Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

C.O.R.E. HOI - Naval Mod

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Re: Re: Re: Naval Mod Tweaks for Ver 0.6

Originally posted by Ghost_dk
yorktown cv-5
laid down 21 may 1934
launched april 4th 1936

enterprise cv-6
laid down ?
launched oct. 3rd. 1936

Destroyers

5 laid down 35 launched summer 36

Submarines

4 laid down 35 launched fall 36
Click to expand...

Those are dates of putting the ship into active service, or just on water?

Enterprise Launched
Oct 3, 1936
Enterprise Commissioned
May 12, 1938
Click to expand...

Second date is valid.
 
I think those changes will go along way to helping the navies in C.O.R.E become more respectable. I once again would like to thank those who have made this mod possible. I would like to see an entire revamping of the way the navies are layed out. I think a more accurate formula should be devised for a ships firepower. It's not just the size if the shell that makes the diiference, take into account wieght of shell, velocity, max range, fire controls, ex. Bismarks 15"L47 main armament, shell wieght of 2000lbs,max range of 39500yds vs HMS Nelsons 16"L45 main armament, shell wieght og 2460lbs, max range of35000yds. Just this small amount of information speakes volumes. Take it further with a look at firecontrols, optics ex, its seems reasonable a formula can be devised to make the game that much more realistic, and yet as always playable. As for ships defense we need to look at ships armor, internal subdivisions, damage control expertice and ships max speed. ex. Graf Spee, side belt armor 4", turret face armor 5.5" deck ranged from 1.5"-3" max speed with 56,000 BHP = 26knts. Once again taking these values a formula can be created to fit any ship and give a better, more realistic picture of a ships defensive capabilities. I would like to help with this mod, I see it as becoming a great mod, and would like to take part.
 
Aha! I think I found the origin of the Portuguese CL mixup! (or maybe not... here goes)

Late 20s, early 30s. The portuguese navy was made up of floating junk. So the government decided to rebuild the navy, and made a construction plan for that.

In total, the ships built would be:

2 light cruisers (here's where I think the mess comes in), 4 1st class sloops, 8 2nd class sloops, 12 destroyers, 8 submarines, 1 seaplane tender, 1 submarine support ship and 4 gunboats. (respectable, that, huh?)

It was to take 10 years and be carried out in three phases. The first batch would consist of 2 1st class sloops, 4 2nd class sloops, 4 destroyers, 2 subs and the seaplane tender. Then they decided to delay the tender and build 1 more destroyer and 1 more sub. (According to you guys, these were all built by hoi start, so the 2nd phase should be nearing start)

The plan never was completed, of course. The spanish civil war started, the new fleet mutinied, then WWII started and the government had to review it's spending... And the army was jealous. :D
 
I also see alot of wrangling about submarines, once again (with help a formula can be devised for class of sub. ex Type VIIc U boat, displacement-surface-769tons, submerged 871 tons. Speed, BHP 2800 surface= 17knts, BHP 750 submerged=7.5knts. Main armament 5-21" torpedo tubes. ex Gato Class sub, displacement-surface 1525tons, submerged 2415tons. Speed, HP 5400 surface=20.25knts, HP 2740 submerged=10knts. Main armament 10-21" torpedo tubes. Just from this little bit of information it is not hard to see that the Gato is a better sub then the Type VIIc u boat, and that any formula created would of course show this. And while on the topic of submarines what about RAF coastal commands anti-sub aircraft. As always I would like to thank those who have made this mod possible.
 
About Navies etc

When there are ships in buildqueue in the start of the scenario they are supposed to be already in construction. Therefore you should consider the time which the ship has already been in construction and lower the build cost accordingly.

Hope the German ship model "mess" is solved in next version of CORE.

Cheers to Copper for making mods to sub org.

I would have liked to have an event which installs Donitz (maybe in b option)but I'll manage without it too. Would have been an alternative such as US elections but not as dramatic.

Steel's events would be nice start. Though I would move resources from UK to its colonies to make the convoys more important. Also tweak the transport ship count down. Btw how can I reduce UK transports? AFAIK they get fixed amount every month. Could that be lowered?
 
Norwegian shipping placed at the disposal of the British at the fall of Norway was in the order of 4,607,839 tons or aprox 50 ships for every 100,000 tons for a grand total of 2304 addition ships for Englands convoys. My thought is could an event be created to show this upon The fall of Norway? :confused:
 
There is no event command for increasing or decreasing amount of merchants in the pool. Transport fleets can be added as units though.

The monthly increase of merchant ships is based on number of ports owned.
 
Originally posted by Stukoke
Thank you for your timely response:) . Could we then add a few merchants to the english fleet at the fall of Norway? And again thanx.
Click to expand...
following Steel response:

There is no event command for increasing or decreasing amount of merchants in the pool. Transport fleets can be added as units though.

The monthly increase of merchant ships is based on number of ports owned.
Click to expand...
then, NO. :D
 
Re: About Navies etc

Originally posted by Icer
Hope the German ship model "mess" is solved in next version of CORE.
Click to expand...

Yeap. But unfortunately we found it in more then just German file, so you have to wait a bit.


Originally posted by Icer
Cheers to Copper for making mods to sub org.
Click to expand...

I do what I can... Math Guy suggestion was just to good to miss. Still, more changes to subs come in the next release...
 
Originally posted by Steel
There is no event command for increasing or decreasing amount of merchants in the pool. Transport fleets can be added as units though.

The monthly increase of merchant ships is based on number of ports owned.
Click to expand...

OK. So we cant reduce the monthly merchant ship gain. Can we alter the merchant pool in the beginning of the scenario?

What about moving some of the UK resources to its colonies?
 
I do like the idea of moving some of Britain's resources to their colonies. It might help recreate the Battle of the Atlantic somewhat. Right now it doesn't matter whether they win or not. Of course that would have to be balanced by realistic submarine combat, the destroyers have to have their chance to interdict the subs. MDow
 
Originally posted by MateDow
I do like the idea of moving some of Britain's resources to their colonies. It might help recreate the Battle of the Atlantic somewhat. Right now it doesn't matter whether they win or not. Of course that would have to be balanced by realistic submarine combat, the destroyers have to have their chance to interdict the subs. MDow
Click to expand...

Now subs got default org 15 (exception - nuclear sub), and in the next version it can't be rised by any doctrine more then 5%, so I'm pretty sure, that battles with subs will be short.
What's more, I lowered their defence (when visible, are highly vulnerable) and (again, in the next version) no sub tech will lower visibility factor more then 3 points. It corresponds well with current development of ASW weapons, were detection is usually rised by 1-2 points.
So - high attack, serious effect on the trade fleet, hard to detect, but when detected - bam! Destroyed or crippled (zero org, return to base).
 
Originally posted by Copper Nicus
Now subs got default org 15 (exception - nuclear sub), and in the next version it can't be rised by any doctrine more then 5%, so I'm pretty sure, that battles with subs will be short.
What's more, I lowered their defence (when visible, are highly vulnerable) and (again, in the next version) no sub tech will lower visibility factor more then 3 points. It corresponds well with current development of ASW weapons, were detection is usually rised by 1-2 points.
So - high attack, serious effect on the trade fleet, hard to detect, but when detected - bam! Destroyed or crippled (zero org, return to base).
Click to expand...

I think youre going into right direction though not sure until I can test. Now I'm curious what have you done to the sub doctrines? Could you elaborate? Maybe you could add or remove visibility etc other settings in them so that they wont become useless. How about linking some sub techs with sub doctrines?
 
More Construction

Does anyone know what the French were building on 1 Jan 1936?

How about US Carriers. Does anyone know when the Yorktown was commisioned?

Were any other countries building ships on 1 Jan 1936?

Just trying to get all of this wrapped up for 0.6. MDow
 
Originally posted by Icer
Now I'm curious what have you done to the sub doctrines?
Could you elaborate? Maybe you could add or remove visibility etc other settings in them so that they wont become useless.
Click to expand...

They are still usefull, all right - two key doctrines, Unlimited War and Wolfpack give the subs 5% each, and it means almost doubled effectiveness. I'm still toing with idea of lower cost (not time) for those. Other doctrines give bonuses also to other units, so are still usefull.

Visibility of subs is very low now. Medium range U-boat got
"visibility = 10" and long range = 9 (and electro subs are much better). It can be further lowered by about 6-8 points (don't remember exactly) by upgrades.

Compare that to 3-5 standard detection of subs by destroyers (in one case it's 7 al right) and 9 points gained by the upgrades... IMO subs still got edge in that game. But after detection roles are changing... :D

Originally posted by Icer
How about linking some sub techs with sub doctrines?
Click to expand...

Good idea. I've already done it with tanks, planes and infantry (in the next version), so why not with subs? This tree is already tighly connected with electronics, but some more links makes sense...
 
Originally posted by nachinus
I posted this in the 0.5 Discussion Thread:

-As ENG, V-Class destroyers (2nd model) costs 1ic to build, but coastal gunboats (1st destroyer model) costs 2ic, shouldn't it be inverse?
Click to expand...

As far as I remember this was intentional - coastal gunboats are, well, gunboats. For nations with seashore, but wirtually no naval technology (take a look at their stats line). And since no refined naval industry exists, their cost is high. In fact, higher than standard, shipyard build destroyers.
Also it helps in preventing "gang up" tactics.
 
Originally posted by nachinus
I posted this in the 0.5 Discussion Thread:

-As ENG, V-Class destroyers (2nd model) costs 1ic to build, but coastal gunboats (1st destroyer model) costs 2ic, shouldn't it be inverse?
Click to expand...

The coastal gunboat class is designed for undeveloped nations because it is impossible to keep countries from building destroyers. The cost is high to prevent minor nations from building large fleets of destroyers and cruisers. This is the same rational used for the revenue cruiser vs the protected cruiser. It is a ploy to limit construction, that is all. Why would you want to build them as England??!? :confused: MDow
 
Originally posted by Icer
I think youre going into right direction though not sure until I can test. Now I'm curious what have you done to the sub doctrines? Could you elaborate? Maybe you could add or remove visibility etc other settings in them so that they wont become useless. How about linking some sub techs with sub doctrines?
Click to expand...

I am working on a submarine tech tree that will be similar in concept to the naval tech tree. In my typical fashion the number of models will be increased to give more flexibility. There will be interconnections with not only the doctrines, but techs in the naval, electronics, and industrial trees. It won't be ready for 0.6 probably, but it should be ready and working for the version after that. If you (or anyone else) is interested in helping, drop me a PM or an e-mail. MDow
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back