Heavy Cruisers in Fjords and Archipelagos

[Barron of Gondor]

Did you know that in Fjords and Archipelagos your ships have a tradeoff between Visibility and Positioning? You probably did lol. But... All your capital ships also have a nasty debuff to movement, attack and defense? I guess that makes since for your Battleships and Carriers. But I don't think that should apply as heavily to Heavy Cruisers. In the pacific, both the US and Japan would keep their Battleships and Carriers away from the Archipelagos. (They didn't want an accidental beaching). But they sent their Heavy Cruisers in. The Guadalcanal campaign was full of Heavy Cruisers slugging it out in the archipelagos.

So I don't think the flat -20% to Heavy Cruisers is reasonable. Maybe a -10% or -5% but not a -20% like Battleships and Carriers.

 

[yardenko]

1. We will get naval rebalance soon, so not 100% sure that the naval Terrain buffs/debuff will stay the same

2. If I am not mistaken, for some purposes (i think Designer buffs) CA count as Screen, because of the hull. Therefore, not even sure that CA get this debuff correctly.

 

[him_15]

Have to agree with that.

 

[GrandVezir]

So I don't think the flat -20% to Heavy Cruisers is reasonable

How did Blücher's fjord run turn out? How many heavy cruisers (IJN and USN both) were wrecked in the Slot due to their inability to control the range?

For reference, a Königsberg-class* light cruiser had a beam of 174m, Hipper-class heavy 220m, and a Scharnhorst-class battleship 235m. The heavy is much closer to a battleship than to a light cruiser.

*Considering what happened to Königsberg and Karlsruhe in Norway and USS Atlanta, USS Juneau, and USS Helena in the Solomon Islands, maybe light cruisers need a maneuver penalty in fjords and archipelagos as well.

 

[Barron of Gondor]

How did Blücher's fjord run turn out? How many heavy cruisers (IJN and USN both) were wrecked in the Slot due to their inability to control the range?

They all faired better than a Battleship or Carrier. That’s why I said not as heavily penalized.

 

[LastButterfly]

both the US and Japan would keep their Battleships and Carriers away from the Archipelagos.

... litterally the two out of two pacific battles that opposed battleships happened in archipelagos...

 

[Barron of Gondor]

... litterally the two out of two pacific battles that opposed battleships happened in archipelagos...

So you're saying they charged their battleships into archipelagos?

 

[Bryartuck]

So you're saying they charged their battleships into archipelagos?

There were 2 BB vs BB engagements in the Pacific, Guadalcanal and Suriago Straight. Both of those locations are definitely classified as archipelagos.

 

[Barron of Gondor]

There were 2 BB vs BB engagements in the Pacific, Guadalcanal and Suriago Straight. Both of those locations are definitely classified as archipelagos.

Thank you for the information. Were the battleships able to go to as shallow depths as the Heavy Cruisers?

 

[LastButterfly]

So you're saying they charged their battleships into archipelagos?

They were certainly not as cautious as you paint them in that regard. You said the US and Japan refrained from using battleships in archipelagos ; that's just wrong. Basing your proposal on the fact that heavy cruisers were used in archipelagos and battleships were not is therefore, wrong too.

 

[Barron of Gondor]

They were certainly not as cautious as you paint them in that regard. You said the US and Japan refrained from using battleships in archipelagos ; that's just wrong. Basing your proposal on the fact that heavy cruisers were used in archipelagos and battleships were not is therefore, wrong too.

I never said battleships were not used

 

[LastButterfly]

I never said battleships were not used

Hm-mh...

the US and Japan would keep their Battleships away from the Archipelagos.

the US and Japan refrained from using battleships in archipelagos

This is what that means. You didn't know ?

 

[Barron of Gondor]

Hm-mh...




This is what that means. You didn't know ?

Ok you got me… I worded that in a way that you would of worded differently.

 

[Louella]

If I am not mistaken, for some purposes (i think Designer buffs) CA count as Screen, because of the hull. Therefore, not even sure that CA get this debuff correctly.

terrain penalties apply on unit basis, so heavy cruisers are penalised because of their unit definition, not what equipment (cruiser_hull with medium guns rather than light guns) they have.

 

[yardenko]

terrain penalties apply on unit basis, so heavy cruisers are penalised because of their unit definition, not what equipment (cruiser_hull with medium guns rather than light guns) they have.

Good to know.

From the developed diaries, at Least how I understood, CA will be nerfed to the state of mediocrity. Let's see how it will be, but not for the realistic purposes, but just to make this Ship class worth building at all, it might make sense to reduce the penalty they take as OP suggests.

 

[Kapitalisti]

I mean yeah, they probably shouldn't get as big of a penalty as the biggest ships. In a perfect world. But that would, if I understand game mechanics correctly, require a third size class besides screen and not screen. Or fourth counting subs? Which would in turn have other implications and coding requirements to "fix" a pretty minor edge case.

 

[Louella]

Good to know.

Yeah, it's a mechanic that isn't used all that much in vanilla HOI4, but could be used to a much greater extent in mods. For example, in my own personal mod, i made coastal ships their own unit, and gave them a bonus in fjords, rather than a penalty, to make the difference between a regular heavy cruiser and a coastal defence ship greater (also it didn't make sense to me for coastal defence ships to be defined as heavy cruisers and be penalised for fighting in the terrain they were designed to operate in, lol).
Similarly, if you wanted, you could make coastal submarines, which would be able to operate better in the cramped conditions of fjords and small islands, than ocean-going submarines. Which could be interesting.

that would, if I understand game mechanics correctly, require a third size class besides screen and not screen. Or fourth counting subs?

No. the terrain penalties are defined individually for each type of ship, it's not a straight screen/not-screen/submarine thing.
You can see for yourself in the Hearts of Iron IV\common\terrain folder, in 00_terrain.txt

 

[VTs]

How did Blücher's fjord run turn out? How many heavy cruisers (IJN and USN both) were wrecked in the Slot due to their inability to control the range?

For reference, a Königsberg-class* light cruiser had a beam of 174m, Hipper-class heavy 220m, and a Scharnhorst-class battleship 235m. The heavy is much closer to a battleship than to a light cruiser.

*Considering what happened to Königsberg and Karlsruhe in Norway and USS Atlanta, USS Juneau, and USS Helena in the Solomon Islands, maybe light cruisers need a maneuver penalty in fjords and archipelagos as well.

Beam - nautical : the extreme width of a ship at the widest part

Konigsberg class was not 174m wide, but long

Beam	15.3 m (50 ft)