|
Saint Celestine posted:Isn't this the same book where the author claims that the battlecruiser design was sound? It was.
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 03:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 19:46 |
|
|
Armor's something I'm gonna have to address in my game, both in terms of assigning mass for a given thickness of armor / size of ship, and in terms of determining its effectiveness. It's tempting to just say "more armor gives you more HP" but I feel like I can't ignore the fact that small shells become almost entirely useless against thick enough armor. Would anyone care to recommend a resource on how well different weapons fared against various thicknesses / types of armor? Relatedly, I want to have at least one armor technology upgrade over the course of the game (which would just blanket make your ships hardier, since I'm not concerned about price or logistics). It seems like at the start of WWII everyone was using cemented Krupp armor, and towards the end rolled homogeneous armor became a thing for protection against oblique hits. Are there any other WWII-era armor developments I ought to be aware of? In unrelated news, I stumbled across this analysis of the Siege of Gondor from Tolkien's Return of the King, examining the logistics, strategy, tactics, weaponry, and mentality of the two sides in both the book and the film. It's well-written and quite interesting to me as a knowlessman of medieval siege warfare.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 04:16
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Armor's something I'm gonna have to address in my game, both in terms of assigning mass for a given thickness of armor / size of ship, and in terms of determining its effectiveness. It's tempting to just say "more armor gives you more HP" but I feel like I can't ignore the fact that small shells become almost entirely useless against thick enough armor. Would anyone care to recommend a resource on how well different weapons fared against various thicknesses / types of armor? Theres a bunch of stuff here - http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/index_nathan.php Its a lot to read through though. You also have to consider the angle as well. Since past a certain distance, you're firing up, so your shells are coming down almost vertically, and thus hitting the deck armor, not the main belt armor. Then theres concepts of immunity zones, where your ship is essentially "immune" to hits under a certain caliber. Obviously not the superstructure, but your main parts. Edit: This link has more information about Naval armor than I've seen anywhere else online - http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/metalprpsept2009.php Then this gives you ideas of penetration values - http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/Hstfrmla.php Edit 2: Small shells are useless against thick enough armor though. Thats why you aim for the superstructure and not the main belt. Saint Celestine fucked around with this message at 04:39 on Dec 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 04:36
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:In unrelated news, I stumbled across this analysis of the Siege of Gondor from Tolkien's Return of the King, examining the logistics, strategy, tactics, weaponry, and mentality of the two sides in both the book and the film. It's well-written and quite interesting to me as a knowlessman of medieval siege warfare.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 07:38
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Armor's something I'm gonna have to address in my game, both in terms of assigning mass for a given thickness of armor / size of ship, and in terms of determining its effectiveness. It's tempting to just say "more armor gives you more HP" but I feel like I can't ignore the fact that small shells become almost entirely useless against thick enough armor. Would anyone care to recommend a resource on how well different weapons fared against various thicknesses / types of armor? You could look into the way world of warships handles armour and penetration mechanics. A lot of things matter in the warships model; the type of shell being fired, what part of the ship it hits, the angle it hits at, whether or not the shell penetrates (or overpenetrates), you name it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 07:49
|
|
|
Nessus posted:This was great, and the conclusion's remark on how it seems that many people don't really have their head around how most pitched military battles end in a rout rather than a massacre of all enemy forces has stuck with me. I wonder if that contributes some to the us/them perspective in a lot of other fields, where it's like the only concievable outcome is horrible annihilation of one side or the other - because (thank god) people do not have much direct experience of "real" battle, or in many cases even a plausible substitute like field games. The Total War series actually does this quite well - having Calvary left after routing an army in battle is the difference between that army retreating but all the units staying alive and annihilating enemy units and armies. It's not the best, but it does at least try to show the importance of that even many players just mash "End Battle"
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 08:16
|
|
|
Nothingtoseehere posted:The Total War series actually does this quite well - having Calvary left after routing an army in battle is the difference between that army retreating but all the units staying alive and annihilating enemy units and armies. It's not the best, but it does at least try to show the importance of that even many players just mash "End Battle" * The player needs functional cavalry at the end of a battle to destroy enemy units vs. having them retreat with damage * Any army needs functional cavalry to avoid getting slaughtered after losing a battle * both * goku
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 08:32
|
|
|
the first one. If you lose a battle your cavalry usually flee the field before your infantry's even run halfway to the edge of the map.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 09:17
|
|
|
'Gentlemen this is the age of reason. Now run everyone down and leave no survivors...' I mean I know the 18th/19th centuries were cruel but that still bemuses me in the context of their more modern games, especially since in the Medieval ones you can take prisoners. Also, not one longboat in an entire fleet. Game abstraction or not being a soldier in that franchise sucks, name understanding.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 09:42
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Sure, they took hit, mostly from 11" and 12". Replace the German BCs with the British BCs, and Scheer's 2nd turn most likely results in 5 sunken BCs. Comparatively, look at the beating Seydlitz took and somehow made it back to port. It's not that likely; British ships proved a lot more resilient to the sort of hits that doomed Lutzow and put Seydlitz into the position she was in. British ships were better designed to stop the spread of flooding, and had more portable pumps than the German ships. None of the British battlecruisers that sank were sunk by shell hits that penetrated the hull or magazines; it was all turret hits that caused the explosion. As Lion shows, these turret hits were survivable with proper safety procedures. Turret hits that did not penetrate the armour could still cause fires. If the British had been following German-style magazine procedures, then it's likely none of their ships would have sunk, but if the Germans had been following the procedures prevailing in the Battlecruiser Fleet, it's likely that Derfflinger and Seydlitz would have exploded too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 10:26
|
|
|
Nessus posted:This was great, and the conclusion's remark on how it seems that many people don't really have their head around how most pitched military battles end in a rout rather than a massacre of all enemy forces has stuck with me. I wonder if that contributes some to the us/them perspective in a lot of other fields, where it's like the only concievable outcome is horrible annihilation of one side or the other - because (thank god) people do not have much direct experience of "real" battle, or in many cases even a plausible substitute like field games. https://aeon.co/essays/why-is-pop-culture-obsessed-with-battles-between-good-and-evil
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 11:51
|
|
|
On the past topic of Star Wars poo poo. Does anyone know when it was decided that rebel fighters have shields and Imperials don't and all that? Because going by the movies there really isn't much to indicate that. In ANH the rebel pilots talk about "stabilizing their rear deflectors" when they know that Darth Vader and his wingmen are coming up in the trench, but it doesn't seem to do them much good when Darth Vader has them in his sights and they get destroyed pretty much as quickly as the Imperial fighters we've seen get destroyed. Furthermore there aren't a lot of of TIE fighters sent out against the Rebels in ANH, only about 6, plus Vader and his two guys. We see Wedge shoot down one, Luke another, and we see one or two TIE fighters shooting down rebel fighters. Darth Vader destroys 8 rebel fighters IIRC. In Empire there isn't really any dogfighting, just the chase with the Millenium falcon where the TIE fighters are destroyed by colliding with asteroids and each other. And in Jedi there's a big battle but as far as I can remember there isn't any great disparity shown between the Imperial and Rebel fighters. Except the Imperials have numerical superiority and we have some shots of the named characters (Wedge, Lando) shooting down a couple of fighters and lots of namless rebel fighter pilots getting picked off. What I'm saying is I'm sorry. And also is that whole impression of the crude unshielded TIE fighter and the advanced rebel figher solely spawned from the EU which famously grasps onto small pieces of dialogue and costume details to extrapolate details about entire societies, species or planets (for instance we know that rebel fighters have shields because of the "stabilize rear deflectors" line but there is really nothing in the movies which would indicate that the TIE fighters don't have shields, but because it is never explicitly said, even though the rebel fighters aren't shown to be particularly more durable, it assumed to be the case)? Because honestly it seems that way. Randarkman fucked around with this message at 12:10 on Dec 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 12:01
|
|
|
RIP Porkins.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 12:03
|
|
|
Like most Star Wars detail, it's all in the EU. In this case probably either the novelizations or the West End Games RPG.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 12:04
|
|
|
Sidenote, I don't think it's that the rebel fighters are more advanced, it's that they're much bigger and more expensive. The Empire totally could build lamborghini fighters, it just doesn't choose to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 12:07
|
|
|
Sidenote, TIE interceptors are the best ship in the FFG miniature game.steinrokkan posted:RIP Porkins. I like how Porkins is literally shot down by laser flak. Like from manned cannons on turntables. 
Randarkman fucked around with this message at 12:12 on Dec 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 12:08
|
|
|
Can’t argue with all the TIE fighter pilots that didn’t fly into a literal asteroid-spanning worm thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 12:11
|
|
|
Is the Death Star a BB or a BC? It was built as a BB but lol at getting dropped by a single torpedo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 12:14
|
|
|
goatsestretchgoals posted:Is the Death Star a BB or a BC? It was built as a BB but lol at getting dropped by a single torpedo. I guess the Empire had pretty lovely AA fire control.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 12:16
|
|
|
TIE fighters blow up from a single hit, hence they have no shields. Storm Troopers otoh are armoured and succumb to a single blaster hit. In conclusion, the Empire is a land of contrasts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 12:18
|
|
|
goatsestretchgoals posted:Is the Death Star a BB or a BC? It was built as a BB but lol at getting dropped by a single torpedo. I'm going to call it a bomb ketch since its primary purpose was bombardment of surface targets.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 12:18
|
|
|
goatsestretchgoals posted:Is the Death Star a BB or a BC? It was built as a BB but lol at getting dropped by a single torpedo. They were facing cost overruns and internal political pressure to show something for all the credits being spent rather than just having a couple space warlocks roll out and claim they know the future. The exhaust vent covers were in transit and arrived at coruscant a couple days after the death star left for alderaan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 12:19
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:They were facing cost overruns and internal political pressure to show something for all the credits being spent rather than just having a couple space warlocks roll out and claim they know the future. The exhaust vent covers were in transit and arrived at coruscant a couple days after the death star left for alderaan. This is also the reason why the rebels were able to use the trench, funnily enough. quote:Although details, such as the superlaser's location, shifted between different concept models during production of Star Wars, the notion of the Death Star being a large, spherical space station over 100 kilometers in diameter was consistent in all of them.[4] George Lucas gave the original task of designing a "Death Star" to concept artist and spaceship modeler Colin Cantwell,[5] who had collaborated with Stanley Kubrick on the 1968 film 2001: A Space Odyssey.[6] In a 2016 interview, Cantwell related that "I didn't originally plan for the Death Star to have a trench, but when I was working with the mold, I noticed the two halves had shrunk at the point where they met across the middle." As it "would have taken a week of work just to fill and sand and refill this depression," Cantwell suggested a trench to Lucas to save the labor. Lucas liked the idea,[5][6] and the Death Star model was created by John Stears.[7][8] The buzzing sound counting down to the Death Star firing its superlaser comes from the Flash Gordon serials.[9] Portraying an incomplete yet powerful space station posed a problem for Industrial Light & Magic's modelmakers for Return of the Jedi.[10] Only the front side of the 137-centimeter model was completed, and the image was flipped horizontally for the final film.[10] Both Death Stars were depicted by a combination of complete and sectional models and matte paintings.[4][10]
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 12:25
|
|
|
Adding the trench made the dambusters thing seem even better
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 12:33
|
|
|
The mention of cost overruns made me remember how Emperor Palpatine's penny-pinching is my absolute favorite part of the old EU.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 12:47
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:The mention of cost overruns made me remember how Emperor Palpatine's penny-pinching is my absolute favorite part of the old EU. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVzc20Bm8Xo
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 13:30
|
|
|
The EU at times is so insane it might circle back around to endearing. But like... in the dumbest way
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 13:39
|
|
|
Siivola posted:Like most Star Wars detail, it's all in the EU. In this case probably either the novelizations or the West End Games RPG. The X-Wing and TIE fighter sims from Lucasarts (which were fun as poo poo) on the PC made this explicit. Rebel ships required you to manage shields to survive, the base-model TIEs had no shields.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 13:43
|
|
|
Gentlepersons, this is the milhist thread. I'm sure there's a star wars thread for all your star wars discussions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 13:51
|
|
|
Dance Officer posted:Gentlepersons, this is the milhist thread. I'm sure there's a star wars thread for all your star wars discussions. It's a long, long time ago so even if it's in a galaxy far far away it's technically history and I think anyone can see it's clearly military.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 13:55
|
|
|
I way way prefer this conversation to war crimes chat
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 13:57
|
|
|
The Ewoks wore no visible military insignia. Are they in violation of the Geneva Convention?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 14:01
|
|
|
goatsestretchgoals posted:The Ewoks wore no visible military insignia. Are they in violation of the Geneva Convention?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 14:05
|
|
|
The Ewoks were technically a 'criminal gang'.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 14:08
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I way way prefer this conversation to war crimes chat Was destroying Alderaan justified?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 14:10
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:Was destroying Alderaan justified? No because military target or not it was clearly disproportionate and you have to maintain proportionality in wartime.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 14:11
|
|
Cat Army 
|
It was an industrial accident
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 14:12
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:No because military target or not it was clearly disproportionate and you have to maintain proportionality in wartime. was it really wartime though
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 15:46
|
|
|
AT-STs are by law anti-material weapons so be sure to aim at an Ewok's weapons when shooting at them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 15:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 19:46 |
|
|
aphid_licker posted:What's the wildest napoleonic uniform color scheme? Taken as a whole it is hard to beat the Neopolitains:     Any single uniform isn't outlandish by Napoleonic standards, but en masse they're a rainbow display with no unifying theme.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 16:02
|
|
