What do you do with your Coastal Defence Ship?

[Meglok]

Use them to burn fuel while training.

Seriously, it costs Sweden extra ~400 Fuel per day to maintain the same 0.33 xp/day balance with all those Coastal Defenders left afloat, which you otherwise get with just one of them (plus HMS Gotland, which is good enough of a ship). Importing 400 Fuel means 2 CIC traded away, and by the time these rusty tubs actually see any military usage they will have inflicted quite a drain to the build-up phase.

Now some might discard that arguement due to their own reasons, but saying keeping ships pre-war only costs a little manpower is simply not true. That, or you simply miss 100 Naval XP per year when it matters the most.

This seems like a straw man argument. Why would you bother using these ships to train instead of ships that use less oil? Let them sit in port until needed. A few CD ships getting xp are not ever worth using CIC. But they are certainly worth having around if you plan on fighting Russia or Germany even if it costs you some questionable naval xp.

Now if you are going to fight the RN or USN nothing Sweden has is worth a bucket of spit against those behemoths unless you are playing MP with lots of allies.

 

[DicRoNero]

Now if you are going to fight the RN or USN nothing Sweden has is worth a bucket of spit against those behemoths unless you are playing MP with lots of allies.

That's why Sweden builds adequate well-designed ships, ugh?

I usually fight most of the majors at a time, fighting just ENG or USA alone is way too simple even if one goes (like I do) for the most 'fair' surface fleet solution, without resorting to NAVs, mines or like a recent thread suggests just subs.

In fact, this is the only way a country of Swedish caliber can have any sort of a challenge in SP. Maybe for Ireland or Tibet it's a bit different (haven't played those), but for Sweden I can be sure of what I say due to my sheer gameplay time.

 

[Diakonen]

That's why Sweden builds adequate well-designed ships, ugh?

I usually fight most of the majors at a time, fighting just ENG or USA alone is way too simple even if one goes (like I do) for the most 'fair' surface fleet solution, without resorting to NAVs, mines or like a recent thread suggests just subs.

In fact, this is the only way a country of Swedish caliber can have any sort of a challenge in SP. Maybe for Ireland or Tibet it's a bit different (haven't played those), but for Sweden I can be sure of what I say due to my sheer gameplay time.

Damn, thats quite an investment! So you go SHBB + CV? Seems like you will need alot of screens? Cheapest DD possible?

 

[Caeric]

Speaking of SHBBs, I wish the speed penalty of their guns was a little bit less. Impossible to reach even the historical speed of Yamato without t3 engines from the 1940 BB hull.

 

[DicRoNero]

Damn, thats quite an investment! So you go SHBB + CV? Seems like you will need alot of screens? Cheapest DD possible?

Yes, most often this. I just started to enjoy the idea of combined operations, and for that CVs are a must despite main hitters still being BBs (for me). 1944 model CAS taking off the sea and smashing coastal defense divisions into oblivion are just priceless.

It takes less screens than you could probably think of - for various reasons. I.e. it now takes 3 screens per capital (rather than 4) to gain max screening. There's also a perk for screening (a flat % bonus, cuts the required # of smaller ships roughly by 1/3). Besides, fighting with screening effiency below 100% is never an end of the world actually. Sometimes I run operations with it around just 40 or maybe 60. Which of course gradually goes up once screens start coming out of the docks. Finally, you don't have to put all of the capitals into one doomstack. The very point of having 4 ships of each class is to have 2-3 always available in case any of them gets hit hard.
Going around with 0 screens is prohibited by Game Designers via this (sadly, still just as valid).

The most important reason to go capitals first, screens later is sheer production time. Once you realize you could use another pair of BBs or CVs, it will take at least 18 months to get any, so I'd rather oveproduce them early.

Cheapest DDs for Sweden is not something I'm a fan of. I've done that too, obviously, just like I used to keep Coastal Defense Ships, but wasting sailors' e-lives is just not my cup of tea, so for cheap screening option I have a 1940 cruiser with no armor - a cost-optimized design only takes 2 Steel, and still provides a hefty load of AA/Light attack (or scout planes and whatnot).

 

[vermicious knid]

The main problem with the coastal defense ship is that it's basic hull costs 3500 IC vs. 1800 IC for a pre-war cruiser (most of the coastal defense ships were of that era). It is also slower (15 vs. 20), more visible (20 vs. 15), and requires an enormous crew (1800 vs. 600). It doesn't even have more HP than a pre-war cruiser, which you'd expect with the heavier construction.

I have no idea what the designer thought process was here, but the game mechanics really do not encourage you to build CDS. You'd be better off building cruisers 100% of the time.

On the bright side it is super-easy to adjust with a mod. Road to 56 brings them more in line with reality, for example.

 

[Znail]

The main problem with the coastal defense ship is that it's basic hull costs 3500 IC vs. 1800 IC for a pre-war cruiser (most of the coastal defense ships were of that era). It is also slower (15 vs. 20), more visible (20 vs. 15), and requires an enormous crew (1800 vs. 600). It doesn't even have more HP than a pre-war cruiser, which you'd expect with the heavier construction.

I have no idea what the designer thought process was here, but the game mechanics really do not encourage you to build CDS. You'd be better off building cruisers 100% of the time.

On the bright side it is super-easy to adjust with a mod. Road to 56 brings them more in line with reality, for example.

This is because the game have incorporated all the dissadvantages of the CDS without giving it the advantage that caused them, armor.

 

[Diakonen]

This is because the game have incorporated all the dissadvantages of the CDS without giving it the advantage that caused them, armor.

This, and as I understand it, no buffs in archipilagos and fjords where they are supposed to operate.

 

[Znail]

This, and as I understand it, no buffs in archipilagos and fjords where they are supposed to operate.

Yes, custom terrain bonuses would also solve the problem of the CDS being usefull outside the shallower seas as they should have a penalty in deep ocean. The cost and visibility of the CDS is also rather higher then it should be as the ships were not that large. The entire idea was to get Battleship level guns and armor on the cheap, so having them cost nearly as much as an actual Battleship is rather strange.

 

[vermicious knid]

The manpower is a minor thing, but it is truly odd. None of the coastal defense ships I've found had large crews.

The extra cost probably shouldn't be attached to the hull, but to the armor. Giving CDS the option to use heavy or cruiser armor would allow it to represent ships like the Sverige as well as more lightly armored CDS used by Thailand, Turkey, etc...

 

[Znail]

The manpower is a minor thing, but it is truly odd. None of the coastal defense ships I've found had large crews.

The extra cost probably shouldn't be attached to the hull, but to the armor. Giving CDS the option to use heavy or cruiser armor would allow it to represent ships like the Sverige as well as more lightly armored CDS used by Thailand, Turkey, etc...

True, but it's even worse as those armors also comes with extra costs and even visibility. I think Paradox was overly worried that CDS would be usefull that they made very sure that they would be worse then other ships. It's a bit strange as the ship designer that focus on coastal ships are one of the best.