Slower and more Realistic ship Building and Troop Training ?

[LordMM]

I always wanted a game were building ships were slower and more realistic. I used to play a game called Star Wars Rebellion, a very old game. The ship building Mechanic in that game was personally my favorite. It took a long time to build ships, and especially if you wanted to build a fleet. Everything else in this game looks awesome, the population Mechanic, politics , war. Only thing which puts me down is how quickly you can build ships.

I would propose a ship with lowest design size should take 3 months and the biggest design size like Capital ships should take a couple of years to build. Maybe the the ship building Time can decrease with better shipyards

Corvette - 1-2 Months
Frigates - 3 - 4 Months
Destroyers - 6 - 8 Months
Cruisers - 9 - 12 Months
Capital Ships - 12 - 15 Months

Maybe Each Subsystem can be given an build time, so more Sophisticated Combat ships with better sub systems takes more time to build. I know this is unlikely to get in the game so maybe a Mod ?? . I am hoping for a Naval System like in HOI were ships and Armies takes time and effort to Build. This will make a person think twice before even Declaring War on someone.

 

[TheBeautifulVoid2]

This is interesting, because it makes wars a matter of destroying the enemy's prewar-built fleets rather than about building new ones. While fun, this does lead to the danger that everyone will pile on a defeated empire while they're vulnerable. This robs the game of the bounceback that's a crucial factor in GSGs.

If we can find a way around this, I'd definitely agree that this would make a good mod.

 

[kalauer]

That is building time in days. Pretty much the times you suggested.

 

[ashbery76]

Yeah we forget he's playing at fast speeds.Most will not.

 

[lemmox]

That would completely change the balance and pace of the game, so it's definitely going to be a mod. The feeling I'm getting from Stellaris is that each individual ship or army is very explicitly not special. From the perspective of a massive galactic empire, spanning hundreds of systems and billions upon billions of lives, all but the most massive of capital ships represents a tiny effort, reasonably disposable and replaceable.

In any case, if not very carefully balanced from the ground up - particularly making ships much much hardier - it would just ensure that whoever won the first battle wins the war, because it would be impossible for an empire to produce any reinforcements in a timely fashion.

It's also worth pointing out that there is a lot of historical precedence for mass-produced armies. The US in WWII cranked out ships, planes, and tanks at an ungodly rate.

 

[13Foxtrot]

certainly the more costly a ship is to build (modeled in time and resource cost) the more valuable it is.

I for one dislike space games that allow you to churn hundreds of ships out over and over and throw billions of unwashed masses into fights over and over again.....it lowers the importance and danger of war in my opinion. Basically I don't want so many military ships that they become numbers instead of names (especially the cruiser on up).

I am withholding my judgement on the game til I play it.

Of course that is my opinion and other are fine with 100s of battlships roaming the galaxy in giant fleets.

It is a matter of taste.

 

[Blackwolfpt]

The problem is the scale. You are supposed to have these massive factories with maybe tens of thousands of workers, therefore production would be fairly quick. It's like the other thread that is asking for manpower, it does makes sense for other paradox games where they portray a historical period, where resources were very limited, but it wouldn't really fit for a galactic empire setting.

 

[LordMM]

I think the point about this is War should have a cost to it. As Toddd240 mentioned above am not a real fan a churning ships in 100s. Especially when it comes to Capital ships and cruisers the cost of operating one and the value it has should be somewhat equal to what people felt when they built their first brand new carriers or Battleships in an HOI game.

 

[lemmox]

. Especially when it comes to Capital ships and cruisers the cost of operating one and the value it has should be somewhat equal to what people felt when they built their first brand new carriers or Battleships in an HOI game.

Why? It's a completely different scale. Even on Earth that comparison doesn't hold, the US produced a ridiculous number of aircraft carriers and battleships during WWII, they weren't these carefully crafted masterpieces, they were mass-produced weapons of war, designed to be cranked out faster than they were sunk.

War already has costs, in terms of the minerals you invest in the fleet, lost territory, and increasing unhappiness among your populace if the war drags on too long.

 

[praftd]

I think the point about this is War should have a cost to it. As Toddd240 mentioned above am not a real fan a churning ships in 100s. Especially when it comes to Capital ships and cruisers the cost of operating one and the value it has should be somewhat equal to what people felt when they built their first brand new carriers or Battleships in an HOI game.

Basically what you are advocating for is less battles and wars to be focus on single victories.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

Think of it this way... the whole construction thing are completely abstracted.

In reality you would have construction docks and would be able to easily have many of them and build ships in serial, especially with smaller ship hulls such as Corvettes and Destroyers.

Given that it might be somewhat realistic build times if you look at a fleet as a whole but perhaps not for an individual ship.

 

[13Foxtrot]

everything scales......yes you have planets to draw resources from, but those planets have massive needs for resources as well in other areas.

 

[lemmox]

everything scales......yes you have planets to draw resources from, but those planets have massive needs for resources as well in other areas.

Which makes the portion of those resources required to build a fleet an increasingly smaller chunk.

If anything, economies of scales would make huge fleets increasingly easy to produce on a galactic scale.

 

[apoc527]

Uhh hey guys, I'd just like to point out that just down the road from me, Boeing factories produce just under 2 Boeing 737 jets each day. It's called a production line. I don't think the build times as present in the game are unrealistic. If anything, corvettes might take too long.

 

[LordMM]

The problem is the scale. You are supposed to have these massive factories with maybe tens of thousands of workers, therefore production would be fairly quick. It's like the other thread that is asking for manpower, it does makes sense for other paradox games where they portray a historical period, where resources were very limited, but it wouldn't really fit for a galactic empire setting.

As time have passed and technology has advanced building Armies have only gotten costlier and smaller as compared to what we saw in WW2. NO country these days can afford to build 4.5 to 5 million troops because mentianing a modern soldier takes a lot of resources as compared to what it used to back in 1940s. When it comes to space , Even the Scale of production matters. IF your talking about Ground armies and invasion of planets you would needs 10s of Millions of Soldiers Which is no easy task to build even if you have Large scale Industries.

Am talking at the point of view of not having 100s of planets but around 5-10 planets. Which seems to be the normal amount of planets an Empire has in Stellaris. Building Capital ships and Cruisers sized 2 miles is going to be very costly...

 

[LordMM]

Uhh hey guys, I'd just like to point out that just down the road from me, Boeing factories produce just under 2 Boeing 737 jets each day. It's called a production line. I don't think the build times as present in the game are unrealistic. If anything, corvettes might take too long.

Yes, but it takes 4-5 years to build a Carrier. The Production time for Military ships seems apt in my view

 

[Yenzen]

This is interesting, because it makes wars a matter of destroying the enemy's prewar-built fleets rather than about building new ones. While fun, this does lead to the danger that everyone will pile on a defeated empire while they're vulnerable. This robs the game of the bounceback that's a crucial factor in GSGs.

If we can find a way around this, I'd definitely agree that this would make a good mod.

Another thing is that it would further enhance the one-battle wonder end of the war type scale.

I would not support making the construction slower, unless major fleet engagements would tend more towards fewer losses and faster retreats, while making deep incursions into enemy territory into logistical challenges.

None of these are the case, so right now it's important to be able to bounce back after the first naval defeat or two.

 

[lemmox]

Am talking at the point of view of not having 100s of planets but around 5-10 planets. Which seems to be the normal amount of planets an Empire has in Stellaris. Building Capital ships and Cruisers sized 2 miles is going to be very costly...

That's the baseline limit for direct control. It's the equivalent of Washington DC with everything else controlled directly by a state, but they're still part of the US and contribute to its productive capacity.

Armies are smaller now because warfare has changed, nobody needs to field a massive field army these days and as a result there is no industrial infrastructure set up to accommodate that. I can assure you, however, that if WWIII happened tomorrow - and somehow didn't turn nuclear - every western nation would quite quickly re-orient their military-industrial infrastructure to quickly and efficiently pump out massive amounts of war material.

 

[apoc527]

Yes, but it takes 4-5 years to build a Carrier. The Production time for Military ships seems apt in my view

The Blorg don't have battleships, so we don't know how long it takes to build the equivalent of an aircraft carrier. Colony ships take a year, so I would bet battleships take at least that long, if not a lot longer. But yes, I agree--at some point, scale matters a lot. Corvettes could be quickly produced (and certainly fighters and bombers), but as you go up from destroyer to cruiser to battleship, it ought to take much, much longer.

 

[lemmox]

Yes, but it takes 4-5 years to build a Carrier. The Production time for Military ships seems apt in my view

In a peacetime economy with no need to build them any faster. We don't need a carrier now, we need it in 4-5 years if that, so there is no reason to put in the commitment, time, or money to optimize production to produce a steady supply of new carriers continuously. It just isn't cost effective.

That doesn't mean we couldn't if we needed to.