|
Post by cplrumrunner on Jul 20, 2019 19:22:13 GMT -6
The point here is, there needs to be something to make a disadvantage to foreign construction. And currently there isn't one, and that's not right. All the debate beyond this is nice, but in the end, you shouldn't be able to build your entire navy at a foreign yard from 1900 to 1955. Or at the very least, you can build your fleet foreign up to 1905-1910, like Japan historically did. After that tensions start rising and the most you can do is a Kongo type situation where you build a few ships foreign then license build the class local. But yeah. The main point of this thread is that its completely game-breaking that you can build an unlimited percentage of your fleet foreign at any time so long as tensions are low.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 20, 2019 23:27:07 GMT -6
The main point of this thread is that its completely game-breaking that you can build an unlimited percentage of your fleet foreign at any time so long as tensions are low. How is building a significant portion of your fleet overseas "completely game-breaking?" Why not?
|
|
|
Post by cplrumrunner on Jul 21, 2019 9:57:52 GMT -6
So this illustrates my point exactly. The exact same ship, Build in Great Britain vs locally in Japan. Not only can the design be built in GB with 140 tons to spare instead of locally where it's 440 tons overweight, but building it in GB is 4000 cheaper. That's a 12% CHEAPER to have the ship built in a foreign yard. And to get the ship underweight locally I had to go up to 8,800 tons, which makes it 36,000, which makes building foreign even cheaper. Also not shown is the tech difference. Building it in GB I can have a super-firing B turret instead of a C turret, and an advanced director instead of central firing. So with all of that, I repeat my primary question, WHY would I, other than for role-playing purposes, bother building anything outside of GB or the US? I maintain low tensions with both. There needs to be some game mechanic that prevents you from building all but a small portion of your navy overseas except in the pre-WWI time period when small nations were still getting up to speed and the big nations had few national security qualms about selling entire fleets of capital ships to lesser navies.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 21, 2019 11:03:18 GMT -6
How little effort are you putting into research that you're ~600 tons behind on an 8,000t cruiser?
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jul 21, 2019 11:18:47 GMT -6
How little effort are you putting into research that you're ~600 tons behind on an 8,000t cruiser? It is mainly machinery field of technology. It could be even bad luck with playing some smaller nation. But in the first decade of 20th century it was common for naval powers as Russia, Japan to order ships abroad. RTW gives full advantage of using possibility to order ships abroad. There is missing advantage of building them home. It helps national economy. But question is how much in comparison to whole economy. I expect it is not significant especially for these nations. Otherwise it could be some malus for national economic grow related to how many tonnage are build abroud to total tonnage. May be some prestige hit for any nation which are not technological behind and building large number (tonnage) ships abroad.
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Jul 21, 2019 12:25:27 GMT -6
See the change notes for 1.06 for a disincentive to build too much abroad.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Jul 21, 2019 12:38:11 GMT -6
I think the main reason for building domestically is that it allows the use of domestic technological advances/resources, and that it is independent of the political situation with potential builders. Most nation that chose to develop domestic building does so to avoid relying on foreign yards, who may not be available at times of tension or war.
I don’t think that foreign yards needs to be significantly more expensive(maybe a maint cost penalty however, esp if the ship is too large for domestic yard to handle) nor does it needs to build slower.
Player should invest in domestic building for the historical reasons, namely they can be secure in the knowledge that these yards can always be relied on. Thus I believe the tension requirement for foreign yard should be tailored, with yards being closed to player not only due to tension between the two nation, but also when world tension is high in general(allied yard should always be open). The risk of seizure/internment can also be made higher.
At war, the ability to order from neutral yards should either be removed, or only possible when the two country have almost no tension.(thus signify very good relations)
I also agree with the idea of prestige hit from excesssive foreign building.
Lastly it’s worth point out that while foreign yards have better technology, they may not necessarily reflect your priorities. So while UK can prob build ships with more tonnage and Armor, they might not have the triple turret that you really wanted.
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Jul 21, 2019 16:15:50 GMT -6
I'd need to pay the costs to set up a supply chain for 15" ammunition whether I purchased my first 15" gun domestically or overseas. Nobody's going to be making 15" ammunition in any significant quantities if there isn't a market for it, and even if there's an overseas market for it it's not very likely that my domestic arms manufacturers have much of a share in it. It sounds to me like the suggestion is " Increased maintenance costs for ships utilizing technology that you do not currently have access to". I would be perfectly happy with that. Of course I'm aware that a ship utilizing more advanced tech will cost more. My argument is that by purchasing ships overseas (in the case where the player nation is less advanced) allows a player to "jump to the head of the line", technologically speaking with no cost associated with that. From a game design perspective that seems wrong to me. I think any of the following would make for acceptable methods of evening this out: •Increased build cost for techs incorporated player does not own •Increased maintenance for techs incorporated player does not own •Prestige loss (Industry leaders complaining about lost business/nationalistic politicians claiming lost national pride) •Prestige gain for home builds (opposite justifications of above) •Naturally increasing dock sizes in response to home builds (1.06 update) •Research bonuses for home builds (innovations during the construction of BB Example have improved out understanding of hull construction) How little effort are you putting into research that you're ~600 tons behind on an 8,000t cruiser? That's actually something else I meant to bring up. As of right now, the following techs could all be put to "low" research priority and yet have absolutely no impact on the quality of a ship if it is constructed overseas •Machinery •Armour •Hull construction •Turrets/Gun mountings (I'm not certain on this one, depends on how the national ROF improvements apply) •Ship design •Light forces/torpedo warfare •Shipboard aircraft operation •Naval guns By all means it shouldn't, but it also seems to me that a player could flat out ignore these techs for an entire campaign, giving themselves an advantage in the other fields and simply construct ships in foreign yards. Of course I haven't tested that, but I don't see any particular reason why not.
|
|
|
Post by cplrumrunner on Jul 22, 2019 19:48:40 GMT -6
It is mainly machinery field of technology. It could be even bad luck with playing some smaller nation. Playing as Japan, max 12% for research, machinery/hull/etc shipbuilding techs mainly at medium but have gotten a lot of breakthroughs due to tech treaties and buying foreign. Still way behind just because, well, I'm Japan. But in the first decade of 20th century it was common for naval powers as Russia, Japan to order ships abroad. My point exactly. I'm totally fine with the system as it exists for 1900-1910. Like I said the problem is for the post-WWI timeframe world where. I think this is an example of a game feature that was ported over directly from RtW1 where it wasn't so much an issue, but with the game going on past 1925 it becomes odd. RTW gives full advantage of using possibility to order ships abroad. There is missing advantage of building them home. It helps national economy. But question is how much in comparison to whole economy. I expect it is not significant especially for these nations. Otherwise it could be some malus for national economic grow related to how many tonnage are build abroud to total tonnage. May be some prestige hit for any nation which are not technological behind and building large number (tonnage) ships abroad. That's a good point. It's not so much that there's a problem with being ABLE to foreign build, so much as there should be more reasons not to. I love the idea that short term it's useful but long term it has negative effects like fewer free boosts to shipyard capacity, less economic development, prestige penalties, etc.
|
|
|
Post by cplrumrunner on Jul 22, 2019 19:59:31 GMT -6
The main point of this thread is that its completely game-breaking that you can build an unlimited percentage of your fleet foreign at any time so long as tensions are low. How is building a significant portion of your fleet overseas "completely game-breaking?" Why not?
Okay, maybe game breaking isn't the right term. How about willful suspension of disbelief breaking. It pulls me out of being deeply immersed in the game and pops out as an easily to manipulate way to game the system and 'cheat' the AI. As far as why you shouldn't be able to? Because it was never ever done. There are lots of little things in the game that aren't 100% historically accurate that I can forgive because there's a LOT of simplification. Being able to have Great Britain or the USA build Japan's (or Russia, Italy, Austria, etc) entire fleet up till the WW2 era is just wrong.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 22, 2019 20:42:49 GMT -6
As far as why you shouldn't be able to? Because it was never ever done. There are lots of little things in the game that aren't 100% historically accurate that I can forgive because there's a LOT of simplification. Being able to have Great Britain or the USA build Japan's (or Russia, Italy, Austria, etc) entire fleet up till the WW2 era is just wrong. And yet naval powers which were at the turn of the century roughly equal with or only slightly below the bottom tier of naval powers represented in the game did pretty much exactly that - Brazil and Argentina, for example. Then don't do it.
|
|
|
Post by cplrumrunner on Jul 24, 2019 16:00:25 GMT -6
See the change notes for 1.06 for a disincentive to build too much abroad. Thanks for starting to address this! It's a minor change so I'm hopeful there will be a larger fix or two down the road but I get that things take time so kudos for at least nailing the low-hanging fruit aspect of this quick.
|
|
|
Post by cplrumrunner on Jul 24, 2019 16:05:32 GMT -6
I think the main reason for building domestically is that it allows the use of domestic technological advances/resources, and that it is independent of the political situation with potential builders. Most nation that chose to develop domestic building does so to avoid relying on foreign yards, who may not be available at times of tension or war. I don’t think that foreign yards needs to be significantly more expensive(maybe a maint cost penalty however, esp if the ship is too large for domestic yard to handle) nor does it needs to build slower. Player should invest in domestic building for the historical reasons, namely they can be secure in the knowledge that these yards can always be relied on. Thus I believe the tension requirement for foreign yard should be tailored, with yards being closed to player not only due to tension between the two nation, but also when world tension is high in general(allied yard should always be open). The risk of seizure/internment can also be made higher. At war, the ability to order from neutral yards should either be removed, or only possible when the two country have almost no tension.(thus signify very good relations) I also agree with the idea of prestige hit from excesssive foreign building. Good points, including something I hadn't thought of, that being the 'foreign yards not available when the foreign nation is at war'. It kinda goes to the general limitation the game has that no one is ever at war with anyone other than the player. If you're Japan/Austria/Russia then Great Britain, Germany, and France will NEVER fight a war with each other, thus you'll never have a moment like happened historically where a small nation ordered a ship only to have it impounded by Great Britain for the war effort, even though they're not at war with you. I'd love to see the other countries fight amongst each other but that's a suggestion for a different thread.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Jul 24, 2019 17:03:42 GMT -6
I think the main reason for building domestically is that it allows the use of domestic technological advances/resources, and that it is independent of the political situation with potential builders. Most nation that chose to develop domestic building does so to avoid relying on foreign yards, who may not be available at times of tension or war. I don’t think that foreign yards needs to be significantly more expensive(maybe a maint cost penalty however, esp if the ship is too large for domestic yard to handle) nor does it needs to build slower. Player should invest in domestic building for the historical reasons, namely they can be secure in the knowledge that these yards can always be relied on. Thus I believe the tension requirement for foreign yard should be tailored, with yards being closed to player not only due to tension between the two nation, but also when world tension is high in general(allied yard should always be open). The risk of seizure/internment can also be made higher. At war, the ability to order from neutral yards should either be removed, or only possible when the two country have almost no tension.(thus signify very good relations) I also agree with the idea of prestige hit from excesssive foreign building. Good points, including something I hadn't thought of, that being the 'foreign yards not available when the foreign nation is at war'. It kinda goes to the general limitation the game has that no one is ever at war with anyone other than the player. If you're Japan/Austria/Russia then Great Britain, Germany, and France will NEVER fight a war with each other, thus you'll never have a moment like happened historically where a small nation ordered a ship only to have it impounded by Great Britain for the war effort, even though they're not at war with you. I'd love to see the other countries fight amongst each other but that's a suggestion for a different thread. To clarify, not only should countries close their yard when they are at war with another country(which is not currently possible in game), but they should also close their yard when the tension around the world is generally high to signify their need to prioritize their own fleet, but as long as they are friendly to the player they will still finish any order you placed. (More realistically, rather than complete closure, its probably best if the Foreign yards limits the total displacement you can order from them based on world tension. Historically country like the UK did produce ships for other powers even when tension in Europe was high. So you can still order from others if there is the need, but you are not gonna find a foreign yard with the time to build a fleet of 8 BBs for you when the world is at the brink of a major war). However, at war times any nation that are neutral should NOT deliver any warship but instead intern them. Exceptions can be made for countries with very low tension with you, to signify the historical assistance US provided to UK, but even then there should be some tonnage limitation. (I don't believe US can be constructing all the KGVs for UK and claim they are "neutral" for example). Ordering from allies should still be an option, but again there should be a serious tonnage limitation since they are likely occupied building their own fleet. (Most ideally, the total tonnage foreign yards are willing to construct for you should be dynamically tied to their own construction, thus if they aren't "busy" then you might still be able to get some constructions in, but during times war and high tension they would likely be far too occupied) As a result, even if a country that's lagging behind can find it preferable to rely on foreign yards, they must prepare for the eventuality(not mere possibility) of relying on local domestic yard. I think that alone is incentive for the player to invest locally, imagine being drawn into a war with no one willing to build any BBs for you around the world, or that your new shiny British-made BB are being interned months away from completion because a war break out.
|
|