HOI4 BBA - Carriers Do So Much Damage Now!

Exploring how to use carriers and maximize their damage and what planes you should put on them Also exploring how to complete circumvent the carrier cap. Oh, also this is on the beta patch.
I will try to upload the challenge video for tomorrow. Maybe I will make a forum post about it. I'll put a link to the save for it in that video.
Twitch.tv/71Cloak

[@71Cloak]

So, I originally said I was going to start streaming sometime between 6 and 7 and that turned out to be a fucking lie. I didn't start editing until 6. So stream now if you are watching this when it comes out. Otherwise, I will make it into a video for tomorrow or the next day depending on timing.

[@dr.colo5437]

You stream on twitch I assume?

[@71Cloak]

Yes. Link is in the description. But that stream was last night.

[@ufuker5754]

7 is t Stupid in example you give in 10.02 either 4 or 5 you showed it 6=0.4 penalty 5÷0.6 =8.33333 Here onether magic number because after 8 carrier it stays as 0.8 penalty 10x5 =50 50-9-2-39 39÷3 13 cruisers and 10 proper carrier you can convert cruisers because you want 1940 CB anyway it is way better than 1936 one and 1922 one so yeah america british or japan can do it

[@ufuker5754]

So 4 proper carrier or 5 proper carrier + 1 cruisers convert or 10 proper carrier 13 cruisers convert 4 - 5 or 10 and thing about carrier cas one bomb lock one torpedo much lower naval targeting but at least they are not complety useless

[@The_Seeker]

I did a run as Japan after carriers were fixed, ended up at war with the Axis and Allies at the same time so the game went until 1947, and in that time my five starting carriers (which had all been refitted to hold 70 planes) racked up an absurd 200 ships sunk.

[@jukebox_heroperson3994]

If the Enterprise was Japanese

[@Tetragramix]

Play as Japan and go to war with all 3 major factions. It is the only honorable way to play.

[@socio-historian7337]

Isoroku Yamamoto would be proud

[@Ronald98]

THE KIDŌ BUTAI !!! 🛩️🗾🇯🇵

[@ivankopernika536]

@@Tetragramix make sure to select in the settings that czechia makes its entente and also go to war with it too for extra taste

[@xthetenth]

First thing I've got to say is that at least this meta won't decide the war in one turbojutland thank goodness, but it feels incredibly weird for naval bombers to be invincible. I think maybe if good ship AA could put in some work and carrier fights with fighters in play were hideously bloody for the air wings, it'd be really pretty right.

[@Mustang-wt1se]

They really do need to buff AA, if I remember one US surface fleet could shoot down 90% of the planes. Japan started using kamikazes because it was more cost effective than trying to avoid AA

[@thomasr11]

@@Mustang-wt1se Facts, and while I don't have exact figures I know for certain most of the US navy airforce was decimated in the pacific, even at Midway. AA needs to be deadly, simple.

[@Mustang-wt1se]

@@thomasr11 to be fair a good part of the losses was to zeros. If they buffed interception chance and AA for bombers respectively it’d be a great improvement but then US lost 150 aircraft. They’d have to drop overstacking penalty

[@moeite7756]

Hi 71Cloak, thank you for another great vid! I noticed the 1.12.4 patchnote read 'this SHOULD fix the carrier bug' and was 100% expecting Paradox to have broken it even further lol. Was waiting for a video on the subject and you totally delivered. Sadly couldn't catch the stream (EU timezone pain) but am looking forward to the conclusions from the Royal Navy challenge!

[@SirChickenNoodle]

Great job with all the latest tests you've done. I wish PDX put half as much effort in how they balance various stats. Nice to see carriers are back in fashion, but it's dissapointing to see what still needs to be worked on: - Carrier fighters being worthless - Adjusting naval strike hit chance by ship profile and speed (they litterally have code for that for Light and Heavy Attack...) - AA needs a massive buff (and AA should be shared between ships instead how it's currently calculated) - Carrier "CAS" should totally be viable for naval strikes, dive bombers were in some cases far more effective than their torpedo bomber counterparts, they should both have pros and cons (combining them should reduce effectiveness of AA) - Carrier armor is still pointless, which really irks me as it is mainly supposed to represent deck armor which actually did make a huge difference; it should lower critical damage at the very least - Kamikaze strike obviously needs to be fixed as well - Carrier aircraft spotting should obviously be a thing, litterally defined the battle of Midway, carrier scouting aircraft would be a nice addition And there's so much more...

[@peterlud87]

For the Dive Bomber point, just look at the US in Midway. No successful torpedo hits on any ships besides 1 hit on a tanker, the dive bombers did all the damage. Now that might be because the US torpedoes sucked or other factors, but still.

[@Azachor]

My suggestions: Make dive bombers more effective at scoring hits, but do slightly less damage/critical hit chance while torp bombers should be much more devastating compare to them, but less likely to hit. That way, having a mix of both would be a good way to do solid damage. They could also *maybe* add carrier scout planes which would allow carriers to spot fleets "passively" but in a limited range. It should also increase positioning. Other than that, I agree with all your points

[@zoroasper9759]

Also ship armor reduces damage from torpedoes... but not naval bombers, which "use torpedoes"

[@magni5648]

@@peterlud87 Agreed. Though saying US torpedos sucked is kinda underselling it. The early Mark 15 essentially shared all of the defects of the infamous Mark 14 torpedo, and added to it a high chance to break apart on hitting the water when dropped at the standard altitude and speed TB squadrons were trained to drop their torpedos at.

[@leonardosaffier1705]

Carrier Bombers were the scouting force of the carrier, maybe carrier cas should double as scout and function more or less as catapults do to cruisers and heavy ships, by increasing carrier surface and submarine detection I believe that, if the logistics strike mission attacked enemy trains, trucks, railway, fortifications AND airports, and if there was a chance to destroy enemy planes stationed on that airport (almost like a port strike mission), both Carrier CAS and Tac Bombers would be way more useful. That's literally what pearl harbor was all about.

[@rogerr.8507]

if my carrier gets sunk, where do the planes go? nearest airfield or davy jones locker?

[@sporkfrizz]

To a nearby friendly airbase. There's a tool tip that tells you where the wings of a sunk carrier went to.

[@TheJigsaw1591]

What has happened with the old Japanese Kamikaze meta? Is sacrificing thousands of Zeros worth it? Would having carriers full of Zeros be better than trying to waste IC on naval bombers perhaps if kamikaze works?

[@alir9320]

Some early testing in BBA showed that kamikaze had such low dmg to ships per IC cost of the Zero that you’d need tens of thousands to actually sink a fleet

[@connorbranscombe6819]

@@alir9320 I mean you dont even really need to test, just look at the damage from the fixed explosive charge, absolutely pathetic when you could just slap some torps on it.

[@barrie1225]

I played historical USA today, by the time I joined the war in the middle of 1941 I had 25 aircraft carriers. Absolutely dumstered the Japanese navy in 1 month!

[@pizzamovies23]

>Historical USA >25 Carriers in 41 Pick one

[@tbeller80]

What did your task forces look like?

[@dubspool]

@@pizzamovies23 I mean the US got to the point where they were basically printing carriers.

[@Razgriz032]

@@dubspool but not on the early days of war

[@12gark]

@@Razgriz032 yes, but that's where a player comes in: you play knowing what is going to happen and you are ready in advice. Non historical is there for you if you don't want to know what is going to happen.

[@frozenflame5858]

I love that carriers are good now. It’s like real life!

[@512TheWolf512]

I think the stated aircraft speeds in this game are absolutely ridiculous, they should be decreased by like 30% at least across the board

[@richardvlasek2445]

but i like making fighter jet spitfires

[@chandler224]

what do you mean? Isn't it historical that a biplane can go 700kmh?

[@eleanorgreywolfe5142]

You can make tactical bombers that can break the sound barrier with propellers, the speeds are absurd, you can make tactical bombers that have absurd range, you can make fighters that are loaded with armor and machine guns that decimate anything in the sky. This whole plane designer is just absurd.

[@firespark8455]

I have noticed that even if the fighters don't do dmg, they stop many of the bombers from making their attacks. alternatively it seems that the shot down from the fighters is counted as the carrier shooting them down. this is just from my testing tho

[@Ronald98]

So what do propose the ratio on my carriers be? 25% fighters 75% bombers?

[@Sunny-gj6mh]

where do you livestream? the royal navy challenge taught us a lot. you can see how 1 SHBB as pride of the fleet used to make a difference in early pages of that thread. hope you or Alexander the Grape does it again so we may come up with more interesting compositions!

[@Mustang-wt1se]

Buff AA, interception, and remove over stacking penalty. US lost 150 aircraft in Midway to sink just 4 carriers

[@jesuschristhomeslice9492]

Tbf carriers should be OP simply based off real world performance

[@zoroasper9759]

OP is one thing, overtuned is another

[@cc0767]

Carriers were good but nothing close to how it is in game now

[@jansatamme6521]

​@@cc0767 battleships didnt even come close, read about the pacific war

[@cc0767]

@@jansatamme6521 unrelated

[@jansatamme6521]

@@cc0767 ah yes, only the largest naval front of the war is unrelated to how strong carriers were irl. How many carriers were sunk by gun fire on the pacific front? 1 light carrier, how many battleships were destroyed by carriers? well the americans lost 4 (2 permanent others out till 1944) on the 1st day of the war. Japan famously lost the yamato and musashi to carriers soo how is it unrelated

[@maxpower9979]

What about carrier naval patrollers ? How can I check if they are useful? Thanks for your testing.

[@GermanEistee2000]

I have realised that (refering to the video title) just yesterday Played a naval only Canada technocracy (little bit weird but I'm enjoying and learning navy) and each carrier killed soo many japanese ships. My best carrier butchered 44 japanese ships... even though I had 50% fighters on the carrier. My carrier navs were also carrier cas and it was very satisfying to support the struggling Allied landing on the Home islands with my carrier cas and turning their red bubbles green and ending the war that way. Real power projection. Started a Japan game just now and I've heard i can have 5 instead of 4 carriers per strike force with -20% carrier overcrowding penalty (with base strike). Is that right? And with all the sortie modifiers Japan gets, I can easily get way more than 100% sortie efficiency. Does it mean I can have 50% more airplanes with 150% sortie efficiency or how does that math work?

[@ethancaron9259]

The way efficiency works, is that anything over 100% is insurance against penalties. so an extra air wing of 10 planes on a carrier would impose a 44% penalty to mission efficiency (22% with Massed Strikes). So with your example of 150% sortie efficiency, you could put an entire extra airwing of 10 naval bombers on every carrier, or 20 if you have massed strike doctrine, and still have every plane working at 100% efficiency. Edit: This is assuming you have no other maluses to mission efficiency. Essentially, for anything regarding efficiency, anything putting that statistic (eg. raiding efficiency) over 100% is simply insurance against maluses that would otherwise bring it below 100% efficiency.

[@arutha3251]

Any chance you could write down or provide a calculator somewhere for the air wing stuff like the 17 carriers in your latest vid. Finding it a bit difficult to follow, I do generally get how the method works but still a gap in my understanding

[@gabe75001]

Gonna build Graf Zeppelin now

[@pWndConan]

So to summarize you want: 4 Carriers (only naval Bombers, no Air Attack upgrade), Heavy Cruisers (max Light Attack) & Destroyers (no Torpedos) 1:4 Ratio right?

[@slightlyburntmarshmallow4301]

So would you say that carriers are worth it to build them? Cause I don't find them being that useful, if you start with them then I guess it would be fine but would you advise building new ones from scratch?

[@ecpgieicg]

COMBAT_DAMAGE_SCALE_CARRIER was returned to 5 with patch 1.12.5. But in practice, I still don't see them shooting down naval bombers from carriers.

[@ComradeAngry]

So, if fighters fly no matter the overcrowd, does it mean we can put only NAV on first 4 carrier and have unlimited fighter carriers in the fleet? Like 10 or more strictly with fighters but top 4 only NAVs

[@javierperalta7648]

Thats cool but they also became more expensive (not the carriers themselves but the planes on them) are they still cost effective?

[@aleksandrmikhail3803]

at this point i feel like PDX balance team will do anything to fix the problem but sometimes they forgot to return the value that actually did not fix the problem after the problem is fixed, like seriously sometime when there is bug or imbalance in something within the game, when the bugs are fixed, they unintentionally broke something else, like now they fix the carrier but render the carrier fighter useless, even useless than before BBA i believe....

[@nekozilla0898]

i dont understand anything about navy but good video like always xd

[@chengzhou8711]

Ok so I’m kinda exited about this. I’m so glad they redid navy. Thank you for your invaluable analysis of this game.

[@craig5322]

it would be cool if dive bombers actually mattered like they did irl

[@Nobody1x1]

Were this changes introduced with 1.12.4 or are you talking about the most recent 1.12.5 beta?

[@xdeepxfreezex2621]

Does the ship speed modifier change how often a ship may be hit or something?

[@Ancient_Hoplite]

Could you explain what you said about the weight on the heavy cruiser by adding AA?

[@ZoggyWoggyII]

Navy in hoi4 is really cool

[@loxyo3089]

Nice work again, well explained ! I believe the fighter being useless is another paradox "not working as intented" moment. I've some questions if you know the answers : - Does field hospital reduce war support loss due to combat casualties ? - Does armored decks for carriers reduce damage taken by air attacks ? Would be funny if it didn't, because in both cases i believe it would be logic to work that way

[@71Cloak]

Field hospitals do reduce wat support loss but I still would never take them. Armoured decks do literally nothing other than give you 5 armour and 25 hp. Armour has no impact on damage received from naval strikes.

[@loxyo3089]

@@71Cloak Well for FH i would never take them anyway but at least it's there, pretty disapointed about armored decks thoughs. Thanks for answering :)

[@CarvaxIV]

I love FH for Switzerland because they get an insane buff. You can start the war in 1940 with 75% trickle back

[@victorsavenije8897]

And ... Patch 1.12.5 shaked things up again, would be nice to test carrier fighters again.

[@SA_Vengarr]

Great video, very informative. One question: do carrier fighters apply Disruption to enemy naval bombers? If so they would still be valuable even if they didn’t score many kills. Also a niche question, but as a nerd who likes to build escort carriers: should I put them on Convoy Escort, Patrol, or use them as a floating airbase in areas with lots of submarines and no land bases?

[@71Cloak]

1. Cv fighters don't seem to do much of anything. They might shoot down a couple of enemy bombers but that is it. 2. You could use them as floating airbases but i would probably just spread them out among your escort destroyers.

[@SA_Vengarr]

@@71Cloak So...there is no way to improve carrier survivability besides deck armor? Which used to not apply to air attacks. It probably still doesn't lol

[@blahmaster6k]

Can you explain a bit more about the inclusion of some random carrier CAS wings? I thought the idea was just to add extra fighter wings at the bottom of your carrier list to make the percentage of wings that wouldn't fly be composed of fighters since they always fly even if they suck now. Are the CAS there for some other reason?

[@71Cloak]

The cas are there for the same reason. To increase the total number of air wings to allow more cvs with just navs to operate properly.

[@matth9497]

the pacific fleet designer gives 1 more air wing, not 1 more deck size. So that's 10 more planes.

[@71Cloak]

same thing.

[@ojomaze7777]

yeah. It's more or less just displaying the platform coding in the files. It could be nicer to have the tooltip be a bit more specific.

[@cmdbraal7744]

Hey great video. I wanted to ask if carrier fighters are still worthless, as in patch 1.12.5 they returned COMBAT_DAMAGE_SCALE_CARRIER to 5 from 1, so shouldnt that mean that carrier fighters are good again? If so, how many should nations like japan have on their carriers?

[@dahakaprod6519]

I tried reproducing his results step by step, this either got fixed or I'm legally blind, nav bombers don't do anything now in his challenge test

[@cc0767]

So what about land based fighters/green air. Can you stop enemy carrier bombers that way?

[@Crunchifyable2]

Question is the underperformance of naval bombers that have front facing guns common also to tactical bombers and close air support? Basically I'm asking if there's a glitch or otherwise if you add light machine guns to say close air support they function terribly?

[@magni5648]

Afaik it's specifically for carrier planes in naval battles that the CV itself takes part in. Land-based aircraft, or even carrier aircraft flying missions while the carrier is parked outside battle, aren't affected.

[@quincyames2014]

10:30 i think most people build w/ coastal defense, and like leave off a deck space or something, then refit w/ pacific fleet designer, and it is a lot cheaper

[@papijay4463]

i tried that before the refitt cost more than if u just build one from scratch

[@quincyames2014]

@@papijay4463 ..? not really, just do ship w/ all the air wings and anti air 1 or something, then redo it and do anti air 2 w/ pacific designer

[@papijay4463]

@@quincyames2014 I just went in game to check, when u are refitting stuff from the coastal defence ship to a different desinger, the game would also account for the ic different. So its a liitle more expensive than just building from scratch cuz you wont be saving any ic doing it that way.

[@TheObeyWeegee]

I asked this before but got no answer so this is a perfect video to ask again: What about minelayers spam? just cover naval regions with 1000 mines. It helps get naval supremacy too as the number of mines increases ship amount impact by up to 50%, and also sinks everything atleast in my experience. The design is a tier 1 destroyer with 2 minelaying reels, a level 1 gun and a level 1 engine and make like a hundred of those.

[@71Cloak]

can't lay mines unless you are at war. At that point how are you going to lay mines?

[@thesilentninja9255]

Italy starts at war if you want to extend the Ethiopia war. Also Japan can easily do early war and mine lay Indonesia to make life suck for the British and Netherlands. Good for invasions and some trade interdiction but not much else. Might even work in MP if no one is paying attention.

[@71Cloak]

@@thesilentninja9255 mines don't last forever. They slowly disappear once you are at peace. None of the countries mentioned should be at war long enough for any of those mines to still exist once they get to the real war.

[@blahmaster6k]

​​@@71Cloak Did they change how Italy interacts with mines? Because the game considers Italy to be at war with Ethiopia in perpetuity unless you end the war very fast at the start of the game.

[@TheObeyWeegee]

@@71Cloak Well yeah, the mines are spammed pretty quickly especially if you have like 50 dual-minelayer rails destroyers running around. I just tested it out and you can go from 0-1000 with 50 of them in about 40 days. And the decay rate is extremely slow, I've gone playthroughs where mines I put during a war like 5-6 years ago still had a few hundred of them floating around. You can spam the English channel in a short time then jump over with your original German fleet securing the full naval supremacy needed if you wanted.

[@CornG4397]

As UK I realised using carriers I destroyed a 1/3 of the Italian navy in a week. This was after I only put 80 ships to the mederterainan

[@adelakinagbonbioka2696]

How do I unlock all the hulls or slots on my carriers? I've tried everything, including console commands to no avail. What am I missing?

[@WhereTheFunBegins]

Me a fellow naval LARPer: hey I can’t wait to find the new naval meta Meta players: haha heavy fighters with torpedos go brrrrrr

[@imnotanumber43]

That's when you build Superheavy Battleships with max lvl 3 AA, shoots down navs like its nothing and barely takes damage

[@Zottyo]

@@imnotanumber43 and it takes 3 years to build?

[@auxiliodei6811]

Wait, were carrier fighters nerfed or is this just an error by the devs? How are kills by land based fighters calculated different from carrier fighters? Shouldn't they be the same?

[@potassiumnitrate1836]

Huh, neat.

[@gabenarciso1055]

7:52 What do you mean by order? I get that you need 9 total air wings

[@28lobster28]

Does the old trick of >100% reliability kamikazes still work? I hope they fixed it with the air rework

[@t2force212]

You can't change airplane reliability in the design now, they are always at 80%

[@71Cloak]

I'm pretty sure that didn't even work back in NSB.

[@ethancaron9259]

@@t2force212 Unless of course you use medium frame air designer, which still has its reliability boost if I remember correctly

[@endzor]

Long liveHEABYCRUISERS

[@gabe75001]

Is there an optimal amount of state/land AA to build to minimize logistics strike? Or just spam it everywhere?

[@quincyames2014]

just do armored trains

[@charlesswain554]

What should an optimal fleet composition look like now?

[@71Cloak]

I think the video I'm doing for tomorrow on the royal navy challenge answers that quite well.

[@saeediqbal3382]

@@71Cloak Would you be uploading that on the youtube channel as well

[@iseeyou5061]

Is Base Strike doctrine good now then?

[@stackk.113]

7:07 Why putting three different types of planes on last carrier is so important?

[@billyzm]

Hey Cloak71, I like these game mechanic calculations and finding the best build for the game, SP or MP. But for naval specifically, could you make a video (or include it in future videos) of the basic math/mechanic you are using? For instance, what is the carrier penalty (I haven't really heard of/used the old stacking carrier meta previously)? What is the air wing calculation for "fighting" the carrier penalty when using a lot of carriers? I would highly appreciate more details on the math and the explanation behind the mechanics to understand it better.

[@lerbronk]

whats better? cv on patrol( or other sortie) or cv sitting and send planes on nav strike

[@71Cloak]

If you split off your cv then you run the risk of the ai spotting and attacking your cv. I don't think it is necessary to split them off. Just draw out enemy fleet and fight it. Chances are the ai will have only sent out half.

[@lerbronk]

@@71Cloak what about nav damage? sitting cv with escort dont get air traffic penalty (i think) and can use ground sp for +10% efficiency.

[@leiaorgana5098]

So Fighter Naval bomber and Naval Fighter bomber don't work as well as dedicated singular designs. Disappointing to say the least but it makes sense.

[@huhnerfutter9826]

Would be nice to know how strong naval aa now is against this stupdidly strong naval bombers

[@firemochimc]

Naval AA is stronger than previous patches, so keeping up is actually worth it. You still take a lot of damage from planes but you'll also slaughter huge amounts of planes and you can actually deplete enemy naval bombers.

[@Peanutcat]

So plane wings on carriers should just be as many 10 sized naval bomber wings as you can squeeze in there?

[@71Cloak]

Yeah naval bombers are all you need.

[@haukionkannel]

How well one big stack of dead compares to smaller strike forces now? They have tried to balance it out, but in the past the situation was dire.

[@71Cloak]

It is still way better to deathstack vs using something smaller. Having 100% more ships than the enemy only gives a 25% penalty which is completely offset by superior tactician.

[@haukionkannel]

@@71Cloak Thank you for answers and *sigh" I was hoping that your four 25 size strike fleets together would be better than one stack of 100 ships... Or at least is would have other benefits compared to one big chunk of ships.

[@magni5648]

So, carrier-on-carrier engagements are now going to result in even more ludicrous mutual bloodbaths is what I'm hearing?

[@klioblue9771]

So, hybrid bomber/fighter plane is not good then? It save mils if u build dual puropose carrier plane

[@71Cloak]

1. You don't need anything other than naval bombers on cvs. 2. How does multipurpose save mils. You still need the same number of planes and multipurpose are definitely not cheaper than dedicated planes.

[@Erik_Arnqvist]

Carrier carry me

[@Routerproblem]

Does plane xp work for CV inside a battle? And if yes, how much ?

[@71Cloak]

Should provide the bonuses stated. Now all the planes shot down will cause a loss of xp and naval battles don't generate any but that is besides the point.

[@Routerproblem]

@@71Cloak It should yes.. but since we are talking about a paradox game DOES IT REALY work?

[@redhairdavid]

i like carries for ground attack as japan. super useful through china :P

[@sasamihajlov2862]

Do you move them up the yellow river xd

[@justmiraak2141]

I dont understand navy but grear vid

[@jimmcneal5292]

Can go back to game, couldn't play when carriers were broken

[@alphanerdgames9417]

How does this make sense?

[@BasedBlackPrism]

still im not doing navy

[@ysikishokurin3952]

Currently COMBAT_DAMAGE_SCALE_CARRIER is 5 while NAVAL_STRIKE_CARRIER_MULTIPLIER is 10

[@FiauraTheTankGirlGamer]

How well is heavy Naval AA working now?

[@71Cloak]

same as it used to. I find it's not possible to tank enemy CV naval bombers with aa.

[@radeq]

I have almost 2000+ hours on HOI4 a still have no idea how navy works, I used to spam submarines but it does not work anymore, so I just deathstack all I have and take other navies in peace deal. Can someone help me, or recommend me some guide? Because I have absolutely no clue what is carrier or destroyer :D

[@gkagara]

About naval battle just keep your fleet smaller than your enemy but have better quality and stats per ship. Larger fleet will have fleet size penalty negatively affecting your stats.

[@carlosmarquez5901]

Still no carrier dive Bombers on hoi4?

[@71Cloak]

Thats what carrier cas are but they are bad at naval strike so why build them.

[@carlosmarquez5901]

@@71Cloak ruta the problem they were incredibly important in the Pacific war, more so even than torpedo bombers so it's disappointing

[@SMGJohn]

Bad news for multiplayer community, no more heavy cruiser spam Japan meme

[@estebanlaigle9090]

I didn't understand anything. Why are you multiplying 5 carriers by 0.6 (stacking penalty) to obtain... 8.33 airwings? Then how do you split 9 and why? (4+3+2 thing) Finally, what does all of this have to do with CV CAS?

[@71Cloak]

If only 60% of your air wings can fly (which is true at 6 CV) and you want 5 carriers worth of naval bombers to operate at full efficiency then you need 5/0.6=8.33 air wings or 9 because it effectively rounds up. 9 becoming 4 full cvs of just navs + 2 (1 cv with 5/6 air wings navs 1/6 air wings being fighters) + 3 (1 cv with all 3 types of planes) = the 9 airwings needed to make the 5 cvs work properly.

[@estebanlaigle9090]

@@71Cloak so for you, one air wing isn't a 10 planes unit, but total amount of planes of same type on a cv? If yes, you must absolutely precise it in the videos!

[@moeite7756]

​@@71Cloak Reading this for the 11th time and it's still very hard to decipher this: - I'm guessing air wings are defined as plane group per carrier. So theoretically with 6 carriers you can bring 18 air wings if you put CAS, navbomb and fighters on all of them. Is that correct or is the amount of planes also affected? - You were fidgetting with the positions of both the fighter wing as well as the 3-type carrier, but why? Is that to make sure all carrier bombers / 'good' carriers are prioritized and actually used in battle? That contradicts what is shown on-screen as all planes seemed to be active in the battle? And if that's the case, why not fill that last carrier with 3 extra naval bomber wings?? - What stats determine that only 60% wings can fly at 6 CV? Is this affected by for example carrier overstacking or sortie efficiency (the latter being very relevant for Japan)? Hope you can elaborate on this in a future vid or post somewhere. The beauty of the hoi4 minmax to me is that while you can endlessy ponder statistics you'll have to be able to set up everything within a realistic timeframe before the war, there's no time to build a 'perfect' navy. So if by maximising my navbombers in battle I'll have to marginalize some carriers I'd obviously want to use the crappy starter carriers for this task.

[@2Links]

Does this make base strike better than fleet in being now?

[@71Cloak]

If your going for a carrier based build. If you are going for a surface fleet fighting under green air and need the rest of your fleet to do stuff then fleet in being still has much better bonuses.

[@Aiphiae]

Naval bombers without guns beat naval bombers with guns because the carriers the latter launch from de-org faster? Am I understanding that correctly? Why is that even a thing? That makes no sense to me. Planes without guns beat planes with guns "because carrier." That seems like bad design but I'm a noob, what am I missing?

[@ZarkinDrife]

This is why is still dont know navay beside sub spam, everything keeps changing and dont know how to design ships and what ships to even use haha

[@marthvader14]

Weren't Carriers already the best?

[@zoroasper9759]

Immediately after BBA and until the last small patch carriers were completely useless because of a bug, now they are overtuned to oblivion

[@thatdudethat7824]

Carriers are OP because planes are essential since NSB

[@asg3261]

This game is actually so broken. So many bugs and things missing.

[@ADobbin1]

So fighters are useless now and just put nav bombers on carriers.

[@Marmamartha]

Carriers were not broken to begin with. You just had to set the mission for the airwings when the carrier was out of port. The moment u claimed carriers didnt work, my carriers ranked up dozen of kills lmao.

[@lolloblue9646]

It was broken, because it's supposed to work differently for missionless carrier aircraft (ergo, it engages more in a naval battle)

[@71Cloak]

That is broken which is why it was fixed. Your not supposed to have to add a mission to makes carrier naval bombers work. On top of that, anytime for fleet went back to port you had to reset the mission.

[@malswansky3376]

This is so stupid. It's an obvious bug, so instead of finding a weird exploit to give yourself an extra 50% (or whatever) of planes, might as well go and give yourself 50% more IC for building carriers... the end result is basically the same, at least from single-player perspective.

[@SasafrasYT]

First

[@marmotman151]

Kinda bugs me that CV dive bombers still arent any good. Like historically, carriers would lose entire strike groups of torpedo bombers for attacking into a CAP screen. Because torpedo bombers have to go low and slow to hit their targets. To devestating effect if successful, yes. But they made a shooting fish in a barrel scenario for AA and CAP crews. CV dive bombers were far more survivable, even if they didnt pack as big a potential punch. Not lets forget that the US landed 0 torpedos during the battle of midway. The torpedo bonbers were obliterated. All four carriers were sunk by air dropped glide bombs. So under a yellow air scenario, Id argue that Hoi4 torp bombers just shouldnt be able to do much, and should be very vulnerable to fighters and AA. Dive Bombers should be better. Rant End.

[@YLandorin]

Sorry, but this way too fast for me, on pictures as well as speaking. Would have helped to zoom in more often and mark what you should look at, not fade out numbers so quickly and definitely speak slower or add pauses.