Naval Ideas

[Jorgen_CAB]

Wait, the sub abstraction has been confirmed? I haven't been following the forums too closely the past few days.

Not in so many words. But it will be changed and submarines will be used more like air-planes are used over land. They will be assigned to an area where you give them a mission. Exactly what this mean we don't really know yet, but it does sounds as if they are finally changing submarines into something different from the other naval combat units which in my opinion is a welcoming change.

Submarines almost always engaged one at a time against targets of opportunity or as part of a trap, even if deployed in squadrons or flotillas. Combat was short after which the sub would try and run away, at least if there were any escort ships around. This is rather pointless to even try to run through a battle simulator of any kind in a game of this scale. Now we can truly feel that our carriers can be in danger of running into a lone submarine with a clear shot at it... this was never the case in any previous HoI game.

 

[Cybvep]

They will be assigned to an area where you give them a mission.

Same thing happened in HOI2 and HOI3. Subs weren't operating in single provinces, but in a given region or a given area.

 

[Porkman]

I would like to have both subs and convoys on the map.

My wishlist:
Add piercing/armor.
Add torpedo attach.
Make it necessary to use multiple ship types. Spamming DDs or CLs shouldn't work. The same goes for BB/DD fleets and CV/CL fleets. There were mixes of ships for a reason.
Behavior of ships in a CV fleet should be to screen them and only engage if the opposing fleet is weak. For instance, a BB in a CV fleet should screen the CV unless the "fleet" you encounter is a CL. Then the BB should steam after it and sink it.


I think one of the problems with naval warfare is that a lot of it is tactical. It is difficult to find a good balance with something that is strategically very important, but is tactical in nature.

There's no reason why spamming DD's and CL's shouldn't work. No one did it because building a navy that's designed to take 40% casualties even in victory is something no navy would countenance.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

There's no reason why spamming DD's and CL's shouldn't work. No one did it because building a navy that's designed to take 40% casualties even in victory is something no navy would countenance.

In my opinion it would not work. If any major nation tried that tactic they would suddenly find themselves up against cruisers with armour just enough to withstand the 6" guns while facing hordes of 6"/8" guns to wipe out those weak armoured ships. In a real world setting you can't rely on one tactic and hope to win unless you are really lucky. This is true for all branches of the military.

You are probably right about that "most" military is unwilling to face unnecessary attrition. Although, there is a difference between the human wave tactic of the Russians and wasting talented and experienced ship crews and officers on expendable ship platforms.

 

[Porkman]

In my opinion it would not work. If any major nation tried that tactic they would suddenly find themselves up against cruisers with armour just enough to withstand the 6" guns while facing hordes of 6"/8" guns to wipe out those weak armoured ships. In a real world setting you can't rely on one tactic and hope to win unless you are really lucky. This is true for all branches of the military.

You are probably right about that "most" military is unwilling to face unnecessary attrition. Although, there is a difference between the human wave tactic of the Russians and wasting talented and experienced ship crews and officers on expendable ship platforms.

Well, think about how navies moved away from fireships in the 18th century. Why did they do this? Because ships kept getting bigger and more expensive, and the range of weapons kept increasing.

Take something like the battle of Liaoluo Bay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Liaoluo_Bay The Chinese won that battle against the Dutch using fireships. They brought 100 with them and lost most of them, but the battle was a victory for the Chinese because they took out 5 Dutch galleons.

As ships got more expensive, the willingness to build fireships disappeared.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

Well, think about how navies moved away from fireships in the 18th century. Why did they do this? Because ships kept getting bigger and more expensive, and the range of weapons kept increasing.

Take something like the battle of Liaoluo Bay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Liaoluo_Bay The Chinese won that battle against the Dutch using fireships. They brought 100 with them and lost most of them, but the battle was a victory for the Chinese because they took out 5 Dutch galleons.

As ships got more expensive, the willingness to build fireships disappeared.

To be honest I don't think that battle proves anything either way. I was merely talking about locking yourself into a corner using one single minded strategy that can easily be countered if you are not prepared to be dynamic and change as technology and/or doctrines evolve.

If you just mass produce say destroyers you might win a few battles with your DD armada in the beginning (if you are lucky and have good officers), but if you don't evolve beyond that point you will face a hard core efficient design/doctrine to stop them, perhaps such as a cheap fast armored cruiser specifically designed to pulverize them. That is what I meant.

Your above example was just one battle that has nothing to do with evolving designs/doctrines. Just because Zulu warriors managed to win against British infantry in South Africa doesn't mean that it's more efficient to use spear and shields versus rifles as long as you have the manpower or will to continue fighting. This is just pure circumstance and have many other underlying factors, at least that is my opinion.

 

[Porkman]

To be honest I don't think that battle proves anything either way. I was merely talking about locking yourself into a corner using one single minded strategy that can easily be countered if you are not prepared to be dynamic and change as technology and/or doctrines evolve.

If you just mass produce say destroyers you might win a few battles with your DD armada in the beginning (if you are lucky and have good officers), but if you don't evolve beyond that point you will face a hard core efficient design/doctrine to stop them, perhaps such as a cheap fast armored cruiser specifically designed to pulverize them. That is what I meant.

Your above example was just one battle that has nothing to do with evolving designs/doctrines. Just because Zulu warriors managed to win against British infantry in South Africa doesn't mean that it's more efficient to use spear and shields versus rifles as long as you have the manpower or will to continue fighting. This is just pure circumstance and have many other underlying factors, at least that is my opinion.

With ships, the issue is that purpose building the perfect counter ship takes years. Plenty of countries have fought on while taking massively lopsided casualties and being outclassed. China fought against Japan despite really having no hope in 1940. Vietnam stayed in the Vietnam war despite 1 million military casualties.

If you're willing to take the casualties, a casualty heavy strategy can work.

 

[mursolini]

Actually capital ships were there for a reason. They absolutely outclassed small vessels with torpedoes. It was shown before WW1 with torpedo boats and it was again show by capitals during the WW2 in the pacific.

To put it simply, capital ship carries a tonne of support artillery and multi-purpose guns, typically 20-30 203-105 mm guns aside from main battery. DDs and CLs are sitting ducks at the range they need to get to to launch a torpedo salvo and BB is actually still maneuverable enough to doge a torpedo salvo fired from the range of 5-10 km if it know that the salvo was fired.

Yes, you do need screens to spot the approaching enemies to be ready, especially at night, but a mixed fleet of screens and BBs would cost-effectively destroy any type of small ship mob. And if you have so much production capacity that you can field such huge small ship force to fight enemy`s cost-ineffectively, why not build your own BBs and fight enemy`s cost-effectively.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

Yes, that is my main point. Versatility and having a dynamic force is a huge force multiplier in most cases. Capital ships would completely outshine torpedo boats and destroyers on open waters. They also had much better sea performance during bad weather. Although, they were susceptible to smaller torpedo armed ships (and submarines anywhere) during the night, in shallow waters and close to land, therefore capital ships of all kinds needed escorts.

With ships, the issue is that purpose building the perfect counter ship takes years. Plenty of countries have fought on while taking massively lopsided casualties and being outclassed. China fought against Japan despite really having no hope in 1940. Vietnam stayed in the Vietnam war despite 1 million military casualties.

If you're willing to take the casualties, a casualty heavy strategy can work.

When you bring up the Chinese you also need to factor in many other aspects. It's not only a question about quality versus quantity, the same with Vietnam. The will to fight is as important. I have not argued anything else.

A huge DD fleet would lack in many other strategic and operational tasks, such as scouting (planes), range and shore bombardment capacity. Not to mention it would not be a secret, other nations would have known for years that they had no capital ships but a shit load of smaller destroyers. Designing a counter to it would obviously mostly been done in advance.

I'm pretty sure history has proven that sea warfare needed a balance of many type of vessels to function well, not just in battle but as a whole.

 

[Cybvep]

Although, they were susceptible to smaller torpedo armed ships (and submarines anywhere) during the night, in shallow waters and close to land, therefore capital ships of all kinds needed escorts.

That and the fact that losing a destroyer is simply not as crippling as losing a capital ship. If a DD is hit by a lonely torpedo, it's a small setback. If a CV is hit, well, that's an entirely different matter. Screens were simply more expendable.

 

[No idea]

Regarding naval combat system, I think the main problem with it is not in the results (aka ships sunk per side) but in the fact that the AI sails the seas too happily, so naval enconunters, especially among capital ships, are far, far, far more common in the game than they were in real life (and this means in a few months the whole brithish fleet can be in the bottom of the Channel). So, I think that before changing the naval combat system, they should give a thought to improving the AI. Perhaps with some tweaks in the naval combat system and a big improvement of the AI wold be enough. Or perhaps reducing the chances to have an encounter in a given sea province and severla tweaks here and there would be enough. The part about naval combat I find it works worse are the air-surface attacks and sub-surface attacks. Subs in general are useless attacking surafece ships, when in real life they were the second biggest killers of capital ships, after planes.

 

[Cybvep]

I think that everyone wants a better Naval AI, that's obvious . Good point about the detection system, though. Sea-zones are large, fleet shouldn't find themselves instantly.

 

[Beagá]

I proposed once that fleets should need to be detectable and after being detected then behavior adjusted. If your 1 BB 3 CL fleet knew it has going towards a 5 BB one it´s obvious it would change course.

Fleets should have a spotting radius with both radar + float planes + weather improving the chances of spotting. Again, good luck doing that in a game with sea provinces and no vectors of movement.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

As stated above... One thing that bothered me about the naval mechanic as a whole and the importance of capital ships are detection of enemy fleets/ships and planes. There need to be a better model for this. In HoI3 ships were essentially detecting each other at mostly knife fighting ranges while in reality many engagements started with one side detecting the other from much greater distances using either seaplanes or carrier operated scout planes. HoI give way too much importance to radar equipped destroyers on naval reconnaissance where planes were the primary scouting platform on the sea.

Sonar on destroyers were mainly a technology used for finding an already detected submarine that had dived under water and attack it, not a way to actually find submarines in a strategic sense. Good sonar technology should perhaps mainly make it harder for submarines to flee once they are engaged.

Ships equipped with seaplanes or carriers need to have a separate detection value for detecting ships in the same sea zone and one for their attached planes that should be able to scout outside the actual zone they are in. Cruisers and above (or any ship equipped with scout capable planes) should have a detection range as well as a detection value, although that value should be diminished the further out they could find something.
This would probably actually reduce naval engagement where weaker forces will try and evade stronger forces since they are both detected way beyond naval gun engagement distances or even while they are in the same sea zone.

I don't think that destroyers patrolled in areas where there were no aircraft to actually act together with them, at least not very often. Planes would spot submarines and try to attack them, destroyers would then arrive and try to find any submarines with their sonar equipment. The chance of a destroyer flotilla by chance finding submarines while patrolling was probably very slim unless you know there were submarines in the immediate area. Radar range to find submarines that sailed on the surface were mostly very short, that is why planes were needed to find them most of the time.

 

[Beagá]

We can dream of such a system but with provinces/sea zones is a bit tougher than if it was open sea, as for game purposes the moment two fleets are in the same sea zone the game makes no distinction in distance and they might as well teleport to 30km distance of each other. Probably the radius of detection should extend to nearby sea zones (and yes I know radar couldn´t see 100km away but you have to abstract a bit for the spotting system to work better).

Or make more and smaller sea zones. Like, 50 km in width. Again it´s a choice between abstracting more and making the system more complex and "heavy".

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

In my opinion the sea zones work pretty well and are of a size suitable for radar equipped ships to find other ships. Task-forces generally have more than one ship and even if you had just one ship it could be anywhere in that sea zone. Aircraft on the other hand needs to be able to scout in nearby sea-zones in an abstract way, no counters flying around irritating the player like land based planes do in HoI3.

That and we can get a popup with a decision an what we like to do would be nice. I also would like information to not be 100% so one option is to continue scouting and perhaps just keep your fleet one sea zone away and shadow the fleet while you gather more intelligence on it. You could of course hand over these tasks to the AI if you don't want to do it yourself, but then the AI has to be better at self preservation and not engage the enemy unless it is certain you have the upper hand or you put it in a very aggressive stance. If you put it on "Normal" the AI should never engage an opponent that appears to be anything but weaker than you in my opinion.

 

[Beagá]

Sure, the problem is simulating what happens when both fleets are ALREADY in the same seazone. In the end it´s all going to be number mumbo jumbo just like in HOI2/3. Not saying it can´t be improved, but the "perfect" system will only happen when there are no sea zones and task forces move from point A to B.

 

[Cybvep]

Detection should be super-easy when the enemy is invading a land province by sea, but in other cases, even major fleets should be able to move through the same sea zone without engaging in combat from time to time. Stances could be made more important. On "passive", a fleet should have a decent chance of avoiding detection. Also, it's sth which should be possible to set in the fleet UI, not just by using missions. And a CTF/SAG switch would be great. Seeing your BBs and BCs being butchered just because they decide to close in without support is annoying.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

Sure, the problem is simulating what happens when both fleets are ALREADY in the same seazone. In the end it´s all going to be number mumbo jumbo just like in HOI2/3. Not saying it can´t be improved, but the "perfect" system will only happen when there are no sea zones and task forces move from point A to B.

We are stuck with sea zone so some form of simulation will have to do, I believe it could be made realistic even if somewhat abstracted. It would be great with no sea zones, but would the AI be better or worse of, I don't know.

Detection should be super-easy when the enemy is invading a land province by sea, but in other cases, even major fleets should be able to move through the same sea zone without engaging in combat from time to time. Stances could be made more important. On "passive", a fleet should have a decent chance of avoiding detection. Also, it's sth which should be possible to set in the fleet UI, not just by using missions. And a CTF/SAG switch would be great. Seeing your BBs and BCs being butchered just because they decide to close in without support is annoying.

Sea provinces are usually not that great and task forces with radar should not have that much problem of finding a large enemy task force. Radar could detect regular ships up to 70-80km at least and with formation spread out and sea planes in the air detecting ships in the zone should in general not be that hard, unless we are talking a few smaller ships or submarines.

The issue with capital ships in carrier task-forces are just bad implementation of the mechanics and could have been avoided pretty easily in my opinion.

 

[Cybvep]

Sea provinces are usually not that great and task forces with radar should not have that much problem of finding a large enemy task force. Radar could detect regular ships up to 70-80km at least and with formation spread out and sea planes in the air detecting ships in the zone should in general not be that hard, unless we are talking a few smaller ships or submarines.

If detection = combat, then no, it shouldn't work like this, or we will end with the current HOI3 system, where two fleets pretty much always enter combat as soon as they end up in the same sea zone. And if you look at the sea zones, many of them are quite big or at least they were in HOI3.

I'm also pretty sure that sea zones will be kept in HOI4, just as land provinces, so don't expect a revolution here.

The issue with capital ships in carrier task-forces are just bad implementation of the mechanics and could have been avoided pretty easily in my opinion.

Indeed. "Could have".