The total cost for ASW Blimps will be five different techs at 2 IC for 180 days each. The only one that will give a bonus will be the final tech, which will be a 25% increase in convoy defence. That should make the end result worth the cost. MDow
-
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.
The total cost for ASW Blimps will be five different techs at 2 IC for 180 days each. The only one that will give a bonus will be the final tech, which will be a 25% increase in convoy defence. That should make the end result worth the cost. MDow
Re: Fast Battleships
I'd say place them nearer the Treaty Battleships. The Iowa-class wasn't built until later on, but this was more a political / economic decision rather than a technological one. Much of the technology that went into the Iowa-class was already present in the earlier South Dakota-class ships. Iowa was larger and better protected, but on the whole I'd say that they weren't that much more technologically advanced than the Treaty ships... they just didn't have the 35,000 ton treaty limit on them, and so were allowed to have greater protection, length, speed, etc...
Figuring that historically, there were 7 ships built of this type.. (the four Iowa's, two Bismarck's, and Vanguard... none of them were so technologically advanced that they couldn't have been built in the mid-late 1930's... (which Bismarck actually was)
Originally posted by MateDow
I was wondering where I should place the tech for Fast Battleships which represents ships like the Iowa-class battleships. Do they belong with the Treaty Battleships which will make them more accessible, or do they belong down with the Super Battleships where it will take longer to develop? I know that if I had to make the decision myself, there would be numerous posts about either the difficulty of developing the ships or the fact that there are Iowa-class battleships running around in 1938. This way I can blame all of you. What do y'all think should happen? MDow
I'd say place them nearer the Treaty Battleships. The Iowa-class wasn't built until later on, but this was more a political / economic decision rather than a technological one. Much of the technology that went into the Iowa-class was already present in the earlier South Dakota-class ships. Iowa was larger and better protected, but on the whole I'd say that they weren't that much more technologically advanced than the Treaty ships... they just didn't have the 35,000 ton treaty limit on them, and so were allowed to have greater protection, length, speed, etc...
Figuring that historically, there were 7 ships built of this type.. (the four Iowa's, two Bismarck's, and Vanguard... none of them were so technologically advanced that they couldn't have been built in the mid-late 1930's... (which Bismarck actually was)
Re: Re: Fast Battleships
Not the Bismarck, but other than that I agree. The Bismarck wasn't a fast battleship. She wasn't any faster than the other nation's battleships (about 28 knots). In game terms Bismarck is going to be a post-treaty battleship. A little slower than the fast battleships, but more heavily armored. That brings the total to 7 ( 6 Iowas and the Vanguard) that were actually laid down. MDow
Not the Bismarck, but other than that I agree. The Bismarck wasn't a fast battleship. She wasn't any faster than the other nation's battleships (about 28 knots). In game terms Bismarck is going to be a post-treaty battleship. A little slower than the fast battleships, but more heavily armored. That brings the total to 7 ( 6 Iowas and the Vanguard) that were actually laid down. MDow
Fast Battleships
This can probably be handled with the tech tree and the .INC files. You need some time to get the tech to lay down the keel and I think the build times are back out to something historical compared to the almost instant warships in vanilla HOI. So only a handful of majors could even consider fast battleships, and then, only at a severe cost to their other fields of research. As long as it takes punitive and herculean efforts to get any number to sea before about 1940, then I think we're ok.
This can probably be handled with the tech tree and the .INC files. You need some time to get the tech to lay down the keel and I think the build times are back out to something historical compared to the almost instant warships in vanilla HOI. So only a handful of majors could even consider fast battleships, and then, only at a severe cost to their other fields of research. As long as it takes punitive and herculean efforts to get any number to sea before about 1940, then I think we're ok.
Re: Re: Re: Fast Battleships
D'oh! I was forgetting about Post-Treaty battleships.. was just thinking Treaty ---> Fast.
Was wondering also if you had a historical example in mind for the "Small Treaty Battlecruiser"...
D'oh! I was forgetting about Post-Treaty battleships.. was just thinking Treaty ---> Fast.
Was wondering also if you had a historical example in mind for the "Small Treaty Battlecruiser"...
Is this the case, because time and again they were used in fleet actions against superior ships whether the north sea or off Norway.
If you look into the weight of shells these cruisers could fire it was considerable higher than the 8-8inch cruisers. There armour outfit was more modern and widespread than the British county class 8in cruisers. I've also read comments that the armour designed to defeat 8 inch shells.
On naming of the class, at the time they were called 'Southampton' class and the Belfast was called 'Improved Southampton' class (by virture of its 12 rather than 9 - 6inch guns)
Re: Re: Fast Battleships
Were do the British Lion class 16inch battleship fit into this, as until checking I hadn't realised how early they'd been laid down or how near to lauching one got. They were laid down in 1939, but changing war priorities and armour plate shortages killed them off.
Were do the British Lion class 16inch battleship fit into this, as until checking I hadn't realised how early they'd been laid down or how near to lauching one got. They were laid down in 1939, but changing war priorities and armour plate shortages killed them off.
Re: Naval Air Groups
Very interesting. Sounds like a good change. I am just curious why you need a house rule for CAG only to be used for carriers. It seems these should have lower air to air and air ground attacks as well as lower AD. It doesn't seem as though they would be very useful on land. However, they could be useful in the Pacific on those little islands where the US and Japan need the air to attack invasion fleets. I suppose the abuse could be from the cheapness of these that they could flood the LBA areas.
It would be nice if at some point paradox adapts this as well and codes the game to bar all LBA from carriers. These planes could never operate from a carrier. Although carrier air could operate from land.
Very interesting. Sounds like a good change. I am just curious why you need a house rule for CAG only to be used for carriers. It seems these should have lower air to air and air ground attacks as well as lower AD. It doesn't seem as though they would be very useful on land. However, they could be useful in the Pacific on those little islands where the US and Japan need the air to attack invasion fleets. I suppose the abuse could be from the cheapness of these that they could flood the LBA areas.
It would be nice if at some point paradox adapts this as well and codes the game to bar all LBA from carriers. These planes could never operate from a carrier. Although carrier air could operate from land.
Actually, the Belfast and Edinburgh were slightly increased in length to accomodate more heavy 4" AA guns. All Southampton Class ships had 12 6 inch guns, it wasn't until the later Fiji class when one turret was removed (to speed up production as well as to increase AA).
Yes, they were called light cruisers, but behaved an awful lot like heavy cruisers. Their stats should be virtually identical, except that light cruisers should be cheaper. The problem is, is that Treaty Heavy Cruisers were not developed significantly in the later period of the Naval Treaty, because light cruisers were superior when you had a tonnage limitation. Light Cruisers were equals or superiors to heavy cruisers primarily because Light Cruisers were developed later, and heavily developed due to a political constraint. Had there been no treaty and economic constraints, there would be superior Heavy Cruisers developed in the interwar period (as they would start making 15 000t-20 000t Heavy Cruisers). However, for their size limitation light Cruisers were better vessels than Heavy cruisers, as heavy cruisers reached their limitation based on 10 000t, while light cruisers were superior at 10 000t.
However, I would hardly classify the Exeter as a superior ship to the County Class. It was designed as a Treaty Protection Cruiser (to take on the German surface raiders), and was an attempt at creating a cheap 8" Cruiser, but was soon discovered that 6" cruisers were better and just as cheap.
Yet, irregardless of defensive and offensive power, they were light cruisers. Just like Frigates today have equivalent tonnage of many WW2 light cruisers, size and power doesn't matter when you are stuck on terminology.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Fast Battleships
Scharnhorst. MDow
Originally posted by Reichsmarshall
D'oh! I was forgetting about Post-Treaty battleships.. was just thinking Treaty ---> Fast.
Was wondering also if you had a historical example in mind for the "Small Treaty Battlecruiser"...
Scharnhorst. MDow
Light cruisers get their advantage for the rate of fire. This might give them a small advantage in weight of shells fired over a given time period. The damage done by a 152mm shell is much less than the damage caused by a 203mm shell due to weight of shell and surface area of the shell. Although the armor of some of the light cruisers might have been able to withstand a 203mm shell, the belt armor of the heavy cruiser could definitely resist the impact of the 152mm shell. The belt armor of the Berwick was able to withstand the impact of 203mm shells fired by the Admiral Hipper.
The side belt armor on the Southampton was 4 1/2". The side belt armor of the Kent-class (County) heavy cruisers was 4". That hardly is a decisive advantage in armor protection. Both designs had 1" armor on the turrets. The belt armor of the Southampton was shallower than the belt armor on the Counties and could have exposed the main magazines to long range (plunging) fire.
Which cruiser was prefered depended on the navy which was building the cruiser. The US built heavy cruisers whenever they were allowed. The last cruiser laid down prior to the war was the heavy cruiser Wichita. Notice that the US Navy didn't keep any of their light cruisers following the war when they kept older heavy cruisers. There was certainly something that they felt was important in the design and the hitting power of the main armament.
I think that the fact that most of the combat off Norway and in the North Sea was conducted by light cruisers was more a question of range rather than a true question of ability. The Southampton carried less than half of the fuel oil than one of the heavy cruisers. The heavy cruisers were often engaged in patrolling and long distance operations early in the war. It was two heavy cruisers that were patrolling the GIUK gap when the Bismarck made her breakout. More of the heavy cruisers were based overseas and in locations where the distances were greater.
For the 0.7 the difference between a light and heavy cruiser will be 7 sea attack vs 8 in the heavy cruiser. The light cruiser will have a defence rating of 4 vs a 3 for the heavy cruiser due to the higher percentage of tonnage devoted to defensive systems in the light cruisers.
I hope that this long, rambling post will answer your questions. MDow
The London naval treaty limited the main battery of cruisers to 152mmm except for replacement ships. That is the reson that most of the major navies went to the smaller caliber weapon.
I agree with that.
I put Exeter out there as the last British heavy cruiser completed, not as their best design. If I had to pick their best design, I would pick the never started (due to the depression) Surry-class heavy cruisers. They had a heavier main belt, and the same eight 203mm guns. It sacrificed some speed (about 2 knots) for the increased protection.
The British had a vested interest in keeping individual cruiser size small. There fleet needed to be spread out across the entire globe. This meant that they had to have more hulls built on the limited tonnage allocated to them in the Washington Treaty. They got the limit to the gun caliber as a part of the 1930 London treaty, and then a size limit of 6000 tons as a part of the 1936 treaty.
I agree that they are light cruisers within the definition. See the post above to see how that will be translated into game terms. They really won't loose much either way, but they (IMO) should be kept as Treaty Light Cruisers to prevent confusion later on. MDow
Re: Re: Fast Battleships
This is an interesting point. Building on it, I'd say that the treaty and post-treaty designs were in general not a technological barrier but a political one. Perhaps the way to model this is for the techs for both "treaty" and "post-treaty" designs to have the same prereqs with those nations that were signatory to the treaties starting out with the "post-treaty" techs disabled, and nations not signatory (most of which couldn't build ships of that size anyway) starting out with the "treaty" techs disabled. Then nation-specific events would lift the disabling of the post-treaty designs for the treaty nations at the appropriate points.
As to the fast battleships, Janes considers them to have evolved from battlecruisers so maybe that is the way to think of them - as the equivalent of post-treaty large battlecruisers.
edit - I'm not suggesting to rename "Fast Battleship" to "Post-Treaty Large Battlecruiser". I just mean that is a way to think about where a "Fast Battleship" fits in relation to the other battleship models.
This is an interesting point. Building on it, I'd say that the treaty and post-treaty designs were in general not a technological barrier but a political one. Perhaps the way to model this is for the techs for both "treaty" and "post-treaty" designs to have the same prereqs with those nations that were signatory to the treaties starting out with the "post-treaty" techs disabled, and nations not signatory (most of which couldn't build ships of that size anyway) starting out with the "treaty" techs disabled. Then nation-specific events would lift the disabling of the post-treaty designs for the treaty nations at the appropriate points.
As to the fast battleships, Janes considers them to have evolved from battlecruisers so maybe that is the way to think of them - as the equivalent of post-treaty large battlecruisers.
edit - I'm not suggesting to rename "Fast Battleship" to "Post-Treaty Large Battlecruiser". I just mean that is a way to think about where a "Fast Battleship" fits in relation to the other battleship models.
Last edited:
Barnacle Bill:
I don't agree with that. If you go back to the WW1, I think you can see a British evolution from the I-class battlecruisers to the Cats to the Hood.
The Iowas clearly sprang from the South Dakotas. For Vanguard, was her design foreshadowed by KGV or Hood? Likewise, are the Bismarck's genes in the Bayern or the Derfflinger?
Here I have to disagree with Jane's.
I don't agree with that. If you go back to the WW1, I think you can see a British evolution from the I-class battlecruisers to the Cats to the Hood.
The Iowas clearly sprang from the South Dakotas. For Vanguard, was her design foreshadowed by KGV or Hood? Likewise, are the Bismarck's genes in the Bayern or the Derfflinger?
Here I have to disagree with Jane's.
I think that the Battle cruiser design sort of died out after the Hood, in lieu of the fact of the battleship building holiday and the that when nations started building capital ships again techonlogy allowed for battleships to move at the speed of battle cruisers without sacrificing protection, so Battle Cruisers made no sense.
Battle Cruisers might have survived longer had there been no treaty, and they were built in the late 20's and early 30's (before Fast Battleships were practical). However, most of the lineages of Post-Treaty battleships follow the battleship line, with just speed increases due to developments in powerplants.
Re: Re: Re: Fast Battleships
The only countries that have the ability to build non-treaty battleships at the beginning of the game are Germany and Japan. Neither of which were required to follow the treaty limitations. The Germans are able to build the post-treaty design (Bismarck) and the Japanese are able to build the super battleship design (Yamato). That will keep any of the treaty signatories from starting construction on a post-treaty design until 1938 at the earliest. That is for the fast battleship which will take an additional year after the discovery of the treaty battleship. That should prevent the construction of non-treaty battleships by the treaty powers until one has been started by someone else. MDow
The only countries that have the ability to build non-treaty battleships at the beginning of the game are Germany and Japan. Neither of which were required to follow the treaty limitations. The Germans are able to build the post-treaty design (Bismarck) and the Japanese are able to build the super battleship design (Yamato). That will keep any of the treaty signatories from starting construction on a post-treaty design until 1938 at the earliest. That is for the fast battleship which will take an additional year after the discovery of the treaty battleship. That should prevent the construction of non-treaty battleships by the treaty powers until one has been started by someone else. MDow
Aviation Battleships
Should we put in the aviation battleship into the game? I know that the Soviets were looking at building one as an alternative to the Soyuz design that was eventually built. There are also the Japanese Ise and Hyuga that were converted to aviation battleships. We can't recreate the conversion process, but we can have the unit available for building as a new build. I am just looking for feedback. MDow
Should we put in the aviation battleship into the game? I know that the Soviets were looking at building one as an alternative to the Soyuz design that was eventually built. There are also the Japanese Ise and Hyuga that were converted to aviation battleships. We can't recreate the conversion process, but we can have the unit available for building as a new build. I am just looking for feedback. MDow
Superior Turret Optics
I have CORE 0.62, I believe (may have been 0.63)
Superior turret optics naval tech bothers me:
1) No effect
2) No techs enabled by it
Seems like a bug or oversight. Do you gentlemen know if it was fixed in later(st) version(s)?
Thanks
~Mortu
I have CORE 0.62, I believe (may have been 0.63)
Superior turret optics naval tech bothers me:
1) No effect
2) No techs enabled by it
Seems like a bug or oversight. Do you gentlemen know if it was fixed in later(st) version(s)?
Thanks
~Mortu
Re: Aviation Battleships
I could argue both ways.
It would be nice from a historical aspect to be able to have the Ise class 'freaks' represented... but if we can't convert the ships...
I guess I'd say don't bother. I can't imagine anyone building them from scratch anyway.
I could argue both ways.
It would be nice from a historical aspect to be able to have the Ise class 'freaks' represented... but if we can't convert the ships...
I guess I'd say don't bother. I can't imagine anyone building them from scratch anyway.
Re: Superior Turret Optics
I'm using 0.63, and it's still like that. I think that problem's been around for a while, too. Maybe it was fixed and then a minor screw up in Integration rolled back the change? What's it supposed to do?
I'm using 0.63, and it's still like that. I think that problem's been around for a while, too. Maybe it was fixed and then a minor screw up in Integration rolled back the change? What's it supposed to do?