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
I dont mind getting corrected.
I edited my post.
 
Posting in here because it's a reference thread, and still inked in the HoI3 and possibly HoI4 forums, but I'm not trying to take up with the dark arts, and if I should start a new thread and ping @TheBromgrev please let me know.

TheBromgrev said:
You'll also see the terms "commissioned" and "launched" thrown around the various entries. To clarify, there are 4 stages a ship goes through before it's combat ready. The first is the design stage, which is represented in-game by researching techs. The 2nd is the construction phase, also called "laid down", in which the ship's hull is built. The 2nd phase is represented by picking out which components you want for your ship before you hit the build button. At this point the various components of the ship could be adjusted in the design, so if it turned out that more armor was desired, it could be added here. The 3rd phase, launch, is when the hull is completed and the interior is being fitted. Aside from small guns like AA ones, at this point the ship's components couldn't be changed, and this phase is represented in-game when the ship is placed in the build queue. The last phase is commission, when the ship is completed and its crew trained and ready for combat. In-game, a ship is commissioned when you're able to place it onto the map.
Click to expand...

You've done some sensational research @TheBromgrev, but (as I understand it, but I've read a bit about the design and construction of WW2-era naal vessels) this quote is wildly misleading for most vessels of the period. There were a few examples (notably American, which is perhaps why this was thought to be the case more broadly?) where more resources were spent to change main armament or similar mid-build, but these were not the norm (indeed, Italy decided against 16 inch guns on the Littorios because they considered it would take too long to develop a new gun of that calibre and it would delay the ships - BB main armament could take longer to build than the rest of the ship put together). Propulsion was sometimes (possibly often - I think I've seen more examples of propulsion fitted pre-than-post launching*, but I'm going from memory and haven't seen enough examples to have a view whether it's representative in any case) fitted prior to launching as well, and even in the case it was fitted after, it doesn't magically come into existence when it's fitted - marine engines take significant time and effort to build. Armour also, in the quantities required for warships, is often rolled before the ship is launched (and I'm fairly sure any barbette armour is generally installed pre-launch).

It was most definitely not the case that between laying down and hull construction a nation had a hull that they could tinker with as they like and make changes willy-nilly. For a particularly clear example, one can look at HMS Hood, whose construction was put on hold while the results of the Battle of Jutland were analysed, and then she was laid down again in September 1916 (from Battleships of World War II, by Mark Whitley). Even then, the degree of change that could be made to her design was limited, and it was still a compromise (Hood had a highly stressed structure and and was quite a wet ship, due to all the extra weight added, as redesigning a ship, even when you can lay it down again, still has compromises unless you take a lot of time to re-do the design).

* I can't remember a single example where most of the propulsion wasn't put in the hull before launching, but my memory also isn't the best and I've hardly read detailed design histories of every ship ever, which is why I've left room in here for it being a mix.
 
Maybe using armor in the quote was a bad example, but the goal of that text was to tie the real-world process to how the game worked at a high level so someone not familiar with the process could understand the concept.
 
TheBromgrev said:
Maybe using armor in the quote was a bad example, but the goal of that text was to tie the real-world process to how the game worked at a high level so someone not familiar with the process could understand the concept.
Click to expand...

I guess I'd argue the text itself comes across as perhaps 'bending' what happened historically (ie, decision on most of the details of a ship happened before keel laying, not after), to make it fit into the way the game works. It's worth keeping in mind that while I used armour as an example, once those barbettes are installed changing the size of your turrets (or their weight by too much, as the structures will only be designed for so much weight, as will the buoyancy and stability of the ship more broadly) becomes very expensive and difficult.

Thus, while your paragraph argues (as best I understand, feel free to pick this apart if I've messed this up) that that:
design = researching techs
laying down through to launch = picking components
fitting out = construction in build queue
commissioned = on the map and ready to fight

I'd argue that historically:
capability to build basic components = research
design = picking components (or the ship designer in HoI4)
laying down through to commissioning, including trials (as trials not infrequently turned up issues that needed more dockyard work) = construction in build queue
commissioned and working up = training in HoI4 and absent in HoI3
worked up = on the map in HoI3 and after training in HoI4

My main point in responding was in the context of ship build times, where your quote was used to justify not including ships in build queues prior to launching because components weren't really locked in until then (when, historically, the key components that comprised most of the IC work and took most of the displacement generally were, or any substantial change involved a lot more expenditure and/or a lot longer time in construction).

Your description does work well enough for HoI3 (which was what it was written for :)) as long as it isn't used to justify relatively short build times (as best I understand - anything I ever argue is only ever my 2 cents, and can be wrong).
 
A short question and I do not know if this is the right thread, but given that it has to do with naval plans, it is possible that it does.

In the era of the pre-dreadnought, before or after 1906 when the battleship Dreadnought appeared and began the stage of the battleships in which there were super-battleships (Bismark, Yamato), did they exist or planned super-pre-dreadnoughts ? I refer in the equivalent sense to the battleship and super-armed, differences aside.
 
Thanks!
 
YUGULO said:
A short question and I do not know if this is the right thread, but given that it has to do with naval plans, it is possible that it does.

In the era of the pre-dreadnought, before or after 1906 when the battleship Dreadnought appeared and began the stage of the battleships in which there were super-battleships (Bismark, Yamato), did they exist or planned super-pre-dreadnoughts ? I refer in the equivalent sense to the battleship and super-armed, differences aside.
Click to expand...

You know, you really can't say "super-battleship" & then have Bismarck & Yamato in the same sentence.

Bismarck just wasn't in the same class.

Barely comparable to some of the mid-war US BBs like North Carolina and not comparable to the Iowas.

Which would also have been toast one-on-one against a Yamato.
 
Indeed, only the USN's Iowa class was close to it's firepower and that only because they developed the Super heavy Shell which made a 16" cannon as powerful as a 18" though this sacrificed maximum firing range. Armour wise, no built ship got close! Even taking into account the somewhat weaker Japanese armour.
 
Kinda off-topic, but in regards to aircraft, only the following nations should be able to build planes at all: US, France, UK, Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Poland (transports only).
Click to expand...


Grossly incorrect. Poland had a full range of fighters and light and medium bombers (and prototypes for heavy fighters and transports).

Then we’ve got:

Spain (licensed the CR.32 and Bf 109 fighters and
He 111, though the latter two only emerged by the end of the war)

Belgium (licensed built small series of the Hurricane and the Fairey Battle, also bought licenses for but never got around to building several Italian aircraft, including twin-engine bombers)

Switzerland (the D-3800 fighter series based on the French MS.406 and the C-3600 light bomber series)

Denmark (license built small series of Dutch D.XXI fighter and bought one for the G.I heavy fighter as well)

Finland (licensed the D.XXI also, small run of the indigenous Myrsky fighter, prototypes of a couple others, licensed the Bristol Blenheim bomber)

Czechoslovakia (mass produced the B-534 fighter and the Tupolev SB-2 under license as the B-71)

Hungary (license built the Re.2000 fighter as the Heja, the Bf 109, the Me 210, the Ju 52, had a few prototypes of their own as well)

Romania (licensed and indigenously designed fighters, also built a modified SM.79 bomber under license)

Yugoslavia (small runs and prototypes of several domestic designs plus licensed Blenheim and Do 17 bombers)

China (kit assembled or licensed small runs of American fighters and light bombers)

Argentina (small runs of licensed American fighters and couple domestic bomber designs)

Canada (massive production runs for the Hurricane, Blenheim, Mosquito, Lancaster, Hampden, and Catalina under license)

Australia (domestically designed Boomerang fighter, Woomera bomber prototype, license built Mustangs, Beaufighters, Beauforts, and Mosquitos)

Plus a number of other countries that built small trainer planes, some of which had unfulfilled plans to build combat aircraft either of their own design or licensed from an outside power (South Africa, New Zealand, Bulgaria, Greece, Turkey, Norway, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal, Mexico, Brazil).

One more special case is Austria, whose aircraft industry built a handful of licensed trainers prior to the Anschluss but also ended up building 8,000 of the Germans’ Bf 109s in the Wiener Neustadt factory.
 
I think that is kinda what they're meaning. Only the majors built large quantities of combat aircraft. Those are all license copies of majors aircraft, which would be handled by the license production system. Especially in China's case, as the Americans or whoever actually built them, the NatChi just had the final finishing.
 
Only the licence production is not often working.
But many of these nations had their own aircraft designs produced even China! The Chu XP-0 and XP-1 though these were indeed mid/late war prototypes.
Also Licence production means the country has the infrastructure to actually build those aircrafts.
Hungary had a large amount of biplane designs and productions mostly trainer and scout aircraft with some light bombers.
Canada and Australia has their own branches from the main British aircraft Industry the DeHavilland Canada, DeHavilland Australia and the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation
Switzerland too had their own industry and know-how:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EKW_C-36

same for Sweden as well as Denmark, Poland and Czechs. Europe was very advanced at that time compared to other countries of the world as most of them had their own aircraft and even Tank industry!
 
Might be worth focussing this thread back on what it's meant for, lest it end up getting shut down in any event? There's definitely room for more findings a la naval dispositions during the HoI3/4 period, but whether non-majors could design and build combat aircraft (which they could - Sweden, Poland and Czechoslovakia all designed, flew and were ready to fight with their own aircraft) isn't really part of that story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back