Naval Techs as US.

[LTPugh]

Now, I know the general US naval set up is CV/CL with some DD thrown in for AA and sub hunting.

However, given their relatively large starting navy, (I play HPP, it's something on the order of 9BB's, 2-3CV's etc.) is it even necessary to build more naval units?

I guess I'm asking more from a gameplay standpoint than anything, historically it wouldn't make sense not too, but say I teched up my fleet doctrines, just used my fleet and upgraded air garrisons on the various islands to sink the Japanese fleet?

Any players have a lot of experience with things like this?

I've played UK vs Germany, but that's no more difficult than breathing, even for the AI.

Even if it isn't necessary, how much navy do you build as the US? Because sometimes I get fairly ridiculous, 4x1940/42 tech BB's plus CV's is a waste of IC but I do it anyway.

 

[unmerged(180647)]

As the Japan AI will build quite a nice fleet, trying to do with only the starting US navy will probably be a very hard job. I personally like to have two carrier fleets of 8CV/10CL at my disposal in the Pacific, when I go on the offensive. The stacking penalty for the CAGs will be at the hard cap of 80% anyway, whether it's 8, 12 or 16 wings does not matter. Just make sure you promote one of the 8 wing commanders in each fleet to air marshall, so your CAGs are not suffering from being over the command limit. Obviously, a sufficient number of CL need to be built as well for this setup.

The starting surface capital ships (BB, any BC, some CA) should be grouped into 3 fleets of about equal size, each with sufficient CL and/or DD as screens. The remaining old CA, CL and DD can be formed into a number of sub-hunting flottillas, each of them made up of 1CA/1-2CL/2-3DD.

Those capital fleets will have enough shore bombardement capability to deliver the maximum 25% shore bombardement bonus and be able to finish off severely de-orged enemy fleets. All capital fleets can be based in Pacific harbours, as the Royal Navy will usually have eliminated any threat from the Kriegsmarine bofore the US enters the scene.

Two sub-hunting flottillas are enough for patrolling the northern Atlantic, the others should also be based in the Pacific. Preferably on the islands of Guam, wake, Midway and Hawaii. By this, most of the area where your supply convoys will be running can be covered, despite their low range of 1500km.

When you are preparing for the invasion of mainland Europe later, one or two of the battlefleets should be re-based to a UK harbour, in order to provide shore bombardement for these operations.

Techwise, all technologies needed for the newly built ships should be researched, plus the AA ones of the existing ship types. In the doctrines tab, all but those for convoy raiding and subs are useful, as they improve the efficiency of the existing ships, with priority given to the left column. But do not neglect the two bottom-most ones in the middle column; the incredibly increase the impact of your old BBs.

 

[themousemaster]

As the Japan AI will build quite a nice fleet, trying to do with only the starting US navy will probably be a very hard job. I personally like to have two carrier fleets of 8CV/10CL at my disposal in the Pacific, when I go on the offensive. The stacking penalty for the CAGs will be at the hard cap of 80% anyway, whether it's 8, 12 or 16 wings does not matter. Just make sure you promote one of the 8 wing commanders in each fleet to air marshall, so your CAGs are not suffering from being over the command limit.

The stacking penalty of CAGs, when and only when on (CAG or Naval Strike) duty, is actually 5% per plane, not 10.

 

[feye1]

The stacking penalty of CAGs, when and only when on (CAG or Naval Strike) duty, is actually 5% per plane, not 10.

This is true, but not entirely. They do get - even on CAG duty 10% stacking penalty when in a battle. However, with CAG Duty they also do automatically a naval strike, where the penalty is down to 5%. So actually your penalty only gets halved when you are actually bombing something on the seas. Else you just have to deal with the stacking penalty like any other plane.

 

[themousemaster]

This is true, but not entirely. They do get - even on CAG duty 10% stacking penalty when in a battle. However, with CAG Duty they also do automatically a naval strike, where the penalty is down to 5%. So actually your penalty only gets halved when you are actually bombing something on the seas. Else you just have to deal with the stacking penalty like any other plane.

Damn Semantics! ;p.

 

[Secret Master]

Yes. Build more ships.

Here's the reason:

Ships built with pre-1938 techs are basically fodder for newer ships. I can't emphasize this enough. Germany can build 6 new BBs and some DDs, and easily sink every single pre-game ship in the Royal Navy. You may not need to build lots of new ships, but you need some new ones to ensure naval supremacy.

I will also point out that there's a lot of ocean to cover. Sometimes quantity has a value of its own when hunting down the enemy.

 

[LTPugh]

Guess I got my answer then. Build more ships, even if they exact composition is different.

As for Secret Master, I guess that's the reason when I played the UK and the German fleet sailed out my two new build battleships completely stomped them without breaking a sweat.

 

[Secret Master]

As for Secret Master, I guess that's the reason when I played the UK and the German fleet sailed out my two new build battleships completely stomped them without breaking a sweat.

Yep. You get to the critical mass of six new battleships or super battleships or carriers with up to date CAGs, you can turn any sea zone into Iron Bottom Sound.

 

[LTPugh]

Is that six BBs or CVs in a single fleet or total? Because usually I try to avoid whatever the hull stacking penalty is.

 

[Secret Master]

Is that six BBs or CVs in a single fleet or total? Because usually I try to avoid whatever the hull stacking penalty is.

6 BBs and 6-12 DDs in one fleet.

Don't be scared of the positioning penalty for too much hull. Admiral skill offsets it by a significant margin. If you are trying to determine actual positioning, use the tool tips in combat because they factor in doctrines and admirals. You might be surprised.

And even a small positioning penalty isn't too bad. As long as effective positioning is above 70% or so, that's a good balance between concentration of force and efficiency.

 

[LTPugh]

Thanks for that, I'd been keeping them in twos or threes and under the hull size limit.

I'll make sure to try it out.

 

[Opanashc]

Thanks for that, I'd been keeping them in twos or threes and under the hull size limit.
I'll make sure to try it out.

Actually, keeping them in 2-3 does not matter, as long as they move as one big group.

 

[LTPugh]

Actually, keeping them in 2-3 does not matter, as long as they move as one big group.

I'm OCD enough to keep ships with different speeds in roughly the same group, so that wouldn't work.

 

[Secret Master]

I'm OCD enough to keep ships with different speeds in roughly the same group, so that wouldn't work.

No, no, no. You want to mix ship speeds.

Here's the thing: Out of combat, fleets move at the slowest speed. But in combat, ships move at the average speed of the fleet. Having 12 high speed DDs grouped with BBs will speed them up considerably. This will allow those BBs to catch faster prey.

Do keep in mind that the fleet with the higher average speed can either flee combat successfully or keep enemies in combat for much longer if the enemy tries to flee. You can't keep combat going indefinitely, but there's nothing like seeing Yamato and Mushahi with slow CLs try to flee a naval battle while a couple of Iowas with fast DDs.

Oh, and if you want those BBs to catch CTFs, they need their fast DDs.

 

[LTPugh]

Oh.

Well, see, glad I said that then. I guess that's why my faster groups did so much better engaging the enemy, as they were all in the 30+ knot range.

Might still keep them that way, I can't see DD's slower than the BB's being any good, but I'll try to put slightly faster ones with the extra slow BB's.

 

[Secret Master]

Speed may not be king, but it's fairly important.

If you have crappy DDs with low speed and hull, shift them to ASW duty. Put the new, fast, tough DDs with the new BBs.

That's kind of the lesson: Newer ships should be concentrated in battlegroups that go looking for decisive naval battles. Crappy, old capital ships get relegated to escorting transports and shore bombardment. Crappy, old DDs either escort invasions or get sent to do ASW work. (Submarines have atrocious speed, and ASW upgrades over time, unlike engines.)

 

[LTPugh]

Speed may not be king, but it's fairly important.

If you have crappy DDs with low speed and hull, shift them to ASW duty. Put the new, fast, tough DDs with the new BBs.

That's kind of the lesson: Newer ships should be concentrated in battlegroups that go looking for decisive naval battles. Crappy, old capital ships get relegated to escorting transports and shore bombardment. Crappy, old DDs either escort invasions or get sent to do ASW work. (Submarines have atrocious speed, and ASW upgrades over time, unlike engines.)

Speaking of said crappy DD's, occasionally I've upgraded a few of them. I'm guessing it's probably not actually worth it, but would you suggest it?

 

[Secret Master]

You have HPP, so I'm not sure what the upgrade rules are in HPP.

In vanilla, you can't upgrade ships (except for AA, RADAR, ASW, and torpedoes on submarines), so it's not a question of worth it.

 

[LTPugh]

You have HPP, so I'm not sure what the upgrade rules are in HPP.

In vanilla, you can't upgrade ships (except for AA, RADAR, ASW, and torpedoes on submarines), so it's not a question of worth it.

Wasn't sure.

In HPP you can upgrade Destroyer Flotilla's to better Destroyer Flotilla's kind of like Milita to INF or MOT.