• 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:
The patrol who is spotting is shadowing it (or engaging it), so the strike force is going to join them, not going to a particular position or such. We'll get into more details in a specific diary with some examples
Hmmm, let's see... Graff spee should
-be forced into combat if Ajax, Achilles and Exeter want to engage
-be nearly unable to escape unless in very bad weather for some time if they want to shadow it

What I'm not so sure how will work is, lets say there is more than one zone as a raider target, but escorts are patrolling one zone, so they shadow it, interception force closes in, but meanwhile target leaves for another sea zone. Should the shadowing force keep pursuit (then it may be possible to clear are of enemy ships by sending superfast ships through), or should it stay in the zone and leave it to next zone patrol to start spotting from zero? Neither is entirely good... Quite a few design choices to be made I guess..

*whistles*
Unless of course what they did is change the generic tree, that produced results seen in the twitch and actual new non-generic tree has nothing to do with Mexico...
 
That's all great and whatever but could you guys finally give us some unique ship graphics so we don't have to look at those fucking hideous black silhouettes. Can we get graphics for the jet aircraft? Can we get differentiated graphics for the different levels of mechanized? Like can we address clearly unfinished content before we do other stuff?
 
Last edited:
I have one question @podcat, have you considered shore guns, or coastal artillery, as an ingame mechanic?
I ask because they were widely used in WWII: in the Altantic wall, in Vladivostok, in the Philippines, in Iwo Jima and so on.
 
Last edited:
I ask because they were widely used in WWII, in the Altantic wall, in Vladivostok, in the Philippines, in Iwo Jima and so on.
As someone who grew up down the road from Fort Ord, I can say parts of the west coast are littered with what’s left of the emplacements.

My grandparents home stood looking out at Goat Island in the Puget Sound, itself unremarkable, except for the century old gun emplacement from the Spanish American war.
 
A surprise to be sure, but a questionable one. I'm just theory crafting but these changes just give off the feel that they will just end up making the game last longer. And since HOI4 is notoriously laggy past 1942 i can only imagine the frustration from being unable to end the game quicker.

Decisive naval battles are historically accurate and should not be removed from the game, forcing players to change and making changes with a sledgehammer is not a good idea. Instead just rework how the naval battles themselves actually work and leave everything else as is.

Thank God there are mods to fix terrible changes paradox introduces like the field marshal system and these new strike forces.
 
But how much of those fortifications were anti-ship artillery? Take the Atlantic Wall for example. As far as I'm aware those guns and bunkers were targeting landing craft and the men coming ashore, and so are arguably better modelled by the Coastal Forts currently in the game. Singapore had some, but they were famously never used. The only serious use of anti ship coastal defences I'm aware of in WW2 was the sinking of the Blucher in Norway, which happened primarily because the Germans discounted its presence and were completely unaware of any torpedo threat. So a very unique circumstance.

Given how little coastal batteries actually did during the war, and how fiddly implementing them would be (very limited target opportunities, how well would that interact with the sea zones, you'd need the ability to tell fleets to remain out of range if they were just passing through instead of attacking the shore etc.), they hardly seem worth the development effort imo.
 
I have one question @podcat, have you considered shore guns, or coastal artillery, as an ingame mechanic?
I ask because they were widely used in WWII: in the Altantic wall, in Vladivostok, in the Philippines, in Iwo Jima and so on.
Isn’t this already represented with the coastal fortifications? What we really need is a naval raid command so that we can have a fleet sail into an enemy harbor and pick a fight. Coastal forts and mines should mess up a fleet that tries that but it should be a possibility especially if an opponent is holing up in a poorly defended harbor. Coastal forts should also effect the shore bombardment mission.
 
Where the enemy has air superiority it is madness to have ships there as the risk to them is too great. Filling the Mediterranean with naval bombers as Italy and sinking the occasional DD and just doing chip damage to enemy shipping doesn't feel good and it's far from accurate.

DETECTION & AIR POWER were the most important elements of naval combat especially in the pacific, I'm happy that one of those is being worked on and it would be great if the other was looked into as well.

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.

-be nearly unable to escape unless in very bad weather for some time if they want to shadow it

Iirc, Graf Spee did escape its shadowers (Ajax and Achilles) at night after the battle, on its way to Montevideo).

Decisive naval battles are historically accurate and should not be removed from the game, forcing players to change and making changes with a sledgehammer is not a good idea. Instead just rework how the naval battles themselves actually work and leave everything else as is.

I don't think anyone is suggesting removing them from the game (although I might be reading the DD wrong). I do think, though, that something needs to be done about decisive battles happening in the first couple of weeks' of the war, wiping out most of one enemy fleet and basically ending the naval war before it's begun. Currently, battles in HoI4 are far, faaarrr too decisive. I agree there's a risk of overshooting the correction, but not correcting at all would be a just as big (if not bigger) issue.

But how much of those fortifications were anti-ship artillery? Take the Atlantic Wall for example. As far as I'm aware those guns and bunkers were targeting landing craft and the men coming ashore, and so are arguably better modelled by the Coastal Forts currently in the game. Singapore had some, but they were famously never used. The only serious use of anti ship coastal defences I'm aware of in WW2 was the sinking of the Blucher in Norway, which happened primarily because the Germans discounted its presence and were completely unaware of any torpedo threat. So a very unique circumstance.

There were numerous coastal artillery fortifications, and they played an important role at Normandy, Operation Menace, Operation Catapult, and in the situation in the channel (where both sides had coastal artillery lined up). In other situations (for example Operation Dragoon and the Japanese invasion of Rabaul) they didn't have an impact during the invasion, but that was because the invaders understood the threat from the artillery and took it out with airpower or naval gunfire first. There were also numerous forts along the Norwegian coast to provide cover to German coastal convoys. Coastal artillery ranged from 76mm to 406mm guns, and was relatively common - definitely common enough that coastal forts in-game would be expected to have some.

Here's a pic of HMS Glasgow (part of an counter-bombardment group including BBs, that were duelling with Cherbourg's coastal artillery) under fire from shore batteries during June 1944 - she was hit by the shore batteries at one point:

Glasgow under fire.jpg


That said, I'm not sure how best to make a 'coastal battery' mechanic work - but they were definitely a thing, and a common-enough thing to be relevant at the strategic level.
 
But how much of those fortifications were anti-ship artillery? Take the Atlantic Wall for example. As far as I'm aware those guns and bunkers were targeting landing craft and the men coming ashore, and so are arguably better modelled by the Coastal Forts currently in the game. Singapore had some, but they were famously never used. The only serious use of anti ship coastal defences I'm aware of in WW2 was the sinking of the Blucher in Norway, which happened primarily because the Germans discounted its presence and were completely unaware of any torpedo threat. So a very unique circumstance.

Given how little coastal batteries actually did during the war, and how fiddly implementing them would be (very limited target opportunities, how well would that interact with the sea zones, you'd need the ability to tell fleets to remain out of range if they were just passing through instead of attacking the shore etc.), they hardly seem worth the development effort imo.

I see, although I found this on the wikipedia page related on coastal artillery:
"On June 25, 1944 the American battleship Texas engaged German shore batteries on the Cotentin Peninsula around Cherbourg. Battery Hamburg straddled the ship with a salvo of 240mm shells, eventually hitting Texas twice; one shell damaging the conning tower and navigation bridge, with the other penetrating below decks but failing to explode. Return fire from Texas knocked out the German battery." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastal_artillery)

Additionally, coastal artillery was a key component for the Croatian victory in battle of the Dalmatian channels in 1991.
 
But it's important to recognise that those three elements you mention above (which were all very important) were anything but unique to the war in the Pacific. If the examples given in a high-level DD happen to be in Europe, this doesn't mean that these elements are being ignored.


Also, for demonstration purposes, they probably can be shown in a stream before IJN and USN have even come to blows.
 
Just finished looking back at most of the DDs since the latest expansion was announced. Pretty impressive list of features so far. There's stuff on the list that people didn't anticipate you might be willing to implement and they seem like natural additions to the game. There's stuff like amphibious assault vehicles that kind of make sense to be bundled with this expansion. I'm not sure naval changes would have made most people want to commit to another playthrough, but considering that the changes go beyond, it's really looking good.

My hope is that some legacy limitations of naval combat would also be considered with this expansion.
 
But how much of those fortifications were anti-ship artillery? Take the Atlantic Wall for example. As far as I'm aware those guns and bunkers were targeting landing craft and the men coming ashore, and so are arguably better modelled by the Coastal Forts currently in the game. Singapore had some, but they were famously never used. The only serious use of anti ship coastal defences I'm aware of in WW2 was the sinking of the Blucher in Norway, which happened primarily because the Germans discounted its presence and were completely unaware of any torpedo threat. So a very unique circumstance.

Given how little coastal batteries actually did during the war, and how fiddly implementing them would be (very limited target opportunities, how well would that interact with the sea zones, you'd need the ability to tell fleets to remain out of range if they were just passing through instead of attacking the shore etc.), they hardly seem worth the development effort imo.
If or when the devs implement a port invasion mechanic like what the Germans did during Weserubung, firefights between coastal forts and ships would make perfect sense. Don't know how often warships pulled up to harbours to bombard them, so someone else will have to weigh in on that.

(Regarding Weserubung, there was also the sinking/capsizing of heavy cruiser Königsberg during the invasion of Bergen, also to fjord artillery batteries).
 
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.



Iirc, Graf Spee did escape its shadowers (Ajax and Achilles) at night after the battle, on its way to Montevideo).



I don't think anyone is suggesting removing them from the game (although I might be reading the DD wrong). I do think, though, that something needs to be done about decisive battles happening in the first couple of weeks' of the war, wiping out most of one enemy fleet and basically ending the naval war before it's begun. Currently, battles in HoI4 are far, faaarrr too decisive. I agree there's a risk of overshooting the correction, but not correcting at all would be a just as big (if not bigger) issue.



There were numerous coastal artillery fortifications, and they played an important role at Normandy, Operation Menace, Operation Catapult, and in the situation in the channel (where both sides had coastal artillery lined up). In other situations (for example Operation Dragoon and the Japanese invasion of Rabaul) they didn't have an impact during the invasion, but that was because the invaders understood the threat from the artillery and took it out with airpower or naval gunfire first. There were also numerous forts along the Norwegian coast to provide cover to German coastal convoys. Coastal artillery ranged from 76mm to 406mm guns, and was relatively common - definitely common enough that coastal forts in-game would be expected to have some.

Here's a pic of HMS Glasgow (part of an counter-bombardment group including BBs, that were duelling with Cherbourg's coastal artillery) under fire from shore batteries during June 1944 - she was hit by the shore batteries at one point:

View attachment 411696

That said, I'm not sure how best to make a 'coastal battery' mechanic work - but they were definitely a thing, and a common-enough thing to be relevant at the strategic level.

Make "coastal" provinces all along the coasts, tiny sea areas that would be affected by coastal artillery and would allow us to damage ships that come too close, as well as allow ships to come in and deal with it and coastal forts in preparation to invasion.