I see what you mean. You are utilizing the gearing bonus past the cap to upgrade. Since it is above cap it would be wasted anyway.
-
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.
This is certainly a neat feature of maxed out serials.
But how to get there?
The question remains, is it worth NOT to upgrade your serial production line before? You are getting 5% gearing bonus for the price of producing an old design which might need IC if you upgrade it actively afterwards or at least quite some time if you do it passively.
The answere: depends *grin
If you have enough time to upgrade passively: yes.
If your old design is supposed to go into combat after production: depends on how much better and more expensive the newer design is.
IMHO it is not really possible to make a one valid statement correct for all units, perhaps some guidelines are possible but mostly it needs a case for case analysis.
In terms of guidelines:
Ships are an exception because they can't be upgraded after production, so it is worthwhile to produce only the newest designs whenever you can. Exceptions are CVL-1 and CV-3 because those are already quite good and can be indirectly upgraded by upgrading their all-important (L)CAG-brigade.
Ships I also try, when possible, to produce already with their brigades. You just don't want your ships to wait for months until their brigade is finished nor do you want to add unbrigaded ships into a proper fleet and reduce the overall ability or firing distance of said fleet. Nor do you want to store brigades and burden your TC until vice versa the ships are finally finished building. Usually this means your gearing bonus remains low but even 5% is better than no bonus but in general building newer ship models should be the priority.
And for ground units:
Well, juggling between available time, tech, IC and what kind of all different unit types I want at my usage for tactical reasons: inf, gar, mtn, para, mar, cav, MOT and perhaps some ARM... often enough I use mainly serial production lines of inf and garrisions and passively/actively upgrade existing units to those mentioned tactical ones. And those serial lines of inf and gar I certainly keep uptodate.
Especially for Germany this system is highly interesting: The more you conquere, the more coastline to guard, in the more provinces to fight partisans. Every newly produced garrision can replace an infantry and free it for combat duty along the front. Every garrision can be set to passively upgrade. Every already existing cavalry can be set to upgrade to ARM, many inf to upgrade to MOT or other tactical units.
The only reason I do also build infantry, you just need more and more... and sooner than you can upgrade enough.
And all the saved IC by upgrading passively/actively is well spent, once the fighting starts, to max out your reinforcement slider instead (which again keeps your units not only healthy but speeds also up their upgrade process).
And for brigades and ground units I usually apply the contrary logic to ships: I always keep them separated in production (and also updated as soon as new tech is reached).
Last edited:
- 1
Is that something that was actually tried in the war, or was it always lone wolf actions? It seems like it couldn't be an insurmountable problem to solve.
Subs acting in groups were called Wolfpack in history, the naval doctrine in DH follows the same name.
Used in WW2 by German but also US subs.
It certainly had its drawbacks.
Mybe if sub stacks were hard capped to only stack to a certain max? (like air units for example) it might justify any complaints for op performance
currently the game doesnt model the fantastic success made by single subs getting lucky (Royal oak, Barham, Taiho, Shinano, ect) its quite a list in ww2
the abuse comes in when u have 12 of them (or more) in a fleet
or the irresistible urge to add in (just change convoy raid to no mission) the other groups in the same area when one gets hit (basically same thing)
to the jaded perfectionist alot of these things are irrelevant (u alrdy won it didnt affect the game) but to new players all these details seem VERY important and keeps them entertained and immersed
i think we sometimes forget that when we talk about how to make the game perfect, some of these things were just added in for flavour hehe
.png "Screenshot (58).png")
"man these captains quarters are way better!"
currently the game doesnt model the fantastic success made by single subs getting lucky (Royal oak, Barham, Taiho, Shinano, ect) its quite a list in ww2
the abuse comes in when u have 12 of them (or more) in a fleet
or the irresistible urge to add in (just change convoy raid to no mission) the other groups in the same area when one gets hit (basically same thing)
to the jaded perfectionist alot of these things are irrelevant (u alrdy won it didnt affect the game) but to new players all these details seem VERY important and keeps them entertained and immersed
i think we sometimes forget that when we talk about how to make the game perfect, some of these things were just added in for flavour hehe
"man these captains quarters are way better!"
Last edited:
Large stacks of anti-sub ships will counter big sub groups.
AFAIK the main focus of the submarine war historically was against shipping vessels. Destroying combat ships and gaining naval superiority, which is what we do in the game with them, wasn't the goal or strategy but perhaps it should have been. If realism is a goal; modelling the limited ammunition ships had could solve a lot of problems with balance. According to wikipedia a type 7 sub would only have 14 torpedoes and 220 rounds of naval gun ammunition. Maybe 19 if they leave port stocked up with the tubes loaded already, IDK if they did that. Once they run out of ammunition they'd have to go back to port to restock.
AFAIK the main focus of the submarine war historically was against shipping vessels. Destroying combat ships and gaining naval superiority, which is what we do in the game with them, wasn't the goal or strategy but perhaps it should have been. If realism is a goal; modelling the limited ammunition ships had could solve a lot of problems with balance. According to wikipedia a type 7 sub would only have 14 torpedoes and 220 rounds of naval gun ammunition. Maybe 19 if they leave port stocked up with the tubes loaded already, IDK if they did that. Once they run out of ammunition they'd have to go back to port to restock.
- 1
Or have submarine tenders; or advanced forward operating bases. FOBs are my choice but if we had a real logistics system, I would mix FOBs and tenders. Jmo ymmv