New naval combat mechanics...

[Jorgen_CAB]

Now, I have not been able to do any extensive testing with the system yet but I have observes some things which is a bit problematic.

I also like to say that I generally like all the new changes, they certainly feel more realistic and fun.

With that said they still are not simulating naval combat in a very realistic way. First of combat will always pit screens against each other with capitals punching each other and carrier planes zooming overhead and combat becoming a big brawl if lots of ships is involved.

This is almost never the case how battles actually took place and decisive naval gun battles were very rare and casualties from naval gunfire was very low for a reason (ships could escape if not favorably matched), especially smaller ships. Destroyers for example rarely if ever engaged in fire duels... their guns was at best used to suppress bigger ships ability to use their guns while they tried to fire torpedoes at them and only in mostly desperate situations or from a position of strength through surprise or some such.
Destroyers were very rarely used to attack enemy ships as once they were located if you had capital ships, they would likely slip away because they were very vulnerable in such situation against enemy cruiser secondary batteries. It is very difficult to swarm an enemy ship due to how things actually work in real life... just because you have five destroyers does not mean they can easily swarm a lone cruiser as one force.

The game makes no such distinctions thus the simulation become very binary and easy to predict and coming up with a best solution seem inevitable since the mechanic is a bit "simple".

The way I have observed is that capital ships seem way too vulnerable to Destroyer torpedoes since you can take 30 destroyers and just massacre a bunch of cruisers or battleships with little to no losses to the destroyers. This means that you really don't need capital ships for anything but shore bombardments... so you can save your fuel for your CA, BC and BB for that (especially as the US who will build many new ships).

The mechanic also encourage you to build only super specialized ships of every class, this is not how ships was built in general in real life so it is a typical Paradox Rock/Paper/Scissor mechanic that make little sense.

Researching Dual Purpose guns seems like the only good choice since they are extremely good on all kinds of ships, this leaves most other naval guns unwanted... especially since large guns in the game seem weak and only good for shore bombardments.

Destroyers and light cruisers seem like the only sensible ships to build with main concentration of destroyers. The only capital ships worth considering seem to be carriers. Not sure of you need just one or two capitals if enemy capital can fire on carriers otherwise which would be a weird mechanic if they could while there a multiple of dozens of destroyers around. Not tested this enough.

But destroyers will completely melt capital ships so winning the screening war is the way to go it seems. Destroyers also is fast so can retreat faster if you are outnumbered which is another good ability with them.

Here are some number of actual destroyer losses by the US in the war...

77 US Destroyers sunk
34 Destroyed by Air
...15 by Kamikaze
...19 by Aircraft (bombs or torpedoes)
17 by Torpedoes (about 70-75% by submarines and 25-30% by enemy destroyers)
10 by Naval Gunfire (several from night actions, don't think anyone was sunk by enemy Destroyer guns)
16 by Accidents, Mines, Shore batteries etc..

I leave things up to you to draw your own conclusions... losses by the UK, Italy and Japan was slightly different of course but I can tell that Naval Gun duels was not a common theme for sinking Destroyers. This does not mean that the guns on the destroyers were useless, they just did not sink as much as they were a deterrent, suppression or support weapon.

The sample of US capital ships destroyed are too small and too narrow but most cruisers were sunk in naval gun battles during night actions and almost all carriers by enemy planes.

These are just some initial reflection on the historical accuracy of the naval combat and some balance issue I have found or I suspect needs to be tweaked (if even possible).

Oh... land based aircraft still interact with sea in peculiar ways... they don't seem to be able to spot things like ships can. I really don't understand why land based aircraft was just not given surface and submarine spotting values and added into the whole naval patrol mechanic. This is just weird?!?

 

[kaguravitro]

Us is very vulnerable to torpedoes because japan have bonus for torpedoes hitting trought screens. And japan engage deserter in gun fire combat if they can or in night operation.
Maybe some values need rebalance because the destroyers broken in a battle non decisive is a quiet big some times, but mechanic is good.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

The "problem" that I have is how Paradox portray screening ships in the game. If we take the US losses of Destroyers by naval gunfire almost all of them were lost at either Battle of Guadalcanal or Battle of Samar... which are very specific occasions. In the game almost all Destroyer losses come from naval gun fire.

It was not really the role of the Destroyers to attack capital ships but to screen the capital ships from submarines who was a real threat to large capital ships, especially damaged ones. Destroyers were also used to disrupt the enemy but they never really relied on them to sink enemy capital ships, even if that did happen on occasion.

If the game would have simulated the role of the destroyers they would act as a disruptive force and perform more of a shadow boxing match with the enemy and on occasion able to hit a capital ship with torpedoes.

There does not seem to be any real consideration taken on actual carrier warfare where the carrier planes do all the fighting.

The VAST majority of ships sunk in WW2 were either sunk by an air-plane or torpedo from a submarine.... second most common reason (none capital ships) was mines and other accidents. Most naval losses from gunfire come from a few relatively decisive battles that include ships fire at each other with naval guns, they were not the norm.

I think the game could have simulated this by on occasion have groups find each other at closer ranges and engage in gunfire combat, not all the time. The problem with naval gun battles is that both sides must be wanting them or there need to be some special condition such as one side being surprised and/or cornered.

Spotting and forces should be more dynamic... spotting seem to be an all or nothing affair in the game. You either spot all enemy ships and battle occurs or you don't. In reality forces rarely engaged like that. You would see groups within a fleet like task-forces engage each other often in a series of separate battles. Even within a task-force there can be sub units who engage as one in different part of a battle and sometime only part of a task-force even end up in battle.

The current mechanic is relatively one dimensional when it comes to damage and combat which means you will almost always find a best use and composition of ships.

Land based air still is relatively awkwardly implemented, especially for spotting.

 

[jju_57]

The way the mechanics work means you need excorts, escorts and even more escorts. Also build lots of torpedoes on those escorts. For you CA's mainly build LG to destroy enemy escorts. So the side that loses their escort screen means their capitals can be targeted by the escort torpedoes. And this then rapidly sink or damage the heavies as they are slower.

I'm not saying how they did it is right. I'm just saying this is what you need to do to work with the new system.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

The way the mechanics work means you need excorts, escorts and even more escorts. Also build lots of torpedoes on those escorts. For you CA's mainly build LG to destroy enemy escorts. So the side that loses their escort screen means their capitals can be targeted by the escort torpedoes. And this then rapidly sink or damage the heavies as they are slower.

I'm not saying how they did it is right. I'm just saying this is what you need to do to work with the new system.

Or just build escorts... why do you need the capital ships at all. Outside some carriers for air superiority bonus to spotting and some for shore bombardment?

Destroyers and light cruisers seem way better at killing other destroyers and light cruisers for their cost in addition to killing of capital ships with torpedoes once the enemy screes start to thin out or is beaten. Capital ships also have a harder time outrunning escorts and light cruisers in general.

The way I see it all nations basically start with all the capital ships they ever need (carriers excluded). Given the mechanic you are better of just building small ships for specific purposes and some special purpose light cruisers. In addition to carriers of course.

 

[jju_57]

Escorts are cannon fodder and get sunk fast. And they are not good at sinking other escorts. Your CA's and even CL's with LG's are what sink the escorts. CV's are OK but a fleet has to have big heavies else the enmy BB's can fire at your CV's.

You are kind of right on most nations have enough capitals. But you really do need to build some CA's with 1-2 large guns and the rest LG's so you can take out the enemy screens. Remember torpedoes against screens hardly ever hit.

 

[Denkt]

Destroyers have a few weakness, mainly they lack armor and their guns have very poor piercing which make them very weak against any type of armor. Light cruisers kill them without much trouble but they have issue against other cruisers so for that reason you build Heavy cruisers and eventually you end up to battleships who are in turn weak against torpedoes but can survive naval gunfire very well (as long as it is not from Another battleship).

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

Escorts are cannon fodder and get sunk fast. And they are not good at sinking other escorts. Your CA's and even CL's with LG's are what sink the escorts. CV's are OK but a fleet has to have big heavies else the enmy BB's can fire at your CV's.

You are kind of right on most nations have enough capitals. But you really do need to build some CA's with 1-2 large guns and the rest LG's so you can take out the enemy screens. Remember torpedoes against screens hardly ever hit.

No... I have done some test with that and that is simply not true. Their big guns are worthless at sinking screening ships and they don't have enough light attack to matter in comparison with the cost of those ships. The torpedoes of the escort are really strong and do far more damage on the capitals than they do in return. It is not balanced well... personally I don't think the underlying simulation mechanic is good enough, but that is just me.

 

[jju_57]

No... I have done some test with that and that is simply not true. Their big guns are worthless at sinking screening ships and they don't have enough light attack to matter in comparison with the cost of those ships. The torpedoes of the escort are really strong and do far more damage on the capitals than they do in return. It is not balanced well... personally I don't think the underlying simulation mechanic is good enough, but that is just me.

That's why I said you build a CA that has 1-2 big guns and all the rest LG's. The CA is fast with fewer big guns and can easily shake off the screens LG's. These CA's sink the enmy screens and that let's your screens attack their heavies with torpedoes.

 

[EntropyAvatar]

No... I have done some test with that and that is simply not true. Their big guns are worthless at sinking screening ships and they don't have enough light attack to matter in comparison with the cost of those ships. The torpedoes of the escort are really strong and do far more damage on the capitals than they do in return. It is not balanced well... personally I don't think the underlying simulation mechanic is good enough, but that is just me.

How good are torpedoes against CLs and CAs? I'm thinking the intent is that torps don't do well against these, but DDs guns also don't do well, so DDs have no answer to cruisers.

 

[Denkt]

How good are torpedoes against CLs and CAs? I'm thinking the intent is that torps don't do well against these, but DDs guns also don't do well, so DDs have no answer to cruisers.

That is the whole Point of cruisers, being armored destroyer killers, however they don't do so great against battleships as they are larger and easier to hit with Heavy guns.

 

[jju_57]

Torpedoes are effective against slower ships. Putting heavy guns on a ship slows it down. HG's penetrate and hit other heavies and CV's but not small ships. LG's hit small ships.

Now you can't target enemy capitals (CA, BC, BB) till you get their screen ratio down. So if you build a few CA's with many LG's these will take out the enemies screens. It is a race to see if your CA's survive the enemy BB's before you destroy their screens. The key here is to build either CA's or CL's with many LG's. These kill screens and then your screens with 2 or more torpedo spots kill the enemy heavies.

 

[EntropyAvatar]

Torpedoes are effective against slower ships. Putting heavy guns on a ship slows it down. HG's penetrate and hit other heavies and CV's but not small ships. LG's hit small ships.

Thanks! Do we know what the formulas are for torpedo hit chance versus speed, and heavy gun hit chance versus ship size? Can fast BBs be resilient against torps?

 

[jju_57]

Thanks! Do we know what the formulas are for torpedo hit chance versus speed, and heavy gun hit chance versus ship size? Can fast BBs be resilient against torps?

Most of the data is in the defines. Of course there might still be other stuff PDS has sole control over.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

That's why I said you build a CA that has 1-2 big guns and all the rest LG's. The CA is fast with fewer big guns and can easily shake off the screens LG's. These CA's sink the enmy screens and that let's your screens attack their heavies with torpedoes.

The thing is that you are better of building light cruisers with nothing but light guns whose job it is to shred the destroyers. You don't need many just a few.

The point is that the CA don't have enough light attack to make a difference in comparison to the cost you need to build them you are better of building more destroyers or the occasional CL. Once the screen is small enough the torpedoes does short work of the capital ships.

 

[jju_57]

The thing is that you are better of building light cruisers with nothing but light guns whose job it is to shred the destroyers. You don't need many just a few.

The point is that the CA don't have enough light attack to make a difference in comparison to the cost you need to build them you are better of building more destroyers or the occasional CL. Once the screen is small enough the torpedoes does short work of the capital ships.

Huh? They use the EXACT same ship hull with the exact same number of slots. What defines it being a capital is the armor picked and I think it has to have one heavy gun. You want it as a capital for two reasons.

1) In the capital line it is immune from screen attacks till the screen to capital ratio is broken. That means only planes from CV's and other capitals can shoot at it. But since it has a lower priority the other capitals are shooting at your BB's.
2) With CA armor it is almost immune to LG's.

Now with it being in the capital line that means it does two types of attacks. It's HG's fire at other heavies while it's LG's fire at the screens.

While you can put torpedoes on it you build your CL's with torpedoes and LG's. LG's to fire at other screens and then hopefully your torpedoes fire at the capitals. But being a screen and an important one means other screens are firing at your CL. While your CA with massive LG's fire at screens and are immune from screen damage.

I've found that you want a strike fleet with BB's, these anti-screen CA's and 60+ DD's. In my tests I've noticed that if I had a fleet with 3 CV'S, 4 BB's, 9 of these CA's and 60 DD screens going up against a fleet of 4 CV's, 8 BB's, 8 standard CA's, 6 CL's and 35 DD's my fleet wins every time. I sink more capitals and their entire screening force while losing a few CA's and about 60% of my screening force. In NIC I'm way ahead. Yes I also have damaged BB's but a damaged BB is better than a sunk BB.

 

[Uncle_Joe]

Which of those fleets is easier on the fuel supply? Or is fuel not as much of a consideration as people initially thought it might be? The former is 76 hulls and the latter is 61 although the latter has a lot more BBs which tend to be fuel hogs.

 

[DicRoNero]

I've found that you want a strike fleet with BB's, these anti-screen CA's and 60+ DD's. In my tests I've noticed that if I had a fleet with 3 CV'S, 4 BB's, 9 of these CA's and 60 DD screens going up against a fleet of 4 CV's, 8 BB's, 8 standard CA's, 6 CL's and 35 DD's my fleet wins every time. I sink more capitals and their entire screening force while losing a few CA's and about 60% of my screening force. In NIC I'm way ahead. Yes I also have damaged BB's but a damaged BB is better than a sunk BB.

So we have a totally skewed 'optimal' fleet composition yet again and that is carved of just dolly tubs, like in the old days after release? How cute.

One may even wonder why reasearch heavy weaponry when it sucks so badly and is getting build at one-per-century pace?

I'd love to see IRL destroyers zerg-rushing into a battleship group and 'tanking' 150-460mm guns, lol. Somehow I believe the reason why main caliber wasn't used much against these had nothing to do with it being magically impotent against destroyers, but rather fleets having more convenient (and cheap!) tools for this job.

 

[jju_57]

Which of those fleets is easier on the fuel supply? Or is fuel not as much of a consideration as people initially thought it might be? The former is 76 hulls and the latter is 61 although the latter has a lot more BBs which tend to be fuel hogs.

They are strike fleets so they sit in port till your patrols find each other. Or one may be a naval invasion fleet that your strike fleet intercepts. The point is not to patrol with main fleets as that wasn't done historically.

I'd love to see IRL destroyers zerg-rushing into a battleship group and 'tanking' 150-460mm guns, lol.

In RL the BB's used their 5 inch guns against escorts and didn't use their main BB guns. Numerous reasons for this as you also pointed out.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

Huh? They use the EXACT same ship hull with the exact same number of slots. What defines it being a capital is the armor picked and I think it has to have one heavy gun. You want it as a capital for two reasons.

1) In the capital line it is immune from screen attacks till the screen to capital ratio is broken. That means only planes from CV's and other capitals can shoot at it. But since it has a lower priority the other capitals are shooting at your BB's.
2) With CA armor it is almost immune to LG's.

Now with it being in the capital line that means it does two types of attacks. It's HG's fire at other heavies while it's LG's fire at the screens.

While you can put torpedoes on it you build your CL's with torpedoes and LG's. LG's to fire at other screens and then hopefully your torpedoes fire at the capitals. But being a screen and an important one means other screens are firing at your CL. While your CA with massive LG's fire at screens and are immune from screen damage.

I've found that you want a strike fleet with BB's, these anti-screen CA's and 60+ DD's. In my tests I've noticed that if I had a fleet with 3 CV'S, 4 BB's, 9 of these CA's and 60 DD screens going up against a fleet of 4 CV's, 8 BB's, 8 standard CA's, 6 CL's and 35 DD's my fleet wins every time. I sink more capitals and their entire screening force while losing a few CA's and about 60% of my screening force. In NIC I'm way ahead. Yes I also have damaged BB's but a damaged BB is better than a sunk BB.

You are not wrong but tests seem to confirm that is is not entirely properly balanced.

This is sort of how it works from poking around in the Defines file.'

SV = Surface Visibility

Light gun hit on SV/30
Heavy Gun hit on SV/50
Torpedoes hit on SV/180

Guns shot once per hour and torpedoes one every four hours but torpedoes also have much greater chance for critical damage.

There there is also the fact that screens is faster which also usually mean they get into combat quicker and start doing damage faster to the enemy screen, this is also important.

Two late game ships that I had just created had for a fleet destroyer...

Light Attack: 14
Torpedo Attack: 130

Visibility: 10

The same Heavy Cruiser using same tech levels...

Light Attack: 23
Heavy Attack: 28

Visibility: 23

If there are no capital ships on the destroyer side then all attacks go into the screen. A destroyer will do roughly (bar all other factors) 6.5 damage and the Cruiser will do 12 damage. Given that you can get three destroyers for the price of one Cruiser (or in terms of fuel about four destroyers) you can see that destroyers themselves are more efficient at engaging enemy destroyers.

Now you want to have some capitals ships to soak damage so your carriers are not attacked which is their only role and I would suggest a heavy cruiser with just one heavy turret to reduce its visibility as much as possible since that will reduce damage against it as much as possible and the rest is weapons to deal with the enemy screen.

The torpedoes are so extremely lethal that as soon as the enemy screen start to falter the capital ships behind will start taking massive damage.

What I say is that if you use your research wisely you put it into the light ships and cruisers. You don't need good heavy guns either because the damage they do are not that meaningful to you. The point is to whittle down the enemy screen as fast as possible to you can hit them with your torpedoes.

There is also no difference between a light and heavy cruisers in terms of armour, they use the same armour scheme... it does not work like battlecruiser and battleship armour. Light Cruiser only have a benefit in being both faster and less visible and thus harder to hit in general. The reason you want light cruisers is that they hide in the screen and will mainly take light hits and are still very difficult to hit with torpedoes as they only have a visibility of 15.

But what it boils down to is to remove the enemy screen fast enough so you can have your torpedoes wreck as much havoc as possible. This is also why using large capital ships with high visibility is a liability, you want them small so they can avoid the torpedoes as much as possible.

The define still reference old values such as evasion and FEX groups and stuff, but I don't think many of those values are in use anymore.