Is there any point in having a navy?

[Zaku]

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?.

Norway was important because(quote is from wiki):

• strategically, to secure ice-free harbors from which its naval forces could seek to control the North Atlantic;
• to secure the availability of iron ore from mines in Sweden, going through Narvik;
• to pre-empt a British and French invasion with the same purpose; and
• to reinforce the propaganda of a "Germanic empire".

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.

So what's your point? Fleet in being has nothing to do if your navy is stronger or weaker then the enemies. I ask again, did you read my post? (Or understand it)

Again quote from wiki:

Even more so than other surface vessels in Nazi Germany's Kriegsmarine (navy), the powerful German battleship Tirpitz served her entire career as a "fleet in being" in her own right. Although she never fired a shot at an enemy ship, her mere presence forced theRoyal Navy to allocate powerful warships in defending Arctic convoys, and caused a major convoy (PQ-17) to scatter, suffering huge losses, mainly to U-boats and aircraft.

 

[Salatmander]

first i have to say that naval combat is the thing that i am most interested in and so i would build it up anyway just because its fun to me.
But fact is that:
1: The Navy will allways be only supportive. In the end it comes down to your ground units, because those are the ones who conquer the enemy.
2: And more important, spoken from game mechanics, you DO have those dockyards. So also if you think they are useless (shame on you >/ ) why would you let this IC go to waste and not use the Docks you allready got to build up some love-boats ? ("You re the boatboss" )

about germany, in Hoi3 I actually never used many ships with them, only for convoy raiding (mostly with subs). For me it depends how good you can catch up with the Brittish Navy Production if its really worth to invest extra in your Navy (with some arrangements with a human Italy it could be worth it though) but at least and if its only to give a Brittish player the fear that there still IS a fleet up there, so he can t send the whole RN out doing stuff at Japan or Italy, i think its worth to have at least a small fleet ready to go.

 

[tommylotto]

I agree with Zaku. In real life, the Kreigsmarine's capital ships could have been useful as a fleet in being if they had not been pissed away piecemeal. The job of a battleship in an overmatched navy is to move from port to port dodging torpedoes and avoiding getting sunk, to sortie intermittently when you are fairly certain you can avoid being sunk, but most importantly, avoid being sunk. To serve the purpose of a fleet in being, you have to remain in being. If Bismarck had been handled properly, it would have been saved until it could have operated in tandem with Tirpitz. Those two, plus the older two battleships and the three Panzerschiffe could have been a very effective fleet in being. The British would have been required to tie up a major portion of the RN in home waters in an effort to contain this serious threat. Every British capital ship in the home fleet guarding against a possible German break out attempt, is one less capital ship in the Mediterranean and Far East.

However, in game terms, I doubt the AI will react to a fleet in being like Churchill would have in real life. So, a fleet in being might will not have the benefits in game that it would have in real life.

 

[Adonnus]

Wait, didn't they? Oh, that means 200000 Tons of Steel was poured down the drain along-with 5000+ sailors.

To the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, to be precise.

The argument that someone's proposed that makes most sense to me so far is the deception argument, even then though... if you want to make a real victory possible you either go the whole shebang like Kaiser Wilhelm and build a huge fleet from scratch or just focus on whatever is the bare minimum of resources needed to accomplish a more limited strategic goal.

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.

Completely agree. In the end the Italian navy was kinda useless. Capital ships were sunk at harbour by subs, torpedo bombers IIRC... the age of the battleship was pretty much over. In this way the idea for the Battle of Britain did make the most sense, which was to use bombers as a sort of flying navy in place of a real fleet.

 

[Trentos]

You can always threaten with your fleet.

Lets say, Germany, Italy and Japan have 30 capital ships combined. They are distributed 5,10 and 15 for each.

Great Britain has 30 capitals in total.

Great Britain needs to defend home shores, shipping in the Mediterranean and its Asian possessions.

Germany needs to defend its coast, Italy needs to defend Mediterranean shipping and Japan has to defend Asian shipping.

As long as all the axis power are selective in their engagements GB will be under a big pressure. GB will want to at least match ship to ship each power, but what if an engagement goes wrong? So they need to have local superiority, a 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 to make sure they always win.

So all the axis powers need to do is to not lose and take engagements that go in their favour. Thats how a behind the curve power wins. They stretch the bigger power thin. But that is assuming the AI doesn´t suicide its fleet in a pointless manner.

So if GB moves 20 ships to the mediterranean to hunt down the Regia Marina, that leaves 10 to defend against the 20 from Japan and Germany. Its now time for Japan and Germany to strike. Italy just needs to not lose too many ships.

Or if they split their ships perfectly, what guarantees that Germany won´t get lucky and win an even engagement?

At least thats how it should work in theory for a power at a relative disadvantage and a stretched out bigger power. And of course for the major power its in its best interest if they can use their 30 ships against the 5, then against the 15 and then against the 10.

And of course, the point of having a navy is to:

-Protect your naval invasions and support them.
-Interfere with naval invasions and support.
-Protect your shipping
-Interfere with enemy shipping.


If you don´t have shiping to protect,don´t plan to do naval invasions, and you don´t mind the risk of naval invasions ( or know they can´t do it) then you don´t need a navy.

I agree if you are talking early in the war where Germany, Italy, and Japan have built up their Navies in peace time to cumulatively match the British. Once capital ships of the Axis countries are lost in battle (and perhaps along with british ships also) they are much harder to replace given the IC demand from the Axis countries on their war conquests elsewhere. Once America joins the war I think that the Axis should forget about any hope of Naval Dominance.

 

[Praetonia]

Historically there were four powers for which conventional sea power was important - Britain Commonwealth, USA, Japan, and Italy - and Germany which waged an unconventional but enormous naval campaign that consumed a large fraction of its total war effort. The navy would also be important for France if it remained in the war. I don't see any indication that HoI4 will drastically misrepresent this situation. So what precisely is the complaint - that navy is not important for the USSR or Nationalist China? How could it be otherwise?

 

[Praetonia]

Completely agree. In the end the Italian navy was kinda useless. Capital ships were sunk at harbour by subs, torpedo bombers IIRC... the age of the battleship was pretty much over. In this way the idea for the Battle of Britain did make the most sense, which was to use bombers as a sort of flying navy in place of a real fleet.

Bear in mind that it was the Italians who were able to move an army across the Mediterranean and not the Germans who were able to move an army across the Channel.

 

[Praetonia]

There is of course a more general problem with any game of this sort which is hindsight.

With hindsight the German submarine campaign failed. Either they needed to commit a lot more resources to it, or they should not have launched it. We know that now, but the Germans didn't know that then.

With hindsight the USA is going to enter the war against Germany and Italy, which greatly decreases the value of those countries having a navy, since after 1942 they become uncompetitive whatever happens. We know that now, wasn't know then.

With hindsight we know France is knocked out and Italy joins the war on the side of the Axis. Historically, the French Navy had been assigned to deal with the Italian, which in turn had been leaning pro-Allied just a few years before. Countries built navies not knowing how and when they would be used, or even against whom. In HoI4, we know.

 

[tommylotto]

Completely agree. In the end the Italian navy was kinda useless.

Except they maintained the threat of their fleet in being until they were knocked out of the war. The Italian battleships were only temporarily damaged in port and were eventually put back into service. In addition to keeping the supply lines to North Africa open (Rommel's problems were port capacity and truck numbers, not naval interdiction), the serious threat of the RM caused the RN to divert every single convoy around the entire freakin' continent of Africa, except for extremely heavily guarded relief convoys to Malta that all suffered heavy losses. The threat of the RM also caused the RN to allocate a significant portion of its capital ships to the Mediterranean that could have otherwise help win the battle of the Atlantic or possibly averted disaster in the Far East. In other words, it did its job as a fleet in being.

 

[Adonnus]

Except they maintained the threat of their fleet in being until they were knocked out of the war. The Italian battleships were only temporarily damaged in port and were eventually put back into service. In addition to keeping the supply lines to North Africa open (Rommel's problems were port capacity and truck numbers, not naval interdiction), the serious threat of the RM caused the RN to divert every single convoy around the entire freakin' continent of Africa, except for extremely heavily guarded relief convoys to Malta that all suffered heavy losses. The threat of the RM also caused the RN to allocate a significant portion of its capital ships to the Mediterranean that could have otherwise help win the battle of the Atlantic or possibly averted disaster in the Far East. In other words, it did its job as a fleet in being.

How do you know it wasn't bombers in Sicily or Crete that forced the diversion around Africa?

 

[tommylotto]

Let's just say it was a joint effort. Link

 

[Zaku]

How do you know it wasn't bombers in Sicily or Crete that forced the diversion around Africa?

It was both. Bombers were good in finding and scattering the convoys, but a group of CAs or god forbid fast BBs would massacre them.
For an example about how effective CAs were against convoys look at the fate of HX84.

The power of a raider against a convoy was demonstrated by the fate of convoy HX 84 attacked by the pocket battleship Admiral Scheer on November 5, 1940. Admiral Scheer quickly sank five ships and damaged several others as the convoy scattered.

Granted, the convoy was escorted by only armed merchantmen but this was only one CA in hostile waters. Imagine what could a whole fleet of them could do in the Med where the Italians had both safe harbors to flee or recieve reinforcements, and air cover.

 

[Mannstien]

Except they maintained the threat of their fleet in being until they were knocked out of the war. The Italian battleships were only temporarily damaged in port and were eventually put back into service. In addition to keeping the supply lines to North Africa open (Rommel's problems were port capacity and truck numbers, not naval interdiction), the serious threat of the RM caused the RN to divert every single convoy around the entire freakin' continent of Africa, except for extremely heavily guarded relief convoys to Malta that all suffered heavy losses. The threat of the RM also caused the RN to allocate a significant portion of its capital ships to the Mediterranean that could have otherwise help win the battle of the Atlantic or possibly averted disaster in the Far East. In other words, it did its job as a fleet in being.

I read somewhere that either Rommel or Kesselring just after the Italian surrender had found plenty of Fuel Oil for the fleet to use and was disgusted by Italians claiming they hadn't sortied their fleet as much because of the lack. As for the Germans their other big weakness for the Navy was a lack of integration of Air Power even without Carriers they still had very limited support from the Luftwaffe.

That said it wouldn't have prevented them from taking heavy losses in the Norway Operation but once more Air bases were established it would have allowed for more concentrated efforts off Norwegian coast and eventually the Bay of Biscay and even further out in the Atlantic as if they had finished Graf Zeppelin (within it's given specifications) and equipped her with primarily Fighters with perhaps 12-15 Fi-167's she could easily escort the German Surface fleet out into the Atlantic at least until probably mid 43' when the US and RN could devote more Naval assets to shutting down the German Surface fleet all other things being equal.

 

[Denkt]

Unlike the army the navy never really have to controll seazones which mean that a fast navy will seldom have to engage a stronger navy as it can just retreat.

 

[JerkyJerry]

You can always threaten with your fleet.

Isn't this only true for live person vs. person games?
Can the AI recognize/analyze/OOB a threat? I just assumed the OP was talking about human vs. computer.

I think maybe there are two different discussions?

Without knowing fer certain:
Player vs. AI = can't threaten
Player vs. Player = can threaten
?

 

[JerkyJerry]

Italy needs ships just long enough to close the Med.

I play Italy just a bit differently than you. I use the Med as my Italian blue killing field. I invite ships into the Med. I call it my Doberman Pinscher Med Sea Defense or DPMSD for short.
I try to lure opposing navies to the shores of Greece/Turkey by taking my fastest single surface vessel and running her from Sicily to the former Albania trying to get opposing navies to follow. Then just like a Doberman Pinscher I don't attack while you're entering my home/chasing my ship. However when you try to leave my house with your bag of stolen goodies/with your fleet in tact; that is when all hell breaks loose!

On a side note: I've played Italy a lot. A few times I placed numerous coastal guns on numerous provinces and a few games I placed zero coastal guns. I've had Sicily with 10 guns in every province along with every province in southern Italy and enemy war ships still sail between Sicily & the mainland.

Do coastal guns work? Or are they like AA guns?
Will they be in 4? Will there be any changes to them if they will be in 4?
Should there be any changes? To be honest I'm not sure. Just that in game they seem to me (in my many tries/tests) to produce next to zero results that I can notice.

 

[MarcoRossolini]

For what its worth, from a Soviet perspective the navy was a pretty decent investment. They were able to maintain control of the Black Sea ports for a lot longer than they otherwise might've and the raids conducted by them in the Black Sea were a major thorn in the side of the Germans in the Crimea. There were rumblings in the Baltic too although I haven't looked at that area yet sadly.

It at least made a change from their approach in World War I, where the Russian navy, reeling from Tsushima, were actually pretty competent but couldn't do anything about it because (surprise, surprise) the Tsar was afraid of another Tsushima. Instead they just sowed the entire Baltic and Black sea with an ungodly amount of mines so that basically you could go nowhere without hitting at least one.

It probably says something that the Soviet navy was the most consistently competent of all Soviet arms in the war.

 

[Secret Master]

It probably says something that the Soviet navy was the most consistently competent of all Soviet arms in the war.

According to the lore of the Soviet Navy, they were the only portion of the Soviet military at maximum readiness when Barbarossa was launched.

 

[tommylotto]

Do coastal guns work? Or are they like AA guns?

If you are talking about vanilla Hoi3 TFH, there are no coastal guns. There are coastal fortifications that give you a defensive bonus against amphibious invasions, but they have no effect on ships at sea. If you are talking about my mod, the coastal artillery unit works like any other land unit. It is just really, really slow and is best used to guard ports against amphibious invasion. Sadly, Hoi3 has no mechanic to allow land units to interact with sea units. So, coastal artillery cannot engage ships at sea, just the troops as they try to disembark.

 

[potski]

I've played Italy a lot. A few times I placed numerous coastal guns on numerous provinces and a few games I placed zero coastal guns. I've had Sicily with 10 guns in every province along with every province in southern Italy and enemy war ships still sail between Sicily & the mainland.

Why didn't you ask in the HOI3 forum or check the Wiki?

Will they be in 4? Will there be any changes to them if they will be in 4?

They are in HOI4, and serve the same function as @tommylotto described, to defend coasts from invasion, particularly useful for ports. They are province buildings and are constructed from civilian factories in the same way as bunkers.