Fire controll for CL? Radar and spotter plane seems more helpful. Screens are supposed to screen the area. 
-
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.
Fire controll for CL? Radar and spotter plane seems more helpful. Screens are supposed to screen the area.
There is one exception - screens for carriers. Aside from meeeting the requirement regarding screens, these screens should fullfill the additional requirement to best meet sea attack/defense values if an enemy SAG closes with your TF. As such the CLs for CV screens should have fire control to up their value. The other brigade I put on is Anti-air to protect against engagement with enemy CVs. Seems spotter and radar for CLs escorting CVs is useless since the CAGs far outreach, and if enemy SAG closes you need maximum hitting power to protect the CVs.
Maybe I'm missing something here but I thought Pang Bingxun confirmed this was true:
It sound that they have not fixed naval system, I still see those super stacks of ships! why not do like in DH vere you see from 2 to 8 ships spread out over territory of water.
Super stacks are certainly not what they used to be (as in they're not that powerful anymore). As far as I know, DH doesn't even have a stacking penalty so long live the super-stacks there!
There is one exception - screens for carriers. Aside from meeeting the requirement regarding screens, these screens should fullfill the additional requirement to best meet sea attack/defense values if an enemy SAG closes with your TF. As such the CLs for CV screens should have fire control to up their value. [...] Seems spotter and radar for CLs escorting CVs is useless since the CAGs far outreach, and if enemy SAG closes you need maximum hitting power to protect the CVs.
On the contrary fire seem quite wrong for CL especially in CTF. The art on Carrier Warfare is to avoid short range battle where CL could possibly attack. You need to keep distance near maximum. The higher the detection the better you can ensure than.
A fleet of 26 ships has the highest possible sea attack. Above that the return on more ships is negative.
In DH the best naval strategy possible is still seemingly cruizerg. AoD at least rewards concentration of firepower enough that BB's and BC's are worth it in the early-mid game, and can actually close with carriers and transports. It's really ridiculous how a speed 15 transport can effecitvely outrun speed 30 cruisers by retreating immediately, and in fact becomes MORE vulnerable if it's escorted - AoD at least fixed that.
Given the number of AoD players who have reported SAGs closing with TFs I would say there is very little "art" to Carrier Warfare and totally AoD game mechanics only.
A good German player makes a point of building a BC SAG especially to destroy UK TFs in the English Channel. SAGs consisttently have managed to close with TFs in certain places with poor weather and especially at night. I have experienced it both ways, closing my SAG with enemy TF and my TF got closed upon by the enemy SAG. And it doesn't take a specially built Kreigsmarine SAG of BCs to accomplish it. Enemy BB-1s have managed it too in my experience. So far I am getting the impression it does not happen in the open ocean but certainly around islands and shorlines. I don't mind it as it does make some sense and adds a game complexity.
However, when it happens, the best screens to protect the CVs (if we are only considering CLs with various brigades) would be CLs with greater firepower.
As CAG detection far exceeds the detection of CLs with Spotter Planes, I really don't see how the CLs contribute to anything until the battle closes to their range. This is quite evident in the fact that they don't even fire until the CLs are within range. However, CLs with Fire Control actually have a greater firing distance than CLs without them, so giving another advantage of being able to fire sooner with your CLs if enemy closes.
To clarify, if the much higher detection of the CAGs has failed to prevent enemy SAG closing, I really don't see how the limited detection of CL with spotter can restore the battle so the CVs are back at their maximum distance.
It really is a wish that the "The art of Carrier Warfare is to avoid short range battle" and I was not discussing enemy CLs closing but enemy BBs and BCs closing. Enemcy CLs closing with your TF screened by CLs equipped either way is not a significant problem. It is the firepower of enemy BBs and BCs closing with TFs that is the problem.
However, I think the real art of carrier warfare is in having better leaders, advanced doctrines, and knowing the probable places on the map that you should not let your CVs go with only screens because enemy SAGs have proven they can close with TFs in those places. And of all places, the English Channel at night in poor weather seems to be the most often experienced place for destroying CVs using BBs or BCs.
"Fair winds and following seas!"
I believe CAG detection is hampered by bad weather. CL are less vulnerable to weather. And destroyers are better for detection than CL. If chances are that the enemy closes to CL range one should retreat before that.
Yes, I've changed my mind about AA for TF screens. Quite true, CVs attack using same as other ships so there is no air defense possible against an attack by CVs since it is not an air attack. Silly, but true.
And it seems TFs are already quite well protected against enemy NAV attack because of the 50% fleet composition of the included CAGs, so the screen brigades would be more useful if anything other than AA. As I have only FC, Spotter and AA available in my UK screens to effect a swap, I guess it will be FC and Spotter for the CAG screens, and FC and AA for the SAGs.
Not sure I really like that swap (losing Spotter for the SAG screens) and my whole Navy might be better of keeping basically useless AA on the TF screens in order to not lose the Spotter on the SAG screens. It really depends on what ability I think the enemy has to use their NAvs, which fleets - my TF or SAG - will be in enemy air range, and how important that my SAG screens have Spotter instead of useless AA when meeting enemy SAG or TF. It makes it kind of hard if taking over from an AI game unless scrapping dozens of brigades and building something different. That in itself might be useless if I already think I have decided navy advantage.
All ships are hampered by bad weather. DD better at detection for what range? They have zero detection at the maximum range of any CL. The idea with CVs is range. DDs with CVs is a poor man's TF. And just horrible if enemy SAG closes with you.
You keep missing my point - "enemy closing to their BB or BC range". But if enemy did close to their (or my) CL range I may as well stay where I am because now I have my full fleet fighting (since the CLs with my CVs are my longest range CLs I probably beat the enemy CLs and definitely their assortment of DDs).
"No", one should retreat their CV before any remaining capable enemy BB can close to fire - because it will probably totally wreck one of your CVs. But if you have waited until the CLs are in range, you have just greatly increased your firepower... so then would be bad time to run (either too late for what has happened already, or too early for what might happen). But if you are the UK, you would of course simply never run with any fleet - regardless of outcome. Getting sunk is much more honorable as long as you take some enemy with you!
I know this is reaching way back into the discussion, Commander, but I think it might have led to the by-passing of an obvious alternative strategy - that of legging it asap. The aim of a screen is not to slug it out with superior surface forces while they engage the carriers but to prevent them from getting at the carriers in the first place. Given the shortcomings in the naval combat rules already identified, the game logic stemming from this isn't to spend resources on improving the fighting performance of screen units assigned to carriers but in multiplying the number of them. The more units you put into your screen the more you decrease the chance of your carriers being targeted in the early hours of battle and the more you therefore increase their chance of escaping unscathed.
I like to keep a mix of BC's, CA's, CL's and DD's with my carriers as Germany.
Almost every engagement against enemy CTFs, even those of larger sizes, my CV's walk away virtually unscathed, while the BC's and CA's seem to absorb 80-90% of the incoming damage! Occasionally a DD or CL gets hit, but this way, any SAG that can even close range still has my BC's and CA's to punch through and all the normal screens to keep SS's away.
Keeping my own fast SAG with BB's nearby also allows me to draw any non-CV based enemy fleets into a decisive action if my smaller CTFs engage.
Almost every engagement against enemy CTFs, even those of larger sizes, my CV's walk away virtually unscathed, while the BC's and CA's seem to absorb 80-90% of the incoming damage! Occasionally a DD or CL gets hit, but this way, any SAG that can even close range still has my BC's and CA's to punch through and all the normal screens to keep SS's away.
Keeping my own fast SAG with BB's nearby also allows me to draw any non-CV based enemy fleets into a decisive action if my smaller CTFs engage.
And is this strategy - more screens than minimum needed - not greatly increasing the stacking penalty of the CVs since the screens are part of the combat (even if not contributing due to range)?
I go with the opposite philosophy - because it is AoD and not RL, the very best screen you could have for a CV is precisely what can slug it out if it literally comes down to that. There is no such thing as "screening" in AoD other than a numerical negative if you have less than the minimum. The idea of RL screens, how they work (like to catch a torpedo midships and save the CV) simply does not exist in AoD. It is game math only - not battle tactics - once the opposing fleets are joined in the combat display.
But as I do not know the complicated math that affects battle results, I remain open to be surprised. But the idea of extra screen for "screening sake" only results in higher stacking penalty of the main hitting units - the CVs - I think. I think I read somewhere there actually is no advantage to extra screens as regards screening, only negative modifiers if less than the minimum. Of course, once one screen is lost, it might have been nice to have had along an extra.
Don't get "legging it asap".
The CVs usually are never targeted in the early hours of battle because no SAG can close in the early hours of battle. Yes, there are exceptions like enemy SAG suddenly appearing within their range. But for me the point is having the most extra firepower possible when enemy SAG closes. Ideally, that is BBs. But running BBs with CVs - while really safe - just doesn't create the look or feel, or speed of a TF the way I like. I think the TF ends up missing many opportunities only because of speed. Pang has the right idea with "retreat" but mistakes do happen, maybe watching other battle display, and ships get sunk during retreat also. The ideal of "know to start retreat before the enemy SAG will close" is a bit of a perfect wish, IMO.
Anyway, it is so nice that AoD has so many possibilities for everybody to assemble their fleet according to their ideas. And actually, my fleets change a lot during the game depending who I play and what the strategic situation or need might be.
Last edited:
The more screens you use, the higher is your see detection and sub detection. This is relevant for Surface Actions Groups because they lack detection. It is relevant for Carrier Task Forces if the conditions are poor because Carriers suffer much worse penalties than the screens. Additional screens do increase stacking penalty, therefore only few redundant screen are preferably used.
But the point is "what is the net result"? Think we should forget about detecting subs as that's kind of different from this discussion.
What I would like to know regarding, "The much worse penalties suffered by CVs in poor conditions" is the CV detection still not better than the best detection of any CL? My point is that there is zero detection of any screen if discussing a battle beyound the screen range.
Screen detection is totally limited to screen range. So this discussion properly needs to seperate between the fight of your CVs before enemy SAG has closed and the following fight after enemy SAG has closed.
If I understand correctly, in the "long case scenario" screens add absolutely nothing to the CV's battle results other than preventing the CVs from getting a huge negative modifier if not the minimum number of screens in the fleet.
If true, then the only consideration regarding screens for CVs is what is best once the close in fight starts. It seems obvious to me that the most useful thing then is maximum fire power on the screens, and maximum range - meaning CLs and not DDs.
SAGs do NOT lack detection. Firstly they can have the same screens as TFs. SAGs only have less detection than TFs because the major sea detection capability is a CAG. But even BBs, BCs and CAs all have sea detection if properly brigaded.
EDIT: And since you have confirmed that stacking penalty increases with extra "redundant" screens, I would say for the most part anybody adding extra screens is only weakening the hitting power of their CVs. The exception is losing a screen. But surely, by then, one should have retreated.
Last edited:
1. It is my understanding that detection does not depend on max firing range. So any screen adds to detection.
2. Since SAG have much lower detection than CV the added detection from screens is relativly big.
3. Both SAG and CTF try to use a distance that will not utilze the firepower of CL even with fire brigade. Fire controll brigade 1940 on CL1938 adds 4 km range adding up to 28 km, fire controll brigade on CA1938 add 8 km range adding up to 37 km.
4. Screens have very low see defence value which decreases their fighting value further.
5. TF i would consider transport fleet. CTF is Carrier Task force.
2. Since SAG have much lower detection than CV the added detection from screens is relativly big.
3. Both SAG and CTF try to use a distance that will not utilze the firepower of CL even with fire brigade. Fire controll brigade 1940 on CL1938 adds 4 km range adding up to 28 km, fire controll brigade on CA1938 add 8 km range adding up to 37 km.
4. Screens have very low see defence value which decreases their fighting value further.
5. TF i would consider transport fleet. CTF is Carrier Task force.
Sorry for lapsing into the vernacular - I meant retreating from combat as soon as possible.
Sorry again, but I thought the point being debated was what to do in those situations where the CTF was surprised and found itself engaged at relatively close quarters. In cases where where the engagement starts at Carrier range I never stick around to see how the situation develops - for me it's hit and get out of Dodge (which is like legging it asap). I'd much rather do whatever damage I can while the clock ticks down until retreat is an option - and then retreat. That way I preserve my most influential units to fight another day and another and another.
That's basically it. I'm prepared to carry a few extra screens and wear a small stacking penalty for the sake of decreasing the likelihood of my carriers being targeted in the first rounds of a surprise encounter. There's clearly a tipping point at which you have so many additional screens that the combat value of your Carriers is seriously degraded, but I'm prepared to tolerate a small hit to my combat values to avoid a large hit to my Carriers.
Agree entirely. Despite its flaws, the naval system is an area of the game where you can develop a real depth of play.