|
Post by sallinkari on Jan 16, 2020 16:04:58 GMT -6
So obviously you need corvettes and destroyers for trade protection due to them having ASW but I don't know if there is a reason to have larger ships on escort duty. I would think that it would be important for intercepts but even if I only have smaller vessels on TP I still get raider intercepts with my cruisers. Does it help with the in between turn calculations of raiders sinking merchants/them being thwarted? I can't find any on this questions specifically so I was hoping someone might be able to answer my question.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Jan 16, 2020 16:32:38 GMT -6
Larger ships should be piled into TP only if you are short on hulls and have to, *or* you have a specific strategy to employ. Like a bunch of CL's with dozens of torpedoes that you hope will do nasty things to coastal raiders at night.
Carriers are notionally better for the Trade Protection task but are a terrible idea, unless it is a small cheap old useless CVL that you have the largess to afford to put out to pasture that way.
|
|
|
Post by archelaos on Jan 16, 2020 18:08:52 GMT -6
Larger ships should be piled into TP only if you are short on hulls and have to, *or* you have a specific strategy to employ. Like a bunch of CL's with dozens of torpedoes that you hope will do nasty things to coastal raiders at night. Carriers are notionally better for the Trade Protection task but are a terrible idea, unless it is a small cheap old useless CVL that you have the largess to afford to put out to pasture that way. Do you need to put cruisers in TP status to increase chance for interceptions? Or only if you want them in coastal patrols? In those few games I played before switching computers, I noticed chances for intercept to be very low.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Jan 16, 2020 18:12:46 GMT -6
Sometimes if I have a yen for experimentation I will either convert old CLs or make a new CL class with as many torpedo tubes as can be gotten aboard, specifically with the intention of assigning these to the Trade Protection pool. The odds are not great, but if such a ship is on coastal patrol at night and large enemy warships stumble upon them the results can be quite rewarding (even though the ship is usually lost). This is the only reason I would assign CLs to TP.
Cruisers do not at all need to be in TP(CP in RTW1) to facilitate their interception of enemy raiders.
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Jan 17, 2020 1:36:22 GMT -6
Sometimes if I have a yen for experimentation I will either convert old CLs or make a new CL class with as many torpedo tubes as can be gotten aboard, specifically with the intention of assigning these to the Trade Protection pool. The odds are not great, but if such a ship is on coastal patrol at night and large enemy warships stumble upon them the results can be quite rewarding (even though the ship is usually lost). This is the only reason I would assign CLs to TP. Cruisers do not at all need to be in TP(CP in RTW1) to facilitate their interception of enemy raiders. Interesting you say so, because I tested this some time ago and ascertained for sure that no raider interceptions occurred with cruisers on AF, but they did occur with ships on TP; battleships on TP did nothing, but battlecruisers sometimes generated raider intercepts and intercept missions. The manual states: I can test this again to be sure, but are you aware that this has been changed since the game's release?
|
|
|
Post by rodentnavy on Jan 17, 2020 2:45:56 GMT -6
Sometimes if I have a yen for experimentation I will either convert old CLs or make a new CL class with as many torpedo tubes as can be gotten aboard, specifically with the intention of assigning these to the Trade Protection pool. The odds are not great, but if such a ship is on coastal patrol at night and large enemy warships stumble upon them the results can be quite rewarding (even though the ship is usually lost). This is the only reason I would assign CLs to TP. Cruisers do not at all need to be in TP(CP in RTW1) to facilitate their interception of enemy raiders. Interesting you say so, because I tested this some time ago and ascertained for sure that no raider interceptions occurred with cruisers on AF, but they did occur with ships on TP; battleships on TP did nothing, but battlecruisers sometimes generated raider intercepts and intercept missions. The manual states: I can test this again to be sure, but are you aware that this has been changed since the game's release? I have to say my experience has been you need cruisers on Trade Protection to reduce the effectiveness of surface raiders, you only get one intercept a turn max but you can have multiple raider attack on shipping thwarted outcomes.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Jan 17, 2020 6:25:47 GMT -6
Sometimes if I have a yen for experimentation I will either convert old CLs or make a new CL class with as many torpedo tubes as can be gotten aboard, specifically with the intention of assigning these to the Trade Protection pool. The odds are not great, but if such a ship is on coastal patrol at night and large enemy warships stumble upon them the results can be quite rewarding (even though the ship is usually lost). This is the only reason I would assign CLs to TP. Cruisers do not at all need to be in TP(CP in RTW1) to facilitate their interception of enemy raiders. Interesting you say so, because I tested this some time ago and ascertained for sure that no raider interceptions occurred with cruisers on AF, but they did occur with ships on TP; battleships on TP did nothing, but battlecruisers sometimes generated raider intercepts and intercept missions. The manual states: I can test this again to be sure, but are you aware that this has been changed since the game's release? Well. Since you've pulled out a quote on me ( ) perhaps a reassessment of my grey matter is in order. However, apocryphally (kinda sad I have to use that term on my self), I would say I have seen CAs and BCs produce the 'chase away raiders' text and I literally never put CAs and BCs into TP. Perhaps if anyone could verify the state of their cruisers (AF, RF, TP) when they see this as well? I will look myself but I don't know how quickly I can get into a war in any of my games.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jan 17, 2020 6:40:49 GMT -6
My observation is that cruisers on TP has at least better effect against raiders.
|
|
|
Post by trenton59 on Jan 17, 2020 7:10:23 GMT -6
from what I've seen, you don't need to put cruisers on TP for anti raider work, but if you do they seem to be more effective at it.
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Jan 17, 2020 10:10:26 GMT -6
I am also under the impression that putting cruiser interceptors on TP helps them catch raiders. Intercepts can still happen without that. It is supposed to improve the frequency. That matches my observations of game play.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Jan 17, 2020 11:27:32 GMT -6
That's useful to know that my perception is not entirely askew. So TP status "helps but is not required" seems to be the answer.
|
|
|
Post by archelaos on Jan 18, 2020 15:23:59 GMT -6
My observation is that cruisers on TP has at least better effect against raiders. This was my experience as well and, in fact, it was a change I was very unhappy about. In home waters, you could often spare some cruisers for TP, but in colonies? Whatever you do, you will loose VPs - preventing invasions need those ships on AF while hunting raiders on TP, you would also loose VPs (to "enemy dominating seas around X") even if you have many ships in TP status there while enemy arrive with a single lowly CL on AF.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jan 18, 2020 15:25:46 GMT -6
My observation is that cruisers on TP has at least better effect against raiders. This was my experience as well and, in fact, it was a change I was very unhappy about. In home waters, you could often spare some cruisers for TP, but in colonies? Whatever you do, you will loose VPs - preventing invasions need those ships on AF while hunting raiders on TP, you would also loose VPs (to "enemy dominating seas around X") even if you have many ships in TP status there while enemy arrive with a single lowly CL on AF. You can set your cruiser in colonies to TP as it is still counted towards colonial requirements.
|
|
|
Post by archelaos on Jan 18, 2020 15:29:30 GMT -6
This was my experience as well and, in fact, it was a change I was very unhappy about. In home waters, you could often spare some cruisers for TP, but in colonies? Whatever you do, you will loose VPs - preventing invasions need those ships on AF while hunting raiders on TP, you would also loose VPs (to "enemy dominating seas around X") even if you have many ships in TP status there while enemy arrive with a single lowly CL on AF. You can set your cruiser in colonies to TP as it is still counted towards colonial requirements. True but, as I mentioned, they will not fight in battles and not be counted to be there for invasions and sea control.
|
|
|
Post by stevethecat on Jan 19, 2020 6:12:47 GMT -6
Would be nice to build CVEs that had more of a TP effect, while leaving CVLs to be more strike/cover focused.
|
|