Playing it fast and loose with this one boys!
Prior threads: https://desuarchive.org/k/search/subject/Rule%20the%20Waves/

>what the fuck is this
Rule the Waves is a naval management/strategy game where you take on the task of designing botes, managing the fleet and conducting them in battle. All well and good, but true to life things will never go according to plan. You'd love to lay down a new class of warship, but your engineers swear up and down they've almost figured out new armor forging process that'll make them so much better if you just wait a few more weeks. They've said that for the last six months. You tell your Prime Minister that war with Spain is an easy victory, only to open the newspaper the next morning to find Spain signed a military alliance with Great Britain. In the war that follows, your destroyer line misunderstands the signal flags for “Screen our ships from torpedo attacks” as “Suicidally charge the enemy fleet”. Under blockade from the perfidious Anglos, your ungrateful people keep demanding things like food, don't they know there's a war going on? After four years of war, the Americans step in to mediate a peace conference the Prime Minister agrees to: no territory changes or reparations, but enjoy a peacetime budget cut and an aging, worn out fleet.

>alright but what are we going to be doing
So far, /k/ has been guiding the progress of the Italian Navy through the late 1800s and into the 1950's, leading us forward on a quest that hopefully ends in Total Anglo/Hungarian/Frenchman/Russian/Austrian/Kraut Death, Italian supremacy in the Med and eternal glory for the restoration of Rome. I'll be presenting you with designs made to your specifications, choices the game throws at us regarding politics and commentary of battles. A list of suggested names for ships and aircraft is being built, so feel free to throw out your requests as well. Finally, keep those (You)s flowing in to keep my dopamine levels high.

>>63826522 (OP)
Ah been playing that recently. Current campaign is 1950s America with a fuckton of missile destroyers.

Presently Italy is embroiled in a war with the joint Fraco-German Pact, a pair of fascist nations that seek to overthrow Italy's proud history of limited democracy. Last month we fought a major battle in the seas South of Greece, and while inflicting heavy damage on the Pact fleets our invasion attempt was repelled. As you can see most of our battleships will be out of service for a few months, which is not helping us maintain our merchant shipping routes.

Thankfully as of yet German forces have yet to threaten our Scandinavian holdings, choosing to join France in the Med instead.

While most ships are currently on hold due to the cost of repairing the entire battle line, we do have another carrier expected within the year.

>>63826535
Slower tech speed for this campaign so no missiles have come about just yet.

>>63826522 (OP)
PRAISE BE!

Imagine being the poor fuckers that get assigned to F7.

Anyways, not much else to do before taking turns, unless anyone had any special requests?

>>63826560
Bullshit like that happens every fucking game!
And every time I get so pissed I support a fascist coup, despite telling myself I won't do it this time.

>>63826594
What are our forces like outside of the Med? Do we need to reinforce any other possessions?

>>63826661
It's a bit scattered, the main show is definitely in the Med. Northern Europe is a bit of a sideshow as well but not to the same extent

>>63826783
Meanwhile in the Med

Is this true Roman battleships for true Romans?

>>63826805
Aye

Well then, I was hoping we might get a couple quick turns off before the real battles began but our first turn hands us a unavoidable carrier battle off the coast of Norway. Buckle up for fun*.

>>63826522 (OP)
FINALLY HES BACK

Ive been waiting for K/ plays rtw 3 to come back

>>63826862
Are we finally going to get a real carrier action?

>>63826893
Looking like it

>>63826930
fuck, forgot to save the details

>>63826837
>ship names

Well fuck, I forgot it's late November and Scandinavians get just enough daylight to be able to tie a noose this time of year. Unless we find the enemy real fast this will probably be a big ol' nothingburger

>>63826959
I still weep that the Calligula-class Ramming Battleship never made it off the drawing board.

>RTW anon returns
You are a beautiful and magnificent man.

Remember the fallen.

And the results, after a long-ass night and storms in the morning:
>NOTHING
>ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
Well, except for a sub getting mined but that barely counts

>>63827010
TECHNICALLY A GERMAN VICTORY

Busy end turn phase, quite a few advancements

Oh well fuck a duck, I'd forgotten about that

>>63827037
>airborne radar
Time for some new recon aircraft.

Actually half the world is a powderkeg

bump

>>63827136
>13 minutes
What board do you think you're on?

>>63826783
>52 Corvettes
The fuck are you doing France?

Good, great, wonderful, fantastic, amazing, fuck

>>63827147
you're right. i just wanted to contribute even thoguh i understand nothing.
sorry!

>>63827153
We're going to have to rebuild the whole carrier arm. At least we've got the traditional target practice for that now.

>>63827152
I have no idea the fuck is happening over there

Not helping matters is Japan's frankly alarmingly large carrier force

>>63827199
Well, shit.

Having become alarmed at the amount of mine strikes we've had lately, I've gone ahead and ordered a handful of civilian vessels be retrofitted as minesweepers

Oh neato

>>63827153
>>63827199

>>63827246
NOT NEATO
NOT NEATO

>>63826544
>22/21 Trade protection
>22/137 ASW

>>63827199
>>63826783
>1 CL and 5 KE vs 7 CV and 7 CVL + the rest of the fleet

>>63827236
RTW Anon, I am affraid we have more problems than just mines.

>>63827246
>>63827269
>intercept raider
>it was actually out to intercept you

>>63827269
FLEE!
FLEE!
FLEE!

>>63827269
That is significantly more gun, wew

>>63827269
sail harder nigga

A lighter ship in calm seas, Bruschetta was able to accelerate faster to make enough distance that she only suffered a couple near misses before managing to escape.

Small victories in a questionably iffy war.

>>63827199
Oh dear, and they're all very modern, too.
How's our aircraft lineup looking these days, anyhow?

Is this nigga serious

>>63827318
Our morale isn't great, but I dunno if it's worth it...

>>63827318
Always find time for a game of footie!

>>63827318
Calcio stops for nothing, even war.

>>63827318
We're italian, we gotta foot the ball

F

Well, round 2 in the Norwegian sea

March means more daylight, albeit not a ton to work with.

I've chosen to have one of our carriers equip their torpedo bombers with a 500lb each, for maximum range. The other carrier loads a full set of torpedoes and escort fighters.

Three hours before sundown, a spot of a lone enemy cruiser about 180 miles to the North comes in. While too far away for our torpedo bombers to make the trip, our lightly armed bombers can. With little daylight left, we dispatch them on a long-range strike, hoping to find the carriers enroute.

>>63826522 (OP)
I LOVE YOU ANON!

Our first strike set of bombers finds something out there in the last few minutes of daylight and makes their attack.

Well fuck, the costs of night operations aren't minor

We stay in the area for the night and attempt another attack, but our scouts seem unable to find the enemy again. Unfortunately, they manage to find us.

>>63827456
BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD

German dive bombers come down in small packets, and Schiacciata takes a hit which is thankfully minor. With a full set of readied aircraft on deck, any hit could be a disaster.

oh no

Well fuck, those few Germans bombers we see are the last of it, but it turns out to be enough. After nearly three hours of fire fighting, Schiacciata succumbs.

>>63827885
Pour one out for her boys.

>>63827885
F, time to break out the good wine and toast to her memory

>>63826522 (OP)
I played this a bit six months ago. Is the "AI" better now or do entire enemy carrier fleets still get stuck in coves?

>>63827885
>finally get the first carrier-only battle
>it's Corral Sea off the coast of Norway
I hate the Monkey's Paw.

Well, no real good news to report

>>63827314
>How's our aircraft lineup looking these days, anyhow?
A mixed bag, currently in the process of replacing our naval patrol aircraft as it's horribly out of date

>>63827995
Somebody call up Uncle Sam again.
Please.
I BEG YOU

In the Far East, should Quarto just bail or see if we can take advantage of poor weather to gamble for a fortuitous torpedo maneuver?

>>63828024
Good day to die. We're at the point where colonies are getting expensive anyway, right?

>>63827185
We beat them so fucking hard it's the best they can do.

>>63828024
Fuck it we ballin.

Weather is unfortunately better that forecast, but maybe our land-based air forces will help?

Fuck me that's alot of guns

>>63828127
>33 knots
uh oh

>>63827456
Build a new BB with the same name, like you were supposed to do in the first place.

Was it ever possible to make the BB size ship that was purely AA? So it could protect other BB's from aircraft with a gorillion AA guns?

With a speed disadvantage, a lucky torpedo strike is really our only option. The first salvo goes out aiming for the rearmost cruiser.

None of the fish fired at range find their mark, and the Japanese gunners begin landing an abundance of hits. Wheeling the ship around to unmask the starboard tubes, it's the final act of the ship's commander to order them fired before he's cut down on the bridge.

The closest Japanese ship, a Shirayuki-class destroyer, takes one of the torpedoes. The explosion rocks the ship, throwing one of it's main gun turrets off it's mountings and disabling the rudder. The enemy cruisers, however, remain unharmed.

Under a constant hail of gunfire, Quarto proves remarkably resistant - even with every gun knocked out she's still floating.

>>63828205
Rough.

But she's not invinicble, and soon enough goes down. Land based aircraft fail to make contact, and we rack up another loss at sea.

Well then, what's it gonna be?

>>63828256
We're still in the black as far as VP is concerned, but I'm not sure we can afford another engagement like last time, when we almost lost Rodini.
Fight on if needed.

>>63828256
I say end it here. Rebuild the fleet and try again.

>>63828256
We are stretched a bit thin, aren't we?

>>63828315
A bit

>>63828256
If they want status quo ante bellum then by all means at this point. Japan is going to fuck us in the pacific which is going to cost us a ton of VP and might lead to some lost territory in the Med. Can't have that.

Well, it's over. Not in a satisfying way but we kept what was rightfully ours.

With peace having prevailed, what should we be doing with our Navy? Current plans OP is already considering:
>send all surface combatants for fire control refit to electro-optical directors
>AAA refits if anything was missed
>begin a line of new colonial gunboats/minesweepers/subchasers
>look into >>63828171 's request
>request a dive bomber design as soon as the patrol aircraft is done

>>63826560
kek, I love these threads

>>63828421
Shame about status quo but we can't fight everyone by ourselves.

>>63828436
I'd like to look into fire control refits and the AA BB

>>63828436
All of those sound good, maybe look into a CA or two for colonial flagships? Don't know how much it will matter because Scandinavia is threatened by the Kaisermarine, and our Pacific holdings are threatened by the Japanese home fleet. Maybe some super fast DDs to lay mines/poop out a couple torps and fuck off?

>>63828436
In no particular order
>add to carriers, maybe a purpose built CVL Class
>add 1 or 2 more BB, possibly optimized for serving in the far east
>expand our cruiser forces
>more of our most balanced DD design.

So, for the AAA BB, I've checked and we should be able to get a design that isn't quite what was requested but may be a touch more practical. We'd need to be buying from the Americans to get their more advanced AAA outfitting, but this anti-air focused cruiser would provide about 90% of the firepower that such a battleship would bring. It combines a main battery of dual purpose 6" guns with the maximum amount of DP 5" guns as well.

>>63828545
>12 6" dp
>24 5" dp
It's a super heavy Atlanta! Probably much cheaper than a BB as well, also less likely to spark an arms race or any new naval treaty talks. And in a pinch it will absolutely shrek anything DD size and smaller, and would make one hell of a light commerce raider. Can we put a little ASW on it maybe?

>>63828545
How do I make Cleveland sound Italian?

>>63828545
Question is if it's cheaper than just going with a bunch of DDs or regular CLs

>>63828588
That my friend is the Gelatto class.

So currently, compared to the rest of the world as seen here: >>63828350 Italy is
>BBs: Better, with the exception of the US
>Cruisers: while decent in numbers, most of our designs are smaller than their counterparts
>DDs: similar to cruisers, although a less pronounced difference
>CVs: a marginal weakness compared to most nations

>>63828593
It is worth mentioning that we do have a class of AADDs.

>>63828653
How is that we have been sitting there constantly pounding on the eggheads desks demanding heavier than air naval aviation for the past thirty years and they just keep going
>lol planes can't fly off ships

>>63828545
I like it. A proper flyswatter.
>>63828421
Is Heavy AA there DP guns?
Also what the fuck is a SAM, somebody check these guys into the psych ward.

>>63828545
I approve.
Build maybe one per capital ship?

As an aside, the medium and light AA are a little lacking and the usefulness of light AA is significantly on the decline. Maybe drop the LAA and add a little more MAA. It will save refitting later. Speaking of which could we add another 50 to 100 tons of spare displacement?
I am expecting this class to have long lives.

>>63828946
Seconding this. Maybe take a pair of 5" turrets off or just add some extra design tonnage?

>>63828946
>>63829120
Sorry for the delay, between a bitch of trying to make a reasonable looking superstructure for such a cramped design and being called away to fulfill some spousal duties things took a while.

AA was adjusted a bit, and we ended up not having to sacrifice anything as a hull construction tech knocked off some weight from the base design. Two have been laid down immediately, along with some DD construction.

We finally, in mid 1959, get our first dive bomber prototypes. An interesting lineup - the Reggiane has the best flight performance, while the Fiat has far superior range at the expense of almost everything else. Meanwhile the Caproni is middle of the road in everything except durability.

Which one seems most appealing?

>>63828666
Seaplane mafia.

>>63829218
>increased HAA tech
>increased hull tech, no sacrifices needed
>speedy boi
It was meant to be.

>>63829250
How big a factor is that range? Like are we talking the difference between being struck with impunity from other CVs, or sailing too close to enemy surface fleets and risking direct shelling levels of variance? I'm all for speed and agility but the ability to just sit outside of retaliation distance and chuck bombs at people is really nice, assuming the worse planes don't just DIE as soon as they make contact. That Fiat has something like 20% over the other two. I'd say it's between that and the Reggiane. Since I've never played RTW I'll back whichever of the two you think is better.

>>63829250
Speed and manueverability is a pretty big deal for a dive bomber, isn't it?
I'm not familiar with what's considered a good range in this game, but the Reggiane seems quite good outside of the range. The Fiat doesn't lose that much in speed in exchange for a huge increase in range, though, but worse manuvering and toughness hurts.
What >>63829284 said, pretty much.

>>63829288
>>63829284
I'm leaning towards the Fiat just because in any situation where the Reggie can carry a medium bomb the Fiat can take a heavy, and a medium where the Reggie would have to settle for a mere 250lber. Pretty sure 300 miles is a damn long range that probably is worth less than just being able to carry a worthwhile bomb to the target. In >>63827587 the Reggie would have had to carry light bombs while the Fiat could do a medium easily.

>>63829321
Go for the Fiat, I say. Being able to actually reach the fight in the first place is a pretty big deal.

>>63829321
Being able to take twice the bomb the same distance is a pretty good argument. I vote Fiat.

Fiat it is. Do we care about the "poor"?

Probably going to be winding down for the evening, so few updates to follow.

>>63829349
Nigroni, we just cutta the budget, and you wanna more?

>>63829349
It's peacetime currently and I don't think our budget is that tight, so maybe go for the social reforms.

>>63829349
Social reforms now to avoid issues later sounds wise

Well, welcome to 1960.

Eyebrow?
>Raised

>>63829671
>US allied with Austria
Absolute betrayal

>>63829671
>Missile subs
We can really get those before proper carrier aviation?

>>63829728
Are torpedo and dive bombers not proper carrier aviation to you?

>>63829746
Well, maybe "before" is a bit inaccurate, but we've only just unlocked dive bombers.

>>63829687
Are the Italians going to be the first to reach the moon?

>>63829687
We need to promptly reevaluate our research funding allocations.

>>63830770
Missile high, sub high, aviation high, carriers high.

The age of the BB is over.
>captcha ASSVW

>>63831154
The age of the pasta missile has begun!

>>63829671
>>63829687
>invent missiles
>the first thing we try to do is stick them on submarines
bold move for sure

Sorry for the delay folks, pretty sure my household is coming down with the coof but lets continue

Oh fun - our response?

Keep in mind that objections carry a heavy prestige penalty, at least last time I played this. We do hold most of Vietnam, as well as Taiwan as colonial possessions.

>>63831510
>autoloading 8"
Time for new CAs?

>>63831674
See attached - the budget is thin but we have our first pair of >>63829218 these finishing up very soon.

>>63831530
Honestly considering we'll probably end up in another war with either Japan or the US (because they allied with the Austrian dogs), our pacific holdings probably are going to cost us more long term to hold on to than they're worth. We took them from the French and Russians, that's all that matters. We wish our former colony good luck and warm relations as a sovereign nation.

>>63832028
>>63832031
And we did that anyway. Good move.

>>63832028
Solid design. Can it fit a couple of floatplanes without too much compromise?

lol

>>63832083
If the tonnage is bumped up by another thousand we can shore up the belt armor a touch, improve the ammo stocks for the autoloaded guns and add a couple planes, yes.

Any other requests?

>>63832114
Seems good. Maybe we should start laying them down as replacements for the Gnocci class as the budget allows. They're getting pretty old.
Could the Gnoccis be converted to CVLs?

>>63832209
>Could the Gnoccis be converted to CVLs?
Ran a preliminary design on that, with a full rebuild that includes full engine replacement each Gnocchi could carry 20 planes max. Without the engine replacement but by bulging the hull we'd get about 16 depending on AAA armament.

Alternatively, we could also do a near complete overhaul on the Gnocchis, replacing their engines and using that saved weight to give their guns autoloaders. At the end of the day that'd still only leave us with 8 guns per ship compared to the 12 with >>63832028 on a much smaller hull

>>63832296
Could we beef up the Gnoccis as AA Cruisers while refitting them? Do we have DP 5" or 6" or is 4" our best option.

>>63832353
That'd probably look something like this. The issue at this point for AAA is actually more weight than anything, 4" DP is actually a bit more weight efficient than 5" DP at this stage.

Of course, looking at the total costs we'd be replacing so much of the original ship it's practically a new build
>Gnocchi refit: 56,223 naval bucks
>New ship >>63832028 : 75,176

>>63832296
>>63832442
Its a baby Nelsoni?

>>63826522 (OP)
Obviously you should name every single ship "Nuestra Señora de la Concepcion" in true Spanish tradition.

>>63832481
All our heavy cruisers are

Well, our lengthy discussion on cruisers is being interrupted. Going to call for a final vote
>follow naval sec demands, build new line of DDs
>replace the Gnocchis with >>63832028
>do a major overhaul of the Gnocchis along the lines of >>63832442
>start this whole debate over with something else

>>63832619
>guided bombs
Whew lads.

>>63832619
We do need more DDs.

More balanced designs?

As for cruisers, I think we should stick with the nelsonian tradition for our heavy cruisers.

>>63832619
I like the idea of a few overhauled Gnocchis, having a couple of modern CA is never a bad thing. And yeah, build some ASW/Minesweeping/laying DDs why not.

>>63832695
>an old, irritated admiral sits down across from the head of the research division
>despite hearing for decades how "lol planes can't fly off ships" they keep calling the admiralty with random bullshit
>They're super proud that they figured out how to build a dive bomber 10 years after everyone else
>and now this lunacy about missiles, whatever those are
>the researcher eagerly starts explaining the latest breakthrough
>skeptical at first, but with growing interest the old admiral holds up a hand to interrupt the deluge of technical details
>"So what you're telling me is Professor is that we can use planes to 'guide' these 'missiles' into ships in some form of what, longer distance dive bombing?"
>"What I'm telling you Admiral is that when the time comes, you won't have to."
It'd be hilarious if we just said "Yeah naval aviation was cool and all but what if we just used our airbases to permanently close the Med to everyone we didn't like? ".

>>63832695
HIDE THE BATTLESHIPS

Gone ahead and fulfilled our build requirement with a new set of Lupa-class destroyers. A good dual purpose main battery alongside a small but reloadable set of torpedoes and minesweeping gear, all at a reasonable price.

The budget is a bit strained but we should be able to keep this going for now.

>>63833168
>binland rises
:DDDDDD
Anyway, keep on course. I feel like we're going to need a big rethink of the fleet at some point soon, but we probably need a few more techs to roll in before we have a good feel for it.

Oh my, that's a shift in naval tech if I've ever seen one.

Our medium bombers and naval patrol aircraft can carry big ones, our dive and torpedo bombers the smaller variants. Should we be requesting an aircraft replacement as well? How much spare munitions should be stockpiled?

>>63831154
Start praying for VLS and BVR immediately. At least get testbeds going.

>>63833211
And there's our upset. Keep stocks on mid for now, we'll adjust when tensions start going up again. I suggest we get that patrol aircraft replacement we were looking for going, followed by the medium bombers. That will give us time to decide if we still want to play the carrier game, especially with our far east influence winding down.

Fugg binland

Choice?

>>63833211
>pasta missiles
Admiral about to spill his spaghetti over this!

>>63833257
As always its clearly the Austrians!

>>63833257
Alliance structure? As much as Neptune needs his sacrifice of Hapsburg blood, I'd really rather not drag the US all the way over just to kick our ass.

>>63833283

>>63829687

>>63833291
Spain will do.

>>63833257
France

Well fuck, this age is barreling in without pause.

Preliminary design for a missile destroyer
>small gun armament
>fast, reliable diesel engines
>4 missile tubes, 1 reload each
>fairly cheap, less than the Lupos >>63833168

Thoughts?

>>63833673
>surface to surface missiles
Time to remove some borders?

>surface to surface missiles
>guided bombs
>air to surface missiles
>early/mid WW2 radar, and early-mid WW2 planes
This is the timeline we deserved. Would our planes even be able to carry guided bombs/A2S missiles? Also, with all this missile tech, I'm surprised they haven't developed Jet fighters/bombers yet

Also worth asking, with these shifts do we continue our cruiser construction?

>>63833673
>missile pre-dred is now a possibility
Bros, did we mothball one? Please tell me we mothball'd one.

>>63833913
No SAMs yet, and AA is about to get a lot more vital than ever.
>>63833998
Pizza lives

>>63834023
M O D E R N I Z E
P I Z Z A

>>63834135
>>63834023
>>63833998
If you insist...

>>63833702
Can we do a line of komar/osa/Sa'ar tiny to small sized missile boats?
Or is our radar still too bulky

First round of fleet modernization. Due to the dangers of having lots of missiles on board, battleships will probably only get single shot missile tubes, while smaller boats will dedicate themselves to having reloads as well.

>>63834660
Good question, let me look into that.

>>63834729
I can't wait to see Pizza raining hell on newer boats. Oh, can we upgrade her injuns, or did you do that already?

>>63834729
I don't even have words for how glorious this is.

>>63834660
Tiny missile boat, alongside a more standard DD. The KE has no reloads, the DD carriers an extra pair of missiles for 6 total.

>>63834781
Engines weren't upgraded, will consider that after getting the rest of the fleet sorted.

>>63835425
Hell yeah!

Now we are missile maxing!

N-Negroni chads...

>>63835459
The wine cellar was a necessary addition. How do you expect our officers to fight without a fine vintage over dinner?

>>63835425
Avanti!
Might I suggest Marinetti or something else related to futurism for one of the two? It seems fitting.

>>63833998
>>63834023
>>63834299
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1bc6kAJJFM

Do we care?

>>63835543
Let'em have it, the Marshalls would be more the US's/GB's problem than ours.

>>63835543
Realistically do we have Pacific forces capable of matching Grorious Nippon?

>>63835543
I don't feel like facing down Japan's carrier fleet would be a very good idea right now

>>63835543
We should reinforce our far east holdings if we plan to go to war with Japan. Also, do we have any actual plans to bully someone? We should find a good test dummy for our new technology.

>>63835543
Why do the bongs hate us so much now?

>>63835543
I concur with other anons; this would likely drive a wedge between Japan and the US/UK, so we should basically let it be their problem.

>>63835572
Must have something to do with all those wars we fought against them, wherein we blew up their battleship fleet and forced them to rebuild from scratch. Multiple times.

>>63835543
Can Italy take Ireland?

Oh jolly good

>>63835584
SUPERCARRIERS NOW

Be funny if we went all in on arsenal ships instead given the way things are.

>supercarriers
>max 33,000t
T-thanks

Still a worthwhile ship to consider. Any objections to this design? Went for some thicker side armor in hopes of perhaps surviving a missile strike.

>>63835603
None here. We should build a pair of them and hope they're in when we go to war with the eternal anglo.

>>63835603
What level are our aircraft at? Still biplane? Monoplane?

>>63835578
Someone has to teach the Irish how to cook.

>>63835638
It'd just be funny to surround GB. Would need to take France....

>>63835629
Frankly in a bit of a weird spot. Slow but also long range and capable of carrying anti-ship missiles

oh

>>63835694
Time for Russian hijinks in Madagascar

>>63835684
So basically interwar designs with 1st gen Sidewinders?
>>63835710
2nd Pacific Squadron's counterattack will bring everything in order.

>get in war
>whine about other people
Response?

>>63835791
Hey, if they want to fight a two front war who are we to say no?

>>63835791
manifest destiny. pasta from sea to shining sea.

>>63835517
Oh, man, that takes me back. F for Enterprise getting nuked right as they figured out what they were doing.

>>63835791
The oceans demand blood.

>>63835718
What sort of guidance are our missiles using at this point, anyways? Basic wire-guiding from the plane?

>>63835791
They're already at war, say fuck you. Not that they have any possessions we want bar their mainland.

>>63836014
I'll be frank I have no real idea. We've got presumably guided missiles but also only just got blind fire capability so for all I know they're pigeon guided

>>63836062
My first thought was literal wire-guiding. Strands of spaghetti leading back to the cockpit for the pilot to try and tug the fins in the right direction.
Pigeons might be funnier though.

>>63836062
Huh. Ruskies are doing better than expected. Might be worth joining in if Japan keeps suffering.

Yeah, that'll be a fair fight, I'm sure

>>63836062
I know you kindly did my idea of a AA ship (granted you didn't make it a BB, I really wanted to see what the max you could do on the largest superstructure was possible, plus speed to go alongside other BBs) but are flak guns useless soonish due to AA missiles?

Also same question about is it possible to make BB with loads of missiles? Or super carriers? Basically just like the idea of giga equipped ships.

Japan continues to get the short end of the stick

>>63836087
So I'll be honest, I'm not 100% sure. I've played very little into this age, so we're all in unexplored territory. A full on AABB doesn't quite work since to be a BB your main guns are going to be useless in the AA role (until you get a specific tech, which we have not seen), limiting you to the secondary/tertiary battery. The game does impose a hard limit on gun mountings, so realistically a cruiser has all the AAA you could actually get.
>is it possible to make BB with loads of missiles?
To be honest I'm not certain, at this point the limit is 4 hardpoints with a reload each
>super carriers?
In a "normal" game I'd have expected our carriers to be 50-70,000t by now

Oh boy, here we go (again)

>>63836119
Well, time to put these newfangled missiles to the test.
They aren't secretly just rockets, are they?

>>63836119
What's the distribution of our forces?

>>63836103
Thank you. I see. So later tech allows like 12" guns to be dual purpose?

>>63836014
>>63836062
Probably radio MACLOS, like the FritzX.

Impressisimo.
With this most recent achievement, fate has in a single stroke, marked the decline of the Anglo and spelled a new era of wondrous prosperity and peaceful global dominance for the Roman Eagle, which promises to firmly stand in sharp contrast to the historically bloody ascent of maritime powers and the cruel subjugation it brought to the humbler nations of the world. With the blessings of Italian atomic water boilers, atomic aircraft carriers and atomic enhanced "missiles" will be the instruments with which Rome affirms its noble stewardship of 20th century world politics and offers the central European powers a different option; a humanist alternative to the depredations of Anglo leadership and the opportunity for a more equitable and dignified multilateralism.

Fascinating...from what I can see, the British seem to either be behind in the missile techs or just haven't invested in them. Despite having a good naval budget...

I don't see a single missile equipped ship in their fleet.

>>63836180
I give us good odds. What intel do we have on Bong fleet locations?

Well, I had moved our most modern missile destroyers and cruisers to Northern Europe in expectation of a major fight, so of course it ends up in the Med. We've got a wonky ass force that's a mix of old torpedo destroyers, cruisers from three different generations and a single missile destroyer.

So what I'm saying is this is gonna be interesting.

>>63836203
That missile destroyer is gonna be working overtime.

Hmmm, our missile range is roughly the limit of visual spotting, and frankly our radar range isn't very impressive.

Ah, that answers that. >>63836151 seems was correct, we've got visually guided missiles. What a world.

The question is, do we fire now at this lone contact or hold out to ID and select our target?

>>63836248
ID. Don't waste on a tin can if something consequential can die instead.

Not the worst target, but I would expect our cruisers to be able to handle this.

>>63836280
Test those missiles. Better be hittiles or no biscotti for you.

At 11:43 local time, San Marco fires the first anti-ship missile launched in anger.

>>63836280
Put 2 in the bitch.

>>63836336
>Independence Day, watching the dot approach the Ayys

Over the next minute the missile streaks across the Mediterranean towards it's quarry

>>63836364
C'mon, magazine hit! We need to keep the 'sploding Brit tradition alive!

Mama mia!

>>63836336
>>63836364
>>63836382
>>63836351
YES THAT'S A HIT!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMjvqPJ5tKY

>>63836382
Hurrah!

She ain't sunk but she sure as hell isn't feeling well, slowed to a crawl and our gunners are making the most of it.

>>63836382
Oh. Oh baby.

>>63836402
Must've knocked out some boilers or machinery. Send another missile to any other large target.

>>63836390
Scratch that, here's what I was looking for
https://youtu.be/egzfvjy6sqk&t=122

San Marco fires her other missile at the unidentified target but fails to make contact. Our destroyer Bombardiere has four tubes with six missiles total, should she hold onto them or let loose?

>>63836417
At this point we've seen a CA and what I suspect is a DD

>>63836435
Let 'em have it.

>>63836435
Toss one or two more, then try and get a better fix, I guess.

>>63836435
Maybe get her a bit closer for better visual guidance.

>>63836402
She's fine.
She just needs a nap.

>>63836435
Don't you need to produce missiles for storage and shit? Is it worth using them? Their CA is dead, it'll be peppered by normal guns. Unless the unidentified is a big ship I wouldn't use missiles.

The other contact resolves itself as a small destroyer, which makes an effort to attempt to shield the enemy cruiser. Remarkably, it seems to work fairly well and between smoke and a sudden recovery of speed the two British ships seem to be opening the range.

50 or so miles to the South at Tunis, a squadron of medium bombers takes flight. No sense in letting the flyboys get the credit, so Bombardiere will ripple off another couple missiles.

>>63836435
Nah, save em for bigger fish.

>>63836456
Stop with the faggoty shit. Give it to them before they give it to OP

Whoops, that was certainly a miscommunication, I only wanted two.

It's impressive just how sinister a black and red line can look.

>>63836514
Fugg. Well, time to committ. Can you redirect a pair to the cruiser?

>fires all 4 tubes
>at the wrong target
Bombardiere is on the shitlist

>>63836533
Hit's a hit. How good was it?

>>63836533
That Destroyer is looking to be in a very bad day in the next minute or so.

>>63836528
Relax, it's a combat trial, we're proving they work, restraint can come later.
>>63836533
No, that's great, we've proven it can hit small targets too.

>>63836533
For a 1st gen visually guided missile, we're getting a decent hit rate.

>>63836543
Oh, you have switched your settings to lots-a-missiles-in-storage right? I always forget that. I want shock and awe but sometimes I need to wait a year for the setting to go into effect.

>>63836560
Oh, right, I forgot to give OP the reminder when we got the tension warning. Shit.

Nevertheless we manage to catch up the the cruiser and it goes down quickly.

>>63836580
Niceu. A promising opening engagement to this war.

La Creatura is kind enough to fish some Brits out of the water

>>63836580
Not bad for the first try of these new toys.

We chase down the destroyer and it's becoming apparent that 4" secondaries are worryingly slow at destroying even a lone unarmored target. We may have to consider a bigger solution.

>>63836596
Well, we need survivors to take interviews for this newfangled TV thing and talk about how they got absolutely stomped by new Italian superweapons.

>>63836603
Might need a new missilemaxx DD design.

End of battle report on our missile strikes:
>CA Shropshire
The missile smashed through the aircraft catapult at the aft of the ship, showering the entire superstructure with debris. Radar and fire control were knocked out, while an eventually fatal fire started.
>DD Legion
False report of a hit.
>Oddity
Our CAs were firing HE. Must check the doctrine screen to resolve that.

>>63836632
Well, that first one's a damn good hit if I've ever seen one, at the very least.

>"Hey should we send our modern ships into a constrained waterway with no real escape from a likely swarm of aircraft?"
>"wtf no why would we do that"
...
>Admiral Bartalesi fails command check utterly. No force changes possible and no decline of battle possible.
fuck

>>63836671
Yeah, that sounds like a bug the fuck out

>>63836671
If only we had Ireland to launch aircraft from....

>>63836671
Oh fuck it's raining bombs

So thankfully since Ireland was granted independence we don't have to worry about that. Swansea has no air base, and while Plymouth and Portsmouth both have air bases, it seems the majority of their forces there are fighters.

That being said, I still estimate they'll have roughly 30 patrol aircraft (with bombing/missile(?) capability) in stock. Assume a third are used to scout and the odds seem alot better.

>>63836709
>So thankfully since Ireland was granted independence we don't have to worry about that
Any chance we could claim it? It would really help long term.

Contacts, lots of contacts. Big contacts, in fact.

>>63836716
Dump the missiles and start running

Reassessing, these move a bit too quickly to be the few remaining British BBs, most likely cruisers of some kind.

Any objection to dumping the tubes then bailing for the open Atlantic?

What ever happened to a giga torpedo ships? Where we just went max torpedoes?

>>63836741
Served with distinction and a few are still around, see >>63836596

>>63836750
Whey, that was my suggestion all those months ago. Glad it worked out.

Well ain't that a nice sight

As soon as we finish guiding our missiles, with one reported hit, we break off for the open ocean. No British aircraft attack us and the engagement ends.

Sadly, it was another false hit. In total that gives us a to-date hit ratio of 1 out of 12 at engagement ranges of 20,000yds or so.

1967: Someone in Rome has an incredible idea: What if we gave a shit about our pilots?

>>63836796
Obviously, since experience is more important for success and the bean counters can worry about the cost!

Fuck Japan, get it together man

>>63836859
Is Russia massively better tech wise or some shit because this is hilariously lopsided even accounting for randomisation.

>>63836796
We aren't the Russians. Do eet.

>>63836859
Quick question, do the Russkies have missiles on their ships if you check on them right now?

>>63836865
This is obviously an abstraction that doesn't fully take into account national character because IRL the Russians would have lost two battle squadrons by now.

Not getting the best of luck with these battles but lets see how it goes.

>>63836870
>>63836865
No missiles on the Russian side. A trio of Jap destroyers have them but that's it.

It would appear the Rodina's superiority has caused some controversy.

>>63836883
Obviously, but I am wondering if the Russians do have vastly superior tech to the Japanese because in the context of the game it shouldn't really be this lopsided.

>>63836890
Mental how they're doing so well then.

>>63836890
At least we have air support from our Scandinavian holdings.

Two light cruisers and a missile DD vs a heavy Brit cruiser squadron. Time for Lanciere to earn her pay and cover the retreat.

Did we ever get good quality 16" guns? Or we at -2? Triple mounts? Quads? What was our biggest battery ship? I assume long gone but history wise.

Holy fuck

>>63836909
'False hits' :^)

>>63836796
Did Caesar abandon his legions? No! Neither will we!

>>63836909
Yes... hahaha... YES.

The two British cruisers turn and limp away, and we make for the setting sun.

Damage reports for the British cruisers
>CA Natal
Missile strikes the hull, machinery spaces heavily damaged. Major flooding brought under control after an hour, fires rage aboard for nearly six hours before being extinguished. All secondary guns knocked out of action
>CA Antrim
Two missile strikes - one destroys turret X, the other impacts the superstructure. Fires take three hours to extinguish, flooding contained after five. Three out of twelve secondary guns remain operational

>>63836946
Unf. Not good that they survived. Try painting our missiles yellow.

Wait are missiles or torpedoes better at this stage?

>>63836985
Hard to say.

>>63836946
Sounds like pretty good damage.
>>63836985
Our torps are much more reliable, but they're also significantly slower by virtue of being torpedos.

G-good job, guys. Probably calling it for this thread, about to hit bump limit.

>>63836985
Honest answer: I don't know
We've got tech modifiers applied out the ass so for all we know torps could be gimped, but at this stage we also don't have radar guided missiles so if it comes to a night action we either use torpedoes or have to ripple fire MCLOS SSMs at point blank range.

>>63836985
>>63837004
Torpedoes require the right setup to be effective, you have to position properly to get a good volley. We can pretty much yeet missiles the moment we get a visual without having to dance around taking fire first.

>>63837005
>Probably calling it for this thread, about to hit bump limit.
Thanks for playing, OP. These threads are always great fun.

>>63837005
Thanks OP!
>>63837018
Yeah, missiles are much easier to use.

>>63837005
Thanks OP. Been a fun one with all the missiles
>and soon, VLS pre-dreadnought

>>63837055
I cant wait to see Pizza take out the entire British fleet by herself.

>>63837005
Good stuff OP, these threads are always great

>>63826522 (OP)
Dammit OP, you had come back when I was out of town!
Glad to see you anyway.

>>63826560
Ugh, this slander again.

>>63834299
Ha! Never thought I'd see the day.

>>63836014
Pigeons

>>63836790
>my boy Chippolini missed
love my intelligent stupid idiot

>>63837005
Thanks OP, U DA BEST