I only compared them by heavy attack, but as far as I remember BCs are almost equal to CAs in "efficiency" per IC under TI doctrine. Problem still comes with their cost: more targets means less focus fire.
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.
very nice result. i like it.
i went for a gold-tier full air spam build which could certainly be improved upon. i had 8x full-nb cvs (11k NIC per), to fully utilise the 640 available cvnb provided, sitting outside the battle pummeling away. it's not land-based, so i think it is within the rules. though i think it may have been better to split them into 4 external and 4 in the main stack. aside from that, it was just meta light attack heavy cruisers (5360 NIC per) and roach destroyers (640 NIC per). all told (8 x 11000) + (25 x 5360) + (82 x 640) = 274,480. no potf, no waiting for weather, etc. i like this result the best despite it not being the lowest cost of any win i had because it is the best possible result from a gameplay perspective. only 2 of my ca were sunk, no cv, and nobody cares about dd losses, they can be replaced fairly trivially and rapidly.
I'll try shifting to split heavy/light attack cruisers and see how much that helps.
i went for a gold-tier full air spam build which could certainly be improved upon. i had 8x full-nb cvs (11k NIC per), to fully utilise the 640 available cvnb provided, sitting outside the battle pummeling away. it's not land-based, so i think it is within the rules. though i think it may have been better to split them into 4 external and 4 in the main stack. aside from that, it was just meta light attack heavy cruisers (5360 NIC per) and roach destroyers (640 NIC per). all told (8 x 11000) + (25 x 5360) + (82 x 640) = 274,480. no potf, no waiting for weather, etc. i like this result the best despite it not being the lowest cost of any win i had because it is the best possible result from a gameplay perspective. only 2 of my ca were sunk, no cv, and nobody cares about dd losses, they can be replaced fairly trivially and rapidly.
I'll try shifting to split heavy/light attack cruisers and see how much that helps.
- 5
Without fighter cover? I doubt that: by virtue of carriers being in combat they'll get much higher NAV disruption and losses (which they can't instantly replace, unlike out-of combat carriers). Here's example of what happens with fighter "parity" on gold:
(that is with OI doctrine which supposed to protect bombers some)
6xStrike Carrier (90xNAV):
8xEscort carrier (20xFTR+0xCAS+1xNAV) @ :
19xLight attack CA:
103xRoach DD:
Total: 274330IC
8xEscort carrier (20xFTR+0xCAS+1xNAV) @ :
19xLight attack CA:
103xRoach DD:
Total: 274330IC
It depends on how you build the BCs. I think with full fire control tech they match them, because it gives extra bonuses to BCs, and then as you say they lose to the extra crits and more efficient damage spread you get from a larger overall number of attacks, as well as inferior light attack.
On paper, I believe SHBBs also can beat these versatile CAs of equal cost in a hard attack duel. The problem with Super-heavies though is that they're caught out by the CA's superior light attack. Either they win on hard attack and lose to the screens, or overbuild screens and lose to hard attack again.
.png){kind=avatar}
Let's start with the famous quote.
There are certainly some sweet spots with designs but I found out that the most important factor is the distribution above all else, like I explained above.
What I call BC5 (3H1) (A battlecruiser with 2 Heavy III guns and 3 Heavy I guns mounted on it) is a notable mention here (design above).
oops sorry, check the next quote.
Yeah. I mean, this.
Total cost: 199,816.75 IC
Battleship - costs 14,136 IC - marked "Pride of the Fleet"
2 Carriers - cost 2 x 11,290 = 22,580 IC
Battlecruiser - cost 3 x 14,050.25 = 42,150.75 IC
CA type2 cost 5 x 5,300 = 26,500 IC
CA type 1 - cost 8 x 4,475 = 35,800 IC
DDs - cost 69 x 850 = 58,650 IC
Battleship - costs 14,136 IC - marked "Pride of the Fleet"
2 Carriers - cost 2 x 11,290 = 22,580 IC
Battlecruiser - cost 3 x 14,050.25 = 42,150.75 IC
CA type2 cost 5 x 5,300 = 26,500 IC
CA type 1 - cost 8 x 4,475 = 35,800 IC
DDs - cost 69 x 850 = 58,650 IC
I've come to believe that there's a magic to distributing ships with a good ratio especially for the battle line (group which the capital ships occupy).
I used a 1-3-5-8 distribution in this composition. Less survivable ships are less, more survivable ones are more in number.
The idea is to distribute firepower in a pyramid fashion while distributing survivability in reverse. 1-3-5-8 seemed to work fine for this I guess, it being similar to fibonacci series and all.
Not sure if the number of screens in this composition had a magic to it too.
I used a 1-3-5-8 distribution in this composition. Less survivable ships are less, more survivable ones are more in number.
The idea is to distribute firepower in a pyramid fashion while distributing survivability in reverse. 1-3-5-8 seemed to work fine for this I guess, it being similar to fibonacci series and all.
Not sure if the number of screens in this composition had a magic to it too.
I feel like naming the ships has a positive effect too. I'm not sure about that obviously, but every time I named the ships I observed that the named ships had more achievements on the details section after the battle. So, always name your ships. Blow some soul into those machines! Love 'em and they'll love you back.
There are certainly some sweet spots with designs but I found out that the most important factor is the distribution above all else, like I explained above.
What I call BC5 (3H1) (A battlecruiser with 2 Heavy III guns and 3 Heavy I guns mounted on it) is a notable mention here (design above).
As you can see on the victory screens and as you will see if you load the save game and try for yourself, the "victory" usually doesn't look much like a victory. However, note that two of those victory screens are after battles during straight clear weather. So this fleet doesn't depend on favourable weather to win.
Also, there's no denying the involvement of lady luck in naval battles. If our important capitals get targeted and hit early, they quickly get focused down and the situation snowballs from there. This is because targeting has a factor of favouring ships with less remaining HP. Same is true for the enemy, if you get a few early lucky shots on their Nelson class BB's, that significantly lowers their chance to pierce your armoured capitals.
Another argument about whether this is achieving a "reliable victory" is that even though the remaining ships after we see the victory screen leave much to be desired, almost always the battle starts with a clear lead for our fleet so we might as well disengage after seeing this:
Also, there's no denying the involvement of lady luck in naval battles. If our important capitals get targeted and hit early, they quickly get focused down and the situation snowballs from there. This is because targeting has a factor of favouring ships with less remaining HP. Same is true for the enemy, if you get a few early lucky shots on their Nelson class BB's, that significantly lowers their chance to pierce your armoured capitals.
Another argument about whether this is achieving a "reliable victory" is that even though the remaining ships after we see the victory screen leave much to be desired, almost always the battle starts with a clear lead for our fleet so we might as well disengage after seeing this:
Last edited:
- 3
- 1
Well done, and very interesting designs to boot! I tried a few times but got stuck around 230k with a larger focus on CAs and CVs (I think I could have breached 225k with the proper fighter/bomber balance), but <200k is nuts!
- 2
As impressive as this is; I'm not sure I'd count this as a full victory as per the rules. The aim is to destroy every ship in the royal navy. Still, this perhaps warrants a new category? ( Strategic Victory vs Decisive Annihilation perhaps)
In any case, an impressive feat of design! I do like the idea of having a pride of the fleet as a BB or even SHBB to tank and maximise the lowered crit chance. It's great to see well-built BCs too.
- 2
Thank you! At least one BC marked as pride makes a big difference against the Royal Navy, I can say that much.
I also want to say that I found out that your CA with 3 medium + 1 light battery + 3 secondaries may be a perfect design for this, both on paper and as result of tests. So congratulations on that to you as well!
You're right about that. Further, you can be sure it doesn't count. The rules you set in the first post clearly states the below.
I completely missed that and only realized after your latest post. I consider my bragging rights revoked.
Since I realized this, I've been trying to achieve not only a single victory but victories until the opposing fleet is completely destroyed.
Grinding for about 5 days with about 100,000 cells of spreadsheets, about 200 engagements with 10-20 different compositions. Different admirals, different traits, different navy spirits, about 200 save games. At one point, the game started to show me Churchill quotes about the Italian navy which I never saw before.
Different wing size in carriers, different number of carriers... Trying absurd stuff such as changing naval spirit during combat to "inclement weather experience" in bad weather, then changing back to "night fighting" after the weather clears (that doesn't help one bit). Even learning to make a mod just to test what the minimum hit chance is (to see if I'm overkilling the hit profile modifier in some designs) with help of @Corpse Fool and actually finding out that it is about 0.1% (so no, it's not really possible to overkill that)...Nowhere near success. I think I'm done, I give up. I can't reliably beat that navy below 200K IC.
I just hope this doesn't discourage everyone and someone manages to do it!
On my part, still I'm happy to have tried. It taught me so much and I don't think I'll be following "the meta" anymore. Thinking I'll actually build ships with heavy hulls in the future. Also mix some non-roach DD's, the spreadsheets suggest there really could be a case for them, maybe just not for this challenge though.
Thank you for this opportunity @Alexander 'The Grape' !
Last edited:
- 7
- 2
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.
2) Heavy cruisers as capitals. 15 will suffice. You can also win reliably with 14. Less can become a dice roll.
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.
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.
BAM.
BAM.
BAM. BAM.
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:
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):
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 corrected it everywhere.
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.
2) Heavy cruisers as capitals. 15 will suffice. You can also win reliably with 14. Less can become a dice roll.
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.
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.
BAM.
BAM.
BAM. BAM.
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:
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):
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)
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 corrected it everywhere.
Last edited:
- 8
- 1
Impressed...
and happy to see it finally happen! Congratulations to you!
Surprised...
that no one ever tried 5 CV's before!
To say something about your conclusions...
BC's and BB's surely are worse when compared as a straight set against a straight set of CA. What should be compared is something like 1 BC + 10 CA on one side and 12-13 CA on the other. These biggies make a difference not when they're massed but when they're lesser in number among others. A line up in a pyramid fashion performed better in my results above. However, this is true when you rely on them to damage the enemy capitals. When there're many CV's involved like in your fleet, straight CA has a case for better light attack as well as carrier screening.
Last edited:
I tried with 7 at first. While it was going overboard some (6 would have been enough for semblance of a fighter parity, and with carriers being primary NAV targets, you won't need even that), I only managed to reliably sink half their capitals before my CAs got wiped out.
Fantastic stuff Yarkendo! Carriers do seem to be extremely strong, at least under uncontested air
@yardenko
You might be able to go a bit lower. You havent mentioned Doctrines, there is the possibility to overstack the carriers a bit and add more aircraft. With this you could maybe shave off a ship or two as you have more damage dealers on the carriers.
You might be able to go a bit lower. You havent mentioned Doctrines, there is the possibility to overstack the carriers a bit and add more aircraft. With this you could maybe shave off a ship or two as you have more damage dealers on the carriers.
I mean, sure
I mentioned it. As Italy, however, is difficult. I am sure you can go to 185k as Italy while trying to remove ships one by one and then modules, but I won't do it. it is tedious.The situation becomes even easier if you are allowed to pick advisors, but we are not. The Problem is also that Italy has no designer, which one could use
.Out of interest, I already killed the royal Navy with Japan, as I stated, with 161400 IC Cost, It is possible to do it for less than 150k. No advisors, no land based aircraft, but with designers. 160-170k should be possible without a designer (The reason for it is famous Isoroku Yamamoto with high lvl, Bold, and his buffs to sortie efficiency and kamikaze strikes). I can post my results with ship layouts and victory screens if you are interested.
The same should work for Soviet union due to the op designer, which reduces surface visibility, BUT:
1) I couldn't find a focus that gives USSR the kamikaze strike (not essential, but it is good to use the spare fighters that way)
2) There are navy debuffs the AI somehow got. There are opinions that they don't do anything, but I don't have time and desire to prove it nor to remove them.
I used the default doctrine TI and I am quite sure it is also the best for our goals and purposes.
@yardenko
sorry my quoting seems not to function, or I am too stupid (probably the latter).
Anyway, I dont know if TI really helps the most for your build, as the only benefits you get is:
With Base Strike you would get:
Now what is better has to be tested (for Italy, for Japan it is clear) but IMHO your main damage dealer will be way more lethal with Base Strike than TI. The aircraft have almost 50% more sortie efficiency (TI 70 vs BS 100), and your NAVII have around 15% better targeting (TI 12 vs BS 14). On top of that they also have 10% more Agility, making them survive longer, therefore keeping more NAVII, and therefore dealing more damage.
The Carriers have way more ORG, but if that makes a difference I cant say.
What you trade is the 30 ORG for the CA to the DDs. So your meat shield stays longer in battle, while your glass cannons leave faster when hit. That trade off has to be tested. In TI your CAs also gain reduced visibility, what also helps evade attacks.
So the actual difference is: Reduced durability of the CAs but gaining more ATK against the enemy heavy hitters. The faster they are out the less the reduced durability of the CAs really matters.
And yeah I was wrong without good admirals and advisors you cant overcroud as Italy.
sorry my quoting seems not to function, or I am too stupid (probably the latter).
Anyway, I dont know if TI really helps the most for your build, as the only benefits you get is:
- Surface visibility −10% (For CA)
- Organization +30 (For CA)
- Organization +20 (For DD)
- Organization +60 (For CV)
- Capital ship armor +10%
- Naval targeting +20%
- Sortie efficiency +20%
With Base Strike you would get:
- Organization +120 (For CV)
- Organization +50 (For DD)
- Capital ship armor +10%
- Naval targeting +40%
- Sortie efficiency +50%
- Carrier overcrowding −20%
- Naval air agility from carriers +10%
Now what is better has to be tested (for Italy, for Japan it is clear) but IMHO your main damage dealer will be way more lethal with Base Strike than TI. The aircraft have almost 50% more sortie efficiency (TI 70 vs BS 100), and your NAVII have around 15% better targeting (TI 12 vs BS 14). On top of that they also have 10% more Agility, making them survive longer, therefore keeping more NAVII, and therefore dealing more damage.
The Carriers have way more ORG, but if that makes a difference I cant say.
What you trade is the 30 ORG for the CA to the DDs. So your meat shield stays longer in battle, while your glass cannons leave faster when hit. That trade off has to be tested. In TI your CAs also gain reduced visibility, what also helps evade attacks.
So the actual difference is: Reduced durability of the CAs but gaining more ATK against the enemy heavy hitters. The faster they are out the less the reduced durability of the CAs really matters.
And yeah I was wrong without good admirals and advisors you cant overcroud as Italy.
@Terracos
I think it is a very nice breakdown of the doctrine's benefits for the build.
I actually want to encourage you to load a save and give it a try. Everything is already set up so there is a room for fantasy without a huge time investment.
What you will see if you try, is that the only way to lose this battle as Italy is to run out of CAs and then get torpedoed because NAVs dont kill DDs well.
To let them live longer from both org and hp perspective, I use TI and -10% visibility. You might argue that I can just kill all capitals faster with more and better NAV and it might be true, I didn't test it. 70% to 100% sortie efficiency increase is indeed very effective.
Nevertheless, org for CV, org for DD are useless stats.
With Capital armor is just funny. Our CA don't have armor, so it doesn't matter. But even if they had, yeye mr. Paradoks, CA count as screens and not as capitals for bonuses from designer and doctrines. They don't get capital ships buffs/debuffs from designers. You can try it yourself.
»>>>> Now what is better has to be tested (for Italy, for Japan it is clear)
I am actually quite curious about what you mean by "for Japan is clear", because I am somewhat sure that that Base strike is worse for Japan as it is for Italy *for a naval battle*. The reason for it is the way sortie efficiency and plane overcrowding works. These are diminishing returns. The visibility reduction, however, is not.
Going from 70 to 100% sortie efficiency allows you to bring (or rather make active) 30 more planes per 100 deck carrier!
Going from 100% to f.i. 140 for japan with TI and Yamamoto for fighters allows you 14 additional fighters per 100 deck carrier. (114 in total)
Going from 100% to 200% as Japan with Base strike, Yamamoto, Tora-tora-tora allows only 25 additional planes.
The formula is n(additional planes you can optimally bring per 100 carrier)=((sortie_efficiency(in%) / 100) * 50)/ (sortie_efficiency(in%) / 100)
Therefore, for Japan it does not make much sense to go for base strike *for naval battle purposes*. If you want just let you NAVs perform base strikes without naval battle – it is the best doctrine.
-20 buff to overcrowding is useless. It allows you to bring 3 and 6 (117 and 131 in total) more CV fighters as Japan for 140 and 200% sortie efficiency respectively per 100 deck carrier compared to the case described above when it wasn't there. The -20% buff changes the formula in the following way: n=(SE in % /100) * 62.5/ (SE in % /100). I am even not sure it applies, although wiki says it works, it normally does not mean it is actually implemented => might need testing. Cloak71 compared the doctrines many times already and TI clearly wins by comparing meta fleet vs meta fleet with only doctrine being the difference.
Our concrete goal: kill UK as Italy, mostly using CVs as damage may indeed benefit more from Base strike. But it is a very-very niche use of it and a very rare example of it to be better than TI.
I would say that as Math suggests, if you already have an admiral with sortie bonuses, effectively already bringing 100% sortie efficiency with TI, you don't need BS to win a naval battle. It is just not effective.
P.S. I couldn't quote you as well since it said I am too Spam-like
I think it is a very nice breakdown of the doctrine's benefits for the build.
I actually want to encourage you to load a save and give it a try. Everything is already set up so there is a room for fantasy without a huge time investment.
What you will see if you try, is that the only way to lose this battle as Italy is to run out of CAs and then get torpedoed because NAVs dont kill DDs well.
To let them live longer from both org and hp perspective, I use TI and -10% visibility. You might argue that I can just kill all capitals faster with more and better NAV and it might be true, I didn't test it. 70% to 100% sortie efficiency increase is indeed very effective.
Nevertheless, org for CV, org for DD are useless stats.
With Capital armor is just funny. Our CA don't have armor, so it doesn't matter. But even if they had, yeye mr. Paradoks, CA count as screens and not as capitals for bonuses from designer and doctrines. They don't get capital ships buffs/debuffs from designers. You can try it yourself.
»>>>> Now what is better has to be tested (for Italy, for Japan it is clear)
I am actually quite curious about what you mean by "for Japan is clear", because I am somewhat sure that that Base strike is worse for Japan as it is for Italy *for a naval battle*. The reason for it is the way sortie efficiency and plane overcrowding works. These are diminishing returns. The visibility reduction, however, is not.
Going from 70 to 100% sortie efficiency allows you to bring (or rather make active) 30 more planes per 100 deck carrier!
Going from 100% to f.i. 140 for japan with TI and Yamamoto for fighters allows you 14 additional fighters per 100 deck carrier. (114 in total)
Going from 100% to 200% as Japan with Base strike, Yamamoto, Tora-tora-tora allows only 25 additional planes.
The formula is n(additional planes you can optimally bring per 100 carrier)=((sortie_efficiency(in%) / 100) * 50)/ (sortie_efficiency(in%) / 100)
Therefore, for Japan it does not make much sense to go for base strike *for naval battle purposes*. If you want just let you NAVs perform base strikes without naval battle – it is the best doctrine.
-20 buff to overcrowding is useless. It allows you to bring 3 and 6 (117 and 131 in total) more CV fighters as Japan for 140 and 200% sortie efficiency respectively per 100 deck carrier compared to the case described above when it wasn't there. The -20% buff changes the formula in the following way: n=(SE in % /100) * 62.5/ (SE in % /100). I am even not sure it applies, although wiki says it works, it normally does not mean it is actually implemented => might need testing. Cloak71 compared the doctrines many times already and TI clearly wins by comparing meta fleet vs meta fleet with only doctrine being the difference.
Our concrete goal: kill UK as Italy, mostly using CVs as damage may indeed benefit more from Base strike. But it is a very-very niche use of it and a very rare example of it to be better than TI.
I would say that as Math suggests, if you already have an admiral with sortie bonuses, effectively already bringing 100% sortie efficiency with TI, you don't need BS to win a naval battle. It is just not effective.
P.S. I couldn't quote you as well since it said I am too Spam-like
- 1
I wonder if you can cut down on the need for cruisers with light attack if you adjust the air wing size. On paper, DDs are very vulnerable to air, but big air wings overkill them