un-upgradable units

[ThePiedPiper]

Because you just cant split a ship in half to increase its length or its beam.

Main turrets are designed then installed and the complexity of that for displacement and seaworthiness etc. are taken into account at time of design. Now the upgrading prior to installation can be done, but even that has its limits.

Additional Armour can be upgraded but again it has its design limitations. More armour equals slower speeds.

Engines can be upgraded but then you have to specialty design them for the existing compartments.

Main Armament can be increased by reboring the gun tube. A lengthy and costly process and this has it limitations due to length and especially diameter of the rebore so it can handle the new shell and subsequent pressure from charge etc. And that doesnt take into account the shell amd powder handling systems from magazine to turret. Which has to be upgraded if it can be.

The main parts that can be upgraded and are cost effective to lengthen a ships effectiveness are Secondary Guns, Anti-Aircraft, and Electronics. These are a lengthy process in and of themselves and require a ship to be pulled from combat status and drydocked.

It is much easier to just design a new class with all the improvements you want. Even that is limited by shipyard ability to build the actual ship. Take for example the US plans for Montana and Iowa Class BB's. Even those had to be redesigned due to 1 of the shipyards capable of even building them being behind a bridge so height became a factor in the design or it couldnt be sailed to sea. Also the Panama Canal was a factor for US ships prior to the Montana Class design.

Now I am no Naval Architect, but even a cusory examination of the fundemental aspects of Naval Design will bring these problems to the light.

 

[unmerged(152826)]

A good example of how you can't upgrade ships is when the British invented the Dreadnought Class, this set the new standard for all Capital Ships and made everything before obsolete. The guns and turret assembly for a ship takes years to build, it was the limiting factor it construction speed, thats why you get guns serving on more than one ship, I think the British used guns on as many as 4 different ships. Also, you can't really just bolt on extra armour as it ruins the characteristics of the ship, you have to start anew.

 

[ThePiedPiper]

A good example of how you can't upgrade ships is when the British invented the Dreadnought Class, this set the new standard for all Capital Ships and made everything before obsolete. The guns and turret assembly for a ship takes years to build, it was the limiting factor it construction speed, thats why you get guns serving on more than one ship, I think the British used guns on as many as 4 different ships. Also, you can't really just bolt on extra armour as it ruins the characteristics of the ship, you have to start anew.

Actually you can add armour but there is a limit. The IJN Fuso went through 3 years of armour upgrades and added ~ 42% to Her displacement ( ~ 12.5 k tonnes of armour) it still has to be done with characteristic design in mind. even the armour upgrades did not help much.

 

[KalZakath]

The disconnect for some seems to be that they think that the armored brigade or division is a single entity rather than made up of many individual parts. If they lose a tank or two, the division does not stop being combat ready.

It's not the division or brigade that gets upgraded - it's the individual tanks, trucks, etc. within the division. As has been mentioned, the parts can be rotated out without greatly affecting the fighting force of the unit.

For a real comparison to what is being compared, you really would need to compare a task force to the division. You start pulling the older ships out as you get new replacements - you don't send the individual ships back to be upgraded to the next class of Cruiser, DD, BB, etc.

For a ship, we are talking about a single unit - any changes to that unit require that it be done to that unit, rather than a piecemeal approach.

As far as WWI ships not being around and scrapped instead in the 1930s...

At the start of the war, the pride of the British Navy was the HMS Hood. Ordered in 4/1916, launched in 8/1918. They believed that it would be able to take on the Bismarck (of course proven false, but...)

 

[teamgene]

Perhaps you're all missing the main point ? In the mids 1930, WW1 ships would be useless. They would be dismantled or sunk or parked somewhere, certainly none would have wasted the manpower and ammunition to keep them operative knowing that they couldn't compete. ?

Going into WW2 most of the battleships in the US Navy were WW1 ships. I believe that most if not all six US battleships involved in the battle at Leyte Gulf, (which was the swan song for BB) were WW1 era ships and some even sunk at Pearl before being repaired.

 

[Onedreamer]

Conway's All The World's Fighting Ships 1922-1946, Conway Maritime Press 1980, R Chesnau (ed).

Battleships of the World, Greenhill Books 1997, R Greger.

These aren't links...

For a ship, we are talking about a single unit - any changes to that unit require that it be done to that unit, rather than a piecemeal approach.

yep, exactly. But the point is that it is not impossible to upgrade a warship, even a single unit. Instead in the game it is impossible. Make it require whatever you think is realistic, however claiming that the current game setup is true to life is blatantly false.

 

[ThePiedPiper]

I dont remember reading where anyone claimed this was true to real life.

What has been said through countless examinations of real naval architecture: is that baring the few exceptions, Hull, Armour, Guns, and Engines were never upgraded. It is far more econimical to just build a compeletely new ship. Doing this precludes all the innate problems of how to fit the new systems to an old design. It is much easier to take your new tech and add it to a new design that will incorporate it much more smoothly into the design.

If you were to incorporate complete upgrades then the length of time to overhaul the ship would generally be longer in time than to build a new one.

And then that unit would need to be removed from a 'use status' and 'drydocked' until all overhauls were complete.

The length of time to add just the armour upgrades to the IJN Fuso was ~ 3years. Look also at the time it took rebuild the Italian BB's and in the end they performed dismally anyways.

So in game terms the present system while not perfect works best presently to abstract all the factors and is WAD to me.

But I am sure no matter what is posted you will continue to hold your views as others will.

 

[Onedreamer]

I dont remember reading where anyone claimed this was true to real life.

What has been said through countless examinations of real naval architecture [snip]

And I frankly don't remember any of these countless "examinations of real naval architecture". Now don't come and tell me that anyone posting in the thread is even slightly competent on the matter.

It is far more econimical to just build a compeletely new ship. Doing this precludes all the innate problems of how to fit the new systems to an old design. It is much easier to take your new tech and add it to a new design that will incorporate it much more smoothly into the design.

What you are describing is a design problem, not an economical one.

If you were to incorporate complete upgrades then the length of time to overhaul the ship would generally be longer in time than to build a new one. And then that unit would need to be removed from a 'use status' and 'drydocked' until all overhauls were complete.

this is one of the results of the by you mentioned "countless examinations", right ? But I don't remember reading anything that proved that overhauling a ship will take longer time than building a new one. And even if, I don't care as I clearly pointed out. There are other factors to consider not just time. Same goes about drydocked ships. Better having them drydocked for 3 years than sunk in 3 hours.

But I am sure no matter what is posted you will continue to hold your views as others will.

Because it is a matter of opinion. You want to build brand new ships and I would like to upgrade them. Fine, where's the problem ? The problem is that the second choice is not given. And you are all claiming that it is not given because it's not realistic. My previous statement stands true, even if you didn't clearly say that the current system is true to life you are implying it, or at least you are implying that it's the closest to reality.

 

[ThePiedPiper]

I understand your unhappiness with the current game system. I would suggest perhaps a game more to your liking. Assuming no one posting here has a clue as to how war machines are built or designed is rather egotistical.

There are many aspects of this game that presently do not work correctly IMO. But I am definately not on a crusade to have them change the game.

All that can be done is to post in the bug forum or beta test or just shelf the game. Those are the only 3 viable options.

What we get in a game is what is made. Unless we design our own game and publish it and take the hits for the choices made in the design. Then that is the only way to truly have what we want. The current system is WAD, and I dont see it changing.

If you wish not to have a ship sunk in 3 hours dont sail it. There are numerous examples in history of ship combats where the 1500 or so men who died would probably have not liked to sail out and done their duty.

Enjoy your opinion, but please refrain from the attacks on those of us who think differently.

 

[unmerged(85298)]

What you suggests that upgrade the Fuso to Nagato, Revenge to King George V, New York to Iowa Which is absurd.

i didnt say that change a fuso ships parts with nagato ship's parts
i mean that dont think the upgrading is a changing the parts only change the whole ship is a upgrading operation. understood that the upgrading isnt only changing the parts , upgrading is changing the whole thing ( like tanks , ships , weapons , ammo)

think about a tank you cant upgrade a ww1 tank into panter tank but you can take away old one and give one and you upgraded the thing. i think you take the point.

think about ships . i can make new a ship and give it to a amiral which has old ship. and this is an upgrade event.

so i think ships can be upgradeable but cost more time and stuff
and when upgraded fully ship should lose its organisation maybe %100 maybe %50.

 

[KalZakath]

Onedreamer -

I'm not against ships being upgraded - just that there have to be limits on it and the costs have to be prohibitive. I believe it is the exceptions to the rule that most people are clinging to as to why all ships should be able to be upgraded. As per the current game mechanics, there is really no way it seems to fulfill the requirements many of us would require for this once in a while thing.

I posted a few posts back about the limits I would like to see if there were ship upgrades.

A) The ship would have to be taken completely out of commission for the duration - no sudden upgrades of the ship while it's out doing a naval bombardment and has been sinking shipping all over the globe. As the current game deals with upgrades, the ship would upgrade while at sea... This is the main sticking point that many of us have - an entirely new set of programs would have to be set up to allow this upgrade.

B) Insane time requirements based on how much you are upgrading. Look at those times for real-life upgrading - look at the actual time it takes to build a new BB in game....

C) A limit on the amount that the base ship can be upgraded. If you have a 1918 class ship, don't expect it to become a modern day ship through upgrades. Perhaps have a 'base' ship (i.e. your ship on file would have as stats :BASE: Hull 1918 Guns 1918 Engines 1918, etc. Have each category only upgradeable various amounts (i.e., a hull may only be one or two techs, guns 2 or 3, radar unlimited, etc.)

D) Multiple research fields need to be present for the upgrade to be available. You want to upgrade the guns? The hull also needs the research to be upgraded. You want to upgrade the hull? The engines need to be modified to be able to keep you at the same speed. There are a lot of things that need to be balanced to make an effective fighting vessel.

I'll add another one:

E) A variable added to see if the upgrade was a success (in which case the ship would act as if it were a ship of the class it was upgraded to), or not so much (in which case you would have increased the stats a little, but not all of the way to the desired class).

A CAG should be upgradeable on a CV ONLY as long as the deck of the CV is long enough to be able to handle the take offs and landing requirements of the planes. At some point, you're going to have planes that won't be able to land or take off from the shorter decked early carriers. One thing that DOES drive me bananas in some games is watching jets take off of pre-war CVs....

 

[Onedreamer]

@KalZakath
I agree with pretty much all your points. A ship should be upgradable at least to a certain extent starting from its base class. Make it cost whatever it should in IC days... this can be discussed in a second moment, after there is at least an acknowledgement that it is possible to upgrade ships -at least to a certain extent.

I understand your unhappiness with the current game system. I would suggest perhaps a game more to your liking.

We are talking of the ship (not) upgrading system, not the game system.

Assuming no one posting here has a clue as to how war machines are built or designed is rather egotistical.

having clues and being competent on a matter are two completely different things.

There are many aspects of this game that presently do not work correctly IMO. But I am definately not on a crusade to have them change the game.

I'm not either. I am discussing with people who claim that the current ship (not) upgrading system is ok because it is realistic, when actually it's not (the problem here is that this fact isn't a matter of opinion). Crusades belong to the Middle Age.

All that can be done is to post in the bug forum or beta test or just shelf the game. Those are the only 3 viable options.

none of these options is viable, as you well know, since it isn't a bug. The best option is to discuss it on the forum. That's the purpouse of a forum: discussion. Not dismissal.

What we get in a game is what is made. Unless we design our own game and publish it and take the hits for the choices made in the design. Then that is the only way to truly have what we want. The current system is WAD, and I dont see it changing.

why do you even bother posting then ?

If you wish not to have a ship sunk in 3 hours dont sail it. There are numerous examples in history of ship combats where the 1500 or so men who died would probably have not liked to sail out and done their duty.

to be precise my wish is to upgrade obsolete ships to a certain extent.

Enjoy your opinion, but please refrain from the attacks on those of us who think differently.

I would have no reason to attack someone who think differently on a forum. Defending my opinion isn't like attacking anyone.

 

[unmerged(13010)]

... During this time the BB has to be removed from the map.

i disagree here - it has to be in the harbour and wait for the port-strikes