Patch 1.4 - Navy

[Kallocain]

While I'm fairly sure the answer is "no", I'll ask anyway:

Has the impact of shore bombardment been altered at all?

I ask because there is something I want to try in a full-game, but if things are going to be changed in 1.4, then it wouldn't make much sense for me to start a new one now .

No, not altered for 1.4.

 

[TheDarkside]

I would like unlimited naval rage when you at at peace, that way I can send my ships around the word on prestigious and peace promoting trips. (Roleplay)

When I first played HoI 2 I was disappointed when Graf Spee stopped outside Greenland on the way to New York.

You accomplish that by signing Military Access treaties and using their ports.

You don't seriously think nations just sail their warship around and port at random cities without lengthy arrangements beforehand? (which can be thought of as abstracted into the military access request)

 

[Chaplain]

Outstanding! naval warfare always comes first in my world, since I prefer playing UK/Japan/Italy.

 

[Chaplain]

Has the naval warfare in the Pacific been addressed - in other words, will the USA and/or UK aggressively patrol and attack the Japanese if they are at war? In the past, the USA has seemed to go to sleep.

 

[johnbecool]

Will the build time of ship be influenced by the training laws? this situation seem strange and unrealistic...

 

[Fredgard]

"You accomplish that by signing Military Access treaties and using their ports."

But is not the range calculated from it's base? If so I did not know that I could rebase my ships to Military Access ports.

By the way, have you ever got a Military Access from a neutral AI?!! I don't.

"You don't seriously think nations just sail their warship around and port at random cities without lengthy arrangements beforehand? (which can be thought of as abstracted into the military access request)"

Yes, but many military ships dock in foreign pots without a "Military Access" in a relationship improving... what word an I looking for?... err... Raid?... However, these small agreements are not up to the scale of HoI 3. Therefore I would like to not being at war to count as a agreement for a "relationship improving raid"

 

[Surt]

Will the message spam/popup for a fleet has arrived be changed to only when it reach its last automated movement? ie. no more senseless popups when reaching a point on its patrol?

Same with planes, can we get that the message only apply when it really finished its automation (or both as options)?
Same with land units please.

 

[jaxpac]

"Units on naval patrol now avoids stronger fleets if on defensive or passive stance."

This is good, but the fleet should also stop for repairs when needed. Currently it seems that they run down to like 20% and keep going out on patrols until they sink. They should really be stopping for repairs regularly so that the condition is always at least 90%.

 

[johnbecool]

Will the message spam/popup for a fleet has arrived be changed to only when it reach its last automated movement? ie. no more senseless popups when reaching a point on its patrol?

Same with planes, can we get that the message only apply when it really finished its automation (or both as options)?
Same with land units please.

Just right click on message then choose how you want to see it( box or not etc...)

 

[Surt]

Just right click on message then choose how you want to see it( box or not etc...)

I know that

Its that I WANT to know when my transport fleet arrives that I want to see that it arrives and not that patrol 117 has again reached the south china sea for the 37th time.

 

[unmerged(53215)]

Will the build time of ship be influenced by the training laws? this situation seem strange and unrealistic...

No it is not. Ship building times include shakedown cruises which would be extended in order to train the crews to higher proficiency, it is not just the time to create the physical ship any more than an infantry units training time is just how long it takes to produce the rifles.

However I do agree that seperate laws for ground/air/naval would be a good thing and that the best thing would be for individual units having a training level designator similar to the reserve status one.

 

[MontanaPrussian]

Very Good! This should improve the Naval aspect of the game greatly.

 

[jaxpac]

What about the AI's handling of fleets? Will they make proper fleets or just scatter their ships all over the place?

 

[CharonJr]

Sounds good to me, except the very long build time of CAGs. Since there is no dedicated CAG tech I can see the point of this change, but CAGs taking nearly as long to build as a carrier is too much IMO. Maybe something between the current build time and carrier build time would be more appropriate.

And yes, knowing if there has been any change to how the AI handles its fleets is very important to me, too.

Basically in all the threads I have seen no AI changes being mentioned, I suspect that they are there, but some basic information about what was changed would be nice

CharonJr

 

[Mortu]

Perhaps long CAG build times are not so bad: takes time to learn to land on a carrier and to stay alive while you are at it.

 

[redflag]

Sounds good to me, except the very long build time of CAGs. Since there is no dedicated CAG tech I can see the point of this change, but CAGs taking nearly as long to build as a carrier is too much IMO. Maybe something between the current build time and carrier build time would be more appropriate.

And yes, knowing if there has been any change to how the AI handles its fleets is very important to me, too.

Basically in all the threads I have seen no AI changes being mentioned, I suspect that they are there, but some basic information about what was changed would be nice

CharonJr

As I am sure you are aware Japan ran out of skilled pilots to fly their carrier based airplanes long before they ran out of carriers. You could always build a reserve CAG force to replace destroyed CAGs.

 

[domanb]

They killed BB+DD.

Will German AI still be able to pass Gibraltar, Suez Canal and land in Dutch Indies with no regard to any rules of naval warfare?

OMG this has killed several games as Japan for me. In my most current game, I had to actually go into the save file and delete the German units that landed in the Dutch East Indies. Of course the Dutch units there refused to take their territory back after 1 month of game time, so I had to go back into the save file and switch control back to the Dutch.

 

[CharonJr]

As I am sure you are aware Japan ran out of skilled pilots to fly their carrier based airplanes long before they ran out of carriers. You could always build a reserve CAG force to replace destroyed CAGs.

Yup, basically it was the same with Germany only that they ran out of skilled pilots (and fuel) before running out of planes.

And since it takes more training to operate from a carrier I have no problem with longer "build" times, but nearly as long as a carrier (so about 3 years) seems a bit too long to me. I would prefer something around 1.5-2 years here.

But I have to admit that I have no real idea about training times for carrier pilots during WW2, so maybe 3 years is a good number. Does anybody have any information about this ?

CharonJr

edit: Just googled a bit here and one of the only things I found is that China expects to train its first batch of naval pilots for 4 years, but I think that during WW2 training times were overall shorter than they are today.

 

[womble]

Will German AI still be able to pass Gibraltar, Suez Canal and land in Dutch Indies with no regard to any rules of naval warfare?

Yeah. Good question. Are straits fixed? Or is there going to be a big explanation of how they really work (as opposed to them working how we think they should)?

 

[Diomedene]

Yup, basically it was the same with Germany only that they ran out of skilled pilots (and fuel) before running out of planes.

And since it takes more training to operate from a carrier I have no problem with longer "build" times, but nearly as long as a carrier (so about 3 years) seems a bit too long to me. I would prefer something around 1.5-2 years here.

But I have to admit that I have no real idea about training times for carrier pilots during WW2, so maybe 3 years is a good number. Does anybody have any information about this ?

CharonJr

edit: Just googled a bit here and one of the only things I found is that China expects to train its first batch of naval pilots for 4 years, but I think that during WW2 training times were overall shorter than they are today.

As a loose reference for training times, this page from a person who was already in the Navy and transferred to pilot training mentions that it took him 20 months to go from no flying experiance to being a PBY co-pilot : http://www.daileyint.com/flying/flywar9.htm

I would imagine that carrier pilot training would be a bit more lengthy, than again many future carrier pilots may well have had some previous flying experience. Something else to consider is that the number of flight hours before qualifying varied vastly by nation. As an example for the US it was around 600 hours whereas for Japan it was around 200.