Has anyone ever sank a Carrier with anything other than air power?

[BarrosRodrigues]

I hope I do not sound too defensive but:
Do you understand that destroyers are up to 35x smaller than the biggest BB ever built? Around 21x smaller than an Iowa class BB and around 19x smaller than an Essex class aircraft carrier? In real life aircraft carriers were vulnerable to everything that carried big guns, torpedoes or airplanes especially if they were faster than them. Did you know that in this game CTFs and every light ship attached to them (including extremely slow transports) are immune to all SAG fleets? Like the OP said, in this game, the only thing that can hurt a CTF is airpower. Is it me or the big stacks of very small ships are worrying ppl much more than the invisible shield that protects CVs and even the slowest of ships in a CTF?

Edit: Like I said repeatedly the only surface ships capable of consistently damaging CTF are DD with engines "ahead of their time".

 

[Big Nev]

Depends upon what you mean by smaller.

You’re only considering tonnage/displacement. You are aware that destroyers were actually around half the length of a battleship or aircraft carrier? This is a very important distinction to make. They are not a 20th or 30th of the size, in fact, they have about 8th of the volume and, much more importantly, present about ¼ of the silhouette.


But yes, this invisible shield for CVs does seem to be a problem.

I’ve been advocating fast CB & DD combinations to hunt down CVs. And it does seem to be very effective. However, after checking the sunk ships index of my latest 4.02 game I find that the only CV credited to a surface vessel was one CVE, sunk by Hood. And I'm playing as Japan so I'm a bit upset about that. There were a handful credited to NAVs and all the rest to CVs. None of my fast CB/DD fleets scored a kill.

Disturbing.

But, on the plus side, it looks like SM is going to look in to it.

 

[nimrod123]

Depends upon what you mean by smaller.

You’re only considering tonnage/displacement. You are aware that destroyers were actually around half the length of a battleship or aircraft carrier? This is a very important distinction to make. They are not a 20th or 30th of the size, in fact, they have about 8th of the volume and, much more importantly, present about ¼ of the silhouette.


But yes, this invisible shield for CVs does seem to be a problem.

I’ve been advocating fast CB & DD combinations to hunt down CVs. And it does seem to be very effective. However, after checking the sunk ships index of my latest 4.02 game I find that the only CV credited to a surface vessel was one CVE, sunk by Hood. And I'm playing as Japan so I'm a bit upset about that. There were a handful credited to NAVs and all the rest to CVs. None of my fast CB/DD fleets scored a kill.

Disturbing.

But, on the plus side, it looks like SM is going to look in to it.

CB?

do you mean BC's, or carriers or CA

 

[Big Nev]

CB is Cruiser:Battle isn't it?

Have I got my abbreviations mixed up?

Oops

I definitely meant battlecruiser & DD combinations.

 

[BarrosRodrigues]

Depends upon what you mean by smaller.

You’re only considering tonnage/displacement. You are aware that destroyers were actually around half the length of a battleship or aircraft carrier? This is a very important distinction to make. They are not a 20th or 30th of the size, in fact, they have about 8th of the volume and, much more importantly, present about ¼ of the silhouette.


But yes, this invisible shield for CVs does seem to be a problem.

I’ve been advocating fast CB & DD combinations to hunt down CVs. And it does seem to be very effective. However, after checking the sunk ships index of my latest 4.02 game I find that the only CV credited to a surface vessel was one CVE, sunk by Hood. And I'm playing as Japan so I'm a bit upset about that. There were a handful credited to NAVs and all the rest to CVs. None of my fast CB/DD fleets scored a kill.

Disturbing.

But, on the plus side, it looks like SM is going to look in to it.

Yep I was talking about displacement. From my testing only DD are effective. The next best thing (like you were saying) are ahead of time BC+DD but their performance is pathetic at best.

 

[Big Nev]

Yeah, I just needed to clear the size thing up as there are lots of forumites & HoI players that don’t actually know much about the kit used during WWII.

And there’s nothing wrong with that but (IMHO) it does help people understand what’s going on if they do.

Your testing & results are great work by the way. Good job. And I’m very disappointed that my CV killer fleets don’t appear to have actually achieved anything. While I’m 100% certain that they got in to combat, it seems CAGs from nearby CTFs stole their thunder before they got chance to shine. Or, as your research indicates, glimmer rather pathetically.

Battle cruisers that are faster than a CV should catch & destroy it easily. Big guns, big target, piece of cake. With their own screen of DDs to keep the CV’s defenders at bay, they should have no problems whatsoever.

I keep reading about the battle of Samar though. So, maaayyybeee it’s not so bad a model.

Let’s see what SM comes up with.

 

[aviath]

Ship technology is important especially main armament, engine and AA; higher hull is good too but not mandatory because less hull lets us stack more ships, therefore more firepower (…). The doctrines are also very important but believe me when I say that Admirals have a huge impact. If you are lucky to have one with potential to reach level 9, when he reaches there it is goodbye friendly fire!!!

The fleet in your example contains only 22 ships, but the Admiral can command 30 ships. corazhor suggested that you lose the effects of the Admiral when you exceed the command limit.

 

[BarrosRodrigues]

The fleet in your example contains only 22 ships, but the Admiral can command 30 ships. corazhor suggested that you lose the effects of the Admiral when you exceed the command limit.

I only had those screenshots available and I was showing the great impact that an admiral has on positioning. A 100 screen fleet won´t have optimal positioning (far from that) but with a level 8 admiral in charge, FF is not an issue anymore.

 

[themousemaster]

To answer the original poster....

yes, all the time. I have the greatest luck when hitting fleets in the middle of a land-invasion though; it seems that the "effective speed" calculations of fleets with unloading transports is significantly different than open-water conflict. While most times I cannot close the gap on the carriers (which is fine, assuming their CAGs are in operation, I don't really expect to... being faster doesn't help if you have to keep zig-zagging to avoid air-launched torpedoes), if said carriers (or anything else) are involved in a "snk the transport battle", they are closed and capsized quickly by virtually any fleet

 

[Rancher]

Im still not sure I appreciate the point of this thread, in HoI3 CV are dominant warships. Little other than another CV or possibly a sub can sink them. This largely reflects real life, so what is the complaint. I for one would be the first to agree that the naval game is wanting,, to say the very least but this does reflect what actually happened!
Therefore why do we need to change things?
A carrier battle is carried out at long range and not at BB gun range. several CV air strikes could be carried out while the DD doomstacks were getting in position (remembering that DD gun ranges were a lot less then BB/BC). It is also a fact that overhauling ships with only a few knots difference in speed takes quite some time. Also bearing in mind that DD were considerably more affected by seas ie the heavier the seas the MUCH slower the DD possibly completely wiping out the speed difference entirely or even if a heavy ea running causing the the DDto run before it and this could be diametrically in the opposite direction.
All these things have to be taken into account it isnt just a matter of one speed compared with another.
Then of course it highly unlikely that the CV's will be unescorted and the DD wll have to deal with this delay as well. As I said other than perhaps subs and revising the naval game I dont think much needs changing with this problem

 

[unmerged(338228)]

Hmm. The performance of my CV fleets has been rather bad. my typical 2BB+16DD fleets as Germany has however taken care of plenty of UK and US CVs. Normally in manual mode were I can send in reserve fleets to take over after the first fleet that engaged.

 

[Rancher]

engaboy: I would be interested to see your opinion of whether you think that is realistic or something achieved in HoI3 or hopefully your ability as an admiral.

 

[DazKaz]

Im still not sure I appreciate the point of this thread, in HoI3 CV are dominant warships. Little other than another CV or possibly a sub can sink them. This largely reflects real life, so what is the complaint. I for one would be the first to agree that the naval game is wanting,, to say the very least but this does reflect what actually happened!
Therefore why do we need to change things?
A carrier battle is carried out at long range and not at BB gun range. several CV air strikes could be carried out while the DD doomstacks were getting in position (remembering that DD gun ranges were a lot less then BB/BC). It is also a fact that overhauling ships with only a few knots difference in speed takes quite some time. Also bearing in mind that DD were considerably more affected by seas ie the heavier the seas the MUCH slower the DD possibly completely wiping out the speed difference entirely or even if a heavy ea running causing the the DDto run before it and this could be diametrically in the opposite direction.
All these things have to be taken into account it isnt just a matter of one speed compared with another.
Then of course it highly unlikely that the CV's will be unescorted and the DD wll have to deal with this delay as well. As I said other than perhaps subs and revising the naval game I dont think much needs changing with this problem

I made this thread after a few carrier chases where I had wiped out their escorts, and destroyed their CAGs then spent several turns chasing them back to their port while they magically evaded me, so I was wondering what I was doing wrong with my fleet composition.

Playing as Germany in one of my games I never built any CV at all. I did all my fighting within range of air based Int/ftr.
I had 2 fleets I moved together. One a SAG 2xBB 3xHC, and accompanying escorts, and one made of 5XCL.

Once the enemy escorts, and heavy capitals had been destroyed the CV would always get away, even after a lengthy chase with the 5xCL.

So I did some testing, and it would appear that the CV have some kind of force shield around them that even Captain Kirk would be proud of.

Se here:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?655433-Who-needs-CAG-s-Not-I

I'm not so sure a lone CV with no planes, and no escorts would be able to evade a faster fleet.
With the 1942 tech for the CL, and the CV that's:
26kph, for the CV
32kph for the CL, and a 50km lead it would still only take about 9 hours to bring it within gun range, a DD could close it in 4.5 hours.

Edit
That means in the average size sea zone in HOI it should have caught it by the time it gets to the adjacent sea zone.

 

[Traks]

My daughter sinks few carriers every evening.

 

[Rancher]

DazKaz appreciate what your saying but how often did a CVA get caught without any aircraft and no escort. It may be, I am an idiot with regard to programming, that perhaps this was necessary (the force shield) to get the result required in normal circumstances.
You also dont take into sea conditions, many of which would take out DD and even CL would probably have to reduce speed. Most ships were unlikely make their designed speed in a seaway at full war load. In fact their are many recorded instances of large ships having to reduce speed in a seaway to allow flotilla ships to survive

However I am only talking about RL not the game. In a game I suppose you can do anything

 

[DazKaz]

DazKaz appreciate what your saying but how often did a CVA get caught without any aircraft and no escort. It may be, I am an idiot with regard to programming, that perhaps this was necessary (the force shield) to get the result required in normal circumstances.
You also dont take into sea conditions, many of which would take out DD and even CL would probably have to reduce speed. Most ships were unlikely make their designed speed in a seaway at full war load. In fact their are many recorded instances of large ships having to reduce speed in a seaway to allow flotilla ships to survive

However I am only talking about RL not the game. In a game I suppose you can do anything

Well in real life there are a million reasons that the CL might not catch the CV, from dramatic to having someone just forget to bring the binoculars!
The game is just an abstraction of the most likely outcome, with a loaded roll of the dice thrown in, but in the scenario I outlined above the dice is not even thrown, and I kind of think its wrong.

Its not really a huge issue for the current version of the game but if there is a HOI4, I would like to see more rolls of the dice in naval combat as for me it's a very important part of the game.

Others might just use the naval combat, model as just a short jump to the other side, aka The river crossing of the English Channel, that the Germans wanted to do, then think nothing more of it for the rest of their game.

Its player preference really, and if Paradox are willing to put money into improving it I'm willing to pay for it.

There are a few bugs that need sorting via patch though, as I showed In my testing with the transport attached, which is also probably having an effect on other strange naval combat outcomes, especially where invasions are concerned.

 

[unmerged(338228)]

engaboy: I would be interested to see your opinion of whether you think that is realistic or something achieved in HoI3 or hopefully your ability as an admiral.

I believe they need to tweak things a bit in favour of carriers again. I spend much less IC now on BB/DD fleets to build something stronger than a carrier fleet. that doesnt feel right.

 

[spacemanspiff]

I agree with the OP and others that are annoyed by the magical qualities of carriers that allow them to practically evade combat. It's buggy. It is as if the programmers instead of creating a combat model with all the right numbers to simulate carriers being THE capital ships they were, created a shortcut to make them neigh invulnerable.

On thing to understand historically is that prior to the US entry into the war, carriers were a rare thing. US shipbuilding churned out hundreds of carriers for both the USN and the Royal Navy. As such, carrier theory is built atop history, and 60 years of US Navy CTF dominance. HOI3 and it's programming doesn't take into account a nation attempting to counter the CTF with CTFs of their own or other methods, such as fast CV hunters or advanced submarines. HOI3 even deprives us of kamikazes. While Kamikazes weren't effective historically, but only because the US altered ship designs and doctrine to counter them.

Paradox has programmed HOI3 to be a historical game, and we players want more of a sandbox.


EDIT: And superstacks of doom are right out. Historically, WWI and WWII fleets did exist in that size, but they were broken up into TFs, which HOI3 OOB doesn't account for.

 

[Rancher]

sorry spaceman. The Brits did use some of the US navy escort carriers but our fleet and light fleet carriers were our own. Also I would like to put on record in case anyone resding this thinks the yanks invented inventing, the Brits `invented the angled deck and the mirror deck landing systems and many more items, We were even the first to fly Vought Corsair from a carrier deck.
However.I only state what happened and while I lke the sandbox game I still want the weapons to have the same capabilitie sotherwise its not sandbox its fantasy and when are we going to get admirals with magic powers or indeed Kamikazes that are effective

 

[BarrosRodrigues]

However.I only state what happened and while I lke the sandbox game I stkill want the weapons to have the same capabilitiesotherwise its not sandbox its fantasy and when are we going to get admirals with magic powersor infdeed Kamikazes that are effective

I do not know if this will add something to this discussion but here it goes:
While this game is somewhat historically balanced the 1936 scenario lets the player change things a lot; It is a “what if" scenario? Also let us not forget one simple rule any ship that is equipped with long range radar and is much faster than a CV or CVL (CL, DD and maybe CA) will eventually catch up and fire its main guns (or torpedoes) on them. The current naval combat does not allow that probably because the oceans are divided into "sea zones". The OP already gave us a ridiculous example where a CL/DD (etc.) capable of around 30Kph is unable to close in on an 18Kph LC because it is attached to a CV fleet. This is an unacceptable behavior and should be changed. I never paid much attention to this before because my main use for fleets it’s to "conquer" land not to destroy CVs; this feeling was reinforced by the fact that after I destroy the CAGs, CTF are useless and only a minor annoyance.