Its a naval balance issue that PI has never really addressed. I hope they do. Would make
sub/surface/carrier warfare alot more real and more fun.
sub/surface/carrier warfare alot more real and more fun.
-
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.
The logical way to balance this (and the way it worked in HoI2 IIRC) is to actually let Battleships and Battlecruisers be pretty powerful up until 1940. Biplane CAGs that can't do much damage and CVs that lack doctrine to keep away from Surface units.
I would prefer this approach even if it deviates somewhat from history.
Yes, SAGs either need to be buffed, given some unique role/advantages (very effective at SB, for example; easier to maintain in the long-term than CVs, which need pilots) or we need a mechanism that encourages/forces the player to build BBs (build limits, ratio of BBs to CVs, CVs vs BBs debate which can result in resignation/sacking of ministers etc.). Otherwise, there will be absolutely no reason to build BBs and nobody will build them or be forced to build them no matter which country their plays as. This is not historical.
I fully agree with your strategy and those 4xNAVs are the best way to actually sink CVs eventually. (I used 2x stacks of four for that purpose.)
Somehow the target choice must alos be hardcoded to prioritize the CV's last. I usually only started to sink ENG CVs as they were running out of fleet to cover them.
(However all this is moot when you start playing vs. a human opponent managing the carrier fleets and the respective navy, as all the elaborate coordination of several SAG + Air units will probably be be spoiled by the oppenent countering them.)
As Secret Master points out it all depends on what your goals are - and in a strategic game killing units is not the primary goal it is often good enough to control a sea zone by forcing the enemy to leave.
This can be achieved by Air+SAG right now.
The problem with vanilla FTM 3.05 is however that the CV is harder to kill than a BB (it has same hull + better sea defence) even if it would get in SAG range.
Of course this imbalance also makes the CV less vulnerable to land based Air too, overpowering the unit to frustrating levels. In addition to that CV's get better AA values + better AA tech gain than BB's...
I wrote a long post in the MP naval thread trying to analyze the game mechanics behind CV warfare (link in my last post) conclusion:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?610189-CaD-Game-Mechanics-Thread-Naval-Battles
1. CV distance value should be lowered to 60 at start gradually increasing to 100 with CV tech/ doctrine + distance advantage should be depending on the presence of an oerational CAG on the carrier.
2. CAG should have shorter range and be much weaker in the early years of the war
3. CV stats should be checked - right now they are troo tough compared to a BB of the same tech level
And still: From mid 1942 onwards the CV's should rule the blue waters with eveolving techs (blue = open seas as opposed to coastal, brown etc. waters in Land based air range)!
I was looking for this the other day. I know that carriers were sunk by subs during the war, but what I can't find is just how many, or how many warships of what type were sunk by subs during WWII. I can easily find, however, how much shipping (in tons) was lost to sub activity during the war. Anybody got those figures?
Allied ships lost to u-boats
Is this detailed enough?
This does not include ships which were hit by the Japanese subs, though.
Is this detailed enough?
This does not include ships which were hit by the Japanese subs, though.
Japan lost a lot of ships to subs too. The super-carrier Shinano was sunk by a single sub torpedo 10 days after it was completed, and most of the Kamikaze-class destroyers were sunk by American subs, to name a few examples.
Allied ships lost to u-boats
Is this detailed enough?
This does not include ships which were hit by the Japanese subs, though.
Yes sir, it's a start. So in the European War there were 3 carriers and 5 battleships lost to subs. Not many, but not insignificant either. 13 cruisers and it doesn't appear that Britain went in for heavy cruisers, or those were invulnerable.
I would like to see stats for the Pacific War, but that one got one-sided really fast, so by '44 no Jap ship was safe from American subs.
"Shinano was sunk by the American submarine USS Archer-Fish 10 days after her commissioning by only 4 torpedoes, due to the fact that no pumps and underwater doors were installed yet."
Hmmm. Seems to be a somewhat special case.
HMS Courageous was on anti-submarine duty when she was sunk. Her loss caused Britain to pull all carriers from anti-sub duty.
Investigation into the loss of the HMS Ark Royal discovered some major design flaws that contributed to her quick sinking and resulted in refits to carriers already in production.
I don't know, guys. Not a great statistical argument for making subs the terror of the seven seas against capital warships. They do have a great record for hitting freighters and screens though.
You don't scare me. I play HOI3 with a cat in my lap like some kind of Bond villain.
I'm confused. Are you saying that you get longer surface battles when you fly NAVs into combat? Or are you saying that your NAVs get more bombing time with a SAG in surface combat?
And I already indicated that I think NAVs are good at killing enemy ships of all kinds. Even at lower techs, they can be deadly.
BCs and CAs had various engine techs, starting with 1936 and going to 1940 when the war started (builds staggered so some got better engines than others). The BBs all had 1940 engine techs because I was willing to sacrifice the leadership to get ahead. If I'm going build BBs, I might as well get techs up a bit higher before starting the first build.
Interesting. I did not try staggered attacks.
I like this stuff, but I have a question.
Is there any justification for CV hull values being comparable to BBs historically? Or is that just a game mechanic to keep you from stacking 5 CVs in a SAG without incurring a ton of positioning penalties?
Only aircraft sank more capital ships than submarines during WWII. Also, you forgot escort carriers.
The point is that subs were a threat to capital ships IRL, while in HOI3 it's not really possible to sink CVs with subs and nobody fears them. As soon as CVs appear, subs are done, which was not the case IRL, especially during the first half of the war.
Check this.
Last edited:
Has anybody 'upped' the speed of BCs or BBs (or CAs) in the game files to be faster than CVs to see how then surface TFs engage (if at all) carrier TFs?
Well, I've never wanted them to be the terror of the seven seas. But it would be nice for CVs to fear subs when circumstances favor subs.
Part of the problem in the game isn't that subs just don't have the fireopwer to kill CVs. The problem is that game mechanics are set up so that subs will never even get a shot at a CV. The CV could have no screens and still be safe. It just turns around and leaves combat while the sub tries to close into engagement range in vain. Oh and the CAGs pound the sub like its a surface ship that can't do a single thing to mitigate air attack. ("100 CAGs just strafed us again. Should we dive and flee combat? Nah, let them keep dive bombing us while we try to make a surface run against that carrier!")
In fact, even if subs never sank CVs, it would be nice to see subs sometimes actually get a single hit on CVs when no screens are around to provide spotting and ASW. Bear in mind, I've tried bagging CVs with subs that have fancy acoustic torpedoes and 1942 techs in 1940. I can sink BBs, DDs, CLs, BCs, convoys, escorts, even worthless CAs. I can kill hordes of ships with outdated or no ASW. But I will never, ever, get a single torpedo hit on a CV, even with the surprise bonus, and even if the CV has no water pumps, bad damage control, or is staffed by clowns.
Navies were very worried on subs. The US losing CVs Wasp and Yorktown to them and CV Saratoga being damaged. Thats 1/2 of the entire US 1941 CV force.
Well, the Yorktown was arguably not sunk by submarine but by the air attach it suffered the previous day which left it almost capsized. From descriptions I have read, the two torps the sub hit her with did not do much in the way of meaningful damage beyond what she had already suffered. That leaves just one US carrier sunk and another taking meaningful damage from sub launched torps. But your general point is still sound, i.e. subs definitely were a threat worthy of concern.
Let me give an example of a situation in which subs, historically, would be a big threat, but in HOI3, they aren't a threat at all.
Let's say a human and AI player fight a naval battle at Midway between the USN and IJN. The human player is Japan. The IJN fleet, under Yamamoto, is a 6xCV/6xCL fleet. Nimitz is commanding a standard AI mixed fleet of a bunch of CVs, some BBs, and various screens.
Now, let's say it's early in the war and both sides still have considerable submarine forces patrolling the whole Pacific.
During the battle, the human player owns the AI and sinks a number of ships. Nimitz, sitting near Midway, realistically spends less than a day of sailing and retreats to Midway under land based air cover. Should Japanese subs bag a CV in this case? Not really, because land based air and the fleet sitting in port preclude a submarine attack.
But let's also say that the IJN fleet is hurt. It lost 1 CL and most of the other ships took some damage. The fleet now has insufficient screens (bad) and has reduced ASW capability (also bad). What should the human player do? Under current HOI3, the human player can order the fleet to return to Japan for repairs and to meet up with new screens. The fact that the damaged CVs will be running a lengthy gauntlet through sub infested waters with insufficient screens and ASW is not a problem. No USN sub is going to finish off any of those CVs. If subs were a credible threat to CVs, the human player would have to make a choice between running for a closer, but inferior port, or running all the way to Japan and risking ships in sub infested waters. The human could just leave the CTF off the coast of Midway, but since land based air is present, along with an American fleet, staying on station makes them even more vulnerable to subs since the Americans will know exactly where the CTF is.
See, even if you argue that subs only bagged carriers because of crew screw ups, bad design, or pre-existing battle damage, that still doesn't change the fact that even under the battle damaged circumstances I described, subs can't threaten a carrier. Let's face it. In WWII, damaged ships running through sub infested sea zones were in big trouble. But right now, CVs are magical unicorns whose special horns make them immune to sub attacks, even when damaged and staffed by veterans from the Crimean War.
I do agree that subs should have a historically statistical chance to sink capital ships.
the hit on Yorktown cancelled any attempt to keep her for recovery and as well blew up
the DD (Harmon?) sitting next to her fighting fires (a 2 for 1 hit). Yes the loss of shipping
from subs should not be discounted especially from 1939-42. Should be more of a reason
to have DDs in STFs.
Question (probably something i am doing wrong) but i am trying to tweak up CA speed to
1 knot more than CVs to make them dangerous but i get "access denied" when i try and save.
I want to test to see if i can make CAs more dangerous to CV/CL TFs and thereby making
them more "useful" gamewise and more historically dangerous.
the DD (Harmon?) sitting next to her fighting fires (a 2 for 1 hit). Yes the loss of shipping
from subs should not be discounted especially from 1939-42. Should be more of a reason
to have DDs in STFs.
Question (probably something i am doing wrong) but i am trying to tweak up CA speed to
1 knot more than CVs to make them dangerous but i get "access denied" when i try and save.
I want to test to see if i can make CAs more dangerous to CV/CL TFs and thereby making
them more "useful" gamewise and more historically dangerous.
Sounds like you have that User Access Abomination that comes with Vista and Win 7 turned on and have HOI installed in the Program Files folder perhaps.
Actually i kinda like Win7 as it allows me to play some older games still. Still learning ins and
outs of it tho and was easier to tweak the game in XP!
outs of it tho and was easier to tweak the game in XP!
It will be hard to determine it. Just give subs a small chance of sinking or at least heavily damaging CVs - this should be enough to force the players to worry about subs, because carriers are valuable units.