|
Post by griffin01 on Feb 24, 2020 11:17:13 GMT -6
What size and how are your KEs armed, griffin? I find my heavy KEs, 4*5" and 4*4" tend to blitz through gun duels. In the game I've been playing recently, various Kaiboukan lookalikes - 3x4", 900 tons, sometimes additional secondaries. I would be disinclined to build KEs as heavy as you do, it seems. I could build an escort destroyer for not much higher price and much better, I think.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Feb 25, 2020 15:40:10 GMT -6
I'm very happy with KEs representing sloops and frigates and what have you, but I do find their limitations with dual-purpose main armament (if memory serves me correctly - I could be off here, and if I am this point is silly - I generally repurpose DDs) and torpedoes means it's not possible to build things like the WW2 rivers, or even the Black Swans. Similarly, it's not possible to cheaply "remove a boiler" from DDs to give them greater range but less top speed (but still around 25kts), a la the WW2 V&W conversions undertaken by the RN, and there are also issues iirc in removing all the torpedoes from a destroyer that's now being used for trade protection. None of these are big issues for me though - I'm happy with what can be done in-game. Now what we really need is the ability to put masts on them - the last masted sloops were commissioned by the RN in the mid-1900s, and served on what would have been in RtW2 "Colonial Service" throughout the first world war . No, I'm not being serious .
|
|
|
Post by sittingduck on Feb 25, 2020 16:17:18 GMT -6
"Should frigates be introduced?"
Yes.
I build KE as 900 ton, 24 knot, 4x4", minesweeping, and update/new build with improving ASW. Trade Protection ASW/Minesweeping in Home Areas and around possessions.
Mid-game, budget permitting, I build small DD's with 3x4", single 2 or 3 tube torpedo, max ASW. Spread these in Home Areas and zones where fleet units are active, the intent being to bolster the large fleet DD's to minimize the 'submarine torpedoes ship' after a battle event, not as actual surface combatants. Unfortunately, the game will mix these small DD's with the large DD's.
The Frigate designation could cover these smaller DD's AND prevent them being drawn into fleet engagements. Perhaps an "F" class could be developed with design limits mirroring the Roberts class DE and not be placed with fleet units in combats, similar to KE's on trade protection.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Feb 25, 2020 17:14:49 GMT -6
Mid-game, budget permitting, I build small DD's with 3x4", single 2 or 3 tube torpedo, max ASW. Spread these in Home Areas and zones where fleet units are active, the intent being to bolster the large fleet DD's to minimize the 'submarine torpedoes ship' after a battle event, not as actual surface combatants. Unfortunately, the game will mix these small DD's with the large DD's. The Frigate designation could cover these smaller DD's AND prevent them being drawn into fleet engagements. Perhaps an "F" class could be developed with design limits mirroring the Roberts class DE and not be placed with fleet units in combats, similar to KE's on trade protection. How do you expect an Active Fleet ship that's not with the battle fleet to protect the battle fleet from submarine attacks? Trade Protection includes ASW patrol and hunter-killer groups, and escorts have to be with the ships that they're meant to escort if they are to protect them.
|
|
|
Post by sittingduck on Feb 25, 2020 18:22:18 GMT -6
Mid-game, budget permitting, I build small DD's with 3x4", single 2 or 3 tube torpedo, max ASW. Spread these in Home Areas and zones where fleet units are active, the intent being to bolster the large fleet DD's to minimize the 'submarine torpedoes ship' after a battle event, not as actual surface combatants. Unfortunately, the game will mix these small DD's with the large DD's. The Frigate designation could cover these smaller DD's AND prevent them being drawn into fleet engagements. Perhaps an "F" class could be developed with design limits mirroring the Roberts class DE and not be placed with fleet units in combats, similar to KE's on trade protection. How do you expect an Active Fleet ship that's not with the battle fleet to protect the battle fleet from submarine attacks? Trade Protection includes ASW patrol and hunter-killer groups, and escorts have to be with the ships that they're meant to escort if they are to protect them. I see your point and in support of your position I'd use the Leyte Gulf as the definative example of where the escorts were drawn into a fleet action. My contention was to use the F class more as the US DE's used as independent ASW units in the Carribean and the Atlantic Seaboard. These units were to suppress submarine activities in those zones as opposed to acting with fleet units as a direct escort. I believe I have read somewhere in these forums where units on TP do not affect the 'submarine torpedoes ship' event. My suggestion is a cheap F class that does work to reduce that event by being dedicated to ASW only. Building these small units for that purpose and having them drawn into fleet actions defeats that purpose. As it stands, all units on Active Fleet are liable to be "lumped" into fleet battles. Use of an "F" designation could be developed which would prevent the game system from pulling frigates into those fleet battles.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Feb 25, 2020 18:54:31 GMT -6
How do you expect an Active Fleet ship that's not with the battle fleet to protect the battle fleet from submarine attacks? Trade Protection includes ASW patrol and hunter-killer groups, and escorts have to be with the ships that they're meant to escort if they are to protect them. I see your point and in support of your position I'd use the Leyte Gulf as the definative example of where the escorts were drawn into a fleet action. My contention was to use the F class more as the US DE's used as independent ASW units in the Carribean and the Atlantic Seaboard. These units were to suppress submarine activities in those zones as opposed to acting with fleet units as a direct escort. I believe I have read somewhere in these forums where units on TP do not affect the 'submarine torpedoes ship' event. My suggestion is a cheap F class that does work to reduce that event by being dedicated to ASW only. Building these small units for that purpose and having them drawn into fleet actions defeats that purpose. As it stands, all units on Active Fleet are liable to be "lumped" into fleet battles. Use of an "F" designation could be developed which would prevent the game system from pulling frigates into those fleet battles. The problem with your request, to me, is that you're basically asking to have your cake and eat it - you want to be able to use cheap ASW ships to protect the battle fleet, but you don't want those ships to be at risk or displace or dilute more effective non-ASW-specialized destroyers in battle. The thing is, if an ASW escort is to prevent a submarine attack on a major warship, the escort has to be accompanying the major warship, because the way that an escort foils a submarine attack is by making the submarine commander believe that attempting the attack is too dangerous, forcing the submarine commander to make an attack with a lower probability of success (e.g. launching from further out), or by actually detecting the submarine and either driving it off or sinking it while the ship being escorted takes appropriate evasive action, and if the escort is accompanying the major warship then it must necessarily be at risk when the major warship it's escorting gets into battle. Even if you assume minor escorts are sent off to get them out of the way when battle is expected, they cannot be very far away because they were presumably providing the major warship(s) with protection against submarine attack shortly before the battle and will resume doing so shortly after the battle.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 25, 2020 19:19:22 GMT -6
Just a quick overview of where the idea for the frigate or DE came from. In 1917, an idea to build a second-rate destroyer offered to cover tasks such as ASW for convoys and eventually used in Hunter-Killer groups with escort carriers. The idea of course was not needed as the war ended. But in 1937 with the war clouds looming in the distance, it was decided to re-develop the idea of the frigate or DE. Convoys from the US to England, to the Mediterranean, to the Far East and to Australian would all need a cheap to build, second-class destroyer... the Destroyer Escort. It was immediately realized that many would be needed. The destroyer escort did not need many of the tools that the full destroyer had available. The US General Board decided that flush deck, 1200 tons would be sufficient. It could have stern racks and Y guns for depth charges, 3-4 inch. Deck guns would be sufficient for its targets like submarines. The original design called for 24 depth charges ready for firing with another 24 available for reload. The speed was to be not less than 25 knots fully loaded. Range was 6000 miles at 12 knots. It was to have very good sea-keeping properties. It was later decided that a larger version over 1400 tons was probably a better pick because it gave the ship some added capability. I will say that reading reports from many of the Admirals like Stark, they were not enthusiastic about this idea but the President liked it and eventually it was approved. Another advantage of this ship was that it could be built by smaller shipyards, which would free-up the larger ones for more carriers, and other capital ships. Anyway, just some information about the ship. My only problem is that we always use first line destroyers and cruisers for scenario's involving convoy protection and historically, that was not actually true. But no matter, it works. Here is a KE that I feel satisfies the General Boards requirements in 1937 for a Frigate and/or Destroyer Escort.
|
|
|
Post by sittingduck on Feb 25, 2020 19:43:42 GMT -6
I see your point and in support of your position I'd use the Leyte Gulf as the definative example of where the escorts were drawn into a fleet action. My contention was to use the F class more as the US DE's used as independent ASW units in the Carribean and the Atlantic Seaboard. These units were to suppress submarine activities in those zones as opposed to acting with fleet units as a direct escort. I believe I have read somewhere in these forums where units on TP do not affect the 'submarine torpedoes ship' event. My suggestion is a cheap F class that does work to reduce that event by being dedicated to ASW only. Building these small units for that purpose and having them drawn into fleet actions defeats that purpose. As it stands, all units on Active Fleet are liable to be "lumped" into fleet battles. Use of an "F" designation could be developed which would prevent the game system from pulling frigates into those fleet battles. The problem with your request, to me, is that you're basically asking to have your cake and eat it - you want to be able to use cheap ASW ships to protect the battle fleet, but you don't want those ships to be at risk or displace or dilute more effective non-ASW-specialized destroyers in battle. The thing is, if an ASW escort is to prevent a submarine attack on a major warship, the escort has to be accompanying the major warship, because the way that an escort foils a submarine attack is by making the submarine commander believe that attempting the attack is too dangerous, forcing the submarine commander to make an attack with a lower probability of success (e.g. launching from further out), or by actually detecting the submarine and either driving it off or sinking it while the ship being escorted takes appropriate evasive action, and if the escort is accompanying the major warship then it must necessarily be at risk when the major warship it's escorting gets into battle. Even if you assume minor escorts are sent off to get them out of the way when battle is expected, they cannot be very far away because they were presumably providing the major warship(s) with protection against submarine attack shortly before the battle and will resume doing so shortly after the battle. I'm nodding my head in agreement with what you're saying but I'm not asking for an ASW escort. I'm looking at an Area ASW blanket. Independent units for the purpose of area/zone suppression of submarines. Fleet DD's working as combatants and also counting against the submarine threat are the way to go as it stands. My thought was an additional class specifically for submarine suppression. If budget permits, the purchase and use of this class solely for Area ASW. In all honesty, the submarine event only occurs a relatively few times per game, and the expense of an F class ship for the explicit purpose of just further reducing that event would seem to be a waste of resources, but IF I had the money to burn I'd like an opportunity to spend it in the hope of perhaps reducing it. Again, I agree with what you're saying but what I'm suggesting is another layer to the game that is to solely act as a general, area-wide factor against submarine activity. I think our point of difference is that you see the supression occuring in direct proximity to fleet units and I see an additional source of ASW work being done on an Area basis. (Besides, think of how satisfying it would be to get an End of Turn Notification that the USS England sank six enemy submarines that month!)
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Feb 25, 2020 20:05:36 GMT -6
Independent units for the purpose of area/zone suppression of submarines. This is something which, according to the manual, would fall under the purview of DDs and KEs assigned to Trade Protection. From Page 30 of the manual: (Emphasis mine.)
|
|
|
Post by sittingduck on Feb 25, 2020 20:34:59 GMT -6
Independent units for the purpose of area/zone suppression of submarines. This is something which, according to the manual, would fall under the purview of DDs and KEs assigned to Trade Protection. From Page 30 of the manual: (Emphasis mine.)
Again, I agree with what you're saying. My original suggestion was to use an "F" Type to reduce the 'submarine torpedoes ship' event, and as you've correctly pointed out, only DD's on Active Fleet status can do so, currently. At the risk of sounding like an out of tune cuckoo clock, I'm suggesting a supplement, as it were, to those Active Fleet DD's. Develop an "F" class ship that can be used to act solely as an ASW asset specifically to reduce the 'submarine torpedoes ship' event. This would be in addition to the current systems. I'm hoping no one reading this thread is taking this conversation between us as being personally contentious, I actually agree with your points. I simply want to add on to the game, as it were.
|
|
|
Post by Emma de Normandie on Jul 22, 2021 15:13:04 GMT -6
Can anyone tell me if it is possible to change the "Corvette" and "KE" language in the game as something else? This feels like a simple change since it just replaces a few letters. I guess what I'm trying to do is to make the game show me "Frigate" and "FF" when it really is showing me "Corvette" and "KE". I don't actually want any of the design parameters or rules of classification changed. Only thing I wanna alter is the name and the hull classification.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 22, 2021 20:36:00 GMT -6
If you go into the Data directory of your RTW2 installation, there is a file BasicData.dat; this appears to (mostly) be an enumeration file for the various ship types. If you change the text ShipType10=Corvette to ShipType10=Frigate, then the game will use "Frigate" instead of "Corvette" in the ship detail window and in the short test I did it did not appear to cause any issues. However, the type will still be called 'corvette' in the ship design menu's ship type drop-down menu and the hull symbol will still be KE, and I am not aware of a way to change that.
If you choose to make this modification, it would be a good idea to create and retain a backup copy of the original file in case any issues crop up with the modified file, and also since the presence of a modified base-game file in the Data directory will probably prevent updates.
|
|
davidlondon
New Member
All models are wrong, but some are useful - George Box
Posts: 38
|
Post by davidlondon on Jul 23, 2021 12:13:17 GMT -6
Just build them as corvettes as the game permits, and under class name them as 1,200t Frigate (or whatever takes your fancy). Then just use the imagination and focus on the class name not the game description.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Jul 23, 2021 13:09:49 GMT -6
Old DDs seem overrated in the TP/ASW role, where they essentially operate as KEs or frigates. In reality the old DDs were less seaworthy than the newer frigates and probably had less autonomy expressed in hours of patrolling. Another strange fact (which I don't know if it has already been discussed in another thread) is the following. In RTW it seems that it is possible to operate in 1950 old DDs built 50 years earlier apparently without any particular penalty in terms of breakdowns or unavailability. From the memoirs of Adm. Cunningham (who spent long years on DDs) it would seem that the maximum duration of a DD at his time was of the order of 25 years.
|
|
|
Post by navalperson on Jul 23, 2021 13:32:00 GMT -6
I do agree that the KE is a wide term for DE and frigates but I feel like their is so much potential for them if less restrictions were added like being able to make like 25 or 26 knots and allowing one super imposed gun on hills of 1100 tons or greater with a maximum raised displacement of 1300 tons. I would also like them to be able to carry torpedoes maybe a limit of 4 or 2. This is my idea of what updated KE could be.
|
|