Need naval help

My gaming group has started a naval campaign game, and I signed up for it because it seemed cool and all models were being provided (and we get to kepp them)
So to start, we have some money to buy some ships, but not a lot of money. It was suggested to buy a core of two battleships, and a screen of cruisers and destroyers (around 10 destroyers and 4 to 6 cruisers.) Unfortunately I know almost nothing about boats, so what should I get? I looked at the battleship list, and the only two I knew were the Iowa and Bismarck and both are way too expensive. I can afford stuff built for WW1, but what is good from that era? I would have enough left over to probably get more destroyers.

Does anyone have any idea as to what would make a good combo? Nations are not limiting, since our campaign is just 'build a fleet you think would be cool'.

If you can afford it, get Maryland class battleships. 16 in guns and good armor.

I could afford one of them, and some cruisers and destroyers, but I'd like to haeve more then one battleship.

4xYamato and nothing else

Airpower, user. Airpower is cool. When rating ships for carrying planes the most important stats are going to be planes per point and speed. Try to avoid carriers that can't make at least 30 knots.

As for a command ship, I'm a fan of the Alaska class and the Des Moines, even if they often rate as cruisers.

You also might want to double check how the rules treat Mogami and her planes. They might be really cool, or really dumb. The only other vessel to look into is Akron, who might also be useful, or just a bag of hot air. Otherwise, spend all your remaining points on Gearing class Destroyers.

As for the planes themselves, the post war (1946) standard is Fireball/Skyraider, so judge everything against those two planes.

HMS Hood.

If battle cruisers or heavy cruisers are a thing in the game I'd recommend looking inot those. Light armored but battleship caliber guns and fast for their tonnage.

Hood actually had battleship level armor.

Repulse and reknown were up armoured, but weren't that much better then a heavy cruiser. But they did have massive firepower. They also sunk the Scharnhorst.

Pacific or European theater? Single nationality or grab what's good and use it in a fleet? How much detail IE radar gun laying vs optical? Mechanical fire control or traditional? Details man!

Way too expensive, carriers are pretty much out of the question for me. From the way the game is being setup, carriers look like a mid to end game campaign goal. And with weather conditions, planes can't always fly, but ships can almost always fight.

Fictional-ish, think strangereal for an idea. We can mix and match ships as we like. There is a bonus for having commonality, but the bonus is in supplies/repairs, not in actual combat. Radar is in game, and makes things easier to hit instead of optical. I don't know about mechanical fire control/traditional, what is that? I txtd the guy running the campaign as well.

Two Helgoland battleships. Lots of guns, pretty good armor. Not super fast, but they'd provide a good core for you OP. If you can, upgrade them to the Konig class, which were all centreline turrets, and better protected.

US Navy ships of the time had mechanical computers to calculate range/shell travel time/deflection, which when combined with radar range finding improved accuracy. I think RN ships had them as well, not sure about KM, Japanese ships didn't have either.

You can't even afford an Independence? lame.

In that case see how the game treats Kitakami and her 40 torpedoes. You might just want to bring five (or more) of those, turn the sea into torpedoes, and then leave.

Helgoland! Upgraded Nassau class, good 12 inch guns, tough as nails. You should get that OP. Roll Coal!

Torpedoes, you mean the

Got the reply back from the campaign guy, he said that most ships have centralized fire control. 'A Ship can lose it's firecontrol and then the turrets wil be fired independantly in local control, but your accuracy will suffer since most hits were achieved with a salvo straddling the vessels path'

So it looks like that is also a part of the game. So much to learn!

You seem to know your stuff. One of the other players has already chosen his fleet, and he bought two Conte di Cavour ships. Are they any good?

That's why I said check how the game system treats them. Some systems take that approach, others don't.

Also, this is why I suggested brining 200+ torpedoes to a gun fight, even if only 4% hit, that's still eight, which can be enough to sink a battleship. Of course if planes were a thing this likely wouldn't work, since they'd be able to detonate them before one could launch them, but he just said they aren't.

>Are they any good?
Italian, so probably not. (On the other hand, the game might of abstracted away all the places where Italians failed, in which case they would be.)

So many replies and not one person has suggested the Kongo?

Crazy good battlecruiser, served through two world wars, easily the best ship in the WW1 era.

Op, just play world of warships instead. You'll learn about naval warfare that way.

This is wrong on so many levels. WoWs has battleships that have shotgun turrets with bent barrels, non-existant secondary batteries, cruiser rounds which can make any battleship into a viking funeral pyre, invisi-dds with reloading torpedo racks, the list of BS with that game could fill a book.

You really need to be more specific. How much money do you have and what price figures are you looking at? Can you take even escort carriers, which would vastly improve matters? Do you have any idea what sort of force you'll be facing? Will WWI era ships be totally outclassed?

These details really matter, and will absolutely affect what advice I can give you.

Also, 2 battleships, 2 heavy cruisers, 8 destroyers is what you'll probably be looking at as a surface task force on a budget.

Do check up on ship mounted planes anyway - planes that are very light or that have pontoons were often carried aboard normal warships - in the case of at least one battlecruiser (HMS Glorious) the catapult was mounted on top of one of the turrets, with some of the ramp/runway above the barrels of the guns, thanks to the absurdly short take-off requirements of early planes.


Also, check out the Queen Elizabeth class battleship - it may have been largely down to the crew and opportunities, but it's not for nothing that a ship of the class (HMS Warspite) is the most decorated ship ever in the Royal Navy

>2 battleships, 2 heavy cruisers, 8 destroyers

Two Iron Dukes, 2 County Class, 8 War emergency L or M class destroyers.

That would be my pick based on OPs suggestions.

Carriers are so boring as well.

The CdC looks like a solid design on paper, main armament was kind of light by the time of the second world war but that was a solid armament package for a late WWI design. Without seeing the rules I can't say if it's good or bad though.

The Italian navy's failing wasn't the ships so much as their admiralty and the experience of their opposition. They spent the whole war bottled up in the Med, and once the Allies had air bases in North Africa they were inside the range of land based attack aircraft. That limited when and where they could operate. Had they been able to maneuver on the open sea I think they would have done better over all.

...

Thanks for the suggestion, I have txtd to find out from my friend if ships have planes.

I like the Helgoland suggestion, I can easily afford them, and a bunch of cruisers and destroyers, but they only have 11 inch guns? Isn't that pretty small?

>Hood actually had battleship level armor.
Yeah, on its sides. Only problem was, Bismark had guns that could arc the shells. One goes through the weak deck armour, hits the magazine, good night Vienna.

i have an irrational love for the seydlitz and the rest of the german high seas fleet. thing could take a beating and not givafuq.

pic related, seydlitz after jutland.

All battleships had arcing shells, Bismarck actually fired on a flatter trajectory then Hood. Hoods sides were angled to take advantage of plunging fire and provide more protection. Her deck was a bit light, but not substantially lighter then Bismarcks. Lucky shot, nothing more.

The word your looking for is plunging fire user.

Hood's biggest weakness was that she was a WW1 ship up against a larger ship with modern tech. Bismark had a lot more weaknesses, weak stern, bad armor scheme, stupid flag officer, bad armament layout (seperate secondary and AA batteries) and outdated turrets. She wasn't nearly as good as people think she was. A decent ship, but decidedly below average for her displacement.

Post SoDaks.

12 inch guns, and it had 12 of them. Good for a first world War design and could still pack a punch during the second.

The Moltke and Von der Tann battlecruisers were pretty cool. Objectively better then the british invincible class.

If you can afford it and want to dial things to 11 think about getting the HMS Nelson. Nine 16 inch guns in three triple turrets.

Picture of the other ship of the class - who's name I can't take seriously, thanks to Only Fools and Horses

8" is most common for cruisers. For a battleship 12" is rather poor by the time WWII comes around. 14" becomes the new minimum with most navies around that time.

I would caution against going in on cruisers. They're only really a good solution when they're screening for faster carriers: they lack the punch and armor of a battleship and aren't as maneuverable or flexible as destroyers. They served no other role with any distinction, aside from serving as flagship when a battleship is unavailable.

...

>mandatory over-the-shoulder shooting to cover your aft quarters
>broken glass all over your bridge
No, no, no.

Yeah, the ships design had issues, but I doubt that they will play a factor unless the rules are super detailed.

I'll second the idea of avoiding cruisers if you have slow battleships, they generally can't sit on the same line, and you're trapping them so they can't use their speed easily.

Of course some of this depends on how easy it is to find the enemy. If your dependent on cruiser based scout planes then you might end up having to take them. (On the other hand, USS Akron – mentioned above – might be an alternative head and shoulders above the competition here.)

>served no other role

Workhorses of the fleets. Patrolled the globe, maintained a presence when the main fleet wasn't there... Not to mention that cruisers were THE commerce raider. South America, the Med, singapore, cruisers were everywhere!

This guy gets it.

>Patrolled the globe, maintained a presence when the main fleet wasn't there
In other words, when there wasn't a main-line battleship or an air arm present.
>Not to mention that cruisers were THE commerce raider
Aside from submarines. And escort/light aircraft carriers. And the occasional moment of madness where the Germans tried to use their battleships for the purpose.

Cruisers are a good solution for keeping up with a carrier. They're a compromise anywhere else, particularly against battleships.

Take Independence-class light carriers instead of battleships. Boats are lame, airplanes are awesome.

>8" is most common for cruisers
Except for America, where light cruisers with ridiculous numbers of small guns were the name of the game.

>12x six-inch guns
>12x five-inch guns
>28x 40mm guns
>10x 20mm guns
Fuck you, torpedo boats! Fuck you, destroyers! Fuck you, airplanes!

Make sure to get some good camo OP so the enemy can't see you

I'm really happy that someone mentioned the Queen Elizabeth Class. They're my favorite battleships of the era. Don't pick Kawachi, ship had no range

Yeah, the USN doctrine in World War II was "GUNS! SO MANY GUNS! MORE GUNS THAN THIS SHIP HAS ROOM FOR!"

Don't forget the Atlanta-class CL, which was built with more guns than fire directors.

That said, the USN did have a number of 8"-armed CA's.

Better than the other British made battlecruisers?

Hey, it's only a bad idea if it doesn't work.

The Kongos were Lion-class battlecruisers built for Japan

Pic related seems relevant.

I never said it was a bad idea. Makes me feel super patriotic, actually.

Nice quads.

The warspite was ww1 era, and she was a beast even in ww2.

Are you supporting amphibious landings? If not, don't get battleships.

Tenessee-class are good.

The AA cruisers were also heavily criticized for their poor surface action performance.

As you should.

Those are the first quads I've gotten in a while.

What system are you using OP. I need to know.

>Fireball
Not a great name for a plane

What are you talking about? You should get a Monitor in that case, nearly all the firepower of a battleship, but with nearly none of the cost.

I'll recommend the Abercrombie class, it seems decent enough, and the guns appear to be of good manufacture.

There's a reason the company that made the plane is no longer in business, but it is the first american carrier based jet, so it deserves it's place in the history book.

>South Dakota
>name of a landlocked state

brilliant name for a boat right there

Some general from South Dakota did actually do well in the Pacific Theatre, though. I forget his name.

>brilliant name for a boat right there
>South Dakota
Clearly the Anchor was a far superior vessel name.

>The AA cruisers were also heavily criticized for their poor surface action performance.

So what you're saying is that something not designed for surface action, but for anti-aircraft fire... didn't do well in surface action? Golly!

They were designed as scouts/flotilla leaders, and their role as AA cruisers was adopted over the course of the war. They had too few fire directors, were too topheavy, and the only two that were ever involved in surface combat were sunk.

So naturally they're too strong in WoWS, while Japanese torpedoes operate at half their actual range.

For the best. Japanese garbage where it belongs, at the bottom of the fucking ocean.

>hating on mostly good engineering just because you're butthurt at a country
SEA monkey or Murrican teen?

It's really got more to do with me being sick of the sea being made entirely out of torpedoes at all times if there's even one Japanese ship on the other team.

Blame WoWS for retarded reload times and pathetically small maps

Warspite and Co were the worlds first SuperDreadnoughts. British dictating ship design yet again.

I guess you could say that it made me a bit...


salty.

Thing would've sunk too if a couple pump ships hadn't rushed out to meet it otw to the port.

Whats really amazing is how fast they got it repaired and back into service.

OP here, thanks for the suggestions. Im gonna sleep on it and post tomorrow.

What game system IS this?

i never noticed the seydlitz family coat of arms on there, thats tight.

not better than hood and certainly not better than QEs

kongo a shit