Naval Rebalance | Designer Corner

[Corpse Fool]

1. They are both under NNavy in 00_define.lua, so it is quite certain that these variables are naval battle related, even though they are not mentioned in the naval battle page (hit profile and armor), paradox wikia doesn't tell you every game mechanics.
2. No the description said AGRESSION variable talks about deciding attack enemy, higher probability for certain navy weapons hitting which certain ship types would certainly increase the average hit time of certain navy weapons to that certain ship types (like a 100% accurate gun with 50% chance shooting at a battleship would conflict the same amount of damage to a 50% accurate gun with 100% chance shooting at a battleship in average).

PS: I don't know what are we arguing for, neither of us are game devs and really know how the game mechanics work, our current arguments are mostly based on our imagination and interpretation of the variables, but not the game code itself.

I wonder if @bitmode would be willing to help with this, as someone that has some experience with the code itself.

My experiences with the game suggest that the interpretation that @Sbrubbles is offering to be correct.

 

[bitmode]

I wonder if @bitmode would be willing to help with this, as someone that has some experience with the code itself.

My experiences with the game suggest that the interpretation that @Sbrubbles is offering to be correct.

This might be relevant: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/naval-engagement-orders.1441253/post-27086375

 

[Sbrubbles]

PS: I don't know what are we arguing for, neither of us are game devs and really know how the game mechanics work, our current arguments are mostly based on our imagination and interpretation of the variables, but not the game code itself.

Just because we're not game devs with access to the code doesn't mean we can't conclude things about the game. We could, for example, change the defines around and see what effects they have on the game, but I see no need to in this instance, since I trust both the wiki and the more experienced posters in this forum.

All this started because of the comment asking for changes so that modders can make custom ship types, which contradicts the fact that there are mods with custom ship types.

 

[wagnerleung0079]

Just because we're not game devs with access to the code doesn't mean we can't conclude things about the game. We could, for example, change the defines around and see what effects they have on the game, but I see no need to in this instance, since I trust both the wiki and the more experienced posters in this forum.

All this started because of the comment asking for changes so that modders can make custom ship types, which contradicts the fact that there are mods with custom ship types.

According to https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/naval-engagement-orders.1441253/post-27086375 it seems AGRESSION variable would really affect offensive strength against different ships types for a particular ship.

So yes, it seems un-hardcode those codes could allow modders have more freedom to make and balance the new ship types in their mods.

Able to create curtain custom ship types, does not mean able to create others. Modders able to create frigate doesn’t mean they can create submarine transports, speed boats or auxiliary cruisers into the game.

 

[wagnerleung0079]

According to https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/naval-engagement-orders.1441253/post-27086375 it seems AGRESSION variable would really affect offensive strength against different ships types for a particular ship.

@bitmode , Sorry the conclusion was actually made from your wiki page. Please kindly point out any misinterpretation I have made.

 

[bitmode]

@bitmode , Sorry the conclusion was actually made from your wiki page. Please kindly point out any misinterpretation I have made.

The wiki page, as well as the comments behind the AGGRESSION_* defines describe how they are used for scoring. I.e. they do not influence actual combat but are an abstract expectation of the AI of how certain guns will theoretically perform.

Am I understanding your proposal correctly that you want the weapon types to be script-defined to be able to add things like lighter-than-light gun types? The aggression defines would need to be amended for that but. But it would be a minor worry compared to how this would shake up the GUI and actual combat simulation.

 

[wagnerleung0079]

The wiki page, as well as the comments behind the AGGRESSION_* defines describe how they are used for scoring. I.e. they do not influence actual combat but are an abstract expectation of the AI of how certain guns will theoretically perform.

Am I understanding your proposal correctly that you want the weapon types to be script-defined to be able to add things like lighter-than-light gun types? The aggression defines would need to be amended for that but. But it would be a minor worry compared to how this would shake up the GUI and actual combat simulation.

After the discussion , I think just un-hardcode the Gun Hit Profile and weaponaccuracy(could be the same thing in the next update) can provide enough freedom to modder without shake up the GUI and actual combat simulation.

For the AGGRESSION mechanism, I still don’t understand how it would be an “abstract expectation of the AI of how certain guns will theoretically perform and do not influence actual combat perform” but changing it would “shake up the GUI and actual combat simulation”?

hope it is just a variable that would affect how a ship would chooses which enemy ship to shoot first.

 

[Sbrubbles]

According to https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/naval-engagement-orders.1441253/post-27086375 it seems AGRESSION variable would really affect offensive strength against different ships types for a particular ship.

Strength, both in that thread and in the wiki you posted, does not have anything to do with combat itself, it's just the name given to the evaluation the AI makes when choosing whether to sortie or not with the strike task force.

From the bitmode's post on that thread:

From the wiki:

In other words, if you have two hypothetically very different task forces in combat with Always Engage on, neither this "strength" nor the AGRESSION variables will directly affect the outcome.

So yes, it seems un-hardcode those codes could allow modders have more freedom to make and balance the new ship types in their mods.

Able to create curtain custom ship types, does not mean able to create others. Modders able to create frigate doesn’t mean they can create submarine transports, speed boats or auxiliary cruisers into the game.

Submarine transports can't be created because that would be custom convoy mechanics and has little to do with ship or gun profile. For auxiliary cruisers (if by auxiliary cruisers you're talking about armed convoys), you can mod convoy stats, though you can't have different types of convoys running around, but again nothing to do with ship or gun profile. Speed boats you certainly can, just create a custom ship with very low surface visibility, for example.

After the discussion , I think just un-hardcode the Gun Hit Profile and weaponaccuracy(could be the same thing in the next update) can provide enough freedom to modder without shake up the GUI and actual combat simulation.

It seems that what you want is to be able to create custom ship gun types, or custom ship categories, but especially the latter would certainly be a large change to GUI and combat.

For the AGGRESSION mechanism, I still don’t understand how it would be an “abstract expectation of the AI of how certain guns will theoretically perform and do not influence actual combat perform” but changing it would “shake up the GUI and actual combat simulation”?

hope it is just a variable that would affect how a ship would chooses which enemy ship to shoot first.

See the first part of this post

 

[wagnerleung0079]

Strength, both in that thread and in the wiki you posted, does not have anything to do with combat itself, it's just the name given to the evaluation the AI makes when choosing whether to sortie or not with the strike task force.

From the bitmode's post on that thread:
View attachment 853115
From the wiki:
View attachment 853113

In other words, if you have two hypothetically very different task forces in combat with Always Engage on, neither this "strength" nor the AGRESSION variables will directly affect the outcome.

Oh yeah, I was wrong about the strength summary. Thank you, I really learned a lot from this discussion.

Submarine transports can't be created because that would be custom convoy mechanics and has little to do with ship or gun profile. For auxiliary cruisers (if by auxiliary cruisers you're talking about armed convoys), you can mod convoy stats, though you can't have different types of convoys running around, but again nothing to do with ship or gun profile. Speed boats you certainly can, just create a custom ship with very low surface visibility, for example.

Submarine transports can be created by making another convoy object with submarine stats but not with the ship or gun profile. For auxiliary cruisers, I mean
Merchant raider, might need to add another variable for disguises (Surface visibility without affecting the hit profile) again but not with the ship or gun profile. This leads to the point that you can make frigates doesn't mean you can make other.

Modding the ship or gun profile could provide more freedom to make more, not all, new ship types. More doesn't mean all, but still better than the current stage.

It seems that what you want is to be able to create custom ship gun types, or custom ship categories, but especially the latter would certainly be a large change to GUI and combat.

Nope, I think full control on Gun Hit Profile (could be the weaponaccuracy in the next update) in archetypes level would provide much more freedom for the modder, custom ship gun types or custom ship categories is not really what I am thinking of.
And the other thing I think would give more freedom to modder is to un-hard coded the mechanism that would affect the overall hitting chance base on different ship types. As it seems strength summary is not that, it should be the end of its discussion.

 

[jaava]

That statement is only true if you include the many escort and light carriers that were used in the royal navy. This is also one of the things listed specifically under Fleet in Being. As for Fleet Carriers, the royal navy started the war with five (the three glorious classes, Eagle and Ark Royal), constructed six more during the war (four illustrious class, two implacable class) and started construction on two more which were finished after the war (Audacious Class).

As for battleships and battlecruisers, the Royal navy started with 15, constructed 5 more and layed down 1 more to be finished after the war. That's 21 to 13 ships, so battleships were definitely more prominent in the royal navy, even if they also had a fully developed carrier doctrine.

Compare that to the US, which started the war with 17 battleships (two of which were just commissioned) and constructed 8 more battleships during the war (though none were laid down after Pearl Harbor). However, the US had 7 fleet carriers before the war (2 Lexington, 3 Yorktown, Wasp and Ranger) and constructed 24 Essex classes, of which 14 were finished early enough to engage in combat. They also constructed 3 more Midway classes that were finished shortly after the war. Compare those 25 battleships to the 34 fleet carriers and you see how the focus of the Royal Navy and US Navy were quite different.

The adoption of the aircraft carrier as the primary ship for power projection was a change made much earlier by the US than by the UK, so it's not that weird that the US gets much better carrier bonuses in its doctrine, which surrounded around carier based warfare where carriers in the Royal Navy often served much more in a support role than as the ship that was going to be the primary combatant.

You forgot to count HMS Unicorn, 15 colossus/majestetic class carriers actually built (some finished after the war) and 4 centaur class carriers that were mostly build during the war but finished after the war. Those were not escort carriers. They also ordered 4 more of the centaur class, 4 audacious class and 4 malta class carriers, of which only two audacious class were finished after the war.

If you count escort carriers then the british built ~20ish more and also operated ~30 ships they got from the USA.

 

[Com]

Can things be changed so that convoys do not count for fleet size? It can really throw off positioning when large convoys are raided by small forces of subs.

 

[twillie96]

You forgot to count HMS Unicorn, 15 colossus/majestetic class carriers actually built (some finished after the war) and 4 centaur class carriers that were mostly build during the war but finished after the war. Those were not escort carriers. They also ordered 4 more of the centaur class, 4 audacious class and 4 malta class carriers, of which only two audacious class were finished after the war.

If you count escort carriers then the british built ~20ish more and also operated ~30 ships they got from the USA.

I specifically didn't include escort carriers and light carriers because their jobs were very different from fleet carriers. Even the light carriers unicorn and colossus class were mostly used as escort carriers or as support (carrying backup planes). They were not intended to engage in fleet battle and therefore I left them out of consideration when it comes to doctrine.

Also, this just supports the difference in doctrine where the UK gets escort bonuses for their carriers.

 

[LordWahu]

You forgot to count HMS Unicorn, 15 colossus/majestetic class carriers actually built (some finished after the war) and 4 centaur class carriers that were mostly build during the war but finished after the war. Those were not escort carriers. They also ordered 4 more of the centaur class, 4 audacious class and 4 malta class carriers, of which only two audacious class were finished after the war.

If you count escort carriers then the british built ~20ish more and also operated ~30 ships they got from the USA.

I specifically didn't include escort carriers and light carriers because their jobs were very different from fleet carriers. Even the light carriers unicorn and colossus class were mostly used as escort carriers or as support (carrying backup planes). They were not intended to engage in fleet battle and therefore I left them out of consideration when it comes to doctrine.

Also, this just supports the difference in doctrine where the UK gets escort bonuses for their carriers.

In game, there is one reason they don't get this from that: This game doesn't have escort carriers

Thanks to the 4 carrier limit, patrol carriers have almost no utility. Unless you want to steal a space from your main fleet for a real carrier, keeping an small cheap carrier in a patrol fleet is almost a complete detriment if the main fleet joins the fight

 

[Axe99]

I specifically didn't include escort carriers and light carriers because their jobs were very different from fleet carriers. Even the light carriers unicorn and colossus class were mostly used as escort carriers or as support (carrying backup planes). They were not intended to engage in fleet battle and therefore I left them out of consideration when it comes to doctrine.

Also, this just supports the difference in doctrine where the UK gets escort bonuses for their carriers.

The Colossus and Majestic class were designated "Light Fleet Carriers", and were very much intended to operate with the battle fleet. They were too late to see action in WW2, but the early Colossus class were sent east with air wings designed for fleet operations, with the intention that they join the British Pacific Fleet (which Colossus did before the end of the war, but they did not arrive in operational areas until after August 15). The post-war ships were very much used in a fleet role (serving in the Korean War).

Even the escort carriers were used for strikes against land targets and ships in port, but that was more because there was no surface threat to them from the Kriegsmarine or IJN when that happened, I'm not suggesting these should be considered for fleet roles

 

[wagnerleung0079]

It would be nice to add Deck Armor modules that can reduce the damage and critical hit chance from incoming aircraft’s Naval attacks.

 

[Usable Username]

FAQ & Dev Responses


this has been done but I somehow missed it from the DC (I will edit it in) MAX_POSITIONING_PENALTY_FROM_HIGHER_SHIP_RATIO Has been increase from 50% to 75%. this will make death stacking not quite so good from our tests so far.



Right now it makes destroyers and carriers very slightly easier to hit (like 0.01%-0.05%) but slower cruisers and battleships are getting 2%-5% lower chance to hit so it is simply flattening out those high chance to hit situations to be less extreme.



it is something I want to do but no promises on the extent.


that base speed is a typo, SHBB base speed should be 32 there. my bad

Please consider the prduction exploit were constructing a ship under coastal designer, then refitting 1 module enables you to avoid the negative penalties without paying the production cost gap.
Seems unintended.

Otherwise, loving the attention to navy. Deffinently going to come back to the game and put more hours in on the back of these changes alone.

 

[Corpse Fool]

Please consider the prduction exploit were constructing a ship under coastal designer, then refitting 1 module enables you to avoid the negative penalties without paying the production cost gap.
Seems unintended.

Otherwise, loving the attention to navy. Deffinently going to come back to the game and put more hours in on the back of these changes alone.

Have you tried this recently?

 

[Gen.Failure]

Is there going to be changes to the cost of surface vessels to make them more viable instead of the current sub spam meta?

 

[LordWahu]

Is there going to be changes to the cost of surface vessels to make them more viable instead of the current sub spam meta?

From what I'm reading, they majorly nerfed submarines

They don't produce as much zone supremacy, they are significantly easier to spot, easier to hit, and don't hit as well themselves

 

[wertyu7878456]

Could we have some accidental injury events for battleships?
For example:
USS Ingraham (DD-444) sunk after a collision in fog with the USS Chemung (AO-30) in the North Atlantic, 22 August 1942.
USS Parrott (DD-218) scrapped after being damaged beyond repair in a collision with the SS John Norton at Hampton Roads, Virginia, 2 May 1944.
USS Perkins (DD-377) sunk in collision with HMAS Duntroon off Cape Vogel, New Guinea, 29 November 1943.
USS Spence (DD-512) capsized during a typhoon in the Philippine Sea, 18 December 1944.
USS Truxtun (DD-229) wrecked in a gale at Chamber's Cove, Newfoundland, 18 February 1942.
USS Warrington (DD-383) foundered in a hurricane north of the Bahamas Islands, 13 September 1944.
USS Dorado (SS-248) probably sunk in error by US aircraft in the Caribbean Sea, 12 October 1943.
USS Tang (SS-306) sunk by own torpedo off Formosa, 24 October 1944.
...
(https://military-history.fandom.com...sunk_or_damaged_in_action_during_World_War_II)
Quite a lot of ships were injured by weather and shelling, torpedoes, mines, aircraft attacks from friend armies by mistakes, and even collisions. It could give punishments for a large number of ships in an action and make the naval interesting and historical.