Naval Composition 2.0: The Importance of Being Ernest King (with apologies to Oscar Wilde)

[Secret Master]

It's been common knowledge around the community that screens are useless. 100% capital ships has been advocated more times than I can remember, and there is even a semi-famous youtube video that demonstrates the value of pure BB fleets. And yet, I could never square the tests others had conducted with my own experiences in HOI4. Something seemed wrong.

In all MP games I've played, with or without changes to the naval war, the war at sea tends to turn into a war of screen attrition. The side that runs out of screens first usually loses. Capital ships are rarely casualties in surface battles while sufficient screens are in place (except when enough planes bomb them), leading to situations where the IJN and USN are struggling to keep the situation under control and save their precious carriers and battleships. The few times pure capital ships sortied out, they tended to die in NIC inefficient battles. I already knew that submarines were not getting their quota of capital ships due to how speed and detection work in the base game (the BBs just run away), but weird results with DDs and CLs are less acceptable, as decisive naval battles will determine who wins the naval war.

It also seemed weird that the game would be designed to make screens useless in surface engagements. So, I did some testing. And I don't think anyone will like the answers I got.

First, I tested pure BB fleets versus various kinds of mixed fleets. USA versus Japan. Each using the same designer (Pacific designer), no ministers, 1940 BBs and 1940 DDs, +2 engines, guns, armor, and reliability on the BBs and +2 to engines and torpedoes on the DDs (ASW and AA don't matter in this test). Each fleet was given admirals with the exact same skills and traits. Each fleet was given enough ships to equal the IC cost of the other fleet. The first set of tests were conducted with just starting doctrines, with Ernest King and Ozawa in command.

I tested 20 BBs versus pure 203 DDs, 20 BB versus 10 BB/102 DDs, pure BB versus 15 BB/50 DD, and 20 BB versus 17 BBs/30 DDs.

These first tests produced varying results. In fact, they varied enough that with the exception of pure DDs veruss pure BBs, I could never be sure which fleet would actually win. (Pure DDs lost big against pure BBs.)

Since I could not get consistent results (I've seen this in aircraft testing, and it means I need to do something different), I changed the parameters of my tests. I kept the ships and fleet compositions the same, and the admirals and designers the same, but I swapped in full doctrines (Fleet in Being, all branches except for submarines) for both sides. With better doctrines, the ships have better ORG and should survive hits better and have more of a chance to flee. With more ships surviving, rather than being one or two shot to death, it might give me more consistent results.

And it did:

The number of ships getting sunk in each combat changes, but in all cases I tested, it was a clear win for the pure BB force. Seems like the "pure BB theory" holds true. (DDs in this case cost roughly 10 times the cost of a BB, so 10 dead DDs equals a dead BB.)

But why was I not seeing this in MP? MP is a lot more chaotic, and admirals are always leading naval battles with a plethora of traits. I then decided to keep doctrines where they were, but swap in some different admirals leading various compositions. I tested Yamamoto versus Nimitz (both have the same skill and same traits). I ran the tests a number of times with each composition.

The results were quite different than they were with Ernest King and Ozawa:

Now isn't that interesting? King, Ozawa, Nimitz, and Yamamoto all have the same skill, but the outcome of these battles couldn't be more different. And this outcome happened more than once in testing with only small fluctuations in actual ships sunk. In all cases, though, the mixed fleets won when they had 5:1 to 2:1 ratios of DDs to BBs. (at 10:1 DDs per BB, the pure BB fleets still won).

If admiral traits were causing this much of a change in battle outcomes, obviously admiral traits are interacting poorly with fleet composition in some way. But what was overpowered? Was it the spotting trait for some reason, or the Blockade runner trait?

I decided to test the blockade runner trait on the pure BB fleet against mixed fleet of 17 BBs/30 DDs. And this was the outcome in more than one battle:

So, the blockade runner trait seems to be causing some weird stuff to happen, but it's not just on the pure BB side. It seems like the blockade runner trait is abysmal for fleets with screens, while it seems to unduly help pure BB fleets. I can see it helping pure BB fleets (the BBs have the strength to fleet from combat if you give them the chance), but why would losses be worse for mixed fleets? All I did was use an admiral with blockade runner and not spotting, so it's not like I swapped blockade runner for some mythical trait that makes DDs better at fighting capital ships.

I don't have all the answers here, and my initial tests here just scratch the surface. But something is wrong beyond simple "rock, paper, scissors" results with screens and capital ships. I know a lot of folks who do MP have their own little balancing mods, and I was hoping some would chime in with their MP experiences and tell me what they think. And I was hoping those with better understanding of the game's mechanics might direct me to better tests. I have more experience testing planes than ships.

 

[puppet on a string]

the naval AI is so utterly abysmal - not researching naval techs, never bothering with naval doctrines, unable to build any kind of balanced fleet, crippling its army/air production as a result - that it's really not worth discussing many of these points

whilst naval combat can be fun in MP, in SP it is simply depressing; even when adding/editing the relevant AI strategies i cannot even get the german AI to finish building both scharnhorsts before 1940

oh and let's not forget the AI building carriers but never even researching carrier planes, let alone actually building enough of them

it's a joke to think there will ever be a pacific war or proper convoy-hunting campaigns in the atlantic, the AI just doesn't bother

there are some great things in hoi4 but every single aspect of the naval game is complete garbage, it's so sad

 

[Covfam]

It's been common knowledge around the community that screens are useless. 100% capital ships has been advocated more times than I can remember, and there is even a semi-famous youtube video that demonstrates the value of pure BB fleets. And yet, I could never square the tests others had conducted with my own experiences in HOI4. Something seemed wrong.

In all MP games I've played, with or without changes to the naval war, the war at sea tends to turn into a war of screen attrition. The side that runs out of screens first usually loses. Capital ships are rarely casualties in surface battles while sufficient screens are in place (except when enough planes bomb them), leading to situations where the IJN and USN are struggling to keep the situation under control and save their precious carriers and battleships. The few times pure capital ships sortied out, they tended to die in NIC inefficient battles. I already knew that submarines were not getting their quota of capital ships due to how speed and detection work in the base game (the BBs just run away), but weird results with DDs and CLs are less acceptable, as decisive naval battles will determine who wins the naval war.

It also seemed weird that the game would be designed to make screens useless in surface engagements. So, I did some testing. And I don't think anyone will like the answers I got.

First, I tested pure BB fleets versus various kinds of mixed fleets. USA versus Japan. Each using the same designer (Pacific designer), no ministers, 1940 BBs and 1940 DDs, +2 engines, guns, armor, and reliability on the BBs and +2 to engines and torpedoes on the DDs (ASW and AA don't matter in this test). Each fleet was given admirals with the exact same skills and traits. Each fleet was given enough ships to equal the IC cost of the other fleet. The first set of tests were conducted with just starting doctrines, with Ernest King and Ozawa in command.

I tested 20 BBs versus pure 203 DDs, 20 BB versus 10 BB/102 DDs, pure BB versus 15 BB/50 DD, and 20 BB versus 17 BBs/30 DDs.

These first tests produced varying results. In fact, they varied enough that with the exception of pure DDs veruss pure BBs, I could never be sure which fleet would actually win. (Pure DDs lost big against pure BBs.)

Since I could not get consistent results (I've seen this in aircraft testing, and it means I need to do something different), I changed the parameters of my tests. I kept the ships and fleet compositions the same, and the admirals and designers the same, but I swapped in full doctrines (Fleet in Being, all branches except for submarines) for both sides. With better doctrines, the ships have better ORG and should survive hits better and have more of a chance to flee. With more ships surviving, rather than being one or two shot to death, it might give me more consistent results.

And it did:

View attachment 386671
View attachment 386672

The number of ships getting sunk in each combat changes, but in all cases I tested, it was a clear win for the pure BB force. Seems like the "pure BB theory" holds true. (DDs in this case cost roughly 10 times the cost of a BB, so 10 dead DDs equals a dead BB.)

But why was I not seeing this in MP? MP is a lot more chaotic, and admirals are always leading naval battles with a plethora of traits. I then decided to keep doctrines where they were, but swap in some different admirals leading various compositions. I tested Yamamoto versus Nimitz (both have the same skill and same traits). I ran the tests a number of times with each composition.

The results were quite different than they were with Ernest King and Ozawa:

View attachment 386674

Now isn't that interesting? King, Ozawa, Nimitz, and Yamamoto all have the same skill, but the outcome of these battles couldn't be more different. And this outcome happened more than once in testing with only small fluctuations in actual ships sunk. In all cases, though, the mixed fleets won when they had 5:1 to 2:1 ratios of DDs to BBs. (at 10:1 DDs per BB, the pure BB fleets still won).

If admiral traits were causing this much of a change in battle outcomes, obviously admiral traits are interacting poorly with fleet composition in some way. But what was overpowered? Was it the spotting trait for some reason, or the Blockade runner trait?

I decided to test the blockade runner trait on the pure BB fleet against mixed fleet of 17 BBs/30 DDs. And this was the outcome in more than one battle:
View attachment 386677

So, the blockade runner trait seems to be causing some weird stuff to happen, but it's not just on the pure BB side. It seems like the blockade runner trait is abysmal for fleets with screens, while it seems to unduly help pure BB fleets. I can see it helping pure BB fleets (the BBs have the strength to fleet from combat if you give them the chance), but why would losses be worse for mixed fleets? All I did was use an admiral with blockade runner and not spotting, so it's not like I swapped blockade runner for some mythical trait that makes DDs better at fighting capital ships.

I don't have all the answers here, and my initial tests here just scratch the surface. But something is wrong beyond simple "rock, paper, scissors" results with screens and capital ships. I know a lot of folks who do MP have their own little balancing mods, and I was hoping some would chime in with their MP experiences and tell me what they think. And I was hoping those with better understanding of the game's mechanics might direct me to better tests. I have more experience testing planes than ships.

Could you make this test with pure CL or mixed with CL instead of DD'? I see a lot invest in CL's instead of DD's for screens because of the durability and better range. And better guns?

 

[Secret Master]

Could you make this test with pure CL or mixed with CL instead of DD'? I see a lot invest in CL's instead of DD's for screens because of the durability and better range. And better guns?

I could. It might change the doctrines I need, though. DDs get more benefit out of Fleet in Being than CLs, I think.

I also used DDs mainly because the US (and a few other countries) get a discount to DDs.

 

[Fulmen]

Could it be the Blockade Runner trait is causing the BBs mixed with DDs to run away, leaving the DDs to get slaughtered?

Seems very strange, though no stranger than the whole naval combat system in this game.

 

[Secret Master]

Could it be the Blockade Runner trait is causing the BBs mixed with DDs to run away, leaving the DDs to get slaughtered?

I don't think that's happening (I don't remember seeing BBs running away in the mixed fleet), but I suppose I could take a closer look.

 

[noobermenschen]

I could. It might change the doctrines I need, though. DDs get more benefit out of Fleet in Being than CLs, I think.

I also used DDs mainly because the US (and a few other countries) get a discount to DDs.

How much difference do naval Doctrines make? I am going tooth and nail with the IJN right now and I think I have four doctrines researched. How much is it worth giving up other needed tech to get these in place in 1941?

Also I have discovered in my first real naval war that: 1) Carrier NAVs will quickly start stripping away screens at the beginning of a battle and 2) Submarines conveniently arrive late and sink all those fat targets once the screens are gone. Do your MP games usually just involve one or two ship types?

 

[Dalwin]

How much difference do naval Doctrines make? I am going tooth and nail with the IJN right now and I think I have four doctrines researched. How much is it worth giving up other needed tech to get these in place in 1941?

Also I have discovered in my first real naval war that: 1) Carrier NAVs will quickly start stripping away screens at the beginning of a battle and 2) Submarines conveniently arrive late and sink all those fat targets once the screens are gone. Do your MP games usually just involve one or two ship types?

Not at all. Our MP games involve a wide variety of ship types, both within a given navy and from player to player.

 

[Secret Master]

How much difference do naval Doctrines make?

For surface combats, it is something I am still trying to assess. The fact that surface combats with no planes or submarines involved had far more variety to results no doctrines in play compared to the same combats with most or all doctrines in play indicates to me even if you abandon carriers, you might want some doctrines. But I don't a good answer for you right now.

Not at all. Our MP games involve a wide variety of ship types, both within a given navy and from player to player.

Which is why I started testing this in the first place. Something wasn't adding up, and something still doesn't add up.

 

[QuakeRiley]

Do DDs still have a 25% to fire their torpedoes? If so, maybe that stat is changed in the multiplayer to something higher?

 

[myzael]

How much difference do naval Doctrines make?

In the current game, our Italy player was able to demolish the UK's Mediterranean fleet, sinking 9 or 11 BBs, while only losing ~30 DDs and couple CLs and one CA I think... He didn't lose one of his BBs. Basically all that was left of it was couple damaged carriers he didn't manage to catch. He had full FiB doctrine.

Now, I don't know what doctrine research was like for the UK, the battle was under slight Axis air superiority and it's only one example, but I'd say for naval countries it's definitely worth dedicating one reseach slot to naval doctrine pretty much constantly.

 

[noobermenschen]

In the current game, our Italy player was able to demolish the UK's Mediterranean fleet, sinking 9 or 11 BBs, while only losing ~30 DDs and couple CLs and one CA I think... He didn't lose one of his BBs. Basically all that was left of it was couple damaged carriers he didn't manage to catch. He had full FiB doctrine.

Now, I don't know what doctrine research was like for the UK, the battle was under slight Axis air superiority and it's only one example, but I'd say for naval countries it's definitely worth dedicating one reseach slot to naval doctrine pretty much constantly.

Intriguing... I am tempted to restart my USA campaign and find this out.

 

[Malickhoi]

Thank you Secret Master for running the tests.
From my own experience, the stats for most ships shall be completely reworked to reflect their role and capacity. A few changes to the defines, and then you'll have a much better experience on the naval aspects.

Let me find something I wrote a while ago in a thread explaining the changes I made, with which the naval part of the game is much more satisfying for me, at least.
I may add that damage should be more random, with lower chances for critical hits and much more devastating results.

If I may contribute to the subject, the below modifications really improve the naval aspect of the game, in my opinion.
I have tested this in a personal mod, with interesting results (with 1.4.2) :
- General : increase the IC cost of all ships to be closer to the actual displacement (subs 1000, DD 2000, CL 5000, CA 10000, BC 18000, BB 25000, CV 25000). This makes capital ships much more expensive and valuable.
- General : max 5 dockyards per line. This drastically increases the build times : it takes 2 years to build a new generation BB, so plan carefully your naval build-up.
- General : in define.lua, reduce damage to hp to 0.5 (was 1.6) and org to 1.5 (was 1.9). Makes battles more interesting, as damaged ships will try to retreat, and reduce the catastrophic slaughter of a whole country's navy in a single engagement...
- SS : increase range, speed and hp, so that they are harder to kill by early screens and catch up more easily with convoys. Reduce org, so that they retreat as soon as they face any resistance.
- Convoy : reduce speed, org and hp, remove sub detection. This makes them easy targets when unprotected and also allow air attacks to sink a few of them.
- Capital : remove sub detection, so that a lone BB or CV might be caught by a lurking submarine.

By removing sub detection from Capital, you make subs and screens useful again

You can find the discussion here : https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ead-naval-rework.1081086/page-3#post-23978542

Cheers.

Malick

 

[Dalwin]

Thank you Secret Master for running the tests.
From my own experience, the stats for most ships shall be completely reworked to reflect their role and capacity. A few changes to the defines, and then you'll have a much better experience on the naval aspects.

Let me find something I wrote a while ago in a thread explaining the changes I made, with which the naval part of the game is much more satisfying for me, at least.
I may add that damage should be more random, with lower chances for critical hits and much more devastating results.



By removing sub detection from Capital, you make subs and screens useful again

You can find the discussion here : https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ead-naval-rework.1081086/page-3#post-23978542

Cheers.

Malick

I don't think the problem is in the stats on the ships for the most part. I think the method of targeting within the battles is severely flawed. For BBs to sit back and shoot DDs the entire time instead of closing on and firing at the opposing BBs is so very wrong.

 

[Gyrvendal]

@Secret Master Any chance you could run the same tests with 1944 tech ships? The ratio from DDs to BBs would probably be different because late game DDs are rather expensive. I have this idea that the high evasion stat of late game DD might make them perform a lot better against BBs.

Also what about battlecruisers? Due to their lower cost and high firepower I feel like BC hardcounter mixed fleets because they will melt the screens faster than equivalent cost of BBs. As such a fleet of BB + BC or SHBB + BC might be more efficient than pure BB. On the other hand BCs don't benefit as much from doctrines, so maybe they are a good choice if you can't afford to spend too much research on doctrines or if you pick a different doctrine from FiB.

Another factor to consider is upgrades. Gun and armor upgrades give great results on BCs and BBs, while upgrading screens is just a waste of XP, which contributes to the dominance of capital ships in general.

Lastly: ship XP. This is not factored so much in your tests as I assume you start with a "green" fleet. However in game capital ships level up extremely fast, so by the second or third battle all your capital ships will be veterans while most screens barely gain any XP.

Frankly, given all these factors in favor of capitals, I am very surprised that anyone manages to get decent results using screens in MP. Looking forward to see what you find out.

 

[Malickhoi]

I don't think the problem is in the stats on the ships for the most part. I think the method of targeting within the battles is severely flawed. For BBs to sit back and shoot DDs the entire time instead of closing on and firing at the opposing BBs is so very wrong.

Hi Dalwin,
That is correct, but not within what modders can do, unfortunately.
I agree, screens should remain close to larger units for their protection, rather than run full steam towards the enemy line... And capital ships should try to aim for the enemy's capital ships, while remaining out of the enemy's sceen firing range. These behaviour can not be modded.

There was another thread, where I suggested to use the excellent system of combat tactics ! This works well for land combat, in my opinion it would suit the naval combat quite well.

Malick

 

[QuakeRiley]

Also what about battlecruisers? Due to their lower cost and high firepower I feel like BC hardcounter mixed fleets because they will melt the screens faster than equivalent cost of BBs. As such a fleet of BB + BC or SHBB + BC might be more efficient than pure BB. On the other hand BCs don't benefit as much from doctrines, so maybe they are a good choice if you can't afford to spend too much research on doctrines or if you pick a different doctrine from FiB.

If naval armour still negates 90% damage then BCs would be pointless. You'd have ships with strong firepower, but they can't pierce their equivelant in BB tech while even a BB1 could pierce any BC.

 

[Gyrvendal]

If naval armour still negates 90% damage then BCs would be pointless. You'd have ships with strong firepower, but they can't pierce their equivelant in BB tech while even a BB1 could pierce any BC.

That's why you put gun upgrades on them. They are not supposed to be unpierceable (except by screens), but they should pierce most BBs if you invest in upgrades.
Versus screens they are extremely cost efficient, which is why they are good at countering mixed compostions. Also their speed helps them with getting to the fight quicker, so they can start raping screens before enemy BBs arrive and the speed probably helps with retreating safely too, although who knows...

You should use them with BB or SHBB to avoid being countered though.


Another thing: considering that high ORG prevents you from retreating when damaged, are ORG buffs from doctrines actually beneficial?

 

[Whoman69]

I don't think this really takes into effect the levels of the ships. The level one destroyers at the beginning of the game are all sitting ducks. As the US I consign the older ships to duty in the Atlantic or in convoy escort behind the main battle lines. After I did this my losses in the Pacific were greatly reduced. Battleships would be a much bigger hit than what you suggest because not only is the price larger, they use chromium which usually has to be traded for. You also run the risk of enemy subs sinking your capital ships. At the beginning of hostilities I usually have at least four carrier groups ready in the Pacific and a reserve in the Philippines that has extra ships. Those groups have 2 CV, 3 BB, 4 CA, 4 CL and 20 DD. Because of this I can double them up and dispatch enemies quickly. The only area of concern is usually the South China Sea as the Japanese have a ton of aircraft in the area which makes extended patrols there near impossible.

 

[Stug_Life]

How much difference do naval Doctrines make?

They do a lot actually, from increasing the org of ships, to increasing their armor value (less chance of getting shot through your hull) and increase the effectiveness of carrier aircraft in combat (sorties)