CV NAVs on carriers meta context

[Secret Master]

I've been poking around various corners of the internet, and I keep coming across MP players who prefer going pure CV NAVs on their carriers in competitive play. They advocate interwar airframes as a cost saving measure. The air frame makes sense, especially now that we know CV NAVs won't ever shoot back. There's no reason to try and mount defensive weaponry on them. But I'm curious as to the context for using pure CV NAVs against human opponents.

I know a lot players think carriers are nerfed in general, so we're probably talking about using existing carriers. But when I test carrier fleets in controlled equal battles, going 100% CV NAV seems to result in scratch damage from the CV NAVs and a lot of dead CV NAVs that in no way justifies the cost of those NAVs versus short repair times from the damage they inflict.

I was wondering if anyone can enlighten me on the context of going pure CV NAVs. Are they only being used under cover of enemy/friendly land based air or something?

 

[Com]

I was under the assumption that carriers are still unaffected by red vs green air coverage, and that carrier fighters don't currently shoot down NAVs for some reason.

If you're curious to know about player behavior in general I can speak about what I've seen, but I only play modded MP.

 

[Cavalry]

But when I test carrier fleets in controlled equal battles, going 100% CV NAV seems to result in scratch damage from the CV NAVs and a lot of dead CV NAVs that in no way justifies the cost of those NAVs versus short repair times from the damage they inflict.

Try not using "equal" battle. Indecisive battle is not good for anything, even ship. In a battle you pay bad casualties ratio in the beginning and hope to get better after defeat them and go to the "harvest phase". CV NAV is the only thing can strike enemy CV early, zero Org them, and they can concentrate strike wounded enemy ship on withdrawing.

In equal battle you don't get to harvest phase.

And even the gun turret in CV NAV don't fight back, are you sure they don't reduce disruption?

 

[The Colonel]

Well, the latest patch certainly changed things, but I'd be very curious what these test fleets are where CV NAVs don't do much. Before the hit profile rework, carriers were incredibly dominant, and pure bombers was basically the only way to play bc you would just nuke the enemy into oblivion before basically any ships did anything unless they had a very specialized and effective AA build, which sacrifices basically all the surface power of your fleet, meaning you can counter the enemy's carriers and not much else.

In the lobby I play in, people at the very least refit carriers to have 70 deck size, and 1940 carriers are not uncommon for Japan and USA. Pure bombers are definitely the way to go in my experience and basically all i've seen anyone who knows navy do. I once tried pure fighters to just shoot down Japanese bombers as the US and win with the surface fleet, but only because I expected Japan to do an AA heavy build; didn't work well but there were other mitigating factors.

RE: plane type, as far as I know 1940 or 44 frame carrier CAS is straight up better than naval bombers due to a higher targeting x naval attack product (when built with full bomb locks), and the only time to use naval bombers instead of carrier CAS is when cheaping out on planes or if you have a good NAV-specific designer. Using later frames is also good since the higher agility should make them die less to AA. This would be equally true for land-based naval strike missions, assuming you weren't planning on building medium/large frame planes for the job due to the extra range.

 

[Secret Master]

I was under the assumption that carriers are still unaffected by red vs green air coverage, and that carrier fighters don't currently shoot down NAVs for some reason.

CV fighters are definitely shooting down CV NAVs. I don't think they are good at hitting land based air power, but that's not what I'm testing at the moment.

Try not using "equal" battle. Indecisive battle is not good for anything, even ship.

Wait, what? Of course I want equal fleets. The variable I'm testing is the aircraft, not the ships. I don't want better or more AA on one fleet to kill more planes or disrupt more planes than the other fleet.

RE: plane type, as far as I know 1940 or 44 frame carrier CAS is straight up better than naval bombers due to a higher targeting x naval attack product (when built with full bomb locks)

See, that's not what I was told. I was told that people were using interwar CV NAVs with torpedoes (or anti-ship missile) to bypass enemy CV fighters, not bomb locks. I should test it with multiple bomb locks.

But if bomb locks are the right choice, then you would want better air frames to get more bomb locks, right? It wouldn't make sense to keep the interwar air frames with its fewer modules.

Well, the latest patch certainly changed things, but I'd be very curious what these test fleets are where CV NAVs don't do much.

This is kind of why I'm doing this. I was testing aircraft in other ways, and when I found out that CV NAVs weren't shooting back with defensive guns, I decided it might be worth testing several other carrier mechanics. It wouldn't be the first time accepted wisdom was problematic because of some hidden feature or bug.

 

[blahmaster6k]

See, that's not what I was told. I was told that people were using interwar CV NAVs with torpedoes (or anti-ship missile) to bypass enemy CV fighters, not bomb locks. I should test it with multiple bomb locks.

I think what I saw people saying was that interwar CV NAVs were better than later NAVS because every airframe is still stuck to one torpedo module so you basically can't upgrade them.

I don't know much about CV CAS, but I wouldn't be surprised if late-war CAS is better than any NAVs just because you can actually give them more naval attack as time goes on.

 

[Secret Master]

I think what I saw people saying was that interwar CV NAVs were better than later NAVS because every airframe is still stuck to one torpedo module so you basically can't upgrade them.

I don't know much about CV CAS, but I wouldn't be surprised if late-war CAS is better than any NAVs just because you can actually give them more naval attack as time goes on.

That would make a bit more sense.

Then I guess I have a several different planes to test with a pure bomber configuration. But since CV NAVs don't shoot back, I wonder just what I could get away with on CV fighters. And I have to test whether the "no shooting back" bug affects CV CAS as well.

 

[Cavalry]

Wait, what? Of course I want equal fleets. The variable I'm testing is the aircraft, not the ships. I don't want better or more AA on one fleet to kill more planes or disrupt more planes than the other fleet.

It is harder to value CV NAV and there is a random factor too. And in a big big fleet the CV is not a big factor. It is like testing the effect of new CL with a big fleet, hard to see.

And if you are not sure then use the gun turrets, only 1 IC to remove doubt.

 

[Secret Master]

And in a big big fleet the CV is not a big factor. It is like testing the effect of new CL with a big fleet, hard to see.

I don't care if it is a big factor. I have enough detail from the post-battle screen to see the exact damage stats. In particular lost planes versus damage inflicted.

But what I do care about are the following questions:

1) Will pure bombers be effective even if the other fleet has pure fighters?

2) Which kinds of bombers are more effective?

3) If CV NAVs aren't shooting back, then does the meta for CV fighters shift to maximizing cannons since agility and speed and cost won't matter?

4) Do CV bombers of any kind inflict enough damage to justify their cost, and is there an IC cost threshold where they stop being worth using simply because it costs less to repair a ship than the planes used to inflict the damage.

5) Should the meta really be pure CV bombers?

What I'm not testing:

1) Are carriers worth building beyond the starting ships for each nation?

It is harder to value CV NAV and there is a random factor too.

You know I wouldn't just run one test with each set of parameters, right?

The last time I tested Blockade Runner as a trait on admirals, I think I did 10-20 tests with each combination of traits to ensure RNG wasn't spoofing results. It's one reason I use thousands of aircraft on each side over the course of a month with three sorties a day when testing land-based aircraft. You get so many combats that RNG shouldn't be screwing with results.

 

[Cavalry]

In particular lost planes versus damage inflicted.

This part is why I said equal fleet is hard to see the importants of the damage CV NAV vs regular damage from gun. The CV NAV was much more concentrate in enemy CV, capital ships and wounded capital ships than ship guns. And even if the enemy CV may not sink, your NaV can zero org their CV and the zero Org CV don't launch planes.

When the enemy ship start to flee, in equal battles your ships also flee so your CV lost chance to harvest and sink enemy ships.
----
Phase 1: Naval Strike Target Selection[edit | edit source]
The naval strike target of a bomber wing is randomly selected from a weighted distribution of all enemy ships. The base weight is each ship's maximum HP, excluding hidden submarines. This gets scaled depending on ship type:

• Submarine: ×10
• Capital Ship: ×50
• Carrier: ×200

The weight of damaged ships gets increased by up to +500% as they approach 0% HP. If a ship's anti-air(AA) attack is below 5, the weight is increased by 5 * (5 - <AA>). For example convoys have only 0.2 AA attack, increasing their score by 4.8 × 5 = 24.

Naval battle - Hearts of Iron 4 Wiki

hoi4.paradoxwikis.com

---
The second benefit of CV NAV is they force enemy ships to use more AA modules.

1) Will pure bombers be effective even if the other fleet has pure fighters?

This case is actually good for naval battle, because the enemy fighters probably can't hurt yours ship anyway. But if in doubt, use the ratio 1 fighter: 3 NAV then you are always better than pure fighters. Pure NAV always have a good reason.

3) If CV NAVs aren't shooting back, then does the meta for CV fighters shift to maximizing cannons since agility and speed and cost won't matter?

vs NAV the cannon is always good, getting shoot back or not. Machine gun is for vs fighters. Yeah, probably cannon is better choice here because we want to counter enemy nav, if they meet enemy fighters and not nav, then they just die a little more.

5) Should the meta really be pure CV bombers?

This can change between patches. But if enemy is using pure fighter then it is a good sign to assume your CV NAV is doing good! The remain question is what ratio fighter/nav to use. When in doubt, just use 1 fighter: 3 Nav. And pls with gun turret on the NAV. Remove it to save 1 IC make test reading really complicated unnessary. Both the turrets and the fighter can contribute to reduce distruption, if that works.

 

[TruckerBarry65493]

5) Should the meta really be pure CV bombers?

no, carrier fighters should be good as well
(also side note they should make carrier kamikazie actually work lmao)

 

[Secret Master]

This part is why I said equal fleet is hard to see the importants of the damage CV NAV vs regular damage from gun.

I'm not measuring that. That is a very different test.

This is not a test to compare the relative merits of carrier aircraft versus naval gunfire. I am specifically testing whether the meta should actually be pure bombers on CVs versus some other combination, like 50/50 bombers/fighters.

This test has some narrow parameters, so I'm doing the typical thing and equalizing the other stats (as much as possible) so that I can just measure the impact of bombers in different ratios and configurations. I want the fleets to be equal so that I can measure (in multiple tests) how much impact various configurations of bombers are having.

And I care about the cost of the planes versus the damage they do because I also want to measure the actual IC cost of the damage inflicted by carrier bombers versus the cost of the planes.

This can change between patches. But if enemy is using pure fighter then it is a good sign to assume your CV NAV is doing good! The remain question is what ratio fighter/nav to use. When in doubt, just use 1 fighter: 3 Nav.

I don't want a guess. I want to actually measure, in the game with actual statistics from naval battles, the effectiveness.

I don't need a rule of thumb here. I want to test an actual series of hypotheses. This isn't about me getting better at playing the game, either. I want to test the claims I've seen players make about the "meta" way to play. And I want to make these tests because once I figured out CV NAVs weren't shooting back, that raises a number of other questions about what is really going on in naval combats with planes.

no, carrier fighters should be good as well
(also side note they should make carrier kamikazie actually work lmao)

Yeah, I'd have to test kamikazie on another run. I heard it wasn't working anymore, but I after I solve the mystery of the CV bombers, I can test to see if the entire mission is bugged, or if it's something goofy with how the designer procs modules. (Like, is there an issue where certain modules are bugging it out and other modules aren't.)

And are you saying pure fighters should be good? Or are you saying that some fighters are good in certain ratios?

 

[TruckerBarry65493]

Yeah, I'd have to test kamikazie on another run. I heard it wasn't working anymore, but I after I solve the mystery of the CV bombers, I can test to see if the entire mission is bugged, or if it's something goofy with how the designer procs modules. (Like, is there an issue where certain modules are bugging it out and other modules aren't.)

And are you saying pure fighters should be good? Or are you saying that some fighters are good in certain ratios?

The suicide strike craft (which japan gets via a focus afaik) don't do anything in battle
Mixing fighters + navs should be the best imo

 

[Nick0211]

I think what I saw people saying was that interwar CV NAVs were better than later NAVS because every airframe is still stuck to one torpedo module so you basically can't upgrade them.

I don't know much about CV CAS, but I wouldn't be surprised if late-war CAS is better than any NAVs just because you can actually give them more naval attack as time goes on.

This really is a shame, the late war NAV is only fractionally better than the prewar nav, (Nav Attack wise) because of the electronic equipment that can give a slight boost. It sucks that the torpedo never gets better... why not have torp 1-4 with the naval torp upgrades?

 

[LordWahu]

This really is a shame, the late war NAV is only fractionally better than the prewar nav, (Nav Attack wise) because of the electronic equipment that can give a slight boost. It sucks that the torpedo never gets better... why not have torp 1-4 with the naval torp upgrades?

Honestly, there are a lot of plane gear that you can merge techs with

Machine guns to to the infantry support tree is the go to example

 

[Cavalry]

More CV Nav is especially better on hit and run where we don't meet enemy CV.
Some few escort fighters will have high return on investment, but not too much fighters, if it works like land planes.
It also depends on enemy composition.
We can deduct the enemy 100% fighters, because that won't hit our ships, while our nav still can hit his ships.
So there are roughly the remains cases of enemy ratio: 5 cv fighter :5 cv nav, , 2.5:7.5, 1:9, 0:10
We can limit the test vs these 4 combo to see the trend, but note that it is not always the best in all cases. There is the case enemy don't have CV planes too or their CV already defeated.

If I know enemy don't use 5:5, then I would use 1:9 without test. Almost keep ship strike capacity good while have some fighters just in case. Try using less fighters than enemy so you can have more cv nav.

 

[Cavalry]

This really is a shame, the late war NAV is only fractionally better than the prewar nav, (Nav Attack wise) because of the electronic equipment that can give a slight boost. It sucks that the torpedo never gets better... why not have torp 1-4 with the naval torp upgrades?

CV torpedo bomber have quite a short time use in history. Late war they change to less dangerous, high flying planes. Some said in game late CV CAS is better than cv Nav because of higher naval targeting.

 

[Secret Master]

This really is a shame, the late war NAV is only fractionally better than the prewar nav, (Nav Attack wise) because of the electronic equipment that can give a slight boost. It sucks that the torpedo never gets better... why not have torp 1-4 with the naval torp upgrades?

I think that between doctrines and surviability upgrades, you are supposed to be able to put more CV NAVs with into play without losing them so they do more damage overall. I could be wrong about the intention, though.

You can also see the RADAR guided bomb as "torpedo Mk. II" since you can, again, only mount one. I know it's not quite what you are looking for, but you can see it as an abstraction.

 

[blahmaster6k]

I think that between doctrines and surviability upgrades, you are supposed to be able to put more CV NAVs with into play without losing them so they do more damage overall. I could be wrong about the intention, though.

You can also see the RADAR guided bomb as "torpedo Mk. II" since you can, again, only mount one. I know it's not quite what you are looking for, but you can see it as an abstraction.

I also think the game needs torpedo upgrades. The game acknowledges that torpedoes got better as the war went on by the existence of naval torpedo upgrades, but naval bombers are stuck using interwar tech the whole war. Also, naval bombers are explicitly better without BBA enabled than they are with it - the non-DLC naval bomber models have their naval attack go up considerably with each model.

BBA turned off, 1944 CV nav looks like this:

Meanwhile, the best I can make a 1944 CV-nav with the DLC enabled:

10 less naval attack, 5 less naval targeting. It has more air attack/defense/agility/speed, but that's more a result of being on the same airframe as a fighter than anything else, before the rework planes were more differentiated in combat stats (which I saw as a good thing).

And the guided anti-ship missile despite being a 1946 tech still has less naval attack than the basic torpedo.


Here's a 1944 CV CAS for comparison, you can stack up to 9 naval attack which is still worse than a torpedo, but your targeting is much better.