Germany, taking on the world with Battleships?

[Epaminondas]

Another apology.

I should have said at the outset that this is a strategy crafted to German play. If you play a nation that starts with a large surface fleet and a bundle of CVs in the build queue the combat logic is going to be quite different. Then your priority is to rid yourself of the small enemy fleets plaguing your convoy routes and threatening your dispersed surface forces. In that situation a decisive battle is just what you need and you can afford to lose a carrier or two in the process - so maximizing the clout of your formations makes good sense. If you're Germany, however, it's odds on that a decisive engagement is going to produce decidely nasty outcomes. Your only real strategy is to chip, chip, chip away at the enemy fleets and that's the logic driving this recommendation.

 

[Commander666]

1. It is my understanding that detection does not depend on max firing range. So any screen adds to detection.

If this is true it changes EVERYTHING. But I can't understand how it can be true. At least - logically - a screen would not be expected to detect beyound its range. Can you explain how this works? What is the "screen value"? How is it applied with no consideration of range? I imagine the fact is buried in a complex mathematical formula to determine hits.

2. Since SAG have much lower detection than CV the added detection from screens is relativly big.

True. If screen values apply beyound their range, it becomes a totally different consideration.

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.

Mostly true, but not true in some cases of enemy SAG closing with your CVs. I have found my CTF suddenly at fighting range of 8 km when enemy SAG came out of Norfolk and my CTF was Mouth of the Thames. Battle started at 8 km range.

4. Screens have very low see defence value which decreases their fighting value further.

True, but they greatly increase firepower if battle closes to their range, something I have experienced.

5. TF i would consider transport fleet. CTF is Carrier Task force.

I agree for AoD purposes although TF is definitely Carrier Task Force for USA WW2 references and "transport fleets" don't exist. There are only transports within a fleet.

NOTE: "In World War II, administratively, aircraft carriers were assigned to carrier divisions (CARDIVs). Operationally they were assigned to Task Forces, of which Task Force 11, Task Force 16 and Task Force 17 perhaps gained the most fame for their roles in the Battle of the Coral Sea and the Battle of Midway." as only one example of the correctness of TF for CV fleets. Task Force was further assinged the radio call "Taffey" as regards US.

However, CTF is much better for AoD and discussing all countries and I will have to go back over some AAR posts and change that. As players do run transport fleets in AoD, I can see confusion resulting by my use of TF for CTF. Sorry.

 

[Commander666]

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.

Well, if the mathematical goodness of the screen component applies without consideration of the battle distance or the screen's range, I now totally agree with you. An extra screen or two would be most useful.

Problem is understanding exactly how the "screen component" is applied. And what about the other thing I read somewhere... "Extra screens do not give advantage"?

Which is right and why? Pang was referring to the screen's detection as a factor. I am still of the opinion that screen detection does not apply if screen is out of range. But perhaps there is something else in the mathematical computation of battle results that is simply "screen for screen sake" and not confined by range?

Two things need to happen here to make sense for me:
1) The screen "detection" needs to not be confined by screen range; or extra brigades to increase the detection could not be operating beyound screen range, right?
2) Their needs to be an inherent value for just the fact of a screen present. Then obviously more than the minimum # would have increased benefits.


And if both 1 and 2 exist, then it definitely would be wise to put radar and spotter on CL screens in CTFs. I think the problem here is understanding exactly how "screen values" are applied in combat.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

If this is true it changes EVERYTHING. But I can't understand how it can be true. At least - logically - a screen would not be expected to detect beyound its range. Can you explain how this works? What is the "screen value"? How is it applied with no consideration of range? I imagine the fact is buried in a complex mathematical formula to determine hits.

It is my understanding that the detection values are simply added up and or are multiplied with their respective combat modifiers and are added up afterwards. This sum is compared to the visibility of each enemy ship and before the battle starts it might be compared to the sum of the visibility of a fleet. This last distiction seems redundant but if i remember correctly one fleet of subs of me was once "caught" by a british SAG. However, they did not manage the detect one single sub. They new the fleet was there, but the did not know the position of one single ship.

When it comes to detection IRL one needs to ask why a super heavy battleship should have better "detection range" than a destroyer division consisting of many ships. Assuming that CVs have a better detection range makes some sence, but this is already modeled by the much higher detection value. And the area that is to screen would increase with the square of the hypothetical detection range thus reducing the "detection density" accordingly.

Edit:

And what about the other thing I read somewhere... "Extra screens do not give advantage"?

Much more screens than capital ships offer less gain than loss due to staking penalty. Nothing more was meant.

 

[Commander666]

If detection values are simply added up that is "disregarding screen range". Then - obviously - the screens with best detection brigades would be best. And a couple extra screens would help too, to the point that increased stacking penalty of the CVs overtakes the advantage of extra screen.

But now the discussion opens up new can of worms. If it really is just adding up the detection value of screens, let's go back to inexpensive DDs that have much better detection than CLs.

A CL-4 with spotter and radar brigade has sea detection of 4. A DD-4 with nothing has sea detection of 4, but add either radar or fire control and that increases to 5. Further, sub detection increases dramarically with DDs, and the FC on DD really is the biggest increaser of all values. CTFs do run into subs.... and often do not sink them if equiped with CL screens.

The build savings, MP and operating cost (and repair time too I think) of DDs is far superior over CLs.

Only one problem remains - if enemy SAG closes on your CTF - you got nearly nothing except the CVs to hit back with. It is not too likely that your CTF will even try to close to your DD range. However, I really have had my CTFs with CL screens fight at CL range because enemy SAG closed suddenly. Still I did get 1 CV nearly sunk, another badly mauled, and the third quite scratched! But I am sure the CLs did prevent my losing any CVs.

Well, maybe "real life" needs to stay out of this discussion.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

Well, maybe "real life" needs to stay out of this discussion.

Somehow that is the best advise ever in this forum.

 

[Commander666]

It's in keeping with my quest to achieve Budda Enlightenment!

But what have you got to say regarding AoD DDs for CTF screens instead of CLs?

 

[Pang Bingxun]

I always prefered DD. Not because of the costs. Those donnot differ a lot from CL if looking at model 1941. Than DD without brigade is even more expensive than CL without brigade. But DD-ASW is the perfect screen because of sub detection. As many countries start with the tech for CL1938 but no country starts with the tech for DD1938 builing one line of CL1938 can be an option until DD1938 and later models can be build without tech rushing.

It's in keeping with my quest to achieve Budda Enlightenment!

Good luck with enlightenment.

 

[Commander666]

I always prefered DD. Not because of the costs. Those donnot differ a lot from CL if looking at model 1941. Than DD without brigade is even more expensive than CL without brigade. But DD-ASW is the perfect screen because of sub detection. As many countries start with the tech for CL1938 but no country starts with the tech for DD1938 builing one line of CL1938 can be an option until DD1938 and later models can be build without tech rushing.



Good luck with enlightenment.

Thanks. Only sub killing by DDs that are part of a CTF really is not that great usually because often the DDs never get to engage, the much longer range of the CVs having caused sub to retreat before CTF can close to DD range. I find seperate groups of about 3 DDs mostly kill subs better than any CVs. Of course, I always hope my 3 DDs will not meet enemy CTF!

But this really has nothing to do with having DDs on CTFs for screens. One can always build more DDs if wanting dedicated DD ASW groups.

Sooner or later my current AAR will see the Allies taking on Japan. The Allies have 3 CTF and one CVL fleet. I think I'll screen them differently and see what further enlightenment I might obtain.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

Thanks. Only sub killing by DDs that are part of a CTF really is not that great usually because often the DDs never get to engage, the much longer range of the CVs having caused sub to retreat before CTF can close to DD range.

Have you encountered that in the game or just hypothesising? Most battles I've had with submarines occurred with a range of 18-2km due to the sub's low visibility, they are rarely (if ever) spotted at any longer distance.

Sooner or later my current AAR will see the Allies taking on Japan. The Allies have 3 CTF and one CVL fleet. I think I'll screen them differently and see what further enlightenment I might obtain.

I'll be interested in seeing how you handle the naval combat.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

Thanks. Only sub killing by DDs that are part of a CTF really is not that great usually because often the DDs never get to engage, the much longer range of the CVs having caused sub to retreat before CTF can close to DD range.

The CTF should not try to close range. CAG can finish of Subs without risking being hit if range and speed are utilized in favour of the CTF.

 

[Autolykos]

I find using full-blown CTFs (mine are usually 8 CV, 10 DD or 6 CV, 2 CVL, 10 DD) to be overkill for sub-hunting. I prefer a smaller fleet (like 1-2 CVL, 4-5 DD), but I occasionally replace the CVL with an outdated CV that's still floating around. The carrier is useful because it gives me some distance from SAGs so I can beat it when they're after my ASW fleets (and hammer them with NAVs instead).
The DD tend to die a lot, but they're cheaper than the CVs and I usually have a few continuous production runs anyway. That way my fleet stays up to date. Almost dead DDs get converted to escorts and replaced with new ones in port instead of repaired, unless they are the current model (I know... gamey).
Other ships I have at the start either end up in patrol/raider fleets (2-3 CA, 3-4 CL) or floating artillery: Old BBs and similar swimming hunks of scrap metal, stripped of all brigades I can put to better use on other ships and escorted by old CLs if I still have some left. Old DDs get converted to escorts on day one, no exceptions.
As you can tell I'm not a huge fan of SAGs (rarely build them), but if I do it's mid-sized BC or CA fleets to ruin the day of a CTF (same setup as my CTFs, but with BC/CA instead of CV).

 

[lollibast]

If this is true it changes EVERYTHING. But I can't understand how it can be true. At least - logically - a screen would not be expected to detect beyound its range. Can you explain how this works? What is the "screen value"? How is it applied with no consideration of range? I imagine the fact is buried in a complex mathematical formula to determine hits.

What is "the" range of a screen? Why should a ship not be able to detect beyond the range of its longest hitting guns? Add a spotter: improved detection. Add a radar device: improved detection. Think of other means of detection e.g. binoculars, radio tracking, ... there really is no connection to it's, say, 10'' guns. Simplify detection to a circle and the ship at its center and you get an area an a range of detection. Add another ship and put it a distance and you get a bigger area, and so on. Hope this RL analogy helps

Well, maybe "real life" needs to stay out of this discussion.

 

[Commander666]

Have you encountered that in the game or just hypothesising? Most battles I've had with submarines occurred with a range of 18-2km due to the sub's low visibility, they are rarely (if ever) spotted at any longer distance.

Yes, it has happened, and happens.

I'll be interested in seeing how you handle the naval combat.

I imagine Japan will follow same way as Germany, Spain and Italy - all their navy sunk! I might not even support China's land war just to have the enjoyment of pure naval action.

 

[Commander666]

The CTF should not try to close range. CAG can finish of Subs without risking being hit if range and speed are utilized in favour of the CTF.

But the CAG is nowhere near as good at ASW as the DD. So, in these cases, the DD's ASW doesn't get used.

However, I just replayed a portion of game in the hopes of creating a screen shot for Mr_BOnarpte. The time involves October 1940 and many U-boats are about. In 10 out of 10 cases of CV or CVL with DDs the German subs were detected at very close range - about 5-10 km . Seems none of the CVs or CVLs tried going to greater range until the uboats forced them into retreat. As I had created quite a few rather weak CTFs to increase my chances of contact, the Allied retreats were numerous. Hence, the idea "the CTF should not try to close range" is kind of non-applicable since mostly the CTF starts within torpedo distance! At least in this replay I just did. But as those weak CTFs is not what I run in the game, not sure what might have happened if CTF had not been retreated. It seems logical that if CTF is strong enough to win and meets sub at close quarters it would stay close to capitalize on the DD ASW values.

But none of this or other comments address my original: "In cases of CTF picking up sub at far range, usually sub is forced into retreat before the CTF can close to DD range." This creates a failed attack because the sub was not sunk. Same with CTFs that find sub at close range and CTF retreats.

My main point really was that CTFs are rather poor at chalking up sub kills compared to dedicated DDs. And if you only got so many DDs and so many CLs to appropriate to your different needs, I'll go with using the CLs for CTF and SAG screens. And use enough DDs to create the number of sub killer groups I want. The discussion really was about CTF screens, and about how player might best change things - not the advantage of a 5-year ship building program to create the perfect navy.

But if I was building a new navy from 1936, I think I would go back to what I always used to do before - concentrate heavily on DD construction - so I get enough to accompany CVLs escorting transports, DD screens for all the CTFs and extra pure DD sub killer groups. It seems the discussion about AoD screens has convinced me that DDs are better CTF screens than CLs. Of course, if my next CTF with DD screens gets sunk by any enemy SAG that closed, I can always change my mind and revert back to using CLs for CTF screens.

However, as no AI Navy seems to be able to challenge the experienced human player (unless you do a quick replay and purposefully set up a whole bunch of very weak CTFs only to try to get screenshot for Mr_BOnarpte) it will probably be a very long time before enough battles happen to prove the betterness of DDs or CLs for CTF screens especially since enemy SAG closing does not happen often, and - in fact - the details of different naval engagements vary a lot so fair comparisons are kind of difficult. It can be as little as the one worst experience to decide to create a different fleet composition.... which might work fine until the opposite worst experience occurs. And I think we have all probably had some quite different experiences.

EDIT: Well, I did just replay it with CTFs double the strength so there were no Allied retreats. However, in all 3 cases encountered, no CV or CVL had any intention of fighting from a safer distance. If contact obtained at 8km, then they preferred closer at 5 km. In all cases, all U-boats were sunk, but always at the expense of a severly damaged CV or CVL. I'll stick with my original statement that the best sub killers are pure DD groups.

And to return to the topic of screens for CTFs, guess if one decided to suddenly use a lot of DDs for ASW groups, then there probably are only CLs left for CTF screens. So, it's not a cut and dry situation. Kind of more doing the best with the best available at that particular time because it is a myth that any player can build the perfect navy which will work the very best for fighting every different enemy country at all times. This comment should evoke some responses!

But sadly, I still have not gotten screen shot of CTF engaging subs at long range. Maybe better luck when looking for Jap subs than uboats! Maybe it needs an element of "more open ocean". Maybe it just needs bad luck!

 

[Pang Bingxun]

But the CAG is nowhere near as good at ASW as the DD.

That is true. in 1948 CV with Turbojet CAG offers sub attack 11, 1948 DD-ASW sub attack 18. Before Turbojet CAG CV is somehow wasted on ASW duty. Later it is still not ecomically, but far less inefficient.

So, in these cases, the DD's ASW doesn't get used.

ASW is always used for detection. Sub detection is relevant.

 

[Commander666]

ASW is always used for detection. Sub detection is relevant.

I actually meant the sub attack value is not used. But you have nicely pointed out the problem of what happens when a CV or CVL with DD screens finds a sub at long range. Firstly, the detection is as good as it can be because of the DD contribution. Great,,, we found a sub! But then ONLY the CV or CVL strikes with its relatively weak attack value and... NOT SO GREAT... sub just escaped!


What is the point here? Finding sub (and scratching it) or killing sub? I would much rather my CTFs never find any sub unless it is within DD range to get a kill. And as we now know, that risks damage to a most expensive capital unit. I would say "guarantees damage to CV or CVL" given the test replay results I just got.

It really was interesting how this test replay - which saw all the pure DD ASW groups go to port so only CVs and CVLs could engage subs - resulted in 13 CVs or CVLs damaged in 13 encounters. However, I rarely get DDs very damaged when they engage subs provided it is 3 decent DDs and not more than 3-4 sub flotillas. By having taken out the normal DD ASW units, the test results catapulted to "CTF horrible reality" instead of what seemed under normal play only an occasional CTF "bad luck finding sub result".

I am now of the new opinion that CTFs should stay away from subs because - for sure - I cannot repair my UK CVs as fast as Germany can probably build new SS. And I really don’t want one of my CVs 10% damaged and then have my CTF meet an enemy CTF. That might result in losing a CV. So seems – according to results I just got – every time sub encounters CV or CVL at close range the sub manages to shoot off enough torpedoes to mean one capital ship needs repairing. Now my CTF is weaker by one carrier on account of a run in with one sub flotilla. Is that worth it?

So that leaves the last question, "What about my 3 all alone DDs doing their ASW thing and getting caught by enemy SAG or CTF?". Well, firstly, I only occasionally had such bad luck. Staying on ASW mission helps. But DDs can escape pretty fast if the sea zone is not too big, and I usually try to work my fleets together. So if a small DD group is in the Pacific and I playing against Japan, I'll make sure a big CTF of mine is between Tokyo and my DDs. Or put them in the same sea region. Now - if your DDs get pounced upon - you can always think of it as "bait" and go after that enemy fleet with your CTF. Just how I see it.

 

[Epaminondas]

I am now of the new opinion that CTFs should stay away from subs because - for sure - I cannot repair my UK CVs as fast as Germany can probably build new SS.

I reckon that's a very accurate reflection of WWII realities. Given the technology of the day CTFs had no business trying to chase down subs - as the loss of the Courageous demonstrates. They had bigger fish to fry and their destroyer screens were there to keep the subs at a safe distance, not to run around looking for trouble. Even CVEs were intended to act as sub wardens rather than sub hunters.