cnw
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by cnw on Apr 25, 2018 7:52:34 GMT -6
My take on raiding:
Type 1 - only in home waters, when I don't have other uses for them, the goal here is to trigger a fight, any actual commerce raiding is just a bonus. For me, it's generally a dumping ground for older battlecruisers and predread CAs, while the modern stuff gets into the enemy's face elsewhere.
Type 2 + 3 - nah, don't do that.
Type 4 - my preferred method with dedicated raiding cruisers, although my preferred design and usage is firmly on the cheesy side and doesn't result in enjoyable battles.
Basically - 2100t, reliable + long range, minimum armor (1" narrow belt), armament just a bunch of 4" (4-7 pieces with about 120-150rpm) and later maybe a dozen mines, nothing else. The remaining tonnage is used to squeeze as much speed out of the ship as possible (25-26kts at game start, once you get turbines you can hit 30+kts). Deployment-wise a couple to each zone with enemy posessions, couple more to their home zones, and a couple to Northern Europe. In case of interception don't engage at all, just run, you should have enough of a speed advantage to get away.
The basic design concept stays relevant until 1200-1500t DDs with director and 5" guns start to appear, and for individual ship classes you can use the older ones in the less exposed zones.
Type 5 - I don't build AMCs regularly, just a handful if I need a couple of raiders right now and don't have anything ready or in the pipeline. They make sense as an investment (you get some of the money you paid for them back once they're sold), my issue is that (at least for my minimal designs) intercepted AMC equals dead AMC.
Submarines - I don't use them all that much, they're harder to control (can't set patrol zones, plus the odd events) and attrition is an issue that I don't have to deal with when using surface raiders. I might have a handful to complement my surface raiders, and later I tend to build some minelaying subs.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 25, 2018 8:31:12 GMT -6
Yes, submarines are perfect when you cannot blockade enemy. As your force is large enough you can blockade enemy submarine force is waste. In case you have it they should attack enemy warship not commerce. Do you have experience how effective are submarines sinking warships? I don't use fleet support so they don't really get many warships, the point is to attrite their merchant marine and cause as much pain and suffering to the population. Depending on the geography of the nation I am fighting, some are not that affected by submarine blockades.
|
|
|
Post by gornik on Apr 28, 2018 6:48:15 GMT -6
I think, I'll make some experiments to suggest, what type of Guerre de Course is better.
First try: USA with 12xT4 raiders (23-knot, 10" rear, 4x5", L, reliability) against Germany in 1903-1904. Forces spread: 4 in Europe, others in pairs in every seazone with German colonies. Enemy collapsed in: 17 months (raiding started from 3rd month, first food shortages reported after 9 months) Merchants sunk - 136 (16 - in convoy battles) Raiders lost: 0 (no one even got * till the end of war) Cost of victory - 12x7,5M building (90M total), 12x48K (wartime 60K) maintenance,
Notes: Germans lost 1xCA and 1xB in battles which treated "Major victory". Northern Marianas were captured two months before war end.
Lesson learned: Quantity is a key. I tried to save 2 raiders as reserve at East Coast for first months, in that period raiding in Europe with 2 ships was unsuccessful. At 7th month both were sent to Europe, first results were spotted after a month.
Next goal - T5 spam.
|
|
|
Post by gornik on Apr 28, 2018 14:38:45 GMT -6
Next experiment - USA (+ GB ally) vs Japan. 1903 - 1906+ (Dropped after 50 months) Raiders used: 30 x near-minimal T5 (2000 ton, 21-knot, XL, reliable, 6x4", 2TA, 21 of them also carried 40 mines) Forces spread: 10 in Europe, 10 in NE Asia, 10 in SE Asia, after 24th month 2 ships from Europe and 2 from SE Asia spread at West Africa and Indian Ocean (unsuccessfully) Enemy collapsed - ?? No unrest reported. Merchants sunk - 38 Raiders lost - 11 in battles (Mainly auto-resolved), 2 mined, 1 scuttled, 2 interned. Engagements survived (both auto and manual): 15 Cost of war: 30x3,2M building (96M total) 30x13,5K maintenance. Notes: - All raiders were sent to their duties just after their active service started, with "fair" crews. - Nearly 10 had engine breakdown, which will certainly destroy them without having an ally with bases everywhere. 3-4 got * after few months at position. - When guided manually, AMC survive engagement at nearly same rate as in auto-resolve, but they often got damage, which should eliminate them by internment next turn. - AMC won 2 auto battles and sunk 2 large (1700ton) gunboats. - They, however were quite effective in another role - Japanese fleet lost 2B, DD, AMC and MS for their mines. - After extensive AMC building (nearly 15) Japanese saved themselves, in 1906 their merchant loses were nearly zero. - My own unrest raised to level 6 at last months. Lessons learned: - Survive ratio of AMC was higher, than expected (Japanese fleet has bunch of 23-knot cruisers), but this should change with time, as their max speed stay the same. - Relying on AMC make you very slow in winning, as even reach Uncle Sam can't build all of them at once, so you should wait: 4-5 months for first AMC launched; 3-4 months for WU ending; (maybe also 3-4 additional months for extended crew training needed, as seem that "good" quality is must for successful raiding), so first raiders may appear in oceans only after a YEAR of war, and for whole Armada you should wait more. - Seem that increasing number of raiders above some low cap is useless. This seem to be logical - you can catch only those ships, that exist... - Japanese AI made some mad things, which brought them closer to loss, than all my pathetic Guerre de Course. At one point whole his fleet run to SE Asia, so British stationer CL managed to "blockade" NE Asia for month or two. Also in first battle 3 their battleships withdraw in panic from mine two, so major victory was achieved. - Sometimes threat is better than action. During first months of extensive raiding, Japan offered me very good terms of peace (6 points) But after several reloads and first loses this was ended. Next goal - T2+T3 experimental usage.
|
|
|
Post by gornik on Apr 29, 2018 16:59:45 GMT -6
Third experiment: USA vs Germany (1904-1907) Raiders used:
4xT2 experimental: 2xCA Unacceptable-class (23-knot 14 000 ton, long-ranged, 10x7", 4" equal belt) 2xCA Nauseous-class (23-knot 13 300 ton, med-range, reliable, 10x7", 4" equal belt)
4xT3 Cl (23-knot 7800 ton, long-ranged, reliable, 14x6", 2" deck)
4xT4-10" as control group.
Forces spread: 2xT2 in Europe (one from every class), 2xT2 in SE Asia, 1xT3+1xT4 in Europe, West Africa, NE Asia, SE Asia, at some point 1xT3+1xT4 were rebased to Indian Ocean. Enemy collapsed in: 36 months (raiding started from 4th month, no food shortages reported, first demonstrations event after 20 months)
Merchants sunk - 187 (7-8 - in coastal raids)
Raiders lost: 1xT4 sink in auto-battle, 3xT3 were interned (All - at first year!), Nauseous got engine trouble in her maiden voyage in Europe, but was rescued with dirty exploit for additional SCIENCE!!! Cost of victory: T2 4x50M building (200M total), 4x288-301K wartime maintenance T3 4x30M building (120M total), 4x187K wartime maintenance
Notes: - Enemy lost CA+4CL in auto-resolved battles, mainly from CAs - In return Germany sunk 74 of my merchants, raising unrest to 5 - Enemy raided Alaska with DD in stormy winter night... Our command in return sent CA with 7 in guns to bombard port at Bismark Achipelago with very extensive minefield. 3 months in a row. (Needless to say, there were some battleships with 12" guns in the area, lol). Weiridly, this gave US Navy best victory in war - 2 weak US CA sink 2 even weakest German with light damage. - At least half of work was done by "control group" of T4, while T2 & T3 were in repair or at rest.
Lessons learned: - Large raider for foreign seas is WORST POSSIBLE investment in your life. - Large ships suffer MUCH MORE troubles than smaller one. T4 always show me * for some months before breaking, T3&T2 just get breakdown from nowhere (or scuttled without warning as was in another games). - If both AF & R ships are in the same foreign area, * appears at both in no time, while same ships on raider duty only, don't suffer for years. - International relations has much greater impact for raider efficiency, than I presumed. In first two experiments, most countries were "green" with me, now most of them had "yellow" tensions. And even unbreakable T4 needed replenishment sometimes. - For large ships replenishment may took MANY months. Example: I set T3 CL to AF in Europe. After 2 months both T2 and also T4 got * and were ordered to return. At T4 * disappear after 2 months, At "reliable" T2 Nauseous - after 5 months. "Long-ranged" T2 Unacceptable spent 9 months at home before freeing from it!
So, time to see end results, and go to submarine warfare.
|
|
|
Post by gornik on Apr 29, 2018 17:14:59 GMT -6
Short conclusion - T4-10" proofed themselves as ideal surface raiders - most reliable and still cheap (less than 100M to win). - T5 are good minelayers but too easy to counter. - T3, T2 (& T1) are ships for home usage only - European powers will get benefits from 1 or 2 of them, though cost is mad. - Auto-resolve of intercepts has benefit for T3-T1, as winner always stay undamaged, while in tactical battle you should be VERY lucky to get such result. - Raider get great benefits from crew training as well as from benevolence of neutral Powers. - Best region for raiding is Europe, Asian waters are worst. If there is no questions, let's go Dönitz a bit
|
|
|
Post by gornik on Apr 30, 2018 17:45:37 GMT -6
Research continues. Submarine experiment 1 (not clean, I think) USA vs Germany, Great Britain (from 12 month) and France (from 20+ month) (1911-1914) Raiders used: 22xSSC (64 reliability) 86xSS (70 reliability) + 20 in construction Forces spread: 10 months of looking at prize rules (No ready SS in fleet) then Unrestricted Warfare Enemy collapsed in: 27 months - Germany, 39 months - Britain (after reload); France decided to stop war afer GB lost. Merchants sunk: Germany - 161 (7-8 - MS and AMC) Great Britain - 290 (nearly 30 - in surface convoy battles or in gun duels) France - 49 Raiders lost: 10 SSC before unrestricted warfare, 8 SSC + 36 SS after, totally 54 Cost of victory: SSC 22x1,4M building (30,8M total), 22x20K maintenance SS 86x3,2M building (275M total ), 86x40K wartime maintenance From that amount total loss (sunk) 141M Notes: - I am not familiar with submarines, so seem that I overbuilt them. I think, I really needed to have 60-70 SS, for whole war, not 86. - Total amount of active subs raised from 24 (month 10) to 50+ (month 40), seem that best number is 40+. Before this value 2 subs sink nearly 1 ship every month, after it total merchant loses stay the same - 20 - 22 every month. - Loses were less then expected, though I sold some ASW techs to France just before war began. - Both GB and France went to war after my sub sink liner - Need one more war to see, how subs deal with ASW convoys. - GB collapsed month after 3B & 2BB were lost in Bermuda Triangle (in battle, of course ), it may hurt them very much. Lessons learned: - Submarines are not less effective than my favourite T4, maybe even more. - Nobody likes submarines - especially GB! - Submarines are evil - we sink 4 liners. - Unrestricted warfare may make new enemies as fast as crush old ones - GB came to war after first liner, France became orange after second, came to war after forth. Strangely, nobobdy react at third one... - Subs are EXPENSIVE, especially medium ones. For price of only lost subs I may build 12xT4 + just-invented modern CA to win cruiser battles. All in all, subs are more predictable than any surface raider and need much less micromanagement on duty. But the price... is much higher (not only in money). Also, they need much better planning of your shipbuilding program, as overkill is waste of money, while underkill means lost war.
|
|
|
Post by director on Apr 30, 2018 20:23:51 GMT -6
I've tried something new in my current US game: historical budget but (as a house rule) no submarines.
The results have been great - even with a historical budget I can field a respectable battle-line and support forces. The last war was with Britain and it did run 4 years, but I picked up the Bahamas, Trinidad - everything in the Caribbean except Jamaica, plus Sierra Leone in Africa and Newfoundland and Bermudaon the NA East Coast. I kept my fleet at home on the East Coast and kept a strong BC force in the Caribbean. And I built 20+ cheap, 2000-ton AMCs and flooded Northern Europe with them. I won three major sea battles: sank two BCs off the Bahamas, 11 BBs off Cape Cod and 6 more BBs in Long island Sound. The pressure from the AMCs, a 9-to-1 superiority in VPs and my sponsoring a revolutionary finally did the trick - they collapsed in revolution.
Of course, four years later we're back at war... but AMCs seem to be an acceptable substitute for subs. I don't think I'd have gotten a collapse without them.
|
|
|
Post by gornik on May 1, 2018 13:07:28 GMT -6
Sub experiment 2 USA vs Japan 1918-1919 Raiders used: 4xSSC (64 reliability) 76xSS (70 reliability) (all survived experiment 1) Forces spread: Unrestricted Warfare from the first day Enemy collapsed in: 12 months Merchants sunk: 312 From them nearly 15 from surface raids. 10 MS and 2 AMC sunk in gun duels Raiders lost: 3 SSC, 11 SS Cost of victory: No new building SSC 4x20K maintenance SS 76xx40K maintenance Notes: - Now I know, what should feel king Herod after Bethlehem massacre... - Poor guys even don't have director at their capital ships, so history of their conventional navy ended near Korean coast at third month of war. - from 12 month they were blockaded for 2, though subs still sink 20 merchants/month during them. - They tried Unrestricted Warfare too... and sunk British liner! - After month 6 they beg for peace every month, but gave me only 4 points, while both their possessions cost more... (Reload!) - First month they lost 50 ships, than this number slowly decrease to 20+ at month 12. - Tech random in this session is weird. Lessons learned: - Submarines are the BEST weapon to win war, if have good reliability and good numbers. T4 are at 2nd place only... I didn't expect such carnage It was like IRL USA sub actions in WWII, but muuuch faster.
|
|
|
Post by oaktree on May 1, 2018 13:42:21 GMT -6
Sub experiment 2 USA vs Japan 1918-1919 Raiders used: 4xSSC (64 reliability) 76xSS (70 reliability) (all survived experiment 1) Forces spread: Unrestricted Warfare from the first day Enemy collapsed in: 12 months Merchants sunk: 312 From them nearly 15 from surface raids. 10 MS and 2 AMC sunk in gun duels Raiders lost: 3 SSC, 11 SS Cost of victory: No new building SSC 4x20K maintenance SS 76xx40K maintenance Notes: - Now I know, what should feel king Herod after Bethlehem massacre... - Poor guys even don't have director at their capital ships, so history of their conventional navy ended near Korean coast at third month of war. - from 12 month they were blockaded for 2, though subs still sink 20 merchants/month during them. - They tried Unrestricted Warfare too... and sunk British liner! - After month 6 they beg for peace every month, but gave me only 4 points, while both their possessions cost more... (Reload!) - First month they lost 50 ships, than this number slowly decrease to 20+ at month 12. - Tech random in this session is weird. Lessons learned: - Submarines are the BEST weapon to win war, if have good reliability and good numbers. T4 are at 2nd place only... I didn't expect such carnage It was like IRL USA sub actions in WWII, but muuuch faster. The World War II USA Pacific sub campaign took a while to get properly footed. Bad torpedoes, bad torpedo exploders, older submarines (e.g. S-boats), a pretty long haul to reach Japanese home waters, and needing to learn some better tactics and operational doctrine as they went. Once they got more boats and some advance bases up they did inflict carnage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2018 14:54:29 GMT -6
Yep subs are of extreme power especially late game. My try was 300+ subs, "ok", "decline", "turn" --> win, after 6 turns. Similarly fighting 2 nations with 400+ subs combined --> loss, after some 10 months. (yes, with sh*t ton of ASW/CP)
Purpose of game feels lost. I think "T4" dedicated CLs is where it's at and they're quite versatile as well.
|
|
|
Post by oaktree on May 1, 2018 16:31:16 GMT -6
Yep subs are of extreme power especially late game. My try was 300+ subs, "ok", "decline", "turn" --> win, after 6 turns. Similarly fighting 2 nations with 400+ subs combined --> loss, after some 10 months. (yes, with sh*t ton of ASW/CP) Purpose of game feels lost. I think "T4" dedicated CLs is where it's at and they're quite versatile as well. There is something worthy of research. About how many subs do you need to have in order to get the "agree to treaty to scrap all subs" event. I suspect that if your country is not one of the leaders in total subs it will not appear; e.g. you can't hope that it will show up and save you. I saw that event twice in a USA game I played where all political decisions were default whichever one would give more prestige. EXCEPT I refused to scrap 80+ subs a second time.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on May 1, 2018 18:38:00 GMT -6
Yep subs are of extreme power especially late game... Purpose of game feels lost. I think "T4" dedicated CLs is where it's at and they're quite versatile as well. I don't think the purpose of the game is "lost", in my opinion. Consider that we all here are here because we love engineering battleships and seeing them in action. I think any of us would feel 'bad' (in a way) if we were reduced to a submarine offensive to win a particular war, but by and large I don't think any of us (except bcoopactual ;P) would plan a submarine war from the start. The submarine system, as is, is necessary I think for the AI to have as an option. Britain faced it, Japan faced it, it would be unrealistic to not have a large submarine opponent as an option in the game. We as players are pre-construed to choose paths which lead to capital ship action, so by and large subs should not - I feel - be seen as a mechanism which steers the game away from its purpose.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2018 18:50:28 GMT -6
I don't think the purpose of the game is "lost", in my opinion. Consider that we all here are here because we love engineering battleships and seeing them in action. I think any of us would feel 'bad' (in a way) if we were reduced to a submarine offensive to win a particular war, but by and large I don't think any of us (except bcoopactual ;P) would plan a submarine war from the start. The submarine system, as is, is necessary I think for the AI to have as an option. Britain faced it, Japan faced it, it would be unrealistic to not have a large submarine opponent as an option in the game. We as players are pre-construed to choose paths which lead to capital ship action, so by and large subs should not - I feel - be seen as a mechanism which steers the game away from its purpose. ^Note I said *feels* lost, as in subjective to myself. As for others and how they like it, it's not my business. I'm happy as long as I can disable sub/asw research in my own games.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on May 1, 2018 19:25:19 GMT -6
Fair enough. :]
|
|