• 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:

Just pointing out, iirc this is what many of the signatories to the Naval Treaties did, took BBs and BCs under construction and converted them on the quays into carriers.

@podcat I would be against re-fitting carriers into other capital ships. Taking an existing capital hull on the quay and converting it into a passible carrier was possible.

The reverse would be a non-trivial exercise due to the internal structure and compartmentalization of gun type capital ships vs the internal design of a carrier. It would require almost completely gutting the carrier. Not to mention the hull design of a carrier was usually different. Probably cheaper to just build a BB from scratch.
 
Last edited:
The naval changes are good so far. Just a reminder that Carriers made heavy cruisers and battleships almost obsolete by the end of the war except as ship to shore bombardment. I hope the changes in the DLC slow down the death stacks and stop the unrealistic naval losses. I am still waiting to see how you have fixed the naval air game.
From what I have Heard AA will reduce the effectivness of airpower in naval battles just like it does in land battles. Death stacks should no longer be a thing because the game will slow down or make it impossible for too many ships to join one sided so instead the engagments should be much smaller.

Well, the 150 pp you have to pay to not sign would be one thing...
Maybe a research bonus would make sense to represent the solutions that was needed to be developed to make effective ships under the treaty.
 
capturing ships in port wasn't mentioned earlier right, or did i miss this subject?
Guessing it means only ships being built/reaired/refit, in drydock
 
I like the new mechanics but I am somewhat worried that upgrading ships can become a micro hell if you have a large fleet.
Is it possible upgrade whole fleets at once ? (I am mostly thinking about small upgrades like installing updated AA or updated radar which historically were done more frequently than major refits)
 
Can you cue up a boatload (no pun intended) of ships far larger than the Washington Naval Treaty allows, get them all built to 100%-a few days by taking factories off at the end of construction, and then finish them all days before you declare war? What is stopping anyone from doing this?
 
Can you cue up a boatload (no pun intended) of ships far larger than the Washington Naval Treaty allows, get them all built to 100%-a few days by taking factories off at the end of construction, and then finish them all days before you declare war? What is stopping anyone from doing this?
Don't think you are allowed to start building ships above the limit.
 
If expansion is so focused on navy, can we get some more information about Italy? They are one of majors that start with generic Navy tech team, and earlier they were absolutely screwed and could never leave the port unless they wanted to be sinked by UK deathstack.

From the multiplayer perspective, this DLC will likely change nothing, UK will still rule the waves, US likely still rule the waves slightly contested by Japan, but if Italy will actually be able to at least protect sensibly their trade routes into Libya it would be a game changer.

Because these devs only know how to make bad jokes about Italy. Fourth iteration of the game and complaints that have been around since the original still haven't been addressed. Unless something has changed the complete lack of generals and admirals hasn't been addressed, etc.
 
Because these devs only know how to make bad jokes about Italy. Fourth iteration of the game and complaints that have been around since the original still haven't been addressed. Unless something has changed the complete lack of generals and admirals hasn't been addressed, etc.
As far as I understand, naval battles will not be so much about deathstacks. It is still a very upphill battle to compete with UK and/or USA who probably will have the best overall naval technology, most dockyards and largest starting navy.
 
Good point, but if Britain scraps their fleet to declare war on a nation that now has a bigger fleet that's what I would call a bit of an own-goal.

I'm actually not clear of what you are saying here, but one scenario that comes up with question marks in my mind is, what happens if Britain goes into civil war and gets most of it's fleet sunk by inter-faction fights, would that disable the treaty? If not, could be perhaps better to set a static limit, and any nation with more than that would get invited...
 
As far as I understand, naval battles will not be so much about deathstacks. It is still a very upphill battle to compete with UK and/or USA who probably will have the best overall naval technology, most dockyards and largest starting navy.

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. 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

I'm sure they are innocent jokes in the eyes of the devs. However the jokes combined with lack of content update for Italy in all this time is tiring. Having to mod the game files to get a modern looking tank sprite for late game content even though it is already included in the game is just silly. A clone army of generals/admirals is beyond boring, especially when the generic portrait is identifiable as an actual historical person. :eek:

It has been over two years how hard is it to get more portraits made for the vanilla game, make some sprites look appropriate for the tech level and other small QoL issues that have plagued Italy since HoI 1? Stop with the insulting jokes and actually add something useful for people who want to play as Italy. Thank you.:(
 
@podcat, Why do you spend time on Mexico and Netherlands, when two major powers, France and Italy deserve better trees?

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.
 
It sounds like naval production will be greatly slowed down. Being able to put fifteen dockyards on a capital ship, and building the thing in less than a year is ridiculous. Might be an idea to get used to the restriction by modding our own games [provided one is not going for achievements] now to get used to the longer build times. I remember from another big strategy game that, while the US was able to crank out two carriers per turn [two-month long turns] at certain points of the game, those carriers had to be started two years ahead. Naval planning has always been a long-term thing, but the problem with an AI is that it can't really look at the long term - only what it needs immediately.
It will be interesting to see how the AI is set up to plan for the long term.
 
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.

the Nelson class baffled American designers who were trying to comprehend why the British would build a ship like that

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


some bonuses to defense against critical hits (ahistoric in case of HMS Hood, certainly)

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:.

Talking of really old ships, it'd be cool if there was some support for bringing back the old ships from mothballs (and sending them to be mothballed to free up naval manpower in the interwar, I guess). Gelderland/Niobe has a special place in my heart, she was comissioned in 1900 and went down fighting hard in 1944 against 132 Soviet aircraft sent on a specially prepared mission targeted at her alone.

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.

Why there isn't a firing animation used during shore bombardment?

There really should be an animation where the ships are firing their guns when they are involved in shore bombardment.
Would be cool if you could fix this.

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 :).

More than a few Carriers started off as civilian ships. Jun'you and Hi'you can join that pile as well.

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.

I'd suggest that scrapping an undamaged ship should cost a minor amount of PP. (Like 1 for the smallest ships, maybe 15 for a battleship) just because it is an agonizing decision to make that this enormous amount of money and effort spent to build the ship should just be completely dismantled.

One could argue that refitting old ships is actually cheaper since it is very common for poor nations to buy old ships and then refit them with more modern licensed equipment like radars. So just throwing the idea of licensed modules out there :p

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.

However the Italian side speaks of several hits against Warspite that seem to have all but disappeared from English accounts. :confused::confused:

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):

Then a 15-inch shell from the British flagship’s last salvo completed its thirty-three-second flight and, in one of the longest-range gunnery hits in the history of naval combat, plowed into Cesare’s aft funnel. The shell detonated prematurely on the funnel’s thin inner plating and blasted a twenty-foot hole. The round’s nose pierced a 37-mm magazine and a petty officers’ mess before an armored bulkhead stopped it. Fires erupted, and ventilators pushed asphyxiating smoke into the boiler rooms. Boilers 4, 5, 6, and 7 fell off-line, and within three minutes Cesare’s speed dropped to eighteen knots.

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.
 
Last edited: