How good are surface ships at convoy raiding?

[Paul.Ketcham]

Then they wouldn't be that different from cruisers/dds you enemy might deploy anyway, and being outnumbered in similar ships will get you killed fast.

...

You pay in tech, you build expensive ships, and all you get in return is forcing enemy ASW hunter killers.and patrols off station, till air power dents enemy raiders into port/to the bottom of ocean. Is it worth is?

The only real tech you need as Germany to surface raid effectively is DP guns, which isn't hard to research. That lets you put together light cruisers with between 10-20 (or more) AA, that still have 14+ light attack. Note that tactical bombers will get shot up pretty badly by a group of these, even if they're forced to go back and repair (and if you're repairing in Spanish shipyards, you won't even lose any dockyards while they get fixed up); you're also sparing a lot of subs air attack, since they can't shoot back at all. The raider picks and chooses where to be at any time, and while a Royal Navy convoy escort fleet might be larger in numbers, it will also be scattered across multiple seazones. The more areas you raid, the more these ships get scattered, and each one needs at least enough ships nearby to defend its area. If you're just defending Britain and Iceland with airfields its one thing to use bombers, but when raids start scattering to distant locations like the Caribbean, South Africa, and the Indian Ocean, you're going to need to build up airfields to even cover some of those seazones effectively (and bombers somewhere like Sri Lanka are going to be stuck there for a while).

You can still beat raiders with a larger fleet, and obviously its a high-risk strategy since ships that get crippled far from friendly territory are going to be at higher risk of sinking than ones fleeing close to home (and friendly aircover is unlikely if you're raiding in distant seazones). But properly-used raiders can force someone like the RN to both spread their fleet (and air force) out dangerously across multiple oceans, and even if all it does is weaken their doomstack somewhat you're still helping Italy out a ton by scattering ships far and wide, and wasting fuel helps to weaken the British economy. If the British are making bombers to counter German cruisers, then you're also spending their military factories on naval warfare, which indirectly helps your own military by reducing the threat to you on-land (or from strat-bombing, if that's allowed).

The key for me with raiders is also that they don't need to be out all the time, but a defender needs to be ready for them all the time. If you don't have ships in a particular seazone and you've been funnelling your convoys into specific routes to defend them against submarine attack, then you're going to have very large masses of convoys that could get messed up badly if, for instance, a small fleet sailed out and just blasted apart 60 convoys in one sitting; sail out, hit once, then sail back. Your fuel loss from that raid is going to be a lot less than Britain's from searching all over the place for you. Then there's the simple fact that Germany doesn't need half as many ships to defend its shores as the British do, so scattering your own fleet isn't nearly as risky for you as it is for Britain.

 

[CantGetNoSleep]

It's an interesting question. I've tended to find they're a lot more effective, but a lot more vulnerable to counter-attack. Even worse is radar - one of the tech that's not used enough in the game. Radars will spot ships and subs, but it'll be devastating to a surface fleet, sending all enemy ships and planes right onto you. Most players build small air wings to increase coverage, but a 1000 wing of tac bombers will wipe off any fleet that comes into radar range. As the US, I've taken out entire Japanese carrier groups that way.

Still, I like the question - I feel the dynamics of fleets aren't explained well (i.e. mathematically) anywhere.

 

[Happy Trigger]

Most players build small air wings to increase coverage, but a 1000 wing of tac bombers will wipe off any fleet that comes into radar range. As the US, I've taken out entire Japanese carrier groups that way.

Still, I like the question - I feel the dynamics of fleets aren't explained well (i.e. mathematically) anywhere.

Looks like there's still a bug where the carrier planes don't interact with land attackers. That's why you need heavy AA on cruisers.

 

[Happy Trigger]

Huh, is speed impact on air damage even in game?

Your other questions were already answered, but this is a good one. I'm not sure, but in game says that speed makes you hard to hit, but i don't know about the interaction with planes. I would suppose that in the same way people don't use TACs to kill DDs (ASW), because it's hard to do and overkill, you don't do the same with cruisers, because they still are screen ship (with exception to CA).

I think this is worth some tests.

 

[brainiac1530]

If any planes remain after the ship shot at them, they perform the naval strike. If they are based on a carrier that takes part in the battle, their damage is increased to 500%. The ratio of planes that actually hit the ship is <naval targeting>/10 * 30% (capped between 0% and 100%). It does not depend on the maneuverability of the ship.

Naval battle - Hearts of Iron 4 Wiki

hoi4.paradoxwikis.com

 

[mursolini]

The only real tech you need as Germany to surface raid effectively is DP guns, which isn't hard to research. That lets you put together light cruisers with between 10-20 (or more) AA, that still have 14+ light attack. Note that tactical bombers will get shot up pretty badly by a group of these, even if they're forced to go back and repair (and if you're repairing in Spanish shipyards, you won't even lose any dockyards while they get fixed up); you're also sparing a lot of subs air attack, since they can't shoot back at all. The raider picks and chooses where to be at any time, and while a Royal Navy convoy escort fleet might be larger in numbers, it will also be scattered across multiple seazones. The more areas you raid, the more these ships get scattered, and each one needs at least enough ships nearby to defend its area. If you're just defending Britain and Iceland with airfields its one thing to use bombers, but when raids start scattering to distant locations like the Caribbean, South Africa, and the Indian Ocean, you're going to need to build up airfields to even cover some of those seazones effectively (and bombers somewhere like Sri Lanka are going to be stuck there for a while).

You can still beat raiders with a larger fleet, and obviously its a high-risk strategy since ships that get crippled far from friendly territory are going to be at higher risk of sinking than ones fleeing close to home (and friendly aircover is unlikely if you're raiding in distant seazones). But properly-used raiders can force someone like the RN to both spread their fleet (and air force) out dangerously across multiple oceans, and even if all it does is weaken their doomstack somewhat you're still helping Italy out a ton by scattering ships far and wide, and wasting fuel helps to weaken the British economy. If the British are making bombers to counter German cruisers, then you're also spending their military factories on naval warfare, which indirectly helps your own military by reducing the threat to you on-land (or from strat-bombing, if that's allowed).

The key for me with raiders is also that they don't need to be out all the time, but a defender needs to be ready for them all the time. If you don't have ships in a particular seazone and you've been funnelling your convoys into specific routes to defend them against submarine attack, then you're going to have very large masses of convoys that could get messed up badly if, for instance, a small fleet sailed out and just blasted apart 60 convoys in one sitting; sail out, hit once, then sail back. Your fuel loss from that raid is going to be a lot less than Britain's from searching all over the place for you. Then there's the simple fact that Germany doesn't need half as many ships to defend its shores as the British do, so scattering your own fleet isn't nearly as risky for you as it is for Britain.

I think this is worth some tests.

So, I tried running some tests with this cruiser design, 5 raiders group, in mid atlantic gap:

vs 400 TACII located on Bermuda
Results:
1. Cruisers lose 10-40% of 1 cruiser every time TACs detect them.
2. On battle with unescorted convoy(63 chromium purchase from Cuba) 1-3 Cruisers get sunk(depends on how much damage they suffer before battle) and rest suffers heavy damage(20-60%) by TACs, convoy loses depends on RNG, could be 10-13, TACS lose 60-120 units.

If number of TACs is increased to 600, cruisers are completely(or almost) wiped out over 1 battle, for the cost of only 40-60 TAC.

I doubt this is sustainable strategy.

 

[brainiac1530]

Imagine if you'd used planes that were actually any good at naval strikes. Tactical bombers have abysmal naval targeting, just 6, not to mention their total inferiority in terms of naval attack score, and higher cost. A TAC 3 has the same naval attack as a NAV 1. The number of planes that can take part in a naval strike is capped, so you cannot simply overcome this poor performance with numbers.

The fact that naval bombing still results in such a lopsided victory, even when you use subpar planes to do it, is really damning to the current state of naval balance. In theory, this design chose a lot of options intended to make naval bombing more expensive, and this is still the result. Fifty TAC-2s cost about 2000 IC. That's a fraction of the cost of just one of these cruisers.

NAVAL_STRIKE_BASE_STR_TO_PLANES_RATIO = 0.03,    -- Max airbombers to do port strike comparing to strength
NAVAL_COMBAT_EXTERNAL_PLANES_JOIN_RATIO = 0.05,    -- Max planes that can join a combat comparing to the total strength of the ships
NAVAL_COMBAT_EXTERNAL_PLANES_JOIN_RATIO_PER_DAY = 0.2, -- max extra plane % that can join every day

 

[mursolini]

Imagine if you'd used planes that were actually any good at naval strikes. Tactical bombers have abysmal naval targeting, just 6, not to mention their total inferiority in terms of naval attack score, and higher cost. A TAC 3 has the same naval attack as a NAV 1. The number of planes that can take part in a naval strike is capped, so you cannot simply overcome this poor performance with numbers.

The fact that naval bombing still results in such a lopsided victory, even when you use subpar planes to do it, is really damning to the current state of naval balance. In theory, this design chose a lot of options intended to make naval bombing more expensive, and this is still the result. Fifty TAC-2s cost about 2000 IC. That's a fraction of the cost of just one of these cruisers.

Well, this is a game we play. Either you use at most 1.7k km range super effective NAV/CAS, or 2.4-4.5k range twice as expensive and half as good TAC, or pay ~150 Naval production for each NAV we can place on a carrier.
No free lunch

 

[CantGetNoSleep]

Looks like there's still a bug where the carrier planes don't interact with land attackers. That's why you need heavy AA on cruisers.

I think that game has it right. If you have 1000 bombers on you and you're in a boat, it doesn't matter what the few dozens carrier planes do, or how good your AA is: You're basically toast... Radars kill boats. It's as true today as ever - US aircraft carriers are just basically huge targets for anyone who can get radar lock on them.

@Stug_Life Having thought about it, the main reason to use subs in the end is range. Battlecruisers or heavy cruisers have the range to operate mid-atlantic, but their escorts do not. As a result, you're either sending your heavy ships unescorted (bad idea) or you're staying with range of the bombers (bad idea). So either way, you're best off sticking to subs.

 

[Paul.Ketcham]

So, I tried running some tests with this cruiser design, 5 raiders group, in mid atlantic gap:
View attachment 666292

vs 400 TACII located on Bermuda
Results:
1. Cruisers lose 10-40% of 1 cruiser every time TACs detect them.
2. On battle with unescorted convoy(63 chromium purchase from Cuba) 1-3 Cruisers get sunk(depends on how much damage they suffer before battle) and rest suffers heavy damage(20-60%) by TACs, convoy loses depends on RNG, could be 10-13, TACS lose 60-120 units.
View attachment 666290

If number of TACs is increased to 600, cruisers are completely(or almost) wiped out over 1 battle, for the cost of only 40-60 TAC.

I doubt this is sustainable strategy.

Before I say anything, I do want to point out that your counter strategy to raiders is also what I would be doing. I also in my playtesting I've been doing ran into some interesting disasters when cruisers tried to do a channel dash (although 1600 nav 1 and 2 bombers, plus level 4 radar, is hardly ideal circumstances; though I did think the 4000 fighters battling in the seazone would disrupt them a tad more).

That said, I still see a few key issues:
1.) While still effective for AA-use, DP primaries are really not a very good option; they offer no HP bonus, have only 3 attack and 2 piercing (meaning they're pretty bad for engaging cruisers in particular), and cost 1 steel each. I'd rather mount 1 light gun and 1 AA rather than 2 DP Primaries, even for engaging aircraft (since against convoys, slightly-more light attack is better than slightly-more speed).

Spoiler: My 1936 CL:

2.) TAC IIs have a much longer delay in building them than cruisers with DP armament do (refitting existing cruisers isn't ideal for a straight cost comparison, but means you can start the ships earlier). Similarly, while radar is devastating with regards to buffing naval bombing (and spotting ships in general), its also pretty crap in range until much later in the game (your example of the mid-atlantic gap requires pretty-advanced radar to even reach). Tac Is and interwar variants are a crapload less powerful and easier to shoot down (my test showed a group of about 12 cruisers blowing up a couple hundred of them in short order, while fighting in the Labrador Sea near Canada).

3.) 400 TACs requires at least a level 2 airfield in range, and they also need to be in the right spot (in particular, while aircraft can react to threats faster and redeploy, you also need to be paying attention to do that; a quick raid might not give you that time).

4.) You're showing an unescorted convoy of 60 ships versus a few cruisers; that force either needs to maximize firepower, or would be better suited as submarines (you could afford around 32 subs for 5 cruisers, if there aren't any escorts; that would have far more firepower to quickly knock out the convoy). The main point of the raiders is killing off escort groups and leaving you exposed to more raids.

Just to try out as well, I tried sticking 3 pocket battleships without any screens near South Africa, and despite naval bombers and convoy escorts they were still able to kill quite a few convoys while they were there (later, though a heavy cruiser patrol with 20 destroyers ran into them and killed them all, so there is that).

 

[Happy Trigger]

Before I say anything, I do want to point out that your counter strategy to raiders is also what I would be doing. I also in my playtesting I've been doing ran into some interesting disasters when cruisers tried to do a channel dash (although 1600 nav 1 and 2 bombers, plus level 4 radar, is hardly ideal circumstances; though I did think the 4000 fighters battling in the seazone would disrupt them a tad more).

That said, I still see a few key issues:
1.) While still effective for AA-use, DP primaries are really not a very good option; they offer no HP bonus, have only 3 attack and 2 piercing (meaning they're pretty bad for engaging cruisers in particular), and cost 1 steel each. I'd rather mount 1 light gun and 1 AA rather than 2 DP Primaries, even for engaging aircraft (since against convoys, slightly-more light attack is better than slightly-more speed).

Spoiler: My 1936 CL:

View attachment 666342

2.) TAC IIs have a much longer delay in building them than cruisers with DP armament do (refitting existing cruisers isn't ideal for a straight cost comparison, but means you can start the ships earlier). Similarly, while radar is devastating with regards to buffing naval bombing (and spotting ships in general), its also pretty crap in range until much later in the game (your example of the mid-atlantic gap requires pretty-advanced radar to even reach). Tac Is and interwar variants are a crapload less powerful and easier to shoot down (my test showed a group of about 12 cruisers blowing up a couple hundred of them in short order, while fighting in the Labrador Sea near Canada).

3.) 400 TACs requires at least a level 2 airfield in range, and they also need to be in the right spot (in particular, while aircraft can react to threats faster and redeploy, you also need to be paying attention to do that; a quick raid might not give you that time).

4.) You're showing an unescorted convoy of 60 ships versus a few cruisers; that force either needs to maximize firepower, or would be better suited as submarines (you could afford around 32 subs for 5 cruisers, if there aren't any escorts; that would have far more firepower to quickly knock out the convoy). The main point of the raiders is killing off escort groups and leaving you exposed to more raids.

Just to try out as well, I tried sticking 3 pocket battleships without any screens near South Africa, and despite naval bombers and convoy escorts they were still able to kill quite a few convoys while they were there (later, though a heavy cruiser patrol with 20 destroyers ran into them and killed them all, so there is that).

Thanks for the amazing test, but i could say i expected for some of these results. In the end, combat against surface raiders, require high end tech, lots of production and tons of fuel (if you're planning in using planes). So, if you ask me... Yeah, it's very worth!

About the concentration of planes, i doubt a player i'll have time to be looking to the sea zones to concentrated his TACs, so, even if he is playing USA, i would expect numbers between 200-400 at most, scatted around a few sea zones (the most important at least). UK probably can't reach 400 to cover all sea zones and even if USA can, when they start moving their fighters, tanks and navy around, the fuel consumption would be so prohibitive, that i doubt anyone can keep that.

That's why the best way to deal with a surface raider, is another one.

Just a thought that maybe people are forgetting, but while 1 CA and 3 CLs would be the ideal composition of a surface raider (3 screens to every 1 capital ship), so, you can expect even more AA than that. To some nations like Japan and UK, compositions like, 1 CV (maybe a converted cruiser), 1 CAs or 1 BCs and 6 CLs are not out of game, which would made them extremely dangerous to patrolling ships. Despite these compositions looking expensive at firts, it all depends of the distance that the player want to disrupt the enemies trade. At close distances, NAVs and DDs do the job quite well, being nasty to deal with.

 

[Paul.Ketcham]

Just a thought that maybe people are forgetting, but while 1 CA and 3 CLs would be the ideal composition of a surface raider (3 screens to every 1 capital ship), so, you can expect even more AA than that. To some nations like Japan and UK, compositions like, 1 CV (maybe a converted cruiser), 1 CAs or 1 BCs and 6 CLs are not out of game, which would made them extremely dangerous to patrolling ships. Despite these compositions looking expensive at firts, it all depends of the distance that the player want to disrupt the enemies trade. At close distances, NAVs and DDs do the job quite well, being nasty to deal with.

Just to make it clear here, for raiding in distant waters (South Atlantic, Indian Ocean, Pacific) a few cruisers are fine, but the British can roll up and wreck a force like that pretty easily if its closer to home. My best results, both historically and in the test, tended to either be with large formations (my last test the Canada force had 3 battlecruisers and 14 light cruisers), or just where the AI is too dumb to launch counterattacks (most of the British strike forces in my test wouldn't launch, so I had to manually deploy them, raise the aggressiveness, and/or put them on patrol instead of search and destroy).

Large raiding groups have the key advantage that you can wipe out convoys and patrol groups before strike forces even have time to get there; the smaller the force, the more likely you get stuck in place and intercepted by a defending player (who can also move bombers in range if it's somewhere with airfields). Similarly, a few cruisers might shoot down a few dozen bombers, but a small fleet can shoot down several hundred in a matter of weeks (or days, if there are enough battles). Against the AI, they're usually too dumb to do anything about distant raiders.

 

[mursolini]

Before I say anything, I do want to point out that your counter strategy to raiders is also what I would be doing. I also in my playtesting I've been doing ran into some interesting disasters when cruisers tried to do a channel dash (although 1600 nav 1 and 2 bombers, plus level 4 radar, is hardly ideal circumstances; though I did think the 4000 fighters battling in the seazone would disrupt them a tad more).

That said, I still see a few key issues:
1.) While still effective for AA-use, DP primaries are really not a very good option; they offer no HP bonus, have only 3 attack and 2 piercing (meaning they're pretty bad for engaging cruisers in particular), and cost 1 steel each. I'd rather mount 1 light gun and 1 AA rather than 2 DP Primaries, even for engaging aircraft (since against convoys, slightly-more light attack is better than slightly-more speed).

Spoiler: My 1936 CL:

View attachment 666342

2.) TAC IIs have a much longer delay in building them than cruisers with DP armament do (refitting existing cruisers isn't ideal for a straight cost comparison, but means you can start the ships earlier). Similarly, while radar is devastating with regards to buffing naval bombing (and spotting ships in general), its also pretty crap in range until much later in the game (your example of the mid-atlantic gap requires pretty-advanced radar to even reach). Tac Is and interwar variants are a crapload less powerful and easier to shoot down (my test showed a group of about 12 cruisers blowing up a couple hundred of them in short order, while fighting in the Labrador Sea near Canada).

3.) 400 TACs requires at least a level 2 airfield in range, and they also need to be in the right spot (in particular, while aircraft can react to threats faster and redeploy, you also need to be paying attention to do that; a quick raid might not give you that time).

4.) You're showing an unescorted convoy of 60 ships versus a few cruisers; that force either needs to maximize firepower, or would be better suited as submarines (you could afford around 32 subs for 5 cruisers, if there aren't any escorts; that would have far more firepower to quickly knock out the convoy). The main point of the raiders is killing off escort groups and leaving you exposed to more raids.

Just to try out as well, I tried sticking 3 pocket battleships without any screens near South Africa, and despite naval bombers and convoy escorts they were still able to kill quite a few convoys while they were there (later, though a heavy cruiser patrol with 20 destroyers ran into them and killed them all, so there is that).

Since my answer was only MP related:
1: Yes slightly better design, but I doubt it changes anything.
2. Critical 1940 MP tech is pretty easy to research ahead of time for countries like Canada and the like. You don't really need radar, planes on patrol will do perfectly fine job on their own, since surface raiders are detected once they enter combat. TAC can also get a boost to naval attack and range.

3. Yes, but player will limit convoy routes to sea zones that are relatively defendable. Then, having to build 3*3lvl air fields isn't huge expense in grand scheme of things. UK has to secure atlantic, it's simply a matter of what will cost it most to deal with. By that metric surface raiders are the worst proposition. They can be dealt with swiftly, with no specialized assets or tech, just pulling some bombers in and building a bunch of air fields, that UK will want for ASW anyway.
German player has eastern front to manage, so it is pretty fair game in terms of micro. UK can just sent air cover to sea zone in which attack already happened.
4. The goal was to show just how much durability would a raider group have under air attack alone, by weakest but longest range aircraft. Basically, it's none, once enemy knows in which zone your raiders operate, it has 10-ish days to leave or suffer huge loses.
I didn't have escorts, hunter killers or anti raiders, nor carriers in sea zone on purpose, to allow raiders to kill as much as they can from unescorted convoys and leave.


As Germany, your entire NIC will build around 15-20 such cruisers pre-war. Which will melt under air attack by planes UK/US might be inclined to build anyway infrastructure that needs to be built anyway, at more or less no real cost to them. One such cruiser is worth around 70 Convoys. UK has thousands of convoys that needs to be killed, and If your raiders die on first convoy attack in enemy air cover, your plan is toast, and there is no fallback.

 

[Paul.Ketcham]

As Germany, your entire NIC will build around 15-20 such cruisers pre-war. Which will melt under air attack by planes UK/US might be inclined to build anyway infrastructure that needs to be built anyway, at more or less no real cost to them. One such cruiser is worth around 70 Convoys. UK has thousands of convoys that needs to be killed, and If your raiders die on first convoy attack in enemy air cover, your plan is toast, and there is no fallback.

This is the one big part where I disagree. The gain from commerce raiders, surface raiders, is that you kill convoy escorts with them; you aren't just killing a handful of convoys here and there, you're killing the ships that are guarding them. I also don't send out handfuls of cruisers to raid unless they're very far away (i.e. Madagascar), I tend to send out a small fleet. That said, I play a little too-heavily into the naval game, so I also get the early focuses for extra dockyards which might be a bad idea online.

While you can build Tac IIs prior to 1940, getting them early is a significant investment, and you'd still need about a year to get 400 of them from 15 factories (not 100% on numbers, but 1000 takes 722 days on 80% efficiency; I'd rather not do calculus to figure out the acceleration rate of production). Those 15 factories aren't making fighters, CAS (which have better ground attack ratings), or tanks, and if you're building up airfields and radar for them in the west atlantic then you have a bunch of industry to the west that isn't contributing anything. Radar is also stupidly-expensive, beyond the cap on building speed from the tech requirements.

Those airfields also might seem cheap, but it depends on how many you build; 2 for northern Scotland and Ireland, plus 9 for Newfoundland, Bermuda, and the Caribbean costs you 2 mils. Expand that to cover the South Atlantic or Indian Ocean, however, and its getting more expensive. Its also costing you the opportunity to build the same up somewhere else (i.e. forts in Malaya), which means even if Germany can't raid you near Canada, you spend a ton of industry making something defensible which detracted from your industry otherwise (and if Germany is building surface raiders, then it can still use those as a battlefleet to attack Britain; the same can't be said of submarines, which would die FAR more easily to your defense). I also can't imagine a position where Germany can't raid you near Australia or Malaysia.

That said, I don't play multiplayer, and I can't really give a specific response to how your convoys are organized because I have no idea what it looks like (I've watched some multiplayer games, but the naval part always seems to be a relatively minor theatre comparatively). I also would like to stress that you're not doing anything wrong with your defense; I just disagree that surface raiders aren't useful.

 

[Anony1200]

There's a lot of conditions to this whole Tac Bomber nav defense concept, but the best way I can put it is: Too many assumptions here.

For starters, it's based on a foundation that the Allied player correctly anticipates what Germany's going to do, and someone on Allies is already barreling for Tacs, and hasn't already exhausted a mutually exclusive option for an Ahead of Time bonus, which AoT bonuses on this tend to be (unless someone is just eating the research penatly in like '36, which would be bizarre). It also pretty much has to be a strategy from game start. The conditions for this aren't really going to be suitable if you start building up for it in, like. '39 even. Frankly, by that point, the tell would be too obvious, and Germany would just be able to respond in kind with H-fighters. Hell, Germany and Italy may be able to find out and counter anyway, especially if they have any sort of intel advantage.

Airbase construction takes time, planning out and taking the AoT bonus (without accidentally tripping on a mutually exclusive) takes time, figuring out which seazone is going to be under threat takes time, and with all of this, you still have to have a competent air force somewhere. I can tell you what I'd do if I saw 600 Tac Bombers over the red sea in '40: I'd assume (probably safely) there's been a compromise on fighters to do so and strike back the airbase. Won't be a very subtle tell. Or, conversely, if tragedy has stricken my surface raider force, I could just cut out the middleman and turn the isle itself into a crater.

Also say this much: If you're stacking your entire surface raider fleet in a single seazone, you are really doing it wrong. I also don't really subscribe to the idea of a perfectly safe convoy route: Across the channel, maybe, but any farther than that and you're likely going into danger somewhere. Didn't really put that idea in consideration though, since I've got no idea what you personally are trying to import as Britain.

So in summary: If you correctly deduce Germany is going to be focusing on surface raiders at the start of the game (get it wrong and this is a massive waste of time vs. rushing pretty much any other aircraft), are able to instantly convince the Commonwealth and France/USSR/US to drop what they're doing and focus on this problem early so your production efficiency is good at war start/rubber shipments aren't a problem, Germany makes no significant efforts to respond (via airbase bombing, pressuring with strat/port bombings, or, if applicable, h-fighter escort, all of which a functioning Axis should be able to do in even a normal game), and you do so without making overly significant cuts somewhere else, this is quite a good counter.

If any of those assumptions fall through, however, you're either countering one part of the German strategy by putting your country at great risk, or failing in execution without much impact. Either way, I'd be well enough pleased with as Germany- after all, this whole operation was to force opportunity costs, and if my ships aren't able to effectively raid but I get a big advantage out of it anyway, so be it.

I think in most cases, though, it'd be a moot point. I'd imagine in most games where Germany is going to be focusing on surface raiding, it's not going to be anticipated, nor likely noticed before France goes down (unless they show far too much in the Baltic Sea), by which point it's probably too late to start building up airfields in oddball regions or building up too many Tac '40s to respond to.

 

[mursolini]

There's a lot of conditions to this whole Tac Bomber nav defense concept, but the best way I can put it is: Too many assumptions here.

For starters, it's based on a foundation that the Allied player correctly anticipates what Germany's going to do, and someone on Allies is already barreling for Tacs, and hasn't already exhausted a mutually exclusive option for an Ahead of Time bonus, which AoT bonuses on this tend to be (unless someone is just eating the research penatly in like '36, which would be bizarre). It also pretty much has to be a strategy from game start.

I think you missed the detail, that this strat is just as useful vs subs, hence whatever raiding strategy Germany goes, having large amount of TAC on patrol is useful.

US, France and UK already have 650 TAC between them at game start. Then one of minors can tech rush 1940 version and build it.

The conditions for this aren't really going to be suitable if you start building up for it in, like. '39 even. Frankly, by that point, the tell would be too obvious, and Germany would just be able to respond in kind with H-fighters.

HF doesn`t have range to cover mid-atlantic gap or further. Then, the "point" of surface raiders is supposedly it`s low cost of just 1 tech and already existing dockyards.

Hell, Germany and Italy may be able to find out and counter anyway, especially if they have any sort of intel advantage.

How?

Airbase construction takes time, planning out and taking the AoT bonus (without accidentally tripping on a mutually exclusive) takes time, figuring out which seazone is going to be under threat takes time, and with all of this, you still have to have a competent air force somewhere. I can tell you what I'd do if I saw 600 Tac Bombers over the red sea in '40: I'd assume (probably safely) there's been a compromise on fighters to do so and strike back the airbase. Won't be a very subtle tell. Or, conversely, if tragedy has stricken my surface raider force, I could just cut out the middleman and turn the isle itself into a crater.

You will build airfields in MP. Defense of convoys will come at a cost anyway. Might as well pick your poison.

Also say this much: If you're stacking your entire surface raider fleet in a single seazone, you are really doing it wrong. I also don't really subscribe to the idea of a perfectly safe convoy route: Across the channel, maybe, but any farther than that and you're likely going into danger somewhere. Didn't really put that idea in consideration though, since I've got no idea what you personally are trying to import as Britain.

The smaller the stack, the more vulrnerable it is to air attack. It takes 15-30 days to clear out a sea zone. TACs have about same range as surface raiders, and UK has closer bases that Germany and Italy.

So in summary: If you correctly deduce Germany is going to be focusing on surface raiders at the start of the game (get it wrong and this is a massive waste of time vs. rushing pretty much any other aircraft), are able to instantly convince the Commonwealth and France/USSR/US to drop what they're doing and focus on this problem early so your production efficiency is good at war start/rubber shipments aren't a problem, Germany makes no significant efforts to respond (via airbase bombing, pressuring with strat/port bombings, or, if applicable, h-fighter escort, all of which a functioning Axis should be able to do in even a normal game), and you do so without making overly significant cuts somewhere else, this is quite a good counter.

If any of those assumptions fall through, however, you're either countering one part of the German strategy by putting your country at great risk, or failing in execution without much impact. Either way, I'd be well enough pleased with as Germany- after all, this whole operation was to force opportunity costs, and if my ships aren't able to effectively raid but I get a big advantage out of it anyway, so be it.

Germany has to put it`s dockyards to something. It is going to be either surface raiders or subs, or some fleet assest to help Italy.

You don`t need a huge focus on TACs, frankly. 1 research slot/ahead of time bonus for US/Canada/UK/Commonwealth.

I think in most cases, though, it'd be a moot point. I'd imagine in most games where Germany is going to be focusing on surface raiding, it's not going to be anticipated, nor likely noticed before France goes down (unless they show far too much in the Baltic Sea), by which point it's probably too late to start building up airfields in oddball regions or building up too many Tac '40s to respond to.

Unless Germany invests significant amount into dockyards, it will have at most 25 docks post fall of France, Spain, and Portugal. Which means building one surface raider once ~50 days.

If Germany has build extra 10-15 cruisers, it will be noticeable in advance, is starts with 8, and you will have years to respoind once you detect cruiser/naval buildup.

 

[Happy Trigger]

All these assumptions on how to counter a surface raid fleet, are the same when countering a enemy building STRTs. If you don't notice early, you won't have enough HF when the war start. You're gonna have your industry bombed, which is be the "same" if you don't have enough resources to build your supplies. At least they did La Resistance right. Never before LR, intel was so useful.

 

[Meglok]

My order of preference:
NAV (or anything with nav atk);
Subs (for those places air can't reach);
Raiders, either CL or fast CA (A fast CA loaded with secondary batteries can trash escorts amazingly fast).

You can crush Britain with air over the Channel, Western Approaches, and Bay of Biscay, especially with 1940 aircraft and appropriate doctrine.

If going subs or raiders doctrine is critical, as well as micro managing to avoid stack wipes. Cruiser subs or better yet 1940 sub models work well.

If going surface speed is critical, I suggest 30 knots or better to be able to run down destroyers and run away from CAs and larger hunters. Just stay away from land based air at ALL times. Also see about getting basing rights in Venezuela, Japan, Siam, and anywhere else you can manage. Being able to convoy raid down around South Africa, the Caribbean, off Malaya, etc will force your opponent to split weak forces everywhere to try and stop you.

If you are going the raider route do a lot of exercising, you will need beaucoup xp.

 

[Caeric]

My order of preference:
NAV (or anything with nav atk);
Subs (for those places air can't reach);
Raiders, either CL or fast CA (A fast CA loaded with secondary batteries can trash escorts amazingly fast).

You can crush Britain with air over the Channel, Western Approaches, and Bay of Biscay, especially with 1940 aircraft and appropriate doctrine.

If going subs or raiders doctrine is critical, as well as micro managing to avoid stack wipes. Cruiser subs or better yet 1940 sub models work well.

If going surface speed is critical, I suggest 30 knots or better to be able to run down destroyers and run away from CAs and larger hunters. Just stay away from land based air at ALL times. Also see about getting basing rights in Venezuela, Japan, Siam, and anywhere else you can manage. Being able to convoy raid down around South Africa, the Caribbean, off Malaya, etc will force your opponent to split weak forces everywhere to try and stop you.

If you are going the raider route do a lot of exercising, you will need beaucoup xp.

Absolutely. Surface fleets need to be managed to not get clapped. Plus in general, I tend to make a rule as a smaller navy to not have any surface fleets below 30 kts simply since being able to get away from any blob fleets is so important. That said comapared to the more fire & forget of subs and NAV the payoff tends to be better if managed well. (On a side note, for that reason many of the pre-made templates really annoy me as they have nowhere near their historical speeds, especially since all pre-1936 hulls have such an absurd speed penalty or just really weird module setups that don't match them at all)