Building strategies

[SiWi]

Hi,

 

I want to talk about possible building strategies for the campaign and know yours and your thoughts.

Because we know "Navy strategy is building strategy".

 

A strategy I will try is the "peace time BB, wartime DD" approach.

The basic idea is the following: because BB's take longer to build then DD's, you can't afford to lack them before a war, because unless the war takes serious time (WW1 took 4 years which may be shorter then any new BB you try to build), you won't have them.

DD's ad TP's on the other hand can be build relative quickly.

Meaning that if you have too few DD's you can fill that gab relative quickly especially if the war gives you new funds.

This means that but allowing you have a gab in smaller vessels (DD's and TP's) you can have more bigger ships (BB's. BC's but also CA's) and the downside (lack of DD's or TP's) get relative quickly adjusted.

 

Which leads of course to the question "will you bother with [insert ship type]?"

My personal though on the ship classes:

BB:

are pretty much irreplaceable and as long you can afford to build BB's you should do so. Little surprising given the games name. For smaller natuions there is of course an economical factor, but I think even here the "coastal BB" (ships which basically have no range but for that heavier then they "should" be) will be a important point to defend yourself from unwanted attention.

BC:

These are more diffcult to me. It basically comes to the question, when do I need a ship which can't really stand up to BB's (most times, unless there is an age gap) but need something better then a CA? You could imagine "glass cannon" appreach where your BC have bigger guns then your BB's and try to "snipe" the enemy behind the main battle line 

One thing that I think will try is what the "Battleship New Jersey" Curator called the "Cruiser killer" concept (he uses it to describe ships in WW2 which are called BC but don't seem quite to fit the title).

CA:

Will probably the "workhorses" of my fleet and I probably will use plenty of them, given that they should be at an advantage against anything which isn't a BB or BC and with some BC I suspect that they can pull a "surprise" win r against older BB's. Combine that with more "reasonable" cost, and I see a golden feature for CA's.

CL:

these guys are again far more tricky to me. Historical speaking they were often Flagships for DD's squadrons, a function which isn't needed in game. Which leads to the question of what are they suppose to do, what a DD's can't? Sure they will be "bigger and meaner" but they will not be "bigger and meaner" enough to really dominate DD's who will probably outnumber them. Given that they often suffer protection wise (AI designs have often 0 inches armor, which invites 2 inch guns to flash fire you...), they seem liable to be a cost waster. There are factors that could make them worth it (starts with "T"), which I discuss with the DD's and TP, but overall I'm kinda skeptical. Thou I could see a "scout cruiser", a ship which is fast, hard to spot and good at spotting which is suppose to find the enemy while remain hidden, to be maybe working.

DD:

There are a lot of thing which make the DD's irreplaceable because the game mechanics say so (submarine defense for example). So you will always have to have them (once available). Having said that; I see a major problem that DD's will face and that is that they depend like no other class except TP's on torpedoes. And the performance of those changes quite a bit. At the beginning of the game, they appear to be useless (not even a KM range...) and don't seem to became good till roughly 1905. Then they seem to have a golden age, which then gets cut short by better torpedo defenses and better spotting. How much this happens changes from game to game version, but right now, it doesn't appear that late game torps are a real threat to ships with late game protection against them (mind you that CL and lower can't have them) and will struggle to hit the faster more maneuverable ships. Mind you that in big fleet engagements, throwing tons of long range trops in the enemy direction seem to always hit "something".

TLDR: you always need them but their actual fighting worth can be heavy depending on how good the torps are at the time period. 

 

TP:

Oh my. This calls will heavy depend on how on aspect of the campaign will work: modernizing ammo. Will a TP build in 1890 get the ammo from 1900? Or will ships always have the ammo they are build with? Given that the name itself already announces that this class stands and falls with the Torpedos, the paragraph from the DD's applies here too. Except that they are barley a thing, once the "golden age" of Torpedos really starts. Which leads to the question, "should you really bother with them or skip them and wait for DD's?".

In the theory you can dream of your small inexpensive TP to sink a mighty and expensive BB, which would be worth while even if 7 others sink before that. But my testing suggest that it is quite possible that they will never even make any damanage on BB's even if they have the advantage of the lack of escorts. In a proper "battle" I can see them getting slaughter without firing even the torps, by enemy cruisers who could easily doge, even if they mange to fire them.

So what leaves this "us"? Well me it leaves in a place where I will probably take the gamble of TP, when I'm a smaller navy and need a defense force, but rather skipp them, when I'm playing a bigger navy and can afford to wait for DD's.

 

Thanks for listing to my TED talk.

What do you guys think?

 

 

 

[SiWi]

apparently I have to modify my statements regarding TP:

when they player controls the BB, then TP with 1,5km torps are almost no problem, but the player can use the "same" torps effectively enough to sink a BB, even with 2 CL as escort.

[Stormnet]

Im by far not an expert in UAD, but I usually go for a docrine of Quality over Quantity, priorising tech and armor over numbers, firepower, and speed (with a few notable exceptions, like TPs, which I do the exact oposite).

 

 

 

Edited April 6, 2021 by Stormnet

[HistoricalAccuracyMan]

I really like the "Peace time Battleships, Wartime Destroyers/Torpedo Boats" idea, and I'll probably use that strategy myself.

As far as what I plan to build, I don't plan on building very many (if any) torpedo boats or battlecruisers. I would probably be more apt to build a couple battlecruisers to use as long distance commerce raiders or make them into "cruiser killer" type ships (similar to the USS Alaska) and use them in both roles. I probably won't build any torpedo boats, regardless of what nation I play unless the budget is an issue and I run into the situation of "these new ships needed to be here yesterday" because while torpedo boats are cheap and fast to build, they rely too heavily on swarm tactics against: isolated/heavily damaged targets, large targets with little protection or escort, smaller groups of ships. To me, torpedo boats would be most useful when kept away from any fighting whatsoever and then if you spot an isolated BB/BC or a lightly defended/unescorted convoy, send them in....but realistically, those scenarios would never happen and even if they do, I'd still want a destroyer just for the sheer fact that you can get more guns and more torpedoes with the added bonus of getting to put on some actual armor and protection/survivability upgrades.

[Tousansons]

Hard to define a winning strategy with so few information as to how campaign will go in terms of objectives/numbers of war, ship requirement, technology randomization, naval treaties, ASW patrols, commerce raid and so on.

Following the line of BB during peace and DD during war is indeed the safe bet. The probable money surge in war time is also a good moment to start new lines of BB's that will be finished when war is over, repeating the cycle.

"If" they follow the RTW formula a bit too closely. BB > BC > DD. The rest is just score pinata or locked in ASW patrol/commerce raiding.

Edited April 6, 2021 by Tousansons

[SiWi]

The game does seem to favor quality over quantity (better control, also a CA doesn't seem that much cheaper then a BB), mind you that in a campaign this may change because you have to control waters.

The same that alot of things could change in terms what is important (ammo account?, Range?).

 

Of course alot is hard to tell, because we don't have the details, but I though it would be a nice chat.

I hope that the game doesn't go too heavy in "BB and nothing else" route.

[Tousansons]

53 minutes ago, SiWi said:

I hope that the game doesn't go too heavy in "BB and nothing else" route.

All the cruisers/DD's lovers hope that too. We just need to be prepared for disapointment in this area.

We'll see how treaties go. But in a naval game about dreadnoughts I think most "big" battles will be fought and won by BB's and BC's. At the very least it will be more cost efficient and less risky, depending on the AI quality. Cruisers in a BB fight are asking for troubles.

And if there is not enough restriction, why scout/raid with a CA/CL when you can do it with a BC?

[SiWi]

14 minutes ago, Tousansons said:

All the cruisers/DD's lovers hope that too. We just need to be prepared for disapointment in this area.

We'll see how treaties go. But in a naval game about dreadnoughts I think most "big" battles will be fought and won by BB's and BC's. At the very least it will be more cost efficient and less risky, depending on the AI quality. Cruisers in a BB fight are asking for troubles.

And if there is not enough restriction, why scout/raid with a CA/CL when you can do it with a BC?

In big battles I do also assume that BB's will rule supreme:

they have the fire power they are though enough.

But I kinda hope that there enough smaller engagements where there no BB's present or very limited and other classes also gets to shine.

 

[Skeksis]

...

Edited November 9, 2021 by Skeksis

[SiWi]

10 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

In RTW2 I found that it’s better to have DD’s on hand, so when war breaks they can be mobilized and moved immediately into operations. Secondly, some wars aren’t long enough so by the time new DD’s are built and moved to there regions, it’s all over. The same for all classes.

Since it does take quite some time to build and produce ships you’re always planning for the next war, not the current one. This can be annoying because you want to send into battle those warships you're designing right away. But on the other hand that’s pretty much what the game is about, ‘strategizing for future wars’.

Well I have no RTW 1 or " experience so I can't judge it, but overall I think that "when in doubt" it is better to have the BB's then the DD's because I would imagine that losing the big clashes, because you BB's can't handle it, is worse then smaller engagements or the effect that too few DD#s would have.

Mind you taht I of course don't say "don't build DD in peace time", just that you can compensate low DD numbers better then low BB numbers.

Quote

The 'battle generator system' should roll out different battle types, e.g. battleship, cruiser, destroyer, convoy, etc. But if you don't have any matching ships the game should cycle down the list of available ships and select, resulting in miss-matched battles. The game will never cycle up!  

So if you don’t have cruisers for a cruiser battle you could end up with only your destroyers versing enemy cruisers..... not a very good strategy!

All BB strategy would mean losing every low class battle, resulting in diminished victory points, ultimately losing the campaign.

The way this game will generate battles in the campaign will make the game work or not.

It should create challenging battles without feeling "unfair" (creating situations which you would have never allowed to happen as commanding Admiral for example).

Not be able to use the BB's because the game decides that you can only use cruisers sounds a bit artificial. 

[Stormnet]

4 hours ago, Tousansons said:

All the cruisers/DD's lovers hope that too. We just need to be prepared for disapointment in this area.

We'll see how treaties go. But in a naval game about dreadnoughts I think most "big" battles will be fought and won by BB's and BC's. At the very least it will be more cost efficient and less risky, depending on the AI quality. Cruisers in a BB fight are asking for troubles.

And if there is not enough restriction, why scout/raid with a CA/CL when you can do it with a BC?

I think what will balance BBs and BCs is gonna (if not it should) be the hefty price.

The devs should limit by budget your capital ship numbers, so you might need CAs for smaller engagements or as a supportive role (a normal BB alone cant defeat a group of several ships alone, so you cant just spread them all throught the map and have one defeat a fleet, and since you are not gonna sail in a span of only a few days a fleet of BBs from the north atlantic to the west pacific, you'll be forced to also employ CAs, either as divisions themselves or supporting lone BBs deployed to remote places).

[Skeksis]

...

Edited November 9, 2021 by Skeksis

[SiWi]

1 hour ago, Skeksis said:

Yes, not knowing what you're going to get in battle is alittle unsettling.

If it did cycle up, based on battle ratings or something like that, then you might get 1 BB vs 10+ DDs, would that be fair?  Of cause torpedo reloads have been reduced and so would have their battle rating, you might get 15 DDs.

but why there have to be "battle ratings" if all they do is creating artificial encounters? Wouldn't it be more natural that whenever a fight breaks out in an area, that ships in that area take part in that fight? Or at least join it? Or at least ships that were grouped together?

[Skeksis]

...

Edited November 9, 2021 by Skeksis

[Tousansons]

9 hours ago, Stormnet said:

I think what will balance BBs and BCs is gonna (if not it should) be the hefty price.

A decent (and slightly old) BC is not that expensive and can scout or raid like a cruiser because of her speed. Right now if one 1910+ BC engage 2 1910+ cruisers, I'm pretty sure she can either win in a few hit or flee if needed. Better yet, an even older 1910+ refitted BC can still old herself very well against more modern 1920+ cruisers and this time, her initial price has been washed away by 10 years of active duty.

BB's and BC's cost more in theory, but they can remain active and relevant way longer than DD's and cruisers, especially without the threat of air power. RTW has the same "problem" that cruisers are too expensive for their theorical value. You still build some, but they're clearly not meant for front line and used exclusively for commerce raiding/prestige farming. Also the fact that cruisers can face BC's in cruisers engagement doesn't really help them.

While money can be important, I prefer limiting factors like naval treaties and geographic limitations like port/dock size in more remote areas.

 

[Stormnet]

2 hours ago, Tousansons said:

While money can be important, I prefer limiting factors like naval treaties and geographic limitations like port/dock size in more remote areas.

That will work too.