nelrod config.

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

170KB, 1280x853px

dreadnought the day

dreadnought the night

>>55241461
Such a silly turret arrangement.

>>55241997
I'm not sure if it's worse or better than the Wyoming's double aft superfiring pairs.

File: uss_wyoming_2lo.jpg (96KB, 1344x581px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1344x581px

>>55243106
eh, I think Wyoming looks better. it's probably my favorite American dreadnought class that isn't a super-dread.

>>55241997
What's so silly about it?

>>55242930
Seydlitz didn't deserve her fate

File: seydlitz forgets she's not an u-boat.jpg (107KB, 740x570px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 740x570px

>>55243333
You mean getting turned into swiss cheese at Jutland or the scuttling at Scapa?

>>55243311
It did cause some problems that also appeared on the Florida's predecessors, the Delaware-class dreadnoughts. Number 3 turret couldn't fire astern while Number 4 turret was facing forward because the blast from the guns would injure crew in Number 4 turret. The steam line arrangement was a bit crazy and tended to cause powder in those turrets to be subjected to a bit more heat than was ideal. There were also a few mechanical problems because of it.

>>55243408
Scapa, Jutland and Dogger were outstanding. These accounts are really neat.

http://www.gwpda.org/naval/jut01.htm
http://www.gwpda.org/naval/foeseyd.htm

"Our opponent has blown up." "Drauf Seydlitz!" is the reply, and with doubled enthusiasm they went to work. "Target change right, on the next ship in the enemy line,"

>>55212046
So it turns out because we don't have any information about his service (year of entry, service number, etc) we can't fill out the form to get information on his service.

File: Fucking Stupid.jpg (55KB, 497x443px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 497x443px

>>55244976
>So it turns out because we don't have any information about his service (year of entry, service number, etc) we can't fill out the form to get information on his service.

Fucking bureaucracy.

>>55244976

See if the ship has an organization dedicated to it already. They could help.

Are there any fantasy naval wargames still in production? With the death of Spartan Games, I do not think there are any left.

>>55246408

Ah, the semi-dreads.

>really hard to do gun direction for
>ammo loadouts were a bitch too

>>55247661
>nah guys we can totally tell 8-inch splashes from 12-inch ones

File: constitution escorts.jpg (669KB, 1276x780px) Image search: [Google]

669KB, 1276x780px

I'm sensing some serious build point manipulation here...

>>55248562
>Sid Meier's Civilization.jpg

File: 1280px-HMS_Agamemnon_LOC_ggbain_18554.jpg (96KB, 1280x701px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1280x701px

>>55247661
>>55248258
Have another on me.

File: gallipoli bombardement.webm (3MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x360px

>>55256458
I really wish there was more film material of pre-dreads and WW1-era ships.

>>55258152
>>55260240

Weird shit like this is what I need to tinker with on RtW.

In RtW if I build a ship with triple turrets, and then a little bit later I research improved triple turrets, do the ships I've already built benefit from it? Or do they still have the same penalties?

>>55261424
i'm fairly certain they don't, but for the life of me i can't find the source for that.

>>55261424
I imagine if you do a rebuild they might

>>55261424
You have to refit the ship once after you get the tech. A blank refit should do the trick.

>>55265044
Needs more funnels, and turrets-on-turrets...throw in a ram bow, too.

>>55266933
It's like somebody took part of the Kowloon Walled City and stuck it onto a boat hull.

File: 3387750732_ea1f5ae099_b.jpg (426KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

426KB, 1024x768px

>>55266976
Well duh, she is french so of course she isn't exactly what most people would call aesthetically pleasing.

>>55267364
Of course I forgot to add: pic related as an actually attractive ship.

File: CvcwydZ.jpg (352KB, 1450x1011px) Image search: [Google]

352KB, 1450x1011px

Hibernating bote.

>>55273681
There really aren't enough images out there of pre-dreads firing their guns.

File: HMS_Illustrious_(1896)_firing_guns.jpg (108KB, 1481x777px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1481x777px

>>55274156
Pretty sure that that is true for all non-Iowa class (still convinced that people have photographed pretty much every single salvo that those boats have fired since WW2) ships.

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

5MB, 4369x3276px

>>55274971
Here's USS Idaho.

>>55283888
Dem salvos.

>>55285277
That is rather interesting camo even on dazzle standards.

>>55287157

U-botes were driving people nuts at the time.

>can't dazzle a mine though

File: 1496593514646.jpg (715KB, 2751x2114px) Image search: [Google]

715KB, 2751x2114px

>>55276075
God, I'm a sucker for those black turret tops + air recognition circles.

>>55276075

Who is that fetching juno?

>>55288029
SMS Nassau

>>55267904

WTF? Who, what, where?

>>55288083

Nice 11's on 1st gen then, anon. It really is all about how you swing them.

>>55288143
Jean Bart, 1945, sailing from Casablanca to France for repairs and having her construction finished.

File: Colbert_August_2017_01[1].jpg (5MB, 4608x3456px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 4608x3456px

>>55288954

>>55288954
I guessing thats a post war, likely 60s, Italian vessel.

That's a fuck ton of guns though. I'm actually kinda impressed. Reminds me of the Atlanta class...which is always a good thing.

>>55290598
Huh...French actually.

Colbert

>>55290610

Yeah, even without those bow lines and turret arrangements, that ass could only be french.

>>55291433
Ah, the Connecticut-class. One of the more insane pre-dreadnought designs.

>hm, these 8 8-inch guns in the secondary turrets don't feel like enough...
>I know, let's throw on 12 7-inch guns in the hull casemates!

File: 1494371305493.jpg (1MB, 2944x1744px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2944x1744px

>>55289675
... I know that place.

I WORK at that place. Fuck you Anon for making me think about work on the start of my vacation :V

Here's one from the same place, one dry-dock over, and about twenty years earlier...

So what does the Eastern government type actually do? I could never tell.

Be me:
Working as a historian and guide in DC.
One day mention that I've been working on some models for a ttg.
One of the older guides mentions that he played a lot of ttg.
We get talking, he mentions his 1/600 Civil War Naval collection.
I mentioned my 1/1200 collection and how in College I played with a scaled down 1/600 ruleset.
He asks what ruleset and when I tell him the title he smiles and says to look at the rulebook when I get home...
That moment when I realize that I'm now working with the author of the ruleset that got me into Naval Wargaming.

>>55297450
Seems to be somekind of variation of limited democracy.

>>55297677
Fuckin rad anon. What rule set?

>>55297312
You always seem to speak up whenever someone posts a pic of these. And its almost always in the negative.

>>55297677
Nice. What ruleset if you don't mind the asking?

File: 1490033167497.jpg (3MB, 3000x2215px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3000x2215px

>>55298219
Eh, it's my hometown, and I work at the yard. Last ship we built was back in the sixties or seventies; USS Sacremento, iirc. Now, ships only come here for intermediate maintenance or recycling.

It's kinda depressing for an amateur naval historian like me to hear people cheering when old relics are scrapped and turned into shit like razor blades. I'd much rather most of the Dead Fleet get turned into artificial reefs or museum ships.

Plus, it kills my knees when I have to climb in and out of those dang ol' dry docks half a dozen times a day.

>>55297312
>Fuck you Anon for making me think about work on the start of my vacation :V

Anon, arbeit macht frei. Therefore for you truly to be free from your work during your vacation you need to keep it in your mind constantly.

I'm trying to create a nation mod, and I can't figure out how to add the rapid economic growth modifier. How do I do that?

>>55298219
ACW anon here, it was Iron and Steam. Back in college we just scaled the movements down so we could play larger battles in 1/1200 scale.

File: 1446339714267.jpg (3MB, 1280x1607px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x1607px

>>55300780
The related strings are
GGP=2
RGP1=1
RGP2=0

GGP is for economic growth, independent from RGP1 and RGP2. This string is only used for the USA at the moment. RGP1 is for naval budget from 1900-1916, RGP2, is for naval budget from 1916-1950.
The strings I posted above would make a nation with insane economic growth, a small growth in naval budget from 1900-1916 and no naval budget growth after that.

>>55301392
Man trying to find that title anywhere was like pulling teeth. Plenty of videogame references. A lone and basically unhelpful boardgamegeek page, and nothing on eBay.

>>55301392
Is it an earlier version of Iron & Oak? (put out by GMT) Mr Day seems to be creator or co-creator of both.

File: morris.jpg (26KB, 600x408px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 600x408px

So speaking of ACW rules...Does anyone have any experience with the Smoke on the Water rule set from Canis Publishing? Its a free set of rules that at first glance looks pretty crunchy.

>>55307869
>DAT DRAFT

>>55310130
Gotta be nerve-wracking working on scaffolds like that.

File: 4538-300-dpi-German-South-Seas-Squadron.jpg (442KB, 1608x1028px) Image search: [Google]

442KB, 1608x1028px

>>55311266
Well, back in those days most yards actually budgeted deaths into project funding.

>>55312222
Good ol' corporate practicality.

> 2 BCs against 2 BCs
> Mine have 8 14 inch guns and a 13 inch belt.
> The AI's BCs have 8 12 inch guns and a 9 inch belt.
> AI wins, and it's not even close. My ships barely even shoot back.
Is there something with player controlled battlecruisers and not properly attacking the enemy? Because it seems like the AI's ships have insane damage and rate of fire given how outclassed they are in theory. I haven't noticed this with battleships either, they seem to be able to fire regularly.

>>55315016
In the cruiser engagement scenario, player controlled BCs get a substantial rate of fire reduction while AI controlled BCs have theirs buffed. Whether this is intentional or a bug is unclear, but you should decline all cruiser engagements late-game because even if you have more and superior ships, the stat bonuses/penalties involved in that specific scenario are just immense. I've had cruiser engagements where I both outnumbered the AI and had more big guns per ship, yet still get out-damaged just because the difference in rate of fire is so huge. Stick to fleet battles, that's where you can actually face the AI on at least somewhat more even footing.

>>55315155
> you should decline all cruiser engagements late-game
I wasn't allowed to decline it because it was an "unexpected battle" and I wasn't allowed to control my ships until they had already come within range of the enemy, the controls were all greyed out and unusable. By the time I could start issuing commands, my ships were being shot full of holes.

>>55315244
Yeah, that's RtW. Sometimes the RNG gods decide that you just lose and there's nothing you can do about it. No matter how well you play, no matter how good your ships are or how many you've got, sometimes the dice just give you a game over.

File: pic.png (11KB, 454x474px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 454x474px

>>55315244
There is actually a way to avoid unexpected battles, just click the cross in upper left corner.

>>55316934
>upper left corner
What did he mean by this?

File: maybe i should kill myself.jpg (106KB, 704x396px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 704x396px

>>55317035
That he is retard whose only brain cell is having problems to function properly.

>>55312222

They still do. It's just tucked away deep in the paperwork behind deliberately euphemisms.

File: montana semi-dread.png (65KB, 1012x750px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 1012x750px

Time to see how badly this experiment will end.

>>55320215
I've gotten good service from similar in the past.

>>55326572

Had no idea the Greeks had a warship that old as a museum. That's awesome.

>>55328177
Georgios Averoff is a sexy ship. Comes from her pasta heritage.

>>55328737
And from her history of many kebabs removed from the sea.

>>55318637
>>55331004
Such an ugly class of boats.

>>55331799
Imagine if they had the French ass.

>design and order a new class of destroyers
>next month eggheads figure out how to quad torpedo tube

Well fuck you too.

File: Aganos and Kitakami.jpg (966KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

966KB, 1200x900px

>>55336836
You know what must be done, anon.

>>55337054
I should really field my Ooi in Naval War soon.
Requested rules for it and all...

>>55337115
Mine has seen the table, but only as an objective marker for a convoy, sadly. One of these days, I'll unleash the glory that it represents.

They really should work on AIs territory choosing priorities.
>win a war against UK&France coalition as USA with Japan as my ally
>british government collapses completely, france doesn't feel like continuing the war, time to choose what we'll take
>choose the territories that i'll annex (after almost 150 years the north america's eastern seaboard finally has been completely liberated from britsh yoke)
>japan's turn to chose, will they go for britain's holdings in east asia or south-eastern asia?
>nope, they take grand bahama and trinidad

Guess that someone in the Japanese government really was a fan of Caribbean beaches.

>>55340065
Man...Maltas harbor always looks so small and packed with ships in these pictures. Yet when you look at the maps its actually a decent size.

New thread: >>55343169