Whats the point of heavy cruisers? Light cruisers and destroyers=escorts, BB, BC and CVs= capital ships. Are they designed to fight smaller fleets for nations who can afford to build the big guns, or a nice supplment to an existing navy?
-
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.
It's for cruizerg fleets or those that can't afford BBs. Eg, Australia would be a nation that would build CAs (if it didn't have the carrier tech). Or maybe Sweden. They're the cheapest capital ship that can dish out decent damage for the IC put in
I've read the naval guides but I'm not to familiar with Cruzergs and its one naval tactic I haven't tried. Just tried a concept game using HC instead of BC and BB as Germany can build lvl IV ones in 36. By 1939 I had over 40 of them nd put them in X6CA X6 DD SAGs under vice admirals. Sent a few out convoy raiding with the better ones supporting a naval assault on western France 1939. All of my Panzers were in that assault while Poland was an infantry fight. The Vichy event fired very quickly as France got blitzed from the west. What countries are good with CA over BC or whatever? Can they sink carriers and BB based fleets?
I like using CAs as gun escorts for my CVs. They have enough punch to do some damage, but are cheaper and quicker in build time than BBs or BCs. Considering that gun escorts in CTFs often get eaten during carrier on carrier fights, this is a nice trade off for me to have some gun protection for the CTF for chance night and storm encounters, without eating the loss of a BB or BC during CV fights.
Heavy cruiser is a poorman's capital ship and for cruizerg fleets. They're cheaper and quicker to build
I usually use them as Carrier escorts as Ecnan said, or I use them to guard the rear areas of sea lanes.
While CA is significantly cheaper than BC or BB, they have significantly smaller firerange.
So, you could use them vs opponents light ships, transports or CV w/out escorts in bad weather.
Cruizerg tactics is also good, but as I know it's not so efficient in Arma1.3, because it's not an easy to get optimal distance even with CVL.
So, good positioned BB+FC-SAG (as UK should have for sure) could destroy cruizerg or significantly damage it.
Another good news - cheap CAs will get gearing discount much faster.
CAs are also quite good for coast operation in Africa and S. America.
So, you could use them vs opponents light ships, transports or CV w/out escorts in bad weather.
Cruizerg tactics is also good, but as I know it's not so efficient in Arma1.3, because it's not an easy to get optimal distance even with CVL.
So, good positioned BB+FC-SAG (as UK should have for sure) could destroy cruizerg or significantly damage it.
Another good news - cheap CAs will get gearing discount much faster.
CAs are also quite good for coast operation in Africa and S. America.
i had a fleet of 6 CA, 2 CVL and 10 DD which performed pretty well; as i didn't had the IC to build some BB. So, yes, they are the poor man's battleships
regards
Guy Montag
You will find also that CA's repair damage a lot faster than BB's or BC's so that they may be kept on active duty a greater % of the time.
They're best for mid-power nations that just don't have the IC for BBs, so Argentina, Brazil, China, Spain etc. Nations in the commonwealth can afford to get carriers because they have the benefits of tech sharing from France and UK making the research time significantly drop, so CAs are viable but not the best option.
Most of those nations can get the IC required though or are your fleets designed to invade nations more pathetic than you?
Cruisers do all the things faster: are built faster, move faster, detect faster, repair faster... and die faster )
The best purpose for CA+CL group is fast-reaction brigade for interdiction opponents transports, ASW brigades or damaging and retreating fleets.
As for seabattles, cruisers will not deal with quite strong SAG or CTF
Don't use cruiser for detection in coast waters. DDs do this job better and cost much cheaper.
The best purpose for CA+CL group is fast-reaction brigade for interdiction opponents transports, ASW brigades or damaging and retreating fleets.
As for seabattles, cruisers will not deal with quite strong SAG or CTF
Don't use cruiser for detection in coast waters. DDs do this job better and cost much cheaper.
I'v been trying them out pn the theory that if you can spam them out it doesn't matter if they die or not. Problem is equiping enough of them with radars. Still I can spam out 5 CA SAG by1939 or so and for the same amount of IC roughly by 1940 I can have
2 BB SAG
6 CA SAG
3 BC SAG
The battlecruiser one still seems the best.
2 BB SAG
6 CA SAG
3 BC SAG
The battlecruiser one still seems the best.
Then you're not using carriers properly if you need CA's for escorts
Well, normally they (the CAs) don't get much play, but sometimes stuff happens. If I'm going to spend all that IC on a CTF, I at least want them to be as robust as possible, and less likely to get eaten by a SAG at night just because I happen to be involved someplace else.
If your CTF gets caught by a SAG though, those CA's won't be taking much damage since the carriers will be where most of the fire is going
no, but they will be punching back until I can get the CTF out of the way. Most of the time, in my experience, the CTF generally runs into obsolete BBs and Allied CAs at night or the rain, thus a couple of CAs (if I'm frisky BCs) can go a long way to kicking those random raiders to the curb.
It's probably not the most efficient way of playing, but I enjoy the role playing aspect, and it seems to work for me.
It's probably not the most efficient way of playing, but I enjoy the role playing aspect, and it seems to work for me.
is this data with or w/out brigades?
anyway, you need FC and Rad, so for CA-SAG you need twice more brigades than for BC-SAG