ship construction

[sarge11]

Navel thread

When deciding to build naval units, the port of construction must also be named, If the port falls the ship would either be scuttled or fall into enemy hands and thus come out of the build que??? comments

This would fall right into a discussion about limits and port sizes being able to build specific number of units at a time.

 

[HannibalBarca]

Hmm. You could have construction in the queue take only say 100 or 200 days and then have it deployable as a ship at like 10 strength that can't move. Then it gets reinforced until its sea-worthy...I dunno how to make that work though.

 

[Porkman]

moving the rest of the game towards a Victoria level of complexity would be the ideal IMO.

and Victoria sold poorly which is why they're making this game.

Complexity needs to be fun. Having to keep track of where my units are produced? Complex, but only marginally fun. For ships, I could grudgingly accept it, but land unit deployment is fine as is.

 

[daemonofdecay]

and Victoria sold poorly which is why they're making this game.

This could also be partially explained by the timeframes of the respective games. World War 2 is much more interesting to more people than the mid- to late- 19th century (although the American Civil War has plenty of fans too).

But yeah, HOI also had a simplicity and clarity of purpose: it was a grand-strategic game that focused on the fighting of WW2, with the other stuff added in to give the game greater depth and a proper framework for exactly why you were fighting, and the freedom to change the course of WW2 to suit ones own mad whims. Sure, you could stay neutral, but most players would quickly get bored of just focusing on the political and economic aspects of the game, while to Vicky that was the meat and potatoes of it.

 

[daemonofdecay]

Hmm. You could have construction in the queue take only say 100 or 200 days and then have it deployable as a ship at like 10 strength that can't move. Then it gets reinforced until its sea-worthy...I dunno how to make that work though.

I don't think thats a very good idea: all you would need to do is launch a Port Strike when you see the # of ships in their fleet increase by 1 (or if there are two flags/counters in that port for a second) and you would easily destroy the ship because it would count as being pretty severly damaged with only 10% strength left.

I think it would be better to have ships take a long time, including all of the work until a ship is fully seaworthy in its production time, and then perhaps reduce the IC cost a bit to reflect that for the last 30 days of production or so the ship is mostly complete.

EDIT: I just had an idea: why not make ship construction take three "stages", which would be clearly seen from the production menu. There could be stage one where the hull is being laid down and all the basic work is being done (full-IC cost), then when they are working on finishing the ship and adding all its components like electrical systems and furnishings (full or almost full-IC cost), and then the last part where it is being finalized and tested (partial-IC cost).

And if this were included, it might also be possible to include the very historic option of being able to convert a ship to another type during production of the first stage (for a cost, of course).

For instance, Germany is producing a BC, and but goes to war earlier than expexted and needs a CV to help hold off the Royal Navy. It could click on the ship in its production line and if its still in the first phase I could then decide to turn it into a converted CV class of ship, and this could also depend on the size of the ship. For instance, I could turn a CA and above into fleet carriers, and CA/CLs into light carriers.

But this should delay the production of the ship somewhat, and should never be a more effecient way of "cheating the system" to save IC days and whatnot by building CAs and turning them all into carriers.

 

[Bullfrog]

I don't think thats a very good idea: all you would need to do is launch a Port Strike when you see the # of ships in their fleet increase by 1 (or if there are two flags/counters in that port for a second) and you would easily destroy the ship because it would count as being pretty severly damaged with only 10% strength left.

I think it would be better to have ships take a long time, including all of the work until a ship is fully seaworthy in its production time, and then perhaps reduce the IC cost a bit to reflect that for the last 30 days of production or so the ship is mostly complete.

EDIT: I just had an idea: why not make ship construction take three "stages", which would be clearly seen from the production menu. There could be stage one where the hull is being laid down and all the basic work is being done (full-IC cost), then when they are working on finishing the ship and adding all its components like electrical systems and furnishings (full or almost full-IC cost), and then the last part where it is being finalized and tested (partial-IC cost).

And if this were included, it might also be possible to include the very historic option of being able to convert a ship to another type during production of the first stage (for a cost, of course).

For instance, Germany is producing a BC, and but goes to war earlier than expexted and needs a CV to help hold off the Royal Navy. It could click on the ship in its production line and if its still in the first phase I could then decide to turn it into a converted CV class of ship, and this could also depend on the size of the ship. For instance, I could turn a CA and above into fleet carriers, and CA/CLs into light carriers.

But this should delay the production of the ship somewhat, and should never be a more effecient way of "cheating the system" to save IC days and whatnot by building CAs and turning them all into carriers.

All good points. Well said. Though there is some merit to having a ship laid down (after the hull is complete) at which time the rest of the components are put in....indeed a nicely timed port strike would take it out. This could be remedied by making it indestructable. The downside for the port sticken country would be that the ship construction would require a certain naval base level, and if the enemy kept bombing, the naval base would be under strength and therefore the building ship would not be worked on. Gearing bonus still applies, as the components being built "elsewhere" are not effected.

 

[Moltke]

Victoria may have sold poorly but it is the only Paradox game I ever purchased two copies of (the first disc got scratched) which attests somewhat to the loyalty of Victoria's fans.

That being said, Paradox knows what they are doing with these grand strategy games and if they want to combine HoI with Vic or EU3 with CK or whatever then that's that, and you'll all play it and either be happy or cry like babies.

As critical as I am of Paradox' decisions sometimes, I can't wait for the added complexity of HoI3. The more mind bendingly frustrating the better.

 

[Uitra]

I want realistic build time for ships.

When deciding to build naval units, the port of construction must also be named, If the port falls the ship would either be scuttled or fall into enemy hands and thus come out of the build que??? comments

 

[lastmantodie]

What I mean is, hardcoding such trivial things as capturing enemy ships in port just leads to MORE gamey play. I can just amphibious assault with 1 div and capture all their ships in Wilhelmshaven. I lost a Div, sure, but cool I captured all of GER's half built ships.

Nothing else can be destroyed by taking land, you cant have inf fall out of the build que if someone captures Berlin.

You need to personally restrict yourself.

If you think GER building 10 carriers at once is gamey... don't do it, eh? Build 4 at a time or whatever you feel like.

Wilhelmshaven IIRC has no beach and therefore you couldnt land there.

 

[unmerged(112350)]

New units should start with 0 strenght and 0 org and 0 equipment (if there will be such) - then it would be realistic.
While u 'produce' unit its strenght grows. etc so new units are already there and can fight when neccessary with the power they have at recent stage of developing

i mean land units - i dont know about naval and air

 

[TheLand]

I'm so tired of the rants at naval production realism

hehe, you've only been here a month or two ;-)

However, I sympathise... it is very unlikely that we'll see ships assigned to (limited-capacity) dockyards, or indeed see air unit production linked to air training schools, or specialist land units linked to commando warfare schools, or any of the other plausible increases in the details of the production system.

 

[unmerged(112350)]

the best IMO would be IC split:
-shipuilding (without assignement to prov)
-aviation
-vehicles
- 'other' LOL

 

[unmerged(61658)]

What about the Graf Zeppelin? It was started in one place, never completely finished, moved somewhere else and ended the war in a Baltic Port north of Germany.

 

[unmerged(87183)]

if realism doesnt suit you does it make for fair gameplay for germany to start launching the tirpitz and other capital ship in athens. The Med was closed to german warship other than a few Uboats and coastal ships they had captured?

ROFL.

Germany won't launch them in Athens, they will launch it at Keil.

That's where the AI launches it.

Even if you as a palyer wanted to launch your Bismarck in Athens you wouldn't be able too, it's not a national provence for you.


I see waht you are saying, but it wouldn't really be able to implemented in game.

 

[Baneslave]

Even if you as a palyer wanted to launch your Bismarck in Athens you wouldn't be able too, it's not a national provence for you.

Actually, you can deploy any unit to annexed (owned) province that has a connection to your capital. So, it is possible to launch ships to mediterranean when you are playing as Germany.

 

[Enzo]

It can be of interest to focus on one aspect of production of a given unit, as soon as, this has or historically had consequence at a strategic level.

For instance, it may be useful to have the notion of dock capacity and prevent a nation with level 1 port to build CV for instance.
Or, have a "special" mp reserve for air force, as pilot's training has been a serious issue for some country, experienced staff is a key factor in air force, may be more decisive than in other arms.
Also, having high octane "factory" can be of interest as Germany had shortage on it even if they were not so short in oil.

 

[unmerged(105989)]

It can be of interest to focus on one aspect of production of a given unit, as soon as, this has or historically had consequence at a strategic level.

For instance, it may be useful to have the notion of dock capacity and prevent a nation with level 1 port to build CV for instance.
Or, have a "special" mp reserve for air force, as pilot's training has been a serious issue for some country, experienced staff is a key factor in air force, may be more decisive than in other arms.
Also, having high octane "factory" can be of interest as Germany had shortage on it even if they were not so short in oil.

An interesting idea. But experience pilots also had to come from the pipelines that created them. THAT was what drove the Japanese under. The US was producing thousands of pilots while the Japanese training plan never fully expanded. A way to simulate this would be to have a slider determining percentage towards pilots, forcing strategic choices. I'm not sure though that that level of detail would be desirable by all.

 

[unmerged(112350)]

It could be also possible to create ships in occupied territories like Athens thats why i would like the ship assignent to ports.

 

[Thracian]

ship constructions should not be assigned to ports. instead naval shipyards may be used to construct and ports may be used to supply.