CORE2 naval build times?

[Caesar_Augustus]

Since CORE2 is based on the 1936 scenario, the build times for naval units are taken into account for this very same start-year. But I wonder if these build times are reasonable for 1938, 1939, 1941, 1944, since there does not seem to be any way for adjusting build times for different start-years (other than possible tech developments)...

Anybody care to share thoughts on this?

 

[McNaughton]

Yes, it took years to build a ship, hours/minutes to sink one. I believe that the Industry tree either does, or could (depending if there is a real proven problem) reduce times or cost of naval units should the prove to be prohibative based on realistic production rates.

 

[Exterous]

I makes it very hard for a country to try to become a surface naval power and I don't think CORE is ment to be played at other years.
On a side note, as Germany My subs have accounted for 108 kills, on 4 for my surface ships and a measily 5 ships for my 9 naval bombers and 9 tac bombers (who had been on naval bombing missions for 8 months - this seems a bit light). This was done by Oct 1940.
Also, my subs haven't really made a dent in the UK transport fleet - they still have about 5800 left

 

[McNaughton]

We are planning to develop CORE2 scenarios beyond 1936 (next is 1938, I believe), but, only after we have developed the game to be generally bug free.

 

[MateDow]

Since CORE2 is based on the 1936 scenario, the build times for naval units are taken into account for this very same start-year. But I wonder if these build times are reasonable for 1938, 1939, 1941, 1944, since there does not seem to be any way for adjusting build times for different start-years (other than possible tech developments)...

Anybody care to share thoughts on this?

I am not quite sure what you mean about adjusting it for different years. There are industrial techs that lower the time required for constructing naval vessels. The amount of time required doesn't change because the year changes. The US got a little more efficient, but it still took a long time to build them.

The starting construction will be changed of course to take into account the different starting years of different scenarios.

I hope that answers your questions. MDow

 

[MateDow]

I makes it very hard for a country to try to become a surface naval power and I don't think CORE is ment to be played at other years.

Most of your naval construction should be started by the beginning of the war if you want to be abel to use it within a reasonable timeframe. Most of the US ships that made a significant contribution to the war effort were started within 6 months of Pearl Harbor.

On a side note, as Germany My subs have accounted for 108 kills, on 4 for my surface ships and a measily 5 ships for my 9 naval bombers and 9 tac bombers (who had been on naval bombing missions for 8 months - this seems a bit light). This was done by Oct 1940.

Does this number for your subs seem high, low or what?

Your naval bombers are basically your Condor patrol planes. They will get some kills but not a significant amount.

Also, my subs haven't really made a dent in the UK transport fleet - they still have about 5800 left

The UK starts with their 1936 merchant marine. They really did have a lot of ships available. They built over 6 million tons of replacement shipping over the course of the war. I would recommend more subs. MDow

 

[Exterous]

Most of your naval construction should be started by the beginning of the war if you want to be abel to use it within a reasonable timeframe. Most of the US ships that made a significant contribution to the war effort were started within 6 months of Pearl Harbor.

That was just a remark. It has its upsides and downs. Its more historically accurate since Germany can't really develop and uber-carrier fleet by 1940. The downside being it isn't possible to have an uber-carrier fleet by 1940

Does this number for your subs seem high, low or what?

It seems high in proportion - but again more of a remark so you guys could try to judge effectiveness towards your planned goals. Its hard to take the Kriegsmarine into surface combat with the royal navy, as it should be, but subs wil whip destroyer squadrons off the face of the earth

Your naval bombers are basically your Condor patrol planes. They will get some kills but not a significant amount.

Its just such a departure from reqular HOI. I will have to evaluate their effectiveness against comvoys, but suspect that given the differences in IC requirements, it won't be cost effective to use them instead of subs

The UK starts with their 1936 merchant marine. They really did have a lot of ships available. They built over 6 million tons of replacement shipping over the course of the war. I would recommend more subs. MDow

Working on it I do like how you've forced players to respond to strategic problems faced by navies. You can't choose the same standard option for engagement with all countries. I imagine that will only get more so with the modifacation of the doctrine tech trees. Keep up the good work guys!

 

[Caesar_Augustus]

I am not quite sure what you mean about adjusting it for different years. There are industrial techs that lower the time required for constructing naval vessels. The amount of time required doesn't change because the year changes. The US got a little more efficient, but it still took a long time to build them.

The starting construction will be changed of course to take into account the different starting years of different scenarios.

I hope that answers your questions. MDow

Yes, exactly! What I meant was the different "starting construction" times for different scenario start years. The fact that you mention that these will be changed for other scenarios implies that, indeed, the current CORE2 build times are really intended for 1936 only.

 

[unmerged(8076)]

Quick question - what do ships km/h speed do other than the speed it takes to move from sea zone to sea zone? What combat factors does it influence? I know it doesn't have a bearing on positioning (why, I don't know). This is in relation to CORE2 BCs v BBs. BCs are much faster, but I'm curious if the speed is even an important attribute at all.

 

[Archangel85]

If one fleet is faster then the other one, it can close up. Very usefull vs. Carriers.

 

[unmerged(8076)]

If one fleet is faster then the other one, it can close up. Very usefull vs. Carriers.

Could you clarify? Do you mean if its chasing the fleet from sea zone to sea zone? You don't mean that a BC could 'close in' range wise to a CV and use his guns once within range, since that would be positioning, right?

My normal way of handling fleets is to simply have them Naval Interdiction a specific ocean area. If it hits into an enemy fleet, good, a battle commences. If it doesn't it keeps scouting. I don't know how a situation could arise where it could see a fleet but not close in on it. Then again, I don't have "Fleet Spotted" as a pop-up message either. Is that my problem?

 

[Spruce]

Basicly I don't like CV's battling subs - that sounds a bit a-historical imho. Carriers consisted out of dive bombers, torpedo planes and dive bombers. But they for sure lack a big stack of naval bombers with depth charges - and equiped with special electronics. Perhaps they have 1 or 2 or 3 big naval bombers - equiped with depth charges - but for sure not an air wing to take on a big sub stack.

A sub-battle should either result in the surface fleet choice of fleeing the battle (capitals retreat to avoid casualties - for sure if pos. of subs is good and pos. of surface fleet is low). Altough the fleet my stay there to check for an advancing enemy fleet of surface ship fleet. But if there is no real fleet coming on - second day - the capital fleet should retreat. Motivation = the Royal Navy won't flee Sealoewe landing site due to a stack of subs popping up there. Another reason to stick around and take on the subs - might be that the fleet has substantial DD and CL to do some real sub damage. In that case it's a showdown with the possibility of intercepting a second fleet - an invasion fleet ...

What I would like to see is - but this is vanilla talk - is that CV's stop fighting subs and fleets with capitals flees (low positioning) or stays (high positioning and substantial anti sub capability). What I see in 1.3b are stacks of BB, BC, CA and CV battling sub stacks and after a few days 66% of royal navy was sunk by the sub stacks... I would also would like to see "capital fleets" and "ASW fleets" for nations like UK - they can flee their capitals if subs engage and then continue the battle with the subs when the capitals have gone...

 

[unmerged(13066)]

I would also would like to see "capital fleets" and "ASW fleets" for nations like UK - they can flee their capitals if subs engage and then continue the battle with the subs when the capitals have gone...

I've started trying this myself. Only use CLs to screen capital ships (unless I'm short and have to use DDs) and have DD only fleets operating ASW in same sea zones. But I've not had a situation where I can withdraw my capital fleet and leave my ASW fleet as the AI hasn't sent his subs out yet :wacko:

 

[Barkdreg]

If one fleet is faster then the other one, it can close up. Very usefull vs. Carriers.

I've seen no proof of this.
Leader skill, weather, night conditions and surprise will allow a fleet to close in. Speed has no impact on this.

 

[Szun]

Every BB i looked up in the net was 48 to 52 month buildtime, from keel laying to comission(sp?)
In CORE this is only partially right, because of the slidersettings like hawklobby and free market.
A superbattleship with maxed hawk and free market takes about 1 year less then in history, not counting the various reductions from industry techs.
If at all, CORE should increase the build times but reduce the cost by aprox 10%

with the sliders in mind the fastest shipbuilder would be the US and UK, the slowest USSR with thier planed production.
What worries me is that japan tends to head for planed production as well, wich might put thier buildtimes a bit ahistorical.

On 2nd thought i think Mdow knows a lot more about navys then i do

 

[MateDow]

Yes, exactly! What I meant was the different "starting construction" times for different scenario start years. The fact that you mention that these will be changed for other scenarios implies that, indeed, the current CORE2 build times are really intended for 1936 only.

I meant to imply that we would adjust the completion dates for ships in the construction que at the beginning of different scenarios.

I did not mean to imply that the construction time for naval vessels would be changing depending on the scenario being played. All new construction will have the same build times as the 1936 with the only changes being through technology and doctrines. MDow

 

[MateDow]

I've started trying this myself. Only use CLs to screen capital ships (unless I'm short and have to use DDs) and have DD only fleets operating ASW in same sea zones. But I've not had a situation where I can withdraw my capital fleet and leave my ASW fleet as the AI hasn't sent his subs out yet :wacko:

Hopefully we can teach the AI to not be afraid of the water (too many Jaws movies? ) and you will pay for not having any vessels capable of ASW with you capital ships. MDow

 

[lwarmonger]

I was thinking that perhaps the cost of ships should be reduced somewhat. I've been loving this mod, but as things stand right now, it is very difficult to build up a surface fleet and do anything else (even as the United States, which historically had the IC to do everything+provide massive aid to the allies). This makes the game a bit more challenging as Japan and the United States, but I'm not sure that it makes it more realistic.

 

[unmerged(13066)]

Every BB i looked up in the net was 48 to 52 month buildtime, from keel laying to comission(sp?)
In CORE this is only partially right, because of the slidersettings like hawklobby and free market.
A superbattleship with maxed hawk and free market takes about 1 year less then in history, not counting the various reductions from industry techs.
If at all, CORE should increase the build times but reduce the cost by aprox 10%

with the sliders in mind the fastest shipbuilder would be the US and UK, the slowest USSR with thier planed production.
What worries me is that japan tends to head for planed production as well, wich might put thier buildtimes a bit ahistorical.

On 2nd thought i think Mdow knows a lot more about navys then i do

I agree. BBs especially did take a long time to build. But In the case of the UKs KGVs they were building all 5 at once, thats impossible in CORE2 (probably impossible in vanilla too). So maybe build times should stay the same, or even increase a little, and costs should come down?

 

[Szun]

I agree. BBs especially did take a long time to build. But In the case of the UKs KGVs they were building all 5 at once, thats impossible in CORE2 (probably impossible in vanilla too). So maybe build times should stay the same, or even increase a little, and costs should come down?

afaik the core team will ballance the peacetime IC some more and i have no doubt the UK problem will be adressed.
If that isnt enough you can allways change values in the dificulty.txt but to keep the challange, ballance AI and your bonuses.
I usually give the AI 25 in IC when i play germany, the problem here is that my 'soon be allies' get more ic too but i guess the allies have the most benefit from it. If you do that for your game dont forget to give them a bit more raw mats output as well or the world market goes dry very quick.