Developer Diary | Summer Open Beta

[HmJ_JP]

In earlier posts the meta mentioned BB vs DD/CL. My question is about radars: people don't seem to put one in most ships. Is it really not needed/needed on only 1 single ship within 1 fleet?

 

[Umbosch]

I’m sorry I didn’t catch your point?

I have understand that you can't save the upgrade model. I have a simlär problem with upgrade lincenses, for example as Manchukuo modifier Japan Ki 3 at longrange. For me it was helpfull to choose the option save as new to fix it.

 

[HmJ_JP]

I have understand that you can't save the upgrade model. I have a simlär problem with upgrade lincenses, for example as Manchukuo modifier Japan Ki 3 at longrange. For me it was helpfull to choose the option save as new to fix it.

Now I got you. I’ll try that next time, thanks.

 

[Umbosch]

Now I got you. I’ll try that next time, thanks.

I have try to test your problem. But i was not succesfull. It looks at will the auto desgin build a second turret at the place of the self sealing full tank in this plane what is not allowed. Or waht can be too, it will build the defense light mg defense turret x 2 what not does work in light planes.

I have check 00_planes_moduleles.txt it and Cas is registered. I have check x plane airframes and other files and i think i have found it in the plane airframe.txt. Pls let me hope it was for the beta not so and i fail.

small_plane_airframe = {
year = 1933
special_type_slot_1 = {
required = no
allowed_module_categories = {
plane_special_module_defense_turret
???


medium_plane_airframe = {
year = 1933

special_type_slot_1 = {
required = no
allowed_module_categories = {
plane_special_module_defense_turret
plane_special_module_defense_turret_x2

 

[Gort11]

In earlier posts the meta mentioned BB vs DD/CL. My question is about radars: people don't seem to put one in most ships. Is it really not needed/needed on only 1 single ship within 1 fleet?

There are two reasons to put radar on a ship. The first is that you're going to use the ship in patrol mode to call in a larger strike force to do the fighting. So you'll build something like a light cruiser, fill it with plane catapults, and give it good radar and sonar - everything else is optional as it's not intended to fight. Then you set it to patrol a sea zone, set to "Never Engage". It should find enemy fleets very quickly and call your strike force in to smash them.

The other reason to put radar on a ship is for the hit chance bonuses. Radars cost about 40% of a destroyer, so you probably won't want to put them on destroyers, but any other ship you expect to shoot should probably have them, with heavier ships getting priority.

 

[HmJ_JP]

There are two reasons to put radar on a ship. The first is that you're going to use the ship in patrol mode to call in a larger strike force to do the fighting. So you'll build something like a light cruiser, fill it with plane catapults, and give it good radar and sonar - everything else is optional as it's not intended to fight. Then you set it to patrol a sea zone, set to "Never Engage". It should find enemy fleets very quickly and call your strike force in to smash them.

The other reason to put radar on a ship is for the hit chance bonuses. Radars cost about 40% of a destroyer, so you probably won't want to put them on destroyers, but any other ship you expect to shoot should probably have them, with heavier ships getting priority.

Very useful. Hence my surprise not to see this on BB templates mentioned above, unless specifically a handful of CL are designed with the radar.

 

[FLUX2226]

Speaking of radar on BBs, I hope catapult planes will eventually have a reason to exist on such ships too. It's always a bit immersion-breaking when I'm looking at preset capital ship templates and know that the catapult planes are completely obsolete and actively make the ship worse by lengthening repair time and lowering speed, despite them being present on even late-war battleships in real life.
Catapult planes weren't only used for patrol duty or search and rescue missions, they sort of acted like a predecessor of radar and were able to assist their own ship's artillery at hitting long range targets. While they weren't as effective as radar at this job, I still think giving catapult planes some small hit chance bonuses would benefit the game.
For example, 2% (basic catapult) or 2.5% (improved catapult) hit chance bonus for both light and heavy batteries (but not AA) in addition to its spotting benefits. In comparison, radar 1 gives 2.5% for light, heavy and AA, costs less and doesn't reduce speed, but gives less detection.

Something I would like to see is a new module with two catapult planes (doubled stats across the board, like double turrets for the plane designer) to make them more slot-efficient, but limit all ships to a single catapult module. Most ships that I know of only had two catapults at max, and those with two were all battleships. Iowa is the only exception I know of, having three catapult planes. Light cruisers with four catapult planes like we see ingame to maximize spotting were certainly not a thing.
In my opinion this would benefit naval gameplay as a whole, since spotting can then be balanced without having to consider super scout ships while also allowing realistic capital ship designs to be more viable.

 

[Gort11]

One dumb thing linked to radar I'd love to see them fix is how searching for an enemy fleet is not made easier by adding extra ships to the searching force.

So like, say I have a light cruiser design with 10 surface detection - under the current game rules if I send one of these to search the Eastern Mediterranean, it will find the enemy fleet there at the same speed as five of the same ship, or a hundred, or a million.

What's even worse is that searching uses the average detection stat of a fleet, not the best. So I could have the best searching ship in the world with 30 surface detection, but when I send it some destroyers to help search, it can barely search any more.

Searching should be based on the best detection stat in the searching force, plus some scaling bonus for extra ships helping out. There should never be a situation where sending extra ships to help search worsens your ability to search.

 

[FLUX2226]

##########
Navy
##########
- rebalanced, ship engines

The scaling instead of flat cost looks great, especially for escort carriers which are now much more affordable. However, they still consume fuel like a fully fitted out fleet carrier, about as much as 13 destroyers + 1 destroyer for each flight deck worth of planes. This is quite fuel-costly for an escort vessel that can't even screen convoys by itself. Since a general scaling fuel cost for all ships might be difficult to balance, perhaps reduce the fuel consumption of carriers by half? Since carriers in HoI4 are effectively limited to four per battle, reducing their fuel cost even by that amount shouldn't have that much of an impact for fleet battles. Currently a carrier requires about 10% more fuel to run than a battleship, without factoring in the planes. I'm no expert in fuel consumption in reality, but carriers generally only had about half the displacement of battleships of their time, so I assume they required less fuel?

Alternatively, fuel cost could be made to scale with deck size: Greatly reduced with one deck space, somewhat reduced with two, and default fuel consumption for three or more deck spaces.
Special escort carrier hulls with only a single deck space and reduced fuel cost are also an option, but then design options are more limited and refitting to/from fleet carriers is impossible.

 

[Cadwalender]

If its not to late Id like to request a small change, for my sanity.
For the US could you move the 3D models for P-47 and P-38 over to the medium frame category. For the moment its not possible to build these aircraft as Heavy Fighters with the correct 3d model. Thank you!

 

[WSnova]

The other reason to put radar on a ship is for the hit chance bonuses. Radars cost about 40% of a destroyer, so you probably won't want to put them on destroyers, but any other ship you expect to shoot should probably have them, with heavier ships getting priority.

Well, you can put in radar for the tiny bit of additional Sub detection that it gives you. Probably not worth it, but It maximizes AI bullying

 

[WSnova]

Ship penetration:
Finally the last change I want to discuss is the new penetration effect for ships. To put this imply they now reduce damage directly on top of reducing critical chance. The damage reductions are smaller than for land combat but that's because they have a much greater effect on the combat but be careful defeating an armored foe with just small guns should be much harder now.

Thresholds and damage are as follows

Pen to Armor Threshhold	Critical Change Factor	Damage Factor
2	2	1
1	1	1
0.75	0.75	0.9
0.5	0.5	0.7
0.1	0.1	0.5
0	0	0.3

Wait, maybe I am getting this wrong. But didn´t armor already reduce damage?

According to the Wiki:

https://hoi4.paradoxwikis.com/Naval_battle#Armor_piercing

If a weapon cannot pierce the enemy's armor, damage is reduced according to the ratio between them:

damage reduction = -90% * (100% - <weapon's armor piercing> / <enemy's armor>)

If the piercing value of the weapon is higher than the enemy's armor, it increases the chance of critical hits (see critical hit). Torpedoes ignore armor.

So, according to the Wiki, a basic DD gun(1 piercing) vs a SHBB Armor(55) would be reduced by -88%. so it would be taking 12% of the original damage.

With the new table since 1/55=.02, the damage factor would be .3 no? It would be taking 30% of the original damage no? So the damage was increased?. In the case of 0 armor I guess that means it will default to >=2 Piercing no?

So.. is this a stealth nerf to small ships? Before the damage reduction was capped at 90%, now its capped at 70%?

Or am I reading this wrong? Is the Wiki wrong?
Thanks for your hard work!

 

[ScottyWired]

- Combat better Agility and Speed has increased effect on air combat

I'm struggling to parse this sentence.

Combat is better, Agility and Speed has increased effect on air combat?
To combat better Agility, Speed has increased effect on air combat?

 

[ClunkedIt]

I'm struggling to parse this sentence.

Combat is better, Agility and Speed has increased effect on air combat?
To combat better Agility, Speed has increased effect on air combat?

I think it is saying...
Air combat - Speed and Agility have been made more important/influential for air combat results

 

[HmJ_JP]

Oups, the air mission nasty bug is back: if you pick more than one mission, the second will never be fullfilled.

I did with startegic bomber (with both bomb + torpedo slots). If I click both missions, only infra bombing (strategic) will be performed. If I uncheck, then port strike will finally happen.

 

[Alexander 'The Grape']

Because it hasn't been mentioned yet - the buff to Carrier 2s is a good change! Previously Convert BB Carriers were better due to higher HP. Now the extra deckspace is really tempting to go for. I might even consider replacing the Kaga and Akagi on Japan

 

[Alexander 'The Grape']

Slight issue with Converted Battleship Carrier - Because they now use Cruiser armor, the cost of converting from BB -> CV is always far more than the base cost of just building a Converted Battleship Carrier from scratch.

The game now factors the cost of removing the BB armor, which is obscenely expensive - even if you dont add any Cruiser armor to the Carrier.

Would it be possible for Converted BB Carriers to use Battleship instead of Cruiser armor so this issue doesn't arise?

 

[C0RAX]

Slight issue with Converted Battleship Carrier - Because they now use Cruiser armor, the cost of converting from BB -> CV is always far more than the base cost of just building a Converted Battleship Carrier from scratch.

The game now factors the cost of removing the BB armor, which is obscenely expensive - even if you dont add any Cruiser armor to the Carrier.

Would it be possible for Converted BB Carriers to use Battleship instead of Cruiser armor so this issue doesn't arise?

oh that's an easy fix, without adding bb armor to carriers..

 

[Gort11]

Well, you can put in radar for the tiny bit of additional Sub detection that it gives you. Probably not worth it, but It maximizes AI bullying

That is a good point - I do put radar on the 20-or-so destroyers I build as the UK for anti-submarine work.

I was thinking of screen destroyers when I said I'd not put radars on destroyers - I always maximise sub detection on my sub-hunter destroyers.

 

[Dimmie_Dumm]

In my opinion this would benefit naval gameplay as a whole, since spotting can then be balanced without having to consider super scout ships while also allowing realistic capital ship designs to be more viable.

They could also add some anti-sub attack to floatplanes to rectify weird game design where battleships simply flee in the sight of a mere submarine and are then stuck in idiotic limbo, if they for some reason avoid adding ramming (probably modelled by destroyer hulls having +1 sub attack for no reason, but destroyers were no better at overrunning submarines than any other ship (see Dreadnought vs U-29), they just were more numerous and cheaper to run in that kind of unimportant missions).