@@RvTWargames You can save concept designs, as long as it is something you (or a foreign yard) can currently build. You hit save and then say "No" to developing the design. This does nothing more than create a design file that can be reopened when you want (although if you wait and open it much later, you may see additional free tonnage from tech development). The trick is not to save it under the class name you intend to eventually use. I make many design studies before finally committing to a design to actually develop, just giving them generic names in the ship name field that organize themselves logically in the folder, e.g. "DS 25.5k BB12," "DS 26.1k BB13," etc. Once you are ready to develop a concept design, open it and change the name to what you want, save it again and say "Yes" to developing the design. EDIT: I see this is pointed out below, but might be helpful to have a detailed explanation in this top reply.
I have fallen in love with the style of your playthroughs. So much fun with the logical process you use. During RTW2 replays of others I watched, it just felt like watching a guy playing a game. Even their tutorials, were just game play. The thought process you interject, not only creates entertainment, but I feel ( and this would be the same way I would feel playing the game) drawn in to a historic drama. Thank you for sharing your thoughts, and please keep this up.
Awww thanks, Thomas. That's very kind of you to say and nice for me to hear. My day job I'd as a consultant, so looking at the trends and mechanisms behind what is going on is second nature, so naturally I want to bring that into my playthroughs and explainers. Coupled with being a once upon a time naval analyst at a think tank in the UK and a life long naval history enthusiast. So, I do it because that's naturally what my skills would do. But having good people like you enjoy it too makes it all the better. Thank you.
@@RvTWargames I too have been a Naval War Enthusiast since my teen years. Seriously thought about Joining the US Navy after a disaster of a First Year of College, however my then Girl Friend talked me into going back to College and giving it one more try. That turned into a successful three years, a new Girlfriend (now wife of 42 years) and a love of all things Navy (and no Naval Career). Enjoy the Analysis and you Commentary. After you telling me what you have been working at Career Wise, I understand.
As a new RtW player that never played 1 or 2 my vote would be to see what can be done with the AV and how to use them properly, especially later on in the post-Battleship and missile period. I build carriers and throw planes around with reckless abandon but I know I could be doing things better!
People get too attracted by CVs having a strike force, but the first duties of aircraft are: 1. Find the enemy 2. Protect the fleet from being found 3. Protect the fleet from air attack and only 4. Strike at the enemy
I like the AV, especially it looking towards being missile armed in the future. Don't discount the idea of arming it with SSMs, not just SAMs. In that way it could parallel my very favorite ship of all time, USS Norton Sound. She started life as a sea plane tender fighting the Japanese in WW2 and went on to be a test bed for every missile the US Navy ever used, from terrier to sea sparrow to tomahawk. She Participated in the Navy space program, launched a live nuclear missile in a test program and was the first US Navy ship fitted with the AEGIS combat system and the first VLS prototypes.
Now that you are building carriers I figure I might make some name suggestions as German carriers are kinda hard to name. Good names for sisters to Graf Zeppelin are Henrich Focke and Hugo Junkers. A follow up class could be Manfred von Richthofen followed by Max Immelmann, Josef Jacobs, Werner Voss and Hermann Köhl. It's worth mentioning that all of those mentioned (that survived at least) historically opposed the dominant German political party in the late 30s, points in their favor in my book.
Great suggestions, I'd add Otto Lilienthal to that. There is also a very interesting list of accomplished female Pilots, though later they usually required the support of the third reich to keep flying. Melli Beese was the first women to hold a pilots license in Germany (Nr. 115 in 1911), Melitta (Gräfin Schenk) von Stauffenberg and Elly Beinhorn are probably not as problematic as say Hanna Reitsch.
The carrier decision is an interesting one. So right of the bat I'd delay construction of AV's until sufficient air cover is established. The fleet's air defense capability is minimal right now and in zones that are tightly constrained by air bases like the Baltic and to a lesser extent Northern Europe, capable air defense is essential to survival. So I'd only consider the CV or the CVL right now. The CV would give you a much needed increase in firepower for fleet battles and it is the most efficient option for aircraft delivered per cost. Besides that, the larger size is even more useful since doing coordinated multicarrier strikes is not as efficient yet, so big carriers have an advantage. It's also a step in the 'right' direction as the 1935 start is basically the carrier arms race and CVL's are usually commissioned in numbers already. The Graf Zeppelin itself, while useful for quite some time with 70 a/c but a very light armor suite, would be eclipsed in a couple of years already when you can truly build large fleet carriers. The Jade is a comparatively less efficient and outdated design when it comes to a/c and firepower delivered per tonnage and cost. However it is cheaper and thus easier to build in numbers. And since CVL's are hard capped at 34 a/c it's close to the optimum already. Considering the lack of carrier's right now, my priority would be to get a number of acceptable carriers out to have a reliable naval aviation force before increasing the quality. Also the battle generator might put CVL's in some scenarios where you won't have CV's since the latter are capital ships. Despite the obvious advantages of a CV I have to vote for the CVL. It mostly boils down to numbers. With 6k+ surplus remaining you could fit 2 Graf Zeppelin's or almost 3 Jade's but more realistically 1 and 2 (or 1?) respectively, since the rest of the fleet needs to be urgently modernized too and current construction is already quite top heavy. Also more CVL's provide more redundancy when it comes to taking damage and losing ships. So Id rather build a pair of Jade's and use some money to modernize the rest of the fleet than build one GZ and have more money left. On another note regarding the question of the submarine fleet. If you look at the upkeep cost of a submarine, in just 6-7 years the maintenance will equal the build cost of a new boat. Given that submarines can't be refitted to have their reliability increased or sent to reserve, it is suboptimal to keep a big submarine fleet in peace time. So what I'd do is keep a token force in peace time and do a build up just before tensions escalate.
Thank you for this excellent summary. I don't disagree with your thought process at all. My main discovery is that you can't put an AV into a division, so you can't be confident that it will appear with the battle fleet as intended. So I am thinking about a CA (or CL) with seaplanes instead.
4:11 Rather than "it's because the minesweepers are still working up", it probably is "it's because the minesweepers aren't in active fleet": after all, mothballed minesweepers or minesweepers in reserve shouldn't contribute anything to minesweeping. I already expressed my opinion against AVs in episode 01, so I'll vote the CVL. EDIT: Seeing the 4 options you provided, I actually change my mind and will vote for the 5th option, which of course I'll write it in the poll's comments section.
I think the trouble reaching design speed event was a result of the ship being built in Japan (not that it's common in Japan either or that this can't happen to domestic-built German ships). Iirc you are dependent on the builder nation's modifiers when ordering ships from foreign yards.
That is true, and why building in France for example can be risky. but as you say, it is not common Japanese event either. Just unlucky. Lucky it didn't impact the overall speed of the battle fleet.
I tried heli helpers , avh. Thier aws maxed out about the same as a large dd w a heli. The heli short range was meh for scouting. A helper cvl was very useful. Use manual plotted scouting so it comes off the cvl not main carrier. Cvl w all fighter/torp; all fighter or all light jet fighter was useful. It is used in manual scouting, manual cap additions, assigned to cap Bx or to swarm enemy cv for attrtion of thier cap. Main cvs can the focus on combined strikes so the cv fighters come in w the attack planes vs surviving enemy cap
@@b1laxson Although true I don't find that it matters much in practice. The times that floatplanes are restricted and carrier planes aren't are relatively rare and in those cases the CV can do it and those times are more than made up for by the times when CV strikes can be larger because the floatplnes are scouting. AVs are also WAY cheaper to operate than CVLs.
@@FoxxofNod AV and AVH will indeed by cheaper to operate than a CVL. CVL can perform more missions than scouting like an all fighter CVL swarming enemy CAP. However, AV and AVH are useful for colonial service big number needs. Use a cluster of 2,500 ton KE FS.
I think the CV or even the CVL first option is the most ideal. They hold far more aircraft, can cover both the offensive and defensive roles with them, and can still provide scouting (albeit shorter range). Considering the small state of your navy, you definitely need more firepower and defensive air capability ASAP. The AV and it's 8 (?) aircraft seems like an unneeded cost at the moment while trying to catch up.
Certainly the CV is the most cost-effective platform. One CV costs less than two CVLs carrying the same plane load, and miles more than an AV. However, that isn't the only qualification. As a multi-mission platform CVs can suffer from diluting their air strength across scouting, CAP, escort and strike missions. An AV or seaplanes put on to BBs, CAs and CLs can remove that burden. Putting floatplanes on fighting ships risks them having to recover their planes at an inconvenient moment. Hence the AV with CL like qualities (or CL with AV features - it's a blurred line). Likewise, a CAP CVL dedicated to the battle fleet can be a valuable addition when the main carrier strike force operates separately from the battle fleet.
@@RvTWargames - All good points. Although I think having a decent distant strike capability alongside scouting is better than just a small number of primarily scouts, alone. I suppose it all hinges on how whether you expect to have enough time to build both an AV and CV/CVL before war breaks out. Rather than just one. The German position normally makes having a CV less important early on, but I don't trust RTW to provide reliable land-based aircraft strikes in it's random battles from what I've seen.
Me neither. I want all three really, a dedicated scouting asset, a CAP protection for the battle force and a separate carrier strike force too. Tricky!
I'm really enjoying the series so far! Watching it has been super helpful to my own playthrough that I'm currently doing as Italy. I honestly can't wait til I start to get mucking about with aircraft and carriers and all that (it's only 1907 in my current campaign).
Av and and avh (helicopter) have another possible use as cost effective foreign service. Be surt add colonial service box. The light floatplanes or heli are fine for "bush wars", sub hunting and commando raids
On airbase formations, in peactime set each squadron to five 5 planes and set reserve seems ok for fair skill. Each base give 5 patrol planes and 5 attack planes. When war starts increase counts accordrng to likely battles
Does increasing the number of planes in a squadron lower the crew quality? So if you go from 5 to 10 planes SS was approaches would quality decline from fair to poor?
"working up" is shakedown cruises, crew training, etc so outside normal fleet duties. In rtw crew gains xp to fair faster as the also get used to new equipment and train.
I believe there is, currently at least, a bug that gives ALL secondary guns a max effective ammo loadout of 150 regardless of player ambitions? It's a touch gamey maybe but could save weight that way?
I am watching this entire series, waiting for RTW3 to come on sale (hopefully). At some point, BB's will reach the end of their surface life...call it mid-40's. At what point will you transition to lighter forces, more suitable for carrier escort and screening?
Battlecruisers and fast battleships stay useful into the late 50s and possibly the early 60s because early missiles aren't very accurate and are carried in limited numbers, so, once you have fired them, you see left with the guns.
Several a/c types are multi-role, even early in aviation development. Is there any way to designate persistent roles for embarked squadrons, and/or to disable roles for others? As one example, if I've composed a CV air wing with two DB squadrons, I'd like to designate one as scouts, and also prevent the other squadron from scouting, to preserve their strike availability. One could do this with fighters as well. Once fighters start carrying 1000-lb bombs, I like the idea of an "all-fighter" air wing, using them for both counter-air and strike. (as many will know, USN came quite close to this in the 1944-45 period. And heck, it's what's been done for past a couple decades now with FA-18's. But current mechanics don't seem to support organizing air ops during battle quite like this, in any sort of manageable way. I hope I'm wrong and there's some kind of menu option or check-box I've overlooked? lol, just thought of this while typing. If at battle start, before even setting search/cap parameters, can one open the strike window and just designate some squadrons as "N Strike", without actually readying a strike yet? Would this be sufficient to prevent that particular unit's aircraft from being pulled into other roles?
All of the things you mention would make great additions to RtW3. Some of it might be possible in kinda roundabout hacky ways but some simple checkboxes or buttons would be nice.
I think it would require a double commitment, one as you outline about the intended role and one, as its now, when preparing for a strike. Fighters can be designated escorts or left (as CAP). Randomly aircraft can be used as scouts. Torpedo Bombers can be used as level bombers. And aircraft can have different range / weapons loads. Otherwise everything is, I believe, single mission.
I'm really enjoying this series. You are the most friendly and eloquent person on youtube. What fleet size setting are you playing this campaign on? Medium?
I don't think you have enough displacement left in the Roland for SAMs, medium SAM launchers (you won't get light SAMs until the 60s) are 360t a piece and you also need to add a high level radar set, if possible.
The biggest drawback to the scouting/CAP seaplane carrier idea is that (surprisingly) AVs are not included among the types for our pre-set divisions. So we cannot designate an AV as scouting to our battleships. Very disapointing. There's an entry about it in the NWS suggestions thread but so far it hasn't merited a comment by anybody in the NWS team, so I guess this will not change in the foreseeable future.
Hmmmm... That is an important point. I assumed as a major warship you could assign it to a division. Well, in that case I should revise the design to a Tone style CL with a lot of seaplanes on it.
Another BC build offer by your shipyards...you KNOW Blohm und Voss are involved. ;-) I'd love to see the Roland deployed first, but I think our Great Leader will get us into trouble sooner than later; so vote goes to the G. Zeppelin.
Is turning the CVL into a Helicopter / Scout Carrier ( ASW + SCOUT ) a viable option ? If so, then surely this is the way to go. It can act as a Cap Carrier for 15 years then be refitted once your next generation of Cap Carriers is designed for Jets. Given your Capital Ship Build plan, a new Cap Carrier (light) designed in 1945-6 would be perfectly timed, just after the Zeppelin 4 is finished.
I think I would want a CAP carrier now rather than in the future. The battle fleet will need CAP protection from now on, while the CVs will likely operate as a separate force. So two separate carrier forces, a small CAP one and a big strike one. By 1945 they might well be operating as one combined force (with the BBs detachable to do surface engagements if needed).
@@RvTWargames That is what i mean, the Jape is the CAP Carrier for now, but by it's refit time (1948ish) you will need a Jet capable one, so Jape is rebuilt as an ASW- Heli / plane scout carrier to work alongside the new 1945 jet-Cap CVL. I can't see a benefit of the AV, as by the time you add SAM's you will have CL-sam and DD-sam ships as escorts.
I like the idea of the Roland AV very much, but seems a little bit "cart before the horse" in a sense. Its relatively modest cost and build time is an argument for proceeding. I perceive, however, that it's also an argument for NOT pursuing it, the idea being that the small ASW-helo carrier won't become relevant for at least a decade...by then, a much better but still relatively cheap/fast-building new design can be done. In the meantime, however, it seems quite likely that our glorious Fuhrer will plunge us into some kind of cockamamie war much sooner. Roland (or Jade, for that matter) don't strike me as "war-winning" platforms for that likely nearer-term fight. Graf Zeppelin's keel needs to be laid sooner rather than later. Assuming, of course, that at a more fundamental level, carrier aviation is the centerpiece of German naval strategy in the first place. I didn't vote this way, but the light-ship + SS build option also seems worth serious consideration in lieu of any carrier at all.
Because of the way the battle generator sets up battles, the game forces you into having a balanced fleet. Particularly because of the victory point gain is huge from battles compared to blockade.
Heh--thought maybe the title should have been: Spending money like a drunken sailor! BUT, turns out you SAVED quite a chunk and haven't spent much at all--what a misleading title! (No, we don't look at money spent on ships as 'spending' if you're in the black since it's "use it or lose it!" And you won't last long if you never build ships. ;-p) What sort of dock size to your try to get up to? (Since you finished one upgrade but didn't start another.) I only recently for the first time ever used up all my ship building capacity, and wasn't even building my max possible hull sizes! So max hull might be for a super-carrier? But still may want to be able to build an insane amount at once...as US, at least.
I am a bit confused on the math for the discounted BC, you make it sound like it's a shorter build-time and then a discount on top of that. But isn't the discount coming from the shortend build-time? After all, both Stauffenbergs are clearly shown to cost the same each month. I like how the Graf Spee got hit with an incompetent Captain called Kaiser. Nice joke there. Also the game does actually save your planned ship, you just have to decline the funding for finalizing the design and you will find it in the save folder of the ship designer.
I hope your plans to have your fast CV/AV turn up as support to you Battlecruisers are leaked to the Battle Generator, be a shame if your Seaplane Carrier were to die trying to defend a convoy in the night in week3 of war?! Best laid plans of Mice and Admirals etc...
Hopefully setting the correct role in the Division Editor will mean it turns up in the right place. And because it is a AV with CL features rather than a CL with AV features it will hopefully not appear in cruiser fights.
Nope, not even a little. The only historical events as such take place before game start such as starting with the washington naval treaty in effect or the Spanish-American war having taken place before the 1900 start date.
Fox is right, the game timeline can go all over the place. However, the development of naval technology does roughly follow historical chronology, though when you set up the game you can introduce some variation into this.
Absolutely agree that it should be possible to save a design without committing to it.I find it a big pain.
Yup, navies played with many many variant designs
@@RvTWargames You can save concept designs, as long as it is something you (or a foreign yard) can currently build. You hit save and then say "No" to developing the design. This does nothing more than create a design file that can be reopened when you want (although if you wait and open it much later, you may see additional free tonnage from tech development). The trick is not to save it under the class name you intend to eventually use. I make many design studies before finally committing to a design to actually develop, just giving them generic names in the ship name field that organize themselves logically in the folder, e.g. "DS 25.5k BB12," "DS 26.1k BB13," etc. Once you are ready to develop a concept design, open it and change the name to what you want, save it again and say "Yes" to developing the design.
EDIT: I see this is pointed out below, but might be helpful to have a detailed explanation in this top reply.
Indeed it is, and your naming idea is an excellent one. Thanks for taking the time to explain it.
You can save then decline funding for a concept save. I requested the devs just give us save vs commit buttons
Oh, I completely didn't notice that!
I have fallen in love with the style of your playthroughs. So much fun with the logical process you use. During RTW2 replays of others I watched, it just felt like watching a guy playing a game. Even their tutorials, were just game play. The thought process you interject, not only creates entertainment, but I feel ( and this would be the same way I would feel playing the game) drawn in to a historic drama. Thank you for sharing your thoughts, and please keep this up.
Awww thanks, Thomas. That's very kind of you to say and nice for me to hear. My day job I'd as a consultant, so looking at the trends and mechanisms behind what is going on is second nature, so naturally I want to bring that into my playthroughs and explainers. Coupled with being a once upon a time naval analyst at a think tank in the UK and a life long naval history enthusiast.
So, I do it because that's naturally what my skills would do. But having good people like you enjoy it too makes it all the better. Thank you.
@@RvTWargames I too have been a Naval War Enthusiast since my teen years. Seriously thought about Joining the US Navy after a disaster of a First Year of College, however my then Girl Friend talked me into going back to College and giving it one more try. That turned into a successful three years, a new Girlfriend (now wife of 42 years) and a love of all things Navy (and no Naval Career). Enjoy the Analysis and you Commentary. After you telling me what you have been working at Career Wise, I understand.
As a new RtW player that never played 1 or 2 my vote would be to see what can be done with the AV and how to use them properly, especially later on in the post-Battleship and missile period. I build carriers and throw planes around with reckless abandon but I know I could be doing things better!
People get too attracted by CVs having a strike force, but the first duties of aircraft are:
1. Find the enemy
2. Protect the fleet from being found
3. Protect the fleet from air attack
and only 4. Strike at the enemy
I like the AV, especially it looking towards being missile armed in the future. Don't discount the idea of arming it with SSMs, not just SAMs. In that way it could parallel my very favorite ship of all time, USS Norton Sound. She started life as a sea plane tender fighting the Japanese in WW2 and went on to be a test bed for every missile the US Navy ever used, from terrier to sea sparrow to tomahawk. She Participated in the Navy space program, launched a live nuclear missile in a test program and was the first US Navy ship fitted with the AEGIS combat system and the first VLS prototypes.
That's a good alternative missile idea.
@@RvTWargames I also just love the idea of bolting SSM box launches to the bow of sea plane carriers and sending them to go kill BBs :D
Now that you are building carriers I figure I might make some name suggestions as German carriers are kinda hard to name. Good names for sisters to Graf Zeppelin are Henrich Focke and Hugo Junkers. A follow up class could be Manfred von Richthofen followed by Max Immelmann, Josef Jacobs, Werner Voss and Hermann Köhl. It's worth mentioning that all of those mentioned (that survived at least) historically opposed the dominant German political party in the late 30s, points in their favor in my book.
I like that idea very much.
I too like this idea.
Ja, sehr gut.
Great suggestions, I'd add Otto Lilienthal to that. There is also a very interesting list of accomplished female Pilots, though later they usually required the support of the third reich to keep flying. Melli Beese was the first women to hold a pilots license in Germany (Nr. 115 in 1911), Melitta (Gräfin Schenk) von Stauffenberg and Elly Beinhorn are probably not as problematic as say Hanna Reitsch.
@@kilianortmann9979 Oh heck yeah, these are good ones and are going on my list.
The carrier decision is an interesting one. So right of the bat I'd delay construction of AV's until sufficient air cover is established. The fleet's air defense capability is minimal right now and in zones that are tightly constrained by air bases like the Baltic and to a lesser extent Northern Europe, capable air defense is essential to survival. So I'd only consider the CV or the CVL right now.
The CV would give you a much needed increase in firepower for fleet battles and it is the most efficient option for aircraft delivered per cost. Besides that, the larger size is even more useful since doing coordinated multicarrier strikes is not as efficient yet, so big carriers have an advantage. It's also a step in the 'right' direction as the 1935 start is basically the carrier arms race and CVL's are usually commissioned in numbers already. The Graf Zeppelin itself, while useful for quite some time with 70 a/c but a very light armor suite, would be eclipsed in a couple of years already when you can truly build large fleet carriers.
The Jade is a comparatively less efficient and outdated design when it comes to a/c and firepower delivered per tonnage and cost. However it is cheaper and thus easier to build in numbers. And since CVL's are hard capped at 34 a/c it's close to the optimum already. Considering the lack of carrier's right now, my priority would be to get a number of acceptable carriers out to have a reliable naval aviation force before increasing the quality. Also the battle generator might put CVL's in some scenarios where you won't have CV's since the latter are capital ships.
Despite the obvious advantages of a CV I have to vote for the CVL. It mostly boils down to numbers. With 6k+ surplus remaining you could fit 2 Graf Zeppelin's or almost 3 Jade's but more realistically 1 and 2 (or 1?) respectively, since the rest of the fleet needs to be urgently modernized too and current construction is already quite top heavy. Also more CVL's provide more redundancy when it comes to taking damage and losing ships.
So Id rather build a pair of Jade's and use some money to modernize the rest of the fleet than build one GZ and have more money left.
On another note regarding the question of the submarine fleet. If you look at the upkeep cost of a submarine, in just 6-7 years the maintenance will equal the build cost of a new boat. Given that submarines can't be refitted to have their reliability increased or sent to reserve, it is suboptimal to keep a big submarine fleet in peace time. So what I'd do is keep a token force in peace time and do a build up just before tensions escalate.
Thank you for this excellent summary. I don't disagree with your thought process at all.
My main discovery is that you can't put an AV into a division, so you can't be confident that it will appear with the battle fleet as intended.
So I am thinking about a CA (or CL) with seaplanes instead.
4:11 Rather than "it's because the minesweepers are still working up", it probably is "it's because the minesweepers aren't in active fleet": after all, mothballed minesweepers or minesweepers in reserve shouldn't contribute anything to minesweeping.
I already expressed my opinion against AVs in episode 01, so I'll vote the CVL.
EDIT: Seeing the 4 options you provided, I actually change my mind and will vote for the 5th option, which of course I'll write it in the poll's comments section.
Yes, working up, reserve and mothballed are all inactive states. While active fleet, trade protection and foreign stations are all active.
Yay, I've been eagerly waiting for this.
Had a few production delays that, well, delayed it! Should be less time to the next one.
@@RvTWargames No worries, it takes the time it takes :)
I think the trouble reaching design speed event was a result of the ship being built in Japan (not that it's common in Japan either or that this can't happen to domestic-built German ships). Iirc you are dependent on the builder nation's modifiers when ordering ships from foreign yards.
That is true, and why building in France for example can be risky. but as you say, it is not common Japanese event either. Just unlucky. Lucky it didn't impact the overall speed of the battle fleet.
I tried heli helpers , avh. Thier aws maxed out about the same as a large dd w a heli. The heli short range was meh for scouting.
A helper cvl was very useful. Use manual plotted scouting so it comes off the cvl not main carrier. Cvl w all fighter/torp; all fighter or all light jet fighter was useful. It is used in manual scouting, manual cap additions, assigned to cap Bx or to swarm enemy cv for attrtion of thier cap. Main cvs can the focus on combined strikes so the cv fighters come in w the attack planes vs surviving enemy cap
Also floatplane scouts more often limited by weather than a cvl w manually plotted scouts
@@b1laxson Although true I don't find that it matters much in practice. The times that floatplanes are restricted and carrier planes aren't are relatively rare and in those cases the CV can do it and those times are more than made up for by the times when CV strikes can be larger because the floatplnes are scouting. AVs are also WAY cheaper to operate than CVLs.
@@FoxxofNod AV and AVH will indeed by cheaper to operate than a CVL. CVL can perform more missions than scouting like an all fighter CVL swarming enemy CAP. However, AV and AVH are useful for colonial service big number needs. Use a cluster of 2,500 ton KE FS.
Much as I want to experiment with AVs, I'm moving towards a CA with an AV's worth of seaplanes.
I think the CV or even the CVL first option is the most ideal. They hold far more aircraft, can cover both the offensive and defensive roles with them, and can still provide scouting (albeit shorter range). Considering the small state of your navy, you definitely need more firepower and defensive air capability ASAP. The AV and it's 8 (?) aircraft seems like an unneeded cost at the moment while trying to catch up.
Certainly the CV is the most cost-effective platform. One CV costs less than two CVLs carrying the same plane load, and miles more than an AV. However, that isn't the only qualification. As a multi-mission platform CVs can suffer from diluting their air strength across scouting, CAP, escort and strike missions.
An AV or seaplanes put on to BBs, CAs and CLs can remove that burden. Putting floatplanes on fighting ships risks them having to recover their planes at an inconvenient moment. Hence the AV with CL like qualities (or CL with AV features - it's a blurred line).
Likewise, a CAP CVL dedicated to the battle fleet can be a valuable addition when the main carrier strike force operates separately from the battle fleet.
@@RvTWargames - All good points. Although I think having a decent distant strike capability alongside scouting is better than just a small number of primarily scouts, alone. I suppose it all hinges on how whether you expect to have enough time to build both an AV and CV/CVL before war breaks out. Rather than just one. The German position normally makes having a CV less important early on, but I don't trust RTW to provide reliable land-based aircraft strikes in it's random battles from what I've seen.
Me neither. I want all three really, a dedicated scouting asset, a CAP protection for the battle force and a separate carrier strike force too. Tricky!
I'm really enjoying the series so far! Watching it has been super helpful to my own playthrough that I'm currently doing as Italy. I honestly can't wait til I start to get mucking about with aircraft and carriers and all that (it's only 1907 in my current campaign).
I think they are really done very well in the game and completely change the dynamics of how you play when they arrive.
Av and and avh (helicopter) have another possible use as cost effective foreign service. Be surt add colonial service box. The light floatplanes or heli are fine for "bush wars", sub hunting and commando raids
Yes. Though I don't have an empire yet, that is a good reminder.
On airbase formations, in peactime set each squadron to five 5 planes and set reserve seems ok for fair skill. Each base give 5 patrol planes and 5 attack planes. When war starts increase counts accordrng to likely battles
Does increasing the number of planes in a squadron lower the crew quality? So if you go from 5 to 10 planes SS was approaches would quality decline from fair to poor?
@@RvTWargames even 5 to 20 hasn't seemed to be a problem
Good to know, thanks.
"working up" is shakedown cruises, crew training, etc so outside normal fleet duties. In rtw crew gains xp to fair faster as the also get used to new equipment and train.
Yup, often with civilian dockyard hands on board.
I believe there is, currently at least, a bug that gives ALL secondary guns a max effective ammo loadout of 150 regardless of player ambitions? It's a touch gamey maybe but could save weight that way?
Interesting. It's probably on the bug fix backlog if correct.
I am watching this entire series, waiting for RTW3 to come on sale (hopefully). At some point, BB's will reach the end of their surface life...call it mid-40's. At what point will you transition to lighter forces, more suitable for carrier escort and screening?
Battlecruisers and fast battleships stay useful into the late 50s and possibly the early 60s because early missiles aren't very accurate and are carried in limited numbers, so, once you have fired them, you see left with the guns.
Several a/c types are multi-role, even early in aviation development. Is there any way to designate persistent roles for embarked squadrons, and/or to disable roles for others? As one example, if I've composed a CV air wing with two DB squadrons, I'd like to designate one as scouts, and also prevent the other squadron from scouting, to preserve their strike availability. One could do this with fighters as well. Once fighters start carrying 1000-lb bombs, I like the idea of an "all-fighter" air wing, using them for both counter-air and strike. (as many will know, USN came quite close to this in the 1944-45 period. And heck, it's what's been done for past a couple decades now with FA-18's. But current mechanics don't seem to support organizing air ops during battle quite like this, in any sort of manageable way. I hope I'm wrong and there's some kind of menu option or check-box I've overlooked?
lol, just thought of this while typing. If at battle start, before even setting search/cap parameters, can one open the strike window and just designate some squadrons as "N Strike", without actually readying a strike yet? Would this be sufficient to prevent that particular unit's aircraft from being pulled into other roles?
All of the things you mention would make great additions to RtW3. Some of it might be possible in kinda roundabout hacky ways but some simple checkboxes or buttons would be nice.
I think it would require a double commitment, one as you outline about the intended role and one, as its now, when preparing for a strike.
Fighters can be designated escorts or left (as CAP). Randomly aircraft can be used as scouts. Torpedo Bombers can be used as level bombers. And aircraft can have different range / weapons loads. Otherwise everything is, I believe, single mission.
I'm really enjoying this series. You are the most friendly and eloquent person on youtube.
What fleet size setting are you playing this campaign on? Medium?
Oh Marcus, you are too kind!
This game is on Very Large, the second biggest size. (It's just that the German Navy starts very small!)
I don't think you have enough displacement left in the Roland for SAMs, medium SAM launchers (you won't get light SAMs until the 60s) are 360t a piece and you also need to add a high level radar set, if possible.
Agreed tough you can trade planes yoo still need 6+ planes for useful scout. Min av is like 3 planes
Yes, I would downgrade guns or planes / helicopters to fit the SAMs and radar.
The biggest drawback to the scouting/CAP seaplane carrier idea is that (surprisingly) AVs are not included among the types for our pre-set divisions. So we cannot designate an AV as scouting to our battleships. Very disapointing. There's an entry about it in the NWS suggestions thread but so far it hasn't merited a comment by anybody in the NWS team, so I guess this will not change in the foreseeable future.
Hmmmm... That is an important point. I assumed as a major warship you could assign it to a division.
Well, in that case I should revise the design to a Tone style CL with a lot of seaplanes on it.
Turns out the CL seaplane limit seems be 4, and 7 for CAs.
Typo on thumnail "ccl"
Duh! I fix it soon, thanks
Another BC build offer by your shipyards...you KNOW Blohm und Voss are involved. ;-) I'd love to see the Roland deployed first, but I think our Great Leader will get us into trouble sooner than later; so vote goes to the G. Zeppelin.
Yes, tricky. They are all interesting choices, and arguably needed.
Is turning the CVL into a Helicopter / Scout Carrier ( ASW + SCOUT ) a viable option ? If so, then surely this is the way to go. It can act as a Cap Carrier for 15 years then be refitted once your next generation of Cap Carriers is designed for Jets.
Given your Capital Ship Build plan, a new Cap Carrier (light) designed in 1945-6 would be perfectly timed, just after the Zeppelin 4 is finished.
I think I would want a CAP carrier now rather than in the future. The battle fleet will need CAP protection from now on, while the CVs will likely operate as a separate force. So two separate carrier forces, a small CAP one and a big strike one.
By 1945 they might well be operating as one combined force (with the BBs detachable to do surface engagements if needed).
@@RvTWargames That is what i mean, the Jape is the CAP Carrier for now, but by it's refit time (1948ish) you will need a Jet capable one, so Jape is rebuilt as an ASW- Heli / plane scout carrier to work alongside the new 1945 jet-Cap CVL. I can't see a benefit of the AV, as by the time you add SAM's you will have CL-sam and DD-sam ships as escorts.
True. There is an element of the AV being a bit of a Quixotic experiment.
I like the idea of the Roland AV very much, but seems a little bit "cart before the horse" in a sense. Its relatively modest cost and build time is an argument for proceeding. I perceive, however, that it's also an argument for NOT pursuing it, the idea being that the small ASW-helo carrier won't become relevant for at least a decade...by then, a much better but still relatively cheap/fast-building new design can be done. In the meantime, however, it seems quite likely that our glorious Fuhrer will plunge us into some kind of cockamamie war much sooner. Roland (or Jade, for that matter) don't strike me as "war-winning" platforms for that likely nearer-term fight. Graf Zeppelin's keel needs to be laid sooner rather than later. Assuming, of course, that at a more fundamental level, carrier aviation is the centerpiece of German naval strategy in the first place. I didn't vote this way, but the light-ship + SS build option also seems worth serious consideration in lieu of any carrier at all.
Because of the way the battle generator sets up battles, the game forces you into having a balanced fleet. Particularly because of the victory point gain is huge from battles compared to blockade.
Is RTW3 let you build an AV like Akitsushima?
No, AVs can only carry floatplanes, not seaplanes (or maritime patrol aircraft as they are now)
Heh--thought maybe the title should have been: Spending money like a drunken sailor! BUT, turns out you SAVED quite a chunk and haven't spent much at all--what a misleading title! (No, we don't look at money spent on ships as 'spending' if you're in the black since it's "use it or lose it!" And you won't last long if you never build ships. ;-p)
What sort of dock size to your try to get up to? (Since you finished one upgrade but didn't start another.) I only recently for the first time ever used up all my ship building capacity, and wasn't even building my max possible hull sizes! So max hull might be for a super-carrier? But still may want to be able to build an insane amount at once...as US, at least.
I'm not sure what the eventual max shipyard size will be. 70,000 would seem to be a minimum, but I don't know what the max will be.
I am a bit confused on the math for the discounted BC, you make it sound like it's a shorter build-time and then a discount on top of that.
But isn't the discount coming from the shortend build-time? After all, both Stauffenbergs are clearly shown to cost the same each month.
I like how the Graf Spee got hit with an incompetent Captain called Kaiser. Nice joke there.
Also the game does actually save your planned ship, you just have to decline the funding for finalizing the design and you will find it in the save folder of the ship designer.
You are correct. The discount means shorter build time with normal unadjusted cost per month.
I probably shouldn't do maths and recording at the same time!
I hope your plans to have your fast CV/AV turn up as support to you Battlecruisers are leaked to the Battle Generator, be a shame if your Seaplane Carrier were to die trying to defend a convoy in the night in week3 of war?! Best laid plans of Mice and Admirals etc...
Hopefully setting the correct role in the Division Editor will mean it turns up in the right place. And because it is a AV with CL features rather than a CL with AV features it will hopefully not appear in cruiser fights.
does the game follow historical events? Will find urself in a world war with all the allies?
Nope, not even a little. The only historical events as such take place before game start such as starting with the washington naval treaty in effect or the Spanish-American war having taken place before the 1900 start date.
Fox is right, the game timeline can go all over the place. However, the development of naval technology does roughly follow historical chronology, though when you set up the game you can introduce some variation into this.
Yes, I've seen that. Though I've had a British alliance with Germany too.
I agree, though I wonder if there is a bit of a feedback loop going on. Once your tensions increase it is hard to lower them again.