|
|
Post by buttons on Jun 8, 2023 5:11:44 GMT -6
I'm curious what naval doctrines other people tend to use. I see a ton of references to people using BCs and CAs almost exclusively over BBs which is ironic as I tend to forgo BCs almost entirely. My most effective doctrine tends to be
Battle Line: BBs generally increase caliber and speed incrementally with generations (eg. 1900-1910 might be 12" guns and 20 knots, 1910-1920 might be 14" guns and 24 knots, 1920-1930 might be 16" guns and 26 knots and 1930+ might be 18" guns and later 20" guns and 30+ knots). Second line BBs are generally used for home defence or assisting in acquiring naval superiority in far flung areas. Heavy focus on damage control and avoiding catastrophic hits.
Scouting Force: CAs that are just upgunned CLs, 10" and later 8" guns with a bunch of light 6" and 4" secondaries and tertiaries, top speed starts at 23 knots and reaches 35 knots in the 1930s. No BCs whatsoever.
CLs: First gen are covered in 6" guns with 4" secondaries to shred destroyers and enemy cruisers (at least as best they can with early FCS), later on become big AA/torpedo boats with a few 6" guns and a bunch of light DP guns and torpedo tubes.
DDs: As I play on admiral mode the AI is reluctant to use torpedoes until range and number of tubes increase so I just use them as KEs with a single torpedo tube until the 1930s. Even after that I keep them cheap until the 1950s when I get AShMs.
Aviation: Unless playing as France, Britain, US, or Japan I prefer ground based aviation, either way I rely on torpedo bombers as the strike force and later heavy fighters as the strike force of my aviation, but it still remains secondary to gunboats and later missile boats.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 8, 2023 6:47:14 GMT -6
Interesting question, I base my naval doctrine on geography.... location, location, location. I also use the time period I am currently in.... Pre-dreadnought, dreadnought, interwar period, WW2 era and the modern era. Example: for Japan I use a lot of submarines and it is very successful. If the IJN had planned the use of submarines better and ASW, they would have done better in the war. I have provided an interesting document from the Naval Doctrine Command.
I have two axioms that guide my tactical doctrine: No plan survives contact with the enemy; He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day. When I have aircraft, I will attack the enemy, then turn around and head back to my nation, hoping that the enemy will follow and my land based aircraft can deal with him. I then will turn around and attack him again.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 8, 2023 10:47:34 GMT -6
Here is something to download and read:
file:///C:/Users/Dennis/Downloads/p4013coll8_4782.pdf
|
|
|
|
Post by arminpfano on Jun 9, 2023 7:18:04 GMT -6
My doctrine may be of limited use for others, as I mostly play Japan or Germany or other "rising powers" in Captain´s mode only. It´s not for historical roleplay, but just for winning a game (ore more precisely to enjoy blowing up enemy ships).
1) Expand docks as fast as possible.
2) Concentrate on some critical research areas like turrets, guns, fire control, light forces, torpedoes. Set all other to "low" - many of them you can aquire from other powers by money.
3) Build the biggest CA/BC possible, speed +1/+2 knots compared to enemy designs in use, biggest possible guns (up to 16", then stop), use rest of tonnage for armor (the conning tower and the main turrets are armored heavier than the own caliber, for example 20" for 16"-turrets - this not primarely to prevent turret flashes, but to keep them in battle as long as possible). Up to 1915 don´t forget 6 submerged TTs, as I frequently hunt down enemy capitals this way.
4) Save your money up to the max and build then a class of the most modern capitals with homogenious speed and characteristica. This is possible all 5 - 6 years.
5) This way you have two generations of strong capital ships available at all time. The newest squadron should be able to fight successfully against much bigger fleets. A relation of 2:1 in terms of barrels is no problem, at 3:1 I start thinking. My experience: Just attack relentlessly, the AI can´t cope with it. Ideally build all forward armament - the AI soon runs away, so the enemy ships can only use X and/or Y turrets against your full blast.
6) In between of the BC generations build classes of DDs, as big and fast as possible then. Focus on torpedoes, small guns only. Ideal are sizes like 900 ts which can be used as optimal ASW forces later on.
7) In early years until 1905 it is perfectly possible to cage a big, slow B fleet with some DD flotillas, attack simultaneously from different directions and sink all of them. Later on you need your BCs as a pretreatment. As soon as the enemy ships loose speed, they are prey for the DDs. DDs are cheap in comparison, so never mind some losses.
8) When aircraft come into the game I concentrate on a few patrol planes for recon and later a handful of medium bombers. If you build too many planes it will suck your budget dry. Besides it is more fun to handle the planes by yourself via the CVs instead of abstracted attacks from somewhere.
9) I build up the carrier force slowly and careful in the early years, saving money. In 1935 or so when torpedo bombers get really dangerous, I shift the budget to CV mainly. This slows down the renewal process of ships significantly.
10) Also in the age of carrier battles most of my sinkings are done by DDs. I send the flotillas into the enemy airstrike regions, accepting some losses due to land based attacks. Very often the DDs are able to find some enemy CVs, maybe crippled by former airstrikes (in those instances I hate the 8 x 8" armament of the early conversions!).
11) CLs I use only for fulfilling the required foreign stations tonnage, because I hate it to have dozens of KE doing this job, even if they may be a little cheaper. Otherwise I avoid CLs and (as soon as BCs are available) CAs. You only get boring cruiser battles all the time, which prolongue a war but do nothing decisive. Sometimes I play around with mini BCs to hunt those pesky raiders in foreign regions.
12) For the missile age I can´t say anything, as I haven´t reached this up to now ;-) With my first full scale RTW3 playthrough I am still in 1925 after 140 hours gametime - I enjoy the fiddling with the new ship designer! The stuff above is mainly based on my experience in RTW2, but it works with minor adjustments also fine in RTW3, as it seems.
|
|
|
|
Post by cormallen on Jun 9, 2023 12:24:06 GMT -6
Don't take have enough experience in RTW3 to tell if it changes much yet so very much my 1+2 experience...
Usually play on Rear-Admiral or, if I've been annoyed by a particularly bad bit of AI behaviour, Captains mode but mostly as if I was in RA (so trying to resist taking control of too much and only very rarely manually torpedoing stuff).
I tend to be cautious in fleet actions, waiting for an opening before making a move, or just nibbling at the edges if outmatched.
Much more aggressive in small and single ship actions though will run early if it's too doomed.
Not a big fan of aircraft (IG, big fan IRL!), don't think the game handles them anywhere near as well as it does surface units.
Mostly, but not exclusively play 1900 start RN runs as spent hundreds of hours trying to perfect historical-ish designs for everyone. Quite excited by the new way of handling treaties for the 1920 start, but less excited by the rather odd (basically Battlecruiser free zone?) 1935 start.
Genuinely not impressed by the 1890 start, rather like a million war movies I know too much history to not find it's (really quite substantial) errors irritating enough to break immersion. Slowly starting the long, long job of re-writing the IDes files again (did it for RTW2, but that was much less needed and really a labour of love) to try and make a better early game. Truly find the decision to restrict players to auto legacy fleets target childish!
|
|
|
|
Post by t3rm1dor on Jun 9, 2023 15:07:45 GMT -6
I play admiral, usually RP depending on what nation I'm playing and going for somewhat different builds. I have some stable desings like very heavy armed 6 inch + 5 inch ligth cruisers but in general I try to make the doctrine depending on the country I'm playing: Uk full BB , quantity over quality while germany going for BB as well but doing a quality over quantity approach for instance. One element of the fleet I consider vital are DD, even early ones can win huge victories by well timed flotilla attacks; although I'm finding torpedos less deadly than 2. Also i'm finding aircraft to be somewhat of a disappointment compare to the prequel, hunting carrier groups with BC is very effective.
|
|
|
|
Post by ludovic on Jun 9, 2023 17:31:37 GMT -6
3) Build the biggest CA/BC possible, speed +1/+2 knots compared to enemy designs in use, biggest possible guns (up to 16", then stop) Is the AI in RTW3 better at keeping its distance with long barrels compared to RTW2? Some other people noted that in the previous version of the game, it was just as effective to have lots of 14" guns than a fewer number of 16" guns, and my experience in RTW2 bears this out, because the AI was good at getting within your range if you had 16" guns, rendering the additional distance less important, but was not very good at keeping you out of its range, meaning that if they did have 16" guns and you didn't, you'd usually be able to close in enough that your 14" guns can blast at their full power, and the additional number of 14" guns and their higher ROF will eventually take its toll. Which isn't to say that lots of 14" guns are better than a fewer number of 16" for the same weight: they're merely just as good when you're fighting a well-armoured opponent. But they're much better against a weakly-armoured opponent, so all-around, it's a good choice. But the choice would be rendered harder if you run into an opponent that is just as fast as you and has bigger guns and also is good at keeping the proper distance. |
|
|
|
Post by arminpfano on Jun 10, 2023 1:57:14 GMT -6
3) Build the biggest CA/BC possible, speed +1/+2 knots compared to enemy designs in use, biggest possible guns (up to 16", then stop) Is the AI in RTW3 better at keeping its distance with long barrels compared to RTW2? Some other people noted that in the previous version of the game, it was just as effective to have lots of 14" guns than a fewer number of 16" guns, and my experience in RTW2 bears this out, because the AI was good at getting within your range if you had 16" guns, rendering the additional distance less important, but was not very good at keeping you out of its range, meaning that if they did have 16" guns and you didn't, you'd usually be able to close in enough that your 14" guns can blast at their full power, and the additional number of 14" guns and their higher ROF will eventually take its toll. Which isn't to say that lots of 14" guns are better than a fewer number of 16" for the same weight: they're merely just as good when you're fighting a well-armoured opponent. But they're much better against a weakly-armoured opponent, so all-around, it's a good choice. But the choice would be rendered harder if you run into an opponent that is just as fast as you and has bigger guns and also is good at keeping the proper distance.
Good question!
Up to now I haven´t noticed a difference between RTW2 and RTW3, but maybe this is because of my playstyle. Regardless of wich guns I have or the opponent, I try to get as close as possible and turn it into a knife fight, accepting the occational torpedo. The main point then is to armor your turrets well, to keep them in battle. The AI tries to keep some distance and turns away. This makes the reaction of the enemy somehow predictable, and additionally they only can use the rear guns.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheOtherPoster on Jun 23, 2023 8:50:46 GMT -6
Most of the time I play the earlier starts, before aircraft become the uncontested king of the seas: 1890, 1900 but also the 1920 start: I’m not an anti-aircraft fanatic!  . I tend to play small navies like Spain or Austria (and I’m trying my hand now with Japan and China). Regarding naval doctrine, in my view there are really 2 main options: either a Jeune Ecole navy focused on economic warfare and raiding, or the blue water navy expected to fight in the battle line for control of the sea routes. And if you have a small navy you have to be prepared to fight both, as sometimes you may be facing the biggies and other times just medium size navies. I would say that in RTW building a few outstanding very powerful capital ships within otherwise quite standard ordinary fleet will see you through most of the time in any of both cases. When playing against one of the biggies I try the Jeune Ecole: I use my cruiser force as raiders to cut off their sea line communications (and my subs too once they become a thing). But I keep on active status my very powerful fast battleship(s) than, in the right circumstances, can cripple any enemy vessel and give me precious VPs. And if things are not right, we can always extricate ourselves thanks to our high speed and scary big guns. As wise oldpop2000 put it: he who runs away, lives to fight another day. We may lose a few VPs, but nothing compared to losing the ship herself! To protect my coastal towns I’ll form some DD flotillas as soon as they are available and I’ll try to strengthen my coastal artillery, particularly in any possession within range of a potential enemy. If the enemy is just a medium size navy, I keep all my fleet on active duty instead and play more like a blue water navy contesting the domain of the sea. It’s not perfect at all, but we’re the poor navy after all and we have to do the best we can with what we have. |
|
|
|
Post by director on Jun 24, 2023 14:43:14 GMT -6
1) Quality defeats quantity unless the enemy exceeds you by about 2 to 1 or more.
2) Since many actions are cruiser-based, superior CLs and CAs will gain you a lot of victory points. You will need a speed advantage as the AI will usually run.
3) Fire control, machinery, light forces and torpedoes need High priority. Later, ASW needs high priority.
4) In the early game, powerful CAs can defeat early Bs.
5) Guns to cripple, torpedoes to sink the cripples.
6) Rather than parallel an enemy battle line, edge slightly away. This will reduce his odds of torpedo-sniping you and induce him to lose cohesion as he tries to close the range. Edging away means he stays under your guns for longer... once some of his ships are crippled, start edging toward him and throw DDs in his face.
7) If the AI pursues, you can turn across his line and cripple or sink the leading ship. Once he turns away from your torpedo attack, start withdrawing again... rinse and repeat as needed.
8) I prefer a 12-gun battery to 8 or 9, but three triple 15" or 16" is workable.
9) An all-forward CA can carry 5 or 6 floatplanes - highly useful for scouting.
10) It is very often best to take a small victory rather than press for a larger one. If you can sink a cruiser or a battleship, think hard about withdrawing. Luck always turns.
|
|
|
|
Post by buttons on Jul 7, 2023 8:41:44 GMT -6
3) Build the biggest CA/BC possible, speed +1/+2 knots compared to enemy designs in use, biggest possible guns (up to 16", then stop) Is the AI in RTW3 better at keeping its distance with long barrels compared to RTW2? Some other people noted that in the previous version of the game, it was just as effective to have lots of 14" guns than a fewer number of 16" guns, and my experience in RTW2 bears this out, because the AI was good at getting within your range if you had 16" guns, rendering the additional distance less important, but was not very good at keeping you out of its range, meaning that if they did have 16" guns and you didn't, you'd usually be able to close in enough that your 14" guns can blast at their full power, and the additional number of 14" guns and their higher ROF will eventually take its toll. Which isn't to say that lots of 14" guns are better than a fewer number of 16" for the same weight: they're merely just as good when you're fighting a well-armoured opponent. But they're much better against a weakly-armoured opponent, so all-around, it's a good choice. But the choice would be rendered harder if you run into an opponent that is just as fast as you and has bigger guns and also is good at keeping the proper distance. I tend to build BBs with triple and then quad 14" guns as later on the penetration is enough to deal with most things and as long as I'm slightly faster I'm able to simply use more volume fire. Sometimes I'll upgrade them to 16 or bigger guns but I never compromise volume for size, 16x14 beats 12x16 in my opinion. This also lets me keep battle lines with similar main guns for longer, if I get 14" guns around 1910 than any battleship built after that will have the appropriate gun for the main battle line and until I make the jump to fast battleships machinery refits can generally ensure older ships can be upgraded to the new battle line standard. In essence the only times I have to replace my battle line are around 1910 (14" replaces 12") and 1935 or so (28 knot BBs replace 22 knot BBs). Any ship built after 1910 is with upgrades good to serve on the main battle line until fast battleships appear. |
|
|
|
Post by bthom37 on Jul 13, 2023 20:43:21 GMT -6
Most of the time I play the earlier starts, before aircraft become the uncontested king of the seas: 1890, 1900 but also the 1920 start: I’m not an anti-aircraft fanatic! . I tend to play small navies like Spain or Austria (and I’m trying my hand now with Japan and China). Regarding naval doctrine, in my view there are really 2 main options: either a Jeune Ecole navy focused on economic warfare and raiding, or the blue water navy expected to fight in the battle line for control of the sea routes. And if you have a small navy you have to be prepared to fight both, as sometimes you may be facing the biggies and other times just medium size navies. I would say that in RTW building a few outstanding very powerful capital ships within otherwise quite standard ordinary fleet will see you through most of the time in any of both cases. When playing against one of the biggies I try the Jeune Ecole: I use my cruiser force as raiders to cut off their sea line communications (and my subs too once they become a thing). But I keep on active status my very powerful fast battleship(s) than, in the right circumstances, can cripple any enemy vessel and give me precious VPs. And if things are not right, we can always extricate ourselves thanks to our high speed and scary big guns. As wise oldpop2000 put it: he who runs away, lives to fight another day. We may lose a few VPs, but nothing compared to losing the ship herself! To protect my coastal towns I’ll form some DD flotillas as soon as they are available and I’ll try to strengthen my coastal artillery, particularly in any possession within range of a potential enemy. If the enemy is just a medium size navy, I keep all my fleet on active duty instead and play more like a blue water navy contesting the domain of the sea. It’s not perfect at all, but we’re the poor navy after all and we have to do the best we can with what we have. Smaller nations I usually try to keep 4 modern BBs and 4 modern BCs in the fleet at all time, because I can snipe some pretty significant VPs from the enemy in battle with them. CAs and CLs I build as I can, but I aim to build 30knot versions of them ASAP. DDs - I will occasionally go all the way to 12 tube DDs, simply because they are the best way to get some really big VP swings. Carriers - I do cheese a bit and wait til I'm able to build 35k+ ton versions of them, trying to convert as many of my early BCs to them as possible. 35k tons, even with the heavy aircraft penalty, can still generate significant air wings into the future. |
|
. I tend to play small navies like Spain or Austria (and I’m trying my hand now with Japan and China).
