I actually agree with the other stuff you said, but for this... what about the USS Constitution? That would probably count as early America's PoF, no?
And that was a heavy frigate, probably equivalent to the HCs in this game.
-
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.
I actually agree with the other stuff you said, but for this... what about the USS Constitution? That would probably count as early America's PoF, no?
And that was a heavy frigate, probably equivalent to the HCs in this game.
I agree with Graf Keks, this bonus is small and penalty in case of losing ship is big. So most likely I will not use this feature. Maybe when I am winning already.
And other poster - okay, be it dissent hit.
And other poster - okay, be it dissent hit.
Well, perhaps, but for playability and fun, shouldn't minors be allowed to have a POF without building a BB? And if I only have CVs in my fleet, shouldn't I still get to have my POF?
I am not interestetd in any artificial micros like 'POFs'. We already have loads of abundant stuff subject to additional articifial bugs. These are toys not actually needed. These are 'nice to haves' after a thing got into working state.
How about a dev diary that tells us whether HoI 3 will ever get a working diplomacy model or will at least ever get any kind of relationship to ww2?
How about a dev diary that tells us whether HoI 3 will ever get a working diplomacy model or will at least ever get any kind of relationship to ww2?
From what I've seen, it happens when a Navy retreats through the blocked provinces, but I thought they fixed that.
That depends entirely on if the dissent hit turns out to be 1% or 10%, I'm guessing the first is more likely. But can't you enlighten us how big it will be since you seem to know something the rest off us don't?
And it only occur when the ship is lost, which shouldn't be common at all.
I'm guessing I will be using this feature all the time ^^
I think the issue here is that the current HoI model seems to include that if two fleets engage that all ships engage regardless of size disposition and current orders.
10 BBs should be able to engage 30 BBs and survive and possibly take out the other 30BBs due to positioning, hull specs, gunnery, weather conditions, and speed etc etc. Likley to win? No? But should be possible given the right circumstances.
The way the system is now is that superior numbers always win and that's not the way it happened.
The Japanese did some engagements against the Americans against superior numbers around 1942-43 time frame in the south Pacific. Eventually they lost out due to attrition, but they did have some tactical victories.
I agree, what If 10 modern Iowa class BBs or Montana class SHBBs meet say 30 old WW1 BBs? In HoI3 currently the modern ones would pretty much get slaughtered due to each off them taking fire from three ships at once.
In reality that is not very probable since the faster ones could run circles around the un organized mess off a fleet/battleline they would be facing and Cross their T as many times they want taking them out one by one almost.
Exactly.
I think stacking penalty should be what determines how many ships can engage at once and how effectivley rather than putting a malus across all ships of the fleet.
Say a ship of 5 capitals and 10 screens versus an over stacked fleet of 20 capitals and 40 screens.
If the smaller fleet engages, they should be able to bring all their ships to bear, but the larger fleet can only (based on effectiveness) bring so many ships to bear against it any single time so it is more of an even battle depending.
That said, the larger fleet's ships that do come to be brought against it should still be considered at 100% effective combat, but may not bring all its ships into combat at once.
Given my previous example, lets say the large fleet commander gives about 5% effectiveness so they are only able to bring 4 capitals and 10 screens into combat at a single time.
If they are defeated by the smaller fleet than the other ships (given how long the battle lasted) will be able to move in and engage or (if the smaller fleet is able to based on conditions) the smaller fleet may be able to withdraw.
Of course air superiority and CAVs make this a different ball game as it would be harder to withdraw from a battle if the enemy has air superiority, but as before you can only cram so many planes into the sky before it becomes problematic.
This is essentially how it is done to land combat. The problem would be deciding which vessels would go into combat or not, I mean, if you were lucky you would get lot of BBs versus the enemy screens first.
Thinking about this, I believe one could think of capital ships as combat brigades and screens as support brigades. You could create small "formations" just like you do with divisions and then they would fight as one during naval combat. The advantages of this are:
1) No more screen slaughtering
2) Would allow the player to especify which capital ships they would like to "protect more"
3) Would partially solve the problem of carriers running away while their screens rush to death.
4) Make it easier to organize fleets as the screens would go with their capitals
Formations could be limited to one capital ship per formation or not.
Formations could have slots for capital and screens. (so you could have a light cruiser screened by destroyers or a battleship screened by light cruisers, but destroyers would always be screens)
Transports could be considered stackable capital ships.
Huh, I'd never heard of that fight. The Pacific war is always portrayed, at least here in the US, as an unending string of victories after Midway. While it's obviously not the case, we just don't hear about the losses. Any other examples?
![[MM]](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/styles/paradox/owneditems/avatars/new/s/flag_d_ger.png){kind=avatar}
I'm very glad to hear about the new convoy features for the supply system and the improvements of the invasion AI for the pacific theater. But will there also be an improvement for D-Day style invasions? Will the AI still concentrate on a single port province or will they be able to attack on a broader front?
What I do still mis a bit is a naval command hierarchy similar to the land command hierarchy. The fleet should have its own command system: within each taskforce is a command tree of an admiral in command of the captains that are in charge of their ships
The only problem is that most naval HQs should be inside the ships themselves (with exception of the "supreme Naval Head quarters on land"), capital ships would be commanded by higher ranking officers and so on.
An example of a supreme Naval Head quarter for submarines would be the headquarter of Naval commander in chief Dönitz who commanded his submarines from land.
We can probably expect the Naval command to be incorporated into the land command tree as before or will this also change in the expansion?
As I find it a bit weird to see a "general" land AI in controll of your ships, will there be a separation of Land, Naval and Air command or will this stay as it is: melted into 1 general AI in command of all warfare?
The only problem is that most naval HQs should be inside the ships themselves (with exception of the "supreme Naval Head quarters on land"), capital ships would be commanded by higher ranking officers and so on.
An example of a supreme Naval Head quarter for submarines would be the headquarter of Naval commander in chief Dönitz who commanded his submarines from land.
We can probably expect the Naval command to be incorporated into the land command tree as before or will this also change in the expansion?
As I find it a bit weird to see a "general" land AI in controll of your ships, will there be a separation of Land, Naval and Air command or will this stay as it is: melted into 1 general AI in command of all warfare?
Last edited:
Why would you argue this? You don't think, for example, that Charles de Gaulle is the pride of the modern French navy? Im game terms, had Germany completed Graf Zeppelin they may have used it in propaganda similar to how they used Bismark. If a nation has a new, badass carrier they want to show off, what quality is inherent to a carrier that says they couldn't do this? Note that I am not arguing that a destroyer flottilla should be eligible, just carriers. The ship should have to have some plausible intimidation value to other countries.
Why do you guys want Carriers to be Pride of the Fleet anyways? +10% Experience boost won't do them any good at all... 
The fact that each "fleet" or "group" at sea is a separate command I don't have too much trouble with, to be honest - but the fact that only land leaders can command the theatres (and "army groups", etc.) that the fleets are attached to is a royal pain in the behind. I find I always have shedloads of naval and airforce leaders spare, especially playing as UK, while the St.John's command (looking after the Atlantic theatre, basically) has to have a land general in charge of it... Examples of Naval theatre commanders abound, and combined forces "armies" and "army groups" were frequently under naval command, too. Just the ability to assign naval and airforce commanders to "normal" HQs would be a boon, I think.
Maybe it's to late but I'd like to throw out an idea....
Have unique country abilities. 3 countries come to mind with one of their unique ww2 abilities. I'm sure there are more.
Japan - they used destroyers as supply transports to help them get through to their outskirts of the empire.
New Zeeland - had listening posts on enemy islands. They observed not only island acitivities but air and ship activities also.
USA - Marine Raiders, they acted as partisans on the Japanese controlled islands.
The first two would be the cooler of the three.
Have unique country abilities. 3 countries come to mind with one of their unique ww2 abilities. I'm sure there are more.
Japan - they used destroyers as supply transports to help them get through to their outskirts of the empire.
New Zeeland - had listening posts on enemy islands. They observed not only island acitivities but air and ship activities also.
USA - Marine Raiders, they acted as partisans on the Japanese controlled islands.
The first two would be the cooler of the three.