+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 137

Thread: DD + BC = carrier killers?

  1. #41
    Convicted Drive-by Poster Pro_Consul's Avatar
    EU3 CompleteFor the MotherlandHearts of Iron IIIHOI3: Their Finest HourVictoria: Revolutions
    Semper FiSword of the StarsMount & Blade: With Fire and SwordPride of Nations500k club

    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,996
    Quote Originally Posted by Wminus View Post
    Reaching? Why would the UK send CVs into the coastal waters of Germany itself? I'm talking about the Med or East Atlantic. Both the UK and Germany can send interceptors to fight each other over those waters. I'm merely saying that bombing the enemy with NAVs isn't a no-brainer option..
    But expecting BCs to not only survive under such contested airspace but to also sink CVs is...after a fashion. You claimed that having air superiority from land based INTs to suppress the CAGs was key to your BCs defeating the CVs, but then when challenged on that you altered the example to make the airspace contested by INTs from both sides. If that is the case, i.e. if the CAGs are operating under a shield of friendly INT cover with neutral skies, how then are the CAGs to be neutralized so that the BCs can have their way as you posited?

    Edit: I meant to add that you cannot have it both ways. If your land based INTs have enough control of the coastal airspace to reliably suppress CAGs, then you don't really need the BCs but can rely on NAVs instead. If they do not have control, then the BCs are no better off than the NAVs would have been, except that the BCs are a LOT more expensive and can easily sink.
    Last edited by Pro_Consul; 14-06-2012 at 13:09.
    An Englishman thinks a hundred miles is a long way. An American thinks a hundred years is a long time. I am beginning to think a hundred dollars is a lot of money. Two of these facts are interesting. All of them are revealing. But only one of them is truly pathetic.

    Member of the Ahistoric Association

  2. #42
    Captain Wminus's Avatar
    Darkest HourFor the MotherlandHearts of Iron IIIHOI3: Their Finest HourSemper Fi
    Victoria 2Victoria II: A House Divided

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    461
    I said that enemy CAGs can be suppressed by interceptors. I didn't say that the enemy was helpless in the sky. What's wrong with CAGs being attacked by my interceptors, and thus suppressed, while the enemy counter-attacking with interceptors too?

    Listen, all I wanted to know was if a BB+DD or a BC+DD fleet would be best vs an enemy who has both carriers and battleships.

  3. #43
    Field Marshal Alex_brunius's Avatar
    200k clubAchtung PanzerArsenal of DemocracyHearts of Iron 2: ArmageddonCities in Motion
    Cities in Motion 2Crusader Kings IIDeus VultEU3 CompleteFor the Motherland
    Hearts of Iron IIIHOI3: Their Finest HourHeir to the ThroneMagickaMajesty 2
    Victoria: RevolutionsRome GoldSemper FiSword of the StarsSword of the Stars II
    Victoria 2Victoria II: A House DividedCK2: Holy Knight500k club

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    10,694
    Quote Originally Posted by Pro_Consul View Post
    Edit: I meant to add that you cannot have it both ways. If your land based INTs have enough control of the coastal airspace to reliably suppress CAGs, then you don't really need the BCs but can rely on NAVs instead. If they do not have control, then the BCs are no better off than the NAVs would have been, except that the BCs are a LOT more expensive and can easily sink.
    There is one important difference though. BCs won't suffer from enemy AA and NAVs won't suffer from enemy sea attack.

    So my conclusion is that if the enemy has a huge fleet with AA ships escorting his carriers, then attacking with BCs would be the best choice.

    But if he is lacking in AA and instead has heavy ships with lot's of sea attack as protection, then NAVs are prefferable.

    So which one will give you the best result is situational.



    UK could be tempted to use the masses of old destroyers and cruisers as carrier escorts since their AA upgrades and their range doesn't matter when fighting Germany. If that is the case then Fast Battlecruisers should work great to counter it.
    "A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week." - Patton

  4. #44
    Convicted Drive-by Poster Pro_Consul's Avatar
    EU3 CompleteFor the MotherlandHearts of Iron IIIHOI3: Their Finest HourVictoria: Revolutions
    Semper FiSword of the StarsMount & Blade: With Fire and SwordPride of Nations500k club

    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,996
    Quote Originally Posted by Wminus View Post
    I said that enemy CAGs can be suppressed by interceptors. I didn't say that the enemy was helpless in the sky. What's wrong with CAGs being attacked by my interceptors, and thus suppressed, while the enemy counter-attacking with interceptors too?
    Because if you have the capability to use land based INTs to interfere with naval operations, then you have the ability to use land based NAVs to do the same thing, and thus don't need to risk expensive BCs trying to engage targets that are out of their class.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wminus View Post
    Listen, all I wanted to know was if a BB+DD or a BC+DD fleet would be best vs an enemy who has both carriers and battleships.
    You asked if it was workable to employ BCs as anti-CV weapons in a specific manner. I replied that it was not and explained why. You then changed the premise to try to prove that it WAS workable. I pointed out that under the altered conditions it STILL didn't make sense. It sounds like you are not really trying to get information, but rather trying to advocate a particular practice. If the former, then you had your answer already and it made no sense to try to argue with it. If the latter, then just say so and we can debate the point in a more constructive way.
    An Englishman thinks a hundred miles is a long way. An American thinks a hundred years is a long time. I am beginning to think a hundred dollars is a lot of money. Two of these facts are interesting. All of them are revealing. But only one of them is truly pathetic.

    Member of the Ahistoric Association

  5. #45
    Convicted Drive-by Poster Pro_Consul's Avatar
    EU3 CompleteFor the MotherlandHearts of Iron IIIHOI3: Their Finest HourVictoria: Revolutions
    Semper FiSword of the StarsMount & Blade: With Fire and SwordPride of Nations500k club

    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,996
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex_brunius View Post
    So my conclusion is that if the enemy has a huge fleet with AA ships escorting his carriers, then attacking with BCs would be the best choice.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex_brunius View Post
    But if he is lacking in AA and instead has heavy ships with lot's of sea attack as protection, then NAVs are prefferable.
    Again, faulty premise. Your premise assumes that those two situations are mutually exclusive, but in fact they are more likely to be mutually INclusive. There are only two screening vessels in this game: DDs and CLs. Both of them have good AA values for their hull size. So if the enemy fleet is properly screened, it HAS good AA defense already. The only way he would have "heavy ships with lot's of sea attack" but NOT have good AA is if he also neglected to include a proper number of screening vessels, in which case his positioning would be so handicapped that any decent offensive fleet could hurt him...even a sub wolfpack conceivably.

    In short, you are basing your premise on your enemy doing something foolish, which is not a productive way to develop your tactics. Instead assume an enemy that follows at least some basically sound approach, in which case the BCs go right back to not making sense in this context.
    An Englishman thinks a hundred miles is a long way. An American thinks a hundred years is a long time. I am beginning to think a hundred dollars is a lot of money. Two of these facts are interesting. All of them are revealing. But only one of them is truly pathetic.

    Member of the Ahistoric Association

  6. #46
    Captain Wminus's Avatar
    Darkest HourFor the MotherlandHearts of Iron IIIHOI3: Their Finest HourSemper Fi
    Victoria 2Victoria II: A House Divided

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    461
    Interceptors chew-up NAVs in a matter of seconds. That's my experience at least - you need total air dominance to effectively use NAVs.

    I didn't change any premise. I simply asked if a BC+DD or BB+DD build was best, deflecting opinions which told me to build CV+CL as irrelevant to my query. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing, and I cba to continue this.

  7. #47
    Field Marshal jju_57's Avatar
    Hearts of Iron 2: ArmageddonCrusader Kings IIEuropa Universalis: ChroniclesFor the MotherlandHearts of Iron III
    HOI3: Their Finest HourHeir to the ThroneSemper FiEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-order

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    6,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Wminus View Post
    Themousemaster: Hmm, I see. Well, the goal is to help Italy as much as possible in a multiplayer game. For that I was contemplating whether BBs+DDs or BCs+DDs would be best.
    A great way to assist Italy is to not invite them to the war. Let France fall, build your CV's, then invite Italy to join in.

    EDIT: As for the OP BB > BC since BB's are better surface fighters.
    My mom always told me to be nicer. She said that I could catch more flies with sugar than vinegar. But I always found that a big pile of dog poop worked best.

  8. #48
    Field Marshal Alex_brunius's Avatar
    200k clubAchtung PanzerArsenal of DemocracyHearts of Iron 2: ArmageddonCities in Motion
    Cities in Motion 2Crusader Kings IIDeus VultEU3 CompleteFor the Motherland
    Hearts of Iron IIIHOI3: Their Finest HourHeir to the ThroneMagickaMajesty 2
    Victoria: RevolutionsRome GoldSemper FiSword of the StarsSword of the Stars II
    Victoria 2Victoria II: A House DividedCK2: Holy Knight500k club

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    10,694
    Quote Originally Posted by Pro_Consul View Post
    Again, faulty premise. Your premise assumes that those two situations are mutually exclusive, but in fact they are more likely to be mutually INclusive. There are only two screening vessels in this game: DDs and CLs. Both of them have good AA values for their hull size. So if the enemy fleet is properly screened, it HAS good AA defense already. The only way he would have "heavy ships with lot's of sea attack" but NOT have good AA is if he also neglected to include a proper number of screening vessels, in which case his positioning would be so handicapped that any decent offensive fleet could hurt him...even a sub wolfpack conceivably.

    In short, you are basing your premise on your enemy doing something foolish, which is not a productive way to develop your tactics. Instead assume an enemy that follows at least some basically sound approach, in which case the BCs go right back to not making sense in this context.
    No I was talking about the MP tactic of screening 3 CVs with 20 DDs all of them with updated AA. Compared to them being screened by 3BBs+6DDs without researched AA.

    You do realize that the former combination can have upwards to 5 times as much AA fire and the latter can have as much as 5 times sea attack without any problem?

    So actually the only one with faulty premises here is you assuming no one will use more then 1-2 screens per capital ship.
    "A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week." - Patton

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex_brunius View Post
    No I was talking about the MP tactic of screening 3 CVs with 20 DDs all of them with updated AA.
    It is not only MP tactic, in 3.06 H and WH games USA is building a truckload of carriers. To properly defeat them and do legit invasion players need 3 fleets of 9 carriers + 21 escorts with great AA. 1:1 ratio is simply no go when opponent has bonuses from WH and using epic sized CV fleets.

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Wminus View Post
    I'm talking about a MP game
    By this, do you mean that UK will be human played as well?

    Then you can likely forget about Gibraltar altogether, until you either get naval dominance or have the chance to DoW and eliminate Spain.

    Suez can still be a valid tactic however. The beauty of that method is that, even if the UK knows it's coming, it still has to make a major decision on whether or not to actually fight for it.

    If UK tries to defend it, and you decide "meh, why bother", that's several corps of UK forces that are WAY away from where the main fighting will now be, whereas your units are still in Europe, ready to be reallocated wherever they need.

    If UK gives it up, then you can easily breach it, letting Italy get out into the world at large... or at the very least, an easy road to India, which is a major pain for UK to try to defend in any instance.
    Naval Changes: You need em, I got em. --Rather outdated, but I'm leaving it up ;p--
    An improvement to supplies, with (I surmise) a minimal invasion of code and processor power. --sadly locked due to thread necromancy rules, but I'm happy to re-start this discussion if you are--
    And Lastly...
    Nationalist China, with that "Fresh New Wiki" smell!

  11. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeRambo View Post
    It is not only MP tactic, in 3.06 H and WH games USA is building a truckload of carriers. To properly defeat them and do legit invasion players need 3 fleets of 9 carriers + 21 escorts with great AA. 1:1 ratio is simply no go when opponent has bonuses from WH and using epic sized CV fleets.

    Just to mention something here...

    If you CAN negate enemy CAGs with land based air, then this is the "ideal" situation for a surface force to engage. The positioning and stacking penalties applied to a fleet like 9CV21DD, ASSUMING their CAGs are gone, should allow for a fast, well-admiraled SAG force to get some good shots off. Now, whether a human opponent will let his CAGs fall into such a state of disarray in the first palce is a different question... needless to say, humans tend to be WAY smarter than AIs in the navy.
    Naval Changes: You need em, I got em. --Rather outdated, but I'm leaving it up ;p--
    An improvement to supplies, with (I surmise) a minimal invasion of code and processor power. --sadly locked due to thread necromancy rules, but I'm happy to re-start this discussion if you are--
    And Lastly...
    Nationalist China, with that "Fresh New Wiki" smell!

  12. #52
    Covert Mastermind Demi Moderator Secret Master's Avatar
    200k clubAchtung PanzerCrusader Kings IICommander: Conquest of the AmericasDeus Vult
    Europa Universalis 3Divine WindFor the MotherlandHearts of Iron IIIHearts of Iron III Collection
    Heir to the ThroneEuropa Universalis III: In NomineThe Kings CrusadeMagickaMarch of the Eagles
    EU3 Napoleon's AmbitionVictoria: RevolutionsEuropa Universalis: RomeSemper FiSengoku
    Ship Simulator ExtremesSword of the Stars IIVictoria 2Victoria II: A House DividedVictoria II: Heart of Darkness
    Rome: Vae VictisMount & Blade: WarbandWarlock: Master of the ArcaneMount & Blade: With Fire and SwordPride of Nations
    CK2: Holy Knight500k clubEuropa Universalis IV

    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    It's a secret, duh...
    Posts
    15,770
    Quote Originally Posted by themousemaster View Post
    Just to mention something here...

    If you CAN negate enemy CAGs with land based air, then this is the "ideal" situation for a surface force to engage. The positioning and stacking penalties applied to a fleet like 9CV21DD, ASSUMING their CAGs are gone, should allow for a fast, well-admiraled SAG force to get some good shots off. Now, whether a human opponent will let his CAGs fall into such a state of disarray in the first palce is a different question... needless to say, humans tend to be WAY smarter than AIs in the navy.
    Oh yeah, if the enemy has way more ships than positioning allows for, a SAG might be the way to go.

    But to be honest, I can't see a human player letting their CAGs fall to land-based air cover AND having a ridiculous overstacked fleet sitting right off the coast.
    All Hail Him,

    The Secret Master

    Note: If I write a post in this hideous color, I am speaking as a Demi-Moderator. Paying attention is strongly advised.

  13. #53
    BCs! A reason to build the 'Lexington's' as BCs at last!

  14. #54
    Field Marshal Cybvep's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    8,307
    If UK tries to defend it, and you decide "meh, why bother", that's several corps of UK forces that are WAY away from where the main fighting will now be, whereas your units are still in Europe, ready to be reallocated wherever they need.
    Check one of the Carnage Group's AARs. The UK can do ninja invasions easily as long as it is dominant at sea and let's face it - the Axis will be concerned mostly with Barbarossa and since many MP games start in 1938...

  15. #55
    Field Marshal JASGripen's Avatar
    200k clubAchtung PanzerHearts of Iron 2: ArmageddonFor the MotherlandHearts of Iron III
    Semper FiRome: Vae Victis

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Cockpit
    Posts
    4,561
    Should surface ships be balanced to be a bit faster, in order to give them some kind of chance against CV/CAG?
    Montgomery to Colonial secretary Oliver Lyttelton 23 December 1951:

    “Dear Lyttelton, Malaya
    We must have a plan. Secondly we must have a man.
    When we have a plan and a man, we shall succeed: otherwise not.
    Yours sincerely , Montgomery (F.M.)”

    Lyttelton in his memoirs: “I may, perhaps without undue conceit, say that this had occurred to me”.

    ____________________________________
    We are only in it for the Money. A 100% Dove British AAR HoI2 (*Experiment Finished*)

  16. #56
    Field Marshal Cybvep's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    8,307
    Quote Originally Posted by JASGripen View Post
    Should surface ships be balanced to be a bit faster, in order to give them some kind of chance against CV/CAG?
    Just reduce the firing distance of CVs and CVLs and increase the impact of weather on air units a bit. That should be enough to give SAGs a fighting chance.

  17. #57
    Field Marshal JASGripen's Avatar
    200k clubAchtung PanzerHearts of Iron 2: ArmageddonFor the MotherlandHearts of Iron III
    Semper FiRome: Vae Victis

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Cockpit
    Posts
    4,561
    Quote Originally Posted by Cybvep View Post
    Just reduce the firing distance of CVs and CVLs and increase the impact of weather on air units a bit. That should be enough to give SAGs a fighting chance.
    Weather effects seems as the right thing.
    Montgomery to Colonial secretary Oliver Lyttelton 23 December 1951:

    “Dear Lyttelton, Malaya
    We must have a plan. Secondly we must have a man.
    When we have a plan and a man, we shall succeed: otherwise not.
    Yours sincerely , Montgomery (F.M.)”

    Lyttelton in his memoirs: “I may, perhaps without undue conceit, say that this had occurred to me”.

    ____________________________________
    We are only in it for the Money. A 100% Dove British AAR HoI2 (*Experiment Finished*)

  18. #58
    Field Marshal jju_57's Avatar
    Hearts of Iron 2: ArmageddonCrusader Kings IIEuropa Universalis: ChroniclesFor the MotherlandHearts of Iron III
    HOI3: Their Finest HourHeir to the ThroneSemper FiEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-order

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    6,733
    Quote Originally Posted by JASGripen View Post
    Should surface ships be balanced to be a bit faster, in order to give them some kind of chance against CV/CAG?
    Why? That would be ahistorical. US CV's were some of the fastest ships made. I know people love the surface ships and they sure are pretty. But the game is pretty historic in that SAG's should really stink against CV's. I mean even if the surface fleet was faster all the CV's had to do was turn around and run away while their planes did a number on the surface ships. What the leaders of the time came to realize is that the big surface ships were a waste of resources.
    My mom always told me to be nicer. She said that I could catch more flies with sugar than vinegar. But I always found that a big pile of dog poop worked best.

  19. #59
    Field Marshal Cybvep's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    8,307
    Quote Originally Posted by jju_57 View Post
    Why? That would be ahistorical. US CV's were some of the fastest ships made. I know people love the surface ships and they sure are pretty. But the game is pretty historic in that SAG's should really stink against CV's. I mean even if the surface fleet was faster all the CV's had to do was turn around and run away while their planes did a number on the surface ships. What the leaders of the time came to realize is that the big surface ships were a waste of resources.
    So why should anyone build BBs? If there is no reason to build them, then nobody will build them and historically every major navy had BBs and built new ones during the war. Also, if the AI is told to build BBs and they are totally useless, then it will be permanently crippled.

    Keep the context in mind - it's not really plausible to build 1205165196 CVs from the start, because BBs were still believed to be the kings of the sea, even if the importance of naval aviation was increasing. If the player can simply use hindsight to win the game, then we won't get historical or even semi-historical results, because people know basic history and will use it to their advantage. Unless some doctrine-based build limits or other limiting mechanism are used, the only way of making BBs at least minimally useful is to give them a real advantage over the carriers in some circumstances. In HOI2 it was weather-based, which was acceptable.

    Also, in some ways BBs WERE better than CVs. CVs were harder to maintain in the long-term because of the importance of pilot training (Japanese CVs were useless in 1944 because of lack of skilled pilots) and BBs were quite good at providing naval gunfire support (some say that after Iowas there are no ships in the USN that can provide NGS so effectively). Late-war BBs also served as giant AA platforms and were quite fast, so it's not that every BB was slow.
    Last edited by Cybvep; 14-06-2012 at 23:14.

  20. #60
    Field Marshal jju_57's Avatar
    Hearts of Iron 2: ArmageddonCrusader Kings IIEuropa Universalis: ChroniclesFor the MotherlandHearts of Iron III
    HOI3: Their Finest HourHeir to the ThroneSemper FiEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-order

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    6,733
    But even the countries that built BB's during the war (really only the US) didn't use them for CV hunting. They were used for shore bombardment. Let's face it there weren't that many BB vs BB fights in WW2 and most BB's were planned, built or started before WW2 started. Even Japan realized this and tried to convert ships to CV's. I don't know a single country that planned to fight CV's with BC's or BB's come 1940, or built 1940+ BB's for that purpose. So it's really not hindsight.
    My mom always told me to be nicer. She said that I could catch more flies with sugar than vinegar. But I always found that a big pile of dog poop worked best.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... 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