Frankenstein is a valid example, and he was build in less time than a battleship.
But parts was not of a babe......
- 1
Is HoI4 moving towards an attrition based game?
- Thread starter HerrWeltkrieg
- 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.
Frankenstein is a valid example, and he was build in less time than a battleship.
But parts was not of a babe......
I wanna build frankenstein
Better, u can build a metal frankenstein of guns and armors... and it work also better.
Practically frankenstein parts are not designed for works together and was not a unique project, ship's parts yes.
Its a unique project.
- 1
The game don't have a modernization system but you could basically say the same about all ship classes could be completely represented by the variant system if all changes to battleships can be represented by it. Tanks and aircrafts could also be completely represented by the variant system as well.
Was such fabrication by sections possible for capital ships in the WW2 timeframe? I recall reading that the Germans did this for their later submarines, but they lost more time fixing the problems after joining the sections together than they saved by building them separately in the first place. So maybe this technology wasn't mature at the time?
It would be interesting if they had a five-shipyard limit with traditional technology, but if there was tech to bump the limit to 10 and 15 shipyards.
- 1
It would be an useful technology if you would build large ships but not for smal classes. You could as well just make a few industry technologies that give production bonuses to dockyards and achive the same goal but also make these techs important if you wan't to build smal ships as well.
U figure probably only the ship hull, but a ship its not only a hull....
Turrets are build probably separately and in other factory or shipyards.
Cannons barrels the same, engines, optics, fire controls systems and castles and ecc ecc
Its pratical impossible all parts of a large ship was build in the same shipyard.
I Dont know ship by ship of WW2 where all parts was build.
But the class i know well as Littorio for example was made in several factories very distant one each other.
Turrets and cannons was build in Terni factories, 200 km from sea and 600Km from the shipyards.
So this technology 100% existed.
Last edited:
- 4
nevermind.
but i think having a bunch of shipyards & factories should give some form of penalty anyway, perhaps to manpower.
but i think having a bunch of shipyards & factories should give some form of penalty anyway, perhaps to manpower.
Last edited:
I definitely agree that not all production associated with a particular ship has to happen at one location. Still, I have to think that there were practical limits to this that prevented majors from turning out a new finished battleship in under 8 months. If there were no drawback to concentrating production to this degree, I think someone would have done it for capital ships. Instead, even though not everything needed to be built at the same place, it still took a couple of years ( a limit which HoI4 happily ignores). That's why I proposed the 5 shipyard cap a few months ago when I first became aware of the issue.
Well, I guess an "increased modularization" tech would increase throughput per factory as well as raising the shipyard limit.
- 1
Agree its impossible aniway build large ship in such few time ...
But i dont understand why limit "graphically" with 5 shipyards icons that construction, the interface dont show single shipyard but only and abstraction of more or less resources.
U can figure this 15 icons in the interface represent only 5 physical shipyards, or 6 or 4 or as u prefer. The min build time can be increased aniway regardless the number of shipyards icons used.
Would be interesting create a limit depending by construction general technology. If your industry have high level of organization and automation u can decrease the min build time to 18 months, with low tech 36 months, it can be an example.
i was thinking the same....
How can you possibly criticize something for being a mouseclick simulator AND removing the OOB when that dam OOB accounted for 50% of the clicks in HOI3?
Don't misunderstand me, Hoi IV makes a lot of things good so far what i have watched in the www streams e.g. the rpg elements are ver good, the production is much more realistic as in any hoi before and so on.
But such a huge military game without a hierarchy is for me personally a no go. One leader get 100+ divisions to lead? Seriously?
Why not an arcade mode with this game mechanic (like the supply mode in Hoi III) and for the Hoi "nerds" a hierarchy model like in Hoi III. Where is the problem?
But maybe I'm to hardcore and Paradox want to expand the target group. You can see this kind of development in many other genres as well, unfortunately.
- 1
Certainly there are many different ways to limit construction time of capital ships. I support a 5-shipyard limit because it's a simple change that doesn't affect any other variables. If, for instance, you change the productivity of shipyards so that 15 of them take 2 years to build a BB, then that changes the relative value of shipyards versus military factories, and changes the number of shipyards you need in the game to achieve historical builds, has implications for the number of shipyard you want to be able to fit into coastal states and so on.
Assuming they are happy with the other balancing factors, they can achieve very roughly historical build times by limiting to one row instead of 3.
How can you possibly criticize something for being a mouseclick simulator AND removing the OOB when that dam OOB accounted for 50% of the clicks in HOI3?
The first thing I did in HOI3 was mod the OOB bonuses you would gain from having average to good leaders directly into player only modifiers and just play without assigning any, so much faster, so fewer clicks.
EDIT: Oh, and modding HQ ranges to longer than the width of the earth so they could all just sit nicely in the capital out of the way... I think the AI found it easier to deal with things because of that too
Some of those issues were due to HQs being on-map and worthless unless you microed in brigades. Had the mechanics been better for handling that the brainmelt would've been less.
But it DID ease management and ease of managing units. A lot of the hassle would be negated with the battle planner as you wouldn't need moving stuff around by means of micro.
But it was pretty damn convenient to have your mountain troops in Army X as part of Mountain-Corps Z which could easily be dragged-dropped to Army Y when needed. Now you just have Armygroup Zerg and need to manually find and select-click your 6 mountain divisions in the list in order to transfer them elsewhere.
That or forego the field marshals bonus and create a stand-alone mountain group (with no general unless you can afford it) and then draw individual plans for them.
Last edited:
Or they are working on several at a time making the ratio go up. You can only have so many Docks working on one at a time.
Except that the way production lines work in the game, all of the shipyards in one line actually are all working on one ship at a time. If the production line says 1.6 BB's/year, you will actually get a new BB after 7.5 months, not a few BB's in a few years.
They also said there is a max # of docks that can work on one ship, but if you had several going at once the number per year would go up.
Watching WWW i saw that a maksimum of 15 factories (or docks) can work on one order at any given time, however you can have multible orders for the same product at the same time. So you can have 4 orders of Weapons 2 with 15 factories working on each order, having 60 factories producing Weapons 2. When you have researched Weapons 3, you can change all 4 orders to Weapons 3 at an efficiency penalty, or change one order giving those 15 factories a penalty to efficiency.
I think it´s a matter of stats. If your lvl "whatsoever" tank of the one country has the same stats as the same "whatsoever" lvl tank from another country, then u are probably right. Just imagine that american tanks have the same stats as germans. Then they would be the same quality and it is just a matter of how much u can produce of the same thing -shurely a point for the US then. But if your planes and tanks of different nations have realistic -but maybe a little balanced- stats , then it could be more like quality vs quantity and strategical and tactical decicions are necessary.
But in the end -ofc- its always better to have like 20 ships instead of one
Well much is in the eye of the beholder as what you state is more myth than fact. The M4 was every bit a match for the pzIV, it was not built to combat the pzV or pzVI. Still you will find books and documentaries stating the tendency of the M4 to brew due to gasoline engine, which is myth. The Panther was actually more likely to brew(catch fire from a penetration) than the M4. So, in the land war and air war, there is a lot of myth accepted as fact that would come into play if you try to portray quality of each side. Much would depend on which study or historian you want to believe etc....
- 2
Good Lord,
I think u are missing my point sir. I dont want to make a national pride parade when saying any specific nation (in that case Germany) has better weapons than any other nations (In that case i took the US for example). It was just an example of how i wanted to present my point. And my point is i believe its good to have different stats and not the same for every nation for every specific lvl "whatsoever" tank or plane. Ofc the efficency of certain weapons depends on the point of view, u are right, but i do believe that in this matter we shouldn´t judge who is right and who is not. In general most historians agree on some statements about these kind of things, for example the t34 russian tank was a problem for german tanks at the beginn of barbarossa or that the tiger tank was one of the best (i guess best is the adjective for efficent here) tanks of WW2. But good god i dont want to discuss if they are right or wrong
because this often leads to brutal trenchwarfare discussions between fanatist nationalists ;D- 2
- 1