|
ASW rating
Nov 10, 2019 11:37:14 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by dizzy on Nov 10, 2019 11:37:14 GMT -6
Make sure it doesn't have mines or minesweeping (IIRC), give it as many depth charges, racks, and ASW mortars as you can. A minor correction - carrying mines does not impact a ship's ASW rating. Being equipped as a minesweeper does reduce the ship's ASW rating. That’s pretty huge. I was always building my DDs with the notion that mixing the two would result in decreases capability, so as long as I don’t throw minesweeper into the picture, my ASW DDs can carry mines at no penalty to either?
|
|
|
Post by janxol on Nov 10, 2019 12:11:40 GMT -6
A minor correction - carrying mines does not impact a ship's ASW rating. Being equipped as a minesweeper does reduce the ship's ASW rating. That’s pretty huge. I was always building my DDs with the notion that mixing the two would result in decreases capability, so as long as I don’t throw minesweeper into the picture, my ASW DDs can carry mines at no penalty to either? Yes. Basicaly all my DDs carry mines if I had the tonnage to spare. it's only minesweeping that halves ASW. Then again my DDs are also not built for ASW, they might be repurposed later in their service life though.
|
|
|
Post by trifler on Nov 10, 2019 21:39:26 GMT -6
Ships seems to start with 1 ASW point and get +1 for every 200 tons, at least for small ships like destroyers and corvettes. A 400 ton destroyer has 3 ASW points and a 600 ton has 4, for example. I haven't checked to see if this ratio remains steady above 1000 tons. - I believe carriers have a fixed ASW rating that is not affected by the design. - If you just want ASW and don't expect the ship to fight, then note that higher numbers of torpedo launchers do increase the maintenance cost. Also what secondcomingofzeno said: Also, are all these things written somewhere, in the manual or a reference document, or are these empirical findings, personal observations or reverse engineering of game saves and such? - The... "formula" (I hesitate to call it that) I had to figure out through specific experiments and general game play. - The fixed carrier ASW rating is an observation. - The minesweeping equipment being a penalty is in the manual, but the detail of it halving the ASW rating is player observation. - The manual states that ASW equipment benefits ASW rating, but it provides no details.
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Nov 12, 2019 16:11:35 GMT -6
Bear in mind DDs with their ASW rating is minorly useful on the battle map when a sub happens to be around. Only a DD assigned to TP rather than AF will add to the strategic ASW score. It is the strategic ASW score that gives the between turn results of subs sunk.
I also put mines on DD using up some extra tonnage and losing slightly on the LAA/MAA which is not much impact on DDs. DDs not having much LAA/MAA slots anyway and the DD tending to evade hits.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Nov 12, 2019 17:36:59 GMT -6
Ships seems to start with 1 ASW point and get +1 for every 200 tons, at least for small ships like destroyers and corvettes. A 400 ton destroyer has 3 ASW points and a 600 ton has 4, for example. I haven't checked to see if this ratio remains steady above 1000 tons. If I'm not mistaken, size-dependent ASW score caps at 5:
|
|
|
Post by tortugapower on Nov 13, 2019 12:37:58 GMT -6
Ships seems to start with 1 ASW point and get +1 for every 200 tons, at least for small ships like destroyers and corvettes. A 400 ton destroyer has 3 ASW points and a 600 ton has 4, for example. I haven't checked to see if this ratio remains steady above 1000 tons. If I'm not mistaken, size-dependent ASW score caps at 5:
I was also under the impression that the max size for ASW increase was 900 tons.
|
|
|
ASW rating
Nov 13, 2019 13:29:21 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by dorn on Nov 13, 2019 13:29:21 GMT -6
If I'm not mistaken, size-dependent ASW score caps at 5:
I was also under the impression that the max size for ASW increase was 900 tons. If I remember well, 900 tons destroyer is the smallest one that can have maximum special ASW equipment.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Nov 13, 2019 13:51:59 GMT -6
If I remember well, 900 tons destroyer is the smallest one that can have maximum special ASW equipment. Yep. 900 tons is required for the second pair of K-guns. Increased Depth Charge Storage requires 300 tons, the first pair of K-guns requires 500 tons, and the Forward ASW Mortar requires 600 tons.
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Nov 13, 2019 14:59:00 GMT -6
If I remember well, 900 tons destroyer is the smallest one that can have maximum special ASW equipment. Yep. 900 tons is required for the second pair of K-guns. Increased Depth Charge Storage requires 300 tons, the first pair of K-guns requires 500 tons, and the Forward ASW Mortar requires 600 tons.
Which makes 600 ton sub hunters the most efficient build for ASW. You would add 50% displacement to go from 600 to 900 for +2 ASW. That being (+1 for 200 tons, and +1 for second K-guns). IIRC the 600 ton has more than ASW 4 at the point of K-guns. IIRC its about 6. When mass building its 1800 tons for 3 x 600 ton ASW 6 (ASW total 18) or 2 x 900 ton ASW 8 (only 16 total ASW) Mind you Im not sure if giving ASW ships torpedo protection will help them in the combat math. Perhaps it should, since it might survive a torp hit either fully or long enough to get a few more counter attacks.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Nov 13, 2019 15:24:37 GMT -6
IIRC the 600 ton has more than ASW 4 at the point of K-guns. IIRC its about 6. 600t DDs and KEs can have an ASW rating of 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 depending on what ASW equipment that they have - 4 by base, +1 for Increased Depth Charge Storage, +1 for a pair of K-guns, and +2 for the Forward ASW Mortar (this might require research; I don't recall if it's worth 2 ASW rating when first unlocked, but it is when you have full ASW technology). 900t DDs and KEs can have an ASW rating of up to 10 since they get another +1 for the second pair of K-guns. Realistically speaking, a torpedo protection system is not going to significantly affect the ability of a smallish destroyer or corvette to survive a torpedo hit - the ship's just too small to fit a system with the necessary depth to be effective. You might be able to do something like stuff the ship full of cork or some other buoyant material so as to exclude water and retain as much buoyancy as possible after a torpedo hit, as was at least sometimes done on Q-ships, but that's about it.
|
|
|
Post by tortugapower on Nov 13, 2019 15:46:00 GMT -6
Yep. 900 tons is required for the second pair of K-guns. Increased Depth Charge Storage requires 300 tons, the first pair of K-guns requires 500 tons, and the Forward ASW Mortar requires 600 tons.
Which makes 600 ton sub hunters the most efficient build for ASW. You would add 50% displacement to go from 600 to 900 for +2 ASW. That being (+1 for 200 tons, and +1 for second K-guns). IIRC the 600 ton has more than ASW 4 at the point of K-guns. IIRC its about 6. When mass building its 1800 tons for 3 x 600 ton ASW 6 (ASW total 18) or 2 x 900 ton ASW 8 (only 16 total ASW) Mind you Im not sure if giving ASW ships torpedo protection will help them in the combat math. Perhaps it should, since it might survive a torp hit either fully or long enough to get a few more counter attacks. In what sense "efficient"? Displacement itself is not bad (rather, it's good), but you might mean cost or maintenance. I think maintenance caps at 5/month at the lowest (although that doesn't make sense!), so it may come down whether a 900 ton KE can be built for 5 maintenance or not. If not, the next thing to compare is the ratio of ASW to maintenance for a 900 ton vs. 700/600/500 ton KE.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Nov 13, 2019 16:56:54 GMT -6
In what sense "efficient"? I'd think cost-efficient. Relative displacement gives a ballpark estimate of relative cost if you're making similar design choices so a ship that's 50% larger probably costs about 50% more to build and maintain, and for that additional investment you're only getting 25% more ASW rating with full ASW gear. Mind you, it's possible that there's some way in which it's better to have better ASW craft than more ASW craft - for example, as long as you have "enough" ASW craft, it might be the case that you'll sink more submarines with better ASW craft than you would with more ASW craft or that better ASW craft will reduce merchant losses to submarines more than more ASW craft would.
|
|
|
Post by tortugapower on Nov 13, 2019 17:28:19 GMT -6
aeson It seems normal to have cost and displacement linked. I just wonder if it's linear and how all that compares with ASW rating. To me, the most important thing is maintenance. Give me the ASW:maintenance rations for 500/600/700/900 ton KEs and I'll know exactly what to build.
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Nov 13, 2019 18:58:04 GMT -6
Ping pong balls.
At least one Q-ship used a cargo of ping pong balls. Very light weight with tens of thousands individual air pockets in the volume of the ships cargo space.
From the story I recall it was a curious sight when the ship did get hit and leaked a sea of ping pong balls on to the ocean.
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Nov 13, 2019 23:18:06 GMT -6
Just run a quick check with all techs researched, UK building. Raw cost for a 20 knot 600t KE, medium range, not colonial, no f-con or gun mods, no AA, mounting 2x4", 4x3" and maximum ASW equipment is 1,519 (9 months at 169). Upping to 900t and adding the extra K-gun increases cost to 1,883 (11 months at 171). That's (just) under a 25% increase in price and build time for a 25% increase in ASW capability. Haven't checked, but I anticipate a similar (or lower - there's only a 16% increase in crew) increase in maintenance.
As a bonus, the 900t can mount some AA (10), whereas the 600t cannot (1).
|
|