Discussion: Naval combat & damage

[Wraith11B]

Furthermore CAGs seem to NOT regain org and str on a CV at sea ever. The CV always must return to port and even then it's best to rebase the CAG into a landbased airport. The CVs I use DO however defeat any and all BB, BC, etc. so that is great .

Just wondering, but you find this strange? Think that any time that a carrier air group conducted an engagement, they lose aircraft, have aircraft damaged, spare parts are lost, etc. For instance, take the battle of Midway. VTs-3, -6, and -8 all attack, and lose all of their aircraft. VB-3 and -6 both attack, and lose most of their aircraft. Fighters also absorb a few losses. Over 150 aircraft are lost in total. Amongst three carriers, that's essentially losing a third of the organization and strength. Ships lose personnel on the flight decks due to air attacks, and those personnel belong to the air wing, not the carrier itself (which is really reflected in the organization slider, I feel).

 

[unmerged(271646)]

can anyone explain why Naval bombers stats are now better across the board than tactical bombers (even in SA, HA, Str attack, etc)? Not to mention, they are cheaper to build. tac bombers have absolutely zero advantage over naval bomvers in FTM. other than for historical feel, why should i research and build tac bombers now? the naval system in FTM is bancrupt IMO.

 

[marginoferror]

Furthermore CAGs seem to NOT regain org and str on a CV at sea ever. The CV always must return to port and even then it's best to rebase the CAG into a landbased airport. The CVs I use DO however defeat any and all BB, BC, etc. so that is great .

My experience so far is that CVs do indeed beat battle fleets, but don't deal significant damage to large ships. They also lose org extremely fast. As for CAG organization regain, I think there is a bug that has the org regain tooltip show 0 while on carriers when not in port, but in fact my CAGs do regain org on carriers out at sea.

 

[unmerged(159022)]

Question on the CV loses.
So I believe it should have been 3 by planes 1 by sub. Since the planes crippled the ships to enable the subs to sink them.

If you really want to get technical about it, Lexington wasn't sunk by aircraft either. She was damaged at Coral Sea, left dead in the water, listing and on fire, but within the hour she had the fires out, listing corrected, making 24 knots again and recovering her airgroup. She was lost shortly after because there was a leak in the aviation fuel lines that no one knew about, and those reached some generators which ignited all that fuel. After the cause of her sinking was sorted out, the US Navy made it standard practice to purge the aviation fuel lines of carriers when they're damaged. Something the Japanese didn't learn til 1944 and lost Shokaku for it.

Side note on subs. The Japanese subs were used mainly for combat ships, while the American's used subs mainly to kill merchant vessles.

Yep, Japanese doctrine was to go after warships in an attempt to attrite the US Navy for the decisive battle they wanted to decide the war. US doctrine was to hit their shipping and any target of opportunity (the Japs lost a good number of warships to subs).

Speaking of air, strategic bombing was strictly amateur hour until very late 44, and very costly. 200 plane missions were lucky to find the target city much less the building and they suffered large losses. It was very much a tech specific theater.

Define "very costly". No doubt planes were shot down, but to the USAAF the losses were easily sustainable with the exception of the Schweinfurt raid, which was the worst raid in US history with 60 of 291 aircraft lost (all unescorted B-17s). It was deemed to be unsustainable losses, and after that, they no longer did unescorted raids that deep into Germany.

 

[bristolduke]

10% was the "acceptable number". Which really isn't sustainable, but there was considerable downtime (usually weather related) which allowed them to replace equipment. They also didn't probe deeply on a regular basis (e.g. Scheinfurt was strategically critical, but not somthing they tried very often). The British didn't fair any better with their night time attack. Again there was frequent down time.

As I said, losses are one problem, but accuracy was another. The early missions were strictly dead reckonening navigation with winds being a real challenge. Records today show that they were lucky to find the city (forget the movie 12 O'clock High). The British got clobbered with little results when they tried daylight bombing before the US arrived. Their night time success was worse until radio wave technology was "tried", but the losses were better.

Both sides were dependent on various radio wave/radar technology. Neither side held an advantge for more than 6 months, usually less. The British used pathfinder bomber squadrons, just to help find the target (The US rarely used the technique). Alled technology Gee, Oboe, H2S, Window, Monica, the Madrel Screen and the Airborne Cigar vs Axis Lorenz, Wotan, Freya, Wurzburg, Lichtenstein and emil-emil showed the importance of the technology war.

To say there was a effective strategic bombing campaign prior to the atomic bomb is being liberal with the use of the term effective and was really only mariginally effective in late 44 early 45. They were poor at hitting targets, but by late in the war they know how to flatten cities among the damage were the installations. The Bomber War is an excellent read. It also has lots of quotes from the combantants about their missions and challenges.

 

[No idea]

I have been doing a bit of research on Japanese and british navies, only as far as major ships (all kind of CVs, BBs and BCs) are concerned and here are the results:

JAPANESE NAVY (during WW II):
CVs and CVLs: 18 lost. 10 by planes. 8 by subs.
BBs and BCs: 11 lost. 9 by planes. 1 by subs. I could not find the reason for the last lost.

BRITISH NAVY (during WW II):
CVs and CVLs: 5 lost. 1 by planes. 3 by subs. 1 by surface attack (AFAIK, only TWO carriers, and one of them was a CVE, were lost to surface attacks during WW II)
CVEs: 3 lost, all by subs.
BBs and BCs: 5 lost. 2 by planes. 2 by subs. 1 by surface attack.

So, it seems that the danger in the Pacific for MAJOR ships came from planes mostly, and then subs. In Europe theatre the main danger seems it came from subs and then by planes and surface attack.

So, how all could be translated into gameplay?. I think is realistic that major ships are rarely lost, UNLESS you have HUGE numbers of aircraft and air superiority (explaining the huge japanese losses in capital ships), so I guess the game gets that right, even if it uses strange ways. As I said, the only thing I think the game doesn´t get it right are subs, which are almost useless attacking surface ships. I have NEVER seen a sub sinking a major ship in this game. Has anybody seen it?

 

[Ksyr]

Is this the one you are missing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Mutsu

I'll keep an eye on what my subs sink in my current Japan game.

 

[No idea]

Is this the one you are missing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Mutsu

I'll keep an eye on what my subs sink in my current Japan game.

I think that was the one. thanks

PS. Oh, my count on reasons for Japanese BBs and BCs lost has a slight error. Reasons are 8 (not 9) by planes. 1 by subs. 1 by surface attack. 1 for internal explosion.

 

[unmerged(249479)]

Just wondering, but you find this strange? Think that any time that a carrier air group conducted an engagement, they lose aircraft, have aircraft damaged, spare parts are lost, etc. For instance, take the battle of Midway. VTs-3, -6, and -8 all attack, and lose all of their aircraft. VB-3 and -6 both attack, and lose most of their aircraft. Fighters also absorb a few losses. Over 150 aircraft are lost in total. Amongst three carriers, that's essentially losing a third of the organization and strength. Ships lose personnel on the flight decks due to air attacks, and those personnel belong to the air wing, not the carrier itself (which is really reflected in the organization slider, I feel).

I guess you 're right
My remark on that is purely intuitive; I can perfectly understand CVs cannot regain much while at sea, but nothing? Don't they have spare parts to regain a little bit of strength (certainly not much, but still). And org., depending on what your losses are ofc, shouldn't it always regain also at sea? After all, if a CV attacks a BB all that is lost are planes and pilots. All other crew is still on the CV, not? Things are a bit different ofc when the CV itself is attacked by other aircraft and bombs fall on its deck.

So, I would think that if the CV itself is not damaged by combat, why not have its airwings recover while at sea (to a certain point ofc).

can anyone explain why Naval bombers stats are now better across the board than tactical bombers (even in SA, HA, Str attack, etc)? Not to mention, they are cheaper to build. tac bombers have absolutely zero advantage over naval bomvers in FTM. other than for historical feel, why should i research and build tac bombers now? the naval system in FTM is bancrupt IMO.

I think you are talking about the starting attributes of those bombers. I can't imagine that after some researching NAVs are still better at SA HA STR etc.
Look for example at medium Bomb development. You'll see that TAC develops SA and HA three to two times better/faster than NAVs do. TAC has also other techs for developping HA and SA while NAVs have not but NAVs have other techs for developping sea attacks where TAC haven't. I think NAVs were a bit too weak and made a bit better in FTM which is good. I still think aircraft are not as good as should be versus subs, unless subs are also sometimes sailing on the surface in this game (aircraft have no sub detection).

 

[marginoferror]

I guess you 're right
My remark on that is purely intuitive; I can perfectly understand CVs cannot regain much while at sea, but nothing? Don't they have spare parts to regain a little bit of strength (certainly not much, but still). And org., depending on what your losses are ofc, shouldn't it always regain also at sea? After all, if a CV attacks a BB all that is lost are planes and pilots. All other crew is still on the CV, not? Things are a bit different ofc when the CV itself is attacked by other aircraft and bombs fall on its deck.

So, I would think that if the CV itself is not damaged by combat, why not have its airwings recover while at sea (to a certain point ofc).

Again, I think there is a bug that makes the tooltip show zero org gain -- when my carriers are at sea their wings do indeed have org regain.

 

[Wraith11B]

Well, obviously, any unit that's just come out of combat is going to reorganize a bit, but (especially on a carrier, double especially under EMCON), there's a limit to what can be done. Spare airframes are not going to magically appear, nor are replacement pilots, and most of the parts available on a carrier are only to help return a slightly damaged (or mechanically broken) aircraft back to fighting trim.

 

[dsteve3]

I think what may be an interesting effect is to apply interceptions on a "one-for-one" basis, and then modify the rest with a stacking penalty.

EG.: A fleet gets attacked by CAGs. The fleet is close enough to land that a group of INT-F can reach the fleet to protect them. 3 INT-F intercept 3 CAGs, but the attacking fleet has 8 CAGs, so 5 of the 8 pass the interception and continue their attack. They are then subjected to surface AA, and the remainder carry out their air-to-surface attack, with a stacking penalty modifying the attack.

As well, I saw that the sub surprise attack value was "+5" - isn't that a bit low? A surprise attack would be by torpedo (presumably) and subs don't have a very high attack value to begin with, AND the surprise attack would be under near-optimal conditions for the attacker (position). Shouldn't that bonus be more like "+25" but only for a single round? Its a one-shot deal - do the damage in that one shot, or forever lose the opportunity.

I doubt a fleet would still be "surprised" after the first hour, ...

 

[Wraith11B]

I don't know if you could program that much into the luas as far as the aviation side without significantly slowing down the process. Not to mention that even three squadrons of interceptors can wreck an alpha strike.

 

[Filamu]

Im playing a 36 campaign as Germany with focus on navy. A total of 7 CAs are the only capital ships sunk by any nation even when my carrier fleets follow capital ships we arent able to sink them before they manage to get away...
And im loosing way to many subs, the enemy dont have any ASW and ive lost like 12 sub flottilas by oct. 1940, and many times nearly lost them...

 

[JASGripen]

I think what may be an interesting effect is to apply interceptions on a "one-for-one" basis, and then modify the rest with a stacking penalty.

EG.: A fleet gets attacked by CAGs. The fleet is close enough to land that a group of INT-F can reach the fleet to protect them. 3 INT-F intercept 3 CAGs, but the attacking fleet has 8 CAGs, so 5 of the 8 pass the interception and continue their attack. They are then subjected to surface AA, and the remainder carry out their air-to-surface attack, with a stacking penalty modifying the attack.

As well, I saw that the sub surprise attack value was "+5" - isn't that a bit low? A surprise attack would be by torpedo (presumably) and subs don't have a very high attack value to begin with, AND the surprise attack would be under near-optimal conditions for the attacker (position). Shouldn't that bonus be more like "+25" but only for a single round? Its a one-shot deal - do the damage in that one shot, or forever lose the opportunity.

I doubt a fleet would still be "surprised" after the first hour, ...

+5 surprise = 500%, it is enough as far as surprise goes. Having the effect for several rounds is probably good to counter gamey strategies.

 

[bristolduke]

Im playing a 36 campaign as Germany with focus on navy. A total of 7 CAs are the only capital ships sunk by any nation even when my carrier fleets follow capital ships we arent able to sink them before they manage to get away...
And im loosing way to many subs, the enemy dont have any ASW and ive lost like 12 sub flottilas by oct. 1940, and many times nearly lost them...

Accoding to u-boat.net Germany had 57 uboats in Sept 1939 capable of going to sea and lost 9 (16%). They lost 24 in 1940 (Built 50). Thru Oct 40 the total number was 31. 35 were lost in 1941 (built 199). July 42 was when the big increase in losses started. Obviously, that was based upon tech (ASW and ULTRA).

 

[unmerged(181758)]

+5 surprise = 500%, it is enough as far as surprise goes. Having the effect for several rounds is probably good to counter gamey strategies.

Um, to counter what gamey strategies exactly? By the subs or by the SAG/CAG fleet handler.

Gamey subs play might be to withdraw from naval battle only after 3 battle hours to try to use the surprise modifier bonus.

Gamey surface fleet engaged against subs would be what, keep fighting for as long as possible after the first 3 hours because the chance of being surprised has passed instead of initiating many short multiple battles against subs.

Sorry, I'm just wondering, could someone please explain how this 3 hour surprise duration is preventing gamey play of the sub surprise aspect.

 

[unmerged(304296)]

Define "very costly". No doubt planes were shot down, but to the USAAF the losses were easily sustainable with the exception of the Schweinfurt raid, which was the worst raid in US history with 60 of 291 aircraft lost (all unescorted B-17s). It was deemed to be unsustainable losses, and after that, they no longer did unescorted raids that deep into Germany.

The heaviest loss was actually 67 bombers and 20 or so fighters which occurred in March of 1944. Over 80% of bomber losses suffered by the 8th AF over Europe happened AFTER long range escorting began. The highest kill to loss ratios and the highest kill per mission rates for the German interceptors for the entire war occurred during the Spring of 1944. The difference was that between Fall of '43 and Spring of '44 was that the available bomber numbers had grown so that instead of 300 bombers the 8th was putting up 700 to 800 at a time.

 

[unmerged(249479)]

Again, I think there is a bug that makes the tooltip show zero org gain -- when my carriers are at sea their wings do indeed have org regain.

Talking about bugs regarding CAGs...I saw this strange thing (also seen it somewhere on this forum before I think).

It seems indeed intentional that CAGs return to CV after fighting and then go 'resting', at which point they start (slowly) regaining organisation. Although the tooltip indeed doesn't say so.

However, in many cases I saw CAGs do something strange (it doesnt always happen, but in, say, 75% of the cases):

They are fighting, then start resting and then start returning (in that strange order). The 'returning' state lasts forever, possibly because the engine mixed up the returning>resting order and NO org is regained.

After I manually reset CAGs on CVs in this 'returning lock' to 'no order', they begin resting as they should be...and start regaining org again as well. Ofc it is highly annoying if you are managing a lot of CVs and have to 'unlock' their every CAG.

So I am wondering what exactly is the bug here? That CAGs via a trick can regain org at sea, or is it this returning lock with no org regain which luckily can be stopped if you know about it.

 

[JASGripen]

Um, to counter what gamey strategies exactly? By the subs or by the SAG/CAG fleet handler.

Gamey subs play might be to withdraw from naval battle only after 3 battle hours to try to use the surprise modifier bonus.

Gamey surface fleet engaged against subs would be what, keep fighting for as long as possible after the first 3 hours because the chance of being surprised has passed instead of initiating many short multiple battles against subs.

Sorry, I'm just wondering, could someone please explain how this 3 hour surprise duration is preventing gamey play of the sub surprise aspect.

I mean gamey from a sub perspective and - which I did not mention - that it is better to spread out the surprise for some rounds rather than have the surprise hit all of it round 1; that from an anti gamey perspective (someone meant that there should be no surprise beyond round 1). A tactical surprise could with a minimum of imagination be thought to last well beyond the first torpedo salvo.
Spreading out the bonus over the rounds makes the point of a gamey sub breakaway less easy to predict.

Perhaps 5 rounds with 300% bonus would be even better?

Anyway, it would be fun to see the effect subs could have as an offensive weapon against warships, like the japanese used them. It will of course cost some subs and they should be used as a compliment to NAV and other ship. But with a 25% chance of surprise the subs should deal some blows from time to time.