+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 93

Thread: The naval warfare: How does it work? How should it work?

  1. #21
    Field Marshal Mr_B0narpte's Avatar
    Arsenal of DemocracyCities in MotionDarkest HourFor The GloryHearts of Iron III
    Rome GoldVictoria 2Rome: Vae Victis

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    England, UKGBNI
    Posts
    2,985
    Quote Originally Posted by Cybvep View Post
    Sorry, but you are confusing escort carriers with fleet carriers. Escort carriers were slow-moving, relatively cheap and quickly constructed small carriers mostly used in ASW operations and convoy escort duty. They usually had small number of aircraft, which were equipped with weapons which were effective against subs and that's it. Not that it wasn't important - it was very important - but escort carriers had little to do with fleet carriers. The USA built ~30 non-escort carriers during the war, not "hundreds and hundreds".

    Also, you gave the Battle of Leyte Gulf as an example. It can actually be a bit misleading, because this battle actually included several engagements in several different places - in fact, it could be divided into several battles. The Americans didn't use a doomstack or sth - their forces were divided into several fleets. Of course IRL thousands of aircraft could be attacking the same target, but they weren't doing that at once, because that would be pretty pointless - they were attacking in waves.

    There are several problems with the game mechanics. CAGs are just naval attachments in HOI2, so in a way they are treated as naval units. However, even if that wasn't the case, HOI games represent air warfare in a very abstract way, so you have stacks of planes which get "stacking penalty" and this leads to strange results, because 1) the damage is spread among several air units and due to the way "hits" work in-game it's much harder to damage a given unit severely, even though IRL a group of air aces could wreak havoc among numerically superior opponents with relative ease (pilot training and experience was CRUCIAL), 2) stacking penalty reduces stats of aircraft, so individually they are somehow less effective even though that shouldn't really be the case.
    I agree, well said!
    Quote Originally Posted by Cybvep View Post
    Therefore, unless the devs change the whole air combat system, I don't see how CAGs or aircraft in general can be realistically represented. Let's face it - air combat in HOI games suxx.
    Oh I don't meant to detract from the OP but I give little focus to aircraft in general, only interceptors and fighters to ensure I'm not bombed as having tactical bombers doesn't seem worth it IMO.
    The man who has no sense of history, is like a man who has no ears or eyes - that guy, you know THAT GUY
    There is nothing new in the world except the history you do not know - Harry Truman
    And well, everything can be obvious... but only after you've found it out or someone told you. - Titan79

    My first AAR playing as Germany using the AoD Third Reich Mod - currently reached August 1945 - more updates to come

  2. #22
    Field Marshal
    Arsenal of Democracy

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,597
    Quote Originally Posted by Serenissima View Post
    I can see a penalty for a large number of gun-ships attacking a smaller group of gun-ships (though not to the extent that the latter group wins, as they didn't), but I've always disliked the way that the present system - as pointed out - means that a tiny fleet of three carriers and three destroyers actually have significantly greater combat power and survivability than a full fleet with carriers, battleships/heavy cruisers, and light cruisers/destroyers escorting.
    Usually those small fleets have a much lower combatpower than fleets of 9+9 or even 13+13 ships.

    The bigger a fleet, the less space to navigate exists. So in general bigger fleets should suffer some penalties. In attack there might be a seperate stacking penalty for carriers. If there is a fleet of 3 DD and 1 CV the CV should not have less firepower than if it were only 1 CV and 1 DD.

  3. #23
    Cybvep

    Me being pedantic again but in RL you're wrong about escort carriers. They were designed for convoy protection and ASW work but in WWII were often used in the latter stages to boost air power over major landings. For instance when Taffy2 had the brief but unpleasant encounter with Yamato at Letye Gulf. As you say they formed the considerable majority of the carriers available to the allies and the CVs and CVLs were markedly more powerful but they could still play a significant role in other combat form.

    Steve

  4. #24
    Field Marshal Cybvep's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    8,236
    The escort carriers had an encounter with the Japanese ships during the Battle of the Leyte Gulf and the Japanese withdrew only because they thought that they were facing a full CTF. During that battle, most of the planes carried by the escort carriers weren't even equipped with anti-ship weapons... Anyway, my point is that it is a mistake to look at the production stats and combine the number of constructed/converted CVs, CVLs and CVEs, because CVEs were markedly different from other carriers - much weaker, cheaper and generally produced in high numbers.

    BTW if we are already talking about the Battle of the Leyte Gulf, then it should be mentioned that without trained pilots carriers were pretty much useless. Most of the Japanese carriers were used as decoys during that battle, simply because they lacked skilled pilots. This is sth which all HOI games fail to represent.
    Last edited by Cybvep; 08-06-2012 at 11:40.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Cybvep View Post
    The escort carriers had an encounter with the Japanese ships during the Battle of the Leyte Gulf and the Japanese withdrew only because they thought that they were facing a full CTF. During that battle, most of the planes carried by the escort carriers weren't even equipped with anti-ship weapons... Anyway, my point is that it is a mistake to look at the production stats and combine the number of constructed/converted CVs, CVLs and CVEs, because CVEs were markedly different from other carriers - much weaker, cheaper and generally produced in high numbers.
    It was basically the aggressive work by the DEs and the nervousness of the Japanese commander expecting more forces to arrive, plus the poor quality of the IJN by this time that allowed the force to survive. However it shows that in one of the largest landings in the war, along with many others, CVEs were used to beef up the air cover. As you say, although a lot weaker than a 'proper' carrier they are cheaper and hence available in large numbers, as well as much quicker to produce.

    BTW if we are already talking about the Battle of the Leyte Gulf, then it should be mentioned that without trained pilots carriers were pretty much useless. Most of the Japanese carriers were used as decoys during that battle, simply because they lacked skilled pilots. This is sth which all HOI games fail to represent.
    Very true. That was virtually the entire purpose of the plan, to lure away the 'real' warships and hammer the invasion force. Even the Japanese by this time realised their carrier element was a spent force.

    However isn't this represented, to a degree only admittedly, in the game by weakened CAGs not fully rebuilt, and also possibly by Japan not having the resources to continue researching more advanced a/c designs.

    Anyway, we're getting off the subject, talking about history rather than the game.

    Steve

  6. #26
    Field Marshal Cybvep's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    8,236
    Anyway, we're getting off the subject, talking about history rather than the game.
    Lack of representation of pilot training problems is a serious drawback of all HOI games IMO.

  7. #27
    Colonel
    Arsenal of DemocracyDarkest HourHearts of Iron III

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Morrow, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    813
    For the record, the US completed 24 Essex Class carriers before the end of the war and added to those few remaining from earlier classes (Saratoga, Enterprise, Ranger) totaled around 27 "Fleet Carriers" at war's end. The 100-odd total carriers included mainly escort carriers and carriers which gave ground support as well as a few "Light Carriers". Japan built Light Carriers (smaller fleet carriers) too.

    Invasion of Okinawa probably had around 16 Fleet Carriers involved, give ot take a few. Can't find my sources anymore on that one to say exactly.

    BTW -- ship speed is all wrong for US and Japanese Fleet Carriers. They all should go 29+ knots. Actually the US original Lexington and Saratoga which are CV2 in the game should go 33 Knots and haul as many planes as CV4's. They were build with Battlecruiser power trains and had most of the side armour for better defense. They were faster than a Battlecruiser design because of lighter weight while not having the gun turrents and heavy upper ship structures.
    "To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize"
    "It is dangerous to be right when your government is wrong"
    -- Voltaire

  8. #28
    Lt. General Hister's Avatar
    Arsenal of DemocracyEU3 CompleteDivine WindHeir to the ThroneSengoku
    Sword of the Stars IIVictoria 2Mount & Blade: Warband500k clubEuropa Universalis IV

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Adriatic coast
    Posts
    1,654
    Sorry to "undead" this thread but I was wondering what exactly has been changed in 1.8 in regards to naval warfare?

    @Pang, seeing you are very good with calculations can you maybe give a definite guide in how one should play the game in regards to naval aspects - I mean what are the optimal naval compositions for different countries/tasks/strategies? I so far learned that there is no general "ideal fleet composition" since the ideal number of vessels in a stack and composition depends on the country one plays, and the purposes of said fleets.

    Since I like Japan would you please be so kind as to write what different naval strategies one can employ with this country, what task forces should be built, what should be the composition of those task forces (how many ships of which type), etc.? The reason I ask you directly is that I've seen many conflicting statements here on the forums and I'm confused as who is right and who is wrong. I can't put up my own decision since I haven't had that many naval engagements with which I could see first hand what holds true and what not.


    Thank you in advance,

    Hister
    Lose your honour on these forums and I'll make you commit seppuku

    Go check out my AoD CORE 0.60 AAR!

  9. #29
    Field Marshal
    Arsenal of Democracy

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,597
    The ideal composition is probably 26 Subs, 13 CV-CAG + 13 DD-ASW or 13 SH-BB-Improved Hull(+4other brigades) + CL-Improved Hull(+1 other brigade). Bigger Fleets have lower attack values. I find fleets of 6+6 ships the most adequate choice for most purposes. They can annihilate smaler fleets and avoid bigger fleets antil those bigger fleets have suffered severly from NAV and CAS. But there are many options and i am not exactly an expert on this subjekt.

  10. #30
    General Commander666's Avatar
    Arsenal of Democracy

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    2,135
    The United States WWII carriers were:

    Lexington Class - 3 ships
    Yorktown Class - 4 ships
    Essex Class - 24 ships
    Midway Class 3 ships, commissioned in 1945 and followed with the cancellation of all remaining keels laid.

    The light carriers were:
    Independence Class - 9 ships
    Saipan Class 2 ships, commissioned 1946 and followed with the cancellation of all remaining keels laid.

    That ends the WWII carriers. New CV construction begins with the Forrestall Class - the first CVs specifically built to handle jet aircraft with first ship commissioning in 1955.

    While it does not add up to even one hundred, Serenissima is correct because the American's grouping of carriers made it appear that there were "hundreds and hundreds". In fact, most peope are shocked when they learn there were only 45 ships (and actualy less as some were sunk) because the impression is much greater numbers.
    Last edited by Commander666; 04-11-2012 at 14:24.

  11. #31
    General Commander666's Avatar
    Arsenal of Democracy

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    2,135
    Quote Originally Posted by froglegs View Post
    BTW -- ship speed is all wrong for US and Japanese Fleet Carriers. They all should go 29+ knots. Actually the US original Lexington and Saratoga which are CV2 in the game should go 33 Knots and haul as many planes as CV4's.
    This is very correct. 33 knots for CV-2 Lexington and CV-3 Saratoga (AoD CV-II),

    But CV-4 Ranger is its own class (1st purposeful built carrier) and only did 25 knots. This makes a problem.

    When we get to next Yorktown Class (CVs 5, 6 + 8) speed is 32 knots. But CV-7 Wasp is different class and only does 29 knots. These are probaby AoD CV-III.

    With the large Essex Class beginning at CV-9 Essex (AoD CV-IV) speed is 33 knots.

    A wonderful solution would be to not let US players build carriers as they wish, but force them to first have the proper carriers.
    Not sure what US got at game start but it started IRL with CV-1 Langley (1 ship which is AoD CV-I, speed 15 knots).

  12. #32
    Lt. General Hister's Avatar
    Arsenal of DemocracyEU3 CompleteDivine WindHeir to the ThroneSengoku
    Sword of the Stars IIVictoria 2Mount & Blade: Warband500k clubEuropa Universalis IV

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Adriatic coast
    Posts
    1,654
    Quote Originally Posted by Pang Bingxun View Post
    The ideal composition is probably 26 Subs, 13 CV-CAG + 13 DD-ASW or 13 SH-BB-Improved Hull(+4other brigades) + CL-Improved Hull(+1 other brigade). Bigger Fleets have lower attack values. I find fleets of 6+6 ships the most adequate choice for most purposes. They can annihilate smaler fleets and avoid bigger fleets antil those bigger fleets have suffered severly from NAV and CAS. But there are many options and i am not exactly an expert on this subjekt.
    Thank you Pang!

    Can I hold to this statement as true also when it comes to mods such as CORE or does this not hold true any more when ship's stats get changed? In which file can I see what stats ships have?
    Lose your honour on these forums and I'll make you commit seppuku

    Go check out my AoD CORE 0.60 AAR!

  13. #33
    Field Marshal
    Arsenal of Democracy

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,597
    I cannot give you an answer for mods. AoD uses -0.02 for each ship above 2. If Core uses the same a fleet of 26 ships will offer the strongest offensive.

  14. #34
    Lt. General Hister's Avatar
    Arsenal of DemocracyEU3 CompleteDivine WindHeir to the ThroneSengoku
    Sword of the Stars IIVictoria 2Mount & Blade: Warband500k clubEuropa Universalis IV

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Adriatic coast
    Posts
    1,654
    I think it does. In which file can I see ship stats (range, visibility, speed, attack, etc.)?
    Lose your honour on these forums and I'll make you commit seppuku

    Go check out my AoD CORE 0.60 AAR!

  15. #35
    Lt. General
    Arsenal of DemocracyHearts of Iron 2: ArmageddonDarkest HourEuropa Universalis 3EU3 Complete
    Divine WindFor the MotherlandHearts of Iron IIIHeir to the ThroneVictoria: Revolutions
    Semper FiVictoria 2Warlock: Master of the Arcane

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Hister View Post
    I think it does. In which file can I see ship stats (range, visibility, speed, attack, etc.)?
    You should find it here: C:\...\mod-CORE2\db\units\divisions

  16. #36
    Lt. General Hister's Avatar
    Arsenal of DemocracyEU3 CompleteDivine WindHeir to the ThroneSengoku
    Sword of the Stars IIVictoria 2Mount & Blade: Warband500k clubEuropa Universalis IV

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Adriatic coast
    Posts
    1,654
    Quote Originally Posted by Blecky View Post
    You should find it here: C:\...\mod-CORE2\db\units\divisions
    Thank you!
    Lose your honour on these forums and I'll make you commit seppuku

    Go check out my AoD CORE 0.60 AAR!

  17. #37
    First Lieutenant MagooNZ's Avatar
    Arsenal of Democracy

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Hamilton, New Zealand
    Posts
    216
    Blog Entries
    1
    Regarding modifying the game to make Carrier fleet air strike on a surface ship fleet more realistic (ie air attack and air defence values used), this would require a check of the current fleet separation distance versus the max gun range of the surface fleets. If the gun range is exceeded, the combat is calculated using the air combat values only. If the separation distance is within gun range, the combat should be calculated using a combination of the sea & air combat values (probably with the air attack values handicapped due to the close proximity of the enemy ships). Include night/day & weather effects. Can gunman code something like this ?

  18. #38
    Lt. General Hister's Avatar
    Arsenal of DemocracyEU3 CompleteDivine WindHeir to the ThroneSengoku
    Sword of the Stars IIVictoria 2Mount & Blade: Warband500k clubEuropa Universalis IV

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Adriatic coast
    Posts
    1,654
    Yes, that's a perfect solution (at lest in theory)! It certainly sounds manageable.
    Lose your honour on these forums and I'll make you commit seppuku

    Go check out my AoD CORE 0.60 AAR!

  19. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by MagooNZ View Post
    Regarding modifying the game to make Carrier fleet air strike on a surface ship fleet more realistic (ie air attack and air defence values used), this would require a check of the current fleet separation distance versus the max gun range of the surface fleets. If the gun range is exceeded, the combat is calculated using the air combat values only. If the separation distance is within gun range, the combat should be calculated using a combination of the sea & air combat values (probably with the air attack values handicapped due to the close proximity of the enemy ships). Include night/day & weather effects. Can gunman code something like this ?
    If the next AoD patch (if there is one?) would have altered naval combat mechanics, while it might be borderline case of too much complexity to the abstractions of the game, I would also like to see “cooldown” period for carriers introduced as well depending how the battle progresses. IIRC AoD already has carriers taking STR damage even when it attacks outside range to have rough simulation of CAG damage, but adding specific moments when CAG cannot do anything for an hour or two even if everything else would be in order could add another depth to the point the planes eventually have to land, reload, and refuel as well as set up again to be take-off ready.

    Another question of course is whether it's something the engine would support well, but in any case.

  20. #40
    Lt. General Hister's Avatar
    Arsenal of DemocracyEU3 CompleteDivine WindHeir to the ThroneSengoku
    Sword of the Stars IIVictoria 2Mount & Blade: Warband500k clubEuropa Universalis IV

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Adriatic coast
    Posts
    1,654
    In an ideal world this is how naval combat should look like in AoD:

    I seriously don't like how Paradox applied their land combat model to air and naval warfare. I mean, what exactly is Organisation meant to represent in naval battles? Fires? Casualties? Ammunition? It just doesn't work like divisions losing cohesion during protracted fighting! They should have read some serious naval tactics books then coded a model based on that. I would have liked to see task forces start at long range, then see the spotting and long range fire, and gradual increasing engagement by the ships, with varying doctrines and tactics chosen and clearly displayed on a battle screen.

    IMHO

    Cheers,
    Sword
    Lose your honour on these forums and I'll make you commit seppuku

    Go check out my AoD CORE 0.60 AAR!

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts