Rule the Waves 2

[ArizonaTank]

Fantastic game but for the life of me I can't figure out how to do the tactical battles properly. If there's not a clear objective to accomplish aside from "sink the enemy ships", then I find myself just drifting around trying to find enemies, until I'm told the enemy fleet left and given an inexplicable Major Defeat.

I'm loving the grand strategy layer, and mechanically I enjoy the tactical battles. Maybe I should try the 1920 starting campaign.

...am having a blast with it.


This is a very good strategy game.....

If you're on the fence with this one. Don't be. It is a terrific and deep alternate history simulation. I am looking across the Pacific at the juggernaut which is the US...and I just can't bring myself to poke the bear. Or eagle, in this case. MAMMOTH defense budgets. Local superiority may be possible....but I would have to do it several times.
...

++1

Having a blast with it myself!  Who knew that spreadsheet games could be so much fun!

IMHO The air capabilities really add a piece that was missing. Playing the air game is a little clunky at first, but it grows on you.

But at first, I must admit the "air" interface left me cold...

The only thing missing now would be a more hands on logistics component. 

I have RTW 1, and don't regret the investment in RTW 2 at all.  Well worth it in my book.

[HoodedHorseJoe]

As someone who never played RTW1, I've found RTW2 to be a bit of a revelation. It scratches that same itch that Paradox games do, and I find myself jumping on for short stints or leaving it running during the day and clicking through a few turns.

I don't really know anything about the subject matter, so I've struggled to learn things like the ship designer etc... found some stuff in the manual that helped but I'd have preferred some more tool-tips based information that means I don't have to leave the game environment to figure out what I'm missing.

Really quite enjoying it though - I did my first game as AH (still in progress, but I don't think I've kept my fleet modern enough so getting my ass handed to me now) and now playing as Japan. Playing this smaller nations with limited budget/facilities is really hampering my ability to keep up with the AI.

[ArizonaTank]

.....

I don't really know anything about the subject matter, so I've struggled to learn things like the ship designer etc... found some stuff in the manual that helped but I'd have preferred some more tool-tips based information that means I don't have to leave the game environment to figure out what I'm missing.

,,,,,

I generally let the AI build my new ships, and then tweak them. The AI does a better job than I do in designing ships...

RTW2 has a ton of lessons about early 20th century naval technology....for me anyway.

[ArizonaTank]

I am really enjoying the game, and am very happy with it. But like anything there are strengths and weaknesses

Strengths

-A great fictional campaign engine that really pulls you in. Politics plays a big part, but is appropriate...it keeps the player's focus on the naval game. For example, I played a game as Japan, and got into a protracted war with the Soviets. The AI Russian was able to blockade me, and I generally ignored the ever increasing messages that my population was starting to starve, and that there were riots and mutinies. I called out the troops to crush these. At the same time, I had a couple of major victories, so I took a hard line on peace negotiations, kept naval spending high and basically kept the war going. Before I could bring the Soviets to their knees based on sinking their BBs alone, the Japanese people revolted, and the government fell. The new government sued for peace, and turned over a large piece of my navy to the Soviets as reparations. Very bitter experience....:)

-An appropriate introduction of airpower...CVs don't become King of the Ocean overnight

-Tactical battles are fun, highly detailed, but not too groggy.

-The game does a great job of depicting the interplay of key components of naval battle... speed, vs. armor, vs. range, vs. caliber, etc. Ultimately, the game is about who can get the best technology into the ocean the fastest...not an easy feat.


Weaknesses

-The AI does a dumb thing or two on the tactical map. I could see how these might really ruin the game for some folks. But this is not every battle...my guess is you see these in 1 battle in 10.  For example, in a 1929 battle, I had a carrier division with two CVLs. One of them was hit by a bomb, and lost speed. It broke out of the division (OK so far), but then proceeded to head into enemy territory. Unescorted, it went all the way to the enemy coast, and somehow never ran into anything...and survived...but only because it was night. Because the wayward CVL was out of command range, I could not get control of it from the AI.

-The UI is not always intuitive.


Things I'd Like to See

-Hands on Logistics: the player being involved in managing the flow... War In the Pacific Admiral's Edition is the gold standard here.

-Options for more player control. Instead of division based targeting, let the player designate targets on a ship by ship basis for example.

-Let the player manage the sub war.

-More control of air components, aircraft production and distribution. Would love to see features like the standard Gary Grigsby, 2 by 3 game.

-More player involvement in setting up battles prior to starting; composition of divisions for example.

[Toonces]

I'm sure there's a great game in there, but man alive those let's plays were so boring I can't imagine paying money for this.  I skipped through that 3 hour one in like 30 seconds...just wow.

[Gusington]

^Irony, thy name is Toonces.

[DennisS]

I'm sure there's a great game in there, but man alive those let's plays were so boring I can't imagine paying money for this.  I skipped through that 3 hour one in like 30 seconds...just wow.

One youtuber, magnus or something like that, built a f*ckton of aircraft carriers, with 12 six inch guns, and a bunch of torpedoes. Not sure if he gets the idea behind CV's.

When I pointed out some consistency errors, he got more than a little pissy. It may have been the comment about why did he have belt armor.

He said all the six inch guns were for the enemy destroyers, and I suggested to him that if he gets his carriers within gun range of an enemy surface combatant, he done effed up.

[besilarius]

By the 1940s that proved to be the case.
During one Fleet Problem in the 1930s, Lexington and Saratoga were on opposite sides.  Due to poor visibility, they actually came into range and "exchanged gunfire from their 8" guns".
The one and only occasion when carriers duked it out.

[Gusington]

Wow that is fascinating. Is there any footage or images of that?

[ArizonaTank]

By the 1940s that proved to be the case.
During one Fleet Problem in the 1930s, Lexington and Saratoga were on opposite sides.  Due to poor visibility, they actually came into range and "exchanged gunfire from their 8" guns".
The one and only occasion when carriers duked it out.

Interesting

In my game of RTW2, in 1929 Japan, I was trying to design a CVL. The "design board" would not pass the design until I had put at least 8x6in guns on it...not an easy thing to do.  In the same game, by 1939, the "design board" had no issue with a CV that only had secondary and AA guns.

[besilarius]

Al Nofi might.  He wrote a book on the Navy's Fleet Exercises before WWII.  I don't recall any pictures of that in the book, but it's been a few years.

[DennisS]

By the 1940s that proved to be the case.
During one Fleet Problem in the 1930s, Lexington and Saratoga were on opposite sides.  Due to poor visibility, they actually came into range and "exchanged gunfire from their 8" guns".
The one and only occasion when carriers duked it out.

Interesting

In my game of RTW2, in 1929 Japan, I was trying to design a CVL. The "design board" would not pass the design until I had put at least 8x6in guns on it...not an easy thing to do.  In the same game, by 1939, the "design board" had no issue with a CV that only had secondary and AA guns.

It is 1930 in my game, and I cannot build a CVL or CV in ANY configuration. Also..I can't build any TBD or SBD, or even a Medium bomber. I'm getting smoked here. All I can do is to build scout planes and fighters. Very frustrating..as my strategy is to build 10% (by tonnage) CA's, 40% CL's, 40% CV's, and the rest DD's and KE's. All of them are fast, faster than the fastest BB afloat. This is a winning strategy, but I just can't get the carriers built.

[besilarius]

This may be a good book for the folks interested in this period.  The Russian pre-Dreadnaughts actually came off very well against the High Seas Fleet's Dreadnaughts.  This was due to their increased elevation of the main guns, giving them slightly greater range:

" Battle for the Baltic Islands 1917; Triumph of the Imperial German Navy"
Author: Gary Staff
Publisher: Pen and Sword Books Ltd., Yorkshire and Philadelphia, copyright 2008, reprinted 2018
ISBN: 978-1-52674-849-2
Reviewer: Robert P. Largess
              Immediately before and after the outbreak of the First World War, Britain seriously considered sending its fleet into Heligoland Bight and seizing an island base off the German coast – Borkum perhaps. The goal was to force the German fleet out to fight, or bottle it up with mines, submarines and destroyer flotillas, instituting a close blockade of Germany. The chief problem the British faced was entering willfully into the lair of German minefields, submarines, and destroyer flotillas, asking for a battle in their own narrow home waters which the Germans anticipated and planned to win. Plainly too dangerous - the British chose to base their fleet safely distant at Scapa Flow and institute a distant blockade, pending a victory over the German fleet in the North Sea. Yet had the Battle of Jutland resulted in a crippling defeat for the German battle fleet, the British would have certainly undertaken such an unprecedented sea vs. land operation with their own battle fleet, either in the Bight or the Baltic, to break the stalemate on the Western Front and force the Germans out of the war.
            Of course this never happened; and the great example of a fleet-against-shore amphibious operation in WWI, the Dardanelles, seems a perfect example of how (and where) NOT to do it. Yet in August 1917, the Germans undertook the complex yet very successful "Operation Albion". The Russians controlled the Gulf of Riga, cut off from the Baltic by narrow straits between the islands of Osel, Moon, and Dago, barred by extensive minefields covered by heavy shore batteries including 12" guns. Essentially the Russian fleet was holed up behind fortifications in the Gulf of Riga and free to operate there on the sea flank of the German land drive north through the Baltic countries, to Riga, Reval, and the Gulf of Finland, to threaten St. Petersburg and knock Russia out the war. "Operation Albion" involved landing on the three barrier islands, capturing their heavy guns to permit minesweeping of the straits, and breaking into the Gulf of Riga with battleships of the High Seas Fleet to drive out or cut off the Russian gulf squadrons.
           "Albion" was a rare case of dreadnought battleships used in amphibious operations in WWI. But their long range guns and air-spotting made them very effective, able to take out long range artillery batteries, provide support in infantry battles, and fire over intervening land barriers to hit Russian naval units. Their movements had to be accompanied by careful, dangerous minesweeping, and they suffered frequent mine damage but no losses, due to their well designed underwater protective systems – in stark contrast to the vulnerability of the Allied predreadnoughts at the Dardanelles. Also the Russian shore guns were mostly in open, visible emplacements in flat country, much easier to hit than the Turkish guns. On the other hand the Russian predreadnoughts had been given a slight advantage in gun elevation and thus range, and managed to harass the German dreadnoughts effectively. Smaller ships on both sides, destroyers, torpedo boats, gunboats, all gave their troops much close-in, effective fire support.
            The tactical progress of this campaign had an interesting rhythm, rather like a land campaign based on step by step set piece advances - by outflankings and breakthroughs of carefully planned defensive positions, formed by islands, shoals, and straits. Each German advance and Russian retreat was accompanied by serious but tolerable losses to mines and torpedoes. Perhaps the Civil War siege and penetration of Charleston harbor is the closest historical analogy, on a much smaller scale.
           One interesting question is whether German losses would have been less tolerable if the Russians had been more competent. After the February 1917 revolution Russian military forces under the Kerensky regime suffered from demoralization, chaos, and frequent mutinies. Russian ships during Albion had sailors' revolutionary committees that often disputed with their officers over their orders. Generally the officers kept the focus on the overall plan, and the Russians sometimes fought effectively and with determination, but sometimes their defense folded in a rout. It should be noted that the Germans themselves were only a year away from their own collapse of economy and morale, with revolutionary sailors' committees in control of their own fleet.
         But meanwhile German success in Albion placed the Baltic coast up to the Gulf of Finland, the gateway to St. Petersburg, in their hands, undermining Kerensky and encouraging the Bolshevik coup in November, which brought peace with Germany at the price of the ruinous Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Of course, this failed to save the Germans, as they hoped, from their own collapse a year later. Could they have avoided that by trying something like Albion much earlier? Perhaps, but it was not until Scheer despaired of achieving results in the North Sea and pinned his faith on the submarine campaign that the Germans felt free to move the High Seas Fleet dreadnoughts to the Baltic.
            The campaign this book describes is most unusual and interesting, the coverage is detailed and comprehensive, and the writing is clear and cogent. In short, this is very fine history indeed. It is based on a list of excellent sources, both German and English translations from the Russian, many by important participants including the Russian naval commander Adm. Bakhirev and Adm. Friedrich Ruge, later commander of the Bundesmarine, then a young officer. It is somewhat limited by the author's stated purpose of providing a complete detailed history of the operation and the resulting battles, and eschewing any lengthy analysis. It also lacks any extensive historical and geographical background. However this can readily be found in Paul Halpern's "a Naval History of World War I", in the section titled "The Baltic". As for the analysis, we're still waiting for a complete study of battleships vs. shore-mounted big guns; perhaps the closest thing to Albion, of battleships and infantry cooperating to take out big shore guns, was the Battle of Cherbourg in June 1944. This book is plainly not for the casual reader who does not find the subject matter inherently interesting, but it will richly reward all students of battleships, the big gun, and amphibious warfare.

Robert P. Largess is the author of "USS Albacore; Forerunner of the Future", and articles on the USS Triton, SS United States, the history of Lighter-Than-Air, and the origin of the towed sonar array.

[Gusington]

Damn you, Bes.

[Jarhead0331]

How is the non-combat part of the game? Research, design, diplomacy, economy, etc.? I suspect that the strategic aspects of the game might interest me more than the actual tactical battles...