1.2 (Now 1.3) Naval Combat Complete Guide

[Ricard2037]

I tried great war, i have so few hours/day to play right now that i don´t tried black ice yet. But surely going to try someday .




About a 20% naval production DD II vs a DDIII i really don´t iknow. Need to crunch the numbers and test a little too see if the extra production enables you to surpass the HP the DD III bring to the table.


DD III i would research around 39. When i have to waste below 250 days to research him. Same for Carrier III (That i will get without a bonus).
Also same for planes.

This kind of gives me 1 extra year to build DD III´s. As starting a research around end of 39 will finish only in the mid of 1940.




This is my NF order when im going full naval/island conquests. (No china invasion).

spiritual mobilization
imperial austerity
industrial effort
army primacy
navy primacy

37
increase naval production
student movement
extra research
syntetic oil
reinforce soviet border

38
Southern expansion
advanced weapons (cheap DD III and naval doctrines in 1 package)
advanced torpedos (xp and torpedo buff)
naval inovations (for naval XP)
Naval air Innovation (for 40 planes).

End of 38-39. I will turn that +20% naval production and forget about NF´s.

Well, i prefer other strategys, naval is compatible with chinese...

spiritual mobilization
student mov
research slot( with rushing the 5th slot, you can not waste another 2 focuses on naval doctrines)
imperial austerity
chinese border

37
chinese war (then, you can put total mobilisation, with that, you will get a 5% CGoods waste)
Industrial Effort
Military Effort
Naval production
Navy primacy

38
Warrior trads
Naval innovations
Advanced torps
Army primacy
Divine wind (you wont get this focus i could evade warrior trads and divine wind too...)
with that, in january 39 you can focus on the navy, working from 36 to 39 to have 8 Carriers I-II and then work on HCruisers and destroyers....



It's possible that it's better in this version producing 30 HC will be better than having 25 LC. The differences are annoying for me, there's a difference of 6 of range and 5 of firepower (having coastal).

At this moment.... I prefer focusing on hc and Bcruisers, more than everything.


Another opinion about the Japanese forms, is that Destroyers 1 and 2, are shit, not because of the HP, the problem it's the damage that they does, it's true that are all of them shit, but.... there's a difference from 1, to 2.5 and 3.5 when you have 200 destroyers, this 30% of damage can make the diference.

 

[sterrius]

Going CIC first is primordial because you have a good deficit on CIC and need them to keep building and importing as fast as possible. You should also be building CIC, minimum of 2 but most goes for CIC until 37 or even 38.

Also going to war to early increase WT too fast. Its better to delay as most as possible until at least 38. ( I know a game where people want to start until 31 december of 37). You have to also think about germany, in fact anything you do should be with the eyes of helping Germany in the short or long term.

I know there is advantages going to war early, but there is also advantages delaying the wa.


hmm HC is heavy cruiser right? The right words are CA .

DD + CA is the best combo i can think of for japan right now. Japan already start with the best CL fleet in the world and japan have problems to make enough battlecruisers to make a difference when you compare them to your CA production.

Also some Submarines thanks to the torpedo buff. But not much. Just enough to give me submarine advantage in the battle of the pacific.

The focus should always be DD first. They are the key to shield your fleet. Anything else comes second.


And i agree the dmg can make a diffence when you put the numbers that way. Don´t forget the torpedo dmg also get improved ^^.

 

[Ricard2037]

Also some Submarines thanks to the torpedo buff. But not much. Just enough to give me submarine advantage in the battle of the pacific.

The focus should always be DD first. They are the key to shield your fleet. Anything else comes second.


And i agree the dmg can make a diffence when you put the numbers that way. Don´t forget the torpedo dmg also get improved ^^.

Coastal submarines? I've never done submarines, but can be an option for Japan because of the lances. The problem is the doctrines, 4 doctrines to deal with.

DD in my opinion, is the last thing to do, first you need the weapon(expensive things), then the shield(cheap sheit), the 19 LC and 100 destroyers must be enough for the first half of war, then buld the DD III, 1CA>5destroyers, it's a moral strategy, more gunpowder, and they have more casualties.

And.... i never improve the DD torpedoes, i prefer improving... the weapons for CA/BC or something, to start shooting before they get me.

 

[Denkt]

You don't need to research the sub doctrines to use submarines or atleast I don't think you have to research them.

I think Japan can tech rush carriers pretty well and naval bombers. The difference between naval bombers are huge, a 1944 naval bomber is about 3 times as deadly as a 1936 bomber, unfortunately everything is way more deadly at the 1944 tech level.

If the enemy have air superiority your carriers sorting efficiency can drop all the way to zero and both naval bombers and CAS add air superiority while they are on naval bombing mission so land based naval bombers can really cripple carriers.

The problem with base strike doctrine is that all its capitals are really bad due to low org and org for ships work proportional to the maximum amount so having low org mean that your ships will quickly lose their efficiency during battle so if your carriers are cripple due to air superiority you really don't have anything to fall back on although your main enemy USA have the same poor capitals.

I think super heavy battleships may be a good idea for Japan because these ships do well against pretty much all the starting capital ships and is very effective against all normal battleships. Speed is not much of a factor because the battleship the enemy use will likely be 1922 which only have a speed of 20kn. And even a 1944 battleship is inferior to a 1936 super heavy battleship in a gun duel so by building a few 1936 super heavy battleship you may have taken care of your battleship needs for the rest of the game (they are very hard to sink so they should survive the whole game).

For screen, light cruisers do very well against destroyers and have good org with base strike and submarines can still be sunk by carrier aircrafts if your light cruisers are not able to sink them. Destroyers may look nice on the paper with long lance torpedoes but the problem is that screens tend to fight each other and light crusiers will do better against the enemy screen both against enemy light crusiers as well as destroyers. You can however as Japan tech rush all way to 1944 destroyers without to much trouble thanks to advanced weapon focus. Even then I think light crusiers are the better option because they simply do so much better against enemy destroyers even if they are not 1944.

Submarines do very well against enemy capitals if you can get rid of the screen which again is a reason to pick light cruisers.

One thing to note about 1922 ships are that they have horrendous reliability so they often suffer from critical hits. If your piercing value is better then the enemy armor your chance to land a critical hit is increased by 3 times which again is a reason why light cruisers do so well against destroyers and super heavy battleships do so well against normal battleships.

 

[Lt UlyssesGrant]

I think in a well rounded fleet battle (read stack vs stack), the question is not DD or CL, but rather how many DDs and CLs?

What is beeing argued here is CL > DD. Of course they do! And you know what? CV > SHBB > BB > BC > CA > CL > DD > SUB > (unaware capital ships and convoys).

While in the long run, CLs will win the DPS battle vs the DDs, they won't win the endurance battle. The DDs evasion stat and HP per IC makes it the most survivable class of ship per IC. Which is why we want them anyways. While, your CLs will kill my DDs, my CAs will make mince meat out of your CLs, they have nothing else to shoot at...

Once, in a fleet battle, you run out of screens, my own screens will come to harass your big ships and start to deplete their org. A ship on low org has a 50% debuff to its killing potential.

Even if you have the best offense, a glass cannon is still just that. I would never forfeit my DDs in a fleet battle if my aim is to win it decisevely.

On base strike, my understanding is that you need to win 2 things to crush your enemy in the battle.

1. The air war. You must clean the air to allow your own CV bombers to negate the enemy Capital ships.
2. The screen war. While it can be argued that your capital ships org is very low, your screens have amazing org and can endure a good beating.

If fighting an enemy with base strike, let us say USA, if you win the air war, you can negate his capital ship advantage. And if you outlast him on screens on top of that, your own Capital ships can fire at him while his run away from screen harassment and bomber harassment.

 

[jju_57]

I tend to have real good luck using a BC (variant with better gun), SL and DD fleet. It is super fast with the CL's destroying the enemy DD's and my DD's still around so the BC's can target the enemy capitals. The fleet and ship speed mean I get away ffaster or stay in contact longer when winning. And that +gun variant for BC's mean I can even penetrate SHBB's.

 

[Dr. Kernzl kein Doktor]

Hey, short question, First Page doesnt really say and I didnt check every Page

How is overcrowding for 1.3? Especially with Base Strike doctrine. Recommended? How Many %?

Thanks

 

[sterrius]

Hey, short question, First Page doesnt really say and I didnt check every Page

How is overcrowding for 1.3? Especially with Base Strike doctrine. Recommended? How Many %?

Thanks

After you unlock the -50% overcrown penalty you can go around 40% the maximum carrier size. (if i remember right it should be enough to give you around 50-60% efficiency).
You can tune your carrier easily looking at the efficiency of your carrier "airfield" in the air mission screen that shows all airfields.

that is a safe number to allow you a lot of planes in the carrier vs carrier battle. As the planes die in battle your efficiency should go up until you reach 100% again .

That means a carrier with 100 space can field around 140-50 planes after the doctrine.

Alex is the one that calculated the exact formula and results, its somewhere in this topic .

 

[Lt UlyssesGrant]

I tend to have real good luck using a BC (variant with better gun), SL and DD fleet. It is super fast with the CL's destroying the enemy DD's and my DD's still around so the BC's can target the enemy capitals. The fleet and ship speed mean I get away ffaster or stay in contact longer when winning. And that +gun variant for BC's mean I can even penetrate SHBB's.

The 1940 BC is the best ship in the game cost for value in my opinion! It works amazingly well, but I don't think it can pierce SHBB even with max gun upgrades. It is close but not at that level. In conjonction with 40' CLs and DDs, it is an amazing raiding/ hit and run fleet for Germany. Your fleet design is what I like to use myself when playing Naval Germany in MP. But before you get the 1940 BC, I like to have a speed upgraded BB2. It is also a terrific ship, but it works mostly for the Atlantic where it is hard to contest British hubris on the air and the seas. It would fail in a prolonged confrontation versus a proper fleet or against a carrier task force. As you pointed out rightly, it can hit hard, it can hit fast and disengage just as fast!

Hey, short question, First Page doesnt really say and I didnt check every Page

How is overcrowding for 1.3? Especially with Base Strike doctrine. Recommended? How Many %?

Thanks

I had a draw as Japan because I fought 8 carriers vs my 4 and forgot to overcrowd mine. Sterrius suggested to overcrowd between 40% and 50% with base strike. I'd recommend half these values without the appropriate doctrine. Overcrowding is an essential mechanic because the air war is more important than ever when fighting an opposing carrier task force.

 

[sterrius]

Finally found the time to test multiple carriers in 1.3.

In 1.2 it made no sense going above 4 carriers as replenishment would cover for that and there was no point in reducing efficiency.

Now in 1.3 with the number of planes being limited bringing more carriers do give a advantage.

I used 1940 planes. 85% fighters and 15% bombers.

8 carriers vs 4 overcrownded carriers ended in a draw
8 overcrownded carriers vs 4 overcrownded carriers ended in 8 carriers victory with around 200 planes left. (from 800+).
16 carriers vs 4 overcrownded carriers. Almost instant win for the 16 carriers as the enemy carrier was not able to bring more planes to fight the enemy that is facing a huge penalty. (The penalty have a hard cap of 20% you can bring 100 carriers and they still work at 20%).

This let me thinking carrier spam might actually become viable in 1.3. With carrier II having a 9500IC cost its 2000IC above BC and 1000IC below the BB II.


This need more tests, tests that i can´t really make right now i.i.

 

[jju_57]

I used 1940 planes. 85% fighters and 15% bombers.

The only question I have is why this? I've found the opposite force concentration works better. I usually end up around 25-30% fighters but I've seen great results in more bombers. They simply sink ships faster that way. And if the other side loses a CV that is 100+ planes gone with it.

 

[sterrius]

The only question I have is why this? I've found the opposite force concentration works better. I usually end up around 25-30% fighters but I've seen great results in more bombers. They simply sink ships faster that way. And if the other side loses a CV that is 100+ planes gone with it.

I did a test on page 15.

Here is how it worked.

Both team A and team B consisted of a fleet of 4 carriers I + 10 CA´s II (1936). I used 200 planes total. (upgraded carrier decksize 2 points).
I used CA´s because their AA is ok and in a doomstack battle they will be in great quantity. Also they can take a punch not dying on the first hour of combat.

-> 50/50 means half fighters and half bombers. The number being the %. Fighters first, bombers second.

-> FulL Carrier doctrine for both sides. So no real advantage.

-> Both had a lv4 general.

-> No patrol/search & Destroy. I sent both fleets to a single province so they could start all at same time not giving advantage to one or another.


In 1.3 the number and quality of the fighters determine the winner size.

The side with most fighters will usually win. Going full fighters is a good strategy if you think you're going to be the underdog in the battle as you will be able to shut down the enemy carriers fast and with this you reduce the battle to a fleet vs fleet only.



I Also tested this in MP and worked pretty well vs the opponent that still used a mostly bombers navy.

 

[Denkt]

I have seen carrier aircraft shoot down aircrafts while having 0% sorting efficiency so what is probably what is happening and why more aircrafts win.

Air superiority can reduce sorting efficiency down to 0% thus carriers can be completely useless in sea zones the enemy can bring in land based aircrafts.

 

[sterrius]

I have seen carrier aircraft shoot down aircrafts while having 0% sorting efficiency so what is probably what is happening and why more aircrafts win.

most likely as he started to lose planes the efficiency went up.

I did not tested how bad quantity is doing a influence on carriers, but i find the Soft cap on carriers is not working like it should. As mass carriers is a viable strategy and have a good potential to be superior to anything else. (I just had no time to test right now if a US spamming carriers + DD from day 1 can beat a japanese navy doing a normal build with 8 carriers).

Right now 8 carriers > 4 even with the penalty. And the system tells you that it was not supposed to happen.

 

[Denkt]

Mass carriers are completely useless against land based air due to air superiorty so the enemy can keep their fleet near their airfields and because the carriers themself can't do much in naval combat you are unable to gain any ground.

Naval bombers and CAS do add naval superiority while they are set on naval bombing so they can bomb your fleet while also suppress your carrier aircrafts. Carriers themself are even more vulnerable to naval bombers then other capitals due to their low HP. The later tech naval bombers can very well instakill carriers.

 

[jju_57]

Something strange must be going on. But it sure would explain why my BC fleet is winning so easily in the English Channel when I part 1000 fighters above it. Is this turning the UK CV fleets into worthless ships as their planes don't fly?

 

[Denkt]

Something strange must be going on. But it sure would explain why my BC fleet is winning so easily in the English Channel when I part 1000 fighters above it. Is this turning the UK CV fleets into worthless ships as their planes don't fly?

You can see the enemy sorting efficiency by holding over their aircrafts during naval combat, if you have enough air superiority their carriers will become completely useless with 0% sorting efficiency and if their capitals are then terrible you should win without much trouble as screens can not replace capitals entirely.

Naval combat is quite interesting as there is a whole lot of factors going on. I have seen stuff like sole submarines taking out a third of the hp of a battleships and such. Actually submarines are extremely good against capitals if you can sink the enemy destroyer screen, light cruisers are far less of a danger to submarines then destroyers are but destroyers are pretty useless against anything but submarines. Submarines are much better then screens against capitals.

Battlecruisers 1940 do very well against the old 1922 battleship but not so well against the 1940 battleship but then it is only 2/3 of the price of a 1940 battleship. Heavy crusier 1940 is 2/3 of the price of a battlecruiser 1940 but is not effective against larger capitals but it is very needed to defeat enemy light cruisers.

 

[sterrius]

Mass carriers are completely useless against land based air due to air superiorty so the enemy can keep their fleet near their airfields and because the carriers themself can't do much in naval combat you are unable to gain any ground.

Naval bombers and CAS do add naval superiority while they are set on naval bombing so they can bomb your fleet while also suppress your carrier aircrafts. Carriers themself are even more vulnerable to naval bombers then other capitals due to their low HP. The later tech naval bombers can very well instakill carriers.

1-> You give too much credit to land air superiority. Its easy to avoid those regions (The map will show you) and with mass carriers you can contest the sky. (Set fleet to not engage, stop them in a province and let the carriers clean the sky for you).

If you're deep in the carrier tree a naval plane have nothing to lose vs a land based plane. Even with 4 carriers, as long they are full of fighters they are enough to start getting some kills and slow but surely reduce your air superiority. (it just become a atrittion battle where the one with mass carrier will most likely win as we're talking about the USA here).

Also even if it was impossible to contest, Outside of europe it can become hard to impossible to do that. Specially early in the game.

Land region blockade will work only if the player is not looking and still wants to contest that particular region with carriers without making sure they are clearing the skys first.


PS: Also Japan and US can (in theory) ignore a 100% air efficiency. Thats because they can reach 115% sortie efficiency thanks to a high command officer + Doctrine. (Not tested yet but i don´t see why it would not work).



EDIT: I did tested some easy strategys to cancel air superiority in the channel.

Used 1000 German Fighters plus 500 CAS + 500 Naval bombers (2000 planes).
With 1000 English fighters i was already able to get 45% air superiority of the region.

A mass carrier fleet was getting some nice kills staying close to the region and just with the orders to keep fighting in the region contested. (of course also getting killed in equal amount).

If you must contest the air and have no land base to do it you use carriers with ZERO overcrownd. (they reduce air efficiency).

Place some carriers outside the region and put them to contest the air inside. Carrier III is better for it as they will have pacific fleet manufacter being able to have 100+ planes each.

With other carriers you bring normal numbers. Again. No Overcrownd.


Also i tested the sortie high command. It will give +5% Bonus to air efficiency during battle. But it will not combat a -100% penalty. (But as long the penalty goes to 99.9% it will start to work like normal).

 

[Varvs]

i must say the cap on the carrier penalty sounds to me like you should only build carriers nowdays. not a fan of that.

 

[elitesix]

After a long hiatus (since 1.2), I've returned to play 1.3.2 and I feel like I'm playing a different game from you guys because I'm having three huge basic naval issues that make me question the value of a navy.


1. My fleets don't have serious engagements. Like even a vastly outnumbered Italian fleet in '38 versus the British fleet takes a 6-9mo of constant sea time to be seriously damaged after multiple fights (or a very rare sustained engagement in stormy weather or against equal forces). It seems even when large fleets find each other, which seems rare, it seems over 50% of the battles end with one side disengaging before anything but a few minor screens are sunk. I've frustratingly noticed this against many British or American fleets as Japan. I've had my fleets to search and destroy sometimes sure, but that doesn't explain why the battles disengage when they do occur (S&D should make disengagement harder for the enemy is my understanding, though rarer to actually find a fleet). Now I can't say I know what happened in any particular game with AI or player choices of where they put their navy, but after seeing AI battles in certain sea zones, it just seems that the Naval Engagement AI has significantly changed to prioritize disengagement?


2. A second issue is that it seems that it's so easy to get enough naval superiority through Japanese waters despite a full force Japanese fleet there (or one that is only S&D or convoy raiding in 2 most likely to be invaded sea zones). Now these are all engagements in the '38 and '39 range, but honestly as Japan (and obvious as Italy), it seems almost like navy just is a waste of resources. Never experienced this in 1.2 or before.


3. A third issue that I suppose that I've noticed more prominently now is that (amphibious or manual) transports don't seem to be intercepted easily. Did they make full transports really stealthy or something? Never intercepted the transports either and I've had like 10+ naval invasions in waters I have a full fleet (as japan) or 800+ planes (as italy) in the zone . Really weird.

And this seems to be backed up by anecdotal evidence of how in two MP games Germany did an easy surprise afterthought sealion with like a few ships in the area and some basic air cover and was able to get it's initial naval transports through and tons of port-to-port transported divisions after the initial landing with almost no losses going through the channel (which I imagine was contested either by air or sea by the British player that hadn't suffered many losses either game, but once again can't be sure).

-----

Have any of you noticed these sorts of issues? If so, how did you resolve them?