Hearts of Iron IV - 23rd Development Diary - 4th of September 2015 (1 day early)
- Thread starter Johan
- 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.
Awesome thanks! If I then extrapolate ones without numbers are purely air theaters? (Looks like they have an air related icon beside them).
Yes, the air regions where you have active missions.
It's possible that naval regions with combat will also appear in the list, but we haven't seen that.
It's possible that naval regions with combat will also appear in the list, but we haven't seen that.
- 1
There were some mods of HOI3 which changed the (unpassable) lakes to naval zones, and made the St Lawrence seaway from a river also into a naval zone. This allowed naval units to move from the Atlantic to Chicago.Will Ships be able to travel from the Atlantic Ocean to the Great Lakes? I mention this because of Chicago which is America's second largest city and the fact that many submarines that served in the Navy were built in shipyards on the great lakes ( 30 submarines from Wisconson's Manitowoc Shipbuilding Company)
In that situation, if the devs did it in HOI4, Chicago would be coastal and allowed to have dockyards.
The only problem with the mod is that capital ships couldn't get through the locks on the upper reaches of the seaway. Anything built above a certain size was stuck in the Great Lakes. Only subs and some smaller vessels built at Chicago could reach the Atlantic.
The ship you pictured, USS Wolverine, was an old 1912 side-wheel passenger steamer built on the Great Lakes, which never sailed out of them.
It was bought by the USN in 1942 and converted to a "carrier" purely for training exercises. It never saw combat, and wasn't designed for operational roles. It had no guns, nor any below deck hangar, nor was it fast enough for modern planes to reliably take off which required a reasonable headwind. Some days it couldn't be used for training because of this. Operational carriers would turn and go full speed into the wind to generate enough lift for planes like the Hellcat to take off. The old paddle steamer with the flight deck on top could make only 19 knots, while the USS Enterprise for example had a top speed of 32 knots. The pilots could train only if the wind on Lake Michigan was strong enough.
So, no fleet carriers were ever built in the dockyards on the shores of the Great Lakes. Nor AFAIK anything the size of a BB or BC, or even a CA. I guess the capability of the dockyards was there, but no operational requirement to protect US shipping on the Great Lakes when the only other country with access to them is friendly.
The modded version of the game would have allowed Germany to send it's subs into the Great Lakes, and even land transport ships there. It would work only if the devs hardcoded a Kiel Canal type mechanism to get from St Lawrence to the Great Lakes with a special rule limiting the size of ship, and a Panama Canal type rule preventing all ships unless you control the provinces on either side. But I think the same rules would also have to apply to get from Ontario to Erie, then Erie to Huron, and Michigan to Superior. For little value to the game.
- 4
- 1
Beta lottery?
I'm dying of anticipation guys give me a reason to live!
It's looking great so far but we knew that already!
I'm dying of anticipation guys give me a reason to live!
It's looking great so far but we knew that already!
Not exactly little value if the United States or Canada are invaded by the axis on the Atlantic coast. Having the ability to launch amphibious invasions in the rear of Axis invasion forces as they push towards the center of the united states would be handy. The great lakes are North America's inland sea.
By the way just because a ship is coal powered does not mean anything in terms of combat effectiveness. The same website you used for your picuture shows Wild Cat fighters being used by these coal powered aircraft carriers.
- 4
- 1
Yes, it does if the planes can't take-off when the "carrier" comes under attack.
The Invincible class carriers built 1977-1981 with ski-jump ramps, allowed use of short-take-off/vertical landing planes such as the sea harrier, even in calm conditions when the ship wasn't moving. Before then all carriers needed sufficient headwind for planes to take off, to give them sufficient uplift to avoid ditching in the sea. If the wind conditions weren't strong enough, the carrier needed to sail at full speed. These training ships couldn't sail fast enough to allow most planes to take-off in fairly calm conditions. Training was often cancelled because the weather was too good!
The planes couldn't go in a hangar below the flight deck, so are exposed all the time, and capacity was limited to however many could be parked on the flight deck without interfering with landing/take off. So a fraction of the size of the CAG on a fleet carrier.
The planes were actually based at an air base near Chicago, not on the ships. There may have been no refuelling facilities on the ships. They took off from land, did a training landing on the ship, then usually did a training take-off back to base.
You can also see in that picture that the ship has no guns, so no AA defence.
The two converted steamers were purely for training naval pilots and some flight deck support personnel. They had no combat effectiveness at all. Those pictures are not fleet carriers built in Chicago to operate on the Great Lakes. That never happened.
But if Canada was invaded before US joined the war, then I'm sure US would have converted some ships operating on the Great Lakes into gun boats. But not carriers - why bother with them when you can base your planes on land?
It might be a disappointment to realise that Chicago never built operational carriers. But it's a fascinating story actually. The US was able to put the resources into adding full length flight decks on top of these ships, just for training it's pilots properly. I bet they never had anything similar in Japan, and I'm sure UK didn't. And should be rubbed in the face of anyone stupid enough to think that Germany could have invaded US - they couldn't make even a single carrier, of any classification, and the US had two just for practice!
The Invincible class carriers built 1977-1981 with ski-jump ramps, allowed use of short-take-off/vertical landing planes such as the sea harrier, even in calm conditions when the ship wasn't moving. Before then all carriers needed sufficient headwind for planes to take off, to give them sufficient uplift to avoid ditching in the sea. If the wind conditions weren't strong enough, the carrier needed to sail at full speed. These training ships couldn't sail fast enough to allow most planes to take-off in fairly calm conditions. Training was often cancelled because the weather was too good!
The planes couldn't go in a hangar below the flight deck, so are exposed all the time, and capacity was limited to however many could be parked on the flight deck without interfering with landing/take off. So a fraction of the size of the CAG on a fleet carrier.
The planes were actually based at an air base near Chicago, not on the ships. There may have been no refuelling facilities on the ships. They took off from land, did a training landing on the ship, then usually did a training take-off back to base.
You can also see in that picture that the ship has no guns, so no AA defence.
The two converted steamers were purely for training naval pilots and some flight deck support personnel. They had no combat effectiveness at all. Those pictures are not fleet carriers built in Chicago to operate on the Great Lakes. That never happened.
But if Canada was invaded before US joined the war, then I'm sure US would have converted some ships operating on the Great Lakes into gun boats. But not carriers - why bother with them when you can base your planes on land?
It might be a disappointment to realise that Chicago never built operational carriers. But it's a fascinating story actually. The US was able to put the resources into adding full length flight decks on top of these ships, just for training it's pilots properly. I bet they never had anything similar in Japan, and I'm sure UK didn't. And should be rubbed in the face of anyone stupid enough to think that Germany could have invaded US - they couldn't make even a single carrier, of any classification, and the US had two just for practice!
- 5
- 1
I keep getting blown awa by all the things I learn on these forums.
(same goes for @potski 's post below that
.- 2
A TV show on the freshwater training carriers. These ships were converted into Aircraft carriers in 60 days.
Last edited:
- 1
How many strategic rockets did the us have? At the end of the war germany was allready working on the A9/A10 which was designed to reach the eastcoast of the us.
The US couldn't even build one of these weapons.
It's not a question of beeing capable of, but of putting effort in something.
And to be frankly... Designing a intercontinental rocket is much more of a scientific milestone than putting a big flat surface on top of a big ship...
Last edited:
The A9/A10 while cool was still highly insufficient for a war against US east coast. Especially if you are plastered by B-29's operating from Atlantic Islands or Africa. (Assuming the a deeply implausible fall of UK)
- 1
Well HOI4 don't try to stay correct to real life limitations so things like an invasions of US will be a possibility.
- 2
How about designing a drone aircraft that can land and take off from a carrier kind of like modern day drones only back in WW2 and best of all it was tested on the Sable (5 minute mark)
So? Of course there are some additional factories and oils for Rubber production in Malay area, aren't there?
I think, too. But Japan didn't need synthetic rubber. That's why Japan was getting rubber resource - rubber trees. Actually Japan sent to German just a slight rubber in Japanese submarine without synthtic rubber technology.
This will be same thing between crude oil and synthetic oil. USA,UK,Soviet didn't need synthetic oil technology, I think so.
Well, I like the new industrial system as it appears more bore sighted for war. My only concern is that playing Germany those pesky 3 UK 'uberbombers' that
were in HOI3 reappear and destroy all of Germanys industry by the end of 1939...
were in HOI3 reappear and destroy all of Germanys industry by the end of 1939...
That works both ways, though. In HOI 3, your fighters would shoot them up, they would spend 2 weeks being reinforced and then they would come back.
In HOI 4, they will actually need to have spare planes to replace their losses.
- 1
Simple addition of fractions solves this problem without any loss of funtionality or understanding of current situation.
I think you overestimate their chances.
You know what I love about the new system?
When I do one of my "Prove whether or not you can reach historical OOBs" attempts, I can just count planes and tanks, not create 97 STR wings to simulate B-29 production in the US.
- 4
I think you overestimate their chances.
You know what I love about the new system?
When I do one of my "Prove whether or not you can reach historical OOBs" attempts, I can just count planes and tanks, not create 97 STR wings to simulate B-29 production in the US.