Remember that scene in Army of Darkness where Evil Ash gets resurrected and goes “I live....agaaaain”? Yeah imagine that's me.Prior threads: https://desuarchive.org/k/search/subject/Rule%20the%20Waves/>what the fuck is thisRule the Waves 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 warship, 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 tell your Prime Minister that war with Spain is an easy victory, only to find the next morning to find Spain signed a military alliance with Great Britain. In the war that follows, your destroyers misunderstand the signal flags for “Screen our ships from torpedo attacks” as “Suicidally charge the enemy fleet”. Under blockade from the perfidious Anglos, your ungrateful people keep demanding things like food, don't they know there's a war going on? After four years of war, the Americans step in to mediate a peace the Prime Minister agrees to: no territory changes or reparations, but enjoy a peacetime budget cut and an aging, worn out fleet. >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 1960's, leading us forward on a quest that hopefully ends in Total [Non-Italian] 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 requests as well. Finally, keep those (You)s flowing in to keep my dopamine levels high.
A quick recap of our current situation. Having established a domination of the Mediterranean, the Italian empire stretches from Iceland to Sakhalin. Of course peace is no good for the makers of shells, so war with the British has broken out once again. We'll examine the strategic situation and fleet in the next couple posts.Oh also Japan and Russia are at war with one another. Honestly not sure how that's working out for them.
A primer on the British, tonnage-wise we are neck and neck, with less than a single DD worth of displacement in difference. Our proud history of battleship designs remains the focal point of our fleet, and with nearly double the tonnage in fleet carrier strength we have a significant edge there as well. Yet in most other aspects the Brits are far more competitive.Making up the difference in carrier strength is the Brits many light carriers, which carry between 30-32 aircraft each. While their fleet carriers are a bit smaller than ours, their modern design means they are ton-for-aircraft more efficient that our own.In the cruiser department things look rather grim. With over double our tonnage, the Brit cruiser force has both more numerous and more modern ships than our own. The half-dozen Sutlej-class heavy cruisers border on light battlecruisers, with a trio of triple 10” turrets. Light forces is a bit of a wash, with comparative numbers of destroyers for each side. Italy holds an advantage in the submarine game, while the Brits have made up a numerical advantage in corvettes by pressing many civilian vessels into service.However, Italy does hold a key advantage: we have invested considerably more into missile outfitting. Most of our ships carry a pair or quartet of heavy anti-ship missiles, some of them even have a reload available. With any luck those missiles will make up for the difference in the fleets.
>>64435392Holy based, great to see you back at it RTW anon.
Now, a look at the current state of the war. Generic abstract victory point-wise we're neck and neck with the Brits, but on the strategic map things are a bit dicey.The war is largely taking place on one of two fronts. On the Northern European front, our warships based out of Italian Scandinavia maintain a presence to keep the British fleet from operating with impunity.The current main front is in the Indian Ocean, which until recently has been lightly patrolled by our fleet. Taking advantage of this, British troops landed at Djibouti before our ships arrived to contest the sea. Despite this, the Brits still hold a slight advantage in local forces.An astute viewer may note a large Italian presence in the Mediterranean with no contesting British forces and wonder why those forces have not been deployed. On one hand, the pair of Calligula-class heavy cruisers and a good deal of modern destroyers would be well-suited to repositioning. However, much of the rest of the ships in home waters are outdated. Three flight decks (one fleet/two light) patrol the Med, but could move to the Indian Ocean to serve as somewhat outdated but still viable units.With that all being said, does the Admiralty have any demands/requests/suggestions? (Note in the few months of game that have passed a couple minor engagements have taken place, but without much of note occurring)
>>64435407How are our smallest missile boats working? Is it looking like a viable approach or is it still too early to tell?
>>64435441Light missile force looking as such, a combination of the small defensive corvettes and larger fleet destroyers. In the last few battles, they've worked....okay I guess? Very poor hit rate but that may just have been poor dice rolls. We have more DDs available to refit with launchers but it's more a matter of pulling ships off duty given patrol requirements.
What's the state of Italian naval aviation? Last I checked these threads it wasn't too good?
>>64435467Yeah not the best. What needs replacing first?>holy shit these captchas are ass
OP only just now realized it's not Friday night, it's Thursday. Oops.Well, have a turkey for now
>>64435479Honestly? Medium bombers. Now that we have AShMs we should probably make some planes that can actually make decent use of them from our many airfields around the Med. Might allow us to move a few ships to another front.
>>64435479>>64435773No, we need another batch of fighters, look at those speed/range/firepower comparisons. Especially with missiles coming online, they're going to start needing to intercept bombers at range now.
Glad to see you back RtW anon>>64435479OK so on this... going to have to second the vote for new fighter. our dive bomber is literally better as a fighter than our fighter, and that is sort of a problem when we have 0 dive bombers and 106 fighters in service.
New fighter request sent off, although it may take a depressingly long time before we see any prototypes. Funnily enough, we get a radar unlock to allow us to operate night fighter squadrons.
Our forces in Northern Europe attempt to interdict a few British convoys, but tipped off the cowardly Anglos call off the voyages. Good for victory points but boring to see a series of declined battles.After the third they eventually try and force the issue. Shall we?
>>64435392Oh shit, welcome back.
>>64436292>4 carriersThat spooks me. Actually, IIRC that was a problem last thread, too. We should consider moving some more flattops up there from the Med.Commander's discretion, pursue if you believe you can avoid being decisively engaged and defeated.
>>64436292if we've gotten more VP's off of their declines than that one, we can accept it here and try to narrow down the amount of aircraft we'll face at once.
>>644363403 are CVLs though, so odds are we'll have parity i think?
I am monitoring this thread.
>carrier battle>95 minutes to sunsetGoddammit
And someone's shooting at us from absolute max range
Spotters ID the lead vessel as a battleship, ahead of what appears to be the presumed convoy. Full on missile barrage?
>>64436480
One, just one missile erupts from Chippolini. Streaking across the seas, fired at the ship astride the horizon, the projectile finds it's mark.As if respectfully waiting for Chippolini to draw first blood, the destroyers wait to see the explosion in the distance, then launch their missiles.
Oh my that's alot
Touch dissapointing result, only a single additional hit. Regardless, our surface force closes in. The cruisers and destroyers pepper the merchant ships with light and medium gunfire while Chippolini duels with her British counterpart. British torpedoes are spotted so we may have to pull back a bit.
>>64436527We only need six. What's the carrier status, can we get the flyboys some target practice?
The Royal Oak appears very resilient, but after missile and 16" gunfire she gives up the fight and goes down. We suffer no torpedo hits from the Brit destoryers, and when the sun starts to set our new light cruisers do what they can without being suicidally overconfident. No daylight for any strikes remains unfortunately, but in the end we sink a good portion of the enemy convoy.There are a few things of interest. Firstly, the Royal Oak didn't just seem resilient, but it's armor despite being fairly thin appears to have held up fairly well. She didn't sink from loss of flotation but simply burned to the waterline. Secondly, had the scenario gone on for a couple more hours, both the forces carriers would likely have blundered into one another in the dark, both having retired to the South.
Well fuck>>64436561Forgot to mention, the DD lost was to a mine
>>64436561Mission accomplished, excellent work, admiral. We'll get those carriers one day.
Given the loss of two ships to mines, a quick conversion of some civilian vessels to minesweeping duty seems logical. An old 4" gun, a 3" AA gun and a few autocannons rounds out the equipment. Calling it for tonight, will implement any requests/debates/demands tomorrow as the thread sees fit.
>>64436599Glad to see you around again! These threads are always great.
>>64436599Have we installed shore based missiles in the Suez and Gibraltar yet? If not we need to. Can't leave the entrances to the Med undefended and the shore batteries are rapidly approaching obsolesence.
Are we back? Oh boy, we are back!
Big battle incoming (hopefully)>>64437534MTB squadrons (which I think should have missiles) are being positioned there
>Time of day: dawn>Carriers: ready to launch>Weather: unflyable all day longWell, at least our subs are getting some action in
North Sea combat is such a pain in the ass
>>64437719>>64437721A pox on Albion and their perfidious weather!
Hi, whatever happened to that ship I asked if it could be done which was like... a battleship size displacement but all torpedo launchers or missiles? I seem to remember you saying you can't do that and largest 'all missiles' you could do was a cruiser?
>>64437719Perfidious Albion and their weather machine....
>>64437721Was this loss the DD that was torped?
All the waffling about in the North sea at the very least appears to have had a positive effect of drawing the Anglos out of the Indian Ocean a bit, pushing them off our possession in Djibouti>>64437756 The issue there is largely deck equipment slots, from what I can see the greatest we could have at the moment would be four heavy launchers (keep in mind we only have single tube mounts at the moment), and around 20 torpedoes, with reloads for all. That's not much more than a cruiser could easily carry, and even a DD could manage most of that.>>64437788Yes, the hit knocked out electrical power and she was abandoned after about 10 minutes
>>64437721A win is a win.
So our intelligence network got access to the plans for the newest pair of French heavy cruisers, and uh....Damn.
>>64435392RTWanon how I missed you so
>>64437991>over 20k tons>16 10-inch guns>in the early missile ageChrist, what a white elephant.
>>64437991And thus ends total missile superiority. Time to develop CIWS.
>>64437991Call the Budget Office. We're going to need a bigger navy.
A minor night action occurred in the Indian Ocean, not much there just an exchange of a DD each.Speaking of DDs, we can now make them even fatter.
>>64438064Actually, we just got an additional war loan, so our budget is looking pretty good. What should we be building?
>>64438073Can I get a feasibility check for the smallest hull we can shove 4 missiles and 35 knots on?
>>64438073There's an argument to be made to have more Carriers (Fleet/Light) rather than try to out-cruiser the enemy, but if our enemies are starting to crank out Large Cruisers while we're running Treaty-equivalents, then we may need to have something similarly capable on hand. How good are our 9- and 10-inch guns?
>>6443809935 knots? Of what averaged diameter?
>>64437800>The issue there is largely deck equipment slotsThank you. That's a real shame. The idea of a battleship that's just missiles or torpedoes is something funny to me.
>>64438073I know we got a little missile boat frigate and a new missile DD at least, but do we have a ground up missile cruiser yet?Maybe missile and AA.
>>64438073might be the silent hunter in me but i'm tempted to ask if we could angle for increased submarine capability
>>64438214SAMs can't come online fast enough.
Is a missile-armed submarine within the realm of possibilities?>ID targets>pop up>rooty-tooty point-n-shooty>skedaddle>immune to return fire because underwater>standoff range such that enemy escorts cannot close the distance quicklyThe Admiralty can send my medal in the mail.
>>64438817FUCK, meant for >>64438073
>>64435392HELL YES. Wel/k/ome back, OP.We missed you.
>>64438073Missile subs
>>64438817SSBNs are awhile away anon.
Sorry for the delay, a trio of designs as some requested.>modestly sized up DD, 4xAShM with reload>max carrier concept with current tech>Heavy cruiser concept, with 4xAshM with reload>>64438817>>64438961>>64439009While I forgot to screencap it, last turn our scientists claimed they're "close" to figuring out missile subs
>>64439115How much of an upgrade is that over the CVs coming down the slipway?We're still hurting for anti-missile tech, but solutions are going to present themselves eventually, and possibly fairly soon. Missiles are also in line to become more lethal over time, and I think we've all seen enough to see that naval warfare is on the dawn of a new age. Therefore, I propose that we begin laying the ground work for a 3-class navy:>missile slinger, DD/CL>anti-aircraft, CL/CA>CVThe battlewagons can remain in service, and I support a last hurrah for the gunline heavy cruiser, recent actions in the North Sea having shown that artillery is not yet obsolete. But France is already catching on to missile technology, and the other major powers will not be far behind.
>>64439115Destroyer looks good, the Carrier might be a bit fast considering the rest of our current carrier arm.For the gun cruiser, would it make more sense to drop one gun per turret and increase speed/armor, or do you figure that wouldn't matter considering the amount of lead that's getting thrown our way?
>>64439115>"close" to figuring out missile subsMOLTO BENEHow are our active cruisers in terms of capability? If we can still field them with reasonable confidence of parity, then I say we should focus on building a large number of the missile DD. They cost a fraction the CA & CV while carrying the same missile loadout.Although current missiles seem to be missing more often than hitting and will presumably keep getting larger & heavier, so we definitely want space for refits down the line.
>>64439115I like them all.
>>64439115They took twenty years to figure out strapping a torpedo to plane after everyone else already did. I'm sure they're "close".>DD with missilesYes pls.
>>64439115Make the destroyer the max displacement and add however many more missiles that allowsif the answer to that question is zero then spam it as-isthis is the missile age, any ship is a target, the only answer is to have more missiles than targets...
>>64439188>missile slinger, DD/CL>anti-aircraft, CL/CAWe could also bridge the gap a bit with a large DD like these two designs
>>64439298>How are our active cruisers in terms of capabilityThey're a mix of outdated and reasonably competent, but we're still outclassed in that department for sure - see the comparison picrelated
>>64439115How closer are we to naval aviation not being an assdisaster at night?And what's the magazine depth on that CA like compared to our current missile armed ships and the destroyer proposal?
>>64439405> no extra missiles2600 spam it istorpedos... guns... ASW... all of these are obsolete... relics of another age...tomorrows battles will be fought with computers, and explosives - in short, missiles. those who cannot build enough missiles, will be left behind....
>>64439405I suspect we should wait until we have a viable counter-missile weapon before we go full Arleigh Burke with it. As it currently stands, I'm not convinced of the extra ~30% unit cost being worth it when our primary tactical constraint at this time is the number of missiles we can bring to a fight.
>>64439443well we're not russian, there is hope.
>>64439555Right. We're Italian.That's somehow better?
>>64439444Don't count out torpedoes forever; once everyone starts bulking up on missile defenses, they'll forget about torps.
>>64439561I believe we researched airborne radar so hopefully our next fighter design will incorporate that.
>>64439441>1940>1940>1951>1944Oof. The Bruschettas might be useable for colonial duty but the Gnocchis, Flakaronis, & Knopfle have to be going on obsolescent at this point.
>>64439607On the contrary, missiles exist, so they will decide all combatSurely, there will never be a situation, where missiles underperform technical expecations, and result in a scenario where "older" technology must come back into play. it's simply inconceivable this could happen, and we should NOT plan for it as that would be simply irrational.
>>64439705Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.
>>64439705Trip on, Fanculo
Apologizes for the delay, gotten into woodturning and making the wife a set of crochet hooks held my attention far more than I anticipated. A 2,600t design based off the in-production Lanciere class is under development, as can be see behind this peace offering. Thoughts?
>>64439716think again. I am magboxx anon (I am content to remain anonymous™).>>64439708and what are you gonna do with torps. close to suicide range then die to guns? if you don't believe in missiles, guns are the only possible backup at this point. maybe planes. but carriers die to missiles too and anti-missiles aren't so hot yet.>>64439728>2600tas long as it has 4 missiles I'm in.and, Continued Operations Will Secure Our Total Victory.
>>64439728keep the fight going
>>64439728If the British government refuses to acknowledge the realities on the ground and will not take action to address the root causes of the war, then we see no reason to stop.>they are called pre-/post-Bologna battleships, you limey bastards!
GOD DAMMIT MR. PRIME MINISTER
Monitoring this thread. Make /Our Niggah/ proud.
>>64439808March on Rome? Sombody's gotta put those faggotti in their place.
>>64439808>stabbed in the back>AGAINYou know, I'm feeling rather demoralized. I might not be able to apply my complete focus to the next war. Of course, that would be a bad thing, but the people would agree, and perhaps that discontent would open the door to... realignment of government priorities and decision-making procedures.
>>64439808>cucked by our own gov AGAINmama miail estado absoluto...
>>64439808goddamn it. this meatball isn't spicy at all
Well, it's a bit belated but our new fighter prototypes are ready for selection. Breda seems the most balanced option, any opinions?
>>64439841Maneuverability is for pussiesF irstI nA aceT ay
>>64439822You know, I just don't think we're ready for the next war. Who knows what would happen if our current corrupt liberal 'leaders' got us into some awful conflict with a much more powerful opponent.
>>64439841>>64439855My first reaction was to call you an imbecile and a buffoon. Now that I think about it, I almost want to push both, the Breda for escort and the Fiat for interception. If it has to be one, though, our bombers are all pushing 300 range even at a medium load, so we go with the flight endurance option.
>>64439808There will be consequences for this bullshit.>>64439841The Breda definitely looks like our best bet. Avante!
>>64439841Breda. Great Range, very minor speed, agility, and toughness compromises.
>>64439885>>64439889fine. we can go with the B oundR nE oadD eadA
>>64439808
Well, a couple decisions for the Admiralty. Alliances or saber rattling (or peace conferences)?andWhat aircraft gets replaced next?
>>64439936When in doubt, get on Uncle Sam's good side. Or are we committing to discussing our long-standing grievances with the Secretary of the Navy?Oh, and I vote medium bomber, emphasis on range and speed (the heavy AShM is automatic at this point, right? We're not going to screw ourselves by rolling too low of a bomb capacity?
>>64439936Our medium bomber is a relic, but somehow I want to see the potential of what modern dive bombers can offer. I guess I am open to either of those two.And if we have no allies then uhhhh Spain? They were pretty solid bros before. If no then maybe the USA? They have a lot of Italians there, maybe it's a natural alliance...
>>64439855More like 'Fix it again Tony'.
Request sent off, negotiations fail, notHitler runs his mouth, a three year construction project I'd totally forgotten about completes and Russia loses it's last BB to Japan.
>>64440068The Moskal fears the samurai
>>64440068>Russia loses it's last BB to Japanit was a tactical feintship is ship
Our two new carriers complete
>>64440082>>64440091Disregard, we're in the bad timeline
>>64440122> Russian TarawaI need a vomitchan.jpg but I don't have one on hand at this time
>>64440122>backstabbing the navy>in JAPANBold of them. Are we thinking above or below 10 shootings?
>>64440122well, that's certainly warm water
Well then
Well, probably last update for tonight.
>>64440147IT'S NOT WARM ENOGUH COMRADEWE MUST INVADE THE SUN NOWTHE WARMEST WATER OF ALL
>>64439936I would suggest Germany but the last time it was like pulling teeth to get them to honor the alliance. The furher must have been busy with a new exhibition and didn't want to spoil his press or something.>new planeWhat are we going to be using on CVs for missile strikes? Do that one.
>>64439936Saber rattle Russia. They just lost a battleship. Don't know why Japan cucked out. Do they have any capital ships left at all?
>>64440134Gotchu senpai
>>64440180>wish Germany would be more warlike>they choose usThe monkey's paw is working just fine it would seem.
Ultimate admiral Dreadnoughts
>>64440136All Imperial Army personnell shall be raped to death under orders of Adm. Fukyu Niggah!
I love this so far. Thanks RtWAnon. Lean so hard into missile subs and torpedo planes that other shit lags. Catching up with armor is over, but say firefighting will increase in importance.The first 30 seconds after a ship is hit determines it's fate and most sink around then.
Best threads on /k/ are back
>>64440180Probably too late but needless to say,>We should not be limited in our National Security by any restrictions imposed on us
Oh wonderful, a potential double whammy of budget cuts.Updates today will likely be slow or nonexistent, have some obligations to attend to.
>>64441673No worries, OP, I gotchuFor those who care, it's soccer day today. Thread will be up shortly.Oh, and as soon as we're done with the Prime Minister, the Treasury Department is next.
>>64441673Can we uh...just let things get worse and let these traitora get couped?
Preference on the new bomber? All are major improvements, although I lean towards the Macchi>where the fuck are jets>>64441689Oh shit, nice
>>64441934This. My vote is to let the incompetent government get what it deserves.
>>64441997Macchi. That's a significant range increase for very little toughness compared to the Ansaldo.
>>64441997>Macchi carries missilesNothing else matters, the fact it's got the best range is just icing on the cake.
>>64441997Agreed, Macchi looks best.>where the fuck are jetsGIVE ME MY FUCKING BACKFIRES ALREADY
A couple pretty major tech advances - dual missile launcher pods. Attached is a refit of our most modern cruiser and a proposal for a heavy missile destroyer with an eight missile salvo, with a set of reloads
>>64442142>VT fuses and over-the-horizion missile engagementIs it my birthday? BUY BUY BUY
>>64442142>missile spam DD acceleratesYes!
>>64442142> 8 missiles on a DDdew it>new CAPTCHAhere we go again....
>>64442142Am I reading this wrong or will the DD take longer to build than the CA?In any case, BUILD IMMEDIATELY
>>64442497CA is a refit, DD is a fresh build.
>>64442142Can any of the in-progress DDs be updated with double launchers?
>>64442142Mama mia
>>64442142>Radar guided double SSM launchersBring me the Pizza! Were doing a major refit!
>>64442620>MAMA! Admirali is a sticking missiles on-a da Pizza again!
>>64442620I want to wait until we have VLS before we bring out the Pizza again, just to be extra stupid.
>Die Falklandinseln sind deutsch!Rebuild are in progress, but the budget is suffering under a lot of previous gen DD designs that will probably need refits regardless
>>64442724Is the Falklands in the Med? No? We wish the Germans good luck on their strategic sheep acquisition.
A few advancements as we hit what the game considers to be the end of history. Obviously with our reduced tech speed the claim about tech leveling off isn't true, I presume we continue? >There is also a role called “special squadron”. This simulates an aggregate of anti-submarine, electronic warfare or rescue aircraft that will act as a modifier on various aspects of air combat in the game. Special squadrons will not perform missions themselves, but will automatically support other missions.
>>64442965Yeah, let's push it out to 1990-2000, get all our shiny shit together. We can close out by Desert Storming Austria, just for old time's sake.
>>64442965Where do we stand in 1970? Is there a score system? Total fleet tonnage? Does the sun set on our glorius pasta empire?
>>64443008Prestige is the closest thing to an objective scoring metric, see >>64442724 just under the flag.
>RTWIII Anon is backThread theme: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zRfv2PqRPI
>Jets unlockedNewest dive bomber wasn't a real contest, but what priorities should the new type of aircraft have?
>>64443577We're probably getting close to helicopters, so let the float planes be. Maybe a new maritime patrol, range and reliability.
>>64443577Kamikaze jets
So, I decided to take a look at our technological progress and compare it to the master tech list to get an idea of where we are compared to our baseline understanding of naval technology. If I remember correctly, we're playing at a 70% tech rate.>Machinery: Mostly up to date, only missing a single engine tech>Armor: Fully up to date (last armor tech is mid 50s)>Hull: 1950 tech, few remaining>Fire control: Mid-1950s>Damage control:Mostly up to date, only missing a single tech>Turrets/gun mounting: Mid-1950s>Advanced ship design: Mid-1950s>AP shells: Mostly up to date, only missing a single tech>Light forces/torpedo warfare: Early 1950s>Submarines: Early 1950s>ASW: Early 1950s>Explosive shells: Early 1950s>Fleet tactics: Early 1950s>Radar: Early 1950s>Missile tech: Mid 1950s>Missile countermeasures: Early 1950sNow that all looks about what we should expect, roughly 15-20 years behind schedule which lines up roughly with the reduced tech speed. However, things start to look very, very concerning when we check on these next categories:>Torpedoes: Early 1940s>Anti-aircraft artillery: Late 1930s>Naval aircraft: Late 1930s>Shipboard aircraft operation: Mid-1930sIf that wasn't alarming enough, there's a quirk to how RtW handles research is that every tech has a chance of being skipped in a given cycle of research. As an example, in the year 1923 there are techs such as "Integral armor" and "Enhanced explosive filler", both of which have a chance of being researched of 90. Makes sense, everyone wants more efficient armor and more boom is good for shells. But in that same year "All forward main armament" has a chance of only 60. These techs aren't locked off forever, each new cycle your scientists have a chance to 'go back' and figure out what was missed, but it can still lead to significant delays. With that being said, we've missed a very painful tech>Night Air Operations
>>64443863>Missile-firing strike jets with onboard radar>Incapable of recovery in the darkI do like that the random progression led to a brief era of MCLOS surface-to-surface missile dominance
Oh damn these threads are back. Excellent. They made me get the game for myself but I suck.
>>64443863In that case, wouldn't it make sense to try and bolster our anti-air capability as a stopgap to matching the bongs in air capability? I'm afraid I've never played RtW nor have I ever tagged along for these threads, and my understanding of naval matters isn't particularly deep.
LJF request sent off with a prioritization of speed and firepower. The topic of the old fleet is worth broaching at this point - most of our gun-centric fleet is sitting in reserve, and the utility of it in future conflicts is in question. Most of the world seems to have given up on the battleship, while the battecruiser appears to be getting a bit of a revival in some places. I think our carrier fleet needs some consideration, our first gen designs are struggling with worn out engines with a max speed of 23kts.Currently the budget is sufficient to support a fairly decent destroyer programme, but we could definitely add on a major surface ship or two to our construction program, or alternatively go for more major refits. Should we be trying to modernize the old fleet, or go more clean slate?
>>64445152Given that the Brits were slinging a few missiles even during that war, at this point I doubt AAA is going to be of particular value until CIWS types come into play
Battlewagons stay in port, we're mostly just holding them for a chance to use Pizza.Fresh line of carriers, time to let the CLVs go, phase the conversions out as new ones come in.For major surface combatant, I really don't see much beyond CLAA. We will still be dealing with aircraft, and we're not going to be getting in major gun duels except as a mopping-up or point defense against a destroyer rush.Man, we've really found ourselves in a strange time.
>>64445418Save the battleships, they have lots of room for future equipment, but I fear the world is correct in its assessment of the all-gun cruiser's days having been had.
