Royal Navy Challenge - HOI4 BBA
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 чер 2024
- How little IC can you spend to beat the Royal Navy. Britannia rules the waves no more.
If you want to try this out for yourself. Go to the forum post below. It has all of the rules I followed as well as the save to start off with.
Link to forum post: forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...
Twitch.tv/71Cloak - Ігри
Carrier spam and torpedo bombers being OP is probably the most historically authentic thing PDX have done for navy in this game in years lol
No its not. It is also not balanced or fun gameplay.
@@kleinerprinz99 🤓🤓🤓🤓
Honestly, thank god for this
@@kleinerprinz99 no it is. Sufficiently good airpower makes any navy except submarines, completely useless.
Naval bombers are overtuned now but the most egregious thing is that carrier fighters are now totally useless; they wouldn't be able to do this much damage if the fighters were able to disrupt them effectively but they're broken and they can't anymore
Answer: you need 10 mills on naval bombers to beat every starting navy
More like 30 on TFB lmao. Or are you doing the classic no air, heavy tank germany?
@@lordderpington8021 Actually it's No air and Medium Tank then turn it into an Anti Air Tank.
Yes, carriers are OP but that was reality in WWII. My dad served 3 years in WW 2 on the US battleship Indiana BB58, and with the exception of one Japanese transport ship, which was sunk by escort destroyers. His ship never saw an enemy surface ship until going into Tokyo bay for the surrender. His ship was in several battles, but all vs airplanes or for shore bombardment.
dose he have any highlights(please send link)
@@BobBob-rm7ry What do you mean highlights?? Do you think his dad 360 no scoped a Japanese destroyer with one eye closed during Leyte Gulf?
What do you mean "his ship never saw"? As in, he personally never saw? Because battleships typically fired beyond visual range. Like artillery except over much greater distances over a flat surface.
@@fringeelements He means "no one on the ship saw" because none of the Iowas had a significant anti-ship engagement. Blame Halsey for that. Also, while spotter planes were supposed to be a thing, in practice battleships did not fire beyond visual range at moving targets. The trick was that directors were high up (over 70') so visual range was a long way. (The longest hit was either Scharnhorst on Glorious or Warspite on Giulio Cesare both at about 24Km.)
@@BobBob-rm7ry No he passed away over 10 years ago and never wrote an online record of his experiences. Even if his ship was in combat he would not have seen much as his battle station was the 3rd emergency bridge below the water line.
A lot of people really hate this new carrier meta, meanwhile me as a main Japan player:
UNLIMITED POWER!!!!!!
Japan is broken if you convert cruisers and play against newb US
Back in 2018 it was 60 carriers with cv fighters meta. Back in those days, naval combats had firing range mechanic in it. Carriers were kiting the shit out of enemy all day long.
Like in real life uh?
@@duitk Removing the naval fire range was a mistake.
@@duitk IRL CAS was basically useless all the way up to laser guided bombs
I think I'm going to cry. After 6 painful years, finally spamming carriers is the way forward. Just like IRL.
I’m so glad carriers are worth while again
I experimented with some of your designs in my Communist Austria Hungary run. Fun as the AA SHBB may sound, it didn't shoot down a lot of planes. But it was consistently annihilating British screens and was all in all my best performing ship
While CVs being this powerful is understandable, the fact that fighters seem to be very underpowered is very strange for me, wasn’t having your planes shot down your opponent’s planes one of the most effective AA options in the war?
Also, it would be funny if Paradox add some unique or obscure components like guided bombs for heavy bomber or the funny Japanese bee-hive shells for dual purpose heavy batteries even though they sucked at AA role and considering how they balance things, it would probably be worse than in IRL.
Great video thank you , answered my question on the last video perfectly!
Hi Cloak!
Your videos are excellent as always. Thanks to you now I understand how carrier overstacking works with the airwings. (Many MP naval victory thank you!)
What I cant seem to find is how exactly carrier overcrowding works now with fixed air wing sizes. Does overcrowding and stacking interact with eachother?
So for example you have a carrier with deck size of 50. All of them are naval bombers and they are at the top of the list. So they would fly for sure whatever the amount of CV s in the fleet.
What if I put 60 nav bombers on it with 150% sortie efficiency? Thats 20% extra planes so 40% penalty times efficiency so thats 0,6x1,5=0,9 . So 54 planes would fly?
What if they die in the battle will this refresh or always stays at 90%? What if its fighter from the bottom?
I have so many questions about this system.
40 dock yards for 4 years, _just_ to produce platinum.
That's insane!
Really goes to show how even a pure naval build cannot catch up until the very very end of the war.
(especially since the UK and US do still produce new ships, and you don't have 40 dock yards yet in 1936, lol)
Aka, you really _need_ naval bombers.
(or take on the Royal Navy piecemeal)
This is why the meta will always be to spam more naval bombers.
The Royal Navy is indeed impressive, but it has to spread itself thin across the globe, meaning that a player can reorient the Regia Marina into a capable fighting force and whittle away the Royal Navy piecemeal.
That carrier air wing thing is definitely going to be patched, no way paradox doesn't view that as a bug/exploit
That is how it has always worked since MTG came out. Its not a new thing. I have videos from just after NSB came out and it worked the same way then.
@@71Cloak So how does this work in writing? I keep watching the videos and I am not getting it.
For each 1 CV3 (60 navBomber), you need 1 CL (10 fighter/10 cas)? And if this is the case, then you can just keep getting more carriers to launch bombers?
@@JasonWolfeYT What? nothing you just wrote makes any senses.
When you go over 4 carriers you take a 20% penalty to number of air wings that can operate at full effectiveness. Air wings of the same type on the same carrier are grouped. So if you want 7 CV of navs to operate you need 7/0.2=35 air wings. the air wings that launch are the ones that are at the top.
@@71Cloak So the game considers a carrier with say 6 airwings of NAVs as one airwing when it comes to the carrier stacking penalty? Which is why those converted cruisers had 3 different airplane types on them because (I assume)
Correct me if I'm wrong, say I have 7 carriers full of NAVS, the game will think that I'm bringing 7 airwings of NAVs. 20% * 7 airwings = 1.4 airwings which can operate. (I think?) Since a carrier with only NAVs counts as one airwing, that means you have 1.4 carriers worth of NAVs in a battle
But if I bring a crap load of other useless airwings on those converted cruiser hulls, 20% of a large number of airwings can still be a decently sized number. 20% * 35 airwings = 7 airwings that can operate, effectively meaning that 7 carriers full of NAVs can operate
That seems like some signature paradox spaghetti code ngl
@@71Cloak Okay. I see. So the carriers at the bottom are just fillers to increase the number of air wings that launch.
Doesn't it makes Japan's navy OP as hell? They already were going for Base Strike and their sortie efficiency is insane
Wow, carriers seem to be very strong. At this moment is there any point in making battleships or battlecruisers anymore? It seems like CVs will win against everything except a specific anti-air/anti-CV setup, given that as you've said before CVs have no trouble massacring screen ships. Would making a lot of light cruisers with dual purpose light cruiser battery be effective?
I'm not that well versed in HOI4 Naval, since I've been turned off by it most times I play due to the sheer amount of time it takes to build capital ships the war is usually over before I have any of them completed (when playing as a nation that doesn't have any in production in the 1936 game start), hence I usually make a good destroyer, sub or heavy cruiser design and just use them instead.
Remember that carriers can be this insane because carrier fighters are broken, regular fighters though... they're perfectly ok so if you can provide your fleet with green air over the seazone you're fighting in then it won't matter that the enemy has carriers because the naval bombers won't be able to do anything
Bruh Carriers literally made battleships obsolete in real life. No major powers today uses battleships anymore.
It really depends on how you are using your fleet.
You can make pretty much anything work in singleplayer just due to how awful the AI is at building and managing a navy, larp with super heavies as much as you want. The same goes for multiplayer RP, most RP players don't care too much about the navy so just build for fun in that case.
If you want to secure the naval game in singleplayer or multiplayer RP, then spam out light attack light cruisers.
Multiplayer meta is painfully boring. Refit all battleships/battlecruisers to AA barges, refit cruisers to the meta designs and refit carriers to maximise deck space. Then produce roach destroyers, carriers and that weird heavy cruiser design.
That's at least the basic meta for navy. Only Japan and the US should really bother with building a meta fleet. The UK is mainly responsible for anti-submarine warfare, unless the Italians are investing into their navy, although most Italy players just spam submarines.
And never forget:
RED AIR = DEATH
This is... historical tho lmao
@@zoroasper9759 Regular fighters don't stop Carrier Navs either atm
It is simply unfathamable to beat the Royal Navy
What were PDX thinking? Since when do planes have 100% accuracy against tiny destroyers. Just ridiculous.
moreover armor on ships gives % bonuses against torpedo damage... except for naval bombers even if, ideally speaking, they are using torpedoes too. Weaker torpedoes at that
Destroyers aren't that tiny. A lot of WW2 destroyers were sunk via planes, although mostly by dive bombers.
Planes actually had VERY good accuracy against ships and they were extremely difficult to shoot down until Britain invented the proximity fuse and USA stole the technology to mass produce it.
Made it very easy to gun down Japanese planes, but Japanese ships were mostly sunk by airplane attacks, early in the war Japan was sinking the most ships because of their carrier strategy. Just ask the British how they felt when the Japanese dive bombed their Pacific fleet to the bottom of the ocean.
@@SMGJohn
British revisionism is cringe. I bet you think the Germans feared the mighty Bren gun as well. Lmao.
@@ThatZenoGuy
Are you daft? The British invented the proximity fuse, they just did not have the electronics to build one, US however had resources to pour into the project to create a transistor capable of surviving the immense G forces put on the electronics in the fuse during firing, thus the proximity fuse was finally put together, in a sense the British write the schematics, software and hardware but the americans made it work.
how does the carrier spam works why can you have more than 4 carriers in a naval battle?
he does a trick he explains in his newest navy video its to hard to explain for me but go watch that if you want to know
I was curious about which Naval Doctrine was strongest now, given the changes that have been made to navy recently.
Depends on build really. If you are using a CV/nav bomber build then you want Base Strike. IF you are planning on using non-CV surface ships then Fleet in Being gives way better bonuses. Trade Interdiction is only for subs and even then subs are usually paired with navs so you should still go base strike.
@@71Cloak Thanks for the response, seems like trade interdiction got hit hard then. Seems like there's no real incentive to go non-cv capitals unless you're doing fleet in being. Base strike only has 1 doctrine which bumps BB org, would be interesting to see how Fleet in Being compares on the org side of things.
@@71Cloak I thought trade interdiction is good for surface ships because of the visibility buffs
Thanks very much for the comprehensive research and video @71Cloak.
I just have a few questions regarding the protection of your carriers if you have time to answer them?
Because all of your damage is coming from carriers you don't really need light attack on heavy cruisers or screens in this build. Would light cruisers with no armament but enough armour to withstand destroyers be useful? Or are cheap destroyers still the better option?
Also, you mention using heavy cruisers to protect carriers. Would battleships be viable here with lots of armour? Or are nimble light cruisers simply better for ranking by avoiding being hit?
Also, you mentioned not putting AA on heavy cruisers because of something to do with weight. Can you go a bit more into this? I thought AA was always useful on capital ships against carriers.
If you have green air from land based fighters, are enemy carrier nav bombers able to attack? If they aren't I would assume that AA on any shio would be pretty useless. Is that the reason you didn't use AA?
If you are relying on carriers do all of the damage, why not just have a single heavy battery on your heavy cruisers instead of 3?
Finally, is it ever worth (IC Wise) to have full AA heavy capital ships to draw away enemy navs from carriers if carriers simply have a much heavier targeting weight?
Finally, are torpedos in combat fleets useless now? Even with japan's long lance bonus?
Sorry for all of the questions 😂. Keep up with the great content.
Hi, I'm not 71Cloak however I do have some time on my hands right now
1) I don't think you can builds light ships with no armament, you could make them very cheap for a lower IC sum . Or as you said beefy light cruisers... Destroyers have such weak light attack and piercing I'm not sure they would be a threat to heavily-armored light cruisers (it's a question worth testing out)
Cheap destroyers are easy and low IC screening for your fleet, they are however, in my humble opinion, not the heavy lifter in battle because they're usually OSK (One-Shot Kill) as their high speed is their best defense. I'm not sure what an IC-expensive destroyer would achieve for this specific challenge
2) I think here the heavy cruisers are a good compromise between IC cost, armor, big guns and being a capital ship, battleships remains the biggest armored ships you can build but the IC price increase is steep.
Speed is definitively an important factor here, faster ships tends to get less hit, I think there is a formula about the Hit probability somewhere in the wiki, though you'd have to check if the navy wiki was updated to AAT
3) I think the weight he is talking about is the speed penalty for putting AA on a ship
4) Yes, even with green air enemy carriers planes are able to attack, It's definitively something worth digging up more. Let's not forget however how small fighters have quite the limited range so relying on land based fighters would mean you have to build Heavy fighters for extended range.
Also, I presume more AA on ship = more planes shot down during a battle but a formula from the game calculations would help to be sure about that.
5) Well from my personal battle tests, Heavy guns still did around 40% of the total damage inflicted (the game tells you that once a battle is over) so while a carrier punch the hardest, heavy guns seems to not be pointless either way
6) Wow, easy to ask, hard to answer, an excel spreadsheet with detailed tests would be needed to know which ship AA needs to go to in order to shoot down as much enemy planes as possible, while also keeping other variables as identical as possible for each test to avoid confusion ... then after many tests (ideally more than ten), the average should give you a good-enough answer
7) The final final answer (lol) is that torpedoes are not useless, they give light ships the chance to annihilate capital ships once the screening efficiency has gone down. Without torpedoes, only capital ships could kill capital ships
In a battle between identical fleets, the only difference being screens not having torpedoes on one fleet,
I think the fleet containing screens with torpedoes will win much more on average.
But as always, the most conclusive information you can ever have is by testing multiple times and writing down all the useful informations, I do agree howevern that repeating those tests for accuracy quickly becomes boring but such is science
I just can't believe that paradox wanted naval Bombers to be that strong
There is a Reason why BBs aren't made anymore
@@Daggoth65
And that reason isn't torpedo bombers or carriers lmao.
You cannot believe Paradox devs are incompetent? Half of their veteran developers, left the studio a few years ago, just says something about the bureaucracy in the company.
@@ThatZenoGuyyes it is. Massive ships were sunk without ever firing a broadside because they were sunk by aircraft
@@christianmoore7932
>He hasn't read anything of WW2 history jej
BB's were in service well after WW2, the main deciding factor was missiles, not airpower.
Do you know if getting more AA on your ships could counter this kind of carrier stack?
I don't understand hiw you don't suffer penalties for having more than 4 carriers. Could you explain?
As you increase the carrier count above 6 the penalties don't really affect you as much compared to only using 5 or 6 carriers
Overstacking penalty is applied based on number of unique air wings per carrier. So if you have 35 air wings with 7 on the first 7 cv and the remaining 28 airwings on 10 cv. You can use 7 airwings total (35×.2=7). The air wings that fly are the first ones when you open the air wings on the cv, so if the cv with navs are at the top then all those navs can operate without penalty. Fighters always fly and the navs on the remaining 10 cvs don't matter.
Theoretically of you had suicide strike craft you could do this even more extremely.
If somebody is in the same trouble as me, it seems one airwing isn't 10 planes, but total amount of same plane on a CV
Thanks for explanation!
@Stealth,
I noticed you did not use radar on any of your ships.
IRL, where you need spotting and want your guns to do some damage, radar would be worth it, right?
It's just the challenge where it is not.
Cheers man, hope you have a great day!
Radar gives a small bonus to hit chance which is nice if you care about your guns doing anything. This is a pure CV build though so the 5% aa isn't really worth the cost. Fire control being 20% aa is though.
can you explain how to circumvent the carrier air wing cap thing with the cas and fighters im not sure how to do it
Noob here, are carrier cas worth it? Or should I just put fighters and naval bombers in my carriers?
As of right now, just naval bombers, nothing else. This patch is a bit broken it seems. Normally fighters and naval bombers are your bread and butter for naval combat, with the caveat that carrier CAS can be used to do close air support missions for your troops if you park them next to the battle. If you're fighting with no airfields nearby it can be nice to do that
As of now it seems they are useless in naval combat, but as far as I know, carrier cas attacks from a steep angle above their target - basically a dive bomber, I wonder if the game replicates this.
naval bombers only unless you are going to exploit the carrier overstacking penalty.
So I just started playing this game, and would appreciate some advice. What's the best fleet for singleplayer?
Are you counting the cost of the nav bombers used in the battle?
nav bombers are not made using dockyards, so that wouldn't make sense to include them
@@zatrox9438 Yes it would. Those factories take up the same slot as a dockyard. Those carriers don't work without planes. It doesn't make sense to include in the dockyard IC cost, but it makes sense to factor in or mention that it does have a cost.
@@SuperThest "Those factories take up the same slot as a dockyard" bruh what, you do know there is a tech that increases those right? and if you are really running out of space to build factories in, than you are either playing a very minor power in which case you just build subs, or you build all your mills in coastal provinces and didn't think that you would ever build dockyards xD
On the more serious note, sure, but since you are already producing a fleet to rival uk's, you probably have 2 mills lying around that you can dedicate to just building bombers, that will easily get you enough bombers and more for all those carriers while they are building
great vid! whats the counter of carriers?
And carriers weren’t broken enough before that is paradox for ya 🎉
Actually prior to BBA, carriers were bugged and garbage
Yeah they made little difference in battle due to the air wing cap
You shod also count Ic of the planes. 800 planes are not cheap. let's say one airplane costs 32IC that is 25 600 ic just airplanes.
Why doesn't sortie efficiency destroy the carriers ability to output any damage when you have so many?
heres a interesting question, is Focus of investing colonies in france worh it?
@71Cloak does it cause carrier overstacking
So this means I should convert all old ships to carriers?
How many carriers you need to not have carrier overstack debuff?
It's used to be 20, and that is assuming all carriers are carriers of 60 and not shitters with 20 hanger space.
I don't understand how this works
This came to mind again after messing with navy in modded play. In retrospect, the original rules banning land-based air support, but not banning carrier planes, seems arbitrary. The closest possible analog for that is USA vs Japan naval conflict, where fights will realistically happen in big sea zones. Even then, planes can be designed to matter from land bases, but not as trivially. Per the rules of this challenge, carriers will win because carriers get to use IC from outside the dockyards w/o counting it. Yet most naval battles in the European theater where both sides would be willing to commit big navies will be in range of land.
I'm also not a fan of banning subs and mines. These both require investment to deal with that will change the cost proposition. Mines not only sink ships sometimes, but they also drag speed down. Playing around placing/sweeping them is an entire facet of naval combat, probably not explored that well since when I look at MP rules they usually ban them...ostensibly due to lag (is that still true?).
@TruckerDave650 If mines are STILL a tech issue (I thought that was fixed?) then that makes sense at least. The rationale for subs would be like banning light airframes...those are similarly a PITA to deal with proportionate to cost using anything but light airframes! You could even make a similar rationale for banning medium tanks etc...these things are all used because of their threat proportionate to cost of stopping them/dealing with them.
As an aside, subs are definitely not safe in shallow waters or anywhere near where NAV can cover, and they lack AA, so even today NAV can trade with them extremely effectively. Even the AI will sink sub 3s, if you feel like losing them, by putting them in areas with NAV coverage, so they can't be THAT hard to deal with.
You gotta explain the carrier exploit again to get more navs in combat
Carrier overstacking penalty is applied based on number of air wings. if you have 8 air wings on a cv 4 navs, 3 fighter, 1 cas, that only counts as 3 because like air wings get grouped. So if you want 7 operation cvs in a battle with all nav bombers you need 7/0.2=35 air wings. the air wings that fly is based on order of cv so the airwings you want to fly need to be at the top of the list. Also fighters always fly but they also suck now so it doesn't matter.
Just wondering but do your navy guides still apply with all the changes to BBA? Like do I want cruisers and destroyers mainly or what? navy has also been so confusing to me so I just always sub spammed however I eventually gotta learn if I wanna compete in MP.
How about you click on his channel and watch literally the last 3 videos he uploaded ? How lazy can someone be.
@@teriblesoldiertv2108 Sounds likr a decent idea, i will think about that
@@teriblesoldiertv2108why so angry
@@christianmoore7932 i love spreading hate maybe ?
Hey Cloak I have a question. With how powerful Aircraft carriers are seeming to be now, should I even bother putting Torpedo Launchers on Destroyers?
You saw in the video, some of his ships were getting sunk by screens, its probably not worth building new destroyers with torpedoes but you can refitt the destroyers you may start with to use torpedoes as refitting is cheaper than building new.
@@SMGJohn Nah refitting the starting destroyers aint it chief. Well maybe for Small range areas like Germany sealion or Italy's battles in the mediteranean but I hate the starting early destroyers. I think i'm gonna test alot of naval war tests myself using Italy and Japan- I've been playing Japan recently and I feel like i've finally mastered the navy on a basic and intermediate level so i'm just gonna run different destroyer builds and fleet compositions to see what works best
@@stormsand9
Starter destroyers are really good because refitting them can be done cheaply, I always refit mine into subhunters if I am allied or just make them into torpedo boats, you can make retrofitting even cheaper in the naval academy, no matter how you twist it, refitting ships is better than building entirely new ones, if you are Japan, UK, USA refitting is vastly superior to building new. Waste of IC, Japan does not have resources to keep spitting out big ships until you taken most of Asia, then whats the point of a big navy LOL
@@SMGJohn I mean you have to build new destroyers as Japan eventually to expand your fleet if you plan to help out against the U.K, and the point of a big navy is to defeat U.S and U.K duh?
However of course in my games I'm not exactly playing 100% historically to real life, I cap china before '38 is over with 2 collab governments. More then enough steel to support 80 dockyards
@@stormsand9
Japan navy is mostly just a RP thing, if you want to play by meta then spam naval bombers with stupid ranges, upgrade airport on your islands and stick a big radar on them, now you got several big fat carriers that cannot move but they got 2000 air fleet sizes.
But gunboat meta is mostly bygone now when the carriers are so OP and Japan has crazy sortie efficiency.
why a bunch of converted carriers with just 1 deck size? Is there an effective limit on how many naval bombers you can put on carriers/how many can engage?
Im not confident in my answer, but I believe, since there is an overstacking penalty. Yet you expect some bombers to die. So you try to keep the maximum you can in battle. Even if it means making low cost crap carriers
Understand that theses are Blood Alone experiments, but, and maybe I missed a video or two, are carrier fighters worth building?
They do like 0 damage now so they're functionally worthless. I think he might have been putting some of them along with naval cas on his converted carriers because it somehow lets him bring more naval bombers into the battles? You'd have to watch his livestream on twitch though cause I don't remember
The only reason I had carrier fighters was to increase the number of unique air wings per carrier I had which is what allowed me to use 7 1940 cvs with all naval bombers. (I explained in my video Carriers do so much damage now) Otherwise carrier fighters do 20% of the damage they did prior to BBA.
change my mind but noting can compare to IC efectivnes of lvl3 submarines , i try everything but submarines is broken , i was thinking why and i think it is becouse of its number and it give them so much Surface detection.
Did you count the ic from the planes?
No for either side. Rules don't require it.
Do the new changes mean base strike can beat trade interdiction, or should we just go TI no matter what?
Trade interdiction is garbage now. It lost its visibility modifiers. So its really fleet in being if you want to use a surface fleet or base strike if you are going carriers/navs.
@@71Cloak Wow, surface visibility bonuses was the only thing making trade interdiction so strong.
It's extremely sad they decided to nerf it instead of buffing other doctrines or game mechanics.
How can I catch enemy fleet? I have 7 CVs with radars, bunch of destroyers cruisers and battleships in 1 fleet, but everytime I detect an enemy fleet in an area the detection is always going down, instead of up, and lose trace of it (sometimes even when a fight is already going on between my subs and the enemy main fleet with CVs in the same area)
I'm using patrol order.
What the hell do I need to improve?
Your speed or your surface detection if thats how you want to play.
It's way easier to bait the ai in to battles by convoy raiding with your main fleet though.
Having too many ships staying in one port causes supply issues which directly impacts the detection speed.
I will give it a spin when 12.5 hits live. :)
As somebody that likes historical carrier warfare... I disliked last patch so much I made a mod to fix it.
Specifically, the carrier fighter multiplier thing. Carrier fighters being basically useless is so bad. I've reset their multiplier to 5 to match the carrier naval bombers, though I'm considering making a version where both carrier and fighter multipliers are 3, to try and lessen the absolutely insane number of planes lost in BBA. Seriously I'd be losing a hundred navs per sortie sometimes even with air defense and agility decently high. Naval AA is terrifyingly effective now.
What was the plane design?
3:45 Why are ship designers not allowed? 🤔
Also, should weather be turned on or off for the challenge?
Weather has a massive influence on naval and air battles. This randomizes this challenge a lot which is not desired.
@@bear4963 Weather should be on because otherwise Carrier Aircraft fly at night (Edited, said wrong thing)
weather should be on otherwise you will get double the number of sorties a day from CVs which would make anything other than a CV build impossible.
wow naval looks more broken than ever before
Does the “too many carriers” negative modifier really matter or at what point does it matter?
If you know how to manipulate it you can go way over. The penalty is actually applied to air wings not carriers with all air wings of the same type on 1 carrier only counting as 1 type.
So because of all the converted cruiser hulls I had 35 air wings with an 80% penalty meaning 7 will fly. Those 7 are the first from top to bottom with all air wings list by carrier order. So having 7 full carriers of naval bombers followed by 10 carriers of 3 air wing type each allows all 7 carriers to operate without penalty.
@@71Cloak >10 carriers of 3 air wing type
Why does it have to NAV, Fighter, and CAS airwings each for these 10 carriers? Why not all NAVs also?
@@gabe75001 game treats all air wings of same type on one carrier as 1 air wing.
What is the IC of the British starting fleet?
About 545k ic.
I think you would have been better off with stripped down 1940 carriers instead of CA Conv. If you remove the three extra Hanger spaces and all the extra equip with a Level 1 engine it costs less and has 325 HP vs 125 HP
Lets hope that Paradox doesnt nerf the CV strat to the ground since they watched Feedback's videos of Exploits and patched it.
I really start to think the approach paradox took on naval combat is completly wrong and should be entirely scrapped and redone... I mean every thing seems out of place.
But we've to do it with this... Could you make a guide on convoy warfare/tactics/designs ? Since BBA rebalanced subs it could be interesting if it was enough
Do a 'No carrier' challenge. Or a '4 carrier max' challenge.
If you go to the forum post a guy already did it with 4cv only and just under 200k ic by not having the cv show up until after the british carriers had been deplaned by aa.
can confim.. played as Japan.
Platinun
Also is armour on carriers worth it?
No.
Have you seen if rockets now do more damage since before they did little to no damage?
Rockets can now carry nuclear bombs, so they can be viable just for nuclear strikes.
@@SMGJohn i tried to do it and it said i didn't have a stratigic bomber, so it must be broken ig
@@filce1232
Thats odd cause in the code it states rockets can carry out nuclear strikes, make sure to set your rockets to strategic bombing.
@@SMGJohn Hmmmm maybe i forgot to do that not sure tho, maybe its like when no step back released that some things didn't work properly
@@SMGJohn Nope, just checked, im doing rocket strikes with strategic bomber on and i can't nuke
"how much IC do you need?"
Answer: YES
edit: ah .. for the challenge .. nah i roll over my enemies xD
Carriers are weak in any normal situation due to land based fighters destroying their groups
I enjoy your videos. Can you put out more tutorial videos for minor countries? Hate to watch the memey zoom in humor clickbait thumbnail youtubers when I just want to watch a tutorial
Wait why no 1940 heavy cruisers
The fleet is built around CVs doing all the damage. We don't need Cas to do damage and they take more screens which we didn't have. I'm sure I could have made it work but there wasn't much point.
No i Mean why dont you Just filled them with AA and called a day did they not enough hp but they can speed tank so
Naval battle should be reworked to be more fun and challenging and actually should use better designed ship rather than using meta gaming build like this.
They made decent ship battle in stellaris no reason this game can't be made like that.
I feel naval battle is just sideshow in this game.
Fleet battles in Stellaris are the only micro. Hoi 4 has 3. It's just to many
Deathstacking contests not interesting for me.
About 130 sub 4 spam
But inclusiv you also kill the entire allied fleet
The US navy slaps the UK navy at the beginning of the game.
lol it doesnt
@@aguy3664 It really does. Slap Halsey on the deathstack, convert your two mining ships to CVs, call the UKs bluff to demob, patrol w/ always engage/ never repair, BOOM, UK fleet is dumpstered
@@bIuebuIIet bruh youre just better than the ai your navy tho aint
Simply false
Carriers are way too op in this patch
And how thay are in real life?
@@kubapatek3758 This is a video game. Plenty of stuff in this game is unrealistic for the sake of gameplay.
@@muovi2463 what are those things? Also this is a historical game and it by definition should be realistic
@@kubapatek3758 Factories in this game are super unrealistic, but are good for gameplay. Supply is unrealistic, but good for gameplay. Same with trade.
PDX could have added much more complex system with private companies and other shit like that for the economy but its just 2 types of factories.
They don't balance this game looking at history books, they do game balance to make gameplay better.
You just made a useless video. Just use Torpedo Bombers with fighters.