Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Looking for assistance in ranking WW2 warships (classes)

Discussion in 'Ships & Shipborne Weaponry' started by Zedder, Oct 19, 2015.

  1. Zedder

    Zedder New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2015
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    2
    What about increasing heavy cruisers to 15 in numbers and reducing light (AA) cruisers to 5? Does that make more sense? And if so, which 5 should i keep as light, and which 5 should I move into the more traditional heavy cruiser category?
     
  2. Zedder

    Zedder New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2015
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    2
    Adding another american ship would cause me physical pain. The only 3 it could replace would be Baltimore, Cleveland or Brooklyn.

    Do you know of a better option for Katori? A Japanese light cruiser? or a heavy cruiser in the scenario that we switch cruiser group numbers.

    You listed 4 UK subs. Which 2 would you use? Of those 2, what is the better unit? (for ranking)
     
  3. Carronade

    Carronade Ace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    2,134
    Likes Received:
    308
    Unfortunately for your game, the Japanese showed a distinct preference for 8" over 6" cruisers. The Mogamis were built with 6.1" guns to comply with treaty limits, but were intended from the start to be rearmed with 8" (as they were around 1940). Their only modern light cruisers were the Agano class and the Oyodo. Of the older types you might consider the Nagara class (of which Isuzu was converted to an AA cruiser) or Yubari.

    You had listed the U/Umpire class sub, if you want a second British sub I would go with the T, longer range, more torpedos than the S, and a good war record.
     
  4. Zedder

    Zedder New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2015
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    2
    V sub is out. T sub is in.
    Nagara in. Katori out


    I'll hold off for more feedback before locking down or changing the cruiser groups. I'm leaning towards having 15 heavy and 5 light. I think that would help things. But I'm unsure which 5 are best to keep in the light grouping.

    Dido was mentioned as good AA. Same with Atlanta, but that would come at a cost of one of the other USA cruisers.
     
  5. Zedder

    Zedder New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2015
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    2
    My lists for aircraft and tanks are pretty solid. Been at this for days. The only one I think that needs tweaking (structurally) is this ship list. I'll let it sit for awhile. Hopefully get some good feedback into the cruiser restructure idea and go back at it.

    It's almost what I hoped to accomplish so thanks.
     
  6. Gromit801

    Gromit801 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,247
    Likes Received:
    132
    If you keep the type XXI submarine, the credibility of your game is gone.
     
  7. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    7,143
    Likes Received:
    1,391
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    He has Weapon class destroyers that did not begin commissioning until 1947. At least the Type XXIs were commissioned during the war, and two boats began war patrols before the war ended.
     
  8. Zedder

    Zedder New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2015
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    2
    BOOM!!! What he said.


    Gromit... come on man. Ease up. If you're just taking a personal shot at the authenticity then I can live with that. But if you're saying that a lot of people will be turned off from the usage of that one unit then maybe I should pay attention. As you can see from the 3 posts I have going and the countless hours (weeks) I've spent on trying to gain even a little knowledge of WW2 and the military technology it included, you can see that I'm trying to get things right here. It's not as easy as just listing whatever units I want to use. I'm trying to have everything fit into framework.

    If the inclusion of XXI subs sticks out that much then maybe I ditch it. But instead of a fly-by jab, stop for a chat. Give more feedback. We're friendly people.

    For the others that have put feedback into this or the other threads... should I ditch that sub? Should I ditch the weapon class? Along the same lines as that, I used a Japanese prototype heavy tank to make everything work over on the tank side of things. Again, pushing WW2 authenticity.

    But the answer to your concern is actually quite simpler Gromit. Check this out...

    The game takes place in the future. Post apocalyptic. Old technology is rediscovered. Therefore... using something that only made it to the drawing board is actually totally acceptable so..... my game's credibility will sleep fine tonight.

    That being said, I'm still logging the hours trying to get this as right as I can.
     
  9. Zedder

    Zedder New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2015
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    2
    Regarding those 2 units (XXI and weapon), it's an easy fix. Weapon can be replaced by a few different UK destroyer classes. And I could choose a lesser model of the german sub.

    One reason I like having the XXI included is if you look at the top of every category, a US ship is ranked the highest for each for all the other ones. It seems to provide better balance to the units.

    I have a large spreadsheet for all my units and I had intro dates of 1943 for the subs, and 1945 for the weapon. My info isn't 100% i guess.
     
  10. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    11,543
    Likes Received:
    1,063
    Location:
    Michigan
    This changed over time but here's my take on it.

    Their designed function was to defeat major combat vessels (battleships and secondarily cruisers) of their opponents. Secondary weapons were initially provided as protection vs torpedo boats and destroyers. Protection vs aircraft became an important secondary function as well by the mid 30's but how important and when varried by nation. Late war the lack of naval opposition meant that they became AA and fire support platforms. Note that in some navies the fire support (land attack role) was never well developed (the Midway invasion force had a bombardment force of a few cruisers and their escorts and no provisions for the landing force to call for fire support).

    Destroyers were primarily designed to defeat torpedo boats initially (initially they were called torpedo boat destroyers) but took on the role of torpedo boats as well. In WW2 they also took on the role of AA escorts. They were used extensivly by the USN as fire support for land attack as well.

    Cruisers were pretty much designed as the "jack of all trades" initially. They had the range to patrol significant distances from their home station and could stand up to anything other than battleships. They were thus designed to fight other curisers and smaller ships. By WWII some significant differences had evolved. The IJN for instance saw them as battleship killers by arming them with large numbers of very powerful torpedoes (the Type 93 or Long Lance). The US on the other hand only had torpedos on one class the Atlantas and they were removed from that class around midwar I beleive. The focus was defintily on other surface targets although most US cruisers had a strong AA suite and the Atlantas (orignially disigned as destroyer killers I believe) were later called AA cruisers. They were also used for land attack.

    Have you considered the possiblity of having multiple ratings? This will break the targeting down by class rather than by type. It could also allow you to standardize the numbers across types.

    For instance you might have the following:
    With a crude attempt at a rating
    defence/anti surface/anti air/torpedo/land attack/ASW
    Alaska 10/10/ 8 /-/10/ -
    Atlanta 2/ 3/10/ 3/ 3 /-

    Torpedoes are very limited and have a very low PH but even a single hit can be devestating. You can wrap them into general anti surface but it's going to be a bit subjective.

    Doing something like this could allow you to assigne the anti surface value to be a function of say throw weight per minute with possible modifications for fire control and range. Defence could be some compination of tonnage and armor with modifications if they had some outstanding feature in either direction.

    A similar process could work for land and air combat as well. If you combine the elements you essentially have to weight each one and again that can be quite subjective.
     
  11. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    11,543
    Likes Received:
    1,063
    Location:
    Michigan
    I notice that light carft MTB's and such aren't included. Are they a possible update or just something you don't want to deal with?
     
  12. Carronade

    Carronade Ace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    2,134
    Likes Received:
    308
    Assuming you keep them in the game. Leipzig, Konigsberg, Dido, Agano, Nagara, and Admiral Nakhimov have to remain light cruisers, as would Atlanta if you add her. Only Dido and Atlanta had dual-purpose main armament. The only other AA cruisers were the British C class conversions and a few odd ones like Delhi or Isuzu.

    Cleveland had a significantly better AA armament than other 6" cruisers, six twin 5" including fore and aft centerline mounts, two centerline Mark 37 directors, the best AA fire control system of the war; I'd rate her effective AA firepower twice that of other CLs.
     
  13. Zedder

    Zedder New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2015
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    2
    I felt dumb when I was typing light craft mtb's into google but then I felt better because google didn't even know what they were. I'm assuming it's torpedo boats.

    But the answer is no IWD. Plans are, units wise, to lock down this 150 units for WW2. Then move on to the other 330 I have planned for post WW2. As you can tell, that's plenty for me, for now.

    If in the future once all this is out there doing it's thing if we want to add little subsets that would enhance game, then sure we may look at adding cool things. But that's so far down the road.
     
  14. Zedder

    Zedder New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2015
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    2
    Alrighty.. so I went back through the thread. Here's where I've landed. I'm gonna keep the HC and LC groups at 10 each. But I've changed the hitting properties of the L. Cruiser group. Instead of just hitting air, it will now hit air and sea. That fixes the weirdness and saves me from attempting to squish boats into a AA cruiser group. It allows light cruisers to be light cruisers.

    The end result is 3 ships hitting air. 4 hitting sea. 3 hitting land. I can live with that.




    Here's the other main thing... In retrospect, I should have planned for each unit type to have a primary target and a secondary target. Example, It hits land targets at this power and hits air targets at a lesser power. That's what you guys have been saying. I do like that. IWD goes further in-depth but I think even just having that 2 tired power approach would add more strategy in the game.

    There always has been a balance planned with units that hit multiple unit types to not hit as hard as units that hit single types but I like the 2 different values approach better. I may go into this. I may not. The game was originally planned to happen on a phone. Programming allows lots of mechanics that don't translate to a board game.

    I will however, try this during game testing. If it's a must add, I'll come back and bother you guys some more. There's only been a few of yas helping out, but it's been very very helpful.


    Once the card game / board game are out there we plan to build an app version. The app version will allow lots of funky things. We can get back to the complex mechanics we originally had planned and then some. So some of the features you guys are saying would be cool additions have been scratched down a long time ago.

    Basically, I want to be able to play this board game with my kid, without the use of a calculator. But, I want it to be fun and strategic. That's why we can't overload it.
     
  15. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    11,543
    Likes Received:
    1,063
    Location:
    Michigan
    I haven't managed to get to it but let me propose a methodology and once that's done it shouldn't be too hard for us to discuss the ratings.

    First of all comparing classes a 10 point scale is rather limitng if you evaluate all classes to the same scale. For protection one could argue that a DD while much more fragile can be harder to hit. On the other hand about the only way for a DD to inflict serious damage on a battleship (or even a heavy cruiser) is with torpedos. But lets Focus on DDs.

    First of all we will consider a number of sub factors then they can be rolled into some sort of average depending on how many numbers you want and just what they represent.

    Speed is probably the easiest. I'd take the top speed divide by 5. (thus 50 knots = 10, 40 knots =8, etc). Most DDs will come in at 7 or 8 with a few possibly as high as 9 and others down at 6 or if DE's and their like are considered even as low as 4. This same scale could apply to all vessels or you could change the divisor to say 3.5 for battleships and 4 for curisers.

    Protection can be broken down into avoiding getting hit and surviving a hit. Most DDs are pretty much on a par as far as avoiding being hit I believe (willing to listen to arguments other wise though). Surving a hit is a function of subdivisions, armor, and size. For size I'd divide the full load displacement by 500 (most WWII DD's will end up with being rated from 3 to 8 on this scale). If they have outstanding use of subdivisions they might rate a + or -1 one in either direction or possibly even a 2. Not much in the way of armor on DD's but enclosed turrets might rate a +1 or so. US DD's used armor quality steel througout so they may rate a +1 or so as well. Japanese DD's if they still have torpedos on board might rate a -1 especially if they have reloads and they are type 93's.

    Fire Power for destroyers has three distinct areas. AA fire power, surface gun firepower (this effects both land and naval targets), and torpdedo fire power. AA firepower is going to be rather complicated as the range of the guns can be critical. If one breaks them down into heavy (3" or better), medium (1" to 3"), and light (under 1") one can probably come up with decent ratings for each catagory but how to combine them is problematic. Also of note is the fact that heavy AA protected both the DD itself and potentially other ships it was escorting. A good measure of surface gun firepower would be throw weight of the main armament over a period of say 1 minute. A good source for this information is:
    http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/index_weapons.htm
    I think I'd divide the throw weight by1000 for a Fletcher (using 20 rpm) this would result in a 6. Given the fire control of the fletcher I'd add 1 to that and if it has radar fire contorl at least another 1 so Fletcher would end up with a rating of 7 - 8 and a Gearing a 7 - 9. Akizuki would rate (using 15 rpm) 4 +1 for superior Japanese optics and +1 for fire control and range so a 6, AA fire would rate an additional +1 for the high velocity and range. A German DD with 5 5.9" guns would rate 4 + or minus for other features. Torpedoes we could use the total explosive weight carried divided by Shimkaze with 15 type 93's plus reloads is going to dominate this field even if you only cout reloads at half value. At full value divide the weight of explosive carried by 3,000 and Shimkaze still rates an 11 3,300 puts her right at 10. One could give a plus for range and if early on a minus for reliability and possibly a plus for minimal wake and a +1 for supperior optics then there's the composition of the explosive I think was around 30% more powerul than TNT which would suggest 4,000. if you go with 5,000 and multiply the warhead weight of 32,400 by 1.3 you end up with an 8 factor in the modification above and you end up with a 9 or 10. Fletcher for comparison would rate a 2 or 3 even with late war torpex warheads and possibly a +1 or 2 for radar fire control.
     

Share This Page