Pasta 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
Models and Manufacturers
pastebin.com
Rule the Waves
mega.nz
Previous
Other urls found in this thread:
nws-online.proboards.com
twitter.com
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)?
>nws-online.proboards.com
>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?
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.
you are going to get variations of this
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?
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.
>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.
And I thought eye/mouth decals were pretty much only used on planes and tanks.
...
Not the most threatening decal that I've ever seen.
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.
>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?
contact the dept of navy they;ll be able to help you user
>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?
>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
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?
Seaplanes and floatplanes: Which games have rules for them and how are they typically treated?
Low freeboard is asking for trouble, even in the Med.
Are there any good resources for naval games in tabletop simulator?
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!
Is there a good online source for Seekrieg stuff?
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.
Meant more fanstuff and other things, but thanks.
That'd probably be a better idea if they didn't still expect you to buy CDs with the ship logs on them.
What were the major technological bottlenecks that delayed development of wire guided torpedoes and homing torpedoes?
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 ?
Electronics.
You can look this stuff up yourself, you know.
>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?
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.
>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.
>I was talking about Seekrieg 5...
And I was talking about BOTH, shitstain. You can get ALL of 4e for free.
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
>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.
Aren't they everybody's?
>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.
Why are PBYs so sexy
...
...
Which dreadnought is the most AESTHETIC, /nwg/?
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?
Yes but only for raider fights.
...
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?
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.
Two birds with one stone. HMS Monarch sporting the ribs I mentioned.
>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.
Of those? They're rolled up torpedo nets, they look like this when deployed.
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?
>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.
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
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.
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
...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.
> 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
>embarrassingly recalling that full-on fleet battle where I ducked into port because I was being out-damaged 2-1.
It's not that embarrassing considering that in a fleet battle the AI usually outnumbers by about that much.
No, straight-up fight, decently matched.
Did you try to solo the enemy, or did you rally on your supporting forces, refusing combat if need be?
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.
I can't ever imagine being this stupid. Seriously.
rollin' some coal, boss
i mean the downsizing of what electronic components specifically. that's harder to find explained in plain language.
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.
why they got parts of the boat painted to look like they covered in niggas or measuring tape?
USS Wisconsin apparently once made 39 knots because of freak circumstances while in Chesapeake Bay.
Right then. Who shat in your shit on a shingle?
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.
>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.
>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
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.
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.
>...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
>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
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 ), 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).
...
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.