military conflicts (rebellions)

[Kriegsmanner]

It is now end of 1927 with a German campaign started at 1890. The current province count is 41. For the past decade it has been impossible to keep the unrest down.

When the number of provinces is growing, the change of the AI starting a war with a minor nations is getting high. The result of a successful annexation is an increase in unrest. The higher the unrest the higher the chance of a rebellion. When a rebellion succeeds the unrest is again increased. The increase will soon spiral out of control and then suddenly, when an election is won, the unrest is reset to zero. I think some balance is needed in the unrest numbers.

When a rebellion with a port takes places a Military Conflict takes place, which is the opposite of an invasion. You need to defend now and although I managed to successfully deploy enough tonnage, I never (0%) have been able to keep the land. The rebellion always succeeds, even though the battle reports during the rebellion where about 8:1 in favour.
- Has anyone been able to win a military conflict?

[Ninjafroggie]

I win EVERY one of those. Like invasions, you need to deploy WAY more tonnage than what it says is required, and you need place a priority on BB and CA in your suppression fleet.

Also, unrest is easy AF to get down, just get into a war with a major power, kick the snot out of the AI a couple times, and boom unrest is gone.

[Kriegsmanner]

My average tonnage parked at a military conflict was about 2.5 to 1. So what would the needed tonnage be? As a side note, my main TFs only consists of BBs.

No, it is not. I was at war with five nations at the same time (Spain, France, Russia, Italy and China) and won easily. During the war the unrest was about 50-60 due to successful annexations. The unrest didn't get down with the peace talks. It only went down with a won re-election.

[Ninjafroggie]

Originally posted by Kriegsmanner:

My average tonnage parked at a military conflict was about 2.5 to 1. So what would the needed tonnage be? As a side note, my main TFs only consists of BBs.

No, it is not. I was at war with five nations at the same time (Spain, France, Russia, Italy and China) and won easily. During the war the unrest was about 50-60 due to successful annexations. The unrest didn't get down with the peace talks. It only went down with a won re-election.

Unrest goes down when you get seriously lopsided results in a naval battle against the AI. If you sink 30 enemy ships with no loses and only a couple of ships damaged, your people will like you more and unrest evaporates. If your ships are badly designed and getting mauled, then it wont go down even if you're winning.

I generally commit 10x the required tonnage minimum. Never lost an invasion or conflict doing so. Also, TFs should NEVER be only BBs...they need escorts. Otherwise enemy subs are going to have a field day and your unrest will go up because you're losing ships and men while the enemy isnt. I always include at LEAST 1 DD per capital ship in my TFs, usually 2 unless im tight on ships in the area.

If you're having unrest problems it's because you're doing something wrong. The HIGHEST my unrest has ever reached in campaign is 12.

[Kriegsmanner]

I never ever lose a ship. Tops I get some light damage no matter what size of fleet I am against. My TFs (in meeting missions) are either 2 or 3 battleships. And usually only a lonely DD of TB will escape. The rest is sunk. On average this means only 2 battles against a nation before they ask for peace.

Thanks, I will test the 10:1 scenario. Hope that will help.

Currently it is not yet time to add any anti-submarine measures. I had no encounters with submarines yet. When they emerge some CLs with depth charges are on standby in my home ports.

[Ninjafroggie]

subs arent the only reason to include escorts.

Think of it this way: The Normandy landings in wwII featured many BB and CA shelling german positions well inland, but they had to remain far offshore, they couldnt get in close to shore where the water got too shallow to conduct the kind of pinpoint fire needed to knock out german pillboxes and gun positions on the beach. Sure you could paste the area with 14" shells, but unless you score a DIRECT hit on that small target (at least by naval standards) you arent going to have the needed effect, and that kind of precision fire was only really possible if you got right up near shore. A number of DDs spent June 6th 1944 sailing up and down the normandy coastline providing on call precision fire support to the troops on the beach.

You need both to be fully effective. Sure you'll want to prioritize the heavy fires, since they can reach much farther inland and can do some serious damage to troops on the move or otherwise exposed, but you need to have some of that ability to rapidly respond to the troops' needs and to get close and hit precision targets too.

[Lipi]

Originally posted by Ninjafroggie:

subs arent the only reason to include escorts.

Think of it this way: The Normandy landings in wwII featured many BB and CA shelling german positions well inland, but they had to remain far offshore, they couldnt get in close to shore where the water got too shallow to conduct the kind of pinpoint fire needed to knock out german pillboxes and gun positions on the beach. Sure you could paste the area with 14" shells, but unless you score a DIRECT hit on that small target (at least by naval standards) you arent going to have the needed effect, and that kind of precision fire was only really possible if you got right up near shore. A number of DDs spent June 6th 1944 sailing up and down the normandy coastline providing on call precision fire support to the troops on the beach.

You need both to be fully effective. Sure you'll want to prioritize the heavy fires, since they can reach much farther inland and can do some serious damage to troops on the move or otherwise exposed, but you need to have some of that ability to rapidly respond to the troops' needs and to get close and hit precision targets too.

That's good and well, but how is that mechanic implemented in this game?

[Ninjafroggie]

honestly we dont know if it is or not. But 2.5x tonnage should be good enough to win at least some of the conflicts, but if he's using BB only fleets and losing every single one then maybe its playing into the calculations somehow. All that stuff is obscured from the player, so we can only go off the observations we make of what works and what doesnt. It's entirely possible he just has bad luck.

[Kriegsmanner]

Did some tests:

1, Ratio - 20 : 1. With only BBs. WIN
2. Ratio - 3.5 : 1. Mixed. LOSS
3. Ratio - 4 : 1. 1 CA, rest CLs. WIN
4. Ratio - 11 : 1. Mixed. LOSS
5. Ratio - 6 : 1. Mixed. LOSS

Mixed = BBS, BCs, CAs, CLs, and DDs
All tonnages were above 100,000

I guess your fleet consistence doesn't really matter and it is a pure tonnage calculation.