I have seen this also. In my experience CAGs work much better if you micromanage them, however doing so is extremely annoying as there is no way to give orders to "blocks" of CAGs so each has to be done individually.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I have seen this also. In my experience CAGs work much better if you micromanage them, however doing so is extremely annoying as there is no way to give orders to "blocks" of CAGs so each has to be done individually.
Just select all planes from your carrier task force (via the button) and give them a hotkey (STRG+1 for example). Problem partially solved.
Still, the "return" bug is annoying.
Is there any way to mod Naval Combat in FTM? (Semper Fi model was quite good - maybe only submarines were too hard to detect).
I tried some things out now, to make the seabattles more bloody. Especially the bigger ships doesnt sink at all. Same for CV. In a handsoff that was run until 1948, i had 3 BB sunk by planes or CV, then 2 CV also sunk by Air units, and some 3 CVL. Then around 15 CA, and about 50-100 CL, DD, SS and TRP each.
I played then around with the hull value, like some suggested here in this thread. I put them down for all ships until "hull = 1.0", and again until 1943 just 4 Battleships have sunk. Again 3 of them by Airunits. 1 by a CA. In another try i gave all ships just 0.5 hull, and doubled the attack value on STR in the defines.lua from 0.05 to 0.1. And then i got some 15-20 BB sunk. But not a single CV.
Has anybody else tested something out? Or found a way to resolve it?
As so many smaller ships die like flies.....maybe we have to change something else. Maybe the attack/defense Values in the units.txt files.
I played then around with the hull value, like some suggested here in this thread. I put them down for all ships until "hull = 1.0", and again until 1943 just 4 Battleships have sunk. Again 3 of them by Airunits. 1 by a CA. In another try i gave all ships just 0.5 hull, and doubled the attack value on STR in the defines.lua from 0.05 to 0.1. And then i got some 15-20 BB sunk. But not a single CV.
Has anybody else tested something out? Or found a way to resolve it?
As so many smaller ships die like flies.....maybe we have to change something else. Maybe the attack/defense Values in the units.txt files.
Have we tried simply increasing the strength effect and reducing the org effect of damage for ships? And reducing the org loss of aircraft engaging in CAG duty generally?
I remember reading how they made it harder to sink ships. I cant remember which patch but do remember saying..."thats stupid", borderline retardation. AND NOTE all pre war battleships or damn near ...
were sunk. In ww2 naval encounters between ships, the loser suffered a loss of ships. Pacific, Med, Atlantic etc. I dare someone to challenge this. Name a battle and tell me no ships were sunk. 2hrs into a battle and ships were sinking. If a ship had to turn around or retire its because it was just about sunk. Why else would it be allowed to leave the battle?
were sunk. In ww2 naval encounters between ships, the loser suffered a loss of ships. Pacific, Med, Atlantic etc. I dare someone to challenge this. Name a battle and tell me no ships were sunk. 2hrs into a battle and ships were sinking. If a ship had to turn around or retire its because it was just about sunk. Why else would it be allowed to leave the battle?
off the top of my head ...... Tirpitz and Hiei are 2 more bb sunk by aircraft. I think Hiei has a sister ship that got nailed by US marines in the Guadalcanal camp. too.
I hope that the naval combat is made more lethal, at the moment Naval encounters are just plain dull..... I spent hours and hours determined to chase down 1 damaged enemy CA....... back and forth accross sea zones. The CA was down to 10% strenght and I was determined to sink it so didn't give up.... 2 groups of 3 CV groups full of Cags ... 3 battle ship groups.... Nav bombers on strike.... str 10 radar on an Island helping ..... essentially my whole navy did not sink it... after battle after battle.... after hours of micromanaging... I have now rage quit Hoi. This is BS and no fun.
Also equally frustrating is the inability to kill an enemy air unit.... I experienced battle after battle being attacked by a Str 0 Org 0 enemy Cag... This is also BS.
I have quit Hoi3 For the motherland and won't play again until i can see that NAV and Air combat has been changed to be "playable" and not random and endless.
Also equally frustrating is the inability to kill an enemy air unit.... I experienced battle after battle being attacked by a Str 0 Org 0 enemy Cag... This is also BS.
I have quit Hoi3 For the motherland and won't play again until i can see that NAV and Air combat has been changed to be "playable" and not random and endless.
Who said you are supposed to be able to kill air units? They include ground personell and staff etc. If you get them down to 0 str you have eliminated all active planes but they can be replaced. I'm sure naval battles will be balanced in future patches so take a chill pill for now.
The problem is more like, the air units continue to operate when their STR and ORG are 0. If they were grounded, that would not be a problem.
Ok. That is a reported bug already. Hopefully it will be fixed soon.
Is this str 0 org 0 unit the only one thats attacking you ? If so it would really be illogical but if it's one of say 2 units in a group it kinda makes sense because it's still in the group but kinda "grounded" as is doesn't have an impact on the battle at hand (by having str zero and AFAIK this comes down to 0 "shots")
I find these numbers of sunken ships realistic. Take the real life UK or USA losses during WW II previously posted in this thread and you´ll see they are similar to this ones.
In the real WW2 only 2-3 battleships and 2 Aircraft carriers were sunk?
Are you sure?
So 38 from 96 sunk. Thats nearly 40%
And that is just the list about BB.
I am sure there is a similiar list for CV also.
In the real WW2 only 2-3 battleships and 2 Aircraft carriers were sunk?
Are you sure?
(Snip)
So 38 from 96 sunk. Thats nearly 40%
And that is just the list about BB.
I am sure there is a similiar list for CV also.
Which is what you would expect, give that in history we have seen entire surface fleets largely destroyed, particularly at Tsushima, but also at the Falklands battle in WW1, and the Battle of Coronel, and multiple engagements during WW2 including the battle off Cape Matapan.
Ah, I see the 3 round duration makes the possibility spread out over 3 rounds rather then having it only available in the first hour at a higher likelihood. Yes I understand that it prevents the spamming of one hour long sub attacks against fleets. (I still think it could lead to the spamming of 3 hour long sub attacks against fleets though.) Now that I get that I think I do agree with you that it might be better to make it last over "Perhaps 5 rounds with 300% bonus would be even better?"
Last edited:
In the real WW2 only 2-3 battleships and 2 Aircraft carriers were sunk?
Are you sure?
So 38 from 96 sunk. Thats nearly 40%
And that is just the list about BB.
I am sure there is a similiar list for CV also.
Sorry, I thought you were talking about YOUR losses, not about TOTAL losses. With this on mind, I have to rectify my previous post. The numbers of sunk ships you got in your game are too low.
Oh, one thing about your BBs/BCs losses. I would not count many of the ones you have counted, as a good number of them happened under special circunstances (mainly being at port, others were as old that they don´t deserve being named a BB, and even one was not even being used as warship, like the Marat) and several of them are pocket BBs, not real BBs. With this on mind, the count of sunk BBS/BCs during WW II was far lower than 40%.
WHEN major surface ships engaged, the chance for one of them being sunk was 50% (according to the historical engagements), so, there was a high chance WHEN a engagement happened. The divergence among real life and this game is with the number of engagements among major surface attack ships (BBs or BCs). IRL they were very rare, while in this game they happen very often. If “death rate” of major ships during surface engagements were as high in the game as it was IRL, very soon no ships would be left in the game. So, to keep number of sunk ships in realistic numbers you can completely overhaul the AI, or make BBs and BCs more difficult to sink, or less deadly in surface attacks (or both) than they were IRL.
True, but you cant use frogman or mines in HoI3, so you would need a battlemechanic, that simulates this into the real battles, to get at the end even numbers like in history.
you can sink ships in Port also in HoI3, and it happened even often in SF and before. Now this last 3 BB and 2 CV killed by ships could even happened in HoI3 Ports also, and so count for our statistic.
Old doesnt prevent to name ships still as BB. The Game does the same. It names the old WW1 BBs from Germany and UK still BB. So why is it not vital to count them also in our statistic?
True. Graf Spee and 2 others were Pocket Battleships. HoI3 also counts them as normal CA, but thats wrong. They should get a extra class like the BC, but was never realized. In History they were bigger and way better armed as CA, but less then BC or even BB. The Guy who counted them in his statistic (that i just copied), thought they would be more BB then CA. Its a abstraction anyway. Even inside the BBs. Older WW1 ones are also usually smaller then the modern ones.
Hmmm...if you dont count all this ships in the 38 sunk, then you have also delete them in the 96 total. So the %tage will change...but not very much. So let it be 30-35% Thats still way more then we see in FtM atm. There we have now some 3-4%
This are very vital points, and i am aware of that. In HoI3 the AI sends it ships way more often around at sea, and the ships usually meet much easier as it happened in RL. So a same amount of 50% killed ships after each engagement, would us sink most fleets, of the weaker Nations in first year of war. I know that Problem from HoI2, where the german AI usually send its tiny force into the sea, and lost usually nearly all until 1940-41. That wasnt good also.
But now we have the opposite. You will find nearly every BB from 1936 or later until the end in 1948. So we moved on theopposite end of this Problematics. Both isnt good. We would like to be somewhere in the middle, where we get until 1945 around 30-40% losses of BB. And maybe same for CV. Thats also neccesary for gameplay, let all historical results away. What fun is it really, when AI BB are nearly not sinkable? Have you seen the comments from many Players here? They hated it. Told about, that this is broken. And in fact...it is. Not historic...and not fun at all.
Yes, this will be a difficult thing to balance for Pdox.
Btw it wasnt also optimal in SF. I just checked some statistics in SF 2.04d game from 1943. There i saw 14 BB sunk....much better as now, but still no single CV was lost. That was btw another handsoff. Funny that nearly nobody observed this Problem in SF. Unsinkable Aircraft Carriers are same unfun, as unsinkable BB.
Lets hope, both will be fixed in next patch.