Please, see my breakdown above. DDs are actually not vulnerable to NAV or at least I hear about their special vulnerability for the first time + have never had such feeling or sense during tests. In general, any ship is vulnerable to NAV, because NAVs are just more cost effective than any fleet.
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.
You can, actually. Base strike gives 100% efficiency, full screening - another 10%; resulting in 110%. That means you can have extra 10/(2*0.8)=6.25% planes, or exactly 85 per 80-size carrier. Considering that you are going to lose some, my attempts at this ended up at 90 planes per 80-size carrier as being somewhat optimal (at least when you have fighter parity and OI doctrine).
DD's are "vulnerable" because they rely on their high speed and low visibility to counteract their low HP, and aircraft ignore both.
Considering most of the UK's DDs have around 25 HP, you potentially could get more effective kills against destroyers once the capitals are cleared out by using smaller air-wings. Of course, the trade off is less concentrated damage on capitals, but it still may be worth a shot.
It's hard to tell from the screens, how much damage would an average sortie deal?
I don't want to say that what you are suggesting is wrong, but the way naval battle works right now: there are just some very effective ways to do things and all others are either for role playing or useless.
The way you win naval battles of such types: you one shot enemy carriers and you are free to operate with yours.
The best way to kill screens are LA CA.
These two principles allow to build a fleet below 200k IC to beat Royal Navy mostly on general thoughts (in less than 3 hours) without trying out and testing around too much.
As I already stated multiple times, you can principally reduce the cost of this fleet by 5% or prob even 10%, using for it 15-20 hours of very determined testing and optimizing to the very last gun and every plane, probably still ending up with a dice roll.
Maybe, if you have set the impossible threshold to 175000 from the beginning, I wouldn't be so salty or skeptical about further optimizing
Anyway, I don't want to offend or discourage you, but my game understanding suggests that decreasing the airwing size is the wrong direction. It doesn't mean that I am fully correct, maybe it is not linear and there is a local maximum of performance below the airwing size I am using.
I think it is not linear, but the performance maximum is *above* the airwing's size I am using. If could make an airwing of the size of 140, I would do it.
Concerning your statements on destroyer that have low HP and if aircraft ignores visibility/speed stats they are vulnerable, it is not True.
1940 DD has 50 Hp(!). The cruiser of the same Year has 120. A Typical LC will have around 200 HP and will cost 6-7 times the roach DD, while having 4 times more HP.
Moreover, as you correctly noticed, Navs overkill DDs, making their HP insanely effective against naval bombers.
It is a bit better with HA CA which will have around 360 HP, 7 times more and cost around 6500, 8 times more.
For BB it does not make sense to compare, they don't Tank Navs.
Therefore, destroyers are actually the Most effective ship to Tank NAV damage, especially from the Most effective in killing capitals, large Airwings.
Last edited:
Ah, I've been trying to verify your results @yardenko and I think I realised why you were able to breach Impossible tier.
You performed your results with weather off yes?
If you turn weather off, then it also stops carriers being affected by night. This means you can reliably sortie 3x per day instead of 1-2. So carriers are significantly more powerful with weather off. Which explains why you were able to get far better results with carriers
You performed your results with weather off yes?
If you turn weather off, then it also stops carriers being affected by night. This means you can reliably sortie 3x per day instead of 1-2. So carriers are significantly more powerful with weather off. Which explains why you were able to get far better results with carriers
Also, you seem to be right about the air wing size, ran a few tests and it seemed to be a wash. It seems that no matter the air wing size on the carrier, all carrier navs on the same ship default to being in the same wing in battle. As such, it makes zero difference
I might be terribly unlucky with my rolls, but I seem to be consistently getting results similar to my first post, before i tried to go overboard with carriers
Do saves work for anyone else? Might be some ghost mods or something despite my game saying it has unaltered checksum.
First, penalty (by default 2%) is applied per 1% of planes exceeding hangar space. This means that "safe" overcrowding is
Base Strike doctrine would get you from 80% Sortie Efficiency to 110% (due to screening). Allowing for extra 106.25/80 = 132.8% planes attacking from carrier compared to other doctrines. Having 140% Sortie Efficiency gets you to 125/80=156% more planes compared to other doctrines; getting Sortie Efficiency to 200% - gives you 162.5/80=203% more planes per carrier. Your numbers seem to be quite low.
Second, Base strike provides another 16% damage buff due to Naval Targeting, resulting in your "basic" (110% Sortie Efficiency) carrier delivering nearly 55% more damage compared to other doctrines.
Third, Organisation acts as direct multiplier to Sortie Efficiency, so the larger pool you have, the less effect average stray bomber has on efficiency of your carriers.
Finally, you can not replenish naval bombers in combat, so for large battles you should be overstacking them a bit beyond the "safe" threshold (getting up to 10% debuff should not be too harmful and will make carrier relevant for a little longer).
To sum up: no only this substantially buffs damage of your carriers (other doctrines would need 6 attacking carriers to match the striking power of your 4), it also ensures they keep their combat efficiency for longer both thanks to lower effect of Organisation damage on Sortie Efficiency and higher tolerance for Overcrowding, should Organisation damage drop Sortie Efficiency considerably during combat.
Getting 10% visibility from TI results in 0.81 multiplier to hit chance (~23% HP). Seeing how OP carriers are supposed to be, it should be far more beneficial to make them do 50% more damage.
Edit: wrong math.
Do saves work for anyone else? Might be some ghost mods or something despite my game saying it has unaltered checksum.
Code:
([Sortie Efficiency, %]-100%)/[Overcrowding Penalty, %]+100%Second, Base strike provides another 16% damage buff due to Naval Targeting, resulting in your "basic" (110% Sortie Efficiency) carrier delivering nearly 55% more damage compared to other doctrines.
Third, Organisation acts as direct multiplier to Sortie Efficiency, so the larger pool you have, the less effect average stray bomber has on efficiency of your carriers.
Finally, you can not replenish naval bombers in combat, so for large battles you should be overstacking them a bit beyond the "safe" threshold (getting up to 10% debuff should not be too harmful and will make carrier relevant for a little longer).
To sum up: no only this substantially buffs damage of your carriers (other doctrines would need 6 attacking carriers to match the striking power of your 4), it also ensures they keep their combat efficiency for longer both thanks to lower effect of Organisation damage on Sortie Efficiency and higher tolerance for Overcrowding, should Organisation damage drop Sortie Efficiency considerably during combat.
Getting 10% visibility from TI results in 0.81 multiplier to hit chance (~23% HP). Seeing how OP carriers are supposed to be, it should be far more beneficial to make them do 50% more damage.
Edit: wrong math.
Last edited:
It is a valid point and I didn't think about it.
I have rather done it for consistency so it becomes less of a fluke.
1) So you couldn't reproduce my Results with weather on? Also not in summer?
2) So theoretically you get 2 Day sorties in Summer and only one Day sortie in Winter + higher Chance for Bad weather in Winter. Is this correct?
3) What is the difference between night and Day sortie exactly? Do they fly in the night and just recieve a sortie debuff or just don't fly at all?
If there is a sortie debuff the BS doctrine should help and get us to the consistent win again.
It is not the way it is calculated, you can Run the Tests with 200% sortie efficiency and 200 Navs on a 100 Deck carrier. You will Deal 0 damage.
Edit: Sry, I should have answered in more details.
1) As I said, as far as I know, the overcrowding penalty is applied to the sortie efficiency by multiplication -> it is not effective and has diminishing returns.
If it worked as you describe, carrier fleets and BS would be meta in MP, but they are definetly not.
I must say, due to the fact that I was running all my tests, not only for this challenge, by weather off, I lived in a bubble where carriers are op ( I even stated it in my post), while still knowing that they are not insanely strong from MP experience, without finding out a contradiction D:
I would be happy If you run tests and demostrated that the overcrowding penalty works as you state. That would open viable strategies for the fleet and would allow to beat impossible even with weather on (Copium).
2) For Naval targeting numbers, I didn't go into details myself, but from what I know, it is cool and people take BS for it, but not for a naval battle, but for Base strikes and Nav mediated fleet extermination without a naval battle.
3) Base strike loses to TI in a naval battle, it is backed up by multiple tests, with n(CV) even >4-5. You can't build a Base strike fleet, which can not be killed by a TI fleet for the same money. We can actually try it in another topic, if Alexander wants to mediate it as another challenge.
Even if we do it, I think we are likely to come down to a meta triangle HA CA > LA CA > Cancer screen LA LC spam > HA CA
Last edited:
- 1
- 1
Two Sorties a day only possible close to America or poles, I think. To get two sorties in this particular example, battle would have to be moved into Atlantic.
You can only Naval Strike during Day Sortie. Night Sortie only results in airbattle taking place (with plane losses/disruption, but no damage to ships).
- 2
1) Afraid not, even timing the battle to take place around the summer solstice still has sorties cancelled by night.
2) Correct, though it depends on local timezone. Carrier Navs Launch at 00:00, 8:00 and 16:00 regardless of the location, meaning some locations only get 1 sortie/day even in summer.
3) It looks like this:
You get a 0% multiplies to air efficiency so no planes take off no matter what.
It's strange because the UK has an air spirit that's meant to counteract it, but I don't think it works currently
EDIT: Planes do take off, but don't attack ships, as mentioned above
- 1
Aquila:
120/80 = 50% overcrowding or 50*2*0.8=80% penalty
This results in 100-80=20% Air Efficiency
This is multiplied by 1.1 due to screening, resulting in 22%.
Sparviero:
110/80 = 37.5% overcrowding or 37.5*2*0.8=60% penalty
This results in 100-60=40% Air Efficiency
This is multiplied by 1.1 due to screening, resulting in 44%.
Falco:
98/80 = 22.5% overcrowding or 22.5*2*0.8=36% penalty
This results in 100-36=64% Air Efficiency
Than it is multiplied by 1.1 due to screening, resulting in 70.4%.
Europa:
89/80 = 11.25% overcrowding or 11.25*2*0.8=18% penalty
This results in 100-18=82% Air Efficiency
This is multiplied by 1.1 due to screening, resulting in 90.2%.
Edit: wrong math >.<
Attachments
Last edited:
I answered to your previous post in more detail.
What is this 0.8 multiplier.
22.5% overcrowding, yes, * 2 penalty for every percent * 0.8 (is it that multiplier from base strike?) = penalty
You do 1-penalty, f.i. = 1-0.18 = 0.82. (for the Europa carrier)
Then, you multiply it with your sortie efficiency. 0.82 * 110 = 90.2%, resulting into 0.902*89=80 planes operating. So not net loss is already ok, since it will become better as you lose NAVs.
To the 200%:
penalty is (200/100)-1) * 2 * 0.8 = 160%
if you do 1-1.6 you will get 0 -> your sortie efficiency of 200 will be multiplied with 0, and you will not perform naval strikes.
Therefore, 0 dmg.
Try it out.
Edit: changed a missing substraction, as @HugsAndSnuggles stated below. However, it shouldn't matter for the nature of the thing. You should still multiply by 0.
Last edited:
It is 80-size carrier. By overcrowding you have those 80 planes operating and 10 in reserve - no net loss at all.
It should be 200/100-1. Same as 89/80 for Europa was not used as 112.5.To the 200%:
penalty is 200/100 * 2 * 0.8 = 320%
if you do 1-3.2 you will get 0 -> your sortie efficiency of 200 will be multiplied with 0, and you will not perform naval strikes.
Therefore, 0 dmg.
Try it out.
Last edited:
- 1
Just checked. Yeah, you are right: it's multiplicative.
Highly doubt it. Carriers aren't that cost-efficient to begin with. Sure, you can have 4 of those operating with naval bombers easy enough, but in order to have more you'll have to spend nearly twice IC per carrier at a minimum (bumping opportunity cost per strike carrier from 2-3CAs to 5-6 - not counting planes). Kind of makes doctrine dedicated to carriers a thing of questionable benefit.
Last edited:
I really like the change of your opinion from
to doubting an obvious thing such as: "if carriers worked op, they would be op"
to doubting an obvious thing such as: "if carriers worked op, they would be op"
These calculation and "oportunity cost" you mention is as arbitrary as the math you presented before. Therefore, I find it funny, how you try to end the discussion in a manner as if everything were as you stated all the way along.
Last edited:
So people, what are your guesses concerning how the impossible composition and designs for it with "weather on" should look like?
SHBB? Maybe BC, at least one? or maybe CA full with heavy guns? Light cruiser spam?
Alternative carriers' composition to what I posted before?
I want to hear some guesses before I announce it
A bit of game mechanics sharing to keep you interested:
I am quitesure none of you knew many of you will find it interesting that you can abuse the compositions of 6 CV and bring 4 effective carriers with NAVs and 2 with fighters.
The penalty for carriers it applied to the number of airwings.
If you use 6 deck carriers, you can simply fill 3 first with 80 NAVs and 3 last with 80 fighters. You have 240/240 NAV/F2 split without any penalty. But you can do better!
6 carriers = penalty 40%.
We will need 10 air wings. Watch my hands, every line is a carrier.
1CV: 80 NAV
2CV: 80 NAV
3CV: 79 NAV, 1 F2
4CV: 79 NAV, 1 F2
5CV: 79 F2, 1 NAV
6CV: 79F2, 1 NAV.
First 6 wings out of 10 will operate without a penalty -> we have 318 operating NAVs;
4 last wings will receive a penalty, but it doesn't matter for fighters. You can also overcrowd fighters till 90 for a 80 deck CV. You should not do it for bombers unless:
1) have Isoroku Yamamoto as Admiral (or similar dude),
2) You are Japan or can receive a similar Sortie efficiency spirit/ Advisor
3) You are using Base Strike, which, although arguably, but sux for naval battle.
Due to our little ExPlOiT: we can field 318 NAV and 160 fighters with 6 CV 80 deck without any penalty, which is debatably a peak Carrier efficiency.
Edit: I actually created a new topic for this matter since I thought it is not directly related to sinking the Royal Navy (or maybe it is ).
Edit2: Sir @HugsAndSnuggles improved the concept and you can even bring 5 NAV CV and 1F CV. Please, see the separate topic. This should one shot carriers of the enemy, letting you free to bring devastation to enemy capitals. Pure fighters fleets might be a problem, but I actually think that not really. Deorged CV do not send fighters and 400 NAV make sure the CVs are deorged.
SHBB?
Maybe BC, at least one? or maybe CA full with heavy guns? Light cruiser spam?Alternative carriers' composition to what I posted before?
I want to hear some guesses before I announce it
A bit of game mechanics sharing to keep you interested:
I am quite
The penalty for carriers it applied to the number of airwings.
If you use 6 deck carriers, you can simply fill 3 first with 80 NAVs and 3 last with 80 fighters. You have 240/240 NAV/F2 split without any penalty. But you can do better!
6 carriers = penalty 40%.
We will need 10 air wings. Watch my hands, every line is a carrier.
1CV: 80 NAV
2CV: 80 NAV
3CV: 79 NAV, 1 F2
4CV: 79 NAV, 1 F2
5CV: 79 F2, 1 NAV
6CV: 79F2, 1 NAV.
First 6 wings out of 10 will operate without a penalty -> we have 318 operating NAVs;
4 last wings will receive a penalty, but it doesn't matter for fighters. You can also overcrowd fighters till 90 for a 80 deck CV. You should not do it for bombers unless:
1) have Isoroku Yamamoto as Admiral (or similar dude),
2) You are Japan or can receive a similar Sortie efficiency spirit/ Advisor
3) You are using Base Strike, which, although arguably, but sux for naval battle.
Due to our little ExPlOiT: we can field 318 NAV and 160 fighters with 6 CV 80 deck without any penalty, which is debatably a peak Carrier efficiency.
Edit: I actually created a new topic for this matter since I thought it is not directly related to sinking the Royal Navy (or maybe it is
).Edit2: Sir @HugsAndSnuggles improved the concept and you can even bring 5 NAV CV and 1F CV. Please, see the separate topic. This should one shot carriers of the enemy, letting you free to bring devastation to enemy capitals. Pure fighters fleets might be a problem, but I actually think that not really. Deorged CV do not send fighters and 400 NAV make sure the CVs are deorged.
Last edited:
Have you even read this thread? The UK are using that, and several other people have used that in their compositions.
All planes of the same type count as the same wing.
Uk effectively is using 150 NAVs, while could use 238.
And whom do you mean by other people?
Last edited: