Love your work
@Cpack - what are your thoughts on having a "converted battlecruisers" slot for those CVs? I was also thinking about having escorts and CVLs/CVEs as 'variants' of the main DD/CV lines (like TDs/SPART/Carrier aircraft for tanks/planes), but other than that, that's pretty similar to what I was looking at, in which case no point us doing the same thing twice. If you want a hand with it, let me know
.
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.
Aye, I'm not suggesting the base game is bad, at all. Just that I wouldn't mind a bit more detail on the naval side. Unlike planes and tanks, that were no-where near as established in 1936, a lot of the evolution of BBs in particular had taken place, so the development curve was a bit different than for a lot of the other tech in the game.
Totally agree on the difficulties with including them in the game. I'm definitely not promising anything there, and definitely not anything quickly! That said, I am hopeful that over time (assuming no-one else does - like Cpack's tech tree mod, if someone else is doing something I'm keen on, I'll do something else, as I have a list of things I'm keen to try that are as long as my arm - not because the base game doesn't look awesome, just because I wouldn't mind a bit of extra detail in there) I can slowly build up some decent 3D models of the smaller ships (and, if it doesn't look like PDS will make nation-specific ship models, the larger ships, but I'd bet good money these will crop up as DLC so we don't have the same model for each nation for too long).
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.
....
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.
I think we should agree to disagree on the various merits of BBs - we had another thread turn into a BB vs CV thread in the last few days, and I'm getting a little bored of them. I've done a fair bit of research on the different BBs, and at least to me it looks like it's worth modding them in. I won't think any less of you if you play with vanilla BBs, it's just something for me (or Cpack, if I use his mod instead)
. The beauty of HoI is that it can handle a range of abstraction levels, and the beauty of modding is we can put in any extra detail we'd like that isn't in vanilla (at not point have I suggested that not having these distinctions in vanilla would break the game or anything silly like that).
That said - your point about capital ships hitting a wall in their development in the 1930s, while not strictly true, is also kind of my point. We have one tech (1922) that covers the vast bulk of BB development, and then three techs (1936 through to 1944) where many of the changes were very incremental. That's the point I've been trying to make. A 1944 BB would have less of an edge over a 1936 BB than a 'maxed out' variant of a 1922 BB would have against a base model 1922. Now, if the variant system means this is the case, then well and good, but if it isn't, then for people that want it, we'll get a bit more appropriate detail in the game with a bit of tweaking.
Also worth noting that in-game, last time we saw it BBs take a year and a half to build even if you're missing all the oil, not 4-6 years (although I'm definitely modding in more historically accurate build times - so your argument would hold true if you were using what I'm hoping to put together).
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.
There were larger guns that could perform in an AA role (all the way up to Yamato's 18" monsters!), and most CAs also had decent AA weaponry (the Baltimores had 12 5" dual-purpose guns, not that far off the 16 carried by an Atlanta), but I think the distinction in-game is more to help the AI positioning - so CLs and DDs will screen the BBs, CAs and CVs - rather than a statement about the relative combat effectiveness of particular classes of ship. While it might be semantically on the nose to purists, I think from a gameplay sense the attribution of 'capital' to CAs could make a lot of sense (we'll see once it's out, of course). It's just a label, after all - it's how the label is used in-game that matters.
Saying that the developers are lazy is pretty ridiculous especially since they delayed the game by 1.25 years. They have made many controversial choices such as teleporting aircrafts and how oil is handled but they have made these choices because it make the game more in line of what the developers wan't the game to be. It is not meant to be a super historical game but to be a good grand strategy game, the developers said this as early as developer diary one.
A big +1 for this - there is a
huge amount of work that's gone into the game, and any suggestions I or most others make are for personal preference, and not meant to imply that HoI4 vanilla is lacking.
