Hearts of Iron IV - Developer Diary 10 - Naval Combat

[Alex_brunius]

I've compiled stats on how carriers were sunk in WWII based on this Wikipedia page:

As you can see, 50% by subs, 40% by bombers (dive bombers, torpedo bombers, and kamikaze bombers), and 10% by other causes.
So carriers should almost never sink to anything other than subs or bombers.

That doesn't really tell the whole story though.
Partially because the sample is statistically to small.

But mostly because HoI is about changing history and in HoI we can:

- Be stupid or desperate and sail our Carrier fleet with slower CV models, no escorts or even no aircraft on-board right into the enemy fast Battlecruiser/Cruiser fleet line ( in which case they should not be immune to surface gunfire from faster ships ).
- Have different goals and don't research or build sub to the historical levels ( in which case subs would not make up 40% what killed our enemies CVs ).
- Be unlucky and lose two Carriers to chance/situation/surprise ( in which case we lost 100% of our CVs to this cause if we only built 2 CVs in total ).

 

[Dalwin]

I've compiled stats on how carriers were sunk in WWII based on this Wikipedia page:

	US	UK	Japan	Total
Sub	3	5	8	16
Bomber	7	1	11	19
Other	1	2	1	4
Total	11	8	20	39

As you can see, 50% by subs, 40% by bombers (dive bombers, torpedo bombers, and kamikaze bombers), and 10% by other causes.
So carriers should almost never sink to anything other than subs or bombers.

I think you reversed some of your numbers. That is 50% bombers and 40% subs.

 

[Marine]

Now Naval warfare is looking very promising
Hoi IV is going to be awesome
More detail, that is my way...

/Marine

 

[Meneth]

I think you reversed some of your numbers. That is 50% bombers and 40% subs.

Yep. Corrected.

Can you even damage your own vessels? I think you (and the others) are overthinking it a bit. To me sunk ship is lost, because that's the most common context this world is used when in relation to sea and ships. And by "lost" I understand my ships ending up as "destroyed" (to use another word). It's not that misleading to me, but I guess it depends on one's perception so it's clear that [your] mileage may vary.

By calling it "sunk" it isn't clear which side refers to which. "Sunk" could easily mean "ships we sunk" rather than "ships of ours that were sunk".
"Lost" on the other hand does not have this ambiguity.

That doesn't really tell the whole story though.
Partially because the sample is to small.

But mostly because HoI is about changing history and in HoI we can:

- Be stupid or desperate and sail our Carrier fleet with slower CV models, no escorts or even no aircraft on-board right into the enemy fast Battlecruiser/Cruiser fleet line ( in which case they should not be immune to surface gunfire from faster ships ).
- Or we can have different goals and don't research or build sub to the historical levels ( in which case subs would not make up 50% what killed our enemies CVs ).
- Be unlucky and lose two Carriers to chance/situation/surprise ( in which case we lost 100% of our CVs to this cause if we only built 2 CVs in total ).

1. Do stupid things and you'll end up sunk, of course.
2. Of course, if you don't have a good amount of subs, you won't be sinking many ships with subs. And you'll suffer from it by sinking fewer ships (especially carriers) overall
3. Of course, I'm only talking about the relative utility of different ship types against carriers. Subs should clearly be the most effective type since they're the only ship type with a decent chance of actually hitting a carrier with a torpedo, so it is important that detection isn't too easy. If screens can actually get to a CV thanks to its screens being significantly reduced, then they should of course cut it into pieces.
Essentially, it is just important that they don't make it too hard for subs to actually get to carriers, seeing as historically they were second only to bombers when it came to successfully getting to and sinking carriers.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Essentially, it is just important that they don't make it too hard for subs to actually get to carriers, seeing as historically they were second only to bombers when it came to successfully getting to and sinking carriers.

That I agree with.

My point was that "almost never" isn't really a good description for what should happen in a game where the player can and will do very smart/stupid/different choices compared to the historical choices that led to the historical results.

 

[Meneth]

My point was that "almost never" isn't really a good description for what should happen in a game where the player can and will do very smart/stupid/different choices compared to the historical choices that led to the historical results.

Let me qualify it slightly
It should almost never happen if roughly historical compositions are followed, and no one does anything especially stupid (though I'd argue having few subs would be especially stupid).

 

[Holy.Death]

By calling it "sunk" it isn't clear which side refers to which. "Sunk" could easily mean "ships we sunk" rather than "ships of ours that were sunk".
"Lost" on the other hand does not have this ambiguity.

I see now. I agree that renaming could help making it clearer without forcing to make an extra work on the layout itself.

 

[Dalwin]

Let me qualify it slightly
It should almost never happen if roughly historical compositions are followed, and no one does anything especially stupid (though I'd argue having few subs would be especially stupid).

Maybe "rarely" would be a better term than almost never. Over the course of 5 years, rarely still adds up to more than a few.

 

[Porkman]

With this "Naval Patrol" and "Search and Destroy" missions, I'm wondering if you can set the engagement threshold.

If I build a fleet of 4 cruisers 2 destroyers and the Bismark and send it off on Search and destroy, I want it to run if it encounters the entire Home Fleet, but stay to kill one or two ships.

 

[superZAKTAN]

This is so sexy

 

[Meneth]

Maybe "rarely" would be a better term than almost never. Over the course of 5 years, rarely still adds up to more than a few.

True. It added up to 4 (out of 39) historically.
So 0-20% over the course of the war wouldn't be unreasonable.

 

[Acesandeights]

Have to read more of the comments, questions and answers, but at first glance it looks like a big step forward.

In short: very ****ing sexy.

 

[Czert]

how much classes of ships are in game ? Are japanese CS ships in ? They were cruser sized float planes capable ships (many later refited to true CV), much bigger than other navy float planes capable ships with much bigger float planes capacity.
They were very well suited to japanese needs - ideal ships for spoting/finding enemy ships allowing rest of thier (small) navy to be concetrated to sink finded enemy ships/TFs.

 

[Dalwin]

how much classes of ships are in game ? Are japanese CS ships in ? They were cruser sized float planes capable ships (many later refited to true CV), much bigger than other navy float planes capable ships with much bigger float planes capacity.
They were very well suited to japanese needs - ideal ships for spoting/finding enemy ships allowing rest of thier (small) navy to be concetrated to sink finded enemy ships/TFs.

Along with these ideas is also the Japanese doctrine that used subs primarily as pickets for recon.

 

[perujuan]

With this "Naval Patrol" and "Search and Destroy" missions, I'm wondering if you can set the engagement threshold.

If I build a fleet of 4 cruisers 2 destroyers and the Bismark and send it off on Search and destroy, I want it to run if it encounters the entire Home Fleet, but stay to kill one or two ships.

This is a great question, someone at paradox hopefully answer this. My best guess that you set the aggressiveness level of the fleet as you send them on their mission, but I think it would be better if one can get more detail than that, like your example, if you come across a big fleet you better run, but <2 stay and destroy.

 

[Vordus]

Amazing!

 

[Wyrm]

Looking really sweet, but shouldn't destroyers have torpedoes as well?

 

[Dalwin]

Looking really sweet, but shouldn't destroyers have torpedoes as well?

The first thing said about destroyers mentioned torpedoes. It later said that cruisers also had torpedoes.

OK on rereading it wasn't as clear as it could have been, but it was a short example summary and not comprehensive. Of course DDs will have torpedoes.

 

[No idea]

So far the naval aspect sounds good. Well, everything about the game sounds good. If only we got a decent oob...

 

[Karlburg]

Submarines rarely got "into" carrier fleets during air operations. What usually happened was that damaged carriers were happened upon by opportunistic submarines. In situations where fleets were moving at tactical speeds, submarines hadn't a hope of catching them, but coming in and out of port, or on random transit, that's where the subs really made their money.