Wow. That will take time to digest. I forsee a game open and flipping back and forth with this post a few times to understand exactly what you've just said.
But thanks for saying it, I appreciate it. It's a starting point!
BTW, did a base search on "navy" and "naval" posts in the forum to nada results. Any posts in particular I should bite into?
Also, while I have your attention, is it just me or is ground based AAA rather marginal in its effectiveness and the money better spent on CAP? If the Brits bomb, they're effective even with ground AAA; if the fighters chew on them a while, they don't come back. But that's with limited playtime.
Hmmm, let me give you some rules of thumb since your search came up with nothing.
1) Province AA is marginal until surface-to-air missiles are researched. Since that comes so late in the game as to not strategically matter anymore, and because even SAM based province AA still gets bombed to death by strategic and logistical attacks, assume that province AA is a waste to build except in very specific circumstances for very experienced players. This means your intuition about using fighters to kill bombers is correct.
2) When building fleets, I advise new players to go with a 2:1 ratio of screens to capital ships, no matter what capital ships you are using.
3) The AI is really bad at grouping its ships into fleets. This means that while you might have fleets with sufficient screens, the AI won't in all cases. This amplifies your power without even requiring work on your part.
4) All ships built before the start of the 1936 scenario should be considered obsolete before the war starts. (Carriers can fly upgraded CAGs, but old carriers are still slow as Christmas and easy prey to faster capital ships.) This means that challenging the major naval powers of the world isn't super-difficult. Germany can build 6 new BBs with 12 new DDs using 1938 techs, and sink most or all of the Royal Navy.
5) Air power is decisive when applied to ships. Seriously, don't let your ships wander into range of enemy land-based air without their own fighter coverage.
Also . . . .
I am guessing the ships who're doctinally upgraded down the same path (CV, CL; BB, DD; CA, SS) are designed to be linked together in the game somehow, except of course for the cruisers and subs. I can't see them making an effective joint force, but game v. reality are two different animals.
The tech trees just have synergy; there are no specific bonuses in actual combat. It's just easier to research BB and DD doctrines together.
Also, you're mentioning your 80CL fleet went against alot of other fleets, but you didn't mention sending it against an IC equivalent DD fleet (112 DD, unless my math is wrong). Did you test 80 CL vs 112 DD, and if so, what were the results? Its the only match up I can think of that might take out your CLs, or at least give them severe damage even if they lose. My guess is that the winner of that battle would get a pyrrhic victory.
I have't run that test. My best guess is that the DDs win by a field goal, with most of each fleet damaged or sunk. Note that this assumes same admirals, same techs, same unit experience. If one side has a significantly better admiral, that fleet should win due to combat efficiency bonuses multiplied across 80 ships.
I'm also going to assume that the RNG will probably dictate the outcome of such a combat. The superior firepower of the CLs will be offset by the superior number of DDs.
I am really enjoying this discussion. I think maybe thinking about things in terms of "IC equivalence" isn't always the correct way to think. Please hear me out. I know that HOI3 is all about winning battles of attrition, but I think resiliency of units is a big part of this argument that no one is talking about. If you twice as much per unit, but the other side loses three units over the course of multiple battles to your more expensive unit, isn't that better? I realize this doesn't take into account repair time and cost, but I still think it is important to consider.
You are right to consider that IC equivalence isn't the only important thing.
Keep in mind that repairing a ship, even if it is down to 1% strength, is always cheaper than building a new one. This means that in naval combat, the most important thing is to actually sink ships, not just win battles. This is where CTFs win over other fleet compositions in some cases. If you can chase the opposing fleet to port and port strike it to death, you can increase the number of sunk ships without actually entering naval combat a second time. But early in the war, SAGs kill more ships outright in the naval battle, making them a good choice.
But, having said that, because there is no penetration-armor mechanic for ships, it is too easy to sink battleships with cruisers. The battleships do not survive combats that they really should survive, swinging the pendulum in favor of cruisers, which are cheaper to replace when sunk than battleships.
Note regarding airpower: covering your fleets with fighters is a good idea even if you aren't using cruisers. And nothing stops you from covering your fleets with NAVs as well. There's nothing so fun as pinning an enemy fleet to a sea zone in surface combat while your NAVs give them some love over and over again.
But the disadvantage of this approach is that force projection becomes difficult away from your airfields and naval bases. Something to think about.
