Strong navy- do we really need it and how to make it more important to general warfare (discussion)

[dek55]

I really like MTG DLC and the depth adds to naval warfare. Sadly, in current state of affairs it seems you can easily get away with just submarines and naval bombers with no real incentive to spend valuable time and resources building destroyers, cruisers and battleships with all those fancy and expensive modules. Even in case of naval invasions, you can achieve enough naval supremacy to storm UK or Japan. All that with submarines and some air power.

What could be done to make strong navy more important to overall warfare? Perhaps for starters make changes
tonaval supremacy calculations so that higher production cost ships contribute more to it rather than current state where one cheap submarine has the the same effect as powerful 1944 battleship. Discuss

 

[SophieX]

In my opinion one major issue is "naval supremacy" being only a factor of "calculation"; i.e. I have a huge strike force task for this region and I have "naval supremacy"; but this is only a "claim".
You can define "naval supremacy" as follows: using that sea-region for my own purpose without any major enemy impacts and prevent the enemy to use that region for his own.
But you have to constantly proof it. ( normally by wiping out the enemy in that region and preventing him to come in again ).
A good example was the north-and mid-atlantic in WWII, where the Allied put massively ships ( convoy-escorts, sub-hunter groups etc ) in, to fight german subs, in order to achieve "naval supremacy".

My solution: Just cancel all regulation based on the condition of "naval supremacy" and cancel also all regulations based on conditions of "pre-assumptions" ( like A has more ships than B, so A will win etc..); as most "catastrophes" had their source in a "pre-assumption".

 

[Metz]

Perhaps a simpler UI where ships are organized into squads/sectors within the fleet. These groups would have their stats just like divisions have the sum of all brigade stats.

Simplified ways of upgrading ships in bulk.

In the production screen perhaps ships and their variants should have basic states shown on the icon so you don't have to go into each and every template to remember what they are. For instance, for a Destroyer 1940 variant, have the AA icon labelled next to it with a II and the radar icon labelled next to it with a III so that they stand out quickly.

More straightforward information regarding the performance of your current ratios of carriers/capital ships to screening ships.

Finally, an easier way to access the air aspect of carriers.

 

[SeppoPlus]

Add "raiding mission", a hit and run type mission that would engage enemy ships and/or convoys that are in the given sea zone into a short battle before it retreats back to port.
Any strike force that is situated too far away should not have time to intervene and therefore you do not have real naval supremacy unless you have enough ships in the actual sea zone or really close by. Intelligence and spotting should work as both the measure for when the "raiding mission" starts and how quickly the enemy might be able to try to counter this:
1. Weaker enemy navy/convoy spotted -> start raiding mission
2. Enemy might find out about that raiding mission in happening (intelligence & spotting) -> sends strike force to intervene
3. Strike force spotted (intelligence and spotting) ("we know that they know") -> mission aborted

So there are 4 possible outcomes (depending on intelligence, spotting and a great deal of coincidence and luck):
1. raiding mission goes ahead but finds nothing
2. raiding mission finds weaker opponent and causes damage to enemy
3. raiding mission meets enemy strike force and risks losses
4. raiding mission is aborted

number 3 can happen also while raiding force is on route back to base after successful or unsuccessful raid.

This would make the "fleet in being" strategy much more viable and you can drain enemy fuel and tie down their ships even if your own navy is weaker and you could never engage in decisive battle. This would also make doomstack navies less useful since you have to spread out your nave to efficiently protect important sea zones at the same time. Task force speed would also play a more important role. Old slow ships are good for convoy escort and fast new ones are better for raiding and strike force.

 

[wesleytj]

I think a modest boost to destroyer sonar/asw abilities, along with a nerf to nav bombers, should be a really good start in helping make surface fleets matter again.

I'm also not really sure that submarines alone should be sufficient to properly "control" naval zones. Maybe they could provide a max of something like 70-80% coverage, thereby requiring at least some surface ships to get the remainder.

 

[DicRoNero]

For my personal mod (outdated by now) I addressed that by the following adjustments:
- buffed coastal bombardment maximum to 75%
- rebalanced AA and air damage, with better AA tech being far more meaningful than in vanilla
- buffed dockyard output per tech
- reduced refitting cost at 1941/43 tech so as to facilitate late-game conversions
- added flavor decisions to demand coastal resource concessions off the weak nations, provided the requirements are met

For me, that worked to a significant extent.

Unfortunately, proper representation of navies would require overhauling some very basic design foundations, i.e. the way international trade works. And then again, there's the AI...

 

[SophieX]

- buffed coastal bombardment maximum to 75%

Sounds good!

- rebalanced AA and air damage, with better AA tech being far more meaningful than in vanilla

It would be helpful for aspects of game-playing; which I think is more important, than inaccurate historical aspects.

- buffed dockyard output per tech

That's implemented in the industry research-steps;
concentrated and dispersed industry gives 5 x 0.1 industrial_capacity_dockyard
Ok we can still discuss whether it could be 0.2, 0.4 or what ever....

 

[STABBY5]

What could be done to make strong navy more important to overall warfare?

Bring back range. The majority of the changes in MTG was a battle lines system which doesn't represent naval combat at all. Making fleet AA kill planes would also help. Adding pilots to restrict the amount of planes you can field so you can't just have 2000 naval bombers without sacrificing air power in other areas.

 

[dek55]

You can define "naval supremacy" as follows: using that sea-region for my own purpose without any major enemy impacts and prevent the enemy to use that region for his own.
But you have to constantly proof it. ( normally by wiping out the enemy in that region and preventing him to come in again ).
A good example was the north-and mid-atlantic in WWII, where the Allied put massively ships ( convoy-escorts, sub-hunter groups etc ) in, to fight german subs, in order to achieve "naval supremacy".

Like it! Naval supremacy should definetely be that, something you achieve over time by destroying enemy ships. Not calculations like now but constant supremacy in terms of winning major naval battles in certain sea region.

 

[DicRoNero]

That's implemented in the industry research-steps;
concentrated and dispersed industry gives 5 x 0.1 industrial_capacity_dockyard
Ok we can still discuss whether it could be 0.2, 0.4 or what ever....

The problem with +10% dockyard output per level is that it ends right there, while military factories (on top of having a better bonus in the first place) are also affected by production efficiency increase, which doubles their output over the coarse of the war. This way, the opportunity cost of building ships (compared to pumping out yet more tanks/planes/whatever) also rises even higher.

I believe PDX succumbed to the illusion that since the Axis effectively lost the naval war by May '43, the impact of the navy as a whole should be reflected as declining over time. Which is not necessarily true. I.e. should Germany have won against the Soviets, the entire war effort of the remaining combatants would have been all about the navy. [Until ICBM and nukes would pop up]. [And no, strategic bombing alone over 9000 miles away won't do you any good against equal opponent].

 

[Zauberelefant]

Don't forget that dockyards work at 100 % efficiency from the start (both of the production and the game) and factories have 4.5 compared to 5 NIC production.
They also start at some 50% efficiency and take 10 years to reach 100%, so in all Fairness, dockyards are not getting worse, the worse option in terms of Output gets better faster.

 

[KDEstroy]

Add "raiding mission", a hit and run type mission that would engage enemy ships and/or convoys that are in the given sea zone into a short battle before it retreats back to port.
Any strike force that is situated too far away should not have time to intervene and therefore you do not have real naval supremacy unless you have enough ships in the actual sea zone or really close by.

This is literally the convoy raiding mission. Yes I know that convoy raiding primarily targets convoys, but there is always at least 3-4 DD escorts, so you can chip away at a navy's screens by using convoy raiding.

 

[DicRoNero]

Don't forget that dockyards work at 100 % efficiency from the start (both of the production and the game) and factories have 4.5 compared to 5 NIC production.
They also start at some 50% efficiency and take 10 years to reach 100%, so in all Fairness, dockyards are not getting worse, the worse option in terms of Output gets better faster.

Gaining 90-95% is quite common and doesn't take all that long, provided you don't switch your lines chaotically.
4.5 vs 5 is absolutely irrelevant as long as production cost isn't tied to anything. We both can easily imagine a system where NIC outputs 500 per day and is still far inferior to MIC producing 'only' 4.5 - for this, you simply multiply ship cost accordingly.

Also, metal efficiency of ships produced is insanely low in both Chromium and Steel, unless of course you stick to 1918/1936 designs. Figures for late-game ships with top-notch modules imply that trainloads of Chromium and Steel are just dumped into the sea next to the ship construction site. (I did the calculations a year ago, taking tank production as a baseline for weight/displacement).

So I re-assert the point of naval production getting worse over time, and it happens because:
a) it won't get efficiency boost from tech (starting at allegedly 100% is irrelevant, stating they start at 1% is just as valid! Metal-wise 25% is probably the most correct assertion, though)
b) metal costs are way too high for top modules (unless those were rebalanced in the latest patches, I haven't played much to be sure of that).

edited for cohesion

 

[KubiG37]

I’d like PDX to get rid of that dumb ‘Naval superiority’ altogether, it does nothing but constantly hamper your naval invasions, often without any clear reason (like your ships suddenly providing 0 supremacy despite sitting right next to that sea zone, or even inside it!)

If I want to send a daring invasion into England despite not having superior navy, why should I be blocked by some arbitrary game number?? 90% of my units being obliterated due to being intercepted? Sure, my very bad mistake, but STOP blocking me by a fleet located across the Atlantic In USA having a strike mission enabled for English channel!!!
There was a damn reason why large part of the UK navy had to stay near England and not be harassing random Venezuelan convoys in the carribean!

 

[blue_yonder]

The OP asked two big broad questions: does a strong navy actually matter, and impact the war overall? As a France player I used to wonder the same thing, whether the navy is just a minigame, and always left it to the Brits to turn the Mediterranean a healthy shade of green. Being defeated at sea should "lose the war and lose it quickly", to invert Monty's phrase, but.. it doesn't really.. due to a number of distortions, such as Middle Eastern oil going to the axis overland - Turkey's rutted roads and cart tracks must be one huge traffic jam of tanker lorries..

But then I discovered the real impact of shore bombardment, which I'd previously thought of as merely a nice-to-have little bonus. In fact it makes a massive, perhaps decisive difference. With a fleet on either side of Italy, unopposed because the Regia Marina has been destroyed, I work my way up from Sicily with two thirds of the land battles receiving the full 25% effect.

 

[blahmaster6k]

Turkey's rutted roads and cart tracks must be one huge traffic jam of tanker lorries..

It would be interesting to see something like "trade route efficiency" for overland trade much like it exists for trading by sea, that would be affected by infrastructure levels between the resource location and the capital of the country it owns, and across the overland trade route to the purchaser.

 

[Beil]

I did run some tests playing with different ship types and builds and while not perfect by any means I think they are more balanced then people give them credit for. There are counters for many of the meta builds ( though in MP maybe not worth the IC cost to do). But the single biggest issue in SP is the seeming inability of the AI to really upgrade ships or otherwise attempt to counter fleet the many compositions by the Player that can rip the AI navy apart with minimal investment/ or large investment. Once that is done and trade routes/invasion lines are clear, the need for anything more is a waste.

 

[Zauberelefant]

Gaining 90-95% is quite common and doesn't take all that long, provided you don't switch your lines chaotically.
4.5 vs 5 is absolutely irrelevant as long as production cost isn't tied to anything. We both can easily imagine a system where NIC outputs 500 per day and is still far inferior to MIC producing 'only' 4.5 - for this, you simply multiply ship cost accordingly.

Also, metal efficiency of ships produced is insanely low in both Chromium and Steel, unless of course you stick to 1918/1936 designs. Figures for late-game ships with top-notch modules imply that trainloads of Chromium and Steel are just dumped into the sea next to the ship construction site. (I did the calculations a year ago, taking tank production as a baseline for weight/displacement).

So I re-assert the point of naval production getting worse over time, and it happens because:
a) it won't get efficiency boost from tech (starting at allegedly 100% is irrelevant, stating they start at 1% is just as valid! Metal-wise 25% is probably the most correct assertion, though)
b) metal costs are way too high for top modules (unless those were rebalanced in the latest patches, I haven't played much to be sure of that).

edited for cohesion

Agreed. But seeing how dockyards work, the way to boost Output is building more dockyards, which is incentivized by them not needing to ramp up efficiency and not cutting into your consumer goods equation.

No way you build ships faster, but you get more in the same time.

 

[SophieX]

Being defeated at sea should "lose the war and lose it quickly", to invert Monty's phrase, but.. it doesn't really..

Regarding the UK, Monty was right...and ingame here the same

 

[Riekopo]

I'm not a big fan of the abstracted naval supremacy thing. I wish there was at least a game rule option to disable it. I understand why they made it though. Because it was so easy to naval invade and stuff before. I don't know if there's a better solution or not. Maybe it should just become much more dangerous if you don't have supremacy. But not completely impossible.