Naval unit experience

[johnknott]

Experience of units goes down as well as up due to losses or equipment changes.

Navy units' (ships) experience tends not to other than after refits as ships tend to be sunk or they get away.

Lately I've noticed ships dropping from regular to trained quite often.

Now, it's possible that's always been the way but I just never noticed but it does beg the question as to why a ship's experience might drop. I've never actually noticed casualty levels of ships that have survived a fight. I had a task force with three carriers for invasion support (no orders - just park them near the invasion point and give support missions to their CAS) and I suddenly noticed they'd all dropped from regular to trained. What happened?

[Bored Peon]

Correct, damage taken can reduce xp of the crew. At higher levels the xp drop is no longer noticeable. It is only at the lower levels it shows most. Could be the penalty aint enough xp loss to lose a level.

One of the ways to help prevent losses is manually repair after some of he bigger battles. Sometimes destroyers have really low health and it doe snot trigger fleet repair.

[JDouglasBarson]

The CAS on support from carriers are somewhat okay. The loses from CAS on mission from carriers are what I would consider very high. Check the air zone map and look into the loss of planes for that month.

[johnknott]

Originally posted by JDouglasBarson:

The CAS on support from carriers are somewhat okay. The loses from CAS on mission from carriers are what I would consider very high. Check the air zone map and look into the loss of planes for that month.

Strangely, in my latest run I'd noticed carrier CAS is next to useless. It's there, it does a bit of damage, but frankly the carriers would be more use with naval bombers and joining a strike force.

Three carriers with 4 CAS wings each (120 aircraft) and hardly scratched a Japanese defender.

[johnknott]

Originally posted by Bored Peon:

Correct, damage taken can reduce xp of the crew. At higher levels the xp drop is no longer noticeable. It is only at the lower levels it shows most. Could be the penalty aint enough xp loss to lose a level.

One of the ways to help prevent losses is manually repair after some of he bigger battles. Sometimes destroyers have really low health and it doe snot trigger fleet repair.

Yes, I think I'd noticed destroyers dropping experience levels before, just not the big stuff.

One wonders how many casualties a capital ship has to take to drop a level. So many it's hard to imagine it making it back for repairs.

Not sure I know how to check naval crew casualties as by the time you've noticed they're in for repairs.

Thinking aloud: Wondering if this is to do with me rushing damage control tech lately. Ships are surviving which would have previously been sunk.

[Bored Peon]

Originally posted by johnknott:

Not sure I know how to check naval crew casualties as by the time you've noticed they're in for repairs.

Honestly, I do not think there is even a way to track casualty numbers ofr naval battle as it only counts ships lost and damage done to ships.

Originally posted by johnknott:

Thinking aloud: Wondering if this is to do with me rushing damage control tech lately. Ships are surviving which would have previously been sunk.

In my experience the two skills for dealing and receiving damage make a difference. I usually dump my naval xp into them to increase them asap after completing the doctrines first. The doctrines come first because they add organization which helps a ship survive better.

I do know that without doctrines, low naval command levels, and ship not being trained you will lose entire fleets as I have repeated had this issue with Manchus, even when Japan hands it's starting navy to me.

[johnknott]

Originally posted by Bored Peon:

Originally posted by johnknott:

Not sure I know how to check naval crew casualties as by the time you've noticed they're in for repairs.

Honestly, I do not think there is even a way to track casualty numbers ofr naval battle as it only counts ships lost and damage done to ships.

Originally posted by johnknott:

Thinking aloud: Wondering if this is to do with me rushing damage control tech lately. Ships are surviving which would have previously been sunk.

In my experience the two skills for dealing and receiving damage make a difference. I usually dump my naval xp into them to increase them asap after completing the doctrines first. The doctrines come first because they add organization which helps a ship survive better.

I do know that without doctrines, low naval command levels, and ship not being trained you will lose entire fleets as I have repeated had this issue with Manchus, even when Japan hands it's starting navy to me.

I assume it does track casualties as we're getting those XP drops (and I know naval trickleback is a thing because it's mentioned in the shark invested water tool tip) but it doesn't seem to tell the player about them as far as I'm aware.

Thing about damage control is that it's a tech rather than a doctrine so you can do both simultaneously. My entirely unscientific observation is that you do lose less ships with it.

Equally unscientifically it seems you sink more with the naval targeting tech (in addition to fire control upgrades).

[Bored Peon]

Originally posted by johnknott:

Originally posted by Bored Peon:

Honestly, I do not think there is even a way to track casualty numbers ofr naval battle as it only counts ships lost and damage done to ships.

I assume it does track casualties as we're getting those XP drops (and I know naval trickleback is a thing because it's mentioned in the shark invested water tool tip) but it doesn't seem to tell the player about them as far as I'm aware.

Yeah, exactly what i meant. I guess a better choice of words would be "the amount of casualties is not displayed to the player."

Originally posted by johnknott:

Thing about damage control is that it's a tech rather than a doctrine so you can do both simultaneously. My entirely unscientific observation is that you do lose less ships with it.

Honestly, depends on the country and how many tech slots they have and how big of a navy they have to generate naval xp and if they have the fuel/oil to keep it going. While yes it does pay off, but what is being sacrificed to do so?
I guess that is why they call it a strategy game

[johnknott]

Yes, absolutely true. Choices, choices.

I think the reason you can get six tech slots as the USA is to encourage the player to build the A bomb. But as it's useless, I tend to use the sixth one for this sort of thing.

I actually tend to develop it ahead of more modern ship hulls. I just upgrade older ships with new FC etc.

BTW, am I the only person who thinks shark invested waters is "too much" detail? It's not going to change anyone's gameplay.

[Bored Peon]

Originally posted by johnknott:

I think the reason you can get six tech slots as the USA is to encourage the player to build the A bomb. But as it's useless, I tend to use the sixth one for this sort of thing.

The nuclear bombs have a few uses, most of the uses are for "the long games."
- Race for the Bomb, for this to work you need to participate in the race. This will require you dropping two nuclear bombs on a target country within a year of developing the bomb. Which means getting air superiority in order to do so. After the two drops that country will capitulate.
- Targeting airports, this is EXTREMELY useful for gaining air superiority and keeping your losses low. If you drop bombs on all the airports supporting a region you diminish the amount of planes the AI can have in the air. This can save you a lot of production and manpower.
- Targeting ports, the AI has this thing where ships will hide in a port while extending supremacy into the region. For example I have seen the AI have a dozen different countries with fleets in Pacific Islands making it a complete pain in the ass to gain supremacy to invade because all their piddly fleets total a higher score. Nuke the port and they cannot supply or repair and may move elsewhere.
- Softening naval invasions, this can break coastal walls, reduce units, etc and you Marines no longer land with such low organization they get overrun defending. It gets worse if the enemy commander is some level 9 general with an insane defense bonus.
- Mass build ups, going long games (as in going past like 1955) you literally can end up where you left Europe for last and when you try to get into Europe the AI has like 50+ divisions stacked in the area because it was too dumb go anywhere else earlier in the game.

[Bored Peon]

Originally posted by johnknott:

BTW, am I the only person who thinks shark invested waters is "too much" detail? It's not going to change anyone's gameplay.

Actually it has been mentioned before. I think there is a mechanic in place that vaguely considers it. I think it has a mechanic like air casualties that if it is in friendly territory then the casualties are reduced.
Which in all fairness, cold water is as bad as sharks.

[johnknott]

Originally posted by Bored Peon:

Which in all fairness, cold water is as bad as sharks.

Good point. Sharks would account for considerably less deaths than the cold waters of the Atlantic and Barents.

I think the sharks are there for a bit of colour because everyone knows about the Indianapolis if only because they've seen Jaws.

[Bored Peon]

Originally posted by johnknott:

I think the sharks are there for a bit of colour because everyone knows about the Indianapolis if only because they've seen Jaws.

Which goes back to the point of friendly territory reducing casualties. If I remember right, the Indianapolis was returning from the secret mission of delivering the nukes and most did not know it was in the area.