"Gamey" Carrier-Chaser BC/CA's in the 30-40s

[droctulf]

In the 30-40s, I've found enemy carriers are extremely hard to sink, even with coordinated strikes from a similar-sized carrier group of my own. Carrier Battles often drag on for two days with numerous waves of strikes but result only in a few non-lethal bomb hits or a single torpedo hit. Only very lucky hits cause fire out of control from aircraft explosion.

As a result, I've developed "carrier-chaser" ships: 34-knot BCs and 36-knot CAs with thin armor, big (but few) guns, and extreme speed. I put them in the scout force and give them the sole task of chasing enemy carriers. These ships rush to the location of sighting reports, causing enemy carriers to run away and delay launches due to the presence of surface ships nearby. The AI almost never designs carriers with a speed over 31 knots, so after a long, tedious chase—often until we hit the coastline—my carrier-chasers can usually sink one or two carriers per battle using gunfire. Enemy carrier groups scatter when being chased, so I can only choose one division to chase. However, this is still more efficient than launching carrier strikes from a similarly sized force.



My concern is that this strategy, while effective, feels very "gamey." Only one fleet carrier, HMS Glorious, was ever sunk by gunfire in history, and that was due to gross negligence by the Royal Navy. I think the reason such an unhistorical strategy is effective is due to:



1. Carrier air groups should launch even at very short distances to fend off nearby surface attackers, like Taffy 3 at Samar, instead of strictly not launching and not turning into the wind, as in the game.

2. Although battleship screens are already in the game, but most enemy battleships are not assigned to the same force as the carriers.

3. The AI should design carriers at higher speeds. I've rarely seen the AI design carriers with speeds higher than 31 knots, which is not historical.


What do you think?

[ewaldvonkleist]

It is mostly a question of proper carrier escort handling by the AI imho, emergeny self defence aircraft launches which then correctly identify and attack the greatest threat as IRL air wing commanders would is a second change. 

[stevethecat]

There's a thought. Such a ship wouldn't even need big guns, as its mere proximity will hamper aircraft launches. Speed, torp defence, deck armour, and lots of AA... Once you have the enemy CV in sight, the air war would already be won for that battle.

A speedy CA to put the cat amongst the pigeons.

[bobert]

You'd think 6" guns would be fine but i guess you want the BC classification for the battle generator

[ewaldvonkleist]

Sept 3, 2023 12:05:39 GMT -6 stevethecat said:

There's a thought. Such a ship wouldn't even need big guns, as its mere proximity will hamper aircraft launches. Speed, torp defence, deck armour, and lots of AA... Once you have the enemy CV in sight, the air war would already be won for that battle.

A speedy CA to put the cat amongst the pigeons.

The ship imho needs enough strength to deal with some of the lighter escorts which sometimes escort CVs, and the guns of CVs which occasionally are 8in due to the minimum gun requirement.

So a CA sound like the right ship for the task. Making it a BC doesn't hurt either due to greater gun range and higher blockade value.  

[endwerk]

As soon as there is a general proliferation of carriers in the 30s or so, I switch to fast and light BCs at around 25-30k tons for precisely this reason. Paired with large CAs and a lot of DD, it's an excellent fleet to hunt down and sink carrier forces while also being able to deal with their escorts. The Destroyers with a focus on AA and Torpedoes are mostly there for additional targets when you inevitably get swarmed by their aircraft, and to surround and sink heavy capital ships.
Later on the same playstyle works just as well or even better once you get SAMs.
The only time I found carriers to be worth their cost and upkeep is very early when enemy capital ships are slow and there is not sufficient AA and CAP to protect enemy fleets. But that window is, at most, 10 years.

I tried to experiment with light carriers solely for the CAP they can provide to those Carrier-Chaser fleets, but the battle generator cannot handle such things and will give you carrier battles with only 1 light carrier, or put the light carrier into a separate carrier force during a regular surface battle - which completely defeats the purpose of light carriers. Once, or if, they fix the problems with the battle generator, light carriers providing cap for Carrier-Chaser fleets will become even more dominant, really.

[holoween]

Once you reach the point where CAP is able to deny single strikes start splitting them up.
A carrier group with 2 carriers launching 4 strikes in succession with the first strikes being heavy on escorts will quickly depleate active CAP and prevent further CAP from launching.
These will also arrive earlier than coordinating strikes between the carriers giving a good chance to get bomb hits on enemy carriers with fueled aircraft on deck.
This also drastically increases the ammount of strikes you get per day overall leading to far more damage done.