• 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 Updates

While Waking the Tiger and Cornflakes were not supposed to focus on the naval part of the game, we actually ended up doing a few things anyways :D So today’s diary is going to be about that!

First up: We got a new screen in the Navy Overview Screen that gives you a breakdown of losses and kills. These can be filtered by nations and faction.
Screenshot_2.jpg


You can for example see that France has lost 42 destroyers and sunk 67 Italian destroyers during the last year. The interface also lists convoys, so it’s much easier to keep track on how much of the enemies shipping you have taken out and to see how its changed between current and last month. If you click on an entry here it will give you a detailed breakdown of the ships:
upload_2018-2-7_16-25-18.png


Speaking of convoys: we have changed how raiding works and how losses in convoy efficiency is handled. Convoy sinkings is now tracked by strategic area rather than route, meaning that if several routes go through an area that is being raided, they will all be affected rather than single routes randomly being hit. This makes things much more predictable and you can’t get around efficiency hits by suddenly stopping a trade or a change in supply situation. The actual effect of a sunken convoy depends on how many are active (so if there are two convoys shipping stuff and one gets sunk thats a big impact, but if it’s 50 then it is pretty minor). The efficiency itself reacts slowly a bit per day to avoid jumps and weirdness. This solution means that it’s possible to keep convoy efficiency for the enemy low as long as you raid enough.

Screenshot_3.jpg


To help illustrate this to the owner of the convoys, we color routes that end up with lower efficiency due to raiding orange. Any area that is hit badly enough gets a special texture and is colored red. You can then focus your anti-raiding efforts on these areas.

We have also been tweaking the detection logic of submarines and how fleets engage. Fleets usually had a really easy time to find submarines due to some strange code thats now been keelhauled (a destroyer could more easily find a submarine that could find itself very easily...it was very philosophical), so we hope that part of naval warfare is going to feel better. Naval combat is an area that has been a bit neglected since launch, so we will be giving it some higher priority in future development.

Development wise the team is now in full polish and bugfixing mode, which means pet peeves like this one get addressed. I bet everyone who has played China or Japan has noticed this at least once:
Screenshot_5.jpg


Ships no longer go across land in the Yellow sea (and other tricky places) :)


We have also changed how transports interception is handled. Before it was possible to send a sacrificial transport first, and have it get caught by the enemy fleet as the rest of your transport fleet sailed past to invade the enemy. Now ships in combat are still able to detect transports for this case and “suck” them into the same combat. This should fix multiple exploits :) The way it looks on map (as the later transports may get caught in a different location) is that we show a special combat indicator over them and clicking on that sends you to the main combat in the zone.
Untitled-1.jpg


Next week we will be taking a look at achievements and nation forming, and some neat new UI changes.

Don’t forget to tune into World War Wednesday at 16:00 CET. Today we are going to start a new session (because Daniel was losing so badly vs Japan >:-D) as historical Germany, to show how it plays differently now.

Rejected Titles (due to popular demand):
What were we sinking!?
Loveboats II - The sinking of the Scharnhorst
Adding depth to the naval game
This DLC comes with free shipping
So the DLC is the Titanic and this bug is the iceberg...wait
Finding Nimitz: The Game
 
Last edited:
Does hitting convoys has any effect on Stability? Or will the material loss casued by convoy raiding sufficient enough to justify an early investment and further development of submarines?
 
Hey @podcat ,

is it also planned in your rework to get some summary about the naval and convoy battle screen/ summary somehow like shown in the screen??

I totally lost the overview over all the things going on. Every couple of days I get 50-60 messages in this stage of the war...:confused:
hoi4_3.png
 
In which historical battle did the loss of 2 cruisers and 2 carriers represent 1-2 divisions worth of manpower?

In the Battle of Midway for example Japan lost 4 Carriers + 1 Cruiser and lost 3057 men, which is not even close to the manpower in a division, and not even register in Japans millions of men available manpower ( despite it being the single most devastating loss of combat capability their Navy suffered in the entire war ).
As much as I would like Naval (and air) manpower losses modeled, this is largely correct. Only really Guadacanal did you see a massive manpower loss compared to ground forces, but that was a shitshow for both sides. Over the *entire* war the USN saw manpower loses at 62,614 killed and 37,778 wounded (acoriding to a quick google), so it will add up over a while, but when you are dealing with casualties in the millions, 60k isn't that big a deal.


Nevertheless, I'd still like to see Naval and Air manpower losses modeled eventually as well as naval and air manpower training.
 
If we're talking about manpower, I'd like to see the following modelled before air and naval manpower losses:

  • General pilot skill level. We've got aces, which is something, but I'd also like to see a pilot skill level meter. It would go up when your planes succeed in missions (successful bombings, shooting down enemy planes, so on) but go down when your planes are shot down. Being shot down over enemy territory would be worst, followed by being shot down over water, followed by being shot down over friendly territory.

  • Training of soldiers who are not in divisions. Currently any soldiers who reinforce a division are of the "green" training level. It would be good to be able to use surplus equipment to train a pool of soldiers to the "trained" or "regular" training levels, so they don't drag down the level of your existing divisions when they reinforce. You could use an interface similar to the lend-lease mechanic to make it easy to use only old equipment for training.

Air and naval manpower losses might be much easier to do, though.
 
Training of soldiers who are not in divisions. Currently any soldiers who reinforce a division are of the "green" training level. It would be good to be able to use surplus equipment to train a pool of soldiers to the "trained" or "regular" training levels, so they don't drag down the level of your existing divisions when they reinforce. You could use an interface similar to the lend-lease mechanic to make it easy to use only old equipment for training.
I really want this. Basically a secondary pool that's X% of your total used manpower and would slowly train up at the same rate that the division deployed does. and when you take losses, you are reinforced from that pool instead, stopping the massive falloff in training you get when taking even minor losses, and allowing for divisions to actually gain xp at a decent rate (as the xp gained wouldn't all be used to offset the loss of trained troops

  • General pilot skill level. We've got aces, which is something, but I'd also like to see a pilot skill level meter. It would go up when your planes succeed in missions (successful bombings, shooting down enemy planes, so on) but go down when your planes are shot down. Being shot down over enemy territory would be worst, followed by being shot down over water, followed by being shot down over friendly territory
  • Also god yes, and the ability to do air exercises that increase air xp and train up your pilots in the same way that ground training works now. I'd also really like to see this in naval ships. You could even have the training focus on different tactics, allowing for things like Japan's heavy focus on night battle in the training of it's lighter surface force, which gave them a heavy advantage until the USN devised night battle tactics of their own.
Manpower losses would also be repetitively easy to do. 1 per fighter/CAS, 2 per fighter/NAV, 4 or so for TAC, and something like 6 for strategic bombers. Wouldn't have an excessively large effect in the grand scheme of things, but combined with an experience system would just make the game that much better
 
I've often thought that all those obsolete aircraft sitting around would be perfect for forming training wings to train pilots.

Therefor you need the often requested "do not upgrade" button *hint hint*
:rolleyes:
 
Manpower losses would also be repetitively easy to do. 1 per fighter/CAS, 2 per fighter/NAV, 4 or so for TAC, and something like 6 for strategic bombers.

Don't forget the differing rates of loss depending on whether the combat was over friendly or neutral territory (or, if over the sea, in areas covered by an air/sea rescue service) :)
 
How would you do naval exercises in a game where ship repairs are free? Percentage chance for ships to just sink at random during exercises? :)

Have it tie down/require oil resources.
 
Or simply have shakedown cruises that take X amount of time during which the ship is weak in combat. Something you can only do in war if you outrange the enemy navy.
 
Manpower losses would also be repetitively easy to do. 1 per fighter/CAS, 2 per fighter/NAV, 4 or so for TAC, and something like 6 for strategic bombers. Wouldn't have an excessively large effect in the grand scheme of things, but combined with an experience system would just make the game that much better

Such losses would be otherwise trivial in manpower unless they came out of your "[trained] pilot" manpower.

This game begs for a trained pilot pool of manpower, trained landforce pools, and trained naval force pools, in addition to the normal manpower pool.

It begs!

Wald
 
Woot! Not much makes me smile like a naval-related DD, cheers for the update Podcat, and the team for all the work :D. In the context of things to make the current system work better, this DD is all win :). Thanks for the wake-up call @Meglok :D.

In honour of an update with some sub-loving, here's a pic of an Italian fleet review in 1938, that involved eighty submarines surfacing simultaneously :D

View attachment 333592

I had a feeling you'd like this one. :D
 
How would you do naval exercises in a game where ship repairs are free? Percentage chance for ships to just sink at random during exercises? :)

It did happen, but that would probably be a bit of a brutal gameplay mechanic :)

Come to think of it, what does experience on a ship even do?

The crew's level of training, familiarity with each other, the ship and fighting the ship in combat had a huge impact on ship's performance - so I'd guess this is what it's trying to proxy. If anyone was silly enough to let me design the naval game, I'd have experience for ASW, surface warfare, night warfare and anti-air split out into separate categories :D.

Like land training, there's value in having it possible to train up to a certain level in peacetime (crew getting used to working with each other and the ship, exercises and what-have-you) and then higher levels for actual combat experience.

I had a feeling you'd like this one. :D

Oh aye :D I reckon you might have as well ;).