Surface Ship Classes

[George Geczy]

There has been feedback over time (both SRCW and SR1936) about our classes for naval surface vessels. This has become worse in the WWII timeframe due to the importance of some large capital ships (Batttleships, BattleCruisers), which didn't really exist as a major element after the war.

The other problem that's been around since SRCW but remained unresolved is the massive overlap of the frigate and destroyer classifications. In our equipment list we have dozens and dozens of units in the larger "Destroyer/Cruiser" category that are weaker, shorter ranged, and lighter than units in the "Frigate" category. So it has become a bit of mess.

Technically, it is too difficult to add a new class to the naval set (and even having a new class doesn't resolve the oddities of some designs named "Frigate" being stronger/heavier/longer-range compared to designs named "Destroyer").

So the proposal is to re-define the three surface combat ship categories, and re-assign units to the correct category. For your consideration, here is the proposal:

- Capital Ships:
Battleships, Battlecruisers, Heavy Cruisers
Weight (displacements) over 10,000 t

- Escort Ships:
Light Cruisers, Destroyers, Frigates, some Corvettes
Weight 1000 to 10000 t
Crews 150 or more
Travel Range over 5000 km

- Patrol Ships:
Light Corvettes; Coastal Patrol, etc
Weight under 1000 t
Crews under 100
Travel Range under 5000 km

For ships near "edge", consider:
- Does it meet all requirements for larger class? (Weight, Range, Crew)
- What are comparable ships (wikipedia, etc) classed as?
- What sort of armament does it have, compared to other ships of the class?
- What is it generally called? (use this as last consideration, class names imprecise).

[Zuikaku]

Will this actually solve the problem or just shift it to new classes?
As far as I know, overlaping ship classes is not any problem for the player but for the AI build policies.

So, my basic concerns with new proposals are:

- will AI ever build heavy cruisers or will again battleship (BB) be the only capital ship being built?

- will AI ever build destroyers (DDs) and frigates or will again light cruiser (Cl) be the only escort ship being built?

- will AI ever build patrol crafts or will again corvettes be the only patrol ship being built?

- and we have the same problem with fixed wing transport aircrafts and transport helicopters.

- there is no selective unit trade (sorry I failed to resist the temptation)

So ,as far as I can see it, the real solution of the problem would be if AI could know how to build and use different ships. That would eliminate the need for new classes or reshuffling of existing classes.

Maybe if the unit database could get a new field/category in which naval (and some other) classes would get designations or prefixes like "BB", "CA", "Cl", "DD", "PC".
In that way AI build script could be updated with something like this:

- ... if expanding navy offensive, build 2 BB, 4CV, 6 CA, 40 DDs, 15 SS (if class is available)
- if expanding low on resources, build 1 CV, 10 DD, 30 PC, 10 SS (if class is available)


AI regions should also stop building battleships after any of the regions research certain techs or units (like advanced torpedo/naval bombers). Why after any country researches? Well, to prevent silly situations when US is introducing anti ship missiles , but some less technically developed countries continue to mass produce (now mostly useless) battleships...

[SGTscuba]

I do actually like the change, but I do also see the same AI production issues as Zuikaku

[Fistalis]

I do actually like the change, but I do also see the same AI production issues as Zuikaku

which to me is the real problem. What ships are classified as is really a non issue, where as the Production issues are real. IIRC the only reason the class issue was brought up by those in this forum is due to the production issues. Adding additional classes would have allowed for a change in the build list to actually build those classes. This is nothing but a reshuffle that does nothing to resolve that.

[Hundane]

I do actually like the change, but I do also see the same AI production issues as Zuikaku

which to me is the real problem. What ships are classified as is really a non issue, where as the Production issues are real. IIRC the only reason the class issue was brought up by those in this forum is due to the production issues. Adding additional classes would have allowed for a change in the build list to actually build those classes. This is nothing but a reshuffle that does nothing to resolve that.

I agree.

[George Geczy]

Well, certainly one trait of the AI is that it decides on its favorite units and then builds them to the exclusion of others. This is likely more of an issue for WWII where people expect to see a wider range of unit designs in the field (to match historical elements).

One possible solution here could be for the AI build decisions to adjust its selection weightings a bit between each pass - ie, look for faster/cheaper units first pass, then larger/heavy gunned the next, etc. This could result in the building of a wider range of vessels.

-- George.

[Zuikaku]

Well, certainly one trait of the AI is that it decides on its favorite units and then builds them to the exclusion of others. This is likely more of an issue for WWII where people expect to see a wider range of unit designs in the field (to match historical elements).

Actually it was the issue even in SRCW. I think we can all still remember navies in '60s filled with masses of BBs and only a few (if any) new DDs.
So, instead of reshuffling classes, maybe it would be more productive to try improving build policies.
The only benefit I can see from your suggestion is that AI will finally start to produce CLs. But still, no CAs and DDs.

It is not only about expectations. AI is hurting himself with wrong build policies. Why? AI will burn huge amounts of resources to build wast number of battleships. But it will not build any of the destroyers to escort them. So, the only thing player need to do is to build few submarines and all those BBs are dead and useless....

Land and air unit production could also benefit from new AI build policies. AI decision to build only one favourite (very often most expensive) unit sometimes just makes AI regions to collapse.

One possible solution here could be for the AI build decisions to adjust its selection weightings a bit between each pass - ie, look for faster/cheaper units first pass, then larger/heavy gunned the next, etc. This could result in the building of a wider range of vessels.

So, it is not possible to add additional column in unit database to help AI know what is BB and what is CA? So, AI will first look in the unit class in the first pass (capital ship) and then subclass (BB, CA). And it can be then scripted to build one BB subclass and 5 CA....

[Balthagor]

And it can be then scripted to build one BB subclass and 5 CA....

That's already possible, but doing it for all ships of all navies with proper condition checks into the modern era would take us an extra year of development.

[Hullu Hevonen]

If you consider the role changes that WWII ships have went trough until today it would be more logical to have a structucure that can accomondate for these. Already by mid WWII The capital ships where in escort/AA defence/Shore bombardement roles compared to Ship vs Ship earlier. So that Escort Ships can in future compensate Battleships for the escort/aa defence roles and become more multipurpose. Because will the AI still build Yamatos in 1975? So if there's no design newer than tech level x than don't build obsolete WWII ships in say 1975. Think this is an more potent solution.

[SGTscuba]

Also, what's the point of AI building Aircraft Carriers at the moment when they can't even use them properly, they tie up just as many resources as battleships?

[geminif4ucorsair]

I do actually like the change, but I do also see the same AI production issues as Zuikaku

which to me is the real problem. What ships are classified as is really a non issue, where as the Production issues are real. IIRC the only reason the class issue was brought up by those in this forum is due to the production issues. Adding additional classes would have allowed for a change in the build list to actually build those classes. This is nothing but a reshuffle that does nothing to resolve that.

I would concur:
1. that the Category is not the problem....though from an identification standpoint for some, it might be helpful....in that regard, I do like it.

There is also another ship type not referenced above: Coastal Defence Ships (CDS), which includes about a dozen classes (Sweden, Norway, Denmark and others) in the new SR-1936. They are Patrol Ships, nor Battleships - but more often are comparable with mid-30s cruiser tonnage but and with 10 to 12-inch guns (but few), are comparable in some ratings to Cruisers, yet don't have the Range of cruisers.
Where to put them?

2. My greater concern is that whatever the Category's assigned, that the Fuel Consumption rates vary between Patrol Ships (Escorts, Corvettes, etc.), Cruisers, and Battleships.

Several examples of actual fuel consumption have been forwarded to BG, and presumed applied to the performance of these ships - and, since they vary so much, that all Cat 17s as current combined, are properly accounted for (though Range is part of the data sheets, which is based on a Cruise Speed of 15-knots for all ships).

3. Integrating "old" and "new" technologies.....with proliferation of ship types in SR-1936, there is a carry-over into and past SR-1949 (SR-CW)
for a great number of the classes.

The current effort is to use the various category of Attack (Soft, Hard, Fort, Close), Naval Attack and and Air Defense to represent these differing era's of warships; when SAM and other missile types enter the picture, SAM has an Anti-Air rating just like AA-capable guns, while surface-to-surface missiles are accounted for in the Missile (Size & Numbers) ratings.

What is not know is the current status of the box known as "ECM".....ships beginning in 1944-45 began having it onboard, initially to jam German FX-1400 and HS-293 air-to-surface missiles. This carried over into future ship designs post-war.

But, how is ECM rated in 1944-45 compared to ships of the 1960s or 2000's....is it the same "ECM" impact?

4. Production by AI....this is an issue, that I would agree needs some attention by Battlegoat (BG). It should not that difficult, for in the data sheets the IOC date is there and either historical or some other criterial should be used to produce for all Regions.

As ZUIKAKU notes, it is uncommon or not at all, to find new ships built within AI-controlled regions at the levels historical.

P.S. - And, not, Japan would not be building Yamato Class BBs in the late-50s....there is a end-of-production date placed on the majority of ship classes (as well as aircraft, in particular) in which they - in effect - become obsolete (vice obsolescent), and the computer will not allow production beyond that date. I.E., player must replace with alternative production options.

The Japanese battleship strategy of building Yamato and Super-Yamato BBs was based on attaining superior quality over the U.S., not in pure numbers, but quality of unit. That achievement was believed to be based on superiority achieved in 1950. Remember, the IJN was still dominated by pre-war "battleship admirals" (as was the U.S., by the way). So, if Japan could stay out of a war with the U.S. by that time, it would in theory achieve its naval strategy (of course, the aircraft carrier and Dec 41 war, ended all hope of that!).

Production available date for Yamato BB is 1936; end available date is 1951....that is a 15-year spread of availability.

In addition, there are various SAM modernizations built into my current mdb working copy, which is picked up by BG, would allow for a wide-range of battleships to be modernized with new options - the same philosophy that led to several U.S. proposals to upgrade its fast battleships
(and, Alaska large cruisers) with Terrier or Talos SAMs. It does offer Players several new options, therefore.

[Gonzar]

Also, what's the point of AI building Aircraft Carriers at the moment when they can't even use them properly, they tie up just as many resources as battleships?

Agree.

Also, as long as it doesn't use them together as a fleet or battlegroup, it won't matter much if the AI builds or not all avalaible classes.
Those different classes are meant to complement each other in different roles. If ships are moved single it won't matter much to just solve the build issues.

[geminif4ucorsair]

If you consider the role changes that WWII ships have went trough until today it would be more logical to have a structucure that can accomondate for these. Already by mid WWII The capital ships where in escort/AA defence/Shore bombardement roles compared to Ship vs Ship earlier. So that Escort Ships can in future compensate Battleships for the escort/aa defence roles and become more multipurpose. Because will the AI still build Yamatos in 1975? So if there's no design newer than tech level x than don't build obsolete WWII ships in say 1975. Think this is an more potent solution.

Crezy:

One possible solution here could be for the AI build decisions to adjust its selection weightings a bit between each pass - ie, look for faster/cheaper units first pass, then larger/heavy gunned the next, etc. This could result in the building of a wider range of vessels.

This might be simplified a bit.
1. AI would be stopped from building new Capital Ships (BB/BC) design upon the Region going to War (DC).....historically, only ships building at time of declaration of war were continued (and, even historically, some were cancelled - USSR "Sovietskii Soyuz" or German H-39, as examples.
This would eliminate further consideration of capital ship until after Peace was established.

2. A simple ratio of Destroyer-classes to larger (BB/BC/cruisers) was generally on the order of 8 to 10 to 1, depending on the navy.

While this ratio is of course dependent on naval strategies at the time....the Atlantic anti-submarine war required a much greater investment in
Frigate and Corvette categories than the Pacific War, a "standard" - BG loves the term - could be set.....at something like this:

* Per capital ship laid down, 3 cruisers + 8 or 10 DD
* Per Cruiser laid down, 4 or 5 DD or 8 or 10 Frigates / Corvettes......[see comment below as to "why"]

This allows for the assumption of surface warfare commonly conducted by fast ship types (BB, CA/CL/CLAA, DD), while also accommodating
the general ASW common from pre-WW 2 to the post-Vietnam Era.

Even if one is looking at the era when SAM missiles became available (mid-50s - with the "Boston" Class CAG Terrier SAM conversion), the U.S.
shortly thereafter engaged in conversion of Forest Sherman class DDs, built new "Charles F. Adams" class DDGs, and continued the process until the era of the AEGIC CG and DDGs came along. The necessary protection for task forces simply increased as the capabilities of attack aircraft increased (moving to faster bombers and eventual emergence of stand-off missiles), and, the switch from protecting battleships to aircraft carriers.

The ASW problem continued to demand attention, because the Atlantic War against German submarines progressed, eventually thru the era of the Cold War against the Warsaw Pact - where the USSR (already a long-time advocate of the submarine) moved from WW 2 to the post-war Cold War of building great numbers of sumbarines - and subs just go better, demanding more anti-sub frigates, corvettes, etc. - to protect one's trade routes (less emphasis of these smaller ASW escorts in protecting the fast ships of the task forces, leaving that to faster ASW destroyers, etc.).

3. There need be little if any "tailoring" of the Ratio of ships controlled by the AI to specific regions...sure, the U.S. Destroyer Squadrons were based on 10 ships and the UK eight (8 or 9 w/Leader), but it is really less critical, because there "divisions" were based on 5 and 4, respectively.... which could be the adopted "ratio" to meet the above criteria.

its not perfect, but better than what now exists.

4. Lastly, if a Region does not yet have Cruiser or Battleship designs available, the AI simply build's to these ratios until such time as they become available.

Example: Thailand gains the "Taksin" class light cruisers - two ships - (from Italy) at some point, the AI would build 4 or 5 Destroyers (if it had DD designs available), or 8 or ten Frigates designs (if available).....if neither were available at the time of acquiring the "Taksin" small cruisers,
the AI would simply wait until either a DD/FF/Corvette design was available to meet the requirement - and then, build until the requirement was met (or a new one emerged, such as another cruiser acquired).

My idea anyway.

[Zuikaku]

And, in the end, what will be done regarding this issue??

[barkhauer]

If you consider the role changes that WWII ships have went trough until today it would be more logical to have a structucure that can accomondate for these. Already by mid WWII The capital ships where in escort/AA defence/Shore bombardement roles compared to Ship vs Ship earlier. So that Escort Ships can in future compensate Battleships for the escort/aa defence roles and become more multipurpose. Because will the AI still build Yamatos in 1975? So if there's no design newer than tech level x than don't build obsolete WWII ships in say 1975. Think this is an more potent solution.

Crezy:

One possible solution here could be for the AI build decisions to adjust its selection weightings a bit between each pass - ie, look for faster/cheaper units first pass, then larger/heavy gunned the next, etc. This could result in the building of a wider range of vessels.

This might be simplified a bit.
1. AI would be stopped from building new Capital Ships (BB/BC) design upon the Region going to War (DC).....historically, only ships building at time of declaration of war were continued (and, even historically, some were cancelled - USSR "Sovietskii Soyuz" or German H-39, as examples.
This would eliminate further consideration of capital ship until after Peace was established.

2. A simple ratio of Destroyer-classes to larger (BB/BC/cruisers) was generally on the order of 8 to 10 to 1, depending on the navy.

While this ratio is of course dependent on naval strategies at the time....the Atlantic anti-submarine war required a much greater investment in
Frigate and Corvette categories than the Pacific War, a "standard" - BG loves the term - could be set.....at something like this:

* Per capital ship laid down, 3 cruisers + 8 or 10 DD
* Per Cruiser laid down, 4 or 5 DD or 8 or 10 Frigates / Corvettes......[see comment below as to "why"]

This allows for the assumption of surface warfare commonly conducted by fast ship types (BB, CA/CL/CLAA, DD), while also accommodating
the general ASW common from pre-WW 2 to the post-Vietnam Era.

Even if one is looking at the era when SAM missiles became available (mid-50s - with the "Boston" Class CAG Terrier SAM conversion), the U.S.
shortly thereafter engaged in conversion of Forest Sherman class DDs, built new "Charles F. Adams" class DDGs, and continued the process until the era of the AEGIC CG and DDGs came along. The necessary protection for task forces simply increased as the capabilities of attack aircraft increased (moving to faster bombers and eventual emergence of stand-off missiles), and, the switch from protecting battleships to aircraft carriers.

The ASW problem continued to demand attention, because the Atlantic War against German submarines progressed, eventually thru the era of the Cold War against the Warsaw Pact - where the USSR (already a long-time advocate of the submarine) moved from WW 2 to the post-war Cold War of building great numbers of sumbarines - and subs just go better, demanding more anti-sub frigates, corvettes, etc. - to protect one's trade routes (less emphasis of these smaller ASW escorts in protecting the fast ships of the task forces, leaving that to faster ASW destroyers, etc.).

3. There need be little if any "tailoring" of the Ratio of ships controlled by the AI to specific regions...sure, the U.S. Destroyer Squadrons were based on 10 ships and the UK eight (8 or 9 w/Leader), but it is really less critical, because there "divisions" were based on 5 and 4, respectively.... which could be the adopted "ratio" to meet the above criteria.

its not perfect, but better than what now exists.

4. Lastly, if a Region does not yet have Cruiser or Battleship designs available, the AI simply build's to these ratios until such time as they become available.

Example: Thailand gains the "Taksin" class light cruisers - two ships - (from Italy) at some point, the AI would build 4 or 5 Destroyers (if it had DD designs available), or 8 or ten Frigates designs (if available).....if neither were available at the time of acquiring the "Taksin" small cruisers,
the AI would simply wait until either a DD/FF/Corvette design was available to meet the requirement - and then, build until the requirement was met (or a new one emerged, such as another cruiser acquired).

My idea anyway.

Just to add, USA is the exception that proves the rule. They kept laying down more and more capital ships as the war went on (32 Essex- and 6 Midway-class CVs alone, plus 6 Iowas. I would also consider the 6 Alaska class to be something more than heavy cruisers, though I don't know if "battlecruiser" is accurate either. Super Cruiser?) though large portions of each class were cancelled as the war concluded and the ships became surplus to peacetime requirements. I worry that it will be almost comically easy to under-represent the US's economic/industrial might in this period.