Ideal surface fleet mix?

[bshirt73]

Haha.....hey Commander666, my USA Fleets crushed Japan's Carrier fleets with the greatest of ease with your excellent scenario. Sinking their Carriers everywhere. Three USA carrier fleets each with a maximum 15 ships ( CAs, CLS, DDs & 3 1938 or newer Carriers) as you mentioned, worked like a charm. Minimum speed of all ships 28 knots & zero stacking penalty (all three fleet commanders can command 30 ships).

The older, slow BBs & ect are fine for shore bombardment and screens.

Total destruction of Japan as my Marines are relaxing with endless Japanese beer in Tokyo. Great fun. Thank you sir!!

 

[Commander666]

Very glad to hear. Just a couple small corrections, if you don't mind.

Minimum speed of all ships 28 knots & zero stacking penalty (all three fleet commanders can command 30 ships).

That's good regarding the speed. But all stacks (a stack is 2 or more units combined) have a stacking penalty. Maybe you mean you never got over-command penalty.

But all 3 CTF commanders capable of handling 30 ships to avoid over command is rather inefficient and guarantees nobody gets hardly any more exp gain. The better set up is one leader who can command 12 units and 2 capable of 30. That way over-command is also avoided but one leader being lesser commander gets faster exp gain. But if you got other fleets running around (TPs, subs, ASW Hunter-killer DDs) then maybe as you did really is best to cover all contingencies.

The older, slow BBs & ect are fine for shore bombardment and screens.

No, BBs are never screens. Only CL and DDs are screens. Maybe I mis-reading and you mean the "etc" for screens?

But YES, the older BBs make for great shore bombardment SAG. USA has enough to put one in Atlantic (125 points of SB) and one in Pacific (same). Problem is the screens. For the Pacific SAG I build 3000 km range CLs and a couple DDs. The CLs help get the SB # to 125 points. I also put the BB-3s here. This is a relatively small fleet with very good range that can render assistance to any CTF and not exceed 30 ships total.

For the Atlantic shore bombardment SAG I use screens that are the existing CL-2s and a couple DD-2s which gets range to 2000 km but is enough since this fleet would - in any case - rebase to the side of the Atlantic where amphibious operations are occurring. This fleet is large, quite short range, and mostly stays parked out of the way.

I don't build any BB-4s only if short on IC like my current game. Actually some BB-4s are very helpful for USA to sink the German BB-4s since they are canny enough to avoid USA CTFs. As long as Bismarck and Tirpitz exist there is grave danger to TP movements crossing the Atlantic and that threat can needlessly tie up several CTFs doing unwanted close escort duty. However, seems German AI is more inclined to attack your mini fleet of just a couple BB-4s (and screens) so giving you opportunity to perhaps rush in a CTF before battle ends and - as Johnny Horton sings - "sink the Bismarck"

But what you think about Post #40? I sure hoping people will chip in their views on the diabolically opposed strategies.

 

[bshirt73]

Johnny Horton was bloody terrific! I frequently listen to his best tunes while playing this awesome game.

Yes, yes, my mistake as I meant to say my old, big BBs are used for shore bombardment only. It's tempting to have a couple of Iowa BBs for great flavor but the Japanese are totally destroyed before I can build them. Sad. Hmm, I never considered the Atlantic area so maybe for the Bismark they're be needed on stormy Atlantic days.

However, Germany usually loses to the Russians by 1942 or early 1943 and so there's no action on the Atlantic side. Commander666, is there a way to influence Germany beating Russia more frequently? It would make the game a lot more fun!

 

[bshirt73]

Whoops! I forgot to mention I never use more than two of my Carrier fleets in battle. So, there isn't any over stacking. But it's nice to have the 3rd one close just in case the Japs get really lucky somehow.

Good point about building experience for other admirals. Maybe I'll use the 3rd one for that.....

 

[Commander666]

is there a way to influence Germany beating Russia more frequently? It would make the game a lot more fun!

That I don't know except I think you could refuse Lend-Lease to the Ruskies. That might help... or it might change nothing and only result in the SU giving less Lend-Lease to N. China... thereby indirectly benefitting Japan.

And I guess you could just tell Churchill that your policy will be the reverse - only the Pacific theatre will get anything.... so don't even look for Yankee bombers basing in the British Isles. You not hurting Germany should have a considerable benefit for Hitler to win.

 

[bshirt73]

Oh, your #40 post makes nothing but sense to me. Just as you say, Germany, powerful as they are, simply don't have the skills for making kick-ass take names carrier fleets. They might make the best land forces & submarines in the world (& a pretty damn good air-force too) but Carrier fleets? Nope.....

 

[bshirt73]

Oh darn, I already don't help the UK with bombers (hoping the Nazis crush the Communists). But they almost always lose. Hmmm.....maybe I should trade oil, supplies, etc for free to Germany? I know that's stupid but maybe it's worth a try.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

But believe me, U-boats is the way to win because:

• You are playing the AI

This is the most important point of that post. Submarine combat is badly handled in AoD/HoI2, and as such it either leads to a significant imbalance either in favour of, or against, submarines.

Currently it is significantly unbalanced against submarines. In comparison to RL it is far too easy to sink submarines in 1939/40 in AoD.

The biggest weakness of the AI is how it handles combat. Since naval combat is the most neglected of the 3 areas of combat in AoD, then it follows that the naval AI is also the worst of the 3.

Any AoDer with even a basic understanding of naval combat in the game can defeat any U-boat strategy, no matter how strong their opponent is in their dedication to U-boats.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

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.

Let's check the facts on that. Base Strike can be researched in 1936, but as too much tech rushing it not wise let it start at 1937/1/1.

1938 Base Strike Doctrine takes 389 days till 1938/1/30 with Reader at +10% research.
1939 Subsidiary Carrier Role Doctrine takes 433 days till 1939/4/13 with Messerschmitt at +15% research.
1939 Carrier Task Force Doctrine takes 295 days till 1940/2/8 with Messerschmitt at +20% research.
1940 Indirect Strike Doctrine takes 288 days till 1940/11/26 with Reader at +20% research.
1940 Deep Operations Doctrine takes 208 days till 1941/6/24 with von Manstein at +20% research.

That allows the german naval doctrine to be second to none before 1942, long before Carriers will be available if no naval construction occurs before CV1941. At proper sliders etc. CV1941 take 472 days of construction. If retooling is done at 1941/2/11 the Carriers will be available at 1942/6/3, shortly after the start of a 1942 Barbarossa.

Even though the Wehrmacht needs safe transport across the Baltic and North Sea, you deny it that strategic capability.

Before beating the bulk of the soviet army there is no necessity for a navy.

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.

The idea of not having any navy before june 1942 is to strenghten airforce and army.

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.

Even though Carriers have proven to be the superior naval weapon you prefer to ignore all that gained wisdom and deny modern carriers opportunities to gain great amounts of experience?

And mostly, given Germany's position in WW2, it can't afford your pet project, but 60 U-boat flotillas it easily can.

Having a navy before june 1942 reduces the success against soviet union. After 1941 however the accumulated military output of the economy is large enough to not be a bottleneck. The size of the army will be limited by manpower, the size of the air force will be limited by available airbases and thus manpower. The size of the navy will hardly be limited by available economic output, but mostly by available enemies to sink. There is a point at which investing in a larger navy makes little sense. I see this point at having 18 carriers. 18 lines of CV1941 cost 109.4 ic, later 18 lines of CAG1943 cost 259.9 ic for 141 days plus retooling. Seperate construction of CV and CAG requires more attention, but it helps to save icd when they are still truely valuable.

18 CV1941-CAG1943 in june 1942 is more than enough of a navy to destroy most of the us navy and the royal navy before 1943.

Minimum speed of all ships 28 knots & zero stacking penalty (all three fleet commanders can command 30 ships).

A fleet of 30 naval divisions has a stacking penalty that reduce defence and attack each by 56%. The total attack value peaks at 26 naval divisions, above that it is lower.

 

[Commander666]

Base Strike can be researched in 1936, but as too much tech rushing it not wise let it start at 1937/1/1.

Starting a 1938 tech on January 1st, 1937 is extreme tech rushing because achieving doctrines is far harder than most other techs. Most doctrine techs are actually started near the end of historic year, not beginning of previous year.

Your whole research schedule is very optimistically advanced and conflicts seriously with all the other really good advice you ever wrote about not overly tech rushing - in fact your recommendation that Germany ONLY USE A FEW TECH SLOTS IN 1936, correct? Now you switch it to win a point? Anyway, your schedule is off by a couple years if player does actual game instead of theoretical possibilities.

Before beating the bulk of the soviet army there is no necessity for a navy.

Only if you have no imagination to exploit amphibious possibilities in hastening the defeat of the Red Army.

Even though Carriers have proven to be the superior naval weapon you prefer to ignore all that gained wisdom and deny modern carriers opportunities to gain great amounts of experience?

No, I don't ignore "CV Wisdom". Firstly, get the wisdom correct: "One side of a CV battle is the superior, the other the inferior".
Secondly, recognize that your German CTF is the inferior.

The size of the navy will hardly be limited by available economic output, but mostly by available enemies to sink.

Funny. He he.

There is a point at which investing in a larger navy makes little sense. I see this point at having 18 carriers. 18 lines of CV1941 cost 109.4 ic, later 18 lines of CAG1943 cost 259.9 ic for 141 days plus retooling.

So you call 18 CVs a "small navy". That is huge. No AI country ever has 18 CVs and as USA player I never build more than 14. Not counting the couple CV-2s but including the one CV-3 that USA starts with, that gives me 15 CVs (or 5 CTFs) - to cover two oceans. But you want 18 for 1 ocean. I imagine that will be two CTFs of 9 CVs each.

Well, you will need many more... to follow to the bottom the 18 that just sank. When doctrines are as lopsided as occurs when Germany switches to Base Strike with the USA starting out 8 naval doctrines ahead, but Germany looks for conflict on the high seas in 1942, you will discover that a properly build USA CTF of only 3 CVs but having BBs or CAs will nearly instantly sink Germany's 9 CVs. Expect your positioning to be about 40 versus 100 for USA.

I have had it happen before when my USA DOWed the UK in an earlier game. In one engagement I sank 8 UK CVs when I only had 3 CVs. And they had doctrines ahead of what your Germany will have, but, of course, were behind compared to USA. So, your 18 German CVs lacking very much in Carrier Tactic doctrines will be nothing more than a couple sad disasters. You should have stuck with subs because - actually you will NOT have Indirect Strike (1940) by mid-1942 because you started off with switched tree. But the USA will have both Indirect Strike and Deep Operations so giving it huge doctrine advantage in carrier tactics.

Seperate construction of CV and CAG requires more attention,

In fact, the attention needed is so extreme that many players have experienced massive failure using this technique with the CAGs not at all ready when needed.... and having 18 carriers sitting in port because they have no CAGs (for a year or more). That is not very funny, unless it isn't you it happened to... in which case it is hilarious!.

18 CV1941-CAG1943 in june 1942 is more than enough of a navy to destroy most of the us navy and the royal navy before 1943.

Again you write the impossible. Germany will have CAG-1943 researched and the CAGs built when construction of the 18 CV-1941 completes on June 3rd, 1942? Not likely.
CV-1941 = Advanced CV-5
CAG-1943 = Heavy Advanced CV-6

The CAG brigades need 188 days to construct (includes retooling). So you need to achieve CV-1943 (CAG-1943) tech at:
June 3/42 minus 188 days = Nov 25/41.

But before that you need to research the CAG/CV-1943 tech and have it achieved by Nov 25/41. As this tech - if not rushed - requires about 8 months to achieve, you are starting research on the 1943 CV/CAG tech on Mar 25/41.

But as you have huge penalty for extraordinary extremely advanced research, you actually need to start research for the CAGs about mid 1940 to get CV-1943 (CAG-1943 Heavy Advanced) achieved in time to so build the CAGs separately by the time the CV-1941 Advanced (CV-5) are constructed. The whole plan is unrealistic, extreme, and will never occur because at same time there is much competition for other research. NOBODY starts 1943 tech in 1940.

A fleet of 30 naval divisions has a stacking penalty that reduce defence and attack each by 56%. The total attack value peaks at 26 naval divisions, above that it is lower.

It was not "a fleet of 30" that was mentioned. It was 3 fleets that could possibly assemble for a total of 30 ships. Hence the only actual stacking penalty is the one fleet of 12 ships. And when other fleet is called in because of tactical consideration, believe me, the greater stacking penalty then is hardly what matters. Besides, the first fleet may withdraw (to remove damaged ships) so again keeping stacking penalty at 12 ships only.

But as regards this discussion, to convince me you will need to play the game to show that you actually got the 18 CVs constructed by June 1942, and then post a screen shot showing the battle with enemy CTF. That's how I do it, realizing that theoretical plans hardly ever actually materialize when they get as optimistically projected as you doing with this.

"Fair winds and following seas"

 

[Commander666]

This is the most important point of that post. Submarine combat is badly handled in AoD/HoI2, and as such it either leads to a significant imbalance either in favour of, or against, submarines.

Exactly! And in the case of Germany with its most superior sub doctrines and commanders, 3 Wolfpacks of 12 SS-4 each working in fair proximity (one fleet in each of three different sea AREAS) can usually co-ordinate to make a combined attack to nearly annihilate any AI fleet.

This combined attack probably is only ever 24 subs attacking together because the success of the strategy depends on expedient withdrawal of first damaged stack with good remainder of that withdrawn wolfpack probably taking up position to deliver coup de grace once enemy retreat ends.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

Exactly! And in the case of Germany with its most superior sub doctrines and commanders, 3 Wolfpacks of 12 SS-4 each working in fair proximity (one fleet in each of three different sea AREAS) can usually co-ordinate to make a combined attack to nearly annihilate any AI fleet.

This combined attack probably is only ever 24 subs attacking together because the success of the strategy depends on expedient withdrawal of first damaged stack with good remainder of that withdrawn wolfpack probably taking up position to deliver coup de grace once enemy retreat ends.

I think I missed making my ultimate point in my last post.

I did say that submarine combat was imbalanced against submarines.

I failed to explicitly mention that a U-boat strategy is successful against an AI precisely because it cannot handle naval combat. It doesn't matter if you use fleets of 1, 6, 12 or 24 U-boats, you can devastate the maritime supply lines of any AI nation using a significant amount of U-boats (probably 30-40 would make it possible).

This is because the AI sends everything but ASW fleets against submarines. A human opponent would do the opposite and achieve very different results.

 

[Commander666]

You are discussing two different parameters. To clarify, I prefer to think of a) naval encounter between opposing fleets and b) subs hitting convoys (sinking merchant men who don't really exist) as two very different things.

I failed to explicitly mention that a U-boat strategy is successful against an AI precisely because it cannot handle naval combat.

This relates to Parameter 1 - true naval encounter. It is true that AI is far too hesitant to begin retreat.... so by greatly increasing losses. But I would not expand that to say AI can not handle naval combat. There are countless incidents of AI doing clever attack on human opponent. Only, when AI is losing, it should recognize that much sooner and begin retreat. The human advantage really is that the AI fleet - already losing - sticks round another day until nearly all is sunk.

It doesn't matter if you use fleets of 1, 6, 12 or 24 U-boats, you can devastate the maritime supply lines of any AI nation using a significant amount of U-boats (probably 30-40 would make it possible).

This relates to Parameter 2 - subs sinking convoys (merchant men). Well, you are one of the people who totally wrecked UK economy using U-boats... and you know how many you had. Wasn't it around 60? I am still trying to wreck UK economy... and can't achieve it - even after UK lost British Isles and then regained them. But I am USA (at war with UK) and only using about 21 subs. Problem is I am getting very many hits every day - but all just 1 merchant man or 1 escort and that is spread between UK and its Allies. ... ... ... meaning I got a very long ways to go to eliminate UKs ~1,500 merchant men. In fact, maybe they are replacing at dismal rate I am sinking them?

But it is different if playing Germany, isn't it? Then player gets convoy hits sometimes of 10 or even better.

This is because the AI sends everything but ASW fleets against submarines. A human opponent would do the opposite and achieve very different results.

Of course. The stupid AI, AFAIK, doesn't even use ASW brigades. So, the important factors for this discussion (which regards playing the AI) is 3-fold to support German player not switching naval doctrines.
1) Your U-boats are more than normally safe from stupid AI.
2) Your U-boats will get more than normal enemy ships sunk because AI lacks wisdom to retreat. This helps to add second Wolfpack to attack.
3) Your U-boats will do exceptionally well against convoys because they are favored by several relevant doctrines. All by themselves they can cause UK garrisons in Gibraltar, Malta, etc. to starve to death. That's extremely powerful.

 

[bshirt73]

Commander666, I don't understand the Naval stacking penalty. If I have two fleets together in combat for a combined 24 to 26 ships where one of the two fleet commanders is rated to command 30 ships......I'm still over-stacking??

Is that right?

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

So, the important factors for this discussion (which regards playing the AI) is 3-fold to support German player not switching naval doctrines....

If this discussion is limited to playing the AI, then all that matters is building 1938 quality ships - of any type - and ensuring you research the best doctrines for those ships. I.e for submarines stick with the German naval doctrine; if going for capital ships go for the Base Strike Doctrine. Not sure what good the UK naval doctrine brings, I guess go for that if faced with an enemy obsessed with submarines or if going for early naval dominance (ie 1940/41). If going for capitals, make sure you screen appropiately, and make sure you group together ships of similar speed. Provided you build those ships in significant quantity in time for 1939-42, then you should be good to achieve victory against the AI.

Pang's strategy is best suited not just against the AI, but against humans too.

Commander666, I don't understand the Naval stacking penalty. If I have two fleets together in combat for a combined 24 to 26 ships where one of the two fleet commanders is rated to command 30 ships......I'm still over-stacking??

Is that right?

There are two penalties.

One is a stacking penalty - this is a penalty for every unit above the first one that you have. I.e. if you attack with 1 division, you do not have a stacking penalty, but for every additional unit you add to the battle, it creates and then adds to a stacking penalty which is applied to every unit. Due to the way the stacking penalty increases the more units you have in battle, Pang has calculated that the highest optimum number of ships in a naval battle should be 26, any higher then that and the combat penalty makes it counter-productive to add more units.

The other is an over-command penalty, which is what you're referring too. Ie it comes into affects for a fleet commander who can command 30 ships, once there are 31 or more ships involved in the battle.

 

[bshirt73]

Oh, I see......the highest number of ships should be 26 (well, with luck I've been usually below that number anyways). Very interesting. Thank you Mr BOnarpte! Thanks to Pang also!

 

[Pang Bingxun]

Starting a 1938 tech on January 1st, 1937 is extreme tech rushing because achieving doctrines is far harder than most other techs. Most doctrine techs are actually started near the end of historic year, not beginning of previous year.

Starting a tech a year ahead of time to have it achieved in time of its historic year is a regular thing for germany to do. This is normal techrushing, that is nothing extreme. Tech rushing does not depend on the difficulty of a tech.

Your whole research schedule is very optimistically advanced and conflicts seriously with all the other really good advice you ever wrote about not overly tech rushing - in fact your recommendation that Germany ONLY USE A FEW TECH SLOTS IN 1936, correct? Now you switch it to win a point? Anyway, your schedule is off by a couple years if player does actual game instead of theoretical possibilities.

No switch. I retain that using few slots in early 1936 is wise. This slowly changes as available ic increases the amount of tech slots that can be funded, reaching 9 slots before the end of 1936.

The figures are there to demonstrate that germany has doctrines equal or better than what any other nation will have at that time. However the concrete schedule is not sensible. There is no need have naval doctrines one year before they will be used. Also it might be convenient to use skill 7 Reader instead of a skill 9 team without matching expertise, this will save some bucks at the expense of being about 40 slot days less advanced. Here is a more reasonable schedule:

1938 Base Strike Doctrine takes 389 days till 1938/1/30 with Reader at +10% research.
1939 Indirect Approach Doctrine, copy takes 365 days till 1939/2/5 with Reader at +15% research.
1939 Subsidiary Carrier Role Doctrine takes 320 days till 1939/12/25 with Reader at +20% research.
1939 Carrier Task Force Doctrine takes 258 days till 1940/9/13 with Reader at +20% research.
1940 Indirect Strike Doctrine takes 248 days till 1941/5/21 with Reader at +20% research.
1940 Deep Operations Doctrine takes 186 days till 1941/11/27 with von Manstein at +20% research.

This will still be too early, so starting Base strike later in 1937 might be sensible.

Anyway, your schedule is off by a couple years if player does actual game instead of theoretical possibilities.

The possibilties are there, but one does need to have the will to use them. I prefer to skip all techs that i consider unessential for my grand campaign. If one want to research many different unit types, than the reasoning changes in favour of staying at Sealane Interdiction Doctrine. That would save a great aoumot of slot days, thus more slots days will remain for more division types.

Another fact possibly relevant for your reasoning is that since version 1.09 past historical date the historical date modifier is changed by 0.001 each day till to the maximum 2. In 1.08 it only was 0.0005 till to the maximum of 1.5.

Only if you have no imagination to exploit amphibious possibilities in hastening the defeat of the Red Army.

I have no desire to hasten things. I want to wage war in an efficient and elegant manner. This means not to start the german soviet war before Arm1943. The speed 15 combined with +10% speed from ministers allow an elegant annexation of soviet union with low losses due to attrition.

So you call 18 CVs a "small navy".

Do i? I stated that having a larger navy makes no sense, that would contradict the notion of a small navy.

No AI country ever has 18 CVs

I have seen that happening. Both Japan AI and USA AI might reach that level if production is not compensated by the timely sinking of carriers. It might have been different before 1.09.

But you want 18 for 1 ocean. I imagine that will be two CTFs of 9 CVs each.

Possibly. But also 3 CTF of 6 CV each can make sense to utilize Reader and two vice admirals. Whatever suits circumstances is wise.

When doctrines are as lopsided as occurs when Germany switches to Base Strike with the USA starting out 8 naval doctrines ahead, but Germany looks for conflict on the high seas in 1942, you will discover that a properly build USA CTF of only 3 CVs but having BBs or CAs will nearly instantly sink Germany's 9 CVs. Expect your positioning to be about 40 versus 100 for USA.

The facts suggest otherwise. First of the USA only start 3 techs ahead in naval doctrine. It is unreasonable to assume that by mid 1942 they will be more advanced than a human germany. They might even be behind in tech, but for sake of simplicity i assume that both have 1940 Deep Operations Doctrine and 1939 Hunter-Killer Group Doctrine. This means

32.5 to 75 positioning for CV
35 to 75 positioning for DD
32.5 to 75 positioning for CL
32.5 to 75 positioning for CA
30 to 70 positioning for BC
30 to 70 positioning for BB

Anything but DD and CV will decrease positioning and likely will decrease speed below 30. Anyway, i expect AI to do better than to use only 3 CV against a proper CTF of say 12 CV in two fleets of 6 CV each. With a third fleet of that kind being in reserve close by. But then again making AI expose its fleets in the open sea for naval bombardement is the key for an efficient naval warfare.

The CAG brigades need 188 days to construct (includes retooling). So you need to achieve CV-1943 (CAG-1943) tech at:
June 3/42 minus 188 days = Nov 25/41.

Construction takes 141 days. Retooling takes up to 40 days and only half of it needs to be done before achieving the needed tech. Still this would be 1941/12/22.

But as you have huge penalty for extraordinary extremely advanced research, you actually need to start research for the CAGs about mid 1940 to get CV-1943 (CAG-1943 Heavy Advanced) achieved in time to so build the CAGs separately by the time the CV-1941 Advanced (CV-5) are constructed. The whole plan is unrealistic, extreme, and will never occur because at same time there is much competition for other research. NOBODY starts 1943 tech in 1940.

I do, but only for Arm1943. Building CAG1943 is not really a good idea. Building CAG1941 and upgrading afterwards is a much more economical use of research slot days. Still having CAG1943 in mid 1942 is sensible and june is doable, for USA it even is reasonable. But for what i had in mind for germany it is not suitable. In the 120 days before Barbarossa a huge amount of upgrading needs to be done with upgrading 90 armoured divisions to Arm1943 being the big icd item. Having the CV completed in late july 1942 and having the CAG upgraded in early august 1942 is more suitable.

It was not "a fleet of 30" that was mentioned. It was 3 fleets that could possibly assemble for a total of 30 ships. Hence the only actual stacking penalty is the one fleet of 12 ships.

Stacking penalty does not depend on in how many formations the 30 naval divisions are organised, only battle participation counts.

One is a stacking penalty - this is a penalty for every unit above the first one that you have. I.e. if you attack with 1 division, you do not have a stacking penalty, but for every additional unit you add to the battle, it creates and then adds to a stacking penalty which is applied to every unit.

For naval division every divisions above two creates a stacking penalty of 2%. This is 48% on attack and defence for a fleet of 26. For air units and land units stacking penalty applies only to attack.

 

[Commander666]

Commander666, I don't understand the Naval stacking penalty. If I have two fleets together in combat for a combined 24 to 26 ships where one of the two fleet commanders is rated to command 30 ships......I'm still over-stacking??

Is that right?

No you are not overstacked. Overstacked is actually "Over Command" and is a penalty applied to every unit over the number a leader can command. It is quite high , like (I'm guessing) -75 per unit that is over command (which is what it is for land combat). If you open the battle display and you mouse over each ship it will tell which is over command. Mostly it will be the least important ones like TPs caught in the battle or DD screens when too many CTF join battle. In these cases it has a smaller effect on naval combat, but try to avoid it. Importantly, in naval combat when one or more fleets can enter to increase the number of ships involved in battle, one commander must be capable of commanding them all. In a case of 2 CTFs of each 3 CV and 3 screens and each having a Rear Admiral joining in battle, half the ships will be over-command. But it will pick the 6 screens to bear that penalty.

"Stacking Penalty" is a lesser negative modifier applied to each unit in a battle based on the total number of all ships involved (those being considered as one stack for that battle even if several fleets of smaller stacks). Using v1.08, I see that 10 ships get stacking penalty of -16.00 While that is small, it is a negative modifier applied to each ship - so it amounts to considerable negative as it also affects the important capital ships. If you have more than 2 ships involved in a battle then you get a stacking penalty.

 

[Commander666]

Pang's strategy is best suited not just against the AI, but against humans too..

Let's not complicate matters by mentioning what was never part of the discussion. While I realize you are a strong MP proponent, this discussion is only about SP. So, I will address your comment with your quote properly truncated.

Pang's strategy is best suited ...against the AI,

No, Pang's strategy is terrible against the AI for all the reasons I detailed. But I don't care to rehash anything when what is most missing from this discussion is any proof of player meeting Pang's timeline and any accounts of German CTF realizing Pang's vision.

 

[Commander666]

The possibilties are there, but one does need to have the will to use them. I prefer to skip all techs that i consider unessential for my grand campaign. If one want to research many different unit types, than the reasoning changes in favour of staying at Sealane Interdiction Doctrine.

Now you are making sense. But is your German Armed Forces at all reasonable, or representative of average player's? NO, it is not because everything about your written approach to playing AoD emphasizes extremes... especially having the minimum diversity possible. You don't build militia, CAV, Marines, or Paratroopers ever. Right? You never use any other brigade choices but the statistical best. You don't even use subs, as witnessed here. Even your air force will be so homogenous as to be ONLY sixty CAS for invading SU, and INTs. In short, I don't like your "maximize statistics and ignore all else" approach to the game.

I never play any game - any side - without building as many different unit types I can because it is historic, it is flavor, it is fun and it is a lot more challenging than your often mentioned approach of "disband all" as relates to either army or navy, and then formulate a new construction plan of the extreme. But however you play your game I really don't care. But I do care that you give fair consideration to the facts pertaining to playing AoD when such play is what might be called "more normal".

So, THANK YOU FOR ADMITTING THAT THE REASONING CHANGES IN FAVOR OF STAYING AT SEALANE INTERDICTION DOCTRINE if one wants to research many different unit types. As we know, I research very many things because I believe strongly in any country having diversity.

Another fact possibly relevant for your reasoning is that since version 1.09 past historical date the historical date modifier is changed by 0.001 each day till to the maximum 2. In 1.08 it only was 0.0005 till to the maximum of 1.5.

There are probably several other things why Germany switching doctrines in v1.08 may be far worse than you find it in v1.10 Have you ever wondered if the changes you made which seem to favor your "extreme build schemes" are maybe not making a better game? If changes can have such a serious effect that before Germany switching was clearly not favorable but now it is, I question the value of those changes since purposefully contorting a classic historic game to favor ahistorical play just isn't my idea of a good classic WW2 game.

Building CAG1943 is not really a good idea. Building CAG1941 and upgrading afterwards is a much more economical use of research slot days. Still having CAG1943 in mid 1942 is sensible and june is doable, for USA it even is reasonable. But for what i had in mind for germany it is not suitable. In the 120 days before Barbarossa a huge amount of upgrading needs to be done with upgrading 90 armoured divisions to Arm1943 being the big icd item. Having the CV completed in late july 1942 and having the CAG upgraded in early august 1942 is more suitable.

The above reveals the greatest short coming in your otherwise expertly crafted "extreme build schemes". There is no doubt theoretically it is possible as you are an extremely good pencil sharpener. Unfortunately, you rather minimize, ignore or maybe even forget the complexities of a real game which all amounts to only ever derailing extremely tight planning objectives.

Firstly you are at war, and all your finely calculated plans based on available IC can be majorly curtailed with a few good enemy strategic bombing hits to force you shift Repair slider.

Next, a single bad aerial combat can cause absolute havoc in the resultant need to shift Reinforcement slider. Other things can happen to cause you to need to shift your Civil Expenses slider (bad event, although that is minimum for Germany).

There is a limit to every player's game, and when your construction/research plans are too tight... the only possible outcome is that they will not occur as envisioned. There is no way that Germany will ever build 18 CVs and additionally (in your recently changed plan) upgrade 18 CAGs while it needs to upgrade 90 armor units. Possibly the 90 ARM will not be upgraded until much later because you are being bombed by the Allies. And once Barbarossa starts neither of the 3 objectives will be met on dates you planned because you simply have not compensated for the massive amount of IC you need pump into Supply, Reinforcement and Province Repair sliders when you begin Barbarossa. In fact, the grand conquest you wish to have, and using fast ARM, creates a massive need for provincial repairs.... so much so that every available IC not devoted to CG and supplies needs go into Provincial Repair, or your 90 ARM will drive TC thru the roof. But you envision building 18 CVs at same time, and then extending that expenditure further by upgrading their CAGs?

Let's face it - your extreme plan is so unrealistic you are not even capable of DOWing the SU when you historically should.

Therefore, practical players of Germany:
1) don't change naval doctrine tree
2) get their navy built long before Barbarossa begins so very much IC is available to prepare for war with SU (including upgrading some armor).
3) Keep building submarines because that minimal expenditure is a side show possible even with Barbarossa in full swing.

I don't think there is any conclusive way to debate your extreme construction program. I would much prefer you playing the game from start, and reporting about it including some screen shots of 18 Kriegsmarine CVs.

Respectfully, Commander666