|
Post by hogzkrieg on Jan 30, 2018 3:13:25 GMT -6
I've been playing the game for a few months now and while I've picked up a lot of helpful information from this board (which is brilliant btw) and from watching youtube videos, however there are still a lot of intricacies that elude me, colony management and foreign stations being a big one. I'm hoping some of you vets might be able to shed some light or at least give your opinion on it.
- Is there any benefit to putting more than the required tonnage on a foreign station? In my current game as Germany (medium fleet size) I have a requirement of 5,000 and 6,000 tons for SE and NE Asia respectively. I currently use a 6000 ton CL on each station which satisfies the requirement but would I get any benefit for basing further ships there? I notice the maintenance cost of ships increases whilst abroad so it actually seems detrimental to send additional ships to a colony unless you are preparing to fight a war in the region.
- Some colonies don't actually require a ship to be based there, I have colonies on the West Coast of Africa and the Indian Ocean that are small and don't require a ship to be stationed. This is all well and good but when war breaks out these areas seem particularly vulnerable as they are unprotected and I've lost colonies because I've neglected to send a ship out there. Would you generally base a ship on these stations anyway or just send cruisers there once war breaks out? I guess this leads back to my first questions above, are there any benefits from putting tonnage on stations that do not require it / more that the required tonnage.
- Are there any inherent disadvantages/advantages on using CL's or CA's for overseas basing or is it purely a matter of taste/strategy?
Thanks in advance!
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Jan 30, 2018 4:31:38 GMT -6
First of all, I believe that ships on station affect the likelihood of success in "vainglorious colonial schemes" (when there is upheaval in a neutral territory and you send a force to "restore order"). Secondly, extra ships on station are part of war readiness: defending your own territories or being able to take the fight to the enemy immediately when war breaks out (but don't necessarily base ships in waters near Japanese colonies if war with Japan is looming). Thirdly, events that cause ships to need yard time can cause you to abruptly have insufficient tonnage on station, particularly during wartime.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jan 30, 2018 12:24:18 GMT -6
To some extent, the computer-controlled powers will deploy their forces in response to the forces you deploy, so deploying a CA to, say, West Africa might cause other powers with colonies in West Africa to deploy a CA, or rarely even a BC, there rather than the more normal CL. They won't always do so, however. Whether this is an advantage or disadvantage is for you to decide. Additionally, a CA deployed to waters where its only opponents are CLs is unlikely to lose cruiser engagements unless it gets torpedoed, which is a clear advantage.
There are also cost efficiencies to consider, though that's more design dependent than hull class dependent.
Like rimbecano, I have the impression that the ships you have in a sea zone affect the likelihood of success when the opportunity to acquire a new possession arises. It isn't impossible to acquire a colony in an area where you have no ships, and it isn't impossible for the event to blow up in your face in sea zones where you have a significant fleet presence, but my impression is that colonial adventurism is more often successful when you have more ships nearby.
'Extra' ships on a station also give you some degree of redundancy on station in case of losses (whether temporary or permanent), give you a pool of ships upon which you can draw to fulfill requirements on new stations when you acquire a colony in a new sea zone by event or treaty, and make it less likely that acquiring a new colony in the sea zone where they're stationed will suddenly leave you short of your foreign station requirement. There's also the war readiness bit that rimbecano mentioned - if I intend to use them, I like to have cruiser-raiders on their war stations before war breaks out, and if I want to invade colonies in a specific sea zone I regard it as useful to have a powerful squadron there prior to the outbreak of war.
For some powers, colonial stations are also where their base capacities most overlap, or where they would most want to fight - for example, the Caribbean and Southeast Asia are the only two sea zones where the USA and France both have base capacity at the start of the game, but France has neither the naval strength nor the Caribbean base capacity to make attempting to challenge the USN in American waters a particularly good idea; in Southeast Asia, both powers have enough base capacity to station reasonably powerful squadrons for long periods of time, but France has more base capacity in and better access to Southeast Asia than the US does (even after the Panama Canal opens, Southeast Asia is three steps from Northern Europe or four steps from the North American East Coast, and whereas France starts with bases in each sea zone along the way, the USA does not), which means that the Marine National could plausibly start with and maintain local superiority over the USN in Southeast Asia despite the USN being a much more powerful navy overall.
Coastal fortifications can help with that. I wouldn't recommend going overboard with them, but they definitely seem to reduce the likelihood that a colony will be invaded, and every once in a while they'll be useful in a battle.
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Jan 30, 2018 14:42:52 GMT -6
Coastal forts are a must in your main port facing a Japanese colony as well...so that a surprise attack gets a bloody nose for daring to challenge the might of your empire.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jan 30, 2018 17:37:56 GMT -6
Welcome to the forum hogzkrieg . I'm also under the impression that extra fleet strength increases the odds of success when the "stabilize and occupy" a neutral possession event fires although I don't believe the developers have ever confirmed that. I personally wouldn't send a large CA (over 10,000 tons) to be a foreign service cruiser. Ships outside of home waters can't be put into reserve or mothballs. A large CA's maintenance costs are a significant expense and enough so that it makes more sense to me to keep it in home waters and in reserve and save half of those costs. In wartime you definitely want to have more than the tonnage requirement so if a ship gets mined or you lose a couple in a battle you don't have to scramble to meet the requirements for next turn. Also, intercepting surface raiders seems to be mainly a hull numbers game, the more cruisers of whatever type you have in the territory tends to increase your odds of thwarting the enemy raider's missions (you see those noted at the bottom of the messages list every turn) so if he is hammering merchants in a particular area send more ships. Keep in mind though that if an actual battle is fought, generally speaking, CL's lose to CA's and small CL's lose to bigger CL's. So if you are using smaller, cheaper CL's to thwart raiders you need to be okay with running as soon as contact is made. For ocean areas that don't have a tonnage requirement I wouldn't worry about it if you can reach the area in one or two turns turn. Many times, the turn before an invasion I will see an event stating that the enemy is dominating the waters around "XX" colony and that lets me know that I'm probably going to be invaded next turn. Then I will react by sending ships. Invasions are rarely resolved in one turn in my experience but I have seen it happen so if you can't reinforce an ocean area in one turn it is a risk to keep in mind and you may want to be proactive in sending ships. Like aeson and theexecuter stated, I like to build coastal artillery in my territories. For larger, more important territories I personally build one 8 inch and one 6 inch battery per port. For smaller territories it might just be one or two 6 inch batteries. It helps prevent invasions and defend against sneak attacks. I don't build the larger batteries. For me, they are just too expensive for how often they come into play.
|
|
|
Post by director on Jan 30, 2018 20:18:57 GMT -6
Padding the tonnage you put into foreign service requirement serves several purposes for me: it protects me from prestige loss if a ship goes down for mechanical failure (or combat damage), it gives me a 'ready reserve' I can use to immediately counter enemy movements in that or in an adjacent area, and it helps limit the frustration of the 'all-my-ships-need-to-be-overhauled' shuffle.
Coastal artillery is a 'must' for me in only two regions - East Prussia (or the Baltic States) and my main naval base in southeast or northeast Asia. The East Prussian or Baltic States batteries will give the enemy AI fits. Mostly I build 6" batteries; in Asia I'll add some 8" or 10".
A 'trick' I'm currently exploring is to build a big, powerful CL of 6500 to 8000 tons with 6" armament for fleet work and then build a smaller version with 5" armament - same speed but slightly reduced armor - for colonial work. I assign 2 of the smaller CLs to each colonial seazone (for my current German game that's West Africa, Indian Ocean, SE Asia and NE Asia). Any additional tonnage requirement I make up out of older CAs no longer fir for frontline service. Not sure how much I like the smaller 5"-gunned CL, but they have a good combat record so far.
|
|
|
Post by hogzkrieg on Jan 31, 2018 3:09:23 GMT -6
Thanks very much for all the replies, they are very helpful!
One further question, when fighting a war in colonial areas is there ever a time when you would send your battle fleet? Generally I have just been using CL's sometimes bolstered by a CA if I think it's required. My battle fleet doesn't leave my home waters.
I was considering splitting one or two Battleships off and sending them to a SE Asia (I'm at war with the US) in hopes of grabbing some colonies but a) I don't know if this is actually effective and b) it dissipates the strength of the battle fleet.
I assume if you are a Northern European power fighting another Northern European power it's pointless to ever send the battle fleet to the colonies as the AI would then likely have a B / BB number advantage in home waters but is it viable when fighting the US or Japan?
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jan 31, 2018 3:47:21 GMT -6
Yes, it can be viable against the US or Japan.
It can also be viable against other Northern European powers, depending on what they're doing with their battle fleets and what their fleet strength is relative to yours. Great Britain (more so on historical resources, less so on game resources) and to a lesser extent Germany (more so on game resources, less so on historical resources) can often afford to split ships off from the battle fleet in a war against France or Russia, for example, but any power can do it against any other power if they win enough to to gain a reasonable margin of superiority. It is also arguably the case that a badly-outmatched power is better off employing its battle fleet outside of home waters than in home waters - if having the battle fleet at home isn't going to prevent a blockade, then maybe it could be better employed threatening colonies (which might draw enemy capital ships off in response - possibly without adequate supporting elements) than guarding home waters. Of course, that tends to reduce the opportunities for major fleet actions, which can potentially give tens of thousands of victory points (I think the best I've had was on the order of fifty thousand from a single battle, though the net gain wasn't quite that high since if I recall the enemy also gained around twenty thousand victory points) and break a blockading fleet.
While I rarely send my entire battle fleet outside of home waters even as a relatively isolated power such as Japan or the USA, I have certainly sent powerful squadrons of capital ships to colonial areas, partly to try to trigger invasions but also partly because I like the occasional major fleet action and the isolated powers are relatively unlikely to fight one against most other powers as long as the fleet stays at home (and battleships aren't of much use if you never fight a fleet action - that's one of the few battle types for which they'll show up). As the USA, I've stationed as many as a dozen battleships and battlecruisers in Southeast Asia for wars against Great Britain, France, and Japan, and will do the same in other sea zones once I acquire bases there for wars against other powers. I've even occasionally built squadrons of long-range battleships and battlecruisers for the express purpose of going into sea zones where I lack possessions to try to trigger invasions, though invasions are unreliable enough and long range costs a capital ship enough that I don't do that very often any more.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jan 31, 2018 3:59:26 GMT -6
Yes, it can be viable against the US or Japan. It can also be viable against other Northern European powers, depending on what they're doing with their battle fleets and what their fleet strength is relative to yours. Great Britain (more so on historical resources, less so on game resources) and to a lesser extent Germany (more so on game resources, less so on historical resources) can often afford to split ships off from the battle fleet in a war against France or Russia, for example, but any power can do it against any other power if they win enough to to gain a reasonable margin of superiority. It is also arguably the case that a badly-outmatched power is better off employing its battle fleet outside of home waters than in home waters - if having the battle fleet at home isn't going to prevent a blockade, then maybe it could be better employed threatening colonies (which might draw enemy capital ships off in response - possibly without adequate supporting elements) than guarding home waters. Of course, that tends to reduce the opportunities for major fleet actions, which can potentially give tens of thousands of victory points (I think the best I've had was on the order of fifty thousand from a single battle, though the net gain wasn't quite that high since if I recall the enemy also gained around twenty thousand victory points) and break a blockading fleet. While I rarely send my entire battle fleet outside of home waters even as a relatively isolated power such as Japan or the USA, I have certainly sent powerful squadrons of capital ships to colonial areas, partly to try to trigger invasions but also partly because I like the occasional major fleet action and the isolated powers are relatively unlikely to fight one against most other powers as long as the fleet stays at home (and battleships aren't of much use if you never fight a fleet action - that's one of the few battle types for which they'll show up). As the USA, I've stationed as many as a dozen battleships and battlecruisers in Southeast Asia for wars against Great Britain, France, and Japan, and will do the same in other sea zones once I acquire bases there for wars against other powers. I've even occasionally built squadrons of long-range battleships and battlecruisers for the express purpose of going into sea zones where I lack possessions to try to trigger invasions, though invasions are unreliable enough and long range costs a capital ship enough that I don't do that very often any more. In my recent game as USA in my 2 wars against UK (I have Ireland in both of them and enough basing capacity in Europe, so our main battle fleets play cat and mouse in triangle NAEC, NE, CA), the UK still send some ships to Asia. I use battleship to try increase chance of triggering invasion too. I usually use old pre-dreadnoughts that are mothballed in peacetime for such task and sometimes even in areas where I have no basis. In the case they are interned or scuttled I am not worried as they are useless anyway.
|
|
|
Post by hogzkrieg on Feb 1, 2018 7:36:50 GMT -6
Thanks for the further replies, it's all very helpful.
I guess you just need to use your judgment when deciding to split off elements of your battle fleet which make perfect sense.
|
|
|
Post by director on Feb 2, 2018 10:26:52 GMT -6
I never send capital ships unless I have the base capacity to support them. That is why I build up overseas bases, especially if I have one in Northern or Southern Asia. It is possible to 'surge' a fleet into an area and withdraw it after a turn (or two). The point gain may be small but the AI will sometimes react by moving its forces. NEVER ACCEPT BATTLE WITHOUT BASES.
Fighting the US is more problematic... If I don't have bases in North America or the Caribbean, I usually go for a raiding strategy and put some capital ships in reserve to pay for it.
Battlecruisers are always appropriate to send abroad, and you can exceed your base capacity so long as you have SOME base there to repair damaged ships.
|
|
|
Post by fredsanford on Feb 2, 2018 12:05:13 GMT -6
I've successfully pulled off the long range blockade, but you have to have a decent numbers advantage so that you can provide "relief" ships in your home waters to rotate with ships that get the * while overseas. Helpful hint: Click the 'status' button to refresh the list, and you'll be surprised how many more *'s show up. Still, be prepared to get ships interned from sudden breakdowns/damage. Battle is problematic since damage will get ships interned, so either refuse battles, or only take them if you are confident you can win decisively. Many times I would accept battle, see the initial deployment was less than ideal, and withdraw before becoming engaged.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Feb 2, 2018 18:30:18 GMT -6
I've successfully pulled off the long range blockade, but you have to have a decent numbers advantage so that you can provide "relief" ships in your home waters to rotate with ships that get the * while overseas. Helpful hint: Click the 'status' button to refresh the list, and you'll be surprised how many more *'s show up. Still, be prepared to get ships interned from sudden breakdowns/damage. Battle is problematic since damage will get ships interned, so either refuse battles, or only take them if you are confident you can win decisively. Many times I would accept battle, see the initial deployment was less than ideal, and withdraw before becoming engaged. That's good advice. I think one of the hardest learning curves for me in this game was figuring out that not every scenario, particularly the larger fights, has to be Trafalgar or Surigao Strait. Even when you have an advantage, if nighttime comes early in the fight or, like in your description, you are fighting where you don't have a base for repairs, it's better to accept a draw or maybe even a minor defeat rather than continue to press the attack and lose two capital ships to torpedoes or have four ships be interned by even light damage. It's hard to do when there is only one actual fight per month but it's important for long term success.
|
|