Suggestion: Interchangeable name lists

[generalvikus]

For the first time, I've come across the problem of running out of names for a type of ship - light cruisers - which means that I now have to build them one by one and name them manually. In RTW2, this problem could be solved by allowing a type of ship which runs out of names on its own list to 'overflow' into name lists reserved for other types. Light cruisers, for example, could first overflow into heavy cruisers and then other types; battlecruisers could first overflow into battleships and then other types, and so on. 

[Adseria]

I seem to recall seeing this problem brought up elsewhere. The solution that was given is that there is an overflow list, where any class that runs out of names can take names from the overflow list. I don't remember whether it was something that's planned or just a suggestion, though.

[JagdFlanker]

i believe there will be an overflow list in RtW2 so no more running out of names

[markodash]

why not just add a II on the end

[brucesim2003]

Mar 12, 2019 16:43:14 GMT -6 markodash said:

why not just add a II on the end

Quite unrealistic for 'II' to be in service at the same time as 'I'.

[gurudennis]

I run out of MS names in almost every play-through (by mid 1930s or so). One reasonable idea would be to supplant all the other lists (including universal cross-type lists) with the fallback naming algorithm that simply names ships on the basis of their type, year and ordinal number. For example, "MS 1936-1", followed by "MS 1936-2" etc. This way at least the game remains playable in that you can continue building ships in bulk rather than individually. You can always rename them later if you so choose.

[bcoopactual]

The alphanumeric prefix system used for destroyers and submarines in RTW1 could be extended to the other classes as well.

One thing I would like to see eventually is the MS (or K in RTW2) and AMC name lists split up. I'm working with vonfriedman on a custom name list for Italy for RTW1 and having obvious merchant ship names like Città di... (City of...) looks completely wrong on minesweepers and gunboats.

[Adseria]

Mar 12, 2019 22:57:42 GMT -6 gurudennis said:

I run out of MS names in almost every play-through (by mid 1930s or so). One reasonable idea would be to supplant all the other lists (including universal cross-type lists) with the fallback naming algorithm that simply names ships on the basis of their type, year and ordinal number. For example, "MS 1936-1", followed by "MS 1936-2" etc. This way at least the game remains playable in that you can continue building ships in bulk rather than individually. You can always rename them later if you so choose.

I only just had this problem in my latest game, and it wasn't even me that ran out of names; even on the largest fleet size, no-one ran out of names (even for minesweepers) except the US, and even then, it wasn't until early 1949. I honestly never had a need for more than around 30-40 minesweepers at a time (playing as Britain), because that's more than enough for coastal patrol duties, and even if they start getting sunk, you can just assign a few older destroyers to make up the numbers for a few months while you build more minesweepers. I mostly just build 20 or so early in the game (around 1905-1910ish), and then another set of 12 every few years to replace losses and ones that get "worn out." Sometimes, I'll build more if I find that I don't have enough at the start of a war, but, again, I can just use old destroyers to make up numbers. I always keep a dozen or so obsolete destroyers in reserve, just in case. I don't even bother to update the design for my minesweeper; in my latest run, I used the same design in 1949 that I did in 1910 (and that isn't unusual; I do that almost every run I play). I can barely even remember the exact design, because I never had any reason to change it: 200t, 1 or 2x3" guns, 17kts. Standard, cheap patrol boat.

Because of all of this, I feel like minesweepers in RTW1 don't really need overflow names. In fact, if anything, I feel like the AI builds more than it needs, from a gameplay perspective. As I said above, I, as Britain, never had a need for more than 30-40 minesweepers at a time, and, of course, names for sunk/decommissioned minesweepers can be reused anyway.

Of course, all of this might change in RTW2; in particular, the changes to the design of small ships, particularly in terms of ASW capability, will likely make it more important to keep minesweeper (or corvette, as they're now known) designs up-to-date. However, unless there is a significant increase in the number of ships required on coastal patrol (or trade protection), there will still be no need to have more corvettes in RTW2 than minesweepers in RTW1.

------------------------------------

On a distantly related subject, this got me thinking; trade protection vessels are, presumably, mostly required to defend against submarines? If so, it would probably make sense to have the trade protection requirement based, in part, on the ASW capabilities of the individual ship. Think of it this way: a small corvette with a single depth charge rail would not be as effective as a destroyer with sonar, ASW mortars and multiple depth charge rails. On the other hand, that destroyer could only be in one place at a time, whereas you could probably have 2 or 3 of the corvette for a similar cost, that could escort multiple ships/convoys simultaneously. So, it shouldn't be based entirely on the ASW capabilities, but nor should it be based purely on the number of ships.

I suggest a system whereby a ship is assigned a "trade protection score" ("TPS") based on it's tonnage, plus a significant bonus based on it's ASW capability. That way, a 10,000t cruiser would still have some limited TPS (protection against surface raiders mostly relied on cruiser escorts), but wouldn't be as cost-effective in that role as 10 1000t ASW destroyers. Also, a single large ASW destroyer would be more useful than a corvette, but you could have more corvettes, so that, for instance, 3 or 4 200t corvettes with limited ASW capabilities would be worth about the same as our 1000t ASW destroyer from earlier. Possibly, ships with aircraft (catapult planes or carriers) could also get a small bonus to TPS thanks to their recon capabilities. Radar would obviously play a significant role too.

I was about to continue, and talk about how surface raiders would now be countered by trade protection ships, rather than the active fleet, but then I realised that that would be going even further than I already have. I realise, of course, that this is all going to be too late for the initial release; at best, it would be DLC, or potentially even a hypothetical RTW3. Still, I thought I'd mention it, because surface ships were a significant part of trade warfare, and, as it stands at the moment, I feel like trade warfare needs a major rework to take every factor (submarines, surface raiders, aircraft, escort carriers, capital ship escorts etc) into account.

IMO, the main end goal would be the complete removal of any form of abstraction from trade warfare; having to assign trade protection to areas where enemy raiders are active, moving raiders to relatively lightly defended areas, and so on. Again, I realise this is all "distant future" material, but I'm putting it out there and seeing if anyone bites.

One other thing; I realise this is all completely unrelated to the original subject. Feel free to tell me to start a new thread, or start one yourself, or whatever, if necessary.

[gurudennis]

The thing is, if you manage to cripple a couple major navies (I mean *really* give it to them), the AI tends to rely on submarines to compensate. This is turn causes me to exceed the ASW requirements by a factor of 3+ for fear of getting my BBs randomly torpedoed and trade convoys sunk en masse. To make matters worse, I generally prefer scrapping my old DDs because of their maintenance cost. Somewhere in the middle of all of this, even with relatively manageable MS combat losses, running out of MS names is all but inevitable.

[archelaos]

Mar 13, 2019 1:30:58 GMT -6 gurudennis said:

The thing is, if you manage to cripple a couple major navies (I mean *really* give it to them), the AI tends to rely on submarines to compensate. This is turn causes me to exceed the ASW requirements by a factor of 3+ for fear of getting my BBs randomly torpedoed and trade convoys sunk en masse. To make matters worse, I generally prefer scrapping my old DDs because of their maintenance cost. Somewhere in the middle of all of this, even with relatively manageable MS combat losses, running out of MS names is all but inevitable.

Old DDs cost more in to maintain, but MS are taking much more attrition losses which means you have to constantly build new ones to replace ones sunk by subs.  I solve the problem of MS names by numbering them.

[bcoopactual]

Anyone looking for names to add for the shipname lists in RTW1, I've updated my British DD theme list files with additional names for other classes.  It's mostly American and Royal Navy and Commonwealth smaller ship classes like destroyer escorts, frigates, corvettes and minesweepers.  I've managed to add lists for Japanese destroyers through WW2 as well as WW2 era kaibokan.  I'm using a number of online sources including wikipedia, destroyerhistory.org, dreadnought project.org and uboat.net .  I don't have a lot of sources for non-english language nations so sorry about that. 


  

[vonfriedman]

Mar 13, 2019 8:50:19 GMT -6 bcoopactual said:

Anyone looking for names to add for the shipname lists in RTW1, I've updated my British DD theme list files with additional names for other classes.  It's mostly American and Royal Navy and Commonwealth smaller ship classes like destroyer escorts, frigates, corvettes and minesweepers.  I've managed to add lists for Japanese destroyers through WW2 as well as WW2 era kaibokan.  I'm using a number of online sources including wikipedia, destroyerhistory.org, dreadnought project.org and uboat.net .  I don't have a lot of sources for non-english language nations so sorry about that. 


  

I have expanded an earlier list of names suitable for Italian ships in RTW2. Some refer to characters or places that relate to WW1, so they should not be used if a long period of peace is supposed to have preceded the start of the game.

Italian ships RTW2.txt (11.42 KB)

[Adseria]

Mar 13, 2019 1:30:58 GMT -6 gurudennis said:

The thing is, if you manage to cripple a couple major navies (I mean *really* give it to them), the AI tends to rely on submarines to compensate. This is turn causes me to exceed the ASW requirements by a factor of 3+ for fear of getting my BBs randomly torpedoed and trade convoys sunk en masse. To make matters worse, I generally prefer scrapping my old DDs because of their maintenance cost. Somewhere in the middle of all of this, even with relatively manageable MS combat losses, running out of MS names is all but inevitable.

It occurs to me that this problem could easily be solved by not crippling major navies. Fight them, yes, and go for the win, but don't hunt down every last ship; let some escape back to port. Then they won't feel the need to massively upscale submarine production and you won't need more minesweepers. You'll still easily win the war without sinking all of the enemies' ships, and, as a bonus, if they have more ships available, they'll be more willing to fight major battles later, meaning you won't be stuck with destroyer engagements for the rest of the game.