I feel bad for the bloke who has to explain to the Lord High Admiral and the Board of Admirality why 11 carriers were within 20 miles of Bergen and the Norwegian coast.
@@HDreamer You missed my point. What were the carriers doing so close to coast? Even if a port strike was the mission there is no reason to get so close. The japanese fleet was 230 miles away when they attacked Pearl Harbor. The battle generator was pretty silly here imho.
@@fizzbronson4279 It's honestly part of the same problem. Just like why would a german BC try to shell a position around Bordeaux, while the French navy outnumbers you 5:1 and if you wait one month the repairs on the other 3 BCs are done. It's all part of the known weaknesses of AI and battle generator.
Congratulations Admiral, getting ever closer to parity in flat tops and of course your fleet remains the king of the big guns, can’t wait to see how those big beasts continue to fair as aviation becomes ever more deadly, at the moment though they are clearly worthwhile
"can’t wait to see how those big beasts continue to fair as aviation -becomes ever more deadly- continues to be useless" There, fixed it for you. If you're having problems defending against air strikes, just increase the CAP strength and/or the number of F/(LJF?)/HJF squadrons: CAP is OP; not impenetrable, but the ratio of losses inflicted vs losses taken is too low to be worth the effort IMHO.
As I mentioned to uefkentauroi elsewhere, perhaps I should just have figther only carriers until jet attack aircraft become a thing. (just catching up on my replies!)
Man, next time I get into the game, going to have to see if I can come ANYWHERE close to that reported British DD layout! That's seemed insanely powerful! (If it weren't for missiles now being the thing... ;-p)
@@RvTWargames OK, had to go back and look at it again--the DD has 3 double turrets if you look at the silhouette. The questions is, are they 5 (most likely) or 6 inch. I have found that the "Jane's" report DOES sometimes have errors in it! Like it reported an enemy ship with a max of say 18 Knots, yet if you went to the Almanac and looked at ships of that same type being built it would say 28 Knots. (Or in battle it was clearly going 28...) This is the first time I've seen a double listing of guns--but it makes for an interesting real-world thing where bad data does just get put in the logs. ;-) So now the question is, can it fit those six 5 inchers AND all those torpedo tubes AND keep that speed? In that displacement? Probably, but yeah, I know I would have been swapping to missiles and so never tried, but it might make an interesting build if you can make it early enough.
I suspect they have short range, unreliable engines and little ammo. Also, they might be overweight and topside-heavy; just not enough for the design to be illegal though.
Well Admiral Dickie - that was a heck of a turkey shoot. I wish the AI would understand how to navigate out of situations like that, it was unfortunate in a way that they all bottled up on the coast but purely out of the fact that their brains just turned off. I will be very curious how / what you plan on doing with the loss of the Graf Zepp - surely there will still be a naval inquiry about the loss of the CV. Looking forward to your next video! Maybe an end of the war is in sight?
With regards to the loss of a CV... IMO it's a minor inconvenience, that can be rectified very easily: by converting a few DB and TB squadrons partially to night capable Fs and partially to LJFs.
The whole structure of the carrier fleet needs reviewing, given how ineffective it was time after time in this war. The war was won by the battlecruisers. The carriers added little beyond intelligence.
That event I mentioned about the "new generation of crew", apparently that happens in 1955 not 1950, my bad! I am curious if that will actually happen, its less of a Government thing and more of a "after ww2" kind of thing. I don't think you need to give up your Battlecruisers, just do what they did to USS Missouri and slap some Missile tubes and modern AA guns on her and call it a day. Might have to reduce the Secondaries though, cus modern AA is HEAVY (Radar guided medium AA and Ciws short range AA). The Funny thing about missiles, the MOUNTS themselves (which come with 1 missile loaded) are surprisingly Light, but then you add RELOADS and its like "wow missiles are heavy". Mixing Missile types adds even more weight (be Heavy and mediums or StS and StA missiles) Interestingly, as someone pointed out on the forums, they probably should let DDs get bigger then 3500 tons. Cus late WW2 and Post WW2 DDs where well above that limit, going so high as 4900 tons (The GEARING class for example) to 5500 tons (some post war designs) if not more. Admittedly thats about the same as a small Light Cruiser, but we did kinda STOP building Cruisers during the Cold war and went with Frigates and Destroyers instead.
I'm expecting that event to trigger anyway, even in war, as I suspect it is triggered at a certain date (like the one for enhanced sonars). Regarding BBs and BCs, them staying till the end of the game in 1990 is as likely as becoming an obsolete ship type earlier: it depends on how many capital ships the other nations keep, how many missiles they have, how many DDs to soak up those missiles you have, how strong your anti-missile defenses are, etc. It also depends on whether you can afford them, given how much aircrafts and missiles cost and how much of these you want to have. IMO radar guided MAA and and CIWS aren't heavy in terms of tonnage. Rather, I find them heavy in terms of topside load. Regarding weights (hopefully they are not outdated): HSAM: 200 t per launcher (the number of arms doesn't change the weight of the launcher, but changes its topside load), 16 t per missile (if the launcher has a single arm, double that if it has two arms and the relevant bug hasn't been fixed yet) MSAM: 150 t per launcher (ditto), 10 t per missile (ditto) LSAM: 90 t per launcher (ditto), 6 t per missile (ditto, 3 times that for three-arm launchers, four times that for four-arm launchers) HSSM: I didn't bother checking (if you give them reloads, the launcher has more than one tube, and the relevant bug hasn't been fixed yet, the missile weight will be increased) 4x MSSM launcher: depends on the position (ditto): A, Y: 50 B: 54 C, D, E, H, I, J, K, L, Q, S, T: 38 R, V, W: 46 X: 62 1, 2, F, G, P, 3, 4: don't support MSSM (though F and G support HSSM) Missile targeting/tracking radar/equipment have different weight and cost depending on the type of missile (with radars for SSM being lighter and cheaper than those for SAMs). In addition, if a ship mounts 2 or more different types of missiles (e.g. HSSM and MSSM), the ship has to bear extra topside load, which increases with the number of different missile types carried. Maximum 3 launchers for non centerline mounts on ships below 6000 tons on positions: D, E, H, I, J, K, L, S, T Depending on the effectiveness of missiles, one might consider retaining some/most of the secondary batteries. Just don't make them DP, as I explained in another post under this video. DDs can go as far as 3800 t, not 3500 t, but yes, agreed. I wrote as much in a comment in a previous video.
@@uefkentauroi Yeah the Topside Weight is what REALLY limits you in the Missile age, you always have surprisingly little to work with at times. Like far as I am aware you never want to completely get rid of your Gun Batteries, you want at least a couple left once the Missile Barrage is over. But they do take up space that could be used for other things. But yeah, Guns, Missiles, AA, Radar and everything else all takes up Topside Weight and it adds up quick. I suppose its all about "specialization" I guess? I may have only played Once and fumbled my way though the 50s to 1960, but I suppose as a general rule of thumb, your Cruisers (heavy or light) carry all the Surface to Surface missiles while the DDs carry the SAMs. Try to max your Anti Missile defense when possible since the JET ATTACK planes will also be throwing missiles at you. And heck if you got them, make missile corvettes for some target saturation and extra firepower.
@RvTWargames could you double check 1. if you have some of my comments pending review / awaiting evaluation (in case you do, please ignore them all except the one directed to @jaywerner8415), and 2. what your policy setting for comments is? It feels weird that so many of my comments are being deleted by YT without any warning... maybe they are just awaiting for your evaluation? @jaywerner8415 I just realized that my comment to your post was deleted/hidden, but since I have no idea what the cause for that might be, I'll write a shorter post. We must have two very different playstiles. All my designs are limited by weight, not topside load. I agree with your statement about naval cannons. Helicopters take topside load, too. My DDs carry SSMs, my CLs carry MSAMs, my CAs carry SSMs and LSAMs; all three of them carry naval cannons. JAs are easily countered by HJF.
The British appear to have a slightly different CV/CVL air group composition - 60% being F/LJF compared to your 45%. Despite this you shot down more enemy A/C in AtA combat. I don't know what's wrong with the results screen but the British F/LJF losses don't add up!!! (only 181 not 280)
Amazing result. That said, did I miss something? The enemy total fighter losses says 170, but the breakdown only adds up to, like, 2/3 that amount (1+36+35+55 = 127). the enemy jet fighters are the same, showing 110 total losses, to itemized only appear to be 54. Did, like, half their air force defect to your side or something? ;p
@@RvTWargames There's a very brief window where it gets better but once SAMs and countermeasures come in that's pretty much it for carriers and air power. That seems to be a growing complaint amongst the playbase that missile age air power is mostly useless and I would agree. Between the limited missile capacity of aircraft, the cost of aircraft, and the spawning ranges of battles it is both cheaper and more effective to use big guns and ships that can throw out lots of missiles. The AI is also programmed to get rid of big gun ships so their carriers are pretty much always defenseless. In my opinion the death knell is the tech that allows SAMs to be used against surface targets. After that it's pretty much game over for the AI. It'll be pretty interesting to see how you handle this. You've mentioned in this video I think twice that the era of your BCs are coming to an end sooner rather than later, but I think they will continue to be your most valuable assets all the way up to the hard end date of the game.
@@akarinnnnnn After the SAMs hit chance nerf a few patches ago, they aren't that good vs aircrafts anymore. CAP is still the most effective tool against air strikes. I also agree with the complaint that air strikes are useless, but not only in the missile age: IMO they aren't that good in the 40s either, but with a huge caveat: I don't know if the effectiveness of air strikes in-game in the 40s is lower than IRL; if it isn't then please let me know and discard what I just said. The "anti surface capability for SAM" technology _was_ extremely powerful, but it seems to me that the SAMs hit chance nerf decreased not only their hit chance against aircrafts, but also against ships (possibly even against missiles). Plus the nerf to the number of MSAMs that can be carried by a dual-arm launcher and their cost increase means I can't pack my ships full of MSAMs and watch the enemy ships burn while I laugh like a maniac. All of that, plus the fact that ships can't carry as many SSM as they can SAMs, bring me to agree with you: I too would expect cannons to keep on being one of the primary armaments of ships till the end of the game in 1990. Both this battle and your post gave me food for thought. Thanks!
It's kinda funny to see this game of telephone go on with a question I asked 3 videos ago, because I don't know how to approach the rocket age and due to the nature of this battle, it seems the question got stuck in his head and by now it sounds like he was told to abandon all big ships. 😆 (pretty sure at least, that I was the only one recently who mentioned even a possible end to big ships)
10 seconds into the video: I don't see chapters. To make chapters on YT videos, in the video's description you have to write the timestamp of the beginning of a chapter followed by the chapter's name (you can separate the two with a simple space); the first chapter *_must_* be 0:00, otherwise YT won't recognize chapters at all (AFAIK, the most common name for the first chapter is Intro, but you could call it Welcome or whatever); to create the second chapter, press Enter so it's in a new line, write the timestamp, a space, and then the chapter's name. Rinse and repeat.
1:12:20 The opposite: you inflicted 377 medium hits on them, they inflicted 70 on you. I noticed this video is in the "Rules the Waves 3 Tutorials & Updates" playlist, not in the "Let's Play Rule the Waves 3 Germany 1935" one.
8:46 2 medium hits, not missile hits ;) - they destroyed a torpedo mount. 11:28 There's no fighter escort. EDIT: in hindsight, this is good: at least those fighter pilots are still alive! ahah 28:19 The superstructure being damaged isn't really a cause of concern. It won't cause the ship to be abandoned if it's completely destroyed (source: a few burnt ships of mine (unreliable, I know)), rather the higher the damage to the superstructure is, the higher the amount of destroyed MAA and LAA emplacements (source: p. 108 of the manual). Also, damage to the superstructure might damage unarmored secondary or tertiary guns (source: p.92). If you wish to know more about fires, read p.93. 37:00 Yes, that's a lot. I suspect they have short range, unreliable engines and little ammo. 1:09:06 No, an enemy submarine got one of your KEs. I'll write another comment tomorrow.
@@RvTWargames Eh! You're basically retracing the steps of my playthrough that I wrote about in the Google drive document I shared. Will you embrace fast DDs with long range and reliable engines? They won't carry much in terms of weapons though.
@@RvTWargames It has nothing to do with nations and sea zones, but with in-battle distances between carrier fleets, which will keep on growing. Long range will increase the fuel content of your DDs to prevent them from running out mid chase. Reliable engines are needed to prevent engine breakdowns at high speeds (think 32+ kn). High speeds will be needed to suffer less air attacks (which will increase the risk of you losing a ship or two and will also increase the time spent evading, thus not getting nearer to the enemy ships), and to actually intercept the enemy before the timer runs out. Either that, or you decline all carrier battles going forward, as you won't have the means to sink enemy ships if you don't send air strikes their way, or you keep strike crafts on your CVs, or you make DDs with normal range work somehow - hats off to you if you can!
In the forums, RTW3 General Discussion section, Repost: A Statistical Evaluation of CAP and AA Effectiveness, 1947 - 48 thread, jwsmith26 (NWS Team) stated: "The game is quite inaccurate with its evaluation of the effectiveness of AA. According to this report: "Antiaircraft Action Summary: World War II" compiled by the USN, of the 7,600 to 7,800 enemy planes that came within range of shipboard AA during WW2, 36% (2,773 aircraft) were shot down by AA. In RTW3, planes shot down by AA rarely exceed 5% and are often closer to 2% of the planes that execute an attack. To achieve shoot-down totals that are within a reasonable historical realm, CAP has been made proportionally stronger. This imbalance also makes any surface force that lacks CAP coverage more vulnerable to air attack than it should be. Instead of downing 30% of the attacking aircraft in the late 1940s and disrupting many of the remaining attackers, surface forces without CAP protection typically allow 90%+ of the attacking aircraft a completely unmolested shot at their targets." So until the devs deal with this: long live CAP! Down with AA! (Though AA types that can shoot down missiles, e.g. radar-directed MAA, CIWS, LSAM and, eventually, MSAM, should be kept.)
Interesting. Though I imagine it is a tricky field of study. Late war USN AA experience might be considered an outlier as the power of its AA batteries was expectional, improving radar guidance and proximity fuses were multiplying its effectiveness, and possibly kamikaze tactics may have meant far more short range targets. Less target rich environments, where planes didn't throw themselves at ships, and where the weather could commonly impact both AA gunnery and flight operations might lead to different results.
I feel bad for the bloke who has to explain to the Lord High Admiral and the Board of Admirality why 11 carriers were within 20 miles of Bergen and the Norwegian coast.
Ships running into and getting stuck on the coast is a sad and glaring weakness the engine has had since RtW 1 unfortunately.
@@HDreamer You missed my point. What were the carriers doing so close to coast? Even if a port strike was the mission there is no reason to get so close. The japanese fleet was 230 miles away when they attacked Pearl Harbor. The battle generator was pretty silly here imho.
@@fizzbronson4279 It's honestly part of the same problem.
Just like why would a german BC try to shell a position around Bordeaux, while the French navy outnumbers you 5:1 and if you wait one month the repairs on the other 3 BCs are done.
It's all part of the known weaknesses of AI and battle generator.
Who knew coastlines could be such a challenge to algorithms.
Noting that lifting the blockade and a major victory has reduced your unrest to 4 !! Awesome, good job!
It is, clearly, a tricky thing to do, bringing down a superior fleet to parity.
Congratulations Admiral, getting ever closer to parity in flat tops and of course your fleet remains the king of the big guns, can’t wait to see how those big beasts continue to fair as aviation becomes ever more deadly, at the moment though they are clearly worthwhile
"can’t wait to see how those big beasts continue to fair as aviation -becomes ever more deadly- continues to be useless"
There, fixed it for you. If you're having problems defending against air strikes, just increase the CAP strength and/or the number of F/(LJF?)/HJF squadrons: CAP is OP; not impenetrable, but the ratio of losses inflicted vs losses taken is too low to be worth the effort IMHO.
As I mentioned to uefkentauroi elsewhere, perhaps I should just have figther only carriers until jet attack aircraft become a thing. (just catching up on my replies!)
Wow. That was brutal!
Pinning against a coastline is brutal
Great video as always thank you!
Thank you.
Man, next time I get into the game, going to have to see if I can come ANYWHERE close to that reported British DD layout! That's seemed insanely powerful! (If it weren't for missiles now being the thing... ;-p)
@@pterrok5495 yes, I wondered how that was even vaguely possible.
@@RvTWargames OK, had to go back and look at it again--the DD has 3 double turrets if you look at the silhouette. The questions is, are they 5 (most likely) or 6 inch.
I have found that the "Jane's" report DOES sometimes have errors in it! Like it reported an enemy ship with a max of say 18 Knots, yet if you went to the Almanac and looked at ships of that same type being built it would say 28 Knots. (Or in battle it was clearly going 28...)
This is the first time I've seen a double listing of guns--but it makes for an interesting real-world thing where bad data does just get put in the logs. ;-)
So now the question is, can it fit those six 5 inchers AND all those torpedo tubes AND keep that speed? In that displacement? Probably, but yeah, I know I would have been swapping to missiles and so never tried, but it might make an interesting build if you can make it early enough.
I suspect they have short range, unreliable engines and little ammo. Also, they might be overweight and topside-heavy; just not enough for the design to be illegal though.
Well Admiral Dickie - that was a heck of a turkey shoot. I wish the AI would understand how to navigate out of situations like that, it was unfortunate in a way that they all bottled up on the coast but purely out of the fact that their brains just turned off.
I will be very curious how / what you plan on doing with the loss of the Graf Zepp - surely there will still be a naval inquiry about the loss of the CV.
Looking forward to your next video! Maybe an end of the war is in sight?
With regards to the loss of a CV... IMO it's a minor inconvenience, that can be rectified very easily: by converting a few DB and TB squadrons partially to night capable Fs and partially to LJFs.
The whole structure of the carrier fleet needs reviewing, given how ineffective it was time after time in this war. The war was won by the battlecruisers. The carriers added little beyond intelligence.
Don't forget that they added CAP, which is the only thing that prevents enemy air strikes from being effective.
Epic
It was a thing, wasn't it (just catching up on my replies!)
16 carriers involved, and only 13 hits on ships from aircraft. They were just all up there slaughtering each other.
It was all very nasty!
That event I mentioned about the "new generation of crew", apparently that happens in 1955 not 1950, my bad! I am curious if that will actually happen, its less of a Government thing and more of a "after ww2" kind of thing.
I don't think you need to give up your Battlecruisers, just do what they did to USS Missouri and slap some Missile tubes and modern AA guns on her and call it a day. Might have to reduce the Secondaries though, cus modern AA is HEAVY (Radar guided medium AA and Ciws short range AA). The Funny thing about missiles, the MOUNTS themselves (which come with 1 missile loaded) are surprisingly Light, but then you add RELOADS and its like "wow missiles are heavy". Mixing Missile types adds even more weight (be Heavy and mediums or StS and StA missiles)
Interestingly, as someone pointed out on the forums, they probably should let DDs get bigger then 3500 tons. Cus late WW2 and Post WW2 DDs where well above that limit, going so high as 4900 tons (The GEARING class for example) to 5500 tons (some post war designs) if not more. Admittedly thats about the same as a small Light Cruiser, but we did kinda STOP building Cruisers during the Cold war and went with Frigates and Destroyers instead.
I'm expecting that event to trigger anyway, even in war, as I suspect it is triggered at a certain date (like the one for enhanced sonars).
Regarding BBs and BCs, them staying till the end of the game in 1990 is as likely as becoming an obsolete ship type earlier: it depends on how many capital ships the other nations keep, how many missiles they have, how many DDs to soak up those missiles you have, how strong your anti-missile defenses are, etc. It also depends on whether you can afford them, given how much aircrafts and missiles cost and how much of these you want to have.
IMO radar guided MAA and and CIWS aren't heavy in terms of tonnage. Rather, I find them heavy in terms of topside load.
Regarding weights (hopefully they are not outdated):
HSAM: 200 t per launcher (the number of arms doesn't change the weight of the launcher, but changes its topside load), 16 t per missile (if the launcher has a single arm, double that if it has two arms and the relevant bug hasn't been fixed yet)
MSAM: 150 t per launcher (ditto), 10 t per missile (ditto)
LSAM: 90 t per launcher (ditto), 6 t per missile (ditto, 3 times that for three-arm launchers, four times that for four-arm launchers)
HSSM: I didn't bother checking (if you give them reloads, the launcher has more than one tube, and the relevant bug hasn't been fixed yet, the missile weight will be increased)
4x MSSM launcher: depends on the position (ditto):
A, Y: 50
B: 54
C, D, E, H, I, J, K, L, Q, S, T: 38
R, V, W: 46
X: 62
1, 2, F, G, P, 3, 4: don't support MSSM (though F and G support HSSM)
Missile targeting/tracking radar/equipment have different weight and cost depending on the type of missile (with radars for SSM being lighter and cheaper than those for SAMs). In addition, if a ship mounts 2 or more different types of missiles (e.g. HSSM and MSSM), the ship has to bear extra topside load, which increases with the number of different missile types carried.
Maximum 3 launchers for non centerline mounts on ships below 6000 tons on positions: D, E, H, I, J, K, L, S, T
Depending on the effectiveness of missiles, one might consider retaining some/most of the secondary batteries. Just don't make them DP, as I explained in another post under this video.
DDs can go as far as 3800 t, not 3500 t, but yes, agreed. I wrote as much in a comment in a previous video.
@@uefkentauroi Yeah the Topside Weight is what REALLY limits you in the Missile age, you always have surprisingly little to work with at times. Like far as I am aware you never want to completely get rid of your Gun Batteries, you want at least a couple left once the Missile Barrage is over. But they do take up space that could be used for other things.
But yeah, Guns, Missiles, AA, Radar and everything else all takes up Topside Weight and it adds up quick. I suppose its all about "specialization" I guess?
I may have only played Once and fumbled my way though the 50s to 1960, but I suppose as a general rule of thumb, your Cruisers (heavy or light) carry all the Surface to Surface missiles while the DDs carry the SAMs. Try to max your Anti Missile defense when possible since the JET ATTACK planes will also be throwing missiles at you. And heck if you got them, make missile corvettes for some target saturation and extra firepower.
@RvTWargames could you double check 1. if you have some of my comments pending review / awaiting evaluation (in case you do, please ignore them all except the one directed to @jaywerner8415), and 2. what your policy setting for comments is? It feels weird that so many of my comments are being deleted by YT without any warning... maybe they are just awaiting for your evaluation?
@jaywerner8415 I just realized that my comment to your post was deleted/hidden, but since I have no idea what the cause for that might be, I'll write a shorter post.
We must have two very different playstiles. All my designs are limited by weight, not topside load. I agree with your statement about naval cannons. Helicopters take topside load, too. My DDs carry SSMs, my CLs carry MSAMs, my CAs carry SSMs and LSAMs; all three of them carry naval cannons. JAs are easily countered by HJF.
I can see these, if that's any help.
@@RvTWargames I just sent you an email.
The British appear to have a slightly different CV/CVL air group composition - 60% being F/LJF compared to your 45%. Despite this you shot down more enemy A/C in AtA combat.
I don't know what's wrong with the results screen but the British F/LJF losses don't add up!!! (only 181 not 280)
It's a known bug. I'm just hoping the big number is the right one!
Amazing result. That said, did I miss something? The enemy total fighter losses says 170, but the breakdown only adds up to, like, 2/3 that amount (1+36+35+55 = 127). the enemy jet fighters are the same, showing 110 total losses, to itemized only appear to be 54.
Did, like, half their air force defect to your side or something? ;p
Aircraft losses not adding up is in a bug I think I reported many many versions ago possibly even in RtW2.
Good spot. And yes, bug. Hopefully the big number is the right one.
Whatever the armchair admirals say the big gunned ships prove they have a place in the fleet agiain.
They totally have. CAP and anti air defence seems to have largely neutralised air strikes. They need more stand off missiles to have a chance.
@@RvTWargames There's a very brief window where it gets better but once SAMs and countermeasures come in that's pretty much it for carriers and air power. That seems to be a growing complaint amongst the playbase that missile age air power is mostly useless and I would agree. Between the limited missile capacity of aircraft, the cost of aircraft, and the spawning ranges of battles it is both cheaper and more effective to use big guns and ships that can throw out lots of missiles. The AI is also programmed to get rid of big gun ships so their carriers are pretty much always defenseless. In my opinion the death knell is the tech that allows SAMs to be used against surface targets. After that it's pretty much game over for the AI.
It'll be pretty interesting to see how you handle this. You've mentioned in this video I think twice that the era of your BCs are coming to an end sooner rather than later, but I think they will continue to be your most valuable assets all the way up to the hard end date of the game.
@@akarinnnnnn After the SAMs hit chance nerf a few patches ago, they aren't that good vs aircrafts anymore. CAP is still the most effective tool against air strikes.
I also agree with the complaint that air strikes are useless, but not only in the missile age: IMO they aren't that good in the 40s either, but with a huge caveat: I don't know if the effectiveness of air strikes in-game in the 40s is lower than IRL; if it isn't then please let me know and discard what I just said.
The "anti surface capability for SAM" technology _was_ extremely powerful, but it seems to me that the SAMs hit chance nerf decreased not only their hit chance against aircrafts, but also against ships (possibly even against missiles). Plus the nerf to the number of MSAMs that can be carried by a dual-arm launcher and their cost increase means I can't pack my ships full of MSAMs and watch the enemy ships burn while I laugh like a maniac. All of that, plus the fact that ships can't carry as many SSM as they can SAMs, bring me to agree with you: I too would expect cannons to keep on being one of the primary armaments of ships till the end of the game in 1990.
Both this battle and your post gave me food for thought. Thanks!
It's kinda funny to see this game of telephone go on with a question I asked 3 videos ago, because I don't know how to approach the rocket age and due to the nature of this battle, it seems the question got stuck in his head and by now it sounds like he was told to abandon all big ships. 😆 (pretty sure at least, that I was the only one recently who mentioned even a possible end to big ships)
10 seconds into the video: I don't see chapters. To make chapters on YT videos, in the video's description you have to write the timestamp of the beginning of a chapter followed by the chapter's name (you can separate the two with a simple space); the first chapter *_must_* be 0:00, otherwise YT won't recognize chapters at all (AFAIK, the most common name for the first chapter is Intro, but you could call it Welcome or whatever); to create the second chapter, press Enter so it's in a new line, write the timestamp, a space, and then the chapter's name. Rinse and repeat.
Bugger. I forgot to tell the editor to write in the chapters as it rendered. I'll sort it manually tomorrow.
@59:00 looks like you lost track and it could cost you at least 2 DDs
Happens quite often, unfortunately, in big complex battles.
Relieved the blockade is lifted.
Nice to see that it is actually possible!
1:12:20 The opposite: you inflicted 377 medium hits on them, they inflicted 70 on you.
I noticed this video is in the "Rules the Waves 3 Tutorials & Updates" playlist, not in the "Let's Play Rule the Waves 3 Germany 1935" one.
Oh, good spot. Fixed.
8:46 2 medium hits, not missile hits ;) - they destroyed a torpedo mount.
11:28 There's no fighter escort. EDIT: in hindsight, this is good: at least those fighter pilots are still alive! ahah
28:19 The superstructure being damaged isn't really a cause of concern. It won't cause the ship to be abandoned if it's completely destroyed (source: a few burnt ships of mine (unreliable, I know)), rather the higher the damage to the superstructure is, the higher the amount of destroyed MAA and LAA emplacements (source: p. 108 of the manual). Also, damage to the superstructure might damage unarmored secondary or tertiary guns (source: p.92). If you wish to know more about fires, read p.93.
37:00 Yes, that's a lot. I suspect they have short range, unreliable engines and little ammo.
1:09:06 No, an enemy submarine got one of your KEs.
I'll write another comment tomorrow.
Yes. Perhaps I should have just fighter only air wings? (just catching up on my replies!)
@@RvTWargames Eh! You're basically retracing the steps of my playthrough that I wrote about in the Google drive document I shared. Will you embrace fast DDs with long range and reliable engines? They won't carry much in terms of weapons though.
Why does Germany need long range when will only be sailing in North Europe?
@@RvTWargames It has nothing to do with nations and sea zones, but with in-battle distances between carrier fleets, which will keep on growing. Long range will increase the fuel content of your DDs to prevent them from running out mid chase. Reliable engines are needed to prevent engine breakdowns at high speeds (think 32+ kn). High speeds will be needed to suffer less air attacks (which will increase the risk of you losing a ship or two and will also increase the time spent evading, thus not getting nearer to the enemy ships), and to actually intercept the enemy before the timer runs out.
Either that, or you decline all carrier battles going forward, as you won't have the means to sink enemy ships if you don't send air strikes their way, or you keep strike crafts on your CVs, or you make DDs with normal range work somehow - hats off to you if you can!
In the forums, RTW3 General Discussion section, Repost: A Statistical Evaluation of CAP and AA Effectiveness, 1947 - 48 thread, jwsmith26 (NWS Team) stated: "The game is quite inaccurate with its evaluation of the effectiveness of AA. According to this report: "Antiaircraft Action Summary: World War II" compiled by the USN, of the 7,600 to 7,800 enemy planes that came within range of shipboard AA during WW2, 36% (2,773 aircraft) were shot down by AA. In RTW3, planes shot down by AA rarely exceed 5% and are often closer to 2% of the planes that execute an attack. To achieve shoot-down totals that are within a reasonable historical realm, CAP has been made proportionally stronger. This imbalance also makes any surface force that lacks CAP coverage more vulnerable to air attack than it should be. Instead of downing 30% of the attacking aircraft in the late 1940s and disrupting many of the remaining attackers, surface forces without CAP protection typically allow 90%+ of the attacking aircraft a completely unmolested shot at their targets."
So until the devs deal with this: long live CAP! Down with AA! (Though AA types that can shoot down missiles, e.g. radar-directed MAA, CIWS, LSAM and, eventually, MSAM, should be kept.)
Interesting. Though I imagine it is a tricky field of study. Late war USN AA experience might be considered an outlier as the power of its AA batteries was expectional, improving radar guidance and proximity fuses were multiplying its effectiveness, and possibly kamikaze tactics may have meant far more short range targets.
Less target rich environments, where planes didn't throw themselves at ships, and where the weather could commonly impact both AA gunnery and flight operations might lead to different results.