|
Lord Koth posted:Out of idle curiosity, does the tonnage of the ship in any ways affect how much damage they can take? Because I'm staring at Bretagne here at almost double her RL listed tonnage, and wondering if that helped her last longer. I'm assuming any vaguely modern battleships are probably going to be close to their actual tonnages, but if it does help with absorbing damage then I'm wondering if there might be an edge case where some early WW1-era BB manages to close range with something squishy like a Kongo as a result of the much higher tonnage. I'm curious if the increased tonnage is post-refit?
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2021 00:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 03:18 |
|
|
Lord Koth posted:Out of idle curiosity, does the tonnage of the ship in any ways affect how much damage they can take? Because I'm staring at Bretagne here at almost double her RL listed tonnage, and wondering if that helped her last longer. I'm assuming any vaguely modern battleships are probably going to be close to their actual tonnages, but if it does help with absorbing damage then I'm wondering if there might be an edge case where some early WW1-era BB manages to close range with something squishy like a Kongo as a result of the much higher tonnage. This is a good question. The way I'm building the ships is prioritizing the accuracy of 1) guns and armor, 2) speed, 3) other stuff (ie, shell weight, flood protection, etc), and 4) looks. Bretagne was a little tough due to her center turret and tower combo plus the heavy armor on her turrets, which required me to extend her out a ways to fit everything, hence the greater displacement. So far everything else is pretty close to its irl displacement, but it seems like they've prioritized making later ships as accurate as possible, and some of the earlier designs get VERY cramped unless you make them larger. I honestly don't know if that makes them any tougher, but it isn't likely to matter much for any of the ships where I'd need to do it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2021 00:49
|
|
|
I think increased tonnage gives a ship a higher Structure value, which means it could theoretically take more damage before it is considered destroyed due to structure damage. However in practice that is very unlikely to make a difference, since you'll almost always have a ship count as destroyed due to flooding or fires before structure damage does it. For a bit of background for the rest of the thread, the game's damage system basically works like this: Each ship is divided into a bunch of sections that can be damaged individually, and also has a general structure value that denotes its overall structural integrity. Each time a shell hits a section it reduces the structure value a bit, has a chance of damaging whatever systems are in that section (engines, rudder, guns, etc), and has a chance of causing a fire or flooding inside the section (if it is at or below the waterline). Both fire and flooding can spread on their own, depending on the quality of the ship's bulkheads, but will over time be fixed by the crew, depending on their training and current losses. For a ship to be destroyed, there are basically three ways: Either fire spreads so far that it affects the great majority of sections and the crew has no hope of extinguishing it, or flooding becomes so severe that the ship can't stay afloat, or its structure is reduced to zero and it basically breaks apart. In practice, 99 times out of a hundred it'll be fire or flooding that causes a destruction while the ship still has plenty of structure left. It seems like currently structure is more used as a fallback and to track overall damage state for campaign play purposes, the only times I've seen ships be destroyed from structure damage was after magazine explosions, and one time where a light cruiser got hit by five torpedoes at the same time and basically evaporated before it even had time to flood.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2021 11:28
|
|
|
increased tonnage makes the ship larger and easier to see, which is definitely a disadvantage for the early dreadnoughts and superdreadnoughts - but i'm not sure how significant this effect is compared to modern superstructure and fire control in the game
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2021 14:53
|
|
|
Matchup #2: IJN Fuso (1915) vs IJN Ise (1917) IJN Fuso  Belt Armor: 12.4 inches Deck Armor: 6-ish inches Main Battery: 12x14 inch guns Speed: 24.5 knots Fuso was built specifically to beat American battleships of the same era (ie, New York class) in what was thought to be an inevitable decisive showdown in the Western Pacific. Ironically enough, though the Pacific Jutland never really happened, both Fusoes did get to sail out to fight a gun battle with the Americans. And lots of airplanes. Fuso features a ridiculous six gun turrets and 12 14” guns, giving her a great deal of firepower for her size and era. Her armor is a bit hit or miss – a refit in the 1930s upper her deck armor quite a bit, but her belt and turret armor are relatively thin. Still, she’s pretty fast, and has a lot of guns… Oh, and the pagoda mast is one of the best things. IJN Ise  Belt Armor: 11.8 inches Deck Armor: 6-ish inches Main Battery: 12x14 inch guns Speed: 25 knots A fraternal twin to Fuso, Ise is extremely similar in most respects. Slightly faster, with slightly less armor, and the same gorgeous ridiculous pagoda mast sticking up far above the ship’s deck. Both Iseeses would meet their fate with US aircraft having never faced another battleship in honorable combat. The Battle (note: had to use German as a stand-in for Ise as you can’t make a nation fight itself) This matchup, summarized:  These ships are a bit glass-cannon-ey, especially their thin turret armor. They’re also both broadside fighters, which will likely mean a whole lot of gunfire in slowly shrinking spirals. As far as the matchup goes, this is going to be a total coinflip, likely going to whomever manages to not blow up.   Ise (German flagged) sails out with her majestic pagoda cutting through the wind.  This is a different ship, I swear.  Both ships open fire at around 24km. Predictably, both turn broadside to allow all of their zillion guns to participate.  Long range fire is pretty inaccurate, but Fuso draws first blood. A 14” shell punching through deck armor this easily does not bode well for either ship.  After dueling at long range for a bit, Ise turns in hard and begins to close the range.  In a matter of minutes the ships are within 15km of one another and firing with both big and small guns alike. Both ships begin to score hits, but Ise is more accurate.  Between the 24 big guns and now the 6” casemate guns, the amount of gunfire in the air is ridiculous. It looks like they’re shooting machine guns at one another.  Ise is consistently getting the best of the gun duel, at least in terms of hits and topside damage. Fuso suffers damage to several major topside systems and loses a gun turret.  Despite suffering fewer hits and showing far less damage, Ise took a couple of very damaging shots below the waterline. She loses an engine and suffers from serious flooding in her midsection. This drops her speed to only 15 kts, making her a much easier target. I’m not sure if this was deliberate or just a coincidence, but the difference in the way the two ships targeted one another is fascinating.  Fuso, meanwhile, has eaten dozens of heavy shells all across her topside. She’s down to just two gun turrets and has fires raging or smoldering everywhere. She’s facing death slowly but surely, as her weight of fire and accuracy now lag far behind her opponent.  And then…it happens. Ise suffers a magazine detonation and sinks almost immediately. Scarily, this was not caused from a turret hit, but from a penetration of her main belt that went straight into the magazine. Note the turret/rocket in flight, shortly after launch… (sorry for the blurry pic…when a fight ends, the stupid game immediately starts to fade out for some reason, so when something catastrophic like this happens you have to be real quick)  The stats back up what we just saw in the battle. Ise was the better shooter, but suffered badly from flooding issues and ultimately suffered a catastrophic death likely brought on by her flooding/engine issues and corresponding slowdown. Fuso won, but suffered nearly 500 casualties (over a third of her crew) during the engagement, and would likely need months if not years of repair before she’d be of any use. The good news though, is Iowa is waiting for her…
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2021 17:46
|
|
|
Woooooooo! Catastrophic detonation! And boom goes the dynamite 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2021 18:12
|
|
|
Now THAT was what we were all robbed of when BBs never got to BB.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2021 18:21
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:Now THAT was what we were all robbed of when BBs never got to BB. When the tournament is over I'd like to see a group tournament formed from the losers of the matches, if possible. Like, take all the losers of the first bracket, mix them randomly into two teams and just have them pound on each other in a massive fleet on fleet combat. Then take the survivors, mix them into the losers of the second bracket into two teams, rinse and repeat until everyone that lost a match has an opportunity to redeem themselves in a glorious fleet action. ...unless that's too much trouble, that is. I just want to see lots of BBs facing lots of BBs eventually.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2021 20:00
|
|
|
Do a Battle Royale at the end.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2021 20:07
|
|
|
Tomn posted:When the tournament is over I'd like to see a group tournament formed from the losers of the matches, if possible. Like, take all the losers of the first bracket, mix them randomly into two teams and just have them pound on each other in a massive fleet on fleet combat. Then take the survivors, mix them into the losers of the second bracket into two teams, rinse and repeat until everyone that lost a match has an opportunity to redeem themselves in a glorious fleet action. we'll do this, and it will be called the desperado tournament
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2021 20:16
|
|
|
And despite the withering amount of fire being traded, both pagodas made it through unscathed. As they should 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2021 20:49
|
|
|
I'm sure that Fuso-chan will defeat that big American bully in honorable samurai combat, and not be humiliated in a crushing defeat failing to do the thing she was specifically built to do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2021 21:15
|
|
|
From the bubbling boiling wreckage of Ise a hand of the Japanese Imperial Army attache briefly breaks the surface to flip off the Fuso before going under. Glad we got some six inch gun action finally.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2021 21:33
|
|
|
Matchup #3: HMS Nelson (1927) vs Almirante Latorre (1915) HMS Nelson  Belt Armor: 14 inches Deck Armor: 6.25 inches Main Battery: 9x16 inch guns Speed: 23 kts Nelson was the result of the Royal Navy trying very hard to play by the rules. Interwar treaties limited battleship size, but they wanted huge guns and thick armor in order to win Jutland 2.0. Nelson’s bizarre configuration of three forward turrets was the result. Both types saw a great deal of action during the war, but probably their greatest contribution was -- much to the annoyance of German armor obsessives -- giving future generations a very clear idea of what happens when a battleship shell lands anywhere near a tank:  She’s slow and was a poor sea boat, but is extremely well-protected and has huge firepower. Her lightweight 16” shells and reloading system give her an incredibly high rate of fire, and her main weaknesses – poor handling and a tendency to damage herself with her giant guns – won’t be in play here. Finally, the Nelsons come equipped with bigass torpedoes -- that were, allegedly, even used in the final pummeling of Bismarck -- so keep that in mind if and when they find themselves in a massive slugfest. Almirante Latorre  Belt Armor: 9 inches Deck Armor: 1.5 inches Main Battery: 10x14 inch guns Speed: 22.75 kts One of the main entrants in the South American dreadnought race, Almirante Latorre was one of the world’s finest battleships when she was launched. So good, in fact, that the UK essentially refused to deliver her to Chile and just…kept her….until after WWI was over. She has a relatively typical loadout for a ship of her era, with a lot of 14 inch guns and armor designed to slug it out at close range. She was also surprisingly quick for her era, able to hit nearly 23 knots. The Battle (note: had to use German as a stand-in for Chile) Latorre is pretty much the exact ship Nelson was designed to beat in a North Sea slugfest. Interestingly, despite their age difference, they’ve nearly the same top speed, so Nelson won’t be able to rope-a-dope. Latorre’s older 14” guns aren’t a huge threat to Nelson at long range, but if Latorre takes her beating and closes the range, she may be able to land some telling shots.   People say Nelsons were ugly. I think they’re both pretty and badass.  Nelson opens up at over 26km. Her fire isn’t terribly accurate at this range, but it is a long way away yet.  Latorre is really a quite nice looking ship, and quick for her age.  She takes a few heavy hits from Nelson as she closes the range, but nothing critical is damaged. At 20km, she whips the stern around and opens fire.  Inside 20km, Nelson’s fire is accurate and relentless. Her rate of fire is astonishing. Latorre takes several big hits, including a major strike and fire to her main tower that kills her captain.  Nelson is completely uninterested in delicate fencing. She was built to be a brawler, and brawl she will. She closes the range to 8km and pours fire into the Chilean ship.  She’s badly hurt, but she’s still fighting. We’re nearly point blank range now.  A deck penetration on Nelson! A fire! Right over her main magazine! Could this be a catastrophe in the making? (narrator: it was not)  Seeming almost like a reprisal for the superficial damage she took, Nelson destroys Latorre’s rearmost turret creating a devastating flash fire. Latorre’s guts are ripped out and she suffers massive casualties.  Latorre is well-built enough that the shock of the flash fire doesn't immediately cripple her. She gamely fires a few more salvoes, but the fires and flooding do their job fairly quickly, and she sinks after a few more brutal 16 inch broadsides, now from within 5km.  Very one sided, but perhaps a bit alarming for Nelson that her long-range fire wasn’t more effective against this much less powerful opponent. Her accuracy and firepower at close range, though, were just brutal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2021 22:34
|
|
|
Here's hoping Iowa's captain will have the balls to give her a proper fight and not dance around at max range.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2021 22:47
|
|
|
Either that or crush the whole tournament from over the horizon without ever being touched.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2021 22:51
|
|
|
I have an irrational hatred of Nelsons because the default ship-builder in Rule the Waves 2 is utterly obsessed with the drat things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2021 22:54
|
|
|
The Nelson is the mullet of battleships.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2021 23:18
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:I have an irrational hatred of Nelsons because the default ship-builder in Rule the Waves 2 is utterly obsessed with the drat things. Whereas I have an irrational love for Nelsons because of how wonderfully front-loaded they look! The N3 designs and their descendents are all so delightfully bizarre, like strange fossils. An entire branch of warship design evolution that never came to pass but left these magnificent beasties roaming around.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2021 23:21
|
|
|
bewbies posted:
lol Perestroika posted:The Nelson is the mullet of battleships. lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2021 23:23
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:The Nelson is the mullet of battleships. My god, this is perfectly put.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2021 23:23
|
|
|
uPen posted:Either that or crush the whole tournament from over the horizon without ever being touched. make the winner fight a 1990 Iowa
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2021 23:35
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:The Nelson is the mullet of battleships.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2021 23:55
|
|
|
I mean 1990 Iowa had only two turrets functional, and missiles and the advanced fire controls aren't in the game, so any of the other top contenders ought to stomp on her really.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2021 23:57
|
|
|
It's funny how niche this divide is for the look of the Nelson, I for one enjoy the shameless big dick deck thrusting into the sea.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2022 00:05
|
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:make the winner fight a 1990 Iowa Winner fights a Montana.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2022 00:08
|
|
|
Winner of the loser bracket should be allowed to dunk on an Alaska.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2022 00:20
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Winner fights a Montana. Winner fights a late '50s era Iowa with W23 shells loaded. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2022 00:30
|
|
|
Lord Koth posted:Winner fights a late '50s era Iowa with W23 shells loaded. …And that’s how I burned out my monitor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2022 01:25
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Fuso won, but suffered nearly 500 casualties (over a third of her crew) during the engagement, and would likely need months if not years of repair before she’d be of any use. Are you resetting each ship to top condition between rounds, or do they have to make do with what wasn't trashed in the previous rounds?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2022 02:19
|
|
|
Latorree closed that much and only scored one hit? Jesus. Assuming that the conning tower hit took out her fire controland everything was in local or somethig.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2022 02:22
|
|
|
Everyone on the bridge was denied their Onion ration the night before, they were doomed. They went down (scarily fast like always) fighting.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2022 02:44
|
|
|
Look, if you aren't building for maximum forward firepower, then I don't think you have the kind of go-getting aggression that we need in a battleship captain. How can you expect to win a fight if you aren't steaming at full speed towards your target while firing every single gun on the ship?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2022 03:39
|
|
|
But that's the thing: Nelsons can only fire 6 guns forward. They're not better than most at forward firepower.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2022 03:41
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Look, if you aren't building for maximum forward firepower, then I don't think you have the kind of go-getting aggression that we need in a battleship captain. How can you expect to win a fight if you aren't steaming at full speed towards your target while firing every single gun on the ship? Replace all pagoda masts with a stack of triple turrets. They can fire in all directions regardless of ship position.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2022 04:24
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Look, if you aren't building for maximum forward firepower, then I don't think you have the kind of go-getting aggression that we need in a battleship captain. How can you expect to win a fight if you aren't steaming at full speed towards your target while firing every single gun on the ship? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2022 07:38
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Both types saw a great deal of action during the war, but probably their greatest contribution was -- much to the annoyance of German armor obsessives -- giving future generations a very clear idea of what happens when a battleship shell lands anywhere near a tank: Photographs like this tend to be credited to any number of causes. It's basically impossible to tell from most of them, though in general it's actually not that likely to be the result of naval bombardement. Even HE/HC shells actually pack a comparatively small explosive charge that would struggle to flip over a tank like that. A much more plausible candidate would be plain air-dropped bombs - even a relatively dinky 250lb GP bomb would have ~twice the bursting charge of Nelson's 16-inch HE shells. Magni fucked around with this message at 13:35 on Jan 1, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2022 12:08
|
|
|
Magni posted:Photographs like this tend to be credited to any number of causes. It's basically impossible to tell from most of them, though in general it's actually not that likely to be the result of naval bombardement. Even HE/HC shells actually pack a comparatively small explosive charge that would struggle to flip over a tank like that. A much more plausible candidate would be plain air-dropped bombs - even a relatively dinky 250lb GP bomb would have ~twice the bursting charge of Nelson's 16-inch HE shells. Artillery shells make pretty huge craters. I'm phoneposting right now, so I can't dig up the diagram, but there's a Russian document showing the crater sizes for 3", 4", and 6" shells. The 6" makes a crater big enough for a man to stand in the bottom and be totally concealed. Amount of explosives scales with the square of the shell diameter, so a 16" HE shell (weighing on the order of 2000 pounds and containing around 150-200 pounds of explosives) will make quite a big boom and could overturn tanks pretty easily. Now, having said that, 16" guns weren't used for land bombardment anywhere near as many times as bombs were, so I agree that statistically, that photo is more likely to be from a bomb (or regular, land-based artillery).
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2022 17:12
|
|
|
Neptune's Inferno taught me that as an artillery piece increases size, its destructive power climbs exponentially.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2022 18:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 03:18 |
|
|
A long time ago, I saw someone stick what I was told was one eighth of a stick of dynamite in an old refrigerator, and watched from a hundred or so yards off as it turned that fridge into confetti. The point of that story is that I can't really conceptualize the explosive power of hundreds of pounds of more advanced explosives at close range. Turning over a tank doesn't seem at all implausible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2022 18:25
|
|