• 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.

bbasgen

Field Marshal
63 Badges
Jul 12, 2005
2.784
208
  • 500k Club
  • Hearts of Iron IV: By Blood Alone
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Achtung Panzer
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Victoria 2
Perhaps I'm oversimplifying, but it seems quite obvious that CAs are around 76% more efficient than BBs in terms of attack capabilities per IC. I'm a bit surprised.

1938 Battleship: 7,300 IC days. 21 Sea Attack.
1938 Heavy Cruiser: 2,170 IC days. 11 Sea Attack.

Thus, 1 BB equals 3.3 CAs. Put another way, 21 Sea Attack versus 37 Sea Attack. Now, I'm not sure about the best way to factor other points of comparison like cumulative sea defense, org, etc, but I'd guess that they go even more heavily in favor of the CA, for reasons similar to the cruizerzerg.
 
sbr said:
if used correctly (skirmishing instead of stand-up battles) should beat everything eventually.

Why the importance of skirmishing over stand-up battles?
 
BB range will keep it firing on those CAs while they cannot fire back.
 
bbasgen said:
Why the importance of skirmishing over stand-up battles?

To keep your ships. If you just stick it out in battles and take the punishment, you're likely going to lose ships. If you, instead, withdraw after inflicting some punishment upon the enemy and then send in another fleet to fight them, you can keep up the assault on the enemy and distribute damage among more of your own ships. Kan would have a more lucid explanation than I do.
 
One-on-one, the battleship flat out wins. The low sea defence of the CA will hurt a lot. But if you have an IC-days equivalent fleet, the CA have higher sea attack. The problem is, that to achieve the same amount of sea attack, the CA fleet will need more screens (for more IC than the BB fleet in this regard) and more ships (for a higher stacking penalty than the BB fleet). To counter a 30-ship BB-SAG, you'll need lots and lots of CAs and screens.

For a CA fleet, it is impervious that they close into range. Without CVLs, a BB-SAG vs CA-SAG is just like the good old days of CTF vs SAG. The CTF wil just pound the SAG to pieces.
 
Even include additional screens CA fleets will be more IC efficient. More modern ships are more expensive, but bring higher firepower concentration just like the what BB verse CA will do. Facing AI opponents, higher firepower concentration is very desirable. If IC and firepower percentage is the only concern, CA wins.

Cruizerg should not be used in this discussion, as it gives CA fleet large advantage againist any other fleet.
 
The screens can help heavy cruisers considerably more in battle, not just by absorbing damage, but also in dishing it out. A 1938 CL with Fire Control has the same firing distance as an unbrigaded CA.
 
safferli said:
The problem is, that to achieve the same amount of sea attack, the CA fleet will need more screens (for more IC than the BB fleet in this regard) and more ships (for a higher stacking penalty than the BB fleet). To counter a 30-ship BB-SAG, you'll need lots and lots of CAs and screens.

I'm not so sure. Let's make a simple 12 ship fleet example:

BB SAG:
  • 5x (1938) BB -- 36,500 ICd
  • 1x (1936) CVL -- 1,050 ICd
  • 6x (1938) DD -- 2,520 ICd
  • IC Total: 40,070 ICd
  • In Range attack: 105

CA SAG:
  • 5x (1938) CA -- 10,850 ICd
  • 1x (1936) CVL -- 1,050 ICd
  • 6x (1938) CL with FC -- 9,504 ICd
  • IC Total: 21,404 ICd
  • In Range attack: 115

There you have it folks. An SAG with the same fleet composition of screens and capitals when comparing BB+DD versus CA+CL, the CA+CL is not only twice as IC efficient, but it also has a 9% advantage in attack. When you consider further that an IC equivalent fleet of CAs would be 23 ships with a 230 attack, the CA just completely dominates the poor BB SAG.
 
Well, all this is true. The only thing that BB has going for it is the range. So if your CA fleet crosses a BB fleet with a good commander they will probably be sunk if the BB fleet is under a good commander that can keep the BBs firing and not you.

That said it is rare to see the AI making fleets with new ships. It makes fleets from the ships that start the game but after that it has real trouble including new models in its fleets. So your IV CA fleet might just have enough range to slug it out with the countless II BB fleets the AI will throw at you. :)

From what I understand though, pumping out pre-war CAs is even better then any other strategy, more attack per IC, low cost and faster repair etc. Just the fun factor is left to be desired.
 
It's always more fun with battleships, you take better care of those ships then cruizergs or just throwing DD's at the enemy. I'm playing as Italy now and had to stage a massive rescue operations in the channel when one of my SAG with four BBIV got caught in Cherbourg. Lost 3 BBIV but the whole thing was very fun and it evens out the battles with the computer. Still hurts like bitch when a BB goes down though, I guess that is what makes it fun.
 
bbasgen said:
There you have it folks. An SAG with the same fleet composition of screens and capitals when comparing BB+DD versus CA+CL, the CA+CL is not only twice as IC efficient, but it also has a 9% advantage in attack. When you consider further that an IC equivalent fleet of CAs would be 23 ships with a 230 attack, the CA just completely dominates the poor BB SAG.
Yes, this is the result for the "zerg fleet", letting your screens also participate in battle by gaming the naval battle mode. It's a little unfair, because you don't let the BB fleet do the same!

My argument was, that for a same sea attack CA vs BB fleet (screens not in range), the CA fleet needs more screens. I haven't done the math, but I think that the CA fleet will still beat the BB fleet in terms of IC-days efficiency.
 
Like Kayapo said, the BB range will determine the victor in that case...though of course on paper the "efficiency" of more and cheaper units always wins when we talk about HOI2 units and combat. HoI naval and tank combat really needs to take at look at armor vs gun/shell or something.
 
Bullfrog said:
Like Kayapo said, the BB range will determine the victor in that case...

This would be true if it wasn't for the CVL transporter bug. :)

In any event, sounds like I never really understood the original "cruizerzerg". I think I heard about the DD-zerg stuff and so assumed that was the whole zerg fleet. I see now in looking at the wiki again the real cruizer zerg. I'm going to clarify the text on the wiki to make it more clear to folks.
 
bbasgen said:
This would be true if it wasn't for the CVL transporter bug. :)
Oh it works for cruisers too? I thought it was just for carriers.
 
Bullfrog said:
Oh it works for cruisers too? I thought it was just for carriers.

The CVL, after 1 hour of battle, will bring any capital ship in your fleet (SHBB, BB, CA) within its firing range instantly.