Why? It might be balanced so that CV still have an absolute edge, but once in a blue moon they haven't.
-
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? It might be balanced so that CV still have an absolute edge, but once in a blue moon they haven't.
The game starts in 1936. If there is no reason to build X, then nobody will build it (excluding for RP purposes) because of hindsight. What's the point of having build-able BBs in-game, then? If you are saying that X is historical, then you cannot ignore other historical facts, too. If the game makes carriers historically powerful but doesn't represent historical reasons why BBs were built at all, then we will get unhistorical results.
BBs were mostly build in order to combat other BBs, because these ships were believed to be dominant at seas, CVs were supposed to protect them against aircraft in a similar manner as escort ships protect capital ships from other ships. IRL even a single destroyer could potentially be dangerous to a capital ship if it carried torpedoes and capital ships were simply too valuable to be lost this way. Also, BCs and cruisers were actually considered to be a potential threat to CVs due to their speed and firepower - some cruisers were heavily armoured in order to counter that threat.
Japan converted other capital ships to carriers because they lacked carriers after Midway and they knew that even due to the distances alone aircraft were important in the Pacific. Both the USA and the UK built BBs during the war. Obviously many battleships were ordered before the war or their construction started before the war, but that was true in case of many carriers, too. Have you heard of the Two-Ocean Navy Act? It was passed in July 1940. That was BEFORE Taranto and BEFORE Pearl Harbour. The Americans realised that the USN had to be expanded and they knew that BBs needed air cover, despite the fact that they still believed that BBs would be the most important ships in the future war, just as the Japanese did.
Also, the importance of naval treaties shouldn't be disregarded - there were severe tonnage limitations and this spurred carrier development in 1930s.
That's because the distances were much lower than in the Pacific, so BBs could operate under air cover most of the time.
Last edited:
Oh, I'm certainly not saying it can't go the other way as well.
Human vs human games can be some of the most a-historical affairs out there... and therefore, also the most unpredictable.
Often, that "breaking" is required to outwit the opponent.
That said, UK forces that are in Egypt on the outbreak of hostilities aren't going to be getting much use in Europe unless the entire ITA navy has been neutralized. Getting them "off" of egypt either involves going through the med (big risk), or going around Africa (which is a good week or 2 where they aren't doing anyone any good). Any strat that involves using forces in Egypt for anything other than defending the Suez is going to need to also include provisions for the naval situation.
But Battleships and Battlecruisers did have uses that Carriers didn't.
On the open seas when running is always an option CVs did reign supreme yes.
But in support of an offensive landing? not so much. Mobility is no longer needed at all, since running away would mean abandoning thousands of men in the landing ships and is not an option.
What is needed instead is sturdy armored ships to put in the way and draw fire of enemy attacks from coastal artillery, airplanes and scrambeling ships. You certainly don't want a CV to do that and smaller ships (screens) or unescorted landing ships would not last that long against coastal artillery.
The airspace is likley to be protected by enemy fighters and interceptors operating from very nearby airbases. In short a situation where historically CVs would be very inferior to BBs.
The same can be said for example when it comes to missions like guarding a strait from enemy penetration, yes the CV can pull back just fine against any approaching force but that would also mean failing in it's mission and letting the enemy pass...
There are other missions too, for example guarding arctic convoys wintertime when there is only a few hours of sunlight or no light at all. CVs could not really operate at all during nighttime.
None of these weaknesses of CVs are represented in HoI3 at all. The first two because keeping distance in a naval battle doesn't require movement on the map, and the last one because daylight isn't calculated correctly and airplane nighttime penalties overseas are not severe enough.
On the open seas when running is always an option CVs did reign supreme yes.
But in support of an offensive landing? not so much. Mobility is no longer needed at all, since running away would mean abandoning thousands of men in the landing ships and is not an option.
What is needed instead is sturdy armored ships to put in the way and draw fire of enemy attacks from coastal artillery, airplanes and scrambeling ships. You certainly don't want a CV to do that and smaller ships (screens) or unescorted landing ships would not last that long against coastal artillery.
The airspace is likley to be protected by enemy fighters and interceptors operating from very nearby airbases. In short a situation where historically CVs would be very inferior to BBs.
The same can be said for example when it comes to missions like guarding a strait from enemy penetration, yes the CV can pull back just fine against any approaching force but that would also mean failing in it's mission and letting the enemy pass...
There are other missions too, for example guarding arctic convoys wintertime when there is only a few hours of sunlight or no light at all. CVs could not really operate at all during nighttime.
None of these weaknesses of CVs are represented in HoI3 at all. The first two because keeping distance in a naval battle doesn't require movement on the map, and the last one because daylight isn't calculated correctly and airplane nighttime penalties overseas are not severe enough.
The problem here is a more basic one.
There is no such thing as the Arctic Convoy in HOI3
. Neither Murmansk nor Arkhangelsk mean anything in the game .
Ofcourse, I was just giving a few historical examples to underline that CVs always wasn't the best choice for the job. And naval battles wintertime in the extreme north can take place in HoI3 regardless of convoys.
A lot of this has been discussed recently with some really good arguments in the Multiplayer section:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?610189-CaD-Game-Mechanics-Thread-Naval-Battles
With the vanilla stats of FTM 3.05 the BC/DD oor BC/CL Fleet would more often than not never be fast enough to close into gun range + it would have to stay too small (positioning) to absorb the CAG hits + the CV can take way to much damage even if you ever get into range (by the odd chance).
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?610189-CaD-Game-Mechanics-Thread-Naval-Battles
With the vanilla stats of FTM 3.05 the BC/DD oor BC/CL Fleet would more often than not never be fast enough to close into gun range + it would have to stay too small (positioning) to absorb the CAG hits + the CV can take way to much damage even if you ever get into range (by the odd chance).
I ran some tests as Germany last night to see if there was a way to exploit land based air to get SAGs into effective firing range of CVs. The results were basically what I thought they would be.
I tested 3 basic fleet compositions. CA/CL "cruizerg" fleet, a BC/DD fleet, and a BB/CL fleet (for more AA). All fighting took place either in the Channel or at the mouth of the Thames. Battles took place in early/middle 1940 after the Fall of France with some combats in 1942 against the USN off the coast of Morocco.
1) Cruizerg: The CAs did manage to sink a significant amount of older RN ships. With land based fighter coverage, the RN's CAGs spent a lot of time being shredded. But the moment the RN brought more modern ships into the fight, the CAs died. They never got into range of CVs even with INTs sweeping the sky of CAGs. The CAs simply don't have the hull or firepower to survive surface engagements against even mediocre modern BBs. The German Navy failed to survive long enough for the USA to enter the war.
2) BC/DD: They trashed a lot of RN ships. With 1938 capital ship armament, they were smacking the RN around fairly well. The CTFs would come out to play and the Luftwaffe would shred the CAGs. But the BCs simply could not get in range to do any significant damage. As the RN got newer ships, the BCs started spending more and more time in port getting repairs. The lower hull values meant that, while they weren't dying off in droves, their operational time was much reduced. They really did not spend much time playing with the USN off the coast of Morocco, staying port almost half the time due to excessive battle damage.
3) BB/CL: I tech rushed all the way to H-class BBs before building any. While not as fast as BCs, the speed difference was smaller and these H-class BBs had much more hull than the BCs. They completely dominated all RN SAGs they encountered, claiming 65% or so of the RN's BBs (the Italians got the rest in the Med for once). The fleet spent almost 9 months operating within sight of Dover before finally returning to port. Battles against RN SAGs saw the RN get completely owned. Battles against CTFs resulted in no significant damage to CVs. Interestingly, looking at the battles in the window, it was the BBs who got closest to being in firing range of the CVs, not the BCs. They still failed to get into range, but there were some times that they started close (did they just get lucky? something I missed in the battle? Leader effects I don't understand?). Battles against CTFs were victories because the CAGs would be shredded and the CTF would flee the sea zone. Mixed battles still saw CVs running away while the BBs would just hammer the BBs and BCs (I suspect that with plenty of targets to shoot at, the BBs were just ignoring the CVs completely to focus on targets they could reasonably hurt).
What was most interesting about the BB test was that the BBs kept the ocean effectively clear of CTFs (until the US entered the war). We didn't kill any, but the CTFs spent a large portion of the war sitting in port with no screens and dead CAGs. While that's not the same thing as winning at Midway, operationally, it's just as good from the German standpoint. With the RN suppressed (which could not have happened historically), it's not gamey to launch Sealion anymore.
When the USN entered the war and obliged me by landing in North Africa, the BB based SAG performed poorly against USN Death Stars. I didn't lose any BBs (in fact, we killed two prides of the fleet in two weeks), but they simply got shot up too badly to stay on station for very long even under friendly fighter cover from Gibraltar. I'm not sure if it's because of excessive CAGs, or because I should have put more wings at Gibraltar, or if it was the difference between RN tech and USN tech (let's face it, the USN had could be ahead 1 level in all relevant categories without even breaking the ahead of time penalty by the time we were fighting each other), but even with friendly air cover, the BBs found life really difficult.
The Torch landings didn't make a difference in the overall war on way or the other because the USN could still throw a Death Star or two against me and still find the time to invade Okinawa.
An interesting effect of these combats in 40 and 42: the BBs sometimes had to take a break in port while waiting for new CLs to get produced because we lost enough screens to incur the inadequate screen penalty. We would lose screens sometimes and I didn't budget for a lot of extras. With hindsight, I should have built a few more earlier in the war and they could have stayed on station even longer.
Another interesting tidbit: The starting subs for Germany were able to continuously raid convoys in the North Atlantic until the USN entered the war. The H-class BBs operating off the coast of southern England tied up so much of the RN's resources that it couldn't spare the ships to hunt down 3 lousy subs. Had I known this ahead of time, I might have built a few more and made them more advanced.
My verdict:
1) SAGs will never bag a CV no matter how much land based air cover they have. Bismark, Yamato, Marat, and Royal Oak will never have the coveted "killed CV" entry in the ledger.
2) SAGs CAN effectively suppress enemy CTFs if they have lots of land based air cover. USN Death Stars might just require excessive air power that even Germany can't afford (either to physically throw in combat or to supply in theaters outside Europe).
3) A suppressed CTF is not as fun as sinking a CTF, but it is just as good IF you are Germany and IF you are trying to achieve specific naval goals (primarily Sealion and maybe taking the Suez/Bombay to knock them out of the war). Italy can get some mileage out of this in the Med. Japan cannot afford this luxury against the USN because the USN can afford to repair 30 CAGs at one time while building 30 more. CVs that are not dead are CVs that will bring another crate full of naval air power to the table in 3 months.
4) BBs have a perfectly valid place in naval OOBs for major powers excluding anyone intending to attack the US. If you are a major power that already has decent BB practical, you are not Japan planning to attack the US, and you have plenty of air bases (or potential air bases) within range of enemy naval targets, then build BBs. Just don't try to project naval power to Hawaii or Baltimore.
4a) The Soviets are so behind that they might as well go the CV route, but because Vladivostock is in range of most of Japan, up to date Soviet BBs could still seriously threaten the IJN at home. What is the IJN going to do? Fly 12 CAGs against 30 INTs based in Pacific? It's not like the Soviets can't afford excessive land based air power.
5) Do not antagonize the USA. Death Stars are bad for your health.
EDIT:
I forgot number 6: Air power is decisive in naval battles. Period. No exceptions. Seriously, I meant it. But CVs are not required when fighting near the coast, so just make sure air power is present.
I tested 3 basic fleet compositions. CA/CL "cruizerg" fleet, a BC/DD fleet, and a BB/CL fleet (for more AA). All fighting took place either in the Channel or at the mouth of the Thames. Battles took place in early/middle 1940 after the Fall of France with some combats in 1942 against the USN off the coast of Morocco.
1) Cruizerg: The CAs did manage to sink a significant amount of older RN ships. With land based fighter coverage, the RN's CAGs spent a lot of time being shredded. But the moment the RN brought more modern ships into the fight, the CAs died. They never got into range of CVs even with INTs sweeping the sky of CAGs. The CAs simply don't have the hull or firepower to survive surface engagements against even mediocre modern BBs. The German Navy failed to survive long enough for the USA to enter the war.
2) BC/DD: They trashed a lot of RN ships. With 1938 capital ship armament, they were smacking the RN around fairly well. The CTFs would come out to play and the Luftwaffe would shred the CAGs. But the BCs simply could not get in range to do any significant damage. As the RN got newer ships, the BCs started spending more and more time in port getting repairs. The lower hull values meant that, while they weren't dying off in droves, their operational time was much reduced. They really did not spend much time playing with the USN off the coast of Morocco, staying port almost half the time due to excessive battle damage.
3) BB/CL: I tech rushed all the way to H-class BBs before building any. While not as fast as BCs, the speed difference was smaller and these H-class BBs had much more hull than the BCs. They completely dominated all RN SAGs they encountered, claiming 65% or so of the RN's BBs (the Italians got the rest in the Med for once). The fleet spent almost 9 months operating within sight of Dover before finally returning to port. Battles against RN SAGs saw the RN get completely owned. Battles against CTFs resulted in no significant damage to CVs. Interestingly, looking at the battles in the window, it was the BBs who got closest to being in firing range of the CVs, not the BCs. They still failed to get into range, but there were some times that they started close (did they just get lucky? something I missed in the battle? Leader effects I don't understand?). Battles against CTFs were victories because the CAGs would be shredded and the CTF would flee the sea zone. Mixed battles still saw CVs running away while the BBs would just hammer the BBs and BCs (I suspect that with plenty of targets to shoot at, the BBs were just ignoring the CVs completely to focus on targets they could reasonably hurt).
What was most interesting about the BB test was that the BBs kept the ocean effectively clear of CTFs (until the US entered the war). We didn't kill any, but the CTFs spent a large portion of the war sitting in port with no screens and dead CAGs. While that's not the same thing as winning at Midway, operationally, it's just as good from the German standpoint. With the RN suppressed (which could not have happened historically), it's not gamey to launch Sealion anymore.
When the USN entered the war and obliged me by landing in North Africa, the BB based SAG performed poorly against USN Death Stars. I didn't lose any BBs (in fact, we killed two prides of the fleet in two weeks), but they simply got shot up too badly to stay on station for very long even under friendly fighter cover from Gibraltar. I'm not sure if it's because of excessive CAGs, or because I should have put more wings at Gibraltar, or if it was the difference between RN tech and USN tech (let's face it, the USN had could be ahead 1 level in all relevant categories without even breaking the ahead of time penalty by the time we were fighting each other), but even with friendly air cover, the BBs found life really difficult.
The Torch landings didn't make a difference in the overall war on way or the other because the USN could still throw a Death Star or two against me and still find the time to invade Okinawa.
An interesting effect of these combats in 40 and 42: the BBs sometimes had to take a break in port while waiting for new CLs to get produced because we lost enough screens to incur the inadequate screen penalty. We would lose screens sometimes and I didn't budget for a lot of extras. With hindsight, I should have built a few more earlier in the war and they could have stayed on station even longer.
Another interesting tidbit: The starting subs for Germany were able to continuously raid convoys in the North Atlantic until the USN entered the war. The H-class BBs operating off the coast of southern England tied up so much of the RN's resources that it couldn't spare the ships to hunt down 3 lousy subs. Had I known this ahead of time, I might have built a few more and made them more advanced.
My verdict:
1) SAGs will never bag a CV no matter how much land based air cover they have. Bismark, Yamato, Marat, and Royal Oak will never have the coveted "killed CV" entry in the ledger.
2) SAGs CAN effectively suppress enemy CTFs if they have lots of land based air cover. USN Death Stars might just require excessive air power that even Germany can't afford (either to physically throw in combat or to supply in theaters outside Europe).
3) A suppressed CTF is not as fun as sinking a CTF, but it is just as good IF you are Germany and IF you are trying to achieve specific naval goals (primarily Sealion and maybe taking the Suez/Bombay to knock them out of the war). Italy can get some mileage out of this in the Med. Japan cannot afford this luxury against the USN because the USN can afford to repair 30 CAGs at one time while building 30 more. CVs that are not dead are CVs that will bring another crate full of naval air power to the table in 3 months.
4) BBs have a perfectly valid place in naval OOBs for major powers excluding anyone intending to attack the US. If you are a major power that already has decent BB practical, you are not Japan planning to attack the US, and you have plenty of air bases (or potential air bases) within range of enemy naval targets, then build BBs. Just don't try to project naval power to Hawaii or Baltimore.
4a) The Soviets are so behind that they might as well go the CV route, but because Vladivostock is in range of most of Japan, up to date Soviet BBs could still seriously threaten the IJN at home. What is the IJN going to do? Fly 12 CAGs against 30 INTs based in Pacific? It's not like the Soviets can't afford excessive land based air power.
5) Do not antagonize the USA. Death Stars are bad for your health.
EDIT:
I forgot number 6: Air power is decisive in naval battles. Period. No exceptions. Seriously, I meant it. But CVs are not required when fighting near the coast, so just make sure air power is present.
Last edited:
Really enlightning analysis. You name is well chosen Secret Master.
That brings me a question.
Would it be a good strategy to repeatedly hurt old ships (just short of sinking them) so the RN spend time and ressources repairing old ships instead of building new ones to replace them ?
Or is it better to sink everything you can because less RN ship means less dominance over the seas ? As you indicated that both your subs and italian navy suffered less after you cleared the sea of some RN, this seems to be the better option.
Last edited:
Nice analysis, Secret Master.
.
Now you can check the Influence Wars to see what reduced firing distance in HPP can mean to CVs and CVLs
.
So, S_M, here comes the "parade rainer" that is Admiral Mousemaster.
First off, I think your tests accomplished a display of exactly what would happen in those given circumstances (I know, right? ;p). They are good tests, and I endorse them.
That said, I've managed to sink CVs with BC/DD fleets before, so saying "it will never happen" kinda contradicts my own personal in-game experience.
What I see/don't see as a difference:
A) I always keep a 4xNAV wing handy for just this reason. 4xNAV isn't going to be killing any superstacks, but I noticed my own ships getting mroe "quality time" with opponents when they were busy being bombed. Always? no, sometimes they maintained distance... but more often in range, definitely.
B) You didn't specify what the engine techs were in your tests. Any time I'm going SAG, I keep my engines 1-1.5 years ahead; what was your comparison?
C) When going the SAG route, I always make sure to overload the targets. I treat it like the USSR's "MIL overload" strat vs basic INF; if the enemy has a CV-based fleet of any real size, and all I have in the area is a single 4BC8DD fleet, then I more or less let it go (thought I shoot up the CAGs for sport with INT); however, when I have 3 fleets of 4BC8DD with 1 fleet of 2BC6DD in a nearby port for replacement purposes... THAT's when it's time to shine. Send in 1st fleet (usually "last year's" models), get a bit smacked as CAGs hit me and I drain CAGs, maybe get a shot or 2 off, leave combat to nearby port... and then send in 2nd Post-Modern Fleet with Best Admiral Available, and start the fight more or less already with a firing solution ;p. Combined with A) above, THAT's what gets the job done.
First off, I think your tests accomplished a display of exactly what would happen in those given circumstances (I know, right? ;p). They are good tests, and I endorse them.
That said, I've managed to sink CVs with BC/DD fleets before, so saying "it will never happen" kinda contradicts my own personal in-game experience.
What I see/don't see as a difference:
A) I always keep a 4xNAV wing handy for just this reason. 4xNAV isn't going to be killing any superstacks, but I noticed my own ships getting mroe "quality time" with opponents when they were busy being bombed. Always? no, sometimes they maintained distance... but more often in range, definitely.
B) You didn't specify what the engine techs were in your tests. Any time I'm going SAG, I keep my engines 1-1.5 years ahead; what was your comparison?
C) When going the SAG route, I always make sure to overload the targets. I treat it like the USSR's "MIL overload" strat vs basic INF; if the enemy has a CV-based fleet of any real size, and all I have in the area is a single 4BC8DD fleet, then I more or less let it go (thought I shoot up the CAGs for sport with INT); however, when I have 3 fleets of 4BC8DD with 1 fleet of 2BC6DD in a nearby port for replacement purposes... THAT's when it's time to shine. Send in 1st fleet (usually "last year's" models), get a bit smacked as CAGs hit me and I drain CAGs, maybe get a shot or 2 off, leave combat to nearby port... and then send in 2nd Post-Modern Fleet with Best Admiral Available, and start the fight more or less already with a firing solution ;p. Combined with A) above, THAT's what gets the job done.
I'm not sure I have that kind of control. Some of those old ships die pretty damn quick. My CAGs and BBs might end up killing enemy ships even after I manually trigger a retreat.
Hypothetically, keeping the RN damaged, de-ORGed, and in port would drain the UK's IC more than just killing the ships. The supply cost and reinforcement cost will drain additional IC, but my guess is that if you really wanted to drain British supply, it would be better to gain air superiority over London and just log bomb for months on end. The new log bombing rules make it easier to kill supply and fuel via bombing (as opposed to killing infrastructure). But either way, there are better uses of ships and planes.
My overall strategic assessment is "Don't worry if the RN lives or dies or rusts in port getting repairs. If the UK loses naval superiority AND air superiority, then the status of actual ships is not really relevant. Their defense of the home islands is practically over."
Most players ninja Sealion via gamey sea invasions or PARA abuse. With the RN and RAF legitimately out of the way, you create an initial landing and then start transporting as much armor as you need to subdue the Isles.
Now you can check the Influence Wars to see what reduced firing distance in HPP can mean to CVs and CVLs
I looked in on it. It looks like you guys bagged a few CVs and CVLs even during some of the less successful battles. Then again, the USA can afford those losses, which is the narrative of any war with the USA under the current version of HOI3.
It also looks like the generals and admirals are going to destroy Japan with their infighting.
Yeah, pretty much
. Anyway, BBs and BCs definitely can bite in HPP and good doctrines, bad weather (which hampers aircraft the most) and air cover (or even better - CAG/NAV support) can help you greatly. As in HOI3 Vanilla, CAGs become more and more powerful as the game progresses, but with maximum -50% modifier (!!!) for shore bombardment BBs are useful even during late-war period.Still, firing distance is the key here. Reduce it to 50-55 for old CVs and to 65-70 for modern CVs and SAGs will have a fighting chance, even if in the long-term CVs will still be dominant, as they should be.
Shhhh... That's my secret goalIt also looks like the generals and admirals are going to destroy Japan with their infighting.
. However, if you know how IJA-IJN "cooperation" looked like IRL, then the infighting in the AAR is nothing compared to the RL situation .
I'm not saying to use 100% hindsight, but using common sense based on historical timelines means that you end up building CV's and not BC/BB's to control the seas. After Bismark, Taranto, Midway CV's were obiously the key. Most BB builds up to and including 1940 did have BB's. But remember the thread is pushing a BB/DD fleet to destroy CV's. 1940 experience and without question by '42 it became obvious that this was a bad idea. The Iowa's were orginally desinged to keep up wityh the CV fleet (hence the fastest BB's made). But The US realized that they weren't needed in CTF's. The were regulated to shore bombardment and not CV protection.
Now you can start down the path thinking a BB/DD fleet can accomplish the mission of destroying CV's but by '40-'42 if sstill playing historical you would scrap that idea.
Not relevant to the thread and discussion. The topic is DD+BC = carrier killers? And CV's with their planes did offer ground support. BTW CA's, CL's and DD's provided more ground support then BB's.
As for CV weaknesses, exactly how many CV's were sunk in night actions? What HOI3 misses is allowing the fight to continue into the night. That is not the same as allowing a SAG to close into gun range during the nighttime.
Oh and the artic has LONG day light periods during the summer. So to be accurate it is during winter months that there is limted light time.
One other point. Fighting the RN means they have mixed CTF's that include capital surface ships. The AI can't be stopped from doing this but against human opponenets you will only find CV+CL fleets. So chances are your SAG's wouldn't even have sunk a single ship. Your tests are almost identical to the ones I ran for HOI3 SF. The only time a SAG will ever bag a CV is if the opposing CV force has surface capital ships and your SAG force gets lucky.
In conclusion DD+BC or DD+BB are not carrier killers. Only other CV's are carrier killers.
That's not how it works when the unit is useless. Assuming that the player has total freedom when it comes to production priorities, if there is no point in researching or building BBs, then nobody will build them even in 1936 because of hindsight. There won't be any shift in thinking in 1940-1941, nobody will wait for Taranto, Midway or whatever else, excluding RP purposes. Therefore, even if on paper everything looks historical (LOOK! Carriers are powerful, just like RL!), in practice we will get unhistorical results, because major navies won't build BBs. Additionally, if the AI builds BBs, then it will be hampered. You might just as well remove BBs as a buildable unit.
There should be, as in subs, an early possible 'surprise' of a STF engaging a CTF especially at
night tho this would be negated over time with radar improvements. This way the German BCs
get a shot at the UK CVs that sank one and the Japanese even after Midway were hoping to
engage US carriers with massive STF which ingame is usless currently. Also improved surprise
in poor weather i should add...
night tho this would be negated over time with radar improvements. This way the German BCs
get a shot at the UK CVs that sank one and the Japanese even after Midway were hoping to
engage US carriers with massive STF which ingame is usless currently. Also improved surprise
in poor weather i should add...
Subs cannot really sink CVs in HOI3, either, so I doubt that a surprise bonus would make SAGs more useful...
And this is NOT an academic point, either. Unlike BBs, subs did kill a significant number of carriers in the war. So, in this case, CVs are overpowered.
