In terms of conversions during construction, in practice rather than starting excess cruiser or battlecruisers, and then finishing them as carriers surely the player will just start them as carriers from the start.
Is it just me, or there won't be efficiency increase in producing ships?
- Thread starter Umbaretz
- 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.
Just wait. You are gonna see massive Soviet Navies in MP games. I promise you, haha. HOI3 does a great job by limiting that. 40 months or so as Germany to build a Aircraft Carrier. Versus the US and Japan of about 18 Months or so.
I'm hoping that the Soviets will be forced to devote more resources to the army and air force this time around.
Ideally, the limitation the Soviets face should be "Holy crap, we need to manufacture another 12,000 tanks, so we don't have time or steel to build a navy."
I mean, I know I will make the Soviets a naval power one day. But I'm hoping that it will be much more difficult to come up with the spare resources (both inputs and factories in general).
- 3
I'm assuming that @Secret Master is referring to this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovetsky_Soyuz-class_battleship
That gives a good flavour of the complexity of building capital ships.
But it sounds like they researched something like BB1, BB2 then SHBB, changing the model as they were going along, then changing it to at least one variant. That they didn't have many naval dockyards (to make their own marine turbines) and also lack some of the resources needed to make good quality armour plating.
Once they lose some naval dockyards (perhaps at Odessa?) then the project will take longer and longer.
You can't really write code for the Soviet AI to do things as stupidly as Stalin. But an inexperienced player could make those mistakes, and replace a BB1 build with BB2 and extend the time it takes to so long that it can't effect the outcome of the war.
The USA and UK can more easily avoid many of these problems. If you have only 5 naval dockyards for instance you could build a BB1 in a reasonable time. But you are committed to producing that model even if you have researched BB2. If you have 10 naval dockyards, then you use 5 to complete the BB1 and 5 to start the BB2.
The more dockyards you have and therefore the quicker turnaround, especially with SS and DD, then the less effect there is from changing models or switching to a variant.
So, yes, scale of production might still produce the small results that @Axe99 identified. Plus just from the general industrial improvement techs. These will ensure that the US can produce more 1940 DD from 1943-5 than it can from 1940-2.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovetsky_Soyuz-class_battleship
That gives a good flavour of the complexity of building capital ships.
But it sounds like they researched something like BB1, BB2 then SHBB, changing the model as they were going along, then changing it to at least one variant. That they didn't have many naval dockyards (to make their own marine turbines) and also lack some of the resources needed to make good quality armour plating.
Once they lose some naval dockyards (perhaps at Odessa?) then the project will take longer and longer.
You can't really write code for the Soviet AI to do things as stupidly as Stalin. But an inexperienced player could make those mistakes, and replace a BB1 build with BB2 and extend the time it takes to so long that it can't effect the outcome of the war.
The USA and UK can more easily avoid many of these problems. If you have only 5 naval dockyards for instance you could build a BB1 in a reasonable time. But you are committed to producing that model even if you have researched BB2. If you have 10 naval dockyards, then you use 5 to complete the BB1 and 5 to start the BB2.
The more dockyards you have and therefore the quicker turnaround, especially with SS and DD, then the less effect there is from changing models or switching to a variant.
So, yes, scale of production might still produce the small results that @Axe99 identified. Plus just from the general industrial improvement techs. These will ensure that the US can produce more 1940 DD from 1943-5 than it can from 1940-2.
- 2
I'm hopping that. Something like that. Otherwise why not build dockyards? You have some much room as the soviets you'll never be limited by province limit. I can see someone given a fair amount of time simply being able to build a healthy amount of dockyards by 1940 and unleashing a large navy along with massive fleets of tanks. I dunno. I honestly have to play. Just on the outset it looks like that'd totally be possible.
My play style as Soviets has always been ignore the Navy build armor to invade. Hopefully that'll be represented by the game. I think resources would be a great way of doing that
Im pretty you can only have dockyards in costal states so Soviet will have a hard time getting many dockyards.
- 1
Err..uh..you mean not all states the soviets have will be considered coastal? As in even if its touching the ocean it won't count unless its a considered a coastal region? Because the Soviet Union has plenty of coastline...plenty plenty plenty.
- 1
No, it just takes some imagination, I mean what else will Finland, Sweden and Norway will be used for?
But ALOT is along the arctic circle, not really prime shipbuilding ports, + everything else is pretty much under threat of imminent attack by Germany and Japan.
Unless there are restrictions on deep water harbors, I'm pretty sure the Soviet Union has plenty of coastline (even in HOI terms) to build a significant number of dockyards. (There aren't restrictions on deep water harbors, unless I missed it in a WWW.)
Not Vic2 levels of dockyards, perhaps, but they should still have plenty of room.
I'm not sure it counts as changing ship models, though.
I don't know Russian (so I can't read the primary sources), but it is my understanding that the ships were engineered from the beginning to be the large beasts they were intended to be in 1940.
Although your point about not being stupid like Stalin is well taken. If you think the BBs are weird, go look at his bizarre obsession with BCs.
- 1
Sure sure. Problem is Crimea, the entire non-European coast, Karelia. All of this coast line is large then the British and Japanese. It's massive swaths of land. So if I can build dockyards on that. I can have naval ports rivaling that of US.No, it just takes some imagination, I mean what else will Finland, Sweden and Norway will be used for?
But ALOT is along the arctic circle, not really prime shipbuilding ports, + everything else is pretty much under threat of imminent attack by Germany and Japan.
Edit: Said Germany meant US
Right, which is why I didn't say they couldn't build the dockyards (or enough) rather that these area could be taken relatively quickly (like most were during WW2)
I take issue with this. In any MP games I've played the Soviets are a extremely tough nut to crack. They are hard to beat. I doubt it'd be easy taking them against a player. Anyways its a fair point..but all that means is the Axis inherits the massive naval dockyards built up.
Yes I know Soviet have a large costline but how well developed are those states? I would say they are probably very underdeveloped and thus can not support many factories. There is no way to increase the development of a region.
It is also worth mentioning that USA have maybe 3-5 times the amount of civilian factories as Soviet and way more resources.
It is also worth mentioning that USA have maybe 3-5 times the amount of civilian factories as Soviet and way more resources.
Last edited:
- 1
No restrictions on deep water harbours, but you can only build naval dockyards where there are free factory slots.
Compare the amount of wasteland along the Soviet Pacific coast, other than Vladivostok, compared to the US Pacific coast. And it's all pretty much wasteland along the Arctic Ocean/White Sea. Your best opportunities are likely to be Leningrad, Odessa and Sevastopol, but they are in reach of your enemies.
- 1
Meh, I'm not letting the Axis get to Odessa.
I guess it might really depend on the development of Vladivostok and Arkhangelsk and what I reasonably think I can get away with. I mean, I have a reputation for building navies in HOI3. I can't let my fans down.
In all seriousness, though, I might be interested in a strategy that involves lots of submarines. Not to fight the Axis, but in the inevitable showdown with the British and Americans. Good luck supplying your forces in Europe when I cut the sea lanes upon the opening of hostilities. REFORGER? I don't think so.
podcat has been working hard for two years to stop you
I'm no Arumba or DDRJake or Peter Ebbesen, but I find it hard to resist a "You can't do that!" challenge.