Naval modding ideas

[Amur_Tiger]

So I sketched out an idea of a tech tree, nothing set in stone of course but trying to anchor everything in actual ships and shifts in technology or design, going to be sticking to my previous outlines of battleships and carriers but also added in some other bits and pieces.

Battleships

Spoiler

BB1 Dreadnoughts 1906 as you describe them splits off into Super-Dreads and Battlecruisers
New Yorks and Nevadas would fit here due to firepower and speed deficiencies.

BB2 Super Dreadnoughts 1912 ( tier 2 )
Defining features, notable improvements in speed, firepower and combat range but a fair bit more expensive
Queen E defines this class, Ise, the Pennsylvania to Tennessee classes fit here nicely

BC2 WWI Battlecruiser 1910 ( tier 2 )
Defining features, very fast, lots of firepower, poorly protected
Kongo, 'Splended cats', Hood

BB3 Post-Jutland/Washington Treaty 1922 Battleships ( tier 3 )
Defining features much improved vertical protection, mild improvements elsewhere, mild cost increase
Nelsons, Colorados, Nagatos

BC3 Post-Jutland/Washington Treaty 1922 Battlecruisers ( tier 3 )
Defining feature, notably better protection, notably expensive
Hood if it got the deck armor promised

BB4 Fast battleship 1934 ( tier 4, unifies battlecruisers and battleships into a single tree )
Defining feature, much more speed, mild improvements to firepower and armor, AA firepower can start to be powerful here without refits.
KGV, Bismark

BB5 Fast battleship 1939 ( tier 5 )
Defining feature, mild improvements in all main categories, AA firepower is much improved, somewhat more expensive.
SoDak, North Carolinas, Lion class, Iowas would be an improved variant ( as they were essentially stretched SoDaks )

SBB Heavy Battleship 1939 ( tier 5)
Defining features, large improvements in firepower and armor, AA firepower is much improved much more expensive
Yamato ( while they didn't have the AA firepower it's hard to imagine poor AA as being a defining feature of this type of ship so much as being due to the issues with Japanese AA )

Carriers

Spoiler

CV1 ~1916
Grants access to CVE essentially ( unless there's actually a civilian ship related tech to tie this in with ) ex HMS Argus
+ BB1 tech grants access to a CVL ex HMS Eagle

CV2 ~1918
Grants access to CVE ex HMS Hermes
+ BC2 tech grants access to CVL ex HMS Furious

CV3~1924
Grants access to CVE ex none
Grants access to CVL ex IJN Ryūjō
+BC3 tech grants access to CV ex USN Lexington, IJN Kaga

CV4~1934
Grants access to CVE ex none
Grants access to CVL ex USS Ranger, IJN Sōryū
+BC3 tech Grants access to CV ex HMS Arc Royal, USS Yorktown
CVA ( armored carrier ) Perhaps linked to some advancement in AA? ex HMS Illustrious

CV5~1940
Grants access to CVE ex HMS Avenger
Grants access to CVL ex HMS Colossus,
Grants access to CV ex USS Essex, HMS Audacious, IJN Shōkaku
CVA IJN Taiho

CV6 ~1943
Grants access to CVE ex HMS Avenger
Grants access to CVL ex USS Saipan,
Grants access to CV ex USS Midway, HMS Malta

Cruisers

Spoiler

CL1 1909 6 or more 5-6" guns
ex HMS Town Class

CL2 1916 + torpedoes
ex HMS Danae Class

CL3 1930 8 or more 6" guns, turreted, directors and dedicated AA guns
ex HMS Leander Class

CL4 1937 Main guns DP AA guns
ex HMS Dido Class

CL5 1941 8 or more 6" main guns + 8 or more DP guns
ex HMS Minotaur Class

AC1 1902 4 or more 7-8" main guns
ex HMS Devonshire Class

CA2 1916 6 or more 7-8" main guns
ex HMS Hawkins Class

CA3 1924 8 or more 8" main guns
ex HMS County Class

CA4 1935 8 or more 8" guns + DP Secondary Battery
ex USS Wichita

CA5 1941
ex USS Baltimore

Technology Improvements

Spoiler

Anti-Aircraft Weaponry

AA1 Automatic Weapons

AA2 High Angle Mounts

AA3 Dual Purpose Mount

AA4 Automatic Mid-Caliber AA

AA5 Improved AA Directors

AA6 Tachymetric Directors

Anti-Submarine Warfare

ASW1 Depth Charges

ASW2 ASDIC

ASW3 Hedgehog

ASW4 Surface Radar

ASW5 Magnetic Anomaly Detection

ASW6 FIDO Mk 24 Mine

Torpedos

TP1 Whitehead Torpedo

TP2 Wet-Heater Torpedo

TP3 Electric Torpedo

TP4 Compressed Oxygen Torpedo

TP5 Homing Torpedos

Destroyers & Submarines

Haven't gotten around to actually breaking these up into reasonably distinct 'steps' for technology or working out all the connections this tech tree would have, suggestions and such welcome.

 

[Cpack]

I will mod definately a lot more units in, for example escort ships (Torbedo boats, Frigates and Corvettes)

That's very easy. My biggest concern in HOI4 (similar to HOI1-3) is how to teach the AI to use them properly?

- Escorts shouldn't mix up in fleets with capitals
- Escorts should patrol for subhunting
- Escorts should protect convoy lines
- Escorts should avoid any engagement with enemy fleets.....

Hopefully HOI 4 offers some good ways to easily mod this in.

 

[Le_Carabinier]

So I sketched out an idea of a tech tree, nothing set in stone of course but trying to anchor everything in actual ships and shifts in technology or design, going to be sticking to my previous outlines of battleships and carriers but also added in some other bits and pieces.

Battleships

Spoiler

BB1 Dreadnoughts 1906 as you describe them splits off into Super-Dreads and Battlecruisers
New Yorks and Nevadas would fit here due to firepower and speed deficiencies.

BB2 Super Dreadnoughts 1912 ( tier 2 )
Defining features, notable improvements in speed, firepower and combat range but a fair bit more expensive
Queen E defines this class, Ise, the Pennsylvania to Tennessee classes fit here nicely

BC2 WWI Battlecruiser 1910 ( tier 2 )
Defining features, very fast, lots of firepower, poorly protected
Kongo, 'Splended cats', Hood

BB3 Post-Jutland/Washington Treaty 1922 Battleships ( tier 3 )
Defining features much improved vertical protection, mild improvements elsewhere, mild cost increase
Nelsons, Colorados, Nagatos

BC3 Post-Jutland/Washington Treaty 1922 Battlecruisers ( tier 3 )
Defining feature, notably better protection, notably expensive
Hood if it got the deck armor promised

BB4 Fast battleship 1934 ( tier 4, unifies battlecruisers and battleships into a single tree )
Defining feature, much more speed, mild improvements to firepower and armor, AA firepower can start to be powerful here without refits.
KGV, Bismark

BB5 Fast battleship 1939 ( tier 5 )
Defining feature, mild improvements in all main categories, AA firepower is much improved, somewhat more expensive.
SoDak, North Carolinas, Lion class, Iowas would be an improved variant ( as they were essentially stretched SoDaks )

SBB Heavy Battleship 1939 ( tier 5)
Defining features, large improvements in firepower and armor, AA firepower is much improved much more expensive
Yamato ( while they didn't have the AA firepower it's hard to imagine poor AA as being a defining feature of this type of ship so much as being due to the issues with Japanese AA )

Carriers

Spoiler

CV1 ~1916
Grants access to CVE essentially ( unless there's actually a civilian ship related tech to tie this in with ) ex HMS Argus
+ BB1 tech grants access to a CVL ex HMS Eagle

CV2 ~1918
Grants access to CVE ex HMS Hermes
+ BC2 tech grants access to CVL ex HMS Furious

CV3~1924
Grants access to CVE ex none
Grants access to CVL ex IJN Ryūjō
+BC3 tech grants access to CV ex USN Lexington, IJN Kaga

CV4~1934
Grants access to CVE ex none
Grants access to CVL ex USS Ranger, IJN Sōryū
+BC3 tech Grants access to CV ex HMS Arc Royal, USS Yorktown
CVA ( armored carrier ) Perhaps linked to some advancement in AA? ex HMS Illustrious

CV5~1940
Grants access to CVE ex HMS Avenger
Grants access to CVL ex HMS Colossus,
Grants access to CV ex USS Essex, HMS Audacious, IJN Shōkaku
CVA IJN Taiho

CV6 ~1943
Grants access to CVE ex HMS Avenger
Grants access to CVL ex USS Saipan,
Grants access to CV ex USS Midway, HMS Malta

Cruisers

Spoiler

CL1 1909 6 or more 5-6" guns
ex HMS Town Class

CL2 1916 + torpedoes
ex HMS Danae Class

CL3 1930 8 or more 6" guns, turreted, directors and dedicated AA guns
ex HMS Leander Class

CL4 1937 Main guns DP AA guns
ex HMS Dido Class

CL5 1941 8 or more 6" main guns + 8 or more DP guns
ex HMS Minotaur Class

AC1 1902 4 or more 7-8" main guns
ex HMS Devonshire Class

CA2 1916 6 or more 7-8" main guns
ex HMS Hawkins Class

CA3 1924 8 or more 8" main guns
ex HMS County Class

CA4 1935 8 or more 8" guns + DP Secondary Battery
ex USS Wichita

CA5 1941
ex USS Baltimore

Technology Improvements

Spoiler

Anti-Aircraft Weaponry

AA1 Automatic Weapons

AA2 High Angle Mounts

AA3 Dual Purpose Mount

AA4 Automatic Mid-Caliber AA

AA5 Improved AA Directors

AA6 Tachymetric Directors

Anti-Submarine Warfare

ASW1 Depth Charges

ASW2 ASDIC

ASW3 Hedgehog

ASW4 Surface Radar

ASW5 Magnetic Anomaly Detection

ASW6 FIDO Mk 24 Mine

Torpedos

TP1 Whitehead Torpedo

TP2 Wet-Heater Torpedo

TP3 Electric Torpedo

TP4 Compressed Oxygen Torpedo

TP5 Homing Torpedos

Destroyers & Submarines

Haven't gotten around to actually breaking these up into reasonably distinct 'steps' for technology or working out all the connections this tech tree would have, suggestions and such welcome.

Even if it requires us to squeeze reality into a pre-conceived box, a remodelled tech tree has to be divided in homogenoues columns.
The current tree goes 1922 - 1936 - 1940 - 1944, with not every ship type having a ship on every column. Adding a 1914 column would be good, but your proposal, while realistic, would need a huge number of columns, and would complicate things a lot more than needed.

The original tree made by Paradox is mostly good in its current form : in my opinion, it simply needs one more column in the left, and an additional BC slot, in 1936.
The rest is flavour, and can be modded without any effect on gameplay and balance.

 

[druebey1]

I will mod definately a lot more units in, for example escort ships (Torbedo boats, Frigates and Corvettes)

That's very easy. My biggest concern in HOI4 (similar to HOI1-3) is how to teach the AI to use them properly?

- Escorts shouldn't mix up in fleets with capitals
- Escorts should patrol for subhunting
- Escorts should protect convoy lines
- Escorts should avoid any engagement with enemy fleets.....

Hopefully HOI 4 offers some good ways to easily mod this in.

@Axe99 I believe you have someone to help you with the mod, or visa versa ... Just saw this and was like DUDE that is awesome that others are thinking same way you are

 

[Axe99]

So I sketched out an idea of a tech tree, nothing set in stone of course but trying to anchor everything in actual ships and shifts in technology or design, going to be sticking to my previous outlines of battleships and carriers but also added in some other bits and pieces.

Battleships

Spoiler

BB1 Dreadnoughts 1906 as you describe them splits off into Super-Dreads and Battlecruisers
New Yorks and Nevadas would fit here due to firepower and speed deficiencies.

BB2 Super Dreadnoughts 1912 ( tier 2 )
Defining features, notable improvements in speed, firepower and combat range but a fair bit more expensive
Queen E defines this class, Ise, the Pennsylvania to Tennessee classes fit here nicely

BC2 WWI Battlecruiser 1910 ( tier 2 )
Defining features, very fast, lots of firepower, poorly protected
Kongo, 'Splended cats', Hood

BB3 Post-Jutland/Washington Treaty 1922 Battleships ( tier 3 )
Defining features much improved vertical protection, mild improvements elsewhere, mild cost increase
Nelsons, Colorados, Nagatos

BC3 Post-Jutland/Washington Treaty 1922 Battlecruisers ( tier 3 )
Defining feature, notably better protection, notably expensive
Hood if it got the deck armor promised

BB4 Fast battleship 1934 ( tier 4, unifies battlecruisers and battleships into a single tree )
Defining feature, much more speed, mild improvements to firepower and armor, AA firepower can start to be powerful here without refits.
KGV, Bismark

BB5 Fast battleship 1939 ( tier 5 )
Defining feature, mild improvements in all main categories, AA firepower is much improved, somewhat more expensive.
SoDak, North Carolinas, Lion class, Iowas would be an improved variant ( as they were essentially stretched SoDaks )

SBB Heavy Battleship 1939 ( tier 5)
Defining features, large improvements in firepower and armor, AA firepower is much improved much more expensive
Yamato ( while they didn't have the AA firepower it's hard to imagine poor AA as being a defining feature of this type of ship so much as being due to the issues with Japanese AA )

Carriers

Spoiler

CV1 ~1916
Grants access to CVE essentially ( unless there's actually a civilian ship related tech to tie this in with ) ex HMS Argus
+ BB1 tech grants access to a CVL ex HMS Eagle

CV2 ~1918
Grants access to CVE ex HMS Hermes
+ BC2 tech grants access to CVL ex HMS Furious

CV3~1924
Grants access to CVE ex none
Grants access to CVL ex IJN Ryūjō
+BC3 tech grants access to CV ex USN Lexington, IJN Kaga

CV4~1934
Grants access to CVE ex none
Grants access to CVL ex USS Ranger, IJN Sōryū
+BC3 tech Grants access to CV ex HMS Arc Royal, USS Yorktown
CVA ( armored carrier ) Perhaps linked to some advancement in AA? ex HMS Illustrious

CV5~1940
Grants access to CVE ex HMS Avenger
Grants access to CVL ex HMS Colossus,
Grants access to CV ex USS Essex, HMS Audacious, IJN Shōkaku
CVA IJN Taiho

CV6 ~1943
Grants access to CVE ex HMS Avenger
Grants access to CVL ex USS Saipan,
Grants access to CV ex USS Midway, HMS Malta

Cruisers

Spoiler

CL1 1909 6 or more 5-6" guns
ex HMS Town Class

CL2 1916 + torpedoes
ex HMS Danae Class

CL3 1930 8 or more 6" guns, turreted, directors and dedicated AA guns
ex HMS Leander Class

CL4 1937 Main guns DP AA guns
ex HMS Dido Class

CL5 1941 8 or more 6" main guns + 8 or more DP guns
ex HMS Minotaur Class

AC1 1902 4 or more 7-8" main guns
ex HMS Devonshire Class

CA2 1916 6 or more 7-8" main guns
ex HMS Hawkins Class

CA3 1924 8 or more 8" main guns
ex HMS County Class

CA4 1935 8 or more 8" guns + DP Secondary Battery
ex USS Wichita

CA5 1941
ex USS Baltimore

Technology Improvements

Spoiler

Anti-Aircraft Weaponry

AA1 Automatic Weapons

AA2 High Angle Mounts

AA3 Dual Purpose Mount

AA4 Automatic Mid-Caliber AA

AA5 Improved AA Directors

AA6 Tachymetric Directors

Anti-Submarine Warfare

ASW1 Depth Charges

ASW2 ASDIC

ASW3 Hedgehog

ASW4 Surface Radar

ASW5 Magnetic Anomaly Detection

ASW6 FIDO Mk 24 Mine

Torpedos

TP1 Whitehead Torpedo

TP2 Wet-Heater Torpedo

TP3 Electric Torpedo

TP4 Compressed Oxygen Torpedo

TP5 Homing Torpedos

Destroyers & Submarines

Haven't gotten around to actually breaking these up into reasonably distinct 'steps' for technology or working out all the connections this tech tree would have, suggestions and such welcome.

Love your work . Like Le_Caribinier says, I think there'll be some benefit (both for understandability, and for making it work with the UI in-game) in deciding on fixed columns (so, for example, while historically having lots of years in there is appropriate, if we get too carried away, it's going to be difficult to navigate in-game, and a bit painful to make work as well).

Here's a very quick and dirty mock-up of something like what you've put together (apologies, and please point out if I've missed anything), shoe-horned into specific years:

There might be a need to be a bit flexible with the definitions (as I don't think the Hippers had much in the way of a DP second battery, although could be wrong), but the general approach looks tops . If I've missed anything, just say the word. I added in a CL6 and CA6, and a CB - the CA6 would be like the Des Moines class - 8" guns, but rapid firing, and the CA6 like Worcestor (rapid firing 6"), with the CB being an Alaska. Not sure whether to link in the Alaska after CA4 or CA5 though - I've put it up there after CA5, but on reflection feel it's more a parallel development, so should be researchable after CA4.

A thought on layout - if we changed 1906 to 1912, we could combine the 1906-1912-1916 columns into two columns - would that be too offensive to sensibilities? It does start CVs off a bit early.

Also, on CV2, given the base deck space will increase with each model (so it's not like HoI3, where a CV1 could carry as many aircraft as a CV3), is it worth having a proper CV option there - while the Furious only had 37 aircraft, that was a decent amount for a CV of that vintage? Only only other thought is perhaps making the tech requirement for CV1 a bit 'lighter', maybe AC1 instead? Not a biggy, as unless a minor nation's going nuts on building a capital ship fleet, I can't see the early links being used, but no harm in getting them as good as we can.

I will mod definately a lot more units in, for example escort ships (Torbedo boats, Frigates and Corvettes)

That's very easy. My biggest concern in HOI4 (similar to HOI1-3) is how to teach the AI to use them properly?

- Escorts shouldn't mix up in fleets with capitals
- Escorts should patrol for subhunting
- Escorts should protect convoy lines
- Escorts should avoid any engagement with enemy fleets.....

Hopefully HOI 4 offers some good ways to easily mod this in.

It looks like there's a 'convoy escort' naval mission, and all being well we'll be able to tell the game to send ships of that class on the mission. The only question is whether the game tells DDs to do convoy escort from parts we can mod or not. I think there's a fair chance we'll be able to get to it though. If we can, then hopefully we can send CVEs and DEs/Corvettes/Trawlers (if I get that carried away) on convoy escort, and tell destroyers to focus on protecting the fleet. If we're really lucky, and can have conditional mission orders, then we might be able to tell destroyers to focus on convoy escort when there's no enough traditional escorts, and then be freed up for fleet duty later, but that's me being optimistic, we might be lucky to get that granular. I'm very much focussed on behaviour though - the whole point of any mod I'll be involved in will be a combination of improved plausibility/detail while also still fun. Having 300 DEs running willy-nilly about the map doing silly things would be neither, in which case I'd drop that idea and focus on something else. That said, I do think for things like DEs, it will be be possible and hopefully fairly straightforward.

@Axe99 I believe you have someone to help you with the mod, or visa versa ... Just saw this and was like DUDE that is awesome that others are thinking same way you are

Thanks for the encouragement .

 

[Amur_Tiger]

Even if it requires us to squeeze reality into a pre-conceived box, a remodelled tech tree has to be divided in homogenoues columns.
The current tree goes 1922 - 1936 - 1940 - 1944, with not every ship type having a ship on every column. Adding a 1914 column would be good, but your proposal, while realistic, would need a huge number of columns, and would complicate things a lot more than needed.

The original tree made by Paradox is mostly good in its current form : in my opinion, it simply needs one more column in the left, and an additional BC slot, in 1936.
The rest is flavour, and can be modded without any effect on gameplay and balance.

I've made a few assumptions in arranging that set of techs, one of which being that you can have different years assigned to things in the same column, refer to some of the screenshots of the naval trees and you'll note that the columns aren't divided up into years in nearly so strict a manner allowing each column to have things from different years ( presumably revealed in mouse-over tooltips ). Another is that I'm arranging the list from the perspective of reaching maximum reasonable detail and so representing every reasonably significant evolution in ships in the earlier 20th century, many of these steps could be merged together as certain evolutionary steps aren't too meaningful by WW2 as technology has evolved so far past it.

 

[Amur_Tiger]

Love your work . Like Le_Caribinier says, I think there'll be some benefit (both for understandability, and for making it work with the UI in-game) in deciding on fixed columns (so, for example, while historically having lots of years in there is appropriate, if we get too carried away, it's going to be difficult to navigate in-game, and a bit painful to make work as well).

Here's a very quick and dirty mock-up of something like what you've put together (apologies, and please point out if I've missed anything), shoe-horned into specific years:

View attachment 147789

There might be a need to be a bit flexible with the definitions (as I don't think the Hippers had much in the way of a DP second battery, although could be wrong), but the general approach looks tops . If I've missed anything, just say the word. I added in a CL6 and CA6, and a CB - the CA6 would be like the Des Moines class - 8" guns, but rapid firing, and the CA6 like Worcestor (rapid firing 6"), with the CB being an Alaska. Not sure whether to link in the Alaska after CA4 or CA5 though - I've put it up there after CA5, but on reflection feel it's more a parallel development, so should be researchable after CA4.

A thought on layout - if we changed 1906 to 1912, we could combine the 1906-1912-1916 columns into two columns - would that be too offensive to sensibilities? It does start CVs off a bit early.

Also, on CV2, given the base deck space will increase with each model (so it's not like HoI3, where a CV1 could carry as many aircraft as a CV3), is it worth having a proper CV option there - while the Furious only had 37 aircraft, that was a decent amount for a CV of that vintage? Only only other thought is perhaps making the tech requirement for CV1 a bit 'lighter', maybe AC1 instead? Not a biggy, as unless a minor nation's going nuts on building a capital ship fleet, I can't see the early links being used, but no harm in getting them as good as we can.

As I put in my post above I made a few assumptions in putting the list together and there's a fair bit of merging that could work and I don't see anything particularly wrong with the way you've laid things out, though if push came to shove I'd prefer to merge CV1 and CV2 and give it a big huge tech cost then.

With regards to defining tech steps and how certain ships will fit in, there's always going to be some contrarian ships that won't fit the mold very well and the Germans certainly provide a few of them. That said I think the Hipper fits in well enough, they had a reasonable battery of properly mounted heavy AA guns that could be considered a poor-man's DP. This also strikes pretty close to a core principal I'd like to see which is to move away from the generic 'linear improvement' model for tech where every step improves all features by x% and towards a 'lumpy improvement' model where each step is defined in large improvements in particular areas and smaller improvements elsewhere. This is part of what kept classes like the Queen E and even R class dangerous even if they lacked the protection and speed that had come with later generations of battleships.

 

[Axe99]

Aye, sorry, I wasn't suggesting the Hipper didn't belong . I think there's value in waiting until we've got our hands on the final game in action, and getting a feel for how all the different stats work with each other before getting too prescriptive, but I do like your idea of each tech step being a big increase in a particular stat, and smaller increases in others.

 

[Cpack]

Yea, hopefully things can be done.

It's not only teaching the AI to use them properly, but also to know when to produce what......that's the challenge.

 

[Axe99]

Yea, hopefully things can be done.

It's not only teaching the AI to use them properly, but also to know when to produce what......that's the challenge.

From memory, HoI3 had some pretty decent 'if X then use Y production ratios' set-ups, from memory, so unless they go backwards here (and PDS has been moving forwards at a good clip with moddability so far, so I don't expect that), I think the bigger challenge will be getting them to use things properly. It shouldn't be hard for escorts, but things like coastal defence ships, or MTBs might be a bit tougher.

 

[Cpack]

From memory, HoI3 had some pretty decent 'if X then use Y production ratios' set-ups, from memory, so unless they go backwards here (and PDS has been moving forwards at a good clip with moddability so far, so I don't expect that), I think the bigger challenge will be getting them to use things properly. It shouldn't be hard for escorts, but things like coastal defence ships, or MTBs might be a bit tougher.

Also one of may favourite things to mod in are "naval reconnaisance seaplanes". For fighting submarines, convoys and for recon missions.
I'm curious how they can be implemented properly

Also CVE, Auxiliary Cruisers and Submarine cruisers

 

[Amur_Tiger]

Also one of may favourite things to mod in are "naval reconnaisance seaplanes". For fighting submarines, convoys and for recon missions.
I'm curious how they can be implemented properly

Also CVE, Auxiliary Cruisers and Submarine cruisers

That actually brings up one of the aspects of early naval aviation that I'd like to have play out, where early air wings lack ( up to 1922 ) lack the capability to meaningfully target ships and are mainly used for their spotting capability.

 

[Porkman]

Also one of may favourite things to mod in are "naval reconnaisance seaplanes". For fighting submarines, convoys and for recon missions.
I'm curious how they can be implemented properly

Also CVE, Auxiliary Cruisers and Submarine cruisers

It's not hard, but they won't do it.

Have a few of them, base them on a boat or an island, tell them to "recon," they fly around in the air and have a chance to detect ships directly, as well as giving a detection bonus to all ships in the zone.

Simple...

But since recon is one of those not so flashy things like logistics... it's out.

 

[Axe99]

Also one of may favourite things to mod in are "naval reconnaisance seaplanes". For fighting submarines, convoys and for recon missions.
I'm curious how they can be implemented properly

Also CVE, Auxiliary Cruisers and Submarine cruisers

AMCs (Auxiliary Cruisers) and CVEs are definitely part of my plans, as they were effectively other types of convoy escorts (although once the convoys are already well-escorted, hopefully it'll be possible to tell the AI to use CVEs to support ground troops as well, a la the landings at Lleyte, but I don't think it's the end of the world if we can't get it to do that), and I've got some learning to do on the subs, but my main motivation is getting as good-as-possible Battle of the Atlantic, and giving Germany the option of building cruiser submarines earlier (perhaps at a risk of raising world tension) sounds like a good idea .

As for recon aircraft and seaplanes, the US, UK and Japan all had a number of seaplane tenders/carriers, and most of their capital ships also mounted seaplanes (although the UK look like they removed a lot of the planes they had on their CLs at least later in the war, perhaps because they had enough carrier aircraft to cover them? I want to look into this more) and I'm keen for them to make the cut (need more Catalinas ).

It's not hard, but they won't do it.

Have a few of them, base them on a boat or an island, tell them to "recon," they fly around in the air and have a chance to detect ships directly, as well as giving a detection bonus to all ships in the zone.

Simple...

But since recon is one of those not so flashy things like logistics... it's out.

As long as we have the levers to do it ourself, it'll be alright. Hopefully, like you say, the levers will be easy (so it'll be easy to create a ship model that only takes seaplanes, and a ship with seaplanes attached is basically constantly flying recon missions). I want to look into it more, but asking the question in case you have any thoughts on it - did most seaplanes/float planes operate from seaplane tenders (even if it was at a port, was their a seaplane/floatplane support ship there), or is it worth trying to get seaplanes to be able to operate out of ports of a certain size?

 

[Cpack]

I like the Short Sunderlands in the Atlantic, the Catalinas in the Pacific. Also the Bv-138 and the H6K Mavis, H8K Emily

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

I can agree to that, provided that the upgrade system is robust enough to represent 7yrs of wartime upgrading.

Actually, I think ideally stuff like radar, light AA and ASW equipment would be manufactured in military factories as sets and then drawn by the ships just like divisions draw tanks and infantry arms. For example, all CLs, DDs and smaller light vessels would attempt to draw one ASW set from stockpiles. Radars could be 1 for DDs, 2 for cruisers and carriers and 3 for capital ships. Allocation of light AA something like tech tier by date (1-4) times 'n' rounded up (where 'n' is 0.5 for DD, 1 for CL/CA/CVL and 1.5 for BB/BC/CB/CV and 2x for SHBB). So 1937 SHBB would draw 6 light AA sets while 1922 DD would draw just one due to lack of deck space.

Other than early tier light AA and ASW, which could just use steel, these should be fairly rare material intensive to manufacture to represent the increasing reliance on sophisticated electronics.

On the 1918 level, what would your thoughts be on having it at 1915, giving a clean break between Pre and Post-Jutland designs?

Main reason I made it 1918 was because of Argus, hence all types of ships present.

I was probably going to have a pre-Dreadnought BB tier and the AC as the first tier of the CA line (probably at a similar time period) just to keep things simple, at a 1900 or so column of the tech tree, with CAs skipping 1918. There were one or two very early CLs still floating around in 1936-48, so was probably going to have a CL1 in 1900 as well, as I think we'll need something to represent the pre-dreadnought era for the larger ships (I can't see any need for a pre-WW1 DD or SS tier, or anything smaller).

I was also going to have a separate line for coastal defence ships (particularly if it's possible to give that class a bonus in coastal waters, but also because they weren't quite the same as ACs, particularly the later models - deffo a 1900 and 1918/15 tier, and maybe a later one, depending on how different the Illmarinen looks to the Sverige class) and monitors (probably just two points, 1915 and 1937)

AC(R) should be tier 1 BC if the main tech tree is extended that far back, as that's where BCs were conseptually developed from. Heavy cruiser sprung as uparmed "super" light cruiser (or in case of USN, were actually considered light cruisers early on). That being said, you'll run into much of the same problems if you try to cram all ACs as same type of ship than you would with the kind of catch-all I proposed. Compare the Greek Averof to some of the ACs Japanese still had around as training ships (IIRC one, Izumo maybe, served as China station flagship in Shanghai).

I suppose there could, or rather should, be at least two types of relatively heavily armed and protected de-facto coastal ships, one smaller to represent Japanese ACs and less beefy types of coastal defence ships (as found in Norwegian and probably South American navies) and one that represents beefier ACs, pre-dreadnoughts and Sverige class and even the British 15-in monitors.

And at least for CL and DD, 1940 technology should be preserved as those did served for most of the war.

They were produced during the war. But take the British ships for example. All the wartime fleet destroyers until Battles were essentially repeats of pre-war J class with the heavier armament being exchanged for lighter armament and greater fuel capacity to account for greater fleet cruising speeds (20 knots). Sophistication of machinery and armament remained behind even pre-war US DDs (such as Sims class) throughout. And they were fully aware of this, Brown flat out states that Engineer-in-Chief did not want to make a switch to more capable machinery in middle of a war. Same thing with CLs really. They were just repeats of Didos and Fijis.

 

[Axe99]

Cheers for your thoughts Antediluvian Monster . Wasn't sleeping well last night and killed some of the awake time musing over different ways to mod in decommissioning ships (it dawned on me that a really simple approach could be to use events to cover it, as we already know which ships were decommissioned, and then have a choice whether they want to decommission them for some kind of bonus, or keep them around). Also liked someone's thoughts earlier of a more flexible mechanic that could give a boost to a ship's production, and then there's the "probably not possible but I can dream" mechanic of having wear and tear modelled in the ship, combined with supply use, that at some point it would make more sense to retire the vessel, but that'd take a lot of work and good familiarity with what's possible at the very least, and possible just not be a goer.

Actually, I think ideally stuff like radar, light AA and ASW equipment would be manufactured in military factories as sets and then drawn by the ships just like divisions draw tanks and infantry arms. For example, all CLs, DDs and smaller light vessels would attempt to draw one ASW set from stockpiles. Radars could be 1 for DDs, 2 for cruisers and carriers and 3 for capital ships. Allocation of light AA something like tech tier by date (1-4) times 'n' rounded up (where 'n' is 0.5 for DD, 1 for CL/CA/CVL and 1.5 for BB/BC/CB/CV and 2x for SHBB). So 1937 SHBB would draw 6 light AA sets while 1922 DD would draw just one due to lack of deck space.

Other than early tier light AA and ASW, which could just use steel, these should be fairly rare material intensive to manufacture to represent the increasing reliance on sophisticated electronics.

I like this thinking. What was on my mind as a 'best case' scenario (but deffo speak up if you disagree) was a way to send ships 'back to the dockyard' for whatever was added on (as opposed to ships magically sprouting radar and AA in the middle of the Pacific), so there'd be no way for a ship to improve in the game unless you went back to a port, then pressed a button on the unit window, which took the unit out of play and put it in the production queue, after selecting which variant of the model it was being improved to (with different things taking different times to improve, so changing to a variant with more light AA would be quick and cheap, while changing to a variant with new engines would take a long time, and likely not be something that'd be considered. Possibly pie-in-the-sky stuff, and there'd need to be some way to handle multiple ships at once, as some of the destroyer classes had widespread changes in armament that'd be pretty painful to do individually in the UI. There's also the chance that just taking the ships back to the dockyard would be too much as well.

Another approach could be like you're suggesting (so have ships require so much of X equipment for whatever they're using, up to and including whatever capacity their current variant/model allowed, with ships with reduced equipment functioning sub-optimally, like divisions, but perhaps have it so that the ships could only draw the equipment in a (friendly - ie, in the faction's core, not occupied as part of the current war) port of sufficient size.

Main reason I made it 1918 was because of Argus, hence all types of ships present.

That's a good reason .

AC(R) should be tier 1 BC if the main tech tree is extended that far back, as that's where BCs were conseptually developed from. Heavy cruiser sprung as uparmed "super" light cruiser (or in case of USN, were actually considered light cruisers early on). That being said, you'll run into much of the same problems if you try to cram all ACs as same type of ship than you would with the kind of catch-all I proposed. Compare the Greek Averof to some of the ACs Japanese still had around as training ships (IIRC one, Izumo maybe, served as China station flagship in Shanghai).

I suppose there could, or rather should, be at least two types of relatively heavily armed and protected de-facto coastal ships, one smaller to represent Japanese ACs and less beefy types of coastal defence ships (as found in Norwegian and probably South American navies) and one that represents beefier ACs, pre-dreadnoughts and Sverige class and even the British 15-in monitors.

So something more along these lines (please forgive the fugliness, it's quick'n'dirty so it's easy to change up and play out ideas with)? Note, if variants can roll together BB1 and BB2 (ie, if the variant model can sensibly handle something from Dreadnought to Queen Elizabeth), then I'd get rid of 1912 (as the variant system could presumably cope with the difference between CV1 and CV2 as well, which are really one slot too early on the tree. It'll depend on how it plays out, but there may be value in having a 1900 slot and putting another BB in there, as well as the AC.

I was thinking, however, that it may not be necessary to show all of these tiers in the tree. Maybe if we still only displayed 1922 as the first tier, but had access to these models from earlier times to enable appropriate starting OOBs? would cut down on the complexity of the UI, and I can't imagine there'd be any situations where players would be building models from prior to 1922. If we take that approach, then we can have as many pre-1922 tiers as necessary to get the appropriate spread of capability, as it won't create a messy UI.

 

[SchwarzKatze]

Crawling through Japanese archives led me to a discovery of the century: an extensive design document of a Japanese treaty battleship planned to be laid down in 1933 to replace the would-be "over-age" (a la over 20 years of age) Kongō-class, but was shelved due to London Naval Conference extending the holiday for another 5 years. It doesn't even have a page in English Wikipedia, but there's a Japanese one that listed it along with a competing design. Link

This is a collection of the University of Tokyo, where the ship's designer, Vice Admiral Hiraga Yuzuru, served as the president from 1938 until his death in 1943

Spoiler: These pics might not show up, in which case you'll need to browse the links below

Photo of the blueprint. Even the secondary guns are superfiring in order to save space.

Protection scheme. It has a very compact citadel in order to reduce the weight of armor in compliance of Washington Naval Treaty's limit of 35,000 tons

The top and side drawing
Model of the ship used during a meeting
Extensive documentation
If the links redirect you to the main page, click the big red button in the middle to access.

Specs of the ship in the documents:
Dimension
Length: 768' total, 760' at waterline
Beam: 110'
Draught: 30.6'
Standard displacement: 35,000 tons declared, 35,745 or 35,182 actual (I don't understand what's going on there)
Normal displacement: 39,200 tons
Full load displacement: 44,000 tons

Engine: 80,000 hp
Speed: 26.3 knots

Waterline armor: 15", 20 degrees angled
Turret armor: 19" above roller parts, 17" below
Citadel length: 321'

Armament
10×16" (40.6 cm) main guns, two triple and two dual turrets.
16×6" (15.2 cm) secondary guns, 8 single casemate-mounted low-angle version, 4 double turret-mounted high-angle version.
8×4.7" (12 cm) dual-purpose guns, 4 double turret-mounted on the superstructure, maybe exclusive AA guns as the drawing showed their firing angles with no depression.
2×24" (61 cm) torpedo tubes, not shown on drawings but they're placed 40 feet above the keel, and the ship's center of gravity is 36.29 feet above the keel so probably underwater.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

Crawling through Japanese archives led me to a discovery of the century: an extensive design document of a Japanese treaty battleship planned to be laid down in 1933 to replace the would-be "over-age" (a la over 20 years of age) Kongō-class, but was shelved due to London Naval Conference extending the holiday for another 5 years. It doesn't even have a page in English Wikipedia, but there's a Japanese one that listed it along with a competing design. Link

The Hiraga proposal for treaty BB is noted in at least Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1869–1945 and Battleships: Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II so discovery is a bold choise of word.

 

[SchwarzKatze]

The Hiraga proposal for treaty BB is noted in at least Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1869–1945 and Battleships: Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II so discovery is a bold choise of word.

I thought "discovery of the century" is pompous enough to show it's not serious
-----
Oh and it's partially due to the completeness of the documents, IIRC Japan burnt most of their blueprints when they surrendered, and this one wasn't affected because it's discarded and hence not really military secret.