Task Force workaround.

[infi]

So, people are disappointed that they have no control over what kind of ships are brought into fights (Tortuga's stream where his 500T trade protection DD's were selected for a Surprise Attack and failing spectacularly being an example)


In the ship design screen, have an additional drop down menu that specifies role.

Now, to further explain: 

The role you select wouldn't "guarantee" it would be always used as such, but would give it better weighting for being pulled into certain types of battles. 

Still leaving room for the RNG to give you sub-optimal choices that you have to work around with occasionally, but not regularly or in situations that don't make sense, like the Tortuga example.

 




Fleet / Escort (would be weighted to be put into medium and large engagements of all types)



Convoy Escort / Coastal Patrol (weighted for Convoy Defense, Coastal Raid Defense; would not show up in large engagements)



Independent / Raider (weighted for raider interceptions, Convoy Attack, Coastal Raids, and medium / small engagements)

[pirateradar]

I think there's a suggestion thread for these ideas (and the suggestion that we should be able to form task forces or at least define a ship's intended role is a VERY popular idea among players)

[ramjb]

May 17, 2019 20:53:55 GMT -6 infi said:

So, people are disappointed that they have no control over what kind of ships are brought into fights (Tortuga's stream where his 500T trade protection DD's were selected for a Surprise Attack and failing spectacularly being an example)


In the ship design screen, have an additional drop down menu that specifies role.

Now, to further explain: 

The role you select wouldn't "guarantee" it would be always used as such, but would give it better weighting for being pulled into certain types of battles. 

Still leaving room for the RNG to give you sub-optimal choices that you have to work around with occasionally, but not regularly or in situations that don't make sense, like the Tortuga example.

 




Fleet / Escort (would be weighted to be put into medium and large engagements of all types)



Convoy Escort / Coastal Patrol (weighted for Convoy Defense, Coastal Raid Defense; would not show up in large engagements)



Independent / Raider (weighted for raider interceptions, Convoy Attack, Coastal Raids, and medium / small engagements)

That workaround already exists. Put anything you don't want to be pulled into a surface battle in Trade protection and ASW roles, and the chances of it to be pulled into a surface "standard" combat engagement seem to be a lot lower.

Not nonexistant, mind you, but such is the nature of war and luck .

[deeznuts]

That workaround doesn’t work for the example though since surprise attacks happen at the start of the war, the only real way would be to keep em in reserve up until the war itself

[pirateradar]

May 17, 2019 21:05:07 GMT -6 deeznuts said:

That workaround doesn’t work for the example though since surprise attacks happen at the start of the war, the only real way would be to keep em in reserve up until the war itself

Ships in reserve can still appear in Surprise Attack battles in order to prevent players from using RF/MB status to hide from surprise attacks.

[seawolf]

May 17, 2019 21:13:53 GMT -6 pirateradar said:

May 17, 2019 21:05:07 GMT -6 deeznuts said:

That workaround doesn’t work for the example though since surprise attacks happen at the start of the war, the only real way would be to keep em in reserve up until the war itself

Ships in reserve can still appear in Surprise Attack battles in order to prevent players from using RF/MB status to hide from surprise attacks.

I think he meant for the attackers

[hiiiiii74]

I don't know how much they would have to overhaul the ship design system and the scenario generation system, as well as the AI and its decision making to accommodate this change, but I think it is a worthwhile long-term improvement to this game, though I don't feel it to be as vital as the fluke we saw with Tortuga made it seem.

In RtW1, this was not really a big issue for me, and I can't see that changing yet in RtW2. I find that it's totally viable to just build fleet destroyers, as they are cheap and always handy, regardless of what engagement they find themselves in. If you have obsolete destroyers on hand, I would suggest moving them to a low priority colonial station, or scrapping them. If you are skipping around with new 900 ton DDs, your 500 tonners should be gone already, and your 600 tonners should be on their way out, on your colonial stations at least.

It only takes a few months to rebuild your DD squadrons, a year if you do it in stages, so it is a question of your ability to manage what ships you have active in your fleet, and when you finally bite the bullet and scrap old designs. If you have old 500 ton DDs in your fleet and they are nowhere near acceptable, why are they in your fleet at all? Cursory research indicates that early USN DDs (1899-1916; 500 to 1,000 tons) seemed to have a lifespan of about 10 years before being decommissioned. 1,200+ ton DDs like the Clemson class were commissioned for almost 30 years (1919-1948), after being refitted with modern technology at the start of the Second World War, as their displacement kept them viable with the addition of new equipment.


While I like the idea of more control for the player, I think it's worth understanding that this is something the player can manage under current circumstances. Tortuga found himself operating 500 ton DDs in his fleet in 1931. Clearly, they were obsolete and should have been scrapped and replaced almost immediately after he started that 1920 campaign, but they remained. It's a management issue, I think. Not to rag on Tortuga, of course, but I think it's a valuable lesson and I'm happy that we got to see these consequences in action.

[dougphresh]

I think setting up divisions in the fleet exercise is a good precedent
.
I think TFs could be done, although accounting for some scenarios might be tricky. Maybe you would have to assign the ships to convoys and coastal operations at the beginning of every turn. That way, you might not have that BB or CV available for an other operation later on the turn, or conversely you might only have DDs and KEs if a heavy enemy force comes after a convoy.

[infi]

The main reason for this perceived need is CLAA's since they're going to be awful at engaging other Cruisers.

[sulu244]

Yeah, being able to set up some ships explicitly as escorts is really the important bit. An Atlanta style ship has no business operating solo, or against other CL's and CA's.

[pirateradar]

May 17, 2019 21:26:32 GMT -6 seawolf said:

May 17, 2019 21:13:53 GMT -6 pirateradar said:

Ships in reserve can still appear in Surprise Attack battles in order to prevent players from using RF/MB status to hide from surprise attacks.

I think he meant for the attackers

Ah, that'd be my bad then.

[charliezulu]

From a design standpoint, TFs are trivial - we already have the UI for assigning ships to units in the fleet ex screen, and TFs would be treated as single ships for the purposes of things like movement and being added to battles. There'd be some necessary interactions for things like when a ship is not currently operational that aren't already covered, but otherwise IMO they're less of a departure from current mechanics than having assigned roles for every ship and edge case.

[archelaos]

May 17, 2019 21:47:21 GMT -6 hiiiiii74 said:

I don't know how much they would have to overhaul the ship design system and the scenario generation system, as well as the AI and its decision making to accommodate this change, but I think it is a worthwhile long-term improvement to this game, though I don't feel it to be as vital as the fluke we saw with Tortuga made it seem.

In RtW1, this was not really a big issue for me, and I can't see that changing yet in RtW2. I find that it's totally viable to just build fleet destroyers, as they are cheap and always handy, regardless of what engagement they find themselves in. If you have obsolete destroyers on hand, I would suggest moving them to a low priority colonial station, or scrapping them. If you are skipping around with new 900 ton DDs, your 500 tonners should be gone already, and your 600 tonners should be on their way out, on your colonial stations at least.

It only takes a few months to rebuild your DD squadrons, a year if you do it in stages, so it is a question of your ability to manage what ships you have active in your fleet, and when you finally bite the bullet and scrap old designs. If you have old 500 ton DDs in your fleet and they are nowhere near acceptable, why are they in your fleet at all? Cursory research indicates that early USN DDs (1899-1916; 500 to 1,000 tons) seemed to have a lifespan of about 10 years before being decommissioned. 1,200+ ton DDs like the Clemson class were commissioned for almost 30 years (1919-1948), after being refitted with modern technology at the start of the Second World War, as their displacement kept them viable with the addition of new equipment.


While I like the idea of more control for the player, I think it's worth understanding that this is something the player can manage under current circumstances. Tortuga found himself operating 500 ton DDs in his fleet in 1931. Clearly, they were obsolete and should have been scrapped and replaced almost immediately after he started that 1920 campaign, but they remained. It's a management issue, I think. Not to rag on Tortuga, of course, but I think it's a valuable lesson and I'm happy that we got to see these consequences in action.

If you play UK or USA, you can rebuild DDs at will. As small powers there is major problem what is priority for rebuilds. And you need DDEs as numbers of fleet DDs needed is unsustainable. Besides, it is boring to just have a single DD type.

Those 500t DD were clearly obsolete for the roles they were picked for. But for ASW duties? Minesweeping? They could be still adequate.

The biggest problem is the first battle in a war. It would be better to be allowed to somehow mark the ships designed for 2nd line duty. Such ships would be excluded from surprise attacks and rarely appearing alone in scenarios, not placed as escort of BC squadrons etc. But they may still appear as escorts in fleet battles and obviously in various patrol and convoy escort battles.

May 17, 2019 22:06:02 GMT -6 sulu244 said:

Yeah, being able to set up some ships explicitly as escorts is really the important bit. An Atlanta style ship has no business operating solo, or against other CL's and CA's.

And yet, Atlantas often ended up in cruiser battles. In fact they were built (but never operated as?) flotilla leader. Only on the course of war they drifted to squadron AA escort role. IMHO the problem is not CLAA appearing in battle. They simply should not make up majority of squadron or appear alone in cruiser battles. Again, setting them as 2nd line could prevent those exact scenarios, while not blocking them from battles as part of another squadron or fart of the fleet.

[namuras]

The problem can be circumvented by building 600tns KE in peacetimes for either minesweeping or ASW duties. Those shouldn't be pulled into the TF.

They should be cheaper in maintenance aswell.