Remove ads

Rule the Waves

stairmaster said:
do medium SAM's provide any defense against missiles?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There's a tech you can get really late that will let them do it, but only LSAMs and CIWS and to a very, very limited extent radar MAA can do point defense by default. Generally though, MSAMs'll be of limited utility anyway due to their awkward positioning between the lighter LSAMs and the HSAMs which have enough range to shoot down planes before they launch anti-ship missiles, so I don't tend to use them very much anyway.
 
Last edited:
The very last ship laid down of my current playthrough, CC(G)-37, USS Andrew Foote.

And for comparison, her extremely angry older cousin (date of laying down 1943!), CC-36, USS Emancipator, who sank all three remaining British battleships at the Battle of Malin Head in 1961.


Emancipator is an absolute nightmareboat at this point considering she's basically "but what if Iowa was inadequate" and down the years she's had both main battery upgraded, her secondary battery upgraded from manual load doubles to automatic singles, her AA battery shrunk from seventy-five 40mm barrels to eight 57mm radar-guided automatic barrels, three CIWS mounts installed, and four single-arm Terrier-equivalents or by now Standard Missile 1 equivalents. And I ripped out her steam turbine and oil-fired powerplant in 1960 for gas turbines.

I'll do a writeup later on the corvette force, probably, assuming the forthcoming hurricane leaves me power to do so.
 
Last edited:
Night said:
Silence, conventional wisdom. This is Rule The Waves and we do it wrong on purpose here!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This is Rule the Waves wisdom. :V

I find that ships end up with at least one turret disabled quite often so it's better to spread out the guns more even if you have less total guns. Three quads ain't too bad, but I'd probably end up doing two or three triples and one or two twins to get ten or eleven guns in four turrets instead. I tend to max out at eight or nine gun ships though and put the weight elsewhere.
 
Oof, gas turbine capital ships...the upkeep on those is horrifying. At least, I think that's what made the upkeep on some of my ships horrifying...
 
13th Bee said:
This is Rule the Waves wisdom. :V

I find that ships end up with at least one turret disabled quite often so it's better to spread out the guns more even if you have less total guns. Three quads ain't too bad, but I'd probably end up doing two or three triples and one or two twins to get ten or eleven guns in four turrets instead. I tend to max out at eight or nine gun ships though and put the weight elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I basically build three-turret battlecruisers and four-turret battleships, with saved weight to ensure I'm better-armored during The Age of Badnoughts, so my limitation is "how many guns can I pack into that number of turrets".

This has made the design limitations against triples and quads in A/Y positions result in some very strange ships with superfiring quads or triples over twins, in the '20s and '30s
 
Last edited:
Night said:
I basically build three-turret battlecruisers and four-turret battleships, with saved weight to ensure I'm better-armored during The Age of Badnoughts, so my limitation is "how many guns can I pack into that number of turrets".

This has made the design limitations against triples and quads in A/Y positions result in some very strange ships with superfiring quads or triples over twins, in the '20s and '30s
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Your twelve inch belts and sixteen inch turrets are puny and weak.


Originally built in 1941. I am incapable of building battleships to a restrained designed scheme. :V

Also does anyone know why tertiary graphics keep getting reapplied to ships if they've had them and lost them on a refit? Is it purely a bug or is something more going on?
 
If we're showing off our naval abominations here, say hello to the Gross Excess of the USA's military industrial complex.



An enlarged and modernized successor to the 1950s vintage Yorktown class Missile Battlecruisers, Boulder is literally a money sink because Congress kept stealing my budget for having too much.

She's a very very large girl.
 
I made something like that, and one of them got sunk by an Italian submarine lol.
 
HarakoniWarhawk said:
Gross Excess of the USA's military industrial complex.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I mean, it's easy to waste America's money; Congress hands it out like candy! :)

Forgot to take the screenshot before I refitted her (twice), but have a look at this waste of the Weimar Republic's money, a lead weight on my budget with her maintenance costs since 1932. She ain't as big as yours, but she's the biggest battleship that particular world ever saw. And she saw combat! Very, very nervous combat lol.

(Spoilers for my RTW3 Let's Play, btw.)
 
Honestly, the addition of ship histories is so good - I can actually track what ships have done. For instance, the kentucky was a dreadnought and now she's my first serious carrier:
 
Until my current France playthrough I hadn't really appreciated the gain of building short-range ships.

But as France (or Spain, though Spain just seems sad), they're almost giving up nothing. You can move them between Northern Europe and the Mediterranean, and where else would you really be deploying a heavy force? Sure, you need some gunboats and preferably also cruisers with medium+ range to hold down the colonies. But almost all the enemies you can have a serious dispute with are in easy reach.

(Including Russia, since you can blockade them without leaving Northern Europe. Arranging a battle is their problem, not yours.)

You won't be able to use them to prosecute a war against Japan (but how would you anyway?) or the US (almost as hard), but they're great for keeping Germany and Italy subdued.


Although I haven't checked how much I'm saving by not just scaling the ships up to carry more fuel. I certainly have the dock capacity to make them bigger, but you can't afford to not have numbers when you share your home zone with two of the big big threats.
 
Having recently gotten the Steam version of the game, is there a reason that the "build new ships" mission finishes long before an order made in response to it can be finished?
 
DaLintyGuy said:
Having recently gotten the Steam version of the game, is there a reason that the "build new ships" mission finishes long before an order made in response to it can be finished?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Try scrapping them sometime without a war or something going. It won't let you, even when the mission completes. But you can pause them after that point, in case you're bleeding out from the costs.
 
DaLintyGuy said:
I swear I just had a prompt to build two cruisers and chose "can build half that"... Although I suppose it didn't say anything other than "cruiser", so the idiot-savant programming might have meant CA rather than CL despite both being cruisers.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Sure, saying you can build half the requested number (at the expense of the benefits of agreement) is (often?) there, but that has nothing to do with completion vs. laying down.

Once the mission is in place, the requirement (and whether you've completed it) is displayed in a cell in the lower left, so you can see it.
 
How the fuck I carrier warfare?

It's been one year since I player RTW1 and in RTW3 the ship battle is identical, but carrier warfare, that thing confused me
 
ZeroXSEED said:
How the fuck I carrier warfare?

It's been one year since I player RTW1 and in RTW3 the ship battle is identical, but carrier warfare, that thing confused me
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I guess you may have missed RTW2, which had carrier warfare on similar lines?

It is fiddly. The manual may help. You need to prepare planes for the mission you want to launch, wait for the prep, then launch the mission, then wait for them to actually take off...

For defense, bring plenty of fighters and set high CAP and you're okay later on. Earlier, bombers are less effective but CAP is too, so things may just be swingy.

Lots of AA mostly makes airstrikes less likely to hurt you rather than killing planes, so don't assume it's useless just because it isn't inflicting losses.

For proper carrier warfare the hard part is getting spotting so you can aim your strike over the horizon. I don't know what to say here other than guess well...
 
Last edited:
Aineko said:
It is fiddly. The manual may help. You need to prepare planes for the mission you want to launch, wait for the prep, then launch the mission, then wait for them to actually take off...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah so there's the thing, that is actually the confusing part. If only the bastards allowed it to be automated like land-based airstrike...
Aineko said:
For defense, bring plenty of fighters and set high CAP and you're okay later on. Earlier, bombers are less effective but CAP is too, so things may just be swingy.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
CAP always have a blind spot, right? Once again, non-automation is a fucking filter for the casual.
Aineko said:
For proper carrier warfare the hard part is getting spotting so you can aim your strike over the horizon. I don't know what to say here other than guess well...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Frankly that is not possible without airbase support, who done the spotting automatically (!) so your carrier can get the information from them.

What an absolute clusterfuck.
 
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top