65 RtW3 Germany 1935

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 18 гру 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 33

  • @FoxxofNod
    @FoxxofNod Місяць тому +5

    One thing that is worth keeping in mind is the Spot value. That being how many planes you can launch for a single strike. As aircraft become more reliable it becomes common for entire squadrons to be available and so the making sure that the Spot value can accommodate some multiple of your squadron size becomes important.

    • @RvTWargames
      @RvTWargames  Місяць тому +4

      Nice idea to size a CVs squadrons by spot size. I like.

  • @b1laxson
    @b1laxson Місяць тому +6

    Regarding removing floatplanes... they are a nice placeholder for when helicopters come soon.

    • @RvTWargames
      @RvTWargames  Місяць тому +3

      True, but I've been cautioned about the expense of helicopters

    • @pocheesy73
      @pocheesy73 Місяць тому +5

      @@RvTWargames Helicopters provide an essential buff with the 1961 tech Radar Equipped Helicopters. What it does is increase the radar range of the ship if it has a helicopter in the air. Being able to "look first, shoot first" in the missile age is a big advantage. If you fire your SSM volley before the enemy does and destroy some of their SSM launchers (or entire ships) before they fire back it really tips the exchange in your favor. For ships in the battleline (and their screens) looking to make close contact with the enemy having some helicopter support is worth the expense. In the interim it's a few hundred tons of space to plan for.

    • @RvTWargames
      @RvTWargames  Місяць тому +5

      Thanks, good to know.

  • @b1laxson
    @b1laxson Місяць тому +5

    Ive been experiment with your 1,000 ton DE (destroyer escort) with the ASW set and mine sweeping. Using still a few dedicated TP KE for ASW and some KE for MS. Some findings:
    1) TP DE can be organized by the division system making management of clumps of them easy.
    2) Some MS on AF is a good idea if you are using the "auto move TP". That way you are sure to have at least that much MS where you certainly want like homewaters and main fleet. Could be KE MS or DE though.
    3) Can't tell on which is more efficient due to the black box system of sub warfare.
    Overall my opinion is the DE is a good way to manage most but not all of your ASW and MS. Having at least some MS KE is good. Unsure on ASW KE but I have some running around still. More diverse threats confound the enemy in its own way.

    • @RvTWargames
      @RvTWargames  Місяць тому +3

      Thank you for the update

    • @GreenKnight2001
      @GreenKnight2001 Місяць тому

      Doesn't ms completely kill your asw rating?

    • @RvTWargames
      @RvTWargames  Місяць тому +3

      @GreenKnight2001 "just" halves it. But if you have 10 specialist ASW + 10 MS ships vs 20 multi-role ones it evens out.

    • @louisr6560
      @louisr6560 Місяць тому +1

      @@RvTWargames plus you have 10 more ships that can minesweep.

    • @RvTWargames
      @RvTWargames  Місяць тому +2

      True. The ASW evens out but the minesweeping is increased.

  • @GreenKnight2001
    @GreenKnight2001 Місяць тому +4

    Try adding, for example, 5 in and 3 in dp to the same ship. Before you get multi channel, it's almost no gain in haa factor.

    • @RvTWargames
      @RvTWargames  Місяць тому +2

      I'll have a look, though given the under 10% flak performance it feels like a nice to have.

    • @GreenKnight2001
      @GreenKnight2001 Місяць тому +1

      ​@RvTWargames By the time haa gets really high, it's irrelevant bc missiles 😅😅

  • @antonisauren8998
    @antonisauren8998 Місяць тому +2

    Edward Szmysz Rydycz/Rydz Śmigły close enough. :D

  • @b1laxson
    @b1laxson Місяць тому +4

    Thanks for the DD comparison. Would be nice to have had it on screen.
    On the guns going to 4" there is the shift from relying on guns to doing damage to the HSSM and a few torps for the second round of fighting. In the 1950s going by range the guns, your 6", are for the third wave of fighting. Thus I lowered their priority. Also the HAA is still of some use and 4" DP are sooner and more efficient on tonnage.
    There is an option to go to the doctrine page and turn the 4" to 6" guns to always shoot HE and at the same time set their ammo to always be HE. The reason being is that HE ammo is used for HAA firing and AP is not. The HAA role is in my view the more important in the age of swarms of planes.
    The 6" v 4" DD debates are much like the 8" v 6" Cruiser debates. There is also the ROF changes to consider.

    • @RvTWargames
      @RvTWargames  Місяць тому

      Seems to me that
      6in = sustained surface action vs the one (or two shot wonders of SSMs and torpedoes.
      5in = second best to 6in but lighter with better HAA
      4in = lighter still with slightly worse HAA
      3in = lighter still, with less again HAA but some anti missile capability, at some point
      MAA radar directed with good anti air and some anti missile
      CIWS = short range anti missile
      HSAM = long range AA and secondary SSM
      MSAM = medium range AA but more if them and perhaps SSM capability and anti heavy missile
      LSAM = short range AA and perhaps some anti missile later
      Does that seem fair?

    • @b1laxson
      @b1laxson Місяць тому +2

      @@RvTWargames by tonnage the 4in gets more HAA than 5 in. Not entirely sure how the proximity fuses come into play. HE shells trade size for rate of fire for closer matches though AP suffers. I stripped off the AP in the 4-6 in guns on the doctrine tab to have more HAA shells.

  • @stevejones5824
    @stevejones5824 Місяць тому +1

    3 smaller DDs for the price of 2 of yours - Quality or Quantity???

    • @Theonewhoknocks9471
      @Theonewhoknocks9471 Місяць тому +1

      @stevejones5824 in my opinion, you should pick the one that gives you more torpedos.
      If both gives you the same amount, try experimenting with either design and see which works best. 👌

  • @GreenKnight2001
    @GreenKnight2001 Місяць тому +3

    I don't think rebuilding qualifies for shipbuilding. They want new builds. Because game reasons

  • @b1laxson
    @b1laxson Місяць тому

    @14:20 re Poilish leader photo for the "Fuhrer". Odd and thanks for the history. I believe the game uses that one photo for all Facist type people. Not that Poland was facist. I think the game devs are avoiding using a picture of the "Angry Painter" for various reasons including that the game is sold into Germany where they are very disagreeable with his art.

    • @xxxm981
      @xxxm981 Місяць тому +1

      Wasnt it some kind of military dictatorship tho?

    • @RvTWargames
      @RvTWargames  Місяць тому +1

      The Sanation government was more authoritian than dictatorship. It was in the hands of a small elite, with considerable military involvement, but there was still elements of democracy, if reduced in role. Very anti communist. Fairly anti political party. It was certainly not as repressive as many contemporary European countries of the time, but it was decidedly wasn't any sort of full democracy. .

  • @callumr1998
    @callumr1998 Місяць тому +3

    Was we supposed to be able to see any thing other than your webcam?

    • @b1laxson
      @b1laxson Місяць тому

      @12:04 Sheets! Wrap yourself up in snuggly sheets!

    • @pterrok5495
      @pterrok5495 Місяць тому +2

      He gets the screen capture turned on sometime past12 minutes. But yeah, you were supposed to be seeing stuff! ;-) (I admit sometimes I 'watch' while tabbed out elsewhere, so I could follow along by listening. And at least we weren't missing battles!)

    • @RvTWargames
      @RvTWargames  Місяць тому +8

      Me, miss something? Surely not!

  • @rbfishcs123
    @rbfishcs123 Місяць тому

    Dickie - I'm guessing you know this already but a majority of this video has no screen output, so its just your.. face speaking eloquently to us. (which is also fine - just wanted to give an FYI )