BB's

[egslim]

But those CAG will fall to interceptors and escort fighters. NAV is made of win.

Interceptors lack range. Escort's range and effectiveness against CAGs depend on implementation.

In HOI2 NAVs also benefitted from the bug that of the entire fleet only the ship actually under air-attack would shoot back.

In HOI3 NAVs should suffer a lot more damage than they did in HOI2. It's really a matter of experimentation, but NAVs are going to be a lot less overpowered than they were.

 

[e-stab]

Tons. This silly idea that ships that carry around aircraft will be decisive in naval warfare is preposterous, and it's supporters should be dismissed immediately. True naval warfare is decided by battleships, and will be so forever!

BB's are useful for bombardment and national pride

These two do it for me.

 

[ComTrav]

It's funny, everyone assumes that CAGs will lose to fighters/interceptors...I wonder how much of an advantage in technology/doctrine/numbers/leadership/etc. it will take for CAGs to beat ground-based planes.

One of my great frustrations in HOI2 was that carriers didn't feel like the power-projection platforms that they should.

That said, the manual is out now, and the manual even says carriers were "notoriously vulnerable" to surface engagement. (Somewhat ahistorical, HMS Glorious and the hapless CVEs of Taffy 3 aside...) You could, in theory, close to a surface engagement in night or poor weather, and a number of commanders tried to do this during the war, but usually the carriers preferred to retire from the battle.

I always have to build at least a few SHBBs for flavor--it's not the IJN without the Yamato! Still, it's hard to prioritize them over carriers in the pacific, and as the British investing that much IC in capital ships feels silly because you start with plenty of BBs to deal with Germany/Italy.

 

[Alex_brunius]

It's funny, everyone assumes that CAGs will lose to fighters/interceptors...I wonder how much of an advantage in technology/doctrine/numbers/leadership/etc. it will take for CAGs to beat ground-based planes.

Guessing how much numbers you need is easy.

Each fleet carrier will have roughly the 100 air planes that should be equal to a land based air wing. Since all of these might not be fighters however You will probably need around 1.5-2 CVs or 3-4 CAGs per land based fighter air wing facing you if all else is equal.

That's of course speaking from a realism standpoint. Balance might prove to be very different.

 

[unmerged(129995)]

CAGs are combined fighters, torpedo bombers, and dive bombers. Torps and dives are useless in a furball, so around 40-50 fighters are available. Compare that to a full 100-fighter wing...yeah, the CAG is going to get ripped a new one as long as the technologies are roughly equal, so a theoretical engagement between a CAG with Sea Vampires and a FTR wing with Me 262s would end badly for the CAG.

 

[Baneslave]

great_chairman: Also, normal CAG has about 50 planes, as carriers carry two CAGs, meaning that number of fighter planes in one CAG group is even smaller.

 

[egslim]

It's funny, everyone assumes that CAGs will lose to fighters/interceptors...I wonder how much of an advantage in technology/doctrine/numbers/leadership/etc. it will take for CAGs to beat ground-based planes.

Good question. CAGs should be inferior to air wings, because a) they're heavier due to extra strengthening and b) they're likely outnumbered. Plenty of carriers held a mere 40 or 50 aircraft, while any airwing consists of 100 planes.

One of my great frustrations in HOI2 was that carriers didn't feel like the power-projection platforms that they should.

Carriers really weren't that good. They're much easier destroyed than airfields, carry fewer planes and those planes generally have poorer performance.
To function well as power-projection platforms requires carriers to enjoy vast numerical and technological superiority. Otherwise they'll get mauled.

That said, the manual is out now, and the manual even says carriers were "notoriously vulnerable" to surface engagement. (Somewhat ahistorical, HMS Glorious and the hapless CVEs of Taffy 3 aside...) You could, in theory, close to a surface engagement in night or poor weather, and a number of commanders tried to do this during the war, but usually the carriers preferred to retire from the battle.

Keep in mind that WWII carriers were very poor at performing continuous air operations. HMS Ark Royal had a hard time shadowing Bismarck after she was already located while simultaneously organizing an air strike.
At Midway the Japanese used reconaissance aircrafts from cruisers to search for the American fleet. Don't expect an individual WWII carrier to always detect enemy surface forces at a distance of more than 50km, even by day and in good weather. At such a distance the surface forces need only a little luck to close the gap.

Still, it's hard to prioritize them over carriers in the pacific, and as the British investing that much IC in capital ships feels silly because you start with plenty of BBs to deal with Germany/Italy.

If properly implemented BBs and CVs should complement each other, with the advantage going to the former during the early years and/or in bad or even merely less than perfect weather.

 

[Gmatt]

bah, russians with BBs dont even get me started!!!

they took my beloved BB Giulio Cesare as a war trophy. wonder what happened to it, hmmm?

sad day for the soviets back in 1955 -->

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_battleship_Giulio_Cesare

From that article, regarding it's sinking:

It was also reported that the commander displayed conceit and groundless calmness during this critical situation, and had even expressed the wish to "go have some tea".

Sounds positively British! (Which solves the mystery to it's sinking, it was a British Spy meant to sabotage the Russian fleet!)
I am kidding of course, I admire the British calm...

Anyways, as mentioned, with the weather, and German raiders on the prowl, Battleships are definitely on my list, I might not put the 14" on the KGVs though.
Perhaps even a few Battlecruisers too, they may not be so hot facing off against Battleships, but they would be useful in tracking down raiders...

 

[egslim]

Battleships are definitely on my list, I might not put the 14" on the KGVs though.

Go with 15" or 16"? The latter should not be allowed, if the Naval Treaties are properly implemented.

Perhaps even a few Battlecruisers too, they may not be so hot facing off against Battleships, but they would be useful in tracking down raiders...

I'd rather go Harwood and use multiple cruisers for that. They should have an easier time detecting the raiders, be cheaper and have more uses.

 

[Gmatt]

Well, the 16" were put on the Nelsons, but I imagine that they could only fit in dual turrets.
I was thinking 15" though, good guns, very good guns...

Yes, it might be a bit late in game for building more battlecruisers, I imagine the British economy will be quite tight as it is, but I know in the past I have liked building the odd battlecruiser just for old times sake.

Edit: It seems anything larger than 14" is restricted in the treaty, now I am curious how they got away with the Nelsons..

Anyways, I figure that if the Germans can cheat a little, I can too, call em 14" large or something.

 

[LordTony1414]

A few Battleships for me

I will build a few but mostly light carriers for my transports and heavy ones for main battle fleets:rofl:

 

[Raptor1]

Well, the 16" were put on the Nelsons, but I imagine that they could only fit in dual turrets.
I was thinking 15" though, good guns, very good guns...

Yes, it might be a bit late in game for building more battlecruisers, I imagine the British economy will be quite tight as it is, but I know in the past I have liked building the odd battlecruiser just for old times sake.

Edit: It seems anything larger than 14" is restricted in the treaty, now I am curious how they got away with the Nelsons..

Anyways, I figure that if the Germans can cheat a little, I can too, call em 14" large or something.

The Nelsons were built before the London Naval Treaty.

Also, I think the original designs of the KGVs called for 15" guns too, but they were too heavy for the earlier treaties, so they cut them down to 14"...or maybe it was some other reason...

 

[TheLoneGunman]

In the Pacific I plan on building plenty of BBs with the most upgraded AA possible in order to escort and protect my CVs from enemy CAG attacks and still have some firepower to deal with any enemy capital ships that manage to get into range.

 

[egslim]

Well, the 16" were put on the Nelsons, but I imagine that they could only fit in dual turrets.
I was thinking 15" though, good guns, very good guns...

The Nelsons had 16" triple turrets, the old 15" were in dual turrets. The Lion's 16" guns, while outwardly similar to those of the Nelsons, would have been new designs though.

If we have to abide by the Naval Treaties three triple 15" turrets are probably best, otherwise either the 35.000 ton limit would be exceeded or the ships become almost as slow as the Nelsons. I assume three triple turrets take less space and weight than four double turrets, while also adding one more gun.

If the Treaty isn't properly implemented in the game, then I'll just build Lions instead of KGVs.

But it also depends on how detailed the shipdesigner is. Now I'm gonna have to download the demo to find out.

Yes, it might be a bit late in game for building more battlecruisers, I imagine the British economy will be quite tight as it is, but I know in the past I have liked building the odd battlecruiser just for old times sake.

In HOI2 my fleetplan often exceeds the size of the British economy several times.

Edit: It seems anything larger than 14" is restricted in the treaty, now I am curious how they got away with the Nelsons..

If I recall correctly 15" was also allowed. The reason the KGVs were equiped with mere 14" was politics.

The British were allowed to build two Nelsons, because when the Washington Treaty was negotiated the Japanese already had two 16" battleships and the US three. Since the British already had the much larger Hood, they were permitted to build two 16" battleships. So that like the US, they had three ships exceeding treaty limits.

 

[Gmatt]

The Nelsons were built before the London Naval Treaty.

Also, I think the original designs of the KGVs called for 15" guns too, but they were too heavy for the earlier treaties, so they cut them down to 14"...or maybe it was some other reason...

Hmm, well I went looking briefly through the text for the London Treaty and didn't see anything, I likely just missed it though.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_15-45_mk2.htm

During 1935 the Director of Naval Construction produced several design studies showing various alternatives for what became the King George V class battleships. One of these, designated 15C, was for a design with nine 15"/45 (38.1 cm) guns in three triple turrets. This design was considered to be one of the best proposals for these ships, but Treaty restrictions prevented the use of guns larger than 14" (35.6 cm). For this reason, work on designs with 15 and 16 inch (38.1 and 40.6 cm) guns was discontinued and only 14 inch (35.6 cm) designs were pursued.

But if the Germans can put 38cms on the Bismarck, I darn better be able to ignore the treaty that I didn't sign!

The Lions are something I need to look into more, I guess I was thinking of the KGVs more like the Vanguards, ie with 15", perhaps four turrets would fit dual, giving me 8, which was our standard layout for the longest time..

 

[egslim]

The Nelsons were built before the London Naval Treaty.

Yeah, but it was the Washington Naval Treaty that restricted battleship's main armament. The Nelsons were permitted to be built because the USN already had three 16" gun battleships, and the Japanese two.

Also, I think the original designs of the KGVs called for 15" guns too, but they were too heavy for the earlier treaties, so they cut them down to 14"...or maybe it was some other reason...

Worse.
Alternatives with 16-inch, 15-inch and 14-inch main guns were considered, and it was considered that the 15-inch armament would give the best balance.
[...]
In October 1935, the decision was made to use the 14-inch guns. At the time, Britain was negotiating a continuation of the Naval Treaties. The British favoured a reduction in the maximum calibre of battleship gun to 14-inch calibre, and in early October learnt that the USA would support this position if the Japanese could also be persuaded to do so. Therefore, the Admiralty decided to use a 14-inch gun on the King George V class.

 

[DjMike]

I'm not much of a navy-person. I don't go for naval superiority and instead just try to focus on air superiority and dropping people on the british isles and then rushing a transport when all's clear.

 

[Gmatt]

Well I never did think the pre-war administration all that perfect, why am I surprised?

Anyways, unless the KGVs are already under construction at the start, I will just ignore the treaty, I mean, Britannia still must rule the waves, no need to let the Germans and Japanese give us a run for it...

Re The London Treaty:

That explains why I didn't see the clause on the main armament in the text...

Edit: I guess it really comes down to if HoI III allows you to customize (within reason) the guns per turret. 10x 14" were partly chosen because of the amount of shot they threw, but regardless, I trust my gunners accuracy, after all, this is the Royal Navy were talking about...

 

[egslim]

The Lions are something I need to look into more, I guess I was thinking of the KGVs more like the Vanguards, ie with 15", perhaps four turrets would fit dual, giving me 8, which was our standard layout for the longest time..

The Lions were basically KGVs, but faster and armed with three triple 16" turrets. And 7000 tons larger to make it possible.

I think Vanguard was much like the Lions would have been, except for its weaker armament.

 

[Raptor1]

The Washington Naval Treaty has this to say on large-caliber guns:

No capital ship of any of the Contracting Powers shall carry a gun with a calibre in excess of 16 inches.

The Second London Naval Treaty (Yeah, I mixed them up), has this to say:

No capital ship shall carry a gun with a calibre exceeding 14 in. (356 mm.); provided however that if any of the Parties to the Treaty for the Limitation of Naval Armament signed at Washington on 6 February 1922, should fail to enter into an agreement to conform to this provision prior to the date of the coming into force of the present Treaty, but in any case not later than 1 April 1937, the maximum calibre of gun carried by capital ships shall be 16 in. (406 mm.).

Discounting the part about one of the parties breaking the treaty and allowing up to 16", the Nelsons would be allowed under the Washington Treaty and disallowed after the Second London Treaty.