Paradox on the rule of cool apparently with their insistence that they are viable alternatives to CTF in the game.
That said I'm with you.
Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, and Graf Spee
- Thread starter perujuan
- Start date
-
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.
Paradox on the rule of cool apparently with their insistence that they are viable alternatives to CTF in the game.
That said I'm with you.
I get that CV's are more powerful than BB's and that it makes sense to emulate this in the game, but I must confess that deep inside I feel that BB's are so much more badass compared to CV's that I really hope that they will be very viable at least in the early to mid game and hopefully not completely useless by the late game...
Also Im going to spam those BB's instead of the CV's for their badassery. Simply because I can. Just saying.
Also Im going to spam those BB's instead of the CV's for their badassery. Simply because I can. Just saying.
- 3
All ship classes are useful between 1936 and 1948.
Carriers will not be useless in 1936 and battleships will not be useless in 1948.
1936 ships may be useless in 1944 however, ships age fast in HOI4.
Carriers will not be useless in 1936 and battleships will not be useless in 1948.
1936 ships may be useless in 1944 however, ships age fast in HOI4.
- 1
It depends I guess on how the game handles the variation in AA with time and bomb/torpedo development with time.
While in reality, you could retrofit your BBs with vastly improved AA as time (and Radar directed fire control) came to be giving early BB's a fleet role in AA defense later in the war, with the new technology tree this is un likely. Late war naval bombers with a very high sea attack will likely put paid to BB's per the developers reference to torpedos inflicting 'critical hits' with massive damage on ships. However, late war BBs with high speed and good AA will likely remain mostly impervious to aircraft, so while never being able to close with the carrier, they will be able to resist the air attack and mess up the oposing fleet.
I would love to see a mod addition where you can disband your obsolete ships and it will spawn a new mostly finished version of that ship with improved AA and a slight decrease in sea attack plus the latest radar etc. Then you could make your old ships useful for supporting naval invasions and providing additional fleet defense when you cannot provide sufficient air coverage from carriers.
While in reality, you could retrofit your BBs with vastly improved AA as time (and Radar directed fire control) came to be giving early BB's a fleet role in AA defense later in the war, with the new technology tree this is un likely. Late war naval bombers with a very high sea attack will likely put paid to BB's per the developers reference to torpedos inflicting 'critical hits' with massive damage on ships. However, late war BBs with high speed and good AA will likely remain mostly impervious to aircraft, so while never being able to close with the carrier, they will be able to resist the air attack and mess up the oposing fleet.
I would love to see a mod addition where you can disband your obsolete ships and it will spawn a new mostly finished version of that ship with improved AA and a slight decrease in sea attack plus the latest radar etc. Then you could make your old ships useful for supporting naval invasions and providing additional fleet defense when you cannot provide sufficient air coverage from carriers.
- 1
In vanilla perhaps
. I'll definitely be modding the various values to provide a more plausible naval side of things if this is the case.I don't think we've heard anything about upgrades yet. Almost all vessels (down to trawlers and MTBs) received improvements in AA during the war, and most received improvements in radar, so one approach could be just have techs give bonuses to all ships automatically (it'd be more plausible than no improvement at all, but I'd prefer some production requirement, particularly for the huge AA improvements on some of the BBs/CVs). It's definitely on my "hopefully able to address" list for the naval mod.
- 1
Thanks
. I'm hoping he's referring to things like adding armour, changing main armament and changing machinery (which all happened) as a large refit, so that smaller refits like AA, radar and ASW are still in the game, but we'll see....- 2
Last edited:
You go send your massive battleship fleet on patrol in the middle of the Pacific and see what happens. They could be sunk by carriers thousands of miles away where the battleship's big guns would be totally out of range.
On a one/one ratio That won't be so.... But we all have in mind the lonely battleship being ganged by hundreds of planes coming from 5/6 carriers grouping.... On a One one... that not the same, the hms glorious went down, the gambier bay went down.... The planes alone from one carrier are not enough to sink down a well AA equiped BB....
- 1
This is fair, but what if you are fighting in the North Sea, Channel, or Mediterranean?
As late as the beginning of 1942 it did not look like the carrier would be as successful as it turned out to be. The British had lost three fleet carriers (one to a battleship, two to submarines), in exchange for which they had used carriers to inflict significant damage on two battleships (one German, one Italian) at sea and sink/beach three in port (all Italian). Pre-war "pro-battleship" theorists had argued that carriers were useful adjuncts for the fleet that did scouting, inflicted damage in raids to slow down or diminish enemy forces, and attacked bases. This is exactly what they had achieved and no more. All sinking of battleships at sea had been achieved by battleships.
Land based air hadn't been much more successful. Large raids had inflicted damage on fleet units putting them out of action for months at a time, but not sunk capital ships. In December 1941 land based air succeeded in destroying a relatively weak battleship force with overwhelming numbers, but it wasn't until Midway and then only in the Pacific theatre where carriers become the primary weapon for sinking ships in battles on the open sea.
Without the wide open spaces and favourable weather of the mid-Pacific, the battleship would have had a lot of life left in it. The battleship was key for the British and Italians early war and would have continued to be important if major naval fighting at sea had continued in Europe past 1943. Carriers could not have won the Battle of the North Cape for example.
- 3
- 1
- 1
You sure about that? The Glorious and the Gambier Bay were smaller, less modern carriers that could hold less planes than a WWII era carrier (30 as opposed to 70 perhaps). You mean to say that an Iowa class battleship would stand a chance against a Midway Class Carrier, or even an Essex Class Carrier? One modern battleship vs one modern carrier is a lopsided battle in favor of the latter any day, assuming that the carrier is not stupid enough to be in range of the battleships guns.
- 1
What's a modern battleship?
If you mean 40s modern, again, replace HMS Duke of York at North Cape with an Invincible class or even cheat a bit and give them a Midway class. Who is going to win? Probably Scharnhorst.
If you mean 40s modern, again, replace HMS Duke of York at North Cape with an Invincible class or even cheat a bit and give them a Midway class. Who is going to win? Probably Scharnhorst.
- 1
Essex class alone (Don't put the midway in they came much later in term of design) against Iowa alone ? I would bet on the Iowa.... of course if all have fair starting conditions.
North cape battle with the Brits having an invincible instead of a KGV ? Play the gneisenau vs hms glorious again... Sink sink the poor carrier.
Pro Carriers always argue about a sunny weather, a flat sea, a well know enemy position and a massive grouping of 4/6 CVs plane waves against a lonely BB....
North cape battle with the Brits having an invincible instead of a KGV ? Play the gneisenau vs hms glorious again... Sink sink the poor carrier.
Pro Carriers always argue about a sunny weather, a flat sea, a well know enemy position and a massive grouping of 4/6 CVs plane waves against a lonely BB....
Well, you could still produce them. If you do the Focus Plan Z it should give you either ships or some bonuses to ship production. That way you can have your naval power germany.
Carrier based planes going "thousands of miles away" ? Did some carriers had strategic bombers onboard ? [other than Doolittle one-way raid]
- 3
The Doolittle raid was done with B-25 medium (tactical in game terms) bombers, getting an actual strategic bomber onto a carrier i think would be utterly impossible (due to generally very poor power to weight ratio), the takeoff length is FAR beyond what a carrier can provide).
That was exactly my point as I was questioning the mention of carrier planes going "thousands of miles away".
I did mention Doolittle as they flew thousand miles but could not return, not because they were strategic bombers.
- 1
I like the idea of tying it to your technology level, but I wouldn't give it for free.In vanilla perhaps
I don't think we've heard anything about upgrades yet. Almost all vessels (down to trawlers and MTBs) received improvements in AA during the war, and most received improvements in radar, so one approach could be just have techs give bonuses to all ships automatically (it'd be more plausible than no improvement at all, but I'd prefer some production requirement, particularly for the huge AA improvements on some of the BBs/CVs). It's definitely on my "hopefully able to address" list for the naval mod.
I even want there to be a significant IC requirement for some research on top of the research days slot.
Testing and developing hardware is non trivial, especially for rocketry, jet engines and Nukes.
- 1
Carriers I find are way cooler then Battleships. Don't get it.
#Graf Zepplin
#Graf Zepplin
Then that's extremely unrealistic and I will be getting a mod for that asap. CVs are the king of the waves. The Battleships disappeared because of the poor performance in world war 2.
- 1
- 1