[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/vst/ - Video Games/Strategy

[Advertise on 4chan]

Name
Spoiler?[]
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File[]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 116 posters in this thread.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


[Advertise on 4chan]


Discuss strategy games that involves boats, big boats, underwater boats.
Pic related is Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts which I find is extremely similar to Rule the Waves II, in both game you're able to design your own ships, manage naval finances and somewhat influence the politics of your country other than doing naval tactics and strategy in real-time battles.

Does anyone else have a good naval game they'd like to share, how does it compare to either game, etc. ?
>>
UA Dreadnoughts seems really promising.
>>
>>861022
From what I've currently played it is very promising indeed, it offers a lot of things that RTW does, most of them better implemented from what I've seen. So far the biggest drawback for me is probably the lack of aircrafts and anything past 1940.
>>
>>861063
When Red Alert 3 came out I remember being blown away by the simple feature that you can build most of your stuff on water, like woah, why did no one think of this before? I'm sure plenty of games did it before RA3 but still.
>>
>>861060
I just want more pre dreadnought stuff
>>
>>861063
I'm still salty that SupCom never got the same depth in this regard as its spiritual predecessor.
>>
Why did the red alert 3 post about being able to build stuff underwater and other naval buildings got deleted?
>>
>>860980
UA Dreadnoughts is good because it makes RTW boomers fucking seethe
Fuck every dev who forces me to buy their game through some shitty private online store and expects me to give out my credit card information there
>>
File: 1587749993574.png (564 KB, 503x496)
564 KB
564 KB PNG
>>860980
War on the Sea is pretty decent after a year or so of updates and patches

>>861379
that's not even the worst of it, due to how many people pirated RTW, the dev implemented a new system for RTW2, after you buy the game you get a one time use serial code that you have to email to them in order to be able to download the game
>>
>>861379
>>861447
They might change the distribution system/store now.
The stores owner recently died making it basically unusual.
>>
>>861448
>fugg
*I meant unusable
>>
>>861447
Have they fixed the sub/air spam? Most of my encounters were either ASW or air when I played at launch. It used to be that AI carriers didn't have to resupply their air wings so you couldn't even attrit them and would just get raided constantly until the enemy carrier was sunk.
>>
>>861447
Ah yes the boomer mentality. I would rather screw everyone including myself then give up a nickel.
>>
File: victory.png (728 KB, 1920x1080)
728 KB
728 KB PNG
It really has potential, the campaign mode felt mostly solid with only several features left that are missing and it needing quite some more polish, dockyard expansion and research felt too slow though, don't think it made any impact at all for this particular campaign.
>>
>>861321
Maybe he posted (a lot of) something rule-breaking elsewhere and, instead of figuring out which things are bad and which aren't, a mod just mass deleted everything from that IP.
>>
War on the Sea is probably peak naval combat simulator. Victory at Sea Pacific is better at overall strategy however, since you can freely move ships across the entire Pacific instead of having the game segmented into missions. But the ships don't have the same level of detail.
>>
File: rtw2.png (201 KB, 1920x1080)
201 KB
201 KB PNG
Recently replayed RTW2 so I could compare it better with UA:D

As of hotfix v95 for UA:D I feel like there's still a lot that can be improved and added even if UA:D already feels better for me to play.
The AI for both game is acceptable I guess, both games' AIs are functional 80-90% of the time but I feel like UA:D's AI is a fucking coward because they keep running away, while in RTW2 it only happens when I fight against Italy. The tactical map of RTW2 blows UA:D's map because it actually is Earth with landmass and shit while UA:D only has endless ocean, the zoom level of UA:D also feels bad for me as you can't zoom out too far away, there's also the fact that because UA:D is 3D based it will eat more performance from your PC therefore larger battles are very not recommendable while you can get stupid battles such as pic related in RTW2 on the largest fleet size. Also in UA:D I don't like that the lead ship of a formation would just change every time it gets slowed down, it always fucks up the entire formation while RTW2 just slows down the entire formation.
The strategic-side is more mixed as RTW2 does certain things better than UA:D and vice versa, in RTW2 you can: build forts and shit on the map whilst on UA:D you can actually move your fleets around which is cool, resources are also a thing in RTW2, though the campaign for UA:D v95 is still partially finished so idk.
On shipbuilding I like the fact that there are plenty of options for choosing components in UA:D though autistically mousing over every possible spot to place a cannon is bullshit, also I don't know if I can rebuild ships or not in UA:D, you can do it in RTW2.
The UI for either game is bad, UA:D has nicer looking UI that is more user-friendly but RTW2 can be more usable if used properly.
All said, I enjoy both games, you should try both of them (Don't buy RTW2 though, fuck that retarded nigg er who put that stupid DRM activation bullshit)
>>
The game is out on Steam now if anyone is still following this thread.
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1069660/Ultimate_Admiral_Dreadnoughts/
>>
Anyone play Command:Modern Operations?
>>
>>870713
Lack of carriers really puts me off from it.
>>
>>870713
Is it worth it though?
>>
>>870804
carriers are cringe though, they made naval warfare boring
>>
still waiting for UA:AOS to go cheap
>>861060
aircraft are soulless and ruined naval
>>
>>870803
I too enjoy spreadsheets
>>
>>870713
So is it autism simulator or can it be played like "big guns go pew" chill arcade?
>>
File: 1630367615843.jpg (4 KB, 179x192)
4 KB
4 KB JPG
>90% of ship combat games are about u-boats
>>
File: TFA.jpg (1.47 MB, 4096x3317)
1.47 MB
1.47 MB JPG
who's looking forward to Task Force Admiral? If it lives up to the expectation this could be the PTO wargame to end all other PTO wargames
>>
>>871071
Is Carrier Battles 4 Guadalcanal any good?

Also looking forward to TFA and Destroyer: The U-Boat Hunter
>>
File: 1619444388717.jpg (50 KB, 800x518)
50 KB
50 KB JPG
>>870965
You VILL sink ze merchant vessel and you VILL enjoy it.
>>
>>870910
Still questionable, as always the old adage play first buy later is never wrong.
The game certainly still needs work, no surprise for an warly acces title.

>>870962
It's not that autistic or at least doesn't require it.
Lots of big guns, a good rangefinder and a veteran crew always work, although the latter is harder to get during campaign.
As for autism there seems to be quite a bit under the hood i.e. hit chance depends on distance, sea state, weather, smoke interference, target size, crew experience, conning tower damage, the targets speed and maneuvering as well as your own, rangefinder, angle etc.
But honestly it's totally playable just jumping in, partially because the ai isn't overly punishing aside from loving torps.
Pic related gives a decent impression of ship design.
You have different choices for each set ,depending on tech, which give certain modifiers.
Krupp IV as an example gives the most effective armor but is also the most expensive, harvey isn't as effective but cheaper, plain iron is the cheapest but heavier etc.
Insufficient funnels decrease engine efficiency which negatively affects acceleration, forced or induced boilers increase funnel efficiency but also increase boiler or engine weight% etc.

>>871543
Jawohl Herr BdU.
Maybe I should play SH3 again/spoiler]
>>
>>860980
It's 2021 and there still isn't a good naval strat game that can beat GNB 2-5. Those games are DOS-era games and they btfo RTW and UA Dred.
It took like a decade for rtw2 to come out and have planes, the only thing it got is custom ship designing but the combat is so fucking awful. AI is braindead and most of the time ship positioning is retarded or just broken(still thinking when my carrier spawn right inside the fucking german harbor just to get fucked by costal batteries and planes.). Tried UA dred once and barely after 2 hours I uninstalled, shit felt too arcadey and there is still no campaign.

My only problem with GNB 3-5 is that there isn't any grand campaign like in GNB2. It's all scenario, although you could make your own years long campaigns yourself via the editor.
I think it's very telling of the current ww1/ww2 naval strat game when 30+ years old games are still competitives.
>>
>>871674
>nsufficient funnels decrease engine efficiency which negatively affects acceleration
This may be a stupid question but where do I see how much funnel I need? Couldn't find it in the ship building menu
>>
File: 20211130191141_1.jpg (839 KB, 3840x2160)
839 KB
839 KB JPG
I've been enjoying WotS with mods
>>
>>871722
Sell me on WotS
>>
File: 1639228908016.jpg (304 KB, 1680x945)
304 KB
304 KB JPG
>>871071
me.
>>871692
im more a tf1942 kind of guy.
>>
>>871543
I'll only do it if I don't have to fight for a socialist country, and if it's realistic enough to be a horror game
>>
>>871725
You can control ships, subs and planes at the same time
>>
>>871696
scroll down, it's on the very bottom of the ship stats panel (the right one)
>>
Why is War in the Pacific so... janky?

Played it a bit, and it's fairly obvious that AI cheats even on lowest difficulty.

>Play as USA
>Lose Midway and Wake near instantly
>Send two task forces with a carrier each, soon reinforced
>Big air battle
>Enemy carrier sunk
>Another one sunk
>Islands recaptured
>Prepare for offensive on Tulagi
>A new strike force spotted!
>3CV, 7BB, 6CA
>Followed by a mass of destroyers
>Another massive force appears down south
>4CV, 2CVL, 9BB

With two carriers down, japanese should have 4CVs total, at least in february 1942.

>Can barely keep up with all the incoming fleets and can barely replace losses
>Have to constantly juggle ships because freight ships take so long to arrive anywhere
>Progress is slow if at all
>Japanese seem to have an infinite flux of supplies and ships streaming in

At this point I must have sunk thrice the numbers of total IJN ships in ww2. And they keep coming. My losses aren't low either, and it seems my replacements arrive at much slower pace than japanese. I just don't get it. I wanted it to be bigger and more complete WotS, but it just isn't, not with the bugs I've encountered.

>Sink enemy CV
>Enemy planes keep circling around
>They keep attacking your ships even after expending their ammo
>They return to enemy fleet to just hover there
>Enemy ships randomly stop during the battle
>Submarines are retarded and can't do evasive maneuvers on their own, get constantly sunk, infiltration and merchant marine disruption is essentially impossible
>Convoys randomly change directions
>Planes have inconsistent range

I just don't get it. Why can't it be good.
>>
>>872861
You're not supposed to play Gary Grigsby's games against AI.
>>
File: 1626465113176.png (236 KB, 500x811)
236 KB
236 KB PNG
>>861447
>>871722
>War on the Sea
Am I stupid or does this game really have no way to automate air patrols? I don't want to manually relaunch my zeros on the same flight paths every two hours god damnit
>>
>>872861
>War in the Pacific
Not this. Meant Victory at Sea: Pacific.
>>
>>872900
Not to my knowledge
>>
>>873058
Well that is retarded. Here's to hoping the devs eventually implement such a feature, they seem to be set on supporting this game for a while
>>
I barely see people talk about Pacific Storm in threads like this.
Yea its slavjank sure, but its simulation is quite good, i hope war on the sea reaches its level.
>>
>>873214
Holy shit anon, I played this game well over a decade ago and could not remember its name.
>>
>>873214
You are aware of the massive mod a bunch of dedicated autist fans made for it, right?
https://www.pacificfury.net/pacific-storm-allies-1-8
It adds many dozens of new ships and planes, new textures, buildings and overall tweaks to balance.
Downside is, it's jankier than vanilla.
>>
>>873300
I know, im talking about 4ch.
Same applies to blitzkrieg/sudden strike and their mods.
>>
>>871674
>Maybe I should play SH3 again
you should. i'll play too and we'll wolfpack
Get the enigma mod so i can send you enigma encrypted ERP
>>
>>873266
It's nice, shame it just doesn't fucking work.
>>
>>872900
>>873058
>>873208
On the topic of aircraft, are they actually infinite in this game? Like, as long as you can get your carrier groups back to port to resupply, you can keep doing kamikaze bombing runs without repercussions?
>>
>>872861
IIRC WITP is one of those games that calculates every rifle shot of every unit in every battle, but each one is assigned arbitrary damage values that bear no resemblance to actual combat.
>>
>>874452
I posted wrong name. I meant Victory at Sea: Pacific.
>>
File: 1635966342145.png (598 KB, 600x878)
598 KB
598 KB PNG
>>871722
>oh hey, a merchant vessel, surely my two destroyers can sink it easily
>mfw
Why the hell are the merchant vessels in this game so fucking powerful? A merchant vessel retrofitted with a single 140mm cannon shouldn't be able to outfight two destroyers
>>
The catalog for the RtW2 Expansion is out.
https://www.navalwarfare.net/files/SAI/RTW2_Expansion_Catalog.pdf
Actual release date is still unknown. A few decades maybe. Will probably be buggy right up until they decide to start working on RtW3.

I am looking forward to the politics and strategy changes, divisions, saved histories, and the superstructure editor changes. Subwarfare will probably remain utterly broken. I don't give two shits about the Missile Era stuff.
>>
>>874771
Fuck RTW and their ridiculous attempt at DRM. To save pennies they lost dollars.
>>
>>874812
The only thing more retarded than their current system is people who paid for RtW1.
>>
>>874771
>you can set up your own divisions
Nice
>>
>>874819
Finally an IJN fleet structure autism simulator.
>>
>>874740
Use submarines, dumbo
>>
>>873300
i downloaded the files, how tf do i install the mod? just extract it over the game directory?
>>
>>874771
Hot damn those sound really nice.
Especially those superstructure drawing improvements.
Can't wait.
>>
>>874771
I can understand not wanting to add nuclear weapons, but why not propulsion? It seems like a pretty big thing to leave out if the game is being extended into the Cold War.
>>
>>876051
I think I heard some mental gymnastics that they can't add propulsion and pretend like nuclear weapons aren't a thing so they just won't add propulsion. That might have been just the forum. Or maybe the it was the devs. It was a miracle that they added/will add planes capable of carrying two torps despite vehemently opposing it for so long so who knows with their logic.

That said if late game RtW2 is anything to go on, the Cold War era of this expansion will just be broken and buggy anyway. I bet you at least one of those features from the catalog will be completely missing or will have placebo effects and no one will notice for at least a year or more.
>>
I for one can't wait to spawn 20 miles of the coast of the enemy for a WW1-style coastal raid in the 1960s.
>>
Is CMANO a fun game to play if I enjoy autism shit like RTW and Command Ops 2?
>>
>>876089
Wait, they still haven't fixed that shit? The hell are they even doing with the game?
>>
>>876111
Yes. Doubly so if you like sandbox. I spent hundreds of hours in the OFP/ARMA editor and felt at home in CMO.
>>
File: Aoba-chan I'm scared.jpg (449 KB, 1920x1080)
449 KB
449 KB JPG
War on the Sea still has some AI bugs. Captain-san sometimes gets to the sake ration and makes questionable decisions.
>>
>>876716
He seppuku'd out of frustration over the AI's insane long range accuracy
>>
>>876411
The way RtW is set up is that the battle generator calls upon certain scenario templates. IIRC there are common templates and opponent specific templates but there aren't nearly enough and if you play a nation long enough you'll just get the exact same scenarios/battles over and over again.
In the base game of RtW2 all they really did was keep the WWI-centric scenarios and added templates for carrier battles that only came into play once carriers were involved.
They never really did anything to change the templates over time. You could theoretically mod the game during a play-through to give yourself more battle variety and get rid of the WW1 ones, but it's a massive pain in the ass because the scenario editor was never updated for RtW2 and the templates are full of cryptic variables that the devs just refuse to explain and no one knows what they do. This game is also just a bitch to mod and keep updated without a mod manager.

It sounds like from the catalog that all they're doing is changing the AI behavior to refuse battles in restricted waters when aircraft come about. It says nothing about the dumbshit it gives the player. I'd assume they're also adding additional mission types to make up for missile warfare and cold war warfare, but I doubt they changed the battle generator/template system.

Not like they'd ever tell us. The devs absolutely love ignoring any kind of questions about the inner workings of game mechanics. It's like they're afraid of players coming up with better systems. Which is ironic considering williammiller's initial interaction with the late Chris Dean was taking a Janes Fleet Command mod Chris made and making it better.
>>
File: 1635562022307.jpg (15 KB, 201x247)
15 KB
15 KB JPG
>>876821
>The devs absolutely love ignoring any kind of questions about the inner workings of game mechanics. It's like they're afraid of players coming up with better systems.
Sometimes I wonder what goes inside a boomer's mind
>>
>>876830
The devs said they refuse to give any information because they don't want anyone to make any games "stealing" "their" ideas
>>
>>877159
Good thing the main dev apparently died, hopefully the rest will follow suit
>>
How do i fit more secondaries on my ships? I find it really hard to design Iowa type ships for anyone but the US.
>>
>>871674
>0" armor
Negger...
>>
File: 1612653017937.jpg (45 KB, 347x434)
45 KB
45 KB JPG
>>875540
>when you intercept that American CV group with 24 torp bombers
>>
>>877592
>caring about belt and deck extended
Although to be fair UA:D doesn't really model AON armor making extended kind of necessary.
>>
File: 1499838821.jpg (10 KB, 136x302)
10 KB
10 KB JPG
>>877678
>>
File: 1632006213292.jpg (85 KB, 307x680)
85 KB
85 KB JPG
>>877941
Size matters, anon
>>
AI ship building is so shit that 45 kt fast BCs/CAs rape everything
>>
>>877159
At that point, might as well just make a better game.
I can't believe RTW code being complex apart from auto-generation code for enemy fleet and ships design.
All the gunfiring is simple geometry. It's very easy to get the impact angle and velocity, which tell you if it's a belt/deck hit and if you pass or not. I don't think RTW even take into consideration angled belt hit.

They sat on RTW for like a decade and the only thing they added in RTW2 was fucking aircrafts. The missiles were planned but they couldn't despite the fact that you could have code them as very fast suicide planes that have no crews. That should tell you a lot about what you need to know about their programming capacities.
>>
>>878479
Yeah i went for a nice simple BC vs CA duel only to see that the French BC is a 55000 ton monster with 8 17inch guns and a 31.5 knot top speed. Oh and Tier V Torpedo protection to boot.
>>
>>878603
>the French BC is a 55000 ton monster
Hon hon hon, finally revenge for Trafalgar, rosbif
>>
>>878606
Unfortunately 18inch torps don't care for torpedo protection, and the galaxy brain decision to put all your guns in the front bit the frogs pretty hard.
On a serious note, does the AI use player designs? I want to fight historical battles, but the AI designs are apsurdly bad.
>>
>>878580
>I can't believe RTW code being complex
it's probably more it's pure spageht code like other boomer wargame devs
>>
>>878613
>the galaxy brain decision to put all your guns in the front
It is unironically a big brain move. Less weight overall for the same total firepower.

>>878713
I'd unironically would make a better a RTW and sell it for half the price on steam(that mean no retarded email drm bullshit) if I wouldn't get sued by americans boomer(who are already known to over-sue shit) for weak reasons.
>>
>>878815
Just pay some Ivan to host a phantom company for you in Russia
>>
had a look at ultimate admiral game. why do the ships look so small, theyre like little bath toys
>>
>>879064
You're regularly shooting at ranges where you can't tell a merchantmen from a cattlebruiser. It's not that the ships are small, it's that the range of engagement is relatively huge.
>>
>>878815
Except when you are being bamboozled by a smaller ship from behind and can't do shit.
>>
>>879160
It's your fault
1) Not having a screen fleet for your BC/BB
2)Not using the extra weight reduction to be faster
2.b)Letting a torpedo boat/destroyer in your weak point in the first place
3)being too retarded to turn the ship to bring him back into your firing arcs
>>
>>878580
>impact angle and velocity, which tell you if it's a belt/deck hit and if you pass or not
RtW2 doesn't do that, a dice roll determines whether it's a D/DE/B/BE hit and then it just compares the armor thickness to the penetration table from "gun data" in the build screen to determine if it's a penetration or not. Inclined armor option just makes the belt 10% thicker for purposes of penetration.
>>
>>880182
The absolute state of RTW.
Holy shit, I might actually do it.
It's like they did less than the minimum and still expect people to pay a full game price for what should be an update of the first game
>>
>>878815
> if I wouldn't get sued by americans boom
Why would you ever have to worry about getting sued if you're not using their code?

>>880182
Holy fuck, please tell me that's not true.
Shit's embarrassing, a bit like the only including ao vs ai wars after someone made a mod to do it.
>>
>>881157
Well you know that retarded boomers have sued McDonald because their coffee was hot? Some retards like to sue over petty shit and seeing how petty the RTW devs are(just look at their mail-in drm for the best exemple) I wouldn't be surprised they wouldn't sue a better clone.

It took them like decade to code planes and they re-released the game full price with barely any new features. The carriers aren't even implemented properly.
They can't even simulate the fucking shells hits which only require high school math(polynomial curves of the 2nd degree with only needing to add air resistance to the base formula).
Game is full bugs; ship editor is broken half the time and won't tell you why it won't save the designs.
The AI probably cheat(they always get dive bombers 20 years before me somehow while im stuck with only torp bombers until the 40s) and 90% of the game is rng(tech, spies and events).
Somehow you can control the navy down to when a torpedo is fired and how ships are built, but you can't do any operation. You can sail your whole fleet from Japan to the Baltic sea but they still won't do shit nor will allow you to use them. They will sit there and do nothing. Yeah yeah I understand you can't just "find" the enemy to fight him, but at least let me be aggressive and bomb his port to force him out.
>>
>>881182
I think you somewhat overestimate their ability for legal retaliation. They're a small studio without a large publisher behind them so I doubt they have an army of layers ready to jump at every shadow like, say, Nintendo
>>
I wish I could go back in time and un-buy RTW2, the cracked 1.23 patch came out about a week later and the game was officially dropped by the devs shortly after.
I just want to warn anyone who wasn't already sure, do not pay for RTW2 because the devs are autistic wargame boomers who can't write a functioning game and just want your money. Don't pay for the upcoming "expansion" [features that were promised as part of RTW2 which was basically just an expansion of RTW1 but were later cut when it became clear that implementing then would take work] either.
>>
>>881182
>retarded boomers have sued McDonald because their coffee was hot
Tired of this lawsuit constantly being used as an example. McDonald's deliberately boiled water for their coffee at a much higher than normal temperature compared to other coffee providers, and caused the plaintiff to suffer severe burns when it was delivered to her in faster than the expected time.
>>
>>881952
Coffee is hot woah. Maybe don't fucking drink it like it's a shot?
There are way worse example of those retarded lawsuit, but none are as known. The only thing to remember is that common sense is trumped by legalism fueled by greed and pettiness.
>>
>>881967
>Is wrong
>Doubles down

Based retard.
>>
>>882025
t.sued a coffee shop because the iced coffee was too cold
>>
>>881952
>>882025
If you get severely burned by a fucking coffee, unless someone else spills it over you with no fault of your own, you deserve to get removed from the genepool, simple as.
>>
>>881952
>plaintiff
I love that lawsuit since you had a McDonald's QC admit the company knew their coffee was a danger and they still didn't care, and they still keep that policy up to this day anyway.
And even with that admission, you have people sucking big Corpo dick, I hope they get their five cent discount for all dicksucking.
>>
>>882212
>and they still keep that policy up to this day anyway.
Good.
>>
>>882214
The weak should fear the strong.
Make the coffee HOTTER so that only the worthy can survive to inherit the earth.
>>
>>882364
This but unironically
>>
>>872900
There is, at least in tte, there's a little button with 4 arrows near the course button. Just draw your course and hit that and units will repeat the course, planes will relaunch every morning as well. It's a good way to put up scouts that circle your ships too
>>
>>881157
3" belt/belt extended light cruisers make no sense in real life, but can tank a lot of 6" shells in RTW.
>>
>>881182
I bet law firms are falling over themselves to get hired by this guy who can't afford $100 to put his game on Steam
>>
>>882738
You get the 100$ back once you make 1000$ of sales on STEAM(I think raw sales numbers steam's 30% cut and taxes). It's only a bond, a collateral to prevent ultra-trash games being spammed too hard.
That's how greedy those boomers.
>>
>>882745
>(I think raw sales numbers steam's 30% cut and taxes)
Steam cut is indeed 30%, there is some guy who owns a shitty store and he won't shut about it
>>
>>881678
i feel really lucky that i managed to avoid the urge to buy it after loving RtW a ton. fuck those god forsaken boomers
>>
File: Untitled.png (38 KB, 860x310)
38 KB
38 KB PNG
>>882212
If you can't handle something as simple and ubiquitous as mere hot water you should be removed from the gene pool, along with anybody who thinks the suit was legitimate. What temperature you choose to drink coffee is your own choice, but of course it's going to be served to you hot. Who the fuck would make you wait 15 minutes after brewing so that it's served warm enough for tards not to hurt themselves? The only other option would be to put it in a freezer and that would be retarded. Do you even drink coffee?
>>
>>882563
>tte
Tokyo Express more like Dud Torpedo Express. I know it's realistic but a 50% dud rate feels excessive and makes US submarines borderline worthless
>>
>>883115
Yeah, it's not a perfect sim by any means, I don't know, and I'd doubt, it counts angle of impact I to torp hits. My guess is a flat yes/no, which really hurts the US toros, which were usually okay if the angle was right. I think that's changeable though, if you care to do it, same in base game.

Still, they're really no more useless than half the Jap cruisers in a gun fight, what the hell are you supposed to do with the Aobas outside of an expensive float plane carrier?
>>
>>883129
I actually somewhat like it from a game balance POV because now the IJN actually have something they're decidedly better at than the USN while in the base game the US feels superior in just about every regard except floatplanes and fighters. It's just frustrating when you're playing as the USN and want to use the whole range of your arsenal
>>
>>883131
Yeah, it is a good attempt at balancing, I typically play IJN so I house rule my subs a bit since the AI hardly attempts any anti sub maneuvering until after a Torp hits. 11,000-yard 4deg spreads randomly into the formation shouldn't result in any hits imo, even if it happened once IRL.
>>
>>883131
>want to use the whole range of your arsenal
I mean you can do that, but the big brain move is to exploit your strength and your enemies' weaknesses.
Balance shouldn't be 1:1. irl Japs were more into torpedo bombers while Americans were more for diver-bombers(iirc the USA dive bombers could drop twice the bomb load as their jap counterparts) in their carrier strike groups. Obviously the correct way is to use proper tactics so each weapons can be used correctly. However you don't force a screw inside a plank with a hammer, you got to find the proper time to use it even if that might be never.
To be fair, I generally never use torpedo in any ww2 game as the USA. America is all about fucking someone ass via superior information and carrier spam and winning the attrition war. While Japan is for night action and autistic torpedo action. I wouldn't even dare to compete there, at least not on equal footing.
>>
>>860980
UA:D seems really cool, hopefully they'll take it out of EA soon.
Also waiting for sea power, that one looks really cool.
Kinda wished there were more ironclad-era games that aren't ultrajank, such an underrated era.
>>
>>883129
Don't quote me on this because I'm drunk and my naval history knowledge comes exclusively from binge watching Drachnifels but IIRC the Mk14 had an even higher dud rate when the shot was a perfect angle. Literally the only thing the Mk14 was good for was getting sailors smashed off the fuel since the USN was never into rum.
>>
Lads, how can I get this to run on Windows 7? I've tried everything and am yet to find a solution. Best game for tism ever. Comfy as fuck. Realistic too.

https://www.squakenet.com/game/fleet-command/
>>
>>885569
Are you retarded? How the fuck can you not know about DOS?
Go get yourself a 32bit machine or DOSBOX or a VM.
>>
>>885569
People usually recommend using PCem for win95 games, haven't tried it myself though. I have a linux box so I use 32-bit Wine on that to play win95 games.
>>
How do I make aerial reconnaissance work in RTW2? I just finished my first game and while I had plenty of carrier battles (including one where the enemy spawned between my carriers and my battleships resulting in them sinking all my carriers with their surface fleet when my carriers turned into the wind) I never once received a sighting report of the enemy fleet from my turn-0 search pattern prior to the hordes of enemy dive bombers converging on my fleet. How does the enemy know exactly where I am from the start when my searches rarely find them, and certainly not prior to them finding me? All my successes with carriers were from making contact via the surface fleet while defending with maximum CAP, then launching short range strikes against targets I could see on the map. I didn't use floatplane search priority because they are slow and I only got floatplane tenders in about three battles for the entire game. Are floatplanes better at searching?
Also how dumb is it to use fighters for naval strikes? They're usually the fastest carrier plane I have (good for arriving at the enemy fleet before they move too far away), their speed/maneuverability might help survive AAA/CAP, and they carry a respectable bomb load once you get out of those first few years of early aviation. Will they be completely ineffective compared to torpedo bombers?
>>
>>888154
>fighters for naval strikes
To clarify, I'm imagining a carrier with nothing but fighters onboard. CAP, escort, and strike all with the same airframe.
>>
>>888154
floatplane tenders are pointless because the battle generator is retarded and will never spawn them when you need them. That class is way to situational, same with basically any specialized design you make. If you want to use floatplanes you need to stuff them on cruisers and battleships.
Early fighters are shit at protecting your fleet, but later game fighters make max CAP absolute meta and they will decimate enemy planes. Late game fighters with heavy bomb loads also make good strike fighters themselves and sometimes the AI will only use fighters.
As for aerial reconnaissance, you kind of want to narrow your search patterns where you think the carriers might be. If you play enough you'll kind of get an idea. I'm pretty sure the AI cheats in some way though. In most of my carrier battles I've either struck the enemy after decimating their air power threw CAP trap or waited until night and hunted them down with surface ships. Flying boats are also your friend and help with dealing with enemy subs
>>888158
I've tried this before playing Italy. CAP trap will absolutely protect your fleet and decimate enemy air strikes but you'll be really hard pressed to make effective strikes of your own without at least dive bombers.
>>
play starsector
>>
>>888158
Fighters have disgusting bomb yields, it's not worth the fuel. If only there was kamikaze then maybe...
>>
>>888574
I did some fleet exercises in 1935 USA to check and it's true. While the fighters performed admirably and got a lot of hits, their 250 lb bombs didn't do any meaningful damage to the capital ships strck. Although the dive bombers with their 1000 lb bombs had the same issue. Meanwhile we all know how effective torpedo bombers are. Are dive bombers really that bad all the time?
>>
>>890935
I don't know how bomb hits are calculated, but a 1000lb bomb dropped at around 300m up in the sky should have a similar penetration to a big BB shell. Direct deck hit which shouldn't be that much(more than 5 inches is ludicrous unless I'm missing something). Obviously RTW being that badly coded, it's probably an issue with the code itself rather than realism being anti-fun.
>>
File: 1614813666745.jpg (417 KB, 1920x1080)
417 KB
417 KB JPG
Anyone here playing UBOAT? Got into it recently after watching a Wolfpack video and it's pretty damn fun so far.
>>
>decide to try out Battlestations Pacific again
>it refuses to run even with all the GFWL shit done
>winblows 11
>tfw i have no face
And to top it off, the utter autists who developed the Remaster mod took it down.
On a side note, play the Battlestations games. Weird to not see a single mention of them in this thread, they do count as strategy.
>>
>>891976
I wanted to play Battlestations Pacific but it wouldn't start (win10) no matter what so I gave up.
>>
File: werghw.png (72 KB, 1331x704)
72 KB
72 KB PNG
>>890935
>>890955
It's been the meta for a while now that you need a minimum of 6.5" of deck armor to even try to survive dive bombers hits past 1940. AP bomb penetration is extremely broken. It's one of the reasons, along with unrealistically heavy deck and flight deck armor, why armored carriers aren't feasible in game. If anything it's the torpedo bomber that's least effective since they require large squadrons to be effective.

Also if you want to test the effectiveness of fighters as strike fighters, test them when they actually have decent bomb loads
>>
>>892008
>If anything it's the torpedo bomber that's least effective since they require large squadrons to be effective.
I should clarify I'm talking about later game when dive bombers can start carrying 1400 & 1500lb bombs here. Which isn't as late as you think.
Torpedo bombers are definitely the best airframe to go with in the early years of air power but once fighters get advanced enough, your TBs will just start getting chewed the fuck out by CAP. Iirc when fighters start getting firepower >6 is when CAP becomes super effective.

Not like you even need a heavy bomb load to sink carriers in this game. A fire-starting 250lb dud hit is practically all you need to kill a carrier
>>
>>891976
>>892000
>updating past win7
disgusting, I bet it run better on WINE than on your up-to-date bloatwares

>>892008
>6.5" deck
Jesus fucking christ
That being said 250lb seem ok against cruisers and anything smaller. I wonder if the size of the bomb also influence dmg or only penetration. Since there is only a single undifferentiated "bomb" dmg unlike gun hits.
>>
>>892024
I'm pretty sure I read that bomb damage is indeed influenced by bomb size, but in my experience it seems it does too. The size and type of the bomb are logged in the damage logs anyways so the game definitely tracks that.
>Since there is only a single undifferentiated "bomb" dmg unlike gun hits
I think that's just a statistical thing. Gun hits are categorized us light, medium, or heavy damage but the actual caliber and type of shell does matter when calculating actual damage. 16" and 20" are both considered heavy hits, but 20" absolutely hit harder than 16".
>>
>>892000
It's retarded, on my previous PC with Win 10 it worked just fine. You just don't know with these. Did you try the GFWL pack from the game's moddb? It has everything that "should" make it run there, in theory.
The Remaster is a big deal since they hacksawed the Games For Winblows thing out of the game, but the entire thing just vanished.

>>892024
Ain't it the truth. Will probably just get rid of win 11 on my gaymer laptop, it's an absolute chore to use overall.
>>
>>891883
Yeah, i bought it. Its easier to get into than fucking around with SH3/4 and honestly feels better to play. It definitely feels a bit bare bones in some aspects. The ports feel really desolate, eerily so. It kind of feels a bit lifeless at times. The only life is whats going on on your boat.

I'm going to try some workshop mods this weekend, hoping the devs keep pushing updates because it has good bones.
>>
>>871767
Silent Hunter 4: feel the creeping insanity as you fire torpedo after torpedo, only to have every single one of them malfunction in one way or another.
>>
>>892633
>playing WotS TTE as the USN
>Oh, what's that, a Japanese CV? Right in front of my torpedo tubes? Well let's fucking go then.
>miss, miss, miss, dud, dud
T-thanks...
>>
>>892641
>"duds? the great arsenal of democracy could never produce duds commander, I'm afraid you're going to be relieved of your current post and switched to shore duty"
>>
>>892682
VGH, the great coastal batteries of the AMERICA
>>
>>877482
It was the store owner that RtW2 is sold on. The main Dev is definitely still alive
>>
>>892008
>pen1 means 100% chance of penetration
>pen0 means 0% chance of penetration
>pen0 means less than 30% chance of penetration and pen1 means greater than 70% chance of penetration
So which is it?
>>
what game is this from? Looks like WW1 ships, battlecruisers I think
>>
>>892913
https://lparchive.org/Jutland/
Just a simple image search...
Anyway you were right, they look like ww1 BC and since they are in a big battleline that mean Jutland. The graphics especially that smoke look dated from 2 decades ago(2000s).
All that also help you narrow the possibilities for searching on the internet without using image searching....


>DRM - why oh why
>Lastly, I will say a word about the games DRM, its of the "phone home" variety, the game needs to verify over the Internet every seven days of playing or it will stop working
GOD WHY THE FUCK?!? This is worse than what the retarded RTW boomers are doing.
Good luck playing this game legit and good luck finding a crack for such an obscure and old game.
>>
>>892804
yes
>>
File: htktj32.jpg (247 KB, 869x1242)
247 KB
247 KB JPG
>>892928
Every pro-DRM dev needs to get dragged into the streets and brutally clubbed to death
>>
File: 1630176194242.jpg (117 KB, 873x1024)
117 KB
117 KB JPG
>>893085
He was too pure for this world....
Yeah DRM is teh gayest shit ever since sodomy was invented in Sodom. It's fucking useless, if people wanna pirate they will. If you make the DRM too strong, you will hurt the legit players. They should be happy they even get people playing their game and the free publicity is much better than nothing. Do you expect poorfags that were never going to buy to give you money now? Of course not, you haven't lost any sales but you might have gained people who will recommend the game.
>>
>>892804
That image is old and since has been revised with proper translation
It should be
>pen1 means over 50% chance to pen
>pen0 means it has no chance to penetrate unless it hits a weakpoint (less than 1 in 15 hits)
>pen0/1 is under 50% down to around 10% chance to pen lower than this is considered lucky hit
>>
File: 1635212466937.jpg (108 KB, 467x524)
108 KB
108 KB JPG
Thoughts on Carrier Command 2? I have some sweaty grog bros and want to get a 4pack for new years but I don't want to big dick it if the game is no good.
>>
>>894145
It's nice. Run very well too, I was surprised when the game took less than 1gb of ram to run. This mean it won't lag often if at all. The main problem is that you don't have much to do during transit between islands unlike the original DOS/amiga game that has timewarping, but I guess that might need an overhaul of the physic engine to do in 3d.
The game seem best in coop(another reason why no timwarping), but you can still play fine in solo. I also remember losing a couple of drone while taking off during rough seas/being at full speed ahead.
>>
>>892928
I found it a while back on RuTracker. It's not very good. I also played the Russo-Japanese war version as well. Same story there.
>>
>>860980
Holy shit, the formation system in UA:D is such cancer.
I told a formation of 3 DDs to go east, they spent half an hour circling each other and drifting west before they managed to follow the order.
It's like playing Arma 3 with randoms.
>>
Are Atlantic Fleet and Cold Waters any good?
>>
>>895511
Cold Waters is a bit too arcade'y for my taste. It looks like a pretty harcore sub-sim at first, but the actual gameplay is quickly devolving into driving your sub with fucking WASD, making all kind of retarded manouvers.
In a way it's somehow similar to Ace Combat - action is put waaay above the realism.
If you don't mind such approach, you probably will like it. If no, you might be disapointed.
>>
>>895511
Atlantic Fleet feels really clunky and barebones compared to War on the Sea. They did a good job giving it a face lifting but ultimately couldn't hide the fact it was originally a mobile game, just wait for the Atlantic Campaign DLC for WotS.
Haven't played much of Cold Waters.
>>
>>892008
>test them when they actually have decent bomb loads
They don't get decent bomb loads until about 5 years before the game ends; testing them in the thirties when there's actually time to apply and use an all-fighter doctrine is much more revealing. And it reveals that there's no point because small-bomb glide bombing is hopeless.
>>
>>895511
Cold water feel like Red Storm Rising but with 3d physics.
However I miss the sealance and especially the stinger from RSR.
>>
>>895560
>blowing ballast tanks to do sick torpedo dodges like it's the fucking matrix
>>
>try to recreate the HMS Dreadnought in UAD
>have to downgrade the side turrets to 11' from 12' because they were noticeably sticking out over the sides
Why is this allowed? Especially given that 'Dreadnought' is included in the title of the game.
>>
>>896450
They're Ukrainians, jank is to be expected
>>
>>895560
>In a way it's somehow similar to Ace Combat
so what you're saying is that cold waters should have a campaign is a fictive earth-like world wit a ton of super-weapons and overly dramatic dialog?
>>
>>896653
Northern Norwayand the Kola bay are rightful Belkan clay!
>>
>>896653
>submarine torpedo jousting
I'd play it
>>
>>896759
>>896990
>climax features the player captain facing off against their old buddy that went rogue at the middle of the game and now shows up in a hyper-advanced prototype submarine that tries to protect a boomer launching its nukes
>after the player defeats their buddy they have to fire a tomahawk and manually guide it up to the nuclear missile to stop it

this practically writes itself
>>
>>896653
>You get to play as Torres
>>
>>896653
>Gameplay is basically Dynasty Warriors but with submarines.

Unironically would enjoy
>>
>https://nws-online.proboards.com/thread/2250/rtw2-v1-drm-update-available
The DRM is dead
>>
>>897548
Shit, I might actually buy the game now. Does this mean you can hex edit the exe for modding now? I want my 100k ton CLs again.
>>
>>897548
>We hereby grant you the right to install the game on up to two computers that you personally use for running the game.
Hang every boomer
>>
>>897661
i think what they mean is that you no longer have to request from them (through DRM) the ability to install the game, they are freeing granting that right
still i agree that all boomers must hang
>>
>>896450
I do find it annoying that I can't recreate or can't faithfully recreate most of my favourite ships.
>>
>>897661
>still limiting the number of installs
You don't own what you paid for... the ultimate cuckery
>>
>>897668
Was more referring to >>897746
>>
>>896653
Literally the Warship Gunner games.
>>
>>897548
Does that mean we can finally get a cracked 1.25? Is 1.25 even worth it?
>>
>>860980
So I downloaded UA:Dreadnoughts, and I'll definitely buy it at a later date for my friend.

The comments I'll make: I really wish you could give more detailed orders to your boats. If I could tell my BB 'Engage this target, but stay between 3 and 5 clicks of it" It'd definitely be better than having to micromanage. It'd also be great if there was a 'Damage control' order: Something where you keep a skeleton crew for every duty not flooding, repair or fire related

Other than that, I found the most successful boat I produced was a torpedo boat with high speed, low survivability. Really enjoyable.
>>
>>899889
Yeah that's also some of my problems with the game, since the game is still in early access you could possibly try giving feedback to the devs and see if they implement it later
>>
Ultimate Admiral is fun enough but the land combat missions are complete AIDS because of how sloggy they get. You start having to fight 1000+ Soldiers + cannons by like the 5th one which is not only ahistorical but also just unfun. Why make an ultimate ADMIRAL game feature this mediocre land combat and make it 3x slower and less engaging than the naval combat? It would have been better if they made it a simple numbers game than this current half assed mediocre showing of complex uncomplexity the land game actually is.
>>
>>860980
Shogun 2 naval battles! The best and most in-depth shit I've seen in my life.
>>
>>899889
>Other than that, I found the most successful boat I produced was a torpedo boat with high speed, low survivability.
Yeah right now torpedo boats seem to be fun due to grossly inaccurate guns are during the early decades
>>
>>899938
Which isn’t very historical. Gunnery was very accurate by the turn of the 20th century with the advent of then modern high mounted rangefinders. Jutland is a glaring example, where ships were routinely landing their shots from basically maximum range repeatedly. Radar aimed guns were of a course a massive step up in accuracy even then, but having early decade gunnery be this grossly inaccurate is very gamey.
>>
>>899935
Only the fall of the samurai one are fun. The base game isn't bad, but it a lot more repetitive. If you get the european ship you just auto-resolve everything.
>>
>>899956
To be fair, Jutland was almost 30 years after the beginning of the first campaign, but yeah it does seem pretty excessive atm
>>
>>899956
I found the game to very arcadey because of how the damage was handled. Haven't played that much because I got bored fast. The first two ironclad missions took like 20min even on max timewarp.
>>
File: 1563140578216.jpg (311 KB, 1200x1381)
311 KB
311 KB JPG
>>900073
>tfw enemy merchant refuses to sink despite sitting at 9% hull and 2% float for like 5 minutes
>>
>>899889
I've only played up to 1920 for the German campaigns, but so far it seems Armoured Cruisers/Heavy Cruisers are the most effective ships.
>>
>>899385
I think you can go download the base game, and then download the 1.25 patch, and play the game right now. No need for a "crack", the no DRM patch is the crack.
>>897661
No different than having a CD that needs to be in the computer to play the game. Just like you could make copies of the CD or later, just mount the .iso directly without needing the physical media, you can also install the game on as many computers as you want, they can't stop you. But you're only licensed for two at once, just as the CD game only licensed you to have one copy of the CD.

This is basically a goodwill move in light of the forthcoming DLC. RTW2 sales are probably pretty much done at this point so it doesn't hurt to release the full game as a "demo" for the expansion which I would anticipate seeing at $25 or more, i.e. full game price. The argument will be that you pay $60 for a AAA title so you can pay $35+$25=$60 for this title.
>>
>>901908
>The argument will be that you pay $60 for a AAA title so you can pay $35+$25=$60 for this title.
I think another argument for full game price is that you didn't pay for RtW1 anyway.
>>
File: 3.png (8 KB, 585x99)
8 KB
8 KB PNG
>>902051
>implying i didnt email the dead boomer to get my RtW1 code
>>
>>902133
>he paid for RtW1
I hope you were at least doing that to distribute it
>>
>>902225
i pirated it and bought it because i liked it
the simple copy protection of
>enter your code
didn't trigger my disgust. RtW2's DRM did and I never paid for that one.
>>
>>901908
>forthcoming DLC
wait what? They are going to release a DLC? For their unfinished janky game?
These jewish boomer need to hang, this shit is parajew-tier bullshit.
>>
play ultimate admiral dreadnought fools. testing out your ship designs is fun
>>
>>902587
I already am, faggotron. Seems quite wonky so far
>>
>>902587
>switched measurements to mm
>used to be able to increase armour by 1 mm increments
>no can only change armour by 2.5mm increments
Is this a bug? Or is there some setting I can't find that I accidentally toggled?
>>
>>902852
You VILL use ze imperial system!
>>
metric is soulless
>>
>>902979
>He doesn't use cubits
You will never know the dimensions of the Temple of Solomon.
>>
>>902967
>>902979
Imperial mean Roman Empire units.
Every countries prior to metric had their own variation. French inches were different from English inches and Austrian inches.
The only constant was that 12 inches is 1 foot and 3 feet is 1 yard.

That being said, imperial is retarded. Inches and feet aren't the same unit. Meanwhile in metric everything is meters and kilometers are just 1000 meters. Imperial have to use some bullshit fractions and lost a lot in precision.
>>
>>903064
imperial is more fun
>>
How the hell do I git gud at age of sail games
Stuff like naval combat in Total War or Ultimate Admiral: Age of Sail
I can sometimes cross the T if the AI fucks up but then afterwards it just ends up in an ever tightening spiral of doom with the other ship
I also lack the IQ to control like 10 ships at once making sure they're all correctly sailing with the wind behind them and stuff
>>
>>903068
I use NM/Knot, Kelvins and rest is metric. This is objectively the correct way to play naval games, I know because I was posessed by the holy spirit when choosing the unit's preferences.

I think imperial is easier on brainlets because it's easier to understand half-inches increments. Although in metric is goes in 25mm increments (2"/50mm to 3"/75cm). I guess some tards just can't count beyond 16.
>>
>big enough to throw punches with the big boys while still not being trivially easy like the US and UK
>not some dirt poor backwater with a shit navy like Russia/Austria-Hungary
>empire is big enough to have fun battles across 7 seas like the UK but without needing to play world police
>doesn't just sit in the kiddie pool called the Mediterranean like shitaly
Not even a ouiaboo but France is the most fun nation to play.
>>
>>903064
Imperial means British Imperial, it has nothing to do with the Romans, you idiotic ESL.
>>
>>903220
If you want to be retarded go to /v/ and leave /vst/ or go to the local pdx thread.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Roman_units_of_measurement
The best proof is that pound's symbol is LB for "libra". Each medievial kingdom had their own standards but they all used the same units which is inches, feet, ounces, pounds ect.
>>
>>903246
The Roman pound and all other ancient units of measure have nothing to do with the modern Imperial system. You're an idiot and proof that /vst/ is fucking horrible at discussing anything history related.
>The imperial system of units, imperial system or imperial units (also known as British Imperial[1] or Exchequer Standards of 1826) is the system of units first defined in the British Weights and Measures Act 1824 and continued to be developed through a series of Weights and Measures Acts and amendments.
>>
>>903270
Are you retarded? Before metric and well over before 1826 the other european nations also used the same system.
Yeah I'm sure the bri'ish just picked "lb" for pound totally by pure coincidence. Just like all the other coincidences between the two sets of units.
>>
>>903270
Weird how the imperial system actually has rigidly defined units everywhere in the world even though you said every nation used to do their own thing
Almost like it refers to the British one
>>
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Imperial-unit
>The British Imperial System evolved from the thousands of Roman, Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, and customary local units employed in the Middle Ages.
>Imperial system evolved from [...] roman
Gee I bet Britanica is a group of hardcore anti-anglo too. Anyway it's not like anyone one else was under the roman empire either...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Units_of_measurement_in_France_before_the_French_Revolution#Length
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_inch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_units_of_measurement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsolete_German_units_of_measurement#Fu%C3%9F_(foot)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_customary_units
uh oh, that's a lot of units where 12 inch(in local lingo) is 1 foot(in local lingo), pure coincidence
>>
>>903353
Standards for the exact length of an inch have varied in the past, but since the adoption of the international yard during the 1950s and 1960s it has been based on the metric system and defined as exactly 25.4 mm.
>>
>>903843
That what I meant, but pretty sure it varied inside countries with each kings.
Some would produce an etalon which all new foot/inches/yard be based on. I guess the reason is that the old master etalon degrade with time.
Now with meters(and all length unit derived from it) being etaloned from the speed of light under a certain time(C being an absolute constant in vaccum and time also being etalonated with an absolute precision) it will never ever change like it used to be. Mass units(pounds are a unit of force) on the other hand will still infinitesimally change over time as better etalon are made.
>>
>>902587
My ships keep going overweight since I over engineered the hell out of them, but I don't want any of my ship to sink.
>>
does this count? You actually need an organized crew who will listen to captain to have great naval battles but sadly not enough people play.
>>
>>904606
oops
>>
>>892928
The best thing is that the devs sold the game to some russian company ten years ago so you're not even paying the people that made it. I think there's still a demo for it somewhere.
lol @ stormpowered.com
>>
File: 20220106135230_1.jpg (259 KB, 1920x1080)
259 KB
259 KB JPG
>There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today.

How tf do I make a battlecruiser that doesn't get Hoodified by a bad pen while still doing the whole go fast shoot big guns thing?
>>
>>905235
>kongo casemates with 4 triple mains
You deserve it
>>
>>905235
less big guns
>>
>>905322
I believe it's 5 triple mains, Brooklyn style
>>
>>905452
Holy shit, I guess that 5th turret is in space then. Who the fuck designed this shit? Fisher? No wonder shit keep blowing up, there is no armor.
>>
>>905491
Comrade, we don't need armor if ship covered in turrets, reactive ammo like tank, da?
>>
>>905235
get bigger guns
>>
File: gs_20220107014327.png (2.33 MB, 1920x1344)
2.33 MB
2.33 MB PNG
How fares your ship design, /vst/?
>>
File: gs_20220107015553.png (2.79 MB, 1920x1344)
2.79 MB
2.79 MB PNG
The commander asked for ASW, he got ASW.
But not much else.
>>
>>905534
What game? That is one very angry looking destroyer.
>>
>>905559
i think it's Warship Gunner 2
>>
File: gs_20220107014426.png (2.01 MB, 1920x1344)
2.01 MB
2.01 MB PNG
>>905559
Naval Ops: Warship Gunner 2.
Technically not /vst/, since it is a Musou game with boats. However, its "prequel", Naval Ops: Commander is an RTS hybrid with the same boat design mechanics
>>
>>905568
what's a good site to find the ISO for it (and PS2 games in general)
>>
File: thoseareASROCbtw.png (2.51 MB, 1920x1344)
2.51 MB
2.51 MB PNG
>>905571
vimm dot net is a good go-to afaik.
>>
File: gs_20220107023851.png (906 KB, 1920x1344)
906 KB
906 KB PNG
On the very least, Naval Ops: Commander should be played for its baller soundtrack.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldZg77Up86U
>>
>>905235
Use less volatile propellant and explosive filler, use more bulkheads, use thicker bulkheads, use thicker barbettes, use less barbettes since they're often less armored than the turrets themselves.
>>
I'm going to FUCKING say it.
carriers are cooler than battleshits
>>
>>906830
for me it's frigates
>>
>>906830
For me it's the cruiser submarine with BB-tier guns and drones instead of floatplane
Can't beat this
>>
>>907114
>surface guns on subs
Lol. Lmao.
>>
File: Alicorn_Action_Shot.jpg (435 KB, 1920x1080)
435 KB
435 KB JPG
>>907268
SUCK MY DICK OSEA
>>
>>907367
Go to hell, Belkan dog
>>
>>907268
The suffren could have solo'd the yamato, the hood, the bismark, the iowa and any carrier. Modern hypersonic wunderwaffles missiles can't do anything to it.
Why do you think it just "disapeared" in the middle of the war. That's right, all this time history has been a lie. The cold war wasn't USA vs USSR, it was the Suffren(France) vs Atlantis. You better learn french soon, because once those fish fuckers are gone the suffren will surface and no one will be safe.
>>
>>905235
What game is it that you're all playing? I also wanna design deathtraps with absolutely no knowledge of how ships work
>>
File: Turret Space Program.jpg (313 KB, 1920x1080)
313 KB
313 KB JPG
>>907570
Ultimate Admiral Dreadnoughts. It recently came out on early access and it's a fun game if you want to design a fleet full of extremely reactive abominations and set them against each other. There's a campaign but it's currently limited to the bri'ish vs. ze germans broken up across a few decades. 90% of what I play is skirmish mode though which has a lot of other cunts navies represented so you can make French pre-dreadnought architectural disasters or a terrible Borodino knockoff.
>>
>>908349
>There's a campaign but it's currently limited to the bri'ish vs. ze germans broken up across a few decades

I wonder what they'll add. japan vs russia maybe?
>>
>>908406
The ideal would be a world map with all the nations in skirmish.
>>
>>908429
that would be a shit show. I'd prefer a decently made campaign
>>
File: Darth Pepe.jpg (260 KB, 1864x688)
260 KB
260 KB JPG
>>905568
>waves of steel promises to be a spiritual successor to warship gunner
>mfw worse graphics, worse gameplay, less content, and more bugs
The devs unironically spent more time and money on pride flags assets than on the actual game assets: I'm so fucking mad it's unreal.

>>908435
1v1 wars are not going to stay interesting for long, even with good scenarios: just look at how the current England vs Germany plays out, it's a short term business with barely any strategic considerations.
A long-term worldwide campaign would require you to deal with alliances, treaties, actual tech progression, long term considerations regarding your balance and your crewmen...
Of course, given the absolute state of ship control and torpedo avoidance I doubt the devs will be able to deliver anytime soon.
>>
>>908707
>1v1 wars are not going to stay interesting for long, even with good scenarios: just look at how the current England vs Germany plays out, it's a short term business with barely any strategic considerations.
>A long-term worldwide campaign would require you to deal with alliances, treaties, actual tech progression, long term considerations regarding your balance and your crewmen...
This, either a RTW style world campaign or a WotS style campaign focussed on smaller, more contained engagements would work but the way it is right now is stupid
>>
>>908707
>>waves of steel
>I'm so fucking mad it's unreal
Inconceivably mad even. All the Warship Gunner idea needed was regional weapons and more modern hulls.
What we got instead was a literal tranny game, a one in a million chance for this niche of a niche genre. You couldn't write a bait post that is more infuriating than reality we somehow got.
>oh yeah if you are so mad make your own
Bet we could.
>>
File: Fuso.jpg (275 KB, 1450x854)
275 KB
275 KB JPG
WotS updated with three new IJN battleships. Now you too can have a superstructure that looks like a haphazard pile of dirty dishes and empty pizza boxes on the kitchen counter of a depressed alcoholic.
>>
>>908821
Help, I'm dying of SOVL overload
>>
I thought the RTW shop boomer was old but no, he was just 54. Literally younger than my dad and some of the people I play tabletop with.
>>
>>908826
Ligma is no joke after all
>>
>>908821
These will never not be absolutely retarded looking. If you want true soul, you got to get the GAVLISH per-dreadnought. These retard padoga were built to serve as a popeye gag.
>>
>>908821
TALLER
>>
What are some games where I can spend an entire day duelling an enemy ship just to end with no decisive result
>>
File: E X P A N D.jpg (1.13 MB, 3395x2712)
1.13 MB
1.13 MB JPG
>>909108
>>
>>909110
Most early pre-dread battles in RTW2 end indecisively. Not until torpedos become good enough that the AI will use them do I usually see pre-dreads actually get sunk.
>>
File: 443.jpg (18 KB, 239x400)
18 KB
18 KB JPG
>>909128
Subarashi
>>
Is I want in life is to larp as the imperial Japanese navy why is this such a hard thing to achieve
>>
>>909222
wouldn't larping as a person be more achievable than larping as an entire navy
>>
File: Fuso.jpg (152 KB, 1088x2156)
152 KB
152 KB JPG
>>909128
>>
>>909273
>>
>>909273
ONLY QUADS CAN DEFEAT HIM
>>
File: 1639771192507.jpg (1.96 MB, 3854x2344)
1.96 MB
1.96 MB JPG
building your own ships like in UA:D is such a cool idea. I wish there was a ironclad-era game with the same premise
>>
>>909668
There are ironclads in UA:D, although only in 2 missions and only 2 types of ironclad.
>>
File: 1570482155502.jpg (100 KB, 1100x692)
100 KB
100 KB JPG
>>910026
really, that's cool. I know it features pre-dreads which is also super underrated. Of course there's the aptly named ironclad series of games, but they're the poster childs of jank
>>
>>910149
VGH SOVL

>à Fort central
Is that a french naval base or is it build in a "fort central/central fort" type of design? It kinda feel like everything is centered to minimize the armor.
>>
File: 1566320637650.jpg (1.99 MB, 4000x1941)
1.99 MB
1.99 MB JPG
>>910183
I think it's supposed to say it's a central battery ironclad, and right it's to be able to make the armor thicker to be effective against the latest guns by centralizing the armored portion instead of (heavily) armoring the entire broadside
>>
>>910202
Well "fort" is also a word for "citadel" so it's basically the armored citadel concept. Just strange to see names for these concepts in other language. Fort is mostly used for an actual base on land in both French and English.
Also that stern remind of old age of sail's.
>>
>>910149
The French have a way of making horrible monstrosities that somehow manages to float.
>>
>>910207
Isn't "citadel" just a city fort tho?
I assume that's from where the naval concept came from at least.
>>
>>910202
>>910207
>>910222
Pretty sure the subtitle translates to "warship squadron at Fort Central" so in this case it's probably location name
>>
>>910222
Armored citadel is a very real concept and that's the name in english.
Citadel mean "command fort" if you want a difference between it and regular forts that are just there for defense.

>>910227
I thought of that too but it could be a "Central battery Squadron Battleship"

Cuirassé mean armored [ship] ie battleship, but I'm not sure if Cuirassé d'escadre mean "squadron armored ship" or "armored ship in a squadron". The oldfag from that era might have called like that because battleships fight in line of battle ie in squadrons. While cruisers might be alone to patrol and raid and pretty sure they might get also called "Cuirassé" at the time.
>>
>>910149
>>910202
Why are tumblehome designs so aesthetic?
>>
>>909131
that's because you're not closing in to shoot HE at 1500m with your primary, secondary, and tertiary batteries
fire or flooding (from torpedoes) is how pre-dreads die
>>
File: file.png (539 KB, 990x591)
539 KB
539 KB PNG
Same people who made Cold Waters, so hopefully it's good. Red Storm Rising gave me a boner for this when I read it.
>>
>>910595
The DLC will be interesting with actual ironclads and even worse early torpedoes and breechloaders. I'm more exited for this than the actual post-WW2 shit.
>>
>>901908
I can not find a download link for 1.0 - only the patch. Please spoonfeed me.
>>
>>910748
The usual Russian forum has it
>>
>>910645
Cold Waters was dogshit though.
>>
>>910834
You're dogshit
>>
>>910748
aHR0cHM6Ly9hbm9uZmlsZXMuY29tL1YxejY1MXlkdzAvUnVsZV9UaGVfV2F2ZXNfMl9yYXI=
v1.00 and 1.23 patch. Also has a crack although that isn't needed anymore
>>
>>910645
really looking forwards to this, wish I knew when it's supposed to come out
>>
File: 1628215361140.jpg (17 KB, 500x615)
17 KB
17 KB JPG
>>910858
Probably not before 2023 I'm afraid, same for Taskforce Admiral
>>
>>910856
If that 1.0 is the demo then it won't quite fully work for the 1.25 drm removal patch.
>>
>>910834
Fagtard detected
>>
>>910835
>>910981
Don't get so flustered, it's a fun game if you like the arcade gameplay of dodging depth charges, but as a sub sim it's a garbage game for adhd zoomies.
>>
>>910969
It's the full game, just not patched beyond 1.23 because that used to break the crack
>>
We won't have a good naval game until WW3.
>>
>>911060
>clicking a button to send a missile beyond the horizon
>>
File: 1611292494524.png (417 KB, 402x759)
417 KB
417 KB PNG
>>911065
Carrier fags get what they fucking deserve
>>
I think carriers are fine but only when they were still using dive bombers and torpedo bombers
Guided munitions made everything unfun
>>
>>911082
Carriers made battleships and cruisers obsolete, missiles make carriers obsolete, it's the circle of life
>>
>>911085
And forcefields will make missiles obsolete
>>
>>911085
>>911074
Ships with missiles are just carriers with Japanese planes.
>>
>>911131
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fieseler_Fi_103R_Reichenberg
>>
>>911086
>Force fields block anything going over a certain velocity
>Boarding action becomes the only viable form of naval combat
>>
>>911384
RETURN TO TRADITION
>>
>>911384
VVVGH
>>
>>911384
It’s an idea that has been explored often in sci fi
>>
File: 1616691075794.jpg (202 KB, 1200x952)
202 KB
202 KB JPG
>>911384
>Force fields block anything going over a certain velocity
Finarry it is time for our grorious return!
>>
>>911384
Didn't know we were going the LOTGH route here.
>>
>>910645
Isn't ColdWater by killerfish(or something like that)? Microprose(the og dev studio, not the publishers) were the one that made RSR.
I still enjoy Red Storm Rising to this day, the minimalist/map-based gameplay make it more realistic.
>>
>>911085
SUBros just keep winning
>>
>>911432
smacking fags with big battleaxe isn't anything new

I think moo2 did future space weapon well: a plasma cannon is just a hot fart cannon and it will envelope whatever it touch it burn all sides of the target it touch
The future will be won by who has the spiciest braps
>>
>>911453
>I still enjoy Red Storm Rising to this day, the minimalist/map-based gameplay make it more realistic.
Look up Command Modern Operation, you gonna cream your pants.
>>
>>911462
I know about it, but I didn't like it as much. It's not the same thing, it remind of Harpoon more than RSR.
>>
File: file.png (522 B, 150x49)
522 B
522 B PNG
Does this thing in RtW even do anything?
>>
Is SAP in RTW even worth bothering? I never change my ammo doctrine most of the time and doing it for SAP when I don't know if it's good seem worthless.
>>
>>912155
No.
>>
>>912306
In the late 1930's I start carrying more SAP and use it for all short range targets of all calibers except small calibers vs BB/BC targets. All my large calibers are set to use SAP against cruisers except at long range vs heavy cruisers which I keep at AP because long range at that point is quite long. My large caliber loadout is 50/20/30 since I try to keep my BBs/BCs at range as much as possible. I don't have them set to use HE against anything but I figure if I'm closing against cruisers at short range I'll probably be out of SAP at that point anyway and my guns will be using HE.
I don't carry any AP ammo for secondaries, just 50 HE/50 SAP and that's because most secondaries will be firing against DDs or causing superstructure/fire damage. IIRC AAA ammo is dependent on HE for dual purpose guns so there is really no room for AP.
>>912155
Unofficially no. Officially I don't think we've ever gotten more than a vague answer.
>>
This is the interface of Leonardo, a digital combat management system employed on the newest Italian submarine. Say something nice about it.
>>
>>913260
Bit too grognardy, could go with some streamlining to make shooting enemies more fun
>>
>>913260
mama mia
>>
>>908819
I mean I guess there's this
https://store.steampowered.com/app/842780/NavalArt/
>>
>>915477
>Early Access
Welp, add it to the dozens of EA wargames on my wishlist
>>
File: 20211205010507_1.jpg (245 KB, 1920x1080)
245 KB
245 KB JPG
>>915477
NavalArt is basically if you could design your own ship in WoWS, the naval gameplay is the exact same as that but you could still make some pretty cool designs.
>>
File: 20211202160945_1.jpg (247 KB, 1920x1080)
247 KB
247 KB JPG
>>916022
You are still limited in your choice of components however as cannons, rangefinders, masts, etc. are based off actual WW2-Cold War designs
>>
>>916027
>Yo dawg I heard you liked barbettes.
>>
File: 8ZA23NX.png (3.11 MB, 1920x1080)
3.11 MB
3.11 MB PNG
>>909104
>>910149
>>910202
RETVRN
>>
>>917608
VGH MES ANCÊTRES...
>>
>>874740
Are you an idiot? 14 cm guns are battleship guns. Your 8 cm destroyers are shelled outside thei range by a gun that literally one shots them.
>>
>>917667
>battleship
nah try super-battleship tier aka yamamoto's yamato tier
merchant ships are bigger than warship that why they can mount such massive weapons
i remember midway... I was there... reincarnation
>>
File: Deck gunner.jpg (143 KB, 1642x1079)
143 KB
143 KB JPG
>>891883
I've been playing it off and on since it went into early access
They've really improved the game so far and its got a robust modding community. I think it'll end up being the long term replacement for SH3 in the end
>>
Is UA:Dreadnoughts worth it currently?
>>
>>917667
>14 cm guns are battleship guns.
During what year, 1815?
>>
>>917852
Only if you have Steam regional discount. Otherwise wait for the campaign to get fleshed out
>>
>>913260
Better not be touchscreen.
>>
>>917667

Did you mistake 14 cm for 14 inch? 14 cm = 5.5 inch, that's light cruiser, armed merchantman, battleship secondary kind of territory.
>>
>>917667
>14 cm guns are battleship guns
Do you even dakka, bro?

>>917852
Too many serious bugs.
>>
>>917852
Unless the shipbuilding aspect really appeals to you I'd go with WotS on the comparative strength of it's campaign.
>>
>>918205
This. Not like WotS doesn't have its own fair share of problems but right now it's in a much better state than UA:D
>>
File: Ansaldo Project 770.jpg (216 KB, 1626x1200)
216 KB
216 KB JPG
For me, it's small battlecruiser with 2x3 guns.
>>
>>918295
cute pre-dreadnought.
>>
File: uboat.jpg (1.49 MB, 2560x1080)
1.49 MB
1.49 MB JPG
I love U-Boat games
>>
>>918773
Name 20
>>
>>918792
Silent Hunter 2,3,5
UBOAT
Wolfpack
Iron Wolf VR

That's all I know of personally. Don't need 20 though, just SH3 with the grey wolves mod and fucking around with UBOAT in early access as I think that will be the game that eventually takes over as the "main" sim everyone plays and mods for
>>
>>917852
Only if you pirate it. Game is still early access but at full price.
>>
File: 1642514365906.jpg (669 KB, 1920x1080)
669 KB
669 KB JPG
How did I do?
>>
>>919442
>No anti-torp protection
Torpedoed by the first destroyer you spot/10
>>
>>919442
>mixed caliber secondary battery
>>
File: 1624822293278.jpg (83 KB, 1280x872)
83 KB
83 KB JPG
>>919442
>zero torp protection
>single hull bottom
Lol. Lmao.
>>
>>919442
>no aux engine
>no steering upgrades
>no torp blister
>no barbette armor
What the fuck are you doing
>>
it's italian what do you expect
>>
File: Goeben.jpg (650 KB, 1920x1080)
650 KB
650 KB JPG
Is this better?
>>
>>920040
You'll probably want more funnels to actually reach that top speed
>>
File: Screenshot (1002).png (2.85 MB, 1920x1080)
2.85 MB
2.85 MB PNG
I really like these asymmetrical crossfiring wing turrets on great war battleships and battlecruisers more than superfiring turrets of the later periods.





Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.