PDX Is Trying To Patch This Exploit... BUT THEY CANT - TOP Naval Meta

PDX Is Trying To Patch This Exploit... BUT THEY CANT - TOP Naval Meta
Main Channel @DaveFeedBackGaming
Feedback Memes Channel @feedbackmemes
Discord! / discord
Support me on Patreon! / feedbackgaming
Follow me on Twitter: / feedbackgaming
Follow me on Twitch: / feedbackgaming
-----------------------------------
FeedbackIRL is where feedback procrastinates with his hobbies and other interests. Warning REALLY BORING or REALLY INTERESTING hoi4 dev diary paradox interactive
#hoi4 #heartsofiron4 #feedbackgaming

[@maxsmith8196]

I found that you dont even really need that many ships, you just need to keep naval bombing with like 2000 cas and they will eventually just put no ships in the english channel, then you can invade with like 2 destroyers supporting naval invasions

[@lucjanl1262]

That's just turning France and/or benelux into big aircraft carrier

[@ianperry8557]

@@lucjanl1262 that’s a great way to put it lmao and honestly they basically are just aircraft carriers

[@Bucket_Ball]

you don't even need that. just have an invasion order ready and then put your fleet out in the channel for that moment of supremacy

[@warthundercanblunder850]

@@lucjanl1262 unsinkable aircraft carriers

[@anicaamar4055]

@@warthundercanblunder850 except for Netherlands since that place is literally sinking

[@bramvanderwoerdt7186]

how naval supremacy works: every ship has a certain naval supremacy value. 100+.005*construction cost+.05*manpower. since the construction cost adds very little to the supremacy value, the best strategy (in terms of naval supremacy/dockyard) is to produce the cheapest ships in existence to stack that free 100 supremacy per ship. naval supremacy in a sea zone is just the naval supremacy values of all the ships assigned to the sea zone added together. your intel on the enemy countries that have ships in the sea zone affects your supremacy as well, so doing naval department, making a spy network or infiltrating the navy of your enemies are ways to use your agency to achieve naval supremacy

[@ViktorEnns]

good soup

[@danielgloyd4529]

So the easiest way for them to fix it is to drop the flat supremacy, give a exponentially increasing weight to the production cost. Boom problem solved Battle ships and carriers will suddenly be the most valuable at giving supremacy the way it should be.

[@captaincapitalis1205]

Thank you. I like to think of myself as a navy larper and never knew that

[@roxuub]

can u tell it in a more simple way lol

[@danielgloyd4529]

@@roxuub every ship adds 100 supremacy and for every 200 IC and 200 manpower for each ship 1 more naval supremacy is added.

[@RigbyWilde]

They should remake the whole naval invasion thing. Instead of a arbitrary number of 50% naval supremacy, they could make the troop transports veeeeery vulnerable. At the point that any enemy fleet could kill half of the invasion force or something. So you would finally get some incentive to actually kill the enemy fleet. But this is just a minor problem. The naval warfare is completely broken.

[@canadianeh4792]

Also, if the invasion is successful you should be able to cut off their supply with the same mechanic. One of the (many) reasons Sea Lion didn't happen was that even if they managed to get the RN and RAF out of the way long enough to get troops over the Channel, they wouldn't be able to supply them once the fleet was back in place. Any invasion would be immediately cut off.

[@sarahalexander7256]

@@canadianeh4792 You can already cut off supply lines by achieving naval supremacy, fairly easy. A few wolf packs and no convoys will get through, leading to supply issues. It's one of the reasons why surrounding the UK is so effective

[@pocketgroyper9301]

Transports in a naval invasion are already extremely vulnerable to being sank by submarines, the issue is the AI doesn't always take advantage of this. Theoretically, if someone tried the bathtub strategy and used to to launch an invasion if Britain, a competent Britain player could easily stop the invasion by guarding their shores with subs raiding their convoys, even if they have less naval supremacy. Since the navy generating the green ocean for the invasion isn't actually fighting, most of the divisions invading would get hit and lose around 80% of their division strength from being hit by convoy raids. This is why its important to have fleets with either convoy defense or invasion support orders to intercept subs. The AI needs to be improved to defend itself against naval bomber spam and the supremacy exploit of spamming subs as "ships" that way people are actually forced to play the naval game as intended.

[@512TheWolf512]

They CAN fix it by simply removing the naval supremacy mechanic at all and reworking how convoys/naval invasions work. So that basically, you can launch a naval invasion anytime you want, but you risk having all your convoys and troops sunk, if your navy/air force isn't good enough to protect them. Or you could also slip right under the nose of your enemy, depending on invasion size, Intel, etc.

[@julianlipinski7934]

I don't think so. AI in this case can be easily shredded.

[@12gark]

This would be impossible to handle for the AI. They would never naval invade or they would die over and over, even more than now. But they should make the naval superiority based on stats of the fleet instead of just (it's not the only thing, but it's the most important at the moment) ship number

[@FEDEXLuchs]

@@12gark just have the AI have the old system where they wait for supremacy while human players can do it anytime wouldnt be too hard since they already have the AI cheat

[@haukionkannel]

Also you could lose supply line to the target at any time! If you can not protect you convoys, your troops does not get foo, oil, ammunition...

[@dutchrjen]

Light cruisers are the "destroy everything ship" in the game. They are very flexible and not too high priced. Heavy cruisers can be made to boost light cruiser fleets with no extra research needed (one heavy for every four lights works quite well). They also can help with shore bombardment. Battle cruisers are good and not too high priced, but they take a lot more research to build. They can be used in replace of the heavy cruiser. Subs are always good. Destroyers are needed for minesweeping, convoy escort, and cheap fleet escort. Battleships and super battleships aren't worth it. Carriers aren't worth it either. Carriers need the most rework. Carriers should have the ability to kite, they should have a massive ability to find enemy ships, they should be much harder to detect. Basically, if carriers can launch aircraft (it's day and the weather is decent) then they should be OP. Aircraft dominance in a fleet should act like an armor bonus on land. Say if your fleet has more aircraft than the enemy then you get the equivalent of the gold shield. The more dominant the air power is the more the bonus should be. This would simulate the range and kite ability of carriers.

[@ghostarmy1106]

Every naval battle with a carrier currently is basically the battle of samar aka taffy 3 vs the IJN (Carriers in range of the enemy arty, protected by screens)

[@dietzlel1423]

Big Guns should be much more effective against light targets. It makes no sense that a BB would have trouble killing a light cruiser. Also topedos are too powerful against large surface combatants. In open battle BBs or CVs were almost never hit by torpedos, only when they were either surprise attacked or struck by a submarine they couldn't see. Torpedos should only be effective when an enemy is caught out of position or can't see the enemy either due to night or bad weather conditions. Weather should be a lot more influential than it is anyway.

[@madensmith7014]

Carriers are really as strong as their planes, and naval bombing indeed works a lot. But the thing is with this game is that you can just build up airfields in some small island to hold 10k planes and secure entire seazones with them, and they join in the battles very very fast, making carriers effectively redundant.

[@stue2298]

I agree carriers need a significant buff

[@ViktorEnns]

You seem to have played a lot of navy. I have only built convoys and subs so far. Not even close to understanding how to properly naval invade someone.

[@costamcostam8961]

There is a meta for heavy ships. Well, not for battleships or carriers, but for heavy cruisers. Basically you make heavy cruiser with lots of light attack, 1 lvl 1 heavy gun (just to make it heavy cruiser) and no armor. That means, it's fast enough to evade attacks from capitals, and it isn't targetted by screens, and cost almost the same as light cruiser with light attack stacked. Your screening ships depend on how much you want to invest in navy. You can either make torpedo cruisers for better range, some anti air destroyers or just cheap shitty destroyers just for screening.

[@chrisofelt6427]

doesn't work anymore, slower cruisers are harder to hit now incentivizing armor

[@SCComega]

Sadly, they patched out LAHC's and made it so you can't mix batteries. So Light Cruisers are back in the meta slot for light attack, and it's a tossup between using a mix of light attack and torpedo cruisers, light attack cruisers and torp roach DD's, or just a bunch of jack of all trade light cruisers when it comes to surface screen meta. (and then just pick up the CV conversion tech to turn all your old capitals into carriers)

[@Schmeethe88]

@@SCComega Yup. I've been having great success with cheap trashcan DDs with one torp rack to support light cruiser monsters with maxed out light cruiser guns.

[@costamcostam8961]

@@SCComega so they made another type of ship useless without solving any problem? Good job Paradox

[@SCComega]

@@costamcostam8961 to be fair, they appear to be intending to improve heavy attack ships across the board with the coming update, but we'll have to see how that actually goes

[@YungGandalf]

I feel like PDX needs to do more with naval invasions so that you need to maintain naval supremacy during the invasion and once you’ve landed. As it is I just get naval supremacy for a split second to launch the invasion and then don’t even think about it. Historically speaking, the problem with Sea Lion was getting troops across the channel without them getting blown out of the water by the Royal Navy, and maintaining supply lines once they land. Not only would changing the game to reflect this make it more historical, but it would also make the navy system more relevant.

[@roxuub]

they should add a new ship task supplying troops it speaks for itself ik you can use transport planes but they get blown out of the air so easily

[@pradyumnabanerjee3333]

@@roxuub yeaa its called a fucking convoy bob. Yea.

[@zestypigeon2729]

It would be good if heavy ships used multiple docks for repair instead of just 1 Edit: just got the idea of what if pdx added civilian dockyards that passively made convoys so the ai have a steady supply for lend leases

[@jewiesnew3786]

Yorktown was fixed in just 3 days. This should possible in the game as well.

[@mainman879]

At 5:00 you say that they might nerf the bathtub supremacy strat. They did announce a nerf to it in the dev diary with all the naval rework stuff. But 71cloak did a statistical analysis with the new numbers, and bathtubs are STILL the best for naval supremacy even after the nerfs. I would recommend his video on the patch notes because he goes deep into the math involved. Sub spam stuff starts at this point specifically in his video. kzbin.info/www/bejne/m2aukoVslr6Sjq8 At 12:00 you talk about Light Attack Cruisers, but Light Attack Heavy Cruisers actually perform better than Light Attack Light Cruisers. This is due to getting the capital ship designation which gives some buffs (I think its bonus hit chance for being a capital, not 100% sure), and it allows it to take advantage of capital ship buffs from doctrines.

[@ghostarmy1106]

Light attack heavy cruisers are dead though

[@mainman879]

@@ghostarmy1106 They are dead when the rework arrives yes. Until then they are king. After the rework Light Attack Light Cruisers will be the dominant meta.

[@tafftafflecomuniste1857]

It might become even worse now as they announce the addition of midget submarines which in a way is a bathtub on steroids, the low production cost+lack of crew will make it an extremely cheap way of spamming subs.

[@rovsea-3761]

@@tafftafflecomuniste1857 the range is too small for it to be a really effective replacement I think, but if the range does end up being enough you're probably right.

[@tafftafflecomuniste1857]

@@rovsea-3761 I see, in that case it's uses may be limited to: Germany trying to do sea lion/block Dday Italy trying to block Sicily any large nation with many islands(Japan) or ports around the world(UK) that will have enough places to launch the midget subs from that range is no problem.

[@MrFaorry]

6:55 IIRC troop transport convoys have higher HP than trade convoys needing 60 attack to kill in one hit, so if that was a troop convoy that'd explain why it took 2 ticks and then the next only took one.

[@alatamore]

I recall there is a combo meta where you get the cruisers with light attack stacked to kill the enemy screens then a ton of roach destroyers, basically cheap ones with just torpedos on them, to torpedo the enemy capital ships.

[@gmonty2095]

9:28 your Subs were more affective than that but your fuel was 0 preventing them from destroying more screens

[@yeeterdeleter4101]

I use paratroopers because air supporority is easier to get, but I see the appeal of naval invasions

[@ThefanaticFoxUser]

I also love to spamm out shitty carriers and overwhelm with planes. The plane debuff for overstacking i find is so insignificant that its pretty much usless

[@infini_ryu9461]

Here's how to fix Navy--Give everyone a dedicated Naval Research slot and streamline naval tech. People only ever do Navy as a gimmick really. Also make a slot for armour and then infantry or industry or w/e.

[@ahouais5620]

Well it could be a good idea but landlocked nations are being robbed if they have a naval research slot

[@infini_ryu9461]

@@ahouais5620 Not really. They can't use it for anything else but Navy in the first place, same goes for countries with coasts. They're not losing a general research slot.

[@RAEJDER]

Once in a MP game I did get battleship 3s to work. I dont know how, but I had 3 of them mixed with some screens and I sank both the UKs and USs entire fleets with that. Only remember that I had extra AA guns on them.

[@pauldennison1757]

Battleships can be useful. The amount of enemy fire that a ship will receive is proportional to its hit points, so a battleship will draw most of the enemy fire. The enemy chance to hit is based on visibility and speed and dodge tanking is way more effective than armor tanking. Heavy attack is pointless because it is less effective than torpedoes against heavy targets and targets heavy targets first so it isn't good, furthermore the amount of AA that you can stack on a battleship is huge. So the best way to use a battleship is to remove all armor and give it a single lowest tech heavy gun, and then deck it out with the raiding designer to reduce visibility, give it good engines and then stack AA. you will have a giant aircraft swatting dodge-boat that draws all the enemy fire because it is so big but they cant hit and distracts them from your light ships who do the damage while destroying their aircraft.

[@PeterGiddens]

I always love adding radar and scout planes to the cruiser type subs.

[@Mustang-wt1se]

Possible changes, separate supremacy from strength, only naval invasion support can add naval supremacy and ships deploy during it, each hour ticks the supremacy some% until it’s ready or get detected by a strike force on intercept, and subs cannot support. That way you can put out your ships to invade, protect them with air if need be, subs on convoy raiding can still distract an enemy, and force the enemy to engage you or let them land

[@mythogo4395]

Also dont forget that U-Boats won't fire at Screens unless set to High Engagement Risk or Always Engage

[@mothdude4211]

What do you think about making a surface raiding fleet? If you spam out larger heavy attack + aa focused heavy cruisers and light crusiers you can geniunely win the wwar by just crumpling any defending destroyers and then sending in a well trained capital ship or two with cas support

[@jeremiahkivi4256]

I do a combo of torpedo/light cruisers. Do about 50/50 between light batteries and torpedo tube. And always improved scout plane launcher for the extra spotting.

[@anelstarcevic696]

subs didn't sink convoys in one hit cuz they are not trained

[@michaelwittmann6328]

I think there's kinda of a meta for "heavy ships". You build the light attack cruiser with just one heavy battery in order to produce cheaply a ship that's considered as a capital ship and takes all the buffs from advisors and doctrines for capital ships

[@CMullly]

i think it'd be good for the rework for the light attack on ships to not effect Hulls ie cant sink certain grade of armour on hulls of ships. while being able to damage the gun turrets etc. of course this may lead to different production tabs for navy ie. AA turrets Light/Med Gun Turrets etc. so repairing becomes more like replacing those damaged turrets for most minor damage (couple days to repair), and if a hull is breached by the heavier rounds repair will be longer as repairing a hull is much more difficult.

[@thekommunistkrusader3921]

Question, is the "all rounder" light cruiser a viable naval tactic, like torpedoes, depth charges, light guns and multi purpose turrets. Sure it tend to be slower but I just use cheap subs and never retreat them so my cruiser get into battle

[@axiomshift4666]

Viable sure but not efficient. Depth charge destroyers are cheaper for anti sub and torpedos. Cruisers are expensive enough that you want to get the most light attack you can from them.

[@Starjumper2821]

Torpedoes don't seem to be needed and if you have tac bombers on naval strike they work better than depth charges as long as you patrol. Don't even need to engage.

[@stue2298]

Battleship upto WW2 where seen are the pinnacle of navel power, to sink an enemy battleship you needed your own battleship but other technologies had improved alot faster eg navel aricraft submarines etc. There are very few instances of Battleships sinking battleships eg sinking of HMS Hood, most where sunk/disabled by other means aircraft submarines etc, probably sinking of the Bismark being the best example, even older navel bombers being able to cripple it. Beacuse of the cost of Battleships navys where hesitant to put them to sea in case they lost them. Battleships after WW2 only a few where built mainly where replacing lost Battleships. Most navys focused on other means to project naval power mainly the aircraft carrier and smaller less expensive ships. So Hoi4 battleship are pretty representive of real world battleships, very expensive status symbols but not that effective in a modern war.

[@fearthefunnyman1201]

to be fair, the Bismarck was crippled by torpedo bombers, but they couldn't sink it, they scuttled it after it's rudder and primary armament were disabled (I think they ran out of ammo but not sure atm)

[@12gark]

@@fearthefunnyman1201 yes, Bismark was mission killed by a lucky shot on the rudder, but it was early war. The Pacific war is more clear: the Japanese carriers destroyed big part of the battleship line of the USN, but once the USN sunk those 4 carriers at Midway, the naval war was essentially over.

[@jjquinn295]

To fix this they need to do a naval combat width and remove escort ability from subs. Eventually you would still be able to get naval superiority with mostly subs and air but not until either they ram out of fuel or sunk the ships with planes.

[@KevVIII]

I wish that paradox will do hoi4's naval supremacy like they do EU4's "show supremacy": literally based on battles won between ships. Maybe since it could be impossible at times, put it so that support naval invasion provides a separate modifier, but not subs destroying convoys.

[@youtubemodsaresnowflakelef7692]

You're using the wrong light attack guns for the cruiesr (and light attack destroyers are not worth it, if anything build the cheapest roaches or stack them with torps). You can also make 4-5 2nd line Escort Shredders. It's a heavy cruiser with the cheapest medium gun otherwise stacked with light cruiser guns. It's essentially a light cruiser shredding the enemy's escorts, but it does so from the safety of being in the 2nd line since it'll count as a capital ship.

[@ghostarmy1106]

The light attack heavy cruiser is dead, light and medium batterys are mutually exclusive with the next update

[@youtubemodsaresnowflakelef7692]

@@ghostarmy1106 yeah I'm aware, I was speaking about rn.

[@pedrosaur2549]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks like that. Both of the light cruisers were terrible designs.

[@Rufusdadoofus]

I’ve always found that destroyers with a bunch of torpedos pretty decent.

[@12gark]

Yes, that's one strat that always work if you can make enough of them: they will need a lot of time to kill the enemy screens, but they will eventually do it and then they will torpedo the unprotected enemy capital to death. Sometimes it works in multiplayer too, depending on how deep into the light attack heavy cruiser the opponent goes.

[@benbaselet2026]

I think they do, but cruisers have better range so they are more suited for large oceans and reach.

[@sora64444]

subs get revealed for an instant when they retreat, add snorkels put them in stacks of around 20 and put them in never retreat while keeping the naval bombers away with fighters and you can sink everything slowly

[@inybisinsulate]

Oh hey Stellaris had this. If you count AI discouragement it happend 3 times total I think. Hope you can add bombs in half a day per ship and it's fully compatible strategy.

[@jewiesnew3786]

What I do is to plan naval invasion before declaring war, then naval project. You will have superiority because you dont have enemies yet. Execute the invasion before you declare war, the invasion will kick off the moment you are at war even when the enemy places ships in the area. The only downside is they are vulnerable to subs and other convoy raiders, but good for surprises.

[@thefallen501st9]

Cutting the convoys also keeps them from importing resources for their factories/ oil supplies meaning it helps everywhere else as well

[@Spiz103]

The 50 knot battlecruiser convoy raiders are rather fun. These days I often play the US just to do meme-strats

[@belgiumball2308]

fallschrimjagers go brr

[@natnaelnatnael9115]

The reason one of them took one tick and the other took 2 is normal convoys have 50 hp while troop convoys have 60

[@TheNignag89]

This video is perfect because it answers about 60% of all the questions asked on r/hoi4 in like two minutes

[@pedrosaur2549]

Ngl that light cruiser at the end was pretty atrocious. It is a solid D tier design.

[@cloudkelsey]

Naval Supremacy via subs can be fixed if they want to, just reduce the value of naval supremacy numbering from the current number (which is based on production or manpower I believe) to a flat number of 0 or 1. I know people don't like that idea because they are used to a lot of submarine exploits and the range of things like cruiser subs etc but the reality is that naval supremacy was never backed by submarines in ww2, they were the silent service and preyed on convoys or under escorted groups of ships. Again lots of people won't like that but its an exploit by devs just like how naval bombers being so powerful has been an oversight as well or carrier fighters never taking off to intercept said naval bombers. Also submarines are still a load of bullshit because they get their weapon from their research, I don't see destroyers, cruisers, battleships, and carriers getting their weapon equipment from their research. They need to move the torpedo tube tech the the torpedo launcher technology. It makes no sense that submarine torpedoes would be a separate unlinked branch of technology that jut comes with the research for free. TLDR : They need naval supremacy to be calculated by surface escorts not invisible escorts.

[@anelstarcevic696]

submarines should give some naval supremacy but not as much as other ships

[@mikehimes7944]

They should only contribute to naval supremacy if there is no enemy ship present. If a destroyer is in the area of a sub, it would be hiding, not going balls deep on a Convoy, especially in the early war when surface attacks were de rigeur

[@anelstarcevic696]

@@mikehimes7944 submarines commonly attacked escorted convoys it would be better if supremacy from subs was just nerfed and limited

[@ahadpezeshkpoor1042]

What I do is to create 10 lvl3 CLs with a lots of speed (around 40) a radar if possible and a ton of light attack. I call this Hunter fleet. It's sole purpose is to patrol and hunt escorts. AI rationally puts a ton of destroyers on convoy escort and split them into tiny groups. The hunter fleet will find and destroy these tiny escorts 1 by 1. This tactic will reduce my submarine losses by a lot. It will also reduce the AI fleet screen and make them weaker to aircraft attacks later.

[@MetoFulcurm]

Hey, you've made it to the end, now this is the video you want. Damn, what the hell man?! :D

[@Brodrick32]

im sure you missed a meta, didn't you once mine the sea from the Med to the channel using mine laying subs ?

[@TempModer]

I believe that Destroyers are better because they can guarantee a high air defense for ships and are more useful in guaranteeing naval supremacy in a region than Submarines, in addition to being cheaper compared to other ships. Destroyers pay more, my friends and I have tested this.

[@12gark]

Yes, destroyers ar less "meta/exploit" but way more useful for everything else other than starting a naval invasion. Including escorting convoys during the invasion itself

[@JosephofWalton]

Supremacy should be based on the mission. Scouting subs shouldn't add to supremacy. If they were actively attacking then they should. Scouting should give a bonus to active surface ships in the zone toward supremacy with a diminishing returns for over stacking.

[@unstoppable1727]

Naval bombers are better than gas against ships. Cas just tends to get shot down which is just wasting gas when it can be used against tge soviets.

[@WalrusJones185]

One comment on the cruiser metas. The light gun cruiser is true and real, but the torpedo cruiser is a bit more memey. When you are fighting the units where you actually want torpedo attack against cruiser armor starts being a lot closer to meaningless and speed + evasion starts being a more effective defense against the heavy guns. Putting AA and anti-sub warfare on cruisers is also exceptionally expensive due to AA having a % of the hull cost. A torpedo destroyer fits 4.5x as many torpedoes per production cost while also being more cost effective at warding off aircraft, subs, and heavy attacks, and if you are willing to accept less time on target, submarines give 6x as many torpedos per production cost. The goldilocks zone as far as I can tell is three cost effective light gun cruisers to two to four torpedo destroyers for actually fleet wiping enemy ships. **This gives you 0.75 to 1.5x as many torpedos as a dedicated torpedo cruiser build, has much greater evasion, has about 80% of the soft attack of a pure LC build, and still absorbs a large portion of light attacks with its armor for a lesser to equal cost.** Most importantly, with the 3LC/2TD comp you aren't wasting deck space on the main elements of your fleet on AA, minesweeping, or depth charges, its a passive or inexpensive bonus. Letting you carry more guns and pay off the support ship cost passively (While once again, reducing the overall cost from a pure cruiser based comp.) You still produce mountains of bathtub subs to draw out strike forces from port and to convince the game that you have naval supremacy, but it isn't that expensive to wipe fleets in 1/2 battles with a mix of light cruisers and torpedo destroyers.

[@styleroler5816]

I think a major meta that you left out is the light attack heavy cruiser, which you combine with a mostly screen fleet. This is a cruiser in which you put one heavy gun on it to make it a capital ship and then fill the rest with light attack weapons. The reason you do this is that light attack always hits the first line so any capital ship in the second line can't be hit until the first line is destroyed. This also means you dont need armor on the heavy cruiser, making them much cheaper. You can therefore use a bunch of cheap destroyers as screens while your heavy cruiser in the back does all the work of taking out their front line without getting hit. Since its 1 LAHC per 4 destroyers, you get alot more light attack from the cruisers than you would with fully equipped destroyers, making them effective while your speedy destroyers will probably evade most of the enemy damage anyway. I would actually disagree that a light cruiser is a good idea in the front line since its more cost effective to have your destroyers being shot at (cruisers are good in combat but very expensive to replace, so you want them doing all the shooting and none of the dying). Combine this with torpedo destroyers and you've created a two type ship squadron which can counter any fleet without planes (planes unfortunately can't be effectively countered without carriers, ground fighters, or battleships). Battleships are also extremely useful against enemies who use lots of planes (and you for whatever reason can't) because with higher levels of AA they actually become very effective aircraft destroyers and are heavy enough that they will survive the attack, though admittedly you are still better off building carriers if you can. They are also weighted to always be attacked by enemy aircraft first (after carriers since they have fighters to protect themselves), meaning they will protect your entire fleet from the enemy bombers and invalidate any aircraft oriented strategies they had to defeat you, so long as they win the fight. Probably not worth building a whole new battleship for but any older battleship (which most nations have alot of) can be retrofitted very cheaply to only have AA and heavy guns (heavy attack is still useful, only light attack is mostly lost on battleships) and they will act as your fleets true fly swatters.

[@imtheknap6729]

As the USA. I tend to convert every single one of my battleships too converted carriers and have unbelievable amounts of air supremacy in the waters. Very time consuming but very worth it!!

[@mainman879]

How are you staying within the London naval treaty limit? A converted battleship carrier is over the limit without even having AA or secondary batteries, and just having deck size upgrades.

[@SCComega]

@@mainman879 I mean, saving up your political power to leave the treaty in question is a fairly viable option for the USA, and in single player the AI is unlikely to wardec on you. And even if they do, that just gives you a way to fast-track into war economy via focuses anyway and steamroll as the USA.

[@sadskins5447]

Bathtub was a term before you ever said it.

[@FeedbackIRL]

Source me

[@sadskins5447]

@@FeedbackIRL people started using the term bathtub after the glorious luftwaffen flying toilet meme

[@kutanalyadua]

Enough with the politically correct bullcrap

[@danielsonlisik534]

I just spam level 3 submarines with snorkel and always on engage, even if they dont destroy the whole enemy fleet at least they keep it occupied for weeks before I retreat.

[@RedShocktrooperRST]

Can Cruiser subs be used as a early attack sub? France, Germany and I think America can all get them

[@Jacmac1]

Apparently this strategy was nerfed. It seems that naval supremacy is solely dependent upon the amount of manpower on the ships deployed to a region. So the cost per sub is now not the best way to get manpower into the sea to project naval supremacy. Empty battlecruisers or other large ships are slightly more cost effective. So it has gone from the bathtub strategy to the water storage tank strategy. The effectiveness of the sub strategy was cut by 700+%, however, the battlecruiser strategy is only about 25% better than staying with the cheap subs.

[@20120330]

exceeding the level of naval invasion capacity can be taken as a exploit ?

[@Tommuli_Haudankaivaja]

Only way I have ever found heavier ships to be useful and fun was using research_on_icon_click to get the needed research to have a few useful ships when the war started. Mods like Ultimate Tech Tree : New Horizon, which allows for dumb 1956s light cruiser with 150 light attack make it also a little more fun.

[@iulianju7893]

would a 20% construction cost reduction for Battleships make the viable? I think Carlist Spain gets something like this

[@captaincapitalis1205]

I think construction cost could use a small decrease, but making them more effective at killing ships would truly make them relevant

[@12gark]

No, because it would make them unrealistic. What could help is to buff the damage to light ships. Like a single BB should be able to erase 4-5 CL with no problem, and even more DD. Buff the light attack of the secondary guns until you get that, and them buff the naval superioty factor by a factor 10 for BB and CV, and a factor 5 for battle cruiser, so that the bath tub is dead by number.

[@FeedbackIRL]

Sure if you get it in 1936

[@Hesseonavy]

When i play USA i will build subs until the Panay incident. By that time i will have a huge wolf pack. 13 with each group with 10 groups. I will then circle Japan and only defend until they dont have any convys left. Then i will move in with my main fleet while also switching my subs. I normally always attack convys first until they dont have any. Once they start starving for reinforcements on islands and materials for production, thats when i wipe their fleet out then move in for the kill.

[@haukionkannel]

Yeah... and that is boring as hell. That is why they try to rebalance things. But in reality sub were cost effective and quite deadly, until the sonar did make subs almost obsolete... little by little.

[@boungecz8596]

Naval supremacy is calculated in the number of ships in the area.

[@FeedbackIRL]

And the manpower used in each ship

[@lolipantsu8073]

Light Cruisers stacked with light attack and no armor are the absolute kings. You don't need armor when you have speed. Only need to research cruiser hull, medium guns and the airplane catapult. Even just 1 or 2 of them is enough to sink several escort ship plus the convoys. Once there's no more ships you can set them to convoy raiding and they instant win every fight. If you can get a stack of 50 of them, you can sink the entire IJN and Royal Navy fleets in frontal confrontation.

[@SCComega]

Honestly, armor 1 is a good deal for light cruisers as it invalidates early destroyer guns, which are rather common to come across.

[@panzershepsspehsreznap4448]

I always make one heavy as the pride of the fleet

[@panzershepsspehsreznap4448]

Which stands in the port

[@kaiduwinter5795]

Something I don't understand is since heavy cruisers and battleships are so incredibly expensive, why does it only allow you to put 5 dockyards on their production? Actually why have a dockyard limit to ships overall? This I don't understand.

[@mazzars1772]

They didn't used to have a limit on it but in the MTG update they introduced one, was to prevent putting like 50 factories on one battleship and having it finished in a week or something like that.

[@samhatts5601]

Even if it's not meta, I love playing someone like japan and saying oooh look at my cool super heavy battleship look how much heavy attack it has. It will be something ludicrous like 10k ic

[@fdfd4739]

how about cheap mine layers for another form of supremacy?

[@tubasil8786]

Pretty sure taureor came up with this strategy first

[@attanathos8408]

The funny thing about the heavy ships not being viable because of high cost and long repair time is, this makes them realistic. :D

[@haukionkannel]

No battle ships anymore in navies! But carriers should be much better than they are now in the game...

[@cameronwixcey9692]

Mining works very well at boosting naval supremacy. I did this as Poland to invade the UK. I only required 50 or 60 subs/subs.

[@roboparks]

All AA Heavy Cruiser The only Capitol Viable.

[@Kilgorio]

wow

[@tonysands1]

Don’t forget that you should avoid operating Subs on Shallow sea zones, massive penalties to Subs

[@logannicholson1850]

Personally I would like to see the better more expensive ships with better tech to have insane bonuses like having a single well rounded expensive heavy cruiser able to wipe out hordes of shitty cheep vessels, same goes for powerful ASW DDS able to slaughter submarines within seconds or light cruiser able to have insanely powerful AA able to actually defend against naval bombers

[@-JA-]

👏👍

[@12gark]

Number wise, the bath tub is still super effective, a bath tub submarine gives you 10× the naval superiority per IC of a super heavy battleship, but it's a bit of a waste. I like building destroyers instead: 1 light gun, basic engine, '36 Hull and 1 basic torpedo. It's half as effective as the bath tub (so still 5× better than capitals), but you can effectively use them to screen your capitals (that you capture/build/already have) and sink the enemy screens, and they are also incredibly useful to hunt enemy submarines out of the way once you bombed the enemy fleet into the oblivion with naval bomber, CAS or tac bombers. If you think you will struggle with air power, you can also add a single anti air gun to those ship and use them to kill so many planes it quickly become hilarious.. So yes, maybe a little less "meta/exploit" but way more useful than just waste all your naval production on combat ships that can't fight

[@tedarcher9120]

Just make Strike Force only count towards 10% of supremacy while in port

[@FeedbackIRL]

Not true

[@usf22raptr1]

@@FeedbackIRL I think he was suggesting that as a possible fix for the Supremacy issue, making it so non-deployed fleets on Strike Force orders don't contribute more than 10% of their value to Supremacy unless they are actively sailing/engaged... Forcing you to have fleets exposed and deployed to get full value of their Supremacy towards regional control. Love your videos, as always.

[@Ronald98]

I can't beleive that you haven't mentioned the carrier meta.. sure it needs a little bit more research to get naval bombers 2, but the results are amazing! get the 1936 variant and research CV NAV 2 and build 4 carriers... you won't be going to war till atleast 1940.. so if start building them in 1936 you would have a powerfull navy, and the real OP thing about them is their naval doctrine on the far right which makes your carriers invincible and gives them some serious bonuses.. i once tried it as Italy and didn't join the war until 1940 to finish my carriers, but when they were finished i absolutely dominated the british without building an airforce (i built only fighters to protect myself) and BOY was it a battle!

[@FeedbackIRL]

I tested and I didn't get good results. Same problem as battleships. Spend aged in port getting repaired and wasting tech on carrier planes

[@Ronald98]

@@FeedbackIRL?? Did you have all the naval doctrines on the right? and Operational Integrity air doctrine?? as Japan i can wipe out America with nothing but this strategy... never built any bombers only fighters.... also if you destroy the enemy fleet you won't get hit by them, thus your carriers don't need any repairs... you are going to have to re-test this my guy

[@SlawikFox]

Lets gooooo

[@medivhtheguardian9297]

Germany and Japan seems pretty outdated... Why they couldn't make big DLC where every major gets something from it(navy, air, tanks, army)?

[@MetoFulcurm]

Naval meta for me is to rush TAC III.

[@jeffreyhornblower6515]

If I'm not doing subs I just spam heavy and light cruisers

[@brandonsansom514]

Why don’t they make subs have no naval supremacy

[@SmashingCapital]

Wait how did you make 150 in 17 days wtf

[@Jazza4498]

He is demonstrating with console commands

[@rundownthriftstore]

Instant construction ftw!

[@thekommunistkrusader3921]

It's just a bathtub and a torpedo bay and an engine

[@danielbostrom1831]

If by leaving an impact on the community you mean pay others to find exploits for you that you later present in your own videos then I would agree.

[@PolishDane]

How is this an exploit? It's realistic. Invest all your navy for a week but efficient naval supremacy or a strong navy made of destroyers that will last

[@sezzo]

tl;dr: the ai is too bad to handle players using exploits... ?

[@Lucifer_26]

As the last comment in the chat said: Heavy Ships performed poor in real life as well. This can be seen with Axis fleets, where their massive floating fortresses were just airbombed and torpedoed to death. Funnily enough it is actually represented in the game very well, it's just that at the time the admirals of the axis forces were too conservative with the old strategy relying on bigger is better. The allied/western forces won, because in overall military strategy they were much more versatile and progressive, focussing on specialists and independent local tactics. That worked well against the generalist approach of the axis forces. This can still be seen nowadays in Ukraine, where Russia's generalist and pre-planned strategy gets bogged down and pushed back by specialist and independent Ukrainian tactics.

[@skorathereckless6449]

Versatile and progressive British didn't have enough escorts or any AWS because they where try to keep most capitals ships. Most nation had same thoughts carries thoughout the war it was only when plane'sand carrier hulls improved enough to make carrier strike effective. Germany was building Navy from complete scratch and latter thought carrier is worth investing in problem German Navy production and limited war material.

[@ghostarmy1106]

Stop mentioning the light attack heavy cruiser, *paradox killed it*

[@MrDoyle-ky4he]

What happened?

[@FeedbackIRL]

I never mentioned a heavy cruiser

[@learnnd3243]

im number 7

[@MetoFulcurm]

10:30 Torpedo ships actually very good? Wasn't the light attack heavy cruiser much better? And Destroyers can have torpedoes as well and they're very cheap. Is Torpedo Cruisers really that good? Torpedo doesn't even give HP.

[@jimmygeeraets9039]

Go and play and enjoy the game. I like your content. Of helps me beter understand the game. But at the same time you always talk about the best meta and spamming. Just enjoy the game. Maybe play of sometimes with other things that are harder.

[@obi0914]

I agree but this kind of content is to get views for his channel. Nobody going to watch a video on "play the game noramlly"

[@FeedbackIRL]

What this guy said ^ I make content people wanna see

[@SmashingCapital]

Not first