Development Diary #18 - 25th of February 2009

[Kikaider]

Great update you know how to make me pray that I get into the beta!

I have 3 questions
1)As others have asked, why does only 1 turret of the Gneisanau fire while Prince of Wales and Warspite fire with both. Could it indicate that the Brits crossed her T? (Dreams of ship based naval combat events, like arizona's "magazine hit by torp" etc...) or (more likely) is it just how that class of ship's icon illuminates/was designed
2)Would carrier's 'hanger' value indicate the number of cags loadable on a ship (assuming cags are fixed 30 plane compliments), or be a modifier to power of the 1 CAG allowable (higher=whatever cag you have aboard has more planes etc), and thus the main diff between light and carriers be in the hanger value (thus eliminating a seperate class, but not eliminating their role in the war)?
3)Are cag's designable (Fighter-based cags for a transport fleets escort, bomber-heavy cags for a naval strike force, etc...)?

If even 1 gets answered i'll be happy

 

[King]

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

 

[gigzoid]

Actually.. not renown.. its Hood for generic battlecruiser.

Is this a hint that there is a naming convention for the graphics in the "combat box", like the naming convention for unit icons in HOI2 ?? If so, awesome for "flavour" modding in particular graphics for each ship.

Is the gun firing just a separate graphic name "...-FIRE-..." or somesuch ?

 

[Bullfrog]

2)Would carrier's 'hanger' value indicate the number of cags loadable on a ship (assuming cags are fixed 30 plane compliments), or be a modifier to power of the 1 CAG allowable (higher=whatever cag you have aboard has more planes etc), and thus the main diff between light and carriers be in the hanger value (thus eliminating a seperate class, but not eliminating their role in the war)?
3)Are cag's designable (Fighter-based cags for a transport fleets escort, bomber-heavy cags for a naval strike force, etc...)?

2) I think that you answered your own question. Not more than 1 CAG per CV but Hangar lvl = efficiency of CAG.
3) It would be awesome, but we don't know and I doubt they'll tell us here.

edit: King'd

 

[unmerged(135783)]

Johan has said that different combos of tech will activate different models, historical or not, so I see no reason why as UK you couldn't have both an Implacable-class fleet carrier and an Colossus-class light fleet design available at the same time, though I'm guessing a Hermes-class would be considered obsolete and would disappear from the production screen at some point...

My only concern is raised by the picture we've already seen of the production screen only having one of each model. This is also where I get the impression there are no separate CVL's anymore.

We also don't know what is happening with CVE's of course. I'm not sure I want them to have their own CAG's from a simplicity standpoint. Some abstraction there is acceptable as long as it's done carefully. If it's not I'd rather have the extra workload.

Oh and I hope if possible that every model of warship (not just class) can have it's own sprite. Because I'm sure the community is more than willing to make nice and pretty custom sprites for every model of ship in the game given half the chance.

These defaults are nice and functional though.

 

[CSJ]

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)

 

[King]

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.

 

[unmerged(131221)]

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.

So its like a separate battle? I mean for CAGs

 

[King]

So its like a separate battle?

Yes, we simply can't give air units positioning and closing distances like we can for ships.

 

[Chaplain]

Will individual "hits" in gunnery combat cause more strength damage instead of org damage?

One problem with HOI2 was that fleets could blast away at each other for hours and hours without damage to anything except org.

 

[Crookback]

Interesting stuff. August, nice.

I just hope the naval research is done properly (correct models for the ships, &c.) and of course... no KMS... o

 

[Bullfrog]

So its like a separate battle? I mean for CAGs

It seems so. Like when in HoI2 there is a naval battle going on and simultaneously there are land based air units attacking the fleet. So it will be like HoI in that sense, I just hope the level of control is softened for HoI3.

 

[TheLand]

Ah, yes, as Johan correctly pointed out p) Its HMS Hood.

It's a bit under-sized, then - Hood was longer than most battleships, including Bismarck.

 

[King]

It's a bit under-sized, then - Hood was longer than most battleships, including Bismarck.

Warning: Sprites not actual size

 

[unmerged(131221)]

Ok - great. So only whats left for me and I will be pleased
1. CVL and CVE - will be in? if yes then:
2. Will there be separated CAGs for them? if no:
3. Will there be different nr of CAGs for each, like 2 for CV and 1 CVL
4. Will there be time at see limited by supplies/oil

I dont need to know more.

 

[Kikaider]

2) I think that you answered your own question. Not more than 1 CAG per CV but Hangar lvl = efficiency of CAG.
3) It would be awesome, but we don't know and I doubt they'll tell us here.

edit: King'd

Well for 2) I knew it would be one of the two ways i proposed (and guessed it would probably just be Hangar lvl = efficiency of CAG), but I guess this way isn't bad, because I can just abstract that to mean efficiency of the cag increases with the number of planes aboard which is indirectly simulated/defined by the hanger level (in my head, even if I'm the only pyscho that does it). To me it just makes more sense.

and for 3) i think the way king put it (cag is just a cag) means that that there will not be a design component to CAG like there is for divs (and maybe this inderectly tells us there won't be an air wing designer?) but maybe we can define cags oriented offensively/defensively through tech (like for example if I play canada, I may just want a few carriers to protect/escort transport fleets, so I'll ech-up the defensive aspect of cags)

 

[Bullfrog]

Warning: Sprites not actual size

Makes sense when considering the air units and land units, so that they are all equally visible on screen. But Ships? I think the BC sprite should be larger. Not larger than the BB necessarily, but almost as big. Right now it looks like a cruiser at best.

 

[unmerged(105596)]

Excellent.

Will there be a possibility to group the CAGs of a CTF together as a, well, group, so that we won't need to assign mission "kill the enemy ships over there" to every 15 CAG units in the great CTF doomstack separately?

 

[unmerged(34050)]

Excellent.

Will there be a possibility to group the CAGs of a CTF together as a, well, group, so that we won't need to assign mission "kill the enemy ships over there" to every 15 CAG units in the great CTF doomstack separately?

Should be able to shift-click/lasso all the CAGs just like any other bunch of units?

 

[TheLand]

Warning: Sprites not actual size

That's lucky - I would have to buy a monitor the size of the North Atlantic.