Even Bigger Battleships - Ultimate Admiral Dreadnoughts - Episode 5

[@PhoenixT70]

34:07 A brief (yes, this is the brief version) explanation of the hellscape that is the USN naming scheme: we've been using the same basic list of ship names that was drawn up by the first Secretary of the Navy, but we've gotten a few (a lot) more classes of warship since that time. As such, we've changed what names go to which classes a few times and occasionally added on to suit the tenor of the times (Submarines being named for fish, for one). USS _Ticonderoga_ has been, in order: - A 17-gun schooner (1814-1825) - A screw-steamer sloop-of-war (1862-1881) - A German cargo ship taken as a prize of war and renamed (1917-1918) - An Essex-class aircraft carrier (1944-1973) - Lead of her class of guided missile cruisers (1981-2004) For a while, it was sort of a free-for-all with what names went where. We nailed it down a bit before the Great War, and the carrier naming scheme (major battles and historical USN warships) was set by Lexington (CV-2), as Langley (CV-1) was apparently named for the inventor of the bolometer. We've since changed carriers to (mostly) Presidents and historic ships, and cruisers (previously cities) are now mostly major battles. Submarines (previously fish) are now states, which used to go to battleships. Destroyers are still named for USN and USMC heroes. Confused yet, Stealth? So are we.

[@magnum6763]

Frigates are also USN/MC heroes, and other smaller ships like patrol boats, minesweepers and stuff is still a free for all. and transports are just random important people.

[@fortusvictus8297]

I liked the days when BBs were states, and Fleet Carriers were major battles.

[@merafirewing6591]

@@fortusvictus8297 Here here.

[@coolkirk1701]

Not even the best part. With the Ohio and Los Angeles class subs it was states for missile subs and cities for attack subs. With the new Virginia and upcoming Columbia classes it’s states (and later on fish) for attack subs and cities for missile subs

[@ryanhampson673]

I actually like that submarines were named after sealife. There was some talk recently about going back to that naming convention but it makes sense submarines took up states names. BB’s were states before and were considered the most destructive ships at the time. Now submarines hold that title with ballistic missiles.

[@eduardklima5698]

4:55 if you want to be more precise with gun callibers you can swich to metric units.

[@ARescueToaster]

Blasphemy!!

[@danielm.595]

@@ARescueToaster SCIENCE!!!

[@phoenix5384]

I gotta say I'm really enjoying this series, miner issues and all (pun absolutely intended). For future episodes it might not be a bad idea to make some cheap and quick minesweepers to protect your fleets, and if one of the name isnt taken at some point in the video, it'd be cool if you'd name one of the upcoming battleships the USS California

[@PhoenixT70]

That's exactly what I commented on the last video. XD

[@ARescueToaster]

My grandpa served on the USS Ticonderoga (CV-14). Happy to see it get some attention even if in a gaming video on KZbin! I have this card he got after the war that shows all of the kills that the gunners scored during the war, which is a bit grim but also a great source of pride to those sailors

[@excellentgaming2247]

Stealth I'm really enjoying this series keep up the videos!!

[@Stealth17Gaming]

I will, but it's rough.

[@LeroxYT]

@@Stealth17Gaming you could add Background music in the Video, , cause with Background music its not so i will not say boring but it is a bit, i see that often at some really good Channels, that havent so much subs or views 👍😉 your videos are also quiet long so you can play the same music after a bit time

[@idv1328]

Minesweepers is a great idea!

[@thedill2274]

WHISKY would be a good name because the ship doesn’t look that intimidating with the double barrel 17inch but it packs a punch

[@_.Glennicus._]

The Alaska's are pretty unique ships in terms of design for her type (aka cruiser killers) So, seeing you make a similar variant to the Alaska's may be smart to kill cruisers

[@bingo8408]

ah the boiler cheat for diesels is fine... It's as if you gave the ship a supercharger. You could even build that into the campaign. "New innovations"

[@ethanwhitehead2085]

Exactly what I was thinking, there are even fans for sucking exhaust out too.

[@masonstover2960]

I just received a message for you, Sir. Rear Admiral James Pierce may agree with bigger battleships as a show of force, but he also believes the Navy could do well with more smaller ships to escort the large battleships and battlecruisers. He would like more cruisers of the light and heavy variety for engagements independent of the main battlefleet, and he would firmly asserts that we neet more destroyers to combat enemy submarines and to screen the larger ships. Your assessment, sir?

[@Stealth17Gaming]

New CA class coming soon

[@josh_von_boi5743]

Name the CA the Ohio class

[@masonstover2960]

@@josh_von_boi5743 heavy cruisers oftentimes named after cities, not states. They're only named after states if they're of the battle cruiser type

[@josh_von_boi5743]

@@masonstover2960 ok, I understand your logic and your 100% right. But it would be funny

[@masonstover2960]

@@Stealth17GamingUnderstood, Admiral. I will ensure the order of acquisition of material is relayed to the shipyards personally.

[@iyaoyas2969]

Watching you name your super BB Ticonderoga caused me to shed a tear and lament that US naval tradition died that very moment. Signed, A former US Navy sailor

[@wntu4]

Well you discovered the magic of the lever arm. :)

[@TheCaptainbeefylog]

Lately I've found that I can get really good engine efficiencies from BB and DD/TB, often 100%+, but all of my CA/CL designs are horrible for engines, especially the CA, usually around 40-50%. Bit annoying. I find I'm running into enemy "super fleets" at an alarming rate. It seems that the AI will sortie individual shipsor small groups and then they return to base as one large unit where they find my blockading units. The end result is usually my ships outnumbered by about 5 to 1 (I had one instance when I was facing 15 to 1 odds). Luckily for me, my ships are usually far more durable and I'll win most of the time or at least leave them with a handful of half-sunk wrecks. At this point the AI will usually ask for peace.

[@fortusvictus8297]

Every module that increases flaws, you added. This should be a fun outcome.

[@wolf10k32]

@stealth17 Gaming. My understanding of the ricochet chance angles is this. That it is an range of angles that determine the chance of ricochet. An example would be at 30 degree angle there is a 12% chance to ricochet, and it scales probably up to 60 degrees or what ever and that results in a 80% chance to ricochet. When the shells say it adds +80% more to the maximum angle its makes that 60 degree a higher number meaning that 80% ricochet chance is spaced farther away from the minimum 30 degrees. So in an isolated scenario where only the +80% maximum angle is applied something like a 48 degree angle that used to have a 32% chance to ricochet now only has a 24% chance to ricochet Take the same scenario but instead apply a -40% minimum angle so now that 30 degree w/ 12% ricochet chance is at 22degrees or what ever it is. That 48 degree angle now goes from the base ricochet chance of 32% to something like 40%. So for the SAP shells that add +40% to minimum then again +80% to maximum, they're moving that range of "ricochetable" angles further up giving you the opportunity to essentially not ricochet at crazier angles. So basically not only do you have a 0% chance to ricochet at 30 degrees, the angles of when ricochets even start happening now starts at 45 degrees. Then on top of that the maximum is so much more far away that you'd only get to the high ricochet chances at unbelievable angles. This is my take on it and it could be incredibly incorrect.

[@Stealth17Gaming]

Thanks. That makes it more clear

[@thegeneralissimo470]

I noticed at 10:00 that there is a reason to get a slightly less complex aux system, aside from flaws, if you get batteries, you get a 10 percent fuel efficiency bonus, as opposed to a 2.5 percent bonus.

[@sharkk127]

Damnit you should've named the new battleship class new jersey, haha

[@itsmezed]

Loved seeing the Alaska class large cruiser be recreated! I'm really enjoying this new series so far, even if the bugs do get annoying from time to time. Keep up the great work.

[@usmccog5009]

Excellent series. Really enjoying seeing this progress.

[@ABalazs074]

Have you realized, sir, that on your Alaska design, those bow and stern 1.6 inchers block a good chunk of the forward and backward firing arcs of the two lower mounted triple 12" turrets? Could be a problem later...

[@Stealth17Gaming]

Not sure they do

[@henrysmith893]

@@Stealth17Gaming they do

[@thermusaquaticusPCR]

@@Stealth17Gaming they do

[@TheVergile]

the battleship really feels like a case of „we dont have the technology and infrastructure to build this thing, but goddamnit we are gonna try“

[@kalbasbas]

Isn't the In new hulls... Meaning it's a place holder for a hull that the devs are planning to add later? That's how I understand it because each time there is no new hulls

[@NotTheBomb]

That Battleship is insanely expensive! Nearly 1Billion in 1930’s money? That ship is probably 10’s of billions today 😂

[@fortusvictus8297]

WAY over sized for his tech level. He has 8x 17" guns for 1 billion. And all of the tiny unarmored secondary turrets are going to be a flash fire nightmare. For that price range he could have focused on main guns on a much smaller hull and had some CL's or DDs to carry light guns for cover.

[@jake0allen]

Hey Stealth, enjoying the series! I must say, however, I believe a grave mistake was made in naming your new Super BB. She could've been the Texas, which would remain in line with our naming conventions for BBs. Also, everything is bigger in Texas. Not a Texan shamelessly bragging on Texas.

[@Stealth17Gaming]

Well, nothing is bigger than Texas right? And this is not the biggest, most 'Murican battleship I'll build. Don't give up hope on having a class named Texas

[@jaywerner8415]

2 Fine additions to the fleet indeed. And that is a good looking Alaska Recreation if i do say so myself. "Tirconderoga" What a name for a battleship class, but i suppose its fitting for a SUPER BATTLESHIP. Got to love that US Defense Budget am i right? Still i'm surprised at how small your fleet is unless i missed something. I suppose their is always experimenting with the other ship hulls. Maybe put together a few Cruiser squadrons (an Alaska paired with other cruisers, a couple DDs), Suppose you could try making something like the Atlanta Class or one of its refits like San Diago (a crap ton of 5 inch guns, they did have torpedo launchers toward the stern) for scouting and DD harassment. And maybe some more DDs, perhaps a Destroyer Escort design? (like 1 torpedo launcher and 2 or 3 guns. The idea being their cheep but still effective) for minesweeping purposes.

[@ethanwhitehead2085]

Should have named the new super battleship after Rhode Island.

[@Fighterpilot555]

It's the *size* of Rhode Island, hahahaha

[@remkirkthegamer1157]

8:02 I tend to avoid Diesels for this reason. Since I can't put in Balanced or Forced boilers, I can't get the efficiency to agree with me.

[@ChrisS-fh7zt]

Difference between big funnel I and II is the II has a crew of 27 and weighs slightly more so probably better armored.

[@TheMonkey747]

It's going to be sweet to watch these ships go to work. Good vid.

[@marcusmadrid6225]

For Propelent, I just compare the Accuracy vs Range vs flash fire effects, Tube (Tube 2) powder looks good at a glance but you do lose a lot of range, in your build that was 8% which isn't insufficient.

[@taiko1237]

Might want to remove the 40mm guns from the bow of the Alaska-esque because they are seriously cutting down on the firing arcs of the A turret

[@Faravid829]

So yes your hull is rated for 33 kn, but you widened the beam that increased drag and displacement lowering the maximum speed it can handle efficiently.

[@ShockwaveTheLogical]

As if this day couldn't get better! Now we've got proper American chonkers.

[@huntedwarrior873]

Your pseudo-alaska has an issue with its front secondary turrets that's preventing your first primary turret from being able to fire forward.

[@adamcumley3950]

You really ought to try Semi ballistic AP or lless penny sometime. You would be surprised how well these can work if you stack AP dammage or even light shells for les richoche chance, just be sure to kinda of use oversized guns.. Also, on A B X comfiguration you can always put the X gun on a barbette and massively increase secondary guns. I once had a 1920 or so British BC with A B X double 14 inch guns and a whopping x36 Mk 3 5.7 inch guns per side with the farthest aft firing either side.

[@Ratelheart]

I’ve been doing a similar thing recently with my main guns. Using highest possible mk3 caliber, then shortening the barrels a bit and using lower pen shell types to take advantage of plunging fire that can pen 24+ inches of deck even at 10km.

[@viina5936]

I have massive problems with the new updates, mainly the task force I send to mediterranean gets stuck and cant move anywhere, my dead ships still get battles, the dotted line does not want to update where my task force is and still shows it from a port.. I love the game but the bugs are quite the fun killers. In combat ships dont want to move even when trying to force them (0 speed) and not all guns are shooting even at point blank range facing the enemy. anyone else having similar problems or is the problem caused by my end?

[@Stealth17Gaming]

The game is badly broken. I have the same issues

[@gordonpromish9218]

out of curiosity.... is there any state that has never had a battleship class named after it? or a battleship, period? Obviously Hawaii and Alaska, entering the Union after WWII and the end of the age of battleships, would not have had a hull or class christened in their honor. any others? Montana is debatable.

[@josh_von_boi5743]

Florida,Oklahoma. Probably wrong but that's the best I can think of

[@gordonpromish9218]

@@josh_von_boi5743 - I just looked it up. It appears that aside from the debatable Montana (designed, never built), only Hawaii has never had a battleship or BB class carry its name. Oklahoma had BB-37, a dreadnought of the Nevada class, and Florida had BB-30 and Georgia had BB-15, both pre-dreadnought. Florida and Virginia classes, respectively

[@josh_von_boi5743]

Welp at least I tried

[@spiffywolf2850]

You might want to watch ship flaws more when building your ships. Since the percent's add up quick

[@05981matthew]

Roosevelt Class Super Battleship.

[@thegeneralissimo470]

For ranges, you want double the distance to either Tokyo or St Petersburg times 2 plus maybe 2000 km for cruising around. So I’d say about 18000km is a good range for the big battleships.

[@filetminyion5302]

USS Dwayne Johnson 🗿

[@merafirewing6591]

USS Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson.

[@olderandslower3265]

If i understood correctly, making barrels longer does not translate in campaign? Well I will stop toiling with it then lol.

[@Stealth17Gaming]

They might add accuracy and reload time, but the game doesn't seem to use their extended range.

[@raxsavvage]

that those tiny turrets are in the way of the main gun seems off

[@loganfriesen8145]

You mentioned longer barrels don’t help in game surprised me can you explain? Tnx!

[@Stealth17Gaming]

There seems to be a bug. You can increase barrel length but the game does not use the extra range. You do get the accuracy bonus. You also get the reload debuff. For my personal taste that means that the longer barrels aren't worth it at this time. The increase in accuracy is not worth the increase in reload time.

[@loganfriesen8145]

@@Stealth17Gaming Thanks

[@merafirewing6591]

You should've opted for the two inch guns to have no turrets.

[@fenrir324]

I really love the ship desing part please make more Ps. Sorry for the strange formula I'm Québécois so I speak french Pps. You frogot to put the tube powder in the ticonderoga

[@adamcumley3950]

R and T stands for Row, Tate

[@AdmiralDevil]

perhaps a Ticonderoga with 2 battle cruisers, 4 heavy cruisers,8 light cruisers and 16 destroyers would be a good fleet for you

[@willpelkey1510]

How are you doing today Stealth??

[@Stealth17Gaming]

Pretty good thanks, you?

[@kineuhansen8629]

that one funnel look strange

[@ARCtrooper8248]

(RP if you want bc I don't see a lot of screen) The U.S. Senate and House of Representatives has issued a draft to the navy for the design of two-four new classes of DD or CL and a condition that they build a subsequent four of each class. (Also why name BB after not state)

[@SephirothRyu]

You call that dinky little frigate a "battleship" on your planet?

[@silveriomendez9661]

I like it

[@wolfgamingnetwork3542]

For the battleship name i was thinking texas (biggest ego) or Ohio (because the ship is straight out of a nightmare like ohio)

[@callumkearney4953]

Did you mean to not boost the range of the BB?

[@Stealth17Gaming]

Forgot

[@AkatsukiReui520]

Freedom

[@merafirewing6591]

Still a bit mad that you didn't name her as Montana.

[@olderandslower3265]

By calling it Alaska i think you are pretending it is alaska, but i am affectionately teasing. Love your work!

[@jabberwock2517]

It's a half-baked Alaska! :)

[@afull2591]

1st 11" turret won't whoot forward because of 4 x 1.6"....not a good trade off

[@kineuhansen8629]

i would choose texas

[@anonymousdolan4862]

As much as I fully distaste two-gun turret battleships, it is a marvellous piece of engineering👍

[@sirdragon6860]

If it's an Alaska-like ship, why not call it Canada? XD

[@Evathedefiler]

I saw 20 inch guns there am I insane!?

[@13stalag13]

For the algorithm.

[@Wolord11]

we are waiting for the ohio class

[@deanoliv2880]

Gd video

[@TheManofthecross]

i had seen historically especally in world of warships quad guns for the main cannons for turrets being used on BB's maybe in your series you should get a US ship class or two that can carry the 4 barrel turrets it will help nicelly with firepower etc.

[@Evathedefiler]

Bruh you should have used 18 in or 19 I saw!?

[@stefanogalliano5634]

Cordite 😭

[@hiphip4808]

Damn it why did you have to blue ball me with saying “it’s not going to be named Montana”.

[@brendanmassaro9595]

American battleships are named after states I thought you were going to name it Texas class

[@danielross7983]

I'm still raging about all the bugs and poor game design you had to deal with in the last video... not sure why I'm taking it personally though. May be as a teacher I hate it when a student turns in unfinished work.... these students have turned in unfinished work and are asking people to pay for it. That grinds my gears. .. oh well... let's watch and see what random crap befalls you this episode. p.s. You forgot to upgrade the propellant on the Ticonderoga.

[@mathieubronsema8664]

I would way the USS Texas as it is the us it biggest state

[@josh_von_boi5743]

Can you name a ship Ohio it would be funny,please

[@AsbestosMuffins]

alaska's weren't battlecruisers they were super heavy cruisers because nobody wanted to call them a battlecruiser

[@gordonpromish9218]

first?

[@fidelismiles7439]

Beat me to it. Nice

[@GameRexem]

sucks no one cares

[@fidelismiles7439]

@@GameRexem why you commenting then?

[@gordonpromish9218]

@@fidelismiles7439 - I don't see the reply, so I guess it doesn't matter. anyway, thankee- the last time I was this early, the universe was a monodimensional hotspot

[@toenailmuncher0772]

You could try doing an Alaska class super cruiser, or something like it.

[@toenailmuncher0772]

Oh my god, you already have XD

[@henrysmith893]

The front turret on the Alaska can not fire forward. I don't think you could see the fire zone because of your colour blindness