Ideal surface fleet mix?

[Pang Bingxun]

But having these extra older ships is greatly helping me sink vast amount of Allies Shipping.

I look at this the other way. Those old useless ships are stealing your proper ships targets for attacking and thus gaining experience.

I however for this scenario kept all the level 2 ships CLs, CAs, CVs, and BB because being the USA versus the world I needed every available ship I could have by the PH event.

What is lost by waiting a few more months? The bulk of US military production is meant to happen after PH. But using ship assembly line and at least -20% from sliders combined with double ic allows you to finish some CV1941 in time for PH anyway.

 

[Derek XC]

I look at this the other way. Those old useless ships are stealing your proper ships targets for attacking and thus gaining experience.



What is lost by waiting a few more months? The bulk of US military production is meant to happen after PH. But using ship assembly line and at least -20% from sliders combined with double ic allows you to finish some CV1941 in time for PH anyway.

Now I 100% agree with the experience gain going to newer ships versus older ones. And I get that waiting a couple extra months can get u newer ships after PH. I went super heavy with IC early from 1936 start. I had 10 runs of IC going plus about half the starting infrastructure builds. I was able to start 2 lines of IV CLs off the start with a line of IV DD once they were researched. Once the infrastructure finished I went heavy on the ship building. With CVs and a couple BB for flavor.

Now my older model ships I know are inferior to the enemies newer ships. I am mostly using the older ones to cover from amphibious landing on the North And South American continent from the Allies. Back line older models ships I don't mind using a couple supplies on to keep the shores safe.

 

[Commander666]

Commander666, doesn't AA also protect (to some extent) from enemy CV air attacks? Or maybe you're saying that AA is only efficient against land based bombers?

CVs involved in naval engagements attack using Sea Attack value. They do not use their Air Attack value in naval engagements. So AA on the defender is useless against CVs.

No, I am saying that AA only comes into play when attacked by land based bombers.

 

[Commander666]

That is intriguing. My first reaction is of course that having twice the attack value should still be the better choice.

Twice the attack value as in more CVs is not the comparison I am trying to teach here. My discussion is all about "If you have "x" number of CVs, how do you successfully get thru a naval engagement with any enemy mega-fleet that includes CVs?" What should be the undisputed answer is that you add lots of gun ships to absorb hits (because that is the first thing the AI CVs target) to so prevent your CVs getting hit. That way your CVs can keep destroying the enemy fleet. While BBs are the very best to soak up enemy hits, they are too slow, so fast CAs are ideal.

I have had many battles where my CTF (3 CV, 3 CA, 6 screens) ran into a 30 fleet CTF including 4-5 CVs. Most times the enemy is attacking. Before my second CTF of identical composition could join I had already majorly damaged the enemy with no damage to my CVs but my CAs were in very bad shape. As soon as my second fleet arrived, my damaged fleet retreated and dropped out the 3 damaged CAs and 3 screens, then the CVs returned to now outnumber the enemy CVs and still have way less stacking penalty. Usually these battles end with about 20 enemy ships sunk (including 2-3 CVs) and not a single player ship sunk and no player CV with over 5% damage. I am discussing playing USA versus Japan shortly after PH with both sides having equal doctrines. Generally this first battle becomes a running battle of about a week duration and can include more Japanese fleets.

In this current game, during an engagement that started at Bonin Trench January 6/42 and ended 17/42 I sank 32 Japanese ships including 4 CVs while I lost no ships. My most damaged CV was USS Intrepid with 82 remaining strength but only 35/77 org which is why she was pulled out of battle early. Another CV is at 98 strength and the other 4 are at 100% strength. I had Deep Operations (and the next 2 sub techs which did not matter) while the IJN had also Deep Operations and Hunter-Killer Group (which would have contributed very little, if any). Basically, this 12 day battle decided who rules the Pacific.

When talking about CV1941-CAG1943 or better and off course most modern doctrines of the base strike tree that is supposed to be superior. Results for other doctrine trees may differ, i always take swichting to BS as a given.

Yes, it was CV-4 (1941 Improved) with CV-5 CAG (1943 Advanced). IMO, USA, UK and Japan should use Base Strike, and all others stay with what you got (and learn other ways to deal with enemy CVs).

When encounting such large fleet with 15+15 ships and thus 56% stacking penalty it may be convenient to avoid an immediate direct confrontation and damage the enemy with naval bombers first. Once the enemy is sufficiently weakened a regular naval engagement may follow.

Naval strike helps very much. In battle described above the US had 2 FTR-2 and 2 NAV-1 for assistance once battle moved close to Wake Island. It isn't much, but any enemy org reduction greatly helps. Off course, even a stack of 4 more modern NAV quickly dwindle to uselessness when bombing a mega-fleet. Hitting early gives the best benefit. Change the slider for stopping air combat when at strength/org to just 5% to get the full benefit of your aircraft. Be sure all other aircraft are not flying to avoid getting interception elsewhere when you set slider to only 5%.

IN CONCLUSION there are a number of factors that resulted in the success detailed above:

• Up-to-date naval doctrine
• Commander who is a skilled Superior Tactician
• Use of all available air power
• Entering other fleets
• Removing damaged ships asap and re-entering remainder. This needs multiple fleets to work and is done easiest if you are being attacked. Once enemy begins retreat, you can't enter more fleets.

 

[Commander666]

Is it unwise to use a CTF fleet in the North Sea?

Of all the places mentioned in Forum for "worst place for CV" it is the North Sea. As Saratoga and Lexington only do 18 knots, Bismarck and Tirpitz at 25 knots would easily close to firing range. And - generally - if weather is "frozen" as marked on the sea zone, or raining or snowing CVs are disadvantaged. And their planes don't fly at night.

But I rarely disband anything. In case of USA, I convert a few DD-1s to escorts just because there are so many. I find them quite useful as scouts. So the ones in the Philippines I kept them all. It is nice - even when not at war - to put them along China coastline just to better watch the action. But actually, later when the IJN is nearly totally eliminated but they keep building CVs that they put out to sea without any screen, DD-1's in groups of 2 or 3 and brigaded with FC and commanded by spotter can become quite valuable stationed strategically to intercept that new CV heading out to sink one of your transport fleets. There simply is too much ocean to patrol and "obsolete" DDs based properly to station strategically can save many supplies by letting the NAVs that usually patrol rest until the enemy CV has been detected. This savings then allows me to have more Hunter-Killer groups using the more modern DDs and doing ASW against U-boats.

I too kept the Saratoga and Lexington for the USA vs World game. The challenge is finding a place appropriate for its limitations. I combined the two slow/short range CVs with a BB-2 and three DD-3/ASW so the CVs were the limiting factor. I gave it a less important Superior Tactician (Admiral J. Wright, Skill 2) who worked himself up to a Skill 5 by end 1943 - thereby proving how much action this mini-fleet got. I had it in the Pacific where I found numerous opportunities to base it appropriately for its limitations... and so relieve a more modern CTF to be elsewhere. It needs to be noted that my NAVs also can cover the whole Pacific but they are mostly only in pairs. But that fact can greatly increase the usefulness of lesser fleets that others might just disband outright.

 

[bshirt73]

CVs involved in naval engagements attack using Sea Attack value. They do not use their Air Attack value in naval engagements. So AA on the defender is useless against CVs.

No, I am saying that AA only comes into play when attacked by land based bombers.

Wow!! Priceless info Commander666. Thank you so much.......it doesn't make a lot of sense to me but again that's absolutely essential information.

 

[Commander666]

I think nearly everybody agrees that this particular rule makes no sense at all. And it is such a pity when you see those cute little fighters on CAP zipping about your carrier. Who would ever think that AoD carriers don't attack using air values as regards naval engagements?

I am not sure, but I think for Carrier Strike on Port they probably do use their Air Attack value. It is confusing because any Port Strike automatically attacks any aircraft sitting on the airbase in that same province. And I presume that for Carrier Strike on Air Base it must be the Air Attack value that would matter.

Now, why - if doing Airport Strike - does it not attack the ships in port too since Port strike does attack the aircraft on the Air Base? Wouldn't the reverse inconsistency in action be more consistent?

 

[Pang Bingxun]

I am discussing playing USA versus Japan shortly after PH with both sides having equal doctrines. Generally this first battle becomes a running battle of about a week duration and can include more Japanese fleets.

So it is a battle without any decisive advantage for the USA, neither quality nor quantity greatly favour the USA. I like to avoid those possibly too costly battles and aim for battles where i can beat the enemy in an efficient manner.

I had Deep Operations (and the next 2 sub techs which did not matter) while the IJN had also Deep Operations and Hunter-Killer Group (which would have contributed very little, if any).

That doctrine can increase your average positioning by up to 5% if discussing say 9 CV + 9 DD.

Yes, it was CV-4 (1941 Improved) with CV-5 CAG (1943 Advanced).

Improved is 1938, Advanced is 1941, Advanced Heavy is 1943 and Advanced Super Heavy is 1944.
CV1938-CAG1941 like you seem to have used as 10 sea attack. CV1941-CAG1943 has sea attack 13, but you may not have it before mid 1942. Still you can have 18 of them in mid 1942. Waiting till high quality ships are available helps a lot. To keep up with speed 30 of those Carriers also CA1941 would be needed, which is another tech that might else be not be researched.

My discussion is all about "If you have "x" number of CVs, how do you successfully get thru a naval engagement with any enemy mega-fleet that includes CVs?" What should be the undisputed answer is that you add lots of gun ships to absorb hits (because that is the first thing the AI CVs target) to so prevent your CVs getting hit.

My conclusion is a different one. Such engagement are best delayed till convenient. Later on however the firepower of CV increases, which means CA will be sunk much faster. One way to deal with such a situation is to use many fleets of 3 CV + 3 DD. One starts with 3 such fleets and removes those from battle that suffer too much damage to Carriers. Other fleets cycle in to keep firepower up. It is more or less what you have shown with submarines. I am not sure if that approach would be better than the CA damage soak approach. But i am quite sure that avoiding engagement of such large fleets in the first place is much superior.

 

[Commander666]

So it is a battle without any decisive advantage for the USA, neither quality nor quantity greatly favour the USA. .

Why would you say that? I described a battle in which USA sank 32 enemy (including) 4 CVs for no loss of their own. That certainly seems like a most decisive victory to me. .

Only way I know to avoid AI attacking me is to keep my ships in port. That does not suit my strategy.

. But i am quite sure that avoiding engagement of such large fleets in the first place is much superior.

And I would say you missing out on one of the game's biggest opportunities. I just ran a different battle - this time with USA having 3 CV-4 (same CAG) and two CL-5 and one DD-5. The attack again came at Bonin Trench from firstly an inferior CTF with only one CV-3. But soon it was joined by most of the Japanese navy so - at its peak - there were 68 units including 8 CV (mostly CV-3 and a CVL). Given some ships had already sunk, total number of participants was higher.

No aircraft participated, and neither did I add more USA fleets.

The results are astounding: The IJN lost 6 CV, 6 BB, 2 BC, 17 CA and 1 SS. All that retreated had major damage.

The USN (played by human) lost nothing. The US carrier's remaining strengths are 52, 76 and 84. Org (out of 77) was 11, 23 and 1 respectively. Additionally, 1 screen had slight org reduction. Makes sense as there weren't any sluff offs.

The battle started on the fourth day of the war (I have screen shot). So, I am really happy I decided not to avoid that battle. Rear Admiral Nimitz - with just 3 CVs - destroyed half the Imperial Navy. Sound familiar to anybody?

 

[bshirt73]

Yep, just like what happened in history. It was a dagger to the heart of Japan.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

Why would you say that? I described a battle in which USA sank 32 enemy (including) 4 CVs for no loss of their own. That certainly seems like a most decisive victory to me.

I understand that you achieved a strong victory with very limited means. That is what i describe. 3 CV1938-CAG1941 out of a fleet of 12 have 3 x 10 x (1-0.02 x (12-2)) = 24 sea attack. 9 CV1941-CAG1943 have 9 x 13 x (1-0.02 x (18-2)) = 79.56 sea attack. This means that your fleet needs 3.315 as much time to deliver the same amount of damage.

Only way I know to avoid AI attacking me is to keep my ships in port. That does not suit my strategy.

My strategy would be to not have a navy at all, to keep it under construction until a decisive advantage before the start of the battle is achieved. Waiting till the proper opportunity arises can be a powerful weapon.

 

[Commander666]

Yep, just like what happened in history. It was a dagger to the heart of Japan.

I just re-read all about Battle of Midway and Guadalcanal. It is amazing. Always the Japanese army is losing (10 and more killed for every American) and their overall strategy foiled at every opportunity. Seems the Americans had a lot of good luck throughout... plus nearly perfect intel. But mostly the Japanese could ill afford to lose anything, while the Americans more than replaced all their losses. Anyway, it made me feel better about getting my huge naval victory.

 

[bshirt73]

Yes, it could have so easily gone the other way. Especially the early Naval battles. Lady luck was with us bigtime!

 

[Saltynuts]

Couple of questions.

What is the best "late game" naval doctrine? Is it the fleet-in-being tree (the one off to the left on the naval doctrines research screen), or the one that drops down from the middle?

Also, I'm attacking the U.S. fleet with German fleets containing some carriers, battlecruisers, and smaller ships (light cruisers and destroyers). Roughly and even mix (maybe exactly even, 6 heavies and 6 screens, 9 heavies and 9 screens, etc.). However, rather than my screens taking the damage and sinking, my capital ships seem to sink first. I lost 3 carriers and a BC or two and none of the light ships! Anyone know what I might be doing wrong?

Thanks.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

What is the best "late game" naval doctrine?

Base Strike. Carriers get very strong. FiB has the highest bonus to convoy escorts. SLI gives the best attributes to 1948 nuclear submarines which are much stronger than 1945 Submarine. But have failed too see any evidence indicating that submarines or Surface Action Gruops are a good choice in the long run, especially against AI. CTFs are they way to go and that means Base Strike. The ability to hit ships in ports is just the icing on the cake, but a valuable one.

However, rather than my screens taking the damage and sinking, my capital ships seem to sink first. I lost 3 carriers and a BC or two and none of the light ships! Anyone know what I might be doing wrong?

Carriers are set to hit capital ships first.

You need to have many most advanced Carriers, an equal amount of screens and strong air support especially before a direct naval engagement in order to eliminate enemy carriers soon.The sooner they are sunk the less damage the can do to you.

 

[Saltynuts]

Thanks Pang! Darnit, I gave up all interdiction sea doctrine as Germany (whatever its called), and wen't fleet in being so when I get caught up I could see how I do versus the U.S. how much at a disadvantage will I be in your guesstimate versus the Base Strike doctrine? Assume all sea doctrines researched, and both I and the U.S. have many late model carriers and escorts (light cruisers and destroyers).

 

[Pang Bingxun]

I never tried that, so i donnot dare to guess. It is somewhat obvious that anything but switching to Base Strike quite early is a very bad idea.

 

[Saltynuts]

Thanks Pang. So you would say, even as Germany, you should abandon whatever naval techs you need to right away, and start going down the base strike doctrine? If one does that, should one forget about submarines/commerce raiding? Or should one still do that (just knowing that it won't be as effective)? Thanks.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

I say one should do it especially as germany. No Submarines are to be used, in fact no navy before Barbarossa and CV1941-CAG1943 seems like a very good idea. If need be strong CTFs can also be used for commerce raiding, but that is a bit overkill.

 

[Commander666]

Sorry, but this is the worst German strategy I have seen in AoD Forum!

• Even though Germany is very much favored by tech teams skilled in submarine doctrines you wish to nearly ignore that.
• Even though Germany has not a single tech team with any doctrine expertise in Carrier Tactics (flat top icon), you expound this disaster strategy.
• Even though the Wehrmacht needs safe transport across the Baltic and North Sea, you deny it that strategic capability.
• Even though Germany's 2nd biggest threat is the UK retaining the British Isles as a huge base for American bombers, you majorly take from the Luftwaffe all the IC you put into CVs.
• Even though the Kriegsmarine has proven (as posted by many others) to be fully capable of utterly destroying the UK economy and sinking ALL allied fleets using only submarines, you ignore all this gained wisdom to launch on a disaster program.
• And mostly, given Germany's position in WW2, it can't afford your pet project, but 60 U-boat flotillas it easily can.

I don't mind anybody playing their game as they like, but as "giving advice goes" this needs correcting because we are discussing newcomers who really don't know who to believe, right?

The idea that Germany should abandon its FOUR (4) existing techs achieved in the Sealane Interdiction Tree to be able to research Base Strike is a massive waste. Only 2 of the abandoned doctrines retain blueprints.

Firstly, Germany by switching loses all it had accomplished as regards nearly having completed all the 1939 techs. Instead it must start with 1938 tech, meaning it probably has not a single advanced naval doctrine come WW2 but needing to put ship's in harm's way to take Norway. This is setting up for an inglorious catastrophe. Left alone, Germany has 2 advanced doctrines in 1939 and 2 sub doctrines to much better match the enemy.

Secondly, after getting Base Strike (1938) and next Indirect Approach (1939) perhaps in 1940, then it starts getting really difficult. The next 2 techs require expertise in Carrier Tactics but Germany has no research icon in that field. It means that Germany must attempt these 2 difficult 1939 techs with only one icon match on their tech team. Even with discount for old tech, one can expect Germany to not get Indirect Strike (1940) until about 1943. Meanwhile the player is moving about TPs to attempt Sea Lion - so creating the conditions for the next major German naval disaster.

As regards the misled desire for a German CTF that can win against either the UK's CTFs or the USA's many CTFs, it is a failed utopian dream. Germany can NEVER catch up to the enemy's Base Strike research because the UK starts 8 techs ahead and the USA 3 techs ahead. And - if you are behind in Naval doctrines with CVs - you lose badly in carrier battles.

Further, the UK has the most and best Superior Tacticians but Germany - who had the best and most Sea Wolf commanders - now finds that advantage useless. In 1939 Germany has one Skill 4 Superior Tactician who is an Admiral (commands 18 ships) so will gain exp very slowly. But UK has two Skill 5 Vice Admirals (command 12 ships) who further have the edge over any German naval commander in both exp gain and skill. Meanwhile Rear Admiral Donitz - the very best of the best with Skill 5 in U-boat doctrine - is sidelined.

Sure, there are ways to distort things and rearrange everything so Germany in 1946 might have a major CTF of modern carriers to attempt to win against the Allies in blue ocean warfare. The pity is - had player stuck with submarines - all the Allied AI navies in the Atlantic would already have been sunk in 1942. Too bad that excellent thread documenting that fact had its images removed. So I won't point to it. But believe me, U-boats is the way to win because:

• You are playing the AI
• The cost to build a sub force capable of sinking any 30 unit enemy fleet (including CVs) is extremely economical.
• Germany enjoys every advantage possible using U-boats including being ahead in doctrines, the very best tech teams to maintain that lead, ample naval bases with effective range for its many subs, the best and most Sea Wolf leaders, and even ministers who give U-boats combat advantages.

So please...
Run silent,

run deep.​