Wrong and Missing Ships: How to correct them ALL

[Ketchup & friends]

I don´t know if someone has posted this before, but I would like to comment that the two german cruisers Brummer and Bremse were in service during the first world war, and were sunk by their crews in 1919 at Scapa Flow. They should not be in the game. I scuttle them every time I play as Germany.

I always assumed those were oversized minelayers they put together, but I'm not seeing any signs of cruiser-sized minelayers other than a captured Norwegian one (oddly enough named Brummer). Nice catch.

These are NOT the WW1 cruisers of the same name but new TS build in the early 1930s. Bremse and Brummer were both designed to be used as auxiliary minelayers in wartime and were sunk by the Royal Navy.
That means you don't need to scuttle them.
But since you've adressed the Kreigsmarine TS, what about the Hugo Zeye? she was under construction in august 1939, but as a Turkish merchant ship. The KM seized her when the war began and finished her as a torpedo TS.
Waht do you think, should we propose adding a Hugo Zeye class and putting the Hugo Zeye into the german construciton queue?

 

[sekelsenmat]

Thank you very much! Mostly agree on the your proposals except two points
- Leningrad & Minsk Class: 2x Light Gun II would be too powerful. This should be reserved for ships with 8 guns (like Tribal, Mogador and Porter class) or especially powerful guns (like 5x6"). But these classes had 5x13cm guns, while Gnevny and Storozhevoy(in-game Soobrazitelnyi) classes had 4x13cm, just one less gun. The T2 torpedoes sound good, we'll propose that.

Ok, I might lack the overall view. Didn't know that 8 gun destroyers existed. I compared it to Torpedo Boats/Destroyer Escorts and similar which would also have 1 Light Gun and end up with a similar Light Attack, so I was thinking that Nr of Gun / 3 would give the Nr of Light Turrets, so 5 guns -> 2 turrets, 4 guns -> 1 turret. But again I was thinking only about Soviet ships, I lack a larger overview of the rest of the countries.

I think that the game Destroyer Guns are too weak. 1/1.5/2 Light Attack? Were those guns really incomparably worse than Secondaries or Light Cruiser guns or even DP guns? I think this is off. It was hard to find a ww2 sea battle where destroyers used gun battles, but my quick look suggested they shouldn't be much worse than secondaries/LC guns. I know it is outside the scope of things here, but just wanted to know other people's opinion on this.

- Chervona Ukraina Class: actually it would be possible to give it both Seaplane catapult and minelaying rails if instead of 2xT1 light medium battery it had 1xT2 battery and perhaps some secondaries (currently none). What do you think about that?

I wouldn't do it, because:

It had: 15 × 1 – 130 mm (5.1 in)/55 B7 Pattern 1913 guns

Which in game is the gun of the Cruiser Turret 1. With your change it will have a mix of 120mm (secondaries) and 130mm. And the Komintern ship also represented by the same class didn't have mines in 36 (it was changed to a minelayer in 41).

But one could argue that single mounts are more similar to secondaries? So it is tricky.

 

[LUISVIGO]

These are NOT the WW1 cruisers of the same name but new TS build in the early 1930s. Bremse and Brummer were both designed to be used as auxiliary minelayers in wartime and were sunk by the Royal Navy.
That means you don't need to scuttle them.
But since you've adressed the Kreigsmarine TS, what about the Hugo Zeye? she was under construction in august 1939, but as a Turkish merchant ship. The KM seized her when the war began and finished her as a torpedo TS.
Waht do you think, should we propose adding a Hugo Zeye class and putting the Hugo Zeye into the german construciton queue?

I was not aware of two new ships being built between the wars with the same names. May you provide some source of information respect to this?
Respect to the other ship you menction, I can't give an informed opinion. We enter in a slippery slope of captured enemy and neutral ships, and converted merchants to warships. Should we include converted merchants? I don't think so. Then we should include the dozens of auxiliary ships in the Royal Navy, for example.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

Ok, I might lack the overall view. Didn't know that 8 gun destroyers existed. I compared it to Torpedo Boats/Destroyer Escorts and similar which would also have 1 Light Gun and end up with a similar Light Attack, so I was thinking that Nr of Gun / 3 would give the Nr of Light Turrets, so 5 guns -> 2 turrets, 4 guns -> 1 turret. But again I was thinking only about Soviet ships, I lack a larger overview of the rest of the countries.

I think that the game Destroyer Guns are too weak. 1/1.5/2 Light Attack? Were those guns really incomparably worse than Secondaries or Light Cruiser guns or even DP guns? I think this is off. It was hard to find a ww2 sea battle where destroyers used gun battles, but my quick look suggested they shouldn't be much worse than secondaries/LC guns. I know it is outside the scope of things here, but just wanted to know other people's opinion on this.

most new DD worldwide in the late 30s had 4 to 6 guns and T2 light battery is supposed to reprsent it. T1 is for ships with notably weaker armament.
A 5 gun DD has 125% firepower compared to one with 4 guns of the same type, while the 2nd module increases light attack to 200% (compared to a ship with 1 module).
The weakness of light battery compared to light medium battery has been discussed here and in other threads. @Paul.Ketcham has started a suggestion thread on how to rebalance naval modules, it seems be useful to continue the discussion on DD guns there.

It had: 15 × 1 – 130 mm (5.1 in)/55 B7 Pattern 1913 guns

Which in game is the gun of the Cruiser Turret 1. With your change it will have a mix of 120mm (secondaries) and 130mm. And the Komintern ship also represented by the same class didn't have mines in 36 (it was changed to a minelayer in 41).

But one could argue that single mounts are more similar to secondaries? So it is tricky.

It seems that many of the guns were palced on the sides in casemates, that's actually the same arrangement as secondaries on old Cruisers and Battleships. But unlike these capital ships (that had much larger main battery) centerline guns were the the same calibre.
But if the mines were installed later, it seems to be reasonable to use your initial proposal on this class and replace the mining rails with a catapult.

IMPORTANT QUESTION for the community:
We'd like to know what other naval experts here think about the Chervona Ukraina Class, what would represent the armament (15 × 1 – 130 mm (5.1 in) guns, but most of them in casemates) best?
As 2x T1 light medium battery, NO secondaries (current in-game, and as @sekelsenmat proposal)
OR as 1x light medium battery (T1 or T2) AND a secondaries module (Our idea)

I was not aware of two new ships being built between the wars with the same names. May you provide some source of information respect to this?

Well, here are Navypedia entries on them:
- Bremse
- Brummer (the ship in the game)
- Brummer (captured Norwegian ship, mentioned by @Paul.Ketcham )

 

[Axe99]

But since you've adressed the Kreigsmarine TS, what about the Hugo Zeye? she was under construction in august 1939, but as a Turkish merchant ship. The KM seized her when the war began and finished her as a torpedo TS.
Waht do you think, should we propose adding a Hugo Zeye class and putting the Hugo Zeye into the german construciton queue?

I'd steer clear of mercantile-based training and depot ships. Whille they may have had a little armament, they were often less capable than armed merchant cruisers. Brummer and Bremse were a bit like the French training cruiser (Jeanne D'Arc? Head woozy, name may have been different) where they had some value as a fighting warship, as well as being a training ship. Many other training ships were either obsolete or mercantile, and there were also sail training ships as well (Germany had 2-3, iirc) which are super-cool, but don't have a place in HoI4s naval OOBs, at least from my angle

I was not aware of two new ships being built between the wars with the same names. May you provide some source of information respect to this?

They were definitely real ships Here's some info from Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, 1922-1946 (p. 252) - in a spoiler so as to not make scrolling through this page painful:

Spoiler

 

[xtfoster]

* Series IX Sredniaja -> Should have 1 mine tube, they were mining subs

Near as I can tell, they weren't. They were able to deploy mines through the torpedo tubes, which is activated by the 1940 tech.

 

[Axe99]

Near as I can tell, they weren't. They were able to deploy mines through the torpedo tubes, which is activated by the 1940 tech.

Aye, +1 to this - I've just double-checked in Yakubov and Worth's Raising the Red Banner, and there's no mention of minelaying tubes there (nor any evidence of them in the pictures that accompany the section).

 

[sekelsenmat]

Near as I can tell, they weren't. They were able to deploy mines through the torpedo tubes, which is activated by the 1940 tech.

You are right, I just looked the weapons section in wikipedia and read "Mines", but failed to check the difference of deploying mines through the stern galleries (Leninets class) vs through tubes.

IMPORTANT QUESTION for the community:
We'd like to know what other naval experts here think about the Chervona Ukraina Class, what would represent the armament (15 × 1 – 130 mm (5.1 in) guns, but most of them in casemates) best?
As 2x T1 light medium battery, NO secondaries (current in-game, and as @sekelsenmat proposal)
OR as 1x light medium battery (T1 or T2) AND a secondaries module (Our idea)

I found an image of Chervona Ukraina, and it has no big gun on the back (after the soviet refit):

http://www.navypedia.org/uploads/images/ships/russia/ru_cr_56.gif
http://www.navypedia.org/ships/russia/ru_cr_admiral_nakhimov.htm

So secondaries visually fit better indeed. And to cut the discussion, let's just do it your way.

So let me summarize my proposal again, with the proper fixes:

* Leningrad & Minsk Class -> Add 1 mine slot. Also they should have Torpedo II instead of I, Soviets should start with Ship Torpedo 2 tech too, which they historically had.
* Chervona Ukraina Class -> Should have armor 1, all the ships in the class were armoured. Instead of the second main gun, add a Seaplane I. Add Secondary 1 guns.
* Marti Minelayer -> Should have 3xMining tubes instead of 1x, it could carry 300 mines, clearly 5 times more than the usual

That's it? I removed the Srednyaja change proposal since someone noted it was wrong.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

Brummer and Bremse were a bit like the French training cruiser (Jeanne D'Arc? Head woozy, name may have been different) where they had some value as a fighting warship, as well as being a training ship.

Yes, the Jeanne D'Arc. IJN Katori class would also be similar (TS used in combat).

So let me summarize my proposal again, with the proper fixes:

* Leningrad & Minsk Class -> Add 1 mine slot. Also they should have Torpedo II instead of I, Soviets should start with Ship Torpedo 2 tech too, which they historically had.
* Chervona Ukraina Class -> Should have armor 1, all the ships in the class were armoured. Instead of the second main gun, add a Seaplane I. Add Secondary 1 guns.
* Marti Minelayer -> Should have 3xMining tubes instead of 1x, it could carry 300 mines, clearly 5 times more than the usual

That's it? I removed the Srednyaja change proposal since someone noted it was wrong.

That's good, copied it to the guide. Thank you for contributing!

If anyone else thinks the Guide is missing anything important, post you suggestions here.

 

[TheDeathIncarnate]

Are there any hope for that devs will implement these fixes ?

 

[Orlunu]

Are there any hope for that devs will implement these fixes ?

Some of them, sure. Implementation of community suggestions and reports is sporadic and variable, but it happens. Sometimes it's quick, sometimes it's slow, sometimes it's overruled, we'll just have to see.

 

[Atomichazza]

Has anyone made a mod or file with these changes and fixes implemented?

 

[sekelsenmat]

Is there somewhere written the criteria for changes when it comes to guns? I mean a lot of stuff is obvious, but for guns I think we need a table like 2 modules = X guns for destroyer, 6 for CL, etc

 

[Ketchup & friends]

Is there somewhere written the criteria for changes when it comes to guns? I mean a lot of stuff is obvious, but for guns I think we need a table like 2 modules = X guns for destroyer, 6 for CL, etc

Well, modules are by default an abstraction created in order NOT to deal with precise number of guns.
As a rule of thumb 1 battery module is about 4 guns.
But when proposing changes here, we tried to balance them relatively to other ships with similar armament.

 

[Znail]

Well, modules are by default an abstraction created in order NOT to deal with precise number of guns.
As a rule of thumb 1 battery module is about 4 guns.
But when proposing changes here, we tried to balance them relatively to other ships with similar armament.

Personally I followed the 4 gun rule of thumb in my suggestions and only suggested a change when there was a clear discrepancy, ie a ship with 6 guns could have 1 or 2 without warrant a change, but if a ship had 8 guns, then it should get two modules, or 12 guns to get 3 modules.

 

[SchwarzKatze]

As a rule of thumb 1 battery module is about 4 guns.

Where did you get that? Vanilla ships use 6 barrels per module:

individual module slots do not necessarily correspond to the number of turrets (my guideline when scripting the historical designs was 6 barrels broadside = 1 module, rounded up).

Coastal Defence Ship's got wrong Armor

The entire idea behind the Coastal Defence Ships were that they had Battleship level of armor and guns. It's possible to mount the correct guns, but at least the Swedish ships come with the wrong ones. Armor is limited to Cruiser armor though...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

 

[Paul.Ketcham]

I've always been bothered by the complete lack of specificity in "about 6 per module". All these modules to represent historic warships, and yet only a single class of cruiser (Brooklyn) was ever produced with more than 2 gun modules as represented in-game; considering that the Brooklyn was considered to have too-many guns, as lining up the centerline turret exposed the hull too much to torpedoes and gunfire, the realistic arrangement for nearly every cruiser and battleship class is identical in main battery...which seems to defeat the point of even bothering to include any choice at all except 1 or 2.

In reality, about 3 would let you represent 3 different historic destroyer batteries (2-to-8 guns), 5 different cruiser batteries (4-15 guns), and 5 different heavy batteries (2-14 guns). It would also fix some of the horribly-egregious problems like the Renown-class having half the firepower of battleships with less broadside-weight than its 6x15-inch guns, the fact that destroyers can't support almost any variation whatsoever, and the excessive armament of many player CLs ("about 6" per module, represented on player-designed CLs, would give you ships with between 21 and 30 6-inch guns...).

 

[xtfoster]

The reason there is no specific number per module is because not every gun they are trying to represent is equal. For example the French quadruple 330mm turrets (or duplex doubles) of the Dunkerque Class on paper look superior to a triple turret of the same caliber, but the cramped conditions meant they probably weren't.

 

[Axe99]

The reason there is no specific number per module is because not every gun they are trying to represent is equal. For example the French quadruple 330mm turrets (or duplex doubles) of the Dunkerque Class on paper look superior to a triple turret of the same caliber, but the cramped conditions meant they probably weren't.

I've always interpreted more as a case of broad abstraction, rather than trying to achieve more nuance (as the "lumpiness" between the modules, either in tech or number, is far too large to simulate things like cramped turret arrangements or similar details). Either way, I think it works reasonably enough for the base game, but I'm hoping in the distant, darkest future to mod a ship designer where a module is one mount (with slots being weight based, so instead of generic slots and generic modules, there'll be very specific modules that will and won't fit in hull types). But that kind of thing is a bit OTT for the vanilla version of a grand-strategy WW2 game, and I'm not advocating something like that should be in HoI4 at the base level.

 

[sekelsenmat]

I've always been bothered by the complete lack of specificity in "about 6 per module"......In reality, about 3 would let you represent 3 different historic destroyer batteries (2-to-8 guns), 5 different cruiser batteries (4-15 guns), and 5 different heavy batteries (2-14 guns). It would also fix some of the horribly-egregious problems like the Renown-class having half the firepower of battleships with less broadside-weight than its 6x15-inch guns, the fact that destroyers can't support almost any variation whatsoever, and the excessive armament of many player CLs ("about 6" per module, represented on player-designed CLs, would give you ships with between 21 and 30 6-inch guns...).

Agree with everything, indeed div by 6 round up is a sad solution... just one correction: in reality 6 round up is almost the same as "about 5, round to nearest" for gun numbers between 3 and 15 guns, it is not similar to "6 round to nearest" which "about 6" would indicate.

And don't forget the other problem: That DP guns are so OP compared with both non-DP secondaries and destroyer guns. In reality destroyers could pack a decent punch with their guns, and non-DP secondaries should be more powerful because they often had a larger caliber...

The reason there is no specific number per module is because not every gun they are trying to represent is equal. For example the French quadruple 330mm turrets (or duplex doubles) of the Dunkerque Class on paper look superior to a triple turret of the same caliber, but the cramped conditions meant they probably weren't.

I don't think that's a good enough reason. What we want is a balance between realism and simplicity. And I think we could achieve much more realism then we currently have without making anything more complex. A specific number would be more realistic, while not more complex. An abstract number no one knows about is actually more complex to understand then a simple number of guns.