I personally think Admiral Hipper class would be both more accurate historically (as this was the actual name) and cooler as well.
- 2
- 1
-
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.
As the good Paul Ketcham has covered off, three makes sense here. Five were planned for laying down, four were laid down, but only three survived on the slips for more than a year - Sovetskaia Belorussiia had to be scrapped because of 70,000 defective rivets. Realistically, I think three SHBBs is probably the best balance between Soviet aspirations vs Soviet capabilities, and people's expectations. If four were laid down, there'd be a good argument for an event ten months later scrapping one because of reasons outside the players control. Info from Stephen McLaughlin's article on the class in Warship 2021.
The Soviets used Project designations for I think all of their ships and subs, so it feels reasonable - I've seen plenty of references to "Project # class ________ (insert ship type here)" and feels perfectly reasonable. If looking for actual names, though, as others have mentioned, Siberia doesn't feel consistent with other Soviet naming conventions. When the USSR did get around to building ships that could launch aircraft, they called them Kiev, Minsk, Novorossiysk and Baku - Baku was later called Admiral Flota Sovetskogo Soyuza Gorshkov (not a name I'd suggest using though - he doesn't achieve that level of "name cred" until after the HoI4 timeframe - but other Soviet naval notaries could be an option).
- 3
- 2
- 1
Personally I think the Game need in the Prototype-Focus from the Navy an Refit. It´s good, but it´s going much better.
The first and older Mod I suggest is the Naval Rework Mod I / II, which i Suggest (sadly, it isn´t upgraded for 1.11 "Barbarossa" yet).
The upgraded Mod MTG Expanded is good too and gives missing Features (like Torpedo-Computers etc.). I played it long, but it dosen´t make the Fleets more historical correctly. It concentrates on missing Contents of Tech.
An complete new one is the Man more Guns Mod, which makes the Navy much more historically incl. Technology (from what you can see in the Pictures). It have to be tested and I will take a big look on it.
Not for nothing the refited Naval Rework Mod I / II is integrated in the Ultra Historical Mod - Realsim Overhaul.
That Mods show how to Refit the Navy-Tech-Tree and doing a much better historical Navy in the World. Hope the Devs will integrate it in the next big Game-Refit (Airforce R & D-Refit and Italy is still missing too) or much better in the 1.11 Fixes.
The first and older Mod I suggest is the Naval Rework Mod I / II, which i Suggest (sadly, it isn´t upgraded for 1.11 "Barbarossa" yet).
The upgraded Mod MTG Expanded is good too and gives missing Features (like Torpedo-Computers etc.). I played it long, but it dosen´t make the Fleets more historical correctly. It concentrates on missing Contents of Tech.
An complete new one is the Man more Guns Mod, which makes the Navy much more historically incl. Technology (from what you can see in the Pictures). It have to be tested and I will take a big look on it.
Not for nothing the refited Naval Rework Mod I / II is integrated in the Ultra Historical Mod - Realsim Overhaul.
That Mods show how to Refit the Navy-Tech-Tree and doing a much better historical Navy in the World. Hope the Devs will integrate it in the next big Game-Refit (Airforce R & D-Refit and Italy is still missing too) or much better in the 1.11 Fixes.
Last edited:
- 4
- 2
That´s correct. The Devs are unhappy too with the Navy- R & D-Tree. Hope the Mods show the Devs a way to make an Refit, which makes the Players happy.
The Tank-Refit is such an one, where you can build the Tanks as good as historical (used Tanks and Variants, Prototypes, planed but never build Tanks / Variants etc.).
The Tank-Refit is such an one, where you can build the Tanks as good as historical (used Tanks and Variants, Prototypes, planed but never build Tanks / Variants etc.).
- 3
In another WW2 fleet-related game they've named Pr 71's Serov and Chkalov, presumably after Soviet Air Force pilots Anatoly Serov and Valery Chkalov, respectively.
Although, Im just happy they remembered that Pr 71 is a thing that existed in the first place tbh.
- 5
Thank to everyone for the input!
related to this: what do you think the secondary and AA modules of Sovetsky Soyuz Class and Yamato classes? compared directly?
@Paul.Ketcham @The Russian Empire @Axe99 @Highlord Alarak
Current SOV in-game carrier namelists are:
Siberia is not in either of them. Is there any source for this name? or Did the devs just make it up?
it seems that the neccessary changes do far are:
Project 71 class:
BTW, what do you think of the suggestions for Romanian and Yugoslavian ships so far?
The Kronshtadt class seems to have been planned to be sligltly faster than the Scharnhorst and Dunkerque classes, at the expense of weaker armour. perhaps it should be reflected in the game?
Ok. 3 SHBB makes sense then, as the similar Japanese focus spawns the first 2 (Yamato and Musashi) but NOT the Shinano.
related to this: what do you think the secondary and AA modules of Sovetsky Soyuz Class and Yamato classes? compared directly?
@Paul.Ketcham @The Russian Empire @Axe99 @Highlord Alarak
Current SOV in-game carrier namelists are:
Moskva
Leningrad
Oryol
Kiyev
Minsk
Novorossysk
Kharkov
Baku
Riga
Ulyanovsk
Tblisi
Admiral Gorshkov
Leonid Brezhnev
Admiral Kuznetsov
Leningrad
Oryol
Kiyev
Minsk
Novorossysk
Kharkov
Baku
Riga
Ulyanovsk
Tblisi
Admiral Gorshkov
Leonid Brezhnev
Admiral Kuznetsov
Imperator Nikolay I
Imperatritsa Aleksandra
Imperator Aleksandr I
Dakiya
Imperator Troyan
Rumyniya
Korol Karl
Kiyev
Minsk
Novorossysk
Baku
Ulyanovsk
Imperatritsa Aleksandra
Imperator Aleksandr I
Dakiya
Imperator Troyan
Rumyniya
Korol Karl
Kiyev
Minsk
Novorossysk
Baku
Ulyanovsk
Siberia is not in either of them. Is there any source for this name? or Did the devs just make it up?
it seems that the neccessary changes do far are:
Project 71 class:
- (possibly)
- rename Siberia class
- rename Project 72 class
- upgrade cruiser engine tier I to cruiser engine tier II
- rename Admiral Hipper class (same ass the German version)
- upgrade cruiser engine tier I to cruiser engine tier II
- add secondary armament tier I in default (yet empty) slot
- upgrade AA tier I (default slot) to AA tier II
- replace second AA tier I with secondary armament tier I
- upgrade torpedo module I to torpedo module tier II.
No promises, but we'll try to keep up this thread and the suggesions collection.
BTW, what do you think of the suggestions for Romanian and Yugoslavian ships so far?
- 4
- 1
The main problem with the Kronshtadt is simply the game's lack of detail in production costs. Changing already-built designs to be more accurate is one thing, but you need to incentivize players to actually want to build the Kronshtadt-class in-game for a nation that really isn't a maritime power, and building an inferior armor profile would only make sense if the ships were fairly easy to acquire (the production progress is already good, but they would also need to be higher in the focus queue or even just straight-moved to the naval expansion focus). I'm not exactly against downgrading the armor, but the player gets no tradeoff currently.
With regards to the name of the Lützow/Petropavlovsk/Tallinn, the obvious problem is that the Germans had two names for it (technically a subclass of the Hipper class to begin with, being a lot faster and heavier) and the Soviets didn't even keep a single pre-production name. That said, I'd personally prefer a Soviet name for the ship, given that the Germans delivered it without guns and the vessel would have ended up significantly-altered (similar to ships like the Greenhalgh or Vasilefs Georgios class, based on modified foreign designs).
Giving the Soyuz and Yamato the same AA is probably fine, since the Soviets have less AA but the 37mm mount is probably better than the 25mm (no information on the 100mm guns they were armed with), and both ships would have been upgunned post-production regardless. This is again a case where I'd be fine with a modular design setup (a lot of ships added via focus can be heavily-upgraded based what your current tech is when you start the focus), rather than sticking with a single historic setup.
I'm guessing the name Siberia was inspired by the theme of the Sovetskiy Soyuz class being named after SSRs, but that's just a random guess (given that there are more than 8 names available for the Sovetskiy Soyuz to use). That said, its not even spelled in Russian to begin with (Sibir), so I doubt it was researched.
- 2
- 1
I agree with Paul on all points (cheers Paul) so don't have much more to add
Warship 2021 provides some info on the MZ-14/B-54* 100mm guns - it doesn't include training and elevation speed (which is a shame, as that's an important factor in their AA capability) but they were to fire a 15.8 kg shell at a muzzle velocity of 900 m/s, which compares with 23 kg shell but only at around 720 m/s from the 12.7cm/40 on the Yamato. There were the same number of barrels, but the two aft-most mounts on the Sovetskii Soiuz class only had 50 rounds per gun, which is a very low ammo count for an AA weapon.
Given all this, I'd (unsurprisingly ) agree with Paul - about the same seems reasonable - the Yamato's have better heavy AA, but the gun's quite old so (assuming the MZ-14 mount for the 100mms is as reliable and can train/elevate as fast as the Japanese twin mount) the advantage of the heavier weight of shell is limited (faster muzzle velocity makes the AA fire control calculations easier, for example) and the 37mm fires a shell twice as heavy as the 25mm, at similar "close-in AA" rates of fire. Given the broad strokes the ship designer paints with, about the same seems very reasonable, short of there being info I'm unaware of on either of the Soviet AA mounts being train-wrecks.
Warship 2021 provides some info on the MZ-14/B-54* 100mm guns - it doesn't include training and elevation speed (which is a shame, as that's an important factor in their AA capability) but they were to fire a 15.8 kg shell at a muzzle velocity of 900 m/s, which compares with 23 kg shell but only at around 720 m/s from the 12.7cm/40 on the Yamato. There were the same number of barrels, but the two aft-most mounts on the Sovetskii Soiuz class only had 50 rounds per gun, which is a very low ammo count for an AA weapon.
Given all this, I'd (unsurprisingly
) agree with Paul - about the same seems reasonable - the Yamato's have better heavy AA, but the gun's quite old so (assuming the MZ-14 mount for the 100mms is as reliable and can train/elevate as fast as the Japanese twin mount) the advantage of the heavier weight of shell is limited (faster muzzle velocity makes the AA fire control calculations easier, for example) and the 37mm fires a shell twice as heavy as the 25mm, at similar "close-in AA" rates of fire. Given the broad strokes the ship designer paints with, about the same seems very reasonable, short of there being info I'm unaware of on either of the Soviet AA mounts being train-wrecks.- 4
I don't have enough knowledge about ships to fact-check it myself, but I would love to see these suggestions in the game.
The only issue I found was the name "Requinul", I think it's actually "Rechinul" meaning "shark" in Romanian:
Rechin - Wikipedia
But maybe the ship was actually named "Requinul" so I don't know that. Delfinul and Marsuinul are spelled correctly.
Nope, turns out it was "Rechinul": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NMS_Rechinul
You said this:
But according to the wiki: "Rechinul was a minelaying submarine".
There is even a comparison table here:
| Type | Displacement | Mines carried | Torpedo tubes | Deck guns |
| Rechinul | 585 tons | 40 | 4x533 mm | 1x20 mm |
| Leninets-class | 1,051 tons | 20 | 8x533 mm | 1x100 mm 1x45 mm |
| Type X | 1,763 tons | 66 | 2x533 mm | 1x105 mm |
In fact, it's the Marsuinul that has no minelaying mentioned:
NMS Marsuinul - Wikipedia
"Her design was an improvement of the earlier Vetehinen-class of the Finnish Navy. She was laid down at the Galați shipyard in 1938 and launched on 4 May 1941. She had a standard (surfaced) displacement of 620 tons, a length of 58 meters, a beam of 5.6 meters and a draught of 3.6 meters. Her power plant consisted of two MAN diesel engines and two electric motors powering two shafts, giving her a top speed of 16 knots on surface and 9 knots in immersion. She was armed with one 105 mm deck gun, one 37 mm anti-aircraft gun and six 533 mm torpedo tubes (four in the bow and two in the stern), her crew amounting to 45."
By the way, what do you think about this topic of historically inaccurate railroads in Romania:
Historically Inaccurate Railroads in Romania (especially the main intersections at Ploiesti)
I saw the railaways of Romania and found it weird that all railways met at Ploiesti, instead of Bucharest. And it was weird, it was also historically inaccurate. This scientific study has a map with the railways of interwar Romania...
Someone mentioned in a reply that DRG Class SVT 877 Hamburg Flyer is also missing, do you think is worth looking all over Europe and making a topic fixing railroads like that?
Also, what do you think of this suggestion?
Quick fix for Romania's National Focus Tree issue - Working fascist leaders rotation.
In NSB, Paradox added Corneliu Codreanu to the game, however, due to the way he is added, it makes it impossible to complete the focus tree to the end of it if you want to play with Corneliu Codreanu or Octavian Goga. And now, you will lose Ion...
- 3
- 1
- 1
I don't have enough knowledge about ships to fact-check it myself, but I would love to see these suggestions in the game.
The only issue I found was the name "Requinul", I think it's actually "Rechinul" meaning "shark" in Romanian:
Probably because the "chi" sounds similar to the French "qui"Rechin - Wikipedia
ro.wikipedia.org
But maybe the ship was actually named "Requinul" so I don't know that. Delfinul and Marsuinul are spelled correctly.
Nope, turns out it was "Rechinul": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NMS_Rechinul
You said this:
But according to the wiki: "Rechinul was a minelaying submarine".
There is even a comparison table here:
This seems to imply that Rechinul as a minelaying submarine.
Type Displacement Mines carried Torpedo tubes Deck guns Rechinul 585 tons 40 4x533 mm 1x20 mm Leninets-class 1,051 tons 20 8x533 mm 1x100 mm
1x45 mmType X 1,763 tons 66 2x533 mm 1x105 mm
In fact, it's the Marsuinul that has no minelaying mentioned:
NMS Marsuinul - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
"Her design was an improvement of the earlier Vetehinen-class of the Finnish Navy. She was laid down at the Galați shipyard in 1938 and launched on 4 May 1941. She had a standard (surfaced) displacement of 620 tons, a length of 58 meters, a beam of 5.6 meters and a draught of 3.6 meters. Her power plant consisted of two MAN diesel engines and two electric motors powering two shafts, giving her a top speed of 16 knots on surface and 9 knots in immersion. She was armed with one 105 mm deck gun, one 37 mm anti-aircraft gun and six 533 mm torpedo tubes (four in the bow and two in the stern), her crew amounting to 45."
By the way, what do you think about this topic of historically inaccurate railroads in Romania:
Historically Inaccurate Railroads in Romania (especially the main intersections at Ploiesti)
I saw the railaways of Romania and found it weird that all railways met at Ploiesti, instead of Bucharest. And it was weird, it was also historically inaccurate. This scientific study has a map with the railways of interwar Romania...forum.paradoxplaza.com
Someone mentioned in a reply that DRG Class SVT 877 Hamburg Flyer is also missing, do you think is worth looking all over Europe and making a topic fixing railroads like that?
Also, what do you think of this suggestion?
It's more gameplay-based rather than historical research-wise, but I figured it's important since currently you can't advance the focus tree with Corneliu Codreanu.Quick fix for Romania's National Focus Tree issue - Working fascist leaders rotation.
In NSB, Paradox added Corneliu Codreanu to the game, however, due to the way he is added, it makes it impossible to complete the focus tree to the end of it if you want to play with Corneliu Codreanu or Octavian Goga. And now, you will lose Ion...
Conways 1922-1948 also has Rechinul (Requinul in Conways) listed as the minelayer, and Marsuinul as the non-minelayer.
- 3
- 1
1. Would these changes be big enough to justify different modules? Currently the design is the same as the German version (which needs work).
2. What would be the better designation for the class? (not the actual ship, that gets a russian name anyway).
@AlextheSwift
Thank you very much for this info.
with this info, it seems the Rechinul class should be:
- hull 2, torpedo 2, engine 1 minelaying tubes.
and the Marsuinul class should be:
- hull 1, torpedo 2, engine 1.
P.S. Anyone else who knows more about ships of minor navies is encouraged to share their thoughts here!
- 3
- 1
The best basic naval mod for HOI4 in my opinion is "Warships Designer Overhaul" because it fixes the biggest problem with the vanilla Ship Designer - which is that the slots are too limited and you can't build accurate/historical ships as a result. The mod fixes that and rebalances the modules and it doesn't go overboard like Black Ice/NRM. It just tweaks the existing Ship Designer. It's basically a vanilla+ version. When you build a ship it actually looks like a real ship. This mod definitely should be integrated into the vanilla game by the Devs. @Arheo
Other naval mods add missing Technology which is good but that is a separate issue.
For example of what I mean about Warships Designer Overhaul, realistic looking Yamato:
.jpg "download (4).jpg")
Also, anyone have ideas for these newer (post 1939) ships?
US: Atlanta Class (CL)?
US: Cleveland Class (CL)?
US: Fletcher Class (DD)?
Japan: Agano Class (CL)?
Japan: Super Yamato Class (SHBB)?
Japan: Shinano Class (CV)?
Last edited:
- 2
- 2
That Mod overloads the Designer. I tried such Mods like the WDO and all Gamers had to invest to much EXP for making 1 Ship correctly. That´s why I like the Ultra Historical Mod - Realism Overhaul, because the Designer don´t get overloaded (it´s the same like in the Original with more Choose-Options). Therefore the fully Tech, Weapons etc. get more after you made an Research. And you can upgrade f. e. the old Line-Ships to new 28 cm-Guns or 30 cm-Guns, the same for the Panzerships.
And one Gun you see is f. e. 1x to 10x an 15-cm-Calibre or 12,7-cm-Calibre. Same for Torpedos, AA´s etc. without overloading the Game.
On the other Side, the Mod brings in an real Economy. That´s why I suggest the Devs should look on the that and the 1914-Modification, esp. for an new Hoi 5 and the ongoing Refit for Hoi 4.
I suggest you try it after the Mod is adapted for 1.11 "Barbarossa" and the DLC "NSB".
Last edited:
- 1
as these ships
- were not under construction in 1939
- are not spawned by any focus
- 1
Thank you to Ketchup for letting me know about this thread. I've played around quite a bit with the game files and attempted to make several mods to
"re-balance" and address the issues with how navy is represented in game. (mostly unsuccessful) The best mod by far in terms of both depth and accuracy has to be "Naval Rework Mod II" However that mod hasn't been updated for some time and I don't always want to spend several hours designing ships.
I attempted to address several issues to do with module slots in my first mod "Man More Guns!", but I quickly discovered that the ai simply does not know how to handle the addition of more slots. (or at least I don't know how to mod the ai properly) I specifically focused on secondary batteries, splitting them into "heavy" and "light" categories. During this period I waffled considerably on what to do about the naval tech dates and was never satisfied.
Eventually I decided to strip the mod down to simply re-balancing the starting fleets and settling on 1922-1930-1936-1942 for the hull tech dates. I recently made a forum suggestion about this reasoning found here: "Rebalancing naval tech and fleets"
Of course the ai really doesn't like to research and build later naval techs, so I made a simpler version that only re-balances the starting fleets.
Can be found here: "fleetsrebalanced"
I don't want to pretend to be some kind of naval history expert, The preceding discussion is full of very knowledgeable people. I mainly used Youtube and Wikipedia as a resource for my changes. (not great I know) There are still a lot of inaccuracies. The Admiral Hipper an obvious atrocity but this was using the "vanilla" number of slots.
As a guide I used the idea that in vanilla 1 turret = roughly 4-6 guns depending on the type of hull.
DP mounts are "twin mounts"
Destroyer torpedoes: 1 module = 1 launcher.
Cruiser torpedoes: 1 module = 2 launchers.
Secondary battery: most difficult and often varied. (usually around 1/2 of historical amount)
For my own sanity I rationalized that destroyer hull 1922 represents "early-small" designs and 1936 "early-large" designs. Eg. the Fubuki Class was made 1936 while the A/B/C/D E/F/G/H Classes were all assigned to the 1922 hull. (controversial I know) As they were a smaller design overall, compared to those of the Japanese, French and Italians.
I decided that many heavy cruisers were simply too slow and opted to give them level III engines. Eg. County Class moved from 24kn to 30kn.
This really makes me think that engine and hull techs should be separate as they are with tanks in NSB.
Not particularly revolutionary but It seems relatively balanced. The Japanese do get a minor buff while the the USA and UK receive a minor debuff. Germany stays the same while France and Italy were only moderately altered.
"re-balance" and address the issues with how navy is represented in game. (mostly unsuccessful) The best mod by far in terms of both depth and accuracy has to be "Naval Rework Mod II" However that mod hasn't been updated for some time and I don't always want to spend several hours designing ships.
I attempted to address several issues to do with module slots in my first mod "Man More Guns!", but I quickly discovered that the ai simply does not know how to handle the addition of more slots. (or at least I don't know how to mod the ai properly) I specifically focused on secondary batteries, splitting them into "heavy" and "light" categories. During this period I waffled considerably on what to do about the naval tech dates and was never satisfied.
Eventually I decided to strip the mod down to simply re-balancing the starting fleets and settling on 1922-1930-1936-1942 for the hull tech dates. I recently made a forum suggestion about this reasoning found here: "Rebalancing naval tech and fleets"
Of course the ai really doesn't like to research and build later naval techs, so I made a simpler version that only re-balances the starting fleets.
Can be found here: "fleetsrebalanced"
I don't want to pretend to be some kind of naval history expert, The preceding discussion is full of very knowledgeable people. I mainly used Youtube and Wikipedia as a resource for my changes. (not great I know) There are still a lot of inaccuracies. The Admiral Hipper an obvious atrocity but this was using the "vanilla" number of slots.
As a guide I used the idea that in vanilla 1 turret = roughly 4-6 guns depending on the type of hull.
DP mounts are "twin mounts"
Destroyer torpedoes: 1 module = 1 launcher.
Cruiser torpedoes: 1 module = 2 launchers.
Secondary battery: most difficult and often varied. (usually around 1/2 of historical amount)
For my own sanity I rationalized that destroyer hull 1922 represents "early-small" designs and 1936 "early-large" designs. Eg. the Fubuki Class was made 1936 while the A/B/C/D E/F/G/H Classes were all assigned to the 1922 hull. (controversial I know) As they were a smaller design overall, compared to those of the Japanese, French and Italians.
I decided that many heavy cruisers were simply too slow and opted to give them level III engines. Eg. County Class moved from 24kn to 30kn.
This really makes me think that engine and hull techs should be separate as they are with tanks in NSB.
Not particularly revolutionary but It seems relatively balanced. The Japanese do get a minor buff while the the USA and UK receive a minor debuff. Germany stays the same while France and Italy were only moderately altered.
- 3
Thank you for the input. Renaming hulls (and modules) seems a reasonable idea, what do other users think?
A Tier 0 light ship hull would solve that problem, but the purpose of the tread is to propose changes within the existing framework.
The problem here: this puts them in the same hull tier as older WW1 classes (S, T, V&W classes) that were still around. The interwar classes were a clear improvement.
A Tier 0 light ship hull would solve that problem, but the purpose of the tread is to propose changes within the existing framework.
- 1
I agree that Ideally the A/B/C/D Class etc. would ideally be a different hull from the WWI destroyers however, because of their dimensions and that fact they were based on the two 1926 prototypes Amazon and Ambuscade I decided to give them 1922 hulls. Also in part, because they were designed well before the 1930 London Treaty, although their armament was certainly superior to those of the preceding V/W Class.
Normally, I'd want users to refrain from thread necromancy. But in this case, I'm giving the thread a special dispensation to continue to exist and be updated.
Carry on.
Carry on.
