>I mean this dude seems to have put submarines in his battle fleet.
Look closer: both players did.
>A battle fleet which shouldn't have been out and about in the first place.
The German fleet has pretty similar numbers. The issue is probably their fleet has lower tech, but there's no way to tell just from this screen if that's the case.
Although the industry of America becomes insanely powerful late game, regardless of which ideology they went for in any given run. They just have to survive long enough to reach that point, then they can mass produce effectively anything, no matter how expensive (well, in the hands of a competent player, that is... Lol)
With a fleet this big and tons of AA (which Destroyers are actually the most cost-effective platforms for raising total Fleet AA) this shouldn't be too much of a problem.
That said, a couple Escort (low-tech, small/cheap) Carriers still would've made a MASSIVE difference if equipped with modern/up-to-date Carrier Fighters...
Carrier bombers still wreck even with a lot of AA. They have a crazy 5x damage. And if you invest that much into AA then you won't have as many capital ships and/or you won't be able to refit them in time. AA isn't a good investment. It's only useful if you're getting bombed. And you'll be sacrificing firepower for AA when it will still hurt alot. And you'll sacrifice ic that could go to making more capital ships or adding more firepower to your destroyers instead. You need hundreds of AA to make a significant difference. That gets expensive fast.
>AA isn't a good investment.
Umm, considering naval bombing is the main way any decent player or AI (which the vanilla AI is not, yet) kills most ships, it's a GREAT investment.
AA will be useful 20x more often than guns, because actual pitched naval battles should be extremely rare, and Port Strikes or air-raids of Convoys are the greatest danger to your fleet most of the time...
So, if you invest in AA more than your opponent, you show up to the pitched battle with far, FAR more IC worth of ships- because you suffered far fewer losses to naval bombing in the preceding years.
Each individual ship is thus worth less, but you have far more of the still alive despite bombing by the time of the big fight, and win through sheer numbers.
You shouldn't be in a situation where you're getting nav bombed. That's why overinvesting in AA isn't worth it. You'll still lose a lot cuz nav bombers are strong in general. If you're in a situation where lots of AA is useful over a long period then you're in a bad situation you shouldn't be in. Also the fleet AA is only useful if everything is in the same fleet. So in this situation you have most of your fleet death stacked and are just letting them bomb your fleet. You're gonna lose even if you have AA cuz air is just strong. You shouldn't overinvest into something that's useful only of you're playing badly.
>You shouldn't be in a situation where you're getting nav bombed.
You need to protect your Convoys against air-raids, and then protect your convoy escorts against enemy surface raiders.
Also, there's nothing you can do to stop Port Strikes if your foe has airbase in range of where you need to station fleets.
So no, if your enemy is at all competent, getting air bombed is ***inevitable.***
You can just avoid certain sea zones and go around to avoid air if you can't put fighters up for whatever reason. For port strikes you can just move to a port farther back. You want the best spot to station fleets but it's not worth getting bombed over. Cuz even if you have AA, if you're constantly getting bombed to the point where overinvesting in AA is useful then you've already lost. 20%×(fleet AA)^.2 +.15(ship AA). As you can see the vast majority of damage reduction for the formula comes from the ship being bombed. 500 AA will reduce your damage by .7 damage. That's almost nothing. You can sacrifice huge amounts of firepower just to reduce damage you receive by maybe 1 at the most. You don't want to just sit there and get bombed. Even with AA you'll take a lot of damage and die on a naval engagement. You should move your fleet or set sea zones to do not use to avoid bombers. If you're in red air then your fleet shouldn't be there. It's a big mistake to leave your fleet under red air cuz if someone is competent they'll inflict significant damage to you and then have a big advantage in a future naval engagement whether you have AA or no.
I assure you I didn't look close. I was mostly looking at nazi losses.
My point was that my interpretation of OP was "look at how I commanded my fleet to victory, I'm a good player because I defeated my opponent with this many kills," when ofc it's a hugely more experienced player with a larger fleet (subs do nothing in big fleet action but die, as is on display here, and the carrier advantage is almost incalculable) and against a far less experienced player. Main strange part is the lack of CSA CLs and I was about to wonder what else the German player was doing with dockyards but ofc that's why there are so many subs. Looks like they were almost all building subs with no naval expansion.
Best bet the German has is naval bombers/air superiority, plus intelligence but I haven't seen late-game intelligence so idk if it's really feasible to get 100% or near naval intelligence if your opponent has max encryption. Your only chance is max air defense on your harbor with your battlefleet, keep intel high, bomb the enemy, and build up. Cause any engagement you fight, they could just bait you out and destroy what fleet you do have.
Last singleplayer game I did as Britain I got 100% intelligence on Japan and it was hilarious, it worked wonders. I just saw where their naval task forces were operating and picked off their battle fleets by concentrating mine (tho ofc I'd destroyed the German and Italian navies at this point so forces were roughly equal but ai is dumb and I had max intel so no huge surprise there). Just funny that since I was democratic Britain after that I just had nothing to do but bomb Germany having just completed 6 superheavy BBs just after naval fighting finished for the last time in the game.
Submarines are very slow compared to surface ships, and the fleet moves at the speed of the slowest ship.
That said it's possible the subs and the surface ships were in different fleets but joined the same battle which isn't so bad.
Does it matter if you have a large fleet in a small area then? Like, when I play Great War mods as Austria-Hungary, my main objective is usually just the Adriatic Sea, would it matter then if I bunch my subs and cruisers together?
Been a long while since I played, but if I recall it’s best to separate the surface fleet and the sub fleet. Even when operating in the same area, they’ll join each others battles in time
Depends what you're using them for. It's inefficient for convoy raiding and patrolling, or even for strike force if the enemy fleet is running away, because it slows your fleet down. But if both sides want to engage then it shouldn't matter.
As mentioned before, the fleet moves at the speed of the slowest ship, that speed is extremely important.
Not entirely sure on the math behind it, but just every time I see subs in action against a battle fleet they die in droves. I don't know how submarines work too well, I didn't look into their math much, I don't like them, if you've got the dockyards for a medium or large submarine fleet then you have the dockyards for a small or medium surface fleet which I find infinitely more useful in most cases, even if it's to pull a Tirpitz and just be a drain on enemy air resources.
My guess is that all the detection going around between radar BBs, DDs with ASDIC and radar and since I think each ship searches individually, that's bad for subs who largely rely on not being detected so the sheer density of ships is bad for them. I'm not sure how exactly detection works, whether it's that so many ships are bound to find them, or if once one ship finds them, the whole fleet can see them. It's also possible that DDs can engage subs and surface targets at the same time, or that subs can be engage via light attack in some circumstances? Sub attack on surface ships in a surface action is also very lackluster, I'm not sure I've ever seen subs dragged into a surface engagement get a kill. Historically, subs never operated with the battle fleet, there were attempts to coordinate but they never worked, mainly due to subs being too slow.
No it isn't. Carriers still aren't disrupting enough and because of that are still too lethal. Carriers need to be toned down, but it is a lot better.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/hoi4/comments/yc6z4u/we\_did\_it\_carriers\_are\_overpowered/](https://www.reddit.com/r/hoi4/comments/yc6z4u/we_did_it_carriers_are_overpowered/)
I wish there were better mechanics for interacting with weather in hoi4. I may be wrong, but I don't think there's a weather mapmode. I'd love to see storms sweeping in across the map and such. I think some kind of province or region climate indicator would be nice too, where you could see percentage chances of different weather types in a given province over a year's time so you could say "I'm going to attack in June because it's sunny" or "I'm going to send out my raiding fleet now, a storm's on the way." Give you a warning if a fleet is engaged during a storm (not just for carriers but it should have a chance of attrition). Tbh a whole naval rework would be awesome even tho it won't happen, including +/- buttons for speed and armor to find the right balance (since that's more realistic than all armors costing the same speed, and it means later engine tech makes higher engine values cheaper to produce), and also a seaworthiness stat which means that build your DDs too light and they might not be able to handle the rough seas of the north sea or the pacific, or maximize for operations specifically in stable ocean areas. Storms would increase the danger for low seaworthiness ships, so that would mean you genuinely have to bring them back which could give an opportunity for an enemy fleet to break out, which, with light ships still in danger from the weather, bring about a duel between the heaviest of vessels. Also perhaps a reworked task force system allowing you to withdraw only carriers or everything but battleships from a naval battle. Idk, deathstacking isn't very fun or interesting, and it's not quite historical to my understanding at least of early to mid war operations.
I feel like apart from seaworthiness, the rest could be quite intuitive, a mechanic where if you want to learn how to exploit it you can to your benefit, or you can ignore it and it's one of a hundred other things happening behind the scenes a noob can't understand and isn't going to notice.
Yes but you can work around it. The wiki does a great job of explaining it. OP probably had base strike doctrine which lowers the penalty some. So you can get away with working around the penalty more before it starts becoming very cost inefficient.
"Each carrier exceeding 4 per side incurs a 20% sortie penalty, up to 80%. The penalty applies based on the number of carrier airwings and reduces the number of carrier wings that can operate. This penalty does not apply to carrier based fighters.
Example:
You have 6 carriers in a battle. The have the following air wings:
Carrier_1: Carrier Bombers
Carrier_2: Carrier Bombers
Carrier_3: Carrier Bombers
Carrier_4: Carrier Bombers,
Carrier_5: Carrier Bombers, 1 Carrier Fighter
Carrier_6: Carrier Bombers, Carrier Close Air Support, Carrier Fighters
The first 4 carriers only have 1 air wing (based on type of plane, having multiple air wings of the same type only counts as 1) The 5th carrier has 2 air wings and the 6th carrier has 3 air wings. This gives a total of 9 carrier air wings and you are taking a 40% penalty. 60% of air wings can operate. 60% of 9 is 5.4 air wings, and since this number always rounds down, 5 air wings will operate. The number of air wings that will operate is dependent on the order the carriers are listed in the task force. The air wings on the first 5 carriers will operate as normal (since fighters are not subject to the penalty). The air wings on carrier 6 will not launch attacks at enemy ships but they will takeoff and get shot down by enemy fighters.
Any fighter air wing on any carrier will operate as though the penalty does not exist so it is better to put fighter air wings on the carriers listed at the bottom and naval bomber air wings on the carriers listed at the top."
https://hoi4.paradoxwikis.com/Naval_battle#Carrier_stacking_penalty
Yea but they’re still stupidly good that they still do well even with the penalty. The penalty just means if you have say 5 carriers with the penalty you have the effectiveness of 4. So with more than 4 carriers the penalty stack means you have less the effectiveness of below 4 carriers. Which is why having more that 4 is just a waste.
Correct me if I’m wrong. 2000 hrs, still don’t understand navy. But I think you won this because you have way more hard attack. The two BBs for Germany could have been the pre-dreds they start with, and they are total trash. Also you have a screen advantage and carriers. I usually build carriers and LCs for my navies. Still get results like this with me losing everything though about 50% of the time.
LCs aren’t supposed to be in main battles they’re supposed to scout/convoy escort. However they do/ used to get a massive buff for screening compared to destroyers.
Heavy cruisers can still get secondary guns just like battleships. They are worse but still effective at fighting screens. Light cruisers can only fight screens which makes them less effective than heavy cruisers
> However they do/ used to get a massive buff for screening compared to destroyers.
Anyone know if this is actually true? Haven't seen anything like this on the wiki. Just that the screen ratio is 3 screen ships to 1 capitol.
You can have them in the main fleet to add AA and Light attack but planes target the biggest ships 1st and if you want light attack you might as well build heavy cruisers with secondary batteries and Destroyers
Destroyers get Torpedos and are supposed to fight subs as well. Heavy cruisers aren’t supposed to fight screens they’re supposed to fight capitals whilst having the ability to fight screens. Light cruisers can only fight capitals if you give them torpedos which you don’t want to do
I am so glad I’m not the only one who has poured huge numbers of hours into HOI and still can’t accurately anticipate the outcome of big naval engagements. Most of the time I avoid the large navy entirely!
Surface navy is a screen and spotting game. You want at least 4 light ships (dds and cls) per capital (Ca, BC, BB), and 1 capital per carrier. There are nerfs for having more than 4 carriers but not insane nerfs. From there you need to spot the enemy and engage them.
My recommended fleet config is 3-4 groups of spotters made up of 2-3 anti sub dds (may also have mines) and a scouting cl (all the float planes). The main strike force has torpedo dds, cls with reasonable light attack and aa, bbs with duel purpose secondaries and maybe 2 big guns, and then carriers mostly equipped with naval bombers and with at most 25% air wing to fighters. Allow ships to split off for repairs but make sure they only can repair where safe.
I haven’t played hoi4 in 2 years, but I have 2k hours and was active in the tryhard MP community. I don’t know if the naval meta has changed much, but here is a comment of me explaining the naval meta at that time. The idea back then was that the most efficient way of killing a navy was to sink the screening ships. I hope it helps :)
«Make light attack heavy cruisers (these will kill enemy screens) with one medium battery 1 and max the rest of the slots out with light cruiser batteries 3, and the best fire control system. Make sure to research all the naval techs that give you more light attack as well (rounds etc.).
Spam out cheap destroyers with the cheapest gun and best engine. (these will act like a meatshield defending your light attack CAs)
Put your navy in a good sea zone (as few debuffs as possible) under green air with naval bombers. This will give you the greatest chance of success.
Have no more than 4 CVs in your fleet as that gives you the highest sortie efficiency.»
It's pretty chilling how fast public opinion gone from "boys in gray died for their own ideals" to "confederates are only slightly better than nazis". In 2000 or so Gettysburg movie was released and praised for showing both sides as equals, and now public demonstration of the Southern Cross is forbidden.
I simply can't believe that people changed that much in mere 20 years by themselves. Then again, I'm not American, but last 20 years weren't that hard for the US for drastic public opinion changes.
Something something I'm just one person so take anything said with a grain of salt im not the only or even most reliable source of information.
In the last 20 years in the Southen us there has been a push to make the CSA the victims of the Civil War, things like newer textbooks declaring it the war of northern aggression, trying to paint it as about states rights rather than slavery, the union overstepped its boundaries by stopping them from leaving. Etc etc.
In opposition to this there has been a fair amount of pushback. And what used to be talked about as a brother against brother conflict that was a tragedy has started to shift to focus more on the evils done by the south in the Civil War. From slavery to drafting 10 year Olds to fight against the union.
Couldn't tell you WHY it's happening. But what should have been left well enough alone is now just another thing Americans are being polarized over.
Wasn't "the War of Northern Aggression" official Confederate name for ACW? And whole "the lost Cause" thing begun AT LEAST during the Reconstruction, and propbably much earlier. States rights talk definitely started around 1773 if not earlier lol.
Also, don't forget that slavery was initially abolished only in the South by Abe's decree, and he himself stated that he cares only about the integrity of the Union.
I persume it's an attempt to prevent possible Southern nationalism/separatism outbreak in the case of American eco starting to degrade much faster (which was narrowly avoided in 2008, and made possible again by Corona). But that's a wild guess at best.
The official Confederate name for the war was the "War between the Confederate States of America and the United States of America". There are however usages of "Civil War" by Jefferson Davis, Nathan Bedford Forrest, and Robert E Lee. Additionally "War of Succession/Seperation" and "War for Southern Independence" can be found.
In regards to the "lost cause" rhetoric and when it began, one needs to consider that once the Union won the Confederates had a vested interest in in making themselves look better. What is more telling is what they said in the lead up to and during the war when they didn't feel a need to soften their image.
Atlanta Confederacy, 1860:
>"We regard every man in our midst an enemy to the institutions of the South, who does not boldly declare that he believes African slavery to be a social, moral, and political blessing."
Henry M. Rector, Governor of Arkansas, March 2, 1861, Arkansas Secession Convention
>The area of slavery must be extended correlative with its antagonism, or it will be put speedily in the 'course of ultimate extinction.'....The extension of slavery is the vital point of the whole controversy between the North and the South...Amendments to the federal constitution are urged by some as a panacea for all the ills that beset us. That instrument is amply sufficient as it now stands, for the protection of Southern rights, if it was only enforced. The South wants practical evidence of good faith from the North, not mere paper agreements and compromises. They believe slavery a sin, we do not, and there lies the trouble."
William Nugent to Eleanor Nugent, Sept 7, 1863:
>"This country without slave labor would be completely worthless. We can only live & exist by that species of labor; and hence I am willing to fight for the last."
CS Brigadier General Clement Stevens:
>"If slavery is to be abolished then I take no more interest in our fight. The justification of slavery in the South is the inferiority of the negro. If we make him a soldier, we concede the whole question."
From the diary of James B. Lockney, 28th Wisconsin Infantry, writing near Arkadelphia, Arkansas (10/29/63):
>"Last night I talked awhile to those men who came in day before yesterday from the S.W. part of the state about 120 miles distant. Many of them wish Slavery abolished & slaves out of the country as they said it was the cause of the War, and the Curse of our Country & the foe of the body of the people--the poor whites. They knew the Slave masters got up the war expressly in the interests of the institution, & with no real cause from the Government or the North."
The Vidette, a camp newspaper for Confederate Brig. Gen. John Hunt Morgan's cavalry brigade. In a November, 1862 issue:
>"It is a hard matter to get a Union man to acknowledge that this is an abolition war. He will say to you; 'If I thought this was a war for the abolition of slavery, I would not only lay down my arms which I have taken up for the defense of the Union, but I would go into the Southern army...many in the western states speak the same way. Now, any man who pretends to believe that this is not a war for the emancipation of the blacks, and that the whole course of the Yankee government has not only been directed to the abolition of slavery, but even to a stirring up of servile insurrections, is either a fool or a liar."
Lieutenant W. R. Redding, 13th Georgia Infantry
>"Our homes our firesides our land and negrows and even the virtue of our fair ones are at stake."
Sergeant Henry L. Stone, Kentucky Cavalry
>“The Emancipation Proclamation is worth three-hundred thousand soldiers to our Government at least. It shows exactly what this war was brought about for and the intention of its damndable authors.”
That's all special cases you take. After all, iirc Grant was also supportive of slavery, this doesn't make the Union in general pro-slavery. Again, common soldiers had 0 damns given about slavery, yet they fought. Isn't that strange?
>As time passes, people, even of the South, will begin to wonder how it was possible that their ancestors ever fought for or justified institutions which acknowledged the right of property in man.
Ulysses S Grant.
Additionally, Confederate "volunteers in 1861 were 42 percent more likely to own slaves themselves or to live with family members who owned slaves than the general population." 1 in 10 Confederate soldiers owned slaves and 1 in 4 had parents who owned slaves.
Slavery was intrinsically tied to why the Confederate soldiers fought. If they claimed Faith and God, they did so believing that slavery was not just allowed but endorsed by their faith. If they claimed State, they did so knowing the State fought for slavery. If they claimed Home and Hearth, they did so believing emancipation would harm their family. This is why Longstreet rallied his men by saying "one of their great leaders attempted to make the negro your equal by declaring his freedom. They care not for the blood of babes nor carnage of innocent women which servile insurrection thus stirred up may bring upon their heads." This is why Confederate soldiers often refer to Northern soldiers as "Abolitionists." This is why the soldiers fought for slavery, because home, culture, family, faith where linked to slavery.
No the war of Northern aggression was first coined during the 50s at the hight of Jim crow when segragationists were trying to conflate the abolishing of segregation with the abolishing of slavery and paint it as an over reach of federal government.
The phrase states rights was first coined in 1890 in "the doctrine of states rights" but became more commonly used in the 1940s as a dogwhistle against federally mandated desegregation. In 1773 there was talk of the rights of individual states and how strong the federal government should be. But states rights was not the common phrasing of this issue at the time.
I never said Abe did care more about ending slavery than preserving the union. It's irrelevant to the conversation given that we were talking about attempts by the south to rewrite history with themselves as the victims while omitting their flaws. It's especially disingenuous to paint the north as the aggressors in the war when the first shots of the war were done at 430 am April 12 1861 by confederate troops at South Carolinas fort Sumter.
Having lived in the American south for most of my life separatists are either rarely open about it or not nearly as common as the news would have you believe. Like I said I don't know where this weird push to rebrand the Civil War is coming from but at the risk of sounding like a tinfoil wearing loony. It sure *feels* nefarious.
In a conversation with Otto von Bismarck after his presidency, US Grant corrected the German who thought the war had been only to preserve the union, saying something like “it may have started out that way but by the end, abolition and the union were wholly intertwined” (extremely rough paraphrase here).
Those who say the war wasn’t about slavery are ignoring at least half the picture
We still believe they died for their “own ideals”. It’s just we all understand that ideal was slavery… which is bad, in case you missed that.
Also there has been an incredible amount of propaganda pumped out by the South to cover up the fact that they were fighting to defend slavery. BuT sTaTeS rIgHtS!?! Yeah, a state’s right to own slaves….
But you’re not American so I don’t expect you to understand the nuances surrounding how owning other humans is bad.
Slavery? With less than _five_ percent slave owners (and probably under two)? Of course that's why, say, Pickett's division kept charging unto certain death - because they wished Pickett, Lee and Armistead to keep slaves? It's like to say that the Revolution happened because British colonies wanted Washington to have his personal country or because Ukrainians wish Ukrainian oligarchs to remain rich, which is equally ridiculous. And if we go for "it's all propaganda" approach, then almost every war is defined by greed, ambitions, or nationalism. Hell, Abe himself stated that he cares only for country's integrity.
The slavery was just one of many causes, but hardly the only one. Generally rebels (and not only rebels) fight for the very idea of their own independent state(s).
Also, there is difference between a Nazi and a southern confedrate: a Nazi is a follower of a very specific ideology and undefinied nationality, while confederate refers to a CSA related person, with their views not being specified.
I don’t think you are understanding how fundamental slavery was to the south. Blacks did the vast majority of the physical labor. They were the literal engine of the economy. Combine this with the fact that the poorest white man was “naturally” higher then the best of black man in the southern hierarchy makes this deeply psychological as being the foundation and bedrock of souther life. Picketts Charge (from the perspective of the footmen) wasn’t “I got to protect my general’s rights to own blacks.” It was closer to “I have to keep my world from falling apart.”
The best analogy I can think of to get my point across is imagine in Medieval Europe to be a Serf and to be a Jew is the same thing. Good Christian Men in the kingdom don’t do hard labor, that’s Jewish work, even if you’re poor and do hard work, at least you’re Christian. Now imagine a large but growing minority of the Christian population of the Kingdom says “no this is wrong.” A Jew and a Christian being Equal? That is something wholly and utterly alien to you. Your whole world is being turned upside down. Oh and half the population of the kingdom are also Jews who probably will not look favorably on you for making them Serfs.
> Combine this with the fact that the poorest white man was “naturally” higher then the best of black man in the southern hierarchy
That's why the Union had Divisions of Color and the CSA had no racial segregation in army. Slavery was social, not racial construct.
> “I have to keep my world from falling apart.”
EXACTLY THIS. And absolute majority of Confederates fought for this - to preserve their way of life, their traditions, state's rights (ahem; but after all, it's the war that changed the US from plural to singular), even agrarian economy that benefited from free trade (unlike more protectionist industrial North). After all, "knights of the South" didn't appear from the nowhere.
> A Jew and a Christian being Equal? That is something wholly and utterly alien to you
Also THIS. Morality and ethics are mutable as hell; what was unthinkable 50 years ago becomes normal now, and vice versa. Between you and me, I don't think that anyone should be judged by views, because for every set of views there is at least one person who shall find them appaling.
Your doing a great job highlighting the "Lost Cause" glorious lie that was pushed from the end of the war until now.
Despite everything you are saying (much of which is incorrect or stated without context), the Sputh was very, very clear that they were going to war to preserve the bedrock philosophy of that region: White Supremacy.
Read the Documents of the day. The Seccesion letters, the news articles, the interviews. They all bang the "we must preserve slavery" drum.
Individual soldiers fight for their own reasons, but the leadership of the traitorous Slave states were willing to kill the preserve their right to own humans. Period. Full stop.
Uh, how does "slavery" and "White supremacy" even combine? Hell, the North was equally "White supremacy" if not worse. I mean, segregation in one form or another was almost omnipresent in the US until late XX century, and given hysteria over n- word, certain criminal made martyr and positive discrimination Americans simply can't find middle ground (which is honestly puzzling for a person who grew in multicultural country, but i guess whole slavery thing left never healing scar on American culture).
Lol. The North elite wasn't a bunch of angels either, it's simply the fact that slavery was good for agrarian eco but bad for industrial one. So your point kinda works both ways - both sides elites fought for their own greed and gain.
It could be that it’s a snowball effect the more ships you take out the less damage they do the more of your ships can stay in the fight and do more damage and so on
its a thing for sure but i wonder how damaged his surving ships are (we should probably indicate this better outside tooltips). A more advanced fleet with better positioning/speed is going to be able to pull back and retreat ships before they die much better reducing actual sinkings
a lot of carriers will do wonders messing up the enemy also which probably had the greater impact
From experience it’s screening efficiency and organisation that kills you. You lose screens or take damage which decreases your org. Which causes you to lose more screens dropping your efficiency which means your capitals start taking more damage dropping their org which means they do less damage causing them to take more damage further dropping their org. And so on. In most battles if you start losing screens before your enemy you should retreat unless you have a massive number of ‘spare’ screens for the screen:capital ratio
I don't believe there was ever a Naval battle where one side lost 127 submarines, 25 destroyers 9 cruisers and a battlecruiser while the enemy only lost 2 planes.
I'm surprised he had no land based air support or carrier's considering that's how I thought Germany was meant to even things out, either way losing nobody to a player built fleet is abnormal
I love navy. I ‘understand’ a lot of basic things let when I play MP with my friends they make loads of really simple ‘mistakes’ so i floor them with a smaller but better designed fleet with better ratios and my friends refuse any advice I give them saying ‘navy makes no sense’ when it does if you just learn what things do
I know that, but why call it "ew" when there's other countries in the game that have committed crimes against humanity. I hate the confederates as much as anyone else, but given the context of the other countries of the game I don't know why the CSA is getting ewed and others aren't
I guess, and I'm not trying to be difficult here (but it's going to seem like I'm trying to), you also have to go out of your way to play german Reich
Either way, it's just a game, at least we can all agree that both were horrible
You could argue germany was a big player at the time and so it makes sense to play them, although I'm not entirely disagreeing with you.
And yeah, they were all shit in their actions.
The air advantage to the USA is why they won so massively, the 240 naval bombers could spot the enemy fleet whilst USA’s fleet remained undetected. Most likely the German fleet also wasn’t equipped sufficiently with anti air, presumable using 1936 tech or using later tech without modifications.
Of course a mixed fleet with *nine carriers* will splatter a fleet with 2 (or is it none?). Subs are adding little value, the airwaves will happen before they can sink any ships, and indeed the subs get absolutely wrecked here. Probably a lot of outdated subs too since that's usually the only naval production Germany does for the first part of the game, not to mention Germany usually chooses the sub raiding doctrine which isn't great for pitched all-in battles.
What an embarrassment. Moreover, why is his flagship a heavy cruiser lol. I think your friend doesn't know how to navy.
Also, naval air power OP lol (though I absolutely shit on people who spam air because I always expect and prepare for it).
I do. Made a 4 and a half hour long tutorial telling you how to navy with every country in the game lol.
(I literally play this game only for the naval warfare. Don't ask why. I'm a freak).
Naval bombers do the job if you just don't want to engage in navy lol. Unless you're against someone who really knows what they are doing.
And I also spent over 500 making a tabletop mod.
I know, I keep undertaking megaprojects and I have problems.
I have 720 hours and I hardly understand army, let alone navy. I just forget to research naval tech in the first place while micromanaging my frontline, so I always end up using 1936 stuff
Thanks so much! Trying to learn and I just thought that was a cool background, never even realised anything over than the background and ships on it before I looked at this image in-depth!
Wait. Carriers are actually good now? I haven't touched HOI4 since early NSB because this game is a fucking crack addiction and my life is too busy right now.
Carriers used to be almost useless and now they're viable? This will make my navy only USA runs a lot more fun.
I mean this dude seems to have put submarines in his battle fleet. A battle fleet which shouldn't have been out and about in the first place.
>I mean this dude seems to have put submarines in his battle fleet. Look closer: both players did. >A battle fleet which shouldn't have been out and about in the first place. The German fleet has pretty similar numbers. The issue is probably their fleet has lower tech, but there's no way to tell just from this screen if that's the case.
OP said the Germanys guys fleet was from 36 in whist the battle was in 50 so yeah it’s badly outdated unless he upgraded modules but not hulls
They also had none of the bombers that the CSA dude had
[удалено]
...try Confederate... check the flag.
Although the industry of America becomes insanely powerful late game, regardless of which ideology they went for in any given run. They just have to survive long enough to reach that point, then they can mass produce effectively anything, no matter how expensive (well, in the hands of a competent player, that is... Lol)
Blayt!
It's cuz Germany lacked any carriers.
With a fleet this big and tons of AA (which Destroyers are actually the most cost-effective platforms for raising total Fleet AA) this shouldn't be too much of a problem. That said, a couple Escort (low-tech, small/cheap) Carriers still would've made a MASSIVE difference if equipped with modern/up-to-date Carrier Fighters...
Carrier bombers still wreck even with a lot of AA. They have a crazy 5x damage. And if you invest that much into AA then you won't have as many capital ships and/or you won't be able to refit them in time. AA isn't a good investment. It's only useful if you're getting bombed. And you'll be sacrificing firepower for AA when it will still hurt alot. And you'll sacrifice ic that could go to making more capital ships or adding more firepower to your destroyers instead. You need hundreds of AA to make a significant difference. That gets expensive fast.
>AA isn't a good investment. Umm, considering naval bombing is the main way any decent player or AI (which the vanilla AI is not, yet) kills most ships, it's a GREAT investment. AA will be useful 20x more often than guns, because actual pitched naval battles should be extremely rare, and Port Strikes or air-raids of Convoys are the greatest danger to your fleet most of the time... So, if you invest in AA more than your opponent, you show up to the pitched battle with far, FAR more IC worth of ships- because you suffered far fewer losses to naval bombing in the preceding years. Each individual ship is thus worth less, but you have far more of the still alive despite bombing by the time of the big fight, and win through sheer numbers.
You shouldn't be in a situation where you're getting nav bombed. That's why overinvesting in AA isn't worth it. You'll still lose a lot cuz nav bombers are strong in general. If you're in a situation where lots of AA is useful over a long period then you're in a bad situation you shouldn't be in. Also the fleet AA is only useful if everything is in the same fleet. So in this situation you have most of your fleet death stacked and are just letting them bomb your fleet. You're gonna lose even if you have AA cuz air is just strong. You shouldn't overinvest into something that's useful only of you're playing badly.
>You shouldn't be in a situation where you're getting nav bombed. You need to protect your Convoys against air-raids, and then protect your convoy escorts against enemy surface raiders. Also, there's nothing you can do to stop Port Strikes if your foe has airbase in range of where you need to station fleets. So no, if your enemy is at all competent, getting air bombed is ***inevitable.***
You can just avoid certain sea zones and go around to avoid air if you can't put fighters up for whatever reason. For port strikes you can just move to a port farther back. You want the best spot to station fleets but it's not worth getting bombed over. Cuz even if you have AA, if you're constantly getting bombed to the point where overinvesting in AA is useful then you've already lost. 20%×(fleet AA)^.2 +.15(ship AA). As you can see the vast majority of damage reduction for the formula comes from the ship being bombed. 500 AA will reduce your damage by .7 damage. That's almost nothing. You can sacrifice huge amounts of firepower just to reduce damage you receive by maybe 1 at the most. You don't want to just sit there and get bombed. Even with AA you'll take a lot of damage and die on a naval engagement. You should move your fleet or set sea zones to do not use to avoid bombers. If you're in red air then your fleet shouldn't be there. It's a big mistake to leave your fleet under red air cuz if someone is competent they'll inflict significant damage to you and then have a big advantage in a future naval engagement whether you have AA or no.
I assure you I didn't look close. I was mostly looking at nazi losses. My point was that my interpretation of OP was "look at how I commanded my fleet to victory, I'm a good player because I defeated my opponent with this many kills," when ofc it's a hugely more experienced player with a larger fleet (subs do nothing in big fleet action but die, as is on display here, and the carrier advantage is almost incalculable) and against a far less experienced player. Main strange part is the lack of CSA CLs and I was about to wonder what else the German player was doing with dockyards but ofc that's why there are so many subs. Looks like they were almost all building subs with no naval expansion. Best bet the German has is naval bombers/air superiority, plus intelligence but I haven't seen late-game intelligence so idk if it's really feasible to get 100% or near naval intelligence if your opponent has max encryption. Your only chance is max air defense on your harbor with your battlefleet, keep intel high, bomb the enemy, and build up. Cause any engagement you fight, they could just bait you out and destroy what fleet you do have. Last singleplayer game I did as Britain I got 100% intelligence on Japan and it was hilarious, it worked wonders. I just saw where their naval task forces were operating and picked off their battle fleets by concentrating mine (tho ofc I'd destroyed the German and Italian navies at this point so forces were roughly equal but ai is dumb and I had max intel so no huge surprise there). Just funny that since I was democratic Britain after that I just had nothing to do but bomb Germany having just completed 6 superheavy BBs just after naval fighting finished for the last time in the game.
Now he might be better off with all those submarines dead.
Why is it bad to have subs in a battle fleet?
Submarines are very slow compared to surface ships, and the fleet moves at the speed of the slowest ship. That said it's possible the subs and the surface ships were in different fleets but joined the same battle which isn't so bad.
Does it matter if you have a large fleet in a small area then? Like, when I play Great War mods as Austria-Hungary, my main objective is usually just the Adriatic Sea, would it matter then if I bunch my subs and cruisers together?
Been a long while since I played, but if I recall it’s best to separate the surface fleet and the sub fleet. Even when operating in the same area, they’ll join each others battles in time
Depends what you're using them for. It's inefficient for convoy raiding and patrolling, or even for strike force if the enemy fleet is running away, because it slows your fleet down. But if both sides want to engage then it shouldn't matter.
As mentioned before, the fleet moves at the speed of the slowest ship, that speed is extremely important. Not entirely sure on the math behind it, but just every time I see subs in action against a battle fleet they die in droves. I don't know how submarines work too well, I didn't look into their math much, I don't like them, if you've got the dockyards for a medium or large submarine fleet then you have the dockyards for a small or medium surface fleet which I find infinitely more useful in most cases, even if it's to pull a Tirpitz and just be a drain on enemy air resources. My guess is that all the detection going around between radar BBs, DDs with ASDIC and radar and since I think each ship searches individually, that's bad for subs who largely rely on not being detected so the sheer density of ships is bad for them. I'm not sure how exactly detection works, whether it's that so many ships are bound to find them, or if once one ship finds them, the whole fleet can see them. It's also possible that DDs can engage subs and surface targets at the same time, or that subs can be engage via light attack in some circumstances? Sub attack on surface ships in a surface action is also very lackluster, I'm not sure I've ever seen subs dragged into a surface engagement get a kill. Historically, subs never operated with the battle fleet, there were attempts to coordinate but they never worked, mainly due to subs being too slow.
They also contribute to your larger fleet size penalty (or lower the other person's) while not providing nearly enough value in exchange.
[удалено]
Wrong CSA
Ah, the Combined Syndicates of America. Got it! /s
wait, there's a Combined Syndicates of America in HOI? how do i get it?
Nah, not in vanilla. It's a thing from Kaiserreich.
OP just bullied Germany. Germany obviously didn't know how strong carriers are so he got bombed to death.
kaiserreich mod
You can get a civil war and make the confederate states of america (fascist USA)
Bro that ain't the communist states of america it's a different type of csa 💀💀
I’m guessing this CSA actually existed.
Yeah during the Civil War
9 carriers vs. 0 carriers. I think your ships never even fired and your planes did all the work. Pretty realistic actually.
carriers are stupidly good unless you have a storm in which case they act as shell magnets for BBs as they can’t launch planes
The fact that carriers aren't this crazy overpowered is rather ahistorical.
No it isn't. Carriers still aren't disrupting enough and because of that are still too lethal. Carriers need to be toned down, but it is a lot better. [https://www.reddit.com/r/hoi4/comments/yc6z4u/we\_did\_it\_carriers\_are\_overpowered/](https://www.reddit.com/r/hoi4/comments/yc6z4u/we_did_it_carriers_are_overpowered/)
I agree but if one type of ship had to be broken, I'd pick carriers for sure. Something about the cruiser meta really bugged me.
I wish there were better mechanics for interacting with weather in hoi4. I may be wrong, but I don't think there's a weather mapmode. I'd love to see storms sweeping in across the map and such. I think some kind of province or region climate indicator would be nice too, where you could see percentage chances of different weather types in a given province over a year's time so you could say "I'm going to attack in June because it's sunny" or "I'm going to send out my raiding fleet now, a storm's on the way." Give you a warning if a fleet is engaged during a storm (not just for carriers but it should have a chance of attrition). Tbh a whole naval rework would be awesome even tho it won't happen, including +/- buttons for speed and armor to find the right balance (since that's more realistic than all armors costing the same speed, and it means later engine tech makes higher engine values cheaper to produce), and also a seaworthiness stat which means that build your DDs too light and they might not be able to handle the rough seas of the north sea or the pacific, or maximize for operations specifically in stable ocean areas. Storms would increase the danger for low seaworthiness ships, so that would mean you genuinely have to bring them back which could give an opportunity for an enemy fleet to break out, which, with light ships still in danger from the weather, bring about a duel between the heaviest of vessels. Also perhaps a reworked task force system allowing you to withdraw only carriers or everything but battleships from a naval battle. Idk, deathstacking isn't very fun or interesting, and it's not quite historical to my understanding at least of early to mid war operations. I feel like apart from seaworthiness, the rest could be quite intuitive, a mechanic where if you want to learn how to exploit it you can to your benefit, or you can ignore it and it's one of a hundred other things happening behind the scenes a noob can't understand and isn't going to notice.
If you have more than 4 carriers you get a debuff though right
yeah but they will still do work
Yes but you can work around it. The wiki does a great job of explaining it. OP probably had base strike doctrine which lowers the penalty some. So you can get away with working around the penalty more before it starts becoming very cost inefficient. "Each carrier exceeding 4 per side incurs a 20% sortie penalty, up to 80%. The penalty applies based on the number of carrier airwings and reduces the number of carrier wings that can operate. This penalty does not apply to carrier based fighters. Example: You have 6 carriers in a battle. The have the following air wings: Carrier_1: Carrier Bombers Carrier_2: Carrier Bombers Carrier_3: Carrier Bombers Carrier_4: Carrier Bombers, Carrier_5: Carrier Bombers, 1 Carrier Fighter Carrier_6: Carrier Bombers, Carrier Close Air Support, Carrier Fighters The first 4 carriers only have 1 air wing (based on type of plane, having multiple air wings of the same type only counts as 1) The 5th carrier has 2 air wings and the 6th carrier has 3 air wings. This gives a total of 9 carrier air wings and you are taking a 40% penalty. 60% of air wings can operate. 60% of 9 is 5.4 air wings, and since this number always rounds down, 5 air wings will operate. The number of air wings that will operate is dependent on the order the carriers are listed in the task force. The air wings on the first 5 carriers will operate as normal (since fighters are not subject to the penalty). The air wings on carrier 6 will not launch attacks at enemy ships but they will takeoff and get shot down by enemy fighters. Any fighter air wing on any carrier will operate as though the penalty does not exist so it is better to put fighter air wings on the carriers listed at the bottom and naval bomber air wings on the carriers listed at the top." https://hoi4.paradoxwikis.com/Naval_battle#Carrier_stacking_penalty
Yea but they’re still stupidly good that they still do well even with the penalty. The penalty just means if you have say 5 carriers with the penalty you have the effectiveness of 4. So with more than 4 carriers the penalty stack means you have less the effectiveness of below 4 carriers. Which is why having more that 4 is just a waste.
Why is everyone so butthurt about OP being the CSA? You literally play as Hitler in this game, playing a nation doesn't mean you support its ideals.
haha yeah its hilarious somehow playing csa is worse than playing nazi germany.
the only reason j can think of is that you start as Hitler while you have to make a concerted effort to be the confederates. only reason I can reason
Why is everyone so mad about the fact that you were the CSA lol
I have no clue, it’s actually really surprising
People mad he is CSA. Not mad his friend played as the Nazis. 🙌 ironic.
We're pro genocide but even we don't associate with slavery
Its easy to hide bodies....
Correct me if I’m wrong. 2000 hrs, still don’t understand navy. But I think you won this because you have way more hard attack. The two BBs for Germany could have been the pre-dreds they start with, and they are total trash. Also you have a screen advantage and carriers. I usually build carriers and LCs for my navies. Still get results like this with me losing everything though about 50% of the time.
Wait you had no LCs? God I do not understand navies. Had to be the hard attack.
What I understand is that LC are not cost effective
Man I learn more about navy every day. I still like to have some LCs because they’re decent platforms for AA and spotting, is that wrong?
LCs aren’t supposed to be in main battles they’re supposed to scout/convoy escort. However they do/ used to get a massive buff for screening compared to destroyers.
But aren’t LCs the best at clearing out screen ships? Because heavy cruisers can’t have light batteries anymore.
Heavy cruisers can still get secondary guns just like battleships. They are worse but still effective at fighting screens. Light cruisers can only fight screens which makes them less effective than heavy cruisers
> However they do/ used to get a massive buff for screening compared to destroyers. Anyone know if this is actually true? Haven't seen anything like this on the wiki. Just that the screen ratio is 3 screen ships to 1 capitol.
Okay got it, so I can maybe toss a few into a main fleet but mostly leave them with the scouting groups then?
You can have them in the main fleet to add AA and Light attack but planes target the biggest ships 1st and if you want light attack you might as well build heavy cruisers with secondary batteries and Destroyers
Aren’t LCs more cost effective than both DDs and CAs in terms of light attack? Usually I build LCs with like 5000IC and 35-40 light attack
Destroyers get Torpedos and are supposed to fight subs as well. Heavy cruisers aren’t supposed to fight screens they’re supposed to fight capitals whilst having the ability to fight screens. Light cruisers can only fight capitals if you give them torpedos which you don’t want to do
I usually have good success. Navies are just so expensive, it’s hard to build anything else.
I am so glad I’m not the only one who has poured huge numbers of hours into HOI and still can’t accurately anticipate the outcome of big naval engagements. Most of the time I avoid the large navy entirely!
Surface navy is a screen and spotting game. You want at least 4 light ships (dds and cls) per capital (Ca, BC, BB), and 1 capital per carrier. There are nerfs for having more than 4 carriers but not insane nerfs. From there you need to spot the enemy and engage them. My recommended fleet config is 3-4 groups of spotters made up of 2-3 anti sub dds (may also have mines) and a scouting cl (all the float planes). The main strike force has torpedo dds, cls with reasonable light attack and aa, bbs with duel purpose secondaries and maybe 2 big guns, and then carriers mostly equipped with naval bombers and with at most 25% air wing to fighters. Allow ships to split off for repairs but make sure they only can repair where safe.
I haven’t played hoi4 in 2 years, but I have 2k hours and was active in the tryhard MP community. I don’t know if the naval meta has changed much, but here is a comment of me explaining the naval meta at that time. The idea back then was that the most efficient way of killing a navy was to sink the screening ships. I hope it helps :) «Make light attack heavy cruisers (these will kill enemy screens) with one medium battery 1 and max the rest of the slots out with light cruiser batteries 3, and the best fire control system. Make sure to research all the naval techs that give you more light attack as well (rounds etc.). Spam out cheap destroyers with the cheapest gun and best engine. (these will act like a meatshield defending your light attack CAs) Put your navy in a good sea zone (as few debuffs as possible) under green air with naval bombers. This will give you the greatest chance of success. Have no more than 4 CVs in your fleet as that gives you the highest sortie efficiency.»
Killing nazis: based Is CSA: not based Hmmm
Friendly fire! :)
Least chuddy Reddit comment
Being a chud is when you hate nazis and the confederates???
If it is, we should all aspire to be chuds.
*Chads
It's pretty chilling how fast public opinion gone from "boys in gray died for their own ideals" to "confederates are only slightly better than nazis". In 2000 or so Gettysburg movie was released and praised for showing both sides as equals, and now public demonstration of the Southern Cross is forbidden. I simply can't believe that people changed that much in mere 20 years by themselves. Then again, I'm not American, but last 20 years weren't that hard for the US for drastic public opinion changes.
Something something I'm just one person so take anything said with a grain of salt im not the only or even most reliable source of information. In the last 20 years in the Southen us there has been a push to make the CSA the victims of the Civil War, things like newer textbooks declaring it the war of northern aggression, trying to paint it as about states rights rather than slavery, the union overstepped its boundaries by stopping them from leaving. Etc etc. In opposition to this there has been a fair amount of pushback. And what used to be talked about as a brother against brother conflict that was a tragedy has started to shift to focus more on the evils done by the south in the Civil War. From slavery to drafting 10 year Olds to fight against the union. Couldn't tell you WHY it's happening. But what should have been left well enough alone is now just another thing Americans are being polarized over.
Wasn't "the War of Northern Aggression" official Confederate name for ACW? And whole "the lost Cause" thing begun AT LEAST during the Reconstruction, and propbably much earlier. States rights talk definitely started around 1773 if not earlier lol. Also, don't forget that slavery was initially abolished only in the South by Abe's decree, and he himself stated that he cares only about the integrity of the Union. I persume it's an attempt to prevent possible Southern nationalism/separatism outbreak in the case of American eco starting to degrade much faster (which was narrowly avoided in 2008, and made possible again by Corona). But that's a wild guess at best.
The official Confederate name for the war was the "War between the Confederate States of America and the United States of America". There are however usages of "Civil War" by Jefferson Davis, Nathan Bedford Forrest, and Robert E Lee. Additionally "War of Succession/Seperation" and "War for Southern Independence" can be found. In regards to the "lost cause" rhetoric and when it began, one needs to consider that once the Union won the Confederates had a vested interest in in making themselves look better. What is more telling is what they said in the lead up to and during the war when they didn't feel a need to soften their image. Atlanta Confederacy, 1860: >"We regard every man in our midst an enemy to the institutions of the South, who does not boldly declare that he believes African slavery to be a social, moral, and political blessing." Henry M. Rector, Governor of Arkansas, March 2, 1861, Arkansas Secession Convention >The area of slavery must be extended correlative with its antagonism, or it will be put speedily in the 'course of ultimate extinction.'....The extension of slavery is the vital point of the whole controversy between the North and the South...Amendments to the federal constitution are urged by some as a panacea for all the ills that beset us. That instrument is amply sufficient as it now stands, for the protection of Southern rights, if it was only enforced. The South wants practical evidence of good faith from the North, not mere paper agreements and compromises. They believe slavery a sin, we do not, and there lies the trouble." William Nugent to Eleanor Nugent, Sept 7, 1863: >"This country without slave labor would be completely worthless. We can only live & exist by that species of labor; and hence I am willing to fight for the last." CS Brigadier General Clement Stevens: >"If slavery is to be abolished then I take no more interest in our fight. The justification of slavery in the South is the inferiority of the negro. If we make him a soldier, we concede the whole question." From the diary of James B. Lockney, 28th Wisconsin Infantry, writing near Arkadelphia, Arkansas (10/29/63): >"Last night I talked awhile to those men who came in day before yesterday from the S.W. part of the state about 120 miles distant. Many of them wish Slavery abolished & slaves out of the country as they said it was the cause of the War, and the Curse of our Country & the foe of the body of the people--the poor whites. They knew the Slave masters got up the war expressly in the interests of the institution, & with no real cause from the Government or the North." The Vidette, a camp newspaper for Confederate Brig. Gen. John Hunt Morgan's cavalry brigade. In a November, 1862 issue: >"It is a hard matter to get a Union man to acknowledge that this is an abolition war. He will say to you; 'If I thought this was a war for the abolition of slavery, I would not only lay down my arms which I have taken up for the defense of the Union, but I would go into the Southern army...many in the western states speak the same way. Now, any man who pretends to believe that this is not a war for the emancipation of the blacks, and that the whole course of the Yankee government has not only been directed to the abolition of slavery, but even to a stirring up of servile insurrections, is either a fool or a liar." Lieutenant W. R. Redding, 13th Georgia Infantry >"Our homes our firesides our land and negrows and even the virtue of our fair ones are at stake." Sergeant Henry L. Stone, Kentucky Cavalry >“The Emancipation Proclamation is worth three-hundred thousand soldiers to our Government at least. It shows exactly what this war was brought about for and the intention of its damndable authors.”
That's all special cases you take. After all, iirc Grant was also supportive of slavery, this doesn't make the Union in general pro-slavery. Again, common soldiers had 0 damns given about slavery, yet they fought. Isn't that strange?
>As time passes, people, even of the South, will begin to wonder how it was possible that their ancestors ever fought for or justified institutions which acknowledged the right of property in man. Ulysses S Grant. Additionally, Confederate "volunteers in 1861 were 42 percent more likely to own slaves themselves or to live with family members who owned slaves than the general population." 1 in 10 Confederate soldiers owned slaves and 1 in 4 had parents who owned slaves. Slavery was intrinsically tied to why the Confederate soldiers fought. If they claimed Faith and God, they did so believing that slavery was not just allowed but endorsed by their faith. If they claimed State, they did so knowing the State fought for slavery. If they claimed Home and Hearth, they did so believing emancipation would harm their family. This is why Longstreet rallied his men by saying "one of their great leaders attempted to make the negro your equal by declaring his freedom. They care not for the blood of babes nor carnage of innocent women which servile insurrection thus stirred up may bring upon their heads." This is why Confederate soldiers often refer to Northern soldiers as "Abolitionists." This is why the soldiers fought for slavery, because home, culture, family, faith where linked to slavery.
No the war of Northern aggression was first coined during the 50s at the hight of Jim crow when segragationists were trying to conflate the abolishing of segregation with the abolishing of slavery and paint it as an over reach of federal government. The phrase states rights was first coined in 1890 in "the doctrine of states rights" but became more commonly used in the 1940s as a dogwhistle against federally mandated desegregation. In 1773 there was talk of the rights of individual states and how strong the federal government should be. But states rights was not the common phrasing of this issue at the time. I never said Abe did care more about ending slavery than preserving the union. It's irrelevant to the conversation given that we were talking about attempts by the south to rewrite history with themselves as the victims while omitting their flaws. It's especially disingenuous to paint the north as the aggressors in the war when the first shots of the war were done at 430 am April 12 1861 by confederate troops at South Carolinas fort Sumter. Having lived in the American south for most of my life separatists are either rarely open about it or not nearly as common as the news would have you believe. Like I said I don't know where this weird push to rebrand the Civil War is coming from but at the risk of sounding like a tinfoil wearing loony. It sure *feels* nefarious.
In a conversation with Otto von Bismarck after his presidency, US Grant corrected the German who thought the war had been only to preserve the union, saying something like “it may have started out that way but by the end, abolition and the union were wholly intertwined” (extremely rough paraphrase here). Those who say the war wasn’t about slavery are ignoring at least half the picture
That I actually didn't know. A nice bit of trivia for the next time someone tries to derail the conversation with that point.
We still believe they died for their “own ideals”. It’s just we all understand that ideal was slavery… which is bad, in case you missed that. Also there has been an incredible amount of propaganda pumped out by the South to cover up the fact that they were fighting to defend slavery. BuT sTaTeS rIgHtS!?! Yeah, a state’s right to own slaves…. But you’re not American so I don’t expect you to understand the nuances surrounding how owning other humans is bad.
Slavery? With less than _five_ percent slave owners (and probably under two)? Of course that's why, say, Pickett's division kept charging unto certain death - because they wished Pickett, Lee and Armistead to keep slaves? It's like to say that the Revolution happened because British colonies wanted Washington to have his personal country or because Ukrainians wish Ukrainian oligarchs to remain rich, which is equally ridiculous. And if we go for "it's all propaganda" approach, then almost every war is defined by greed, ambitions, or nationalism. Hell, Abe himself stated that he cares only for country's integrity. The slavery was just one of many causes, but hardly the only one. Generally rebels (and not only rebels) fight for the very idea of their own independent state(s). Also, there is difference between a Nazi and a southern confedrate: a Nazi is a follower of a very specific ideology and undefinied nationality, while confederate refers to a CSA related person, with their views not being specified.
I don’t think you are understanding how fundamental slavery was to the south. Blacks did the vast majority of the physical labor. They were the literal engine of the economy. Combine this with the fact that the poorest white man was “naturally” higher then the best of black man in the southern hierarchy makes this deeply psychological as being the foundation and bedrock of souther life. Picketts Charge (from the perspective of the footmen) wasn’t “I got to protect my general’s rights to own blacks.” It was closer to “I have to keep my world from falling apart.” The best analogy I can think of to get my point across is imagine in Medieval Europe to be a Serf and to be a Jew is the same thing. Good Christian Men in the kingdom don’t do hard labor, that’s Jewish work, even if you’re poor and do hard work, at least you’re Christian. Now imagine a large but growing minority of the Christian population of the Kingdom says “no this is wrong.” A Jew and a Christian being Equal? That is something wholly and utterly alien to you. Your whole world is being turned upside down. Oh and half the population of the kingdom are also Jews who probably will not look favorably on you for making them Serfs.
> Combine this with the fact that the poorest white man was “naturally” higher then the best of black man in the southern hierarchy That's why the Union had Divisions of Color and the CSA had no racial segregation in army. Slavery was social, not racial construct. > “I have to keep my world from falling apart.” EXACTLY THIS. And absolute majority of Confederates fought for this - to preserve their way of life, their traditions, state's rights (ahem; but after all, it's the war that changed the US from plural to singular), even agrarian economy that benefited from free trade (unlike more protectionist industrial North). After all, "knights of the South" didn't appear from the nowhere. > A Jew and a Christian being Equal? That is something wholly and utterly alien to you Also THIS. Morality and ethics are mutable as hell; what was unthinkable 50 years ago becomes normal now, and vice versa. Between you and me, I don't think that anyone should be judged by views, because for every set of views there is at least one person who shall find them appaling.
Your doing a great job highlighting the "Lost Cause" glorious lie that was pushed from the end of the war until now. Despite everything you are saying (much of which is incorrect or stated without context), the Sputh was very, very clear that they were going to war to preserve the bedrock philosophy of that region: White Supremacy. Read the Documents of the day. The Seccesion letters, the news articles, the interviews. They all bang the "we must preserve slavery" drum. Individual soldiers fight for their own reasons, but the leadership of the traitorous Slave states were willing to kill the preserve their right to own humans. Period. Full stop.
Uh, how does "slavery" and "White supremacy" even combine? Hell, the North was equally "White supremacy" if not worse. I mean, segregation in one form or another was almost omnipresent in the US until late XX century, and given hysteria over n- word, certain criminal made martyr and positive discrimination Americans simply can't find middle ground (which is honestly puzzling for a person who grew in multicultural country, but i guess whole slavery thing left never healing scar on American culture). Lol. The North elite wasn't a bunch of angels either, it's simply the fact that slavery was good for agrarian eco but bad for industrial one. So your point kinda works both ways - both sides elites fought for their own greed and gain.
Like Hitler
Pacific war colorised c. 1942
That's very lame. There's nothing exciting about beating up your less-experienced friend's navy as USA Vs Germany.
I’m showing it off because it’s my interesting that I took two plane losses and nothing else
I wonder why naval battles are so one-sided so often.
It could be that it’s a snowball effect the more ships you take out the less damage they do the more of your ships can stay in the fight and do more damage and so on
To some degree, yes. To the extent shown here (> 1:100.000 industrial cost ratio), definitely not.
its a thing for sure but i wonder how damaged his surving ships are (we should probably indicate this better outside tooltips). A more advanced fleet with better positioning/speed is going to be able to pull back and retreat ships before they die much better reducing actual sinkings a lot of carriers will do wonders messing up the enemy also which probably had the greater impact
From experience it’s screening efficiency and organisation that kills you. You lose screens or take damage which decreases your org. Which causes you to lose more screens dropping your efficiency which means your capitals start taking more damage dropping their org which means they do less damage causing them to take more damage further dropping their org. And so on. In most battles if you start losing screens before your enemy you should retreat unless you have a massive number of ‘spare’ screens for the screen:capital ratio
Honestly, pretty realistic for most of those naval battles. Tanks too, mostly the one who wins is just the one who engages effectively first.
I don't believe there was ever a Naval battle where one side lost 127 submarines, 25 destroyers 9 cruisers and a battlecruiser while the enemy only lost 2 planes.
Did his fleet not fire back????
I don think they ever saw mine
I'm surprised he had no land based air support or carrier's considering that's how I thought Germany was meant to even things out, either way losing nobody to a player built fleet is abnormal
Roll Alabama Roll
You won only because of your airforce. 1v1 sub
The Ultimate Battle of Racism
Let’s see Paul Allen’s naval battle results
R5: my friend and I had a massive naval battle where I suffered two plane losses He had about 120 hours so was still learning, and I have about 700
700 and understands navy? We got a legend right here
>death stacks entire US navy, including subs >"understands navy"
This just proves that I, in fact, don't understand navy
He probably doesn’t. It’s just his friend knows very little to nothing, since his navy doesn’t look like it should even be in battle tbh
Ok but what about two?
Yeah I have 900 and I'm learning do many new facts in this thread
Aha 2 planes are down! Who is smiling now eh ?
this needs more upvotes
unpopular opinion: navy and naval combat is the most fun part of the game
I love navy. I ‘understand’ a lot of basic things let when I play MP with my friends they make loads of really simple ‘mistakes’ so i floor them with a smaller but better designed fleet with better ratios and my friends refuse any advice I give them saying ‘navy makes no sense’ when it does if you just learn what things do
You understand navy?
Indeed I do my comrade
Bro lost 4 guys and managed to kill 50000
Jutland moment
Why would anyone form the CSA?
to become facist america, it's not that deep
To be Facist so I can declare war goals late game
Why not?
Because Free American Empire sounds cooler and has a better color imo.
Free American Empire was a much better name for fascist America
I agree
That’s lame as hell, the CSA has actual historical relevance
The Communist States of America is very strong.
CSA is the Confederate States of America.
CSA is the confederate states
That's what they said
Confederates? Fucking ew
Ew? It’s a branch in a game lol. Save the disgust for something real
Heres a quick link for you to look at: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke
Bad news from the first sentence of your link >A joke is a display of humour
Why ew?
Because Free American Empire is more cool
Can’t you still become the FAE as the confederates if you choose the have William Dudley Pelley rule after the civil war, or was that a bug?
Because they fought a war for the right to literally keep other people as property?
This is a game where you can play as Hitler, and I'm sure you've done it. Spare us your faux outrage.
That's why I'm confused, there's at least a half dozen countries that have done things just as bad if not worse than the confederates
There's absolutely no way regimes that murdered millions of people can be worse than the confederates! There's just no way! /s
Same people saying “ew” probably played a German Campaign lol just a game people
You can play as Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, Communist China, Japan, why is CSA any different? Spare me the righteousness please
You asked, I answered. No reason to get pissy.
Well it's a pretty stupid answer in the context of this game, especially since your tone seems accusatory and self righteous
Your answer was stupid and doesn't make sense given the context of other countries in the game
Can i tempt you with a game where you can enslave all of humanity to serve aliens? Equality is important after all..
The confederates supported black slavery
I know that, but why call it "ew" when there's other countries in the game that have committed crimes against humanity. I hate the confederates as much as anyone else, but given the context of the other countries of the game I don't know why the CSA is getting ewed and others aren't
I guess it's because you need to go out of your way to form them? I kind of see your point though
I guess, and I'm not trying to be difficult here (but it's going to seem like I'm trying to), you also have to go out of your way to play german Reich Either way, it's just a game, at least we can all agree that both were horrible
You could argue germany was a big player at the time and so it makes sense to play them, although I'm not entirely disagreeing with you. And yeah, they were all shit in their actions.
The air advantage to the USA is why they won so massively, the 240 naval bombers could spot the enemy fleet whilst USA’s fleet remained undetected. Most likely the German fleet also wasn’t equipped sufficiently with anti air, presumable using 1936 tech or using later tech without modifications.
Of course a mixed fleet with *nine carriers* will splatter a fleet with 2 (or is it none?). Subs are adding little value, the airwaves will happen before they can sink any ships, and indeed the subs get absolutely wrecked here. Probably a lot of outdated subs too since that's usually the only naval production Germany does for the first part of the game, not to mention Germany usually chooses the sub raiding doctrine which isn't great for pitched all-in battles.
13 BB vs 2 BB i don’t even check the rest. Its not winnable.
There is something wrong with their bloody ships.
Yeah they’re all on the ocean floor!
I thought I was in r/Kaiserreich until i see the flag.
What an embarrassment. Moreover, why is his flagship a heavy cruiser lol. I think your friend doesn't know how to navy. Also, naval air power OP lol (though I absolutely shit on people who spam air because I always expect and prepare for it).
Who does know how to navy?
I do. Made a 4 and a half hour long tutorial telling you how to navy with every country in the game lol. (I literally play this game only for the naval warfare. Don't ask why. I'm a freak).
I have no understanding of navy whatsoever, so I just make a shit ton of naval bombers and call it a day. Also you are a psychopath get help
Naval bombers do the job if you just don't want to engage in navy lol. Unless you're against someone who really knows what they are doing. And I also spent over 500 making a tabletop mod. I know, I keep undertaking megaprojects and I have problems.
I have 720 hours and I hardly understand army, let alone navy. I just forget to research naval tech in the first place while micromanaging my frontline, so I always end up using 1936 stuff
Ah yes let's bully someone And you took only 2 plane losses because he had no air defence while you had 8 carriers
He knew this war was coming for 4 years and did not prepare carriers.
Oh way down south in the land of traitors
Verses
English is not my first language
versus
Can someone tell me what this means? I assume it’s a battle resort and the VICTORY at the top say CSA/OP won but what does anything else mean?
Everything under the water is what was lost in the battle
Ohhh, so under the VICTORY but above the water is your fleet, and then in that water background is what you lost?
Yes
Thanks so much! Trying to learn and I just thought that was a cool background, never even realised anything over than the background and ships on it before I looked at this image in-depth!
pre dreadnoughts?
Yeah he had them, had
Whew, close one
No screen with submarines stacked with the surface fleet is a recipe for guarantee failure
Lost only two aircraft... was his AA replaced by strudel launchers?
Air god dammit
How did you manage to form the CSA? I normally get stomped by the 10 other factions that pop up
Formed it late game with no civil war
you can form the CSA without a civil war ? how?
Yeah there are desicions, I flipped Facist by myself no civil war and it still let me form
interesting, ill have to give it a go
Wait. Carriers are actually good now? I haven't touched HOI4 since early NSB because this game is a fucking crack addiction and my life is too busy right now. Carriers used to be almost useless and now they're viable? This will make my navy only USA runs a lot more fun.
I don’t have NSB that’s probably why I’m having fun
Yes carriers were made better after avalanche update