Hearts of Iron IV - Developer Diary 10 - Naval Combat

[Mr_B0narpte]

Great DD, especially enjoyed reading that building a more balance fleet will be more worthwhile, and that even submarines might be worth building in the game.

 

[Saltspring]

Historically it is also interesting to see how many Battleships were sunk by submarines too.

Really this looks like the boost Naval combat really needed and while it may not be perfect it looks leaps and bounds ahead of anything from HOI3

 

[scroggin]

I hope no one else has brought this up, because I tend to read the dev's replies over every comment.

One thing to point out, and I think it was an issue in previous HOI games, was that when opposing carrier fleets battled each other, they did so from range longer than anything that could appreciably involve surface ships engaging with each other. It was simply defensive fighters trying to shoot down the incoming bombers, with the escorting fighters trying to prevent that, which ended up in some dog fights, and all while this is happening, the surface fleet would be attempting to shoot the incoming planes down while the ships being targeted, which typically were carriers that were zig-zagging the whole time to avoid being hit.

I'm not sure two carrier fleets engaging each other could be accurately portrayed using the naval combat screen we've been shown. I'd hate to try fighting the enemy fleet with my carriers, only to have my non carrier ships move ahead to engage the enemy fleet. That's just completely inaccurate. The only time this ever happened as far as I know it, was during the battle of Leyte gulf where the Japanese surface fleet caught the American transport fleet which were escorted by destroyers and escort carriers. In that fight, the destroyers moved in to engage the Japanese surface fleet, while everyone else tried to get the heck out of there. While they did so, the American escort carriers where hitting the Japanese fleet with every plane the had.

In that battle, the fleet engagement in HOI IV would work correctly, otherwise I really want to have realistic carrier engagements please!

In HOI3 long range carrier aircraft engagements could be done by setting the cags to do naval bombing in a neighbouring sea province. I presume that will still be possible.

 

[Centurion1973]

yeah we'll speed up later in development to every week or every other week (after summer). They are quite a hassle to do early like this really because it constantly gives you interfering deadlines for interface art and such If they were more often 75% of them would be mostly filler with no pictures of new stuff

Will next DD be published on October 24th?

edit: added Podcats OP

 

[jju_57]

Do I need to post maps of every single engagement and shove them down your throat?

That might hurt. :angry:

 

[Beagá]

I can coat them in chocolate to make it more pleasing.

It´s painful to see people quoting stuff totally out of context or failing to interpret them in the context of the game, in particular. A "battle" like Leyte isn´t 50 ships fighting in a HOI 2/3/Darkest Hour battle.

 

[Ruthlesssamuria]

There is a major problem with Naval Combat in Hearts Of Iron 3 and I hope you fix it in 4. That is averaging out damage to ships among all in the task force. Imagine Battle of Midway where US Naval Air decides to attack all ships and not focus on the Japaneses carriers! That is what happens in Hearts of Iron 3. I want Naval air fixed so it goes after Carriers 1st and does not go after other ships until the Carriers are sunk, then Battleships on down. Same with surface to surface combat big ships go after the enemy big ships not average firing at all ships in enemy task force. Also, Naval builds at port must be fixed. it is not real world to allow an enemy to build or complete a ship in any port still under his control. The ship must be built in the port it started in until at least it is launched. Also, Please bring back Pocket Battleships I find it very annoying the are classed as heavy cruisers with no advantage over a heavy cruiser. they had 11" guns compared to a heavy cruiser 8" guns. Also, fix upgrading older ships the Italians did upgrade the armor, engines for higher Knots to 27 from 21 knots and guns on their WW1 battleships in late 1930's and so did Japan on their WW1 battle cruisers to full battleships by adding more Armour. Also, Carriers must turn into the wind if they are to launch planes. This could have effect where they have to sail toward enemy surface ships and be possibly attacked and sunk. So add wind direction in sea zone to have effect on carriers. Also adding sub pins to protect subs in port from Air attack, different types of mines and mine fields, minesweepers and PT-boats and mini subs like Seahund the Germans had and Japaneses had. Also Liberty and Victory ships started out taking 200 days to build But kaiser steel got them down to just 14 days by 1944 have that improve over time.

 

[Mikebloke]

I think if we are brutally honest anything that floated on the water is one of Paradox's major weaknesses, I got excited when Victoria II saw naval combat changes in Heart of Darkness.

Just from this DD and screenshot its fair to say that this might be the Paradox game that finally gives navy development and combat the energy it deserves. I hope this leeds to good things happening in future paradox titles.

 

[Centurion1973]

I think if we are brutally honest anything that floated on the water is one of Paradox's major weaknesses, I got excited when Victoria II saw naval combat changes in Heart of Darkness.

Just from this DD and screenshot its fair to say that this might be the Paradox game that finally gives navy development and combat the energy it deserves. I hope this leeds to good things happening in future paradox titles.

Ship design looked better in EvW - I will check combat again, but IIRC it was also pretty good.

 

[Daelyn75]

I HOI3 long range carrier aircraft engagements could be done by setting the cags to do naval bombing in a neighbouring sea province. I presume that will still be possible.

I was thinking the same, however in the naval combat shown, it was precisely the wrong type of engagement to portray it accurately.

Perhaps they just wanted to show it off with many ships. I know, it's still in beta!

 

[Secret Master]

When presenting sources or refuting them, you will remain polite and congenial.

 

[Liquid Sky]

Ummmm

As to the large fleet thing, I hate to break it to you but go back and look at the original post. Read the title of the battle screen. Look at the commanders.

Now tell me....how many ships would be participating in this battle screen, if the whole battle was carried to conclusion (without the loss of any carriers).

Seems to me the Japanese had a lot of ships. Maybe even 50 that would have eventually gotten into the battle screen.

So a battle like the Leyte Gulf would have all those fleets crammed into this screen...and thus have an awful lot of ships involved in fighting.

 

[Axe99]

Ummmm
So a battle like the Leyte Gulf would have all those fleets crammed into this screen...and thus have an awful lot of ships involved in fighting.

Not Leyte - a quote from the original Wikipedia article referenced that started this whole kerfuffle:

Leyte Gulf consisted of four major subsidiary battles: Battle of Sibuyan Sea, Battle of Surigao Strait, Battle off Samar and Battle of Cape Engano, along with other actions. These are counted together by virtue of their all being caused by the Japanese operation Sho-Go, which was aimed at destroying the Allied amphibious forces involved in the invasion of Leyte. However, the individual battles were separated by distances as great as two hundred miles.

Using naval province sizes from HoI3 (and noting that we've got more detail in naval provinces with the coastal regions in HoI4) there's no way known Leyte would have been one big battle.

Now, the battle of the Phillipines Sea, one the other hand, _may_ come closer to qualifying if the conflict was considered to have taken place in the same naval zone, but given the distances involved it's more likely better modelled in-game by opposing carrier strikes across different naval areas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Philippine_Sea

It also, incidentally, includes some examples of subs having a go at carriers, another 'hot topic' in this thread .

An interesting part of the battle description (that I wasn't aware of, I know a little bit about Leyte, but very little about the Battle of the Phillipine Sea beyond that it shredded most of the IJNs naval air capacity) was:

After the protracted strike, it became clear that most of the aircraft returning home to their carriers were running dangerously close to "bingo fuel", and to worsen matters, nightfall had begun. At 20:45, the first U.S. aircraft began to return to TF 58. Knowing his aviators would have difficulty finding their carriers, Mitscher decided to fully illuminate his carriers, shining searchlights directly up into the night, despite the risk of attack from submarines and night-flying aircraft. Picket destroyers fired starshells to help the aircraft find the task groups. Despite this, 80 of the returning aircraft were lost, some crashing on flight decks, the majority going into the sea. Most of their crews (approximately three quarters) were rescued over the next few days.

Probably a bit hard to model in-game, and hard to manage, but would be interesting if we could try our luck and launch a naval strike at extreme range, but run the risk of aircraft not being able to make it back.

 

[scroggin]

Probably a bit hard to model in-game, and hard to manage, but would be interesting if we could try our luck and launch a naval strike at extreme range, but run the risk of aircraft not being able to make it back.

I don't think that would be worth modeling in game, its too much of a fine detail for a strategy game. A generaly higher attrition for operations from carriers could be included.

 

[Wyrm]

I want Naval air fixed so it goes after Carriers 1st and does not go after other ships until the Carriers are sunk, then Battleships on down. Same with surface to surface combat big ships go after the enemy big ships not average firing at all ships in enemy task force.

I would like to have some sort of say in what to focus at. I mean, it might be a very viable tactic to have your aircraft target destroyers and light cruisers to disrupt the enemy screen, letting your battleships, cruisers and destroyers sneak through the gaps and have a go at the enemy carriers. Especially if you have a limited carrier force of your own that might not be able to go on par with the enemy carrier force.

 

[Axe99]

I don't think that would be worth modeling in game, its too much of a fine detail for a strategy game. A generaly higher attrition for operations from carriers could be included.

Aye, agreed - I wasn't suggesting it'd be in the game, and it'd likely be a whole 'nother layer for a pretty minor feature, that wasn't strategically significant. Just rambling. Will go back in my hole now .

 

[jju_57]

Well during the battle for Okinawa TF 58 had 88 ships in it's taskforce. Operation Ten-Go was the Japanese attempt to break through in a suicide run. While the Japanese only had 10 ships the US had way over 50 for the battle.

So in this situation you would see over 50 US ships on one side and 10 Japanese on the other side.

 

[Bluestreak2k5]

I would like to have some sort of say in what to focus at. I mean, it might be a very viable tactic to have your aircraft target destroyers and light cruisers to disrupt the enemy screen, letting your battleships, cruisers and destroyers sneak through the gaps and have a go at the enemy carriers. Especially if you have a limited carrier force of your own that might not be able to go on par with the enemy carrier force.

Yes exactly, this is why I asked Podcat if we could set targets. As Germany, destroying the UK screen fleet makes their navy meaningless. He said it is automated in the code.

 

[D Inqu]

So I still don't understand how naval combat works exactly. Especially:
1. "Torpedoes [...] do a ton of damage on large ships". Is that a separate attack type, like in vicky? If yes, how does the game decide whether ships try to close in to use torpedoes or stay back screening capitals.
2. "Battlecrusiers and Battleships can take a lot of hits". Again how does it work? Do ships just have "sea attack" and "strength", meaning cruiser spam was viable against battlefleets? Or is there a separate "armor" mechanic meaning low caliber guns are not very effective against BBs
3. Does higher speed mean a lone raider can disengage at will from any encounter, and prevent a slower ship from disengaging.
4. Do ships preserve all their stats until they sink? So will a ship with 1% strength and 1% org remain as fast as one with 100%?

 

[smith161]

Whether this has been addressed, has not or will be in a future diary I don't know, but please don't be to upset by this question I'm about to ask. For naval fleets will you have fleet commander then all of his subordinate commanders commanding his other task forces, squadrons or what have you? Say for example you have Nimitz as a fleet commander then Spruance, Halsey and Fletcher as his task force commanders.