|
FrozenVent posted:This is relevant to this thread's interest, albeit from the wrong war: Speaking of unsafe environments I highly recommend reading about the Iowa turret explosion if that sort of thing interests you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_turret_explosion
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 12:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 23:32 |
|
|
MeatloafCat posted:Speaking of unsafe environments I highly recommend reading about the Iowa turret explosion if that sort of thing interests you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_turret_explosion The navy sure did an excellent job with the investigation
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
Dead gay saboteur
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:This is relevant to this thread's interest, albeit from the wrong war: Linked from your video is a similar animation of Yamato's main guns. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T3rvxlz03U That projectile hoist 
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
TasogareNoKagi posted:Linked from your video is a similar animation of Yamato's main guns.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
Asehujiko posted:Somehow I feel having a tube of HE shells stacked on top of each other leading from the gun house to the magazine might be a sub optimal idea safety wise. Look, if your fighting spirit and expert crews can destroy the enemy before they start landing hits, you won't ever need proper damage control or anything. It's a flawless plan. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
Bought this yesterday. Anyone got protips on how to build ships that aren't absolute garbage?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 09:47
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Bought this yesterday. You're going to want fast ships so that you can catch enemy vessels and force engagements when you want, and run when you are outmatched. You also want heavy armor so that your ships don't sink, of course. And a large number of cannons to defeat enemy armor. Now, it's really hard to fit all that onto a ship, so what you're going to want to do is upgrade your shipyards as much as possible so you have more tonnage to work with. Once you reach the 52,000 ton maximum, you will probably have a budget enough to build a single ship which will then get torpedoed and sunk in its first engagement. That's how you build better ships. For a serious answer? It depends, there's different schools of thought on the relative importance of speed, armor and armament. Personally I favor armor; if I have to compromise somewhere it'll be firepower. Remember to armor your primary turrets, since big guns can end up having the ammo cooked off if they get penetrated, especially if from the top. So top armor's important as well. You need 2 inches of armor on turrets, primary and secondary, to make them full turrets. Less than that and you've got these sort of half-armored things that weigh less, but aren't as good at protecting the crew. Armor of 2 inches or thicker is the minimum thickness needed to stop shrapnel from penetrating, so once increases to guns and ammunition make plunging fire more and more of a thing you'll want to start armoring your deck further; early on leaving it thin isn't as much of an issue, just remember to keep it at or above 2". It's not historically accurate, but you can ignore large caliber secondary guns from the very beginning and go straight for mono-caliber warship design, with your secondary armament being entirely 6" guns or smaller for dealing with CLs and DDs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 11:27
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Bought this yesterday. You can read a lot of our rationales and see our designs* in TriggerHappyPilot's LP, but bear in mind that that campaign is using varied technology and we are designing around it. How you design ships is going to depend on which country you're playing and what your objectives are. In the LP, for example, we feature many capital ships with short range and sometimes cramped accommodations because we're aiming to dominate the Northern Europe region and have limited responsibilities (and limited basing) elsewhere, for the most part. There's no shortage of ways to be successful, though. Early on, one user deliberately focused on highly unconventional designs (nicknamed "badnoughts") and still made it most of the way through before suffering a serious defeat. *Some of mine in screenshot form My personal design philosophy for BBs more or less parallels that of the WWI-era USN: moderate speed (around 21kts), good firepower (I tend to favor ABVY triple turret layouts topping out at about 14" guns; beyond that I find I need to cut the number of guns to preserve adequate protection), and heavy armor. Ships like this win fights and if the enemy declines the engagement, you have command of the sea whether you catch him or not. Most of the time he'll at least try contact and you can kill any stragglers. Speed I think is more important to BCs and CAs, which tend to rely on being able to dictate the range to fulfill their scouting role and must be able to chase down raiders. Other people are successful with entirely different philosophies. Shoeless seems to have covered most of the key bits of knowledge already. I'd add that if you use secondaries of more than 6" caliber, you'll want to armor them pretty well because they become vulnerable to flash fires just like main turrets. You can check your guns' penetration (which you expect to be similar to your opponents') in the design screen by using the Gun Data button. Generally base your armor on that. Read the manual if you haven't; it's very short and also useful.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
While there is less community design submission, you can also take a look at My Reformist Ottoman Empire LP for a look at designs that adhere closer to historical trends/influences. * I will get back to it, I promise!
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
I tend to run faster ships because if I can go faster than it it can't get away.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 01:48
|
|
|
I build good cruisers because cruisers win wars. Battleship engagements happen roughly never while your cruisers can dominate smaller battles every month.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
Obfuscation posted:I build good cruisers because cruisers win wars. Battleship engagements happen roughly never while your cruisers can dominate smaller battles every month. The United States is an especially good candidate for this strategy. You can build cheap, compact, short range, cramped battleships in the early game to save budget for large, powerful armored cruisers to dominate their peers. Even Britain can't reliably maintain a blockade due to the tyranny of distance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 03:32
|
|
|
Isn't it hard to win a war as the US, since you don't have bases in a northern Europe?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Isn't it hard to win a war as the US, since you don't have bases in a northern Europe? Submarines are also very useful.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Isn't it hard to win a war as the US, since you don't have bases in a northern Europe? It's hard to win by blockade, but blockade is only the easiest tool in the arsenal. Submarines, raiders, and peripheral engagements (in the Caribbean or Southeast Asia, say) will get you there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Bought this yesterday. More destroyers. Faster light cruisers. Bigger magazines.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 04:50
|
|
|
Thanks for the the tips. I played until 1913 or so yesterday and already did a bit better. Next game, I'm probably going to try my hand at Italy or Germany.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 08:22
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Thanks for the the tips. I played until 1913 or so yesterday and already did a bit better. Next game, I'm probably going to try my hand at Italy or Germany. One thing to note is that the game's nations are not meant to be balanced against one another. Nations can and are better or worse than others. For instance, Italy and Austria-Hungary are kind of on the bad end of the spectrum, while Germany, Great Britain and the USA are on the good end. So if you want a bit of an easier time starting out, taking one of the nations with big budgets helps (though be careful with GB, they have so many colonies they need to protect it can be difficult when you're still new to things).
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 09:24
|
|
|
Playing as italy (or any other nation, I suppose), I'm just screwed if my unrest keeps rising and I don't get any events to lower it? Its 1908, I've avoided war despite my best efforts and I'm at 9 unrest.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
Carcer posted:Playing as italy (or any other nation, I suppose), I'm just screwed if my unrest keeps rising and I don't get any events to lower it? Its 1908, I've avoided war despite my best efforts and I'm at 9 unrest. That's weird, I don't think that's supposed to happen. I know during war if you're blockaded or the enemy destroys lots of your freighters with subs and raiders it can cause unrest but I've never had unrest happen during peacetime. And I don't think there's events that lower unrest, it just happens once a war is over and commerce resumes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
Anytime you accept a budget increase in an event your unrest goes up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
That's actually a really dick thing not to show in the tooltip when you hover over the options.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
This game has the most grognardesque interface ever. You're just supposed to know.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
Its just odd because when you hover over the options it shows you the impact on your budget, prestige and tension, but I never saw anything about unrest on most of the ones where you can increase the budget. The only ones where I saw increase of unrest is when its asked if you need an increase or if the money can go to social programs instead, and there I always selected the social programs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
I think I read that in a manual somewhere; watch your unrest before and after events like that and you'll see it go up once in a while.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
Unrest actually goes down when a war starts, just don't let the thing drag on too long or it will return! I've never ever worried about unrest. Only Prestiege ever concerned me, and even then I have yet to be fired in 7 full games. Maybe I should be taking more risks? Roumba fucked around with this message at 01:46 on Feb 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
There's only one way to go with ship design, the BADNOUGHTS. Anything lesser is for the weak and the insufficiently :40k:  
Saros fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Feb 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
I still think those look like Starblazers/Space Battleship Yamato ships.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
Rule the Gothic Sector would be amazing. Sure it'd take fifty years to build a new cruiser, but you could have some extremely rad cathedral designs, and way more ramming.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
90s Cringe Rock posted:Rule the Gothic Sector would be amazing. Sure it'd take fifty years to build a new cruiser, but you could have some extremely rad cathedral designs, and way more ramming. The campaign rules for tabletop BFG are actually surprisingly in depth. Also the actual computer game is pretty solid.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
90s Cringe Rock posted:Rule the Gothic Sector would be amazing. Sure it'd take fifty years to build a new cruiser, but you could have some extremely rad cathedral designs, and way more ramming. Pff, some shipyards have been known to crank one out in just 20 years!
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Pff, some shipyards have been known to crank one out in just 20 years! Only if they cheat by claiming that a Light Cruiser "totally counts as a full cruiser you guys." Yeah, sure. On a more serious bent, I genuinely would be interested in a Rule The Gothic Sector game because while BFG and BFG:A are nice, you generally don't have engagements as big as Fleet Battles in RTW. I mean sure you CAN do a 5,000 point game in BFG, but it'll take forever and a day. Also, I Go You Go turn system makes The Emperor cry, and you don't wanna do that right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Pff, some shipyards have been known to crank one out in just 20 years! Seriously the Lord Daros is a serious outlier because it was built in orbit over a bloody feral world, and even then it was completed in around a single century. It's not that bad, but the bigger ships take disproportionately longer, I think because of bottlenecks in things like the longer range lances.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
Bah da orkz iz da bestest. We unz strap enginz to da Rokks and go WAAAAAAGHHH!!!! Gah, how does the guy on the German LP do it all the time?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
A BFG conversion for RTW would be hilarious and great. Mostly great.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 05:21
|
|
|
How would you handle boarding? Torpedoes that do damage over time or something?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 08:50
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Seriously the Lord Daros is a serious outlier because it was built in orbit over a bloody feral world, and even then it was completed in around a single century. It's not that bad, but the bigger ships take disproportionately longer, I think because of bottlenecks in things like the longer range lances. Because it's a a 10km long ship where every nut and bolt has to be individually blessed and anointed by a tech priest.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 14:58
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Because it's a a 10km long ship where every nut and bolt has to be individually blessed and anointed by a tech priest. Lunar Cruisers, of which the Lord Daros is one, are only ~5 kilometers. Battleships tend towards 10km. On the other hand, lexicanum claims it was built in 11 years, not 100 as xthetenth suggests. Which honestly is about a fucktonne faster than I thought any imperial ship aside from escorts could be constructed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 15:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 23:32 |
|
|
I never thought I'd say this in this thread of all threads but what the gently caress is this nerd poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 15:50
|
|