Will ship classes be properly represented

[dukenukem115]

One of my major gripes with HOI3 was ship classes, I'm a navy buff so seeing ships in classes they didn't belong in, or ship classes not represented at all really got to me.

I've seen images of tech trees, and I notice ships like the Nelson class don't show up, so does that mean the Nelson just isn't a design you can build and show up in your starting fleet or is it simply not in the game.

 

[77Hawk77]

Kongo Battlecruiser is a higher tier battleship than Nagato from what i saw in WWW.

 

[Axe99]

The ship tech tree is abstracted and the same for each nation, but it is possible to have variants (so, for example, the Nelson could be a pretty maxed-out 1922 variant). My main concern is an artificial gap between the capabilities of 1936 and 1944 BBs, for example - there are only four base BB models, and the 1922 model represents a greater scope in capability than the 1936, 1940 and 1944 models combined - but we haven't seen enough to know how it'll work, so it might be all good .

On ship classes, I'm planning to mod in an expanded and more detailed tech tree (depending on what it needs to be a bit more accurate), as well as more naval units (DEs, CVEs, sloops, whatever else makes sense in the context of the UI and game mechanics).

 

[Alwar]

Heavy cruisers are capital ships so throw away any hopes of historical plausibility.

 

[potski]

My main concern is an artificial gap between the capabilities of 1936 and 1944 BBs, for example - there are only four base BB models, and the 1922 model represents a greater scope in capability than the 1936, 1940 and 1944 models combined

Is it a greater scope, despite the number of years, given the relatively small number of ships it would include? For UK you would have Queen Elizabeth class as the BB1 base and then Nelson class as a variant. Of which there were only two - Nelson and Rodney. Then it's BB2 1936 King George V class.

 

[Axe99]

Is it a greater scope, despite the number of years, given the relatively small number of ships it would include? For UK you would have Queen Elizabeth class as the BB1 base and then Nelson class as a variant. Of which there were only two - Nelson and Rodney. Then it's BB2 1936 King George V class.

Just for the UK, it's the five Queen Elizabeths, five Revenges (and the Revenges, while a later model, are a better base model, as they were less capable than the QEs) and two Nelsons, but the greatest impact is when we look at a 1922 slot for all BBs prior to HoI4's start . This includes the 1910 Minas Gerais class, displacing just 19,281 tons and with 12 inch guns, with at top speed of 21 knots, to the Japanese Nagato class, displacing nearly twice as much (39,120 tons) and carrying 16 inch guns and a top speed of 26.5 knots.

If we look at the 1936-1944 range of battleships we have the slowest speed of 27.5 knots (South Colorado - 1936) and the top 32.5 knots (Iowa, 1940), a difference of 5 knots (smaller than the difference within the 1922 class). For BB Calibres, it goes from 14 inches for the KGVs (1946) to 16 inches for the Iowas, Montanas, Lions and Vanguards (at least on 1944 in there) - a difference of 2 inches in 1936-44 as opposed to 4 inches in the 1922 class.

This also ignores the substantial improvements in gun quality within the 1922 ships - not all guns of the same calibre were created equal, and there was greater improvement during the 1922 class than during the WW2 period.

Also, it actually doesn't include a relatively small number of ships at all. Of all the 78* or so BBs that were in service at one point or another during the conflict, around two-thirds (or 53) fall into the 1922 slot, with just a third (or 25) split between the other three.

That's not to say that a 1922 slot may not work out - if each increase is incremental, but the 1922 has a lower base so improvements in variants through the 1922 model are proportionally larger increases in functionality relative to each other, it may provide a reasonable proxy - but I suspect that it will still under-rate 1922 ships (particularly the Colorados, Nagatos and Nelsons) in relation to later BBs. We'll see - I'll have a good look at how it all falls out when we can see all of it.

* I've left out the Deustchlands and the training ships like the remaining Danton-class BB here, but including these doesn't materially change the situation.

 

[potski]

Yes, not a 1922 tech at all. The Revenges which I overlooked were commissioned before WW1, but still in active service so need to be included. There's bound to be differences between countries, you can argue the same with Soviet, German and US tanks all having the same base stats. My point is following the end of WW1 "the war to end all wars" some ships were scrapped, and then during the depression not many BBs were built, just Rodney and Nelson in UK commissioned in 1927. The Vickers Armstrong yard on the Tyne built Nelson 1922-27, but then hardly had any work for seven years, before some DD were ordered, then King George V was laid down in 1936.

The 1922 tech merely acts as a catch-all for all old BBs, with variants pre-defined to provide for the different classes. No-one's going to actually start building any of them during the game

 

[Axe99]

The 1922 tech merely acts as a catch-all for all old BBs, with variants pre-defined to provide for the different classes. No-one's going to actually start building any of them during the game

Absolutely . That's why I've said it may not be necessary to have other slots for BBs, it depends on how the variant system works, and whether it will allow a reasonably plausible representation in the variation of the 50+ BBs it covers. If it does, all good, but if it doesn't, then we might be better served with a tech tree with other base models to build variants from. It wouldn't be an issue for a player, per se - just a way of getting more accurate starting naval forces into the game.

Plus, while there's a chance we might be alright with BBs, Japan still had a couple of ACs (as opposed to CAs) kicking around that saw active service during the Pacific war (although, fortunately for said ACs, not up against any modern CAs!) There's just no way that the tech tree can put that ship and a Hawkins class in the same slot and give reasonable results, unless the variant system allows for some pretty crazy results which would open up new issues to be dealt with.

Similarly, I suspect it might be helpful to have a separate, not-really-buildable model of 'CVs built from converted BCs', as these were quite different to the early purpose-built CVs in ways that a variant system would struggle to handle, to the level of detail I'm personally looking for (I'm not saying the system in-game isn't a "it's good enough" abstraction - I expect it is, and will play with it for a couple of hundred hours, at least, before changing anything - but I can mod in something a bit more accurate, and want to, so why not ). Again, it won't be any extra burden on players, as no-one will be building them in-game, but at the moment the base model CV needs to go from HMS Eagle to the Lexington - almost twice as much displacement, something like four times the aircraft capacity and about 50 per cent faster - having a separate base model allows for the starting carrier forces to better reflect how they were historically.

I'm also hoping that the interface can be modded such that there isn't necessarily a need to show anything prior to 1922 - so there's no extra interface clutter as well - although I'm not sure how possible this'll be.

 

[mursolini]

Just for the UK, it's the five Queen Elizabeths, five Revenges (and the Revenges, while a later model, are a better base model, as they were less capable than the QEs) and two Nelsons, but the greatest impact is when we look at a 1922 slot for all BBs prior to HoI4's start . This includes the 1910 Minas Gerais class, displacing just 19,281 tons and with 12 inch guns, with at top speed of 21 knots, to the Japanese Nagato class, displacing nearly twice as much (39,120 tons) and carrying 16 inch guns and a top speed of 26.5 knots.

If we look at the 1936-1944 range of battleships we have the slowest speed of 27.5 knots (South Colorado - 1936) and the top 32.5 knots (Iowa, 1940), a difference of 5 knots (smaller than the difference within the 1922 class). For BB Calibres, it goes from 14 inches for the KGVs (1946) to 16 inches for the Iowas, Montanas, Lions and Vanguards (at least on 1944 in there) - a difference of 2 inches in 1936-44 as opposed to 4 inches in the 1922 class.

This also ignores the substantial improvements in gun quality within the 1922 ships - not all guns of the same calibre were created equal, and there was greater improvement during the 1922 class than during the WW2 period.

Also, it actually doesn't include a relatively small number of ships at all. Of all the 78* or so BBs that were in service at one point or another during the conflict, around two-thirds (or 53) fall into the 1922 slot, with just a third (or 25) split between the other three.

That's not to say that a 1922 slot may not work out - if each increase is incremental, but the 1922 has a lower base so improvements in variants through the 1922 model are proportionally larger increases in functionality relative to each other, it may provide a reasonable proxy - but I suspect that it will still under-rate 1922 ships (particularly the Colorados, Nagatos and Nelsons) in relation to later BBs. We'll see - I'll have a good look at how it all falls out when we can see all of it.

* I've left out the Deustchlands and the training ships like the remaining Danton-class BB here, but including these doesn't materially change the situation.

It is all nice, but in grand cheme of things, how much of an impact did battleships had? Do increased detail actally bring anything to the table?

Considering the impact capital ships had, there would be practically no difference if all of them are represented with generic BB unit, withput tech tree at all.

 

[Axe99]

It is all nice, but in grand cheme of things, how much of an impact did battleships had? Do increased detail actally bring anything to the table?

Considering the impact capital ships had, there would be practically no difference if all of them are represented with generic BB unit, withput tech tree at all.

Even if you were having a non-sandbox, strictly historical game, the Battle of the Denmark straight, Surigoa Straight and the Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal all centred around battleships. British and Italian BBs both had an important part to play in the Med as well. In these circumstances, it will add to immersion to get it right. It made a big difference, for example, if the British BBs in the Med were up against a modern Littorio, rather than a modernised Cavour.

Play a sandbox game where things could work out more evenly on the naval side of things, and not be so one-sided and focussed on the carrier-focussed Pacific and things could be far more battleship-focussed (indeed, if the US hadn't lost so many BBs prior to Midway, they might have taken a very different approach to that battle, and if the UK had been able to send a carrier to assist the Prince of Wales and Repulse, that might have ended up in more BB/BC combat around Singapore as well).

Of course, just like we could just have one generic tank model, we could also have one generic BB model and get away with it, but I think there's added gameplay depth and immersion from a mod that gets into more detail - note I'm only personally suggesting modding it, not that the current vanilla tech tree is changed, so I wouldn't be forcing greater attention to detail on anyone other than myself .

 

[potski]

I hope you find the BB's are "good enough" in the vanilla game, and aren't desperately in need of changing. That the four base models and 2-3 variants in between can represent things pretty well without breaking immersion. But it is possible to add more base models if you feel it's necessary, and very easy to add more variants.

What I'm looking forward to is seeing whether new types of ships such as frigates and CVEs can be included. The problem with these will be producing artwork and 3D models I think. Especially if it is to come close to the level of the superb work done by the guys from Paradox.

 

[Cpack]

At the moment, I'm preparing my "techtree revision mod":

-It's necessary to implement a 1927 Tech line to make it proper. Looks like this so far. Prepared it for all majors now

 

[smellymummy]

that's a lot of techs to research

 

[Denkt]

Heavy cruisers are capital ships so throw away any hopes of historical plausibility.

I don't see what is wrong with this. For many nations heavy cruisers will be the most expensive ship they build and in terms of useage it is more like the battleship then like the light cruiser who is mainly built for its support abilities of providing cheap anti air and dangerous torpedoes while heavy cruisers are built for their surface combat abilities.

 

[mursolini]

Even if you were having a non-sandbox, strictly historical game, the Battle of the Denmark straight, Surigoa Straight and the Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal all centred around battleships.

Denmark straight was irrelevant, Leyte gulf was mostly carrier based battle, where destroyers and aviation wiped capital ships.

British and Italian BBs both had an important part to play in the Med as well. In these circumstances, it will add to immersion to get it right. It made a big difference, for example, if the British BBs in the Med were up against a modern Littorio, rather than a modernised Cavour.

Neither was important, aviation did most of work for both sides, with GB securing superiority with attack on Taranto, and Axis aviation delivering far more than italian fleet.

Play a sandbox game where things could work out more evenly on the naval side of things, and not be so one-sided and focussed on the carrier-focussed Pacific and things could be far more battleship-focussed (indeed, if the US hadn't lost so many BBs prior to Midway, they might have taken a very different approach to that battle, and if the UK had been able to send a carrier to assist the Prince of Wales and Repulse, that might have ended up in more BB/BC combat around Singapore as well).

The aviation approach is dictated by the very simple thing: economics. Planes don`t take years to build, nor require huge dockyards, and carriers require smaller hulls than BBs.

All of that, dictates that aviation would play vital role in any naval war, simply by virtue of being much easier to ramp up production and deliver in numbers.
Not to mention capital ships fight were extremely undecicive.

Of course, just like we could just have one generic tank model, we could also have one generic BB model and get away with it, but I think there's added gameplay depth and immersion from a mod that gets into more detail - note I'm only personally suggesting modding it, not that the current vanilla tech tree is changed, so I wouldn't be forcing greater attention to detail on anyone other than myself .

From gameplay perspective, there is no difference, as not only did capital ships pretty much hit a wall in their development in 1930s, but with separation of factories on military and naval, building planes is your only way to shore up your naval capacity that doesn`t take 4-6 years to take effect, hence more or less everyone would be forced into to into naval aviation or lose.

 

[Alwar]

I don't see what is wrong with this. For many nations heavy cruisers will be the most expensive ship they build and in terms of useage it is more like the battleship then like the light cruiser who is mainly built for its support abilities of providing cheap anti air and dangerous torpedoes while heavy cruisers are built for their surface combat abilities.

The difference between light cruisers and heavy cruisers is only the caliber of main guns. Nothing else.

up to 6" guns => light cruiser
From 6" to 8" => heavy cruisers.

heck, some light cruisers were better armored and with more displacement that other heavy cruisers ffs.

I dont know where you get your "anti air" and "surface combat"

Both were designed for surface combat, AA cruisers were experiments from USA that have nothing to do with light or heavy cruisers. In theory those are classified as light cruisers because lower than 6" main guns, but it has NOTHING to do with that designation

 

[LordOfWar16]

Well, in the end names are just cosmetic for the major nations. I dont even think (atleast from what i have seen) that there are country specific 3d models for the ships. Keep in mind that they will expand the game with several updates and expansions of course, so there is still plenty of potential for official content and if not there is always the great modding support. I am sure we will see a BlackIce mod at some point.

 

[Alwar]

Well, in the end names are just cosmetic...

Then why have soldiers in the map? lets put ponies for cavalry and teletubbies for troops! how about peppa pigs for tanks! yeah its just cosmetic, who cares right?

that is how ridiculous you guys sound to someone who have SOME grasp of the naval aspect of ww2. Its just completly breaking the immersion, something that is a major value for games like this.

 

[LordOfWar16]

Then why have soldiers in the map? lets put ponies for cavalry and teletubbies for troops! how about peppa pigs for tanks! yeah its just cosmetic, who cares right?

that is how ridiculous you guys sound to someone who have SOME grasp of the naval aspect of ww2. Its just completly breaking the immersion, something that is a major value for games like this.

first of all, calm down and stop being aggressive towards other people. Secondly, dont try to twist my words in my mouth. It has no gameplay effect.

Yes, the order of some ships and the choice of ships is questionable. The german tree is all over the place aswell, like the destroyers being in the wrong order and the cruisers being completly off aswell. We basicly got 3 Admiral Hipper class ships as 3 individual classes in the game.

As you can see the german heavy cruiser line consists of the Blücher, Hipper and Prinz Eugen Class, which all were ships of the Admiral Hipper class.

I for my part already gave constructive feedback about this matter in another thread rather than complaining and being hostile on the forum. If it really bothers open notepad and swap the names yourself or give constructive feedback rather than attacking people, its a matter of minutes.

 

[Denkt]

6 inch guns could be used against air targets which I don't think 8 inch guns could be and being able to use your main guns against air targets can make the ship much better against air targets.

Take Sweden for example, Sverige class is a good example of a heavy cruiser in game terms while the significant larger Tre kronor class is a good example of a light cruiser. The Sverige class had large main guns and was armored quite heavily while the Tre Kronor class was armed with dual purpose 6 inch guns, torpedoes, depth charges and mines.

As you can see the german heavy cruiser line consists of the Blücher, Hipper and Prinz Eugen Class, which all were ships of the Admiral Hipper class.

It is a bit strange but I could see why they did it as Germany could have built less heavy cruiser and used the names of the latest built ones for later classes.

Thanks to the variant system you can just rename your ship classes whatever you wan't so it is not a big deal.