Naval Ideas

[D Inqu]

Let's list some of the major things that annoyed in the naval system in earlier games.

1. Cruiser spam. Due to ships battles implementation, crowds of cruisers could roflstomp battleships with ease. The ships need so form of armor mechanic, so that building bigger ships is a worthwhile investment as long as you have air superiority. BBs and CVs are not that numberous, so they could even benefit from some more detailed damage system than a simple strength bar.

2. Subs. From overpowered to underpowered, from battlefleet killers to waste of IC, the subs have never quite got proper "Battle of Atlantic" representation. As convoys are a resource, rather than actual units, how about turning subs unto "resources", build like convoys? It would allow a more macromanagement approach of assigning a number of subs to and area of the ocean to raid and automatically fill up casualties.

 

[mursolini]

Let's list some of the major things that annoyed in the naval system in earlier games.

1. Cruiser spam. Due to ships battles implementation, crowds of cruisers could roflstomp battleships with ease. The ships need so form of armor mechanic, so that building bigger ships is a worthwhile investment as long as you have air superiority. BBs and CVs are not that numberous, so they could even benefit from some more detailed damage system than a simple strength bar.

Well, exept the naval treaties that limited construction of battleships resulted in cruiser spam. And cruisers can carry torpedoes, as soon as BB`s escorts are done with, it becomes quite vulnerable.

The escorts were important IRL, after all.

 

[Joppos]

I really like the idea of more damage detail to capital ships. If nothing else it would certainly add flavour seeing your carrier flight deck destroyed or things like that.

In any event, i certainly hope they reinvent the naval system as a whole and make it better than ever before.

 

[Art1985]

as convoys are a resource, rather than actual units, how about turning subs unto "resources", build like convoys? It would allow a more macromanagement approach of assigning a number of subs to and area of the ocean to raid and automatically fill up casualties.

noooo!!!

 

[D Inqu]

Well, exept the naval treaties that limited construction of battleships resulted in cruiser spam. And cruisers can carry torpedoes, as soon as BB`s escorts are done with, it becomes quite vulnerable.

The escorts were important IRL, after all.

IRL, even late-game heavy cruisers should not be able to significantly damage battleships, unless the battleships are unescorted and significantly outnumbered. The 6'' and 8'' guns simple will not pierce the battleship armor, and the torpedo is a short range weapon, and many cruiser classes didn't even have them.

 

[jimbob100]

Supercarriers, that's all I want in the game. El Salvador must build super carriers!

 

[Jorvikson]

EvsW ship customisation in this game seems like it would add some good detail

 

[Nyarlathotep78]

The 6'' and 8'' guns simple will not pierce the battleship armor.

Interesting basis for an piercing vs. armor concept for ships... I´m not sure if I like it though...

 

[Lord Rommel]

Supercarriers, that's all I want in the game. El Salvador must build super carriers!

Before PDox is adding such an unit they should divide carriers into escort carriers, light fleet carriers and main fleet carriers :rofl:

...

And submarines into coastal subs, subs and cruiser subs.

...

AND after this points we could talk about "super carriers" (i think u are talking about the single ww2 super carrier - the Shinano (basing on its dimension) because i dont know "super carriers" in ww2).

 

[Il Moro]

EvsW ship customisation in this game seems like it would add some good detail

Definitively is an idea that should be implemented into HOI 4, if they can do the same for armors and planes, it will be glorious!

 

[D Inqu]

Interesting basis for an piercing vs. armor concept for ships... I´m not sure if I like it though...

Well, what go you not like? Battleships had enough armor to bounce most artillery shots from anything that wasn't a battlecruiser or above. The way to bring them down would be to use air force, port strikes, or if you manage to close to torpedo range, to hit with several torpedoes.

It not immersive at all to see escorted battleship fleets getting heavily damaged by ships who IRL would struggle to scratch the paint on them.

The cruiser escort of the infamous convoy PQ-17 retreated and the convoy scattered because even 1 battleship was far too much for 4 heavy cruisers with destroyer escorts not to mention smaller escorts. Currently, in-game (whether HOI2 or HOI3), the cruisers would probably win without too much trouble.

 

[Tomahok96]

Battleships are huge monsters with weapons everywhere, so it shouldn't be easy to take them down.
But I got a question though , will we be able to customize our units tanks ,ships etc, like in superpower 2 ???

 

[CV10]

IRL, even late-game heavy cruisers should not be able to significantly damage battleships, unless the battleships are unescorted and significantly outnumbered. The 6'' and 8'' guns simple will not pierce the battleship armor, and the torpedo is a short range weapon, and many cruiser classes didn't even have them.

In actuality, 6" and 8" and even 5" guns could damage battleships. I will yield the point that there is no way that a 5" gun could penetrate proper battleship armor and I'm doubtful as to weather a 6" or 8" shell could either. However, not all of the battleship's key structures are protected by armor. Lighter guns could destroy a battleship's unarmored superstructure, which could kill key personnel, such as the captain or admiral, and cripple fire-control systems. Without proper fire-control, a battleship's ability to fight effectively becomes mediocre at best. At the Battle of Guadalcanal, the U.S.S San Francisco (CA-38) crippled the Japanese battleship Hiei's steering machinery and at the battle off Samar, U.S Destroyers managed to tear the bridge structures of several battleships apart.

 

[FNK_Drake]

In actuality, 6" and 8" and even 5" guns could damage battleships. I will yield the point that there is no way that a 5" gun could penetrate proper battleship armor and I'm doubtful as to weather a 6" or 8" shell could either. However, not all of the battleship's key structures are protected by armor. Lighter guns could destroy a battleship's unarmored superstructure, which could kill key personnel, such as the captain or admiral, and cripple fire-control systems. Without proper fire-control, a battleship's ability to fight effectively becomes mediocre at best. At the Battle of Guadalcanal, the U.S.S San Francisco (CA-38) crippled the Japanese battleship Hiei's steering machinery and at the battle off Samar, U.S Destroyers managed to tear the bridge structures of several battleships apart.

I think the damage from smaller shells such as those from cruisers and destroyers should do very little damage to strength, but instead decrease the organization to simulate loss of crew, damage to systems, etc..

If HOI4 has a more modular ship design & damage then I could see that going even further so that they could damage specific components, but would be impossible to damage the Hull to sink the ship.

 

[KillingMeSoftly]

I think the damage from smaller shells such as those from cruisers and destroyers should do very little damage to strength, but instead decrease the organization to simulate loss of crew, damage to systems, etc..

If HOI4 has a more modular ship design & damage then I could see that going even further so that they could damage specific components, but would be impossible to damage the Hull to sink the ship.

This is a cool idea!

IMO a strong naval aspect is very important, especially considering the Pacific theater.

 

[Nyarlathotep78]

Well, what go you not like? Battleships had enough armor to bounce most artillery shots from anything that wasn't a battlecruiser or above. The way to bring them down would be to use air force, port strikes, or if you manage to close to torpedo range, to hit with several torpedoes.

It not immersive at all to see escorted battleship fleets getting heavily damaged by ships who IRL would struggle to scratch the paint on them.

The cruiser escort of the infamous convoy PQ-17 retreated and the convoy scattered because even 1 battleship was far too much for 4 heavy cruisers with destroyer escorts not to mention smaller escorts. Currently, in-game (whether HOI2 or HOI3), the cruisers would probably win without too much trouble.

Well, the idea itself is both interesting and promising, I´m just not sure if can be implemented reasonably in the game. So a torpedo or a submarine attack generally should have an immense piercing, but the chances for a sub to catch a BB were quiete small. Balancing and rebalanacing would boviously be a neverending story...

And as ohters said, the superstructures weren´t armored like the hull. Don´t know if the game mechanics can differ beteween them.

But on a second thought... Yes I LOVE that :wub: That would finally give the whole naval aspect some depth which has been lacking til now.

 

[dsteve3]

I would like to see multiple stations within each sea area.

The sea areas should be larger and cover entire strategic zones. For example, all of the English Channel would be one sea area, and the North Sea may have about five.


By "station" I mean a position that represents a fleets intentions in that zone. A hunter group would want to take the most aggressive position, trying their hardest to find enemies and engage them.

Destroyers would take a position that is somewhat aggressive and defensive at the same time. They want to find the enemies, but don't want to BE found. So they will seek to avoid combat. A transport fleet will take the most defensive position possible, seeking to get to their destination without being discovered.

I remember a board game from many years ago which tied the movement costs of transiting a sea area to this station concept. A fleet that wants to transit as quickly as possible is neither being defensive or offensive. They are simply seeking to get past through the most direct route. That would make them somewhat easy to find while also making it somewhat possible for them to run into other fleets that are passing in the same manner in the opposite direction (I'd assume, at least).

The point is to make sea areas a bit more about stating an intention and pursuing it. Fleets don't automatically collide, there has to be some planning and commitment involved.


As well, the actual naval combat needs to be refined. Naval battles in previous HoI's took FAR too long to resolve, and didn't represent the nature of naval battles. Damaged ships should be straggling back to port, vulnerable to hunting submarines.

I really don't understand enough about WWII naval tactics, but I would like to see some options to perhaps establish contact protocols and some fleet positions and contingencies. If anyone is familiar with how carrier and non-carrier fleet tactical doctrines worked, please speak up.

 

[Cpack]

I think subs and surface fleets should be "handled" differently. This is also important for airforce how to attack subs and ships (detection)

 

[johan-erik]

Naval engagements in HOI 3 feels like soft core mode in a BF game.

Despite having a huge capital fleet a slow transport can still run away from battle sometimes almost unscathed.

I tried August Storm mod in comparison and damage dealt in the mod was better than vanilla. In vanilla, auxiliary units aren't meaningful.

In August Storm, I could deploy small cruiser fleets to engage enemies of same size or smaller and still deal some damage in just one battle.

1) More damage dealt in naval combat. No more running away like in a whack-a-mole machine. Most engagements should be conclusive if players choose to!

2) Submarines should be able to engage surface units and sink them provided that they have found a target and that they are deployed in a firing position.

3) Fleets should have oilers and supply ships to extend operations in time and space. If those are sunk, the capital ships would have to abandon operations and return to port.

 

[D Inqu]

1) More damage dealt in naval combat. No more running away like in a whack-a-mole machine. Most engagements should be conclusive if players choose to!

2) Submarines should be able to engage surface units and sink them provided that they have found a target and that they are deployed in a firing position.

1. I'm not sure that there should be more damage in combat. Rather, it should be less spread out. i.e. when battlefleets engage each other, there will be some ships that have not even seen battle, and others which are engaged could not easily pull out of combat. Very few naval engagements between even forces were conclusive.

2. Yes, but. The conditions for submarines getting into firing position on a surface fleet should be such that it should be rare. Most RL attacks by submarines took place on unescorted lone ships.