Ship Equip Guide! (Image Heavy )
- Thread starter sterrius
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Quick question, as France start I can build destroyer II, but I didn't research any hull level 1 yet, so everything need to start at level 1. Is that bug or as designed? Also I see I can customize AA to level 4 but I didn't research it yet?
Thanks.
Thanks.
AA 4 module for boat comes from your artillery AA branch. If you didn't research that then it is unintended behavior and you may want to report that bug.
@noobermenschen
I really recommend using Mines on submarines. They are harder to find, much cheaper and if you place them to not engage they will only be killed if they activelly look for them.
Minesweeping is another thin that i recommend just putting the cheapest gun, the minsweep and the best engine you can find. A DD will be very hard to find and catch that way.
If you start at 36 2 dockyards will have 20+ minelaying subs or 10+ DD´s for the job. (if you want more you now have the ratio ^^ ).
don´t know you, but im not risking losing a 3000+ IC ship only because i wanted to save 120-150IC ^^.
About torpedos i do always put them, its a extra attack and if you find a capital ship you might need them to survive.
Cruisers are the backbone of all fleets now. They can do any role now and you just tailor your cruiser around that job.
You can´t increase it, only control how much it decreases. I want 0 decrease for a SHBB or BB, and minimum as possible on a Cruiser. Critical hits really hurt, specially if they come from a to
DD just don´t care about it, they usually die in one or two shots anyway so if they get a crit its not big deal ^^.
Im working now on detection, so i dont yet got enough time to balance strike forces. Specially because strike force need to take into account the speed to get into battle before it happens.
So europeans fleets can get away with slower fleets while US and Japan need faster ones.
but if you go slow you escape is also slow. So also having to test how much speed affect escape.
I really recommend using Mines on submarines. They are harder to find, much cheaper and if you place them to not engage they will only be killed if they activelly look for them.
Minesweeping is another thin that i recommend just putting the cheapest gun, the minsweep and the best engine you can find. A DD will be very hard to find and catch that way.
If you start at 36 2 dockyards will have 20+ minelaying subs or 10+ DD´s for the job. (if you want more you now have the ratio ^^ ).
don´t know you, but im not risking losing a 3000+ IC ship only because i wanted to save 120-150IC ^^.
About torpedos i do always put them, its a extra attack and if you find a capital ship you might need them to survive.
Cruisers are the backbone of all fleets now. They can do any role now and you just tailor your cruiser around that job.
You can´t increase it, only control how much it decreases. I want 0 decrease for a SHBB or BB, and minimum as possible on a Cruiser. Critical hits really hurt, specially if they come from a to
DD just don´t care about it, they usually die in one or two shots anyway so if they get a crit its not big deal ^^.
Im working now on detection, so i dont yet got enough time to balance strike forces. Specially because strike force need to take into account the speed to get into battle before it happens.
So europeans fleets can get away with slower fleets while US and Japan need faster ones.
but if you go slow you escape is also slow. So also having to test how much speed affect escape.
Is the airplane launcher necessary for all ships ? My recent BB has not been equipped with airplane launcher. Is it safe for submarines?
CLs are now 6000 IC so your argument is very convincing. Sonar, depth charges and torpedoes for cruisers!
Do you need CV tech to build converted cruiser CVs? I am thinking multiuse cruiser hulls would be a fast naval power solution for many nations like Brazil, China, Sweden, etc.
The catapult launcher only job is to increase spotting. I put on the pictures on first screen mostly because if im paying 6000+ IC 150 is nothing and does give a very little amount of individual capacity to the ship.
Its mostly because im avoiding in the guide to make a "floating fortress" all DPS and no Speed as those have a more particular use and will likely die if they find themselves in a battle they can´t win.
CLs are now 6000 IC so your argument is very convincing. Sonar, depth charges and torpedoes for cruisers!
Do you need CV tech to build converted cruiser CVs? I am thinking multiuse cruiser hulls would be a fast naval power solution for many nations like Brazil, China, Sweden, etc.
Yes, 1918 CV´s are actually converted BB´s and BC`s ^^. So you only need that version to convert anything and that can work for countries that can´t keep doing researchs.
Can someone confirm is 'light cruiser battery' bugged?
It tells me that it should give 20 HP to the ship but really it doesn't change ship's health. And heavy cruiser battery does it quite ok - but is shows +40%HP, so percetage based seems ok
It tells me that it should give 20 HP to the ship but really it doesn't change ship's health. And heavy cruiser battery does it quite ok - but is shows +40%HP, so percetage based seems ok
Nice, very interesting.
I'm quite curious how a naval build for Japan would look like, I'm imagining something quite unorthodox for them.
Since they get a bonus for torpedoes to bypass screening, and torpedoes are quite OP against capitals and carriers by design, I figure their strategy would have to capitalize on that as much as possible.
On such situation, I see little point in BBs and BCs with their heavy guns, the main job of Japanese capitals should be to screen carriers and the secondary is to provide light attack to hit enemy screens, something a well armored CA could do just fine for a fraction of the cost (something very important to ponder, considering that the industrial might of the US is their main enemy).
On an extreme end, it might even be advantageous to convert all of their starting BBs to carriers right away to pull the maximum amount of firepower from torpedoes.
Screens should invest more in torpedoes as well, of course, but without slacking on AA, and ASW for DDs, as their unique Torpedo Cruiser should also be capitalized as much as possible.
I also imagine a sub swarm would be absolutely deadly.
That in SP at least, as counters to NAVs and subs being AA and depth charges by an US player would be quite obvious, so perhaps capitalizing as much as possible on a swarm of torpedo focused CAs, CLs and DDs, which could be viable with the IC cut from subs and CVs, while also freeing more MILs from NAVs and fighters, and they don't have any hard counters besides the enemy simply bringing more firepower to deal with you faster than you can deal with them.
This is all just theory, as I haven't had time to test it out myself, but it does look very interesting to see what might come out of it.
I'm quite curious how a naval build for Japan would look like, I'm imagining something quite unorthodox for them.
Since they get a bonus for torpedoes to bypass screening, and torpedoes are quite OP against capitals and carriers by design, I figure their strategy would have to capitalize on that as much as possible.
On such situation, I see little point in BBs and BCs with their heavy guns, the main job of Japanese capitals should be to screen carriers and the secondary is to provide light attack to hit enemy screens, something a well armored CA could do just fine for a fraction of the cost (something very important to ponder, considering that the industrial might of the US is their main enemy).
On an extreme end, it might even be advantageous to convert all of their starting BBs to carriers right away to pull the maximum amount of firepower from torpedoes.
Screens should invest more in torpedoes as well, of course, but without slacking on AA, and ASW for DDs, as their unique Torpedo Cruiser should also be capitalized as much as possible.
I also imagine a sub swarm would be absolutely deadly.
That in SP at least, as counters to NAVs and subs being AA and depth charges by an US player would be quite obvious, so perhaps capitalizing as much as possible on a swarm of torpedo focused CAs, CLs and DDs, which could be viable with the IC cut from subs and CVs, while also freeing more MILs from NAVs and fighters, and they don't have any hard counters besides the enemy simply bringing more firepower to deal with you faster than you can deal with them.
This is all just theory, as I haven't had time to test it out myself, but it does look very interesting to see what might come out of it.
- 1
Thoughts:
Add some AA to the SHBB. The +2% IC is bad, but not that bad, specially given that its biggest weakness are going to be air attacks (so long it doesn't lose its screens). The 10% extra AA from Anti Air Battery I makes quite a bit of difference. Dropping some of the big guns can be advantageous too, not because of cost savings but because of speed gains. And if you are building SHBB you probably should have more of everything else too, so the damage loss is not going to be that critical. Their biggest advantage is their piercing capability, to defeat other heavily armored ships.
For the BB, probably drop the sea plane in favor of something else. A bit extra spotting is not really going to make much difference in capital vs capital battles. More guns, possibly secondary batteries if speed is a concern. Also, change that Secondary Batter II into a multipurpose one, they cost more, but 150 IC is not going to be much of a difference for a BB, and the extra AA is going to be very useful.
ASW: You want a Light Cruiser with nothing but sea planes, sonar and radars to actually manage to find enemy subs. DDs can kill them, but they don't have enough spotting to actually find any later subs. Depth charge capability is secondary, once a sub is found you don't need much damage to sink them, the issue is actually damaging them.
Also for cruisers you seem to ignore that CLs are counted as screens, while CAs are counted as capitals, which is far more important than the penalties on deep/shallow oceans. The CL penalties for deep oceans are actually not really so, as they are to be compared with the other screen type ships, that is, DDs, which in turn have -50%, as you yourself have mentioned.
Further on cruisers, in particular light cruisers, their armor capabilities mean they can pretty much be immune to other screen's guns, as it's really hard to get piercing over 10 for your light guns. Best CL killer are probably CAs or other CLs, and they should cut a swathe among DDs.
DDs can't really find subs on their own, so they can't really do much killing. Using them as convoy protection is still useful, as they at least force the subs to flee and prevent damage, but the best subs for this are the obsolete hulls that can't really cut at actual battles anymore. Or even purposefully building earlier hulls for cost savings, if all you want is a platform to throw depth charges from.
As actual combatants, my current theory is that they are best used against enemies light on their own screens, as their torpedo capabilities are wonderful. For that purpose, outnumbering the enemy is extremely important, as they would need to go through the enemy screens ASAP. Still, for most of those, drop the dual purpose light gun, it costs double that of a light gun III, 150 IC extra per gun. They are fragile enough that I don't see the extra AA being that worth it, specially since it's not going to be a high number anyway.
They do indeed make good surface detectors though, although it's keeping in mind that they are very fragile and will need to be constantly replaced, as you will lose some before your strike fleet actually reaches the battle.
Add some AA to the SHBB. The +2% IC is bad, but not that bad, specially given that its biggest weakness are going to be air attacks (so long it doesn't lose its screens). The 10% extra AA from Anti Air Battery I makes quite a bit of difference. Dropping some of the big guns can be advantageous too, not because of cost savings but because of speed gains. And if you are building SHBB you probably should have more of everything else too, so the damage loss is not going to be that critical. Their biggest advantage is their piercing capability, to defeat other heavily armored ships.
For the BB, probably drop the sea plane in favor of something else. A bit extra spotting is not really going to make much difference in capital vs capital battles. More guns, possibly secondary batteries if speed is a concern. Also, change that Secondary Batter II into a multipurpose one, they cost more, but 150 IC is not going to be much of a difference for a BB, and the extra AA is going to be very useful.
ASW: You want a Light Cruiser with nothing but sea planes, sonar and radars to actually manage to find enemy subs. DDs can kill them, but they don't have enough spotting to actually find any later subs. Depth charge capability is secondary, once a sub is found you don't need much damage to sink them, the issue is actually damaging them.
Also for cruisers you seem to ignore that CLs are counted as screens, while CAs are counted as capitals, which is far more important than the penalties on deep/shallow oceans. The CL penalties for deep oceans are actually not really so, as they are to be compared with the other screen type ships, that is, DDs, which in turn have -50%, as you yourself have mentioned.
Further on cruisers, in particular light cruisers, their armor capabilities mean they can pretty much be immune to other screen's guns, as it's really hard to get piercing over 10 for your light guns. Best CL killer are probably CAs or other CLs, and they should cut a swathe among DDs.
DDs can't really find subs on their own, so they can't really do much killing. Using them as convoy protection is still useful, as they at least force the subs to flee and prevent damage, but the best subs for this are the obsolete hulls that can't really cut at actual battles anymore. Or even purposefully building earlier hulls for cost savings, if all you want is a platform to throw depth charges from.
As actual combatants, my current theory is that they are best used against enemies light on their own screens, as their torpedo capabilities are wonderful. For that purpose, outnumbering the enemy is extremely important, as they would need to go through the enemy screens ASAP. Still, for most of those, drop the dual purpose light gun, it costs double that of a light gun III, 150 IC extra per gun. They are fragile enough that I don't see the extra AA being that worth it, specially since it's not going to be a high number anyway.
They do indeed make good surface detectors though, although it's keeping in mind that they are very fragile and will need to be constantly replaced, as you will lose some before your strike fleet actually reaches the battle.
- 1
I don't understand why you make a point about the terrain. Surely you need screens no matter what in your battle fleets, so you always *have to have* destroyers and/or light cruisers even if they are at a penalty in deep ocean.
Maybe this Question dosent belong here..but did Paradox ever mention if 1 Battery = 1 Battery or is a Battery 2 Batterys like on the Image or something different?
@Felius
SHBB already have 10 AA in the picture, remember im using 4 Double Purpose guns. the optimum value is 5AA (-15% dmg). Going above 10 is useless as you need a exponentially higher value to get +1% benefit. No point going to 15 or 20AA and getting multiple times the +2% cost penalty.
You can see more about AAhere
About SHBB´s no matter how many guns you remove, you are slow. Around 30knots is the best you can go with 1-2 guns and thats is too low for such a expensive ship.
At best you might want to get to 25knots but for a SHBB usually you have HP to escape even if you're slow as you can take some critical hits. (Critical hit = 5x normal dmg).
Again, AA those BB´s have is more than enough. Better focus on light or heavy attacks instead. The plane is for some individual action. Germany for example can use BB´s for hunting raids with other surface fleets making the normal allied sub-hunting partys take quite a beating.
For that the BB can´t be blind. But i agree allied BB´s can be virtually blind as they usually have other ships to do the job.
You are correct. I made a England guide where i did just that ^^. Where i had CL´s with seaplanes and a S&D party with depth charges. So one team to find and one to kill.
but for AI that is overkill.
This guide is not 100% MP oriented. Also i did found new ways to deal with naval problems after i completed the guide. In a week this guide will mostly outdated for MP gameplay.
But for SP its going to be valid and more than enough to beat the AI. (Unfortunaly).
This kind reminds my 1.2 naval guide that 1/3 was slight wrong or could be better, but still put people more or less in the right direction ^^.
by that point CL´s are actually even worse. A CA can be defended from torpedos and light attacks by hiding behind CL´s and DD´s. At same time they don´t get the penalty.
Also having a 50% advantage in damage and defense vs a Enemy CL (or even better a 50% vs DD´s) is huge and allow for a quick cleaning with little to no losses.
CA´s do have 3,5 worse visibility, that makes them a little easier to hit. (+11,6%). but the advantages compensate for that.
Armor is a dillema. Armor I and II are pretty much more or less the same as its easy to reach 8 piercing with light guns.
Armor 10 i agree its useful and impossible to get with light guns alone. But also slow and expensive on resources.
I find a better use for 1918 DD´s to be minelaying/sweeping as 25Hp is too vulnerable even to submarines.
For Convoy Escort you already want the 1936 ones. Of course coutrys like US, UK and Japan have too many DD´s of 1918 and you can use them on safer shores while you build a modern screen fleet for your main strike force.
But you are correct. Most the guide already being a little outdated the moment i launched it as i kept testing and improving ^^, still not going to edit as the hints are ok for SP .
The Double Purpose Gun is to give AA coverage for the whole fleet. 20% of the average is used for other ships, so if your fleet AA is too low your individual ships even with high AA will suffer.
You can drop to something like 3AA with just 1 gun, but having a good AA value is key to DD´s as they are the most numerous ships in a fleet allowing ships with low AA to reach a value of 5+.
SHBB already have 10 AA in the picture, remember im using 4 Double Purpose guns. the optimum value is 5AA (-15% dmg). Going above 10 is useless as you need a exponentially higher value to get +1% benefit. No point going to 15 or 20AA and getting multiple times the +2% cost penalty.
You can see more about AAhere
About SHBB´s no matter how many guns you remove, you are slow. Around 30knots is the best you can go with 1-2 guns and thats is too low for such a expensive ship.
At best you might want to get to 25knots but for a SHBB usually you have HP to escape even if you're slow as you can take some critical hits. (Critical hit = 5x normal dmg).
Again, AA those BB´s have is more than enough. Better focus on light or heavy attacks instead. The plane is for some individual action. Germany for example can use BB´s for hunting raids with other surface fleets making the normal allied sub-hunting partys take quite a beating.
For that the BB can´t be blind. But i agree allied BB´s can be virtually blind as they usually have other ships to do the job.
You are correct. I made a England guide where i did just that ^^. Where i had CL´s with seaplanes and a S&D party with depth charges. So one team to find and one to kill.
but for AI that is overkill.
This guide is not 100% MP oriented. Also i did found new ways to deal with naval problems after i completed the guide. In a week this guide will mostly outdated for MP gameplay.
But for SP its going to be valid and more than enough to beat the AI. (Unfortunaly).
This kind reminds my 1.2 naval guide that 1/3 was slight wrong or could be better, but still put people more or less in the right direction ^^.
by that point CL´s are actually even worse. A CA can be defended from torpedos and light attacks by hiding behind CL´s and DD´s. At same time they don´t get the penalty.
Also having a 50% advantage in damage and defense vs a Enemy CL (or even better a 50% vs DD´s) is huge and allow for a quick cleaning with little to no losses.
CA´s do have 3,5 worse visibility, that makes them a little easier to hit. (+11,6%). but the advantages compensate for that.
Armor is a dillema. Armor I and II are pretty much more or less the same as its easy to reach 8 piercing with light guns.
Armor 10 i agree its useful and impossible to get with light guns alone. But also slow and expensive on resources.
I find a better use for 1918 DD´s to be minelaying/sweeping as 25Hp is too vulnerable even to submarines.
For Convoy Escort you already want the 1936 ones. Of course coutrys like US, UK and Japan have too many DD´s of 1918 and you can use them on safer shores while you build a modern screen fleet for your main strike force.
But you are correct
. Most the guide already being a little outdated the moment i launched it as i kept testing and improving ^^, still not going to edit as the hints are ok for SP .The Double Purpose Gun is to give AA coverage for the whole fleet. 20% of the average is used for other ships, so if your fleet AA is too low your individual ships even with high AA will suffer.
You can drop to something like 3AA with just 1 gun, but having a good AA value is key to DD´s as they are the most numerous ships in a fleet allowing ships with low AA to reach a value of 5+.
The focus on this guide is not only about the main fleet. But also smaller ones like patrols and raider fleets. Those work in very small numbers and not always use the optimum ratio.
The reason for that may vary from country to country and their specifics bonus.
So yeah, taking terrain into consideration is essential. Specially if you focus your navy to work around CA´s and CL´s with minimum DD´s. Germany is a good example of navy that can live very well from only CA´s + CL´s + Subs. Ignoring DD´s and BB´s to save research and dockyards.
Other minors may have onlY DD´s. And they need to avoid those terrains as they are already in trouble trying to face a major power. Having a battle with only DD´s when the other side have CL´s and CA´s is already bad enough without having the -50% dmg penalty.
Not DD's light guns. Those might as well have 0 piercing.
Fair enough on the AA, but no, although given the costs I'd at least keep the secondary guns as multi-purpose. The price is not really meaningfully different for a BB, but a few percent less damage do accumulate when you have that much HP.
But even for raiding fleets, a BB cannot be without screens. A capital ship on independent action is just asking to eat a torpedo from a bunch of cheap-ass destroyers, and there goes your highly expensive capital ship that takes extra long to build against some easily replaced screens that might even have been an obsolete design. CAs maybe can afford it, as not only they are much less expensive, they can stack light attack much higher by mixing in some CL guns, but a BB? That's 14.5k IC going down the drain because of a lack of screens. And if you are putting screens, they might as well serve as spotters while allowing the BB to have better stats somewhere else.
My experience
NOTE: I didn't know going into it whether carriers were better than pure battleship fleets, I'm not saying that I know for a fact that carriers are good or bad or that speed is important, I'm just saying that I Assumed Speed and air dominance were important as they were historically and were in past versions of HOI4. I was also aiming to replicate the US fast carrier group [4 carriers, 6 BBs, 12 cruisers, 24 destroyers i think)
When i designed my battleships/cruisers i did so on the assumption that they should be built to match the speed of my carriers, for a 1944 Carrier with all hangars and no deck armor that's about 35-36kts -- I couldn't make carriers any faster than that AFAICT. So for my 1944 battleship i used 3,2,1,1 heavy batteries and the rest were dual purpose secondaries. Note that i wasn't sure how penetration worked and assumed that there was a massive penalty for not being able to exceed penetration, If my AI enemy was using un-altered early battleships my fast BBs could achieve a piercing that exceeded theirs by a slight margin, but if they had 1 or 2 more modern BBs with 40-44 armor, it was impossible to get piercing that high without creating a slow dreadnought style ship and i figured a carrier would be a better counter to such a ship.
I did not build any battlecruisers as i found that battlecruiser armor does not allow for turret configurations that substantially increased the heavy firepower whilst achieving the target 35kts speed. Also the heavy-attack-per-IC favored battleships.
The dual purpose secondaries struck me as worth the extra IC as they're typically being built on cruisers/battleships and giving them a solid mix of light attack and air attack
But the dual purpose light batteries that you're sticking on destroyers cost an extra 1 steel for each one you build and double the IC as a light battery, 300 V 150, which is more significant for a ship that will cost between 1100-2500 IC, so it might be better to just have a light battery, AA mix. AA batteries reduce speed for some reason even though a flak gun in a rotating turret is doubtless going to be a lot heavier *cough* but destroyers can easily exceed 35kts if they're only using 1 or 2 AA.
I wasn't aware of the penalties associated with deep/shallow water for cruisers. I only see a malus for pure light cruisers in deep water but no malus for heavy cruisers except a 5% positioning penalty.
I have regrets about how i built my Cruisers;
A light AA cruiser, [3 AA, 2 dual secondaries, 1 light battery] designed to escort the strike force and shoot down planes, with enough light attack to deal with destroyers
A heavy cruiser - 3 medium, 1 light, 2 AA secondaries; it has roughly 1/3rd the air attack of a light cruiser, but double the HP, roughly the same light attack, and obviously unlike the light cruiser has heavy attack.
I didn't give spotter planes to any of my strike force ships because i assumed they would only show up if an enemy had already been spotted.
A surface raider -- This was a weird design because for some reason I wanted a surface fleet to deal with convoys even though it looked like on paper submarines were more efficient at it.
I saw that destroyers generally lacked the range [but didn't notice the combat difference in shallow vs. deep water] so I designed a light cruiser that had secondaries, light batteries, a spotter plane, and 1 depth charge plus sonar to defend against submarines but with the primary emphasis on speed. It could achieve a speed of >45kts. My hope was that the much higher cost relative to subs would have the advantage of a ship that could outrun any combat vessel [including most destroyers although it had armor and could likely outgun a destroyer] and unlike a sub would be able to chase convoys. The combination of radar/sonar/spotting plane would also allow it to detect convoys faster, so a single convoy raider could get more done.
Had i known about the deep water issue i might have replaced a light battery with a medium battery even at the cost of the small speed debuff.
I would be curious though about the relative effectiveness against convoys of torpedos vs. light guns, because one can easily achieve torpedo damage of over 100 with certain destroyer/sub/cruiser configurations, but light attack and heavy attack increase much more slowly. I would be curious if destroyers armed with lots of torpedos would actually be more effective at convoy raiding in shallow waters then a submarine given they have more of them and can move faster.
I opted for a single destroyer variant with at least one of each weapon type since I wanted my strike force destroyers to have some use once the enemy main battle fleet was crippled [or if it simply never showed up to the fight] but again i did not use the dual purpose batteries because of the increased steel/IC reqs
except for minesweepers which used the earliest hull and had the minimum equipment requirements.
NOTE: I didn't know going into it whether carriers were better than pure battleship fleets, I'm not saying that I know for a fact that carriers are good or bad or that speed is important, I'm just saying that I Assumed Speed and air dominance were important as they were historically and were in past versions of HOI4. I was also aiming to replicate the US fast carrier group [4 carriers, 6 BBs, 12 cruisers, 24 destroyers i think)
When i designed my battleships/cruisers i did so on the assumption that they should be built to match the speed of my carriers, for a 1944 Carrier with all hangars and no deck armor that's about 35-36kts -- I couldn't make carriers any faster than that AFAICT. So for my 1944 battleship i used 3,2,1,1 heavy batteries and the rest were dual purpose secondaries. Note that i wasn't sure how penetration worked and assumed that there was a massive penalty for not being able to exceed penetration, If my AI enemy was using un-altered early battleships my fast BBs could achieve a piercing that exceeded theirs by a slight margin, but if they had 1 or 2 more modern BBs with 40-44 armor, it was impossible to get piercing that high without creating a slow dreadnought style ship and i figured a carrier would be a better counter to such a ship.
I did not build any battlecruisers as i found that battlecruiser armor does not allow for turret configurations that substantially increased the heavy firepower whilst achieving the target 35kts speed. Also the heavy-attack-per-IC favored battleships.
The dual purpose secondaries struck me as worth the extra IC as they're typically being built on cruisers/battleships and giving them a solid mix of light attack and air attack
But the dual purpose light batteries that you're sticking on destroyers cost an extra 1 steel for each one you build and double the IC as a light battery, 300 V 150, which is more significant for a ship that will cost between 1100-2500 IC, so it might be better to just have a light battery, AA mix. AA batteries reduce speed for some reason even though a flak gun in a rotating turret is doubtless going to be a lot heavier *cough* but destroyers can easily exceed 35kts if they're only using 1 or 2 AA.
I wasn't aware of the penalties associated with deep/shallow water for cruisers. I only see a malus for pure light cruisers in deep water but no malus for heavy cruisers except a 5% positioning penalty.
I have regrets about how i built my Cruisers;
A light AA cruiser, [3 AA, 2 dual secondaries, 1 light battery] designed to escort the strike force and shoot down planes, with enough light attack to deal with destroyers
A heavy cruiser - 3 medium, 1 light, 2 AA secondaries; it has roughly 1/3rd the air attack of a light cruiser, but double the HP, roughly the same light attack, and obviously unlike the light cruiser has heavy attack.
I didn't give spotter planes to any of my strike force ships because i assumed they would only show up if an enemy had already been spotted.
A surface raider -- This was a weird design because for some reason I wanted a surface fleet to deal with convoys even though it looked like on paper submarines were more efficient at it.
I saw that destroyers generally lacked the range [but didn't notice the combat difference in shallow vs. deep water] so I designed a light cruiser that had secondaries, light batteries, a spotter plane, and 1 depth charge plus sonar to defend against submarines but with the primary emphasis on speed. It could achieve a speed of >45kts. My hope was that the much higher cost relative to subs would have the advantage of a ship that could outrun any combat vessel [including most destroyers although it had armor and could likely outgun a destroyer] and unlike a sub would be able to chase convoys. The combination of radar/sonar/spotting plane would also allow it to detect convoys faster, so a single convoy raider could get more done.
Had i known about the deep water issue i might have replaced a light battery with a medium battery even at the cost of the small speed debuff.
I would be curious though about the relative effectiveness against convoys of torpedos vs. light guns, because one can easily achieve torpedo damage of over 100 with certain destroyer/sub/cruiser configurations, but light attack and heavy attack increase much more slowly. I would be curious if destroyers armed with lots of torpedos would actually be more effective at convoy raiding in shallow waters then a submarine given they have more of them and can move faster.
I opted for a single destroyer variant with at least one of each weapon type since I wanted my strike force destroyers to have some use once the enemy main battle fleet was crippled [or if it simply never showed up to the fight] but again i did not use the dual purpose batteries because of the increased steel/IC reqs
except for minesweepers which used the earliest hull and had the minimum equipment requirements.
- 1
Remember i was trying to keep speed above 25 Knots with this BB. (S&D bb´s can go as low as you can get).
Also detection is a Fleet value. If your BB have a low detection it will nerf the whole fleet detection.
Anyway, remember im not going super Min-Max on this guide. Think of it more as a "How to not make a super bad ship" . This guide was too early to be perfect with a lot of details still being discovered.
LAter i plan to make a guide more MP oriented. But i need to wait a few more days. As people are still finding new info that change the meta.
Last edited:
Great post, thanks for the info. Even if some of it gets outdated, it's at least a starting reference point.
Even with Industry Dockyard +10% speed maxed out and Free Trade +15%, that SuperBB will take around 3 years to build. For a 1940 tech, that's like 1943, give or take. I find the naval wars usually to have been decided one way or the other by then (I play SP), so I would prefer to focus those dockyards on something more near term. Thoughts?
Even with Industry Dockyard +10% speed maxed out and Free Trade +15%, that SuperBB will take around 3 years to build. For a 1940 tech, that's like 1943, give or take. I find the naval wars usually to have been decided one way or the other by then (I play SP), so I would prefer to focus those dockyards on something more near term. Thoughts?