Does still work the old BB+CVE vs CV ?
I remember to erase CV fleets that way until late game
I remember to erase CV fleets that way until late game
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
No. The cvl teleportation trick doesn't work anymore. Now the cvl fights the cv.
Sea terrain would be great indeed, just as other terrain improvements would be, not to mention smaller sea zones.
Any way, afaik, deeper sea is calmer not the other way around. But other factors have even greater impact afaik.
I also think that subs didn't go into extreme depths in this era, so only very shallow water would affect them, which is only a marginal percentage of the area of these relatively large sea zones.
Regarding BB being inept, I do think that the TRP mod for DH does things best. Non CV/CVL ships fight quite well early in the war, and CV/CVL needs to be cautious.
This is quite historical as it wasn't until the battle of Taranto (late 1940) that inspired the attack on Pearl Harbour (late 1941), that it became apparent on how to best use carriers. It wasn't really until this point that CV and BB swapped roles on which was the support vessel and which was the main fighting vessel.
It is awkward to have CV rule supreme already when the game starts.
In our multiplayer games, people build CV & CVL in DH full and other mods like Blood and Iron, but when we play TRP, Germany and Italy have built battleship fleets.
This is quite historical as it wasn't until the battle of Taranto (late 1940) that inspired the attack on Pearl Harbour (late 1941), that it became apparent on how to best use carriers. It wasn't really until this point that CV and BB swapped roles on which was the support vessel and which was the main fighting vessel.
It is awkward to have CV rule supreme already when the game starts.
In our multiplayer games, people build CV & CVL in DH full and other mods like Blood and Iron, but when we play TRP, Germany and Italy have built battleship fleets.
- 1
- 1
There should be a limit on CV/CVL/CVE just like for a nuclear reactor.
- 2
Do you mean stacking in a battle or a maximum number that you can build
Max number you can build. This is if you want a more historical game.
Technically Brazil can build carriers and unlimited but if the game limits based on research the chances of Brazil AI or a person prioritizing carriers for research long enough to have a full fleet of them is incredibly low, no?
- 2
In my game, I simply reduced by about 50% (in the misc. file) the amount of sea and air damage ships and planes can inflict on ships which all but eliminates those ridiculous sea engagements in which fleets get completely wiped out in 4 to 8 hours of game time. It also gives you time to withdraw your fleet from an engagement if the conditions are not favorable. CVs are still superior, but they're no longer Death Stars yet they still control their sea areas by inflicting ORG damage. This applies to NAVs too.
- 1
its not that no one is doing the secret BB ambush strat, its more like by the time u get advanced models using all the doctrines you could have already sunk the whole royal navy with 3cvL + 1 cv using minimum doctrines
also the timing of fleets the pause and calc of moving only at night and in bad weather, its just impossible and pointless, if u mess up by 1 hour you lose 7 battlecruisers
also the timing of fleets the pause and calc of moving only at night and in bad weather, its just impossible and pointless, if u mess up by 1 hour you lose 7 battlecruisers
- 2
What determinates that max number?
Ofc you can build carriers with Brazil, and you will loose in all the other fields.
While I would be in favour of some shipyards mechanics, like max building capacity for ships at the same time, am completely against having a max number of ships. I find it nosense.
- 2
Not just max number of ships built at once, but max ship size depending on size of the shipyard. No building bc/bb/cv in anything below a size 8 for example. Cruisers/cvl size 5, destroyers size 3, subs size 2, transports size 1. Jmo ymmv
- 1
- 1
I am not disputing CV's dominance. It is just, it is even more dominant than real life, which is already dominant enough. In real life CV still take casualty in strikes. AA gun still softens air strike. Here carriers are invulnerable machine that sinks fleet with 0 death.
You ask for brigades to have their own HP, and take damage from battle then ?
In real life... there are no more battleships.
If you want to be historical: the next best thing to hunt for carriers besides carriers were... subs.
Planes, back then and especially in comparison to battleships, were sooo cheap...
But I do agree, (L)CAG as brigades and nearly invulnerable, is by far not the perfect solution.
Here we are in the next DH patch thread. Do I want to urge the devs to forget everything else and to solve the (L)CAG problem...no.
Would the (L)CAGs be part of a list of the 3 main naval problems which should be addressed: not even that.
Thus, I am always eager for a discussion about naval warfare in DH but I'd suggest a different thread.
- 3
This beaty game need ai army control option which include player interference.
- 5
I know this is a technical barrier. I apologize. Nevertheless yes, it does give carriers an incredible advantage not existing in real life.
I am not begging for it to be fixed, because I know the technical barrier will cause more problem than it can fix. Nevertheless I am just pointing out why carriers in game are unrealistically powerful vs battleships... As if carriers are not already dominant IRL already. The game just dial it to 11.
As I recall; HOI 1 had them be separate air units and carriers were basically useless airplane transports that couldn't attack anything really because of low range.
To fix CAGs, they need to be manpower damage and org damage to the ship unrecoverable outside of port; and reexamine/rework how ship groups defending against them resolve combat. As far as I can tell, only the ship being attacked can return fire on the CAG. Other ships in formation, and any planes doing CAP would be attempting to shoot down aircraft and attacks would suffer losses before even reaching a target further inside a large group.
To fix CAGs, they need to be manpower damage and org damage to the ship unrecoverable outside of port; and reexamine/rework how ship groups defending against them resolve combat. As far as I can tell, only the ship being attacked can return fire on the CAG. Other ships in formation, and any planes doing CAP would be attempting to shoot down aircraft and attacks would suffer losses before even reaching a target further inside a large group.
Another interesting thing about CAG is port strikes. Unlike NAV it takes no str damage, only use some fuel and recover org in port. In the past versions there could be air units defending port. But that was deleted for "bug".
It was interesting to me, because it shows it was possible for carrier to take return damage in str.
It was interesting to me, because it shows it was possible for carrier to take return damage in str.