Ship classes/values

[macgregor]

Any way here's the work I've done on this. I think it will work well if I ever can get an editor to work long enough for me to load it. Please tell me what you think. This is there for whoever wants to use it. My plan is to represent smaller vessels and subs with 5-10 generic classes each. Units would be arranged to represent 1-3 capital ships including 3-9 escorts to allow the fastest groups to be formed first. Some escort groups would be ASW oriented and subs would of course be grouped as wolfpacks. Hopefully the new patch will include a more windows-friendly stable editor. Keep in mind Japanese ships' movement are in the 'Zero Hour' scale.

UK BBs (# of ships in class) hits/ Att-Def-AA (movement allowance-EA) /# of planes
Queen Elizabeth(5) 5/5 150 -160 -48 (48)
Nelson(2) 6/6 146 - 161 -33 (46)
Revenge(4) 4/4 180 -181 -42 (42)
King George V(5) 6/6 146 -163 -57 (57)
Hood(1) 6/6 146 -141 -44 (64)
Renown(2) 4/4 172 -166 -66 (64)
Vanguard(1) 6/6 146 -181 -89 (59)
CVs
Ark Royal(1) 4/4 31 -121 -100 (62) /72
Furious(1) 4/4 62 -121 -66 (59) /60
Courageous(2) 4/4 31 -121 -83 (59) /48
Indomitable 4/4 31 -151 -100 (62) /60
Eagle(1) 3/3 83 -161 -44 (48) /21
Argus(1) 2/2 30 -60 -30 (42) /18
Hermes(1) 1/1 125 -363 -60 (50) /22
Unicorn(1) 2/2 62 -181 -133 (48) /70
Implacable(2) 4/4 31 -121 -83 (64) /80
CAs
York(2) 2/2 156 -242 -66 (65)
Dorsetshire(2) 2/2 187 -242 -133 (65)
London(4) 2/2 187 -242 -83 (64)
Kent(5) 2/2 150 -242 -93 (64)
Cavendish(3) 2/2 104 -181 -88 (64)

Germany BBs
Sharnhorst(2) 5/5 138 -169 -53 (63)
Bismarck(2) 7/7 134 -138 -38 (58)
Lutzow(3) 2/2 250 -181 -88 (52)
Deutschland(Old)(2) 2/2 125 -181 -66 (37)
CAs
Hipper(3) 2/2 187 -242 -83 (64)

Italy BBs
Veneto(3) 6/6 167 -161 -44 (62)
Doria(2) 3/3 229 -202 -66 (42)
Cavour(2) 3/3 208 -202 -32 (44)
CAs
Bolzano(1) 2/2 250 -242 -133 (72)
Zara(4) 2/2 172 -302 -133 (64)
Trento(2) 2/2 219 -242 -133 (70)

France BBs
Richelieu(2?) 6/6 146 -181 -66 (64)
Dunkerque(2) 5/5 125 -145 -67 (60)
BRETAGNE(3) 3/3 222 -202 -30 (43)
COURBET(3) 3/3 208 -202 -30 (42)
CV
Bearn(1) 4/4 31 -91 -33 (42) /?
CAs
Algerie(1) 2/2 187 -242 -133 (64)
SUFFREN(4) 2/2 140 -181 -66 (62)
TOURVILLE(2) 2/2 156 -121 -44 (67)

USSR BBs
Gangut(3) 3/3 194 -202 -30 (46)
CAs
MAXIM GORKIJ(4) 2/2 156 -181 -66 (72)
KIROV(2) 2/2 125 -181 -66 (72)

USA BBs
Iowa(4) 7/7 161 -156 -100 (66)
SOUTH DAKOTA(4) 6/6 172 -161 -94 (55)
North Carolina(2) 6/6 167 -161 -78 (56)
Colorado(3) 5/5 175 -169 -62 (42)
NEVADA(2) 4/4 187 -181 -83 (40)
Tennessee(2) 5/5 175 -169 -67 (42)
New Mexico(3) 5/5 175 -169 -62 (44)
Pennsylvania(2) 5/5 175 -145 -62 (42)
New York(2) 4/4 187 -151 -50 (42)
WYOMING(2) 4/4 156 -151 -50 (42)
Alaska(2) 4/4 187 -212 -133 (66)
CVs
Lexington(2) 6/6 52 -101 -66 (69) /90
Ranger(1) 2/2 62 -181 -133 (60) /80
Yorktown(3) 3/3 36 -161 -103 (68) /100
Wasp(1) 2/2 62 -181 -133 (59) /85
Essex(10) 4/4 47 -151 -120 (66) /100
TICONDEROGA(14) 4/4 71 -151 -123 (66) /100
CAs
Pensacola(2) 2/2 187 -181 -100 (65)
Northampton(6) 2/2 187 -181 -122 (65)
PORTLAND(2) 2/2 187 -242 -133 (65)
New Orleans(7) 2/2 187 -242 -161 (65)
Wichita(1) 2/2 187 -242 -133 (65)
Baltimore(14) 2/2 201 -302 -142 (66)
ATLANTA(4) ?

Holland CAs
Java(2) 2/2 144 -181 -33 (61)
De Ruyter(1) 2/2 62 -141 -66 (64)

Japan BBs
Fuso(2) 4/4 234 -212 -33 (22)
Ise(2) 5/5 188 -169 -27 (23)
NAGATO(2) 6/6 156 -141 -33 (25)
KONGO(4) 5/5 156 -145 -33 (29)
Yamato(2) 9/9 153 -134 -52 (27)
CVs
Akagi(1) 5/5 50 -121 -53 (31) /91
Kaga(1) 6/6 62 -101 -44 (28) /90
Soryu(1) 2/2 62 -181 -133 (34) /73
Hiryu(1) 2/2 125 -181 -133 (34) /73
Shokaku(2) 4/4 62 -181 -83 (34) /84
Junyo(2) 3/3 42 -81 -89 (25) /53
Shinano(1) 9/9 28 -40 -29 (27) /47
Taiho(1) 5/5 25 -97 -27 (33) /61
Unryu(3) 3/3 63 -121 -89 (34) /64
Hosho(1) 1/1 63 -121 -67 (25) /21
Ryujo(1) 2/2 62 -121 -62 (24) /?
Zuiho(2) 2/2 62 -60 -100 (28) /30
Ryuho(1) 2/2 62 -126 -66 (26) /31
Chitose(2) 2/2 62 -60 -66 (34) /30

[Curtis Lemay]

You don't have any values for ranges or shell weights.

Also, I don't understand the rationale for the steps, since they all seem to be identical. Erik was splitting the ships into multiple sections, but it had a purpose: to separate the main/secondary/tertiary armaments, since they each have different ranges and shell weights. Also, splitting carriers into 2 or 3 parts allows 2 or 3 air-groups to base on them, etc.

Finally, you don't show your methodology. What are your numbers based on?

[macgregor]

Okay...I'm glad you asked. Knowing that the default BB #s were derived from the Queen Elizabeth class BB, I simply 'met-up' those #s from 'World in Flames'(WiF) with the TOAW values, coming up with an equation for each value. 'WiF' values mind you vary from ship to ship, so I had to equate average values according to class. Speed and #/hits were determined using a database website and are based on actual speed, with hits dividing the total value based on around 1 hit per 7500kt displacement; around the amount of hits I wanted to give the units based on the timescale of say EA or Zero Hour, as well as provide a hopefully universal amount that is equitable for the replacement engine(not that I know exactly how it works yet)by being equivalent to the 'one hit' escort, while allowing units to actually be sunk as well as damaged. Gunnery range is somewhat limited considering the scale of these two scenarios. I probably will work with a 0-3 range system extensively using house rules which I've already posted to some degree(currently based on a 0-2 range system). Having values for secondary batteries is an interesting idea, as well as allowing for torpedoes to be represented. I'm already using multiple 'hits', this would require me to use multiple lines as well, but is indeed possible. The WiF values are well tested for interaction, I'm always looking to interact with others who've given this some thought.

[macgregor]

In the scenarios that I want to add ships to, range will not be a factor as it will be too large a scale to represent realistically. What I'll do is keep these numbers(unless something really proves itself to be more accurate), but add lines with the # of w/shorter ranged weapons in the flotilla. At 2 hexes(12km), 5" guns and some long range torpedoes(though at greatly diminished effectiveness) and of course, at 1 hex(<6km), the kitchen sink(blub blub blub). I'm not so sure it might not still be better for scale accommodation to stick with 2 ranges. After all, many islands in the Pacific are only one hex. W/ 3-hex range some of these groups are going to look like they're firing Tomahawks. 2 hexes is accurate for EA, I'd only be bending the ranges for the Pacific. 3 would be nice though, what do you think? House rules will play an important part in making battles realistic by limiting support as these will represent at first micro-scale encounters. Time will be bent. But the feel of naval combat will be preserved. Support will be permitted based on the remaining movement of the unit, and max out at say, 4 units(1 per 15? mps), perhaps being progressive (round 1 -1 unit)

[Curtis Lemay]

My fear would be that what works for WiF, with however it resolves combat, will work much differently for TOAW. My issue with the steps, as you've used them is this:

Let's take the Iowa-class BBs. You've got 7 steps of 161-156. That totals to 1127-1092. Now in terms of AP strength, they probably are equivalent - that's just going to be summed and applied as a total anyway. But in terms of defense strengths, I'm not so sure. I would fear that those 7 steps are going to be far easier to eliminate than the total one would be. Essentially, you've made an Iowa-class BB the equivalent to 7 DDs. Naval combat is not going to work very well in TOAW regardless, but here I think you may have added an unnecessary impediment. I don't know for sure, though.

I worried about what Erik was doing, splitting the ships up into parts, but at least he had a compelling reason to do it.

[vahauser]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

My fear would be that what works for WiF, with however it resolves combat, will work much differently for TOAW. My issue with the steps, as you've used them is this:

Let's take the Iowa-class BBs. You've got 7 steps of 161-156. That totals to 1127-1092. Now in terms of AP strength, they probably are equivalent - that's just going to be summed and applied as a total anyway. But in terms of defense strengths, I'm not so sure. I would fear that those 7 steps are going to be far easier to eliminate than the total one would be. Essentially, you've made an Iowa-class BB the equivalent to 7 DDs. Naval combat is not going to work very well in TOAW regardless, but here I think you may have added an unnecessary impediment. I don't know for sure, though.

I worried about what Erik was doing, splitting the ships up into parts, but at least he had a compelling reason to do it.

I get worried when I find myself agreeing with Curtis too often (like more than once or twice per year). But I find myself agreeing with him once again. But more disturbing than agreeing with Curtis is that I also believe that Erik's approach was more on track with TOAW. I only wish Erik could have made it work...

[macgregor]

ORIGINAL: vahauser

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

My fear would be that what works for WiF, with however it resolves combat, will work much differently for TOAW. My issue with the steps, as you've used them is this:

Let's take the Iowa-class BBs. You've got 7 steps of 161-156. That totals to 1127-1092. Now in terms of AP strength, they probably are equivalent - that's just going to be summed and applied as a total anyway. But in terms of defense strengths, I'm not so sure. I would fear that those 7 steps are going to be far easier to eliminate than the total one would be. Essentially, you've made an Iowa-class BB the equivalent to 7 DDs. Naval combat is not going to work very well in TOAW regardless, but here I think you may have added an unnecessary impediment. I don't know for sure, though.

I worried about what Erik was doing, splitting the ships up into parts, but at least he had a compelling reason to do it.

I get worried when I find myself agreeing with Curtis too often (like more than once or twice per year). But I find myself agreeing with him once again. But more disturbing than agreeing with Curtis is that I also believe that Erik's approach was more on track with TOAW. I only wish Erik could have made it work...

That's a very important point to bring up,and if by dividing the defense strengths weakens the overall defense, I'll have to change the values, if not the plan. Erik did which scen? Countdown to Infamy? I've decided to take a different tact with this, though I think what Erik was doing was good too. I have yet to playtest it as there are serious glitches running it with TOAW3. What he's doing might work, but it shouldn't stop me from working on this. Perhaps we could agree to start in different theaters. He has the advantage now as his editor works. Mine still crash upon activation. I have what I consider to be very good values that will interact well from WiF and include subs and all kinds of maritime aircraft. Complicating combat with hull damage and whatnot is a tricky process. It may work if the values are correct and the numbers interact well. I'm going for something I feel is more direct, that is, if I ever get my editor working. I'm almost content at this point waiting for the next patch.

[Erik2]

ORIGINAL: vahauser
I get worried when I find myself agreeing with Curtis too often (like more than once or twice per year). But I find myself agreeing with him once again. But more disturbing than agreeing with Curtis is that I also believe that Erik's approach was more on track with TOAW. I only wish Erik could have made it work...

Why do you assume my ships do not work? They seem to do in several of my scenarios wich all use the same system.
Remember that I divided the defense values so that for battleships the primary ship-part got about 2/3rd of the 'normal' defense value, secondary a smaller part and tertiary the smallest. Cruiser and destroyers had only two parts or one part.