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.
