There are a couple of instances of carriers engaged by surface ships, but it was a pretty rare event (and most of the carriers survived the experience). Maybe that 999 idea isn't too bad.The ancient mar said:
-
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.
Gwalcmai said:
BUT IS IT WORKING?Please anybody with an idea of how SD for ships work please give a hand and answer the question.
MateDow said:
Hi, MateDow.
Thank you for your observations, and sorry for my late reply.
I agree with you when you talk about USA, but these BTs are in fact correct only for US shipbuilding. If you verify BB BT for all other nations you can see that they took no less than 3.5 years (Yamato: laid down Nov 1937, completed Dec 1941; Littorio/Vittorio Veneto: laid down Oct 1934, completed Apr/Nov 1940; Richelieu: laid down Oct 1935, nearly completed Jul 1940; Bismarck: Jul 1936 --> Aug 1940; King George V: Jan 1937 --> Dec 1940).
As you can see, no country could sustain the same construction rhythm of US shipyards. Perhaps the "fast shipbuilding" technology shoud be given only to USA at the beginning of the game, but it shoud be reachable by other strong nations at extremely high reseach cost.
MateDow said:
I'll be glad to keep you informed about the changes I'm going to make in the game. But Naval Mod will be the next step, because I'm currently revising Land Combat values for ALL UNITS. It's a huge work!!! And I cannot use all that time I'd need to complete it shortly.
See you soon
Gwalcmai said:
I don't know if I would go as far as a 999 SD rating for carriers. It might be a possibility to raise the rating to around maybe 20 or 30. That would give carriers protection against attacks by smaller naval vessels, but not against massed fire of surface ships or newer battleships.
I can't remember a time where carriers came out better in a surface battle with battleships. The Glorious succumbed to the gunfire of Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. The US escort carriers didn't fair well against the Japanese battleships at Leyte Gulf, and would have faired worse if the Japanese hadn't been scared off by escort attacks. I don't know of any more engagements between battleships and carriers off the top of my head. The fact of the matter is, if a carrier is caught by a battleship, its life expectancy isn't that good.
If we are going to modify the defence ratings for carriers, it should still be possible for battleships to kill carriers. IRC, destroyers take the brunt of attacks. An unescorted carrier should still be vulnerable to some sort of surface attack. It is something worth taking a look at. MDow
MateDow said:
I'd have to agree, 999 SD is too much. Carriers where generally helpless if they got to close to a battleship. But what about cruisers? Should the be able to sink BB's to or are their 152mm and 203mm guns not enough to take down one?
Semi-Lobster said:
I think cruisers can take BB's down. not one on one offcourse but in a group they can. It only takes a couple of lucky hits.
Crazyhorse said:
I don't think so. Late WWII BB could be only lightly damaged by medium caliber gun, because they were designed to resist heavy caliber gun shots (16" and 18" ones). For sure you can destroy early BB with best late cruisers, but Treaty BBs and Post-treaty ones were a completely different matter.
The situation changes if you have strong air-superiority or if you use guided-missile warships (they can engage the enemy at long-range with low risk).
For this reason I propose to rise attack values for guided-missile units (up to 50 from about 30 for BB, and proportionally for CGL/CG). This provoked expensive traditional BB to become obsolete in modern warfare: their enormous firepower was useless, because they could be beaten before they could engage any enemy ship.
Epoe Nimistedt said:
And torpedos which are fired from cruisers? That can cripple a BB so They can come in for the kill.
Crazyhorse said:
Probably you're right, I have not enough data to deny what you're affirming. But I think that you need more than two lucky hits to sink a late WWII BB. Yamato and Iowa/Montana class BB had armor good enough to sustain many hits before sinking.
However I think that long-range engagement ability is much more important than pure firepower, and, if you compare standard WWII weapons, a 406/460mm+ gun has a much longer range than a 152/203mm one or any torpedo.
Epoe Nimistedt said:
Well I think that the torpedo has a better range then a 406mm gun. The only problem is firing a torpedo from a long range is the ability of the BB to evade the torpedo. Then again hitting a small light cruiser from a distance of 8km with a 406mm gun isn't that easy also.
For instance the type 93 torpedo of japan in WWII has a range of 30km at 40nm/hour or 20km at 50nm/hour.
Crazyhorse said:
I still have some doubts left but... you won, for now!
But what about increasing attack values for guided-missile warships? You are a CORE member, so your opinion is important to know.
Explanations
Now my question on SD for CV is not a request for changing it in CORE.The last few days i have tried really hard to figure a way that will make the CV fight in TF combat while on the same time wont get hits because it will be to far from any possible enemy guns.OFCOURCE it can be blown from a BB guns but in reallity it whould stay a lot distance so it is practically out of threat.This is my idea to ask if anybody has dome any testing with SD as several have had with GD.BTW it seems that the 999 value is not the highter possible,it seems it can reach above 1000(i got 1004 SD for CVN).
About the CA price that is cheaper than DD any comments.In a JAP game i had a Super CA nuclear was 5 IC and a DDG with all tech tree costs 6 IC.
Now my question on SD for CV is not a request for changing it in CORE.The last few days i have tried really hard to figure a way that will make the CV fight in TF combat while on the same time wont get hits because it will be to far from any possible enemy guns.OFCOURCE it can be blown from a BB guns but in reallity it whould stay a lot distance so it is practically out of threat.This is my idea to ask if anybody has dome any testing with SD as several have had with GD.BTW it seems that the 999 value is not the highter possible,it seems it can reach above 1000(i got 1004 SD for CVN).
About the CA price that is cheaper than DD any comments.In a JAP game i had a Super CA nuclear was 5 IC and a DDG with all tech tree costs 6 IC.
Epoe Nimistedt said:I have some doubts left yet but... you won, for now!
But what about increasing attack values for guided-missile warships? You are a CORE member, so your opinion is important to know.
I won I won!!!
I'll leave the attack values question over to people who know more about this subject then me.
MateDow said:
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.
999 might be a bit excessive, but the idea of giving carriers high SD to simulate the effect of the usual "back seat" position they should take in a battle doesn't sound bad.
Gwalcmai said:
I guess this would also depend on what carriers doctrine they choose.
It's a joke!?
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)
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!
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!
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.
The ancient mar said:
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)
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!
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!
The ancient mar said:
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'm giving CORE naval warfare a thorough and indepth run through with my AAR, so I'll be liking to chime in here once in a while with my observations.
-About the Carriers keeping themselves out of harms way.
In three battles, 2 vs The Dutch and 1 vs the Australian Navy. Southern Pacific, 1940.
I noticed that though the enemy usually had BB's or a good amount of Cruisers to fight against my fleets, which had 3 CVs and 9 surface ships each. In two batles ( fleets in the same province of course, with the CAGs limited range), my CVs were untouched as my surface ships took damage. And only Once was one of my carriers on the recieving end of heavy gunfire/damage.
Not sure what to conclude from that,
- I also noticed the drammatically decreased build times for Carriers and their Air Wings (of course, with Power projection/Naval Aviation ministers it was even more dramatic). It's now fairly inexpensive to field a massive carrier force with full air compliment. But the fact that it takes alot of long winded and costly research to make the CAGs effective, I guess addresses that issue a great deal.
-Two observations so far, but all and all I'm toally in love with the units and REALLY in depth and interesting Techs that the Naval mod incorporates. I think the ability to choose different design philsophines (fast BBs or bettered armoured BBs, etc) is fantastic. It's really a bang up job, anyone playing vanilla HOI has totally missed the boat, if you'll pardon the pun.
-About the Carriers keeping themselves out of harms way.
In three battles, 2 vs The Dutch and 1 vs the Australian Navy. Southern Pacific, 1940.
I noticed that though the enemy usually had BB's or a good amount of Cruisers to fight against my fleets, which had 3 CVs and 9 surface ships each. In two batles ( fleets in the same province of course, with the CAGs limited range), my CVs were untouched as my surface ships took damage. And only Once was one of my carriers on the recieving end of heavy gunfire/damage.
Not sure what to conclude from that,
- I also noticed the drammatically decreased build times for Carriers and their Air Wings (of course, with Power projection/Naval Aviation ministers it was even more dramatic). It's now fairly inexpensive to field a massive carrier force with full air compliment. But the fact that it takes alot of long winded and costly research to make the CAGs effective, I guess addresses that issue a great deal.
-Two observations so far, but all and all I'm toally in love with the units and REALLY in depth and interesting Techs that the Naval mod incorporates. I think the ability to choose different design philsophines (fast BBs or bettered armoured BBs, etc) is fantastic. It's really a bang up job, anyone playing vanilla HOI has totally missed the boat, if you'll pardon the pun.
Thanks!
I'm glad you enjoy the work we've done. Your AAR is very good too, even better because it's all naval battles! We're always open to suggestions so if you have anything to say just ask around!
I'm glad you enjoy the work we've done. Your AAR is very good too, even better because it's all naval battles! We're always open to suggestions so if you have anything to say just ask around!
Naval Stuff for 0.82
I have been doing some work on integrating all of the suggestions that have been posted on this and some of the other threads to make this a better mod. Here are some things that I am testing now...
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.
Increased Build Times- In response to all of the arguments in favor of increasing the building times for all types of ships, I have modified the stats to take that into account. All battleships have had their building times increased by 300 days. Other ships have lesser increases, but they are still proportional to their cost. The build cost has remained the same for the most part. The median battleship (Super Dreadnaught) still has the same IC cost as an infantry unit. This seems like a reasonable cost. The total cost of the ships increases due to the longer total time, but the single day cost goes down by one or two.
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.
Decreased Visibility Ratings- The largest visibility rating in the new files are 50 for large passenger liners and fast steamers. Warships range from 45 for Super Battleships and Super Carriers to 10 for Sloops (not Treaty Sloops).
If you want to be a playtester for these new modifications, drop me a PM with your e-mail address and I will send you a copy. In return, I would like some feedback about force levels, effectiveness of carriers, cruiser vs battleship combat, destroyer survivability and rate of combat. With this feedback, balance can be achieved faster than if I only do this myself. Thank you in advance for your help. MDow
I have been doing some work on integrating all of the suggestions that have been posted on this and some of the other threads to make this a better mod. Here are some things that I am testing now...
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.
Increased Build Times- In response to all of the arguments in favor of increasing the building times for all types of ships, I have modified the stats to take that into account. All battleships have had their building times increased by 300 days. Other ships have lesser increases, but they are still proportional to their cost. The build cost has remained the same for the most part. The median battleship (Super Dreadnaught) still has the same IC cost as an infantry unit. This seems like a reasonable cost. The total cost of the ships increases due to the longer total time, but the single day cost goes down by one or two.
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.
Decreased Visibility Ratings- The largest visibility rating in the new files are 50 for large passenger liners and fast steamers. Warships range from 45 for Super Battleships and Super Carriers to 10 for Sloops (not Treaty Sloops).
If you want to be a playtester for these new modifications, drop me a PM with your e-mail address and I will send you a copy. In return, I would like some feedback about force levels, effectiveness of carriers, cruiser vs battleship combat, destroyer survivability and rate of combat. With this feedback, balance can be achieved faster than if I only do this myself. Thank you in advance for your help. MDow
Quintis said:
I have been running some test games. Have you actually seen airplanes in naval combat? I know that it supposedly has been in HoI since 1.05, but haven't seen it. The effectiveness of carriers is dependant on the fact that surface ships are more vulnerable to air attack. I have noticed that the carriers tend to be the last ships engaged in the battles. They often are the last survivors of fleets which encounter battleships.
I think that we can conclude that ratings of around 20 are high enough to protect carriers in combination with the focus of damage on destroyers.
Carriers are more expensive in these new versions. A fleet carrier will take 710 days. About 300 days longer than the previous version. This will bring these carriers into the norm for most nations rate of construction rather than the United States rate.
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