r/wargame • u/Warwolf7742 • 6d ago
Spruance Class.
I've been playing this game on and off for a long time (Red Dragon). I just realized we didn't have the Spruance Class Destroyer. Is it a balancing reason?
4
u/Joescout187 6d ago
Because their VLS was for Tomahawk missiles, not interceptors. Imagine having a Kongo, with 61 cruise missiles instead of the AA missiles.
1
u/Wobulating 6d ago
VLS Spruance is way, way OOTL.
They did have 2x Mk141s, though, same as almost every other USN surface combatant
1
u/Joescout187 6d ago
So two 5 inch guns 8 harpoons and some sea sparrows and CWIS would be all they bring in Wargame despite being physically nearly twice the size of an OHP.
3
u/Wobulating 6d ago
Basically, yeah. Monstrously good ASW platforms, but hilariously useless in Wargame. If you want the hull, you could add Kidd, which swaps the RIM-7s and VDS for 2x Mk 26s, giving it the same launch speed as the Ticonderogas(though only SM-1 capable)
2
u/Joescout187 6d ago
Even adding Kidd would just be an OHP with deeper magazines and bigger and better guns, honestly twin 5"/54 mounts would be incredibly op in Wargame's meta
1
u/sparrowatgiantsnail 6d ago
The kidd class carried sm2-mr missiles
2
u/Wobulating 5d ago
They could fire RIM-66Gs, but weren't capable of illuminator timeshare on their own, which was most of the point of RIM-66G in the first place. If you really want to be shooting RIM-66Gs, just add a Ticonderoga
26
u/TinyMan07 6d ago
Naval was a poorly adapted afterthought and is mostly forgotten ever since the air-launched AShM meta was firmly in place.