|
Post by Kriegsspieler on Feb 23, 2020 11:47:27 GMT -6
Lots of good advice here, even in the absence of that more general guide, so thanks. I have learned to appreciate the value of pulling back when I've won. Especially in major fleet engagements, if I can steal a CA from the enemy at the start or find a few ships that have been positioned somewhere apart from the main fleet and knock them out, I'm ready to call it a day.
As for "steady course and speed" bonus, I have found the obvious benefit of that. Problem is, the AI also can use it to better target my ships! A mark of a good game . . . .
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Feb 23, 2020 12:22:52 GMT -6
And my favorite self-quote, "When you have won... STOP." Don't keep pressing and risking; that's where the losses start mounting up. I cannot agree with this enough. After you toss away your 20th decisive victory it gets Really old. Machiavelli would have agreed with you, given that he wrote, in the "Florentine Histories" (1526): "Chi è contento di mezzana vittoria sempre ne farà meglio; perché quelli che vogliono sopravvincere spesso perdono" which can be translated, more or less: "Those who are happy with a halfway victory will always find themselves at an advantage; because those who want to win too much often lose."
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 23, 2020 12:27:53 GMT -6
Keep this in mind. In close combat, mistakes will always be made but they can be reduced by reading theory. Sun-Tzu, Mahan, Corbett and Clausewitz can teach theory and this can reduce those errors, but not eliminate them. Good naval combat success requires judgement, and that cannot be learned through books, only combat and fleet exercises.
Once your cruiser-destroyer scout force has made contact, do a 180 deg. turn and head back to the main fleet. Send the destroyers in first with gun and torpedoes to breakup the enemy force, then send in the heavy cruisers, armored cruisers or battle cruisers to hit and reduce his support forces like destroyers and cruisers. Now once this has been accomplished, assess the situation, then send in the battleships to finish off the opponents battleships. But remember that after a reasonable effort, don't push the limits. Turn you fleet around, send the remaining destroyers in to break up the enemy formations but now send the rest of the fleet back to base. Sometimes they will follow you and you can sink some of them with submarines.
|
|
|
Post by director on Feb 23, 2020 13:19:21 GMT -6
I would add more naval battles to that decisive list, but it's a matter of opinion.
I have had decisive fleet battles - I recall in particular one where I sank all but one of the Russian capital ships in an afternoon. Decisive battles are, however, rare. usually you know you've reached the decision point when the enemy puts his fleet in mothballs and concentrates on submarines.
One of my favorite sources is, "The United States Navy in WW2". It is a collection of many authors, ranging from after-action reports, live reports from reporters aboard ship, and memoirs penned some time after the war. A close-up look at what it is to be in naval combat in WW2. But as general advice I would tell you to study battles both at sea and on land, and study what the losers did (and thought) more than the victors.
There is a maxim in software work that you should not start rewriting someone else's code until you understand it - and, more importantly, understand what they THOUGHT they were doing as well as what they DID.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 23, 2020 14:02:35 GMT -6
The problem with the term "decisive battle" is its definition. Clausewitz states that it is the battle that leads directly to peace. This would tell us that it is not just tactical, but strategic and political. Has anyone really fought a battle that lead to that conclusion. I haven't. Trafalgar was a decisive tactical victory, but did it end the Napoleonic Wars? No, it didn't. Did Tsushima end the Russo-Japanese War, no. The Czar's fear of an internal revolution and economics on both sides did, not that victory. Julian Corbett is skeptical about any naval battle begin decisive other than tactical. Midway was a tactical victory and it stopped the Japanese Pacific offensive, but it did not stop them from invading and taking Burma or continuing their offensive in China. Something to consider in your game play.
|
|
|
Post by director on Feb 23, 2020 22:55:38 GMT -6
Yes, but I don't accept Clauswwitz's definition. I'm not aware of any battle that led instantly and immediately to peace... and any definition that doesn't include Trafalgar is far too narrow for me.
I'd say it was a battle that produced a profound change in the direction of a war, or severely impacted one or both sides' ability to make war.
Pearl Harbor determined that the Japanese could overrun Asia. Coral Sea helped determine that they would not occupy Port Moresby and threaten Allied lines of supply to Australia. Midway ended Japanese forward motion and determined that they could not defeat the Allies in decisive battle for at least another year. Guadalcanal determined that the Japanese could not retake an island the Allies were determined to hold, and wrecked the Japanese naval air force and destroyer force to boot. All of these were decisivie in that the outcome opened possibilities for one side and closed them for the other, in a way that - for example - Empress Augusta Bay or the Komandorski Islands did not.
It's a matter of opinion, so I'm not going to argue over it - just stating my opinion and I'll let it rest there. Rather like a Supreme Court Justice determining pornography, I believe I know it when I see it - but others may see it differently.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 24, 2020 8:54:47 GMT -6
Yes, but I don't accept Clauswwitz's definition. I'm not aware of any battle that led instantly and immediately to peace... and any definition that doesn't include Trafalgar is far too narrow for me. I'd say it was a battle that produced a profound change in the direction of a war, or severely impacted one or both sides' ability to make war. Pearl Harbor determined that the Japanese could overrun Asia. Coral Sea helped determine that they would not occupy Port Moresby and threaten Allied lines of supply to Australia. Midway ended Japanese forward motion and determined that they could not defeat the Allies in decisive battle for at least another year. Guadalcanal determined that the Japanese could not retake an island the Allies were determined to hold, and wrecked the Japanese naval air force and destroyer force to boot. All of these were decisivie in that the outcome opened possibilities for one side and closed them for the other, in a way that - for example - Empress Augusta Bay or the Komandorski Islands did not. It's a matter of opinion, so I'm not going to argue over it - just stating my opinion and I'll let it rest there. Rather like a Supreme Court Justice determining pornography, I believe I know it when I see it - but others may see it differently. Actually, director I tend to agree. I presented two widely different views to illustrate the conflict in ideas. Decisive battles have to be viewed and analysed in the context of their tactical, operational and strategic effect. My list of decisive victories would be different and Trafalgar would be included. It stopped Napoleon's attempts to invade England and opened up the trade routes so that England could survive. In the strategic sense, it was decisive. All of those battles that you list were decisive in one sense or another. I would say that Pearl Harbor was just a tactical victory. The US Navy had no plans of moving that fleet across the Pacific Ocean to tackle the IJN in a decisive battle. That plan, War Plan Orange, as originally created was now disestablished. So, it was a tactical and operational victory but a strategic defeat because it completely eliminated any idea that we would ever give up. This idea of us quitting, was the center point of the Japanese strategy. Coral Sea was a tactical draw, but it was an operational victory as it did stop the Port Moresby invasion, but only by sea, not land. As I have stated, the term "decisive" is over used and over worked mostly by historians and propagandist, not by knowledgeable people. In the game, we have to change our definition of decisive possibly, its hard to know. A victory in a tactical level, can be decisive in an operational level and further the strategic goals of a nation. It might not end the war but it further the national goals in a strategic level.
|
|
|
Post by director on Feb 24, 2020 9:43:49 GMT -6
I appreciate the measured response - wasn't trying to give anything but a respectful disagreement, myself. As you say, "the term "decisive" is over used and over worked mostly by historians and propagandist, not by knowledgeable people." I blame television for dramatic historical 'documentaries' myself - everything has to be made dramatic and exciting.
I'd agree with bringing in another level: the operational, which you rightly mention. If strategy is the gray area between grand economics and politics, operations is the vast gray area between strategy and the battlefield - the operation of forces to battle. If designing and building ships within a budget is strategic, then moving ships and planes around to seazones and bases is operational, whereas the battles are tactical. (I say that not to you, because I think you know, but for the benefit of others).
I fully agree that most naval battles have strategic effects but most of their effect is on operations: Franco-Spanish naval operations did not cease after Trafalgar (the war went on for almost another decade) but the type and tempo certainly changed. Gone were the battlefleets and the invasion threats; now the Napoleonic powers were limited to frigates and smaller ships. In other words, what they could do operationally changed, and with it what they could try on strategic and tactical levels.
Since we're in agreement here - and since I said I'd stop last time but was enjoying the off-topic conversation with you and didn't - I think I'll stop here. Enjoyed the conversation with you!
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 24, 2020 9:50:32 GMT -6
I appreciate the measured response - wasn't trying to give anything but a respectful disagreement, myself. As you say, "the term "decisive" is over used and over worked mostly by historians and propagandist, not by knowledgeable people." I blame television for dramatic historical 'documentaries' myself - everything has to be made dramatic and exciting. I'd agree with bringing in another level: the operational, which you rightly mention. If strategy is the gray area between grand economics and politics, operations is the vast gray area between strategy and the battlefield - the operation of forces to battle. If designing and building ships within a budget is strategic, then moving ships and planes around to seazones and bases is operational, whereas the battles are tactical. (I say that not to you, because I think you know, but for the benefit of others). I fully agree that most naval battles have strategic effects but most of their effect is on operations: Franco-Spanish naval operations did not cease after Trafalgar (the war went on for almost another decade) but the type and tempo certainly changed. Gone were the battlefleets and the invasion threats; now the Napoleonic powers were limited to frigates and smaller ships. In other words, what they could do operationally changed, and with it what they could try on strategic and tactical levels. Since we're in agreement here - and since I said I'd stop last time but was enjoying the off-topic conversation with you and didn't - I think I'll stop here. Enjoyed the conversation with you! Again, we are in agreement. In fact, most historians haven't agreed on the real definition of decisive. I think this is a good discussion but not entirely applicable to the game. Good discussion as usual.
|
|
RvT (Dickie)
Junior Member
RtW2 YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/@RvTWarGames
Posts: 54
|
Post by RvT (Dickie) on Mar 28, 2021 6:09:15 GMT -6
I've been playing RTW2 on and off for several months, and while I've gotten reasonably competent at the strategic fleet-building part of the game, I find that my tactical performance in battles still leaves a lot to be desired. In particular, I seem not to have the hang of using DD's. In many instances, I see enemy AI DDs rushing in like mad to get close to my larger ships, fire off a couple of torpedoes and rush away again with only moderate damage, while my poor CA is left limping along, trying to plug that big hole in the hull. But when I try the same thing myself, my little DD column gets shredded to bits without firing off a single torp. I would say the AI is "cheating" except that I know better than that.
So that prompts me to ask where I can get a good guide to tactical combat. You veterans of the first RTW, not to mention SAI, must know something to suggest.
Thanks
Perhaps late for this thread, but for the same reason I've been making my own mini-series on Battle Tactics, the first two are uploaded, the next two should be done in the next couple of weeks: Rule the Waves 2 | Battle Tactics Study 1 Being a Bit Cunning youtu.be/qdZPiZZDhWsRule the Waves 2 | Battle Tactics Study 2 Ship Manoeuvres youtu.be/eiM2TiarrLEHope they help.
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Mar 29, 2021 12:00:23 GMT -6
I've been playing RTW2 on and off for several months, and while I've gotten reasonably competent at the strategic fleet-building part of the game, I find that my tactical performance in battles still leaves a lot to be desired. In particular, I seem not to have the hang of using DD's. In many instances, I see enemy AI DDs rushing in like mad to get close to my larger ships, fire off a couple of torpedoes and rush away again with only moderate damage, while my poor CA is left limping along, trying to plug that big hole in the hull. But when I try the same thing myself, my little DD column gets shredded to bits without firing off a single torp. I would say the AI is "cheating" except that I know better than that.
So that prompts me to ask where I can get a good guide to tactical combat. You veterans of the first RTW, not to mention SAI, must know something to suggest.
Thanks
Perhaps late for this thread, but for the same reason I've been making my own mini-series on Battle Tactics, the first two are uploaded, the next two should be done in the next couple of weeks: Rule the Waves 2 | Battle Tactics Study 1 Being a Bit Cunning youtu.be/qdZPiZZDhWsRule the Waves 2 | Battle Tactics Study 2 Ship Manoeuvres youtu.be/eiM2TiarrLEHope they help. These videos are quite good. They address naval tactics with specific attention to how they can be effectively used in the game.
|
|
RvT (Dickie)
Junior Member
RtW2 YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/@RvTWarGames
Posts: 54
|
Post by RvT (Dickie) on Apr 20, 2021 0:36:01 GMT -6
|
|