On training CV plane squadrons. You can also station them on land bases (with the Carrier capable tick ON) then make that airbase active. They will train up as well (maybe faster?) than mucking around with reserve CVLs. I do though often on a new CV launching grab the airgroups from the CVL or older CV to keep a concentration on best fighting power.
Regarding the 19:08 point about crew quality, one thing Ive found useful before war breaks out is staging a massive fleet excercise. Every crew that participates will gain a quality level.
Something from this made it into my own game. Well done Dickie and crew. My current game is at 1936 as USA. Started an experiment with your DD escort. Normally I use the KE for the support roles partly as an easy to manage TP, KE and FS. Since its 1936 and I do RP a bit what I came up with was a 900 ton TP DE with a single 4" DP forward, 3 torps amidship speed 25 knts, ASW 8 or 4 with the minesweeping gear. Part of my own comments below was with auto move TP the DE minesweepers would get shuffled with a tendency to move the MS score where there are enemy subs... which is also likely where there are enemy mines laid by them. Ive not done a total fleet replacement but I am going to include the slow very low suface warfare TP DE into my fleet. One factor was that at 900 tons they only take 11 months to build vs my really big 1,600 ton TP KE... with their one floatplane. I do wish we saw the plane contribute to the ship ASW but I do believe it adds a little to the air ASW but Im not sure. I do like the roleplay idea of small convoy or lone merchants with the TP KE having a plane circling to force the subs underwater too far out to intercept. You could build 2 of the 900 tone TP DE for 1 of the 1,600 ton TP KE and do it faster.
I believe that at 900t they are less efficient as minesweeping than 1,000t, if you go for the universal destroyer escorts to do both ASW and mine counter measures. But if you specialise that's fine. Obviously you are a few years off the ASW torpedoes so they are very secondary at the moment. I'm not sure when the "spirited gun duel" stops did a thing. It should be when either snorkeling becomes a thing or certainly the new hull form which focuses on streamlining. Enjoy experimenting.
12:18 If you open the air groups window, on the right-half of the bottom part you'll see "training capacity for carrier aircrew" and "authorized aircraft in carrier capable units". The first indicates the maximum number of aircrafts that can be carrier-capable (and depends on how many carriers you have, and maybe by their air capacity), the latter how many carrier-capable aircrafts you already have. Subtract the two and you get how many pilots you can train to be carrier-capable. I don't know if aircrafts in the unassigned pool are considered active or in reserve, so I would suggest that you create those squadrons in air bases. Just don't forget to tick the "carrier trained" box when you create them!
I suspect unassigned = reserve, but would have to double check. Sticking them on a nice out of the way air base, say Greece for me, and having that active as a carrier training air base, would seem like a good idea.
15:36 Small BCs have their place in the fleet, but it depends on their design and on in which position they are placed inside a division. Another small BC design can be used in TP as anti-raider.
3:50 I never provided a figure for peacetime missile storage cost related to monthly budget (I provided it in relation to my ship maintenance costs). In relation to monthly budget, for me, right now, it is circa 7.5% at minimum (therefore it would be 15% at adequate and 22.5% at plentiful).
Always love the role playing aspect of your campaign, it adds so much to it. Also, these last two videos have given me a lot of food for thought about my own fleet. Learning lessons the hard way is...hard! Especially on my front line ships which get to answer the question, just how good are German SSMs?
Note that if you use auto move ASW ships it would also shift your minesweepers DE ot TP duty. Likely that is where the mines are being placed. A few sweepers on AF gives you some control.
0:58 Either the original statement is incorrect or you misunderstood it: a CV must displace at least 30000 t, must be jet capable and must have angled deck and catapults to operate HJF and JA squadrons at all. If it displaces between 30000 t and 35900 t (while still having all the other requirements) then HJF and JAs have the x1.5 penalty to air capacity. If it displaces 36000 t or more (while still having all the other requirements) then there is no penalty. In certain circumstances (but not in others), it is possible to operate HFJ and JA squadrons on a CV that displaces 29900 t or less, but that could be a bug. In previous versions of the game, a CV that displaces 30000 t or more (while still having all the other requirements) did not have the x1.5 penalty to air capacity.
Interesting choice for minesweeper. Ships on AF can be chosen for target of enemy sub. Thus having some AF small in each sea zone can protect high value ships simply by the small being picked. Ke Ms were doing this for me. Might consider the PT DE.
I've been really looking forward to your next video. I started watching this series just after I bought the game, and it's really helped me with learning how to play. My playthrough is currently at the very beginning of the missile age, so I've been really looking forward to seeing how you handle it
Thanks for the reminder, I'll keep that in mind. I'm mostly just interested in your general approach to it, since I'm feeling a little lost at times. My entire playthrough I've felt like I really have no idea what I'm doing, but I keep winning wars, so I must be doing something right.
Another great analysis video. For the sub plans, plan C sounds fun but possibly riskiest as the game seems to throw the occasional relational/diplomacy changes at you and before you know it, you're at war with GB & France at the same time. Boy that would be awkward.
14:45 Did you mean to write and say "across carriers in the same division" rather than "across your divisions"? You can do the former by ticking the box to coordinate strikes (the one that adds 1 or 2 hours (I don't remember) to the time on target), but to do the latter you need to time your strikes (launched from multiple divisions) so that they arrive at the same time.
For newer players to have JA attack an enemy airbase its not just click on the map. You must select the airbase from the "installation" list on the top left of the airstrike planning screen.
Just to throw some more random thoughts into the mix: Missile stockpile costs will balloon quite a bit especially as you add SAMs to the fleet. Here's some data from some of my save files (stockpile costs as percent of monthly budget): Japan 1970: monthly budget 98427 minimum 8169/m, 8.3% adequate 16365/m, 16.6% plentiful 24529/m, 24.9% Japan 1990: monthly budget 141618 minimum 14219/m, 10% adequate 28458/m, 20.1% plentiful 42671.m, 30.1% Austria-Hungary 1970: monthly budget 53438 minimum 4874/m, 9.1% adequate 9740/m, 18.2% plentiful 14609/m, 27.3% Austria-Hungary 1990: monthly budget 100589 minimum 9191/m, 9.1% adequate 18369/m, 18.3% plentiful 27549/m, 27.4% About the "CAP CVL" concept: personally I think CVL become obsolete in the 1950's. The big reason is that they share battle generator slots with full fledged CV so every time you spawn a CVL instead of a CV you incur an opportunity cost. Also they don't always spawn with the main force, if they spawn in the carrier force you end up having to use the "provide CAP to" function which I would rather just task a normal CV division with anyway. I've seen some complaints about "provide CAP to" being unreliable but its never been a problem for me. Usually I assign two CV divisions to provide CAP for my battleline so even if one division starts slacking the other will still cover it. I also heavily emphasize range on my fighters so they can stay in the air on their CAP assignments longer. This all also plays into why I field about 50% fighters on my late game carriers, you need a lot of fighters available to cover CAP for its own division, provide CAP to other divisions, and escort strikes all at the same time. Speaking of strikes, coordinated strikes are a lot easier to perform in the HJF/JA era. Reporting gets a delay reduction around 1963 and even before that the speed of jets allows them to reach reported positions quickly enough that the enemy can't wander off too far (basically they'll always get caught in the search pattern the jets do around the target location). There's a lot less guesswork in figuring out where the enemy will be when you can scout them and strike them so fast. Combine this with air defenses getting better and better coordinating strikes become much more necessary.
Those are ballooned missile costs! I may have to drop to adequate. And yes, CVLs never quite seemed to be worth it, after the initial conversion providing cover for the old slow BBs.
16:01 If you scrap all the BCs, then in a medium-sized battle you would lose 1 BC division and 1 DD division, while in a large-sized battle you would lose 2 BC divisions and 2 DD divisions.
I am 1955 in US campaign and in last war I fought against literally all of European states, the MAA(R) got like no AA kills, the AA that was the most effective was the 3in automatic gun.
The official stats for downing aircraft were 2246 Aircraft downed 94% Aircraft 6% HAA 0% MAA 0% LAA I only have 5in guns on my BBs and DDs all my other ships have the 3in.
Thanks. Not a great rate of return. Though that's not including the impact of breaking up attacks. Though with more stand off weapons that is presumably less.
Regarding your very old ships, like the now too slow, you will always need home waters blockade strength. Consider that these ships can be stored in mothballs until a war. When put on active they get to add blockade strength to avoid being blockaded. There slow speed tend to keep them out of tactical fights. In the case of my USA game such old battlewagons cruise around New York while the war fleet is in far off oceans. A few blockade points in home waters avoids a surge in unrest when only a handful enemy ships happen to pass through or come by for a visit.
I would like to put forward a notion for a new fleet flag ship, either a new Battlecruiser or Battleship partly as the early missiles seem to be lackluster and partly for political reasons. After proving that Germany is master of the seas in Europe clearly a new heavy surface ship must be created to implement the lessons learned beating Brittan and France in gunnery duels. Outside of that it can carry the role of fleet defender with multiple SAMs and AAA to layer the defenses. (so say the polticians) How well that will work in practice only time will tell.
10:01 Enhanced sonar's nominal research year is 1952, which IIRC translates to anywhere between 1932 and 1972 in a game with considerable tech variation. Even assuming that enhanced sonar makes KEs, DDs and CLs better at sinking enemy submarines (which it doesn't, but let's pretend), sinking enemy submarines is not the only role of an ASW ship, so if you delay building them, in the next war you might not have enough DDs in TP and AF for deterrence and bodyguarding. The point of considerable tech variation is not to wait for technologies that are around the corner to be researched, but to accept ships becoming obsolete earlier than expected (even before they are commissioned) and work around that like admirals in the past did. I don't see any debate in the community, and I suspect things have been tested thoroughly by minmax players. That said, the community is, in fact, divided into two groups: those who know how ASW works, and those who don't. The former will tell you that corvettes, destroyers, light cruisers, heavy cruisers, battlecruisers and battleships, no matter how high their ASW value is (enhanced sonar system, towed array sonar and helicopters included), are unlikely to sink (at best) / incapable of sinking (at worse) enemy submarines after their reliability gets too high, while mines, patrol bombers and helicopter carriers operate in a different way, thus they can sink enemy submarines, no matter how high their reliability is; I don't know about CVs and CVLs. The latter see the ASW value and convince themselves that a higher value results in a higher ASW capability.
About the "I don't see any debate in the community", whenever I ask people who claim that a higher ASW results in a higher ASW capability when was the last time that one of their corvettes, destroyers, light cruisers, heavy cruisers, battlecruisers or battleships has sunk an enemy submarine with their on board ASW weapons (helicopters included) in the late game, they don't answer back. I don't consider it a debate when a person educates another on a topic, much like a student that says/writes something wrong is not debating with their teacher. A debate is when people throw opinions at each other, not facts.
@@RvTWargames The manual says: "Considerable variation means that technologies may appear up to 6 years later than in reality, and their effectiveness can vary. Be aware that this setting can cause some inconsistencies compared to historical real world developments."
Just a reminder that putting minesweeping gear on an ASW ship significantly impairs its ASW capabilities (and also minesweeping?). Unless that was changed for RTW3 anyhow. Further, a 21 knot DD is not going to be able to keep pace if placed on AF and will become a liability. Therefore, I'd lean toward TP-only ships, whether DD or KE, dedicated minesweepers, and put the rest of the money toward fleet DDs ready for the missle age. Honestly, I stop minesweeping after 1955 or so 🤷♂️
Yes. Minesweeping halves ASW and vice versa. But the choice is, say 40 dual purpose ships halfed, or 20 of each at full strength. So doesn't really make any difference. The 21kn is not intended to be part of the fleet and won't get assigned to the fleet unless there are too few fleet DDs. Mines still remain a big thing, including being more important in ASW until the end of the game.
@@RvTWargames Ah, gotcha, I saw the table indicating they could escort the fleet and figured that was part of the appeal. They certainly could in a pinch, but AAW capabilities will soon be more pressing for escorts than ASW.
If you have less than FIVE subs, you may get a research warning that developing new sub tech will be significantly slowed unless you have at least 5 subs! So modify Plan C accordingly if you do that. OR, you'll rely on spies stealing tech, OR buying sub tech from others when offered. For blockade strength, yes CVs offer a lot, but per dollar, the smallest tonnage CL offers 4 blockade points for a tiny cost--and you can build a lot more CLs than CVs! AND you can give them mine stuff, so make some of those CLs in place of some DDEs? i.e. a CLE? I had an interesting case where I had to attack a land-fort--and got the option to load up my fleet with 50% HE--I said NO. BUT, I told my land based air to target their land fort! They bombed it almost to death and just needed one hit from a ship to finish it off. Speaking of which, by this time my Doctrine screen is use SAP for all things all the time. Seems to work for me.
@@RvTWargames Yeah, I'm in a game as GB and decided they thought they were unsporting so never built any subs at all. Had that message come up at least 3 times over the years. Looked up my 2600 ton CL--which, since I am GB,--is COLONIAL. So it makes great sense for me to do it, as it has 8 ASW and mine LAYING, and I put the best radar on them as well, since they CAN get pulled into battles and they may spot something. (Which is I guess a big negative for you over the DDE--getting pulled into the battle generator.) OH! Hearkening back to the DD you faced quite awhile ago--you CAN make seriously gunned DDs with BOTH 6" and 5" guns! Early on, you get a penalty for being too small with a 6" gun, but I felt that range and alpha strike outweighed that penalty, and I felt I got good use out of them until they are more HSSM boats now.
Yes, I'm planning 6in DDs, though it feels wrong. The DEs won't get called into battle except in extremis, but that's fine. A colonial small CL makes perfect sense for the UK.
Um..... Light Jets can't have Night Capability, unless they changed that recently. They just can't for some reason, I just assume they are things like the F86s or Mig 17s and thats why. As opposed to Heavy Jets which are like F 4 Phantoms and Mig 21s. Sooo, you don't need AA directors in the Missile age cus the weapons are Radar Based? That makes sense now that I think about it, that will certainly Save on the DESK SPACE that is for sure. Although.... given you can make 6 inch and lower guns Duel Purpose, that still count as Heavy AA? (I would assume they are also radar guided at some point) I would go with Sub plan B, just to be a little conservative. Cus their is no real point in keeping those old Subs, and while you will get better sub tech, that will take time you may not have. That said, if you CAN build Missile subs, probably should start building them. (at least a few in batches) Wait... you can Build DDs without Guns? That is a "interesting" move.
@@jaywerner8415 no one obviously told the Skynight or Vampire! Odd. Sub plan B does make use of all that money spent on their construction. I'll have to see if I can save enough money via other means.
@@RvTWargames Can't Wait to see how the Missile Subs Preform (for trade interdiction obviously), color me curious. After all the only obvious difference is they have 2 Missiles they can fire in Battles. But yeah, Plan be seems like a logical plan, since subs slowly improve over time and with Tech, may as well cull the old ones that are obviously out of date and repopulate the fleet with better subs. Ya know the thought just occurred to me, If we have ASW torpedoes, then why do we not have Hunter Killer Submarines? Mechanically that would probably just be Subs contributing to ASW value in their given Sector and the occasional message of subs torpedoing other subs. On a side note, Ground Strikes are something that is pretty much unused unless your trying to do a Naval Invasion or your carriers get roped into a Coastal Raid (ya know those missions where it tells you blow up a land target). But hay if your Carriers can slap a British, French or Soviet airfield off the map in a battle, GOOD ON THEM!
It's a phew years until SSGs. Subs, of course, may contribute to the ASW campaign now that ASW torpedoes are a thing. Though it probably should wait until enhanced sonar and hull quieting come along. And then primarily against navies that don't have those techs. Anyhow, the ASW campaign is opaque enough that anything might be going on with the algorithms. I think attacking air bases is probably only worth it where there is one nearby. Or, as you say, if we're giving land bombardment missions - surely not by 1948.
Your table for 19-43 is GREAT!!!!
Thank you so much!!!
Pleasure. Love doing them.
Your analytics with historical references, just love🤗
Thanks, Tom. Very much love doing them!
On training CV plane squadrons. You can also station them on land bases (with the Carrier capable tick ON) then make that airbase active. They will train up as well (maybe faster?) than mucking around with reserve CVLs. I do though often on a new CV launching grab the airgroups from the CVL or older CV to keep a concentration on best fighting power.
Good trick with the land airbases, thanks
Regarding the 19:08 point about crew quality, one thing Ive found useful before war breaks out is staging a massive fleet excercise. Every crew that participates will gain a quality level.
Indeed. Expensive but very helpful in improving the whole fleet.
I love how you make the submarine decision dependent on the political situation. That's so very Clausewitzian of you.
My inner military historian is delighted with your comment ❤️
Something from this made it into my own game. Well done Dickie and crew. My current game is at 1936 as USA. Started an experiment with your DD escort. Normally I use the KE for the support roles partly as an easy to manage TP, KE and FS. Since its 1936 and I do RP a bit what I came up with was a 900 ton TP DE with a single 4" DP forward, 3 torps amidship speed 25 knts, ASW 8 or 4 with the minesweeping gear. Part of my own comments below was with auto move TP the DE minesweepers would get shuffled with a tendency to move the MS score where there are enemy subs... which is also likely where there are enemy mines laid by them. Ive not done a total fleet replacement but I am going to include the slow very low suface warfare TP DE into my fleet.
One factor was that at 900 tons they only take 11 months to build vs my really big 1,600 ton TP KE... with their one floatplane. I do wish we saw the plane contribute to the ship ASW but I do believe it adds a little to the air ASW but Im not sure. I do like the roleplay idea of small convoy or lone merchants with the TP KE having a plane circling to force the subs underwater too far out to intercept. You could build 2 of the 900 tone TP DE for 1 of the 1,600 ton TP KE and do it faster.
I believe that at 900t they are less efficient as minesweeping than 1,000t, if you go for the universal destroyer escorts to do both ASW and mine counter measures. But if you specialise that's fine. Obviously you are a few years off the ASW torpedoes so they are very secondary at the moment.
I'm not sure when the "spirited gun duel" stops did a thing. It should be when either snorkeling becomes a thing or certainly the new hull form which focuses on streamlining.
Enjoy experimenting.
@@RvTWargames Ah! Good reminder on the 1,000 ton MS score!
12:18 If you open the air groups window, on the right-half of the bottom part you'll see "training capacity for carrier aircrew" and "authorized aircraft in carrier capable units". The first indicates the maximum number of aircrafts that can be carrier-capable (and depends on how many carriers you have, and maybe by their air capacity), the latter how many carrier-capable aircrafts you already have. Subtract the two and you get how many pilots you can train to be carrier-capable. I don't know if aircrafts in the unassigned pool are considered active or in reserve, so I would suggest that you create those squadrons in air bases. Just don't forget to tick the "carrier trained" box when you create them!
I suspect unassigned = reserve, but would have to double check. Sticking them on a nice out of the way air base, say Greece for me, and having that active as a carrier training air base, would seem like a good idea.
15:36 Small BCs have their place in the fleet, but it depends on their design and on in which position they are placed inside a division. Another small BC design can be used in TP as anti-raider.
Yes, I've always liked the idea of them but never actually afforded them compared to bigger priorities.
So pleased you have uploaded again.
62 out, 63 pending
Happy days.
@@richardprivate5568 63 in two weeks plus time. Don't go holding your breath now!
3:50 I never provided a figure for peacetime missile storage cost related to monthly budget (I provided it in relation to my ship maintenance costs). In relation to monthly budget, for me, right now, it is circa 7.5% at minimum (therefore it would be 15% at adequate and 22.5% at plentiful).
Others have commented on how expensive missile arsenals get too.
Always love the role playing aspect of your campaign, it adds so much to it. Also, these last two videos have given me a lot of food for thought about my own fleet. Learning lessons the hard way is...hard! Especially on my front line ships which get to answer the question, just how good are German SSMs?
And I love someone who watches to the very end ❤️
5% accuracy in 1948 for SSMs is not too oooooo scary. How accurate will the SAMs be?
Note that if you use auto move ASW ships it would also shift your minesweepers DE ot TP duty. Likely that is where the mines are being placed. A few sweepers on AF gives you some control.
Planning episodes are my favourite in your series, so this one was unexpected but very interesting :)
They are the most fun.
0:58 Either the original statement is incorrect or you misunderstood it: a CV must displace at least 30000 t, must be jet capable and must have angled deck and catapults to operate HJF and JA squadrons at all. If it displaces between 30000 t and 35900 t (while still having all the other requirements) then HJF and JAs have the x1.5 penalty to air capacity. If it displaces 36000 t or more (while still having all the other requirements) then there is no penalty.
In certain circumstances (but not in others), it is possible to operate HFJ and JA squadrons on a CV that displaces 29900 t or less, but that could be a bug.
In previous versions of the game, a CV that displaces 30000 t or more (while still having all the other requirements) did not have the x1.5 penalty to air capacity.
Interesting choice for minesweeper. Ships on AF can be chosen for target of enemy sub. Thus having some AF small in each sea zone can protect high value ships simply by the small being picked. Ke Ms were doing this for me. Might consider the PT DE.
Yes, I'm planning to share the DEs between AF and TP.
I've been really looking forward to your next video. I started watching this series just after I bought the game, and it's really helped me with learning how to play. My playthrough is currently at the very beginning of the missile age, so I've been really looking forward to seeing how you handle it
Remember I'm on considerable tech variation, so the timing and sequence and even impact of some of the techs may vary from your game.
Thanks for the reminder, I'll keep that in mind. I'm mostly just interested in your general approach to it, since I'm feeling a little lost at times. My entire playthrough I've felt like I really have no idea what I'm doing, but I keep winning wars, so I must be doing something right.
Always good to take a pause, like I am, and planning out what sort of navy you want in 5 or 10 years time.
Another great analysis video. For the sub plans, plan C sounds fun but possibly riskiest as the game seems to throw the occasional relational/diplomacy changes at you and before you know it, you're at war with GB & France at the same time. Boy that would be awkward.
Yeah. 'Ten Year Rules' have a habit of going wrong. But still... Think of all that spare money!
14:45 Did you mean to write and say "across carriers in the same division" rather than "across your divisions"? You can do the former by ticking the box to coordinate strikes (the one that adds 1 or 2 hours (I don't remember) to the time on target), but to do the latter you need to time your strikes (launched from multiple divisions) so that they arrive at the same time.
For newer players to have JA attack an enemy airbase its not just click on the map. You must select the airbase from the "installation" list on the top left of the airstrike planning screen.
Top left airstrike planning screen. Got it.
Just to throw some more random thoughts into the mix:
Missile stockpile costs will balloon quite a bit especially as you add SAMs to the fleet. Here's some data from some of my save files (stockpile costs as percent of monthly budget):
Japan 1970: monthly budget 98427
minimum 8169/m, 8.3%
adequate 16365/m, 16.6%
plentiful 24529/m, 24.9%
Japan 1990: monthly budget 141618
minimum 14219/m, 10%
adequate 28458/m, 20.1%
plentiful 42671.m, 30.1%
Austria-Hungary 1970: monthly budget 53438
minimum 4874/m, 9.1%
adequate 9740/m, 18.2%
plentiful 14609/m, 27.3%
Austria-Hungary 1990: monthly budget 100589
minimum 9191/m, 9.1%
adequate 18369/m, 18.3%
plentiful 27549/m, 27.4%
About the "CAP CVL" concept: personally I think CVL become obsolete in the 1950's. The big reason is that they share battle generator slots with full fledged CV so every time you spawn a CVL instead of a CV you incur an opportunity cost. Also they don't always spawn with the main force, if they spawn in the carrier force you end up having to use the "provide CAP to" function which I would rather just task a normal CV division with anyway. I've seen some complaints about "provide CAP to" being unreliable but its never been a problem for me. Usually I assign two CV divisions to provide CAP for my battleline so even if one division starts slacking the other will still cover it. I also heavily emphasize range on my fighters so they can stay in the air on their CAP assignments longer. This all also plays into why I field about 50% fighters on my late game carriers, you need a lot of fighters available to cover CAP for its own division, provide CAP to other divisions, and escort strikes all at the same time.
Speaking of strikes, coordinated strikes are a lot easier to perform in the HJF/JA era. Reporting gets a delay reduction around 1963 and even before that the speed of jets allows them to reach reported positions quickly enough that the enemy can't wander off too far (basically they'll always get caught in the search pattern the jets do around the target location). There's a lot less guesswork in figuring out where the enemy will be when you can scout them and strike them so fast. Combine this with air defenses getting better and better coordinating strikes become much more necessary.
Those are ballooned missile costs! I may have to drop to adequate.
And yes, CVLs never quite seemed to be worth it, after the initial conversion providing cover for the old slow BBs.
And good to hear about air strike coordination becoming easier and the time to target getting quicker so that the area of uncertainty gets a bit less.
Time to prepare my debates. Damn that I'm soon to leave for work.
* drums fingers *
13:17 Not cost, but weight (you said it right the first time, but then switched to cost for some reason).
Brain fart, probably 😜
16:01 If you scrap all the BCs, then in a medium-sized battle you would lose 1 BC division and 1 DD division, while in a large-sized battle you would lose 2 BC divisions and 2 DD divisions.
So long as the enemy doesn't retain those so unbalancing the battle that seems fine.
I am 1955 in US campaign and in last war I fought against literally all of European states, the MAA(R) got like no AA kills, the AA that was the most effective was the 3in automatic gun.
Interesting. Having not played the period I can only go on what people tell me. There can be quite a lot of opinions, but less actual data.
The official stats for downing aircraft were
2246 Aircraft downed
94% Aircraft
6% HAA
0% MAA
0% LAA
I only have 5in guns on my BBs and DDs all my other ships have the 3in.
Thanks. Not a great rate of return. Though that's not including the impact of breaking up attacks. Though with more stand off weapons that is presumably less.
@@RvTWargames I mean I have like 640 speed light jets, and basically like super maneuverable fighters
Well, yes, they will come in handy 😁
Regarding your very old ships, like the now too slow, you will always need home waters blockade strength. Consider that these ships can be stored in mothballs until a war. When put on active they get to add blockade strength to avoid being blockaded. There slow speed tend to keep them out of tactical fights. In the case of my USA game such old battlewagons cruise around New York while the war fleet is in far off oceans. A few blockade points in home waters avoids a surge in unrest when only a handful enemy ships happen to pass through or come by for a visit.
Good point. The older CAs might help with that.
Yoo we are back :)
And then off on holiday for a couple of weeks
😎🌞🍹
13:00 Ok, but at what ammunition count does the weight double for the only caliber that matters, the 20"?
;p
Probably 10!
I would like to put forward a notion for a new fleet flag ship, either a new Battlecruiser or Battleship partly as the early missiles seem to be lackluster and partly for political reasons. After proving that Germany is master of the seas in Europe clearly a new heavy surface ship must be created to implement the lessons learned beating Brittan and France in gunnery duels. Outside of that it can carry the role of fleet defender with multiple SAMs and AAA to layer the defenses. (so say the polticians)
How well that will work in practice only time will tell.
15:13 LJF squadrons (and DB squadrons) can't be night capable.
10:01 Enhanced sonar's nominal research year is 1952, which IIRC translates to anywhere between 1932 and 1972 in a game with considerable tech variation. Even assuming that enhanced sonar makes KEs, DDs and CLs better at sinking enemy submarines (which it doesn't, but let's pretend), sinking enemy submarines is not the only role of an ASW ship, so if you delay building them, in the next war you might not have enough DDs in TP and AF for deterrence and bodyguarding. The point of considerable tech variation is not to wait for technologies that are around the corner to be researched, but to accept ships becoming obsolete earlier than expected (even before they are commissioned) and work around that like admirals in the past did.
I don't see any debate in the community, and I suspect things have been tested thoroughly by minmax players. That said, the community is, in fact, divided into two groups: those who know how ASW works, and those who don't. The former will tell you that corvettes, destroyers, light cruisers, heavy cruisers, battlecruisers and battleships, no matter how high their ASW value is (enhanced sonar system, towed array sonar and helicopters included), are unlikely to sink (at best) / incapable of sinking (at worse) enemy submarines after their reliability gets too high, while mines, patrol bombers and helicopter carriers operate in a different way, thus they can sink enemy submarines, no matter how high their reliability is; I don't know about CVs and CVLs. The latter see the ASW value and convince themselves that a higher value results in a higher ASW capability.
About the "I don't see any debate in the community", whenever I ask people who claim that a higher ASW results in a higher ASW capability when was the last time that one of their corvettes, destroyers, light cruisers, heavy cruisers, battlecruisers or battleships has sunk an enemy submarine with their on board ASW weapons (helicopters included) in the late game, they don't answer back.
I don't consider it a debate when a person educates another on a topic, much like a student that says/writes something wrong is not debating with their teacher. A debate is when people throw opinions at each other, not facts.
I see a lot of opinions. Much less data.
40 year variance with 'considerable variation' seems a bit rich. I don't think any of my techs are anywhere near me 20 years behind.
@@RvTWargames The manual says: "Considerable variation means that technologies may appear up to 6 years later than in reality, and their effectiveness can vary. Be aware that this setting can cause some inconsistencies compared to historical real world developments."
Thanks. Yes, 6 years seems much more what I expected.
You forgot to add this video to your Rule the Waves 3 playlist.
Seems to be in the playlist for me. (Though not linked it from episode 61)
@@RvTWargames I still don't see it in the playlist...
Just a reminder that putting minesweeping gear on an ASW ship significantly impairs its ASW capabilities (and also minesweeping?). Unless that was changed for RTW3 anyhow.
Further, a 21 knot DD is not going to be able to keep pace if placed on AF and will become a liability.
Therefore, I'd lean toward TP-only ships, whether DD or KE, dedicated minesweepers, and put the rest of the money toward fleet DDs ready for the missle age. Honestly, I stop minesweeping after 1955 or so 🤷♂️
Yes. Minesweeping halves ASW and vice versa. But the choice is, say 40 dual purpose ships halfed, or 20 of each at full strength. So doesn't really make any difference.
The 21kn is not intended to be part of the fleet and won't get assigned to the fleet unless there are too few fleet DDs.
Mines still remain a big thing, including being more important in ASW until the end of the game.
@@RvTWargames Ah, gotcha, I saw the table indicating they could escort the fleet and figured that was part of the appeal. They certainly could in a pinch, but AAW capabilities will soon be more pressing for escorts than ASW.
If you have less than FIVE subs, you may get a research warning that developing new sub tech will be significantly slowed unless you have at least 5 subs! So modify Plan C accordingly if you do that. OR, you'll rely on spies stealing tech, OR buying sub tech from others when offered.
For blockade strength, yes CVs offer a lot, but per dollar, the smallest tonnage CL offers 4 blockade points for a tiny cost--and you can build a lot more CLs than CVs! AND you can give them mine stuff, so make some of those CLs in place of some DDEs? i.e. a CLE?
I had an interesting case where I had to attack a land-fort--and got the option to load up my fleet with 50% HE--I said NO. BUT, I told my land based air to target their land fort! They bombed it almost to death and just needed one hit from a ship to finish it off.
Speaking of which, by this time my Doctrine screen is use SAP for all things all the time. Seems to work for me.
Didn't know that about needing subs to develop sub techs.
As big armoured ships become less common SAP shells make more sense.
@@RvTWargames Yeah, I'm in a game as GB and decided they thought they were unsporting so never built any subs at all. Had that message come up at least 3 times over the years.
Looked up my 2600 ton CL--which, since I am GB,--is COLONIAL. So it makes great sense for me to do it, as it has 8 ASW and mine LAYING, and I put the best radar on them as well, since they CAN get pulled into battles and they may spot something.
(Which is I guess a big negative for you over the DDE--getting pulled into the battle generator.)
OH! Hearkening back to the DD you faced quite awhile ago--you CAN make seriously gunned DDs with BOTH 6" and 5" guns! Early on, you get a penalty for being too small with a 6" gun, but I felt that range and alpha strike outweighed that penalty, and I felt I got good use out of them until they are more HSSM boats now.
Yes, I'm planning 6in DDs, though it feels wrong. The DEs won't get called into battle except in extremis, but that's fine. A colonial small CL makes perfect sense for the UK.
\o/
Um..... Light Jets can't have Night Capability, unless they changed that recently. They just can't for some reason, I just assume they are things like the F86s or Mig 17s and thats why. As opposed to Heavy Jets which are like F 4 Phantoms and Mig 21s. Sooo, you don't need AA directors in the Missile age cus the weapons are Radar Based? That makes sense now that I think about it, that will certainly Save on the DESK SPACE that is for sure. Although.... given you can make 6 inch and lower guns Duel Purpose, that still count as Heavy AA? (I would assume they are also radar guided at some point)
I would go with Sub plan B, just to be a little conservative. Cus their is no real point in keeping those old Subs, and while you will get better sub tech, that will take time you may not have. That said, if you CAN build Missile subs, probably should start building them. (at least a few in batches) Wait... you can Build DDs without Guns? That is a "interesting" move.
@@jaywerner8415 no one obviously told the Skynight or Vampire! Odd.
Sub plan B does make use of all that money spent on their construction. I'll have to see if I can save enough money via other means.
@@RvTWargames Can't Wait to see how the Missile Subs Preform (for trade interdiction obviously), color me curious. After all the only obvious difference is they have 2 Missiles they can fire in Battles. But yeah, Plan be seems like a logical plan, since subs slowly improve over time and with Tech, may as well cull the old ones that are obviously out of date and repopulate the fleet with better subs.
Ya know the thought just occurred to me, If we have ASW torpedoes, then why do we not have Hunter Killer Submarines? Mechanically that would probably just be Subs contributing to ASW value in their given Sector and the occasional message of subs torpedoing other subs.
On a side note, Ground Strikes are something that is pretty much unused unless your trying to do a Naval Invasion or your carriers get roped into a Coastal Raid (ya know those missions where it tells you blow up a land target). But hay if your Carriers can slap a British, French or Soviet airfield off the map in a battle, GOOD ON THEM!
It's a phew years until SSGs. Subs, of course, may contribute to the ASW campaign now that ASW torpedoes are a thing. Though it probably should wait until enhanced sonar and hull quieting come along. And then primarily against navies that don't have those techs. Anyhow, the ASW campaign is opaque enough that anything might be going on with the algorithms.
I think attacking air bases is probably only worth it where there is one nearby. Or, as you say, if we're giving land bombardment missions - surely not by 1948.
@@RvTWargames Been a while forgot what year it was, MY BAD. Thought you where in the Early-Mid 50s by now.