ASW, numbers, and escorts

[Redpossum]

I think we need a new naval unit type, the Escort.

Historically, most convoy escort duties were the responsibility of Corvette or Escort class vessels, with perhaps one or two true Destroyers as escort leaders in a larger convoy.

Most true Destroyers were busily engaged escorting warships.

In practical game terms, the Allied player needs to be able to crank out something capable of ASW work to escort convoys, and there's no way he can afford enough true Destroyers, not without neglecting research, the air battle, or something else critical.

In general, I'd be opposed to adding many new unit types. But this one is really called for, in my not-so-humble opinion.

Obviously, the Escort class should be well-nigh worthless for anything other than ASW work. It should be slower (though fast enough to keep up with convoys), less survivable, and have absolutely minimal (maybe even zero) surface attack strength. Perhaps the Escort should have a decent anti-air strength.

[vypuero]

really, the DD unit is what this role is for in the game. The BB/CV units include the escorting DDs and CAs and the DD unit is mostly escorts.

[gmothes]

I think DDs would sufice, but make them cost 60 pp and less combat effective against surface ships add a Cruiser class for 70 pp. Just a thought.

[IanF1966]

The Term Battleship, Carrier and Destroyer and Submarine are misleading in the game as in fact these are Battlefleets, Carrier Fleets and Escort Fleets composed of 50 ships each.

I have renamed them in a mod and also call air units "Fighter Group" Tactical Air Group" and "Bomber Group".

There's nothing wrong with the standard names but I personally like to call them by these names.

[JonM]

My concern, in my prior post relating to subs, is that the subs are so powerful that they seek out combat shipping and attack the DDs. It is very odd to have the DDs running from the subs. Due to the nature of their surprise attack the subs first destroy the DDs and then feast on the sheep. Please consider reducing the power of subs versus surface fleets and using a convoy attack value (this was done in Hearts of Iron II to prevent uberUboat packs from sweeping the seas).
Thank you for reading this. Jon M

[Redpossum]

really, the DD unit is what this role is for in the game. The BB/CV units include the escorting DDs and CAs and the DD unit is mostly escorts.

Vypuero, I'm sorry, but this answer just doesn't hold water at all.

In the first place, look how low the ASW values are on the BB/CV units at start of war, in relation to the ASW value of the DD units. When you allow for the ASW usefulness of the aircraft themselves, it is clear that the CV units do not include any appreciable quantity of Destroyers.

In the second place, look how high the surface attack values are on the DD units. Clearly this represents torpedoes which Escort class vessels were not armed with.

[vypuero]

Well I argued long and hard for subs to be stronger vs merchants and weaker vs surface vessels, but ultimately both unit types can do Ok - just a question of right strategy. I thought overall DD is weakest vs surface ships than anything else. I would not mind more units at some point in the future but I have to work with what is available.

[Plainian]

Adding escorts to a naval unit could be fixed by using an idea already brought up. (attaching sub units to land units)

Instead of buying a Leader you buy an Escort and allow these to be attached to a naval unit. This would have a range and a defensive only bonus strength. Unfortunately the escorts would be indestructable as they would keep having an effect as long as the unit they attached to survived. Possibly not a historical as the u-boats went after the convoy not the escorts?

Not sure how you could attach them to the automatic convoys though?

[Redpossum]

Well I argued long and hard for subs to be stronger vs merchants and weaker vs surface vessels, but ultimately both unit types can do Ok - just a question of right strategy. I thought overall DD is weakest vs surface ships than anything else. I would not mind more units at some point in the future but I have to work with what is available.

I'm not blaming you, bro. I'm not even saying there's anything wrong to be blamed for I am just making a suggestion, and arguing why I think it's justified.

Vypuero, for the record, I think you did a very good job with the scenario design

[vypuero]

Thanks. I DO think though I may want to make my own mod at some time in the future. There is no reason why you could not easily implement the following:

1) Scenarios - you can make as many as you want it doesn't hurt anything. Just have to see if they are really any good. I think for me I would want to do a closer to historic mod and maybe include house rules. For example, you can't take the French garrisons from NAF.

Actually I have a game idea for that - if you take them, you should lose the units for Algeria and Syria. This hurts the allies because in late 40 and early 41 it would be easy for Italy to take an undefended Algeria, and losing the Syria unit would also hurt. That whole French and Vichy needs work, but that would be a nice option. Similarly we could put some limits on the French Fleet.

2) Tech, Units, and the like can be modded. Not sure I think they should be, though. My only thought is maybe to make transports more, but ONLY if the USA has a much larger economy, so as to make up for the cost. In fact that is not a bad idea at all. Also makes invasions and re-supply of Africa tougher for Axis and the Allies probably will want the USA before mounting any invasions.