Production cost for ships???

[unmerged(63070)]

Can someone please explain why a DD3 w/1 attachment (4.9 IC) is more expensive than a CL3 w/2 attach (3.8 IC)? Or why a DD4 w/1 attach (5.3 IC) is more expensive than a CA4 w/3 attach (4.5 IC)?

I'm sure this is modible. But I don't think I should have to mod it.

It just needs to make sense. Somebody drop some knowledge on me!

As always, thanks in advance. Cheers.

 

[unmerged(155178)]

DDs are multiple ships represented as one squadron. Plus, they have shorter buildtimes IIRC

 

[unmerged(63070)]

Shouldn't shorter build times equate to less cost, not more?

I get the whole single ship versus multiple ships. Still used to ARM and Domsday, where DDs cost less than CLs, and CLs less than CAs, and so on. Kind of made sense.

 

[wright1331]

Shouldn't shorter build times equate to less cost, not more?

I dont have the game in front of me so i cant look at it.

But if the build time is shorter then I might cost less over the long run even if it shows the IC cost as a higher number.
Most people figure things in total cost = IC days

ie, if it takes..
5IC for 2 years or
10IC for 1 year
These are the exact same IC cost in IC days, so even though one cost more IC it doesnt mean its more expensive

 

[HarkovAdm]

It makes perfect sense to me. It's a destroyer group not one ship. Also destroyers take a few months to build, while CVs and BBs take years.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Can someone please explain why a DD3 w/1 attachment (4.9 IC) is more expensive than a CL3 w/2 attach (3.8 IC)? Or why a DD4 w/1 attach (5.3 IC) is more expensive than a CA4 w/3 attach (4.5 IC)?

They are not more expensive at all. To get the full cost you must also look at how long you need to spend those ICs (like others have said already).

DD3 have a basecost of 5 IC and a buildtime off 140 days for a total of 700 IC days.

CL3 have a basecost of 4 IC and a buildtime off 210 days for a total of 840 IC days.

Also remember that the shorter buidltimes of Destroyers help them even more since you quicker gain gearingbonus which speeds up the constructions (making them even cheaper).

 

[Amallric]

Still used to ARM and Domsday, where DDs cost less than CLs, and CLs less than CAs, and so on. Kind of made sense.

That is simply not true, a great war CA is like 2 IC while a level IV destroyer is about 4 IC IIRC

 

[unmerged(63070)]

Sticking with an apples to apples analogy...in HoI2DD ver1.3a (for example), a lv4 CA has a base 4.2IC cost, a lv4 CL 3.6IC, and a lv4 DD flotilla 1.8IC.

With AOD, this is reversed, with the lv4 DD at 4.8IC cost, lv4 CL 4.4, and lv4 CA 3.5 IC. And that's before factoring in the "total IC days" cost to produce and with no attachments.

Clearly, things have changed. I'd just like to understand the reason for the change.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Clearly, things have changed. I'd just like to understand the reason for the change.

Another big reason for the change is that a fair bit of the IC cost of shipbuilding have been moved from the base ship to the various attachments you talk about. Thus naturally a CA that can have 3 large attachments will add more to its final cost then a DD with 1 small.

A CA4 with 3 of those, ends up at around 5.0 IC.

 

[unmerged(63070)]

Another big reason for the change is that a fair bit of the IC cost of shipbuilding have been moved from the base ship to the various attachments you talk about. Thus naturally a CA that can have 3 large attachments will add more to its final cost then a DD with 1 small.

A CA4 with 3 of those, ends up at around 5.0 IC.

This is precisely my point. It's Jan 1938 and a CA lv4 w/3 attach costs 4.5 IC. While aDD lv4 w/1 attach costs 5.3, and a DD lv3 w/attach cost 4.8. The DDs with fewer attachments have a higher IC cost than a CA with more attachments.

This is what doesn't make sense to me. :rofl:

 

[Balesir]

Actually, the main determinant of the ship costs (in total IC-days) was a comprehensive comparison of the actual capabilities of the ships (with attachments). They are not all strictly "historically realistic", but they are reasonable and they reflect the power/usefulness of the ships built.

Actually, the cost difference between CAs and CLs was never huge - and as the war progressed a state of the art CL got more costly and 'modern' CAs were seldom seen. A key element is mission profile; CLs were seen as something that should be able to operate alone (in the RN, IJN) or with a specific, high tech job to do (USN). CAs became a sort of "poor man's battleship".

Edit: oh, and DDs are 3-6 ships each, so they tend to be quick but expensive to build.

 

[unmerged(155178)]

This is precisely my point. It's Jan 1938 and a CA lv4 w/3 attach costs 4.5 IC. While aDD lv4 w/1 attach costs 5.3, and a DD lv3 w/attach cost 4.8. The DDs with fewer attachments have a higher IC cost than a CA with more attachments.

This is what doesn't make sense to me. :rofl:

It makes sense to everyone else

 

[unmerged(63070)]

It makes sense to everyone else

If that's true, then why didn't anyone think is was wrong, when the IC costs were reversed in all the earlier versions of the game? :rofl: