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.
Chinese Navy-Per Conway's

From Conway's ATWFS 1922-46:

Older Ships:

Cruisers:
Fu An Class- Tung Chi (1895-scuttled 1937)
Hai Yung Class- Hai Yung (1897-scuttled 1937)
Hai Chou (1897-scuttled 1937)
Hain Chen (1898-scuttled 1937)
Hai Chi Class- Hai Chi (1898-scuttled 1937)
Ying Swei Class- Ying Swei (1911-sunk 1937)
Chao Ho (1911-lost 1937)

Destroyers-
Chien Kang, Tung An, Yu Chang (all 390t, Kang and An lost in 1937)

MTBs:
8 total, ranging from 90-120t. Most sunk 1937.

Gunboats:
Mostly small DD types, but lacking open sea sustainability (coastal DD's?). Ranged from 550-930t. I'll total up the numbers later.

Newer vesels:

Ning Hai CL:
Ning Hai (1931), Ping Hai (1935). Both sunk 1944.
2500t. 22.25kts 6x140mm guns (3x2) Ning Hai had 6x76mm AA guns, Ping Hai had 3x88mm AA guns 4x533mm TT (2x2)

I'll post the smaller ships later.
 
Semi-lobster,

Make the models like this then? All 4 of these models don't have a name yet.

Dreadnaught Battleship: Pantserschip 1912
Battlecruiser:Krupp Germania Project 753
Super Dreadnaught battleship: Krupp-Germania Project 806
Super dreadnaught fast battleship: Blohm & Voss design 733
Large Battle cruiser: Vickers designs 695

What do you think?
 
More Chinese

The smaller types:

Gunboats:

Hsien Ning Class:
17kts, 1x120mm, 1x100mm, 3x57mm, 418t
1928. Designed to operate in river mouths and coastal waters.

Ming Cheun Class:
18kts, 1x120mm, 1x100mm, 1x76mm, 2x57mm, 1x20mm, 460t
Ming Cheun (1929), Ming Sen (1931)

Yung Sui Class:
18.5kts, 1x150mm, 1x120mm, 3x76mm, 4x57mm, 1x20mmAA, 650t
Yung Sui launched 1929

Yat Sen Class:
20kts, 1x152mm, 1x140mm, 4x76mmAA, 2x47mm, 1520t
Lauched 1930

Ning Class Patrol Boats:
11 in class
400t, 10kts, 2x57mm

Other vessels:
2 MLs, Tung Hsin, Tung Teh (500t, 12kts, 1x76mm, 4x57mm, 1935)

MTBs: 11 total. 14-49t, 36-40kts, Kuai 1-8 (2x450mm TT, 2xMG), Kuai 101-103 (2x533mmTT, 1x20mmAA)
Kuai 1-8 all built by 1936, Kuai 101-103 built 1937.

the Chinese placed an order for two German built subs in 1938 (coastals, Type VI/VII). These were taken over by the KM in 1939, and never delivered.

Transfers to the Chinese navy:
from the UK: Corvette Fu Po (ex HMS Petunia - Flower Class), river gunboats Ying Shan (HMS Gannet), Ying Hao (HMS Sandpiper), Lung Huan (HMS Falcon).
From teh USA: river gunboat Mei Yuan (USS Tutuila)
 
Thanks for the Chinese navy info, I guess our current Chinese Naval OOB is fine then. As for the Dutch battleships, the Pantserschip 1912, I don't think that should be a dreadnaught, she was a pre-dreadnaught design, and a bad one I might add. I think project 743 would be a better choice for a dreadnaught
 
Just a follow up not on the Chinese Navy. All those old cruisers scuttled in 1937, did so together, on the 11th of August, to prevent capture by teh Japanese.
 
MateDow said:
Actually, Vanguard used guns from the Queen Elizabeth-class. The guns from the Courageous and Glorious were used as replacements on various different battleships of the Queen Elizabeth and Royal Soveriegn class battleships. But that is a different story.
Click to expand...

True, it was the improved high angle turrets I was thinking of. :confused:

MateDow said:
The Lion-class was no faster than the King George V-class battleships as was the Vanguard. The Lion-class was redesigned following the war to take the lessons learned during the war. As redesigned, the Lion would have been a 50,000 ton battleship with a large secondary battery. She would have maintained the 9 406mm (16 inch) guns for a main battery. This puts her in the same class as the US Montana in terms of size and speed. That would make her a Post-Treaty battleship.

With the Post-Treaty slot taken by the Lion, that leaves the Super Battleship slot or Fast Treaty Battleship slot for the Vanguard. Her 8 380mm (15 inch) guns and 44,500 ton standard displacement compares favorably with the Iowa's 9 406mm (16 inch) and 48,000 ton displacement. That would make her classification as a Fast Treaty Battleship reasonable.
Click to expand...

Okay, you've persuaded me.

MateDow said:
I doubt that the British would have built a design that concentrated all of her armament forward. But for lack of a class name for that model, it is as good as any.
Click to expand...

As Semi-Lobster says, they already had. The Nelson class of Treaty Battleships, HMS Nelson & Rodney. Both of which were highly regarded by their Crews and Captains, but from Cunninghams Biography I know that Nelson was a beast to handle at low speed due to the odd weight distribution. She was grounded on occasion and had some near scrapes leaving docks due to her wide turning circle.

The 1921 N3 Battleship & G3 Battlecruiser designs though, didn't have an all guns forward design, though it did have some machinery aft of the rear turret which closed off it's rear firing arc.

It seems to be an odd sort of design, the principle of which, apparently to concentrate the armor belt at certain spots, had been abandoned by the time of the newer construction in the late 30s.
 
I found some information on a Finnish Minelayer.

Originally Minelayer M1, renamed Louhi
PM1.jpg

Laid down in 1916

640 Tons
Speed 11 Knots
2 75mm Guns
2 20mm AA Guns
140 Mines
Crew of 52
 
Well I didn't name it "escort sloop flotilla"! :) The problem is that there where no Finnish sloops, the most common ships in the Finnish Navy where ex-Russian gunboats such as the Uusimaa class, Turunmaa class and Klas Horn class
 
Semi-Lobster said:
Do you have any info on the Fu Hsing? All I know about her is from after she captured by the Japanese and renamed "Hakusa"
Click to expand...


Conway's doesn't have any info for either the Fu Hsing or Hakusa. Could it be a translation problem? Several chinese ships that were scuttled as block ships, or otherwise damaged beyond China's ability to repair, were raised and refitted. Any idea as to what type it was supposed to be?

Allso Semi-lobster, clear out your PM box. Tried to reply to your PM, but your box is full. >insert crude comment of choice here<
 
It's ok actually, she seems to have been a captured Chinese merchantman or fishery vessel that was converted and armed as a survey ship by Japan. As for the events, sorry about that! I got more PM's then I expected last night and it filled up. Can you please send it again? Next time I'll make more space in my inbox :eek:o
 
Semi-Lobster said:
Thanks for the Chinese navy info, I guess our current Chinese Naval OOB is fine then. As for the Dutch battleships, the Pantserschip 1912, I don't think that should be a dreadnaught, she was a pre-dreadnaught design, and a bad one I might add. I think project 743 would be a better choice for a dreadnaught
Click to expand...

Actually, she wouldn't have been that undergunned as a dreadnaught. If you compare her to the Spanish Espana-class dreadnaughts, she might actually be a better design. Her eight 343mm (13.5 inch) guns would outgun many of the dreadnaughts built by the major powers with 305mm (12 inch) guns.

I do agree that the later model is a more traditional dreadnaught design with her multiple turrets. MDow
 
I'd like to move everyone's attention to shipbuilding cost/time.
I've already red something about this somewhere in HOI forum, but I don't remember exactly when and where.

I don't agree with IC/BT for ship, especially the ones referred to battleships and carriers. In 1930's and early 1940's, it took at least 3-4 years or more to put in service a battleship or carrier.
Moreover it should be simpler for a player to invest in shipbuildind at the beginning of the game: if you're playing as Germany you cannot invest 34 IC/day for less than 2 year to produce Bismarck and Tirpiz; I think it's more realistic (in early game) to consider no more than 6/7 IC/day for 1400/1500 days to build a BB, and similarly for CVs (i.e. halved costs, doubled buildtime).
In the late part of games some advances (something new in industry tech tree) should give strong economies the chance to build at a higher daily cost (rising from 6/7 to 10/12 IC) but in less time (reduced from 1400/1500 to 900/1000 days or less).
This is to represent ability of produce the same total work in less time, given by experience in a certain industrial process. But the cost of such technology should by balanced so to be achieved only by a strong economy, as I said before (such as USA or a winning Germany).
I'm going to introduce this changes in my personal HoI mod, but I'd like to hear something about this idea from CORE community. :)
 
Epoe Nimistedt said:
I'd like to move everyone's attention to shipbuilding cost/time.
I've already red something about this somewhere in HOI forum, but I don't remember exactly when and where.

I don't agree with IC/BT for ship, especially the ones referred to battleships and carriers. In 1930's and early 1940's, it took at least 3-4 years or more to put in service a battleship or carrier.
Moreover it should be simpler for a player to invest in shipbuildind at the beginning of the game: if you're playing as Germany you cannot invest 34 IC/day for less than 2 year to produce Bismarck and Tirpiz; I think it's more realistic (in early game) to consider no more than 6/7 IC/day for 1400/1500 days to build a BB, and similarly for CVs (i.e. halved costs, doubled buildtime).
In the late part of games some advances (something new in industry tech tree) should give strong economies the chance to build at a higher daily cost (rising from 6/7 to 10/12 IC) but in less time (reduced from 1400/1500 to 900/1000 days or less).
This is to represent ability of produce the same total work in less time, given by experience in a certain industrial process. But the cost of such technology should by balanced so to be achieved only by a strong economy, as I said before (such as USA or a winning Germany).
I'm going to introduce this changes in my personal HoI mod, but I'd like to hear something about this idea from CORE community. :)
Click to expand...

Hopefully MateDow can answer this but I'll give what I think about this:
CV's are currently, pretty cheap (especially the smaller ones) and I think they're fine as is. As for BB's, I admit they're a bit too expensive. Currently, it's more cost effective both time wise and IC wise to build an armoured cruiser, also, armoured cruisers have better stats. I agree that armoured cruisers should have better stats but they should be cheaper to build and faster to make then armoured cruisers
 
OK, Naval chaps. I've a technical mod question.

I'm playing v1.06, C.O.R.E. v0.81 as the USA. I have a Fleet patrolling a sea zone known to be used by the enemy (Japanese) for supply convoy movement. I am interdicting the sea zone. Voila, I begin to sink unescorted shipping at a decent rate. What?!? I now notice that all of my ship units have lost 16+ strength points in under a week? No combat against enemy fleets of any kind, save for the unescorted transports.

Now, I have 3 CV's (Yorktown to Midway class) with full complements of Intermediate level CAG's (9), 3 Iowa class (Post Treaty) BB units, 3 Baltimore (Treaty?) CA units, and 3 Porter/Allen Sumner class DD's under the command of a Grand Admiral level leader. All of my ships are updated to the newest Naval techs (just shy of the Semi-Modern levels, I think). What the #!*@?? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't remember any number of transports that were able to do any damage to an Iowa class Battleship, much less six of them. At worst case, they could have outrun a pack of suicidal transports hoping to do some collision damage. Had I not been watching fairly closely, a Japanese battle fleet might have arrived and made mincemeat out of my fleet after they had been "softened up" by the unarmed transports.

Please enlighten me as to whether this is a vanilla 1.06 AI upgrade or a C.O.R.E. v0.81 interaction enhancement. Or better yet, if this was a C.O.R.E. enhancement, please direct me to the correct place where I might be able to discern the reasoning behind such a change. Thanks in advance.

Frustrating though this particular instance is, I still find the Naval enhancements making my enjoyment of this fine game even better.

US Navy Trivia of the Day:

Did anyone know that the US Navy deployed a CVE named the USS Core? Funny.
 
ArmdChair said:
OK, Naval chaps. I've a technical mod question.

I'm playing v1.06, C.O.R.E. v0.81 as the USA. I have a Fleet patrolling a sea zone known to be used by the enemy (Japanese) for supply convoy movement. I am interdicting the sea zone. Voila, I begin to sink unescorted shipping at a decent rate. What?!? I now notice that all of my ship units have lost 16+ strength points in under a week? No combat against enemy fleets of any kind, save for the unescorted transports.

Now, I have 3 CV's (Yorktown to Midway class) with full complements of Intermediate level CAG's (9), 3 Iowa class (Post Treaty) BB units, 3 Baltimore (Treaty?) CA units, and 3 Porter/Allen Sumner class DD's under the command of a Grand Admiral level leader. All of my ships are updated to the newest Naval techs (just shy of the Semi-Modern levels, I think). What the #!*@?? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't remember any number of transports that were able to do any damage to an Iowa class Battleship, much less six of them. At worst case, they could have outrun a pack of suicidal transports hoping to do some collision damage. Had I not been watching fairly closely, a Japanese battle fleet might have arrived and made mincemeat out of my fleet after they had been "softened up" by the unarmed transports.

Please enlighten me as to whether this is a vanilla 1.06 AI upgrade or a C.O.R.E. v0.81 interaction enhancement. Or better yet, if this was a C.O.R.E. enhancement, please direct me to the correct place where I might be able to discern the reasoning behind such a change. Thanks in advance.

Frustrating though this particular instance is, I still find the Naval enhancements making my enjoyment of this fine game even better.

US Navy Trivia of the Day:

Did anyone know that the US Navy deployed a CVE named the USS Core? Funny.
Click to expand...

Im afraid the damage to ships from convoys is a vanilla HOI feature that we cant do much about.

Ghost_dk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back