ASW ships

[dorn]

There are destroyers and corvettes built early useful even decades later. Players almost never scrap these ships as they are useful and cheap to maintain. Sometimes old destroyers are strip from guns and torpedo mounts to get the newest ASW equipment making them efficient.

If we look in history old ships were usually unsuited for ASW duty as modern means does not correspond to old hulls.


I suggest that ASW value of destroyers and corvettes (I do not think it should have effect on CV/CVL) should be halved after eg. 20 years of service. Even more eg. to 25 % after 30 years.

It is easy rule which brings RTW2 more in line with history and cancel using effectively 50 years old destroyers for ASW.

[DeMatt]

Ehhh... I think that's too harsh.

Take, for example, USS Allen (DD-66), a Sampson-class destroyer commissioned in 1917, which played antisubmarine patrol in the Hawaii region for all of WWII.  Or HMS Skate, an R-class destroyer, and a number of the subsequent S- (HMS Sabre), V- (HMS Vanity), and W- (HMS Westcott) class destroyers, commissioned before the end of WWI and still fighting at the end of WWII.

Maybe 10% per decade since launch?  Or maybe 10% every time the ship goes into (or alternatively comes out of) mothballs?

[dorn]

Sept 29, 2019 22:49:38 GMT -6 DeMatt said:

Ehhh... I think that's too harsh.

Take, for example, USS Allen (DD-66), a Sampson-class destroyer commissioned in 1917, which played antisubmarine patrol in the Hawaii region for all of WWII.  Or HMS Skate, an R-class destroyer, and a number of the subsequent S- (HMS Sabre), V- (HMS Vanity), and W- (HMS Westcott) class destroyers, commissioned before the end of WWI and still fighting at the end of WWII.

Maybe 10% per decade since launch?  Or maybe 10% every time the ship goes into (or alternatively comes out of) mothballs?

Numbers are certainly up to debate.
The old destroyers were used in ASW duties but there were either not ideál ships or there was larger investments needed.

For ASW escort vessel you do not need high speed, you need range and manoeuvrability as example.
Old destroyers usually have none of these.

[sittingduck]

The historical use of older ships in what the game calls Trade Protection (convoy escorts, etc) is well known. The game's application of an ASW factor is more abstract. Regardless, the game will not allow an early 500 ton DD to have the same ASW capability as a mid/late game 2000 ton DD no matter how many rebuilds or upgrades. I can choose to keep and rebuild my early DDs with an ASW of 5 (or so) or scrap and replace them with the same numbers of later 2000 ton DDs with an ASW value of 10 (or so). I see it as the ASW penalty for use of older ships is already built in to the game.

[dorn]

Sept 30, 2019 11:06:05 GMT -6 sittingduck said:

The historical use of older ships in what the game calls Trade Protection (convoy escorts, etc) is well known. The game's application of an ASW factor is more abstract. Regardless, the game will not allow an early 500 ton DD to have the same ASW capability as a mid/late game 2000 ton DD no matter how many rebuilds or upgrades. I can choose to keep and rebuild my early DDs with an ASW of 5 (or so) or scrap and replace them with the same numbers of later 2000 ton DDs with an ASW value of 10 (or so). I see it as the ASW penalty for use of older ships is already built in to the game.

I do not agree. Take 1000 tons built early in 10s. You can get quite a lot of ASW value for such a ship in 40s. You can get easily 10 ASW points from ships built early in 10s (I try 1200 tons destroyer). But you get max. 10 ASW points from 1900 tons destroyer built in 1950.

And I think that this is wrong that 1200 tons destroyer built in 1912 has same ASW value as 1900 tons destroyer built in 1950, both 4 K-guns, forward ASW mortal and increased DC storage. On top of that it is wrong, it gives player advantage as AI scrap ships after same time. On opposite player use quite old ships for ASW with such low costs (in mothball maintenance costs of such ships are minimal and there is need one per 8-10 years blank refit costing just dozens).

[sittingduck]

I certainly see your point, Dorn, and I confess I'm one of those who use early DDs throughout the game. I also admit that I don't know all the tech steps that directly affect the ASW values of a DD but off hand it seems to be involving weight/space instead of technology. In other words four K-guns, a hedgehog and increased depthcharge stowage takes up space that an early DD will never have. That's behind my saying a 500 tonner can never have the same ASW ability as a later, larger DD. The 500 ton ship simply can't fit the equipment the game uses to increase a ship's ASW value. (Are we saying the same thing in a different way?)

[cv10]

I'd rather not see an arbitrary penalty on DD ASW solely based on ship age, largely for the reasons as stated by sittingduck . As far as big DDs go, I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to be refitted for optimal ASW if they've got the room to spare or if other systems are reduced. Plenty of ships have been refitted to give them improved ASW weapons systems.

There's no reason why 1910s DD shouldn't be able to have a high ASW rating if you can fit the weapons on it to give it that rating. There's not a difference in the weapons themselves. In the game, 1950s DD and a 1910s DD both equipped in game with 4 K-guns, extended DC storage, and an anti-sub mortar have the same ASW armament. There's no reason why, in game mechanics terms, their ASW rating should be different.

As far as the AI scrapping ships goes, I really don't think it should be a policy to constrain the player to make up for something the AI does. It would be preferable to get the AI to retain old DDs for ASW work. 

There should be an ASW penalty for (O) ships, as the player should have to keep the ships in question refitted for them to be fully functional. 

[DeMatt]

Now that I think about it, a penalty to old ships probably isn't the way to go. Instead, how about a bonus to new ships? +10% per decade, or +1% per ASW tech (aside: what IS a "gradual increase in national ASW capability", anyways?)?

So that 1899 1kt KE with coal reciprocating engines will never be the equal of the 1950 1kt KE with diesel turbines.

[xt6wagon]

I think that perhaps the needed asw to counter a submarine should increase as certain techs for the submarines are developed. The snorkel for example made conventional aircraft searches largely useless.

So a 5 rating from a old DD with no special equipment would largely be useless on it's own, needing to trip over a late ww2 sub to have an effect. Many of those ships would still be useful in creating areas dangerous to operate in, but a single sonar and depth charge equipped would be as effective through active patrolling.

I think it's an area where more checkboxes are needed to separate out the obsolete from the modern. Also would force destroyer size to grow as equipment would eat tonnage. Could replace the aircraft equipment page for small ships.