• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Torpedo bombers -

Why NAVs are in the game, and torpedo bombers are presumably not, I have no idea. Torpedo bombers actually exist, and were extremely important in taking out ships. The reason why NAVs are so hard to balance is because they cover huge areas of ocean and do incredible damage for no particular reason. Not to mention that because carriers can't carry planes, ships have no defense other than land-based air. Torpedo bombers would allow for more direct, hull damage, as opposed to shelling and bombs having a relatively higher affect on org (damaged guns, flight deck, fires, and general mayhem). And that leads to...

Torpedoes -

Screening vessels should have more to do than simply get shot at. During the first hour of combat, they should unleash a torpedo salvo. They should be extremely inaccurate, but you should still have a chance to get a lucky hit. Torpedo tubes can be an upgradable part of the ship, having the ability to launch more at a time, and have greater range. It also allows modeling of Japanese ships, which generally had many more torpedo tubes than others of their class.

A torpedo attack was the main offensive ability of destroyers. They should indeed have the ability to attack, particularly at night, and be fairly dangerous. Making fake or real torpedo runs is vital to them bing a bit more than simply an ASW asset.

As for NAVS, only 2 countries made shore-based aircraft specifically for naval attack; Britain (the Beaufort) and Japan (GM and G4M). IMHO these should be seperate from NAVS which seem to have been employed in Recce and ASW roles.

I think it should be doctrinal. The ability to use TAC, SC and so on for naval strike should be basd on whether you have researched it or not. It is not just a matter of having the aircraft, for example Italy in 1940-41 did not even have AP bombs for her planes. Training in sea attack and navigation are also important parts of the mix.

K
 
The problem is that you are stuck thinking in terms of HoI2 - where is was never a good idea (IC wise) (excluding carriers and their busted CAGs) to start a new production run of an old model unit. The newest designs were always more efficient IC wise to the older models - you always got more combat power per IC for building a 'new' design.
No. Newer models were almost always less efficient IC wise.
 
Glad to hear the about the partial upgrading possibilities

as for the newer orders.. they'll certainly add new layers of strategic decisions.. good stuff

looking forward to the air force changes now :)
 
The ability for the UK player to combine UK/Aust/NZ and Canadian units into integrated Commonwealth fleets/armies/etc is crucial to the credibility of HOI3 MP. The UK/CW player currently has a huge ahistorical penalty for the ridiculous inability of the game engine to cope with the reality of the Commonwealth in the period 1936-55.

That naval units cant form into integrated fleets is beyond laughable. This is a key fix for the naval org code.

I agree a key naval fix is the commonwealth forces being involved together.
 
Will the player be able to deploy the ships just at any one of our major ports when they are completed or will it be more realistic in that we have to choose where it will be built?

Will players be able to capture ships as well as occasionally happened in HOI2? (unless that was a fun glitch:) )