|
Megadyptes posted:I spent a good half hour trawling the internet for Cuniberti's An Ideal Battleship for the British Fleet article or a scan of the 1903 edition of All The World’s Fighting Ships but there's nothing, not even on the more shady places. You think someone would've uploaded his article considering how influential it was. I guess historical warship grogs aren't so good with computers.  Thats awesome.Also, while Cuniberti's ideas were pretty important, plenty of other people were also advocating the mono-caliber/all big-gun battleship in those years as well. The US and UK were already considering proposals for them when Jane's 1903 was published and IIRC the 1905 "Semi-Dreadnought" Satsuma was supposed to be mono-caliber, but the Japanese were having issues obtaining that many 12" guns and cut the wing turrets down to 10" guns instead. His Colosso is actually a pretty flawed design. The figures he proposed were completely unrealistic for a ship of only ~17000 tons displacement. He wanted a 12" homogeneous belt across the entire length of the ship and wanted it to do 24 knots! By comparison 20700 ton Drednought had 11" max belt armor that tapered down to 4" and could only make 21 knots, and she had fewer, better arranged turrets. There isn't much point in replicating Colosso's turret arrangement in RtW (especially since they can't fire down the ship's axis). The two single+one double wing turret arrangement is just a waste of weight, use the "Hex" pattern used by early German Dreadnoughts and Satsuma instead. The only slight benefit is having one of the single turrets disabled is slightly less terrible than having a double turret disabled. Galaga Galaxian fucked around with this message at 00:03 on Sep 21, 2016 |
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 12:35 |
|
|
Does the game model single gun turrets being more reliable?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 12:09
|
|
|
Yes, I believe so. I'm pretty sure single turrets also have a slight RoF bonus.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 14:06
|
|
|
Off I go to make an all single turret dreadnought battleship!
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
Its a slight bonus, hardly worth the increased armor costs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Galaga Galaxian posted:Its a slight bonus, hardly worth the increased armor costs. I always wanted to put 14 inch guns in open casemates.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
srb posted:Off I go to make an all single turret dreadnought battleship! I think this was the premise of the "badnoughts". They weren't ...terrible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
Did someone say Badnoughts?Galaga Galaxian posted:You should see the Badnoughts. These are what Elan should've been like in the LP thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
I just had a naval treaty in the first game year, as I had 7 battleships of 4x13, 16 000 tons building. Treaty limits us to 12" guns, 18k displacement. Lovely!
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
Well they would never have killed anything anyway so you haven't really lost much.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
Aww man, you weren't using the British -2 thirteen inchers were you? As Pharnakes said, that treaty did you a favor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
I think one of my battlecruisers just earned a gun upgrade. I built her with 12 -1 12" guns (39,000 ton ship and the 11s were -1 as well). But that's all right, because while fighting the entire Russian scouting line of three battlecruisers solo, she slammed the most modern one till it fell out of line for the battleship line to devour (It got going again and the BB line got distracted with a 3v4 slugfest, so I don't think I'll get to capitalize on that), got another to break off to where it can be pursued after I dealt with the one that stayed in line. Well I dealt with the one that stayed in line. BC Moltke fires 6 6 in guns at BC Izmail-class! 2 hits BC Izmail-class Turret hit TT * Turret flash fire! Ship blows up! 
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:BC Moltke fires 6 6 in guns at BC Izmail-class! 2 hits That's what happens when you don't armor your turret tops.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
Galaga Galaxian posted:Aww man, you weren't using the British -2 thirteen inchers were you? As Pharnakes said, that treaty did you a favor. With battleships it's all about looking good on paper for the prestige, but just so typical that my ships fell right inbetween the treaty requirements.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
You really need to be able to engage in horse trading and judicious crafting of the treaty limits.dublish posted:That's what happens when you don't armor your turret tops. Apparently. Their two modern battleships that have been trading fire with my three (with two more BBs and a pair of Bs on their side to make things almost fairish) brought eight turrets between them, they have four now. The Moltke, in addition to that one kill, has shot every single turret off their more modern BC and knocked one of the three turrets on their other BC off. Sure my BBs are slower on 10k tons more, but I'm all right with that. Four BB/BC against seven of theirs, and I'm kicking them in the dick with steel toed boots.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
Some of the AI nations (hi Britain) like to build BCs that aren't protected against medium caliber gunfire. It never ends well. I have fond memories of a French CA that sank three battlecruisers some time in the 1920s.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
The Moltke wound up getting sunk by a loving piece of poo poo submarine, after she'd been repaired. All my BCs are in Japanese waters now. And yeah, after I defanged the newest shiniest BC in the Russian navy, I ran a conga line of big CAs down her throat. Good times. xthetenth fucked around with this message at 02:33 on Sep 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:The Moltke wound up getting sunk by a loving piece of poo poo submarine, after she'd been repaired. All my BCs are in Japanese waters now.=  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5j-9cCHkq8 Also hi thread, I am bad at this game. Forums Terrorist fucked around with this message at 02:48 on Sep 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:
Yeah that's about right. Now I'm fighting a fleet action in 1912 with CAs for my scout wing. Better yet, their new hotness BB has much bigger guns than my current ships, an at least competitive belt, and turrets with actual armor. Pity it's night so I can't take advantage of their 1.5" deck.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
I always tried to design my BCs like full-on battleships with slightly fewer main guns. Same armor (read: a shitload) and gun caliber, but faster. It's nice to be able to fall back into the battle line when needed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
Galaga Galaxian posted:You should see the Badnoughts. These are what Elan should've been like in the LP thread. I had forgotten about these beauties 
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
Ikasuhito posted:I had forgotten about these beauties I really love the idea of funnels and boiler rooms just being scattered around the ship wherever anybody felt like they needed to be.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
Funny thing is the top down views he made vaguely remind me of stuff from Space Battleship Yamato.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
So my battlecruisers with 13.5" turret armor square off with British ones with 9" turrets. Guess who eats an instakill turret hit. gently caress you entire German government for deliberately deciding to get my navy killed. I didn't deliberately pick up one point of that tension. And gently caress you British Anarchists.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
Galaga Galaxian posted:Aww man, you weren't using the British -2 thirteen inchers were you? As Pharnakes said, that treaty did you a favor. Skimming penetration tables, thirteens of all qualities have some of the worst break points compared with calibers one lower or higher, at least until mid-game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 06:46
|
|
|
The Austrians inflitrated the Russian AI's design bureau.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
If it wasn't for the fact its casemates instead of turrets, I'd say its more like the Italian Regina Elena battleships myself. I suppose it should be obviousl, but one thing I've really started noticing about pictures of ships from this era is the relative lack of quality photographs where the camera is well above the ship. Obviously the lack of planes makes that a hard shot to get, typically you have to rely on the ship sailing close to an eleveated landmass:    Look at that short little twin secondary turret on the Italian BB in the top picture. Also, I always love seeing smaller caliber defensive guns mounted on the turret. It must suck for the crew manning them to have to evacuate the position every minute or two so they don't get hit by the concussive blast when main guns fire.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
Renown looking pretty classy there
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
I know. Not only have they got all the tents out, but it looks like they've built a wooden balcony behind the rear turret. Total "cruising to the other side of the world in comfort (or what passes for it in the navy" mode.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
So one more question about steam and iron for those who know, does the campaign cover the whole world or just the North Sea/Atlantic? I think I really want a game where I can chase down the Emden and Von Spee and the East Asia squadron. Conversely playing the Kaiserliche Marine I want to threaten trade in the Indian Ocean and escape to Germany with Von Spee.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
The base game is just a bunch of scenarios covering a load of naval engagements around the world and a random battle generator. Here's the blurb for the campaigns expansion STEAM AND IRON CAMPAIGN EXPANSION Steam and Iron campaign is one of the most complete operational-tactical WW1 naval combat simulations ever published. It includes four different campaigns or variants. The North Sea Campaign covers the entire naval war from 1914 to 1918 in more than 200 weekly campaign turns of naval operations. It includes over 800 ships, from superdreadnoughts to armed trawlers, and dozens of submarines and coastal batteries. Organize your fleet, train it and lead it to victory. Plan the missions of your fleet, including submarine patrols and minelaying, and then play out the scenarios using Steam and Iron. Missions can range from small minelaying missions or small raids with a couple of light cruisers up to massive clashes between the entire Grand Fleet and High Seas fleet. You, as the admiral, decide what forces to allocate to a mission, subject to ship availability and logistic limitations. Even maintenance and mechanical mishaps are included. For those who want a smaller campaign, there is the 1916 campaign covering one year. And if you want to try out ships that never were, there is a Germany Stronger campaign from 1916 until the end of the war, featuring the Mackensen and Ersatz Yorck classes as well as the Sachsen and Würtemberg, and the Hood on the British side. There is also the Baltic campaign focusing on the less well known naval war between Germany and Russia in the Baltic. Steam and Iron Campaign is a must for naval enthusiasts and WW1 buffs, recapturing the greatest naval conflict between dreadnought battlefleets ever. Note that the Steam and Iron Campaign Expansion requires ownership of Steam and Iron. List of campaigns: Baltic North Sea North Sea 1916 Germany Stronger 1916 there's also steam and iron russo japanese war with scenarios and a campaign covering said war.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
After playing a standard-resources campaign with every other nation, I've finally played through as the USA. Since 1920, I have been budgeted so much more money than I could ever reponsibly spend, even in peacetime and am sitting on nearly 70 prestige. This is quite a different experience from my last run as UK. I might even take things to ~1935 and see how outrageously dominant I can still be once the tech levels out for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 12:35
|
|
|
If you can't spend money reasonably then spend it unreasonably, god. The world needs that 52kton 4x4 18"s 35 knot BC with 3" belt armour you know. You have a duty to your god, your country and the memory of Jackie Fisher. Pharnakes fucked around with this message at 14:00 on Sep 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 13:58
|
|
|
Galaga Galaxian posted:Sure is the case in the game. The firing arcs of wing turrets are lousy. Wasn't the X/C turret on Nelson non-super firing? I swear it was, though there was a rejected design that had B turret and X turret superfiring, but it was rejected because of weight issues; however, I'm no expert, so I could be wrong.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
ZombieLenin posted:Wasn't the X/C turret on Nelson non-super firing? I swear it was, though there was a rejected design that had B turret and X turret superfiring, but it was rejected because of weight issues; however, I'm no expert, so I could be wrong. It was. I know the US drafted an ABC superfiring design. It was a pig's breakfast, with a nice deck's drop for the first turret to get a beautiful stress concentration and make the ship all kinds of interestingly wet forward, and the back two were shifted to the side to reduce the blind spot aft.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:It was. I know the US drafted an ABC superfiring design. It was a pig's breakfast, with a nice deck's drop for the first turret to get a beautiful stress concentration and make the ship all kinds of interestingly wet forward, and the back two were shifted to the side to reduce the blind spot aft. I tell you what, after playing World of Warships for awhile--why can't anyone remake and modernize Fighting Steel?--it had become abundantly clear to me if real warships had behaved like they do in that game, then the optimum design for big gunned ships would have always been all super firing forward turrets. Plus, forget about crossing the T. You'd always want your fleet lined up pointing their guns at a fleet crossing your T. That way you could just instantly explode everyone showing you a broadside.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
An ugly monster I kludged together in a Spain game. It's a lot of work to get a 10-gun broadside in 1908 with a backwards rear end nation. I love it. Would've gone for 13-inch guns if they weren't -2 quality. This design single-handedly won me a war against Austria-Hungary, after a couple of them managed to sink AHs only BB and several Bs in a single engagement.  Fortunately right after these started construction I invented quadruple centerline mounting, 14-inch Q0 guns and bought triple turrets of the Americans. I'm considering keeping the basic layout for my next class of BBs anyways just for a gently caress-off hilarious broadside.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
I need to stop building 52k monsters which eat up all my budget. Especially when the bloody Americans blow one up a month after it is commissioned!
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
Pinback posted:An ugly monster I kludged together in a Spain game. It's a lot of work to get a 10-gun broadside in 1908 with a backwards rear end nation. I love it. Would've gone for 13-inch guns if they weren't -2 quality. This design single-handedly won me a war against Austria-Hungary, after a couple of them managed to sink AHs only BB and several Bs in a single engagement. I like it that your wing turrets are squishing the secondary battery turrets.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 12:35 |
|
|
Astroclassicist posted:I need to stop building 52k monsters which eat up all my budget. Especially when the bloody Americans blow one up a month after it is commissioned! Alternately build 52k monsters that don't blow up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 21:43
|
|