No Pre-Dreadnought BB or Aircraft Carrier?

[daemonofdecay]

I would love to see a recon element in naval combat, with carriers giving a massive bonus as well as some torpedo attack (assuming it's still seperate from fire). I would love to see at least two classes of carrier, one for early seaplane tenders and conversions and one for early fleet carriers. I'd love to see meaningful submarines. But not as much as I'd like to see a well balanced game that's fun to play.

The former (the recon bit) sounds like it should be easily doable (if it isn't already in game in some form?). I mean if you have the same kind of "recon" factor for land combat, just extrapolate that out for naval combat, then give carriers the right stats to reflect their performance during this period: high recon, high defense, and medium-low damage. Then they would play a more "support" role in naval combat (in the same way planes do for land combat).

 

[TheLand]

Between 1860 (HMS Warrior) and the end of the pre-Dreadnoughts, each successive generation of battleships had slightly larger guns than the previous one, slightly thicker armour, and slightly more powerful engines of the same general design. The major changes in design were discarding sails and changing from broadside guns to turrets.

To me, it would seem logical to represent the fairly small changes between pre-dreadnought classes with stat boosts, rather than a class change. Dreadnoughts, widely acknowledged as rendering existing ships obsolete, need a separate class.

Why bother with dreadnoughts as a separate class then? Warships changed far more between 1860 and 1900 than they did between 1900 and 1910...

 

[dnalor87]

Finally they were in V1 and worked. So why would they suddenly make the game less detailed now?

After having read the V2 Tech Guide thoroughly, I have found no mention of submarines or aircraft carriers. I think Paradox is holding back on the good stuff and will eventually include them in a later expansion which is for us to buy or hopefully for someone to include in a mod.

 

[unmerged(84406)]

Why bother with dreadnoughts as a separate class then? Warships changed far more between 1860 and 1900 than they did between 1900 and 1910...

Even if true that is not relevant - what is relevant is that in 1910 battleships designed in 1900 were considered obsolete - not fit to stand in the line of battle. For example the German Deutschland class the first of which entered service in August 1906 (shortly before HMS Dreadnought) were dubbed 'five-minute ships' by the German Navy, that being the time it was believed they could survive if pitted against dreadnoughts.

HMS Dreadnought render all existing battleships obsolete and this had far reaching - and potentially game altering - consequences. Germany started a major naval build up in 1898 to rival the British Fleet.
If HMS Dreadnought had been commissioned in say 1896 this would have significant effects - the German build up would have been entirely of dreadnoughts - which in turn would have meant that in 1914 instead of 1/2 the German fleet being obsolete it would all have been modern. If she had been commissioned later say 1910 then the Germans may well have abandoned their policy of rivalling the Royal Navy, which could in turn have resulted in the UK not being in WWI or even being on the German side.

 

[Baneslave]

After having read the V2 Tech Guide thoroughly, I have found no mention of submarines or aircraft carriers. I think Paradox is holding back on the good stuff and will eventually include them in a later expansion which is for us to buy or hopefully for someone to include in a mod.

Most likely Paradox chose to cut some features to make the rest work better. This, after HoI3, is probably good idea. And as these features were cut, submarines and carriers couldn't be reasonably be represented with current engine.

 

[Meanmanturbo]

Most likely Paradox chose to cut some features to make the rest work better. This, after HoI3, is probably good idea. And as these features were cut, submarines and carriers couldn't be reasonably be represented with current engine.

Yeah, streamlinging has been a key word for Vicky 2. It looks like they have focused on using stuff that works with the system they have. Vicky 1 had a lot of options in the naval department but the system was to primitive for all the options to make any real sense. Mine sweepers, mine layers, torpedo boats, a nice for flavor, but game mechanic wise just a lot of micro that didnt contribute any real strategy in that primitive system. So what it looks like they have done in Vicky 2 is that they have focused on a few options which will all have a large impact on the simpler (EU 3 based?) naval system it looks like they have implemented here. Just hope that there is a reason to have escorts and that there is diminishing returns on stack sizes. The 50 vs 50 dread-slugfests taking months of Vicky 1 were quite imersion breaking.

 

[TheLand]

HMS Dreadnought render all existing battleships obsolete and this had far reaching - and potentially game altering - consequences.

That's the spin which emanated from both British and German navies as they desperately tried to persuade their parliaments to vote them more money for more ships!

In reality Dreadnought was a somewhat more incremental improvement than that spin suggests. 10x12-in guns is not so vastly different from 4x12-in and 8x9.2-in given 1905 fire control technology (more different given 1915 fire control but 1905 is not 1915!)

The additional speed was useful; but revolutionary? probably not.

If HMS Dreadnought had been commissioned in say 1896 this would have significant effects

Well the battleships that were commissioned in 1896 weren't built because the navies of the time had stupidly failed to appreciate the possibilities of dreadnought-building - they were a response to the rapidly developing technological and strategic situation....

A battleship built in 1890 was pretty much as obsolete in 1900 as one built in 1900 was in 1910, "dreadnought revolution" or not...

 

[FOARP]

because its not a wargame?

Jeez Louise! Will people stop saying this! Here's a quick test as to what type of game it is: go on over to the AAR section and have a look at what the Beta testers and Singleton Moseby are up to - every one of them has had at least one war, and most have spent more than half their time either at war or planning for one. So tell me, are you still saying that V2 is "not a war game"? Think about it for a second, please!

 

[A_Dane]

I think when people say "it's not a wargame", they mean that the primary focus isn't warfare.

HOI3 is a wargame, as it's main focus is warfare. But i wouldn't call this a war game, war is however neccesary for it to accurately present the Era...

 

[unmerged(84406)]

That's the spin which emanated from both British and German navies as they desperately tried to persuade their parliaments to vote them more money for more ships!

In reality Dreadnought was a somewhat more incremental improvement than that spin suggests. 10x12-in guns is not so vastly different from 4x12-in and 8x9.2-in given 1905 fire control technology (more different given 1915 fire control but 1905 is not 1915!)

Guns
HMS Dreadnought 10 12in - plus 27 3in
SMS Deutschland 4 11in - plus 14 7in and 22 4in

Counting 7in and above this gives the Deutshcland 60% of the firepower of the Dreadnought - but this ignores the fact that larger guns gave a longer range so Dreadnought's greater speed may keep it out of the range of the 7in guns resulting in Deutshcland having only 30% of the firepower. This also presupposes the 7in shells could penetrate the armour which in general they couldn't (even 11in and 12in shells struggled to penetrate battleship armour) so again the 30% figure is more relevant.
Additionally one of the dis-advantages of the pre-dreadnought design was that different calibres of guns had different flight times and other characteristics which meant that effectively there were separate fire control problems that interfered with each other.

Armor belt/turret in mm
Dreadnought 279/305
Deutschland 230/280

This further shifts the balance to the Dreadnought - so now it takes 4 Deutschlands just to have a slight advantage.

While the faster engine speed probably wasn't a critical fact - other consequences of the new engine were also important, such as the greater reliability and improved power meaning that a greater displacement was possible which allowed a greater thickness of armour.

 

[unmerged(41083)]

That's the spin which emanated from both British and German navies as they desperately tried to persuade their parliaments to vote them more money for more ships!

In reality Dreadnought was a somewhat more incremental improvement than that spin suggests. 10x12-in guns is not so vastly different from 4x12-in and 8x9.2-in given 1905 fire control technology (more different given 1915 fire control but 1905 is not 1915!)

The additional speed was useful; but revolutionary? probably not.

That's a very... unique opinion.

Dreadnaughts represent a fundamantal change in design philosophy of Battleships which results in something that outclasses everything made previously in every specification.

 

[TheLand]

A fairer comparison would be with HMS Lord Nelson, the battleship the British built immediately before Dreadnought:

Guns:
Dreadnought - 10 x 12-in
Lord Nelson - 4x 12-in, 10x 9.2-in

Armour (main belt)
Dreadnought - 279mm
Lord Nelson - 305mm
(As well as thicker armour, Nelson also had superior armour distribution, Dreadnought's belt was almost submerged at full load)

Propulsion:
Dreadnought - 23,000hp giving 21 knots
Lord Nelson - 16,750hp giving 18 knots

The Dreadnought has better long-range firepower but at a short engagement ranges Lord Nelson has more firepower, better protection, and will win.

Of course the concept of the Dreadnought is that it uses its speed to set a longer engagement range i.e. it is designed for a tactical innovation. Which is fine. But you can't guarantee that engagements will be on Dreadnought's terms, particularly not in the North Sea where visibility is often very limited.

Dreadnought certainly doesn't "make every other battleship obsolete", which would suggest that there were no circumstances in which a pre-dreadnought would have any tactical use against a dreadnought.

 

[OHgamer]

While one can quibble from a tactical PoV that the jump from pre-Dreads to Dread was not that huge, from a political point of view it was the Dreads that caused a major change in the public perception of the nature of naval warfare and the kind of navy a great power would need to have to maintain (or gain dominance). In that sense it makes most sense having the Dread become the "replacement" naval ship level. One only has to look at the German election of 1907 (the "Hottentot" election) and the role of the Naval League in using nationalism and the sense that Germany MUST build a navy that can meet the challenge of the Dreads Britain build's that in the end led to a massive right-wing victory in the elections that year, creating the internal political conditions and foreign policy conditions that would in the end turn an assassination in Sarajevo into a World War.

So while tactically the difference might not be great, in a game like Victoria where the political plays a massive role in how you guide your nation both internally and in terms of external politics, it is the Dreadnought that is the major revolutionary change in the naval realm of this period. Thus I'd argue that in the grand scheme of how Victoria plays and the interlocking nature of internal politics and external gepolitics on the fortune of the nation you play, the developers have it correct on this question.

In the end this is the greatest difference between HoI3 and V1/V2, in Victoria you really, really have to make sure you have support for your policies internally to achieve the kind of global domination most players seem to crave. In HoI3 the home front does not have much influence on what you do, in V2 the home front, if not paid attention, can quite literally sabotage your dreams of empire with massive internal revolt.

 

[TheLand]

To be clear, I can see why Paradox have taken the decisions which they appear to have done.

Vicky 1 naval warfare was detailed and complex without being good or rewarding. Streamlining a low-priority area of the game might well have been a good design decision.

However I am optimistic that Paradox have left enough moddable that it will be possible to both increase historical detail and enrich gameplay a little, without creating a micromanagement nightmare.

If you have 7 warship types in the game then Dreadnought should definitely be one of them... ;-)

 

[unmerged(15623)]

snip

So essentially, the intensifying naval arms race between German and British Empires increased the political importance of these ships, which in turn increased their military importance? I'll agree with that.

But what if the global situation is getting heated in 1880's? Wouldn't that make pre-dreadnoughts equally important "replacement" ship level?

 

[Brownbeard]

What if the political situation never gets heated? Should dreadnought be completely irrelevant in such a game?

Context driven tech trees are still a generation or two ahead of current game development paradigm. Maybe in Civ7 or Victoria4.

 

[TheLand]

What if the political situation never gets heated? Should dreadnought be completely irrelevant in such a game?

Context driven tech trees are still a generation or two ahead of current game development paradigm. Maybe in Civ7 or Victoria4.

I think the basic issue is that whenever a power is attempting to threaten Britain's colonial dominance, they should have the opportunity to invest in creating a modern navy which has a qualitative edge over Britain's long list of old ships - and Britain should have the opportunity to invest in a modern navy to stop them.

This is easier with a more detailed set of warship models than it is if you give the Ironclad a 40-year dominance and then the Dreadnought another 40-year dominance.

 

[unmerged(72836)]

To my knowledge no or extremely few Battleships or Battlecruisers were built in the Interwar period up until 1936.

But alot of Aircraft carriers were, and the British even started building them earlier during WW1.

So you can argue all you want, but about 100% of the Capital warships built in the game period after 1919 were in fact Carriers.


Finally they were in V1 and worked. So why would they suddenly make the game less detailed now?

well, in fairness, that was more a result of the diplomatic situation than just a desire to suddenly build aircraft carriers. The treaties leading out of the Great War put limits on the size of navies in terms of tonnage of battleships and all that. Thus, if you had a treaty mechanism in this game (and it'd be wonderful if they did) whereby several parties could agree to limit their number of battleships, their size, etc, then yes I'd say all these countries should be cranking out the "loophole" ships like they're kids in a candy shop - much like how the major powers suddenly started getting serious about building aircraft carriers. However, given a lack of that mechanic, it's only logical that everybody except probably Japan and maybe the US would focus more on battleships because they had such a history with them.

 

[dizzyflores]

Thus, if you had a treaty mechanism in this game (and it'd be wonderful if they did) whereby several parties could agree to limit their number of battleships, their size, etc, then yes I'd say all these countries should be cranking out the "loophole" ships like they're kids in a candy shop - much like how the major powers suddenly started getting serious about building aircraft carriers.

That would be cool, but to point out, Aircraft Carriers were not so called loophole ships, all three naval treaties covered them.

 

[steveh11]

Yet historically the very high cost of replacing pre-dreadnoughts was a major factor - and the reason why the the Grand Fleet and the High Seas Fleet still contained significant number of obsolete pre-dreadnoughts during the battle Jutland.

Minor correction - the Grand Fleet had no pre-dreadnoughts at Jutland (the remaining King Edward VII ships plus Dreadnought herself were part of the Channel Fleet). Scheer did take the remsaining squadron of pre-dreadnoughts along with him, something he afterwards said he regretted.

Steve.