|
|
Post by blarglol on Apr 16, 2023 10:30:20 GMT -6
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned this yet (if they have I didn't see it), but will RTW3 feature proper torpedo boats? Right now, just making small destroyers won't cut it. We need a KE-sized hull that can legally mount torps.
TBs were central in naval planning during the 1890s, and you can't have a naval game starting in that decade without them. Indeed, early on destroyers shouldn't exist, and should be a research-able counter to the TBs, as they were historically (the whole torpedo-boat-destroyer thing).
Honestly, I'm all for redefining KEs anyway. While it worked for RTW to keep things simple and not overwhelm people, moving through RTW2 to RTW3, I think the playerbase knows what to expect now and can handle a higher degree of complexity. Destroyer-escorts (or corvettes proper) should be a standalone designation for something between what would have been a torpedo boat, and a full-sized destroyer expected to stand up in battle squadrons.
Sub-chasers should be a thing, with extra ASW equipment mountable beyond a simple "add ASW checkbox," which doesn't simulate dedicating an entire vessel to anti-submarine efforts. You can check those same boxes for a DD, yet the DD needs lots of other space and equipment for all it's other roles, primarily anti-surface and anti-air duties. A dedicated sub-chaser should be practically useless for these roles, but have much higher ASW values.
And now for my personal favorite which should make a comeback from Steam and Iron, minelayers. Yes, yes, I know the excuse is that they don't have a "proper" combat role, but do *minesweeping* KEs currently? No, no they don't, but on occasion they get swept into combat during coastal raids and bombardments, the randomness of war. It shouldn't be too hard to make dedicated minelaying surface vessels, if we can also have minelaying subs, and mount mines on DDs and CLs. If the the latter, proper warships can ostensibly just cruise around laying mines in simulation, why not a dedicated vessel?
Personally, I don't like putting mines on many of my surface combatants because I don't want all those potential explosion hazards lying on deck during an engagement. If you can have minesweepers in a game, you should be able to have minelayers.
I think that's enough for now, without getting too complicated with avisos, frigates, and other designations.
|
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Apr 16, 2023 12:21:20 GMT -6
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned this yet (if they have I didn't see it), but will RTW3 feature proper torpedo boats? Right now, just making small destroyers won't cut it. We need a KE-sized hull that can legally mount torps.
TBs were central in naval planning during the 1890s, and you can't have a naval game starting in that decade without them. Indeed, early on destroyers shouldn't exist, and should be a research-able counter to the TBs, as they were historically (the whole torpedo-boat-destroyer thing).
Honestly, I'm all for redefining KEs anyway. While it worked for RTW to keep things simple and not overwhelm people, moving through RTW2 to RTW3, I think the playerbase knows what to expect now and can handle a higher degree of complexity. Destroyer-escorts (or corvettes proper) should be a standalone designation for something between what would have been a torpedo boat, and a full-sized destroyer expected to stand up in battle squadrons.
Sub-chasers should be a thing, with extra ASW equipment mountable beyond a simple "add ASW checkbox," which doesn't simulate dedicating an entire vessel to anti-submarine efforts. You can check those same boxes for a DD, yet the DD needs lots of other space and equipment for all it's other roles, primarily anti-surface and anti-air duties. A dedicated sub-chaser should be practically useless for these roles, but have much higher ASW values.
And now for my personal favorite which should make a comeback from Steam and Iron, minelayers. Yes, yes, I know the excuse is that they don't have a "proper" combat role, but do *minesweeping* KEs currently? No, no they don't, but on occasion they get swept into combat during coastal raids and bombardments, the randomness of war. It shouldn't be too hard to make dedicated minelaying surface vessels, if we can also have minelaying subs, and mount mines on DDs and CLs. If the the latter, proper warships can ostensibly just cruise around laying mines in simulation, why not a dedicated vessel?
Personally, I don't like putting mines on many of my surface combatants because I don't want all those potential explosion hazards lying on deck during an engagement. If you can have minesweepers in a game, you should be able to have minelayers.
I think that's enough for now, without getting too complicated with avisos, frigates, and other designations.
KE is a pretty good cover in game for corvettes and avisos, from the beginning of the game to the missile age. Subchasers are an interesting idea, as small, purpose built ships for ASW compared to converted merchant vessels. I think it would be better, in the long run, to perhaps move to abstracting small converted merchant ASW/Minesweepers like submarines are, and letting subchasers be built as small KEs. IMO Destroyer Escort and Frigate are interchangeable types in the long run, many very comparable ships straddle those two definitions. While currently they're just represented as a subset of destroyers, I'm not sure if it would be helpful to represent them in game, except maybe from the AI side: The player can already build and manage DE/FF types, and just place them on TP duty to fulfill their historical role. Having a way to name them as such and get the AI to replicate the strategy would be nice. On Minelayer's I wholeheartedly agree, they're addable in game right now via modding AVs, but letting a subset of AVs with mines be called minelayers(with a cap on aircraft) would be perfect. |
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Apr 16, 2023 22:43:05 GMT -6
Destructor, laid down in 1886 and completed in 1887 just predates the start of the game.
However, Torpedo and Torpedo Gunboats were still in construction during the 1890s so they shouldn't be entirely discarded - and some of them weren't all that small, either. The Royal Navy's Dryad class, for example, came in at 1,070t. I figure for balance purposes, they could have a poor hull form which gives them a poor engine-power::speed ratio.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheOtherPoster on Apr 17, 2023 5:23:22 GMT -6
1.TBs As blarglol said, TBs were a key part of the fleets at the time and I think somehow they should be added to an 1890 start. But there are many issues to take into account. Most obvious is displacement: we could accept for them maybe displacements between 50tm and 150 or maybe 200tm top. So Fredrik would need to create a new set of calculations so we could build such ships in RTW3 without going well overweight (all would be low freeboard, short range, cramped ships with speeds in the low 20s… but still Fredrik would need to make new parameters for them to make them work in RTW3). It’s a lot of work. TBs were intended for coastal defence against enemy battleships/cruisers trying to force a close blockade. At the time, the probability of a distant blockade working (i.e. finding enemy merchant ships out at sea) was really minimal. In fact, it wouldn’t be until 1913 that the RN would abandon their policy of close blockade of German ports for a distant blockade, and that only because by that time mines, TBs, TBDs and subs had finally made close blockade very dangerous (that’s why the new chosen base for this distant blockade, Scapa Flow, was not even ready by the time Britain declared war on Germany one year later). British and French carried out some fleet exercises with TBs in the 1890s but they didn’t work: TBs were too small to be taken too far off the coast for anything than a few hours, and of course such small ships were very inaccurate in anything but flat seas rendering them almost useless. Anyway, if they are used for coastal defence only, then we shouldn’t be able to cheat and include them to our fleets as if they were early cheap DDs. So maybe it’s not really necessary for Fredrik going through all the trouble to make possible for us to design TBs as we do any other class of ship. But we should still be able to build them and used them as intended! So, with a bit of sadness, I would say that maybe a good way forward could be for TBs to mirror the current MTB squadrons as coastal defence. I mean, having the option of adding TB squadrons to our ports defences that at a later date we could update to MTB squadrons. 2. DDs By large, in 1890 capital ships were still unescorted, as it had always been the case. They may be accompanied by cruisers but their function was really to scout for the fleet and quickly get out of the way once the battleships start shooting at each other. By the late 1880s the emerging menace of swarms of enemy TBs launching torpedoes to any ship close enough to the coast, had forced the navies to think of ways of better protecting their battleships and cruisers against TBs. The obvious way was adding dozens of small calibre guns to their ships. Then, the RN tried using torpedo gunboats (TGB) but the less we say about them the better. They weren’t very successful as escorts and even the RN only had but a handful of them, far less in number than capital ships! Other navies didn’t bother with the type. Anyway, they are not easy to build in RTW: they are like early DDs but with a top speed of only 19 knots. I'd really forget all about them, they are not worth the effort of setting up a new class for them in the game. The real breakthrough was of course TBDs (that’s how early DDs were called: TB Destroyers). The type entered service first in the RN in 1893.
So I would suggest:
1. To start 1890 being able to build TB squadrons for coastal defence (the same way we build MTB squadrons later in the game; they also should operate automatically, as MTBs do) and make them a true menace to enemy ships: any unescorted battleship or cruiser near the enemy coast that does not have a fair amount of tertiary guns would be at a serious danger of being hit and sunk by TBs, particularly at night. This higher risk to unescorted ships with few tertiary guns should be in-built in RTW3 to reflect this early game situation.
2. No DDs possible in 1890 yet (the same way we cannot build a BB or a BC either). DD should be a technology available after 1893 or better later: the French didn’t build their first TBD until 1899 and the USN until 1902. That’s my ideal set up. If the NWS team really wants to give us some escorts for our fleet from day one, an alternative could be to use 500tm DDs but limiting their speed to 19 knots or so until mid 1890s. Still, I'm not sure it's worth it. As I said, TGBs weren’t so common and soon were superseded by TBDs: much faster early destroyers. Also it wouldn’t be historically very faithful: as I said, capital ships were very often left unescorted (apart from scouting cruisers) until the TBDs became widespread around the turn of the century. |
|
|
|
Post by cormallen on Apr 17, 2023 5:41:53 GMT -6
I often have several 300 ton "Torpedo Boats" in my start forces, largely to Historical/RP purposes. They are obviously rather rubbish but I do remember when three of them fought a very pyrrhic battle in a storm off New Zealand against "Furst Bismarck" (10+kton old CA)... where the dawn arrived there was only debris afloat after a single torpedo hit and the weather killed the big German.
I add in some ex-Torpedo Gunboat type things amongst the legacy KE swarm but they are sadly stripped of tubes.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 17, 2023 8:50:00 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Apr 18, 2023 22:14:15 GMT -6
1. To start 1890 being able to build TB squadrons for coastal defence (the same way we build MTB squadrons later in the game; they also should operate automatically, as MTBs do) and make them a true menace to enemy ships: any unescorted battleship or cruiser near the enemy coast that does not have a fair amount of tertiary guns would be at a serious danger of being hit and sunk by TBs, particularly at night. This higher risk to unescorted ships with few tertiary guns should be in-built in RTW3 to reflect this early game situation. Whilst this is a simple solution, is it too simple? My real objections are that this would preclude such offensive uses as seen in the 1904 conflict between Russia and Japan, whilst not considering that these TBs weren't built in huge numbers compared to the enormous numbers of MTBs and MGBs churned out by the UK in WW2 |
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Apr 19, 2023 0:59:44 GMT -6
1. Fast Attack Craft: (gun, torpedo and missile boats)
There is not much to design when it comes to these guys: stick a pair or two of torpedoes (or missiles) on a speedboat hull and send them off.
Current system of building whole squadrons of them (from a single, simple, template - perhaps updated every 10 years to represent technological development) based in a port of choice is more than enough.
But yeah - they should be included from 1890 on - especially in 1890 where they will have a disproportionate affect due to B's lack of DD cover.
2. Torpedo (and later Missile) Gunboats should also make an appearance:
These are, basically, patrol boats (whether in colonies or nearby) and natural successors to sloops and avisos (which are already included into KE category) so, there is no reason not to include them. Especially since most of them got converted into minesweepers in WW1.
Just add the ability to carry torpedoes (and Missiles) to the KE's, and we're good to go.
2a. Please, please, please add the ability to mount fixed forward-firing above-water torpedo tubes (MTB-style) to DD's (and KE's - should you choose to accept the above proposal)
While not as useful as swivel mounts, they are much lighter and do not take up valuable gun positions, while still providing torpedo armament.
3. Dedicated minelayers are nearly useless:
We already have AMC's, DD's and CL's capable of laying mines - adding KE's to the mix is overkill.
But the most important part is: Please Expand on the Light Forces' actions.
Currently, we only have occasional Destroyer Raids to game - and, while that's fun all by itself, it doesn't even scratch the surface of all the shenanigans various FAC (MAS, PT-boats, E-boats and MTB's - as the more famous members) got up to on a daily basis while patrolling the ports and their approaches.
The near-constant skirmishing netted quite a few coastal freighters (maybe not on the level of a U-boat campaign, but still) as well as disrupting minesweeping and ASW patrols, and laying quite a few mines by themselves.
I'm not saying each individual raid should be simulated - but a simple background resolution and a quick one-panel information (like with submarines) would go a long way to provide some representation (and an incentive to build small forces - or at least put some more ships on TP)
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 19, 2023 9:21:01 GMT -6
...././ 3. Dedicated minelayers are nearly useless: We already have AMC's, DD's and CL's capable of laying mines - adding KE's to the mix is overkill. I would disagree with this statemenmt. Here is a link to a valuable dedicated minelayer. They are useful for many other purposes and are very valuable for the Mediterranean, North Sea and the Baltic. Basically, any enclosed sea like the Red Sea, Persian Gulf, Black Sea, Caspian Sea and the Adriatic. There are more.
|
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Apr 19, 2023 10:56:41 GMT -6
...././ 3. Dedicated minelayers are nearly useless: We already have AMC's, DD's and CL's capable of laying mines - adding KE's to the mix is overkill. I would disagree with this statemenmt. Here is a link to a valuable dedicated minelayer. They are useful for many other purposes and are very valuable for the Mediterranean, North Sea and the Baltic. Basically, any enclosed sea like the Red Sea, Persian Gulf, Black Sea, Caspian Sea and the Adriatic. There are more.
If you'd care to take a look at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mine_warfare_vessels_of_World_War_II you'll see that Abdiels are listed as minelaying cruisers - as well as that the vast majority of the ships on that list are either minelaying cruisers or destroyers - so, CL's or DD's - not KE's. I, personally, always stock all my 'regular' AMC's, DD's and CL's mines to full capacity - so, designing an auxiliary class (KE's) for the purpose I already have ships for is, to me, a complete waste of time. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 19, 2023 14:00:14 GMT -6
I would disagree with this statemenmt. Here is a link to a valuable dedicated minelayer. They are useful for many other purposes and are very valuable for the Mediterranean, North Sea and the Baltic. Basically, any enclosed sea like the Red Sea, Persian Gulf, Black Sea, Caspian Sea and the Adriatic. There are more.
If you'd care to take a look at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mine_warfare_vessels_of_World_War_II you'll see that Abdiels are listed as minelaying cruisers - as well as that the vast majority of the ships on that list are either minelaying cruisers or destroyers - so, CL's or DD's - not KE's. I, personally, always stock all my 'regular' AMC's, DD's and CL's mines to full capacity - so, designing an auxiliary class (KE's) for the purpose I already have ships for is, to me, a complete waste of time. What difference does it make? What's in a name? It is a minelaying vessel. The larger it is, the more mines it can carry and maybe the faster it can move. It can also perform other functions like move troops. I like verssatility in my vessels. |
|
|
|
Post by cormallen on Apr 19, 2023 15:03:13 GMT -6
If you'd care to take a look at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mine_warfare_vessels_of_World_War_II you'll see that Abdiels are listed as minelaying cruisers - as well as that the vast majority of the ships on that list are either minelaying cruisers or destroyers - so, CL's or DD's - not KE's. I, personally, always stock all my 'regular' AMC's, DD's and CL's mines to full capacity - so, designing an auxiliary class (KE's) for the purpose I already have ships for is, to me, a complete waste of time. What difference does it make? What's in a name? It is a minelaying vessel. The larger it is, the more mines it can carry and maybe the faster it can move. It can also perform other functions like move troops. I like verssatility in my vessels. I'd definitely agree here. I fit a lot of my home waters destroyer force and AMCs with all the mines the game allows. I see quite a few reports of enemy warships hitting mines as a result which is all gravy! |
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Apr 19, 2023 15:05:17 GMT -6
What difference it makes is that the minelaying function is already there in the CL, DD, KE, and SS. You don't need a separate ML for the function. That's what I think srndacful was saying. As to troop carrying ability, I don't think there is such a thing in RTW, so that would not help the versatility of the ship. It is a handsome ship, though. looks like a miniature County class CA. And that 40 kt speed is pretty darn impressive.
|
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Apr 19, 2023 21:52:04 GMT -6
If you'd care to take a look at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mine_warfare_vessels_of_World_War_II you'll see that Abdiels are listed as minelaying cruisers - as well as that the vast majority of the ships on that list are either minelaying cruisers or destroyers - so, CL's or DD's - not KE's. I, personally, always stock all my 'regular' AMC's, DD's and CL's mines to full capacity - so, designing an auxiliary class (KE's) for the purpose I already have ships for is, to me, a complete waste of time. What difference does it make? What's in a name? It is a minelaying vessel. The larger it is, the more mines it can carry and maybe the faster it can move. It can also perform other functions like move troops. I like verssatility in my vessels. Oh yeah - I see where you're confused now: (and thanks, beagle - that is what I'm talking about) I'm not saying that you shouldn't have minelaying vessels - because you definitely should - I'm saying that you do not need to build specialised minelayers when you can use your front-line DD's and CL's for the job - which I regularly do. Unless there is a feature in the game which I don't know about? More minefields placed or something? Do those mines on the DD's and CL's get placed at all? Now I'm confused ... help? Please? williammiller ? |
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Apr 19, 2023 22:01:28 GMT -6
The more mines your ships carry the bigger/better 'pre-battle' minefields your side will generate, along with a greater degree of operational-level minefields in the area the ships are stationed at.
|
|
