Rule the Waves 3 - Building Better Battleships, Today!

[@Drachinifel]

Pinned post for Q&A :)

[@Aelxi]

I've been watching some RN instructional films. I really like the Duties of Lookouts and Helmsman. Have you watched them? Is there more of them? Can't find more on YT other than Deck Landing films. Are they really effective?

[@brendonbewersdorf986]

I noticed a lot of early submarines used gasoline engines but had issues with fuel vapor build up was petrol always a bad choice for submarine engines or could some modifications have made them more viable especially given petrol engines can put out generally more horsepower than diesel at the expense of fuel economy of course

[@michimatsch5862]

Have you ever considered making a "high" seas video? The history and use of performance enhancing substances and other drugs in naval history, basically. I know basically nothing on that topic so I would really like to find out more.

[@thehuscarl4835]

Who was in charge of the logbook during a fight? How big of a priority was it to keep a good record of the battle? At what point would a superior officer tell the logbook guy to drop it and make himself more useful doing something else?

[@lonjohnson5161]

Back in school when I was a dumb teenager, a teacher made the claim that there was a battleship at Pearl Harbor that used its main guns to shoot at the Japanese aircraft with the result of shells falling randomly on the island. At the time I accepted it, since a teacher said it, but now I doubt it, in part due to the education I received here. (Such an action seems about as smart as shooting flies with a rifle in your house.) Was my teacher in error or did this really happen?

[@loh1945]

As an avid player of RTW2 (an insane amount) & RTW3 recently, I can give the following advice: 1) Belt armor should be higher than deck armor in weight priority. 5.5in deck as you had on your sample ship is overkill… this is because most battles happen at close range. That ship you designed does not have a great close range immunity zone, or the speed in the 1920 or especially the 1935 start to fully dictate battle range. 2) Put torpedoes on everything except Heavy BBs, light BBs ( 22,000t or below) short range ones say for holding enclosed waters like the Baltic should have torpedo tubes. PUT 32 TT on all late game CLs, it makes those night actions so much more deadly for the enemy. This tech will come in the 20s. 3) Armor your secondary battery with more than 1in of armor… if I recall correctly, 2in is the minimum armor for it to have splinter protection. I have lost ships to 6” battery magazine explosions on rare occasions where I have skimped on armor protection.

[@sethbromley7186]

I've just done one playthrough but it's pretty eye-opening the degree to which torpedos start to dominate combat post World War I era. Gun duels can carry on forever with no side gaining a clear advantage, but get a few destroyers close enough to launch a well-aimed torpedo spread and you can win or lose a battle in a hurry.

[@johannesmarg6903]

@@sethbromley7186yes, DD s are absolutely deadly up until the artillery gets really accurate. I tended to neglect guns I.e. Battleships etc and leaned more to DDs (jeune ecole ?), especially since the big (andsmaller)guns did not hit the proverbial barn door at half a mile, let alone a small Tbt going at 25 kn…. But with rigorous gunnery training and, by subjective impression, in RTW3 artillery is much more of a factor. Btw, this really does open the mind for some of the thinking and overvaluation of torpedocraft by the theoretical mind. BB & CAs are cruicial to show the flag and to „lure“ the enemy in or away. The main killing is done by the wolf pack of TBt. And also light cruisers ( and my favourite in RTW: the Torpedo-Gunboat KE with Torpedoes). Cool game, would I have more time for such….

[@loh1945]

@@sethbromley7186 what guns are you using as standard? 11in? 12in? 15in? 20in? Have you selected gunnery training under the doctrine page? Are your directors the best type available? Do you have a commander in charge of your BB divisions that is a gunnery expert? What is the speed of your battle line when you are trying to engage? Are you taking into account the sea conditions, glair and so on? The AI in post WWI will generally have between 9.5-13in belt armor, and 3+ inches of deck armor on its ships. If you start in 1920, most of the legacy fleets will have 2in deck but similar belt (9-13in). By 1918 or so they will have 15 or 16in gunned warships. Punching through them at range is highly difficult because of their deck armor (5in+ in new construction), even with super heavy guns (18in). So… The battleship “meta” (if you don’t believe me build a squadron of these in 1920 or so and put them up against an AI design of a similar tonnage in a fleet exercise (which you can do once a year): A ship somewhere around 35,000-40,000t. 8-9 15in or 16in guns (or 12 14in) a minimum belt thickness of 15in (preferably 17in+) AON armor scheme, best director you have. Secondaries can be 5in or 6in 3.5 or 4.5in armor for those (seems to help keep ‘em from sploding). Set doctrine to gunnery/night fighting or gunnery/torpedo warfare. Make sure your ship has 25+ knots, most enemy BBs will have somewhere around 23 or so, try to have a 3+ knot advantage. All BCs should be built to a similar armor template 12in (max) armor, and 2.5in+ deck, and min of 28 knots. I have also had some luck in the early 1910s with cross deck fire CAs. Had one set as Imperial Germany that made it to the 1930s. CAs should be armored with a 7in belt of armor early on, and a 2in deck. 9 or 10in main battery (with 6in secondary battery), or a 7in uniform battery early game. These will challenge even many early game BBs. This should turn into a 8-10in uniform battery of 8 guns in a cross deck formation early mid game (1910 to 1920) similar armor layout. These ships will be able to challenge some lighter armored BCs, and will still decimate normal CAs. I don’t build them in huge numbers, but a division of 4 does not hurt. 8-9in guns are the “sweet spot” with 10in you might as well build full BCs. CLs: the light cruiser meta, is best described early game as: as many 6in guns as you can place on a hull. Rapid fire allows you to overwhelm many AI built CAs and putting on 4TT will let you finish off any crippled ships. 21-23 knot top speed. The DDs are good, but you will take heavy DD casualties and they only have 6-8 torps with most designs. A CL armored with enough to withstand some light gunfire can get in, plus if you have that tech for side mounted torps on any ship you can get 32+ torps on a CL. Also oxygen fueled torpedoes (which you have to activate the use of on various types of ships through your doctrine page once you have them unlocked) seems to extend the range massively. So a mid game (1920-1940) fleet should have 8 or more of these TTCLs rocketing around. Late game CL gun armament is a little more unclear. 4in or 5in seems to be most common with players. Go with double or triple turrets. DD are cannon fodder, build accordingly. If you have found anything better let me know 😃

[@loh1945]

@@johannesmarg6903 I like the sound of the gunboat/torp KE going to have to test that one :) m

[@johannesmarg6903]

@@loh1945…: exactly 2500 t, some 4‘‘ or 5‘‘ guns plus some lighter ones, armoured against those and TT pointing in every direction. I had two of them breaking through a line of B‘s, sinking three of them and escaping only slightly damaged…absolutely thrilling. Have fun…

[@DrunkenGrognard]

getting a random fleet at the 1890 start is a delightful way to get all sorts of utter nonsense, which is a blast.

[@Firebolt193]

1890s era combat is so fun too with those goofy designs, like the 8 inch armed CLs you sometimes get at game start

[@colinprice712]

Not to mention my 1500ton corvettes with 8” main battery - can only build more before the first turn, otherwise they are marked as “illegal”!

[@johannesmarg6903]

@@Firebolt193 Look at the Esmeraldas, they Gitarre 8 in

[@gokbay3057]

@@johannesmarg6903 Many protected cruisers had 8 inch (or even larger) guns. Despite being generally considered the light cruiser equilavent to the armoured cruiser's heavy cruiser that wasn't really the case. It is the armour scheme that is different not the size (thought the armoured cruisers did tend to be larger on average).

[@chrisbeer5685]

@@Firebolt193 That's nothing I had 10 inch guns on mine starting as Austria once.

[@bkjeong4302]

This reminds me of a RtW1 playthrough I’ve followed, with the player playing as the IJN. Towards the final stages of his playthrough he ended up designing a Super-Amagi (slightly smaller guns and slightly slower in exchange for a lot more armour) that was a fast battleship in all but name and built three of them (called the U-class battlecruisers). They proved INSANELY effective at destroying French battlecruisers and even sank multiple French battleships during his final war against the Marine Nationale, and had freakish levels of accuracy (as in, they consistently hit on the first salvo at ranges in excess of 25000 yards and outperformed every historical capital ship in gunnery); the middle ship of the class ended up being to the French what Enterprise historically ended up being for Japan, except even worse.

[@jedimasterdraco6950]

Rule the Waves with Lord-Admiral K. That playthrough was what got me interested in the series. Though I think the dimension-hopping armored cruiser that sank 200 Russian pre-dreadnoughts was my favorite part.

[@Firebolt193]

​@@jedimasterdraco6950Ahh, good ole Siren of Spring!

[@jedimasterdraco6950]

@@Firebolt193 That's her. Though Georgi Pobodonesets, the WITNESSED of Brest was a close second.

[@bkjeong4302]

@@jedimasterdraco6950 THAT moment was fucking awesome. Not to mention her odd relationship with the aforementioned second of the U-class; Unrelenting really, REALLY lived up to her name. She destroyed, what, five French capital ships completely on her own (on top of many other capital ships she destroyed with her sisters)….and the thing is that Georgi was present for all of these engagements but did nothing except put some shells into some already dying ships. The fact she ended up being consistently left out of engagements even if she was present made it all the sweeter when she finally got to engage at Brest. And to think that when Georgi first came along during the Second Russo-Japanese War she was seen as a massive threat to the IJN by Lord K (it turned out to be a Bismarck-class scenario in that she didn’t actually deserve all the hype due to severe issues with protection). There was also that one French light cruiser that got itself into the single most epic duel of the entire playthrough with a Japanese light cruiser, which saw both ships being mission-killed through loss of steering, both ships coming back from being mission-killed, and went on for hours.

[@jedimasterdraco6950]

@@bkjeong4302 The Japanese cruiser was... Timurid, IIRC, which also punched well-above her weight in the decisive battle with the French. I don't think I've ever had victories as decisive as some of Lord Ks, with the exception of when I feel like being an asshole to the AI and set things so I start the game with all tech researched and max dockyard space. 90k ton end-game battleships with 18" guns and anti-ship missiles do horrendous things to pre-dreads.

[@chanman819]

The Rule the Waves series are actually RPGs and the role that is being played is Jackie Fisher

[@deeznoots6241]

SPEED IS ARMOUR! I scream as my 30,000 ton battlecruiser that has 3 inches of armour explodes

[@ramal5708]

More of this Rule the Waves content please

[@richardtaylor1652]

We need a Rule the Waves 3 Ship Design competition lol

[@mitchm4992]

Drachinifel and Rule the Waves, two great tastes that taste great together

[@GaryJones69420]

Drach tastes good? 🤨

[@veryorignalname4804]

: )

[@MichaelLlaneza]

My advice from about a dozen RTW1&2 campaigns, Faster Cruisers More destroyers Better fire control Just do that, you'll be fine. The thing that separates the campaign experience of RTW from UA:D is the actual battles. In US:D you're fighting force on force in empty ocean. In RTW you're on the map, with clear targets and ports to retreat to. You'll have a lot of battles where you're clearly outclassed, your challenge there is to disengage and preserve your force. It all comes together to make every battle in RTW feel impactful and important, something that happened because your navy put out to sea. One of my very favorite battles was in about 1895 as Italy. Austria-Hungary had better battleships than I had, and faster. I lost at Costal Raids mission after mission because an engagement was suicide. And then I managed an intercept when I had a numerical advantage, slowed down the enemy battleline with damage, and ended up going from down 4:3 in battleships to up 3:1 and suddenly I controlled the Adriatic. Ask me about my Spanish campaign's battlecruiser sometime, that boat was a legend.

[@GeneralJackRipper]

My historical US Navy campaign was a blast, I even put in treaty limits on myself when they weren't even present in RtW1.

[@MichaelLlaneza]

@@GeneralJackRipper I'm abandoning my China campaign. That's a super-hard mode. You're broke and you start with terrible ships.

[@thatguynameddan2136]

​@@MichaelLlaneza Oh yeah, china is a tough start. Im usually dead from bankruptcy or prestige loss to a lucky japanese torp or two less than a decade in. Especially true with prestige loss when RNGesus doesnt give ypu good events either.

[@MichaelLlaneza]

@@thatguynameddan2136 Or in my case, the Germans. They brought an invasion fleet escorted by more armored cruisers than I had boats bigger than destroyers, and more light cruisers than I had destroyers.

[@Firebolt193]

As a veteran of both RtW 1 and 2, can confirm, you're screwed six ways from Sunday without good/superior fire control

[@chrissbasement169]

Getting into a game right as it releases and discovering it along with the rest of the community is one of the best vibes ever

[@-DSet]

Interestingly, I always have a Drachinifel video playing in the background whenever I'm playing Rule the Waves.

[@novatopaz9880]

Just a useful piece of advice: Looking at your gun data is useful for designing battleships, as you will know how much armor your main guns will pen. However it doesn't give gun data for closer than 5000 yards, so you occasionally have to extrapolate results.

[@novatopaz9880]

@@lucab.903 Yeah, drach didn't show it in the video so I wasn't sure, I pretty sure that was the case for RTW2 and I just thought it was the same. Watching other people's playthroughs have proven this false, lol.

[@deeznoots6241]

RTW3 does include data down to 1000 yards

[@merafirewing6591]

I think this game would have potential for some really cursed ships.

[@Aelxi]

Tillman Tillman Tillman!

[@The_Bermuda_Nonagon]

"There's no reason you can't build a ship that combines the functions of a battleship with an aircraft carrier . . . "

[@merafirewing6591]

​@@The_Bermuda_Nonagon or make the Age of the Missile irrelevant.

[@michelleresistance5767]

Somewhat, but the ship designer limits you to things that are recognizable types so that that AI knows what to do with them

[@merafirewing6591]

​@@michelleresistance5767 so you could make the naval gun make a comeback into the missile age?

[@davidstange4174]

I wish I had found your channel much sooner. I am a proud patreon member of your channel. I love the content and your presentation of it, and it seems you keep getting better all the time

[@stevewhite3424]

Well, if you just found his channel, you have a lot, repeat a LOT of catching up to do. I'd Love to see the faces of new subscribers as they stumble into Drydock episodes that are five and six hours long. L o l

[@davidstange4174]

@stevewhite3424 I should have clarified that I was watching for 2 years, and the channel had been out longer.

[@elysiankentarchy1531]

In Rule the Waves 3 I have managed to: -Sink the majority of the capital ships of the Royal Navy as Japan thanks to the power of magazine detonations (Beatty was evidently in charge of their gunnery training). -Recreate the death ride of the battlecruisers but with Germany and Russia instead of Germany in the UK, and get a night fight out of it to boot. Long story short, Russia has built up a massive fleet, to the point they were the fourth largest fleet. So when I went to war with Russia I sent almost the entire High Seas Fleet into the Baltic. It was there that the High Seas Fleet clashed with the entire Imperial Russian Navy. The first part of the battle did not go well for me, the Russians managed to launch a devastating torpedo volly against my battleline and most of my BBs took some nasty damage or took a few too many hits from the Russian gunnery which was quite skilled. Taking stock of the situation I decided to break off the battle before I actually lost any capital ships but there was just one problem, the Imperial Russian Navy which could easily chase down my fleet as the battle line had to slow due to flooding. To break off pursuit I ordered the battlecruisers to charge the Russian fleet which forced them to break off and the High Seas Fleet to take advantage of the cover of night to make for Germany. There was just one problem with this part, the way the battle shaped up my fleet was closer to Finland than Germany and the Russian Navy was out there in between us and home. So, having no idea where the Russians were I made a random route to sail to get back with occasional changes in course. Did that work? No. Instead I sailed the entire High Seas Fleet into right smack dab in the middle of the Russian Navy. The result was apocalyptic, you had battleships and battlecruisers firing of their guns at ranges where the concept of armor was irrelevant, destroyers firing off what torpedo volleys they had left before instantly getting killed by secondaries, light and heavy cruisers fighting around the behemoths. You even had opposing battleships ramming into each other and I can only imagine trying to fire their guns at that close range while the crews were shouting profanities at each other and trying to shoot them with side arms. Desperation doesn’t even begin to describe this battle. Finally the Russians had to call it quits and break off, having lost most of their battleline thanks to torpedoes, gunnery, and magazine detonation while the near equally maimed High Seas Fleet could make their way to Germany. After tallying up the damage and losses it counted as a minor German victory.

[@deeznoots6241]

>sink the royal navy with magazine detonations That’s because the UK does have a secret modifier called ‘hidden flaws’ that increases the chance of magazine detonations in their ships, though each detonation they suffer will reduce the effect.

[@graveyard1979]

Starting in 1890s it's not possible to design starter legacy fleet, but that's understandable because the game is generating 1880s late ironclads and those designs often would be illegal by the standard building rules. It's possible to be trolled by the game by being handed started designs based on Hoche or Amiral Duperre, though. Because starter designs are nation-specific and they do try to emulate what the nation had built. One can also be given a starter barbette ironclad.

[@InchonDM]

In one Italy game I played, the game handed Austria-Hungary a truly hideous starter ironclad that had all-frontal armament Victoria style, except that instead of one turret, it had two, single-gun, twelve-inch, open-barbette turrets side by side. It was so incredibly beautiful.

[@TheJuggtron]

The turret ironclads in China were actually useful for me, Japan came at me with heavy cruisers and had their heads punched in :)

[@egoalter1276]

Coastal defence ironclads are actually incredibly useful early game. They are relatively light, thus they have evasion bonuses, they have very significant firepower for the era, and ridiculously good armour. They will be able to anchor a battleline for hours while cruisers pick the enemy apart with secondaries and torpedoes.

[@milocebatron5249]

This is the only guy who can make me salivate over a game that I'm 100% sure I'm as skilled to as a bundle of boiled chard.

[@egoalter1276]

Tbe game is pretty easy fo actually play, and as long as you know a bit of naval history, you will be able to trundle along with basically competent designs.

[@pedrofelipefreitas2666]

Hey, if you watch enough of drach's videos you'll probably know the basics of how ships were historically built and how to make them good :D especially the engineering and in-depth history ones.

[@wildward93]

Never heard of this series before. Feels like an in-depth spreadsheet-esqe simulator counterpart to Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts

[@egoalter1276]

It is very similar, yes, but the series predates uad by decades.

[@GeneralJackRipper]

More like UAD hit copy and paste, then added some 3D models.

[@gd88467]

Nah you got it the other way round UAD is trying to Imitate RTW with a water down system with 3d graphics

[@LegoTux]

This is giving me HARPOON vibes.

[@egoalter1276]

@@LegoTux Less in depth, but ultimately broader scope.

[@IanGerritsen]

I have a couple main gripes with the game. The first is no dark mode - playing the game gets painful for someone used to dark mode applications in a dark room. Another is the game goes for balanced fleet engagements rather than realistic ones based on ships present in theater - if you outnumber them 10-1 you'll still get 1-1 battles constantly. Lastly the division control feels cumbersome but you do somewhat get used to it. Despite those it's an amazing game and I only really need the first addressed to keep playing it, the others I can deal with.

[@chrissbasement169]

The fact that he madea video on a videogame Wich is quite unusual Goes to show that this one is quite something special

[@johannesmarg6903]

…nice „bug“ : you can build torpedo-gunboats. Stick to KEs with exactly 2500 t. You can give them a multitude of sub and deck TT (I reached 10 and had tremendous effect in a battle)…..have fun

[@TheJuggtron]

Torpedo boat carriers and fleet torpedo-gunboats would be a cool addition to the game.

[@egoalter1276]

MTB squadrons are in the game, but they only operate out of naval bases. Fleet torpedo boats are already in. Destroyers 500ton-800ton can be conaidered oceangoing torpedoboats. I guess you dont quiet have the early 200-300ton yarrow standards, but the weight simulation is probably a bit jagged at the edges of intended displacement, so we have to be content with 500 being the minimum. Performamce wise the only difference is these can mount a credible.gun armamemt, not just a simgle 3 inch gun.

[@danieltaylor5231]

So you can respond in one of three ways fawning, gracious or Admiral King.

[@strigoi_guhlqueen8355]

Would you consider a smal let’s play or some streams of this game ?

[@Aelxi]

I second this

[@hrunchtayt1587]

I second this second

[@10Tabris01]

I tertiary this

[@classicfrog80]

Honestly, if you were to do a series of playthrough videos I'd love to watch them.

[@Aelxi]

Yayyyy I was waiting for a RTW video from you!

[@joearnold6881]

I’ve wanted to try one of these any of the rare occasions I’ve seen it played, but I always forget they exist not long after. With it on Steam I can add it to my (alarmingly long) wishlist and pick it up if and when there’s a bit of a sale, which will simultaneously remind me. Sweet

[@xt6wagon]

For those picking it up, 5" guns are kinda a minimum. 4" take forever to kill small destroyers. 5" even with ROF penalties from too much gun on to light of ship will kill faster. Also your milage may vary I found aircraft carriers rolling hard on guns to be of value. The ai loves to turn into the wind even if it's stupid. So a carrier w 24 6" secondary can be fun as it shreads the light cruisers it just turned away from its escorts and ran into.

[@TheJuggtron]

I find the 5 inch guns work better on secondaries for nailing destroyers moving in for torpedo launches because of the stopping power, but on destroyers when brawling with other DDs the 4 inch guns work better for me.

[@cameronnewton7053]

I like to imagine the confusion of seeing a charge of flat tops. Cruiser captains: what the hell are those idiots doing! This is going to be a turkey shoot! *Six inch shell obliterates a cruiser's bridge* Holy sh*t !

[@Firebolt193]

Pretty true. I once managed to have a battle where a single lone British CVL ran headlong into two of my 4-inch armed DDs as the US. Needless to say, the carrier ended up in a better state than my poor, poor outdated Gridley-class destroyers did lol

[@victorydaydeepstate]

Do you believe aircraft carriers are the final maritime legacy of Vikings? The ultimate dragon ship

[@rictusmetallicus]

No. I don't believe that.

[@stevewhite3424]

The problem with having a dragon perched on top of your ship. Is it raises the metacentric height too high

[@b1laxson]

Viking means to go raiding as in getting plunder from shore so no. Now the LHD and LHA now those are going viking.

[@egoalter1276]

Its good to keep in mind whn trying to replicate real designs, that armour is given LOS RHA equivalent. Better armour technology doesnt make the same width set in the designer give better protection, it makes the same width lighter, to represent less material being used to achieve the same result.

[@GeneralJackRipper]

If I could offer a piece of advice as a long time RtW veteran: Don't feel the need to try an micromanage everything to the Nth degree, you'll actually have a much harder time fighting battles.

[@GuardsmanGary_Ch]

Alternatively, play on captains mode and micromanage everything down to the last destroyer squadron and accept that battles are going to take multiple hours.

[@darrellsmith4204]

That's a horrible profile pic.

[@GeneralJackRipper]

@@darrellsmith4204 I could say the same about you.

[@GeneralJackRipper]

@@GuardsmanGary_Ch I did play on Captain mode when I first started, but I soon gave up on that.

[@serafine666]

Based on this review, I feel like the game Ultimate Admiral Dreadnought is more my flavor. Not for graphical reasons, but because I really love the freedom it gives me to do interesting and off-the-wall things with the tech I have available at a given time. You have not really lived until you've refitted your pre-dreadnought hull with modern oil-fired diesel turbines and are running down destroyers with it. :D

[@graveyard1979]

There's a lot of comparison made between the Ultimate Admirals and the Rule The Waves, but those games really aren't comparable. UAD is a shipbuilding wargame with grand campaign attached. The campaign is the reason to take your ships into the battle. RTW is far more biased towards the fleet management. It's Jackie Fisher The Game. If you don't want to, you don't have to fight a single battle manually and still you can complete the game. If your ship designs and fleet structure are good, the AI commanders are competent enough to win a war for you. It's only surface similarity between both games.

[@serafine666]

@@graveyard1979 OK.

[@quigglebert]

Sounds like campaign has progressed enough for me to have another look at it

[@mytube001]

@@quigglebert I uninstalled it a year ago. I got fed up with the stupid restrictions on placement in the ship design. Couldn't even build a passable Nelson class. If they make an "unlimited" option for the game, so I can design ships freely, I might get back into it, but the trend was the opposite the last few months I played it.

[@serafine666]

@@mytube001 An all-forward design is one of my favorites to build. I called the one I devised for my Japanese playthrough the Kitsune class although historically, the all-forward Japanese battleship design was called the Izumo (although it was not built because the Yamato class was regarded as a better idea).

[@Jonnyg325]

"Murder in the Balkans" "What is it, Tuesday?" 20th century politics in a nutshell

[@darthteej1]

Never knew you played my obsession for the last year but of COURSE you have.

[@Zeknif1]

Someone get Drachinifel and Jingles a PS2 and the Naval Ops trilogy!!! “My 60,000 ton dual hulled battleship is disappointingly slow with a top speed of only 50 knots. So I reduced its Railgun armament from 6 to 4, as well as removed one of the Massive Wave Motion guns while moving the other to its centerline just in case I spot an enemy fleet at a range of 75 kilometers and need to destroy them all with a single shot… just in case my ship’s new 75 knot cruising speed isn’t able to keep my vessel safe.”

[@Firebolt193]

Even an emulator like PCSX2 will do. I honestly do wanna see Drach's reaction to the utterly bonkers insanity that is Warship Gunner 2's campaign

[@atigerclaw]

@@Firebolt193 Seconded (thirded?). It starts out reasonable enough... but by the time you're playing campaign on new game + mode... Eheheheheh...

[@Firebolt193]

@@atigerclaw One word: Enigmatech. 120+ knot ships with unholy speed and enough durability to shrug off entire fleets' worth of gunfire, missiles and lasers goes WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[@tb1271]

Well, there is a VERY flimsy claim that the UK could use as a claim for Norway (and Denmark) as England was briefly part of Cnut's short-lived North Sea Empire, also known as the Anglo-Scandinavian Empire.

[@christopherthomsen5809]

You mean when the King of Denmark and Norway was crowned King of England also? Wouldn't that give Denmark the claim on England rather?

[@tb1271]

@@christopherthomsen5809 He was King of England first. Cnut, also known as Cnut the Great and Canute, was King of England from 1016, King of Denmark from 1018, and King of Norway from 1028 until his death in 1035. Also, given how flimsy the claim is, I would say that it would give all 3 an equally flimsy claim on each other.

[@christopherthomsen5809]

@@tb1271 I'll grant you he was crowned in England first, but what was his line and main title?

[@tb1271]

@@christopherthomsen5809 Why would that matter? The claim is ridiculously weak, as far as I can see, all 3 have an equally weak claim on the others.

[@andrewschliewe6392]

checked the game out, now I'm hooked. I wish there were more scenario/setup options to do more what if simulations.

[@Nemo-vg7sr]

I totally agree: a great ship designer and good politics simulator. Naval battles are easy to understand and with these basic graphics they go smoothly in any computer. The biggest shortcoming in my view is that wars are so simplified that most of the time they are reduced to just fighting a random series of battle scenarios decided by the AI. Gibraltar, Malta, Suez, Panama, Singapore, Falklands... don't have any strategic value. We cannot order and fight any offensive mission ourselves other than planning an invasion. Attacking or defending convoys or shore bombardment or just sending our ships at see... we cannot do any of that. Instead AI will take the decision and fun from us and will give us a random battle scenario. Invasions are very limited too, we cannot invade far away small islands like Midway either and often we cannot invade anything at all. It's a pity. You tubers playing the game (Dickie excepted) tend to spend most of the time fighting wars but these are hardly anything else than a series of random battles. Campaigns in the older Steam and Iron from the same developer were much more interesting from the operational point of view. Maybe in the future they will try to fusion both? This time they just went to extend the time frame from RTW2 and added ships divisions and officers among the organisational duties. Still, RTW3 is a really great game that I've been loving playing for hours.

[@antonisauren8998]

Worst part are politicians calling for peace when you have three invasions ongoing. Three times in the row for two decades... Suez gives owner ability to block the canal. Same with Panama. Singapore gives UK 100 cap in SE Asia, so there is some incensive.

[@erichammer2751]

Since the game was sold to Slitherine, I don't know how much impact the original designer will have on future versions.

[@antonisauren8998]

@@erichammer2751 Original designer passed away last year from what I heard.

[@erichammer2751]

@@antonisauren8998 Ah, didn't know that.

[@metiscus]

Seconding the desire for a drach gaming channel where he does playthroughs of this game

[@totalwartitan5118]

A surprise to be sure, but a welcome one.

[@erichammer2751]

Wargame Design Studios, which has inherited and improved all of John Tiller's games, has a naval game series as well. And a free demo (what a concept) covering the Spanish-American War. As with all the John Tiller games, it is infinitely customizable (if you have the patience).

[@RahpaSmurf]

You did read my comment a few drydocks ago! I always play this game with your vids going in the background.

[@TheJuggtron]

The inclusion of the predreadnought period is the heart of the game for me, but I want more lol i need the 1880 and 1870 start. The battle screen is so much fun brawling with 3 and 4 inch guns and burning EVERYTHING down. The aircraft/ missile age turns the micromanagement up to 11 and makes the game a little less fun, I'd like an auto air management system but its nothing that cant be overcome with effort. Granularity with the qualitiy of guns would be appreciated too :)

[@snipeefox]

Found a mod that adds the CSA alternate timeline back into the game. Quite interesting playing colonial power in the Caribbean as a permanent underdog in the world

[@kaijudirector5336]

Grand Admiral Drach rides again!

[@mikhailiagacesa3406]

I like seeing players from 1895-1900 deciding whether to build Semi-dreadnoughts, or wait for full dreadnought technology. The engine/speed(Knots) tech is moving so fast then.

[@garyjordan3914]

What ? You have a perfect sense of color . Navy gray and underway !

[@michelleresistance5767]

I’ve been playing RtW3 all week! :D

[@Zeroground300]

My favourite feature of this game is that the UI looks like it's from Windows2000 which is accurate to what most government and military IT systems around the world still run on today.

[@ghimmy47]

Reminds me a bit of Harpoon, but the custom ships should be nice.

[@nathangillispie51]

Totally loved rule 2!

[@kevinjohnbetts]

I'd seen playthroughs of RTW1&2 and used to have the NWS store bookmarked so was familiar with the basic game. The AI always seemed a bit ropey to me but that's not based on personal experience. I was quite surprised to see it on Steam but added it to my 'watch list' a few days ago nevertheless. I'll probably wait on purchasing it as I have way too many games sitting unplayed as it is!

[@cdogger4078]

Funny, NWS forums was how I found your channel

[@Silentservice77]

I think Drach I might be interesting seeing you do a series on this game.

[@stuartbowlerwell2845]

At what point in the game does one attempt to woo the governor's daughter with a dance and a gift?

[@roadrunner6224]

As a suggestion for if you do this type of video again. Highlight what you are talking about, with these complexs menus and no idea of the game it's really hard to find the option you are talking about.

[@jackwardley3626]

I think the 16.5 inch gun is the sweet spot with super heavy shells better than the 16 inch gun with roughly the same rate of fire and approaching a the power of a regular 18 inch shell

[@4nonym0u5]

LET'S GOOOO

[@pavelslama5543]

Rule the waves, the only game where a single cruiser can snipe another single cruiser at 5 000 yards with a single tube underwater torpedo launcher.

[@hello-rq8kf]

GET HYPE DRACH IS PLAYING RTW!!

[@Ragefps]

Great for trying crazy ideas by the looks. I would have a 3000 strong long range torpedo boat fleet armed with 6000 torpedoes charge the grand fleet 'death ride of the Battlecruisers' style. Dodge that Jellicoe!

[@justinbruck9602]

Finally selling a steam powered warship game on Steam

[@kineuhansen8629]

man if those who make these games ever did a spinoff series would love to see a dreadnought esk style game with some rtw element to it and dreadnought could lern something about these games

[@victorydaydeepstate]

Vikings sure had balls

[@InchonDM]

A question that you may be able to help answer with your expertise, Drach, and which has been bothering me every time I try to replicate a real-life design in RTW3: is displacement in this game closer to "Normal", or "Full Load?" Which is kind of an important question, particularly when dealing with treaties and the historical Washington Naval Treaty in the 1920 starts.

[@erichammer2751]

Congratulations, it's a great game.

[@blu___1612]

ty

[@LoderryPlaysPVP]

This is gonna be good!

[@supercrew63]

A Star Trek question, if a ship ejects the warp core, If photon torpedoes are warp capable wouldn't they have small warp cores for warp speed engines. Could they modify a photon torpedoes warp core or multiple torpedoes cores to propel the ship to warp speed? I have seen almost every Star Trek show including fan films and have never seen it done...Any Trek fans can answer too...WWSD...What Would Scotty Do?

[@atigerclaw]

The Warp Core is just a reactor core. And people tend to forget that, especially with that name. Warp PROPULSION is generated by the massive amount of energized plasma shunted into the warp coils out in the nacelles. The Warp Core annihilates matter with antimatter (slightly more matter than antimatter), to produce this energized plasma. That plasma is what is being referred to any time they talk about plasma conduits, or 'EPS' conduits. EPS standing for 'Electro-plasma-system'. Torpedoes don't have anything more than small warp sustainers so that they can be fired while the ship travels at warp. You run this by injecting electro-plasma from the EPS conduits into them to charge the sustainers up. (Just like you inject some antimatter and deuterium into them). Since the lifespan of a torpedo is SECONDS in most cases, this is perfectly fine. But the moment the torpedo leaves the firing ship's warp bubble, its own smaller field begins to break down is the charge runs down in flight. Phasers, and other very high energy systems also run on EPS, which is why the ship has plasma conduits running everywhere. The funny thing about ejecting the warp core, is that everyone treats it like a massive bomb, when the REAL threat is the anti-matter storage pods. Ejecting the warp core is like throwing the/a piston cylinder of your engine at someone while it's in the combustion phase of its four-stroke cycle. It's kind of designed to handle that explosive gas pulse. The Warp Core should be more or less the same in that there is only enough antimatter in it to generate an energetic but easily contained stream of supercharged plasma that gets fed to the warp coils. It's a lot of energy, but the core shouldn't be so over-fueled as to be a twitch away from obliterating the entire ship and everything around it should a magnetic constraining field get shaken up. Or detonate like a giant photon torpedo when it gets ejected. Still, in the event of a catastrophic situation where the core DOES have a bunch of antimatter built up in it, it's designed to blown out of the ship by explosive bolts and mechanical ejection mechanisms. Because that would still rip the heart of the ship out of it failed. Meanwhile, the AM storage pods are your entire voyage's antimatter supply. And easily equate to the magazine of a battleship and then some.

[@supercrew63]

@@atigerclaw well thank you for that awesome answer...

[@daxlucero2437]

I love this game. Unfortunately I somehow made the lower and far right sections of the screen grey and can’t change it back, it’s not in the color config menu.

[@Davidletter3]

If only this game and ultimate admiral dreadnoughts could be merged. The User interface of UAD and this game's functionalty would be amazing

[@user-dg9pu4pe9d]

Is any of the training on how to identify a Japanese torpedo boat?

[@rodmosgrave7445]

So... I can build the Tillman class... HONEY! WHERE'S MY BRONZE GODDESS!

[@THATWW2GUY6434]

Series pleaseeeee!

[@Dav1Gv]

You should have fought the Germans before the French because one should always put business before pleasure. Very good video, you may have sold me the game, thanks.

[@RocketHarry865]

Imagine a DLC that extends into the 30's, 40's and 50's

[@Benamon9]

the game already extends to the 1970s? It's just that the latest starting date is 1935.

[@deeznoots6241]

It already goes till 1980(though IIRC tech only up to 1970). Starting from 1890 you can go from predreadnoughts to dreadnoughts to super-dreadnoughts to carriers to missiles. If you really want you can keep an 1890 battleship all the way and eventually refit it with missile systems

[@mytube001]

Fascinating to see a user interface à la Windows 98 in a game from 2023. Still, I am intrigued and might just end up getting this. :)

[@thefire1267]

Wouldn't mind if you played this game more often

[@HisCarlnessI]

This makes me wonder if you've tried Ultimate Admirals: Dreadnaughts. And, if so, if you've tried it recently with all the development it's gotten. It has a campaign trying to do very similar things. Except I'd say it takes a small notch back on realism and detail in comparison to this, but only a small one, while offering a lot graphically. Not that any of that makes it automatically better, I just think you might enjoy it.

[@youmukonpaku3168]

given that Drach occasionally recreates ships that are the subjects of the "five minute" guides in its ship designer as an illustration, I suspect he has.

[@scootergsp]

So the question I have: Is this game multiplayer? Because if it is, a series of videos of yourself and Dr. Clarke going head-to-head for dominanation of the ocean would be a glorious riot. 😆

[@novatopaz9880]

It never has been. But it is on steam now. It's only a matter of time before someone mods in a multiplayer session mode or something, lol.

[@Firebolt193]

Multiplayer is *technically* possible if you share a save file between multiple people and have them control whatever country you're playing for a certain number of years. The RtW Discord has pulled it off to varying degreees of success a couple times

[@nhancao4790]

Did Drach play Atlantic Fleet before??

[@MoultrieGeek]

I've had RTW3 in my Steam wish list for a couple weeks now but currently playing Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts. I'm curious how you would compare them as I find UA:D is an incoherent mess.

[@bryantrussell120]

Q&A I was wondering if you could build a battleship that used turrets armed with the Gustave railway guns and to be artillery twin turrets or whatever layout you wanted but had to be at least twin and more that two turrets how large a ship that would be?

[@Gruoldfar]

Is it ok to recommend “RvT Wargames” here? He started an extremely detailed playthrough some weeks ago as Germany 1935.

[@Tarmenell]

"You can start in the pre-dreadnought period and you can end in the missile period" No, we can't. On this channel is missile period prohibited by supreme authority. Do not poke the wound. 😭😭😭 :-D

[@DerKurfuerst]

Oof, this looks a little too dry for me. I'm working with too many excel sheets all day already 😅

[@tadasdovii8262]

This is game about how war in real life look for fleet(division) level logistitian.

[@Panzerless_SG]

I can't believe they choose China with above the Netherlands (I do understand though, their navy was still bigger I guess) *Sad Dutch noises*

[@deeznoots6241]

Pretty sure somebody already made a Netherlands nation mod for the game, most of the modding in this game is adding new nations in(including alt-history stuff like the Byzantine Empire or a Grossdeutschland(Germany+AustriaHungary) both of which were mods for RTW2)

[@oliverfuchs3925]

Played "Burning Steel" back in the 90th. Sadly I couldn't bring the game running on my modern Windows. Is there any game like Burning Steel available nowadays? BTW same for HARPOON.

[@randyhavard6084]

Can you cheat in the treaty system the same way just about everyone did at one point or another?

[@EllenbergW]

Full democracies (Britain, France and USA) are bound by the treaty to 100%. Everyone else can go 10% over the tonnage limit for ships, so if the limit is for ships no larger than 20k tons, those nations can build 22k ships. There is no cheating on gun caliber, though.

[@randyhavard6084]

@@EllenbergW thanks for the details

[@galliman123]

You can rebuild all your old warships to keep up tho

[@kommandantgalileo]

Watch as someone builds HMS Furious as originally designed.

[@novatopaz9880]

I've done one better, I made HMS Furious, full flight deck edition, with more enough guns to make HMS Furious salivate. Or at least designed it. I never actually built it. But you could do that in RtW 2. Not sure if you can do it in 3, but it's very funny.

[@kommandantgalileo]

@@novatopaz9880 I wish I had a windows PC and not a Mac

[@StylinandProfilinBBsandBBQ]

So what you’re telling me is that until I can afford a gaming computer to play this game and Ultimate Admiral, I have to make P.T.O. IV on my PS2 work? If anyone needs me I’ll be dripping tears on to my wireless PS2 controller.

[@bearzilla2462]

Try adulting and getting a real job.

[@Firebolt193]

I'm pretty sure you can run RtW 3 on a Pentium laptop, so you don't need an egregious amount of cash to start playing this

[@StylinandProfilinBBsandBBQ]

@@Firebolt193 oh ok. Good to know. Thank you!

[@deeznoots6241]

This game has super low computer requirements since its essentially a spreadhseet

[@Vagabond820]

When the lets play series?

[@Lassisvulgaris]

Now it's more like waving the rules....

[@ronaldfinkelstein6335]

Who is Sir Ralph?

[@bluelemming5296]

Right at the beginning I'm already unhappy by what I see. Britain has a special limitation: hidden design flaws. Why is that special for Britain? What navy didn't have hidden design flaws in many or most of it's units? If anything, I think the British did a far better job than most nations at making ships that could handle the North Sea - could both survive and fight. I've been reading the recent books by Skwiot + Motyka on Scharnhorst and Gneisenau (WW2) and was astonished at the quotes from the German gunnery officers of those ships about how bad the design of their ship was from a gunnery perspective in rough weather - and how impressed they were by the gunnery of their British opponent under the exact same sea conditions.

[@deeznoots6241]

Hidden design flaws is to reflect what happened to the Invincibles and Hood, aka it increases the risk of magazine detonations when penetrated, though every time Britain suffers such an explosion in game the risk of it happening further is reduced. The sort of flaws you are thinking of is more properly reflected by the modifier undeveloped shipbuilding industry which increases the chance of a ship being slower or heavier than designed(which is only revealed when you finish building a ship of the class). Britain in fact has the opposite modifier IIRC that increases the chance of a design being faster than expected.

[@bluelemming5296]

@@deeznoots6241 Your information on this topic is out-of-date. The RN cruisers and battle-cruisers lost are Jutland were not lost because of design flaws. They were lost because the crews were not following the flash safety procedures. This has been proved with documentary evidence, and also enough has survived of the wrecks for divers to go down and confirm this beyond any possibility of doubt. Interestingly, on one of the battlecruisers (Tiger?), well before the battle, a junior officer pointed out that the ship was not following the safety procedures. Astonishingly, he convinced his superiors on this ship of this and got everybody following the procedures. This almost certainly prevented that ship from blowing up when it was hit multiple times at Jutland. So the problem with the Invincibles was not a hidden design flaw, it was human error. That can and does happen in every single Navy. Similarly, the only account we have for the loss of Hood that accounts for all the known facts is that a shell penetrated through the water, went under the belt, and detonated underwater next to the 4in magazine, which about a minute later caused the 15 inch magazine to blow up, destroying the ship. No navy in the world designed for the change in water level next to a ship due to a ship's bow wave and speed and turning in WW1. It would not be an element of naval design until the US navy realized that their fast battleship design could have a similar problem and addressed it - after almost every other battleship in the world was designed. If you look at pictures of Yamato at speed it likely also has that problem. So nothing unique to the RN - a problem that affected every single navy in the world. Interestingly, at the same battle, a shell from Prince of Wales also went through the water, detonated underwater against Bismark, and caused flooding - which ultimately may have contributed to the ship's loss. The many German ships that had bad seakeeping problems is an example of human error - arrogance and an unwillingness to properly test. They made the same mistake with their torpedoes (the US Navy was not the only one to have torpedo problems in WW2), which is part of the reason the Germans did so badly at Narvik. The whole German battle plan that resulted in Narvik actually reflects human error on a massive scale - no competent navy would put destroyers in such a vulnerable position. Similar errors left Scharnhost unescorted on her return home in 1943, contributing to her loss - no competent navy lets a capital ship operate unescorted in time of war. I could go on. To be human is to be imperfect. Everybody makes mistakes. Everybody has problems. The idea that battle-cruisers were fundamentally flawed and that there something unusually wrong with British ship design is an urban legend that has long been debunked.

[@deeznoots6241]

@@bluelemming5296 I am aware of that, I’m just explaining why the ‘hidden design flaws’ is in the game, you can argue it shouldn’t be there but that is why its there.

[@bluelemming5296]

@@deeznoots6241 You're likely to mislead a lot of people who won't know any better. Over the long term, it takes a lot of time and effort on the part of other people to correct those misconceptions, so yes, I am arguing that it shouldn't be in the game, at least in it's current form. You are also likely to draw negative emotional responses from people, often people who don't know anything one way or the other and are 'jumping to conclusions' and/or 'defending their team'. That's not great for the success of your game. From my perspective as somebody who has done game design, it's better to make this kind of thing something that can selected as an option - and applied to any nation or group or side. You might look at Master of Orion 3 for an example of what I'm talking about. Not a game that overlaps with the channel, but they have some interesting ideas that you might benefit from studying. In this case, I'm thinking of the fact that the player picks a race at the start of a game. They can have advantages and disadvantages assigned to their race. Various RPGs have done similar things. In all these cases, players can give themselves liabilities to earn points to spend on advantages. Or they can try fun experiments just to see how things turn out, which tends to extend the life of the game. It's even ok to have defaults for different groups - as MOO3 does - provided you are careful in how you handle them, how you document them (taking special care not to be misleading), and that you let people change them. Also, in this particular case, you could go the extra mile to make it clear that you're not assigning a ship design flaw characteristic to a nation, you're assigning a 'cultural' characteristic to a particular group at a particular point in time - the naval subculture or some significant subgroup is going in a particular direction even though it's not wise to do so. To be human is to be imperfect - and people do stuff like that, both as individuals and as larger groups. Hence it becomes more of a psychological or sociological or anthropological attribute - however you want want to look at that, bit of overlap there - than an engineering attribute, which is more accurate and hence less likely to be misleading.

[@deeznoots6241]

@@bluelemming5296 I literally just tried to explain why the game had something in it, I didn’t make the game so if you’ve got issues with it go complain to the dev

[@saltboi6374]

Does anyone know if this game features tactical nuclear munitions?

[@GeneralJackRipper]

No it doesn't.

[@stevidente]

No Ottoman or South American navies?

[@erichammer2751]

There were mods for RtW 2, someone will doubtless add them for RtW 3. Also Byzantium, Holland, and the Confederate States of America.

[@RunicRhino22]

The diplomacy can be wacky in this game. My first war was against the Russians, taking the Baltic States from them. And then we ally Vs the French.

[@lt.petemaverickmitchell7113]

Couldn’t have been built any better than Warspite. Hehehe😂

[@JevansUK]

I got to the point where it said available on Steam, and then I lost 33 pounds

[@TheStig_TG]

you can get modern ships in RTW?

[@garygenerous8982]

It goes up to 1970 so kind of.

[@TheStig_TG]

@@lucab.903That is pretty sick.

[@merafirewing6591]

​@@lucab.903 is there a way to make those irrelevant and return to naval gun?

[@EllenbergW]

@@merafirewing6591 Not that I know of (yet) There is a mod for RTW 2 (No wheeled aircraft mod), that removes all aircraft except for flying boats and float-planes but I don't think that mod has been modified (yes, I did this on purpose) for RTW 3.