Another excellent bit of news in this DD. My only concern is that the AI will not be able to handle these details. But I will strive to have faith. 
-
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.
It was the screenshot and the coding at the bottom that made me think that this was pure genius!
Will every single component (i.e. engines, anti-aircraft guns, etc...) need upgrading by one level each to enable you to access a new type/class of ship?? Or is it just certain components which enable a new type/class to come about??
Also, could you name an entire class of ship yourself, in-game?? That would be cool!
Will every single component (i.e. engines, anti-aircraft guns, etc...) need upgrading by one level each to enable you to access a new type/class of ship?? Or is it just certain components which enable a new type/class to come about??
Also, could you name an entire class of ship yourself, in-game?? That would be cool!
This is true. The hood was about as upgraded as you could possibly make a BC. In the end, it was probably somewhere on the periphery between BC and BB.
However, the point I was going for was that even admiralties misunderstood the uses of BC's. The Hood was dispatched to chase the Bismark. As a BC, the Hood was clearly outclassed. It goes against the very nature of a BC to send it to chase down a BB. An argument could probably be made that the British were confused as to the nature of the Bismark, thinking it another German "pocket" battleship,( which were themselves basically BC's), but I doubt this.
In my mind this then leads to why BC's underperformed. They were designed for a very specific role, and were seldom used in that role. When they were, they did fine.
how about this?
Code:
battleship.3 = {
capitalship_armament = 2
[COLOR="Red"]capitalship_seconday = 3[/COLOR]
battleship_antiaircraft = 3
battleship_engine = 2
battleship_armour = 2
[COLOR="Red"]capitalship_firecontrol = 2[/COLOR]
largewarship_radar = 0
battlefleet_concentration_doctrine = 0
battleship_crew_training = 0
}In other words is the number of "caracteristics" hardcoded?
Last edited:
That is excellent news, and that will add a lot of historical realism to the game.
I just wonder why King mentioned that reinforcements for that division are for free, since you use your own IC and those foreign blueprints?
I think he meant once the division is built it is yours and you no longer have to pay the country you got the liscense from.
Hurray for another wonderful update!
I like the new licensing feature, would let minors make up for not being able to run as many projects as their allies. My only thought is that while I'm perfectly fine with the buyer using their IC, should the licensed build be slightly cheaper for the buying country (and I'm thinking like 5% (land/air)-10%(naval) tops) and that difference added to the seller in terms of IC. In particular, I'm thinking Romainian and Hungarian Tank divs/bdes that were basically built in Germany, and Canadian pilots forming wings with british planes, etc... Also, should they be bought/licensed as 1 bde, and then assembled into a full div by the buying country.
The reason I suggest this is because it would kinda make sense that since the buyer country has no technical understanding of the design, the most complex X% needs to be built in the seller country on behalf of the buyer?
I like the new licensing feature, would let minors make up for not being able to run as many projects as their allies. My only thought is that while I'm perfectly fine with the buyer using their IC, should the licensed build be slightly cheaper for the buying country (and I'm thinking like 5% (land/air)-10%(naval) tops) and that difference added to the seller in terms of IC. In particular, I'm thinking Romainian and Hungarian Tank divs/bdes that were basically built in Germany, and Canadian pilots forming wings with british planes, etc... Also, should they be bought/licensed as 1 bde, and then assembled into a full div by the buying country.
The reason I suggest this is because it would kinda make sense that since the buyer country has no technical understanding of the design, the most complex X% needs to be built in the seller country on behalf of the buyer?
In 1915 you needed 45,000 tons to design a ship with 8 x 15" guns, good (for the time) armor and 30kts.
By 1935 technology had advanced, armor had gotten better and (especially) you could get much more hp/ton out of machinery, so a design could have 8-9 x 15-16" guns, good armor and 30kts on 35,000 tons.
About BCs, it's also worth noting that the UK traded armor for firepower. German BCs did the reverse--German BCs were undergunned for a capital ship but could stand up to p;unishment much better. With 1915 tech, you could only have 2 out of 3 of the holy trinity of speed, firepower & protection on anything but an out-sized ship ship.
I must say the points brought up by Alex_brunius are of great concern, something I missed completely earlier.
Using the licensor's practical experience instead of the licensee's also seems quite odd, in addition to the balance problems, unless the license includes a complete transfer of workforce.
Using the licensor's practical experience instead of the licensee's also seems quite odd, in addition to the balance problems, unless the license includes a complete transfer of workforce.
That would be handled by the very likely scenario of the buyer's practical tech values being lower than the seller's, thus the actual building would take longer.
yes, I agree. It makes little sense. It might help the practical score of the buyer, but the units should not be built at the same practical level.
I hope not, licencing is not a good way to simulate the purchase of equipment, since the major will not "consume" any of its IC to provide equipment to the minor.
I would prefer to see equipment purchases (e.g. Brazil's P-47, built in the US) completely separated from licencing (e.g. Japan's D4Y, influenced by Germany's He-118).
Sweet to have licenses. Looking forward to playing some minors and still keep up in tech as long as I can get enough money of course.
So will later tech give more practical? For example lets say I have no research in fighters so I need to start from scratch with the research and thus want a license to gain some practical. Does it matter if I license and build say a 1936 fighter or a 1943 fighter? It would seem to me that the 1943 fighter would give more since it's more advanced and has a lot more tech that you can learn from it.
So will later tech give more practical? For example lets say I have no research in fighters so I need to start from scratch with the research and thus want a license to gain some practical. Does it matter if I license and build say a 1936 fighter or a 1943 fighter? It would seem to me that the 1943 fighter would give more since it's more advanced and has a lot more tech that you can learn from it.
Last edited:
The good thing is that in the WW2 time frame weren't these annoying pirates producing units without licenses!
I think thats wrong. ALL major powers ignored licencing moneys and produced more of most stuff they could get their hands on claiming "Cause major" and that those rules or details don't apply to wartime. Sorry if your were trying to be sarcasticThe good thing is that in the WW2 time frame weren't these annoying pirates producing units without licenses!
Is it possible to steal the licence? I mean to produce any number of units without permition from the holder of the licence after I buy the first one?
Of course this would have diplomatical consequences.
Of course this would have diplomatical consequences.
Yeah, well, that answers my first question. But will countries who historically used only other countries' technology gain their own "no- name" models through research, or will they get the same guns they used in the real war? There was a lot of weapons trading going on before the war and I'm afraid that this new detailed approach will also bring certain problems. The Bofors 40 mm gun is a good example. Will the UK get "no- name" generic AAA (at a certain stage in their technology tree) if they do not trade guns with Sweden?
Why not? You can invite specialists to organize production, or simply borrow the design of production lines.
What would make more sense is for production to take place at the average of the two countries' practical values.
inviting specialists to reorganize or re-machining existing factories would also be incredibly expensive, in addition to the $ and IC cost of the unit itself. An average practical score...maybe. But I would prefer it to be at the buyer's level, perhaps boosted quite decently after the unit was constructed.