|
Post by L0ckAndL0ad on Feb 19, 2020 11:04:48 GMT -6
May 29th, 1941
Time: 00:30 Zulu, 8:30 local (+8). 9 hours of daylight left. Location: Philippine Sea, 80 nm east of Samar Island Weather: Drizzle (limited air ops) Wind: Gentle breeze, N Sighting range, D/N: 6000/3500 yd USN Scout Force: 2 CA, 8 DD USN Carrier Force: 2 CV 4 CVL 2 CA 2 CL 14 DD First thoughts. Weather is bad. Can't launch planes! Yorktown and many of heavy cruisers are missing from this battle. My forces are separated from each other, with Scout Force being 120 nm BEHIND the Carrier Force. Manila Air Base is 300+ nm away, so their support will be limited. I have no idea where exactly the enemy is, except that he's somewhere to the North of my Scouts and NE of my Carrier Force. But there must be A LOT of enemy carriers in the area, so they should not be that hard to find, I guess, and that's a plus. This is certainly a target reach environment. Let's not be the targets, shall we? 8:49. Readied some dive bombers for search. As soon as the weather permits, I will send them out from N to E, 90 degrees pattern, 320 nm max range. Both Forces are ordered to close in with each other. I want to keep my ships tight to each other for best mutual AA support. 11:00. Both Forces met. The weather is still the same. No air ops possible. I'll start moving NW, closer to Manila AB. 11:41. The rain has stopped. Now it's just the overcast I have to deal with. Visual sighting range increased to 13.000 yd. The main question is, who will spot who first? At this point, enemy forces could be literally anywhere. Search parameters need to be widened. And supplemented with additional planes. 12:33. The scouts are away. The weather is somewhat better. Time to ready up my strikers! Problem is, on "Medium" CAP settings, almost all fighters are unavailable for some reason. Need to sort that out. For now, CVLs provide 15 F 38 TB, Hornet 25 DB 11 TB, Enterprise 1 F, 23 DB, 12 TB. Let's see how much fighters I can scrounge from lightening up CAP duty. 13:28. CIC reports enemy contact: 6 CA 4 DD, 95 nm North, moving SW, on intercept course of my Forces. I immediately order change of course, turning East, to avoid the enemy. Additional scout planes sent to investigate the area around enemy contact. 15:10. As no other contacts were coming in, I was JUST about to launch all my planes to attack enemy cruisers, and then I get a new enemy contact, in the same area: 1 BC 5 CV 1 CVL 2 CA 4 CL 4 DD. Distance is just under 90 nautical miles from my own carriers! Oh my! First USN strike of 28 fighters, 48 dive bombers, 61 torpedo bombers, 137 planes total ordered to launch in 6 coordinated groups to attack enemy carriers! 15:40. All planes are in the air. All ships are going to retire South East at 30 knots. 17:55. As the sun goes down brightly glaring on the water to the horizon, the last of the attacking planes land on their carriers. Reports of the attack are scarce. The amount of bomb hits can be summarized as follows: 3 on CAs, 2 on BBs, 2 on CVs, 1 on CVLs, and 1 unidentified torpedo hit. Knowing how powerful my 1400 SAP bombs are, I hope that they indeed landed 3 of them on flattop decks. The rest are of little concern now, certainly. The amount of hits is somewhat low for my quite experienced crews. That's not great. Now, my mission isn't even half way over. Going through the night and fighting the next day is the plan, but where do I keep my carriers all this time? I can certainly navigate through all the small Philippean islands back to Manila and start the new day with searches there, aided by Manila's land planes. But it will be difficult to travel back to my current position, or even just target it with carrier planes, if the enemy decided to stick around right here. He can go NW to Formosa. Or E/SE to Saipan/Pelielu. Or keep looking for me in the vicinity of Samar Island. But I cannot go looking for him at his bases. Going North will put me closer to his land based search planes. East or South - away from my own. West is blocked by land. My best bet is to stick closer to Manila and hope he does the same. This is what I will do. May 30th 6:30. Weather is partly cloudy, but visibility is good. My Forces are 180 NE off Samar Island and scout planes are already doing a 360 degree search, 180 to 320 nm out. Torpedo bombers from CVL Independence and CVL Charger got smashed badly in the strike yesterday. Only ONE of them is left operational, and I will keep it as recon reserve. The other light CarDiv already prepared to launch 12 F 15 TB strike. Hornet and Enterprise load their decks fully with 6 F 25 DB 11 TB each. As some badass Marine once said, "Look, man! I need to know only one thing - where they are". Now, give me some contact reports, will ya? 6:57. A lone CA reported 57 nm NE of my position, moving in the direction of.. Tokyo? A straggler? 7:40. Bingo! 1 BC 4 CV 1 CVL 1 CA 3 CL 4 DD going North reported 200 nm SW away from my carriers. They're entering Leyte Gulf! As I expected, they stuck around to find me. They did not manage to do that so far, thankfully. Problem is, I need to move a bit closer to be able to launch all my planes at them. Setting course to SW at 30 knots. I need at least 180 nm range! 10:40. Snooper alert! We've been spotted! Range is now 165 nm and I'm ordering to launch all the planes. Here we go! 25 F 50 DB 37 TB, 112 planes total in 4 coordinated groups are headed for the enemy carriers. 12:30. As radio got filled with lots of reports of enemy carriers being hit by torpedoes and bombs, 20 Japanese dive bombers and 9 torpedo bombers quite expectedly show up and attack. USS Enterprise got hit with 500 lb bomb, which penetrated the deck and hit the engine room. But The Big E keeps moving at 28 knots. I guess it's time to head for Guam, isn't it? I'm certainly not Admiral Halsey, I assure you! 12:38. CVL Copahee is hit by a torpedo! Then just a minute later, more dive bombers show up and land 2 hits on CA Missoula, the leader of the Scout Force. Both 500 lb bombs hit the 2'' deck, but achieve no penetrations. That's the newest Phoenix class CA for ya! Two more squadrons of enemy bombers make an attack but score no hits. 12:57. CVL Copahee reports having dealt with the flooding. But it is limited to 16 knots. Half the ship is flooded with sea water. Should I order to scuttle her? I'll wait for my strikers to come back before making a decision. A lot of things can happen in the mean time. 13:18. As my strikers return, enemy bombers keep coming. Enterprise is targeted again, but all bombs were skillfully evaded. 14:29. Everyone lands and the mission ends. Comments: Woah! I did it again! This one really felt like walking on the edge of the skyscraper rooftop!
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Feb 19, 2020 11:57:30 GMT -6
Great to see another detailed battle report; I'm glad the gamble paid off! With such intense carrier action kicking off, I should like to repeat my request for a more detailed run - down of the aircraft of the belligerents; such details have certainly come into play behind the scenes in this battle, when as you mentioned, your fighters proved the limiting factor for the radius of your strikes. Those stats really are as important as the details of the ships, and in such a thorough AAR I think it would be a shame to miss them. Regarding battleships - is it only fast battleships you have seen in raider intercepts? I didn't think it would be possible for a slow battleship to appear in one of those; I only ever hoped that they would thwart some raiders off - screen, and perhaps show up for a convoy defence mission, but hoped in vain, (at least in the version of the game in which I last attempted it) and haven't since seen anything in the patch notes to suggest a change. As for Long - range, here's the breakdown: * 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). Source (third hand!) nws-online.proboards.com/post/46207/thread
|
|
|
Post by L0ckAndL0ad on Feb 19, 2020 13:22:21 GMT -6
Great to see another detailed battle report; I'm glad the gamble paid off! With such intense carrier action kicking off, I should like to repeat my request for a more detailed run - down of the aircraft of the belligerents; such details have certainly come into play behind the scenes in this battle, when as you mentioned, your fighters proved the limiting factor for the radius of your strikes. Those stats really are as important as the details of the ships, and in such a thorough AAR I think it would be a shame to miss them. Glad to hear someone likes it! Funny you should mention "thorough AAR". I really aimed for a smaller one, saving words and energy for a more detailed AAR in the future with the game where missiles are finally working (if we're lucky!). But I guess I really enjoy writing and simply can't stop! Even not being English-native and all.. But, surely, I'm not super-grognard-detail oriented when it comes to AARs. Just the best bits! Aircraft stats-wise... When RtW2 just came out, I was spending much more time on aircraft designs. These days, I track their ranges and speeds to a lesser extent when ordering new designs, but this happens so often I lose track of all the planes I barely even give them my own names. In the war, obviously, time goes slower, so yeah, focusing on specific existing designs matters. Here are mine: As far as enemy aircraft stats, I know very little about them, unfortunately. I just always assume that they can be as good as mine, really, and that's it. Here are the details I know. Their fighter is outdated and slow, 1938 design, with top speed of 200 knots. DB is more recent. It's shorter ranged, slower and has slightly lesser payload, but it's tougher than mine. Their torpedo bomber is practically ancient and super slow - 1937 design with 140 knots max speed, exactly like their float plane. Their flying boats are faster but much shorter ranged, with 350 medium load range versus 624 mine. While both are outdated 1937 designs with the same bomb load. Their medium bomber is worse than mine in all categories that I know about, except maneuverability. And it can't carry torpedoes yet. That's all I know about their aircraft. Squadron-wise, I use squadrons of 12 flying boats and 12 medium bombers for long range maritime searches, ASW duty and naval attack. Big bases like Pearl get additional fighters, but I'm quite conservative in that department, given the limitations of the game, and lack of USAAF/IJA/etc represented. Otherwise, I have squadrons of US Marine fighters and dive bombers, 8-18 fighters, 18 planes in DB squadrons, 2 F 2 DB squadrons per group currently (mostly for administrative/OOB/flavor purposes). Their squadrons are shifted around as needed, similarly to most medium bombers squadrons. There are currently 3 full USMC Air Groups deployed, all in the Pacific. Marine squadrons are not carrier capable, for budgetary reasons. Their primary mission is defense of islands/bases that are most likely to be attacked. Here are the airbases/distribution loadout example. Also featuring newly built CV Fly with an elite fighter squadron that came out of recent Battle of Samar Island, from one of the Independence-class CVLs. Yeah, I read that This info is actually now written in the updated version of the game manual that came out recently. I don't remember now where I saw something that implies "better mission availability". But even "better chance of intercepting" kinda does.
|
|
|
Post by L0ckAndL0ad on Feb 19, 2020 22:29:21 GMT -6
Regarding battleships - is it only fast battleships you have seen in raider intercepts? I didn't think it would be possible for a slow battleship to appear in one of those; I only ever hoped that they would thwart some raiders off - screen, and perhaps show up for a convoy defence mission, but hoped in vain, (at least in the version of the game in which I last attempted it) and haven't since seen anything in the patch notes to suggest a change. Oh, sorry, I keep forgetting to answer to certain topics. I'm not really sure, it's been a while. I think it has to do with speed differential between the defender and the raider, plus factors like range and search planes. At least that was my general impression. But I don't have anything to really back it up, sorry. Also, the biggest problem for me personally to having Main Force and often Scout Force along with Carrier Force is that I have to manually order them around. I dislike micromanagement and prefer to have subordinates act upon my orders, and not be literally driven by me. But you cannot order them to follow Carrier Force in close proximity for mutual AA support. So it takes effort to sync movement of all Forces.. As far as Scout Force goes, I'm usually okay with having a couple of cruisers in Scout role inside the Main or Carrier Force. With the aircraft present, the purpose of scout force diminishes, and can be better viewed as "radar pickets". Which reminds me, I need to write it down for future suggestions...
|
|
|
Post by L0ckAndL0ad on Feb 20, 2020 13:55:26 GMT -6
August 1941
Oh... Japanese have proposed peace couple of times after their crushing defeat in Southeast Asia. Despite my strongest protests, US Government eventually accepted the offer. As a result, US occupied the following territories (for a total of 10 victory points): Central Pacific:Marshall Islands (Tarawa, Majuro) Southeast Asia:Borneo Caroline Islands (Truk, Pelielu, Ponape) Northern Marianas (Saipan) Hainan Total ship losses: USN: 2 CA 2 DD 1 SS IJN: 1 BB, 2 CA, 4 CL, 3 CV, 2 CVL, 1 AMC, 1 AV, 1 DD, 2 KE, 1 SSM This is not what I was aiming for. Japanese government remains as is, ie non-democratic, and thus keeps being a threat to the world and its own citizens. It keeps occupying Formosa, Korea and Kiautschou Bay. This is not over. You can bet on it. In the mean time, I can also look at what is happening in Europe. Fascist countries were left unchecked for too long. ps: My budget went down hard and fast, so I think I shall scrap my legacy BBs and Rochesters now. All of them combined in mothballed state cost me more than one modern battleship in active duty. I could not afford to run them all in unmothballed state during this war anyway... 6 of my modern BBs will be ready in just under two years anyway and will be more than enough to contest other country's battleship fleets.
|
|
|
Post by L0ckAndL0ad on Feb 22, 2020 9:00:49 GMT -6
August 1943Tensions are slowly rising worldwide, with Germany, Japan and Italy stirring the pot at various points on the globe. I'm was using this lull to refit my ships, but I kinda got hung up on waiting for the new EO FCS to become available. I forgot to mention that I was given some stats from the last war by my bookkeeping (or what its name..) department. Medium AA isn't working that great for me, huh? But then again, too small of a sample to judge. In other news, first ship of the Essex-class comes online. It's very similar to the previous Fly-class, except for better engine, longer range and slightly more armor. Not sure if "deck edge lifts" are actually working though currently. There are 2 Essex-class ships already built, and 4 more under construction. Stand by for yet another cruiser discussion.
|
|
|
Post by L0ckAndL0ad on Feb 22, 2020 9:13:09 GMT -6
CLAA: Juneau vs AugustaWith aircraft being the most dominant threat in the last war, and European theater being packed with planes even more tightly than the Pacific, I've finally decided to build a CLAA. Both designs are based on CLAA Atlanta I evaluated back in 1936 but never actually built. Juneau is smaller and has lighter uniform 1.5 deck and turret armor. Augusta weights 300 tons more, uses armored box design that gives better protection for magazines area, and slightly better turret armor (2 inches). Most important feature - 1 layer of Torpedo Protection. I've already started building 2 Juneau class ships, but itching to cancel and go with Augusta design instead because I think it'll be much more survivable. Thoughts, anyone?
|
|
|
Post by L0ckAndL0ad on Feb 22, 2020 13:39:22 GMT -6
1943 Destroyer Evaluation
Another ship I'm working on is the new destroyer. Quintuple mounts became available recently, just before the EO FCS. I've been trying to go for Allen M. Sumner vibe, but mostly for the single quintuple TT mount version. With less emphasis on surface warfare, 1 torpedo mount with reloads seems more weight effective and allows more space to be allocated for AA instead. All have maximum ASW capabilities, because enemy subs slowly become enemy #2 after the aircraft, putting surface ships at 3rd place. Or 4th, if we count mines somewhere in between. E and F are 2000t/34 kts versions. E is normal engines and 250 rounds for the main guns (for prolonged carrier battles that can last for several days). F version trades ammo and backup FC position for more reliable engines (also can be handy if you run at full speed whole day long). Both can be considered "cheap but enduring" in one way or the other. G and H are 35 kts versions. G is the baseline for 35 knots at 2200 tons. This is the most cost effective one, in my opinion. H is 2500 tons with extended stores for ammo and some extra topside space for additional AA gun. I version is equipped with 4x2 5''. Its price is reasonable per 2400 tonnage and speed of 34 kts, while HAA factor is 23, but at a slight cost of lesser self-defense-oriented AA. This is the most AA-support focused variant. Not sure what to pick. I'm getting decision fatigue with this....
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Feb 23, 2020 0:20:44 GMT -6
CLAA: Juneau vs AugustaThoughts, anyone? I would say that the two are essentially equivalent designs; neither really has any particularly major advantage over the other. I'd probably favor Augusta over Juneau going forward because full splinter protection on the turrets is slightly preferable and TP1 is probably nice to have, if probably not extraordinarily useful either at this stage of the game or on as small a ship as this, but I don't think I'd bother canceling and reordering the Juneaus you mentioned as having already laid down as Augustas.
I will comment that I think that the belt/deck armor on Augusta and the belt armor on Juneau is perhaps a bit heavier than it really needs to be - something like this isn't really going to be good at fighting a ~10,000t 12-15x6" CL one-on-one, if the other powers are using those, and in a two-on-one against a big 6" CL or against the 4" or 5" guns common on destroyers you could probably get away with somewhat lighter armor. Having the heavier armor is not, of course, a bad thing, but it might be better to cut back on it a bit and go for heavier turret armor instead, or perhaps a couple additional 5" guns in shielded single wing mounts or some 3"-4" DP secondary guns. This is a relatively light vessel presumably meant to act as an escort, so sacrificing a bit of the LAA/MAA armament for a more powerful HAA armament probably isn't a terrible idea - LAA and MAA doesn't contribute to group defense and air attacks tend to concentrate on the big targets anyways.
Another thing that might be worth considering - if you still have some old 1920s- or late-1910s-vintage 6" CLs in the fleet, it might be more economical to rearm them with 5" DP guns than it is to build a new CLAA from the keel up, and what you get for it probably won't really be that much worse, all things considered, because they've probably got enough armor to be adequately resistant to destroyer guns, they're probably big enough to fit ten or twelve 5" DP guns onto after you strip off the old armament, and they're probably not going to be that much worse than new-build CLAAs against heavier modern cruisers. The only issue is really whether or not they're still fast enough to serve as fleet escorts/scouts, because if you have to increase their speed it'll probably be too expensive to really be economical. I don't think that 35 knots offers any significant advantages over 34 knots, and neither G nor H really have anything else going for them unless you count sheer size. H is also the most expensive of the designs, which to me is a fairly significant drawback since destroyers need to be relatively expendable due to their small size and their lack of armor protection.
I, while nearly as expensive as H, at least offers an extra pair of main guns, which to me seems a far more useful thing for a light escort than two or three extra MAA guns since the main guns contribute to collective defense against both air and surface targets whereas the MAA guns only protect the ship carrying them from air attack. However, I still think it's too expensive for what it offers, and as presented it also has worse fire control than the other designs, which is unhelpful and probably costs it some 5" ammunition.
That leaves E and F, which are more or less interchangeable. I think the value of E's second fire control position is suspect - destroyers, being unarmored, tend not to stand up that well under fire - and F's slightly cheaper anyways, so I'd prefer F.
All that said, I feel that 2,000t and larger destroyers tend to be pretty expensive for what they do, and I'd probably rather have a cheaper, if perhaps slightly less capable, ~1,600t destroyer than any of these.
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Feb 23, 2020 0:51:59 GMT -6
Destroyers As a general principle, I don't think it's worth using reliable engines on destroyers; you'll always have numerous destroyers if you have any at all, so if one ship's engine breaks down and has to be left behind, it's no big deal. In fact, I generally find speed so important for a destroyer that speed tuned engines are usually worth the risk. In this case, I think that a speed of at least 35 knots is necessary, simply for station keeping with your new 33 knot carriers and cruisers; a few extra knots of speed is desirable so that the big ships don't have to slow down for the destroyers to maintain their positions, but going above 35 knots is generally prohibitive in vanilla; so I'd prefer a design with 35 knots of speed, using speed focused engines. Since you've decided to use a CLAA design, I don't see the need for packing in the maximum possible gun armament on your destroyers. Between the designs offered, I would prefer a variant of 'E' with speed tuned engines and 35 knots of speed. Having said that, I would also agree with aeson that 2000+ ton destroyers start to become somewhat cost - inefficient compared to ships in the 1,600 ton range. You might consider another, smaller variant with 5 guns in single centerline mounts, 35 knots of speed, one quintuple torpedo launcher with reloads, and a few less medium and light AA guns. Also, as you've noticed, long range is not viable for destroyers; so I don't see the point of putting it on your fleet carriers, which shouldn't go anywhere without their escort, and won't be expected to serve on trade protection duty. If you really do want the capability for long - range operations, then I'd recommend either trying to fit long range on a large destroyer at 33 knots, or alternatively building lots of small (~1,600 ton) medium range destroyers which can rotate through stations with inadequate basing capacity.
|
|
|
Post by L0ckAndL0ad on Feb 23, 2020 8:58:17 GMT -6
I would say that the two are essentially equivalent designs; neither really has any particularly major advantage over the other. I'd probably favor Augusta over Juneau going forward because full splinter protection on the turrets is slightly preferable and TP1 is probably nice to have, if probably not extraordinarily useful either at this stage of the game or on as small a ship as this, but I don't think I'd bother canceling and reordering the Juneaus you mentioned as having already laid down as Augustas. TPS is mostly against aerial torpedoes. But CLAA should probably also be able to deal with destroyers or noisy TT armed cruisers and their occasional "Long Lance", so it'll help there as well I guess. 1.5 vs 2 inches of splinter protection is actually relatively small bonus, in my personal experience. Especially considering that with magazine box scheme, my belt and deck are 1.5 and 1.25 inches respectively everywhere except for the magazines area. Actually, just saying that makes me wonder if maybe I went too far with that. Juneaus are just 1 month in the making, so it's not a big deal to cancel them yet. I will comment that I think that the belt/deck armor on Augusta and the belt armor on Juneau is perhaps a bit heavier than it really needs to be - something like this isn't really going to be good at fighting a ~10,000t 12-15x6" CL one-on-one, if the other powers are using those, and in a two-on-one against a big 6" CL or against the 4" or 5" guns common on destroyers you could probably get away with somewhat lighter armor. Having the heavier armor is not, of course, a bad thing, but it might be better to cut back on it a bit and go for heavier turret armor instead, or perhaps a couple additional 5" guns in shielded single wing mounts or some 3"-4" DP secondary guns. This is a relatively light vessel presumably meant to act as an escort, so sacrificing a bit of the LAA/MAA armament for a more powerful HAA armament probably isn't a terrible idea - LAA and MAA doesn't contribute to group defense and air attacks tend to concentrate on the big targets anyways. Going lower on armor with the current Magazine Box scheme is probably not a good idea. But I did consider this option without Mag Box, and tried going with just 2'' everywhere, and it's just a bit too heavy. It's doable if I lower the deck armor to 1.5, but gives weight only for two more 5 inch guns, which is not that much of a difference IMO. As for secondaries, I've decided not to go with 3'' DP secondary (which was present in my 1936 Atlanta design) because of the interference penalty, and I do like to make everything uniform. Another point to consider here is that this is a 5'' armed ship. The smaller it is the better. Freeing up space for more guns is great, more reasonable course of action would be to just shave off the total weight entirely, for smaller silhouette/profile/engine requirements/price. Another thing that might be worth considering - if you still have some old 1920s- or late-1910s-vintage 6" CLs in the fleet, it might be more economical to rearm them with 5" DP guns than it is to build a new CLAA from the keel up, and what you get for it probably won't really be that much worse, all things considered, because they've probably got enough armor to be adequately resistant to destroyer guns, they're probably big enough to fit ten or twelve 5" DP guns onto after you strip off the old armament, and they're probably not going to be that much worse than new-build CLAAs against heavier modern cruisers. The only issue is really whether or not they're still fast enough to serve as fleet escorts/scouts, because if you have to increase their speed it'll probably be too expensive to really be economical. The only CLs in service I have are four of the modern Cincinnati class, and they have a secondary battery of 16x 5'' DP, each.
|
|
|
Post by L0ckAndL0ad on Feb 23, 2020 9:54:16 GMT -6
I don't think that 35 knots offers any significant advantages over 34 knots, and neither G nor H really have anything else going for them unless you count sheer size. H is also the most expensive of the designs, which to me is a fairly significant drawback since destroyers need to be relatively expendable due to their small size and their lack of armor protection. As generalvikus said, with 33 kts capital ships, having couple of knots beyond that is better for station keeping/full speed maneuvers. That's the theory, though. I note that most of the time I go at 30 knots with my carriers, because heavy cruisers also need a way to catch-up/correct position with their 32-33 knots. It's been a while since I tried going full speed, but I'm pretty sure the formation may be somewhat less coherent. "Sheer size" can be a quality, actually. It provides more deck space for AA. Not that big of a deal in a 2000 vs 2500 tons situation though. I, while nearly as expensive as H, at least offers an extra pair of main guns, which to me seems a far more useful thing for a light escort than two or three extra MAA guns since the main guns contribute to collective defense against both air and surface targets whereas the MAA guns only protect the ship carrying them from air attack. However, I still think it's too expensive for what it offers, and as presented it also has worse fire control than the other designs, which is unhelpful and probably costs it some 5" ammunition. The older FCS is an error, sorry. I've spent too much time dwelling over these designs and did not even notice, with all of them blending together at some point. I agree that H is overpriced for what it offers, yes! That leaves E and F, which are more or less interchangeable. I think the value of E's second fire control position is suspect - destroyers, being unarmored, tend not to stand up that well under fire - and F's slightly cheaper anyways, so I'd prefer F. AA directors can act as main FCS, so there's that also. All that said, I feel that 2,000t and larger destroyers tend to be pretty expensive for what they do, and I'd probably rather have a cheaper, if perhaps slightly less capable, ~1,600t destroyer than any of these. If this was some other Navy, sure. But USN can afford larger ships. Other navies use smaller designs but with similar weapons/speed setups, so I suspect they use speed-oriented engines. My recent war experience makes me think these engines create a huge problem of lesser availability in missions. I may be wrong here, but I often saw my very numerous DDs and CAs (most of which have speed-tuned engines) being down to ~50%-75% local presence in big battles. Going with less amount of guns in not a good option, IMO, as well. So I aim at 2-2.5 kton range currently, not less. I shall think about 34 vs 35 knots for a bit. The cost difference is ~ 1.2 mil USD currently. I just noticed the Horse Power difference. 2000 t/34 kts uses 30.000 HP. 35 knots or more weight requires 9.000+ more HP, with 2500/35 using 46.900 HP. That looks like a lot just for one more knot, actually.
|
|
|
Post by L0ckAndL0ad on Feb 23, 2020 10:21:15 GMT -6
Destroyers As a general principle, I don't think it's worth using reliable engines on destroyers; you'll always have numerous destroyers if you have any at all, so if one ship's engine breaks down and has to be left behind, it's no big deal. In fact, I generally find speed so important for a destroyer that speed tuned engines are usually worth the risk. In this case, I think that a speed of at least 35 knots is necessary, simply for station keeping with your new 33 knot carriers and cruisers; a few extra knots of speed is desirable so that the big ships don't have to slow down for the destroyers to maintain their positions, but going above 35 knots is generally prohibitive in vanilla; so I'd prefer a design with 35 knots of speed, using speed focused engines. As already said, yeah, I agree about having a couple of knots above the capital ships. Speed-tuned engines are tricky, though. I used them circa RtW2 1.0, and remember having relatively insignificant amount of problems. In current version of the game, though, it seems that I miss out on ships being present in battles quite a lot, when they're equipped with speed-tuned engines. I may be imagining things, but this is my current impression. In tactical combat, they are not that much problematic though. Only a couple of ships may slow down to like 31-32 kts. Operational availability is the problem, it seems, however. Need more practical war experience to see if I'm actually right. Since you've decided to use a CLAA design, I don't see the need for packing in the maximum possible gun armament on your destroyers. Between the designs offered, I would prefer a variant of 'E' with speed tuned engines and 35 knots of speed. Having said that, I would also agree with aeson that 2000+ ton destroyers start to become somewhat cost - inefficient compared to ships in the 1,600 ton range. You might consider another, smaller variant with 5 guns in single centerline mounts, 35 knots of speed, one quintuple torpedo launcher with reloads, and a few less medium and light AA guns. Hmm.. If my simple math is right, 4x2 main battery is more cost effective than 3x2 in terms of fielding a certain number of guns in battle, per dollar. But I'm not exactly sure if the individual price of such ship should be this high though. 3x2 is the most widespread among contemporary destroyers. Escalating this standard would be ill-advised, I guess? Also, as you've noticed, long range is not viable for destroyers; so I don't see the point of putting it on your fleet carriers, which shouldn't go anywhere without their escort, and won't be expected to serve on trade protection duty. If you really do want the capability for long - range operations, then I'd recommend either trying to fit long range on a large destroyer at 33 knots, or alternatively building lots of small (~1,600 ton) medium range destroyers which can rotate through stations with inadequate basing capacity. Long range is too pricey on DDs, so I've stopped trying to fit it in. But not as much on capital ships. Like I've said, I really don't want them to lose efficiency (read - experience) in times of war. Especially on carriers, where it affects everything, from damage control to deck ops speed. 5x1 is worse than 3x2 in terms of deck space. 3x2 allows more MAA/LAA. Also, like I've said, 3x2 is kinda the standard now, more or less. Rotating ships in and out is kinda too micro-heavy. I do think that 1 month long incursions are a good tactics for areas where you have no basing, though. Doesn't mean I'll stop building long range capital ships though
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Feb 23, 2020 12:16:22 GMT -6
As far as I know, the list which I copied earlier is the definitive account of the impact of long range, since it came second - hand from Fredrik himself, and I've never heard it contradicted; therefore, unless you're either operating in a zone with inadequate basing (in which case your destroyers need to be either long ranged or rotated) or working on TP to intercept and thwart raiders, there is no other benefit to be gained from long range. However, you make an interesting point about speed - tuned engines; I'll have to keep an eye out for that. As for the question of quality vs quantity - most players would agree that the game in the current state favours the former over the latter. That said, destroyers tend to appear in large numbers, meaning that a numerical superiority is more likely to be felt to a greater extent in combat. That carries two major advantages: first, superiority of firepower; second, superior redundancy. No matter how big it is, a destroyer hit by the sort of bombs commonly used in the mid 1940s (or - god forbid - a torpedo) is likely to be disabled or sunk, so having fewer but less capable ships means you lose less combat power per hit. From a strategic point of view, they tend to be lost and badly damaged at a higher rate than other types of ships, (whereas in a typical battle, the majority of cruisers and larger ships will not be so badly damaged as to be confined to port afterwards) so it's useful to have more. If you do the math, you may find that at certain speeds, a 1,600 ton design will give you more HAA firepower per dollar than a 2,000 design. All else being equal, a greater number of 1,600 ton destroyers would also provide greater deck space for MAA and LAA as well as a greater number of targets, though in practice this may not be true, because as you said the heavier double mounts which can be better afforded on such displacements conserve deck space. Either way, I believe that four 1,600 ton destroyers likely going to be harder to kill than three 2,000 ton destroyers, for the above reasons. Certainly a very large destroyer would be necessary if you wanted to make use of the long range you've already put on most of your capital ships, so I would seriously consider such a very heavy option. As for your argument that 'if this was any other navy, sure' - there's a profound and interesting debate to be had there. For my part, I believe that, in war, quality is the poor man's substitute for quantity. Whether or not the battle generator reflects this at present is an open question that I'm currently looking into, but at the very least, I feel that if quantity is not currently as desirable as it should be for a rich navy, then it is even less desirable for a poor one. In the particular case of destroyers, vanilla speed curves make it quite prohibitive to make larger vessels go fast (if I recall correctly) so you may find that much of the extra displacement on your 2,000 ton ship is going into horsepower, especially without speed focused engines. For these reasons, I would suggest that you at least throw together a ~ 1,600 ton design to compare with the others; since there are already so many proposed variants, surely one more wouldn't hurt!
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Feb 23, 2020 14:47:06 GMT -6
All else being equal, a greater number of 1,600 ton destroyers would also provide greater deck space for MAA and LAA Neither MAA nor LAA contributes to collective defense - only DP guns do that within the game - so having more MAA/LAA guns overall is not advantageous unless individual ships also have more MAA/LAA guns by themselves. 1,600t destroyers are rather unlikely to have more MAA/LAA guns per ship than 2,000t or larger destroyers; therefore, 1,600t destroyers do not have any real advantage over their larger brethren when it comes to the number of MAA and LAA guns in the fleet.
Also, destroyers are relatively unlikely to be targeted by air attacks since they're normally accompanying a larger and thus more attractive target, are relatively likely to be able to dodge the attacks through evasive action due to their combination of speed and small size, and can't achieve a very high density of MAA/LAA guns anyways, so the value of destroyer-mounted MAA/LAA guns is relatively low.
|
|