*20 Torpedo Bombers Approaching the Thread!* -- Rule the Waves 2

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > *20 Torpedo Bombers Approaching the Thread!* -- Rule the Waves 2

OpenlyEvilJello: Dec 28, 2009

Gort posted:

What do people build for a 1900 legacy fleet? I've been building as many multiples of 10 destroyers, 2 6000-ton light cruisers and 1 four-gun battleship as I can afford, but I've been feeling the lack of armoured cruisers so might switch out some of the destroyers and one of the light cruisers for that.

This is for Austria, so no need for colonial ships.

I think this is way too many destroyers. As you've noticed, they're not that effective early game. Their main purpose is to finish off crippled ships and make it harder for the AI to do the same to you. Four per battleship is plenty for this, and for an Austria run I might well start with only ten destroyers total on very large.

# ¿ Jun 17, 2019 14:24

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 02:48

OpenlyEvilJello: Dec 28, 2009

Gort posted:

If we're going for the cheapest possible ship for trade protection (which I assume is optimal, nobody said anything when I asked if their capabilities matter) then a 600-ton corvette is an inferior choice to a 500-ton destroyer, though, isn't it?

In my current game, my 500-ton legacy destroyer costs 1816 and 11 in maintenance (per the build screen�in practice maintenance cost varies with status and location) and my 600-ton 1902 corvette costs 1785 and 10 in maintenance with over three times the gun power and minesweeping gear. You can make cheaper destroyers, but then you run the risk of the battle generator pulling them into regular battles.

Bremen posted:

One thing I find interesting is I've never seen destroyers spawn the "raider intercepted" mission, but whenever I send cruisers on trade protection I get a bunch of those and stop losing transports to raiders. Which is probably for the best since a single destroyer would get demolished going up against commerce raiders.

My working theory is that destroyers (and maybe corvettes? I haven't tried) will work for the minimum number of trade protection ships to avoid a penalty, and will kill subs (I assume they're what's causing enemy sub losses, anyways) but don't actually protect ships from raiders, while light cruisers+ do.

Cruisers do not need to be on TP to repel or intercept raiders. Even cruisers set to raid can intercept raiders, I think. I do think it's fair to characterize TP as a primarily ASW role.

# ¿ Jun 18, 2019 19:20

OpenlyEvilJello: Dec 28, 2009

Bremen posted:

In my current game I had a dozen cruisers in a region on active fleet, but was still losing 3-5 transports a month to raiders in that specific region. I set four of them on trade protection and instantly the next month I got messages that two raiders had been thwarted. Maybe raiders can intercept raiders, but I'm fairly certain active fleet can't.

I'll have to keep an eye on this. It's possible it changed between 1 and 2 with the switch from CP to TP. I did confirm in my current game that one of my raiding cruisers thwarted an enemy raider.

# ¿ Jun 19, 2019 03:53

OpenlyEvilJello: Dec 28, 2009

vyelkin posted:

Just build this:

That might be an ideal battleship for the British fleet, but that doesn't mean it is for everyone. :v:

# ¿ Jun 23, 2019 20:42

OpenlyEvilJello: Dec 28, 2009

Kilonum posted:

Yup

on an unrelated note, anybody happen to know the savegame folder?

It defaults to C:\NWS\Rule the Waves 2\Save.

Gay Hitler posted:

Can anyone help me understand rebuilds? What happens in a rebuild when you arent replacing machinery or guns or fire control that takes 3-4 months? Should I do that more regularly? Do I need to rebuild guns to get turrets or ammo improvements?

How often do you replace machinery? Do you usually just throw all your new excess tonnage for more speed?

At what point do you start scrapping ships?

IIRC you need a rebuild (a "blank" rebuild is enough) to get the benefit of techs like Improved Triple Turrets. You don't need to do anything to benefit from improvements to shells or torpedoes.

It's usually not efficient to perform a major rebuild (replacing machinery or main guns). You'll get more out of spending that money on a new ship. Treaties are the big exception.

# ¿ Jun 27, 2019 05:03

OpenlyEvilJello: Dec 28, 2009

ModernMajorGeneral posted:

I played RTW1 but I seem to have got even worse at this game and haven't even got to aircraft yet.

Is there some trick to getting gains in wars? I just had 3 back to back wars where I had a 2x VP lead and pressed for hard terms every time, and got only minor concessions each time. I chalked this up to bad luck (and historical accuracy, since my frustration led me into a disastrous 4th war where I lost my whole BC fleet... but that also concluded with status quo despite being 20k points behind) but I noticed there was a naval invasion function now, so maybe it's harder now to get territories without manually invading them?

I was wondering if there was a guide around anywhere on how to manage AI orders effectively. I had the most frustrating battle where my flagship was an old, crappy predreadnought, and I retreated when an enemy BB appeared, but my AI BC just sailed right into the enemy line and blew up instantly. Also, the universal bad admiral problem of how to launch torpedo attacks (I keep noticing that when my battle line is in pursuit of the enemy, my destroyers always follow behind the capital ships, and as a result accomplish nothing while my own battleships eat torpedoes from the trailing enemy DDs).

There are no random invasions anymore as I understand it. If you don't manually invade you won't invade at all.

Also you will basically never score torpedo hits on ships you're chasing because torpedoes don't have much margin of speed over ships, so the closure rate is low, which means it takes a long time, which means the torpedo will run out of fuel or the target will maneuver. Your captains not launching in that circumstance isn't doing you any harm.

# ¿ Jul 1, 2019 04:26

OpenlyEvilJello: Dec 28, 2009

Stairmaster posted:

where the gently caress is 1.06

Here.

quote:

The following are the fixes/changes made for the v1.06 update:
NOTE: With this update it might be best to start a new game due to certain changes made...
Added status for air bases. It is now possible to put an airbase in reserve, which reduces costs. Aircraft numbers in units based there will drop to 70% and pilot experience will be reduced.
Refurbished the aircraft replacement system. Air units now take longer time to replace losses.
Added filter for land based air in show air formations screen.
The frequency of private shipbuilding expansions will now be related to the tonnage of heavy ships in construction in home yards.
Added check box in battle screen to use fastest game speed available.
Fixed a bug with initial air search sectors that could cause them to be much too wide.
Ensured that normal catapults are invented before flight deck catapults.
Ensured that torpedo storage for ships cannot be negative.
Fixed a bug with heavy AA shell doctrine not sticking.
If Bomb load is selected as first priority for an aircraft design you are guaranteed to get at least some bomb capacity.
If a nation has an operational carrier, chances increase that torpedo bomber or dive bomber tech will be unlocked.
Fixed a bug with the air torpedoes ammo check when conducting a multi-carrier strike.
Fixed a bug when creating a new air unit under the reserve.
Fixed an error in check invasion procedure.
Fixed an erroneous objective location in destroyer action, Germany vs Russia.
Fixed a bug with air sounds playing even if sound effects are off.
Prestige penalties for being under budget are now stricter enforced during war.
Fixed unreachable invasion objective at Gibraltar.
Fixed unreachable bombardment target in Tanganyika.
Fixed a bug where buying an aircraft type from an ally will reset funds to zero if they are in the red.

v1.06 Aircraft Replacement System notes: Air units have an authorized strength and an actual strength. Air units will try to fill up to authorized strength, but it may take some time before they are up to full strength.There is a simple production system with a number of aircraft produced of each type each turn. The produced number will rise if more aircraft of that type are requested. You can see the number of aircraft in stock for a specific type in the aircraft types screen. If you disband a squadron, their aircraft will go back to the pool. In the air groups screen, bases will show Actual aircraft number/Authorized aircraft number/Base capacity. Air units will show Actual/Authorized aircraft. Bases not in home regions will get aircraft replacements at a slower rate.

# ¿ Jul 22, 2019 00:35

OpenlyEvilJello: Dec 28, 2009

The smallest number in a tech line (usually between 5 and 20) determines how much research is needed, so you can increase it to slow techs down as well. If you just want to stop it dead editing the years to 1999 or something like that will probably work better.

# ¿ Jul 29, 2019 00:59

OpenlyEvilJello: Dec 28, 2009

mllaneza posted:

Try Spain, it will test you.

One of my best wars in RTW1 was defeating Britain as Spain in the late '30s or '40s. I started in the game version that had a research bug that could prevent unlocking calibers over 12", which was itself really interesting, but by the time the war started, I was still stuck at 12" while the Brits were deploying serious calibers. It was a tough fight in which the decisive battle saw the entire British battle fleet go down at the cost of about 90% of mine.

Gort posted:

I've only really played the early game so I guess that's probably the reason. Early corvettes and destroyers are similar in many ways (like tonnage), but the destroyers are like 50% faster.

Small destroyers can handle ASW well enough in later years, but the advantage of corvettes is that the battle generator is much less likely to pull them into important battles. You don't normally want 500-ton destroyers escorting your capital ships in 1945.

# ¿ Aug 5, 2019 20:37

OpenlyEvilJello: Dec 28, 2009

I explain a bunch of the RTW1 economy in this post. As far as I know, RTW2 follows the same model. If you look in the almanac, each nation has a "Base resources" and a "From possessions" value. Add these together and multiply by some stuff and you get your budget. Budget +/- events mainly affect the multipliers. Over time, base resources are subject to percentage growth; colonial (from possessions) resources are not. Reparations go into base resources, so point for point they ultimately give you more money than colonies.

# ¿ Aug 18, 2019 08:49

OpenlyEvilJello: Dec 28, 2009

v1.08 is out

changelog posted:

The following are the fixes/changes made for the v1.08 update:
Changed the way the ASW value from flying boats are computed.
It is now possible to multi select air units and multi delete air units in the air groups screen.
It is now possible to change numbers for multiple air units in the air groups screen.
It is now possible to drag drop multiple air units to reserve or to other airbases in the air groups screen.
The number of Aircraft of air units put into reserve will now be completely reduced in the first month.
Ship design files for reconstructions that are older than 20 years and not used by any ship will be automatically deleted, thus reducing the size of saved game files.
Fixed a bug with the player declining an enemy invasion battle.
Changed ship selection for battle to make CVL more likely to be included.
Changed mechanism for limiting DD in battles and improved player feedback on why DD may not be deployed.
Tried to focus AI air attacks more on spotted enemy CVs.
Fixed a bug when starting a game in 1920 with slow aircraft development.
Fixed a bug with assignment of aircraft to units with an authorized aircraft strength of 4.
Increased peacetime aircraft production slightly.

Quality of life changes for air groups

# ¿ Sep 1, 2019 19:05

OpenlyEvilJello: Dec 28, 2009

New patch as of this week:

Patch notes posted:

THE FOLLOWING ARE CHANGES/FIXES FOR THE 1.10 UPDATE:
The age at which the AI considers scrapping ships will increase in the later part of the game.
Removed "Has sunk" message in battle.
Fixed error message when multi-dragging aircraft to the reserve.
Fixed a bug that caused scout forces not to appear.
You will now get a warning if you try to launch planes from a carrier that cannot perform flight operations. (Previously the strike would just not ready.)
Improved AI airstrikes on spotted player carriers and capital ships.
Carrier divisions now listed first in the division list in the setup strike screen.
Reduced chance for two turrets damaged on critical hit.
Immunity zone calculation now includes effect of inclined belt and additional deck armour.
Improved AI economic management of air units.
There is now a max value for secondary and tertiary gun calibre in design screen.
The time until a ship becomes obsolete will now increase to 12 years after 1935 and 14 years after 1945.
Own AI controlled ships (like convoys) will now be visible on radar. Note: This can make things more confusing in night battles, not less.
When multi selecting airbases in the coastal fortifications tab and selecting expand, all selected airbases will be expanded (if possible).
If you setup a strike and select launch, you will have an opportunity to adjust the target location when the strike is spotting.
Tweaked airstrike target selection so that they will ignore non-carrier targets on their way to the specified target location.
Adjusted air combat to increase the value of escorting fighters relative to CAP.
Added warning message if a multi carrier combined strike is attempted when the tech is not researched. (Previously the squadrons from the second and subsequent carriers would just go uncoordinated.)
Longer starting ranges in battles where carriers are present.
Carriers taking part in an exercise will have their full air complement even if they are in reserve (they are assumed to have been brought up to strength for the exercise).
AI nation treaties against the player will now show in the tension popup.
Increased the point value of carriers for VP purposes.
The AI will now launch larger and better coordinated airstrikes on naval targets.
Fixed a bug with AI submarines not sinking any merchants.
Fixed a bug introduced in 1.09 where old game files were not cleared.

Looks like bug fixes, quality of life, and AI improvements.

# ¿ Oct 23, 2019 02:00

OpenlyEvilJello: Dec 28, 2009

There's a hotfix:

Patch notes posted:

THE FOLLOWING ARE THE CHANGES/FIXES FOR THE 1.11 HOTFIX:

Fixed a bug with forces sometimes spawning too close.
Fixed a couple of bugs with the no contact timeout value.
Fixed a bug with own AI controlled radar spotted ships not displaying on the map as intended.
Fixed a bug with own ships sometimes torpedoing own radar spotted ships.

# ¿ Oct 25, 2019 04:14

OpenlyEvilJello: Dec 28, 2009

v1.12 is out

patch notes posted:

THE FOLLOWING ARE THE CHANGES/FIXES FOR THE 1.12 UPDATE:
Battles in restricted waters will be less common unless one of the sides has a base nearby. (For example battles in the Baltic or Adriatic if one side has no base there)
Added option for harder peace deals. This will work equally for the player and AI.
Reduced the chance of learning tech from foreign built small ships.
Ships with all secondaries and tertiaries in casemates will have 5 degrees wider firing arcs for main battery wing turrets.
CL with secondaries of 3 inches or less will also have 5 degrees wider firing arcs for main battery wing turrets.
Fixed a mistake in the nation file. Italy now has Motobomba FFF as a bonus tech as intended.
Improved heavy AA on AI designed carriers.
Reduced a tendency of the AI to overbuild MTB and coastal artillery.
Adjusted force spawning.
Made bombardment targets easier to destroy when bombarding ships are CL or smaller.
Added option to have a popup message when an air formations is ready.
The strike screen can now be accessed when weather does not permit air ops, but aircraft cannot be launched.
Aircraft cannot be readied if sea state is Gale or worse.
Added checkbox for confirming target location of airstrikes when spotted. Normally checked but this gives a possibility to avoid this.
Added possibility to set priority target type for airstrikes.
Increased the chance for invasions to occur.
Made it slightly more difficult for fighters to shoot down other aircraft.
Increased the difficulty of extinguishing fires on carriers.
Changed the show division names button to display further map options.
Added a button to delete selected reports in the report list.
Ships that are mothballed or in reserve will not be mined.
Reduced the hit chance for Medium bombers dropping torpedoes.
PB will now not have torpedo capability (applies to aircraft developed from now).
Added button to copy air stats to clipboard (for pasting into excel).
Prevented selecting possessions with a value of 10 or above as invasion targets (these are not invadeable, so the invasion would never fire).
Catapults in positions 3 and 4 (aft) are now legal.
Tweaked air unit experience (it was too hard for air units to become veteran or expert).
Fixed a display issue where the ends of long class names could be obscured in the ship dialog.

The wing turret firing arc change is interesting. Small buff to my 1-2-D-E-V-Y aggressive CL layout. Several QOL upgrades for the air game. Popup on ready is big for me. Weakened CL bombardment targets is a welcome change. Nerfs to non-TB air-launched torpedoes might have a substantial effect on LBA composition.

# ¿ Nov 18, 2019 23:54

OpenlyEvilJello: Dec 28, 2009

It's one of the reasons I don't play GB, so I'm probably not the best advice-giver. Have you ever tried the "colonial aviso" route? (Disclaimer: I have only done so in RTW1.) An 800-ton MS/KE with colonial service counts as a nice round 1000. I think TP status counts for garrison purposes in wartime, so you could just bulk-switch from FS to TP.

# ¿ Nov 26, 2019 16:33

OpenlyEvilJello: Dec 28, 2009

1.13 is out

Patch notes posted:

THE FOLLOWING ARE THE CHANGES/FIXES FOR THE 1.13 UPDATE:
Reduced pre-battle air attrition and made it more variable.
Pre-battle air attrition will be heavier for both sides if suppress airbases is selected as air priority.
Added the ability for carrier divisions to provide CAP to any other division on the same side. This is in addition to CAP for supported divisions.
Improved AI airbase construction and land air unit management.
There will only be one aircraft from each manufacturer offered as prototypes. Prototype names will be unique.
Cancelling a fleet exercise will not prevent further fleet exercises the same year.
Added a button for putting all ships in reserve (useful after a war).
Fixed a bug with air units getting hijacked by sunk ships.
Fixed a bug with default search areas for airbases sometimes being wrong.
Fixed a bug with BB at start in 1920 sometimes having a build year of 1900.
Fixed a bug in aircraft replacement procedure.
Fixed a bug with invasion missions not triggering when completed.
Fixed a bug with air formation experience set to Fair after loading a saved battle.
Fixed a bug with speed/Hp calculations for some high speed cruiser designs.
Fixed a typo in the British bonus techs.
Stopped forces spawning on top in some cases.

Nice, they fixed the fleet exercise cancel bug. Mostly bug fixes, but assignable CAP could be significant.

# ¿ Nov 29, 2019 20:55

OpenlyEvilJello: Dec 28, 2009

Caconym posted:

What does "long lange" actually do in game? Is there any reason to not go medium range for everything larger than a destroyer? Maybe if you assign a raider to a sea zone where you have no basing?
Also where is the vaunted "flotilla attack" button, I can't get my destroyers to not hide behind the battle line even at knife range at night.

Fredrik, talking about RTW1, posted:

Ships with long range will:
* Have better chances to escape interception as raiders.
* Better chances of sinking merchants if raiders.
* Better chance of intercepting raiders.
* Less risk of being interned or scuttled from lack of fuel.
* More fuel when a scenario starts (rarely of importance).

Ships with reliable engines will have:
* Less chance of engine problems in scenarios.
* Less chance of needing to return to base area when at sea (getting a *).
* Less risk of being interned or scuttled from engine problems.

# ¿ Dec 16, 2019 15:29

OpenlyEvilJello: Dec 28, 2009

1.14 posted:

THE FOLLOWING ARE THE CHANGES/FIXES FOR THE 1.14 UPDATE:
Light cruisers with DP main armament (AA cruisers) are more likely to be selected as CV escorts. Note that they might still very well get involved in surface actions, as happened historically.
Seaplane carriers can now provide CAP. Floatplanes will fly CAP only if their division has specifically been ordered to fly CAP over a division (which can be themselves).
Added possibility to request land based CAP over ONE ship division. (Button in division screen)
Researching secondary director for CL now unlocks secondary director for all ships if that was not invented before.
Increased aircraft handling penalties for carriers with aircraft capacity larger than 110.
BB divisions can now screen CV divisions when circular AA screen has been researched.
Reduced the number of times an enemy division is reported (to reduce report clutter).
Refurbished the calculations for penalty points when declining battles to eliminate some extreme values.
Increased CAP launch time variability.
Airbase Size is now limited to 100 planes if Fleet Size is medium or small.
The setup strike dialog will remember the last preferred target type.
Old techs are very likely to be discovered when they are older than 6 years.
Museum ships are now clearly labelled as such in the nation ship summary.
Ship list in main screen will not jump after a move is ordered.
Carriers cannot use cross deck firing.
Carriers with no aircraft will not be deployed in battles.
Some research levels in engine tech in the 30s will now give 2% weight saving in machinery (to reflect historical advances in engine weight reduction).
The attacker must now sink 6 ships to fulfil a convoy attack mission.
HAA factor now shown in design screen. Note that actual value in battles may vary slightly from the value in the design screen due to ROF and fire control advances.
Fixed a bug that could cause enemy reports to be visible when loading a saved game.
Fixed a bug that generated an error when selecting "Any ship" as target type for air attack.
Fixed a bug that allowed triple turrets on CL before they were researched.
Fixed a bug with the maintenance cost of ships under repair being dropped from costs.
Fixed a problem with invading Malta when the objective is inside the defensive minefield.
Fixed a bug that could cause enemy nations to take a player nation home province after a war.
Fixed some quirks with aircraft type assignment and aircraft replacement.

# ¿ Dec 18, 2019 08:40

OpenlyEvilJello: Dec 28, 2009

1.19 out

Patch notes posted:

NOTE ON MISSILES FOR THE v1.19 UPDATE:
We really want to create a more complex rendering of all the missile types, which will take much more time and effort than it did for the basic missiles in 1.19.
In light of that fact, and the fact that 1.19 was taking longer than expected to complete, we decided to save work on those for later - possibly even as part of an expansion or DLC.
The basic missile system presented in 1.19 would be greatly expanded as part of this, along with other new features added of course...

THE FOLLOWING ARE THE CHANGES/FIXES FOR THE 1.19 UPDATE:
Ship displacement is now taken into account when counting ship strength for blockade and AI battle decline evaluation.
The AI will now take enemy local air strength into account when deciding if it should decline a battle.
Added option to limit the size of airbases when starting a game.
Slightly reduced the repair rate of land airbases.
Slightly reduced the hit chance against ships for non carrier trained land based aircraft.
Medium bombers with guided weapons will prefer guided bombs to torpedoes when selecting weapons loadout.
Added Early SAM and ASM.
Enlarged the battle accept screen to avoid clipped lines.
Removed unused displacement requirement when rebuilding ships.
CA with core orders will now stay in line and not flinch from enemy BB or BC.
Firefighting will not happen on a sinking ship.
Reduced air kill rates slightly for faster aircraft (air combat was too deadly).
Researching improved Electro optical director will now unlock electro optical director.
Carriers could be assigned to battles if they had assigned squadrons but no actual aircraft yet. This has been fixed.
Adjusted strategic pathfinding so the path with most base capacity will be preferred.
Big ships will not fire main batteries at sinking destroyers.
Ships will not select main battery targets that are not in the arc for any main guns (should help Nelson configuration ships pick targets better).
Improved division reforming if spread out (should help carriers to keep station on flagship).
Relaxed friendly ship on LOS check when firing torpedoes manually.
V turret now only lighter on BC and CA.
Blast effects from V turret will affect non casemated secondary gun ROF. (The intention is to make use of V turret a thing for BC with casemated secondaries.)
Using V turret will reduce AA slots by 10%.
Added Celebes and Moluccas possession as there was a base vacuum in the area.
Added Shana port on Etorufu Island (Hokkaido) to improve invadeability in the area.
Fixed a bug with flotation warning user setting not being registered.
Fixed a bug with a nation announcing it was joining a non-existent war.
Fixed a bug with CL up to 12000 tons not being allowed after 1940 as intended.
Fixed a bug that could cause miscounts in aircraft losses summary.
Fixed a minor bug that could make air strikes with mission ground attack search when they didn't need to.
Fixed a bug with air torpedoes sometimes being added to carrier torpedo totals.
Fixed a bug with the AI not building airbases as it should in contested areas.
Fixed a bug with ships being able to get get full AoN during a refit.
Fixed a bug that could make you approve enemy nations blitzkrieg plans.
Fixed a bug with ships under construction moving with a surprise attack force.
Fixed a problem with error messages when the AI was trying to build ships that were too fast.

Aside from the obvious addition of basic missiles, I'd say factoring displacement into blockade and AI calcs is a significant gameplay change. Various nerfs to V turret as well. Targeting changes are a welcome QoL update.

# ¿ Apr 27, 2020 16:03

OpenlyEvilJello: Dec 28, 2009

Gnoman posted:

The designation for an "Aft Centerline Superimposed" turret position.

Familiar from Tiger and the Kongos. In-game, V has been essentially a lighter X since RTW1. It disables cross-deck firing configurations which X does not, but that was basically the only disadvantage. ABVY was almost always superior to ABXY and I'm kind of glad of these changes for that reason.

# ¿ Apr 27, 2020 17:22

OpenlyEvilJello: Dec 28, 2009

1.20 hotfix

1.20 posted:

THE FOLLOWING ARE THE CHANGES/FIXES FOR THE 1.20 HOTFIX:
*Fixed issue that prevented manual torpedo fire
*Torpedo launch interface improved - you can now quickly cycle through all ships in a division

# ¿ Apr 29, 2020 14:42

OpenlyEvilJello: Dec 28, 2009

1.21 posted:

THE FOLLOWING ARE THE CHANGES/FIXES FOR THE 1.21 UPDATE:
Improved AI carrier avoidance of enemy surface threats.
Improved AI airstrike management.
Air units that have been moved to another land base will have less aircraft serviceable if a battle takes place immediately after the move.
When opening the setup strike screen the selected number of aircraft for air formations will be set to number of undamaged aircraft .
Consolidated all air formation ready messages for one minute to one message.
Added buttons for set all to strike and set all to heavy to airstrike screen.
Carriers with core and patrol orders will now provide CAP to the lead division, just like carriers on support do. (to give more flexibility in managing supporting carrier divisions).
Reduced armor penetration for glide and skip bombing.
Adjusted AI ship designs better to research speed lower than 100.
The player will now see approximate range values for foreign aircraft he could buy a license for.
Reduced chance of losing contact with division based on search radar class.
Limited MTB:s to two squadrons per possession (To prevent spamming)
Improved scenario starting positions/spawn points for several types of battles (should greatly reduce spawn point issues).
Fixed a bug with torpedo reloads not working for above water tubes.
Fixed a bug with AI airstrikes sometimes not being coordinated when they should have been.
Fixed a bug with invasion battles carrying over to the next battle if the AI declined his own invasion.
Fixed a bug with harsh peace deals giving the player more possessions than intended in a peace.
Fixed a bug that could cause destroyers to wander off.
Fixed a bug that made MTB squadrons hug the coast too closely.
Fixed a bug with allied nations not taking possessions after a war.
Fixed a bug with a possession event, the player not getting the possession when ignoring an ultimatum from another nation.
Fixed a bug that caused air units participating in a fleet exercise to suffer real losses.
Fixed a bug that let the AI build larger airbases than set in the airbase limit option.
Fixed a minor display bug after clicking "improve bases" in a possession.
Fixed a display bug with speed loss when both adding bulges and replacing machinery in a rebuild.

Nothing that strikes me as a real game-changer.

# ¿ Jun 6, 2020 18:59

OpenlyEvilJello: Dec 28, 2009

1.22 posted:

THE FOLLOWING ARE THE CHANGES/FIXES FOR THE 1.22 UPDATE:
Fixed a bug with MTB:s generating lots of error massages in some situations.
Fixed a bug with Medium bombers getting torpedo capability too early
Fixed a bug with the upheaval in possession event giving you the colony regardless of answer.
Fixed some inconsistencies in the penetration table and associated calculations.
Fixed a bug with bulged and subsequent rebuild.

# ¿ Jun 15, 2020 14:39

OpenlyEvilJello: Dec 28, 2009

Bold Robot posted:

I wish there was a way to just automate air ops. One of the joys of RTW is that despite appearances, it is actually a fairly chill game without much micro once you learn the UI. But carrier stuff is just as complex/fiddly/click-heavy as it looks and really is not very fun despite being the main distinguishing feature of RTW2 over the first one.

Yeah, I exclusively play on Admiral's mode because I don't want to deal with all my divisions (and it's better to avoid the temptation). Carrier ops... kind of undo all of that. I'd like to be able to select a sighting or location and have the game automate sending a strike to it. Seems more in keeping with the more hands-off modes.

# ¿ Jun 16, 2020 01:37

OpenlyEvilJello: Dec 28, 2009

1.23 posted:

THE FOLLOWING ARE THE CHANGES/FIXES FOR THE 1.23 UPDATE:
Fixed the seemingly random variations of aircraft ASW values.
Fixed varying aircraft weights in rebuilds of carriers with more than 50 a/c.
Fixed an error massage that could appear in raider battles.
Fixed a bug with aircraft types of the same name being confused.
Destroyed turrets will now not generate back in action messages.
Mothballed ships will never be torpedoed by enemy submarines.
Fixed (hopefully) a problem with the design screen not appearing on multiple monitor setups.
Fixed a problem with aircraft running out of fuel if they couldn't take off due to bad weather.

Basically all bug fixes. I was expecting something more to do with missiles given the three and half months or so since the last patch. Still, mothballed ships being torpedoed was one of the more ridiculous possibilities before.

# ¿ Sep 26, 2020 20:51

OpenlyEvilJello: Dec 28, 2009

1.23 posted:

THE FOLLOWING IS THE CHANGES/FIXES FOR THE 1.24 UPDATE:
Fixed the issue with small caliber (<6") shells causing excessive flooding on larger ships with TPS4 protection system installed.

# ¿ Nov 2, 2020 20:56

OpenlyEvilJello: Dec 28, 2009

There's a little more information in this thread on the official boards. The OP is essentially the same as the Discord post; most of the added info is about the store and access.

# ¿ Dec 4, 2021 06:55

OpenlyEvilJello: Dec 28, 2009

And the expansion is still on course. There's a summary of content here.

# ¿ Jan 1, 2022 19:57

OpenlyEvilJello: Dec 28, 2009

Arguably the diplomacy system doesn't model 1900-1950 very well already. The game basically posits a world with more common wars for gameplay reasons anyway.

# ¿ Jan 2, 2022 23:37

OpenlyEvilJello: Dec 28, 2009

There is an announcement post on their boards, but it's in some random poster's thread instead of pinned somewhere visible :lmao:

Nice boat pics in the attachment, though.

:steam:

and Iron

# ¿ May 18, 2022 05:13

OpenlyEvilJello: Dec 28, 2009

Official announcement of partnership with Matrix Games

quote:

Epsom, UK, August 29th, 2022

Matrix Games and Naval Warfare Simulations are partnering to release the upcoming grand fleet management, design and battle simulation Rule the Waves III. This new cooperation between two of the most renowned brands in the wargaming community will bring new life to a franchise recognized as the best-in-genre by thousands of players worldwide.

�We are thrilled to start a new collaboration with NWS,� said Erik Rutins of Matrix Games.� We strive to give more visibility to key wargaming franchises and make them available to a broader public, and Rule the Waves has always been one of our favorite series in naval wargaming. We look forward to working with NWS to expand its audience and allow more players worldwide to enjoy this title�s depth of gameplay and accuracy�.

NWS is a US-based developer and publisher of both digital and physical naval simulations. The release of Rule the Waves 3 is the first collaboration between Matrix Games and NWS. The game will release on the Matrix Games store, Steam, and other third-party stores by the end of the first quarter of 2023.

The beta testing phase is starting today and interested players can sign up https://www.matrixgames.com/beta/rule-the-waves-3

Rule the Waves III is a simulation of naval ship design and construction, fleet management and naval warfare from 1890 to 1970. and will place you in the role of 'Grand Admiral' of a navy from the time when steam and iron dominated warship design up to the missile age.

Rule the Waves III will let you design and build the ships of your navy, and lead them into battle when war erupts. You will guide your navy's deployment, construction and operations during a period of great technological innovation and political tensions. While the game derives much of its technology and events from 'actual' history, you will find that you forge your own new history each and every time you play!

Features:

Play as USA, Great Britain, Germany, France, Russia, Italy, Japan, Spain, Austria-Hungary, or China.

Campaigns start in either 1890, 1900,1920 or 1935 and can run through 1970.

Monthly strategic turns with Battles resolved in a realistic tactical naval battle resolution system.

Manage your naval budget, and deal with interfering Kaisers, presidents or navy ministers as well as a variety of historical events including naval treaties.

Realistic design of ships ranging from corvettes to battleships and aircraft carriers.

Research and technical development will determine ship design and tactics.

Espionage will keep you up to date on the progress of competing navies

Submarines, airships, aircraft and missiles will all appear and change the naval balance of power.

Build, train, maintain and fight with your own 'ideal' navy.

Construct coastal fortifications, airbases and other defenses

Rule the Waves III Coming Soon!

https://www.matrixgames.com/game/rule-the-waves-3

# ¿ Aug 29, 2022 17:47

OpenlyEvilJello: Dec 28, 2009

I wrote a real basic primer on the game's economy in the linked post. There's more information available now than there was in, uh, 2016, but the basics still hold. "Fleet size" is a simple multiplier on budgets.

OpenlyEvilJello posted:

I explain a bunch of the RTW1 economy in this post. As far as I know, RTW2 follows the same model. If you look in the almanac, each nation has a "Base resources" and a "From possessions" value. Add these together and multiply by some stuff and you get your budget. Budget +/- events mainly affect the multipliers. Over time, base resources are subject to percentage growth; colonial (from possessions) resources are not. Reparations go into base resources, so point for point they ultimately give you more money than colonies.

Redeye Flight posted:

One problem I do have is that, at least on the settings I have, the rate of ship cost increases scales way faster than your budget does. There's basically no way to build any kind of navy up to size later on -- not just capital ships, but even keeping pace on cruisers and destroyers.

Is there a setting I can tweak to just dump more money overall on me, or is this a problem based on something I'm doing? Or just how the game's designed?

Ship cost rising faster than budget is by design, and you should be seeing your fleets mostly shrink in numbers between 1920 and 1950. You might be getting hit extra hard if you don't design for your budget. Like if you mostly enjoy building super-Yamatos, you probably won't afford anything else unless you're the USA. It's very easy to just crank that displacement up to max and pile on systems and I think a lot of players do it unconsciously. Whether that's affecting you is kind of impossible to say from back here.

# ¿ Oct 17, 2022 20:14

OpenlyEvilJello: Dec 28, 2009

It's tough to get to the historical numbers, generally, but if that's all you can get then you either need to up your fleet size (very large will get you the most historical results) or seriously cut back on your individual ship costs.

# ¿ Oct 17, 2022 21:29

OpenlyEvilJello: Dec 28, 2009

RTW3 is now wishlistable on Steam.

# ¿ Apr 26, 2023 14:56

OpenlyEvilJello: Dec 28, 2009

OddObserver posted:

I am guessing an all-rear arrangement isn't actually plausible because the rear needs to have the propellers?

No technical reason it's impossible (see, e.g., Wyoming and Arkansas with four turrets abaft the funnels), but designers value forward arcs more than aft arcs. Sort of similar to how rare AFVs with rear-facing guns are.

IIRC a bridge placed about 40% back from the bow is considered ideal for seakeeping, so the more extreme arrangements like the Nelsons do mess with that quite a bit.

# ¿ May 30, 2023 15:31

OpenlyEvilJello: Dec 28, 2009

FrozenVent posted:

The location of the bridge isn�t a huge deal for seakeeping - most merchant ships nowadays have the bridge all the way after - but there�s other drawbacks. You get a huge blind spot ahead, which makes navigating tighter waters more annoying (especially if there�s tugs and patrol boats and escorts flitting about) for one.

If anything, it probably didn�t catch on because as someone else mentioned you don�t have any weapon coverage aft.

I'ma stick with DK Brown's assessment over yours, no offense. It's a much bigger deal for small ships like ASW escorts (and I think he discusses it in his book on them, rather than The Grand Fleet or Warrior to Dreadnought) and it has to do with the effect of the ship's motion in 3D space on the decision-making ability of the officers, especially the vertical accelerations IIRC.

I am by no means arguing that it's the only or even an important reason why all-forward armaments were not more widely adopted. I think when the Brits were working on the KGV design, they decided that, with technological advances (esp. in propulsion) since the Nelsons, the all-forward arrangement no longer provided enough savings to merit loss of the stern arcs.

# ¿ May 30, 2023 23:27

OpenlyEvilJello: Dec 28, 2009

I want to clarify my position here because, looking back, it got muddled quick.

First things first, what I was trying to do was raise an interesting, rarely acknowledged factor in warship design, not make a slam-dunk argument for or against anything. I mean, how often do bridge ergonomics even come up on the internet?

But also, when I was thinking about this, it was specifically in the context of the "why no all-aft armament?" question. And like, clearly, the big reason is that being able to shoot forward is important�see also how 2-A-1 is vastly more common than 1-A-2 or how Dreadnought gets the wing turrets for the possibility of end-on fire. But I do wonder whether, in a hypothetical extreme "all-aft" design featuring more than two aft-facing turrets, constraints on deck area would end up pushing the command spaces farther forward than is optimal for operation. If you wind up with a battleship that looks like one of those oil-rig service ships, is that going to be a drag on command?

Anyway, I got snarky because I felt dismissed out of hand and/or context and that was annoying. Then I had anxiety about that all night because sad brains. Now we're here. Apologies if I was jerky about it.

Fun note, just last night I read that conning Nelson and Rodney took some getting used to because the ships' pivoting point was forward of the bridge, which is unusual.

Friedman, Norman. The British Battleship 1906-1946 (p. 62). Pen and Sword. Kindle Edition. posted:

The compass platform was the level below [the flag bridge] (note the bulges for the chart tables). US visitors found the view aft from the compass platform (navigating bridge) decidedly restricted, but were told that the pivoting point of the ship was about at �B� turret and that anything which came abreast the bridge could be passed clear unless the rudder was put hard over towards it (one officer said that manoeuvring was confusing because the pivoting point was well forward of the bridge).

# ¿ May 31, 2023 18:31

OpenlyEvilJello: Dec 28, 2009

A couple more thoughts:

Difficulty mode has a pretty strong effect on torpedo efficacy. If you're playing on Admiral, like I do, then you just have to accept that sometimes your destroyers are all pissant cowards who won't launch until an enemy ship is already sinking, and then they'll collectively blow all their torpedoes on it.
As someone brings up every time a new player has trouble with torpedoes, remember that your torpedoes aren't that much faster than ships, meaning the shots need a big lead to hit, meaning in turn that it's a lot easier to hit from ahead. Destroyers are frequently much more helpful at deterring a pursuer than slowing down a fleeing enemy, and tricking an enemy into pursuing you might help.
For ships with submerged tubes, keep in mind the firing arc of the tubes, which is not all that wide, and the fact that they can't be used above 20 kts. The speed limit might be a big issue for cruisers in 1906.

# ¿ May 11, 2024 17:11

OpenlyEvilJello: Dec 28, 2009

I could have sworn the speed limit for submerged tubes was 20 kts, but I can't find any reference to that right now. RTW 2 and 3 manuals both say 25, RTW 1 manual doesn't discuss as far as I saw, and Galaga Galaxian's old collection of "Fredrik tidbits" from the designer doesn't have any reference either. It might be an old reference from their forums ca. 2016, or I might just be getting senile.

# ¿ May 11, 2024 21:34

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 02:48

OpenlyEvilJello: Dec 28, 2009

Tomn posted:

unless you're Japan and managed a surprise attack

I once had an early-game surprise attack in which my destroyers all decided this was the appropriate time to actually lead their (motionless) targets. Zero hits. :negative:

# ¿ May 13, 2024 04:39

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > *20 Torpedo Bombers Approaching the Thread!* -- Rule the Waves 2