How to build a powerful Navy from nothing: Operational Example

[Zolf J. Kimblee]

I'm thinking of this type of setup for a mid sized earlyish game fleet, focusing on the big guns.

1. A fleet with 4-5 latest BB's/BC's, led by a high skilled vice admiral
2. A fleet of 1-2 older capitals with 10-11 escorts (cvls, dd's), led by the highest ranking admiral
3. A fleet of around 6-8 dd's with asws
4. Several submarine task forces (regular SS's,not Hsubs)
5. Transport fleet (CVE might be ideal for escorting the transport boats)

So what exactly is the idea here? A naval force designed to be concentrated in a single zone (region) of operations. Fleet 1 is the heavy hitter, meant to engage enemy ships head on and destroy them in surface battles. Fleet 2 is the escort fleet, providing screening capabilities and covering my transports. Fleet 3 is meant to destroy enemy submarines in the zone. Fleet 4 will likely be divided into multiple independent groups that will operate in a wider zone of operations to cover sea lanes and attack enemy convoys/transports. This setup is meant to optimize leader skills by assigning my best ships to a smaller task force led by a high ranking admiral, who is expected to participate in battles only when accompanied by the larger fleet full of escort ships, like combat optimized light cruisers.

This setup is meant to be simple and easy to understand, without having the player scratch his head too much about which kind of ships to have in a specific fleet. It is oriented for second rate naval powers such as Russia, Italy and Germany.

Now the big question remains: which attachments should I have on my capital ships?

 

[son of liberty]

I'm thinking of this type of setup for a mid sized earlyish game fleet, focusing on the big guns.what country and which doctrines?

1. A fleet with 4-5 latest BB's/BC's, led by a high skilled vice admiralnot really a great idea. Any cv or cvl fleet will defeat your fleet except in very bad weather, then you might have a chance all else being equal
2. A fleet of 1-2 older capitals with 10-11 escorts (cvls, dd's), led by the highest ranking admiral if by cover your transport fleet, you mean shadow a separate fleet of transports it might work
3. A fleet of around 6-8 dd's with aswsgood vs subs but what happens when your asw fleet encounters enemy cruisers looking to end your harassment of their subs?
4. Several submarine task forces (regular SS's,not Hsubs)
5. Transport fleet (CVE might be ideal for escorting the transport boats)cve is not a good choice for this mission they are really only effective vs subs

So what exactly is the idea here? A naval force designed to be concentrated in a single zone (region) of operations. Fleet 1 is the heavy hitter, meant to engage enemy ships head on and destroy them in surface battles. Fleet 2 is the escort fleet, providing screening capabilities and covering my transports. Fleet 3 is meant to destroy enemy submarines in the zone. Fleet 4 will likely be divided into multiple independent groups that will operate in a wider zone of operations to cover sea lanes and attack enemy convoys/transports. This setup is meant to optimize leader skills by assigning my best ships to a smaller task force led by a high ranking admiral, who is expected to participate in battles only when accompanied by the larger fleet full of escort ships, like combat optimized light cruisers.

This setup is meant to be simple and easy to understand, without having the player scratch his head too much about which kind of ships to have in a specific fleet. It is oriented for second rate naval powers such as Russia, Italy and Germany.if you pursue this strategy, back them up with a bunch of naval bombers and fighters

Now the big question remains: which attachments should I have on my capital ships?given the extremely long construction time, and the fact that the ships cannot be upgraded, always use the maximum number of attachments. As to which attachments, float planes, fire control, and anti aircraft guns are the biggies imho

Jmo ymmv

 

[TK3600]

Cruizerg is the only usable SAG, usually CL-5 with torp and float plane. But these days it got nerfed hard. The idea is using fast ships with cost effective sea attack to close distance.

With Torpedo change, FCS DD might be viable, perhaps DD-1937. First DD with high speed. Cheap, so even if fail you get money worth. At worst they eat subs alive. At best they zerg rush battleships. Not sure about carriers fleet.

 

[Zolf J. Kimblee]

Does having AA on your ships have any effect against carriers? Or are carriers treated by the game as sort of "long range glass cannons" but otherwise mechanically the same as other ships?

 

[Altruist]

Heck, 1 week away and the thread explodes with ideas and questions... nice to see.

What should my fleet composition look like?

To most questions I can only completly agree to what son of liberty wrote:

What will be their purpose? Then you can answer your own question. Fleet composition is not the first question you should ask. What are my objectives, should be first imo. Then, how do I achieve those objectives? Then you make a plan by answering that question. Your answers and your starting tech will lead to decisions on fleet comp among other things.

This is the smartest and also safest approach:

1. because it is the most "proper" way for every strat & tact game... don't just follow other players' ideas and suggestions but try to understand the logic behind it and then you can try, test and learn to apply it to also different situations
2. because the answere even in DH might differ a lot depending on what country you are playing, what doctrines, what kind of resources are available
3. and then again stats for ships or brigades might differ from DH full vanilla to whatever mod you are playing.

Especially the point about mods changing stats I realized once again when playing AIOGE. There torps are allowed for subs, even HSubs and even more important they come with no -5 distance malus like in DH full. In DH full I wouldn't use torps at all. In AIOGE almost always.

I have written it several times in this guide and I can only repeat: The most important value for naval battles is not sea attack but firing distance followed by the importance to win the mini game of positioning decided by visibility and sea detection which allows you to have naval battles at your best and prefered firing distance and not of the enemy fleet. I can only recommend to read carefully the part Mechanics of Seabattles, also the follow up part 6 and to understand what it means.

The way naval battles are modeled in DH is actually quite a good and smart one. Sadly the scripts aren't good enough to really allow the computer player to form fleets which follow that modeled logic.

 

[Altruist]

Does having AA on your ships have any effect against carriers?

No, good only against attacks from planes.

 

[son of liberty]

As you know, I recently tried your ideas in my latest AAR. I would call the results "good" against minor navies and SAGs in general. However, against a fleet of modern CVs with up to date doctrines and parity of numbers, you will lose if you can't retreat immediately. My suggestion is to follow this plan but research and build full CVs as soon as you can if you plan to fight a major navy. Heavy subs as you build and research work well until you encounter a well built CV/DD fleet. Now, that fleet will sink your subs but you will also sink some CVs so it is worth it to the degree that you can replace the lost subs. Overall, your plan is a great poor man's starting navy. Good work but eventually you will need to limit your blue water goals or develop a real navy. Jmo, ymmv

 

[TK3600]

As you know, I recently tried your ideas in my latest AAR. I would call the results "good" against minor navies and SAGs in general. However, against a fleet of modern CVs with up to date doctrines and parity of numbers, you will lose if you can't retreat immediately. My suggestion is to follow this plan but research and build full CVs as soon as you can if you plan to fight a major navy. Heavy subs as you build and research work well until you encounter a well built CV/DD fleet. Now, that fleet will sink your subs but you will also sink some CVs so it is worth it to the degree that you can replace the lost subs. Overall, your plan is a great poor man's starting navy. Good work but eventually you will need to limit your blue water goals or develop a real navy. Jmo, ymmv

I've been doing some math.

CVL is often described as half the CV half the cost it is not true!

1. CVL1 is more than half of CV1 in costs. Making CV1 more efficient. But...

2. Contrary to CAG stats, LCAG is not half of CAG. Torpedo tech adds like +3 flat to both. So LCAG is stronger than half of CAG.

3. CV and CAG is generally more fuel and supply efficient than 2 light equivalent. Not counting torp buff.

4. CVL is faster. Faster fleet has positioning bonus, and can kite the other if longer range due to tech.

5. But lets assume 2 CVL are actually 1 CV stats. Are they equal? No. 2 CVL is stronger than 1 CV. Same damage output twice the hp.

6. But CV quality come through in doom stacks. When capped by admiral, 30 size CV beats 2x 30 size CVL. Higher fire concemtration in 1 fleet cap.

7. No AI go 30 CBG. Therefore 2x CVL still superior.

8. CV is more vulnerable to subs per IC.


Bonus: CV-3 best CV. CVL1 best CVL.

 

[TK3600]

So my math backs up Altruist's strategy. In addition I must say NAV1 is OP. You are not the underdog for pickimg NAV1.

1. Each upgrade only add 1 sea attack. Minor buff.

2. NAV1 is like 5 times cheaper in IC. Making it superior.

3. Torp buff give like flat +4 attack to all nav. So actually nav 1 vs 2 is like 6 vs 7 sea attack. Minor difference.

4. Consider the IC cost difference, it is 6x5=30 sea attack, vs 7. You dirty cheeser!

5. Only drawback is 750 range. Can be limiting unless you build new air base next to ememy port.

 

[son of liberty]

So my math backs up Altruist's strategy. In addition I must say NAV1 is OP. You are not the underdog for pickimg NAV1.

1. Each upgrade only add 1 sea attack. Minor buff.

2. NAV1 is like 5 times cheaper in IC. Making it superior.

3. Torp buff give like flat +4 attack to all nav. So actually nav 1 vs 2 is like 6 vs 7 sea attack. Minor difference.

4. Consider the IC cost difference, it is 6x5=30 sea attack, vs 7. You dirty cheeser!

5. Only drawback is 750 range. Can be limiting unless you build new air base next to ememy port.

Isn't 750 range only with escorts? Iirc, the range is much longer without escorts. There are times when you want nav/escorts but there are also times when the range is more important. Naval strikes on fleets out of range from enemy airfields for example

 

[TK3600]

Isn't 750 range only with escorts? Iirc, the range is much longer without escorts. There are times when you want nav/escorts but there are also times when the range is more important. Naval strikes on fleets out of range from enemy airfields for example

Nav1

 

[son of liberty]

Nav1

Ok, I never build them until lvl 2 minimum

 

[Altruist]

Overall, your plan is a great poor man's starting navy. Good work but eventually you will need to limit your blue water goals or develop a real navy.

Well, I would call the Japanese Navy a real Navy. And the combined force of the Royal Navy together with the French Navy... I think, we can certainly call a true Navy to reckon with as well.
All three were looking forward to getting wiped out by the Chinese CVL/DD-fleets supported by HSub/FP fleets. And this with not using doomstacks at all: the HSubs were limited to fleets of no more than 6, CVL/DD fleets usually with no more than 3 CVLs, for a short time I was using a fleet of 6 CVLs.

What's only hinted at here in this guide, I stopped the game AFTER China had conquered France and the UK.

But that was against the computer. Against humans in a multi-player game it is obviously different but cannot be covered here.

I've been doing some math.

CVL is often described as half the CV half the cost it is not true!

I completly agree to your math and calculations.
Also with your last statement, that the very first CVL-1 is the best to be used. The small advantages of later CVL-designs come with a totally unproportional higher cost.

To add 2 quite strong advantages of 2 CVLs vs 1 CV to your list above:
# double organisation
# double number of ships which can be used in more small fleets (quite important if you use CVL to escort troop-ships)

I wasn't completly convinced at the time when I wrote this guide. But by now I'd always build CVLs instead of CVs. Faster, cheaper, more versatile.
And in fire power, well, you can't just compare sea attack with sea attack on a 1:1 base: a hit from a battleship hits differently than from a destroyer and probably the same is true for CV and CVL but in a fight between 6 CVLs vs 3 CV my bet would be on the CVLs.

6. But CV quality come through in doom stacks. When capped by admiral, 30 size CV beats 2x 30 size CVL. Higher fire concemtration in 1 fleet cap.

Yes, certainly.
But then again, so far I have never even built as many CVLs as 30 in a single game.

In addition I must say NAV1 is OP. You are not the underdog for pickimg NAV1.
[...] You dirty cheeser!

Hehe!
You caught me there...
To my escuse it wasn't intentional. China had to research so many stuff before even able to think about researching Nav-2 that my long running serial Nav-1 production line had a fine gearing bonus by then... only a bit later I realized the huge cost difference between Nav-1 and Nav-2 and was VERY happy about not having upgraded my Nav-1 line. So, sometimes there are even advantages for being so far behind in tech.

 

[TK3600]

Well, I would call the Japanese Navy a real Navy. And the combined force of the Royal Navy together with the French Navy... I think, we can certainly call a true Navy to reckon with as well.
All three were looking forward to getting wiped out by the Chinese CVL/DD-fleets supported by HSub/FP fleets. And this with not using doomstacks at all: the HSubs were limited to fleets of no more than 6, CVL/DD fleets usually with no more than 3 CVLs, for a short time I was using a fleet of 6 CVLs.

What's only hinted at here in this guide, I stopped the game AFTER China had conquered France and the UK.

But that was against the computer. Against humans in a multi-player game it is obviously different but cannot be covered here.



I completly agree to your math and calculations.
Also with your last statement, that the very first CVL-1 is the best to be used. The small advantages of later CVL-designs come with a totally unproportional higher cost.

To add 2 quite strong advantages of 2 CVLs vs 1 CV to your list above:
# double organisation
# double number of ships which can be used in more small fleets (quite important if you use CVL to escort troop-ships)

I wasn't completly convinced at the time when I wrote this guide. But by now I'd always build CVLs instead of CVs. Faster, cheaper, more versatile.
And in fire power, well, you can't just compare sea attack with sea attack on a 1:1 base: a hit from a battleship hits differently than from a destroyer and probably the same is true for CV and CVL but in a fight between 6 CVLs vs 3 CV my bet would be on the CVLs.


Yes, certainly.
But then again, so far I have never even built as many CVLs as 30 in a single game.


Hehe!
You caught me there...
To my escuse it wasn't intentional. China had to research so many stuff before even able to think about researching Nav-2 that my long running serial Nav-1 production line had a fine gearing bonus by then... only a bit later I realized the huge cost difference between Nav-1 and Nav-2 and was VERY happy about not having upgraded my Nav-1 line. So, sometimes there are even advantages for being so far behind in tech.

Wait til you find out about int1918. It is the best pick until maybe 1937. Or tac 1918.

 

[Altruist]

Wait til you find out about int1918. It is the best pick until maybe 1937.

Well, actually I would disagree... here infantry for 1.05 and a bit colourcoded by myself:

As you can see I did highlight inf 1918, also 1926, 1936 and 1942. And yes, those all come with something that makes them a bit special:

• inf-1918 finishes the development of inf getting better morale and org
• inf-1926 is the last one not needing any fuel
• inf-1936 before the next ones need even more fuel and supplies
• and inf-1942 with +2 for soft attack and +2 for hard attack making it more than worthwhile to justify the higher fuel and supply need introduced with the previous designs.

Nevertheless infantry as your main basic unit and almost always also the divisions you have in the highest numbers are too important to not being kept uptodate. Even if one step up, eg from 1926 to 1931, sometimes might let you think wether the steep additional 0.3 fuel is really worth the +1 soft attack... when you have 100 infantry divisions that's +100 soft attack. If you deliberately stop the constant upgrades of your infantry or even stop at 1918 until 1939 you'll loose just too much time to modernize them.
It might be worthwhile if you are really completly sure that you won't need your units, to not upgrade every unit at once but IMHO you should make very sure to start the upgrades early enough to have them uptodate when the fighting starts.
If you are hard pressed logistically rather think about building less ARM than not updating your infantry which, in comparison, is so cheap.

And one good thing about fuel needs, usually they only apply when the unit moves, attacks or defends and are near zero as long as the unit doesn't do anything. Which, btw, is quite an important feature especially when comparing cavalry and MOT. While stopped MOT uses less supply+fuel than upto 1936 cavalry. And yes, cavalry is an exception in itself because it is usually better not to update at all but to (passively) cross-upgrade to MOT or ARM once those are available.

 

[Pasha]

Well, actually I'd would disagree... here infantry for 1.05 and a bit colourcoded by myself:
View attachment 1210613
As you can see I did highlight inf 1918, also 1926, 1936 and 1942. And yes, those all come with something that makes them a bit special:

• inf-1918 finishes the development of inf getting better morale and org
• inf-1926 is the last one not needing any fuel
• inf-1936 before the next ones need even more fuel and supplies
• and inf-1942 with +2 for soft attack and +2 for hard attack making it more than worthwhile to justify the higher fuel and supply need introduced with the previous designs.

Nevertheless infantry as your main basic unit and almost always also the divisions you have in the highest numbers are too important to not being kept uptodate. Even if one step up, eg from 1926 to 1931, sometimes might let you think wether the steep additional 0.3 fuel is really worth the +1 soft attack... when you have 100 infantry divisions that's +100 soft attack. If you deliberately stop the constant upgrades of your infantry or even stop at 1918 until 1939 you'll loose just too much time to modernize them.
It might be worthwhile if you are really completly sure that you won't need your units, to not upgrade every unit at once but IMHO you should make very sure to start the upgrades early enough to have them uptodate when the fighting starts.
If you are hard pressed logistically rather think about building less ARM than not updating your infantry which, in comparison, is so cheap.

And one good thing about fuel needs, usually they only apply when the unit moves, attacks or defends and are near zero as long as the unit doesn't do anything. Which, btw, is quite an important feature especially when comparing cavalry and MOT. While stopped MOT uses less supply+fuel than upto 1936 cavalry. And yes, cavalry is an exception in itself because it is usually better not to update at all but to (passively) cross-upgrade to MOT or ARM once those are available.

I think he meant Interceptor 1917

 

[TK3600]

Well, actually I'd would disagree... here infantry for 1.05 and a bit colourcoded by myself:
View attachment 1210613
As you can see I did highlight inf 1918, also 1926, 1936 and 1942. And yes, those all come with something that makes them a bit special:

• inf-1918 finishes the development of inf getting better morale and org
• inf-1926 is the last one not needing any fuel
• inf-1936 before the next ones need even more fuel and supplies
• and inf-1942 with +2 for soft attack and +2 for hard attack making it more than worthwhile to justify the higher fuel and supply need introduced with the previous designs.

Nevertheless infantry as your main basic unit and almost always also the divisions you have in the highest numbers are too important to not being kept uptodate. Even if one step up, eg from 1926 to 1931, sometimes might let you think wether the steep additional 0.3 fuel is really worth the +1 soft attack... when you have 100 infantry divisions that's +100 soft attack. If you deliberately stop the constant upgrades of your infantry or even stop at 1918 until 1939 you'll loose just too much time to modernize them.
It might be worthwhile if you are really completly sure that you won't need your units, to not upgrade every unit at once but IMHO you should make very sure to start the upgrades early enough to have them uptodate when the fighting starts.
If you are hard pressed logistically rather think about building less ARM than not updating your infantry which, in comparison, is so cheap.

And one good thing about fuel needs, usually they only apply when the unit moves, attacks or defends and are near zero as long as the unit doesn't do anything. Which, btw, is quite an important feature especially when comparing cavalry and MOT. While stopped MOT uses less supply+fuel than upto 1936 cavalry. And yes, cavalry is an exception in itself because it is usually better not to update at all but to (passively) cross-upgrade to MOT or ARM once those are available.

Interceptor my guy. 1918 is peak.

 

[Altruist]

I think he meant Interceptor 1917

You mean because of the Int instead of Inf?
I guess I need new glasses.

 

[TK3600]

Wait til you find out back in 1.04 int 1918 had 1 air vulnerability. They were shit stomping 1937 planes.

 

[Pasha]

You mean because of the Int instead of Inf?
I guess I need new glasses.

I actually had to hold my laptop at arm's length to make sure it was INT and not INF
I think I'm going to go back to a 17 inch laptop this Christmas.