Most of the larger warships are represented individually. In CORE are destroyers and subs individual too?
-
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.
Yes, Matedow made that change many months ago so every ship type is individual named ships
Won't this kill the speed on the game? I mean you are talking about massivle increasing the number of naval units. As we know, by midwar the game totally bogs down due to the huge number of land units. I know MDS has huge speed problems partly due to the number of units involved.
harlikwin667 said:
I thought MDS' Problem was the high IC number and the corresponding high ressource demand...
Ghost_dk said:
NOTE: Every ship TYPE is individually named ... but DD flotillas will still be flotillas in CORE AFAIK - i.e., one counter = 3-4 individuals ships.
So one unit icon for a destroyer is one destroyer not a flotilla. Just clearing it up for Chappy there.
that WILL slow down a game in later stages. Plus, the capital/screen ratio should be revised then which could be done only by messing with the exe file (not possible) or the whole fleet compostion will be unrealistic (it didn't take only one DD to properly escort a BB). Not to mention that even if that would be possible it would result in fleets of a couple of capital ships and large number (+14) screens, rendering vice and rear admirals unusable.
The no flottilas for subs is even worse idea. You will either wind up with 100+ subs units cruising in the Atlantic (unmanagable, not enough leaders,...) or with 9 (nine) submarines patroling the whole eastern atlantic...
The no flottilas for subs is even worse idea. You will either wind up with 100+ subs units cruising in the Atlantic (unmanagable, not enough leaders,...) or with 9 (nine) submarines patroling the whole eastern atlantic...
Spricar said:
Personally I don't think either would work well. A flottila of destroyers should deal with a single light cruiser easily, and be quite dangerous to larger units. And since they are multiple ships, they should cost more than cruisers, too. But then, why build cruisers?
I think the best would be to step away from single ships or flotillas.
I'd like to see something like this:
Destroyer Squadron
Sub squadron
Sub-hunter group (ASW Destroyers - ASW DD supported by light/escort carrier)
Carrier Group (as in Fleet Carrier with cruisers and destroyers as escorts)
Battle Group (as in Battleship with proper screening force - variations with light carrier)
Invasion Group (special composition of ships to support invasions, good AA, maybe transport capacity - variation with light carrier)
Cruiser group (Heavy cruisers with escorts - cruisers and light carrier with escorts)
Fast Battle Group (Battle Cruiser with escorts - variation with light carrier)
Or at least something along those lines. No more taking care that a capital ship is escorted, or anything like that. It is logic (as in major combatants never were alone) and easier to handle (less units).
Sure, in history escorts were sunk without the capital ship going under and vice versa, but no single person had to handle all the assignments, either. And pre-defined groups seem the easiest most realistic way to handle naval combat.
Or maybe I'm just frustrated that the computer keeps kicking my ass in naval combat. Who knows?
Spricar said:
The fleets that I have seen the AI field are usually a couple of battleships, a couple of cruiser, and about 5 or 6 destroyers. That seems fairly realistic to me.
We have adjusted the command limits for all levels of Admirals accordingly.
Show me a time period when the Germans (or any other power for that matter) had more than 25 submarines deployed simultaneously. MDow
First Proof...
OK, building twenty a month doesn't mean that they were deployed simultaneously.
Second Proof...
Ok, I buy that one. That can be handled by the increased leader limits. With the individual units you will actually see the 30 U-Boats attack that convoy with the resultant 6 boats sunk. MDow
OK, building twenty a month doesn't mean that they were deployed simultaneously.
Second Proof...
Ok, I buy that one. That can be handled by the increased leader limits. With the individual units you will actually see the 30 U-Boats attack that convoy with the resultant 6 boats sunk. MDow
MateDow said:
Just trying to help I would have gotten more but i am not a good researcher
The big problem about destroyer flottillas in vanilla is the unrealistic price. A UK destroyer cost L500-800k, so a flottilla of 5 had the price of L2.5-4m. A CL cost ~L1.6m (Belfast 2.15), while a CA slightly more than L2m (Kent class L2m in 1927). Both cheaper than a destroyer flottilla. NTM that the KGV class cost L7.7m apiece, rougly the price of 3 destroyer flottilla. Meanwhile in 1.3a, a BB IV
has 20x the cost of a DDIV. Can you call it anything but discrepancy?
NB: British shipyards were the most effective during the war, making ships for 50-70% of the cost of US or other European yards. I don't know if it would be represented in CORE or not, though.
has 20x the cost of a DDIV. Can you call it anything but discrepancy?
NB: British shipyards were the most effective during the war, making ships for 50-70% of the cost of US or other European yards. I don't know if it would be represented in CORE or not, though.
Hm, yeah seems like not such a great idea unless you tweak the leader limits, and escort ratios.
From the MDS standpoint, I'm not sure the IC is the problem, if one swaps the vanilla province.csv for their its still abysmally slow. (though the high IC thing has issues too like mass resource use, and the trade system not working) So at this point its either the number of countries or the massive numbers of units.
Thats why I was asking you guys if you had issues with too many units in terms of game speed?
From the MDS standpoint, I'm not sure the IC is the problem, if one swaps the vanilla province.csv for their its still abysmally slow. (though the high IC thing has issues too like mass resource use, and the trade system not working) So at this point its either the number of countries or the massive numbers of units.
Thats why I was asking you guys if you had issues with too many units in terms of game speed?
I am a little uncomfortable about this single destroyer/submarine unit idea.
When I play most great marintime nations (Japan, USA, UK, also Italy and Canada) in vanilla, I often build an enormous number of destroyer flotillas - frequently in excess of 100, sometimes 200 - for reasons that range from stopping subs, to protecting high-value assets, to blockading enemy shores and owning the sea, to cheaply building up a large force and thus promoting all kinds of leaders (not just admirals, but army and airforce generals as well).
Now, if CORE makes destroyers single units, and thus (I suppose) each individual one cheaper, then each of the great marintime power could easily wind up with even more individual destroyer units, which will impose heavier CPU costs and requires more player managing. Changes to naval combat stacking modifiers, fine-tuning not merely strengths and costs but also visibility and sighting, a clear understanding of how players can use massed units to blockade, watch, own, and patrol - all have to be done if you go over to a single-unit approach. Similar comments apply to subs.
MateDOW. Paradox made CLs, DDs, and SUBs groups for many reasons. Please make SURE the advantages actually outweigh the very real disadvantages before releasing CORE with single naval units...
When I play most great marintime nations (Japan, USA, UK, also Italy and Canada) in vanilla, I often build an enormous number of destroyer flotillas - frequently in excess of 100, sometimes 200 - for reasons that range from stopping subs, to protecting high-value assets, to blockading enemy shores and owning the sea, to cheaply building up a large force and thus promoting all kinds of leaders (not just admirals, but army and airforce generals as well).
Now, if CORE makes destroyers single units, and thus (I suppose) each individual one cheaper, then each of the great marintime power could easily wind up with even more individual destroyer units, which will impose heavier CPU costs and requires more player managing. Changes to naval combat stacking modifiers, fine-tuning not merely strengths and costs but also visibility and sighting, a clear understanding of how players can use massed units to blockade, watch, own, and patrol - all have to be done if you go over to a single-unit approach. Similar comments apply to subs.
MateDOW. Paradox made CLs, DDs, and SUBs groups for many reasons. Please make SURE the advantages actually outweigh the very real disadvantages before releasing CORE with single naval units...