BREAKTHROUGH! The NEW Bathtub META!
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 05. 2024
- Support me on PATREON / feedbackgaming
Sub to my MAIN CZcams: @FeedBackGaming
Sub to my FEEDBACKIRL on CZcams: @FeedbackIRL
Sub to MEMES channel: @Feedback Memes
DISCORD talk with me / discord
Follow on TWITTER: / feedbackgaming
Follow for TWITCH livestreams: / feedbackgaming
Business email: davefeedbackgaming@gmail.com
00:00 - What is Bathtub Meta?
01:16 - They nerfed it, BUT!
02:54 - What's the best ship for naval supremacy?
03:08 - How did the ships perform?
05:51 - What's the most cost effective ship?
06:55 - The WINNER! (or is it?)
07:55 - But there's a few problems.
10:01 - The ACTUAL Winner!
11:57 - But this is the best way to do it!
Produced by Duck Taped Studios:
- Twitter - / markoni1100
- Business Email - themarkoni1199@gmail.com
Edited by BlitztendoStan:
- Twitter - / blitztendostan
Thumbnail by Feedbackgaming!
#hoi4 #heartsofiron4 #hoi4guide - Hry
I like how hoi4 players use the term "d-day" to describe any naval invasion in western Europe
Technically any major operation launching is a d-day to be fair.
I call all invasions of Russia Barbarossa
Here's what Microsoft Edge says in it's dictionary, pulled from Oxford languages: "the day on which an important operation is to begin or a change to take effect." So technically, any large/important operation is a "d-day", including naval invasions.
And any invasion of russia "barb"
i did the math on how much ic is needer per heavy attack on the battlecruiser 2 and its like 480ic per heavy attack. but if u put 3 main batteries and max armor and engine the cost of the ship is gonna be something like 10 500- 11 000 and its gonna have around 75 heavy attack so it works out to 145 ic per heavy attack so its much more cost effective in actual combat. but if ur looking to use the ships for nothing but naval invasions feedback is correct
He’s not going for peak for Manpower or combat potential. He’s going for a middle ground where he can project power and still retain enough combat potential to be able to do something.
the devs are slowly figuring out how to make the meta a well rounded ship composition.
now to wait until they also add some firepower-based superiority
I said heck with it and did a carrier build with Germany. It really didn't even take much and I had 8 carrier 2s built by late 1939. It was kind of fun doing a completely different Germany than I normally would do.
Good lad. It's fun to try new things
I feel at this point the best design is a well rounded fleet with screens, heavies and a few carriers. Only took Paradox a few years of patches to get there.
Yeah that's what I thought, why not throw in some carriers for good damage?
Oh god, I'm starting to spreadsheet it out, HELP
I only play Paradox games with cheats ...Glorious Polish Master Race never loose ... GPMR will raise again ;P
@@huzarion3814 not even going to judge you for that.
"So this battlecruiser can actually pierce itself."
Isn't that one definitions of battlecruiser?
Absolutely. Their name even comes from this capability of the Battlecruisers, have the armaments of a battleship while having the speed and armor of a cruiser. The idea gets scrapped after WW2 totally by anyone with naval experience since big guns are outclassed by tiny (ofc by comparison) planes in every possible way. Best designed Battle cruiser to this day is USS Alaska and it's regarded not as a battleship but as a "Large Cruiser" because in "Murica" everything is Larger.
@@gildedphoenix The battlecruiser was already on the way out by the beginning of World War 2. By this point the "fast battleships" were able to do the same effective speed as a battlecruiser while carrying a workable amount of armour. The Iowa Class battleships for example were not only more heavily armed and armoured than say the Admiral Class battlecruisers, but they were also a knot faster.
The battlecruiser really only made sense in the short window between 1904 and 1924 when engine technology couldn't push a 50,000t ship out to speeds of 32 knots. By the mid-1920's this was very much possible. That and the various naval treaties meant that if you're limited to a certain tonnage of ships you're not going to invest precious tons into a battlecruiser that could get taken out in a gun battle with a heavy cruiser.
@@jpc347 while yes, they've started to become obsolete by the WW2 era, they were still experimented on and post WW2 they were deemed failure since CVs were outclassing even big boy battleships.
@@gildedphoenix Only one country built a ship in the 1940's that could even remotely be considered a battlecruiser. That was the Alaska class of the Americans and, arguably, it wasn't even a battlecruiser. By that point you couldn't consider 12" guns battleship armament seeing as most battleships were sporting between 15" and 18" guns and had armour to deal with such rounds. The Alaska's were very much a part of the heavy cruiser lineage.
As to carriers outclassing battleships and battlecruisers, yes but no. Such heavy warships are still formidable opponents. Battleships in particular in the Pacific theatre were extremely valuable for tasks such as shore bombardment for example. A single 16" HC shell carried the same explosive mass as a 500lb bomb, which is delivered in a nine round salvo at a rate of two rounds per minute. It would take an Iowa Class 15 minutes to deliver the same explosive mass on target as an entire carrier's dive bomber compliment. That and their heavy anti-aircraft armament combined with that of an escorting task force meant that they were big threats until the end of the war.
The only reason why the carrier won out in the end was that they could offer a level of power projection for a lower cost than a battleship. The armour and big guns on a battleship make them expensive to build and maintain while carriers often can be built for a lower cost.
Don't forget many nations have coastal defense Naval designers, which give a whopping 25% production cost bonus for ships at the cost of them having horrible stat penalties on heavy attack, range, armor, etc. Using one would make pumping out cheap capital ships much easier and the rubbish stata won't matter if you're just using them for naval invasions.
There's a trick too where you after building whatever ships you want cheap, change the designer and then refit all the ships with a different module like an AA gun and it will then replace the old effects with the new designer. Refitting ships either way is also worth doing once you build the garbage minimum equipped battlecruisers. It doesn't take long to add a heavy gun or two plus AA and a fire control mechanism via refit which for a small time investment doubles or more the combat ability of the ship.
You don't even have to put a new module on for that 'trick.' Just changing the name of the ship while selecting to save as new model is enough to have it under the new designer.
I have definitely done this many times
I actually want feedback to do a video on Naval guide, like I still can't figure out how to be cost effective on ships, which stats I should be aware of and how many soft/hard attack is considered "good". Please do a naval guide man, thank you!
71 Cloak did a guide on how heavy cruisers (with a reasonable supporting navy like screening ships and a couple battlecruisers/battleships you might start the game with) are just the absolute best, both in terms of effectiveness per IC, even after giving the navy they fight against extra IC. They also completely subvert the rock-paper-scissors that's supposed to be going on between armored CL, unarmored CL, and destroyers, just by being that much better. Not necessarily to the point of excluding screens from your navy, but that all the work is gonna get done by CA.
For an optimal naval combat efficiency is like the @Peter LeRoy Barnes said is calculated bt 71Cloak that is Heavy Cruiser based for the reason that they have the best of both worlds on protection and firepower while being cheap option. But this has many caveats as CAs alone can't fight that effectively, the need screen ships.
But my advise for actual navy building is really, really depends on the nation that's building it.
Germany for the better half of the game doesn't need CVs so focusing on CAs and DDs will work well. And they will later allow themselves as CVs screeners so they can go for Cross-Atlantic Naval support. But not until you dealt with Brits or Soviets (or both) first. Which is why busy yourself with CVs in the late game stage. (Also at that point your industry should be well off enough to allow CV plane build-up)
Japan needs CVs more and as a nation due to Pacific front is too large for air support for naval combats. So CV backed CA navy is the way for them.
UK and USA has to focus on Convoy escorts more than ship-to-ship navies, as they are well of by 1936 starting date and most they need is refitting and ASW focus on their destroyers (also building CAs as again they are the best performing class).
Note that these are not multi-player applicable as MP games can vary. And Feedback does focus on SP, my advise is more on that.
@@PeterBarnes2 I think though Paradox nerfed the "Light Attack Heavy Cruiser" meta. You used to be able to give your heavy cruiser a heavy cruiser battery in it's main armament slot, and that would categorize the ship as a capital ship, and it'd be in the backline of your naval engagement and receive the protection of your screening vessels. But, then you could fill up all the rest of the armament slots with light cruiser batteries, giving the ship massive light attack and just obliterating opposing navies screening vessels and much more quickly opening up their capital ships; all of that for the comparatively much cheaper cost of the heavy cruiser.
Now though, once you put a heavy battery into your main slot, the ship designer won't let you put any light batteries in the remaining slots, you can only add additional heavy batteries. Now, you could still get a small amount of light attack on it via the secondary batteries you can add, but they're much less light attack than the light cruiser batteries, and also I think there are just less slots for it, so much less light attack than before.
To be fair, it may still work with just the secondary batteries, I haven't done any testing on it. But Paradox's goal was to remove that strategy, so it may be safe to say the effectiveness has gone down at the very least.
@@JkCaron1 71cloak's video on the new CA meta was after the nerf to CAs.
What you do is have 3 of the Heavy Cruiser Battery I, and don't upgrade them. Upgrading the batteries will reduce your speed, and cost an amount more. Along with using 3 of those batteries and not 4, you get a CA in under 6k IC. This will beat out equivalent BC spam just because you get a somewhat similar number of heavy batteries for less than half the cost. BBs obviously would cost even more than BCs.
I highly recommend watching their video, as it's interesting how much work he put in trying to find a strategy that beats these CAs.
Another general idea 71cloak points out is that you want to think of the screens fighting the screens, and the capitals fighting the capitals, because that's what generally happens. I guess it's more a general idea for how to design your ships.
In 71cloak's video on the Royal Navy Challenge, where you try to defeat the starting british fleet in as little IC as possible, he mostly just used CV spam, with some BCs and other stuff. CVs do stuff, now, so like Coşkun said, also use CVs, as they're very meta.
250 heavy attack provides maximum shore bombardment. Same with 500 light attack. Fighting other ships with ships is lame but laying down 41cm cannons on the coast is fun.
The refitting mechanic works well w/ Japan. All of it's older ships can be upgraded immensely using the pacific designer to break the London Treaty rules, as well as using the refitting bonus from the naval command tab. I started refitting in 1936 all my ships were way beyond ready to go up against the allied fleet.
I think I read on the naval battle window that the overstacking penalty for planes is now based on the number of carrier based planes in the battle, not the number of carriers, but I wouldn't quote me on that.
i feel like this is a great move to change game mechanics to reflect reality. carriers are used today mainly as a mean of power projection and i think making them the most efficient at it is great. but screening these carriers can be costly.
I good solution in general is to just work with your starting tech. Look at cheap ship designs you can make that can function outside of providing power projection. And from there choose the one with the best ratio. Early research can always be spent better elsewhere.
These videos are so helpful , you truly are teaching us to fish
I have a little surprise for you. Recently I designed a tank division with 1 Medium tank with large breakthrough and armor( armor is important), 1 medium tank destroyer with lowest armor and breakthrough, 5 motorized, surprise here 3 armor car. This tank division can deal with anything that has thrown at it. ( Trick: Look at the hardness increase with adding armor cars). If you go to German blitzkreig doctrines you see organization increases for armor cars.
I don't understand why PDX doesn't tie naval supremacy to the actual furepower of a fleet?
Historically speaking, naval supremacy was basically a measure of how much firepower a fleet was capable of at its maximum range. This is why there was such a race towards larger and larger guns over time. So basically more Heavy Attack = more naval supremacy.
The same could be done for carriers by giving them a large naval supremacy score per plane on board the carrier.
Your idea is good and seem easy to implemante but Pdx are not abble, or do not want to take the time for transforming the system to someting that have actual sense. Spamming sub for Sea Lion was a major exploit since the game release, and yet they take all this years just to change the formula just to break this thing. Until the next exploit... Navy DLC already came out. Navy is still broken but meeeh, players have contents. No deep change will be made until a lot of time.
The last German campaign, I made it across the channel with air superiority and a well rounded fleet with pretty much everything other than Carriers. I held back on Carriers until after I dealt with England. I was playing iron man and medium difficulty.
Armor as a break point is an equally valuable metric for ship value, if your goal to fight not just project. The default cruiser armor of 8 is enough to stop Light weapons until late game tech. Same w/Battleship armor, so long as you have a navy designer that can push the 31 to 34 w/+10(15)% (doctrine modifier of +10% doesn't seem to work). 3/36 heavy batteries is enough. Dual-purpose secondary batteries are OP, so if you don't start w/them, go 36 Carriers/Battleships into 39/40 Light Cruisers (16/20 into 40+ dockyards is enough imo) and you can get a decent navy to push back against early game fleets over time w/air support. For anything else, pump out specialized non-combat destroyers or low vis subs.
Unless they did a radical change to carriers recently the overstack penalty for carriers should be over 4. They could have reduced this in one of the new patches or the beta patch but I have not looked through the defines on the beta patch.
Feels like Carrier II is meta for Japan. As Japan beelines for Zero focus to get ahead of time planes and those planes are specifically carrier models. Japan also have national spirits for increased sortie efficiency to allow it overstacking more carriers.
Yes, they're fighters, not naval bombers. But when you already have thousands of them ready, you can
1)convert a few to have torpedo mounting if you own BBA and have some miniscule default naval attack if you don't;
2)have full air superiority wherever your fleet is all over Pacific.
Not as important anymore the ic from superbattlwshops way bettr
@@jaxonpecora4271
1)if you plan to fight in single ocean tile and don't spread your forces;
2)if you don't plan to repair or refit it ever.
Superheavies make sense for conserving manpower and fuel and keeping invested production costs afloat, but they can't become common enough site and need a filler ship to support them
I've seen AI Japan completely destroy AI USA's navy several times now since BBA so there's definetely something meta about Japan just built in now
no wonder turkey fares well with themselves in agean and black sea they start with a battlecruiser already in the fleet
just like the olden days, back to big boats with big guns
is there a way the test bathtub vs. killing the enemy? i think land bombers and a smaller quality fleet may be cheaper than producing a lot of trash ships that will just die.
but which naval doctrine is better for this strategy: Fleet in Being or Base Strike???
Panzerschiffs are honestly goated. It's amazing playing the USA and Germany actually accepting a license for me lol
Cheap heavy attack. Can't lie
@@FeedbackIRL RRRAAANNNNGGGGEEEEEEEEEE
I have done bathtub carrier 2s my results? fantastic, even with a single flight deck, a swarm of these trash tier carriers are great, I stocked mine with nothing but naval bombers and gave air superiority via land based planes, it was a slaughter. It actually worked so well I would like to see a breakdown of how effective carrier based planes are, because they feel several times more effective then land based ones, at least 4 times. The biggest downside isn't the cost of the carriers, they are cheap for what you get, no the biggest downside is how much tech you need for carriers and how much steel.
My strategy is to still use 1940's Subs, to convoy raid and to draw their fleets out, and then naval bombers to do the actual damage.
So I don't gain naval supremacy, per se - I decrease their naval supremacy.
Combined with port strikes, this still seems like the cheapest and fastest option to allow your invasions to go off.
my port strikes don't even strike the ports anymore, they just sit there
If you produce so many heavy ships do you have to also produce enough screening ships to protect them? If so, would you then have to take into account that a number of naval dockyards would thus be required to produce the screening ships, limiting the number of battlecrusiers that you could produce?
im wondering the same thing.
You only need screens if you want to fight with those ships. This is cheesy-meta thing when these ships will NEVER fight and just stay in port with strike force and give naval dominance. If you want to sink enemy navy bulid 4 carriers with as much deckspace as you can and nothing else, then bulid CA and destroyers, 4x the amount of CA you have
Around 15 is a enough
@@FeedbackIRL if you mean CA then yeah for sure, 15 of them is completely enough but i like to get 20 as germany to finnish plan Z wihout stealing navies, its quite fun
@@kubapatek3758 what is CA ?
The issue with carrier naval bombers not doing anything is a known bug. For some reason they're only delivering a naval bombardment of 1 across the board, whether tier 4 or tier 1 naval bombers, no matter how much air superiority, whether the enemy's navy has AA or not.
Naval Battles in recent patches are much less decisive than before. Gone are the days of sinking half a fleet in one battle, you're lucky to get more than a few destroyers no matter what your fleet is in my experience
8:24 more than*
When I do my naval invasions I don't go through the English Channel. I instead land in the centre of the island at/around hull, coming from the north of Germany through the Eastern North Sea and the North Sea. There's a few reasons for this, the first being that the Royal Navy is rarely in those two sea zones by the time I'm ready for a Sealion in 1939/40, so its easier to achieve the required naval supremacy, and my convoys are safe and able to provide my troops with supply. The second reason is that Hull and the provinces around it are normally lightly defended, so it is easy to land and secure a foothold. The third reason is that the infrastructure around Hull is quite good at level 4, there is a level 10 airbase just above Leeds (2k planes), and 2 supply hubs: 1 in Hull itself and another in Sheffield that you can easily take if you're quick enough. The only downside is that you have to cover the two sea zones instead of just one.
As for the ships I build to make it all happen, I just make subs and some cheap destroyers, always seems to work out fine.
Does hangar space on carriers add manpower? I don't see how operating more planes wouldn't necessitate manpower. Maybe it does but it doesn't affect naval projection because the planes exist in the air or something. I'm someone who usually takes the old battleship or two from defeated enemies and turn them into cheap carriers with 2 hangars.
My problem is never the actual fighting in the UK - because the UK has terrible divisions and often dumps most of its units across the Empire, but actually getting the invasions to go off. Playing as the Portuguese Empire or Spain is always a nightmare because fighting the UKs units is easy, but actually reaching the island itself is a nightmare.
You just haven't gotten to play non Historical much have you?
So there are now options with trade offs, pretty successfull rebalence all things concidered.
So I guess they haven't fixed the bug with carriers yet. The problem has been that unless they are set on naval bombing they won't do anything.
They did, it's just a Dave skill issue.
@@AlneCraft common Dave skissue
Fixed months ago
I'll use the first two years to prepare the screens for them
Is trade interdiction still the best Naval doctrine because of how low visibility reduces hit chance, or has that been changed?
Relatedly, what are the best naval spirits to get? I’m not sure if you’ve done one, or if it’s still up-to-date.
Why don’t they do production cost of every ship in a fleet added together divided by the amount of ships
The 1936 Battleship Deck Coversion is actually better at supremacy cheese than the Carrier II. You can swap out the Heavy Ship engine for the Carrier Engine for a massive reduction in IC. It's also a better carrier for the same cost, as it has more HP in exchange for needing more steel
Idk how much it helps but I enjoy using mine laying subs to fill the area to help with naval supremacy.
You forgot to add in the cost of the planes for the carriers
Instead of having the carriers fight in naval battles, just put the planes on naval strike in the zone after your naval invasion launches
Or put the naval bombers in coastal airports in bigger airwings and do the same
You lose a lot of planes that way
Naval bombers deal 5 times more damage when they engage with a carrier
If you put them on an airport they only deal 1x damage
Also Naval bombers don't really get shot down when they're on a carrier (for some reason)
Man I just go full galactic empire as Britain and spam out mark 1 battleship hulls
dont u get naval projection when u assign planes to a naval zone?
The REAL "bathtub" meta is to get Torpedo 2, put T2 and Light Battery on a Cruiser (makes Light Cruiser), put Heavy Battery on Cruiser (makes Heavy Cruiser), then build 3 1936 Carriers with max Deck size (overstack penalty avoid) and fill them with Fighters and a small amount of Carrier Bombers.
The trick is to keep the ratio of Lights to Heavies about 3:1 and build lots of both. 80-100 Lights per 25-30 Heavies. (ALWAYS OUTNUMBER YOUR ENEMIES SCREENING SHIPS)
Not only is this comp a winner against AI until very Late game, but it is possible to finish building in late 1939 if you are Germany and build dockyards along with Civs.
This is a good spam comp for regional minors mid-game like Spain and Greece/Turkey. Soviet players can also use this to some effect but honestly its not worth it.
If you play a world conquest China game this could be a good auxillary fleet after you beat Japan and steal theirs.
If you play a nation that doesnt have many coastal states it could be really tough to start this fleet, like South Africa or the Baltics. Its also not really possible in the Balkans because of how poor the region is.
Bathtub spam will never come back and minors are suffering from being bullied by enemy navies. I really wish they would give us fine control over where our Convoys go without blocking sea zones entirely.
"My child will build a balanced navy to fight the British"
I’d like a non-cheese naval guide honestly. Yes I know how to squeeze the absolute most out of the absolute least ic and just spamming one super cost effective cruiser, but that’s boring. I want to know how to make effective diverse strike forces composing of carriers, capitals, a mix of anti-caps and anti-screen cruisers, and proper screening vessels. I also want to make proper convoy escort fleets with spotting cruisers and anti-sub destroyers, and a spotting fleet with defensible spotting cruisers. I try to do this but I don’t know if I’m doing it right each time, and I’d like a more conform guide on what works and what doesn’t. Yes, it takes a lot more brainpower, time, effort, ic, research and navy xp to do, but I don’t care! It’s intriguing and fun to explore this neglected part of my games and tinker and toy with all of the options. And when things click and you can actually do a proper naval germany game where you beat britain not through cheese but by meticulously crafting an equally powerful (although not necessarily an equally large) navy it’s satisfying as hell!
Good news, the current navy "meta" is actually very balanced. The most effective fleets are a mix of Battleships, Carriers and Light Cruisers atm
So basically, you want to play the naval game. Because you'll need cover for those capital ships anyway. Is it better to spam lots of cheap destroyers or fewaer light cruisers but that can take a punch?
Bro this ship will never fight a single battle, it will just sit in port on strike force and give naval superiority, you dont need screens for it. Also this ship will be sinked by anything becouse its just utter garbage, it just gives the most naval dominance
Think you missed the point of the video
Yes, but then why say it's better than the carrier because it's better in a fight? I'm a bit confused there.
what if they change navy by including a naval supremacy stat? it would work better ship = bigger number (with some modules reducing it for balance). in addition create a screen to capital ship ratio. This can be a universal stat (like 1 capital ship to 4 screens) or a stat on the capital ship (more light attack = less screens). the penalty to not satisfying the ratio is a reduction to naval supremacy. also I would say that if you have 0 capital ships, your screens take a penalty which can be eliminated in high command or by doctrines
NEW BATHTUB META!
(just this title broke me!)
I don't consider the old Bathtube as a "Meta", it is or was just Meme BS from CZcamsrs! Single Player, just built a propper Navy and Air Force and beat the enemy, for Multiplayer the same.
Something else works so not meta 🥴
Would you solve the carrier over stacking problem by just putting them into different groups and putting them into the same area?
yes and no. i like having one combat fleet that engages and a fleet with all the other carriers with naval bomers on portstrike+naval bombing
the carrierplanes will drive the enemy out of harbor the other fleet engages and recieves air support.
this method is situational
just use 5 carriers max, honestly its enough for normal games and in MP navy works completely differently and is modded.
No. If more then 4 joins a battle the penalty applies
3:20 So - unrealistic? Because famously Battle-cruisers were actually more expensive than Battleships?
Another bathtub?
You don't need carriers to have planes...c'mon, super gamey
Worked for Germany
More than 3 carriers takes a penalty for overstacking.
Its not 2, iirc. Always been 3(?)
Man I can’t keep up with naval metas anymore
But The Planes will give Air Superiority. Which you will need also for a Invasion. Japan Ai didn't figure this out that they only need to make the Carrier version of the Zero. Use it for land and CV. The AI doesn't make Planes . The Ai doesn't make guns. The Ai is only interested in Power Projection.
Also Stacking Carries in one Fleet is bad Idea Max of 2 in Each fleet. That's what the Define files says . 2/6 . 2 Carriers and 6 Capitol's . Any more you get a over staking plenty in that Fleet. The Days of Doom Stacking your one fleet are over.
I don't know when you tested the update before the last one . But they inCreased all Navy Combat Planes to 5 from 3 . The Issue is still Carrier planes don't Remember their orders. After docking you will have to reset the orders for CV Planes. So it is Best to always to put Carrier Fleets In Patrol mission (They stay out at sea longer making the Planes esp . CV Bombers OP) NOT Strike force, Since a Strike Force is always docked till the enemy fleet is spotted. Carriers are worthless in a Strike Force mission or Fleet.
wow
Wow
Would you not need to produce screens as well?
For this experiment no
You can refit your surviving BCs with 1940 technology and make real ships.
I'm confused why you can't use more than 4 carriers in game. Why give a stacking penalties for carriers but not battleships or cruisers or whatever? Especially since they've nerfed production of the capital ships so you are limited in how many you can build anyway. I agree there should be a penalty if you don't have enough screening ships for the number of capitals but just having 5 carriers shouldn't be a penalty considering I doubt the AI suffers from the same penalty given how many AI carriers I've seen in battles.
You can. You suffer a stacking penalty. I assume it's a balance fix
The carrier stacking penalty only affects CAS (which you shouldn't be using on carriers) and Naval Bombers
Every carrier over the limit of 4 will reduce the number of planes that can take off, but calculations are complex
Having 5 carriers is like having 4, but 4 is already more than enough for anything (just fill them with naval bombers, as CAS deals 3 times less damage and carrier fighters literally do nothing)
71Cloak made a video on this and you should check it out
It's the planes that give you the penalty not the ship itself. But if you get enough carriers, they overwhelm the penalty and I think it's worth it.
There's a video of people managing the air wings to where your fighters get the overstacking penalty but not your naval bombers. So you do OP damage.
tbh then superheavies are the better approach, as that can be converted into something good, where everything else....not so much
hi feedback
Can’t you just convert the US Heavy CA to carriers and now you have 20 carriers?
Quality carriers are better than quantity carriers since you get a massive overstacking penalty if you have more than 4-5 carriers.
Cheaper to build them brand new
I do find it better to just use a proper navy. If your trying to do a sealion you can just keep the British main fleet damaged, stuck in dockyards repairing. This way the main fleet won't contribute to naval supremacy and your somewhat lacking german navy can beat whatever the UK has left deployed
Game the mechanics with NAV spam or game the mechanics with cheap battlecruisers. I don't see the difference
Cheese
You counted the aircraft carriers wrong, you owe the cost of production and ship and planes
The shower
I have always just built like 1k naval bombers, and just sink the english navy in the channel. If they continue to sortie, they die, if they stop sending ships, then you have dominance anyway.
Am I the only one who hates how these mechanics work? A battleship with a single gun, spam this and win..... It just feels so counter to how these games SHOULD work
This shit is why I stick to singleplayer. The HOI4 meta is so duuuumb.
No 1 is forcing meta on you. Use this as inspiration for your games
@@FeedbackIRL agreed, this video really convinces me to consider building some carrier fleet for Germany, though not the bathtub one, but still
unpopular opinion: it is actually ok to NOT edit CZcams videos to create a 13 minute run-on sentence.
after vicky 3 this game is unplayable
Soooo paradox is still filling their games with insultingly bad mechanics? Shocking.
Please at least credit 71 cloak with this, he's the guy who did a lot of the math to find out what the best ship was like 2 days after the naval rebalance came.
We made 2 completely different videos. Even the result is different. Did you watch this?