Are Battleships waste of resources ??

[_Sky_]

Today we know CV's = (aircraft carriers) are most important force in the navy, but before WW2 many admirals were still focused on large BB's thinking their large guns will be decisive factor, as it was the case for last two hundred years.

History soon proved them wrong as Bismarck, entire Peril Harbor, Yamato and many Italian BB's got completely destroyed by enemy carrier based aircrafts while during entire war there was only one case of CV being destroyed by Battleship ( German BB named Scharnhorst sunk british CV Glorious ).


Therefore naturally many Admirals after the war started claiming that they should have invested their resources in CV's prior to war instead of building those huge and expensive BB's that were almost useless.

Considering all this there are some indisputable advantages BB holds against CV , for example it's far more efficient in shore bombardment and supporting troops during naval invasion (if friendly force has air superiority). And finally you dont have to worry about running out of planes or experienced pilots.

But still I wonder what you guys think?? Is there any point in building them at all, or should naval nations like Japan focus all they have on building large Carrier fleet and dismiss BB's completely?

And lastly I don't think I have seen any option of researching supercarrier as it was the case in HOI3,, why is that so??

 

[Denkt]

Battleships can take a lot of hits and carry a lot of firepower and Super Heavy Battleships add Cool and Flair to your fleet

Again, another thing in favor of trying to develop a balanced fleet rather than specializing.

So they are not useless.

 

[Herr Rosseland]

Good point, my take on it is (as you point out) shore bombardment + high convoy and sea attack. I noted that you build CAGs of different types now; researching different types of planes and equipping many CVs with different types of aircraft, will take up a lot of your IC. BBs might be a nice, less demanding way to bulk up your navy?

 

[Lither]

IRL? By the time the war started, they cost too much for too little gains.
In game? I believe the devs buffed them ahistorically as well as cut build times so they're supposedly going to be worth it.

 

[Number 7]

we can use three predictions, one - HOI3 performance as a rough indicator along with historical considerations:

meaning battleships will be useful in the early game in the form of Surface Action Groups along with escorts, but will eventually be made obselete by fleet carriers. however at all points in the game they can provide the wonderful naval bombardment modifier which is independant of any nearby fleet carriers giving bombing assistance

two - indications from podcat (two quotes posted above

meaning battleships will always have at least some use to a nation, and since all major naval powers (USA, Japan, UK) and the regional naval powers (Germany if not focusing on navy, Italy etc) tend to start with a few battleships, they will have a use.

three - guesses about the new naval system

in the new naval system, it seems within reason that Germany might have some success with fast battleships. if they can outrun anything they can't outgun, and outgun anything they can't outrun, as well as seeing reasonable luftwaffe support from germany and france, it can be reasoned that a small and technologically advanced battleship force like the bismarck and such might be excellent surface raiders with more bite than the traditional submarine who can be defeated with destroyers, and a small amount of battleships of such caliber can act as a "fleet in being" an tie down UK resources so they can't send all their navy say, against the italians in the med, or against the japanese in the far east.


so, incorporating all of that my assumption is - Battleships will not neccesarily be a waste of resources, massed in teh early game will have some good strength, will be good in specialised roles such as surface bombardment and even convoy raiding for the entire game (unless you lack air superiority! i could see naval bombers taking them out easily) but by say, late 1944 will be obselete against a group of modern fleet carriers with strong doctrines and advanced aircraft

meaning - battleships wont be a waste of resources if you can win the war before their usefulness has run its course (which in some cases, like the USA's case where they can build some for surface bombardment and fleet carrier escort duties is never)

 

[_Sky_]

Hmm....Yes they are quite useful if you are winning the war, (there is always some use for them.) But now I started wondering what is going on with Supercarriers, we have seen that you can research Super BB if you play Japan, but didn't see that option for CV.

 

[LordOfWar16]

Since your navy is actually spread out in seazones you have to have something to "soak" damage to give the rest of your fleet to come to aid in the battle. Otherwise the enemy fleet will simply slip away all the time if they are cought by one or two destroyers or cruisers. A enemy fleet would melt through your navy and eventually reach the carriers.

Other than that, compared to HoI III carriers actually were nerfed due to the removal of the jack of all trades CAG (Carrier Air Groups), which were split up into fighter, bomber and close air support, meaning your carriers wont be equally good at everything or weaker in all areas if you go for an balanced loadout.

Just aside, the bismarck wasnt taken out by planes, but due to an design flaw of the ship the torpedo made it unmaneuverable. If that design flaw with the rudders didnt exist the Bismarck could have returned for repairs like nothing happened. The decision to leave it without an escort did its rest. Similar goes for the Yamato, which had an design flaw in its anti-aircraft armament leaving an gap of coverage where no anti-aircraft gun is in range, which in the end got sacrifised since it went from being the pride of the navy to being the joke of the navy because how little it actually did.

Battleships are effective, but you cant simply send them out on their own. Just as Carriers they need escorts, otherwise they become very easy prey. Infact, battleships like the iowa became pretty decent escorts for Carriers after the war, due to plenty of room for anti-aircraft guns and the capability of defending against enemy capital ships.

In the end that what really made battleships obsolete are anti-capital missles and guided bombs, since those are simply alot more effective and precise. Most ships these days basicly relie on their missles and only have an single small caliber fast firing gun for close-quater defense.

 

[shri]

On the other hand, think of it in this way, the extra Carrier based aircraft that you produce can be used to Bomb from Land (if necessary) but BBs cannot do anything to provinces inland, i.e. away from Coast.
The Carrier is definitely the Future of Naval Warfare was known to a few professionals even in the 1930s and the Destroyer/Cruiser/Carrier Combo esp. with excellent AA Cruisers supporting DD/CV fleet may make a powerful battle-group even in HOI4

 

[LordOfWar16]

On the other hand, think of it in this way, the extra Carrier based aircraft that you produce can be used to Bomb from Land (if necessary) but BBs cannot do anything to provinces inland, i.e. away from Coast.
The Carrier is definitely the Future of Naval Warfare was known to a few professionals even in the 1930s and the Destroyer/Cruiser/Carrier Combo esp. with excellent AA Cruisers supporting DD/CV fleet may make a powerful battle-group even in HOI4

Why not simply build both instead of focusing on one and ignoring the other? Carriers + Battleships would make excelent naval invasion support with air support and shore bombardment for example. It doesnt hurt to have some big guns and armor in your navy aswell to soak up the damage and fire back at enemies before your destroyers and cruisers get in range. For quicker task forces i would probably go with atleast some battlecruisers for my carriers, or even upgrade my battleships engines.

 

[kviiri]

Why not simply build both instead of focusing on one and ignoring the other?

Many focus trees reward specialization into one or the other. And you have to research more to keep both up to date.

 

[LordOfWar16]

Many focus trees reward specialization into one or the other. And you have to research more to keep both up to date.

doesnt mean that you have to be up-to-date with both of them. If you just want some armor and big guns for your carrier fleet you might aswell build older battleships of which you idealy already have an variant tailored for that task created.

 

[kviiri]

doesnt mean that you have to be up-to-date with both of them. If you just want some armor and big guns for your carrier fleet you might aswell build older battleships of which you idealy already have an variant tailored for that task created.

I don't think building ancient models is an efficient use of IC, but we'll see.

 

[Iarodus]

They were useful in a few areas and ways but given the resources required to produce one, no. But don't tell anyone in 1936 because it's a secret to everyone.

 

[shri]

Why not simply build both instead of focusing on one and ignoring the other? Carriers + Battleships would make excelent naval invasion support with air support and shore bombardment for example. It doesnt hurt to have some big guns and armor in your navy aswell to soak up the damage and fire back at enemies before your destroyers and cruisers get in range. For quicker task forces i would probably go with atleast some battlecruisers for my carriers, or even upgrade my battleships engines.

For a simple reason- COST!
Except the USA, no country has excess IC to waste on both, i am speaking in RL of-course.
Now, if the game is tending Historical then it should force the player to pick one and stick to it and keep building that- in that case, the Carriers are value for money.
USA can of-course swamp out with a huge force having dozens of CV+BB/BC.

 

[Denkt]

Everyone that had fleet carriers did also have battleships

 

[WSnova]

They were not even useful in WW1.

They are pretty sexy though, so thats a reason to build them

 

[Vargur]

Maybe Battleships should give some sort of bonus that isn't related to combat.
For example a small addition to national unity, since the game doesn't really have anything like prestige afaik.
The ship itself may not be the greatest military asset, but the people don't know that and it's good propaganda.

 

[WeissRaben]

(Accidentally triple posted, then accidentally deleted all the posts. Whoops.)

I'll shorten this: poor-AA battleships were plane-fodder, good-AA battleships made fodder out of planes. A full third of the planes that got into the AA umbrella of American battleships were shot down, and almost no one (9%) managed to actually score a hit on the ship. If an enemy nation has poor tech and no real AA, then carriers will murder their fleet. If they have good AA, they'll eat your WWII planes for breakfast and ask for seconds, pushing the carrier in the same pussyfooting game AA-less battleships had to fight IRL.

 

[Hagen67483]

Just an Idea:
Heavy Cruisers could counter CV, especially with light Cruisers as escorts (Best AA defense and AA attack for the capital and the escort ship compared to IC cost and fast enough to hunt CV).
Battlecruisers to hunt down Heavy Cruisers in Trade warfare (If Heavy cruisers are used as raiders). Additionally Battlecruisers could be better at convoy raiding compared to BB (because faster), but less durable in a Big Battles.
Battleships to Protect CV`s from Heavy Cruisers in Big Fleets and as a the best source for naval invasion support.

That way every capital ship has its use.

 

[Victor Cortez]

Maybe Battleships should give some sort of bonus that isn't related to combat.
For example a small addition to national unity, since the game doesn't really have anything like prestige afaik.
The ship itself may not be the greatest military asset, but the people don't know that and it's good propaganda.

This is the same idea I had a while ago.
Like 10 points of national unity to share across the 10 biggest BS's (or something similar).
Say Japan has two of the biggest BS's in the world, their national unity is 2% more than it should be.