Destroyer Leader Tech for RTW-2

[bcoopactual]

Mar 23, 2017 16:03:39 GMT -6 archelaos said:

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...

A DL status could work well.  You would need to have parameters that determine what allows the ship to use the DL status.  You wouldn't want a Yamato to use an extreme example to get saddled with the flotilla leader AI if it was selected for DL status by mistake.  But RTW-1 already has some limiters on statuses (DD can't be raiders for example) so you could probably eliminate CA, BB and BC by class pretty easy.  But not every CL design had the facilities to support being a flotilla leader.  Namely the Admiral's plot, extra communication gear and berthing for the Admiral and his staff.  So I still think you need some feature in the ship design screen to make a specific design an actual destroyer leader or be flotilla leader capable.  

Or as an alternative you could have any CL or DD be designated a DL status but only ships whose design includes flotilla leader facilities, in whatever form that is like a checkbox or a dropdown menu like fire control, gets to apply the flotilla leader bonuses to their division in a scenario.   

Mar 23, 2017 15:52:14 GMT -6 Enderminion said:

Mar 23, 2017 10:27:35 GMT -6 ikahime said:

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.


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

Yes, they quickly realized that the Atlanta's (I laughed pretty good when I read your description, very apt) could be better employed as CLAA's but I think the unique employment of torpedo tubes for an American cruiser is just more proof that they were originally intended to serve as flotilla leaders.    

[ikahime]

Mar 23, 2017 15:52:14 GMT -6 Enderminion said:

the Atlanta's are the only American WW2 cruiser with torps, lots of Japanese cruisers had torps

Err, I meant to say american WW2 cruiser. I know the Japanese had torpedoes on pretty much everything smaller than a Battlecruiser.

[Fredrik W]

Interesting thread! I will think about it for RTW2.

I think pretty much any CL should be able to serve as flotilla leader. During WW1 Germany used regular run of the mill CL as destroyer flotilla leaders.

[tbr]

Yes, but we need a way to ensure that the roles in the scenarios are assigned according to their strengths. Old slow CL's (really small PC's) should not be used as flotilla leaders and small but fast CL's like the RN's 4inch and 2x6inch/6x4inch classes should only be used as either flotilla leaders or fleet scouts, not individual "patrol cruisers". Larger CL's should form the "CL squadrons" in fleet battles, be force flagships for small battles atc.

An option to assign a "role" in addition to an activity (MB/RF/AF/CP/R) would help, i.e. being able to assign "classes" like 1st, 2nd and 3rd class. A CL 1st class would be your primary modern CL, in CL squadrons for larger battles and "CL squadron" battles. A CL 2nd class would be your flotilla leader for DD flotillas. A 3rd class CL would be a "sea control" patroller and most likely to end up in raider battles.
For a battleship or DN this would mean battlesquadron in the van, battlesquadron in the rear or "sea control/coastal defence patrol", like divisions of "mission priority" could be made for CA and BC, even for DD's (1st class flotilla leader, 2nd class main fleet squadrons, 3rd class convoi escort).

The true challenge would not be implementation for the player but for the AI...

Mar 24, 2017 11:57:43 GMT -6 Fredrik W said:

Interesting thread! I will think about it for RTW2.

I think pretty much any CL should be able to serve as flotilla leader. During WW1 Germany used regular run of the mill CL as destroyer flotilla leaders.

[ikahime]

Mar 24, 2017 11:57:43 GMT -6 Fredrik W said:

Interesting thread! I will think about it for RTW2.

I think pretty much any CL should be able to serve as flotilla leader. During WW1 Germany used regular run of the mill CL as destroyer flotilla leaders.

Yeah, if there is a mechanic to set roles for particular ships, it should be dynamic and allow the user to set arbitrary roles for any ship in the active fleet. Although the ability to set default roles while designing might be nice, allowing the designer to warn you if the ship you are destining would be a poor fit for that role. IE, if you design a ship as an escort, it should be faster than the ships it will escort.

[JagdFlanker]

wouldn't mind a 'scout' check box - have been building 10,000t 'CL's lately starting mid game just so i can have faster and better armed scouts. real CLs are dead meat once director fire hits

[bcoopactual]

Mar 24, 2017 11:57:43 GMT -6 Fredrik W said:

Interesting thread! I will think about it for RTW2.

I think pretty much any CL should be able to serve as flotilla leader. During WW1 Germany used regular run of the mill CL as destroyer flotilla leaders.

Thank you for considering the idea. I could see cruisers being able to find the space aboard to perform that mission especially with the short duration missions destroyers typically went on then due to their short ranges. In contrast space seems to be at a much higher premium on the era's destroyers so they might have to be specifically designed, and slighty larger for the task. Regardless, you guys would know better than me so the decision is in good hands.

[oldpop2000]

I thought some of you might this link interesting - www.shipscribe.com/styles/S-584/albums/s584-dd.htm

This is Springstyles #1, which is a book of actual designs from the Bureau of Construction and Repair. On this page, are actual drawings of destroyers but more importantly destroyer leaders.

[garrisonchisholm]

Fascinating oldpop2000, what a trove! Had no idea that was online. I could plumb those records all day- thank you!

[oldpop2000]

Mar 26, 2017 7:36:13 GMT -6 garrisonchisholm said:

Fascinating oldpop2000 , what a trove! Had no idea that was online. I could plumb those records all day- thank you!

great, here is Springstyles Book #3 - www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/OnlineLibrary/photos/albums/s511.htm

Book 2 is missing and would seem to have been destroyed. Maybe someone will find it in the archives.

[beastro]

I think the real question should be asking if DLs historically had much of an effect compared to squadrons led by DDs no different than the rest in their squadron. IIRC, I don't think they did, at least the ones like the Porters didn't.

[qossuth]

Just let us have more control over OOB. Let us set up our own divisions and put whoever we want as leader. If you want to limit which types can be in the same division (so that you can lump DDs with CLs but not CAs or Bs, etc.), that would be fine.

The scenario generation system is flawed and the source of much of this game's annoyances and frustrations. Rather than figure out ways to work within this flawed system, it would be better to chuck it and start over. "Grand Admirals" should have some say in the Order of Battle!

[garrisonchisholm]

This is a quite valid point.

Likely the squadron organization is "behind the curtain" as it might have been seen as something the average player would not want to be troubled with, or perhaps did not have an easy implementation solution. I would wager this will receive due consideration in RTW2.

I especially like this; "OOB. Let us set up our own divisions and put whoever we want as leader. If you want to limit which types can be in the same division (so that you can lump DDs with CLs but not CAs or Bs, etc.), that would be fine."

[archelaos]

Apr 2, 2017 5:33:22 GMT -6 qossuth said:

Just let us have more control over OOB. Let us set up our own divisions and put whoever we want as leader. If you want to limit which types can be in the same division (so that you can lump DDs with CLs but not CAs or Bs, etc.), that would be fine.

The scenario generation system is flawed and the source of much of this game's annoyances and frustrations. Rather than figure out ways to work within this flawed system, it would be better to chuck it and start over. "Grand Admirals" should have some say in the Order of Battle!

But reality has much, much more. Bismarck and Prinz Eugen were supposed to be supported by Scharnorst and Gneisenau... and what? Reality stroke, putting twins out of commission. PoW and Repulse were supposed to carry their own air cover in the form of Indomitable... but she ran aground off Jamaica. There is long list of battles when the realith had much more to say than Grand Admirals...

Giving player too much control would result in game becoming too easy (or forcing changes in other systems) For example, I'd love to be able to manually invade any enemy possessions in seazones they have not enough presence. Still, this would force developers to change all peace deal event, as keeping all enemy colonies taken in war would make player way to OP.

That said, I'd like to have some say in OOB, but mostly to prevent some ships from some missions (or greatly reduce chance of them appearing) or to pick my favorite ship as flagship. Or even give a ship "fleet flagship" honorary title, if it is truly your favourite forcing it to be flagship if assigned to main force, or squadron flagship otherwise.