• 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.

HOI4 Dev Diary - Naval Changes #1 - Overview

Happy wednesday! Today is going to be the first of a few diaries covering changes to naval combat and naval gameplay. The idea of this diary is to give an overview of the different changes, and then future diaries will dig into more details. We are effectively redoing most of the naval aspects of the game which is a herculean task. This means a lot of stuff might still end up seeing changes and are work in progress. My hope is that this will give you a good picture of what we are trying to accomplish. Expect that each of these sections below is probably gonna get its own diary.

Screenshot_1.jpg



Task Forces & Missions
First up let's talk about how we are changing the management of fleets. Fleets are now made up of task forces. The fleet, like before, is led by an Admiral. The fleet has one area of responsibility and each task force can have individual missions. Some of those missions are designed to cooperate as well between them. Each task force can have various settings to control its behavior (like if you want them to split off ships to repair, or their risk vs aggression stance etc). Fleets, like Army Groups on land are visible and organized into theaters. In this case naval theaters.
theater.jpg


These also has a separate section for reserves at the bottom so you have an easier time managing where newly built ships go, and which replacement ships go to where.

Your navy is likely to be the most fuel thirsty thing you have so it's important to manage things in an economic way. Putting all your battleships to patrol the Iberian Coast is not something that will make fuel-economic-sense anymore (hey I invented a word!). To deal with this kind of thing we have removed the old Search and Destroy mission and have a new one called Strike Force.

A strike force flagged task force job is to sit and wait in port where it won’t consume fuel, and to go and assist trouble your more nimble and cheap patrols locate. Search and Destroy also would not make sense to keep around anymore, as in most case the concept of the fleet spreading out is gone. We wanted your carefully assembled task forces to join as one unit and to be in one location always, rather than spread over the map in an abstract way. More details on this in a dedicated diary, but let's get back to how patrol missions can work together with strike forces when we get to the next topic: spotting!


Spotting
Before Man the Guns the way ships would engage would essentially be based on a dice roll, meaning as long as you were in a zone, no matter how hard to find you were, combat would always ensue. We also struggled with every combat essentially sucking in every ship into a giant doomstack battle. This was also made worse because combats in HOI take a lot longer than in reality, yet movement on the map is similar, making reinforcement much too easy.

To deal with this we have split up combat into essentially 2 parts. Spotting, and actual combat. For a combat to happen you must first spot the enemy fully. Below is a picture showing a patrol force of destroyers closing in on fully spotting a German cruiser group, with a strike force assigned to support. It goes pretty fast because I have built a decent radar net to support my ships.
spot.jpg



When you get a target to 100% spotting, which is the bar you can see on the left of the red task force, combat can start. I say can, because it depends on your task force settings for how aggressive you want them to be. In this case because it has a strike force to help out the British ships will wait a bit for their strike force to get there (the Germans could engage if they were aggressive and the patrol force weak enough to be taken out fast). Once it’s there the battle will start.

spot_2.jpg



If the battle would have been a pushover for the patrol group (say a lone destroyer) they would have just dealt with it without calling in the strike force and burned all that fuel.

As for piling in more stuff into a battle to escalate it into the doomstacks of old, the solution is that task forces given the order to join will be slowed based on org level and distance (manual orders also reduce this), meaning there will be a significant delay as they get there and can actually get on with firing. Sort of like a coordination penalty. With battles shorter this means you could clear the field and get away before things escalate.

Combat
When it comes to combat we are aiming for less decisive battles, where composition matters more, and that are easier to understand, and where its easier to disengage when stuff goes badly. A tall order! Currently this is a bit too pink and coder-arty for a sneak peek, so you are going to have to be patient (something I know you guys are amazing at, so this should be no biggie ;))

Terrain (recap)
Different parts of the oceans will favor different kinds of task force compositions, combined with admiral traits etc this will allow for some home advantage and variation in “best fleet”. Check out last weeks diary for more details.
upload_2018-10-17_17-7-56.png


Repair/Production (recap)
The changes outlined in repair and production is an important part of making this all feel ok. If we want less decisive battles where the enemy is pushed back at sea, then repairing needed to cost something other than simply time. Repair now takes up dockyards and production of individual big capital ships is slower (although the speed to produce several in parallel is unchanged). Read more details in the previous diary here if you missed it.
upload_2018-10-17_17-7-14.png


Ship Design
We will also allow you to design and refit ships allowing you more options for adapting to changing circumstances and to get the most out of your navy and technological advancement.

Hopefully all this gave you an overview on what we are trying to achieve in Man the Guns and 1.6 Ironclad when it comes to the naval game. Look forward to more detail in future diaries (although we are likely to sprinkle in some other topics in between as well, like our unannounced final focus tree). See you all next week!

Rejected Titles:
  • Nice boat.
  • Ship Spotting - Choose the navy. Choose a big ass ship. Choose a zone.
  • The wargame version of the DM going "roll a perception check"
  • "These are actually the boats you are looking for"
  • "Remember men, the enemy battlefleet is more afraid of you than you are of them"
  • "I see you have spotted a ship. I am a bit of a ship spotter myself"
 
Last edited:
Air power was potentially very powerful, and this potential was often realised, but it wasn't reliably so. While we hear a lot about the big successes of air power, the thousands up thousands of air attacks on ships that had no or negligible results don't get near as much attention, skewing our view as to just how 'reliably decisive' airpower could be. From my reading, the impression I get is that it's "low odds, potentially high result", with the odds being adjusted based on training, spotting, whether there are any disrupting fighters (even fighters at a large disadvantage - so in an in-game situation the side attacking the ships would still have air superiority, but it's contested - made a huge difference to the outcome of an air attack on shipping), whether those defending fighters are being allocated to incoming aircraft with radar and an efficient command-and-control situation, and so on.

So, for example, in the Mediterranean, outside of some 'highlight' situations, the RN continued to operate in situations where enemy airpower could attack them, and they only lost the occasional DD (but there were other occasions where they were caught out, and lost more heavily, and then there was Crete where they got hammered - but there were also situations like Pedestal where despite a large number of attacking enemy sorties, air power did not play a significant part in preventing the convoy getting through to Malta until after the fighter-direction cruisers had been disabled by MTBs and mines*).

There's also the situation where the British tried to use air power to hold off the Italians during one of the convoy battles in the central med and it was ineffective.

* And maybe subs - going from memory, sorry for being vague.

Thanks for the comprehensive answer, I agree that aircraft were not the be all end all of naval warfare and there were certainly unsuccessful air attacks on shipping but they were still a decisive factor. In fact I've just been looking through some statistics of warships sunk throughout the war and naval gunfire as a sinking method is a clear minority, with most ships sunk by naval gunfire being destroyers. There are some notable exceptions like HMS Glorious and KM Scharnhorst.
1435056886371.jpg

This was a very interesting find and somewhat reflected in the fact that many RN capital ships were also sunk by U boat (2/3 BB losses, 3/5 CV losses, 2/3 Escort CVs)
It seems that submarines were a great threat to warships especially in the early war period, although we know this changed due to technological and strategic developments further into the war to the decimation and withdrawal of the KM U boat fleet. We can agree that this certainly isn't represented in game, although the next biggest factor in the sinking of shipping was aircraft.
 
Thanks for the comprehensive answer, I agree that aircraft were not the be all end all of naval warfare and there were certainly unsuccessful air attacks on shipping but they were still a decisive factor. In fact I've just been looking through some statistics of warships sunk throughout the war and naval gunfire as a sinking method is a clear minority, with most ships sunk by naval gunfire being destroyers. There are some notable exceptions like HMS Glorious and KM Scharnhorst.
1435056886371.jpg

This was a very interesting find and somewhat reflected in the fact that many RN capital ships were also sunk by U boat (2/3 BB losses, 3/5 CV losses, 2/3 Escort CVs)
It seems that submarines were a great threat to warships especially in the early war period, although we know this changed due to technological and strategic developments further into the war to the decimation and withdrawal of the KM U boat fleet. We can agree that this certainly isn't represented in game, although the next biggest factor in the sinking of shipping was aircraft.

RcuoM7q.png




Naval gunfire from U-Boats is a great way to deal with merchant shipping.
 
Seems Like Things Are going in the right direction. Historically battleships only engaged for a few hours and Big gun fights mostly occurred at night during WWII as to avoid air strikes from carriers and land bases that generally ruled in the day hours.

Other things I'm hoping get added fixed
1. Ai attacking with air group out of range (yes no more 1500 med bomber attacking my fleet in the Mediterranean with planes based from Malaysia)
2. Air power slowing Fleet movement (reasoning being it would take longer routes to avoid detection or form tighter formation to support fire)
3. No more super sonic ships (i think this was addressed as being done for play-ability but hoping the new system kills the need for that)
4. No more ships running from undetected submarines (this one kinda broke the current naval system the rule should be that an undetected ships have the initiative i.e currently battle ships being attacked by submarines will always disengage as they are faster. instead being faster should give it greater chance that less will engage i.e 50% or less of the slower submarine even get to battle In other word they missed intercepting the ship (where behind it) but there are still others coming from different directions (ahead of it) and being faster means that each turn the submarines get an increased chance they are missed or passed in this way some still engage and being detected give 100% chance the ship then moves away from it)

After reading this dev blog the only real question i have is shore bombardment for invasions but I get the impression your still fleshing out the system and will wait with anticipation for more info but loving what I'm seeing so far.
Thx for the hard work and looking forward to this
 
an idea for a new addition to a future dlc may be something like garrisoning at forts, something like a button on your divisions to assign them to a certain fort/base and then send them back to it whenever you like
 
RcuoM7q.png




Naval gunfire from U-Boats is a great way to deal with merchant shipping.

That's true, to clarify I meant in fleet on fleet combat, not in commerce raiding where naval gunnery was the main method of attacking merchant shipping and contrary to popular belief U boats almost exclusively traveled on the surface and favored attacking from the surface at night, sometimes approaching so close as to prevent the armed merchant vessels depressing their guns enough to return fire.
 
That's true, to clarify I meant in fleet on fleet combat, not in commerce raiding where naval gunnery was the main method of attacking merchant shipping and contrary to popular belief U boats almost exclusively traveled on the surface and favored attacking from the surface at night, sometimes approaching so close as to prevent the armed merchant vessels depressing their guns enough to return fire.

Fleet on fleet naval gunnery combat unfortunately never had a chance to shine primarily due to circuimstances. Pearl Harbor attack forced the use of Carriers on major naval powers and Britain was too stretched out to mass against Japan and unable to engage Germany. I believe firmly that in the game Naval combat using battleships should be the decisive factor, a fleet destroyer if you will since I don't see a good way to escape from combat once engaged, but that Carriers should be what they were historically, vessels used to engage enemy combatants beyond horizon and inflict sometimes fatal damage before they can close in, but in no way should it be able to defeat a massed surface fleet.
 
Fleet on fleet naval gunnery combat unfortunately never had a chance to shine primarily due to circuimstances. Pearl Harbor attack forced the use of Carriers on major naval powers and Britain was too stretched out to mass against Japan and unable to engage Germany. I believe firmly that in the game Naval combat using battleships should be the decisive factor, a fleet destroyer if you will since I don't see a good way to escape from combat once engaged, but that Carriers should be what they were historically, vessels used to engage enemy combatants beyond horizon and inflict sometimes fatal damage before they can close in, but in no way should it be able to defeat a massed surface fleet.

Battleships are too slow to force a carrier task force to engage them. Speed has always been a decisive factor in naval warfare - the faster combatant gets to decide whether combat occurs at all, and at what range. Carriers are both faster and vastly longer-ranged than battleships, which is a large part of what made battleships obsolete.
 
Thanks for the comprehensive answer, I agree that aircraft were not the be all end all of naval warfare and there were certainly unsuccessful air attacks on shipping but they were still a decisive factor.

Oh aye - sorry, it's a tricky one to describe - there's absolutely no doubt that at a strategic level airpower was the decisive anti-shipping weapon of WW2. In terms of all warship losses, from Brown's Warship Losses of World War Two, aircraft accounted for 561, submarine torpedo for 330 and surface action for 263 (of which 41 were MTB torpedoes, and some of the remaining 220 were also torpedoes, fired from DDs). With mines at 200 ships lost, mines accounted for a similar number of warships to surface gunfire.

The thing about aircraft was that they were not always reliably decisive. Defensive airpower with appropriate command-and-control often punched well above its weight (airpower was hardly decisive for the Japanese at the Battle of the Philippine Sea, for example - due to a combination of effective CAP work, strikes not finding targets, and lower-quality pilots), and even without fighter disruption aircraft were not guaranteed of a victory. Thus, while it was very dangerous for the RN (and RM) to operate in the Med (and they did minimise their operations in the central Med) and they took losses such that the rate of attrition was too much to be sustained, any single operation was guaranteed to be seriously damaged (or even intercepted). The situation varies a fair bit over the course of the war as well - a force with carrier air cover standing a much better chance than a force without, and a force that was attacked multiple times (draining its AA ammunition) much more likely to be decisively hammered.

Naval gunfire from U-Boats is a great way to deal with merchant shipping.

That's good for unescorted ships (and there were plenty of ships that sailed outside of convoys, particularly in the first few years of WW1), but gunfire (generally) tends to take a bit longer to sink a freighter than a torpedo, leaving a surfaced u-boat at risk of interception by escorts or aircraft if there are any about.

Fleet on fleet naval gunnery combat unfortunately never had a chance to shine primarily due to circuimstances. Pearl Harbor attack forced the use of Carriers on major naval powers and Britain was too stretched out to mass against Japan and unable to engage Germany. I believe firmly that in the game Naval combat using battleships should be the decisive factor, a fleet destroyer if you will since I don't see a good way to escape from combat once engaged, but that Carriers should be what they were historically, vessels used to engage enemy combatants beyond horizon and inflict sometimes fatal damage before they can close in, but in no way should it be able to defeat a massed surface fleet.

Disengaging from surface combat in WW2 was actually fairly common, even for the weaker/slower side. There were very few 'stackwipes' due to a slower side not being able to disengage - generally a destroyer screen with the threat of a torpedo attack can force their opponent to manoeuvre in ways as to effectively limit their closing speed. That's not to say it's impossible, but it happened far less than simple comparisons of speed between two fleets would suggest (although faster fleets were capable of disengaging much more easily).

In terms of BBs vs CVs, the range at which CVs could project their power meant that a force that was BBs without CVs was at a disadvantage to one with CVs unless it could pin the CV to a location (say in defence of a beachhead, like the Battle off Samar) or surprise it within gun range (like HMS Glorious). Where it would get interesting (but never did in WW2, because the Axis were technologically and materially outmatched, particularly at sea) would be if both forces had similarly strong CV and BB groups, and effective radar-directed fighter direction. In this situation, the two air groups could very likely burn themselves out against each other, leaving the decision to surface forces. Sadly for armchair admirals everywhere, the two cases where this more-or-less happened was at the Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz, and on both cases the US decided (wisely, given at this stage the Japanese surface forces in the area were much stronger) to avoid battle - but it was the surface forces that forced the US to withdraw (and the land-based air on Guadalcanal that was the decider in the IJN not sticking around). Even after the Battle of Midway, the US air groups on Enterprise and Hornet were seriously depleted, and had the Japanese concentrated their carrier forces (so had the decks in the Aleutians available), they might have been able to still attempt their invasion despite losing the carrier battle decisively.
 
Battleships are too slow to force a carrier task force to engage them. Speed has always been a decisive factor in naval warfare - the faster combatant gets to decide whether combat occurs at all, and at what range. Carriers are both faster and vastly longer-ranged than battleships, which is a large part of what made battleships obsolete.

I'm talking about two fleets of battleships. CV can be countered by CV or land based cover. I will give you that Carriers are longer ranged but vastly faster I won't. Against a battleship division of 10-15 BB's escorted by Cruisers and destroyers anything but massed carrier attacks by hundreds of planes is doomed to fail due to sheer volume of firepower put into the sky.

[
 
All of these new features are, but I have one problem with fuel which is that most ship i.e capital ships used steam power (coal) to move the ships not oil, ship had a boiler room so maybe (if you want to be historically accurate) use coal as an extra resource and you have to use that to power your ships at sea. That is my on problem that ships didn't use fuel, they used coal or steam powered
 
All of these new features are, but I have one problem with fuel which is that most ship i.e capital ships used steam power (coal) to move the ships not oil, ship had a boiler room so maybe (if you want to be historically accurate) use coal as an extra resource and you have to use that to power your ships at sea. That is my on problem that ships didn't use fuel, they used coal or steam powered

By 1936 the vast, vast majority of the warships covered in HoI4 used oil as fuel (and many of the capital ships completed in WW1 did as well). If you go over to Navypedia and have a look through the information on the machinery arrangements of the various classes covered in HoI4, you'll struggle to find any that are coal-powered. Although there were a handful of hold-outs from before WW1, like the old Japanese armoured cruiser Izumo, that still used it, assuming all warships use oil (either heavy fuel oil or diesel) is a reasonable approximation for the time period.
 
i really like the aim, that battles are less deceicive and thereofre more battles will happen -> more fun.

What i dont get:
If all the heavies are waiting in base, what do the spotters spot? other spotters? So if you build a strong "scout navy" and take out their spotters fast, noone can find you?
 
What about having war being declared with pre-emptive strikes attached to the declaration? Like Pearl Harbor.

Declare War (open pre-emptive strike plans, tick ones that are planned out already, the effectivity is much higher than if it were done after the declaration. Doing it before will however give negative opinions to other countries.)
 
I'm talking about two fleets of battleships. CV can be countered by CV or land based cover. I will give you that Carriers are longer ranged but vastly faster I won't. Against a battleship division of 10-15 BB's escorted by Cruisers and destroyers anything but massed carrier attacks by hundreds of planes is doomed to fail due to sheer volume of firepower put into the sky.

Carriers are much faster than battleships.

I'm curious, why do you think no battleships have been built since 1946?
 
Carriers are also expensive, so that doesn't go anywhere.

Battleships had the entirety of WW2 to be decisive, and they weren't. Your idea that a battleship fleet would beat a carrier one is fantasy.
 
Naval Changes #1 - Overview
[/SPOILER]

How long are ships going to take to construct?
Its a big issue because looking at the repair time numbers up there, i might aswell bin a ship, or send it out damaged and use the dockyards to build new. Also please make it so ships have manpower pools its annoying that i can deploy a ship because i dont have manpower for it, i can deploy units with no eq, or bassically no manpower but i can put a nice shinny complete new ship in my dock while i wait for some men. Wastes dockyards.
 
RcuoM7q.png




Naval gunfire from U-Boats is a great way to deal with merchant shipping.

That's true, to clarify I meant in fleet on fleet combat, not in commerce raiding where naval gunnery was the main method of attacking merchant shipping and contrary to popular belief U boats almost exclusively traveled on the surface and favored attacking from the surface at night, sometimes approaching so close as to prevent the armed merchant vessels depressing their guns enough to return fire.

IIRC that mostly worked only at the beginning of WW2. Quite soon the merchant ships also began getting armed sufficiently to deter these kinds of attacks.

EDIT:


Link should be timestamped. If it doesn't work, see 16:00 and onwards.
 
Last edited: