IIRC space wasnt a big problem for aircraft in naval combat - examples: Midway, Leyte Gulf etc.
You should IMO at least raise that to 6-8 CVs
- 10
- 2
Will we NOT have the superstacks?
- Thread starter Gratch11
- 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.
You should IMO at least raise that to 6-8 CVs
How do land based naval bombers work with the stacking penalty?
How do the penalty work with ship anti air as that also add some sort of penalty. If you can stack ship anti air without limit, aircrafts can become useless against large navies?
Last edited:
What about progresive penalties No penalties for 4 Small Penalties for 5 and 6 and somewhat decent penalties for 7 and 8 that way would have worked wonderfully. Progresive curve instead of sharp decline.
- 1
Good AAA actually killed more than a third of the planes entering its umbrella, and the number of hits went up with kamikaze attacks - when you only care about shooting your plane as fast as possible in that general direction you tend to care little about dodging AA. Really, "carriers were dominating and battleships obsolete" is a myth that ignores the absolutely horrible showing Japanese carriers did against American battleships, in favour of underlining Pearl Harbor and the horrible showing Japanese battleships (with AA complements at times smaller than American destroyers) did against American carriers.
- 7
- 4
- 3
Seems like a tricky balance. There should be diminishing returns but I hope the returns haven't diminished too much when you are talking 8 carriers which seems like a reasonable size to me.
I'm worried you might balance things too much towards 1942 and result in things being wonky and unbalanced in 1944 and 1945.
I think there will be doctrine that allow you to coordinate several carriers more effectively like what wolfpack does for submarines.
basing the limit on Admiral Mitscher's quotes in here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_Carrier_Task_Force#Carrier-based_naval_warfare
"The ideal composition of a fast-carrier task force is four carriers, six to eight support vessels and not less than 18 destroyers, preferably 24. More than four carriers in a task group cannot be advantageously used due to the amount of air room required. Less than four carriers requires an uneconomical use of support ships and screening vessels."
- 34
- 9
- 2
This is certainly reasonable for any single task group, but using this as an example ignores the fact that towards the end of the war the US would operate several task forces (or more accurately, task groups) simultaneously in the same area of operations. This way they were widely enough spaced to ensure air operations did not become too cluttered (as alluded to above) but still close enough to conduct coordinated strikes against the same targets.
As a practical example of this, the US aircraft involved against Operation Ten-Go came mainly from two four-carrier task groups (TG 58.1 and 58.3). Both were operating in fairly close proximity (in naval terms anyway) off the coast of Okinawa.
Given the size of the naval 'regions', it seems that penalties for numbers as low as 4 carriers is rather extreme, and the justification of air room for a single task group is misleading. Perhaps if this was the limit for any one 'fleet' it might be sensible, but as a total for the sometimes massive naval regions, it seems like largely a gameplay decision, which is understandable, but should be alluded to as such instead of trying to apply the above to justify it.
Personally I think an increase in 'carrier coordination' via the naval doctrines as one of the posters above suggested would be reasonable and have some grounding in reality, reflecting the shift from single or two-carrier groups in the early war to the multiple multi-carrier task groups employed toward the end of the war.
- 13
- 8
- 1
During WW2 US operated around 8 CVs and 8 CVLs in the same battle formation, usually in the form of fleet. So having more than 4 carriers shouldn't get a penalty game wise, since it would make it unhistorical and unrealistic. And I think acquiring such a large fleet comes at a cost in game and it should compensate itself in that term, so why limit carrier stacks? They were practically undefeatable IRL as well.
Admiral Mitscher was referring to task groups, otherwise known as TGs. 4 of them usually made up a fleet. In-game, we've got fleets. Not task groups. So that doesn't prove anything in my eyes.
- 14
- 1
- 1
People really should look at the Atlantic warfare of World War 1. It was giant doomstacks v giant doomstacks. Grand or Royal fleets. Skirmishing only happens when one side can't hope to match the other. Or in the Pacific case when you are in a vast area having to control it and supplies don't allow it or rather you have to protect a variety of assets so you have to spread the fleet. My point rather is it makes zero sense to give any limitation in Naval combat considering how it's conducted. Maybe in narrow or cove type areas it makes sense. But in the open ocean space is a plenty. More so then even on the ground with many more elements at play.
I think people miss the point that loosing 3 or 4 aircraft carriers is a disaster or even 2 is. In Naval warfare battles are decided by one or two or three battles and to me to tell the player you can't stack because reasons. Is odd. I'd want to bring my entire naval force to bare if possible. In the Pacific you can't because of the vast wideness of the terrain in the similar way Germany couldn't attack on all fronts in 42 of Barbarossa. You are bogged down by requiring your ships to task or else a entire naval arena is in total control by the enemy and any troops or supplies are lost. My point in all this is they weren't stacked like World War 1 style because of the much larger and vaster region needed to control. They required task forces not Grand Fleets. But if somehow Germany was able to mass a rivaling fleet I feel you would see a Grand Fleet from Britain once again to duke out with the Kriegsmarine. The pacific however is a different story all together.
However I see the reason for doing this. (Giving a penalty) Because the reality is I really don't care if I loose entire naval sectors because i'll simply destroy fleet after small fleet until I've secured naval supremacy. That never would have happened in real life for the fact the assets and supplies would have required control over sectors in order to advance. Not to mention I doubt either side was keen on giving up any superiority in any sector or zone. What should happen instead of penalties I think is if the Ai registers a large fleet or enemy one the AI would absorb it's available navy into a grand fleet in order to fight the player one. That would make the most sense. Meaning whatever strategy you take you'll have a reall fight on your hands.
I could be wrong on this. I'm sure many more knowledgeable Naval buffs understand it better. That's just my thought process on Naval warfare.
I think people miss the point that loosing 3 or 4 aircraft carriers is a disaster or even 2 is. In Naval warfare battles are decided by one or two or three battles and to me to tell the player you can't stack because reasons. Is odd. I'd want to bring my entire naval force to bare if possible. In the Pacific you can't because of the vast wideness of the terrain in the similar way Germany couldn't attack on all fronts in 42 of Barbarossa. You are bogged down by requiring your ships to task or else a entire naval arena is in total control by the enemy and any troops or supplies are lost. My point in all this is they weren't stacked like World War 1 style because of the much larger and vaster region needed to control. They required task forces not Grand Fleets. But if somehow Germany was able to mass a rivaling fleet I feel you would see a Grand Fleet from Britain once again to duke out with the Kriegsmarine. The pacific however is a different story all together.
However I see the reason for doing this. (Giving a penalty) Because the reality is I really don't care if I loose entire naval sectors because i'll simply destroy fleet after small fleet until I've secured naval supremacy. That never would have happened in real life for the fact the assets and supplies would have required control over sectors in order to advance. Not to mention I doubt either side was keen on giving up any superiority in any sector or zone. What should happen instead of penalties I think is if the Ai registers a large fleet or enemy one the AI would absorb it's available navy into a grand fleet in order to fight the player one. That would make the most sense. Meaning whatever strategy you take you'll have a reall fight on your hands.
I could be wrong on this. I'm sure many more knowledgeable Naval buffs understand it better. That's just my thought process on Naval warfare.
- 4
- 2
- 2
but multiple such groups operated IRL effectively within what HoI4 considers a single naval zone - so raising that number (could be via doctrines) IMO makes sense.
- 3
What about stacking AA on the fleet side? I remember shooting up multiple fleets, which all wound up retreating to the same port. Port strikes on those tended to chew up planes at a crazy pace.
Lag your attacks? Like in real life?
I feel like the AI will already do that for you if you put them in the zones. If you keep them in a physical stack'o'doom and move them around, you still choose the attacks and such yourself ala HOI3.
TF1 Attacks with its 4 carriers at 4am by going into the sea province with the enemy fleet with 4 carriers. Planes fly their mission, as they get near the end of their mission, send TF2's 4 carriers worth of planes to hit that sea province with a night attack.
8 Carriers of planes. No penalties.
If you want to get more creative, use 3 TFs, dont engage their sea province, and send them on lagged missions. If you still have start and end times, you should be able to keep up 24 hour bombardment with a tiny overlap with 9 hour missions for 3 TFs full of planes.
Im not seeing the problem here. I do see that doomstacks will be reduced, and thats nice. I am happy.
I feel like the AI will already do that for you if you put them in the zones. If you keep them in a physical stack'o'doom and move them around, you still choose the attacks and such yourself ala HOI3.
TF1 Attacks with its 4 carriers at 4am by going into the sea province with the enemy fleet with 4 carriers. Planes fly their mission, as they get near the end of their mission, send TF2's 4 carriers worth of planes to hit that sea province with a night attack.
8 Carriers of planes. No penalties.
If you want to get more creative, use 3 TFs, dont engage their sea province, and send them on lagged missions. If you still have start and end times, you should be able to keep up 24 hour bombardment with a tiny overlap with 9 hour missions for 3 TFs full of planes.
Im not seeing the problem here. I do see that doomstacks will be reduced, and thats nice. I am happy.
I dont mind the 8 CV´s, I do mind the 8+60 other ships and my planes not attacking most valuable or at least single targets. Result, a lot of ships getting a little damage, no ships sunk.
- 2
- 1
I m not sure about the discussion, i thought that historically decisive battles where fought with huge stacks against each other.
Game play wise i understand it may be odd to have only 1-2 battles that decide the end or victory of a nation over another
Game play wise i understand it may be odd to have only 1-2 battles that decide the end or victory of a nation over another
- 1