Naval warfare is rubbish

[Jyri]

I just wasted five years in-game time and several hours of real time building up my navy and preparing for a grand clash in the pacific, researching all the techs i needed, building just the right ships for the right roles and building a web of airbases and radars around pacific. Then the war started, and despite of having huge amount of ships and continuous engagements against enemy fleets and transports, admiral Spruance managed to get a whopping 5% fly swatter and that's it. And when the enemy brought his big guns, Spruance sent his task forces in piecemeal, getting his butt kicked allthough i had all engagement orders as agressive as possible. This all sucks and i hate this money pit of a game for wasting the small amount of spare time i have.

 

[pro.gamer.69]

yeah, unfortunately admiral traits can only really be grinded by reducing your task force/ship count under the admiral to 24(?), and going up against a much smaller navy with limited oil so you don't kill them. and if you're against an equal enemy you basically have to deathstack and/or micro your ships at 3 speed.

 

[Sunforged General]

I just wasted five years in-game time and several hours of real time building up my navy and preparing for a grand clash in the pacific, researching all the techs i needed, building just the right ships for the right roles and building a web of airbases and radars around pacific. Then the war started, and despite of having huge amount of ships and continuous engagements against enemy fleets and transports, admiral Spruance managed to get a whopping 5% fly swatter and that's it. And when the enemy brought his big guns, Spruance sent his task forces in piecemeal, getting his butt kicked allthough i had all engagement orders as agressive as possible. This all sucks and i hate this money pit of a game for wasting the small amount of spare time i have.

This is why I usually completely ignore naval warfare ingame...it has almost no bearing on war score...and in most cases you can get around the need for a navy by using paratroopers to get to the places you want to get to. Granted, I don't play as USA...so in their case I imagine naval warfare is a must to get across the pacific. I agree naval warfare needs a total revamp and update.

 

[Jyri]

I'm not all that interested in winning, achievements, meta etc. I would just like to have a FUN and cool simulation on naval armsrace and combat when playing such nation.
-Trait grind sucks
-Ship refits suck
-Ship spotting sucks

I'm an idiot who just keeps coming back and expects different results

 

[Putuna]

You can't grind traits with admirals unless your using subs and then you get just seawolf, so don't even try that. Was hoping with the changes to generals in no step back we would have some way to recruit admirals with some traits but no such luck.

 

[Jyri]

Oh yeah and the thing about spruances tf's joining battle piecemeal. What is that about? I spotted the enemy, only one out of three of my carrier tf's joined and got absolutely manhandled, and then one of my two battleship tf's left the port and met the same fate.

 

[b_raven]

I disagree. I feel excited when grand naval battle commences ;-)
IMHO, naval warfare works just fine.

edit: But i agree, that naval xp from battles should be tuned up.

 

[Zauberelefant]

You can't grind traits with admirals unless your using subs and then you get just seawolf, so don't even try that. Was hoping with the changes to generals in no step back we would have some way to recruit admirals with some traits but no such luck.

German capital raiders do grind Ironside. They also can grind blue water/other terrain traits.
Newly recruited admirals can get traits via naval school.

 

[The Colonel]

I disagree. I feel excited when grand naval battle commences ;-)
IMHO, naval warfare works just fine.

I agree it's exciting to crush an enemy's fleet, and naval warfare is mostly fine for the purposes of the game (bar outstanding bugs and it being so easy to use bathtub subs to get naval superiority to launch an invasion), BUT I still wish it could be more developed as a system. Rn the way the underlying systems work is somewhat simplistic and results in this weird universe where Japanese kantai kessen doctrine is 100% correct bc against a competent opponent you will have one massive battle that irrevocably destroys the loser's fleet and grants the victor complete naval dominance in most cases. I wish they limited battles so you couldn't have these ridiculous clashes with 400+ ships engaging simultaneously and to encourage more in terms of stationing fleets in many places simultaneously like real navies did rather than having one massive roving doomstack with a few scout ships. This would also help avoid the outcome of having your entire game's purpose and years of build up be erased in a few minutes after hours of preparation. Midway might have been devastating, but the US didn't literally sink every capital ship the Japanese had.

 

[FlinzP]

What I don't like with current naval gameplay:

• Heavy ships are fun but not fun to use.
• Refitting is alright idea but slow and eats experience.
• Cheap ship designs are more worth it than expensive ones. For example single part dds used as damage tankers.
• Way too large task forces.
• Swarming naval bombers.
• Training is better experience source than actual battles.
• Later sub techs are too good.

And I agree with admiral traits not really working well.

 

[Pompan]

I would also like to add that refitting costs way too much exp. Or is it just me?
Sank 4k convoys before 1943 and I could barely afford a step in a doctorine.

 

[KDEstroy]

I just wasted five years in-game time and several hours of real time building up my navy and preparing for a grand clash in the pacific, researching all the techs i needed, building just the right ships for the right roles and building a web of airbases and radars around pacific. Then the war started, and despite of having huge amount of ships and continuous engagements against enemy fleets and transports, admiral Spruance managed to get a whopping 5% fly swatter and that's it. And when the enemy brought his big guns, Spruance sent his task forces in piecemeal, getting his butt kicked allthough i had all engagement orders as agressive as possible. This all sucks and i hate this money pit of a game for wasting the small amount of spare time i have.

Oh yeah and the thing about spruances tf's joining battle piecemeal. What is that about? I spotted the enemy, only one out of three of my carrier tf's joined and got absolutely manhandled, and then one of my two battleship tf's left the port and met the same fate.

You are supposed to put all of your big ships into one fleet, unless you have more than 4 carriers. Never have a carrier task force without any battleships. I wish the AI would build a big navy, every time I focus on shipbuilding, I just sink 90% of their capital ships in one battle and naval bombers pick off the rest.

 

[Alexander 'The Grape']

What OP describes is a function of the utter failure of the "positioning" stat. It's meant to encourage small taskforces and limited engagements but it just isn't fit for purpose. It can't even be modded out; even mods that make positioning extremely impactful still reward "deathstacking". Just with fewer, more powerful ships.

Carrier overstacking works (kinda) but because it's only for the one ship type, it just makes carriers worse.

Really, navy needs 3 things

1) Positioning overhauled or replaced with some kind of combat width system similar to land combat, or carrier-style overstacking
2) Overall balancing (Air vs navy and the value of heavy ships being prime targets)
3) A UI rework so it's not infuriating for new players to use!

It would also be nice if Strike Force ships would automatically intercept naval invasions, rather than sitting there uselessly because the enemy got naval supremacy for 2 minutes and you haven't had time to set them to convoy raid; that would actually make navy more relevant to the overall game. And where is the ability to blockade ports!

Rn the way the underlying systems work is somewhat simplistic and results in this weird universe where Japanese kantai kessen doctrine is 100% correct bc against a competent opponent you will have one massive battle that irrevocably destroys the loser's fleet and grants the victor complete naval dominance in most cases. I wish they limited battles so you couldn't have these ridiculous clashes with 400+ ships engaging simultaneously and to encourage more in terms of stationing fleets in many places simultaneously like real navies did

Nail on the head!

 

[Jyri]

You are supposed to put all of your big ships into one fleet, unless you have more than 4 carriers. Never have a carrier task force without any battleships. I wish the AI would build a big navy, every time I focus on shipbuilding, I just sink 90% of their capital ships in one battle and naval bombers pick off the rest.

Mixing my 20kt bbs with my 30kt bbs and cvs is the last thing i want to do, also it eliminates the flexibility of spreading my forces to other areas.
I had just a blast designing a task force around fast bbs north carolina and washington, for them just to circle jerk in guam watching scouts and two tfs getting some whoopass.
My tfs were designed like this:
Scouts: 2x CA 2x CL (high SD) 20 x DD
Carriers: 2x CV 10x DD
Battleships: 2xBB 2x CL 8x DD
Subs x 20
My main battleforce of spruance had three of those CV TF'S and two BB TF'S

 

[coffeelingfine]

Mixing battleships and carriers feels counterintuitive because of the speed and range difference

wish it was more like the old games where it was encouraged to make separate CTFs and SAGs

 

[KDEstroy]

Mixing my 20kt bbs with my 30kt bbs and cvs is the last thing i want to do, also it eliminates the flexibility of spreading my forces to other areas.
I had just a blast designing a task force around fast bbs north carolina and washington, for them just to circle jerk in guam watching scouts and two tfs getting some whoopass.
My tfs were designed like this:
Scouts: 2x CA 2x CL (high SD) 20 x DD
Carriers: 2x CV 10x DD
Battleships: 2xBB 2x CL 8x DD
Subs x 20
My main battleforce of spruance had three of those CV TF'S and two BB TF'S

Those task forces are tiny, if you don't want your big ships to get sunk piecemeal, you have to put them into one task force. Mixing 20kt BB and 30 kt BB into one task force isn't a big deal, it might get to battle a little slower but at least they are guaranteed to arrive together. Also, unless you are convoy raiding with your capital ships, there is no incentive to spreading them out across multiple sea zones.

 

[Jyri]

It really kills any incentive to roleplay a nation in this game if the only way to go is jutland-kind battles. Why should i bother myself with doctrine, designer, traits, academy etc if raw power outright defeats any cunning

 

[Steel_Viking]

One thing that I will point out (that has been pointed many times before) is the AI's complete inability to build effective navies (and indeed in some cases build ships at all):
Verify Man the Guns AI Production Fix?
AI UK doesn't build capital ships?
AI Naval Production

Fixing this would do a lot for naval combat in general. I imagine it's difficult for the AI to effectively group and command it's navy when it's naval composition is terrible, ships are outdated or are poor designs, and they aren't replacing losses.

 

[wagnerleung0079]

One thing that I will point out (that has been pointed many times before) is the AI's complete inability to build effective navies (and indeed in some cases build ships at all):
Verify Man the Guns AI Production Fix?
AI UK doesn't build capital ships?
AI Naval Production

Fixing this would do a lot for naval combat in general. I imagine it's difficult for the AI to effectively group and command it's navy when it's naval composition is terrible, ships are outdated or are poor designs, and they aren't replacing losses.

Don't forget the upgrading Heavy Guns makes Battleship worse problem
Heavy Gun "Upgrades" make your Battleship WORSE

 

[BeauNiddle]

Carriers: 2x CV 10x DD

You need at least one heavy ship per carrier for screening purposes or else the enemy heavy guns can shoot your carrier directly. You can get away with CA or BC if you don't want to use BB but you need the heavy screens.

Yes in real life fast carriers can keep away from other task forces and stay out of gun range but HOI4 doesn't work like that. Speed makes you harder to spot and catch but once combat is engaged all speed does is give you a small dodge increase and make it easier to disengage.

The way the TF system works is the AI will send out the smallest force it thinks has a chance - so if you have 10BBs in one stack and 2BBs in another then it should send out 2 BBs against small enemy forces and the big against big. You only have small TFs - I'm not sure the system will send out multiple TFs to try and equal the enemy fleet. Oh and the threat calculation is ummm.... not precise. So it will ofter send out your big surface fleet against a big force of ... submarines