|
Post by aeson on Jun 13, 2019 11:24:59 GMT -6
I'm aware people think AI is top heavy. HIstory would've been top heavy too. When the WT was signed the US had 10 massive capital ships in build, and no cruisers nor destroyers in queue. Japan was in a similar situation as their 8-8 plan forced them to invest almost everything in capital ships (japan did include some destroyers and very small CLs in their plan though). Britain was in very much the same place: they were about to nosedive in a huge capital ship buildup with their G3s and N3s that left them with very little resources to invest in cruisers. The naval bills which authorized the Colorado, South Dakota, and Lexington classes also authorized the ten Omaha-class cruisers, fifty destroyers, and thirty submarines. It should also be remembered that whereas capital ship construction had been mostly suspended for the duration of the First World War, construction of light cruisers and destroyers was not - the destroyer programs in particular were likely greatly amplified, with the US Navy for example commissioning nearly 270 Wickes- and Clemson-class destroyers between 1918 and 1922 and the British Royal Navy having a similar number of relatively modern destroyers in the M, R, S, V, and W classes built mostly during the First World War.
The fleets that would have existed in the absence of the treaties would not have been nearly as unbalanced and top-heavy as your snapshot summary of the construction programs as they existed at the time of the Washington Naval Conference would suggest, and it is quite possibly the case that the construction programs were only as top-heavy as they were at the time of the Washington Naval Conference because the fleets themselves had become bottom-heavy as a result of the wartime construction programs' focus on ships that could be completed in time to see war service.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on Jun 13, 2019 11:27:30 GMT -6
If it didn't exist, presumably they'd have spent more money.
Money they'd gotten out from where?. The UK was bankrupt. Plain and simple. Japan didn't really have the industrial output and economic weight to properly complete the 8-8 as designed, one wonders where they'd get the extra push for more ships. The US was in a completely different level but even they were scared shitless by the cost of what they were pulling themselves into, to justify even more naval spending had the program gone on, with public opinion being so vocal against huge naval spending (one of the reasons why Harding called for the WT was that public opinion reacted very negatively to the navy expansion program that included the Lexingtons and South Dakotas).
So where would that money come from?
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 13, 2019 11:40:07 GMT -6
Royal Navy would build a lot of cruisers.Assuming no WT, with what money?. The RN was stripped of money as it was after the war ended, and the G3/N3 proposed buildup program would've taken all their resources to get going (not to mention completed, many historians are highly doubtful the UK could build what they stated they were going to build). As it was, with the WT in force and the UK building just two Nelsons, building only two BBs tolled them so hard that their CL buildup program completely stopped since 1918 to 1927, they only completed cruisers already begun in WWI (at very slow pace) until the Emerald class was ordered...which was already several years into the treaty itself. Meanwhile the Hawkins class of 5 ships were all ordered in WWI and completed at a very slow pace because the RN simply had no resources to build them faster. Again, that happened while all they built were 2 small and much cheaper Nelsons than the numbers they intended to build of G3 and N3 monsters. So I ask again, with what money would the RN build those cruisers?. As it was they were so stripped of money that the Hawkins cruisers which were started in 1916, didn't enter service until well into the 20s. You can't build anything if you don't have money to do it. And the 50-60 cruiser estimation was given AFTER the washington treaty, btw, when nobody else was building battleships or battlecruisers anymore. There is a lot of "if". At time of WNT G3 battlecruisers were already ordered.
UK depended on trade so it is hardly belieavable that they will accept superiority of foreign navies (may be USA). And UK still can outbuild anybody except USA.
|
|
|
Post by tortugapower on Jun 13, 2019 12:32:24 GMT -6
ramjb After reading your arguments carefully, I believe you're discussing something other than this topic. You are referring to building programs, and quoting number of ships under construction. In this thread, I'm interested in total fleet composition. Let's restrict our discussion to this (which I guess is the only thing that matters at the end of the day). As people have mentioned, the number of CLs and DDs immediately prior to WNT gave ratios well above what we're seeing in the game (both mine and others). I don't have a hard number, but I remember seeing ~360 USN DDs to ~60 USN BBs through WW1. That's still a 6:1 ratio (although I think that's total built, not total available at one time). Still, anything around 6:1 is a far cry from 1:1, and actually very close to the 7/8:1 ratio in WW2.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Jun 13, 2019 12:56:24 GMT -6
ramjb After reading your arguments carefully, I believe you're discussing something other than this topic. You are referring to building programs, and quoting number of ships under construction. In this thread, I'm interested in total fleet composition. Let's restrict our discussion to this (which I guess is the only thing that matters at the end of the day). As people have mentioned, the number of CLs and DDs immediately prior to WNT gave ratios well above what we're seeing in the game (both mine and others). I don't have a hard number, but I remember seeing ~360 USN DDs to ~60 USN BBs through WW1. That's still a 6:1 ratio (although I think that's total built, not total available at one time). Still, anything around 6:1 is a far cry from 1:1, and actually very close to the 7/8:1 ratio in WW2. Pre-WW1 ratio also had a lot of old armoured/protected cruiser that was retained for a very long time by some nations. IGN had a few of their armored cruisers retained into the 30s for training purposes etc. So the actual cruiser number, especially countries deep in a dreadnought race may not be as high as some earlier post suggests. Still they are definitely being built, and if AI is running 0 CL/CA there is something odd going on, though I never encountered that in my games. DD on the other hand are clearly way too uncommon compared to reality. I consistently have the largest DD force regardless of what nation I play in any game I play, even when I had to focus funds into other projects, I end up with more DD than anyone else.. AI rarely build more than 30~ DDs, sometime setlling for 10-20. KEs are also not very common, rarely exceeding 20. I usually have 100+ DDs into the 30s, and if you discount the very old legacy dds for patrol, I still usually have 40-60 if not more decently capable DD that is fit for fleet actions. I suspect they may only build more in response to player SS, which I rarely have more than 10-20 of. This is something that probably should be looked into (also makes some mass torpedo DD builds a little too good against AI since they just don't have enough screen after a few fights).
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on Jun 13, 2019 12:57:25 GMT -6
I'm kinda mixing topics, yeah. This game is grounded on real life and real life shaped things up in the way it did because of things that happened there that might or might not happen in game, in what respects to CL/BB numbers comparisons, something which was part of your OP.
My argument is that cruisers were as abundant IRL as they were because there was an international treaty that prevented construction of bigger ships. Had the WT not intervened, is highly unlikely there'd been the big cruiser fleets history saw - because all the effort would be put in building ever-bigger, ever-more expensive capital ships, which was what the post-WWI naval arms race was all about. There'd been little money to build anything else when the main impetus would've been to build as many big ships as possible to stay in the race.
As it was is highly doubtful there was enough money to build what the navies stated were going to build (or rather, if there was the possibility to allocate that money to that task given the political climate of the time)...let alone for extra construction in the shape of CLs.
DDs I think is a somewhat different topic. Navies of the time had them by the dozens or even hundreds, I think the game in what regards to escorts intentionally downscales things so the player isn't forced to manage ship lists that take half a minute to scroll down, abstracting things a bit.
I guess it's a valid argument wether this compromise is necessary or not, but as long as it works within believable parameters, I don't see as a huge issue. Quite frankly I don't care about having a 6/1 DD/BB relationship which can be deemed as historical to then have 80% of those DDs been involved only in Trade Protection roles in war, when instead I can have 30 of them, some KEs to add to the mix, and have most of those DDs involved in fleet actions because the trade protection needs are abstracted into demanding much less numbers than in real life. The end result usually is the same - and it makes for a much less cumbersome fleet to manage this way.
Part of it can be seen during a war, the trade protection requirements are much, much, much lower than what real life needs were in what regards to escorts, especially for nations with worldwide commitments. I think is a compromise and as such the BB/DD number scale never suprised me - as long as the AI builds escort fleets that I'd deem as enough for myself (within game mechanics), I think it's doing fine. And in the screenshot you posted, there are enough DDs for that purpose within the game mechanics in every nation, except for maybe France.
In the end I've seen games with lots of CAs and CLs. With a naval treaty that lasts 15 years and no intervening wars resetting it, you'll see naval compositions with lots of CAs and CLs as the AI has enough money to build them. Without such a treaty...you'll see top-heavy fleets because, honestly, is what I think would've happened in real life had no treaty intervened too.
|
|
|
Post by alsadius on Jun 13, 2019 13:01:36 GMT -6
If it didn't exist, presumably they'd have spent more money. Money they'd gotten out from where?. The UK was bankrupt. Plain and simple. Japan didn't really have the industrial output and economic weight to properly complete the 8-8 as designed, one wonders where they'd get the extra push for more ships. The US was in a completely different level but even they were scared shitless by the cost of what they were pulling themselves into, to justify even more naval spending had the program gone on, with public opinion being so vocal against huge naval spending (one of the reasons why Harding called for the WT was that public opinion reacted very negatively to the navy expansion program that included the Lexingtons and South Dakotas). So where would that money come from? The UK's government spending in that era was mostly on non-defence items, and the non-defence budget after WW1 exceeded the total spent pre-WW1, even %GDP terms. Here's a chart with some details - red is defense, yellow is interest on the debt (which can be considered a wartime hangover, if you like), and blue is everything else. By 1923, when defence spending bottomed out, the government was spending £123m on defence, which was 2.9% of GDP. That's barely more than the 2.26% that they're spending today. Even the giant naval race against the Germans capped out around 3.5%. If they'd needed to spend the money, they could have. And in the five years from 1918 to 1923, they doubled education spending, more than tripled healthcare spending, nearly tripled "protection" (seems to be police/fire?), doubled "general government", tripled welfare, and so on. Despite GDP being 17% lower. They had the money, they just had other priorities for spending it. I don't blame them for having those priorities - healthcare spending is way nicer than defence spending - but if they'd needed the defence budget, they could have found it.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on Jun 13, 2019 13:07:08 GMT -6
...and they also had a huge standing debt after WWI, let's not forget that, and that weighs in a lot when you're about to enter a naval arms race. And a public opinion who had had enough of wars and would've been quite vocal about massive naval spendings too. Which also factors in in what regards to how much spending would actually be possible to allocate to the navy.
|
|
|
Post by alsadius on Jun 13, 2019 13:09:08 GMT -6
If you look at the linked chart, I included interest as a separate category for exactly that reason. I agree that it'd be unpopular to spend more, and that social programs plus a naval treaty was a much more popular approach. But that makes additional spending unpopular, not impossible.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on Jun 13, 2019 13:15:47 GMT -6
Well for democracies "Unpopular" usually translates into "impossible"...or at least is how it should work in democracies . The WT was actually called for by the US because even in the US (the most thriving economy in the world at the time) people was quite upset about the big naval spending that was going on to the point of making it a very important part of the presidential elections that ended up with Harding in office. In the UK it'd been quite worse given that while the US was in an upturn, the UK wasn't exactly thriving after WWII. At any rate maybe not impossible, but it'd been VERY problematic to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by rodentnavy on Jun 13, 2019 14:10:56 GMT -6
Well for democracies "Unpopular" usually translates into "impossible"...or at least is how it should work in democracies . The WT was actually called for by the US because even in the US (the most thriving economy in the world at the time) people was quite upset about the big naval spending that was going on to the point of making it a very important part of the presidential elections that ended up with Harding in office. In the UK it'd been quite worse given that while the US was in an upturn, the UK wasn't exactly thriving after WWII. At any rate maybe not impossible, but it'd been VERY problematic to say the least. The thing is unpopular in a democracy does not automatically equal electoral losses. Firstly most voters are not single issue, secondly they will accept the government doing things they personally do not like as long as a case can be made and thirdly there are often particular constituencies that benefit from a policy. So in the case of naval armaments programs ship builders, ship fitters, steel workers, coal workers, people in communities close to ship and/or dockyards and of course their bosses would likely vote for a party that promised them jobs and income over one whose policies seemed to threaten that. One of the events that used to occur to both players and AI nations and currently seems to go AWOL with the other nations is the more cruisers demand. For example in RL at the beginning of the 20th century the Royal Navy calculated that they wanted (they would argue needed) the sum of the next two largest cruiser forces +42. Other navies requirements were smaller but they still needed to ensure they had vessels available to go to wherever they had trade. Now some nations *cough* America *cough* might decide to get by without building new cruisers by holding onto old cruisers for a long old time but they still retained those cruisers. Given that traditionally it was the battleships that were often laid up in peacetime or sat around in home ports while cruisers were working all over the world the absence of cruisers does strike most folks as odd.
|
|
|
Post by tortugapower on Jun 13, 2019 14:13:15 GMT -6
It sounds like everyone here (or maybe "everyone but ramjb") has some opposition to such a top-heavy AI fleet composition.
I don't want to dive into the numbers and arguments too much, but by all means continue without me. I guess the general idea of having more escorts is clear and fairly represented by history (both pre- and post-WNT), and I'll let others speculate what might happen in an alternate history without WNT.
Assuming this thread is followed by the dev team (I feel safe about that one -- they have eyes everywhere!), it would be great to see if the AI building behavior can be tweaked a bit. Maybe this issue is already known and measures are being taken to address it.
Thanks for the discussion, all.
Edit: I'll add that I had viewers inquiring about the top-heaviness of the AI building scheme as well. My impression -- if PR matters -- is that the AI compositions did not fit their idea of a properly balanced composition. If there are any updates, let me know and I'll pass it along to them as well. Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on Jun 13, 2019 14:59:52 GMT -6
I guess the general idea of having more escorts is clear and fairly represented by history It is, but that's kinda missing what I think is a feature in the game. The problem is that, as I mentioned, this is IMHO intentionally abstracted by the game, in what regards to destroyers and KEs. You need far less numbers of DDs and KEs in game for non-fleet related rroles, than what fleets needed DDs in real life for those tasks, and I'm guessing this is an attempt done on purpose not to make the player have to deal with fleets of hundreds of destroyers in their fleet at the same time. What I mean in practical terms, is that in real life in a real war, a worlwide power as the UK wouldn't just be fine putting 45 escorts in trade protection duty. At all. It'd need several times that number - yet the game only enforces a rather small number so neither the AI nor the player has to deal with having 200 escorts in service at the same time, which can get a bit obnoxious at times, only to then put them in trade protection duties so they actually are never "active" in proper battles. If the trade protection needs would replicate real life needs, then the AI would build a lot more escorts, only to put them in trade protection duties anyway and having more or less the same destroyers in fleet service as they currently do. The end result is that the get the same number of "active" destroyers, without forcing the player or the AI to build, refit, manage, and be aware of hundreds of them at the same time. If in practice things end up being rather the same, which they seem to be imo, I don't mind this abstraction. It just foregoes having to deal with a fleet list that forces you to scroll down for 5 seconds to find the class of destroyer you intend to refit, while in practical terms (in battle actions) the difference is not even felt. Now of course I do understand that some people are puzzled when they see fleets with only maybe 30 destroyers when in reality the need for those ships was overriding, and that some won't like this kind of "abstraction", and rather have the desire to handle the whole fleet with proper "Trade protection" wartime numbers demanded by the game. But when the practical results of both approaches are the same, I, at least, don't see it as a big issue. Maybe a dev can step in and clear out if this "abstraction" is, indeed, an abstraction, and intended, or not. Who knows, maybe I'm just imagining things here Oh and is not that "everybody but me" has an opposition to top-heavy games, is that in my experience playing RtW2 thus far I've seen top heaviness and not-so-much top heaviness. It varies a lot from game to game in what regards to cruisers: in one game I actually was losing prestige almost every other turn because I didn't have the same number of CAs as the AI was building. Figures. Also I try to put things in context to understand the game design approach and why the AI is coded this way; each time I think something seems odd I try to find a proper contextual explanation to it and see if it makes sense, rather than just directly discrediting it as "a bug". Also that I've spent thousands of hours reading about naval history and that as a result I'm of the opinion that at several times during the early XX century "top heaviness" was indeed what most fleets tended to go for, at least when not in a war, or not handcuffed by a naval treaty, so I'm not specially bothered by the AI doing it the same (Something that I admit, is a personal take on it and I know others might disagree with it), compounds to it .
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jun 13, 2019 15:14:50 GMT -6
Some quick addition in my current game (1918, very large fleet, Italy) Numbers are split BB+BC+B / CA+CL / DD+KE UK: 25/30/45 France: 20/6/21 (lost two wars against me, 1906 and 1910) A-H: 6/10/17 (lost war against me, 1914) Russia: 21/14/33 Germany: 28/15/34 USA: 23/33/43 So it's top-heavy compared to history, but not as egregious as your cases. For reference, I'm 14/24/47. Edit: For some percentages, that means my fleet is 16% battle fleet, 28% cruisers, and 55% escorts. The combined AI fleets are 123/108/193, which is 29% battle fleet, 25% cruisers, and 46% escorts. So definitely a fair bit more top-heavy than mine, and mine is a bit top-heavy by historical standards too. Dorn's RN stats, minus carriers (since CVEs aren't broken out, and those will skew things badly) are 15/66/229 in 1939 (5%/21%/74%), and 15/67/308 in 1945 (4%/17%/79%). Even with all carriers of all sizes included in the battle fleet, the 1945 stats are only 16% battle fleet. do keep in mind dorn was playing RN himself which is the reason its insanely bottom heavy compared to top heavy all the others nations are extremely top heavy in bb bc and ca having almost no cl (except for very very small amount for a very small amount of nations) their dds and ke numbers are also quite low so i just finished a game from 1900 to 1970 as japan and painted the map nicely (ASIA IS MINE) and some of the ratios and fleets are absolutely insane for example america sitting on a massive 100 destroyers but a measly 12 korvettes also for some reason having 11 bb+bc yet 53 fleet carriers and 47 heavy cruisers but 0 light cruisers ? in fact nobody actually has light cruisers at all ratios are quite wonky and very top heavy also the us FOCUSING SO HARD on carriers seems a bit overkill Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by alsadius on Jun 13, 2019 19:29:20 GMT -6
Some quick addition in my current game (1918, very large fleet, Italy) Numbers are split BB+BC+B / CA+CL / DD+KE UK: 25/30/45 France: 20/6/21 (lost two wars against me, 1906 and 1910) A-H: 6/10/17 (lost war against me, 1914) Russia: 21/14/33 Germany: 28/15/34 USA: 23/33/43 So it's top-heavy compared to history, but not as egregious as your cases. For reference, I'm 14/24/47. Edit: For some percentages, that means my fleet is 16% battle fleet, 28% cruisers, and 55% escorts. The combined AI fleets are 123/108/193, which is 29% battle fleet, 25% cruisers, and 46% escorts. So definitely a fair bit more top-heavy than mine, and mine is a bit top-heavy by historical standards too. Dorn's RN stats, minus carriers (since CVEs aren't broken out, and those will skew things badly) are 15/66/229 in 1939 (5%/21%/74%), and 15/67/308 in 1945 (4%/17%/79%). Even with all carriers of all sizes included in the battle fleet, the 1945 stats are only 16% battle fleet. do keep in mind dorn was playing RN himself which is the reason its insanely bottom heavy compared to top heavy For clarity, I'm using the real-world RN stats he cited, not the in-game UK fleet. nws-online.proboards.com/post/51164/thread
|
|