Victoria 3 - Dev Diary #18 - Rank & Prestige

[Nibbes]

the problem with the east-india company breaking away is that everyone who had a stake in it was in london, so the only way this could happen was if multiple "rival" local officials banded together to take over, it's essentially like if the local foremen took over the factory and then tried to keep the factory running as before
it should be possible yes, but it's going to be short-lived (at least in that form), unstable and massively less profitable then before


I think in the grand scheme of things it turned out that battleships were not worth it as they were just too vulnerable and expensive but that wouldn't be found out untill the 1940's, even the US considered carriers as support for battleships untill pearl harbour kind of forced them to rely on carriers alone which turned out quite well
+ carriers create huge conflicts of interest with the airforce, that spat of the airforce trying to rip itself appart from the army I mentioned before is nothing compared to the fight the navy and the airforce had over who controlled the carrier planes (and the carriers themselves)

but all of that is moot as aircraft cariers fall largely outside the scope of the game, HOI is the game for that

also I agree that zepellin bombers need to be represented somehow but I've no idea how you'd do that

Prototypes do begin at beginning of 2000th century but modern design is not formally set until really after ww1 in 20s. I do not find it too out of historical scope for power especially weaker one trying to find “edge/advantage” resorts to using air craft carriers over battleships partly for cost reasons and time.

Also side note what is current status of military gameplay so far? Is it more hearts of iron like especially late game or similar to Europa and Vicky 2? Or does it transition from Vicky 2 and Europa combat style to hearts of iron one by later game or large scale wars?

 

[demanvanwezel]

Prototypes do begin at beginning of 2000th century but modern design is not formally set until really after ww1 in 20s. I do not find it too out of historical scope for power especially weaker one trying to find “edge/advantage” resorts to using air craft carriers over battleships partly for cost reasons and time.

Also side note what is current status of military gameplay so far? Is it more hearts of iron like especially late game or similar to Europa and Vicky 2? Or does it transition from Vicky 2 and Europa combat style to hearts of iron one by later game or large scale wars?

aircraft moved only from "scouting the enemy while dropping iron spikes on them" to "knightly jousters in the sky " to "an actual airforce as we might recognise it" during WW1 and that only after years, in 1918 the first designated carier was launched but the planes were just for scouting, it'd be years untill planes would be capable of taking on small ships, let alone be a danger to the big ones

also to answer your question: we don't know anything about military at this point,
personally I hope for movement is attack like in HOI with bonusses for attackers in the early game (so trying to make a WW1 scenario in 1880 is impossible) which get mitigated by bonusses for defence in the later game
I hope they make a good siege system, there where a lot of important sieges in WW1, also I hope the navy can shoot at the army and vice versa, in fact it ought to be possible to just win with navy alone

 

[Axe99]

I knew about those, I disqualified them because they were build by the british in spain (japan did so at first too but then build their own) but mainly because they ruin my reference that dreadnoughts were build by what's usually seen as the 8 great powers at the time

That might be selling SECN a little short, but I get where you're coming from

On paper, yes, but there were very few battleship-on-battleship engagements and they didn't tend to really make much of a difference in the wars featuring them, certainly not in comparison to the efforts of cruisers and submarines hunting merchant vessels, and the poor nth-rate destroyers trying to stop them. Even in the war in the Pacific in WW2, the vagaries of trying to coordinate and maneuver on such large scales meant three of the greatest battleship fleets in the world spent most of their time not engaging in large-scale battles. The thirty- or forty-mile circle around a battleship squadron is an insanely dangerous place to be, but compared to the whole ocean it's just not big enough, and the battleships themselves not numerous enough, to be what carries you to victory. Conversely, it's hard to come up with a naval vessel less glamorous than a WW1 submarine, but they were absolutely crucial to contesting British supply lines.

Which is good for us, because it sets up a tension and a tradeoff (and this is a game, we need mechanical tradeoffs) between forces that are prestigious and forces that can actually win large-scale wars.

This is a wildly revisionist view of the role of the battleship in either world war, let alone the Russo-Japanese war (which I'm not going to argue, as I presume it was an oversight on your part, but if you want to argue that battleships weren't important in the Russo-Japanese war, I can address that as well). The ultimate arbiter of the war in the North Sea, which was what decided the blockade of Germany, had a significant impact on Germany's capacity to continue its war in WW1 and played no small part in leading to the overthrow of the Kaiser, was decided by battleships (and, in particular, dreadnoughts). Submarines, destroyers, mines and aircraft all played a part, but capital ships were the ultimate arbiter of power at sea in WW1, and power at sea in WW1 was the ultimate arbiter of whether trade could be maintained or not. Had Germany somehow been able to knock out the British Grand Fleet, Britain would have been out of the war without question, as their trade routes could have been cut far more comprehensively than even at the worst period of the German u-boat campaign.

Battleships aren't about the number of engagements that take place (given how lethal battleship-on-battleship engagements can be, it's hardly surprising the numbers are on the small side - the weaker power generally is somewhat cautious about engaging superior forces, and knows that if they lose their battleship force they're effectively sidelined in terms of exerting sea control), but about the ultimate control of sea lanes.

This still applies in the Second World War. The single most influential element in the war in the Mediterranean was whether one side or the other had battleships available to them (either outright, or the fuel to use them) - even when airpower still had a very strong influence. Similarly, the war in the Pacific proved that oodles and oodles of carrier-based airpower could, given enough time (but only with time - they could not 'hard block' a battleship force - see their failure to do this at the Battle of the Sibuyan Sea) attrit another navy. But the only sure way of stopping a battleship, even in 1944, was another battleship.

A very important thing to bear in mind is that when people only look in a relatively shallow sense at naval and naval/air warfare in WW2, they tend to focus on the successful attacks on battleships, but don't take into account the thousands of ineffective strikes. Aircraft vs battleships was a low-odds, iterative process, and was by no means guaranteed to achieve sea control (and rarely did even in the WW2 period with carrier-based or land-based aircraft alone - and as per the comments below, WW2 carrier-based airpower involves a lot of tech development that takes place right at the end and after the Vicky 3 time period).

Things get even more complex when radar-directed airpower is available on both sides. There was an advantage to the defender in terms of numbers, so a relatively small CAP could provide very effective defense against far greater attacking forces (see Operation Pedestal, August 1942). So a battleship force with integrated air cover can be very difficult to stop if the other side only has carriers, even if their carrier forces might outnumber the aircraft available to the combined battleship/carrier force. Things become even more complex with the advent of radar-guided bombs and missiles and fast-moving jet aircraft that can operate and strike at night - but we don't need to go there for Vicky 3 - but if you're looking for the death of the battleship it's driven far more by radar, electronics and missiles (ASM and SSM) than it is by the advent of the aircraft carrier alone.

From Vicky's perspective, it's very important to keep in mind that even if the mid-1930s (let alone in WW1 and the 1920s) the operational radius of carrier-based aircraft was such that carriers needed to be dangerously close to the enemy's line of battle to attack them - so without friendly battleships to defend them, if they're disabled, or engaged by a fast-moving cruiser or destroyer force, they could find themselves in a lot of trouble very quickly. I would argue in the strongest terms against Vicky 3 having some historically implausible and shallow gamey trade-off between 'battleships for show' and 'an effective fleet for power projection'. For the duration of the Vicky 3 period, battleships remained the most important factor for sea control and (with a shift that starts to take place perhaps in about 1935, and isn't complete until the mid-1940s) power projection.

These are, of course, just my impressions, but I've read over 90 books on naval history, including titles dedicated to both battleships and carriers on both sides of the conflict, and would strongly suggest basing a view on the relative effectiveness of the battleship in WW2 (let alone WW1) on 'popular history' books, or generalist history websites.

Air craft Carriers might not always carry same firepower or even distance/range at times but often not far off and more multi purpose. Some of more modern ones are not far off from battleships plus having more pluses and adaptability to it. For example, the lack of firepower and range some have is usually made up by fact of air craft it carries with it along with smaller support vessels. Even the pre jet engine plains are better at countering smaller faster vessels and submarine attacks or reporting where they are at. If I build a bunch of submarines, air craft(fighters and bombers), and more shallow water or defensive navy to support it I could catch the British battleships in bad position near coast or shallow water making it perfect target to pick off/isolate. Destroying that ship is at least big moral lost for navy and public at home. Plus air craft carriers can bombed ports and coastlines too.

I think in the grand scheme of things it turned out that battleships were not worth it as they were just too vulnerable and expensive but that wouldn't be found out untill the 1940's, even the US considered carriers as support for battleships untill pearl harbour kind of forced them to rely on carriers alone which turned out quite well

See the comments above on both cases. The popular view of the battleship being obsolete at the start of WW2 isn't something that I've seen anywhere in a serious book on naval history, but seems to persist in broader circles.

but all of that is moot as aircraft cariers fall largely outside the scope of the game, HOI is the game for that

Aircraft carriers as the primary factor of naval force projection yes, but aircraft carriers more broadly absolutely not - the first aircraft carriers were operational in WW1, and had the war not ended before it took place, the British had planned the first 'decent scaled' carrier-based airstrike on a fleet in port. Naval aviation continued to develop in the 1920s, and it wasn't until the late 1920s that anyone except the Royal Navy had an effective carrier-based strike force, but aircraft carriers (and seaplane carriers - the British had seaplane-carrier based aircraft operational at Jutland, although to little effect given the weather and time of the engagement, amongst other things) as a factor in naval warfare should be a thing from the mid-1910s or thereabouts, depending on how technology development works.

 

[Nibbes]

aircraft moved only from "scouting the enemy while dropping iron spikes on them" to "knightly jousters in the sky " to "an actual airforce as we might recognise it" during WW1 and that only after years, in 1918 the first designated carier was launched but the planes were just for scouting, it'd be years untill planes would be capable of taking on small ships, let alone be a danger to the big ones

also to answer your question: we don't know anything about military at this point,
personally I hope for movement is attack like in HOI with bonusses for attackers in the early game (so trying to make a WW1 scenario in 1880 is impossible) which get mitigated by bonusses for defence in the later game
I hope they make a good siege system, there where a lot of important sieges in WW1, also I hope the navy can shoot at the army and vice versa, in fact it ought to be possible to just win with navy alone

River battles and navy actions would be nice

 

[Nibbes]

See the comments above on both cases. The popular view of the battleship being obsolete at the start of WW2 isn't something that I've seen anywhere in a serious book on naval history, but seems to persist in broader circles.

It’s more of cost and trade offs vs aircraft carriers. Just seems cheaper and more flexible of tactics. Battleships biggest benefit especially pre bombers and fighters is bombing hell out of coastal cities. Modern ones like US navy pretty sure can even strike as far as Afghanistan but before computers and heat seekers only thing they can somewhat accurately hit is coastal defenses and cities or ones close by.

It’s usually more risky to put your battleships in range of artillery and more mobile coastal/blue/brown water navies elements. Aircraft carriers at least have fighters for defense near coastline that’s why more modern navies often use them to bombard stuff too.

Also correct me if wrong but how is mobility of battleships vs aircraft carriers and other large ships in the navy?

 

[Nibbes]

From Vicky's perspective, it's very important to keep in mind that even if the mid-1930s (let alone in WW1 and the 1920s) the operational radius of carrier-based aircraft was such that carriers needed to be dangerously close to the enemy's line of battle to attack them - so without friendly battleships to defend them, if they're disabled, or engaged by a fast-moving cruiser or destroyer force, they could find themselves in a lot of trouble very quickly. I would argue in the strongest terms against Vicky 3 having some historically implausible and shallow gamey trade-off between 'battleships for show' and 'an effective fleet for power projection'. For the duration of the Vicky 3 period, battleships remained the most important factor for sea control and (with a shift that starts to take place perhaps in about 1935, and isn't complete until the mid-1940s) power projection.

Side note: They should make terrain, climate, and geography be much more major factor in battle both on land, sea, and air. Make tactics and strategy really matter again when players know how to use it properly

 

[demanvanwezel]

That might be selling SECN a little short, but I get where you're coming from

on that note, I would use the spanish example if someone were to suggest that only great powers should to be able to build dreadnoughts
I want soft restrictions, not hard ones
I want dreadnoughts to be a thing that great powers build in order to be independant from other great powers, not because it'd be economical to build them yourself, in fact if building dreadnoughts for other countries becomes a thing then I'd want a great power requesting another great power to build a dreadnought for them to lose a bit more prestige then they'd gain from owning a dreadnought

This is a wildly revisionist view of the role of the battleship in either world war, let alone the Russo-Japanese war (which I'm not going to argue, as I presume it was an oversight on your part, but if you want to argue that battleships weren't important in the Russo-Japanese war, I can address that as well). The ultimate arbiter of the war in the North Sea, which was what decided the blockade of Germany, had a significant impact on Germany's capacity to continue its war in WW1 and played no small part in leading to the overthrow of the Kaiser, was decided by battleships (and, in particular, dreadnoughts). Submarines, destroyers, mines and aircraft all played a part, but capital ships were the ultimate arbiter of power at sea in WW1, and power at sea in WW1 was the ultimate arbiter of whether trade could be maintained or not. Had Germany somehow been able to knock out the British Grand Fleet, Britain would have been out of the war without question, as their trade routes could have been cut far more comprehensively than even at the worst period of the German u-boat campaign.

Battleships aren't about the number of engagements that take place (given how lethal battleship-on-battleship engagements can be, it's hardly surprising the numbers are on the small side - the weaker power generally is somewhat cautious about engaging superior forces, and knows that if they lose their battleship force they're effectively sidelined in terms of exerting sea control), but about the ultimate control of sea lanes.

This still applies in the Second World War. The single most influential element in the war in the Mediterranean was whether one side or the other had battleships available to them (either outright, or the fuel to use them) - even when airpower still had a very strong influence. Similarly, the war in the Pacific proved that oodles and oodles of carrier-based airpower could, given enough time (but only with time - they could not 'hard block' a battleship force - see their failure to do this at the Battle of the Sibuyan Sea) attrit another navy. But the only sure way of stopping a battleship, even in 1944, was another battleship.

A very important thing to bear in mind is that when people only look in a relatively shallow sense at naval and naval/air warfare in WW2, they tend to focus on the successful attacks on battleships, but don't take into account the thousands of ineffective strikes. Aircraft vs battleships was a low-odds, iterative process, and was by no means guaranteed to achieve sea control (and rarely did even in the WW2 period with carrier-based or land-based aircraft alone - and as per the comments below, WW2 carrier-based airpower involves a lot of tech development that takes place right at the end and after the Vicky 3 time period).

Things get even more complex when radar-directed airpower is available on both sides. There was an advantage to the defender in terms of numbers, so a relatively small CAP could provide very effective defense against far greater attacking forces (see Operation Pedestal, August 1942). So a battleship force with integrated air cover can be very difficult to stop if the other side only has carriers, even if their carrier forces might outnumber the aircraft available to the combined battleship/carrier force. Things become even more complex with the advent of radar-guided bombs and missiles and fast-moving jet aircraft that can operate and strike at night - but we don't need to go there for Vicky 3 - but if you're looking for the death of the battleship it's driven far more by radar, electronics and missiles (ASM and SSM) than it is by the advent of the aircraft carrier alone.

From Vicky's perspective, it's very important to keep in mind that even if the mid-1930s (let alone in WW1 and the 1920s) the operational radius of carrier-based aircraft was such that carriers needed to be dangerously close to the enemy's line of battle to attack them - so without friendly battleships to defend them, if they're disabled, or engaged by a fast-moving cruiser or destroyer force, they could find themselves in a lot of trouble very quickly. I would argue in the strongest terms against Vicky 3 having some historically implausible and shallow gamey trade-off between 'battleships for show' and 'an effective fleet for power projection'. For the duration of the Vicky 3 period, battleships remained the most important factor for sea control and (with a shift that starts to take place perhaps in about 1935, and isn't complete until the mid-1940s) power projection.

These are, of course, just my impressions, but I've read over 90 books on naval history, including titles dedicated to both battleships and carriers on both sides of the conflict, and would strongly suggest basing a view on the relative effectiveness of the battleship in WW2 (let alone WW1) on 'popular history' books, or generalist history websites.





See the comments above on both cases. The popular view of the battleship being obsolete at the start of WW2 isn't something that I've seen anywhere in a serious book on naval history, but seems to persist in broader circles.



Aircraft carriers as the primary factor of naval force projection yes, but aircraft carriers more broadly absolutely not - the first aircraft carriers were operational in WW1, and had the war not ended before it took place, the British had planned the first 'decent scaled' carrier-based airstrike on a fleet in port. Naval aviation continued to develop in the 1920s, and it wasn't until the late 1920s that anyone except the Royal Navy had an effective carrier-based strike force, but aircraft carriers (and seaplane carriers - the British had seaplane-carrier based aircraft operational at Jutland, although to little effect given the weather and time of the engagement, amongst other things) as a factor in naval warfare should be a thing from the mid-1910s or thereabouts, depending on how technology development works.

my comment was based more on their actual performance in battle, as a way to scare the enemy it did it's job admirably
the whole fleet-in-being doctrine is literally based on the enemy going: "the enemy fleet could be here any minute and it could be larger/stronger then ours, let's not do anything rash with our fleet less we lose it"

 

[Axe99]

It’s more of cost and trade offs vs aircraft carriers. Just seems cheaper and more flexible of tactics. Battleships biggest benefit especially pre bombers and fighters is bombing hell out of coastal cities.

The biggest benefit of battleships (and the reason anyone built them) was sea control. Battleships are used to retain or take control of sea lines of communication (goods, people or military forces being transported, more or less). In the Vicky period, battleships were the ultimate form of sea control - carrier-based aircraft even up until the mid-1930s couldn't carry large enough payloads to do enough damage to heavy ships even if they could hit them. Larger aircraft of the time relied on level bombing, which turned out to be not that great for hitting moving targets unless it was done so low-down AA chewed up the bombers (and this was even the case for higher-performance aircraft than for the Vicky period).

Carriers for most of the Vicky period were considered useful auxiliaries to battleships - their aircraft were neither numerous enough nor could carry heavy enough ordnance to disable a battle line but they could provide important spotting for long-range gunfire, intel and 'harrassing attacks' that could give one's own battle line a significant advantage. It was only very late in the interwar period (going from memory 1938, but around then iirc, noting my memory is a little patchy) that even the US (which had the largest aircraft complements on its carriers) started to consider that it might be possible for carrier forces alone to deal enough damage to a battle line to disable it, and at a range long enough that the friendly battle line may not come into contact.

At sea, beyond a coast defence role and some specific examples of narrow seas (the Danish straits, the English Channel, the Adriatic, the Aegean, and the North Sea in the 1930s or so) it's unlikely during the period aircraft are likely have the range to reach, let alone navigate and find, naval forces at sea. Further, if they attacked a fleet with aircraft carriers (the British fleet you keep mentioning) they need to get through the defensive fighters first.

Be careful you're not confusing the 16-strong US fast carrier force of the 1940s, equipped with cutting-edge monoplanes, with 1-2 carriers with biplanes with an effective striking range of less than 100km and bomb loads that would struggle to penetrate the decks of pre-Jutland designs.

Shore bombardment as a battleship's main role late in WW2 was only the case because the enemy didn't have near enough battleships left for battleships to be needed for sea control - but it's worth bearing in mind that even in 1945, when Yamato sortied for Okinawa, and it and its supporting vessels was attacked by nearly 400 aircraft, the US still drew its battleships up in a battle line across its projected path - because even then they knew that it wasn't necessarily possible to stop a heavy ship by airpower. In this case, with ridiculous numbers of aircraft, good intel, good weather and negligible enemy airpower, the odds were stacked against Yamato, but had the IJN airpower of its own to provide cover, and a larger force, then there's every reason to believe that aircraft alone could not have prevented it from reaching the invasion forces at Okinawa.

I want dreadnoughts to be a thing that great powers build in order to be independant from other great powers, not because it'd be economical to build them yourself, in fact if building dreadnoughts for other countries becomes a thing then I'd want a great power requesting another great power to build a dreadnought for them to lose a bit more prestige then they'd gain from owning a dreadnought

I'm not sure about a malus from having someone else build a dreadnought for them - Japan's expansion of battleships (pre-dreadnoughts in this case) definitely gave them prestige, despite them all being built in Britain. The South American countries that also possessed dreadnoughts had prestige from them, despite them not being home-grown. The primary reason nations with strong navies had prestige was because of their 'soft power' and potential for force projection/hard power, not because of their technological prowess.

What about a different approach - perhaps split the prestige from naval forces into 'owning' and 'building' - so if Britain or the US are building vessels for other nations, they accrue some prestige from that (creating a greater difference in net naval prestige between constructing and just operating nations). This fits into the 'power' behind prestige, as nations that build the vessels are far more capable of expanding their forces more quickly (and repairing and maintaining them) than nations without. So, say, if Britain builds a battleship, it gets 5 prestige, and if it's operating a top-tier battleship it has 10 prestige, while if a South American country is operating a top-tier battleship it just has 10 prestige, and if it's a second-tier battleship, it would be less?

Just random thoughts. I think it's important to bear in mind why prestige was prestige though - it wasn't because of an innate affection to great lumps of floating iron and steel, but rather the capabilities those ships provided.

on that note, I would use the spanish example if someone were to suggest that only great powers should to be able to build dreadnoughts
I want soft restrictions, not hard ones

I'm a strong fan of soft (and immersive) rather than hard (and implausible) gameplay barriers.

my comment was based more on their actual performance in battle

Battleships were very effective in battle in World War One and World War Two - I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. In the Med, the reason the Italians retreated at the Battle of Calabria/Punta Stilo was because they were disadvantage in battleships, despite strong (if poorly coordinated) land-based air support. Same store at the Battle of Calabria. The reason the British struggled at the First and Second Battles of Sirte was because they had no battleships available. Similarly, the Battle of the Denmark Straight and Bismarck's final action were decided by battleship main armament, as was the Battle of North Cape, and (as one-sided as it was, and noting the contribution of torpedoes from destroyers in relatively enclosed waters) the Battle of Surigoa Strait.

Going back further, if one looks at the Russo-Japanese War, the Battle of Tsushima was more-or-less decided by battleships.

 

[Jamaican Castle]

From Vicky's perspective, it's very important to keep in mind that even if the mid-1930s (let alone in WW1 and the 1920s) the operational radius of carrier-based aircraft was such that carriers needed to be dangerously close to the enemy's line of battle to attack them - so without friendly battleships to defend them, if they're disabled, or engaged by a fast-moving cruiser or destroyer force, they could find themselves in a lot of trouble very quickly.

I'm not trying to argue for the aircraft carrier specifically, certainly not in Victoria 3's time. And I'm particularly not trying to argue about carriers vs. other surface ships generally. I'm saying that in terms of dreadnoughts vs. other ships, the dreadnoughts get all the press - and a lot of the budget - but they don't do all the work. They may or may not even do their share of the work compared to their operating expenses. Yes, they win battles, but battles don't win wars. The IJN spent over a year pursuing a decisive, Tsushima-like battle in the Pacific without ever quite finding it, and day by day that focus weakened them. And when large battles did happen, they were just as likely to be confused Coral Sea-style engagements where nobody, battleship or carrier or anything else - was able to land a decisive blow. (Or something like the Battle off Samar where the Japanese battleship squadron blew through an ineffectual, if determined, screen of American escorts and aircraft... and then turned around and left because they misread the strategic situation.)

Even in your examples, the destroyers and light cruisers are providing a lot of threat to these hypothetical carrier squadrons, but when was the last time you saw a country bragging about its brand-new destroyer squadron? Building up appropriate numbers of lighter warships isn't likely to move your prestige needle very far, but it should absolutely be important to how well your navy fights.

Anyway, to bring things back to the core century, when I talk about vessels for prestige rather than warfare I'm primarily thinking of events such as the South American dreadnought race and vessels like the Minas Geraes, which was of massive political importance - the idea of Brazil owning such a ship was so shocking people speculated it might be a proxy purchase by another country; that was how disproportionately it raised Brazil's stature - but militarily appears to have been of negative value, in that it once threatened to bombard its own home port when taken by mutineers, but was turned down for WWI service because it was outdated (at the ripe old age of 7 years afloat), and it spent WWII as a floating harbor battery; its contemporary cruisers, the Bahia-class, at least were useful for escort duty through the 1940s.

So yes, I would argue that - in the context of the rapidly shifting, advancing, and above all growing warships of the late 1800s/early 1900s - there was a tension between how to build a navy that was impressive on the world stage and one that was useful. If you were Britain of course you could do both; being a Great Power has its perks. But for lesser nations it was very possible to sink an incredible amount of money into a prestige project that was of dubious practical value.

 

[Axe99]

In terms of my examples they were a bit WW2-focussed because of the comments that lead to them (my bad, sorry about that), but in the Vicky 3 timeframe it's worth bearing in mind that while destroyers played an important part at Jutland, they were far less involved at Dogger Bank, and not in attendance at Coronel or the Falklands (cruisers were at both Coronel and the Falklands, but it was the battlecruisers that dominated the Falklands, and the larger, more modern Scharnhorst that overpowered the smaller and older cruisers at Coronel, IIRC (going from memory here, there may be some slips - if I mess up, please don't hesitate to set the record straight, I'm far more interested in getting the facts down than being right personally)).

Even in your examples, the destroyers and light cruisers are providing a lot of threat to these hypothetical carrier squadrons, but when was the last time you saw a country bragging about its brand-new destroyer squadron? Building up appropriate numbers of lighter warships isn't likely to move your prestige needle very far, but it should absolutely be important to how well your navy fights.

While I think there should still be some prestige for smaller units - cruisers and gunboats/ships did a lot of 'showing the flag' around the world, which is related directly to prestige - I agree with your point here . The biggest vessels (battleships in this case, and then larger cruisers (Russia's Rurik was very influential and, as best I understand it, a prestige-accumulator, as well as being a threat to trade lanes)/battle cruisers, and later in the game carriers) should provide more prestige relative to their overall effectiveness in the fleet. At the end of the day, when it comes to fleet actions (as opposed to trade warfare) the destroyers, cruisers and carriers are all there backing up the battleships, and (short of some extreme edge-cases) its the battleships that determine who, at the end of the day, gets to push the convoy through, or invade, or what-have-you.

And while the battleships did capture the public eye more than other vessels (they along with battlecruisers were larger than anything else until the 1920s, and the public more generally are easily drawn to 'big is better'), in terms of how much nations respected other nations, they were well aware of their capabilities with smaller vessels (eg, the RN appreciated and respected French, German and Russian cruisers for their potential to disrupt trade), and the Japanese Fubuki class destroyers were quite influential amongst British and American destroyer designs.

That said, it's worth bearing in mind that those smaller (militarily) nations were never trying to project power over oceans - so for them while the South American navies did go a bit ga-ga over battleships in the first couple of decades of the 20th century, once one South American nation was getting a dreadnought, it may have made sense for others to follow simply because the only effective counter to a (poorly screened) dreadnought at that time was another dreadnought. So for a South American nation concerned about its rivals arms build-up, it may make sense to have a dreadnought with sub-optimal supporting forces, versus a balanced fleet for the same cost that includes no dreadnoughts, or a significantly less capable one.

 

[toegut]

On the topic of battleships, I think there should be more randomness when they are used in battle. After all, Churchill said that Admiral Jellicoe commanding the Grand Fleet could "lose or win the war in a day". So I think if you take your battleship navy into battle, there should be some chance that you lose your battleships (for example, bad weather scatters your force so it's badly positioned or your ships have unsecured turret hatches and bags of cordite lying around as at Jutland). This then creates the dynamic approximating the fleet-in-being and makes using your fleet more of a gamble.

 

[Axe99]

On the topic of battleships, I think there should be more randomness when they are used in battle. After all, Churchill said that Admiral Jellicoe commanding the Grand Fleet could "lose or win the war in a day". So I think if you take your battleship navy into battle, there should be some chance that you lose your battleships (for example, bad weather scatters your force so it's badly positioned or your ships have unsecured turret hatches and bags of cordite lying around as at Jutland). This then creates the dynamic approximating the fleet-in-being and makes using your fleet more of a gamble.

I definitely agree some kind of 'critical hit' mechanic (a la HoI4, but adjusted to WW1 conditions) would be a great idea, as would be a positioning mechanic (again, a la HoI4) - but it's important to keep in mind the most important thing is the naval combat system can cope with the introduction of the torpedo, submarines and aircraft (HoI4 starts and ends with all those in place - and while its by far the best naval combat Paradox 'core' (ex-PDS) have ever done, it's still got room for improvement when it comes to handling submarines and aircraft), and other bits and bobs like critical hits should come after this (critical hits starting with demasting and finishing with magazine flash explosions!)

 

[Nibbes]

I definitely agree some kind of 'critical hit' mechanic (a la HoI4, but adjusted to WW1 conditions) would be a great idea, as would be a positioning mechanic (again, a la HoI4) - but it's important to keep in mind the most important thing is the naval combat system can cope with the introduction of the torpedo, submarines and aircraft (HoI4 starts and ends with all those in place - and while its by far the best naval combat Paradox 'core' (ex-PDS) have ever done, it's still got room for improvement when it comes to handling submarines and aircraft), and other bits and bobs like critical hits should come after this (critical hits starting with demasting and finishing with magazine flash explosions!)

How do you replicate some tactics related to rules of engagement?

For example, when submarines first got used in Europe some thought it was “dastardly” to shoot at ship without warning and signaling/flagging it first like they did with ships in older navy battles.

Even with army until interwar years and ww2 you still largely see battles take place in conventional areas and outside of urban centers often times. WW1 does see some major city battles those. But point being Europeans often did fight at least against each other with certain rules of engagement.

My question especially if your weaker(minor or underdeveloped nation) could you use unconventional tactics to counter technology or number advantages?

This can tie into critical hits as well due to element of surprise.

Maybe as trade off you lose prestige if the tactics are seen as too “savage” or “underhanded” by some of major powers?

 

[demanvanwezel]

How do you replicate some tactics related to rules of engagement?

For example, when submarines first got used in Europe some thought it was “dastardly” to shoot at ship without warning and signaling/flagging it first like they did with ships in older navy battles.

Even with army until interwar years and ww2 you still largely see battles take place in conventional areas and outside of urban centers often times. WW1 does see some major city battles those. But point being Europeans often did fight at least against each other with certain rules of engagement.

My question especially if your weaker(minor or underdeveloped nation) could you use unconventional tactics to counter technology or number advantages?

This can tie into critical hits as well due to element of surprise.

Maybe as trade off you lose prestige if the tactics are seen as too “savage” or “underhanded” by some of major powers?

taking a look at the new HOI4 mechanics, stellaris's mechanics and what we know of vicky3's political system maybe there can be a tab called "rules of engagement" for military units
so with submarines you start at "stop and search"-option which heavilly penalises raiding efficiency and submarine defence but can go all the way up to "unrestricted submarine warfare" which has very high raiding efficiency but damages relations with neutral countries, there also needs to be a certain cost affiliated with changing those tactics but I've no idea what resource that would be (naval exp would be best but I'd rather not bloat the game with extra resources only used in lategame anyway)

 

[Heptapod]

We’re not going to go too deep into this specific topic today (as we’ll return to it in a later dev diary), but the gist of it is that countries start the game either Unrecognized or Recognized, and Unrecognized countries have to gain or force recognition in order to properly climb the Rank ladder. The Unrecognized/Recognized system replaces the Civilized/Uncivilized system of Victoria 1 and 2, and a difference from those games is that being an Unrecognized country is purely a Diplomatic status with Diplomatic penalties - a country does not become inherently worse at constructing factories or fighting wars by virtue of
being scorned by Metternich and his friends, though many countries with Unrecognized status do also start out on the lower end of the technological scale.

It makes sense for unrecognised powers to suffer a diplomatic penalty when dealing with recognised powers, but do recognised powers have a diplomatic penalty when dealing with unrecognised powers? (I recall in vic2 the "civilised vs uncivilised" diplomatic penalty exists for both sides)

And how about between unrecognised powers? I think it doesn't make sense if Great Qing suffers a significant diplomatic penalty when dealing with, say, Korea, due to being unrecognised. (at least not when both are unrecognised)

 

[warman17]

The intent is to try and avoid a runaway scenario where there is just one Great Power left due to the impact that would have on various diplomatic mechanics. I think if we want to simulate a power rising above the other Great Powers we should think about adding a rank above Great Power instead.

I would love there to be a Global Hegemon status above Great Power. The criteria could be something like 3x the average prestige of the Great Powers or a certain percentage of global prestige (say 25%). They would have even more diplomatic benefits with the ability to help shape and maintain the global order. All other powers, including great powers, must choose to align or not align with the Hegemon conferring a set of benefits and penalties depending on their choice. Hegemons could choose to provide support and give limited intervention in conflicts involving their aligned powers. This rule set would allow for multiple Hegemons creating a Cold War situation with proxy conflicts between differently aligned powers that could quickly spiral into a world war.

Once attaining Hegemony status it can't be broken until the prestige dips to a new minimum (say the Great Power average, or just 10% of global prestige). If a Hegemon is between the minimum of becoming a becoming a Hegemon and the minimum of losing Hegemony they get a "declining Hegemony,." This lowers the bonuses of being a Hegemon and lowers the bonuses of being aligned, while increases the bonuses of being non-aligned to that Hegemon.

There could be a "Break Hegemony" special CB open to any non-aligned Great Power. Once used all other non-aligned powers have the option to join the war against the Hegemon, and all aligned powers have the option to join the war alongside the power. Declining Hegemon status would make people more likely to support the war against the Hegemon, and less likely for those aligned to join. This is dangerous, because if the anti-Hegemon alliance loses the Hegemon will gain massive prestige, and the losers will lose prestige and be forced to align to the Hegemon. The hegemon then gain a vassalization casus belli on any aligned power that did not support them in the war. However, if the war is sucessful the Hegemon loses a massive amount of prestige to the point where its impossible for them to remain Hegemon, and the winners gain prestige equal to the amount the Hegemon loses. The power that started the war gains the most, but does not necessarily become a new Hegemon unless this prestige puts them over the amount to become the new Hegemon.

This is not really outside the scope of the time period we're talking about with many scholars considering the UK a Global Hegemon during this time period.

 

[Nibbes]

I would love there to be a Global Hegemon status above Great Power. The criteria could be something like 3x the average prestige of the Great Powers or a certain percentage of global prestige (say 25%). They would have even more diplomatic benefits with the ability to help shape and maintain the global order. All other powers, including great powers, must choose to align or not align with the Hegemon conferring a set of benefits and penalties depending on their choice. Hegemons could choose to provide support and give limited intervention in conflicts involving their aligned powers. This rule set would allow for multiple Hegemons creating a Cold War situation with proxy conflicts between differently aligned powers that could quickly spiral into a world war.

Once attaining Hegemony status it can't be broken until the prestige dips to a new minimum (say the Great Power average, or just 10% of global prestige). If a Hegemon is between the minimum of becoming a becoming a Hegemon and the minimum of losing Hegemony they get a "declining Hegemony,." This lowers the bonuses of being a Hegemon and lowers the bonuses of being aligned, while increases the bonuses of being non-aligned to that Hegemon.

There could be a "Break Hegemony" special CB open to any non-aligned Great Power. Once used all other non-aligned powers have the option to join the war against the Hegemon, and all aligned powers have the option to join the war alongside the power. Declining Hegemon status would make people more likely to support the war against the Hegemon, and less likely for those aligned to join. This is dangerous, because if the anti-Hegemon alliance loses the Hegemon will gain massive prestige, and the losers will lose prestige and be forced to align to the Hegemon. The hegemon then gain a vassalization casus belli on any aligned power that did not support them in the war. However, if the war is sucessful the Hegemon loses a massive amount of prestige to the point where its impossible for them to remain Hegemon, and the winners gain prestige equal to the amount the Hegemon loses. The power that started the war gains the most, but does not necessarily become a new Hegemon unless this prestige puts them over the amount to become the new Hegemon.

This is not really outside the scope of the time period we're talking about with many scholars considering the UK a Global Hegemon during this time period.

Regional hegemony is not far fetch at all but let’s not conflate it with superpowers of Cold War era.

Napoleon Continental system, Japanese Co Prosperity sphere idea, and American Monroe doctrine might be better examples.

For example, your roughly describing the geopolitics of napoleonic wars. This can apply to France early game and unified Germany later on but they especially if they overcome British involvement could establish hegemony over Continental Europe or much of it. The US could do same if they kick European power out of Western Hemisphere/Americas. Same goes for Japan in Far East/Oceania/pacific.

Basically, if they established regional hegemony and established geographical borders that are hard to invade like controlling hemisphere if Americans or the continent if France/Germany.

Before the invention of nukes many major powers especially from outside of region(thinking China or Africa on how Europeans team up on them)will just create coalitions and blocs against these powers to open up their market or take land.

An Industrialized Russia also likely has ability to become large ass hegemony but again that would see other European powers rally against them. Even during the napoleonic wars many nations that originally got defeated and puppet would rebel once regime looked weak or started losing

 

[ApokaIypsis]

I hope the person (presumably) representing the Shah of Iran is a placeholder and not the final model, because none of our shahs dressed like that. The placeholder has a beard without a moustache, but during the era for Vic III we actually had multiple shahs with moustaches without beard as the fashion, and before them the fashion had been to have a full and luxurious beard. Qajar shahs did not wear turbans either; earlier wore Taj-Kolah and Kolah-e-Qajar. Please see this article for more: https://tmasoundandfury.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/marys-iranian-headwear-article.pdf

 

[Andrei Untaru]

The mechanics seem cool.


But damn the UI is simply horrid

 

[Nibbes]

I hope the person (presumably) representing the Shah of Iran is a placeholder and not the final model, because none of our shahs dressed like that. The placeholder has a beard without a moustache, but during the era for Vic III we actually had multiple shahs with moustaches without beard as the fashion, and before them the fashion had been to have a full and luxurious beard. Qajar shahs did not wear turbans either; earlier wore Taj-Kolah and Kolah-e-Qajar. Please see this article for more: https://tmasoundandfury.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/marys-iranian-headwear-article.pdf

I would give them slack on character models unless they plan on doing some overlap coding/models with royal court dlc for CK3. I feel like they are somewhat with how similar models look. Might also make later modding for it easier once it comes out too. It is definitely something that should get cover in patches and dlcs but there likely other stuff to address first.

Correct me if wrong, but isn't this period where even foreign courts and diplomats tried to replicate/copy fashions/styles of European/western powers especially more major ones? So how shan, shogun, and emperor could also play symbolic political/cultural role(making conservatives or liberals happy vs upset). Does make me wonder how important individual monarchs or leaders will be