|
Post by bcoopactual on Mar 22, 2017 19:43:39 GMT -6
After discussing a large late game RTW 1 destroyer design in the Favorite Ship Design thread, I had the idea that maybe a suggestion for RTW-2, if it hasn't been mentioned already, would be a destroyer or flotilla leader tech that showed up in the mid 1910's time frame. It would allow leader type ships with an extra 350-500 tons more than the current DD limit (assuming a similar system to RTW-1 for destroyer techs) and use the same AI for destroyers but allow some kind of bonus when used in a scenario. For example, a destroyer squadron that had at least one flotilla leader in it might bump up the crew quality of each ship in the squadron by one level up to the max to simulate better coordination and control. Any thoughts or additional ideas on the subject?
If the game uses a similar system for destroyer tonnages to RTW-1, there might need to be some kind of ratio limit on the numbers of leaders to regular destroyers to keep players from using the tech to build all leader types but that is something else that can be discussed and thrown about. If I recall, a specific ratio of tonnage for leader type destroyers versus regular destroyers was set in the 1930 London Naval treaty.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Mar 22, 2017 20:21:05 GMT -6
leader type destoryers like the Atlanta class crusier?
|
|
|
Post by cv10 on Mar 22, 2017 21:07:47 GMT -6
leader type destoryers like the Atlanta class crusier? The Atlanta class were designated as light cruisers and built as such as by the time that they were built, it thought that light cruisers would make good destroyer squadron flagships (Great ships, only ww2 us cruisers to have torpedoes). The Atlanta class represent a bit a of shift away from destroyer leaders, which were bigger and had flagship facilities IIRC. Some historical examples include the Porter-Class, Le Fantasque class, and the Leiningrad class. They disappeared in the late 1930s as a distinctive class, as regular destroyers kept getting bigger. Also, like the example of the Atlanta-class, navies shifted to using light cruisers. I think the idea would be to have a destroyer leader class, but I'd also go with using light cruisers in the role (I'd love if they'd introduce organizable squadrons, so this appeals a lot to me)
|
|
|
Post by cv10 on Mar 22, 2017 21:15:56 GMT -6
I like the idea. Perhaps they could have a designation that makes them always show up as the flagship. There could also be a bonus if the class is equipped with radar (better detection ability with the flagship) and perhaps a penalty if the destroyer leader gets knocked out of action or sunk. I do think there should be a ratio that prevents building too many of them, perhaps a ratio of 5 DDs to 1 DL.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Mar 22, 2017 21:18:32 GMT -6
The Atlanta's were originally designed to be destroyer leaders but they are actually quite a bit larger (7,400 tons) than their contemporary destroyers, the Fletcher's at 2,500 tons. I was originally thinking of more like what the British did in WW1 with their flotilla leaders. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flotilla_leader Those ships are only slightly larger than the destroyers of the day. See the Admiralty-V class leader @1,200 tons vs the contemporary S class destroyer @1,090 tons. But the exact tonnage difference isn't that important. More the concept that they were slightly enlarged designs so they could carry a flotilla Admiral, his staff, and communication equipment to command the flotilla once the technology was available. I believe the 1930 London treaty maxed individual destroyers at 1,500 tons but allowed 16% of each nations total destroyer tonnage to be used for up to 1,850 ton leader type destroyers. Of course a game that goes from 1900-1950 which is what the most recent information was could allow a growth in flotilla leader sizes to what the Atlanta's were. I'm not sure you would want the Atlanta class using destroyer AI instead of cruiser AI to protect it's capital ships though. The different roles of ships with the same designation like CL for instance you would want to have separate AI routines for (i.e. Japanese CL's which were essentially destroyer leaders vs. Atlanta CLAA vs. Town class general purpose CL's) could definitely be it's own thread. The more different routines and roles the players want increases the workload on the developers of course.
|
|
|
Post by cv10 on Mar 22, 2017 21:22:26 GMT -6
The different roles of ships with the same designation like CL for instance you would want to have separate AI routines for (i.e. Japanese CL's which were essentially destroyer leaders vs. Atlanta CLAA vs. Town class general purpose CL's) could definitely be it's own thread. The more different routines and roles the players want increases the workload on the developers of course. A big +1 on that Heres a url to a good website for info american destroyers, this one is for the page on destroyer leaders destroyerhistory.org/goldplater/1850ton/
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Mar 22, 2017 21:41:40 GMT -6
I like the idea. Perhaps they could have a designation that makes them always show up as the flagship. There could also be a bonus if the class is equipped with radar (better detection ability with the flagship) and perhaps a penalty if the destroyer leader gets knocked out of action or sunk. I do think there should be a ratio that prevents building too many of them, perhaps a ratio of 5 DDs to 1 DL. All good ideas. The ratio limit is the only one that concerns me. I agree that you want to limit the number of leaders compared to regular destroyers. But arbitrary limits are usually something players chafe at. How do you make it organic and logical so the limit makes sense? Then you have to consider that towards later years, tonnage creep meant that the distinction between destroyers and leaders seems to disappear and like you pointed out, nations started looking at using small cruisers for the leader role. Hmmm, maybe an idea would be to have the flotilla leader ability just be a check box similar to how colony service is in RTW-1. Then checking the box adds a certain number of tons to the design for cost purposes. The design is then automatically designated as a flotilla leader and the scenario designer will preferentially select one leader for every three or four regular destroyers that are available for the scenario for each division and the flotilla leader design will give that division whatever bonuses are associated with the flotilla leader box (radar, improved division crew quality, improved communications and less likely to misunderstand signals, whatever the game designers felt was appropriate). And then in later years of the game the flotilla leader box may become available for small cruisers so they can be used in that role and the appropriate AI will be assigned for them for that role as opposed to a more general cruiser AI.
|
|
|
Post by beastro on Mar 22, 2017 21:53:08 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by cv10 on Mar 22, 2017 21:58:45 GMT -6
Perhaps there could be a limit linked to tonnage, perhaps after developing the concept of destroyer leaders, you could have destroyer leader tonnage be equal to 10% of your destroyer tonnage, so if you had 100,000 destroyer tonnage you could then have 10,000 destroyer leader tonnage. Over time, this percentage could increase, or be eliminated entirely to represent the tonnage creep (Fletcher class could have qualified as a DL, but 175 were built). That would make sense, the more destroyers you have, the more leaders you can build.
I'd also go with the checkbox system, it would be simple enough (saying that, I have little idea about code)
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Mar 22, 2017 22:59:15 GMT -6
If you just had the destroyer leader checkbox allow the ship to be of slightly larger tonnage but take up more tons itself I think you'd be fine.
|
|
|
Post by ikahime on Mar 23, 2017 10:27:35 GMT -6
Yeah, Japanese CLs are better examples of Destroyer leaders. The Atlanta is a battleship's secondary battery wandering around by itself. It happens to be the only WWII era cruiser with torpedoes for some reason, but really it's designed for escorting things and going pew pew pew. If you just had the destroyer leader checkbox allow the ship to be of slightly larger tonnage but take up more tons itself I think you'd be fine. Eh, Destroyer leaders are built as smaller than normal light cruisers. Rather than giving them a checkbox, you should be able to designate roles for ships.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Mar 23, 2017 14:51:51 GMT -6
Great thread, OP and contributions all . My thoughts: - Checkbox > design, as the size of DLs varied substantially, from a little bit larger and an extra gun to the Japanese practice of using CLs as early as around the end of WW1 (IIRC, memory hazy), to just the space for the squadron commander (the flotilla leaders of at least the British E through I classes were (again, IIRC) not more heavily armed or particularly larger). - If the leader is destroyed, it might be nice if there was a reduction in coordination between the remaining destroyers (greater risk of not following orders or similar?) Note, this comment is based on my understanding of the C & C role of a DL, but not based on any practical example, so if peeps know better they should smack it down appropriately .
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Mar 23, 2017 15:52:14 GMT -6
Yeah, Japanese CLs are better examples of Destroyer leaders. The Atlanta is a battleship's secondary battery wandering around by itself. It happens to be the only WWII era cruiser with torpedoes for some reason, but really it's designed for escorting things and going pew pew pew. If you just had the destroyer leader checkbox allow the ship to be of slightly larger tonnage but take up more tons itself I think you'd be fine. Eh, Destroyer leaders are built as smaller than normal light cruisers. Rather than giving them a checkbox, you should be able to designate roles for ships. the Atlanta's are the only American WW2 cruiser with torps, lots of Japanese cruisers had torps
|
|
|
Post by archelaos on Mar 23, 2017 16:03:39 GMT -6
The major question is how the role will be defined in RTW2, as maybe DL will be allowed by simply giving a DD or CL a DL status (just like we give AF/RF/MB status in RTW). After all, in RTW2 DDs would have to grow in late period, reaching 3000t around WWII and even more later.
BDW, don't you think 2100t cruiser is in fact intended to be a DL? My Raider cruisers always appeared in DL role in the first turn battle, before I sent them out. The problem is if such ship is left in AF status, she will appear in action against enemy cruisers or in raider interceptions where she will be easy points for the enemy...
I have to admit, that one thing that makes me recultant to idea of lost leader giving maluses is the fact that leadnig ship always take majority of hits and (if it is DD) is often knocked out or sunk mid action...
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Mar 23, 2017 16:11:40 GMT -6
The primary issue with making flotilla leaders CLs is that some ships designed as flotilla leaders were indeed destroyers. The Porter and Somers class destroyers were both leaders. The British actually built a large amount of flotilla leaders.
But at the same time the Porters were better armed than the preceding and succeeding classes of non-flotilla leader destroyers. So you have that issue to deal with.
So how do you do it where the player is encouraged to build both flotilla leaders and normal destroyers without making it so the player feels restricted in their options?
|
|