The fire control, it seems T0 represents Great War Era Drayer tables, T1 is meant to represent 20s technology (Admiralty MkI), Warspite had the Admiralty Mk VII Fire control system, vs the slightly upgraded Mk IX of the KGV class which is HOI 4s canonical T2 system. Arguably Warspite for me should have T2 as the Mk IX was a minor upgrade rather than a quantum leap above MK VII.
The Mk X, fitted only to Vanguard (and probably would have been fitted to Hood in the planned 1942 rebuild, as well as the abandoned Lion Class) was indeed a much better system than previous models and could cope much better with directing fire onto ships running evasive patterns and makes sense to be the T3 option.
Thank you for bringing this up. After some quick research we fournd out there's a MUCH bigger Problem with fire control on British ships:
Only Nelson class (among the BB and BC) had AFCT (tier I modules)! But all new cruisers (County and York class CA, Leander class CL and all later classes had it as well.
This game reverses this, the old battleships have advanced FC but the cruisers do not.
But this means Australia needs to get the Basic Fire Control tech in 36 scenario as well for the Canberra class.
British Destroyers, (starting with the A-class prototypes) also had more advanced fire control (either Barr & Stroud Central Station Instrument Board or Vickers Admiralty Fire Control Clock).
- they were simplified compared to the A.F.C.T.
- the Italians purchase the Barr & Stroud CSIB for their cruisers and battleships.
- The Japanese installed in on the Kongo class. Later they used a (apparently reverse-engineered) version on other ships as well.
Engine wise, her new machinery was built for fuel economy (30% lower consumption) and extended range, not speed, as there is no fuel economy version of the engine and range is based on hull type it's not possible to accurately model this change, T1 engine retained would result in a 20kt speed, vs 25kt, Warspite after 37 had a nominal top speed of 23kts but could likely touch 24 when really pushed, so I feel T2 would be appropriate.
As an engine upgrades in HoI IV currently only increase spead.
As stated above, the unmodified ships shoulkd have Fire control 0.
A more realistic refit (still within treaty limits) would look like this:
British capital ships refit: upgrade armour to armour II. Upgrade fire control to fire control I. Replace 2x secondaries I with 1x secondaries II. Upgrade both AA modules to AA II.
The refit for the Renown class BB would look the same, only the armour would be BC armour II.
This would still increase the firepower a bit (due to better FC).
Arguably, the refit QE class could be named Warspite class.
In case of the Renown it would make sense to keep that name for the improved version and change the original design as the Repulse class (as the Repulse didn’t get these improvements).
One more thing to change: Crown Colonies speed, engines and armour
these ships are too fast as well. Here’s the reason: they had reduced engine and protection compared to the Town class. Their design should be changed (in addition to the armament changes already proposed in the first post):
Downgrade engine to engine I. Downgrade armour to armour I. Remove 1 AA I module, the remaining two to AAII
Speed:
- actual ships: 31.5 to 32 knots
- current game version: 35.4
- our 1st proposal: 34.1
- modified proposal: 31
QUESTIONS FOR YOU ALL:
I. What would represent the British interwar Destroyer fire control better, Tier 0 or Tier I? (This would apply to A/B/C/D class and all later designs).
Note that IF they get better FC then Canada, Italy and Japan should get the Basic Fire Control tech as well (their respective ships would need to be updated as well).
II. How should the refit versions (the game considers them new classes) of the QE and Renown class be called?
Leaving the Nevada with only 2 modules would make her notably weaker tha the other standard type ships (same as Kongo or british battleships) and also too fast. A 10 guns broadside is still more powerful than the1.) The Pennsylvania-class might not be a strictly-accurate name for the 7 standard battleships, but it at least fits for the most part since the succeeding New Mexico and Tennessee-classes were only marginally-different. If you up the Pennsylvania-class to 12 guns, however, remember to split off the Nevada-class since its more-conventionally-armed (its firepower is similar to that of the Bretagne, which only has 2 heavy guns).
perhaps the New York class and Bretagne should be upgunned as well? Both have an empty slot due to worse AA.
in this case the USS Arkansas should be split off from New York class. She had 12x12 inch guns
Or leave the New Yorks with 2 modules. Their guns were NOT upgraded in the 30s, unlike the Nevada class.
That would mean a New York class BB and a Nevada class BB together would have realistic combined firepower, even if the New York alone would be somewhat weaker and the Nevada alone somewhat stronger than in reality.
Perhapos downgrade only one of their modules and leave the other one tier II?2.) The Tone-class might not be as well-armed as other Japanese heavy cruisers, but it still deserves modern armament (tier 2 guns) when you consider its capabilities compared to foreign heavy cruisers (8 to 9 guns was pretty commonplace for most fleets' heavy cruisers, so it still fits despite making it look too-favorable compared to the Takao-class).
3.) This might be nitpicking, but technically the Germans ended up selling the Lützow (Hipper-version) to the Soviets, so unless some event is added to represent that I'd be against including that in the 1939 scenario under construction (or even giving it to the Soviet production queue instead). Admittedly the Germans don't have to sell it, but realistically the 1939 scenario isn't designed for people who plan on deviating significantly from the historic start of the war (and naval tech and equipment was a big part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact for the Soviets).
Probably the Lützow should be treated like the Destoryers for bases who don't appear in the US startup but are spawned in UK and Canada. Perhaps obeying the Pact choice would give the Soviets the design and add a ship to their queue while breaking it and keeping all of Poland would add the ship to the German queue?3.) This might be nitpicking, but technically the Germans ended up selling the Lützow (Hipper-version) to the Soviets, so unless some event is added to represent that I'd be against including that in the 1939 scenario under construction (or even giving it to the Soviet production queue instead). Admittedly the Germans don't have to sell it, but realistically the 1939 scenario isn't designed for people who plan on deviating significantly from the historic start of the war (and naval tech and equipment was a big part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact for the Soviets).
Indeed, both were named for Charles Vernon Gridley An idea: US destroyer names were sometimes just the surname, sometimes full name. Perhaps call the old one USS Charles V. Gridley?4.) The USS Gridley (Clemson-class) needs to be renamed (or left out) on account of the fact that the USN was building a new USS Gridley in 1936 (lead ship of its class, which was mostly-identical to the succeeding Bagley and Benham classes).
We have discussed that, and decided to keep the current modules layout beacuse5.) The Porter and Somers classes aren't represented, which should have 2 light gun mounts onboard (unfortunately the torpedo launchers won't be realistic then, but the ships had 8 5-inch/38 guns as opposed to the 4 or 5 on most USN destroyers).
- Many Porter and Somers class ships had their armament downgraded during the war to 5 or 6 guns in exchange for more AA. (although this happened long after both startdates).
- Giving them a second slot would halve their torpedo armament. The Mogador class has torpedo II but USA in 36 lacks the tech (Then unlock it for US? looks too OP with their research slots?)
We will discuss this internally later. What does the rest of the community think:
Should the USA get the torpedo II tech in the 36 scenario so the Porter class can be repreented more accurately?
Hello!
Great list, however it is a bit long with a lot of text, and it takes time to digest it all. I think it would be beneficial for whoever might potentially be taking a look at this to have it as a simple bullet point instead. For example
"- The Nelson class BB is represented as an early hull with engines II. This makes them too fast with 27.3 knots (only 23 knots in reality). This class was designed to fit the treaty limits, and was therefore more similar to the King George V class (a heavy hull II in the game) than to the older Battleships. Switching the design to a tier II hull but replacing the engines with tier I one would represent the Nelson class much better."
Replace that with
"Nelson Class BB: Switch to tier 2 hull, switch engines to tier 1".
I think that would convince people to take a look at it, instead of a huge wall of text. Just a tip
Hi! It's great that you've noticed our work. We wanted to provide the reasons for the changes we propose. As @egslim has already pointed out (Thanks for that!) we have a list with proposals. Maybe edit the post and put it on top of it?
Our intention is to discuss these changes with the rest of the community.
Ultimately, post a refined list with the changes as a separate suggestion thread. (hopefully in a couple of weeks so you could implement them before 1.9.1 goes out of beta)
See also my thread from a year ago, the Missing Ships of HoI4
SOV
Kirov-class:
-Kirov (CA), October 1935(added in 1.6.2. (a3a6))
-Voroshilov (CA), October 1935(added in 1.6.2. (a3a6))
Oh, this probably explains why they have wrong hull tiers.