Kalamity Edition
Talk about botes, bote based wargaming and RPGs, and maybe even a certain bote based vidya that tickles our autism in just the right way.
Games, Ospreys and References (Courtesy of /hwg/)
mediafire.com
Rule the Waves
mega.nz
> Question, possibly rhetorical, and probably about naval things. E.g. "Why cannot Germany into boats?" or "What's your favourite tabletop Naval Wargame?" or "How would you run a naval focused RPG campaign in *X* setting?"
Other urls found in this thread:
m.youtube.com
thestate.com
boardgamegeek.com
mediafire.com
airliners.net
marineinsight.com
twitter.com
You forgot to change the placeholder question/prompt.
If you play Rule the Waves and like it, don't be a scrub, go buy it.
Fisher's autistic fast monitors have their own kind of charm desu.
Captains Doe and Brimmage, if you could get your maneouvre orders for the round in post haste it would be much appreciated.
They were like bigger, better Deutschlands.
...
Being better than German penis extenders is hardly worth of mentioning.
Fellow Admirals, I have two questions:
First, how can I quit my first bote? Prior Navy btw.
Second, how can I quit my current botefu?
For what they were: Shallow Draft Battlecruisers, they were ok.
Arguably in the theatre of operations they were designed for, their armour was sufficient, and their firepower was impressive. Taking out a land based fortification would have been a snap for them, and they could operate where actuall battleships could not.
Courageous and Glorious were decent, Furious was a bit stupid.
Pic related can help you quit...
Excellent taste, user.
>abandoning your boatfu for some english homewrecker
...
Hey, Exeter is a classy lady. We could have suggested he take up with a bunch of slutty sisters instead.
>Arguably in the theatre of operations they were designed for...
A theatre of operations which never happened ad never came even close to happening.
Fisher's Toys were a waste because they were too specialized. They were built to meet the theoretical needs of a series of theoretical operations in a theoretical campaign. Every navy has made similar mistakes and the IJN made more of them than anyone.
May I remind you of how Churchill still toyed with the idea of assaulting through the baltic many years later? Take off your 20/20 hindsight glasses, every campaign and operation starts as theory, and mistakes will inevitably be made.
This isn't a case of hindsight. This is a case of acknowledging there's a huge difference between toying with an idea and actually studying or planning for it.
Hell, even the self-admitted fantasies Wilhelmine German had about landing an army corps on the US East Coast ~1900 had more actual staff studies and planning than Fisher's or Churchill's '90 miles of hard sand" Baltic fantasies.
Fisher built three ships to meet a need which primarily existed in his cocktail conversations and personal correspondence. Those 3 light BCs were a waste and suggesting they had any role beyond Fisher's personal fantasy land ignores the facts.
>Those 3 light BCs were a waste and suggesting they had any role beyond Fisher's personal fantasy land ignores the facts.
They forced a response, and led to a decent carrier conversion due to their lightweight and high speed.
>talking shit about four stackers
behead those who insult flushdecks
Meant it as a complement, honest.
...
>Why can't Germany into botes
They spent too much time advancing down the pomp and beatbox branches of the music tree.
thestate.com
Hope Mad Mel does a good job, Laffey is a badass ship, and deserves her story to be told well.
...
>mbw reading Destroyermen brought me into naval wargaming and fostered a love of four stackers as bright as the sun
Aww yiss, there's muh girl.
Such a classier ship than the American ones.
Might be one or two others that can say the same.
Dumb RtW question: I see AI forces constantly making moves and taking over neutral areas (say, Cuba in the early game) and I have the ability to respond to those moves through the dialogue box. Which is fine, but how do I order my own forces to move on/take over a neutral port?
during peacetime its completely random, it might be more likely if you have forces in the area but don't quote me on that. in wartime you can land on enemy controlled colonies if you have way more forces in the area than they do.
I will never get tired of reading about the top of the evolutionary ladder getting their shitty wooden ships btfo by a 4"-50 HE shell.
...
TOP HAT
...
...
How far along into the series are you?
I just finished up the latest, Blood in the Water. I had dropped the series for a few years. Looks like the next one comes out in June though, and I am excited.
I just finished Deadly Shores. Kinda bummed that I'm catching up to the author now. Been very much enjoying the series.
Well, I wont spoil anything then, but I think you'll like where it goes from there. It gets more nuts, if nothing else.
The end of Deadly Shores was nuts enough. I can only imagine.
...
...
Anyone here read "The Great Pacific War"? Basically a what if Japan attacked in 1930 book. Pretty damn well done as well. It is presented as a history book, sort of like Tom Clancy.
No, but gonna add it to my list.
Are there any submarine wargames you guys would recc? I recall seeing a fa/tg/uy playing a (card-based?) game regarding subs. Subs have always fascinated me but I didn't get into Silent Hunter when I had the chance and now it's too late since I'm on W10.
>I recall seeing a fa/tg/uy playing a (card-based?) game regarding subs.
Guess that you're talking about either the Silent Victory (yanks on the Pacific) or The Hunters (krauts on the Atlantic).
>The Hunters
Fucking nailed it. Thanks lad.
...
There's also Silent War and Steel Wolves, for those who think running all the encounters of only one sub is too simple, so you run the entire campaign of the US/Germany down to the individual sub attacks on targets. IIRC Steel Wolves even has a rule for pulling a Prien and sneaking into Scapa Flow.
...
So what settings do you guys use for RtWs? Historical resources? Varied tech?
...
what does the Varied Tech even do? Anyone actually know?
le'Bump
...
One authentication key to rule them all in RtW?
Purely pulling this out of my ass, but I'm guessing tech develops sporadically, not in clockwork chronological order as in the historical record.
Maybe a certain kind of torpedo became available to Austro-Hungary in 1907. With varied tech, it might be earlier or later (?)
I am guessing, though.
pretty much, you might develop quad turrets in 1904, or you might never.
Looking for some tips on the what's a good armour thickness like in the 1900-1910ish era. Normally I play Steam&Iron so don't really have to think about it all that much.
Not sure how to armour up my armoured cruisers and pre-dreadnoughts. I've been going with 2-3 on light cruisers on the belt, 5-6 on ACs and around 8+ on Bs but I am sure most of that armour will be irrelevant once guns get above 10". Speaking of which, is it actually ever worth loading up heavier ships with heavy secondaries in that timeframe? Does having a big old battery of 8" guns alongside a few 10" main guns really help much over something like massed 6" guns?
Once I get up to BCs and BBs I feel more like I know what I'm doing anyway, though am experimenting with effectively making super-armoured cruisers in the form of lower tonnage BCs (about 12-15k) with about 10"-12" armour and packing as large a primary armament as possible and a few triple-6 inch gun turrets. Not exactly great for speed though but functional I guess. Have had so much bad weather in wars I think ignoring casemates and instead taking the fire-rate hit is worth it.
>Never encountered Kasuga or her sistership before.
>Crazy ownership.
>Powerful too.
I think i've found one of my new favorite vessels from the time period.
>single rear-mounted quad
>on a battlecruiser
WAT
The krauts got away with one ahead, two aft on their normal cruisers because they were meant to run away from enemy ships. But CCs are meant to run down enemy cruisers.
When it comes to secondaries single turrets with 1-2 inch gun shields are a decent alternative to casemates.
...
Would have been interested in seeing the creator's justifications, but it's all in Russian.
>french study glorious ships of the revolutionary navy
>design a revolutionary vessel that could take down biscuit, hotel, and big stick at the same time
I'm genuinely surprised that the secondary battery isn't made up of those giant recoilless rifles that the Russians tried out on a destroyer.
...
Guessing its meant to be a commerce raider myself. No other explanation for that arrangement that I can think of.
Oh Tiger...you were too pure for this world. By far my favorite BC of all time.
That actually would be in keeping with parts of French doctrine, so it would make sense for it to be.
Whenever I can finally lay hands on an appropriately scaled Tiger, I'm gonna do that what-if conversion by the Dutch that's in the GQ3 book.
...
Which conversion is this? Were the dutch looking to buy Tiger or something?
I'll snip the bits from the PDF later and post them if you'd like, but if you want to read it now, it's the end of this book:
mediafire.com
It's a what-if//fantasy scenario. Although the Dutch did have plans to build some BC's of their own that never materialized.
>plan to have battleships
>plan gets derailed by ww1
>plan to have battlecruisers
>plan gets derailed by ww2
Guess that we know that the next big European war is going to start soon when Dutch decide that they could use an aircraft carrier or two.
That's a lot more well thought out than I thought it would be. Thanks for sharing. Having a stronger dutch presence in the South Pacific in the early war would have been interesting though i'm not sure it would have mattered.
Single turrets just looks so much less classy, but I'll give it a go, at least on some lighter ships.
Aesthetics are a small price to pay on the road to tonnage savings and reliable secondaries.
...
What's with the huge bulge on the bow?
An attempt to improve its seakeeping properties.
Are tertiary guns ever worth a damn?
The Bow. The K class was designed to steam at fleet speeds (24 knots, which at the time, allowed them to chase down pretty much any battleship they felt like, and to reposition very quickly.)
The bow was modified a bit, to make it sink slower when submerging, since crush depth for the submarine was less then the length of the sub (not uncommon), and the boat had a tendency of diving so fast that the bow would go below crush depth in a dive.
So what's been your MVP design so far? Not just the biggest, baddest 50+ k-ton battleship, but the ship that's done you the most good and has created the best emergent story for you thus far?
I've got two, but my favorite is pic related. Commissioned in January 1907 and immediately retrofitted with a better fire-control system, the BC Arizona entered service in July of 1907. She is the only ship of her kind, and the very first ship in the world to be commissioned as an oil-burner instead of a coal-burner. She's served in three wars, against Germany, France, and Germany again. As of 1924 she has established a worldwide reputation as the worst thing a cruiser (armored or not) can see cresting the horizon. She and her elite crew been single-handedly responsible for 13 ships sunk (including three French cruisers - 2 CAs and 1 CL - in a single solo engagement off the Gulf Coast in 1908 where she was able to drive the French into Galveston Bay and trapped them there), and has partial kills on another dozen or so, usually by disabling the engines of a ship in a squadron and driving on against the rest of the squadron while her escorting DD's torpedo the cripple. It seems that wherever enemy action is hottest, the Arizona finds herself nearby.
Of course, she's likely nearing the end of her useful lifespan, as the world is now seeing plenty of 35-45 k-ton ships capable of matching (or nearly so) her speed, and the 14-16-IN guns now standard will blow right through her armor in a capital ship engagement. I don't want to scrap her, and if I could guarantee her being used against enemy cruisers she'd likely still have plenty of life left in her (getting hit with 4 13-IN and 4 8-IN guns will give any cruiser a headache), but her likelihood of ending up like the Invincible grows with each month.
>also, I'm terrible at getting the line/superstructure tool to actually fill correctly on the ship design page. Funnels are self-explanatory, but the line tool is miserable
10" turret faces, i threw up a little in my mouth
if you have a heavy secondary battery then they can be. guns 7" and over prioritize large ships to fire at, cruiser and up. QF guns, 6" and below, prioritize dds over everything else.
the graz, for sure, excuse the shitty lines and stuff, i kept meaning to fix it but forgot and then that hard drive died. Originally ordered from german yards as a 3x4 12in gun ship, but with spare weight to be upgunned to 15s in the future, TOP MEN in france obtained +0 15in guns a month before it was delivered to the glorious austrian navy. graz was immediately sent back to the docks and re gunned to a 2x4 15in gun ship. along with her sister, the lissa. she saw service in every war from 1914 to 1950 when the game ended, and also was involved in practically every battle. the finest damage control teams kept her fighting even after at one point losing 3/4 turrets to gunfire from 3km away during a hectic battle in a storm off the german coast. in fact, i cant remember a battle where either graz or lissa werent 1 stiff breeze away from capsizing
Come to think of it, there really isn't any point in going past 16 inch guns in RTW.
>ai doesn't really seem to build ships armored to the point that 16 inch guns would stop being useful
>the rather small increase in performance isn't worth of the massive increase turret weight
not really, since there are no floatplanes to spot over the horizon for you you pretty much are never able to shoot past 20k yards or so. however the longer the max range of a gun, the more accurate it is under its max range. larger guns also do more damage, so i guess it mostly comes down to preference, do you want 9 18s that hit more often and do more damage when they do, or 12 16s that have a better volume of fire?
Hansa, one of my first custom designs, being based on a modified Victoria Louise class AC.
She's been the terror of the French in both a 1904 war and a 1914 war, sinking multiple light cruisers. I've no idea how to check how many kills she's had specifically but for an AC, she's done fairly well, limping back home barely above the waterline at a couple of points after tanking a torpedo hit.
Against Russia she served decently if not spectacularly. But I've finally a chance to actually fully replace this class with a much more modern ship for service in the Baltic, capable of properly challenging all those old Bs Russia is hanging on to as well.
Definitely the Arethusa. Intended as a cheap and easy CL, I only made one of the class before advances in tech made a 4 turret version (essentially the Leander) possible on the same tonnage. She should have been obsolete, but instead she became the workhorse of the RN. In seemingly any battle across 2 wars with Germany and France, Arethusa could be found, valiantly taking the fight to the enemy, and she was good at it too, far better than she had any right to be really. Not a single engagement went by without Arethusa claiming at least one kill, including a German BC that she hit with 3 torpedoes during a night engagement, before moving on to its trio of Destroyer escorts, sinking all 3 with the help of her own escorts. In another fight she took on a pair of French CAs and a CL alone, sinking the CL in a gunnery duel and heavily damaging both CAs before being forced to retire with 2 of her 3 turrets destroyed and the last completely out of ammo.
Nothing about the ship's design should have made it the terror of the seas it was, but she must have been crewed by the finest sailors in the world and Captained by a steely eyed badass.
ship bump
Serious question, why do they have the superstructure at the back of tanker ships like this? Why not at the front so they can see over the bow?
>start of game
>disarmament treaty
>13 years of nothing above 12kt and 8" guns
Well that makes things interesting.
I suspect this is where a ton of 7" secondary guns will be worth using. I wonder if it is even worth building battleships when they're going to be slower, less well armed ACs?
I've had ships with smaller guns outshoot biger guns many times in instances where both ships were capable of penitrating each other's armor, so I think the accuracy bonus is less effective than the ROF bonus. But this is just personal experience.
Probably something to do with lighter bows being better for seakeaping, and not needing to see directly in front of you most of the time while at sea.
>disarmament treaty
>13 years of nothing above 12kt and 8" guns
Just start a war, user. Treaties go away once hostilities commence.
War has begun, wasn't really looking for it though, was hoping I could drag out that mess longer.