Will ship classes be properly represented

[Secret Master]

HMS Vanguard? She was roughly equivalent to Iowa in size so not a SHBB. The Lion class design might be a better choice for Axe's hypothetical discussion though since Vanguard was a compromise design so she could be completed in a shorter time frame.

Well, I guess. Vanguard only had a 15 inch armament (again, it's a compromise because they had the guns around already, so...), which tells me that it's closer to Iowa than a 1944 BB.

Of course, it was the absolute last BB completed and actually commissioned in the entire world, so... 1944? Yes?

That question kind of highlights the point I'm trying to make - the tech tree from a BB perspective doesn't really do a great job of fitting the tech development of BBs (although I think it does a good enough job for the vanilla game ).

The fundamental question facing HOI is what is a SHBB? In HOI3, the Devs were on record as saying that the SHBB tech was specifically designed as a kind of short cut for a nice BB that traded a sooner completion date for a dead end. It also let Japan start with that tech so they could get Yamato under construction. But as my own tests showed, 1940 BBs were more or less equal to SHBB (trading some hull for more firepower) while 1942 were clearly better. (The costs for SHBB did not justify their use when 1942 BB techs are in play.) You could also use the SHBB tech as a "treaty breaker" tech; while others are evolving naturally, you just jump right over the limits of the Washington Naval Treaty right away.

So, in HOI3, the evolution worked like this: use SHBB as a shortcut to nice battleships for use in 1940-1942. Or you naturally evolve your battleships and continue employing them over time, putting new ones in the water every time you get a new tech.

But in HOI4, that old distinction seems to be gone. Without seeing actual stats in game, I'm not entirely sure what the difference is between SHBB and BBs. Now you just have two types of BBs, a bigger one and a smaller one that's not a BC. This makes seeing them in hypothetical historical terms because....

As brighter people than me around here have said, Montana was more of a 1944 BB than SHBB (although using the Montana name for the SHBB slot is a perfectly reasonable decision for HoI4, given the tech tree they have), in that it was the natural evolution of a BB in a period of competitive development (not unlike the substantial tonnage increases between 1906 and 1922, which started with Dreadnought at around 18,000 tons and finished with Hood at over 40,000, IIRC (could be off here, going from memory) and I'd probably use that design as a comparison model, and then weigh that up against the South Dakotas (the 1930s designs - the ones that were actually built). Vanguard, Iowa and Lions (as they were laid down) I'd put as all 1940s designs (again, for the sake of this discussion - where they are in the vanilla tech tree may be different, I can't recall off the top of my head, and the first in all three classes were laid down between 1939 and 1941).

Put another way, Yamato was special because she was just a lot bigger than anything else built at the time. But looking at all these other build plans (Montana, H-44, A-150), it seems to me that Yamato just ushers in a new era of BBs. Montana, while not quite as well armed in main guns, would have had more speed and comparable armor. H-44 would be monstrously huge, representing another step forward in firepower (20 inch guns) and armor, along with A-150 (sometimes called super Yamato).

What I'm getting at is that I'm not sure the game needs a SHBB class itself. Maybe it will just make people feel good, but I would have thought that "armored behemoth" and "fast battleship that rolls with the carriers" could be covered by variants. But having a SHBB ship type might make players happy because of the appeal of Yamato, so I guess it makes sense from a design perspective.

Indeed, there wasn't much movement at all between 1922 and 1936 (due to a combination of the naval treaties and the technology maturing), such that the 'big' designs of the early 1920s (South Dakota, N3, KII) that were scuppered by the Washington Treaty wouldn't have been that far off a Montana in capability in any event, and the G3 "Battlecruisers" would have been quite similar in capability to the Iowas, nearly 20 years their senior.

This is why I liked to think of SHBB tech in HOI3 as a "treaty breaker." It represents a likely path BB design would have taken if there were no treaties in place during the 30s.

 

[Cpack]

In my opinion you can skip SHBB's and bring them in the BB line. My intension then would be to include really nation specific values of classes (also for tanks and plane).
This could make the Yamato special again.

But at the moment I have no idea how to make all the values nation specific (not really by company, or at least not only)

In Hoi3 I made some "invisible tech" to make them nation specific, but hopefully it's more easy and transparent in Hoi4

 

[Orlunu]

TBH, the SHBB plans were more than just variant BBs. The 18", 19" and even 20" guns were a different league entirely to the normal range of battleship guns, and even the Yamato class had armoured plates which the best guns in service in the world at the end of WW2 couldn't penetrate at any range. A 1944 class battleship's variants have to cover through, say, 15" guns with fairly poor ammo through to the Iowa's 16" Mk. 8 rounds and even slightly beyond, which is a fairly wide spectrum. Well, the Yamato's (basic level 1936 SHBB) guns beat out the Iowa's best rounds.

The differences are absurdly large to cover through variants.



Edit:
Also, do we think that hybrid carriers would be better covered by variants or by sub-types (like TDs)? I really can't decide.

 

[jcd000]

I agree on that, the point is that when we are talking about SHBB's designed in 1944, there aren't any feasible on​

TBH, the SHBB plans were more than just variant BBs. The 18", 19" and even 20" guns were a different league entirely to the normal range of battleship guns, and even the Yamato class had armoured plates which the best guns in service in the world at the end of WW2 couldn't penetrate at any range. A 1944 class battleship's variants have to cover through, say, 15" guns with fairly poor ammo through to the Iowa's 16" Mk. 8 rounds and even slightly beyond, which is a fairly wide spectrum. Well, the Yamato's (basic level 1936 SHBB) guns beat out the Iowa's best rounds.

The differences are absurdly large to cover through variants.

I agree on that, the point is that when we are talking about SHBB's designed in 1944, there aren't any feasible ones.
So the SHBB ('36 to '44) line for all countries should exist mainly because of the two '36 SHBB that were built?

It does not sound right, and i would argue for dropping the '44 SHBB (in other words, making the '44 BB representative of all BB's designed after the Iowa)

Is this unreasonable?

EDIT
But researching the SHBB should lead to the '44 BB tech, ofc

 

[Orlunu]

It does not sound right, and i would argue for dropping the '44 SHBB (in other words, making the '44 BB representative of all BB's designed after the Iowa)

Is this unreasonable?

Well, I prefer a sandbox approach to the tech trees, and think that it should be left up to the player whether to abandon the concept, as was done in real life, or carry it on. I can see where you're coming from, though.

 

[Denkt]

Technology is not about making things larger but making things more suited. A 1944 tech super heavy battleship would have very advanced armaments and electronics making it more effective then older classes.

Like if a country can make a battleship with twice the amount of anti air firepower of the Iowa without much change in size or any other tradeoff, that would be a significant technology improvement.

 

[linen]

Seeing as there are a lot of ship folk around figured I'd ask a question or two...

1. How much of a difference does an inch difference in caliber make when discussing the difference between say a 15 inch and a 16 inch BB gun? For example on the receiving end of such shells, would they both easily pierce 10 inch armor? What of 14 inch armor?

2. How effective was BB armor if at all against large caliber fire

 

[Cpack]

Not only the caliber is important, also

• the firing range
• the reload time
• the accuracy
• angle of impact

 

[Orlunu]

Seeing as there are a lot of ship folk around figured I'd ask a question or two...

1. How much of a difference does an inch difference in caliber make when discussing the difference between say a 15 inch and a 16 inch BB gun? For example on the receiving end of such shells, would they both easily pierce 10 inch armor? What of 14 inch armor?

2. How effective was BB armor if at all against large caliber fire

Can't pull penetration stats off the top of my head, but generally an inch difference on a gun was a fairly important change.

For heavy cruisers and up, they tried to make the armour effective against the ship's own guns, as a general rule. Almost all armour would be penetrated at very close or very long range, but the zones of immunity at middle range could be very large on some battleships. As I said, the Yamato class carried plates which no gun in service at the end of WW2 could penetrate at any angle.

The good armour was usually only over important parts like magazines, turrets, and vital machinery, though. The rest was much thinner.

 

[dave_r_gilbert]

Seeing as there are a lot of ship folk around figured I'd ask a question or two...

1. How much of a difference does an inch difference in caliber make when discussing the difference between say a 15 inch and a 16 inch BB gun? For example on the receiving end of such shells, would they both easily pierce 10 inch armor? What of 14 inch armor?

2. How effective was BB armor if at all against large caliber fire

1. The difference in the size of the shell changes roughly with the cube of the ratio, all other things being equal. This is because shells are in 3 dimensions.
So a 6" shell isn't twice as big as a 3" shell, it's eight times the size.
This is not absolute, as British 4.7" shells were bigger than American 5" shells.
Armour penetration depends on a huge range of factors, although bigger heavier shells help.
The design of the shells, the build quality, angle of impact, range, type of armour and a whole host of other conditions are important.
Ships had different amounts of armour on different parts of the ship, heaviest on the turrets and ammo hoists, magazines, engines.
After WW1 most ships had heavier armour on the deck, as a counter to long range shells coming in at a steeper angle.
As time went by the quality of armour, and the way it was distributed, improved.
So 8" of 1940 armour may well have been better than 10" of 1915 armour.
At what range armour would stop a shell can be calculated, but based on the caveats above it is probably better to say it is possible to calculate the range at which you would expect the armour to stop a shell.

2. At long ranges armour stood a reasonable chance of stopping shells, although it varied from ship to ship, and of course the unarmoured bits would take a pasting.
Apparently the Bismarck's main belt armour wasn't penetrated in its last battle, although the ship was battered into a wreck.
The longest range battleship hit ever landed (I think) on the turret of an Italian battleship, and failed to penetrate.
On the other hand long range fire penetrated a magazine on the Bretagne at Mers-el-Kebir and blew it up.
And the Hood is famous for a single golden shot, although it didn't have very good armour to start with.
A dive-bomber attack on the Tirpitz failed because the bombs were released from too low, and failed to go through the deck armour.

 

[jcd000]

Seeing as there are a lot of ship folk around figured I'd ask a question or two...

1. How much of a difference does an inch difference in caliber make when discussing the difference between say a 15 inch and a 16 inch BB gun? For example on the receiving end of such shells, would they both easily pierce 10 inch armor? What of 14 inch armor?

An inch difference in diameter should make a huge difference in mass of the projectile, especially with larger calibers.
Case in point (stolen from wikipedia):

Yamato: 18in/46cm: 1500kg, 40km
Iowa: 16in/40cm: 1225kg, 38km
Bismarck: 15in/38cm: 800kg/36.5km
KGV: 14in/36cm: 720kg, 35km

So just 4 inches difference more than double the mass of the Shell.

EDIT: @dave_r_gilbert post is much more informative, but an example is still good.

 

[egslim]

Technology is not about making things larger but making things more suited. A 1944 tech super heavy battleship would have very advanced armaments and electronics making it more effective then older classes.

WWII-era battleships should basically be classified in two dimensions:
- Technology-level, this determines how advanced their armor, guns and engines are.
- Size/cost, this is a political decision how much a single ship can cost, and if naval treaties are to be adhered to or not.

In HOI3-terms this could have been done using two trees: One for technology advancements, and another to increase or reduce size.

 

[jcd000]

Technology is not about making things larger but making things more suited. A 1944 tech super heavy battleship would have very advanced armaments and electronics making it more effective then older classes.

Like if a country can make a battleship with twice the amount of anti air firepower of the Iowa without much change in size or any other tradeoff, that would be a significant technology improvement.

This reminds me: Such tech would also be on the 44-BB. The only reason to make it bigger, is to mount bigger stuff, not better tech.

So, the difference that forces us to make the distinction for SHBB is a huge jump in armor and gun size (so tonnage as well) from the contemporary BBs.

Now if all '44 BB designs are around the same tonnage/gun/armor, then there is no need to separate the BBs from SHBBs.

Would be interesting to watch what would happen with BB evolution if the CVs were not that effective as to render BBs obsolete.

 

[Axe99]

What I'm getting at is that I'm not sure the game needs a SHBB class itself. Maybe it will just make people feel good, but I would have thought that "armored behemoth" and "fast battleship that rolls with the carriers" could be covered by variants. But having a SHBB ship type might make players happy because of the appeal of Yamato, so I guess it makes sense from a design perspective.

This is why I liked to think of SHBB tech in HOI3 as a "treaty breaker." It represents a likely path BB design would have taken if there were no treaties in place during the 30s.

I think this forum needs a "Make Secret Master post on this topic" button - although it could create a lot of work for you . I think there's perhaps a role for a 1936 SHBB, because it's not really possible to tech rush to 1944 sizes in time to be able to build a Yamato, and down the track I'd love it if there was no SHBB but rather a 'ship designer' DLC for BBs/BCs/CVs that enabled people to build crazy large ships with current tech, and not have a SHBB at all. I agree there's no need for a 1944 SHBB, but I also think it doesn't create trouble having it in the game.

Here's my USA-Tech tree to discuss:

Great work Cpack . Some thoughts, but just from a punter trying to help, not meant as criticisms, and ignorable if you don't like :

- Have you thought about a separate "converted BC" carrier tech? The Kaga/Akagi and Lexington/Saratoga were so different from what was before and often larger than what was after, and often had more armour as well (not to mention heavier guns earlier on), that they don't fit into traditional tech trees as well. I'm not saying it's a good idea, just something I'm mulling over.

- I'd have Long Island as a CVE, Independence in its place, and Saipan in the '44 slot.

- I'd have thought Omaha was better at the 1922 slot with a gap at 1927, but not a biggy either way.

- I'd leave the 1928 escort slot free m'self - having the Wickes pop up there looks a bit odd given they pre-date the Clemsons. It's not quite chronologically correct, but what about the Asheville class here? They were jack-of-all trade sloop-alikes the US built in the thirties to stay under the treaty limits. If not, you could maybe have the Lake or Treasury Classes - coast guard cutters of sloop size that performed ASW during the war.

- On the CLs, what about the Worcesters at the end? The Fargos were basically a variant of the Clevelands, while the Worcesters had rapid-firing guns, which I'd think of as a hallmark of the 1944 cruiser tech. Also maybe have Cleveland instead of Atlanta - Cleveland more a CL, Atlanta more a variant, and Cleveland quite iconic.

- I'd probably have Lexington as a 1922 BC than 1927 (first was laid down in 1920), but not hugely important given unlikely will be built either way .

- As per Secret Master's thoughts, I'm not sure we need a 1944 SHBB (for a detailed mod - I'm not commenting on the vanilla game), although I'd wait until I'd seen the game before deciding one way or another.

TBH, the SHBB plans were more than just variant BBs. The 18", 19" and even 20" guns were a different league entirely to the normal range of battleship guns, and even the Yamato class had armoured plates which the best guns in service in the world at the end of WW2 couldn't penetrate at any range. A 1944 class battleship's variants have to cover through, say, 15" guns with fairly poor ammo through to the Iowa's 16" Mk. 8 rounds and even slightly beyond, which is a fairly wide spectrum. Well, the Yamato's (basic level 1936 SHBB) guns beat out the Iowa's best rounds.

A number of the BBs designed for the 1920s before the Washington Treaty scuppered them all had 18" guns in mind, and the British put 18" guns on the Furious before they turned it into a CV. It's not like they're a 1944 tech or something like that. I'd see the Iowa as a 1940 design, and the 1944 BB, if people were still 'building out' BBs, be where the 18" guns came in. 20" guns could go on a 1944 SHBB, but that German design was crazy unrealistic, so I personally don't think there's a need to design a tech tree around it.

Also, do we think that hybrid carriers would be better covered by variants or by sub-types (like TDs)? I really can't decide.

Are you talking what they did to the Ise's? No one built these from scratch (for good reason), so I was probably going to have a crack at covering them by event (giving players a choice to have a BB with a short flight deck and catapults).

 

[Orlunu]

- Have you thought about a separate "converted BC" carrier tech? The Kaga/Akagi and Lexington/Saratoga were so different from what was before and often larger than what was after, and often had more armour as well (not to mention heavier guns earlier on), that they don't fit into traditional tech trees as well. I'm not saying it's a good idea, just something I'm mulling over.

Are you talking what they did to the Ise's? No one built these from scratch (for good reason), so I was probably going to have a crack at covering them by event (giving players a choice to have a BB with a short flight deck and catapults).

Ises and the like, also Mogami and co, and also purpose-built hybrids like HSwMS Gotland. When you showed me what you were doing in your mod, I dropped the main fleet stuff in favour of just using your mod and decided to elaborate my guerre d'escadre side more. One of the things I want to put into it is, ofc, the spotting/ASW aircraft which some ships used.

You get a bit of a scale, from the standard battleship with a couple of spotters, up to the scout cruisers which sacrificed significant armament to take entire wings of the things, through the battleship conversions which lost some turrets for a flight deck and actual carrier aircraft, up to the full-on aircraft carrier conversions. I'm kinda thinking that the best way to do it is through variants, with the standard option, a hybrid option, and a carrier conversion.

Events could work, but I'm leery of them, having seen modernisation events in the last games, because that system tends to be fairly limited in only offering you a couple of the units, and specific ones at that.

 

[Axe99]

Ises and the like, also Mogami and co, and also purpose-built hybrids like HSwMS Gotland. When you showed me what you were doing in your mod, I dropped the main fleet stuff in favour of just using your mod and decided to elaborate my guerre d'escadre side more. One of the things I want to put into it is, ofc, the spotting/ASW aircraft which some ships used.

You get a bit of a scale, from the standard battleship with a couple of spotters, up to the scout cruisers which sacrificed significant armament to take entire wings of the things, through the battleship conversions which lost some turrets for a flight deck and actual carrier aircraft, up to the full-on aircraft carrier conversions. I'm kinda thinking that the best way to do it is through variants, with the standard option, a hybrid option, and a carrier conversion.

Events could work, but I'm leery of them, having seen modernisation events in the last games, because that system tends to be fairly limited in only offering you a couple of the units, and specific ones at that.

The purpose-built Gotland is a good point (it's on my list, but had slipped my mind). Once HoI4's out in the wild and we have a modding sub-forum, there's likely some value in coordinating a bit to save work and enable us to do each bit better (less repetition means more focus on individual bits and all that) - in a perfect world, if we could get what you, Cpack, me and whoever else is interested to work together, either as a combined mod or compatible sub-mods, I reckon it'd go well.

On the conversions thing, I'm definitely keen to have something in there if possible, but I'm not sure if there'll be systems that can cope with it. I totally agree that events are limited for this kind of thing, but suspect they may be the best option we have. The Japanese did a stack of converting, of all sorts of ships (there were a couple of seaplane tenders that turned into CVLs/CVEs, from memory - at least something like that), so it'd be great to have it in the game, in some form or other. Also, conversions while under construction (Shinano SHBB into Shinano crazy big but inefficient for its size CV, for example) .

 

[Orlunu]

The purpose-built Gotland is a good point (it's on my list, but had slipped my mind). Once HoI4's out in the wild and we have a modding sub-forum, there's likely some value in coordinating a bit to save work and enable us to do each bit better (less repetition means more focus on individual bits and all that) - in a perfect world, if we could get what you, Cpack, me and whoever else is interested to work together, either as a combined mod or compatible sub-mods, I reckon it'd go well.

On the conversions thing, I'm definitely keen to have something in there if possible, but I'm not sure if there'll be systems that can cope with it. I totally agree that events are limited for this kind of thing, but suspect they may be the best option we have. The Japanese did a stack of converting, of all sorts of ships (there were a couple of seaplane tenders that turned into CVLs/CVEs, from memory - at least something like that), so it'd be great to have it in the game, in some form or other. Also, conversions while under construction (Shinano SHBB into Shinano crazy big but inefficient for its size CV, for example) .

I'm happy to work as together as the rest of you want, normally ends up with the best mods that way.

I can't say for certain that it'll work, of course, not having seen the code, but Paradox would've had to go bizarrely out of their way to prevent the sub-type system that lets you build things like TDs, SPGs, and carrier aircraft from being possible to add on to ships. It'd be more flexible in letting you build things, but it probably wouldn't allow conversion part-way through construction.

The Chitose class AVs are fairly popular and were converted into CVLs.

 

[Secret Master]

and down the track I'd love it if there was no SHBB but rather a 'ship designer' DLC for BBs/BCs/CVs that enabled people to build crazy large ships with current tech, and not have a SHBB at all.

EDIT: Oh, and:

 

[Cpack]

Great work Cpack . Some thoughts, but just from a punter trying to help, not meant as criticisms, and ignorable if you don't like :

- Have you thought about a separate "converted BC" carrier tech? The Kaga/Akagi and Lexington/Saratoga were so different from what was before and often larger than what was after, and often had more armour as well (not to mention heavier guns earlier on), that they don't fit into traditional tech trees as well. I'm not saying it's a good idea, just something I'm mulling over.

• Well, not yet. First I want to see how practicable modding is possible

- I'd have Long Island as a CVE, Independence in its place, and Saipan in the '44 slot.

• Hmm..think about it. Is Long Island then 1936? Little bit early

- I'd have thought Omaha was better at the 1922 slot with a gap at 1927, but not a biggy either way.

• Right

- I'd leave the 1928 escort slot free m'self - having the Wickes pop up there looks a bit odd given they pre-date the Clemsons. It's not quite chronologically correct, but what about the Asheville class here? They were jack-of-all trade sloop-alikes the US built in the thirties to stay under the treaty limits. If not, you could maybe have the Lake or Treasury Classes - coast guard cutters of sloop size that performed ASW during the war.

• Sounds also good. I divided Wickes and Glemson because of their role and there were no real comparable 1927 Escort available

- On the CLs, what about the Worcesters at the end? The Fargos were basically a variant of the Clevelands, while the Worcesters had rapid-firing guns, which I'd think of as a hallmark of the 1944 cruiser tech. Also maybe have Cleveland instead of Atlanta - Cleveland more a CL, Atlanta more a variant, and Cleveland quite iconic.

• Also fine. But does the AI really want to build AA-Cruisers like Atlanta? That's why I wanted her to be in game. Worcester is also fine for me
• I'm thinking about the Brooklyn for 1927 Slot (started in 1935) as London treaty cruisers, then Cleveland, than Atlanta, then Worcester....maybe a bit early for Brooklyn, but as US just started them to build....not sure

- I'd probably have Lexington as a 1922 BC than 1927 (first was laid down in 1920), but not hugely important given unlikely will be built either way .

• ok

See comments

 

[Axe99]

See comments

Just continuing on convo, in case helpful, but again only trying to assist , ignore if not helpful .

- On the Long Island, do we need a 1936 US CVL? Going from memory, but really only the Japanese were building CVLs before war got happening in earnest. If we do though, Long Island is as good as any. Another option is Wasp - while she had a huge aircraft capacity for her tonnage, it could be argued she was (a bit like Ranger could be argued to be, although I haven't made up my mind on either) a very high capacity CVL.

- If there was a separate BC into CV tech, that allows the Ranger to slip forward in time to 1927, which is a bit closer to its actual construction date as well. Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should be too "firm" about anything before we get our hands on hour the stats actually work out in-game, I'm just throwing ideas around - I throw plenty around that should be thrown out as well .

- On AI builds, this is one of the questions I'm curious about - ie, how does the AI decide what variants to build, and how much control we have over modding them in. We may be able to tweak the US AI to build Atlantas as a variant (if it doesn't already). That said, Brooklyn in '27 and Cleveland in '36, with Atlanta in '40 and Worcester in '44 also works .

- While pushing things around, you could also potentially push the Pensacola back to '22 (the first was laid down in '26, so only four years off), then have Northampton in '27, and what are your thoughts on New Orleans instead (class of 7) instead of WIchita (class of 1) in '36? You could also potentially have the Des Moines class in '44 instead of Oregon City (which was more a sub-class of the Baltimores), but again just throwing ideas around - only use the ones that stick .

- I'd probably go for the Colorado class as the '27 BB over the Pennsylvanias, as they were the first 16"-gunned US BBs (and all the US BBs from New Mexico to Colorado had the same armour scheme).

- What are your thoughts on sub 'variants' (like TDs/SPART/etc; ) for coastal/fleet subs?

- Sorry, you've got me started, just tell me to be quiet if I'm going overboard.