I cannot wait to install more AA guns on EVERY ship including the submarines. Fuck naval bombers.
Hearts of Iron IV announces new expansion Man the Guns
- Thread starter bus
- 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.
Not sure about USN doctrine in the Pacific, but number 3 is emphatically not RN doctrine. Destroyers attack battleships with torpedoes, ideally waiting for nightfall to do so if the weather is too clear; witness the destroyer attacks on Bismarck in 1941 and the charge of Stord, or Glowworm's attack on Hipper. Destroyers would also sell themselves to protect high-value assets: Acasta and Ardent attempting to screen and defend Glorious is a case in point. Scouting was a cruiser role in most cases, as in the North Sea, North Atlantic, Arctic and Norwegian seas destroyers struggled to make close to their design speed and were often damaged by the weather and heavy seas that run in those areas and aircraft frequently could not fly or visibility was too poor to regain the carrier. One RN cruiser got so battered by an arctic storm that it tore back the deck forward of A turret like a sardine can. Pacific typhoons were just as destructive of course.
As for point 1., well, tell that to the crew of Glorious...
In point 4, not in all cases. Some escort groups were not fitted out until early 1943 as you had to pull ships in to refit, which meant taking them off operations which was not an easy thing in 1942 for the north Atlantic. I know HOI like the idea that as soon as you develop a tech everyone gets it as if by magic, but real life is a little more complicated. Still, when did Paradox allow facts to get in the way of a good over-simplification?
Point 6 only applies to the USN and Japan. France was flying aircraft dating back to the 1920's from Bearn and shopped exclusively in the US for replacements. The French aircraft industry was under so much pressure for land-based aircraft already, and still they needed those P35's. For the RN it is either small manufacturers of specialised aircraft (like Blackburn), navalised land-based wartime make-dos or getting stuff from the US (or taking over the original Martlet order from France after France fell). In fact, as the RN only regained control of it's air arm in 1939 from the hated RAF then things were pretty awkward anyway, although there is little indication that they would have acted differently in terms of procurement had they had control during the inter-war period.
On the strategic level, point 1 is a reflection of Corbett's point that sea battles generally take place around or for the control of SLoCs. Search and destroy sounds like a cool thing to amateurs, to me it sounds horribly wasteful in fuel and keeping the lads at high pitch for no reason. Instead what you need is to be able to put some assets on Patrol (air, cruisers, DD in good weather) and then set a fleet to respond to reports of enemy activity. This is, from what I can see, how defensive systems worked which led to battles like Java Sea, North Cape and so on.
Point 2 sounds great to me, in that having some sort of Kenneth More figure in the depths of the Admiralty crunching the intel to provide a movement report for enemy units. Fits in nicely with point 3, where all countries had intel successes of varying degrees (B-Dienst had broken most Admiralty codes by 1939) but whether such intel was believed is another matter. Intel ops and intel bluffs (Churchill's bodyguard of lies) is a complex aspect to the war and I am not sure whether HOI4 can cope with doing it any justice given the struggle the AI faces to manage more linear issues!
K
Would just like to concur that 'Man the Guns' is a terrible title.
Such a vast body of naval and nautical literature to take inspiration from, and we end up with something so generic?
Such a vast body of naval and nautical literature to take inspiration from, and we end up with something so generic?
To me that just implies that they care more about actual content and less about marketing.
I imagine those being incredibly expensive though.
And Italian battleships missing every single shot they fire (but looking bloody awesome while doing it).
And Italian battleships missing every single shot they fire (but looking bloody awesome while doing it).
I hope so, The RN and the USN held annual large scale exercises pre-war to test various problems and theories. That said, as there is no real notion of reservists, mobilisation or conscription in HOI- everyone seems to have professional armed forces - some of the role these exercises had would be lost.
K
Will Expansion Pass owners get the pre-order bonuses? I don't see them available for me, unlike people who pre-ordered the DLC already.
Last edited:
I was told a story by someone whose dad served on a Royal Navy battleship. He claimed that slightly before the war the ship went to sea for some gunnery training. But the captain ordered the shells to be dumped overboard as firing then would damage the paintwork on the guns. No idea if it is true or a tall tale. But would love to find out.
Common in the late 1890s and 1900s, as the German navy was seen as a pathetic joke by the RN. Remember, the Germans managed to sink 2 of their battleships by accident in the channel on a perfectly clear day while trying to make a simple manouver.
Or course, by WW2 impressions had changed somewhat.
There is certainly a story told by Percy Scott about having to come in from gunnery practice to 'make the ship look pretty' for a visiting Admiral in the 1890's. External appearances were important, although below decks ships were often alive with rats. It would be hard to believe such things happened in the 20th century, given that gunnery officers were something of an mystical elite by then (thanks, in part, to Scott himself). I am afraid oral history can be sadly misleading, but you can also get some real nuggets, like a mate who got a torpedo launcher wrong and drenched a visiting Portuguese Admiral.
K
Quite possibly is a fanciful story. But then again militaries are rather well known for letting the occasional incompetent rise to high command to the disbelief of everyone around.
The RN was infamous for having a lot of poor leadership at the time. Much of the problem was due to evaluations and promotions stemming largely from superficial metrics. There had long been a mix of good and bad leaders but the interwar period had encouraged training and procedures focused mostly on appearance rather than suitability for combat. At times combat exercises were influenced by the need to keep a tidy looking ship. This particular incident may or may not have occurred but similar incidents were not uncommon.
Doesn't sound entirely unlike the USN - apparently (impression is from the Hone's Battle Line), in the interwar period they focussed heavily on KPIs with perhaps not enough of a broader perspective, and this meant there were some issues with the wrong people being in the wrong place when things started to get a bit more 'have to fight a war now'. Perhaps a different slant on which indicators were important, but same general result.
That said, as best I know both the USN and RN (and KM/RM - don't have any thoughts in my head about the MN, and know the Soviet fleet struggled a bit) adjusted to war very well once it got going. Both had their teething troubles early, but it nothing that 'stood out' in terms of reducing wartime effectiveness (in terms of operational training).
My Hopes:
If fuel is coming for navy/other units then they'll probably need to add coal as a resource in the game. I'm very excited about this as i always thought it silly that it took fuel to 'build' machines rather than keep them operating. [Except for fuel requirements to keep the factories running but then every factory should require some fuel]
Hopefully they also add food as a resource as inducing starvation is probably the primary function of a navy in wartime; and food and fuel were the main things that plagued germany in WW2.
I know that coal boilers were used on the Dreadnoughts and some of the warships used a mixture of coal and fuel.
It would also make sense since synthetic fuel used by Germany in WW2 relied on converting Coal to Fuel; as while Coal can be used for Ship Boilers you needed liquid fuel to keep a mechanized army going. Perhaps making synthetic fuel factories consume either food or coal would prevent a situation where you can simply conjure massive amounts of fuel out of nothing without making some sacrifices elsewhere.
Also if they're going to add fuel they might as well add Ammunition as a resource as well. Perhaps higher quality ammunition require more tungsten. Have combat exercise primarily consume fuel and ammunition and rations rather than just making your rifles break down. AFAIK Tungsten was used for the munitions rather than the tank armor itself.
Has anything been said about a re-work of how upgrades are purchased?
Because Naval XP is fairly hard to come by pre-war and unlike with ground/air XP you can't lend-lease combat ships [not yet anyway] -- the 500 point cap can also be a bit crippling when it comes to stocking up on XP to make a really good ship later on. This is particularly important
If paradox keeps this system that relies on XP, at least without developing a way of stocking up more XP and potentially gaining it faster; the main gimic of the DLC will be de-facto inaccessible without using cheatcodes for free XP.
I never agreed with the idea that military XP should be used to buy upgrades. It seems far more logical to make XP the currency you use to buy doctrines; more XP means better doctrines. And then with something like research you gain the option of vehicle specific upgrades.
That is sort of my hope, that they add a tech tree that might include things like 'radar' 'sonar' 'extra flak guns' 'fire control computers' 'comparmentalization', specific torpedo upgrades, gun calibers (20 inch gun super yamato) etc. etc. rather than these vague point-based upgrades.
And as far as naval aviation goes; I agree it's OP and while that makes sense in certain theatres of war it shouldn't necessarily be a universal feature of naval combat. are there any default limits on the number of aircraft that can participate in an air-raid at a given time? Having a combat-width for aircraft dictated by naval air combat doctrine of some kind rather than number of carriers might make things more fair. (Also having Naval AA be upgradeable to the point where it is as deadly to aircraft ingame as, say, the Bofors Gun was to Japanese fighters) -- Other things like making screen ships behave properly instead of having every ship yolo at top speed so that your destroyers and light cruisers get wrecked by 1 battleship instead of protecting the capital ships from air raids and submarines would be nice.
It would also help if paradox added a secondary manpool for air training and air-combat-readiness variables, as well as training in general for navies (This would also help in general from keeping the AI from being able to spam unlimited fighters) -- if you built 20K aircraft and you were simply throwing untrained idiots into them into combat they should be 1. crashing 2. getting shot down at a much higher rate then if they were properly trained.
Training an entire airforce pool is simpler and less micro-managing then training individual wings in the way that divisions are raised. The Pool fills gradually depending on the size and intensity of the air training program. You have the option of keeping your aces in combat for the short term bonuses or sending them to flight academy to increase the number of capable pilots.
If fuel is coming for navy/other units then they'll probably need to add coal as a resource in the game. I'm very excited about this as i always thought it silly that it took fuel to 'build' machines rather than keep them operating. [Except for fuel requirements to keep the factories running but then every factory should require some fuel]
Hopefully they also add food as a resource as inducing starvation is probably the primary function of a navy in wartime; and food and fuel were the main things that plagued germany in WW2.
I know that coal boilers were used on the Dreadnoughts and some of the warships used a mixture of coal and fuel.
It would also make sense since synthetic fuel used by Germany in WW2 relied on converting Coal to Fuel; as while Coal can be used for Ship Boilers you needed liquid fuel to keep a mechanized army going. Perhaps making synthetic fuel factories consume either food or coal would prevent a situation where you can simply conjure massive amounts of fuel out of nothing without making some sacrifices elsewhere.
Also if they're going to add fuel they might as well add Ammunition as a resource as well. Perhaps higher quality ammunition require more tungsten. Have combat exercise primarily consume fuel and ammunition and rations rather than just making your rifles break down. AFAIK Tungsten was used for the munitions rather than the tank armor itself.
Has anything been said about a re-work of how upgrades are purchased?
Because Naval XP is fairly hard to come by pre-war and unlike with ground/air XP you can't lend-lease combat ships [not yet anyway] -- the 500 point cap can also be a bit crippling when it comes to stocking up on XP to make a really good ship later on. This is particularly important
If paradox keeps this system that relies on XP, at least without developing a way of stocking up more XP and potentially gaining it faster; the main gimic of the DLC will be de-facto inaccessible without using cheatcodes for free XP.
I never agreed with the idea that military XP should be used to buy upgrades. It seems far more logical to make XP the currency you use to buy doctrines; more XP means better doctrines. And then with something like research you gain the option of vehicle specific upgrades.
That is sort of my hope, that they add a tech tree that might include things like 'radar' 'sonar' 'extra flak guns' 'fire control computers' 'comparmentalization', specific torpedo upgrades, gun calibers (20 inch gun super yamato) etc. etc. rather than these vague point-based upgrades.
And as far as naval aviation goes; I agree it's OP and while that makes sense in certain theatres of war it shouldn't necessarily be a universal feature of naval combat. are there any default limits on the number of aircraft that can participate in an air-raid at a given time? Having a combat-width for aircraft dictated by naval air combat doctrine of some kind rather than number of carriers might make things more fair. (Also having Naval AA be upgradeable to the point where it is as deadly to aircraft ingame as, say, the Bofors Gun was to Japanese fighters) -- Other things like making screen ships behave properly instead of having every ship yolo at top speed so that your destroyers and light cruisers get wrecked by 1 battleship instead of protecting the capital ships from air raids and submarines would be nice.
It would also help if paradox added a secondary manpool for air training and air-combat-readiness variables, as well as training in general for navies (This would also help in general from keeping the AI from being able to spam unlimited fighters) -- if you built 20K aircraft and you were simply throwing untrained idiots into them into combat they should be 1. crashing 2. getting shot down at a much higher rate then if they were properly trained.
Training an entire airforce pool is simpler and less micro-managing then training individual wings in the way that divisions are raised. The Pool fills gradually depending on the size and intensity of the air training program. You have the option of keeping your aces in combat for the short term bonuses or sending them to flight academy to increase the number of capable pilots.
If you have not already done so, read 'On the psychology of military incompetence' by Dixon. Not only is it very informative and stimulating, it's hysterically funny. One reason he advances for fewer incompetents in the navy rather than the army is 'the pitifully low buoyancy level of the human body in water'.
K
Thing is historical accuracy would be closer to a France that actually is far superior to everything gear wise and not lacking morale as it is again the defender and the winner of the last war !!!
The whole setup would then be based in a single catastrophic event to display the maneuver through the Ardennes. Not much gameplay.
Then again, it would make for a more interesting Germany. An actual underdog taking over the world, than an easy-mode nation.
BTW -- This DLC should be included in the expansion pass after delivering a game so poor on naval aspects.