Hearts of Iron IV - 26th Development Diary - 25th of September 2015
- 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.
Change the two doctrines to Battlefleet focus and Carrier fleet focus. Much clearer and without ambiguity and using reeealy old doctrine names outmoded
by 1940. The only difference is that Battlefleet uses carriers as support ships while Carrier fleets use battleships as support ships.
by 1940. The only difference is that Battlefleet uses carriers as support ships while Carrier fleets use battleships as support ships.
- 1
- 1
Is that an historical switch when it was realized that carriers were more effective than battleships?
Besides the fact that these names don't have the same grandeur, they are not exactly accurate either. e.g. you can still have a fleet-in-being with emphasis on carriers. The preference in ship types should really be the subject of the variants found within the doctrine.
And the fact is, all these name we we thought is old, is still used today, so there's that
But if we must use simpler names...
I think we can try to sort the doctrines in twain, one about convoys and sea lanes (maritime/commerce), the other about actual fleets and ships (naval)
then, we can also introduce the concept of offense and defense, that is, actively trying to deal damage and passively trying to avoid them. These can be the two extreme of each axis.
So after some permutation we got four doctrines, mechanically named
Maritime offense (trade interdiction / guerre de course / commerce raiding) (GKM)
Maritime defense (trade protection / sea control / sea lane defense / anti-guerre-de-course / commerce defence) (BRN)
Naval offense (base strike doctrine / decisive battle / guerre d'escadre / force projection / naval attrition) (USN, IJN)
Naval defense (fleet-in-being / fortress fleet / anti-access / anti-guerre-d'escadre / sea denial) (IRM)
I should note that, here, defense mere means preserving the relevant object, so Naval defense is a bit iffy because what it means is that the navy is trying to preserve itself. avoid conflict, etc.
The plus side of this naming scheme, is that we can also merge two of the four items together.
Officially, in HOI IV, it's Maritime defense and Naval defense that got merged, and got the fleet-in-being label slapped on it. But as you can see that is not entirely representative, so a simple name change here will also work.
Last edited:
I think 3 doctrines are enough. Again it is all about convoys and the number 3 give you the choice between offense, defense and balanced which the number 4 can't do as well.
I think Fleet in Being is a good name for the defensive doctrine (not everyone that use it have UK's navy). The defender would preferably wan't to avoid any naval engagment at all because that way nobody lose anything but the one that are more dependet on convoys win because he risk to lose more then somebody that are less dependent on convoys because in the end the whole naval game comes down to convoys.
I think Fleet in Being is a good name for the defensive doctrine (not everyone that use it have UK's navy). The defender would preferably wan't to avoid any naval engagment at all because that way nobody lose anything but the one that are more dependet on convoys win because he risk to lose more then somebody that are less dependent on convoys because in the end the whole naval game comes down to convoys.
- 1
Fleet-in-being is only some what accurate when it's the navy trying to preserve itself. In the case of BRN, they want to preserve their convoy, even if that means putting the navy in danger. See the difference?
- 4
Yes convoys come first in every doctrine but the point is that the defending navy would wan't a such powerful presence that the offensive navy wouldn't even dare to make out of port thus forcing the offensive navy to employ "true" Fleet in Being.
Not really...
None of the axis navy cared about their own convoys that much. and only the GKM actively tried to hunt down others's convoy in masse
I think this is the source of your misunderstanding.
What are you on about precisely? a powerful presence is basically the opposite of a fleet-in-being.
in-being as in, mere existence, as oppose to presence?
It is not only about your convoys but also about the enemies convoys and Germany did invest huge resources trying to sink enemy convoys. Italian and Japanse navies also existed to contain enemy convoys and protect their own but maybe not by directly protecting their own convoys or directly by attacking their enemies convoys but by just existing the enemy could not just freely transport their stuff.
And navies that forget their purpose (what else do you have for a navy other then protect and sink convoys) are probably domed to fail.
What Im saying is that "true" Fleet in Being and the optimal defensive strategy both depend on a powerful presence so in that respect they are very similar.
And navies that forget their purpose (what else do you have for a navy other then protect and sink convoys) are probably domed to fail.
What Im saying is that "true" Fleet in Being and the optimal defensive strategy both depend on a powerful presence so in that respect they are very similar.
Last edited:
- 1
I covered this...
Yes, but do all navies pursue those goals actively? Can the IRM, a fleet-in-being, conduct trade interdiction consistently? no, they had to pick their raids, unlike the GKM who just hunt the convoys down. How does the IJN enivision protecting their merchants? by desicive battle, sinking every enemy ship and thus no protection is needed at all.
Degrees and nuance.
Ah, I see. I agree.
But since you now have to use the word "true" here, i hope you finally understand why FiB it is not the best label around.
This message has been brought to you by The Society of People who Think that Names Should Mean Something
- 1
I have known what fleet in being are for many years but it is not a bad name for the defensive naval doctrine either. A worse name I would say are "Base Strike" for the balanced doctrine.
Yes, but it's definitely not what the BRN was doing.
Well i guess it's pointless to continue this discussion, people who just don't wanna use dictionary definition can't be persuaded to follow it.
It's not really a balanced doctrine though, I dunno where you got that impression, i would go so far as to say it's the most aggressive one, or at least as aggressive as trade interdiction.
Difference being "Base Strike" focuses on sinking warships (even if they are in port, hence the name), Trade Interdiction focuses on sinking merchant ships.
For the IJN they wanted to do it via battleships, but the USN wanted to do it via submarines and naval aviation.
- 1
It is balanced because it unlike Trade Interdiction offers decent defensive power (but worse then Fleet in Being) and unlike Fleet in Being offers decent offensive power (but worse the Trade Interdiction).
And what I talk about are how good they are at protecting your convoys as well as attacking your enemy convoys. I wouldn't say that Base Strike necessarily more on sinking warships more then the other two doctrines. Like you have said BRN don't only use their ships on convoys escort but also on partrol and search and destroy missions. Trade Interdiction may also operate these two mission to weakeen the enemy's ability to protect their convoys.
In HOI2 Trade Interdiction have the best convoy raid efficiency and worst convoy escort efficiency. Fleet in Being is the opposite and Base Strike are the middle in both.
The size of the navy should not decide what doctrine you chose either. Navies that have pure or nearly pure offensive roles should pick Trade Interdiction. Navies that have pure or nearly pure defensive roles should pick Fleet in Being. Navies that must both do offensive as well as defensive roles should pick Base Strike.
And what I talk about are how good they are at protecting your convoys as well as attacking your enemy convoys. I wouldn't say that Base Strike necessarily more on sinking warships more then the other two doctrines. Like you have said BRN don't only use their ships on convoys escort but also on partrol and search and destroy missions. Trade Interdiction may also operate these two mission to weakeen the enemy's ability to protect their convoys.
In HOI2 Trade Interdiction have the best convoy raid efficiency and worst convoy escort efficiency. Fleet in Being is the opposite and Base Strike are the middle in both.
The size of the navy should not decide what doctrine you chose either. Navies that have pure or nearly pure offensive roles should pick Trade Interdiction. Navies that have pure or nearly pure defensive roles should pick Fleet in Being. Navies that must both do offensive as well as defensive roles should pick Base Strike.
This we can agree on.
Neither the USN nor the IJN put convoy defense as their first priority. For the IJN they put it behind sinking every enemy ship by battleships (艦隊決戦) as the safety of the merchant ships will naturally follow.
And for the USN they just kinda attack everything they can get away with, unconditionally, sometime very riskily so. (e.g. US submarines sank a huge portion of IJN warships, not just their merchantships, but the US submarines also suffered the greatest casualties), they really don't have to worry about their own convoys normally, they don't live on it.
- 1
Well I can agree on that sinking the opponents navy will achive both perfect defense and perfect offense.
- 1
Exactly, this is the Mahanian doctrine of sea power.
But you see, when the perfect defense is achieved by offense. Why would you call that action any less aggressive?
In fact, the offense need to be so thoroughly, so completely, so utterly conducted, such that "perfect defense" is achieved.
You get why i don't call this "balanced" now?
Don't like that Yugoslavia has generic leaders...
I may be a raving fanboy, but don't give up hope yet! Given that the game's still a work in progress, its possible that the devs haven't gotten around to putting Yugo's generals in, or that they already are in, but that the art team simply hasn't finished their drawings. If this is of significant concern for you, I'd recommend asking in a separate thread, and if they haven't put in leaders yet, maybe offer some suggestions for notable leaders to include.
- 1
As far as I know, only 7 countries have specific stuff. The others have everything generic.
However, I'm optimistic more and more countries will get specific generals, trees, companies... starting from European countries.
If the game sells well, then this is basically garanteed.
- 1
Though I could be wrong, I had thought that restriction only applied to national focuses.
- 2