|
|
Post by ramjb on May 23, 2019 6:45:17 GMT -6
Heya there. Well, we currently have CLs in game and you can design them as AA cruisers. The problem is that the game's battlemaking system seems to place all CLs in the same consideration as "scouts"... so you have a very big chance that, on a big battle, those ships will be deployed in the scouting cruiser force of your battleline, instead of close to the high value targets it's designed to protect as AA units. That makes sense for your standard CLs (Arethusas, Kumas, the likes), but not for the ship you carefully designed to put up a concentrated volley of heavy AAA to protect your high value targets from air attack - something that deployed as scouts miles away from those ships, they hardly have any hope of effectively doing. Hence I want to suggest the following: -In AA Research area, include a new tech: "AA Light Cruiser" that comes after the invention of 5'' DP mounts - it enables a new class "CLAA" you can design. -CLAAs share the same traits of displacement and armor as CLs ,except that they can't mount anything heavier than 6'' weapons, and primary battery MUST be DP. -CLAAs are accounted for as CLs for almanac purposes (you don't need a whole new category for them). -In-game battlemaking logic places CLAAs in "screen" formation attached to either carriers of Battleships during the battle creation process. -that's it. That way you can design a class of specific ships you want to build as dedicated AA escorts, and have them deployed properly, something that doesn't happen now. Not sure how complex this should be to implement, but for a wishlist I think it's a good feature to have. Thoughts?  . |
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on May 23, 2019 6:53:29 GMT -6
CLAA wasn't a historical class that anyone built any new Cruiser of.
A few Cruisers were reclassified as it in the USN, but not any more than that.
It's better IMO to have a checkbox in ship design or mission or something that can be used flexibly to determine what ships should mainly be assigned AA roles. There were plenty of heavy cruisers and destroyers that fulfilled the role of AA screen as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by warlock on May 23, 2019 7:35:58 GMT -6
CLAA wasn't a historical class that anyone built any new Cruiser of. A few Cruisers were reclassified as it in the USN, but not any more than that. It's better IMO to have a checkbox in ship design or mission or something that can be used flexibly to determine what ships should mainly be assigned AA roles. There were plenty of heavy cruisers and destroyers that fulfilled the role of AA screen as well. Yeah but this game is supposed to be about the hypotheticals and what ifs. Just because there aren't many examples in history, doesn't mean that they couldn't have existed in an alternate history say for example if the threat of aircraft to ships had be recognized sooner. That is the game we are playing. |
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 23, 2019 7:45:10 GMT -6
I think I lean a little closer to alexbrunius on this point. I don't know that you need a new ship classification or definition. I would think it would be easier just to have the game logic prioritize cruisers with DP main guns as screens for the main body or CV/CVL divisions. When we talk about CLAA that's essentially what we are looking at right? Cruisers with DP main guns like Atlanta, Dido and Worsteshire? |
|
|
|
Post by warlock on May 23, 2019 8:03:22 GMT -6
I think I lean a little closer to alexbrunius on this point. I don't know that you need a new ship classification or definition. I would think it would be easier just to have the game logic prioritize cruisers with DP main guns as screens for the main body or CV/CVL divisions. When we talk about CLAA that's essentially what we are looking at right? Cruisers with DP main guns like Atlanta, Dido and Worsteshire?Honestly I am in the group that wants to be able to arrange task forces like you do for the Fleet Exercises. I mean if I am the Grand Admiral, then I should be able to impose my own doctrine which includes forcing various ship classes to operate together ie. have it so my CLAA designs ALWAYS escorts my CVs while having my Fleet CLs ALWAYS escort/scout for my BB/BCs, etc. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want to take randomness out of the equation for the actual battle, but your custom task forces you set up should let you prioritize pulling available ships from that specific task force or forces operating in the area and try to set up divisions in accordance with the Task Forces organizational structure. Honestly I was hoping beyond hope when I heard RTW2 was being developed that something like this would be a priority feature as it is one HUGE, IMPORTANT aspect of Fleet Management that is missing from the game. |
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 23, 2019 9:04:14 GMT -6
It's not a reclassification per se. It's a way to tell the game battlemaking logic that the CL in question is to be deployed close to the units they're supposed to protect, not as a scout 10 miles ahead of the main group, where it's design purpose is completely lost.
As long as we don't have the ability to form up our own formations pre-battle (and I can see why we don't, given the fact that it would be a complex thing to add for a small size team, and because the battles are supposed to prevent hindsight and represent the element of surprise), it's a good way to get those units where they should be. Because a ship like that no admiral would deploy as a scout.
as an extra plus, it would also give the AI the chance to have similar ships and have them working as intended. With the current battlelogic it just won't happen, certainly not reliably enough.
Again - for all purposes those ships are CLs. It's just a differentiation for the game to properly deploy them in battles.
As for historical references go, I'm not asking for anything anti-historical here, or that didn't happen precisely as this would go: there were multitude of CLAAs. In WWII the whole old line of british CLs was repurposed with 4'' DP guns and used as AA CLs (think emeralds). And obviously the Didos and Atlantas were build purposefully for that role in mind, and would be used as such. Navies of the time called them "light cruisers", but their purpose, role and class was well known by everyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by southkraut on May 23, 2019 9:04:26 GMT -6
I'd be happy if CLs with DP main batteries were to act as AA escorts when assigned as supports to a larger vessel.
|
|
|
|
Post by alsadius on May 23, 2019 9:05:16 GMT -6
If you're going to do this, maybe have some checkboxes for AI usage. There was a post in the suggestions thread about Flagship being an option, and this would imply an AA checkbox(or Support, perhaps, if you want ASW to use the same). Perhaps there's a couple others that could be added. It'd only get used for selecting battle OOBs and default orders, not for actual fighting, so hopefully it'd be easy to implement? A bit more ability to fine-tune our doctrines might be nice at times.
|
|
|
|
Post by tortugapower on May 23, 2019 9:16:30 GMT -6
Hi ramjb , I'm a huge proponent of *something* being improved upon in the current system. Still, I dislike the idea of the CLAA role. I feel like it should be more organic than that. The problem is ships are assigned in sometimes preposterous and immersion-breaking ways. If the only solution is to hard-code a new class, than we will also need a new class for non-fleet escort DDs, and anything else that is currently creating issues. Maybe the solution is to have two different strategic-level roles in "Active Fleet", subdividing it into the "Fleet Duty" and the other for "Scout". The fleet duty would be tasked with forming up together in a fleet-in-being -- not that they can't get caught alone, but that they mostly attempt to join bigger battles, with CLs and DDs in this role having priority for support to the capital ships if chosen in a big fleet battle. The scouts are just the opposite, they are engaged in smaller or single battles more often, and get designated the scout or peripheral roles in fleet battles. That system is also far from perfect. It's a hard problem, but I hope we see some improvement. I want to prevent: - in a surprise attack as Japan, I get only 1 of my 6 carriers in the battle. (Can you imagine Yamamoto deciding to leave 5 of his carriers behind for the attack on Pearl Harbor? Just to highlight how preposterous that is.) - my low speed minesweeping DDs are pulled in and designated the escorts for my fast (at least 6 knots faster) CVs |
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 23, 2019 9:27:09 GMT -6
I personally think hardcoding a CLAA class would not be a problem nor have too much influence in other ships. Back at the time ships were designed with several roles in mind they could fullfit to a larger or smaller extent equally well (for instance, a Baltimore was supposed to fullfit both AAA roles, hunt for enemy cruisers, act as close escort for carriers, etc). Hence having ships that were multidimensional in their theoretical roles shouldn't have too much trouble being allotted by the battle-making logic to different positions in battle - those ships were supposed, after all, to do several different roles so being put in any of them is fine. Unidimensional, specifically designed, ships like an Atlanta or a Dido, however, were purposefully specialized for a single role: that of high value unit close escort and AAA barrage provider. They were quite unique in that sense: While an Omaha might have been designed with it as one of it's different roles, an Atlanta wasn't supposed to be 8 miles in the van of the battlefleet providing eyes. That class was supposed during daylight hours to stay close to battleships or carriers and provide AAA cover for them. As such I don't think there's anything wrong with those ships being treated in a special manner creating the CLAA subclass specifically for their duties. Besides, as I mentioned avobe, CLAAs did exist in real life so having them here wouldn't be neither unhistorical nor inappropiate. Maybe the solution is to have two different strategic-level roles in "Active Fleet", subdividing it into the "Fleet Duty" and the other for "Scout". The fleet duty would be tasked with forming up together in a fleet-in-being -- not that they can't get caught alone, but that they mostly attempt to join bigger battles, with CLs and DDs in this role having priority for support to the capital ships if chosen in a big fleet battle.
that's a perfect answer for the problem aswell, but I think it's far more complex to correctly code and implement into the game than the solution I proposed, which seems to me far simpler from the design standpoint. But if this is implemented instead I'd be perfectly fine with it . |
|
|
|
Post by warlock on May 23, 2019 10:00:16 GMT -6
Hi ramjb , I'm a huge proponent of *something* being improved upon in the current system. Still, I dislike the idea of the CLAA role. I feel like it should be more organic than that. The problem is ships are assigned in sometimes preposterous and immersion-breaking ways. If the only solution is to hard-code a new class, than we will also need a new class for non-fleet escort DDs, and anything else that is currently creating issues. Maybe the solution is to have two different strategic-level roles in "Active Fleet", subdividing it into the "Fleet Duty" and the other for "Scout". The fleet duty would be tasked with forming up together in a fleet-in-being -- not that they can't get caught alone, but that they mostly attempt to join bigger battles, with CLs and DDs in this role having priority for support to the capital ships if chosen in a big fleet battle. The scouts are just the opposite, they are engaged in smaller or single battles more often, and get designated the scout or peripheral roles in fleet battles. That system is also far from perfect. It's a hard problem, but I hope we see some improvement. I want to prevent: - in a surprise attack as Japan, I get only 1 of my 6 carriers in the battle. (Can you imagine Yamamoto deciding to leave 5 of his carriers behind for the attack on Pearl Harbor? Just to highlight how preposterous that is.) - my low speed minesweeping DDs are pulled in and designated the escorts for my fast (at least 6 knots faster) CVs I agree with you. I am not a coding expert but it would be nice to at least be able to click a check box of some sort and have the the match maker or battle logic or whatever this game calls it, take those preferences in mind when selecting available ships and assigning them to divisions and role. It would be something like a code string indicating that if AA escort is selected then it would place that class of ships into a division appropriate to a AA role. The same thing could apply to many roles such as AA Escort, Scout, Battle Line, Minesweeping, etc, etc. This would preclude ships not suited for the role showing up in battle but it would be designed to atempt to favor ships assigned to the roles you have selected when it forms divisions. On to the other thing you mentioned about the surprise attack where only 1 of 6 CVs was in your battle, honestly, I don't see an issue with this. Keep in mind that just because you have 6 CVs doesn't necessarily mean all are available and ready to be used. Often times in war you use what you have available which is what I think the game is trying to simulate. For example you might have 6 CVs in theater but maybe you have 5 of them out doing readiness exercises when your political leader comes to you and say, "In two days we are going to war". Yamamoto then says to himself, "****! I have 5 CVs that are out preparing for war but have already used 90% of their supply and their planes are in terrible need of maintenance after such an intensive training exercise, no way they will be ready in 2 days. Guess I will have to rely on the 1 CV I have in port at full readiness if I want to launch a surprise attack." What I don't like is like how you mention DDs you have tasked to be Minesweepers being used as Fast CV escorts. It could happen in an extreme situation but it shouldn't happen because your doctrine is that this class of ship is to be used for Minesweeping operations only. That being the case, your Staff (the Match Maker) should be doing everything in its power to make sure the "Appropriate" assets are used if at all possible because this is how a real Navy would operate. |
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on May 23, 2019 10:25:03 GMT -6
Yeah but this game is supposed to be about the hypotheticals and what ifs. Just because there aren't many examples in history, doesn't mean that they couldn't have existed in an alternate history say for example if the threat of aircraft to ships had be recognized sooner. That is the game we are playing. Wouldn't a more flexible setting like I suggested that allows you to flag any kind of ship be it DD, CL, CA or even BC/BB as an AA support ship be alot more open for hypothetical- and what if-scenarios as well as alternative history? That way you can refit all your old BC/CAs to floating AA platforms as well if you want, build new large AA DDs or have it any way you can think of. |
|
|
|
Post by jorgencab on May 23, 2019 16:32:52 GMT -6
It probably would not be impossible or that difficult for the battle deployment system to weight cruisers with higher than normal AA capability to be assigned in a screening role rather than in the scouting role.
There is nothing wrong with the occasional cases where a typical smaller dedicated AA light cruiser get assigned to the role as scout, there could be a reason for that which is part of why the player is not in charge of all the details in setup and makeup of fleets that enters into a battle area.
But it should not be purely random thing, it should always be a weighted thing based on some scoring mechanism in the background. I suppose this goes for almost every position and role of the the ships present in each battle.
We should not give the player too much influence over the exact operational status and force selection in missions.
|
|
|
|
Post by director on May 23, 2019 17:22:13 GMT -6
The issue I have is with missions bringing in ships that are, um, 'less appropriate'. I'm not a fan of creating a lot of new categories; I am a fan of not getting my AA cruiser used for scouting. I do like jorgencab 's idea for weighting. This is a good discussion - let's keep the ideas coming. |
|
.
