Fleet Compositions? Trying to understand the meta

[el nora]

So instead of posting a new thread I figured I would ask here. Playing as the USA, how many dockyards do you need?

I usually build dockyards until I have a total of 50 dockyards. 5 dockyards for aircraft carriers, 5 dockyards for battleships, 5 dockyards for heavy cruisers, 10 dockyards for light cruisers, 10 dockyards for destroyers, 10 dockyards for submarines, and finally 5 dockyards for convoys. Is this a good way to build up the navy or no?

I figure that as the USA it is important to have a powerful navy to have naval supremacy throughout the world. But maybe for example I would be better off allocating 10 dockyards to aircraft carriers, and 5 dockyards to submarines?

you start with 22, get 6 from arsenal of democracy, get 10 from two ocean navy, and congress usually gets you to build 2-3 more during the years when pleasing congress is relevant. all told, that's 40-41 dockyards and it is plenty.

cv and bb are not relevant in the current meta. cl have their niche, but that is as the counter to the counter to the meta. cvf are buggy, cvnb are shut down by land air. bb lose to ca, so why bother. cl would be useful if ca werent better at killing screens than the cl are, so again why bother.

all you need to build in the current meta is dd, ca, and convoys. your light attack heavy cruisers should cost about 8x as much ic as your roach dd, so with 40-41 dockyards, i put 25 on ca, 13 on dd, and 2-3 on convoys.

in the early game, before you have ca3 or dd3, you should refit your bb to be aa platforms, and your starting cl/ca to be light attack platforms. and make convoys.

 

[noobermenschen]

So instead of posting a new thread I figured I would ask here. Playing as the USA, how many dockyards do you need?

I usually build dockyards until I have a total of 50 dockyards. 5 dockyards for aircraft carriers, 5 dockyards for battleships, 5 dockyards for heavy cruisers, 10 dockyards for light cruisers, 10 dockyards for destroyers, 10 dockyards for submarines, and finally 5 dockyards for convoys. Is this a good way to build up the navy or no?

I figure that as the USA it is important to have a powerful navy to have naval supremacy throughout the world. But maybe for example I would be better off allocating 10 dockyards to aircraft carriers, and 5 dockyards to submarines?

Playing USA historically your primary job is to annihilate the Imperial Japanese Navy. Your AI Allies can pretty much handle everything else (eventually). I usually have about 60 docks and do not build BBs, but spend a lot of dockyard time upgrading ships. I do add one more carrier each to the Yorktown and Enterprise build ques, deleting two heavy cruisers to avoid any nastiness with Britain. I build a lot of CL and DD, subs after 1940.

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

all you need to build in the current meta is dd, ca, and convoys.

Is this only relevant for players? Can the AI benefit from this as well?

 

[el nora]

Is this only relevant for players? Can the AI benefit from this as well?

im not sure that i understand what your question is. can this be used against the ai, yes. does the ai do this, no. should they make meta fleets, i would prefer to fight against a meta fleet that whatever garbage the ai currently makes, but i think it would just troll new players, so probably not.

 

[pro.gamer.69]

So instead of posting a new thread I figured I would ask here. Playing as the USA, how many dockyards do you need?

I usually build dockyards until I have a total of 50 dockyards. 5 dockyards for aircraft carriers, 5 dockyards for battleships, 5 dockyards for heavy cruisers, 10 dockyards for light cruisers, 10 dockyards for destroyers, 10 dockyards for submarines, and finally 5 dockyards for convoys. Is this a good way to build up the navy or no?

I figure that as the USA it is important to have a powerful navy to have naval supremacy throughout the world. But maybe for example I would be better off allocating 10 dockyards to aircraft carriers, and 5 dockyards to submarines?

all you "need" is more than Japan. in SP, you can get by without ever building a new one. even in MP, what you get from your focus tree should be plenty - Japan's not going to build 20 new ones unless they're positive they can beat you.

as for how you're using them - you definitely don't need any dockyards on aircraft carriers. you start with 3+1 in production, and can only ever use 4 in one battle so any extra are pretty much useless. theoretically you could use them for convoy escort but there are more efficient ways of doing that.

battleships are strong enough in SP, a single line of them doesn't hurt, but you'd never use them in MP.

heavy cruisers are great. light cruisers not so much. being behind the screening line makes your ships do 40% more damage (effectively) and means they aren't vulnerable to torpedoes and destroyers.

destroyers are quite important.

you don't really need more subs than what you start with.

however in general having "set" assignments is kind of a weird way to do things. up until when you get cruiser/destroyer 3, depending on how you rush things, most of your dockyards should be refitting your ships or making cheap destroyers.

 

[B24 Liberator]

If your objetive is to find enemy ships, you're using 100 scout planes too many.

While it is natural to assume scout planes, due to their name, would be extra helpful to find enemy ships, no such mechanic is actually present. Air superiority increases ship detection of ships patrolling in the region, and that's it.

So what are scout planes good for? Do they help ground troops and close air support?

 

[el nora]

So what are scout planes good for? Do they help ground troops and close air support?

just by flying over the enemy they gather intel. they can provide up to 25% civilian, 20% army, and 20% air intel. and since intel is a global stat, they dont need to be flying over active combats or anything of the sort to gather said intel. by flying spy planes over murmansk, you gather intel on the soviets that will be used by your troops fighting in kiev.

they do provide ground support, for some strange reason, to troops fighting under them. but they are expensive and dont deal the direct damage that cas deal, so its not typically worthwhile to use them for that effect.

 

[Sbrubbles]

So what are scout planes good for? Do they help ground troops and close air support?

They give intel army, civilian and air bonus, which allows you to see stats for a given country. More importantly, though, army intel gives an overall ground combat bonus, depending on how much your intel is better than theirs (up to +15%).

They also participate in ground combat and give a +combat bonus specific, similar to CAS but without the direct damage.

Edit: derp, ninja'ed hahaha

 

[Jays298]

I play as UK a lot and don't really understand the role of the battleship.

Something as simple as light attack, heavy attack aren't so clear. Heavy attack only applies to what? Capital ships or ships with armor?

So what I'm seeing is that subs are good versus convoys and vulnerable ships.

Destroyers beat subs.
Light cruisers beat destroyers.

Heavy cruisers are good against light cruisers but they aren't considered screens?

So what do I build against "trash" fleets of light cruisers, destroyers, and obsolete battleships like Italy, Germany, most of Japan's navy?

I find I cannot keep enough light cruisers and destroyers.

I have been splitting my fleet into like two big stacks per area (two for England, two Mediterranean, one for South Asia until the Japanese declare).

 

[Corpse Fool]

I play as UK a lot and don't really understand the role of the battleship.

There isn't really a role for the battleship. Most of the time existing battleships are refit into AA-platforms.

Something as simple as light attack, heavy attack aren't so clear. Heavy attack only applies to what? Capital ships or ships with armor?

Light attack attacks the first, non-empty layer. This is generally the screen layer. Light attack has to chew through all of the screens before it goes to the capital layer, and then the carrier/convoy layer. Heavy attack however can attack anything in the first two non-empty layers, and has boosted chance to target capitals. Heavy attack lets you target enemy capitals without having to go through enemy screens first.

Heavy cruisers are good against light cruisers but they aren't considered screens?

Heavy cruisers are capital ships, and that is the crux of why they are good against light cruisers. Having a properly screened capital line boosts their accuracy by up to 40%, which greatly increases the reliability of their damage. Light cruisers being screens, do not get this accuracy boost.

So what do I build against "trash" fleets of light cruisers, destroyers, and obsolete battleships like Italy, Germany, most of Japan's navy?

Some combination of "more", and "good" ships.

I find I cannot keep enough light cruisers and destroyers.

You generally don't want to be building light cruisers.

I have been splitting my fleet into like two big stacks per area (two for England, two Mediterranean, one for South Asia until the Japanese declare).

Try to have only one single doomstack for whatever theatre.

 

[Jays298]

There isn't really a role for the battleship. Most of the time existing battleships are refit into AA-platforms.

Light attack attacks the first, non-empty layer. This is generally the screen layer. Light attack has to chew through all of the screens before it goes to the capital layer, and then the carrier/convoy layer. Heavy attack however can attack anything in the first two non-empty layers, and has boosted chance to target capitals. Heavy attack lets you target enemy capitals without having to go through enemy screens first.

Heavy cruisers are capital ships, and that is the crux of why they are good against light cruisers. Having a properly screened capital line boosts their accuracy by up to 40%, which greatly increases the reliability of their damage. Light cruisers being screens, do not get this accuracy boost.

Some combination of "more", and "good" ships.

You generally don't want to be building light cruisers.

Try to have only one single doomstack for whatever theatre.

Thanks. Going to try that next time, with a focus on cheap DDs and decent heavy cruisers.

 

[Mister Analyst]

@Jays298

This Man the Guns dev diary, New Naval Combat, might prove to be helpful.

 

[War Emblem]

This is what I've learned from my time with Man the Guns:

Your starting navy is what most of the early, often decisive battles, battles are going to be fought with​

That said, getting a new more modern BB into the fleet before the war starts is huge​

I base BB strike forces around 4 BBs, 4 CAs, 32-40 DDs, and whatever CLs you want. I haven't found any evidence one way or another what the CLs are doing.​

I subscribe to historical naval doctrine on CVs, if a target is important enough to use a CV on, then it's important enough to use overwhelming CVs on. With that in mind, I have 4 CVs in a fleet. 4 BCs (these are actually easy to build as an Allied major since they fit within the treaty) then the 40 DDs and CLs here with a focus on AA.​

I've heard speed is the key for a strike force, but the AI seems to already allow strike movement over a lot of zones fairly fast. And naval battles take so long to resolve, they always get there anyway before whatever ships have the enemy pinned are mauled. With that in mind, a good UK/USA strategy I found is to upgrade several BB Is with new high-speed engines and T3 AA. These end up being better than BCs for CV screens.​

With that in mind, never scrap old ships. There is almost always a use for them.​

For submarines, I put them all under one Admiral so they are all coded the same color. Groups of 8-10. I think '40 Subs with T3 torpedoes are really good for a couple of reasons. First, they are a lot more survivable as so much on subs seems to depend on speed. Second, they can be used to cut off supplies to enemy forces. The AI will try to stop this and send capital ships after them. Your own strike force will then engage. So Subs both help strangle the enemy and initiate zones for a decisive battle.​

I've not fully grasped convey protection and have read other's thoughts here.​

Convey raiding non-sub is fraught with peril. I've tried to go the historical German route of basing a group around a BC. This can be sort of effective until you run into a CV fleet. If the enemy doesn't have CVs then it's rather fun. I use 1 BC, 3-4 CLs, 8 DDs.​

Naval bombers are ultimately the MVPs. I try to always fight within support of them.​

 

[Kanitatlan]

Having read through this whole thread (again) I can see the various arguments being posted about what performs best as a fleet. In my games navy is overwhelmingly about establishing naval superiority to allow invasions so I'm looking at winning naval battles (as opposed to a longer war). The suggestions from various postings are ...

• CA with maximum light attack plus 4:1 screen ratio is highly effective. Now, I understand perfectly why this is most effective at clearing enemy screens but obviously needs following up with sufficient torpedo attack and there haven't been any suggestions about how best to do this as it is unclear how much torpedo capability is needed. The CA + screen pitch is based on making those screens as cheap as possible and hence there is a trade off there.
• One poster has pushed CL vs DD but the argument seems to be that equal cost of CL can beat equal cost of DD but since that isn't what DDs are for it is fairly irrelevant. However, see next bullet
• CAs have an advantage over CLs with basically the same armament but require significant screens to do this. If I have a range issue with the screens is it reasonable to go for a mixed fleet of CA+CL with the CL maxed for firepower since the increased screen cost significantly reduces the CA content of the fleet. If maxing for firepower does that mean 2 x torp + max guns or 1 x torp + max guns. How would I decide? Or do I go for cheap CL (with the range)
• Given the importance of speed, isn't it important to have more expensive faster DDs to keep fleet speed up?
• Should my spotting fleets be all specialist ship designs. I've really not spent much time on naval spotting and all sorts of weird fleet designs come to mind like having a high speed CA with 4 x scout plans and a radar with a bunch of screens to stop it getting sunk on contact. (I'm sitting here looking at a 45kn 1940 CA design). Has anyone seriously researched this.
• When establishing naval superiority for a naval invasion I usually wait to achieve real dominance to reduce intervention risk. I know I'm being far too conservative but how dangerous is it. I get the impression that if my invasion escort fleet is strong enough relative to the enemy then they simply won't engage - ie all I really need is to exceed their medium risk engagement ratio. Is that a reasonable evaluation of AI behaviour
• I have fallen into the habit of simply building lots of maximised CLs due to the tech issues of a non-naval power becoming a naval power. I can simply build gun+torp CLs with the minimum of tech investment and they are a decent general purpose solution to all challenges. I know this is non-optimal but how much of a difference is there?

I'm sure I have lots more question but that seems like enough for now.

 

[HugsAndSnuggles]

CA with maximum light attack plus 4:1 screen ratio is highly effective... but obviously needs following up with sufficient torpedo attack

Fleets tend to retreat when they are low on screens, so you won't necessarily need any. I think, having about 10% with torps is reasonable, but someone probably done the numbers.

If I have a range issue

Most sensible thing is to improve your naval base coverage.

If maxing for firepower does that mean 2 x torp + max guns or 1 x torp + max guns. How would I decide?

Having several torps seems to be a waste: screens (even if only a fraction carries torps) are far too numerous for each to need enough torp attack to alpha SHBB (you might want enough to alpha a convoy, though - in case you ever decide to surface raid).

Given the importance of speed, isn't it important to have more expensive faster DDs to keep fleet speed up?

They don't get that much more expensive. I'd say having more speed is always useful (even if solely for strategic reasons).

Should my spotting fleets be all specialist ship designs. I've really not spent much time on naval spotting and all sorts of weird fleet designs come to mind like having a high speed CA with 4 x scout plans and a radar with a bunch of screens to stop it getting sunk on contact. (I'm sitting here looking at a 45kn 1940 CA design). Has anyone seriously researched this.

The job of your spotters is to find enemy fleets. If your spotters are getting jumped by enemy surface fleets, they are doing a poor job of it. Lowering task force detection by mixing in non-spotter ships helps your spotters to perform worse.
Much more likely scenario is your spotters being killed by enemy air.

When establishing naval superiority for a naval invasion I usually wait to achieve real dominance to reduce intervention risk. I know I'm being far too conservative but how dangerous is it.

Invasion is only intercepted by raiding fleets (usually subs). Surface raiders are by far easiest to catch; for getting rid of subs you're better off with air, not naval superiority (although, token DD TF should do the trick of screening troop transports long enough for subs to not be a problem).

I have fallen into the habit of simply building lots of maximised CLs due to the tech issues of a non-naval power becoming a naval power. I can simply build gun+torp CLs with the minimum of tech investment and they are a decent general purpose solution to all challenges. I know this is non-optimal but how much of a difference is there?

This sums it up nicely, I think.

 

[el nora]

• CA with maximum light attack plus 4:1 screen ratio is highly effective. Now, I understand perfectly why this is most effective at clearing enemy screens but obviously needs following up with sufficient torpedo attack and there haven't been any suggestions about how best to do this as it is unclear how much torpedo capability is needed. The CA + screen pitch is based on making those screens as cheap as possible and hence there is a trade off there.

this would be a concern if not for the fact that the naval majors all start the game with too many torps in their initial fleet form the get go. sure, if you get wiped and think you can recover, or if you're a minor who thinks they can compete with the big boys, you make a few specialized torp dd. about 1/10th to 1/5th your total dd number should be torp dd.

• One poster has pushed CL vs DD but the argument seems to be that equal cost of CL can beat equal cost of DD but since that isn't what DDs are for it is fairly irrelevant. However, see next bullet

not the least bit relevant

• CAs have an advantage over CLs with basically the same armament but require significant screens to do this. If I have a range issue with the screens is it reasonable to go for a mixed fleet of CA+CL with the CL maxed for firepower since the increased screen cost significantly reduces the CA content of the fleet. If maxing for firepower does that mean 2 x torp + max guns or 1 x torp + max guns. How would I decide? Or do I go for cheap CL (with the range)

when is range an issue? you should always keep under friendly air cover if you can. ranging far afield without friendly air cover is a quick route to a tragic boating accident. one in which you tragically lose all your guns.

• Given the importance of speed, isn't it important to have more expensive faster DDs to keep fleet speed up?

fleet speed is not really the most important aspect. sure, it's helpful, but the real reason for speed is to reduce your ships individual hit profile. but to answer the question, yes. if you have either the coastal defense designer or the raiding designer, researching dd3 with them makes the dd much better at their role of screening. you would obviously get ca3 regardless for the extra battery slot, but the designer sure doest hurt.

• Should my spotting fleets be all specialist ship designs. I've really not spent much time on naval spotting and all sorts of weird fleet designs come to mind like having a high speed CA with 4 x scout plans and a radar with a bunch of screens to stop it getting sunk on contact. (I'm sitting here looking at a 45kn 1940 CA design). Has anyone seriously researched this.

spotting cl are a thing. if youre making them, you do so for their gargantuan detection, so dont mix them with dd which just drag down the average. spotting cl are more effective patrollers than roach dd. they will find smaller taskforces many hours faster than anything else, but for deathstacks you really dont need all that detection. roach dd are more efficient. each spotter takes month to replace and since they are specialist craft, you dont want to just be spamming them out, taking away from your other more important ships. roaches take two weeks to replace and you already have hundreds of replacements already waiting to take the place of any lost ship. personally, i dont bother with spotter cl. whichever you do, put them in individual ship task forces to make them extremely difficult to get spotted themselves, and set them to never engage.

• When establishing naval superiority for a naval invasion I usually wait to achieve real dominance to reduce intervention risk. I know I'm being far too conservative but how dangerous is it. I get the impression that if my invasion escort fleet is strong enough relative to the enemy then they simply won't engage - ie all I really need is to exceed their medium risk engagement ratio. Is that a reasonable evaluation of AI behaviour

tbh, i legitimately dont know. but i think thats being too conservative. just launch several single-division invasions at once. they cant catch all of them. so what if one or two divisions are lost, the important thing is landing a beachhead. once you have a port, you can funnel your entire army over.

• I have fallen into the habit of simply building lots of maximised CLs due to the tech issues of a non-naval power becoming a naval power. I can simply build gun+torp CLs with the minimum of tech investment and they are a decent general purpose solution to all challenges. I know this is non-optimal but how much of a difference is there?

a gun+torp cl monofleet loses every time to roach dd + light attack ca. in sp, i dont think it matters all that much, the ai isnt making meta fleets, so long as you keep your head attached to your shoulders, you'll be fine. in mp, that fleet would just get rekt.

 

[Maxwell Tornado]

And here I thought tank artillery acronyms were complicated.

I just spam subs and destroyers, honestly. Seems to do the job.

 

[Corpse Fool]

And here I thought tank artillery acronyms were complicated.

There are at least 2 different commonly used sets of acronyms for tanks and such (LT v LARM, Light Tank versus Light ARMour), but I've only ever encountered a single set of acronyms for navy, and the game itself uses the same codes.

SS is submarine
DD is destroyer.
CL is light cruiser
CA is heavy cruiser
BC is battle cruiser
BB is battleship
CV is carrier.

I myself will commonly use a numerical suffix which denotes the tier of hull. SS3 being the often banned in multipler, sub3, or '40 pattern of submarine hull. For special 'snowflake' hulls like cruiser subs, coastal defense cruisers, pre-dreadnought heavy hulls, and conversion carriers, I'll replace that numerical suffix with just another letter. CAP or panzerschiffe, CLC/CAC for coastal, CVC/CVB for the carrier conversions, etc.

 

[Maxwell Tornado]

There are at least 2 different commonly used sets of acronyms for tanks and such (LT v LARM, Light Tank versus Light ARMour), but I've only ever encountered a single set of acronyms for navy, and the game itself uses the same codes.

SS is submarine
DD is destroyer.
CL is light cruiser
CA is heavy cruiser
BC is battle cruiser
BB is battleship
CV is carrier.

I myself will commonly use a numerical suffix which denotes the tier of hull. SS3 being the often banned in multipler, sub3, or '40 pattern of submarine hull. For special 'snowflake' hulls like cruiser subs, coastal defense cruisers, pre-dreadnought heavy hulls, and conversion carriers, I'll replace that numerical suffix with just another letter. CAP or panzerschiffe, CLC/CAC for coastal, CVC/CVB for the carrier conversions, etc.

Is there a wikipedia page or something that explains why these letters exactly? I can understand the tank acronyms because they make sense without prior knowledge, these navy ones just don't.

 

[Corpse Fool]

Is there a wikipedia page or something that explains why these letters exactly? I can understand the tank acronyms because they make sense without prior knowledge, these navy ones just don't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull_classification_symbol

SS I remember as "submersible ship", but that wiki page suggests self-propelled submersible.

DD is destroyer, but its just doubled up because all of these codes are at least 2 letters. There are also different types of destroyers, like DE for escort, and DL for destroyer leader.

CL is cruiser, light. It is a light cruiser.

CA is cruiser, armoured. This one doesn't really make a whole lot of sense if you're looking at it from a modern perspective, or within the context of hoi4 meta. Because we don't particularly armour our CA in game, but we do armour the CL. But when this classification was first introduced, it described ships that were better armoured and better gunned than more typical cruisers, but less than those of battleships/dreadnoughts and battle cruisers. After WW2 CA was kept but rather than armoured, it started to refer more to 'gun cruisers', as the armament was the greater differentiating factor.

BC is BattleCruiser.

BB is battleship, and a lot like the Destroyer designation. It just doubles the primary letter because it is basically the default, other classifications are modifications of this basic archetype.

CV is also a bit confusing. It might mean cruiser, "voler" (french, to fly), but wikipedia isn't sure about this.