BC - useless ship or unique purpose?

[Zardnaar]

In theory you're kinda right. But Germany can build X6 BC, X3 lvl II subs and a single line of FC for less than the same cost of X6BB. The screens for the BC were lt cruisers.

I just annhilated most of the RN, including BB and CVs. I lost about 5 BC including the losses for Sealion, and 3 of those was because I wasn't paying attention when they went past Scapa flow. I had an easier time of it as well compared to the traditional X6 BB, X2 CVL, X10 DD SAG I build and I had 3 smaller SAGs (really 2 SAGs as I replaced losses).

With BB I normally lose a few during Sealion. I was sceptical at first, but try it out with Donitz as the commander and rush some naval techs. I'm not to sure if I would 100% agree but I just gave the RN the worst beating I've ever given them in all my games- at least by 1940

 

[unmerged(132371)]

It's not always about the best fleet or best use of IC days ect. BC fleets are exciting because it is dangerous to use a glass jawed puncher. My first Barbarossa had 20 ARM 30+ MOT and a boatload of INF , overpowered, yes. Now 12 ARM ,12 MOT ,125+ INF, it is not a sure thing and I have to be at my best. Its the same with BC's . How little can I get it done with?

 

[unmerged(170611)]

You do not understand the main principles of war )))

The war is not wining battles, but completing tasks.

And you do? I reiterate, you are advocating for the use of a SAG that has a very limited window of opportunity. Under a very narrow set of circumstances a BC-SAG can be useful, but I don't see the utility in devoting IC to a fleet that will only be useful for a few years. A couple of you have posted about BC-SAGs and their utility, but neither of you have gone much beyond the first 5 years of a campaign.

IC savings are important, but ships can't be upgraded and BC's have horrible defense, so how well will they hold up beyond '44 or so? You may have short term IC savings with a BC-SAG, but you haven't talked about how much IC you have to spend in the later years of a campaign to repair a BC-SAG. You don't have any long term savings. I'd rather spend my IC on fleets with staying power.

I don't care how much IC can be saved in the late '30s or early '40's, if my BC-SAG ends up on the ocean floor in 1948 it was a waste of IC, and level IV BCs will end up on the ocean floor by the late '40s.

Correction: This is a game forum, not a military command center, so perhaps you should say something like "You do not understand the principles of the game engine" instead of talking about the principles of war, eh Hannibal?

 

[Zardnaar]

Theres going to be no one left with a decent navy by 43/44. USSR nosedives in 41, USA follows in 42 and in 43 England and USA will be annexed. Switch to building something else like CVs or BB after the bitter peace if it makes you feel better.

 

[Iwo Jima]

And you do? I reiterate, you are advocating for the use of a SAG that has a very limited window of opportunity. Under a very narrow set of circumstances a BC-SAG can be useful, but I don't see the utility in devoting IC to a fleet that will only be useful for a few years. A couple of you have posted about BC-SAGs and their utility, but neither of you have gone much beyond the first 5 years of a campaign.

IC savings are important, but ships can't be upgraded and BC's have horrible defense, so how well will they hold up beyond '44 or so? You may have short term IC savings with a BC-SAG, but you haven't talked about how much IC you have to spend in the later years of a campaign to repair a BC-SAG. You don't have any long term savings. I'd rather spend my IC on fleets with staying power.

I don't care how much IC can be saved in the late '30s or early '40's, if my BC-SAG ends up on the ocean floor in 1948 it was a waste of IC, and level IV BCs will end up on the ocean floor by the late '40s.

Correction: This is a game forum, not a military command center, so perhaps you should say something like "You do not understand the principles of the game engine" instead of talking about the principles of war, eh Hannibal?

Sorry. My phrase was too provoking )

I just wanted to say, that it's absolutely wrong approach to compare fleets with their strength. You need to compare their ability to complete strategic tasks that you need to solve, assuming also time and resources.

In my approach, and Zardnaar shows it too, you don't need to think about "after 5 years"

in a 5 years USSR, UK, France are under you.
If you fast enough, USA too. If not, you will have so much IC, so you could build anything.

You need BC when you use INDERECT APPROACH. When you have a lot of free IC, you could use other naval doctrines, such Power Projection or Base Control.

 

[Zardnaar]

Im still playing my BC game. About to do Barbarossa and have 20 BC built and the UK capital is in Karachi. The sub are continuing to crush the UK convoys in the Indian ocean, and the BC are patroling off the coast off Australia (thanx Colombo). Otherwise similar to my BB game but with more naval units.

 

[Zardnaar]

Mauling a larger American fleet with BB and CVs in it.

 

[Iwo Jima]

why not you put s-radars on CLs? it's your main detection power after all )
I would also put s-IH on them, or s-AA.

in my games, I also do not wait the moment when my ship is sunk, and retreat, even if the victory is mine. Anyway, BC is much faster to repair, than CV.


12 vs 27 - brave man! true German! )))




Also, you could test addition CVL to your SAG. In 1942 it could have good posit. bonuses. I would interested in results )

 

[Zardnaar]

12 Vs 27 thats nothing. 12 V 52

1BC loss, 5 CA, 1 BB, 1 CV, CVL and numerous DD inflicted. Something like a dozen BB in that stack. I think the yanks are starting to run outta ships on this side of theAtlantic. By now got another X6 BC-V almost ready. I would have to start another game for CVL as I have totally neglected them. Radar on the cruisers hmmmn. If one fleet gets a bit chewed up I just retraet, send in another fleet and the spped of BC zip back to Brest grab replacements and sail back. 4 SAGs with a new one almost ready with lvl V CL and BC. West coast of yankee land is captured along with Panama canal so I'l go to the pacific and see what I can find.

In this situation it seems easier than the BB game i tried out.

 

[Iwo Jima]

I tried indirect approach with Australia, and it's not so bad.

For example:

 

[elbasto]

"Small" capitals such as CVLs and BCs seem to be extremely efficient.

 

[Zardnaar]

I tried indirect approach with Australia, and it's not so bad.

For example:

Nice I'm currently playing a game as Australia ATM, but I'm going down the carrier path. Guy CC Royle (+10% BC) as naval minister? Are your light cruisers doing anything or could you use the cheaper destoyers for the same effect?

I might have to try again with BB and use them like BC and see what the results are.

 

[Iwo Jima]

Nice I'm currently playing a game as Australia ATM, but I'm going down the carrier path. Guy CC Royle (+10% BC) as naval minister? Are your light cruisers doing anything or could you use the cheaper destoyers for the same effect?

I might have to try again with BB and use them like BC and see what the results are.

I coordinated BC-SAG, Subs, Nav-EscF and Tac-EscF with some Mar-Art/Eng
So, it doesn't cost a lot.

This fleet also ate Italian BB-SAGs. Easy.


But here on the picture - a pure chance. Night Storm and CVs are helpless. Got it! ))) But OTOH, storms are not rare in these seas, and I tried to catch some.


DDs are better than CLs for Australia, cause FIB gives equal positioning bonuses to CLs and DDs, and DDs have detection better. Also, they cheaper and easier to research. So, I even had not research CLs.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yeah I have 4 CVs , 3 CVls and heaps of DDs as Aussie but I'm avoiding the Italians due to large amopunts of naval bombers and I've fallen behind on doctrines. I was assuming in using US blueprints for base strike but Apr 42 no pearl harbour yet. I don't have the supposrt toys as I've build X4 corp of arm/mot/mech and X2 lines of carriers. Now I'm trying to build a HQ unit. Probably won't even bother with inf untilinf 43 is researched. Aussie has some excellent naval option but lack of IC hurts- I have a grand total of 40 base.

 

[unmerged(142769)]

great thread! i must admit i scoffed at BCs in the past as lame BBs, but there are some interesting points here.

makes me want to play a naval-focused game and try it out!

 

[Iwo Jima]

Well Iwo Jima while you make a point that BCs can be useful, I dont think anyone was saying they are completely useless, but they just dont have enough going for them to be better than a BB. Now, in my personal game I edited the BCs to give them more speed, so they might actually be useful...

Oh
just opened some numbers

If you would see, historically Bismark(BB) and Sharnhorst(BC) had nearly equal speed (30,8 and 31). So, if you add to BC some points of speed it would be not historically.

 

[maximus323]

Iwo Jima: You are correct in saying that Scharnhorst and Bismarck had similar speeds, however you must realize that Bismarck's keel was being laid while Shcarnhorst was being put to sea for the first time in 1936. The Germans had ample time to rework the engines for the larger battleship.

I think the point Coviekiller5 is trying to make is that the speed for BCs (A type of ship that was supposed to be superior thanks to its great speed) in HOI2 is negligible compared to the BBs.

 

[Iwo Jima]

I think the point Coviekiller5 is trying to make is that the speed for BCs (A type of ship that was supposed to be superior thanks to its great speed) in HOI2 is negligible compared to the BBs.

I think it's normal.
BC should not get speed of CL.
The very sense of BC was maximum firepower for the hull with limited tonnage. Alas, in HOI2 there is no tonnage limitations.

Anyway, BC should have speed close to BB, just because they were loaded to the same limits.

 

[maximus323]

BC should easily have superior speeds to BB, that's what historically made them a Battlecruiser and not a Battleship. The purpose of a battlecruiser, if I may quote a very famous man, was to float like a butterfly and sting like a bee. It could only achieve this with its enhanced speed.

Historically, the battlecruiser and the battleship eventually merged into the same class as engineers figured ways to propulse the larger and more heavily armed battleships as fast as the batlecruisers to the point where the latter became irrelevant. HOI2 does not address this well with every level of battlecruiser having just about the same speed as the same level battleship.

 

[Zardnaar]

Unusal induction into the BC mayhem hall of shame.

I suspect theres easier ways of doing it like annexing Germany. The Poles have a semi decent SLI tech team and can ally with Germany for blueprints.