They brough too many carriers to Midway and by chance were separated by 600miles from their battleship screen and 80% of their carrier force in volume of planes were destroyed before they could correct the problem.
To bring too much force is to expose yourself to needless risk.
Japan would likely NOT have lost WW2 had they understood this concept.
But their mentality was one of all risk all the time
I could go on about the tactical mistakes at the start of Japan’s midway operation but if they simply sent parity they would have lost only 40% of their air forces in the Pacific.
Not 80%
Had they not sought to converge their Pacific fleet north with their Pacific fleet south as close to midway as they did (rushed for speed) they would have had a proper fleet composition at all times and 80% of their air forces in the Pacific would not have been without a battleship screen.
Had they understood the basics of fleet composition at all. 80 % of their air forces would never have been without a battleship screen period.
It’s cute that you think you know what you’re talking about, but the big fleet meta is “Bring more titans”. If you can’t reach parity, you should just stay home. Subcaps are not going to accomplish anything productive.
But…You do not want “parity”. If you have, e.g., titan parity with the opposing force, you’re going to lose more titans than you will with overwhelming force.
Reason being that DD volleys guarantee some titan losses on each side, so long as both sides have enough DDs on the field to alpha a titan.
Consequently, the more individual titans you can delete per volley, the more quickly you can get the other side below the requisite threshold.
Japan very accurately lost WW2 for one reason.
They brough too many carriers to Midway and by chance were separated by 600miles from their battleship screen and 80% of their carrier force in volume of planes were destroyed before they could correct the problem.
You may find this shocking but Eve isn’t the real world, and in Eve a battleship “Screen” in a cap fight is pretty much bonus killmails.
I mean, it’s nice of them to show up to give the third party NPSI guys in bombers something to haze.
@Alistair_Atreides is known to just make up stuff and tries to talk about things he has no knowledge in merely because he recently got an Omega subscription. He especially knows nothing about capitals. It’s best to just ignore him, or he’ll try and derail the topic to irrelevant things (because he doesn’t have the requisite knowledge about capitals to actually remain on topic).
On that note though, Jin’taan’s pretty smart about these things and I agree with most of what he’s saying. Something I’d like to see removed is the soft dps cap on fighters to help smaller fleets defang fighters more reliably, but I know that’ll cause issues in larger fleet fights with alpha volleys deleting entire fighter wings in a single go.
Edit: You see? Nothing about EVE Online capitals because he doesn’t know anything about EVE Online capitals. He’s trying to derail with some weird tangent about WW2 because that’s at least something he does know about. Next he’ll try and claim that his knowledge about WW2 will make his opinions about Capitals worth listening to.
You have 3 generalized stages of a battle. Opening game. Midgame. Late game.
The opening move fallacy shows that you can mistake parity and force in an opening move for the condition of all the operation.
The result is many commanders field too much risk up front.
A risk averse and well informed commander can hit critical components of their opposing force and severely cripple them with way too much exposure in middle and late games.
In the context of this thread the OP commented specifically on the force multiplier and diversity offered by a carrier.
But as noted. Losing a carrier severely diminishes the force’s ability to resist subcapitals.
So at this time bringing subcapitals significantly reduces risk and their diminished fleet composition suffers more greatly middle to late game.
Of course you have the mindset of a phalanx. So you dont know any better.
Alexander demolished the Phalanx using less men and less force because he understood the principles I’m expounding here now.
No, it doesn’t. That’s the point. Carriers aren’t the finite, strategic resource you’re imagining them as. They’re cannon-fodder. Inexpensive, already-replaced cannon-fodder, at that. Pound for pound the cap-ships are just better. They tank better, they do more damage, and they’re versatile enough to replace a lot of normally subcap-reserved roles, which was pretty much the point of the OP.
While I appreciate that you would like to think your knowledge of WWII lore would be applicable here, it’s not, as the entire environment is fundamentally different, from the relative expense and availability of resources, to the logistics of putting ships on the field.
I do encourage you to round yourself up a subcap fleet and head on over to delve to give them a lesson in elite space-naval strategery, though.
First I’m commenting on the specific fleet role the OP gave them.
they arent inexpensive. Because firstly they cant be easily placed into battle once lost
And secondly, your fleet is what’s at stake not just the carriers. Unless you have some exit and disengagement strategy then placing such a significant role as fly swatter on a vulnerable liability is STUPID
And that brings me to a glaring fact of this thread.
The fleet commanders are stupid.
If you think it’s just bring same capitals +1… n+1. then you’re a stupid commander.
The fact there are no smart commanders doesnt change reality.
It just means you’re a bunch of Aztecs who havent met Conquistadors using European principles of warfare.
Now that aside…its expected.
its a game. No one gives a ■■■■.
last I heard great fleet battles are a thing of the past so costs are low, risk is low, no one is getting experience in conducting them in the context of a game.
Im pretty sure you give a few Annapolis surface warfare grads command and a briefing on basics of fleet composition stats of the ships in the game and they’d make short work of goonswarm and northern coalition if this thread represents the best fleet strategies EvE has to offer.
While this is an unpopular opinion, it is still as true today as it was several years ago:
Remote repair is the worst mechanic every introduced into Eve.
Remove remote repair at all levels of the game, and then we’d have attrition in every battle. While that might not seem like a big deal, it has a huge psychological impact regarding fights, because victories are often measured in more ways than one.
The US has avoided Naval confrontation with Iran specifically because the US fleet is risk-heavy.
Its fleet composition is designed to push back on other great powers. Its carrier force is no longer a factor in fleet battles but now is given a littoral support role.
Todays super carriers are more the support carrier of ww2.
There are no fleet carriers today.
Iran in contrast fields almost no asset risk in its brown water navy.
For the US it is an unacceptable risk to deploy more than a DDG against Iran.
Right now even after Iran stole a UK oil tanker the UK has commited only 2 cruisers to the gulf.
Why not a whole fleet?
They dont want to expose high value assets to assymetrical warfare.
You telling me that Iran is stupid?
That speed boats and helicopters are “obsolete”?
Tell that to the Pentagon.
They need your tactical prowess now!
They’re so inexpensive that before the insurance changes, it was cheaper to lose carriers than popular battleship doctrines. It may still be; I haven’t checked.
They’re so inexpensive that doctrines named “Suicide Dreads” are a thing, and it’s not just a clever name.
Because firstly they cant be easily placed into battle once lost
Actually, they can be. You just deathclone back to staging, hop in another hull, and jump on back with a reinforcement wave because Eve isn’t the real world and we have space-magic.
No, it’s not Iran I’m calling stupid, here.
In the real world, a speedboat full of C4 detonating at your waterline is going to be a problem for anything floating because real world physics exists in the real world. There is no comparable asymmetry in Eve. Sure, a fleet of subcaps can take out a lone cap, but a fleet of subcaps trying to go toe-to-toe with a fleet of caps is basically futile, and the larger the respective fleets, the more it veers in favor of the caps.
Asymmetric warfare in Eve is more like… Delve Pest Control.
That’s not my main point. They are not “inexpensive” because of factors like time and space and the overall risk in the fleet.
Yes but there is a time and space component to this. Just figure out whatever it is and that’s your actual cost vis-a-vis your exposed risk.
There actually is but it’s not necessarily visible in the opening move or early game.
But what you’re talking about is opening move stuff.
If your opening move is fleet of sub caps against fleet of super caps…instant fail.
I guess to get back on point is there’s a misunderstanding of why things are more balanced than they seem.
you are asking for an arcade style game
what you got is a long term multiple years of strategy game.
The problem is in an arcade format…West Side Story…show up to fight one fight…
Sub caps and caps dont seem to match up well.
But you cant balance a long term strategy game based on that or you’ll have a whacked out game.
Instead the problem is more accurately…
There arent long wars and long term battles right now so there’s too many capitals and you’ll have to burn through a bit of them before fleet compositions at that level of battle become more diversified.
There is no metric by which they are not basically cheap. Your most “Expensive” asset is the pilot.
Actually, there’s very little time component when the fight is happening under heavy tidi. See: Asakai.
Nor in the mid-game, late-game, end-game, or after-game party. It’s just that, like any good Dunning-Kruger posterchild, you think your ignorance is every bit as valid as everyone else’s knowledge.
Also, I glossed over one of your dumber comments earlier:
Some capitals can deal with subcapitals. Others cannot.
Thus swapping pilots and fleet composition during a battle makes sense. You start with 100 capitals to knock out the capitals able to handle subcapitals. Then you start swapping out for the subcapitals once those threats are neutered.
Please do feel free to share your thoughts on which capitals can and cannot “deal with” subcapitals at hundred+ fleet scales. That should be good for a laugh.
This boring statistical fact can simply be googled. While risk and fleet composition cannot be so easily googled. So why should I invest time in boring statistical facts about what can and cannot target what ship classes effectively, when you yourself decide to argue about narrow use-cases of the game.
So this thread should say:
“In Null Sec, in some instances of massive battles, sometimes when commanders can’t come up with more creative tactical situations, Sub-capitals might be obsolete.”
The answer is, “There aren’t any caps that don’t do well against subcaps”. They ALL do well against subcaps. It’ll take around 50 battleships to crack the active tank on a FAX. HAW dreads absolutely eat subcaps, as they’re designed to do, and even through they’re “nerfed” on titans, they work pretty damn well there, too, thanks to the way the tracking formula calculates from the center of the model and not the edge.
And then there’s the boson.
Throw in the sizable drone bays on all of the above and, no, your speculative fiction about “well choreographed subcaps” is, well… exactly that.
Is a dreadnaut going to beat a Frigate? naw. Even a rightly fitted BS? Unlikely. I mean…I’ve seen haulers carrying 2b in isk with no fittings so I guess when those are the types of pilots you have maybe yeah…
But I don’t think subcap’ers worth a grain of salt are going to make these kinds of mistakes.
