KE vs DD

[janxol]

What is the advantage of KE over DDs? As far as I have played around with the designer, a 400 ton DD can do the exact same job as a 600 ton KE (smallest that can be built in peacetime), and is still cheaper, despite carrying a singular torpedo tube.

So what is the incentive to use KEs that aren't converted fishing boats? Do they get any special modifiers or properties?

Judging by numbers it looks like a DD is cheaper and built faster by one month, and can also be equipped with DC and minesweeping gear.

[rob06waves2018]

I also managed to get 1 float plane on a DD in a rebuild. Much better than a KE, but explicitly impossible according to the manual. Bug?

[warspite1995]

Was i the only one who in RTW 1 didnt like having to build MS at the start of every war and thus lose out on my DD force for the early stages, and thus built like 30 500 Ton DD's to do their job?

[janxol]

May 15, 2019 5:18:50 GMT -6 warspite1995 said:

Was i the only one who in RTW 1 didnt like having to build MS at the start of every war and thus lose out on my DD force for the early stages, and thus built like 30 500 Ton DD's to do their job?

I usually had 20 spare 200 ton MS whose sole purpose was to exist with minimal upkeep.

[rob06waves2018]

May 15, 2019 5:18:50 GMT -6 warspite1995 said:

Was i the only one who in RTW 1 didnt like having to build MS at the start of every war and thus lose out on my DD force for the early stages, and thus built like 30 500 Ton DD's to do their job?

Try 300t. They're even cheaper and do the exact same job

[dougphresh]

Having belt and turret armour doesn’t hurt.
I usually build cheap KEs along with a handful of armoured ones packed with guns.

[alkiap]

A 600 ton KE will have a higher ASW rating than a 400t DD (5 vs 4), assuming both have increased DC storage
The rating will be the same if both are 600t, but at that point the DD will be more expensive and have additional maintenance costs
Individually not a big difference but those numbers stack up if you build tens or dozens of them

[Sven]

May 15, 2019 4:59:02 GMT -6 janxol said:

What is the advantage of KE over DDs?

1. What is the use of a 400 t destroyer after 1920? a 600 t KE doesn't need to change much, be it 1910 or 1940. Destroyers are a different matter. 

2. You will need ASW-ships only during wartime. So, build a number of cheap 200-300 t KEs to fullfill that role when the war starts. Normally, you can build 15-20 at once without problems.

3. I have not played around with a ship designer, but i guess that if you build a slow 600 t KE, it should be able to carry more minesweeping and DC gear than a 400 t destroyer. So, it is better suited for the job, even if more expensive.

In the end, it comes down to the design philosophy you choose.

[Procopius]

May 15, 2019 5:18:50 GMT -6 warspite1995 said:

Was i the only one who in RTW 1 didnt like having to build MS at the start of every war and thus lose out on my DD force for the early stages, and thus built like 30 500 Ton DD's to do their job?

I built a load of 600-ton 28-knot "minimum DDs" for ASW/coastal patrol that also came in handy as escorts for my slower capital ships. 

[williammiller]

May 15, 2019 5:11:46 GMT -6 rob06waves2018 said:

I also managed to get 1 float plane on a DD in a rebuild. Much better than a KE, but explicitly impossible according to the manual. Bug?

It is not supposed to be possible now - it originally was possible during testing, but was later removed I thought - will check on that.

[dougphresh]

Didn’t some US prewar DDs have a floatplane?

In any case, until we can launch without cats it’s a moot point

[williammiller]

May 15, 2019 9:55:31 GMT -6 dougphresh said:

Didn’t some US prewar DDs have a floatplane?

In any case, until we can launch without cats it’s a moot point

The USN tested it out on (IIRC) 3 DDs, however it was deemed a failure - recovery and operations of the aircraft was simply too difficult under most conditions, and also the risk of having many gallons of aviation fuel storage added to such small ships was deemed too great.

[elouda]

I can't recall any prewar classes that carried a floatplane - some of the Clemsons got turned into seaplane tenders, but they were moreso floating workshops rather than carrying the planes themselves. 3 Fletchers were modified to carry a single seaplane at the expense of a turret and a torpedo launcher, but I think the overall impression was that it didn't really work out, given that the additional ones planned were built to the regular design instead, and the 3 seaplane carriers were also converted back to normal towards the end of the war if I remember correctly.

[swang]

In RTW1, I would build large MSs at the beginning to help satisfy foreign station tonnage requirements for cheap. 1600 ton MSs virtually empty eats up lots of tonnage for basically no maintenance. Now that we can't have too much empty space, I don't know what would be the best strategy. but KEs I see as floating gun/DC emplacements, and are more for TP and FS work, wheras DDs I see as supporting the battle line.

[Blothorn]

I think the primary advantage of KEs is short construction times--my game I didn't build any ASW forces until I went to war, at which point I designated fleet destroyers for trade protection, built 20 KEs in 5 months (4 months + variability) and got the destroyers back. Minimum DD construction times are longer; I wouldn't want to lose a large chunk of my fleet destroyers for that long, and so would have had to build/maintain my ASW fleet during peacetime.