How Do Carriers Perform Against Convoys
- Thread starter Stug_Life
- Start date
-
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.
Carriers are mediocre at sinking convoys. The main difficulties with them are:
- Their air groups tend to target everything else in the sea zone first, and
- They burn a lot of fuel compared to anything else you'd want to operate as convoy raiders.
I have to ask about point 1
As I understand, a carrier on operation has their air groups slaved to them. And therefore, a carrier on convoy raiding wouldn't have their air group attacking anything but ships in the battle they're in
Am I wrong about that?
Carriers are quite good ar killing convoys but not dramatically better than Subs. So it is far from relating to their increased cost.
Still it can be worthwhile to use Carriers for convoy raiding, simply to get ship xp for them, so they have better stats for an upcoming surface battle.
Still it can be worthwhile to use Carriers for convoy raiding, simply to get ship xp for them, so they have better stats for an upcoming surface battle.
- 3
Wait are you saying that the carriers will join any "battle" if the u-boats caught a pack of convoys?
It depends to what attack setting you have them on. But if it's "always engage" then the answer is yes
I thought this was discussed in another thread that strike force mission will not sortie against convoy raids unless something like this happens:
subs attack convoy -> your convoy escort engages -> enemy taskforce reinforces subs -> this triggers the check on strike force that an enemy fleet is reinforcing an engagement.
Although in the case of a friendly raiding task force, I believe strike force should sortie to support them if they are engaged by an enemy task force, but not if they are just attacking undefended convoys.
subs attack convoy -> your convoy escort engages -> enemy taskforce reinforces subs -> this triggers the check on strike force that an enemy fleet is reinforcing an engagement.
Although in the case of a friendly raiding task force, I believe strike force should sortie to support them if they are engaged by an enemy task force, but not if they are just attacking undefended convoys.
- 1
Sorry for the delay in replying, was stuck at work. All my claims come from what I've observed in gameplay, most recently raiding Japan as USA (SP, all current DLC, no beta or gameplay mods).
And if the carriers catch nothing but convoys, then they are free to raid those convoys. When escorts and strike forces begin to mix it up, the CV air groups use targeting priorities that seem to prioritize enemy carriers, then capitals, then screens.
Not that I've seen, but rarely do my submarines catch just a pack of convoys, at least until Japan's fleet is wrecked (at which point anything you try will work). The subs trigger the escorts, and the resulting battle triggers everybody's strike forces. In the fight that follows, there is an advantage to the carriers that arrive with fresh air groups and full organization. I've found that advantage outweighs any positioning penalty which might come from arriving to reinforce the fight.
Also, don't do any of this under enemy air cover, unless you are bringing competitive amounts of your own air. I get quite aggressive with the US navy with even yellow air, but not anything worse than that until the enemy fleet is either in ports repairing or on the seabed rusting. At which point, it's time to invade and capture more airfields.
And if the carriers catch nothing but convoys, then they are free to raid those convoys. When escorts and strike forces begin to mix it up, the CV air groups use targeting priorities that seem to prioritize enemy carriers, then capitals, then screens.
Not that I've seen, but rarely do my submarines catch just a pack of convoys, at least until Japan's fleet is wrecked (at which point anything you try will work). The subs trigger the escorts, and the resulting battle triggers everybody's strike forces. In the fight that follows, there is an advantage to the carriers that arrive with fresh air groups and full organization. I've found that advantage outweighs any positioning penalty which might come from arriving to reinforce the fight.
Also, don't do any of this under enemy air cover, unless you are bringing competitive amounts of your own air. I get quite aggressive with the US navy with even yellow air, but not anything worse than that until the enemy fleet is either in ports repairing or on the seabed rusting. At which point, it's time to invade and capture more airfields.
- 1
IDK about that: the only relevant XP stat for carriers seems to be fighter sortie efficiency - not necessarily something to aim for.
Since naval bombers do so much damage in naval battles, carriers will shred the convoys they do hit. The problem is the damage is all concentrated, so the planes will overkill the hell out of a single convoy vessel. The entire carrier group's aircraft will split damage amongst multiple targets, even if its only a single carrier with one wing I believe. The problem is that spread is very inconsistent, so maybe you kill 2 convoys per sortie, maybe you kill 4. Then consider that sorties in naval battles fly like 2-3 times per day. You end up with the ability to absolutely devastate a couple of their ships, but they could have like 100 convoys, so it doesn't matter.
Interesting! So it sounds like using carriers for convoy raiding or producing for the purpose is kind of useless as a light attack capital or u-boats can do just as much if not more damage for less IC cost
Do you guys use several airwings on a carrier, like 5 x 12 or just 1 with 60 CV Nav?
I normally use 1 x 12 CV fgt and 48 CV nav. I usually play GB SP and quit after beating Italy in the MED
I normally use 1 x 12 CV fgt and 48 CV nav. I usually play GB SP and quit after beating Italy in the MED
I tend to make an even split between Fighters, CAS, and NAV. If there's an unevenness, I put the extra in CAS
I like using Carrier CAS to support naval invasions
But there's only one airwing each
Same-type airwings tend to get "merged" for the purposes of combat calculations anyway, so keeping several is kind of pointless (with sole exception of utilizing aces, I suppose).
To answer the question: it depends on what I want to do with carriers. For fleet battle support purposes it's something along these lines; for naval invasion support - usually, pure CAS (single wing per carrier, obviously, for ease of management).
Depends on the opposition and invasion template you're using, I suppose. If enemy has heavy enough air presence to cause a lot of disruption or you're using some "clicky" marine template - you won't see much of a difference. Otherwise it's the same as anywhere else: a noticeable chunk of additional damage (or more if you skimp on division attack stat).
Sometimes. And frankly the times it doesn't it's because I win quick without them
They vastly decrease the time taken, which means the AI can't throw fresh bodies to turn it into a slog
- 1
- 1
For flexibility i tend to do small wings. This allows me to adapt wing combinations according to the mission i assign the CTF to. The opportunity to gain more aces is a welcome side effect.
For nations using the pacific fleet designer i use wings of 25 planes each, for the other 20 each. Going even smaller would mean too much micro for my taste. It also allows you to merge to wings of 50 and / or 100 if the need arises (and be it supplementing land based air operations).
a "convoy vessel", you do know what a convoy is? ^^
But yeah I know what you mean, one production unit of convoy is overkilled.
Saying "a convoy vessel" is a grammatically correct turn of phrase
It's declaring "one vessel in the convoy"