Fatherland - Deutschland über alles

[Medi]

I remember you had a reason for not building BB's, can you refer to the specific page again? Really would like to know it, since I still prefer BB over CV (with a good leader ofcourse)

On the other hand: this is a great AAR, keep it up!

In short, the reasoning for the chosen capital ships is as follows:

• You get more firepower per IC if you use CA as opposed to BBs for your SAGs.
• In the case of CVs, they don't have to waste nearly as much time repairing (they are relatively safe firing from distance thanks to the AI's incompetence in grouping ships together) and they upgrade during the course of the war.

 

[Overlag]

I remember you had a reason for not building BB's, can you refer to the specific page again? Really would like to know it, since I still prefer BB over CV (with a good leader ofcourse)

On the other hand: this is a great AAR, keep it up!

both BBs and CVs are very expensive.

i think he worked out that its cheaper to build like 4 CA's instead of 1 BB. or something like that.

 

[Brad1]

Also in the very beginning he decided to build CVs over BBs because when in a naval battle CVs keep the enemy at range, making it easier to protect amphibious assualts.

 

[Manziel]

CVs are just generally better than BBs.

This was the paradigm when the AAR started more than 2 years ago. Many things have changed since, especially for naval combat. CVLs have made gunfire fleets very powerfull as they allow reliable closing and gunfire has better sea attack than carriers.

CA4s cost 2170 ICd and have 11 SA. For the same SA you need CV5s that cost 5840+760=6600 ICd each. CAs are so incredibly cheap that you can gain several fleets for the same costs. They wont upgrade though but they will still be a lot more cost effective. Even if you take the rather unrealistic combination of CV1 and improved turbojet-CAG, you will still have a cost of 3970 ICd for 17 SA. CA4s will give you ~20 SA for the same price (screens not included).

Gunfire therefore is the more powerfull way of naval combat as long as you manage closing and CVLs come into the play here and make both BBs and CAs stronger than CVs in game terms.

 

[Kanitatlan]

CA vs BB etc

This AAR game has been quite interesting as it has revealed the key issues in relation to the fleet rules (as they stand in DD 1.3). The trade off between different ships is now quite interesting.

As manziel has explained there is a substantial price difference between CAs and other bigger vessels. This is the basis for the argument in favour of CA based gunfire fleets but there are further operational issues.

1. CA fleets depend on CVLs for closing. This raises several issues such as the cost of the CVLs (plus matching screens) and the reduced CA content.
2. CVLs do NOT provide reliable closing, they seem to provide semi-reliable closing. One thing I have noticed is engagements very often start outside CA range and I have seen the range oscillate between CA range and CVL range during combat. This often means that the enemy can escape after experiencing 2 hours gunfire rather than 4 and most of the time experiences a maximum of 3 hours.
3. Since I have observed CVL closing is not reliable there is a good chance that poor doctrines/leaders could result in them not forcing closing at all. This is something that this AAR cannot reveal anything on. All I know is enemy fleets with CVLs seem to close but they are all advanced nations with good doctrines and at least reasonable leaders.
4. CA gunfire fleets will typically only hit screens. This means that the damage they inflict is mostly "low value". This is not critical if, as I am, you are working through the process of sinking everything. The order in which damage is inflicted is not dramatically important but it does have an effect.
5. When a CVL/CA fleet engages a carrier fleet then the CV fleet typically will get a guaranteed 4 hours shooting, all at CAs. The CA fleet will get 2-3 hours shooting mostly (if not all) against screens.
6. CV fleets get to shoot at capital ships. This is useful as they directly destroy enemy firepower (see previous item)
7. CV fleets engaging enemies without CVLs get to sink them without taking damage
8. There may still be some use in gunfire ships with range mathcing or exceeding that of CVLs. Gunfire ships of this type will probably get more shots in due to a better chance of starting in range and a better chance of staying in range.
9. CA fleets have a lower cost per ship and therefore have more "target" per IC. This aspect is as important as the low cost for firepower. You shouldn't underestimate this principal as defence values have limited impact the ships per IC figure is very important.

The end conclusion is that CA based fleets still win out on cost effectiveness but their guaranteed superiorty is driven by the ships per IC value more than the firepower per IC. However, CV fleets still have a major role in risk free (sort of) damage to the enemy as well as other activities (shore bombardment for one)

The current operations in the Caribbean are not a particularly good model for naval planning since I am operating against an enemy with no CVLs and the overwhleming majority of their ships are shorter range than my CA4s. This has resulted in the CA fleets doing an awaful lot of damage without being shot back at. However, the damage statistics clearly show that the CA fleets face a much greater risk of damage than the CV fleets. Either way the South American navies are dramatically ineffective.

In the near future we should see some more interesting engagements reflecting the strengths and weaknesses of different fleet compositions against stronger targets.

 

[unmerged(59906)]

The Panama Canal is going to be fun to take. Looks like the US has a minimum of around 15 divisions per coastal province as well if South America is anything to go by.

I agree with almost all of the Naval observations but I would add a couple things:

1. CVL's are extremely reliable at closing. You need to think of a CVL as a CV that doesn't need a CAG and has much shorter range as a result. CV's don't close to gun range if they can avoid it and will try and maintain a range close to their maximum. CVL's are doing exactly the same thing but larger gun ships can shoot further than a CVL which is why they work so well together.

2. SAG's can close with CV fleets if they do not have a CVL. It is not too common but it does happen, particularly in bad weather and at night.

 

[Kanitatlan]

WhisperingDeath Questions, questions, questions. It will all develop how it developes. I don't really know what I'm going to do next.

<panama> The panama canal zone is not a big issue for me at the moment. It will get ignored and by the time I get around to it I suspect they will have dispersed. The reaction to my first presence on the mainland will be very telling.

TheExecuter Actually the big surprise is an ***** ******** involving lots of **** with lots of *** ****.

Brad1 The basic technique for attacking big stacks is 100% naval bombardment. This means that it is always possible to get ashore and retain a beach head but makes the situation extremely vulnerable to enemy naval intervention and doesn't get you any further. The actual real landings will be a very complex operation using every technique you can think of.

Remble For me the big issue with CVLs is how well do they work with crap leaders and crap doctrines. Are they actually infallible and if not how well do they work. I know they improve my closing ability by some massive margin and hence the decision to use them is not affected.

 

[Kanitatlan]

February 15th-16th 1944

14:00 February 15th 1944​

They are now in port and the cycle of port strikes begins. I rather suspect that this is going to need the entire carrier force, again, so some fleet redeployments have been set in progress.

15:00 February 15th 1944​

Movement completes on the island of Hispaniola and another state falls to the Fatherland.

23:00 February 15th 1944​

For some reason there is a sudden massive outbreak of enemy fleet activity with some significant enemy losses. The Mayaguana Passage battle is involves a reparented and already damaged Dominican fleet driven out to sea by the fall of the port where they were hiding.

12:00 February 16th 1944​

The minor battles continue.

 

[Edzako]

Is American AI attempting to use it's air power against your ships currently in Caribbean region?

 

[Manziel]

Are there only 4 divisions in the province west of the panama canal? Looks like the perfect opportunity to cut america in half

 

[unmerged(55467)]

When was the last time you lost a ship? And what sort of kill:death ratio are you getting at sea?

 

[Creslin]

Personal experience for me is that CVL is the ticket for guaranteed closing, the skill of the leader plays to relevance on it. On a CV fleet the skill of the leader have a great role on whether if optimal distance can be kept. Playing as Nationalist China, my CV fleet with leader of 1 or 2 skill almost never able to open the distance facing just about any enemy fleet, where the same leader with SAGs with CVL component will always close the distance.

CVL is very game breaking on the naval side of things.

 

[BlitzMartinDK]

In real life I don't think it worked this way... Anybody have some real knowledge of this?

 

[Kanitatlan]

Edzako So far, absolutely no air action by the USA except for reported raids on Curacao. I do see a few air units redeploying across the region but even the local air forces seem to be staying grounded.

ManzielActually that is 2 division and 4 air units. The rest of central america is poorly defended and the whole area represents a major opportunity, its time will come but not yet.

DirtyCommiePuke In the US campaign I had a couple of DDs go missing during the initial landing (it did get mentioned). Losses are few and far between so I'm not sure of the loss ratio but at the moment it must be around 100:1. The long term ratio by ship count is profoundly affected by u-boat losses and the odd encounter with a major US carrier fleet.

Creslin I have to agree that CVLs are somewhat game breaking but the big question remains whether they are just very effective or have a "magic" always works rule.

BlitzMartinDK In real life CVLs were used in a mixture of roles none of which justifies their dramatic impact in game. Sometimes they were used as cheap carriers - often for shore bombardment roles - which isn't simulated in the game. In the Atlantic they had a profound impact on the u-boat war where the affect should be to stop u-boats closing on convoys (also not really covered). For gunfire fleets they did provide a good reconnaissance role, which is what we are talking about in game, but this shouldn't give a major advantage - it should just balance things. IRL ship speeds would be a dominant issue in closing and extending range. Maybe HOI3 will be better but given the degree of sophistication needed for an accurate system I is unlikely to be entirely satisfactory.

 

[Kanitatlan]

February 17th-18th 1944

12:00 February 17th 1944​

Our second port strike on this Brazilian fleet shows that they have lost 3 ships so far and the rest are looking to be in a bit of a bad way. This strike will probably sink a lot of ships but again we won’t know how many until the next attack.

12:00 February 17th 1944 b​

Back in the Caribbean I am working towards clearing all the ports creating a nice double battle (port strike plus naval battle) resulting in the sinking of all enemy ships (even if the game doesn’t say so). The carrier fleets are starting to build up heavy org depletion again and will probably have to spend 10 days in port recovering.

12:00 February 17th 1944 c​

This image shows one of several minor air sea attacks in the Atlantic but its real purpose is to illustrate the scale and spread of air cover. The eastern Atlantic is poorly covered by the fleet and with lots of transport activity this scale of air cover is the only way to maintain a degree of safety.

02:00 February 18th 1944​

One carrier fleet has returned to base to recover org. The level 8 naval base gives a recovery rate of 6.9 per day which represents 20 days recovery time for the badly depleted carriers. Martinique will be given priority for new naval bases coming of the production line as moving it up to a 10 should give a significant improvement in org recovery.

05:00 February 18th 1944​

Boring minor incursion.

12:00 February 18th 1944​

The third port strike shows that the previous attack sank 11 ships but this one only sinks four by the time the enemy manages to break harbour. This will not do them much good.

20:00 February 18th 1944​

Breaking port simply puts them into a conventional naval battle resulting in 3 more ships sunk and they are driven back to port.​

 

[Kanitatlan]

February 19th-22nd 1944

11:00 February 19th 1944​

Another boring battle. Everyone bored with these now?

12:00 February 19th 1944​

Out in the Atlantic something more interesting has happened. There has been an encounter between a properly escorted German transport fleet and a poorly escorted US transport fleet. We have plentiful air support as well and despite the battle report indicating no enemy losses, the truth is that they lost most of the fleet. As ever, the real results are only discernable from a detailed analysis of the sunk ship log and I really can’t be bothered with that.

13:00 February 20th 1944​

The fourth port strike is using a new variation. It is quite clear that only the carriers suffer any consequences form these attacks but that the whole attacking fleet counts for stacking penalties. So, I have separated the carriers and executed this attack with a –26% stacking penalty instead of –56%. This is a significant difference in attack efficiency and well worth the rather non-existent risk. I’m not sure if the logic is identical if the defenders have something that can genuinely shoot back but separating your fleet prior to the strike seems like a good general strategy. It isn’t as if the two parts are actually separated since they both remain in the same sea zone.

18:00 February 20th 1944​

One single ship flees harbour to escape the hail of bombs only to be promptly sunk by the second round out at sea. That’s one more Brazilian fleet down the tubes – is that 3 x 30 so far or is this only the second one? What a game, how can you lose track of what’s going on to this extent.

09:00 February 21st 1944​

Still boring.

18:00 February 21st 1944​

Slightly more interestingly boring. The German force is not a regular combat fleet (too many CVLs) but a replacements fleet setting out to cruise around all the front line forces exchanging damaged ships to return to Martinique. As a result it is rather destroyer (and CVL) heavy and not very effective.

12:00 February 22nd 1944​

However, this doesn’t help an enemy force that pops up in the middle of my campaign zone, as it has to get past the real frontline – which it doesn’t. This is a classic misreported battle since I know for a fact that both destroyers sank.

18:00 February 22nd 1944​

Less interestingly boring. In fact just plain boring.​

 

[Kanitatlan]

February 23rd-29th 1944 (and it is a leap year)

05:00 February 23rd 1944​

Just as boring but somewhere else. These two German fleets are the western part of the transport protection screen.

11:00 February 23rd 1944​

Still boring so we will skip three minor naval engagements before moving on to …

05:00 February 26th 1944​

This will correct my current industrial imbalance with a massive reduction in production as well as an increase in capacity. This puts supplies back on the rise.

09:00 February 26th 1944​

This makes a nice change, I’ve finally managed to nick something useful but not until I have already 20% researched it. Still, it is very useful.

Just for a change let’s do a full analysis

The USA really doesn’t like us. No surprises there.

They have 1700 infantry divisions and 90 armoured divisions. If I had to guess I would go for something like 300 mobile divisions in total.

They seem to have had something of a resurgence in aircraft with their bomber numbers beginning to recover. This could be bad news and shows the US air force may actually produce some opposition. However, the Luftwaffe retains a very substantial advantage in total numbers if only I can find bases for them.

The US navy is looking for sad with their ship count still declining with no sign of any recovery from production. All I have to worry about is that there is definitely one large and very dangerous carrier fleet, probably commanded by the executer unless the AI has gone bonkers and removed him (I assigned him to a carrier fleet some months back via save file editing). Don’t assume the AI isn’t bonkers.

On the research front the US seems to have carelessly mislaid one of its research teams. To be honest I’m not really concerned about what they research I would just like them to have some odds and sods to nick. I guess I’m going to be collecting radar techs off them soon.

Small naval engagements between explicit posts will now be shown as follows…

1 x Gulf of Venezuela

01:00 February 29th 1944​

This is a daring move by the AI.

Ok, I admit it that was a lie; this is an idiotic move by the AI. They seem to be trying to sneak some troops through to somewhere. I have no idea where and we aren’t going to find out. The air patrols covering south of Bermuda will get a couple more runs at them and there is a fleet just next door that is coming to intercept.

1 x Gulf of Venezuela

17:00 February 29th 1944​

This leads to a naval engagement with the Kriegsmarine getting to claim four ships. I expect it would be more except the whole lot have disappeared, no doubt obscured by bombs.

1 x Gulf of Venezuela
1 x East Ceara Deep Sea Plain
1 x Mayaguana Passage​

 

[unmerged(53911)]

Looking at Halsey's stats leads me to wonder if there should be some modification of a leader's skill downward if they lose more than a certain number of battles (especially if there is a streak of losses). It just seems that Halsey's skill of "4" is not warranted after his negative performance in so many engagements. Additionally, should the accretion of experience be different depending on the outcome? Some might say that you learn more from losing than winning (but only if you apply the lesson next time).

 

[AdmiralNelson]

Looking at Halsey's stats leads me to wonder if there should be some modification of a leader's skill downward if they lose more than a certain number of battles (especially if there is a streak of losses). It just seems that Halsey's skill of "4" is not warranted after his negative performance in so many engagements. Additionally, should the accretion of experience be different depending on the outcome? Some might say that you learn more from losing than winning (but only if you apply the lesson next time).

I find this idea quite entertaining, but the fact is it's not Halsey's fault he's being colossally mismanaged. The AI already sucks; it'll just make the Human-AI disparity worse to downgrade its leaders after the human beats them time and time again.

 

[Manziel]

Not to forget that a lost naval battle just means you retreated first. It does not say anything about actual success