|
Post by seawolf on May 11, 2020 18:47:09 GMT -6
I agree with brygun here, frigates rapidly became different from corvettes and became closer to small destroyers. Given the main role of corvettes in game is minesweepers, in any extension of the game it would be good to have frigates as a separate class.
|
|
|
Post by brygun on May 11, 2020 18:54:21 GMT -6
I agree with brygun here, frigates rapidly became different from corvettes and became closer to small destroyers. Given the main role of corvettes in game is minesweepers, in any extension of the game it would be good to have frigates as a separate class. Frigates as an ASW style with the fleet class for AI purposes. Though maybe that could become a "role" like "AF" "TP" to have "FA" for Fleet ASW. Then the missile ships could be assigned to and from that role. Also want to comment that I do a lot more with corvettes than minesweepers. Wrote a strategy guide on using them for also trade protection, foreign service and torpedo magnets.
|
|
|
Post by skoggatt on May 11, 2020 20:06:16 GMT -6
I agree with brygun here, frigates rapidly became different from corvettes and became closer to small destroyers. Given the main role of corvettes in game is minesweepers, in any extension of the game it would be good to have frigates as a separate class. In world war two, frigates such as the River class had the same role and weaponry as corvettes like the Flower class. The Royal Navy had Sloops, Corvettes, and Frigates. All of them were ASW ships, the only difference was size. Post world war two, the ships that the Royal Navy referred to as frigates were basically destroyers that were optimized for ASW rather than "true destroyers" which were more capable general purpose ships. On the other hand, in the US navy frigates referred to guided missile cruisers and large guided missile destroyers until 1975 when they moved towards the British definitions. Given the fact that the term frigate has so many definitions in the time period of the game, I think it's best avoided. Any of the various ships referred to as frigates can be built in game as either corvettes, destroyers, or cruisers so it's fine as is.
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on May 11, 2020 20:40:10 GMT -6
I agree with brygun here, frigates rapidly became different from corvettes and became closer to small destroyers. Given the main role of corvettes in game is minesweepers, in any extension of the game it would be good to have frigates as a separate class. In world war two, frigates such as the River class had the same role and weaponry as corvettes like the Flower class. The Royal Navy had Sloops, Corvettes, and Frigates. All of them were ASW ships, the only difference was size. Post world war two, the ships that the Royal Navy referred to as frigates were basically destroyers that were optimized for ASW rather than "true destroyers" which were more capable general purpose ships. On the other hand, in the US navy frigates referred to guided missile cruisers and large guided missile destroyers until 1975 when they moved towards the British definitions. Given the fact that the term frigate has so many definitions in the time period of the game, I think it's best avoided. Any of the various ships referred to as frigates can be built in game as either corvettes, destroyers, or cruisers so it's fine as is. I think the game would benefit from having an ASW destroyer/DE/Frigate class, Personally I find it difficult at a certain point to quickly and easily keep track of which classes I built as fleet escorts and which ones are dedicated ASW ships.
|
|
|
Post by dia on May 11, 2020 21:32:00 GMT -6
I definitely think we need to split up the KE class. Unless the devs actually plan on redoing the battle generator, there needs to be a separate class so that we can build small destroyer escorts or frigates without having to worry about them being thrown into fleet battles or having short-range legacy DDs intended for TP being sent out of home waters on surprise attacks. Minesweeping, fleet ASW, and trade protection duties are just too many roles for a single class. We need a good fleet escort that isn't treated like a main line unit, especially when the AI's go-to strategy is spamming submarines every time they're losing a war.
A Frigate/Destroyer Escort class would be good, especially if it has to be unlocked in late 30s/early 40s, can be equipped with torpedoes, and can be progressively designed larger through tech. Their speed would be limited and could work in either trade protection or active fleet ASW. In their early years of unlocking, in active fleet service they would perform active sub-hunting roles or as game mechanics call it, act as torpedo sponges/magnets, and would only be put into battles escorting light carriers or AVs as a last resort. Advancing missile tech could unlock new roles for them, much like advancing AA tech allows BBs to act as screens.
|
|
berte
Full Member
BANNED
Posts: 109
|
Post by berte on May 11, 2020 22:14:54 GMT -6
Can someone please explain to me in 50 words or less how having another class is necessary and worth all the recoding needed in order to make it work?
I’m fine with the classes we have. I can use DD in all sorts of ways and using the TP or FS functions separate the war vessels from support vessels. There’s a lot said on it but I’m confused. Please, someone make the case. Enlighten me.
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on May 11, 2020 22:28:11 GMT -6
Can someone please explain to me in 50 words or less how having another class is necessary and worth all the recoding needed in order to make it work? I’m fine with the classes we have. I can use DD in all sorts of ways and using the TP or FS functions separate the war vessels from support vessels. There’s a lot said on it but I’m confused. Please, someone make the case. Enlighten me. Small destroyers can be sent into fleet actions Escort Destroyers should generally stay away from fleet actions More than 50 word explanation Escort Destroyers were built by almost every single major naval power, and continued into the frigates of the Cold War. Having units that are lighter and cheaper than destroyers gives you very versatile ships, that can fulfill ASW, anti-air, minesweeping, and ASuW roles Generally, these units should be kept separate from the roles and in game divisions of destroyers, however. Generally, in game right now, you can build separate classes of DD and DDE under the DD designation, however- 1. In order to do mine sweeping and fleet protection ships have to be on active duty, and so DDEs can be (Purposefully and presumably unwillingly) sent into combat 2. Ships on TP can be still pulled into fleet battles outside of your home region. 3. If you have hundreds of destroyers, like real life, it gets harder and harder to manage DDs and DDEs 4. In battle, DDs and DDEs will be put into the same divisions despite differences in speed and ability Thus, having a frigate/TB/DDE class would make the game better These would essentially be Corvettes over 25 knots, between 900 and 2000 tons(initially), can but doesn't have to carry torpedoes, can carry full ASW equipment, fire control, minesweeping gear, guns up to 5", and eventually missiles
|
|
|
Post by dorn on May 11, 2020 23:29:32 GMT -6
If your escort destroyers protects fleet as you describe they need to be with fleet and it is correct that they are sent to combat.
Ships that main task is ASW and trade protection can have TP status and are not sent to fleet combat. Ships on TP are in global pool so you can have them in any area and due to maintenance costs most effectively in home area.
If you want a ship in colonies which protect area (trade protection and minesweeping) without being part of fleet, you can build corvettes.
I cannot see advantage of separate type of ship which cannot be done by actual system.
If I take your points: 1. if you want ship for minesweeping capabilities and protect fleet, it need to be with fleet so it need to be in combat 2. you are right, but you can build corvettes for that purpose 3. They are usually distinctive in speed so easily recognized 4. Yes they will be but in this case you sent your destroyer escort to protect fleet and in this case as part of fleet needs to be in combat. You cannot magically transport ship you would like out of combat when you do not need it and back when you need it for fleet protection
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on May 12, 2020 2:02:43 GMT -6
If your escort destroyers protects fleet as you describe they need to be with fleet and it is correct that they are sent to combat. Ships that main task is ASW and trade protection can have TP status and are not sent to fleet combat. Ships on TP are in global pool so you can have them in any area and due to maintenance costs most effectively in home area. If you want a ship in colonies which protect area (trade protection and minesweeping) without being part of fleet, you can build corvettes. I cannot see advantage of separate type of ship which cannot be done by actual system. If I take your points: 1. if you want ship for minesweeping capabilities and protect fleet, it need to be with fleet so it need to be in combat 2. you are right, but you can build corvettes for that purpose 3. They are usually distinctive in speed so easily recognized 4. Yes they will be but in this case you sent your destroyer escort to protect fleet and in this case as part of fleet needs to be in combat. You cannot magically transport ship you would like out of combat when you do not need it and back when you need it for fleet protection n Honestly, I’m thinking more from a naval perspective than a RTW perspective. My biggest gameplay concerns, however, I will elaborate on. 1. I have no issues with them being part of the fleet, but it would be nice not to have 900 ton destroyers being picked over 2500 ton destroyers to guard the scouting force. In the same thread it would make no sense to send DDE’s on a coastal raid. Historically, DDEs could guard fleets while staying in the rear 4. I don’t think you got what I was trying to say. I don’t want 900 ton ships with 1 gun and 2500 ton ships with 8 guns in the same divisions. From a usability standpoint that kinda sucks, like mixing BBs and BCs. Luckily, unlike BBs, DD divisions(mostly) stick with their class. However, I don’t think we need a DLC to make escorts better I think the easiest way to implement frigate type ships wouldn’t be to make a new ship type. One way would be to modify KE parameters. KEs after a certain point should just be able to go 30 knots, go up to 2,000 tons, and carry 1 torp launcher. They should also become immune to sub gunfire (you no the event I’m talking about) if they have sufficient guns These are just things I’ve been frustrated with in game, and as I saw in this thread other people were too. The fact that the existing system works doesn’t mean it couldn’t be better, no?
|
|
berte
Full Member
BANNED
Posts: 109
|
Post by berte on May 12, 2020 3:46:34 GMT -6
Then why not ask Fredrik W to add in another type of fleet mode besides the ones we have and use, like TP, FS, and AF. Add in ‘FP’ for Fleet protection. Ships on FP act like they do on TP but protect fleet ships from mines and subs. Then we can keep all the same classes, and any DD that you really think is a DDE or Frigate will still be just a DD and Fredrik won’t have to mess with how the classes are coded. That’s probably easier and accomplishes what you want, right? Maybe to put a ship on FP you need to have a certain minimum speed, like 27 knots or something to be able to keep up with the fleet? Maybe that speed goes up in later decades.
|
|
|
Post by akosjaccik on May 12, 2020 4:59:42 GMT -6
While I thought about not injecting this issue to the discussion, I decided that perhaps adding an honest counterpoint might be beneficial. To be clear, I am not against the idea of DLC-s and/or supporting the continuous development. However, I'd ask for a bit of self-reflection. Detailed missile technology (or - for all I care - missile technology en bloc), VLS launchers, jammers, (later) CIWS etc., earlier starting date, later ending date etc. I find all completely validated for an additional paid expansion - but are we really pushing to the point where "tactical map tools, better recon organization, more event images, division organization" etc. are envisioned to be in a DLC? They will be, mind you, given the posts above I have no illusion anymore about for example that div. organization, new doctrines or enhancing already existing features are at least considered to be quasi-officially DLC-material, but it won't make me not concerned about it. This does not sound like an expansion to the game, this sound like if you don't own the DLC, you have a subpar base product in this case, and let's say, new folks buying the base RtW2 won't start off with less content, but with esentially a product left in an earlier stage of development. There is nothing about I can do about this, I'll probably still buy the DLC (if and once I have the means at least) if for nothing else, necessity (looking above), but right now there is a "you know what, for anything more, pay up"-feel to the topic (or to the 1.20 version actually). I understand that we are mostly talking about features that were not intended(?) originally to be included in the game, but it still leaves a strange aftertaste, especially after RtW1. You can pay ~35EUR for say, 1.20, or ~50 EUR for the "actual" game. Again, and to be clear: I said all this because this "missile DLC" sounds a whole lot like NOT a "missile DLC" anymore, and a policy that was not exactly clear right from the beginning. Also, God forbid potentially MORE DLC-s with the same mindset. Tl;dr - ^ All that does not sound like "downloadable extra content", but "paid update".
Oh well.
|
|
|
Post by dohboy on May 12, 2020 9:08:40 GMT -6
My wish list for a Cold War DLC wish list is as follows,
1-That it doesn't distract from real improvements to the game.
I care very little about missile tech. I am much more concerned with stuff like meteorology. I don't need SSMs, I need weather balloons and radiosondes. What kind of incompetent admiral would plan a sea battle without at least a glance at a simple freaking barometer?
|
|
|
Post by Emma on May 13, 2020 0:55:03 GMT -6
I'd gladly pay more than $20
|
|
|
Post by polyarmus on May 13, 2020 3:41:53 GMT -6
I would like to see:
ASuW helicopters Helicopter based early warning radars STOVL jet aircraft and small carriers for STOVL jet aircraft Submarines armed with cruise missiles Missile armed fast boats Ground based SAM Ship ECM Missile decoys (for example old missiles used as decoys for saturating air defense systems)
|
|
|
Post by ryan201 on May 16, 2020 2:42:16 GMT -6
Any initial DLC would focus on adding to the current game with new features/systems/tech/doctrine/much more detailed stuff/etc, and would only extend the timeline through roughly the 1960s - so VLS, stealth, and other 1980s+ tech would not be included. Thanks. Still really excited for the missile age, even with the 60 tech limitation - Soviet Kresta class cruisers come to mind, with their absolutely ridiculous Mach 0.9, 1000kg payload, 500km range plane-sized shipkillers. No, none of those are typos. See here. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kresta_I-class_cruiser en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS-N-3_ShaddockSpeaking of which, that's the biggest thing I hope to see in the DLC: A missile procurement system similar to that of the aircraft procurement system we have in the base game. This is not only reflective of the real-world disparity in missile systems between the West and the USSR in the early Cold War, it also helps to make missile duels far more interesting. So for example an Exocet-type missile would have a small punch and short legs, but be damn near impossible to intercept, while a big Russian Shaddock or Basalt would have a huge punch, extremely long range and high speed, but may as well be a beacon for any ship-based radar. The player and the AI would have to weigh their options before engaging, rather than go "Oops, I've wandered into the default 50km death zone. Well, no hope for me now." Also, there would probably need to be a proto-datalink to guide the missiles via plane or helicopter (Another thing I hope to see added) and a massive boost in radar equipment for the SAMs. No AEGIS, but definitely something more than what we currently have. Plus, the warheads probably need tweaking: as of 1.19 they basically do burn damage only to anything larger than a CL, rather than have a physical punch to them. Anyway, those are just my thoughts. Really love the game, looking forward to what's in store!
|
|