Proposed: Commonwealth Destroyer Line

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

I have been researching ships of the Canadian and Australian navies to see if there are enough ships to put in a line. I believe there are definitely enough destroyers to have a full line of ships using real ships.

The idea behind this line is that of destroyers optimized for escort duty, especially strong against submarines...with anti-aircraft firepower to dissuade attack, and long emission time on their otherwise standard smoke generators.

These ships will not get any speed boost consumables and may be slow, comparative to other destroyers. They also have average to sub-average gun firepower and torpedo threat.

Consumables will be:

Smoke at tiers 2-10, standard dispersion time and cooldown, longer emission time.

DefAA at tiers 5-10, standard DD.

Hydro at tiers 6-10, ranges UK, Action Time and Cooldown shorter than standard.

Heal at tiers 9-10

Another key feature of the line is that each is a real ship. No paper ships.

Without further ado, let me introduce the tier 2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Patrician_(1916)

HMCS Patrician was a Thornycroft M-class destroyer that served in the British Royal Navy during World War 1. The destroyer entered service in 1916 and served with the Grand Fleet. Following the war, the destroyer was deemed surplus and she was transferred to the Royal Canadian Navy in 1920 and served there until 1928.

Hull:

8240 hp

4.96km concealment

35 knot speed, 436m turning circle, 2.2 second rudder shift

Main Guns:

3 × 1 QF 4 in (102 mm) Mark IV guns, mounting P Mk.IX

4.4 second reload, 8.47 km range, 720m/s muzzle velocity

Torpedoes:

2x2 533mm Mk 1

10,000 damage, 53 knots, 6km range

Reload: 53 seconds

Smoke Consumable:

3 charges

40 seconds action, 160 seconds cooldown

0.6km radius, 65 seconds to disperse.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

At tier 3, we have:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Vendetta_(D69)

HMAS Vendetta (D69/I69) (formerly HMS Vendetta (FA3/F29/D69)) was a V-class destroyer that served in the Royal Navy and the Royal Australian Navy (RAN). One of 25 V class ships ordered for the Royal Navy during World War I, Vendetta entered service in 1917.

During World War I, Vendetta participated in the Second Battle of Heligoland Bight, and operated against Bolshevik forces during the British Baltic Campaign. Most of the ship's post-war career was spent operating in the Mediterranean. In 1933, Vendetta was one of five destroyers selected for transfer to the RAN. Over the next six years, the ship was either involved in peacetime activities or was in reserve, but when World War II started, she was assigned to the Mediterranean as part of the 'Scrap Iron Flotilla'. During the Greek Campaign, Vendetta was involved in the transportation of Allied troops to Greece, then the evacuation to Crete. After, the destroyer served with the Tobruk Ferry Service, and made the highest number of runs to the besieged city of Tobruk.

At the end of 1941, Vendetta was docked for refit in Singapore, but after the Japanese invaded, the destroyer had to be towed to Fremantle, then Melbourne. After the refit, which converted the destroyer into a dedicated escort vessel, ended in December 1942, Vendetta spent the rest of World War II operating as a troop and convoy escort around Australia and New Guinea. Vendetta was decommissioned in late 1945, and was scuttled off Sydney Heads in 1948.

Hull:

8716 hp

5.61km concealment

35 knot speed, 459m turning circle, 2.3 second rudder shift

Main Guns:

4x1 102mm QF 4-inch naval gun Mk V

5.1 second reload, 12.00 km range, 716m/s muzzle velocity

Torpedoes:

2x2 533mm

10,000 damage, 53 knots, 6km range

Reload: 45 seconds

AA:

15.8 DPS out to 2.5 km

Smoke Consumable:

3 charges

40 seconds action, 160 seconds cooldown

0.6km radius, 65 seconds to disperse.

[Type_93]

Wouldn’t they all be just copy and paste of RN DDs? I’d much rather see a new line full of paper ships than more copies of existing ships with different gimmicks. 

[Verblonde]

13 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

I have been researching ships of the Canadian and Australian navies to see if there are enough ships to put in a line.

There certainly ought to be the numbers; presumably, the question will be how different they will be to things already in the game.

Personally, I love Haida, and the two Vampires; some sort of silver variation on that theme (especially Haida and Vampire) could be pretty cool, and - if crawling smoke/hydro is the line's gimmick - it might make them sufficiently different from the existing British line to be interesting?

A line of Hurons would - to me - be less interesting (we're not exactly short of things that can be spotted from the moon).

[invicta2012]

1 hour ago, Type_93 said:

Wouldn’t they all be just copy and paste of RN DDs? I’d much rather see a new line full of paper ships than more copies of existing ships with different gimmicks. 

They can be as different as anyone would want them to be... we already have numerous DDs of the same type in the game and they play differently based on their guns, consumables, and other qualities. DD play is a matter of tightrope walking (concealment, detection, torp-ranges) and these can be easily tweaked.

If there *is* a problem with a Commonwealth DD line it's the Tier X is very likely to be an Australian Daring class, and we already have Daring and Vampire II...  it might be possible to use an Aussie Battle (which has two Daring turrets, both at the front, as their main armament).

 

13 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

I have been researching ships of the Canadian and Australian navies to see if there are enough ships to put in a line. I believe there are definitely enough destroyers to have a full line of ships using real ships.

The idea behind this line is that of destroyers optimized for escort duty, especially strong against submarines...with anti-aircraft firepower to dissuade attack, and long emission time on their otherwise standard smoke generators.

These ships will not get any speed boost consumables and may be slow, comparative to other destroyers. They also have average to sub-average gun firepower and torpedo threat.

I did have a go at a Commonwealth line on the old forums (here) I'm not sure I would pick VI-VII-VIII in the same order these days, more likely to be Algonquin (VI), Crescent (VII). While an ASW line is very fitting for the history of the RCN in WW2, I have to say that these ships either have to have some form of special Sub ping avoidance or have anti-sub airstrikes, because WG made the current Sub/DD depth charge-based interaction much too dangerous for Destroyers. 

[Admiral_Karasu]

1 hour ago, invicta2012 said:

....WG made the current Sub/DD depth charge-based interaction much too dangerous for Destroyers. 

Fortunately, DD's are not the ships you'd primarily think to use against the subs.

Oh heavens where are my manners....

/s

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

At tier 4 we have:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Waterhen_(D22)

HMAS Waterhen (D22/I22) was a W-class destroyer that served in the Royal Navy (as HMS Waterhen (G28/D22)) and the Royal Australian Navy (RAN). Built during World War 1, the destroyer was completed in mid 1918, and commissioned into the Royal Navy. In 1933, Waterhen and four other British ships were transferred to the RAN. The ship's early RAN career was uneventful, with periods spent decommissioned in reserve, but she was reactivated in September 1939, and deployed to the Mediterranean as part of the Australian destroyer force: the Scrap Iron Flotilla. During her time in the Mediterranean, Waterhen was involved in escort and patrol duties, performed shore bombardments, and participated in Allied evacuations from Greece and Crete. On 29 June 1941, while operating with the Tobruk Ferry Service, Waterhen was heavily damaged by two Italian Regia Aeronautica's aircraft, dive bombers Ju 87 Stuka (renamed Picchiatello) of 239 squadriglia, flown by pilots Serg.mag. Ennio Tarantola e Serg. Lastrucci. Attempts to tow the ship to port were unsuccessful, and she sank on 30 June 1941, the first RAN ship lost to combat in World War II.

Hull:

10000 hp

6.29km concealment

34 knot speed, 500m turning circle, 2.5 second rudder shift

Main Guns:

4x1 102mm QF 4-inch naval gun Mk V

5.1 second reload, 12.00 km range, 716m/s muzzle velocity

Torpedoes:

2x4 533mm

10,000 damage, 53 knots, 6km range

Reload: 79 seconds

AA:

36.8 DPS out to 2.5 km

Smoke Consumable:

3 charges

40 seconds action, 160 seconds cooldown

0.6km radius, 65 seconds to disperse.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

At tier 5 we have:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_Skeena_(D59)

HMCS Skeena was a River class destroyer that served in the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) from 1931 to 1944. She was similar to the Royal Navy's A class and wore initially the pennant D59, changed in 1940 to I59.

She was built by John I. Thornycroft & Company at Woolston, Hampshire and commissioned into the RCN on 10 June 1931 at Portsmouth, England. Skeena and her sister HMCS Saguenay were the first ships specifically built for the Royal Canadian Navy. She arrived in Halifax, Nova Scotia on 3 July 1931.

She was used heavily to escort convoys in the North Atlantic during WW2.

Skeena was lost in a storm on the night of 24 October 1944. She was anchored off Reykjavik, Iceland and dragged her anchor and grounded in 50-foot (15 m) waves off Vioey Island with the loss of 15 crewmembers.

Her hulk was paid off and sold to Iceland interests in June 1945; she was then raised and broken up. Her propeller was salvaged and used in a memorial near the Viðey Island ferry terminal.

Hull:

11092 hp

6.57km concealment

31 knot speed, 535m turning circle, 2.9 second rudder shift

Main Guns:

4x1 120mm QF 4.7-inch Mk IX

5.0 second reload, 12.40 km range, 810m/s muzzle velocity

Torpedoes:

1x4 530mm

11,900 damage, 59 knots, 6km range

Reload: 95 seconds

AA:

73.5 DPS out to 2.5 km

Depth Charges

8 bombs, 5500 damage

1 thrown front, 1 thrown left front, 1 thrown right front, 1 dropped rear (Cycle repeated)

This is a major feature of the line. Very strong depth charge damage, and a pattern that covers both front and stern of the ship. Depth Charge throwing systems are major features moving forward.

Smoke Consumable:

3 charges

40 seconds action, 160 seconds cooldown

0.6km radius, 65 seconds to disperse.

DefAA

4 charges

Action: 40s, Cooldown 80s

+100% DPS /+300% flak damage

Edited August 27, 2023 by Daniel_Allan_Clark

[Asym]

HMAS Hobart in Viet Nam.

 

[Ensign Cthulhu]

2 hours ago, invicta2012 said:

the Tier X is very likely to be an Australian Daring class

With Vampire 2 already in game, the options are Voyager (ill-fated and controversial) and Vendetta. 

2 hours ago, invicta2012 said:

it might be possible to use an Aussie Battle (which has two Daring turrets, both at the front, as their main armament).

Anyone who's played the Jutland A hull can tell you that the ship can be very painful to use, lacking any direct aft fire. An Australian Battle, lacking the centre gun, might be even worse - and if the rate of fire is upped to suit it for Tier 10, the concept starts to compete with and potentially overshadow the Druid.

13 minutes ago, Asym said:

HMAS Hobart in Viet Nam.

If they can find a way to balance the SAM system, this becomes the automatic choice for the supership. 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

22 minutes ago, Asym said:

HMAS Hobart in Viet Nam.

 

Hobart was built a half an hour from my childhood home.

[Asym]

1 hour ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

With Vampire 2 already in game, the options are Voyager (ill-fated and controversial) and Vendetta. 

Anyone who's played the Jutland A hull can tell you that the ship can be very painful to use, lacking any direct aft fire. An Australian Battle, lacking the centre gun, might be even worse - and if the rate of fire is upped to suit it for Tier 10, the concept starts to compete with and potentially overshadow the Druid.

If they can find a way to balance the SAM system, this becomes the automatic choice for the supership. 

I's use the Korean war version or the WW2 version.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

At tier 6 we have:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Hero_(H99)

HMCS Chaudiere was an H-class destroyer built for the Royal Navy as HMS Hero in the mid-1930s. During the Spanish Civil War of 1936–1939 the ship enforced the arms blockade imposed by Britain and France on both sides as part of the Mediterranean Fleet. During the first few months of World War 2, Hero searched for German commerce raiders in the Atlantic Ocean and took part in the Second Battle of Narvik during the Norwegian Campaign of April–June 1940 before she was transferred to the Mediterranean Fleet in May where she escorted a number of convoys to Malta. The ship took part in the Battle of Cape Spada in July 1940, Operation Abstenion in February 1941, and the evacuations of Greece and Crete in April–May 1941.

The ship covered an amphibious landing during the Syria-Lebanon Campaign of June 1941 and began escorting supply convoys in June to Tobruk, Libya shortly afterwards. She was damaged by German dive bombers while rescuing survivors from the minelayer Latona in October 1941 and resumed escorting convoys to Malta. Hero took part in the Second Battle of Sirte in March 1942 and in Operation Vigorous in June. She sank two German submarines whilst stationed in the Mediterranean in 1942, and was transferred back home late in the year to begin converting to an escort destroyer. The ship was transferred to the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) in 1943 and renamed HMCS Chaudière. She became part of the Mid-Ocean Escort Force in early 1944 until her transfer back to British coastal waters in May to protect the build-up for Operation Overlord. Together with other ships, she sank three more German submarines during the year. Chaudière was refitting when the war ended in May 1945 and was in poor shape. The ship was paid off in August and later sold for scrap. The process of breaking her up, however, was not completed until 1950.

Hull:

12100 hp

6.63km concealment

36 knot speed, 540m turning circle, 3.0 second rudder shift

Main Guns:

4x1 120mm QF 4.7-inch Mk IX

5.0 second reload, 12.40 km range, 810m/s muzzle velocity

Torpedoes:

1x4 533mm

15,733 damage, 59 knots, 7.02km range

Reload: 96 seconds

AA:

110.3 DPS out to 2.5 km

Depth Charges

8 bombs, 5500 damage

1 thrown front, 1 thrown left front, 1 thrown right front, 1 dropped rear (Cycle repeated)

Smoke Consumable:

3 charges

40 seconds action, 160 seconds cooldown

0.6km radius, 65 seconds to disperse.

DefAA

4 charges

Action: 40s, Cooldown 80s

+100% DPS /+300% flak damage

Hydro

3 charges

Ship and Sub detection: 3km

Torpedo Detection: 3km

Action time: 100 seconds

Cooldown: 100 seconds

[invicta2012]

15 hours ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

With Vampire 2 already in game, the options are Voyager (ill-fated and controversial) and Vendetta. 

There is also Waterhen, the fourth Aussie Daring which was laid down but cancelled - that's a reasonable basis for a "what-if" 1950s destroyer.

 

15 hours ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

Anyone who's played the Jutland A hull can tell you that the ship can be very painful to use, lacking any direct aft fire. An Australian Battle, lacking the centre gun, might be even worse - and if the rate of fire is upped to suit it for Tier 10, the concept starts to compete with and potentially overshadow the Druid.

Unlikely. Druid has 4.7 inch guns, the Aussie Battles were 4.5 inchers, and the natural lack of penetration on those lower calibre guns would balance things (unless given the RN improved AP, which commonwealth ships generally don't have). A Tier X Battle would have some other advantages over Daring (esp. better concealment) but the lack of kiting fire and relatively low speed could make kiting dangerous. I'm not 100% decided but it would be an interesting change.

[Project45_Opytny]

3 minutes ago, invicta2012 said:

Unlikely. Druid has 4.7 inch guns, the Aussie Battles were 4.5 inchers, and the natural lack of penetration on those lower calibre guns would balance things (unless given the RN improved AP, which commonwealth ships generally don't have). A Tier X Battle would have some other advantages over Daring (esp. better concealment) but the lack of kiting fire and relatively low speed could make kiting dangerous. I'm not 100% decided but it would be an interesting change.

Druid has a model of specially designed post war high performance 5-inch guns that are balanced by AP only, I have learnt this even without owning the ship at all.

BtW this thing actually leads to a potential British supership destroyer design IF Wargaming would like to make the currently conceptual-only ship into this. Though with Maine and Edgar instead of "1934 Maximum Battleship Fast Variant" and "1960 Large CL-AA" it should be clear that supership designs have to consider factors like balance and line feature/gimmick together with historical candidates.

4.5-inch guns are sufficient for destroyer vs. destroyer combat thanks to the IFHE Rework. How concealment is decided is largely subjective at present (like how San Martin is stealthier than Ignacio Allende).

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

At tier 7 we have:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_Iroquois_(G89)

HMCS Iroquois was a Tribal-class destroyer that served in the Royal Canadian Navy during the Second World War and Korean War. She was named for the Iroquois First Nations. Iroquois was the first ship to bear this name and the first ship of the class to serve with the Royal Canadian Navy.

Hull:

16545 hp

8.19km concealment

36 knot speed, 683m turning circle, 4.0 second rudder shift

Main Guns:

3x2 120mm QF 4.7-inch Mk IX

5.0 second reload, 12.40 km range, 810m/s muzzle velocity

Torpedoes:

1x4 533mm

15,733 damage, 59 knots, 7.02km range

Reload: 96 seconds

AA:

204.8 DPS out to 2.5 km

Depth Charges

10 bombs, 5500 damage

1 thrown front, 1 thrown left front, 1 thrown right front, 1 dropped rear (Cycle repeated)

Smoke Consumable:

3 charges

40 seconds action, 160 seconds cooldown

0.6km radius, 65 seconds to disperse.

DefAA

4 charges

Action: 40s, Cooldown 80s

+100% DPS /+300% flak damage

Hydro

3 charges

Ship and Sub detection: 3km

Torpedo Detection: 3km

Action time: 100 seconds

Cooldown: 100 seconds

[Ensign Cthulhu]

1 hour ago, Project45_Opytny said:

BtW this thing actually leads to a potential British supership destroyer design IF Wargaming would like to make the currently conceptual-only ship into this.

Druid was one possible line of 'cruiser-destroyer' considered after the war. The one that appears to have got the furthest along before cancellation is pictured on the cover of Norman Friedman's "The Postwar Naval Revolution" and had THREE Druid guns in single turrets, firing at 60 rounds per minute per barrel, designed to kill Sverdlovs by battering them down. THAT should be the UK super destroyer, because (a) it was a post-Daring design study and (b) the only other serious choice involves missiles. There was a historical class with a Daring turret at each end specialized as an AA frigate, which gets around the Druid's and AU Battle's field-of-fire issue, but that would involve boosting the rate of fire to unrealistic levels and I think it also lacked torpedoes. 

1 hour ago, invicta2012 said:

There is also Waterhen, the fourth Aussie Daring which was laid down but cancelled - that's a reasonable basis for a "what-if" 1950s destroyer.

How would you differentiate her? Also, I suspect the Australians would prefer a ship that was actually built. 

[Project45_Opytny]

5 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

Druid was one possible line of 'cruiser-destroyer' considered after the war. The one that appears to have got the furthest along before cancellation is pictured on the cover of Norman Friedman's "The Postwar Naval Revolution" and had THREE Druid guns in single turrets, firing at 60 rounds per minute per barrel, designed to kill Sverdlovs by battering them down. THAT should be the UK super destroyer, because (a) it was a post-Daring design study and (b) the only other serious choice involves missiles. There was a historical class with a Daring turret at each end specialized as an AA frigate, which gets around the Druid's and AU Battle's field-of-fire issue, but that would involve boosting the rate of fire to unrealistic levels and I think it also lacked torpedoes. 

For reasons of... personal taste I think maybe some liberties should be taken and make a British "Felix Schultz" armed with 6 QF N1/N2 5-inch guns.

I have thought that judging from limited description, the original 1959 Farragut/Coontz-class would serve well as the American supership destroyer (4 F.Sherman guns in single mounts, one set of torpedo rack), yet it seems that WG considers this seems to be more akin to Kidd/Velos rather than other researchable USN destroyers.

It fascinates me that somehow, the often frowned upon concept of a hybrid cruiser-destroyer, from Germany that hasn't the reputation of hosting that many outstanding naval architects, was soon later seriously considered and studied by one of the World's leading naval powers.

The later one is describing the cancelled Gael-class destroyers?

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

58 minutes ago, Project45_Opytny said:

For reasons of... personal taste I think maybe some liberties should be taken and make a British "Felix Schultz" armed with 6 QF N1/N2 5-inch guns.

I have thought that judging from limited description, the original 1959 Farragut/Coontz-class would serve well as the American supership destroyer (4 F.Sherman guns in single mounts, one set of torpedo rack), yet it seems that WG considers this seems to be more akin to Kidd/Velos rather than other researchable USN destroyers.

It fascinates me that somehow, the often frowned upon concept of a hybrid cruiser-destroyer, from Germany that hasn't the reputation of hosting that many outstanding naval architects, was soon later seriously considered and studied by one of the World's leading naval powers.

The later one is describing the cancelled Gael-class destroyers?

Canada acquiring Tribals was basically a similar idea...ships which could, in a pinch, act as an ersatz light cruiser...and this was from 1939/1940 reasoning.

A Tribal is a much better tool for dealing with armed merchant cruisers than some of the smaller destroyers...especially better than the frigates and corvettes.

Edited August 28, 2023 by Daniel_Allan_Clark

[invicta2012]

3 hours ago, Project45_Opytny said:

Druid has a model of specially designed post war high performance 5-inch guns that are balanced by AP only, I have learnt this even without owning the ship at all.

Thanks for the correction. I haven't been living and breathing WoWs for a while so my calibre conversion senses are off. I also hadn't realised Druid had 5 inch guns because the RN Cruiser-Destroyer designs from the late 40s/50s had single mounts, as @Ensign Cthulhu said: the proposed twin mount needed something the size of an Arethusa class cruiser (or County class destroyer) to accommodate it, certainly not a Daring size ship. 

 

2 hours ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

How would you differentiate her? Also, I suspect the Australians would prefer a ship that was actually built. 

The Australians were very keen to keep their Darings in service and considered all manner of alterations, including the replacement of the rear set of torpedo tubes with a deckhouse, with room for improved AA and ASW like the RN, or even attempting to mount a missile system (Terrier or Ikara). The rest may come down to soft stats/consumables. I'd be very happy with Voyager, but if the need  is to head off criticism of samey-ness from the re-use of RN builds then a "what if" ship like Waterhen is fine. The name has a noble history, which should help. 

 

3 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Canada acquiring Tribals was basically a similar idea...ships which could, in a pinch, act as an ersatz light cruiser...and this was from 1939/1940 reasoning.

There is also the "V Leader" design which preceded the Tribals - a ten gun ship (three turrets at the front, arranged like the Dido class), which we've not seen in the game so far. See also the 4 inch gunned later Tribals like Athabaskan (II), and the possibility of arming Tribal size destroyers with DP weaponry such as the 4.5 inch twin mounts seen on Rahmat. 

 

[Ensign Cthulhu]

35 minutes ago, invicta2012 said:

The Australians were very keen to keep their Darings in service and considered all manner of alterations, including the replacement of the rear set of torpedo tubes with a deckhouse, with room for improved AA and ASW like the RN, or even attempting to mount a missile system (Terrier or Ikara).

Those not keen to see an anti-ship missile in the game could well be persuaded to accept Ikara, since it's intrinsically and exclusively an anti-submarine weapon. A potential Waterhen sacrificing her aft 4.5 inch to mount Ikara could be interesting, because it would essentially be a DD with a fairly long range ASW airstrike, something they haven't done so far with the air components of either Tromp or Halford. It would also gratify the rabid CV haters (no spotting or anti-ship capability) and the sub-haters (rapid-reaction and long-reach ASW in a DD with a homing torpedo or heavy depth charge). 

Terrier is probably too big for a Daring - the one Gearing (Gyatt, DDG-1) that got it IRL could only fit seven rounds per rail. Tartar is probably a better bet, although I think it would need to be an AA-limited weapon for it not to trigger instant outrage. The balancing and player-interaction issues for a radar-homing, as opposed to a purely beam-riding, missile are something of a can of worms, though. I have a very clear vision of how I would handle beam riders; SARH missiles, not so much. 

Edited August 28, 2023 by Ensign Cthulhu

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

I think eventually we will get missiles...for more content always having to be higher tier will force it.

That won't be the end of the world.

[Asym]

10 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

Those not keen to see an anti-ship missile in the game could well be persuaded to accept Ikara, since it's intrinsically and exclusively an anti-submarine weapon. A potential Waterhen sacrificing her aft 4.5 inch to mount Ikara could be interesting, because it would essentially be a DD with a fairly long range ASW airstrike, something they haven't done so far with the air components of either Tromp or Halford. It would also gratify the rabid CV haters (no spotting or anti-ship capability) and the sub-haters (rapid-reaction and long-reach ASW in a DD with a homing torpedo or heavy depth charge). 

Terrier is probably too big for a Daring - the one Gearing (Gyatt, DDG-1) that got it IRL could only fit seven rounds per rail. Tartar is probably a better bet, although I think it would need to be an AA-limited weapon for it not to trigger instant outrage. The balancing and player-interaction issues for a radar-homing, as opposed to a purely beam-riding, missile are something of a can of worms, though. I have a very clear vision of how I would handle beam riders; SARH missiles, not so much. 

AND, we're off !!!  The ASW concept in my opinion would be a great idea to "open the technology creep" this game needs.  And, the Ikara as an ASW tool is no different than what we use now in Airstrikes....  I would make it so you had to have "a constant lock on that sub" versus a square of target area.  But, it would make ASW mean something and have a much better accuracy index....  I have been a DDG-1 Gyatt fan for years and have suggested it for years.   This game had only one technology direction to progress to and that is the Cold War and missiles.....

Well said.

[Ensign Cthulhu]

1 minute ago, Asym said:

I have been a DDG-1 Gyatt fan for years and have suggested it for years. 

How would you handle the player interaction? I'd make them keep a reticle on the target and balance against acceptable beam slew rates, minimum engagement distance (in excess of 2000 yards IIRC) and the need to keep interacting right up until impact (or RNG-dictated miss, since Terrier BW-0 was never the most reliable piece of gear). 

Similar mechanisms would dictate the interaction of Britain's Seaslug, the initial iteration of the French Masurca, and I think a couple of the early Soviet naval SAMs too (all beam-riders).

[Asym]

31 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

How would you handle the player interaction? I'd make them keep a reticle on the target and balance against acceptable beam slew rates, minimum engagement distance (in excess of 2000 yards IIRC) and the need to keep interacting right up until impact (or RNG-dictated miss, since Terrier BW-0 was never the most reliable piece of gear). 

Similar mechanisms would dictate the interaction of Britain's Seaslug, the initial iteration of the French Masurca, and I think a couple of the early Soviet naval SAMs too (all beam-riders).

Spot on.  We have dispersion in bullets and we'd have, as you described, the same accuracy conditions for missiles....  Nothing should be "fool proof".  But, missiles are a reality in naval warfare and they should be integrated into this game.   The ASW, HARM and AS missiles should all be "targeted till termination" systems to start.  I would add a "missile" detection allowance for the ships that fire missiles because missiles, sure do say "shoot there".....  You fire a missile in WOWS maps and you should be spotted.

But, change is necessary.

Edited August 28, 2023 by Asym