As far as I can tell, no. In the end, the meta's still light attack CA + cheap DD with NAV being top priority, it's the great equalizer.
- 1
1.9.3 Naval Test
- Thread starter Kryndude
- Start date
-
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 are light attack CAs even possible in the current system I have to ask myself, also more so why is it effective. To be any kind of historical, if you pick medium batteries in your main gun slot you should be restricted to only that and secondaries for light attack. Only exceptions like Panzerschiff and CDS-ships should be able to mount both.
It's mind-bogglingly unhistorical as mixed batteries were abandoned with the arrival of HMS Dreadnought, also classifying CAs as having heavy attack and being capital ships is even more of a mistake as their roles in history are nearly identical to their light counterparts with their prestige mainly being a result from Treaty restrictions to prevent arms race.
Honestly imho either they both should be light attack or both CL and CA become a separate medium attack bracket.
So much stuff in MtG was just completely half-assed.
- 3
Kryndude, one thing I've noticed about carriers that the wiki also references. Carriers cannot directly attack, so the light attack/piercing from secondary batteries is useless. The only reason to use secondaries would be if you wanted to boost the AA value by using the dual purpose batteries, which are not what you are using in these tests. You can save a bit of IC in that regard. Since all of your optional module slots are most likely going to deck space and not SB/SS or armor, I'm not overly convinced that a single AA module, even with dual purpose SB, is going to make much of a difference compared to how much cost is added. The carriers much greater contribution to the AA value of the ship or fleet, would be in throwing up fighters to shoot down assailing aircraft.
I tested this with 1 tier 1 DD against 68 carriers armed with secondary batteries, and over the 3 weeks the battle raged, the destroyer was not hit a single time. 68 ships with 24 rolls a day over at least 21 days, would be 34272 attack rolls. Even with a 0.5% hit rate which I believe is the minimum, for 34272 of them to fail in a row would be very unlikely.
I tested this with 1 tier 1 DD against 68 carriers armed with secondary batteries, and over the 3 weeks the battle raged, the destroyer was not hit a single time. 68 ships with 24 rolls a day over at least 21 days, would be 34272 attack rolls. Even with a 0.5% hit rate which I believe is the minimum, for 34272 of them to fail in a row would be very unlikely.
- 1
That's good to know, thanks for pointing that out. All these little rules that are hidden inside wall of text, smh. Regarding AA on CV, I thought it'd be worth it because in naval combat AA seems to work individually, meaning if a carrier bomber decides to attack one ship, AA value of only that one ship gets calculated. At least that's what I understood from reading the wiki, don't know if it really works that way. So based on that knowledge, since CVs have the highest target weight against planes, I thought it might be worth it to add AA if I knew that my opponent would bring bombers into the fight. I can't confirm anything I've said, but at least when I tested how NAV works against a fleet, 4 CVs with AA managed to take down 40 NAVs against 600 NAVs before they all got sunk. Whether that's worth the IC is up to you to decide. 40 NAVs cost 1248 IC and adding AA to 4 CVs cost 1384 IC so not a good trade for AA, even more so if you consider base output difference, but those CVs were basically target dummies with no air or naval support so in a more realistic combat environment maybe it might be worth it.
None of your ships use dual purpose guns, which are one of the most important naval techs. Nor would I build any of these designs. You cannot pick raiding doctrine for all of them. Raiding doctrine is best for subs and screens, ships that have the possibility to dodge damage. Carriers massively benefit from base strike which gives good bonuses to light cruisers as well. Fleet in being gives great buff to capital ships and greatly helps super heavy battleships who I believe has less org than normal battleships. Admiral traits are also extremely important. -Visibility traits are amazing on screens and even help battleships dodge torpedoes. The capital ship traits not only increase armor and heavy attack but almost completely negates the reliability penalty from fire control.
So these results are only useful if both you and your enemy are only half heartedly invested in the naval game.
- 1
1936 tech has no dual SB. Trade Interdiction is a no-brainer for its -visibility doctrines which also happens to be the first three you can research. Most of the test has been performed under the assumption that light attack CA + cheap DD is the meta, and the results seem to prove that. Heavier capital ships generally aren't viable in MP since they take too long to build and get countered by light attack + torpedo, the latter you get plenty from your starting fleet. Other variables like admiral traits and design companies were ignored to test on more equal ground, but if I had included them it would've been CA + DD that benefited the most because of Coastal Defense Fleet Designer.
Last edited:
- 1
You don't have naval battles in 1936. Which thus affects how useful this test is. Trade interdiction is far from a no brainer. It gives 10 org to destroyers compared to 60 in FIB and 50 in BS, which are the majority of your screens. FIB also give more battle ship org, heavy attack and AA. You cannot remove major factors like admiral traits which give bonuses as large as the doctrines.
- 1
You seem to misunderstand, Trade Interdiction is by far the best doctrine for keeping your ships alive since having a low surface detectability combined with high speed far outweighs the effectiveness of armor in preventing damage or losing ships since the hit rate is calculated based on those factors. It certainly isn't as it should be but that is what the meta is currently. Less chance of getting hit > everything else.
- 1
By the time the war starts in 1939 or 1940, 1936 tech ships are what you would've produced the most. Also by then you're nowhere near researching all naval doctrines, and TI's first three have the most impact on naval performance among any combination you can come up with. Organization on DD doesn't matter that much because it relies on dodging, not tanking, damage to stay in battle. A single landed volley from light attack CA can one shot tier 1 DDs and two shot tier 2s.
- 1
You seem to be misunderstanding. The best way to not be hit is to kill them. Ships cannot kill if they are out of org. Armor is still king, that has not changed even since before man the guns. Man the guns really didn't change much other than how ships are targeted and the variety of stats they can have. Battleships cannot dodge anything but torpedoes and thus these bonuses to visibility are not helpful for them.
My fleet is typically ready in 1941 as most axis majors. Italy gets bonuses to almost all of their doctrine and can get it done in time for combat. Why would I fight before then? CA's lack the health of a battleship and the evasion of light cruisers and take full damage from heavy attack. Battleships chew them up with ease. Light attack armored CL's are the way to go, CA's heavy attack does only 1/4 damage to CL's. CA's require 3 screen ships, while a CL counts as a screen.
I hate to tell you but submarines will kill all of these ships. America going raiding fleet with its special submarine bonuses and 20% damage admiral will kill anything.
- 1
Unless you're researching naval tech ahead of time, which is a bad strategy in itself, how are you going to get tier 3 fleet ready by 1941, especially since you seem to be using battleships that take years to build? CLs get recked by light attack CAs because they're screen and can be targeted first. Submarines don't kill everything, they appear to be strong because you just have shit ton of them as America. You can build shit ton of anything as America and claim that they're the best. How about we test our theories in practice? Tell me what you think is the optimal set-up, I'll test it against mine and post the results here.
Researching naval tech ahead of time is how you win. Italy gets a bonus to almost every hull research. Vs the AI you can win with the starting fleet but I like building boats. CA's can't kill my CL if my SHBB has already killed them. I did my own test with maxed out tier 4 subs and they did just kill everything, they were only restrained by the engagement setting.
My preferred fleet would be Gunboats destroyers with DP guns, 3-5 SHBB with either all heavy guns(if I know someone else is building them) or all heavy guns with as many DP secondaries as I can. 2-5 carriers(either all fighters to counter other carriers, 50/50, or 10-20 bombers per carrier with the rest being fighters depending on the situation), and armored light cruisers with either all light batteries or a mix of them, and DP guns to save cost(I often convert heavy cruisers into lights). Fleet in being with iron sides admiral. Typically with naval advisors selected and as much naval tech and radar as I can.
- 1
Could you specify the ship designs? How many DP guns on DDs? By light batteries you mean the weaker ones and not light cruiser batteries? Which design company do you use?
All slots filled on DD with as many DP's as you can. As per the cruisers I meant the light cruiser batteries, I was unclear. I typically use the Atlantic fleet designer or japans battlefleet designer. I typically fill every slot on every ship with something if I can.
DP DD batteries are 300 IC and 1 steel each. Using a DD2 with 3 such batteries is going to cost around 1520 IC and 5 steel per yard. DD3 with 4 batteries would be 1900 IC and 7 steel per yard. That doesn't include radar, sonar, FCS, torpedoes, AA, or potentially higher level engines. Those are super expensive for DD that have no armor and only 40 or 50 HP, while only offering 9 or 12 LA/AA at 2 piercing.
Anyway, as for
How many of each type of screen are you expecting to have? So far you're saying you have 2-5 carriers, 3-5 SHBB, and an unspecified number of screens split between armored CL and gunboat DD.
You've also jumped between the different nations a lot. You're talking about American SS spam, Japanese battle fleet designer, and Italian research boosts.
I can't see how as an Axis major you could hide your navy until '41, and still have been able to do conquer anything like the Axis would. Italy needs to control the med, usually by controlling Afrika. You can't really control Afrika is the Allies are raiding your convoys trying to ship them supplies. Japan would need to use their navy if they planned on cutting off allied rubber from the east indies/malaya, or send supplies to china to take the Raj. Germany is going to need to use its navy to invade norway, unless it goes through sweden. Neve rmind all of the lend lease and trade raiding you could be doing to limit the allies ability to cooperate. If the big war is projected to start in '39, waiting until '41 to use anything larger than a submarine is giving the enemy a full 2 years to do as they please, unmolested.
How do you expect us to believe you have up to 5 SHBB and carriers, and untold swarms of armored cruisers and gun-laden DD? Fair enough you might have tech rushed, and spammed yards from day 1 or something, but where might you be getting the steel for all those ships? 50 or 70 steel for a single line of DDs is a lot of steel, and you're going to be sinking even more than that into the CL, BB, and CV lines.
So, please stop talking so vaguely. Please, give us some more concrete timelines, designs, and numbers.
- 1
- 1
@STABBY5
1942 tech, Strategic Destruction, Same IC cost
UK: Trade Interdiction / 4 CV (256 fighters) 32 CA 110 DD
JAP: Fleet In Being / 4 CV (320 fighters) 4 SHBB 12 CL 12 DD
1942 tech, Strategic Destruction, Same IC cost
UK: Trade Interdiction / 4 CV (256 fighters) 32 CA 110 DD
JAP: Fleet In Being / 4 CV (320 fighters) 4 SHBB 12 CL 12 DD
Last edited:
- 1
Now that I think about it, Maybe I should add DP to light attack CAs. That brings light attack up to 49.6 and IC cost up to 4013 from 3795. I'm not entirely sure how damage calculation works, but the wiki says damage gets randomized by ±15% so adding DP might allow for much higher rate of one shoting tier 3 DDs. But then in practice there will be many tier 1 and 2 DDs as well so it might not be worth sacrificing survivability.
That is an interesting result. I think the biggest thing to be said here is that there is large difference in numbers. I'll point out a few things though. I would have only used two Carriers in a situation where I'm only using fighters. With so few screens and under such a tight budget then the minimum of 3 SHBB with less heavy guns would have been preferred. I would have also put radar and fire control on the screens too.
I ran the numbers and by changing the capital ship numbers and configuration, it would free up 56,000 NIC minus the cost of fire controls and radars for the screens. That comes out to 22 more destroyers which is not insignificant. Having extra screens is required as once the screen efficiency is down the capital ships start to die. Light cruisers also die to torpedoes if there are not enough friendly destroyers to spread the fire around to. I do not think those 22 would win the battle for me though.
What I think this indicates to me that I rely on the masses of terrible destroyers that you typically start the game with to fill out my numbers.
That's a you problem. Most of it is very subjective to what is happening in the game. The person I was talking to understood me fairly well.
Well as Italy I typically get Germany to give me southern France. The chromium comes from Yugoslavia. And yes I do go all in on the Navy, because no one else will and then they'll lose. Or they will freak out and go all out on the navy and then Germany will beat them to death.
Why in the world would I defend Africa? No factories, no resources and no manpower. It's not worth the attrition or trouble. Your goal is to raid the shipping enough that you may as well own the Suez.
I'll point out that Pearl harbor was December 7th, 1941. Japan historically waited that long. 1941 is when the Italy told Germany they would be ready as well. Frankly its just how long it takes for the ships to be done and they really aren't needed before that. You coordinate with Japan to prevent the allies from concentrating their forces on you.
- 1
- 1
They didnt seem to completely understand you, because you mentioned a couple of things you would have done differently.
I'm not going to get into why you might want to control the med as italy. That is stepping into specific italy meta and drifts away from the purpose of these tests, which is to explore how different ship and fleet designs interact.
I'm not going to get into why you might want to control the med as italy. That is stepping into specific italy meta and drifts away from the purpose of these tests, which is to explore how different ship and fleet designs interact.