For all the factories for land and air units, there is production efficiency. If you are building an aircraft carrier that is 50% complete, and then you start shifting dockyards around, should that affect the production efficiency?
- 10
- 4
Should naval dockyards have production effeciancy?
- Thread starter B24 Liberator
- 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.
Production efficiency really only accumulates from building multiple things on the same line. As you built relatively little ships, I don't think it makes complete sense. However, I do think the Allied Naval Buildup from 1939 onwards is poorly represented in game, but they should probably have other ways to shift that. historical naval output for many majors was larger than in game unless you build a shit load of dockyards
- 8
- 2
In theory, yes. Always producing the same ships , should make the workers better at doing so and so increase efficiency like it happens with planes.
Than of course there are often just individual ships built and not a streamlined production. But for stuff like 10 dockyards on destroyers, always building the same destroyer type it would definitly make sense.
Than of course there are often just individual ships built and not a streamlined production. But for stuff like 10 dockyards on destroyers, always building the same destroyer type it would definitly make sense.
- 4
Not so sure about this. Speer and his minions tried to streamline Uboat production and failed miserably. Obviously larger ships were even less suitable to production line style production.
- 2
isnt it more or less indirectly shown in focuses/industry techs? its not really something that can be all that much standardized, only standard ship design i can think of were liberty ships and even that wasnt actual assembly line, just very big and efficient dockyards.
- 2
Production efficiency exists mostly to balance out tech rush: if you could simply get all the new toys immediately, everyone would do just that (everyone does it anyway with ahead-of-time buffs, but stops this at the point when you have to start production, at least). With ships, getting new toys "immediately" simply does not work: they take months to build, so even if you introduce something like production efficiency, it will have minimal impact on overall production. If anything, this will make naval research even less desirable than it currently is (which is a borderline waste of slot, even for major naval powers).
Liberty ship production experienced a remarkable increase in speed*. But this wasn't a matter of training individual workers in specific yards. It was more about refining the process -- how to lay out the whole shipyard to make a production line, moving work out of the actual drydock (the "ways") elsewhere and using rails to bring the pieces together, etc -- and some of it refinements to the designs and technique (which are really below the scale of the game). These benefits could be -- and were! --transferred to other yards; you could explain the changes and reasons, and other yards would learn how to build those ships faster as well.
It would probably be better to attach production efficiency numbers to a particular design (ship, tank, plane, whatever) rather than particular factories. Knock the efficiency down a little for small variants, and knock it down more for big changes (like a new model of vehicle).
Some of those improvements in process, though, will carry over even to completely different designs. It's more about expecting that you're going to build so many of something that it's worth investing in the changes and adaptations to speed up manufacture of that thing as it is about turning workers into speedy robots through muscle memory of repetitive motions and cataloging all the likely problems in detail that will occur and handy responses to avoid trial and error.
Liberty ships are the extreme case, of course. 2710 built from '41 to '45, while there were 175 Fletcher-class destroyers, 17 Baltimore-class CA, 7 New Orleans CA, and 16 Essex-class CV. Some ships you need in greater numbers than others, and the more you build, the more you'll see a return on investment from improvements -- another reason to attach production efficiency to designs and not individual factories/dockyards.
--
* Averaging over 40% per year for three years, so more than 2.5x as fast after three years. It's even more remarkable if you choose to measure just from the first few ships, about 230 days each, to the last few -- down to about 40 days, or almost 6x as fast.
It would probably be better to attach production efficiency numbers to a particular design (ship, tank, plane, whatever) rather than particular factories. Knock the efficiency down a little for small variants, and knock it down more for big changes (like a new model of vehicle).
Some of those improvements in process, though, will carry over even to completely different designs. It's more about expecting that you're going to build so many of something that it's worth investing in the changes and adaptations to speed up manufacture of that thing as it is about turning workers into speedy robots through muscle memory of repetitive motions and cataloging all the likely problems in detail that will occur and handy responses to avoid trial and error.
Liberty ships are the extreme case, of course. 2710 built from '41 to '45, while there were 175 Fletcher-class destroyers, 17 Baltimore-class CA, 7 New Orleans CA, and 16 Essex-class CV. Some ships you need in greater numbers than others, and the more you build, the more you'll see a return on investment from improvements -- another reason to attach production efficiency to designs and not individual factories/dockyards.
--
* Averaging over 40% per year for three years, so more than 2.5x as fast after three years. It's even more remarkable if you choose to measure just from the first few ships, about 230 days each, to the last few -- down to about 40 days, or almost 6x as fast.
Last edited:
- 4
- 2
- 1
What's there to know? It simply creates additional lag between researching stuff and getting it out in a reasonable enough quantity. Fighter 3s might be superior to fighter 2s, but not to the point where you would be okay with suddenly cutting your fighter production by a factor of 10 (unless you won the game anyway). Or take Stellaris, where same upgrade in efficiency can be applied to your existing fleet via couple months in a dock - hardly noticeable for a game that spans couple hundred years, yet same retrofit speed would be a gamechanger for HOI.
HOI3 is why we don't have production efficiency in dockyards in HOI4.
Why do I say this? Because there's literally a post in the HOI3 forum where I demonstrated how the Soviets could build a world class fleet by building practice battleships and battlecruisers to generate the production efficiency needed to build ships fast enough to catch up with US naval production.
Be careful what you wish for.
Why do I say this? Because there's literally a post in the HOI3 forum where I demonstrated how the Soviets could build a world class fleet by building practice battleships and battlecruisers to generate the production efficiency needed to build ships fast enough to catch up with US naval production.
Be careful what you wish for.
- 4
- 1
Naval production is WAY to slow in game anyways. You are basically restricted to your starting fleet (if you have one). Building a battleship (with max 5 dockyards) takes 2-3 years(!), same with carriers. So either you start with a good fleet or you don't.
Naval balancing in game is horrendous anyways. As far as I understand history, there was never a reason to not give a ship a cannon if it would fit on the hull. So, to fix the naval matter, I would increase naval output by factor 2, but make hulls(!) 50% more expensive at the same time. That would remove the "minimalist" matter AND allow realistic ship building speed.
As for naval production efficiency, I don't see the point. In contrast to tank/plane production battleships were seldom streamlined.
Naval balancing in game is horrendous anyways. As far as I understand history, there was never a reason to not give a ship a cannon if it would fit on the hull. So, to fix the naval matter, I would increase naval output by factor 2, but make hulls(!) 50% more expensive at the same time. That would remove the "minimalist" matter AND allow realistic ship building speed.
As for naval production efficiency, I don't see the point. In contrast to tank/plane production battleships were seldom streamlined.
- 1
- 1
- 1
I'm having trouble imagining what the differences in what 'production efficiency' means between the different installments, for it to have been possible to build 'junk' and swap to good things?
Naval production times in hoi4 are extremely realistic and should stay that way. It really took that much time to build ships. I also think you are wrong about the relative cost of hull and other parts, if you see how long refits took this should quickly disprove your thesis.
On the other hand, even while I agree with their production costs, I think that Paradox made the later models unrealistically fast. And they should ban mixed turrets like in the meta light attack CA. Fixing those things should make it really realistic.
- 1
In HOI3, you had something called "practical knowledge." When you build things, you gained X amount of practical knowledge in the relevant field. Build an interceptor wing, and you gain "light air" practicals that affect all types of air wings that fit under the rubric. Build a tank division, and you get "armor" practicals that impact all types of armor.
Without going into exhaustive detail, practicals would speed up both research and production speed. The production speed increase was a forerunner to production efficiency in MIC in HOI4. Leaving aside the research benefits of practicals, the production benefits meant that if you built, say, a clone of the Soviet Union's Marat, the Soviets could gain capital ship practicals (which they basically had zero of in the 1936 start of HOI3). The next battleship you build would be cheaper. Build, say, 3 Marat's in parallel, then when they all complete, you get a big heaping pile of practical knowledge, giving a ridiculous discount on the next battleships (at least compared to where you started).
How would this apply to HOI4?
Obviously, HOI4 reduces the potential for abuse by making production efficiency retention pretty small when swapping to a new entire model year for tanks and planes. But you do keep a vast majority of your production efficiency when swapping to a variant. Imagine building, say, your first carrier with almost no modules. You run the production line, it finishes the carrier. You have also gained a ton of production efficiency. Then you swap to a variant that has, say, all the modules. Hmmm, that might be a problem. But clever players are already thinking to themselves, "Secret Master, the pay off on capital ships abusing this mechanic would be too long. It's not the exploit you make it seem like."
But really, I'm just getting started. That's just a showcase of how the mechanic might work. Let's get really silly with production efficiency and ships.
I know a lot of players in MP love their roach builds, and a lot of players love to abuse submarines. Can you imagine for one moment how ridiculous you could get with production efficiency gains in dockyards building, say, tier 1 roach DDs. If Britain started on day 1 building cheap tier 1 DDs, by Danzig they'd be printing them off like counterfeit currency. And, if you decide later you don't want roach DDs for whatever reason, you run better modules on the DDs on the production line and keep going.
It gets spicier with submarines, though. Have Germany grab subs early using focuses and the design company, get a production line of dockyards going with stripped down minimalist 1940 submarine hulls with the worst torpedoes and engines for a few months, but when RADAR and snorkel come online, swap over to a super nice submarine with fancy torpedoes, RADAR or snorkel, and the best engine.
This does not even address how silly you could probably get with convoy production if dockyards had production efficiency.
I'm sure someone could balance it out with enough math and testing, but I can see why the Devs haven't bothered.
- 3
- 1
In HOI3 the practicals were grandted at the end of the production, in the same quantity for a low quality ship or a high quality ship. In HOI4, production efficiency increases over time during the production. No reason in your submarine example for germany to not build the best submarines they can at any point in time, making them cheap would not increase the speed at which production efficiency grows.
Additionally in HOI3 Practicals impacted production from future factories. Building up practicals, then expanding IC would let all that apply to the higher IC later. Since in HOI4 it's tied to each factory individually, so it won't impact future production the same way.
Finally, only some nations, or late game do people actually reach 100% production efficiency, so in all but a very small number of cases, this would be a substantial reduction to ship build speeds across the board. Only very late game would the addition of production efficiency let convoys produce faster than they currently are.
Personally I don't think it's nescessary. Ships don't really need anything to slow down their production. It's also interesting to note that Railway Guns don't use production efficiency either. Effectively using the ship production system with military factories.
Last edited:
You mean 130% efficiency given how the Soviet tree works now? Maybe even higher if there are modifiers and decisions I'm missing.
If you don't have the tech, you can still gain production efficiency on weaker subs until you get the techs you want. 1940 submarines don't start with snorkel or RADAR by default.
Which is exactly how it should be.
Iowa-class battleship - Wikipedia
The first Iowa BB build started in 1940, and entered service in 1943. A build time of 3 years.
- 1
- 1
Sounds like, if anything, the production research bonuses for dockyards should be improved. Instead of the +20%, maybe 30%?
Unfortunately the real problem is a lack of naval utility, so theres not too much incentive to invest in a navy even if the numbers were modified a bit
- 1
As @Anaraxes covered off well, the Liberty (and Victory) ship programs were the two programs that showed significant improvement in terms of production efficiency by design - and these were made possible because unlike warships, which evolved significantly over the period, and took much longer to build, the same designs were built repeatedly by yards.
For warships, though, very few yards did repeat orders of the same design, after they'd completed the first instance of that design (ie, no yards built a second Iowa-class battleships after they'd finished their first). There were exceptions to this, like with Type VIIC u-boats, Flower-class corvettes and Fletcher-Class destroyers, for example, but in HoI4 it's possible to build smaller ships much faster than historically, by stacking a heap of NIC on them, so there's hardly a need here (and even for most small designs, IIRC most yards didn't do repeat runs). It was a thing historically, but to make it make sense would require a significant reword of the naval production system and UI, and I don't think it's worth it for the returns.
Broader improvements in construction techniques, on the other hand, I consider to be proxied by the industrial techs that increase output per NIC.
It depends what you're looking for. From a historical plausibility perspective, it's very good for battleships and carriers, a bit fast for heavy cruisers, and far too fast for anything smaller than that (but the speed is a decent trade-off with the required complexity of UX or fiddliness if destroyers really did take a year or so to build). Players, particularly for capital ships, are faced with similar strategic choices as they faced historically. For a historical grand strategy game, I personally think this goes well - but you're well within your rights to lobby for something with quicker-building ships and less (or at least different) strategy.
Designing am effective warship is incredibly complex. In terms of cannon, a designer needs to take into account the distribution of weights in the ship (most of the heavy weight of main armament is relatively high in the ship - too much of that and a ship will capsize easily even with limited battle damage/flooding), the shock on the ship's structure of the main armament firing, and the trim of the vessel (is the bow or stern lower in the water?) There's an awful lot more to it than just "is there enough space in the hull to plonk in another cannon). That being said, during the time period in question, there generally wasn't a huge amount of "spare" space in warships in any event.
For warships, though, very few yards did repeat orders of the same design, after they'd completed the first instance of that design (ie, no yards built a second Iowa-class battleships after they'd finished their first). There were exceptions to this, like with Type VIIC u-boats, Flower-class corvettes and Fletcher-Class destroyers, for example, but in HoI4 it's possible to build smaller ships much faster than historically, by stacking a heap of NIC on them, so there's hardly a need here (and even for most small designs, IIRC most yards didn't do repeat runs). It was a thing historically, but to make it make sense would require a significant reword of the naval production system and UI, and I don't think it's worth it for the returns.
Broader improvements in construction techniques, on the other hand, I consider to be proxied by the industrial techs that increase output per NIC.
It depends what you're looking for. From a historical plausibility perspective, it's very good for battleships and carriers, a bit fast for heavy cruisers, and far too fast for anything smaller than that (but the speed is a decent trade-off with the required complexity of UX or fiddliness if destroyers really did take a year or so to build). Players, particularly for capital ships, are faced with similar strategic choices as they faced historically. For a historical grand strategy game, I personally think this goes well - but you're well within your rights to lobby for something with quicker-building ships and less (or at least different) strategy.
Designing am effective warship is incredibly complex. In terms of cannon, a designer needs to take into account the distribution of weights in the ship (most of the heavy weight of main armament is relatively high in the ship - too much of that and a ship will capsize easily even with limited battle damage/flooding), the shock on the ship's structure of the main armament firing, and the trim of the vessel (is the bow or stern lower in the water?) There's an awful lot more to it than just "is there enough space in the hull to plonk in another cannon). That being said, during the time period in question, there generally wasn't a huge amount of "spare" space in warships in any event.