Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Semper Fi - Development Diary #5

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
There were a few minor ones involving the Tokyo Express (The Naval Battle of Vella Lavella, for instance), but Savo Island and Tassafargona are the major ones. There were also some incredibly bloody Allied victories, such as the First and Second Naval Battles of Guadalcanal.
 
Alex_brunius said:
Why do you guys want Carriers to be Pride of the Fleet anyways? +10% Experience boost won't do them any good at all... :confused:
Click to expand...

For immersion. Battleships played such a small role for the US in the Pacific War it just would feel weird to have one of their battleships designated as the pride of the fleet. After all, the feature is jsut for fun and immersion anyway, a 10% xp boost won't impact the campaign at the strategic level in even the slightest way.
 
Raptor1 said:
Ah, but Battleships were still largely considered the pride of the fleet during WWII, especially earlier in the war.
Click to expand...

Yes I can't really think of any CV being pride of the fleet, they were awesome but that is another story.
 
The carrier might well have been the most useful ship in the fleet, but much more often it was the battleships that were the most glorified ships of the fleet at the time; see HMS Hood (Well, Battlecruiser, but still...), Bismarck, Yamato...

For example, the surrender of Japan was signed on a battleship, not a carrier.

EDIT: Oh, the US Fleet. No idea if it counts in this case, though several battleships are candidates.
 
Last edited:
angj57 said:
For immersion. Battleships played such a small role for the US in the Pacific War it just would feel weird to have one of their battleships designated as the pride of the fleet. After all, the feature is jsut for fun and immersion anyway, a 10% xp boost won't impact the campaign at the strategic level in even the slightest way.
Click to expand...

If you wish to make a carrier the pride of the fleet, it would be interesting if the rules gave the 10% exp bonus to the CAGs, instead of, or in addition to, the carrier itself. Then it would be useful, and in the case of the Enterprise, it would reflect reality, since I expect the best pilots wanted to serve there.
 
I don't think the Missouri was the Pride of the Fleet. She did have some good stories though. Any guesses why she was chosen as the site of the signing of Japan's surrender?

The sitting President, Truman, was from Missouri and his daughter was the one who broke the bottle when the ship was launched.

Then again, maybe she was the Pride of the Fleet.
 
DiLune said:
I don't think the Missouri was the Pride of the Fleet. She did have some good stories though. Any guesses why she was chosen as the site of the signing of Japan's surrender?

The sitting President, Truman, was from Missouri and his daughter was the one who broke the bottle when the ship was launched.

Then again, maybe she was the Pride of the Fleet.
Click to expand...

Lol yes, political concerns were in fact the origin of the tradition of naming battleships after states. When budgets would come up before congress to build the ships, key "swing" senators were thought to be more likely to approve construction of ships if they were named after their states.
 
angj57 said:
Lol yes, political concerns were in fact the origin of the tradition of naming battleships after states. When budgets would come up before congress to build the ships, key "swing" senators were thought to be more likely to approve construction of ships if they were named after their states.
Click to expand...

There is what I consider an interesting article about United States ship naming conventions at Wikipedia. According to it: "United States ship naming conventions for the navy were established by United States Assistant Secretary of the Navy Theodore Roosevelt. However, elements had existed since before his time...."

Wikipedia also has articles on ship naming conventions for the Japanese and Russian navies.
 
jmschaub said:
New Zeeland - had listening posts on enemy islands. They observed not only island acitivities but air and ship activities also.
Click to expand...

You mean the coast watchers? New Zealand can hardly lay claim to that, even if we were a part of it. I'm pretty sure the Aussies were the lead for that, with broad involvement from all concerned and able to help.

Regardless, putting those sorts of ideas in as their own special feature would be too gimmicky. Better would be for Australia in a war alongside the Allies against Japan to get a decision giving all of the Allies a minor bonus in the Pacific, for example.
 
jmschaub said:
Japan - they used destroyers as supply transports to help them get through to their outskirts of the empire.
Click to expand...
Use of warships for resupply was widespread; submarines were popular. Look up "Operation Magic Carpet" for one example.

jmschaub said:
New Zeeland - had listening posts on enemy islands. They observed not only island acitivities but air and ship activities also.
Click to expand...
As already noted, Australia was a leader in this, but use of partisans and local population for intelligence was common.

jmschaub said:
USA - Marine Raiders, they acted as partisans on the Japanese controlled islands.
Click to expand...
Again, many nations used this sort of action - the SOE, although initially British, was extended to all Commonwealth countries, as far as I can tell.

I don't really think there were "unique" abilities of this sort, as you suggest.
 
Balesir said:
Use of warships for resupply was widespread; submarines were popular. Look up "Operation Magic Carpet" for one example.

As already noted, Australia was a leader in this, but use of partisans and local population for intelligence was common.

Again, many nations used this sort of action - the SOE, although initially British, was extended to all Commonwealth countries, as far as I can tell.

I don't really think there were "unique" abilities of this sort, as you suggest.
Click to expand...

The Japanese used destroyers to reinforce Guadalcanal, along with regular transports. But the transports were sunk by air leaving just the destroyers to land the troops.

I disagree about these not being unique. The Japanese didn't use the listening posts on enemy occupied territory. Even if the Allies missed a few of them they didn't have the means to report activities as the allies did.

The reading material says New Zeeland "invented" the listening posts and used them exclusively. I didn't mention the using the locals to colaborate, but as you stated the Aussies led that effort. The listening posts were generally one guy and a radio. If they were lucky they got supplied by subs if not they had to live off the land.
 
In the late '30s and early '40s, no-one really had any idea about the value of aircraft carrier as the practical use was still under questionmark. Some people were proponents of them, some were more conservative about their battleships. Take a look about IJN's plan about using Yamato and Musashi and such in a decisive battle where they would do their job - which obviously never happened.

It was not until 1942 we saw the first real carrier vs carrier engagement in Coral Sea and shortly after in Midway, and in 1941 when Prince of Wales and Repulse were sunk it was merely a warning sign that old-fashion battleships might not be that sufficient anymore - considering that it's the only real case where land based aircraft sunk major warships rather than merchant convoys or so. Similiarly when HMS Glorious was sank by Scharnhorst and Gneisenau there's no (AFAIK) another known case of carrier being sunk by direct fire from another capital ship, but it served as a good lesson that carriers requires major protection in case if something would go wrong.

It was not until the war was basically over when one can truly declare battleships and such obsolete as the technology just kept speeding ahead :p
 
Mjarr said:
It was not until 1942 we saw the first real carrier vs carrier engagement in Coral Sea and shortly after in Midway, and in 1941 when Prince of Wales and Repulse were sunk it was merely a warning sign that old-fashion battleships might not be that sufficient anymore - considering that it's the only real case where land based aircraft sunk major warships rather than merchant convoys or so. Similiarly when HMS Glorious was sank by Scharnhorst and Gneisenau there's no (AFAIK) another known case of carrier being sunk by direct fire from another capital ship, but it served as a good lesson that carriers requires major protection in case if something would go wrong.
Click to expand...

Using the British to discuss carriers is like using the Japanese to discuss tanks.
 
jmschaub said:
The Japanese used destroyers to reinforce Guadalcanal, along with regular transports. But the transports were sunk by air leaving just the destroyers to land the troops.
Click to expand...
All granted, but I think that was just part and parcel of how sustaining an island garrison in hostile seas worked. Take a look at the operations around the island of Malta, where a Commonwealth garrison held out to interrupt the Italian supply route to Tunisia - you see similar supply and reinforcement actions there.

jmschaub said:
I disagree about these not being unique. The Japanese didn't use the listening posts on enemy occupied territory. Even if the Allies missed a few of them they didn't have the means to report activities as the allies did.
Click to expand...
The fact that the Japanese didn't use "special forces" and partisans in this way does not show that such use was unique - it merely shows that it was not universal. I think a possibility of doctrine research (with game-mechanical benefits) in this area is an interesting possibility. But assigning specific game-mechanical advantages and disadvantages to particular nations I generally find to be both conceptually distasteful and of highly dubious validity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back