Armor on ships in real life: A total saving grace for some ships. Armor in HOI4: Total waste time and effort. I kinda wish having armor had the same process as tanks with piercing etc for the ships
@GrandSnow469
Жыл бұрын
It literally does. Armour is just not cost effective
@xdeepxfreezex2621
Жыл бұрын
@@GrandSnow469 Doesn't seem like it lol. Not nearly as noticeably as it is for tanks anyway
@gkagara
Жыл бұрын
The meta is having more dockyard than your enemy, this was made assuming that each side have same amount of production and both side wanted to achieve naval supremacy via ship alone without planes and other strategy, both industrial capacity also need to be balance with same number of dockyard and tech which in game is virtually inexistent.
@gkagara
Жыл бұрын
Armor is the king it just saying who gonna cares about production cost if you have more resources and more dockyard than your enemy? The problem I see with naval combat is the sinking rate is too high, it should be aimed that most ship in the battle should survive even for losing side, it's utterly ridiculous that you losing hundreds of ship in single engagement, this way so opposing side can repair and still be in the fight in a theatre, it's not fun to just build up your Navy entire game just for couple battle and then achieving naval supremacy and your Navy is useless for the rest of the game. The reason land combat is exciting is because you have a chance of counter attack one defeat doesn't mean the end but Navy is not like that at most you only need 3 good battle and your enemy is done.
@xdeepxfreezex2621
Жыл бұрын
@@gkagara Not exactly. The way it is set up, there is usually no recovery if you lose say 10 tank divisions in Russia. Thats a huge loss for a German player. Same thing if the US navy had gotten blown up by a Japanese player. The Japanese player then gets to raid the Med or if Italy built up their fleet, they break out into the Atlantic and raid the coast of Britain. The game is setup fine except armor just isnt good. If you have 2 ships of the exact same design except 1 has armor and 1 doesnt. You produce enough of the no armor version over a period of time that the armored version cannot physically survive against
@Chocolatnave123
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for always doing the testing for the 2 people still working on HOI4 at paradox, you're a lifesaver!
@zoroasper9759
Жыл бұрын
I FUCKING KNEW IT As soon as I saw you can still use secondary batteries on CAs I instantly thought "I bet these guys still wreck shit up" I made them but playing singleplayer without actual testing I couldn't really see how well they perform, since the AI gets destroyed by everything basically I was waiting for the update to come out to try them out
@neweraamerica7363
Жыл бұрын
Imagine trying to fully understand the combat metas in Millennium Dawn 😭
@miracletortoise6224
Жыл бұрын
It's true to the real world! Nobody wants to find out what actually happens if modern navies are engaged in open war.
@riftandrend5254
Жыл бұрын
MD combat meta is probably just ignore navy, build air and use transports to teleport airborne armored infantry into their VPs
@EternalEmpr3ss
Жыл бұрын
theres just so much shit in millenium dawn i dont even know what to build
@neweraamerica7363
Жыл бұрын
@@EternalEmpr3ss IFVs are the best all around ground unit but tanks in plain tiles in MD go absolutely insane. They nerfed Heavy Airborne which is ass
@pancytryna9378
Жыл бұрын
@@neweraamerica7363 Based Based on the performance of the VDV in Ukraine
@Darthkell0
Жыл бұрын
Also another issue with naval battles is that they "black hole" or "singularity" all the fleets in the world, a naval engagement can take so long to resolve that a fleet across the litteral world can get over to it to reinforce. as a result you are going to be fighting the entire navy at some point because youll be stuck retreating for weeks from submarines when the time to actually disengage would have happened within afew hours.
@jeffreyhornblower6515
Жыл бұрын
I genuinely think the issue is either heavy ship hull is too expensive to counter heavy cruisers, or heavy cruisers are too cheap and maybe need to be their own hull like the German panzerschiffe with increased production (for condensing research just have you unlock it with cruisers hull), maybe only 2 heavy guns allowed like on the front and back?
@71Cloak
Жыл бұрын
Mostly the armour calculation is dumb. It used to be binary, either you pierced and did full damage or failed to pierce and suffered a -90% penalty. Now that is a bit broken so they introduced a sort of partial piecing. The current formula is -90% x [1 - ( your piercing / enemy's armour)]. So with 25 piercing against 35 armour you get -28.2% which is your damage reduction. That number should probably get doubled if they want armour and by extension BC/BBs to have any use in naval combat.
@512TheWolf512
Жыл бұрын
Historical heavy cruisers had up to 6 turrets
@christiansee2500
Жыл бұрын
No
@argigamespronl7999
Жыл бұрын
@@512TheWolf512 but of 8in to 12in compared to bb's up to 18in
@512TheWolf512
Жыл бұрын
@@argigamespronl7999 still, up to 6 turrets
@davidwright7193
Жыл бұрын
The DP secondaries are working properly. That is what dual purpose means that the gun can engage both surface and air targets so it should give anti-air. The change is just enabling the gun to elevate to 80-90 degrees and giving it a proximity fused shell. It is the same as throwing some aa on to a division to give it some piercing against armour.
@71Cloak
Жыл бұрын
I get that it just doesn't make sense that they have the exact same stats for the exact same cost. Introducing a new mounting system and targeting system isn't free.
@davidwright7193
Жыл бұрын
Well given that you have a mounting for the gun and a high angle fire director for the other AA guns anyway it sort of is free. What I don’t understand is why you can now research a 1940 and 44 secondary that isn’t dual purpose. Before BBA DP secondaries we’re just the end of the secondary tree. Now you get them earlier, which makes sense a lot of 1940 designed ships had DP mounts, but you can still choose the less capable weapon for the same cost. Why would anyone do that?
@71Cloak
Жыл бұрын
You don't get better secondaries then the secondary 2s. You can get better main batteries for DDs but the only way to get better secondaries is through the dual purpose tree.
@ThatOneGuy8305
Жыл бұрын
Paradox just needs to suck it up and apply an effective naval combat width. I think a tonnage limit (basically make IC a tonnage equivalent) could work if it's set right. The only reason heavy cruisers work is that you can mass so many of them and can generate so much light attack from secondaries in small increments. It wouldn't even be particularly ahistorical - a navy of 300 ships fighting in the English Channel would be WAY too large to maneuver with any efficacy. As long as death stacking is possible heavy cruisers will reign supreme.
@71Cloak
Жыл бұрын
They tried that technically. They increased the positioning penalty from having a larger fleet but it is still largely inconsequently.
@ruukinen
Жыл бұрын
@@71Cloak If it worked like land combat where if you go over the limit you can't bring more ships in it would make better ships slightly better since they could fight them "1on1" instead of all at the same time.
@BT4282
Жыл бұрын
@@71Cloak I feel like the answer is tied to reworking fleet commanders. Admirals should control the larger groupings as now, but the smaller task forces should also have commanders with some form of command limit. Then have a limit to the number of commanders you can have in each engagement, with anything above 3 leading to massive debuffs and a higher chance that units will randomly disengage due to confusion within the command structures. Though honestly at this stage I feel like the entire base system needs a rethink as it's always felt overly simplified and has always turned one of the biggest theatres of the conflict into an afterthought.
@Nikarus2370
Жыл бұрын
Didn't the original naval combat system work kinda like that, only with weapon ranges. So bigger ships with bigger guns had longer ranges and could engage everything, meanwhile smaller ships could only engage 1 or 2 ships "up the line"
@tuluppampam
Жыл бұрын
@@71Cloak the problem with the positioning penalty is that it's capped at -75% and it is based on the ratio between your ships and the enemy's This makes it so that you essentially always get some kind of penalty (for no reason) but stacking more ships does the job very well
@aurex8937
Жыл бұрын
"Hey you, Light Attack Heavy Cruiser..." "What?" "You're supposed to be dead!" "I got better!"
@xiziz
Жыл бұрын
On carrier combat, c0rax said in the beta-thread that atm the game takes any aircraft that can do air superiority and sets it to "cap" mission(fleet defence) and whatever aircraft are left that can do naval strikes is then used for offensive ops - so atm multirole fighters/nav will only do cap. Pdx are working on migrating it to main armament(role) so we can use fighter weapons on nav/cas and still have them go on the offensive.
@tulcan22
Жыл бұрын
Something that i dont see people talk about is Coastal defence ship. They can put Light Medium gun in one of the slots. That is what i have been doing since patch, Costal Def with 1 Light and rest duals + cheap DDs. Might be worth testing vs yours Heavy Cruisers. Dont bother with Torpedo, it doesnt ignore armor like before and it is doing reduced damage based on armor since last patch.
@sypher2024
Жыл бұрын
coastal defence ships are very underrated for mediterranean
@방탕탕아
Жыл бұрын
I just found you out today and damn, all the effort you are giving to get the numbers. I must say, it's quite damn impressive, man. Subbed right away. Keep those videos flowing!
@cwalters567
Жыл бұрын
I'm looking forward to the carrier fix. I used carriers on patrol with missions assigned to the air wings (i.e. the current workaround) and they are immensely powerful. Even carrier CAS, which was formerly worthless, does good damage. Looking forward to any analysis on the designer options. I'm guessing that Raiding Fleet is probably still the best.
@gkagara
Жыл бұрын
Carrier raiding with 6 screen or convoy protection duty is the best it seems they have the highest efficiency and could cover a lot of ground. I find it ridiculous that you need hundreds of destroyer to secure your shipping line.
@gOtze1337
Жыл бұрын
SHBB have one advantage, they do not need much tech, Guns and Armor is for free on SHBB. so i dont think they are useless. the problem is the resource cost that early. which hurts your "civ snowball"
@kerotomas1
Жыл бұрын
Im my eyes their big disadvantage is the repair that takes ages on SHBBs. They receive some light damage and they are out for months, god forbid they lose half their HP and you are looking at a year long repair.
@hitman911946
Жыл бұрын
Thank you so much for creating this content. Your spreadsheets show great skill and dedication.
@Wernerrrrr
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for putting so much effort in the testing!
@GreenBlueWalkthrough
Жыл бұрын
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="717">11:57</a> About That... That was because of missiles out ranging battleship guns as if you notice modern cruisers and battlecrusser are close to if not the size and speed of fast WW2 battleships with out the armour and very few guns mostly missile silos. So Your right at face value it makes sense but being a balance of speed, guns and Armour s not what made destroyer and cusers good... Missles did.
@SuperThest
Жыл бұрын
Armor and size are 100% the obsoleting factor. Modern missile cruisers are sub 200 meters and displace less than the 10k tons. That's smaller than WW2 era heavy cruisers like the Baltimore class. Most battleships during WW2 would have been about 80-100 meters larger than your typical missile cruiser and would have displaced 40-60k tons. The Russians have the largest (and I believe only) missile armed battlecruiser in the world and it still doesn't even have half the displacement the Iowa had. They are nowhere near the same size. Keep in mind, the Iowa class was still in service during the gulf war (and later) and was armed with Tomahawk missiles. Missiles did not make them obsolete, because you can put missiles on them. Their extreme cost due to size and armor made them obsolete. Cruisers are only around today because they are relatively cheap (though the US navy is currently getting rid of all of its cruisers now and using destroyers instead). It really does just come down to a balance of cost. You can put missiles on anything, so you might as well put in on the cheapest/smallest thing you can, because armor won't save you anymore (and you don't want to put all you eggs is one nukeable basket). Even before the advent of guided missiles, there was a lot of talk about how much of a mistake is was for the US the prioritize battleships over large cruisers. Some people actually argue that battleships as a class have never NOT been "obsolete" and have never truly justified their cost outside of just being scary (thus strategically or "diplomatically" impactful). That was also an issue though because they were often held in reserve to avoid loses, or hunted mercilessly Planes had made large guns obsolete well before missiles did. Planes were already outraging them before WW2 even started. In their heyday, Torpedoes had also obsoleted their fair share of battleships.
@hawky2k671
Ай бұрын
I found how to beat them. CL with 3 Light Attack & 2 Torpedoes with lvl 2 armor. Spam 30-50 of these & they smash the CA. they won’t get pierced & they shred the screens then the torpedos will shred the capitals. Since they are screens they won’t be targeted by the capitals first. Allowing them to shred the navy. So (DD -> CL no armor -> CL armor -> DD)
@bosko998
5 ай бұрын
After watching this video I started an USA campaing just to test what was said here, since I never really understood naval game and never cared about it really. And the results were in the very first battle against Japanese : 1 lost destroyer and 8 CV naval bombers on my side VS 1 BC, 4 CA, 7 CL and 41 DD on their side. Wow. Just. Wow!
@TheDarkThing0
Жыл бұрын
with the new cas, are armored trains still unbreakable?
@anachronisticon
Жыл бұрын
They do AA damage now. It's great. But if you stack enough ground attack onto a medium fighter, they do alright.
@patricksimpson1157
Жыл бұрын
So the balanced battelfleet still just looks cool and tidy and is still totally pointless. What a disappointment. Maybe the suggested armor buffs I've seen mentioned might help? Thanks to Cloak, the god of HOI4 number crunching, he does it so we don't have to.
@Coecoo
Жыл бұрын
I have been seeing very good results using a mix of 100% torpedo destroyers and 100% light attack cruisers. Screens melt from the latter and everything else (big) implodes from the former. AA can be put on either if needed and submarines get melted too due to the magical damage destroyers do to subs even without depth charges.
@lpfbjorge
Жыл бұрын
In an actual game, this tilts even further towards CAs because of admiral +positioning trait more or less nullifies the malus from bigger fleet (and CA fleets will be bigger in an equal IC fight compared to BB/BC). UK, US and Japan have that trait on their best admiral, and Italy and Germany have that on their second best irc
@ArzhurG
Жыл бұрын
An admiral will also increase defense, which increases armor. This wouldn't boost no armor CAs, but would make BCs and BBs stronger. I'm not sure if it's enough to make a significant difference, but I doubt that adding an admiral would be as clear cut as you are making it out to be.
@lukecooper2845
Жыл бұрын
71Cloak can you upload a google drive link or something of that excel file you’re using so we can compare and use for reference easier?
@gkagara
Жыл бұрын
Navy should be made that there is not that many ship sunk, instead most ship will escape with damage. That's one way to avoid this deathstack exploit.
@datboi7893
Жыл бұрын
Paradox absolutely needs to hire you. Immediately.
@saucy743
Жыл бұрын
I just build Battlecruisers.
@carlosmarquez5901
Жыл бұрын
That's the exact point of the dual purpose, so no nerfing needed
@JB-qg2uc
Ай бұрын
Did you try max torpedo spam? That swept the seas at one point.
@VarenvelDarakus
Жыл бұрын
Idk if even paradox does as detail testing as you do:D
@Tetragramix
Жыл бұрын
They don't
@SkinkUA
Жыл бұрын
Can you make naval guide for dummies?
@mainman879
Жыл бұрын
How does a CA fleet fare against a CV with CA fleet? Is it worth getting 4 CVs? Also something I noticed recently, the Converted Battleship Carriers are actually better than regular 1936 carriers, as they have a lot more range and an extremely similar price.
@Descolata
Жыл бұрын
And more health.
@TheKonkaman
Жыл бұрын
anything left then 1940's cv is worthless
@magni5648
Жыл бұрын
The drawback of the BB conversions is IIRC that they're more costly to build from keel up and that they can only use heavy engines instead of the more efficient carrier engines.
@mainman879
Жыл бұрын
@@magni5648 They can use carrier engines no problem, and should because they are way cheaper. They also are about the same price keep up.
@shoppingtrolley4305
Жыл бұрын
What about a combination of Carriers and light cruisers with stacking light and torpedo attack
@kiriseraph9674
3 ай бұрын
So I just need to make the design at <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="390">6:30</a>? Do I need destroyers as well? Will submarines be a threat to me?
@mabster314
Жыл бұрын
How do you recommend controlling the fleet? Is it still convoy raid with subs and have everything else on a strike force death stack?
@richardvlasek2445
Жыл бұрын
in this episode of "what the fuck is this game", cloak goes completely insane because of ships that shouldn't exist
@alexanderpamenter2385
Жыл бұрын
my final question about this is what if you simply don't bring the capital ships to the fight and instead brought only light ships to the battle along with torpedoes to kill to kill enemy capitals when their screening efficiency drops
@71Cloak
Жыл бұрын
That would be the CA vs just screens testing where the CAs won.
@pacom6549
Жыл бұрын
Appreciate how you explain things
@ygz_ngl
Жыл бұрын
Hey 71Cloak, two quick questions. What template do you use for the "36 BB" you gave 10 of to the both sides and what is the ideal fleet composition of BB's, HC's and DD's?
@71Cloak
Жыл бұрын
The 36 BBs were really just for nations that start with bbs and can refit them to be a bit more effective. Ca can win against BC without BB on their side. Composition depends on enemy. If the enemy has CL with a lot of light attack then you need a high ratio of screens to capitals (4.5 +). If the enemy doesn't have light attack then barely more than 3 will do.
@miguelrodriguezcimino1674
Жыл бұрын
If screens fight screens and capitals fight capitals, then maybe there is no need to add secondary batteries to the heavy cruisers? I mean, secondaries are light attack meant to target small ships like DDs and LCs. Fast capital ships with only heavy batteries sounds like the historical concept of the dreadnough, because they had superior range and speed they could fire on the enemy and retreat fast enough to stay just out of enemy range. I would add some AA, otherwise with the fixed carriers they would not stand a chance against them nor be able to operate anywhere near an enemy airfield
@bIuebuIIet
Жыл бұрын
I just wish they'd bring Naval production down to a realistic cost. It shouldn't take until Hearts of Iron 5 to build ships for nations with the industry
@ruukinen
Жыл бұрын
They actually cost less in game than they did in reality.
@silverhost9782
Жыл бұрын
@@ruukinen it's impossible to even scratch the surface of what was built by nations like UK/USA unless you spend a year or two building nothing but dockyards. No one is gonna bother doing that, so costs should be reduced
@ruukinen
Жыл бұрын
@@silverhost9782 Absolutely not. If you want to match historical production you have to also match historical investment. And if you do match historical investment you actually produce way more ships than was produced.
@silverhost9782
Жыл бұрын
@@ruukinen The entire industrial balance of vanilla HOI4 is inherently ahistorical. That's what the problem here is. You can't simulate real shipbuilding capabilities in a game that starts you off with so few dockyards. Thankfully mods exist
@ruukinen
Жыл бұрын
@@silverhost9782 Are you saying you can't launch 5 battleships and 80 or so light ships between 1936 and end of 1940 in Hoi4 as UK? I used wikipedias list of ships launched as source so it might not be 100% accurate but I don't need to build a single dockyard to match that in game.
@kejuu6887
Жыл бұрын
You lost 27 CAs and 10 BBs, almost your entire fleet, in that first engagement. The enemy lost 3 BBs and 2 BCs. Your opponent can just repair and get back to action while you rebuild your CA fleet for the rest of the game. What am I not getting here?
@Jansay34
Жыл бұрын
Thank you for the tests!
@patropro
Жыл бұрын
from what it looks like the british 'spirit of the airforce command' 'CAG night fighting' is fixed. So maybe it's worth it for england to go for the base strike doctrine? because it should be a 25% increase in airplane damage: 3 strikes a day (2 in daylight = 2*100% eff + (1 in nighttime = 50% eff instead of 1 in nighttime = 0% eff)) Also for some reason i was doing gigantic amounts of damage to ships with carrier cas/nav ( i may have overlooked something but idk what that could have been) I just started oneshotting carriers, BB's per aircraft strike
@mirdav3648
Жыл бұрын
Came to sse the new meta
@eluc_s2510
Жыл бұрын
Can’t help but notice you cleared up your taskbar, lol
@71Cloak
Жыл бұрын
Just moved it to the other monitor rather than having it on both. Don't have to worry about you guys seeing anything your not supposed to that way.
@vladimirfrolov5434
5 ай бұрын
Light cruisers beat heavy cruisers light attack with base strike doctrine and carriers, because of the enormous amount of organization provided by base strike
@OverlordMalarkey
Жыл бұрын
in the words of an Orc I encountered in Shadow of War: "I knew it! I knew it! i kneeeew it!!!!"
@lucazanni900
Жыл бұрын
You are the saint of Hoi4
@DarkSpiryt1
Жыл бұрын
Great test, good job. I am not sure if something is broken because when i add Kure Naval Arsenal, CA got bonus for torps/counted as screen. Paradox could mess some bonuses between.
@71Cloak
Жыл бұрын
Its because the are cruiser hulls. Cruisers have always counted as screens for the purposes of designer bonuses.
@tradford
Жыл бұрын
Great video!! How did you get the beta that fixes aircraft carrier bug? I've got a big carrier fleet that does nothing.
@GregAtlas
Жыл бұрын
The only test I didn't see is torp boats. How do they fare in this situation?
@otatoshio4315
Жыл бұрын
What's the meta naval designer? Before it was coastal fleet designer, but given the stats you're giving, the coastal reduces heavy attack by 25%. Is it still viable for heavy cruisers? Or were better off getting raiding fleet designer or whatever suits best
@bencom01
Жыл бұрын
What about subs? I was surprised to see that '40 subs set to always engage, with 1 snorkel and 1 torp can just decimate british/american deathstacks like its nothing. The only time I had losses was when at shallow seas and airforce involved.
@71Cloak
Жыл бұрын
The ai has always been horrible at dealing with subs. They don't invest in sonar/radar or depth charges. The meta for subs has always been building towards 1940 hulls with 1944 tech so you don't have to pay the chromium cost.
@stavka6923
Жыл бұрын
I still can't understand carrier mechanics very well. Can we have a carrier test?
@blothorn2903
Жыл бұрын
I'm curious (and apologies if this was answered and I missed it)--were any doctrines in use? Given that a couple of the winning strategies were behind until the other side ran out of org, I wonder if the fact that doctrines give considerable buffs to org relative to actual combat stats might swing things.
@71Cloak
Жыл бұрын
Fleet in being which has the best stats l.
@jean-edouardahmedozzi6120
Жыл бұрын
It just makes sense. Cruisers were the future in WW2. Now buff carriers, nerf ground based planes and you have your historical naval game
@UCKszbcV
Жыл бұрын
hi! I would like to do my own tests! How did you create all those fleets and arrange that the US and UK fleets are in the same sea zone? Many thanks!
@therightmind7466
Жыл бұрын
I think the reason why PDX doesnt make the armor more realistic (and not letting heavy cruisers for some reason be able to 360 no scope everyones navies) is because then it might be too complicated for people to understand how to make the navy and spend a little time on it and they might just skip most of it all together. OR they just do not know a good balancing act for armor in the navy, too much all your ships are pointless, too little your armor is pointless.
@GingerNinja__
Жыл бұрын
It's a bit of a shame that capitals kill capitals and screens kill screens. I feel like any ship should always target whatever is below it in the pecking order. Go for the first one whose armour can be efficiently pierced. So CAs kill CLs and CLs kill DDs. BBs can probably still just go for each others BBs. PS: I want a super heavy battleship meta to get some time in the limelight
@Oliepolie
Жыл бұрын
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="349">5:49</a> cute lil sticker :3
@johnolsen8772
Жыл бұрын
Is there a website or something I can go to for updated meta's? I'm a bit of a pleb at hoi4. Last game I was Australia and did nothing but spam out Cruisers and destroyers. Actually worked very well against all the local hostile navy's and thr japanese subs... that is until the Yamato found me and sunk half my fleet in a single engagement...
@pirkqlater
Жыл бұрын
did you take into account the usa's torpedo debuff in the officer corp when not adding torpedo to destroyers?
@71Cloak
Жыл бұрын
I swapped to night fighting.
@wannabeinfamous8690
Жыл бұрын
Is armor suck or it works now on ships? Especially with CA where you just need speed.
@sofartsogood3932
Жыл бұрын
Have you ever tested cruiser subs? I find them to be a nice sweetspot between subs 2 and 3. but without wasting a research slot for a long time. With a plane they even have a nice spotting chance and shredd the convoys in the Atlantic.
@UCKszbcV
Жыл бұрын
Doesn't the positioning penalty affect your deathstack fleets?
@strolch3320
Жыл бұрын
I would be interrested how this all effects in the Total war mod lol... But would be too much to ask If you could take a Look bc yeah its technically New naval system
@LJKGray
Жыл бұрын
Will add aa and change secondary to dual purpose to deal with naval strike worth it
@kotwczapce1742
Жыл бұрын
cool, however im gonna waste 4 years to get 3rd and 4th yamato class anyway
@fakelife.
Жыл бұрын
is this still the meta destroyer and heavy cruiser secondary batter spam and should i upgrade it to 1944 light cruiser version
@wolframsteindl2712
Жыл бұрын
What designs would you recommend for single player Germany?
@kerotomas1
Жыл бұрын
For singleplayer it really doesnt matter as the ai is terrible. The fastest and cheapest way is to delete all heavy ships and build only light cruisers and destroyer. Focus on light attack and speed for cruisers as they will simply decimate enemy screens and your destroyers will nuke the remaining heavys. It’s ridiculous honestly, around 30 properly built light cruiser 2s with about 50-60 dds (make sure they have torps too) is gonna obliterate the whole british navy with very minimal casualties. Or yeah just spam 1940 subs with added snorkel and dont build anything else.
@71Cloak
Жыл бұрын
Spam either really cheap desstroyers or empty BC and then naval invade the UK and steal their fleet. Why build your own when you can take others?
@lordsupersucc
Жыл бұрын
wait so what do I use for screens?
@lordsupersucc
Жыл бұрын
and how do I counter submarines without depth charges? just rely on naval bombers?
@therealgaben5527
8 ай бұрын
@@lordsupersuccnaval bombers, but they will only really work when out of combat not when the subs are already in combat unless you have crazy detection on them
@vdcfr1340
Жыл бұрын
and against sub what templates gonna be the best now ? the best sub against destroyer ?
@thatdudethat7824
Жыл бұрын
No testing with submarines though?
@brandonmunson9781
Жыл бұрын
I've been waiting for this
@strolch3320
Жыл бұрын
Ehm how can you do These saves? Are there like Cheats to insta build ships so you can test Different Designs or what? Would be nice to know
@71Cloak
Жыл бұрын
ic (or instantconstruction) and it allow for instant building of ships. You still have to train them up to regular but otherwise its much faster. Also once you have a ship built you can convert it and keep the experience so building extra helps quite a bit with flexibility in testing. ai to turn off the ai and weather to turn off weather also help.
@MarvinUllmann
Жыл бұрын
Why does my tec-tree not have those modules like at <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="814">13:34</a>? Help.
@71Cloak
Жыл бұрын
I think you referring to the naval modules. You probably dont have the dlc man the guns.
@MarvinUllmann
Жыл бұрын
@@71Cloak do all of your videos repuire that dlc? Because in your aircraftcarrier video the modifications looked also differrent
@71Cloak
Жыл бұрын
@@MarvinUllmann I always play with all the dlcs active. For navy, without man the guns, just go for carriers with as many naval bombers as you can fit.
@MarvinUllmann
Жыл бұрын
@@71Cloak only carriers or some support to
@71Cloak
Жыл бұрын
@@MarvinUllmann other ships too. Cvs will be your main damage dealer.
@1gsn5s
Жыл бұрын
Could you do a test on Carrier Planes? as you could modify them way more such as a Carrier fighter with torpedoes on them
@pcwangfamily
Жыл бұрын
Another TLDR, armor is still not worth it due to speed?
@aerilonn
Жыл бұрын
I still dont get what should i do i mean i get heavy cruisers are destroys everything except bb but i dont get anything else maybe bcz i have average english so can u build a example navy for japan and usa
@eyibilf
Жыл бұрын
Can you maybe do a test on multi role fighters on both carriers and land?
@hiruharii
Жыл бұрын
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="276">4:36</a> *raises the question
@loxyo3089
Жыл бұрын
I have only this to say : What the fuck paradox
@zacboy1272
Жыл бұрын
good vide
@FreeMan4096
Жыл бұрын
Please can you make Carrier Planes? for Land based aircraft it seems that quality > quantity, but for naval the deck space seems to be too punishing for quality aircraft.
@Nightninja913
5 ай бұрын
I think you disrespect armor a bit too much, it's efficiency depends on delta between piercing and armor which scales with admiral skills, ship xp and various bonuses like doctrine and such. You should have tested armor with a good defence admiral and probably higher ship xp.
@quichrlyn
Жыл бұрын
so should me fleet composition be battle cruisers, those heavy cruisers, and destroyers?
@71Cloak
Жыл бұрын
CA, some CV, and a ton of DDs are going to be your bread and butter.
@quichrlyn
Жыл бұрын
@@71Cloak ok
@deilusi
Жыл бұрын
What about subs? I saw that they can kinda make or break it as well, as cheap meta stuff cannot target them. Same with air, I feel like when I would saw this, I would instantly send air to help.
@sethx7620
9 ай бұрын
Subs can do nothing but pray against a good navy, air is important but he tryied to show the navy meta only, that's why he didn't use CVs
@nekozilla0898
Жыл бұрын
can you do a video about the new module for tanks that increase fuel capacity?
@71Cloak
Жыл бұрын
100 fuel is like 1-2 days worth of fuel usage. That's not much for 2 extra ic. For a decently meta medium design that would increase the cost by 15-20%. Way too expensive.
@TheObeyWeegee
Жыл бұрын
Hey, what if I just spammed nothing at all but mine layers? how good are mines in general?
@TheObeyWeegee
Жыл бұрын
@@Thorium_ I assume because they're too good? and thanks for the reply. Edit: also is it true that 10w infantry + SF R-R is too good/banned aswell?
@TheObeyWeegee
Жыл бұрын
@@Thorium_ Why is it trash and what is a better template then?
@TheObeyWeegee
Жыл бұрын
@@Thorium_ But I tested the 14/4 one and it was awful. In the 2 exact same scenarios (same countries, almost identical build up, same enemy) I had tested the 10w 5inf divisions then did the same with the 42w 14inf/4art template and three things: 1. I had to use more manpower to man all the divisions. 2. I had to use more equipment to supply all the divisions. 3. I lost and got pushed in so hard there was no saving it. Now you might be wondering how I'd need more equipment and manpower for one 42w compared to four 10w's, well because I was building the equivalent of one 42w for every two and a half 10w divisions and so when you do the math like that the 10w divisions come out cheaper in terms of manpower, equipment, supply usage and more importantly are still more combat effective even when taking into account the fact that you're building 2.5 for every 42w rather than 4, because now you get to fit more and more divisions into combat due to lower width usage. Not to mention that a 10w's main selling point is that it's much stronger than just about all the other divisions even if it came out more expensive or micro-y, and they have far more organization in total compared to other divisions when combined together. Now I don't know anything about 9/3's, but I wanna test them out.
@spookybunny8775
Жыл бұрын
Can someone give me a summary? Like the best ship to use thank you:)
@firespark8455
Жыл бұрын
you mentioned that carriers are worthwhile but you did not include them with the fleets here in most cases. what holds them back from being useful enough to include? I have found in my personal testing that they work extremally well even against a battleship centric fleet that costs more ic
@panzerkampfwagenviiimaus2187
Жыл бұрын
They are bugged right now of you have bba. They literally don't do anything in combat
@ruukinen
Жыл бұрын
@@panzerkampfwagenviiimaus2187 This literal video just said that they are fixed.
@haukionkannel
Жыл бұрын
@@panzerkampfwagenviiimaus2187 Yes, the new beta has fixed carriers! Lets see when it will come to normal updates, week or couple normally.
@mortalcoil8585
Жыл бұрын
They finally fixed Italy in the patch by letting you get your balance of power back
@smirnoff01
8 ай бұрын
Is it still working?
@suxix7312
Жыл бұрын
Only explanation is that Navy is bugged right now.
@saopro21
Жыл бұрын
Okay so I'm not schizo. I was playing with my cruiser build (that was supposedly dead) and I was still producing results, so this is why.
@MrScarduelli
Жыл бұрын
They should limit the navy size
@jesuschristhomeslice9492
Жыл бұрын
Are Anti-Aircraft Cruisers worth it?
@cwalters567
Жыл бұрын
AFAIK, no. Naval bombers tend to prefer the highest-value ships and/or ships with very low AA, so they will mostly ignore the AA CLs. If you have the industrial capacity (i.e. the USA) you can build AA battleships, and those absolutely wreck bombers.
@markregev1651
Жыл бұрын
Thank you dude, take some rest lol.
@NareshSinghOctagon
Жыл бұрын
So who's going to tell Cloak that Battlecruisers are CCs?
@71Cloak
Жыл бұрын
The game literally uses BC. Given that the US never officially completed a battlecruiser their naming system doesn't really apply.
@NareshSinghOctagon
Жыл бұрын
@@71Cloak ,but the game is majority using the US system,so using CC would being better then the game. And we all know that the game isn't the most reliable thing. It's even caused people in this comment section to refer to heavy cruisers as "HC" instead of CA.
Пікірлер: 375