Thanks Zid, your perspective is much appreciated! You did suffer quite some losses, we knew that already, but I wonder if your SAG groups are really a good setup. So many Battleships surely give you a large hull penalty?
-
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.
The SAGs with BB performed quite well. It was the CA-containing SAGs that... f***ed up.
Great action! Looking like a pretty balanced game with good strategic moves and countermoves all around. Not expecting a full answer given the secrecy limitations, but what's the strategy for the German army? I know the Axis is taking care not to antagonize the US, and there are some months left to gang up on the British, but are the Germans sitting around pretty static right now?
Great update, Zid, and welcome onboard as writer 
. It is of course quite a unique experience for me to finally read someone else´s writing about our game - with additional screens. Really appreciate it.
I was quite surpriced about the great success of the KM as well. I had, however, tasted than bitter drink last game as UK when KM (run by Zid that time) really kicked by butt several times. It appears to me that the KM always succeeds better than they should, when looking at the stats. But I havn't looked any deeper at it.
p.s. Just want to remind "latecomers" that I posted a new Chapter yesterday before Zids post.
. It is of course quite a unique experience for me to finally read someone else´s writing about our game - with additional screens. Really appreciate it. I was quite surpriced about the great success of the KM as well. I had, however, tasted than bitter drink last game as UK when KM (run by Zid that time) really kicked by butt several times. It appears to me that the KM always succeeds better than they should, when looking at the stats. But I havn't looked any deeper at it.
p.s. Just want to remind "latecomers" that I posted a new Chapter yesterday before Zids post.
Wow - this is now turning into a double+ MP AAR - thanks for your AAR chapter Zid!
The gripping Naval combat all around the globe highlights how important the sea lanes were (are). A single player game just fails to model that due to the shortcomings of the AI.
1.
The sinking of the King George V warms my heart as a man of the German Navy...
-> Only one BB in the Task force is just not a good idea if you are building a task force with surface action in mind and large fleet engagements coming up.
2.
CAs are not really worthless (WWII did see the end of this ship type though) - they are good for filling up BB SAG's to the maximum usefull Hull level per task force. They are cheap damage spreaders + can add sea attack punch.
The game mechanics actually work for high tech level CAs, as
a.) sea defence is now coupled to speed (which CAs gain decently per tech level) - eg. the survivabilty of more modern CAs rises drastically.
b.) high speed helps the ships positioning + the Tasks forces positioning during combat
c.) CAs gain usefull AA values per tech level (unlike BBs and BCs)
(Of course nothing beats the CV,DD combo bang for the buck wise - but "non CV" Countries like ITA or GER might find modern CAs usefull)
(A problem for ENG is that its County class CAs are classed as really outdatet ingame compared to other CAs /that is one reason why your CAs suck Zid)
3.
Your comment about allied AI and the lack of the Military control option of HoI2 in the HoI3 series is spot on!
There is just no usefull explanation for the lack of this simple feature. AI allies are completely useless - which stands out even worse in Single player...
4.
I too hope that GER is not sitting on its behind in the short window of opportunity with only ENG as the opponent. The last two AAR did show little land combat and maybe Captain Easy is/was trying to hide the Axis land strategy and preparation behind all these naval skirmishes?
The gripping Naval combat all around the globe highlights how important the sea lanes were (are). A single player game just fails to model that due to the shortcomings of the AI.
1.
The sinking of the King George V warms my heart as a man of the German Navy...
-> Only one BB in the Task force is just not a good idea if you are building a task force with surface action in mind and large fleet engagements coming up.
2.
CAs are not really worthless (WWII did see the end of this ship type though) - they are good for filling up BB SAG's to the maximum usefull Hull level per task force. They are cheap damage spreaders + can add sea attack punch.
The game mechanics actually work for high tech level CAs, as
a.) sea defence is now coupled to speed (which CAs gain decently per tech level) - eg. the survivabilty of more modern CAs rises drastically.
b.) high speed helps the ships positioning + the Tasks forces positioning during combat
c.) CAs gain usefull AA values per tech level (unlike BBs and BCs)
(Of course nothing beats the CV,DD combo bang for the buck wise - but "non CV" Countries like ITA or GER might find modern CAs usefull)
(A problem for ENG is that its County class CAs are classed as really outdatet ingame compared to other CAs /that is one reason why your CAs suck Zid)
3.
Your comment about allied AI and the lack of the Military control option of HoI2 in the HoI3 series is spot on!
There is just no usefull explanation for the lack of this simple feature. AI allies are completely useless - which stands out even worse in Single player...
4.
I too hope that GER is not sitting on its behind in the short window of opportunity with only ENG as the opponent. The last two AAR did show little land combat and maybe Captain Easy is/was trying to hide the Axis land strategy and preparation behind all these naval skirmishes?
I have to disagree here. The heavy cruisers of world war II did make a transformation into missle carrying control centres who can also conduct conventional shore bombardments. Although only few of them are left, they're certainly not dead. With China revealing their own CTF ambitions, the western powers might want to critically look into what kind of ships they need for the future. I suspect that submarines will play an even larger role their and this will in turn mean more ASW vessels as well. Although there is little one can do to find really quiet subs and the Chinese seem to get frustratingly better at this... as well as India and others.
Full military control would be gamey and unrealistic if it is not limited somehow. It would be stupid to send thousands of Canadians and Australian to their deaths in suicidal attacks "because I can" while playing the UK.
Also, Baltasar is right - in fact, modern cruisers are a best replacement to BCs/BBs (DDs suck in that role and CVs are usually used only on most important missions that are sometimes conducted deeper inland + they cost a lot), although they do not have so much firepower as Iowa Class BBs, of course.
Also, Baltasar is right - in fact, modern cruisers are a best replacement to BCs/BBs (DDs suck in that role and CVs are usually used only on most important missions that are sometimes conducted deeper inland + they cost a lot), although they do not have so much firepower as Iowa Class BBs, of course.
It's worth noting that different countries have different definitions of ship classes. A US destroyer could be a small cruiser in a different navy, a French fleet carrier an escort vessel in the USA. Nuclear submarines tend to be much larger than the frigates and destroyers who hunt them and hunter-/ coastal subs are much smaller, though much harder to find and defend against. So, the ship classifications aren't really saying much about the roles and capabilities of the vessels in it. Likewise, I've seen maritime assets being used more often over land than over sea.
I would also argue that a modern missle cruiser has a lot more firepower than any WWII battleship. It can fire from a longer distance and missiles tend to hit their target more often than shells (IIRC, during the battle of Jutland, both sides score around 2-3% hits of all calibres). Plus, a modern cruiser is more versatile and can hit targets much further inland. The missile in itself is a much better weapon than the shell, at least when you carefully try to hit your target. Shells are of course better at saturation bombardments, ie when leveling an area. But how often do you have a situation like that?
I would also argue that a modern missle cruiser has a lot more firepower than any WWII battleship. It can fire from a longer distance and missiles tend to hit their target more often than shells (IIRC, during the battle of Jutland, both sides score around 2-3% hits of all calibres). Plus, a modern cruiser is more versatile and can hit targets much further inland. The missile in itself is a much better weapon than the shell, at least when you carefully try to hit your target. Shells are of course better at saturation bombardments, ie when leveling an area. But how often do you have a situation like that?
Apparently there are some who claim that after all Iowas were decommissioned, there is no longer a ship class that can serve as naval gunfire support so effectively.
This does beg the question whether naval gunfire support is needed when missile support is available in sufficient numbers.
1.
We are getting a bit OT here (when going into historical analysis of the CA) but I take it that both of you agree on ingame CAs I described in the stat set and possibilities of FTM 3.05?!
2.
Actually I don't disagree on todays (more or less) multi purpose warships labeled cruisers or DDs or actually frigates (as some countries prefer to label warships with cruiser size tonnage and size "frigates" becausethat sounds less threatening).
Our miscommunication only stems from changed labelling/classifications of todays ships vs.the WWII/WWI classification system.
To my point that the CA class got obsolete and died after WWII:
a.)
Ships classed as CA (heavy cruiser) in WWII were high sea going vessels with their main gun armament (caliber) maxed out per ship size to combat other surface vessels and to even be able to assist larger ships (BB/BC) in fleet engagements to some extent.
-> They were very single purpose "in the rock/paper scissors" scheme of things and concept from WWI.
The British County Class is the perfect example of this ship type. (The Hipper Class were much larger than a typical CA and sort of a "freak" at the end of the CA history - actually the last two ships of the Hipperclass (Seydlitz and Lützow) were initially planned as large CLs with 12 6 inch guns...)
b.)
Ships classed es CL (light cruiser) were high sea going vessels initially ment for scouting and patrolling and to screen the main task force from smaller ships (enemy DDs and Torpedoboats etc.) thus they had smaller calliber guns (but more and with a higher rate of fire - to engage these smaller enemies).
The name is misleading though as these "light" Cruisers were not necessarily smaller than the "heavy" Cruisers!
WWII showed that they were much more usefull "bang for the buck wise" + with the development of multi purpose Ammo and Guns thei turned out to be the perfect AA plattform as they could use their main artillery for air defense too.
WWII saw loads of new CLs built but very few CAs!
In the end of WWII the new Cruisers sort of merged the two different roles and the CAs ceased to exist - Eg. large (!)AA cruisers with multi purpose capabilities.
The only cruiser class (that I am aware of) left in the western Countries are the US Tyconderogas - built around the Aegis Radar system with the main purpose of fleet Air defence (for carier grous) with a ton of multipurpose capabilities added - kike Cruise missiles vs. Land targets and anti shipping missiles. Their ancestors were the large CLs.
Other ships with these capabilities are usually dubbed DDs now (or DDG etc.) but are actually multipurpose ships the size of a WWII CL!
Edit:
On Gunfire support:
There is no ship class for gunfire support like the BB - the Iowas just being the last of their kind in service.
The Iowas BBs have proven in Vietnam and lately the first Gulf war (1991!) that there is nothing more powerfull and effective than coastal shelling with 16' shells to support an amphib landing.
(It is like a continued and accurate bombing with B52 Bombers... - you don't want to be the enemy where a BB is unloading) + the Iowas in their latest configuration had cruise missiles for high value point targets longer ranges in addition to their guns.)
@Baltasar
Cruise Missiles are prohibitively expensive compared to shells - if you want a sustained bombardment of an area nothing beats a gun-system.
(Today the trend goeas back to naval gun systems with the capability to engage land targets all across NATO - in addition to cruise missiles for high value point targets.)
Back OT!:
FTM 3.05 nicely models the devastating effect of coastal bombardment now!
One off the reason Captain and Daphne couldnt take Girbraltar wer Zid's BBs parked outside Gibraltar giving massive penalties to the attacking Axis forces.
Last edited:
Thelamon, you pretty much wrote down what I was trying say but unable get across. Thanks for your eloquence
Brilliant addition by Zid. It gives the AAR extra depth and flavour.
And as a treat I named a SAG composition after you in another thread.
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?584158-Naval-Warfare-In-HoI-3-FTM/page4
And as a treat I named a SAG composition after you in another thread.
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?584158-Naval-Warfare-In-HoI-3-FTM/page4
Something else that apparently doesn't get discussed much is the fact that he is essentially the man to thank for Britain maintaining any kind of an army at all in the early 30s.
The answer is the same. Given the WWII scale of conflict, mobile naval artillery was very much a real world use. Remember what fired the very first shots of the war?
If I were grand emperor, I would cut a bunch of the useless defense experiments that never go anywhere or come up with anything, and put the funding into bringing back the Iowa class, and putting more research and dev. into the rail gun systems the Navy is working on, eventually replacing the 16in guns with the rail guns. More powerful, and much more range, combining to make the Iowa Class bar none the best naval artillery support weapon for a war. As noted before, they were incredibly effective in Korea, Vietnam, and the 1st Gulf War. And if we ever need them again...it is better to have and not want, than to not have and want.
And you also realize that we were discussing about the CAs becoming something completely different after the war, thus the argument was about todays ships, not WWII?