HOI4 and naval matters

Joining with full sails to this thread.

Naval warfare is neglected chapter of this great game.If we deepen our thoughts,air war is also, but its not on me to widen debate on air warfare in game.

So lets stick on naval.

We must make concise agreement what naval representation in HOI IV we need.
An better one that current is urgency

Aerial reconnaissance should be represented somehow. Mod in a simple, very cheap reconnaissance plane unit that the AI would by default patrol the coastal waters with. Cheap enough that even the minor nations could afford a couple of them.

Flayer92 said:

Aerial reconnaissance should be represented somehow. Mod in a simple, very cheap reconnaissance plane unit that the AI would by default patrol the coastal waters with. Cheap enough that even the minor nations could afford a couple of them.

Click to expand...

Things like these are better represented in an abstracted way. Lessens the micromanagement and makes the day a lot easier for the A.I.

Why can't we just add a "recon" or "patrol" mission for NAV's? That's what PBY's did best. I could really use that out in the big pacific right now in my game. Just modify "air superiority" to search for ships instead of planes.

I've been a supporter of abstracting the U-Boat warfare since before HOI 3, and I've been thinking how to do a elegant and plausible solution for it.
This is my most recent idea, something I think could be implemented in the current engine, without major changes. I am no expert on the engine so I might be wrong:


1) Split the sea into different "regions" and implement convoy raiding boxes, accessible only to submarines for each area.
2) Scrap Convoys and Escorts.
3) Introduce 2 new buildable resources, Transport Fleet (TF) and Convoy Escorts (CE). These resources would function much the same as manpower, except for the fact that you need to dedicate production to build them.
4) New research: Transport Fleet production efficiency, Convoy Escort production efficiency and Convoy Escort quality. (escort quality represents both radar and weapon improvements) The reason for having to research quality is to abstract the cost for upgrades to them, as I don't think the current engine can manage to upgrade off-map resources.

Convoy raiding in practice by subs would work in the following way: Every sub fleet in a convoy box would have a chance of detecting a convoy passing through a sea area belonging to the convoy box it's located in. The chance should be modified by (if possible) the number and size of the convoys passing through in areas belonging to the convoy raiding box, and stacking. The more sub fleets in a convoy box, the less chance for each fleet to detect a convoy. This to prevent massive piling on in one convoy raiding box. If successful, the size of the sub fleet would be compared to the attacked nations current "convoy escort" resource. Tech level for both subs and escorts are included as modifiers + a chance element, and there could be a couple of different outcomes. Examples of outcomes are:
Convoy to heavily guarded, attack aborted.
Suprise attack: No damage to subs, loss of TF and CE for the attacked nation.
Attack: Damage to attacking subs, and TF and minor CE losses for the attacked nation.
Subs detected: None, or limited damage to TF for the attacked nation and damage to the subs.

The new resources could work in the following way:

Transport Fleet and Convoy Escorts:
1) They are built by allocating resources on a slider in the production window. A nation will need a certain number of TF based on the number of convoys and the size of the convoys it is currently operating. Surplus TF just works as a buffer that can be used to replaced destroyed TF:s.

If a nation has less TF than it needs to keep all its convoys going, it looses a % of the resources it is currently transporting. Say, GB has an effective TP level of 70%. That would mean that only 70% of the resources it is transporting on convoys will be added to the stockpile. So, a convoy from USA to GB with 100 iron will consume 100 iron for USA, but only net GB with 70 iron.
TF would not be replaces instantly, even if there is a surplus, but it should trickle back like manpower currently does. This means that convoy raiding by subs, if unopposed, will destroy more TF:s than what trickles back, even if a nation has surplus TF:s.

Sub hunting could work something like this:

Every fleet has a chance to detect 1 sub fleet (the sub fleets should be considered spread out on the whole sea area). The chance is modified as usual by tech level for both the attacker and defender, air support (cags and navs in the same region), weather, the commander skill of both fleets and stacking penalties. Every convoy raiding box could also have a instinct detection value that modifies the chance. After all, it was much harder to spot subs in the middle of the Atlantic than outside the coast of Ireland. The more sub fleets in a convoy raiding box, the higher the chance of finding one. The more friendly fleets in the same area, the higher the stacking penalty (representing subs avoiding areas with high enemy presence). So, to optimize it's chances for finding subs, a nation should spread out it's fleets in as many areas as possible that belongs to a certain convoy raiding box. If a fleet finds a sub fleet, a normal battle occurs, following the normal naval rules. So both fleets can still get surprise chance bonus and such.

Well, this is the basics, at least.
Whaddya think?

Cheers

Great topic indeed, Naval Warfare rocks

About the mines, isn't it in the August Storm mod that we have Minefields? These things are quite ugly against boat (like 800 damage if i remember XD).

Since we are talking about Navy, I have a question.

In game, among other things, you can upgrade "motor", "hull", and "guns" of your ships. Lets say you do that for BB. New BB ship class will show all those new upgrades. But for previous ones, to how high can you upgrade a previous ship class ? What is the ceiling beyond which, upgrading your guns will be a total waste, if you don't plan in building new BBs of the new ship class ?

Lets take Italy as an example, you begin the game with Class I BB (like Duria) and you have a couple of Class V on the way (like the Littorio). Will your Class I upgrade something along the way, beyond AA ?

Cybvep said:

AFAIK no, which is a shame BTW, because IRL many ships underwent extensive upgrades. Sure, you can disband obsolete ships and build new ones, but the AI cannot do that.

Another thing which bugs me about the way upgrades work is that you can use modern CAGs on totally obsolete carriers. Imagine jets taking off from a WWI carrier.

Click to expand...

Well, I *can* imagine jets being specifically purposed to take off from old flight decks. It would be horribly inefficient, and perhaps dangerous, of course... but if WWI carriers were all the "jet designers" had to work with, you bet they woulda gotten it "working" before rolling them off the line

Cybvep said:

AFAIK no, which is a shame BTW, because IRL many ships underwent extensive upgrades.

Click to expand...

So any tech investment in HULL, GUNS, etc. is a TOTAL waste of leadership ??? Unless you plan in building new ships ? So you should only go for the Naval doctrine for existing ship ?


Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... (followed by the sound of someone falling from his chair and knocking his head multiple times against the wall). :mellow:

Great thread - thanks for pushing this issue. I agree that serious thought needs to be put into this area.

Here are a couple of reflections on the naval war-
It is the only units of the game that represents single ships (discounting subs,destroyers,transports)
The "Ops Areas" - Sea zones vs provences - are larger.
So you have smaller (individual units) responsible for larger areas.
An obvious solution would be to increase the number of Sea zones with units/leaders given reaction orders/offense/defense settings to take action as they patrol. Do the current leadership traits all work as intended?

I have metioned many times that the Air and Sea command structure is subordinated to the Land/Army structure in a way that deminishes the choice and the power of those other arms. Having Yamamoto or Nimitz serving as an attachment to some Corp commander is the most annoying example.

Finally, the supply situation of allowing any fleet to endlessly patrol sea zones without returning to port is also not realistic. The establishment of refueling ships/points, or periodic/automatic return to port for refeul and rest would be a welcomed expansion of the war on the sea.

Keep up the good ideas - some will surely be incorporated in the future if we keep asking about them.

Even more frustrating (yes, it's probably more realistic) - I read in another Naval thread (and confirmed in-game) that the ship is produced with tech available at time of build initiation, not build completion.

I am playing the USA and I operate naval fleets from Manila. All I see is mostly Japanese &
British fleets of all ships sailing around the area doing nothing & going nowhere but just
engaging in battles which don't accomplish anything. No troops have landed anuwhere I
can see but i see transports all over the seas. I say to myself, what is the AI trying to do???

FAdmiral1 said:

I say to myself, what is the AI trying to do???

Click to expand...

Probably patrolling
Escorting
and/or
Hunting convoys and/or Subs