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

[unmerged(11770)]

Here is a sneak peak at the new naval doctine tree so people can see where I am going with this...
....Carrier Armored Deck Doctrine....

Apologies if way out of of date here - planning to revisit HoI this Christmas following enforced break of ten months, during which it is clear that there have been some quite radical improvements.

Anyway, I was pondering how you intended modelling the USN vs RN carrier differences. Earlier posts suggested a simple size of airgroup differentiation, so that the typical US Fleet Carrier with 100 aircraft was a higher tech than, say, an RN carrier of the late 30s with, say, 40 aircraft.

One can get too hung up on these issues - after all HoI is a strategy game and some abstraction or generalisation is needed. But I thought it worth airing the well-known issue of protection and air group size. After all, the Yorktowns had a smaller displacement (albeit much greater length) than the contemporary Ark Royal and the slightly later Illustrious class, yet carried far more aircraft. Yet one would hardly say that, in terms of the technology, the US carriers were more advanced than the British. Of course, the armoured decks of the I class is one of the factors in the reduced capacity of the British ships, but far more important was the RN doctrine that all aircraft must be stowed below - no deck parking. This was for two reasons - concern about the environmental damage to aircraft parked on deck, and, more importantly, the need to clear the deck during air attacks. The I class were built specifically with the need to operate within range of enemy land-based aircraft. The RN did not believe that ship-based fighter defence could prove effective against land-based attack (one of the factors in the low priority given to developing competitive naval fighters for the FAA). Therefore, AA fire was seen as the main defence, and the need accepted to absorb damage rather just hope it could be avoided. Later in the war, especially for Far East ops, the RN accepted deck parking, fitted outriggers, and doubled the number of aircraft embarked in the very same carriers.

Apologies for rambling and stating what you are probably all too aware of. I just ponder how this might be represented. Perhaps the US and RN ships should be seen as the same tech, but the Armoured Deck doctrine should:
- increase defence
- possibly increase slightly the AA defence (the RN carriers as built had better AA than the US as built)
- penalise the Carrier Air Group stats fairly heavily

Again, if all this is already in, apologies: I have not had the time yet to plough through the current downloads!

 

[MateDow]

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)

I agree that these two ships should be in there. They will be put in there as WWI era light cruisers.

I hadn't done a major look at the Italian navy as I had done with some of the other powers. They are on the list for 0.7. With Russia, Japan, and some of the other powers, I had gone through a copy of Conways and made a list of all of the ships that are extant in 1936. You will see that Japan's naval OOB is quite different from the original due to refits and minor warships that have been included. On the list for major refits in 0.7 are the UK, France, Italy and Germany. Germany is just on the list due to the revamping of submarines. That will mean some large changes for her. All of the countries will be redone to take into account the new models that have been added for 0.7. MDow

 

[MateDow]

Anyway, I was pondering how you intended modelling the USN vs RN carrier differences. Earlier posts suggested a simple size of airgroup differentiation, so that the typical US Fleet Carrier with 100 aircraft was a higher tech than, say, an RN carrier of the late 30s with, say, 40 aircraft.

The differences as it is coded right now for 0.7 are...
- Sea Defense Rating of 22 vs 20 for the non-armored
- Air Defense Rating of 5 vs 3
- Air Group Capacity of 2 vs 3

One can get too hung up on these issues - after all HoI is a strategy game and some abstraction or generalisation is needed. But I thought it worth airing the well-known issue of protection and air group size. After all, the Yorktowns had a smaller displacement (albeit much greater length) than the contemporary Ark Royal and the slightly later Illustrious class, yet carried far more aircraft. Yet one would hardly say that, in terms of the technology, the US carriers were more advanced than the British.

The armored deck carriers are basically the same carrier with slightly different ratings. They are a seperate model that is activated by the doctrine 'Armored Deck Carriers.' There still has to be some research done to develop the carrier design itself.

The American carriers were only 3000 tons smaller than their British contempararies. I think that can mostly be attributed to the armor belt and deck armor rather than an actual capability improvement.

Apologies for rambling and stating what you are probably all too aware of. I just ponder how this might be represented. Perhaps the US and RN ships should be seen as the same tech, but the Armoured Deck doctrine should:
- increase defence
- possibly increase slightly the AA defence (the RN carriers as built had better AA than the US as built)
- penalise the Carrier Air Group stats fairly heavily

Again, if all this is already in, apologies: I have not had the time yet to plough through the current downloads!

It looks like all of your recommendations have already been included. Thank you for taking the time to make a post. It is very often that I have overlooked something while coding. Just look at the posts about where I have made mistakes with left out vessels. Feel free to question anything. I am willing to debate naval matters MDow

 

[MateDow]

Ratanakosindra

Well the Ratanakosindra and the Sukhothai (both classified as sloops but actually should be considered armoured cruisers in the game. I discussed this in the Far-East Thread) are both individual ships in the game. The class of ships are all named after these specific ships so I think they deserve to be on their own.

These two ships aren't large enough to be considered Armored cruisers. They are only around 900 tons a piece. Not even as large as contemparary American or British destroyers. They aren't all that will armed either. They only have 2 6" (152mm) and 4 3" (76mm) AA guns. Not all that much for a cruiser sized warship.

Look at the Portuguese sloop Albuquerque. She has a displacement of almost 1800 tons and an armament of 4 4" (120mm) and 2 3" (76mm) AA guns. A very comperable design to the Ratanakosindra class ships.

I think classing them as sloops is a very accurate portrayal of their capabilities. MDow

 

[Semi-Lobster]

Ok MateDow, that's fair! I was a bit unsure about them as they where so light but the class of Amoured Cruiser is called the Ratanakosindra class (or a bit diffrent translation) so I assumed they belonged there.

 

[Semi-Lobster]

I was wondering if you would include training ships. During WWII many nations where forced to use some of their older great war era cruisers which had been into training ships into action. Are these in C.O.R.E.? Do you intend to put them into a country's navy? Or do you exclude them?

 

[unmerged(18738)]

Quick question: are we cutting up the British naval stacks for v0.7 so they don't get hammered like they are currently? People comment on how German and Italian fleets are properly stacked and avoid those penalties much of the time.

-PK

 

[MateDow]

Quick question: are we cutting up the British naval stacks for v0.7 so they don't get hammered like they are currently? People comment on how German and Italian fleets are properly stacked and avoid those penalties much of the time.

-PK

I am planning on doing a complete overhaul of the Royal Navy for 0.7. I am planning on breaking it into units like the Japanese Navy has been broken into. If anyone has good ideas (or good information) about sub-units to break the Home Fleet into, I would appreciate it. MDow

 

[MateDow]

I was wondering if you would include training ships. During WWII many nations where forced to use some of their older great war era cruisers which had been into training ships into action. Are these in C.O.R.E.? Do you intend to put them into a country's navy? Or do you exclude them?

Some nation's training ships are in the game. I have the San Georgio which is one of Italy's training ships. The major powers training ships are not in the game right now. The American Wyoming and British Iron Duke aren't in the game, but have been withheld until I can write a good Washington Naval Treaty event that will give the powers the option of re-militarizing the training battleships. The Japanese battleship Hiei is in there being converted to a full battleship so she is available later in the war. Iron Duke was scrapped in response to the naval treaty, and Wyoming had no military use during the war so they aren't in there without a good event. Other than that, I don't know of any other training ships that could (should?) be in the game. MDow

 

[Semi-Lobster]

There are many countries who had significant enough training vessels to be in the game, but that's a job for tomorrow! Right now I really want to focus on the Chinese Navy and finish up some loose ends I may have with Siam, basically the smaller navies will be of interest to me, but I'll dabble with the majors (if that's ok with you! You being the naval head honcho). Most notably Italy (who in my opinion had the most aesthetically appealing ships of the war!), who although having a wonderful navy, where still using many Great War cruisers. Such as the Brindisi, Campania, Eritrea, Libia, Pisa, Quarto, San Giorgio and Venezia to name a few. These where all cruiser that where still in service or where training vessels by 1936 but did not end up serving in the war, although some served as floating batteries or as actual cruisers. The Eritrea was actually a heavily armed, and heavy sloop. Also I already mentioned the Taranto, Ancona (which was also a WW I cruiser from Germany but was scrapped in '37) and Bari, which are also examples of obsolete ships.

Too bad in the game it doesn't implement scrapping ships too well. You should be getting a LOT of steel and such back but resources aren't used to make units.

 

[MateDow]

Right now I really want to focus on the Chinese Navy and finish up some loose ends I may have with Siam, basically the smaller navies will be of interest to me,

Feel free. Pass the information on to me and I will review it for inclusion in 0.7. I feel pretty confident with the both the Chinese and Siamese navies. Actually, the problems are with some of the majors.

but I'll dabble with the majors (if that's ok with you! You being the naval head honcho). Most notably Italy (who in my opinion had the most aesthetically appealing ships of the war!), who although having a wonderful navy, where still using many Great War cruisers. Such as the Brindisi, Campania, Eritrea, Libia, Pisa, Quarto, San Giorgio and Venezia to name a few. These where all cruiser that where still in service or where training vessels by 1936 but did not end up serving in the war, although some served as floating batteries or as actual cruisers. The Eritrea was actually a heavily armed, and heavy sloop. Also I already mentioned the Taranto, Ancona (which was also a WW I cruiser from Germany but was scrapped in '37) and Bari, which are also examples of obsolete ships.

The problem with a lot of those ships is that they were in such poor material condition that many of them were scrapped in 1937. No player is going to scrap those ships because the game makes it too easy to get them to full strength. The Pisa, Libia, Campania, Ancona, Taranto, Venezia, and Brindisi were all scrapped in a massive disposal in 1937. The armored cruiser San Marco was used exclusively as a target ship from 1935 on. These are all ships that shouldn't be in the game due to their lack of usefulness to an Italy that was gearing up for war.

The scout cruiser Quarto should be added. She was scrapped in 1939 after a boiler explosion in 1938. She will be a protected cruiser. She fits into that category due to her light armament (6 120mm) and 28 knot speed.

The sloop Eritrea was started in Sept 1936. She was a 2200 ton sloop armed with 4 120mm (4.7") guns. She was apparently designed in response to the sucessful war in Ethiopia. If the player feels that this is a useful ship, they can build it. There isn't a way to design an event to prompt it (damn lack of model designation again) or force it. MDow

Too bad in the game it doesn't implement scrapping ships too well. You should be getting a LOT of steel and such back but resources aren't used to make units.

That is too bad. I still wouldn't see a player scrapping vessels. It is too easy to get them fixed by just letting them sit in port. It might take some time, but it doesn't take any resources. MDow

 

[Semi-Lobster]

Yah, most of them where scappred. The Bari and Taranto should be in the game aswell.
Well for China your missing two (probably should be classified as a light or maybe even treaty-light) cruiser. The Ning Hai and the Ping Hai, info on them here.

 

[MateDow]

Yah, most of them where scappred. The Bari and Taranto should be in the game aswell.
Well for China your missing two (probably should be classified as a light or maybe even treaty-light) cruiser. The Ning Hai and the Ping Hai, info on them here.

You are right, they should be in there. That should be an easy fix. MDow

 

[Semi-Lobster]

The Greek battleships Lemnos and Kiklis don't seem to have a model number.

 

[MateDow]

The Greek battleships Lemnos and Kiklis don't seem to have a model number.

The default model number is 0, which makes them Pre-Dreadnaught battleships in 0.6. They will be upgraded to Model 1 in 0.7 which will make them....


guess what?

Pre-Dreadnaughts There will be a new model 0 of Coast Defense Battleships to take into account the small Norweigan and Danish battleships. MDow

 

[Semi-Lobster]

###################################################
# Royal Greek Naval OOB
# CORE Version 0.6
# by MateDow
###################################################

navalunit = {
id = { type = 28004 id = 23 }
location = 891
name = "Royal Greek Fleet"

division = {
id = { type = 28400 id = 100 }
name = "Lemnos"
type = battleship
}
division = {
id = { type = 28400 id = 101 }
name = "Kilkis"
type = battleship
}

The fact that the ships didn't have a model = # was what confused me. Will these new class of coastal battleship, will they be able to defeat old pre-dreadnought battleships like the Libertad or Independencia? What will their attack and defence be?

 

[Semi-Lobster]

The Australian Navy seems to be a bit too small. the Hobart (former HMS Apollo), Perth (former HMS Amphion) and Sydney (former HMS Phaeton) where all ex-British ships.All laid down in the Summer of 1934 and where all launched in 1943. The Hobart was commisioned in 1938 (to Australia after being given to them by Britian), the Perth was commisioned in 1935 and the Sydney was commisioned in 1940. The Sydney was famous for being the victim of the Kormoran, this was the only German armed raider to ever sink a major warship (although the Kormoran was crippled in the process and later scuttled).
The Heavy cruisers HMS Australia, HMS Canberra and HMS Shropshire where all transffered to Australia in 1939, I know you can't model this in the game but maybe you could tweak the AI for the UK to send naval expeditionary forces to Australia then.
The Sloops HMAS Swan and HMAS Yarra should also be in C.O.R.E. Yarra was already launched and commisioned by the start of the game and the Swan was commisioned in 21.01.1937. The sloops where 1060 t and was armed with three 102mm guns.

 

[Semi-Lobster]

Dalmacia

The Yugoslavian Navy is missing a cruiser. The Dalmacia should be a model 0 cruiser. It was 2,960 t at full displacement. It was armed with 6 × 84mm, 4 × 47mm and 2 × MG. It had a complement of 330. It's top speed was 20 knots. Laid down in 1898 by AG Weser, launched 1899 and was commisioned in 1924.


EDIT: Woops I miss read, the Emile Bertin was a light cruiser...

Speaking of French ships, I've noticed your missing the Emile Bertin, it's displacement was 5886 t standard (8480 t full displacement). It's armaments where nine 152mm's, four 89mm AA's, and six 550mm TT's. It's top speed was 34 knots and it's deck and magazine protection was 25mm. She was laid down in 18.08.1931, launched in 09.05.1933 and commisioned in 28.01.1934.
Also you are missing the Pluton light cruiser for France. It's displacement was 4,850 t and it's armament was 4 × 139mm, 4 × 75mm, 2 × 37mm, 12 × 13.2mm. It's top speed was 30 knots. Laid down in 16.04.1928, launched in 10.04.1929 and commisioned in 10.04.1931.
Lastly France is missing the Algérie heavy cruiser. It's full displacement was 13,900 t and was armed with 8 × 203mm, 12 × 100mm, 8 × 37mm 16 × 13.2mm, 6 × TT 550mm. It's top speed was 32 knots. It had side armour of 110mm, deck armour of 80mm, turret armour of 100mm and conning tower armour of 100mm. It was laid down in 19.03.1931, launched in 21.05.1932 and commisioned in 15.09.1934.
I really think the Bearn should be a model 1 carrier, it wasn't that bad. There where worse ones, like the Commandante Teste which C.O.R.E. should also have, THAT should be a model 0.

 

[Zerli]

Yugoslav cruiser "Dalmacija" (note proper spelling) was a training ship. It should be classed as an armored cruiser.

On a side note, if Italy scrapped all these ships, maybe we can make an event where at the right time, these ships can be scrapped for a fair gain in steel. Similarly, the explosion of a boiler can be made into a random event that takes away a quantity of supplies (for fixing the damage, of course).

Zerli

 

[Gwalcmai]

I don't think it's possible to remove a specific unit from the game, though. Maybe there could be an event that explained the situation and gave the resources without any ships being present? (some ships of no military value have just been scrapped, here, have some steel).

The random "boiler explosion" event, would that be generic (any country getting it)? If so, the event popping up for Switzerland would sound really strange.