I'm a bit confused what the plans are between .43 and .5. I thought the main feature of .5 was AI, as well as renumbering. What is the main features of .43? Maybe I am being dense, but am I missing something?
-
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.
hmatthias said:
Welcome back among the living, hmatthias!
0.5 is renumbering with your famous transformation program.
Until you get that program to work, everything else goes into 0.43.
Cheerio
T.
CookieCollector said:
I'm sure that will be possible.
I am pretty confident that the battleships are historically balanced with one another and with battlecruisers and heavy cruisers. Also some stats (e.g. range) bear a good relation to history.
However, "sea attack" is always a difficult one. It represents three different things: heavy-calibre shells, medium/light-calibre shells, and torpedos. So any solution for destroyer and cruiser sea attack values will inevitably be a fudge. I would not be averse to reducing torpedo/boat destroyer attack value, or increasing their cost... possibly not as severely as you first selected.
It might be possible to adjust positioning values as well...
I had also been watching the naval OOBs and ratings. Interesting testing. being done -- thank you, as I love the naval aspects.
One question: What is the rationale for having so many obsolete ships in the OOBs? I realize that only a few navies had "modern" fighting ships, but the German naval OOB is full of 1875 kreuzers......meant to be coastal defense?
Just curious.
I also was trying to think of how the tech for Speed vs. Armor should be played out. right now it is all about positioning -- no impact on speed, or armor.
and it should be used to reflect at least the differing philosophies in BCs between GB and Germany (armor gives you +2 there, speed gives you +2 speed)
Also, speeds on many ships, especially BCs is too low (though that may be a gameplay issue).
One question: What is the rationale for having so many obsolete ships in the OOBs? I realize that only a few navies had "modern" fighting ships, but the German naval OOB is full of 1875 kreuzers......meant to be coastal defense?
Just curious.
I also was trying to think of how the tech for Speed vs. Armor should be played out. right now it is all about positioning -- no impact on speed, or armor.
and it should be used to reflect at least the differing philosophies in BCs between GB and Germany (armor gives you +2 there, speed gives you +2 speed)
Also, speeds on many ships, especially BCs is too low (though that may be a gameplay issue).
Because those cruisers were still active at the time, but were so obsolete that they cannot be described as anything but 1875 cruisers.
Most questions regarding OOBs for Germany are answered on this site:
http://www.german-navy.de/hochseeflotte/index.html
The ships in question were not so ancient, but definitely intended for coastal defence.
http://www.german-navy.de/hochseeflotte/index.html
The ships in question were not so ancient, but definitely intended for coastal defence.
The Siegfried class coast defence ships had some quite modern features for the late 1880s, but their small size and low speed mean that they can't be classed as either pre-dreadnought battleships or armoured cruisers, so they have to fall into the (fairly miscellaneous) Ironclad category.
I know that infantry models and stats shall be reworked along with the land doctrine tree for 0.5, but as 0.43 is to be released rather soon, we might take the chance to implement and test balance changes long overdue.
However, this means that we have to agree on changes soon and maybe have some testing done before the release. Unit balance issues have mostly been ignored during the last weeks and almost nobody even participated in the discussion about ship balance.
Some time ago we have come to the conclusion that most infantry types are impopular right now, they are merely better or cheaper versions of normal infantry or are too specialized (but not good enough in what they are best at), so that standard infantry or guards are often favored.
My thoughts: Light infantry should be specialized colonial troops with considerable move and attack advantages in jungle, desserts and rain but higher deductions in cold weather and frozen terrain.
Mountaineers in contrast should be treated like arctic troops and fight well in any cold weather in addition to their advantages in hills and mountains, yet really bad in jungles and deserts.
Guards, reserve and normal infantry should stay rather similar until 1914, as they are now. The models after 1914 should then get more and more specialized with guards becoming much more expensive but gain speed increase, high attack values and toughness in return (meant to be assault infantry), whereas reserve infantry get more defensiveness while their attack values barely rise.
Regarding ships: I still feel that something needs to be done about destroyers and light cruisers. They are specialized on submarine raiding and fighting aircraft, not on hunting down battleships. We should considerably weaken them without diminishing the historical flavor. Thus, we should rather not alter speed, construction time or range but we might normalize the IC costs of all ships to the level of battleships (not the time, only the IC costs per day). Or: We significantly lower their sea attack (my favorite option). Or: We abolish naval doctrines that raise organization and define each ship models' org in relation to its historic tonnage.
Or: some combination of the above mentioned actions.
I think we all agree that fights should last considerably longer and cause more casualties, but as this demands for rather radical changes I would like to suspend this issue and let Tegetthoff take care of it when the land doctrines and new infantry models are designed. Still, if someone has a good idea, we can give it a try in the next dev.
I ask you to make suggestions, comment on them, at least state whether you agree or don't, so that we finally move along and make some progress.
However, this means that we have to agree on changes soon and maybe have some testing done before the release. Unit balance issues have mostly been ignored during the last weeks and almost nobody even participated in the discussion about ship balance.
Some time ago we have come to the conclusion that most infantry types are impopular right now, they are merely better or cheaper versions of normal infantry or are too specialized (but not good enough in what they are best at), so that standard infantry or guards are often favored.
My thoughts: Light infantry should be specialized colonial troops with considerable move and attack advantages in jungle, desserts and rain but higher deductions in cold weather and frozen terrain.
Mountaineers in contrast should be treated like arctic troops and fight well in any cold weather in addition to their advantages in hills and mountains, yet really bad in jungles and deserts.
Guards, reserve and normal infantry should stay rather similar until 1914, as they are now. The models after 1914 should then get more and more specialized with guards becoming much more expensive but gain speed increase, high attack values and toughness in return (meant to be assault infantry), whereas reserve infantry get more defensiveness while their attack values barely rise.
Regarding ships: I still feel that something needs to be done about destroyers and light cruisers. They are specialized on submarine raiding and fighting aircraft, not on hunting down battleships. We should considerably weaken them without diminishing the historical flavor. Thus, we should rather not alter speed, construction time or range but we might normalize the IC costs of all ships to the level of battleships (not the time, only the IC costs per day). Or: We significantly lower their sea attack (my favorite option). Or: We abolish naval doctrines that raise organization and define each ship models' org in relation to its historic tonnage.
Or: some combination of the above mentioned actions.
I think we all agree that fights should last considerably longer and cause more casualties, but as this demands for rather radical changes I would like to suspend this issue and let Tegetthoff take care of it when the land doctrines and new infantry models are designed. Still, if someone has a good idea, we can give it a try in the next dev.
I ask you to make suggestions, comment on them, at least state whether you agree or don't, so that we finally move along and make some progress.
CookieCollector said:
Not really. Not at all, before the middle of World War I. During this period, destroyers and torpedo boats were exactly for hunting down battleships, and protecting them from opposing destroyers/torpedo boats.
However, I do agree with you that given the way the game works the current stats risk giving the player an over-powerful dominant strategy. So I would not be averse to adjusting the Sea Attack stats and/or increasing cost as you suggest.
Nah, Destroyers weren't designed for attacking battleships, they were designed to protect battleships from torpedo boats.TheLand said:
Personally, I'd like to see some sort of overhaul of the whole destroyer/torpedo boat thing. Currently, torpedo boats become obsolete once destroyers comes into play, which of course wasn't the historical case.
I suggest that the first destroyer tech should no longer sleep the most advanced torpedo boat, and that torpedo boats should be altered so that they have very high naval attack and good speed, while at the same time dreadful naval defense and very short fireing range.
Zuckergußgebäck said:
It is not that clear-cut.
The German Navy (and several others) had "torpedo boats" which were similar to destroyers in almost every particular except designation, and which were desigend to attack battleships.
Destroyers were generally regarded as having both an offensive and a defensive role.
[quote[
I suggest that the first destroyer tech should no longer sleep the most advanced torpedo boat, and that torpedo boats should be altered so that they have very high naval attack and good speed, while at the same time dreadful naval defense and very short fireing range.[/QUOTE]
Torpedo boats were no faster than destroyers... unless you are thinking of the 1940s Motor Torpedo Boat, which is anachronistic for this mod.
No, but they were faster than any other ship around, which is why the destroyer was designed in the first place.TheLand said:
The purpose of destroyers in this period was definitely to attack the enemy battlefleet, and to protect the friendly battleships by sinking enemy destroyers. Naval planners before 1914 were terrified of destroyers; many thought they would make battleships obsolete. In practice, though, it turned out that the biggest limitation of destroyers was that they were very short ranged, and unable to operate in heavy seas. That's why the British navy based itself in northern Scotland and blockaded Germany by cutting off the North Sea, instead of patrolling just outside the enemy ports as they had in 19th century wars - going too close to the German destroyer bases was considered too dangerous.
For the mod, I'd suggest showing this by restricting their range significantly: TBs and TBDs should only be able to go one sea area, and even by 1916 German destroyers should be able to reach the coast of southern England but not anything further north, and vice-versa.
As far as Britain goes, this is the history of development:
Torpedo boats were developed in the 1870s. Their purpose was to attack enemy battleships. They were extremely fast for the period, but also very short-ranged: useful only for coast and harbour defence.
TB 1 'Lightning', 1877. Top speed 19 knots, displacement 32 tons, armament 1 torpedo tube with 2 reloads. Scrapped in 1896.
TB 25, 1885. Top speed 21 knots, displacement 60 tons, armament 4 x 14" torpedo tubes and 2 x machine guns. Still in service in WW1.
TB 90, 1895. Top speed 23 knots, displacement 105 tons, armament 3 x 18" torpedo tubes and 3 x 3-pdr guns. Still in service in WW1.
The torpedo boat destroyer was developed in the mid 1890s. They were mainly intended to defeat enemy torpedo boats and thus defend the friendly battleships. They were slightly larger, faster and had guns as well as torpedoes. Like torpedo boats, they could only operate close to shore in calm weather.
HMS Havoc, 1894. Top speed 26 knots, displacement 275 tons, armament 3 x 18" torpedo tubes, 1 x 12-pdr and 3 x 3-pdr guns. Scrapped in 1912.
HMS Star, 1898. Top speed 30 knots, displacement 390 tons, armament 2 x 18" torpedo tubes, 1 x 12-pdr and 5 x 6-pdr guns. Still in service in WW1.
By 1905 the TBD had evolved into the destroyer, and torpedo boats were obsolete. Destroyers were faster than torpedo boats (although slightly slower than TBDs, at least until oil fuel replaced coal) and a lot more seaworthy. They were better armed, and could attack battleships with their own torpedoes.
HMS Erne, 1904 ('River' class). Top speed 26 knots, displacement 550 tons, armament 2 x 18" torpedo tubes, 4 x 12-pdr guns. Still in service in WW1.
HMS Afridi, 1907 ('Tribal' class). Top speed 33 knots, displacement 855 tons, armament 2 x 18" torpedo tubes, 2 x 4" guns. Still in service in WW1.
HMS Matchless, 1914 ('M' class). Top speed 34 knots, displacement 900 tons, armament 4 x 21" torpedo tubes, 3 x 4" and 2 x 1-pdr guns. Still in service in WW1.
The equivalent ships the Germans were using by 1914 were pretty much the same as the British ships - although they still called them Hochseetorpedoboote, by English terminology they were destroyers. The Germans did emphasise torpedoes rather than guns as compared to the British, which is why they kept the older name.
G37, 1914. Top speed 34 knots, displacement 822 tons, armament 6 x 19.7" (500mm) torpedo tubes, 3 x 3.5" (88mm) guns. Still in service in WW1.
For the mod, I'd suggest showing this by restricting their range significantly: TBs and TBDs should only be able to go one sea area, and even by 1916 German destroyers should be able to reach the coast of southern England but not anything further north, and vice-versa.
As far as Britain goes, this is the history of development:
Torpedo boats were developed in the 1870s. Their purpose was to attack enemy battleships. They were extremely fast for the period, but also very short-ranged: useful only for coast and harbour defence.
TB 1 'Lightning', 1877. Top speed 19 knots, displacement 32 tons, armament 1 torpedo tube with 2 reloads. Scrapped in 1896.
TB 25, 1885. Top speed 21 knots, displacement 60 tons, armament 4 x 14" torpedo tubes and 2 x machine guns. Still in service in WW1.
TB 90, 1895. Top speed 23 knots, displacement 105 tons, armament 3 x 18" torpedo tubes and 3 x 3-pdr guns. Still in service in WW1.
The torpedo boat destroyer was developed in the mid 1890s. They were mainly intended to defeat enemy torpedo boats and thus defend the friendly battleships. They were slightly larger, faster and had guns as well as torpedoes. Like torpedo boats, they could only operate close to shore in calm weather.
HMS Havoc, 1894. Top speed 26 knots, displacement 275 tons, armament 3 x 18" torpedo tubes, 1 x 12-pdr and 3 x 3-pdr guns. Scrapped in 1912.
HMS Star, 1898. Top speed 30 knots, displacement 390 tons, armament 2 x 18" torpedo tubes, 1 x 12-pdr and 5 x 6-pdr guns. Still in service in WW1.
By 1905 the TBD had evolved into the destroyer, and torpedo boats were obsolete. Destroyers were faster than torpedo boats (although slightly slower than TBDs, at least until oil fuel replaced coal) and a lot more seaworthy. They were better armed, and could attack battleships with their own torpedoes.
HMS Erne, 1904 ('River' class). Top speed 26 knots, displacement 550 tons, armament 2 x 18" torpedo tubes, 4 x 12-pdr guns. Still in service in WW1.
HMS Afridi, 1907 ('Tribal' class). Top speed 33 knots, displacement 855 tons, armament 2 x 18" torpedo tubes, 2 x 4" guns. Still in service in WW1.
HMS Matchless, 1914 ('M' class). Top speed 34 knots, displacement 900 tons, armament 4 x 21" torpedo tubes, 3 x 4" and 2 x 1-pdr guns. Still in service in WW1.
The equivalent ships the Germans were using by 1914 were pretty much the same as the British ships - although they still called them Hochseetorpedoboote, by English terminology they were destroyers. The Germans did emphasise torpedoes rather than guns as compared to the British, which is why they kept the older name.
G37, 1914. Top speed 34 knots, displacement 822 tons, armament 6 x 19.7" (500mm) torpedo tubes, 3 x 3.5" (88mm) guns. Still in service in WW1.
Zuckergußgebäck said:
I think this could be a good way to go. We might split destroyers up into very short ranged torpedo boats with high sea attack value and destroyers that screen battleships and protect them against subs and torpedo boats. For gameplay purposes we might treat torpedo boats like subs, so that only destroyers are good at fighting them without making destroyers too powerful against other ship classes.
Keep the comments coming! Please discuss infantry changes as well
Now that might certainly be something to look into. Submarines were, after all, nothing more than torpedo boats with the ability to travel underwater. Even during the second world war, submarines preferred to make attacks at the surface (although at night).CookieCollector said:
So perhaps submarines could be made into "torpedo vessels", accomodating both submarines and torpedo boats, with separate branches on the tech tree and different unit graphics.
Sounds good. Anyone who opposes this idea? Other ideas are welcome as well and please comment on infantry types too, I do not want to make changes and see them declined or removed later.
edit: Now it comes to giving them stats. As Zucker pointed out, they were mostly like subs, but lacked the ability to dive and were limited to coastal sea.
I have copied over the submarine stats, increased the speed to the level of destroyers, visibility to 15 and limited range to 300-500. The torpedo boat in the destroyers.txt was replaced by an early torpedo boat destroyer and sea attack of destroyers roughly cut by half. Even now their sea attack is almost as high as that of subs and torpedo boats, so they should not be any better than this, or subs and torpedo boats become pointless.
edit: Now it comes to giving them stats. As Zucker pointed out, they were mostly like subs, but lacked the ability to dive and were limited to coastal sea.
I have copied over the submarine stats, increased the speed to the level of destroyers, visibility to 15 and limited range to 300-500. The torpedo boat in the destroyers.txt was replaced by an early torpedo boat destroyer and sea attack of destroyers roughly cut by half. Even now their sea attack is almost as high as that of subs and torpedo boats, so they should not be any better than this, or subs and torpedo boats become pointless.
Last edited:
CookieCollector said:
That's a very creative solution - however I can see some problems.
*will the ai use them properly?
*what will you do with other units' sub attack? Torpedo boats were very vulnerable to light calibre guns on battleship or cruisers
*doctrine for tb and sub was very different - torpedo boats had been exercising since The 70s but no-one really knew how to handle subs
*torpedo boats really were obsolete by 1905 keeping them competitive should not be an issue
*speed should not be as high as for destroyers - it wasn't
Torpedo boats were not obsolete by 1905. First of all, it was torpedo boats who delivered a sucessful attack on the russian fleet in Port Arthur in the Russo-Japanese war, and they continued to play a semi-vital role during the battle of Jutland. However, I will acknowledge that the counter-measures in place (such as destroyers) were much more effective. This didn't mean that Tortpedo Boats were obsolete, only that the enemy had to deploy increasing amounts of counter-measures to stop them.
But I do think that torpedo boats should be as fast or slightly slower than destroyers, and the submarine thing might not be the best solution - I got a little over enthusiastic there - doctrines, leaders and ministers creates certain problems which makes them better suited as destroyers.
But I do think that torpedo boats should be as fast or slightly slower than destroyers, and the submarine thing might not be the best solution - I got a little over enthusiastic there - doctrines, leaders and ministers creates certain problems which makes them better suited as destroyers.
Zuckergußgebäck said:
Of course there is a semantic issue.
Normally I read about the Japanese torpedos at Port Arthur being fired by destroyers, not torpedo boats. Since Japan was strongly influenced by British naval thought Japanese development roughly followed British development.
There is also no doubt in my mind that the large torpedo boats possessed by the German navy, and any other navy which had them, should have the same stats as the destroyers of the equivalent period. They were equivalent ships. The small differences in the ships, and the differences in their employment, should be represented by doctrines.
I think 'torpedo boats' in game should continue to be restricted to the one class of c. 1895 small vessels which as things stand is modelled as DD-0.
All later, larger ships should be modelled as DD-1 and subsequent regardless of whether they were labelled as "destroyer" or "large torpedo boat"
I can see no case for later torpedo boat models. And no case for giving this particular group of ships an ahistorically high speed.