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

[Denkt]

SHBB should do quite well with a blockade runner I would suspect as it should make them retreat before they are sunk. Aircrafts may however be a big problem as they could maybe sink damaged ships as they retreat.

I suspect they would do well against enemy ships as they outrange the enemy ships which mean that if the enemy retreat they will still be in range of the SHBB for a while. If the SHBB retreat it should escape enemy range pretty quickly as I would assume (if engagement take place near the enemy max range). SHBB also have better HP and armor which help them stay alive better than other ships.

The reason why I suspect blockade runner is bad for screens is that screens that retreat will probably be sunk anyway so it is better if the attack is pushed while for capital ships you want them to retreat.

It's really interesting to see the value of the the blockade runner trait. Especially since it is likely to remain in some form even in MtG, unless the devs see this thread and nerf it.

As I understand naval battles will be reworked so it is hard to tell what impact the trait could have post Man the Guns.

 

[Axe99]

Could Light Cruiser and Heavy Cruiser be combined into a single base type with the modular system. While there is a big difference between the lightest cruisers and the most heavy ones, the same can be said about ships considered to be battleships or battlecruisers as well.

Aye, this is how I'd do it if that was the approach taken - lump cruisers together, probably make them all screens and go from there. Many of the CA/CL designs shared a fair bit between each other (with the extreme example of the Mogamis, that started life as CLs and with a turret switch became CAs).

 

[davidc929]

How about granularity with convoys?

Instead of having a default option have a scale. At one end ships sailing alone. At the other large convoys. To simulate the inefficiency of large convoys they would have a negative modifier on the resources they transport to represent them not getting to where they need to be on time and perishable goods. But they would get a bonus defending against sub attack. On the other end single ships would not have a negative resource effect but would be more vulnerable to submarines.

 

[philjd]

How about granularity with convoys?

Instead of having a default option have a scale. At one end ships sailing alone. At the other large convoys. To simulate the inefficiency of large convoys they would have a negative modifier on the resources they transport to represent them not getting to where they need to be on time and perishable goods. But they would get a bonus defending against sub attack. On the other end single ships would not have a negative resource effect but would be more vulnerable to submarines.

You'd need a proper convoy system for the game, which I favour - "the defeat of the enemy attack..." has statistics for the efficiency loss of convoy v's independent by route, but don't recall if that is done by convoy size (but i tip toward not, it's been about 15 years since I read it fully, same with the Blair).

 

[Covfam]

Nice tests @Secret Master ! Thanks for confirming the value of BCs against mixed fleets. Edit: It's worth noting with BC fleets that they can benefit a lot from a bit of micro. When they first engage they will quickly kill a lot of screens before enemy capitals even get close. If you retreat them at that moment by setting them to repair now, they will take no losses and almost no damage while having sunk quite a few screens. It works even with quite small groups of BCs far outnumbered by the enemy.

It's really interesting to see the value of the the blockade runner trait. Especially since it is likely to remain in some form even in MtG, unless the devs see this thread and nerf it.

I guess all that's left to test is whether SHBBs are ever worth it. They will probably win versus pure BB or BC fleets, but might fail against mixed fleets or event pure DD fleets. Perhaps the ideal fleet composition in the current build is an even mix of BCs that will destroy any screens quickly then retreat, and SHBB that will destroy enemy capital ships.

You know i rarely make SHBB'S because thetime it takes to build one is painfull. So i have a hard time justifying locking down my naval manufacturing for them id be curious how effective they really were.

 

[Secret Master]

Is not the reason why blockade runner is so good because it increase the chance of ships retreating and make retreat much faster which save your ships and damaged ships are then repaired for free.

Yes, but what surprised me is how effective blockade runner seems to be in all situations and fleet compositions.

Yeah, faster ships and certain types of fleets benefit more, but so far, blockade runner seems to be so good, it's mandatory for everyone (again, we're not talking about planes yet).

I would have expected blockade runner to be good for smaller and faster raiding fleets, while main battle fleets intending to stay and fight would want something else. Like, you want Bismark and Prinz Eugen to have blockade runner, while Hood and Prince of Wales would want something else, like Ironsides or something.

But as you point out, since repairs are free, the most important thing is for ships to survive to fight another day.

I guess all that's left to test is whether SHBBs are ever worth it.

There's still two more tests I want to do. SHBBs and CLs. I don't need to test submarines in vanilla, because I already know what pure BB fleets do when facing submarines.

You know i rarely make SHBB'S because thetime it takes to build one is painfull. So i have a hard time justifying locking down my naval manufacturing for them id be curious how effective they really were.

I've used them before, ironically as the USA. In our MP group, we have house rules for ahead of time research, so I can't grab awesome carriers in 1937. So, what I do while I wait for super awesome carriers to unlock is research and build a cadre of SHBBs. The NIC gets put on that until the carriers are ready.

Oh, and I just realized that at some point, I should test blockade runner with NAVs in play. Maybe NAVs kill ships so efficiently that blockade runner's value is obscured by naval aviation.

 

[davidc929]

You'd need a proper convoy system for the game, which I favour - "the defeat of the enemy attack..." has statistics for the efficiency loss of convoy v's independent by route, but don't recall if that is done by convoy size (but i tip toward not, it's been about 15 years since I read it fully, same with the Blair).

Yeah I don't know if they would be able to fit it in. But would be good to see actual choices with convoys. Along with of course being able to determine where they travel too.

Ideally you'd have to select when each convoy goes or at least set rules for *wait until X amount of this resource has built up before shipping". Of course that would need stockpiles.

But would prefer it to this constant stream of transports shipping 24/7.

 

[Secret Master]

Along with of course being able to determine where they travel too.

While other things would be nice, this is the one thing I really want.

The insanity of convoys traveling constantly under enemy NAV coverage because... reasons? is one thing I kind of hate.

 

[noobermenschen]

There's still two more tests I want to do. SHBBs and CLs. I don't need to test submarines in vanilla, because I already know what pure BB fleets do when facing submarines.

 

[bitmode]

@Secret Master The code consistently uses fire exchange groups for target selection, but I'm assuming that all ships in your tests are in one FEX group.
Some initial findings:

Each ship that is in fighting state selects its target from all ships in the opposing FEX group that are in its range, with weighted random selection

• target type weights: sub = 1, capital = 2, escort = 3, convoy = 4, sub_vs_convoy = 40
• proximity bonus: up to +2.0 at point blank (linear scale)
• enemy already-damaged bonus: up to +1.0 at 0% enemy HP (linear scale)
• enemy retreating: -50%
• enemy actively fighting: +50% (i.e. not retreating, approaching, waiting, etc.)
• stacking penalty: up to -100% based on number of ships already firing at the target (lower capped to -10%; -100% is reached with 7 other ships[1])

Apart from the stacking penalty, none of these weights are moddable.
If no target has a weigth greater 0, nothing gets attacked.
If the attacker has torpedoes and the target is not an escort/screen, the attacker prefers to be in torpedo range. In all other cases they prefer to be in normal firing range.
If the target is not in the preferred range (anymore), the attacker picks a new target instead of attacking that turn.
If the target is closer than the preferred range, the attacker moves back (but still fires).

I posted an explanation of the combat resolution some time ago but as usual can't find it anymore with the great forum search

Ships in the fighting state may decide to retreat:

• if their HP percentage falls below the one configured with the repair priority, they make a die roll against the base chance[5] and a modifier[6] from the admiral leading the battle (additive)
• if the force comparison is not extremely good[7] and the fleet is set to "do not engage"
• if the force comparison is awful[8] and no reinforcements are approaching, they make a die roll against only the base chance[5]

Ships in the retreating state use the same target scoring as above (excluding stacking penalty) but only choose among the enemies that fire at them and always pick the highest scoring one. They do reduced damage[2] and have reduced speed [3] but can get increased speed[4] from the admiral leading the naval combat (not necessarily the one from their fleet). Both speed modifications stack multiplicatively.

[1]: TARGETING_STACKING_HIT_CHANCE_PENALTY times two per ship
[2]: COMBAT_DAMAGE_REDUCTION_ON_RETREAT (0.8, i.e. -20%)
[3]: COMBAT_ESCAPING_SPEED_BALANCE (0.8 i.e. -20%)
[4]: naval_retreat_speed modifier, +25% from blockade_runner
[5]: COMBAT_RETREAT_DECISION_CHANCE (22%)
[6]: naval_retreat_chance modifier, +20% from blockade_runner
[7]: COMBAT_MIN_WIN_CHANCE_TO_KEEP_FIGHTING_DESPITE_NO_ENGAGE
[8]: COMBAT_MIN_WIN_CHANCE_TO_KEEP_FIGHTING

 

[Secret Master]

The code consistently uses fire exchange groups for target selection, but I'm assuming that all ships in your tests are in one FEX group.

What constitutes a fire exchange group? And how can I tell if my ships are in one or more than one?

 

[bitmode]

What constitutes a fire exchange group? And how can I tell if my ships are in one or more than one?

Each FEX group has its ships grouped and sorted by type in the naval battle view. The ships of the next FEX group appear below. I.e. if one side of the battle looks like this:
2 ENG BB
1 FRA BB
1 ENG BC
10 FRA CL
20 ENG DD
1 ENG BB
10 FRA DD

Then the first 5 lines are one FEX group and the last two a second one and they can only target the matching group on the other side respectively. Multiple groups happen only rarely

Edit: saving the game while a battle is going on (using text format) shows the individual FEX groups, e.g.

naval_combat = { ... attacker = { ... group = { ... } group = { ... } ... } ... }

 

[Porkman]

How about granularity with convoys?

Instead of having a default option have a scale. At one end ships sailing alone. At the other large convoys. To simulate the inefficiency of large convoys they would have a negative modifier on the resources they transport to represent them not getting to where they need to be on time and perishable goods. But they would get a bonus defending against sub attack. On the other end single ships would not have a negative resource effect but would be more vulnerable to submarines.

The limiter on convoys is the navy's ability to coordinate them. It should honestly be a tech.

I read a book, " The Japanese Merchant Marine in World War II," by Mark Parillo and its main thesis is that Japan had one officer on convoy defense for merchant shipping, they never figured out a general command structure for it, and the biggest convoy the Japanese ever sailed was 16 ships.

Convoy shipping and convoy escorts and convoy coordination shouldn't have a negative as regards to resources.... it should honestly be non granular with convoy tech reducing enemy detection chances, to represent larger and larger convoys, and escort techs adding to sub attrition.

 

[Secret Master]

Edit: saving the game while a battle is going on (using text format) shows the individual FEX groups, e.g.

How about that. Very interesting. I honestly thought it was all a free for all.

 

[Forster]

Repair priority HIGH on all tests conducted so far with all fleet, admiral, and doctrine configurations. Everyone gets it.

I'm not even sure if it would make sense to use a lower priority in vanilla at the moment unless you were desperate to plug a gap in naval supremacy coverage.

You didn't say whether you had the option for individual ships to break off for repairs selected or not. From what you are showing it looks like you left the choice on default, meaning the ship would stay until the entire fleet disengaged.

 

[Covfam]

While other things would be nice, this is the one thing I really want.

The insanity of convoys traveling constantly under enemy NAV coverage because... reasons? is one thing I kind of hate.

Or at very least go the lazy route and give researchable tech to give convoy efficiency boost and convoy AA defense boost vs aircraft so at least minimaly it looks like convoys learn a little about reducing risk

 

[Teleros]

Has any grand strategy game done convoys properly? I remember Empire: Total War or EU4 etc, and things like the trade winds and such were absolutely crucial. Had Napoleon been able to, say, capture one or two of the really big British convoys from the Indies (West or East) he could have utterly crippled the economy - same sort of thing applies with the Spanish treasure fleets that used to get together then sail en masse for home loaded with bullion.

IIRC, HoI3 had a separate naval category for convoy escorts - not a great system, but particularly given that this is a WW2 game, the way convoys work right now is just a little daft given how important they were IRL. It's like scrapping supplies for armies or something - what, you're saying fuel was an important issue in WW2? Since when? /sarc

 

[Secret Master]

IIRC, HoI3 had a separate naval category for convoy escorts - not a great system

Not only were they not a great system, but they were absolute garbage. The escorts barely could hurt anything, were more expensive than just replacing dead convoys, and any attempts to manually assign them resulted in them just being equalized on routes anyway even if you swapped to manual control.

 

[bitmode]

@Secret Master I made a good old sign error (positive speeds mean moving away from the center line). Ships will not move away when their target comes closer than their preferred range.
Instead the preferred range is actually a mandatory range that the attacker tries to move into before firing, i.e. attackers wanting to use torpedoes will not use their normal guns either until they get into torpedo range. A quick initial test (a few CL vs 1 CA) seems to confirm this.

The range indicator in the naval battle view ("Approaching (x km beyond range)") seems to be bugged. It somehow uses the firing range of the target instead of the attacker which is why ships targeting smaller fleeing enemies frequently claim they were out of range and then proceed to sink them anyway.

I also had another idea why blockade runner could be so good: When multiple smaller ships chase a retreating bigger ship, the big ship is usually in a decent enough position. It still has its armor and still high-enough fire power even after the retreat penalty to pierce the smaller ships. The targeting method used during retreat also makes it super likely that it will fire at the most damaged enemy consistently thus racking up last hits and xp. Buuut as soon as a damaged chasing ship decides to run as well, the capital ship immediately can't attack it anymore due to the targeting rules. Blockade runner makes this time window much smaller where the larger ship can still do these last hits.

 

[Secret Master]

Instead the preferred range is actually a mandatory range that the attacker tries to move into before firing, i.e. attackers wanting to use torpedoes will not use their normal guns either until they get into torpedo range. A quick initial test (a few CL vs 1 CA) seems to confirm this.

That must be a bug. Surely that is not intentional, as it pointlessly nerfs screens.

Blockade runner makes this time window much smaller where the larger ship can still do these last hits.

Which means weaker ships trying to chase stronger ships that are retreating with a blockade runner admiral (for whatever reason) are getting suckered into bad combats that get them killed, but they never realize it if they don't have their own blockade runner.