• 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 Treaties and Ship Refits

Hello, and welcome back to another exciting dev diary about ship design!

As many of you noted last week, ship design in the interwar years was heavily restricted by the Washington Naval Treaty and the First London Naval Treaty. During and after the Great War, naval planners the world over were drawing up plans for new battleships that made use of new technologies, with ever bigger guns requiring ever stronger armor meaning increasingly large ships that were becoming even more expensive. At the same time, Britain and France were at the edge of bankruptcy from the debts they had accumulated during the Great War and could not afford another naval arms race with the fairly untouched nations of Japan and the US.

The result was the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922, which forbade any new battleship construction for a period of 10 years and restricted the maximum size of ships as well as their gun armament. In 1930, the signatories of the Washington Naval Treaty came together and negotiated the London Naval Treaty, which limited the construction of cruisers and stipulated strict restrictions on their size. In early 1936, the London Naval Treaty was up for renegotiation and that, as they say, was when the trouble started.

These restrictions forced the designers of warships in the interwar period to come up with some interesting compromises, and although we can’t possibly model all the interconnected ways in which these restrictions impact design - the Nelson class baffled American designers who were trying to comprehend why the British would build a ship like that - we did want to model some of the impact and also represent the diplomatic effects of the naval treaties.

picture_naval_treaty.jpg


All the signatories of the 1930 London Naval Treaty will start with a national spirit that restricts the maximum cost of their capital ships. As I said last week, we originally played around a bit with tonnage as a restricting value for ship design, and obviously this would have tied in neatly with the Naval treaties, but the design was changed later to instead focus on slots and construction cost. We also thought about simulating the restrictions in gun caliber etc. through restricting modules, but in the end decided against it because it would disincentivize the player to engage with the ship designer - imagine researching a new heavy battery and then finding out that you can’t install it because it would violate the treaty! It still means that in ship design, you can’t just build the best possible ship on day one as the cost restrictions are quite harsh.

treaty_bs.jpg


When you start the game in 1936, you will notice a mission ticking down reminding you that the Second London Naval Conference is currently underway. If you don’t decide to bail, you will automatically sign the Second London Naval Treaty. Bailing from the treaty is at first only available during the London Conference, costs some political power, but less for fascist nations. However, fascist nations can stay in the treaty and later decide to cheat use creative accounting to measure the true displacement of their ships, which means they have reduced restrictions while, presumably, lying through their teeth when asked about the curiously large cruisers they are building (the Head of Ship Design for the Royal Navy during the 1930s once remarked that the other side was either building their ships from cardboard or lying when presented with the official numbers for a new cruiser!).

Screenshot_8.jpg


Once world tension hits a certain level, the decisions to leave the treaty are once again available for everyone. Should any country have left the treaty, either during the initial conference or afterwards, a timer starts ticking down for the remaining countries that activates the historical “escalator clause”, which will ease the restrictions slightly, allowing even the signatories of the treaty to build more powerful ships. As a fascist country you therefore have an incentive to stay in the treaty, as it will restrict your opponents more than it restricts you while denying them the escalator clause.
escalator_clause_2.jpg

If a country outside the treaty reaches a certain percentage of the British size in capital ships, they can be invited into the treaty. Should the nation decline and continue to expand their navy until near parity, the treaty nations can try to force them to disarm up to 80% of the number of capital ships. A refusal to disarm may lead to war. If a signatory nation exceeds the allocated amount of capital ships, they immediately get a mission to reduce the number of capital ships, at the threat of major stability loss.

So you will probably want to make sure you have the most capable ships you can as you are quite limited in numbers as well as size. One of the more annoying parts of the old variant system was that a capital ship might well be obsolete by the time it hit the waves, with no chance of ever being modernized. It made even less sense in the context of the ship designer, where the upgrades between the ship classes were supposed to be more gradual. Enter the refit feature, which will allow you to upgrade your ships and otherwise tailor them better to your needs as the situation changes - from upgrading the AA on your battleships to removing one of the torpedo sets on your destroyers to make room for more depth charges.
refit.jpg


All modules have a production cost, of course, but in addition they can (and usually do) have a conversion cost as well as a dismantling cost. The conversion cost determines how much it costs to, well, convert that module from another module. This means that it is usually cheaper to upgrade, say, Anti-Air from Level 1 to Level 2 than it is to rip out the rear turret and put some AA in there. There are some exceptions to this, mostly for historical immersion: upgrading the engines is a major effort that historically required very long yard times (you basically have to cut open the hull to get the old engines out and get the new engines in, then patch it up), so it is almost always not worth it (upgrading the engines on an old battleship gets you about 2 knots of speed at the cost of a modern light cruiser), but we wanted to give you the option. As a general rule, it is never cheaper to build a lower tier and then refit to something more modern.
picture_refit_aa.jpg

If there is no specific conversion cost scripted in, you have to pay the dismantling cost for the old module and the construction cost of the new module. Modders will be pleased to hear that you can script in dismantling resource costs so you can actually gain resources back from scrapping certain components.
C_class_refit.jpg

To refit a ship, you create a variant and then select the ship you want to refit, then order it to refit to that variant. The ship will detach to go to the nearest naval base and become an item in the production queue with a few special mechanics: because it is technically still on the map, it can be bombed and damaged, which reduces build progress. If the province it is in is overrun by the enemy, it will be captured and may end up serving your enemies.
c_class_carrier_refit.jpg

You usually can’t refit between ship hulls (so a 1936 destroyer can only be refit to other 1936 destroyer variants), but otherwise you have a lot of freedom on what you can refit into what and are only really restricted by cost (for historical examples, see the Japanese Mogami class becoming heavy cruisers after being built as light cruisers). A special case are carriers, where cruiser and battleship hulls can be converted into certain carrier hulls. These are generally not as capable as purpose-built carriers, but if you have some old ships lying around…
picture_carrier_conversion_finished.jpg

Lastly, some of you have noticed that one of the German ships we showed last week looked a little different. The Admiral Scheer is at game start the Pride of the Fleet for Germany, giving Germany a small (5%) war support bonus and the ship itself some bonuses to defense against critical hits (ahistoric in case of HMS Hood, certainly) and bonuses to experience gain. It also has some interesting synergy with admirals that have the Media Personality trait: they will gain bonuses when commanding a fleet with a Pride of the Fleet in it.
Germany_panzerschiff.jpg

Assigning a ship as Pride of the Fleet is free if you don’t have one already. Changing your Pride of the Fleet costs some political power (and presumably makes the crew of the old one very sad, you monster). You can only make a capital ship the Pride of the Fleet, and you should choose wisely - losing it gives a painful penalty to war support for a while.
potf.jpg

That’s all for today, remember to tune in at 1600 hours for our stream, when we will show off some gameplay for Mexico!

Rejected Titles:

With a large enough pocket, every battleship is a pocket battleship

The Italians actually were building their cruisers out of cardboard as it turned out

What really is a heavy cruiser, anyway?

Get your discount cruisers

You can now play with your LEGO-ships even after you have built them!

Personally I think armor is overrated anyway

The C-Class Carrier Conversion has nothing on the T-Type Torpedo Transformation or the M-Model Machinegun Makeover!
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
At least according to The Naval War in the Baltic, 1939-1945, the Soviets were actually targeting the Finnish Väinämöinen, and even thought for a while after the attack that they'd succeeded in sinking it. Poor old Niobe got a pretty rough draw there! Niobe apparently accounted for nine of her attackers though, a pretty impressive result.

Well, they thought they were aiming at Väinämöinen, but it was a case of mistaken identity. Still, I think it's just an extra good mark for Niobe's reputation that she got mistaken for the terror of the Baltic. :p
 
Cheers for the DD Archangel, and it is super cool that the naval treaties going in, and I reckon you've got a great balance between gameplay and historical detail as well :D.



I'm not sure what they thought at the time, but in the 1930s when the BB holiday was coming to an end, they at one point considered a similar (but not identical) turret layout for their North Carolina class BBs (see https://warshipprojects.wordpress.com/2018/02/25/warship-projects-profile-no-us002h/ and https://warshipprojects.wordpress.com/2018/02/25/warship-projects-profile-no-us002d/ for deets I could find quickly on the web). There could have been a sea full of all-forward battery oddities :D.

wppp-no-us002d-y.png




Strictly speaking, without some test of how easy it would be to make Hood explode like that when she wasn't pride of the fleet, we don't know this is ahistoric - maybe she would have been even more susceptible to that kind of catastrophic detonation if she wasn't :eek:.



At least according to The Naval War in the Baltic, 1939-1945, the Soviets were actually targeting the Finnish Väinämöinen, and even thought for a while after the attack that they'd succeeded in sinking it. Poor old Niobe got a pretty rough draw there! Niobe apparently accounted for nine of her attackers though, a pretty impressive result.



While this would be a nice addition, writing this in a way that suggests not having the animation means the game is broken and that it needs fixing seems a bit strong. In the context of everything taking resources, it's not unreasonable to think that perhaps something else might have been prioritised above this. It's not as if grand strategy games need shore bombardment animations or they're incomplete :).



Many of them started off as partially-built civilian ships on the slips though (Junyo/Hiyo included) - which is less work than getting an existing liner, stripping it back and turning it into a carrier. Even Aquila had to be gutted, including removing the machinery, which is a whole lot of work prior to actually adding the carrier bits. There were plans for the British to convert their two large, fast liners (which presumably would have been able to keep the machinery, but I haven't looked that up so don't take my word for it) but other than that, I doubt most conversions would have had a huge benefit in terms of time saved. It's something that would be super-hard to model, as there would need to be some accounting for the number of large, fast liners available for potential conversion (the US building CVs from convoys that represent WW1 Hog-islanders would not be a historically plausible result :)). On balance, just making people build the carriers as-is avoids having an overly-complicated-for-what-it's-likely-to-achieve mechanic.





They tend to buy those ships at a deal less than it cost to build them originally though - so it doesn't necessarily prove they were cheaper to refit. I'm afraid I don't have any figures on things like the exact cost of modernising the British WW2 destroyers for the Turkish Navy, say, so can't say anything definitively.



From The Struggle for the Middle Sea, by Vincent O'Hara and whose manuscript was reviewed by Enrico Cernuschi, one of the better Italian contemporary historians of WW2 at sea who publishes in English, there's no mention of a single hit against Warspite (although there is one mention of a floatplane assuming a hit when there wasn't one - and there's no question that the Italian gunfire bracketed Warspite, so primary Italian accounts of the action may well have assumed hits that weren't there, as was often the case in primary accounts on all sides). O'Hara also provides damage summaries for each ship in the action, and Warspite isn't noted as having even splinter damage. I haven't seen reference to a hit on Warspite at Punto Stilo/Calabria elsewhere either - although I'm yet to read Bragadin's The Italian Navy in World War II - if there's a reference in there, then I'd be more inclined to believe it happened.

On the other hand, the description of the hit on Cesare, which did indeed first hit the funnel, suggests it was slightly more serious than you imply (from page 41 of The Struggle for the Middle Sea):



Edit: Similarly, had Warspite received a number of large-calibre hits, then she would likely have needed some time in repair - something she never had, as per this link. I expect those things mentioned in the paper you link were damage from near misses, and possibly smaller-calibre shells.



Just a drawing - no picture of the BB design the US never built....really @Axe99, you are slipping.
 
Marketing, research, and coding time restrictions. They are not going to roll more than a couple of majors at a time so their DLCs have sufficient content, it takes time to research focus trees, and it takes time to code and debug.

I don't disagree at all. Just saying the amount of time spent on two almost insignificant minors could have, should have been spent on a major such as France or Italy, majors who have languished since release.
 
I don't disagree at all. Just saying the amount of time spent on two almost insignificant minors could have, should have been spent on a major such as France or Italy, majors who have languished since release.

2 of the 3, ITA, FRA, & SOV should be next I would think??
 
Just a drawing - no picture of the BB design the US never built....really @Axe99, you are slipping.

:oops: I didn't want to overdo it - but seeing that you asked....here's a pic of Rodney undergoing a refit in 1942, with the 16in barrels being replaced (it's not quite the same, as the guns were more-or-less the same, but I'm confident they'd have put on new AA at the time, and would be surprised if she didn't get a new radar set or two as well):

Installing_16_inch_gun_on_HMS_Rodney_at_Birkenhead_Feb_1942_IWM_A_7692.jpg
 
:oops: I didn't want to overdo it - but seeing that you asked....here's a pic of Rodney undergoing a refit in 1942, with the 16in barrels being replaced (it's not quite the same, as the guns were more-or-less the same, but I'm confident they'd have put on new AA at the time, and would be surprised if she didn't get a new radar set or two as well):

Installing_16_inch_gun_on_HMS_Rodney_at_Birkenhead_Feb_1942_IWM_A_7692.jpg

Now you're just showing off....LOVE IT!!
Awesome photo.
 
Everyone is excited about the refits and the restrictions.. meanwhile I'm just happy for this because it gives a feeling of global politics.
oh yeah. versalles is and eco in the wind? can you heard wachin?
 
@Archangel85

WtT came with a number of army insignia icons - will MtG have some too?
 
It's good to see the modable ships back from HOI3, and a lot easier to use this time as well. Is there any thought as to what ships would be considered 'pride of the fleet' for each nation at start ('36 start that is)?
 
Game is starting to become like the old HoI 3, which some people love, but not I (was to complicated for my taste). PLease have in this update a rules screen that lets players toggle options on/off from DLC features like the super amazing rules dialog CKii has when starting a game.
20181114200157_1.jpg
 
Last edited:
i will only leaves this here and say: versalles, naval traties, disbanding units... (like dh)...

 
Don't think I've played HOI4 as the UK yet, but once MtG is out I will have to just so I can convert HMS Hood into a carrier. Let's see the Bismarck sink her then:D.

Concerning not being able to convert ships under construction. Eagle, Kaga and Shinano were all converted from battleships already under construction. Same goes for Akagi, Lexington and Saratoga ( battlecruisers), and the Independence class (light cruisers). If possible to model in game then I'm all for it.
 
What about HMS vanguard and ships like her?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Vanguard_(23)
She was unique where,she had a very modern hull and equipment. But was armed with hand me down ww1 15 inch guns.

I believe that there was a plan to replace the old revenge class of battleship with this type of class where they would recycle parts of the older ships to cut down on cost and build time.

It would be an interesting move to have in the game,by making these modern but under armed battleships.
For example if you have lost a few of modern ships it could make a good stop gap,
As well as making sure you don't get rofl stomped in the late war period.
 
From The Struggle for the Middle Sea, by Vincent O'Hara and whose manuscript was reviewed by Enrico Cernuschi, one of the better Italian contemporary historians of WW2 at sea who publishes in English, there's no mention of a single hit against Warspite (although there is one mention of a floatplane assuming a hit when there wasn't one - and there's no question that the Italian gunfire bracketed Warspite, so primary Italian accounts of the action may well have assumed hits that weren't there, as was often the case in primary accounts on all sides). O'Hara also provides damage summaries for each ship in the action, and Warspite isn't noted as having even splinter damage. I haven't seen reference to a hit on Warspite at Punto Stilo/Calabria elsewhere either - although I'm yet to read Bragadin's The Italian Navy in World War II - if there's a reference in there, then I'd be more inclined to believe it happened.

On the other hand, the description of the hit on Cesare, which did indeed first hit the funnel, suggests it was slightly more serious than you imply (from page 41 of The Struggle for the Middle Sea):



Edit: Similarly, had Warspite received a number of large-calibre hits, then she would likely have needed some time in repair - something she never had, as per this link. I expect those things mentioned in the paper you link were damage from near misses, and possibly smaller-calibre shells.

http://www.marina.difesa.it/storiac...e/20160511_QUANDO_TUONANO_GROSSI_CALIBRI.aspx

The author you site has a work on this very subject published by the USMM and do bother to check the linked article the summary of the warspite hits in the graphic are easily discernible. Although your recollection is pretty much completely off. Cesare quickly recovered speed and Warspite was thought to have been hit due to the infamous blue smoke. Your takeaway is...odd.

Just as on the land side of the combat there was a concerted effort to downplay Italian successes to the point we have the issues in this game. I'm grateful to PDX for not having to deal with the economic issues however some credit is due to the actual technical Italian capabilities that are left out of the game. And the dismissive nature of the devs in various videos and forum comments make it tiring that they don't even bother to be objective.