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

[unmerged(15066)]

Liners

Mdow:

Are there situations where there are liners smaller than 15000 GRT in the OOB? If there are, I can insure that they are removed in order to preserve the continuity.

I've noticed in some of the '39 scenario OOB discussions some smaller transports have been nominated for inclusion in the OOB of the minor powers. 15,000 tons is fine for a cut-off.

Two exceptions for this might be France and Japan. In both cases they had quite a few transports in the 3,000 to 10,000 ton range that were nominally rated at several hundred to a few thousand troops. It appears these vessels were used to support their overseas empires (in contrast to the prestige liners like the Normandie on the North Atlantic run). These might be legitimate candidates for the flotilla idea.

I haven't looked closely at Belgium, Portugal, or the Netherlands, but their overseas empires suggest they might have a similar inventory of smaller transports.

 

[Crazyhorse]

Mdow:


I've noticed in some of the '39 scenario OOB discussions some smaller transports have been nominated for inclusion in the OOB of the minor powers. 15,000 tons is fine for a cut-off.

Two exceptions for this might be France and Japan. In both cases they had quite a few transports in the 3,000 to 10,000 ton range that were nominally rated at several hundred to a few thousand troops. It appears these vessels were used to support their overseas empires (in contrast to the prestige liners like the Normandie on the North Atlantic run). These might be legitimate candidates for the flotilla idea.

I haven't looked closely at Belgium, Portugal, or the Netherlands, but their overseas empires suggest they might have a similar inventory of smaller transports.

The Netherlands:

Statendam: 35.000t
Rotterdam: 24.170t
Volendam: 15.430t
Veendam: 15.450t
Nieuw Amsterdam: 36.982t

Baleoran: 16.982t
Dempo: 16.982t

Johan van Oldenbarenvelt: 19.040t

And there are 2 (unnamed) model 4 transports in the OOB.

And there were many more (I think I can at least find another 20 and perhaps 40 if I start from 3.000t)ships in the 7.500t till 15.000t range. Probally even some bigger ships that we forgot but as it is now the Netherlands has 10 transports and that will be enough.

 

[Gwalcmai]

For Portugal, I'd guess the transport flotillas already present would cover any such capacity. But if you want to check, feel free.

 

[MateDow]

Thanks every one for the answers (esp MateDow). I just found it strange that Heavy CAs had less defence values than DD's. But I now see the Guns VS. Survival theory.

Not a problem.

One More question though. Does it matter where a ship is placed in a stack (near top or bottom). I only ask as I have always formed my Fleets order; BB-CA-DD or in other words Greater to Lesser (sometimes no BB/CV). However I would usually lose a 1/3 of Capital ships and 1/2 of DD's (sometimes more DD). Yet lately I have been running tests with Capital ships in the middle (DD-Capitals ships-DD), and have found remarkable results, my DDs take larger beatings 1/2 to 3/4, and my Capital ships are now only 25 - 30% damaged (of course there is the odd shot which takes out a CA or 2). The most remarkable is that I have yet to lose a BB these Fleets (5 Games, 2 GER, 1 FRA, 1 UK, 1I TA), they do get damaged, yet they werent targeted as before.

As far as I know, the position of the unit is not supposed to make a difference as to the amount of damage recieved. Destroyers and other screening vessels are supposed to take more damage than the ships in the heart of a formation (BB, CV, transports). But I haven't noticed anything where the position of the ship in the stack makes any difference.

So in essence does the position of a unit in a stack (not overstacked), affect the order in which it is targeted, or is it actually a broad attack and I just need to get more sleep and sunlight.

See above. MDow

 

[Nephandus]

I just begun a game as USA (one of the few) and while doing naval development, I found a little error in the USA Model naming an subsequently in the tech descriptions. The error in question refers to the following techs (numbered for quick reference):

1. Treaty Battleship
2. Fast Treaty Battleship
3. Post Treaty Battleship
4. Super Battleship

As it was stated, the Bismarck was cathegorized as Fast Treaty Battleship (matches the description of that tech). However: for the US the model names are as followed:

1. North Carolina Class
2. Iowa Class
3. Montana Class
4. none

I propose the following naming:

1. North Carolina Class
2. South Dakota Class
3. Iowa Class
4. Montana Class

The Iowa was larger than the Bismarck and had a remarkably heavier firepower. Most interesting is, that in 0.83b, the South Dakota Class is completely omitted, although the US had 4 of them compared to the 2 North Carolina Class.
The Montana Class, which was never built, had the planned dimension of the Yamato and therefore qualifies as Super Battleship. If anyone cares, I can send or post the altered files in here

 

[MateDow]

I propose the following naming:

1. North Carolina Class
2. South Dakota Class
3. Iowa Class
4. Montana Class

The Iowa was larger than the Bismarck and had a remarkably heavier firepower. Most interesting is, that in 0.83b, the South Dakota Class is completely omitted, although the US had 4 of them compared to the 2 North Carolina Class.

The Iowa was smaller than the Bismarck and had less armored protection. The difference in the stats is accounted for in the design specific stats. This lowers the speed and firepower of Germany's fast battleships compared to the US battleships which have no modifiers.

The South Dakota-class was basically no different than the previous North Carolina-class battleships. They were a little bit shorter, and had a little bit better armor protection, but they were virtually the same. They don't really fit as a fast battleship. They were limited to 28 knots like the other treaty battleships (King George V, Richelieu, and North Carolina). They also compare favorably to those ships in terms of armor protection and speed. They have always been omitted in CORE as a seperate class because of their similarity to the North Carolina.

The Montana Class, which was never built, had the planned dimension of the Yamato and therefore qualifies as Super Battleship. If anyone cares, I can send or post the altered files in here

Montana was designed as a battleship which wasn't limited by the treaty. She was supposed to have a standard displacement of around 56000 tons (going off memory here). If you compare her to the Yamato she is decidedly smaller and has less armor. The power of the Montana's main armament is a large advantage, but that was due to the design of her shells rather than a increase in caliber. There were US battleship designs for ships larger than the Montana which pushed the limits of US battleship design which were limited by dockyard water depth and drydock size rather than Panama Canal limits or funding limits. The Montana design was still limited by expanded size limits to the Panama Canal which were not implemented due to WW2. Based on the fact that the Montana wasn't the United States' ultimate battleship, I made her the post-treaty design. MDow

 

[steveh11]

The Iowa was smaller than the Bismarck and had less armored protection.

Um? Iowa, at 887' long, was almost a hundred feet longer than Bismark. Standard displacement was greater, too (45kT vs 42kT). Belt armour, at 12.2", was only fractionally less than Bismark's at 12.59", and we could discuss build quality & hull arrangement for a while, I guess, but for me they'd be at least even.

Steve.

 

[Paul Roberts]

Adapting CAGs to 1.06b

Hi all,

I'm a complete neophyte at modding HOI, but I'm motivated to do something about CAGs and the new air-stacking penalty introduced in HOI 1.06b.

Some of the changes in 1.06b make it very worthwhile, IMHO, so I've begun to play CORE 0.83 with just the HOI.exe fom 1.06b installed (as Steel suggested). My question is, what should be done to CAGs to make them more compatible with the air-stacking penalty? I'm not looking for a full overhaul, just some do-it-yourself changes to make CAGs better while we wait (possibly a long time) for the next full release of CORE.

Some issues:

--Since CAGs represent smaller groups of planes, the stacking penalty hits them hard. Should they be re-imagined as larger groups? If so, what changes to their stats at various levels of development will accomplish this?

--I notice that (unlike other plane types) CAG stats are very low at all levels of development. I assume this reflects the fact that they are very dependent on research for their stats. Does this mean that all CAG-related techs will have to be re-examined, or can we make do with just some changes to the baseline unit ratings?

Thanks for any advice. I'm new at this, as I said, but I fancy myself a quick learner.

 

[Semi-Lobster]

I don't think they should represent larger groups of planes because if we did we couldn't include some carriers. If we doubled it then light carriers the HMS Hermes etc. couldn't event carry one CAG because it repersent approx. 30 planes of various type. Right now I'm not sure what can be done about them, increasing their stats it seems is our only option but I'm sure somebody can come up with a less heavy handed solution. I personally still play with 1.06 since 1.06b only has some vanilla changes and adds in the problem in question.

 

[unmerged(15066)]

CAG's & Stacks

MDow replied to this topic about a month or so ago. As I recall, his reply went to the effect that big CAG stacks tended to be late war phenomena and by then the tech's should have improved the statistics on the CAGs. In addition, the historical examples of CAG on Land-based combat tended to favor the CAGs since it was mostly Pacific Theater 1944-1945 action between the USA and Japan with poorly trained land-based late-war fighter groups.

 

[unmerged(20324)]

I played italy last night and was shocked to see that it takes 1600 days to build a BB. you have got to be kidding, the italians have been building warships since the punic wars. i know the industry in italy was weak but come on 1600 days as compared to 500 to 700 for other major powers. even britian with its poor economy was able to build the queen elizabeth in 12 months, nelson in 33 months, king george V in 25 months, and finally vanguard in 37 (it is noted that this could have been built faster but the ship was not a high priority at the time). i just think the build times are a little out of whack. you should have the ability to build on a equal footing, even if it means no IC's for anything else.

*this information is found in "The Great Ships Pass" by Peter C. Smith published by Institute Press.

 

[unmerged(32776)]

I’ve been following this thread and the one titled carrier mod with a great deal of interest. I’m very impressed with the knowledge, innovativeness, and hard work put in by a number of persons. Both solutions are a huge improvement but I agree with Lightfantastic that merging them could even be better.

Not having the knowledge of many of the other participants, I put together a brief summary for myself in order to try to understand and judge the two approaches. In no way is that judgment to be considered negative (I couldn’t even begin to approach the improvement achieved by both solutions). The summary follows.

Carrier warfare in WWII had 3 main uses. One was to neutralize and destroy both the land and sea based airpower of the enemy (mostly with light and fleet carriers). This included attacking enemy land based airfields. Second was to provide tactical support to ground troops particularly when land based support was not available (island landings). The third was to detect and destroy subs (mostly escort carriers).

HOI’s many limitations regarding naval warfare have been discussed at length. Two limitations that these two threads appear most worried about are 1) lack of simulation of the stand-off and potent ship-killing capability of carriers and 2) lack of use of carriers by the AI.

The approach in this thread has been to introduce the concept of the Carrier Air Group (CAG) while the other thread has abstracted the stand off capability by altering the carriers stats while requiring that actual air squadrons not be based on carriers for combat purposes.

The best I can make out both approaches have advantages and disadvantages versus the other. IMHO they are:

Multi zone combat: The CAG approach is far better. The CAG can provide realistic naval attack (including ships in port?), air defense, air attack (including versus land based air), and tac attack (for land support). At the same time the carriers will remain (as they should) vulnerable only to air attack and have air defense provided by CAG fighters. CAG’s will correctly lose organization due to missions. Other advantages are: the CAG could be replaced by a fresh one while the beaten up one reorganizes, in a pinch the CAG could even be land based, and the CAG can be altered to reflect the size of the air component based on each type of carrier.

“Collision” (1 sea zone) combat: The abstract approach is far better because HOI won’t let the CAG fly! In the abstract approach the carriers can use their abstracted potent ship-killing capability and take minimal damage due to abstracted high “sea defense” stats. However it is difficult to simultaneously abstract a collision of carrier vs carrier task forces and one that is carrier vs surface ships only because the results are quite different. The carriers were very vulnerable in carrier to carrier battles but practically invulnerable if standing off versus surface ships. Few carriers survived for very long during the first 2 years in the Pacific theater due to their destruction in “collisions” with enemy carriers yet surface ships only got at a few escort carriers once in the entire war. The abstract designer must choose between simulating a carrier vs carrier battle, a carrier vs surface ship standoff battle, or a compromise between the two.

The abstract approach may also be better for the AI. It’s not clear to me that the AI could be made to use the CAG approach very effectively, if at all.

Thru CAG research we can restrict the availability of carrier types. However, once a CAG type is made available thru research, I don’t see how we could restrict which CAG type can be based on which carrier type (without abstracting CAG’s entirely). AFAIK the current version of HOI imposes no restrictions and does not give the user the ability to change this thru mods. You can even base Strategic bombers on carriers (thankfully they will not strategic attack though). The only limitation I can see is for humans to follow “house rules” restricting certain CAG’s to certain carriers.

The other alternative, making a CAG represent a small group (30 planes) would require abstraction to account for the different sizes because HOI only allows one group per carrier. As you can see, I have come to believe that abstraction or house rules seem to be the only choices for restricting CAG/carrier type combinations once the research is completed.

I much prefer the potential of the CAG approach but believe the current HOI engine does not allow it to be used properly in collision battles (plus will the AI use it at all?). Since collision battles in HOI are the norm I would pick the abstraction approach with possibly the CAG’s used to control tech research. Unfortunately this loses much of the CAG’s usefulness (neutralizing land based power, multi-zone reach, air mission organization loss, etc.).

As participants in both threads have stated, the solutions are only temporary in the hopes that Paradox will correct the problem (or at least change enough so that users can correct the problem). With a few Paradox changes the CAG approach could become a dazzling innovation. Until then we may have to live with abstracted carrier warfare, which while not perfect is a lot better than the current situation.

Er, no. Carrier doctrine was not simply in the three categories you outline. RN Carrier doctrine at sea was about finding and then destroying enemy Seapower. Please do not simply concentrate on lessons from the Pacific. Apart from convoy escort and CAP for the Fleet the basic expectation for RN Carriers was to find and attack enemy ships at sea: the whole Bismarck affair is a classic example of finding, fixing and then destroying a target. With small air wings the RN was simply incapable of guaranteeing that a ship could and would be sunk by airpower, although the later carriers themselves were good at absorbing damage. What they could do was find and hopefully damage enemy ships to bring them in range of the vast firepower of the RN. Also there is Taranto-style port-strikes to consider. The Brits had an earlier one at Bardia and there is no reason why they could not have done Kiel with similar imagination.

I don't know what the French were expecting from Bearn but I have an idea that they had similar ideas to the British in terms of floating recce and naval strike platform. The Germans? well it is hard to know what the Luftwaffe/Kriegsmarine would have come up with as a concept of operations but the Fiesler Torpedo Bomber was a cracking aircraft!

Jumbo

 

[Crazyhorse]

I played italy last night and was shocked to see that it takes 1600 days to build a BB. you have got to be kidding, the italians have been building warships since the punic wars. i know the industry in italy was weak but come on 1600 days as compared to 500 to 700 for other major powers. even britian with its poor economy was able to build the queen elizabeth in 12 months, nelson in 33 months, king george V in 25 months, and finally vanguard in 37 (it is noted that this could have been built faster but the ship was not a high priority at the time). i just think the build times are a little out of whack. you should have the ability to build on a equal footing, even if it means no IC's for anything else.

*this information is found in "The Great Ships Pass" by Peter C. Smith published by Institute Press.

You're probally talking about the BB's that are under construction from the start.

They have a build time of 1600 days because of the fact that they will be ready at the date as they we're historically. They have reduced cost compared to new BB's you might build.

If you order a new BB to be constructed you can see that the build time will be lower and the cost will be higher then the ships that are under construction from the start.

 

[MateDow]

Um? Iowa, at 887' long, was almost a hundred feet longer than Bismark. Standard displacement was greater, too (45kT vs 42kT). Belt armour, at 12.2", was only fractionally less than Bismark's at 12.59", and we could discuss build quality & hull arrangement for a while, I guess, but for me they'd be at least even.

Steve.

I stand corrected.

If anything it does show that both the Iowa and Bismarck are both appropriate to have classed as fast treaty battleships. MDow

 

[MateDow]

I played italy last night and was shocked to see that it takes 1600 days to build a BB. you have got to be kidding, the italians have been building warships since the punic wars. i know the industry in italy was weak but come on 1600 days as compared to 500 to 700 for other major powers.

If we look at the Italian battleships we see that they did take remarkably longer to build their battleships.

Vittorio Veneto
Laid Down: 28 Oct, 1934
Commissioned: 28 April, 1940
Total Time: 5.5 years (1980 days)

Littorio
Laid Down: 28 Oct, 1934
Commissioned: 6 May, 1940
Total Time: 5.6 years (2016 days)

Roma
Laid Down: 18 Sept, 1938
Commissioned: 14 Jun, 1942
Total Time: 3.6 years (1368 days)

For construction started on units after the game begins the time for a treaty battleship (Vittorio Veneto-class BB) will take 1080 days with no construction modifiers (3 years). That is pretty consistant with construction time averages if you look at the non-US countries.

If you want to build your battleships more quickly (and ruin your economy), stop construction on your battleships and restart them. They will take 1080 days to complete, but will cost significantly more. MDow

 

[ShadoWarrior]

If anything it does show that both the Iowa and Bismarck are both appropriate to have classed as fast treaty battleships. MDow

How can you consider either of these as "treaty" BBs when they displaced 7-10kT (20-30%) more than the treaty allowed? By that definition alone they should be "post-treaty", nevermind considerations of their firepower, armor, etc.

 

[Nephandus]

Ok... I've done some research on the battleships in question. The figures are given in the following order for all: standard displacement, length, main guns, armor (belt), armor (main deck), speed

North Carolina Class: 35000t, 729', 9x16", 16", 6", 28 kn
South Dacota Class: 35000t, 680', 9x16", 16", 6", 27kn
Iowa Class: 45000t, 887', 9x16", 12,2", 4,75", 33kn
Montana Class: 60500t, 921', 12x16", n/a, n/a, 28kn

Bismark Class: 42000t, 791', 8x15", 12,59", 4,72", 30kn

(data obtained from: http://www.voodoo.cz/battleships/)

Basically, the South Dacota was a modification of the North Carolina with improved tech and stability as gunplatform (by making it shorter but broader)

The Iowa was a bit larger than the Bismarck but it's substantially stronger main guns and improved speed definitely puts them a class higher.

As can be seen, the Montana Class would have been the second largest BB Class of the world wouldn't they have been cancelled.

Another thing, that cannot be underestimated: the Iowa Class had a substancially stronger AA capability and a slightly higher range.

 

[ShadoWarrior]

North Carolina Class: 35000t, 729', 9x16", 16", 6", 28 kn

(data obtained from: http://www.voodoo.cz/battleships/)

Voodoo.cz's data for the NC-class appears to be in error. The NC-class didn't have thicker armor than the Iowa-class. The site is giving Montana-class armor for the NC & SD classes.

Better data is available at "http://www.microworks.net/pacific/ships/battleships/north_carolina.htm",
and especially at
"http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/battleships/us_wwii.htm".

Also, the armament info is misleading as the 16/50 guns on the Iowas were considerably more powerful than the earlier 16/45 guns on the NCs.

 

[unmerged(15066)]

Battleship Guns

Though the 16"/50 is a better gun than the 16"/45, the latter is no slouch either. They used the same ammunition, a 2700 lb Mark 8 APC shell. The higher muzzle velocity of the 16"/50 gave an 5,000 yard range advantage and about 10% greater side armor penetration at ordinary engagement ranges over the 16"/45. However, the 16"/45 actually had a window of between about 15,000 and 30,000 yards where the steeper angle of its fall of shot gave it better deck armor penetration than the 16"/50.

The Bismarck's 38 cm/52 used an 800 kg APC shell. Its range fell about mid-way in between the 16"/45 and 16"/50, but the penetration was about 10% less than the older US rifle.

Personally, I tend to take extreme range data with a grain of salt. What counted was effectiveness at the actual engagement ranges, which were far less than the maximum ranges of these guns. I remember running across a fact that the longest recorded combat hit in history is about 32,000 yards (I want to say it was the Scharnhorst but I may be wrong).

 

[thebigcheese]

facinating stuff all this and great reading.

is there a naval mod out and are there ship models to put into the game?