RULE THE WAVES 2 PRE-RELEASE DISCUSSION THREAD

[axe99]

Thanks for the update williammiller, best of luck to Fredrik with the aerial code .

[Deleted]

Perfect, lets hope that everything will soon work correctly

[Sven]

Will this game start  in 1900? According to the information, it will.

If so, will it kind of replace RTW1?

Or will it concentrate on the 1920s and later, leaving ww1 to RTW1?

[largo4545]

    People mentioned previously the use of seaplane tenders but I'm curious more about other forms of auxiliary ships.

    It would be nice to be able to build collier/fuel oil ships to extend range of short range vessels. Also possibly adding destroyer tenders or even MTB tenders, deploying these auxiliaries in regions would allow a certain number (Maybe 4 DD or so per AUX) of ships to operate in foreign waters without suffering from cramped accommodation and moving the DD with the AUX (or an additional collier) would allow them to overcome short range during wartime.

    This would allow for significantly more useful destroyers early in the game because since tonnage for DD is low to start its best to use Short Range and Cramped Accommodation to maximize useful tonnage and speed, however it makes them terrible for Foreign Station and foreign wars. Obviously, you could just build them without the SR and CA, however the real historical strategy would have used tenders to overcome these problems and deploy them even in regions far away. Also it would create additional supply chain elements that can be exploited (attacking an enemy collier or tender to break their link / having your supply destroyed).

[sittingduck]

Jul 1, 2018 10:12:21 GMT -6 Sven said:

Will this game start  in 1900? According to the information, it will.

If so, will it kind of replace RTW1?

Or will it concentrate on the 1920s and later, leaving ww1 to RTW1?

I asked the almost the same question and Fredrik was good enough to reply...

"RTW2 will contain everything in RTW as well as all the additions and improvements that are specified for RTW2. Thus, no need for updating RTW."

My assumption is it begins in 1900 with new tech paths, refined game play, an aviation/carrier facet, and a cleaner system through 1950 - thereby replacing Rtw1.

[williammiller]

You can choose to start either in 1900 or 1920 in RTW2, so the choice is yours.

[mmmfriedrice]

Jul 1, 2018 10:22:34 GMT -6 largo4545 said:

    People mentioned previously the use of seaplane tenders but I'm curious more about other forms of auxiliary ships.

    It would be nice to be able to build collier/fuel oil ships to extend range of short range vessels. Also possibly adding destroyer tenders or even MTB tenders, deploying these auxiliaries in regions would allow a certain number (Maybe 4 DD or so per AUX) of ships to operate in foreign waters without suffering from cramped accommodation and moving the DD with the AUX (or an additional collier) would allow them to overcome short range during wartime.

    This would allow for significantly more useful destroyers early in the game because since tonnage for DD is low to start its best to use Short Range and Cramped Accommodation to maximize useful tonnage and speed, however it makes them terrible for Foreign Station and foreign wars. Obviously, you could just build them without the SR and CA, however the real historical strategy would have used tenders to overcome these problems and deploy them even in regions far away. Also it would create additional supply chain elements that can be exploited (attacking an enemy collier or tender to break their link / having your supply destroyed).

I like this idea. Would also make escort missions have an element of fleet survival relevance rather than a 'push X to not raise unrest' mission.

[oldpop2000]

With the introduction of carriers and aircraft into the fleet, the command and control gets far more complex. There has to be, not only ship to ship, but ship to aircraft and aircraft to ship. Now, this leads to communications which can be detected and used to identify and discover a fleets location. My question, and I understand you can't divulge much at this point, is whether there will be some signal intelligence research and encryption of radio communication, codes etc. The question maybe too specific but a function like Bletchley Park and Station Hypo to name a few plus signal intelligence personnel on board the carriers would lend a bit of actualism.

Thanks

[dirtnap]

Jun 10, 2018 14:58:35 GMT -6 archelaos said:

Jun 9, 2018 10:16:59 GMT -6 dorn said:

3. Cruisers

What will be limits for light cruisers? In RTW there is limit on tonnage (up to 8,000 tons), guns (up to 6" for light cruisers) and armor (3" belt armor max.). But in reality cruisers were steadily upgunned, better armored and large, just the treaties prevented it completely. So it is possible that without treaty cruisers will involve up to Alaska class (e.g. Myoko, Mogami, Admiral Hipper, Italian cruisers etc.)

I do not understand calling USS Alaska cruiser. She was a battlecruiser, pure and simple. Navy named her cruiser as Congress would not give money for a BC. If we call Alaska a cruiser, then Scharnhorst is a cruiser (she is slightly larger and carries weaker weaponry) as well as Dunkerque (she was smaller than Alaska)

I'd like to see cut off at 20k tons with everything above being classified as BC, unless a special cruiser killer class*(CB?) is added (20-30k tons, guns up to 13in, over 26kts) that appears around 1920-30 (tech triggered). The class would have lower chances to be placed in BC squadrons in battles and higher as fleet scout, leading cruiser squadron or convoy escort/attack. Possibly old BCs could get option for a downgrade to this class if they fit in (though I guess those will most likely be CVed ).

It wasn't her armament or her armor that qualified her as a cruiser it was her layout (machinery spaces, single rudder, secondary turret layout).

There was a reason only 2 were completed, the USN got about the same amount of performance out of the Baltimore class cruisers as they did from the Alaska class for a much lower price. Alaska and Guam's guns were very expensive due to their size (12") and length (much longer than other 12" guns in the USN arsenal). They were orginally designed to hunt down the Takaos and Myoukous but since the majority of them were sunk before the Alaskas came online they were relegated to shore bombardment and AA escorts, where they did excel. They had a heavier medium caliber throw-weight due to extra space on the hull for 40mm bofors but their 5" complement was the same as a Baltimore (6 5"/38 twin, 1 fore and aft of the superstucture, 2 amidships port/starboard).

There were plans to convert Hawai'i to a Guided Missile Cruiser in the 50s but they were ruled out as too expensive. I kinda wish they had, I'd have loved to see an Alaska still around today.

[archelaos]

Jul 3, 2018 8:47:22 GMT -6 dirtnap said:

It wasn't her armament or her armor that qualified her as a cruiser it was her layout (machinery spaces, single rudder, secondary turret layout).

There was a reason only 2 were completed, the USN got about the same amount of performance out of the Baltimore class cruisers as they did from the Alaska class for a much lower price. Alaska and Guam's guns were very expensive due to their size (12") and length (much longer than other 12" guns in the USN arsenal). They were orginally designed to hunt down the Takaos and Myoukous but since the majority of them were sunk before the Alaskas came online they were relegated to shore bombardment and AA escorts, where they did excel. They had a heavier medium caliber throw-weight due to extra space on the hull for 40mm bofors but their 5" complement was the same as a Baltimore (6 5"/38 twin, 1 fore and aft of the superstucture, 2 amidships port/starboard).

There were plans to convert Hawai'i to a Guided Missile Cruiser in the 50s but they were ruled out as too expensive. I kinda wish they had, I'd have loved to see an Alaska still around today.

The question is: what dictates combat use of a ship and thus a role? Layout? IMHO it is armament and armour combined with speed and range. Though obviously doctrine and war needs trumps over everything.

Alaskas were a ship British desperately needed in 1939 - fast battleship capable of locating, chasing down and defeating heavy surface raiders. So, in essence a battlecruiser, as that is the role they were invented for.

When they were finally completed in 1944, NAVAL war in the Pacific was already won (Battle of Leyte Gulf shown this clearly) and in fact US Navy brass already discovered that only ships needed were ASW and AA escorts for CV and landing taskforces. Alaska had no ASW capability and her AA battery was, in fact, almost identical to Baltimore-class which meant they were massive waste as for the cost of one you could have two Baltimores that would project twice as many AA and could be in a two places at once.

They were so massively bigger and more powerful than any cruiser in existence (compared to already big and powerful Baltimores, they were twice bigger, 1/3rd more armour on belt and turrets and twice more on deck, 3 times higher throw weight/minute), that calling them cruisers make no sense to me.

Ask yourself, if Fisher's BCs deserve to be called BC? Using your reasoning, they are cruisers. With armour of a cruiser, same speed, similar size, only bigger guns. And intended role to never engage capital ships...

[axe99]

Woot, our first look at a genuine RtW2 aircraft carrier (in the dev diary thread)! And allies! Sorry, just excited, carry on .

Edit: Although archelaos - Fisher's BCs were much larger and faster than the cruisers they replaced, as well as more heavily armoured (but not much more).

[zulu354]

May 21, 2018 21:57:10 GMT -6 tortugapower said:

I'd like to ask for a future update which discusses how orders of battle will work. It would be nice to see how Rule the Waves 2 groups ships for combat. I hope the user has the option to structure this because the random hodge-podge of divisions you get in RtW1 is unrealistic and can lead to frustration.

 I hope the Order of Battle will works like we knew it from Steam and Iron Campaign Expansion. With the addition to form your own groups and divisions with the ships in it. If one of you know the game Jutland, that's something like I would like to see the OoB is working here. However, watching the few screens on the Devlog thread, I have a bad feeling about the OoB, even with things are still subject to change.

But I still hoping for a gorgeous game in the end. =) Keep up the good work, William and Fred.

[brucesim2003]

So I brought this up quite some time ago in the RTW2 suggestions thread. Will we have an option to turn of aircraft? An extended age of dreadnoughts would be more my cup o' tea.

[dorn]

Jul 9, 2018 14:45:59 GMT -6 archelaos said:

Jul 3, 2018 8:47:22 GMT -6 dirtnap said:

It wasn't her armament or her armor that qualified her as a cruiser it was her layout (machinery spaces, single rudder, secondary turret layout).

There was a reason only 2 were completed, the USN got about the same amount of performance out of the Baltimore class cruisers as they did from the Alaska class for a much lower price. Alaska and Guam's guns were very expensive due to their size (12") and length (much longer than other 12" guns in the USN arsenal). They were orginally designed to hunt down the Takaos and Myoukous but since the majority of them were sunk before the Alaskas came online they were relegated to shore bombardment and AA escorts, where they did excel. They had a heavier medium caliber throw-weight due to extra space on the hull for 40mm bofors but their 5" complement was the same as a Baltimore (6 5"/38 twin, 1 fore and aft of the superstucture, 2 amidships port/starboard).

There were plans to convert Hawai'i to a Guided Missile Cruiser in the 50s but they were ruled out as too expensive. I kinda wish they had, I'd have loved to see an Alaska still around today.

The question is: what dictates combat use of a ship and thus a role? Layout? IMHO it is armament and armour combined with speed and range. Though obviously doctrine and war needs trumps over everything.

Alaskas were a ship British desperately needed in 1939 - fast battleship capable of locating, chasing down and defeating heavy surface raiders. So, in essence a battlecruiser, as that is the role they were invented for.

When they were finally completed in 1944, NAVAL war in the Pacific was already won (Battle of Leyte Gulf shown this clearly) and in fact US Navy brass already discovered that only ships needed were ASW and AA escorts for CV and landing taskforces. Alaska had no ASW capability and her AA battery was, in fact, almost identical to Baltimore-class which meant they were massive waste as for the cost of one you could have two Baltimores that would project twice as many AA and could be in a two places at once.

They were so massively bigger and more powerful than any cruiser in existence (compared to already big and powerful Baltimores, they were twice bigger, 1/3rd more armour on belt and turrets and twice more on deck, 3 times higher throw weight/minute), that calling them cruisers make no sense to me.

Ask yourself, if Fisher's BCs deserve to be called BC? Using your reasoning, they are cruisers. With armour of a cruiser, same speed, similar size, only bigger guns. And intended role to never engage capital ships...

Alaskas were not ships British needs in 1939. For her price you can get several light or heavy cruisers and that are what British needed badly. Alaskas were unable to fight anything tougher than heavy cruiser, she was much more like large heavy cruiser than battlecruiser. Her torpedo protection practically does not exist. Her armor could not face heavy guns. 
And for sinking heavy cruisers (as Admiral Spee) she has no much higher value than heavy cruiser. You need to locate enemy raider for which purpose Alaska was not substantially better. As you locate enemy raider you send numerical superiority force that tried to find him. For that purpose British cruisers were ideal assets, cost effective.
And she has 3 times displacement of heavy cruisers so you can get practically 3 heavy cruisers for her. 
She was practically luxury USN could have but not cost efficient fighting force.

[rimbecano]

The thing about the Alaskas, Scharnhorsts, etc. is that because the naval treaties had set the world's navies back decades, they qualified as capital ships in terms of how they compared to the bulk of the ships then in active service in the world's navies, but in terms of the state of the art, what would have been a modern battleship at the time of their construction without the treaties, they were, I think, solidly in heavy cruiser territory.