Big Nev,
The UK has the Tizard Mission
Everyone else, the UK is building factories in Africa......
The UK has the Tizard Mission
Everyone else, the UK is building factories in Africa......
Last edited:
A battleship can be built in 240 days with very basic technology.
- Thread starter Denkt
- Start date
-
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.
I think it is nice of Johan that he builds factories in Axis territory
Joke aside it probably makes Africa even harder to conquer so no I don't think Germans will steal them soon so it might be a good move lets see, definitely interesting.
Ships are quite expensive. A destroyer cost 1300 production. A military factory have about the same production as a dockyard (somewhat lower because the dockyard always work with max efficiency). An single engine aircraft cost about 20 production.
So for a destroyer you could build about 65 single engine aircrafts.
For a battleship who cost 14400 you can build 720 single engine aircrafts.
So for a destroyer you could build about 65 single engine aircrafts.
For a battleship who cost 14400 you can build 720 single engine aircrafts.
- 1
How many 1944 tech ships were used in the actual war? Most like the Midway and Saipan carriers and Worcester and Des Moines cruisers (I am making a guess as to the names of the 1944 ship techs) didn't see combat before the war was over. The Allen M Sumner class destroyer did but that makes sense because smaller ships can be built more quickly.
The end time frame of the game is 1948. With typical real life build times you would still have 2-3 years or maybe more to fight to 1948 with the 1944 designs. There is no need for stupid-fast build times. This isn't Starcraft or Sins or some other rock-paper-scissors real time strategy game. Major warships were a huge investment in time, money and resources and should be treated as such. Not be sailed out of the shipyard straight into combat like they were tanks rolling out of the factory without their paint job yet because you will have the next one completed in a few months.
- 6
So I was wondering... I haven't been as active recently since I have been distracted by other games...
More directly relevant, is there any sort of efficiency change between making, say, 4 battleships at once vs pouring all the resources into 1? I assume the latter scenario allows you to build faster (it should) but at a cost in efficiency (so you wouldn't build in 1/4 the time). I don't know if the game incorporates this sort of thing (HOI3 didn't), but it'd be nice.
Also I'm very confused as to how the whole supply system works for naval units. I doubt you build "spare" battleships to equip sailors with... I take it with supply being only recently revealed, we don't know yet?
More directly relevant, is there any sort of efficiency change between making, say, 4 battleships at once vs pouring all the resources into 1? I assume the latter scenario allows you to build faster (it should) but at a cost in efficiency (so you wouldn't build in 1/4 the time). I don't know if the game incorporates this sort of thing (HOI3 didn't), but it'd be nice.
Also I'm very confused as to how the whole supply system works for naval units. I doubt you build "spare" battleships to equip sailors with... I take it with supply being only recently revealed, we don't know yet?
An Iowa class BB costs 100.000.000$ 1942 and a Mustang costs 50.000$ in 1945.
So in real life you can build 2.000 Mustangs for one Iowa. Navy was more expensive in real life
But that was only the ship/ plane. In HOI, there's more included in the costs of airplanes than just the plane itself I guess....
- 3
So, did I get it right, the OP suggest to make mostly useless class of ship even less usefull, since by the time they can be finished with OP suggestions, they will be obsolete to air power anyway?
- 3
- 1
- 1
I did never make any suggestion, just posted how fast a battleship can be built. This applies to all ships not only battleships.
The developers have more or less said that battleships will be useful. You may need airpower to keep them alive but that is what combined arms is about.
- 2
Ok, I guess I was wrong.
Yes, exactly like they were in history, but history is not the question here, we know battleships were mostly useless IRL.
US and UK was able to design very effective anti air doctrine. It was so effective that Japan lost 50 aircrafts to make a single hit with conventional ammunitions (bombs and torpedoes).
This was due to the ability to both use fighter aircrafts as well as massed ship anti air guns to destroy and disrupt enemy aircrafts.
Axis navies had very poor anti air, they used mainly 20 mm guns which can not really kill aircrafts before they attack and even if they hit the aircraft may often survive. Allies however used much more 40 mm guns which can destroy and disrupt aircrafts before they reach their target and often destroy the aircraft with a single hit.
The 20 mm guns did not even have much better fire rate then the allies 40 mm guns.
Lack of dual purpose guns in the german navy was also a poor choice.
An Iowa class have probably more effective or atleast equal anti air power to both Yamatos and both Bismarcks put together.
This was due to the ability to both use fighter aircrafts as well as massed ship anti air guns to destroy and disrupt enemy aircrafts.
Axis navies had very poor anti air, they used mainly 20 mm guns which can not really kill aircrafts before they attack and even if they hit the aircraft may often survive. Allies however used much more 40 mm guns which can destroy and disrupt aircrafts before they reach their target and often destroy the aircraft with a single hit.
The 20 mm guns did not even have much better fire rate then the allies 40 mm guns.
Lack of dual purpose guns in the german navy was also a poor choice.
An Iowa class have probably more effective or atleast equal anti air power to both Yamatos and both Bismarcks put together.
Last edited:
- 2
- 2
Your last point is easily true as roughly half of a US/UK 's AA firepower ( measured in weight of shells put into the air ) will be from the medium caliber 40mm guns. The Japanese didn't have any, and the German 37mm was abysmal, not just worse then alternative medium AA but firing one third as many rounds and few in number. Not only did the Iowa have better AA then those Axis ships but the Queen E class refits had better AA then those Axis ships.
The same can be said about the army aa as well, Germany most famous aa guns are the 8,8 cm which fame comes from its anti tank role and its use against bombers and the 20 mm wirbelwind which probably lacked range and firepower to be an effective anti air weapon. Allied forces main weapon was the 40 mm bofors gun, however their air superiority would probably limit the threat from axis airforce.
US AA only became good later in war. Japanese ships were notably earier constructs, so their poor AA wasn`t a bad choice, they were similar to American ships of similar construction years, just their fleet being more obsolete by the start of war. Also, pilot qualiry difference started to show quickly. But in 1942, American AA wasn`t all that effective against Japanese.
Actually, German land based AA was far better than any of war participants. 20 mm was awesome AA gun, as it was very good against strafing aircrafts, where 37-40 mm guns weren`t all that good against them. Germans also had decent 37 mm AA gun.
"Fame" is very bad measuring tool. It is not about what is "main" weapon, but "is AA defence structured properly", which, in case of German army, it largely was, since the main threat for Germans were Soviet planes, that operated at far lower height than allied ones.
- 2
Short ship time -> more dynamic naval game (good) + more/bigger fleet battles (so that a naval war isn't just 6 months of waiting between battles and then over when one side kills a few battleships and carriers -> good) -> more ships needed to replace losses after a battle -> more oil need for upkeeping a navy that is constantly fighting. I don't care about minor historical details when it leads to more interesting gameplay and more accurate major historical details.
- 6
- 5
You asume that the ships are built serial, which they arent. 15 dockyards arent building 1 ship at a time but rather 15 at a time, thats why 15 dockyards need much more resources than simply 1 does. 1 dockyard needs alot of time to completle an battleship.
Same goes with any other equipment. It is not like one factory builds the breach one builds the trigger, one builds the magazines and one puts them together into rifles, for example. Of course they wont get completed at the same time because such things never occured in real life and it would kinda suck gameplay wise for you waiting 2-3 years for 15 ships launching at once. They simply average the output, which is good.
Just look at it.
1 dockyard takes roughly 3600 days. 15 dockyards take 240 days. 240x15= 3600, so they are roughly the same, just that the 15 factories build them in paralell.
Their output is averaged out for gameplay sake however. It would be insane if you build 3 years on an battleship line in an game that is concentrated around 12 years in total and suddenly have 15 of them sitting around.
The american Liberty cargoshop for example. The initial ship took 244 days to construct, while they eventually averaged at 42 days construction time, but thats aside the point.
My point is, that it doesnt mean that one ship launched every 42 days, but every single day 4 of them were launched.
Besides that, you will rarely be able to put 15 dockyards onto an battleship production line, since that would be ridicoulously expensive.
Same goes with any other equipment. It is not like one factory builds the breach one builds the trigger, one builds the magazines and one puts them together into rifles, for example. Of course they wont get completed at the same time because such things never occured in real life and it would kinda suck gameplay wise for you waiting 2-3 years for 15 ships launching at once. They simply average the output, which is good.
Just look at it.
1 dockyard takes roughly 3600 days. 15 dockyards take 240 days. 240x15= 3600, so they are roughly the same, just that the 15 factories build them in paralell.
Their output is averaged out for gameplay sake however. It would be insane if you build 3 years on an battleship line in an game that is concentrated around 12 years in total and suddenly have 15 of them sitting around.
The american Liberty cargoshop for example. The initial ship took 244 days to construct, while they eventually averaged at 42 days construction time, but thats aside the point.
My point is, that it doesnt mean that one ship launched every 42 days, but every single day 4 of them were launched.
Besides that, you will rarely be able to put 15 dockyards onto an battleship production line, since that would be ridicoulously expensive.
Last edited:
How is ahistorical spamming of capital ships going to result in more accurate major historical battles?
- 3
- 1
I don't think that's going to be the result. I think the result is more task forces in general. I'm guessing the production time of all ships is going to be cut back, so destroyers and cruisers will still be very cheap compared to battleships and carriers. Besides, remember that with fuel the way it is, you need a high turnover of ships, which large numbers of ships will produce.
- 3
But if the major powers are running around with as many battleships as they had in WW1, the strategic decision making is completely different to the reality of WW2. This game is supposed to allow players to explore alternatives to what actually happened, not place players in a fantasy alternate reality. Building capital ships was a long term undertaking, and players should have to plan ahead just as their real life counterparts did. Each capital ship should be precious and the loss of a capital ship should represent a long term loss to a nations naval strength and not just be a matter of I'll build a replacement and have it operational within 12 months.
- 5
This man speaks the truth!
What disappoints me is that it's already looking like a naval mod will be required; I don't want 12-month battleship building, or naval tech starting in 1922.
- 2