Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

How to build a powerful Navy from nothing: Operational Example

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Reader mode
Altruist said:
Let me stress this point a bit more as well as rephrasing it:

If your Navy has problems with NAV your best answere, if somehow possible, is NOT some brigades on ships but land-based interceptors or fighters... or even an invasion to get rid of those naval bombers and/or their airports.

And if enemy NAVs attack your ports, make sure to station some interceptors there and to construct some static AA. A well defended port can be a hard nut to crack.
Click to expand...
Yes, the air alternatives are preferable. They are usually possible in Europe but less so while doing transatlantic or pacific operations. If I'm desperate I'll throw up some TAC or STR air and see if they can fight them off.
It seems sometimes that the AI will use NAV freely, but will slam you with every other kind of plane if you start doing it to them also.
 
I have such huge issues detecting and getting rid of subs. There's always a small group of 2-3 old subs that haunts me all game. Which made me search many threads on how to counter the issue. It should be fairly simple, doctrines and dd with asw. But most threads also often says to use cve, but why? They have inferior sub detection and attack than relative modern dd, so what's the use? I see they have very good sea detection, but that doesn't matter against subs right? Also slow which I hate.

Please enlighten me.

I guess if I meet other raiding fleets than subs they could be useful for soaking damage and detecting. Otherwise I see no purpose.

A bit off topic but naval bombers will not damage submarines at all right ?
 
Last edited:
Amberle said:
I have such huge issues detecting and getting rid of subs. There's always a small group of 2-3 old subs that haunts me all game. Which made me search many threads on how to counter the issue. It should be fairly simple, doctrines and dd with asw.
Click to expand...
Yes.

Amberle said:
But most threads also often says to use cve, but why? They have inferior sub detection and attack than relative modern dd, so what's the use? I see they have very good sea detection, but that doesn't matter against subs right? Also slow which I hate.

Please enlighten me.

I guess if I meet other raiding fleets than subs they could be useful for soaking damage and detecting. Otherwise I see no purpose.
Click to expand...
Correct, adding CVE to a sub-hunting DD fleet isn't primarily vs subs but vs an enemy DD-hunter-fleet.
Example:
5 DDs/asw + 1 CVE
Against subs they will automatically use the prefered firing range of the screens (=DDs) but against anything else they will use the prefered firing range of the capital ship which in this case is the CVE with 36 (CVE II) or 38 (CVE III). 36 or 38 is quite good and can keep away all CL, CA and with some luck even older BC and BB if those are not equipped with FC and/or FP brigades.
A DD fleet with 1 CVE has even a good chance to have a lower visibility and higher sea detection than the enemy fleet which again gives a good chance to really fight the battle at the prefered firing range of the CVE. In this case the CVE might not soaking up damage but keeping even out of range of the enemy ships while doing a very minimal damage itself... in any way it buys some time to retreat the fleet with none or only minimal damage taken.

Nevertheless I'd call the addition of a CVE completly optional.
But it is one of the very few useful things to do with a CVE... so, I guess, worth mentioning.
And while DDs are better sub-hunters than CVEs, the CVE is the only capital ship with at least a decent sub-attack and detection.

Amberle said:
A bit off topic but naval bombers will not damage submarines at all right ?
Click to expand...
Because they have no specific sub-attack value?
Mmh, to be honest... my fuzzy memory, I am not 100% sure but I'd say, yes, they do attack subs and quite well (which is only historically). Subs have a good air defense but only a lowly air-attack of 1.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I had great success in my last game, I added cve and I found the subs somewhat easily this time around compared to just dd's(could be a coincidence though), and I was able to hold off smaller raiding fleets. I have a new appreciation for cve after this run.

So vs surface fleets it's always the capital ships firing range that is the limiting factor? So what screens I use matters less? That's the gist from the hoi2 wiki if I read it correctly.

Your guide is immense!
 
Last edited:
The other advantage of the CVE is that with the 29/41 tech (CVL) it becomes so cheap that it even beats the DD in IC cost. It is perhaps even more cost-effective to make anti-sub fleets only with CVE (with floatplane).
 
  • 1
Reactions:
A CVE-5 with 1944 tech costs 0.4 IC/0.9 manpower and has 8/12/42 sub attack/detection/range. CVE-4 (1941) cost 0.2 IC/0.9 manpower and are 7/10/40. A DD with 1945 tech costs 1.1 IC/1.6 manpower and has 14/17/20 for those stats. So you can build almost 3 CVEs (6 of the earlier model) for the cost of 1 DD though the DDs are a bit better stat wise except range. Toss in ASW for the DD and it costs 1.3 IC and has 19/21/20.

I wonder if 3 CVEs are really better versus a SUB than 1 DD? Being better able to spot them should be a huge advantage though I don't know what the numbers actually mean.

In my last JAP game I did have a CVE+others chase off a US BB based fleet off the coast of Japan and sink the BB. It was even the CVE-1 that JAP starts with IIRC.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Altruist said:
No idea.
But you could easily test it.
Click to expand...
Testing is difficult to do properly, so many potential variables and random chance. Since it is a game, it is much more expedient to learn how the underlying game-code functions.
 
Shore bombardement
  • Index
    • Amberle said:
    Do you know how much each shore bombardement points contribute? And if there's a difference between heavy and light ships in that regard?
    Click to expand...

    Quite a while... but since I am actively playing again here an example:

    shore-bombardement.png


    Shown combat malus for the enemy troops is -6.1% due to shore bombardement.
    The ships in the bombarding fleet have altogether a shore bombardement value of 61.

    One example might be a slightly weak base but it is so fitting that it is probably correct to conclude:

    All ships shore bombardement values in a fleet are added, capitals and screens equally, and a tenth of the sum is applied as combat battle percentage malus to the enemy.
    Addon: Shore bombardement is a mission and thus influenced by the specific mission efficiency, At the above example mission efficiency for shore bombardement was 50% and it turned out that a single example IS a too weak base to make assumptions.
    With a mission efficiency of 90% above shore bombardement would give a combat battle malus percentage of 9.15%.

    -6.1% does not look very powerful but it is basically free and in this example the ships are all old and a wild mix.

    Not that I would recommend spending the hilarious amount of IC to produce a fleet specialized for shore bombardement. So let's see what the fleet of the UK could do with the ships you already start with in 1933. For shore bombardement we would form a fleet of 30 ships using a mix of available BBs, BCs and CAs. We would also equip each ship with fire control brigade which should be done anyway... altogether adding up to a total of 219 shore bombardement ability. Which then would be applied as -21.9% combat malus to the enemy troops. Now that looks more convincing.
    Addon: And would be an even higher combat malus with the higher shore bombardement mission efficiency one can achieve by researching the naval doctrines for "amphibious warfare".

    Sidenote:
    In the above example I started the land battle just for above answere to see the result. But my fleet there, as a matter of fact, is since weeks shore bombarding Dunkirk. Why? Hehe, I discovered that it is a great way to fix a fleet to a single ocean region and when ordering shore bombardement the great pop-up-order menu allows also to check the box for "Attack enemy convoys". The French troops in Dunkirk are cut off from supply (as usual) and the French desperately try to supply them via convoys. The result: Within a few weeks my old shabby fleet of ships mostly from the 19th century has sunk over 220 convoys and escorts.
     
    Last edited:
    • 3Like
    Reactions:
  • Add bookmark
  • Index
    • Sorry guys.
    A single example IS a too weak base to make assumptions... regardless of how fitting it might look at first glance.
    After seeing in the tech overview tables that shore bombardement is a mission with a given efficiency which can be raised by certain techs, I got a bit suspicious about my conclusions in the above post.

    Now, with 2 examples we have the following results (both examples DH full, 1) 1914 2) 1944):
    1) At mission efficiency 50% for shore bombardement, the added shore bombardement values of ships of 61 results in a combat malus of the defending land unit of -6.1%.
    2) At mission efficiency 90% for shore bombardement, the added shore bombardement values of ships of 61 results in a combat malus of the defending land unit of -9.15%.

    Confirmed: Shore bombardement of capitals and screen ships is handled the same. Rank and skill of commanding admiral is irrelevant.

    If this are all involved variables, obviously it should be possible to establish a formula for shore bombardement with the 2 above examples... but either I am too tired or my math is too weak.
     
    Last edited:
    • 3
    • 1Like
    Reactions:
    Wide Boy said:
    please may i feature this articale on our website? https://www.hoi2bunker.com/
    Click to expand...
    Sure.
    Just add a backlink to the start of this thread:
    # https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...avy-from-nothing-operational-example.1461884/
    I am still editing, changing and adding stuff from time to time. Other than that, feel free to change or edit it as you like for your website.

    Might sound weird but actually I am using my own posts to look up stuff regularly, personally my most used post to look up stuff has proven to be the FAQ, while my favourite post (writing and rereading) has become the lengthy Part 10: Tactical planning & Military Theory, used to be Part 9: Colonialism - the other side because that was the first time I fully realized how the Chinese as a thousands of years old empire might look upon what they call something like the "Century of Shame", gave me kind of a very eery feeling if they might feel revanchistic (... I probably would). Always amazing what kind of insights DH might lead up to.
    Other parts, though, I think need quite urgently a rewrite: too lengthy and not enough on point. Well, one day...

    And, btw, good to have your website available. I haven't told you yet. Very much appreciated.
     
    • 3Like
    Reactions:
    Reader mode
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Top Bottom
    Back