-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Yes! The ships able to bombard vs the coastal batteries!
That means batterie efficiency should be implemented so they could make more damage by tech research and they should be able to get damage.
Infrastructure and some other buildings should get some hit too.
It would make sense to add very small sea provinces just outside the coast this would sort of simulate territorial water. The ai would not enter these waters on its own unless specific missions went there, and a large penalty to visibility would be applied to any ship entering that zone, submarines not included, doing recognizance with subs would be a must.
Coastal batteries would be logical, as they wont have to hava range of hundreds of kilometers. Using your old ships as a coastguard without immediately loosing them would now be possible.
No need to code places like Suez to be no-go areas, these places would be no-go because of a game mechanic instead. (Its possible to enter, but you'll get blown to pieces by coastal artillery)
It would be possible to simulate choke-points such as the previously mentioned gulf of Finland.
Just my 2 cents
Edit:
Coastal batteries would be logical, as they wont have to hava range of hundreds of kilometers. Using your old ships as a coastguard without immediately loosing them would now be possible.
No need to code places like Suez to be no-go areas, these places would be no-go because of a game mechanic instead. (Its possible to enter, but you'll get blown to pieces by coastal artillery)
It would be possible to simulate choke-points such as the previously mentioned gulf of Finland.
Just my 2 cents
Edit:
It's not that simple...Suez canal had no real coastal artillery. And in the gulf of Finland, the whole idea was exactly to enclose the gulf with guns in Estonia and in Finland. Coastal artillery hasn't a range of hundreds of kilometers but 30-40 are possible.
Suez wasn't programmed to absolutely not let any ship through in real life either, its just a channel, and why hostile navies did not try to penetrate is obvious. However, if someone did try, what would stop them, if not the military forces stationed there? So just pretend that coastal batteries also represent the local military.
How about a plane that has no attack value and low defense but has plenty of range and vision. That way UK/USA can have planes flying all around the Atlantic, Pacific scouting the oceans finding enemy fleets. Were any planes capable of doing this durring ww2? I know carriers did this in RL but you cant do that in the game, unless DH offers that.
Or possibly some sort of radar map for ships
. Sort of like the diplomatic/geography map views.
I really, really like this idea. Imagine sending your mine layers to mine an enemy port. It also makes Gallipoli possible. You could then have real shore bombardment (and a good reason to use carriers instead of battleships for it) dangerous beach defenses, ships hugging a friendly coast, realistic minefields, penalties for fighting in shallow water and mining enemy ports. (someone posted this in another thread but I'll post it again here) operation starvation I objected to it then because I couldn't see a way to do it with the engine but this makes it feasible. Destroyers might be able to destroy mines via a minesweeping mission and nations could expend IC to de mine friendly ports. Make it so regular transports are hyper vulnerable to attrition and enemy fire in these areas unless they have "dedicated landing craft brigade" attached. Maybe enemy artillery and mine research could determine lethality... I could go on...
I realize the AI would have to be told to avoid them and be taught to use the features that would be unlocked and that takes time and difficulty. That being said, this seems to solve at least 90% of the lethality problems of naval mines and artillery. The issue of them not being dangerous at all unless someone puts them selves in harms way. These provinces are a very easy way for the player to tell where "harm's way" is and avoid it or chance it at their discretion. Compared to real life it's not perfect, of course, but compared to vanilla, it seems like a great way to address how dangerous sending ships close to the coast was, while not barring half of the ocean to sea traffic. I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's superior to the current in game system in every single way possible.
Well done.
Last edited:
Besides these 2, I could only find 2 or 3 other examples (of ships actually being SUNK by coastal batteries) from 50 years of history...not a very powerful argument for inclusion. Plus, the "storming coastal batteries" part is the malus applied to amphibious assaults.
This makes no sense. What you should look for are examples of ships storming coastal batteries and NOT being sunk. Since the most common situation was that ships avoided to approach heavily defended areas. Many decisions during the war were based on that logic and are impossible to reproduce in the game. For instance you can just land in Helsinki directly as the Soviet Union.
Ships are unaffected by this malus completely.
In my opinion this whole coastal battery thing is beyond scope. Adding coastal sea provinces, putting up new modifiers and especially coding the AI to circumvent such provinces is a big effort with the reward being rather small. It adds too little compared to other things missing or not working properly.
My thoughts exactly.
Not really. At least the time and resources would be much better used on this than on those "achievements" or countless DDs about modding instead of new features. We just need a few new sea zones to simulate areas that were actually crucial IRL. Coastal batteries should be a great threat to enemy ships participating in attacks on that province. Sea mines are the only really tricky part from my point of view, which is why it might be a better idea to simulate them as a part of corridor-type sea provinces.
EDIT: Just something I found http://www.wlb-stuttgart.de/seekrieg/4111-bilder/hanko-300dpi.jpg That's quite a lot of minefields, no? Why aren't they in-game?
Last edited:
But there's no risk to it. Worst comes to worse the assault fails, but ships won't ever get damaged, you can bring them back every week for a year and there is absolutely no risk beyond what's provided by air and naval assets. As Amallric said, you have to show situation where an enemy fleet parked next to intact coastal artillery and came out unscathed. Very few people get injured each year trying to stab bears with knives, so I'm just going to make the conclusion that the activity obviously isn't all that dangerous. Artillery is easy to test during peace time. All the navies ran mock attacks on their own bases and all of them, (as evidenced by the extensive amount of anit naval artillery) decided that some guns on the ground was a good investment. I can't help thinking that they knew what they were doing, at least. Even if it's just deterrent. (like nukes)
Why don't we just assume that ships, while being in a seazone, stay outside the areas guarded by artillery? The zones are big enough anyways... At the same time though ships doing amphibious assaults or coastal bombardement should take damage similar to planes taking damage from flaks, dependant on the level of coastal forts.
Edit: Coastal bombardement should damage the forts of course. Maybe AoDs artillery bombardement is a good example.
Edit: Coastal bombardement should damage the forts of course. Maybe AoDs artillery bombardement is a good example.
Last edited:
Not in the case of the Gullf of Finland. The Finns and Estonians had been since 1918 or the 1920s developing mutual defense plans in case of renewed Russian aggression. Regarding the naval frontier coastal batteries performed a crucial role. You could effectively fuck up (read sink) every ship passing through into the western part of the Gulf of Finland by coastal battery fire from both Helsinki and Tallinn. In 1941-44 the Finnish island of Suursaari and the numerous naval minefields further greatly reduced any chance for the Red Banner Baltic Fleet to operate west of Suursaari. Only after Finland signed a truce and exited the war with the USSR could the Red Banner Baltic Fleet reign free again and "heroically" sink numerous German medical and civilian transports full of women and children and wounded men.
It would make sense to add very small sea provinces just outside the coast this would sort of simulate territorial water. The ai would not enter these waters on its own unless specific missions went there, and a large penalty to visibility would be applied to any ship entering that zone, submarines not included, doing recognizance with subs would be a must.
Coastal batteries would be logical, as they wont have to hava range of hundreds of kilometers. Using your old ships as a coastguard without immediately loosing them would now be possible.
No need to code places like Suez to be no-go areas, these places would be no-go because of a game mechanic instead. (Its possible to enter, but you'll get blown to pieces by coastal artillery)
It would be possible to simulate choke-points such as the previously mentioned gulf of Finland.
Just my 2 cents
Edit:
Seconded
Granted, but that can be done with the said straight mechanic already employed at the big canals and choke points... Unfortunately those restrictions aren't dynamic, afaik so they can only be used in certain areas in which one can assume the adjacent countries have a big desire in controlling them.
This is what I've been trying to tell the DH devs for a long time now, and the E3 map devs before that. The blockade on the Red Banner Baltic Fleet can be simulated by adding one more seazone to the Gulf of Finland (IMO it should have at least 2 or 3 in total) dependent on the new province I've been proposing, the island of Suursaari, similar to the way the Danish Straits are dependent on Copenhagen, the Gibraltar Strait is dependent on Gibraltar etc. Historically especially in 1941-44 the island played a big role in limiting the Russians' naval movements (which is also why the Germans tried to invade it from the Finns after the truce). So far the DH team hasn't listened though.
The only problem is that IRL you needed batteries on both sides to close the gulf. No way to do that with this engine I fear.
Not necessarily. If you look at the map I linked in post #34 in this thread, you'll see that the Juminda minefield blocks access to the southern parts of the Gulf of Finland right after Suursaari, forcing anyone going west right into the arms of Finnish coastal batteries and Finnish and German vessels.
I think my "Suursaari solution" is the best solution to this particular problem. The only issue I see is that the Juminda minefield didn't exist before 1941. But that isn't a real problem since in 1914-1917 (aka most of the WWI scenario) Finland is a Grand Duchy within the Russian Empire. And when Finland breaks away the Russian navy should be defunct anyway (Russian civil war), and if it isn't, they can easily seize the island at this time. Same thing in the Winter War, the island should be easy to capture. Only once the Finns re-take in the Cont.War should it become difficult to take by the enemy and the FIN AI/player should build a fort or two there.
It's not perfect, but I can't think of much better ideas that would be possible within the game's engine than this..