Is there any point in having a navy?
- Thread starter Antless
- Start date
-
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.
You seem to play the game entirely different than I do.
As Germany, I want to conquer Great Britain. Hopefully we need a navy for that, otherwise its like in HoI3, which would be a shame.
As USSR, I want to conquer the allies after defeating the axis. I need a navy for that.
As the UK, german subs can kill me, so I definetely want a whole lot more of destroyers. Additionally, I don't want to garrison every single port in the mediterrean and east asia, but instead sink the enemy fleets entirely to have absolute free movement and no worries. The starting navy is not enough for that, so I need a bigger one.
As USA, I need a bigger navy, as the fight with Japan will be quite hard otherwise.
As Japan, I want to conquer all of continental Asia with my ground forces while conquering every island and battling it out with the US in the Pacific to ultimately invade them. I need a hell of a bigger navy for that.
As Italy, I want to secure the mediterrean and after that help Germany with Sea Lion and the Japanese in the Pacific. I definetely need a bigger navy for that.
hewhoispale is saying that you will have dockyards at the start anyway, and you can't do anything else with them than producing ships, so you might just do it even if you don't see the need. As mentioned, I definetely see one, even to build more and more dockyards.
And ultimately, I just like naval warfare, so I don't want to ignore it.
As Germany, I want to conquer Great Britain. Hopefully we need a navy for that, otherwise its like in HoI3, which would be a shame.
As USSR, I want to conquer the allies after defeating the axis. I need a navy for that.
As the UK, german subs can kill me, so I definetely want a whole lot more of destroyers. Additionally, I don't want to garrison every single port in the mediterrean and east asia, but instead sink the enemy fleets entirely to have absolute free movement and no worries. The starting navy is not enough for that, so I need a bigger one.
As USA, I need a bigger navy, as the fight with Japan will be quite hard otherwise.
As Japan, I want to conquer all of continental Asia with my ground forces while conquering every island and battling it out with the US in the Pacific to ultimately invade them. I need a hell of a bigger navy for that.
As Italy, I want to secure the mediterrean and after that help Germany with Sea Lion and the Japanese in the Pacific. I definetely need a bigger navy for that.
hewhoispale is saying that you will have dockyards at the start anyway, and you can't do anything else with them than producing ships, so you might just do it even if you don't see the need. As mentioned, I definetely see one, even to build more and more dockyards.
And ultimately, I just like naval warfare, so I don't want to ignore it.
- 6
@potski
Yeah, it was just a very hypothetical example. The point being is that an inferior power can win by using local superiority when possible.
I didn´t mean litterally Germany and Japan joining up at Jutland and taking on the bulk of the British Navy in a decisive battle. It would make an interesting, if not quite silly alt history though.
But yeah the point was that as long as you have your assets you can always threaten to use them if the enemy thins out his defense on one sector to strengthen another sector.
Yeah, it was just a very hypothetical example. The point being is that an inferior power can win by using local superiority when possible.
I didn´t mean litterally Germany and Japan joining up at Jutland and taking on the bulk of the British Navy in a decisive battle. It would make an interesting, if not quite silly alt history though.
But yeah the point was that as long as you have your assets you can always threaten to use them if the enemy thins out his defense on one sector to strengthen another sector.
Personally I like building up a navy regardless, but thats because I am a silly person like Stalin and love my big ships lol.
But yeah, as long as you plan on shipping stuff from the sea or defending or using naval invasions you will need a navy... or not if the AI is bad at the naval game but I guess we will see.
In HOI3 I managed to beat Germany, Japan and Italy with my starting Navy. I obviously didn´t need to build it up there. Some days I like building up a few more BBs as France to...trounce Italy and Japan even harder?
Or sometimes I go for the Submarine route. In the end it all depends on what you want to do, your opponents and your capabilities. If you plan to invade the USA you will need a strong navy or some very good allies to handle the crossing of the Atlantic and the shipping of supplies.
But yeah, as long as you plan on shipping stuff from the sea or defending or using naval invasions you will need a navy... or not if the AI is bad at the naval game but I guess we will see.
In HOI3 I managed to beat Germany, Japan and Italy with my starting Navy. I obviously didn´t need to build it up there. Some days I like building up a few more BBs as France to...trounce Italy and Japan even harder?
Or sometimes I go for the Submarine route. In the end it all depends on what you want to do, your opponents and your capabilities. If you plan to invade the USA you will need a strong navy or some very good allies to handle the crossing of the Atlantic and the shipping of supplies.
That is only one reason why I love this game Daddl. One game with unlimited ways to play it!
Italy needs ships just long enough to close the Med. That requires more ships than you start with, but not necessarily a big investment in ship techs as you will probably close the Med or lose before your ship tech is obsolete. I either go BB plus NAV or make an ahistorical run to CV's and CAG's. The BB NAV combo can usually secure the waters around Malta long enough to pull off an invasion there, but the NAV's cannot support a fleet near Gibraltar. So, you are likely screwed when you try for the rock. However, once you manage to close the Med, it becomes your private lake and the navy is no longer needed.
- 1
Remember too - to do anything amphibious, all you need is the local naval supremacy (Da9l had a way to get it just long enough to get the invasion off before something messed up in the WWW). This is going to mean having some naval presence - not necessarily enough to take on the larger fleet, but, as others have said - to be able to do what you need to on a much smaller scale.
Da9l was never going to be able to stop the allies' ability to invade anywhere, but that didn't mean that because of that, he couldn't get enough somewhere to perform a specific action.
Just for this reason, I'll always build at least some fleet if just to do some crucial action I need to at some point.
Da9l was never going to be able to stop the allies' ability to invade anywhere, but that didn't mean that because of that, he couldn't get enough somewhere to perform a specific action.
Just for this reason, I'll always build at least some fleet if just to do some crucial action I need to at some point.
- 1
With Italy, German, and Japan there is one thing most likely I will do for my navy in the beginning and that is to choose between DD's and CL's/CA's as escorts, probably DD's for Germany and Italy, and CL's/CA's as Japan. Soviets probably just DD's and Sub's in the beginning and as the Red Tide turns look towards CV's since the Allies if I get to that point will beat back any BB/BC fleet I send out past my land air cover.
I always thought the land warfare part of the game was only there to give more options for your navy (amphibious operations, almost as fun as naval warfare, except for the annoying land warfare part that comes afterwards). 
The best game I ever played in HOI3 was taking on Japan as Australia with an early Japanese entry and delayed US entry into the war, nothing is quite as fun as asymmetrical naval warfare. I don't know how navies in HOI4 will play, but in HOI3 asymmetrical naval warfare was interesting and challenging, but, above all, possible.
The best game I ever played in HOI3 was taking on Japan as Australia with an early Japanese entry and delayed US entry into the war, nothing is quite as fun as asymmetrical naval warfare. I don't know how navies in HOI4 will play, but in HOI3 asymmetrical naval warfare was interesting and challenging, but, above all, possible.
- 1
To answer the OP Yes.
To answer the OP in detail look up Mahan. While the idea of decisive battle isn't very relevant even by WWII, his argument for sea power in a broader sense is. The vast majority of the worlds trade is still in the guise of shipping, and was even more important when Colonialism was still a thing.
Germany, and it's proceeding series of principalities and kingdoms has always been exceptionally strong as a resource group/nation, next only to France in Europe. They were food, energy and metal (steel primarily) independent right up until the age of Oil. While she has massive coal reserves, Germany has functionally 0 oil. To get oil Germany either needed to impose her will on oil rich territory or annex lands with rich oil production.
A navy is about imposing your will on others, an army is about holding land.
While Germany and many others first priority is holding land, HOI is about imposing your will on your opponents. If you want to win you need a navy.
USA: Needs a navy to project power from North America
UK: Needs a navy to fuel it's economy and defend it's home isles
Japan: Needs a navy to fuel it's economy and defend it's home isles
Germany: Needs a navy to take UK and win the war, keep the USA on their side of the Atlantic and win the war, conqueror Russia.
Italy: Needs a navy to take Africa and defend it's home land
The ability to move your men and material at will, project power at will and deny the enemy these things cannot be understated.
Admittedly though a Navy First Germany is a terrible idea. But a '43 Germany should be geared up to fight the RN home fleet if they want to win against a human.
To answer the OP in detail look up Mahan. While the idea of decisive battle isn't very relevant even by WWII, his argument for sea power in a broader sense is. The vast majority of the worlds trade is still in the guise of shipping, and was even more important when Colonialism was still a thing.
Germany, and it's proceeding series of principalities and kingdoms has always been exceptionally strong as a resource group/nation, next only to France in Europe. They were food, energy and metal (steel primarily) independent right up until the age of Oil. While she has massive coal reserves, Germany has functionally 0 oil. To get oil Germany either needed to impose her will on oil rich territory or annex lands with rich oil production.
A navy is about imposing your will on others, an army is about holding land.
While Germany and many others first priority is holding land, HOI is about imposing your will on your opponents. If you want to win you need a navy.
USA: Needs a navy to project power from North America
UK: Needs a navy to fuel it's economy and defend it's home isles
Japan: Needs a navy to fuel it's economy and defend it's home isles
Germany: Needs a navy to take UK and win the war, keep the USA on their side of the Atlantic and win the war, conqueror Russia.
Italy: Needs a navy to take Africa and defend it's home land
The ability to move your men and material at will, project power at will and deny the enemy these things cannot be understated.
Admittedly though a Navy First Germany is a terrible idea. But a '43 Germany should be geared up to fight the RN home fleet if they want to win against a human.
- 1
- 1
The thing about Germany needing a navy is that, most players I gather including me (could be wrong about most players) would rather just spend naval IC and technology on improving their land forces. The thing is if you don't have a good enough land force you can't beat the USSR, and getting beaten by the USSR is pretty much game over. That and you have a massive amount of resources to work with if you can conquer continental Europe. Let's say you invest all your resources in a huge navy that can beat the UK and do a successful Sea Lion. Then what? You'll be lagging behind the USSR's land forces and conquering the UK doesn't provide enough benefits to be a worthy diversion. You will need less garrison troops in France, but you'll probably need more just to fill in the UK. And then additionally you'll need more convoys to keep it in supply since the US might use subs to try and isolate it.
It's a gamble and a diversion to me from the vastly safer, more secure in the long term position of owning continental Europe. And if you aren't even going to invade UK, just damage its war production slightly - well, you are going to have to use some of your industry for that too. As far as taking on the UK is concerned I really don't see the advantage. Just another place to defend while you fight off the bear.
I think there would have to be a really big reason for players to decide that maybe a 20-80 navy-army/air force split would be worth it.
It's a gamble and a diversion to me from the vastly safer, more secure in the long term position of owning continental Europe. And if you aren't even going to invade UK, just damage its war production slightly - well, you are going to have to use some of your industry for that too. As far as taking on the UK is concerned I really don't see the advantage. Just another place to defend while you fight off the bear.
I think there would have to be a really big reason for players to decide that maybe a 20-80 navy-army/air force split would be worth it.
- 1
- 1
@Adonnus
I agree with you.
The Historical German split was 70-25-5 with Land getting 70, Air getting 25 and Sea 5% of all resources after the start of War.
But pre-war they squandered their precious resources in a useless surface fleet. Rather building more SUBS (already discussed in another one) or building more air-power was the way to go.
I agree with you.
The Historical German split was 70-25-5 with Land getting 70, Air getting 25 and Sea 5% of all resources after the start of War.
But pre-war they squandered their precious resources in a useless surface fleet. Rather building more SUBS (already discussed in another one) or building more air-power was the way to go.
- 3
- 3
Given the state of the Russian navy you can win without one but it does limit your options.
Don't know why this post has so many disagrees. Strategically the Bismark etc didn't do anything for Germany besides distract a Royal Navy which wasn't diverted from anything crucial...unless there's some evidence that the Afrika Corps somehow would have died out thanks to convoy losses if not for the squadrons distracted by the German surface fleet.
- 1
I disagreed with him because he was on a hyperbole. The surface fleet was far from useless. However when going up against the first(UK) and the fourth(France) biggest navy their use became quite limited. Even so they were still useful as a fleet-in-being sense. The fact that the german high command used them on pointless suicide missions doesn't mean that they are useless, it only means that they didn't know how to use them.
- 3
- 2
In a sense it did distract Britain from thinking the naval program was targeting them, since, should Germany start massive submarine build up in 1936, it would be all to obvious that the target is UK. While in hindsight of war with UK being a thing, it made little sense, but if Germany could avoid fighting UK, let`s say France/Poland/USSR decided it wanted to attack Germany regardless, the navy could be useful.
Overall, even a superficial look at German diplomacy kind of shows Germany attempting to disguise it`s build up to fight allies, under the "anti-comintern pact" and fighting Soviet threat. Building 2 new battleships to contest the Baltic against several old Soviet dreadnoughts perfectly fits into the overall impression. Building hundreds of subs, doesn`t.
- 3
- 2
People on the PDox forum love their Crosses
As and when they come online, they go click, click and click with it and hence those dis-agrees.
I personally feel (and have evidence to back it up if needed) that the Surface navy was a waste for Germany and even to an extent for Italy. Concentration of land based bombers and air-superiority would have been a far better goal backed by hundreds of SUBS targeting the RN. Vertical Envelopment of Malta is another thing that the AXIS should have done ASAP.
- 5
Yeah. Right. The surface navy of the Germans was so useful that they pulled off Sea-Lion and laid waste to the RN.
Wait, didn't they? Oh, that means 200000 Tons of Steel was poured down the drain along-with 5000+ sailors.
@mursolini
In a sense it did distract Britain from thinking the naval program was targeting them, since, should Germany start massive submarine build up in 1936, it would be all to obvious that the target is UK. While in hindsight of war with UK being a thing, it made little sense, but if Germany could avoid fighting UK, let`s say France/Poland/USSR decided it wanted to attack Germany regardless, the navy could be useful. Overall, even a superficial look at German diplomacy kind of shows Germany attempting to disguise it`s build up to fight allies, under the "anti-comintern pact" and fighting Soviet threat. Building 2 new battleships to contest the Baltic against several old Soviet dreadnoughts perfectly fits into the overall impression. Building hundreds of subs, doesn`t.
Hitler never disguised his aims at Lebensraum or the War in the east, he wrote a bloody book about it nearly a whole decade before coming to power.
The Soviet Navy except for its SUB force was never powerful enough to thwart the German convoys. A handful of Destroyers and Torpedo boats backed by some Air support would be enough to neutralise them.
The British actually wanted the Germans to play the game in their manner and it was a victory for the British in Germany building a Surface Fleet.
Last edited:
- 1
- 1
Yeah. Right. The surface navy of the Germans was so useful that they pulled off Sea-Lion and laid waste to the RN.
No but they invaded Norway using the surface fleet. It wouldn't been possible without them.
Did you even read my post?Wait, didn't they? Oh, that means 200000 Tons of Steel was poured down the drain along-with 5000+ sailors.
Yeah. Right. Norway. All that investment for capturing tiny Norway.
Capturing Norway is more important than trying to starve the UK and capture Malta? seriously?.
I did read your post and that is why i said that your thinking and interpretation is wrong. A surface fleet played right into the hands of the RN and was a total waste of precious resources. Germany could NEVER, NEVER EVER hope to match even the French Surface fleet with even a decade of investment, leave alone the RN. So there was no point in playing that game.
- 1