Wrong and Missing Ships: How to correct them ALL

[Ketchup & friends]

The fire control, it seems T0 represents Great War Era Drayer tables, T1 is meant to represent 20s technology (Admiralty MkI), Warspite had the Admiralty Mk VII Fire control system, vs the slightly upgraded Mk IX of the KGV class which is HOI 4s canonical T2 system. Arguably Warspite for me should have T2 as the Mk IX was a minor upgrade rather than a quantum leap above MK VII.
The Mk X, fitted only to Vanguard (and probably would have been fitted to Hood in the planned 1942 rebuild, as well as the abandoned Lion Class) was indeed a much better system than previous models and could cope much better with directing fire onto ships running evasive patterns and makes sense to be the T3 option.

Thank you for bringing this up. After some quick research we fournd out there's a MUCH bigger Problem with fire control on British ships:
Only Nelson class (among the BB and BC) had AFCT (tier I modules)! But all new cruisers (County and York class CA, Leander class CL and all later classes had it as well.
This game reverses this, the old battleships have advanced FC but the cruisers do not.

But this means Australia needs to get the Basic Fire Control tech in 36 scenario as well for the Canberra class.

British Destroyers, (starting with the A-class prototypes) also had more advanced fire control (either Barr & Stroud Central Station Instrument Board or Vickers Admiralty Fire Control Clock).
- they were simplified compared to the A.F.C.T.
- the Italians purchase the Barr & Stroud CSIB for their cruisers and battleships.
- The Japanese installed in on the Kongo class. Later they used a (apparently reverse-engineered) version on other ships as well.

Engine wise, her new machinery was built for fuel economy (30% lower consumption) and extended range, not speed, as there is no fuel economy version of the engine and range is based on hull type it's not possible to accurately model this change, T1 engine retained would result in a 20kt speed, vs 25kt, Warspite after 37 had a nominal top speed of 23kts but could likely touch 24 when really pushed, so I feel T2 would be appropriate.

As an engine upgrades in HoI IV currently only increase spead.
As stated above, the unmodified ships shoulkd have Fire control 0.
A more realistic refit (still within treaty limits) would look like this:
British capital ships refit: upgrade armour to armour II. Upgrade fire control to fire control I. Replace 2x secondaries I with 1x secondaries II. Upgrade both AA modules to AA II.
The refit for the Renown class BB would look the same, only the armour would be BC armour II.

This would still increase the firepower a bit (due to better FC).

Arguably, the refit QE class could be named Warspite class.

In case of the Renown it would make sense to keep that name for the improved version and change the original design as the Repulse class (as the Repulse didn’t get these improvements).

One more thing to change: Crown Colonies speed, engines and armour
these ships are too fast as well. Here’s the reason: they had reduced engine and protection compared to the Town class. Their design should be changed (in addition to the armament changes already proposed in the first post):

Downgrade engine to engine I. Downgrade armour to armour I. Remove 1 AA I module, the remaining two to AAII

Speed:
- actual ships: 31.5 to 32 knots
- current game version: 35.4
- our 1st proposal: 34.1
- modified proposal: 31

QUESTIONS FOR YOU ALL:
I. What would represent the British interwar Destroyer fire control better, Tier 0 or Tier I? (This would apply to A/B/C/D class and all later designs).
Note that IF they get better FC then Canada, Italy and Japan should get the Basic Fire Control tech as well (their respective ships would need to be updated as well).

II. How should the refit versions (the game considers them new classes) of the QE and Renown class be called?

1.) The Pennsylvania-class might not be a strictly-accurate name for the 7 standard battleships, but it at least fits for the most part since the succeeding New Mexico and Tennessee-classes were only marginally-different. If you up the Pennsylvania-class to 12 guns, however, remember to split off the Nevada-class since its more-conventionally-armed (its firepower is similar to that of the Bretagne, which only has 2 heavy guns).

Leaving the Nevada with only 2 modules would make her notably weaker tha the other standard type ships (same as Kongo or british battleships) and also too fast. A 10 guns broadside is still more powerful than the
perhaps the New York class and Bretagne should be upgunned as well? Both have an empty slot due to worse AA.
in this case the USS Arkansas should be split off from New York class. She had 12x12 inch guns
Or leave the New Yorks with 2 modules. Their guns were NOT upgraded in the 30s, unlike the Nevada class.
That would mean a New York class BB and a Nevada class BB together would have realistic combined firepower, even if the New York alone would be somewhat weaker and the Nevada alone somewhat stronger than in reality.

2.) The Tone-class might not be as well-armed as other Japanese heavy cruisers, but it still deserves modern armament (tier 2 guns) when you consider its capabilities compared to foreign heavy cruisers (8 to 9 guns was pretty commonplace for most fleets' heavy cruisers, so it still fits despite making it look too-favorable compared to the Takao-class).

Perhapos downgrade only one of their modules and leave the other one tier II?

3.) This might be nitpicking, but technically the Germans ended up selling the Lützow (Hipper-version) to the Soviets, so unless some event is added to represent that I'd be against including that in the 1939 scenario under construction (or even giving it to the Soviet production queue instead). Admittedly the Germans don't have to sell it, but realistically the 1939 scenario isn't designed for people who plan on deviating significantly from the historic start of the war (and naval tech and equipment was a big part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact for the Soviets).

3.) This might be nitpicking, but technically the Germans ended up selling the Lützow (Hipper-version) to the Soviets, so unless some event is added to represent that I'd be against including that in the 1939 scenario under construction (or even giving it to the Soviet production queue instead). Admittedly the Germans don't have to sell it, but realistically the 1939 scenario isn't designed for people who plan on deviating significantly from the historic start of the war (and naval tech and equipment was a big part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact for the Soviets).

Probably the Lützow should be treated like the Destoryers for bases who don't appear in the US startup but are spawned in UK and Canada. Perhaps obeying the Pact choice would give the Soviets the design and add a ship to their queue while breaking it and keeping all of Poland would add the ship to the German queue?

4.) The USS Gridley (Clemson-class) needs to be renamed (or left out) on account of the fact that the USN was building a new USS Gridley in 1936 (lead ship of its class, which was mostly-identical to the succeeding Bagley and Benham classes).

Indeed, both were named for Charles Vernon Gridley An idea: US destroyer names were sometimes just the surname, sometimes full name. Perhaps call the old one USS Charles V. Gridley?

5.) The Porter and Somers classes aren't represented, which should have 2 light gun mounts onboard (unfortunately the torpedo launchers won't be realistic then, but the ships had 8 5-inch/38 guns as opposed to the 4 or 5 on most USN destroyers).

We have discussed that, and decided to keep the current modules layout beacuse
- Many Porter and Somers class ships had their armament downgraded during the war to 5 or 6 guns in exchange for more AA. (although this happened long after both startdates).
- Giving them a second slot would halve their torpedo armament. The Mogador class has torpedo II but USA in 36 lacks the tech (Then unlock it for US? looks too OP with their research slots?)

We will discuss this internally later. What does the rest of the community think:
Should the USA get the torpedo II tech in the 36 scenario so the Porter class can be repreented more accurately?

Hello!

Great list, however it is a bit long with a lot of text, and it takes time to digest it all. I think it would be beneficial for whoever might potentially be taking a look at this to have it as a simple bullet point instead. For example

"- The Nelson class BB is represented as an early hull with engines II. This makes them too fast with 27.3 knots (only 23 knots in reality). This class was designed to fit the treaty limits, and was therefore more similar to the King George V class (a heavy hull II in the game) than to the older Battleships. Switching the design to a tier II hull but replacing the engines with tier I one would represent the Nelson class much better."

Replace that with
"Nelson Class BB: Switch to tier 2 hull, switch engines to tier 1".

I think that would convince people to take a look at it, instead of a huge wall of text. Just a tip

Hi! It's great that you've noticed our work. We wanted to provide the reasons for the changes we propose. As @egslim has already pointed out (Thanks for that!) we have a list with proposals. Maybe edit the post and put it on top of it?

Our intention is to discuss these changes with the rest of the community.
Ultimately, post a refined list with the changes as a separate suggestion thread. (hopefully in a couple of weeks so you could implement them before 1.9.1 goes out of beta)

See also my thread from a year ago, the Missing Ships of HoI4

SOV

Kirov-class:

-Kirov (CA), October 1935 (added in 1.6.2. (a3a6))
-Voroshilov (CA), October 1935 (added in 1.6.2. (a3a6))

Oh, this probably explains why they have wrong hull tiers.

 

[Xiziz]

Leave the interwar destroyers on either no FC or fc0, it hardly makes a difference on them with fc1 for gameplay other than add extra IC cost.

 

[egslim]

MtG needs work and further improvement. We expect a convoys and escorts rework, small crafts and combat divers in a Mediterranean-focused DLC.

Meanwhile, we invite EVERYONE to contribute to our list of proposed changes to fix all the wrong and missing ships.

I suggest to focus on clear, specific, easy-to-implement change proposals. In small portions.

E.g. The Paradox design team may not want to add large numbers of small craft.
However, a DE design could be enabled by adding an engine module 'triple expansion engine', which provides little speed and a -20% IC discount to the ship. That's low hanging fruit.
Restricting the number of allowed main gun modules is another easy fix.

The beta is planned to finish mid-April. I suspect Paradox designers work in sprints, which means they have a 'backlog' of things to fix and every week they select the most pressing items on that list.
So you need to get on that 'backlog'-list ASAP.
Please post the first set of clear, specific, easy-to-implement improvement proposals now. Then inform CraniumMuppet the package is available.

Meanwhile you can continue to gather additional input for improvements, that's fine.
But your biggest challenge is not to generate ideas, it's to get your ideas accepted as priority items on Paradox' worklist.

 

[Fulmen]

Oh, this probably explains why they have wrong hull tiers.

Not really. All I ever wrote was the ships' names, type and the month and year they were laid down. That has nothing to do with the devs sifting or not sifting through the ships' stats and deciding whether or not SOV should start with 1936 CAs unlocked in order to have them represented as such.

 

[lonewolf371]

This is awesome work. The County class thing in particular drives me crazy - I hope Paradox is able to take this up.

 

[valisk]

Thank you for bringing this up. After some quick research we fournd out there's a MUCH bigger Problem with fire control on British ships:
Only Nelson class (among the BB and BC) had AFCT (tier I modules)! But all new cruisers (County and York class CA, Leander class CL and all later classes had it as well.
This game reverses this, the old battleships have advanced FC but the cruisers do not.

But this means Australia needs to get the Basic Fire Control tech in 36 scenario as well for the Canberra class.

British Destroyers, (starting with the A-class prototypes) also had more advanced fire control (either Barr & Stroud Central Station Instrument Board or Vickers Admiralty Fire Control Clock).
- they were simplified compared to the A.F.C.T.
- the Italians purchase the Barr & Stroud CSIB for their cruisers and battleships.
- The Japanese installed in on the Kongo class. Later they used a (apparently reverse-engineered) version on other ships as well.



As an engine upgrades in HoI IV currently only increase spead.
As stated above, the unmodified ships shoulkd have Fire control 0.
A more realistic refit (still within treaty limits) would look like this:
British capital ships refit: upgrade armour to armour II. Upgrade fire control to fire control I. Replace 2x secondaries I with 1x secondaries II. Upgrade both AA modules to AA II.
The refit for the Renown class BB would look the same, only the armour would be BC armour II.

This would still increase the firepower a bit (due to better FC).

Arguably, the refit QE class could be named Warspite class.

In case of the Renown it would make sense to keep that name for the improved version and change the original design as the Repulse class (as the Repulse didn’t get these improvements).

One more thing to change: Crown Colonies speed, engines and armour
these ships are too fast as well. Here’s the reason: they had reduced engine and protection compared to the Town class. Their design should be changed (in addition to the armament changes already proposed in the first post):

Downgrade engine to engine I. Downgrade armour to armour I. Remove 1 AA I module, the remaining two to AAII

Speed:
- actual ships: 31.5 to 32 knots
- current game version: 35.4
- our 1st proposal: 34.1
- modified proposal: 31


QUESTIONS FOR YOU ALL:
I. What would represent the British interwar Destroyer fire control better, Tier 0 or Tier I? (This would apply to A/B/C/D class and all later designs).
Note that IF they get better FC then Canada, Italy and Japan should get the Basic Fire Control tech as well (their respective ships would need to be updated as well).

II. How should the refit versions (the game considers them new classes) of the QE and Renown class be called?

I'd be tempted to give the destroyers T1, none were touting early WWI era Drayer FCT systems in the 1930s, unlike Hood and a lot of the other big guns.

Crown Colony Class look reasonable.

With Warspite & Sisters refits:

Malaya in '34-36 had a reasonable but not truly extensive refit, Admiralty FCT VII, secondaries swapped over as per Warspite, improved deck armour, but did not have the interior rebuild or the huge armoured citadel added that Warspite (and later Valiant and QE) had. Both had Guns adjusted to Mk1 (N) mounts, with 30 degree elevation, giving an extra few km of range and improved plunging fire capability.

QE and Valiant, essentially the same as Warspite, but all secondaries to DP AA

Barham had been last refitted much earlier, and much less extensively, before being paid off for most of the 30s. Torpedo bulges and improved armour layout early aa etc, then brought back into service without much further modernisation.

I'd recommend that we name the improved QE Class Ships as Queen Elizabeth ('34) Class and Queen Elizabeth ('37) Class

With Malaya ('34) and Warspite ('37) being members of each in the 36 Scenario.

Queen Elizabeth, Valiant and Barham would be modestly improved Queen Elizabeth ('13) Class, possibly stay as per vanilla in the 36 scenario.

As for Renown, I'm mostly in agreement, though she didn't start her refit until September of 36 so I still wouldn't be able to go too far due to treaty concerns.

Again though with Turrets, I feel the improvements to the Mk 1 turrets converting them into Mk1 (N) were way more than than cosmetic and represented a massive improvement over their original WWI configuration which was already pretty damned good, nearly 9km extra range for one, and they performed far better than the 14" units used on the KGV Class, I'd argue for T2 for Renown, Warspite, Valiant and Malaya at the start of the 39 Scenario with Queen Elizabeth undergoing a refit to the same standard. And yes they had a lower range than the 16" Version used on Nelson and Rodney with it's 40 degree elevation, but were also far more reliable and accurate.

Though of course I am by proxy arguing here that Hood with her 30 degree 15" Mk 2 and Vanguard with improved Mk 1(N) also should have T2 guns, I would even almost argue that Vanguard should be considered possibly T3, why? The turrets used were modified to Mk1 (N) standard, and the supports were fully reconstructed to support supercharges allowing her to strike out to 34km combined with the Mk X FCT she would have been seriously deadly, also the armouring on the turrets was reconstructed and represented a nice improvement over their original configuration and protection. Perhaps Vanguard should also be dropped to a T3 Hull as compensation, as she was after all a modified Lion Class ship.

When it comes to Naval gunnery even the 'state of the art' seeming 16"/50cal of Iowa fame (Hoi T4) was a 1916 design (manufactured from 1917 onwards), and the intention actually was to fit the units produced during and after the first world war to the Iowas but someone miscalculated on the designs for the internal turret supports and a slimmed down sightly lighter version was needed, it had no particularly noticeable superior performance capabilities over the 1917 produced Mk I's.

Really I'd argue the guns should not have a time limitation at all for research, it was all done long before WWII but instead a limitation based on weight for fitting to certain hull sizes. T4 turrets shouldn't be able to fit <T3 hulls.

I suppose if I had my way entirely with a naval redesign I'd argue for being able to produce variants of the various guns, like with tanks and planes, and have a mix of 12"/13", 14"/15", 16" & 18" tracks available to research.

Thus allowing increasing range (I know our friends don't simulate this presently) and damage (ie using supercharges without blowing the barrels) at the expense of reliability and increasing the cost of building the improved varieties of turrets. Which would make a lot more sense than the USA not being able to kit out the Iowa with it's historic weapons if it is built in the right time frame.

One last aside, we are also completely missing two Battleships from the UK's historic prewar lineup.

HMS Iron Duke of the Iron Duke ('12) Class, and HMS Centurion of the old Super Dreadnought KGV ('11) Class

Both had been demilitarized as a result of the 1930 Naval Treaty.

Iron Duke still had three turrets fitted and extensive anti-air as well as improved fire control, though her armour had been partially stripped, and was a commissioned ship in the reserve fleet, taking part in fleet reviews and used for gunnery practice and testing. She actually served in WWII in a limited role and was based in Scapa Flow being used as an Anti-Air platform for the Naval base there.

Would seem about right for her '36/39 status, usable but needing a major refit.

Centurion was also demilitarized, but more extensively in terms of her weaponry, and also saw 'action' in WWII being refitted as an anti-air platform with light secondaries, pretending to be Anson under construction, and occasionally patrolling with the Mediterranean fleet and providing anti air at Alexandria between 42-44, before being sunk as a breakwater for Omaha beach during the D-Day landings.

Both could well have been refitted more extensively post treaty, but with the KGV's a'building it didn't make sense to do so.
I'm not sure about having them directly available, as a mischievous minded UK player (of course not me!) would simply modernize them within treaty limits if left to play with them from 36 onwards.

It would be nice to have an option once the Treaty expires to bring them out of reserve for a spend of 100pp or something similar, and then the player could refit them as they were historically used, or go for a more extensive refit and put them into the line of battle

Anyway just some more of my brain drippings to consider

 

[Ketchup & friends]

The Dutch light cruisers seem to have had very good fire control systems, maybe have the Netherlands have the tech for fire control 1/2 and have the De Ruyter have the equivalent module equipped?

This is not the case. The fire control is te same on both classes.
IRL HOI4
De Ruyter 7x150mm 1xLight cruiser battery I
Tromp 6x150mm 1xLight cruiser battery II

They had the same guns, but the De Ruyter had one more of them.
As the difference is not that much (and the original Design of the De Ruyter saw only 6 gund) she should have the same module (LCB II seems right).
If the devs want to mark the difference in armament, the De Ruyter should have had the tier II module and the Tromp class have tier I.

Also noted that the HrMs Willem van der Zaan is not in the construction queue because in the game she's already commisioned (happened actually happened on August 21, 6 days into the scenario). But it's close enough.
We should probably remove her from our list then.

But then the De Zeven Provinciën class needs to exist as a design and the one ship (the HrMs Kijkduin) be in production. Probably also the HrMs De Zeven Provinciën as well (she was laid down on September 05). should be in the queue

Also the Design you get from doing the Battlecruiser Project national focus as the Netherlands has Battleship Armor instead of Battlecruiser armor.

Good, we didn't notice that one. A second focus that needs to be tweaked, but less than the Vanguard.

Coastal Defence Ships can only use Cruiser Armor in the game, while in reality they had much thicker armor and the entire idea behind the ships was to have better armor and guns then equal sized ships. While Sverige Class had about equal to what is called Battleship I armor, so do I think it's better to restrict Coastal Defence Ships to BC armor as year 44 Battleship armor would make no sense on a CDS.

Dear Devs, if you unlock BC armor for coastal defense ship hulls, please allow minelaying rails on them as well! At least 3 classes (French and Portuguese colonial avisos, French minelayers Castor and Pollux) could be implemented if Coastal defense ships could mount mines.

Not really. All I ever wrote was the ships' names, type and the month and year they were laid down. That has nothing to do with the devs sifting or not sifting through the ships' stats and deciding whether or not SOV should start with 1936 CAs unlocked in order to have them represented as such.

If the class was absent initially, the devs probably thought the Soviets don't need the crusier hull Tier II tech in 36. When they noted that these ships are missing they (probably a different person) created a design with the available techs and that reasulted in a wrong tier hull.

@valisk
so to sum up your posts, the changes to British capital ships should be:
- downgrade the fire control on all BB and BC except Nelson class.
- improve main guns on the Admiral class BC to tier II
- create a refit version for the QE class that: improves guns to Tier II. improves AA to Tier II. Replaces 2x Tier I secondaries with 1x tier II. Improves armor to Tier II. Improves Fire Control to tier I (from 0)

Combined with our proposal for the Renown class (Main Battery 1xTier II, effectively ½ hard attack of the HMS Hood with you proposal but more than ½ of the old battleships) a refit version would look very similar but add a Tier I heavy battery module to give the improved Renown a firepower above the unimproved battleships but sligtly below the improved QEs, Admirals and Neslon classes.

Though of course I am by proxy arguing here that Hood with her 30 degree 15" Mk 2 and Vanguard with improved Mk 1(N) also should have T2 guns, I would even almost argue that Vanguard should be considered possibly T3, why? The turrets used were modified to Mk1 (N) standard, and the supports were fully reconstructed to support supercharges allowing her to strike out to 34km combined with the Mk X FCT she would have been seriously deadly, also the armouring on the turrets was reconstructed and represented a nice improvement over their original configuration and protection. Perhaps Vanguard should also be dropped to a T3 Hull as compensation, as she was after all a modified Lion Class ship.

The armor on the turrets is not represented by the main battery modules. A Tier II version seems reasonable (but still only 2 modules, 3 like now is far too many). When you say downgrading the hull might be appropriate, perhaps the engines need to be tier III as well.

HMS Iron Duke of the Iron Duke ('12) Class, and HMS Centurion of the old Super Dreadnought KGV ('11) Class

Both had been demilitarized as a result of the 1930 Naval Treaty.

According to the treaty, each country could keep an old and partially demilitarised ship as training ship. UK kept the HMS Iron Duke, US the USS Wyoming and Japan the Hiei. Of course the Japanese kept all the removed parts in storage and simply refit the Hiei again when they abandoned the treaty.
But as far as we know UK and US have properly scrapped the removed equipment, which means restoring the ships woud have been impossible (at least would require producing the spare parts).
Probably the best way to represent this would be to add the Iron Duke class as the oldest available design. A player who wants to roleplay this could build a ship with this design as the restored Iron Duke (building such a design would be cheaper than any other BB)
Or have an event if the British player loses all capital ships, the HMS Iron Duke gets spawned with the design your proposed. The text would mention how the Royal Navy has to bring her out her once again as there are no other ships left. (This idea was inspired by @Riekopo 's proposal to implement implement Operation Ten-Go)

Somehwat related to the topic of this thread, @Denkt has posted a text on the math behind naval AA.

 

[Denkt]

My conclusions is that AA is probably too weak right now or that you benefit too much from a tooken investment with 10 AA value giving about half the damage reduction while getting too Little from focusing on AA. Also only the attacked ship get to use its AA and only about 1/4 of the cases which lead to few Aircrafts being shoot down even if the ships have alot of AA firepower.

 

[Tonaris]

Awesome work.

One thing I would like to mention is that the Japanese are missing the two Chitose-class seaplane tenders (laid down in 34, launched in 36 and converted into CVLs in 44). I haven't looked a specific template, but they could be portrayed as Early Cruiser or 36 cruiser hulls with something like one small main gun module, 2 or 3 catapults and some T2 AA, probably with a T1 engine and no armor

 

[Fulmen]

If the class was absent initially, the devs probably thought the Soviets don't need the crusier hull Tier II tech in 36. When they noted that these ships are missing they (probably a different person) created a design with the available techs and that reasulted in a wrong tier hull.

The purpose of the thread was never to list the hull, engine, guns, or the colour of the shorts the crew were wearing, but simply to list the ships that should be there in the 1936 scenario, either on the map or in the build queue, and the month and year they were laid down. The rest was left for the devs. I also always gave links where permissible by forum rules, as to ease dev research of the ships in question.

In reaching the goal of the thread I was very successful, as almost all of the ships I listed were added. Many were also reported in the beta patch thread by others, but I suspect an unconvoluted, clear list compiling them all helped a great deal.

Now, if you don't trust the devs in their judgement, or spot mistakes they've made, then you need to make a thread detailing said mistakes in the various ship components, hulls, etc., as you now have done. But once again, that was never in the purview of my thread.

 

[valisk]

@valisk
so to sum up your posts, the changes to British capital ships should be:
- downgrade the fire control on all BB and BC except Nelson class.
- improve main guns on the Admiral class BC to tier II
- create a refit version for the QE class that: improves guns to Tier II. improves AA to Tier II. Replaces 2x Tier I secondaries with 1x tier II. Improves armor to Tier II. Improves Fire Control to tier I (from 0)

Combined with our proposal for the Renown class (Main Battery 1xTier II, effectively ½ hard attack of the HMS Hood with you proposal but more than ½ of the old battleships) a refit version would look very similar but add a Tier I heavy battery module to give the improved Renown a firepower above the unimproved battleships but sligtly below the improved QEs, Admirals and Neslon classes.


The armor on the turrets is not represented by the main battery modules. A Tier II version seems reasonable (but still only 2 modules, 3 like now is far too many). When you say downgrading the hull might be appropriate, perhaps the engines need to be tier III as well.


According to the treaty, each country could keep an old and partially demilitarised ship as training ship. UK kept the HMS Iron Duke, US the USS Wyoming and Japan the Hiei. Of course the Japanese kept all the removed parts in storage and simply refit the Hiei again when they abandoned the treaty.
But as far as we know UK and US have properly scrapped the removed equipment, which means restoring the ships woud have been impossible (at least would require producing the spare parts).
Probably the best way to represent this would be to add the Iron Duke class as the oldest available design. A player who wants to roleplay this could build a ship with this design as the restored Iron Duke (building such a design would be cheaper than any other BB)
Or have an event if the British player loses all capital ships, the HMS Iron Duke gets spawned with the design your proposed. The text would mention how the Royal Navy has to bring her out her once again as there are no other ships left. (This idea was inspired by @Riekopo 's proposal to implement implement Operation Ten-Go)

Somehwat related to the topic of this thread, @Denkt has posted a text on the math behind naval AA.

I'd agree with that summing-up on the changes, upgraded FCT (to my personal satisfaction ) can be done by the player in short order once they have the tech available.

I wouldn't disagree with with the engines or guns on Vanguard either, a 1944 Ship design implies one built with all the lessons of war taken into account, and lets be honest whilst Vanguard was massively modified from the Lion design along the way, its hard to argue that a ship that ~85-90% complete in early 44 fulfills that ideal completely. As a cynical person I might even say that the ships that a '44 Battleship Hull would represent were not built precisely because those lessons had been learnt.

Ah now, naughty as it may sound given all these treaty obligations, with Iron Duke there were actually 6 fully usable BL 13.5 Mk V (H) turrets still extant in 1939, stored in Rosyth, previously pulled from HMS Tiger and the Duke herself, and a big pile of 13.5" rifles, many were sent out and used as coastal defence batteries and railroad guns as there was plenty of ammo around still. I have a feeling if she hadn't been damaged as badly as she was in '39 at Scapa, she might well have been brought back after a quick refit had the need or opportunity arisen, probably in '41 the need would have been felt strongest.

I'd maybe suggest instead of being brought back if all capital ships are lost, she get an option to be brought back if the UK ever has lower capital strength than either Germany or Italy (I guess that would be possible based on Washington treaty mechanisms keeping track of capital fleet strength.) as I don't think Churchill or the Admiralty would have waited until all the other big guns had gone to Davy Jones locker before giving in to temptation

And Centurion, I think on reflection we can ignore, as her barbettes were not suitable to seat the larger heavier guns that were still knocking about, and her armour was severely battered by her use as a gunnery target, and I might be wrong but I don't believe her turrets & guns had survived her demilitarization, it would also be a little unfair to have her able to have T1/2/3/4 turrets fitted.

 

[Denkt]

Gun armed cruisers was about as obsolete as battleships in 1945.

 

[AFilthyCasual]

Gun armed cruisers was about as obsolete as battleships in 1945.

Enh. Since guided missiles weren't a thing yet, they were still relevant. Cruisers have become irrelevant in the 21st century though.

 

[egslim]

Ah now, naughty as it may sound given all these treaty obligations, with Iron Duke there were actually 6 fully usable BL 13.5 Mk V (H) turrets still extant in 1939, stored in Rosyth, previously pulled from HMS Tiger and the Duke herself, and a big pile of 13.5" rifles, many were sent out and used as coastal defence batteries and railroad guns as there was plenty of ammo around still. I have a feeling if she hadn't been damaged as badly as she was in '39 at Scapa, she might well have been brought back after a quick refit had the need or opportunity arisen, probably in '41 the need would have been felt strongest.

I'd maybe suggest instead of being brought back if all capital ships are lost, she get an option to be brought back if the UK ever has lower capital strength than either Germany or Italy (I guess that would be possible based on Washington treaty mechanisms keeping track of capital fleet strength.) as I don't think Churchill or the Admiralty would have waited until all the other big guns had gone to Davy Jones locker before giving in to temptation

I'm not sure Iron Duke's combat effectiveness would have been worthwhile:
- She would have had the speed of an R-class.
- Firepower comparable to a Scharnhorst-class - bigger guns, but much older.
- Require a major refit, in addition to the armament refits the engines were also worn out.

So at significant cost you end up with a battleship convoy escort, which unlike the R-class is too weak to deter a combined attack by Scharnhorst and Gneisenau.
Still much more powerful than the two German pre-dreadnoughts, though. It could be implemented as a decision which consumes 3 dockyards for a year.

/nerd-mode off.

There's already a large package of fully agreed, detailed improvement proposals ready for implementation in the first post. Provide that to the developers now, before they start to ramp down work on the beta patch.

 

[Orlunu]

Gun armed cruisers was about as obsolete as battleships in 1945.

As in, "neither were obsolete"? If so, yes.

Dear Devs, if you unlock BC armor for coastal defense ship hulls, please allow minelaying rails on them as well! At least 3 classes (French and Portuguese colonial avisos, French minelayers Castor and Pollux) could be implemented if Coastal defense ships could mount mines.

Probably good for a few more, such as IJN Tokiwa, too.

 

[Captured Joe]

unlock BC armor for coastal defense ship hulls

Interesting...

 

[valisk]

I'm not sure Iron Duke's combat effectiveness would have been worthwhile:
- She would have had the speed of an R-class.
- Firepower comparable to a Scharnhorst-class - bigger guns, but much older.
- Require a major refit, in addition to the armament refits the engines were also worn out.

So at significant cost you end up with a battleship convoy escort, which unlike the R-class is too weak to deter a combined attack by Scharnhorst and Gneisenau.
Still much more powerful than the two German pre-dreadnoughts, though. It could be implemented as a decision which consumes 3 dockyards for a year.

/nerd-mode off.

As I mentioned once or twice I have some Grognard tendancies

I'd be happy to see her in any form make an appearance, the firepower issues and refit needs are all very valid points and no doubt played a part in admiralty thinking, Iron Duke did (oddly) have a life extension refit in '28 but the extended refit (similar to that given to the Rs and the QEs in the same period) planned for '27 was cancelled due to the proposals being drafted for the 1930 Naval conference. So a modest bit of work to fit new armour plating from the areas it had been stripped and drop a couple of turrets back on would have produced a usable (if unmodernised) ship.

If the Turrets had also been adjusted and modernised with a 30 degree elevation, similar to the BL 15 Mk 1 (N) she might prove quite troublesome for the pair to engage but certainly it would have been very dicey. I like the idea of it consuming dockyards to bring her in, as it would give a player some pause for thought in if it is worth consuming the dockyards for an undergunned relic to return.

*edit

Sorry cant resist HMS Iron Duke, with HMS Royal Oak & Co at Scapa in 1939, with a clearly visible empty superfiring barbette.

There's already a large package of fully agreed, detailed improvement proposals ready for implementation in the first post. Provide that to the developers now, before they start to ramp down work on the beta patch.

Quite agree, just as soon the Warspite changes are added in

 

[Denkt]

As in, "neither were obsolete"? If so, yes.

Iowa class battleships was around into the 80s or even the 90s because they was simply the most effective artillery platform that existed.

Enh. Since guided missiles weren't a thing yet, they were still relevant. Cruisers have become irrelevant in the 21st century though.

Gun armed cruisers have the exact same problem as battleships, that their engagment range is short and not suited for modern warfare other than being a floating artillery platform which gun ships is probably still the best at. If something is hit by an Iowa class, it is going to be destroyed if it is not like Another battleship, even a near miss is probably enough to destroy a modern tank which simply tell how powerful those guns are.

And I think Germany greatly feared the allied ships during D-day which was one reason together with the airforce they did not keep their tanks near the beach, because how dangerous the naval artillery could be.​

 

[Paul.Ketcham]

Enh. Since guided missiles weren't a thing yet, they were still relevant. Cruisers have become irrelevant in the 21st century though.

I should probably point out that the difference between a destroyer and cruiser is nothing but size, and the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers displace almost as much as a heavy cruiser (over 9,000 tons for the modernized variants).

"Destroyers" in the modern sense are more of a doctrinal term than one that fits WWII displacement, with the USN in particular having a historic problem* with doing its own thing for designating ship names (why not name our heavily-armed missile cruisers "frigates" while everyone else considers a frigate to be a cheap ASW destroyer?).

*Note: the example is from the Cold War, and the USN eventually standardized its ship names to conform with NATO classes; the point stands though when you consider what counts as a "destroyer" in the USN still.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

The beta is planned to finish mid-April. I suspect Paradox designers work in sprints, which means they have a 'backlog' of things to fix and every week they select the most pressing items on that list.
So you need to get on that 'backlog'-list ASAP.
Please post the first set of clear, specific, easy-to-implement improvement proposals now. Then inform CraniumMuppet the package is available.

Meanwhile you can continue to gather additional input for improvements, that's fine.
But your biggest challenge is not to generate ideas, it's to get your ideas accepted as priority items on Paradox' worklist.

We hope to present the refined list of changes next week. This should give PDS devs enough time to implement the proposals (hopefully).

Replace that with
"Nelson Class BB: Switch to tier 2 hull, switch engines to tier 1".

I think that would convince people to take a look at it, instead of a huge wall of text. Just a tip

Would you prefer it if (in this list) we describe all new classes (split-off and missing) separately form the changes to existing classes?
It would look like that:
- changes to techs
- changes to ship classes
- new classes
- changes to 36 ad 39 OOB and queues (missing ships and ships that change classes to new)
- changes to focus-made ships (Vanguard, Design 1047 Battlecruiser)

Concerning gunnery: While British CAs should get the improved Fire Control I module. But then leaving their guns tier II would give the County and Australia classes the most powerful heavy attack among all cruisers. This doesn't feel right, the Japanese and American cruisers were more powerful. Downgrading the medium battery to tier I would still make them slightly stronger than foreign cruisers due to the better FC.
Essentiall we think all proper CA (not including coastal defence ships) should hve this armament:
9 or 10x 8inch guns:
2x Tier II medium battery, Tier 0 FC (15.2 Heavy Attack): Japanese Myoko, Takao, refit Mogami classes, all US CA (due to 9 to 10 guns), Admiral Hipper-class (longer range guns)

2x8 inch, usual CA armament (Soviet Kirov-class was 9x7 inch):
2x Tier I medium battery, Tier I FC (14.8 Heavy Attack): County class, Australia class
2x Tier I medium battery, Tier 0 FC (14.1 Heavy Attack): All French, Italian, Soviet CA. Japanese Tone class

6x8 inch: represented by a higer tier giving them increased piercing. that way they're still weaker than 8-gun ships but more than half of their value.
1x Tier II medium battery, Tier I FC: (7.9 Heavy Attack):York class
2x Tier II medium battery, Tier 0 FC: (7.6 Heavy Attack): Aoba/Furutaka class

older or smaller ships with notably weaker armament (smaller number of guns or smaller calibre guns.):
1x Tier I medium battery, Tier 0 FC: (7.0 Heavy Attack): Hawkins class (7x7.5 inch with 6 guns broadside), Veinticinco de Mayo class (6x7 inch)

Many coastal defence ships should belong here as well.
- The Siamese Sri Ayutthaya class coastal defnese ships should have their medium battery downgraded to Tier I. They used the same guns as Japanese CA, but had only 4 of them. (in the current setup they are more powerful than Furutaka and Aoba classes, it should be reversed)

Leave the interwar destroyers on either no FC or fc0, it hardly makes a difference on them with fc1 for gameplay other than add extra IC cost.

I'd be tempted to give the destroyers T1, none were touting early WWI era Drayer FCT systems in the 1930s, unlike Hood and a lot of the other big guns.

Considering the ramifications giving them Tier I would have for Italy and Japan, we think it might be better to remove FC from old WW1 destroyers altogether.

The Porter and Somers classes aren't represented, which should have 2 light gun mounts onboard (unfortunately the torpedo launchers won't be realistic then, but the ships had 8 5-inch/38 guns as opposed to the 4 or 5 on most USN destroyers).

We have discussed (internally) how to implement them.

If US get the Torpedo II tech unlocked in 1936, the Farragut class could be reasonably split into Farragut, Porter and Mahan classes.
differences between them (they all should get Tier II huls, as already explained):
Farragut: same modules as currently
Porter: replace 1x torpedo I with second tier II light guns. Improve remaining torpedo module to Tier II
Mahan: upgrade 1x torpedo module to tier II, the other remains Tier I.

Somers and Gridley/Bagley/Benham classes cna be split off from Sims class.
The Sims class received a Mark 37 Gun Fire Control System that should be considered Tier I.
Suggested changes:
Sims: improve fire control to Tier I, improve one of the torpedo modules to Tier II
Somers class: replace 1 torpedo I with second dp light guns. improve remaining torpedo module to Tier II (same as Porter class, but with dp guns instead of Tier II.
Gridley/Bagley/Benham class: improve one of the torpedo modules to Tier II.

Benson/Gleaves class obviously should get Tier I FC as well.

For the IJN, Hatsuharu class was a reduced and weaker version of ther Fubuki class, while Shiratsuyu class was an improved Hatsuharu clas (still slightly weaker than Fubuki).
- split off Hatsuharu class from Fubuki class: reduce both torpedo modules to Tier I. (they had only 2x3 launchers compared to Fubuki class))
- split off Shiratsuyu class from Fubuki class: reduce 1 Torpedo launcher to Tier I

Probably good for a few more, such as IJN Tokiwa, too.

Japan had several old armored cruisers left as coastal defense and training ships. In Addition to the Izumo and Iwate, they had Asama, Azuma, Yakumo and Kassuga. Tokiwa was another one refit as minelayer. finally, the Nisshin was sunk as target in 36. If the HMS Iron Duke is intorduced in any way, the old Japanes CA should be there at start.