T O P
onlyroad66

This alone I think will go a long way to combating the "just build as many battleships as you possibly can" meta we've been seeing. Naval composition will have to vary based on theater and climate.


glamscum

"That’s it for this today, next week we are going to start going over some of the more core naval changes. Seeya then!" this quote from podcat at the end of the DD and your statement have me comfident that the deathstack-fleets meta will die. naval composition is prolly gonna be task forces with limits to how many ships of what kind you can have for each mission, my guess only.


Chief_Rocket_Man

RIP deathstacks 2016-2018. You will NOT be missed


[deleted]

Or play 1.5.4 forever. Deathstacks forever!


Chief_Rocket_Man

Does anyone actually find death stacks fun?


[deleted]

I do. I don't like managing navies much so I spam battleships/heavy cruisers. Always great to see a country lose 10+ ships in one engagement


[deleted]

Micromanaging a war is sort of the whole point of the game. The fact that naval combat is so simplistic and uninteresting made me feel a bit cheated honestly. Looking like MtG MAY change that. I guess I could see why someone might prefer ground combat, but that’s just really one third of the different types of combat. I’d prefer air and sea to have at least somewhat comparable depth to land. DoD was the “air rework” so I guess any chance of seeing air combat evolve beyond “throw as many fighters/bombers into this air region as you can and forget about it” is slim.


downbutnotout_1998

Cheated especially since the war at sea was absolutely critical in WWII for all theaters.


Sean951

Death stack fleets will never go out of fashion, it's the actual way naval combat is done. But it will hopefully require a more balanced comp.


glamscum

Yea I cannot wait for people to build massive navys only have them more or less useless cuz they spend all their fuel on tanks in landwar :D


[deleted]

*laughs in Günther Prien* On a more serious note: surely Naval combat was mostly deathstacks in real life, but there were some exceptions. It would be cool if a lonely submarine could, once in a thousand times, actually sink a carrier.


Ogiwan

Blah blah Mahan, blah blah fleet in being.....


[deleted]

Wrong. HMS Hood was sunk by 1BB & 1 BC. While UK fleet was 1BB 1BC 2HC 6DD


Sean951

The Germans didn't have any more ships to throw at it, and the Brits had a fairly substantial fleet for hunting 2 ships. All the major naval powers held to Mahanian theory, that you wanted to keep your fleet together to strike a decisive blow when your saw an opening.


octopus_rex

I think the coming changes for fuel and the supposedly (very) large fuel needs of capital ships will do more for neutering capital ship deathstacks than anything. You'll be able to build as many as you want still, but unless you have tremendous sources of fuel and/or limited air and mechanized/armored operations, then most will simply be unable to operate.


PolisRanger

It’ll be interesting to see how this pans out for Japan as historically they couldn’t sortie their Yamato-class whenever due to fuel shortages despite the fact the Japanese strategy kinda revolved around them and other newer capital ships.


Kenneth441

The decision to focus on the army or the navy will also have more depth, you can't have a massive mechanized force when your navy is chugging all your fuel away.


PolisRanger

The newest HoI update is pretty much the only reason I’m trying to get my desktop working. I just have to see Fuel in action in this game.


downbutnotout_1998

This is gonna be so cool. For Japan and Germany, you will actually feel desperation to take oilfields from your enemies like in real life. This is gonna shake everything up.


dutchrjen

Per ton of ship capital ships are MUCH more fuel efficient on average than smaller ships. One exception was WWI battleships that often had huge anti torpedo bulges making their hulls very inefficient and their top speeds slow. ​ A ship's weight does NOT equate to fuel usage unless constantly accelerating or decelerating. Most fuel is spent moving the ship's cross sectional area through the water (the force slowing a ship down is the water pushed out of the way of the ship as the ship's speed is usually fairly constant but the water pushed out of the way is accelerated). Because of the Cube-Square Law larger ships (or aircraft) have a smaller (usually MUCH smaller) cross sectional area per ton of ship (or aircraft). This makes larger ships (or aircraft) in general MUCH more fuel efficient per ton than smaller ships. This allows them to have a much longer range (in general, one exception would be extremely slow DE or subs). ​ The problem with building large battleships is that one puts all their eggs into one basket. In the game the AI charges battleships with smaller vessels in a haphazardous way making BBs too effective. However, destroyers and subs in any number are going to be much larger fuel hogs than BBs. Generally, nations left BBs in port because they were afraid to lose them but a small fleet of destroyers (with less total tonnage and raw on paper firepower) burns just as much fuel. ​ The Yamato was built specifically with the consideration of Japan's limited fuel and resources. On paper it used fuel and resources much more efficiently per weight of firepower than most other vessels and had better armor protection than most. However, unlike the game ships can't insta teleport from one side of a HUGE sea region to another then insta find enemy ships then have the enemy AI do a suicide run with ships of a lower class (then spend six months in a battle sometimes). Battleship gun range was too low and too easily avoided by most ships making their on paper efficiency useless. ​


octopus_rex

Even if they are more fuel efficient, their tonnage is much, much greater. A quick wiki search shows Fletcher class Destroyers as displacing 2,500 tons at full load, and Iowa class BB's displacing 58,400 tons at full load (these are U.S. WWII class ships). I have no idea what figures they will ultimately assign to each for their fuel consumption, I only know what they've stated in their dev diary, which is that capital ships will guzzle fuel "like a baby whale at the teet". I imagine that this will ultimately mean that death stacks of 10+ BBs/CVs will just not be practical to operate in most scenarios.


dutchrjen

The Fletcher 2,500 tons, 492 tons of fuel, and a range of 6,500 nm @ 15 knots ​ Iowa Class 58,000 tons, 8,390 tons of fuel, and a range of 15,000 nm @ 15 knots ​ Fletcher => 492/2.5K/6.5K = 30.3 tons of fuel per Kton of ship per Knautical mile ​ Iowa => 8,390/58K/15K = 9.6 tons of fuel per Kton of ship per Knautical mile ​ Iowa uses 31% of the fuel a Fletcher uses per ton of ship ​ An Iowa only uses the fuel of about 7.2 Fletcher destroyers. This is not exactly "guzzling gas" for an Iowa when looking at how small a Fletcher Destroyer is. In game a level III battleship demolishes 7 destroyers handly so going for BBs with REAL fuel usage numbers would still be legit. OTHER game aspects will need to change to stop relative BB deathstacks. Sure fuel may lower the over all numbers of ships people want to field but based on real fuel numbers relative BB deathstacks would still win. Destroyers were preferred because they were small tagets (especially for aircraft), relatively expendable (cheap to build/small crew), and could be in more places (especially useful as radar pickets, observers, running smaller missions, or hunting subs). When (in game) ships can teleport thousands of nautical miles in seconds in vast sea regions and find other ships in mere hours (time in game) having a large number of smaller ships isn't as useful as it should be. Oceans are VAST. ​ References for calcs below: [http://www.gyrodynehelicopters.com/fletcher\_class.htm](http://www.gyrodynehelicopters.com/fletcher_class.htm) [http://www.ussnewjersey.com/hist\_sts.htm](http://www.ussnewjersey.com/hist_sts.htm) [https://www.bing.com/search?q=gallons+of+fuel+per+ton&form=IENTHT&mkt=en-us&httpsmsn=1&refig=c68159d4a9a645d198007d1f22ecc97e&sp=-1&pq=gallons+of+fuel+per+ton&sc=0-23&qs=n&sk=&cvid=c68159d4a9a645d198007d1f22ecc97e](https://www.bing.com/search?q=gallons+of+fuel+per+ton&form=IENTHT&mkt=en-us&httpsmsn=1&refig=c68159d4a9a645d198007d1f22ecc97e&sp=-1&pq=gallons+of+fuel+per+ton&sc=0-23&qs=n&sk=&cvid=c68159d4a9a645d198007d1f22ecc97e) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa-class\_battleship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa-class_battleship) ​


octopus_rex

This is fair. Your point overall is that fuel consumption alone may mean that the stacks are much shorter, but fuel consumption alone won't change what is in the stacks, and that makes sense to me. It really is bizarre that fleets can find each other really quickly but their battles rage on for months in-game. It should be the other way around.


amaROenuZ

The United States of course, will continue to field deathstacks.


Salphabeta

Large ships are far more fuel efficient for their weight though, not less.


octopus_rex

That doesn't mean that the absolute value of it's fuel consumption won't be large. Maybe operating one 50k ton BB will cost as much fuel as operating 15 2.5k ton destroyers (37.5k tons total), but that won't mean that operating 20 BB's will be any more feasible than operating 300 destroyers. In any case, I'm only going off of what I've read in the dev diary, which stated that capital ships will consume a lot of fuel. EDIT: math


[deleted]

I thought the naval meta was "build aircraft". I've never seen the point of building naval units other than for flavour.


ponzored

You want at least some naval superiority in order to prevent enemy troop movements and naval invasions by sea. That really only matters in hardcore multiplayer though, which is dead now due to the soft attack nerfs extending games 1-2 hours longer.


Cuddlyaxe

So subs will finally be useful??? Can imagine Japanese players camping out in Pacific Deep Ocean against American Carriers


pewp3wpew

Well, there need to be some more changes for this to actually work.


Devastator5042

"That’s it for this today, next week we are going to start going over some of the more core naval changes. Seeya then!" ​ Actual naval rework information I'm excited.


Medical_Officer

If I'm reading this correctly it means that it will be harder for subs to hide near the British Isles than in the Mediterranean? Paradox got this one ass backwards. That's not at all how sub concealment works. It's not really about how deep the water is but how *translucent* it is. Italian subs in the Mediterranean were easily spotted from the air by the British thanks to the clarity of the Mediterranean sea and the abundant sunshine. In the North Atlantic, the sea is virtually opaque after a few meters down, which made it much easier for the U-boats to remain concealed.


amaROenuZ

Tell them that. This is work in progress content.


[deleted]

I like this a lot!


qorewwe

Is it just me, or is this... not well done at all? Why do destroyers have their movement halved in the deep ocean again? If anything, penalties like this should be weather based.


hagamablabla

One of podcat's later replies: Big waves and such are not as easy to deal with for smaller vessels as it is for capital ships. This impacts their performance and speed (and thus the whole task force composition)


qorewwe

Doesn't that support the idea that these penalties should be applied due to weather and not inherent to those sea zones? A DDs maximum speed is not going to be halved in calm seas.


mpags

I agree. This would imply that destroyers with lets say a speed of 36 knots only did 18 knots in calm blue water areas. The entire fleet would need to slow down to account for the destroyers.


downbutnotout_1998

It also seems odd to hand a nerf to destroyers when it's the BBs and CVs that are making the naval game unfun right now.


Chief_Rocket_Man

Finally some mechanic changes. It’s definitely not only me but tbh I’m only really interested in dev diaries when they talk about changing core mechanics to the game


CHICKENMANTHROWAWAY

Yeah the rest seems like "A country you will never play will now have a focus tree bigger than spains'"


TripleCast

I don't know about you but I am actually motivated to play USA and Netherlands now. I am always supportive of more focus trees. I think they are lacking too many in very important countries to begin with.


Irday

Why the hate of the USA tree? I feel like it's one of the most fun out there. Just develop yourself until war get stagnant and then crush axis or allies, depending on your ideology


ViscountSilvermarch

Isn't the problem always that there isn't really much to do as the USA before the war?


Irday

Not really, you build shit, you influence shit, maybe invade or start a couple of civil wars


TripleCast

I don't dislike it in its current form. I just think the new one seems more exciting.


taqn22

The dutch were in the war tho


CHICKENMANTHROWAWAY

Not for long


taqn22

Most of the time in the war was as an exile, which is focused upon... Spain sent volunteers. Which is already represented.


Chief_Rocket_Man

Exactly. Like Netherlands is going to be a fun game for like three times, one for each political direction, but other than that the majority of people are gonna go back to playing the majors that still suffer from the same shallow mechanics, which they’re now addressing in this dev diary


[deleted]

I don't agree that much. Every country they release a unique FT for (exept NZ and SA) I ended up playing extensivly. India and Romania are my go to nations usually.


noro471

i want more core game changes


_Venil

I know these numbers are WiP but those debuffs to destroyers in deep sea are too harsh. I can see these numbers beeing reasonable when there is a storm but when its calm or just a bit windy they should be way lower.


Sean951

Maybe the penalties/bonuses work similar to how ow terrain impacts army divisions.


NeedsToShutUp

Japanese submarine slammed two torpedoes into her side, Chief. We was comin’ back from the island of Tinian to Leyte. We’d just delivered the bomb. The Hiroshima bomb. Eleven hundred men went into the water. Vessel went down in 12 minutes. Didn’t see the first shark for about a half-hour. Tiger. 13-footer. You know how you know that in the water, Chief? You can tell by lookin’ from the dorsal to the tail. What we didn’t know, was that our bomb mission was so secret, no distress signal had been sent. They didn’t even list us overdue for a week. Very first light, Chief, sharks come cruisin’ by, so we formed ourselves into tight groups. It was sorta like you see in the calendars, you know the infantry squares in the old calendars like the Battle of Waterloo and the idea was the shark come to the nearest man, that man he starts poundin’ and hollerin’ and sometimes that shark he go away… but sometimes he wouldn’t go away. Sometimes that shark looks right at ya. Right into your eyes. And the thing about a shark is he’s got lifeless eyes. Black eyes. Like a doll’s eyes. When he comes at ya, he doesn’t even seem to be livin’… ’til he bites ya, and those black eyes roll over white and then… ah then you hear that terrible high-pitched screamin’. The ocean turns red, and despite all your poundin’ and your hollerin’ those sharks come in and… they rip you to pieces. You know by the end of that first dawn, lost a hundred men. I don’t know how many sharks there were, maybe a thousand. I do know how many men, they averaged six an hour. Thursday mornin’, Chief, I bumped into a friend of mine, Herbie Robinson from Cleveland. Baseball player. Boson’s mate. I thought he was asleep. I reached over to wake him up. He bobbed up, down in the water, he was like a kinda top. Upended. Well, he’d been bitten in half below the waist. At noon on the fifth day, a Lockheed Ventura swung in low and he spotted us, a young pilot, lot younger than Mr. Hooper here, anyway he spotted us and a few hours later a big ol’ fat PBY come down and started to pick us up. You know that was the time I was most frightened. Waitin’ for my turn. I’ll never put on a lifejacket again. So, eleven hundred men went into the water. 316 men come out, the sharks took the rest, June the 29th, 1945. Anyway, we delivered the bomb.


Northern_Musa

So.. what happened to brown water? Did it get replaced by green water?


donlad2

probably, because brown water navy refers to rivers, lakes, and swamps


downbutnotout_1998

I was getting kind of excited for river gunboats in China and South America.


donlad2

that would be pretty cool


A_Suvorov

Deep and normal ocean should be nearly 0% chance for mines


shodan13

>adds naval terrain >first one is "regular ocean" with no bonuses penalties


AndydaAlpaca

Is anyone else struggling to tell the shallow and normal oceans apart?


Hipster-Stalin

Today we are going to talk about Naval Terrain and start talking about some of the core changes to the naval game. We felt that we wanted to make where you fight more important, and where possible give advantages to people fighting in home waters. The sea in HOI4 has previously generally been either “ocean” or “ocean in range of enemy land based aircraft”, and otherwise mattered little. That’s about to change! To do this we are introducing several terrain types for seas. These impact what ships work best there, how mines function as well as some other stuff. In total seas are divided into 4 types: ocean.jpg Regular Ocean has no special effects, so its similar to plains on land. Screenshot_4.jpg Fjords & Archipelagos come with some hefty penalties to big ships, but make it easier to hide (all numbers still quite work in progress btw!) Screenshot_3.jpg Deep Oceans on the other hand are not good for light ships. They are also not good place to mine due to their depth and vastness. Subs like this area (mid atlantic gap = bae) because it is also easier to hide here. Screenshot_5.jpg Shallow seas are a bit harder to maneuver well in, and not a great place for submarines. There is also some possible modifiers on them: Screenshot_6.jpg Arctic Water is a general bad area to operate in, wearing your ships down and causing potential accidents. It also increases casualties if ships sink for any reason. This modifier works much like Extreme Cold on land so it depends on the time of year and temperature. Screenshot_7.jpg Some places in the world have quite a lot of sharks and there are a lot of stories of heavy casualties after the sinking of ships due to sharks. The USS Indianapolis is a famous example where due to several reasons, sharks among those, something like 75% of the crew were lost. It is honestly mostly a cool flavor thing though we wanted to have in ;) Your performance in these are also affected by Admiral Traits. As we have shown a bit before your Admirals can now gain traits for different terrain types. Screenshot_2.jpg Cold Water Expert reduces the impact of arctic waters Inshore Fighter gives combat bonuses and speed when operating in Fjords and Archipelagos Blue Water Expert gives combat bonuses and speed when operating in deep oceans Green Water Expert gives combat bonuses and speed when operating in shallow seas You might have noticed some strange colors in the screenshots above. We are adding some more mapmodes, but it’s mostly all pink and full of coder art at the moment, so you are going to have to wait a bit more to see all those. I am pointing it out because I need to show the terrain mapmode a bit to more easily show off the naval terrain across the world Screenshot_8.jpg Around the Dutch East Indies several of the terrain types are visible (the colors on land in this mapmode are still in need of some tweaking btw). The brightest there is archipelagos with the other shades of blue being shallow seas and regular ocean and the darker areas is deep oceans. This is what the Atlantic and Europe looks like: Screenshot_9.jpg Notice the deep ocean in the Atlantic and the fjords around scandinavia. That’s it for this today, next week we are going to start going over some of the more core naval changes. Seeya then!


alaskafish

I'm still waiting for the rework in naval mechanics. Honestly, ocean terrain is cool and all that, but honestly, I could care less. For some reason it's still effective just sending an army of just infantry to the mountains, or the desert. And I know for a fact I won't care if my boats are in shark infested waters, or not. And my biggest issue with planning out your navy composition is research. The developers really ought to give us more research slots for every nation, because I feel as if there's no research to diversify your composition. I'll just research Submarines and just pump out thousands rather than making a few destroyers, some light cruisers, a couple battleships, a handful of aircraft carriers... etc. Same applies for land and air.


AndydaAlpaca

>Honestly, ocean terrain is cool and all that, but honestly, I could care less Good to know you are really enthused about it all then!


[deleted]

Yeah there should be a combined arms bonus. Or make a unbalanced fleet easy to destroy.


shodan13

No mine hitting bonus is shallow water and/or straits? Boo!


JeffieSnugglebottom

There's a penalty to mines in deep/open ocean. Shallow water and straits are where mines are supposed to be used, so it makes more sense to use that as a baseline 100% and subtract for the more challenging places


shodan13

But I can't mine like just the Gibraltar? :(


[deleted]

Shouldn't sea terrain be on the province level not on the state level?


Dreniza

This is pretty cool. I like these changes. Excited.


overthinker356

Shark Week 2019 release confirmed?!


Shadowslime110

I don't quite understand why fuel consumption would increase in archipelagos but nonetheless this looks very promising


antshekhter

requires more careful maneuvering which uses extra fuel as opposed to going in a straight line


Draakon0

But if the ship is going to be out on sea for the same amount of time before returning to port vs that of the other water terrain types, would there really be a big difference in fuel consumption?


antshekhter

You'd be surprised


Draakon0

Okay, surprise me then.


Oco0003

Are you planning on adding more states for countries that have strategic areas? For Example, splitting North PNG and South PNG, as Germany had the Bismarck Sea in the northern part of New Guinea


[deleted]

Good ideas, but nonsensical implementation.


Kuupie

Naval *Terrain* - Is this a * *gasp* * Paradox?


DogeArcanine

And when will they finally allow ground based fighter aircraft to move into naval combat? I'm sick off getting my fleets bombed to shit by tac tical and naval bombers, while my fighters do absolutely nothing


[deleted]

Your air superiority in sea zones reduces effects of their NAV bombers.


DogeArcanine

You sure? I usually feel like my fleets get shredded to pieces, even when I have total air superiority over the english channel. It doesn't matter if there are 2.000 fighters - if they have 200 bombers left and just bring them the instant a naval combat is going on, those bombers just blow the fleets - the fighters (no matter if on air superiority or intercept missions) seem to do nothing. Yes, they have range to cover the channel and I even have radars everywhere.


[deleted]

Check interception percentage of your fighters. Ideally you should intercept 100% of their sorties. Maybe set 1/2 of those fighters to interception.


[deleted]

Also there is alot that goes into air combat. Which is the 1st battle you should win. http://hoi4.paradoxwikis.com/Air_warfare Get 100% detection. Then make sure your planes have higher agility. Your attack should be higher than their defense. Naval tips would be decrease ship visibility and maybe increase size of fleet. Lastly, go around sea zones with NAV in them.


PubliusDeLaMancha

Not completely related but there was a mod I loved that I believe stopped being supported called More Straits which.... Well, added more controllable straits to the game. I'd love to see the map revised to include this, changes naval strategy a bit. English Channel dynamic was interesting in that you could only control the strait by controlling the land on both sides (England and France)


[deleted]

No offense but this is really dumb. That’s not at all how it worked historically and doesn’t make any sense logically either. On top of that it mostly would make navies redundant. If you want to defend against the Nazi’s ground invasion just play France and not Britain?


PubliusDeLaMancha

That was just an example, doesn't really impact my own campaigns. That said nothing in hoi really works historically if anything it's a late game thing