Battleships - The Laughter of The High Seas

[unmerged(9136)]

Just because someone _thought_ that the CV is all powerful at the time, doesn't IMHO mean it had already surpassed the BB.

The WW2 was a time of experimentation with new toys, and everyone took their own guess as to what those new toys can do. And often that guess was wrong. And the airplane (and closely related, the CV) was everyone's favourite new toy.

E.g., Göring thought that airforce alone can slaughter the retreating French at Dunkirk, and needless to say, he was wrong. E.g., the same Göring thought that the airforce can fully resupply the Stalingrad pocket. He was wrong again. E.g., during the battle of Britain, there were so many wrong guesses, it's futile to even try to enumerate them.

E.g., the USA at one point guessed that the strategic bomber was such a fortress that it needed no escorts. They were wrong.

So basically just because such a guess was that it's better to build CVs (in the case of the Japanese) or that it's better to build BBs (in the case of Germany), doesn't necessarily mean either of them was absolutely better in all aspects, from the beginning to the end.

That said, if we're talking "bang per IC", as in "what if they had built 6 CVs instead of 3 BBs", I'll concede that, yes, the CV was more cost effective. I'd have no problem with having a case of "2 CVs are better than a BB" in HOI2. The thing that gets me, well, not annoyed but merely wondering, is that it's a case of "1 CV is better in all aspects than 1 BB". I would have thought that at least, dunno, for shore bombardment, 1 BB should be better than 1 CV. And for that matter, it ought to have a lot more AA attack value than it has in the game.

Basically I'm just saying that they weren't _that_ obsolete as HOI2 makes it look like.

 

[unmerged(20208)]

You are thinking backwards. The opinions and beliefs of those who lived in the era are not relevant to the reality of the situation. No matter how much many of the naval leaders on both sides wanted BBs to still be relevant, they weren't. Against a carrier a BB is nothing more than a very easy target to hit, that will never even have an opportunity to fire it's guns. Battleships were obsolete the moment the first plane left the deck of the Langley. The misconceptions of people who lived during the era really aren't relevant to the realities of naval warfare.

A carrier fleet will see an enemy surface fleet a half-a-day or more before the surface fleet reaches gun range. The carrier fleet is also faster. These two factors make surface fleets useless against fleet carriers. Escort carriers are another story, and were often used to escort surface fleets in order to use their search planes to give a surface fleet similar vision to a carrier fleet. Escort carriers are not "offensive" carriers, they are "defensive carriers. But when you are talking about the fleet carriers, they are for all practical purposes invincible when facing surface fleets.

A surface fleet is nothing more than a defenseless target, and this fact was proven over and over again throughout WWII.

 

[unmerged(3902)]

<snip>

A surface fleet is nothing more than a defenseless target, and this fact was proven over and over again throughout WWII.

Although that's generally true in great water engagements (Midway, Leyte Gulf, etc), it doesn't necessarily hold in engagements that take place in more confined environments and/or parts of the world that were prone to bad weather. In a close environment (the north sea, guadalcanal, Norwegian coast), when both sides are operating in "dashes" away from their bases, it's quite possible for carrier and surface forces to blunder into one another.

Likewise if the geography is favorable (the run from Raboul into Guadalcanal for example), you can sortied surface fleets under cover of darkness against fixed positions like islands and either force a coverign carrier force to stand and fight you in a surface action (a bad idea), or abandon operational control of the island (risky but usually the historically chosen option).

You even saw a number of cases where, through a combination of skillful handling on the surface fleet's part and blunders on the part of a carrier fleet's commanders, surface fleets did manage to bring carrier battle groups to battle.

Glorious, for example, sailed out of a fog bank and into the gunsights of Schnauhaust and Gneishau in 1940 with predicatably bad results. This was largely bad luck, but luck is a factor in military operations. Likewise, the US managed to get itself outmaneuvered during Leyte Gulf and a Japanese surface force got in among the escort carriers. This was largely bad operational handling by the US (we screwed up), but, again, mistakes are a factor in military operations.

I should also point out that the traditional defintion of an "Escort Carrier" doesn't match your description of their combat role. Far from being deployed to "escort" surface fleets and provide defensive air cover, they were generally used as convoy escorts or amphibious air support. Typically they were converted merchant ships with top speeds in the 15 knot range which meant they couldn't keep up with even obsolete surface fleet and hence weren't deployed with them.

 

[unmerged(20208)]

Escort carriers were used for a wide variety of roles, sometimes even just to move planes around. I should have been more specific. What I meant was that when an escort carrier was assigned to a surface fleet, it was usually done to provide the fleet with greater vision.

I also agree with what you've said about carriers in use by other nations, such as England, operating in closed in areas like the Med (where they are also vulnerable to land-based air, but then land-based air was notoriously unsuccessful in attacking carriers). But in general, the carrier is 50-100 miles away from an enemy surface fleet and that surface fleet has no hope of ever seeing a carrier let alone shooting at it.

None of this changes the fact that carriers are still far too weak, because their screening ships participate in surface battles. They need to be treated seperately for AI Japan to ever have any hope of facing the US Navy. The way it works now, if it weren't for the rediculous naval bombers, Japan wouldn't even be able to leave port once they are at war with the US.

Adressing your concern is simple, but is additional work. All you'd need to do is include a way to desigate fleets, so that you would pick "is this a surface strike fleet or a carrier fleet" and then any carriers in a surface strike fleet would work exactly as they do now (essentially escort carriers), while carriers in a carrier fleet would behave as fleet carriers. The point though, is that a you can send 300 surface ships after a 12 ship carrier task force, and the carrier task force will win that fight.

Like I've said before, this is really only a critical problem for AI Japan, but it really kills them. They rely on carrier warfare, and without it they don't stand a chance.

 

[unmerged(20208)]

I should add that you don't design games based on freak circumstances, you base them on what is normal. As this game current works, naval combat is based on freak circumstances. Every battle involving carriers is a freak circumstance that, as far as I am aware, has never occurred to a fleet carrier. It's understandable that escort carriers might wind up in a surface battle, considering their speed, far fewer search planes, and the way that they were used.

...but escort carriers don't even exist in HoI.

 

[Iridium]

An interesting battle between BB's and CV's (albeit CVE's), is found here: Link

Get to this line and start reading unless you want to read the whole Yamato life story: "24 October 1944: The Battle of the Sibuyan Sea". Basically Force "A" against "Taffy 3" at 0558 hours.

The Japanese had been using a technique using copper instead of nickel in their armor. While not up to par with the best armor it was still decent, it was up to WWI in terms of quality by US or UK standards.

Here's a link for the metallurgy data of many nations:Link

 

[unmerged(37820)]

I should add that you don't design games based on freak circumstances, you base them on what is normal. As this game current works, naval combat is based on freak circumstances. Every battle involving carriers is a freak circumstance that, as far as I am aware, has never occurred to a fleet carrier. It's understandable that escort carriers might wind up in a surface battle, considering their speed, far fewer search planes, and the way that they were used.

Something tells me you've not played too much...

CV-on-BB works just fine most of the time. You have to research your doctrines, though. If you are badly behind in doctrines (I guess that is it, but maybe there are even more things at work here) you will get your carrier fleets into surface combats all the time.

Playing as Germany I have no problems whipping the minor nations with my fleet carrier groups. However, I am not that successful against Japanese fleets. My carriers outrange his, but I cannot manage to stay far enough away to protect my CVs. Versus the US, even his BB fleets regularily manage to close with my older CVs.

My one complaint is that this is far too deterministic, and it seems like the doctrine is king here. Even my skill 5 superior tactician (commanding CVs) don't get to determine the engagement range against a skill 2 sea wolf in charge of enemy CVs. Also, range swings happen much too fast (closing from 200 nm to 15 nm in a single hour).

There's not a problem with CV combat in general, though, you just have to learn to research the correct things and you will be able to keep your CV fleets engaging the enemy at CV distances.

 

[unmerged(20208)]

Something tells me you've not played too much...

CV-on-BB works just fine most of the time. You have to research your doctrines, though. If you are badly behind in doctrines (I guess that is it, but maybe there are even more things at work here) you will get your carrier fleets into surface combats all the time.

Playing as Germany I have no problems whipping the minor nations with my fleet carrier groups. However, I am not that successful against Japanese fleets. My carriers outrange his, but I cannot manage to stay far enough away to protect my CVs. Versus the US, even his BB fleets regularily manage to close with my older CVs.

My one complaint is that this is far too deterministic, and it seems like the doctrine is king here. Even my skill 5 superior tactician (commanding CVs) don't get to determine the engagement range against a skill 2 sea wolf in charge of enemy CVs. Also, range swings happen much too fast (closing from 200 nm to 15 nm in a single hour).

There's not a problem with CV combat in general, though, you just have to learn to research the correct things and you will be able to keep your CV fleets engaging the enemy at CV distances.

There is no need to restate the serious problems with CV combat in HoI2, you can go back and read it again. You don't understand CV combat. The root of the problem is that the screening ships of a CV fleet take part in surface combat. Every time a CV fights a battle in this game, it is horribly wrong. And no amount of doctrine, nor commander skill, will bring a BBs guns within range of fleet carriers. I do know just a little bit about naval tactics and carrier warfare...

 

[unmerged(15623)]

The root of the problem is that the screening ships of a CV fleet take part in surface combat. Every time a CV fights a battle in this game, it is horribly wrong.

Screening ships don't take part in the combat. Well, they are still viable targets, but in a proper carrier battle that's the only thing they are.

 

[unmerged(9136)]

Kavik, you seem to have a rather warped notion of what "freak circumstance" is in an actual game.

Could carriers IRL _always_ keep a 100 mile distance, just because a nation had figured out the "keep carriers at a distance" doctrine? I hardly think so, and WW2 history is full of examples where that didn't work like that.

HOI2 sea battles happen in some sort of space pocket, where everyone is moved into an alternate dimension with no shores. Even if you (could) do battle in the straights of Gibraltar, or even if you dash from the port right in the middle of the enemy formation, the ships in HOI would have enough space to keep that 100 mile distance. IRL that just didn't happen like that.

Edit: and worse yet, the kind of space pocket where you just have to hit a big "retreat" button to instantly get out of, with no repercursions. Look at how well that worked for the Bismarck IRL.

Also let's talk about detection for a bit. If a carrier permanently had 10 recon planes in the air (as in, they launch immediately again after landing), each has to cover a 36 degree arc. At 100 mile range, each has to cover a 63 mile arc. That's not quite what you'd call a guaranteed detection.

It only gets worse with fog, low cloud ceiling, long arctic nights (battles did happen up north), etc.

So basically HOI2 _is_ built around a freak situation that was the exception rather than the rule IRL.

Also you seem to have a slightly exaggerated notion of what aircraft and particularly aircraft on a CV could do. CV battles in the Pacific did get a ton of publicity and a ton of movies, but the Paciffic battles were _not_ 100% carrier battles. What everyone seems to forget are the land based airplanes.

In practice all those fleets had a _lot_ of their recon, and occasionally air superiority help or even a bit of bombing help, from land-based squadrons. There are a bit more airplanes in one of those, than you can fit on a carrier.

And there's a reason why the P38 Lightning was a popular airplane in the Pacific. No, it was not because of having it on carriers. It could cover a lot of range from a land based airport on one of those islands. That's why.

So basically ascribing every single air battle in the Pacific to CVs is just plain old false and misleading. CVs had their uses and advantages, yes, but they're _not_ responsible for everything that happened in the air there. And basing their model in a game on that false assumption, well, it's probably why we ended up with the messed HOI2 values in the first place.

 

[unmerged(4273)]

Funny thing -- after reading this thread, I would have thought that BBs would be much less effective than they have turned out to be in my current game!

I'm playing as Germany right now (normal/normal -- hey, it's my first go around the block w/HOI2 ), and I have currently only built three surface ships -- a Super Battleship (BB-7), a CL-4, and a DD-4 flotilla.. the rest of my surface fleet is simply the fleet that Germany has at the beginning of the game...

Well, at this point (Nov. 1940), my fleet is the scourge of the North Sea/English Channel region! At least 10 or so times since 1939, I've engaged the British Carrier fleets and not only won, but I've managed at this point to sink a good 20 or so British ships (a couple of transports, about 4 CAs, 5 DD flotillas, and the rest CL vessels), while only losing 3 DD flotillas, two CLs, and a CA, so far.

I realize that in the end, if (when?) the United States enters the war, even a 4:1 loss ratio would probably be enough to cause my demise, but at least so far, it seems as though my BB fleet + the naval positioning doctrines available to Germany in 1940 (I haven't researched ahead of 1940 in Naval Doctrines... in fact, I might be a bit behind because I'm just now in Nov. 1940 starting to research the "Sea Wolf" doctrine) are quite superior to anything that the British have managed to throw up so far, despite their having carriers and the like.

Granted -- I haven't checked to see if I haven't luckily managed to somehow only intercept these carriers at night or during rainy weather or something silly like that, but I have yet to engage the British fleets with a range of greater than 26.1 km -- which is great for the Bismarck (she claims 5 Brit ships for herself! ), but almost seems overpowered, quite honestly!

What the heck -- I'm lovin' it. I just hope this has something to do with the British AI not paying proper attention to it's naval doctrines or something like that... it was almost pitiful watching the poor British AI trying to send it's carrier fleet to intercept my transport invasion of Norway (no Fallschirmjager's I'm afraid -- too expensive right now... the money went to my shiny new V1s! ), only to be intercepted by the mighty Bismarck and her cohort of Great War era relics and sent packing!

HMS Furious' commander must be ... well... furious! So far, she's done the most damage to me, but then again, 2 of the ships that I've lost were in port for repairs when the Furious snuck up on them and sunk them with her CAG.

Cheers mates -- this game is a blast, and the naval battle system is the most enjoyable that I've experienced whether it be on a hex map or otherwise!

 

[unmerged(13894)]

Yes, for some reason, UK CV's don't fare too well near the west coast of Europe.

I lost 2 fleets of 12 ships each, (4 CV total) trying to keep the Channel clear.

The Kriegsmarine was able to catch me in bad weather both times and close to BB range.

One thing I noticed though, was that I couldn't withdraw, even after 2 hrs. (not surprising since the slowest German ship would have had a speed advantage over my early CV) I thought it was an issue that it was too easy for fleets to withdraw???

 

[unmerged(17492)]

As far as i have read, in books, the bb's were the capital ships from the start of the war.. but soon and in the end of the war the king was cv's .. no doubt.. usa alone had 26 essex class in commission or completing, eight light fleet carriers (converted from light cruiser as an emergency measure) and 70 escort carriers backed up by 40000! aircraft.. plus three new 45000 ton midway classe, under construction.. my only question is, because i have never played the game for so long, can nuclear bombs be used on the sea's in this game???

Btw, the swordfish might have been obsolete never the less it was used from begining to the end, withstanding huge amounts of punishment but still working.. they are quit legendary peforming many deeds , one of them the attack on taronto..

 

[unmerged(39735)]

I'm curious how BBs stack up against CVs for Germany with the naval doctrines maxed and nuclear CVs and BBs? Obviously without the doctrine bonuses the CVs have the edge unless there's bad weather or something but most of Germany's naval doctrine gives no bonuses at all for CVs while BBs and/or subs get boosts from almost all of them.

I haven't messed around very much with navies yet since I normally play Germany but so far I've been impressed with how well subs do for Germany. I lose a reasonable number of them but they do a lot more damage than they take unless I get caught during the day in good weather (I don't retreat).

 

[Wyrm]

Yes, for some reason, UK CV's don't fare too well near the west coast of Europe.

I lost 2 fleets of 12 ships each, (4 CV total) trying to keep the Channel clear.

The Kriegsmarine was able to catch me in bad weather both times and close to BB range.

One thing I noticed though, was that I couldn't withdraw, even after 2 hrs. (not surprising since the slowest German ship would have had a speed advantage over my early CV) I thought it was an issue that it was too easy for fleets to withdraw???

CV's don't do well at all in narrow passes or too near the coast. They need lots of room to manuver effectivly and stay out of range from other ships.

 

[unmerged(4273)]

Wyrm --

it still seems strange that in the middle of the North Sea (don't remember the specific sea zone name -- but there are no coasts adjacent to this zone whatsoever... sea on all sides!), my fleet (as described above... three modern ships + the German starting surface fleet) is totally kicking the arse out of a carrier fleet at 26.1km... and not just consistently, but 100% of the time in right around 10 Brit CV group vs. German BB group battles from Sep. 1939 - Nov. 1940!

It seems like madness.

 

[Wyrm]

It can also be a positioning-thing
Who's got the better admiral?
That can make a huge difference on positioning and keep your CV's within optimum firing-range from his BB's

 

[unmerged(22114)]

As japan i usually hunt the high seas with groups of 3 carriers, 6 CA's and 9 CL's. Also a good reason for this is because you can order the whole fleet in one go (3 parralel carriers, 3x2 CA and 3x3 CL) and it'll complete roughly at the same time for not too much IC. I keep some CLs on back-order in case they get sunk. These fleets of 18 ships are, as i found out quickly, quite deadly. I keep fleets of 6 subs on convoy raiding/patrol to find the fleets. This is an easy way to keep your seas clean against the AIs. Never tried a naval force in MP though...

 

[unmerged(4273)]

It can also be a positioning-thing
Who's got the better admiral?
That can make a huge difference on positioning and keep your CV's within optimum firing-range from his BB's

Good point! I hadn't considered that. I believe that Raeder outclassed the enemy with 4 skills points to the enemie's 3. Who knew that one man could so drastically mitigate the technological advances of 20th century warfare?

 

[Wyrm]

That is one of the things I really like with this game
That superior leadership can have an enormous impact on the outcome of a battle. Especially so in sea-battles.