I realized that I didn't actually have Fleet in Being fight Base Strike so here is the results of that :imgur.com/a/TMTwFJD Base strike still does have 1 main use. If you are not building a fleet and you are instead going for air power is the best naval power then base strike right side gives 50% port strikes and 40% naval targeting to all planes, not just carrier based ones. So if you are just going to bomb the enemy fleet go for base strike.
Have you done best Doctrinal air bonus build? I'm assuming Battlefield Support (Ground attack), Superior Firepower, plus Base Strike (NAV Targeting) is the 90% solution.
The real question is, if you have or make no ships and plan to bomb the enemy to shreds how do you get navy xp to unlock all those doctrines in the first place?
In the defense of Base Strike: **THIS HAS BEEEN EDITED, I DID THE MATH WRONG THE FIRST TIME. Further, some sentences have been changed for clarity or to reflect the mistakes I've corrected.* 1. The reason Base Strike wins the air so handily during naval battles isn't solely due to the agility buff, but because of sortie efficiency. Everyone starts out only on 50%. FiB and TI give an additional 30% and only BS brings you to a total 100%. Sortie efficiency is the number of planes in your carrier airwings that actually fly out at any given time, meaning that a BS carrier with 100 airwing size can send all 100 planes out at once, while FiB and TI can only send out 80. 2. Base Strike realizes its true potential in countries with advisors/admirals that further increase sortie efficiency (Japan especially). Having over 100% sortie efficiency allows the player to overstack their carriers without suffering penalties (unless in bad weather). Every additional 20% SE allows the player to send an entire additional carrier into the battle without suffering a penalty. As Japan, for example, you can get 155% SE (and 175% fighter SE) with a navy under Yamamoto, which translates into 6 overstacked carriers. In a battle between a FiB/TI nation and such a Japan, both with 100 airwing carriers, the maximum* planes each could have (flying at once) are 320 vs. 656 (that is putting equal numbers fighters and NAVs on each ship; if you put only fighters on 3 ships and only NAVs on 3 you field 693, and if you were to some reason only field fighters it'd be 731), which is an absolute blowout. In theory, if your enemy does half fighters and half NAVs, you could have two carriers hold fighters with BS (268) which, made even more overbearing with the 10% agility bonus, will obliterate the enemy's 160 FiB/TI fighters (400/2 = 200 x 0.8 = 160). This leaves room for an entire four carriers worth of nothing but naval bombers (437, which is more planes than the enemy has total). This of course could be even further optimized by splitting one carrier's planes between fighters and NAVs such to make the number of fighters more comparable while maximizing NAVs. 3. Of course naval bombers can only do you so much good if your enemy shoots them down, but the fact of the matter is that no nation begins the game with a shiny meta fleet with tons of AA and 1940s ships. Naturally using these fleets is necessary for objectively comparing the doctrines to each other, but HOI4 is an unbalanced game, and the starting conditions indirectly buff carrier NAVs since many beginning navies are ill equipped to deal with them and have to be refitted first, which is something some people never even bother to do. To be fair it still probably wouldn't outmatch meta fleet with TI but I imagine it would have a lot better of a chance. If you watch the TI vs BS battle you'll notice that the French NAVs quickly get disintegrated before the rate at which they die sharply declines; I'm not sure how much of a difference it would make but it begs the question of what would happen if there were still several hundred NAVs left instead of ~30 by the time things started going much worse for the French.
There needs to be a new naval rework, the submarine focused doctrine shouldn't be so good, it seems base strike needs some buffs too, especially considering in reality Carriers were the most important part of the navy
That's simply not true. Carriers were best in the vast expanses of the Pacific. But in the North Sea, the Channel, or the Mediterranean, they were always in range of land-based aircraft, which made them very vulnerable. There's a reason why only the USA and Japan launched new carriers during the war (and maybe the UK?). Additionally, it simply costs too much research and industry to build them for most nations.
@@MrNicoJac The UK did indeed launch new carriers during WW2. Germany had 4 or so that could've launched during WW2 but work on them stopped as Hitler favored submarine warfare instead. France also had some that were in progress before the fall of France.
It's just that Trade Interdiction's bonuses for surface detection and reduced visibility should really only matter on the strategic level. Unfortunately, the naval battle mechanics rely almost entirely on those stats mid-fight too.
Summarized. If you are going all out Heavy Guns pick FIB. If you're focusing light guns pick TI. If you're going for Light+Heavy mix you just have to decide based on your country.
Going all out heavy guns will leave those ships unable to deal with screens, while going all out light guns will leave your screens unable to deal with the capital ships
@@LT_Silver You don't always have to deal with screens. If you're UK and you engage the German or Italian fleet, once their Capital ships are sunk you hit the Disengage button. Then you have naval supremacy which means you can't get invaded anywhere, you can plan invasions, or even send a portion of your fleet to assist USA with Japan.
Nothing new but its nice to actually have video confirmation this way. The visibility bonuses are just too strong and its the main reason why TI performs so well. In fact, its probably a good thing subs were not tested, as that just makes TI even better.
This is decent fleet vs fleet information that enforces just having a doctrine is good enough choice to compete overall and the rest is a combination of fleet position, admiral, weather, air cover, and dice roll. Still each doctrine does some things better; escort screening, convoy raiding, port striking in the pacific ect. I'd like to see a test on fleet in being escort efficiency but that might take a number of tests to average out.
Could you do a test on how effective the damage control tech is in naval combat? Critical hits give massive penalties to stats depending on which module is blown it might be interesting how much preventing that could effect combat results
Could you do a test where you use light cruiser instead of heavies for base strike. Base strike gives like 60 org to light cruisers if I remember correctly.
These seem to purely MP oriented. In SP you will have multiple smaller fleets. I have a suspition that other doctrines might perform better in smaller combat sizes that are relatively more carrier-heavy.
No, man. In Single Player, if you play one of the three Naval Majors, you are going to wipe the floor with the opposition, no matter what doctrine you pick. If you play Italy, you can pick whatever doctrine you want too; just ambush the British and American fleets around your waters. If you play anyone else, you should pick Trade Interdiction for the visibility reduction bonuses.
Great videos! Soo informative please keep up the good work What do you think about pocket battleships and torpedo cruisers? Do those have a place in the meta? I really like pocket battleships because I think its a cool concept but not sure on their real value and torpedo cruisers is something I rarely see.
No. Pocket battleships don't do anything better than heavy cruisers or battlecruisers. Torpedo cruisers are just super expensive destroyers that are easier to hit. Could easily have 2 destroyers with more torpedo attack for less ic while also being harder to destroy.
@@71Cloak Torp CLs are good for long range convoy raiding, especially when combined with gun CLs. My most common raiding squadron is 2CL+2TCL. Very gun heavy CLs with a catapult to spot and get rid of DDs, and TCLs when there is an actual capital ship, like CA, they can get rid of her almost instantly once the screen is gone.
But you have to keep their speed around 35kts or more, or they will blink out of existence once they encounter a serious enemy deathstack. However if you keep them in southern Atlantic or in the Pacific or Indian ocean, you should be fine 90% of times. And if not, 4 light cruisers are not that hard to replace. You probably already have a replacement for them before you lose them.
@Dat Boi Panzerschiffs are really bad. They can't mount light cruiser batteries, only secondaries, and they can only mount 3 of them. Their hull is also stupidly expensive. Panzerschiff can have a maximum of 12.6 light attack with 1936 tech, CAs can have 21 and they only cost 4400 ic rather than 6100.
If you expect to have naval superiority, and just want to get rid of the enemy fleet faster, what you go for? Say, playing as the US, and you want to minimize the time it takes to defeat enemy fleets, even at the risk of higher casualties for yourself, does that change what doctrine is more useful?
I would still use trade interdiction for best results. But the US can really do any doctrine in sp because they are so powerfully and the ai is so bad.
What gives the "Uknown" casualty stat in the war statistics tab? I've had people claim it was from the "shark infested waters" before, but I tested it out in game and found that I got no casualities from convoy raiding at all. Do you know what causes this "Unknown" to happen? Does it have to do with the Navy whatsoever or is it an unrelated mechanic? The mechanics in this game still baffle me and your videos have helped parse through a lot of bloat that this game offers. Thank you for them!
I hate how HOI4 has cockslapped naval warfare. There is no limit to how many ships an admiral can command, there is no brain in the AI when it comes to navy, and they made a mockery of carriers. The whole "Haha bathtubs/navbombers go brr" should not be viable.
Great video as usual. I have question about convoy escorting and destroying the enemy submarines at the same time. How do you do it properly ? Lets say I have a fleet of a lot of old ships set on escort mission and another fleet that has a bunch of ASW destroyers equipped with sonar and depth charges and 1 or 2 escort carriers filled with naval bombers. The question is, should I set the ASW fleet on convoy escort (basically merge it with the convoy escort fleet), on patrol or on strike force ? It would be interesting to know which mission type is the best at inflicting maximum amount of casualties on the enemy submarines.
This is what happens when you accidently unpause without turning the ai off. Doesn't change the overall results of Trade Interdiction being better and more consistent though.
I have a problem with your tests, in the last one when the UK was fighting germany, you had an admiral selected as germany, which could explain why they won. Can you clarify that because as it is im sorry to say that it kind of look like you were cheating there...
I just let left the ai on by accident. It doesn't actually change anything. TI wins most of the time and is far more consistent than fleet in being. These tests are for demonstrative purposes, I already know the results.
@@71Cloak nah sorry but a level 6 admiral has a massive impact on a test like this. remember that even a level 1 admiral gives a bonus to combat so having a level 6 is just a complete wipe out situation
@Honda Civic that wasn't even the first test. Also I have an excel spreadsheet of like 300 lines worth of testing. Nothing in this video is a surprise to me. With or without admirals TI is more consistent.
"bonus does not apply ...because heavy cruisers are considered screens for the purpose of bonuses" WHAT THE FU*K is with these bizzaro undocumented bullshit onstrous catastrophe of a game?? its starting to piss me off. Xp doesnt everything in the game say heavy cruisers are capital ships??
Welcome to Paradox games. Diplomacy? Utter joke. Air combat? Rubbish. Naval combat? Screwed up*. Logistics? Broken. AI? Non existent. *: Naval combat is especially dumb because AI absolutely doesnt know how to do it. They dont build (with the exception of France) modern battleships, they mix together slow and fast ships. They almost never mine sea zones. They absolutely never mine sweep zones. Their answer to convoy raiding is just to change routes. They deathstack right next to your torp bomber bases. They always get surrounded in Mediterranean (as UK and US). As France they never buy enough oil to actually do anything. But everyone can still project naval supremacy even if their deathstack doesnt have a single liter of fuel to burn.
So you get the bonus from designer after changing a single module? I thought you have to get designer before researching hull. Also thanks for info on heavy cruiser getting screen bonuses instead of ones for capital ship.
Designers affect all new models made. When you finish a research you get a new model, when you do a change and save as new model, well you get a new model and designer bonus applies. Should work with everything ships, tanks, planes, just do a change and make a new model.
This was changed in NSB dlc. Works for tanks and planes as well. But word of warning, if you change your designer and after that make changes to your designs, you’ll lose the initial bonus. For example, research a fighter with fighter designer, you’ll get the bonus, but if you then change your designer and after that add more agility to your fighter, you’ll lose the designer bonus.
Do you know how to predetermine what the naval strength is of a ship? My naval game is as followed: create 1-3 deathstacks and have them in a port and use them for strike force while selecting as many sea zones as possible. For destroying enemy ships I use aircrafts. This way you nearly never lose a ship while still having naval supremecy for the sake of naval invasions. So basically what is the cheapest way to do this naval 'tactic' and which doctrine has the most influence on it, if there is any.
According to the wiki naval supremacy provided by a ship is based on ic cost and ship manpower. Doctrine does not have any impact on naval supremacy. Ship manpower does not change based on design though (excluding carriers). So more cheaper ships will get you slightly more naval supremacy than slightly less more expensive ships because you will have more manpower. Ex. 2 battleships that cost 7304 each (14608 total) will have 12000 manpower and provide 1530.4 [(100+(7304*.05)+(6000*.05))*2] naval supremacy. 1 Battleship that costs 14444 and has 6000 manpower while provide 1122.2 naval supremacy. So you an definitely get more naval supremacy from using cheaper ships.
Edit: This comment was wrong. Ignore it. Since supremacy depends on IC and manpower, than carriers with as much hangers as possible are the most efficient in getting supremacy. Thats because carriers have big crews and each additional hanger adds 500 more crew.
@@PadaV4 Nah, man, the bathtub submarine is the most efficient. Every single ship provides at least 100 naval supremacy on Strike Force mission, so build the cheapest possible ship for that.
@@sld1776 I was wrong. Just tested and you are absolutely right. Cheapest submarine costs 390 gives 112 supremacy, so each point of supremacy costs 3.48 of production CV2 with 3 hangers costs 8850 and gives 449 supremacy, so each point of supremacy costs 19.71. Cheap submarines are more than 5 times more efficient in projecting naval supremacy when compared to carriers.
Yeah navies in hoi4 are naval bombers, subs, anti sub destroyers, and carriers. Cruisers and battleships are shit. And anti sub destroyers and carriers are only useful in mp. For singleplayer subs only, even as the US or japan, is the most cost effective.
I realized that I didn't actually have Fleet in Being fight Base Strike so here is the results of that :imgur.com/a/TMTwFJD
Base strike still does have 1 main use. If you are not building a fleet and you are instead going for air power is the best naval power then base strike right side gives 50% port strikes and 40% naval targeting to all planes, not just carrier based ones. So if you are just going to bomb the enemy fleet go for base strike.
That's kinda busted. As if Naval Bombers weren't strong already
@@Erik_Arnqvist Makes CAS spam a threat to the channel.
Have you done best Doctrinal air bonus build? I'm assuming Battlefield Support (Ground attack), Superior Firepower, plus Base Strike (NAV Targeting) is the 90% solution.
The real question is, if you have or make no ships and plan to bomb the enemy to shreds how do you get navy xp to unlock all those doctrines in the first place?
@@martinnimcevic565 the only was would be attache or high command I think. (And a little from focuses)
the 10% attack to capital ships benifits the heavy cruiser look at its heavy attack then take it and look again it changes
The designer not applying to the heavy cruiser does seem like a legit bug though.
I was wondering when you'd find this channel
@@JMikeLittle no that's because designer buff won't apply immediately to any equipment already designed, including tanks, planes and ships.
@@s1lence_tiramisu2005 At 3:20 when he makes a meaningless change to the vessel, it should engage any applicable designers.
In the defense of Base Strike:
**THIS HAS BEEEN EDITED, I DID THE MATH WRONG THE FIRST TIME. Further, some sentences have been changed for clarity or to reflect the mistakes I've corrected.*
1. The reason Base Strike wins the air so handily during naval battles isn't solely due to the agility buff, but because of sortie efficiency. Everyone starts out only on 50%. FiB and TI give an additional 30% and only BS brings you to a total 100%. Sortie efficiency is the number of planes in your carrier airwings that actually fly out at any given time, meaning that a BS carrier with 100 airwing size can send all 100 planes out at once, while FiB and TI can only send out 80.
2. Base Strike realizes its true potential in countries with advisors/admirals that further increase sortie efficiency (Japan especially). Having over 100% sortie efficiency allows the player to overstack their carriers without suffering penalties (unless in bad weather). Every additional 20% SE allows the player to send an entire additional carrier into the battle without suffering a penalty. As Japan, for example, you can get 155% SE (and 175% fighter SE) with a navy under Yamamoto, which translates into 6 overstacked carriers.
In a battle between a FiB/TI nation and such a Japan, both with 100 airwing carriers, the maximum* planes each could have (flying at once) are 320 vs. 656 (that is putting equal numbers fighters and NAVs on each ship; if you put only fighters on 3 ships and only NAVs on 3 you field 693, and if you were to some reason only field fighters it'd be 731), which is an absolute blowout. In theory, if your enemy does half fighters and half NAVs, you could have two carriers hold fighters with BS (268) which, made even more overbearing with the 10% agility bonus, will obliterate the enemy's 160 FiB/TI fighters (400/2 = 200 x 0.8 = 160). This leaves room for an entire four carriers worth of nothing but naval bombers (437, which is more planes than the enemy has total). This of course could be even further optimized by splitting one carrier's planes between fighters and NAVs such to make the number of fighters more comparable while maximizing NAVs.
3. Of course naval bombers can only do you so much good if your enemy shoots them down, but the fact of the matter is that no nation begins the game with a shiny meta fleet with tons of AA and 1940s ships. Naturally using these fleets is necessary for objectively comparing the doctrines to each other, but HOI4 is an unbalanced game, and the starting conditions indirectly buff carrier NAVs since many beginning navies are ill equipped to deal with them and have to be refitted first, which is something some people never even bother to do.
To be fair it still probably wouldn't outmatch meta fleet with TI but I imagine it would have a lot better of a chance. If you watch the TI vs BS battle you'll notice that the French NAVs quickly get disintegrated before the rate at which they die sharply declines; I'm not sure how much of a difference it would make but it begs the question of what would happen if there were still several hundred NAVs left instead of ~30 by the time things started going much worse for the French.
There needs to be a new naval rework, the submarine focused doctrine shouldn't be so good, it seems base strike needs some buffs too, especially considering in reality Carriers were the most important part of the navy
Heavy cruisers without armour should also get eaten for breakfast by light guns. The current meta is just exploity as hell.
That's simply not true.
Carriers were best in the vast expanses of the Pacific.
But in the North Sea, the Channel, or the Mediterranean, they were always in range of land-based aircraft, which made them very vulnerable.
There's a reason why only the USA and Japan launched new carriers during the war (and maybe the UK?).
Additionally, it simply costs too much research and industry to build them for most nations.
@@MrNicoJac The UK did indeed launch new carriers during WW2. Germany had 4 or so that could've launched during WW2 but work on them stopped as Hitler favored submarine warfare instead. France also had some that were in progress before the fall of France.
@@MrNicoJac dont forget Canadian carriers
It's just that Trade Interdiction's bonuses for surface detection and reduced visibility should really only matter on the strategic level. Unfortunately, the naval battle mechanics rely almost entirely on those stats mid-fight too.
These videos have really helped me understand the mechanics of the game effortlessly. Thanks, King!
Your navy can't unencircle you from Georgia.
You have an admiral with his skills influencing the last test
Summarized. If you are going all out Heavy Guns pick FIB. If you're focusing light guns pick TI. If you're going for Light+Heavy mix you just have to decide based on your country.
Going all out heavy guns will leave those ships unable to deal with screens, while going all out light guns will leave your screens unable to deal with the capital ships
@@LT_Silver You don't always have to deal with screens. If you're UK and you engage the German or Italian fleet, once their Capital ships are sunk you hit the Disengage button. Then you have naval supremacy which means you can't get invaded anywhere, you can plan invasions, or even send a portion of your fleet to assist USA with Japan.
Nothing new but its nice to actually have video confirmation this way. The visibility bonuses are just too strong and its the main reason why TI performs so well.
In fact, its probably a good thing subs were not tested, as that just makes TI even better.
This is decent fleet vs fleet information that enforces just having a doctrine is good enough choice to compete overall and the rest is a combination of fleet position, admiral, weather, air cover, and dice roll.
Still each doctrine does some things better; escort screening, convoy raiding, port striking in the pacific ect.
I'd like to see a test on fleet in being escort efficiency but that might take a number of tests to average out.
The last test had an admiral for the german side
Could you do a test on how effective the damage control tech is in naval combat? Critical hits give massive penalties to stats depending on which module is blown it might be interesting how much preventing that could effect combat results
I honestly didn't expect Base Strike to be so weak.
love this short format ^^ great vids
That reduced visibility on TI is nice.
Could you do a test where you use light cruiser instead of heavies for base strike. Base strike gives like 60 org to light cruisers if I remember correctly.
imgur.com/a/XJKZpHr
CLs get clobbered.
So I’m supposed to use trade interdiction for ship battles and fleet in being for convoy raiding ??? Typical paradox
These seem to purely MP oriented. In SP you will have multiple smaller fleets. I have a suspition that other doctrines might perform better in smaller combat sizes that are relatively more carrier-heavy.
No, man. In Single Player, if you play one of the three Naval Majors, you are going to wipe the floor with the opposition, no matter what doctrine you pick. If you play Italy, you can pick whatever doctrine you want too; just ambush the British and American fleets around your waters. If you play anyone else, you should pick Trade Interdiction for the visibility reduction bonuses.
Great videos!
Soo informative please keep up the good work
What do you think about pocket battleships and torpedo cruisers? Do those have a place in the meta? I really like pocket battleships because I think its a cool concept but not sure on their real value and torpedo cruisers is something I rarely see.
No. Pocket battleships don't do anything better than heavy cruisers or battlecruisers. Torpedo cruisers are just super expensive destroyers that are easier to hit. Could easily have 2 destroyers with more torpedo attack for less ic while also being harder to destroy.
@@71Cloak Torp CLs are good for long range convoy raiding, especially when combined with gun CLs. My most common raiding squadron is 2CL+2TCL. Very gun heavy CLs with a catapult to spot and get rid of DDs, and TCLs when there is an actual capital ship, like CA, they can get rid of her almost instantly once the screen is gone.
But you have to keep their speed around 35kts or more, or they will blink out of existence once they encounter a serious enemy deathstack. However if you keep them in southern Atlantic or in the Pacific or Indian ocean, you should be fine 90% of times. And if not, 4 light cruisers are not that hard to replace. You probably already have a replacement for them before you lose them.
@@71Cloak Panzerschiffs are very good because they combine the CA's Light Batteries and BB's heavy guns
@Dat Boi Panzerschiffs are really bad. They can't mount light cruiser batteries, only secondaries, and they can only mount 3 of them. Their hull is also stupidly expensive. Panzerschiff can have a maximum of 12.6 light attack with 1936 tech, CAs can have 21 and they only cost 4400 ic rather than 6100.
never tested it, but TI even does look on Paper overall better/solid than the other ones.
i even took it as USA etc. now i know its good :D
finally the daily hoi4 video
If you expect to have naval superiority, and just want to get rid of the enemy fleet faster, what you go for? Say, playing as the US, and you want to minimize the time it takes to defeat enemy fleets, even at the risk of higher casualties for yourself, does that change what doctrine is more useful?
I would still use trade interdiction for best results. But the US can really do any doctrine in sp because they are so powerfully and the ai is so bad.
What gives the "Uknown" casualty stat in the war statistics tab? I've had people claim it was from the "shark infested waters" before, but I tested it out in game and found that I got no casualities from convoy raiding at all. Do you know what causes this "Unknown" to happen? Does it have to do with the Navy whatsoever or is it an unrelated mechanic? The mechanics in this game still baffle me and your videos have helped parse through a lot of bloat that this game offers. Thank you for them!
How would I know. Not even the game knows the qnswer to your question :)
all enemy carriers sunk:
"its not doing a lot"
So always go trade interdiction, got it
What the hell HC are classified as screens?????
I hate how HOI4 has cockslapped naval warfare. There is no limit to how many ships an admiral can command, there is no brain in the AI when it comes to navy, and they made a mockery of carriers.
The whole "Haha bathtubs/navbombers go brr" should not be viable.
Great video as usual. I have question about convoy escorting and destroying the enemy submarines at the same time. How do you do it properly ?
Lets say I have a fleet of a lot of old ships set on escort mission and another fleet that has a bunch of ASW destroyers equipped with sonar and depth charges and 1 or 2 escort carriers filled with naval bombers. The question is, should I set the ASW fleet on convoy escort (basically merge it with the convoy escort fleet), on patrol or on strike force ? It would be interesting to know which mission type is the best at inflicting maximum amount of casualties on the enemy submarines.
At your test during 4:28 one side had an admiral and one didnt
This is what happens when you accidently unpause without turning the ai off. Doesn't change the overall results of Trade Interdiction being better and more consistent though.
I have a problem with your tests, in the last one when the UK was fighting germany, you had an admiral selected as germany, which could explain why they won.
Can you clarify that because as it is im sorry to say that it kind of look like you were cheating there...
I just let left the ai on by accident. It doesn't actually change anything. TI wins most of the time and is far more consistent than fleet in being. These tests are for demonstrative purposes, I already know the results.
@@71Cloak nah sorry but a level 6 admiral has a massive impact on a test like this. remember that even a level 1 admiral gives a bonus to combat so having a level 6 is just a complete wipe out situation
@@hondacivic8222 What he just said awkwardly is that the admiral is in the presentation model but not the actual test model.
@@Wick9876 no he didn't, he said he left the ai on. and also during the battle you can see the admiral in play so there you go
@Honda Civic that wasn't even the first test. Also I have an excel spreadsheet of like 300 lines worth of testing. Nothing in this video is a surprise to me. With or without admirals TI is more consistent.
Base Strike, Naval Targeting ftw.
"bonus does not apply ...because heavy cruisers are considered screens for the purpose of bonuses" WHAT THE FU*K is with these bizzaro undocumented bullshit onstrous catastrophe of a game?? its starting to piss me off. Xp doesnt everything in the game say heavy cruisers are capital ships??
Does anyone have a link for a good hoi4 mp ruleset?
With all the current changes to heavy cruisers . Do you still think trade interdiction is the best option?Since carriers now are stronger im not sure
carriers are now stronger, heavy cruisers are meh, as they should be
I guess you put admiral to german navy and didnt to british navy
So basically the Naval combat is complete and utter BS with very little depth.
Welcome to Paradox games. Diplomacy? Utter joke. Air combat? Rubbish. Naval combat? Screwed up*. Logistics? Broken. AI? Non existent.
*: Naval combat is especially dumb because AI absolutely doesnt know how to do it. They dont build (with the exception of France) modern battleships, they mix together slow and fast ships. They almost never mine sea zones. They absolutely never mine sweep zones. Their answer to convoy raiding is just to change routes. They deathstack right next to your torp bomber bases. They always get surrounded in Mediterranean (as UK and US). As France they never buy enough oil to actually do anything. But everyone can still project naval supremacy even if their deathstack doesnt have a single liter of fuel to burn.
It's so stupid, trade interdiction should only give bonuses to subs and convoy raiding mission basically
Upd. good that it got nerfed
Have you done an analysis on the best sequence of officer corps spirits and theorists to max out air force and navy?
So you get the bonus from designer after changing a single module? I thought you have to get designer before researching hull. Also thanks for info on heavy cruiser getting screen bonuses instead of ones for capital ship.
Designers affect all new models made. When you finish a research you get a new model, when you do a change and save as new model, well you get a new model and designer bonus applies. Should work with everything ships, tanks, planes, just do a change and make a new model.
This was changed in NSB dlc. Works for tanks and planes as well. But word of warning, if you change your designer and after that make changes to your designs, you’ll lose the initial bonus. For example, research a fighter with fighter designer, you’ll get the bonus, but if you then change your designer and after that add more agility to your fighter, you’ll lose the designer bonus.
👍
Do you know how to predetermine what the naval strength is of a ship? My naval game is as followed: create 1-3 deathstacks and have them in a port and use them for strike force while selecting as many sea zones as possible. For destroying enemy ships I use aircrafts. This way you nearly never lose a ship while still having naval supremecy for the sake of naval invasions.
So basically what is the cheapest way to do this naval 'tactic' and which doctrine has the most influence on it, if there is any.
According to the wiki naval supremacy provided by a ship is based on ic cost and ship manpower. Doctrine does not have any impact on naval supremacy. Ship manpower does not change based on design though (excluding carriers). So more cheaper ships will get you slightly more naval supremacy than slightly less more expensive ships because you will have more manpower.
Ex. 2 battleships that cost 7304 each (14608 total) will have 12000 manpower and provide 1530.4 [(100+(7304*.05)+(6000*.05))*2] naval supremacy. 1 Battleship that costs 14444 and has 6000 manpower while provide 1122.2 naval supremacy. So you an definitely get more naval supremacy from using cheaper ships.
Edit: This comment was wrong. Ignore it.
Since supremacy depends on IC and manpower, than carriers with as much hangers as possible are the most efficient in getting supremacy. Thats because carriers have big crews and each additional hanger adds 500 more crew.
@@PadaV4 Nah, man, the bathtub submarine is the most efficient. Every single ship provides at least 100 naval supremacy on Strike Force mission, so build the cheapest possible ship for that.
@@sld1776 I was wrong. Just tested and you are absolutely right.
Cheapest submarine costs 390 gives 112 supremacy, so each point of supremacy costs 3.48 of production
CV2 with 3 hangers costs 8850 and gives 449 supremacy, so each point of supremacy costs 19.71.
Cheap submarines are more than 5 times more efficient in projecting naval supremacy when compared to carriers.
Best way to deal with subs?
Destroyers to scare away, naval bombers to kill.
dit doet pijn
Yeah navies in hoi4 are naval bombers, subs, anti sub destroyers, and carriers. Cruisers and battleships are shit. And anti sub destroyers and carriers are only useful in mp. For singleplayer subs only, even as the US or japan, is the most cost effective.