Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Naval Plans for the World's Naval Powers

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
Secret Master said:
I've never questioned US naval building priorities. I knew they built a lot. It was just the sheer number of CVs that surprised me. I mean, it's such a large number that it makes it look like the USA could have lost all carriers that fought at Midway and still have been fine to win the war. :)
Click to expand...
They would have been able to rebuild their losses after a year.

"In other words, even if it had lost catastrophically at the Battle of Midway, the United States Navy still would have broken even with Japan in carriers and naval air power by about September 1943. Nine months later, by the middle of 1944, the U.S. Navy would have enjoyed a nearly two-to-one superiority in carrier aircraft capacity!"

The morale factor and the strategic initiative gained after a potential Japanese victory in the Battle of Midway is a different story, though.
 
Cybvep said:
They would have been able to rebuild their losses after a year.

"In other words, even if it had lost catastrophically at the Battle of Midway, the United States Navy still would have broken even with Japan in carriers and naval air power by about September 1943. Nine months later, by the middle of 1944, the U.S. Navy would have enjoyed a nearly two-to-one superiority in carrier aircraft capacity!"

The morale factor and the strategic initiative gained after a potential Japanese victory in the Battle of Midway is a different story, though.
Click to expand...

True. There are also some other issues regarding lack of destroyer production for the Japanese navy. Not only were they seriously outgunned in capital ship production, but it looks like they didn't even have close to enough escorts to cover their sea lanes, meaning that Japan could not sustain even their smaller production in the face of concerted Allied convoy raiding due to lost resource convoys from the empire (to put it in HOI3 terms).

Has anyone been able to meet those kinds of production targets in the game? I mean, I don't know what I would do with 19 CVs (I suppose I could just cover the entire Atlantic after defeating Japan...), but has anyone actually tried to match US naval production in the game? And did they have to skimp up on something else?
 
The problem is that when the player is playing as the USA, most games end in 1942 or 1943 at most if the war starts historically, i.e. in 1939. There is no Pearl Harbour, so you don't lose any naval vessels in the beginning. Japan fails at protecting its homeland and naval AI is very poor, so it's very easy to conquer it without nukes and there is no real Pacific War. The Battle of the Atlantic is rather poorly represented (there are even no convoys with Lend Lease stuff...). In the East, Germany either wins in 1941-42 or gets owned by 1943. In Africa, the German AI never helps the Italians, so in most cases they get owned rather quickly.

You won't reach 1945 in most cases.
 
Well, that's what I was thinking. I mean, the last time I fought against Japan as the USA, I was in Tokyo within 6 months of starting the war. It would have been sooner, but I took a break from sinking the IJN to take Iwo Jima. It's not like Japan every even seriously threatened Guam or Wake.

But maybe I should run a game where I don't trounce the AI early and see if I can hit those kinds of production levels by 1945. It would be interesting to see if I could build up 60% practical in CVs. :D
 
I followed their building program up to PH, which, in my game, happened early november 1941. My first naval battles so far were... euhm... not very succesful, but I have noone to blame for that but myself. I had my carriers stationed on Midway, while all the action is happening around Guam. 2 of my 4 SAGs got owned by IJN carriers.
as for the question at hand: you don't have to really skimp a lot in airpower (I have 50 planes active, 15 of which are CAGs, obviously on both sides of the US). more planes are building right now. land forces, obviously, are a bit lagging behind. I have the inf I started with, plus 2 arm and 1 mtn divisions, plus a large garrison in Guam (3gar/1art/1aa). more inf, marines and arm have only just begun training, along with the 82nd airborne.
so, to my own utter amazement, the results are pretty realistic: I'm getting trounced early on by their superior numbers of CVs in the area. mind you, when my 1st Pacific Carrier Fleet arrived, Kaga got away by the skin of her teeth.
 
TBH the USA seems a bit underpowered both IC and MP-wise in HOI3. I'm not talking about pre-war period, but about wartime itself. It means that a potential invasion of the USA would probably be easier than one could think, as the MP mobilisation is crappy in HOI3 vanilla and there would be no emergency draft or anything like that.
 
it's not just the US that's underpowered. they all are, except maybe Germany. think about it. the UK? 4 BB, 4 CV, 9 mot, 2 arm (the BEF), about 6 int, 3 or 4 MP, 3 or 4 nav, 3 or 4 cas, some tac and strats, Dowding's chain home low system, coastal forts, extra airbases, about a dozen cl, garrisons, a bunch of destroyers, some modern subs,...it goes on and on.
I'm not saying I always aim to build what they did in RL, but there should at least be the possibility of it Ic-wise.
 
Don't forget about India. Their army numbered millions and it was a voluntary force! Its ingame representation is ridiculous.

But yes, the Allies are a bit underpowered economy-wise, especially in mid- and late-war. However, I've always thought that their performance was too high during early war, especially that it's quite easy to stall Germany in the Low Countries.
 
Well, that's the real trick: making the game fun. It occurs to me that a truly realistic portrayal of the Allies, coupled with players that know how to fight the damn war properly, would result in the Axis getting owned 100% of the time.

After all, human players don't need ULTRA to tell them that the Germans are planning a war in 39 or MAGIC to tell the USA that Japan is prepping for a strike against the USA. And human SOV doesn't need to lose ground in 41 to know to that any IC that is made needs to be put in Siberia to be out of range of both German STRs and Japanese STRs, should Japan even join the war. :)
 
Secret Master said:
Well, that's the real trick: making the game fun. It occurs to me that a truly realistic portrayal of the Allies, coupled with players that know how to fight the damn war properly, would result in the Axis getting owned 100% of the time.

After all, human players don't need ULTRA to tell them that the Germans are planning a war in 39 or MAGIC to tell the USA that Japan is prepping for a strike against the USA. And human SOV doesn't need to lose ground in 41 to know to that any IC that is made needs to be put in Siberia to be out of range of both German STRs and Japanese STRs, should Japan even join the war. :)
Click to expand...
Who said that the AIs should always follow the same path? It's high time the devs added a "Historical AI behaviour" switch ;)

Besides, economic imbalances can be offset by other means, e.g. less restrictive victory conditions. I don't know if you played Commander - Europe At War (a historical strategy game) but the Allies won't win in that game if they don't conquer all Axis capitals before 1945. Just an example.

Personally, I would gladly embrace a "dynamic difficulty" option, which would always make my enemies challenging and thus give me a fun experience. Universal AI bonuses are tricky, because they affect ALL AI countries...

A "game score" could be an interesting option, too. In HOI3 you don't have to care much about the future and the state of your country after the war in concluded, which makes the players inherently more reckless than historical leaders. How about giving score points based on you losses measured in MP and IC, lost and conquered provinces during the game etc.? Could be interesting IMO and statistics are fun in wargames :D
 
Last edited:
Phew, finalized the US entry (I think). If anyone spots any mistakes, let me know so I can make corrections. What started off as a "did you know?" and "see if you can do this!" type thread has evolved into a pretty detailed discussion of the countries that were capable of producing ships during the WW2 time-frame. Hopefully PI and modders find everything useful in regards to OOBs, ship names, and adjusting the AI to build and research historically, if there's a desire to do so.

I'm also curious to hear how many of these build plans players have tried to finish. Has anyone tried to build any of the historical ships? If so, could you finish everything on time, or did you have IC problems (I'm looking at Italy, France, and Japan here)? I'm sure such feedback would be useful to PI, and modders would certainly like to know what's possible in game or not.
 
TheBromgrev said:
Phew, finalized the US entry (I think). If anyone spots any mistakes, let me know so I can make corrections. What started off as a "did you know?" and "see if you can do this!" type thread has evolved into a pretty detailed discussion of the countries that were capable of producing ships during the WW2 time-frame. Hopefully PI and modders find everything useful in regards to OOBs, ship names, and adjusting the AI to build and research historically, if there's a desire to do so.

I'm also curious to hear how many of these build plans players have tried to finish. Has anyone tried to build any of the historical ships? If so, could you finish everything on time, or did you have IC problems (I'm looking at Italy, France, and Japan here)? I'm sure such feedback would be useful to PI, and modders would certainly like to know what's possible in game or not.
Click to expand...

Well, I've gone from 36-40 in a new USA game. Here's the results so far.

HoI3_81.jpg


HoI3_82.jpg


Some notes:

I am running this game on Normal difficulty. Someone can rerun it on Very Hard later, although I think we can extrapolate from this experiment the results of such a run.

I ran strictly IC until late 37. All ship construction in the queue was delayed and the IC given priority. No ships in the queue were deleted, however.

You indicated that some of the CAs were closer to BCs, so I have built 3 BCs to err on the side of caution AND as a gambit in practicals. I built the BCs first to generate practicals for the Iowas I have in the shipyard now.

I have prioritized CVLs ahead of CVs, once again to generate practicals. It also gels well with the desire of some US officials to get more hulls in the water earlier in the war (although I'm not in the war yet).

I am doing subs, DDs, and CLs in batches of 5 apiece.

I have also initiated an army building program on the side. Before 41, I should have added 24 ARTY (reserves) to the US Army and 10 4xMAR (active duty) divisions to the USMC. So, you cannot say I have neglected the other armed forces.

In July of 41, upgrades will commence, with the Navy and USAAF getting priority (got to get RADAR and ASW out there to the fleet).

I have also turned Guam and Wake into island bases that rival Pearl Harbor in terms of port facilities and airfields as part of my standard US pre-war preparation.

I have spent zero IC on supplies. Currently, all food and ammo is labeled "Made in Japan." :) I'm not sure if this should be considered as a factor in this experiment.

For the purposes of this game, I will not double up on CAGs. If I reach USN production targets in CVs and CVLs, it won't matter anyway (I can rotate out entire CTFs instead of just CAGs :D ).
 
Here they come:

Study 1933 Battlecruiser info can be found here:
http://www.bobhenneman.info/US1933BC.htm

CA-2D Design/Study which is the actual predecessor of the Alaska class more of a Battlecruiser than a Large Cruiser with 4x3 305mm Guns, 8x2 127mm AA guns 20x4 40mm AA 46x1 20mm AA. 127mm Deck and 330mm Belt armour and 212K shp
Compare Alaska: 3x3 305mm, 6x2 127mm, 17x4 40mm, 34x1 20mm, 83mm and 229mm Armour 150K shp

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/s-file/s511-06.jpg


A famous warship class the Montana which is essentially a stretched Iowa with 4x3 406mm Guns would have followed the Iowa.
google can provide many pictures and drawings.

Hybrid warship designs similar to the conversion of the Japanese Ise and Hyuga but these are on cruiser hulls with 152 and 203mm guns:
They are from 1939-40
CF-1
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/s-file/s511-09.jpg
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/s-file/s511-04.jpg
CF-2
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/s-file/s511-05.jpg
Unknown name:
http://xoomer.virgilio.it/bk/NWS/United_States_Navy/images/USCruiser.jpg
 
My wishes for new versions of For the Motherland:

- A "Plan Z" event could be created in early game, for German decide its geopolitical future: To build U Boats, or a surface Fleet?

- Superheavy Battleships can be upgraded.

- A U boats pens event (also exists in Dies Irae mod).
 
Savior2 said:
- A "Plan Z" event could be created in early game, for German decide its geopolitical future: To build U Boats, or a surface Fleet?

- Superheavy Battleships can be upgraded.

- A U boats pens event (also exists in Dies Irae mod).
Click to expand...

1) Build and research the stuff yourself? No need for an event, you have full control over what you build and research. That's the whole point of this thread, to see if you can actually do it yourself.
2) I'd rather they got rid of SH.BBs altogether, as they're nothing more than the natural evolution of battleships without treaty limitations.
3) Not familiar with how DI:G handles these, but wouldn't all you need to do is build more province AA to keep the planes away? It's not possible to provide local air defense bonuses, so if DI:G increases sub air defense, it does so on a global scale so even subs out at sea will benefit from it.
 
apparently, the ones in St Nazaire still exist today, simply because they are damn near impossible to tear down. German craftsmanship at its finest, which, again, says a lot about the general ineptitude of German leadership. they can do all that, but make the dumbest mistakes sometimes.
 
Savior2 said:
My wishes for new versions of For the Motherland:

- A "Plan Z" event could be created in early game, for German decide its geopolitical future: To build U Boats, or a surface Fleet?

- Superheavy Battleships can be upgraded.
Click to expand...

I've run experiments with SHBBs, and my conclusion is that SHBBs work best when they CAN'T be upgraded.

Why?

Because regular BBs can become much stronger than SHBBs in most important categories even with 1942 technologies. But at the lower techs when SHBBs become available, they are more powerful. If you take the SHBB route, you save on research costs by just researching the SHBB tech and then not bothering with anything else in the entire BB category (aside from doctrines). They are a poor-leadership option for countries that want a BB based navy.

On the other hand, if you are going to build any kind of BB based navy, why not just build better BBs? Even with just some capital ship practical, you can research really nice BB tech and every successive BB will be faster, tougher, and hit harder. And any country that is in the position to build a BB based navy probably has the leadership to make nice high tech BBs. Even the Soviets can afford the leadership cost (I've done it).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back