Prior threads: https://desuarchive.org/k/search/subject/Rule%20the%20Waves/>what the fuck is thisRule the Waves (RtW) is a naval management/strategy game where you take on the task of designing botes, managing the fleet and conducting them in battle. All well and good, but true to life things will never go according to plan. You'd love to lay down a new class of battleship, but your engineers swear up and down they've almost figured out new armor forging process that'll make them so much better if you just wait a few more weeks. They've said that for the last six months. You give the go-ahead on a Naval Intelligence plot to blow up a French warship in port, only to open the newspaper the next morning to find France signed a military alliance with Great Britain. In the war that follows, your destroyer line misunderstands the signal flags for “Screen our ships from torpedo attacks” as “Suicidally charge the enemy fleet”. Under blockade, your ungrateful people keep demanding things like food, don't they know there's a war going on? After four years of war, you're rewarded with no reparations, a half-destroyed, badly aging fleet and a peacetime budget cut.>alright but what are we going to be doingSo far, /k/ has been guiding the progress of the Italian Navy through the late 1800s and into the 1930's, leading us forward on a quest that hopefully ends in Total Anglo/Hungarian/Frenchman/Russian Death, Italian supremacy in the Med and eternal glory for the restoration of Rome. I'll be presenting you with designs made to your specifications, choices the game throws at us regarding politics and commentary of battles. A list of suggested names for ships and aircraft is being built, so feel free to throw out your suggestions as well. Finally, keep those (You)s flowing in to keep my dopamine levels high.
Firstly, our recent history.Eight years ago, Italy achieved a goal it had held since the 1890's: dominance of the Mediterranean. The Austrian, then the Frenchmen, then the British were ousted and Italy stands as the dominant power. During that war, we found an unlikely ally in Spain, as they came forth to support us in our fight against the Anglo. While the Spanish Armada was nearly destroyed to a ship, their contribution will not be forgotten. In the eight years that have passed the British-French alliance was renewed and both their crippled navies work to rebuild their strength, while smaller nations such as Spain and Austria elect to focus primarily on cruiser warfare.Far to the North, the communist nation of Russia expands throughout Scandinavia, emboldened by a victory over Japan in the Far East. With Iceland and Norway under their control, the Russian greatly enhances their ability to project force into European waters. And now, Russia has turned their attention to the Spanish. What exactly the Russians hope to gain from the Spaniards is unclear as their territorial interests have little overlap, but in all likelihood it will be economic reparations. As the rest of Europe stood by idly, Italy harshly protested this aggression upon our Iberian brothers, who stood by us when no one else would. While war has not been declared, tensions are at an incredibly heightened state. Our fleet stands ready to sail to Spanish ports is support, while in the Far East our Pacific Squadron patrols the waters outside Vladivostok.But for now we have the matter of our budget to deal with. The hawk party has succeed in passing military spending bill after bill, our funding ballooning to a frankly gargantuan size. Even while upgrading our dockyard size and expanding military basing all across the Italian Empire we sit on a practical mountain of cash. As a result, I've put together a few possible designs that we could pursue.
Before getting to those, please enjoy the assembled fleet review.
In our previous thread we ran a fleet exercise, testing the capabilities of our two carriers against a battle line of our most modern battleships, accompanied by a small escort of destroyers and cruisers. The results were somewhat mixed – while none of our battleships were outright sunk by the twenty or so torpedo bombers that made attacks on us, two received heavy damage. Anti-aircraft fire was light and a need to enhance our defensive capabilities was evident.Here is our first possible solution, the flak destroyer. Possessing a good rate of speed, the primary feature of this design is a total of eight 4” dual purpose guns. These guns are quite light for this tonnage, and so this design also incorporates extensive subdivision to give it a remarkable resistance against flooding and possible torpedo hits.
Our next design takes the former and scales it up, while also adding unique functions. Packing an impressive thirteen 4” dual purpose guns, the more stable gun platform of this design permits a comparatively greater effectiveness in bringing anti-aircraft firepower to bear. However, this is not the only feature of this design, as an extensive amount of internal space is dedicated to hosting several seaplanes. As fleet escorts, these ships would be able to not only engage interloping aircraft but send out a substantial scouting wing, or act jointly as strike carriers in a pinch. The price to pay for these capabilites is a lack of subdivision, meaning they are somewhat vulnerable to flooding.
Although perhaps some in the Admiralty feel that defending the battle line with other ships is a waste, and the battle line should just protect itself instead. For those I offer a next-generation capital ship design, complete with a full twenty-four 4” dual purpose guns and a further sixty-four light autocannons for self-defense. The armor and torpedo defense systems are more comprehensive than on any ship to date, and while it may carry one less gun than the Negroni-classes, nine 16” guns are nothing to discount.Alternatively, for those who have a need for speed most wanted, an alternative battlecruiser variant is offered. Exchanging a few inches of armor for several knots of speed, it is nearly identical in every other regard.With that, let us begin. What're we doing?
>>62535656>>62535662I vote for design 2.If I remember correctly we already have a bunch of new capital ships in the wings, so I don't think it'd be good to further invest in that before more tech gets researched.
>>62535671At the moment roughly half of our capital ships are very modern, although we have no ships under active construction.
>>62535703How's our destroyer fleet looking?That was probably the part that suffered the most in the last war.
>>62535769I would divide our destroyers into four categories>9 old, sub 1000t destroyers mostly suited for light duty>17 older but still capable models>16 destroyers with massive torpedo batteries>12 modern, general purpose destroyers
>>62535818Yeah, I'd replace the Fusili class with the new model, not much point in making new capitals if all the old ones just get sunk by air anyway.
I don't know the different sizes of ships, but how about some new designs to act as a "quick reaction" force?medium size, high speed. a few with aircraft, but most with conventional guns and torpedosno matter where there is trouble in the world, we can dispatch them to get in the fight quicklythis assumes that there is meaningful room to grow with the speed of our ships however, if we can really only go 5% faster than we currently do, maybe don't bother
>>62535818Fuck, I accidently used the wrong ship for the first torpedo destroyer. Correct one here
>>62535662Id say the CL is the good choice, but keep that BB design in reserve, might be a good boat for down the road.
>>62535656I like this. >>62535662>Although perhaps some in the Admiralty feel that defending the battle line with other ships is a waste, and the battle line should just protect itself instead. This is also true. If we go with one of these two, I think it's a no brainer to go with the BB. A paltry 9 guns is a disappointing amount of BIG BOOM but at least they're 16 inchers, and all that armor will make it practically unsinkable.
>>62535840Right now the Gnocchi and Bruschettas make up something similar to that. Both are reasonably quick, but once you hit the low-mid 30s additional speed becomes prohibitively expensive in terms of tonnage. A point of comparison - to get most capital ships of the interwar period to the mid-20kts usually required about 50,000 horsepower. To get to the mid 30-kts took the Iowas 200,000.
how big can the guns getcan we get like, I don't know, 30" gunseven only having one would be cool
>>6253597320 inch maximum, and just like in real life there's really no reason to go above 16 inches.
I would vote for the flak destroyers, given that they also have some ASW capability and therefore can overlap on some duties with the modern GP destroyers.I would say we should save the AA CL concept until we have dual DP mounts, and rather than compromise the design with the inclusion of sea planes, we just continue to focus on building dedicated CVs. At this point a fighter screen might do us more good than AA guns.The BB design is excellent and if funds allow after addressing the air defense problem, I submit that we should build a squadron of them to replace the oldest group of non-fast capitals in our arsenal.Tl;dr DDs, CVs, and BBs
Seems like we have mixed opinions, but I'll wait a bit before a final decision>>62535973Please see pic related for what is the largest guns on a reasonable package
>>62536003Per your request, a carrier (albeit a light one). This design carries 32 aircraft and would also incorporate a 2" thick layer of flight deck armor to protect itself from enemy aircraft bombing
Hybrid flak/floatplane carrier!
>>62536016
>>62536084Given the numbers we might require such carriers in to cover our various forces, a relatively small, cheap CVL focused on air control might be the move.
>>62536016This and spend on tech research until we can send a full 20" nuclear broadside
>>62535662I vote option 2. The light cruiser forces are looking pretty dated and in need of a new lease on life.
A final proposal before we choose - a radical conversion of our older battleships. With a engine replacement to increase speed to 25kts and a removal of their main guns, each of these design could carry, give or take a few:>Mangione Nuovas: 52 planes>Grande Frocio: 64 planes>Anglo Dispositivo Di Rimozione: 82 planes>
>>62536210I really like the Battlestar Italia concept, but is 25 kts going to be sufficient to keep them in contact with the main fleet (and therefore under human command) and out of harms way?
>>62536245Well, look at it this way: we can either have our carriers be a couple knots slower, or have a 5kt difference in our battleships. Carriers also will be operating in separate divisions than the main fleet so we don't need to maintain contact
>>62536265Excellent points. I say go for the carrier conversions, replace the aging battleships with the new 16" BB design listed above, and round out the force with flak DDs. We'll turn the Bay of Biscay into one big fucking almighty furball when the Soviets make their move.
i finally got to the jet and missile age in my own game andholy shit
>>62536210Yes to converting Mangione Nuova, Zi Maria and Grande Frocio.No to converting Anglo Dispositivo di Rimizione and Cousin Tony. Notwithstanding the silliness of carving up two of our best battleships not even a decade after their launch, I will brook no reduction whatsoever in BIG BOOM.
>>62535662I vote the battlecruiser + DD, we need some fast convoy hunters and good AA is just a cherry on top.
>>62536323I would agree. Below 16in is acceptable for carrier conversions, but we should keep our big guns until they become totally obsolete.
OP working on sorting out the details, give a moment.
>>62536461Hope your week has been good OP!
Our design studies are sent off and our older 14" BBs are sent in for retrofit. They actually turned out slightly more efficient in terms of aircraft storage than expected! The BC is held off for now just due to higher than expected costs of replacing the BBs engines.>>62536688Oh thank you Anon.
>>62536725Thus is born the Guido Butai.
>>62536725Grande Frocio is a beaut
Our first medium bombers enters service, bringing new long-range air support options to our military
>>62536773>mama mia the boat isa ona fire>relax Luigi, it’sa justa the pizza oven
As an aside, if after this thread people would like to take a break from RtW, OP has begun messing around with Beneath the Med, a tabletop somewhat similar to B-17: QotS but taking on the role of an Italian submarine.
>>62536805Saw that there are some ones for other nations. Is this just to keep the pasta theme or is it mechanically different than the others?
>>62536797kek
Well, took one turn and things kicked off. Onwards to glory once again, and to protect the honor of our Iberian brothers!>>62536901No idea desu
Immediately upon the war declaration, our forces in Asia are able to swiftly secure a landing site upon the Korean peninsula, troops embarking from our built up military bases in the area. With the Russian forces mostly in Europe its doubtful any great counterattack will occur
>>62536725>11" belt>3" decksHoly shit these are monsters for CVs. I get their lineage but damn, it's going to take either direct BB fire or torps to send one of these down.
Spain proposes the "Save our Asses Treaty of Mutual Cooperation". I trust we sign?>>62536963Such it is with battleship conversions, but the real danger to carriers isn't sinking, it's fire.
>>62536958Excellent! Let's kick these commie bastards right in the teeth. And if we end up owning Korea I vote for just giving it back to Japan, either in a sale, for good tech, or to secure an alliance. Their natural interests lie in that area and frankly there's no reason to get them and potentially the US swinging at us.
>>62537005Si, our Iberian brethren have shed blood by our side when the perfidious krauts refused to honor the alliance.
>>62535639Just noticed>We have a relation of 4 with ourselvesWut
>>62537005Si
Besides Rule The Waves, Ultimate Admiral, and Aurora 4x are there any other games where designing and upkeeping navies with a decent amount of depth are the focus?
The war is as of yet rather uneventful, as our attack on Korea continues. The light cruiser Custodes took a torpedo hit but thankfully survived during a minor night skirmish.Our construction is proceeding as pictured.>>62537015I believe that's internal tension
Uhh, OP is very confused. Somehow Russia seems to have generated over 20,000 victory points, the kind of score you'd expect if they defeated us in a major fleet action. I frankly have no idea how this happened whatsoever and have never seen this occur.Well, I suppose there's nothing to be done about it but make up the difference with our first action involving one of our carriers!
>>62537274>Russia seems to have generated over 20,000 victory pointsCould land actions have anything to do with it?
>>62537274Probably due to the alliance with Spain.
The action was entirely a night battle, so our carrier played no role. OP also suffered temporary retardation and forgot screenshots, but the primary thing that happened was one of our DDs, on its own volition, dashing in and blowing a Russian cruiser out of the water.>>62537320>>62537323Maybe, I've personally never seen such a massive swing and Spain has only lost a single cruiser and some DDs when last war they were getting BBs butchered left and right, without this happening.
>>62537374I mean, Spain ain't exactly capable at this point of even facing off Austria, let alone Russia with it's BBs still floating. So quite likely it's from the not enough ships left to properly contest the war and getting blockaded before we joined in.
>>62537005>Fuelled plane explodes! Conflagration starts!
>>62537374I've seen it in my own games. Fucking bongs instantly had 30k points over me and refused to engage my fleet in battle.
>>62537403>Spain ain't exactly capable at this point of even facing off Austria, let alone Russia with it's BBsOh, aren't they?
>>62537425Kek, fair enough.
>>62537374>they call *that* a heavy cruiser
>large engagement>early morning>good weather>just off shore from Port Arthur airbase>carrier presentI'm banking on this proving the worth of the airplane
>>62537498>I'm banking on this proving the worth of the airplaneThey better do it quick before our battleships get into range.
It seems >>62537514 is right, the Russian force appears and its...well, it might have been impressive 20 years ago. About forty miles to the North, torpedo bombers wait to launch off the Porco Rosso, but will they be able to play a role or arrive just in time to watch the Russian ship founder?
>>62537025Distant Worlds Universe
As our capital ships close in and our carrier aircraft launch, an airship based out of our Chinese colony passes overhead. Very kino.
>>62537625Love seeing those guys pass by
As our battleships close in, half of our torpedo bombers fail to find the Russians, and the other half miss their torpedo drops. Evidently scoring hits is easier in exercises for our aviators. More remarkably, the medium bombers from Port Arthur claim to have hit an enemy cruiser with level bombing.But regardless of that, it is Negroni and Duce Biggalo that lay the Russian battleship low, swiftly followed by the cruiser.
An examination of the details reveals something very interesting: the cruiser was not hit by the bombers, but suffered a very near miss that caused a major hull rupture, slowing it enough for us to catch
>>62537707>>62537721*1812 Overture plays in the background*
OP probably going to call it for tonight. If anyone has any suggestions for future sessions such as B17:QotS I'd be happy to hear them. Otherwise we can try Beneath the Med in a future thread or continue RtW if people are still enthusiastic about it.
Can I make up my own nation in this, or do I have to play as England/France/Italy etc?
>>62537707I'm not convinced on this whole "airplane" thing. Better build more battleships.
>>62537899Yes
>>62537964Time for the Eastern Roman Empire begin expanding from its capital in Osaka.
dear OP, when will we be able to get twin gun DP mounts? retrofitting those on DD's is sure to save some weight, right?i read that 5'' dual DP's are the most efficient at doing both surface and AA warfare, but whats your opinion on DP 6''?>ideanext rtw playthrough with a custom nation. do custom MAPS exist though? this seems like one of those games where custom maps would pay dividends for game longevity
>>62538564Not OP, but hopefully we get DP dual mounts soon. That would help us get a new class of AA CL in the water, along with better destroyers. For the moment we're pretty cutting edge though. The Regia Marina can probably dominate any navy on the planet besides the US, and even then only because they have insane numbers.
>>62536003>air defense problemChannel your inner proto-USN: Any spare space on deck = A gun.
>>62537625How much can we "modernize" the zeppelins, by the way? I'm curious if we can change history and make them more useful than they ended up being.
>>62538782Guided missile zeppelins?
BATTLECARRIERS.DO NOT ASK WHY.ASK - WHY NOT?mwx84
>>62535644>only 2 carriers and one of them is some double decker monstrosity>torpedo destroyers>light cruiser divisions instead of making them destroyer squadron leaders>no oilers or supply ships>no gelato shipoh shit niggers what have you been doing?
>>62538890>only 2 carriers and one of them is some double decker monstrosityCarriers only got unlocked last thread and we only got our first domestic bomber this thread>torpedo destroyersUnironically the most effective design we've had so far.>light cruiser divisions instead of making them destroyer squadron leadersIt's conquered us the med.>no oilers or supply shipsNot a thing in this game>no gelato shipSmall indie empire, please understand>oh shit niggers what have you been doing?Rome shit.
>>62538890>>62538907>double-decker carrierwait what
>>62537804If GM OP wants to take a break form RtW then sure, go for it. That submarine game looks interesting. Maybe something like Armoured Commander II would be suitable for these game sessions too?As for our current playthrough, I really hope that we discover dual DP mounts soon. I agree with other anons that we need a CLAA for defence of our battleline. Something akin to the Atlanta/Juneau class (can we even make double superimposed turrets?), a scourge for enemy aircraft, DDs and maybe even submarines. We should also refit out BBs with more AA.I also have a question. What are the purpose of medium AA guns and AA directors, and why OP seems to never put them on our ships?
>>62538956They did that with carrier conversions before they had the whole "carrier' thing figured out properly.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Akagi
>>62538956well how else do you expect to be able to launch and recover at the same time
>>62538962it's not that OP doesn't want to add medium AA, it's that OP CAN'T.usually as soon as you unlock medium AA, you just stack those with secondary/tertiary DP.heavy/DP mounts and medium AA fire BEFORE ordnance release, with more effective fire solutions with increasing number of directors up to a maximum of 4.as soon as you get medium AA, you completely stop putting light AA on your ships.
>>62539143I don't know how the game works but the 5" gun the fletchers had was good even though it was only a single mount.
>>62539191One of the major reasons it was good was its rate of fire (single piece ammo) with balanced characteristics and that's represented in the game. Someone mentioned already - 5'' DP are a sweetspot for RoF, damage and range. Haven't really used 6'' DP so I can't comment on effectiveness. What isn't represented however, is how barrel length impacts same-caliber performance (gun quality maybe?). That's largely why 5''/54cal superseded the /38's. Heavier ammo, more velocity, longer range that's creeping into 6'' territory for lower weight.
>>62538782Right now they regularly deploy with parasite fighters, giving us small sky carriers throughout the Mediterranean. And if you don't think that shit is tight you might be a homosexual.
>>62537804Submarines have radios, right? I reckon we can survive then.
>>62537804Warfighter. Tabetop private military contractor simulator.
>>62537804I personally am loving RtW. If you're getting tired of it I'm fine with anything else, it's always fun to do these kind if threads.
>>62536805Boy I can't wait to lose sub after sub after sub to the RAF. It will make the B-17 threads look like a nice walk in the park.
>>62537804I was gonna say Private Military Manager, but I'm not sure how much input anons would have since it is basically>pick training>decide if you want to follow suggestions from your operatives>click options for the assaultIt was fun, demo wise anyway, but a lot of rng on shit for sale in game.
Bump
>>62535632Just wanted to say, OP, these are pretty great threads. I mostly come to /k/ regularly to get the war updates, but these threads break things up really nicely and they're wholly on topic. If you do go off to play other games, I hope you come back around to play RTW3 again.
>>62536016>20" guns>4" deckideal battleship
>>62539262Recently started playing RTW3 thanks to these threads, and holy crap I had no idea that this was a thing. This gives me a good reason to continue the Lighter Than Air research. The Zeppelins have a really good range and scout well, so keeping the Zeppelin Airbases in operation seems like a no-brainer, but Zeppelin Carriers is just immense amounts of fucking cool.
>>62538564Like >>62538631 said, hopefully soon. We chose randomized tech so expect to see all kinds of weird things.>>62538782To the best of my knowledge, they've probably reached their zenith. Zeppelins are a strange beast in RtW, sometimes like this game they do very little but some scouting, in other games I've had them sink carriers.>>62538890:^)>>62538962At some point in aircraft development, planes are moving fast enough and dropping bombs/missiles far enough away that LAA only gets to fire AFTER the plane drops. MAA reaches out further but is somewhat less efficient per mount.>AA directorPic related:>The "output" of the device drove hydraulic servo-motors attached to the traversal and elevation gears of the otherwise unmodified Bofors gun, allowing it to follow the predictor's indications automatically without manual intervention. The gunners simply kept the gun loaded, while the three aimers simply had to point the Predictor, mounted on a large tripod, at the target.>>62539143We actually do have a couple ships with MAA, specifically Rodini and the weird floatplane cruisers that are building. But that's because those went to the US for rebuilds/original construction.>>62539218Short answer, it's not good. But we'll examine that once it unlocks.
Update on our construction programs, they're eating budget up like mad but we should be fine once the CV conversions finish.
As well as a look at our current aircraft inventory (why didn't I just include this in the last image?). Moving forward, would you all prefer me to just request a replacement for the oldest aircraft in our fleet each time going forward, or would the Admiralty like to be personally involved?
>>62541118Of course we'd like to be involved! That said, which if any of those traits would help our torpedo bombers actually hit their targets?
>>62541118Honestly I think we might be better off replacing our fighter before our naval patrol, but it's your call.
>>62541118Aircraft replacement is a large part of the fun in the Carrier Age, OP! that said, I agree with >>62541173 this Anon. We should keep the Fighter and Torpedo Bomber as modern as possible since those are our carrier-enabled planes.
>>62541169I believe speed and maneuverability impact accuracy
>>62541118Is carrier based Dive and Level Bombing a technology we haven't researched or is it simply a feature of the torpedo bomber?
>>62541220Not OP, but I know there are separate Dive Bombers that are carrier-enabled. Medium Bombers are the first level bombing vehicles, but they're land-based only.
>>62541118Hang on, no torp floatplanes? We'll never have anything as aesthetic as a Do.22?
As Russia operates no carriers, I've elected to request a new torpedo bomber over the fighters. I've also sent the CVL Mulignana off for a minor refit to rip off the upper belt armor and replace it with improved crew accommodations, because I realized she has cramped quarters that prevent her from operating outside the Med.On the Eastern front, we're harassing a Russian convoy trying to support their forces in Northern Korea.>>62541220Our torpedo bombers can level and glide bomb. Dive bombing is a separate tech, and curiously there's exactly one model of dive bomber in service on the world stage: the Austrian Berg 45
>>62541321If we buckbreak the Sôyviets, maybe they'll have a Monarchist revolution.
>>62537804I like RtW more than board games, but if OP wants a break then that's fine.
>>62541313Man, interwar seaplanes. Oh, to be a colonial service pilot with a comfy floatplane or flyingboat, cruising slowly, dropping bombs on some tribal rebels, then going in to let the gunners have fun.
The engagement, taking place at dawn, gets off to a rough start. Ancona's engines shit the bed, dropping her to half speed, and a wing of Russia destroyers close in, punching a pair of holes through her thin 1" plating into the engine room. Through some careful (read: frantic) maneuvering we avoid any torpedo hits, but the Ancona is out of the fight.
While Ancona is fighting for her life, the rest of our squadron sets upon the convoy. With the superior firepower of a cruiser against small destroyers, the Russian stand little chance so long as we keep our distance, picking their merchants off one by one, as well as the occasional DD that gets too cocky.
>>62541501Send in the bombers!
In fact, the Russians are so helpless to do much to stop us that our greatest enemy is our ammo lockers.
>>62541547Geeze. How many freighters have we raped?
We turn to retire, and as we head home we can see in the distance our land-based aviators on their way to try and play their hand.
>>62541547EXECUTE ALL COMMUNIST AMMO LOCKERS
Sadly the flyboys manage no hits, so that would seem to be the end of th->ACK
>>62541578how many months to repair?
>99.6% floodingHoly fuckAround half the merchants escaped due to lack of ammo, but it's their escorts that took the brunt of the casualties.
OP will need to head out for a bit, but we've sadly lost another sailor to gommie subs.And it looks like the Austrians are going to get involved.
>>62541587Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh see >>62541618I don't think she's going to see the end of the war unless literal divine intervention occurs. Sneaky fucking soviets, can we dispatch some forces from the Med to blockade their Scandinavian/Icelandic holdings?
Ha ha belay that time to turn the Adriatic into a fucking graveyard for Austria and finally reclaim Trieste.
>>62541672>I don't think she's going to see the end of the war unless literal divine intervention occurs.She limped into port with decks awash, would have sunk if she took 30 minutes longer
>>62541769Promote her to a submarine
>>62541769Well look at that, divine intervention. Truly Neptune smiles upon us.
>>62536725Why are our officers shit?
>>62541994>shitalyThere's your answer. It's only by divine intervention that we now own the Med.
>>62537136Research and training need to improve.
>>62541169>Of course we'd like to be involved! That said, which if any of those traits would help our torpedo bombers actually hit their targets?Reliability would be a good indirect trait since it would increase the amounts of bombers in the air
The war continues, North Korea still hasn't fallen. As they say, today is alot like yesterday and tomorrow will probably be alot like today. Another Russian convoy gets fucked up, albeit at the loss of one of our torpedo destroyers. Spain bleeds more ships while doing their best to help.As far as this tech, please note it's worded badly - this only applies to floatplane catapults, not carrier deck catapults.
>>62542939as long as the Spanish keep the commies off our back they are doing God's work
Our battleship to carrier conversions come online, you can see them with their air groups attached. I did swap out the incompetent commander with a more skilled aviator. It may take a couple months to bring the pilots up to speed on carrier ops, though
The first of our flak/floatplane cruisers comes into service, alongside the locally produced new general purpose destroyers. How exactly the ship with no centralized fire control gave us insight to US systems remains a mystery
>>62543073Never doubt the Psicorp, OP.
As far as choices to make, we evidently have a commander that's a bit of a dick. He's sure to have the Disciplinarian trait, but no idea what his general skill level is. Keep or boot?
Can I just say OP, thanks for these great threads. I have literally below 0 knowledge about this kind of thing but it's very fun following along, and your style is very enjoyable (the same with the B17 ones as well).
>>62543093rum, russian sexual morals and the lash made the RN what it iswho are we to disagree with the lash?
>>62543117this
>>62543073>actually built my flak/floatplane shitpostI love you OP, even if they turn out to be shit
>>62543093Tell him to ease up but take no further actions.
>>62543093Ease up.
>>62541671ah, the pepeloni...
Ah, an actual competition in aircraft design!The Marchetti is the fastest, the Breda has the longest legs and the Piaggio has the durability of a fucking brick. Which do we like the most?Also, I've forgotten to ask, if anyone would like to name a new DD/aircraft/squadron by all means say so.
>>62543209Breda. The Savoia Marchetti is a bit too fragile for my liking and the Piaggio gives up too much speed and range for being a brick.
>>62543209i feel like the Piaggio is the best choice for us, since it's kinda near the other two in all aspects but it's practically double in reliability
>>62543073>How exactly the ship with no centralized fire control gave us insight to US systems remains a mysteryThe inspectors overheard the workers laughing at us and our lack of OSHA compliance.
>>62542997Is Grande Frocio based off an actual design? That profile seems unfamiliar.
>>62543209Piaggio, no contest. Torpedo bombers need to get fairly close to their targets; the ability to weather AA fire will be important.
>>62543209Piaggo hands down.
>>62543295Maybe Bearn?
>>62543209Piaggio. Less dead pilots = better.
>>62543353>*incoherant Japanese screeching*
>>62542939Refitting our Cruisers and BBs with catapults should be a post war priority.
>>62543209Piaggio looks nice
>>62543209Nice! I vote for the Piaggio, these are all carrier launched and so far I don't think bombers being out of range has been a huge issue. How is the ordinance tech coming along? All shells, bombs, torps, etc modern and lethal?
>>62543209Marchetti. Go fasta with pasta
With overwhelming support for the Piaggio it is selected as our new torpedo bomber.In the Far East, our Spaetzel-class heavy cruisers run across a Russian competitor. This will likely not be an even fight.
As expected, it was not.
Army continues to be useless. But if we want to truly DestroyerMax we now can
>>62543508where's Giovanni Messe when you need him!
>>62543508Ahh, the ol' Spirit of Cadorna!
I am afraid this update brings little good news.>>62543420We actually just unlocked specialized shells. Would we want to choose a specific type?
>>62543209Piaggio seems like the best option, but would it also be possible to adopt the Breda? It might be better in colonial theaters where we need all the range we can get
>>62543563Fucking hell, and right after she had such a good showing too.
>>62543563I think oblique is the better choice.
>>62543563I'm the guy who spent the last two threads strongly advocating for more general purpose light ships (DD, DE, MCM) and I am taking this opportunity to say I have been proven right and I hope we don't lose more.
>>62541169We need pilots to survive. Toughness seems critical.
>>62543582Perhaps we should take the fast route - impress a bunch of civilian ships into service and slap minesweeping equipment on them. Any objections?
>>62543563>questioning our aerial carriersPISH POSH!
>>62537545Haven't been monitoring these threads but Negroni is a beauty.
>>62541671
>>62543625Seems reasonable.
I presume we tell them to fuck off?
>>62543709No peace until Korea is secure.
>>62543709We do indeed tell them to fuck off, and have the Officio di Intellegencia Navale investigate the PM for being a communist sympathizer.
April 1946: With the Russian Baltic fleet bottled up by Italian and Spanish ships operating from Spanish ports, a daring plan is put into action. French and British fishermen and beachgoers get a supreme view of the Rodinis and our new fleet carriers sailing through the English Channel, escorting a force of landing ships.The Invasion of Norway has begun.
>>62543763>Italian Norway
Given their somewhat less than modern combat capabilities, I've changed Padre Giovannis duties to hunting raiders. Today she found one in Asian waters.
>>62543864PADREKILL
While it took her a bit of effort to get her main guns to hit, Padre does, in fact, kill.
>>62543777>pasta carbonera with lutefisk
>>62543911Fermented halibut meatballs. Just imagine it.
>>62543915>>62543911We must take Iceland.Pasta carbonera with Hákarl.
>>62543763> Italy> Invading Norway
Oh fuck off>Citing Italian fleet movements through their waters and the perceived risk of Italian expansion into Northern European territories, the French Conducteur announced the immediate formation of the Mediterranean Freedom Pact with Austria. Speaking to the press, the Conducteur stated that this alliance would secure France from Italian aggression, and went on to say that "Spaghetti isn't even that good" before consuming a piece of soupeur bread.
>>62543906See? The Domino class was meant to do a thing, this is it.
Given that it's been a bit, I decided to check out some of the most modern ships from around the world.France and Germany have two of the most noteworthy designs...for entirely opposite reasons.
>>62544020>Spaghetti isn't even that good
>>62544020>Chance to bitch slap the Austrians back another 3 decades>Chance to grind France's nose in the dirt againCan we actually take Marseille or is it a core?
>>62544061>that Bismarckimpressive, they've created a ship that uses its displacement even less efficiently than the real one
>>62544061What an awful German BC. What are they spending all that displacement on? 7-11" main battery lmao. No wonder the fuhrer never joined our crusade against the frogs and bongs.
>>62544020>Bongs hate Russia more than us.Could we make common cause with the Anglo?
>>62544116>Can we make a deal with the devilHeresy.
>>62544145If the Soviet Union declared war on Hell, I would speak positively of the Devil's hotsprings.
War updates
>>62544061>oh nice the bongs are doing a nelson too>hey a bismarck->7x11 main battery>okay, let's look at the French BB...>7x17
Two years into the war and Russia is almost literally falling apart, so Austria figures NOW is the best time to get involved
>>62544157>still can't get Korea>Norway falls in weeksI guess the Russians really were Asiatic all along.
>>62544235KRAUTSBUM TOUCHING KRAUTS
>>62544235>Italian IcelandThe history books in this timeline deserve to be burned.
With the addition of Austria to the war, we are forced to divert our battleships and carriers from Northern European. Of course, that's when we start getting large engagements around Iceland.
>>62535990This is wrong, 18" are technically the best but 17" (which are kinda 16" with superheavy shells) are probably the most efficient due to lower weight/cost
The war marches onward, as the Austrian people realize this shit sucks and French troops mass on the border.
>>62544351>enter war>immediately embarrassedClassic Austria-Hungary.
>>62544109you'll be sorry when your plunging fire glances helplessly off her eight inch deck
>>62544157Lutefisk for everyone!
>>62544351>Austrian alliance with France>French alliance with Great Britain I'm sure it's fine
>>62544145The enemy of my enemy is my friend, until he kills my enemy and then I immediately stab him in the back and blame it on the first dead guy.-The Talmud
>>62544326It does rate them higher, just questionable if worth cost and especially weight.
>>62535990>there's really no reason to go above 16 inches.Not what your mom said.
>>62543209Piaggio its though and do not give up that much for the thoughness. It even has top manuverability.
We unlock another variant of shell, do we want to consider swapping to it?Also lutefisk for all!
>>62544470>quiet, reserved Scandis suddenly flooded with loud, boistrous DegosThose poor bastards.
>>62543563>We actually just unlocked specialized shells. Would we want to choose a specific type?Oblique penetration ability for less bounces.
>>62544481Worse. It'll be Alpine Italians living up there. Half-German, Half-Italian abominations...
how does the meta in this game work? are things that were good in real life good in the game? I'm laughing at this thread making all kinds of things that were terrible ideas irl, but I can't tell if it's being done as a joke or because it actually works in the game.
>>62544503What features specifically are you talking about?
>>62544496How is that not a best of both world's thing?>Norther italian women and southern german menFugg, I see now.
>>62544521https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCQLL9QG9q0
>>62544470Diving as in actual diving? Like to hit below the water line or target subs?Fuck that; gunnery training, planes and torps.
>>62544260>>Italian Iceland>The history books in this timeline deserve to be burned.Its only a matter of time until Italian Ireland.
:/>>62544526Most shells, when striking the water, tend to have very little further travel. During the interwar period, Japan (and I think France) designed shells shaped in such a way that when they struck the water they would change their trajectory to essentially 'swim' forward, possible striking in a similar manner as a torpedo
>>62544559Isn't this the 4th time now that the French shits are at war with us in in half a century? Have they not had enough of the humiliation of losing their fleet again?
These threads are very fun. Hilarious to see Norway falled easy but North Korea being a tough nut to crack.
>>62544559Someone help me get into the Austrian state of mind. Do they want us to tie their arms and legs with noodles and have our way with them?
>>62544559Huh, wonder if we could get Japan to join up with us.
>>62544514torpedo destroyers, battleship to carrier conversions, neglecting asw, trying to use surface ships as commerce raiders
>>62544592They have a humiliation fetish, all the Hapsburgs do. I think it's been about 25-30 years since we slapped their shit so any chance to go Austria Delenda Est is worth it.>>62544559Sigh. Onwards to Marseille, and then Ireland I suppose. It'd sure be nice if Germany got off its ass and decided it wanted to do something to our enemies.
>>62544503Depends on your tech variation setting. I know with it up high you potentially end up with stuff like wing turrets being more effective than an ABXY layout
>>62544559Also how the fuck do Germany and France have 0 tension. I guess giving Hitler his own permanent exhibit at the Louvre was a shrewd diplomatic play.
>>62544633France had a Fascist coup after we buck broke them the last time, so they're best buds with Hitler while we're still a constitutional monarchy or something
Year three of the two month operation to take North Korea.>>62544611>torpedo destroyersHonestly, if torpedo stockpiles were simulated like missiles are, they'd be alot worse>battleship to carrier conversionsQuite common during the interwar period>neglecting aswI made a previous post about this, however its fair to say that subs are nerfed in the current version of the game>trying to use surface ships as commerce raidersCommon and often effective irl
Fugg
>>62544651>about to be at war with all of EuropeAlright, guess we're obligated to take Corisca now.
>>62544684Holy shit. We mog the Russian surface fleet, but just like the Cold War Soviets those fucking Bolsheviks have clearly invested in their subs. We may need to up our game on subhunting.
Alright, we obviously need more ASW assets. I'm considering a crashbuilding program of DDs and converted civilian vessels. Also, what plane do we want to replace?
>>62544712Should get a new fighter out first since the Frogs and Bongs are gonna swarm our ships soon with their planes.
>>62536084Reminder: Spaghetti CVs were to be named after BIRDS OF PREY.
>>62544712seconding fighter. I vote for firepower and speed, in either order, although we should pick whatever suits the game the best.>t. has no idea what this game is
>>62544712>>62544745This, or patrol aircraft, assuming we can use those like Catalinas or Privateers. Could help with the ASW.
>>62544712Which one's best for ASW ops?
>>62544559Has anyone ever done RAP shells that activate the solid propellent once the nose hits a solid object for better penetration?
>>62544593They do have a hatred of ruskies.
>>62544651>if torpedo stockpiles were simulated like missiles are, they'd be alot worseAren't we set in the 30s? Missiles sucked then.
>>62544684Can our seaplanes launch depth charges as well as torps?
>>62544790It's 1947 already mang.
>>62544795Still. At that point the whole world was still reverse engineerong Me262 and Vs, which were admittedly shit because German industry was bleeding.
The turns seem to have tabled>>62544792Naval patrol aircraft also hunt subs>>62544805>>625447951947 in a tech-delayed world
>>62544820We may want to bow out of this one. We'll still have the possessions we grabbed earlier.
>>62544820Peace. I'm really not too crazy about the territory we did get, but we got it and I'd rather take on UK and France under different circumstances.
>>62544820I think we should take the chance to peace out here. I'm not worried about being unable to win in a capital ship engagement, but I am worried about getting bled to death by four nations worth of submarines and potentially aircraft for not much gain. The only one here that may really have any colonies we care about is perfidious albion and we are not at war with them yet. If anything, we might be able to get in a war against them alone by peacing out now.
>>62544820>Blockaded>Fuel shortageHow da fuq did that happen?Anyway the answer is no, not while we've got their clay in our hands.
>>62544651>Quite common during the interwar periodyeah but they were crap. actually the only interwar battleship conversion I can think of is kaga who was a shitbarge. the ones they made during the war were even worse. >Common and often effective irlwas it though? if you just look at a list of ships sunk the overwhelming proportion of transports sunk were by submarines.
haha>>62544860A third of our fleet is in Asia trying to seize North Korea, so we've got to fight France, Austria and now Britain with one hand tied behind our back.
>>62544899If we haven't taken Korea by now it's probably time to cut our losses and take the fleet back to the Mediterranean. Shouldn't be too much trouble considering the Suez is ours.
One carrier and a handful of cruisers versus Great Britain. We gaan?
>>62544912Go balls out, fight to the last man.Memento moriAudentes Fortuna iuvat
>>62544899Recall 25-35% of the fleet>>62544909Not a sunken cost yet
>>62544820We may need to falsely affect humility on the international stage while we retroffit, rearm and make a plan.
>>62544909I concur, we pretty much have Russia beat anyway. >>62544912If it were France, Austria or Russia I'd say have at 'em, but the Anglos are the only one of our enemy with tech worth a damn. Plus the weather won't be kind to our flyboys. Fight them another day.
>>62544924>90% of militaries give up right before the Soviets finally fall back to Vladivostok
>>62544924We invaded Korea 34 months ago, anon. The army is retarded and the Italian nation is probably better off if we leave them back in Korea.
>>62544954OP what is Russia's current fleet and combat capability>>62544958The footage suck, yes. Is there even an option in this game to Dunkirk their sorry asses under heavy offshore bombardment?
>>62544969>footfags>>62544941Can we influence the japs to take Korea? The Spaniards have proven to be innefectual at best. Thought they had a history of being good on land though.Can we loan them landing craft?
>>62544969Make it into a overview on all the fleets right now. Man this is gonna be real bad for us if we can't knock out France or at least Bleed the Brits fast. Should we start pulling back our ships to the Mediterranean sea?
OP will need to call it here for now, expect updates along a similar schedule. >>62544969>>62544985Will get that to you shortly>>62544978>Can we influence the japs to take Korea?Afraid that's not an option.
>>62544994Thanks OP. Ngl, having the Krauts or Americans joining on our side would help us a lot here.
>>62544978>Can we influence the japs to take Korea?Not possible AFAIK, but don't ask me, I'm just a culinary school reject.
>>62544912> 840 VP on declineJust kite them around and try to get some lucky kills off aircraft raidswhat's the worst that could happena bloodless stalemate is 0 VP :)
>>62544985If we fuck the Bongs up enough will the frogs cut and run like the surrender cheese monkeys they are?
>>62544994>that's not an option.Lame. They still want it IRL to this day.
>>62545026If we're going with what happened during the last bong/frog freakout? They're gonna die hard and probably drag down with them our last BC and a few other ships in the process.
>>62544994c u around OP
Just another 10 grand offensives in the Taebaek Mountain range and victory in Korea will be ours. Trust the plan.
>>62544899Mama mia
>>62545043It's incredible how, decades after this man should have died, his spirit still pervades our army. Truly the greatest Italian general.
>>62545033Half the fleet is worth it to see them all drown, preferably while they are consumed by a floating, lit oil slick.
This is not looking great. I think that we probably should decline this battle and then transfer all of our fleet to the Med. Also, try negotiating an alliance with someone other than Spain? Is that even possible now?
>>62544912Fugg. Engage, stay at range and split and retire asap if possible. Can we hold them until land based air can bomb them to hell?Otherwise cut and run.
>>62544890> yeah but they were crap.No? With the exception of the Ises, which weren’t really true conversions, they were all fine. Not as well optimized as purpose built carriers, but still solid options.
>>62544890Just because submarines were that good doesn't make commerce raiders shit.
>>62544912>Facist France, Communist Russia, and Democratic UK team up to punch our ticketWhat the fuck even is this timeline anymore. Run away. Fuck this noise, losing the Grande Foccio and the entire airwing right after she came out of the dock is stupid. The only reason to take battle here is if our Scandinavian bases have full bomber complements, and if they can get off attack runs before the BBs run down our ships.
>>62544774Yes, except you want the rocket to face towards the enemy, and you want it to use all its fuel and once, and you want the exhaust to be molten copper and it's called a HEAT shell.
>The Battle of the Orkney IslandsI've chosen to accept this battle, in large part as some have argued theres no reason we have to commit to a pitched engagement and can (theoretically) stay at range with our superior carrier. And hey, a victory here would give the good Admiral Feo, overall commander of naval operations in the Northern European theater, another feather in his cap.What I notice immediately about this battle is our layout. Operating in two groups, our heavy cruisers proceed about 80 miles to the South of our carrier group, both headed South towards our presumed enemy. As this sits at roughly the edge of the effective range of our Piaggio torpedo bombers, I believe we can make this work to our advantage. Hypothetically at least, we could spot the British fleet, have our cruisers turn tail and run, while our torpedo bombers swoop in to cover their retreat and score hits on an enemy that should obligingly follow a predictable path.Hope you like zoomed out battle images, they're going to get alot more common.
As our scout aircraft launch or are craned into the sea, the strike force aboard Grande Frocio is prepped. Five wings of eight bombers are loaded with torpedoes each, to give us a good mixture of flexibility and force of mass. A few Piaggios are left unequipped, to see if they're needed in some other capacity, while another few are simply unairworthy at the moment.
And then, we wait. A couple hours later the reports start coming in, both spotting a pair of battleships and some escorts. Both put these ships on a steady course to intercept us, giving a good trajectory to estimate their future location. There's just one problem, these reports put these ships nearly 200 miles away from our carrier force. With a torpedo-laden range of less than a 100, that puts the Brits far outside our striking range.
>>62547566>>62547605tora tora torahttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpdX_bkAC-0
However, there is another possible action which relies on those reserve aircraft. Call this somewhat of a test. The remaining torpedo bombers that have sat idle on our carrier are brought up, but these aircraft aren't loaded with a torpedo but rather a single small bomb. Grande Frocio sets a course towards the contact, looking to bring it within 150 miles to facilitate a long-range bombing run.While ten or so 250lb bombs likely won't be a decisive strike, it'll be an important step forward.
>>62547658Uhhh...refuel and wait? I guess? They'll have to come within our umbrella to get into main battery range after all.
I will admit, I didn't expect these planes to find their target, but find it they did, at the edge of their combat radius.
Three Piaggios go in for an attack on British ships, as flak and machine gun fire rise up to meet them. The durable bombers take a few hits, but their rugged construction holds them together. The first wing scores no hits, though.
The second and third wings manage to also find their target. The second wing attempts to bomb a destroyer, but also misses.The third and final group, however, reports scoring a hit on a battleship!These reports also report, however, that the British ships have reversed course and are headed Southwest. With the max speed of our carrier being 25kts, that means that chasing these ships down is a remote possibility.
>>62547658Is range figuring round trip or total? Can we launch a little further out and sail closer at full speed to cut down the return flight?
And to be honest, that was it. A British battleship got a bit scuffed up, but nothing noteworthy.I included this battle to illustrate how awkward and anticlimactic early carrier warfare can be, as your short range and sluggish aviation assets struggle to deal with the ranges that enemies might be spotted at. Between the useful torpedo range of our bombers being closer to 75 miles (launch range + target attack fuel), the inability to close the range with our slower carrier, and the winds working against us (we had to turn away from the enemy each time we launched), a decisive outcome just wasn't possible.
>>62547797A decisive Italian victory. One for the history books.
But I think this next round of news people will be a bit more interested in.
>>62547797Am important first step. Soon Roma's eagles will come into their own.
>>62547828>The battle for Korea is finally over. We can finally have kimchi in our Chicken Parmesan
Do we have any access to oil at all?
>>62547828New DDs with twin 4in DP guns!
Seeing as how we are 4v1, we really need to see about having America or Japan as an Ally. As much as I love our glorious pasta fleet, there is simply too many for us to deal with solo
>>62547797>Inflict more damage on the enemy than they inflict on us>1407>0>Flawless victory>>62547828Finally we have Best Korea. Also good DP guns. Can we bombard the sub pens at Vladivostok and fuck up the russians?
>>62547797Carriers truly killed the sovl of naval warfare.Personally I feel like we achieved our aims for the campaign and got mare nostrum. I wouldn't be opposed to starting something new, that Italian submarine game looked fun. All up to OP of course.
>>62547922>WOULD YOU LIKE TO KNOW MORE?
>>62547973We have to get to the missile age and conquer the world
>>62547974>18 gun DDJesus, talk about enough dakka
>>62547974>OvergunnedNo such thing.But realistically, what can we do without incurring a penalty and what can we put in with the weight savings? >5 turrets>add some Light and Medium AAName it Sergio Leone, because it's a gunslinger.
>>62547974>that designUOH! Sesso! Ho bisogno di sesso! Voglio scopare quella barca e sparare il mio seme in profondità nella sua figa! Pistole a doppio scopo erotiche!
>>62548005Removing a centerline gun mount would reduce the ROF penalty to -10, allow a reduction in size by 100t, a change to Unit Machinery and a couple LAA positions (limiting factor being topside weight).I also forgot to check the cross deck fire box.
>>62547973I would be interested to continue into the missile and jet age if OP is amenable, simply because I've never gotten that far in any of my own games, and I miss this community AAR vibe. However, if OP wants a change I'm all for it.
>>62547974With that rate of fire modification, what's our effective number of rounds per minute? Is this rpm achievable with fewer guns without the rpm malus?
>>62547797everythingwentbetterthanexpected.jpg>>62547973I ain't going nowhere until I've gotten my 20" gun floating fortress, or at least a missile predread.
>>62547974Could we take a gun or two off, and get some armor against torpedos? Looks.... fragile
>>62548886>some armor against torpedos>on a tincanYeah, that's a non-starter.>>62547974I'd say scrap the C turret and one pair of wing turrets, invest the tonnage into more speed and some AA mounts.
>>62546097submarines are far more cost effective than having to send your surface fleet around trying to intercept transports. only retarded navies like the germans thought it was a good idea to use cruisers as commerce raiders.
>>62547797>how awkward and anticlimactic early carrier warfare can be, as your short range and sluggish aviation assets struggle to deal with the ranges that enemies might be spotted at.are you talking about in the game because this was the first real life carrier battle
>>62549341Yes, of course he's talking about the game.
>>62549341Right, but that's a carrier vs carrier engagement. They also had reason to be there. A lot of these encounters seem to be attacks of opportunity, not decisive battles.
>>62547974gee mario how does your design manage to have twice as much armament as an akizuki while displacing less and being slightly faster despite having less hp?>>62549379I guess intelligent navies just didn't have any carrier vs no carrier engagements
>>62549395>I guess intelligent navies just didn't have any carrier vs no carrier engagementsIt's almost like there was this weird "interwar period" between WW1 and WW2 where everyone went from "barely any carriers" to "carriers".
For the anons that wanted an opponent update>>62549341When I say "early carrier" I'm talking about 1920s/30s carrier battles, which is more in line with our current aviation capabilities
>>62549585>Austria only has heavy cruisersThis is why I dislike this game a bit. Regional opponents is fine for early game, but as time goes on and you snowball into a global empire, either your lesser opponents need to be able to focus on army mechanics that don't exist or just drop out. Fighting Brazil would be more interesting.
>>62549691Speaking of, wasn't China a country when this started? Where did they go?
>>62547974If we are gunmaxxing this we should cut one centerline torp mount for better ROF. Then use the extra weight for LAA up to topside load limit, or just lower the displacement to reduce cost.Alternatively. We could use ALL centerline mounts for guns, up to the max non-penalty amount, then if applicable put more guns in wing mounts up to the max non-penalty amount, THEN put the torps in wing mounts. As long as we've got, say, a 3-torp broadside it's probably fine. I guess some torp protection isn't a bad idea if this will be our designated DD mauler.
