|
Affi posted:What do directors do? I mean I know they increase accuracy. But should I use one or two or three? What is the difference? As far as I've understood, having more than one director just adds redundancy for if you take a conning tower hit and lose a firing control station. Not totally sure about that though. Crossfiring turrets is these middle wing turrets on the Indefatigable-class:  If the box is checked, then they can both fire on port or starboard broadsides, if its not, then only the turret on that side can. It doesn't affect centerline turrets.
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 09:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 12:41 |
|
|
So I finally buckled down and bought this game after listening to Castles of Steel on tape and following Grey Hunter's LP. I'm at the beginning of my first war, with Italy, and I keep getting messages about not having enough ships on ASW patrol, but checking the manual doesn't actually seem to tell me how to set my destroyers to ASW. Is it a tech thing that i'm missing or what?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
Das_Ubermike posted:So I finally buckled down and bought this game after listening to Castles of Steel on tape and following Grey Hunter's LP. I'm at the beginning of my first war, with Italy, and I keep getting messages about not having enough ships on ASW patrol, but checking the manual doesn't actually seem to tell me how to set my destroyers to ASW. Is it a tech thing that i'm missing or what? Right click them on the ship list and set them to costal patrol.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
IXIX posted:Right click them on the ship list and set them to costal patrol. Holy balls that's annoying. I made the mistake of assuming that I could do it from the Map screen. Well, Grogs gonna grog. Thanks for the help.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
Lenisto posted:As far as I've understood, having more than one director just adds redundancy for if you take a conning tower hit and lose a firing control station. Not totally sure about that though. More than one director lets you fire at more than one target, I.E.: your forward, aft, and left wing turrets are firing at the ship to the left of you, and your right wing turret is firing at the ship to your right. I don't know if guns will fire under local control if there isn't an available FC director, though. My Bs, BCs, and BBs always get two FC positions. CAs sometimes as well, depending on layout. CLs make do with one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
Das_Ubermike posted:Holy balls that's annoying. I made the mistake of assuming that I could do it from the Map screen. Well, Grogs gonna grog. Thanks for the help. Build 12-20 MS boats to use for ASW/patrol. 200 tons, 14 knots and a single 2" or 3" gun. They will never see battle, doesn't matter. Cheap is the game here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Does anyone even bother with building pre-dreadnought battleships? I find that my scarce early game resources are much better spent on destroyers or cruisers that will be useful for a while and are not giant money sinks/death traps.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Yeah, I try to minimize construction of pre-dreadnoughts, only doing it if pressured by the government/navy league due to power inbalance. However recent patches have made Pre-Dreads semi-useful in the Dreadnought era as a colonial weapon.You need a significant tonnage/power advantage in a region to get a chance at Colonial Invasion events (I want to say x4 their power rating) so old pre-dreadnoughts are a cheap way of projecting this sort of power, plus they're far less likely to run into serious enemy forces (namely BBs or BCs which will mulch them) out in the colonial regions. Dunno-Lars posted:Build 12-20 MS boats to use for ASW/patrol. 200 tons, 14 knots and a single 2" or 3" gun. They will never see battle, doesn't matter. Cheap is the game here. The only bad part about MS is they'll often be automatically scrapped after getting old enough. Then again they're so cheap to make you just build new ones. Plus they help reduce the odds of mine events sinking your ships and I think also reduce the enemy's defensive minefields, so they're very useful. Though I still mix in Old (O) Destroyers into ASW/Coastal patrol sometimes. As a general tip, don't be afraid to put more ships on ASW/Coastal patrol than the minimum. It is just that, a minimum, more ships will produce better results, sinking more enemy submarines and such. Galaga Galaxian fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Sep 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
Dunno-Lars posted:Build 12-20 MS boats to use for ASW/patrol. 200 tons, 14 knots and a single 2" or 3" gun. They will never see battle, doesn't matter. Cheap is the game here. Once or twice per campaign I've seen an event where it says one of my cheap crappy MS was sunk in a battle with a submarine. I wonder if putting more guns or armor on them can prevent this? Probably not worth it though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
Just sank 80% of Britain's fleet in a giant battle. Feels good. Shame when I peaced out while pressing for hard terms I got exactly diddly squat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Dunno-Lars posted:Build 12-20 MS boats to use for ASW/patrol. 200 tons, 14 knots and a single 2" or 3" gun. They will never see battle, doesn't matter. Cheap is the game here. Be aware that they will wear out after ~6 years too. You just have to remember to build 20 or so new ones every few years. They're cheap though so an order of 10 is only like 1,000,000/month for 6 months.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
I just love it when some B tier nation decides to jump into a war I'm losing and ends up collapsing, thus winning the war for me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
That's racist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
I can't find the link to redownload the game, maybe that isnt kosher? I'm at my laptop now and wanted to game a little.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2015 13:33
|
|
|
War as Japan is hilarious. Nighttime surprise attacks with 30 destroyers. Thank you yes please.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
 I've had bigger wins, but I don't think I've had anything quite this lopsided in that kind of battle. Usually the screening ships all get away. The Italian ships were more powerful, too. Fire control is really good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
Is there a repository for custom nations? The official forums aren't very well organized on account of there just being one board and the op doesn't have anything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
The only custom nations I'm currently aware of are my Ottoman Turks, my USA vs CSA (And Spain), and both my and Arglebargle's China nations (mine isn't that great due to using it to learn the nation editor, Argle's is decent but a bit rough since it was made without the editor). I might get around to making a China soonish. If/when I do, I'll probably also throw together a quick version of Japan that substitutes Italy with China. I've also toyed with the idea of doing versions of Italy and Austria-Hungary that include my Ottoman Turks as an addition Mediterranean Rival but  Were you hoping for anything specific? Without editing the Map data file the potential nations you can make are limited by what possessions are already in the game, though there are a few Home Areas that don't appear unless they're specifically owned by a nation at the start of the game. These "unused" home areas are: Turkey Brazil Argentina Northern China Southern China India Galaga Galaxian fucked around with this message at 01:13 on Sep 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:More than one director lets you fire at more than one target, I.E.: your forward, aft, and left wing turrets are firing at the ship to the left of you, and your right wing turret is firing at the ship to your right. What makes you think this is true? The manual says extra fire controls are just a redundancy measure. Edit: Didn't mean to sound :sperg:, I'm just curious, lol. Roumba fucked around with this message at 01:24 on Sep 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure you can't even have multiple directors anyway, all you can have are multiple range finders for redundancy. You still only have 1 computer spitting out the actual gun laying data. Unless you count secondary directors, in which case yes you can have directed guns engaging multiple targets. IRL did anyone ever develop a mechanical director that could track and engage multiple targets simultaneously? I know the later British and US computers especially where pretty drat impressive, but I'd be surprised if they could handle more than 1 target.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Roumba posted:What makes you think this is true? The manual says extra fire controls are just a redundancy measure. I've seen my multi-turreted ships engaging multiple targets. Again, not sure if its due to multiple fire control, or that some guns were firing under local control. Pharnakes posted:I'm pretty sure you can't even have multiple directors anyway, all you can have are multiple range finders for redundancy. You still only have 1 computer spitting out the actual gun laying data. Unless you count secondary directors, in which case yes you can have directed guns engaging multiple targets. The Iowa class at the very least had two complete fire control systems, and could slave main battery turrets to each system individually, as needed. The main battery turrets could be fired under local control, as well, so you could theoretically engage three targets at a time. You're right though, in that a single system could only maintain a firing solution on a single target.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
I was trying to redesign the Izumo in the shipdesigner. But I can't make it work and i'm 800 tonnes above weight basically. Without adding all of the guns. also I need some loving clues on how an efficent CA / CL are designed. I just put big guns on my poo poo and as much armor as possible. But I don't know how to put on armor the best. Affi fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Sep 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Affi posted:I was trying to redesign the Izumo in the shipdesigner. But I can't make it work and i'm 800 tonnes above weight basically. Without adding all of the guns. CLs should go fast and be cheap enough that you won't miss them when they explode. They're scout ships for your fleet battles. When you get in fights with them, you usually run, so don't worry too hard about armament. Make sure they outgun destroyers and they're fine. CLs have strict limits on their designs, so they should only be built with the scout role in mind. CAs are not so limited, so you can come up with a diverse array of them. Raiding cruisers go fast and have long range. You can fit that machinery into CLs, but sometimes it's a struggle, so you up the tonnage a bit and make a CA raider that does the same thing. The other stuff doesn't matter, you want to run from anything armed. Super-heavy cruisers are gigantic and as expensive as battleships. They're for the early game when Battlecruisers haven't been developed. Basically, you design a battleship, undergun it, and call it a cruiser. It will blow up all the AI's early cruisers because it can fight in cruiser actions, unlike battleships. Obsoleted by Battlecruisers, which are the same thing but can arm themselves more. Torpedo cruisers are dumbass things that I build if I have a lot of money. I take a CL, slow it down, arm it sparingly, up the tonnage, and then stuff it with 12 torpedo tubes on each side. I use them solely for fleet actions, and they may not be effective designs. CAs as a middleweight ship are obsoleted by most battlecruisers, who can catch them and sink them. WWII CAs were actually enlarged CLs, which the game doesn't really allow for. You don't need to build them. Edit: When putting armour on, you can click "gun data" in the design window and another window will pop up and tell you how many armour the selected gun will penetrate, at what range. By mid-game, you just want a lot of armour on your battleships, whereas speed is not so important. The AI likes to close in range, so deck armour is somewhat less important than side armour. Slim Jim Pickens fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Sep 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
It is a travesty that this game does not let you build a large light cruiser. Or at least insists on calling it a BC if you do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
RtW is focused on Pre-Dreadnought era and WW1 era ships, and it does those pretty well. It was never meant to do 1930s Interwar or WW2 era ships.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
I have Reliable Training and Elevation for Guns in Turrets Below 8" AND Secondary Turrets for BBs, but I still get warned about a ROF and Accuracy penalty when trying to build ships with them.  What am I missing?!
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
I think that is a known bug on the list of things to be fixed next version. Or maybe that was last version, do you have the latest version? (1.21)
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
Oh, there's a second upgrade "Improved Training and Elevation for ..." that eliminates the penalty, the one I had only reduced it to half. Oops.
Roumba fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Sep 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
Galaga Galaxian posted:RtW is focused on Pre-Dreadnought era and WW1 era ships, and it does those pretty well. It was never meant to do 1930s Interwar or WW2 era ships. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courageous-class_battlecruiser  E: gently caress, even wikipedia calls them battlecruisers 
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
Has anyone put together a list of all possible upgrades and their in-game effects?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
tatankatonk posted:Has anyone put together a list of all possible upgrades and their in-game effects? It's in a text file in Rule the Waves\Data, ResearchAreas. It's a little tricky to read, but it's all there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
Gentlemen, I give you: Peace  In  Our  Time This was a surprisingly fun game to play. I got down to 17 prestige at one point and wasn't able to avoid that tiny war with Britain, but I managed to just about get through by my own win criteria. Playing the liberal internationalist Wilsonian US was fun and designing to treaties was interesting. I managed to sneak out a 40,700 ton battleship between harsh treaties at one point around 1920. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Oct 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Gentlemen, I give you: That's certainly a more pleasurable quarter century than the real timeline.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
One thing you really notice zipping through a peace run is the lack of operational losses. Your ships never run aground, collide, or randomly explode. It sounds unlikely but those are all things that happened with a fair degree of frequency in real life even in peacetime.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
There are events for those, but the only one that wrecks/destroys the ship is the "sabotage!"/mystery explosion event based on the USS Maine incident that sparked the Spanish-American War (and was quite possibly a genuine accident given Spain was outmatched in that war).
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
In peacetime I mean.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
You can get blown up in peace time, albeit it usually results in war.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
Pharnakes posted:You can get blown up in peace time, albeit it usually results in war. Happened to me in my last game, and much like the real time-line, I absolutely curb-stomped the supposed aggressor (Austria, in my case,) Instead of a valuable capital ship, though, they blew up a totally obsolete CL that I was getting ready to scrap, anyway. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
Yeah but it always seems to be somebody's fault. It's not like 1908 when Liberté exploded and everyone blamed the nitrocellulose.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 12:41 |
|
|
Who says its someone's fault? Like the Maine it might've been an accident people place blame onto someone for.
Galaga Galaxian fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Oct 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 23:13
|
|