Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

C.O.R.E. HOI - Naval Mod

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Re: More Construction

Originally posted by MateDow
Does anyone know what the French were building on 1 Jan 1936?
Click to expand...


Below are French capital ships that had been laid down prior to 1936 but had not yet been completed:


Battleships:

Dunkerque (Dunkerque-class) - Apr. 15th, 1937
Strasbourg (Dunkerque-clasS) - Dec., 1938
Richelieu (Richelieu-class) - July 15th, 1940


Light Cruisers:

La Galissonniere (La Galissonniere-class) - Jan. 1st, 1936
Jean de Vienne (La Galissonniere-class) - Feb. 10th, 1937
Marseillaise (La Galissonniere-class) - Oct. 10th, 1937
George Leygues (La Galissonniere-class) - Nov. 15th, 1937
Gloire (La Galissonniere-class) - Nov. 15th, 1937
Montcalm (La Galissonniere-class) - Nov. 15th, 1937


How about US Carriers. Does anyone know when the Yorktown was commisioned?
Click to expand...


USS Yorktown was commissioned on Sept. 30th, 1937.


Were any other countries building ships on 1 Jan 1936?
Click to expand...


A good website for this is http://www.warships1.com - it has almost all capital ships & a good number of smaller vessels for major & some minor naval powers.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Naval Mod Tweaks for Ver 0.6

Originally posted by Copper Nicus
Those are dates of putting the ship into active service, or just on water?



Second date is valid.
Click to expand...

My dates are the launch dates.
 
Re: About Navies etc

Originally posted by Icer
When there are ships in buildqueue in the start of the scenario they are supposed to be already in construction. Therefore you should consider the time which the ship has already been in construction and lower the build cost accordingly.

Hope the German ship model "mess" is solved in next version of CORE.
Click to expand...

the pre 36 construction time has already been included in the costs calculation

Ghost_dk
 
Originally posted by MateDow
The coastal gunboat class is designed for undeveloped nations because it is impossible to keep countries from building destroyers. The cost is high to prevent minor nations from building large fleets of destroyers and cruisers. This is the same rational used for the revenue cruiser vs the protected cruiser. It is a ploy to limit construction, that is all. Why would you want to build them as England??!? :confused: MDow
Click to expand...

OK, understood ;)

Oh, and as ENG i usually build the cheapest DDs to assign them to convoy protection, as there is no difference between them, all DD models give 10 destroyers in convoy management screen.
 
Originally posted by nachinus
OK, understood ;)

Oh, and as ENG i usually build the cheapest DDs to assign them to convoy protection, as there is no difference between them, all DD models give 10 destroyers in convoy management screen.
Click to expand...

Build better destroyers and send all of those old V-Class boats you start the game with on convoy duty. The newer destroyers will make better escorts for your heavies. Eventually get the tech for corvettes and really start pouring out the escorts. :D MDow
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Naval Mod Tweaks for Ver 0.6

Originally posted by Copper Nicus
And valid date is the date of commisionning. As you can see from posts above, it takes quite a time finish a ship...
Click to expand...

I've been debating with myself about wether to use launch dates or commision dates. (No comments about my lack of mental stability please :D ). The thing is, I can make reasonable arguments for using either. If you account for the time build up to ful org, then using the launch date is acceptable. The org build time represents the shake down cruise, and the final outfitting and crew/sea trials before being combat worthy. As a 0 org ship is next to useless in a naval action. OTOH, using the commission date, which is when the ship entered active service officially, can be seen as more accurate, in that many ships weren't fully outfitted, especially with AA, and secondaries, when they were launched. Though the ships were sea worthy, and had their main armaments, and in theory, could be used in combat roles. In either case, uniformity should be the rule, so as to prevent some sort of conflict, and more argument about when a ship should/should not be available.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Naval Mod Tweaks for Ver 0.6

Originally posted by JRaup
I've been debating with myself about wether to use launch dates or commision dates.
Click to expand...

When ships are launched they are barely seaworthy. In fitting out that is where equipment like armament, electronics, and control systems are added. The fitting out process following launching is what makes a ship a ship. A ships is launched when it is complete up to the highest watertight deck usually. The shakedown cruise comes after the ship is accepted (commisioned) by the navy. We should be (and have been) using commisioning dates for all of the ships that we use. The org increase is the new crew learning how to fight the ship after she is commisioned into the fleet. When the ship leaves the yard it is combat ineffective (0 org). MDow
 
I'm sorry if this is already in, but I haven't really been able to play CORE yet. (damn bug in an event I wrote doesn't let me play past 28 july '36 :mad: )

Are liberty ships well represented? I once saw something on tv (yes, I know it's usually not the best source for historical data) about liberty ship construction. They said something about a shipyard which had the record for the fastest building of a ship. IIRC, it was 3 days (or was it 6?) from keel to launch. (whoa!) If we say they built them one by one, (not several at a time) how much time would that shipyard take to built a transport flotilla? And is that possible in game?

And now you'll say I must definitely have got something wrong, but...

On a related note, how much time did it take to build an Essex class CV? That show also had pictures of an enormous chunk of superstructure being plopped down on a hull and welded to it. It made me think of playing with LEGOs :) on a tremendous scale...
 
In November 1942, the Robert E. Peary was built from the keel up in four days and fifteen hours. This was a public relations stunt. The average construction time for a T10 tanker or a Liberty transport ship was three months.
 
Which of course gets you wondering. If they could do it in 4 or 5 days, why did they take 3 months? :)

Anything on the Essex? The carriers that barely fit the panama canal? (another tidbit from that tv show);)
 
No idea about the Essex, I'm not a naval expert (beyond playing some games of Harpoon - boardgame and PC version - I'm just your average debugger and code slave). The Liberty ship stunt is just something I knew about from reading Keegan.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Naval Mod Tweaks for Ver 0.6

Originally posted by MateDow
When ships are launched they are barely seaworthy. In fitting out that is where equipment like armament, electronics, and control systems are added. The fitting out process following launching is what makes a ship a ship. A ships is launched when it is complete up to the highest watertight deck usually. The shakedown cruise comes after the ship is accepted (commisioned) by the navy. We should be (and have been) using commisioning dates for all of the ships that we use. The org increase is the new crew learning how to fight the ship after she is commisioned into the fleet. When the ship leaves the yard it is combat ineffective (0 org). MDow
Click to expand...

I do agree with this, though it is more of a post war approach, at in terms of consistency. It's just that war time builds can be somewhat skewed. I've noticed this with smaller ship classes, DDs, FFGs, Corvettes, etc, where these ships are rushed out the door as it were, and into service. Of course, there is no consistency in this either. The Libert ships are probably the best example of this. In any case, as long as one set of dates is being used across the board, that's all that matters.
 
The average buildtime for an Essex-class carrier was approximately 18 months - here are some specific numbers for particular Essex-class carriers for the time from when they were laid down to the time they were commissioned:

USS Essex - 1 year, 8 months, 3 days
USS Intrepid - 1 year, 11 months, 29 days
USS Franklin - 1 year, 1 month, 24 days
USS Bunker Hill - 1 year, 8 months 9 days
USS Ticonderoga - 1 year, 2 months, 7 days
USS Randolph - 1 year, 4 months, 29 days
 
Thanks!

That seems like a good example of the "rushing ships into service" situation. If the US carriers weren't outnumbered in the Pacific those ships would probably have taken a little longer to be comissioned.
 
Shakedown

The small ships that I am familier with for WW2 construction arethe Sumner class Laffey and the Escort Abercrombe so will use those as my reference for warbuilds. You will have to forgive the lack of specific details as I don't have the books in front of me.

Laffey was commissioned early in 1944 at Bath Iron Works in Bath, Maine. She had been launched several months earlier and her crew arrived at the vessel approx a month before commissioning. She proceeded to Boston Naval Yard in Boston for work ups and training. She was in Boston for a couple of weeks running training off the coast of Massachusetts. After finishing work ups in Boston she went to the Anti-Submarine Training Range in Bermuda for ASW training. All of this was done after the vessel was put into commission.

Abercrombie was commisioned sometime in 1943 at one of the shipyards around Orange, Texas. She was launched about a month before commissioning. After commissioning she did work ups out of Galveston and Port Arthur Texas. After work ups she also went to the ASW Trainging Center in Bermuda for ASW work.

Once they finished training the Laffey was sent to Europe to support the D-Day invasion. The Abercrombie was sent to the Pacific where she did some more training to work with carriers and extra anti-aircraft training at Pearl Harbor, and then deployed with TF 38.

Even during WW2 warships needed time to go from launching condition to commissioning. In many cases for small ships build in the US during the war, they had to have less equipment upon launching due to the limitations of water depth at riverside shipyards. They main difference was the speed at which fitting out work was done (no careful finishing work) and the length of time that was allowed for training the crew of the vessel. MDow
 
Originally posted by Gwalcmai
Which of course gets you wondering. If they could do it in 4 or 5 days, why did they take 3 months? :)

Anything on the Essex? The carriers that barely fit the panama canal? (another tidbit from that tv show);)
Click to expand...

All of the material was gathered on hand for the 'quick build.' This was done for that one vessel, but it messed up the production schedule for all of the other vessels that were being built there. It was more economical to build many vessels simultaneously than to focus all of the shipyards efforts on a single ship. Liberty ships were leaving the yard every few days during the height of the war. So they really were finishing a ship every four to five days.

Essex class carriers are in the game. They are the post-treaty aircraft carrier. You can also build the small escort carriers, or your own fleet of Liberty ships. They are all in there with a bit of research in the naval technologies. You should be able to build them all by 1941 if you do some steady research and not focus on tanks entirely (hence why the US had the Sherman and Germany had the Panther). Hope this answers your questions. MDow
 
Build Times

On of these days I will figure out some event/tech combination that will recreate the different build times for peacetime vs wartime production. But, that is down the road aways. MDow
 
Originally posted by Gwalcmai
Thanks!

That seems like a good example of the "rushing ships into service" situation. If the US carriers weren't outnumbered in the Pacific those ships would probably have taken a little longer to be comissioned.
Click to expand...

Indeed, the Essex-class carriers commissioned after the war took significantly longer to complete (over 2 years at least).

MateDow - What about using the "atwar" trigger for a series of events to simulate the faster build times while at war? For example, once the US is at war, they get an event lowering built times, then once they are at peace again they get one raising them back up again (essentially reversing the first event). There could be a couple sets of these, in case the country is at war multiple times. Also, these events could require certain techs, so that the player has to have a certain tech level to get the wartime reductions. Just thinking out loud.
 
Does the US *need* faster build times? I think the unit count in the game is already pretty high. If this is applied to every combatant then Italy and Japan will benefit nicely (early wars), if it's only applied to the US then it will further marginalise the Japanese fleet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back