30:45 I wouldn't enjoy going gun to gun against a 73k BB from the US, also very surprised to see China building a 63k BB. Cool play through so far. Welcome back by the way - looking forward to the next ;)
Great to have you back. Re the dock build issue. Could you pause ships or add one at a time to see if the figure changes and then see how it is calculated ? Intriguing
I really like you choices for compromises with the two new designs. I especially like the DD-100. On small thing, one of the Greif-classes was named Z-105 which will interfere with Z-100 class naming.
Yes, I noticed that. There are only a very few German DD names (all those in WW2 were rather Nazi, so the designer was understandably not keen on using those). I'll get it changed.
All the beer drinking and fighting in the closed defense meetings on the floor of the Reichstag! In reference to getting us involved in the decision-making process; Grand Strategy-wise. Amusing!
On ammo load out. I've only changed things a little. One consideration is to change the 4-6 inch guns to more or all he. Only he ammo is used in the haa role. Their ap levels are low anyway but some cold war ships start giving up thick armor. Overall planes the greater threat so more he I that range probably better.
Your dismissal of the 1000t DD rebuild was based on the negative tonnage, but it still had coal fired engines! Would a re-engine to diesels have been worthwhile? Your A/C kills by AA was low because not many got through your CAP. Like you mentioned, more detailed analysis would be required to see exactly what % of A/C that got past the CAP were downed by AA. I love your analysis and planning, something I just do seat of the pants and usually struggle...
I'm few years ahead and just researched improved sonar. It can't be retrofited into older hulls and research popup said that ships without it won;t be able to detect shit after '55, making my first two missile destroyers already obsolete. Is there a point of building ships with slow fireing 6in guns at that time? I'm putting DP autoloaders everywhere and during exercises all loses are to ASM anyway.
I'm on varied tech, so I don't know when I'll get advanced sonar, so I'll just have to carry on as if it'll be a long time from now. Autoloaders churn through your ammunition quickly, so you are in danger of running out of ammunition earlier in a battle. The 6in are only slightly slower. Actual rates of fire are much less than theoretical ones due to fire control and tactical issues of moving targets from a moving gun platform. One style of DD or CL is a mix of 6in, 5in and 4 or 3in guns. Secondary and Tertiary guns fire more quickly and together can put up a devastating volley of fire. The missiles currently only have a 5% hit rate and a very variable range of damage from devastating to negligible. And of course, only last for two rounds. After that, it defaults to a gunfest.
@@Krom5072 There is also matter of fleet ASW in strategic turn. I haven't played any war in missile age yet so I'm not sure how deadly late subs can be.
@antonisauren8998 I've just played a big war in late 1950, tell you what: the enemies (Germany+Russia) almost managed to starve me (USA) into submission, I was thankfully first with the blockade and all, but it's really frustrating when you've deleted enemy surface fleet and are now losing strategically because of mounting unrest. These old 1910s KEs with depth charges were really useless against subs even when placed manually on TP in areas where enemy subs operate. If anything that taught me to properly spam sufficient number of modern 'DEs' (1000t destroyers kitted out for ASW, as depicted in this video)
I don't worry about the dockyard being underused anymore. If they follow through, you lose like 500 tons of overall size and that amount multiplied into the total tonnage you can build. Which you can get back by building more. ;-p Had always heard rebuilds don't count at all, but yeah, clearly those numbers aren't adding up right now. I have ammo loadout at 100% SAP on all ships vs all targets to keep it very simple. My thinking was, at range they would penetrate decks and close in could penetrate most turrets. Seems to work, BUT, the comment by @b1laxson about HE for AA makes me wonder if I have been hosing my AA. (Pretty sure I had an after war report where most was downed by Fighters, but I had some by the ship-board stuff; will pay very close attention if I get into another shooting war what happens there.)
Good to know about the loss of shipbuilding capacity being minimal. And yes, rebuilds do count for something otherwise they'd not nearly be enough. I agree with @b1laxson about HE for AA. It probably also makes sense vs highly armoured targets. Though as you say, armour usage will be declining. I guess the principle is to use SAP except for niche uses.
@@RvTWargamesthe submarines count towards the shipyard building. The rebuilds don’t, but the subs do. Big ships are much more efficient on $/ton to keep shipyards busy.
You Might want to put SHIP DESIGN on High or Medium, theirs some good stuff in but admittedly not for like another 8 years or so. Alot of TECH categories seem to Stall out till 1950s - mid 1950s. Machinery Development is a little Behind on its tech so might want to bump that up, Fire Control has some Techs it can research since its 1948. Your Anti Air Artillery is actually AHEAD of time, at least according to this Tech document I read from. Good job on those guys. As for your Ammo Doctrine, GOD I WISH THE GAME TOLD YOU MORE INFO ON Calibers and Shell Types. Like HE and SAP are not even listed in the Pen Table, ONLY AP shells. Cus obviously if your HE shell is _big enough_ it will pen Thinner armor still.
I feel you may regret not giving your cruiser the 3" DP autoloading guns. It is my experience that aircraft are going to be a bigger problem for you than surface ships at this stage in history. (Disclaimer; your experience may differ.) Having said that I have a screenshot of a single jet attack aircraft attacking a formation of four battleships, a battlecruiser, four light cruisers and a dozen destroyers (total heavy AA factor of 306) all of which missed, and while the battleship HMS Irresistible winged it with a radar guided 40mm it survived. Having said that, its bombs also missed so maybe all that flak did some good. Just wondering with the 1100 ton destroyers if it would be worthwhile replacing the machinery to get them under weight, as escorts they don't need to be that fast? Does lead to the question of whether they then become uneconomical to rebuild but might ne worth considering. I wonder if MTBs are worth considering once more once they become light missile boats? That, however, is quite some way in the future. Oh, and just one other consideration, are you better off building a super-battleship that is going to be a missile magnet, or build a pair of carriers? I feel the latter is the way to go, which is a shame because i SO wanted to build a massive battlecruiser to replace my four 33 knot, 52,000 ton ships armed with six 20" guns. At the end of the day I went with ten 62,400 ton carriers and they haven't let me down yet. Having said that, I haven't had to face off against the USA's 30 carriers...
16:00 I am more surprised you aren't transferring those few squadrons on that are on the Reserved bases back to an active base. The Micro-management with so many small tiny squadrons is admittedly horrible, but if single engined not the biggest cost and a good core to rebuild wartime squadrons from. Now they are still costing 50% with hardly any benefits.
One thing I have noticed about your designs is a lack of torpedo reloads. It's not the end of the world but is something I would very much expect to see on ships of this era. A second thing I will bring up is that 69k tons is the maximum displacement of carriers right now but that number will increase dramatically with technology. For reference you are moving out of the era of the Essexs and into the era of the Forrestals and Kitty Hawks.
So I've been playing as Italy since 1890 and it's 1940. I have 5 CVs, 4 fairly modern BBs, about 8 cruisers, 15 destroyers. The problem is, the game isn't fun to play anymore because all the other nations have beaten each other (and I've helped too) to the point where the strongest fleet is France with 2 CVLs and like 5 cruisers, plus some DDs. All the other nations have even less. UK has 2 CVLs and maybe 4 cruisers, etc. There isn't a challenge anymore, because it seems like NPC nations take a budget hit after wars and they can't afford to keep up fleets now.
Dock size 69000 already way more than needed. Only super carriers should be built close to that and they are workable slightly smaller anyway. Yamato sized BBs and up aren't practical unless experimenting an alt tech world with less planes and missiles.
Amazingly the Soviets had basic CIWS in early 1950’s with the AK-230, It had like a 42% chance at taking down an incoming missile.
18:18 damage control was put on when you hit apply. You wanted it off.
Whoops. Thanks, I sort that. Thanks for watching so carefully.
30:45 I wouldn't enjoy going gun to gun against a 73k BB from the US, also very surprised to see China building a 63k BB. Cool play through so far. Welcome back by the way - looking forward to the next ;)
I would like to see the intel on that ship, sometimes the raw tonnage doesn't tell the whole story.
@@FoxxofNod Concur - could be wildly misconfigured.
Let's hope for that Chimera: the Carrier BB with half a flight deck at the rear.
Great to have you back.
Re the dock build issue. Could you pause ships or add one at a time to see if the figure changes and then see how it is calculated ?
Intriguing
I might take a copy of the game and experiment to see if I can work out what is happening here.
I have finally caught up on this series the other day, just in time for this new video lol
You're lucky I've been on holiday for a couple of weeks or they'd be more.
Congratulations on catching up, it's quite a lot to get through!
@@RvTWargames It was a lot to watch! It's taken a few weeks :D
If there is suddenly a void in your life, there is the France starting in 1920 playthrough to enjoy 😅
@@RvTWargames How did I not know this? Guess I know how Im spending my Sunday afternoon!
@@RvTWargames Oh geeze lol.. more to watch! :D
I really like you choices for compromises with the two new designs. I especially like the DD-100. On small thing, one of the Greif-classes was named Z-105 which will interfere with Z-100 class naming.
Yes, I noticed that. There are only a very few German DD names (all those in WW2 were rather Nazi, so the designer was understandably not keen on using those). I'll get it changed.
All the beer drinking and fighting in the closed defense meetings on the floor of the Reichstag! In reference to getting us involved in the decision-making process; Grand Strategy-wise. Amusing!
If it's a triumph, we can share in the glory. If it's a disaster, I was only following the will of the people!
On ammo load out. I've only changed things a little. One consideration is to change the 4-6 inch guns to more or all he. Only he ammo is used in the haa role. Their ap levels are low anyway but some cold war ships start giving up thick armor. Overall planes the greater threat so more he I that range probably better.
Thanks, that makes sense.
Your dismissal of the 1000t DD rebuild was based on the negative tonnage, but it still had coal fired engines! Would a re-engine to diesels have been worthwhile?
Your A/C kills by AA was low because not many got through your CAP. Like you mentioned, more detailed analysis would be required to see exactly what % of A/C that got past the CAP were downed by AA.
I love your analysis and planning, something I just do seat of the pants and usually struggle...
I'm few years ahead and just researched improved sonar. It can't be retrofited into older hulls and research popup said that ships without it won;t be able to detect shit after '55, making my first two missile destroyers already obsolete.
Is there a point of building ships with slow fireing 6in guns at that time? I'm putting DP autoloaders everywhere and during exercises all loses are to ASM anyway.
I'm on varied tech, so I don't know when I'll get advanced sonar, so I'll just have to carry on as if it'll be a long time from now.
Autoloaders churn through your ammunition quickly, so you are in danger of running out of ammunition earlier in a battle.
The 6in are only slightly slower. Actual rates of fire are much less than theoretical ones due to fire control and tactical issues of moving targets from a moving gun platform. One style of DD or CL is a mix of 6in, 5in and 4 or 3in guns. Secondary and Tertiary guns fire more quickly and together can put up a devastating volley of fire.
The missiles currently only have a 5% hit rate and a very variable range of damage from devastating to negligible. And of course, only last for two rounds. After that, it defaults to a gunfest.
Sonar refers to anti sub warfare, right? Your older missile DDs are still great as cannon fodder in fleet battles, even if subpar in trade protection
@@Krom5072 There is also matter of fleet ASW in strategic turn. I haven't played any war in missile age yet so I'm not sure how deadly late subs can be.
@antonisauren8998 I've just played a big war in late 1950, tell you what: the enemies (Germany+Russia) almost managed to starve me (USA) into submission, I was thankfully first with the blockade and all, but it's really frustrating when you've deleted enemy surface fleet and are now losing strategically because of mounting unrest. These old 1910s KEs with depth charges were really useless against subs even when placed manually on TP in areas where enemy subs operate. If anything that taught me to properly spam sufficient number of modern 'DEs' (1000t destroyers kitted out for ASW, as depicted in this video)
I don't worry about the dockyard being underused anymore. If they follow through, you lose like 500 tons of overall size and that amount multiplied into the total tonnage you can build. Which you can get back by building more. ;-p
Had always heard rebuilds don't count at all, but yeah, clearly those numbers aren't adding up right now.
I have ammo loadout at 100% SAP on all ships vs all targets to keep it very simple. My thinking was, at range they would penetrate decks and close in could penetrate most turrets. Seems to work, BUT, the comment by @b1laxson about HE for AA makes me wonder if I have been hosing my AA. (Pretty sure I had an after war report where most was downed by Fighters, but I had some by the ship-board stuff; will pay very close attention if I get into another shooting war what happens there.)
Good to know about the loss of shipbuilding capacity being minimal. And yes, rebuilds do count for something otherwise they'd not nearly be enough.
I agree with @b1laxson about HE for AA. It probably also makes sense vs highly armoured targets. Though as you say, armour usage will be declining. I guess the principle is to use SAP except for niche uses.
@@RvTWargamesthe submarines count towards the shipyard building. The rebuilds don’t, but the subs do.
Big ships are much more efficient on $/ton to keep shipyards busy.
You Might want to put SHIP DESIGN on High or Medium, theirs some good stuff in but admittedly not for like another 8 years or so. Alot of TECH categories seem to Stall out till 1950s - mid 1950s. Machinery Development is a little Behind on its tech so might want to bump that up, Fire Control has some Techs it can research since its 1948. Your Anti Air Artillery is actually AHEAD of time, at least according to this Tech document I read from. Good job on those guys.
As for your Ammo Doctrine, GOD I WISH THE GAME TOLD YOU MORE INFO ON Calibers and Shell Types. Like HE and SAP are not even listed in the Pen Table, ONLY AP shells. Cus obviously if your HE shell is _big enough_ it will pen Thinner armor still.
To me the thing that makes RTW stand out is balancing newbuild, refit, reserve, mothballing etc.
It really makes you have to think like a naval staff.
I feel you may regret not giving your cruiser the 3" DP autoloading guns. It is my experience that aircraft are going to be a bigger problem for you than surface ships at this stage in history. (Disclaimer; your experience may differ.) Having said that I have a screenshot of a single jet attack aircraft attacking a formation of four battleships, a battlecruiser, four light cruisers and a dozen destroyers (total heavy AA factor of 306) all of which missed, and while the battleship HMS Irresistible winged it with a radar guided 40mm it survived. Having said that, its bombs also missed so maybe all that flak did some good.
Just wondering with the 1100 ton destroyers if it would be worthwhile replacing the machinery to get them under weight, as escorts they don't need to be that fast? Does lead to the question of whether they then become uneconomical to rebuild but might ne worth considering. I wonder if MTBs are worth considering once more once they become light missile boats? That, however, is quite some way in the future. Oh, and just one other consideration, are you better off building a super-battleship that is going to be a missile magnet, or build a pair of carriers? I feel the latter is the way to go, which is a shame because i SO wanted to build a massive battlecruiser to replace my four 33 knot, 52,000 ton ships armed with six 20" guns. At the end of the day I went with ten 62,400 ton carriers and they haven't let me down yet. Having said that, I haven't had to face off against the USA's 30 carriers...
"old" minesweepers do lose some score for obsolete equipment. Message shows up at start of tactical battles. A 3 month refit should reset them.
Good to know.
16:00 I am more surprised you aren't transferring those few squadrons on that are on the Reserved bases back to an active base.
The Micro-management with so many small tiny squadrons is admittedly horrible, but if single engined not the biggest cost and a good core to rebuild wartime squadrons from. Now they are still costing 50% with hardly any benefits.
Why are they costing 50% when reduced by a half or more and put into reserve from Active?
One thing I have noticed about your designs is a lack of torpedo reloads. It's not the end of the world but is something I would very much expect to see on ships of this era. A second thing I will bring up is that 69k tons is the maximum displacement of carriers right now but that number will increase dramatically with technology. For reference you are moving out of the era of the Essexs and into the era of the Forrestals and Kitty Hawks.
Does it? I thought that 69k is a 'hard' cap on CVs, and 90k for BXs. I don't recall being able to design 69k+ CVs even in like 1980s after techs end.
So I've been playing as Italy since 1890 and it's 1940. I have 5 CVs, 4 fairly modern BBs, about 8 cruisers, 15 destroyers. The problem is, the game isn't fun to play anymore because all the other nations have beaten each other (and I've helped too) to the point where the strongest fleet is France with 2 CVLs and like 5 cruisers, plus some DDs. All the other nations have even less. UK has 2 CVLs and maybe 4 cruisers, etc.
There isn't a challenge anymore, because it seems like NPC nations take a budget hit after wars and they can't afford to keep up fleets now.
Did you re-tick Damage Control training back on by accident?
Yes 😁
Dock size 69000 already way more than needed. Only super carriers should be built close to that and they are workable slightly smaller anyway. Yamato sized BBs and up aren't practical unless experimenting an alt tech world with less planes and missiles.