Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Development Diary #10 - 17th of December 2008

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Show only dev responses
New naval indeed much better, although...

...as for the main guns, you used the Scharnhorst in the comparison, his sister Gneisenau was during war underway to rearm its main batteries to Bismarck type ones, since both ships were planned for them originally but they took too long so smaller ones were fitted...
HMS Warspite has it's main guns elevation was also modified in modernisation, strongly affecting maximum range.
Japanese built some "light cruisers" in way that would allow them heavy cruiser guns, and replaced them before war as planned.
Some old cruisers have had their armament replaced completely, from old open mounts to new ones, sometimes including replacement for more barrel turrets.
Many UK destroyers had the one turret of main batteries replaced by dual-purpose or AA gun during the war.
That is just few things in mind.

Still, system as you wrote is still by difference of magnitude better than one in HOI2 and also better than one in first HOI. I hope there will be modernisation with micromanagement, taking time to upgrade the ships, possibly depending on severity of modification(new torpedo protection takes probably more time than extra few AA light guns).
 
The only problem is that the Gneisenau never completed the upgrade, so the argument is weakened. I'm not sure how to balance this. The real problem here seems that the particulars of whether an upgrade would be viable or not depends on the engineering details of the ship that the game abstracts away.

Also, reading up on the Yamashiro, which had new boilers fitted, among other things, the whole process took FIVE years, from 1930 to 1935. That's as good as rebuilding the ship whole.
 
Johan said:
We have also scraped the naval attachment system all together and instead we have defined each individual technology to be upgradeable or not (surprisingly this is also fully modable).
Click to expand...
:rofl: The Creator finding an easter egg. This made my day.

And upgradeable features on ships is incredibly awesome. :cool: Gotta get this, please please tell me this will run on a 2ghz machine. :cool:
 
Sangeli said:
This is why I hate the christmas and the holidays. What am I going to do until mid January without any new HOI 3 development diaries? Not to mention that TV shows essentially stop for a month as well. Lenin and the other commies were right; religion should be terminated.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling if the Commies had there way Christmas would most likely still exist as it is now more a Consumer holiday than a religious one, besides surely Paradox will give us an even bigger Dev Diary than before:).
 
Alexander Seil said:
The only problem is that the Gneisenau never completed the upgrade, so the argument is weakened. I'm not sure how to balance this. The real problem here seems that the particulars of whether an upgrade would be viable or not depends on the engineering details of the ship that the game abstracts away.

Also, reading up on the Yamashiro, which had new boilers fitted, among other things, the whole process took FIVE years, from 1930 to 1935. That's as good as rebuilding the ship whole.
Click to expand...
Well but that was not problem that it could not have been completed, but the problem that Hitler has gone mad on surface units after losses, and priorities were set elsewhere. The Engineering would be IMHO not problem, since ships were projected for larger calliber originally. So yes you would maybe have to replace barbettes and whole turret, but you would not need to interfere with ship structure.
I would not stick too much with particular examples. HMS Valiant had boilers and machinery replaced(being slower overall afterwards though ;-) between March 1937 and November 1939(plus some small things like complete secondary weapons replace), so I would not conclude that much from some particular case. It is not true it is equivalent to new ship - you just need some resources, but not that many. Another example could be CA-32 USS New Orleans had 45m of new bow(old one including main turret "A" ripped off by torpedo) rebuilt in about three-four months, so really it in each case depent on what to do, how much does it hurry and whether resources are available.
 
Will Lucky said:
I have a feeling if the Commies had there way Christmas would most likely still exist as it is now more a Consumer holiday than a religious one, besides surely Paradox will give us an even bigger Dev Diary than before:).
Click to expand...

They better. They'll have had more than a month off by next diary. The only thing we can really hope for is that in that time they actually looked at our comments.
 
Alexander Seil said:
Also, reading up on the Yamashiro, which had new boilers fitted, among other things, the whole process took FIVE years, from 1930 to 1935. That's as good as rebuilding the ship whole.
Click to expand...

But they could not, as signatories to Washington in twenty two, and first London Treaty in thirty two, effectively prevented new build, so the only option was new wine in old bottles.

Hiei was disarmed in thirty two, belt and 2 turrets removd, and was only reactivated in 1940 aftr 4 years in refit. Her sisters were reboilred starting in thirty five and only complted 1940, Fuso and Yamashiro got similar treatment in the thirties, including lengthning by 7.6m. Oddly, doubling the power gave an addition to speed of lss than 2 kt...

K
 
Interesting DD it is. Naval warfare truly needs some love. Being able to actually pull an operation Seelöwe would be quite entertaining I suppose.

Also I was never really convinced with the submarine warfare in HoI2. It always felt as if there was barely any effect. While in reality Dönitz had the British on the verge of collapse with his "limited" capabilities it seemed to be literally impossible to achieve the same in HoI2 even if you had spammed the Atlantic ocean with countless submarines.
 
it seemed to be literally impossible to achieve the same in HoI2 even if you had spammed the Atlantic ocean with countless submarines.
Click to expand...
The problem in HoI2 was, that you only destroy convois from the reserve pool not matter where these convois has been sunk.
I'm very happy that Johan has mentioned in HoI3 with the new supply system we will be able to destroy on special routes...
 
Gerhardt said:
Interesting DD it is. Naval warfare truly needs some love. Being able to actually pull an operation Seelöwe would be quite entertaining I suppose.

Also I was never really convinced with the submarine warfare in HoI2. It always felt as if there was barely any effect. While in reality Dönitz had the British on the verge of collapse with his "limited" capabilities it seemed to be literally impossible to achieve the same in HoI2 even if you had spammed the Atlantic ocean with countless submarines.
Click to expand...

Really? I found the opposite. A human German player could sink 100 convoy points in a week, whereas, in reality, U-Boats sank around 1% of total allied merchant tonnage.

K
 
Khevenhuller said:
Really? I found the opposite. A human German player could sink 100 convoy points in a week, whereas, in reality, U-Boats sank around 1% of total allied merchant tonnage.

K
Click to expand...
Well I wasn't referring to reality in that way. What struck me was that no matter how much convoys you would destroy it just wouldn't really disrupt the British supply. I never cared to check why that is. I assumed they just produced more convoys than I could destroy. Which made it kinda pointless because obviously they could just go on producing stuff although I sank insanely much of their convoys. I found that somewhat illogical.
 
Khevenhuller said:
But they could not, as signatories to Washington in twenty two, and first London Treaty in thirty two, effectively prevented new build, so the only option was new wine in old bottles.

Hiei was disarmed in thirty two, belt and 2 turrets removd, and was only reactivated in 1940 aftr 4 years in refit. Her sisters were reboilred starting in thirty five and only complted 1940, Fuso and Yamashiro got similar treatment in the thirties, including lengthning by 7.6m. Oddly, doubling the power gave an addition to speed of lss than 2 kt...

K
Click to expand...

It is questionable, however, whether this deserves having its own mechanism in the game. Building a new ship with the same name achieves the exact same result.
 
Alexander Seil said:
It is questionable, however, whether this deserves having its own mechanism in the game. Building a new ship with the same name achieves the exact same result.
Click to expand...

Depends whether you think that the facts should fit the game or the game should fit the facts.

K
 
Khevenhuller said:
Depends whether you think that the facts should fit the game or the game should fit the facts.

K
Click to expand...

Naval Treaties won't be in the game. The reason the whole smoke and mirrors operation was carried out was because of the Naval Treaties. You literally want a mechanism that has no place in a model without negotiated restrictions on tonnage and whatnot. The practical effect on the economy is basically the same - scrap the Yamashiro, build a ship with the same name.
 
But naval traties are critical to what navies are built by countries. It is like having no R-M Pact in terms of its centrality. Lunacy not to include them. Besides, by thirty six all but second London are signd up to. The issue comes with breaking them.

K
 
Italy was not a signatory to the Second London treaty, and Japan withdrew from all treaties in 1936. Germany wasn't limited by them to begin with, and was in a position to openly ignore its obligations by 1936. So please tell, what role exactly would these semi-defunct treaties actually play?

They would be relevant in a game that covered the period of 1930-1936.
 
I never understood ship refurbishments. It seems like it is more expensive than just building a superior ship from the ground up, and just scraping the old one. There certainly would be a lot less headache in trying to engineer everything to fit an already existing ship, plus you have anything not upgraded obsolete. You can only add so much armor to an already built ship.
 
krieger11b said:
I never understood ship refurbishments. It seems like it is more expensive than just building a superior ship from the ground up, and just scraping the old one. There certainly would be a lot less headache in trying to engineer everything to fit an already existing ship, plus you have anything not upgraded obsolete. You can only add so much armor to an already built ship.
Click to expand...
You are always limited. New ship cost much more than partial refit of old ship, and depending on upgrade, takes much more time. Of course there are ships that are not worth refitting at some point. However, in many cases, the upgrade was very worthy, and as for small guns additions to counter air force all during the war, essential.

In case of HMS Hood, if it would have been modernised/refitted in early 1940's, maybe additional deck armour could possibly prevent it's total loss in fight with Bismarck with just three men surviving.

And, in case of new ships, you make plans, build ship. But with years in service, you see if there are some adjustments to do. In case of Japanese, they built great ammount of ships with great speed but poor stability, and had to fix them all after some (peacetime)losses on rough sea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back