|
Wait, pickle guns made it passed the prototype phase? I had no idea they were fielded
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 03:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 09:56 |
|
|
FrangibleCover posted:I'd agree with this, or perhaps an "Other" set of ships for French, Italian, Soviet and assorted designs. The Turkish Yavuz Sultan Selim, anyone? Yeah, I'm leaning towards this. I don't think it makes sense to have full representation for the Italian navy or other "had a few interesting ships" factions, but it'd be nice if I could fit those interesting ships into the game. Regarding displacement being lies: I'm not surprised, but I also don't know what numbers I should use. The numbers I provided were pulled from Wikipedia; do you have recommendations for other sources that would be more accurate? Nebakenezzer posted:e: this I demand The basic game loop will be: get briefing on a mission, go to the ship designer, make a ship, start the mission (drops you into a square arena where the mission occurs), complete the mission objectives while picking up loot and points, end the mission, get scored on your performance, spend your points unlocking new techs, repeat. Missions will almost always start you with full health and ammunition; there's no supply lines to worry about and indeed practically no logistics. Again, that's because detail I spend on those things is detail I don't spend on adding more ship parts or making the missions as bombastic as possible. On the subject of aircraft: enemy aircraft carriers are certainly going to be a thing. Playable aircraft carriers (and anything beyond maybe the very most simple of launch-and-recover scout aircraft) are not currently planned. The problem is that the player's advantages come largely from the fact that they can build ships with more/better guns/armor than the historical designs they're fighting, largely due to not having to spend displacement on things like ammunition, fuel stores, space for the crew, etc. This, combined with the player being smarter than AI ships, lets them punch well above their weight. But when it comes to aircraft carriers, there's only so much you can do -- you have so much space for aircraft, you launch them all, and either they kill the enemy or they don't. There's not a lot of wiggle room. Submarines are in a similar boat. Enemy subs are definitely going to be in. Player subs are something I would like to be able to have, but I'm gonna have to put them off for now. There the chief limiting factor is that they have a completely different playstyle -- they need their own control schemes, special ship designer rules, and they muck up the balance for missions that might not consider the possibility of the player attacking from underwater.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 03:26
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:I appreciate your suggestions, and your enthusiasm. I fear I must disappoint you however. Lol no worries, dude. I just want you to know that these are all real things that exist - especially the Imperial Japanese Army somehow getting ships.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 03:35
|
|
|
It would be neat to see a game like Deserts of Kharak but on water. Seas of Hiigara.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 03:50
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Regarding displacement being lies: I'm not surprised, but I also don't know what numbers I should use. The numbers I provided were pulled from Wikipedia; do you have recommendations for other sources that would be more accurate? I think Wiki generally does decently enough if you dip into the article text instead of relying on the little statblock. It's a particular issue for the Mogamis, since they were designed for 9500, declared at 8500, delivered at ~11500, and subsequently modified to ~13500. You could also use full load figures instead of the usually quoted standard displacement—that privileges ships designed for longer operating ranges (fuel is not part of standard displacement), but not ridiculously so for your purposes. Combined Fleet is run by generally respectable people. I think they only quote full load.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 04:08
|
|
|
OpenlyEvilJello posted:I think Wiki generally does decently enough if you dip into the article text instead of relying on the little statblock. It's a particular issue for the Mogamis, since they were designed for 9500, declared at 8500, delivered at ~11500, and subsequently modified to ~13500. You could also use full load figures instead of the usually quoted standard displacement—that privileges ships designed for longer operating ranges (fuel is not part of standard displacement), but not ridiculously so for your purposes. Combined Fleet is run by generally respectable people. I think they only quote full load. Thanks! I've generally been using the largest number shown for the class, but I'll make a note when I'm modeling each ship to review the details more carefully.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 04:32
|
|
|
To go counterfactual for a moment: Imagine the admirals are right and heavier-than-air flight is a mere fad. Airplane technology plateaus and never develops much beyond 1920s-era biplanes. Rocketry suffers the same malaise. All other technological developments - radar, metallurgy, computers etc occur on schedule. What sort of nuclear-powered hyperbattleships would we be seeing in 2019? Or would submarines, deprived of their natural predator, dominate the seas unchallenged?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 08:59
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:To go counterfactual for a moment: This is truly counterfactual because admirals never loving thought this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 10:09
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:I have a better idea. We give the aircraft folding wings, and launch them with the cannons. Well, I mean, they weren't launched by the cannons, but seaplanes were launched with a cannon, of a sort—look, it's got a breech and everything: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dmNyts7f1w (jump to 15:00 for the breech being loaded and fired to launch the plane & 17:45 to see what recovery could entail. The shot of all the crew necessary for the operation trotting out almost reads as slapstick.) Which, TooMuchAbstraction, the historically representational way to portray catapult-launched seaplane scouts within the framework of an arcadey shooter would be a temporary, powerful distance/accuracy booster and submarine detector that comes at the cost of your ship being forced to maneuver on a certain heading with a debuff to any other subsystems that are thematically crew-intensive during the launch and landing, with a research upgrade to reduce the time (landing mats). And if you want to be extra realistic recovery especially could take different amounts of time or be outright impossible based on wind, weather, and sea state (are you representing wind, weather, or sea state?). Also if you include the GAL Fleet Shadower your game will be 10/10 GOTY just saying  it could be like, the missions guy HookedOnChthonics fucked around with this message at 11:02 on Oct 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 10:52
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:Wait, pickle guns made it passed the prototype phase? I had no idea they were fielded They were fielded once by some guy on an expedition (to unknown effect), but there were only ever 2-3 made because the leader of said expedition was the only guy who ever bought one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 11:06
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:Wait, pickle guns made it passed the prototype phase? I had no idea they were fielded Do you mean Puckle guns? Because a Branstons pickle gun sounds delicious with some proper extra mature cheddar not gonna lie
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 11:57
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:To go counterfactual for a moment: Can I use supercavitating torpedoes or no because they have rocket engines?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 12:14
|
|
|
“Ladies and gentlemen, may I present to you the Montana class BBBN.” *Thunderous applause*
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 12:18
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Looking at the oldest bombards I'm pretty sure they were cast like bells without any boring. derp, i've been beaten. but iron guns that were hammer-welded together stuck around longer than the conversation is currently implying. edit: also in mons meg's time the powder was "serpentine" powder, in which all the ingredients were mixed together dry. it's less powerful than "corned" black powder,the modern kind HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 14:19 on Oct 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 14:10
|
|
|
HookedOnChthonics posted:Well, I mean, they weren't launched by the cannons, but seaplanes were launched with a cannon, of a sort—look, it's got a breech and everything: Thanks for the suggestions! I like the idea of saying "we're going to send this ship thataway, you'll be more accurate shooting at things in a circle around it". The extra vision was a given but my initial assumption had been that the scout ship would simply orbit the player at some radius around them, which is both less interesting and probably less useful. As for weather, at minimum I want to have different weather states just for setting the mood. Having other mechanical effects isn't something I've given much thought too; obviously they can affect visibility and accuracy though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 15:03
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:Bren: It's just a good bit of kit, really. We saw a few Brens still being carried around in the '91 Gulf War. There's nothing wrong with the Bren.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 15:15
|
|
|
Cessna posted:We saw a few Brens still being carried around in the '91 Gulf War. There's nothing wrong with the Bren. Were they being carried by the winning side?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 15:18
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:“Ladies and gentlemen, may I present to you the Montana class BBBN.” The Italians did actually have a few CGBNs - several of the Italian Navy's cruisers built in the 1960s were designed to carry Polaris SLBMs. Giuseppe Garibaldi had four Polaris tubes from 1961, while the Andrea Dorias and Vittorio Veneto were fitted for them, but never received the tubes. Italy was never actually allowed to purchase the missiles, though, and so these ships never actually carried missiles. The Italians did try to design their own SLBM, the Alfa, which had a few test firings but never entered service.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 15:40
|
|
|
Randomcheese3 posted:The Italians did actually have a few CGBNs - several of the Italian Navy's cruisers built in the 1960s were designed to carry Polaris SLBMs. Giuseppe Garibaldi had four Polaris tubes from 1961, while the Andrea Dorias and Vittorio Veneto were fitted for them, but never received the tubes. Italy was never actually allowed to purchase the missiles, though, and so these ships never actually carried missiles. The Italians did try to design their own SLBM, the Alfa, which had a few test firings but never entered service. Ya, and it’s always surprised me that the tubes were on the aft deck. I mean, a bare Polaris is something like 32ft long, intruding straight down into the ship. We’re the Italian ships really oddly proportioned aft, or were they just big enough for it to not matter?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 15:53
|
|
|
dublish posted:Were they being carried by the winning side? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 15:57
|
|
|
dublish posted:Were they being carried by the winning side? Yes. The British didn't have enough L85s and L86s, so some rear-line troops were issued with SLRs and Brens.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 16:01
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:Yes. The British didn't have enough L85s and L86s, so some rear-line troops were issued with SLRs and Brens. I wasn’t expecting that one, I figured you were going to say they were locals. That would be like the Guard deploying with Thompsons. ...Which would be AMAZING, now that I think about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 16:04
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:Yes. The British didn't have enough L85s and L86s, so some rear-line troops were issued with SLRs and Brens. Yes. Sorry, I thought the "were they carried by the winning side" thing was a joke. These Brens were carried by regular British army troops I saw back at the rest camps. The rest camps were former living quarters used by Aramco oilfield workers. After we'd been over there for a while we got to use them - every month or so a few of us got to go back and get a shower and a hot meal. The Brits had their own rest camp; I got to visit a couple of times when I drove a hum-vee over with an officer or two for a meeting with the British. And, yes, there were Brens and SLRs present. I don't think the Brens and SLRs were confined exclusively to rear-echelon troops. If anything I remember a few of them saying they preferred the SLR over the SA80s as they were more reliable. Cessna fucked around with this message at 16:41 on Oct 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 16:19
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:I wasn’t expecting that one, I figured you were going to say they were locals. That would be like the Guard deploying with Thompsons.  Or the SEALs I guess. Incidentally the US would still be using the M3 Grease Gun at the time as the main personal defence weapon for armour crew. Dunno if you'd have had one Cessna? Wouldn't put it past the USMC to give everyone a rifle and it's not like there isn't room in an Amtrac. LatwPIAT posted:Yes. The British didn't have enough L85s and L86s, so some rear-line troops were issued with SLRs and Brens.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 16:20
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:That would be like the Guard deploying with Thompsons. When I went to tank school in the late 80's we got to "fam-fire" (shoot for familiarization) old M3 "grease guns." The M60A1 tanks in use at the time still had a rack for one inside the turret, so the armory kept a few on hand until we got M-1A1s.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 16:21
|
|
|
FrangibleCover posted:Incidentally the US would still be using the M3 Grease Gun at the time as the main personal defence weapon for armour crew. Dunno if you'd have had one Cessna? Wouldn't put it past the USMC to give everyone a rifle and it's not like there isn't room in an Amtrac. I posted almost simultaneously with you there. AAV crews were all issued M-16A2s; you're closer to being a grunt there, so everyone got a rifle. Tank crews had pistols with one heavier weapon (relatively speaking) per vehicle. I saw an M1911 .45 for about a week when I hit the FMF, then they were dropped for Beretta M9 pistols. Tanks had an M-16A2 but, like I said, some armories still had a few M3s around. FrangibleCover posted:I would be utterly unsurprised if they made their way to the forward troops as the problems with the L86 in dusty and sandy conditions became apparent during the long run up. I can confirm. Like I said, in the conversations I had with British troops the SA80's weren't popular, they far preferred the solid and reliable SLR and, yes, the Bren.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 16:26
|
|
|
Cessna posted:I don't think the Brens and SLRs were confined exclusively to rear-echelon troops. If anything I remember a few of them saying they preferred the SLR over the SA80s as they were more reliable. Probably! British infantry has a weird propensity towards ending up with different weapons than they were ever issued. Especially if it means more machine guns. LatwPIAT fucked around with this message at 16:33 on Oct 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 16:31
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Yes. Sorry, I thought the "were they carried by the winning side" thing was a joke. It was, but I appreciate your and LatwPIAT's serious responses all the same.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 16:34
|
|
Cessna posted:I don't think the Brens and SLRs were confined exclusively to rear-echelon troops. If anything I remember a few of them saying they preferred the SLR over the SA80s as they were more reliable. This is my own dads point of view with both weapons as he was there serving with the RAF Infantry. He also told me he had the delightful order of having to put people out their misery if the SCUD chemical strikes did occur and poisoned everyone who weren't fortunate enough to be protected. Yay. dublish posted:It was, but I appreciate your and LatwPIAT's serious responses all the same. It's honestly why this thread is much better than some of the more terrible YouTube history talking heads. One of which has a crate of rotting boots.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 16:53
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:It's honestly why this thread is much better than some of the more terrible YouTube history talking heads. One of which has a crate of rotting boots. Thanks! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 17:39
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:this is correct. bronze guns were cast like bells, iron ones were made of slats of iron welded together and hooped. the language and naming of early big guns is so confused, there's all kinds of different names for stuff and nobody seems to be consistent plus a lot of modern writers seem to use ahistoric terms -_- It seems like none of the earliest barrels were bored, but by the late 18th century 100% of new guns were cast nearly solid and then bored. So there's a transitional period where things are changing over, but its hard to tell exactly when, or what specific engineering problems make it necessary. Of course realistically I'm not going find sources about such a weirdly specific piece of history with just 15 minutes of googling in the evening, but oh well. Just a little something to puzzle over
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 17:47
|
|
|
Modern artillery officer: This is the M119A3 Howitzer, it can fire M1 high-explosive and M913 HERA up to 2 km. 15th c. artillery officer: This is "Big Wet Billy" and he shoots large rocks
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 18:09
|
|
|
zoux posted:Modern artillery officer: This is the M119A3 Howitzer, it can fire M1 high-explosive and M913 HERA up to 2 km. See, I bet Big Wet Billy was never bored!
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 18:28
|
|
|
This just in for military boat crew: Images of HMS Oak and the damage taken by the torpedo that sunk her.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 18:43
|
|
|
zoux posted:Modern artillery officer: This is the M119A3 Howitzer, it can fire M1 high-explosive and M913 HERA up to 2 km. names for big guns i have heard crazy maggie pumhart von steyer lazy slut "big gun" i have also seen a relatively small gun from some minor italian statelet cast with the motto GOD HAS PUT INTO MY POWER ALL THAT I TOUCH, which i always liked
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 19:03
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:i have also seen a relatively small gun from some minor italian statelet cast with the motto GOD HAS PUT INTO MY POWER ALL THAT I TOUCH, which i always liked Just like God-Has-Put-Into-My-Power-All-That-I-Touch Mather, Witchfinder General.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 19:06
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:names for big guns i have heard Small cannon syndrome.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 19:41
|
|
|
I don't want to get all current event so no one report me but these 50 B61 bombs an Incirlik, if they fell into Turkish hands, would it make Turkey a nuclear power? Do they have aircraft that can carry these bombs, or could they be repurposed? Or is it even something to be concerned about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 20:33
|
|
|
zoux posted:I don't want to get all current event so no one report me but these 50 B61 bombs an Incirlik, if they fell into Turkish hands, would it make Turkey a nuclear power? Do they have aircraft that can carry these bombs, or could they be repurposed? Or is it even something to be concerned about. From what I understand, a lot of work from very smart people went into making sure that having the bomb in your physical posession is nice and all, but it won't let you detonate it. They would have to remove the warheads and design and build entirely new bombs around them. Stealing a country's nukes is also generally considered the point where the fun ends and very firmly worded ultimatums start being handed out ("Give them back or we will make you, and we might just make example of you anyway").
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 20:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 09:56 |
|
|
zoux posted:Modern artillery officer: This is the M119A3 Howitzer, it can fire M1 high-explosive and M913 HERA up to 2 km.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 20:48
|
|