Thoughts on naval combat after reading Hastings Operation Pedestal

[rob_mtl]

though that would require anti-air boats to actually work against land-based bombers)

Historically, anti-air ships were quite limited throughout the war in their effectiveness. They were decent at dissuading some bombers, but relatively ineffective at shooting planes down, even in the late war. The USA put as much AA on their ships as possible (as did the British late-war), but it was never enough. Something would always get through unless you destroyed the planes with fighters or--much more effectively--on the ground before they took off.

 

[Joshua Happytree]

Torpedo damage. Torpedoes don't feel very powerful in HOI4. A single hit from a torpedo, whether delivered by air, destroyer or submarine, could sink or incapacitate even the largest of warship in WW2.

CL-meta @Kayzer-i Anadolu is speaking about IS LA+Torp meta so torps are not weak at the very least. RL things may end up being bad game-wise.

 

[rob_mtl]

NAVs may be dangerous enough a threat even now it's just AI does not build enough of them leaving this cheese entirely for human consumption. But that does not even implies a rebalance, it's about AI priorities. E.g. ITA definitely builds too little of them yet wastes CIVs building NICs.

I'm not sure you need to rework navy entirely to solve this. I'd start with the AI priority as you suggest. I'd love to play an England game where the Axis hounds my fleet with NAVs. I remember in HOI3, you stayed the hell out of the North Sea as UK because you'd lose half your fleet. I'd like to see the AI use subs and NAVs more aggressively across the board.

 

[rob_mtl]

If you make Navy more important then you'd need to more or less equalize Axis and Allies in terms of initial Navy roster and/or give them an ability to ramp up to ENG / USA numbers. Now you have Axis that plays land combat first and Allies that CAN leverage the Navy to some extent. Equalizing them will take away this diversity.

I don't think you need to "equalize" Axis and Allies in terms of initial Navy, but I'm generally not a huge fan of "game balance". I don't think every country needs to have the same amount of content, the same chances of "winning" or the same balance of forces.

Playing as US, UK and Japan, your navy should be vital to defend access to overseas resources and to engage in any offensive actions. The same is not true for Italy, Germany and the Soviet Union. The route to Axis victory against the major naval powers should be control of the air.

In RL, Germany lacked the resources to build an airforce capable of imposing air superiority over the English Channel. The strategic advantage of the UK was only partially its surface fleet. Much more important was its immense merchant navy. Over 30% of all of the world's shipping tonnage was British in 1939--you couldn't build enough submarines to sink enough ships to starve Britain of its industrial power. And you couldn't win the air war without starving out the factories which by the early 1940s were building Hurricanes and Spitfires faster than Germany could build 109s.

I don't think Sea Lion should be impossible in-game by any means, but it should be a much more significant achievement, requiring advanced mastery of strategic (rather than tactical) warfare. Sink hundreds of convoys. Win a slow war of attrition in the air. Secure sources of fuel, aliminium, etc (rather than just building magic synthetic plants and getting unrealistic resource boosts from minor nations like Hungary and Romania).

I've always felt that there's a way to do this without taking away from current gameplay loops. I would love to see a gameplay settings menu that includes options to toggle on or off much more severe logistics penalties for example.

HOI4's design philosophy seems to be to make sure that a novice or intermediate can "win" the war as any major country, barring a few minor setbacks along the way. I would like to see the game more unforgiving for all sides.

I may come across as the sort of history-first roleplay player but what I'm going for here is not so much strict adherence to realism as a sense of strategic urgency and desperation that is lacking in the current game.

 

[Joshua Happytree]

I'd start with the AI priority as you suggest. I'd love to play an England game where the Axis hounds my fleet with NAVs.

As I said

Yet even with the number of NAVs ITA builds now:

1. ENG AI normally paints Central and Eastern Med in red or yellow at least.
2. In terms of Strike Forces ENG AI's (sic!) Mediterranean fleet is actually significantly weaker than all of RM forces. It's just ITA AI also paints at least Eastern Med red and locks up RM in ports.

IMHO this might be the result of balancing conflicting objectives and thus ending up being rather bad at everything.

1. There're players who prefer maximum challenge and those who RP / prefer historyish feel. If ITA goes all NAVs she'll control Med in no time. That's heresy for the latter.
2. For people who prefer maximum challenge everything depends on whose side they're playing. ITA going all NAVs is a healthy challenge for a player controlled ENG but for a GER it'll make the game more boring -- you don't need to save ITA from its follies in the Med
3. ITA going all NAV will have far reaching consequences:
   1. ENG will fight for some time (not for long) in the North Africa so AI ENG may have enough time to send (some?) TFs to Med. ITA may end decimating half of all RN, not just Med fleet. That would mean:
      1. Sealion will become much easier.
      2. D-Day will be very difficult if not impossible.
      3. ENG DDs will go down first so no DDs for convoy screening that ENG is so dependent on.
   2. After some time ENG will inevitably crumble not just in North Africa but in the whole of the continent.
      1. As of now Commonwealth keeps meagre forces in Africa so Axis AI may decide to march all the way South and overrun South Africa.
      2. If the previous does not happen then it'll mean Commonwealth AI has sent lots of divs to Africa leaving the Isles undefended against Sealion and all but forbidding D-Day.

IMHO the way to go for PDX is to allow players to fine-tune per-country AI strategies in detail -- all kinds of priorities from research to PP. Or better helping EAI do this for them IMHO it's more feasible than making HOI4 AI smart After some time HOI4 SP becomes rather boring. Even RP aside AI doesn't know in advance what extreme strategy human player will use. So AI sticks to jack of all trades, master-of-none and loses to EVERY possible "all-in" path.

 

[Cornutus]

The route to Axis victory against the major naval powers should be control of the air.

Not necessarily. The German navy severely underperfomed in WW2, especially in 1939-1942.

There are multiple things HOI4 does not simulate at all:

1. German naval torpedoes having built-in design flaws: up to 70% failures to detonate after hitting the enemy. The problem was only solved in 1942 due to one crazy u-boat captain, that, against all instructions, disassembled a torpedo while on a raiding duty in the middle of the Atlantic.

Imagine if that would be solved by 1939?

2. Kaiserlichmarine worship. The head of the navy, Raeder, was a staunch worshipper of the Kaiserlichmarine, and saw "preserving the spirit of Admiral Tirpitz and his family" as more important than actual combat effectiveness.

For that reason, he had a "ideological" reason to favor building battleships to do a "Jutland revenge" on the British.

That also led to putting down anyone who criticized the German WW1 navy and even their relatives. For example Raeder's ex-best friend's son, Wegener, was secretly forbidden to serve in a non-technical specialist capacity, for his father's criticism of Tirpitz's naval strategy.

3. Raeder "family company" approach that extended into private life of the navy.

It went to the point of Raeder and Hitler mutually ignoring each other for a few months in the summer of 1939 due to literally "Raeder not liking Hitler's naval aide's marriage partner choice to the point of kicking him out of the navy. and pissing off Hitler". Good job man, the war was two months away.

4. The navy had problems using naval aviation as there was a conflict of who gets control over it: Kriegsmarine or Luftwaffe.

With the Navy being weaker in the conflict, while the Luftwaffe having naval domination as a second-rate goal after ground troop support.

5. All Kriegsmarine programs were designed with the intent of war after 1942. When war began in 1939, it was caught off guard and had nothing to do but to do improv.

You probably saw the German navy perform at 25% of their actual potential in WW2.

In RL, Germany lacked the resources to build an airforce capable of imposing air superiority over the English Channel. The strategic advantage of the UK was only partially its surface fleet. Much more important was its immense merchant navy. Over 30% of all of the world's shipping tonnage was British in 1939--you couldn't build enough submarines to sink enough ships to starve Britain of its industrial power.

Germany focused on subs as an improv starting in September 1939, when they realized there was no other way they can put up a fight.

And you couldn't win the air war without starving out the factories which by the early 1940s were building Hurricanes and Spitfires faster than Germany could build 109s.

The problem was not that.

The German Luftwaffe was built for the "European theatre of land warfare" and completely unsuited for long-range operations. The Bf-109s simply did not have the range to effectively fight in the channel in 1939-1940. We can check up on France 1940 to see how well the Hurricanes & Spitfires did there.

If Germans would have traded their Bf-109s for A6M Zeros, you would have a very different scenario in the Battle of Britain. Though maybe a different one in France.

I don't think Sea Lion should be impossible in-game by any means, but it should be a much more significant achievement, requiring advanced mastery of strategic (rather than tactical) warfare. Sink hundreds of convoys. Win a slow war of attrition in the air.

Sealion would have been a lot easier than the Normandy landings for sure.

After all, you can check how Germans managed to sneak Scharnhorst & Gneisenau BCs out of Brest right down the channel in 1942 (Operation Cerberus) to see who really controlled it, even after the Battle of Britain ended and Barbarossa began.

The main problems are connected to weather and have a hard time being simulated in HOI4: the channel has seasonal storms and generally a lot depends on weather (a curse of the Spanish Great Armada).

D-day became possible due to Allied meteorologists finding a "window" of a few hours of optimal weather for the landings, and even then we all know what happened to the "temporary ports" days after the landing succeeded (spoiler: they were washed away).

Germans simply did not have the time to launch it, nor did they want to risk failing so badly when there are a lot of other places where they can beat the Brits easier (Greece, Cyrenaica)

 

[Kanitatlan]

I don't really have anything to add to the main discussion but I think these two comments deserve a response

3) Screening is handled strangely. Screening destroyers existed to protect larger, slower ships (carriers, battleships, heavy cruiser, light cruisers) from torpedo attack. In order to fulfil this role adequately, they needed to be able to detect submarines. Screens without sonar should be basically useless against submarines.

This is not correct. The purpose of screens is to protect the capital ships from torpedoes which doesn't really mean submarines. The submarine with WW2 technology is an ambush attacker only as it was seriously slower than surface units when they are travelling at battle speed. This means that the principal mission of screens is to protect against surface ship torpedoes and this is literally what light cruisers were invented for. Original destroyers were torpedo boat destroyers (and hence screens) but they soon took over the torpedo role at which point light cruisers were introduced as destroyer destroyers.

I don't have strong opinion one way or another, but I feel it should be clearly stated that Pearl Harbor decided nothing, such decisive battle it was.

Pearl Harbor was a decisive battle, just not decisive in the sense of directly influencing the final result of the war. What it did do was that it meant that Japan could expand the territory it controlled over the next 6 months with very little risk of enemy interference. This meant they could progress on a broad front attack in many places at once. If the US fleet hadn't been paralysed then the would never have dared to disperse their fleet so widely during this period.

 

[rob_mtl]

Not necessarily. The German navy severely underperfomed in WW2, especially in 1939-1942.

There are multiple things HOI4 does not simulate at all:

1. German naval torpedoes having built-in design flaws: up to 70% failures to detonate after hitting the enemy. The problem was only solved in 1942 due to one crazy u-boat captain, that, against all instructions, disassembled a torpedo while on a raiding duty in the middle of the Atlantic.

Imagine if that would be solved by 1939?

2. Kaiserlichmarine worship. The head of the navy, Raeder, was a staunch worshipper of the Kaiserlichmarine, and saw "preserving the spirit of Admiral Tirpitz and his family" as more important than actual combat effectiveness.

For that reason, he had a "ideological" reason to favor building battleships to do a "Jutland revenge" on the British.

That also led to putting down anyone who criticized the German WW1 navy and even their relatives. For example Raeder's ex-best friend's son, Wegener, was secretly forbidden to serve in a non-technical specialist capacity, for his father's criticism of Tirpitz's naval strategy.

3. Raeder "family company" approach that extended into private life of the navy.

It went to the point of Raeder and Hitler mutually ignoring each other for a few months in the summer of 1939 due to literally "Raeder not liking Hitler's naval aide's marriage partner choice to the point of kicking him out of the navy. and pissing off Hitler". Good job man, the war was two months away.

4. The navy had problems using naval aviation as there was a conflict of who gets control over it: Kriegsmarine or Luftwaffe.

With the Navy being weaker in the conflict, while the Luftwaffe having naval domination as a second-rate goal after ground troop support.

5. All Kriegsmarine programs were designed with the intent of war after 1942. When war began in 1939, it was caught off guard and had nothing to do but to do improv.

You probably saw the German navy perform at 25% of their actual potential in WW2.


Germany focused on subs as an improv starting in September 1939, when they realized there was no other way they can put up a fight.



The problem was not that.

The German Luftwaffe was built for the "European theatre of land warfare" and completely unsuited for long-range operations. The Bf-109s simply did not have the range to effectively fight in the channel in 1939-1940. We can check up on France 1940 to see how well the Hurricanes & Spitfires did there.

If Germans would have traded their Bf-109s for A6M Zeros, you would have a very different scenario in the Battle of Britain. Though maybe a different one in France.



Sealion would have been a lot easier than the Normandy landings for sure.

After all, you can check how Germans managed to sneak Scharnhorst & Gneisenau BCs out of Brest right down the channel in 1942 (Operation Cerberus) to see who really controlled it, even after the Battle of Britain ended and Barbarossa began.

The main problems are connected to weather and have a hard time being simulated in HOI4: the channel has seasonal storms and generally a lot depends on weather (a curse of the Spanish Great Armada).

D-day became possible due to Allied meteorologists finding a "window" of a few hours of optimal weather for the landings, and even then we all know what happened to the "temporary ports" days after the landing succeeded (spoiler: they were washed away).

Germans simply did not have the time to launch it, nor did they want to risk failing so badly when there are a lot of other places where they can beat the Brits easier (Greece, Cyrenaica)

The Germans had no landing craft and no capacity to sustain an overseas invasion such as Sea Lion. Even if they were lucky enough to land a small force, they would be isolated and out of supplies and ammunition within days. Britain was by no means defenseless, and it is almost definite that in the unlikely event of a successful crossing, Germany would have been pushed back to the sea.

Weather was certainly a factor, but Germany was never anywhere close to having the material and logistical infrastructure to support an invasion of the UK. Sneaking two raiders through the channel and landing an invasion force are not equivalent tasks.

As for the Kriegsmarine's long-term prospects, the various plans and contingencies for a later war could indeed have resulted in a stronger Germany navy (like war starting in 1942). But the Royal Navy was by no means idle, and British shipbuilding capacity far exceeded German shipbuilding, to say nothing of American shipbuilding which by the end of the war would exceed both combined. Had the war been delayed and Germany built more ships, the UK would have had more time to finish even more ships and be even more prepared. The Germans learned this the hard way in the First War and were foolish to even attempt to compete with an island nation for whom the navy was the senior service valued above all else. Britain's shipbuilding slowed during the interwar period because of the political expedience of budget cuts. Had Germany appeared to be a more serious threat, the British government would have quickly cast aside any misgivings to maintain the naval balance of power.

There is simply no plausible scenario where the German navy comes out on top.

 

[rob_mtl]

this is literally what light cruisers were invented for

"Light cruisers" were a product of the naval treaties after WW1. Cruisers were not divided into heavy/capital vs light/screen in real life. Cruisers were considered capital ships by most navies. Their role was varied, ranging from destroyer leader and commerce raiding to anti-air and command and control in task forces. So-called "light" cruisers were simply ships that had lower tonnage to conform with the treaties. To give an example the British Town class cruisers are considered light cruisers in HOI4, but they were largely used as capital ships functionally by the Royal Navy and almost always protected by a destroyer screen.

Cruisers were inadequate for ASW because they were bigger and slower moving targets than destroyers, which could more easily evade torpedoes and pursue submarines. Cruisers could not operate safely in contested waters without a destroyer screen.

Over the course of WW2, cruisers and battleships were largely supplanted by carriers, destroyers and corvettes/frigates. The concept of a ship that was faster than a battleship but more well-armoured than a destroyer did not prove particularly useful in the age of aviation, and over time destroyers filled practically every role that cruisers had previously filled and more. Today's navies barely make use of the "cruiser" designation.

If HOI4's meta wanted to align with real life, the endgame "meta" would be carriers, destroyers, subs and other smaller vessels like corvettes. Everything else would be a waste of dockyards. Certainly, the various navies made creative use of what they ended up with, but given the chance they all would have traded heavy surface ships for carriers or more destroyers, of which you could never have enough.

 

[Joshua Happytree]

"Light cruisers" were a product of the naval treaties after WW1

Are you really sure CLs did not exist before and during WWII?

Cruisers were not divided into heavy/capital vs light/screen in real life

Gosh, then why have different hull classification then?

Cruisers were inadequate for ASW because they were bigger and slower moving targets than destroyers, which could more easily evade torpedoes and pursue submarines.

May be CLs were simply an overshoot for ASW and ASW tasks didn't require such a speed, endurance, main caliber guns etc.?

Over the course of WW2, cruisers and battleships were largely supplanted by carriers, destroyers and corvettes/frigates.

destroyers filled practically every role that cruisers had previously filled and more. Today's navies barely make use of the "cruiser" designation.

Nope, unlike BBs cruisers were extensively built after WWII. They didn't disappear even now -- though Type 055 is classified as DDG by PLAN, it's CG by NATO standards. Which is unerstandable since it has 13K t displacement unlike 7.1-7.5K of Type 052x. USN also believes they need CGs but it's always budget, priorities etc. E.g. they've already started to rebuild early Arleigh Burke flights into more specialized Air Defence command roles because despite Ticos venerable age newer Arleigh Burkes do not possess such a cruiser-class capabilites.

 

[CaptainBruh]

the strangest part of hoi4 is seeing torpedo bombers do extremely low damage to a ship, sometimes 5% on an enemy destroyer. how did that happen? either the torpedo hits and causes massive damage, or it doesn't.

 

[rob_mtl]

the strangest part of hoi4 is seeing torpedo bombers do extremely low damage to a ship, sometimes 5% on an enemy destroyer. how did that happen? either the torpedo hits and causes massive damage, or it doesn't.

Exactly. Torpedoes should either cripple, sink or miss ships entirely.

 

[rob_mtl]

Are you really sure CLs did not exist before and during WWII?

Gosh, then why have different hull classification then?

May be CLs were simply an overshoot for ASW and ASW tasks didn't require such a speed, endurance, main caliber guns etc.?


Nope, unlike BBs cruisers were extensively built after WWII. They didn't disappear even now -- though Type 055 is classified as DDG by PLAN, it's CG by NATO standards. Which is unerstandable since it has 13K t displacement unlike 7.1-7.5K of Type 052x. USN also believes they need CGs but it's always budget, priorities etc. E.g. they've already started to rebuild early Arleigh Burke flights into more specialized Air Defence command roles because despite Ticos venerable age newer Arleigh Burkes do not possess such a cruiser-class capabilites.

Light cruisers existed, but they were invented as a classification to fit the naval treaties *after* WW1. Participants were limited by the number and tonnage of large cruisers ("heavy" cruisers) but allowed to build more "light" cruisers. If the treaties hadn't stipulated that, all participants would have opted to build the heavier ships in almost all cases. When the treaties were abandoned, the UK, the USA and other countries cancelled most of their "light" cruiser designs and replaced them with heavier designs. For an example of this, compare the British 1928 County-class "heavy" cruisers with the 1936 Town Class "light" cruisers. Many of the Town class would end up being heavier than the Counties by the time they were commissioned.

Regardless, the ships classified as "light cruisers" by HOI4 were by no means adequate escort or screening vessels. They were simply smaller, faster capital ships. Their role was closer to a BB than a DD. Like battleships, they were very vulnerable to submarine and air attack and would, in Paradox terms, fight in the "back line" in surface engagements. They were used in carrier task forces because unlike older BBs, they could keep pace with modern carriers, but the whole notion of heavy ships escorting carriers verged on superstition. All navies, including the US, were petrified of the idea of carriers coming face to face with heavy surface ships, so they usually sent something heavy along with their carriers, just in case they messed up and got within gunnery range of an enemy capital ship. In practice, sufficient air reconnaissance meant that the late-war carrier battles were by and large air battles, not surface engagements.

I think the broader point here is that it really does not make sense in-game that light cruisers are a sort of super-destroyer screening vessel.

Yes, navies continued to build them, but you have to remember that naval design takes years, if not decades to adapt to new technological realities. All of the interwar cruiser designs ("light" and "heavy") were out of step with the needs of WW2 navies. Many were constructed, and compromises were made to make use of these awkward vessels wherever possible.

 

[Joshua Happytree]

Light cruisers existed, but they were invented as a classification to fit the naval treaties *after* WW1

You don't need to retell how Fleet Treaties worked, just decide if light cruisers existed during WWI or they were invented after. You can't have it both ways

https://naval-encyclopedia.com/ww1/royal-navy-1914.php "136 Cruisers -- The term encompassed cruisers (thee rates), armoured cruisers, protected cruisers, and scout/light cruisers."

Participants were limited by the number and tonnage of large cruisers ("heavy" cruisers) but allowed to build more "light" cruisers

Regardless, the ships classified as "light cruisers" by HOI4 were by no means adequate escort or screening vessels. They were simply smaller, faster capital ships.

1. The first of "naval treaties after WWI" is Washington Naval Treaty of 1922. It specifically excludes ALL cruisers from capital ship category. You probably mix most well know Second London Treaty terminology with what really was signed after WWI.
2. Light cruisers are excluded from capital ship category even in Second London Naval Treaty so they can't be "smaller, faster" of the latter.
3. Again CLs existed long before all of these treaties.

They were simply smaller, faster capital ships. Their role was closer to a BB than a DD.

IMHO you fundamentally misunderstands the roles of different classes of ships. All cruisers had their own niche (at least before BCs when it was somewhat blurred with fast BBs) and CLs could have never ever dreamed of "being closer to BBs".

it really does not make sense in-game that light cruisers are a sort of super-destroyer screening vessel.

IMHO you misunderstand CL role in the game as well. The main role of CLs is to decimate enemy DDs screen, exactly what they were meant to do IRL as well (as @Kanitatlan said). Why use CLs as a pure screen if you can get the same thing in DD for a fraction of the cost?

Yes, navies continued to build them, but you have to remember that naval design takes years, if not decades to adapt to new technological realities. All of the interwar cruiser designs ("light" and "heavy") were out of step with the needs of WW2 navies. Many were constructed, and compromises were made to make use of these awkward vessels wherever possible.

What decades? CGN Long Beach was designed during WWII times?

 

[PK_AZ]

They were simply smaller, faster capital ships.

According to Second London Treaty, cruisers were limited to 10.000 tonnes of displacement, and guns no bigger than 203mm. Battleships (in treaty words: "capital ships") were limited to 35.000 tonnes of displacement (three and a half times more!) and guns no bigger than 356mm.
I have to ask: what do you mean by cruisers being capital ships?

 

[Kanitatlan]

I think it is perhaps worth pointing out that whilst modern non capital ships are typically designated as destroyers they are all effectively cruiser scale vessels. This isn't just a matter of size it is also a reflection of weapon mix. A WW2 destroyer lacked the scale of anti-ship offensive power that modern destroyers have. This clearly shifts modern destroyers to be able to fulfill the traditional cruiser role as well as the traditional destroyer role. Don't be fooled by the names, large modern destroyers are really cruisers but the entire class of ships have become fully multi-purpose with no solid role separation. There are other designations such as frigates but these are really just small destroyers without the full range of different capabilities. Equiping a ship for decent anti-submarine, anti-aircraft and anti-ship capability requires quite a large vessel and hence there are some smaller vessels with less range of capability. I suppose the real big change post WW2 is that guns and torpedoes have been replaced by a single weapon system - guided missiles. The other things worth remarking on is that ship armour is no longer a thing. The competition between firepower and armour has now been solidly won by firepower. This further reduces the range of ships anyone would build.

If we were to model this in HOI4 then modern fleets would probably stop having destroyer and cruiser designations but might still have exactly the same (if not broader) selection of different hulls but calling them all destroyers but with different numbers of weapon slots.

Just think of it like this. WW1 was still the naval equivalent of Napoleonic troops standing it tight formations blasting away at each other. Torpedo boats (and then destroyers) wasn't much different from the French introducing skirmishers. This has transitioned to modern naval warfare where it is now all a game of snipers. There is no need for ships to be kept very close to each other apart from the ability to share counter-measures. The WW2 style screens can now be 50+ miles away trying to make sure the enemy doesn't get close to your carriers. [I know this paragraph is a rather crude analogy with major weaknesses but it makes the point, please don't criticise too much]

 

[LordWahu]

Don't know whos's discussing but Naval Invasion support IS bombardment. And you don't need to issue an order, you can just park a TF next to the tile where land combat happens. It provides up to 25% malus to enemy stats so it'd be stupid not to use it if you can face an enemy fleet if got unlucky.

Naval support represents only firing on troops during active operations. They don't represent actions like the bombardment of Malta, the attacks on Henderson's Field that lead to all 3 battles of Guadalcanal, none of the Japanese coastal raids, etc. etc. etc. Operations that defined the Pacific theater, and the best way to make a weak force able to act against a strong force

 

[Joshua Happytree]

I think it is perhaps worth pointing out that whilst modern non capital ships are typically designated as destroyers they are all effectively cruiser scale vessels.

I wouldn't say so, displacement is ever growing but except exotic Russian fleet ships the only 100% proof cruisers are Ticos and Type 055. Standard displacement range for the latest 100% DDs are 7-9K tons except for the latest flights of Arleigh Burke (close to 10K) and some Japanese large DDs (10K).

Don't be fooled by the names, large modern destroyers are really cruisers but the entire class of ships have become fully multi-purpose with no solid role separation.

I agree that modern DDs do the job that Cx USED TO DO in WWII but if you take current requirements there're clear distictions. "True" CGs have significantly bigger ammo loads AND CIC facilities able to support command of group of ships.

the entire class of ships have become fully multi-purpose with no solid role separation

That's certainly not so. Distinct AA and ASW DDs still exist they're just not on USN roster

There are other designations such as frigates but these are really just small destroyers without the full range of different capabilities

Again not so, FFs are not DDs. Modern FFs differ from DDs by much limited range, very often lower speeds, very reduced AA capabilities and sensors. And certainly ammo loads are much smaller as they're normally about 5K tons. In terms of WWII terminology and role they're DEs not DDs (they were reclassified as such by USN after all ). Specifically modern FFs are not made for long voyages and providing full-spectrum warfare unlike DDs.

 

[Joshua Happytree]

Naval support represents only firing on troops during active operations. They don't represent actions like the bombardment of Malta, the attacks on Henderson's Field that lead to all 3 battles of Guadalcanal, none of the Japanese coastal raids, etc. etc. etc. Operations that defined the Pacific theater, and the best way to make a weak force able to act against a strong force

1. You said there were discussions about adding naval bombardment to ships' roles. Bombardment is a specific term in the context of HOI4 and ships are ALREADY able to do it.
2. Historical digressions are good but they have zero meaning without mapping them onto HOI4 model. The closest I may think of to what you mentioned is giving ships a full range of air missions -- strat bombing, logi- and port-strikes. IMHO it's a kinda questionnable use of dev resources because it's the same as air just you invest a hell of research and IC and then you're left with useless floating things after your combat moves one tile away from coast.

IMHO it's so difficult to find a more important role for the Navy is because HOI4 does a very good job depicting RL WWII Navy mission. HOI4 Navy is useless for ETO? Well it was really useless IRL. CVs to support island-hopping for PTO? They're shown perfectly including CVs' advantage over capitals in naval combat. Choking UK on resources? Convoy raiding / escort -- strangulating ENG is a valid strategy. IMHO to make Navy really important one needs to forget WWII context and go back to 18th-17th centuries at least. WWII just does not offer any major thing to do for Navy beyond what it's already doing in HOI4.

 

[Demonthese]

The naval simulation as a whole is just really inconsistent and I would say continues to be the games greatest failure. Ultimately it's absurd that you can have an invasion actively fighting for the beaches and, instead of simply moving your navy to the sea tile the invasion is coming in from, you have to put it on convoy raiding and hope that it finds the invasion and not some random convoy passing through is just extremely dumb. Indeed ships at sea don't even provide any zone control unless on a mission. Though ships at sea can block strait movement. Combined with the extreme ease of naval invasions at arbitrary points (as opposed to IRL where they were major undertakings that needed specific geographic/oceanographic conditions) and the magic knowledge of invasions (and raids, really something that should have been integrated with spy agencies to get the warning) and all sorts of other silliness and naval just feels bad to play SP. Way too easy to game with subs/nav bombers. While I don't think missions need to be removed naval needs some sort of system that's not abstracted away where naval assets are assigned to and engage in specific, concrete, and singular operations. As is I just don't think it's a solvable problem when "ships doing things" is synonymous with "ships banished to the shadow realm". It works for air because air combat but it just leads to too much silliness with naval.