1.9.3 Naval Test

[Kryndude]

I started this as an attempt to find out optimal fleet composition under given IC cost, but unfortunately my patience has ran out before I could finish the work. I'm sharing what I've got so far, any feedback is welcomed but don't expect me to carry out more tests any time soon.

Spoiler: Test Conditions

• All 1936 techs researched, Trade Interdiction left 3. Chose 1936 because it's what people would've produced the most by the time war breaks out.
• Total IC cost of both sides kept even.
• Used Always Engage because Medium Risk often had both sides retreat with barely any losses and made it difficult to tell which side won. Note that ships surviving with extremely low HP still counts as 1 surviving ship.
• Intended to do 10 tests for close match ups and 5 for obvious ones but got lazy in the end.
• Ocean tile, weather unaccounted for, plane IC cost added to CV cost, ignored starting fleet, EAI mod reduces unit XP effect by half.

Spoiler: Ship Designs

Spoiler: Hit Profile

​

DD	25.4
CL-LA	39.5
CA-LA	48.6
CA-HA	94
BB	100.4
SHBB-SB	150
CV-SB	85.7
Convoy	120
Light Attack	45
Heavy Attack	80
Torpedo	145
Depth Chrage	100

Spoiler: Test Results

Test number
Fleet comp
Number of ships
Number of remaining ships
Comment


Test 1
CA-LA : DD vs CA-LA : DD
6 : 18 vs 4 : 29

1. 6:3 vs 0:4
2. 6:6 vs 0:8
3. 6:7 vs 1:3
4. 6:4 vs 0:3
5. 5:3 vs 0:2
6. 6:1 vs 0:5
7. 6:15 vs 0:1
8. 6:7 vs 0:7
9. 6:6 vs 0:4
10. 6:9 vs 0:5

average. 6:6 vs 0:4

Extra barebone DD not worth sacrificing CA, what if DD has torpedo?


Test 2
CA-LA : DD-T vs CA-LA : DD-T
6 : 18 vs 4 : 27

1. 0:5 vs 4:10
2. 4:3 vs 1:6
3. 2:0 vs 2:7
4. 6:10 vs 0:3
5. 6:13 vs 0:5
6. 6:5 vs 0:5
7. 6:9 vs 0:4
8. 6:11 vs 0:4
9. 6:9 vs 0:3
10. 6:10 vs 0:2

average. 5:8 vs 1:5

Still not worth it.


Test 3
CA-LA vs DD-T
8 vs 42

1. 5 vs 7
2. 0 vs 28
3. 8 vs 8
4. 8 vs 5
5. 7 vs 7
6. 1 vs 24
7. 8 vs 3
8. 8 vs 4
9. 4 vs 6
10. 3 vs 14

average. 5 vs 11

What if DDs are fully armed with three torpedoes?


Test 4
CA-LA vs DD-T3
8 vs 32

1. 7 vs 3
2. 0 vs 26
2. 7 vs 3
3. 7 vs 2
4. 1 vs 11
5. 4 vs 3
6. 4 vs 7
7. 6 vs 1
8. 8 vs 3
9. 7 vs 6
10. 7 vs 4

average. 6 vs 7

DD-T3 performs worse. Torpedo doesn't seem very good against CA-LA.


Test 5
CA-LA vs DD
8 vs 49

1. 8 vs 8
2. 8 vs 3
3. 8 vs 4
4. 8 vs 2
5. 8 vs 7

average. 8:0 vs 0:5

Barebone DDs are for screening only.


Test 5-1
CA-LA vs CA-LA : DD
8 vs 5 : 18

1. 0:0 vs 5:9
2. 1:0 vs 5:11
3. 2:0 vs 5:13
4. 0:0 vs 5:13
5. 0:0 vs 5:13

average. 1:0 vs 5:12

At least against CA-LA, minimum ratio of barebone DD seems to be the best.


Test 6
CA-LA : DD-T vs CA-LA : DD-T-LA
6 : 18 vs 5 : 15

1. 6:4 vs 0:1
2. 6:8 vs 0:0
3. 6:2 vs 0:1
4. 6:4 vs 0:1
5. 6:5 vs 0:0

average. 6:5 vs 0:1

Light attack on DD seems bad


Test 7
CA-LA : DD-T3 vs CA-LA : DD-T3
5 : 15 vs 3 : 23

1. 5:9 vs 1:4
2. 5:10 vs 0:2
3. 5:11 vs 1:1
4. 5:8 vs 0:2
5. 5:4 vs 0:5

average. 5:8 vs 0:3

Again, capital ships not worth sacrificing for more DDs.


Test 8
CA-HA : CA-LA : DD vs CA-LA : DD-T
1 : 4 : 15 vs 5 : 15

1. 0:1:0 vs 5:8
2. 1:4:0 vs 1:4
3. 1:1:5 vs 3:4
4. 1:4:5 vs 0:2
5. 0:0:3 vs 5:3
6. 0:0:2 vs 4:10
7. 0:0:4 vs 4:6
8. 0:0:2 vs 5:5
9. 1:4:3 vs 0:2
10. 1:4:10 vs 0:4

average. 1:2:3 vs 3:5

Even. Intended to see if heavy attack could replace torpedo. What if specialized further?


Test 9
CA-HA : DD vs CA-LA : DD-T
4 : 12 vs 5 : 15

1. 3:5 vs 1:3
2. 4:7 vs 0:0
3. 1:5 vs 1:5
4. 2:2 vs 1:11
5. 1:5 vs 1:10
6. 0:1 vs 3:15
7. 0:0 vs 3:14
8. 4:3 vs 1:0
9. 3:7 vs 1:0
10. 4:9 vs 0:0

average. 2:4 vs 1:6

Heavy attack wins by a small margin. DD doesn't seem to be much of threat.


Test 10
CA-HA vs CL-LA
6 vs 10

1. 2 vs 9
2. 0 vs 10
3. 0 vs 10
4. 0 vs 10
5. 1 vs 10

average. 1 vs 10

Heavy attack not good at killing screens.


Test 11
CA-LA vs CL-LA
9 vs 10

1. 3 vs 10
2. 1 vs 8
3. 0 vs 8
4. 1 vs 7
5. 1 vs 10

average. 1 vs 9

Not much of a difference, but still CA-LA is marginally better than heavy attack at killing CL.


Test 12
CA-LA : DD-T vs CA-LA : CL-LA
5 : 17 vs 2 : 7

1. 5:2 vs 0:0
2. 5:7 vs 0:0
3. 5:4 vs 0:0
4. 5:6 vs 0:0
5. 5:6 vs 0:0

average. 5:5 vs 0:0

Torpedoes are very bad against the two ship types but left side still dominates. Barebone DD seems to be optimal for screen.


Test 13
CA-LA : DD-T vs CA-LA : CL-LA-ARM
5 : 16 vs 2 : 6

1. 5:15 vs 0:0
2. 5:6 vs 0:0
3. 5:4 vs 0:0
4. 5:10 vs 0:0
5. 5:8 vs 0:0

average. 5:9 vs 0:0

Armor on CL makes it even worse


Test 14
CA-LA : DD vs CA-HA : DD
7 : 21 vs 5 : 18

1. 1:0 vs 5:13
2. 1:11 vs 5:8
3. 0:18 vs 4:3
4. 0:0 vs 5:12
5. 1:0 vs 5:3

average. 1:6 vs 5:8

CA-HA counters CA-LA


Test 15
CA-HA : DD vs CL-LA
4 : 12 vs 9

1. 0:0 vs 6
2. 0:1 vs 6
3. 0:0 vs 6
4. 0:0 vs 7
5. 0:1 vs 7

average. 0:0 vs 6

CL-LA counters CA-HA


Test 16
CL-LA vs CL-Barebone
90 vs 130

1. 90 vs 8
2. 90 vs 3

Hull tax is real.


Test 17
DD-L3 vs DD
72 vs 100

1. 72 vs 3

Even for the cheapest ship, hull tax is significant.


Test 18
CA-LA : DD-L3 vs CA-LA : DD
5 : 17 vs 6 : 18

1. 0:1 vs 6:3
2. 0:0 vs 6:0
3. 3:2 vs 0:2
4. 0:0 vs 6:10
5. 1:2 vs 6:0
6. 0:1 vs 5:2
7. 0:2 vs 6:4
8. 0:1 vs 6:6
9. 5:3 vs 0:2
10. 5:1 vs 0:1

average. 1:1 vs 4:3

But DD modules are bad nevertheless.


Test 19
CA-MIX : DD vs CA-HA : DD
5 : 15 vs 4 : 18

1. 2:5 vs 3:18
2. 5:15 vs 1:2
3. 4:15 vs 0:2
4. 1:2 vs 4:15
5. 4:13 vs 1:12
6. 1:0 vs 3:17
7. 4:14 vs 2:3
8. 0:1 vs 4:18
9. 4:15 vs 1:2
10. 4:14 vs 2:5

average. 3:9 vs 2:9

Mixing heavy guns and light guns slightly favored in this particular match-up.


Test 20
CA-MIX : DD vs CA-LA : DD
5 : 15 vs 7 : 21

1. 0:0 vs 6:15
2. 5:2 vs 3:2
3. 5:4 vs 1:2
4. 1:1 vs 5:12
5. 5:3 vs 3:1
6. 5:2 vs 1:3
7. 0:0 vs 7:13
8. 0:1 vs 6:16
9. 5:0 vs 2:4
10. 0:1 vs 5:15

average. 3:1 vs 4:9

CL-LA beats both CAs (CA-HA > CA-LA > CA-MIX > CA-HA)
CL-LA best ship?


Test 21
BB-SB : DD vs CL-LA
2 : 6 vs 9

1. 0:0 vs 8
2. 2:1 vs 1
3. 2:1 vs 0
4. 2:0 vs 4
5. 0:0 vs 6
6. 1:0 vs 5
7. 2:0 vs 0
8. 2:0 vs 0
9. 0:0 vs 5
10. 2:0 vs 0

average. 1:0 vs 3

Fairly even, but BB do end up with more total IC on average.


Test 22
BB-SB : DD vs CA-HA : DD
2 : 6 vs 4 : 12

1. 1:1 vs 2:12
2. 0:1 vs 4:12
3. 2:4 vs 2:12
4. 2:5 vs 0:1
5. 0:1 vs 4:11
6. 2:6 vs 1:3
7. 1:1 vs 4:10
8. 2:0 vs 4:12
9. 1:6 vs 0:1
10. 2:5 vs 0:1

average. 1:3 vs 2:8

Surprisingly, BB performs worse against CA-HA


Test 23
BB-SB : DD vs CA-LA : DD
2 : 6 vs 5 : 18

1. 2:0 vs 2:2
2. 2:0 vs 2:5

CA-LA just doesn't pose a threat to BB


Test 24
SHBB-SB : DD vs CA-HA : DD
1 : 6 vs 3 : 9

1. 0:0 vs 3:9
2. 1:5 vs 0:0
3. 1:6 vs 0:0
4. 1:1 vs 2:7
5. 1:4 vs 0:0
6. 1:6 vs 0:1
7. 1:6 vs 1:0
8. 1:6 vs 0:2
9. 0:1 vs 2:9
10. 1:5 vs 1:0

average. 1:4 vs 1:3

SHBB actually not bad


Test 25
SHBB-SB vs CA-HA
2 vs 7

1. 2 vs 0
2. 2 vs 0
3. 2 vs 0

average. 2 vs 0

Screen also provide some protection against heavy guns, so without screen SHBB should melt CA-HA since it has concentrated firepower.


Test 26
SHBB-SB : DD vs CA-LA : DD
1 : 6 vs 4 : 12

1. 1:0 vs 0:8
2. 1:4 vs 0:0
3. 1:0 vs 1:11
4. 1:2 vs 0:9
5. 1:1 vs 1:1
6. 1:4 vs 0:1
7. 0:0 vs 4:12
8. 1:5 vs 0:1
9. 1:1 vs 0:3
10. 0:1 vs 2:10

average. 1:2 vs 1:6

SHBB beats both CA archetype. Judging from test 21, SHBB-SB should be able to handle CL-LA as well.


Test 27
CV-AA : Fig vs CV-AA : NAV
1 : 60 vs 1 : 60

All 60 NAVs get taken down QUICKLY and then nothing happens because FIG can't attack ships.


Test 27-1
CV-AA : Fig : NAV vs CV-AA : Fig : NAV
1 : 20 : 40 vs 1 : 40 : 20

40 Fighters win comfortably. In carrier match-up, fighters seem to be the most important. But weird because then you don't have any killing power against ships, just a bit of carrier plane penalty to enemy positioning.


Test 28
CV : NAV : SHBB-SB : DD vs CA-HA-AA : DD
1 : 60 : 1 : 6 vs 4 : 14

1. 1:58:1:6 vs 0:1
2. 1:55:1:6 vs 1:0

Much more one-sided result than test 24. Carrier NAVs do tons of damage if left unchecked. Thought small fleet size might be affecting test results, but under equal IC cost it really shouldn't because ratio is the same and fleet size penalty is determined by ratio.


Test 29
CV : NAV : SHBB-SB : DD vs CA-HA : DD
4 : 240 : 4 : 24 vs 17 : 51

1. 4:240:4:22 vs 1:3
2. 4:240:4:22 vs 1:0

Same test as test 28


Test 30
CV : NAV : SHBB-SB : DD vs CV : NAV : CA-HA : DD
4 : 240 : 4 : 24 vs 4 : 240 : 11 : 45

1. 1:2:6 vs 4:2:38
2. 1:4:21 vs 0:2:2
3. 2:4:24 vs 1:0:3
4. 0:0:3 vs 4:2:34
5. 1:1:9 vs 1:0:36
6. 4:4:24 vs 0:0:1
7. 1:4:23 vs 0:1:5
8. 2:3:23 vs 0:1:3
9. 0:1:22 vs 1:2:15
10. 0:0:0 vs 4:3:40

average. 1:2:15 vs 2:1:12

Right fleet receives 22% positioning penalty, which has the effect of -11% attack, -15% AA, 43% sub visibility. Naval mechanic favors small, elite fleet as long as production is equal. It might turn out that heavier ships aren't worth it despite their advantage in fleet size, but at least CV seems crucial to winning battles (the side that gets favorable NAV role takes out enemy CV first and wins). However, that's not the only deciding factor. If it were, then SHBB should've lost because it has less ships and thus higher risk of CVs getting focused down. Left side suffered lower enemy carrier plane superiority penalty. It might be related to number of sortied planes, in which case it also favors elite fleet.


Test 31
CV : Fig vs CA-LA : DD
4 : 240 vs 7 : 4

Right side suffers 43.7% larger fleet penalty and 8% enemy carrier planes penalty to positioning


Test 31-1
CV : NAV vs CA-LA : DD
4 : 240 vs 8 : 4

50% larger fleet penalty (max) and 8% planes penalty. All ships seem to count as 1 towards fleet size measurement. Plane type doesn't seem to matter. Carrier plane penalty stayed the same, which goes against the hypothesis of test 30.


Test 32
SHBB vs DD-T3

Torpedo melts SHBB


Test 33
CV-SB : NAV : SHBB-SB : DD vs CL-LA
4 : 240 : 4 : 24 vs 38

1. 4:240:4:1 vs 1
2. 4:240:4:1 vs 2


Test 34
CV-SB : NAV : SHBB-SB : DD vs CV-SB : NAV : CL-LA
4 : 240 : 4 : 24 vs 4 : 240 : 27

1. 3:240:4:2 vs 0:0:1
2. 3:240:4:2 vs 0:0:2

SHBB-SB seems to reck CL-LA


Test 35
CV-SB-AA : Fig : SHBB-SB-AA : DD vs CV-SB-AA : Fig : CA-HA-SB : DD
4 : 240 : 4 : 24 vs 4 : 240 : 11 : 45

1. 4:36:4:22 vs 0:0:0:4
2. 4:8:4:23 vs 0:0:2:7

SHBB-SB beats CA-HA with CV on both sides. Switched to fighters for realistic comp.


Test 36 - 1940 tech
CV-SB-AA : Fig : SHBB-SB-AA : DD vs CV-SB-AA : CA-HA-SB : DD
4 : 320 : 4 : 24 vs 4 : 320 : 10 : 40

1. 4:37:4:21 vs 0:0:2:2
2. 4:29:4:23 vs 1:1:4:7

SHBB-SB still viable


Test 37
CV-SB-AA : Fig : SHBB-SB-AA : DD vs CV-SB-AA : Fig : CA-LA : DD-T3
4 : 240 : 4 : 24 vs 4 : 240 : 12 : 50

1. 0:0:0:5 vs 4:56:6:44
2. 0:0:0:4 vs 4:2:5:41

SHBB-SB gets reckt by light attack + torpedo.

TL;DR

1. If your opponent doesn't run carrier, NAV on CV will win you the naval game.
2. If your opponent does run carrier, put fighters on CV.
3. Super heavy battleship beats all meta comps without torpedo (light attack CA, heavy attack CA, light attack CL + barebone DD).
4. It gets countered by light attack CA + torpedo DD.
5. Don't invest IC into DD weapons unless for countering SHBB.
6. Maintain minimum screen ratio with barebone DDs.
7. Keep in mind there's probably a few errors and possibly undiscovered aspects that might invalidate some of my points.

Here's a quote from @28lobster that pretty much sums up first half of the tests.
https://www.reddit.com/r/hoi4/comments/ek32y3/_/fq6ujsr

To do list

1. Test substituting CV with land-based air and naval AA
2. Try coming up with a hybrid fleet that performs decently against all meta comps.

 

[KDEstroy]

The test is comprehensive, but your capital ship designs are horrible. No one would mount 5 heavy battery modules on a single battleship, nor is anyone saying that these designs are viable.

 

[Corpse Fool]

The test is comprehensive, but your capital ship designs are horrible. No one would mount 5 heavy battery modules on a single battleship, nor is anyone saying that these designs are viable.

I was also a bit surprised to see those ships loaded down with all of the guns, but I'm not really aware of any reason not to do that. Because of the 'hull tax', loading down fewer hulls seems to give you a lot more firepower per IC.

Yes, the speed and resulting hit profiles might look pretty bad, but it doesn't seem to really perform all that poorly in a tactical setting, much like heavy tanks would on land. The largest vulnerability might be in a strategic setting, slow speed makes it difficult to catch enemies in battle, and amplifies the fuel cost of the fleet, as they are sailing for along time.

This testing isn't meant to prove a particular meta, its meant to understand the mechanics and develop a meta.

What sorts of ship designs would you suggest?

 

[KDEstroy]

I was also a bit surprised to see those ships loaded down with all of the guns, but I'm not really aware of any reason not to do that. Because of the 'hull tax', loading down fewer hulls seems to give you a lot more firepower per IC.

Yes, the speed and resulting hit profiles might look pretty bad, but it doesn't seem to really perform all that poorly in a tactical setting, much like heavy tanks would on land. The largest vulnerability might be in a strategic setting, slow speed makes it difficult to catch enemies in battle, and amplifies the fuel cost of the fleet, as they are sailing for along time.

This testing isn't meant to prove a particular meta, its meant to understand the mechanics and develop a meta.

What sorts of ship designs would you suggest?

If it was me, I would test three different designs - one with max heavy guns, one with three heavy guns and as many secondary batteries that fit, and one with just one battery and maximum amount of secondaries.

 

[Kryndude]

I did assume hull tax would be equally punishing for SHBBs from the tests with DDs and CLs, but personally I'm with @Corpse Fool on this one. Could you explain why you think it's a good idea to leave some of the slots unused?

Also, does anyone know if, when a ship has both heavy attack and light attack, it means that it can shoot at up to two targets at once?

The wiki seems to imply that, if that's the case then I think you want at least one secondary battery on BBs or SHBBs.

"Each ship with offensive weapons (i.e. not carriers and convoys) and the respective weapons off cooldown can target three enemy ships independently per combat hour; one with its depth charges/light weapons, one with torpedoes, and one with heavy guns."

Naval battle - Hearts of Iron 4 Wiki

hoi4.paradoxwikis.com

 

[Pzt_Kami]

Also, does anyone know if, a ship has both heavy attack and light attack, it means that it can shoot at up to two targets at once?

The wiki seems to imply that, if that's the case then I think you want at least one secondary battery in BBs or SHBBs.

"Each ship with offensive weapons (i.e. not carriers and convoys) and the respective weapons off cooldown can target three enemy ships independently per combat hour; one with its depth charges/light weapons, one with torpedoes, and one with heavy guns."

Naval battle - Hearts of Iron 4 Wiki

hoi4.paradoxwikis.com

According to the very wiki link you quoted (and assuming it is true with current verison) ,then Yes the ship can hit both one enemy heavy with its heavy guns while also hitting one enemy light/sceen ship with its light guns simultaneously

 

[Kryndude]

According to the very wiki link you quoted (and assuming it is true with current verison) ,then Yes the ship can hit both one enemy heavy with its heavy guns while also hitting one enemy light/sceen ship with its light guns simultaneously

Thanks, but I was really asking if anyone can confirm that piece of information to be true. If it is, then it might mean that ships with both attack types can role for crit twice an hour.

 

[Kryndude]

I substituted 4 CVs with 1000 fighters and 600 NAVs and tested it in the English Channel. Both sides had 7 CA-LAs and 21 DDs as rest of the fleet.

Scenario 1.
NAV didn't join the battle for some reason, but 100% air superiority tanked CV sortie efficiency to 0% and only around 2 CV fighters were able to take off and die. The side without CVs lost 19 DDs, the other side had 3 DDs remaining.

Scenario 2.
600 NAVs joined the fight immediately. 40 were taken down along with 5 DDs, opponent has 5 DDs remaining.

Naval strike mission efficiency was 67.6%.

Air is king?

 

[CantGetNoSleep]

No sonar, no radar? You'll get shredded by even the most basic subs...

 

[Kryndude]

1 SHBB + 5 CA-LA + 18 DD-T vs 7 CA-HA + 21 DD >> Adding SHBB did help but wasn't enough to turn the tables.

3 SHBB + 57 DD vs 12 CA-LA + 50 DD-T3 >> Switching one SHBB into DDs for extra screen against torpedoes did help. 50:50 win rate but the losing side suffers massive losses.

 

[Kryndude]

No sonar, no radar? You'll get shredded by even the most basic subs...

Not really, torpedoes suck at killing screen, so unless supported by a good source of light attack subs won't do much harm. Actually, with screen penetration they can, but this test excluded subs from the equation for reasons, so if you find your opponent investing IC into subs then you can simply refit some sonars or just divert production into ASW DDs.

 

[28lobster]

I love well done tests like these. Totally surprised me that SHBBs are actually decent; Borkee mod nerf to SHBBs was ahead of its time. I think part of the issue is the strength of cost reduction naval designer which makes SHBBs weaker while it's strictly a buff to CA/CL/DD in terms of combat stats/IC.

I'd love to see a few of these generalized ship designs specialized. Something like Kure Naval Arsenal CA-HA (CRDA for Horst Italy also gives heavy attack) or Blohm&Voss CA-LA. I also want to see how this interacts with starting fleet designs and refits, I've seen a few successful naval builds that involved just refitting with light attack and AA until you unlock tier 3 cruisers or DDs to produce.

Not really, torpedoes suck at killing screen, so unless supported by a good source of light attack subs won't do much harm. Actually, with screen penetration they can, but this test excluded subs from the equation for reasons, so if you find your opponent investing IC into subs then you can simply refit some sonars or just divert production into ASW DDs.

Best use I've seen for subs was a Japan in Horst a few weeks ago, sub 1 spam + Horst's special carrier naval bomber 2s with 5 bombing and 8 range (but no kamikaze missions). Japan didn't add any docks so America felt confident to push into South China Sea to convoy raid against the Japanese presence on Borneo but this was prior to the stun locking change. America's fleet never left the South China Sea; Japan's surface ships never engaged - and of course UK was blamed for being a "shit AC". Me playing Raj watching uncomfortably, happy I went mass mob defense build, still got rekt by Manchu mountaineer-rocket arty.

When PDX wrote "Added a cooldown timer after naval transfers are engaged at sea and escape to avoid stun-locking issues with many small feets. The cooldown depends on the screening efficiency of the defenders so a defended convoy will have a longer cooldown the better defended it is", what if it's not a convoy but a surface fleet without convoys (i.e. America probably had SCS turned to avoid, he would just have the battle fleet). Battle fleets don't bring many depth charges though CNBs help (if you aren't in 10% air superiority) and some of the starting fleet DDs have them. I'm not sure the stun locking of convoys works the same on ships. Assuming your fleet is screened, subs basically can't threaten it and the fleet will have some amount of depth charges. If you're on engage at medium risk, the fleet will continue to take a good fight until planes arrive and might even continue until player intervetion (America had to manually retreat with fleet on DNE but only moved like 2-3 tiles and was caught by subs repeatedly). Maybe the 2nd and 3rd catch don't happen but the 1st catch was already devastating enough to sink 1/5 of the fleet and send the rest home for repair.

 

[Kryndude]

Wait, were the CNBs on naval strike mission or did the CVs directly join the subs in those naval engagements?

 

[HugsAndSnuggles]

While somewhat interesting overall, SHBB has one of the "saner"-made designs here; unlike the majority of tests (which can be summed up as "attack X vs attack Y"), everything involving SHBB is more along the lines of "average SHBB vs attack X". Without similar tests for more "balanced" designs, any conclusions on SHBB effectiveness seem... premature.

 

[Kryndude]

While somewhat interesting overall, SHBB has one of the "saner"-made designs here; unlike the majority of tests (which can be summed up as "attack X vs attack Y"), everything involving SHBB is more along the lines of "average SHBB vs attack X". Without similar tests for more "balanced" designs, any conclusions on SHBB effectiveness seem... premature.

That's because SHBB doesn't have a choice in terms of which weapon to equip, whereas CA has to choose between light cruiser battery and medium battery. I don't think balanced designs would do any better than specialized ones.

 

[HugsAndSnuggles]

That's because SHBB doesn't have a choice in terms of which weapon to equip, whereas CA has to choose between light cruiser battery and medium battery. I don't think balanced designs would do any better than specialized ones.

Perhaps. Still, I doubt I'll ever use cruiser (especially heavy one) without armour belt.

 

[Kryndude]

Perhaps. Still, I doubt I'll ever use cruiser (especially heavy one) without armour belt.

Level 2 cruiser armor gives 8 armor and 5% HP for -7% speed and +15% production cost. In the case of CA-LA, that's 3.7 increased hit profile from 48.6 to 52.3, which may be 6.9% decrease in effective HP according to the wiki (1% speed = 1.7% effective HP). There's been only one test regarding cruiser armor, but looking at the result I'm not sure if cruiser armor is worth it. But then damage reduction is 0.1 + 0.9 (armor/piercing) so maybe it's worth it? CA-HA has heavy piercing 26.2 so -62.5%, torpedo ignores armor, and CA-LA has 7.3 piercing so 8.6% damage reduction. I'd say it's not worth it.

 

[KDEstroy]

Level 2 cruiser armor gives 8 armor and 5% HP for -7% speed and +15% production cost. In the case of CA-LA, that's 3.7 increased hit profile from 48.6 to 52.3, which may be 6.9% decrease in effective HP according to the wiki (1% speed = 1.7% effective HP). There's been only one test regarding cruiser armor, but looking at the result I'm not sure if cruiser armor is worth it. But then damage reduction is 0.1 + 0.9 (armor/piercing) so maybe it's worth it? CA-HA has heavy piercing 26.2 so -62.5%, torpedo ignores armor, and CA-LA has 7.3 piercing so 8.6% damage reduction. I'd say it's not worth it.

Armor for CL is definitely worth it - their speed and surface detection means that hit profile does not matter when they are tanking light guns. Any CL that is slower than 34 knots already has a profile that is higher than 45, so reducing speed further will not increase their chance of getting hit.

On the other hand, armor for CA is not very useful, because armor can be pierced by all types of guns with heavy attack, so it does not reduce damage from heavy guns. CA will only get hit by light guns if there are zero screens left, and at that point torpedoes are far more deadly to CA than light guns.

 

[Kryndude]

Armor for CL is definitely worth it - their speed and surface detection means that hit profile does not matter when they are tanking light guns. Any CL that is slower than 34 knots already has a profile that is higher than 45, so reducing speed further will not increase their chance of getting hit.

On the other hand, armor for CA is not very useful, because armor can be pierced by all types of guns with heavy attack, so it does not reduce damage from heavy guns. CA will only get hit by light guns if there are zero screens left, and at that point torpedoes are far more deadly to CA than light guns.

Interesting point, except for 1936 CL it's not true. Without armor it has 39.5 hit profile, with armor it has 42.5. This is without secondary battery, sonar, and AA.

 

[Harin]

Has the recent change (below) to light guns produced a noticeable difference in naval battles?

"- Reduce heavy gun target signature from 90 to 80 and increased light gun target signature from 40 to 45 to make heavy guns a bit more versatile and light guns a bit slower at picking off screens "​