Ship Refitting Production Costs

[FlagrantCrazy]

I've been experimenting with ship refitting costs in MTG and trying to make sense of it. As far as I can tell so far, when refitting a ship there are four possible costs:

- Base cost
- New modules
- Converted modules
- Dismantled modules

I'm not entirely certain about how these costs are calculated, however, or what exactly affects them.

I THINK the following applies:

- Base cost depends on the hull type and is a flat cost for refitting a ship (typically quite small)

- New modules is the production cost of new modules placed in previously empty slots. (Also generally quite small)

- Converted modules is a cost associated with one of two things. One is changing a module to a better version of the same module (e.g. upgrading from torp 1 to torp 2) which is quite cheap production wise. The second thing seems to be changing a module to a different type of module (such as changing a torp to AA, or even removing the module and leaving an empty slot!) which seems to be VERY cost intensive.

- Finally, dismantled modules seems to be from changing a ship to a different model with less slots, which as far as I can tell is only applicable to cruisers (changing a heavy to a light, which has less slots) - this also seems to have a very high associated production cost.


The distribution of refit costs seems to lead to situations where upgrading a ship with the same module types, but better, is far cheaper than greatly modifying a ship to be a different type of ship. That is, it's better to design a ship variant for a specific role, and keep it in that role such that no modules are changed out for a different type; than to change your ship types - it's very cost inefficient to take an existing gunboat CA and turn it into an AA boat or something.

This sort of makes sense conceptually, as completely changing the architecture of a ship to allow fitting new weapons and equipment would be a major endeavour, however it does seem unusual when simply removing things from a ship can cost over 50% of the base ship cost (although why you would want to do this is beyond me anyway).

I dont really have a problem with the system now that I get where the costs are coming from, and it does make sense that keeping your ships in the same general "role" and just upgrading weapons as new techs become available is the most efficient way to use ship refits to benefit your fleet, rather than gutting them to build new designs (should just build new ships from scratch if major changes are made)

I'm really just wondering if anybody understands how the costs are calculated and could explain it to me a bit better, rather than my current "gut feeling"

 

[Cavalry]

you are right. Here is the summary:
- Never change engine or armor. Huge cost.
- Try to refit only once time, and don't change slot weapon type, only up
- You can build ship with mostly empty gun slot, then refit to put latest guns on it. That will save the steel resource of the gun. Otherwise if a gun require 1 steel, you will pay extra 1 steel for the whole ship cost.

If you need to save cost when build new ship, the 1940 hulls is the minimum, and the highest possible engine. Engine is bargain and speed help dodge fire

 

[FlagrantCrazy]

Thanks. Does the huge cost associated with engine/armor changes include upgrading to the next level? I.e. if you wanted to up your '36 boats to a '40 (level 3) engine? ..can you even give 1936 boats a level 3 engine? Will check soon

 

[Alex_brunius]

I THINK the following applies:

- Base cost depends on the hull type and is a flat cost for refitting a ship (typically quite small)

- New modules is the production cost of new modules placed in previously empty slots. (Also generally quite small)

- Converted modules is a cost associated with one of two things. One is changing a module to a better version of the same module (e.g. upgrading from torp 1 to torp 2) which is quite cheap production wise. The second thing seems to be changing a module to a different type of module (such as changing a torp to AA, or even removing the module and leaving an empty slot!) which seems to be VERY cost intensive.

- Finally, dismantled modules seems to be from changing a ship to a different model with less slots, which as far as I can tell is only applicable to cruisers (changing a heavy to a light, which has less slots) - this also seems to have a very high associated production cost.

The base cost actually can be a quite substantial part of the total since it's 20% of the hull cost. Especially if you just want to upgrade a few AA guns on a Battleship, something that was regularly done historically but that is prohibitively expensive in HoI4. If a base battleship hull cost say 6000 production and upgrading an AA gun cost 80 production your paying 1200 for the base upgrade cost and say 240 to upgrade 3 AA gun modules, so 83% of the refit cost or production equivalent to a decent DD is just wasted.

Thanks. Does the huge cost associated with engine/armor changes include upgrading to the next level? I.e. if you wanted to up your '36 boats to a '40 (level 3) engine? ..can you even give 1936 boats a level 3 engine? Will check soon

Yes, especially for capital ships it's expensive.

The cost of upgrading a module to a later version is different depending on what your trying to upgrade. Battleship main guns, Engines or Armor is going to be very expensive to upgrade, while AA and such is quite cheap. Each module have different scripted values depending on what you upgrade so it can range from anything to 25% of the price of a new module to several times the price of a new one ( with battleship armor IIRC ).

Trying to upgrade main guns, engine and armor on a Battleship can easily end up costing you more than building a new Battleship from scratch!

 

[CharlieFox]

The base cost actually can be a quite substantial part of the total since it's 20% of the hull cost. Especially if you just want to upgrade a few AA guns on a Battleship, something that was regularly done historically but that is prohibitively expensive in HoI4. If a base battleship hull cost say 6000 production and upgrading an AA gun cost 80 production your paying 1200 for the base upgrade cost and say 240 to upgrade 3 AA gun modules, so 83% of the refit cost or production equivalent to a decent DD is just wasted.

Base cost should really be reduced. While upgrading guns should be expensive and armor and engines prohibitedly expensive, minor upgrades should not cost that much. What’s the point of adding the ships refits to the game if they are nerfed to the point that you hardly ever have an incentive to use them ?

 

[Alex_brunius]

Base cost should really be reduced. While upgrading guns should be expensive and armor and engines prohibitedly expensive, minor upgrades should not cost that much. What’s the point of adding the ships refits to the game if they are nerfed to the point that you hardly ever have an incentive to use them ?

We modded them to be 2% instead of 20% base in our historical MP mod.


Refits still can be useful with the vanilla 20%, but only for a bit larger/medium sized overhauls like if you upgrade all AA, Secondaries, Firecontrol, Radars and floatplanes at once or such. The cost of all of those can become larger than the 20% base hullcost so you get decent efficiency of the upgrades still that way.

Some people also use refits to exploit / get around the high resource costs from what I understand. Basically pay for the base hull with minimal guns/resource needing modules on it. And then add all guns in a refit, so you never need to pay for all the resources at the same time.

 

[Cavalry]

What’s the point of adding the ships refits to the game if they are nerfed to the point that you hardly ever have an incentive to use them ?

This is to prevent the exploit that some build BB ship with empty gun slot, then refit to get the latest gun 2 year later with no penalty. No one will build the full ship anymore it this is allowed at no cost.

Currently the refit still is useful for occasion use. The most useful refit is Fire Control, Radar that give fire bonus, Upgrade of weapon (not the gun of main gun), AA; or fill the empty slots.

 

[Baron_von_Beer]

I did the same 2% base cost. Changing main battery turrets is still very expensive. Changing capital ship engine or armor can cost 50% or more the cost of the vessel. Upping AA or depth charges is quick trip in port, as it historically was.

 

[Infryndiira]

- Never change engine or armor. Huge cost.

This can be very viable, actually, at least for capital ships in specific circumstances. An engine refit takes less time than producing a brand-new battleship or battlecruiser -0 easily in the range of 300 days, give or take, as opposed to ~2 years for a brand new ship. As such, certain 1936 hull designs can be upgraded as soon as 1940 hulls are researched, allowing them to remain a little more relevant (plus the associated dodge benefits and what not).

But for other types of ships, spending that much industry for an armour or engine refit is definitely not recommended.

 

[Cavalry]

This can be very viable, actually, at least for capital ships in specific circumstances. An engine refit takes less time than producing a brand-new battleship or battlecruiser -0 easily in the range of 300 days, give or take, as opposed to ~2 years for a brand new ship. As such, certain 1936 hull designs can be upgraded as soon as 1940 hulls are researched, allowing them to remain a little more relevant (plus the associated dodge benefits and what not).

But for other types of ships, spending that much industry for an armour or engine refit is definitely not recommended.

36 hulls should not be obsolete that soon! Most of the time to maintain speed, 36 hulls can do with less gun or lighter gun. There is the famous BB 1 gun that don't reduce speed.
For piercing, BB cannot pierce other BB at same year with bonus, so no need to try hard.

Instead of spend a year refit, you can build more BB or other ship. Modern CL is always in shortage.

 

[CharlieFox]

This is to prevent the exploit that some build BB ship with empty gun slot, then refit to get the latest gun 2 year later with no penalty. No one will build the full ship anymore it this is allowed at no cost.

Currently the refit still is useful for occasion use. The most useful refit is Fire Control, Radar that give fire bonus, Upgrade of weapon (not the gun of main gun), AA; or fill the empty slots.

I think that a system that penalized refits that add or upgrade heavy guns while making small refits have a reasonable cost would be preferable. Ships were generally designed with a given main armaments in mind and adding an extra turret would require a radical change to the ship structure.

I might mod the base refits cost to 2% once I stop trying to get achievements.

 

[egslim]

Refits should not allow additional main armament to be installed, period.

 

[Anaraxes]

Refits should not allow additional main armament to be installed, period.

The Gneisenau was refit from 3x3 28cm guns to 3x2 38 cm guns. There are probably other examples that the naval buffs can cite.

Since the slots on the ship hulls don't represent physical turrets anyway, there's no reason you shouldn't be able to change them around -- for suitably massive cost, which the current system does have. See all the comments about how you might rather build a new ship than touch engines, armor, or main guns.

(I can think of a couple of examples of armor upgrades as well as engines, too. Not common, but not impossible, either.)

 

[Alex_brunius]

The Gneisenau was refit from 3x3 28cm guns to 3x2 38 cm guns.

Edit: Yeah looks like your right actually after looking it up, they started although they didn't finish the conversion process.

There are no other examples of complete caliber changes of Battleship guns during WW2 that I am aware of. One Japanese Battleship was disarmed though ( removing a turret and then putting the same one back again ) during the interwar period for treaty reasons, and several battleships had upgrades to allow their guns to elevate higher and fire longer or to improve accuracy.

 

[Secret Master]

The only ones I can think of involved ships that weren't finished yet and involved the escalator clause.

 

[King Of Heroes]

Mogami's 155mm triples to 203mm doubles, but overall changing guns meant replacing turrets not adding new ones.

 

[Baron_von_Beer]

Also of note Mogami was designed precisely to allow for rapid/ drop in replacement of the turrets as a workaround for treaty regs.

Probably helped too that Japanese heavy cruiser turrets had very thin armor, ~ 1". They weighed about the same as the 6" turrets on US light cruisers, and only about 55% of a US CA 8" turret. Even the 5" twin mounts on US battleships had twice as thick frontal protection.

 

[egslim]

It's one thing to 'upgrade' main armament (e.g. replace existing turrets with better turrets), but to add additional armament means to install new turrets.

In-game it's a nice upgrade to take an under-gunned 'Early' ship and refit the empty slots with 1940 guns or better.
Or build a single-gun BB within treaty limitations, and add the additional guns later.

Those are a historical exploits.

 

[davidc929]

The Gneisenau was refit from 3x3 28cm guns to 3x2 38 cm guns. There are probably other examples that the naval buffs can cite.

Since the slots on the ship hulls don't represent physical turrets anyway, there's no reason you shouldn't be able to change them around -- for suitably massive cost, which the current system does have. See all the comments about how you might rather build a new ship than touch engines, armor, or main guns.

(I can think of a couple of examples of armor upgrades as well as engines, too. Not common, but not impossible, either.)

Though that was replacing existing turrets with new turrets and they had to reduce barrel numbers to allow for that. It wasn't adding on a new turret in a new position. While that may not quite be impossible it would be incredibly hard. it's not just cutting a hole in the deck, it's re-positioning ammunition stores and how they get ammo from there to the turret.

 

[Ossiv]

Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were designed to allow gun upgrade from 3x3 280mm to 3x2 380mm, so that was not an afterthought. Since 380mm guns were not readibly available when construction began, they were given 280mm instead. 280mm prooved all too light later (Scharnhorst vs Duke of York), it did not do proper damage to a modern BB.