Naval Combat XP too low

[unmerged(131628)]

So another thing that need to be fixed is that nations get very very very low XP for naval combat - it reflect only lenght of naval battles without any difference if both sides have 2 small ships an nothing is sunk or if both sides have 20+ ships and winner destroy 10 CVs and BBs.

As USA I just wiped out 90% of IJN in 3 weeks and when I looked to Research tab my Naval Combat XP was 0.6 which is absurd.

IMO when combat XP are calculated it should be important how many ships are in that battle and you should get extra XP for each ship you manage to sink (for example 1XP per capital ship and 0.2XP for every escort/sub you destroy)

 

[Slan]

So another thing that need to be fixed is that nations get very very very low XP for naval combat - it reflect only lenght of naval battles without any difference if both sides have 2 small ships an nothing is sunk or if both sides have 20+ ships and winner destroy 10 CVs and BBs.

As USA I just wiped out 90% of IJN in 3 weeks and when I looked to Research tab my Naval Combat XP was 0.6 which is absurd.

IMO when combat XP are calculated it should be important how many ships are in that battle and you should get extra XP for each ship you manage to sink (for example 1XP per capital ship and 0.2XP for every escort/sub you destroy)

Or simply elongate the naval battles themselves... It is unrealistic to have day-long naval battles, but it would be better in the long run!

 

[themousemaster]

So another thing that need to be fixed is that nations get very very very low XP for naval combat - it reflect only lenght of naval battles without any difference if both sides have 2 small ships an nothing is sunk or if both sides have 20+ ships and winner destroy 10 CVs and BBs.

As USA I just wiped out 90% of IJN in 3 weeks and when I looked to Research tab my Naval Combat XP was 0.6 which is absurd.

IMO when combat XP are calculated it should be important how many ships are in that battle and you should get extra XP for each ship you manage to sink (for example 1XP per capital ship and 0.2XP for every escort/sub you destroy)

This begs the question however, which has been brought up before...

If the US managed to sink the entire Japanese navy in the span of 3 weeks, how much did they actually learn from the fight that can be applied to the next 8 years of gameplay?

All they now know is "yup, everything we already know, still works".

the 1v1 destroyer scenario may seem absurd, but the lessons learned about naval engagement and maneuvering are far greater (yes, even for the country), when it's a prolonged fight where both sides keep trying new ideas to see which one finally pans out to victory.

Now, granted, that experience would be far more useful to destroyer combat than Carrier Warfare, for example, but as "Naval Combat Experience" is a lump-sum statistic, dividing up as such would be hard (unless you want to argue, in such a situation for a bonus to the related theory tech instead, but... that's kind of flying off the issue).




This all being said, if this is just a complaint about how to get Naval Combat EXP in a hurry, just send out a dozen Convoy Raider fleets for a year. Your Naval EXP will be so high you'll be set.

 

[unmerged(148761)]

Submarines are great for naval XP. With about 8-9 subs as Germany I had a full bar of naval combat experience, one level 9 admiral and two level 8 admirals. On the other hand, my surface fleet commander, who had lead several engagements with the Royal Navy, had gained about 2 percentage points of experience.

This begs the question however, which has been brought up before...

If the US managed to sink the entire Japanese navy in the span of 3 weeks, how much did they actually learn from the fight that can be applied to the next 8 years of gameplay?

All they now know is "yup, everything we already know, still works".

the 1v1 destroyer scenario may seem absurd, but the lessons learned about naval engagement and maneuvering are far greater (yes, even for the country), when it's a prolonged fight where both sides keep trying new ideas to see which one finally pans out to victory.

Now, granted, that experience would be far more useful to destroyer combat than Carrier Warfare, for example, but as "Naval Combat Experience" is a lump-sum statistic, dividing up as such would be hard (unless you want to argue, in such a situation for a bonus to the related theory tech instead, but... that's kind of flying off the issue).

Just because an engagement happens quickly doesn't mean that there isn't a lot going on and a lot that can be learned from during after-the-fact review. The Battle of Jutland lasted about a day, but led to significant reviews of ship design, tactics, and strategies. Entire classes of ships like the battlecruiser were redesigned and reimagined as a result. The size of a battle and the number of units involved should definitely increase the amount of experience gained.

The system we have now gives the most experience and skill gains to generals who lead their troops into long stalemates. By that logic, the generals who managed the Western Front in World War One would have all been absolute military geniuses by the end of the war.

 

[lp60068]

The battle for Midway was only 3 or 4 days of combat, but I think the Naval Experience gained by both sides would be more than .6

 

[unmerged(131628)]

Submarines are great for naval XP. With about 8-9 subs as Germany I had a full bar of naval combat experience, one level 9 admiral and two level 8 admirals. On the other hand, my surface fleet commander, who had lead several engagements with the Royal Navy, had gained about 2 percentage points of experience.

Try it in MP - your subs will most likely be dead in less than 4 weeks. Fighting against AI is just too easy.

 

[TheBromgrev]

Or simply elongate the naval battles themselves... It is unrealistic to have day-long naval battles, but it would be better in the long run!

I tested this idea out today, and it works. A six hour battle between my CHI fleet (2 BB, 2 DD, 3 CL, all pre-WWI) vs a JAP landing fleet (2BB, 1BC, 3DD, 10TR) resulted in no ships being sunk, everything was damaged, my admiral gained 18% experience, and my Naval Combat practical went up by 1.2. For a nation's first major naval engagement, the result seemed appropriate.

 

[themousemaster]

Submarines are great for naval XP. With about 8-9 subs as Germany I had a full bar of naval combat experience, one level 9 admiral and two level 8 admirals. On the other hand, my surface fleet commander, who had lead several engagements with the Royal Navy, had gained about 2 percentage points of experience.



Just because an engagement happens quickly doesn't mean that there isn't a lot going on and a lot that can be learned from during after-the-fact review. The Battle of Jutland lasted about a day, but led to significant reviews of ship design, tactics, and strategies. Entire classes of ships like the battlecruiser were redesigned and reimagined as a result. The size of a battle and the number of units involved should definitely increase the amount of experience gained.

The system we have now gives the most experience and skill gains to generals who lead their troops into long stalemates. By that logic, the generals who managed the Western Front in World War One would have all been absolute military geniuses by the end of the war.

I must disagree with your premesis here.

Yes, Jutland happened "quickly", but my argument wasn't on the time, it was was the spent to "conquer".

You said you defeated pretty much the entire IJN in 3 weeks; I.E., there no longer is an IJN. That's why I'm saying the experience gain should be low; what can one learn from total success?

If Japan's fleet had NOT been sunk so fast, then you'd have had a lot more battles, a lot longer battles, and a lot more EXP gained.



The Jutland fight only resulted in a 10% loss to each side. The various commanders learned a lot, because they engaged in a pitted fight, which resulted in a (for lack of a better term) draw.

You had no such fight; you curbstomped what was one of the 3 primier navies of the world.

If the Cleveland Cavaliers go to a middle school and curbstomp the local basketball team in short order, they aren't going to learn much either. (Not that they'd learn a whole lot against 7th graders no matter how long they played them, but that's a totally different point from yours).

 

[No idea]

I agree with the OP. My top land generals have around 80 % exp. Same for the air ones. But, for some reason, my top admirals have 5 % (OK, they don´t engage nearly as often as the others, but naval battles are far more rare than air or land ones). They have fought ans sunk quite a lot of other navies by now, but they get just 5 %. Too few, it should be changed in the expansion.

 

[Alex_brunius]

If you think ship exp gain to low just change the line:
"EXP_GAIN_NAVAL = 4.0,"

In the defines.lua file.


I have a few other points that can't be modded and therefore would help more then just increasing the value (which you can do yourself).

I think Naval combat experience and ship experience should be gained slowly while at sea with any fleet. You don't have to meet the enemy to perform drills, learn from fleet manoeuvres or practice fire a few shots. This should affect both ships and theoretical values.

I agree that naval combat experience should be per ship and not per fleet/combat.

A Handy tip if you want to level up Admirals is to put them on a CTF and use the CAGs to bomb land positions. Admirals actually gain experience from that!