Suggestion: Naval supremacy should be gained over time by ships on missions.

[Simon_9732495]

I did some testing around intel needed for naval invsions lately and have some thoughts on how to make naval supremacy (that you need for naval invsions) more realistic and more inuitive.

Now you require some intel and you put some ships in a seazone and get supremacy for a moment and can invade. Details see here: https://hoi4.paradoxwikis.com/Battle_plan#Naval_supremacy
I think it shouldn't be like that.

Suggestion V1:

Spoiler: Suggestion V1

My suggestion:

• Remove all intel requirements for naval invasions and make intel give a bonus on naval battles and naval invasion attacks. Naval invasions should only require naval supremacy, because you can't have that without intel. (But ships beeing on missions need intel anyway. Can't move around much without a map)
• Remove instant naval supremacy you get when you assign ships to a seazone.
• Ships (small patrol task forces) on patrol mission(*) let you gain naval supremacy in the zones the are assigned. It will take some time (maybe 2 weeks completly uncontested) to have enough naval supremacy for a naval invasion. Naval supremacy will slowly decay again if you have no ships there.

Advantages:

• AI has to put ships on patrol mission(*)
• You cannot gain naval supremacy against someone that has a navy protecting it's coast, without fighting that navy.
• You cannot be safe against naval invasions without sending some ships out (That is possible now and is very annoying.)
• If you try to get naval supremacy and get contested it will not be only a fight in numbers until you have more. You really have to fight for naval supremacy.
• Should be less easy to cheese by waiting for the enemy to repair or reshuffle the fleet or simliar thing.

The sugesstion is at a very early stage, but I want to start a discussion about it to get more ideas.


(*) Is it possible to do patrol mission and be undiscovered for a longer time by others on patrol? Then maybe a new "naval supremacy" mission is needed, like we have one for air. My point is you should get naval supremacy with ships being present and visible.

//Edit: New suggestion V2:


Suggestion V2:

• I think the best defense against naval invasions in the game are coast guards. Make it easier to deploy coast guards all over your coast and make the AI do it if at war. (For example give every nation a very small (e.g. 4 width) coast garrison template and improve the "area defense" order, so that it's possible to click a longer coast line like a border, to quickly set up coast garrisons.)
• You should have to fight at least a small fight when invading someone, like when you attack over land. The borders have always some divisions, so should the coasts.
• Design naval supremacy like air superiority: Naval supremacy should give a big buff/debuff for naval invasion battles. Like it is now very hard to push a enemy division in mountains under red air, it should be really difficult to push even small coast guards if you lack naval supremacy.
• That means that you don't need naval supremacy to start naval invasions. The defensive "firewall" as I called it before are the coast guards now.
• If a country has significant naval supremacy you will not only not be able to invade them (because they have coast guards everywhere and you can't just land uncontested like it is now), but your convoys will be engaged by the enemy fleet and you will lose a lot of equipment and manpower.
• The current mechanic for naval supremacy could stay the same. Including intel.
• Optional: Naval mission "Naval supremacy", similar to air superiority mission.

 

[Simon_9732495]

Any opinions?

Do you think patrol missions would be suitable to gain naval supremacy? Are they visible enough?

 

[Dalnar]

Isn't the whole point of the fleet in being doctrine historically just the pure threat of existence of the ships that "might" do something in the area ? Like the Italian fleet for example? They had ships, didn't have much of fuel, still the allies had to be wary in meds, because who knew? This time the Italians might have actually do something....

I understand some people dislike the naval supremacy from ships in harbor, but it kinda makes sense to me.

 

[Simon_9732495]

Isn't the whole point of the fleet in being doctrine historically just the pure threat of existence of the ships that "might" do something in the area ? Like the Italian fleet for example? They had ships, didn't have much of fuel, still the allies had to be wary in meds, because who knew? This time the Italians might have actually do something....

I understand some people dislike the naval supremacy from ships in harbor, but it kinda makes sense to me.

I wouldn't rule out that ships in harbor can provide naval supremacy.
But it should be be avoided under all circumstances that you have a massive strike force in an area and don't get naval supremacy because of ???

One idea behind the patrol mission is that you can just easily set up patrols everywhere and be safe against naval invasions.
If someone wants to contest that, he has to sink your patrols and then patrol for a time without getting sunk.

At the state of the game now you can have 1000 battleships and 10000 screens in a single sea zone and your enemy 0 ships and it's possible that you don't get naval supremacy.
Easiest solution to this is remove the intel required.
But I was thinking about further improving the mechanic.

And by the way. I just updated how naval supremacy works in 1.9. See: https://hoi4.paradoxwikis.com/Battle_plan#Naval_supremacy

 

[Goshawk]

• Ships on patrol mission(*) let you gain naval supremacy in the zones the are assigned. It will take some time (maybe 2 weeks completly uncontested) to have enough naval supremacy for a naval invasion. Naval supremacy will slowly decay again if you have no ships there.

Generally, nobody cares about naval supremacy, when they are not trying to do naval invasion, in another word, most of the time. And there is no nation that can sustain the fuel usage of putting all their warships out on patrol. The entire concept of naval supremacy feels too "gamey". I would rather see a better system of punishing naval invasions if you can not contest the sea. Perhaps buff the efficiency of all naval missions and decrease the speed of convoys.

 

[Simon_9732495]

Generally, nobody cares about naval supremacy, when they are not trying to do naval invasion, in another word, most of the time.

Disagree.
Japan defending against Chinese invasions, UK defending against German invasions. USA defending aganist Japanese and German invasions.
If you can be sure to have naval supremacy you have to invest a lot less in coast garrisons. Therefore naval supremacy should be stable and transparent. Now it's not. It can go from 100 to 0 and in the next moment from 0 to 100 and maybe you don't know why (repairing, changing orders of task forces...)

And there is no nation that can sustain the fuel usage of putting all their warships out on patrol.

Why would anyone put the big warships on partol?
But ok, I have edited to clarify, that I'm talking about "normal", small patrol task forces.

The entire concept of naval supremacy feels too "gamey".

That's why I write this thread. There are too many ways to cheese naval supremacy. The fact that you need it only for a moment to start a big invasion like DDay, contributes to that. That's why I suggest to change it to something you have to acquire over time.

The entire concept of naval supremacy feels too "gamey". I would rather see a better system of punishing naval invasions if you can not contest the sea. Perhaps buff the efficiency of all naval missions and decrease the speed of convoys.

I think the concept itself is fine.
Yes, it's possible to not have any limits for naval invasion and just let the convoys be sunk.
But I think this would be gamey as well. (Think about sending naval bombers to the channel as Germany. What would the UK do against naval invasions? Patrol under the naval bombers? [I know that it's hard to have naval supremacy without air supremacy, but for an example...])

I think the point of the concept of "naval supremacy" is that nations with a strong navy have some kind of firewall against naval invasions. If you want to invade them you have to break their supremacy first.

 

[SophieX]

@Simon_9732495

Do the "second" step aswell:

I repeat what I stated in an other thread:
------------------
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".
--------------
In analogy to land-combat:
When I want my division to go into a province that I do not own, I have to fight the enemy, until he retreats and prevent him to move in again. ( no one talks about land-supremacy as a term which implanted rules or regulations in land-combat )
Same could work for a sea-zone as well.

 

[Simon_9732495]

I repeat what I stated in an other thread

In the posting before yours I presented arguments, why I think, that the concept "naval supremacy" is fine.

If your opinion is, that you don't want to discuss improving naval supremacy, because it should be removed completely, I respect that opinion. But in this thread I want to discuss how to improve it.
Removing it would be easy anyway... Not much to say about it.

 

[Toybasher]

Is Naval Supremacy ONLY used for being allowed to do Naval Invasions or does it have other gameplay effects like Air Superiority?

 

[Simon_9732495]

Is Naval Supremacy ONLY used for being allowed to do Naval Invasions or does it have other gameplay effects like Air Superiority?

As far as I know it's ONLY that.

 

[SophieX]

My point is you should get naval supremacy with ships being present and visible.

Ok.
In the defines supremacy-ratio is given for those roles below, and
to reflect on presence and the ability to fight, I suggest to modify like this ( new numbers in brackets)

- strike force = 1
- naval-invasions-support = 1
- patrol = 1 ( 5 )
- raiders = 0.5 ( 3 )
- convoy-escort = 0.5 ( 3 )
- mines planting or sweeping 0.3 ( 0 ) Mine-planter were mostly build to only self-defence a liitle. Mine-sweeper the same.

 

[Simon_9732495]

Ok.
In the defines supremacy-ratio is given for those roles below, and
to reflect on presence and the ability to fight, I suggest to modify like this ( new numbers in brackets)

- strike force = 1
- naval-invasions-support = 1
- patrol = 1 ( 5 )
- raiders = 0.5 ( 3 )
- convoy-escort = 0.5 ( 3 )
- mines planting or sweeping 0.3 ( 0 ) Mine-planter were mostly build to only self-defence a liitle. Mine-sweeper the same.

If you change only this, the most effective tactic (that everbody uses and everyone, that asks, gets recommended) will be:

• Assign your big Main Fleet to patrol mission
• Execute Naval invasion
• Unpause for 1 hour
• [you have now 5 times the naval supramcy of the enemy force composed of the same ships on strike force. The invasion will start.]
• Put your Main Fleet back on hold to sit in port
• [the invasion is running, because you dont need naval supremacy during the invasion]

Or short: If you need naval supremacy, set your fleet on patrol mission.

The proposal is not working, because you can switch missions of task forces from one moment to the other. Different values for different missions would accomplish nothing.

Another drawback would be that it's not possible to defend properly against that. You cant have a huge fleet on partol all the time. You have a small patrol and the main fleet on strike force getting only 1/5th naval supremacy. You need more than 5 times the ships of the attacker to defend or LOADS of fuel to patrol all the time.

 

[Harin]

Then maybe a new "naval supremacy" mission is needed, like we have one for air

I think this is a great idea. Fighting for naval supremacy is the thing missing from the games current concept of naval supremacy.

Some wishful thinking below.

Naval Supremacy Mission:

• What is Naval Supremacy? For game terms, it is NOT the destruction of the enemy navy. That is a strike fleet mission. Fighting for Naval Supremacy is fighting to see enemy surface movements in the sea zone. As you supremacy grows, the more enemy surface ships become revealed to you. Warships will always have some chance of going undetected or escaping a fight, but convoys and troops ships will be seen and thus very vulnerable. No sneaky naval invasion for you.
• Only Heavy cruisers, light cruisers, and destroyers have this mission. Heavy cruisers finally get a job.
• Submarines cannot perform naval supremacy missions, because they can not drive off the enemy squadrons. They can use their existing missions as normal to try and damage enemy squadrons, but it is probably more efficient to sink convoys. This can force the other side to transfer ships from Naval Supremacy to convoy duty to protect the oil that allows naval supremacy missions possible.
• You assign squadrons of these ships to the sea zone, but a new mechanic will be needed to simulate their meeting and fighting.
• The number of squadrons matter, so to prevent doom stacks. When a squadron searches a naval tile in a sea zone that has no enemy squadron you gain some naval supremacy. This way, if you have a massive advantage in quantity of ships, you will gain naval supremacy quicker, if you are willing to make more, but smaller, squadrons.
• The speed that your squadron can search a sea tile is effected by the TOTAL surface detection and slowest speed of your squadron. So one ship squadrons may be slow since we are not averaging surface detection.
• Loses over time would tend to be light compared to air supremacy missions. This is because, the number of ships is small relative to air craft in their supremacy mission, and unlike air missions, the smaller naval force usually can and will avoid fighting. This would be realistic, but running away is going to give up a portion of naval supremacy.
• Squadrons that run will lose some naval supremacy. Squadrons that make the enemy run gain naval supremacy.
• The naval supremacy will decay over time.
• Naval supremacy does not magically prevent naval invasion. Instead, naval supremacy means that the controlling power has eyes on anything moving in the area. The higher the supremacy, the higher chance that the controlling power can see enemy ships. At the highest level, nothing moves in the area without being noticed. That would mean, launching a naval invasion will be noticed immediately and intercepted. You can launch it if you dare, but bring your fleet, because there is going to be a fight.
• Air power matters. If you have scouts, (how many?) your squadrons will have a easier time of finding enemy squadrons and try to force them to run. Naval bombers can still sink enemy ships, of course, making it difficult to achieve naval supremacy off the shores of the enemy, just like in real life.
• Squadrons on this mission that discover enemy convoys can engage, unless they are using "Do Not Engage". This might expose them to an enemy squadron and make it harder for them to escape though, especially if the convoy is escorted.

Strike Fleets:

• Strike Fleets will need the added ability to intercept detected naval invasions in naval supremacy zones.
• Sending an invasion fleet through a sea zone that the enemy has naval supremacy will be seen and enemy strike fleets will most likely intercept. Unless of course, the enemy has used all its oil to gain naval supremacy. Oh, the trade offs that must be considered.
• Strike Fleets will not be very effective against squadrons performing naval supremacy missions as those squadrons will leave the area immediately when a superior force approaches. By doing so, those retreating squadrons give up some naval supremacy. So a large strike fleet can make enemy squadrons run out of one tile, but those squadrons will enter another, making large Strike Fleets less effective to achieve naval supremacy than many smaller squadrons. Remember, naval supremacy is about the ability to see what is in the sea zone, not about sinking everything.

I guess I got carried away. I really like @Simon_9732495's idea of a Naval Supremacy Mission. It makes the imagination run wild.

 

[SophieX]

Or short: If you need naval supremacy, set your fleet on patrol mission.

Yes, in regard of your statement: "My point is you should get naval supremacy with ships being present and visible."
and increasing the ratio of ships being present and visible is a logical consequence.

The proposal is not working, because you can switch missions of task forces from one moment to the other. Different values for different missions would accomplish nothing.

1. We still have different values for different missions; I only changed the differences to give more weight to presence.
2. switching missions -> setting other priorities.

Another drawback would be that it's not possible to defend properly against that.

Under the scope of "naval-invasion":
Fight the enemy and force him to retreat. Then you can invade very properly or you just have prevent him from doing so.

For sure, the values I proposed are not carved in stone, can still be discussed too.

 

[bitmode]

I would change virtually everything about naval supremacy:

• Make the abstract comparison a soft requirement. The AI can honor the comparison to be safe from tricky situations. There could also be secondary effects from launching a risky invasion (slower planning, slower execution, make it really easy to intercept, lose war support if it fails etc.), so that even as a human you'd think at least twice about it. But ultimately you can launch an invasion any time and see what happens.
• I would confine supremacy to strike forces, i.e. the idea of the "fleet in being". We only care about naval invasions, so there does not need to be one abstract value - it is not a zero sum game. I would define a readiness of either side to launch an invasion which respectively is countered by the readiness of the other side to defend against it. Missions that help the actual execution of an invasion increase own invasion readiness (convoy escort, naval invasion support). Ones that help counter an actual invasion (convoy raiding, patrol) decrease the enemy's readiness. The supremacy of strike forces acts as a multiplier on both values. So a fleet in being would rely largely on the supremacy value to prop up their numbers, while other types of fleets would put more emphasis on the active parts of the fleet
• As a result, both sides could simultaneously be ready to invade or neither side could be
• Being actively present in the sea zone provides intel on it over time, along with other intel sources. Without any intel, the enemy setup is assumed to be the strongest possible. I.e. when wanting to execute a naval invasion, it is assumed all enemy ships (according to country intel) are present and on convoy raiding. For defending against invasions, it is assumed that all are on invasion support. As intel increases, estimates on the enemy progressively come closer to their actual setup, both in numbers of ships and their missions. So if you want to eek out being "ready" for an invasion while having just a slightly stronger or (even a weaker) navy, you need really good intel to confirm the situation.

 

[Simon_9732495]

I would change virtually everything about naval supremacy:

• Make the abstract comparison a soft requirement. The AI can honor the comparison to be safe from tricky situations. There could also be secondary effects from launching a risky invasion (slower planning, slower execution, make it really easy to intercept, lose war support if it fails etc.), so that even as a human you'd think at least twice about it. But ultimately you can launch an invasion any time and see what happens.
• I would confine supremacy to strike forces, i.e. the idea of the "fleet in being". We only care about naval invasions, so there does not need to be one abstract value - it is not a zero sum game. I would define a readiness of either side to launch an invasion which respectively is countered by the readiness of the other side to defend against it. Missions that help the actual execution of an invasion increase own invasion readiness (convoy escort, naval invasion support). Ones that help counter an actual invasion (convoy raiding, patrol) decrease the enemy's readiness. The supremacy of strike forces acts as a multiplier on both values. So a fleet in being would rely largely on the supremacy value to prop up their numbers, while other types of fleets would put more emphasis on the active parts of the fleet
• As a result, both sides could simultaneously be ready to invade or neither side could be
• Being actively present in the sea zone provides intel on it over time, along with other intel sources. Without any intel, the enemy setup is assumed to be the strongest possible. I.e. when wanting to execute a naval invasion, it is assumed all enemy ships (according to country intel) are present and on convoy raiding. For defending against invasions, it is assumed that all are on invasion support. As intel increases, estimates on the enemy progressively come closer to their actual setup, both in numbers of ships and their missions. So if you want to eek out being "ready" for an invasion while having just a slightly stronger or (even a weaker) navy, you need really good intel to confirm the situation.

Your thoughts lead me to the question:

What is the purpose of the mechanic naval supremacy?

I think it's purpose it not so much to protect the attacker from attacking too weak. As it is now, you can easily lose your complete invasion forces, even if you have naval supremacy.
I think it's main purpose is to provide defense against naval invasions.

That leads me to another suggestion:

Suggestion V2:

• I think the best defense against naval invasions in the game are coast guards. Make it easier to deploy coast guards all over your coast and make the AI do it if at war. (For example give every nation a very small (e.g. 4 width) coast garrison template and improve the "area defense" order, so that it's possible to click a longer coast line like a border, to quickly set up coast garrisons.)
• You should have to fight at least a small fight when invading someone, like when you attack over land. The borders have always some divisions, so should the coasts.
• Design naval supremacy like air superiority: Naval supremacy should give a big buff/debuff for naval invasion battles. Like it is now very hard to push a enemy division in mountains under red air, it should be really difficult to push even small coast guards if you lack naval supremacy.
• That means that you don't need naval supremacy to start naval invasions. The defensive "firewall" as I called it before are the coast guards now.
• If a country has significant naval supremacy you will not only not be able to invade them (because they have coast guards everywhere and you can't just land uncontested like it is now), but your convoys will be engaged by the enemy fleet and you will lose a lot of equipment and manpower.
• The current mechanic for naval supremacy could stay the same. Including intel.
• Optional: Naval mission "Naval supremacy", similar to air superiority mission.