navy composition

[Jadelith]

so, I've read on various topics that 3 CV + 3 DD fleets are superior to other compositions

as SOV, I conquered all of eurasia, and decided that I'd build a fleet & see how naval battles are in hoi (well I never really played sea battles in 200+ hours of hoi 1&2)

and I tried the above composition.

it sucks

I had 3 fleets of 6 (3 CV 3 DD), they all tried to attack a fleet of ~30 (UK), and the bigger fleet sunk every single ship I had (so there were 3 different engagements). I did manage to sink 2-3 of them, but it was pretty much a disaster. I couldn't even make a small dent the other ships in the UK fleet. the UK fleet had some battleships (which never engaged in battle) and 5-6 CVs (mine were level 10, theirs were lvl2-3)

I had another 6x3 waiting, but I decided to stack them together, and attacked the same fleet. only 2 of my ships had minor damage, and the entire UK fleet was wiped out. (note that both fleets had ~100 strength at the beginning of the battle, and the commanders had the same skills etc.)

so, from my one and only fleet battle, I can say that the 3 / 3 composition is bad

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

It was bad because you were pinning 6 ships against 30... And that composition clearly worked when you pinned 3 of those combinations against 30 ships, so it is good.

 

[Jadelith]

well, so that composition only works when your enemy has a small number of ships? I think saying "3 CV + 3 DD is better than 9 CV + 9 DD" should also cover when.. the enemy has a normal-size fleet. otherwise it is kind of pointless saying that its a better composition.

and having 1 DD for each CV is common sense anyway.

so.. 9 CV + 9 DD is actually better than 3 CV + 3 DD, right?

In any case, I wiped out around 40 capital ships with 9CV & 9DD fleet, so I guess its quite ok for SP. never played MP, so wouldn't know about that.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

so.. 9 CV + 9 DD is actually better than 3 CV + 3 DD, right?

Yes. The fleet of 13 CV+13DD has the highest total firepower, fleets of more than 26 ships have less fire power than fleets with exactly 26 ships. weither there are 26 screens, 26 subs or 13 capital ships +13 screens makes little difference. Bigger fleets have a better detection. Smaller fleets are more efficient, bigger fleets are more effective. If you have reason to believe there are big enemy fleets you might try attacking them with CAS or NAV first. For some numbers on fleet composition let me quote myself:

For every ship above 2 there is a stackingpenalty of 2%. A fleet of 6 ships has a malus of 8% on defense and offense. A fleet of 12 ships has a malus of 20% on defense and offense. A fleet of 18 ships has a malus of 32% on defense and offense. A fleet of 30 ships has a malus of 56% on defence and offense.
So the total fire power will be increased by additional ships almost always as long as the over command penalty is not applied. Lets assume the number of CVs is the numbers of DDs:

01 CV: 100% firepower.
02 CV: 192% firepower.
03 CV: 276% firepower.
04 CV: 352% firepower.
05 CV: 420% firepower.
06 CV: 480% firepower.
07 CV: 532% firepower.
08 CV: 576% firepower.
09 CV: 612% firepower.
10 CV: 640% firepower.
11 CV: 660% firepower.
12 CV: 672% firepower.
13 CV: 676% firepower.
14 CV: 672% firepower.
15 CV: 660% firepower.

In theory the optimal size of a fleet would be 13 capital ships and 13 screens. A fleet of subs only must consist of 26 subs in order to deliver the most firepower, 25 or 27 subs would have a fire power of 675%.
Those numbers make it hard to believe that more than 6 ships will not pay off. Taking better defence and lower visibilty of smaller fleets into account a fleet of 9 ships seem to be the perfect choice if enough ships are available.
The stacking pnelaty for ships seems to be unchanged since Doomsdays or even earlier versions of HoI2.

 

[Jadelith]

wow thats very helpful. thanks!

 

[Hister]

@Pang: I believe now is the time that you can bring forward the naval aspects that aren't working fine to gunman. Maybe something can be done for 1.9? I know that for 1.8 that would be too much work but maybe small improvements might get in.

So what are the major naval warfare drawbacks in this game already?

Are proper fleet compositions possible by he AI? Can AI differentiate between SAG's, CAG's, sub hunting groups - does it assign proper fleet composition for them?

I remember that one issue is transport fleets not being properly escorted and are thus easy pray for the human player.

Then there is one issue with how carrier warfare is being calculated right? What was the problem with it again?

We can make a list of needed naval improvements - one with issues that could be regarded as bugs or ill feature implementations and one with head on improvements needed. We can then present the list to gunman, the miracle worker, and hope our hopes don't get sunk by enemy submarines...

 

[Pang Bingxun]

I remember that one issue is transport fleets not being properly escorted and are thus easy pray for the human player.

Is that a bug or a feature? Small transport fleets are hard to detect and seperating stacks into sub only, anti-sub only, SAG only, CAG only and transporters only seems like a wise course of action, isn't it?
I guess the AI does not seperate SAG and CAG but weither that is good or not can be discussed and i haven't been paying much attention on this myself.

 

[Blecky]

Is that a bug or a feature? Small transport fleets are hard to detect and seperating stacks into sub only, anti-sub only, SAG only, CAG only and transporters only seems like a wise course of action, isn't it?
I guess the AI does not seperate SAG and CAG but weither that is good or not can be discussed and i haven't been paying much attention on this myself.

Sending out TP without any protection was done by the Allied early in WW 2. The losses were tremendous and therefore the convoy system was adopted (again, cause it was known from WW 1). Since in vanilla TP´s have no means to fight back against any kind of attack, it seems sensible to attach one or two DD´s at least; they won´t increase vivibility too much and can strike back at subs.

BTW we´re hijacking this post...

 

[stevep]

Sending out TP without any protection was done by the Allied early in WW 2. The losses were tremendous and therefore the convoy system was adopted (again, cause it was known from WW 1). Since in vanilla TP´s have no means to fight back against any kind of attack, it seems sensible to attach one or two DD´s at least; they won´t increase vivibility too much and can strike back at subs.

BTW we´re hijacking this post...

Blecky

At the risk of high-jacking it a bit further I think you're confusing using convoys with having escorts. Believe Britain used convoys for all operations right from the start of WWII but often those were unescorted, especially when getting into deep ocean. This was a combination of lack of escorts and the range problems of the escorts so the latter were concentrated where the threat was greatest, i.e. in the western approaches. As the number of escorts and management of them improved the distances over which convoys were escorted were extended.

This was best because the initial problem for the U-boats was finding the ships and a convoy is only marginally more likely to be located than a single ship so even without escorts losses were lower. Also it enables the ships to support each other to a degree in case of problems of weather and breakdown, but the lower loss rate is by far the most important.

Totally irrelevant to the game I suspect but in real life it is a subtle but significant difference.

Steve

 

[Hister]

Shall I open a new thread?

 

[Blecky]

Shall I open a new thread?

yep.