/nwg/ naval wargames general

Naval War naval-war.com/ gets recommended around here pretty often.

...

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

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

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

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

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

Reminder to armour your turrets properly

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

>Naval War
>Victory at Sea
>Dystopian Wars

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

>3" guns on CL
>only 21kt speed

You deserve everything you get, user ...

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

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

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

...

...

...

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

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

Pic for reference of what she looked like before.

Nice work on the turret and crane!

...

...

...

...

My experimentation has lead to good results.

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

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

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

...

[anger noises]

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

And then the murders started.

>Eagle Orgasm Intensifies

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

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

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

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

do you even Rule the Waves?

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

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

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

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

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

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

HIGHLY annoying.

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

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

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

100+ prestige here I come.

...

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

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

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

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

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

...

...

...

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

>Just like doitsu in my chinese cartoons

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

You know some of these volumes?

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

>>You know some of these volumes?

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

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

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

People earn their doctorates digging into this stuff.

...

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

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

...

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

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

What program is this?

Rule the Waves

...

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

...

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

...

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sweet. Thanks for the share.

Thanx for the pics!

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

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

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

...

...

...

Just passing this on:

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

...

hello i am bote

>toot toot imma boot

Wonder what they were smoking when this got approved.