|
|
Post by skoggatt on Jan 30, 2020 18:28:47 GMT -6
I've been playing the game since release, and though I feel I've figured out most of the mechanics range still confuses me. The guide specifies that ships with short range cannot move strategically during war and that long range benefits raiders by making them less likely to be interned, but it doesn't say anything more about the topic.
My main question is what difference does long range have on ships that aren't used for raiding? I've had messages pop up at the beginning of battles saying that some of my (medium range) destroyers couldn't participate due to "range from nearest base." Would making these ships long range prevent this or make ships more likely to be generated into battle? Are there any other bonuses ships with long or extreme range get? Right now it seems that the only ships that benefit from long range are raiders, and given the cost I haven't been inclined to experiment too much with other types of ships. If I knew that a battleship with long range was more likely to appear in the battle generator I would be inclined to spend the displacement that way.
|
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jan 30, 2020 18:45:21 GMT -6
Long range should make it more likely for cruisers to intercept raiders and make it less likely for ships to suffer problems or be interned in sea zones in sea zones without adequate/any base capacity. If it has an effect on the likelihood of ships appearing in battle, I don't know of it, but then I also almost never use long range except on purpose-built surface raiders because I find medium range is sufficient for pretty much everything else I want a ship to do.
As to making destroyers less likely to be unable to participate due to the range to the battle area, it might have an effect, but I would be concerned about the quality of the destroyers you would end up with, especially early on; long range costs a fairly significant amount of tonnage, and small destroyers in particular are on pretty tight tonnage budgets just to achieve an adequate combination of speed and armament.
|
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Jan 31, 2020 2:30:13 GMT -6
I think range may affect how much fuel you start the scenario with - at one point I got spammed by a number of 50% fuel remaining messages any time I started a scenario, though these were all early medium-ranged coal-fired ships.
Other than that, Medium ranged ships should suffice. DDs are traditionally short-legged and, as aeson says, it usually costs too much tonnage to extend their range - although I believe the base range also increases with the size of destroyer.
|
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jan 31, 2020 2:33:20 GMT -6
This was written by Fredrik:
Ships with long range will:
* Have better chances to escape interception as raiders.
* Better chances of sinking merchants if raiders.
* Better chance of intercepting raiders.
* Less risk of being interned or scuttled from lack of fuel.
* More fuel when a scenario starts (rarely of importance).
Not all ships appear in battle and in RTW2 was added information if it is happen because of range. I think RTW2 simulates that destroyers has usually shorter range so if you have medium range for different type of ships (battleships, cruisers, destroyers), RTW2 simulates that medium range of destroyers is shorter than medium range of battleship and it can happen as it happened in history that destroyers were send back to base because of not enough fuel.
|
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Jan 31, 2020 6:31:13 GMT -6
as previously mentioned long range is only useful for increasing the effectiveness of raiders - yes they can increase the effectiveness of raider interceptors but i'v personally never built any in the past the last couple times i played RtW2 i was disappointed to find i was getting battles generated where i would lose much/most of my DD escort in some battles due to medium range no longer being "good enough" for DDs. when i played Germany and was at war against UK this was happening when i'd get a battle west of the British Isles, but i disagreed that Germany would even be getting battles in that location when i'm pretty sure i was getting blockaded and therefore the German fleet should be sticking to the North Sea
this REALLY hurt in fleet battles, and you only find out you lost your escorts AFTER you accept the battle so then you are stuck dealing with (much) less escorts for your own fleet i personally would never want to allow my capital ships to roam beyond the range of their escorts since DDs are essential to bailing my capital ships out of trouble, and since then i'v been thinking next time i play i'm going to be forced to build my DDs with long range so they can properly escort my fleet in all situations |
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Jan 31, 2020 11:32:20 GMT -6
as previously mentioned long range is only useful for increasing the effectiveness of raiders - yes they can increase the effectiveness of raider interceptors but i'v personally never built any in the past the last couple times i played RtW2 i was disappointed to find i was getting battles generated where i would lose much/most of my DD escort in some battles due to medium range no longer being "good enough" for DDs. when i played Germany and was at war against UK this was happening when i'd get a battle west of the British Isles, but i disagreed that Germany would even be getting battles in that location when i'm pretty sure i was getting blockaded and therefore the German fleet should be sticking to the North Sea
this REALLY hurt in fleet battles, and you only find out you lost your escorts AFTER you accept the battle so then you are stuck dealing with (much) less escorts for your own fleet i personally would never want to allow my capital ships to roam beyond the range of their escorts since DDs are essential to bailing my capital ships out of trouble, and since then i'v been thinking next time i play i'm going to be forced to build my DDs with long range so they can properly escort my fleet in all situations I completely sympathize with your situation, JagdFlanker . I hate having destroyers removed and like you, in many of these battles in which destroyers are stripped, I would never have allowed my fleet to even put to sea. However, I would say that making your DDs long range might be a premature decision. So far we have no information that would indicate that long range in destroyers has any effect on whether DDs show up in battles that occur far from a friendly base. But I'll be quite interested to hear how your expensive experiment turns out.  |
|
|
|
Post by skoggatt on Jan 31, 2020 15:31:18 GMT -6
Early on in the game long range is definitely a no go for destroyers, but it would make sense to me that by the late 30s it's an option. It looks like a 2500 ton, 34 kt long range destroyer can be built with 6 x 5" dual purpose guns, 10 x torpedo tubes, and all the AA and ASW that will fit on a destroyer hull. That's pretty much a Gearing considering that a Gearing could make 36 kts but also had 2650 tons to work with.
Of course none of that matters if long range doesn't offer an advantage to destroyers because you could add another 2 kts and 2 more 5" guns for the price long range comes at.
|
|
