As a stop gap, I made a mod that moves the torpedo mounting module's mission stats to base stats so to make carriers usable again. It's on the Steam workshop as "Naval Bomber Fix"
The base naval bomber damage has also been reduced to 13 down from 15. I'm not sure what spurned this change, because the damage for things like ground-based naval bombers is barely affected by this, while the damage of carrier-based bombers in battle is affected significantly because the damage is multiplied by 5. I thought they wanted to make carriers more of a decent investment but apparently not.
So, I just did a quick test reenacting the same circumstances you did. So long as you select your carrier bombers to go on Naval Strike mission whilst on the aircraft carrier, they will act as that when going into naval combat. You dont have to select an air region, you just have to select their mission. You can even do this during the naval combat. I sent the 4 English carriers with bombers in with no mission selected, and they did the 1 damage per sortie as they did in your test; then during the combat, I set them onto Naval Strike, and they immediately sent the carrier down to half health. So, carrier bombers are not useless, you just have to make sure theyre set on mission first.
71 cloak always tests aircraft carriers in naval battle, as opposed to air missions. You should micro & (H)old position with carriers to naval strike & port strike. Port striking any Anchor with a Bubble _(indicates a task force in port)_ is incredibly powerful and easy to cheese. Naval strike will automatically join and participate in any ongoing naval battles. Also, the 4 carrier limit per fleet becomes irrelevant when you’re using them correctly. -also remember to set your wings to daytime. They have a -100% base efficiency at night.
The most amusing thing is that this bug if essentially game-breaking, but two weeks after is still noticed by only a few. Seems like the majority of players still don't bother with fleets and have a little understanding how exactly it works. Just make naval bombers and do a naval invasion to win.
Navy is just so opaque and hard to understand what's actually happening, I'm not surprised, expecially when strategic naval bombers are a thing now... because land navs were too weak apparently?
@Skaven Navy isn't opaque. It's just _insanely_ costly and slow, and has *zero* survivability against airplanes (which are way cheaper and faster to produce). So the problem is not that it's unclear how the naval war works, but that it's irrelevant and a complete waste...
I still cant comprehend how this got through any kind of playtesting. What a disaster. New game director must be shredding himself over this one...its literally unbelievable the lack of QC on this. Just hubris.
Multidollar company at work. So you've gotta micro the fleet OFF mission to get naval bombers to work. I see this in Bokoen games in the Pacific between Japan and US fleets fairly often, but that's higher end MP. Looks like the Med is could be ruled by land based naval bombers from Malta, Sicily and North Africa with the Allies likely going for extended range versions with lower naval attack. Which means Italy may get a role that isn't just "build navy". Same goes for West Pacific for Japan. Land based naval bombers over spamming carriers frees up some of their production for ground troops. Definitely makes island hopping way more important for the US and Japan, as well as fortifying their starting positions to fend off naval invasions more thoroughly.
If you manually put them on a mission they still work, if reddit is to be believed. The only issue is that they arent sortieing nearly as often as they should be
CV air wings can only perform 2 sorties per day instead of 3, because night modifiers reduce carrier traffic by -100%. CV planes do still work perfectly fine, if they're put on a mission & it worked exactly the same way before "By Blood Alone". Japanese carrier wings never performed Kamikaze attacks unless given the mission to do so. This now applies to all planes, since carrier airframes can fulfill multiple roles & don't have a "default" mission.
IRL carriers: made battleships obsolete, swung several battles, massed, Hoi4 carriers: backline moral support, don't function if within range of an airport (which can be on any tiny island), can only have 4
Carriers were not OP IRL, _except_ for in the Pacific, where you generally have good weather and massive distances. I'm curious how a big carrier escort would have played out (for protecting the convoys to the Soviets in summer, during the really really long day-times). If carriers were OP, you'd expect those convoys continued _especially_ during the summer months, and that they'd sink the Scharnhorst and the Tirpitz and such.... But they didn't 🙃
@@MrNicoJac nah, carriers were massively important in the Atlantic. But it was the escort carriers forcing German U boats to stay underwater while hunting that was important. Truth be told British carriers seemed underwhelming in the Atlantic because two reasons. Germans had few surface ships to sink and British carrier doctrine in ship design was built around less hangar space and more armoured decks. They flew small numbers of biplanes and still decimated the Italian fleet at Taranto, crippled the Bismarck. Meanwhile US and Japan built carriers to hold as many planes as possible and decimated fleets without seeing each other. PI simply cannot get naval combat right at all.
The devs are aware of that, you can see their responses on the thread "Aircraft carriers useless?" on the PDX forum (can't post link because anti-spam).
Is it just me or is this DLC the most buggy? Been playing since together for victory and I don't remember one this bad. I can't even play MP games cause around 40 to 41 ai Switzerland does a focus that perma desyncs all players and ruins the game.
I played Blood Alone yesterday as Germany. And after conquering Poland (as usual), I found that resistance is way higher and more dangerous than before. Do you have any idea for this? Or just my game is somewhat unusual.
Maybe it's the occupation law, they changed some values since 1.11.13: autonomous occupation and civilian oversight resistance target increase by 10%, local police and military governor by 5%, but martial law was reduced by 10% therefore buffed.
So by just doing the more peaceful and without any collaboration u will more easily have riots the sheer amount of guns needed is obnoxious Also it seems that the value of repression have changed not sure 100% but cars and tanks seems to do less
@@captain_hammer I declared an early war against Poland to then rush to Russia before 1938 With 20 slot on guns run out of them with regular amry no change before even the soviets got to me....
It has changed. When I played as Italy and conquered France. The resistance was freaking 60. I had 20k guns short inspite of getting lend lease from 10 countries. After this patch it's kinda shitty to play the game.
Ok - so I am a big HOI navy player, and a big carrier user, and was wondering why my CVs were now doing nothing - battle honours nil. Then saw your video, did some tests and came up with the same result - CV naval bombers doing 1% damage at best. A work around seems to be as soon as your CV task force sets sail manually click on the air group and set it to naval strike (+ fighters to air sup). CV performance back to normal - more or less. Interestingly after the CVs have been back to port, and then set off again on a new mission, it seems to keep the manual settings (does not reset). This is still a micro-management pain of course. Hope PDX is working on a fix. Thanks very much for finding this and pointing it out. Best MMM
Maybe if we put carrier's separately near battle and manually put naval bombers on that air zone(enough to cover the battle place)...maybe then it will work?
If you do that, I would anticipate that it functions the same as basing planes at any land airport, just with much fewer planes in the zone and likely not full coverage until a lot of techs are unlocked. It's hard to see much practical utility for it. Most places, you're better off bombing from land. For areas where you can't (like middle of Atlantic), it will not be easy to find subs or common to take naval engagements. I guess the one exception is if you start with carriers and naval bombers, you might as well leave them out of mission, put the planes on naval bombing, and get at least some value.
@@rovsea-3761 I play Pdox games. I have many times more hours in them than Dominions, for better or worse :/. Especially EU 4, but over 1k in HOI 4 as well.
But what I simply do not understand is why did they make it so cas and naval bombing and strat bombing do not get added to the base stats and only in modifiers? Like why was this specific change needed at all?
It’s to prevent stacking of stats eg. If a plane has a small Bomb bay and torpedoes both which do naval damage, under your suggestion the naval damage of both weapons would be added, under the current system only the weapon with the superior stat would be used (torpedoes)
It's so you can use multi-role planes without massive penalties. Some modules apply it's effect all the time(like bomb bays) or when it's on the mission(bomb locks). This means that you can have a fighter that has bomb locks, which means it won't lose agility while it's doing air-superiority or interception but loses agility(becoming easier to hit) when it does ground support.
I was doing some testing and it seems that if you select the naval strike mission on the carrier wings while the ship is at sea, then it seems that they do use their torpedoes during the fight. I set it up similar to this, I had 4 wings of basic carrier naval bombers (basic frame, 1 torp, engine II, dive brakes) on each carrier. On one carrier I had selected the wings and selected naval strike, and the other I just left them default. The wings with the naval strike checked destroyed the other carrier, while the ones without it checked did almost no damage (as in this test).
Maybe this is historical. After all carrier battle groups dont do those missions. They watch and attack from a far. They need manual control I guess. You have to make a carrier go some sea province and after that open your aircraft tab and add missions to the wings. Thats how carriers worked back in then.
The mission specific stat increases are a really cool tool that just aren't used in a lot of places where it'd be great and causes a ton of bugs. I'd be very interested in bomber meta analysis comparing the value of turrets and forward firing fighter style guns. Because I feel like the ideal medium bombing chassis is in danger of having fighter cannon IIs in its first slot (instead of medium bomb bay which is a profound waste of space) and no turrets.
@@xthetenth I do not disagree that it's a nice concept, but we are talking about a paradox game. They need to streamline stuff, because i don't think they are keeping track of their own product anymore.
I would not do any naval testing until 1.12.3 According to a staff post by C0RAX on the paradox forums, the defines for hit profiles are currently broken and will be fixed in the next patch. I have not dug into the defines (have not hunted them down yet), but from what I understand from the forum post, currently, Hit Profile = (Visibility*50)/(Speed/0.5 + 15),
its not bugged just need to assign the aircrafts on naval strike mission before/during combat for full dmg (no need to assign them to airzones just click the nav strike icon) Thats also how you set japanese zeros on kamikaze only in naval combat befoer BBA
i could be very wrong but ive always managed my aircraft carrier planes by assigning them missions after a task force containing them is out on active mission. everytime the task force returns to port and is off mission, the air wings will also abandon their mission. Ive had naval battles pre BBA and during BBA, and i still assign carrier fighters to air sup and naval bombing after the task force has orders and leaves port. as a result, i have several battle results that show carrier aircraft alone sinking a dozen ships etc. idk
1:23 Does that imply that CV fighters are now actually protecting a fleet against land-based bombers? Or are you just referring to using them as floating air bases instead of putting them in a task force?
If they are, they aren't doing a very good job of it. I ran some basic tests with some good fighters against equally good land bombers, and the fighters were doing nothing. A carrier with 0 AA shot down no bombers during naval strike missions.
@@aaaabbbbbcccccc To be fair, regular fighters aren't usually that good at shooting down bombers in the first place, and you don't have many fighter on a CV
Oh, it's easy. Because there is no penalty for doomstacking ships in the same region in the form of 100% visibility, boosted naval targeting for naval bombers, screen penetration and lowered sub visibility for submarines used on raiding against this area. All ship classes have a role and a counter. PDX instead ran with false stereotype that carrier killed battleships and became top dog. Which isn't anywhere near true. Especially irl if you're aware WHERE battleships came from, lol:D
Guys I build up 20 carriers fielding about 900 nv bombers and I sunk a lot of ships but only with cruiser and destroyer. 1 year heavy combat, 200 enemy vessels sunk but not one by a carrier :/
I wish paradox fix this soon. Just had a japan game in vanilla where I made 9 carriers in a death stack fleet. They barely sunk any ships with my carriers but I somehow still manage to win the naval battles with BattleShips.
I do like the update, but this is when businessmen get too powerful and put too much stress on the devs, actual nerds who would've recognize this. This is my second favorite mistake right after the soviet right opposition bug. I don't know if they fixed it, haven't played soviets in a while, but if you go down the Bukharin path, when the event fires that Stalin mobilizes, DON'T CLICK the event, just wait for it to go away, and do the same with choosing a leader. Nothing will happen, the civil war doesn't start, Stalin stays in power, paranoia mechanic is disabled and you get access to the right opposition focuses, NEP, soviet hegemony and so on.
Wait so when you tell your carrier air wings to do naval stikes, CAS and air superiority and click follow task force it technicaly does nothing when in a fleet battle?. If true then surley that's a massive oversite
You know pdx is gonna do absolutely nothing about this, right? The only things they fix are when you help everyone out by mentioning an exploit. They couldn't care less about any other bugs in the game.
Also don't make more than 4 carriers. They get hard penalties for stacking over 4 (you must have 20 carriers + to have basically same damage as from 5 carriers without penalties)
@@currahee More than 4 in 1 Battel give penalties. So you can have total more aircraft carriers, like you can have 4 AC for Atlantic/Meditrean and 4 AC for Pacific. But putting more than 4 in Battel is giving just too big penalties. You can do over 4, but simply than building other ships for this IC is more worth
Well I suppose this was probably to "encourage" (force) players to put carrier task forces on hold near the tile you're attacking as you're supposed to. However, the unintended side effect was making carriers literally useless doing anything else, like attacking ships with naval bombers. If the only point of carriers is to bring 30 or so fighters and 30 or so naval bombers to the fight what's the point? Especially if they can't act as... you know... aircraft carriers and use their naval bomber squadron to attack other ships.
@71Cloak, Do yuo Know anything about the glitch where mainly carriers forever join a fleet and then go back to reverse endlessly? I may have missed a devnote on the flat number of ships you can have now but some fleet can have new ships added it seems
There is no limit. Chances are you accidentally turned on automatic reinforments and that is limiting the number of ships in your fleet. If you add more then that amount the get put into your reserve.
any land based plane will be on a naval strike mission so they should be fine, this is PDX though so I wouldn't be surprised if they broke it further somehow, some torpedo TACs I built because I didn't realize maritime patrol aircraft were large frames worked fine though
Was it like this before BBA? I'd swear I lost an entire fleet against a carrier on my last playtrough before BBA because I had no air defense. I was playing Venezuela and after beating the US I built a fleet, and fought Japan in the middle of the pacific I don't think they had air support from land based nav bombers.
land based naval bombers don't seem to do anything either. I wound up with a fleet battle with nearly 700 land based bombers on site that apparently did nothing while I lost my entire fleet. The land based naval bombers don't show the naval attack and targeting when you design them either. I think its a problem with applying the damage modifiers based on the modules attached rather than not having the missions assigned because you never assigned missions to carrier based aircraft.
Could you make a bug post whenever you find this kinda stuff and link it in the description so we can upvote it? PDX officially monitors the forums for bugfixing, so it'd be most effective to post on YT for visibility, then post on forums to put the ball in the devs' court Either way if you don't do it, I'm doing it myself. I'll put the link here as soon as I've posted it EDIT: YT doesn't like links.
Is this only associated with BBA DLC, or is it an update that affects the base game? I don't have BBA yet (and may not for some time based on what I've seen...)
No ship is really worth it now that you can build heavy naval bombers with absurd damage and range. USA can destroy the entire japanese fleet in a matter of weeks just by deploying a few hundreds of heavy naval bombers over the Pacific.
i heard that the fix for this was activating the desired naval attack missions out of battle and then enter it like that? since now the modules affect stats on different missions differently
Have you noticed that basic 2-AA gun capital ships are putting a dumping on AI naval bombing missions? Yeah, my 800+ waves of wooden large 3x torpedo bombers are dumpstering navies, but the AI's 200 CAS planes trying to do NAV get pooped on.
@@71Cloak did you try this test while having the naval strike mission enabled for all the naval bomber wings on the carriers? They should work with that minus the fact that they should be sortieing more often than normal planes.
@@Inquisite1031 paradox went one step farther, they made navy obsolete. Naval bomber pilots receiving 1 second of training was able to locate ships faster than modern day Radar/Satellites and perform precision strikes with their propellor naval bomber somehow managed to fly at hypersonic speed. Lastly you can make hundreds of those hypersonic death machine in a week. Losing a few hundred doesn’t even hurt.
It’s not really weird. 71 cloak always tested carriers in naval battles rather than carrier missions That’s kind of pointless. In MP you’ll micro carriers to either naval strike _(ie, auto joining convoy escorts and other battles)_ or you’ll micro them to port strike the opponent’s fleet in port. (H)olding + Port striking any anchor with a bubble _(indicates a task force in port)_ is very powerful.
Paradox is synonymous with broken games. Look at Prison architect, under introversion it was mostly bug free game, now it's a pile of bugs with the hint of a game under it
As a stop gap, I made a mod that moves the torpedo mounting module's mission stats to base stats so to make carriers usable again. It's on the Steam workshop as "Naval Bomber Fix"
Doing Gods' work in his stead,I see.
"Everyone liked that"
Thank you
Thank god, I can finally finished the stupid Japan game I did, I decided to focus on Air Carrier basically make my entire fleet useless ,_,
И тебе тоже спасибо
Classic Paradox.
I wonder when they will lunch the carrier dlc that will fox the issue they created with their last dlc
The base naval bomber damage has also been reduced to 13 down from 15. I'm not sure what spurned this change, because the damage for things like ground-based naval bombers is barely affected by this, while the damage of carrier-based bombers in battle is affected significantly because the damage is multiplied by 5.
I thought they wanted to make carriers more of a decent investment but apparently not.
My heavy naval bomber says otherwise
@@Razgriz032 You can't put a heavy bomber on a carrier.🤦♀
@@johnnymchenry7443 but you can make it has continental range
@@johnnymchenry7443 dolittle says otherwise
@@s1lence_tiramisu2005 yea its basically nukes just send 100 of these bad boys and the Japanese wont have a navy
So, I just did a quick test reenacting the same circumstances you did. So long as you select your carrier bombers to go on Naval Strike mission whilst on the aircraft carrier, they will act as that when going into naval combat. You dont have to select an air region, you just have to select their mission. You can even do this during the naval combat.
I sent the 4 English carriers with bombers in with no mission selected, and they did the 1 damage per sortie as they did in your test; then during the combat, I set them onto Naval Strike, and they immediately sent the carrier down to half health. So, carrier bombers are not useless, you just have to make sure theyre set on mission first.
This is really helpful, thanks!
Thats really good testing. So it seems there is more manual input in cv carrier groups. But that's still quite obscure to first time players to know
Does that mean you can tell the aircraft to do said mission as soon as you get a carrier and put the aircraft on it?
71 cloak always tests aircraft carriers in naval battle, as opposed to air missions.
You should micro & (H)old position with carriers to naval strike & port strike.
Port striking any Anchor with a Bubble _(indicates a task force in port)_ is incredibly powerful and easy to cheese.
Naval strike will automatically join and participate in any ongoing naval battles.
Also, the 4 carrier limit per fleet becomes irrelevant when you’re using them correctly.
-also remember to set your wings to daytime. They have a -100% base efficiency at night.
The most amusing thing is that this bug if essentially game-breaking, but two weeks after is still noticed by only a few. Seems like the majority of players still don't bother with fleets and have a little understanding how exactly it works. Just make naval bombers and do a naval invasion to win.
I guess because subs3 spamming still works
Navy is just so opaque and hard to understand what's actually happening, I'm not surprised,
expecially when strategic naval bombers are a thing now... because land navs were too weak apparently?
here is an answer for you: no one know how the navy work since 1.0
well I did see it on the bug report forum and confirmed by PDX that they saw it
@Skaven
Navy isn't opaque.
It's just _insanely_ costly and slow, and has *zero* survivability against airplanes (which are way cheaper and faster to produce).
So the problem is not that it's unclear how the naval war works, but that it's irrelevant and a complete waste...
I still cant comprehend how this got through any kind of playtesting. What a disaster. New game director must be shredding himself over this one...its literally unbelievable the lack of QC on this. Just hubris.
they overlooked a gamebreaking bug in EU4s last patch. the most common government for does not need to care about the blob protection.
Multidollar company at work.
So you've gotta micro the fleet OFF mission to get naval bombers to work. I see this in Bokoen games in the Pacific between Japan and US fleets fairly often, but that's higher end MP.
Looks like the Med is could be ruled by land based naval bombers from Malta, Sicily and North Africa with the Allies likely going for extended range versions with lower naval attack. Which means Italy may get a role that isn't just "build navy".
Same goes for West Pacific for Japan. Land based naval bombers over spamming carriers frees up some of their production for ground troops. Definitely makes island hopping way more important for the US and Japan, as well as fortifying their starting positions to fend off naval invasions more thoroughly.
Definitely a multidollar company. They have about 7 dollars in their business accounts.
That's a lot of dollars
That's like 7 times as much as a single dollar company. You'd think someone would have tested it with that much dollars available.
I've worked at a single dollar company before. Squeezed quite a few lemons.
paradox: we have tested this update for a lot of time so its perfect to launch to the players
the update be like:
If you manually put them on a mission they still work, if reddit is to be believed.
The only issue is that they arent sortieing nearly as often as they should be
CV air wings can only perform 2 sorties per day instead of 3, because night modifiers reduce carrier traffic by -100%.
CV planes do still work perfectly fine, if they're put on a mission & it worked exactly the same way before "By Blood Alone". Japanese carrier wings never performed Kamikaze attacks unless given the mission to do so. This now applies to all planes, since carrier airframes can fulfill multiple roles & don't have a "default" mission.
Even if this was fixed carriers have always needed a massive buff, because they were very op irl
Just like irl?
IRL carriers:
made battleships obsolete,
swung several battles,
massed,
Hoi4 carriers:
backline moral support,
don't function if within range of an airport (which can be on any tiny island),
can only have 4
@@Nota-Skaven You could do more than 4 but I believe the game introduces diminishing returns on damage done (which is dumb).
Carriers were not OP IRL, _except_ for in the Pacific, where you generally have good weather and massive distances.
I'm curious how a big carrier escort would have played out (for protecting the convoys to the Soviets in summer, during the really really long day-times).
If carriers were OP, you'd expect those convoys continued _especially_ during the summer months, and that they'd sink the Scharnhorst and the Tirpitz and such....
But they didn't 🙃
@@MrNicoJac nah, carriers were massively important in the Atlantic. But it was the escort carriers forcing German U boats to stay underwater while hunting that was important.
Truth be told British carriers seemed underwhelming in the Atlantic because two reasons. Germans had few surface ships to sink and British carrier doctrine in ship design was built around less hangar space and more armoured decks. They flew small numbers of biplanes and still decimated the Italian fleet at Taranto, crippled the Bismarck.
Meanwhile US and Japan built carriers to hold as many planes as possible and decimated fleets without seeing each other. PI simply cannot get naval combat right at all.
The devs are aware of that, you can see their responses on the thread "Aircraft carriers useless?" on the PDX forum (can't post link because anti-spam).
this would explaine why I don't see as many shops being sunk
I noticed this as well playing as imperial Britain. It was the heavy attack from the battleships doing like 80% of the damage.
By Bugs Alone
Is it just me or is this DLC the most buggy? Been playing since together for victory and I don't remember one this bad. I can't even play MP games cause around 40 to 41 ai Switzerland does a focus that perma desyncs all players and ruins the game.
While mildly amusing, this looks easily fixable. So relax guys.
A new video on the naval changes in BBA would be great. Maybe wait for Paradox to fix their game first though
Scandalous. I've played 400 hours and never used a single carrier once. Not sure what it says about anything but here it is.
I played Blood Alone yesterday as Germany. And after conquering Poland (as usual), I found that resistance is way higher and more dangerous than before. Do you have any idea for this? Or just my game is somewhat unusual.
Maybe it's the occupation law, they changed some values since 1.11.13: autonomous occupation and civilian oversight resistance target increase by 10%, local police and military governor by 5%, but martial law was reduced by 10% therefore buffed.
So by just doing the more peaceful and without any collaboration u will more easily have riots the sheer amount of guns needed is obnoxious
Also it seems that the value of repression have changed not sure 100% but cars and tanks seems to do less
I think Poland can get A LOT of bonuses to resistance on its core territory from its focus tree, which is historical to be fair
@@captain_hammer I declared an early war against Poland to then rush to Russia before 1938
With 20 slot on guns run out of them with regular amry no change before even the soviets got to me....
It has changed. When I played as Italy and conquered France. The resistance was freaking 60. I had 20k guns short inspite of getting lend lease from 10 countries. After this patch it's kinda shitty to play the game.
The meta is to make a medium bomber with a bunch of extra tanks to go to 3k range and then put port strike stuff on a observe as the enemy dies
Ok - so I am a big HOI navy player, and a big carrier user, and was wondering why my CVs were now doing nothing - battle honours nil. Then saw your video, did some tests and came up with the same result - CV naval bombers doing 1% damage at best. A work around seems to be as soon as your CV task force sets sail manually click on the air group and set it to naval strike (+ fighters to air sup). CV performance back to normal - more or less. Interestingly after the CVs have been back to port, and then set off again on a new mission, it seems to keep the manual settings (does not reset). This is still a micro-management pain of course. Hope PDX is working on a fix. Thanks very much for finding this and pointing it out. Best MMM
It's been two weeks, there has been a patch since this video. They haven't fixed naval attack on carriers LMAO
This is what happens if you burn your QA department. Great move, Paradox
Maybe if we put carrier's separately near battle and manually put naval bombers on that air zone(enough to cover the battle place)...maybe then it will work?
If you do that, I would anticipate that it functions the same as basing planes at any land airport, just with much fewer planes in the zone and likely not full coverage until a lot of techs are unlocked. It's hard to see much practical utility for it. Most places, you're better off bombing from land. For areas where you can't (like middle of Atlantic), it will not be easy to find subs or common to take naval engagements. I guess the one exception is if you start with carriers and naval bombers, you might as well leave them out of mission, put the planes on naval bombing, and get at least some value.
@@TheMelnTeam on the other hand, there aren't going to be overstacking penalties if the carriers are not in the battle
@@TheMelnTeam aren't planes from carriers not affected by coverage, are they?
@@TheMelnTeam WTF, why are you here?
@@rovsea-3761 I play Pdox games. I have many times more hours in them than Dominions, for better or worse :/. Especially EU 4, but over 1k in HOI 4 as well.
It's astonishing that PDX is incapable of making carriers good.
But what I simply do not understand is why did they make it so cas and naval bombing and strat bombing do not get added to the base stats and only in modifiers? Like why was this specific change needed at all?
It’s to prevent stacking of stats eg. If a plane has a small Bomb bay and torpedoes both which do naval damage, under your suggestion the naval damage of both weapons would be added, under the current system only the weapon with the superior stat would be used (torpedoes)
It's so you can use multi-role planes without massive penalties. Some modules apply it's effect all the time(like bomb bays) or when it's on the mission(bomb locks). This means that you can have a fighter that has bomb locks, which means it won't lose agility while it's doing air-superiority or interception but loses agility(becoming easier to hit) when it does ground support.
I was doing some testing and it seems that if you select the naval strike mission on the carrier wings while the ship is at sea, then it seems that they do use their torpedoes during the fight. I set it up similar to this, I had 4 wings of basic carrier naval bombers (basic frame, 1 torp, engine II, dive brakes) on each carrier. On one carrier I had selected the wings and selected naval strike, and the other I just left them default. The wings with the naval strike checked destroyed the other carrier, while the ones without it checked did almost no damage (as in this test).
Maybe this is historical. After all carrier battle groups dont do those missions. They watch and attack from a far.
They need manual control I guess. You have to make a carrier go some sea province and after that open your aircraft tab and add missions to the wings. Thats how carriers worked back in then.
so that's why britian didnt destory my Italian naval force... BATTLESHIPS MAKING A COMEBACK LETS GO
The mission specific stat increases are a really cool tool that just aren't used in a lot of places where it'd be great and causes a ton of bugs.
I'd be very interested in bomber meta analysis comparing the value of turrets and forward firing fighter style guns. Because I feel like the ideal medium bombing chassis is in danger of having fighter cannon IIs in its first slot (instead of medium bomb bay which is a profound waste of space) and no turrets.
Mission specific stats needs to die. Because a plane is ordered to do something, the pilot should not forget how to use the aircraft.
@@lathrael7152 Heavy bombs in the airstream and under your wings do have an impact though.
@@xthetenth I do not disagree that it's a nice concept, but we are talking about a paradox game. They need to streamline stuff, because i don't think they are keeping track of their own product anymore.
I would not do any naval testing until 1.12.3
According to a staff post by C0RAX on the paradox forums, the defines for hit profiles are currently broken and will be fixed in the next patch.
I have not dug into the defines (have not hunted them down yet), but from what I understand from the forum post, currently, Hit Profile = (Visibility*50)/(Speed/0.5 + 15),
It's insane how something this obvious can get through all the play testing paradox supposedly does
its not bugged just need to assign the aircrafts on naval strike mission before/during combat for full dmg (no need to assign them to airzones just click the nav strike icon)
Thats also how you set japanese zeros on kamikaze only in naval combat befoer BBA
Please do one on the naval changes! Id love to see it
I got a By Blood Alone ad by Paradox before the video started lol
i could be very wrong but ive always managed my aircraft carrier planes by assigning them missions after a task force containing them is out on active mission. everytime the task force returns to port and is off mission, the air wings will also abandon their mission. Ive had naval battles pre BBA and during BBA, and i still assign carrier fighters to air sup and naval bombing after the task force has orders and leaves port. as a result, i have several battle results that show carrier aircraft alone sinking a dozen ships etc. idk
1:23 Does that imply that CV fighters are now actually protecting a fleet against land-based bombers? Or are you just referring to using them as floating air bases instead of putting them in a task force?
Yea because fighters dont need missions they get their stats out of the gate
If they are, they aren't doing a very good job of it. I ran some basic tests with some good fighters against equally good land bombers, and the fighters were doing nothing. A carrier with 0 AA shot down no bombers during naval strike missions.
@@aaaabbbbbcccccc To be fair, regular fighters aren't usually that good at shooting down bombers in the first place, and you don't have many fighter on a CV
Oh, it's easy. Because there is no penalty for doomstacking ships in the same region in the form of 100% visibility, boosted naval targeting for naval bombers, screen penetration and lowered sub visibility for submarines used on raiding against this area.
All ship classes have a role and a counter. PDX instead ran with false stereotype that carrier killed battleships and became top dog. Which isn't anywhere near true. Especially irl if you're aware WHERE battleships came from, lol:D
Wow. That's actually a huge oversight.
Guys I build up 20 carriers fielding about 900 nv bombers and I sunk a lot of ships but only with cruiser and destroyer. 1 year heavy combat, 200 enemy vessels sunk but not one by a carrier :/
And the fact they dont get XP still makes me mad
i think it makes sense, if the planes don't have a mission they are just going to sit on the carrier doing nothing.
blood alone is so bug riddled I believe nothing but student workers were on the project.
I was wondering why I couldn't kill anything when I had 4 carriers in a battle as USA. Makes a lot of sense now
I wish paradox fix this soon.
Just had a japan game in vanilla where I made 9 carriers in a death stack fleet. They barely sunk any ships with my carriers but I somehow still manage to win the naval battles with BattleShips.
Why did they even change that? Like if I design CAS it shows 0 ground attack and only if I hover over the mission symbol it shows the stat.
I am convinced paradox no longer has play testers.
I do like the update, but this is when businessmen get too powerful and put too much stress on the devs, actual nerds who would've recognize this.
This is my second favorite mistake right after the soviet right opposition bug. I don't know if they fixed it, haven't played soviets in a while, but if you go down the Bukharin path, when the event fires that Stalin mobilizes, DON'T CLICK the event, just wait for it to go away, and do the same with choosing a leader. Nothing will happen, the civil war doesn't start, Stalin stays in power, paranoia mechanic is disabled and you get access to the right opposition focuses, NEP, soviet hegemony and so on.
Wait so when you tell your carrier air wings to do naval stikes, CAS and air superiority and click follow task force it technicaly does nothing when in a fleet battle?. If true then surley that's a massive oversite
Explains why i won against the british navy so easily in my latest BBA save
You know pdx is gonna do absolutely nothing about this, right? The only things they fix are when you help everyone out by mentioning an exploit. They couldn't care less about any other bugs in the game.
So we actually need to micro carrier fleet to make the plane work? thats interesting but would be too micro intensive unless you only play navy lmao
Thank You!! I couldn't figure out why my HUGE USA carrier fleets never seem to cause much damage. Hope they can fix this soon.
Also don't make more than 4 carriers.
They get hard penalties for stacking over 4 (you must have 20 carriers + to have basically same damage as from 5 carriers without penalties)
@@serek1237 more than 4 in one task force? or 4 in total?
@@currahee More than 4 in 1 Battel give penalties.
So you can have total more aircraft carriers, like you can have 4 AC for Atlantic/Meditrean and 4 AC for Pacific.
But putting more than 4 in Battel is giving just too big penalties.
You can do over 4, but simply than building other ships for this IC is more worth
If you think this is bad, check out how bad kamikazes are now 🤣
They have 1 naval targeting so they can't hit anything.
@@71Cloak Yeah, I was trying them out. Ended up trading about 650 kamikazes for a destroyer in a fleet of aa destroyers and BBs
Well I suppose this was probably to "encourage" (force) players to put carrier task forces on hold near the tile you're attacking as you're supposed to. However, the unintended side effect was making carriers literally useless doing anything else, like attacking ships with naval bombers.
If the only point of carriers is to bring 30 or so fighters and 30 or so naval bombers to the fight what's the point? Especially if they can't act as... you know... aircraft carriers and use their naval bomber squadron to attack other ships.
@71Cloak, Do yuo Know anything about the glitch where mainly carriers forever join a fleet and then go back to reverse endlessly? I may have missed a devnote on the flat number of ships you can have now but some fleet can have new ships added it seems
There is no limit. Chances are you accidentally turned on automatic reinforments and that is limiting the number of ships in your fleet. If you add more then that amount the get put into your reserve.
Do not use air carrier. Use strategical naval bomber from land airbase, withr them you do not need construct new fleet.
Ah that explains why i keep getting messages saying my carrier planes are not assigned a mission...
Paradox try not to release an extremely unfinished dlc Challenge (impossible)
I heard this was the same for land based, small air frame naval bombers. But large frame naval bombers work right?
any land based plane will be on a naval strike mission so they should be fine,
this is PDX though so I wouldn't be surprised if they broke it further somehow, some torpedo TACs I built because I didn't realize maritime patrol aircraft were large frames worked fine though
They so did, I lost all of mine in one fight, because the aircraft weren't working even tho I had plenty....
Was it like this before BBA? I'd swear I lost an entire fleet against a carrier on my last playtrough before BBA because I had no air defense. I was playing Venezuela and after beating the US I built a fleet, and fought Japan in the middle of the pacific I don't think they had air support from land based nav bombers.
No this is a BBA problem because air wings don't get stats unless they are on a mission.
It is my experience that carriers have always been like this (I play MtG). Do you agree?
No they definitely worked prior By blood alone.
So setting them to naval strike before the battle does nothing, is that what you are basically saying?
Aircraft on an airbase or aircraft carrier do nothing until a mission is assigned. What's wrong with that?
Aircraft on a carrier used to take part in naval battles without additional prompts.
land based naval bombers don't seem to do anything either. I wound up with a fleet battle with nearly 700 land based bombers on site that apparently did nothing while I lost my entire fleet. The land based naval bombers don't show the naval attack and targeting when you design them either. I think its a problem with applying the damage modifiers based on the modules attached rather than not having the missions assigned because you never assigned missions to carrier based aircraft.
0:55 ha ha classic
Oh my god I can't believe this.
Ok I'm not a pro with my navy, I didn't even notice this before. Do the devs know about this?
This just shows that even though paradox say "we did some testing" in reality they did none. This is pathetic.
Could you make a bug post whenever you find this kinda stuff and link it in the description so we can upvote it? PDX officially monitors the forums for bugfixing, so it'd be most effective to post on YT for visibility, then post on forums to put the ball in the devs' court
Either way if you don't do it, I'm doing it myself. I'll put the link here as soon as I've posted it
EDIT: YT doesn't like links.
Is this only associated with BBA DLC, or is it an update that affects the base game? I don't have BBA yet (and may not for some time based on what I've seen...)
If I’m not mistaken, you need to set your carrier task force to hold and then you can launch the carrier fighters and so on
I noticed you used torpedo bombers rather than dive bombers and am wondering if dive bombers would preform better.
No, their stats are still locked behind the mission specific bonuses.
ahhh i knew it, noticed carriers werent sinking shit
Navy buck broken
No ship is really worth it now that you can build heavy naval bombers with absurd damage and range. USA can destroy the entire japanese fleet in a matter of weeks just by deploying a few hundreds of heavy naval bombers over the Pacific.
i heard that the fix for this was activating the desired naval attack missions out of battle and then enter it like that? since now the modules affect stats on different missions differently
Still, it’s annoying that it has to be done like that
Do we know if this is fixed? May 2023
Almost November 2023 and I still haven’t figured this out yet.
Bru I am new to this game and I was playing as France and I made 3 carriers using navy experience to upgrade it 😭
Have you noticed that basic 2-AA gun capital ships are putting a dumping on AI naval bombing missions?
Yeah, my 800+ waves of wooden large 3x torpedo bombers are dumpstering navies, but the AI's 200 CAS planes trying to do NAV get pooped on.
It's probably the change to air defense. The ais planes probably have near 0 air defense so they take tons of damage.
Never used CV NB, Zero's always did the trick
I hope they'll fix it quickly
Should have been obvious in Beta testing. Paradox cannot get navies right for beans. Never have and never will.
You must be new here. We are the beta testers.
@@71Cloakand thanks god you're here.
Stealth Nerf to Battleships
Мужик, спасибо тебе!
battleships ftw
wow!
you have to have the shps on a mission then put planes on missions as you could bbefore:)
From what I've seen and heard that doesn't incease their damage above 0.1 per attack.
@@71Cloak sorry:)
@@71Cloak in diplomacy tab under ships the scroll has gone to look down the list of ships
Curse you paradox
does this apply to carrier cas? If you give them small bomb bays at least.
If the stats apply as bonuses when on a specific mission then it will do nothing. It will only give a benefit if it improves the base stats.
@@71Cloak did you try this test while having the naval strike mission enabled for all the naval bomber wings on the carriers? They should work with that minus the fact that they should be sortieing more often than normal planes.
@@mainman879 i dont remember. I'll update you when I get home.
did they patch it yet guys ?
not yet
Mm click on the planes And set them on the mission like ground based planes
wait this is actually true?
lmao paradox wtf
Classic
Whoops lol
fucking paradox
The fix is to use the console command research all. Then you can get the old default naval bombers they should still work.
This is so weird. Carriers were the key to Pacific war, yet paradox breaks them time and time again.
they were not only key, they revolutionized Naval warfare, and made BB's extinct, Paradox ICANT
@@Inquisite1031 paradox went one step farther, they made navy obsolete. Naval bomber pilots receiving 1 second of training was able to locate ships faster than modern day Radar/Satellites and perform precision strikes with their propellor naval bomber somehow managed to fly at hypersonic speed.
Lastly you can make hundreds of those hypersonic death machine in a week. Losing a few hundred doesn’t even hurt.
It’s not really weird.
71 cloak always tested carriers in naval battles rather than carrier missions
That’s kind of pointless.
In MP you’ll micro carriers to either naval strike _(ie, auto joining convoy escorts and other battles)_ or you’ll micro them to port strike the opponent’s fleet in port.
(H)olding + Port striking any anchor with a bubble _(indicates a task force in port)_ is very powerful.
Oh for goodness sake... 🤦♂️
Paradox is synonymous with broken games. Look at Prison architect, under introversion it was mostly bug free game, now it's a pile of bugs with the hint of a game under it
It's just sad looking at it now.
Stellaris?
@@jimmcneal5292 main problem with stellaris is they keep reinventing core mechanics.
cloak you got discord? i want to speak to you
When Alpha meet sigma
71Cloak has the attention of FeedBackGaming. Hopefully, this puts 71Cloak in the bigboy category of youtubers - he is worthy.