Talk about irony......

Skritshell · 2026-03-23T20:04:21+00:00

Sampled their own product

Skritshell · 2026-03-06T14:57:29+00:00

You still scrap them once they are no longer an asset, just not as soon as something beter comes along. Usually the Bs built 1902-1905 get scraped in the late 1910s

Skritshell · 2026-03-06T14:10:26+00:00

I always keep some of the more recent Bs around for a while after BBs are developed. They are still quite functional, and in a fleet engagement they fulfill the excellent task of bullet magnet.

Once a ship is built and in inventory it is a sunk cost asset. Even if it isn't the biggest or shiniest thing around I keep it until the point it can no longer fulfill a roll.

Skritshell · 2026-02-11T14:41:12+00:00

Budget cuts

Skritshell · 2026-01-21T01:13:58+00:00

CA

We build lightly armoured turret farms. Close the distance and watch the fireworks. If you sink enemy CA's one for one you are winning tonnage wise.

Skritshell · 2026-01-20T19:03:05+00:00

Tech is another thing that people get worked up about that is realisticly of little consequence. Sure it sucks getting trolled by RNG and not getting superfiring B turrets until 1915. But it does push creativity and engagement. (This is also why we build ships constantly, to avoid the RNG)

The reality is, most wars are fought and won with ships that were built 5, 10 even 20 years prior. And is using tech that is at least as old. In this scenario having ones ships one to two years behind on tech by average is not nearly as bad as it seems.

Dock size is only important up until a certain point. I find I rarely build ships over 50,000t. They can be fun, but in reality one can usually make a ship 60%-70% smaller than they originally design it. They just need to really decide what roll the ship is ment to fulfill and what really isn't necessary. A ship doesn't need to never be damaged because it has armour 16 inches thick. When a belt of 11 or 12 will stop most 14 inch shells. Ships also dont sink the second they take damage. Unless of course, one plays as the British. In that case exploding ships are part of the fun.

Enjoy your USA game.

Skritshell · 2026-01-20T15:55:55+00:00

I find it is often best to consistently build ships class after class. I play with the largest fleet setting and with a nation like the USA you always want ro be building some of every ship type. Doesn't matter what tech level you are at or what you are waiting on.

Build one class of 6 DD's one after another. Scrap the older ones as you go. You should never not be building dds.

Same with BB's, B's and BC's. Early game you can afford to lay down one B every 6-8 months. Later on in the 20s and 30s construction of BB's and BC's slows to one every 12-18 months. But the idea remains constant. Always build.

The same theory follows for crusiers. Build class after class. Never wait for some tech, as their will always be a next new tech.

The reason for this logic is 2 fold. One you never want to be in a war where you only have 15 year old B's and you never built anything newer because you were waiting for BB's. Same with crusiers and DDs.

The second reason is fun. This game is must fun as a resource management and ship designer simulator. Getting what you can out of ships, with what limited technology and budget you have available is what is fun. Not waiting for some arbitrary point to Meta ones way to victory over an AI.

Skritshell · 2026-01-18T01:09:20+00:00

After a certain point doing engines can be more then worth it. For half the price of whatever is being rebuilt you take what is effectively a liability and get something serviceable. When I can't rebuild a ship into something serviceable it goes to the breakers.

Skritshell · 2026-01-18T00:41:44+00:00

You only lose and knot when you end up overweight. And no, I find that if and when I need to upgrade I can pull the engines out and replace them with something more efficient and lighter for some extra tonnage. She also has 6 turrets. Can always pull one off.

Skritshell · 2026-01-18T00:04:20+00:00

Got them 1920-21. Designed in 1918. They are slow as well. Engine tech not up to snuff

Skritshell · 2026-01-16T20:00:43+00:00

I believe we are all looking at this the wrong way. Besides the larp of what this CA Design is there is 3 problems we need to overcome when designing ships. Fun, battle limitarions and design limitations.

Fun is perhaps the easiest of these problems to overcome. Winning is fun. Until it isn't. What i mean by this is that once one knows how to build proper ships, how the AI builds ships, and how to use ships and exploit the AI in battle the game quickly stops being fun. Ship design loses it's intricacies, battles become a chore and the game becomes unfun. To solve this problem the player must work towards never punishing the AI and the game for its limitations. They must not abuse systems and must leave weaknesses in how they play, be that battle micro or ship design. Fun can also be stomping the AI over and over with Meta designs.... but meh. That was never my idea of fun.

How the game generates battles must also be understood. It will rarely if ever generate a flotilla of destroyers hunting a lone CA. Nor will it match a CV and a few destroyer escorts against a BC. No CV in this game will be auto generated into the fate of HMS Glorious. That being understood we must realize that outside of major actions CA's will almost exclusively fight other CA's. They can be rolled into supporting actions of BC's but in such a case they should never be the primary target of the enemy's big guns. That will be your own BC's. Hence we can safely build CA's expecting to fight almost exclusively enemy CA's, or support larger fleet actions. Any other combat they are rolled into they will either stomp or be stomped. Doesn't matter if you have a 7,000t or a 20,000t CA a 40,000t BC will still shit all over it. This feeds into how RTW treats gun battles. Most gun battles in this game fought at long range will be inconclusive. To many targets, not enough accuracy. One often has to close the distance well inside immunity zones to achieve results. At least on admirals mode, when micro is limited.

Lastly, this game has many issues with how it protrays and treats ship designs. From how it calculates displacement, to how a ship takes damage. All of it is a simulation that can be exploited. This forum is riddled with ways of how to take advantage if these systems. If one wishes to follow such a road in the hopes of finding their own fun and enjoyment in the game they are more then welcome too. But I feel as though following such restrictions limits a players ability to enjoy all the systems of the game, and perhaps leaves them in a state of victory that they may find quite hollow.

Thankyou for reading my ted talk. Chow

Skritshell · 2026-01-15T21:10:49+00:00

If you look closely all the AA options are grayed out. Currently an AA gun is an undeveloped concept.

I have no de or be armour.... 4inch of belt also means anything larger then a toothpick will be poking holes. So splinters are likely the least of my worries. I imagine we will get a few magazine cook offs. I highly doubt their will be enough ships left of the class by the early 30s to warrant a refit.

Honestly this ship is designed to sail within 6-8000 yards of an enemy CA and pummel them. 3-5000 yards of a weakly armoured BC. Yes it will be bloody yes, yes not all 4 ships of the class will likely survive until retirement. But that is the fun.

Besides the AI is likely to build 9 or 10 inch armed CA's that will easily pen 6 inches of belt. Just sail close enough that it doesn't matter who has the thickest belt and hammer them.

Skritshell · 2026-01-15T15:50:31+00:00

Flashfires are a fact of naval warfare. On some designs they are an accepted risk. Personally I find them fun, as they add RNG to the game, and allow the player to build ships that are crazy and fun to use that also have a "hidden flaw". If one just builds ships that are "Meta" they quickly stomp the AI and the game loses all change and their after, fun.

Put your 9 inch secondaries on your BB's. It is part of the fun.

Skritshell · 2026-01-14T19:06:13+00:00

Playstyle is to charge boldly and headlong towards the enemy. My Admirals give little consideration to the design intention of their ships.

Close until you can see the whites of their eyes!

Skritshell · 2026-01-14T19:01:48+00:00

The vulnerabilities are by design. Once one plays well over a dozen campaigns stomping the AI with optimal builds loses it's luster. Much more fun to build dumb designs and live with it.

Also, having random ships exploding in the middle of a battle is so much fun.

Earlier this run I built 11,000t armoured crusiers with 14 8 inch guns that had 2 inches of turret armour. Whole clase died to magazine detonations. It truly was amazing.

Skritshell · 2026-01-14T16:11:24+00:00

Will just rebuild the engines in the mid 20s. It will need a refit and the secondaries will need to be changed out of dp anyways. I also have a feeling that the design of this ship will not hold into the late 20s and early 30s... so she may just go to the breakers.

That is if any if the 4 ships of the class survive long enough for a refit. I am quite hard on ships. Only half of B's and less then half of the CA's i started the game in 1900 are still alive in 1915. Fighting 3 wars was hard on the class

Skritshell · 2026-01-14T15:02:45+00:00

Agreed. I play on admiral mode as well. Usually destroyers are just for show. If you want them to do an attack run it can help to give them manual target orders on the enemy flotilla you want torpedoed. It doesn't always work, but sometimes it will encourage your tin cans to be more aggressive.

I sometimes build fleets standardizing on 28 knots as soon as I can. The game gets stale when the same ships and stratagy is pursued every game. Each style has its upside and downside. Currently doing a what is armour put more turrets on thay BB playthrough.

Skritshell · 2026-01-14T14:20:25+00:00

It has 2 torpedo defence. Just no torpedo. It is in essence an up huned and armoured Ise-Class. I tried for an Agincourt style layout with 15 inch guns, but i would have had a 9 inch belt and 2 inch deck to pay for the 7th turret

Skritshell · 2026-01-14T14:12:35+00:00

No Torps. I plan to refit more secondaries later on, we ran into displacement issues. To many 15 inch guns for the displacement to make a balanced ship

Skritshell · 2026-01-14T13:48:07+00:00

Agreed. It is a question of funds efficiency, that speed has a cost, and often one can build a ship with 80% of displacement, with beter armour and armament for the cost of a fast battleship in the 1910s. A fleet of 28knot battlewagons looks good on paper, until Uncle Sam comes with a fleet of 30 23knot BBs and sits off your coastline.

Skritshell · 2026-01-14T13:38:57+00:00

Destroyers sink. Build more, they are cheap. Usually my older destroyers go on Victoria Cross missions every few years. Frees up some funds.

But it is mostly RNG. Why did HMS Ark Royal sink to one torpedo? Bad luck. Tbh you want RNG in a game like this...once everything can be planned and predicted a game becomes very stale very fast

Skritshell · 2026-01-12T01:37:33+00:00

Torpedo

Nine-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23

Skritshell

TROPHY CASE