• The Infractions Forum is available for public view. Please note that if you have been suspended you will need to open a private/incognito browser window to view it.

[Possible Let's Play] Rule the Waves 2: any interest?

DrunkenGrognard

Exile to the godforsaken reaches of the North
RPGnet Member
Validated User
Okay, back at it. Madeline Sophie Barat finishes her workup; in that same month the Armored Cruiser Chanzy-II winds up in a solo ambush against a German convoy; destroying all nine transports and two of the destroyers escorting it; while driving the other two destroyers away with heavy damage; and got away with only light damage itself. The sighting reports are working again, which is marvelous. Despite having more tonnage now in Northern Europe than the Germans and Brits combined; I remain blockaded and am losing VP for them "outmatching" me in home waters; as well as the rest of the world. I'm still ahead on VP by a fair chunk (61k against 47k) but this is getting annoying; especially how the game is insisting that I'm losing.

I do get a bit of amusement; down off Africa two of my creaky old 1900 era light cruisers are escorting a convoy that is attacked by two modern German destroyers. The dessies decide to try and close to torpedo me, and get ripped to shreds by some lucky 5" gunfire (their torps miss narrowly; they were trying to hit both the escorts and the merchies and wound up missing both)

Over the next couple months it starts to go a bit more my way. Lots of little clashes with destroyers and transports and light cruisers in the Channel (the Chanzys are putting in some serious work) and now the game seems to realize that I'm actually winning. The enemy tries for a no-harm-no-foul end of the war. But I have 4 battleships in Northern Europe. I kind of want to try and force a decisive battle (and milk wartime military budgets for a while to get a few more ships built) so I recommend that we keep going and crush them.

So the politicos agree to a peace with no border changes or reparations. Fuckers. I kiss my hopes of a third Jeanne d'Arc class battleship good bye and juggle everything else under construction (this last war was HARD on my destroyers; so I'm trying to build up more; along with another light cruiser. And once I get this stuff done I'll try for more flattops) Into 1951 we go, at peace again. I do take the opportunity to bring those two hero 1900-era CLs into port for some rewarding upgrades - upgrading their fire control, engines, torps, guns, and slapping AA guns on every possible part of the deck. They earned it.

Fascist Italy, who took advantage of our distraction while at war to blitzkreig several territories and is, y'know, fascist, tries to buy some tech from us. I tell them to get fucked, and they get annoyed. The Regia Marina is still damn weak, I might get lucky enough to have a quick round of fascist-kicking. But as soon as tensions get close to the threshold to start a war, they remember that we actually have a Navy, and start being all doveish again, the teases.

In December of '52, one of the Navy's political masters announces that he's read a book on naval theory and wants me to build a fresh squadron of submarines. This is WELL past the point in the game where Submarines have anything resembling "survivability" and "usefulness" as sub tech basically caps at end-of-ww2 levels here. But... humoring the idiot nets me both budget and prestige; and what's a little wasted money at the endgame? We can always sell the subs to a mall or something after.

'53 finishes without major incident; I take the opportunity to refit the rest of my surviving early light cruisers to the fancy new standard I redid the hero ones to (it's a lot more bang for my buck than laying down 4 fresh CLs; the crews can just deal with serving on ships older than their fathers.)

'54 also goes calmly. I continue to antagonize Italy; they continue to saber-rattle riiiight up to the point where war threatens to break out, then back the hell down a couple times. Finally, in February of '55 they take the bait. The first battle is quite annoying - they manage to jump an isolated cruiser group and we each lose one CA. The next battle goes much more to my liking; Chanzy and some escorting Destroyers ambushing an Italian convoy off Crete and sinking every ship in it; escorting cruiser and destroyers included (Chanzy is a god damned workhorse)

Mussolini's response to this defeat is to give a speech declaring total war; to the knife; and that Italy shall NEVER SURRENDER!

And then a month later they surrender.

The year rolls to a close with the world at peace; and then it's January '56 and the game is over.

France is the second greatest naval power in the world (of course America has more tonnage than we do. Not only do they have the US economy behind them, they are literally the only nation in game to never pick a fight with us. Largely because I took considerable care to NOT pick a fight with them, but hey, an Admiral has to know his limitations.
 

Truthseeker

Registered User
Validated User
The important thing is that the Rodney was sunk. :D

Thanks for the playthrough; this was a really good look at a game that was, heh, completely off my radar. I enjoyed it. Sorry 'bout the bug hassles, though, that does sound like it would be aggravating.
 

DrStrangelove

Rule Britannia
Validated User
Is it possible to have a more “historical” setting with the campaign being actually plausible? As in, roughly following alliances, world events etc.
 

Killer300

Registered User
Validated User
Sorry for reviving this but, are submarines still useless in the 1950s?

Because that seems... really odd to me. I don't know when nuclear submarines became a thing, but even outside of that, it seems like submarine technology should've been able to continue advancing.
 
Last edited:

Ulzgoroth

Mad Scientist
Validated User
Sorry for reviving this but, are submarines still useless in the 1950s?

Because that seems... really odd to me. I don't know when nuclear submarines became a thing, but even outside of that, it seems like submarine technology should've been able to continue advancing.
I'm not convinced they're really useless in the late-game, though you're certainly going to eat losses using them. I've always kept a moderate sub fleet around and gotten moderate results from them. But then, I've never seen sub deployment make a huge difference anyway, even when the enemy was fielding over 100 of them. They cause some fleet attrition due to 'ship torpedoed' events and mine events if you use minelayer subs. The victory points from trade warfare are nice, but trivial compared to what you pick up if you're winning battles. I gather you can win wars by building a swarm of them and going unrestricted sub warfare to create shortages and unrest, but I haven't tried it.

Nuclear submarines are somewhat unlikely to appear in the game - I think there was only one in the world in 1955. And given the handling of submarines, I'm not sure SSNs would be any different from your basic medium range SS, just with another reliability rating bump.
 

Killer300

Registered User
Validated User
I'm not convinced they're really useless in the late-game, though you're certainly going to eat losses using them. I've always kept a moderate sub fleet around and gotten moderate results from them. But then, I've never seen sub deployment make a huge difference anyway, even when the enemy was fielding over 100 of them. They cause some fleet attrition due to 'ship torpedoed' events and mine events if you use minelayer subs. The victory points from trade warfare are nice, but trivial compared to what you pick up if you're winning battles. I gather you can win wars by building a swarm of them and going unrestricted sub warfare to create shortages and unrest, but I haven't tried it.

Nuclear submarines are somewhat unlikely to appear in the game - I think there was only one in the world in 1955. And given the handling of submarines, I'm not sure SSNs would be any different from your basic medium range SS, just with another reliability rating bump.
That's... odd, and feels ahistorical, judging by books like Silent Victory. Now, I don't know how realistic the game is, but judging by how grognardy it gets, it seems rather intense, simulation wise.

The nuclear thing does make sense.
 

Ulzgoroth

Mad Scientist
Validated User
That's... odd, and feels ahistorical, judging by books like Silent Victory. Now, I don't know how realistic the game is, but judging by how grognardy it gets, it seems rather intense, simulation wise.

The nuclear thing does make sense.
I can't really comment on the book, since I don't know anything at all about what it says.

The title seems...ambitions, though. I can't think of any war where a claim that it was won by submarines could be taken seriously.

(Maybe the US could have won the pacific in WWII by just relying on submarines. But I don't believe that they couldn't have won it without the submarines, considering their other crushing advantages.)
 

Killer300

Registered User
Validated User
I can't really comment on the book, since I don't know anything at all about what it says.

The title seems...ambitions, though. I can't think of any war where a claim that it was won by submarines could be taken seriously.

(Maybe the US could have won the pacific in WWII by just relying on submarines. But I don't believe that they couldn't have won it without the submarines, considering their other crushing advantages.)
He actually makes a great case! And its insanely well researched, so it's quite good.

But basically, starving Japan was important because it meant they couldn't take advantage of say, colonial resources, that would've, at minimum, made the worse a lot worse at points for the United States.


Pivoting back to the game, I think submarines would be a rather important as a way for smaller tier powers to punch above their weight level.
 

Ulzgoroth

Mad Scientist
Validated User
He actually makes a great case! And its insanely well researched, so it's quite good.

But basically, starving Japan was important because it meant they couldn't take advantage of say, colonial resources, that would've, at minimum, made the worse a lot worse at points for the United States.
I'm fairly convinced of the narrative that once it became clear that the initial strikes weren't going to make the US concede, Japan had no real chance and their saner leaders were fully aware of that. (Not that they could do anything with that information at that point.)
Pivoting back to the game, I think submarines would be a rather important as a way for smaller tier powers to punch above their weight level.
How would subs favor smaller powers particularly?

Subs do offer a way to punch back if you've been blockaded, which is somewhat likely to happen for any Northern European power fighting Britain for example. And, as I said, I'm told you can effectively win wars by deploying large numbers of subs on unrestricted warfare. I'm not sure how or if that does more damage than blockading the enemy would, but (again as I said) I have not tested it.
 

Killer300

Registered User
Validated User
How would subs favor smaller powers particularly?

Subs do offer a way to punch back if you've been blockaded, which is somewhat likely to happen for any Northern European power fighting Britain for example. And, as I said, I'm told you can effectively win wars by deploying large numbers of subs on unrestricted warfare. I'm not sure how or if that does more damage than blockading the enemy would, but (again as I said) I have not tested it.
Well, they're cheaper, which depending on the starting country I'd imagine would matter a bit.
 
Top Bottom