HOW TO NAVY , I hope now you know. (powerpoint edition) - r/hoi4 (2024)

u/HorryHorsecollarMay 12 '24

Huge strike fleets (death stacks) are not required nor actually helpful, When they sail, they can drain your oil in a blink, and slow older ships can be mixed in with newer faster ships, making the whole fleet less effective (the same reason why I don't build super heavies).

I use an interceptor fleet of 1-2 CV, 5 BC, 5 LC and 20 DD based out of Scapa flow to intercept in the 4 adjacent sea zones and they are really fast and are always sailing about sinking anything stupid enough to come out. I keep an eye on them for repairs and at worst, I lose a few destroyers. For that I usually destroy the German (+Dutch/Scandinavian) navies. I have a similar sized fleet to this in the mid Atlantic between Africa and Sth America. It sinks convoys and any surface ships trying to get down (or up) the African coast. I can also swing it into the Caribbean when Mexico or Venezuela play up.

I use a larger version of this fleet (+5 heavy cruisers and +10-20 DD) based near London to intercept into the Channel and Nth Sea or I can put it into Brest to intercept the Channel and Bay of Biscay (sometimes needed for Western Approaches too). A smaller fleet like the Scapa Flow one is also based to intercept in the Channel alone.

That leaves another large fleet for the Med and I work on another one for the Asian theatre.

To complement these fleets, I use 50 DD on ASW with 2 light cruisers per flotilla (5 flotilla). The AI loves to try and crush one of these flotilla hence why I sometimes need to intercept into the Bay of Biscay or Western Approaches.

The final piece of the puzzle is the subs, in 5 flotilla, completely sealing off Germany from any trade or troop movements. Naval bombers in the Channel, out of Malta in the Med and ideally into the Nth Sea complete coverage. All of this and not a death stack in sight.

Oh forgot, I never use patrol ships, just add cameras to your naval bombers or upgrade your land based radar. Works fine.

u/General_SpillsFleet AdmiralMay 12 '24

This is a humongous hassle to do something completely suboptimal.

Deathstacking is the meta, it is effective, and it is incredibly simple and headache free.

Place all ships other than subs in one stack, then set it to never engage, never repair. Then do whatever you want with it, like strike forcing, naval invasion support, patrol, surface raiding etc. There is absolutely no need to do some convoluted naval larp task force bullsh*t unless you aren't interested in playing well, in which case this thread is not for you.

Furthermore, superheavies are the second best ship after carriers.

1

u/HorryHorsecollarMay 12 '24

I don't see why managing the navy is 'a hassle' or 'a headache', it is just another mechanic in a very complex game. Getting it right and winning is as satisfying as doing the same with the airforce or army.

Super heavies are too slow and too expensive to build to make them viable imo. You get faster and better results with 1940 models. I have never suffered losses at their hands.

Death stacking is just lazy. It also consumes a lot of oil whenever the ships go to sea and they just aren't needed when a smaller, more balanced force is more effective.

I think you meant to type setting a fleet to always engage and never repair: this is a recipe for losing ships. Why lose ships for no purpose just because you can't be bothered monitoring the state of your fleets? I mean you do you but as a practice to advise others, it isn't good.

I get that you don't want to manage fleets with any finesse and that's fine but I can assure you it optimizes your naval resources in terms of costs to build and deploy and in terms of results.

1

u/General_SpillsFleet AdmiralMay 12 '24

Here is the thing. Deathstacking is in every way optimal. The strategy you are suggesting will result in less success, with more effort. That is a fact, and not my opinon. This is information that research from data experts and scientists have lead to. (Im not kidding, im talking PHD guys and whatnot).

To explain always engage and never repair, it is optimal because it ensures that your fleet will do what you want it to do. The other settings are inconsistent and unreliable. If you are afraid of losing your ships, then do not put them out at all, since the enemy can still intercept you even if you try to pick and choose which battles you fight.

You misunderstand me completely. I am explaining the most optimal and meta navy management. It just happens to be much more simpler than your suboptimal method.

1

u/HorryHorsecollarMay 12 '24

I will set aside your arguments about phds.

In my experience of the game, which is not inconsiderable, deathstacking is unnecssary and sub optimal. Your fleet is simply more valuable broken into smaller units to achieve discrete objectives. Having a death stack does not give you this flexibility. Likewise, a death stack is slowed to the speed of the slowest ship and this is also sub optimal as sometimes it is not fast enough to keep a faster opponent in the battle. I could go on.

If the purpose of a death stack is to wipe an enemy surface fleet, then when this can be achieved with smaller concentrations, death stacks are automatically less effective. It really is as simple as that.

To use never repair, always engage is just wasteful and lazy. You don't have to rely on settings you regard as unreliable and inconsistent, you only have to look at your fleet after a major engagement, or from time to time, and send damaged ships, or the whole fleet back to repair from time to time. If a player can micro their army, managing ships this way is only a tiny fraction of that impost and the reward is more ships staying afloat. I mean you wouldn't let your army be pushed into encirclements and be killed because you were too lazy to correct the problem as it developed, so why do it with ships?

I agree with your general desire to correct misinformation. The navy is poorly understood amongst the player base so discussions that tease out issues are always valuable. You don't have to Larp the navy to play it well and get optimal outcomes. Like all arms, the best outcome is achieving your objectives as cheaply and quickly as possible. You don't need death stacks or super heavies to achieve this, nor for that matter upgraded BB engines.

1

u/General_SpillsFleet AdmiralMay 12 '24

just to set things straight, we need to understand that in singleplayer against ai, pretty much anything will work as long as you are not actively trying to lose.

Any discussion about optimum is about what is the best strategy, not what is any strategy that will win against ai.

"In my experience of the game"

Precisely, your experience is limited, as is mine. Deathstacking is proven beyond just experience, with math by people much more qualified to do so than myself.

"You don't have to rely on settings you regard as unreliable and inconsistent, you only have to look at your fleet after a major engagement, or from time to time, and send damaged ships, or the whole fleet back to repair from time to time."

You should agree with me then. Never repair and always engage is the most reliable as you will know 100% what your ships will do. Setting those buttons to anything else is unreliable and will get your navy massacred. For instance, this can lead to your fleet deciding to fight right after sending many ships to repair and losing the battle, or automatically deciding to disengage during a battle, lowering positioning and losing a winning battle. Sending them back to repair manually has no bearing on these settings.

"If a player can micro their army, managing ships this way is only a tiny fraction of that impost and the reward is more ships staying afloat"

Agree.

1

u/HorryHorsecollarMay 12 '24

On the never repair issue, yes, you could be right on the settings after all. I have seen bad results from having auto repair set as once large fleets can set off with two undamaged ships and get wiped. So on that point (never repair) I use it judiciously. Auto repair works well for subs or ASW flotilla imo.

Always engage is another matter. I don't use this and instead use 'at medium risk'. This seems to work well and avoids fleet wipes which might come from always engage'. So I think have a 50:50 on these two buttons.

I haven't argued that deathstacking doesn't work. The question is more of how we define work. This comes down to objectives and if you can achieve the same objectives without a death stack, then why use it, especially if it frees your navy to undertake other missions instead of having every ship tied up on a single fleet? In any event, I think we have exhausted this part of the conversation.

You add an important qualification about single player experience in your opening point. I was aware that we'd benefit from adding this so thank you. If I have had negative experiences in single player, it has been as the UK with the Italian and japanese navies in the context that they significantly outnumber my screens (usually 50:30). These battles have ended less favourably than I preferred though the losses were all of screens and nothing bigger. Still, considering how mean I am with losing ships, losing 30 destroyers hurt a lot. In all other engagements I have only ever lost the occasional heavy cruiser, a single CV and one or two BB/BC in many many hours of game play.

u/General_SpillsFleet AdmiralMay 12 '24

"Always engage is another matter. I don't use this and instead use 'at medium risk'. This seems to work well and avoids fleet wipes which might come from always engage'. So I think have a 50:50 on these two buttons."

The main thing with this setting is that always engage provides consistency. This is what causes fleets to disengage mid battle once the "risk" is too high, which as stated can ruin your positiong and your chances of winning. This is because the ai also does not understand navy.

"I haven't argued that deathstacking doesn't work. The question is more of how we define work. This comes down to objectives and if you can achieve the same objectives without a death stack, then why use it, especially if it frees your navy to undertake other missions instead of having every ship tied up on a single fleet? In any event, I think we have exhausted this part of the conversation."

This argument makes a lot more sense. I agree with you on a surface level. In practice at the highest levels of play, each nation is only in one ocean at a time, and having less than your full fleet in one stack is not optimal as the opponent can simply use a bigger stack to beat you. So this trends upwards with both players needing larger stacks until the whole navy is in one stack.

At lower levels of play including singleplayer, you still don't know how big the opponent's navy will be, and as long as they have more ships available than your stack, they can beat your stack. While having multiple stacks may be situationally good in theory, this is not the case in practice as if you are facing naval opponents then they will be able to field a larger navy than your stack. If you are speaking about building only docks for 3 years, well naval discussions are moot at that point since what you are doing is essentially creating multiple deathstacks where each stack is larger than (or capable of beating) a single opponent's navy.

→ More replies (0)
HOW TO NAVY , I hope now you know. (powerpoint edition) - r/hoi4 (2024)
Top Articles
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Otha Schamberger

Last Updated:

Views: 5939

Rating: 4.4 / 5 (75 voted)

Reviews: 82% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Otha Schamberger

Birthday: 1999-08-15

Address: Suite 490 606 Hammes Ferry, Carterhaven, IL 62290

Phone: +8557035444877

Job: Forward IT Agent

Hobby: Fishing, Flying, Jewelry making, Digital arts, Sand art, Parkour, tabletop games

Introduction: My name is Otha Schamberger, I am a vast, good, healthy, cheerful, energetic, gorgeous, magnificent person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.