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.
Aviation Battleships

Given the tepid response and the code involved in trying to make anything plausible work, I'd vote against them.
 
Originally posted by h345
are you going to add my idea of a post teaty carrier class?
Click to expand...

It has been added to the next version of CORE being developed. MDow

PS- Sorry for my non-attendance. I am stuck 100nm off the US coast with sporatic internet connections.
 
Re: Aviation Battleships

Originally posted by Engineer
Given the tepid response and the code involved in trying to make anything plausible work, I'd vote against them.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with that sentiment. That and the fact that I have hit a wall in the amount of time that I have available will probably result in it's death. MDow
 
Techs that do not do what they are supposed to:

FYI:

1) Superior turret optics -- mentioned a few posts above. :confused:

2) Nuclear Support Organization -- does not activate anything. :wacko:

3) Naval centimetric search radar does NOT require centimetric radar tech from electronics branch ^_^. :eek:

:)

~Mortu
 
US Sub Recommissions

The USA recommissioned about 8 old sub's into the USN during 1940 and I was scripting a little event to add those to the USA OOB. However, I noticed in testing that HOI will give the USA the current latest available model of sub. Is there a way to force a particular model on the command? I don't mind giving them a pair of "S" type subs but don' want to gift them Gato's.
 
I was just reading about the Naval stacking issue with HOI in the other forum and I was wondering if this can be fixed in the CORE Mod as opposed to waiting for Paradox to "fix it".

Thoughts? or does this fix have to be done by Paradox???

Thanks!
 
Re: US Sub Recommissions

Originally posted by Engineer
The USA recommissioned about 8 old sub's into the USN during 1940 and I was scripting a little event to add those to the USA OOB. However, I noticed in testing that HOI will give the USA the current latest available model of sub. Is there a way to force a particular model on the command? I don't mind giving them a pair of "S" type subs but don' want to gift them Gato's.
Click to expand...

Im afraid we can only give latest model of unit :( it has been a request of modders for a long time.

Ghost_dk
 
Subs

Ugly. In my personal mod I added them as 5% strength initial unis in the .INC file, but then they draw supplies for years and almost immediately repair to full strength.

However, that would seem to be the only way to give the US old subs - initial OOB. Is there any support for taking those old subs (mostly Atlantic Fleet Reserve in Philadephia) and adding them to the .INC? If it is a matter of documentation I have it in an Excel spreadsheet at home.

Ghost, I'll drop you pm on the pol_pack.
 
What about adding these subs to the build cue with a cost of 0? Then you can have an event fire at the completion date and coincide with their commission.

~Mortu
 
0 IC Builds

That's interesting. Have you verified that that idea works?

My uncertainty would be if the progress to deployment stops if the player doesn't budget IC to builds - even if the IC requirement is zero. It might seem a silly objection but you begin to be wary after fooling around with the code.
 
I did not mess with the inc file (yet :D ) but I've built 0 IC projects as the player -- called up the GPW event via the cheat console and together with Vehicle Assembly production, .30 cal tankettes cost 0 IC.

Also I have not noticed the AI to ever change build prorities -- in my last game I often save/load into oter nations and modify they research/build queues (to alleviate AI's inability to research as fast as me :) ) and when I check in with them a couple game months later, my picks are still on top.
 
Nuclear Issue

Did you guys notice that it is possible to research the Nuclear Guided Missile Battleship without researching naval missiles OR the Guided Msl Battleship? And that you can research the Nuclear Super Carrier without any advanced carrier techs and the plain Super Carrier?

I do not know if this should be in this or bugs forum :)

~Mortu

P.S. I dig this mod!
 
Build times too short for naval units

While I appreciate the short building times for carriers and battleships in CORE v0.63, they are way too short. Pre-war U.S. fleet carriers (e.g, Enterprise and Yorktown ) took about three years to complete (from laying down the keel to commissioning) yet the required time in v0.63 is a mere 11 months, presumably to match U.S. wartime production numbers.

How did the U.S. manage to build Essex fleet carriers in such short order? There are, I suppose, a number of reasons but the most likely is the move to a 24/7 work schedule during wartime. Other nations like Britain and Japan could have employed similar methods but lacked the skilled workforce to "overman" their yards and push the hulls to completion faster. For essentially treble the effort, the U.S. managed almost a 50% reduction in build times.

For v0.7, I suggest the following peacetime build times:

Fleet Carriers - 900 days
Light Carriers - 720 days
Escort Carriers - 420 days
Battleships - 1080 days
Cruisers - 810 days
Destroyers - 600 days

To simulate the U.S. wartime shipbuilding times, how about an event-driven mechanism involving the Two Ocean Navy bill of 1940? This $4 billion appropriation passed by Congress and signed into law by FDR on 19 July 1940 mobilized the American shipbuilding industry for wartime production. The effect of the event will reduce build times for warships by 360 days for a one-time cost of 100 manpower and 1000 supplies. The event should trigger on the USA going to war or as a timed event. Normal build times resume if the US is not at war. Sadly, I see no way to "speed up" units already on the track nor to "slow" them down if/when peace comes. There is some anecdotal evidence to suggest that the USS Hornet was completed much faster than her sister ships (laid down 25 Sep 1939 and commissioned 25 October 1941), probably as a result of the intensified shipbuilding effort.
 
Re: Build times too short for naval units

Originally posted by Dan Reynolds
yet the required time in v0.63 is a mere 11 months, presumably to match U.S. wartime production numbers.
Click to expand...

That is part of it. Another part of it is game play. Right now there isn't any real way to simulate the long building times of warships during peacetime and then the conversion to wartime production rates.


How did the U.S. manage to build Essex fleet carriers in such short order? There are, I suppose, a number of reasons but the most likely is the move to a 24/7 work schedule during wartime. Other nations like Britain and Japan could have employed similar methods but lacked the skilled workforce to "overman" their yards and push the hulls to completion faster. For essentially treble the effort, the U.S. managed almost a 50% reduction in build times.
Click to expand...

I don't know how much of it was people and how much of it was construction technique. The US was having to incorperate a lot of people that had never been involved with shipbuilding before. There were thousands of 'Rosie the Riviters' that were now building the ships. I think the upstream production of guns and propulsion was more accountable for the decrease in production times. Those are the time consuming portions of the shipbuilding process. If you read about the difficulities the US had, it was where should they use the supplies of things like diesel engines more than how many hulls could be built.


For v0.7, I suggest the following peacetime build times:

Fleet Carriers - 900 days
Light Carriers - 720 days
Escort Carriers - 420 days
Battleships - 1080 days
Cruisers - 810 days
Destroyers - 600 days
Click to expand...

How do we convert these times into wartime production times? If we leave the times so high there will be no battleships and carriers built in the game. There are a large shortage of those units as it is. The difficulty with making the production times based on an event is its exploitability. If a player declares war on the Cubas of the world just to get reduced production time (it will be done) there isn't any way to set them back at peacetime levels without lots of events.


To simulate the U.S. wartime shipbuilding times, how about an event-driven mechanism involving the Two Ocean Navy bill of 1940? This $4 billion appropriation passed by Congress and signed into law by FDR on 19 July 1940 mobilized the American shipbuilding industry for wartime production. The effect of the event will reduce build times for warships by 360 days for a one-time cost of 100 manpower and 1000 supplies. The event should trigger on the USA going to war or as a timed event. Normal build times resume if the US is not at war. Sadly, I see no way to "speed up" units already on the track nor to "slow" them down if/when peace comes.
Click to expand...

See the above part on the exploitablility (is that really a word?) of basing the production times on being at war. I also don't want to force building programs on players or the AI. The problem is the fact that world is a different place for every game. The stratigic decisions that led the US to start building their Two Ocean Navy might not exist, and the US will be left with a battlefleet that they can't use. I am thinking about putting the Vinson-Truman Naval Act in the game some how though. I just haven't figured out how to put it in so that it isn't exploitable or forcing the player down an unplayable path. MDow
 
Capital ship building times (con't)

Agreed: players are devilishly clever :D and thorough coding of the events (or whatever mechanism is used) is necessary. In reading about the Two Ocean Navy bill, it is evident that the US leadership in 1940 feared two things: 1) continued Japanese expansion in Asia and the Pacific 2) and a Nazi conquest of Great Britain with the possible takeover of the British fleet by the Germans (or more likely, a British fleet operated by a puppet Britain). If the event deals with these two principal issues, it shouldn't be easy to exploit. We should not forget that uppermost in FDR's mind was the defense of the hemisphere from both east and west and he truly believed sea power to be the best instrument of that policy.

However, I dont like my proposal for adjusted build times: CVEs come out too quickly and CVLs & CVs a bit too long. Except for adding US-specific models to the models file, I dont see a good way to implement the proposed adjustments, given the limitations of the engine. I'll think on it some more and see if perhaps there is another way to do it.
 
Naval Construction

Ah, this is one of my favorite topics. If you want to check out Navsource, they have construction durations for about every US warship launched since the 1890s since it includes digitized entries from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships.

US battleships were taking 900 to 1100 days peace or war. Wartime fleet carriers were about 550 days, destroyers were about 180 days, etc. In the DANFS data you can also the difference between the pretty feverish pace of 1941-1943 compared to more leisurely durations in 1944 and 1945.

Williamson Murray points out in one of his books that a critical limiting factor in the US build-up was yard capacity. You can see this in the DANFS details as you find some ships were laid down, then taken-up for another higher priority program, and re-laid down again. I don't know how to cover that in the tools that HOI gives us, but with a blank sheet of paper design you could probably rough out a naval building capacity derived from IC in port provinces.

Mdow is right about the play item, though. But the ships cost about right. To balance the cost IC costs have been increased while duration is shortened. If you lower the IC cost too much to stretch out the build duration, then repairs take unrealistically long.

The vanilla AI and even the CORE AI underweights US naval construction and technology. Part of this is that the USA was almost counterproductively over-weighting naval builds and research IRL. I'm just a novice when it comes to tinkering with AI's, but I'm coming around to the idea that this may be just what the USA needs not only in the baseline, but even alternate event driven AI's for example, different AIs to cover the 1930's, the pre-war build up, and wartime construction.
 
Engineer said:
US battleships were taking 900 to 1100 days peace or war. Wartime fleet carriers were about 550 days, destroyers were about 180 days, etc. In the DANFS data you can also the difference between the pretty feverish pace of 1941-1943 compared to more leisurely durations in 1944 and 1945.
Click to expand...

How do we translate those numbers into something that all of the other countries can use? Without the numbers I would guess that other countries were taking longer than that for all types of warships. Do we make the build times longer to reflect the majority of buildtimes worldwide?

Williamson Murray points out in one of his books that a critical limiting factor in the US build-up was yard capacity. You can see this in the DANFS details as you find some ships were laid down, then taken-up for another higher priority program, and re-laid down again. I don't know how to cover that in the tools that HOI gives us, but with a blank sheet of paper design you could probably rough out a naval building capacity derived from IC in port provinces.
Click to expand...

I could make the case about machinery being the limited factor. Look at the different power plants that were used for different types of escorts. They were able to lay down more hulls than they were able to provide their ultimate power plant for (diesel engines). I think that when you get to large warships (battleships and carriers) then available slips became more of an issue because of the limited number of large capacity slips. Most countries can find land near deep rivers that is sufficient for building small warships (destroyers and escorts).

Mdow is right about the play item, though. But the ships cost about right. To balance the cost IC costs have been increased while duration is shortened. If you lower the IC cost too much to stretch out the build duration, then repairs take unrealistically long.
Click to expand...

Don't even get me started about repairs. I don't like the idea of bringing in a heavily damaged heavy warship (<20 eff) and have it repaired without taking resources from new construction. Look at the number of ships that were left unrepaired due to lack of resources throughout the course of the war. If you believe the way the game works, if you sit in port long enough light repairs will add up and the ship will be as good as new. End the Sermon and Rant

The vanilla AI and even the CORE AI underweights US naval construction and technology. Part of this is that the USA was almost counterproductively over-weighting naval builds and research IRL. I'm just a novice when it comes to tinkering with AI's, but I'm coming around to the idea that this may be just what the USA needs not only in the baseline, but even alternate event driven AI's for example, different AIs to cover the 1930's, the pre-war build up, and wartime construction.
Click to expand...

It is probably a good thing that the AI tends to focus more on land technologies than naval techs that are of questional value with the way that the game works. As much as I hate to admit it, the game tends to focus on armies as the root of winning. It is almost impossible for the Axis nations to engage in a commerce war against the Allies. The real value of a navy is to support operations against land (amphibious and troop transport protection). I don't know about the practicality of making naval matters event driven or coming up with new AIs that are reactive to what is happening in the game. MDow
 
Various

Mdow:
How do we translate those numbers into something that all of the other countries can use?​

If you checkout http://www.warship1.com/ they actually have data for all the ships of all the major powers. I haven't done a rigid analysis for all the classes, but you could probably figure that the non-US times mostly reflect the baseline construction durations and the US times reflect the ship assembly technology. To give a good number for the USA I would probably average the durations over the whole war so the USA would end up with a penalty vs. real life in 1942/43 and a bonus in the longer run. However, instead of reflecting US duration, it would actually reflect Ship Assembly tech duration.

The one other HOI2 level change would be to change the whole queue so that if you overload the queue then everything would slow down proportionately. Especially in the 1930s, some warship construction was consciously used as a public works program.

Mdow:
I could make the case about machinery being the limited factor. Look at the different power plants that were used for different types of escorts. They were able to lay down more hulls than they were able to provide their ultimate power plant for (diesel engines). I think that when you get to large warships (battleships and carriers) then available slips became more of an issue because of the limited number of large capacity slips. Most countries can find land near deep rivers that is sufficient for building small warships (destroyers and escorts).​

I agree. Machinery for small hulls and slips for big hulls. Still, the complexity of the issue is beyond what HOI gives us.

Mdow:
It is probably a good thing that the AI tends to focus more on land technologies than naval techs that are of questional value with the way that the game works. As much as I hate to admit it, the game tends to focus on armies as the root of winning.​

You're right. Here's another HOI2 sort of suggestion. Control of the sea really comes down to the ability to move merchant ships over the oceans and get large quantities of stuff from point a to point b relatively cheaply. When Vichy can get its rubber from the Congo to Algiers via the Sahara Desert then it defeats the reality of maritime power. It would seem to me that one solution would be to prevent tracing supply or convoying resources through any land province that has an infrastructure of less than 34 unless the province is adjacent to a 34 or greater province. Ports would allow supply to the province the port is in and adjacent provinces. This would prevent impassible areas like remote Siberia, Tibet, the Sahara, etc. from serving as supply routes. The map also needs to be changed to make more of those Pacific islands real islands instead of marching from Palua to Truk.
 
I've noticed that majors like Italy are missing some of their older, obsolete but still in use cruisers. These ships should probably be pre-treaty light cruisers or if their old enough, protected cruisers (armoured cruisers, being too powerful a class for older cruisers)
The Taranto and the Bari are an example of these ships. Both where booty taken from the Germans as war-reparations as the Great War. Here is a site about them which is very informative.
I believe I should make my goal should be to help C.O.R.E. to find info on navies and ships that are older or not as well known and give the info to you guys!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back