Doing Spain 1900 start now that I have some experience. >Protip: dont build battleships, Just 2 heavy cruisers and screen them with everything else>when Battle Cruisers are available use them to support your Heavy Cruisers so they dont get cut from the battle
wrecking Italy
I'll have to dig up my Spanish meme CA from 1890 back when I was on a kick of using 7" guns for the lulz. I think I had 14 of them in mixed turrets and casements. Big CAs are so good early on, you can basically do anything with them and still wreck the AI
>>2416485I like using them as a proto-battlecruiser.
Protip: the secret to doing well with 1890 Spain/China is small torpedo cruisers
>>2416485I do a lot of 1890 starts, but early on I use the big CAs as brawlers, backed up by >>2416553 affordable CLs with loads of torps and small guns. Just overwhelm anything with massed firepower then finish with torps. I rarely put big guns on them outside of roleplaying, a battery of 6-5-4 is perfect. Here's some of my 7" ships though, it is a useless gun, worse than a 6" in every way, but fun to work around.
This is the ideal predread, whether you like it or not
>>2418614Launched 1897Admittedly she's been pretty obsolete since about '45 but still a useful raiderMade another with 20" guns in 1932. Actually pretty fantastic, had a quick but brutal career slapping the shit out of American BBs and BCs until 2/3 of my battlefleet got wiped out invading Cuba
Why is spain so fucking poor
>>2420787I'm 1890? Because they were poor as fuck irl. They get fucked hard in the game though, at least they did in RtW2. Basically, the economic growth events give a plus a couple time of year to your base industry. Spain gets a flat negative on one industrial buff, meaning they can't grow at the same rate as an equally poor starting nation, like Austria. Infact, I believe you can actually lose industry over time, which is otherwise not possible.
Anyway to mod the game to give the player a -10% tonnage bonus?
Question:In my doctrine, should I be setting my long range or short range to HE/SAP? Does HE actually do anything unless it hits the deck?
>>2425715Short answer: it depends. In the early game I tend to go 80% HE, and just burn down anything larger than a CL with fires. When your AP shells start being able to reliably pen BE I'll creep in the AP shells for close range work, then gradually extend the range as appropriate.>SAPMore of a "win more" shell than anything. Good for shooting CL/CAs with big guns, not recommended against BBs>Does HE actually do anything unless it hits the deck?Structure damage on pretty much any hits. If you're going to fire shells at something that'll be able to defeat your AP shells, HE shells will typically get you better results in gradual chip damage
>>2425804interesting didnt know it does guaranteed structural damage.so my doctrine should look something like this?
>>2427644Do you know about the UNS meta?
The problem with this game as I see it is one that titles such as Football Manager have. There's a disconnect between actions taken by the player and the outcome. In a Mario game for example, you press jump and he jumps. You can gauge if you pressed it too early and landed right infront of a goomba, or too late. In Rule the Waves I feel like I design ships, build them, fight with them, but I don't know if I'm being effective.I just can't "click" with the game, and point out decisions I take that bring me success. Yeah I've watched yt tutorials, read the manual and looked at hints.Thank you for coming to my tedtalk.
>>2429525>The problem with this game as I see it is...there's a disconnect between actions taken by the player and the outcomeIf anything that's kind of the point, and the nature of navies as a whole. As the saying goes, 'naval strategy is build strategy". Like a WEGO strategy game you have to commit to your actions, and think ahead.>I design ships, build them, fight with them, but I don't know if I'm being effective.I don't say this as an own but this sounds like a skill/knowledge issue. Examining your forces in action and reading the after-action reports to interpret them is important
>>2429525>There's a disconnect between actions taken by the player and the outcomeI dunno, when I design BC with 17" Q0/1 mains and kite wipe every battle the connection between my decisions and the outcome seems very clear.
>>2428332I thought I did.When I make BBs and BCs I use narrow sloped belt but I match Belt and Upper Belt. Now I am reading that Im actually supposed to be increasing Belt extended instead of Upper belt??
>>2430342>>2428332Heres an example of my lategame BC. is this completely wrong?
Rank that nations from easiest to hardest.
>>24304121.USA2.UK3.France4.Germany5.Russia6.Italy7.AH8.Japan9.Spain 10.China. I admit I'm not an autist with a ton of hours but that seems to be my list, some nations in the middle could be moved around.
>>2430342Upper belt is useless.UNS is belt=belt extended + narrow belt + slope scheme. Set deck extended to 2" and leave it there, upper belt can be set to zero or 2" if you hate small splinter damage chipping at you.
>>2430347Are you playing on a slow tech setting? Because that's a BC I'd expect to see in 1910, not 1952.>>2430423>FranceShould be considered harder, since they have to contest Northern Europe, the Med and their colonies at the same time.>RussiaHarder. Not only do they have the two-ocean problem but it takes several months to reinforce, which imposes restrictions on being able to use short-range ships, cramped quarters and whatnot. Oh, and every European power gets to blockade you from the Northern Europe zone, which means until you upgrade your sole NE base or capture Norway you're stuck in the Baltic cuck cage>ItalyEasier: two weak neighbors to abuse, with France being a rough equal. No colonies to worry about by default>JapanSneak attack special ability, two weak neighbors and everyone has to sail across the world to fight you? Easy.
The thing holding this game back is there's too many variables hardcoded into the game, makes it difficult to mod or even tweak. Eg. if you want to give nations/events +10% topside and such.
>>2430901Hardcoding the number of nations was a strange choice.
I still remember RTW1 where you had to activate the game exe through a passcode sent through email.
>>2431181That was RtW2, RtW1 had no DRM from what I remember (on 8ch it was shared through a jpg). For RtW2 you had to run the game on your PC, which would generate a unique code which you then had to email to the publisher, who was a lone guy who would use their half of the DRM to generate a counter-code that they sent to you, which you input into the DRM to authenticate the game. I remember that half the forum rightfully pointed out this was an incredibly clunky system that was also subject to a single point of failure if the dev was ever unable to provide those codes. Sure enough, the guy who was in charge of that system ended up having some major health issue (I think he may have passed), and RtW2 temporarily went DRM-free while the dev figured out what to do next.Thankfully RtW3 just went to Steam
>>2431189Yeah, their DRM guy straight up died.
>>2431213>checking emails Pray tell me they had a script and weren't manually copy and pasting the email'ed code to feed their keygen.Why are boomers like this?
>>2430707I see, thanks>>2430718>Because that's a BC I'd expect to see in 1910, not 1952.It was probably built in 1910 but I recall in this game I never lost any of my Battleships, so I just kept them around and upgraded
Are fighters useless? I normally just make Naval Patrol Planes and Torpedo Bombers and ignore fighters because I cant tell if they are doing anything
>>2431189Fucking hell that's insane.
>>2430347I'm amazed this BC made it to the late game to begin with considering the cross deck firing turrets it must have been made in the 1910's, if so, the already thin armour is woefully obsolete. Also, you really want your turrets to be more heavily armored than the main belt to avoid your ships popping like balloons, likewise you don't want your upper belt to be so heavily armoured, it's a waste of weight, for uns armour you want your belt and belt extended to be heavily armoured, upper belt mostly just protects the ships superstructure and nothing vital. You want belt extended to be heavily armoured because it protects your steering mechanisms and water integrity. Once you get aircraft and increased elevated you really want to start up armouring your deck to withstand bombs, 2" won't cut it against dive bombers, you'll want at least 3 for a ship of 20k displacement, more is better (up to 4.5" then it's mostly just overkill). Casemates are pretty useless at highers speeds, which is also why cross deck firing sucks ass as it doesn't let you get non casemated secondaries or tertiaries that can give you HAA. Honestly considering the decent enough speed and 2 torp defence I would have probably just bulged it and then converted the ship to a carrier around the 1930'ies. Still might be worth doing if you don't scrap it, this ship will definately have more value as a flattop than as a 40 year out of date battlecruser. I tried making a quick 1950's battlecruiser to similar specs as yours, it's not the best plus 20k disp is pretty tight in the 50'ies; still I managed to get a decent raiding and carrier hunting ship with plenty of autofiring secondaries.
>>2431189what is it with indie wargames and draconian DRM? This isn't the first time I've encountered stuff like this. Either that or is has to call home every x number of days for whatever reason.
>>2433602There's this publisher called 'Slitherine'...
>>2431189
>>2433886
>just want a comfy cheat mod to let me build ships irregardless of tonnage or TOPSIDE
>>2435376use cheat engine bro
>i have no idea what im doing but this is my newest Battleship born out of slight fuck up of US-Germany war of 1896-97 where none of my BBs could actually attack anything because short range.Fun game, i need more experience with it for sure but im having fun. Inb4 screen photo - that pc has no internet access
>>2435719>tfw posted wrong photoNvm ill just post when i get home..
>>2435646Cheat engine doesn't work, the tonnage/topside values do not stick.
>>2435719>i have no idea what im doingCongrats, you're living the genuine 19th/20th century naval designer experience.
>>2436059Thanks. Fuck me that whole "muh legal design" shit is annoying tho.I designed perfectly valid ship and i somehow cant build it because its not muh legal design despite having tech, displacement and everything else.
>>2436374>4x 20" guns, 14" armour, 23 knots, 32000 t>totally fine, typical pre-dread>same thing at 24 knots>OMG wtf is this
>>2436374>>2436432Yeah, it's intended for balance/realism but it's still some bullshit. I remember not being able to build a class of protected cruisers because they were too well armoured. Unfortunately, I don't think anything can be done about it either since >>2430901
>>2436463They need a table for all the thresholds for each ship class.
>>2435719predreads are actually kinda useless, they can't pen each other because the shells are trash. Cl and CA are the real winners of that era.
>>2436642Honestly kind of true. I still flipflop between building pre-dreadnoughts for larp and blockade purposes, and only using super heavy armored cruisers to fill the capital ship role instead.
>>2436463>>2436432Main problem is that classes are set in stone ( unlike in Aurora ) because, i assume, they are tied to victory points gain/loss in battles.They should really switch to simple tonnage to vp system.
>>2436719I tend to build smaller predreads since you do need some but most money goes into CL and CA since you get their battles much more often.
>>2433559Building 2 of these guys1910, technology speed halved.I expect good things
>fleet battle>one of my battleship squadrons just decides to bumrush the enemy battleline completely alone>"command confusion">lose 3 of them and the rest of the battle is chaos>lose 5 Bs and 2 CAs for .... 4 DDsFuck I should NOT have gone with the suggestion to spec into night-fighting, the germans must have picked gunnery and they kicked my assalso how do I stop my stupid DDs from hiding behind the things they're supposed to screen?
>>2437321Clicking the Flotilla attack button has actually done me well for making the DD's do their job. Also having a pack of 5 human controlled DD to suicide charge when theres an opening
>>2436918I've never bothered with small dreadnoughts outside of the shitty auto-generated ones you get when starting a new game.
How does one learn this game? I bought it ages ago but only have about 15 minutes played because I went into it and then noped the fuck out after a quarter of an hour because it looked like a significant time investment was required that I did not have that day.
>>2416454Can all countries get revolutions because I just see Germany, China, and Russia only ones doing it.
>>2438374From what I remember, yes.
>>2438374Democracies and constitutional monarchies are coded to have revolutions be less likely but they still can happen.
Kinda want to play a game as Italy, but I'm not sure about having a permanent crew/officer quality penalty
January 17, 1949The first battle in the missile age, and the first true carrier battle, against the French no less. The ranges here are unprecedented.The fate of the Empire rests upon today's battle. May every man do his duty.
>>2439060Oh fuck
Anyone else roleplay? For example I had a war with japan in the late 20s/early 30s where the first carrier fights took place, and well they were pretty useless mostly due to bad weather+getting night battles. After the war was won I intentionally neglected CVs pretending that the brass, from wartime experience, had completely discounted them as useless. Had a fun time trying to play catch up.
>>2439117Thankfully the fire, caused by 2 bombs from French dive bombers, was put out. Those were the only hits they scored on our carriers.Unfortunately, we missed with our first strike, our aircraft did not find their targets and had to jettison their missile payload. Traitorous leftist politicians had left our missile stocks dangerously low prior to the conflict, so subsequent strikes had to carry old fashioned torpedoes and bombs.Many of our propeller torpedo planes got chewed up by their jet fighter CAP during the day, but our pilots can fly at night and theirs can't, and so our two night strikes were greatly successful.The result was a great victory for us, putting an end to French ambitions in the South Pacific, at a hefty cost of good pilots. Lessons have been learnt in this first major battle of the Second Great War, Japan and Italy vs Great Britain and France.
>>2439137If you turn on high tech variation, you might have experiences like that organically.
>>2439137I just want to be able to cheat without editing savefiles.Let me build break the 24 big gun/90k ton limit and let me build supertanker sized, 200k ton ace combat tier monsters.
Slaughtered the commie fucks
I think its ogre
What's the difference between this game and ultimate admiral dreadnoughts?>>2441968What did you do?
>>24420472d v 3d, plus, somehow, I feel you have more agency in RtW. Ultimate Admiral is very much a, what if RtW but modern, attempt. There is potential, but UAD was made by Darth, and he dropped it/got blown up by Russians/Took the money or something.
>>2442047This game is just better except for graphics. It interesting because the tactical battles (that matter) have to be played slow especially when airpower/missile spam becomes a thing.Yet the strategic mode is fast because tech progresses so rapidly (unless you choose slower tech).
Oy vey it's anudda TsushimaThey sued for peace right after this.
>>2441968>56 months inChad desu.
>>2416454Are there any mods to remove the missile age?
A an infinite money glitch just occurred.I dont know how it happened, but my negative monthly balance is adding instead of subtracting each turn
>>2447723You could maybe change missile techs to only appear in 1980
