Lots of good idea's are posted here about naval warfare, hopefully the devs will read this.
AP_attack and armor_value?
- Thread starter unmerged(83175)
- Start date
-
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.
Scuse me .. Isn't that what always happens now? I come to the point of not using battleships against carriers. ever. except when the carriers are escorting a landing. And that's only if I have air cover
Escorting a landing like they did in the Battle of Samar?
A fleet of 6 CVE escorted by 1-2 DDs and Transports up against 4 BB and 6CA in HoI3?
The slow CVEs don't last many rounds in HoI3...
Yeah, the CVLs have crap speed. Fleet carriers can easily outrun BBs on their own.
However, thanks to game mechanics in HOI3, average speed is king, so a bunch of slow CVLs with inadequate screens will be easily caught up by decent tech BBs and cruisers. How modern were the Japanese cruisers at Samar?
As I’ve already mentioned, destroyers need special consideration in an Armour-Piercing mechanic because they were largely un-damaged by the typical big gun AP shell. At the Battle Off Samar they got ridiculously close to Kuritas cruisers.
You’ve mentioned Guadalcanal. Here we see destroyers & light cruisers getting pasted by big guns. A contradiction? Well, here the Japanese battleships had been equipped with ground bombardment fragmentation shells. Exactly the kind of thing you want to be using against soft ships.
South Dakota’s electrical systems knocked-out by 5” gunfire?
All the accounts I’ve read accredit the crippling electrical failures to her own Chief Engineer. The damage she suffered during this period of self-inflicted blindness came from the aging battlecruiser Kirishima, which pasted her with 14” & 6” shells. It is these, not any 5” shells from destroyers, that are credited with the permanent blinding of South Dakota.
Kirishima then suffered the predictable fate of punching above her weight-class after attracting the attention of the much more modern Washington.
My main point that cruisers should get pasted by battleships still stands. For hits from a cruiser to damage a battleship, the cruiser has to get really lucky. For a cruiser to avoid critical damage from each hit from a battleship, the cruiser has to get really lucky.
And let’s not forget that your typical battleship doesn’t just have its main guns. The secondary armaments of battleships are comparable to having a cruiser on each side.
To conclude, yes, there are a lot of random factors and I’d like to see “critical hits” that have different effects. Hitting radar with virtually anything will knock it out. Hitting the bridge, may have a significant effect depending upon how (or if) it’s heavily armoured. Hitting a turret could destroy it, knock it out or bounce, depending upon shell & armour. Deck & hull hits likewise can bounce or penetrate to damage engines, fire control centre or even (very little chance) powder room & destroy the ship.
Mostly Tone (8 x 8” ++ & 12 tubes 35 kts) & Mogami (10 x 8” ++ & 12 tubes 37 kts) classes from the late 30’s. Fast & powerful heavy cruisers. I don’t think anybody disputes that the Battle Off Samar shouldn’t have gone down the way it did but then again, Napoleon should have won at Waterloo right?
EDIT: (While I'm waiting for today's DD)
Another account states that South Dakota was also fired upon by the cruisers Atago & Takao. The hit count also goes up to 20+ 6”, 20+ 8” & a single 14”.
Even considering this, whilst South Dakota was blind, deaf, dumb, fighting fires & unable to shoot-back, she was still in no immediate danger of sinking.
This gave me an idea. In this condition, South Dakota would be represented as having zero Org’ but almost full strength. Perhaps, hits which penetrate armour could be represented (in HoI III terms) as doing both Strength & Org’ damage whilst hits which don’t penetrate armour (because they bounce or hit ships or places that don’t have any) only do strength damage, like now, after all Org’ has gone.
Special effects & "critical" hits too would also enhance the naval aspect of the game. IMO at least.
Last edited:
Well, technically, HOI3 doesn't have CVEs. It has CVLs. I guess escorts could also be CVEs. I just assume that when people say CVEs, they might also mean CVLs in game terms.
It's quite confused in HoI3. The filename and engine name defining the unit is called "escort_carrier" and it's speed is something like halfway between what a CVL should have ( same as CV ) and CVE ( significantly slower ).
Yeah, it's a little strange but I always thought of the smaller, cheaper, single CAG types as CVEs simply because they are that much slower than "fleet" carriers.
In response to NERFGEN's question on whether anyone builds them, I think I'm unusual in that I build quite a lot. Certainly more than "proper" CVs. This is to give flexibility to allow me to have some air cover on any & all minor landings and to blanket whole areas of ocean with sub' killing CVE+2/3DDs and have plenty of "spare" CAGs on-hand when my CFTs get their CGAs de-orged.
It also helps to bring Practicals up quicker.
I'd like to see a distinction made between CVE, CVL, armoured & un-armoured CVLs & fleet carriers too.
Or at least make the distinction between US CVs that proved extremely vulnerable to air attack when compared to the British CVs.
Where to place the armour is a doctrinal question, rather than tactical or strategic but it did have very very significant effects on the outcome of carrier battles.
Lothos came-up with a very elegant way to represent this in TRP for TFH.
I'd be for it if they expanded the system with local arms races also in naval and air warfare. Maybe something for interceptors vs bombers and destroyers vs submarines.