Battle Squadron Tactics

[RedLancer]

I was wondering whether anyone had any views on the best tactics for employing the heavies.

Is the WW1 tactic of four or more BBs in a Battle Squadron forming the basis of a TF and then linking TFs together to form a Fleet best?

or

Is the WW2 tactic of smaller groupings - e.g. a Force H (1 or 2 / 3 BB/BCs maybe with a CA and CV in support) more applicable?

I'm trying both at the moment with mixed results.

[pkpowers]

I have been mixing 4 BB's with 4 DD's, larger groups of BC's, and ASW groups of 6 DD's sweeping around. Also mixed groups of CA/CL/DD scouting around with non-agressive commanders... BUt so far the Japan subs seem to be all powerful.

[Drex]

I wonder if it were possible to have a way of choosing a tactical formation prior to a surface combat or is there only "in-line" formations.

[Terminus]

The TF boss chooses the formation based on circumstances and his various stats.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

I was wondering whether anyone had any views on the best tactics for employing the heavies.

Is the WW1 tactic of four or more BBs in a Battle Squadron forming the basis of a TF and then linking TFs together to form a Fleet best?

or

Is the WW2 tactic of smaller groupings - e.g. a Force H (1 or 2 / 3 BB/BCs maybe with a CA and CV in support) more applicable?

I'm trying both at the moment with mixed results.

In messing around with the "Jutland" scenario - the most important "tactic" for the Japanese seems to be to make sure Raizo is in charge !!!

I tried a controlled test the 8 best BB on both sides and the best 16 DD on both sides, 1 TF per side ... Raizo in charge once ... Nishimura the second ... Brits won against Nish .... Japanese stomped with Raizo ... sank QE out right and about double the damage over all ... one test isn't definitive .. but the difference wasn't all that surprising ... oh we were doing day battles ...

[Tankerace]

Yeah, the higher the leader stats, the better the victory. Get a badass leader on each side and it will be messy.

[KPatton]

To be historically accurate and to follow doctrine, TF composition should include ships of most major types. The controlling factor should be speed and range. Why tie down a newer high speed BC or BB with a slower older tub?

Now with regard to grouping by caliber of gun, that goes against decades of naval doctrine. Ship types evolved to meet threats. The BB was the updated ship of the line. These were threatened by Torpedo boats firing cheap inexpensive but effective torpedoes, to quote a wise old CPW when asked how best to sink a ship, "If you want to let in air use bombs, if you want to let in water, use a torpedo."

To counter this threat, the Torpedo Boat Destroyer was developed, yeah, the DD aka the Destroyer. They utilized rapid fire small caliber guns and searchlights to kill those pesky mosquito boats. Then they too were armed with torpedos, and to kill them, the CA and CLs were developed. Some of the cruisers were redundant. Likewise for the BBs they were in response to the Naval Arms race with each naval power keeping up with the Joneses afraid that the Jone's bigger guns would give them an edge by giving them a bigger ballistic envelop. If you look at it as a diagram of threat areas and gun range envelopes you will see what I am talking about. Each class ship was designed to cover a different threat area. The BB could cover the extreme ranges and the shorter envelopes covered by the others. Giving a layered defense in effect. The smaller ships were pushed out ahead of the others. Just like the animation in the game shows. This is something still in use today to protect the vunerable CVNs from air attack.

So my advice is include a percentage of each class, BB, BC, CA, CL and DDs other wise you might find those DDs coming in close and letting the water into your big slow BBs.

[Rysyonok]

ORIGINAL: KPatton
So my advice is include a percentage of each class, BB, BC, CA, CL and DDs other wise you might find those DDs coming in close and letting the water into your big slow BBs.

Funny you should mention it... this doesn't always happen. DD raider packs are scary, but rarely effective.

It seems like the winner is a 4BB 6 DD group from the start, modified later on to always have 1-2BB more than the typical TF of your opponent. Sometimes that means 2BB 6DD groups. Sometimes that ends up meaning 6BB 2 DD ones. If you're blessed with TT-equipped modern CLs (Kumas / Nagaras / Omahas), replace DDs with those.

[Anthropoid]

So does this mean that the game does not actually simulate historical doctrine in this regard? I have not played it a great deal yet, but my very superficial observation is that both KPatton and Rysyonok are correct.

The model KPatton explains sounds emminently logical and I have no doubt it is accurate as far as real history. But maybe the game engine does not actually make things work this way?

I've noticed that an effective task force is one in which the ships have similar maximum gun sizes / armaments types, and which can achieve comparable max speeds.

Also, I've noticed that BBs or other "heavies" (are BCs bigger than BBs?) set to patrol a hex with react to Zero are mighty defenders (reflecting Rysonok's comment about DD raiders not being so scary after all, at least in game terms), seemingly irrespective of what is attacking them.

My only observation of DD raiders being effective was a night-time raid on Wake where there were mostly AKs and TKs present and only about 2 or 3 defending DDs. I sank about 5 of 8 ships (including the two DDs) with about 25 DDs. Using waves of slow daytime BBs (Oregon and that other ancient BB), fast night-time waves (CAs, CLs) with similar max speeds, very fast night raiders (25 DDs), and one stack of heavies on day time patrol attack (BBs, BCs, CAs with similarly long gun range and speed) I sank about 20 Japanese ships in the span of two or three days of battle, mostly support ships but a few CLs, and DDs mixed in. It was all fun and games until the Japanese TF with BCs, BBs, etc., showed up, and started picking off my wave groups. I lost four DDs and four CA/CLs in one day, and had both the old BBs heavily damaged.

[Pkunzipper]

DDs are scary during night time, but I found them (as Jutland battle shown) near useless during the day (well, they take some of 14" hits instead of your BBs!)

[Rysyonok]

Please do take everything I say with a grain of salt, as I am still learning this game as it appears - just when I believe I mastered one doctrine, my opponent wipes the bottom of the ocean with my ships.

I am finding that reaction ranges are somewhat irrelevant.

I am finding that it's all about details. Making sure your forces are set not to retire when you want them to stand ground - it's incredibly sad when your ships pull back having expended 5% of their ammo when they could keep on killing. Making sure your troops are fueled - the last thing you want to see on the front lines is self-refueling TFs (BBs feeding DDs) - their speeds halve on the spot.

I am finding that BCs are a two-edged blade; they can slice through anything they encounter but they fold on the spot against dreadnoughts.

I am finding that 4BB 4DD is a good combo for USN.

I am finding that a good TF is one that has 1-2 identical ones following it.

I am finding it's all about the ending hex during the night/day movement phases - so learn the ships, learn their speeds, monitor their movements. If you see a Japanese CA can you guesstimate its damage, it's speed, where is it going to pause?

Oh and don't double-stack subs. Pointless.

[Anthropoid]

I am finding that reaction ranges are somewhat irrelevant.

I have the impression that this is mostly relevant to whether a TF that is on patrol, following, escourting, or otherwise not moving to a specific DH, and set to be aggressive will move off to attack something that is spotted at the beginning of the turn? Say for example, you have a TF set to Patrol Guam, and an enemy TF is spotted moving south of Guam by 3 hexes. If you have reaction set to three, it'll move out and attack if it is set to surface combat, and all the various checks are made (morale, leader aggress, etc.). Right? I've found that when I am raiding with several TFs going in waves setting the reaction range seems to help each one know what to do.

I am finding that it's all about details. Making sure your forces are set not to retire when you want them to stand ground - it's incredibly sad when your ships pull back having expended 5% of their ammo when they could keep on killing. Making sure your troops are fueled - the last thing you want to see on the front lines is self-refueling TFs (BBs feeding DDs) - their speeds halve on the spot.

Amazing detailed game isn't it.

I am finding that 4BB 4DD is a good combo for USN.

I am finding that a good TF is one that has 1-2 identical ones following it.

Really. I'll have to try that.

I am finding it's all about the ending hex during the night/day movement phases - so learn the ships, learn their speeds, monitor their movements. If you see a Japanese CA can you guesstimate its damage, it's speed, where is it going to pause?

I think you are absolutely correct.

Oh and don't double-stack subs. Pointless.

Are you sure about this point? I had the understanding that they work better as single boat TFs, but does that necessarily mean that anything more than one sub in a hex is "overkill?" I've noticed (and maybe this is just anecdotal, and not accurate) that when I have 2 or 3 one-ship sub TFs in a hex they tend to have more encounters, fire more torpedoes, and sink more ships. Though most of the time I set them to patrol spead out in single-boat per hex lines. Just when I spot a vulnerable target, the converge!

[engineer]

I'm another learner, but so far:

• Bombardment/Surface Action Group:  8-10 ships, 50/50 BB & DD
• Raider Group:  8-10 ships, 50/50 Cruiser & DD  Deploy against enemy sea lines of communication (SLOC) and take out supply and troop convoys. 
• Carrier Group:  Nearly useless in early scenarios (keep them out of harm's way) unless you're playing with fog of war and need the aerial recon.
• Waves of TF:  Strongly recommended.  The only decisive surface action I've seen in the Jutland scenario was three UK Surface Action Groups that ambushed the Japanese Kongo's heading in for a bombardment mission on Hong Kong.  Agincourt got 25% damage, Conqueror 9%, and all four escorting dd's in the initial task force were sunk or wrecked.  But then the Jap's were helpless before the follow-on groups and lost all of there ships with no significant additional damage to the RN.  A group of TF's amount to fleet, I just don't understand how you can harness them together, except perhaps that's the point given the various historical miscues that we can see from WW1 and the Russo-Japanese War where squadrons went the wrong way.
• Escort Bombardment:  Turn this off unless you have good intelligence on what's in the target hex.  DD's are thin skinned and if you run up against a lot of CD or field artillery you may end up losing destroyers to shells that bounce off your BB's.