Defeat...? I sank TWENTY-ONE CAPITAL SHIPS!

[ForsakenSoldier]

So i was browsing through some recent screenshots, and i remembered this gem of a naval battle. It's only single player roflstomping, but i figured i'd share how effective naval research can be, especially when your enemy invests in none of its own. (side note, AI UK should probably prioritize a few ship techs and sea doctrines, all BBs were level 1, are you serious?)

Curious as to how the game defined this as a defeat, maybe someone with some behind the curtain knowledge could fill me in a little. I count 21 capital ships sunk, while i only lost 2 capital ships... I mean i lost 40 destroyers, and that's a lot, but in my recent experience that's normal for a large naval engagement. To me, this is a pretty decisive victory, nowhere close to a defeat.

By the way, for all the submarine haters, peep those kills (but then again these are level 3 and 4 subs with full trade interdiction doctrine against level 1 ships with probably 0 doctrines)

 

[Louella]

all BBs were level 1

The names suggest those are the ships that UK started with.

 

[Tacticus101]

At a guess, it was your fleet that withdrew from combat.

 

[SovietSpyCommisar]

The game is a mess.

 

[J_Master]

The fact that it was a loss was probably that the fleet retreated in the end. This has entirely to do with the battle AI

 

[Samilou]

In a tactical sense, it was a victory. In a strategic sense, it was defeat, as you did not hold your ground. These things happen in real life. Winning is not always about causing more damage or killing more than the enemy.

Why do you fight a naval battle? To gain control and security of sea lanes. If you did not achieve your goal, it was definitely a defeat, regardless of how valiant a fight you put up. Not that the defeat has to be permanent.

 

[Opanashc]

Battle of Jutland. British losses were double those of Germany - yet Royal Navy still ruled the waves in the end.

 

[elitesix]

Yep, this has been an issue since at least version 1.3 (and maybe before). Fleets that are winning sometimes retreat from battle.

Possibly there's no bug and maybe it's an organizational loss issue, but if so it definitely it isn't well shown in the naval battle.

 

[Secret Master]

Might as well leave this here.

 

[ETAIPOS]

All of naval part of the game is ahistorical, actually.

Who decided to make Schlesien and Schlezwig-Holstein, old pre-dreadnoughts, BB I ? With the same, or almost the same stats as as Queen Elisabeth or Nelson? Ships with 4 11in guns and ones with 8x15in or 9x16in and 3 times larger?
I know it is difficult to give them stats, but anything above CA is way too much, as they had almost no combat value. In fact, I wouldn't bet on Schlezwig-Holstein in a battle with any of the "Washington" CAs...

As for mechanics, huge battles to the end, like OP's example (or anything that happens in the med early in the game) are unrealistic, no one fought like that.

I had 30 ships fleet retreat from battle against 5, or 50 ship fleets just sit in the sea zone while smaller allied fleet is crushed by weak enemy, though you could say they were just too far to engage.

In a tactical sense, it was a victory. In a strategic sense, it was defeat, as you did not hold your ground. These things happen in real life. Winning is not always about causing more damage or killing more than the enemy.

Why do you fight a naval battle? To gain control and security of sea lanes. If you did not achieve your goal, it was definitely a defeat, regardless of how valiant a fight you put up. Not that the defeat has to be permanent.

Well, he basically sank the Home Fleet. I doubt there is much to stop his control of sea lines after sinking 12 capital ships and 9 CAs...

 

[Pro_Consul]

I suspect it was a defeat because you lost every last surface combatant in your fleet, leaving nothing but subs, who probably had such poor positioning they were forced to retreat in the face of the remaining little bit of enemy carrier aircraft. It may also have had something to do with their orders. If, for example, that doomstack of subs there had been convoy raiding when that battle broke out, they would retreat from enemy combat vessels at the first opportunity.

As for the bit about sub-haters, c'mon dude. You brought a doomstack of over 150 high end subs, plus a large surface fleet, against a low tech fleet that didn't have near enough screens to protect all the cap ships present. Of course it was, as you aptly put it, a rolfstomp. Any other outcome would have been the really exceptional thing. It doesn't prove that subs have any great ability against combat vessels. It just proves that doomstacks are...well...stacks of doom.

 

[elitesix]

I suspect it was a defeat because you lost every last surface combatant in your fleet, leaving nothing but subs....

The topmost icon that shows subs isn't always accurate. I just got out of a game 1 hour ago where the naval battle results only had subs shown in the upper left - just like the OP - but when you mouseover it, it shows a variety of ships (subs being the most common, but mine had BBs and BCs in it as well, though the icon showed only subs).

 

[ringhloth]

Does it really matter if you win or lose a sea battle? Isn't all that matter ship count?

The game is a mess.

Yep, this has been an issue since at least version 1.3 (and maybe before). Fleets that are winning sometimes retreat from battle.

Possibly there's no bug and maybe it's an organizational loss issue, but if so it definitely it isn't well shown in the naval battle.

He only had subs left, so it is no surprise that they retreated.

 

[browd]

Who decided to make Schlesien and Schlezwig-Holstein, old pre-dreadnoughts, BB I ? With the same, or almost the same stats as as Queen Elisabeth or Nelson? Ships with 4 11in guns and ones with 8x15in or 9x16in and 3 times larger?

It's not as bad as you describe. Yes, they are all based on the battleship_1 model, but Schlesien and Scheswig-Holstein are included in the 1936 GER OOB as plain old battleship_1 models, with no upgrades, while Nelson is included in the 1936 ENG OOB as "Nelson Class" battleship_1 and Queen Elizabeth is a "Queen Elizabeth Class" battleship_1. What's the difference?

Nelson Class upgrades:
ship_reliability_upgrade = 3
ship_engine_upgrade = 2
ship_armor_upgrade = 3
ship_gun_upgrade = 3

QE Class upgrades:
ship_reliability_upgrade = 1
ship_engine_upgrade = 2
ship_armor_upgrade = 1

Are these upgrades perfect substitutes for the real differences between Germany's pre-WWI Deutschland class "pocket" battleships, and the UK's Washington Treaty BB (Nelson) and pre-WWI "super-dreadnaught" (QE, which had twice the displacement of the Schleswig-Holstein, among other key differences)? Probably not, but they do make some difference in game play.

 

[Pro_Consul]

The topmost icon that shows subs isn't always accurate. I just got out of a game 1 hour ago where the naval battle results only had subs shown in the upper left - just like the OP - but when you mouseover it, it shows a variety of ships (subs being the most common, but mine had BBs and BCs in it as well, though the icon showed only subs).

Aha, good observation. I studied his image more closely and see that indeed 4 of his cap ships are still afloat (1 CV, 2 BC, and 1 BB) plus 2 screens. All four of the cap ships are completely de-orged, however, and all have less than half their HP. So that is no doubt why they retreated.

 

[Axe99]

It's not as bad as you describe. Yes, they are all based on the battleship_1 model, but Schlesien and Scheswig-Holstein are included in the 1936 GER OOB as plain old battleship_1 models, with no upgrades, while Nelson is included in the 1936 ENG OOB as "Nelson Class" battleship_1 and Queen Elizabeth is a "Queen Elizabeth Class" battleship_1. What's the difference?

Nelson Class upgrades:
ship_reliability_upgrade = 3
ship_engine_upgrade = 2
ship_armor_upgrade = 3
ship_gun_upgrade = 3

QE Class upgrades:
ship_reliability_upgrade = 1
ship_engine_upgrade = 2
ship_armor_upgrade = 1

Are these upgrades perfect substitutes for the real differences between Germany's pre-WWI Deutschland class "pocket" battleships, and the UK's Washington Treaty BB (Nelson) and pre-WWI "super-dreadnaught" (QE, which had twice the displacement of the Schleswig-Holstein, among other key differences)? Probably not, but they do make some difference in game play.

You're right to point out that the variant system helps . That said, there's no 'probably' about it when it comes to whether or not it covers the differences between those classes. The vanilla upgrades differences for capital ships of BB_1/2 are marginal at best (as the differences are percentage based). It's nice that there are some differences, but there's no way known that the differences represented by these upgrades go any way to reflect the differences in capability. To give an idea of the scale of difference between the German Deutschland pre-dreadnought battleships and Queen Elizabeth class (noting that the QE class are anything by 5-5-5-5 variants):

Throw weight/minute - 3,500kg vs around 16,000kg (the largest boost variants can provide is 20 per cent)
Armour - belt of 9.5" vs 13" (and the quality of the steel of those 13 inches would likely have been higher as well) - noting that armour is far more than just the thickness of it, but it's highly unlikely that the Deutschland's would have had a better armour scheme than the QEs. The largest boost variants can provide is 25 per cent).
Speed - 19.1 knots vs 23.5 knots (the largest boost variants can provide is 15 per cent)

 

[ETAIPOS]

Are these upgrades perfect substitutes for the real differences between Germany's pre-WWI Deutschland class "pocket" battleships, and the UK's Washington Treaty BB (Nelson) and pre-WWI "super-dreadnaught" (QE, which had twice the displacement of the Schleswig-Holstein, among other key differences)? Probably not, but they do make some difference in game play.

The problem that while is QE can work as BB I, I'd give her current Nelson upgrades level, as she was actually cutting edge tech at Jutland, and after rebuilds in 30s they were just a bit weaker than current ships (simmilar in firepower, though with weaker armor, and esp speed)
Nelson/Rodney would be better described as BB II, they were that good. The only problem was that they were slow. As it is, even with the upgrades, she is weaker than BC II in pure combat stats (not counting speed) which is absurd.

And pre-dreads of Deutschland-class (not to be confused with Deutschlands built beetween wars, aka "pocket battleships", in fact big gun CAs) are 1905 level of tech. Unable to survive single torpedo hit. Unable to survive even HE bomb hits. Facing true BB, they would be sunk before they would be able to fire their guns, as just few hits would sink them, and almost any BB in game would have the speed to easily stay at range. I'd risk that they would be lucky to survive single 16in hit...

They had old 11in guns, in old turrets, this means slow RoF, poor range and crappy penetration, shells used in them had worse penetration than 8in guns of Hipper-class CAs!

edit: Ha, I see Axe quoted actual numbers, great! Nice to see you here, Axe

 

[ForsakenSoldier]

At a guess, it was your fleet that withdrew from combat.

Withdrew after totally kicking ass

Me: "LOOK YOU STUPID BASTARD, YOU'VE GOT NO ARMS LEFT!"

Them: "YES I HAVE!"

 

[ForsakenSoldier]

Might as well leave this here.

This was funny, but i am not sure who is the Empire... Me or them? lol

Well, he basically sank the Home Fleet. I doubt there is much to stop his control of sea lines after sinking 12 capital ships and 9 CAs...

My thoughts exactly. No idea how the UK, AI or player, could replace 21 capital ships before they get invaded.

I still have a whole nother fleet of equal size and quality in perfect shape, that would be Raeder's Fleet.

 

[ForsakenSoldier]

I suspect it was a defeat because you lost every last surface combatant in your fleet, leaving nothing but subs, who probably had such poor positioning they were forced to retreat in the face of the remaining little bit of enemy carrier aircraft. It may also have had something to do with their orders. If, for example, that doomstack of subs there had been convoy raiding when that battle broke out, they would retreat from enemy combat vessels at the first opportunity.

As for the bit about sub-haters, c'mon dude. You brought a doomstack of over 150 high end subs, plus a large surface fleet, against a low tech fleet that didn't have near enough screens to protect all the cap ships present. Of course it was, as you aptly put it, a rolfstomp. Any other outcome would have been the really exceptional thing. It doesn't prove that subs have any great ability against combat vessels. It just proves that doomstacks are...well...stacks of doom.

Subs are part of the fleet, they weren't on their own. Full trade interdiction doctrine makes subs really damn good when you put them with other ships. Your point about my capitals lack of org and hp is probably right on the button. Given the fact that i had 21+ capital ships firing on me, i'd say my boys did ok.