• 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:
That is a gorgeous design screen.
 
What really is a heavy cruiser, anyway?

Ok - the level of detail here is mind-blowing.

However, how can we keep track of this in-game.
You certainly can't remember all the subtleties of the variants.

What would be really usuful is to take the entire ship design catalogue, showing the graphics, modules and stats for each, and output to PDF so that you can have a separate reference document to make sure you put the right ships in the right fleets.

If you have 4 different classes of battleship and 5 different classes of heavy cruiser and 9 different destroyers, how do you keep track of which ones to put together for escorts, patrol etc.

At this point you really want your personalised Jaynes Catalgoue of your entire naval force, showing all the module variants etc. so that you can have a reference guide to use at critical times.
 
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.
Get out.
 
Ok - the level of detail here is mind-blowing.

However, how can we keep track of this in-game.
You certainly can't remember all the subtleties of the variants.

What would be really usuful is to take the entire ship design catalogue, showing the graphics, modules and stats for each, and output to PDF so that you can have a separate reference document to make sure you put the right ships in the right fleets.

If you have 4 different classes of battleship and 5 different classes of heavy cruiser and 9 different destroyers, how do you keep track of which ones to put together for escorts, patrol etc.

At this point you really want your personalised Jaynes Catalgoue of your entire naval force, showing all the module variants etc. so that you can have a reference guide to use at critical times.

I myself will probably do taskforces of 2-6 ships dependent on their roles (ideally of a single ship design for ease of management), with fleets made up of groups of taskforces as needed to fulfill the fleets objective/role .
 
My two favourite things in this DLC so far:

- ship upgrade/conversion
- being able to select ship names before deployment (it's annoying having to manually rename stuff)

It's going to be fun deciding which capital ships to upgrade or convert. :)
 
The UK navy may be bigger however it also has bigger obligations. Even then the history is written by the victor. Punta Stilo for example the British account has the Warspite making the long range hit, actually hitting a funnel not a body hit. However the Italian side speaks of several hits against Warspite that seem to have all but disappeared from English accounts. :confused::confused:

https://www.marinaiditalia.com/public/uploads/2014_8_9_28.pdf

Although your recollection is pretty much completely off.

I didn't provide a recollection - I provided a verbatim quote (from a Kindle version of the book, so there's not even room for typos) from a respected, published work on surface actions in the Mediterranean during the Second World War. I also didn't say anything that contradicted Cesare regaining speed later (to be expected - it wasn't damage to the boiler rooms, it was just fumes through the intakes disabling them temporarily) but the evidence I provided was to the effect that while the initial round hit the funnel, it went on to do damage to the body of the ship. Not serious damage, sure, but damage nonetheless. You seemed to be arguing that Warspite received multiple direct hits (you use the term in plural), but that the hit on Cesare was negligible, and that's not consistent with any of the accounts of the battle (including the one you've linked, now that I've had time to read via Google translate, although more on that in the spoiler) I've read. As always, apologies if I've misunderstood any of your points.

Note - I'm not suggesting the Italian Navy was this or that or anything else, I'm just talking about the specifics of the damage received to the two ships during that particular action.

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.

I did check the link - but you'll have to forgive me as I don't read or speak Italian, so I just ran parts through Google translate, but as I don't speak Italian, and because Google translate isn't perfect, I'm not able to read what you attached in a way I can be confident of the results (ie, if Google mis-translates, it could confuse the issue further). I didn't, however, check the author - but now that I have looked at it more closely I think you've chosen a good source :).

I'll plonk the discussion into a spoiler, because there's a bit to it - the bits in italics are my comment on the translation:

Damage reported by the HMS Warspite indicated in the technical report of the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors (RCNC)
of July 31, 1940

Note this is a report from July 31, and Punto Stilo was not the only time in July Warspite was under fire.

1) 102 mm aft aft anti-aircraft twin system.
2) "Pom Pom" Mk III six-gun machine gun plant
from 40 mm starboard aft and to the reservoirs.
3) 10 tonne electric crane on the left.
4) Twin complexes of 12.7 mm machine guns on the sky of the tower "X" of g.c.
5) Hole in the back of the funnel of 20 cm in diameter.
6) Probable explosion point of a disruptive 203 mm grenade.
7) damage from shrapnel to crow, to Admiral's bridge, to Flag Deck,
at the Signal Deck and the telemeter for the starboard anti-aircraft shooting.
8) Damage to the starboard backstroke.

If you look at the Doc B in the article you attach, you'll see more detailed descriptions of the damage. Even if they are splinter damage, and not bomb damage (which I suspect the article is contending), only #6 could possibly have been from a direct hit from a shell (and that from a shell from the cruisers, not the battleships) - the rest are splinter damage from near misses, and I haven't seen an account of the battle with any detail that denies the Italians made near-misses on Warspite (although I obviously won't have read all of the accounts, and I haven't read any of those in Italian). As an aside, even if some of those are splinter damage due to bombs from high-level Italian bombers, this is hardly a bad reflection on Italy (although we're now talking the RA instead of the RM) - Cunningham himself wrote that he had great respect for the high-level Italian bombers, and the impression I've got through English-language sources is that they were far more effective at that kind of naval strike than British bombers (and at the very least no less effective with torpedo attacks).

Thus, in the article you've provided, unless Google translate has let me down, there's no claim that either of the two Italian battleships made a hit on Warspite, but rather that Trenty managed one hit aft (after some extremely impressive gunfire) - thus my response to your initial claim that multiple hits were made during the battle, and that Cesare and Zara made some near misses (again, something that contemporary accounts in English agree with). At no point (as far as Google translate would tell me) does Cernuschi claim more than one direct hit on Warspite. Hence my original point, that the Italian BBs didn't make any direct hits on Warspite that day.

In terms of the Trento hit, this is the first time I've read about it, and I appreciate you bringing it to my attention :). Struggle for the Middle Sea doesn't note this, and the RCNC report does suggest there was probably a hit from a 203mm shell (perhaps armour-piercing, as presumably a high explosive detonation would have been a bit less subtle), but it's not something I've seen in accounts of the battle.

However, beyond Trento's hit, the account is fairly consistent with what I've read. Maybe I've just chosen my sources carefully and avoided ones with silly bias in them, but I'm not sure which account of the Battle the article is trying to refute. In terms of the concerns with the 'Official English Story' (noting that this article continually confuses the appropriate use of 'English' with 'British' - the official British story may have been written in English, but the language itself was not presenting the story, just the medium for it!), I'm not sure which British story it's referring to, but if it was one reported during the war (the reference to CS Forester suggest this), there's a far chance that the story involved no small amount of propaganda, something indulged in by all sides - and it seems a bit odd to try and refute a propaganda piece when far better accounts in that language have been completed since. I haven't seen any references to a pursuit of the Italian fleet up the mountains of the Calabrian coast in any of the English language accounts of the battle I've read.

The article does make the astounding claim that the British fleet didn't enter the Central Mediterranean from the Battle of Punto Stilo until the Invasion of Sicily. The April 1941 Bombardment of Tripoli, for example, involved three British battleships and supporting vessels - and as best I'm aware it would take some seriously creative geography to suggest Tripoli is anywhere other than the Central Mediterranean.

Please bear with my understanding, however - the section reproduced below is an example of why it's not possible to just post non-English content and expect Google translate to cover the difference. I haven't the foggiest what half of this means - "we gave him a paw too", for example. So while I've read the article as best I can, at times I was dealing with trying to make sense of stuff like this.


The Warspite navigation report also highlights (see
the relative image doc B, C, D), for 16.00 some strange facts:
A) a twenty-degree turnaround that prevented, for the continuation, at two o'clock
The ship's large-sized aft towers continue to catch
part of the action and that took the armored (and alle
two equal categories that followed it) a divergent course of respect
to Italian formation (the Italians wrote, at that time
"The English hint to withdraw"). B) an order to increase the
speed from 15 to 17 and, then, even at 20 knots, done this clearly
impossible with steam engines, given the concrete risk,
in those conditions, to peel, so much so that the increase
real registered was, in the end, only 17 miles, reaching, finally
the 20 nodes in question only at 17.23. Also worth noting
that at 15.57 the radio connections of the Warspite with its own seaplane
in flight they ceased until 16.01. Reset with an antenna
of bamboo of luck by 16.01 were again compromised,
according to the original British report, at 16.02, that is
in the instant in which, as the Director of Caesar's shooting later said,
commander Cipollini, "We gave him a paw too"
with a long salvo from 320 fall near the battleship of
English head. Cunningham remained so devoid of information from
own aircraft up to 16.47. The antennas in question were placed
at the height of the mast of the aft mast.

The Regia Marina did compete and accomplished its mission of supplying Africa and the Balkans. Before the entrance of the USN in force the British where on the backheel in the central Med.

So you know, I didn't take issue (at all) with your comment here, and fully agree the broader strategic achievements of the RM are handled incredibly inconsistently in English-language works. O'Hara gives them (imo) very good treatment (although he butchers his treatment of British strategic decisions), for example, while I'd caution against (at least the bits I've seen) Peter Smith's take on the RM. I also agree it'd be great if the game better reflected Italian naval developments - they were very technically capable in many areas, and made (by and large - very navy had it's stronger and weaker designs) very good warships, and largely (again, every navy had better and worse moments) used them well. I don't disagree for a second that Italy had first-class naval architects and the technology to back up their work (electronics notwithstanding, where they did lag behind).

Happy to talk about this in a PM, but we're getting waaayyyy off topic for this thread so shouldn't continue this discussion here.
 
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)?

A lot of countries have a PotF assigned at game start. In some cases it was obvious (HMS Hood) and in others we went with flagships of the battlefleet etc.
 
A lot of countries have a PotF assigned at game start. In some cases it was obvious (HMS Hood) and in others we went with flagships of the battlefleet etc.
To save your researchers some time, for the US in 1936 it should be the famous battlecruiser USS Lexington, which had been re-converted back from a carrier in 1934.
 
It's a very expensive refit for a mediocre carrier?


If my recollection is correct you might be mistaken there. The Lexington and her sister were profoundly potent Carriers. Their armour actually helped keep them in the fight as well whereas the Yorktowns were particularly vulnerable to dive bomber attacks. They also maintained the largest US Air Groups until the Midways came on line. Just because they were lost in the first half of the war does not detract from that. They took on a substantially larger Japanese Carrier arm and held the line sufficiently for Hornet and Yorktown to relocate from the Atlantic.

Similarly, the Japanese fleet Carriers Akagi and the Kaga were again converted battle-cruisers and they also proved their worth by their air-group capacity.

I would argue as well that a refitted heavy hull would maintain a much stronger spine and as a result be more resilient. That is not to say they wouldn't be put out of action pretty quickly if they were not possessed of armoured decks like the UK was fond of, but they would still be pretty damned resilient from being destroyed.
 
This is cool and all, but naval combat is so irrelevant in the game that making a DLC focused mainly at that seems pretty silly.

Yeah........... no.

Naval Combat is not irrelevant- it's just not as relevant as it should be. And that's exactly why it needs all these reworks.

Navies have their strategic importance, but it's very dumbed down and boring, making it feel irrelevant. You say it's irrelevant and you're half right, that's what this DLC aims to change.
 
Yeah........... no.

Naval Combat is not irrelevant- it's just not as relevant as it should be. And that's exactly why it needs all these reworks.

Navies have their strategic importance, but it's very dumbed down and boring, making it feel irrelevant. You say it's irrelevant and you're half right, that's what this DLC aims to change.
naval does not important? please take japan plz doland
 
naval does not important? please take japan plz doland

Irrelevant and unimportant are two different things.

They have their use, but in reality you just need NAV/TAC and a couple of ships and you can invade anywhere, so navies are pretty irrelevant. Even as Japan, USA and UK you can win without playing the Naval game much.

Admittedly it's mostly due to the poor AI, but a more engaging naval game will add much to the game.

But don't worry, I got the joke :)
 
Irrelevant and unimportant are two different things.

They have their use, but in reality you just need NAV/TAC and a couple of ships and you can invade anywhere, so navies are pretty irrelevant. Even as Japan, USA and UK you can win without playing the Naval game much.

Admittedly it's mostly due to the poor AI, but a more engaging naval game will add much to the game.

But don't worry, I got the joke :)
Yes AI is the problem. Would be nice see some paratroopers too