Navy

[Davy]

Is there anything new in order of Navy builds?

Best Submarines as Germany or is a kind of surface fleet usefull...
SHBB+4CV+3BB+5CA+5CL+40DD's is that a valuable fleet?

 

[COSIAN]

I recently watched a YouTube by Reman on naval composition. The video is 3 months old so it is pre-Cornflakes. But that said, I did not see anything specific in the Cornflakes patch notes that would materially effect his analysis.

I was quite surprised at the findings TBH.

My take aways from this video were ....

1. Carriers and Battleships rule the waves
2. Subs remain basically worthless in actual naval combat
3. The effect of using screening ships does not appear to be substantial and a fleet of battleships and carriers only destroys mixed fleets costing the same that follow the 3 or 4 to 1 screen to heavy philosophy
4. The effect of over-stacking carriers does not appear to be as bad of a problem as one would assume
5. The AA value of having screens do not result in taking down many attacking aircraft and are somewhat inconsequential in protecting heavy ships from air attack.

Basically for straight up fleet combat Reman advocates Carrier and Battleship heavy fleets.

Reman's work is based on his own testing and various findings posted by TAW in reddit. Unless something has changed in Cornflakes it seems the meta is build carriers and the heaviest ships you can.

My fleets were typically 4 CV,4 BB/CA , 8 CL, 24 DD. These seemed pretty effective but I think I will try with far less screen and just CV and BB for primary fleets. I will still use smaller DD ASW fleets for anti-sub work / convoy protection as these DD ASW fleets tend to tear up sub fleets quickly.

Reman's vid ....

He surmises that at some point PD nerfed light cruiser to counter the light cruiser spam meta. But now it seems the lighter screening ships have essentially been taken out of the equation.

To me, it seems the biggest problem which creates the battleship carrier only approach is the complete ineffectiveness of subs and torps in general. In practice screens would be necessary to counter torpedo threat. However, subs take too long to engage and the battle is over. Further, torpedo armed DD's are ineffective given, as Reman points out, a ship armed with torps and guns only fire those torps 25% of the time thereby reducing their effectiveness against un-screened heavy ships.

Thoughts?

 

[Karaya 1]

AFAIK dont build screens other than DDs for sub hunting. For killing enemy fleets use CVs and BBs. There is a nice video out there that tests multiple setups and balanced fleets just arent worth it for their cost when compared to full capital fleets of same value.

Subs just start waaay too far away to be worth it. When they take 2 weeks to close to a simple convoy it gets frustrating.

The only time ive successfully used DDs was as Japan with the long lance spirit and fully upgraded 1944 DDs on torps and engine. That WAS fun.

Edit: Nevermind, read the post above.

 

[Deinhardt]

Well. Japan got the new addition of a torpedo cruiser via a NF. Is that thing also useless or in combination with long lance any good?

Edit: I also found that massive sub fleets can be devastating under the right circumstances. But I suppose the BB and carrier fleets are the go to.

 

[GonzoWCS]

I recently watched a YouTube by Reman on naval composition. The video is 3 months old so it is pre-Cornflakes. But that said, I did not see anything specific in the Cornflakes patch notes that would materially effect his analysis.

I was quite surprised at the findings TBH.

My take aways from this video were ....

1. Carriers and Battleships rule the waves
2. Subs remain basically worthless in actual naval combat
3. The effect of using screening ships does not appear to be substantial and a fleet of battleships and carriers only destroys mixed fleets costing the same that follow the 3 or 4 to 1 screen to heavy philosophy
4. The effect of over-stacking carriers does not appear to be as bad of a problem as one would assume
5. The AA value of having screens do not result in taking down many attacking aircraft and are somewhat inconsequential in protecting heavy ships from air attack.

Basically for straight up fleet combat Reman advocates Carrier and Battleship heavy fleets.

Reman's work is based on his own testing and various findings posted by TAW in reddit. Unless something has changed in Cornflakes it seems the meta is build carriers and the heaviest ships you can.

My fleets were typically 4 CV,4 BB/CA , 8 CL, 24 DD. These seemed pretty effective but I think I will try with far less screen and just CV and BB for primary fleets. I will still use smaller DD ASW fleets for anti-sub work / convoy protection as these DD ASW fleets tend to tear up sub fleets quickly.

Reman's vid ....

He surmises that at some point PD nerfed light cruiser to counter the light cruiser spam meta. But now it seems the lighter screening ships have essentially been taken out of the equation.

To me, it seems the biggest problem which creates the battleship carrier only approach is the complete ineffectiveness of subs and torps in general. In practice screens would be necessary to counter torpedo threat. However, subs take too long to engage and the battle is over. Further, torpedo armed DD's are ineffective given, as Reman points out, a ship armed with torps and guns only fire those torps 25% of the time thereby reducing their effectiveness against un-screened heavy ships.

Thoughts?

Just getting back into HOI IV Cosian. Thank you for the synopsis.

Salute
GonzoWCS