why there are no frigates and corvettes in hoi4?

[rhuan]

I believe the reasoning the devs have given is representing ships smaller then destroyers just means Even more micro to be doing- even more processing for the game to handle, so they cut all that out and made destroyers the smallest surface vessel available. And frankly I think that's a reasonable choice. Sure it sucks you can't build river navies or super small ships to lay your mines, but microing Navy and refitting Navy is already a nightmare without the addition of ships smaller then destroyers.

Indeed this makes sense, knowing the AI, they would flood the waters and make it very laggy

In the Soviet Navy, the "Frigate" class did not exist, since ships were classified by their purpose, not by size. At the same time, the "Frigate" class corresponded to Soviet anti-submarine and patrol ships.

I had some research and did find that Frigates and Destroyers tend to me the same thing in some navies, while being different in others

This is a key point but there is also the issue that most smaller ships were special craft with specific duties that the game doesn't fully simulate. For example, the Flower class corvette, probably the prolific smaller ship, was a dedicate convoy escort. It was in game terms a small slow destroyer - single gun, asdic, radar, depth charges, sometimes light AA. The only thing the game doesn't support is building a slow destroyer with exactly the right range for convoy escort work and it is telling the whole range of this type of vessel really weren't destroyers; they were based on long range fishing hulls (and their engines) without the usual destroyer 'designed for speed'. This was job that normal destroyers had difficulty with as the requirement was to be able to sail with a convoy from one side of the atlantic to the other. Regular destroyers couldn't do that but the in game convoy escort mission doesn't require it. However, the convoy escort mission does require ships to have sufficient range to reach the zone covered and that might require a better ship where an old destroyer with a slower long range engine would suffice.

There are a whole bunch of other missions for these small vessels such as coastal patrol, short range minelaying and sweeping, coastal naval dominance and things like that. Things could be added to the game to represent stuff like this but the underlying issue isn't lack of the ships types being in the game, it is lack of game mechanisms to simulate what they did. Just on the mine warfare front you would have to add a whole range of complexity about exactly where mines were being laid if you wanted to introduce the small vessels involved.

i believe this is true, before more ships, we should have a naval game more granular and realistic.

 

[DaReal-BurningDeath]

What would be the game experience benefit outside of Roleplaying and/or realism?

 

[Joshua Happytree]

I had some research and did find that Frigates and Destroyers tend to me the same thing in some navies, while being different in others

You should compare FFs / DDs of the same:

1. Navy / country because Navy composition is dictated by geography, budget constraints and political goals so what would count as DD for one Navy is no more than FF for another.
2. Generation as right now we're in the phase of rapidly growing capabilities. Navies adopted hi-lo system both for DDs and FFs so hi FFs of the next generation may have capabilities similar to lo DDs of the previous.
3. Role whereas Navy goes for specialized designs instead of one-size-fits-all generalist ships, e.g. French Navy.

But there's a broad consensus where FFs vs. DDs are going. FFs gradually take up the role of fleet escorts that formerly belonged to DDs whereas DDs move into former cruiser turf. Yet there're differences:

1. Since sensor and electronics now constitute enormous share of the ship cost FFs normally have cheaper packages than DDs. But to see the difference you need to know specific radars, e.g. there're now "cheap" Aegises and "expensive" ones.
2. DDs are moving into the role of:
   1. Medium-to-long range AD platform including ABM thus expensive electronics. Current "modern" generation FFs normally have only short-range AD. Next generation of FFs will in select cases shift towards short-to-medium yet hi-end AD is still not planned for FFs.
   2. Long range land strikes platform. This and the previous one dictate times more VLSes than FFs have.
   3. Normally but not always DDs will still have bigger caliber guns for shore bombardment rather than ship-to-ship combat.

The line is really blurring between DDs and cruisers where expensive DDs become cruisers but not between DDs and FFs. E.g. older flights of Arleigh Burke are not being fitted with fleet AD coordination capabilities and will take over what Tico has been doing.

 

[Androbey]

While the Ship hull (function) of FF, SC, TB would seem to be viable, to actually implement them would be IMO a UX nightmare.
All of these small hulls would have maybe 3-4 restricted weapon slots and also restricted engine and "armor" slots. If any "armor" slots.

IMO the current Destroyer Hulls should not allow armor at all.

 

[General Tao]

This is already modelled in game with the "destroyer" hull. As others have mentioned, simply design a "destroyer" with fewer modules and it is functionally equivalent to a frigate etc.

The main counter-argument presented here, the disparity between SS and DDs, I agree with but doesn't require any heavy rework or over complication, just simple tweaks to the IC formula, e.g. have DDs become compoundingly more expensive the more slots they use to represent that the hulls are actually different, and limit refitting of DDs to equivalent-slot vessels (maybe introduce some kind of cheap placeholder slot to plan for future refitting). And yes, substantially increase SS IC requirements.

Asking for another hull class is like asking for more granularity on infantry weapons to include MGs, mortars, uniforms... it just doesn't add anything that isn't already modelled except for complexity for complexities sake.

Save the dev effort for more fundamental naval issues, like reworking the entire screen/capital/carrier rank system.