Naval warfare is rubbish

[Ringers]

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

and getting XP is ridiculous. You get more XP from training than you do from combat, the Naval system need a total rework.

 

[duke engin]

There is nothing wrong with our bloody ships.

 

[ray243]

The Naval region system is completely horrible and utterly useless for depicting naval warfare in any meaningful shape or form.

They are just ridiculously large and the players have no meaningful strategic or tactical decision to make whatsoever.

 

[Anaraxes]

{Midway} wasn't so much an invasion as it was a bombing raid to cripple the facilities

Midway was indeed a planned invasion, not a hit-and-run strike like Pearl. The Japanese Second Fleet (2 BB, 4 CA, 8 screens), plus the carrier Zuiho and its escorts, accompanied accompanied an invasion force of 5000 troops aboard a dozen transports (half again the size of the Japanese forces on Tulagi and Guadalcanal, and around five times the size of the American defenders), another dozen escorts, and seaplane tenders. Their assigned goal was capture and occupation of the island, which (if successful) they fully intended to turn into a base as part of their barrier in the Pacific.

The main Japanese combat force, and the one tasked with bombing, was the First Fleet. That's also the fleet that was discovered by the American forces, not least because it was their job to screen the invasion force, and so mainly the one that was attacked -- thus also being the one you mostly hear about in recounts of the battle. That's "the battle", not "the operation".

After the disaster befalling the First Fleet, the Second turned back (along with other fleets), as continuing would have been obviously a bad idea. But the fact that the invasion didn't take place thanks to the Japanese defeat doesn't mean the operation wasn't an invasion.

There was also the Northern Force, with a couple of thousand troops, which took the islands of Attu and Kiska (holding them for about a year). That prong of the attack was successful.

 

[Idle America]

It definitely needs work, especially with what they've learned between MtG and NSB. My guess is that they're going to get the Italian/Air overhaul out in order to tie things up, then they'll focus on fixing/improving what they've got for a while. Much easier to fix the problems in one fell swoop, instead of constantly adjusting everything each time something new gets added.

 

[Znail]

and getting XP is ridiculous. You get more XP from training than you do from combat, the Naval system need a total rework.

I agree that this needs to change, but this is just tweak hardly a rework.

Any active use of naval units should give them XP. It's a fact that it's standard for any navy to constantly practice the crews no matter what the current mission is. The only exception would be while in combat, but then that should also give XP.

 

[Happy Trigger]

It definitely needs work, especially with what they've learned between MtG and NSB. My guess is that they're going to get the Italian/Air overhaul out in order to tie things up, then they'll focus on fixing/improving what they've got for a while. Much easier to fix the problems in one fell swoop, instead of constantly adjusting everything each time something new gets added.

Yes and no. If you're trying to improve balance, not change the mechanic, then would be better to do It in the run. That would not only make everyone happy, but keep bugs at minimum.

 

[marcelo r. r.]

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.

i didn't know current state, but at time USA AI have messed up steel production, then was permantly lack of steel and no producing ships.

 

[Happy Trigger]

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.

The Devs could never imagine that people would risk their entire navy in single decisive battle. It's like every HoI4 player is possessed by Yamamoto's spirit.

Jokes aside, it is a viable strategy to divide your navy into many small groups, to operate in multiple zones, trying to block the trade/activity of the ships of the enemy; the use of surface raiders + submarines, one aiming the destroyers and one the convoys; etc.

The problem is that people got addicted to decisive battles, because of the way that the game is modulated, that doesn't encourage new kinds of strategy. This made the players lazy in their 'one solution to all problems'.

I think that Paradox will need to change the way that naval battles occur (+ some balance in the ship design), to try to mitigate this problem that is very similar to the tank battles before NSB.

We have: No armor, light attack, CA + DD meat shield + NAV/Fighter
Tanks before NSB: Max armor, heavy tank + mechanized + CAS/AA

 

[Alexander 'The Grape']

The Devs could never imagine that people would risk their entire navy in single decisive battle. It's like every HoI4 player is possessed by Yamamoto's spirit.

Jokes aside, it is a viable strategy to divide your navy into many small groups, to operate in multiple zones, trying to block the trade/activity of the ships of the enemy; the use of surface raiders + submarines, one aiming the destroyers and one the convoys; etc.

It really isn't 'viable' to divide your navy unless you have absolute uncontested naval dominance.

A divided navy will just continually die to any concentration of force, as well as being bombed to death easily.

It's what the AI does, and there's a reason the naval AI is such a joke

 

[Happy Trigger]

It really isn't 'viable' to divide your navy unless you have absolute uncontested naval dominance.

A divided navy will just continually die to any concentration of force, as well as being bombed to death easily.

It's what the AI does, and there's a reason the naval AI is such a joke

A player is not the AI ¬¬. He can actively respond to the enemy force in many ways, like, baiting the enemy fleet under his NAVs, destroying his patrol ships before being detected, raid convoys far from the enemy's main force, etc.

It's an error to think that concentrating your forces is the only way of playing It, just because It works against the AI.

 

[Corpse Fool]

A player is not the AI ¬¬. He can actively respond to the enemy force in many ways, like, baiting the enemy fleet under his NAVs, destroying his patrol ships before being detected, raid convoys far from the enemy's main force, etc.

It's an error to think that concentrating your forces is the only way of playing It, just because It works against the AI.

Do you think that it only works against the AI? There are a couple of mechanical advantages to doomstacking, largely being fed by the concepts of defeat in detail. The same thing happens in the air game, because both air and navy lack a sort of hard-cap like land combat has with width.

 

[pheonicia]

I just spam sub3/4 and naval bomber 3 or jet tacs if I need more range (though they perform drastically worse)