• 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 - New Naval Combat

Hi everyone! Since forums were all down yesterday the diary is coming today instead :) Today we are going to look at core changes to naval combat coming in 1.6 Ironclad. We have already discussed how missions are changed as well as basics of the new spotting system in a previous diary and a future one will be fully dedicated to submarines so I will only cover them a little for how the interact with regular fleet battles today. So lets charge in!

Its best to start by looking at problems in the old system so you can see how we have tried to solve them and iterate. We identified the following:
  • Battles are extremely decisive so tiny mistakes have bad consequences
  • Combats tend to snowballs as everyone and their mother’s fleet pile in
  • A big fleet was always better, together with the above point promoting doomstacking
  • The interface gets very confusing as ships close with each other. Distance overall is very hard to show and balance.
  • It is easy to miss a combat happening while busy elsewhere.
  • Its “simulation nature” made balancing an incredibly hard problem. Resulting in things like the all-battleship fleets performing well.
“Battle-lines”
battle.jpg


To deal with distance and screening issues we have split up the battle in 4 areas per side to represent position and distances.

Screens - Your screen ships go here. Screens are the closest to the enemy and protect the ships behind them (details below).
Battle line - This is where your big guns sit. Heavy cruisers, Battleships etc. Anything with heavy long range guns. These guys also help to protect carriers and convoys behind them.
Carriers - Furthest back are carriers protected by the other two lines. This is also where convoys will be if part of the combat (say during invasion or a convoy raid battle).
Submarines - Under the sea. This area is actually two as we separate located submarines (which can be engaged with depth charges) from unlocated submarines.

By splitting things up in discrete distances unlike the old system we can more easily capture the impact of distance and positioning, and keep it easier to see what is going on at a glance.

The area they are assigned to depends on the weapons they have, which makes things tie in neatly with the ship designer. Rules for combat are now largely depend on how different weapons interact with the areas, so it is important to go over them before we continue. We also show these summarized at the top of the combat screen for quick information and to help you evaluate the combat situation:
stats.jpg

Light Guns - These are smaller caliber guns. The armament on destroyers/light cruisers and secondary armament on heavier ships. Their job is to hit and kill smaller fast moving ships. They generally do not have the armor piercing to lay down serious hurt on capital ships. Light guns attack ships one line over. So screen ships can shoot other screen ships, and when there are no more shoot the enemies capital ships. Capital ships with secondaries can fire from behind the safety of the screens at the enemy screen.

Heavy Guns - These are hard hitting armor piercing guns designed to take out big ships. They have trouble hitting small fast ships, but when they do it is for significant damage. Heavy guns have the range to fire over one of the enemy lines. So they will be hitting the enemy battle line even if it is screened.

Torpedoes - These are the big capital killers. They ignore armor, and have big damage but are terrible at hitting fast/small ships. Torpedoes can hit any line as long as it is not screened properly. So if your screening is down to 50% then half of the enemy torpedoes can be fired at your battle line, and if the battle line is also weak some torpedoes can slip through and hit carriers or convoys.

Anti-air - AA works a bit different. When firing back at enemy planes a ship will also get a part of the fleet’s AA armament to help it, so it’s quite nice to make sure your support ships (or battleships if you focus on carriers) are stacked with as much AA as possible.

Depth Charges - This is the only weapon that can hurt subs, and it only works versus revealed subs.
Carrier Planes - Carriers can carry different kind of planes. Naval and dive bombers help attack other ships and fighters help protect yourself. The whole air model in naval combats is now more in line with the rest of the game and takes place in the airzone as you would expect. So can now be disrupted etc. This fixed a bunch of issues we had with the interaction between land based air and carriers.

sub.jpg


Next to the weapon summaries we also display the side’s positioning value. This is a value simulating how well positioned your task forces are. A low positioning could for example mean that all your screens are scattered in a storm and your capital ships are wide open to attack. Positioning affects screening directly and a low value will directly hurt the fighting abilities of the ships as they wont be in optimal range, have another ship fouling the range etc. A big effect on positioning is the relative sizes of the fleets. So the bigger fleet will have an inherent penalty to its positioning versus a smaller, more easily controlled force. An admiral’s maneuver skill helps with this though. There are also traits like Lone Wolf and the Capital Ship Raiders tech from the Trade Interdiction doctrines that help increase this penalty for the enemy. The idea is to make smaller capital raiding forces more competitive if you tech right and have a trained Admiral in charge.

screening.jpg


Tooltips for ships now give great breakdown on where the damage is coming from so you can see how well (or not) a particular weapon type is doing, there are also totals summarized in the top of the interface.
dmg.jpg



Entering and exiting combat
After the initial battle starts, further task forces can join. When they do they get put in the “Incoming” box, much like before. The time spent there depends on their org levels. The lower the longer they have to wait to join. Org is affected by moving, but also by giving manual orders to fleets (we want you to plan ahead, not react for max efficiency). Whenever ships are called to a combat, they will take an organization hit, which slows down their joining. Similar delays also apply for missions like convoy raiding or escort at suboptimal efficiency so it’s harder to bring all your power to bear at the same time.

On the flip side, if you take out the enemy side before the incoming ships arrive, the battle ends and you can run away (or the sides have to re-spot each other if they still want to fight), the idea is to help subs and other raiders out by allowing fast hit-and-run battles.

run.jpg


As for exiting combat that is both something you can order directly and something that happens when ships take enough damage (remember, you set up aggression levels to control how risky you want your task forces to be). Retreating is a process that takes some time. It is affected by doctrines, traits, weather, terrain, and the speed of the ship. We show it as a progress bar so you can bite your nails as the enemy pride of the fleet slowly gets away. Note that we also now have critical hits which will slow down ships and making it harder to run - a ship with a jammed rudder has a wooping 90% penalty to escaping. Escaping is an important part in keeping battles from being too decisive.

This is also where submarines come in. They follow normal torpedo rules, but also free to circumvent them when it comes to escaping ships. So if you have subs hiding in your battle they can engage the enemy capitals as they start to run (of course this reveals them, depending on doctrine levels, leaving them open to return fire from anti-sub vessels).

See you next week for a look at submarines :)

image.png


Rejected Titles:
- Sinking inside the box for a change
- Bravely retreating in the face of underwhelming odds
- Man, those guns!
- "Stop writing dumb titles and post already podcat!"
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
The org loss is supposed to represent a commander being indecisive, sending his/her ships at a moments notice to jump in to a battle. Which logically would create confusion and result in disorganization, and did happen on ground and sea. How does that not make sense???

On top of that, if you create a game wide open it leaves it open to exploits. Your complaint is not logical at all...

Believe in what you want.
IMHO the org loss is supposed to force the player to use inefficient plans and even field with AI that can't cope with the amount of variables pumped into the game.

Just like the bonuses are supposed to lure you into using plans for ground combat, though you hamstring yourself if you try to use them in defence while in offence, they generate 2-3 times higher losses ratio than micro.
 
I just wanna thanks the team for their great work so far and i really hope youll get good gifts from Nikolaus.

Ive some questions:


1. Whats going on if 3 parties involved in naval battles?

2. What about naval tactics like "Crossing the T" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_the_T ?

3. Will some Admirals have the ability for "Gefechtskehrtwende" (iam sorry wiki hasnt a english translation) but some old german Admirals should have this ability https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gefechtskehrtwendung

4. What about UK : " Project Habakkuk" against german submarines in north atlantic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Habakkuk

5. Can Admiral be killed (if their ship sinks) or be sick, like usually generals?

Thanks in advance for answering questions
some one wants jutland one again....
i see changes looking in a less "moddeling" way... but im not sure of intrerpret if this new a "clash" or a entire zar zone as old system besed in distance.

i personally dislike the complete abone of distance system becose range gun is a vital key part of capital (screened) naval warfare system. @podcat i dont think naval system could emulate some naval combat as rule the waves (a naval surface simulator... in an old way) but for range is very important, a reason to desengage, becose its also spooting.

i agree and see a good thing the positioning concept from hoi2 and dh, was a good element like a "force org". I hope game represent that sunk ships hurts the fllet position.
But the distances of, let me call, lines of ships (becose is not a geometrical model of the battle) should be modelled. for example: 2BB south dakota class and 2BB conecticut class, as many naval clashes they advance in same line. Of course in engage south dakota 16in should be in range faster then a 12in. Distance between lines (2 scereen and 2 capital lines) are very important. But i will be waiting to see how this work becose is not fine critize hard something that i didnt test.

@podcat the bigger question of all chenge in naval combat is "how long in turns take a naval combat now?" becose if its "the chlash" of forces, and it resolves in 10 turns (forget the hour correlation) is a thing where distances doesnt be so important, but if has a system of desengament in similar way to wtt where units go desengaing from combat, the non precense of distances i feel badd....

some one upper say that thye want more direct control of units for microcombat managment. I bealive that the usage of ai vs ai with instructions is better way to compensate some weakness of the ai and some over powered player in some way as a god mod, knowing information that in real word wasnt instantanius on command mind.
 
I am not an expert on the Pacific theatre, but AFAIK all sides expected that there would be gun-battles, but discovered that carriers had struck & gone before the conventional warships could get into position. Is that right?

If so, then carrier vs carrier battles could be modelled in the following way:
- Positioning scales with time from 0% to the maximum value available (85% in Podcat's screenshot), just like Air Wing Mission Efficiency does
- Aircraft striking ships aren't affected by their own fleet's positioning value (because they can just fly to the enemy), but all other ships can only score hits once their fleet's positioning value reaches a minimum level (dependent upon the speed of the ship).

This would mean that there is a period of time at the beginning of every battle when carrier-borne aircraft can strike the enemy's fleet, potentially destroying them (or forcing them to flee) before a single naval gun is fired. But it still allows the defending side to use their fighters, fleet AA and target ship AA to defend themselves. It might be that both sets of aircraft are wiped out and the battleships continue to slug it out.

Also, what would happen if you have two Task Forces on the Strike Force mission: one with carriers and one with battleships. If the carriers are fast enough, would that lead to a carrier vs carrier battle?

Interesting idea on the scaling. Despite any views on how carrier vrs carrier battles would play out before the war, it was abnormal for them fleet, or light carrier, to be in a gun battle. Leyte Gulf was about the only one that comes to my mind, and that was an ambush with battleships vrs a fleet with light carriers covering transports.

Nagumo tried his best to get his battleships on the US carrier fleets after he lost his carriers at midway, but couldn't close enough to do so. Once a fleet with capital ships is spotted, a carrier fleet will do it's best (historically) to avoid them, and instead if anything, hit them with their carrier planes.
 
Hello,

what about ammo especially for tiny vessels like subs & destroyer.

Mostly subs had only 10-20 torpedos (example the Typ VII C had only 14 torpedos, but i havent read that the ammo will be limited. It would be completely unrealistic to send out a fleet of subs and they may shoot transports as long as the war goes on / or till theyre destroyed.

All Naval units(including transports):

Even bigger problems i see with fuel and mostly vessels. Imagine a ship has a range of 2000. It can move 1000 and need the rest(of fuel) to move back to harbour. But if it does so, it wouldnt have any fuel left to do an operation.

If it would ship just 500, 500 back to harbour then it would have left 1000 for any other operations.

- For a travel point A --> B it would be easy to calculate

but if A --> B (place of operation) --> A (back to harbour). In my opinion at moment all ships have far to big ranges.

It would be 150% ok if its just travel A --> B

If it does A --> B (place of operation) {time spend to do operation(s) X fuel = amount of fuel} --> A (back to harbour) | If amount of fuel needed < amount of fuel avaiable / stockpilled in ship = operation impossible.

------------------------------------------

Imagine the following i send out a ship from harbour range 2000.
It does A ---- 500 ---> B (point of operation 1 week 1000) ---- 500 ----> A (harbour)[ but the enemy has taken this harbour (during this week) and no other harbour is nearby]. So no harbour avaiable . What would be happen to the ship ? It cant move to friendly harbour cause there isnt enough fuel in the ship. It can surrender, sink themself or its lost. What will be happen to that ship?

------------------------------------------

In my opinion also tranport vessel may need manpower, any plans for that?


Thanks in advance for answering my questions
 
@podcat I know this is off topic but I have a coupe of questions that weren’t answered in the previous dev diary (I think it was because I was too late to the party) 1. How will the Post-War peace go if you are very historical with the new borders (hoping for accuracy because I am a perfectionist and when playing the U.S.S.R. it bugs me that I can’t take the northern Königgsberg area and then give the south to Poland as well as the proper division of Austria but if your saving that for the next dlc which is rumored to have the U.S.S.R. in it which would be great then that is understandable)? 2. Will Winston Churchill and FDR be getting any new traits or portraits? 3. How many destroyers would you say is required to guard convoys in the three sea zone pattern? Also great dev diary and am definitely looking forward to the next one on submarines (and possible release date).
 
yup exactly. both max out at 100% which is full protection for the line behind it.

Will we only be able to see the total up to 100% on the pop-up as well, or will that let us know how much we have to spare? For instance, so i can use the pop-up to tell whether losing 1 DD will make my protection % drop, or if can I lose several and still be at 100%
 
we are still balancing, but yeah they are quite a bit faster. I forgot to mention it, but we instead have the spottign phase now on the map, so you still get a "count down" to the battle as well as alerts to let you know something is about to kick off.
Several of the problems of the naval combat, are caused by the unrealistically long duration, of weeks instead of a day. Instead of fixing this base problem, you made several artificial changes to work against the negative effects. It would also be nicer to look at of they were short. If they take weeks you can't because you are busy with other things. The long duration is anyway useless, because, since you can't interfere any more. Well, the basic design decisions are made anyway, at least I'm confident that it will be better than now.

It seems to me, that torpedoes from surface ships are overpowered. In reality, they were not very dangerous, except at night because of their low range compared to guns. They were mainly dangerous fired from subs and planes, because they could get close enough.

Will the dive bombers be more effective now? Because in reality, they were similar effective than torpedo bombers, at least against unarmoured ships and could not so easily be intercepted by fighters. Only for heavily armoured ships the torpedo bombers were more dangerous.
 
@podcat; If i want my screens to stay with my carriers, can I assign them to do that and know the CLs and DDs will stay put? Will my carrier fighter aircraft have a mission to perform CAP over the carriers or escort my bombers or search for enemy vessels, primarily CVs, then BBs? Will my carrier dive bombers and torpedo planes have a choice of searching/bombing/torpedo or strike mission to known carrier? Will I be able to set priority of hitting carriers first, battleships second and never to waste ammunition on screens?
 
Hello,

what about ammo especially for tiny vessels like subs & destroyer.

Mostly subs had only 10-20 torpedos (example the Typ VII C had only 14 torpedos, but i havent read that the ammo will be limited. It would be completely unrealistic to send out a fleet of subs and they may shoot transports as long as the war goes on / or till theyre destroyed.

All Naval units(including transports):

Even bigger problems i see with fuel and mostly vessels. Imagine a ship has a range of 2000. It can move 1000 and need the rest(of fuel) to move back to harbour. But if it does so, it wouldnt have any fuel left to do an operation.

If it would ship just 500, 500 back to harbour then it would have left 1000 for any other operations.

- For a travel point A --> B it would be easy to calculate

but if A --> B (place of operation) --> A (back to harbour). In my opinion at moment all ships have far to big ranges.

It would be 150% ok if its just travel A --> B

If it does A --> B (place of operation) {time spend to do operation(s) X fuel = amount of fuel} --> A (back to harbour) | If amount of fuel needed < amount of fuel avaiable / stockpilled in ship = operation impossible.

------------------------------------------

Imagine the following i send out a ship from harbour range 2000.
It does A ---- 500 ---> B (point of operation 1 week 1000) ---- 500 ----> A (harbour)[ but the enemy has taken this harbour (during this week) and no other harbour is nearby]. So no harbour avaiable . What would be happen to the ship ? It cant move to friendly harbour cause there isnt enough fuel in the ship. It can surrender, sink themself or its lost. What will be happen to that ship?

------------------------------------------

In my opinion also tranport vessel may need manpower, any plans for that?


Thanks in advance for answering my questions
a keyfeature naval combat needs. in land ammo is not so hard becose it doenst affect the combat if you are supply, no so command go out ammo, fuel yes its probable. land and bombing can have a effect on production inpite been producced the ammo as an equipment a number of military factory could be splited to ammo, but as is aceptable working with no ammo, but naval warfare needs ammo becose going low ammo make you desengage, less planes desengage, less fuel desengage. also make units go to port to resuply.
 
something that happens when ships take enough damage (remember, you set up aggression levels to control how risky you want your task forces to be).

Does aggression only affect how much damage they allow to take, or does it also control their decision of fighting or running? So for instance, will a ship with high agression go Rambo mode even against a whole fleet while multiple ships on low agression will only attack convoys if there's no escort? If not, will there be any setting to control their behaviour even if they're still on full hp?
 
Sorry that this isn't directly related to naval combat, but I wasn't sure where the right place to ask this question was.

Will we be seeing any changes to AI naval invasion behavior? Some nations seem to never attempt naval invasions, while others like Greece for some reason, always try naval invasions. Some nations seem like they need a nudge to be encouraged to do a naval invasion. Japan tends to be an example. I often never see them invade the Philippines, Dutch East Indies, or Papua New Guinea as they did historically (Germany also never invades Norway). I also suggest that when two nations that are separated by islands are at war, they should focus on trying to build a navy and naval invasion necessities that will allow them to invade the other. I often see war between island nations never end.

Is there a answer to this question yet? It would be very interesting to know something about it, because its really horrible that Theres never a Operation Weserübung to Norway or Japan always won in China and does nothing, when Japan could conquer all of South East Asia, maybe planning to invade Australia, or Ceylon :)
 
@podcat
I remember in a previous Dev Diary...
The "1.5.2, Future Roadmap and Ironclad"

One point that personally got me very excited was your intention to have:
"More player control over naval warfare and fleet battle behaviour."

Are we going to see something like this? At the very least the ability to order what ship can open fire on what target?
 
Last edited:
Several of the problems of the naval combat, are caused by the unrealistically long duration, of weeks instead of a day. Instead of fixing this base problem, you made several artificial changes to work against the negative effects. It would also be nicer to look at of they were short. If they take weeks you can't because you are busy with other things. The long duration is anyway useless, because, since you can't interfere any more. Well, the basic design decisions are made anyway, at least I'm confident that it will be better than now.

Then you'll be happy to know the battles are much shorter now. The addition of the spotting phase (as previously discussed in a DD and as mentioned by Podcat in this thread) means that the finding of the enemy fleet takes a while and allows you to alter aggressiveness, allocate extra resources, etc. but the battles are shorter and no longer snowball with every other ship in that sector.
 
I remember in a previous Dev Diary...
The "1.5.2, Future Roadmap and Ironclad"

One point that personally got me very excited was your intention to have:
"More player control over naval warfare and fleet battle behaviour."

Are we going to see something like this? At the very least the ability to order what ship can open fire on what target?
naval warfare no naval combat
 
Several of the problems of the naval combat, are caused by the unrealistically long duration, of weeks instead of a day. Instead of fixing this base problem, you made several artificial changes to work against the negative effects. It would also be nicer to look at of they were short. If they take weeks you can't because you are busy with other things. The long duration is anyway useless, because, since you can't interfere any more. Well, the basic design decisions are made anyway, at least I'm confident that it will be better than now.

It seems to me, that torpedoes from surface ships are overpowered. In reality, they were not very dangerous, except at night because of their low range compared to guns. They were mainly dangerous fired from subs and planes, because they could get close enough.

Completely agree that the length of naval combats are absurd... most surface battles tended to last a few hours at most (I think Savo Island was less than an hour). It's particularly frustrating when the invasion of Britain is being tied up for months by surface combat against an inferior RN that is continuously being reinforced.

As for surface launched torpedoes, they were absolutely deadly and decisive in a number of naval battles, Tassafaronga is probably the best example, as well as the aforementioned Savo Island, and Surigao Strait.
 
@podcat
I remember in a previous Dev Diary...
The "1.5.2, Future Roadmap and Ironclad"

One point that personally got me very excited was your intention to have:
"More player control over naval warfare and fleet battle behaviour."

Are we going to see something like this?

We have, haven't we? There will be an aggression setting and admiral traits, for example.

At the very least the ability to order what ship can open fire on what target?

Judging by the screenshots, it's not even clear whether we'll be able to see which ships are firing at which targets any more. I had assumed not.