• 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.
Showing developer posts only. Show all posts in this thread.

Johan

Studio Manager Paradox Tinto
Administrator
Paradox Staff
Moderator
15 Badges
Dec 14, 1999
19.373
88.915
  • Diplomacy
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • War of the Roses
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Magicka: Wizard Wars Founder Wizard
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • A Game of Dwarves
  • Magicka
  • Starvoid
When thinking about naval combat we started out with the Hearts of Iron 2 system as our base. Things like range and positioning worked very well as a concept and we used this as our base, however we felt it could be improved.

The first change we made was that each ship determines it’s own position. No longer will destroyers simply sit around doing nothing while the big ships, instead they will close in themselves. Seek to engage the enemy screens and should they be eliminated they will start engaging bigger ships. Secondly with ships positioning themselves separately naval units can be positioned into combat separately. Thus each unit will roll its search value separately and then be positioned according to how well it fails or succeeds in this. With one additional proviso Capital ships will have a smaller deviation. Although this sounds a bit weird we are working with the following logic. A naval task force will actually be in a fairly widely dispersed formation with the smaller ships screening the larger ships, meaning that you are more likely to find a light ship on the far side of the formation (and thus needing longer to close). While heavy ships like Battleships and Battlecruisers are more likely to be concentrated together in the centre of the formation (thus their smaller positioning error). The upshot of this is a fleet made up of destroyers and light cruisers meets a mixed battle fleet they are more likely to get picked off piecemeal by the concentrated fire power of the heavy surface units.

When it comes to combat itself we have reworked the interface so each individual ship’s displayed with it’s own positioning so you can see at a glance which fleet units are engaged, plus the enemy ships as well. However just because you can quickly see how your combat is doing doesn’t mean you can simply leave it. Instead once a retreat is ordered it will take time for the ships to disengage. This is influenced by weather, if it is at night and how long the combat has lasted to determine if the units can escape. In addition there is also a chance that the two fleets will simply lose contact with each other during the fight, again modified by the same factors. Thus two fleets can simply just lose each other in the confusion of combat, especially in a fight at night and in bad weather. Not in the case of breaking combat neither fleet actually retreats and will start to search for each other again. Leading to the possibility of a running combat happening at night as various ships find each other and then lose each other again in the dark. As radar increases spotting, radar-equipped ships should quickly find the enemy again.

I suppose we should end with a note about carriers. Yes carriers not longer fight in Naval combat (well ok they do just very very badly), instead the CAG is now a separate air unit that can be used as an air unit. Thus you can bomb enemy air bases and support naval landings with it. However the actual effectiveness of the CAG unit is modified by a carrier tech value called hangar. This is essentially the amount of physical space on the carrier for air units. We also have a separate tech for armour. A rather neat consequence of this is we can model the differences between the design philosophies of the British carriers as compared to the American and Japanese ones quite neatly inside the tech system.

alpha_feb25.jpg
 
I didn't understand your statement about CVs, so no CV units in the game? You can't be able to replay MIDWAY battle?

No there are CV units in the game and there are also CAG units. CV units aren't very good in naval combat.
 
Just what kind of micro management is involved in controlling the CAGs? I assume carriers (or rather their planes) will still bee able to engage in combat without micro management?

depends what mission you give them. From the source of all that is unholy, twitter, "The carrier protection mission for cags have been added to the game now."
 
Is it just me who thinks the British sprite looks like Bismarck class battleship, and the German sprite like a Renown class battlecruiser?

Looking sweet, as always.

Actually.. not renown.. its Hood for generic battlecruiser.
 
1) It's just a graphic to show that the ship is firing no more and no less.
2) Air units are always 100 planes
3) A CAG is a CAG
 
Okay, slightly confused. So carriers/CAGs will still take part in ship-to-ship combat in that they won't sit idly by when engaged in naval combat. It's just that the carriers won't function like they did in HOI2? (in a bad way)

I believe Carriers like to run away (i.e. widen the distance) when in Naval combat. CAGs on the other hand are air units and so cannot take part in Naval combat for this reason.
 
Yes but like you have CAS aircraft, Interceptors etc will a CAG be definable as Fighter heavy, strike craft heavy or be a research entity on its own? Ie it will have 100 planes with a hit value lets say a 10 vs other planes, 20 vs ships etc. The value increases with tech research. or will a carrier have several cag's dependent on the size of it's hanger and they can be made up of say a fighter cag, a dive bomber cag and a torpedo bomber cag?.
While either is not that critical in naval combat it may be against land operations where they may run into dedicated interceptors or fighters...

Other than this point of clarity what i have read so far is awesome.

No you just build a CAG. It is a single unit like a FTR or a NAV.
 
One problem would be if someone wants to equip a few carriers mainly with fighters, to provide defence against land-based air during operations close to enemy coastlines, while keeping others equipped mainly with anti-submarine planes for ASW operations.

A Carrier is a carrier, you equip it with a CAG. We don't want that level of micromanagement.
 
Hey, nice update! This looks great so far. :)

I have one question (prayer?):

Does this:




mean that there will be no more über-DD-monster-fleets? That would be fantastic!

that was sort of the plan, the CL DD massed fleets should not own everything.
 
A bigger issue is the hitpoints of the various ships. For instance, in HoI2, a BB and a DD could take the same amount of damage and be sunk. While the BB has greater sea defence, the engine did not recognize the difference between sea defence and armor. Thus the 13 inch belt armor of a BB meant nothing.

We may have forgot to mention that each ship class has a hull size value which reflects how much damage it can take.