Cruisers or Destroyers for Screening?

  • 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.

papapyro

Captain
28 Badges
Jul 11, 2017
350
694
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
I've always used DDs for screening my capital ships, but I've been wondering lately if you should use CLs instead. Is the extra protection worth the extra production?
General fleet composition tips are also appreciated
 
I use both.

Destroyers are cheap to build and can be specialized for Anti-sub/anti-Air/Anti-Escort work, but generally useful only for a single specialty. CLs, are also able to specialize, but the additional weapon/equipment slots gives them better versatility. I can effectively set up a CL to be primarily AS/AA/AE and still have enough space to give it a secondary role. The main guns provide better effect against other escort ships.

For example, a depth charge rack and sonar lets them hunt subs and a seaplane adds detection for both subs and surface vessels. The secondary purpose can be AA -- by adding more AA guns, AE -- add extra secondary guns (the same size as a destroyer's main weapons), and/or multiple torp tubes for use against capital ships. While they can be up to 3 or 4 times more expensive than a single destroyer, the added versatility and survivability is worth it to me.

Since the change to the ratio of escorts/capital ships to 3:1 (iirc); I use one CL and Three DDs as my standard escort unit.It's a useful mix in almost any type of ocean terrain. I can add a CA as well to make a small raider group or for heavy patrol or transport escort in dangerous water.
 
  • 3
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
Something else to consider- a recent thread demonstrated that using destroyers in your strike force will cause the strike force to sortie against enemy subs, using fuel and potentially distracting them from more dangerous enemy surface fleets. If your strike force units use only CLs w/o depth charges as screens, that strike force will ignore subs. You can then chase those enemy subs with your more-efficient ASW DD-only fleets.


 
  • 11
Reactions:
Something else to consider- a recent thread demonstrated that using destroyers in your strike force will cause the strike force to sortie against enemy subs, using fuel and potentially distracting them from more dangerous enemy surface fleets. If your strike force units use only CLs w/o depth charges as screens, that strike force will ignore subs. You can then chase those enemy subs with your more-efficient ASW DD-only fleets.


that's not grounds enough to just use cruisers, which are horribly inefficient in comparison to destroyers. you can simply turn off the mission when no enemy fleets are in the area or buy fuel if not - unless you're japan or it's very, very lategame and you don't know how to stop battleplanning tanks, then fuel issues are very easy to surmount in the short run.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I just noticed this new vid from Feedbackgaming, where he spams nothing but 1940 Light Cruiser screens. I have seen lots of people advocate for a the Submarine-only navy, or a navy with cheap screens and max-LA Heavy Cruisers, but I don't think I've seen a screen-only light cruiser fleet in action before.

I doubt it is as IC-efficient as some other strategies, but it certainly seemed to work well against the Allied navies.


 
A big problem I have with naval combat is that any hit can cause a crit. I've always wondered whether a screen fleet made of mixed DDs and anti DD CLs would crack a screen and then crit spam cripple the battleship line.
 
I use both.

Destroyers are cheap to build and can be specialized for Anti-sub/anti-Air/Anti-Escort work, but generally useful only for a single specialty. CLs, are also able to specialize, but the additional weapon/equipment slots gives them better versatility. I can effectively set up a CL to be primarily AS/AA/AE and still have enough space to give it a secondary role. The main guns provide better effect against other escort ships.

For example, a depth charge rack and sonar lets them hunt subs and a seaplane adds detection for both subs and surface vessels. The secondary purpose can be AA -- by adding more AA guns, AE -- add extra secondary guns (the same size as a destroyer's main weapons), and/or multiple torp tubes for use against capital ships. While they can be up to 3 or 4 times more expensive than a single destroyer, the added versatility and survivability is worth it to me.

Since the change to the ratio of escorts/capital ships to 3:1 (iirc); I use one CL and Three DDs as my standard escort unit.It's a useful mix in almost any type of ocean terrain. I can add a CA as well to make a small raider group or for heavy patrol or transport escort in dangerous water.
AA screens? Torpedoes on cruisers? A single CL is going to have notably less versatility and survivability than 4 destroyers
I doubt it is as IC-efficient as some other strategies, but it certainly seemed to work well against the Allied navies.
Efficiency is the name of the navy-game, taking as little researching/construction/resources away from your army/airforce as possible.
I've always wondered whether a screen fleet made of mixed DDs and anti DD CLs would crack a screen and then crit spam cripple the battleship line.
Why try to cripple the fleet, if you can just sink it with torpedoes?
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
AA screens? Torpedoes on cruisers? A single CL is going to have notably less versatility and survivability than 4 destroyers

Efficiency is the name of the navy-game, taking as little researching/construction/resources away from your army/airforce as possible.

Why try to cripple the fleet, if you can just sink it with torpedoes?
To paradrop wherever its repairing and steal it of course
 
  • 2Haha
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I've always used DDs for screening my capital ships, but I've been wondering lately if you should use CLs instead. Is the extra protection worth the extra production?
General fleet composition tips are also appreciated
I aim for 1/3 to 1/2 my screens to be CL, stacked with light attack to sink destroyers. When updating I will rip out floatplanes and replace them with more CL main guns, but will update torpedoes and leave them in place. If I have older DDs with double torpedoes they fill out the rest of my screens updated with 1936 weapons. I have had great success with this.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I aim for 1/3 to 1/2 my screens to be CL, stacked with light attack to sink destroyers.
i don't mean to be all "well akshually," but since this is an advice thread it's worth pointing out that just making your CL into CA is a far more efficient way of sinking destroyers.
 
  • 5Like
  • 4
Reactions:
i don't mean to be all "well akshually," but since this is an advice thread it's worth pointing out that just making your CL into CA is a far more efficient way of sinking destroyers.
This is due to the fact CA are targeted by capital ships, but can be built such that capital ships have great difficulty hitting them while also having massive light attack. Right? IMO this is a more of an exploit than a real tactic
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
This is due to the fact CA are targeted by capital ships, but can be built such that capital ships have great difficulty hitting them while also having massive light attack. Right? IMO this is a more of an exploit than a real tactic
if you consider putting your damage-dealing ships behind screens to protect them an exploit, sure. you should make all ships difficult for heavy ships to hit. the real "exploit" is simply that light attack and torpedoes are far cheaper and stronger for fleetkilling than heavy attack is.
 
  • 4Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
if you consider putting your damage-dealing ships behind screens to protect them an exploit, sure. you should make all ships difficult for heavy ships to hit. the real "exploit" is simply that light attack and torpedoes are far cheaper and stronger for fleetkilling than heavy attack is.
The way it works is you put a bigger gun on it just to classify it as a capital ship, meaning lights don't even fire at it. It still an anti light which is fine, but take all the armor off and slap a massive engine on it so its as fast as possible. I don't know exactly how hard it is to hit a CA doing this but the things apparently just tokyo drift out of the way of heavy fire because of their speed. That's cheesing the system
 
  • 4
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Since it is known that the game rarely researches anything naval in time to matter, a player who does not want to overwhelm and exploit the capabilities of the game, should seriously consider not researching any naval doctrines or ships and only build ships their nation started with. If playing the US, UK, Italy, or Japan, then the player should consider building no new ships at all to give the AI a chance to at least be a thorn in your side.

In my opinion, it is difficult not to exploit the game's naval programming. Almost any positive naval action puts more space between the player's and the game's ability.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
The way it works is you put a bigger gun on it just to classify it as a capital ship, meaning lights don't even fire at it. It still an anti light which is fine, but take all the armor off and slap a massive engine on it so its as fast as possible. I don't know exactly how hard it is to hit a CA doing this but the things apparently just tokyo drift out of the way of heavy fire because of their speed. That's cheesing the system
making ships fast = cheese?

i guess the part where your light guns can hit their screens but their screens' light guns can't hit your ships is memey but that also could be interpreted as a tactical choice to target the closer ships first. since light and heavy guns technically can attack both kinds of ship (iirc)
 
  • 6
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
making ships fast = cheese?

i guess the part where your light guns can hit their screens but their screens' light guns can't hit your ships is memey but that also could be interpreted as a tactical choice to target the closer ships first. since light and heavy guns technically can attack both kinds of ship (iirc)
I think the chance for heavy guns to hit ships that fast is far lower than you realize
 
I think the chance for heavy guns to hit ships that fast is far lower than you realize
so? you can make light ships even faster since light guns weigh less. if you want to call it unrealistic that's one thing, but making fast ships is fully within intended game design. the real balance changer would be making heavy guns more accurate, but then you risk making light guns useless... though if you make it so they have different accuracies against light/heavy ships then it would incentivize even more mixed fleets (not that the current meta fleet isn't already relatively mixed)
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions: