I would say that being able to start finishing battleships in less than 1 year and maybe in 6 months its a balance issue and this is why i brought this in the first hand, as a balance issue.
Shipbuilding issues
- Thread starter Alwar
- 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.
Yea, I agree with you we are on the same page.Assigning more dockyards will make it faster. What I'm confused about is not your point, but rather the OPs
I hear you, and that's a good point, I was just trying to explain to the OP why I think that limiting 1 dockyard to 1 line makes no sense. I know that 8 months is fast for a BB, but whatever, it's a game. I'm more concerned about the balance between the Axis/Allies then historical build times.
Cool
I see you start to become more and more insulting.
Why? What's the reason for it?
As I mentioned earlier, developers clearly said that gameplay is more important for them then realism.
Rebalancing after rebalancing, for what reason? Realism? see point before.
This makes no sense at all.
1. You don't build dockyards in provinces, you build them in states(same way as you build other factories)
2. Population or size of a state doesn't define the number of buildings you build in a state. It is defined by region type, technology, and national focuses.
3. I'm not sure I understand you but: You can build more then 1 dockyard in a state.
- 5
- 3
The whole reason is to streamline the ship production and avoid potential exploits like building ships too fast. Those exploits are created because shipyards work in game the same way as factories and irl they did not because something you learn pretty early in economic clases: you cant apply mass production techniques to things like big ships, bridges, etc.
That huge leap outside reality affect the game mechanics, as jamesd commented, reducing the impact that battles in the sea might have. Its absolutely not the same to have 1 ship each 8 months than having 3 in 2 years because maybe you would need that ship in 10 months and irl you could not have that ship.
The mechanic of being able to set so many shipyards in the same production line imbalance the game in the way that its impossible to make some impact gamewise in the sea vs huge powerhouses.
Pearl harbour? no impact whatsoever even if they managed to do it perfectly because clunky, unrealistic and imbalanced mechanic.
There are several solutions given here, some like jamesd, limiting it to 5 shipyards or like mine, limiting it to one shipyard. both works and both have its limitations. The easier one is like jamesd said but there is a problem it remains, shipyards use the same slots as factories. That means that the slots for shipbuilding wont be as critical strategically as they were irl. As i told you before, having more shipyard drydocks able to build ships DRAMATICALLY limits the nation ability to react. Its a balance issue because as japan or germany you just wont need to expand that much your dockyard facilities, just rush some ships. No need for future thinking, no need for planning, nothing.
With one dockyard being given to a single production line you would need to plan ahead and ask yourself if its worth to stop producing ships in those 3 shipyards and lose the efficiency because you need those drydocks to build 3 carriers because yours just got sink and might need them in some years when your enemy comes to your home waters.
That huge leap outside reality affect the game mechanics, as jamesd commented, reducing the impact that battles in the sea might have. Its absolutely not the same to have 1 ship each 8 months than having 3 in 2 years because maybe you would need that ship in 10 months and irl you could not have that ship.
The mechanic of being able to set so many shipyards in the same production line imbalance the game in the way that its impossible to make some impact gamewise in the sea vs huge powerhouses.
Pearl harbour? no impact whatsoever even if they managed to do it perfectly because clunky, unrealistic and imbalanced mechanic.
There are several solutions given here, some like jamesd, limiting it to 5 shipyards or like mine, limiting it to one shipyard. both works and both have its limitations. The easier one is like jamesd said but there is a problem it remains, shipyards use the same slots as factories. That means that the slots for shipbuilding wont be as critical strategically as they were irl. As i told you before, having more shipyard drydocks able to build ships DRAMATICALLY limits the nation ability to react. Its a balance issue because as japan or germany you just wont need to expand that much your dockyard facilities, just rush some ships. No need for future thinking, no need for planning, nothing.
With one dockyard being given to a single production line you would need to plan ahead and ask yourself if its worth to stop producing ships in those 3 shipyards and lose the efficiency because you need those drydocks to build 3 carriers because yours just got sink and might need them in some years when your enemy comes to your home waters.
- 5
- 1
I'm pretty sure it was stated that you do NOT get efficiency bonuses for ships. It's possible that may have changed, but I don't recall hearing that it has.
- 2
- 1
A couple of points:
- Keep in mind the names of the models in the tech slots are to fit a tech tree that's the same for each nation. Everyone has a BB slot at 1922, 1936, 1940 and 1944, and the game needs BB names to put in each. I agree Scharnhorst is probably a bit late in 1936 were the tech tree a model for the production timeline, but it's not. By all means, suggest better alternatives for the names in those slots
.- I personally agree ship build times as they are, are unrealistically quick. As the UK starts with more naval dockyards than Germany or Japan, this is hardly an advantage to the Axis (quite the opposite), and once the US comes online, it's an even greater problem. As is often the case, you get better gameplay with more plausible ship build times, but I think we'll have to see this play out in practice (ie, Japan get done over badly) before it's sorted. I'm planning to mod the naval side of my game anyways, so as long as I can change the max dockyards for a ship, then it should be fine. I wouldn't sweat it, unless you're planning to play Japan much. If you're planning to play Japan, though, whatever you do, don't get in a war with the US
.This be true, but don't forget the UK starts with more dockyards than Germany, and a far, far larger fleet (and better access to oil). Even with the new ship build times, if the UK responds to German shipbuilding (and if they don't, then we've got a substantial AI issue), then Germany still won't be able to pull off a Sealion, and will also be unable to stand up to France's army. Germany's chance for Sealion is through airpower or diplomatically getting other naval powers on board - there's no plausible way (short of giving us rubbish AI, which I doubt any of us want) of giving Germany a short at matching the RN in a game starting in 1936, even with the crazy ship build times we've got.
Strategically, assuming things pan out diplomatically as they did historically, the main strategic result of faster ship times is to make life far harder for Japan, and the Battle of the Atlantic easier to win for the Allies. Given the Allies already start with a strategic advantage, faster ship build times are hardly better for balance.
- 5
- 1
Thanks for resuming what im trying to explain so eloquently, english is not my mother language.A couple of points:
- Keep in mind the names of the models in the tech slots are to fit a tech tree that's the same for each nation. Everyone has a BB slot at 1922, 1936, 1940 and 1944, and the game needs BB names to put in each. I agree Scharnhorst is probably a bit late in 1936 were the tech tree a model for the production timeline, but it's not. By all means, suggest better alternatives for the names in those slots
- I personally agree ship build times as they are, are unrealistically quick. As the UK starts with more naval dockyards than Germany or Japan, this is hardly an advantage to the Axis (quite the opposite), and once the US comes online, it's an even greater problem. As is often the case, you get better gameplay with more plausible ship build times, but I think we'll have to see this play out in practice (ie, Japan get done over badly) before it's sorted. I'm planning to mod the naval side of my game anyways, so as long as I can change the max dockyards for a ship, then it should be fine. I wouldn't sweat it, unless you're planning to play Japan much. If you're planning to play Japan, though, whatever you do, don't get in a war with the US
This be true, but don't forget the UK starts with more dockyards than Germany, and a far, far larger fleet (and better access to oil). Even with the new ship build times, if the UK responds to German shipbuilding (and if they don't, then we've got a substantial AI issue), then Germany still won't be able to pull off a Sealion, and will also be unable to stand up to France's army. Germany's chance for Sealion is through airpower or diplomatically getting other naval powers on board - there's no plausible way (short of giving us rubbish AI, which I doubt any of us want) of giving Germany a short at matching the RN in a game starting in 1936, even with the crazy ship build times we've got.
Strategically, assuming things pan out diplomatically as they did historically, the main strategic result of faster ship times is to make life far harder for Japan, and the Battle of the Atlantic easier to win for the Allies. Given the Allies already start with a strategic advantage, faster ship build times are hardly better for balance.
- 1
Unless the game starts accounting for the size and equipment of dockyards, this idea is not tenable. Part of the reason why battleships (and carriers) were often so hard to build was not just because of technological limitations, but also the limitations of existing dockyards, because as capital ships continued to increase in size, they required larger and larger docks with increasingly modern and heavy equipment to allow the building of said ships, as well as more manpower to build it. You simply could not build a battleship in a dockyard normally used to produce battleships. On the flip side, one could have used the battleship dockyards to build destroyers, and it would probably have been noticeably faster, however, it would have been a huge squandering of resources as that would mean you couldn't build as many carriers or destroyers.
- 1
I actually quite like the mechanics ingame now, it makes it more interesting as a sandbox.
- 2
- 2
How long did it take to build the Dreadnought?
Dockyards are not just slip spaces - they are work places for thousands of people, they are reliant on deliveries from other factories and so on. While I agree, that there should be a limit on how fast ships can be built (only so much can be done simultaneously after all), consider "assigning" multiple dockyards to build 1 ship as pulling workers from "extra" dock slips and putting them to work on just one.
Dockyards are not just slip spaces - they are work places for thousands of people, they are reliant on deliveries from other factories and so on. While I agree, that there should be a limit on how fast ships can be built (only so much can be done simultaneously after all), consider "assigning" multiple dockyards to build 1 ship as pulling workers from "extra" dock slips and putting them to work on just one.
- 1
- 1
It took 14 months to build the Dreadnought, and it was less than half the displacement of battleships like the Iowa's or Vanguard.
- 4
- 2
Yeah, but if you have faster then historical build times you can do Sealion AFTER you conquer Russia and secure the Middle Eastern/Caucasian oil fields and the dockyards in all over Europe. You can't do that with historical build times, because there is not enough time to build a batlefleet.
For the same reason you can still make use of the 1944 techs, with historical build times they would be useless.
Please take note that I wouldn't mind a bit slower build times, 8 months is a bit fast, but that's not my point. What I am against is the 1 dockyard/run idea. You should be able to allocate more then one to increase construction speeds.
I don't think the ai will be able to respond to player builds. They will most likely just build pre defined stuff from their dockyards.
Last edited:
- 2
It'd be a shame if they still can't manage reactive builds, but we'll see I guess. That said, even if not reactive, if you're shooting for a post-Barbarossa Sealion (before then, even with accelerated build times, Germany won't catch up with the RN, not least because it actually starts at a disadvantage production-wise) that assumes that the US just sits there twiddling it's thumbs while Germany rolls over all of Europe and the Middle East, which would be unusual either for HoI or historical plausibility. Once the US is in the game, we're relying in ridiculously incompetent AI if Sealion is feasible. I still reckon that the only way to get Sealion feasible in HoI is diplomatically (which should both be feasible and plausible, done right), or by cheesing the AI.
Agree taht the 1 dockyard/ship thing isn't a great idea, but as far as I can tell the conversation's moved on from that. I definitely wasn't addressing that point in my response to you or Alwar
.As for the 1944 BBs, assuming 2-3 year build time a ship and tech rushing, you could still have them popping out by 1946, giving two years of use, not dissimilar from late game tanks and aircraft.
Preliminary work (6000 man-weeks total before laying down) on her actually started in May already, so you could even say 19 months. She was also built with 72 hour work week.
Last edited:
- 1
Compare that with all other big ships, contemporary to Dreadnought.
- 1
That's not necessarily very good idea for illustrating effects of prioritized construction since there are reasons for yard speed other than simply throwing resources at it. Compared to other capital ships from Portsmouth Dockyard it seems to have been completed about half a year faster than usual (using the 19 months figure).
To be clear I don't agree with the 1 yard rule proposed in this thread, for various reasons. I suppose I'd support few yards maximum per ship, preferably in combination with diminishing returns for extra yards assigned.
- 3
- 1
Agree. Same as practicals with other stuff.
- 1
Dockyard stacking harms both of game balance and historical feeling.
If stacking dockyards always gerate ship faster, why don't you stack them? There is no option for anyone who wish to maximize their shipbuilding output. Single assign rule is beginer friendly for reducing garbage to know.
I wish there are 3 or 2 size type of dockyard. Larger one produce 4 times as many ic as now, then battleship could build in 2 years with single assign rule.
If stacking dockyards always gerate ship faster, why don't you stack them? There is no option for anyone who wish to maximize their shipbuilding output. Single assign rule is beginer friendly for reducing garbage to know.
I wish there are 3 or 2 size type of dockyard. Larger one produce 4 times as many ic as now, then battleship could build in 2 years with single assign rule.
- 3
- 1
IMO, game should allow for mass production of small ships (convoys, DDs and subs), while limiting build rate of larger ships - IMO, this could be achieved by allowing smaller ships to be made same way as now, but limiting larger ships to 5 dockyards per ship + have dockyards production efficiency (like land equipment and planes have), but with much slower efficiency gain.
- 3
- 2
