• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
why do you people even bother so much with naval? if its on the continent, screw the navy, just walk there.

what i usually do with germany or SU is just set to build 2 transports 99 times (to gain from gearing) at the beginning of the game and research only improved super heavy and destroyers, which i start building by 1942... i build super heavys with all attachments and destroyers with anti-sub or improved hull, make a fleet of 12shbb, 9 bb with anti-sub, 9 with improved hull, and add some tactical bombers to patrol over the english channel to take over britain, and that's it with europe.
to get the states, i hit one of those south american countries first- brazil is great and kinda close to africa- and transport troops there, and then just walk to D.C.
my fleets almost never encounter enemy fleets and even when they do they usually beat them.
sometimes by the time that i attack the states i have another shbb fleet but that's all

in the past i would never build any naval except for the transports, and just try the invasion 2-3 times, and in the end i'd slip past their ships and just get there... it works, but you need patience and to be ready to lose some ships and possibly some of the troops transported. now i preffer to give some protection to my transports since its faster and i can spare the IC anyways
 
Last edited:
When I play I like to build up a specific kind of military per game. One time I played GER and went full Base Strike and ended up with CVs all over the place (took forever). I enjoy playing the game with a sense of balance and depth. I like to know how it works.
 
Xaniotis said:
why do you people even bother so much with naval? if its on the continent, screw the navy, just walk there.
well, a good navy can cause severe problems to your enemy, especially if he has to cross the ocean first to reach you. the enemy can only reinforce a beachhead if he can reach it.
if you want to to this cost-efficient, you need to take a closer look at the system.
 
Interesting, thanks. What about BCs though? Are they just so IC-days inefficient that they're not worth mentioning? Also, does speed play a part in positioning? If so, then BCs could be an attractive CV killer.
 
DirtyCommiePuke said:
Interesting, thanks. What about BCs though? Are they just so IC-days inefficient that they're not worth mentioning? Also, does speed play a part in positioning? If so, then BCs could be an attractive CV killer.
Cost effectiveness currently runs in reverse order of cost for gunnery capital ships

CA => BC => BB => SHBB

so BCs are attractive, some months back someone started a BC thread and I pointed out that they were more effective than BBs (not what anyone expected).

The actual most cost effective ship to build depends on your technological position since older models are better than newer models (that phrase just doesn't seem right does it)
 
so BCs are attractive, some months back someone started a BC thread and I pointed out that they were more effective than BBs (not what anyone expected).

Strange, considering most people have just assumed the opposite and that BCs only had flavour value up until recently.
 
DirtyCommiePuke said:
Strange, considering most people have just assumed the opposite and that BCs only had flavour value up until recently.
To be fair, most of the traditional naval dogma of HoI2 has been overturned with the rise of Cruizerg production.