Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.

29 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,260
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
5,188 posts
12,047 battles

So, the game has had CVE's in it before (Bogue) used as smaller CV's, and people have asked in the past about DE's being added. Obviously these types have a bit more reason now with subs on the way but of course the question is implementing them without being an overly focused type - it does no good to have an ASW ship on your team if it has 0 use against other types. It's a juggling act, not useless vs a BB but bit more ASW bend, but I think it's doable. I don't see many nations having these kinds of lines but not every nation had every type and all. For this I'm going to focus on USN ships simply because I have more info and ideas to use as examples. 

So I'll start with the CVE's. The idea for these is to make them low impact enough that mirror MM is unnecessary. While near impossible with fleet carriers, I do think that it can be achieved with relative ease on these. They have smaller air groups, fewer planes, and aren't carrying as many weapons meant to take out heavy ships. Unlike fleet CV's currently, they won't spot ships for the team in regards to ability to shoot, simply on the minimap like radar does for the first few seconds now. That should limit the information to not be as much an issue (as long range guns can't snipe a ship based on that info). The rest comes down to group size and damage really. As it stands much as I play CV's I think the alpha is too high on some ordnance (damage from volume vs per piece when a lot of this has volume AND  per piece). So between lower alpha on weapons and smaller numbers the damage impact shouldn't be much more than a DD. At worst, maybe a cruiser. Here's a possible USN line:          (planes in flight x number of flights)

Tier 4 - USS Long Island

  • 16 planes on deck, group of 4 F2A Buffalo's (2x2) and 4-6 SBC Helldivers (2x2 or 3x2). There are two ways to arm the F2A - my way (more historically accurate) with 2x 100 lb bombs dealing 1800-2100 damage or Wargaming's way with 4x 3.5" or 5" FFAR dealing roughly 600 or 8-900 damage respectively. The SBC's would have a single 500 lb bombs dealing 4200-4800 damage per plane. 

Tier 6 - Bogue

  • 24-28 planes on deck. 1 group of 4 F4F-3/4 Wildcats (2x2) with 6x HVARS (1000 damage), 6 TBF Avengers (3x2 or 2x3) with 4x depth charges or 1x Mk 24 'mine' (probably 1500 damage +/-), 4 F4F-3/4 or TBF Avenger (2x2) with 2x 250 lb bombs (2400-3000 damage) or 4x 500 lb bombs (4200-4800 damage)
  • Speed buffed to 21 knots

Tier 8 - Casablanca

  • 31-35 aircraft on deck. 1 group FM-2 Wildcats or TBM-1c Avengers with 6x (FM) or 8x (TBM) HVAR's with 6 planes (3x2 or 2x3), 6x TBM-1c with either 4x depth charges or 1x Mk 24 'mine' (3x2), 6x FM-2 or TBM-1c with 2x 250 lb bombs or 4x 500 lb bombs (3x2)
  • Speed buffed to 25+ knots.

Tier 10 - Commencement Bay

  • 35+ aircraft on deck. 9x F4U-4B or TBM-3 with 8x HVAR (3x3), 6 or 9 TBM-3 with 4x depth charges or Mk 34 'mine' (2000+ damage) either 3x2 or 3x3, 4x F4U-4B (2x2) or 6x TBM-3 (3x2)with either 6-8x 250 lb bomb or 4x 500 lb bombs. 
  • Speed buffed to 25+ knots

Before I start seeing 'that damage is way too low' there are a few things to remember. First of all is that these are meant to be sub hunters, while I have no idea the actual HP of subs as I wasn't chosen for testing, I'm guessing as much or less than same tier DD's. So a standard pen hit with a 3.5 inch FFAR that deals 600 max damage, is 200 per hit, and you fire 12 at tier 4. Odds are you won't hit all 12, but even half that is 1200 damage off a ship with ~10000 hp or less in one pass. These also shouldn't have the ridiculous nerf rockets were given a few patches ago instead of the alpha nerf they needed. More likely it'd be 5" FFAR's - closer to 300 damage per hit so 50% would be 1800 damage per pass. Bombs is a similar story - you have them in volume, a bit less so than rockets for the most part, not as accurate, but higher alpha. Depth charges again - I lack knowledge how they work as is - though they seem to need nerfs based on gameplay I watched, so no damage for them listed. And to explain for those unaware and do not instantly freak out when I say this - the Mk 24 and it's Mk 34 successor are the homing torpedoes that USN actually had operational during WWII and it's post war update respectively, and were meant mostly for ASW and surface ships really as a last resort/secondary target. Now as to why I say don't freak out because 'OMG CV WITH HOMING TORPS' - the fact they have some homing and historically had a hilariously small explosive charge for a torpedo is why the damage is that low as well as again, anti-sub weapon. However there are other drawbacks as well - generally the range should probably be fairly short for them, at best the torpedoes should be maybe a bit faster than a sub, meaning most surface ships should be able to out run them and for subs the option of out diving them at minimum (if not possibly in cases out running them, though most that'd likely be on the surface), and in general avoiding them (they aren't going to be super agile). That and DD's can easily out run them, and any cruiser or BB that can't likely has torpedo protection on top of HP to reduce damage and all. The worst would be any flooding it may cause. Also given the nature of aerial dropped depth charges usually meant for shallower attacks, depending on what they land near I see some use for them in attacking ships though likely not as great as against a submarine. I imagine against a DD they may do some actual damage where as a BB may just have steering/propulsion knocked out and maybe some flooding - unfortunately while there is talk of Taffy 3 attacking the center force with depth charges out of desperation, and ships having damaged themselves mistakenly with depth charges, can't seem to find much saying what kind of damage may have actually been done. 

The TBF/M's with depth charges and Mk 24/34's would have MAD systems - basically what they gave DD's in test 2 when they are surfaced or at shallower depths, but would only go off within about 4 km of the sub max. When using rockets/bombs need to spot it manually for the most part. I say the most part because I've given consideration to the tier 10 TBM's with rockets possibly having a unique consumable to make them a choice over the F4U - aside from being a sturdier plane - Sonobuoy's. I imagine them kinda like a place-able hydro that lasts for 30-60 seconds and shows subs and ships at x range, and subs that are not dove deep (second level below periscope depth). The question would be limited number or unlimited but longer CD. I also felt it better to give options so they aren't as boring to play as fleet CV's currently are and take advantage of the roles the planes can fill. Attack planes an option for more rockets and a sturdier plane at cost of speed and agility, or fewer rockets on a faster more agile plane with fewer hitpoints, or  the same other than rockets but one has an edge hunting subs, the other an edge running down surface ships. The Depth charges were low hanging fruit for USN and while I don't think USN subs should have homing torps, save maybe at tier 10 or 9 depending on what a full tech tree would look like, I feel it'd be wrong to pass these up on ASW carriers. And it adds some utility for anti-ship options even if not super amazing. As far as bombers there are 2 distinct styles at play with these The TBF/M's would be glide bombers - between what UK currently is and standard USN, generally more covering an area with a heavier payload. The fighter-bomber option meanwhile is basically high speed DB's - with the F4U taking advantage of it's pretty insane carry capacity (though preferably only the 6x 250 lb bombs used as that still puts it lower payload than the the TMB) having a bit more area coverage than predecessors but still less powerful bombs than the TBM is carrying. 

Also of note - these would be far stealthier than the fleet CV's, what level of stealth I don't know exactly, but these would rely a bit more on that than straight up speed to run. Also, even though it's even's only - not having the same nonsense we have currently with CV's on how much xp these take to get to the next level. So going from 6-8 would take either the same as going from 6 to 7 OR 7 to 8, not the current one where it's the xp where it's the xp to get from 6 to 7 AND 7 to 8.  

This would hopefully help them fit the role of sub-hunting, making them unique from fleet carriers a bit, and give them tools effective against subs without being too insane, and still have some ability to attack ships on the surface and still do some damage other than DD's and if added DE's. And reigned in enough to not need mirrored MM. 

 

Destroyer Escorts. -

Tier Class Armament Speed Notes
3 Evart 3x 76 mm/50 guns, 2 K guns, 2 DC rails, assorted AA 19 knots  
4 Edsall* 3x 76 mm guns, 8 k guns, 2 DC rails, Hedgehog, assorted AA, 1x3 TT 21 knots  
5 Cannon* 3x 76 mm guns, 8 k guns, 2 DC rails, Hedgehog, assorted AA, 1x3 TT 21 knots  
6 Buckley* 3x 76 mm guns, 8 k guns, 2 DC rails, Hedgehog, assorted AA, 1x3 TT 24+ knots  
7 Rudderow 2x1 127 mm/38 guns, 8 k guns, 2 DC rails, Hedgehog, assorted AA, 1x3 TT 24+ knots Main battery and AA pretty much deciding factor
8 John C. Butler 2x1 127 mm/38, 8 k guns, 2 DC racks, hedgehog, assorted AA, 1x3 TT 29 knots

More AA than previous ships, rounded up

the speed Samuel B Roberts achieved at Samar

9 Bristol (or Dealey) 4x1 127 mm/38 guns, 6 K guns, 2 DC racks, assorted AA, 1x5 TT 37.5 knots Sub hunting version of Gleaves class
10 Dealey (or Bristol) 2x2 76 mm Mk 33, 1x4 TT, 2 ASW torpedo launchers (seems like 1 per side, 3 torps per), 2x hedgehog or squid, 2 k guns 25 knots  

* The order is a bit messed up from reality, should go Buckley, Cannon, Edsall, but the HP they'd likely have, speed, AA and all kinda made it this makes more sense. 

With 9 and 10 I have what I'm calling the "Dealey Dilemma". I decided late in the game to pass on Claude Jones (ships after Dealey) when I stumbled across Bristol which some things refer to as a DE rather than DD, and either way the subclass was meant to be more ASW/AA. Obviously, being a Gleaves class, it's heavier, faster, has 4x 127 mm guns, a quintuple launcher, and well, small caliber AA on top of more K guns. So other than it wold mean inconsistent calibers jumping from 127 to 76 back to 127, something Wargaming seems to have an issue with these days, it seems like an obvious choice to be tier 10. But then there is the argument to be had over Dealey's tech. Dealey's 76 mm guns with a historical RoF is between 45-50 RPM - or a 1.2-1.3 second reload without BFT or AR - I'm not sure dakka can get any more maximumer. Which I think the insane rate of fire would likely make up for the lower alpha of a 76 mm instead of 127. Lacking a bit in k guns and DC but packing either 2 Hedgehog or squid systems likely makes up for that. Not to mention ASW torps that like the above CVE's may be slower and low damage, but still home in on a target. Though I'm thinking those are single launch with a bit of a delay (2, maybe 3 seconds). Some of these may need speed tweaks based on how fast subs can go, or general balance, but overall, speed doesn't seem like an issue. Staying historical 9 and 10 have 0 problems I think fighting other ships outside their class with their guns, and all but the lowest one has a torpedo tube that can be used to attack larger targets. The question mark is 3-8 vs other ships. The 3x 76 mm guns on the low tiers historically top out at 20 RPM or a 3 second reload, and the 2 with 2x 127 mm I believe are the type with hoists and so could achieve up to 22 RPM, or a 2.7 second reload. Both numbers are faster rates of fire than contemporaries (4 seconds and 3.3 respectively) in the USN line which has some of the highest fire rates, the question is is it enough? Though a slight fudging of RoF would not be the worst thing. The other thing would be HE pen. Even at 1/4 76 mm breaks out to 19 even, though the 127 mm guns would have 31 mm of pen. Generally maybe the line's pen should be set at 21 mm so it doesn't shatter on pretty much everything. Typical DD rtpe consumables and maybe slightly better stealth (most after all are a little smaller than DD's) - I do think it's possible to have a line with them that can actually function in the game, with a bit more purpose with subs added (which will likely happen before these). I imagine other possible tweaks for them to be slightly better sub-hunters, maybe faster depth charge reload, slightly longer range detection to track subs, whatever. 

 

Anyway, my hair brained idea using what I currently have on USN stuff for a CVE and DE line that would hopefully work well enough in game. While at the same time opening up some historical ships I think people would like to see (Samuel B Roberts, any of the 6 'jeep carriers' at the battle) as well as some maybe unique ones (USS Eldridge as a Halloween one based on the supposed 'Philadelphia Experiment' - perhaps in place of smoke it temporarily turns invisible, but can't fire any guns or torpedoes). It's all still in a more rough draft form, probably needs more work, but figure I'd toss it out there. 

This has been another wall by WanderingGhost to be ignored.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
78 posts
1,292 battles

I don't see this happening because I believe WG wants the destroyers (and some cruisers) taking out the subs (that are deep) with their depth charges. I haven't seen the game play yet for the subs, but I believe it's similar to Steel Ocean. Sooner or later the sub has to surface sooner or later.

Edited by Sgt_Something_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
573
[GRAVE]
Members
1,358 posts
19,469 battles

The main issue with DEs I see is their speed. the fastest any of them went was about 28knts, which was in battle situations pushing the engines to their absolute limit of exploding. Subs, if implemented as of the latest testing, will do between 25-30knts surfaced and deep underwater, so they'll outrun their supposed hunters quite easily. Also, if a DE is spotted, they have practically no anti-surface firepower, with at best 6 torp tubes and 2 5in guns, and because they're so damn slow, any DD will catch them, and kill them with no real danger to that DD. I do not see it likely DEs will ever show up in PvP. PVE for operations and/or a historical Battle off Samar, perhaps, randoms, no.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
331
[PHD]
Members
1,676 posts
7,029 battles

Balance is not there. Compared to the other classes in the game the DE and CVEs are just not as capable. The game tries to make the BBs, CAs, CLs, DDs and CVs have about the same chance to earn credits when in reality they are not even close. So trying to make the escort ships "equal" would be a really long stretch. It would have to be like making a PT boat that does 70 knots, auto overpens almost all shell hits and reloads torpedoes every 10 seconds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
877 posts
6,656 battles

@WanderingGhost - Nice bit of research.  I would have a question.  This clearly represents a USN perspective on a proposed tech tree.  How would you represent other nations?  Even if WG manages to address the balance issues addressed by others here, there's still the simple matter of attending to other nation's navies.  British and Italian lines would be self-evident (i.e. Flower and either Spica or Ariete classes) and the IJN is decently represented by the Matsu and Tachibana classes, but you'd have to outline all the others too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,619
[PVE]
Members
19,980 posts
12,672 battles

@WanderingGhost, here is a post from last year about DEs as a class from this thread. https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/175861-how-about-a-de-class-ship/

 

On 11/29/2018 at 12:27 PM, Kizarvexis said:

I put this together for a thread asking for DEs to be super DDs to counter DDs (50kts, fast firing, flat trajectory guns, and fast 9km torps that would be a shallow water vessel that could go places that torpedoes couldn't, but that was a crazy thread)

 

DEs were as large as most DDs, but had few guns and slow speeds as they were to escort convoys and didn't need the expense of fleet destroyer engines or guns. I compared the sizes and guns to ships in game. I think that DEs would be T4-T5 at best, as they are so slow and have so few guns and torps. I do like the idea of a separate battle mode for subs, DEs, DDs and the like. Question is, would people want to grind lines that can only be used in one battle mode?

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Here are the US DE classes that I found for WWII. I don't think there were any DE classes in WWI, but they may have been called something else. Frigates as a type in the US Navy seem to have been in the mid 60's to late 80's. Corvettes were sailing age vessels in the US Navy. 

 

As you can see, DEs were the size of T3 to T6 US DDs. They had a few main guns of mainly smaller caliber and generally had quite good AA. They were slow. Really slow for DDs. The T2 Smith at 28kts and the T2 Sampson at 29.5kts are the only DDs in the game slower than 30kts. The fastest DEs come in at 25kts and are as large as a T4 Clemson.

 

 

Evarts class (DE-5) 

1,140 tons (T3 Wickes 1,154 tons)

3x1  76mm guns (T2 Smith)

9x1 20mm AA

no torps

various depth charges

21kts (slowest DD is T2 Smith at 28kts)

 

Buckley class (DE-51)

1,422 tons (T6 Farragut 1,365 tons)

3x1  76mm DP guns (T2 Smith) 

2x1 40mm  AA guns

8x1 20mm AA guns

3x1 torps

various depth charges

24kts (slowest DD is T2 Smith at 28kts)

 

Cannon class (DE-99) & Edsall class (DE-129)

1,240 tons Cannon (T4 Clemson 1,215 tons)

1,253 tons Edsall (T4 Clemson 1,215 tons)

3x1  76mm  guns (T2 Smith) 

1x2 40mm  AA guns

8x1 20mm AA guns

3x1 torps

various depth charges

21kts (slowest DD is T2 Smith at 28kts)

 

 

Rudderow class (DE-224)

1,450 tons (T6 Farragut 1,365 tons)

2x1  127mm DP guns (T6 Farragut) 

4x2 40mm  AA guns

10x1 20mm AA guns

3x1 torps

various depth charges

24kts (slowest DD is T2 Smith at 28kts)

 

 

John C Butler class (DE-339) Samuel B Roberts of Taffy 3 was this class

1,350 tons (T6 Farragut 1,365 tons)

2x1  127mm DP guns (T6 Farragut) 

1x4 40mm  AA guns

3x2 40mm AA guns

10x1 20mm AA guns

3 torps

various depth charges

24kts (slowest DD is T2 Smith at 28kts)

 

Dealey class (DE-1006)

1,270 tons (T4 Clemson is closer to this size than Farragut)

4x1  76mm  guns (T2 Smith) 

no  AA guns

4 torps

various depth charges

25kts (slowest DD is T2 Smith at 28kts)

 

Claud Jones class (DE-1033)

1,270 tons (T4 Clemson is closer to this size than Farragut)

2x1  76mm  guns (T2 Smith) 

no  AA guns

2x3 324mm torps (anti-sub torps which would be similar to CV torps??)

various depth charges

25kts (slowest DD is T2 Smith at 28kts)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

 

The DEs are lighter than other DDs, much slower, and with fewer guns. As a comparison a Benson was 1,620 tons, a Fletcher over 2,000 tons and a Gearing over 2,600 tons.

I'm not sure you could buff a DE enough to compete with high tier DDs. If subs stay in their own mode, then DEs as a counter to subs could work. I would make them much more effective vs subs than a DD, so that people would actually use them instead of a DD.

 

3 minutes ago, JAKeller said:

@WanderingGhost - Nice bit of research.  I would have a question.  This clearly represents a USN perspective on a proposed tech tree.  How would you represent other nations?  Even if WG manages to address the balance issues addressed by others here, there's still the simple matter of attending to other nation's navies.  British and Italian lines would be self-evident (i.e. Flower and either Spica or Ariete classes) and the IJN is decently represented by the Matsu and Tachibana classes, but you'd have to outline all the others too.

That is another issue about DEs. That was a US only name as far as I can tell. IIRC, England, France, and IJN had dedicated escort destroyers, called different things, and apparently Italy just used older DD designs. I don't remember if Russia had dedicated escorts and I can't find the thread where I dug up a lot of info on various nation's escort destroyers. They should probably be named Escorts instead of DEs as a generic name for all the various types.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
844
[HELLS]
Members
2,727 posts
28,827 battles

The RN had a ton of DEs from lend-lease, known as the Captain class frigates, named after famous historical RN captains, and lend-lease Colony class frigates built in the US (aka USS Asheville types-modified River class). They also had the Hunt class escort destroyer, designed and built as such, plus (wait for it!) the Black Swan class ASW sloops (22 knots-24 when pushed) and River class frigates (20 knots-22 when pushed). And many of the War Emergency destroyer flotillas were configured as escort destroyers for convoy work while building. Many A to I class DDs were converted to escort DDs for convoy work as well.

The smaller Regia Marina torpedo boats, essentially small DDs, were used extensively (and very successfully) as convoy escorts and configured for ASW work, something that they got very good at (as good as the Brits, in fact).

But players' imaginations and WG reality are very different...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,182
[WOLF3]
Members
28,139 posts
24,488 battles

A critical issue would be DDEs / DEs in a heavy surface combat game dealing with ships far, far superior to them.

 

DDEs were cheap, quick to produce.  They were also very slow, like 20-something knots, and very lightly armed.  This isn't an issue when the DDEs were just doing their main job:  Escorting convoys and USN CVE - DDE Submarine Hunter Killer Groups.  Submarines were very slow even on the surface, even worse when submerged, and DDEs were easily able to run them down.

 

Now, I know WG is doing the Jedi Mind Trick and waving off Submarines to be faster than they historically were by a significant margin.  But DDEs would require even more Ancient Aliens Space Magic to make them passable.

 

Kagero-class Fleet Destroyer (the template of many IJN Fleet DD classes)

127mm guns 3x2

Torpedoes 2x4

35.5kts max speed

 

Fletcher-class Fleet Destroyer

127mm guns x5

Torpedoes 2x5

36.5kts max speed

 

Buckley-class DDE

3"/50 guns 3x3 x3... I.e. 76.2mm guns 3x3.  That's 13mm of armor needed to defeat this HE shell in WoWS terms.

Torpedoes 3

24kts max speed

 

It's a major concern because DDEs will be running into the game's Fleet Destroyers that we already have.  They're smaller, slower, have less firepower in guns and torpedoes compared to the likes of Mahan, Kagero, Le Fentasque, Kleber, Fletcher, Akizuki, etc.

 

The CVEs can do the Sub Hunting just fine with Aircraft, but the DDEs, just like other regular DDs, have to actually go out and put their **** on the chopping block.  Something like Benson, Fletcher would already be under great distress trying to run down Submarines or push them away from the team while getting shot at by ships and under air attack.  DDEs would be in even worse shape.

 

Surface combat against Fleet Destroyers, much less Cruisers and Battleships weren't what DDEs were supposed to be against.  It's why they were assigned to tasks further in the rear and not prowling around islands or the open seas looking for Cruisers and Destroyers to fight.

 

 

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,619
[PVE]
Members
19,980 posts
12,672 battles
4 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

A critical issue would be DDEs / DEs in a heavy surface combat game dealing with ships far, far superior to them.

 

DDEs were cheap, quick to produce.  They were also very slow, like 20-something knots, and very lightly armed.  This isn't an issue when the DDEs were just doing their main job:  Escorting convoys and USN CVE - DDE Submarine Hunter Killer Groups.  Submarines were very slow even on the surface, even worse when submerged, and DDEs were easily able to run them down.

 

Now, I know WG is doing the Jedi Mind Trick and waving off Submarines to be faster than they historically were by a significant margin.  But DDEs would require even more Ancient Aliens Space Magic to make them passable.

 

Kagero-class Fleet Destroyer (the template of many IJN Fleet DD classes)

127mm guns 3x2

Torpedoes 2x4

35.5kts max speed

 

Fletcher-class Fleet Destroyer

127mm guns x5

Torpedoes 2x5

36.5kts max speed

 

Buckley-class DDE

3"/50 guns 3x3... I.e. 76.2mm guns 3x3.  That's 13mm of armor needed to defeat this HE shell in WoWS terms.

Torpedoes 3

24kts max speed

 

It's a major concern because DDEs will be running into the game's Fleet Destroyers that we already have.  They're smaller, slower, have less firepower in guns and torpedoes compared to the likes of Mahan, Kagero, Le Fentasque, Kleber, Fletcher, Akizuki, etc.

 

The CVEs can do the Sub Hunting just fine with Aircraft, but the DDEs, just like other regular DDs, have to actually go out and put their **** on the chopping block.  Something like Benson, Fletcher would already be under great distress trying to run down Submarines or push them away from the team while getting shot at by ships and under air attack.  DDEs would be in even worse shape.

 

Surface combat against Fleet Destroyers, much less Cruisers and Battleships weren't what DDEs were supposed to be against.  It's why they were assigned to tasks further in the rear and not prowling around islands or the open seas looking for Cruisers and Destroyers to fight.

 

 

This was 3 x 3"/50 I believe, as in 3x1 3" guns. Not 9 guns on a DE. :Smile_teethhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,182
[WOLF3]
Members
28,139 posts
24,488 battles
1 minute ago, Kizarvexis said:

This was 3 x 3"/50 I believe, as in 3x1 3" guns. Not 9 guns on a DE. :Smile_teethhappy:

Took a look at wikipedia again and you're right.  Good lord it's even worse than I originally detailed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,619
[PVE]
Members
19,980 posts
12,672 battles
3 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Took a look at wikipedia again and you're right.  Good lord it's even worse than I originally detailed!

Yeah, DEs really didn't need a lot of surface gun power as pot shots at a surfaced sub were fine with 3x1 76.2mm guns. IIRC almost all, if not all, DE main guns were DP and used mostly for AA I believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
957
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
3,289 posts
12,973 battles

Don't see them actually working in game.

1st problem is, what do they que as? A CVE can't hope to fight with a full sized CV. A DE isn't going to match an actual DD in combat.

2nd problem is, the reasons for CVE's and DE's existing do not exist in game. Both were built to get a bunch of Anti-Submarine assets built quickly, cheaply, and and for convoy duty. In game, it's 12 v/s 12, mirror match making, and there's no budget.

3rd problem is, they're almost completely single target ships, they'd suffer the same problems that other single target ships suffer like the Asashio. If you're target isn't there, what do you do? It was tried with the IJN CV's in the rework, it was tried with Graf Zeppelin in it's own rework, and I think the Italian cruisers are suffering from it now (they only work against equal or lower tier cruisers). While it fits with what WG has kept trying recently, it's still a bad idea.

4th, there's nothing that they can do that full sized CV's and DD's can't do as well, if not better.

Edited by SgtBeltfed
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,182
[WOLF3]
Members
28,139 posts
24,488 battles
10 minutes ago, Kizarvexis said:

Yeah, DEs really didn't need a lot of surface gun power as pot shots at a surfaced sub were fine with 3x1 76.2mm guns. IIRC almost all, if not all, DE main guns were DP and used mostly for AA I believe.

Even then they were too slow with the surface action groups and the Fast Carrier Task Force.  They weren't used even as AA Boats to go with the 30kts or so Fleet Carriers.  They sure as heck didn't go prowling around by design in places like the waters for Guadalcanal and the Solomon Islands to encounter IJN ships.  When a few of them did encounter the IJN ships for Leyte Gulf, it was because of Halsey f--king everything up like the idiot he was and not being there to protect the landing forces, the CVEs detailed to support the ground operations.

 

 "TURKEY TROTS TO WATER GG FROM CINCPAC ACTION COM THIRD FLEET INFO COMINCH CTF SEVENTY-SEVEN X WHERE IS RPT WHERE IS TASK FORCE THIRTY FOUR RR THE WORLD WONDERS."

 

The mightiest single command in naval history, off doing stupid things because it's commander was a moron and left the sections that the US military was there for (Amphibious landings in the Philippines) unprotected :Smile_facepalm:  The IJN played him for the fool he was.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,619
[PVE]
Members
19,980 posts
12,672 battles
2 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Even then they were too slow with the surface action groups and the Fast Carrier Task Force.  They weren't used even as AA Boats to go with the 30kts or so Fleet Carriers.  They sure as heck didn't go prowling around by design in places like the waters for Guadalcanal and the Solomon Islands to encounter IJN ships.  When a few of them did encounter the IJN ships for Leyte Gulf, it was because of Halsey f--king everything up like the idiot he was and not being there to protect the landing forces, the CVEs detailed to support the ground operations.

Oh yeah, they were escorts for sure. With 21-25kts speed, they were fine to run down subs and keep up with slower convoy ships even if they had to prosecute a sub. The were built with less expensive engine packs as they didn't need speed, so that made them cheap enough to build for convoy duty. Especially since they skimped on guns and torps for more AA and ASW weapons. They were AA support for convoys tho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
877 posts
6,656 battles
 
 
 
1
3 hours ago, Kizarvexis said:

That is another issue about DEs. That was a US only name as far as I can tell. IIRC, England, France, and IJN had dedicated escort destroyers, called different things, and apparently Italy just used older DD designs. I don't remember if Russia had dedicated escorts and I can't find the thread where I dug up a lot of info on various nation's escort destroyers. They should probably be named Escorts instead of DEs as a generic name for all the various types.

 

Look up the Spica and Ariete classes for the Regia Marina.  Italy introduced them as convoy escorts because their regular DDs (the Soldati class) had very high attrition.  (as convoy battles tend to do)  The Spicas were pretty well filled out as a class by September 1943 (about 20 ships IIRC), but of the Arietes (and even simpler escort ship), only a single ship was commissioned before Italy surrendered (in August 1943).

I think you're right they should be called Escorts.  Heck - the Flower class (the standard British escort) was considered a Corvette, not even a DD, and I believe the French escort classes were also considered Corvettes and Frigates; all based on the 'unlimited' 600 Tonnes clause in the Washington and London naval treaties.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,260
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
5,188 posts
12,047 battles
10 hours ago, tfcas119 said:

The main issue with DEs I see is their speed. the fastest any of them went was about 28knts, which was in battle situations pushing the engines to their absolute limit of exploding. Subs, if implemented as of the latest testing, will do between 25-30knts surfaced and deep underwater, so they'll outrun their supposed hunters quite easily. Also, if a DE is spotted, they have practically no anti-surface firepower, with at best 6 torp tubes and 2 5in guns, and because they're so damn slow, any DD will catch them, and kill them with no real danger to that DD. I do not see it likely DEs will ever show up in PvP. PVE for operations and/or a historical Battle off Samar, perhaps, randoms, no.

I do believe I mention somewhere that if need be they should get a speed boost similar to Submarines. I wasn't in gameplay testing, so I don't know the exact speeds so I only have historical ones. They should be fast enough in game to fill their historical role.

The first 4 have 3 inch guns that while smaller, similar to Harugumo and the like, even with just historical RoF will out pace most/all the current DD's at their tiers. Rud and JC.B if given the maximum RoF of  the gun type though by less a margin will out-pace most anything other than Akizuki. Bristol is basically a DD converted into a DE setup, and while again back to 3 inch guns - the historical RoF on Dealey is faster than Friesland or Harugumo, BFT and couple of those upgrades RoF could be guns literally firing every second. But this is again, me sticking to purely historical numbers. Rate of fire can be tweaked for balance - one of the IJN DD's only has 2 guns and other than the torps are over nerfed, her only issue is RoF on them is way too low.

There are also x factors that I don't know how to actually quantify for these admittedly - odds are they would have high accuracy, and I'm unsure on mobility as the most I have to go on is some passing mention of ships of the type being smaller to have better agility for sub attacks - which could mean they are better at scoring hits and dodging shots from the DD. Other than that all but tier 3 have at least 1 torpedo tube that could have a decent enough reload if needed though it's main thing is not surface ships the same way IJN torp DD's have always been more about hunting capital ships not shooting DD's. In the case of Dealey, it also has ASW torps that can be used on ships and while the damage to a BB and most CL's would be paltry - it'd do nice enough damage to a DD if it hits. I haven't nailed down which exact torpedo they were using but they'd likely be about 3k per hit or more, I haven't found if they were mounted center or side so 3-6 can be launched fairly quickly and they would have some homing ability - so that there is potentially 9k health gone if just firing one of them and the DD doesn't manage to dodge them. 

But these are raw numbers with minor basically paper testing. I don't expect what I have here to be 100% right. 

10 hours ago, Sgt_Something_ said:

I think Wg will give anti sub capabilities to the current in game carriers.

And I will fight them on it because that wasn't really the job of these CV's - especially as CVE/L were pumped out. 

8 hours ago, JAKeller said:

@WanderingGhost - Nice bit of research.  I would have a question.  This clearly represents a USN perspective on a proposed tech tree.  How would you represent other nations?  Even if WG manages to address the balance issues addressed by others here, there's still the simple matter of attending to other nation's navies.  British and Italian lines would be self-evident (i.e. Flower and either Spica or Ariete classes) and the IJN is decently represented by the Matsu and Tachibana classes, but you'd have to outline all the others too.

Like I said early on - this was the easiest ones to do as I had way more research and all on them, particularly on DE's. I don't have answers to other navies at this time on DE's in the slightest because while I know ships exist, I just haven't looked in to them yet. And it's something I've been doing off and on while working on other things like finding historical AA where it exists for tech tree ships, after finding out the baseline numbers wargaming is using for weapons, and then mathing out DPS they should have with those setups and if need be because historical ones don't have high enough numbers on it or any sister ship, figuring out how much of what type more it needs. Because nearly 4 years of RTS, and now 10 months of the rework, and Wargaming has STILL managed to not get AA DPS in to a smooth, consistent progression that's balanced - were still trying to balance plane HP at tier 6 where the ships it can see when top tier have 2-300 DPS, and when bottom tier, have 600-800 DPS. Let alone tier 8 seeing ships with 300 DPS and ships with over 1000. And these are just USN BB's numbers. At the moment, that work has priority for me - this has been a side research project when I need a break from it. I'm one guy - Wargaming has teams to do this research and work on balance, implementing, much as I don't trust them post CV rework people to figure out national flavour and all, etc. Eventually I'll get to the other nations - but it's not my job, just something I do while I look for one.

CVE/L I do have some ideas on, it's really going to come down to in cases how technologically feasible are they. In the case of UK one thing I've been looking at is solid tipped rockets which at the right angle on a miss would curve up and puncture the hull, while direct damage and use vs ships is debatable could cause flooding on submarines, as well as the general options of rockets when talking about the RP-3 such as SAP and AP. They had depth charges the question is what plane at what tier did/could have deliver them, and then double checking some things on bombs but more likely that will stay similar to UK's fleet CV's. The other maybe I know is IJN. They are hampered a bit by a lack of ASW development till it was too late, but their are some potential to say the least unique options. They did work on ASW rockets which could be an option opposite the historical bombs fighters could carry. Other than if they maybe carry normal torpedoes they were developing a couple depth charges that could be dropped from planes, likely B5N's and the like. One that would be very different to what I've found for USN and UK is actually very similar to the rounds of the hedgehog system - it hits the water and arms, sinks and explodes on contact, or self destructs at 200 meters. The other, that I'm still trying to see if I can find more info on, is an acoustic depth charge which seems to be it would detonate based on sound. And then of course bombs which I have info just have to look at. 

9 hours ago, Kizarvexis said:

The DEs are lighter than other DDs, much slower, and with fewer guns. As a comparison a Benson was 1,620 tons, a Fletcher over 2,000 tons and a Gearing over 2,600 tons.

I'm not sure you could buff a DE enough to compete with high tier DDs. If subs stay in their own mode, then DEs as a counter to subs could work. I would make them much more effective vs subs than a DD, so that people would actually use them instead of a DD.

Generally most/all in actual size are a bit smaller than DD's, of my list Bristol is the one immediate exception as it was more a DD configured as a DE, which gives them stealth. Tonnage yes usually factors in to HP, but it's also a fictitious number. Subs are half the tonnage of any of the DE's and U-69 isn't far behind Farragut at the same tier for HP - so HP shouldn't be an issue. A long claim against subs being added was speed, which was buffed and these too would likely be buffed in speed given the subs were. They still likely end up slower than DD's but not by nearly as much. Yes, several are lower on gun count and size it'd come down to shell damage - the minimum for HE which would be 1100 on the 3 inch guns, maybe a bit more vs 1800 on a 5 inch gun, and rate of fire - which without breaking history all these ships can fire faster, especially Dealey, and that doesn't remove if Wargaming adds any other additional RoF for balancing purposes. A correction to your post - Dealey does in fact have AA - her main battery is a DP mount, specifically of the kind that mad Des and Salem absolute nightmares to deal with. While it's guns are smaller than Friesland's, it has a higher RoF, a set of strictly anti-ship torpedoes, and a set of ASW/Anti-ship homing torpedoes.

Much as I try and keep what I can historically accurate, there is still game balance and logic to consider. When you take in things like the kind of HP subs have vs a DD, the speed buff they got, existing damage for guns like this, etc, odds are if implemented in a balanced manner - A DD would be the same to a DE as a CA is to a CL. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
877
[REVY]
Members
2,488 posts
13,379 battles
12 hours ago, tfcas119 said:

The main issue with DEs I see is their speed. the fastest any of them went was about 28knts, which was in battle situations pushing the engines to their absolute limit of exploding. Subs, if implemented as of the latest testing, will do between 25-30knts surfaced and deep underwater, so they'll outrun their supposed hunters quite easily. Also, if a DE is spotted, they have practically no anti-surface firepower, with at best 6 torp tubes and 2 5in guns, and because they're so damn slow, any DD will catch them, and kill them with no real danger to that DD. I do not see it likely DEs will ever show up in PvP. PVE for operations and/or a historical Battle off Samar, perhaps, randoms, no.

 

22 minutes ago, WanderingGhost said:

I do believe I mention somewhere that if need be they should get a speed boost similar to Submarines. I wasn't in gameplay testing, so I don't know the exact speeds so I only have historical ones. They should be fast enough in game to fill their historical role.

 

As they are already giving the Subs a 'speed boost' while submerged, it's likely, if added, the DEs would not remain at their historical speeds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,260
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
5,188 posts
12,047 battles
9 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

A critical issue would be DDEs / DEs in a heavy surface combat game dealing with ships far, far superior to them.

 

DDEs were cheap, quick to produce.  They were also very slow, like 20-something knots, and very lightly armed.  This isn't an issue when the DDEs were just doing their main job:  Escorting convoys and USN CVE - DDE Submarine Hunter Killer Groups.  Submarines were very slow even on the surface, even worse when submerged, and DDEs were easily able to run them down.

 

Now, I know WG is doing the Jedi Mind Trick and waving off Submarines to be faster than they historically were by a significant margin.  But DDEs would require even more Ancient Aliens Space Magic to make them passable.

 

Kagero-class Fleet Destroyer (the template of many IJN Fleet DD classes)

127mm guns 3x2

Torpedoes 2x4

35.5kts max speed

 

Fletcher-class Fleet Destroyer

127mm guns x5

Torpedoes 2x5

36.5kts max speed

 

Buckley-class DDE

3"/50 guns 3x3 x3... I.e. 76.2mm guns 3x3.  That's 13mm of armor needed to defeat this HE shell in WoWS terms.

Torpedoes 3

24kts max speed

 

It's a major concern because DDEs will be running into the game's Fleet Destroyers that we already have.  They're smaller, slower, have less firepower in guns and torpedoes compared to the likes of Mahan, Kagero, Le Fentasque, Kleber, Fletcher, Akizuki, etc.

 

The CVEs can do the Sub Hunting just fine with Aircraft, but the DDEs, just like other regular DDs, have to actually go out and put their **** on the chopping block.  Something like Benson, Fletcher would already be under great distress trying to run down Submarines or push them away from the team while getting shot at by ships and under air attack.  DDEs would be in even worse shape.

 

Surface combat against Fleet Destroyers, much less Cruisers and Battleships weren't what DDEs were supposed to be against.  It's why they were assigned to tasks further in the rear and not prowling around islands or the open seas looking for Cruisers and Destroyers to fight.

 

 

Well, for starters that's why I'm not putting Buckley at tier 8 or 9 like the two ships you use as examples and left those tiers to John C. Butler that could push closer to 29 knots, and possibly Bristol which is effectively a DD converted to DE work. 

Given the HP of submarines, that come close to DD levels of the same tier, odds are these end up right between them, and get a similar boost to speed. Enough likely they can generally keep pace with the team, or at least better than USN standard BB's. They will likely stay a bit slower than DD's, and the fact most are physically smaller will likely mean somewhat lower spotting range. Firepower in this game is somewhat relative. Friesland is a purpose build sub hunter though classed a DD for reasons, with no torpedoes - which all but the tier 3 here have. In the case of Dealey - the damage per shell in terms of HE would be a minimum of 1100 - maybe closer to the 1200 of Akizuki and it's kind - but with potentially double or triple the rate of fire. All the 3 inch armed ones at their tiers have a fairly secure rate of fire advantage, without ancient aliens magic. Odds are they end up with higher accuracy as well how this game tends to work. The question mark there is Rudderow and Butler, having 2x 127 mm guns which while not the only ships in game with that setup, would be a question if 2.7 second reloads is fast enough compared to Mahan or Benson's 3.3 seconds. Those may require a bit more of that magic. 

Your also assuming that they use 1/6 HE pen which yes, only pens 12 mm, instead of 1/4 which would make it 18 mm of pen, and not doing as I suggest above, which is what they did with Akizuki and the top of that line, and set a fixed penetration number to which I suggested 21 mm. 

So depending on how well the guns do, most have at least one set of torps on whatever reload, their physical size possibly having advantage, and setting HE pen at a fixed number which is nothing new to this game - about the only real magic needed is some of the same being applied to put subs in the game in the first place. So I don't see it as nearly as much of a stretch. But that's me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
158
[TRIST]
Members
413 posts
4,386 battles

Sounds like a great concept! For DEs, we should definitely add Gleaves as either a premium or maybe T7 of the line for the US? I forget, there's a Pan Asian ship that's a Gleaves class. For the UK the only CVE I can think of is Unicorn, what other ships could they have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,619
[PVE]
Members
19,980 posts
12,672 battles
4 hours ago, WanderingGhost said:

I do believe I mention somewhere that if need be they should get a speed boost similar to Submarines. I wasn't in gameplay testing, so I don't know the exact speeds so I only have historical ones. They should be fast enough in game to fill their historical role.

The first 4 have 3 inch guns that while smaller, similar to Harugumo and the like, even with just historical RoF will out pace most/all the current DD's at their tiers. Rud and JC.B if given the maximum RoF of  the gun type though by less a margin will out-pace most anything other than Akizuki. Bristol is basically a DD converted into a DE setup, and while again back to 3 inch guns - the historical RoF on Dealey is faster than Friesland or Harugumo, BFT and couple of those upgrades RoF could be guns literally firing every second. But this is again, me sticking to purely historical numbers. Rate of fire can be tweaked for balance - one of the IJN DD's only has 2 guns and other than the torps are over nerfed, her only issue is RoF on them is way too low.

There are also x factors that I don't know how to actually quantify for these admittedly - odds are they would have high accuracy, and I'm unsure on mobility as the most I have to go on is some passing mention of ships of the type being smaller to have better agility for sub attacks - which could mean they are better at scoring hits and dodging shots from the DD. Other than that all but tier 3 have at least 1 torpedo tube that could have a decent enough reload if needed though it's main thing is not surface ships the same way IJN torp DD's have always been more about hunting capital ships not shooting DD's. In the case of Dealey, it also has ASW torps that can be used on ships and while the damage to a BB and most CL's would be paltry - it'd do nice enough damage to a DD if it hits. I haven't nailed down which exact torpedo they were using but they'd likely be about 3k per hit or more, I haven't found if they were mounted center or side so 3-6 can be launched fairly quickly and they would have some homing ability - so that there is potentially 9k health gone if just firing one of them and the DD doesn't manage to dodge them. 

But these are raw numbers with minor basically paper testing. I don't expect what I have here to be 100% right. 

And I will fight them on it because that wasn't really the job of these CV's - especially as CVE/L were pumped out. 

Like I said early on - this was the easiest ones to do as I had way more research and all on them, particularly on DE's. I don't have answers to other navies at this time on DE's in the slightest because while I know ships exist, I just haven't looked in to them yet. And it's something I've been doing off and on while working on other things like finding historical AA where it exists for tech tree ships, after finding out the baseline numbers wargaming is using for weapons, and then mathing out DPS they should have with those setups and if need be because historical ones don't have high enough numbers on it or any sister ship, figuring out how much of what type more it needs. Because nearly 4 years of RTS, and now 10 months of the rework, and Wargaming has STILL managed to not get AA DPS in to a smooth, consistent progression that's balanced - were still trying to balance plane HP at tier 6 where the ships it can see when top tier have 2-300 DPS, and when bottom tier, have 600-800 DPS. Let alone tier 8 seeing ships with 300 DPS and ships with over 1000. And these are just USN BB's numbers. At the moment, that work has priority for me - this has been a side research project when I need a break from it. I'm one guy - Wargaming has teams to do this research and work on balance, implementing, much as I don't trust them post CV rework people to figure out national flavour and all, etc. Eventually I'll get to the other nations - but it's not my job, just something I do while I look for one.

CVE/L I do have some ideas on, it's really going to come down to in cases how technologically feasible are they. In the case of UK one thing I've been looking at is solid tipped rockets which at the right angle on a miss would curve up and puncture the hull, while direct damage and use vs ships is debatable could cause flooding on submarines, as well as the general options of rockets when talking about the RP-3 such as SAP and AP. They had depth charges the question is what plane at what tier did/could have deliver them, and then double checking some things on bombs but more likely that will stay similar to UK's fleet CV's. The other maybe I know is IJN. They are hampered a bit by a lack of ASW development till it was too late, but their are some potential to say the least unique options. They did work on ASW rockets which could be an option opposite the historical bombs fighters could carry. Other than if they maybe carry normal torpedoes they were developing a couple depth charges that could be dropped from planes, likely B5N's and the like. One that would be very different to what I've found for USN and UK is actually very similar to the rounds of the hedgehog system - it hits the water and arms, sinks and explodes on contact, or self destructs at 200 meters. The other, that I'm still trying to see if I can find more info on, is an acoustic depth charge which seems to be it would detonate based on sound. And then of course bombs which I have info just have to look at. 

Generally most/all in actual size are a bit smaller than DD's, of my list Bristol is the one immediate exception as it was more a DD configured as a DE, which gives them stealth. Tonnage yes usually factors in to HP, but it's also a fictitious number. Subs are half the tonnage of any of the DE's and U-69 isn't far behind Farragut at the same tier for HP - so HP shouldn't be an issue. A long claim against subs being added was speed, which was buffed and these too would likely be buffed in speed given the subs were. They still likely end up slower than DD's but not by nearly as much. Yes, several are lower on gun count and size it'd come down to shell damage - the minimum for HE which would be 1100 on the 3 inch guns, maybe a bit more vs 1800 on a 5 inch gun, and rate of fire - which without breaking history all these ships can fire faster, especially Dealey, and that doesn't remove if Wargaming adds any other additional RoF for balancing purposes. A correction to your post - Dealey does in fact have AA - her main battery is a DP mount, specifically of the kind that mad Des and Salem absolute nightmares to deal with. While it's guns are smaller than Friesland's, it has a higher RoF, a set of strictly anti-ship torpedoes, and a set of ASW/Anti-ship homing torpedoes.

Much as I try and keep what I can historically accurate, there is still game balance and logic to consider. When you take in things like the kind of HP subs have vs a DD, the speed buff they got, existing damage for guns like this, etc, odds are if implemented in a balanced manner - A DD would be the same to a DE as a CA is to a CL. 

 

4 hours ago, WanderingGhost said:

Well, for starters that's why I'm not putting Buckley at tier 8 or 9 like the two ships you use as examples and left those tiers to John C. Butler that could push closer to 29 knots, and possibly Bristol which is effectively a DD converted to DE work. 

Given the HP of submarines, that come close to DD levels of the same tier, odds are these end up right between them, and get a similar boost to speed. Enough likely they can generally keep pace with the team, or at least better than USN standard BB's. They will likely stay a bit slower than DD's, and the fact most are physically smaller will likely mean somewhat lower spotting range. Firepower in this game is somewhat relative. Friesland is a purpose build sub hunter though classed a DD for reasons, with no torpedoes - which all but the tier 3 here have. In the case of Dealey - the damage per shell in terms of HE would be a minimum of 1100 - maybe closer to the 1200 of Akizuki and it's kind - but with potentially double or triple the rate of fire. All the 3 inch armed ones at their tiers have a fairly secure rate of fire advantage, without ancient aliens magic. Odds are they end up with higher accuracy as well how this game tends to work. The question mark there is Rudderow and Butler, having 2x 127 mm guns which while not the only ships in game with that setup, would be a question if 2.7 second reloads is fast enough compared to Mahan or Benson's 3.3 seconds. Those may require a bit more of that magic. 

Your also assuming that they use 1/6 HE pen which yes, only pens 12 mm, instead of 1/4 which would make it 18 mm of pen, and not doing as I suggest above, which is what they did with Akizuki and the top of that line, and set a fixed penetration number to which I suggested 21 mm. 

So depending on how well the guns do, most have at least one set of torps on whatever reload, their physical size possibly having advantage, and setting HE pen at a fixed number which is nothing new to this game - about the only real magic needed is some of the same being applied to put subs in the game in the first place. So I don't see it as nearly as much of a stretch. But that's me.

yeah, I'm not sold on the super boost to sub speeds. I can see a few kts, but double to triple the speed is too much for me. The DEs would be getting at least a 20% boost to get to 30kts and that even seems to much to me.
 
 
 
Yep, most main gun WWII DD mounts were DP, especially late war. Otherwise Dealy had no other AA. 
 
 
 
76.2mm guns have to get 1/4 pen just to be able pen SOME superstructures which tend to be 13mm on DDs and tend to be 16mm on cruisers and some BBs. You have to have IFHE AND 1/4 pen to deal with the 19mm side plating on high tier DDs and some 19mm BB superstructures. IFHE and 1/4 for a 76.2mm gun only gives 24mm of pen, so that rules out almost every other location besides the superstructure on ships other than DDs. Yeah, 76.2mm guns have a high ROF, but the small size of the shell and limited hit locations even with IFHE AND 1/4 would be problems. Personally, I think the 1/4 pen on IJN 100mm guns is silly. It should have been 1/5 IMO as that would have allowed them to get DDs and as good as the much bigger 152mm guns. 
 
 
I think Escorts (DEs) would be a great partial line for DDs, but I don't see them going all the way to T10 IMO.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,371
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
8,274 posts
12,148 battles

CVEs, maybe, DEs, save for the converted Gleaves class, would be food for just about anything, namely DDs, and for the most part, with 76mm guns, not be able to pen anything at the higher tiers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,260
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
5,188 posts
12,047 battles
10 hours ago, Kizarvexis said:

76.2mm guns have to get 1/4 pen just to be able pen SOME superstructures which tend to be 13mm on DDs and tend to be 16mm on cruisers and some BBs. You have to have IFHE AND 1/4 pen to deal with the 19mm side plating on high tier DDs and some 19mm BB superstructures. IFHE and 1/4 for a 76.2mm gun only gives 24mm of pen, so that rules out almost every other location besides the superstructure on ships other than DDs. Yeah, 76.2mm guns have a high ROF, but the small size of the shell and limited hit locations even with IFHE AND 1/4 would be problems. Personally, I think the 1/4 pen on IJN 100mm guns is silly. It should have been 1/5 IMO as that would have allowed them to get DDs and as good as the much bigger 152mm guns. 

IJN 100 mm actually isn't 1/4 crazy as it sounds. Yes 25 mm is 1/4 of 100, but because of how the HE pen works - 1/4 pen on 100 mm guns would only be 24 mm - the guns were forcibly set to 25 mm. Why I suggested simply setting the value to 21 mm (as they did that with the IJN 100 mm guns) as well as then being in line with the couple 127 mm gunned ships. At 21 any super structure can be damage, and punches through some of the cruisers plating - though still limited against things like BB's and USN CA mostly to super structure. Far as what AP might do - can't say but I imagine at best it might work on CL to some degree, more likely though maybe punching bow armour of ships or the like and getting full pens there while suffering most anywhere else. But then again, much like Samar running into cruisers and BB's, your kinda in trouble - which is still kinda the point. Played smart and all sure, a DE may be able to take one of those ships down - but it's not necessarily my goal to make them cruiser and BB killers.

I want them to be good enough to fight off at least other DE's and maybe DD's as needed - but they are meant to be in game a bit more support oriented. Stay near team ships, help with AA, keep subs on their toes, etc. There is some ability to deal damage, but other than when subs are about it's not entirely the main thing. But that's my view of things.

The other points I generally agree with - Maybe they are better as a partial line, maybe they can function as a full line. End of the day it'd be up to Wargaming to decide. And given some of their tiering choices, honestly hard to say what way they'd go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,619
[PVE]
Members
19,980 posts
12,672 battles
46 minutes ago, WanderingGhost said:

IJN 100 mm actually isn't 1/4 crazy as it sounds. Yes 25 mm is 1/4 of 100, but because of how the HE pen works - 1/4 pen on 100 mm guns would only be 24 mm - the guns were forcibly set to 25 mm. Why I suggested simply setting the value to 21 mm (as they did that with the IJN 100 mm guns) as well as then being in line with the couple 127 mm gunned ships. At 21 any super structure can be damage, and punches through some of the cruisers plating - though still limited against things like BB's and USN CA mostly to super structure. Far as what AP might do - can't say but I imagine at best it might work on CL to some degree, more likely though maybe punching bow armour of ships or the like and getting full pens there while suffering most anywhere else. But then again, much like Samar running into cruisers and BB's, your kinda in trouble - which is still kinda the point. Played smart and all sure, a DE may be able to take one of those ships down - but it's not necessarily my goal to make them cruiser and BB killers.

152mm with 1/6 pen means it can pen 24mm of armor. With IFHE it can pen 32mm of armor.

100mm with 1/4 pen means it can pen 24mm of armor. With IFHE it can pen 32mm of armor.

A 100mm HE shell with a mass of 13kg should have the same pen as a shell with a mass of 44-55kg? That's silly on WG's part.

 

If the 100mm HE was 1/5 pen, then it could pen 19mm of armor and 26mm of armor with IFHE. Seems more reasonable, but that's just me and WG evidently doesn't agree.

 

46 minutes ago, WanderingGhost said:

I want them to be good enough to fight off at least other DE's and maybe DD's as needed - but they are meant to be in game a bit more support oriented. Stay near team ships, help with AA, keep subs on their toes, etc. There is some ability to deal damage, but other than when subs are about it's not entirely the main thing. But that's my view of things.

The other points I generally agree with - Maybe they are better as a partial line, maybe they can function as a full line. End of the day it'd be up to Wargaming to decide. And given some of their tiering choices, honestly hard to say what way they'd go.

Problem with keeping subs on their toes, is that you have to run over a submerged sub to depth charge it. Seems like that will be very dangerous when under fire from DDs, CL/CAs, BBs and CVs, even for DDs which are faster and would likely have more HP.

 

Personally, I would like to see subs be their own mode. For player ships, you would have subs, escorts (DEs), DDs, and CL/CAs. BBs, CVs, transports, etc, would be bot controlled as targets. I would have escorts (DEs) be much more effective vs subs than DDs, so that they are not ignored in favor of DDs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×