Except they could easily carry additional fuel tanks. That they are small doesn't prevent them from being long-range.
I hope naval adustments mean that having a fast carrier task force is invaluable. In the pacific theatre, nearly all the major naval engagements for the US were with their carriers and supporting ships and only rarely were old battleships, by then used for naval bombardment, fought against other ships. I want to see a tangible improvement in tactical ability and operational flexiblity that having a fast carrier force meant.
A quick look through Wiki suggests that many late war engagements around the Philippines certainly involved large numbers of battleships. I wonder if they fired, however, and how they actually participated in those battles.
An important role of battleships in the (late) Pacific War was to have lots and lots of AA guns.
Typing in all capital letters went out of style with FORTRAN.
Until the Taegukgi is added!
next person(s) discussing history here rather than in the HISTORY forum (I know, the connection is a tough one) WILL get a warning.
the current problem witht he carriers is such (inhoi2) that they are the uber killing machine - thus its pointless to build anything else except them and cls. I understand that they are powerfull but due to the hoi2 system all sides just swam in 1 big stack. Really not fun. hope that they force players to spread out their fleets more and make building other units viable.
and yea yea and i know that cvs rule these days and all bbs are decomissioned now but still it adds a bit of flavour when the japs launch their musashi - instead of scraping it all in 1936 "as it makes sense"..
In addition, with what Johan said about using small flotillas to scout, and then having larger fleets respond to sightings, a "stack" fleet would be less able to respond (due to distance) than a number of smaller (but still powerful) fleets.
This is one of the main problems with the "decisive battle" doctrine - the opportunities for major engagements (the doctrine's raison d'etre ["reason to be", for the non-French inclined]) are very rare if you only have one fleet.
If at first you donít succeed, call it version 1.0
Here's a couple of further thoughts.
The Washington Treaty
Now no single act was more important in influencing ship construction for WW2 than this document, designed specifically to avoid the destructive naval racing pre-WW1. The limits imposed by this treaty were not modelled in HoI2 at all. It should be possible in HoI3 to do this. In other words, in HoI2 terms, a breach of treaty limits (simply defined by counting numbers of ships and types - should be a fairly simple AI algorithm) should be accompanied by a penalty, or would not be allowed unless the country had a certain level of belligerence.
The First London Treaty
In 1930 another treaty was agreed. This increased the limits imposed on countries' ability to build through to 1937. No new capital ships, no new carrier conversions, limits on tonnage for destroyers, light (under 6.1" armament) and heavy cruisers. It is this treaty that encouraged the development of cruisers that were armoured as heavy cruisers but armed with 6" guns (like Mogami or the RN's 'Town' class). All major naval poers were signatories to this as well.
The Second London Treaty
In 1936, with the deadline of 1937 approaching, another treaty was arranged. This time only the UK, France and the US took part. The basic upshot from this was that the UK adopted the 14" gun for the KGV class (rather Lion that was meant to have 16" similar to Nelson) and some US treaty cruisers, the St Louis class, but these were actually considerably larger than the rules allowed. There was an 'escalator' clause, that allowed signatories to build ships with heavier guns if the non-signatories carried on regardless. Hence North Carolina could have 16" because the Japanese were already building Musashi.
The Anglo-German Naval agreement
Signed in 1935 this treaty famously agreed that the new Kriegsmarine would be limited to 35% of the tonnage of the RN (except submarines where it was 100%). This overcame the limits of Versailles for the German Navy, and hacked off the French and Italians who were not even consulted.
So how can these be modelled? They need to be as they are critical to Naval design and numbers. Washington is fairly easy (as outlined above) as, indeed in the first London Treaty. Decisions to breach this agreements should be accompanied by a considerable political penalty.
Second London could be an event. Benefits being increased political relations between all signatories, the escalator kicks in if anyone builds anything with guns bigger than 14".
The AGNA of 1935 is more critical. A German breach would undoubtedly have touched a very sensetive nerve for the Brits. The Germans could happily build up to the 35% and then get a warning when further builds would breach the AGNA. A breach of the AGNA would probably have seen increased British belligerence and hostility to the Germans, far more so than continental readjustments, as naval dominance was central to British survival.
How this would fit in with the new HoI3 political setup, well I am simply lost on that one. But given their centrality to what ships you could build and were built/modernised then I cannot see how they can be ignored.
The problem of the lack of need to return to port and ability to sit out in the sea for year if the order was given also didnt help. Furthermore move times and immidiate ablity to change of orders of all units dont help draw out the sea campaigns.
IMO the thing is to incline players to swim around with more smaller fleets rather than 1 huge armada of 24 ships that PWN all in their path.
These effects shouldn't be available to WWI-era ships (mainly not equipped for planes) and should not be cumulative with the effects of advanced radars (centimetric radar does the same things better).
Realistic build times would help too--other than the US with it's unique emphasis on mass production, BBs and CVs took at least 3 and more often 4-5 years to complete and commission; CLs 2-3 years, DDs 1.5-2 years, etc.
@ Khevenhuller: agree about the naval treaties; when I play as UK I never lay down new BBs until 1/1/37.
Something like an increase in belligerence and worsening relations with other treaty powers (whatever the HOI3 equivs are) for treaty breaches makes sense.
A whale is a shark built to Admiralty specifications.
The only naval attachments in HOI2 or Doomsday original were carrier air groups - which was certainly an improvement on the way HOI1 modelled carriers.
Armageddon introduced a "naval attachments" system so you could "upgrade" ships with fire control or aa guns or torpedos, or something - it never made much historical sense and introduced a few gamebreaking strategies.
What Johan seems to be proposing is being able to develop each ship individually and upgrade it individually. So the seaplanes or CAG or radars woudl be represented but without a brigade.