|
|
Post by BathTubAdmiral on Jul 6, 2019 0:44:28 GMT -6
What do you think about splitting the dock size from the building capacity, maybe even going so far as to make docks for capital ships buildable entities? My goal is to add more incentive to build light ships, or stronger limits on the building of capital warships, by using a somewhat realistic in-game mechanism(*) instead of some arbitrary rule. And maybe add some more effects on "outsourcing" shipbuilding to other nations, other that you can't go to war with them, or lose the ship ...
E.g.,
simplest approach: I have my doubts, though, that this would achieve much, other that forcing the player to make deliberate decisions about investing in dock size - if he doesn't generally hit's the "build" button as soon as he can anyway, what seems to be the case for most players, judging from comments ... Maybe some price adjustments could do something about this, without putting the smaller nations at too much of a disadvantage, as the capacity increase would be free?!
Most elaborate (I can come up with on the fly): - "production capacity": governs the max. total amount of tonnage you can build per month (would be increased automatically by tech or the private sector / capacity utilisation: run at nearly 100% utilisation by building lots of ships, there is a greater chance of capacity increase - building for other nations adds as well!)
- "civilian dock size": governs the size of TR, AMC, KE, DD and maybe Protected/Light Cruisers and CVL that can be build (would be increase automatically, by tech or the private sector)
- "Dock X, size Y": You have a distinct number of docks which can build heavy warships (CA, BA, B, BB etc.); if you want to build more ships at once, or bigger ones, you'd have to build the dock first; possible nasty twist - if you let them sit idle for too long, they become inactive/dismantled!?
|
|
|
|
Post by alsadius on Jul 6, 2019 9:38:22 GMT -6
If you want to go this way, the system from Aurora seems fairly practical - you have many dockyards, and each one has a number of slips and a capacity per slip. You can increase either one independently.
There's a lot of bells and whistles you can add here if you want to. In Aurora, for example, each yard can only build one ship class at a time. You could do that, or you could simply modify the faster/slower construction events to care about yards instead of national-level construction. You could give certain yards bonuses to certain ship types. You could have foreign-built ships actually consuming dock space (and probably require paying for it at the same time), which will help with some of the "I never build any ships at home" phenomenon with smaller powers.
Most interestingly, you can have docks based somewhere other than your home region. This would allow repairs in the field, it'd make some colonies much more valuable (notice how the French docks at St. Nazaire and Brest played into German battleship strategy in WW2, for example), and it's just kind of cool.
|
|
|
|
Post by BathTubAdmiral on Jul 7, 2019 22:30:05 GMT -6
If you want to go this way, the system from Aurora seems fairly practical ... Sounds interesting, but what is this "Aurora" you are speaking about?  Thought it must be some kind of naval game, but uncle goggle didnt came up with anything in a search?!? Anyhow, I was more interested in hearing what players think about such a change in RtW2 ... come on, folks, a whole weekend, >180 views, but no-one has an opinion to spout out? Teh Internets broken or something? |
|
|
|
Post by director on Jul 7, 2019 23:07:43 GMT -6
'Aurora' is a Space 4x game, known for its deep detail, steel learning curve and rigorous micromanagement.
|
|
|
|
Post by polyarmus on Jul 8, 2019 9:03:47 GMT -6
What do you think about splitting the dock size from the building capacity, maybe even going so far as to make docks for capital ships buildable entities? My goal is to add more incentive to build light ships, or stronger limits on the building of capital warships, by using a somewhat realistic in-game mechanism(*) instead of some arbitrary rule. And maybe add some more effects on "outsourcing" shipbuilding to other nations, other that you can't go to war with them, or lose the ship ...
E.g.,
simplest approach: I have my doubts, though, that this would achieve much, other that forcing the player to make deliberate decisions about investing in dock size - if he doesn't generally hit's the "build" button as soon as he can anyway, what seems to be the case for most players, judging from comments ... Maybe some price adjustments could do something about this, without putting the smaller nations at too much of a disadvantage, as the capacity increase would be free?!
Most elaborate (I can come up with on the fly): - "production capacity": governs the max. total amount of tonnage you can build per month (would be increased automatically by tech or the private sector / capacity utilisation: run at nearly 100% utilisation by building lots of ships, there is a greater chance of capacity increase - building for other nations adds as well!)
- "civilian dock size": governs the size of TR, AMC, KE, DD and maybe Protected/Light Cruisers and CVL that can be build (would be increase automatically, by tech or the private sector)
- "Dock X, size Y": You have a distinct number of docks which can build heavy warships (CA, BA, B, BB etc.); if you want to build more ships at once, or bigger ones, you'd have to build the dock first; possible nasty twist - if you let them sit idle for too long, they become inactive/dismantled!?
Thumbs up. I would like to add two more ideas, how to make the "economic" part of the game more realistic. 1. Stopping and restarting work on a ship is a way too easy. Restarting work on a ship should cost extra money and time. Within the game, it should add some time to the overall build time and this penalty should increase with the length of the work interruption. On top of that, even ships not actively worked on should cost something. Also, at this moment you can have million tons of shipping on the slipways without any cost, limitations etc. 2. "serial" production benefits. Real serial production in shipbuilding was really used only in handful of examples and these were all smaller and simpler vessels compared to capital ships (late war U-boot production, Liberty ships). But even in case of capital ships the standardization brings savings. Not as substantial but it does - building high(er) number of ships to the same design should bring certain level of savings. |
|
|
|
Post by alsadius on Jul 8, 2019 9:34:39 GMT -6
Thumbs up. I would like to add two more ideas, how to make the "economic" part of the game more realistic. 1. Stopping and restarting work on a ship is a way too easy. Restarting work on a ship should cost extra money and time. Within the game, it should add some time to the overall build time and this penalty should increase with the length of the work interruption. On top of that, even ships not actively worked on should cost something. Also, at this moment you can have million tons of shipping on the slipways without any cost, limitations etc. 2. "serial" production benefits. Real serial production in shipbuilding was really used only in handful of examples and these were all smaller and simpler vessels compared to capital ships (late war U-boot production, Liberty ships). But even in case of capital ships the standardization brings savings. Not as substantial but it does - building high(er) number of ships to the same design should bring certain level of savings. Both of these are already implemented. Halted construction has a cost - I haven't tested it in depth, but it seems like about 10% of the usual monthly construction cost, for no progress. And the costs to prototype a design are a de facto bonus to serialization. A BB prototype can easily cost several million, along with a 4-month delay, so by building multiples in a class you save the need for prototyping costs. There's also events which cut months off the construction time (which also saves you costs for those months, I'm pretty sure), and those events are more likely to fire for ships that have been built in quantity. |
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jul 8, 2019 9:41:21 GMT -6
polyarmusThere are several things you mentioned in game. When you stop construction of any ship, it should cost some money. It does in RTW1, I did not check if it is true for RTW2 too. In case you built a lot of ships of certain design, you can get report shortening construction time by one month. It means decresing of costs too.
|
|
|
|
Post by polyarmus on Jul 8, 2019 10:25:22 GMT -6
Both of these are already implemented. Halted construction has a cost - I haven't tested it in depth, but it seems like about 10% of the usual monthly construction cost, for no progress. And the costs to prototype a design are a de facto bonus to serialization. A BB prototype can easily cost several million, along with a 4-month delay, so by building multiples in a class you save the need for prototyping costs. There's also events which cut months off the construction time (which also saves you costs for those months, I'm pretty sure), and those events are more likely to fire for ships that have been built in quantity. 10% - thank you, I did not notice. Still stopping the construction is cheap in comparison to what such disruption would cause in real life. In game, you can stop the works for a year without any penalty (the 10% might cover conservation of the work in progress, etc.). Try to imagine what would actually happen in reality. Also, tied to your argument above, it does not block "dock capacity". Serialization - I do not agree. Blue prints / engineering is one thing. Economies of scale are another and they aren't an ad-hoc event. |
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jul 8, 2019 10:33:12 GMT -6
Serialization was very seldom done and it was mainly achieve in ww2 for small ships and very limited.
There was practically no saves on construction costs building 4 battleships instead of 1.
|
|
