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.

 

[Kanitatlan]

1. Corvettes can protect shipping in the Meds or Baltic but corvettes cannot protect transatlantic or transpacific routes by definition or they won't be called corvettes. You try to build a corvette for that, you end up with a frigate or a destroyer.
2. What's so special about corvettes? There's a ton of other hull classes not represented in the game because a ton of them will be a nightmare to manage for a player. HOI4 is not a pure naval warfare game, one has to draw a line somewhere.

This is a misunderstanding of corvettes from WW2. The whole designation of corvette pretty much originates with the Flower class that was specifically designed as an anti-submarine escort vessel that could sail with convoys across the Atlantic. What is special about corvettes is that the ship was specifically designed for this purpose and based on a civilian design. It was cheap, slow and fairly long ranged. And, as was said elsewhere in this thread, the lack of simulation of this type of ship significantly damages the simulation of submarine warfare.

However, the one thing I wouldn't support is the game simply allowing the building of corvettes because the game would need ludicrous numbers. having said that, I think there should be something, We could have a corvette flotilla as a unit type and have it only capable of convoy escort missions.

 

[Dimmie_Dumm]

Thinking in terms of fixing what is currently fixable using existing mechanics. What about a module that increases the range of a light hull while also reducing the cost, speed, hit points, and attack stats? Seems like that would accomplish the goal of modeling cheap ASW ships.

Another thought would be abstracting them entirely. Add an option to buy convoys that include a dedicated escort component giving them increased ability to fight back. Basically a maritime armored train.

Both ways are good, yes. I've been doing quite a lot of modding along these lines lately; no new hulls are required to introduce new (missing) ship classes. Similarly, the game doesn't need any fake hulls either such as Panzerschiffs to replicate what they were historically, but that's another topic.

The second one requires access to the code obviously. I personally find it weird that controlled ports project no naval power whatsoever, and I'd abstract any small craft right in there to provide at least a token defense in home waters. This way, frigates and corvettes and whatnot can be asbtracted to be produced en masse like equipment (e.g. convoys themselves), and the player's agenda might be only to set deployment priorities per port, much like it works for repairs now.

Basically, the problems arising from lack of stuff like this is clearly observable with... paratroopers. A battalion can capture huge cities all on its own, like it's Hauptsturmfuhrer Klingenberg himself reborn and copied. In reality, such irresponsible pounces normally result in attackers getting simply arrested. Subs operating unsupported too close to populated areas for too long should similarly lead to some sort of collision, much like it happened historically with the end of the Happy Time off the American Eastern coast, to which full-fledged DDs contributed only fractionally, with a far greater role played by innumerable smaller vessels.

 

[Joshua Happytree]

This is a misunderstanding of corvettes from WW2. The whole designation of corvette pretty much originates with the Flower class that was specifically designed as an anti-submarine escort vessel that could sail with convoys across the Atlantic.

You're right. My statement was based on modern definition what corvette is and in WWII times it was different.

What is special about corvettes is that the ship was specifically designed for this purpose and based on a civilian design. It was cheap, slow and fairly long ranged. And, as was said elsewhere in this thread, the lack of simulation of this type of ship significantly damages the simulation of submarine warfare.

1. DEs/FFs were also designed for the same role -- escorting merchant convoys. Corvettes in their WWII definition were not built because they had a role different from FFs / DEs. They were created as "bad" / reduced capability FFs to save money. What's the point of having one class of ships if it does the same thing that in-game cheap DDs are doing (but they're actually DEs)? You balance corvettes to be more efficient in terms of capabilities vs. IC and everybody will forget about DDs/DEs and build corvettes. You make them cheaper but with very much reduced capabilities and no one will use them and will go on with DDs/DEs? What's the point?
2. IMHO there's still no answer to the quesion why corvettes specifically? There were armed merchants, MTBs / PTs, FACs, mine-sweepers, mine-layers, replenishment ships and the list will go on. If you say HOI4 is not a 100% accurate in representing all the hull classes available back then, yes, that's true. But if one adds all of them then how a player should find time to manage the rest of the things in the game?

 

[Kanitatlan]

1. DEs/FFs were also designed for the same role -- escorting merchant convoys. Corvettes in their WWII definition were not built because they had a role different from FFs / DEs. They were created as "bad" / reduced capability FFs to save money. What's the point of having one class of ships if it does the same thing that in-game cheap DDs are doing (but they're actually DEs)? You balance corvettes to be more efficient in terms of capabilities vs. IC and everybody will forget about DDs/DEs and build corvettes. You make them cheaper but with very much reduced capabilities and no one will use them and will go on with DDs/DEs? What's the point?
2. IMHO there's still no answer to the question why corvettes specifically? There were armed merchants, MTBs / PTs, FACs, mine-sweepers, mine-layers, replenishment ships and the list will go on. If you say HOI4 is not a 100% accurate in representing all the hull classes available back then, yes, that's true. But if one adds all of them then how a player should find time to manage the rest of the things in the game?

I would argue that DE represents a slightly different capability. There are nuances in ships capability here that ought to be discussed if the game is to simulate the overall naval capability. The WW2 corvette, or let's just say the Flower class, was specifically a ship with the capability of escorting normal convoys throughout their entire journey and provide sufficient offensive power against submarines to suppress a submarine attack. DE were more expensive and more capable with, specifically, better speed so they could be used offensively in defence of convoys; they could go off and chase a submarine then catch up with the convoy afterwards. Flower class would struggle to catch up if left behind any significant distance. A full on destroyer had the speed to escort a proper fast convoy (eg troop transport) but poorly adapted for normal escort work. I think the point is that the game doesn't have an actual mechanism for simulating the very large numbers of pure escort ships and maybe there should be something to rebalance submarines but, in my opinion, simply introducing more actual ships is going to be the wrong way to go about it. If anything, the game would benefit from being able to build escort groups as individual units.

I think the key point really is that the only part of the battle of the Atlantic that is properly simulated is the u-boats. None of the defensive measures are properly covered and as some posters have indicated this is a weakness in the game because it gives the advantage to the u-boats. To take a different example, running air patrols against u-boats doesn't help stop them finding my convoys and yet that was their main purpose.