I checked if fastest ships DDs can catch CVs. Some of them eventually did but no damage to CVs only some screens.
-
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.
Actually, I`ve seen Italian CAs sinking CVs, fairly regularily in RPM mod.
Considering that the navy is basically vanilla, here are my thoughts on that.
1. Italy builds NAVs. They are essential.
2. It appears that attack of cruisers with NAV support either heavily damages escorts to the point where they are out of ORG and CAs actually kill softened CVs.
Or,
Navs just sink the escorts that incurs the insufficent escort penalty which grants CVs really bad positioning roll, so Italian CAs actually catch CVs and kill them.
Also Italy has sufficent air power to pacify CAGs (Navs usually attack paored with MR fighter).
Considering that the navy is basically vanilla, here are my thoughts on that.
1. Italy builds NAVs. They are essential.
2. It appears that attack of cruisers with NAV support either heavily damages escorts to the point where they are out of ORG and CAs actually kill softened CVs.
Or,
Navs just sink the escorts that incurs the insufficent escort penalty which grants CVs really bad positioning roll, so Italian CAs actually catch CVs and kill them.
Also Italy has sufficent air power to pacify CAGs (Navs usually attack paored with MR fighter).
should a CA with a speed of '23.5' be able to engage a CV with a speed of '22' ingame
each with fast DDs or CLs of the same speeds?
each with fast DDs or CLs of the same speeds?
Theoretically yes, though improbable.
Also afaik British CVs were were a few lvls behing italian CAs in terms of techs.
If i remember correctly Italian CAs (or some of them) like some French CAs were tinclads with
large engines for very high speed (a fad at the time! LOL!)
large engines for very high speed (a fad at the time! LOL!)
Perhaps introduce special value 'Sub Detection'. Carriers would have abysmal values at the start, can be improved by technology. If a sub is undetected, it should be able to close in, and try a sinking.
Sub detection value already exists, but it isn't used in combat AFAIK. Anyway, the idea is not bad.
Yes, I can see where my statement was ambiguous.
What I meant was, if a CV fleet is currently being bombed, any SAG that combats said fleet will have an easier time getting into (or staying in) firing range.
For lack of a more detailed response (I don't normally write down my own "whatif" tests results), I would say that, while both SAG and Airborne Attacks were consecutively happening, the CV fleet took a disproportionally large amount of damage. Which, when you're dealing with fleets of 7CV 4CL 20DD, a single 4xNAV stack shouldn't be smashing the screens left and right and doing 50% damage to CVs just by itself
.Which makes sense. If a fleet is "sandwiched" by both planes and big-gunned ships, it should get shot to pieces.
But I wasn't counting variables. I didn't check weather, I didn't watch the SAG component every single hour of every single fight to see how many were in "firing range", etc. So whether my results were due exactly the the reason I believe, or something else, I cannot say.
All I CAN say is that my surface ships bagged a total of 6 CV/CVLs of the UK, if my "ships sunk" screens are to be believed.
Edit: and also that it took till mid-late 1940 before the UK was carrier-less due to the "near kills"
I suspect that your NAVs did the heavy lifting, but maybe I should run a more detailed check. If either SAGs or NAVs are extending naval or air combat to the disadvantage of CVs, I'd like to know. I mean, I've got no problem using land based air to make enemy navies bleed. They do a fair job of it now, but if either NAVs or BCs/BBs/CAs are made viable by mixing NAVs into the equation, it's good to know.
Yeah, that's my observation.
If the NAVs were doing the majority of the fighting, then my surface ships getting as many CV-kills as they did is highly unlikely. I had a LOT of ship-kills by ships (not just the CVs, but also a lot of their DD/CL escorts).
Again though, I wasn't "Watching variables" as I was conducting these runs.
I can also say something else that I DO remember from my tests however: Once the CV force starts "hurting", the amount of time in combat decreased, combined assaults or not (as in, they would be given the retreat command as soon as the SAG fight starts, meaning each SAG engagement lasted a maximum of 5 rounds). Of course, by that point, that fleet's effectiveness is shot to pieces anyway, but it seemed to be why I had way more "near kills" than actual kills.
As Italy with many fleets with Int+Nav cover chasing the RN CVs, they kept fleeing as soon I was closing and hitting them so I also often had more "near kill" than actual kill.
I found it very frustrating, but someone remarked that keeping the seas clear of enemy navies is as good as actually killing them. That may be right and wise, but the hunter instinct in me was asking for the body of the beast !
I know the AI is dumb but I did a test where I converted all BB's, BC's and CA's to be screens. Using a SAG of various combinations (BB's/BC's/CA's/CL's/DD's) never had the SAG actually open fire on the CV fleet. A CV+CL fleet seems to be immune to surface ship gun fire. Now the AI is dumb and mixes in heavies. And with very bad positioning (and too high of a hull factor) those hits on the CV's just might be due to freindly fire from UK BB's and not your fleet.
EDIT:
And ask yourself what is cheaper. 1 BB + 2 NAV or 1 CV + 2 CAG. So why waste IC?
EDIT:
And ask yourself what is cheaper. 1 BB + 2 NAV or 1 CV + 2 CAG. So why waste IC?
In all my games, those CAGs are just pretty $%*&#$@#$ worthless against everything but ships.
BBs within range of land-based INT and TAC/CAS is more IC efficient overall, and I tend to get fairly comparable results naval-wise using these tactics.
BBs within range of land-based INT and TAC/CAS is more IC efficient overall, and I tend to get fairly comparable results naval-wise using these tactics.
That's not the equation I use. The equation I use is X * (CV + 2.5CAG) vs Y * (BC) + 4xNAV.
For CAGs, I need not only 2 per CV but also spares on damaged rotation.
For SAGs, I built 4 NAVs "total", regardless of BCs constructed.
And surface forces, as pointed out, are more valuable for landings via their shore bombardment.
If you do not wish to build SAGs ever, then that's fine. I'm not going to tell you to.
Someone in an earlier thread about this topic pointed out the fact that the Iowa-class battleships, even in 1991 when they were last used, were superior in regards to amphibious invasion support fire when compared to any other ship in the USN. This includes the aircraft fielded by USN fleet carriers; they simply can't compare to the firepower of those old battleships when it comes to supporting troops on the ground.
Yes, well, that's the difference between solid chunks of metal weighing at least a cool ton versus bombs/rockets/cannon from an aircraft. They really shined in shore bombardment in the Pacific when they could fire shells literally OVER an island. Unfortunately, short some D-Day style amphib landing, the invasion force usually outdistances their range fairly quickly and thus the impetus for aircraft usage.
But by that time the Marines have already established by air landing strips for their Harriers for close air support and fully deployed their artillery, both in a secured beachhead. Once the Marines have accomplished that, its pretty much over unless you happen to be Russia or China.
That was me. I also made the point at that time that because they were built for gun dueling with similarly armed battleships, they were pretty much able to thumb their noses at anything almost any country could throw at them. Of those countries not allied with the U.S., only Russia and China have the capability to mount a real threat to ships that heavily armored and that well protected. Fortunately for military planners in those countries, nobody has such ships in active service any more....
Last edited:
There is no justification - CV's due their need for Hangar space + huge Flight-Decks were just too large to be armored anywhere near the level of a BB.
+ Due to flight operations they are allways vulerable to fire and explosions from aircraft (fuel and ammo) on their decks. There is no justification for giving them the same armor level as a BB in HoI3 FTM.
The problem probably results from the Hull value having two different purposes 1. Stacking levels of tast forces 2. armor level.
When trying to adjust hull for stacking balance by raising the CV hull value to that of a BB - (and in this regard the CV should hav a high stacking penalty) - you also inadvertently give them an enormous amount of armour, making them even harder to kill.
One of the reasons why most BBs were slower than CVs was that BBs were much more heavily armoured, so it's logical that BBs should have a higher hull value.
However, high/low hull value can be balanced by low/high sea and air defence values.
However, high/low hull value can be balanced by low/high sea and air defence values.
Am I using NAVs wrong? Whenever I send a 4-wing NAV unit against a fleet on the ocean bigger than 10 ships/squadrons, the NAVs get wrecked regardless if the fleet is engaged with another fleet or not..
They work great against smaller fleets, though.
They work great against smaller fleets, though.
Last edited: