I feel like refitting ships takes far too long

  • 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.

thedarkendstar

General
23 Badges
Mar 13, 2012
2.078
4.255
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Hearts of Iron 4: Arms Against Tyranny
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Steel Division: Normand 44 Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Victoria 2
  • Naval War: Arctic Circle
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
I was playing spain to yesterday civil war was long over etc and I decided let’s refit my 2 old battleships but then was amazed to find out (cause I had one being built) they would only finish refitting like 2 months after my super heavy battleship which was already under construction. Why would you ever refit anything if it takes the same amount of time as building a new one.
 
  • 7
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
THere is a mod for that but even with it..... refitting can take a long time. 60 days to put a radar on Bismarck...
 
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Engines and armor aren't meant to be refitted, so if you did either of those it's going to add a ton of time to your refit length. Main guns also take a while, although they aren't as bad.

Refitting the engines often requires you to cut into the hull in order to enlarge the engine compartments, and refitting the main armor belt is extremely-difficult (you can't just bolt more armor on the outside, so either you need form-fitting armor wrapped around a large section of the hull or to cut into the interior and expand internal armoring; adding torpedo bulges or deck armor is considerably-more realistic, but the game doesn't represent those as modules).
 
  • 6
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
...
Refitting the engines ...

As an addition:
We should keep in mind, at those times the engines of capital ships ( beside a few exceptions ) were not a compact diesel-motors but steam-powered engines. ( ~ 12 boilers, ~4 hp-and lp-turbines, condensators and many, many pipes. )
And you cannot change that at the jetty; you need a dock for capital ships; and those were mostly needed for building new capitals.
So changing engines of capitals is mostly not a good idea ( ingame and in reality )
 
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
That's a lot of wiring. 60 days doesn't seem crazy.

You just bolt it on and plug in the USB.....oh wait a minute, lol.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
That's a lot of wiring. 60 days doesn't seem crazy.

Wiring isn't that problem; shipbuilding measures are. Like workings to place the wave guide, to compensate the loss of metacentric height, to make new space for the inboard-radar-equipment, etc
 
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
As an addition:
We should keep in mind, at those times the engines of capital ships ( beside a few exceptions ) were not a compact diesel-motors but steam-powered engines. ( ~ 12 boilers, ~4 hp-and lp-turbines, condensators and many, many pipes. )
And you cannot change that at the jetty; you need a dock for capital ships; and those were mostly needed for building new capitals.
So changing engines of capitals is mostly not a good idea ( ingame and in reality )
Changing engines is almost always a good idea and i will tell you why. If you're playing Japan, the speed of a carrier is ~30 knots, but most of your cruiser 1, and battleships 1 have a speed of ~26 knots, maybe less. If you aren't able to change their engines before facing the Allies, many engagements will end before your battleships can join the battle, letting your carriers and battlecruiser alone. If you make the mistake of putting together slow and fast ships,and in the middle of the battle you need to retreat because you're losing and don't want to lose your entire navy, the slower ships will hold the fast ones making you lose all of them.

The same happens when you're playing with Italy. The 2 battleships that you start the game, are slower (really slower) than the new that are being build. If after building the new ones, you don't take your time to refit the old ones, you'll have less 2 battleships to engage the british navy, or 2 sacrifices, if you chose to go ahead with them.

Speed kills and save lifes too.
 
  • 5
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Speed kills and save lifes too.

Yes, I fully agree.

As I said: "So changing engines of capitals is mostly not a good idea ( ingame and in reality ). "
"Mostly" includes exceptions; you listed some of these.

But, as always, it is a question of playing-style and own-focus-setting ;)
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I was playing spain to yesterday civil war was long over etc and I decided let’s refit my 2 old battleships but then was amazed to find out (cause I had one being built) they would only finish refitting like 2 months after my super heavy battleship which was already under construction. Why would you ever refit anything if it takes the same amount of time as building a new one.
Because of restrictions placed by the historical naval treaties. If you are not a treaty signatory, then you should build new ships and not bother with refitting guns, armor, or engines, as how things were done historically.

Changing engines is almost always a good idea and i will tell you why. If you're playing Japan, the speed of a carrier is ~30 knots, but most of your cruiser 1, and battleships 1 have a speed of ~26 knots, maybe less. If you aren't able to change their engines before facing the Allies, many engagements will end before your battleships can join the battle, letting your carriers and battlecruiser alone. If you make the mistake of putting together slow and fast ships,and in the middle of the battle you need to retreat because you're losing and don't want to lose your entire navy, the slower ships will hold the fast ones making you lose all of them.

The same happens when you're playing with Italy. The 2 battleships that you start the game, are slower (really slower) than the new that are being build. If after building the new ones, you don't take your time to refit the old ones, you'll have less 2 battleships to engage the british navy, or 2 sacrifices, if you chose to go ahead with them.

Speed kills and save lifes too.
Is that faster than just building new ships?
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Because of restrictions placed by the historical naval treaties. If you are not a treaty signatory, then you should build new ships and not bother with refitting guns, armor, or engines, as how things were done historically.

Is that faster than just building new ships?

Its a bit of a trade-off, since usually you can build a better new ship in a somewhat-longer timeframe than it costs to refit the engines of older ships, which is why it was always a contentious fact. Most refits were done due to the Washington Naval Treaty, but a few major refits were considered outside of it (the USSR refitted its Marat-class dreadnoughts with new engines outside the treaty, and the USA considered comparable refits such as lengthening the deck of the USS Ranger, and several Pearl Harbor survivors also had extensive refits--not the engines, however).

Refitting the engines, as mentioned above, can give your capital ships a lot of utility for carrier escort; however, in the same scenario with the Italian navy, I'd rather convert the older BBs into aircraft carriers (for whatever reason, the 1922 engine still pushes them up to 30 knots) and just build new battleships or battlecruisers; this also means you don't need to bother with 1936 carrier tech for a while longer, plus Italy starts with the Littorio-class queued at 20% progress (which is going to take a while, but 2 carriers and 4 battleships is a reasonable strike force for 1936 tech).
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Its a bit of a trade-off, since usually you can build a better new ship in a somewhat-longer timeframe than it costs to refit the engines of older ships, which is why it was always a contentious fact. Most refits were done due to the Washington Naval Treaty, but a few major refits were considered outside of it (the USSR refitted its Marat-class dreadnoughts with new engines outside the treaty, and the USA considered comparable refits such as lengthening the deck of the USS Ranger, and several Pearl Harbor survivors also had extensive refits--not the engines, however).

Refitting the engines, as mentioned above, can give your capital ships a lot of utility for carrier escort; however, in the same scenario with the Italian navy, I'd rather convert the older BBs into aircraft carriers (for whatever reason, the 1922 engine still pushes them up to 30 knots) and just build new battleships or battlecruisers; this also means you don't need to bother with 1936 carrier tech for a while longer, plus Italy starts with the Littorio-class queued at 20% progress (which is going to take a while, but 2 carriers and 4 battleships is a reasonable strike force for 1936 tech).
1) The USSR was never bound by the Washington/London Naval Treaties (only the USA, UK, France, Japan, and Italy. Germany was bound by Versailles (largely ignored by the time the game starts AND modified by the unilateral (France and Italy were not consulted) Anglo-German Navy Agreement of 1935.)
2) In-game it is mostly impossible to refit your existing Capital Ships while the treaty is in force, at least not in any meaningful way. [I wish there was a way to have the treaty only limit new construction but allow refits of existing units, not being able to add RADAR to my battleships until the war starts is annoying.] The Non-Democracies (Italy and Japan) have a little more leeway if they cheat, but still can't build (or refit) fully capable 'modern' capitals.
3) There is are reasons that the only extensive refits of major warships took place (or at least were started) during peacetime. Look at the Italian 'refits' of their BBs, roughly 3 1/2 years versus about 4 for the new build Littorios.
4) Yes I know that peacetime construction rates were less rushed than wartime rates, but the fact that no major refits were conducted once it became apparent that war was coming, much less already started, (unless the ship was still under construction or was already in the yards to repair major battle damage) tells us something about the economies of new versus repurposed when it comes to warships.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
1) The USSR was never bound by the Washington/London Naval Treaties (only the USA, UK, France, Japan, and Italy. Germany was bound by Versailles (largely ignored by the time the game starts AND modified by the unilateral (France and Italy were not consulted) Anglo-German Navy Agreement of 1935.)
2) In-game it is mostly impossible to refit your existing Capital Ships while the treaty is in force, at least not in any meaningful way. [I wish there was a way to have the treaty only limit new construction but allow refits of existing units, not being able to add RADAR to my battleships until the war starts is annoying.] The Non-Democracies (Italy and Japan) have a little more leeway if they cheat, but still can't build (or refit) fully capable 'modern' capitals.
3) There is are reasons that the only extensive refits of major warships took place (or at least were started) during peacetime. Look at the Italian 'refits' of their BBs, roughly 3 1/2 years versus about 4 for the new build Littorios.
4) Yes I know that peacetime construction rates were less rushed than wartime rates, but the fact that no major refits were conducted once it became apparent that war was coming, much less already started, (unless the ship was still under construction or was already in the yards to repair major battle damage) tells us something about the economies of new versus repurposed when it comes to warships.

1.) I listed the USSR specifically because they were an exception to refitting battleships outside of the treaty (as opposed to the idea of Italy refitting the Conte di Cavours and Andrea Dorias because they weren't allotted any other BBs). Their BBs needed massive work regardless though, considering one of the refitted ships had to be refloated after sinking.d

2.) You can refit BBs to a reasonable rate with the escalator clause, the only classes that are problematic there are the Nelson, Nagato, and Colorado classes (with 16-inch guns), as well as modern hulls. That is, however, why I stick mostly with battlecruisers for new ships when I stay in the naval treaty.

3 and 4.) I don't disagree with the extensive refits at all; I was, however, pointing out that there are both in-game reasons to refit ships rather than build new ones (faster than building new ships, particularly if the ships aren't very valuable otherwise) and historical equivalents, which were considered in many cases (most historic refits were done to turrets and superstructures, which are very hard to represent, but other refits for deck armor and torpedo protection were actually done on a large number of dreadnoughts and even carriers). Its a tradeoff between a benefit in the short-run versus getting more later, and it should be pointed out that while few conversions of capital ships were done late in the war, few capital ships were built after the war started either.

The only battleship that was laid down during wartime--and finished--was HMS Vanguard. Technically 4 of the Iowa class were laid down after the war started (and 2 finished), but the US was still neutral itself at the time.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Because of restrictions placed by the historical naval treaties. If you are not a treaty signatory, then you should build new ships and not bother with refitting guns, armor, or engines, as how things were done historically.


Is that faster than just building new ships?
You guys are missing the point. It costs the same time to change the engine and build a new ship, but by 38' playing as Italy you will have finished all your ships in construction, and with the world tension above 20% you can pull out from the Naval Treat, that at this point is useless. You will expend more 1 year to refit your 2 old batteships, and will have enough time to convert your old cruisers that don't have armor, add sonar and new torpedos to your destroyers and maybe add radar and other stuff to your ships before engaging in war against the Allies. If you do that, every ship that you have will be worth 2 or 3 time 1 of the british. With enough air support, you can easely control the Mediterraneum Sea. The best part is that you can do all of that with only 15 shipyards and little resources.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
2.) You can refit BBs to a reasonable rate with the escalator clause, the only classes that are problematic there are the Nelson, Nagato, and Colorado classes (with 16-inch guns), as well as modern hulls. That is, however, why I stick mostly with battlecruisers for new ships when I stay in the naval treaty.
Japan has serious issues related to refit, because not only the Nagato Class is a pain to refit, almost all your cruisers has engine 1, moving close to the speed of the battleships. If you don't invest hard in dockyards, it's better invest in new ships and just convert all your BBs into carriers, or use them separately in shore bombardment missions.
 
You guys are missing the point. It costs the same time to change the engine and build a new ship, but by 38' playing as Italy you will have finished all your ships in construction, and with the world tension above 20% you can pull out from the Naval Treat, that at this point is useless. You will expend more 1 year to refit your 2 old batteships, and will have enough time to convert your old cruisers that don't have armor, add sonar and new torpedos to your destroyers and maybe add radar and other stuff to your ships before engaging in war against the Allies. If you do that, every ship that you have will be worth 2 or 3 time 1 of the british. With enough air support, you can easely control the Mediterraneum Sea. The best part is that you can do all of that with only 15 shipyards and little resources.
I literally said only signatories should do that, isn't that exactly your point?
 
I don't have an objection to the amount of time it takes to refit, but rather the amount of dockyards. I'd rather that common refits like AA, radar, and fire control use few to no dockyards, while major overhauls could require a couple more. It's already near impossible to produce anything like the wartime number of ships, and refitting just makes it worse.
 
  • 3Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
2.) You can refit BBs to a reasonable rate with the escalator clause, the only classes that are problematic there are the Nelson, Nagato, and Colorado classes (with 16-inch guns), as well as modern hulls. That is, however, why I stick mostly with battlecruisers for new ships when I stay in the naval treaty.
Typically, the first nation (Italy or Japan) leaves the treaty early 1938, which means I can't start refitting to the increased levels until early 1939, leaving less than a year before the war starts (and the treaty ends completely). With almost any refit involving engines and/or armor taking 300+ days, these ships would still be in the que when the war starts. I do typically put my CV-2 (Yorktowns/Ark Royals) into the yards to add radar and better AA. I do tend to refit ALL of my Submarines (SS-1 get minelaying systems, but no changes to torpedos or engines, SS-2 get everything), and Destroyers. Sometimes I refit my CL so they are all the same standard, and if I'm really getting frisky I refit my CA-1 into CLs (only changing the guns)...particularly as the US because this allows me to build more Yorktowns without passing the UK.
I have more freedom as the US because I have an extra 2 years to play with, and sometimes refit the weaker BB-1 either into fully upgraded BC-1 or into Carriers.
 
  • 1
Reactions: