Capital ship priority

[sebas379]

So, I'm in the middle of a somewhat naval-focused Germany game and I just had a thought.

It's 1940 and my battleship-oriented fleet, with minor land based air cover, has crippled the Royal Navy.

However, I have a question I should probably have asked before even starting to build stuff.

escorting ships (DD and CL) assign a priority to capital ships to determine who they shield, right? That's why grouping fleet carriers and battleships together is generally a bad idea.
Now, If CV are the top of the list, I assume that BB come second, before CVL? And where do BC rank in all this? They are below BB, but are they more or less important than CVL to the escorts?

So, in short: does anyone know the order of priority escort ships use to determine which capitals to shield when they protect a mixed fleet? The primary issue being BB, BC and CVL, as I know CV are top notch.

 

[gunstickuncle]

At the end of the unit files, there is a value called priority. I am wondering whether this may the number that defines which ships to protect. Please have someone else confirm whether this is the value you are looking for. For now, it's only values decreasing in a reasonable way from CV over BB to DD and only an observation.

CVL:

completion_size = 1.6
on_completion = carrier_practical
priority = 7

BC

completion_size = 3.7
on_completion = capitalship_practical
priority = 8

a CV has a value of 10 in this, BB have 9, DD have 4 and transports have 1.

 

[sebas379]

Hmmm, that does look like it could be what I'm looking for. But I'll wait for confirmation on that.
Thanks.

edit: I took a look there as well and compiled a list for myself, on the assumption you are correct.

transport: 1
nuclear submarine: 3
submarine: 3
destroyer: 4
light cruiser: 5
heavy cruiser: 6
escort carrier: 7
battlecruiser: 8
battleship: 9
superheavy battleship: 9
aircraft carrier: 10

What stands out in this to me:
SHBB are no more important than BB.
Submarines rank higher than transport
escort carriers are where I expected, and hoped to find them. Pity for those who like to use heavy cruisers as capitals
and nuclear submarines??? They cannot be found in naval tech, nor in the Secret tab. A relic of an old Paradox plan that never went through?

 

[Pro_Consul]

Nuclear submarines were never implemented; they just never got around to cleaning up all the references. As for transports, I believe the idea there may be that transports will always attempt to flee anyway. As for the rest of the list, it seems to coincide quite well with what I have observed in some of my playing around when I was trying out various fleet compositions. Still just anecdotal, but I don't see a single thing there that looks out of place with observed behavior. So the code gunstick found appears to be right on target.

 

[unmerged(185688)]

I'm quite certain those numbers relate to the units order of precedence in the production screen and when they're part of a particular fleet, wing or divison. ie. CV always listed 1st, BB-SHBB interchangeble, Int-MR interchangeable, HArm always listed 1st etc. Whether it has any bearing on what ship has priority for escort protection, ...? Maybe thats why so many tranports end up as cannon fodder.

 

[sebas379]

I'm quite certain those numbers relate to the units order of precedence in the production screen and when they're part of a particular fleet, wing or divison. ie. CV always listed 1st, BB-SHBB interchangeble, Int-MR interchangeable, HArm always listed 1st etc. Whether it has any bearing on what ship has priority for escort protection, ...? Maybe thats why so many tranports end up as cannon fodder.

Perhaps its both? Listing the most important ship/unit of a formation at the top doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

 

[shorty84]

I'm wondering what might happen if you set BB's and CV's at the same priority and have them mixed in one fleet?

 

[Pro_Consul]

I'm wondering what might happen if you set BB's and CV's at the same priority and have them mixed in one fleet?

You will probably see unescorted CVs getting hammered by enemy CAGs any time they are accompanied by BBs. Just a guess, but I would think that if they had no clear priority to dictate which capital ship type to protect, that the escorts would accompany the one which brought them closer to their own engagement range. May test that in a few days when I have some extra time on my hands.

 

[shorty84]

Seems more plausible than the current system, doesn't it?

 

[Pro_Consul]

Seems more plausible than the current system, doesn't it?

No. In actual WWII naval operations, BBs had three major roles. They could operate independently with other non-aviation assets in surface action groups (SAGs); they could operate in tandem with naval aviation assets (CVs, CVEs, CVLs) but still stay tactically separate; or they could operate as direct escorts to naval aviation assets. In the second role, the in game equivalent would be to have two separate fleets, one SAG and one CTF, but give them orders in the same AO. In the third role they would all be one fleet, a CTF that happens to have BBs in it, but those BBs would never take all the other escorts and charge away from the CVs leaving them totally unescorted; nor would they charge off unescorted themselves the way the engine currently makes them do. In short, the game can model the first two operational methods fairly well, but cannot model the third method at all.

 

[shorty84]

I thought that BB's rushing forwards with screens, leaving the CV's behind while providing cover with CAG's is more reasonable than just let the BB's charge into the mess alone ^^
I did not mean that it is a historical accurate tactic, though

 

[GrandVezir]

I thought that BB's rushing forwards with screens, leaving the CV's behind while providing cover with CAG's is more reasonable than just let the BB's charge into the mess alone ^^
I did not mean that it is a historical accurate tactic, though

Historically accurate would require some form of naval command hierarchy at sea, with (to use USN nomenclature) fleets, task forces, task groups, and divisions.

Of course, historically accurate would also result in doomstacks: here is a list of all the ships attached to USN Task Force 38 in the 3rd Fleet during operations around Leyte, October 1944. Tracking through all the additions and moves, that was something like 11 CV, 8 CVL, 7 BB, and more cruisers and destroyers than I really want to count up.

 

[Darkshadows]

Wasn't the concept of "Decisive naval battle" around still at ww2?

Ie Doomstack vs doomstack

 

[GrandVezir]

Wasn't the concept of "Decisive naval battle" around still at ww2?

Ie Doomstack vs doomstack

Well, yes.

But much like having a proper army hierarchy leads to a granularity of land battles (where you can have Stalingrad/Kursk -sized decisive battles without making smaller skirmishes pointless), having a proper naval hierarchy would lead to a granularity of naval battles (where you can have two dozen or more capital ships on a side without requiring you to slam doomstack into doomstack).

 

[Secret Master]

It is my understanding that there really isn't any "priority" to protection by screens, because whether ships get targeted by surface fire depends, in part, on doctrines and techs for the firing ship, in addition to the position value of firing ships. Average speed is also a factor (you can't hit ships that are out of range).

Furthermore, the lack of screen penalty is global. If you have insufficient screens, the whole fleet takes the penalty.

Having sent approximately 500 capital ships to the bottom of the Pacific in past couple of months testing fleet compositions and some other naval stuff in side-by-side multiplayer with prearranged combats, I can only say that if priority has some kind of combat implication, the impact on combat is so small that it doesn't matter.

Related note: If you run with enough screens, there shouldn't be a problem protecting the capital ships anyway. Yes, capitals will still get targeted, but the chances are smaller the more screens you have, regardless of capital ship types or fleet composition.

 

[BarrosRodrigues]

It is my understanding that there really isn't any "priority" to protection by screens, because whether ships get targeted by surface fire depends, in part, on doctrines and techs for the firing ship, in addition to the position value of firing ships.

I am sorry but the fleet behavior says otherwise; from my experience all screens in fleets with CVs will stay behind to protect the CVs while all other capitals will try to close in on the enemy fleet. The result is simply a massacre! This should work; try a MP setup with equal techs, doctrines, officer ratio and same (current and "max") skill & trait admirals:
Fleet "A" (3CV+3BB+9CL) vs fleets "B" (3CV) and "C" (3BB+9CL) and you'll see what I mean (fleet "A" loses its BBs while "B" and "C" lose most likely nothing).

 

[Secret Master]

I am sorry but the fleet behavior says otherwise; from my experience all screens in fleets with CVs will stay behind to protect the CVs while all other capitals will try to close in on the enemy fleet. The result is simply a massacre! This should work; try a MP setup with equal techs, doctrines, officer ratio and same (current and "max") skill & trait admirals:
Fleet "A" (3CV+3BB+9CL) vs fleets "B" (3CV) and "C" (3BB+9CL) and you'll see what I mean (fleet "A" loses its BBs while "B" and "C" lose most likely nothing).

I don't think I was clear in my post.

Yes, non-carrier capital ships will swarm to engage enemy surface combatants, while carriers will run away. This puts the BBs, BCs, CAs, and SHBBs into harms way. The screens will sail off with the carriers because that's what they are told to do (I guess by the priority mechanic, but it could just be hardcoded in for them to wander off with the carriers; the in-game effect would be more or less the same).

But the priority marker itself does not change ship targeting or behavior beyond the simple choice to either cover the carriers or wade into combat themselves. If the screens are in engaging in surface combat because there are no carriers to cover, then priority doesn't matter. My ships shoot at whatever is in range, using their positioning/doctrines/admiral skill. There's no such thing in the game as "Hey, I'm a DD. I'm rolling with a BB, 2 BCs, and 3 CAs. I see both USS Iowa and USS Alaska are getting shot at. I will go protect Iowa because it's more important." Screens cannot engage in shielding behavior beyond presenting themselves as an additional target for enemy fire and shooting back at opposing ships because that's not how combat works.

Basically, since there are only 2 behaviors for capital ships, there really are only 2 behavior settings for screens. If ship is a CV, run away. If ship is a capital ship that's not a CV, charge into combat. If I'm a screen, I check for carriers in my fleet. if there are carriers, I run away with them. If there are none, I roll with the capital ships into combat.

I suppose you might see some other impact from screen behavior if you had a weird fleet composition, like say 2 BB, 2 BC, 2 CA, 2 SHBB, and 10 screens. Then, if an entire category of ships started to retreat, screens might decide to retreat with them while leaving other capital ships out to dry, but when is that ever going to happen, except in really crappy AI fleets with obsolete ships that are going to die anyway?

 

[Cpack]

The priority numbers you mentioned in the unit file are only for visually ranking them in fleet compositions and in the production folder....nothing more.
So CV is at the top, transport ships are at the bottom.

 

[Proutix]

When I play with the US vs the AI, I always use 2 fleets :
2 to fight Japan : - 6Aircraft Carrier 6 Battleships 6 lights cruisers 6 destroyers, am used to losse 1-2 batlleships and 2-3 destroyers, during the whole war.
- 3Aircraft Carrier 3 Battleships 3 lights cruisers 3 destroyers 5 transports, invasion task force
1 to help The UK, based in malta : 3Aircraft Carrier 3 Battleships 3 lights cruisers 3 destroyers, I have never loose a single ship with it against Italy.

A lot of people are going to yell, Battleships with carrier ???? Yes, Sir ! Cause battlships sunk transports, not carrier, at the beginning of the war.

Tips : if you play with carriers, when ennemy fleet has retreat into its harbor, use CAG and Naval Port Strike to finish them.

 

[feye1]

When I play with the US vs the AI, I always use 2 fleets :
2 to fight Japan : - 6Aircraft Carrier 6 Battleships 6 lights cruisers 6 destroyers, am used to losse 1-2 batlleships and 2-3 destroyers, during the whole war.
- 3Aircraft Carrier 3 Battleships 3 lights cruisers 3 destroyers 5 transports, invasion task force
1 to help The UK, based in malta : 3Aircraft Carrier 3 Battleships 3 lights cruisers 3 destroyers, I have never loose a single ship with it against Italy.

A lot of people are going to yell, Battleships with carrier ???? Yes, Sir ! Cause battlships sunk transports, not carrier, at the beginning of the war.

Tips : if you play with carriers, when ennemy fleet has retreat into its harbor, use CAG and Naval Port Strike to finish them.

Good that you mentioned you play vs the AI. Then a fleet composition isn't that important and CV and BB go along pretty good. This is just because the AI uses even worse fleet compositions. Against a human I would never try it, because you will end up losing at least all your BB. Also early in the war