Making mixed fleets worthwhile

[Autolykos]

With some new suggestions, only few parts of the original idea are still left/relevant, so I put them in spoiler tags for reference. These are the changes in the current version (View attachment narp-aod-v2.zip):
- set BC range and sea attack to BB level
- capped BB speed to 28
- effect of BB improved hull doubled
- capped CA range to .28 and CL range to .22
- switched air attack between CA and CL
- switched sea/air detection between CL and DD
- made CA use CL brigades
- separated CL and DD brigades
- removed range upgrades for FC and SP
- added SS/SSN brigades (TP, RA)
- removed some DD brigades (AA, FC, NU, RA)
- increased sea/air detection of ASW, as it replaces DD-RA
- DD torpedoes add .02/.04 to range

Spoiler

The idea:
I'm about to try the following changes, and would like some feedback before I go and test them (maybe I'm missing a critical point):
- Make CAs use Screen Brigades instead of Capital Brigades
- Remove Fire Control for Screens
- Make Fire Control stronger, and the ships themselves weaker
- Reduce Sea Defense for CV/CVL and/or make Improved Hull stronger
- Make BBs slower and BCs' guns identical to BBs'.
As these changes seem pretty random, here's my reasoning:

The problem:
Currently, there are basically three fleet compositions that are considered "optimal" for ship-to-ship combat, none of them even close to historical:
- The SAG consisting of 30-40% BB, 10% CVL, 50-60% DD
- The CTF consisting of 30-40% CV, 10% CVL, 50-60% DD
- The Zerg fleet consisting of 40-50% CA, 50-60% CL (with CLs outranging the CAs)
with the former two being slightly gamey and the last one being completely gamey.
The good thing here is that all ship types (except for BCs) are already in use (and BC-SAGs are arguably slightly better at hunting CTFs). There is just not much profit in using them together, which is the main point that should be addressed. I have a few ideas about it, but I'd like to bounce them off someone else to make sure they're practical before I get to work modding a proof of concept.

Basic concept:
Each class should have their niche in which it is so much better (or at least more cost effective) that it has a place in most fleets. Screens should be good at finding stuff, Capitals should be good at killing stuff. Cruisers are kind of an intermediate class that are needed as support everywhere but need some specialization to be useful in combat. AA is also mostly their role, but that alone wasn't enough to make them be a vital part of a fleet.

How to make Cruisers worthwhile for a SAG:
Cruisers should be the eyes and ears of a SAG, as well as act as a damage sponge. Currently, CVL are the better spotters, while DDs are better at soaking, and offer good detection with a mix of Radar and ASW equipment. This can be tackled by the way naval brigades are handled. Instead of having two classes (Captial/Screen) we can have three (Battleship/Cruiser/Destroyer), with the old "Screen" brigades largely becoming the new "Cruiser" brigades. This need not increase the total number of brigades that much, as destroyers won't get many of the larger brigades anyway, and some DD brigades aren't available on CLs. Especially, they shouldn't get separate Radar and ASW, but have ASW be the new "Destroyer Radar", with maybe a slight increase in Sea/Air detection, but still short of the "Cruiser Radar". They don't (and shouldn't) get spotter planes, and their AA will be inferior to Cruisers because their base stats are lower (CA should have base AA stats at least on par with CL). Screens shouldn't get Fire Control at all, as "killing stuff" isn't part of their job description.
That way, Heavy Cruisers are cheaper and have better detection stats (these are the main differences for screen brigades), while Destroyers won't outshine Light Cruisers in surface and air detection, but are still vital for ASW.

How to make Cruisers worthwhile for a CTF:
A CTF already has lots of detection, so that isn't much of a selling point for Cruisers here. They should be needed first and foremost as a damage sponge. The best way to achieve this would be to reduce the sea defense (and perhaps air defense) stat of CV/CVL, making a few Heavy Cruisers mixed in a cheaper alternative (especially since they now use cheaper brigades). Currently, they are tougher than BCs, which is way too much (especially since their main defense should be range). Making Improved Hull stronger may also help here.

How to defuse Zerg Fleets:
A Zerg fleet draws much of its power from the CLs' guns outranging the CAs'. The easiest way to counter this is to make this gamey fleet composition ineffective in combat, by removing Fire Control for CLs and increasing range and damage for the CAs' fire control, but lowering their base stats accordingly. If the FC boosts their combat stats more than having the CLs in range, Zerg Fleets aren't superior anymore. CAs with Fire Control and Improved Hull should still be able to pass as "poor man's battleship", but can be balanced so they aren't clearly superior anymore (via the stats of Cruiser Fire Control).
The same should be done for BC/BB Fire Control, but for a different reason: To make them upgrade better, so they don't fall too far behind Carriers.

What about BC and CVL?
Battlecruisers are currently only slightly faster and have less powerful guns than BBs. Reducing BBs speed and making the BCs' guns equal to the BBs' should make them a good alternative. The BBs are still a lot tougher and have one brigade more.
Light Carriers still have by far the highest Sub Attack, combined with a massive range.

 

[unmerged(526990)]

This sounds really interesting, I'd be very keen to hear how it works out. I really try to avoid gamey stuff (I can't even really be bothered to work out how to build gamey fleets), and anything that makes the game more "real" overall I think is a good thing, even if it means making some a-historical tweaks to the fine details... not that the changes you are proposing are necessarily a-historical, I don't know enough to say really!

 

[Autolykos]

Okay, I've built a first test version for the Naval Rebalance Pack (and a scenario to play around with it): View attachment narp-aod.zip
It uses moddir and is kinda quick&dirty. Just unzip in your game directory and run "aod-narp.bat". It shouldn't touch your installation.

My tests are far from comprehensive, but I found mixed SAGs of 6 BB/BC, 2 CA-AA-RA-SP, 6 CL-RA-SP and 4 DD-ASW to be more effective at shredding fleets than the old-style CV-CVL-DD fleets. They have some trouble killing subs, which is pretty much WAD. You'd need CVLs for that.

 

[alufdufe]

You could try removing the range increases for FC brigades. IRL a given gun can throw a shell only so far, and adding some sort fire control wouldn't increase this distance. It would hopefully increase the number of hits within this range.

The only place I really like FC brigades is putting them on Japan's CL2s to simulate the long lance torpedo, which did have the range of a 8" cruiser gun, as the US found out the hard way.

 

[Autolykos]

I don't know that much about ship artillery, so this is an honest question: Is the effective range of naval guns actually limited by muzzle velocity and aerodynamics, or by the ability to accurately lay your gun and track the target? I was assuming the latter, and completely axed range upgrades for new ships after a certain point. Also, are the guns actually getting longer and more powerful with new models, or are the differences mainly between classes?
Completely removing range upgrades for FC could also be used to defuse Zerg fleets, but the range difference between CLs and CAs would need to be increased. I'm under the impression that CLs and CAs were actually pretty similar in size and armament and mainly differed in the amount of armor and their intended use. Maybe it's better not to make Zerg fleets impossible, but to lower their sea attack a little (and/or further increase the armor of BBs and BCs), so they are less gamey.
On an unrelated note, do you think "cruiser-size" torpedoes should increase their range, and how far? Up to (or close to) battleship levels?

 

[alufdufe]

I'm no expert, but I'll try to answer your questions.

Q: Is the effective range of naval guns actually limited by muzzle velocity and aerodynamics, or by the ability to accurately lay your gun and track the target?
A: The effective range is basically the same as the max range, limited by how far a given gun can throw a shell. An extreme example would be at Leyte Gulf. For a time the Yamato was firing over the horizon at ships she couldn't see guided by the smoke they were making. She didn't know they were CVEs instead of CVs, so used AP rounds. There wasn't enough resistance to cause the shells to detonate, and they passed completely through and out the bottom.

Q: Also, are the guns actually getting longer and more powerful with new models, or are the differences mainly between classes?
A: I would say that varies by class of ship. The top and bottom classes had the most improvement. BBs definately yes. In the US Navy, BB2s would be 12", BB3s 14", BB4&5s 16". This would be true for most of the navies. It's not 100% but it's probably the best compromise. DD's increased up to the 5" and stopped. Except the Germans, who put that nasty 5.9" on their newer DDs, giving them the range of a 6" CL gun.

Q: I'm under the impression that CLs and CAs were actually pretty similar in size and armament and mainly differed in the amount of armor and their intended use.
A: CLs were smaller, not nearly as well armored even for their size, and generally carried 6" guns. CAs generally carried 8". In 1942 there were 2 different perceptions of the role of CLs in the Pacific. The Allies tended to use them as small cruisers, while the Japanese more as big destroyers.

Q: On an unrelated note, do you think "cruiser-size" torpedoes should increase their range, and how far? Up to (or close to) battleship levels?
A: Torpedo brigades don't add to maximum range. I've always thought they were for convoy raiding where range isn't a factor. If you were going to add a range addition, I'd probably limit to it screen torpedoes, and only enough to equal a CL. Which was the generally accepted range. The exception would be for the Japanese, who'd get CA range. I haven't thought it thru, but you could be creating a new Zerg combo. CLs + DDs with torpedoes.

Q: Completely removing range upgrades for FC could also be used to defuse Zerg fleets, but the range difference between CLs and CAs would need to be increased.
A: In 1942, in the Pacific, the Allies often mixed CLs + CAs like Zerg fleets, so the concept isn't totally unhistorical. I don't think you'd need to increase the range difference. I believe all tech levels have more than the 10% difference you need to separate them.

 

[Autolykos]

Thanks a lot! That sends me completely back to the drawing board, but if the result is more historical while still restoring game balance, that would be more than worth it.
Compiled back to game terms, that would mean:
- If range only depends on gun ballistics, no brigade should actually increase range, except for DD-size torpedoes.
- If I stop to increase CA/CL range pretty early, the old-school Zerg fleet would need ancient CAs as capital ships (which are slow and weak), so that should be solved
- The new "screen-only" Zerg fleet could be countered by decreasing the surface attack/defense of screens. That, combined with stacking penalty, will make sure that BB/BC are necessary to maximize firepower

Also, I'm not going to include stuff only one nation had (unless it's justified by a general tech advantage). That should be handled by doctrine, if at all.

 

[alufdufe]

It's not range related, but you might want to add radar to submarines. This was far more prevalent than spotter planes to being almost universal by war's end. I've tried it, and it doesn't seem to make them kill more, but makes them more survivable.

 

[Autolykos]

Radar or sonar? I can't actually imagine radar to be very useful on subs, with water absorbing pretty much all microwaves after a few meters at most. But since I put them into a single brigade for the destroyer version anyway, it probably won't matter that much. Definitely worth trying out, that might even make including subs to surface fleets a sensible option!

 

[Titan79]

Radar or sonar? I can't actually imagine radar to be very useful on subs, with water absorbing pretty much all microwaves after a few meters at most.

It's definitely historical. About the usefulness, it was although only from a certain point onwards:

http://www.uboat.net/technical/radar.htm

 

[Autolykos]

Interesting source. Included it in the new version.

 

[Titan79]

Indeed. And about radar on subs in AoD, I'm already using it in a modded game I'm currently playing - being the second possible attachment for them AA (to simulate the - however scarce - "U-Flak" boats).