|
TheFluff posted:Went to the national archives, found this: Cool pics, thanks for sharing!
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 02:16 |
|
|
If anyone here is interested in historical boatsperging, have some of my recommended reading material... I have all of these on my bookshelf, mixed in with the assorted poo poo floating about. The World's Worst Warships by Anthony Preston He's in the train of thought that the Bismark and Hood were both awful ships, equally doomed when they were sent into battle. Amazon reviews bitch about both inclusions  Aircraft Carriers of the World, 1914 to the Present by Roger Chenseau A tad old (OK, 30 years out of date in my edition) discussing the genesis of seaborne sky cancer, the development of the system and pretty pictures of just about any ship that carried planes. Type VII U-Boats by Robert Stern Deals with KM Nicht in Spiel and all of its variants. As for other things not currently in my collection (but flipped through and coveted or borrowed): Conway's Fighting Ships series. Did it float in a navy? Then it's got a detailed spec sheet. I am Norman loving Friedman and I Write Lots of poo poo by Norman loving Friedman no, really, his job is NAVAL WARFARE HISTORIAN watch this space for additions Missing Name fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Mar 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
IS there a mumble or TS for goons on the EU CBT realm?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
Magni posted:IS there a mumble or TS for goons on the EU CBT realm? A lot of us hang out on the 2PAC (goon World of Tanks clan) TS server: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3582837
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
Missing Name posted:If anyone here is interested in historical boatsperging, have some of my recommended reading material... I have all of these on my bookshelf, mixed in with the assorted poo poo floating about. French Battleships 1922-1956, John Jordan & Robert Dumas. Absolutely stunning amount of info on Dunkerque and Richelieu classes. Also, entire Anatomy of a Ship series is amazing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
I applied for the beta off od an email I got a while ago but havent seen any emails am I good to play and im an idiot or do I need to wait for an invite?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
tater_salad posted:I applied for the beta off od an email I got a while ago but havent seen any emails am I good to play and im an idiot or do I need to wait for an invite? You would have gotten an email with instructions. Worst case scenario log into the World of Warships website and see if you can download the client and/or get into the beta section of the forums. That should answer whether or not you for invited and missed it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
Missing Name posted:The World's Worst Warships by Anthony Preston Please tell me the Yamato has a place in this book.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
What ship will the US BB tree be attached to?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Please tell me the Yamato has a place in this book. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Preston#World.E2.80.8A.27.E2.80.8Bs_Worst_Warships yes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
TheDemon posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Preston#World.E2.80.8A.27.E2.80.8Bs_Worst_Warships Interesting. Just requested it through ILL at the library where I work. Already have Shattered Sword and Castles of Steel on my bookshelf at home.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
The best Swedish warship. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasa_%28ship%29
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:It's the tiniest little babby aircraft carrier, 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
Sidesaddle Cavalry posted:This is more of a ship question and not a Swedish navy question, but how did engineers extrapolate the shape of a ship's hull from 2d cross-sections like that? I assume each line under the deck represents the contour every set unit of length or so, but then suddenly calculus????? It's a drafting question. Look at the curved lines in the head on/back draft view - those are contour lines indicating curves in the shape of the hull. Combine that with the top/side drafts which mark where each change in the ship's hull occurs lengthwise and you can put together a mental image of the boat's shape that you can then calculate for other relevant information.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Please tell me the Yamato has a place in this book. The Japanese have a few. The Yamato, of course, but also the Mogami class cruisers (so light, they broke in light seas) and the carrier Ryujo (so light and top heavy that it was barely seaworthy) Special honors go to the French, who get the only never completed ships. Also, your precious Omaha class scooters have an article. On the opposite side of the spectrum, there is not a single mention of the RN oiler battleships, Nelson and Rodney.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Missing Name posted:If anyone here is interested in historical boatsperging, have some of my recommended reading material... I have all of these on my bookshelf, mixed in with the assorted poo poo floating about. Norman Friedman is my personal hero and is the reason I have a library card for my university's library even though it's an hour and a half away now. Stuff I've got right now: Shattered Sword: very readable, and more information than you ever thought could be that interesting about the technical aspects of carrier warfare and Midway. Kaigun: The Imperial Japanese Navy, the history, and quite readable with plenty of information about their crazy war plans (except for the planes, which got split out because the book was already getting to be too long). Sunburst: The planes bit of Kaigun. Similarly excellent. Japanese Destroyer Captain: One of the dudes who was there for just about everything wrote a very good autobiography. Among other things he was at the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, Battle of the Java Sea, and then captained the Shigure during her long run as a "lucky" ship. He even rode the light cruiser with Yahagi, and was apparently the only pre-war destroyer captain to actually survive the war. He's not shy at all about criticizing everyone's mistakes. There's a nice Naval Institute Press binding of this that's a whole hell of a lot better than the pulp '60s paperback copy my dad gave me that was only good for one reading. War Plan Orange: What the US was thinking before the war and what sorts of plans were getting drawn up. Good but I had a hard time getting through it (might have been stress though). A Battle History of the Imperial Japanese Navy: Haven't gotten to read it, description courtesy of combinedfleet.com: Don't let the author's last name fool you (even though my wife snickers about it every time she sees it). This work is the result of translating the surviving daily Japanese operational logs and battle track records for a great number of their vessels, and is the first English-language accounting of events from the Japanese perspective. Also has excellent maps. Great book. Castles of Steel and Dreadnought: Decent, and I believe readable recountings of the buildup to and fighting of WWI at sea. However I've heard that it doesn't present much information beyond that offered by: From the Dreadnought to Scapa Flow: Five volumes and individually more expensive than the previous two but they're thick and dead solid works. Send help. Good websites would be: https://navweaps.com https://combinedfleet.com Cythereal posted:Please tell me the Yamato has a place in this book. Dude's actually a pretty serious naval historian in addition to being a raging polemicist, so he'll tear into designs for not having a good operational role and stuff like that, and it's as much a book about what designing a ship really is, from operational role to the actual design layout. But he just tears into ships like goddamn. It's fantastic. xthetenth fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Mar 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Sidesaddle Cavalry posted:This is more of a ship question and not a Swedish navy question, but how did engineers extrapolate the shape of a ship's hull from 2d cross-sections like that? I assume each line under the deck represents the contour every set unit of length or so, but then suddenly calculus????? They had a pretty good handle on good hull forms by then so it'd be very unlikely to be particularly difficult to backsolve. Whoops, quote is not edit. Missing Name posted:The Japanese have a few. The Yamato, of course, but also the Mogami class cruisers (so light, they broke in light seas) and the carrier Ryujo (so light and top heavy that it was barely seaworthy) That's because the Nelsol did exactly what it was meant to do. They needed a good 16" armed battleship to match against the Colorados and Nagatos, and they delivered on one within the treaty limit with good armor thickness and battery without an undue compromise in speed, with the only real sacrifice other than rear fire being the amount of waterline protection (the USN kept to a requirement that a certain percent of the waterline be covered by armor, so they couldn't figure out how the Brits had built the Nelsons, since they waived that restriction so they could use a longer hull to increase speed without adding more machinery). Plus the Rodney absolutely drubbed the Bismarck. Part of why the Bismarck was so shameful, a 15 year older ship pimp slapped it so hard it couldn't return fire in less than an hour. xthetenth fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Mar 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
TheDemon posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Preston#World.E2.80.8A.27.E2.80.8Bs_Worst_Warships quote:US flush-decker destroyers (Caldwell class, Wickes class & Clemson class) They called me crazy, yet here we are 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
Apparently the Rodney hadn't fired all of its guns in a full broadside before the sinking of the Bismarck for fear of ship instability. It shattered the windows of its own bridge. Porcelain toilets inside exploded from the shock, too. The ship didn't really come close to capsizing at all, but the officers on board must have been at least quite startled at that many 16-inchers going off in the same place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
If anything, it's Nelsol and Rodnol I want to play the most, followed by Scharnhorst and Gneisnau.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
Missing Name posted:If anything, it's Nelsol and Rodnol I want to play the most, followed by Scharnhorst and Gneisnau. Deutschland-class and british BCs over here. Why yes, I like kinda bad ships. And the idea of taking off the doors from my ammo magazines and storing cordite in the walkways to shoot faster. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
*Dodges enemy torpedoes* *Ally fires torpedo into my escape route* Sigh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
So any hope of finding goons playing on EU? Got tier cruiser & bs. Someone mentioned a 2PAC ts but I have no idea what that is
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
Ihmemies posted:So any hope of finding goons playing on EU? Got tier cruiser & bs. Someone mentioned a 2PAC ts but I have no idea what that is TS is TeamSpeak, a voice chat program. The server address is in the post I linked further up on this page. You can also join the "Goons" chat channel ingame (the capital G is important, channel names are case sensitive). TheFluff fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Mar 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
I need to vent a bit... Seriously, why is it that most player will race to the edge of the map ALL the loving time, as if its the only position they can be at in order to get a firing solutions. More and more, I see DD and even cruisers rushing in the middle through that huge gaping hole that can effectively be called 'The entire loving map' left wide open by said players. This means that our carriers (often times, me) have to spend most of our time ducking torpedoes and/or bullets rather than playing our own little RTS 'Sink the enemy ship' game. It can be a bit frustrating. On another note, as a DD, a few matches in a row I managed to go sink the enemy carrier by exploiting the big gaping hole I just bitched about. Its fun when the red team creates that gap. Not so much when the green team does it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
So how can I run this game in 1920x1080? It seems like the maximum resolution I can run this game in is something weird like 1660x900? Everytime I load the game my monitor moans at me about running it in the native resolution.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
I take my shiny new Nicholas destoryer out, get hit twice by a crusier and explode. Shell didn't look like they hit anywhere near anything important. Next round, y Kuma eats 2 torps from a Minekaze that suicide charged me, I explode. Yay.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
Dravs posted:So how can I run this game in 1920x1080? It seems like the maximum resolution I can run this game in is something weird like 1660x900? Everytime I load the game my monitor moans at me about running it in the native resolution. Make sure it's set to the correct aspect ratio, it should be 16:10 for 1920*1080.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
Keru posted:Make sure it's set to the correct aspect ratio, it should be 16:10 for 1920*1080. 1920x1080 is 16:9. 1920x1200 is 16:10.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
This game looks like it will scratch that Navyfield itch that has never quite gone away. I just have two questions that I didn't seem to catch in the OP. 1) When will the game be open to people at large? 2) Is there a way to still get in now? The game website says sign-ups are closed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
quote:The internal upgrades system will undergo some changes and then we will be testing the hell out of some new features we are planning such as improved projectiles, advanced fighter plane mechanics and armour piercing bombs. Yaaaay, ap dive bombers. I'm curious on the fighters too. Maybe the disparity won't be as bad with it compared to now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Keru posted:Make sure it's set to the correct aspect ratio, it should be 16:10 for 1920*1080. Yeah it turns out that i'm just super dumb and didn't realise the resolution options had a scroll bar. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
I didn't think it was possible, but it appears the Independence is actually a downgrade from the Langley. It's fast and it has nice AA, but the planes aren't able to do anything in the tier 5 AA environment and the modules are one  after the other. First airgroup update leaves you with divebombers instead of torpedo bomber, which means you are completely useless in a fight, the fighter upgrade actually reduces the damage you do
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:the fighter upgrade actually reduces the damage you do Oh, and it has a 3 fighter 1 dive bomber configuration that is 100% worthless. Poil fucked around with this message at 01:08 on Mar 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:I didn't think it was possible, but it appears the Independence is actually a downgrade from the Langley. It's fast and it has nice AA, but the planes aren't able to do anything in the tier 5 AA environment and the modules are one The flight upgrades are your personal customization tool. If you want to go fighter + torp bomber, then stick with the stock one. On my ranger, I have a choice of 1x fighter + 2x torp + 1x dive, 3x fighter + 1x dive, or 2x torp + 2x dive. It is a choice on how you want to play for the environment you expect to be in. I personally went the 3x fighter because it is hilarious how easy 3 wings on top of each other are at mauling enemy planes. My last game ended with me having defanged the enemy carrier so completely that it was just sailing into our team to die. Sadly, our cruiser didn't get my message that the guy had nothing left and not bother so proceeded to focus killing him instead of the assisted on the battleship that was nearing cap with 3/4th of his health remaining. Plane upgrades are upgrades though. It might be something like you lose on firepower, but the planes get there faster. And let us tell you, getting somewhere faster is a major upgrade worth the lowered damage. I believe that fighter upgrade reduces damage, but gives you back survivability. And that is very much important for air defense and coverage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
Are fighter heavy loadouts viable at higher tiers and how often do you get in MM with no enemy carriers?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
Gindack posted:Are fighter heavy loadouts viable at higher tiers and how often do you get in MM with no enemy carriers? They have been viable for me. The issue with fighter heavy loadouts is two fold. 1) Very very minimal reward for downing enemy planes so your end battle report will show xp as if you had done near nothing even though you had won the air superiority which leads to 2) Complete reliance on your team not being poo poo I have seen matches where one team got a carrier and the other one didn't. I haven't been a carrier in one yet, but I know of it. In those cases (from the weekend events), I use my fighters as highly durable scout planes. I'll also send them out to cut the enemy scout planes down if I can catch it coming towards my group (never let them chase as the ship aa will maul your group without them getting close enough to shoot at the lonely scout). The best thing I love to do is baiting DDs in smoke. They just can't always help themselves and will fire their aa at your fighters. The problem is that AA still counts for exposing yourself. Which the planes pick up and radio to your team.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
Dalael posted:I need to vent a bit...
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
Sometimes you can't reliably tell if a death blob will just evaporate upon first contact with the enemy. That said, I try to follow the majority of my team as a carrier too, for the exact reasons you outline.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 04:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 02:16 |
|
|
Well, if your death blob dies then you're close to losing anyways. Being that last carrier in a corner at the end of a match won't change anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 04:47
|
|