• 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 - Ship Designer

Hello, and welcome back for another look at what is probably my favourite feature of Man the Guns: the Ship Designer. It has cost us a lot to make - sweat, tears, sanity (several members of the team now understand the “Poi” meme).

The stated goal of Man the Guns is to make the naval gameplay more involved and adding more depth to it by adding more roles that need to be covered and giving the player new tools to fill these roles. We also wanted to make sure that we had a system that could represent a wide variety of ship types with a minimum of clutter. Finally, we wanted the system to be as moddable as possible.

As many of you have concluded from Daniel’s little accident on stream last week, we have overhauled ship types to be ship hulls instead. The ship hulls themselves are basically empty containers with no combat stats. For simplicity’s sake they do contain stats like cruising range and HP (although they don’t have to!), but the rest of the stats come from modules.

(It should be noted that a lot of the numbers and the GUI you are about to see are not completely final so please keep your pitchforks pointing downwards and your torches unlit)

britain_cruiser.jpg


Every hull type has a limited number of slots in which you can fit these modules, and also restricts what type of module you can fit. So a Destroyer - now called a Light Ship Hull - can’t mount heavy guns or airplane launchers but can mount depth charges, whereas a Battleship - now called a Heavy Ship Hull - can mount airplane launchers and heavy guns but not depth charges. These slots come in two flavors - fixed and custom slots. Fixed slots are things that are either mandatory - like the engines - or shouldn’t compete with other things. All ships except submarines have a fixed AA slot, for example. You don’t have to fill that slot if you want your ship to be completely helpless against air attacks, but you can also only ever mount AA guns in that slot. Custom slots are much more flexible and allow you to tailor a ship to a specific role. Higher levels of ship hulls generally have more custom slots available.

ENG base hull destroyer.jpg


Say you play Britain and have somehow ended up in a war against Germany. Submarines are raiding your convoys and you are desperate for new escorts. Under the old system, you built a bunch of destroyers at a fixed cost, maybe spent some naval XP to upgrade their ASW capabilities and that was that. Under the new system, you take an early (read: cheap) light hull and strip out everything you don’t need. That ship is going to operate in the middle of the Atlantic, far away from enemy air, and the opponent has no carriers, so it needs little, if any, AA. The enemy surface fleet hasn’t shown itself in years, so you can skimp on the gun battery and the torpedo armament to cut down cost. You also go with the most basic set of engines to keep the ship as cheap as possible - it doesn’t have to be fast to catch a submarine. Instead, you load the ship down with depth charges and sonar modules to track down enemy submarines. The goal is to make a cheap convoy escort that can be mass-produced.

Britain destroyer Escort.jpg


However, Japan has been making aggressive noises recently and you expect to fight in the Pacific against enemy carrier battlegroups. So you start with a more more modern destroyer hull and add as much AA as it can carry to send it to help out Australia.

Britain Fleet Destroyer.jpg


Unfortunately, you miscalculated and the Japanese are running swarms of cheap, disposable destroyers with lots of torpedoes and not much else, using their carriers in a defensive role to provide air cover. So you design a light cruiser with plenty of guns to annihilate the destroyers before they can do too much damage. It won’t be cheap, but it’ll give you the edge - once it is in service. Somewhere along the line you’ll also want to build up a carrier battlegroup or two of your own, and that means you’ll have to also look at cruisers and battleships for escorts as well as the carriers themselves…thankfully you have a number of old battleships and cruisers lying around that could be given a second lease on life by refitting them (details to come in a future dev diary!)

A lot of these considerations come down to cost. We played around a bit with the idea of having ship hulls provide an amount of tonnage and modules cost some tonnage, but in the end we found that it was easier to understand if the number of variables restraining a design was fairly small. While the system will allow you to build super ships with naval attack values that dwarf the values you can reach in 1.5.4, they will not be cheap and they will have some other areas in which they are weak.

britain_hermes.jpg


The system also allows you to build a number of ship classes that have been requested a lot, without having to add new subtypes. A light carrier is just a carrier with fewer hangar modules (and thus considerably cheaper), an anti-aircraft cruiser is just a regular cruiser that mounts dual-purpose main guns (which perform somewhat poorly against surface targets compared to other armament options). A seaplane carrier is a cruiser that dedicates most of its custom slots to airplane launchers, giving it great surface detection at the cost of being bad at pretty much everything else.

Germany_panzerschiff.jpg


For some ship types we made special hull types that give special capabilities. The Panzerschiff hull is available for Germany and is essentially a cruiser that mounts a single battleship-grade heavy battery module. Sweden and other nordic countries get a special Coastal Defense Ship hull, which is slower than a regular cruiser but can also mount a battleship gun. The German pre-dreadnoughts have also been given their own hull type, but here it is more a case of missing capabilities…Most of these are set at game start, but some are available as special rewards for completing certain focuses.

germany_cruiser_submarine.jpg


As you may have guessed, modules are unlocked by researching technologies. Most of these are in the new and revised naval tech tree which isn’t ready to be shown off just yet, but some are spread around other tech trees. Radar research gives you access, unsurprisingly, to radar modules, and researching anti-air in the artillery tree unlocks better AA guns to mount on your ships. Fire control computers are a side branch of regular mechanical computing machines.

Here is brief list of modules for each ship type, note that some of this will not fully make sense until you see the details of the naval combat rework that is coming in a future dev diary (™):

Light Hulls:

- Light Battery: Provides some naval attack against other light ships, higher models also have dual-purpose capabilities to add AA

- Anti-Air: Provides some air attack

- Depth Charges: Provide sub attack

- Torpedoes: Provide some torpedo attack

- Mine Rails: Provide some mining capability

- Minesweeping Gear: Provides some capability to sweep mines

- Radar: Adds some surface detection. Later models also provide bonuses to naval and air attack

- Sonar: adds some submarine detection

- Fire Control System: adds a bonus to naval attack and anti-air

Cruisers:

  • Light Battery

  • Light Medium Battery: adds some more naval attack and armor piercing, better against light ships

  • Medium Battery: adds some naval attack and armor piercing against other heavy ships. Less effective against light ships.

  • Anti Air

  • Depth Charges

  • Torpedoes

  • Mine Rails

  • Secondary Battery: gives some attack against light ships, particularly useful for heavy cruisers and battleships. Later models have dual-purpose capability to also add AA value

  • Airplane Launcher: adds some surface and submarine detection

  • Armor: adds some armor to reduce incoming damage at the cost of speed

  • Radar

  • Sonar

  • Fire Control System

Heavy Hulls:

  • Heavy Battery: Adds a large amount of naval attack and armor piercing at the cost of speed. Basically useless against light ships.

  • Secondary Battery

  • Anti-Air

  • Armor

  • Airplane Launcher

  • Radar

  • Fire Control

Carriers:

  • Deck Space: Provides more space for planes

  • Deck Armor: provides some armor and HP at the cost of speed. Competes with Deck Space for slots

  • Anti-Air

  • Secondary battery

Submarines:

  • Torpedoes

  • Mines

  • Radar

  • Schnorkel: Reduces visibility of submarine

As you can see, your light hulls will carry a lot of weight to provide defense against submarines, but can also be turned into quite potent AA units or nasty torpedo boats. Cruisers are meant to be very flexible and fulfil a variety of roles, from being essentially super-heavy destroyers with plenty of torpedoes and guns to being the poor-man’s capital ship or being large, fast minelayers. Battleships and Battlecruisers are separated by different armor schemes and not much else, but with heavy armor being both labor and resource intensive, perhaps some corners could be cut…

britain Carrier.jpg


Carriers are now more flexible in terms of size, ranging from tiny carriers for a handful of planes all the way to 100+ plane supercarriers. That should make the entry into the carrier game somewhat achievable even for smaller nations. Submarines are still largely the same, but with some upgrades they can be very hard to find indeed and special submarines can lay as many mines as a dedicated minelaying cruiser for less cost and lower risk of detection.

While the ship designer window itself is going to be part of the DLC, the old naval tree you already know will simply unlock pre-scripted ship designs, and instead of the ship designer window you get the regular variant upgrade screen you are already familiar with.

Britain super battleship.jpg


Assuming that the Ship designer works out as we hope it does, we might expand the system to cover tanks and airplanes as well. Some of the backend was made with tanks and airplanes in mind, but we are mainly concerned with overloading the player with design choices during potentially hectic situations in the war (you are trying to micro the encirclement of 6th Army but you also need to design a new tank destroyer…). Ships have a long lead time so we expect you to have to design them less often.

That is all for the week. Next week we will talk a bit about what you can do with your old ships...and why you probably won’t be able to build min-max battleships on the first day of the game.


Rejected Titles:

Playing with LEGO-Ships

Who designs the designer?

Basically made just to allow Sweden to have its historically accurate fleet

This is a Panzerschiff. It schiffs Panzers.

Aviation Battleships are bad and you should feel bad.

This radar nonsense will never work

What’s wrong with my bloody ships today?

The spirits of Emperor Wilhelm II and Sir John Fisher were consulted for this feature

We ship Iowa/Musashi

RIP the torpedo battleship meta 12/6/2018-7/11/2018

The best ship design is Friendship

Count of people who ask about doing this for tanks and airplanes without reading the dev diary so far: 1
 
Last edited:
Plus, aircraft don't have multiple "slots" to work with like naval ships do and the only "crossover" you realistically had between hull types, ignoring navalized aircraft and rare CAS conversions, was between fighters and "heavy" fighters and tactical/strategic bombers being slotted in as naval bombers. Also you would get silliness such as strategic bombers that do nothing but boost range to be used as nuke carriers.
Nani? Of course airplanes have "slots". Each of them has at least one engine, generally two wings, weapons, and various optional ancillary equipment such as radios. All of these allow a degree of customization.

Just look at how many variants the A6M Zero has. Some of them differ from one another only in the choice of engine; something that happened a lot of times for Japan when a plane design was finished before a simultaneously developed (and frame-compatible!) engine. Granted, some of them also had a differently sized body, but how is that different from naval vessels? A Fubuki was a lot bigger than destroyers of earlier eras, yet they'd both be classed as "Light Hulls" here.

To shamelessly rip off Archangel85's module list, here's just what immediately comes to mind:

General Modules
-Engine (adds Max Speed, Agility and Range)
-Guns (adds Air Attack)
-Cannons (adds Air Attack and Ground/Naval Attack, decreases Agility)
-Turret (adds Air Attack, Air Defense and Manpower cost, decreases Speed, Range and Agility)
-Rockets (fits 1 pylon, smaller bonus to Air/Ground/Naval Attack)
-Light Bombs (fits 1 pylon, adds Ground/Naval Attack, decreases Agility)
-Heavy Bombs (fits 2 pylons, adds Ground/Naval Attack, decreases Agility)
-Torpedo (fits 2 pylons, adds Naval Attack, decreases Agility)
-Drop Tank (fits 2 pylons, adds Range, decreases Agility and Air Defense)
-Armor (lowers Speed, Range and Agility, adds Air Defense)

Auxiliary Modules
-Bombsights (adds Ground/Naval Attack, only available for Heavy Planes)
-Dive Brakes (adds Ground/Naval Attack, requires bombs to be fitted on plane, only available for Light Planes)
-Folding Wings (adds CV compatibility at the cost of Range, only available for Light and Medium Planes)
-Radar (negates detection penalties, decreases Range)
-Radio (adds Air Attack, decreases Range)
-Supercharger (adds Speed and Agility, decreases Range)

Light Planes:
-Engine (1 fixed)
-Guns (up to 4)
-Cannons (up to 2, adding 1 Cannon locks 2 Gun slots)
-Pylons (up to 2)
-2 Aux slots

Medium Planes:
-1 Engine (fixed)
-1 Engine (optional)
-Guns (up to 6)
-Cannons (up to 3, adding 1 Cannon locks 2 Gun slots)
-Turret (up to 1)
-Pylons (up to 3)
-Armor
-3 Aux slots

Heavy Planes:
-2 Engines (fixed)
-2 Engines (optional)
-Cannons (up to 4)
-Turrets (up to 8, adding 1 turret locks 2 Cannon slots)
-Armor
-Bomb Bay (counts as 8 pylons, but can only take bombs; adding 1 bomb locks 2 Cannon slots)
-5 Aux slots

^ This is just quickly tossed together, mind you. I'm sure a list like this could be made more reasonable if someone wanted to invest the time.
 
Last edited:
Nani? Of course airplanes have "slots". Each of them has at least one engine, generally two wings, weapons, and various optional ancillary equipment such as radios. All of these allow a degree of customization.

Just look at how many variants the A6M Zero has. Some of them differ from one another only in the choice of engine; something that happened a lot of times for Japan when a plane design was finished before a simultaneously developed (and frame-compatible!) engine. Granted, some of them also had a differently sized body, but how is that different from naval vessels? A Fubuki was a lot bigger than destroyers of earlier eras, yet they'd both be classed as "Light Hulls" here.

To shamelessly rip off Archangel85's module list, here's just what immediately comes to mind:

General Modules
-Engine (adds Max Speed, Agility and Range)
-Guns (adds Air Attack)
-Cannons (adds Air Attack and Ground/Naval Attack, decreases Agility)
-Turret (adds Air Attack, Air Defense and Manpower cost, decreases Speed, Range and Agility)
-Light Bombs (fits 1 pylons, adds Ground/Naval Attack, decreases Agility)
-Heavy Bombs (fits 2 pylons, adds Ground/Naval Attack, decreases Agility)
-Torpedo (fits 2 pylons, adds Naval Attack, decreases Agility)
-Drop Tank (fits 2 pylons, adds Range, decreases Agility and Air Defense)
-Armor (lowers Speed, Range and Agility, adds Air Defense)

Auxiliary Modules
-Bombsights (adds Ground/Naval Attack, only available for Heavy Planes)
-Dive Brakes (adds Ground/Naval Attack, requires bombs to be fitted on plane, only available for Light Planes)
-Folding Wings (adds CV compatibility at the cost of Range, only available for Light and Medium Planes)
-Radio (adds Air Attack, decreases Range)
-Supercharger (adds Speed and Agility)

Light Planes:
-Engine (1 fixed)
-Guns (up to 4)
-Cannons (up to 2, adding 1 Cannon locks 2 Gun slots)
-Pylons (up to 2)
-2 Aux slots

Medium Planes:
-1 Engine (fixed)
-1 Engine (optional)
-Guns (up to 6)
-Cannons (up to 3, adding 1 Cannon locks 2 Gun slots)
-Turret (up to 1)
-Pylons (up to )
-Armor
-3 Aux slots

Heavy Planes:
-2 Engines (fixed)
-2 Engines (optional)
-Cannons (up to 4)
-Turrets (up to 8)
-Armor
-Bomb Bay (counts as 8 pylons, but can only take bombs)
-5 Aux slots

^ This is just quickly tossed together, mind you. I'm sure a list like this could be made more reasonable if someone wanted to invest the time.


Nice ideas. I would add Radar to the options for medium planes that would negate night and certain weather penalties to reflect Night fighter tactics of heavy fighters. I haven't seen many bombers that would be considered heavy/strategic bombers in this game that used cannons for defense except for gunships used as escorts . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YB-40_Flying_Fortress. Is that what you intended? If so perhaps make the cannons exclusive to the Bomb Bay
 
Nice ideas. I would add Radar to the options for medium planes that would negate night and certain weather penalties to reflect Night fighter tactics of heavy fighters. I haven't seen many bombers that would be considered heavy/strategic bombers in this game that used cannons for defense except for gunships used as escorts . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YB-40_Flying_Fortress. Is that what you intended? If so perhaps make the cannons exclusive to the Bomb Bay
Oh, great additions! Totally forgot about radar (in my defense, I didn't read as much about planes as I did about ships). I've sneakily edited it in.

The bomb bay was meant to be more as a hardpoint for equipping bomb modules, a fixed component for this type of frame. However, what if we made it similar to how Cannons interact with Guns, and have adding Turrets and Bombs/Torpedoes lock down Cannon (but not Gun) slots, again at a 1:2 ratio so you could mix a little if you wanted?

I guess the Heavy frame was supposed to encompass a much wider range of planes than the Light and Medium ones, due to it going all the way up to the big Flying Fortresses... But examples I was thinking of would be the B-25H Mitchell and the Mosquito, some variants of which were equipped with cannons, making them hybrid gunships/light bombers.
 
Came for the ship designer, stayed for the KanColle.

But really, the ship designer looks great and I really want to play with it. My well designed warships will rule the seven seas! ...Poi. I'm very much looking forward to MtG :)
 
On the subject of Kancolle and 'ship spirits', one thing that is missing from the designer is the design's intent or doctrine or whatever word you'd like to use to describe the niche it is supposed to fulfill. It's 'spirit', if you will. And I know that may seem an unnecessary thing to include when the designer deals with the physical aspects of the ship, just because a submarine has engines intended for long ranges doesn't mean that it is the designer's intent - which is to say the player or AI's - for that particular design to be used as a long range submarine going off into the deep waters of the Pacific, and instead it might be intended to be a coastal submarine that will be patrolling up and down the coastlines of Asia. So by providing 'intent'/'doctrine'/'spirit' to the design, you're giving much needed context in how the design should be used in the field. To use another example, let's say you're designing a light cruiser. What is that light cruiser's purpose? Is it to be going off on its own to flank the enemy, quickly throwing a couple torpedoes before running off to lick its wounds; or is it supposed to be an escort that's going to support your own fleet and avoid getting sunk too quickly? That's a very important distinction to make, as light cruisers are going to be less well armored than really any larger ship class they come across - and in the current iteration of naval combat, are quick to be killed off just by being not as tanky. Meanwhile, it is not uncommon at all for me to see lone carriers and lone battleships limping along in the late war; unable to be a real threat since they're alone but difficult to just sink in a single engagement since they're capital ships with a lot of HP. This is opposite to historically surviving ships, which tended to be smaller ship classes that survived because they had a defensive role.

Obviously this 'design intent' system should be fairly simple and there's no reason to go overboard with it, but I think there's a lot of potential for such a thing to add value not only to how ships of similar tech-eras can be given different roles in combat as well as the future possibility of expanding the design system to planes and tanks. You could have 'night fighter' design intent for airplanes, for example, or 'assault gun' design intent for the good old Stug III. These intents shouldn't limit, but rather increase synergy between the different designs in the field. When cruisers that have a 'flanker intent' are paired with cruisers that have an 'escorter intent', both designers are preforming their intended role and benefit from one another's presence. And of course, since this is a very conceptual thing that you're deciding about a given design, it stands to reason that you can easily alter the 'design intent' on the fly without much penalty (although perhaps at some army/naval/air experience cost). Stug III assault gun becomes Stug III tank destroyer, and what was a 'heavy attacker' WW1 dreadnaught might become a 'training ship' where you can farm a stream of naval experience or something.

Another thing that might be worth adding to the designer is some sort of camouflage pattern or other texture alterations, for the purposes of allowing players to better distinguish one design from another on the fly. You set one design to black and white stripes, and another to a blue paint, and so on. Adds same value as the color customizer for army groups.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This can be automated and idiot proofed, right? I usually have always gone with automatically designed ships in Stellaris for example.
From how I understood it, the Naval Research Tree will still unlock the designs you are used to; the Ship Designer will just give you the option to come up with your own, I think?

Although I'd say the Designer already is somewhat "idiot-proof" in that there's not much you could possibly do wrong. The only thing you'd have to keep in mind is that smaller guns are better against smaller ships, and larger guns are better against larger ones. All the other gadgets should come with fairly straight-forward effects: Enemy airpower scares you? Add more AA guns. There's a lot of submarines around? Load up on some depth charges and sonar. And so on. There's no "rock-paper-scissors" thing like with Stellaris' different weapons/shields/armor, or at least not to the same degree. 203mm twin naval rifles will always punch some good holes.

Worst case, you could look up some historical designs on wikipedia and replicate whatever sounds suitable. You'd even learn a thing or two whilst playing the game! ;)

Came for the ship designer, stayed for the KanColle.
 
Nani? Of course airplanes have "slots". Each of them has at least one engine, generally two wings, weapons, and various optional ancillary equipment such as radios. All of these allow a degree of customization.

Just look at how many variants the A6M Zero has. Some of them differ from one another only in the choice of engine; something that happened a lot of times for Japan when a plane design was finished before a simultaneously developed (and frame-compatible!) engine. Granted, some of them also had a differently sized body, but how is that different from naval vessels? A Fubuki was a lot bigger than destroyers of earlier eras, yet they'd both be classed as "Light Hulls" here.

To shamelessly rip off Archangel85's module list, here's just what immediately comes to mind:

General Modules
-Engine (adds Max Speed, Agility and Range)
-Guns (adds Air Attack)
-Cannons (adds Air Attack and Ground/Naval Attack, decreases Agility)
-Turret (adds Air Attack, Air Defense and Manpower cost, decreases Speed, Range and Agility)
-Rockets (fits 1 pylon, smaller bonus to Air/Ground/Naval Attack)
-Light Bombs (fits 1 pylon, adds Ground/Naval Attack, decreases Agility)
-Heavy Bombs (fits 2 pylons, adds Ground/Naval Attack, decreases Agility)
-Torpedo (fits 2 pylons, adds Naval Attack, decreases Agility)
-Drop Tank (fits 2 pylons, adds Range, decreases Agility and Air Defense)
-Armor (lowers Speed, Range and Agility, adds Air Defense)

Auxiliary Modules
-Bombsights (adds Ground/Naval Attack, only available for Heavy Planes)
-Dive Brakes (adds Ground/Naval Attack, requires bombs to be fitted on plane, only available for Light Planes)
-Folding Wings (adds CV compatibility at the cost of Range, only available for Light and Medium Planes)
-Radar (negates detection penalties, decreases Range)
-Radio (adds Air Attack, decreases Range)
-Supercharger (adds Speed and Agility, decreases Range)

Light Planes:
-Engine (1 fixed)
-Guns (up to 4)
-Cannons (up to 2, adding 1 Cannon locks 2 Gun slots)
-Pylons (up to 2)
-2 Aux slots

Medium Planes:
-1 Engine (fixed)
-1 Engine (optional)
-Guns (up to 6)
-Cannons (up to 3, adding 1 Cannon locks 2 Gun slots)
-Turret (up to 1)
-Pylons (up to 3)
-Armor
-3 Aux slots

Heavy Planes:
-2 Engines (fixed)
-2 Engines (optional)
-Cannons (up to 4)
-Turrets (up to 8, adding 1 turret locks 2 Cannon slots)
-Armor
-Bomb Bay (counts as 8 pylons, but can only take bombs; adding 1 bomb locks 2 Cannon slots)
-5 Aux slots

^ This is just quickly tossed together, mind you. I'm sure a list like this could be made more reasonable if someone wanted to invest the time.

Generally speaking, I don't see why (2) cannons should give you a hit to agility when (6-8) HMGs will not. Hell, I don't see why light planes should be limited to four guns (or did you mean pairs of guns?) when there is ample precedent for six or even eight gun fighters (and four cannon fighters, late Spitfires come to mind as well as the Typhoon and Tempest, or the later Fw 190s).
That said, there should be evolutions in weapon ammunition. The US alone started using M2 (I) and M8 (API) mid-war, replacing it with full belts of M20 (API-T) and eventually testing M23 (so incendiary some rounds would burst directly after exiting the muzzle) on select airframes.

There are issues with your distinction between light and medium planes, since there were 'mediums' that mounted just one engine (IL-2) and 'lights' that mounted two (P-38). Hell, all havies mounted four engines anyways, might as well take away the choice.

On armor, light planes mounted it too, sometimes in ridiculous amounts. I'd say the first application should only limit agility a bit, with subsequent modules affecting speed and range as well.

All pylon based ordnance should decrease speed as well. Technically only until they're dropped, with only a small penalty in speed remaining, but I don't know if HOI4 allows for this kind of intricacy.
Drop tanks should only decrease speed a little bit due to the pylons because they're meant to be dropped before you engage or be empty before you reach the AO.

Medium planes had bomb sights, too. He 111, Ju 88, B-25, Wellington, you name it. Hell, they even slapped one on Lightnings in the bomber lead role, and that one's designed as a fighter.

Regarding dive brakes, these were used on ostensibly medium planes as well, see Me 410. In addition, all fighters should have the option to add dive flaps, which are distinct from brakes and historically allowed for higher dive speeds to be attained before the plane found itself in an unrecoverable dive. Gameplay wise, I'd suggest a boost to agility.

Folding wings should be relabeled to carrier mod or something of the like. It's not just the wings that need modification, but the whole plane. The fuselage needs to be strengthened to survive onboard recovery along with the gear, the plane itself needs to be proofed against the corrosive influence of salt water, and all that costs weight while dirying up the plane. Which means penalties to range, speed and agility.

Agreeing on the radar, strongly disagreeing on the radio bit. That should not be a module at all, but integral to every plane.

The same for your proposed supercharger. Every WW2 aero engine conceived in the 1920s and later already had a supercharger. There is no sense in adding a separate module, though adding a turbosupercharger module for more range could probably work if you want to overlook the fact most of the planes that used one were designed from the start to do so.
 
I really hope tanks and planes get this feature soon too. i need my P.1000 Ratte to be more like a P.1000 Ultra-Flyswatter, backed up by KV-2-2-2s, and corvettes with 300mm cannons (actually happened), and planes with 102mm cannons (also actually happened).
 
You can put alot of secondary guns on your battleships and fewer heavy guns if you want to and these secondary guns will be dual purpose at high tech levels. Based on history the cruiser guns should be dual purpose, I think HMS Gotland (1933) had dual purpose guns and the Tre Kronor class (1947) did have dual purpose guns which is said to actually fire faster the higher their elevation was or something like that and at most was able to fire 10 152 mm rounds per minute.

That is true, it is because of the gamey mechanic that "big guns are useless against small ships", yes maybe against a torpedo boat, or anything smaller than 20m, but even 18 inch BB guns were highly effective against destroyers. Maybe not cost efficient, but still very effective. Big cannons shot from big ships were the most accurate guns that were in use. Even a near miss from a high explosive shell would do very serious damage below the waterline to such a fragile ship as a destroyer. A dd at a range below 5km in WWII targeting systems, or below 10km with post-war targeting systems would be a one-shot kill.
 
There are issues with your distinction between light and medium planes, since there were 'mediums' that mounted just one engine (IL-2) and 'lights' that mounted two (P-38). Hell, all havies mounted four engines anyways, might as well take away the choice.
Well, in real life the distinction is made based on different metrics. Since weight is not a factor, it leaves us with pretty much only engines and hardpoints, and of these I thought the former would allow a more straightforward classification -- if one keeps in mind these are "empty" frames you can just slap all sorts of gear on, the plane's role (e.g. "heavy fighter") depending on the final loadout. Maybe the designation should be changed, to prevent confusion between frame and role?

Come to think of it, the problem is also a bit similar to what the Ship Designer is faced with when you consider that some late "Light" classes (e.g. DD Fubuki) are actually longer and heavier than some early "Medium" hulls (e.g. CL Ping Hai), just because ship designs grew progressively larger as time went on. It seems airplane development underwent a similar evolution, especially when looking at bomber types.

For the supercharger, I'm thinking about the interwar designs HoI4 is starting with. On the other hand, yes, it might be silly to have plane customization account for something that was only a factor early on and quickly became a standard feature...

Regarding the radios, some time ago I had read it was not uncommon for Japanese and Soviet planes to not feature a set during the early stages in the war. Further investigation following your comment, however, turned up that this was apparently an individual decision by the pilots and some unit leaders (as the radios were so bad that some removed them to save weight). I agree this shouldn't be reflected in what is essentially "factory specs"!

Anyways, some good points! Like I said, I pretty much just threw this list together in a couple minutes, and what knowledge of WW2 aviation I have is more or less just a side-effect from my interest in naval history, so I hope this explains my ignorance regarding some of these minutiae.

If Paradox ever gets around to expand this feature to tanks and planes, I'm sure they'll give it proper thought. My only intention here was to show that it can be done, and that it can be interesting.
 
For the supercharger, I'm thinking about the interwar designs HoI4 is starting with. On the other hand, yes, it might be silly to have plane customization account for something that was only a factor early on and quickly became a standard feature...

That's what I was trying to say. Even the crappy BMW VI on the He 51 floatplane had a supercharger already, as well as that engine's direct predecessor, the BMW IV. The latter is a 1919 vintage engine.

Personally, I'd want a base 1, 2, 3 or 4 engine plane layout, then drop in whichever components I think are needed. Go for a twin fighter engine on a small fuselage and you'll get one hell of a hotrod, but literally zero loiter time. Add the same to a slightly larger fuselage and you get loiter time and range at the expense of speed. That's the kind of thing I'd want for an air force redesign.

And yeah, gross tonnage creep is a fact of warship development to this day. Our F-124 frigates are guided missile destroyers in all but name.
 
for fighters, the thing with cannons or machine guns, isn't to do with their weight as such, but their weight distribution.

The RAF fighters, and most of the US fighters had wing guns, outside the propeller arc. The Luftwaffe, the Soviets, and the Japanese, most of their fighters had fuselage-mounted guns, some with engine-mounted guns firing through the centre of the propeller, or guns mounted on the nose firing through the propeller arc, with only one or two guns in the wings outside the propeller arc.

Fighters that had their guns all in the wings, had a lower rate of roll, because of the weight distribution, compared to similar fighters that carried their guns on the nose.


As for superchargers, the aircraft where superchargers were an issue, were mostly the P-39 and P-40, because of politics and such, leading to them being built with single-stage superchargers, which resulted in a power fall-off at higher altitudes. Other fighters had 2-stage superchargers, which gave them better performance at higher altitudes. Though the Fw-190 A-series also had a power fall-off at higher altitudes, which was part of the reason behind the Bf-109 being kept in service.
 
That is a gross oversimplification.

The 109 had worse roll rate than, say, a P-47 even though it had all its guns in the nose.

Granted, a weight distribution closer to the wingtips increases roll inertia, but it doesn't necessarily decrease roll rate itself.