• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

HoI 4 Dev Diary - Naval Rework #1

Hello, and welcome back for the first in a series of dev diaries that will showcase the changes to the naval system beyond just building and designing new ships (aka the Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Game Mode).

Today we will look at new mission types and changes to the naval interface. As we are still in development, you may see some stuff that is not strictly speaking finished (no matter how much Dan wants the hot pink coder art to go into the final build!)

As part of the rework, we have changed the Patrol as well as the Search & Destroy mission. While patrol still does mostly the same thing, Search and Destroy is gone and has been replaced with Strike Force. In the old system, the main difference between the missions was how many ships you had at the start of the battle.

Screenshot from 2018-11-21 14-58-58.png


Now that is gone, and the primary difference is that Patrol sends the ships out to, well, patrol, while Strike Force makes the ships sit in harbor until a patrol has found an enemy. This is particularly useful if you want your fuel-hungry battleships to remain in port and not use up your precious fuel until you know there is actually something out there to sink.

Finding the enemy is the main purpose of the Patrol order, so you’ll want your ships with good surface detection values to make up the bulk of your patrols - particularly destroyers and cruisers, ideally equipped with Radar and/or floatplanes. If there is an enemy in a zone you patrol, you’ll gain spotting on them, which essentially goes from “there is something out there” to “It’s the Bismarck and Prinz Eugen!” (at this point HMS Hood sorties to destroy them, in an easy and painless victory for the Royal Navy). Weather, terrain and the amount of ships committed all affect how fast you gain spotting. If you time it right, your big ships might be able to break out into the Atlantic before the enemy knows they are there. Depending on your engagement level and enemy strength, your patrol group might just decide to deal with the enemy directly, without even calling in the big guns.

image (4).png


As we mentioned before, your fleet is now made up from several task forces, each of which can have its own mission. Fleets are organized in Naval Theaters. While you can assign any number of sea zones to a fleet, a task force can only ever be in one place (with a few exceptions), so in order to cover all the zones, you should aim to have at least as many task forces as you have zones assigned. However, a single Strike Force can support several patrol task forces except that it can only support one combat at a time, so your poor little patrol force may find itself severely outgunned because your main force is off helping another patrol.

germany icons.jpg

(Art is not quite completely totally absolutely final on this one)

Every fleet can be led by an Admiral, and can only control a certain number of task forces. Since every task force usually only covers a single zone, you’ll want to make sure you have different fleets covering different parts of the globe. Particularly as a raider you will also want to cover a larger area to force the enemy to spread out more.

bottom admirals.jpg


You can customize your fleets and task forces with insignias and colors to keep track of them, much like with armies:

customize.jpg


Convoy Raiding still works much as you are used to. However, we have changed the convoy raiding impact to be a weekly tick rather than a flat modifier, so sinking convoys will bit by bit reduce war support for the country that loses them. More info on this comes in a future dev diary dedicated to raiding and subs.

Convoy escort task forces can be assigned to cover several zones and will try to defend any convoy in them. If you are too spread out and subs catch the convoys, few if any escorts will be available to defend it.

escort.jpg


Beyond that, we have added Invasion Support. A task force set to Invasion Support will defend transports in the area and remain off the beaches to provide naval gunfire support - ideal for your old battleships that just don’t cut it anymore against more modern opposition.

invasion support.jpg



In addition, mine warfare is conducted by mine laying and mine sweeping missions (although mine sweepers also provide a passive bonus to moving through minefields so you might want to add them to your other task forces as well), and naval exercises give ships experience as well as provide Naval Experience to design new ships with - at the cost of fuel.

Newly built ships are automatically added to a Reserve Fleet, which exists on the theater level. Ships in that fleet reinforce other task forces in the same theater. You can set up Task Force templates that the game will try to create from the available ships in the reserves, and will try to keep up to strength as best it can. If you don’t want to reinforce a unit because, say, it is the US Asiatic Fleet and the Japanese have just declared war, you can disable automatic reinforcements for each individual task force.

If you don’t want to micro-manage your task forces to this degree, we have added an auto-balance function that splits your existing task forces into several, trying to maintain a strike force and one or more patrol task forces.

That is all for today. Next week we will focus on a different part of the naval rework. Don’t forget to tune in for the stream at 1600 hours CET, where we continue with Mexico for another week.

Rejected Titles:


It has been 0 days since someone made fun of the HMS Hood

Reserve your fleet today

Strike Forces are very usefuel

USA naval organize start: now 100% less ragequit
 
I am looking forward to Man the Guns expansion. Wow. Planned improvements to Patrol and Search and Destroy sound amazing.

The issue with super fleets might be solved by considering actual fleet formation during WW2. Why didn't the United States form a super fleet and sail directly for Japan? Because first the US would have gotten hammered everywhere else in the Pacific and two, the super fleet would have been picked apart piece by piece all the way across the Pacific. Why? A super fleet can't hide and is easily avoided. The smaller Japanese fleet would have avoided detection and run circles around the super fleet using hit and run tactics. As long as the US and Japan were near parity, neither side could discard the advantage of finding the other guy before he finds you.

The US did not form super fleets until near the end of the war. For example in the battle of Okinawa the Japanese knew exactly where to find the US super fleet even before it arrived at the island. But at that point the U.S. command didn't care if their fleet was found because they enjoyed such overwhelming force.

If the developers adjusted the parameters for spotting fleets they could make the use of super fleets untenable until one side had overwhelming power.

The other issue I hope will be fixed is the length of time that naval battles run. I've had battles between a large fleet and a couple pesky destroyers stretch into weeks. I would love to watch a naval battle unfold but I can't because I have to pay attention to what's happening on land. So I end up jumping back and forth and miss the fun of watching fleets collide.

90% of a naval battle is finding the other fleet and avoiding discovery. The actual fighting should only last a day or two, maybe even minutes. Consider Midway or Leyte. Several days were involved with maneuvering. Once the actual fighting started, it was over in hours. HOI4 naval battles should be adjusted so that much of the time is spent searching/maneuvering but once the actual fighting starts, it's over in hours. Then after the short on-screen battle, the fleets can again maneuver until they find each other or one fleet runs. Therefore fleet actions should be a series of sharp costly battles, not a weeks long slugfest. And I can finally watch an entire naval battle.
 
oh boy.... nice, nice as triple 15' turrent

some changes to get as unrestricted raiding?
 
Cheers for the DD Archangel and the extra info Podcat :D. It's super-exciting that the naval mechanics are getting some love. Strike force and invasion support both sound like great additions, particularly with fuel entering the equation - now the Regia Marina can keep it's fuel-guzzling BBs in reserve until it really needs them, and strike when the moment is right :).

Here's a pic for both missions - this looks like a mighty potent Strike Force (a bunch of US Warships returning to Ulithi):

Strike force small.jpg


And here's USS New York doing some Invasion Support on Iwo Jima:

Invasion support.jpg



More seriously, I think "gameplay" means either balance, or that the shore bombardement is supposed to include naval artillery support after the landings. Destroyers supported the troops more effectively than heavy ships on D-Day, but only the heaviest guns could fire further inland. A group of German tanks was shelled while it was still 30km from the coast during the battle of Normandy.

This is a tricky one - destroyers were actually really influential in terms of fire support for shore troops, and not having them in the game is leaving out something important. On the other hand, as you say, once the battles are deep inland, having DDs having an influence makes less sense. However, given the critical part of a landing operation (when shore bombardment support is generally most important) tends to be the actual landing or the support of the beachheads immediately afterwards, I'd argue that allowing DDs and CLs to provide shore bombardment support would be the lesser of two evils. That's just my 2 cents though - it's a judgement call and I don't think there is a 'right' answer.

I think we all share the goal and hope that doomstacks shouldn't be the most effective strategy.

I'd argue the key to reducing doomstacks is to make it important to defend the sea lanes. If it's just Germany vs Britain, and the entire German navy is in Kiel, it makes perfect sense for most of the RN to concentrate in the North Sea (see the Battle of Jutland, for example). For Germany this is a low cost, low reward strategy, as while they might have their fleet concentrated, they aren't likely to do the British any harm. It might be in their interest to try and get some more ships out into the Atlantic, and get Italy on their side, and then the RN needs to split to meet those threats.

The other key is reducing the lethality of naval combat. At the moment, losing the battle is often losing the war. If losing a battle means only a handful of ships lost (if that - see Calabria) and that the fleet remains a threat, then a counter for that fleet needs to be maintained, and the RN can't just concentrate and wipe out the Italian and German navies in two relatively quick consecutive battles.

While I think some kind of malus for larger fleets fighting small fleets makes sense to dilute their superiority, all else being equal (ie, equal tech, leadership, intelligence, etc.,) a larger fleet should have a significant advantage over a small fleet in a pitched battle - but again getting back to lethality, a smaller fleet might still be able to give a larger fleet a 'bloody nose' and run away again.
 
I'd argue the key to reducing doomstacks is to make it important to defend the sea lanes. If it's just Germany vs Britain, and the entire German navy is in Kiel, it makes perfect sense for most of the RN to concentrate in the North Sea (see the Battle of Jutland, for example). For Germany this is a low cost, low reward strategy, as while they might have their fleet concentrated, they aren't likely to do the British any harm. It might be in their interest to try and get some more ships out into the Atlantic, and get Italy on their side, and then the RN needs to split to meet those threats.

Britan vs Germany is a naval power vs land power. Germany can't beat the british fleet, hence their strategy is either to cheese past them or to hit them assymetrically in submarine warfare. This element of the game isn't perfect, but it's not a trainwreck either, especially if you mod some combat values and defines.

Real naval war to talk about in WW2 is Japan vs US.

The other key is reducing the lethality of naval combat. At the moment, losing the battle is often losing the war. If losing a battle means only a handful of ships lost (if that - see Calabria) and that the fleet remains a threat, then a counter for that fleet needs to be maintained, and the RN can't just concentrate and wipe out the Italian and German navies in two relatively quick consecutive battles.

Reducing the lethality is nice, but it does not change the fundamentals. The smaller, retreating fleet need to spend time + shipyards to repair, delaying new ships (presumably more than the victor), and will be a easier target on the second attempt. Lethality in itself doesn't change the doomstack meta, only makes naval action last longer without adding much excitement since you know you'll have a larger fleet and thus win.

While I think some kind of malus for larger fleets fighting small fleets makes sense to dilute their superiority, all else being equal (ie, equal tech, leadership, intelligence, etc.,) a larger fleet should have a significant advantage over a small fleet in a pitched battle - but again getting back to lethality, a smaller fleet might still be able to give a larger fleet a 'bloody nose' and run away again.

Of course, large fleet beats small fleet, this is common sense. But if the losses aren't higher for being a large fleet, then there is no other good strategy than having the largest fleet possible in one place. This will make you want to spread out your fleet in itself, refocusing it on controlling seazones.

So, essentially, the focus on naval combat must shift from winning individual battles to defeating the enemy fleets over the course of time, and controlling the oceans.

I'm hopeful, but will need to see more before one can say that the fundamental problems have been solved.
 
Real naval war to talk about in WW2 is Japan vs US.

Not trying to have a go here - just addressing your point - but this is a fairly narrow view of the war at sea during the Second World War. Germany and Italy together lost 360 warships during WW2, compared with 402 for Japan, and Germany lost far, far more submarines than Japan did. The US war on Japanese commerce was very successful, but iirc they sunk less than half the GRT that Germany did (but unlike the following numbers, which I've grabbed a book for, that ones' from memory, so may be off - but I have figure of 8 million GRT in my head, compared with 20 million GRT in the Atlantic, apologies if I've messed that one up). The various Commonwealth navies lost 356 warships (more in the European theatre than the Pacific), and the USN 167. By area, the most warships lost (299) were in the Mediterranean, then the SW Pacific (211) then NW Europe (190) then the Japanese Empire (163). Splitting it into 'European' and 'Pacific' wars, in Europe (Atlantic, Arctic and Norway, NW Europe, Mediterranean, and Baltic and Black Sea) 780 warships were lost, while in the Pacific the number was 578 (Indian Ocean, SE Asia, SW Pacific, Pacific Ocean Areas, Japanese Empire) - all numbers from Warship Losses of WW2. Moreover, those losses don't include submarines, of which far more were lost in the Atlantic, Arctic and Mediterranean than in the Pacific or Indian Oceans. I'd argue, strongly, that these numbers tell a story of a global naval war, and not one where 'all the action' (or indeed, half the action) was in the Pacific.

Granted, most general histories of WW2 pay too little attention to the naval side of the war in Europe (and often demonstrate little understanding of the concept of Sea Lanes of Control, or SLOCs) - but it's controlling these SLOCs that matter to naval war, and as these SLOCs extend over thousands of kilometres of seaway, it only makes sense to concentrate force when your opponent is 'bottled up' (so concentrating them at a geographic chokepoint can limit their access to SLOCs more broadly - although raiders meant that Britain actually had to spread the RN out in WW2 for much of the first two years with numerous squadrons chasing after surface raiders, and only a limited surface force in Scapa Flow).

This isn't to understate the importance of the Pacific, but the Pacific was only one part (but a very important part) of a global naval war. Indeed, the reason the USN (or the RN) wasn't able to concentrate all of its forces against Japan immediately (or, if we're being strict, ever) was because there were sea lanes to defend stretching from Northern Russia to South Africa to Australia to Espiritu Santo, California and Pearl Harbor. Even Japan wasn't able to entirely concentrate, and by following the 'decisive naval battle' approach to the exclusion of all else, it had to abandon most of its original build programs for merchant ships and escorts late in the war because it hadn't paid enough attention to sea lane defence (and, rather oddly given it's approach, didn't do a terribly good job of doomstacking either, particularly tactically).

These SLOCs carried far more goods and troops in the European War than they did in the Pacific, which is probably why the contest for those SLOCs saw greater losses of both warships and submarines in the European side of the war than the Pacific. Hence, I'd be reluctant to agree that the 'Real naval war to talk about in WW2 is US vs Japan'. Rather, WW2 was a truly global naval war, with US ships transferring to Scapa Flow to release British ships for the Indian Ocean, and British ships supporting US troops landings in the Mediterranean (where a lot of US ships supported British landings as well). By making the SLOCs stand out, by making them important to defend globally, that forces the side that wants to project power over the sea to defend them, hence forcing them to distribute their forces rather than have all of them just defending a tiny fragment of the supply chain while raiders and subs take it to pieces elsewhere.

The smart play for the smaller fleet should be to disperse - raiders only have to find one convoy to matter, the side depending on SLOCs needs to defend all (or at least enough to stand a chance of catching the raiders) to stop them - and stopping them often won't mean sinking them, it'll mean 'seeing them off' where they can head off to find another convoy. Create game mechanics like this (and train the German AI) and sure the RN can doomstack, but Britain will starve while their troops in Africa wither on the vine.

Britan vs Germany is a naval power vs land power. Germany can't beat the british fleet, hence their strategy is either to cheese past them or to hit them assymetrically in submarine warfare. This element of the game isn't perfect, but it's not a trainwreck either, especially if you mod some combat values and defines.

I'd actually argue that commerce warfare, and particularly subs vs DDs, is worse than any other element in the game, and that while careful tweaking of stats can help this, there are elements (like undefended convoys getting slaughtered to the last ship, even if only intercepted by one submarine!) that are beyond the scope of what can be achieved in modding (at least as far as I'm aware, I'm a bit out of the game at the moment). Given it's possible to also tweak elements to reduce the impact of screens slaughter and fleets being destroyed wholesale as well, I wouldn't say commerce warfare is less important.

That said, don't get me wrong, I strongly support changes to decrease the lethality of battles, make spotting less easy and make commerce warfare more important - and I think (hope) that these elements will make it natural to only have doomstacks when it matters. So, when Britain is under threat of invasion, they might skimp on convoy protection and concentrate - and in that context it would make sense - but there's a price to be paid in the merchant ships sunk. When Japan is effectively out of fuel and been pushed back to the Home Islands, it makes sense to concentrate outside their front door, but before that it's important for the US to maintain naval forces covering (at least) both Pearl Harbor/the West Coast as well as the South Pacific (assuming historical progression of the war))

I do think some kind of coordination penalty for large fleets makes a lot of sense, but this kind of thing should have its limits. The last thing I would want to see happen is some kind of arbitrary stacking penalty that makes no sense (like HoI3, where a number of historical WW2 formations would have been stacking-penaltied into near-uselessness by the game mechanics) - noting that I'm not suggesting this is what you're suggesting.
 
I don't think this change will change submarine warfare substantially, as you could just form a strike group full of subs without a capital ship to lead them. There was a dev diary on marine terrain indicating that shallower seas, such as the English Channel will give increased sub visibility. Outside these changes, so far the only other points I can see would change sub warfare would be doctrine rebalances, which usually come with major updates. There may be more un-annonced changes or some points I missed but I think this covers most of what I can think of.
Basically I was asking whether sub warfare would still be broken after this update. Cause it's not worth investing in subs at all atm.
 
So, when Britain is under threat of invasion, they might skimp on convoy protection and concentrate - and in that context it would make sense - but there's a price to be paid in the merchant ships sunk.
A scenario very close to this actually happened in 1942, as it happens. Allied naval assets were concentrated to cover the Torch landings in North Africa, and the result was a noticeable 'bulge' in convoy losses until the assets were returned to convoy coverage later in the year.
 
Will a carrier set to support an invasion force provide its airwing for air superiority/CAS over the invasion target?
 
I'm a bit disappointed that convoys will work essentially as before. The current setup is just about OK for Allied convoys during wartime, but really doesn't cover either (a) the added stress on the system the convoy system caused, or (b) the Axis merchant marine's role or methodologies.

I put up a suggestion in the Suggestions forum today that, I think, gives a fairly simple way to start this. Basically, allow convoy routes to be set to either Individual Shipping (with good efficiency, high visibility and intercepts catching one merchant ship alone), Convoy Operation (low efficiency, low visibility and intercepts encountering the full convoy, with escorts nearer at hand) or Blockade Running (low efficiency, low visibility and intercepts encountering single ships but with any assigned escorts gatting to them faster). Also nice would be the capability to assign 'convoy' units to task forces to extend range - done both by Axis raiders and by Pacific task forces on island hopping operations.
Basicly making them more like how the transport planes work currently? Yeah I can get behind that.
 
I would love to have the possibility to put a limit on what I want to produce, for example rifles, I want to produce 500,000 and then the production will stop, can't we have that too?
 
Oh I don't know if this is mentioned or asked before:

Is it possible to get Port Rights from for example neutral countries? So that you can extend your naval operation distance? This could be really nice for raiding behind the enemys lines.
I'm thinking of the History of the Admiral Graf Spee raiding in the south atlantic.
 
Last edited:
Oh I don't know if this is mentioned or asked before:

Is it possible to get Port Rights from for example neutral countries? So that you can extend your naval operation distance? This could be really nice for raiding behind the enemys lines.
I'm thinking of the History of the Admiral Graf Spee raiding in the south atlantic.
Yes, there's a dev diary with this ('basing rights') in somewhere I think, but either way it's definitely confirmed as a feature.
 
I am looking forward to all these new changes, I just prey that something is being done to limit the current game breaking naval bombers meta.
There's nothing wrong with naval bombers.

You're paranoid, Steve.
 
The 'secondary' features have already shown that MTG will add a lot of excellent flavour to the game; so far the naval rework at the core of the 1.6 patch looks promising. Alongside many others, I'm looking forward to reworked commerce/SLoC mechanics & AI that generate realistic naval strategies. In particular, it should be possible to seriously affect production levels and Lead-Lease/troop transfers by sinking enough convoys.

I agree with you. In reality they were much more expensive (liberty ship a 1/3 of Fletcher class destroyer). Only the USA was able to produce merchant ships in large numbers, the others had to rely to a large portion on already existing ships. In the game the whole commerce raiding and protection is quite unimportant, because you need only small amout of ships and replacing them is cheap, only for lend & lease you need a larger number. Irl the available merchant ships were not just sitting in the stock pile, they were needed to keep the industry running and for food import. If they don't change this, the only importance of the navy is for naval invasions.

Maybe a good way to model this would be to have the Economy law affect the number of Convoys available, just as it does for Civilian Factories? If the enemy sinks enough convoys, all your convoys are devoted to civilian purposes, and you can't bring in strategic Resources or move troops around.

Also, I really hope that you've fixed the detection part of naval warfare, currently a single destroyer is able to find every single submarine that is approaching a convoy, making it impossible to actually raid anything without a full-out naval battle.

Spotting is being changed.

@Archangel85 - you mentioned sending out ships on patrol to look for enemy navies; will aircraft achieve the same result?

If you look at the second screenshot above, it clearly shows that detection is affected by air superiority.
 
@Archangel85 why is named strikeforce and not scramble force?