Clemson Class DD's

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Clemson Class DD's

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> Clemson Class DD's

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Clemson Class DD's - 10/19/2011 10:23:21 AM

steamboateng

Posts: 354
Joined: 3/21/2010
From: somewhere in Massachusetts
Status: offline

I noticed the other day, while setting up a Dec.8th campaign, that the Clemson Class DD's can be converted to DE's (lr) w/ASW weapon value of 8, in April '42. It seems to me that these ships can be an early war advantage against the numerous Jap subs wandering USWC waters. These DD's are placed about the map; San Diego, PH, PI, and DEI.
How do you AFB's feel about harboring these assets, even pulling them back closer to US, to take advantage of an early conversion, which may later seriosly bang the Jap sub menace?
Doing so will limit ops in the DEI and PI. But why lose lose these relatively ineffectual assets early on, when they could be such a valuable asset in just a few months?
Your thoughts!

_____________________________

Post #: 1

RE: Clemson Class DD's - 10/19/2011 10:54:26 AM

GreyJoy

Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

I converted most of them to APDs instead...and i have to say that i regret that choice. Jap subs are a PITA well untill mid 1943, when the DD upgrades and the newly arrived DEs and PFs really boost the allied ASW capabilities.... The APDs, vice verca, thus usefull on paper, aren't imho really usefull. The troop fast transport missions never work as intended, ending up with the APDs in plain sight of enemy air assets when the sun rises...
While those DEs, in April 42, can really be usefull!!!!

(in reply to steamboateng)

Post #: 2

RE: Clemson Class DD's - 10/19/2011 12:07:40 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

I converted most of them to APDs instead...and i have to say that i regret that choice. Jap subs are a PITA well untill mid 1943, when the DD upgrades and the newly arrived DEs and PFs really boost the allied ASW capabilities.... The APDs, vice verca, thus usefull on paper, aren't imho really usefull. The troop fast transport missions never work as intended, ending up with the APDs in plain sight of enemy air assets when the sun rises...
While those DEs, in April 42, can really be usefull!!!!

I disagree. The handful of them you get are not going to make much of a difference in '42 as DEs.

However, since, unlike Japanese DDs allied DDs have no troop transport capacity, the APDs become the Allies ONLY fast transport assets. I can't see denying myself that asset to gain a smattering of asw capability that won't make much difference.

I have never had a problem with fast transports failing to get in and get out as long as it is troops being transported. It's when I try to deliver supplies with them that they end up hanging around during the next day to get bombed into oblivion.

The best way to deal with the sub concentrations and the lack of adequate ASW on the west coast is to concentrate your shipping at one port or at most two ports. I tend to move all troops to San Fran fior transport, ship supplies from San Fran or LA and fuel from LA. All other ports are essentially shut down so the huge concentrtion of subs off Portland/Seattle are completely wasted.

Another way to deal with the lack of adequate ASW and escorts is to not escort every transport misssion it's full distance. While there will be some sub encounters on the high seas in the shipping lanes, it's the concentrations around ports that are the real killers. I keep escort shuttle groups at the main ports. As a TF leaves port I escort it through the sub fields outside the port and then break off the escorts to return to the port to assist another TF. As unescorted transport TFs incoming to the port approach the sub fields I send out the escorts to shuttle them through the sub fields.

Finding creative ways to get around your lack of ASW and escort assets is better than giving up an asset altogether.

< Message edited by HansBolter -- 10/19/2011 12:09:27 PM >

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 3

RE: Clemson Class DD's - 10/19/2011 2:01:54 PM

steamboateng

Posts: 354
Joined: 3/21/2010
From: somewhere in Massachusetts
Status: offline

I counted at least 19 of these puppies (convertable Clemson's) on the set-up screen.

_____________________________

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 4

RE: Clemson Class DD's - 10/19/2011 2:33:57 PM

bush

Posts: 444
Joined: 10/30/2007
From: san jose, ca
Status: offline

I only play against the AI and use 3-day turns so my reasoning is skewed that way. Keeping those parameters in mind, I would definitely convert to DE. I have never run a single fast transport mission, nor seen a real need.

(in reply to steamboateng)

Post #: 5

RE: Clemson Class DD's - 10/19/2011 3:24:02 PM

steamboateng

Posts: 354
Joined: 3/21/2010
From: somewhere in Massachusetts
Status: offline

Numbers from the Editor-Dec 8 Campaign:
1942..........6 APD (69 Days).............DE..........0
1943..........4 APD............................DE..........48 (most in Qtr 4)
1944..........30 APD..........................DE..........133
1945..........61 APD..........................DE..........48

The above numbers were taken directly from the campaign info screens.

I would argue the USN got it right the first time. !942 for most AFB's is a time to consolidate and build up. Stockpiling bases and keeping the LOC open to Oz is the primary Allied mission. (After all, Guadalcanal was faught over for this reason)DE's (whith their concentration on ASW ops) can ruin a JFB's day.
Aggressive ops, to any extent won't begin until 1943. APD's, though quite handy for sneaking supplies to isolated or front line bases (along w/air transport), aren't required before then. These show up in quantity in 1944 and '45 when active offensive ops were planned.
I would think that converting the Clemsons to DE's early on would pay off in more secure LOC with both PH and Oz. When DE's start showing up in mid '43, the Clemson's can be reconverted to APD's (?......need confirmation on this).

_____________________________

(in reply to bush)

Post #: 6

RE: Clemson Class DD's - 10/19/2011 3:54:32 PM

Patbgaming

Posts: 103
Joined: 2/28/2010
From: Houston, Texas
Status: offline

I am playing a PBEM that is currently into Feb 43. I converted 20 Clemsons to DE. I do not regret this choice at all. My opponent has made several comments about his sub losses ( caused using these DE's supported by ASW Air ). Now that I have a large number of ( short range ) SC's and AM's. These are they guys doing local ASW duties near important bases while the DE's are providing useful long range escorts. I also liked that the DE's had radar which the APD conversions did not. Having an effective weapon against Japanese subs IMHO is more important than getting additional APD's for sneaking troops and supplies into a threatened base. I let the Wilkes Class destroyers be converted to APDs so it is not like you don't have any if you use the Clemsons for DE.

_____________________________

I can show you and I can teach you but I just can't learn for you. - Nameless NCO US Army

(in reply to steamboateng)

Post #: 7

RE: Clemson Class DD's - 10/19/2011 8:31:31 PM

bush

Posts: 444
Joined: 10/30/2007
From: san jose, ca
Status: offline

Another advantage of the Clemson-to-DE conversion is that they retain their high speed. I find this advantageous in 2 definite situations. 1- If you have them grouped as an ASW TF they can get to troubled sites quicker. 2 - Later in the war as more assets are available they are great escorts to and from the West Coast/Pearl for fast ships that are upgrading.

(in reply to Patbgaming)

Post #: 8

RE: Clemson Class DD's - 10/19/2011 8:32:09 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: steamboateng

Numbers from the Editor-Dec 8 Campaign:
1942..........6 APD (69 Days).............DE..........0
1943..........4 APD............................DE..........48 (most in Qtr 4)
1944..........30 APD..........................DE..........133
1945..........61 APD..........................DE..........48

The above numbers were taken directly from the campaign info screens.

I would argue the USN got it right the first time. !942 for most AFB's is a time to consolidate and build up. Stockpiling bases and keeping the LOC open to Oz is the primary Allied mission. (After all, Guadalcanal was faught over for this reason)DE's (whith their concentration on ASW ops) can ruin a JFB's day.
Aggressive ops, to any extent won't begin until 1943. APD's, though quite handy for sneaking supplies to isolated or front line bases (along w/air transport), aren't required before then. These show up in quantity in 1944 and '45 when active offensive ops were planned.
I would think that converting the Clemsons to DE's early on would pay off in more secure LOC with both PH and Oz. When DE's start showing up in mid '43, the Clemson's can be reconverted to APD's (?......need confirmation on this).

I find your argument rather illogical. If, as you claim, the USN got it right, then you are supporting my argument since they went with zero DEs in '42.

I, also prefer to keep my options for at least some aggressive action in '42 on the table. Automatically relegating offensive operations to '43 is just too conservative for my blood.

To each his own, but, why do you ask what others' thoughts are if your mind is already made up?

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to steamboateng)

Post #: 9

RE: Clemson Class DD's - 10/19/2011 9:05:41 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

I converted most of them to APDs instead...and i have to say that i regret that choice. Jap subs are a PITA well untill mid 1943, when the DD upgrades and the newly arrived DEs and PFs really boost the allied ASW capabilities.... The APDs, vice verca, thus usefull on paper, aren't imho really usefull. The troop fast transport missions never work as intended, ending up with the APDs in plain sight of enemy air assets when the sun rises...
While those DEs, in April 42, can really be usefull!!!!

I respectfully and totally disagree with Greyjoy.

In my two campaigns I foolishly converted all to DEs. While the DEs were very useful for a time, I sorely wish I had more APDs. There are just never enough of these useful ships. Our experiences differ but for the most part my FT convoys have been working fine and the Allies need fast transport capacity even more than they need ASW. It is now 1944 in my game and I have so many ASW assets that I can't use-as most of the IJN sub fleet has been sunk. Yet I go to bed cursing every night because I do not have enough APDs to do what I need.

I should add that the APD conversions do have ASW assets that can be used in a pinch. However, I rate these ships so high on my value scale that I do not risk them. I would gladly trade one old US BB for eight APDs.....

< Message edited by crsutton -- 10/19/2011 9:10:22 PM >

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 10

RE: Clemson Class DD's - 10/19/2011 9:29:07 PM

steamboateng

Posts: 354
Joined: 3/21/2010
From: somewhere in Massachusetts
Status: offline

Well my mind wasn't made up when I started the thread. I was was, and still am, geuinely interested in other folks views. If I gave the impression I was waving a red cape, I apologise.
Only after going through the campaign numbers for the various vessels, did I see the correlation between APD's and the fleets' taking the offensive.
Insofar as why no DE's in '42, I think one must remember that armaments received in the Pacific were only a fraction of that produced. 1942, the 'Happy Time' for rampaging German U-Boats, was a year which saw Great Britain nearly strangled of supplies. I'm sure Allied ASW production was focussed in the Atlantic. I vaguely remember reading somewhere how the Pacic theater was left to suffer thru the sub threat, due to the importance of those assets being allotted to the Atlantic convoys.
Also, after giving the subject some thought, I reasoned that Allied air transport could serve the same function as APD's.
On top of that, I'm a conservative player by temperment. And having spent the better part of a lifetime floating around on various vessls, I'm hardly one to aid in their demise by overlooking their relative vulnerability to predadory sub skippers.
I trust this explains my postings and predalictions.
Regards

_____________________________

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 11

RE: Clemson Class DD's - 10/19/2011 10:25:21 PM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: steamboateng
Well my mind wasn't made up when I started the thread. I was was, and still am, geuinely interested in other folks views. If I gave the impression I was waving a red cape, I apologise.

There are no arguments whatever, about Clemsons. Some of the Clemsons "upgrade" to what they did. Others have the "option" to "convert" to what many others did. Clemsons could and did become APDs. Clemsons could and did become DEs (initially Atlantic, but several came through the ditch to the Pacific). No Clemson class, in-game, is what-if. Every class option is what the US Navy actually did with the pukes.

Upgrading and converting are totally different things. I think you can understand the difference.

One has "options" in the game. One may use them in one way, or another way, or a third way, or not, as one prefers. A personal preference is a personal preference, and a middle finger is often a good answer.

< Message edited by JWE -- 10/19/2011 10:28:52 PM >

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to steamboateng)

Post #: 12

RE: Clemson Class DD's - 10/19/2011 11:20:51 PM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

This is an interesting discussion and the differences are essentially what a given player's style is. Personally, I don't use fast transport TFs very often. When I do, my complaint is usually not that I don't have enough APDs, it's usually that they are in the wrong port for my needs.

I do find subs very annoying and I want to break the back of the IJN sub fleet as soon as I can. The IJN does not get many long range boats that can patrol the west coast of the US. Once those are sunk, the west coast will generally be clear. Early war Allied ASW is frustratingly bad, but anything that will do serious damage to those subs is welcomed, so I usually do the DE conversion.

But that's just my style of play. I only play the AI. If I was playing PBEM I might decide to do something different.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 13

RE: Clemson Class DD's - 10/19/2011 11:52:54 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: steamboateng

Well my mind wasn't made up when I started the thread. I was was, and still am, geuinely interested in other folks views. If I gave the impression I was waving a red cape, I apologise.
Only after going through the campaign numbers for the various vessels, did I see the correlation between APD's and the fleets' taking the offensive.
Insofar as why no DE's in '42, I think one must remember that armaments received in the Pacific were only a fraction of that produced. 1942, the 'Happy Time' for rampaging German U-Boats, was a year which saw Great Britain nearly strangled of supplies. I'm sure Allied ASW production was focussed in the Atlantic. I vaguely remember reading somewhere how the Pacic theater was left to suffer thru the sub threat, due to the importance of those assets being allotted to the Atlantic convoys.
Also, after giving the subject some thought, I reasoned that Allied air transport could serve the same function as APD's.
On top of that, I'm a conservative player by temperment. And having spent the better part of a lifetime floating around on various vessls, I'm hardly one to aid in their demise by overlooking their relative vulnerability to predadory sub skippers.
I trust this explains my postings and predalictions.
Regards

No need to apologise. You weren't waving a red flag. It just seemed as if you had made up your mind. As others have stated, it really comes down to a player's personal focus.

I play the AI in Ironman. The sub threat is soooo much greater than in the historical campaigns that little the Allies do will make any real difference in '42. It is also far, far easier to be aggressive early against the AI than it ever would be against a human. So much so that I have to throttle back and play with one hand tied behind my back in '42 if I want the AI to still be a viable opponent later. My current game is in late Feb of '43. Even throttling back in '42 I have beat up tthe AI so heavily on the surface and in the air that I have suspened operations for two weeks to let the AI catch it's breath. In the midst of this the AI continues to hammer me with subs. Subs Ops are the AIs one true calling.

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to steamboateng)

Post #: 14

RE: Clemson Class DD's - 10/20/2011 5:30:25 AM

rockmedic109

Posts: 2390
Joined: 5/17/2005
From: Citrus Heights, CA
Status: offline

I also only play the AI. I have not really found a major need for APDs. I have discovered a huge need for dedicated ASW assets. The AI in AE has REALLY gotten better in the area of sub ops {as opposed to vanilla WITP}. I convert them all to DE and have found no reason to rethink it {at least against the AI up to mid 43.

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 15

RE: Clemson Class DD's - 10/20/2011 9:42:26 AM

steamboateng

Posts: 354
Joined: 3/21/2010
From: somewhere in Massachusetts
Status: offline

Gentlemen,
Thanks for sharing your views, especially where you all are experienced players. Your input has helped clarify the functionality of APD's in the campaign game, as well as the importance of ASW assets early on. This thread certainly isn't aimed at a 'right vs. wrong' choice of conversions/upgrades, but rather, what it turned out to be; an overview of styles/approaches to the challenges the game offers.
Thank again!

_____________________________

(in reply to rockmedic109)

Post #: 16

RE: Clemson Class DD's - 10/20/2011 1:01:15 PM

Graymane

Posts: 520
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: Bellevue, NE
Status: offline

There isn't a single right answer to this question. It completely depends on what your strategy is both short term and long term. You have to look at what you are going to be doing in 42, 43, and 44+ and look at your assets that way. If you are going to be aggressive and trying to get into forward areas, you need something survivable. If you lose a bunch of escorts early for whatever reason or need your DD for something else, maybe you need more DE. Some people have different loss tolerances for convoys. Some don't want any or very few losses, some are more willing to sacrifice.

(in reply to steamboateng)

Post #: 17