I'd agree. And yes, there amphibious assault craft, and landing craft as techs IIRC. I seem to remember developing them 2 years AFTER I needed them.
-
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.
I'd agree. And yes, there amphibious assault craft, and landing craft as techs IIRC. I seem to remember developing them 2 years AFTER I needed them.
Originally posted by JRaup
I'd agree. And yes, there amphibious assault craft, and landing craft as techs IIRC. I seem to remember developing them 2 years AFTER I needed them.
Yes it is there as a specialized vehicle landing craft. This is a catch all category for tank landing craft (LST & LCT) and ships that were designed to carry the landing craft and put them over the side or through a stern ramp (LSD).
I am going to try and make the development of the landing craft more timely. You might not be able to build them in 1939, but you should definately have them prior to 1941 if you choose. MDow
Re: Re: Zeppelins
IIRC no allied convoy protected by blimps ever lost a ship. Of course by the time the ASW blimps were operating, the Germans were not targeting wolfpacks within blimp range of the US coast. Sort of a chicken and egg thing...
I think some kind of lighter than air tech or 2 with no real value plus a ASW Blimp tech with a +1 sub detection for destroyers would be a good idea. Of course only a few countries (US, UK, Ger.) would have the lighter than air techs in '36 and only the US should have ASW Blimp tech in thier research path.
What do you think MateDow?
IIRC no allied convoy protected by blimps ever lost a ship. Of course by the time the ASW blimps were operating, the Germans were not targeting wolfpacks within blimp range of the US coast. Sort of a chicken and egg thing...
I think some kind of lighter than air tech or 2 with no real value plus a ASW Blimp tech with a +1 sub detection for destroyers would be a good idea. Of course only a few countries (US, UK, Ger.) would have the lighter than air techs in '36 and only the US should have ASW Blimp tech in thier research path.
What do you think MateDow?
Re: Re: Re: Zeppelins
Here were my thoughts on how to set this up.
There would be a doctrine (Lighter Than Air Operational Doctrine) that would open up some techs in the naval tree for airships and blimps. It would be basically just an introductory doctrine to serve as a prereq.
A second doctrine (Lighter Than Air Superiority Doctrine) would open up some better Airship techs that would be more useful. It would also increase the cost of the naval bomber because if your industry is focusing on Airships and Blimps there would be less reason for the aeronautical industry to develop efficient search aircraft. This will allow that player that has the facination with airships and such to say "what if" in their builds.
I haven't fleshed out the exact details of the techs for blimps and such, but give me a little time. MDow
Here were my thoughts on how to set this up.
There would be a doctrine (Lighter Than Air Operational Doctrine) that would open up some techs in the naval tree for airships and blimps. It would be basically just an introductory doctrine to serve as a prereq.
A second doctrine (Lighter Than Air Superiority Doctrine) would open up some better Airship techs that would be more useful. It would also increase the cost of the naval bomber because if your industry is focusing on Airships and Blimps there would be less reason for the aeronautical industry to develop efficient search aircraft. This will allow that player that has the facination with airships and such to say "what if" in their builds.
I haven't fleshed out the exact details of the techs for blimps and such, but give me a little time. MDow
If I remember correctly (I don't have the reference in front of me), this is probably a US design that wasn't built. When the general board was looking at alternative designs, they often gave them designations which were used in the reports generated. Sometimes those were given numbers and sometimes letters. This is probably one of several alternative designs that were proposed in the interwar period, but without more information I can't be more specific. Was the discussion talking about something like different gun calibers or numbers? That would be the type of conversation that I would expect with a reference like that. MDow
Bimps
Just don't go overboard...I wouldn't want to see the 8th AF in Europe composed of 1,000s of Flying Gasbags.
Just don't go overboard...I wouldn't want to see the 8th AF in Europe composed of 1,000s of Flying Gasbags.
Re: zeppelins
Actually, the only ones that I was planning on assigning because they had definite tendancies were the Germans and Italians. The US, Japan, and Britain typically tried to get balanced designs for their tonnage. The French would probably come under that heading as well, but I don't have any feeling about that.
What exactly did you have in mind? MDow
Actually, the only ones that I was planning on assigning because they had definite tendancies were the Germans and Italians. The US, Japan, and Britain typically tried to get balanced designs for their tonnage. The French would probably come under that heading as well, but I don't have any feeling about that.
What exactly did you have in mind? MDow
It described the portuguese navy in 1935 accurately, (seems like it was the start date) and budgeted a "US Design VII" CL for 1936 and another for later. That sort of squares with the naval rearmament program (cancelled) and I wondered if that was some sort of definite design.
Blimps and Battleships
Kevin McCarthy:
Kevin McCarthy:
Just don't go overboard...I wouldn't want to see the 8th AF in Europe composed of 1,000s of Flying Gasbags.I agree. That's the merit in using them as a convoy escort enhancer instead of a combat unit or combat unit effect.
Engineer:
the USA and Japan are gunnery [doctrine]
With the USA I was thinking about the relative US advantage in the main battery for the interwar upgraded 14" guns and the Mark VII 16" versus other powers. The British 16" on Nelson & Rodney used a very light shell with disappointing penetration and their 14" on the KGV was not as good as the US 14". The 15" guns on the Vanguard were just tweaked versions of the guns that first went to sea on the Queen Elizabeth 40 years earlier. The US also developed the automatic 8" for the Des Moines class near the end of the war and built the Alaska's. Specific Effects:
- This would translate as a one or two point sea attack bonus (small # for destroyers, big # for cruisers and battleships)
- Allows access to super-cruiser
- Allows access to Des Moines class heavy cruiser
- Precludes cruisers from benefiting from torpedos.
Now this suggests that the Japs weren't as pure a gunnery as I thought as first. See "Aggressive Tactical Doctrine" below for more.
MDow:
Let's call this an "Aggressive Tactical Doctrine" Both the British and Japanese fought plenty of surface actions and had no adversion to night battles. They simply out-fought their opponents and achieved results that would not be obvious in just a by the book checklist of tonnage and broadsides. I think this goes beyond just the admiral on the deck and is a doctrinal issue right down to the lowest rating. I don't recall if there is a night combat modifier for naval like there is for air combat, but this is a possible lever. Specific effects:
- Boost all surface warship ORG values by 5-10 points (they fight longer before they break).
- Give a night combat bonus of 10% (if possible)
- Give cruisers a +1 sea attack bonus from torpedo tech's
May there is some common ground here for a "Victorious Naval Tradition" doctrine that is worth a couple of ORG points and restricted to the Royal Navy/Commonwealth, USN, and IJN.
So you have fleet Italians, rugged Germans, Americans with a big broadside, tenacious British, and deadly Japanese (thanks to torpedo techs) with vanilla French and Russians.
Iowa may have virtually the same punch as Yamato, but lower defense. The British might win the battle by putting an inferior force through more rounds of combat, and taking correspondingly more damage to get the job done in breaking the opposing squadron.
Re: Blimps and Battleships
There already is a tech for automatic 203mm guns and advanced 305mm and 406mm guns. These are required for the construction of the post-treaty battleship and heavy cruiser which in 0.7 will have naval attack advantages over the base treaty battleships.
There already is a tech for automatic 203mm guns and advanced 305mm and 406mm guns. These are required for the construction of the post-treaty battleship and heavy cruiser which in 0.7 will have naval attack advantages over the base treaty battleships.
- Boost all surface warship ORG values by 5-10 points (they fight longer before they break).
- Give a night combat bonus of 10% (if possible)
- Give cruisers a +1 sea attack bonus from torpedo tech's
A specific doctrine for agressive manuever could go one way or the other. Agressive attacks paid off in the slot during the battles around Guadalcanal, but it came back to haunt them later in the war against more technological opponents when they should have been withdrawing to fight another day. I think that an org bonus of +5 would be resonable though. It could be a counter to the battleline doctrine.
I think there is some merit to the suggestion. I think that a specific night fighting doctrine would be a valuable addition. The British never had a good reputation at night combat. Their only notable success was at the battle of Matapan and that was against a unprepared opponent. The Japanese were the masters of night fighting with their good torpedoes and flashless powder.
The heavy torpedo tech gives a +2 bonus which the Japanese start out with. Everyone else has to go through the development process.
These countries are already going to get bonuses due to their advanced technology. The other question is, do you penalize the Italians for their lack of tradition. They tended to withdraw more quickly than was maybe necessary (how was that for polite
Actually, my plan was for rugged Germans, quick Italians, attacking Japanese, and vanilla everyone else that served as the baseline.
Yamato will always have more hitting power just from the shear advantage in kinetic force of those huge 460mm (18.1") shells. The British were never at the forefront of design, rather content to sit back and see what worked before forging ahead (with the notable exception of Dreadnaught. I think that for the most part those are good suggestions though. MDow
Guns and Ships Classes
16" Mark VII vs. 18.1" Type 94: These were closer in performance that you might think. Compared to the APC Mark 8 used by the Iowa's round, the Japanese weapon only had a few thousand yards longer range (46,000 yards vs 42,300 yards) and the armor penetration values for the Type 94 were similar at medium to long range.
16" Mark VII, APC 8 - range = 20,000 yards - 14.9 angle of fall - side armor penetration = 20.04 inches
18.1" Type 94, APC Type 91 - range = 21,870 yards - 16.5 angle of fall - side armor penetration = 19.43 inches
The 16" Mark VII was just one heck of a gun. The Yamatos had superb protection and ought to have a significantly higher defence factor than Iowas. Certainly, I'd wager on a Yamato one to one against an Iowa, but the broadside punch is quite close at typical engagement ranges.
200 mm Gun Tech: Yes, you're right, but this tech is one of my pet peeves. IRL the improved heavy cruisers are the ships like the Baltimore and Myoko. However, those ships used the same 8" gun as the earlier heavy cruisers which got lumped into the Basic/Treaty category. In my personal mod of the vanilla HOI, I moved this tech as a pre-requisite for the advanced cruiser which I identified as the Des Moines. The 8" Mark 16 in the Des Moines fired 10 rounds per minute with a 335 lb super heavy shell compared to the 8" Mark 12/15 used on the Tuscaloosa and later cruisers that typically used a 260 lb shell with a 3-4 round per minute rate of fire. The Baltimores could use the 335 lb super heavy, too. The 8" guns in other WW2 navies typically had 250 lb to 280 lb APC shells with 3-5 round per minute ROF (Typically lower at long range where the gun had to lowered and elevated for loading between firing) Again, the 8" Mark 16 is just one sweet piece of ordnance that was clearly best in class for its time.
16" Mark VII vs. 18.1" Type 94: These were closer in performance that you might think. Compared to the APC Mark 8 used by the Iowa's round, the Japanese weapon only had a few thousand yards longer range (46,000 yards vs 42,300 yards) and the armor penetration values for the Type 94 were similar at medium to long range.
16" Mark VII, APC 8 - range = 20,000 yards - 14.9 angle of fall - side armor penetration = 20.04 inches
18.1" Type 94, APC Type 91 - range = 21,870 yards - 16.5 angle of fall - side armor penetration = 19.43 inches
The 16" Mark VII was just one heck of a gun. The Yamatos had superb protection and ought to have a significantly higher defence factor than Iowas. Certainly, I'd wager on a Yamato one to one against an Iowa, but the broadside punch is quite close at typical engagement ranges.
200 mm Gun Tech: Yes, you're right, but this tech is one of my pet peeves. IRL the improved heavy cruisers are the ships like the Baltimore and Myoko. However, those ships used the same 8" gun as the earlier heavy cruisers which got lumped into the Basic/Treaty category. In my personal mod of the vanilla HOI, I moved this tech as a pre-requisite for the advanced cruiser which I identified as the Des Moines. The 8" Mark 16 in the Des Moines fired 10 rounds per minute with a 335 lb super heavy shell compared to the 8" Mark 12/15 used on the Tuscaloosa and later cruisers that typically used a 260 lb shell with a 3-4 round per minute rate of fire. The Baltimores could use the 335 lb super heavy, too. The 8" guns in other WW2 navies typically had 250 lb to 280 lb APC shells with 3-5 round per minute ROF (Typically lower at long range where the gun had to lowered and elevated for loading between firing) Again, the 8" Mark 16 is just one sweet piece of ordnance that was clearly best in class for its time.
Re: Guns and Ships Classes
What do you recommend? Another class of heavy cruisers above post-treaty heavy cruiser that is specifically built for this gun? Do you want to change the model name for the post-treaty cruiser to Oregon City-class? Boost the existing post-treaty cruiser by +1 or 2?
The ROF issue was the reason for the death of the dual purpose 6" (152mm) gun which was only built in limited numbers for use on the Worcester-class AA cruisers. The Mk. 10 8"/55 was a truely wonderful weapon that came too late to be of effective use in real life. MDow
What do you recommend? Another class of heavy cruisers above post-treaty heavy cruiser that is specifically built for this gun? Do you want to change the model name for the post-treaty cruiser to Oregon City-class? Boost the existing post-treaty cruiser by +1 or 2?
The ROF issue was the reason for the death of the dual purpose 6" (152mm) gun which was only built in limited numbers for use on the Worcester-class AA cruisers. The Mk. 10 8"/55 was a truely wonderful weapon that came too late to be of effective use in real life. MDow
More questions
Here are some more naval questions that can be debated for inclusion in the next version...
Schnorkle or Snorkle?
Should the Worcester-class large AA cruisers be included with associated techs?
Closed Cycle Submarines and Walter Engine Submarines, or just one or the other?
Keep the nuclear varients of the surface warships?
Should you be able to get submarine heavy torpedoes with out the surface fired version?
What about Motor Torpedo Boats?
Any real annoyances that have to be removed from the naval tech tree?
This should keep y'all busy for a little while MDow
Here are some more naval questions that can be debated for inclusion in the next version...
Schnorkle or Snorkle?
Should the Worcester-class large AA cruisers be included with associated techs?
Closed Cycle Submarines and Walter Engine Submarines, or just one or the other?
Keep the nuclear varients of the surface warships?
Should you be able to get submarine heavy torpedoes with out the surface fired version?
What about Motor Torpedo Boats?
Any real annoyances that have to be removed from the naval tech tree?
This should keep y'all busy for a little while
MDow
Cruisers
MDow:
OK. Let's go back to the center of your cruiser tree with some annotations:
Model 5: Treaty Light Cruiser (British Achilles and US Brooklyn)
Model 6: Treaty Heavy Cruiser (British Kent and US New Orleans)
Model 7: Super Cruiser (US Alaska)*
Model 8: Post-Treaty Light Cruiser (US Cleveland and Japanese Oyodo)
Model 9: Post-Treaty Heavy Cruiser (US Baltimore)
Model 10: Rapid Fire Heavy Cruiser (US Des Moines)*
Model 11: Guided Missile Cruiser (US Albany and Soviet Kara)***
Model 12: Nuclear Super Cruiser **
Model 13: Nuclear Light Cruiser **
Model 14: Nuclear Heavy Cruiser **
Model 15: Nucear Guided Missile Cruiser (US Long Beach)***
* These classes would only be availble to a power that selected the gunnery doctrine since the 12" and rapid fire 8" main batteries would not be researched by a power without a gunnery emphasis.
** Unavailable to a power that selected Guided Missile Doctrine
*** Available to a power that selected Guided Missile Doctrine
Model 8: Better air attack and defense compared to a model 5 but the same sea attack. The main batteries for the Cleveland's were 12x6" vs. 15x6" on the older Brooklyn's, and had the same model of gun. Slightly thicker armor and a extra 1000 tons of displacement.
Model 9: Better air attack and much better defense compared to the model six but the same sea attack. (I'd consider the super heavy shell that Baltimores & Oregon City's could fire as tangible consequence of the gunnery doctrine and the so the reason for a +2 sea attack versus vanilla Model 9 cruisers). The standard for war time heavy cruiser construction was 8 to 9 eight inch guns.
Model 10: Much better sea attack and somewhat better defense compared to the model 9. These ships were about 4000 tons bigger than the Baltimores. Part of that was the new Mark 16 was a much heavier weapon, but it was also better protection.
There might also be a guided missile doctrine at the end of the Late War Doctrines that disables future pure gunship development (Type 12, 13, 14 cruisers and the appropriate battleships) and is a pre-requisite for getting the Type 11 and Type 15 cruisers and appropriate battleships.
MDow:
OK. Let's go back to the center of your cruiser tree with some annotations:
Model 5: Treaty Light Cruiser (British Achilles and US Brooklyn)
Model 6: Treaty Heavy Cruiser (British Kent and US New Orleans)
Model 7: Super Cruiser (US Alaska)*
Model 8: Post-Treaty Light Cruiser (US Cleveland and Japanese Oyodo)
Model 9: Post-Treaty Heavy Cruiser (US Baltimore)
Model 10: Rapid Fire Heavy Cruiser (US Des Moines)*
Model 11: Guided Missile Cruiser (US Albany and Soviet Kara)***
Model 12: Nuclear Super Cruiser **
Model 13: Nuclear Light Cruiser **
Model 14: Nuclear Heavy Cruiser **
Model 15: Nucear Guided Missile Cruiser (US Long Beach)***
* These classes would only be availble to a power that selected the gunnery doctrine since the 12" and rapid fire 8" main batteries would not be researched by a power without a gunnery emphasis.
** Unavailable to a power that selected Guided Missile Doctrine
*** Available to a power that selected Guided Missile Doctrine
Model 8: Better air attack and defense compared to a model 5 but the same sea attack. The main batteries for the Cleveland's were 12x6" vs. 15x6" on the older Brooklyn's, and had the same model of gun. Slightly thicker armor and a extra 1000 tons of displacement.
Model 9: Better air attack and much better defense compared to the model six but the same sea attack. (I'd consider the super heavy shell that Baltimores & Oregon City's could fire as tangible consequence of the gunnery doctrine and the so the reason for a +2 sea attack versus vanilla Model 9 cruisers). The standard for war time heavy cruiser construction was 8 to 9 eight inch guns.
Model 10: Much better sea attack and somewhat better defense compared to the model 9. These ships were about 4000 tons bigger than the Baltimores. Part of that was the new Mark 16 was a much heavier weapon, but it was also better protection.
There might also be a guided missile doctrine at the end of the Late War Doctrines that disables future pure gunship development (Type 12, 13, 14 cruisers and the appropriate battleships) and is a pre-requisite for getting the Type 11 and Type 15 cruisers and appropriate battleships.
Re: More questions
Just my uneducated opinions:
1. Snorkel.
2. ??Don't know enough to say.
3. ??Don't know enough to say.
3. YES! Even if they did not reach them if expanded games or games that instead of waiting till later to go into Nuclear research they could have been reached with focused effort. Now they may not have been as good or refined as the ones that went into the real ships but I think it should be a option for the player. Perhaps increase the supply consumption of them to reflect that by being a rushed and immature technology they need more spare parts and support. Perhaps a slight increase in Manpower for them to reflect the large crews that would be needed to keep them runing and to provide logistical support.
4. Well the laymen in me says they are basically similar items so perhaps have each one give bonuses to both the surface and the subs and disable the other one when researched to reflect its the same torp used for many platforms.
5. Put them in the Cruiser tree so they can't be made into cheap convoy escorts.
6. None that I know of.
Just my uneducated opinions:
1. Snorkel.
2. ??Don't know enough to say.
3. ??Don't know enough to say.
3. YES! Even if they did not reach them if expanded games or games that instead of waiting till later to go into Nuclear research they could have been reached with focused effort. Now they may not have been as good or refined as the ones that went into the real ships but I think it should be a option for the player. Perhaps increase the supply consumption of them to reflect that by being a rushed and immature technology they need more spare parts and support. Perhaps a slight increase in Manpower for them to reflect the large crews that would be needed to keep them runing and to provide logistical support.
4. Well the laymen in me says they are basically similar items so perhaps have each one give bonuses to both the surface and the subs and disable the other one when researched to reflect its the same torp used for many platforms.
5. Put them in the Cruiser tree so they can't be made into cheap convoy escorts.
6. None that I know of.
Originally posted by MateDow
Here are some more naval questions that can be debated for inclusion in the next version...
Schnorkle or Snorkle?
Should the Worcester-class large AA cruisers be included with associated techs?
Closed Cycle Submarines and Walter Engine Submarines, or just one or the other?
Keep the nuclear varients of the surface warships?
Should you be able to get submarine heavy torpedoes with out the surface fired version?
What about Motor Torpedo Boats?
Any real annoyances that have to be removed from the naval tech tree?
This should keep y'all busy for a little while
Hello all
Some thoughts.
1) The US Brooklyn class CL's should be considered a treaty Heavy Cruiser, as should the CW Town 1 and Town 2 class Cruisers.
The Washington treaty light cruisers where generally only 6 to 8 - 6" guns on 4000 to 7000 t displacement.
(Yes Offically the Brooklyns were a Washingon treaty cruiser, but they were not actually built untill after the treaty had expired anyway!)
2) Certinly include the Worchester class CL's, Call them Advanced Light Cruisers, and make the Nuclear powered Light Cruiser a varient of this ship.
3) The Des-Monines class should really be considered an Advanced Heavy Cruiser, and used as a basis for the Nuclear powered Heavy Cruiser.
4) Closed cycle or Walther, both should be avaliabe for several tiers, but ultimatly the player should make a commitment of developing one or the other.
5) I see the AA light cruisers are missing from the list. While offically only the British and Americans built such a class, The French(CT's), Italians(Captain Romani), Germans (SP-1), and Japanese (Shimakazi) all had Light cruiser/Heavy Destroyers designs that where comparable to such a ship; The class shold be present!
6) With respect to Heavy Torpedoes, It should not be possible to develop submarine torpedoes without the surface version, but it should be possible to have heavy surface torpedoes without a sub version. (The actual topedoe is common to both roles, but for sub launching you need to design a whole new firing chamber.
And a submarine launch tube was actually a quite complex piece of kit, compared to the surface mounting.) Certinly the Japanese invested a lot of effort into perfecting a 24" launcher for submarines; They had the Heavy surface mount long befor they started using the 24" Long Lance in submarines.
Some thoughts.
1) The US Brooklyn class CL's should be considered a treaty Heavy Cruiser, as should the CW Town 1 and Town 2 class Cruisers.
The Washington treaty light cruisers where generally only 6 to 8 - 6" guns on 4000 to 7000 t displacement.
(Yes Offically the Brooklyns were a Washingon treaty cruiser, but they were not actually built untill after the treaty had expired anyway!)
2) Certinly include the Worchester class CL's, Call them Advanced Light Cruisers, and make the Nuclear powered Light Cruiser a varient of this ship.
3) The Des-Monines class should really be considered an Advanced Heavy Cruiser, and used as a basis for the Nuclear powered Heavy Cruiser.
4) Closed cycle or Walther, both should be avaliabe for several tiers, but ultimatly the player should make a commitment of developing one or the other.
5) I see the AA light cruisers are missing from the list. While offically only the British and Americans built such a class, The French(CT's), Italians(Captain Romani), Germans (SP-1), and Japanese (Shimakazi) all had Light cruiser/Heavy Destroyers designs that where comparable to such a ship; The class shold be present!
6) With respect to Heavy Torpedoes, It should not be possible to develop submarine torpedoes without the surface version, but it should be possible to have heavy surface torpedoes without a sub version. (The actual topedoe is common to both roles, but for sub launching you need to design a whole new firing chamber.
And a submarine launch tube was actually a quite complex piece of kit, compared to the surface mounting.) Certinly the Japanese invested a lot of effort into perfecting a 24" launcher for submarines; They had the Heavy surface mount long befor they started using the 24" Long Lance in submarines.
MTBs
I'm a MTB skeptic. They were an excellent tool for asymmetric warfare as a cheap way to deny routine use of coastal regions to enemy shipping, but I'm at a loss on how to simulate that within the HOI system. Brainstormed ideas (again I have no idea how to code most of this)
1. A mobile coast defense fort that complicates amphibious landings.
2. A naval unit with moderate cost (this would simulate 40 or 50 MTB's and you have to have an initial IC high enough they don't become free) that has virtually zero defense strength.
3. A ground unit that only attack naval units - so they're only effective in coastal provinces.
4. A unit that prohibits tracing convoys through the sea zone.
5. A unit/capability that reveals enemy naval units moving through the same coastal sea zone.
I'm a MTB skeptic. They were an excellent tool for asymmetric warfare as a cheap way to deny routine use of coastal regions to enemy shipping, but I'm at a loss on how to simulate that within the HOI system. Brainstormed ideas (again I have no idea how to code most of this)
1. A mobile coast defense fort that complicates amphibious landings.
2. A naval unit with moderate cost (this would simulate 40 or 50 MTB's and you have to have an initial IC high enough they don't become free) that has virtually zero defense strength.
3. A ground unit that only attack naval units - so they're only effective in coastal provinces.
4. A unit that prohibits tracing convoys through the sea zone.
5. A unit/capability that reveals enemy naval units moving through the same coastal sea zone.
Brooklyn-class light cruisers are very clearly light cruisers. Their main armament of 15 6"(152mm) guns matched the contemporary Japanese Mogami-class light cruisers in armament. The British chose to have slightly better protected light cruisers and their turrets were heavier than the American turrets which accounts for the heavier weight. The Brooklyn was designed and laid down under the Washington Treaty. If you compare them the the American heavy cruisers which were laid down at the same time (Wichita) there is a distict difference.
By Commonwealth Town-class cruisers do you mean Sydney & Perth? If so, they are also definitly light cruisers. Both of those cruisers wer basically repeat Achilles-class light cruisers. They had the 8 6" (152mm) guns and the same machinery and similar armor arrangement.
They would probably come in as Large AA Cruisers.
There has been a suggestion that they should come in as Rapid Fire Heavy Cruisers.
OK
The AA Cruisers are in there. Shimakaze was a destroyer design. The Japanese equivilant of the AA cruiser was the Oyodo-class although they were technically submarine flotilla flagships. MDow
Re: MTBs
My thought was to have them be a squadron of about 24 units which would give thema unit cost of about 3 IC. That should prevent them from becoming super cheap escorts. They would have an attack rating of 2 with 0 defense. Of course that would be raised through different techs.
I think this is called a battleship There is a doctrine where the player (or AI) will be able to select whether they want to have fleets provide defense or get a bonus to coastal forts.
See above
I don't think that it would work.
Also called a battleship
I don't think that there is a single unit that could provide this capability. Each unit in the game has the ability to detect enemy units though. MDow
My thought was to have them be a squadron of about 24 units which would give thema unit cost of about 3 IC. That should prevent them from becoming super cheap escorts. They would have an attack rating of 2 with 0 defense. Of course that would be raised through different techs.
I think this is called a battleship
There is a doctrine where the player (or AI) will be able to select whether they want to have fleets provide defense or get a bonus to coastal forts.See above
I don't think that it would work.
Also called a battleship
I don't think that there is a single unit that could provide this capability. Each unit in the game has the ability to detect enemy units though. MDow
MTBs
Yes, this is a pickle. Ok, so the two ideas that seem to have the most promise are a discrete MTB unit or an abstracted doctrinal capability that makes fleets an adjunct to your coast defense.
So that Leni Riefenstahl doesn't produce "E-boats of the North Atlantic" they need to have a really short operating radius that effectively keeps them close to home.
They're small enough to use rivers or even railroad flat cars, so it actually now makes sense that you can strategically redeploy them to any friendly coastal province.
The critical question is whether or not you could mass-produce a couple thousand MTBs and sweep the seas clean of your enemies. (I sound like Kevin warning about a 8th Air Force of thousands of blimps) But that is testable. If they unbalance the game then the doctrinal abstraction is the back-up representation.
My comment about observing enemy units triggered a few old nearly fried neurons, however. We don't really have coastwatchers (like in the Solomons) in HOI, do we?
Yes, this is a pickle. Ok, so the two ideas that seem to have the most promise are a discrete MTB unit or an abstracted doctrinal capability that makes fleets an adjunct to your coast defense.
So that Leni Riefenstahl doesn't produce "E-boats of the North Atlantic"
they need to have a really short operating radius that effectively keeps them close to home. They're small enough to use rivers or even railroad flat cars, so it actually now makes sense that you can strategically redeploy them to any friendly coastal province.
The critical question is whether or not you could mass-produce a couple thousand MTBs and sweep the seas clean of your enemies. (I sound like Kevin warning about a 8th Air Force of thousands of blimps) But that is testable. If they unbalance the game then the doctrinal abstraction is the back-up representation.
My comment about observing enemy units triggered a few old nearly fried neurons, however. We don't really have coastwatchers (like in the Solomons) in HOI, do we?