List of Naval Designers by country...what are your thoughts on how to improve naval designers?

[Paul.Ketcham]

I do want to disagree with two "meta" ideas being placed here, which are that DDs and CAs are the only effective fleet compositions, and that you only need 3-5 screens per capital).

Second point first, if you're using DDs then you're going to lose a LOT of them to a properly-designed fleet. Even relying on light cruisers, you need more screens than the minimum (3) to maintain a proper screening bonus as you take losses, and if your fleet is large enough (or you're in the wrong terrain) to have a positioning penalty, you're already going to need 4+ to even get the basic bonus. A CA-DD fleet would benefit from a couple of CLs instead of CAs just to make sure the actual CAs keep their bonus attack.

That said, I'm personally a stubborn fan of BCs and SHBBs on account of the fact that a generic light-attack CA isn't any good against another capital ship; BCs are tough enough to take fire, and can handle the lower-tech guns with their armor (1940 can beat them, and 1944 is really good, but those also cost a LOT to mount in steel and chromium). Otherwise, a heavy cruiser never has as much HP as a proper battlecruiser or battleship, and as they take damage their effectiveness will drop. CAs also can't mount nearly as much AA as BCs or BBs (even with DP secondaries, but some builds use just CL guns).

I'm also more of a fan of CLs than DDs on account of the high light attack and better HP, since the only things DDs really beat them in are cost for torpedo attack, depth charges, or just screen numbers; their actual combat performance isn't very good by comparison, since to sink CLs they need torpedo hits (or as some players do it, to act as damage sponges while capital ships do everything). CLs also naturally get really good AA from DP secondaries, whereas mounting AA on destroyers raises their cost far more than is justifiable (technically it isn't hugely important, but you can get exceptionally-high AA on a cruiser fleet for mitigating aircraft damage with AA cruisers). High AA offers diminishing returns of damage mitigation, but its not hard to get ludicrously-high AA on a fleet filled with CLs (and without any real compromises). 14 CLs and 3 battlecruisers, for instance, gives 240-340 fleet AA (depending on whether you have 1 or 2 AA on your cruisers), while the same fleet relying solely on CAs for flak gives only around 120 fleet AA (adding AA to destroyers significantly increases their cost for little in return).

The big tossup with BCs or BBs versus CAs is that you can build CAs later in the game (past 1940, capital ships take way too long to build besides cruisers), and against screens a BC or BB is overkill. They also need more concentration in numbers. But CAs at the start of the game mostly are worthless (1922 hulls or engines make them mindlessly slow), meaning you still need to build a bunch of new ones; but building too many new capital ships requires even more screens, which makes it hard to keep up on quality screen production (which for basically everyone but Germany is essential, since they need to make a bunch of convoy escorts and guard their huge fleets of starting capital ships).

 

[Corpse Fool]

I do want to disagree with two "meta" ideas being placed here, which are that DDs and CAs are the only effective fleet compositions, and that you only need 3-5 screens per capital).

Disagreement is good, but you don't seem to be doing anything other than disagreeing.

What are you considering a properly designed fleet to be? Give me your designs and fleet composition and some specific circumstances that I can use as a benchmark to test competitor compositions/designs.

There are a couple of reasons to use DD instead of CL as your screen. The first and foremost is cost, a CL is going to cost at least 3k IC, while a proper roach DD is going to only be around 700 before we even consider coastal designer. You could therefore get at least 4 DD for every CL you might have wanted, probably closer to 5 or 6. A CL also isn't going to be offering 4x as much HP A DD2 is going to have 40 HP, while a CL2 is going to have 130. HP by itself doesn't really matter though, what is important is the amount of enemy attacks the ship is going to absorb. If the enemy has 30 light attack, it will take 2 hits to sink the DD, and 5 hits to sink the CL. With 4 DD compared to 1 CL, that is 8 hits compared to 5. Having a higher ship count is also pretty good on its own, as it does 2 things. It offers more screens for your capitals, and it will also add more "weight" to the screen side, such that any one particular ship is less likely to be targeted by whatever weapon. 1 CA and 6 DD has heavy guns with a 62.5% chance of hitting the CA, while 1 CA 1 CL and 2 DD is not only on the cusp of not having enough screening, it is also a ~77% chance of the CA getting shot by heavy guns. These Roach DD are also typically going to have a better hit profile than the cruisers will, which means that even though it only takes 2 hits to sink them, they are probably going to be eating more attack rolls than the cruisers will. A DD2 with engine 2 and a single light gun is going to have a profile of about 25.45, and the light guns profile of 40 means that even the +40% hit rate boosted CA only has about a 5.67% chance of hitting, which means it takes roughly 17.5 rolls to manage to hit them once, which expands the 8 hits needed to sink all 4 DD up to 140 total attack rolls. The CL on the other hand is going to have a hit profile of about 36.7, which gives the CA an ~11.83% chance of hitting them, about 8.5 attacks per hit needed, 5 hits to sink, 43 attack rolls. 140 compared to 43 is heavily in favor of the DD.

Saying you're a stubborn fan means you're biased. Your points about CA not being as good against other capitals in X, Y, or Z are moot, that isn't their job, and those things that you want those capitals for because they are good at it, you can get through other means that are often cheaper than using those big capitals. But yes, those heavy hull capitals do have more armor and HP and heavy attack and can mount more AA, but having your capitals do those things are not very cost effective.

But before we get much further into this, please consider my second sentence here. Send me some sort of situation which limits tech, IC, doctrine, etc, give me the fleet you would use and I'll build a fleet and have them fight.

 

[Louella]

I'm curious what tests are being used, and how they are set up. There was a picture of the results of what I think was an equal amount of IC spent on a coastal-design and a raiding-design. But there were surviving ships on both sides.

like... did the ships not retreat at all ?

I've played games where I've got control of the seas not by outright sinking ships, but by having the opposing large units tied up in port undergoing repair. My ships usually retreat pretty early, but they whittle away at the opposition, which eventually becomes unable to keep up their repairs.

 

[el nora]

I'm curious what tests are being used, and how they are set up. There was a picture of the results of what I think was an equal amount of IC spent on a coastal-design and a raiding-design. But there were surviving ships on both sides.

like... did the ships not retreat at all ?

The fleets were both set to always engage and never repair. As is typical of negotiated mp naval engagements. After avoiding each other all game, the naval players want to see how their builds would actually have done if they were used.

 

[Synicus]

Re-engage button would be nice.

 

[Paul.Ketcham]

Disagreement is good, but you don't seem to be doing anything other than disagreeing.

What are you considering a properly designed fleet to be? Give me your designs and fleet composition and some specific circumstances that I can use as a benchmark to test competitor compositions/designs.

There are a couple of reasons to use DD instead of CL as your screen. The first and foremost is cost, a CL is going to cost at least 3k IC, while a proper roach DD is going to only be around 700 before we even consider coastal designer. You could therefore get at least 4 DD for every CL you might have wanted, probably closer to 5 or 6. A CL also isn't going to be offering 4x as much HP A DD2 is going to have 40 HP, while a CL2 is going to have 130. HP by itself doesn't really matter though, what is important is the amount of enemy attacks the ship is going to absorb. If the enemy has 30 light attack, it will take 2 hits to sink the DD, and 5 hits to sink the CL. With 4 DD compared to 1 CL, that is 8 hits compared to 5. Having a higher ship count is also pretty good on its own, as it does 2 things. It offers more screens for your capitals, and it will also add more "weight" to the screen side, such that any one particular ship is less likely to be targeted by whatever weapon. 1 CA and 6 DD has heavy guns with a 62.5% chance of hitting the CA, while 1 CA 1 CL and 2 DD is not only on the cusp of not having enough screening, it is also a ~77% chance of the CA getting shot by heavy guns. These Roach DD are also typically going to have a better hit profile than the cruisers will, which means that even though it only takes 2 hits to sink them, they are probably going to be eating more attack rolls than the cruisers will. A DD2 with engine 2 and a single light gun is going to have a profile of about 25.45, and the light guns profile of 40 means that even the +40% hit rate boosted CA only has about a 5.67% chance of hitting, which means it takes roughly 17.5 rolls to manage to hit them once, which expands the 8 hits needed to sink all 4 DD up to 140 total attack rolls. The CL on the other hand is going to have a hit profile of about 36.7, which gives the CA an ~11.83% chance of hitting them, about 8.5 attacks per hit needed, 5 hits to sink, 43 attack rolls. 140 compared to 43 is heavily in favor of the DD.

Saying you're a stubborn fan means you're biased. Your points about CA not being as good against other capitals in X, Y, or Z are moot, that isn't their job, and those things that you want those capitals for because they are good at it, you can get through other means that are often cheaper than using those big capitals. But yes, those heavy hull capitals do have more armor and HP and heavy attack and can mount more AA, but having your capitals do those things are not very cost effective.

But before we get much further into this, please consider my second sentence here. Send me some sort of situation which limits tech, IC, doctrine, etc, give me the fleet you would use and I'll build a fleet and have them fight.

To answer your second point first, I'll just go straight into how I design a fleet.

First of all, I base my assumptions on three things: most ships are using 1936 tech or are starting ships with 1922 tech (typically refitted), new ships usually use 1936 hulls, and I have 1940 tech for refitting (radar and AA mostly). I usually rush-research DP secondaries, as this tech lets me build modern capital ships and cruisers very early rather than spending the extra cost to refit ships (which isn't excessive, but definitely penalizes you a destroyer's worth of production for a capital ship or every other cruiser). So to translate: hulls and guns are 1936, AA, radar, and secondaries are 1940. I typically skip fire control due to the reliability drop.

Spoiler: Basic ship design:

ASW destroyer escort (typically only as Britain or USA, sometimes some as Japan): 1 T1 gun, 1 depth charge, sonar
Fleet destroyer: 1 T2 gun, 1 torpedo, 1 depth charge, max-tech engine, radar/sonar; usually skip AA
Standard light cruiser: 1 T2 gun, 1/2 T3 AA, 3/4 DP secondaries (sometimes 1 floatplane instead), radar/sonar, max-tech engine. Armor is a tossup depending on cost, numbers, and the tech of the opposing navies (more naval production means I'd like T2 to protect against cruisers, but for older fleets T1 armor blocks critical hits from both T1 CL guns and all DD guns, and costs no steel. T1 armor regardless if I'm short on steel. The second AA mount also isn't essential.
Battlecruiser: 1 T2 gun, 4 DP secondaries, 2 T3 AA, radar, max-tech engine, tech 2 armor (preferably). I prefer these as my starting capital ships for new navies, or any new capital ships for other navies (which really don't need them, but I like them).
Super-heavy Battleship: 1 Main gun, 6 DP secondaries, 2/3 T3 AA, max-tech engine (preferably either using raider or mediterranean designer for higher speed, otherwise I don't build these without tier-3 engines).

Carriers just focus on max hangar decks, and refits try to fit as many DP secondaries or upgraded AA as possible on capital ships or cruisers. Older CAs and CLs get dumped as dreadnought escorts for doomstack fleets as they lack the speed for working with modern fleets, so low speed on those is something I'll live with. Destroyer refits I only do if I'm out of steel or they don't have sonar.

I don't play multiplayer so I don't have to worry about 1940 subs, but to deal with those I would be upgrading dedicated ASW destroyers with max-tech radar and sonar. Refitting older ships for that is entirely reasonable, since they have about the same detection as newer ones. Otherwise I'd rely on radar installations and tactical bombers.

Fleets are based largely on three conditions: what is my starting nation, where is the fleet operating, and how long is the war going to progress (or how late will it start). If I have little time before the start of the war, then as Germany I really don't want CAs to engage the Allies under any circumstances; by comparison, if I'm playing as Japan, I have a lot more safety in the forms of both fewer airbases near seazones and far more starting ships to rely on cruisers with (although in Japan's case, they already start with enough heavy cruisers that I'm just refitting their starting ones and building new carriers and escorts). In theory, given time I'd want to focus on a large CL fleet with battlecruisers and super-heavy battleships to obliterate capital fleets (which can easily detach ships to raid if the enemy isn't coming out), but typically if I'm playing as Britain then I'm using mostly unrefitted warships as a gigantic doomstack, with AA and DP secondary refits for capital ships as time permits (since I want a LOT of destroyers and destroyer escorts as Britain, so I don't have much time for anything else). Then again, as Britain I only build capital ships when I'm not taking the game too seriously, since you start with 15 and lack the escorts to defend yourself initially. With the US I tend to have more dockyards but still need tons of escorts to screen my fleets properly, plus destroyer escorts to guard the route towards Britain; as a result, I don't build nearly as many cruisers as I want (especially since most of the early destroyers get dumped into patrol and escort fleets, so I need a crapton of new destroyers to escort the 40-ish capital ships either built or building).

If I'm building up an escort force for my starting capital ships, I generally already have a crapton of destroyers that aren't very good, so I tend to dump those in there and try to fill the gaps (I like somewhere between 4-1 and 8-1 for screens, but for doomstacks of starting ships I really can't get as many screens as I want). If I want a dedicated fleet of all new ships, I usually focus 90% on BCs and CLs, and make SHBBs if I know I'm planning on waiting. Filling screens tends to focus mostly on destroyers (I like a ratio of 3 or 4 to 1 for destroyers versus cruisers when I'm short on screens, with some possibly reserved for ASW DEs to guard vulnerable convoy routes (though often I stick older DDs on that due to their terrible HP and range).

Spoiler: Approximate fleet composition by nation

Germany: coastal defense fleet of starting destroyers, pre-dreadnoughts, Hipper, and Scharnhorst class. Detach pocket battleships as raiders, possibly with crappier older cruisers or possibly alone if I don't have enough ships. Rest of fleet is an all-new force of probably 2 BCs, 2 SHBBs, and 16-20 CLs for a late war. Early war will likely see the two SHBBs still building, but if I'm not confident in an early sealion I'll just draw the RN into the North Sea to bomb them to death, or send out raiders to hit them somewhere far away like South Africa or the Straits of Malacca.

USA: Detach Wickes and Clemson destroyers for patrols and convoy escorts (some in small battlegroups for the Pacific Isles, others for defending against German subs). Split fleet into several dreadnought forces (New Yorks in one reserve force, Pennsylvanias and Colorados in second strike force) and assign screens as possible by making cheap escorts. Usually I split the fleet into an older and a more modern force, with one staying back while I fill out its escorts and being available for reserve if my forward units get hit, and occasionally I refit some of the early dreadnoughts (or turn the Pensacola class into CLAAs by refitting their main guns to CL guns...but this is expensive and generally I doomstack the Pensacola and Portland classes with the New Yorks or some of the Pacific destroyer squadrons). New production focuses on probably 50% destroyers, 20% light cruisers, 10% destroyer escorts, and 20% carriers (until filled out); goal is to finish the starting carriers, then if the treaty ends build enough for 3 fleets-worth of them.

Nations with fewer than 10 dockyards I tend not to build capital ships or CLs on, unless I have a LOT of time (in which case, a single CA doesn't cut it). I almost never play Italy or Japan (I like Japan but their strategic position is just crap in 1936), and my Russia gameplay is entirely-dependent on going fascist so Germany doesn't attack, and as a result isn't what you'd expect for a USSR game. Britain on singleplayer is also WAY too easy to play the navy game without mods, as you can kill each Axis navy one at a time with your full force.

EDIT: I missed some of your more vital information because this took way too long, so I'll just throw some approximate production numbers at you for my ships:

Destroyer Escort: 800-ish IC (700 for an empty).
Fleet Destroyer: 1100 IC (without any AA, or costs jump to 1200-1400).
Light/Heavy Cruisers: 4500-5000 IC (unless you build multiple medium guns on a CA).
Battlecruiser: 9000-10000 IC
Super-Heavy Battleship: 15000-16000 IC.

 

[Corpse Fool]

To answer your second point first, I'll just go straight into how I design a fleet.

I didn't ask for you to tell me how you design a fleet. I asked you to give me the fleet that you would want to face off against an enemy with, so we can compare how well your fleet faces off against whatever other fleet of mutually agreed and roughly rival status. Number and loadout of ship, the different upgrades you might expect to have, and your doctrine. Perhaps put some limitations on what sort of tech you think I would be able to use on my fleet. I would prefer to avoid country-specific meta from stuff like focuses, particular admirals, chief of navy, high commands, design companies, etc. The goal isn't to find out who can field the best navy, its to find out whether BC/BB are a better capital than CA, and whether CL is a better screen than DD. I would like to avoid including carriers and land based aircraft because that isn't what this test is about, but if you do want them included I will be using "Normalized" IC, which would be military IC divided by 4.5, and naval IC divided by 2.5 for 1 of either IC to be more equivalent. I want to avoid these because air is ridiculously powerful in naval combat and it will ultimately devolve into who has more bombers, regardless of the specific design of your navy.

So please, give me the specific designs and number of those designs in the fleet, as well as whatever upgrades and doctrine you want to have. You can even tell me what repair priority and engagement risk you want them to be at, and type of sea zone, whatever. I'll make up a fleet using a similar total normal IC cost, set them against each other a couple times and see how many gets sunk each time. Once we have some test results come back, we can debate and make tweaks to the composition and generate more data so that hopefully we can both come out of this with a better understanding of naval combat.

 

[Paul.Ketcham]

I didn't ask for you to tell me how you design a fleet. I asked you to give me the fleet that you would want to face off against an enemy with, so we can compare how well your fleet faces off against whatever other fleet of mutually agreed and roughly rival status. Number and loadout of ship, the different upgrades you might expect to have, and your doctrine. Perhaps put some limitations on what sort of tech you think I would be able to use on my fleet. I would prefer to avoid country-specific meta from stuff like focuses, particular admirals, chief of navy, high commands, design companies, etc. The goal isn't to find out who can field the best navy, its to find out whether BC/BB are a better capital than CA, and whether CL is a better screen than DD. I would like to avoid including carriers and land based aircraft because that isn't what this test is about, but if you do want them included I will be using "Normalized" IC, which would be military IC divided by 4.5, and naval IC divided by 2.5 for 1 of either IC to be more equivalent. I want to avoid these because air is ridiculously powerful in naval combat and it will ultimately devolve into who has more bombers, regardless of the specific design of your navy.

So please, give me the specific designs and number of those designs in the fleet, as well as whatever upgrades and doctrine you want to have. You can even tell me what repair priority and engagement risk you want them to be at, and type of sea zone, whatever. I'll make up a fleet using a similar total normal IC cost, set them against each other a couple times and see how many gets sunk each time. Once we have some test results come back, we can debate and make tweaks to the composition and generate more data so that hopefully we can both come out of this with a better understanding of naval combat.

If I'm straight-up designing my own fleet, I'm aiming for a fairly-expensive force of cruisers and capitals in limited numbers. I would start with 2 BCs, go for 2 SHBBs if I have time, then probably add another 2 BCs (I typically build in pairs so I can keep one ship in the field if the other is damaged). Depending on nation I would go for different builds, but two builds that I would like:
1.) Affordable would be 1 CL with max DP secondaries and 5 destroyers (1 torpedo 1 depth charge), plus BCs as available.
2.) A max-strength battlefleet would consist entirely of CLs (torpedoes can be supplied by either randomly-available DDs or subs, or skipped in favor of just more light attack and capital ship heavy attack). Depending on numbers, I would want 2 SHBBs for a smaller fleet (with at least 6 CLs per), plus extra production going into carriers (2 CVs, 2 BCs, and 10 CLs each).
3.) A more realistic balanced fleet would be closer to 2 CV, 2 SHBB, 2 BC, 8 CL, and 32 DDs. IC of that fleet is around 140,000, so its still ludicrously-expensive (which is why starting ships usually determine how my actual fleet design would work, since major powers start with a LOT of capital ships already).

Ship designs follow the same tech restrictions as the above post (1936 hulls, engines, guns plus 1940 secondaries, AA, radar; max DP secondaries on all ships).

 

[Corpse Fool]

Ship designs follow the same tech restrictions as the above post (1936 hulls, engines, guns plus 1940 secondaries, AA, radar; max DP secondaries on all ships).

I believe what I am asking you to give me is something rather simple, I'm not sure if you just aren't understanding what I'm looking for and why I want it, or if you are intentionally missing the point for some reason. You are a self-proclaimed stubborn fan of BC/SHBB, and yet given the opportunity to prove their effectiveness in surface engagements, you seem fairly reluctant to actually offer up what you would consider the ideal fleet. I'm even allowing you to set the conditions and possibly give yourself an advantage, such as limiting the tech level to somewhere that puts your fleet at the peak of its power curve compared to other ship designs.

For the second option you just offered, that would be 2 CV, 2 SHBB, 2 BC, and 52 CL? Using the previous cost listings and estimating the CV at 10k IC, that is 317000 IC plus planes. I'm still not sure what the exact layout of your modules is going to be and your upgraded tech, or your doctrine, but at least we have some sort of composition to start with.

Even if I'm limited to '36 hulls and '40 guns with DPSB, I'm going to be using DD2 with tier 2 engine, the lowest tier of gun battery that it must have, and 2 tier 2 torpedo tubes, for a total IC cost of 910 each. I'll be using CA2 with tier 2 engine, highest tier FCS/Radar you will allow, 3x DPSB, and 2x CL3 batteries for a total cost of 4950 IC per CA. If we have 4x DD per CA, total cost of 8590 per packet. Take the total cost of your fleet being 317000, and I could bring 36 CA and 144 DD. I would probably drop a couple packets to get some land based fighters to paralyze your carriers, or trade a couple more to get 4 carriers of my own. 8930 IC for a '36 carrier, so we can have 4 carriers, 30 CA, 144 DD for 315,260 IC, a bit higher than a 4:1 screen ratio, and more planes than your fleet.

So, could you please give me a specific loadout of your ships and composition of your fleet, your doctrine, and whatever upgrades and tech levels you want us to use, so I can test your theory?

 

[Paul.Ketcham]

I believe what I am asking you to give me is something rather simple, I'm not sure if you just aren't understanding what I'm looking for and why I want it, or if you are intentionally missing the point for some reason. You are a self-proclaimed stubborn fan of BC/SHBB, and yet given the opportunity to prove their effectiveness in surface engagements, you seem fairly reluctant to actually offer up what you would consider the ideal fleet. I'm even allowing you to set the conditions and possibly give yourself an advantage, such as limiting the tech level to somewhere that puts your fleet at the peak of its power curve compared to other ship designs.

For the second option you just offered, that would be 2 CV, 2 SHBB, 2 BC, and 52 CL? Using the previous cost listings and estimating the CV at 10k IC, that is 317000 IC plus planes. I'm still not sure what the exact layout of your modules is going to be and your upgraded tech, or your doctrine, but at least we have some sort of composition to start with.

Even if I'm limited to '36 hulls and '40 guns with DPSB, I'm going to be using DD2 with tier 2 engine, the lowest tier of gun battery that it must have, and 2 tier 2 torpedo tubes, for a total IC cost of 910 each. I'll be using CA2 with tier 2 engine, highest tier FCS/Radar you will allow, 3x DPSB, and 2x CL3 batteries for a total cost of 4950 IC per CA. If we have 4x DD per CA, total cost of 8590 per packet. Take the total cost of your fleet being 317000, and I could bring 36 CA and 144 DD. I would probably drop a couple packets to get some land based fighters to paralyze your carriers, or trade a couple more to get 4 carriers of my own. 8930 IC for a '36 carrier, so we can have 4 carriers, 30 CA, 144 DD for 315,260 IC, a bit higher than a 4:1 screen ratio, and more planes than your fleet.

So, could you please give me a specific loadout of your ships and composition of your fleet, your doctrine, and whatever upgrades and tech levels you want us to use, so I can test your theory?

I got impatient, especially since (with all due respect, since you may not have meant anything by it) you sounded rather impatient in the last few responses despite me throwing together a lot of info for you out of the blue. So I just did the test myself. It also went very much in favor of the CAs to my surprise, although in fairness that's all a CA fleet is built for (my main problem with it is that it relies on attrition and has poor AA comparatively, and in fewer numbers is exceptionally vulnerable to air attack). In an IC-even fight they seem a bit brokenly-effective.

Organization damage seemed to be the key, since the CL fleet had a lot more light attack than the CA fleet, but the CLs just stopped hitting anything at a certain point.

For reference, I went full into gunpower with the CLs and CAs, researched fleet in being doctrine (just the battlefleet upgrades), and got all the naval-xp techs available prior to 1940 (torpedo, gun, fire control, damage control). Both with no aircraft and with contested air, the CL fleet lost (although with 42 CAs, you basically have as much AA damage mitigation as is even possible to get; all the carriers on both sides were obliterated by aircraft in this scenario, however). I didn't try the moderate-sized fleet I was looking at, but to be blunt if SHBBs can't sink a single CA then I doubt a few battlecruisers could.

Hitting 2 CAs and 15 empty DDs with 3 CLs and 9 submarines (almost exact-same cost) resulted in a handful of DDs sunk and the fleet lost. THAT one was really confusing, since you only had 15 depth charge attack on the entire fleet.

I still like CLs for their screen utility and AA bonus, and particularly because they are more versatile than destroyers; you can't convoy raid with destroyers except near your own ports due to poor range, and if you get bombed by aircraft they provide almost no real value. A stack of BCs and CLs can survive bombing attacks with decent HP intact, keep their experience longer (the test had 0 XP for all ships, which was a bit of a problem), and are far less likely to sink if they're outmatched and have to run away. The CA/DD fleet will always suffer losses, though its main advantage (besides apparently being stupidly-effective 1-1) is that its cheap to build (whereas this CL fleet is very much not). The other issue comes back to everyone starting with a crapton of capital ships, meaning that you need screens in huge numbers more than CAs (although this boils down to my original point on a player needing DDs just to fill screen requirements regardless).

 

[Corpse Fool]

I got impatient, especially since (with all due respect, since you may not have meant anything by it) you sounded rather impatient in the last few responses despite me throwing together a lot of info for you out of the blue. So I just did the test myself. It also went very much in favor of the CAs to my surprise, although in fairness that's all a CA fleet is built for (my main problem with it is that it relies on attrition and has poor AA comparatively, and in fewer numbers is exceptionally vulnerable to air attack). In an IC-even fight they seem a bit brokenly-effective.

You threw together a lot of information that I did not ask for, or have any use for. It may have helped an outsider understand a bit more about the topic, but it did not help us progress our discussion. You may have misunderstood what the topic was about, I know I've gotten the wrong idea and gone off on tangents before. I'll try to be more clear in the future.

I also did the testing with what information I had, and the test went very much in favor of the CA, with only a couple dozen destroyers lost. With my testing, my 4 carriers were using pure fighters just to nullify the effect that carriers on either side had on the fight. So the entire battle was more or less just a slugfest with the exception of the positioning penalty to your fleet because I had more planes, which wasn't really offset by the much larger penalty my fleet had to its positioning because it was many times larger than yours. I did split your carriers 50/50 with fighters and naval bombers (tier 3, no upgrades) in wings of 10.

I did not use any doctrines or upgrades. I did not use any admirals, or nation specific things. I did ex all ships and planes up to regular, they were set to never retreat, always engage, and only fly during the day.

Your All your ships had top level FCS and radar, any slot that could hold a DPSB had it. SHBB had 6, BC has 4, CL had 3. Any slot that didn't have a better light attack option (light the cruiser had 3xCL3 guns), had AA instead (SHBB had 3, BC had 2, CL had 1). The SHBB and BC had a single heavy gun battery, the BC was the lowest tech to keep its cost low and its speed high. A bit more heavy attack wouldn't have made much of a difference anyway, I would think. The BC had level 3 armor for a bit more HP and for whatever its worth, resistance to light attack. The IC/speed costs are the same anyway. I think that accounts for everything. My ships were exactly as described previously, save for swapping the 2x tier 2 torpedoes for 1x tier 3 torpedo, which made them a bit cheaper, faster, and have less torpedo attack each.

CL certainly do have a bunch of utility and are a useful ship to build. Certainly as a spotting cruiser or long range escort. I don't think there is much point to using them as a "screen" in the sense of a strike fleet, and if you're looking for fleet AA, destroyers are still cheaper peer fleet AA than a CL would be. I don't think XP on screens matters, when the purpose of the screen isn't to deal damage which is most of what XP helps with.

But the two things you wanted to disagree with (DD+CA fleets, and 3-5 screens per cap) seem to be correct. We could obviously do some more involved testing involving doctrines and other bonuses, even admirals. But those are going to be fairly hard pressed to tip the balance back in favor of the BC/BB/SHBB.

I don't think org on the CL was that much of an issue in my testing. Ships were getting destroyed faster than their org would drop, there wasn't much opportunity for low org to affect their hit rates and such The sheer bulk of 30 CA with ~40 attack and +40% hit rate was devastating.

 

[DicRoNero]

The SHBB and BC had a single heavy gun battery, the BC was the lowest tech to keep its cost low and its speed high. A bit more heavy attack wouldn't have made much of a difference anyway, I would think.

The sheer bulk of 30 CA with ~40 attack and +40% hit rate was devastating.

As a SHBB user, I find these lines (combined) rather suspicious. First, the very question of building SHBB with 1 capital turret is dubious to me, this turns the ship into anti-support role, which it can not efficiently fulfil anyway due to how any smallest hit from the pistol-caliber gun has a chance to disable something, so it's only a matter of time (like in fighting convoys) until the ship is nearly incapacitated, and normally by that time the damage input should be good enough to justify bringing such a massive asset into the field. For that purpose, I'd rather put 3 turrets like I usually do for my SP.

Second, this assembly of 30 CA indeed provides quite a bulk of both damage and targets, and to deal with them it makes a lot of sense to have more heavy attack than a single heavy battery would provide.

This is not to say that the eventual outcome would be different, no.

It's just the fact that you've got a bunch of half-crippled cruisers left afloat (when I know just how quickly they pop under heavy fire) and none of them actually sunk that makes me feel uncomfortable. 3 turrets per ship would also mean far better damage concentration, for a ship doesn't split its damage (of the same type, that is), while with one-turreted versions one can have a whole armada of them and still fire randomly (and sink nothing).

 

[Corpse Fool]

It's just the fact that you've got a bunch of half-crippled cruisers left afloat (when I know just how quickly they pop under heavy fire) and none of them actually sunk that makes me feel uncomfortable. 3 turrets per ship would also mean far better damage concentration, for a ship doesn't split its damage (of the same type, that is), while with one-turreted versions one can have a whole armada of them and still fire randomly (and sink nothing).

Roughly 1/3 of them were even hit by enemy fire, and most of them are sitting at 80-90% HP, while only 1 has been "half-crippled". Even if we assume each cruiser took triple damage, that is one or 2 cruisers actually sunk, 10 or so sitting around 40-60%, and the remaining 20 or so still in top shape. Making such a change is also going to be making your capitals slower and more expensive, which makes them more vulnerable to torpedoes and gives me more ships.

I was originally pitched 16k IC SHBB that had a bunch of DPSB and AA, and that is basically the only design I could come up with that fits within that criteria. As previously mentioned, replacing the AA with extra heavy gun turrets is going to be adding about 3k IC which puts it well outside of the cost window I was given.

But if you would like to submit your own ship designs, fleet comp, and sets of circumstances for this sort of comparison I'll run the tests again with your proposed fleet.

 

[Paul.Ketcham]

As a SHBB user, I find these lines (combined) rather suspicious. First, the very question of building SHBB with 1 capital turret is dubious to me, this turns the ship into anti-support role, which it can not efficiently fulfil anyway due to how any smallest hit from the pistol-caliber gun has a chance to disable something, so it's only a matter of time (like in fighting convoys) until the ship is nearly incapacitated, and normally by that time the damage input should be good enough to justify bringing such a massive asset into the field. For that purpose, I'd rather put 3 turrets like I usually do for my SP.

Second, this assembly of 30 CA indeed provides quite a bulk of both damage and targets, and to deal with them it makes a lot of sense to have more heavy attack than a single heavy battery would provide.

This is not to say that the eventual outcome would be different, no.

It's just the fact that you've got a bunch of half-crippled cruisers left afloat (when I know just how quickly they pop under heavy fire) and none of them actually sunk that makes me feel uncomfortable. 3 turrets per ship would also mean far better damage concentration, for a ship doesn't split its damage (of the same type, that is), while with one-turreted versions one can have a whole armada of them and still fire randomly (and sink nothing).

The reason I did this is because, other than as battleship killers, heavy guns are terrible. They have a huge accuracy penalty against screens, and as ships get faster they get less accurate (the only way to gain accuracy is to slow down ships, and other than via critical engine hits this requires either terrain penalties or mines). So I'm always maximizing light guns instead of heavies, and technically my strategy is an expensive version of the CA spam that's being talked about here (except without the meatshield screen): a bunch of capital ships with max light attack that use their screen bonus to simply obliterate everything behind them.

The other big reason is that I hate slow ships, and even in this test the SHBB was way slower than I liked (24 knots with 1 heavy gun, 2 AA, and 6 DP secondaries). Normally I use either the raider designer or mediterranean designer for speed bonuses, and on top of that I want the 1940 engine; but I was trying to keep the tech restricted for an affordable fleet, and for an attritional deathslog speed wasn't as important. 1940 engine tech generally helps screens more for the aforementioned reasons.

Heavy guns would do a lot better if accuracy tech actually improved accuracy, rather than damage (Fire control computers, fc methods, and radar, as well as just ship experience). There's also the little awkward bit where the whole reason everything is broken here is ships with no firepower are drawing ludicrous amounts of fire, while ships with no armor and heavy firepower are drawing almost none; its just exploiting the half-baked game mechanics one way or another, since even my own capital ships rely more on secondary attack than primary gun attack (which is, again, obsolete design philosophy as of 1906); if I can fire light guns at someone, I'm probably not safely behind a wall of screens and damage-immune to the same guns in the opposing fleet.