|
Post by jwsmith26 on Jul 23, 2021 17:07:34 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. Sounds a lot like a destroyer, that you can already build in the game. I'm not sure how changing the name would make a difference.
|
|
|
Post by flessar on Jul 23, 2021 18:24:11 GMT -6
I believe the difference between a FF and DD in the battle generator is the deciding point. A KE at present does not get involved in larger actions but as a by-standard (AI Controlled) or method of last resort. Presumably a FF would follow a similar dictum except in Convoy escort missions where they could be the escort instead of the DD picked for the role currently.
|
|
|
Post by navalperson on Jul 23, 2021 21:41:57 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. Sounds a lot like a destroyer, that you can already build in the game. I'm not sure how changing the name would make a difference. I guess I was thinking of the destroyer escorts like the John C Butler class and on how large of a ship displacement wise they were. But I do agree building a destroyer to similarly specs would probably be better and I thought DE’s had superimposed but I guess not when I was looking so forget about superimposed turrets.
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Jul 27, 2021 10:05:34 GMT -6
But I do agree building a destroyer to similarly specs would probably be better and I thought DE’s had superimposed but I guess not when I was looking so forget about superimposed turrets.
In two sentences - I don't take a strong stand on Frigate question; as the game stands through 1955 the term Frigate was generally a regional term (used by a few navies / countries) and the game KE or DD cover them very well. In the DLC, I can see Frigates being or not being included depending on ease of programming and developer intent with the new technologies / weapons being added and how they want that to interface with the battle generator.
The longer response on the Frigate question is that I'm not sure what the additional class distinctions would be for a Frigate / DE / KE, etc. in the current 1.25 version game. I don't see how additional distinctions would help on the battle generator scale - most of the KE ships are 2nd or 3rd tier and I have always preferred a DD in an engagement as they are always faster for me and carry a torp... KE's just don't seem to control the movement of enemy capital ships like the DD's do.
I feel that the existing in game KE setup pretty well covers all the little guys through the 1950's, especially as lot of countries used their own designations rather than a universal standard designation - same ship is a Frigate or Corvette in Common Wealth / GB service while it is a DE in USA service, but by 1930 a CV is pretty much a CV the world over.
Post 1950-1960 I think a strong case for a Frigate designation could be made based on missile usage or AC (Helicopter usage). Right now a KE can have floatplanes but putting a SAM on it moves it to the AMC category... If I want a cheap, non-torpedo, SAM / SSM ship than I'm currently out of luck; again helicopters could play into this as well if the current KE's lose the floatplane ability.
However, a case could also be made that the existing designation system works just fine and KE's will be opened up to have missiles / Helicopters / other options added to them as the developer sees fit. I would love to have some cheapish, small to medium tonnage ASW (helicopter), SAM / SSM carriers for TP and FS duty, call-em what ever you want! These guys might make me enjoy those TP KE (call-em what ever) raider intercept engagements.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 27, 2021 15:30:23 GMT -6
uboat.net/allies/warships/types.htmlYou might like this list of ships by types. Check out the specifications for many of the ships that are being discussed in this forum. What is the real difference in any of these ships? Suggestion: Why doesn't someone just suggest that we be allowed to rename certain ship types to different names after designing the ship. Example. If I design corvette, then allow the player to rename that class a frigate. Same with a small destroyer, rename it to a destroyer escort. Again, what's in a name.
|
|
|
Post by thomasmacmoragh on Jul 27, 2021 17:55:01 GMT -6
Maybe with the new update, but what is the deference between a modern destroyer, and a modern Frigate. They both have similar mission profiles, Tonnage, speed and weapons fit. in many cases The only way I can tell which is which is to look at there hull code? What I want to know is if in the new expansion if we will be able to replace torpedo tubs with missile launchers, Like you see on world war II vintage Destroyers still in service, Like you can Replace gun Turrets with SAM's.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 27, 2021 18:39:28 GMT -6
Maybe with the new update, but what is the deference between a modern destroyer, and a modern Frigate. They both have similar mission profiles, Tonnage, speed and weapons fit. in many cases The only way I can tell which is which is to look at there hull code? What I want to know is if in the new expansion if we will be able to replace torpedo tubs with missile launchers, Like you see on world war II vintage Destroyers still in service, Like you can Replace gun Turrets with SAM's. navalpost.com/what-is-the-difference-between-frigate-and-destroyer/
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Jul 27, 2021 18:40:09 GMT -6
What I want to know is if in the new expansion if we will be able to replace torpedo tubs with missile launchers, Like you see on world war II vintage Destroyers still in service, Like you can Replace gun Turrets with SAM's. Agreed, especially once SSMs come into play.
No offense intended here; but the name question doesn't interest me as it seems every country has its own name for the same entity and KE / Corvette seems to be a pretty good response to what could be a coding nightmare. What interests me with the question is if their will be a small ship (Corvette / Cutter / Frigate / what ever you want to call it) bristling with missiles and helicopters in the DLC... I would love the ability to add missiles / helicopters to small surface ships for TP and FS duty without them being an AMC or AV.
The small differences between a DD and Frigate in the 1960's-2000ish is that the Frigate were "generally" more focused on individual ASW hunting with shorter duration patrols and or coastal work (USA Coast Guard has Cutters which function very similarly to Frigates without the missile launchers, USCG Cutters have / had the ability to add missiles www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/30604/coast-guard-cutters-once-carried-harpoon-anti-ship-missiles-and-they-could-again) with the DDs being more focused on integrated defense / feet support and deep water duties. Frigates also tended to have a little different berthing and electronic suites as well given their more independent roles. Different countries though did place different emphasis's on them and the above is a general Cold War view of the USA, China, USSR, GB, France, Japan - currently 55 nations have Frigates while a much smaller number of nations have a DD (I think it was 15-20 nations).
US Coat Guard Cutters did a bit of shore bombardment and interdicted coastal shipping during Vietnam - its pretty interesting.
I think destroyerhistory.org/coldwar/ is pretty enlightening . Specifically - "The US Navy’s purpose-built ASW escorts, initially referred to as “ocean escorts” (DE) but, from 1975, redesignated as “frigates” (FF), evolved from the destroyer escorts of World War II when it became apparent that leftover Fletchers, Allen M. Sumners and Gearings could not accommodate the electronics necessary for anti-submarine warfare."
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 27, 2021 19:43:57 GMT -6
What I want to know is if in the new expansion if we will be able to replace torpedo tubs with missile launchers, Like you see on world war II vintage Destroyers still in service, Like you can Replace gun Turrets with SAM's. Agreed, especially once SSMs come into play.
No offense intended here; but the name question doesn't interest me as it seems every country has its own name for the same entity and KE / Corvette seems to be a pretty good response to what could be a coding nightmare. What interests me with the question is if their will be a small ship (Corvette / Cutter / Frigate / what ever you want to call it) bristling with missiles and helicopters in the DLC... I would love the ability to add missiles / helicopters to small surface ships for TP and FS duty without them being an AMC or AV.
The small differences between a DD and Frigate in the 1960's-2000ish is that the Frigate were "generally" more focused on individual ASW hunting with shorter duration patrols and or coastal work (USA Coast Guard has Cutters which function very similarly to Frigates without the missile launchers, USCG Cutters have / had the ability to add missiles www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/30604/coast-guard-cutters-once-carried-harpoon-anti-ship-missiles-and-they-could-again) with the DDs being more focused on integrated defense / feet support and deep water duties. Frigates also tended to have a little different berthing and electronic suites as well given their more independent roles. Different countries though did place different emphasis's on them and the above is a general Cold War view of the USA, China, USSR, GB, France, Japan - currently 55 nations have Frigates while a much smaller number of nations have a DD (I think it was 15-20 nations).
US Coat Guard Cutters did a bit of shore bombardment and interdicted coastal shipping during Vietnam - its pretty interesting.
I think destroyerhistory.org/coldwar/ is pretty enlightening . Specifically - "The US Navy’s purpose-built ASW escorts, initially referred to as “ocean escorts” (DE) but, from 1975, redesignated as “frigates” (FF), evolved from the destroyer escorts of World War II when it became apparent that leftover Fletchers, Allen M. Sumners and Gearings could not accommodate the electronics necessary for anti-submarine warfare." I've seen and read that article. You can read as many articles as you can, you will probably get mostly the same answers. The class of WWII destroyers were good, but the electronics for ASW at that time was based on tube technology. I've worked on tubes like the 5814 and others. The power supplies are very big and take up a lot of room, even on aircraft. The scopes etc. had the same problems. When we began to move to transistors and small scale integrated circuits, things got better. But by that time, those ships were no longer needed. The difference between an ARC-27 UHF radio used in aircraft was striking when it was replaced by the ARC-158 which was mounted in the cockpit. A major size change and heating change.
|
|
|
Post by Emma de Normandie on Jul 27, 2021 20:05:34 GMT -6
uboat.net/allies/warships/types.htmlYou might like this list of ships by types. Check out the specifications for many of the ships that are being discussed in this forum. What is the real difference in any of these ships? Suggestion: Why doesn't someone just suggest that we be allowed to rename certain ship types to different names after designing the ship. Example. If I design corvette, then allow the player to rename that class a frigate. Same with a small destroyer, rename it to a destroyer escort. Again, what's in a name. I can't agree more. The ability to name my own ship classes would solve everything. It doesn't change the game mechanics at all and creates so much more possibilities for all kinds/types of playthrough, historical or not.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 28, 2021 6:51:59 GMT -6
uboat.net/allies/warships/types.htmlYou might like this list of ships by types. Check out the specifications for many of the ships that are being discussed in this forum. What is the real difference in any of these ships? Suggestion: Why doesn't someone just suggest that we be allowed to rename certain ship types to different names after designing the ship. Example. If I design corvette, then allow the player to rename that class a frigate. Same with a small destroyer, rename it to a destroyer escort. Again, what's in a name. I can't agree more. The ability to name my own ship classes would solve everything. It doesn't change the game mechanics at all and creates so much more possibilities for all kinds/types of playthrough, historical or not. The key here is "It doesn't change the game mechanics" . Thanks for your support.
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Jul 28, 2021 11:22:03 GMT -6
uboat.net/allies/warships/types.htmlYou might like this list of ships by types. Check out the specifications for many of the ships that are being discussed in this forum. What is the real difference in any of these ships? Suggestion: Why doesn't someone just suggest that we be allowed to rename certain ship types to different names after designing the ship. Example. If I design corvette, then allow the player to rename that class a frigate. Same with a small destroyer, rename it to a destroyer escort. Again, what's in a name. I can't agree more. The ability to name my own ship classes would solve everything. It doesn't change the game mechanics at all and creates so much more possibilities for all kinds/types of playthrough, historical or not. To a degree, that depends on how comprehensive the system to create your own divisions is and whether there will still be an automated system due to the ship allocator being limited in what designs of ship it recognises. The automatic allocator would not understand any sub-types it's not programmed with and would likely assign them inappropriately. I think the answer to this issue is to make either automatic division allocation or manual division allocation one of the game options, and only enable custom ship classes if manual division control is selected.
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Jul 28, 2021 11:28:48 GMT -6
The class of WWII destroyers were good, but the electronics for ASW at that time was based on tube technology. I've worked on tubes like the 5814 and others. The power supplies are very big and take up a lot of room, even on aircraft. The scopes etc. had the same problems. When we began to move to transistors and small scale integrated circuits, things got better. But by that time, those ships were no longer needed. The difference between an ARC-27 UHF radio used in aircraft was striking when it was replaced by the ARC-158 which was mounted in the cockpit. A major size change and heating change. Oldpop2000,
Weren't there also power supply issues as well? I believe I read that with the move to transistors / integrated circuits, that depending on the ship / AC that there was generally either a need for more electrical power than what the electrical wiring / power plants (supplies) could produce or they needed cleaner electrical power than what the old power plants / electrical wiring could supply. If so, is that what you mean by "heating change"? "Heating change" being the waste heat generated from higher electrical usage (voltage or AMPs)?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 28, 2021 13:32:05 GMT -6
The class of WWII destroyers were good, but the electronics for ASW at that time was based on tube technology. I've worked on tubes like the 5814 and others. The power supplies are very big and take up a lot of room, even on aircraft. The scopes etc. had the same problems. When we began to move to transistors and small scale integrated circuits, things got better. But by that time, those ships were no longer needed. The difference between an ARC-27 UHF radio used in aircraft was striking when it was replaced by the ARC-158 which was mounted in the cockpit. A major size change and heating change. Oldpop2000,
Weren't there also power supply issues as well? I believe I read that with the move to transistors / integrated circuits, that depending on the ship / AC that there was generally either a need for more electrical power than what the electrical wiring / power plants (supplies) could produce or they needed cleaner electrical power than what the old power plants / electrical wiring could supply. If so, is that what you mean by "heating change"? "Heating change" being the waste heat generated from higher electrical usage (voltage or AMPs)?
Yes, the more complex transistor/IC designed electronics did require more power and more stable power. By stable, I mean that the power supplies had to convert AC to DC and more the DC more level at all times. Tubes never cared. IC and transistors were sensitive to varying DC levels and spikes. The electronics on ships became far more numerous and complex. Multiple radars like Search, height finders and fire control sets, sometimes more than one. Combat Information Centers with PPI scan scopes, multiples. UHF and HF radios, multiples. The list goes on and on. Those systems need a lot of stable AC power and backups. Also in 1957 we have the use of surface to air missiles like the Talos so now the electronics go even more complex as did the power requirements. Keep in mind, that all the equipment that I have described including the environments, need air conditioning to keep them cool and the humans servicing them. That will add to the power requirements and space requirements.
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Jul 28, 2021 15:37:37 GMT -6
Oldpop2000,
Weren't there also power supply issues as well? I believe I read that with the move to transistors / integrated circuits, that depending on the ship / AC that there was generally either a need for more electrical power than what the electrical wiring / power plants (supplies) could produce or they needed cleaner electrical power than what the old power plants / electrical wiring could supply. If so, is that what you mean by "heating change"? "Heating change" being the waste heat generated from higher electrical usage (voltage or AMPs)?
Yes, the more complex transistor/IC designed electronics did require more power and more stable power. By stable, I mean that the power supplies had to convert AC to DC and more the DC more level at all times. Tubes never cared. IC and transistors were sensitive to varying DC levels and spikes. The electronics on ships became far more numerous and complex. Multiple radars like Search, height finders and fire control sets, sometimes more than one. Combat Information Centers with PPI scan scopes, multiples. UHF and HF radios, multiples. The list goes on and on. Those systems need a lot of stable AC power and backups. Also in 1957 we have the use of surface to air missiles like the Talos so now the electronics go even more complex as did the power requirements. Keep in mind, that all the equipment that I have described including the environments, need air conditioning to keep them cool and the humans servicing them. That will add to the power requirements and space requirements. Thank you for the reply Oldpop2000.
I always thought of the AC as being primarily for regulating humidity with temperature being a critical but secondary concern; like the refrigerated magazines. What springs to mind is the early AIM-7 Sparrows and associated radar having a bunch of issues in Vietnam due to issues arising from the tropical environment (and associated fungi / bugs / etc.). Seemed like they were often left too long on the planes before detailed check-outs / maintenance were done on them; but that is more of a training issue...
|
|