Shifting DD/CL class definitions into the 50s

[mmmfriedrice]

Hey everyone,

I'd like to get a gauge for how players and Fredrik (and the rest of the dev/staff team) feel about accommodating the rising tonnages of destroyer/fleet antisubmarine vessels as the game enters its twilight phase.

Trying to follow the increase in tonnage of (mostly USN) postwar DDs and DLs up to and beyond 3000, then 4000 tonnes is currently impossible. The game considers anything over 2500 tons to be a cruiser, and therefore unable to mount ASW gear. Given the way the game currently auto-generates divisions, it's almost certain a 3500-ton unarmored cruiser would be made mincemeat of by the AI.

Would a creeping increase in tonnage as to what qualifies as a DD be possible or even desirable to implement?

Also relevant is the suggestion to tag specific ships for surface, AA, and/or TP/ASW roles, whether that be done in the class designer, or in the active ships menu.

Pursuant to this, would devices like Weapon Alpha and other short range, single-tube ASW rocket depth bombs still fall under the classification of "ASW Mortar?" Presumably, ASROC wouldn't (well out of default timeframe). I'm just curious as to what the intended scope was.

Thanks!

[aeson]

I don't particularly object to allowing larger DDs in the late game, but I'm not sure I see the point - as far as I am aware, ASW ratings are irrelevant for ships that are not assigned to Trade Protection, and I very much doubt if big DDs would be built specifically for that role unless they were considerably more capable ASW units than smaller, less expensive alternatives, so I don't really see what they'd bring that cannot currently be done using a smallish CL with token armor protection.

Would a creeping increase in tonnage as to what qualifies as a DD be possible or even desirable to implement?

I expect that it would be possible as something along those lines is already in place for CLs, with maximum permissible displacement increasing to 10,000 tons in the 1930s and 12,000 tons in the 1940s. As to whether or not it's desirable, I have no strong feelings on that, but as I indicated above I don't really see the point of it within the game.

Also relevant is the suggestion to tag specific ships for surface, AA, and/or TP/ASW roles, whether that be done in the class designer, or in the active ships menu.

I don't see a reason to add a TP/ASW tag to designs - you can already keep TP/ASW ships mostly out of combat by assigning them to Trade Protection in wartime and Reserve Fleet or Mothballs in peacetime, and you can skip the one-interturn window between WU and auto-assignment to AF by assigning new TP/ASW ships to Trade Protection the turn before the game announces that they've finished working up - their crew quality is already 'Fair' by that point anyways, so it's probably not much if any worse than waiting out the full working-up period, and if you're willing to use them while their crew quality is still 'Poor' you can do it directly after commissioning so as to be less likely to wait a turn or two and forget about them.

As to the idea of specific "surface" and "AA" tags, I'm a bit leery of that.

Firstly, the dichotomy chosen is weird - why "AA" and "surface" when "surface" is almost meaninglessly generic while "AA" is overly-specific? Probably the only categories of ships that wouldn't reasonably fall under "surface" are AVs, CVLs, and CVs that lack access to bomb- or torpedo-equipped aircraft, specialized low-cost minesweepers and ASW craft, and maybe some very minimal examples of third class and auxiliary cruisers; meanwhile, fleet AA escort cruisers are probably extremely similar in size, armament, and intended usage to the fleet anti-DD escort cruisers seemingly excluded by the "AA" designation, and probably aren't that dissimilar in size or design to non-minimal light fleet scouts or light colonial/trade protection cruisers that don't really want to be drawn for independent operation against heavier units any more than the fleet AA escorts do. Additionally, while I definitely prefer 6" guns to 5" guns for use against cruisers, 5" CLs along the lines of an Atlanta are a long ways from being what I'd call bad against similarly-large 6" CLs.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the main historical CLAAs - the Atlanta/Oakland and Dido classes - weren't really intended to be fleet AA escorts. They were primarily designed to be flotilla leaders, distant scouts, and trade protection cruisers on relatively low displacements while AA capability was more of a secondary concern. There may have been a growing recognition of aviation's potential to unseat the battleship as sovereign of the seas, but these ships were designed and laid down while the Big Gun was still generally thought to be dominant and alert (heavy) warships at sea considered largely immune to air attack.

Pursuant to this, would devices like Weapon Alpha and other short range, single-tube ASW rocket depth bombs still fall under the classification of "ASW Mortar?" Presumably, ASROC wouldn't (well out of default timeframe). I'm just curious as to what the intended scope was.

I don't feel that Weapon Alpha and similar systems merit inclusion as separate systems, though they could perhaps be included as a tech to further increase the effectiveness of the ASW mortar.

As to ASROC, it's probably not as far outside the game's timeframe as you might think - RUR-5 was in development in the '50s and was in service in 1960.

[mmmfriedrice]

Thanks for your input aeson. All good points. I especially appreciate the context wrt to the Atlantas and Didos

With regards to flagging ships for roles, it might be better done by forming ships up into divisions and assignments like SAI or the fleet exercise menu already extant in RtW. That way it allows players to (a) task ships as they design them and (b) change the role of ships as the naval warfare balance shifts towards aircraft, without pidgeonholing ships in the class designer.

Just as the tech tree doesn't solely represent technological advances, but also changes in doctrine and design conventions, it would allow players agency to assign ships to roles they see fit while still benefiting from the tech-gating mechanic that it instrumental to the gameplay process of RtW,

I'd second you on the brutal effectiveness of 5" gun batteries against other light cruisers.

On the subject of ASW not in a trade role, I'm curious as to why the game wouldn't calculate ASW/MS points for active ships in preventing sinking of ships. Perhaps its abstracted away, but it's not like a battle/carrier group escorts or aircraft would throw up their hands and say 'not for us' if they detected a submarine stalking capital ships. I'm not going to assign a fleet carrier to "ASW/TP", and its own onboard aircraft would be part of its defense against subs, even while moving to engage an enemy task group.

On the subject of ASROC, well then, that'd be interesting. We've already got guided ASW torps as a technology, so added techs continuing to improve items on the ASW device checklist rather than a whole new technology would probably be the easiest way to implement it. Nuclear depth bombs triggering a game over would be a humorous throwback to Balance of Power game overs