Armor on ships in real life: A total saving grace for some ships. Armor in HOI4: Total waste time and effort. I kinda wish having armor had the same process as tanks with piercing etc for the ships
The meta is having more dockyard than your enemy, this was made assuming that each side have same amount of production and both side wanted to achieve naval supremacy via ship alone without planes and other strategy, both industrial capacity also need to be balance with same number of dockyard and tech which in game is virtually inexistent.
Armor is the king it just saying who gonna cares about production cost if you have more resources and more dockyard than your enemy? The problem I see with naval combat is the sinking rate is too high, it should be aimed that most ship in the battle should survive even for losing side, it's utterly ridiculous that you losing hundreds of ship in single engagement, this way so opposing side can repair and still be in the fight in a theatre, it's not fun to just build up your Navy entire game just for couple battle and then achieving naval supremacy and your Navy is useless for the rest of the game. The reason land combat is exciting is because you have a chance of counter attack one defeat doesn't mean the end but Navy is not like that at most you only need 3 good battle and your enemy is done.
@@gkagara Not exactly. The way it is set up, there is usually no recovery if you lose say 10 tank divisions in Russia. Thats a huge loss for a German player. Same thing if the US navy had gotten blown up by a Japanese player. The Japanese player then gets to raid the Med or if Italy built up their fleet, they break out into the Atlantic and raid the coast of Britain. The game is setup fine except armor just isnt good. If you have 2 ships of the exact same design except 1 has armor and 1 doesnt. You produce enough of the no armor version over a period of time that the armored version cannot physically survive against
I don't know why paradox just doesn't buff armour more. Makes historical sense as HC can't really pen any battleships or even battlecruisers and it stops the HC spam. Such a change could also buff Torpedos as they then really are the only options for cruisers and light ships to fight battleships.
Would potentially make pocket battleships a thing. BB calibre guns on a cruiser frame to penetrate BB/BC armour, and BC armour to withstand CA medium batteries, while being cheaper and faster. Much more vulnerable to torpedoes and naval bombers due to having lower HP and air attack for their construction cost, and having less space for secondary batteries.
Guys the meta is having more steel, chromium and dockyard than your enemy because in game finding same amount of dockyard with same amount of production cost to engage in battle without intervention of naval bomber from airbase is virtually impossible. One also said that one side usually have more ship than the other.
I FUCKING KNEW IT As soon as I saw you can still use secondary batteries on CAs I instantly thought "I bet these guys still wreck shit up" I made them but playing singleplayer without actual testing I couldn't really see how well they perform, since the AI gets destroyed by everything basically I was waiting for the update to come out to try them out
I genuinely think the issue is either heavy ship hull is too expensive to counter heavy cruisers, or heavy cruisers are too cheap and maybe need to be their own hull like the German panzerschiffe with increased production (for condensing research just have you unlock it with cruisers hull), maybe only 2 heavy guns allowed like on the front and back?
Mostly the armour calculation is dumb. It used to be binary, either you pierced and did full damage or failed to pierce and suffered a -90% penalty. Now that is a bit broken so they introduced a sort of partial piecing. The current formula is -90% x [1 - ( your piercing / enemy's armour)]. So with 25 piercing against 35 armour you get -28.2% which is your damage reduction. That number should probably get doubled if they want armour and by extension BC/BBs to have any use in naval combat.
Also another issue with naval battles is that they "black hole" or "singularity" all the fleets in the world, a naval engagement can take so long to resolve that a fleet across the litteral world can get over to it to reinforce. as a result you are going to be fighting the entire navy at some point because youll be stuck retreating for weeks from submarines when the time to actually disengage would have happened within afew hours.
after multiple multiplayer games, I will spill the beans here. its actually decked out light cruisers. With the refit bonuses, produce a bunch of light cruisers and you will destroy the screens and the main fleet with torpedo's Lemme also add, I did try the build 71cload mentioned, heavy attack cruisers with light guns. I was able to kill the heavy ships, but then those light cruisers fucked me over
The DP secondaries are working properly. That is what dual purpose means that the gun can engage both surface and air targets so it should give anti-air. The change is just enabling the gun to elevate to 80-90 degrees and giving it a proximity fused shell. It is the same as throwing some aa on to a division to give it some piercing against armour.
I get that it just doesn't make sense that they have the exact same stats for the exact same cost. Introducing a new mounting system and targeting system isn't free.
Well given that you have a mounting for the gun and a high angle fire director for the other AA guns anyway it sort of is free. What I don’t understand is why you can now research a 1940 and 44 secondary that isn’t dual purpose. Before BBA DP secondaries we’re just the end of the secondary tree. Now you get them earlier, which makes sense a lot of 1940 designed ships had DP mounts, but you can still choose the less capable weapon for the same cost. Why would anyone do that?
You don't get better secondaries then the secondary 2s. You can get better main batteries for DDs but the only way to get better secondaries is through the dual purpose tree.
I just found you out today and damn, all the effort you are giving to get the numbers. I must say, it's quite damn impressive, man. Subbed right away. Keep those videos flowing!
Paradox just needs to suck it up and apply an effective naval combat width. I think a tonnage limit (basically make IC a tonnage equivalent) could work if it's set right. The only reason heavy cruisers work is that you can mass so many of them and can generate so much light attack from secondaries in small increments. It wouldn't even be particularly ahistorical - a navy of 300 ships fighting in the English Channel would be WAY too large to maneuver with any efficacy. As long as death stacking is possible heavy cruisers will reign supreme.
@@71Cloak If it worked like land combat where if you go over the limit you can't bring more ships in it would make better ships slightly better since they could fight them "1on1" instead of all at the same time.
@@71Cloak I feel like the answer is tied to reworking fleet commanders. Admirals should control the larger groupings as now, but the smaller task forces should also have commanders with some form of command limit. Then have a limit to the number of commanders you can have in each engagement, with anything above 3 leading to massive debuffs and a higher chance that units will randomly disengage due to confusion within the command structures. Though honestly at this stage I feel like the entire base system needs a rethink as it's always felt overly simplified and has always turned one of the biggest theatres of the conflict into an afterthought.
Didn't the original naval combat system work kinda like that, only with weapon ranges. So bigger ships with bigger guns had longer ranges and could engage everything, meanwhile smaller ships could only engage 1 or 2 ships "up the line"
@@71Cloak the problem with the positioning penalty is that it's capped at -75% and it is based on the ratio between your ships and the enemy's This makes it so that you essentially always get some kind of penalty (for no reason) but stacking more ships does the job very well
On carrier combat, c0rax said in the beta-thread that atm the game takes any aircraft that can do air superiority and sets it to "cap" mission(fleet defence) and whatever aircraft are left that can do naval strikes is then used for offensive ops - so atm multirole fighters/nav will only do cap. Pdx are working on migrating it to main armament(role) so we can use fighter weapons on nav/cas and still have them go on the offensive.
Something that i dont see people talk about is Coastal defence ship. They can put Light Medium gun in one of the slots. That is what i have been doing since patch, Costal Def with 1 Light and rest duals + cheap DDs. Might be worth testing vs yours Heavy Cruisers. Dont bother with Torpedo, it doesnt ignore armor like before and it is doing reduced damage based on armor since last patch.
Great tests, thank you. According to my small scale testing, screened fleet vs. unscreened fleet with same IC cost, I would say, forget screens in surface battles and use the IC for more capital ships. Historically screening was introduced to counter the thread of torpedo boats to capital ships. Since BBA the damage torpedoes seems so much nerfed and together with the strong positioning bonus for the unscreened fleet, that it is useless. Exception is probably if the enemy attacks with subs. Then you probably want to have some anti-sub destroyers.
Could you maybe take a look at panzerschiffs with 3 AA 2s, 1 Heavy gun lvl1, 3 2ndary batteries and lvl 2 engine for 36? they would be used with roach screens for raiding in the atlantic.
Two questions: 1. Would having carriers let you get away with less heavy attack on your cruisers? 2. What do you think about the buff on the coastal defense designer?
I'm looking forward to the carrier fix. I used carriers on patrol with missions assigned to the air wings (i.e. the current workaround) and they are immensely powerful. Even carrier CAS, which was formerly worthless, does good damage. Looking forward to any analysis on the designer options. I'm guessing that Raiding Fleet is probably still the best.
Carrier raiding with 6 screen or convoy protection duty is the best it seems they have the highest efficiency and could cover a lot of ground. I find it ridiculous that you need hundreds of destroyer to secure your shipping line.
Have you ever tested cruiser subs? I find them to be a nice sweetspot between subs 2 and 3. but without wasting a research slot for a long time. With a plane they even have a nice spotting chance and shredd the convoys in the Atlantic.
Since Carriers got fixed recently, I did a few tests with these designs and fleet comps, except I replaced some of the HC with an equivalent IC value of Carriers. From my initial testing, it would seem that if carriers are involved at *all*, even if both sides have the same number and quality, Base Strike seems to completely destroy Fleet in Being. Do you think you could look into this? Carriers seem to do an absolutely absurd amount of damage now, so much so that personally don't think it's possible to conclude a meta without taking them into account.
Same thing here, i may have overlooked something but my carriers absolutely destroyed. Actually now that i think about it i did not really use carrier fighters on both sides, so maybe that had something to do with it?
btw does anyone know if the soviet air debuff national spirit been patched or does the debuffs still not work properly? Knowing paradox the air debuffs are still not applied to air even after months of the bug being known.
I have been seeing very good results using a mix of 100% torpedo destroyers and 100% light attack cruisers. Screens melt from the latter and everything else (big) implodes from the former. AA can be put on either if needed and submarines get melted too due to the magical damage destroyers do to subs even without depth charges.
After watching this video I started an USA campaing just to test what was said here, since I never really understood naval game and never cared about it really. And the results were in the very first battle against Japanese : 1 lost destroyer and 8 CV naval bombers on my side VS 1 BC, 4 CA, 7 CL and 41 DD on their side. Wow. Just. Wow!
would it be possible to test whether BC speed is more effective at tanking damage than BB armor? also, does it change with targeting computer tech and radar?
Hey 71Cloak, two quick questions. What template do you use for the "36 BB" you gave 10 of to the both sides and what is the ideal fleet composition of BB's, HC's and DD's?
The 36 BBs were really just for nations that start with bbs and can refit them to be a bit more effective. Ca can win against BC without BB on their side. Composition depends on enemy. If the enemy has CL with a lot of light attack then you need a high ratio of screens to capitals (4.5 +). If the enemy doesn't have light attack then barely more than 3 will do.
Great test, good job. I am not sure if something is broken because when i add Kure Naval Arsenal, CA got bonus for torps/counted as screen. Paradox could mess some bonuses between.
Death stack will always be better than dispersing your fleet, and it will be like this untill Paradox finally realize that increasing positionning penalty doesn't do shit. The only exception i make if for submarines, i might be wrong but i prefer them as raiders or quick response force to naval invasions.
Death stacking is and always has been meta (don't bring your subs along). They tried increasing the penalty from having a larger fleet but it still doesn't seem to matter.
@@marthvader14 The issue is that during ww2, naval battles never engaged a lot of ships, it was always a bunch of smaller engagements and skirmishes. No one ever death stacked their fleet for many reasons : - Absolute supply headache, and probably impossible (how do you correctly refuel, coordinate a 200 ships fleet?) - Area coverage, if task forces were dispersed it was mainly to cover large areas, and having one big fleet basically gives the ennemy the ability to freely operate where you aren't. - Speed, having such a big fleet is basically impossible if you don't move really slowly, meaning you shall never be able to engage an intelligent ennemy - You can't get every single ship to be actively fighting, in a coherent naval formation many ships will be out of range, in hoi4 every ship fights as long as it is in the battle UI which is completely dumb. - Battle decisiveness, no nation is willing to go on a "all in" battle, and I'm pretty sure your sailors don't really want to be thrown in a meat grinder (maybe the case for the Japanese though). No nation is mad enough to loose all of their ship because it's logic to keep some kind of tactical flexibility (part of the reason why the german tried to keep their surface vessels late-war). There's a lot more reason why deathstack is stupidly innacurate and absolutely not strategically interesting. I just think they should have some kind of naval width just like land combat, this will break this meta and emphasize more on task force compositions.
11:57 About That... That was because of missiles out ranging battleship guns as if you notice modern cruisers and battlecrusser are close to if not the size and speed of fast WW2 battleships with out the armour and very few guns mostly missile silos. So Your right at face value it makes sense but being a balance of speed, guns and Armour s not what made destroyer and cusers good... Missles did.
Armor and size are 100% the obsoleting factor. Modern missile cruisers are sub 200 meters and displace less than the 10k tons. That's smaller than WW2 era heavy cruisers like the Baltimore class. Most battleships during WW2 would have been about 80-100 meters larger than your typical missile cruiser and would have displaced 40-60k tons. The Russians have the largest (and I believe only) missile armed battlecruiser in the world and it still doesn't even have half the displacement the Iowa had. They are nowhere near the same size. Keep in mind, the Iowa class was still in service during the gulf war (and later) and was armed with Tomahawk missiles. Missiles did not make them obsolete, because you can put missiles on them. Their extreme cost due to size and armor made them obsolete. Cruisers are only around today because they are relatively cheap (though the US navy is currently getting rid of all of its cruisers now and using destroyers instead). It really does just come down to a balance of cost. You can put missiles on anything, so you might as well put in on the cheapest/smallest thing you can, because armor won't save you anymore (and you don't want to put all you eggs is one nukeable basket). Even before the advent of guided missiles, there was a lot of talk about how much of a mistake is was for the US the prioritize battleships over large cruisers. Some people actually argue that battleships as a class have never NOT been "obsolete" and have never truly justified their cost outside of just being scary (thus strategically or "diplomatically" impactful). That was also an issue though because they were often held in reserve to avoid loses, or hunted mercilessly Planes had made large guns obsolete well before missiles did. Planes were already outraging them before WW2 even started. In their heyday, Torpedoes had also obsoleted their fair share of battleships.
Well, I´m not disappointed :) ...I've always liked cruisers, and I'm happy that they're not dead, and still very much usable. Also glad to know carriers work again as intended, I missed building them in the last few weeks. Thanx for the video & explanation!
What's the meta naval designer? Before it was coastal fleet designer, but given the stats you're giving, the coastal reduces heavy attack by 25%. Is it still viable for heavy cruisers? Or were better off getting raiding fleet designer or whatever suits best
Do you know the exact numbers that speed dodging was nerfed to? Is it still viable to make fast CAs with no armor to dodge while carriers do most of the work or is that wrong?
from what it looks like the british 'spirit of the airforce command' 'CAG night fighting' is fixed. So maybe it's worth it for england to go for the base strike doctrine? because it should be a 25% increase in airplane damage: 3 strikes a day (2 in daylight = 2*100% eff + (1 in nighttime = 50% eff instead of 1 in nighttime = 0% eff)) Also for some reason i was doing gigantic amounts of damage to ships with carrier cas/nav ( i may have overlooked something but idk what that could have been) I just started oneshotting carriers, BB's per aircraft strike
I'm curious (and apologies if this was answered and I missed it)--were any doctrines in use? Given that a couple of the winning strategies were behind until the other side ran out of org, I wonder if the fact that doctrines give considerable buffs to org relative to actual combat stats might swing things.
Any Idea when the beta patch is going to be fully released? Really want to start a playthrough with a lot of naval action but it would be boring if carriers are still broken.
In an actual game, this tilts even further towards CAs because of admiral +positioning trait more or less nullifies the malus from bigger fleet (and CA fleets will be bigger in an equal IC fight compared to BB/BC). UK, US and Japan have that trait on their best admiral, and Italy and Germany have that on their second best irc
An admiral will also increase defense, which increases armor. This wouldn't boost no armor CAs, but would make BCs and BBs stronger. I'm not sure if it's enough to make a significant difference, but I doubt that adding an admiral would be as clear cut as you are making it out to be.
SHBB have one advantage, they do not need much tech, Guns and Armor is for free on SHBB. so i dont think they are useless. the problem is the resource cost that early. which hurts your "civ snowball"
Im my eyes their big disadvantage is the repair that takes ages on SHBBs. They receive some light damage and they are out for months, god forbid they lose half their HP and you are looking at a year long repair.
I have found that torpedoes just aren't that valuable anymore. Destroyers are so hard to kill in comparison to everything else because of the lack of LA CAs that you aren't going to be able to torpedo anything. The enemy capitals will be dead before they run out of screens in my experience.
Hello, I have a question for SP. As France, with this new meta, what would be the optimal fleet design to quickly take down both german and italy fleet before UK did? I just want to stack warscore as much as I can.
If screens fight screens and capitals fight capitals, then maybe there is no need to add secondary batteries to the heavy cruisers? I mean, secondaries are light attack meant to target small ships like DDs and LCs. Fast capital ships with only heavy batteries sounds like the historical concept of the dreadnough, because they had superior range and speed they could fire on the enemy and retreat fast enough to stay just out of enemy range. I would add some AA, otherwise with the fixed carriers they would not stand a chance against them nor be able to operate anywhere near an enemy airfield
So the balanced battelfleet still just looks cool and tidy and is still totally pointless. What a disappointment. Maybe the suggested armor buffs I've seen mentioned might help? Thanks to Cloak, the god of HOI4 number crunching, he does it so we don't have to.
Would you consider doing an update on this video cause it looks like medium guns were hit with a nerf? In my own, admittedly amateurish testing, Secondary build CA's were losing to even mostly AAA specced BB's.
So do you still think deathstacking is the way to go? I have run some tests and it still works perfectly fine. If you're only one one or two sea tiles then multiple strike fleets also work since they can get to the battle and reinforce quickly, but if you are operating in many sea tiles then you have to deathstack.
Really hope RADAR upgrades increase the chance of task forces reinforcing others that are engaged against a much bigger task force. The chance of reinforcements being increased relative to the manuevering skill of the admiral.
Basically, this is how I understand it. Light Attack attacks screens then line then reserve Heavy Attack attacks line then reserve Torpedo attacks screen then line then reserve Piercing matters alot and partial piercing is probably a thing. Your no armor CL beat the armor CL because the extra dps from more ships is more important than the damage reduction from armor. Your armor CL beat destroyers because destroyer peircing is so low it's dps is low. Your destroyers beat no armor cruisers because in that case all damage is 100% and destroyers have more guns and hp per production. Bascially no armor CL do 90% damage to armor CL with more ships DD does 10% damage to armor CL DD does 100% damage to no armor CL I don't know what the math is but all armor has an effect. It must be partial peircing for guns. Torpedos and Bombers ignore armor.
Is there a website or something I can go to for updated meta's? I'm a bit of a pleb at hoi4. Last game I was Australia and did nothing but spam out Cruisers and destroyers. Actually worked very well against all the local hostile navy's and thr japanese subs... that is until the Yamato found me and sunk half my fleet in a single engagement...
I put 60 CLs vs 35 CAs with cheap dds for screens. Only 1 CA took damage the entire fight. They suffer from the same problem they had pre-BBA. They can't hit the CAs but the CAs can hit them. So by the time the get close to killing most of the screens they themselves are out of org and heavily damaged and just get annihilated by the CA.
ic (or instantconstruction) and it allow for instant building of ships. You still have to train them up to regular but otherwise its much faster. Also once you have a ship built you can convert it and keep the experience so building extra helps quite a bit with flexibility in testing. ai to turn off the ai and weather to turn off weather also help.
How does a CA fleet fare against a CV with CA fleet? Is it worth getting 4 CVs? Also something I noticed recently, the Converted Battleship Carriers are actually better than regular 1936 carriers, as they have a lot more range and an extremely similar price.
The drawback of the BB conversions is IIRC that they're more costly to build from keel up and that they can only use heavy engines instead of the more efficient carrier engines.
my final question about this is what if you simply don't bring the capital ships to the fight and instead brought only light ships to the battle along with torpedoes to kill to kill enemy capitals when their screening efficiency drops
I still dont get what should i do i mean i get heavy cruisers are destroys everything except bb but i dont get anything else maybe bcz i have average english so can u build a example navy for japan and usa
I've found that light cruisers still shred, battlecruisers are awesome too. Carriers have always been OP, especially decked out with nothing but naval bombers. The only thing that seems to be a true difference in naval battles are just better fire control and radar, which the AI doesn't seem to really invest in, as far as armor you really only need the base level battlecruiser armor or none to be successful. Oddly enough.
--> no armor CA kills heavy armor CA i think; less armor -> more dmg taken from light attack and vise versa heavy battery -> deals hard attack with very little light attack which is very weird since bigger guns shoot hravier HE shells. can't they make heavy guns have high light attack with less tracking? like in Stellatis
For singleplayer it really doesnt matter as the ai is terrible. The fastest and cheapest way is to delete all heavy ships and build only light cruisers and destroyer. Focus on light attack and speed for cruisers as they will simply decimate enemy screens and your destroyers will nuke the remaining heavys. It’s ridiculous honestly, around 30 properly built light cruiser 2s with about 50-60 dds (make sure they have torps too) is gonna obliterate the whole british navy with very minimal casualties. Or yeah just spam 1940 subs with added snorkel and dont build anything else.
I would be interrested how this all effects in the Total war mod lol... But would be too much to ask If you could take a Look bc yeah its technically New naval system
For single player, is the naval meta still the same with CAs or Subs? I’ve tried both but, I haven’t found much success in gaining naval supremacy with either one. I feel like I’m just wasting my time building a decent navy just for it to get sunk in a matter of seconds.
Both subs and Ca are bad at generating naval supremacy. Both can be quite effective at actual combat. The best way to get naval supremacy is to build BC with 1 gun and nothing else. The exist merely for supremacy and nothing else.
@@71Cloak Yeah, I did figure that the main advantage of Cruiser Subs was that they were very frequently available early (Japan and France get them from the jump). Still, I figured it was worth asking. I usually do think the ability to use scout planes is a bit of a gimmick though.
I see you are using radar on the builds - i prioritise this for my spotters only but never understood the need for it or recon planes on main stacks fleets - any thoughts on why it would be useful on them for the ic cost?
Игры
![[HOI4 Modding ] Creating a new country](/img/1.gif)
Armor on ships in real life: A total saving grace for some ships.
Armor in HOI4: Total waste time and effort.
I kinda wish having armor had the same process as tanks with piercing etc for the ships
It literally does. Armour is just not cost effective
@@GrandSnow469 Doesn't seem like it lol. Not nearly as noticeably as it is for tanks anyway
The meta is having more dockyard than your enemy, this was made assuming that each side have same amount of production and both side wanted to achieve naval supremacy via ship alone without planes and other strategy, both industrial capacity also need to be balance with same number of dockyard and tech which in game is virtually inexistent.
Armor is the king it just saying who gonna cares about production cost if you have more resources and more dockyard than your enemy?
The problem I see with naval combat is the sinking rate is too high, it should be aimed that most ship in the battle should survive even for losing side, it's utterly ridiculous that you losing hundreds of ship in single engagement, this way so opposing side can repair and still be in the fight in a theatre, it's not fun to just build up your Navy entire game just for couple battle and then achieving naval supremacy and your Navy is useless for the rest of the game.
The reason land combat is exciting is because you have a chance of counter attack one defeat doesn't mean the end but Navy is not like that at most you only need 3 good battle and your enemy is done.
@@gkagara Not exactly. The way it is set up, there is usually no recovery if you lose say 10 tank divisions in Russia. Thats a huge loss for a German player. Same thing if the US navy had gotten blown up by a Japanese player. The Japanese player then gets to raid the Med or if Italy built up their fleet, they break out into the Atlantic and raid the coast of Britain.
The game is setup fine except armor just isnt good. If you have 2 ships of the exact same design except 1 has armor and 1 doesnt. You produce enough of the no armor version over a period of time that the armored version cannot physically survive against
I don't know why paradox just doesn't buff armour more. Makes historical sense as HC can't really pen any battleships or even battlecruisers and it stops the HC spam. Such a change could also buff Torpedos as they then really are the only options for cruisers and light ships to fight battleships.
Would potentially make pocket battleships a thing. BB calibre guns on a cruiser frame to penetrate BB/BC armour, and BC armour to withstand CA medium batteries, while being cheaper and faster. Much more vulnerable to torpedoes and naval bombers due to having lower HP and air attack for their construction cost, and having less space for secondary batteries.
@@lukedufaur5368 Panzerschiff goes brrrr
@@lukedufaur5368 If armor is buffed i suspect building the fastest and cheapest bc possible will be the meta
@@argigamespronl7999 speed doesn't help you against air attacks. It will still need AA
Guys the meta is having more steel, chromium and dockyard than your enemy because in game finding same amount of dockyard with same amount of production cost to engage in battle without intervention of naval bomber from airbase is virtually impossible.
One also said that one side usually have more ship than the other.
Thanks for always doing the testing for the 2 people still working on HOI4 at paradox, you're a lifesaver!
I FUCKING KNEW IT
As soon as I saw you can still use secondary batteries on CAs I instantly thought "I bet these guys still wreck shit up"
I made them but playing singleplayer without actual testing I couldn't really see how well they perform, since the AI gets destroyed by everything basically
I was waiting for the update to come out to try them out
I genuinely think the issue is either heavy ship hull is too expensive to counter heavy cruisers, or heavy cruisers are too cheap and maybe need to be their own hull like the German panzerschiffe with increased production (for condensing research just have you unlock it with cruisers hull), maybe only 2 heavy guns allowed like on the front and back?
Mostly the armour calculation is dumb. It used to be binary, either you pierced and did full damage or failed to pierce and suffered a -90% penalty. Now that is a bit broken so they introduced a sort of partial piecing.
The current formula is -90% x [1 - ( your piercing / enemy's armour)]. So with 25 piercing against 35 armour you get -28.2% which is your damage reduction. That number should probably get doubled if they want armour and by extension BC/BBs to have any use in naval combat.
Historical heavy cruisers had up to 6 turrets
No
@@512TheWolf512 but of 8in to 12in compared to bb's up to 18in
@@argigamespronl7999 still, up to 6 turrets
Also another issue with naval battles is that they "black hole" or "singularity" all the fleets in the world, a naval engagement can take so long to resolve that a fleet across the litteral world can get over to it to reinforce. as a result you are going to be fighting the entire navy at some point because youll be stuck retreating for weeks from submarines when the time to actually disengage would have happened within afew hours.
after multiple multiplayer games, I will spill the beans here. its actually decked out light cruisers. With the refit bonuses, produce a bunch of light cruisers and you will destroy the screens and the main fleet with torpedo's
Lemme also add, I did try the build 71cload mentioned, heavy attack cruisers with light guns. I was able to kill the heavy ships, but then those light cruisers fucked me over
Imagine trying to fully understand the combat metas in Millennium Dawn 😭
It's true to the real world! Nobody wants to find out what actually happens if modern navies are engaged in open war.
MD combat meta is probably just ignore navy, build air and use transports to teleport airborne armored infantry into their VPs
theres just so much shit in millenium dawn i dont even know what to build
@@Proletrolliat IFVs are the best all around ground unit but tanks in plain tiles in MD go absolutely insane. They nerfed Heavy Airborne which is ass
@@neweraamerica7363
Based
Based on the performance of the VDV in Ukraine
The DP secondaries are working properly. That is what dual purpose means that the gun can engage both surface and air targets so it should give anti-air. The change is just enabling the gun to elevate to 80-90 degrees and giving it a proximity fused shell. It is the same as throwing some aa on to a division to give it some piercing against armour.
I get that it just doesn't make sense that they have the exact same stats for the exact same cost. Introducing a new mounting system and targeting system isn't free.
Well given that you have a mounting for the gun and a high angle fire director for the other AA guns anyway it sort of is free. What I don’t understand is why you can now research a 1940 and 44 secondary that isn’t dual purpose. Before BBA DP secondaries we’re just the end of the secondary tree. Now you get them earlier, which makes sense a lot of 1940 designed ships had DP mounts, but you can still choose the less capable weapon for the same cost. Why would anyone do that?
You don't get better secondaries then the secondary 2s. You can get better main batteries for DDs but the only way to get better secondaries is through the dual purpose tree.
I just found you out today and damn, all the effort you are giving to get the numbers. I must say, it's quite damn impressive, man. Subbed right away. Keep those videos flowing!
Thanks for putting so much effort in the testing!
"Hey you, Light Attack Heavy Cruiser..."
"What?"
"You're supposed to be dead!"
"I got better!"
Thank you so much for creating this content. Your spreadsheets show great skill and dedication.
Paradox just needs to suck it up and apply an effective naval combat width. I think a tonnage limit (basically make IC a tonnage equivalent) could work if it's set right. The only reason heavy cruisers work is that you can mass so many of them and can generate so much light attack from secondaries in small increments. It wouldn't even be particularly ahistorical - a navy of 300 ships fighting in the English Channel would be WAY too large to maneuver with any efficacy. As long as death stacking is possible heavy cruisers will reign supreme.
They tried that technically. They increased the positioning penalty from having a larger fleet but it is still largely inconsequently.
@@71Cloak If it worked like land combat where if you go over the limit you can't bring more ships in it would make better ships slightly better since they could fight them "1on1" instead of all at the same time.
@@71Cloak I feel like the answer is tied to reworking fleet commanders. Admirals should control the larger groupings as now, but the smaller task forces should also have commanders with some form of command limit. Then have a limit to the number of commanders you can have in each engagement, with anything above 3 leading to massive debuffs and a higher chance that units will randomly disengage due to confusion within the command structures. Though honestly at this stage I feel like the entire base system needs a rethink as it's always felt overly simplified and has always turned one of the biggest theatres of the conflict into an afterthought.
Didn't the original naval combat system work kinda like that, only with weapon ranges. So bigger ships with bigger guns had longer ranges and could engage everything, meanwhile smaller ships could only engage 1 or 2 ships "up the line"
@@71Cloak the problem with the positioning penalty is that it's capped at -75% and it is based on the ratio between your ships and the enemy's
This makes it so that you essentially always get some kind of penalty (for no reason) but stacking more ships does the job very well
On carrier combat, c0rax said in the beta-thread that atm the game takes any aircraft that can do air superiority and sets it to "cap" mission(fleet defence) and whatever aircraft are left that can do naval strikes is then used for offensive ops - so atm multirole fighters/nav will only do cap. Pdx are working on migrating it to main armament(role) so we can use fighter weapons on nav/cas and still have them go on the offensive.
Something that i dont see people talk about is Coastal defence ship. They can put Light Medium gun in one of the slots. That is what i have been doing since patch, Costal Def with 1 Light and rest duals + cheap DDs. Might be worth testing vs yours Heavy Cruisers. Dont bother with Torpedo, it doesnt ignore armor like before and it is doing reduced damage based on armor since last patch.
coastal defence ships are very underrated for mediterranean
Great tests, thank you. According to my small scale testing, screened fleet vs. unscreened fleet with same IC cost, I would say, forget screens in surface battles and use the IC for more capital ships. Historically screening was introduced to counter the thread of torpedo boats to capital ships. Since BBA the damage torpedoes seems so much nerfed and together with the strong positioning bonus for the unscreened fleet, that it is useless. Exception is probably if the enemy attacks with subs. Then you probably want to have some anti-sub destroyers.
What's IC
Thank you for the tests!
Thank God for people like you that like to crunch numbers and share it with the world! :)
Could you maybe take a look at panzerschiffs with 3 AA 2s, 1 Heavy gun lvl1, 3 2ndary batteries and lvl 2 engine for 36? they would be used with roach screens for raiding in the atlantic.
You mean do what Germany did with them irl? I mean it seemed pretty fucking effective it scared the Brits shitless
Thanks for the testing it save time on modding. Most appreciated.
Two questions:
1. Would having carriers let you get away with less heavy attack on your cruisers?
2. What do you think about the buff on the coastal defense designer?
Appreciate how you explain things
I'm looking forward to the carrier fix. I used carriers on patrol with missions assigned to the air wings (i.e. the current workaround) and they are immensely powerful. Even carrier CAS, which was formerly worthless, does good damage. Looking forward to any analysis on the designer options. I'm guessing that Raiding Fleet is probably still the best.
Carrier raiding with 6 screen or convoy protection duty is the best it seems they have the highest efficiency and could cover a lot of ground.
I find it ridiculous that you need hundreds of destroyer to secure your shipping line.
best hoi4 youtuber rn
Have you ever tested cruiser subs?
I find them to be a nice sweetspot between subs 2 and 3. but without wasting a research slot for a long time.
With a plane they even have a nice spotting chance and shredd the convoys in the Atlantic.
Since Carriers got fixed recently, I did a few tests with these designs and fleet comps, except I replaced some of the HC with an equivalent IC value of Carriers.
From my initial testing, it would seem that if carriers are involved at *all*, even if both sides have the same number and quality, Base Strike seems to completely destroy Fleet in Being.
Do you think you could look into this?
Carriers seem to do an absolutely absurd amount of damage now, so much so that personally don't think it's possible to conclude a meta without taking them into account.
Same thing here, i may have overlooked something but my carriers absolutely destroyed.
Actually now that i think about it i did not really use carrier fighters on both sides, so maybe that had something to do with it?
Fighters didn't seem to be it, maybe the low AA value though
Great testing by the way!
btw does anyone know if the soviet air debuff national spirit been patched or does the debuffs still not work properly? Knowing paradox the air debuffs are still not applied to air even after months of the bug being known.
I have been seeing very good results using a mix of 100% torpedo destroyers and 100% light attack cruisers. Screens melt from the latter and everything else (big) implodes from the former.
AA can be put on either if needed and submarines get melted too due to the magical damage destroyers do to subs even without depth charges.
You are the saint of Hoi4
How do you recommend controlling the fleet? Is it still convoy raid with subs and have everything else on a strike force death stack?
Paradox absolutely needs to hire you. Immediately.
After watching this video I started an USA campaing just to test what was said here, since I never really understood naval game and never cared about it really. And the results were in the very first battle against Japanese : 1 lost destroyer and 8 CV naval bombers on my side VS 1 BC, 4 CA, 7 CL and 41 DD on their side. Wow. Just. Wow!
would it be possible to test whether BC speed is more effective at tanking damage than BB armor? also, does it change with targeting computer tech and radar?
Hey 71Cloak, two quick questions. What template do you use for the "36 BB" you gave 10 of to the both sides and what is the ideal fleet composition of BB's, HC's and DD's?
The 36 BBs were really just for nations that start with bbs and can refit them to be a bit more effective. Ca can win against BC without BB on their side.
Composition depends on enemy. If the enemy has CL with a lot of light attack then you need a high ratio of screens to capitals (4.5 +). If the enemy doesn't have light attack then barely more than 3 will do.
Great video!! How did you get the beta that fixes aircraft carrier bug? I've got a big carrier fleet that does nothing.
Great test, good job. I am not sure if something is broken because when i add Kure Naval Arsenal, CA got bonus for torps/counted as screen. Paradox could mess some bonuses between.
Its because the are cruiser hulls. Cruisers have always counted as screens for the purposes of designer bonuses.
Awesome video as always! Quick question, is death stacking your whole navy in a single fleet still the meta? I've always thought that was a bit silly
Death stack will always be better than dispersing your fleet, and it will be like this untill Paradox finally realize that increasing positionning penalty doesn't do shit.
The only exception i make if for submarines, i might be wrong but i prefer them as raiders or quick response force to naval invasions.
Death stacking is and always has been meta (don't bring your subs along). They tried increasing the penalty from having a larger fleet but it still doesn't seem to matter.
Why silly? Makes sense that the side with a larger force has an advantage doesn't it?
@@marthvader14 The issue is that during ww2, naval battles never engaged a lot of ships, it was always a bunch of smaller engagements and skirmishes.
No one ever death stacked their fleet for many reasons :
- Absolute supply headache, and probably impossible (how do you correctly refuel, coordinate a 200 ships fleet?)
- Area coverage, if task forces were dispersed it was mainly to cover large areas, and having one big fleet basically gives the ennemy the ability to freely operate where you aren't.
- Speed, having such a big fleet is basically impossible if you don't move really slowly, meaning you shall never be able to engage an intelligent ennemy
- You can't get every single ship to be actively fighting, in a coherent naval formation many ships will be out of range, in hoi4 every ship fights as long as it is in the battle UI which is completely dumb.
- Battle decisiveness, no nation is willing to go on a "all in" battle, and I'm pretty sure your sailors don't really want to be thrown in a meat grinder (maybe the case for the Japanese though). No nation is mad enough to loose all of their ship because it's logic to keep some kind of tactical flexibility (part of the reason why the german tried to keep their surface vessels late-war).
There's a lot more reason why deathstack is stupidly innacurate and absolutely not strategically interesting.
I just think they should have some kind of naval width just like land combat, this will break this meta and emphasize more on task force compositions.
@@loxyo3089 U are mistaken a lot of naval battles in the pacific were death stacks. The main reason why it didnt happen more often is because of oil.
That's the exact point of the dual purpose, so no nerfing needed
11:57 About That... That was because of missiles out ranging battleship guns as if you notice modern cruisers and battlecrusser are close to if not the size and speed of fast WW2 battleships with out the armour and very few guns mostly missile silos. So Your right at face value it makes sense but being a balance of speed, guns and Armour s not what made destroyer and cusers good... Missles did.
Armor and size are 100% the obsoleting factor.
Modern missile cruisers are sub 200 meters and displace less than the 10k tons. That's smaller than WW2 era heavy cruisers like the Baltimore class. Most battleships during WW2 would have been about 80-100 meters larger than your typical missile cruiser and would have displaced 40-60k tons. The Russians have the largest (and I believe only) missile armed battlecruiser in the world and it still doesn't even have half the displacement the Iowa had. They are nowhere near the same size. Keep in mind, the Iowa class was still in service during the gulf war (and later) and was armed with Tomahawk missiles.
Missiles did not make them obsolete, because you can put missiles on them. Their extreme cost due to size and armor made them obsolete. Cruisers are only around today because they are relatively cheap (though the US navy is currently getting rid of all of its cruisers now and using destroyers instead). It really does just come down to a balance of cost. You can put missiles on anything, so you might as well put in on the cheapest/smallest thing you can, because armor won't save you anymore (and you don't want to put all you eggs is one nukeable basket).
Even before the advent of guided missiles, there was a lot of talk about how much of a mistake is was for the US the prioritize battleships over large cruisers. Some people actually argue that battleships as a class have never NOT been "obsolete" and have never truly justified their cost outside of just being scary (thus strategically or "diplomatically" impactful). That was also an issue though because they were often held in reserve to avoid loses, or hunted mercilessly
Planes had made large guns obsolete well before missiles did. Planes were already outraging them before WW2 even started. In their heyday, Torpedoes had also obsoleted their fair share of battleships.
I've been waiting for this
Well, I´m not disappointed :) ...I've always liked cruisers, and I'm happy that they're not dead, and still very much usable. Also glad to know carriers work again as intended, I missed building them in the last few weeks. Thanx for the video & explanation!
hi! I would like to do my own tests! How did you create all those fleets and arrange that the US and UK fleets are in the same sea zone? Many thanks!
71Cloak can you upload a google drive link or something of that excel file you’re using so we can compare and use for reference easier?
What's the meta naval designer? Before it was coastal fleet designer, but given the stats you're giving, the coastal reduces heavy attack by 25%. Is it still viable for heavy cruisers? Or were better off getting raiding fleet designer or whatever suits best
Can we put CAs in the screen so that their armor actually does something, and so that they can get killed by CLs? Thx pdx
Thank fucking god for this video every video I’ve watched to learn the game is from before this patch and I was soooo confused
Do you know the exact numbers that speed dodging was nerfed to? Is it still viable to make fast CAs with no armor to dodge while carriers do most of the work or is that wrong?
from what it looks like the british 'spirit of the airforce command' 'CAG night fighting' is fixed. So maybe it's worth it for england to go for the base strike doctrine? because it should be a 25% increase in airplane damage: 3 strikes a day (2 in daylight = 2*100% eff + (1 in nighttime = 50% eff instead of 1 in nighttime = 0% eff))
Also for some reason i was doing gigantic amounts of damage to ships with carrier cas/nav ( i may have overlooked something but idk what that could have been) I just started oneshotting carriers, BB's per aircraft strike
I'm curious (and apologies if this was answered and I missed it)--were any doctrines in use? Given that a couple of the winning strategies were behind until the other side ran out of org, I wonder if the fact that doctrines give considerable buffs to org relative to actual combat stats might swing things.
Fleet in being which has the best stats l.
Any Idea when the beta patch is going to be fully released?
Really want to start a playthrough with a lot of naval action but it would be boring if carriers are still broken.
In an actual game, this tilts even further towards CAs because of admiral +positioning trait more or less nullifies the malus from bigger fleet (and CA fleets will be bigger in an equal IC fight compared to BB/BC). UK, US and Japan have that trait on their best admiral, and Italy and Germany have that on their second best irc
An admiral will also increase defense, which increases armor. This wouldn't boost no armor CAs, but would make BCs and BBs stronger. I'm not sure if it's enough to make a significant difference, but I doubt that adding an admiral would be as clear cut as you are making it out to be.
SHBB have one advantage, they do not need much tech, Guns and Armor is for free on SHBB. so i dont think they are useless. the problem is the resource cost that early. which hurts your "civ snowball"
Im my eyes their big disadvantage is the repair that takes ages on SHBBs. They receive some light damage and they are out for months, god forbid they lose half their HP and you are looking at a year long repair.
Cloak, have you looked at 2-in-1 destroyers that are stacked with torpedo launchers and light batteries?
I have found that torpedoes just aren't that valuable anymore. Destroyers are so hard to kill in comparison to everything else because of the lack of LA CAs that you aren't going to be able to torpedo anything. The enemy capitals will be dead before they run out of screens in my experience.
The only test I didn't see is torp boats. How do they fare in this situation?
Will add aa and change secondary to dual purpose to deal with naval strike worth it
Can’t help but notice you cleared up your taskbar, lol
Just moved it to the other monitor rather than having it on both. Don't have to worry about you guys seeing anything your not supposed to that way.
with the new cas, are armored trains still unbreakable?
They do AA damage now. It's great. But if you stack enough ground attack onto a medium fighter, they do alright.
What about a combination of Carriers and light cruisers with stacking light and torpedo attack
So I just need to make the design at 6:30? Do I need destroyers as well? Will submarines be a threat to me?
Anybody tried a really fast, 'never engage', carrier strike group?
Hello, I have a question for SP.
As France, with this new meta, what would be the optimal fleet design to quickly take down both german and italy fleet before UK did? I just want to stack warscore as much as I can.
Lend-lease fuel and build naval bombers, lol
and against sub what templates gonna be the best now ? the best sub against destroyer ?
Is armor suck or it works now on ships? Especially with CA where you just need speed.
Could you do a test on Carrier Planes? as you could modify them way more such as a Carrier fighter with torpedoes on them
is this still the meta destroyer and heavy cruiser secondary batter spam and should i upgrade it to 1944 light cruiser version
If screens fight screens and capitals fight capitals, then maybe there is no need to add secondary batteries to the heavy cruisers? I mean, secondaries are light attack meant to target small ships like DDs and LCs. Fast capital ships with only heavy batteries sounds like the historical concept of the dreadnough, because they had superior range and speed they could fire on the enemy and retreat fast enough to stay just out of enemy range. I would add some AA, otherwise with the fixed carriers they would not stand a chance against them nor be able to operate anywhere near an enemy airfield
So the balanced battelfleet still just looks cool and tidy and is still totally pointless. What a disappointment. Maybe the suggested armor buffs I've seen mentioned might help? Thanks to Cloak, the god of HOI4 number crunching, he does it so we don't have to.
Doesn't the positioning penalty affect your deathstack fleets?
Would you consider doing an update on this video cause it looks like medium guns were hit with a nerf?
In my own, admittedly amateurish testing, Secondary build CA's were losing to even mostly AAA specced BB's.
Sorry to ask, which is the meta for 1.12.1?
So, you can put Heavy cruiser guns on a light cruiser now... oversight?
Came to sse the new meta
So do you still think deathstacking is the way to go? I have run some tests and it still works perfectly fine. If you're only one one or two sea tiles then multiple strike fleets also work since they can get to the battle and reinforce quickly, but if you are operating in many sea tiles then you have to deathstack.
yes. Deathstacking is still easily in meta
@@GeneralSunsprite that sucks
Really hope RADAR upgrades increase the chance of task forces reinforcing others that are engaged against a much bigger task force. The chance of reinforcements being increased relative to the manuevering skill of the admiral.
@@theoheinrich529
That is why I normally take maneuver spirit for ships. Makes it more likely to play historically!
Basically, this is how I understand it.
Light Attack attacks screens then line then reserve
Heavy Attack attacks line then reserve
Torpedo attacks screen then line then reserve
Piercing matters alot and partial piercing is probably a thing. Your no armor CL beat the armor CL because the extra dps from more ships is more important than the damage reduction from armor. Your armor CL beat destroyers because destroyer peircing is so low it's dps is low. Your destroyers beat no armor cruisers because in that case all damage is 100% and destroyers have more guns and hp per production.
Bascially no armor CL do 90% damage to armor CL with more ships
DD does 10% damage to armor CL
DD does 100% damage to no armor CL
I don't know what the math is but all armor has an effect. It must be partial peircing for guns. Torpedos and Bombers ignore armor.
Idk if even paradox does as detail testing as you do:D
They don't
did you take into account the usa's torpedo debuff in the officer corp when not adding torpedo to destroyers?
I swapped to night fighting.
Regarding carriers. Was it a hotfix that fixed it? Did not see it in the patch notes.
Beta patch.
5:49 cute lil sticker :3
Can you make naval guide for dummies?
Is there a website or something I can go to for updated meta's? I'm a bit of a pleb at hoi4.
Last game I was Australia and did nothing but spam out Cruisers and destroyers. Actually worked very well against all the local hostile navy's and thr japanese subs... that is until the Yamato found me and sunk half my fleet in a single engagement...
Have you tried pure light cruisers vs heavy cruisers+roach destroyers?
I put 60 CLs vs 35 CAs with cheap dds for screens. Only 1 CA took damage the entire fight. They suffer from the same problem they had pre-BBA. They can't hit the CAs but the CAs can hit them. So by the time the get close to killing most of the screens they themselves are out of org and heavily damaged and just get annihilated by the CA.
Ehm how can you do These saves? Are there like Cheats to insta build ships so you can test Different Designs or what? Would be nice to know
ic (or instantconstruction) and it allow for instant building of ships. You still have to train them up to regular but otherwise its much faster. Also once you have a ship built you can convert it and keep the experience so building extra helps quite a bit with flexibility in testing.
ai to turn off the ai and weather to turn off weather also help.
Nice vid 👍
How does a CA fleet fare against a CV with CA fleet? Is it worth getting 4 CVs? Also something I noticed recently, the Converted Battleship Carriers are actually better than regular 1936 carriers, as they have a lot more range and an extremely similar price.
And more health.
anything left then 1940's cv is worthless
The drawback of the BB conversions is IIRC that they're more costly to build from keel up and that they can only use heavy engines instead of the more efficient carrier engines.
@@magni5648 They can use carrier engines no problem, and should because they are way cheaper. They also are about the same price keep up.
my final question about this is what if you simply don't bring the capital ships to the fight and instead brought only light ships to the battle along with torpedoes to kill to kill enemy capitals when their screening efficiency drops
That would be the CA vs just screens testing where the CAs won.
I still dont get what should i do i mean i get heavy cruisers are destroys everything except bb but i dont get anything else maybe bcz i have average english so can u build a example navy for japan and usa
I still can't understand carrier mechanics very well. Can we have a carrier test?
I just build Battlecruisers.
I've found that light cruisers still shred, battlecruisers are awesome too. Carriers have always been OP, especially decked out with nothing but naval bombers. The only thing that seems to be a true difference in naval battles are just better fire control and radar, which the AI doesn't seem to really invest in, as far as armor you really only need the base level battlecruiser armor or none to be successful. Oddly enough.
--> no armor CA kills heavy armor CA
i think;
less armor -> more dmg taken from light attack and vise versa
heavy battery -> deals hard attack with very little light attack
which is very weird since bigger guns shoot hravier HE shells.
can't they make heavy guns have high light attack with less tracking? like in Stellatis
Thank you dude, take some rest lol.
What designs would you recommend for single player Germany?
For singleplayer it really doesnt matter as the ai is terrible. The fastest and cheapest way is to delete all heavy ships and build only light cruisers and destroyer. Focus on light attack and speed for cruisers as they will simply decimate enemy screens and your destroyers will nuke the remaining heavys.
It’s ridiculous honestly, around 30 properly built light cruiser 2s with about 50-60 dds (make sure they have torps too) is gonna obliterate the whole british navy with very minimal casualties.
Or yeah just spam 1940 subs with added snorkel and dont build anything else.
Spam either really cheap desstroyers or empty BC and then naval invade the UK and steal their fleet. Why build your own when you can take others?
I would be interrested how this all effects in the Total war mod lol... But would be too much to ask If you could take a Look bc yeah its technically New naval system
so should me fleet composition be battle cruisers, those heavy cruisers, and destroyers?
CA, some CV, and a ton of DDs are going to be your bread and butter.
@@71Cloak ok
good vide
For single player, is the naval meta still the same with CAs or Subs?
I’ve tried both but, I haven’t found much success in gaining naval supremacy with either one. I feel like I’m just wasting my time building a decent navy just for it to get sunk in a matter of seconds.
Both subs and Ca are bad at generating naval supremacy. Both can be quite effective at actual combat.
The best way to get naval supremacy is to build BC with 1 gun and nothing else. The exist merely for supremacy and nothing else.
@@71Cloak Which gun should I use for the BC, would a light med battery work?
You cant put a medium battery on a heavy cruiser. Generally speaking higher tier guns aren't worth the reduction in speed.
I'm curious about something: How do Cruiser Subs stack up? Japan and France get them from the jump, and the US, Soviets and Germany can unlock them.
Cruiser subs are just sub 2s with extra range and the slots of subs 3s. Realistically you might as well just go for sub 3s.
@@71Cloak Yeah, I did figure that the main advantage of Cruiser Subs was that they were very frequently available early (Japan and France get them from the jump). Still, I figured it was worth asking. I usually do think the ability to use scout planes is a bit of a gimmick though.
Navy should be made that there is not that many ship sunk, instead most ship will escape with damage.
That's one way to avoid this deathstack exploit.
I see you are using radar on the builds - i prioritise this for my spotters only but never understood the need for it or recon planes on main stacks fleets - any thoughts on why it would be useful on them for the ic cost?
Radars increase hit chance in BBA