New Naval Build Times & Military Strategy Impact

[geminif4ucorsair]

First impression of the new Supreme Ruler 1936 (SR-36) is that the naval build times were not sufficiently thought out before implementing,
and might have even benefitted from introducing it as a proposal on the Forum before making a massive investment in time and effort prior to introducing it on the beta.

1. Building Times. The new SR-36 production times appear to be @ 1/2 (50%) of prior (and my work copy proposals). The new proposal has battleships building in @ 530-560 days.

Using the German example, which is rather typical European, USSR and Japan building times:
In real life (IRL), the build times are generally slightly high, especially for Europe and Japan, ship completion dates.

In my work copy mdb, the following "standard" is set as below for these classes:
* Bismarck BB - 1175-days or 3.26 years to build (IRL: LD 1Jun36 to commissioning 24Aug40).
Tirpitz BB - [1175-days......] (IRL: 1Nov36 to commissioning 25Feb41)

* Scharnhorst BC - 1020-days or 2.83 years (IRL: LD 15Jun35 to commissioning 7Jan39).

* Hipper CA - 945 days or 2.625 years (IRL: LD 7Jul35 to commissioning 29Apr39).

If you compare my proposed relative historical time periods, you can see all took longer than my proposed building dates.
One reason, is each nation's shipbuilding industry faced its own set of problems (labor, financing, steel and other component shortages, trained manpower, etc.) -
but when one attempts to create a general average across all the major shipbuilders (ignoring specific issues, such as steel shortages or finances and political delays), the above seems a reasonable demand.

The criteria used focused on such criteria as ships tonnage, electronic complexity, and any unique characteristics that any given ship might
have, including why its shipbuilding might have been delayed beyond for its Type (BB, CA, CV, DD, etc.)

-----
Bathagor has presented the view that by delaying the classes lay down dates, they will still commission (with the shorter build times) near the historical commissioning dates. This was done by changing the Tech requirements and pushing-back potential laid down dates.
-----

2. SHIPYARD NUMBERS. It is clear that BG purposefully reduced the number of shipyards (Naval Fabrication) facilities in all countries (though in most cases, they also got the location(s) wrong....take Germany: its only yard is not even in Germany proper...not Hamburg, Wilhelmshaven, Kiel, Rostok, etc. etc.

By reducing the number of naval fabrication facilities, it appears the intent was to reduce the potential taking advantage of the slower build times....the reality is, players will simply build MORE naval fabrication facilities to make up for what were historical naval ship levels.


3. STRATEGY IMPACT.

This is where impact of greatly reduced (av. @ 50%) shipbuilding times butts up against military national strategies.

Example: Japan went to war on the basis that it could hold the Pacific Rim & SE Asia for two-years (720-days), as a general basis, as argued by the Japanese Naval Staff (and in particular, CinC Admiral Yamamoto).

Suggested reading: Reluctant Admiral (about Adm. Yamamato); H.P. Willmoott's Empires in the Balance, Japanese and Allied Pacific Strategies to April 1942; Michael Barnhart's Japan Prepares for Total War, The Search for Economic Security 1919-1941; and, Eri Hotta's Japan 1941 (2013; which provides some good insights into individuals involved in the final decision(s) to go to war in the Pacific (versus against the USSR).

Under SR-36, Japan is able to build a Yamato class BB in 620-days - and, as with Germany, it must R the Military Vessel '37 tech first. This would require one to complete the R for MilVessel '37 and build the first YAMATO prior to Dec 41 (commission data) - keel laid 4Nov37, to be reasonably close to historical.

The issue becomes less critical after the first ship completed of each class.....Bathagor does argue they are relatively similar completion dates (see separate discussion topic), though it is not clear this applies downward to smaller vessels of Destroyer, Submarine and smaller classes.

The PROBLEM is more with follow-on ship orders; if japan under BG proposal completes YAMATO in @ Dec 41 (historical date) followed several months later with sister-ship MUSASHI (in '42), then it can complete several follow-on ships every 620-days -in less than 2-years time a new YAMATO can be built. If this is the case with super-large battleships, it only gets compounded with smaller ships.

As another Forum post commented, the "naval race" would be on....and with these short building times, it would quickly get out of the realm of real work mid-30s thru the next couple decades.


4. MORE OLDER DESIGNS. This also shoves numerous ship classes (all categories) into future building programs, until the Basic Naval Electronics and Military Vessels '37 tech's are researched; and,
it leaves players with a greater number of older designs that were otherwise not being built in '36 to be continued, simply because it takes time to research these two key technologies.

Historically, ships like the great battleships (Bismarck, Yamato, etc.) had a great impact on pre-1939 on building programs in the UK, France and elsewhere - players would surely change their strategies if either (or any others of other countries) are laid down (or, not laid down).
You take that away that with these new Naval build times....


5. Fantasy Supreme Ruler.

Maybe the objective is a Fantasy SR.
One can only guess why this decision was made...was it just a business decision because of potential competition from STEAM's own Hearts of Iron (HOI) - as some have suggested to me privately - and, the otherwise crowded WW Two genre? Therefore, make something that is not historical....

I don't wish to beat-up on anyone, but the impact of this is just too great to ignore - and I think others are beginning to see this also.

These changes simply do not fit anything close to historical (which I do not require a strict historical per se, some of IRL should be continued with if the game is going to use the old Supreme Ruler name and attach "1936" to it. My view, of course (and apparently some other Forum gamers).

[Hundane]

Im surprised you only mentioned the naval aspect.

If your wanting to be really accurate on build times then training infantry should take longer than 9 days. I'm sure most facilities should take longer to build.

Then again, if infantry only takes 9 days then those ship build and facility times should be equivalently shorter.

IMO, it seems pretty well balanced but can be gamed like any computer game. If you want a historical game, play it historically.

[geminif4ucorsair]

Im surprised you only mentioned the naval aspect.
If your wanting to be really accurate on build times then training infantry should take longer than 9 days. I'm sure most facilities should take longer to build.
Then again, if infantry only takes 9 days then those ship build and facility times should be equivalently shorter.
IMO, it seems pretty well balanced but can be gamed like any computer game. If you want a historical game, play it historically.

Naval only: simply did not want too much in on e - figured everyone would realize it carries over to Land etc. Point remains: all are too short.
As you say too: Infantry taking only 9-days is clearly unrealistic.

IF we are given in the Player Options the opportunity to play the quasi-historical timeframes, that would be great (w/out modding).

[barkhauer]

I have been involved in the beta, alpha, and pre-alpha design portions of a number of (historical or not) strategy games. Some of them I will not name, due to still-binding NDAs. Just so you can understand where I come from when I say this...

This would be a disaster. I'm glad it has not been done. I completely, thoroughly oppose it being done.

I have seen people implement "realistic build times" countless times because "fun." The problem is that the build times are shortened because you ALREADY have to wait real-time hours for destroyers to finish building. A large number of capital ships will never complete within the scope of a game, let alone a campaign or war. If the player loses a capital ship on Sunday, and has to wait until the following Thursday to have a small navy and chance of even thinking of doing anything again, he's just gonna ragequit. I've seen it tried, and it never, EVER works. Better to simply tell the player that he has 15 (or however many) ships and no ability to replace them, and just make that a win/loss condition.

Again, I wish I could give you more exact references. But I won't break my NDAs, so just take this for what its worth. Build times abstracted to 1.5 years for a BB/CV is already long enough to punish a player who's careless (or rewarding a player who wants to feel accomplished for building a navy from scratch,) without going overboard and resulting in nothing but "I quit, you win" from anyone who ever loses a capital ship.

[pcoud]

The everlasting debate between history/accuracy/realism vs gaming/fun...
I'd rather agree with Barkhauer, although I'd add that WITP-AE is probably THE exception (but you actually must be prepared to spend your whole life for playing a campaign )

[Zuikaku]

If the player loses a capital ship on Sunday, and has to wait until the following Thursday to have a small navy and chance of even thinking of doing anything again, he's just gonna ragequit.

I think that players like above do not play games like SR or WITP at all....

[Balthagor]

I think that players like above do not play games like SR or WITP at all....

We make every attempt to please our "core" players and our "regular" players. Sometimes we have to pick one.

[geminif4ucorsair]

I think that players like above do not play games like SR or WITP at all....

We make every attempt to please our "core" players and our "regular" players. Sometimes we have to pick one.

One idea would be to include a Player Option selection: 1] Near Historical Production Time; or 2] Enhanced Production (Build) Time......

while others has referred to purist historical production times, even SR has never quite met that, in part because it does not make much consideration to training time.

You might complete building a monoplane WW 2 fighter or bomber squadron in 80-days-plus, but IRL be another six months before they would be sent "into action"; likewise, a cruiser make spend six months (180-days) on post-commissioning training before being allowed entry into battlefield zones (that is more than 10-percent of build time).

While my suggested build time for certain ship follows the prior SR pattern, it does more realistically bring the whole process into a more realistic
war environment.....loosing a battleship or big carrier is viewed as a very big loss....just read the history of the BISMARCK or TIRPITZ, REPULSE or PRINCE OF WALES, carrier LEXINGTON (CV-2), EAGLE, YORKTOWN (CV-5) and HORNET (CV-6) - and what the Battle of Midway did to Japan.

It's psychological disaster for both the loosing nation....and would be for the loosing Player! And, that is the way it should be....

[barkhauer]

The everlasting debate between history/accuracy/realism vs gaming/fun...
I'd rather agree with Barkhauer, although I'd add that WITP-AE is probably THE exception (but you actually must be prepared to spend your whole life for playing a campaign )

WitP makes it explicitly clear that it's what you're signing up for. It's a simulation more than a game. Supreme Ruler is a game first, simulation second. Some realism is good, some is better abstracted.

[barkhauer]

I think that players like above do not play games like SR or WITP at all....

We make every attempt to please our "core" players and our "regular" players. Sometimes we have to pick one.

Sometimes you can please both. Some of the "core" players THINK this would be a good idea, because they don't have it yet to know what it's like in practice.

[barkhauer]

I think that players like above do not play games like SR or WITP at all....

We make every attempt to please our "core" players and our "regular" players. Sometimes we have to pick one.

One idea would be to include a Player Option selection: 1] Near Historical Production Time; or 2] Enhanced Production (Build) Time......

while others has referred to purist historical production times, even SR has never quite met that, in part because it does not make much consideration to training time.

You might complete building a monoplane WW 2 fighter or bomber squadron in 80-days-plus, but IRL be another six months before they would be sent "into action"; likewise, a cruiser make spend six months (180-days) on post-commissioning training before being allowed entry into battlefield zones (that is more than 10-percent of build time).

While my suggested build time for certain ship follows the prior SR pattern, it does more realistically bring the whole process into a more realistic
war environment.....loosing a battleship or big carrier is viewed as a very big loss....just read the history of the BISMARCK or TIRPITZ, REPULSE or PRINCE OF WALES, carrier LEXINGTON (CV-2), EAGLE, YORKTOWN (CV-5) and HORNET (CV-6) - and what the Battle of Midway did to Japan.

It's psychological disaster for both the loosing nation....and would be for the loosing Player! And, that is the way it should be....

While I'm fine with a lobby choice (defaulted to OFF) in principle, it would be guaranteed to trigger complaints of "with realism on I can't achieve historic build levels..." which would necessitate MAJOR balance changes, such as many more fabrications, and/or some UI/design considering on how to have certain types of units share facilities. For example: building 4 destroyer escorts simultaneously in a single dry dock. You now made all of this work in order to increase build times by 1/3rd because "fun." It's not fun. What it does is relieve annoyance in a tiny, tiny percentage of players.

[Zuikaku]

And what is the definition of "fun"?

On the one hand we have historical regions and economic aspects and unit designs with their statistics. On the other hand we have unrealistic build time for historical units. Why is that?
To more easily spawn units becouse some players just could not cope with losses of units? How about implementing godlike cheat so we could eliminate losses for good?!

As far as I'm concerned, few more options/checkboxes in options screen is the best solution to keep everybody happy. Both "core" and "casual" players...

[Balthagor]

...few more options/checkboxes in options screen is the best solution...

And each lobby option is another "feature" with associated development time and impact on total game complexity.

[geminif4ucorsair]

I think that players like above do not play games like SR or WITP at all....

While I'm fine with a lobby choice (defaulted to OFF) in principle, it would be guaranteed to trigger complaints of "with realism on I can't achieve historic build levels..." which would necessitate MAJOR balance changes, such as many more fabrications, and/or some UI/design considering on how to have certain types of units share facilities. For example: building 4 destroyer escorts simultaneously in a single dry dock. You now made all of this work in order to increase build times by 1/3rd because "fun." It's not fun. What it does is relieve annoyance in a tiny, tiny percentage of players.

Would disagree that you cannot achieve IRL (WW2) build levels by using near-real world build levels....
and, it should not be a challenge to BG to implement......

BG has already been provided with the historical build locations for naval and most land & air fabrication locations (most are posted on Forum threads, others by private com's with Bathagor).....if the real world fabrication location(s) are included (as an attempt was made to do in SR-49 Cold War, then it would be close enough to achieve near-IRL for a "fun" & learning game.

Attempting to revise the Fabrication system by allowing multiple units of a certain size (as example, 4xDEs in each Naval Fab slot) would create more realistic build rates, indeed - at least for the U.S. - but would be a great headache for BG to change the existing system....more complex I would think than just offering a Near Real World Build Rate or Shortened Build Rate in the Player Option section.

As noted above, its a general attempt to create the flavor and realities of WW2 period, not an exact historical simulation - which would be impossible to create with all the game variables. But "nearness" is better than skewing the whole system to the fantasy realm.

[geminif4ucorsair]

...few more options/checkboxes in options screen is the best solution...

And each lobby option is another "feature" with associated development time and impact on total game complexity.

Very true, but as noted above, BG is creating a historical overlay for political, economic, diplomatic gamesmanship, while putting an all together ahistorical, unrealistic production system onto the game, with a historical implication of "1936".

BG will also get a completed work-copy master data base in coming month or so, with near-historical production times, so it seems that by doing the Production (build) time itself, you are creating for yourselves more development time and impact than would be just using the "Standard" adopted under SR-2020 and SR-Cold War (SR-49).