DD zerg fleet

[gunstickuncle]

I was curiuos if after years of HoI and several expansions, patches, fixes whatsoever it would still be able to pull off the infamous DD zerg fleet like in Hoi 2. So I did some testing, and my results are quite clear about that.....at least against CTF.

Here is what I did:
Both combatants get techs and doctrines at 1940 (included) level. Practicals are neutralized in this test.
Country A (here: Romania) gets 60 DD, each having a hull of 1.25. So it ends up with the maximum penalty of -80% positioning.
Country B (here: Turkey) gets about the same amount of ICd in a CTF fleet, consisting of 4 CV, 4 CL and 8 CAG.
I had to reorg them via console several times because they lacked org to continue their fight (with the CTF always being out of org, not the DD fleet).
No Commanders were included and officer rate was 98% for both.

Summing up the battles, A loses 12 DD, B loses all of their ships.
If you include the damage to the survivors, in terms of ICd this is a 4-1 crushing defeat for the CTF. Which requires multiple times the LS to create and has slower practical gain.
I do know that fleet A is faster and tries to close in with the CTF. I just did not expect them to be so successfull with a positioning between 0 and 10 %, while the CTF has >40%.

My question is, where am I wrong - and why would I build anything else against a CTF user (except for house rules) if I am not?
What happens when upscaling/downscaling this experiment?
Is there a chance that I will get similar results against SAGs?
Usually those have many older ships, but let's say 1940 techs as well. I want to do further testing, but I would also appreciate input about what I don't even need to try if you already know it.

 

[unmerged(186889)]

Perhaps the good air defence of destroyers, and relatively low number of CAGs are what is causing this? I don't know what it would do against a SAG. Part of me thinks the big guns might be able to thin the blob down but it is a big blob and I have seen in a couple of AARs what blobs can do.

 

[sunsterson]

cause spamming one type of ship (dd's) is gamey as hell.

 

[gunstickuncle]

Just did a run with 23 DD against 4 BB/4DD. The BB fleet managed to kill the mob, with 2 BB surviving at 22 and 31%. Positioning penalty for the DD due to hull overstacking was 51%.

 

[BattleMoose]

My question is, where am I wrong - and why would I build anything else against a CTF user (except for house rules) if I am not?

There isn't anything wrong here. That result is pretty much what I would have expected had such an encounter occurred in real life.

If your opponent is spamming carriers, then its an appropriate counter.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Yeah, but what naval commander in his right mind is going to screen four CV's with only four CL? two CV, two BB, a flock of CA's plus the four CL's would be far more preferable for about the same amount of IC. No?

 

[feye1]

Use same amount of CL and your results should be even better (more durable and even more AA).

But as you already said, most house rules make it impossible to use this kind of fleets.

 

[Maestor]

My question is, where am I wrong - and why would I build anything else against a CTF user (except for house rules) if I am not?
What happens when upscaling/downscaling this experiment?
Is there a chance that I will get similar results against SAGs?
Usually those have many older ships, but let's say 1940 techs as well. I want to do further testing, but I would also appreciate input about what I don't even need to try if you already know it.

I have achieved similar results with SHBB/DD and BB/DD fleets in multiplayer. 2BB/16DD should do the trick as long as your DDs are fast enough.

The best counter against this is to simply stack the CV/CL fleets with tons of CLs, which also makes them more effective against other CV/CL fleets (AA). Another counter is to use CV/DD fleets.

A DD fleet really is not that good against service combatants, and it is all a matter of doing the math. The higher the average speed and the better the relative positioning of the enemy fleet, the harder it will be for your DDs with short firing ranges to close in. Add a few ships like BBs with very high firing ranges to the enemy fleet and you'll lose.

It's all a function of positioning (admiral, doctrines), firing ranges (fixed per ship type), damage, hull points, and speed. Then there's the RNG stuff like sea defense and target choice and chance. Techs like radar can also help quite a bit, and it can pay off to try and fight at night when your opponent does not have it.

 

[BarrosRodrigues]

Use same amount of CL and your results should be even better (more durable and even more AA).

Yes I agree 100% but he won´t be able to consistently sink carriers with a CL doom stack; I did extensive testing IIRC in late 2012 and reached the conclusion that a pure DD doom stack is the only one that means certain death to a “balanced” CV fleet; You will certainly catch CVs with less DD but if you stumble into a powerful (i.e. balanced) SAG you're dead. If the DD have ahead of time engines they are even deadlier for CVs.

 

[BarrosRodrigues]

Summing up the battles, A loses 12 DD, B loses all of their ships..

I am willing to bet that you lost so many DDs mostly because of friendly fire; next time try it with a level 8 admiral in both fleets (best) or use 30-35 DDs to see what happens.

 

[Secret Master]

There is a CL doomstack that can sink just about anything else. The problem is that gunstickle isn't thinking big enough.

In side-by-side MP tests, I discovered that 80 CLs with 1940 techs in a single engagement more or less sink everything they find that costs comparable IC. I might even be able to dig up a screenshot if I go looking. (And before anyone asks, 80 CLs are affordable for the USN. I already tested it.)

The reason this works is based on a couple of factors.

1) Positioning penalties are capped at 80%: Since it is possible for naval leaders to get skill 9 plus superior tactician, that more or less obviates any possible positioning penalty. Furthermore, doctrines can make effective positioning better, so that even meh admirals can effectively command a gigantic fleet.

2) Air attack is linear: Individual CLs can't really stop CAGs, but a wall of CLs can. Since CLs are cheaper than CVs + CAGs (especially considering the CVs need sufficient screens to prevent the lack of screen penalty, reducing the number of available CAGs), it becomes harder and harder to penetrate the anti-aircraft fire with CAGs. This shreds the CAGs and spreads the damage on the CLs so thin as to be irrelevant.

3) Lack of screen penalties for capital ships: SAGs versus 80 CLs face a problem where the BBs can withstand incoming fire and sink ships, but once their own screens die (and they will), the lack of screen penalty results in dead BBs. The same thing can't happen to the 80 CL fleet because there are no capital ships. It doesn't matter what you target or sink, they just keep coming.

 

[BattleMoose]

3) Lack of screen penalties for capital ships: SAGs versus 80 CLs face a problem where the BBs can withstand incoming fire and sink ships, but once their own screens die (and they will), the lack of screen penalty results in dead BBs. The same thing can't happen to the 80 CL fleet because there are no capital ships. It doesn't matter what you target or sink, they just keep coming.

I am having a hard time believing that there isn't a combination of either BB/DD or BB/CL or SHBB/DD or SHBB/CL or CA/CL or CA/DD that cannot take on 80CL. Perhaps part of the problem was using fleets with a capital to escort ratio of only 1:1.

 

[Secret Master]

I am having a hard time believing that there isn't a combination of either BB/DD or BB/CL or SHBB/DD or SHBB/CL or CA/CL or CA/DD that cannot take on 80CL. Perhaps part of the problem was using fleets with a capital to escort ratio of only 1:1.

Well, I was using SAGs with a 2:1 ratio of screens to capitals.

Now, I was using BB and SHBB fleets, not CA/CL fleets. And keep in mind that these tests were very controlled tests. No land based air. No province AA. No port strikes. No RADAR. These tests were also not designed to find a way to break the 80 CL fleet. They were designed to do some other things, part of which were to test various fleet compositions. The 80 CL fleet was there to test only one particular thing.

So, I'm saying further tests might be called for.

 

[BarrosRodrigues]

@Secret Master I have been saying that since TFH came out and I had to withstand a lot of disbelief/heat. Btw the naval side of HOI3 is very unbalanced; See the IC price of a BB and compare it to CL or CA to see if the BB is worth it… I don´t think that any other ships are cost effective by comparison with CA/CL or pure CL fleets, the only exception are maybe the CVs to reduce the air force micro but only if you are playing as the US (because you can afford that luxury). This somewhat reminds me of (4) ART+mx-support/at divisions in Black ICE…

 

[Secret Master]

@Secret Master I have been saying that since TFH came out and I had to withstand a lot of disbelief/heat. Btw the naval side of HOI3 is very unbalanced; See the IC price of a BB and compare it to CL or CA to see if the BB is worth it… I don´t think that any other ships are cost effective by comparison with CA/CL fleets in this game, the only exception are maybe the CVs to reduce the air force micro but only if you are playing as the US (because you can afford that luxury). This reminds me of (4) ART+mx-support/at divisions in Black ICE…

Eh, the naval side is kind of balanced... if you look at the effectiveness of CL swarms in light of post-war developments in naval warfare.

For example: Zerg fleets with 80 CLs seem unbalanced and unhistorial, but no one really tried it in real life during WWII. You might argue, convincingly, that while 80 CL fleets are a bit unbalanced, they are just ahead of their time doctrinally. In a world with torpedoes that possess guidance packages (like the German G7es (TV) Zaunkönig), you could easily make the case that all capital ships are now obsolete unless they can engage ships carrying torpedoes at many times of the range of the torpedo (naval strikes from carriers). Honestly, what's a fleet of capital ships (non-carrier) going to do against a swarm of smaller ships with lots of torpedoes that can guide themselves to their targets? Sure, you might sink some with gunfire, but the at the end of the day, those capital ships are going to have to try and dodge at least 1 torpedo per enemy ship. Can six Iowas escape from 80 or more Zaunkönig torpedoes? And does it change your mind to know that German subs referred to the Zaunkönig as the destroyer cracker because it was effective against the very ships that were supposed to hunt submarines? And can Iowas even fire enough broadsides against a huge swarm of smaller ships to protect themselves, even if they are sufficiently screened?

If one takes the position that the Battle of Jutland more or less indicated that even in 1916, battleships and their equivalents were already obsolete in the face of torpedoes, mines, and submarines, to say nothing of carrier based aviation, then you would be forced to conclude that an 80 CL fleet defeating capital ships is just the natural historical evolution of things, backed up by balance of naval forces in the late 20th Century.

I'm not saying I agree with this position; I'm merely pointing out that it is a perfectly rational position to take. Jellicoe, who commanded the British at Jutland, while not agreeing with this position, would remind us that he turned away from the Germans and failed to pursue their retreat at 19:15 because he assumed that either enemy torpedoes, mines, or submarines would ambush his capital ships. He refused to bet the majority of the Royal Navy's capital ships on the ability of his crews to dodge these weapons in the largest battle ever to take place between battleships in the history of the class. He was criticized over his caution, but it was SOP for many navies at the time, and the Admiralty of the Royal Navy approved of his plans to do so prior to the battle even being fought.

The catch is that the linear nature of AA ratings on ships, coupled with no stacking penalties, means that what CL swarms are too effective at doing is shooting down aircraft prior to the invention of ship-mounted SAMs. CL swarms act like a swarm of guided-missile destroyers, which would be fine for 1980, but it is kind of suspect when compared to 1944.

On the other hand, while 80 CL fleets seem ridiculous, you can also easily send 1,200 carrier-based aircraft on raids when you put 6-10 fleet carriers in a single fleet and send the planes on a port or naval strike. It gets even more ridiculous when we get into Death Star territory, with 20 or more CVs in a single fleet, putting 40 CAGs into action (approximately 4000 aircraft!).

I'm suggesting that CL swarms aren't really unbalanced. They are a symptom of a game engine and rules set that "frays" around the edges. Those edges include absurdly high production of various assets. You can produce absurdly high numbers of certain assets, and it causes rules that operate fine at normal production levels to not function well. It's the same with logistics strikes, strategic bombing, and some other mechanics in HOI3. And I think all games have these problems.

 

[BarrosRodrigues]

Thanks but I was not talking about if it is coherent with what happened or might happen in real life; I was talking about the benefit/cost per IC day which is IMO unbalanced. For example with the IC that you need to build those carriers and CAGs I can build a CL fleet supported by MR that will kill all those CAGs (therefore making the CVs all but useless) with only a fraction of the IC and LS. Like I said before for starters compare the stats/cost of a BB with the cost/stats of a CA (...)


Edit:I forgot to mention that I should use MRs to support the fleet which would make CAGs a non-issue.

 

[Secret Master]

Edit:I forgot to mention that I should use MRs to support the fleet which would make CAGs a non-issue.

Well, if we're talking land-based air, that's a whole other ballgame entirely.

Land based air, both INTs and MRs, are superior to CAGs at all techs. Suckering carriers into uneven fights with land based air is all part of the fun, I feel. That's also historical (it's not like the US or UK were sending their carriers to sit right off the coast of Europe in 1941; that would have been suicide).

I consider it balanced, since I think the game would play worse if CAGs could stand toe-to-toe with INTs at the same tech levels. Everyone would just build CAGs with drop tanks and ignore all other aircraft types, except for maybe strategic bombers if you really wanted to use them.

 

[BattleMoose]

For example with the IC that you need to build those carriers and CAGs I can build a CL fleet supported by MR that will kill all those CAGs (therefore making the CVs all but useless) with only a fraction of the IC and LS.

If you present to me a limited formation of anything, navy, air or land, I can produce a counter that will make it look useless.

And I am sure there is a combination of a SAG that can happily dispatch a CL swarm, equal IC, and that SAG would similiary get smashed by a different kind, possibly CVs.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Master, I've read enough of your posts to know you have long and deep knowledge regarding the technical and historical aspects of the war. But I'm going to have to disagree a bit.

Looking at a "zerg" fleet, reliance on one weapon system is always doomed to failure; for every measure there's a countermeasure, sooner or later. Deployment of the Falcon/Wren (Gnat) "Destroyer Cracker" acoustic homing torpedoes didn't win the war for Germany, the Allies intelligence network warned them of the torpedoes existence and they immediately employed their already developed Foxer noise-making counter-measures to mitigate the torpedoes effectiveness when the torpedo was deployed in the field. Therefore, that torpedo, while a giant leap forward, didn't tip the scales decisively, or make an appreciable effect upon the outcome due to the enormous counter-leaps in Cryptology, radar and ASW technology. Excellent torpedo, but the launching platform was badly compromised by the time the torpedo was deployed.

But since this is a game I'm still trying to decipher, and not a discussion of Allied naval operations during the 1940's (of which I'm MORE than happy to discuss), can anyone here either give me a primer in HOI3 naval combat, or send me to a comprehensive wiki that can break down the various components into bite sized pieces so I can figure out the best fleet composition based on situational requirements and assets on hand?

 

[BattleMoose]

Jellicoe, who commanded the British at Jutland, while not agreeing with this position, would remind us that he turned away from the Germans and failed to pursue their retreat at 19:15 because he assumed that either enemy torpedoes, mines, or submarines would ambush his capital ships. He refused to bet the majority of the Royal Navy's capital ships on the ability of his crews to dodge these weapons in the largest battle ever to take place between battleships in the history of the class. He was criticized over his caution, but it was SOP for many navies at the time, and the Admiralty of the Royal Navy approved of his plans to do so prior to the battle even being fought.

I don't think this is a fair commentary of the man.

He achieved his strategic objective, sending the German Fleet back to port. And Churchil said of the man, 'the only man on either side who could lose the war in an afternoon' (breaking the blockade and imposing a new one on the UK). If somehow there was even the smallest risk that things could have gone catastrophically wrong, that minute risk needs to be balanced against losing the entire war.

It wasn't nessessary for him to assume their were enemy mines or submarines, the fact that he didn't know whether there were or not, is justification enough in my mind for the context in which he was fighting, to not pursue.

Had he pursued he may have secured a victory. But with the benefit of hindsight such a victory wasn't nessessary. He was able to maintain a complete blockade of Germany, and keep the German fleet in port, and achieveing his strategic objectives. It wasn't possible to blockade any harder than they already were. Nor was the destruction of the High Seas fleet, with the benefit of hindsight, even nessessary.