Ship unit pictures

[uther4117]

I don't understand why not just represent it with the system they already put in the game?? So I think everyone agrees that Kongo wouldn't be a competition if it never been upgraded.. So why not game just represent this with the variant system.. Base Kongo is bad, upgraded Kongo is a beast.. Done.. So what needs balancing would be the strengt of variant system.. It would bring the diversity we need because I don't think it's possible to put too many different ship models since it will balance off the whole production efficiency and the balance around it.

So models would be taken base on the date they laid down and at the start Japan would have Kongo s which are upgraded aka variants.. So everyone is happy..

The best way for balancing is I think laying out the ships strength on a sheet/basis.. The caliber of the gun times the number of guns = gunfire strength,, total armor displacement = defense ... So on.. Then they need to choose the base models accordingly and then the power of variants should be adjusted to see if 1920 kongo can be a 1930-40 Kongo.. This way it would make variant value much stronger and expensive but if it represents the reality best then why not?? That's the exact reason pdx put variants so just use it.. And show some love for such important images of the war and give them some upgraded pictures..(last one in a dlc maybe)

So I think we all agree it's super immersion breaking and only okay for those who have no idea in history or ww2. So let's discuss for a solution so this thread becomes a productive one..

 

[Sleight of Hand]

Due to the various naval armament treaties, it's quite difficult to put certain battleship types into accurate categories. For example, whilst the KGV-class had certain mechanical advantages over the Nelson-class, they had smaller guns. So, unlike tanks and aircraft, it's not simply a case of newer ships being absolutely superior to older ones. So, if (for example) you put the Nelson-class as a 1922 BB - which makes sense purely in terms of the date - and yet have the KGV-class and Bismarck-class as 1940 BBs, you are putting the Nelson and Rodney at a significant ahistorical disadvantage.

 

[Alwar]

Upgraded Kongo wasn't a beast. This won't be solved with variants.

In the Battleships line we should have fuso => Nagato => Tosa => Kii

Then a super heavy battleship coming from Tosa or Nagato to Yamato.

In the battle cruiser line it's extremely simple. Kongo => Amagi.

Modernized kongos weren't really good. They were mediocre at best. The guns were subpar compared to western navies and mediocre compared to Japanese navies.

The armor was extremely lacking and were only incremental.

The only good thing was the engines, those were good but that's it. Being the lowest tier and fully upgraded with variant might do the trick for fuso and Kongo. But being the lowest is a must.

Also we need fuso class. Those were the iconic Japanese battleships that fought most of the time. For friggin sake of the game, yamashiro! We need that ship as much as Nagato

 

[uther4117]

Upgraded Kongo wasn't a beast. This won't be solved with variants.

In the Battleships line we should have fuso => Nagato => Tosa => Kii

Then a super heavy battleship coming from Tosa or Nagato to Yamato.

In the battle cruiser line it's extremely simple. Kongo => Amagi.

Modernized kongos weren't really good. They were mediocre at best. The guns were subpar compared to western navies and mediocre compared to Japanese navies.

The armor was extremely lacking and were only incremental.

The only good thing was the engines, those were good but that's it. Being the lowest tier and fully upgraded with variant might do the trick for fuso and Kongo. But being the lowest is a must.

Also we need fuso class. Those were the iconic Japanese battleships that fought most of the time. For friggin sake of the game, yamashiro! We need that ship as much as Nagato

I love your idea,, Kongo and Fuso at the bottom,, then comes the higher calibers like nagato..

Now let's fix how would that reflect to other majors navies?

US, UK, Italy, Germany, Russia

I think all in all we need to take one nation or a strength modifier as base and put according ships or I rather we put US and Japan as base and put other nations classes in respect to them.. Because in ww2 the major naval warfare happened between those two..

 

[Axe99]

The best way for balancing is I think laying out the ships strength on a sheet/basis.. The caliber of the gun times the number of guns = gunfire strength,, total armor displacement = defense ... So on.. Then they need to choose the base models accordingly and then the power of variants should be adjusted to see if 1920 kongo can be a 1930-40 Kongo.. This way it would make variant value much stronger and expensive but if it represents the reality best then why not?? That's the exact reason pdx put variants so just use it.. And show some love for such important images of the war and give them some upgraded pictures..(last one in a dlc maybe)

So I think we all agree it's super immersion breaking and only okay for those who have no idea in history or ww2. So let's discuss for a solution so this thread becomes a productive one..

This is a good 'starting place' to start thinking about these things, but unfortunately differences in armour schemes and their effectiveness (Hood actually had a decent amount of armour by the time she was sunk, but because it was a bit of a patch job because of changes to design while being built, shouldn't be considered equivalent to the same weight in a ship whose design hadn't been adjusted mid-build). Guns are similarly problematic - not all guns of a certain calibre are created equal, and then there are things like quality of shell, elevation (Italy had some impressively elevated guns, for example), quality of fire control and the like.

I do agree Kongo for a 1936 BB isn't a great fit, but the designers are hampered by the Japanese laying down no new battleships outside of the Yamatos once the Washington Treaty kicked in.

I do want separate ship pictures for the Japanese ships at some stage - particularly their cruisers, their funnels were far too shapely to leave out .

 

[Alwar]

The problem is that the paradox system is flawed. As someone pointed out some ships were bad and some didn't increased in firepower in French and British ships. American and Japanese ships were increansingly better and Russian ships are paper ships that might or not be good (I don't think they would stand a chance vs inferior ships due to the the construction quality).

Trying to fit this in a equal ground system where every ship is the same regardless of the nation is going to fail miserably. We should then ignore this and assume that newer ships were better than later ones. This is true for Japan, USA, Italy, Germany and maybe USSR. French and British ships were a mess and were really bad compared to the other nations contemporaries (this will trigger French and British users for sure, but it's the objective reality.)

We are talking about capital ships of course, but this could be extended to light/ heavy cruisers as well in the majority of cases.

Regarding UK battleships it should be like this.

Queen Elisabeth => Nelson class => King George V => Vanguard

With super heavy battleship being Lion class.

I ignored revenge because it was smaller than queen Elisabeth

Battle cruisers should be renown => hood.

Also, the battle cruiser line should be fixed because only have 2 slots, one being interwar and other being 1940. It should be ww1 - early ww2 and 1940. That way you can model Germany pocket battleships if you don't have much resources for big blue water fleet and invest in battle cruisers or ignore them and invest in fast battleships.

There is also a problem regarding battle cruisers. The norm is "battle cruisers are battleships with less armor and faster" but that's not really true. Germany ones exchanged firepower for speed. But this can be ignored as well along the French a British issue.


French battleships should be Bretagne => Dunkerque => Richelieu => Alsace

There isn't any super heavy battleship designed by france that I know of, so maybe some obscure design or something.

For battlecruisers there aren't also but you can make it like Gille => Durand.

Those were only proposals but meh.

 

[Sun_Killer]

Because there are generic stats behind every name, the nameing is completly irrelevant for my. Yes it is a nice touch to see historical names, but it wouldn´t matter to me if there would be BB1 BB2 BB3 and so on in a major nation.

Edit:Then we could also stop fighting over the best choices in about 10 different threads for tanks, airplanes and ships each. There will never be a version, which is going to satisfy everybody. So everybody can download the mod for his perfect names. And since it is only a modification to shown name, it shouldn´t even change your checksume. So everyboday can have different names even in a multiplayer.

 

[uther4117]

That's why it needs mods to make them different.. Think about a system which changes the available ways of researching from national focuses.. A Germany with 5 class of pocket battleships and US with more different carriers or a super carrier..

It should never have been same but that is for the mods now..

 

[Axe99]

French and British ships were a mess and were really bad compared to the other nations contemporaries (this will trigger French and British users for sure, but it's the objective reality.)

I'm doing a lot of naval research in support of some modding I'm planning to do, and while all ships had their issues, including French and British ships (it took a while for the KGVs to sort out their turret issues, for example), I've seen no evidence, at all, that suggests endemic issues for those nations above and beyond the usual issues with large capital ships. If you're going to claim "objective reality", it never hurts to provide some objective evidence - but for something as broad as "all ships", there were so many that I'm not sure how you'd do that - ie, it's almost impossible to make the objective claim you're making. Better to break it down class-by-class and go from there. I'm not saying we should mind, it'd be getting crazy off-topic on a thread about ship pictures, but I'm confident you might learn a thing or two if we do. Happy to have a conversation in another thread/PM if it interests you?

 

[Mannstien]

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...velopment-diary-18th-of-december-2015.898240/

 

[Elouda]

Because there are generic stats behind every name, the nameing is completly irrelevant for my. Yes it is a nice touch to see historical names, but it wouldn´t matter to me if there would be BB1 BB2 BB3 and so on in a major nation.

Edit:Then we could also stop fighting over the best choices in about 10 different threads for tanks, airplanes and ships each. There will never be a version, which is going to satisfy everybody. So everybody can download the mod for his perfect names. And since it is only a modification to shown name, it shouldn´t even change your checksume. So everyboday can have different names even in a multiplayer.

Thats fine, but even if we all subscribed to that theory (which certainly does not seem to be the case, thank god), there remains the problem that which ships out of the starting ones are assigned to which models, can have a very notable impact on the balance of power, especially early war. This is why its important to consider what 'model' we are calling each of these, as that by definition dictates the model distribution among the starting ships.

As an extreme case, consider the two German pre-dreadnoughts, Schlesien and Schleswig-Holstein. These are vessels so obsolete that the pair of them together are probably worth less than a single New York class BB (BB1922, probably), yet given the way the models are set up right now, they literally -cant- be that bad. Unless they're made into heavy cruisers, which of course comes with its own problems (because now they're actually somewhat fast and thus useful as raiders).

Likewise, consider the impact of leaving the 4 Kongo's as BB1936's - what this means is that these 4 vessels, which would have a very bad time against most WW1 era battleships despite their upgrades, much less something like Nagato or Colorado (BB1922 variantss) or god forbid King George V (BB1936), are now 4 of the most valuable starting units of the IJN. While they arguably should be valuable, it is for entirely different reasons than being able to go head to head with a King George V. Their value should derive from their speed and ability to act as escorts for the carrier fleet (which is historically what they did for a portion of their time), and these traits would be much better emphasized by them being upgraded BC1922 variants.

 

[uther4117]

Mods for life guys,, they give us the tool we have to make it better.. Look black ice mod for hoi3 they not only make the game super immersive and in depth but also fix the AI problems through changeable game mechanics.. Since hoi3 AI is hardcoded and can't be changed still black ice AI puts kick ass challenge

 

[leviathan172]

Wow, so many disagrees; so people actually want to see the Japanese rolling around in a Tank from the 1960s that was based on post-war American tank technology.

Amazing.

By disagreeing, you guys are saying that you actually would rather see a tank that makes absolutely no sense in the time of the game, rather than a tank that was designed but never produced, which was actually based on the technology of the time.

Amazing.

No, what my disagreement means, is that HOI4 allows you to play ahistoric, so, my Japan, instead decided to focus heavily on tanks (for whatever reason) and developed beyond what had been done historically. If I had my way I would have put one of the tanks that only really existed on paper, something like the type 5 Heavy tank or perhaps some other that I can't think of at the moment.

 

[Atlantians]

No, what my disagreement means, is that HOI4 allows you to play ahistoric, so, my Japan, instead decided to focus heavily on tanks (for whatever reason) and developed beyond what had been done historically. If I had my way I would have put one of the tanks that only really existed on paper, something like the type 5 Heavy tank or perhaps some other that I can't think of at the moment.

Then you disn't understand the post you disagreed with.

I said nothing about not playing Japan ahistorically.

I said nothing about Japan not focusing on tanks in an alternate history.

I said that having Japan's top tier tank be a medium tank from the 1960s based on American post-war designs from the Korean War-era makes absolutely no rational sense.

I also said since there were no historical alternatives because of circumstance, the ideal solution is a generic '1945 Universal Tank' design.

According to your words, you don't actually disagree with my post, instead you actually agree.

Please adjust accordingly.

 

[Alwar]

I'm doing a lot of naval research in support of some modding I'm planning to do, and while all ships had their issues, including French and British ships (it took a while for the KGVs to sort out their turret issues, for example), I've seen no evidence, at all, that suggests endemic issues for those nations above and beyond the usual issues with large capital ships. If you're going to claim "objective reality", it never hurts to provide some objective evidence - but for something as broad as "all ships", there were so many that I'm not sure how you'd do that - ie, it's almost impossible to make the objective claim you're making. Better to break it down class-by-class and go from there. I'm not saying we should mind, it'd be getting crazy off-topic on a thread about ship pictures, but I'm confident you might learn a thing or two if we do. Happy to have a conversation in another thread/PM if it interests you?

Well i was talking about capital ships overall. Some cruisers had problems too. Near all of those problems were due to the restrictions of the naval treaties, which germany and japan ignored and USA, due to their line of battle doctrine, didnt affect them (slow and "small" lumbering ships that didnt need to be faster, thus need less displacement to be effective).

There are also other problems french and british ship had, regarding guns for example. New british guns didnt deliver the expected penetration and accuracy. French quad ( in reality double twin) guns had problems of suvirvality and accuracy, also the guns werent really that impressive compared to japanese, american or german ones. The armor of both were really lacking, due to the limitations.

Anti air capabilities in british ships were extremely lacking, literally the worst ones hands down, until they did an agreement with america to exchange tech and then they just copied their directors and everything leveled it. Until then they didnt even had anti air directors or even guns able to aim to the sky ffs.

German guns. despite having lower calibers, they had very high velocity. This one is a two edge sword. For starters it gives you excellent penetrating capability, exceding higher caliber guns, but negates plunging fire capability, something that since the battle of jutland came up as a very important factor in long range fire exchange.

Overall, like we say in spain "the bull caught them". Their old ships had ww1 problems (low performance engines and obsolete armor schemes) and their new ships had a lot of gripes regarding the limitations of the naval treaties. The only thing that could save them was the numbers, but with the rise of naval aviation that could change very fast, specially due to the british extreme lack in directors and french mediocre overall system (bad guns, bad directors)

Later, if you talk about carriers, the thing gets fun. British carriers had armoured deck and a lot of people agree that those were really cool and that but it isnt that easy. Due to the design, if the ship get struck with bombs, those bombs might not destroy the ship outright but the ship wont be able to be usable anymore. The reparation of those ships will be extremely problematic and expensive, more than building a new ship. you can read more about it here http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-030.htm

 

[leviathan172]

At least a paper tank would be indigenous and based on the technology of the day, not the technology of your enemies 15 years later.

I would rather them have simply not had a top tank, or had an unnamed generic tank, rather than a tank that didn't exist for 15 years and was based entirely on the designs of your former enemies after they conquered you and disbanded your military, and technology that they didn't even have until after the game's end date. It is absolutely ludicrous.

SInce I seem to need to clarify, the bolded is what I disagree with, hence the disagreement. Later on in a different post you changed it to

The alternatives are all heavy tanks. The real alternative is '1945 Medium' with no name, because that is all there is. Type 61 is just absurd.

The Japanese were on Islands. They didn't invest in tanks. They put all their resources into their ships.

Which I then agreed with.

 

[Axe99]

Well i was talking about capital ships overall. Some cruisers had problems too. Near all of those problems were due to the restrictions of the naval treaties, which germany and japan ignored and USA, due to their line of battle doctrine, didnt affect them (slow and "small" lumbering ships that didnt need to be faster, thus need less displacement to be effective).

There are also other problems french and british ship had, regarding guns for example. New british guns didnt deliver the expected penetration and accuracy. French quad ( in reality double twin) guns had problems of suvirvality and accuracy, also the guns werent really that impressive compared to japanese, american or german ones. The armor of both were really lacking, due to the limitations.

Anti air capabilities in british ships were extremely lacking, literally the worst ones hands down, until they did an agreement with america to exchange tech and then they just copied their directors and everything leveled it. Until then they didnt even had anti air directors or even guns able to aim to the sky ffs.

German guns. despite having lower calibers, they had very high velocity. This one is a two edge sword. For starters it gives you excellent penetrating capability, exceding higher caliber guns, but negates plunging fire capability, something that since the battle of jutland came up as a very important factor in long range fire exchange.

Overall, like we say in spain "the bull caught them". Their old ships had ww1 problems (low performance engines and obsolete armor schemes) and their new ships had a lot of gripes regarding the limitations of the naval treaties. The only thing that could save them was the numbers, but with the rise of naval aviation that could change very fast, specially due to the british extreme lack in directors and french mediocre overall system (bad guns, bad directors)

Later, if you talk about carriers, the thing gets fun. British carriers had armoured deck and a lot of people agree that those were really cool and that but it isnt that easy. Due to the design, if the ship get struck with bombs, those bombs might not destroy the ship outright but the ship wont be able to be usable anymore. The reparation of those ships will be extremely problematic and expensive, more than building a new ship. you can read more about it here http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-030.htm

I suggested that we start another thread or PM, rather than derail this one. I'll PM you .

 

[Admiral Piett]

Anyone have a screenshot of the naval tech tree handy? I just want to remind myself how it is organised.

 

[Atlantians]

SInce I seem to need to clarify, the bolded is what I disagree with, hence the disagreement. Later on in a different post you changed it to

Which I then agreed with.

Right, but when you hit 'disagree' on a post, you disagree with a post, not a sentence.

It would have been so much more helpful to simply highlight that one point and respond to that, adding to the discussion.

Thank you for doing that now.