Hey Dickie, I was able to use your AI rules video to inspire a couple folks at our office to try NotebookLM. They were astonished at how well it was able to summarize really esoteric documents and publications we've put out on water-related issues, and even mp3 files. I knew watching your channel was worthwhile! 😄
Unfortunately all my BCs have a mix of triple and superfiring twin turrets to give me 10 guns, so I would go down to 6 x 18in - though that would lift the range to 39k (from 32k) and stay at Quality 0 (yes, my gun research, consistenly on medium priority throughout, has been poor). It would also let me increase the terrible 85 round magazine as I'd gain 1,500tons in the process plus another 300t for modernising the AA batteries. Hmmmm, that gives a lot to play with! I can't afford the c.5k/m cost right now, but definately worth a thought. And who knows, perhaps I'll get a Q1 big gun soon!
On airplane choices. After early comments on this series and my own watching battles Reliability as #2 choice is actually a good choice. For land based planes the ranges are such they likely only get 1 and sometimes 2 runs. The reliability influences how many will even be in that 1-2 strikes. Thus it is a multiplier on the firepower etc. Sample non-tested number if poor is 80% available, average 90% and above average 95% then in a 20 plane group we are talking 16, 18 or 19 sets of bombs. For carrier planes even more so as AFAIK reliability is tested on EVERY carrier landing as well as the starting readiness.
Hmmmm, yes, that is a good case for reliability as a second factor. I often use it in early planes when I assume that reliability is poorer, but assume, perhaps wrongly, that late era planes are intrinsically more reliable.
Torpedo Bombers vs Dive Bombers that night attack is a massive issue as 1/3 or more of the chances to strike come at night. Some battle start in or soon into night. Non-night planes can go out but will suffer on landing checks (reliability affects this). Usually I keep the TB and limit the DB amounts. For some land bases I have a "story mode" of a small number of dive bombers on some where the enemy likes to invade. The story being that they are the precision bombers like in Starblazers Battle of the Rainbow Galaxy where they knock out radars, AA guns and small targets like individual tanks while the MB and PAT planes do the heavy lifting.
I like the idea of a multipurpose prop attacker. I wonder if you request a prop fighter with bombload/bombload priority if that would produce something useful.
Little nitpic, eagle in German is Adler, not Alder Alder (actually "Alter" but often spoken with a softer "d") can be used as "buddy" :) Edit: Maybe "dude" is more fitting than buddy.
Curious how much you are up to in missile Maintenance now. Start of the episode you were 8500/month and the end 9300/month. BUT, you left a bunch on AF so that may be why, more than getting missiles on them. Yeah, you spotted Soviets having money trouble, but missed that a month or two prior they halted a CV build for lack of money--so they may really have been getting squeezed. And when you looked at the tech levels, their being one level behind on that page may have been more about older ships dragging it down, rather than not having the newer tech. You can check the Almanac and Nation Data page to see ALL techs you think they have which is useful to look at every now and again.
Good to know about the techs in the Almanac. For the missiles, I have had refitted DDs that are now DDGs, so they might have added to the missile maintenance pot.
It’s 1948 in the Black Sea, Some poor Russian on the deck during a patrol. He looks off in the distancing enjoying the night sky. Only to spot a weird orange/redish light that seemed to grow brighter, A warbling hum/buzz soon piercing the wind as he nor the crew realize there is an ASM the size of a car heading right at them.
On DD build rate I also tend to do 6 at a time and keep them rotated to always have 6-12 new construction going at a time. My DDs are smaller than yours 2,000 vs 3,000 tons affecting cost and survivability. Ive found good at a positive victory rate. Having TPS1 on them does seem to help them survive being wounded on an attack run and limp back for repairs vs sinking.
Interesting, I might toy with a 2,000 ton fleet DD and see what I can get for it. Hmmm. 6 x 4in with 275 shells 4 MAA with radar 4 TT 20 mines 9 ASW (no DC towers or increased DC storage) 4 HSSM (two with reloads) TPS1 protection Spacious accommodation 33kn with Diesels and Speed priority 544/m for 16 months = 8,701 cost vs 4 x 6in with 190 shells 4 MAA with radar 4 TT 20 mines 12 ASW (including DCs) 4 HSSM with 4 reloads TPS1 Spacious accommodation 33kn with Diesels and Speed priority 862/m for 16 months = 13,787 That's nearly a 40% saving for the loss of 2 SSM reloads, 3 less ASW (actually probably 1 less as DCs are probably obsolete now) and, admittedly a major drop in main guns. Though I could get 4 x 5in with 170 shells. Or go up to 4 x 6in with 190 shells at 2,400tons for 674 for 16 months = 10,791 giving a 22% saving for the loss of 2 SSM reloads, 3 less ASW (probably 1) - that's worth having - and I could have the reloads for an extra 100 tons.
"Welp, it doesn't look like we'll be in a war in the next six months, let's just yoink 30,000 out of the annual naval budget and use it to build a new motorway instead." As the saying goes, no (naval) plan survives contact with the enemy, the enemy in this case being the Reichstag.
@RvTWargames so you DO want a 70,000t BC to contest that American one? In my experience, the main thing such ships accomplish (past 1950) is being magnets for enemy missiles. You can then overprotect them with lots of CIWS and LSAM, compromising firepower (otherwise they get on fire real fast). It actually kinda works as your BCs soak up enemy missiles and screen your smaller ships this way. In any case, your other BCs will need appropriate refits too, missile age is very dangerous for them just because enemy AI makes them a priority target in case of surface contact.
Still on the quest to the audio 'right'. For reasons it seems to drift off after a while and needs redoing every once in a while. Tell me what you think of the next one.
IIRc naval patrol planes pretty much cap out around this time so you aren't going to get much more out of them. Btw your new medium bomber model has poor reliability
Thanks for both of those. The medium bomber is already on a version B variety so hopefully a version C might fix that. Or else I'll have to get a new medium bomber.
Id say your Gun Research has been pretty "average" this game. 0s across the board with some of the more high gun calibers being minus 1. Ya know.... I recall someone saying you could probably swap the 16inch guns on your battlecruisers for 18 inch, they would just have to be Duel guns rather then Triples. Might be worth visiting the "design concept" board to see if that would actually work. After all, the Germans did tend to put duel guns on their "battleships" and triples on their cruisers. Although at that point you probably would want SAP on your Battlecruisers to prevent over pens. You might even want SAP shells now depending on if your natural enemies are still lots battleships and battlecruisers. (still wish the PEN table had more details for HE pen and SAP pen, Come on Matrix Games you have no excuse) China Building a 20,000 ton Battleship? Why? I guess its supposed to be a costal defense ship?
Thanks for the update Dickie - cruising through the years of fleet upgrades and development is always fun. Looking forward to the next episode.
Thanks @rebishcs123. I always think it helps breakup what would otherwise a constant stream of turns without any opportunity to reflect.
Hey Dickie, I was able to use your AI rules video to inspire a couple folks at our office to try NotebookLM. They were astonished at how well it was able to summarize really esoteric documents and publications we've put out on water-related issues, and even mp3 files. I knew watching your channel was worthwhile! 😄
Unfortunately all my BCs have a mix of triple and superfiring twin turrets to give me 10 guns, so I would go down to 6 x 18in - though that would lift the range to 39k (from 32k) and stay at Quality 0 (yes, my gun research, consistenly on medium priority throughout, has been poor).
It would also let me increase the terrible 85 round magazine as I'd gain 1,500tons in the process plus another 300t for modernising the AA batteries.
Hmmmm, that gives a lot to play with! I can't afford the c.5k/m cost right now, but definately worth a thought. And who knows, perhaps I'll get a Q1 big gun soon!
@@RvTWargames Was this reply meant for Jaywerner8415, Dickie?
On airplane choices. After early comments on this series and my own watching battles Reliability as #2 choice is actually a good choice.
For land based planes the ranges are such they likely only get 1 and sometimes 2 runs. The reliability influences how many will even be in that 1-2 strikes. Thus it is a multiplier on the firepower etc. Sample non-tested number if poor is 80% available, average 90% and above average 95% then in a 20 plane group we are talking 16, 18 or 19 sets of bombs.
For carrier planes even more so as AFAIK reliability is tested on EVERY carrier landing as well as the starting readiness.
Hmmmm, yes, that is a good case for reliability as a second factor.
I often use it in early planes when I assume that reliability is poorer, but assume, perhaps wrongly, that late era planes are intrinsically more reliable.
great upload as always
Thanks Richard, I appreciate your continued support.
Torpedo Bombers vs Dive Bombers that night attack is a massive issue as 1/3 or more of the chances to strike come at night. Some battle start in or soon into night. Non-night planes can go out but will suffer on landing checks (reliability affects this). Usually I keep the TB and limit the DB amounts.
For some land bases I have a "story mode" of a small number of dive bombers on some where the enemy likes to invade. The story being that they are the precision bombers like in Starblazers Battle of the Rainbow Galaxy where they knock out radars, AA guns and small targets like individual tanks while the MB and PAT planes do the heavy lifting.
Yes, I'll have to keep a deadicated night strike and night fighter force in the carrier fleet. Annoying.
I like the idea of a multipurpose prop attacker. I wonder if you request a prop fighter with bombload/bombload priority if that would produce something useful.
Little nitpic, eagle in German is Adler, not Alder
Alder (actually "Alter" but often spoken with a softer "d") can be used as "buddy" :)
Edit: Maybe "dude" is more fitting than buddy.
Who wanted to be joined in battle by the warship "Dude".
Corrected! Nitpic away, thanks.
Curious how much you are up to in missile Maintenance now. Start of the episode you were 8500/month and the end 9300/month. BUT, you left a bunch on AF so that may be why, more than getting missiles on them.
Yeah, you spotted Soviets having money trouble, but missed that a month or two prior they halted a CV build for lack of money--so they may really have been getting squeezed.
And when you looked at the tech levels, their being one level behind on that page may have been more about older ships dragging it down, rather than not having the newer tech. You can check the Almanac and Nation Data page to see ALL techs you think they have which is useful to look at every now and again.
Good to know about the techs in the Almanac.
For the missiles, I have had refitted DDs that are now DDGs, so they might have added to the missile maintenance pot.
It’s 1948 in the Black Sea, Some poor Russian on the deck during a patrol. He looks off in the distancing enjoying the night sky. Only to spot a weird orange/redish light that seemed to grow brighter, A warbling hum/buzz soon piercing the wind as he nor the crew realize there is an ASM the size of a car heading right at them.
Lol. Yup, those missiles can be a bolt from the blue shocker.
On DD build rate I also tend to do 6 at a time and keep them rotated to always have 6-12 new construction going at a time. My DDs are smaller than yours 2,000 vs 3,000 tons affecting cost and survivability. Ive found good at a positive victory rate. Having TPS1 on them does seem to help them survive being wounded on an attack run and limp back for repairs vs sinking.
Interesting, I might toy with a 2,000 ton fleet DD and see what I can get for it.
Hmmm.
6 x 4in with 275 shells
4 MAA with radar
4 TT
20 mines
9 ASW (no DC towers or increased DC storage)
4 HSSM (two with reloads)
TPS1 protection
Spacious accommodation
33kn with Diesels and Speed priority
544/m for 16 months = 8,701 cost
vs
4 x 6in with 190 shells
4 MAA with radar
4 TT
20 mines
12 ASW (including DCs)
4 HSSM with 4 reloads
TPS1
Spacious accommodation
33kn with Diesels and Speed priority
862/m for 16 months = 13,787
That's nearly a 40% saving for the loss of 2 SSM reloads, 3 less ASW (actually probably 1 less as DCs are probably obsolete now) and, admittedly a major drop in main guns.
Though I could get 4 x 5in with 170 shells.
Or go up to 4 x 6in with 190 shells at 2,400tons for
674 for 16 months = 10,791 giving a 22% saving for the loss of 2 SSM reloads, 3 less ASW (probably 1) - that's worth having - and I could have the reloads for an extra 100 tons.
"Welp, it doesn't look like we'll be in a war in the next six months, let's just yoink 30,000 out of the annual naval budget and use it to build a new motorway instead." As the saying goes, no (naval) plan survives contact with the enemy, the enemy in this case being the Reichstag.
It'll budge up soon. And then the super duper battlecruiser of my dreams will be on the slipway!
@RvTWargames so you DO want a 70,000t BC to contest that American one? In my experience, the main thing such ships accomplish (past 1950) is being magnets for enemy missiles. You can then overprotect them with lots of CIWS and LSAM, compromising firepower (otherwise they get on fire real fast). It actually kinda works as your BCs soak up enemy missiles and screen your smaller ships this way.
In any case, your other BCs will need appropriate refits too, missile age is very dangerous for them just because enemy AI makes them a priority target in case of surface contact.
Just waiting for the techs to refit them.
Probably can't afford the 70k BC compared to all the other things that need doing.
Ironically the original Blackburn Botha was neither a fighter nor was it fast.
The game does like to play around with its names.
A slight bit more echo/reverb from your mic this video. You aren't recording from inside an actual battleship, are you? ;p
Still on the quest to the audio 'right'. For reasons it seems to drift off after a while and needs redoing every once in a while. Tell me what you think of the next one.
Boaty boats by bulging battleships
IIRc naval patrol planes pretty much cap out around this time so you aren't going to get much more out of them. Btw your new medium bomber model has poor reliability
Thanks for both of those. The medium bomber is already on a version B variety so hopefully a version C might fix that. Or else I'll have to get a new medium bomber.
Id say your Gun Research has been pretty "average" this game. 0s across the board with some of the more high gun calibers being minus 1.
Ya know.... I recall someone saying you could probably swap the 16inch guns on your battlecruisers for 18 inch, they would just have to be Duel guns rather then Triples. Might be worth visiting the "design concept" board to see if that would actually work. After all, the Germans did tend to put duel guns on their "battleships" and triples on their cruisers. Although at that point you probably would want SAP on your Battlecruisers to prevent over pens. You might even want SAP shells now depending on if your natural enemies are still lots battleships and battlecruisers. (still wish the PEN table had more details for HE pen and SAP pen, Come on Matrix Games you have no excuse)
China Building a 20,000 ton Battleship? Why? I guess its supposed to be a costal defense ship?