A battleship can be built in 240 days with very basic technology.

[Axe99]

The short build time for ships is probably purely gamplay wise. I would guess it shall be possible for Japan to have a little comeback after Midway.

That's the thing though - quicker naval production doesn't help Japan - it's makes life far, far harder for it. Instead of Japan having until 1943 before the US starts getting its Essex Class carriers out and fighting, Japan will be out-gunned at Midway (instead of the battle potentially going either way, they're unlikely to have much of a chance from a much earlier date). Unless we seriously nerf the US as well to below-UK naval production capacity, but I can't see that happening for a game where the US is such a large market (and of course wouldn't want it to happen either). Realistic ship-build times favours Japan here, and favours Germany as well (as there's an early window where Germany can scare the RN - but if the RN gets the KGVs and Indomitables by 1939 or 1940, then Germany's capacity for Sealion or similar is even smaller than it was historically (which, granted, wasn't large even then ).

Are we complaining just to complain here? Everyone knew this was going to be a sandbox, play the Grigsby series if you want hardcore simulation of WW2. My only concern is game balance. Like LordOfWar pointed out, it would take most, if not all, of a large nations resources to build a battleship that quickly. On top of that, many nations won't even have access to the oil needed to put all of their yards on battleship building. More-over, whats the point of having 12 battleships in 1940 if you have no screens (not to mention no planes, no tanks, no motorized infantry, etc etc) to back them up? Mass production of any sort may be a 'gamey' mechanic, but at long as its balanced I have no problem with it.

That's the thing though - the best way to balance a sandbox (particularly a WW2 sandbox) is by having abstractions that reflect actual conditions during the period. Speed up major warship construction and it adds an imbalance that then needs to be balanced some other way. For example, if these ship building speeds are what's in the final game, how on earth does Japan have a shot at challenging the US? So then we need to move something else out of joint (maybe triple Japan's naval construction capacity and resources to do it?) which then adds another imbalance which needs adjusting, and so on. A good sandbox is a good simulation. Abstracted, sure, but if you start distorting instead of abstracting, it hurts balance, and it hurts it hard. Sorry - just my 2 cents, a bit crook today, seem to be writing a bit 'blunter' than usual, but don't mean that response to sound aggressive or nasty .

 

[bigb4486]

That's the thing though - the best way to balance a sandbox (particularly a WW2 sandbox) is by having abstractions that reflect actual conditions during the period. Speed up major warship construction and it adds an imbalance that then needs to be balanced some other way. For example, if these ship building speeds are what's in the final game, how on earth does Japan have a shot at challenging the US? So then we need to move something else out of joint (maybe triple Japan's naval construction capacity and resources to do it?) which then adds another imbalance which needs adjusting, and so on. A good sandbox is a good simulation. Abstracted, sure, but if you start distorting instead of abstracting, it hurts balance, and it hurts it hard. Sorry - just my 2 cents, a bit crook today, seem to be writing a bit 'blunter' than usual, but don't mean that response to sound aggressive or nasty .

I'm taking a stab at the dark here, having not played the game itself. But from what we've seen I think the answer to Japan v USA is two fold: 1st, Docks can be built on coastal territory. Obviously most of Japan's provinces are coastal and should they industrialize properly, they have the potential to produce plenty of naval power. 2nd, resources. Oil is going to be the limiting factor for building navies, no doubt about it. Looking at the most recent play through, there is not enough oil available to the UK to utilize all its dockyards effectively and still produce a modern army. Sure you can trade for oil, but if Japan can secure China and Indonesia they can put a dent in UK/US naval production and boost their own. Yeah this will all be one big balancing act, but I think it's very doable.

 

[Axe99]

I'm taking a stab at the dark here, having not played the game itself. But from what we've seen I think the answer to Japan v USA is two fold: 1st, Docks can be built on coastal territory. Obviously most of Japan's provinces are coastal and should they industrialize properly, they have the potential to produce plenty of naval power. 2nd, resources. Oil is going to be the limiting factor for building navies, no doubt about it. Looking at the most recent play through, there is not enough oil available to the UK to utilize all its dockyards effectively and still produce a modern army. Sure you can trade for oil, but if Japan can secure China and Indonesia they can put a dent in UK/US naval production and boost their own. Yeah this will all be one big balancing act, but I think it's very doable.

Appreciate you engaging in a civilised and intelligent manner . On those points:

- The UK and US have significantly larger coastlines than Japan (prior to Japan going on a conquering spree, but quick naval build speeds mean that it'll take too long to build naval dockyards in a newly-subjugated Dutch East Indies to get any ships out of them before the US comes back across the Pacific).

- The US produced its own oil during this period - all those ships built by the US (which far, far exceeded Japan's build during the period, and I'd bet exceeded Japan's naval build for the 20th century). The UK also had access to oil (not least through receiving it via trade from the US).

Basically, in both cases, there's nothing Japan can do to slow down US/UK ship production (short of invading the US/UK, but if they can do that in 1941 then there are other balance issues that need addressing ) without creating new mechanics that are likely to create larger balance issues, or taking away the US' oil production and putting it somewhere else, which would also create a whole new set of balance issues (and quite a few unhappy people who expect the game to at least remotely resemble the historic situation).

 

[bigb4486]

Appreciate you engaging in a civilised and intelligent manner . On those points:

- The UK and US have significantly larger coastlines than Japan (prior to Japan going on a conquering spree, but quick naval build speeds mean that it'll take too long to build naval dockyards in a newly-subjugated Dutch East Indies to get any ships out of them before the US comes back across the Pacific).

- The US produced its own oil during this period - all those ships built by the US (which far, far exceeded Japan's build during the period, and I'd bet exceeded Japan's naval build for the 20th century). The UK also had access to oil (not least through receiving it via trade from the US).

Basically, in both cases, there's nothing Japan can do to slow down US/UK ship production (short of invading the US/UK, but if they can do that in 1941 then there are other balance issues that need addressing ) without creating new mechanics that are likely to create larger balance issues, or taking away the US' oil production and putting it somewhere else, which would also create a whole new set of balance issues (and quite a few unhappy people who expect the game to at least remotely resemble the historic situation).

Of course, we are both here to discuss a game that we are excited about. No need to bicker over things we don't even know to be fact yet.

But I have to refute your point on oil! If we watch the most recent stream from the devs (http://www.twitch.tv/paradoxinteractive/v/28002064) look at Johan's opening production queue (10:00). Utilizing just his starting 19 dockyards, he uses all of the oil available to him! I'm going to assume that includes oil found in UK holdings in the middle-east and Indonesia. When he adds planes and tank production queues, these lines have 0 oil attributed to them. I think it all depends on how much production is hindered by a lack of resources, particularly oil. Do we know the exact numbers on that? If its just 50% increased build time for not having a resource, you can probably brute force you way to a win with industry heavy nations.

 

[Axe99]

Of course, we are both here to discuss a game that we are excited about. No need to bicker over things we don't even know to be fact yet.

But I have to refute your point on oil! If we watch the most recent stream from the devs (http://www.twitch.tv/paradoxinteractive/v/28002064) look at Johan's opening production queue (10:00). Utilizing just his starting 19 dockyards, he uses all of the oil available to him! I'm going to assume that includes oil found in UK holdings in the middle-east and Indonesia. When he adds planes and tank production queues, these lines have 0 oil attributed to them. I think it all depends on how much production is hindered by a lack of resources, particularly oil. Do we know the exact numbers on that? If its just 50% increased build time for not having a resource, you can probably brute force you way to a win with industry heavy nations.

Sorry, just discussing, not trying to 'bicker' per se - am trying to discuss logically rather than just assert emotively as well . On Johan's lack of oil, do we know if he was bringing in any by trade? He had a huge surplus of pretty much everything else. If he can't bring any more by trade, then the game has some other serious balance issues - those production lines he had there were smaller than the UK's actual ship production at the time, and substantially smaller than it was in 1937 onwards.

On the by, I'm interested in what you're looking for in terms of 'balance'?

 

[bigb4486]

Didn't mean to imply you were bickering. Just commenting on being civil and what-not.

As far as Johan's resources, that was a freshly started game so everything we see there should be the same thing the UK starts with. Nothing traded away, nothing brought in yet. It is quite likely he will bring more oil in via trade. Granted I know little about the oil production of 1936, but I would assume the UK territories would account for a good chunk of the worlds production. If the Brits start with a supply of 21 oil, how much more can we assume is logically out there? 200? I'm just plucking numbers at this point, and maybe there is a tech to increase oil production a la HOI3. That remains to be seen.

As far as my desire for balance. In these sort of 'grand strategy' games, I enjoy the sandbox and replayability. I really enjoy the somewhat unpredictable, random nature of the EU4 and CK2 games. Therefore it's hard for me to give an unbiased opinion. I know many people would like to see a game where the Axis loses 99 of 100 games, because the odds were just so against them historically. Personally I will be playing with the ahistorical option. I want to see a world where the US turns fascist and helps the Axis win the war. A world where the USSR and Germany set aside their differences to take down Capitalism. Those scenarios interest me, and as long as the base game is 'balanced' enough to support them I will be happy. Going further into detail, common sense applies. Large nations (Germany) should easily trump small nations (Czechoslovakia). I think mid-sized nations, given the right circumstances, should be able to acquire enough territory to become a real player in the war (in this case, lets say Sweden takes Norway and Finland). Also small nations should be able to band together and give good resistance (the Balkans states unite and give Germany a hard time for example). But that's me and like I said I enjoy the ahistorical ideas behind the period.

 

[Axe99]

All good, I'm definitely a fan of being civil, and am enjoying our discussion .

As for world oil production at the time, the UK needs to trade for some of their oil (although a good proportion of it should be coming from Iran through a foreign-investment type arrangement, but that hasn't been in past HoIs so we shouldn't expect it now), but it shouldn't really be a limiting factor for their naval production, and definitely not for the US. Historically, the UK laid down five BBs and four CVs (and continued building destroyers at 2-4 times the rate Johan can in that example, as well as a substnatial number of CLs and a few SS) in 1937. Now, it may be that HoI has decided to take the usual UK nerf and turn it up to 11 (in which case there are balance issues there as well, particularly for a sandbox game), but even if the UK is unable to produce a tenth of what it could historically, it's highly unlikely the US will be similarly restricted - ie, the US will have far more shipbuilding capacity (and oil) than Japan, which means Japan will face a far sterner challenger with quicker CV and BB build times.

In terms of what you're looking for in 'balance', it sounds more like what you're looking for is substantial potential for a deviation from a historical position, something I'm actually quite happy with - I just want it to happen plausibly. That said, alt-history isn't 'balance', it's a specific preference for the potential for the political situation to deviate from history. There's a range of possible variance on all of these issues, and the choice is less one of balance and more one of a preferred level of variance (which is likely to be something that itself varies substantially between different players). For example, I'm happier with a relatively wide range of political variance in the game, as there's a historical mode for people that want something more plausible (in the future, I'm hoping there'll perhaps be three modes - historical, sandbox low-variance and sandbox high-variance, noting that the names will need to be more interesting than 'low and high variance' ).

Changing the build times for ships (in this case, more than halving them for BBs, if the numbers are final, which they probably won't be) isn't as much 'variance from the 1936 baseline', but rather changing the fundamental nature of how ships are produced at any point in the period. So it's more a degree of 'variance of gameplay from historically plausible' - where we're not talking about politics, but rather about how things are produced. Other types of variance that people might like are changes in how units might fight (like some people prefer BBs or SSs or heavy tanks or you-name-it to be more influential, relative to other units, than they were historically). So think of this as the amount of variance from historically plausible gameplay. This one's trickier to handle than political variance, and is something that really needs to be modded to suit personal taste in most cases.

So, for example, you personally prefer a fairly high variance in both political and gameplay mechanics from the historical dynamics, while I'm more relaxed about political variance but prefer gameplay (while still abstracted) to have less variance. Does that sound right? Again, not suggesting either position is more 'right' or 'wrong' (neither are, they're both perfectly reasonable preferences ), but that it's not about balance, but more about different visions of how much the game's mechanics will vary from the historical mechanics at the time. Either way, I'd be very surprised if both of us weren't very happy with the base game, even if either or both in the end use mods to meet our personal preferences .

 

[parkerg12]

(on its own) Faster Build speed than historically will absolutely punish the axis in terms of naval power. the axis needs historical build speeds to even have a chance for success. the biggest reason I see, is that the axis are going to aim for a certain period of time to where there fleet will be built and have a certain capacity to defeat the allied /comitern fleets. maybe you wait a year to gain a technological superiority, or maybe there is no time for it. with quick battle ship build times the usa is simply going to have a minimum fleet then quickly pump out advanced ships when the war starts, japan with its inferior navy should not have chance unless they are buffed as well. also with the long build times the allies are punished by having to follow the naval treaties which limit there naval power. the axis needs a period of time where they will only be fighting the old/ treaty fleets of the allies in which there non treaty and more modern fleet will have an advantage.

- faster build times equal a shorter period of time that the axis should have naval superiority unless there are other ahistorical buffing and nerfing.

-oil is also limiting facto,r but make it possible for the axis to gain more oil reserves through alternate but yet realistic scenarios. one of my favorite is Italy finding oil in Libya. this will a huge focus to the Mediterranean and would allow Italy to be more powerful without gaining other artificial buffing.

 

[bigb4486]

Changing the build times for ships (in this case, more than halving them for BBs, if the numbers are final, which they probably won't be) isn't as much 'variance from the 1936 baseline', but rather changing the fundamental nature of how ships are produced at any point in the period. So it's more a degree of 'variance of gameplay from historically plausible' - where we're not talking about politics, but rather about how things are produced. Other types of variance that people might like are changes in how units might fight (like some people prefer BBs or SSs or heavy tanks or you-name-it to be more influential, relative to other units, than they were historically). So think of this as the amount of variance from historically plausible gameplay. This one's trickier to handle than political variance, and is something that really needs to be modded to suit personal taste in most cases.

The mechanics behind production is definitely something that is going to be fine tuned. I'm sure after a game or two it will be evident what the 'optimal build' will be for most nations. To get more to the point of the thread and you previous question, I see balance in this aspect being number of factories / naval yards able to be built. If base naval build time is heavily reduced, it clearly favors a historical USA. However, I can see the devs curtailing this issue somewhat by limiting the number of factories able to be built in coastal USA, particularly the West Coast. Obviously the US will still have the potential for much more production, but perhaps the difference between the two power isn't as large as it was historically. Hard to say, but I could see it happen for the sake of balance.

The big problem I see with production as it stands, is what Parker mentioned. Whats stopping the United States from not building a single battleship until they have 1940 tech. Opting to build screens and carriers instead, then pushing out a dozen fast battleships before they enter the war? The same could be done with the airforce. With the ability to 'speed up' production, you could potentially bypass vehicles and ships you know wont be relevant when you can finally declare war. Build up your industry and stockpile materials for infantry, trucks, etc. Then push the majority of your factories over to the new vehicles when they become available. I think this will be the real balancing act for the devs.

 

[Axe99]

The mechanics behind production is definitely something that is going to be fine tuned. I'm sure after a game or two it will be evident what the 'optimal build' will be for most nations. To get more to the point of the thread and you previous question, I see balance in this aspect being number of factories / naval yards able to be built. If base naval build time is heavily reduced, it clearly favors a historical USA. However, I can see the devs curtailing this issue somewhat by limiting the number of factories able to be built in coastal USA, particularly the West Coast. Obviously the US will still have the potential for much more production, but perhaps the difference between the two power isn't as large as it was historically. Hard to say, but I could see it happen for the sake of balance.

The big problem I see with production as it stands, is what Parker mentioned. Whats stopping the United States from not building a single battleship until they have 1940 tech. Opting to build screens and carriers instead, then pushing out a dozen fast battleships before they enter the war? The same could be done with the airforce. With the ability to 'speed up' production, you could potentially bypass vehicles and ships you know wont be relevant when you can finally declare war. Build up your industry and stockpile materials for infantry, trucks, etc. Then push the majority of your factories over to the new vehicles when they become available. I think this will be the real balancing act for the devs.

Aye, Parker and me are actually saying the same thing. The US historically did built modern battleships (the Iowas), but they took two and a half years to build, so despite starting in the middle of 1940, the first wasn't operational until early 1943. With a build time of 240 days, the US will have its Iowas (and a few Essex class CVs) out before Pearl Harbour, making Japan a non-starter.

Unfortunately, even if you half the US' capacity to build capital ships, it'll still be able to overwhelm Japan. Not counting the Midways, or the CVs started before 1936 that finished during the game's timeframe, the US built 2.3 million tons of BB, CV, CVL and CVE during the 1936-1945 period, Japan ('cheating' and counting some of the ships that were laid down prior to 1936, which we're not doing for the US, and counting CVs that were laid down and not completed) didn't manage 500,000 tonnage of BB, CV, CVL and CVE. Further, the US out-built Japan by an even greater margin in pretty much every other class of ships, so there's every chance that even if you give the US a third of what it had during the war, it'd still turn Midway from an each-way bet to a sure thing for the US every time, because the US had that much capacity.

And, of course, if you cut US ship-building capacity down to a third of what it was, only the most historically oblivious WW2 gamers will miss it, and there'll be trouble on the forums, not to mention it's the opposite of sandbox game design - we're actually railroading the US far more than they were in HoI3 in many ways. It'd be the equivalent of cutting France into three bits in EU4, just because.

The issue of bypassing earlier designs to focus on newer ones is also hurt, not helped, but faster ship production. If I know that I can start spitting out new ships in under a year if I misjudge when war's going to start (keeping in mind it's a sandbox, so war is going to kick off in August/September 1939 each game, or even between Germany and France/the UK). If, on the other hand, a player knows it takes 2-3 years to build a BB, and they don't know when war will start, or with who, they need to keep building to make sure they're not caught on the hop (the US would have been in a lot of trouble in December 1941 if it hadn't already been refreshing it's BB fleet and building the Essex class).

Just talking it out - you make decent arguments . I just think (and it's just my 2 cents) that they require the historical facts to be changed so much it'd no longer be a recognisable as a WW2 game (or the facts aren't changed, and Japan gets smashed, and you get the same issue).

 

[parkerg12]

Historically how WW2 played out the allies/ commies win and should win every time it is really a fact that I don't think should even be debatable (if things follow the political paths and not make crazy, insane, impractical, never going to happen mistakes,)

so there are 2 ways that paradox can attempt to create a game that doesn't have a one possible ending

1- buff the historical axis so they can win - this will mean nations have unhistorical industrial and man -- power

2- change the political dynamics in the game and give realistic scenarios in which the axis would gain the upper hand , japan allies with china , Germany allies Poland and supports them in return for a Danzig corridor lease. France falls victim to huge political discontent making it possible for other factions to gain leverage, Mussolini allies Russia in response to fears of Germany wanting the return of Austrian provinces to his Reich.

I am really hoping for the second to be the case and not the first

....or if they are really ambitious the ability to switch between them.

so in response to ship building time I want them to be historical because that will let me play and think , ok what should I do to improve the allies / axis chances of success with the historical knowledge I have and that they had at the time which should punish people for thinking, o ya carriers are king (because I can see a lot of cases where they should not be). or be able to simply wait until the best tech is available and rush out an unbeatable fleet. maybe this is allying the yanks , or keeping the world tension under control, maybe its Germany waiting for Russia to attack them . ..........................etc.

 

[Denkt]

We have to see how important naval experience and variants will be. If you for example build a 0-0-0-0 ship it could be worse then your previous tech ship so you may wan't to withhold the construction of more advanced ships to the point you have a decent variant of it.

We talked about carriers in another thread. Carriers are only really useful if you need an airfield in the area. As Germany should have the ability project airpower from the airfields in Europe into most of the water it's navy will operate in, carriers are not really that good choice for Germany. Yes carriers have some advantages such as they can be close to the other ships compared to a land based airfield but for the cost of the carrier you could build something more useful.

 

[bigb4486]

I hadn't taken experience and variants into account, I suppose that will help Japan to an extent.

I think we're on the same page axe. It comes down to either the game will be historically correct and USA entering the war will be game over for the Axis 9/10 times. Or there will be some sort or nerf to allied nations / buff for axis nations for the sake of 'interesting' gameplay. I'd be willing to bet on the latter, but we shall see.

 

[timihendrix]

If it's meant to be a sandboxy game, what constitutes a "win" anyway? To me doing better (capturing more territory, winning more battles, prolonging the war for longer time, inflicting greater losses on Allies) than Axis did historically would be considered doing well. That's usually how it works in more historically accurate and "unbalanced games."

 

[Director]

Werner Von Braun once commented, "The problem with the Americans is that, if it takes a woman nine months to have a child, they think they can do it in one month by using nine women."

At the risk of 'boxing in' the Allied players' options, I could favor a minimum production time for cruisers and larger warships. Experience counts - but if you are 'only' building four or five or six members of a class then the experience is less about mass-production and more about bespoke tailoring. Cruisers... I have mixed feelings about. Certainly the US and UK built large numbers of certain classes, but I don't know that translated into faster construction time. Now, for destroyers and submarines and smaller ships - and merchantmen, and escort carriers (which we may not have to worry about) - producing more of them definitely led to faster construction times. Building Dreadnought in a year was a stunt helped along by stealing material from other ships; building the Liberty ship Robert E Peary was a stunt taking less than 5 days because materials were pre-positioned. But the average Liberty ship construction time dropped from 240 days to 42 (!).

So I think you can realize significant production efficiencies for warships of less than 3,000 tons and for merchantmen, but I can't see that translating to larger ships. You might produce dozens or hundreds of light ships, subs or merchantmen to the same design but 'only' thirty-six Cleveland-class were built, including (I think) the ones converted to light carriers.

Of course, the game may get to the same point by different mechanics; I doubt they've shown us a finished version of the naval production system.

Good discussion here - enjoying reading along.

 

[porta80]

You guys are somehow not really taking into your thinking that naval dockyards are somehow limited too. They are the limiting factor for naval produktion. If you like to assign 15 yards to a single production line, how many lines can you setup that way?
For example lets take Germany from start not even one full line with only 10 yards available.
UK only one full line and 4 yards are left for a second line.
Yes you can bild yards but those take alot of time to build up also which for you need the civilian industrie which you even dont have in unlimited numbers.
So maybe you are able to build a single battleship in a couple of month, but in the mean time you will hardly build anything else.
You need convois, dd, cl, cv and subs to. If you like to build all these on full speed you need up to 90 dockyards.
So as USA for example you have to build nearly 68 yards to have 6 lines running on full speed as you only start with 22 iirc.
As Yards only can be build on coastlines the number which can be build is also limited because the number of factorys in a state is even limited to a maximum of 20 and this only when its full developed and enough people are living there and the already existing civilian and army factorys already take some space too ;-)
not even to mention you need all resources in high quantity to keep those running on full speed.
As i see it the naval thing is already really good balanced.

 

[Amur_Tiger]

You guys are somehow not really taking into your thinking that naval dockyards are somehow limited too. They are the limiting factor for naval produktion. If you like to assign 15 yards to a single production line, how many lines can you setup that way?
For example lets take Germany from start not even one full line with only 10 yards available.
UK only one full line and 4 yards are left for a second line.
Yes you can bild yards but those take alot of time to build up also which for you need the civilian industrie which you even dont have in unlimited numbers.
So maybe you are able to build a single battleship in a couple of month, but in the mean time you will hardly build anything else.
You need convois, dd, cl, cv and subs to. If you like to build all these on full speed you need up to 90 dockyards.
So as USA for example you have to build nearly 68 yards to have 6 lines running on full speed as you only start with 22 iirc.
As Yards only can be build on coastlines the number which can be build is also limited because the number of factorys in a state is even limited to a maximum of 20 and this only when its full developed and enough people are living there and the already existing civilian and army factorys already take some space too ;-)
not even to mention you need all resources in high quantity to keep those running on full speed.
As i see it the naval thing is already really good balanced.

It's two different discussions and I brought up the 'total capacity' issue earlier. While 240 days to built a battleship is fast, the averaged capital ship output for the UK reaches somewhere around 150 days for a capital ship, but this is because of parallel builds. The whole concept of concentrating lots of production power on a single ship just doesn't make sense on the face of it, it wasn't realistically possible and in gameplay terms this makes it worse for the weaker naval powers of the game, which is the already hard-pressed Axis. Push comes to shove either the US or the UK could pummel any of the Axis Navies into the ground, the only real sign of strain during the war was when the UK was stretched between fighting Germany and Italy already and then having to deal with the Japanese as well. This is true from the absolute size of their navies and even more true from a production point of view, recall that the Allies have better access to oil.

Short production times mean that with a bit of precautionary investment in naval yards the UK can basically just sit on it's laurels for the Navy until clear signs of German naval construction emerge because quick construction times basically translate to quicker reaction times for the Military Industrial Complex. Long production times that favor parallel construction makes the balance of naval power a lot more swingy where the completion of a class of ships will tend to be clustered as they get laid down shortly after the design is finalized, this swingyness is where Germany and Japan have options to knock the UK/US off in Naval terms but the length of time between an Axis power gaining an naval upper hand and the allied powers being able to build their way out of it has to be long enough for operations of strategic significance to occur. Basically all Axis hope in naval matters from a production standpoint counts on them being able to capitalize on the lag-time between the allies learning of building Axis naval power and being able to actually put anything into the water to counter this, narrowing that margin isn't a good idea for gameplay or realism, in my opinion.

So the dynamic is that while the US and UK have huge amounts of Naval production to throw around and even the UK could have probably pushed out an average of 5 capital ships a year IRL after all, the 1937-1939 built plan nearly met that and there were quite a number of non-capital ships being built besides. The trick for the allies is that they have to anticipate the moves of the Axis 1-2 years in advance else they find themselves unprepared for the sort of Navy the Axis has put together, or ( as was largely the case ) under-resourced in terms of their Army and Air Force build up. Whatever might be said about the issues of the FAA getting their hands on aircraft worth a damn the Navy as a whole was by far the most prepared of the 3 services, and it was a good thing too as if the Navy missteps it's hard to turn it around with loads of production the way the air force did during the BoB.

TL;DR Long production times but lots of production is the way to go for the most interesting gameplay and historical accuracy.

 

[Axe99]

I hadn't taken experience and variants into account, I suppose that will help Japan to an extent.

I think we're on the same page axe. It comes down to either the game will be historically correct and USA entering the war will be game over for the Axis 9/10 times. Or there will be some sort or nerf to allied nations / buff for axis nations for the sake of 'interesting' gameplay. I'd be willing to bet on the latter, but we shall see.

Aye, for sure . One of the concerns I have is that faster build times buff the Allies, and as the HoI series has always given the Axis a bit of a leg-up, if an Allied buff is introduced, then other things need to be unbalanced to help maintain the same Axis/Allies balance - ie, the more you distort one thing, the more other things need distorting. I don't mind a game that buffs the Axis as well (although I'd probably end up playing historical mods, as I prefer my WW2 games a bit more historically plausible), but if they are to be buffed I'd keep it simple - make the mechanics historically plausible, and just give them greater factory capacity and population, or something like that.

If it's meant to be a sandboxy game, what constitutes a "win" anyway? To me doing better (capturing more territory, winning more battles, prolonging the war for longer time, inflicting greater losses on Allies) than Axis did historically would be considered doing well. That's usually how it works in more historically accurate and "unbalanced games."

A big plus one here. It's not feasible to 'balance' these kind of games for every nation in any event - you either balance it historically, or you create an unbalanced game that favours a particular nation or set of nations. They could never balance it to give Bulgaria the same chance of winning as the US, better to make the win criteria specific for each nation (so for a US player to 'win', they have to do a lot more than Bulgaria).

Werner Von Braun once commented, "The problem with the Americans is that, if it takes a woman nine months to have a child, they think they can do it in one month by using nine women."

Certainly the US and UK built large numbers of certain classes, but I don't know that translated into faster construction time.

So I think you can realize significant production efficiencies for warships of less than 3,000 tons and for merchantmen, but I can't see that translating to larger ships. You might produce dozens or hundreds of light ships, subs or merchantmen to the same design but 'only' thirty-six Cleveland-class were built, including (I think) the ones converted to light carriers.

Possibly the only time, ever, I'll be able to add info to one of your posts Director (and I still might get some of it wrong), but thanks to my new best friend (Conways), it looks like they planned 52 and finished 29 as cruisers (The 29 including 2 to a modified design, where they lowered the centre of gravity and shortened the length of ammunition hoists, and other things I know little about), and 9 were converted into Independence-class CVLs. In terms of production times, the first vessel, Cleveland, was laid down on 1 July 1940, Launched on 1 November 1941 and Commissioned in June 1942 (so 16 months laid down to launched, and another seven months to commissioned). The last of the first 27 Clevelands (so not looking at the new design, as that may have impacted on construction time), USS Dayton, was laid down on 8 March 1943, launched on 19 March 1944 and commissioned on the seventh of January 1945 (so just 12 months from laid down to launched, but then over nine months to commissioned, but still a gain of a couple of months). The Wilkes-Barre, a late-run Cleveland, did 12 months laid down to launch, and about seven months launch to commission, for a total of just 19 months.

TLR, there looks to have been economies of scale for large runs of at least CLs. There also looks to have been gains for the Casablance class escort carriers, although these may well have had a lot in common with the mass-production methods for merchant ships, so may not be as good an example.

So as USA for example you have to build nearly 68 yards to have 6 lines running on full speed as you only start with 22 iirc..

This is actually a plausible-sounding number of yards for the US. Their naval build capacity during the 1936-48 period, and particularly after 1940/41, is massive. I'm aways off the total numbers (I'm half-way through destroyers at the moment - of which the US built around 450 (!) during the period), but as per a comment earlier, they produced over four times the capital ships the IJN did over the period, and that's giving letting every grey area (ships in construction, ships not completed) be ruled in favour of the IJN (ie, ships not completed for the US weren't counted, for the IJN they were).

 

[porta80]

This is actually a plausible-sounding number of yards for the US. Their naval build capacity during the 1936-48 period, and particularly after 1940/41, is massive. I'm aways off the total numbers (I'm half-way through destroyers at the moment - of which the US built around 450 (!) during the period), but as per a comment earlier, they produced over four times the capital ships the IJN did over the period, and that's giving letting every grey area (ships in construction, ships not completed) be ruled in favour of the IJN (ie, ships not completed for the US weren't counted, for the IJN they were).

As you can seen in the screen below, you need around 85 days to construct a civilian industry on a full speed line. thats around 4,5 factorys a year with better technology you can surely get it down to 70 days i would suggest. naval yards cost the same or ewen more. so you need a few years to build up your naval capacity up to that point of 90 yards.

 

[Axe99]

As you can seen in the screen below, you need around 85 days to construct a civilian industry on a full speed line. thats around 4,5 factorys a year with better technology you can surely get it down to 70 days i would suggest. naval yards cost the same or ewen more. so you need a few years to build up your naval capacity up to that point of 90 yards.

Absolutely - the US will have from 1936 to 1941, and then if they put 30 yards on CVs at the start of '41 they'll have new CV's popping off the slips before Pearl Harbour (in a historical playthrough). If the US can't build up to 68 yards by that point, then the game's likely to be a mess for balance, and if they can but ship build times are that fast, then it'll be a mess for balance (and if the US doesn't have the oil to build those ships, then something's really out of whack). That's the whole thing about getting the abstractions broadly right. When one's out of line, it pushes everything else out of line as well. As I've said before, I can't imagine something isn't going to change, because the game will struggle to work as a WW2/WW2 era game if it doesn't.