HOI4 Dev Diary - Man the Guns and PdxCon

[llib]

a really simple fix they could do would be drastically reduce the number of divisions that are allowed to invade at any one time; this can be done by tweaking some numbers in the 3 transport techs

the current numbers are 10/40/100... the default/minimum is 10 divisions, when during overlord (which would be the 1944 tech, 100 divisions) fewer than 10 divisions landed, and it was a herculean effort to provide support and logistics for even those

@podcat

I don't really see that as compatible with current land/air system. It would be super easy to defend against that. And by the way, Neptune was exactly 10 divisions (though some were airborne). But it could make sense that what would be reduced would be amount of concurrently disembarking units, but further ones would be being shipped in as part of mechanism once the first ones land completely.

 

[Khevenhuller]

What I'm worried about though, is... the system where best strategy is to create one doomstack is clearly not very nice or historical.
However given how rest of the combat (air/land) goes, I'm wondering how would better system look like... fleet size historically wasn't really presenting any issues that would make sense to translate to stacking maluses(even the existing CV cap is not historical), so that approach would be nonsense. I guess what could be meaningful to do, is to make battles last far shorter (concept of ammo would help there). It would also be desirable to change the system so that it makes less sense to concentrate fleets in one spot, but the difficulty here is, how to make that happen without micromanaging becoming hell and at the same time, not getting a system where things feel out of player's control.

Indeed, it is about outcomes. Nowhere in WW2 was there such a thing as a 'doomstack' unless you consider the USN in the Pacific from 1944 such an entity. Fleets need logistical support and fuel. So you could easily cut down this tendency by reducing the number of ships that can operate from a specific port to more realistic levels and allow small fuel stockpiles at those ports that would be quickly burned away by lots of heavy units operating at high tempo.

In terms of combat, take something straightforward and just focus on surface actions to start with. Large surface actions in WW2 were exceptionally rare and they were for a specific reason as opposed to 'they just happened'. So you need to construct a system where they are also a rarity and have a reason to exist as compared to single-ship or small squadron actions which were much more frequent.. So you allocate ships to sea zones, as now (hopefully with some better C2 rules), but they do not all automatically find each other and home in to create a second Jutland. Once you have your surface action side sorted out, you can start reading your technical and doctrinal developments forwards rather than backwards, looking at how submarines and then aircraft influenced naval warfare, and then incorporate that.

I can't emphasise enough the importance of getting doctrine right, although I fear we will be saddled with the nonsense that exists at the moment.

 

[Daelyn75]

a really simple fix they could do would be drastically reduce the number of divisions that are allowed to invade at any one time; this can be done by tweaking some numbers in the 3 transport techs

the current numbers are 10/40/100... the default/minimum is 10 divisions, when during overlord (which would be the 1944 tech, 100 divisions) fewer than 10 divisions landed, and it was a herculean effort to provide support and logistics for even those

@podcat

With Expert AI, you actually encounter an AI that will defend their beaches with everything they have. Playing as Japan, I had a bitch of a time every game of Expert AI to do successful naval invasions. Might as well have called it Fortress Philippines since I couldn't land there until the US AI saw fit to transfer their supporting divisions out to invade along the Chinese coast. Normal AI I can take over all the historical places in SE Asia in about a year doing it casually, but with expert AI, it can take up to 3 years! I agree massive stacks shouldn't land on beaches, but if you start cutting down the units that can invade, you will really mess up some nations, especially Japan.

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

...drastically reduce the number of divisions that are allowed to invade at any one time; this can be done by tweaking some numbers in the 3 transport techs

the current numbers are 10/40/100.

What folder is this file in?

 

[puppet on a string]

What folder is this file in?

common/technologies/naval

 

[aokiryu]

Indeed, it is about outcomes. Nowhere in WW2 was there such a thing as a 'doomstack' unless you consider the USN in the Pacific from 1944 such an entity. Fleets need logistical support and fuel. So you could easily cut down this tendency by reducing the number of ships that can operate from a specific port to more realistic levels and allow small fuel stockpiles at those ports that would be quickly burned away by lots of heavy units operating at high tempo.

In terms of combat, take something straightforward and just focus on surface actions to start with. Large surface actions in WW2 were exceptionally rare and they were for a specific reason as opposed to 'they just happened'. So you need to construct a system where they are also a rarity and have a reason to exist as compared to single-ship or small squadron actions which were much more frequent.. So you allocate ships to sea zones, as now (hopefully with some better C2 rules), but they do not all automatically find each other and home in to create a second Jutland. Once you have your surface action side sorted out, you can start reading your technical and doctrinal developments forwards rather than backwards, looking at how submarines and then aircraft influenced naval warfare, and then incorporate that.

I can't emphasise enough the importance of getting doctrine right, although I fear we will be saddled with the nonsense that exists at the moment.

Agree, this doomstack strategy is very boring and makes me feel bad about the game.

We could do one system that the fleet size is limited by ports, logistics, fuel or something else and the ships that are in one fleet bigger than this limit could stay in reserve. The reserve should go to battle after the first fleet where defeated and the opponent should be able to retreat if he doesn't have ships in his reserves to keep fighting.

 

[Khevenhuller]

Agree, this doomstack strategy is very boring and makes me feel bad about the game.

We could do one system that the fleet size is limited by ports, logistics, fuel or something else and the ships that are in one fleet bigger than this limit could stay in reserve. The reserve should go to battle after the first fleet where defeated and the opponent should be able to retreat if he doesn't have ships in his reserves to keep fighting.

Even more sensible is that you have your ships out on patrol and then, if they make contact, ships from your main fleet sortie in order to intercept (Home Fleet strategy).
Second, escort of a convoy, which would involve Escorts to behave as either 'close' or 'distant' (the sort of thing that leads to Pedestal and North Cape, most actions in the Mediterranean)?
Third, sea control of a particular area or group of areas like stepping stones to allow island-hopping invasions?
Fourth: Invasion interception (Java Sea)
Fifth: Raiders and raider hunting distant from home waters (River Plate, Devonshire vs Atlantis, Cornwall vs Pinguin and so on)

Others I have not mentioned no doubt

Then you have all your sub-surface and air stuff to pile in too. But the main thing has to be to ensure that the outcome feels right. We have had a 'fix' to air, where it looks nice but no-one seems to take any losses despite technical and operational advantages. I worry that the 'fix' to naval warfare may be equally freighted with issues.

K

 

[GSP Jr]

I’m sorry, how do you know they are “weeks into 1.6?” In software programming how hard is it to do a git pull on a previous build to do bug hunting and do a hotfix?

So, you can't do any patches/fixes because that would upset the timing and development of the next DLC that you can't give any details to because you're not far enough into it.
Got it.

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

So, you can't do any patches/fixes because that would upset the timing and development of the next DLC that you can't give any details to because you're not far enough into it.
Got it.

Someone has already started doing design work on say the naval combat system. Another group is doing design work on fuel. Those designs are based on the way the code works. Understanding how the code interacts currently is the first step in deciding what to change or scrap and redo.

If you have someone start doing bug fixes, there is the possibility that it would change how the existing code interacts. Those changes can potentially change the design work of the new naval or fuel sub-systems, rendering all of the new design work worthless.

So as a business decision, do I throw away tens of thousands of dollars on existing work to fix bugs? Bugs that a vocal minority are complaining about? Lets check with the head of the bug department.... how many reports do you have regarding certain bugs and where do they fall on the list of bugs we need to fix? Hmmm... this bug has never been reported?

Someone established a policy on how to do the bug fixes... and as I don't see a need from the reports in the bug department and we always have a vocal minority upset about something, lets just follow procedure. People rarely get fired for following procedure.

Things are never as straightforward as it appears. Even assuming we knew all the ins and outs of what is going on in Paradox, which of course we don't.

 

[CommunistLeader]

Any chance of fixing your game engine? Perhaps optimizing it more, so I don't get 15fps late game?

 

[Khevenhuller]

Any chance of fixing your game engine? Perhaps optimizing it more, so I don't get 15fps late game?

In many ways that is an OP-related problem. The more units you have in-game the more thinking the AI has to do and the slower things get. If you add in the sandbox nature of the game where things go increasingly 'off piste' as the game goes on the poor thing struggles terribly.

K

 

[sprites]

nice.
the diorama seems cool , but if you already have base game and expansions? like current players

revamped US & UK ... nw France is left out, yeah they are meant to die quickly but still...

 

[TheShadow1345]

Nice

 

[Suaske666]

Love this news! especially the fuel, since this was a major limiting factor in the range of various operations during ww2, and was a major and urgent strategic objective in the Caucasus campaigns of 41/42 which determined the war.
Can you give us a hint on whether fuel will be added as equipment similar to various mods on the workshop, or will it be a separate thing? Also, will it affect fleets and air or only land units?
At any rate, very happy about this news, keep on with the good work!

 

[llib]

Indeed, it is about outcomes. Nowhere in WW2 was there such a thing as a 'doomstack' unless you consider the USN in the Pacific from 1944 such an entity. Fleets need logistical support and fuel. So you could easily cut down this tendency by reducing the number of ships that can operate from a specific port to more realistic levels and allow small fuel stockpiles at those ports that would be quickly burned away by lots of heavy units operating at high tempo.

Well now you are mixing logistics and fleet size, and seem to disregard example from 25 years earlier that you mention in next paragraph (Jutland). Even though in UK case the fleet (of 45 capital ships and over hundred "escorts") has sailed from more than one port(German fleet of 99 ships) sailed from Kiel, it is quite clear that "doomstacks" are logistically and historically feasible. However even though Grand Fleet of WW1 was grand, there were still additional significant forces elsewhere. At the beginning of WW2, whole UK navy had less capital ships then Grand Fleet had, and it was simply terrible idea to keep them in one fleet, as this would allow exploitation of naval communications elsewhere. Where possible, every navy tried and did concentrate as large force as it possibly could if there was any possibility of significant opposition, but this was limited by total number of ships available (late in war, occasionally old ships were not used, but this was mainly due to shortage of manpower or perceived low value of those ships for purposes of combat, e.g. due to low speed). What I'm trying to say: There definitely shouldn't be hard cap, however system should ideally not make it beneficial to concentrate everything in one area and ignore the rest completely.

In terms of combat, take something straightforward and just focus on surface actions to start with. Large surface actions in WW2 were exceptionally rare and they were for a specific reason as opposed to 'they just happened'. So you need to construct a system where they are also a rarity and have a reason to exist as compared to single-ship or small squadron actions which were much more frequent.. So you allocate ships to sea zones, as now (hopefully with some better C2 rules), but they do not all automatically find each other and home in to create a second Jutland. Once you have your surface action side sorted out, you can start reading your technical and doctrinal developments forwards rather than backwards, looking at how submarines and then aircraft influenced naval warfare, and then incorporate that.

I can't emphasise enough the importance of getting doctrine right, although I fear we will be saddled with the nonsense that exists at the moment.

Well, this is actually more complicated then that, because pretty much every navy would jump at any opportunity for combat, provided it thought it had advantage. Problem was getting the other side in, unless somehow both sides thought they have advantage(or at least even grounds), so it required reason enough to risk the combat under less then favorable conditions. Another factor was the willingness of particular navy to risk it's ships, especially the major ones (Royal Navy vs. Regia Marina).

I can see following significant areas:
1) Scouting/enemy detection
-At the beginning of war, there was some of this done by patrolling, or chance encounters in areas where strategic operations were underway(Invasion of Norway). However patrolling has become suicide in most areas where enemy air force presented a challenge(not to mention dominance), and very quickly was limited to remote areas only, where no significant enemy air force was present. In areas with notable enemy air force presence, scouting/detection would be done almost exclusively by air force. There are two additional major factors to this:
-raiders interception (and although this normally covers surface ships, I would include submarines here, as for the purposes of scouting/detection this matters - was done quite often still by naval forces even later in war
-Signal interception - most significantly ULTRA of UK, and US reading of Japanese code - this was a huge factor in war, and probably would warrant national focus for UK should there be good system for it (by good system I mean something that would paint estimate of enemy ships in particular area, and that would increase chance of enemy detection/interception in particular area). I don't expect that to happen in this patch, though.

2) Reason to start fight
-Offensive patrols chance encounters (mostly eliminated by enemy air force risk after first two years)
-Convoy battles.This would be much better if there were actual convoys on the map, but short of troop transports there are none. I'm not sure if there is any chance to add them in this expansion but considering impact to supply system and the fact "only" oil is intended to be added, this is not all that likely.
-Invasions
-(idea for some distant patch) Shore bombardment of province installations - capped based on (fire range/2)% and being applied based on shore bombardment value(not what ratio) - so super heavy battleships with gun upgrades would be able to affect some 25% of enemy asset in coastal area(not decisively certain on the numbers) - could even be without /2 provided that counter (coastal artillery) would be introduced.

3) Willingness to start fight and conditions when to start retreat
-friendly-enemy ratio under which start combat
-damage sustained
-available ships vs. ships perceived necessary overall (Itally with 2 battleships left would never - short of attack on current port - sortie out against allied combined challenge of 6 battleships - unless they would be much more modern). Also ratio of escorts vs. capitals.
-ammunition left - at the moment there is no ammunition, so this cannot be a factor(unless org would be used for that purpose)

4) Combat duration
-This now takes too long leading to too decisive battles and unchallenged naval dominance after very few engagements.

5) Components damage and repair(including combat repair) - engines, main guns, air defense - maybe future patch unless they intend it already

6) AI
-Situational awareness (perception of friendly and enemy forces, both tactically and strategically) - this is still major weakness of HOI4 overall, and probably isn't going to be much improved in this expansion.
-For naval, once introduced, it should cover numbers estimates for each category, as well as perceived strength derived from more modern classes and upgraded classes.
-Problem remains not only how to implementing this, but also implementing it in a way that doesn't kill performance(given the somewhat arcade direction HOI4 has gone to improve multiplayer experience)

So in a summary?
-Naval and air needs to be to some extent interconnected, both for scouting and for considering whether and what kind of operations can be conducted in the area. Convoy escort may be a reason to risk the sortie, and should be reasonably survivable with enough escorts/aa and at least some fighters challenging enemy, but there should be no patrols for months in those areas as is currently the case. Ideally also planes should only operate in significant numbers when there are suitable targets... but this last part goes into air war system changes that are too complex for this expansion.
-Battles should last shorter(ammunition!)
-There should be more options for controlling when the battle should start, and when it should end. To make things more interesting, going from general damage % to having components (guns, engines, aa) damaged and corresponding effects(firepower, speed, air defense) would certainly allow significant results even with shorter battles and further influence the battle - if destroyer lost propulsion & battle is going badly, it's much easier decision to scuttle it, then when it's battleship that is crippled and battle is still handing on the balance and may end due to ammunition depletion...

For future:
-Convoys on map & corresponding redesign of supply system (addition of supplies)
-Shore installations bombardment
-Components damage (main guns, air defense, engines, ammunition) - dunno, maybe that could be in this patch...
-AI situational awareness (or improvement of it, if there already is one ;-)

Back to your post, I'm not really sure what do you mean by reference to doctrines...

EDIT: This post, especially the latter parts, is intended as source of ideas... in case some decisions are not yet made final. But I don't set my expectations based on it... I trust devs will find good balance ;-)

 

[Khevenhuller]

Well now you are mixing logistics and fleet size, and seem to disregard example from 25 years earlier that you mention in next paragraph (Jutland). Even though in UK case the fleet (of 45 capital ships and over hundred "escorts") has sailed from more than one port(German fleet of 99 ships) sailed from Kiel, it is quite clear that "doomstacks" are logistically and historically feasible. However even though Grand Fleet of WW1 was grand, there were still additional significant forces elsewhere. At the beginning of WW2, whole UK navy had less capital ships then Grand Fleet had, and it was simply terrible idea to keep them in one fleet, as this would allow exploitation of naval communications elsewhere. Where possible, every navy tried and did concentrate as large force as it possibly could if there was any possibility of significant opposition, but this was limited by total number of ships available (late in war, occasionally old ships were not used, but this was mainly due to shortage of manpower or perceived low value of those ships for purposes of combat, e.g. due to low speed). What I'm trying to say: There definitely shouldn't be hard cap, however system should ideally not make it beneficial to concentrate everything in one area and ignore the rest completely.


Well, this is actually more complicated then that, because pretty much every navy would jump at any opportunity for combat, provided it thought it had advantage. Problem was getting the other side in, unless somehow both sides thought they have advantage(or at least even grounds), so it required reason enough to risk the combat under less then favorable conditions. Another factor was the willingness of particular navy to risk it's ships, especially the major ones (Royal Navy vs. Regia Marina).

I can see following significant areas:
1) Scouting/enemy detection
-At the beginning of war, there was some of this done by patrolling, or chance encounters in areas where strategic operations were underway(Invasion of Norway). However patrolling has become suicide in most areas where enemy air force presented a challenge(not to mention dominance), and very quickly was limited to remote areas only, where no significant enemy air force was present. In areas with notable enemy air force presence, scouting/detection would be done almost exclusively by air force. There are two additional major factors to this:
-raiders interception (and although this normally covers surface ships, I would include submarines here, as for the purposes of scouting/detection this matters - was done quite often still by naval forces even later in war
-Signal interception - most significantly ULTRA of UK, and US reading of Japanese code - this was a huge factor in war, and probably would warrant national focus for UK should there be good system for it (by good system I mean something that would paint estimate of enemy ships in particular area, and that would increase chance of enemy detection/interception in particular area). I don't expect that to happen in this patch, though.

2) Reason to start fight
-Offensive patrols chance encounters (mostly eliminated by enemy air force risk after first two years)
-Convoy battles.This would be much better if there were actual convoys on the map, but short of troop transports there are none. I'm not sure if there is any chance to add them in this expansion but considering impact to supply system and the fact "only" oil is intended to be added, this is not all that likely.
-Invasions
-(idea for some distant patch) Shore bombardment of province installations - capped based on (fire range/2)% and being applied based on shore bombardment value(not what ratio) - so super heavy battleships with gun upgrades would be able to affect some 25% of enemy asset in coastal area(not decisively certain on the numbers)

3) Willingness to start fight and conditions when to start retreat
-friendly-enemy ratio under which start combat
-damage sustained
-available ships vs. ships perceived necessary overall (Itally with 2 battleships left would never - short of attack on current port - sortie out against allied combined challenge of 6 battleships - unless they would be much more modern). Also ratio of escorts vs. capitals.
-ammunition left - at the moment there is no ammunition, so this cannot be a factor(unless org would be used for that purpose)

4) Combat duration
-This now takes too long leading to too decisive battles and unchallenged naval dominance after very few engagements.

5) Components damage and repair(including combat repair) - engines, main guns, air defense - maybe future patch unless they intend it already

6) AI
-Situational awareness (perception of friendly and enemy forces, both tactically and strategically) - this is still major weakness of HOI4 overall, and probably isn't going to be much improved in this expansion.
-For naval, once introduced, it should cover numbers estimates for each category, as well as perceived strength derived from more modern classes and upgraded classes.
-Problem remains not only how to implementing this, but also implementing it in a way that doesn't kill performance(given the somewhat arcade direction HOI4 has gone to improve multiplayer experience)

So in a summary?
-Naval and air needs to be to some extent interconnected, both for scouting and for considering whether and what kind of operations can be conducted in the area. Convoy escort may be a reason to risk the sortie, and should be reasonably survivable with enough escorts/aa and at least some fighters challenging enemy, but there should be no patrols for months in those areas as is currently the case. Ideally also planes should only operate in significant numbers when there are suitable targets... but this last part goes into air war system changes that are too complex for this expansion.
-Battles should last shorter(ammunition!)
-There should be more options for controlling when the battle should start, and when it should end. To make things more interesting, going from general damage % to having components (guns, engines, aa) damaged and corresponding effects(firepower, speed, air defense) would certainly allow significant results even with shorter battles and further influence the battle - if destroyer lost propulsion & battle is going badly, it's much easier decision to scuttle it, then when it's battleship that is crippled and battle is still handing on the balance and may end due to ammunition depletion...

For future:
-Convoys on map & corresponding redesign of supply system (addition of supplies)
-Shore installations bombardment
-Components damage (main guns, air defense, engines, ammunition) - dunno, maybe that could be in this patch...

Back to your post, I'm not really sure what do you mean by reference to doctrines...

EDIT: This post, especially the latter parts, is intended as source of ideas... in case some decisions are not yet made final.

I could just say: 'No' but you would probably expect more than that....That you think logistics and fleet size are unrelated is more than a little concerning.

Jutland was a whole war away and no country had the numbers of capital ships to even come close to a Jutland-style engagement. The only reason the RN was able to concentrate her forces in 1914 (there were only 3 capital ships not in the North Sea at the beginning of the war) was because that was where her enemy was! Secondly, beyond the limitations imposed by Washington and London, the examination of the whole C2 aspect of Jutland revealed crippling failures as you simply could not control fleets of that size with the then available technology, indeed that tech does not change until mid-1943 at least. Before that you are heavily reliant on the sort of flag signalling that Howe himself would have recognised.

The Home Fleet did not sail from one port either, it was split up into three groups sailing from Scapa, Rosyth and Cromarty. The whole expectation of German strategy was to crush one of these three groups before it could unite with the other two (V E Tarrant's Jutland from the German Perspective is good on this, but it is fairly well addressed in lots of books).

Navies would certainly not 'jump at any opportunity for combat'. The KM was notorious for wanting to avoid tackling the RN and instead focussing on convoy raiding. If you read what i said carefully, 'for a purpose' could also mean the simple destruction of the enemy battle fleet, the idea of which sends Forbes on a two day wild goose chase off Norway after Scharnhorst and Gniesenau (which had been detailed to decoy the Home Fleet away from the landings) dummied him away. But what happens when they stumble into Renown? Do they fight it out? No, they speed off because their role was decoy not engage. Remember this is before Hitler's 15" gun limitation order. There are lots of other examples where the mission profile meant ships avoided combat, even when they were superior, and elected to engage even when they were inferior (such as Java Sea). But you accept that there was a reason to engage in your 'Reason to Start a Fight', so I am glad you finally decided to agree with my initial point .

Some way of encouraging a more even distribution of ships is not easy. A player is fully entitled to wonder 'what are those cruisers doing in Bermuda other than enjoying the weather?' Foggy notions of 'presence' just do not speak well to the average player who wants all his units in action now,now,now!

But this is not really anything to do with actual combat (which was the real basis of my post) and wider issues relating to naval warfare such as surface raiders, convoying, submarines and so on, the political/propaganda value invested in ships and, critically, the doctrine underpinning the way navies thought and fought. if they have heard of Mahan, Corbett and the rest, their current doctrinal offerings do not indicate that.

Now how much PDX is going to burrow into anything beyond the superficial I am doubtful for a whole host of reasons. I have every expectation that they will try and fudge the most glaring issues (naval battles that last for a week, destroyer meatshields, convoy redirection) and possibly try to distract us with a prettier interface from the absence of real content. You know, like the air 'fix' of a year ago. The idea of laying a minefield, or having to chase Graf Spee and Deutschland down, or an integrated allied fleet...I rather doubt it.

K

 

[llib]

My purpose in previous post was not to negate yours, rather to point out some complexities and maybe lay out some suggestions.

I could just say: 'No' but you would probably expect more than that....That you think logistics and fleet size are unrelated is more than a little concerning.

Fleet size has impact on logistics, but this is no reason to hard-cap or stack-cap a doomstack(on any levels practically achievable in HOI4, anyway).

The only reason the RN was able to concentrate her forces in 1914 (there were only 3 capital ships not in the North Sea at the beginning of the war) was because that was where her enemy was!

I admit I don't know dispositions/timeline of Royal Navy forces during ww1. However considering active campaigns in mediterranean before Jutland (Galliopoli, even if it was over by the time of Jutland), I would not expected all of Royal Navy capital ships were back in England(e.g., pre-dreadnoughts, some of which Germany used in the battle effectively, but Royal Navy didn't bring any - and I really don't want to develop this into discussions whether there were or weren't suitable pre-dreadnoughts in Royal Navy e.g. from speed perspective, I have no idea). But yes, and I'm not really sure if you are suggesting that should WW2 participants took same sides as in ww1 UK would not concentrate it's battleships in similar manner, or would be somehow prevented by doing so due to "logistical reasons" or C&C limitations when it could manage 25 years earlier with much worse technology. The reason was, opposition in North Sea was limited, sufficient units were left home to counter that threat, and there was larger threat in mediterranean (especially after France was knocked out).

...the examination of the whole C2 aspect of Jutland revealed crippling failures as you simply could not control fleets of that size with the then available technology, indeed that tech does not change until mid-1943 at least. Before that you are heavily reliant on the sort of flag signalling that Howe himself would have recognised.

Signalling left lot to be desired, but then, it occurred all too often that equipment or electricity was knocked out in battle. E.g., Exeter at Battle of River Platte, and in such events nothing else was left anyway. But considering it was good enough to cross High Sea Fleet's T twice, it did the job. By the way I think there was either radio or signal light use in Battle of River Platte but I could be mistaken.

Navies would certainly not 'jump at any opportunity for combat'.

There really isn't any need to argue with what I didn't wrote (which is what you did here, by ignoring important qualifier attached to that statement. You can do better ;-)

Ad Scharnhorst and Gneisenau vs Renown, I do believe Royal Navy had overall superiority in the area, and would be able to help damaged Renown (short of catastrophic damage). Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were operating alone, with little inteligence on Home fleet forces, and had no hope of any significant support(there could have been another battleship few miles behind horizont. But I think we are in agreement here overall, getting damaged or sunk would have prevented them executing their decoy mission, not to mention effects of losing one or two of very few heavy units, compared to effects of loss of Renown would have on Royal navy which had more ships.

Some way of encouraging a more even distribution of ships is not easy. A player is fully entitled to wonder 'what are those cruisers doing in Bermuda other than enjoying the weather?' Foggy notions of 'presence' just do not speak well to the average player who wants all his units in action now,now,now!

Well, the idea is, such average player, should he really not figure out the reason they are there, and leave the area without protection, should be "rewarded" with getting few convoys massacred to improve his understanding. Which is currently not the case, nor is the system very supportive of this (this just inspired me, I'll try another german game, and I'll try surface convoy raiding, just to see how/if at all that works out (mainly, sneaking the ships to open seas). I expect they will be massacred, even with appropriate naval design help, but maybe not(if not probably due to AI

But this is not really anything to do with actual combat (which was the real basis of my post) and wider issues relating to naval warfare such as surface raiders, convoying, submarines and so on, the political/propaganda value invested in ships and, critically, the doctrine underpinning the way navies thought and fought. if they have heard of Mahan, Corbett and the rest, their current doctrinal offerings do not indicate that.

I don't really know what you mean here, works of Mahan and Corbett were available to all sides for very long time. How they applied them is another matter, but some of what they works write are very abstract/strategic, and some of it depends on assessment of particular situation, and some of it was contrary to some people's belief so they choose to ignore it... I'm guessing best you could be meaning here is that battles should be fought for a very good reason but not sure that's what you mean.

Now how much PDX is going to burrow into anything beyond the superficial I am doubtful for a whole host of reasons. I have every expectation that they will try and fudge the most glaring issues (naval battles that last for a week, destroyer meatshields, convoy redirection) and possibly try to distract us with a prettier interface from the absence of real content. You know, like the air 'fix' of a year ago. The idea of laying a minefield, or having to chase Graf Spee and Deutschland down, or an integrated allied fleet...I rather doubt it.K

Well, considering there is no integration allies of any aspect of warfare short of expeditionary forces, I don't expect anything in this area (I would hope for joint convoy protection at least, if that system remains otherwise unchanged). The air fix, yea I had more expectations for that, and I guess some inside Paradox had as well (the presentation of it in dev diary came out that way), but there is always the problem of not being happy with some system, and proposing/making solution that
a) works
b) doesn't kill game performance
c) doesn't create too much micro considering it's intended for realtime multiplayer
d) works well with other parts of the game
That's why I'm trying to shoot around some ideas, maybe they will do some good, maybe they won't...


EDIT: This belongs to the doomstack discussions, but to keep this clear as addition:
-If the AI is able to refuse a battle(fleet in being), and there is even tiny fleet elsewhere, then keeping superstack in the area effectively means wasting all your fleet and leaving open field for enemy's smaller fleet, which should then be able to do disproportionate damage. That should work as a prohibition against superstack unless enemy is very contained. But AI currently doesn't refuse a battle, and is not able to exploit this (and we really don't want to micromange this, so some high level control would be desirable). Maybe this is also part of what you meant about doctrines... I thought originally that you referred to research category of naval doctrines, which has very little to do with this directly.

 

[Khevenhuller]

My purpose in previous post was not to negate yours, rather to point out some complexities and maybe lay out some suggestions.

Fleet size has impact on logistics, but this is no reason to hard-cap or stack-cap a doomstack(on any levels practically achievable in HOI4, anyway).


I admit I don't know dispositions/timeline of Royal Navy forces during ww1. However considering active campaigns in mediterranean before Jutland (Galliopoli, even if it was over by the time of Jutland), I would not expected all of Royal Navy capital ships were back in England(e.g., pre-dreadnoughts, some of which Germany used in the battle effectively, but Royal Navy didn't bring any - and I really don't want to develop this into discussions whether there were or weren't suitable pre-dreadnoughts in Royal Navy e.g. from speed perspective, I have no idea). But yes, and I'm not really sure if you are suggesting that should WW2 participants took same sides as in ww1 UK would not concentrate it's battleships in similar manner, or would be somehow prevented by doing so due to "logistical reasons" or C&C limitations when it could manage 25 years earlier with much worse technology. The reason was, opposition in North Sea was limited, sufficient units were left home to counter that threat, and there was larger threat in mediterranean (especially after France was knocked out).

I think there is a need for a hard cap, simply because you can not have an open-ended logistical system, even if you are based in Home Waters for the RN. Technology in this respect had not really advanced, indeed financial cutbacks in the twenties and thirties, in order to support the fleet they had rather than used to have, did involve a draw down here. It is also important to note that there is a difference between an anchorage with limited/no facilities (like Scapa Flow) and a base the capacity to repair (like Portsmouth).

Signalling left lot to be desired, but then, it occurred all too often that equipment or electricity was knocked out in battle. E.g., Exeter at Battle of River Platte, and in such events nothing else was left anyway. But considering it was good enough to cross High Sea Fleet's T twice, it did the job. By the way I think there was either radio or signal light use in Battle of River Platte but I could be mistaken.

You did have searchlights and morse. But if your halyards were shot away and your lights put out, you were essentially mute.

There really isn't any need to argue with what I didn't wrote (which is what you did here, by ignoring important qualifier attached to that statement. You can do better ;-)

Ad Scharnhorst and Gneisenau vs Renown, I do believe Royal Navy had overall superiority in the area, and would be able to help damaged Renown (short of catastrophic damage). Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were operating alone, with little inteligence on Home fleet forces, and had no hope of any significant support(there could have been another battleship few miles behind horizont. But I think we are in agreement here overall, getting damaged or sunk would have prevented them executing their decoy mission, not to mention effects of losing one or two of very few heavy units, compared to effects of loss of Renown would have on Royal navy which had more ships.

"because pretty much every navy would jump at any opportunity for combat, provided it thought it had advantage." If 'provided it thought it had the advantage' is the qualifier I do not believe I misrepresented you. If You meant more than this I apologise. In terms of that specific engagement, it was in dreadful weather (sleet and snow) and each side were wholly unaware that there was someone else about.

Well, the idea is, such average player, should he really not figure out the reason they are there, and leave the area without protection, should be "rewarded" with getting few convoys massacred to improve his understanding. Which is currently not the case, nor is the system very supportive of this (this just inspired me, I'll try another german game, and I'll try surface convoy raiding, just to see how/if at all that works out (mainly, sneaking the ships to open seas). I expect they will be massacred, even with appropriate naval design help, but maybe not(if not probably due to AI

The trouble is that light cruisers on overseas stations had no ASW capability and were purely about protecting against surface raiders. In other words it would be really nice to have surface raiders with an in-stride fleet provision system for those countries that had it already, and the ability to develop it for those that did not. I will not hold my breath that MtG will incorporate this.

I don't really know what you mean here, works of Mahan and Corbett were available to all sides for very long time. How they applied them is another matter, but some of what they works write are very abstract/strategic, and some of it depends on assessment of particular situation, and some of it was contrary to some people's belief so they choose to ignore it... I'm guessing best you could be meaning here is that battles should be fought for a very good reason but not sure that's what you mean.

I mean PDX. You know, the guys who claim to make this shambles and trumpet the 'excellent research' they do yet cannot get the portrait of Daladier right. That bunch...

Well, considering there is no integration allies of any aspect of warfare short of expeditionary forces, I don't expect anything in this area (I would hope for joint convoy protection at least, if that system remains otherwise unchanged). The air fix, yea I had more expectations for that, and I guess some inside Paradox had as well (the presentation of it in dev diary came out that way), but there is always the problem of not being happy with some system, and proposing/making solution that
a) works
b) doesn't kill game performance
c) doesn't create too much micro considering it's intended for realtime multiplayer
d) works well with other parts of the game
That's why I'm trying to shoot around some ideas, maybe they will do some good, maybe they won't...

a) Works. That would be great, but how on earth do we define it? The came has such an inchoate feel then how do you decide if something works or not or to what degree?
b) Doesn't kill game performance. Best achieved in general be a reduction in the number of units that overwhelm Clausewitz from mid-game onwards. I feel that this is an OP issue in general TBH
c) Does not create too much micro. The problem is that some countries are more land focussed, others more maritime focussed. So there is the potential to throw the baby out with the bathwater and leave the US with very little to do in the Pacific as naval and amphibious warfare has been simplified to oblivion. PDX currently struggle with anything beyond meatgrinding on the Eastern Front.
d) Works well with other parts of the game: Ideally, but I am not sure Clausewitz can get to grips with this, it is an old engine that seems to be being asked far more of it than it was designed to do.

EDIT: This belongs to the doomstack discussions, but to keep this clear as addition:
-If the AI is able to refuse a battle(fleet in being), and there is even tiny fleet elsewhere, then keeping superstack in the area effectively means wasting all your fleet and leaving open field for enemy's smaller fleet, which should then be able to do disproportionate damage. That should work as a prohibition against superstack unless enemy is very contained. But AI currently doesn't refuse a battle, and is not able to exploit this (and we really don't want to micromange this, so some high level control would be desirable). Maybe this is also part of what you meant about doctrines... I thought originally that you referred to research category of naval doctrines, which has very little to do with this directly.

If they went back to first principles and considered what navies thought about warfare and what they were for in the thirties, then you might get somewhere in getting realistic operational responses to enemy movements when the shooting starts. Instead we have a sort of Hollywood/Disney approach that, as far as I can tell, is based on war films and superficial 'received wisdom'. So, if you base your AI on some sort of comedy approach to operations you will get tragi-comic outcomes.

K

 

[Milano3093]

No love for The Netherlands ?:O

 

[Khevenhuller]

No love for The Netherlands ?:O

Poor Doorman...

K