Should the naval tech years be adjusted?

[Aeroclub]

Since the devs have announced that the naval tech tree is going to be reshuffled, I started thinking whether the years of the techs there should be looked into.

I think the biggest problem with the tech tree as it is is that 1936-1940-1944 year progression doesn't make any gameplay sense.

I mean, 36 generation is a baseline tech for any naval power anyway. But 1940 comes waaaaay too late considering how long it takes to actually build ships. I mean, how many 1940 caps can you build in time to make an impact if you follow the historical WW2 timeline, especially considering that it's not just the hull, but also the armor and armaments techs that is tied to the year 1940? You probably won't even build enough 1940 CLs to make the tech worth researching. DDs are probably the only ship class that you can build enough of to make the tech worth researching (partly because you don't have to research their armor), but the current meta for DDs is a cheap roach anyway.

I'm not even talking about 1944 techs.

All in all, shouldn't the naval tech generations be adjusted by a year or two? Or maybe the armor/armaments techs decoupled from the hull generations, so that you could research them in advance?

 

[Terracos]

I think what would be great is to distinguish 4 things hull, engine, armor and armament. To simulate steady improvement the research time should be reduced but more tech implemented. Hull and Armor should be "early tech" with years 30, 34 and 38 for hull tech II, III and IV and 32, 36 and 40 for Armor Technology. SHBB should be still like now but should branch off from the 34 hull and have year 37 (YAMATO-Class). For DDs and Cruisers there is even the possibility to add a Hull V in 42.
Engines on the other side could be consolidated (so only one engine development path for all ship classes, with years 36 39 and 42). Armament should be more like the Artillery tech branch with years 37, 40 and 43 for the newest guns.

Together with this it should be possible to change a ships design while in production and it will not lose all the invested IC. That way, while a ship is built it can be improved before it is finished. This happened with many ships during the production phase, especially with the armament.

 

[Aeroclub]

I also just looked up the design history of Iowas (the last BB comissioned by the USN), and they were ready for production in 1938 (and weren't laid down only because of the Naval Treary). It means that the latest and last BBs that actually saw service were only "1936 tech" in HoI4 terms.

 

[thedarkendstar]

I also just looked up the design history of Iowas (the last BB comissioned by the USN), and they were ready for production in 1938 (and weren't laid down only because of the Naval Treary). It means that the latest and last BBs that actually saw service were only "1936 tech" in HoI4 terms.

Nah FDR just rushed ship naval research cost reduction and spent 2 years researching 1940 hulls.

 

[Aeroclub]

Nah FDR just rushed ship naval research cost reduction and spent 2 years researching 1940 hulls.

Lol but 1938 was when the designs were finished, meaning that in the game terms USA should what, start rushing hulls, armor, guns and AA day one?

Jokes aside, Iowas (as the most modern BB to ever sail), should be the latest BB tech in the game, i.e. what is now represented as 1944 generation.

 

[MrMcQue]

Lol but 1938 was when the designs were finished, meaning that in the game terms USA should what, start rushing hulls, armor, guns and AA day one?

Jokes aside, Iowas (as the most modern BB to ever sail), should be the latest BB tech in the game, i.e. what is now represented as 1944 generation.

Though in my opinion the Iowas should be the 2nd to last class and the Montana-Class the last one. You should be able to start building the Montana in 41/42, and even if it is only ready in 44 or something, an actually built USS Montana is more for RP anyway.

 

[thedarkendstar]

How influential were new ships in the war I assume most of the fighting occurred with the ships nations had at the start I know the US pumped out a rather absurd amount of ships but by the point you start seeing double digit carriers and new battleships coming off the line was the pacific theater already decided.

 

[Aeroclub]

How influential were new ships in the war I assume most of the fighting occurred with the ships nations had at the start I know the US pumped out a rather absurd amount of ships but by the point you start seeing double digit carriers and new battleships coming off the line was the pacific theater already decided.

True, but IRL the war was longer than it takes in HoI4. So the latest you can start building a capital ship with any hope that it will make a meaningful impact on the war is like 38-39. That's way earlier than when you can realistically have 40-generation, while already having most (if not all) 36-gen techs researched at the game start. This situation makes the whole naval research tree rather useless.

 

[Aeroclub]

Though in my opinion the Iowas should be the 2nd to last class and the Montana-Class the last one. You should be able to start building the Montana in 41/42, and even if it is only ready in 44 or something, an actually built USS Montana is more for RP anyway.

That would also be fine, but the main point (that you can't really get to the next gen battleships before the war starts) remains.

 

[TechGlitchReporter]

I hope we get Montana class - SHBB 2.

 

[Casko]

One alternative change could also make sense for the hulls, is to have them be CHEAPER than the older models, representing not only the fact that once the various nations got to the total war footing, they could mass produce ships (see things such as US building entirely new fleet from scratch) This would make getting more high tech hull tech without needing tech rushing to be able to produce one or two battleships by the time Berlin has fallen.

 

[Aeroclub]

One alternative change could also make sense for the hulls, is to have them be CHEAPER than the older models, representing not only the fact that once the various nations got to the total war footing, they could mass produce ships (see things such as US building entirely new fleet from scratch) This would make getting more high tech hull tech without needing tech rushing to be able to produce one or two battleships by the time Berlin has fallen.

I think production cost is actually more or less balanced now in the sense of quantity of ships being produced.

 

[Alexander 'The Grape']

Naval production's main issue is that it doesn't scale up compared to millitary factory output. There's no bonuses to dockyard construction speed from economy law, there's no production efficiency to continually improve, and the bonus from factory tech lags behind that of mills.

Giving industry tech (concentrated and dispersed) +15% or +20% to dockyard output instead of +10% and giving the same bonuses to Dockyard construction from Partial/War/Total economy laws would help with this

 

[The Colonel]

Naval production's main issue is that it doesn't scale up compared to millitary factory output. There's no bonuses to dockyard construction speed from economy law, there's no production efficiency to continually improve, and the bonus from factory tech lags behind that of mills.

Giving industry tech (concentrated and dispersed) +15% or +20% to dockyard output instead of +10% and giving the same bonuses to Dockyard construction from Partial/War/Total economy laws would help with this

Yeah it's always baffled me that there is no production efficiency for dock yard shiplines and that concentrated gives less dockyard output than factory output... just... why? Everyone pumped out ships at increasing rates throughout the war, yet not only can we not rush a ship with extra dockyards (whereas you can easily put 150 MILs on your tank or plane of choice to mass them), which means that if you do decide to make a ton of dockyards it's a hell of way too much clicking to get your ships in production, but they remain slow. I know the game makes no real effort to mirror something like teh US producing 24 Essex-class carriers, but come on, you can't do anything approaching historical naval production of basically any nation, and naval production efficiency for when the same dockyards are tasked to make more than one of a ship type would make total sense.

 

[King Of Heroes]

Ultimately nearly every naval technology was already something that most powers knew.

Inclined Belt, All or Nothing, Secondary Turrets, DP Guns, Bracket and Ladder Shooting and Shell Dyes all were known in some way or another, whilst improvements in the method is always a possibility and the proposed changes mentioned in a recent DD is a step in the right direction there's still a lot where it can improve.

Also a reality at least about the AoN is that it was a compromise to be able to comply with treaties or other limitations not a plain upgrade, if anything it should be giving cost reduction rather than armor boost and certainly not be making the ship slower.

Adapting the tank designer Engine/Armor 0 to 20 setup to the Ship Designer would do great towards realism too.

 

[Louella]

It was difficult to expand shipyard output, because it's not an industry that is easy to expand, other than by building additional shipyards.
Capital ships, were all essentially one-off projects. There wasn't really a production line for most types of ships.
You could put some additional workers onto each hull under construction, but up to a point you run into issues such as each construction task getting in the way of other tasks. There's only so much dockyard space, and dockside room for cranes etc. to carry out tasks.
And most shipyards were outdoors, and thus work was limited by available daylight, and floodlights couldn't really be used in a lot of places, as they'd be a beacon for enemy aircraft. Very different to indoor factory lines for tanks or aircraft.

The impressive increases in production of ships, like the German U-boat construction, and the USA's Liberty Ship and escort carrier programmes, were brought about through very comprehensive planning, and very modular, standardised designs.


in comparison, tank or aircraft factories could be rapidly expanded, production lines were easy to set up, and it was straightforward to increase output significantly by going from an 8h working day, to double or triple shifts.

 

[Dimmie_Dumm]

Jokes aside, Iowas (as the most modern BB to ever sail), should be the latest BB tech in the game, i.e. what is now represented as 1944 generation.

Tsaritsin (as the most eastern city the Germans ever assaulted) on Volga river should be the furtherst USSR's spot in the game ever assailable to western invaders.

 

[zjmna]

Sure, the 1944 battleship hull isn't something that any nation historically built, but the US at least produced "1944" designs for every other ship type (except arguably subs). The Midway-class carrier, Gearing-class destroyer, Worcester-class and Des Moines-class cruisers correspond well with that final tier of tech. Sure, it's not relevant if you're a player who wins the war in 1942. But they represent real technological advances and capability increases, and in my opinion it's worth having those options available to players who want them.

 

[Znail]

It makes some sense to move naval techs to earlier years simply to account for that it takes at least a couple of years to build larger ships meaning that you need more time to get something usable then with other techs.

 

[LordWahu]

With most techs, new equipment can be put in the field to make it worth the research. With late era ships though, the fact it takes almost two years to build one capital ship makes the research practically wasted

I don't think this is an issue with the techs so much as it is with ship construction times. Yes it might have taken that long to build a ship in reality, but these ships were being built significantly earlier

My big recommendation for a solution is to either reduce ship production costs, or uncap the number of dockyards you can put on a single vessel