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

[MateDow]

I haven't played a complete game with CORE v0.81 yet, but after viewing your post, I thought to verify tech files for cruiser. I remember once I posted about being able to build cruiser at 0 IC! (with v0.71)

This is something that slipped in. I haven't actually seen this myself, but I don't doubt that it happens.

Well, searching for the line "build_cost which = cruiser" I found this command in naval_tech.txt (at tech 6955 "Advanced Secondary Battery Directors"):

command = { type = build_cost which = cruiser value = -5 }

It's a joke!? This command it's still present in v0.81! :wacko:
What is the reason for this? I will immediately cancel this from naval_tech file!

That is supposed to be a -5 for build time, not cost. It also was supposed to give a -1 cost. In hindsight, it would be better to increase the time benefit and eliminate the build cost bonus. I am planning on going through the tech file and fix those cost errors which reduce the build cost of smaller types. These will be compensated with higher build time reductions which are possible with the higher build times.

However IC/BT of most naval units needs to be rebalanced, and related techs too. Industrial advances must reduce BT, not total cost. If you lower both BT and IC about by 15/20% you reduce total cost by 25/35%, this results in an enormous boost for player economy (considering that many industry/electronics techs improve production yet).
In the late game you don't know how to invest your IC surplus!

As I mentioned in an earlier post, this is being done and the results tested. It will probably be combined with a doctrine for streamlined shipbuilding which will lower the times of construction. The US would have this tech at the beginning of the game to recreate their quicker shipbuilding times.

I wish I'll can soon check my changes in HoI, and, by your suggestion, I'm going to introduce much greater SD values for carrier also. But perhaps HoI2 will be relased before I can complete it.

I have been testing slightly higher carrier defence ratings. This has resulted in carriers surviving combat with surface ships when they shouldn't have. These are combats happening in storms and at night where aircraft wouldn't be used. In those conditions, carriers caught at close range by battleships wouldn't live long. If the ratings are made higher, the carrier will be unkillable by surface warships. One of the big problems that I have seen that is undercutting the effectiveness of carriers is the lack of attacks by carrier aircraft. I don't know if this is because of the size of the sea zone or some other problem, but it is a problem. I don't think that we should have super high defence ratings which are unbalancing. MDow

 

[MateDow]

I was refering to those two incidents. The only other I know of was in a US fleet problem (the carrier was pronounced "damaged" so as not to ruin the exercise, btw). So, the Glorious was sunk, and of the six escort carriers of Taffy 3 only one was sunk by eight heavy cruisers and four battleships with destroyer escort. At the loss of four cruisers. Really, doesn't sound like a bad average for the carriers.

The attacks at Leyte Gulf are not accurate results of battleships attacking carriers. The Japanese battleships thought that they were engaging fleet carriers. This caused them to be firing armor piercing shells at unarmored targets. The converted merchant ships (escort carriers) didn't have enough metal structure to detonate the shells. This caused most of the hits that occured to have no effect. If those had really been fleet carriers, the heavy shell hits would have been devistating because the armor piercing shells would have been bursting in vital areas like engine rooms and magazines rather than passing out the far side.

This doesn't take into account the better anti-ship trained aircrews that would have been present, only the effect of heavy gunfire on carriers. The US battleship Washington was able to cripple the Japanese battlecruiser Kirishima with only 9 shells. That was an armored ship designed to resist heavy gunfire. I don't have the numbers for the shell hits on the Glorious. But that ship was a ship which was originally designed to resist gunfire (ex-battlecruiser) and the shells hitting her were only 11". I think that her example is probably a more accurate judge. She was a carrier which was unable to launch aircraft due to operational considerations. I think that if carrier aircraft work the way that they are supposed to, they will devistating to ships during daylight hours and clear weather. In other conditions where their aircraft are unusable, they are vulnerable targets. The pre-war concern was surface attacks on carriers under those conditions. MDow

 

[Crazyhorse]

Changed Unit Ratings- I have been taking a look at all of the stats for the naval units. While evaluating the stats, I believe that the cruisers are in the correct range. With that in mind, I increased the sea defence stats for the battleships. This will make them more durable and worth the cost of constructing them. They still fall prey to massed cruiser attacks, but they usually need other battleships to feel a threat. There are some other smaller changes with the unit stats as well.

I was just thinking about the small treaty cruisers. I think the these should be overal a bit cheaper or faster to build. In fact they are more or less overpowerd 3000T destroyers. Like the Tromp class. Personally I would suggest 4IC 250 BT or 3IC 290 BT. Any thoughts on this?

And If I'm correct the conversion CV's are converted transport ships? If so Then I think the range should be upgrade to 10000.

Slightly Increased Air Defence Ratings- The modern battleship's ratings for air defence were increased to take into account the contemporary design's focus on additional protection against bombs. This will make them more resistant to air attacks which will allow Yamato-like defence.

This I would like to see how this is changed for all models. I will PM you and also test it.

On a other matter. For the Pocket Battleship and the Small treaty Battlecruiser is Commerce cruiser radar docterine needed. I always prefer to choose the battleline or scouting docterine. Only then I can't build the above mentioned two models. Can' we just remove this as a pre-req for those two ships?

While choosing the docterine to research it is also not mentioned that when you research this those 2 models are being deactivated. I found that out the hard way. because I wanted to build them but I couldn't anymore because i researched a other docterine.

Any thoughts on this?

 

[MateDow]

I was just thinking about the small treaty cruisers. I think the these should be overal a bit cheaper or faster to build. In fact they are more or less overpowerd 3000T destroyers. Like the Tromp class. Personally I would suggest 4IC 250 BT or 3IC 290 BT. Any thoughts on this?

Right now, I have them costing 6 IC for 425 days. This increases the time for these ships as a part of the across the board increases. The IC cost is the same for all of the treaty cruisers, but the time for the small light cruiser is 50 days less than the heavier models. This is 300 IC less than their heavier brethern.

And If I'm correct the conversion CV's are converted transport ships? If so Then I think the range should be upgrade to 10000.

Part of the conversion to an aircraft carrier involves the conversion of bunker tanks into aviation fuel tanks. There are also changes in the internal structure of the vessel which reduce the fuel capacity of the converted carrier. Right now, Conversion Carriers have a range of 8000 nm. This gives them equal range to the cruisers and smaller battleships. That sounds sufficient.

This I would like to see how this is changed for all models. I will PM you and also test it.

Most of the changes were for battleship models. This is partially in compensation for the much higher cost associated with the longer building times. Another part of it recognises the fact that battleships built after 1930 were specifically designed to resist damage from aircraft. This was based on tests conducted on ships which had to be disposed as a result of the Washington Treaty. Cruisers, carriers, and destroyers didn't have the internal volume or armor weight for effective protection. Damage to cruisers and carriers by aircraft was more likely to sink them.

On a other matter. For the Pocket Battleship and the Small treaty Battlecruiser is Commerce cruiser radar docterine needed. I always prefer to choose the battleline or scouting docterine. Only then I can't build the above mentioned two models. Can' we just remove this as a pre-req for those two ships?

These ships are specifically designed for commerce warfare. If you are looking for other types which can substitute for these, look at your battlecruiser types. Most of these aren't limited by the pre-req. Large battlecruisers have more firepower because they are more suited to the battlefleet than commerce raiding.

We can remove the pre-req, but I don't see a nation like Britain or the US building this type of ship. They had the opportunity, but chose to build ships which would be more profitably employed protecting commerce or working with the battlefleet. That is represented in their doctrines and should be represented by their choices of possible construction.

While choosing the docterine to research it is also not mentioned that when you research this those 2 models are being deactivated. I found that out the hard way. because I wanted to build them but I couldn't anymore because i researched a other docterine.

It can be easily added to deactivate those techs. That is really killing them twice. There are a lot of hidden pitfalls like that in the doctrine area. I think that is fairly realistic. A nation doesn't select their fighting style based on possible future designs. They select their doctrines based on national needs. I personally like the unintended results. I personally like to play the US and would love to have the Large Torpedo. Unfortunately, because the doctrines that the US uses are focused on combat with a battleline, it is impossible to do that. The best that I can do is improved aircraft torpedoes.

Any thoughts on this?

I hope I answered your questions and concerns.

I would be happy to have you as a tester. Drop me a PM or an e-mail at dow underscore mike at hotmail dot com. Mention CORE somewhere in the subject or it will probably get removed as junk . MDow

 

[Crazyhorse]

Mdow,

What you're saying makes all perfectly sense.

Only I do think that especially now with your changes the cost difference is very big between a 3000T destroyer and a small treaty light cruiser. And in my opinion they are not that different.

Only I still disagree on the Pre-req. For smaller nations a small treaty Battlecruiser is a good investment. It's just a good price/quality. And it even gets a bit better with the battleline or scouting docterine.

Personally I would like this pre-req removed for those models. But I have no idea what other people think of this. So I'll just wait and see what the general opinion on this will be.

I agree that for Japan and the US these models aren't that interesting.

 

[unmerged(25668)]

Just remember to take naval tech research times into account when changing build times. Doubling the build time of carriers makes sense in the mid-game, but will make it impossible to build the highest tech units without adding the unlimited time mod.

Whether or not this is something we want to do is another story. Personally, I like to have the possibility of building something within the confines of the original game's time limits. Going *too* historical isn't much fun.

 

[Crazyhorse]

Just remember to take naval tech research times into account when changing build times. Doubling the build time of carriers makes sense in the mid-game, but will make it impossible to build the highest tech units without adding the unlimited time mod.

Whether or not this is something we want to do is another story. Personally, I like to have the possibility of building something within the confines of the original game's time limits. Going *too* historical isn't much fun.

Increasing the build time of carriers does in now way effect the possibility to reach the highest tech units. Because only the units have a higher build time the techs will stay the same. The only problem could be that after you have the best carrier it would take a extra 6 months to get it on the map.

But in my eyes this is no problem.

 

[Gabriel Anthony]

- The Air Wings aboard my carriers now always automatically attack the enemy when a Naval battles begins, every single time since post v05c.

- As A Battleship guy myself (you wouldn't know it from my building program in the AAR :O ), I'm not to keen on adding yet another 300 days on their BTs, but I suppose of their base AD and SD goes up a bit, I could swallow the pill. (and since all other ships BT including Carriers are going up, its probably not as bad as it sounds).

 

[Gabriel Anthony]

Well thank you for the compliment. I agree that people that play Vanilla don't know what they are missing . I am enjoying reading your AAR and hope to follow it through to the end of the war. Don't forget to chack the model of your various cruisers. I noticed that you have a group wandering around with Protected Cruisers, Light Cruisers and Armored Cruisers. Those are very different types of cruisers. Your protected cruisers will probably take some heavy losses compared to their heavier cousins. Enjoy. MDow

I myself discovered this and made note of it in my thread,

 

[Semi-Lobster]

Historically though, it did take a long time to build a battleship, it took years from the time the ship is laid down to the date of commission, but unlike real life, we don't have the luxury of waiting years to build a BB. What I'm worried about is the earlier BB's. It only took 32 months to build the HMS Barham afterall, and that's a model 7 Fast Dreadnaught Battleship. So I believe the earlier BB's should be in the 900-1000 day range.

 

[Gwalcmai]

Going back to the SD of carriers, should a couple of freak accidents determine the way all carrier engagements go in HOI?

In the case of HMS Glorious, there was a series of screw-ups leading to her sinking. The Admiralty should've warned the fleet that enemy capital ships had left port, she shouldn't have been allowed to sail to Scapa Flow alone wether there were enemies out or not, she should have planes up patrolling to get an early warning and her torpedo bombers should've been slightly more prepared for a launch. Even then, her chances of survival would probably increase greatly if she had altered her course to go away from the enemy...

True, in Leyte Gulf Halsey managed to set up the engagement all by his lonesome. But it was still a major error that lead to the combat.

OTOH, in HOI this sort of error can't be easily simulated. The sea zones are large enough that it is expected that each ship will fight a battle as it is supposed to. But as it is now, each time a carrier TF engages a battle group, the BBs will engage the carriers with guns.

 

[Gabriel Anthony]

I'm having alot of problems with the scramble/ attacking same sea province as based, mechamisms with the Carriers.

When the opposition has no air resistance, it seems to work fine. But if there is an aerial fight first, the Air Wings seem to get confused. Often Im not able to send them back on Naval attack missions.

Yet, once in a while they will simply keep attacking the enemy over and over all by themselves *which is good*. This is probably a game engine issue, but as CORE limits CAGs to same province combat, its a pretty glaring quirk. Are there things that the player can do to have the Planes attack automatically, and continuously all the time? Are there things the player can do to prevent his planes from becoming "confused"?

 

[Semi-Lobster]

Are there things that the player can do to have the Planes attack automatically, and continuously all the time? Are there things the player can do to prevent his planes from becoming "confused"?

Yes, when you want to attack another province press cntrl and simultaneously left click. The box while appear asking what type of attack you want and in the bottom right hand corner there's a button with a little thingy on (it's shaped like a horizontal 'U'), click on it and then click OK. The planes will then continiously attack the province, finish the attack, rebase and attack again,rebase attack again etc. automatically until you tell them to stop.

 

[Gabriel Anthony]

I appreciate the sentiment Semi Lobster,
I'm afraid you misunderstood.

I didn't start playing HOI yesterday. :wacko:

Whats happening is that, for instance, when the two fleets are in the same province and begin combat, the Air Wings will fight eachother (good so far). But when one Air Wing is victorious, they do not only not attack the enemy ships. But they seem to become "confused", and when I try to select them for a naval bombardment, they simply don't attack. and you get that red message "no game found" or something like that. This happens most of the time,

HOwever, sometimes, the after the air wings do battle, the victorious air wing will begin assualting the enemy fleet continously.

Its all very odd,

I've had to put my AAR on hold because of it, if fighiting against 1 or 2 enemy ari wings, and winning, then renders my Naval Aviation impotent and unable to attack the U.S Ships because of some weird game mechanics,, then I'm afraid 6 years of in game constructoin and research have been for nothing.

Ive set up a few "dummy" save games to keep testing, so hopefully I can solve the problem myself,

 

[JRaup]

Whats happening is that, for instance, when the two fleets are in the same province and begin combat, the Air Wings will fight eachother (good so far). But when one Air Wing is victorious, they do not only not attack the enemy ships. But they seem to become "confused", and when I try to select them for a naval bombardment, they simply don't attack. and you get that red message "no game found" or something like that. This happens most of the time,

HOwever, sometimes, the after the air wings do battle, the victorious air wing will begin assualting the enemy fleet continously.

Its all very odd

This is a vanilla HoI problem, and has been around for a while now. This happens with land based air units as well. You can get around it by left clicking on the "home base" of the air unit, then can go about on another mission assignment.

 

[Semi-Lobster]

I appreciate the sentiment Semi Lobster,
I'm afraid you misunderstood.

Woops! o

Sorry if I offended you, sometimes we all miss things. I didn't start cntrl and left clicking to attack until 1.05 (the first one). As for the rest, as for the Answer to your question, what JRaup said, this is a HoI problem

 

[unmerged(19114)]

Naval Combat 1.06 C.O.R.E. v8.1 SUCKS!

Example: Grand Admiral Raeder can command 12 Flotillas, Skill 4; Experience 3; Superior Tactician. Has 7 ships attacking 11 transports of UK as a Stacking Penalty of -10.0 during start of battle he received T: Superior Tactician: +10.0; Nighttime: -24.0; Leadership: +8.0; Dissent: -0.68! I added 3 ships to party and stacking Penalty went up to –16.0! I also added 4 attacking planes to battle during daylight. Is this from C.O.R.E. v8.1 or HOI v1.06 problem?

 

[Ilkhold]

Example: Grand Admiral Raeder can command 12 Flotillas, Skill 4; Experience 3; Superior Tactician. Has 7 ships attacking 11 transports of UK as a Stacking Penalty of -10.0 during start of battle he received T: Superior Tactician: +10.0; Nighttime: -24.0; Leadership: +8.0; Dissent: -0.68! I added 3 ships to party and stacking Penalty went up to –16.0! I also added 4 attacking planes to battle during daylight. Is this from C.O.R.E. v8.1 or HOI v1.06 problem?

This is neither a problem nor CORE related.

 

[Ghost_dk]

Example: Grand Admiral Raeder can command 12 Flotillas, Skill 4; Experience 3; Superior Tactician. Has 7 ships attacking 11 transports of UK as a Stacking Penalty of -10.0 during start of battle he received T: Superior Tactician: +10.0; Nighttime: -24.0; Leadership: +8.0; Dissent: -0.68! I added 3 ships to party and stacking Penalty went up to –16.0! I also added 4 attacking planes to battle during daylight. Is this from C.O.R.E. v8.1 or HOI v1.06 problem?

Your right that the grand admiral can command 12 ships but for every ship above 2 a commander, regardless of rank, gets a -2 stacking penalty. This was introduced with the 1.06 patch and cannot be modded. It represents the difficulties of co-ordinating combat between several ships in the heat of the battle and is quite logical IMO.

Ghost_dk

 

[unmerged(15066)]

USCG Cutters as Cruisers?

I'm sure this was discussed and I just missed it, but I noticed that the USCG Treasury class cutters show up as cruisers instead of destroyers. Given ~2000 ton displacement and their wartime armament of several 5" guns and depth charges, it would seem that the USCG fits better as some destroyer squadrons instead weak individual cruisers.