Pasta boat 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:
navalwarfare.net
navalwarfare.net
en.wikipedia.org
thearmoredpatrol.com
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
...
Made in pastaland, sold to the tzatziki people. Preserved and currently being surveyed for a full restoration so that it can steam around the Agean on its own.
Ok. I was doing the US in my previous attempt but trying to defend the East Coast and the Caribbean at the same time in 1908 from the combined Anglo-French fleet was.... not going well. Do you guys do manual building of the legacy fleet? Also, should I be reducing tensions every time instead of trying to maintain my prestige?
I personally like to rebuild the legacy fleet to get exactly what I want. You may at first want to just use what they give you if you're still really fresh to the ship designer. Remember that if you update a ship's design in small increments that you can save a load on the initial construction fee (especially with B, BC, or BB).
And in case you haven't used them the manuals are a lifesaver when you're getting started:
navalwarfare.net
>Do you guys do manual building of the legacy fleet?
Considering that what AI tends to give you if you let it to design manually building your legacy fleet is a good idea.
>Also, should I be reducing tensions every time instead of trying to maintain my prestige?
Depends on the situation, in general you'll want to bully states weaker than you while trying to not piss off states stronger than you're.
Yeah, the manuals have been helpful. What I really wish I had were explicit lists of valid ship design parameters. The manual lists some guidelines, but I can't tell you the number of times I've tried saving a design and been told 'illegal ship configuration' while having no clue what exactly was invalid about it.
The thing is, the parameters change with time.
A 12" gunned, 13" belted ship that goes 24 knots would be considered a BC in early game, then when you lay down a new ship with the same specs a few years later it's a BB. Up the speed of 26 knots and it's a BC again, then a few years later it's a BB again. Reduce the belt to 12" or below and suddenly you have a BC again.
Some other cases would be protected cruisers in the early game. 8" guns and above can only be mounted in the A and Y position, wing turrets of that caliber will give errors. If you want to mount guns over 8" on a protected cruiser, you have to use a single gun turret in either the A or Y position. You can mount up to a single 13" gun like this, picture related.
When in doubt, post an invalid design here and we might be able to help.
...
The parameters can be pretty temperamental at times.
>design a cl
>the game claims that it is clearly a ca
>fuck it, time to hit the automatic design button and modify whatever it creates until it fits my needs
>the game shits out a design that is basically same as the one that I originally proposed but it has couple useless 2 inch secondaries or turret or two are placed differently
looks like a backwards version of the Royal Navy's Victoria class
Didn't know about the plans to restore her to being seaworthy.
>Blue cheese eaters beware, Georgios Averof is here!
...
...
...
...
That is what sea power should look like.
Rusty?
No.
Powerful yet aesthetic.
man, those are some rough seas there. either that or Indiana is loaded down like whoa.
Funny thing, her two sisters Hashidate and Itsukushima actually mounted the gun on the bow.
...
One brit contractor scams some Italians that just didn't know any better, and *this* gets unleashed on the world.
...
>those are some rough seas there
who wants to fight the battle of guadalcanal?
I've collected a decent chunk of minis for that in 1/1800, tho I'm still far from complete.
>Main gun turrets between the superstructures.
I'm sure that's never, ever, ended badly.
>what are safety interlocks
It wasn't really a big deal.
Quite a number of ships tended to cause some blast damage to their own superstructure and deck when they fired, anyway.
>all that open deck
Imagine how many quad Bofors she could mount if they were willing to sacrifice a little of B and C turrets' firing arcs...
When you're talking Pacific, I'm kinda partial to Java Sea myself, but "Stand aside, I'm coming through" gives me chills and tingles. It's why one of my Nova-class Dreadnoughts from B5 was named Washington. I just imagined one popping out of a jump gate right in the middle of a Dilgar formation and proceeding to wreck shit in a similar fashion.
I'm a bit of a noob to botes in general, but why the hell would they have giant bullseyes painted on the B and Y turrets?
To make her easier to identify from air.
Assuming friendly air superiority, then?
No, not automatically.
It can work both ways, if you have just a few ships at sea (or planes in the air) it can make sense to tell all your forces 'if the unknown unit does not have [insert ID marker], shoot it until it dies'.
On the other hand, if you have lots and lots and LOTS of planes and ships of all kinds, shapes and sizes flying and floating around everywhere it can make sense to have them all fly a common ID marker so that your crews do not decide that this plane/ship/whatever that actually belongs to your ally looks a lot like that one enemy vehicle.
Especially AA crews and aircrews attacking ships tended to be REALLY trigger happy, which is why many British ships ended up with a red/blue dot or a Union Jack painted on a turret, and many US ships had a Stars and Stripes there.
The Germans painted turrets tops in various colors, and sometimes added a circle (in WW1, like in the pic above), the Italians painted the deck on the bow in red and white stripes, and so on.
Regarding that specific case from WW1 though, it was a case of realizing that the only ones who actually had long range air recon (in the form of Zeppelins) were teh Germans, and so marking the ships in a way that allowed the Zeppelin crew to tell what the hell they were looking at was a pretty straighforward idea.
...
...
Just for the hell of it, I was messing around in the ship designer and managed to make a late game CL with 20x6" and a decent handful of torps (10, i think, 2x3 and 2x2. File not in front of me).
What is the heaviest gun loadouts some of you anons have done before?
Muh Hipper is sexy.
So, never builts, what do you guys think of the number 13 battleship from the IJN?
Very cool, damn shame about that naval treaty. I have wondered on occasion what would have happened with ships (other than getting larger) if the Washington Treaty hadn't gone into effect.
They were pretty much The Shit.
It'd be interesting to game out what the USn would've come up with in response, because they'd have realized at some point that just building more 21 knot standard BBs was not eh way to go.
The lexington battlecruisers were already a sign that the US was going to move away from the standards.
If nothing else, the South Dakotas were going to be the last of the standards anyway. The US would have needed a response to those IJN designs, and the G3 and N3s as well. Maybe tillman would have gotten his Maximums.
I landed some troops at Roti without discovery in order to build an airbase and threaten the Japanese shipyards and refineries at Sorajabaja, but the enemy discovered it and is now doing bombardment runs every few days to weaken the base and, I suspect, eventually take it back. The date is Late July, 1943.
In response to this, I am sending in a large number of units to prepare an ambush. The most interesting thing is the composition of previous Japanese bombardment runs to attack Roti, which has included a fearsome glimpse of a super battleship-class we last saw a year ago at Guadalcanal. The composition two days ago was:
BB Musashi
BB Fuso
BB Yamashiro
CA Kinugasa
CL Tama
DD Wakaba
DD Mutsuki
DD Fumizuki
DD Minekaze
DD Hakaze
DD Shiokaze
The ambush I am planning for if this force strikes again (it has already bombarded 3-4 times) is largely composed of:
2 Carrier Task Forces
2 Cruiser Surface Combat Task Forces
1 BB bombardment task force.
In addition, the enemy seems to be loading troops at the base next to Roti and I am sending in 4 destroyers to disrupt it. Let's see what happens.
Here's is the current known configuration of this super battleship.
pic related actually worked incredibly well for it's role, and could fight well against BB's if positioned behind the main battle line.
maybe something like these designs
Got my islands finished for some age of sail gaming.
The Lexingtons were a shit concept, and most of the USN Admiralty realized that.
The USN at that time had just about the best setup in the world for gaming out ship designs in various battle scenarios, and the results were pretty damning for the battlecrusiers.
I forgot that the japanese made designs this assinine (but awesome). Imagine 50% of the country's entire budget being sunk into building this thing for 5-10 years.
but those 8" turrets on the Lexington carriers tho. In addition to design edge, the US also had a major industrial/budget advantage too. Just looking at the heavy cruiser design changes or the sheer insane amount of fleet carriers built during WWII. Unparalleled amount of ships built and fast design changes were never really realized at that scale before.
>6-gun turrets (14"?)
>Stacked casemates in the superstructure
>wut
I refuse to believe that the engineers preferred this to secondaries in turrets and fewer but larger main guns...
Was aware that you're referring to the BC lex design not the carrier sorry wasn't clear about that. Both versions of the hull were pretty different for their time.
Check out the wiki page for these, there are several different designs. They weren't especially serious - they were made to placate one senator that was a member of the group that set the navy's funding. However, at the end of WWI things were actually progressing towards some of the more "conservative" designs.
Pitchfork Ben was a bit nuts. I work in the shadow of a building that bears his name.
>The USN at that time had just about the best setup in the world for gaming out ship designs in various battle scenarios,
And yet it was horribly flawed, as real world experience showed. High Speed Capital ships were the wave of the future. The Lex probably would have had more armor added, maybe 9 inches, with a 30 knot speed and 16 inch guns. They were very good ships, although inferior to the admiral class the Brits were building. Probably comparable to the Reknown and Repulse really.
Standards were good, but they were not the best. The US had already abandoned the concept with the South Dakota class (23 knots) because they realized the value of tactical mobility afforded by higher speeds.
Those were not 14s, those were 16s.
MAXIMUM BATTLESHIP.
Jackie Fisher was also a bit insane, and yet 20 years later, everything he was preaching was ending up in service.
Billy Mitchell as well.
>Lighter
>Faster
>Bigger Guns
>Flatter
>Flatter
>Flatter
Was way ahead of his time
It wasn't all that flawed, and the Navy wanted faster ships.
But at the same time, they had to work within tonnage limits set by congress, and they realized that by sticking to the relatively low top speed they could build ships with adequate armor and firepower.
The second part of the 'stanadrd' setup was that by making sure all ships moved at roughly the smae speed and had roughly the same turning circle, the whole battle line would be far easier to maneuver.
The reasoning was: What good is it if all your battlehsips move at differnt speeds and handle differntly? They would not be able to even form a coherent line.
This second part is where they were wrong, Jutland showed that 'one big line' was WAY too unwieldy, and could not even be commanded effectively. The shift was then to think in sqaudrons of more or less comparable ships operating together.
The IJN obviously also realized this, and planned to go exactly that way with all their new construction that ended up cancelled.
As you say, the USN made a comparable step towards a fast wing, though that was equally never built.
There is a third reason for the relatively low top speed of the US battle line.: The USN expected to
Some Fisher designs names:
HMS Incomparable
HMS Go Fuck Yourself
HMS Eat Shit
HMS Blow me
Jutland had ships in slow/fast wings as well. Jutland also showed that Jellicoe was a fucking genius, given the conditions, size of his fleet, and no fucking radios, he still managed to cross ze German's T so many times I'm honestly surprised the germans survived the encounter.
more like HMS Blow Up, amirite
> "Let's make a lightly armoured ship and call it Invincible, that's not tempting fate right?"
It's well known that it was crap handling that was the downfall of the british in Jutland, not the battlecruiser concept.
Hood at Mers El Kebir, Reknown pushing german BB shit in, the battlecruisers were good. Even Tiger in Jutland (one of the few ships that followed the ammo handling orders) took a hit that would have exploded it had the ammunition not been stowed properly.
The british had two conflicting doctrines. One was magazine safety, which most captains ignored because the belief was that the ship that shot the most would hit the most, the earliest, and would win. And really, that concept was proved true in almost every naval engagement of big ships. If you shot faster, and got on target first, you tended to win.
Anyway, the battlecruiser as a concept isn't a bad one, especially since Iowa is basically a Battlecruiser, favouring speed over protection, and is arguably a very successful design.
Heh an image search of HMS go fuck yourself yielded a bunch of entertaining results. Got pic related of the warspite heading to the breakers.
The last 'true' battlecruiser was the Alaska class, and that was kind of garbage.
Hood
Scharnhorst
Reknown/Repulse
Tiger
All of those would be better described as fast battleships.
Lion/QueenMary were the last WW1 battlecruisers, armed like BBs, armoured like ACs or CAs. Most german BCs were closer to bbs in terms of protection, although the main armament was definitely less.
So yeah, the battlecruiser was a flawed concept, but Hood/Repulse/Reknown were fast BBs I believe.
Warspite being sent to the breakers was a goddamn national tragedy. The most decorated Warship in the fleet's history should have been made into a museum on the Thames. I'm glad she broke free and beached herself, a last defiant "Go Fuck Yourself" from the grey lady.
Wait wait what game is this?
You shut your whore mouth, they were beautiful.
>and also never really used
They were beautiful ships, just not particularily good. They were super expensive compared to a cruiser, and didn't bring much to the table that a Cleveland/Fargo/Baltimore couldn't do for a lot cheaper.
That and Vanguard decided to go to the pub.
Truly sad that of the greatest sea powers the world ever saw, UK dug themselves so deeply into debt through two world wars that they couldn't preserve a single battleship.
War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition
If you get it, I'll happily fight the Battle of Guadalcanal with you.
"Breakers? Bugger Off! Splice the mainbrace lads!"
UK didn't even preserve destroyers. Last Tribal class ever is in Hamilton Ontario (that of course, is more because the Canadian Navy used a WW2 destroyer into the early 80s)
Oh, I whole heartedly agree. Many of the most interesting designs weren't the best or most cost effective solutions.
Vanguard should have had triple 15s, stupid wartime limitations. Regardless, the decision to focus on air power was a smart move by the Admiralty.
Still. Vanguard with 12x15 inch guns would have been hilariously awesome. Probably would have been a few knots slower, but still, 28 knots and that sort of firepower...
Seemingly this is the biggest ship the Canadian navy ever had.
>Had 3 carriers
wut? I guess you learn something new every day.
I think we had the fourth largest navy at the end of WW2.
We almost had our own QE BB as well, but we voted against it in parliament. Would have been number 6 in the line.
>Jutland had ships in slow/fast wings as well.
That part of Jutland is what served as the proof of concept for this.
>Jutland also showed that Jellicoe was a fucking genius, given the conditions, size of his fleet, and no fucking radios, he still managed to cross ze German's T so many times I'm honestly surprised the germans survived the encounter.
Tactically, Jellicoe did the best he could given the situation.
But he essentially could not trap the Germans even though he had the 5th BS and his BCsas his fast wing.
The important part here is that he crossed the German's T. Perfect in the dashing RN tradition, sail in, deploy into line, enemy has the light horizon to their back, it doesn't get any better. And what happens?
Fucking nothing.
The Germans just turn around.
Then turn back, because why the fuck not, and turn around again when their lead ships have pretty much lost all guns.
Then they disengage, with a maneuver that was just so stereotypically German. It's like they just open their textbook, look up 'Disengage', and follow a fucking checklist.
Lay smoke, launch torpedo attacks, cease fire so the enemy has no more muzzle flashes to aim for in the darkness, head for home.
And with that, Jellicoe's perfectly set up crossing of the German T is neutralized.
Also, the Fisher-style BCs ran in the Scouting Group and proved that Fisher-style BCs can only sink obsolete armored cruisers. but the less said about Fisher BCs and their performance, the better. Those poor, brave bastards.
This, in a way, is the naval equivalent of the trench warfare. Everyone went on and tried to come up with something that would avoid a repeat ofthis scenario. Especially teh IJN and USN. Both expected to fight the other somewhere in the western pcaific in a sort of supercharged version of Jutland.
Granted modern 15" 's would've been awesome, but they did a decent job keeping the WWI era BL 15" mk.I guns useful by adding MOAR angle.
>because the Canadian Navy used a WW2 destroyer into the early 80s
The RCN retired all its WWII destroyers between the end of the war and the 60s. Haida was preserved because a group of RCN veterans bought her so they could make her a museum.
>Mers El Kebir
Sorry, but sinking ships at anchor doesn't count as a particularly glorious victory, except in British propaganda land.
The 'strayans beat you out for a capital ship, although not at all the same time. It would be awesome if you got a QE then held it as long as the turks held their BC and then actually turned it into a museum. It'd give me a good excuse for a road trip.
Haida a sex. I hope to go see her someday.
Invincible/Indefatigable/Lion were all fisher BBs, and not really all that flawed. The biggest issue as another user pointed out, was that they had crap anti-flash procedures in effect.
Lion especially had decent armour, given the size of her armament. Invincible and Indefatgable, those were old classes,
Invincible and Indefatigable were designed to outgun everything they could kill, and run from anything that was a threat. They were old ships by the time they were at Jutland.
Heligoland Bight showed the value of the battlecruiser.
Jutland's losses were more about bad flash orders, and using old ships. (Again, pointing to Tiger as proof that british BC design was sound)
They weren't all at anchor, read the battle report.
It's more the quantity that would be awesome.
But the BL 15 is probably the single most effective piece of naval artillery ever built. Not bad for an upgunned 13.5, that itself was a rush job. Did a damn good job through two world wars.
Hadn't even considered a Vanguard with modern 15s, but yeah, that would keep the weight down for sure.
B-but 1,300 unaware baguettes!
Now I'm just imagining the Vanguard with 4 Quad 15" KGV turrets
KGV had a design for 12x14 (3 Quads), 9x15 (3x3) but I doubt she'd have been able to handle 16x14.
Vanguard as well, although Vanguard could accomodate 12x15 in four triple turrets.
regardless, I think we're onto something making use of quad turrets.
>Invincible/Indefatigable/Lion were all fisher BBs, and not really all that flawed
They were all so weakly armored that any 12" hit could havve penetrated into their magazines., shitty anti-flash protection and idiotic 'rate of fire will bring us victory' procedures or not.
>were designed to outgun everything they could kill, and run from anything that was a threat
Right. Which is why they were WAY too expensive for what they did.
And if the oh-so-talented Admiraly had actually understood that, why the fuck did these ships go and fight the HSF's Scouting Group?
>Heligoland Bight
Given the available forces, any outcome of that battle must be a resounding RN victory. But yeah, the BCs were great for killing cruisers, and made all previous cruisers obsolete.
>Jutland's losses were more about bad flash orders, and using old ships. (Again, pointing to Tiger as proof that british BC design was sound)
The Germans dragged a squadron of pre-dreadnoughts along, and those things were so shit that they could only hope to serve as a distraction. It's a miracle that these things didn't all get slaughtered
The RN's BC losses were due to misuse of ships that could not hope to stand against big guns, and the idea that Tiger was much better off is, quite simply, wrong.
The Fisher BC concept was flawed, and even Hood ended up with protection that while better was still inadequate.
>1,300 unaware baguettes!
what an opportunity!
Hey! That's one of mine!
Srsly, what's with the 5" secondary armor? 2" is more than enough. Also, drop their calibre to 5" and you can have, like, 24 of 'em, with some weight left over.
Are secondaries useful? After I get central rangefinders my large guns seem to rip apart any class pretty easily.
P.S. Why is my ship so small?
>even Hood ended up with protection that while better was still inadequate.
So did Iowa.
>Are secondaries useful?
Only for shredding enemy DD's - which is mainly your DD's (& CL's) job in the first place.
How do you mod RTW so you can just build awesome ships from the start?
The difference here is that Iowa was inadequately protected against superheavy 16" AP shells.
And noone except the USN had those, and they were the latest and hottest development in naval artillery.
Well, ok, Yamato's 18" AP would've been a problem, too.
Hood, on the other hand, was penetrated by a 38 cm gun 25 years afte everybody and their grandmother had 15" guns. And they knew the belt armor was barely adequate.
Went about as well for the French as operation Lila went for the Germans.
>Enter town before the break of dawn, capture the Marquis, fail to notice his chief of staff send scuttle orders to the fleet in the harbor
>get to the harbor, waste time getting lost for a bit
>make it to the gates of the arsenal, French ask "where are your papers?" waste time bullshitting with the guards
>finally let in, Oh Shit! the french fleet is sinking and firing on our tanks simultaneously
> try to negotiate "Give us your ships" "they're already sunk" "okay"
>situation way out of hand, ships sinking and demo charges exploding left and right
>"may we board your ship?" "no" "okay"
Lost most of the fleet they intended to seize
en.wikipedia.org