Surface Ship Classes

[Aragos]

I think Bark makes the key point. The USA, from 1940 until the 1960s, was frightening in its industrial power. There is a very, very good reason that the Soviets supplied their 1943-45 drives using canned Spam and American trucks, and why the British had more Shermans than any other tank in 1945. American production was that good.


However, it may be a game balance issue as well, and given how the AI sends troop ships off to die, it wouldn't make that much of a difference anyway--not when all it takes to break the USA is a half dozen subs in the right place.

[geminif4ucorsair]

Just to add, USA is the exception that proves the rule. They kept laying down more and more capital ships as the war went on (32 Essex- and 6 Midway-class CVs alone, plus 6 Iowas. I would also consider the 6 Alaska class to be something more than heavy cruisers, though I don't know if "battlecruiser" is accurate either. Super Cruiser?) though large portions of each class were cancelled as the war concluded and the ships became surplus to peacetime requirements. I worry that it will be almost comically easy to under-represent the US's economic/industrial might in this period.[/quote]

The response was more to comment on forum that Battleships were still be built long after they historically were, but the CV could be lumped into this as well. The U.S. ddid continue the existing capital ship orders, then went on in to put more shipbuilding orders down under the 1943 program (past the "Two Ocean Navy" program). The Alaska's were officially classified as "Large Cruisers"...their 9" belt armor and total weight of armor was not at the time considered comparable with most battlecruisers, considering them more like 'super-Baltimore' heavy cruisers. In a gunfight with a actual "Scharnhorst" class battlecruiser, it would be expected to rely on its fast firing main battery and better radar.

As it relates to revising the method of AI-construction in regions under its control, still feel the proposal above would work, extending the application to Cat 16 (Carriers).

A bit more details would need to be worked out....what does AI do when it has completed "existing" orders at the point when a Declaration of War is initiated by the AI? In general, my thought would be to continue both Capital Ship (CAT 16 & 17) construction....which automatically includes DD/FF/Escorts, until the war is over.

Not sure it makes a difference if AI declares war, or is DOW'd itself.

Nothing is perfect...despite efforts to get BG to get it that way!

[bluestreak2k5]

Just a general question, but the ai doesn't seem to group naval units into battlegroups or anything, so why does this discussion matter as much? YES if we were creating fleets of ships then each fleet would need X amount of escorts and Y amount of capital ships, but since everything operates as a single unit there is no point of really concerning ourselves with how much the AI builds.

I like this idea, as is simplifies things, but unless we eventually get to the point where there will be "fleets" and "convoys" there is little use to naval units except building battleships for amphibious assaults and a few destroyers to sink submarines. As Germany I don't even bother building Navy anymore and my next test game I won't even bother researching naval techs either. Simply put Germany is already far enough behind on Naval techs you could never hope to catch up and outmatch Britain to even invade the isles before 1943. And their are no convoys to sink with subs, so nothing you can do except making the most advanced armies and airforce you can.

Also the US constructed a total of 106 Aircraft carriers alone during WWII, as someone noted above they did contruct around that number of combat aircraft carriers that could hold 70-100 squadrons. However, the other 70ish CV's constructed were "escort carriers" and "support carriers" capable of only holding 20-30 squadrons, and their primary purpose was to escort convoys across to the UK and to transport airplane squadrons to pacific islands.

[barkhauer]

Just a general question, but the ai doesn't seem to group naval units into battlegroups or anything, so why does this discussion matter as much? YES if we were creating fleets of ships then each fleet would need X amount of escorts and Y amount of capital ships, but since everything operates as a single unit there is no point of really concerning ourselves with how much the AI builds.

I like this idea, as is simplifies things, but unless we eventually get to the point where there will be "fleets" and "convoys" there is little use to naval units except building battleships for amphibious assaults and a few destroyers to sink submarines. As Germany I don't even bother building Navy anymore and my next test game I won't even bother researching naval techs either. Simply put Germany is already far enough behind on Naval techs you could never hope to catch up and outmatch Britain to even invade the isles before 1943. And their are no convoys to sink with subs, so nothing you can do except making the most advanced armies and airforce you can.

Because we can dream of a day when AI ships group, attack, retreat, etc as fleets.

Or where carriers station properly and CAGs launch missions from them.

Or when subs and aircraft can deny raw materials to the enemy by sinking merchants.

Sorry, I have something in my eye...

[Aragos]

I have actually seen the AI in 1936 send a CV out with aircraft on it.

[geminif4ucorsair]

I have actually seen the AI in 1936 send a CV out with aircraft on it.

We live in hope BG will begin to understand naval warfare.....

[MK4]

I have a slightly off-topic question. What happened to the river monitors in SR1936? Iirc in SR2020 they were in the patrol boats category and sometimes even replaced with generic patrol boats in the starting orbats I think. However, such ships were not designed to enter open waters and it looked odd to see them go into the sea/ocean and stay there. In the SR1936 timeframe river monitors were popular on the Danube with countries like Yugoslavia and Romania (Romania had a fleet of 7):
http://www.worldwar2.ro/organizare/?article=25
Since SR doesn`t (correct me if I`m wrong) distinguish between navigable rivers/shallow waters and deep ocean should such ships be included? I don`t know how the situation is presently since I`m still waiting for the no steam version of the game.

[Balthagor]

IIRC we have rejected all river monitors. We simply don't model them.

[Aragos]

Maybe the easist way is to use a simple construction formula for the AI, tweaked based on historical building patterns.

Example:
USA AI: Let's say the primary goal is CV construction (given the US built a lot in the war. Yes, I know why they did and the specific historical circumstances, but bear with me a sec )

USA AI-- for every 1 CV building, the AI will automatically build 1 BB or CA (50% chance of either), 2 CLs, 4 DD, 2 Subs, 2 frigates/escorts, 1 transport/landing ship, 1 supply/oiler.

at the same time, the German AI has a focus on Subs over other classes of ship.

Ger AI-- for every 10 Subs built, the AI will automatically build 1 BB or CA (75%/25%), 1 CL, 2 DD, 2 escort class, 1 transport or support ship (50% of either)

Japan AI-- primary goal is CV and BB construction (equal chance)
--CV or BB (50%/50%), AI will build: 1 CA, 2 CL, 4 DD, 1 escort (Japan didn't realize the need for them until later in the war), 2 Subs, 1 support/oiler

of course, this is just idea stage stuff, but I think you all get the point. Tie it together with forcing the AI to escort capital ships, and it would be pretty neat.

[bluestreak2k5]

Maybe the easist way is to use a simple construction formula for the AI, tweaked based on historical building patterns.

Example:
USA AI: Let's say the primary goal is CV construction (given the US built a lot in the war. Yes, I know why they did and the specific historical circumstances, but bear with me a sec )

USA AI-- for every 1 CV building, the AI will automatically build 1 BB or CA (50% chance of either), 2 CLs, 4 DD, 2 Subs, 2 frigates/escorts, 1 transport/landing ship, 1 supply/oiler.

at the same time, the German AI has a focus on Subs over other classes of ship.

Ger AI-- for every 10 Subs built, the AI will automatically build 1 BB or CA (75%/25%), 1 CL, 2 DD, 2 escort class, 1 transport or support ship (50% of either)

Japan AI-- primary goal is CV and BB construction (equal chance)
--CV or BB (50%/50%), AI will build: 1 CA, 2 CL, 4 DD, 1 escort (Japan didn't realize the need for them until later in the war), 2 Subs, 1 support/oiler

of course, this is just idea stage stuff, but I think you all get the point. Tie it together with forcing the AI to escort capital ships, and it would be pretty neat.

While I like this idea and think its necessary to have different build ideas per nation, its still a long way away from whats needed. For example Germany needs no subs if there are no convoys or mechant ships to sink. So just research Bismarck class BB, and by the time you have conquered Denmark, Normay, Poland, France etc you should have 20 Naval plants and just build 20 Bismarks.

I still like this who idea of redoing the surface class structure though.

[Kellick]

So George, much as I agree with the next guy something needs to be done about this, the proposed change doesn't do anything to address what it seems we all feel is the real issue or even provide any progress towards it.
The only thing I think it would accomplish is make Balth cry, since he has to reorganize all those units again, and there's a lot more pressing things for him to fix there.
As fun as we all think it is to make Balth cry, I have to give this a thumbs down.

I still don't see why it's such a big deal to add more classes and/or subclasses, and to allow the amount of AI orders to be easily extended (I know I posted somewhere what I thought was a pretty workable framework that really didn't seem to involve re-coding the entire gamecore)

You guys don't seem to grasp still the power of your modding community. You could strip 90% of the units out of the base game, provide improvements to the engine that would remove some of the more annoying limitations, and the modders would do the rest.

[SGTscuba]

You guys don't seem to grasp still the power of your modding community. You could strip 90% of the units out of the base game, provide improvements to the engine that would remove some of the more annoying limitations, and the modders would do the rest.

From somewhere else where people say the exact same:

"I personally hate it when people offer addons as panacea for everything lacking in the game. Incidentally, you rarely see the actual content creators of this community advocating such a mindset."

[MK4]

You could strip 90% of the units out of the base game (...) and the modders would do the rest.

Oh, no! Well, ok, but the game needs to get another 90% discount because if we spend all our time modding what chances are we`ll come across 30$? Also, don`t everyone start modding at the same time or there won`t be anyone left to raise our families.

[Kellick]

Ok naysayers, think about these questions:
Are most of the units really different enough from each other to justify their existence in the game, other than the fact that they exist IRL?
Do a lot of the units even have any ability to serve their intended RL function in the game because of the game engine limitations?
Even the units that are differentiated enough and where the game engine models their function, does the AI have the ability to handle them properly?
How many of you use units from ALL classes, let alone a variety of said units?

If you can honestly answer yes to any of these questions, then I have nothing more to say.

The major modders are only a few true, I think we'd all agree Ruges, Hullu and Fistalis.
Gemini keeps talking about this MDB that he apparently doesn't share with anyone but Chris (you completely sidestepped my question in your reply, which I took as a polite no and so I wasn't going to press the issue...and only bringing it up now to make a point) but if it's as thorough as he alludes to (and he does seem to have done a good deal of research and have an attention to detail) then he could probably fill the gap himself.

All the modding involves a large amount of kludgy work-arounds. If I looked hard I could probably quote Hullu and Fist saying as much (Ruges might not like to admit it, but I can't imagine he can truly argue it isn't the case) I've spent a large amount of hours myself doing military research, reading discussions here (I know I'm Johnny-come-lately here to you all, but I've quietly read these forums a couple years), tinkering with the game and of course I put it down in disgust after some time because I run up hard into the limitations. And all I'm really looking for out of my own modding is a bit more balance and an AI that doesn't run itself into the ground in a few years (let alone your framerate) so one can actually play a long grand game of geopolitics and war. Of course something always brings me back to it after a time. I see a half-assed game engine that should be a great one. There is enough uniqueness in this game to really distinguish itself from other games, but it's a lot of unrealized potential.

If the AI were a little more accessible then more could be done about it's limitations. If it were more modding friendly, there would be more modders and mods.

[Zuikaku]

Ok naysayers, think about these questions:
Are most of the units really different enough from each other to justify their existence in the game, other than the fact that they exist IRL?
Do a lot of the units even have any ability to serve their intended RL function in the game because of the game engine limitations?
Even the units that are differentiated enough and where the game engine models their function, does the AI have the ability to handle them properly?
How many of you use units from ALL classes, let alone a variety of said units?

But I do not want to play chess....