|
|
Post by 13th Fleet on Jan 21, 2020 8:28:46 GMT -6
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. That can be a benefit if you're not stationing enough ships to actually fight off what the enemy is putting there. It keeps them from just getting dumped into battle against entire squadrons of ships. |
|
euchrejack
Full Member
Don't feed the Trolls. They just get bigger and more numerous.
Posts: 139
|
Post by euchrejack on Jan 21, 2020 16:49:05 GMT -6
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. Hm, perhaps building CVLs for Trade Protection like they did in WW2 would be viable. I mean, it doesn't take much to make a CVL, and much like in real life there are tons of vessels that can be converted. Corvette to CVL conversion anyone?
For what it's worth, and to the degree its reliable, the old Manual states on page 17: "Cruisers assigned to trade protection will patrol against enemy raiders and provide heavy convoy escort." It also says "...cruisers can be needed if raiders are about."
That does match my experience: For WW1 era wars, it does seem that having at least one Heavy Cruiser on trade protection is probably needed. Its what the AI seems to be doing to stop my swarm of Light Cruisers. If only they knew how expendable I treat my Light Cruiser raiders...
|
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jan 21, 2020 19:22:40 GMT -6
Corvette to CVL conversion anyone? It's something you can do, but you need about 800 tons for a flight deck and the minimum 5-plane airgroup, which in practice means that the smallest ship you can convert is probably a ~1,500t destroyer or corvette or a 2,000-3,000t third class/light raiding/colonial cruiser, and you also need a design speed of 20 knots if you don't have flight deck catapults yet (you also need catapults to launch anything faster than 120kn at anything other than light load since you're under 10,000 tons). There is also a slight issue in that what you save by doing a conversion instead of a purpose-build is extremely marginal when talking about such extremely minimal carriers: (Reid is a 1920-start USA legacy destroyer with conversion plans drawn up at game start; Copahee was drawn up at the same time but is technically illegal since the USA does not have the ability to purpose-build CVLs at game start.)
Might be marginally useful, but I doubt if carrier ASW score is enough better than DD/KE ASW score to justify the greater cost of the hull as compared to a typical 500-900t ASW DD/KE (and that's without the air group - 5 single-seaters @ 8/month each is 40/month, or roughly two or three times the upkeep cost of a 900t ASW DD/KE), especially considering that ASW DDs and KEs can often start life as fleet DDs that get transitioned over to the ASW role as they become too small/slow/undergunned/etc for fleet service and so, like the hypothetical carriers, are conversions of existing ships - but almost certainly a much cheaper conversion than a carrier rebuild since you can probably get away with stripping off a couple torpedo tubes or some guns and fire control systems rather than the near-total reconstruction that's probably necessary to find room for five planes and a flight deck on such small ships (small CLs might be less expensive carrier conversions than large DDs/KEs, incidentially, since bulging is an option for gaining additional tonnage to work with at 2,500 tons or more, and the game only cares whether or not the design speed - not the service speed - is above 20 knots when it checks if a catapult-less carrier is legal). It's also probably not really of any greater usefulness outside the ASW role than an ASW destroyer would be since the air group is - generously - marginal for reconnaissance and is laughable for CAP or strike missions.
As an aside, if you're willing to accept Short Range, Cramped Accommodations, and Low Freeboard, you might be able to squeeze a 5-plane unprotected CVL onto about 1,100 tons, at least in the latter stages of the game, probably making it cheaper than any feasible conversions unless you're operating cramped short-range destroyers and corvettes of similar size.
|
|
|
|
Post by zardoz on Jan 22, 2020 4:17:45 GMT -6
To be honest, I would really love a clear answer whether cruisers on TP have any effect on raiders. Is that not possible for the developers?
I have never put a cruiser on TP and have got all those other things, i. e. interception battles and thoses text information. But if it has any increasing effect I would consider to put cruisers in the colonies on TP
|
|
|
|
Post by avimimus on Jan 22, 2020 10:18:30 GMT -6
Quick question: Minesweepers... do they continue to minesweep if put in trade protection?
I agree that IRL historically CVEs were useful for trade protection and I do like the idea of distinguishing between CVE and CVL roles...
It would be nice if we had more roles and could transfer ships between them (e.g. coastal defense battleships/monitors/torpedo rams shouldn't appear in fleet battles away from shore).
|
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Jan 22, 2020 10:50:18 GMT -6
To be honest, I would really love a clear answer whether cruisers on TP have any effect on raiders. Is that not possible for the developers? I have never put a cruiser on TP and have got all those other things, i. e. interception battles and thoses text information. But if it has any increasing effect I would consider to put cruisers in the colonies on TP Im not a dev so this is to my understanding and experience from forums, sometimes where Devs have spoken on it, and how I play the game... If there is a raider in the area there is a small chance the AF ships may fight it with a much greater chance a ship on TP will do the intercept. TP ships are less likely to be part of regular battles but can be drawn into regular battles if there are not enough AF ships around. So it is possible to play the game without TP cruisers though you will be more prone to trouble from enemy surface raiders. One principle of RTW and RTW2 is the battles aren't always perfect match ups as in real life weird things happen too (see Taffy 3 vs the Yamato's task force). (For other new players, only ships on TP add to the global ASW score) |
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Jan 22, 2020 10:53:31 GMT -6
Quick question: Minesweepers... do they continue to minesweep if put in trade protection? Player here. It is my understanding minesweepers on TP would add their MS score to the global score. IIRC someone may have even tested that. This is part of the give back for the MS always having its ASW cut in half, it is always assumed to be sweeping. Note that ships on TP no longer count as "decoy" targets for submarine attacks vs warships. In my own play style I leave minesweepers on AF duty and have dedicated ASW "sub hunters" as per my corvette guide in the strategy section of the forum. |
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Jan 22, 2020 11:12:11 GMT -6
To be honest, I would really love a clear answer whether cruisers on TP have any effect on raiders. Is that not possible for the developers? I have never put a cruiser on TP and have got all those other things, i. e. interception battles and thoses text information. But if it has any increasing effect I would consider to put cruisers in the colonies on TP Yes the developers can do that. Cruisers on TP have a much higher chance of thwarting or intercepting raiders. |
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jan 22, 2020 12:30:10 GMT -6
Quick question: Minesweepers... do they continue to minesweep if put in trade protection? Player here. It is my understanding minesweepers on TP would add their MS score to the global score. IIRC someone may have even tested that. This is part of the give back for the MS always having its ASW cut in half, it is always assumed to be sweeping. If the minesweeping score of minesweepers assigned to TP goes towards a global score, it's not reflected in the Area Overview tab, whose Minesweeping column shows the same values regardless of whether or not your minesweepers are assigned to TP or AF. Furthermore, the most direct player-visible indicator that minesweepers are working - the "enemy minefield detected and swept in [sea zone]" message - is something that I can only recall having seen for sea zones where I had ships suitable for use as minesweepers. |
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Jan 22, 2020 12:38:15 GMT -6
Player here. It is my understanding minesweepers on TP would add their MS score to the global score. IIRC someone may have even tested that. This is part of the give back for the MS always having its ASW cut in half, it is always assumed to be sweeping. If the minesweeping score of minesweepers assigned to TP goes towards a global score, it's not reflected in the Area Overview tab, whose Minesweeping column shows the same values regardless of whether or not your minesweepers are assigned to TP or AF. Furthermore, the most direct player-visible indicator that minesweepers are working - the "enemy minefield detected and swept in [sea zone]" message - is something that I can only recall having seen for sea zones where I had ships suitable for use as minesweepers. hmmm.... Im a little clarification. If the overview tab is the same MS score whether they are on AF or TP that means the MS score is always applied. Doesn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jan 22, 2020 12:53:26 GMT -6
If the overview tab is the same MS score whether they are on AF or TP that means the MS score is always applied. Doesn't it? I would assume so, but it also means that it's not a global pool since it's showing as an area-specific value. |
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Jan 22, 2020 12:57:45 GMT -6
If the overview tab is the same MS score whether they are on AF or TP that means the MS score is always applied. Doesn't it? I would assume so, but it also means that it's not a global pool since it's showing as an area-specific value. Ah yes. Unlike ASW the MS score is location based. I put 1-2 MS in Colonial sea zones and many more in the home waters. Leaving them on AF also gives me that "decoy" function and that dispersion means I have some decoys in the colonial waters and many decoys at home where the main fleet is likely to be. |
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jan 22, 2020 14:03:23 GMT -6
I assume corvettes works on area they are ordered no matter of stands (AF,TP, R etc.) applying minesweeper counts toward area minesweeping ability and they are doing it part of the time. For the rest of the time they are doing according to their stance, either improve ASW on TP stance, partrolling coast on AF stance or provide sentry on colonial in case of FS stance.
|
|
|
|
Post by zardoz on Jan 23, 2020 2:48:26 GMT -6
Wooohooo .... now I will kill raiders with cruisers on TP!
|
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Jan 23, 2020 3:09:15 GMT -6
If the minesweeping score of minesweepers assigned to TP goes towards a global score, it's not reflected in the Area Overview tab, whose Minesweeping column shows the same values regardless of whether or not your minesweepers are assigned to TP or AF. Furthermore, the most direct player-visible indicator that minesweepers are working - the "enemy minefield detected and swept in [sea zone]" message - is something that I can only recall having seen for sea zones where I had ships suitable for use as minesweepers. hmmm.... Im a little clarification. If the overview tab is the same MS score whether they are on AF or TP that means the MS score is always applied. Doesn't it? Sort of. In the Corvettes thread in the Tactics sub-forum the following exchange was made: I suspect that stances actually reflect what ships are doing. So ships on TP are concentrating on the trade routes, whereas ships not on TP will be focussed more on protecting the Fleet. |
|
