วีดีโอ

Great Video. The analysis was wonderful.

7x0 would be much improved by losing a pair of guns and a pair of torpedo tubes in favor of a 2nd MSAM. Can't speak about what that will do to the cost but would almost certainly be worth it. Could also maybe be modified into a CA by swapping to 2x1 8" guns. One thing to be very sure of is to maximize the available free tonnage so that when 3-4x SAMs or double or quadruple SSM launchers become available you have space to add them.

Love the analytical approach you took! I would go for CAs with fewer but higher caliber guns for the BC Screen.

you lost a few subs in the prior war with France. At what point or level of amount does one use submarines to cover coastal and block trade and attack merchant ships?

I love how thorough you are with your analysis and planning but don't you need subs for trade blocks and maybe mine laying done by submarines just curiosity?

Some thoughts on cruiser design: I'm not sure about the value of putting the full ASW suite on light cruisers. I've done it for roleplaying purposes but checking back on my save files reveals that light cruisers on active fleet almost never sink submarines. Unless there is some more intangible benefit like dissuading submarine attacks on the active fleet or getting random sub kills after battles (those aren't credited to any one ship it seems), then I would consider saving the weight for other systems and offload ASW to other platforms. In the modern era (post enhanced sonar requirement) high ASW ships on trade protection are what nets the most sub kills for me, followed by aircraft. Looking at the CL7 templates and one thing to note is their armor schemes are mostly terrible. Lots of All or Nothing with 2 inch belt. I don't think I have ever seen this armor layout save a ship. Its too thin and just gets perforated by light guns at normal combat ranges. For armoring against 6 inch gunfire about the minimum that I consider effective is 3 inch inclined belt backed by sloped deck armor. Sloped deck also provides the benefit of a "spaced armor" effect that occasionally eats a HSSM as a B* D hit that does only minor damage. Double dipping on the deck armor for side protection and sometimes nullifying a missile hit is why sloped deck is my preferred armor scheme for CL to the end of the game. Narrow belt is fine for saving weight. The templates all also have TPS0 which needs to be addressed. There's a nasty bug still in the game that has a big impact on the late missile era. Reloads for missile launchers with more than one tube or arm (this affects SAMs and SSMs) weigh more than they are supposed to, the weight of each reload gets multiplied by the number of tubes or arms. For example: MSAM missiles weigh 10 tons each for the single arm launcher, but they weigh 20 tons each on the twin arm launcher. A reload for a single tube HSSM weighs 10 tons, but for a quad launcher a single reload weighs 40 tons! This has been bug reported on the forum so I've been hoping for a fix for a while but its been this way for a year now.

Great analysis, love the job you're doing. One suggestion I would have for your CL debate is that during gun range surface action it is more than likely your CL will be taking some heat. In a longer war losses and repairs will require you to replace those missing ships and you will be needing some more firepower then CLX2 design provides you. Therefore it would be prudent to have a unified CL fleet of CLX0 design. Besides having a production line of same class of ships would allow you to benefit from occasional discounts and I believe there is a gearing bonus after you build a design for long enough time or certain amount of ships in class. Discounts and management ease would probably make up for 5k difference between X0-X2 designs and you could still change secondary and torpedo armaments to your liking for some extra AA.

X0, x4, and x5 are my fav too. Several divisions of X0s and maybe 2-3 divisions of X4s and 1-2 division of X5s looks like a pretty ideal cruiser force (assume you get rid of the older cruisers). Did any of these designs take into account helicopters?

For the area air defense role, I think it’s worth waiting until HSAM come around so they can better protect other elements of their formation. HSAMs require 10k tons of ship, (somehow my CLs can go up to 12k now)

There is a tech for deck launched interceptors but I think it might only apply to LJFs. Or maybe I just got the wrong impression. That being said, I last used a 2:1 ratio of LJF to HJF. But I also had small strike packages and relied mostly on surface units. Personally I would still hold onto this ratio and just increase the total amount of fighters at the cost of strike but I have strong bias against late game air power. The cost of JA and HJF is not worth it in my opinion. I have found that a decent CAP and SAMs will pretty much protect your fleet while you sail up to enemy carriers, exchange SSMs, and then wipe out everything remaining with BCs and other gunboats. I have achieved some insane curbstomps that were never possible during the dreadnought and prop age all without sending out any air strikes. Mostly thanks to the battle generator and air strikes being so underpowered vs the cost of jet aircraft. But since you're going to focus on the air arm you should just ditch the LJFs. You have a lot more potential night battles to deal with as Germany and can't control who goes on CAP. The costs will be high though. Editing because I forgot to mention something important. Long range air to air missiles is a tech that increases the HJFs Air to Air value though I'm not sure exactly how (I think this is a value that combines the various attributes such as firepower, maneuver, and toughness because this tech doesn't increase the firepower stats of HJFs. And HJFs will generally never have significantly higher firepower stats higher than fighters. I think firepower only applies to guns and air to air missiles is a hidden modifier) . That tech also makes your CAP trigger the enemy to launch ASMs from further out, but I'm not sure how this is applied. Like is it a global effect or only applies to situations where defending HJFs are involved. Better to assume it will only apply to HJF CAP which is another point for ditching LJF.

I think any craft can perform land based scouting. AI just uses those with largest range. I'm pretty certain I've seen MB on scout missions as well as HJF and JA, wasting their strike potential. You can't use helicopters on land because reasons. Plus they get missiles only if based on helicopter carrier that is not favoured by battle generator just as any other AV. Besides scouting from cruisers/destroyers, they mostly add to ASM score and that's it. Light jets are great on paper, but AI does not use them if it has alternative. So expect havies on scout and cap if carrier has both, instead of keeping them in reserve for strike.

On the template tonnage errors in tonnage. A guess, just a guess, is it hasn't applied your technologies espiaclly with the engine. Possible remedy after loading change the engine type and back again. May also need to do things like tweak at least one armor, if not all, down and back. This may get it to recompute properly, if my guess is right.

On cruiser selection I still use torpedoes in my warfare so I might go with the CL7X0 however really the torp work is still best done by expendable DDs. The cost of CIWS is iirc 5 deck points per each one where as LAA is ~2.5 so in order to fit multiple CIWS Id lean toward CL7X1

@03:43 Dickie: "What actually do I need with a land based air force..." and there in began the great realization of the influence of carriers as well as the costs to operate. You are putting the air force not on land bases but on mobile homes roaming the world like a swarm of angry bees.

On land based attack planes (Mdm Bmbr and JA) in the missile age with CV force. This time I tended to around 8 squadrons being available but in peacetime lower them to 4 planes. Some of each type. When the war starts I look at sea zones and assign the squadrons out where they will make the most difference and then change the number up from 4 to something. Jet Attack are great in narrow waters while Medium Bombers are needed for the deep blue sea.

The template loading weirdness as far as I can tell is because it applies the same process the AI goes through when building a ship from templates, where it will do it's best to make it actually buildable (substituting guns and other technologies where possible), as well as applying a bit of a diceroll for modifiers (e.g. more guns, or bigger guns, larger or smaller displacement, faster or slower, armor changes, etc)

For the cruiser discussion: In my recent experience as Japan (smaller budget and lower technology in general), you will soon be getting to the point where missiles and aircraft rule the battlefield. Medium and heavy AA become useless, CWIS can be good for missile defense, though. It was easier to design 2 cruiser classes for my needs, instead of the all-rounders. I would build 2 or 3 SAM cruisers per battlegroup as escorts for my CVs and BBs, and set them on AI control as support. Then I had 'fighting' cruisers, with just a bit of SAMs, but mainly SSMs who would patrol between my carrier groups and the enemy, along with some DDs as missile sponges. The DDs would scout and absorb incoming missile salvos, while the cruisers do the majority of the fighting while the CVs warm up their airstrikes. Those cruisers would then push enemy formations to mop up damaged ships using guns and SSMs, so that your airstrikes can go elsewhere. And naturally, even DDs become really deadly if you load them up with SSMs. There's something to be said for sheer weight of firepower. Heck, I had KEs sinking CAs using missiles in the later game. Of course, you're not quite to that era yet, but you're getting close and should consider the future. IE: Less HAA/MAA and main guns, more SAMs and SSMs.

On missile age battle cruiser I generally do not put hssm on them. This saves deck space for more defenses. The amounts of hssm brought into the battle by the battle cruisers is an order of magnitude then what my DD force brings

This is the kind of in-depth fleet review and planning that I'm no good at. Great analysis. I'm in favour of limiting the future cruiser builds to just two designs - going more granular risks your Task Forces (Carrier and surface strike) being compromised by the battle generator.

@21:17 I disagree with the order of your three-tier weapon system. Its missiles then torpedoes and the last to be sinking ships with is the guns. Putting torpedoes last is a dreadnought error thinking. Torpedoes are now long range and even bigger warheads even though there is torpedo defense system once hit the ship slows out of formation and with all the more torpedoes around you can get even more torpedoes into it

I'm about halfway through the video and I have a major concern that I was trying to warn you about in our discord DMs. When evaluating the cost of a carrier you must include the cost of the Air Wing which is often five times the base price of the carrier of maintenance

Missile age battleships and battle cruisers the speed is no longer a major decider of the larger battles. That is to say no matter how fast you build a battleship you will never outrun a missile nor the plane carrying it. Battlecruiser speed only really matters in the small skirmishes but not in the big fleet actions

I find the X12 a superior build. Cheap, with good punch and AA values. But very cheap, you could build 3 for the price of 2 of the ones you have chosen.

And the Patrol Aircraft give you your intel pre-battle reports on the zones they operate in--so ALWAYS keep squads of 4 in each zone, minimum. Possibly at each base depending on location. What is the airframe difference between jet attack and light jets? If the one has better stats it might tip the balance. Also, the maintenance cost of the jets is mostly (I'm pretty sure) based on how many missiles they have--so maybe your jet attack has less? Ya know, I said the idea was to screen, screen, screen and you pointed out that they may not still do that very well. So I had a think and maybe scout, scout, scout? They definitely put scouts far enough away to intercept missiles, BUT, they may end up way on the wrong side of the battle. (Or, on the other hand, there should always be at least one scout no matter where the enemy does come from.) {NOTE: not actually tested yet, just theory!} Oh! You mentioned MTBs! Which reminded me that if you make 2500 ton missile DDs, you WILL be able to convert them to Missile KEs WELL before you get the tech to be able to make purpose-built missile KEs! So always something I keep in mind though you always want those 3500 ton DDs ;-p (2500 tons is the KE limit.) (Tiny Dragon pushed past the 1970 'end' date and found that missile KEs DO actually get in battle and DO kill other ships with their missiles!)

I had been running my smaller carriers w jet attack at 1.5 escorted by 2 squads ljf and 1 fighter for night. Then I realized that the 1.5 cost meant I could do 2 squads hjf w night if I gave up the night fighters. These cv had jet retrofit but just under another penalty tonnage

Personally i only have Jet attack and heavy jet fighters on my carriers, especially since you are usally fighting in the north where nights can be quite long, losing a good amount of cap/escort/scouts during essentily 50% of the the battle is quite rough

I love how thorough you are with your analysis and planning.

👍🏻

do you trust the auto-select the strike package, when you used to do it manually? I guess it saves you time in recording time or playing the game in general.

Why not look at your aircraft situation and make the drive bomber obsolete before going into battle? when doing this is the weight of an aircraft carrier reduced and does it help in bad weather?

I think any Prop planes left at this point would either be TURBO PROPS or some sort of Prop/Jet Hybrid design. To be fair Props like the P47 Thunderbolt hung around for a while with their ability to provide lots CAS (That thing fully loaded with ordinance is as Iconic as the P51 Mustang or the BF109). But Yeah.... its pretty clear the age of Props is waning, your AA guns alone destroyed 3 of them and damaged another 2 (which I assume makes them peel away from their attack run). Although it is amusing to see your Jets getting shot down by Prop planes occasionally, even more embarrassing if its a tail gunner or something. Not sure how many aircraft the game tends to group into 1 strike but its usually less then 10.

Bit of a unrelated note, but I noticed that TECH Document I use to reference the Tech Trees (just as a reminder of what is where and when its available) been getting updated alot lately. Quite a few of Techs that can only be researched after 1960. (which If I remember right is the Soft end to the game, since it can go all the way to 1990) Not sure if its accurate anymore, but id like to think so.

"Large battles preference" is it on? Found on the between turn main screen > preference

TY, Sir! You are inspiring me to complete my HOI4 Italian campaign against the RN in the Indian Ocean. CVs galore! If I were a German in your world, I would be happy with our navy.

Interestingly the glide bomb strikes seemed to be very effective, even more than the missile strikes. Against those lone DDs and KE a least.

Just saying: there is a known bug out there that can destroy your RTW3 saved games. Something to do with rebuilt ships gives a memory crash, after that the latest save is corrupt. I had this problem today, and after some tweaking I managed to reload the battle I was in, but also increased my budget deficit and number of planes threefold. Naval career ruined. Just saying this because you have been playing this scenario a long time so you obviously need your saved games to function. I do not know what kind of backups you would need to do to be safe. Hope you do not experience this bug because I am liking this series.

@26:43 Those click for strike forces keep leaving out escorts. Please study what the AI assembles for you. Even 2 escorts are better than none for 9 attackers.

@12:16 "Various reports around here" My own intel assessment is that those 1-2 DD are the harbor guard boats possibly KE not DD. @24:50 yeah theres the actual fleet force. Remember to analyze the reports not just assume them.

Remember: you can also send out manual recon planes. I really recommend that when trying to find enemy carriers. If you look at those auto recon arcs when they get farther away the arcs are wider making them more prone to missing something. Really wish the game let us change the separation angle for longer ranges.

@09:57 Dickie "Unless we discover something pretty soon...." Me: Like the blue spotting report out side of Brest, the harbor in the north of France.

I don't need sleep, I need (paraphrasing inebriated Jon Parshall) BOOM BOOM!

Спасибо за вашу игру!

The MASM doesn’t weigh as much as your heavy torpedo at 2000kg or the Heavy B. at 1400kg thus it contains less explosives. Thus it will do less damage than your traditional loadout. I’ve only seen MASM do significant on cruisers or below. It also can’t penetrate the belt of a battleship. The 1400 kg B. can detonate in the kneel, causing significant flotation, structure and fire damage. The traditional loadout can cause pretty bad critical hits in the engine room or the rudder. The 2000kg torpedo will demolish ships with low torpedo protection. Also, the strike menu saids the TP / DB can carry HASM but in the logs the only thing I’ve seen them use is the MASM.

I could be wrong but because you used coordinated strike your light jet fighters were circling around your carriers waiting for the strike aircraft to take off. Because of this the jets were using up fuel, lowering the range they had for the mission. I’ve haven’t seen this issue myself though so I am mostly guessing. Maybe it was because you used coordinated strike for multiple carriers?

11:05 - not many players care about minelaying / mine defense, but for some reason I do. Hopefully in future iterations of RTW they add some more flare / game mechanics into mines to becoming a little more interesting. Even nowadays, most modern navies still maintain minelaying + Mine defense capabilities in surface fleets (and probably for submersables as well).

@50:29 I'm pretty sure you read the French fleet movements backwards. Their ships are shown at their end points. There are time stamps on the trail with the lower numbers in the north east. Its still good to look at those tracks to get an idea how hard it is to predict where an enemy CV force is going to be. Getting and keeping contact for strikes is the hardest part of CV on CV fights.

When trimming down the flights being flown to steer north on the search tab you never selected "no search" which is one of the options. Instead you turned off the double search.

@46:50 On Dawn you might wanted to have turned your CAP level back up.

Neat idea on on spreading out a DD squadron as bait for enemy air attacks. On keeping the DD in position... you could just lower the DD speed below 15 knots. Also your base CV speed was at 18. So they speed up to make 30+ for air ops then turn to your desired heading but SLOW to that 18. You could speed up the CV base speed. Note: the DDs with the CVs will run out of fuel faster.

Pro Tip: @31:36 you need to also adjust for how their CVs, like yours, must turn into the wind a lot. That course appears to be their desired heading. Their actual will be that + into-wind. Thanks to the speed of jets there is far less time for them to get away from where they were spotted.