They've still got 6 carriers when the 'cap' is 4, with the wings arranged in such a way to take advantage of the way the penalty works.
@HugsAndSnuggles used 14 carriers.
Challenge: How would you build a fleet to defeat the Royal Navy?
- Thread starter Alexander 'The Grape'
- 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.
I say it to you one more time. UK could have much more NAVs if it was the goal. I mistyped it. UK is using 150, while could have 238 if necessary.
Edit to make it clear:
as UK you could have 238 NAV and 60 + some more for reserve from safe overcrowding fighters.
Sure, @Alexander 'The Grape', You, and @HugsAndSnuggles understand that how the penalty works. I will correct it with "none of you knows".
1. @HugsAndSnuggles, probably has a typo in his design/ carrier planes description since he will need 20 F2, not 0, but 1 CAS and 1 NAV on escort carrier for his build.
2. What was shown by him is far from an effective use of carriers. No offence. The fleet can't defeat the Royal Navi using the 275000 IC with his carriers. While with the 6 carriers I mentioned I can reliably 5/5 of the tests defeat Royal Navy with less than 240000 IC with weather on. Even in rain.
Edit: Ironically, exactly @HugsAndSnuggles proposed even more heavy NAV setup, which seems to be more effective than mine
Edit: It is not more effective under TI, which I consider a superior doctrine, but maybe BS works wonders. I won't test it today
Last edited:
I said that you were wrong to say that no one here knows about this trick, and you are. Lots of people know about the trick, there are 2 examples of it being used in the this thread alone. I was wrong to say that several other people were using it when it was only one, I was combining a bunch of different threads where I had seen this being discussed, my bad.
While the example of the UK using it is not the best it could be, it's still using it.
I agree, I corrected it. @HugsAndSnuggles and @Alexander 'The Grape' used this feature to design fleets. What I am postulating is not that noone knows how the carrier penalty works, but rather that it is a very cost effective carrier composition, which I have never seen before.
the fact that several fleets use this feature does not mean that these fleets are equally good.
P.S. please forgive me, I answered to your last message in more detail. I have a bad habbit from chats to send many small replies. But in forum, I send and then I have to expend it in order not to spam
In reference to the UK's carriers, I deliberately set it up so that the UK would have an even split of Carrier Fighters and Carrier Navs, to provide flexibility against a wide variety of carrier fleets. The UK could easily have more Navs, but this would sacrifice fighters.
I've also been doing some testing. It seems that carrier planes sortie at 4:00, 12:00 and 20:00 as opposed to the assumed 0:00, 8:00 and 16:00. Not sure if this is a bug or not, but it seems to be an explanation as to why only 1 sortie per day is possible in seazones like Western Med (GMT) and South China Sea (GMT +8)
I've also been doing some testing. It seems that carrier planes sortie at 4:00, 12:00 and 20:00 as opposed to the assumed 0:00, 8:00 and 16:00. Not sure if this is a bug or not, but it seems to be an explanation as to why only 1 sortie per day is possible in seazones like Western Med (GMT) and South China Sea (GMT +8)
1) To UK carriers. What I have noticed consistently from test to test:
Input: I used 2 CV 80 deck, 90 fighters each + some ships, capitals and screens, doctrines: Strategic destruction + Trade Interdiction.
Observation: 180 fighters set on interception can defeat all the planes of the Royal Navy. It happens as a ~40/60 dice roll with clear weather, but much consistently if you start a battle in storm, 3-4 days of the storm at the beginning is enough for 180 fighters to win. Winter also favors 180 fighters.
Due to the fact that NAVs do not fly in storm/ 1 sortie in Winter/just by a lucky roll, 180 fighters can kill all the NAVs, while staying at around 20-30 fighters left. After that, they somehow magically defeat ALL the fighters UK has. It doesn't matter how many fighters UK has left, they all will get wiped out by 20-30 of mine. 20-30 Fighters of mine do not deal dmg to ships after that, so I don't think it matters a lot, at least for a purpose of sinking the Royal Navy, but I found an observation interesting.
Note: Carrier screening remained undisturbed for UK in all cases -> no heavy attack reduced org/sank any of UK carriers, reducing their effectiveness.
2) Isn't it so that in June you can get two sorties per day even in western med? (I am completely unsure, just asking)
3) This
is a great insight.
4) It is not something unknown, it is even rather something obvious, but if try to fight a UK fleet f.i. for plat award, using CA/DD fleet with no anti air at all, but timing a fight to the Storm and Winter, NAVs still do stupid amount of damage, still accounting for smth like ~30% or even more of all dmg done to my capitals.
Last edited:
I am a bit late to the party, but i found the challenge fun, so I spent quite a bit of time with it. You can quite easily do all challenges with almost no losses from your side, except for impossible.
I am here to show you my impossible variant with a total cost of 198.720. You can go cheaper by 5-10k for sure, but it might lead to a bias that the battle becomes a dice role. With this composition you win about 90-95% of battles , weather off, night/day + month don't matter.
We will build:
1) roach destroyers
80 of them.
View attachment 837224
2) Heavy cruisers as capitals. 15 will suffice. You can also win reliably with 14. Less can become a dice roll.
View attachment 837225
3) And of course carriers! as damage dealers. 5 of these will kill the royal Navy, all 5 to your death stack. 4 first full with naval bombers, the fifth, which will receive a penalty, full with fighters. Penalty doesn't work for fighters so it doesn't matter.
View attachment 837226
You can probably take all guns off and will work for even cheaper buck, but carriers must survive to kill the whole royal Navy, so it might be risky.
SOOOOO. We have 5 CV with 320 NAV and 80 F2, 15 CA and 80 DD.
What can such a small force do, you would ask?
BAM.
View attachment 837227
BAM.
View attachment 837229
BAM.
View attachment 837230
BAM. BAM.
View attachment 837233
View attachment 837234
I am actually surprised that someone could get good enough results with BC or BB. They are very underperforming, but could be ok, probably, if you get a good HA or LA number to one shot things and still have good speed. In my opinion, BC/BB can't beat a CA fleet with the same cost. The SHBB or rather SHBB/CA mix, however, can try. Due to the hp and possible high speed.
I can beat a Royal navy even cheaper as Japan or USSR (6 CV with fighter kamikaze), or by using designers (those with reduced cost).
There is still room for experiments, but meta is meta. LA CA to kill screens, CVs with NAVs to kill everything else. BASED.
Those who want to experiment, here are some saves.
I am a believer of an idea of naked SHBB to tank damage:
View attachment 837247
I did some testing with them and that it is what a fleet 5 CV, 3 SHBB naked, 10 CA of previously shown design and 80 DD can do (212k IC total):
View attachment 837248
View attachment 837250
However, they don't have enough LA to reliably win against royal navi (Wr around 70-80, a bit less than by pure CA).
Summary:
1) CA - most cost effective capital, very niche uses for SHBB, probably just garbage BC/BB
2)CV op, you can abuse the way penalty works.CV op, if you switch the weather off -> three sorties, NAVs go brrrrrr
3) You need 5 CV, 320 NAV, 80 F2, 15 CA, 80 DD to beat the Royal Navi (198 720 IC)
P.s. I apologize, I just realized I could do spoilers ;D. For those who want to try the things out, I would recommend to experiment with one shot/least shot values for attack and the reverse for your own hp.
Edit1. Typos
Edit2. I realized with 4 NAV carriers you get 320 not 240 NAVs (I am a computational biologist from a job, so it makes it even more ridiculous, but happens
I have been trying to recreate this and I can't, even with the weather off. No combination of doctrines wins this battle using your exact ship designs. I have tried this battle at least a dozen times and zero real victories (a couple of times it sad I won but the British still had more ships and would win any further engagement_.
I have no idea, how it isn't working for you. SD + TI, fighters set to superiority, NAV to naval strike, no see zone assigned.
You take the save. Any of the given. Without unpausing. you type 3 lines: ai, enter, nocb, enter, weather enter. you go to war with UK, aaaaand you kill their fleet.
I just ran both saves (summer one and november one), 7 times in total. I won 7/7 without any sign of uncertainty.
You might have designed the ships with some extra modules or you do not use the exact same planes composition. Anyway, as it looks to me, it works.
Edit: peremptory sentences, didn't want to sound rude
P.S. Screen1 and Screen3 look very similar to me, but I am quite sure, I posted three different screens from three different battles. I can do more, but I thought 7 screens would be redundant.
Last edited:
At first, I thought it will just make the results more consistent. Then, It was pointed out that weather switch off results in carriers outperforming due to the 3 sorties/24h.
To repeat my results, you need to turn it off. It wasn't forbidden in the rules, but it definitely makes carriers much stronger.
If your point is that it is conditioning of the victory, i agree. (I didn't know about 3 sorties a day when I posted it, but effectively it is).
There are two valid strategies vs royal fleet if you want to keep the cost as low as possible.
1) You use superior carrier force and set focus on NAV
2) You use carrier only with fighters to protect the rest of your fleet
If you use strategy 1, as I did, you are likely to fight in the summer, to maximize the sorties and reduce the chance for the bad weather.
If you choose strategy 2, if you want to win, you will likely find yourself fighting in winter, to minimize damage the enemy navs do to you. (Although, as I found out, 2 CVs with 180 Fighters are enough to defeat all planes the Royal Navy can put against you even in Spring (a bit of a dice roll).
You still manipulate weather, depending on your comp, selecting most favorable season or by waiting for a favorable weather, just not by a console command.
Nevertheless, no timing or tactical weather choice gives you 3 sorties per day. Therefore, I do think, as @Alexander 'The Grape' and @HugsAndSnuggles also pointed out, switching off the weather is unfair for this challenge.
This is getting quite interesting. When I use your saves I win 75%+ of the battles I try. When I take the initial save from the challenge, design the ships exactly as you have specified, train them up to level 3, assign the already train air wings making sure the fighters are on the last carrier, turn the weather off during the day, and then fight the British navy I get only losses or pyrrhic victories.
Edit: I even went back and checked your saves; there is nothing different about them compared to mine.
Edit: I even went back and checked your saves; there is nothing different about them compared to mine.
Attachments
Last edited:
- 1
wow. I actually have no explanation for it. I don't remember, but i think i didn't change any doctrines or spirits. I may have selected the centralized control and all-weather operations, but they should not lead to such differences, and I am not sure whether they even work for CV aviation. I am quite sure I didn't do any additional research.
I might try to build this fleet anew from the scratch using the initial save, but the whole situation is somewhat funny ;D
Edit: Never repair/ always engage set?
@Cloak71, I have last short notice before I go to bed. The naval meta guide you presented with HA CA > LA CA looks a bit different to me now, after I spent hours on optimizing cruiser design. So basically HA CA does not get any hit chance reduction, because it is too slow and too visible. TI is therefore useless for such cruisers as well as the admiral with -20 visibility. It just not enough to compensate for its low speed and high visibility.
That gave me a hint that maybe they are not as cost-effective as they seem. And actually I have a suspicion that CA with a cost of 3555 is a most cost effective one, 1 best gun, max engine, max fire control. They are so elusive that they have almost the double effective hp compared to HA CA: 7400 vs 4080 (calculated as hp/hit chance, only TI counted for a hit chance reduction, with an admiral it will be even worse for HA CA, same for all numbers below). It is without counting the combat effectiveness drop due to org after being hit, which is significantly worse for a HA CA, which tanks dmg, but can not evade it.
I didn't do the testing yet, but I have a feeling that these 3555 guys are very strong and very cost effective.
I calculated cost effectiveness of a ship as (HA*(hp/hit chance))/cost^2. ^2 because you pay for both for hp and ha.
If you just divide by cost you have 29.97 vs 43.37 for Naked CA vs HA CA respectively.
if by cost^2: 8.43 *10^-3 vs 5.123*10^-3 for Naked CA vs HA CA respectively.
My message is that Naked CA might be real meta, especially when mixed with LA CA.
That gave me a hint that maybe they are not as cost-effective as they seem. And actually I have a suspicion that CA with a cost of 3555 is a most cost effective one, 1 best gun, max engine, max fire control. They are so elusive that they have almost the double effective hp compared to HA CA: 7400 vs 4080 (calculated as hp/hit chance, only TI counted for a hit chance reduction, with an admiral it will be even worse for HA CA, same for all numbers below). It is without counting the combat effectiveness drop due to org after being hit, which is significantly worse for a HA CA, which tanks dmg, but can not evade it.
I didn't do the testing yet, but I have a feeling that these 3555 guys are very strong and very cost effective.
I calculated cost effectiveness of a ship as (HA*(hp/hit chance))/cost^2. ^2 because you pay for both for hp and ha.
If you just divide by cost you have 29.97 vs 43.37 for Naked CA vs HA CA respectively.
if by cost^2: 8.43 *10^-3 vs 5.123*10^-3 for Naked CA vs HA CA respectively.
My message is that Naked CA might be real meta, especially when mixed with LA CA.
Last edited:
The problem with naked CAs is they don't sink screens. While they might have double the effective hp they have 0 LA. Sure you would have been able to bring 20 CAs instead of 15 CAs using your fleet composition. But the CAs don't do anything and you end the battle having sunk 10 or less screens. They might last a bit longer, but that doesn't matter because they don't actually do anything with that time.
HA CAs have 1 specific purpose. Destroy enemy LA CAs. That is what they do and they do it quite well. They suck at sinking screens and you should probably retreat from the battle once you have sunk a significant amount of the enemy's LA CAs. They are an attempt to counter the meta, not over turn it. They are part of the triangle of counters because they themselves get hard countered by LA CLs.
- 1
@yardenko regarding maxed guns, you might want to browse this:
forum.paradoxplaza.com
Here's a cruiser example:
You lose 0.4 speed (about 1%), increasing hit chance by whooping 2%, or a 0.98 multiplier to EHP.
You also get 48HP (28.5% - more than you get from 10% visibility decrease), resulting in total multiplier to EHP of 1.26 - a clear win there (does nothing for org, of course).
You also lose 7.3 piercing while getting you 1.6 times more heavy attack. Damage is reduced based on piercing/armour ratio. Even assuming ideal 30.4 armour for the enemy, you'll get "only" 25% reduction in outgoing damage, or extra 19% damage output compared to a single high-tier gun. Crits will also reduce, but who actually relies on crits to win?
This will also cost you extra 675 IC (19% increase in cost), which to me seems like a fair price to pay for either of those.
There is also a questionable metric of "combat efficiency" being something along the lines of EHP * DPS, that suggests two lower tier guns being 1.5 times more efficient. And even considering increase in cost, you still get a ship roughly 1.26 times better per IC invested.
Back when this challenge started, I did some rough estimates on EHP and costs for heavy attack cruisers, arriving at two conclusions:
- light cruiser gun is worth it for EHP (low tier one, at least)
- three (low-tier) heavy guns only get you slightly better "efficiency per IC" than two (low-tier) heavy guns, so, it's, probably, better to roll with two (to get more org per IC)
PS also, "naked" CAs tended to provide noticeably worse results when I was playing around with Base Strike carriers.
Edit: math >.<
Heavy Gun "Upgrades" make your Battleship WORSE
Heavy Guns 2-4 are strictly worse than Heavy Guns 1 in almost every situation. Here is a test of 1940 Heavy Ships. Admirals have equal stats, weather is off, there are no terrain modifiers. The only difference is that one fleet's 20...
Here's a cruiser example:
You lose 0.4 speed (about 1%), increasing hit chance by whooping 2%, or a 0.98 multiplier to EHP.
You also get 48HP (28.5% - more than you get from 10% visibility decrease), resulting in total multiplier to EHP of 1.26 - a clear win there (does nothing for org, of course).
You also lose 7.3 piercing while getting you 1.6 times more heavy attack. Damage is reduced based on piercing/armour ratio. Even assuming ideal 30.4 armour for the enemy, you'll get "only" 25% reduction in outgoing damage, or extra 19% damage output compared to a single high-tier gun. Crits will also reduce, but who actually relies on crits to win?
This will also cost you extra 675 IC (19% increase in cost), which to me seems like a fair price to pay for either of those.
There is also a questionable metric of "combat efficiency" being something along the lines of EHP * DPS, that suggests two lower tier guns being 1.5 times more efficient. And even considering increase in cost, you still get a ship roughly 1.26 times better per IC invested.
Back when this challenge started, I did some rough estimates on EHP and costs for heavy attack cruisers, arriving at two conclusions:
- light cruiser gun is worth it for EHP (low tier one, at least)
- three (low-tier) heavy guns only get you slightly better "efficiency per IC" than two (low-tier) heavy guns, so, it's, probably, better to roll with two (to get more org per IC)
PS also, "naked" CAs tended to provide noticeably worse results when I was playing around with Base Strike carriers.
Edit: math >.<
Last edited:
One thing to account for is that the cruiser battery also increases visibility. This generally makes the higher tier cruiser guns a better deal than they look. I'm not sure II is worthwhile, but III does seem to perform better, at least against legacy BBs. The research and resource cost is prohibitive though...@yardenko regarding maxed guns, you might want to browse this:
Heavy Gun "Upgrades" make your Battleship WORSE
Heavy Guns 2-4 are strictly worse than Heavy Guns 1 in almost every situation. Here is a test of 1940 Heavy Ships. Admirals have equal stats, weather is off, there are no terrain modifiers. The only difference is that one fleet's 20...
Here's a cruiser example:
View attachment 841101View attachment 841103
You lose 0.4 speed (about 1%), increasing hit chance by whooping 2%, or a 0.98 multiplier to EHP.
You also get 48HP (28.5% - more than you get from 10% visibility decrease), resulting in total multiplier to EHP of 1.26 - a clear win there (does nothing for org, of course).
You also lose 7.3 piercing while getting you 1.6 times more heavy attack. Damage is reduced based on piercing/armour ratio. Even assuming ideal 30.4 armour for the enemy, you'll get "only" 25% reduction in outgoing damage, or extra 19% damage output compared to a single high-tier gun. Crits will also reduce, but who actually relies on crits to win?
This will also cost you extra 675 IC (19% increase in cost), which to me seems like a fair price to pay for either of those.
There is also a questionable metric of "combat efficiency" being something along the lines of EHP * DPS, that suggests two lower tier guns being 1.5 times more efficient. And even considering increase in cost, you still get a ship roughly 1.26 times better per IC invested.
Back when this challenge started, I did some rough estimates on EHP and costs for heavy attack cruisers, arriving at two conclusions:
- light cruiser gun is worth it for EHP (low tier one, at least)
- three (low-tier) heavy guns only get you slightly better "efficiency per IC" than two (low-tier) heavy guns, so, it's, probably, better to roll with two (to get more org per IC)
PS also, "naked" CAs tended to provide noticeably worse results when I was playing around with Base Strike carriers.
Edit: math >.<
- 1
Rather than EHP and DPS, I'd like to go to the next level and try to compare the amount of attack volleys (accounting for accuracy as well) it would take for the ships to sink each other. In low-TTK sims like navy where it is entirely possible and not all that uncommon to be one-shot, glass cannons as part of alpha strike builds are generally pretty viable.
I started down a train of thought and then realized it didn't really matter, so here's some tables I made that might be useful in some other way. I'm mostly just trying to preserve the work I did so I don't have to do it again and can just come back here, don't pay it any particular mind. These are the amount of UK ships that have whatever amount of attacks of different types/accuracies.
| Class | Count | Light | Heavy | Torpedo |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nelson | 2 | 5.9 | 41.5 | - |
| Revenge | 5 | 8.9 | 35.6 | - |
| Queen Elizabeth | 5 | 8.9 | 35.6 | - |
| Admiral | 1 | 8.9 | 35.6 | - |
| Renown | 2 | 8.9 | 17.8 | - |
| County | 13 | 3.7 | 22.6 | 21.6 |
| Hawkins | 3 | 3.7 | 10 | 21.6 |
| C-Class | 13 | 5 | - | 21.6 |
| Emerald | 5 | 10 | - | 43.2 |
| Danae | 8 | 5 | - | 43.2 |
| Leander | 8 | 12.6 | - | 21.6 |
| Adventure | 1 | 5 | - | - |
| Town | 5 | 17.6 | - | 21.6 |
| S-Class | 10 | 1.1 | - | 21.6 |
| V/W Class | 66 | 1.1 | - | 21.6 |
| A/B/C/D Class | 34 | 1.7 | - | 43.2 |
| E/F/G/H Class | 27 | 1.7 | - | 43.2 |
| Damage Level | Screen-Light | Cap-Light | Screen-Torp | Cap-Torp | Cap Heavy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1 | 76 | - | - | - | - |
| 1.7 | 61 | - | - | - | - |
| 3.7 | - | 16 | - | - | - |
| 5 | 22 | - | - | - | - |
| 5.9 | - | 2 | - | - | - |
| 8.9 | - | 13 | - | - | - |
| 10 | 5 | - | - | - | 3 |
| 12.6 | 8 | - | - | - | - |
| 17.6 | 5 | - | - | - | - |
| 17.8 | - | - | - | - | 2 |
| 21.6 | - | - | 102 | 16 | - |
| 22.6 | - | - | - | - | 13 |
| 35.6 | - | - | - | - | 11 |
| 41.5 | - | - | - | - | 2 |
| 43.2 | - | - | 74 | - | - |
- 2
Cool stuff, thank you for the link!@yardenko regarding maxed guns, you might want to browse this:
Heavy Gun "Upgrades" make your Battleship WORSE
Heavy Guns 2-4 are strictly worse than Heavy Guns 1 in almost every situation. Here is a test of 1940 Heavy Ships. Admirals have equal stats, weather is off, there are no terrain modifiers. The only difference is that one fleet's 20...
Here's a cruiser example:
View attachment 841101View attachment 841103
You lose 0.4 speed (about 1%), increasing hit chance by whooping 2%, or a 0.98 multiplier to EHP.
You also get 48HP (28.5% - more than you get from 10% visibility decrease), resulting in total multiplier to EHP of 1.26 - a clear win there (does nothing for org, of course).
You also lose 7.3 piercing while getting you 1.6 times more heavy attack. Damage is reduced based on piercing/armour ratio. Even assuming ideal 30.4 armour for the enemy, you'll get "only" 25% reduction in outgoing damage, or extra 19% damage output compared to a single high-tier gun. Crits will also reduce, but who actually relies on crits to win?
This will also cost you extra 675 IC (19% increase in cost), which to me seems like a fair price to pay for either of those.
There is also a questionable metric of "combat efficiency" being something along the lines of EHP * DPS, that suggests two lower tier guns being 1.5 times more efficient. And even considering increase in cost, you still get a ship roughly 1.26 times better per IC invested.
Back when this challenge started, I did some rough estimates on EHP and costs for heavy attack cruisers, arriving at two conclusions:
- light cruiser gun is worth it for EHP (low tier one, at least)
- three (low-tier) heavy guns only get you slightly better "efficiency per IC" than two (low-tier) heavy guns, so, it's, probably, better to roll with two (to get more org per IC)
PS also, "naked" CAs tended to provide noticeably worse results when I was playing around with Base Strike carriers.
Edit: math >.<
My notice on the Alexander post would be that, in my opinion, the metric HA/(Speed)^2 should be compared, which favors gun 1 even more.
As a SHBB enjoyer, I find it a bit disappointing that SH battery is worse than Gun1
In my tests, with TI, they actually performed very well. But I guess we need the saves again to see the whole situation and the reasons for bad/good performance in either case.