best patrol ship?

[00yiggdrasill00]

is it best to hunt enemy fleets with destroyers or light cruisers? ive been using LC because of the extra health armour and firepower alongside the aircraft catapult but its rather expensive.

[S2]

Both destroyers and cruisers (even the heavy ones) can be very fast and thus used as screening vessels.

I use destroyers as they are very cheap and quick to produce in greater numbers so you can have several seperate screening fleets.

I upgrade (MtG DLC) my destroyers with the latest engine, radar, AA and anti-submarine so they basically hunt everything that is not a cruiser/battleship.

Light cruisers i use only in my battleship or carrier fleet as pawn sacrifice in unwanted encounters.

If i need a large navy i go for a sepperate heavy cruiser fleet sublemented by some light cruisers and destroyers aided by naval bombers for coastal naval firepower. This fleet can have speeds up to 40kn and outpace battleships by factor 2-3. If youre near your naval bombers you can engage battleships easily. If youre far away from any help they can simply run away (even better with the corresponding admiral trait).

Battleships - like in real WW2 - are mostly useless and the possibility this huge investment prevents any decisive use.

[Kaisha]

引用自 S2：

Battleships - like in real WW2 - are mostly useless and the possibility this huge investment prevents any decisive use.

No... IRL battleships were highly effective against other ships, they were just weak to aircraft. In HOI4 battleship are crappy in every way, ineffective against aircraft and ships.

The best thing to hunt enemy fleets is aircraft, the naval portion of the game is a mess. If you must build ships, just mass light cruisers/destroyers and a few subs. While carriers aren't bad, land based aircraft are just far cheaper, and there's few places in the game where they can't reach.

[S2]

引用自 Kaisha：

No... IRL battleships were highly effective against other ships, they were just weak to aircraft.

Well, i would question that. When in WW2 did battleships do something that could not have been achieved with far less risk by other measures?
Even on D-Day they overshot their targets.

Bismarck sank Hood, but that had zero impact on the war. Later GB sank Tirpitz from afar by exploiting their radar advantage.

Decisive american victories in the pacific were mostly due to carriers.I give you that in thies theatre some battleships were needed.

i am not saying battleships were useless in total. I am saying it would (almost) always have been a better decision to build subs/carriers/fast cruisers instead of battleships.

In WW2 german battleships were even disallowed to leave port at some point because of the sheer fear of public impact on losing such a vessel.

[mk11]

To answer the original question. I think it depends upon your doctrine. With Fleet in Being destroyers get big bonuses and light cruisers less. With Base Strike it is the other way round.

For the actual value of battleships, there was a world of difference between the new, fast, ones and the old ones. You can see that at Calabria. Warspite got into effective range but was delayed by the slower Malaya and Royal Sovereign that never did any good.

Surigao Strait is also enlightening as the Japanese attacked without adequate screens (in HOI4 speak) and lost the Fuso to the USN destroyer screen.

[Kaisha]

引用自 S2：

引用自 Kaisha：

No... IRL battleships were highly effective against other ships, they were just weak to aircraft.

Well, i would question that. When in WW2 did battleships do something that could not have been achieved with far less risk by other measures?

You completely misrepresented my statement. I didn't say they were cost effective, just that vs ships they were effective and that they weren't complete sht like in HOI4.

In HOI4, light cruisers destroy everything on the water, and aircraft destroy everything period (land, water, whatever). In the end airforce >>>>> all in HOI4. So while navies are fun for 'shts'n'giggles', and occasionally you need a few ships for invasions, if you're asking for what is 'effective' its air. Air beats everything, and nothing counters air.

[S2]

引用自 Kaisha：

引用自 S2：

Well, i would question that. When in WW2 did battleships do something that could not have been achieved with far less risk by other measures?

You completely misrepresented my statement. I didn't say they were cost effective, just that vs ships they were effective and that they weren't complete sht like in HOI4.

In HOI4, light cruisers destroy everything on the water, and aircraft destroy everything period (land, water, whatever). In the end airforce >>>>> all in HOI4. So while navies are fun for 'shts'n'giggles', and occasionally you need a few ships for invasions, if you're asking for what is 'effective' its air. Air beats everything, and nothing counters air.

We can agree on that.

Just just theses of mine concerning air >>> all.

1) Fighters on air superiority dont seem to attack naval bombers at all. As Germany i cant entirely lose air superiority over Benelux and Channel and still i only lose naval bombers over Channel only against ships and only in very limited numbers. Imo your air>>>all is in many cases- while certainly true - not even design but bug.

2) (Heavy) SPAA reinforced tank divisions seem to do quite well against air superiority/CAS.

3) Air needs rework in general, i suspect that next DLC is (also) about air.

4) Like in real WW2 stationary AA sucks. Ive read that only 1 of 2000 AA rounds hit back in the day.

[JDouglasBarson]

Never bring a light ship to a naval bomber battle.